ANGLIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
(now Anglia Ruskin University )

 BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

MAKING CONNECTIONS: DISCERNING RELATIONSHIPS

MICHAEL POWELL

 

 Doctor of Philosophy  February 2003

7 - NEHEMIAH: SIGNIFICANCE

The wall did well for man. !n its thickness and its strength it protected man against destruction... man didn't just hack a hole through the wal! but made a discerning opening... (Louis Kahn).

7.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Section is to consider the text of Nehemiah, a typological narrative based on memoirs and records, relating particularly to the rebuilding under Nehemiah's direction of the partly destroyed city walls of Jerusalem . While there is good evidence that actual building work took place, the typological significance of the building project does not depend upon that.

All built environments include significant or characteristic structures. What these are in the cases of Chelmsford and Tasmania is investigated.

7.2 Summary of the biblical text

Nehemiah is a specific, historical figure of the 5th century BCE who becomes in Scripture a typological figure in Israel 's story. A major part of the text is concerned with the rebuilding of the city walls of Jerusalem , a specific place and project but in Scripture a typological one.

The book of Nehemiah relates to a significant stage in the story of Israel that has begun with Abram in Genesis 12. In the early 6th century BCE, many people are taken into exile in Babylon , leaving Jerusalem battle-scarred and partly destroyed. Later that century, Babylon itself falls to the Persian Empire . The text of Nehemiah opens in the Persian capital Susa , where the Jew Nehemiah serves as cupbearer to the king, Artaxerxes. Nehemiah has received bad news from Jerusalem : the people still living there are distressed and the graves of the forbears are being vandalised. In accordance with the Persian policy of provincial self-government, Artaxerxes appoints Nehemiah Governor of Jerusalem for a period that turned out to be twelve years (1:1-2:8).

Having secured the king's permission to obtain timber for restoration work, Nehemiah travels to Jerusalem (2a-8). He makes a night-time inspection of the city walls, part of which are fallen and inaccessible, and next day calls a meeting of community leaders to apportion the work among city dwellers and tradesmen, men from outlying villages, members of the priesthood and members of his own entourage (2:11-18, 3:1-32). The work is of a pressing nature and, according to the text, is completed in fifty-two days ( 6:15 ) - even if only to half the intended height! (4:6). The motivation for the work is `the common good'. ( 2:18 ). As the city has become depopulated (7:4), Nehemiah arranges for some people living outside Jerusalem to move in and help re-populate it (11:1).

There is evidence of misunderstanding and opposition from the Governors and people of neighbouring Samaria , also Persian-controlled, and others ( 2:19 -20,4:1-5). The construction work to the wall proceeds side by side with military defence ( 4:10 -23). The inter-relatedness of this rebuilding work with religious renewal is brought out by the reading, during festival celebrations, of the Law by the scribe Ezra (7:73b-8: 18), after which he and Nehemiah lead the people up onto the wall for the ceremony of its dedication ( 12:27 -43).

At the end of his agreed tour of duty, Nehemiah returns to Persia . Some years later he comes back to Jerusalem to find problems, particularly much inter-marriage between Jews and others, to the detriment of identity and moral and religious discipline. He regulates to control that situation.

The text of Nehemiah leaves the Jews in a Jerusalem surrounded by reconstructed walls, looking inwards and intent on establishing a distinct, religious identity for themselves (13:30­31).

 

7.3 Biblical commentators

The work of three pairs of commentators is considered. Fensham and Andrews give insights into archaeology and practical building. Davies and Grabbe are concerned with the rhetorical power of the text and its challenge for present readers. Williamson and Blenkinsopp provide expertise in language and history respectively.

Fensham (1982) considers the wall-building project, or at least the seeming project, in some detail. The interesting questions are what the scope and nature of the rebuilding work was and how this was carried out. While the text (1:3) is not clear, Fensham takes the view that the damage to the walls, which Nehemiah confronts, dates from the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar rather than from later skirmishes with enemies of the Jews. On his way 1o Jerusalem , Nehemiah makes arrangements for the supply of timber that will be needed for work to the walls, fortress gates and his own residence (2:7-8). While the use of timber in walls may sound strange, Fensham cites documentary evidence relating to Hittite buildings to suggest that it may well have been true for an earlier culture.

Nehemiah 2:13-15 is seen by Fensham to provide a good topographical description of Jerusalem . In the vicinity of the Kidron valley, Nehemiah's inspection tour was blocked by fallen stone arising from the collapse of terraced buildings, which occurred when the wall at the base of them was destroyed. Nehemiah's reconstruction was on the inside of this rubble, on the crest of the eastern hill, thereby making the city smaller than it had been in pre-exilic times. This new wall has been shown archeologically to be some 8ft thick, of rough construction, suggesting that the work had been camed out rapidly. This was the major element of the work. The remainder was more in the nature of filling up breaches and adding height.

Fensham suggests that it is impossible to reconcile the detailed description of the line of the remainder of the wall (3:1-32) with archaeological evidence because information relating to the Persian period is very limited. The length may have been as little as 2600 metres or as much as 4150 metres, depending on how much of the northern end of the western hill was included. Fensham accepts the works period of fifty-two days ( 6:15 ) on the grounds of the limited nature of the work. The fad that the work was completed by 25"' Elul (October) (6:15), only six months after Nehemiah had heard of Jerusalem's plight, shows him to have been a man of action. The reference in 4:6 to the work being carried out to half its height perplexes Fensham, because a valid translation could mean half its length, half its width or half its height. The context suggests that half the planned height had been reached when the obstructers and protesters started to seriously affect morale and commitment.

Fensham emphasises that this was a community project, actively led by Nehemiah as Governor, with the backing of the Persian overlords and involving all the citizens in direct work. The technology was of a vernacular nature. There is no suggestion of building professionals or of specialist technology. The goldsmiths, perfumers and merchants made a practical building contribution (3:8,32).

Andrews (1999) gives an archaeological insight into a specific structural matter. Solomon's Jerusalem project of building the temple and other works had been a major peacetime project, for which he had money, time and forced labour available. Some thousand years later in 19 BCE, when Herod was undertaking a later reconstruction, circumstances were somewhat similar. For Nehemiah, between these two, it was different. While he had imperial support, he had interference from neighbours and there was no Jewish king to be architecturally exalted. He was doing something more basic, reducing somewhat the size of a city and putting a functionally sound wall around it as fast as possible. This reduction in size is evidenced by a Straight Joint, starting at rock face level, in the masonry of the south­eastern angle. Andrews (1999) argues that Nehemiah reduced the size of the Temple Mount by 60 cubits for pragmatic reasons:

   

To reconstruct the southern end of the complex to its original length would have required the complete removal of all fallen stones and the re-cutting of hundreds, if not thousands, of new blocks, a costly exercise in manpower and money, both of which were wanting. It would have been far simpler, therefore, to reduce the platform from the south by, say, sixty cubits. This would eliminate part of the area of the Royal Palace but since there was no King of Judah there could be no objection.

(Andrews, 1999:136)

   

An equally powerful but entirely different kind of encounter with Nehemiah and his building project comes from Davies (1999). To him the work on the walls is not a construction project but a topic or a topos to open up challenging discussion on an underlying issue. The topos brings the real issue into the present. The question is what Nehemiah's building project is about and what its significance is. For Davies, the fad that the walls are physically raised but not metaphorically closed is important. Today's readers of Nehemiah are invited inside. Crucially, `the function of a wall... is to defend from without and embrace from within', functions without which there can be no true city.' (Davies 1999:95). What is at stake is Israel 's religious vocation, based on a focal city, Jerusalem .

Rebuilding is about creating a means of defence and a place of safety, within which vocation and purpose can be re-embraced. A way has to be found between the fad of historical transience and the enduring, archetypal, hope of divine redemption. To demonstrate the implication of this for today's worid, Davies refers to Glenn Loury, an African American leader, who has applied the Nehemiah story to his own people:

 

What does it mean for a city not to have walls? It's a powerful metaphor, and closely related to black people's situation today. A city without walls has no integrity, or structure; it is subject to the vagaries of any fad or fancy. Without walls you are lost, as opposed to having some kind of internally derived sense of who you are to help you decide what you will and won't do.

(Davies 1999:94)

 

Davies argues that the Nehemiah text makes sense, having a unity and a meaning `that can cross the distance in time between us and the first audience and bear the indeterminate weight of errors and glosses in the text. We do not have to synthesize the narratives and conflate them historico-critically if we can read them otherwise'. (Davies 1999:133-134).

Grabbe (1998) challenges his readers to consider the character of Nehemiah, his purposes and achievements as they can be read out of, or arguably into, the text_ To understand any building project entails understanding the mind of the person or body behind it. Grabbe sees the project as a legitimate one in which people are ready to cooperate; yet opposition to Nehemiah quickly developed. Sanballat and Tobiah became suspicious of Nehemiah and regarded him as a political competitor ( 2:10 ). Later, ( 6:18 -19), the people tried to be even­handed between Tobiah and Nehemiah but the latter was not amenable. It was, Grabbe suggests, antagonistic of Nehemiah to make his inspection of the walls at night without the knowledge of local officials ( 2:11 -16). Normal practice would be to explain why one had been sent, invite cooperation and make the inspection in daylight. One can speculate endlessly on why the nobles from Tekoa (3:5) themselves refused to help, leaving the matter to their ordinary people but it may have added to a growing climate of bad feeling.

In 11:1-2 Nehemiah takes measures to repopulate Jerusalem . Forcing people to come and live inside the walls, so making the city population up to ten per cent of the whole population of the province, gave him greater scope to exercise power and control. The ceremony for the dedication of the wall ( 12:27 -47) seems to Grabbe to be more appropriate for a temple than a mere wall: `it would be thoroughly within Nehemiah's character to give the completion of his building work a divine dimension.' (Grabbe 1998:168).

There was, Grabbe argues, no physical need for the rebuilding of the wall. After all, most of the people of Judah lived in unwalled villages and other vulnerable circumstances. However, it did make it easier for Nehemiah to defend himself and his administration against possible interference from outside. Gates that could be shut would help minimize contact with unacceptable ethnic and religious groups, and other unwelcome influences and ideas. These and other actions can be interpreted as the work of a determined and egotistical man whose very clear goal is that of a religious reformer creating an isolated, puritanical and theocratic state. In the short run, if that was his purpose, he failed. Even during his visit back to Persia , unacceptable social intercourse and marriages took place. Later the Jews of Jerusalem were to find Hellenistic culture and intellectual life very congenial. Nehemiah remains, however, the champion of those who argue for exclusivist religion rather than liberalism and incorporation into surrounding culture.

Wlliamson (1987,1996) takes a more sober, less speculative approach. He takes his readers through the full text and its likely sources and construction. He accepts that there was a Nehemiah Memoir originating with Nehemiah himself. This includes chapters 1 and 2 (preparation and return to Jerusalem ); 4-6 (rebuilding of the walls in spite of difficulties); 7:1-5 (defence and start of repopulation); 12:31-43 (dedication of the wall); and 13:4-31 (Nehemiah's second term as Governor).

Williamson's judgement is that the Memoir started as a factual report on the limited short ­term task of rebuilding the wall. Later, Nehemiah himself reworked it to include the votive references in which he asks God to remember what he has done (eg 5:19 ). The remaining non-Memoir material is deduced to have come from sources available to the final editor in the temple records. This material dovetails well with the Memoir as it too deals with wall building, repopulation, rectification of religious abuse and wall-dedication.

The end point to which Williamson builds up is that of the reading of the Law by the prophet Ezra. This takes place inside the walls in the open space in front of the Water Gate (8:1-3), not in the temple but in a public place. The whole community comes, men, women and children, and binds itself to observe this law ( 10:28 -29). During the reading (8:13-17) they observed and enacted the happy Feast of Tabernacles, going out into the country and bringing leafy branches of olive, myrtle and palm to make booths on the housetops and in the streets, in which they lived for a week. Thus they brought to new birth a custom long fallen into disuse. The Law was not dead but alive for them.

Rediscovery of the past is typological in nature. The return from Babylon is made consciously to evoke the Exodus from Egypt , both ads of God's grace. The return from Babylon is likely to have been `a long drawn out and rather unspectacular affair. It is the use of typology which opens the eyes of faith to the hand of God behind the historical process'. (WiIliamson 1996:85). Continuities give meaning and legitimisation. When the events recorded in the text occurred it was not in response to some blueprint. The pattern and purpose arise afterwards, when nothing need be seen as haphazard or purposeless.

Blenkinsopp (1988) presents the typological issue somewhat differently. The first historical corpus of the Old Testament, Genesis-2 Kings, presents the exodus in its historical place and, in effect, tells a story that goes from creation to catastrophe. The second historical corpus, 1 Chronicles-Nehemiah, although permeated with the teaching of Moses, does not present the exodus at all. What it does instead is end with the return from exile up to and including the work of Nehemiah. Thus entry into the land, and by this time entry into Jerusalem , is not so much a literal as a typological interpretation of events. Second time round, Israel enters into the land as a worshipping people. The exile has been a kind of Sabbath rest. On their return, they are given back their history. The story is now `the gathering up of the past and reshaping it in such a way as to allow for a future'. (Blenkinsopp 1998:37).

Blenkinsopp clarifies the economic situation that Nehemiah found. Part of the population had gone into exile. Those who remained were of the agrarian class. They retained their own land holdings and expropriated those of the deportees. This expropriation would have contributed to some social conflict. The potential for unrest, particularly among subsistence farmers in the Judean highlands, would have been increased by bad harvests and other calamities. (5:3-6).

The other component of a bad economic situation was the destruction and depopulation of Jerusalem and the larger towns, loss of the skilled artisan class and a decrease in productivity due to the disappearance or takeover of the larger holdings and estates. Tax had to be paid out of surpluses produced by farmers in coinage introduced in 500 BCE. This led to borrowing at intolerable rates of interest, the mortgaging of fields, vineyards and olive orchards and reduction of the farming families to slavery. The traditional agrarian economy was undermined, family holdings were enclosed and large estates that would flourish in the Hellenistic period began to emerge.

There was social tension due to economic disparity between those who had remained and `the Jews' who returned. (5:1,17). Those who returned would have been those who could afford to do so.

 

7.4 General Biblical Theology texts

 

Deist (2000) is concerned with The Material Culture of the Bible. In the course of his work, he makes some observations that are relevant here.

First, while discussing the significance and meaning of water supply and rain, he relates lack of rain and famine to experience in Nehemiah's time: `For an Israelite subsistence farmer without sufficient and effective storage facilities for food, little or no rain meant misery and famine...., which meant a loss of independence, as Nehemiah 5:3 indicates, 'We are having to pledge our fields, our vineyards, and our houses in order to get grain during the famine".' (Deist 2000:124).

Second, again in relation to Nehemiah 5:3, Deist points out that the Hebrew word used there for land means 'common land", land that is held in common, belonging to the whole community.

Third, Nehemiah provides a further point of reference for Deist when he is discussing the redistribution economy and the need to provide storage for surpluses. The reference in Nehemiah 1225 is to storehouses at the city gate.

Fourth, Deist distinguishes between ordinary village settlements and fortified cities. Of the latter he says:

Classifying Iron Age II cities and towns, Herzog... employs three ..... layout models (peripheral, radial or orthogonal planning) ......

In peripheral `plans' it is (a) mostly only the city wall that follows the (oval) contour of the hill on which the city is situated, while houses are built at random. Sometimes, however, the plan involves (b), concentric streets (following the hill's contour) divided in the middle by a road emerging from the city gate.

Radial plans utilise central points in the settlement with streets following the radii emanating from these central points

 

Orthogonal planning ignores the topography and plans the city along streets outlining square or rectangular areas. To build houses in these areas sometimes requires extensive levelling and quarrying.³

(Deist 2000:197-198)

 

Fifth, he notes that the Hebrew term for a city wall distinguishes it from the lowish, roughly erected wall enclosing a garden and courtyard and the wall in a building. The city wall was part of the defensive system, other parts of which included towers on the wall, the city gate and the provision of accessible water and food. The mbre important a city, the better its fortifications were. By contrast, ordinary villages would have no fortification at all or would have an outer ring of houses facing inward to a common square as a protective measure.

Sixth, he points out that a city wall implies the existence of an enemy. Ultimate safety is when one needs no physical wall at all.

Seventh, he explains that the gate is the place for the discussion of public affairs and for negotiations.

 

7.5 General Built Environment texts

Simmel (1997) provides generic reflections on doors, walls, paths and bridges.

For Simmel, `the door represents in a decisive manner how separating and connecting are only two sides of precisely the same ad. The human being who first erected a hut revealed the specifically human capacity over against nature, insofar as he or she cut a portion out of the continuity and infinity of space and arranged this into a particular unity in accordance with a single meaning. A piece of space was thereby brought together and separated from the whole remaining worid. By virtue of the fad that the door forms, as it were, a linkage between the space of human beings and everything that remains outside it, it transcends the separation between the inner and the outer. Precisely because it can also be opened, its closure provides the feeling of a stronger isolation against everything outside this space than the mere unstructured wall. The latter is mute, but the door speaks. It is absolutely essential for humanity that it set itself a boundary but with freedom, that is, in such a way that it can also remove this boundary again, that it can place itself outside it.' (Simmel 1997:66-67).

One presumes that a gate in a city wall, for example, acts in the same way as a door.

On the significance of paths and bridges Simmel says: The people who first built a path between two places performed one of the greatest human achievements.... This achievement reaches its zenith in the construction of a bridge..... The bridge becomes an aesthetic value insofar as it accomplishes the connection between what is separated, not only in reality and in order to fulfil practical goals, but in making it directly visible.....'. (Simmel 1997:66-67).

 

7.6 Chelmsford

Chelmsford has no structural feature comparable to the city wall of Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah. It is the fords and bridges relating to the Can, Chelmer and Wid, especially the Stone Bridge , that exemplify Chelmsford in terms of boundaries. In terms of the function of the town, the medieval Market Cross and eighteenth century Shire Hall may be taken as exemplars of significance.

Grieve (1988) traces the story of the bridge over the Can back to the twelfth century:

Tradition placed the building of the bridge between the accession of Henry I in 1100 and the death of Bishop Maurice in 1107. Maurice was renowned as a builder, as the `magnificent founder' of St Paul 's Cathedral, which he began to rebuild on a vast scale after a disastrous fire in the City in 1087. He was the kind of man likely to order the building of a bridge to shorten the joumey to one of his rural estates and the far north-eastern parts of his diocese.

 

(Grieve 1988:4)

 

Archaeological evidence consisting of a small element of a Norman revetment was discovered during the course of flood prevention works in 1960-2.

 The building of the bridge was not only a matter of practical convenience, it was also an ad of religious piety: 'Bridge-building was, moreover, in the middle ages an ad of piety befitting bishops and other great people. (Grieve 1988:5).

Grieve was unable to determine from the evidence at her disposal whether Bishop Maurice was also the builder of bridges over the Chelmer in the Springfield area.  

By the 1370's major rebuilding was required. This time the master mason of the king's works, Henry Yevele, was brought in by the then Abbot of Westminster, Lord of the Manor of Moulsham on the south side of the bridge, to build a stone structure of three gothic arches, the centre arch being higher than the outer two. This became known as the ` Stone Bridge ' or the ` Great Bridge ' and was to last for four hundred years, perhaps a good investment of £73 6s 8d.

During the eighteenth century, responsibility for bridges was a major element in the county surveyor's work. The rebuilding of the Stone Bridge in the late eighteenth century was one of John Johnson's major tasks as county surveyor. A temporary timber bridge was put in place. The new bridge was to be 34 feet wide including a footway on each side. The first stone was laid on 4 October 1785 .

One hundred tons of Portland stone were brought from Swanage to Maldon and from there hauled over Danbury Hill to the site. A further nearly twenty tons was brought from Langford Bridge where it was surplus. The contractor for carting and sawing this consignment was the firm of Sarah Wray, widow of the mason George Wray. It was noted in the final accounts of 1787 that a compensation payment of five guineas had been made to `Joseph Howard a journeyman carpenter `employed to help build the New Bridge ' who `caught a violent cold, which was attended with an Ague and Fever' preventing his following his business for a considerable time`. (Briggs 1991:68). Johnson's bridge still stands, forming part of the pedestrian route from Moulsham into Chelmsford .

The initiative of Sarah Wray in running a business and the compassion shown to Joseph Howard at Moulsham must not be allowed to obliterate the tragedy at the nearby Widford Bridge in 1803-5 of the carpenter John Funnell. Widford Bridge had been constructed of brick. Due to problems of flooding and blockages, a severe fracture had developed. After pressure had been brought to bear on the landowner, CH Kortright of Hylands House, to clear the riverbed, flood tunnels were built. However further damage by a wagon followed. It was decided to rebuild the bridge totally in timber. This decision of Johnson's may have thrown too much responsibility on John Funnell. Johnson was preoccupied with his own bankruptcy and resulting stroke and did not visit the site for eight months. When he did so, he found the bridge not completed despite assurances from Funnell. Some three months later `John Funnell was buried at Springfield on 12 December by Coroner's warrant: 'not being of sound mind hanged himself in a sawpit°.' (Briggs 1991:77).

Grieve (1988) gives interesting details of the sixteenth century Market Cross, a feature of significance for what was then a market town. In addition to its primary function, it incorporated the justices' courtroom. At ground level it was an open-sided building with eight oak columns supporting the upper galleries and a tiled roof incorporating dormer windows. The com buyers valued it because it combined shelter with plenty of light by which to judge the quality of the grain. For those engaged in legal business it was an unsatisfactory built environment:

 

The magistrates and judges sat in open court, which measured only 26 feet by 24 feet, with the officers of the law, counsel and clerics, plaintiffs and defendants, jurors, sureties, witnesses and prisoners, before and around them, while spectators, hangers ­on and those awaiting their turn, crowded into the galleries above or thronged the street outside. They had to contend with the noise of passing wheeled traffic and droves of cattle, the stifling heat of the sun in summer, the chill draughts of the wind in winter, and the all-pervasive dust and odours of the street. It fell to the manor court to uphold as best it could the dignity of a public building so exposed to the daily squalor of its surroundings.

(Grieve 1988:113)

 

The decision that a new Shire House (later Shire Hall) was needed was taken by the Quarter Sessions on 7 October 1788 and Johnson, as county surveyor, was required to bring forward proposals by 28 November. He could not complete a design in that time but reported on three possible sites: the White Hart in Tindal Street , the former Red Lion adjoining the river and requiring expensive piling, and the one which was chosen, adjoining the church and the existing Shire House that was to be replaced. A choice of classical elevational designs was considered and estimates were to be prepared for stone and brick alternatives. Portland and Purbeck stone were selected and brought into Maldon. Contracts for carpentry, masonry and brickwork were placed in July 1789, Johnson's son from St Marylebone being the brickwork contractor.  

The foundation stone was laid on 21 August and the work took two years. Quarter Sessions was first held in the Shire Hall in July 1791. The contractors petitioned for additional payments, representing `the heavy loss we had Sustain'd from the Materials being deposited at the distance they have been from the Building. And the Great Inconvenience that Attended the Execution, on Account of the old Shire Building Remaining during the Erection of the New One..'. (Briggs 1991:95-96). After a second petition, an allowance of £200 was granted. The final cost of the work was some £2000 less than the budget of £14000. Out of the surplus a piece of plate costing 100 guineas was presented to Johnson `as a public testimony of his integrity and professional abilities, in the execution of the said Shire House, as architect and surveyor of the County of Essex '. (Briggs 1991:97).

The Shire Hall continues in its prominent position and to fulfil its role as a court. In civic terms, arguably it remains the town's most significant building.

 

7.7 Tasmania

For the purposes of this section, significant buildings and structures are taken as those concemed with the original policing function, bridges and adjoining buildings, and various symbolic aspects of walls, fences, murals and veranda.

The significance of the estuary and township of Port Sorrell were established in 1844 when they became the headquarters of a new Police Sub-District under the command of Assistant Police Magistrate Charles Meredith:

 

It was the task of the magistrate to administer and maintain law and order over the vast Port Sorrell Police Sub-District stretching from Badger Head west to the Emu River . He and his small constabulary, consisting mostly of ticket-of-leave men, had to prevent the escape of convicts from five coastal rivers, deal with absconding assigned servants, apprehend bushrangers, and prevent smuggling.

(Port Sorrell Sesquicentenary Committee 1994:7)

 

Because residents welcomed the new police presence, the construction of the original police buildings was a communal activity. Local residents provided timber and labour and farmers brought in timber from their properties. George Wlliams was contractor and his tender price was £47. The site for the police office and gaol was eight acres in extent and on the highest rise, becoming known as Prison Hill or Watchhouse Hill. The location of the Sub-District headquarters at Port Sorrell was short-lived, as it was moved to Torquay (later East Devonport ) in 1855. `After the official closure, the old police offices and gaol were left to the elements. Local children played in the cells.' (Port Sorrell Sesquicentenary Committee 1994:34).

Ramsay (1957,1980) tells how the bridge at Forth was built following the completion of the Forth-Don upper road in 1859. It was a log structure, supervised by Edward Cummings of Don who had considerable experience in such work and built by William Crosby who had come to Don from Canada . The cost was £700. The bridge was washed away by floodwater in the winter of 1863. Two hotels closely adjoined the bridge, the Hamilton built in 1867 and the Bridge Hotel in 1871. The Hamilton was destroyed by fire in 1895. A watch house was built at the bridge in 1861. Charies Fenton, only son of James, built a store at the east end of the bridge in 1868. At Leith , at the mouth of the Forth , a Customs building was erected in 1864. Ramsay writes laconically, `the building eventually fell down.' (Ramsay 1980:98). The town hall at Forth , built in 1879, was destroyed by fire. Industrial buildings of the late 1870's and 80's included a boot factory, flourmills and a brick- and pipe-making plant.

In her History of the Port of Devonport (1995), Bennett emphasises the part played by the Devonport bridge: `Although Devonport was now [1890] one town, the river on which its commerce was built was a barrier between its two sections for twelve years after amalgamation' (Bennett 1995:79). The bridge, when it came, was especially beneficial to East Devonport when the main area of growth was in the west. With a human touch, Bennett recalls that 'John McCall, who had proposed that the bridge be built, did not live to see it finished. He died in July 1901...'. (Bennett 1995:82).

In Sheffield walls have become significant because of the murals painted on them. On blank walls in the town and surrounding villages, artists have depicted the life of the town and area. Thus, the walls open up opportunities of understanding. Lendis has contributed some twenty murals, based upon oral histories and the personal recollections of people in the town. He emphasises that his work is one of interpretations that `express my vision of the history of the town as much as concrete fads'. (Lendis 2000:5). For example, Dr Ratten's Bridge informs viewers about this doctor's long campaign to have bridges built over the rivers so that he could use them when visiting patients. The hard realities of the timber industry come alive in The Wtnter's Sawmill and Bullock Team, which shows the bullocky and his beasts bringing up a huge log for incorporation into a log-cabin style bam, still existing and described by Celia Lendis (who contributes the text to the published prints) as `a beautifully built old bam'. (Lendis 2000:37).

It is readily apparent to the visitor that a major feature of Australian houses is the verandah⁵. The verandah may extend to a part or the whole frontage and, in some cases, to one or both sides of a house. Drew (1992) speaks of the verandah as an 'embracing place', where outside meets inside hospitably, where there can be some of the intimacy and privacy of inside and some of the openness of outside. It is good to walk down a street of houses, many with veranda, feeling this intermediate, neutral, welcoming zone. Drew develops this idea further when he goes on to suggest that, The beach in Australia is the landscape equivalent of the verandah, a verandah at the edge of the continent' (Drew 1992:84) - or, in Tasmania's case, the edge of the island.

In the case of Devonport, the northern boundary is the series of beaches, the western boundary the cycle and walking track along the Don and passing the base of the College, and the eastern boundary Formby Road and the adjacent railway track along the wharf. Together these three features might be looked upon as an integrated `embracing place' for those inside the city and those circumnavigating it.

 

7.8 Synthesis and centrifugal dynamic

Nehemiah was in exile in Susa where he held a key position in royal service. He heard that Jerusalem , his own city, was troubled. He obtained permission to go home and lead a community project in rebuilding the extensively damaged city walls and replacing the burnt gates. That work is done in the face of opposition. Ten per cent of the people are required to take up residence within the city and are expected to conduct their lives there in accordance with the Law proclaimed by Ezra. The vision is of a holy people inhabiting a specific place.

While there is no need for Jerusalem to have existed as a physical city, and no need for its walls and gates to have been reconstructed, for the story to have human and theological significance, nevertheless the weight of evidence is that it did exist and that such a programme of work was carried out. We are dealing with a mix of built environment actuality and theological symbolism. The two are inseparable. Each would have less point without the existence of the other.

In the survey of commentaries, Nehemiah was been viewed from three perspectives: constructional/archaeological (Fensham and Andrews); challenges from the text as it stands today to think about the meaning of walls and the personality of the main actor (Davies and Grabbe); and textual and historical information which it is essential to bear in mind when considering the archaeology and the rhetoric (Williamson and Blenkinsopp). These are not three different perspectives or even three different kinds of truth. Rather they are three complementary and inseparable facets of the resonance and relevance of Scripture to Built Environment.

Deist relates the highly charged and tightly focused text of Nehemiah to general investigations of a historical and archaeological nature.

From the built environment perspective, Simmel is interesting. He sees the bridges as the final and most sophisticated element in a path. He sees doors, and by implication gates, as the most important elements in walls. It is the door or the gate that enables human beings to locate themselves inside or outside any particular walled or bounded space.

Chelmsford , as its name suggests, is about fording and bridging rivers. The absence of bridges causes hardship. The Stone Bridge becomes a long-lasting and significant structure. Around and between the bridges, communities grow up, from the earliest settlement to the present Borough Buildings are needed. The Market Cross, no longer extant, and the Shire Hall, still a major feature of the High Street, serve the purposes of commerce and dispensation of justice under the law. They symbolise important aspects of what this particular town is for. It may be thought that John Johnson is as formidable, and to some extent dubious, a character as Nehemiah was in Jerusalem

Van Diemen and Tasman were explorers of the southern seas, far from their native Europe . Fenton is the most well known pioneer and settler of northwest Tasmania . Tasmania is about exploration and settlement. Explorers come by sea and river. Their settlements are where rivers can be crossed and harbours built. As with Chelmsford , bridges are significant. No city walls are built but murals are used to tell the stories of how things have come about. The bungalow with a verandah becomes the typical, traditional Tasmanian house. The verandah is seen to express a world of meaning about relationships between what happens indoors and privately and what happens outdoors and in community.  

A positive challenge arising out of the centrifugal action is to ask how places such as Chelmsford and Tasmania , unenclosed by city walls and open to the world's commerce, nurture their society for a strong and significant future. Response to such questions is outside the scope of this thesis.

 

Back