Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) (Nov.2010)

Number 360

November 2010

Articles Jeffrey R. Zorn: Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–22 Avraham Faust: The Archaeology of the Israelite Cult: Questioning the Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–35 Barry J. Beitzel: Was There a Joint Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by Tyrian Phoenicians and Early Israelites? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–66 Fawzi Abudanh and Saad Twaissi: Innovation or Technology Immigration? The Qanat Systems in the Regions of Udhruh and Maʾan in Southern Jordan. . . . . . 67–87 Book Reviews Erika Fischer: Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Elfenbeine aus Megiddo und Lachisch: Inschriftenfunden, Flaschen, Löffel (Marian H. Feldman). . . . . . . . . . 89–90 J. Elayi: Byblos, cité sacrée (8e–4e s. av. J.-C.) (John W. Betlyon). . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–92 Joonas Sipilä: The Reorganisation of Provincial Territories in Light of the Imperial Decision-Making Process: Later Roman Arabia and Tres Palaestinae as Case Studies (Walter D. Ward).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92–94 Index, BASOR 357–360. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96

Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior JEFFREY R. ZORN Department of Near Eastern Studies 409 White Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 [email protected] The text of I Sam 17:4-7 gives a detailed account of the arms and armor of the Philistine champion who battled David in the Elah Valley, a description unmatched for detail in any other biblical te.xt. The te.xt seems to contain enough information to provide an approximate sense of Goliath's appearance. However, this is where the heart of the debate lies. Previous approaches have viewed the description of Goliath as modeled <m an infantry man, be it a Mycenaean warrior of the Iron Age 1, a Greek hoplite of the sixth century, or something of a mix of the two. However, if he is understood as a chariot warrior, a member of the Philistine elite warrior class, there is nothing in the description of his equipment that demands a ¡ate date for the text's origin, ln fact, all his gear matches well with what might be expected of an Aegean-Levantine chariot warrior of the Iron / period.

the question remains whether these late editors were aware of and relied upon earlier traditions, including n recent years several scholars have revisited the those of Philistine weaponry and armor, or whether issues surrounding the description of the weapons Goliath's kit is a priori a late fabrication, if anything and armor of the Philistine warrior who fought the reflecting the equipment of Greek mercenaries of the famous duel with a youthful David in the Elah Val- era of the editors. After all. Homer recalls authentic ley (1 Sam 17:4-7). Some, such as Finkelstein (2002: touches of a Myceanean military kit when he de.scribes 142-48) and A. Yadin (2004: 375-76), favor in one boar's tusk helmets, tower shields, etc. (Lorimer 1950: way or another the approach laid out by Galling ( 1966: 132-306), showing that a writer working centuries 150-69), according to which the description of this after the events he describes can preserve at least some gear was fabricated by late Deuteronomistic editors memodes of the distant past. Given the flurry of recent and has little, if anything, to do with the material cul- studies on this topic, a legitimate question is whether tural realities of the Iron 1 period.' Others, such as another review of the subject is warranted. While variMillard (2009: 337-43), Garsiel (2009: 404-9), King ous scholars have contributed many valuable insights (2007: 350-57), Stager (1998: 169; 2006a: 381), King on this subject over the years, the contention advanced and Stager (2001: 228), and Dothan (1982: 20), argue here is that a fundamental misunderstanding has always that Y. Yadin's (1963: 265-67,354-55) understanding been made in the approach to this passage. Because is essentially correct, and that the description of the the duel took place on foot, scholars have assumed, Philistine's gear corresponds to that of a late Myce- without comment, that the Philistine described was an naean or Sea Peoples soldier from the end of the Late infantry man, or foot soldier. However, it is the very Bronze Age/Iron I period. While not doubting the late combination of weapons and armor with which he was editing of the biblical text, or that the editor's knowl- equipped—and which to some have seemed a cultural edge of earlier times might be imperfect or limited. hodge-podge, suggesting a completely non-historical character—that are actually the key to understanding the nature of this figure. If, instead, one sees Goliath ' Ca. I2(H)-98O B.c\ by the Modified Conventional Chronology as a chaiiot warrior, most, if not all, of the problems (Mazar 2(X).S: 16. table 2.1) or 12ü()-y20 B.c. by the Low Chronolassociated with an early dating for the description ogy (Mazar 2005: 23). INTRODUCTION

I

1

JEFFREY R. ZORN

of his gear disappear; he fits very well into an Iron Age I material culture context. Indeed, it is just during the era of Saul and David that Philisdne chariots are attested in the Bible and in the material culture record. For example, chariot fittings themselves are attested from the Philistine sites of Ashkelon (Stager 2006b) and Ekron (Dothan 1993; Dothan and Drenka 2009). According to the biblical text, in the Philistine invasion of the central hill country leading up to the battle in the Michmash Pass, the Philistines are said to have mustered 30,000 chadots (1 Sam 13:5; or 3,000: McCarter 1980: 224-25)! Similarly, Philistine chadots are found at Saul's final battle at Mt. Gilboa (2 Sam 1:6). Even if the first set of numbers is exaggerated, it seems likely that Philistine armies routinely included chariots, and if so, their crews would be among the elite troops of the army. This study will not deal with the literary development of the story, or with the complexities of its literary transmission, or how it functions in the overall narrative.2 Nor will the historical parallels for the contest of champions, often discussed in this context, be examined. The focus here is only on the narrower topic involving military equipment and terminology and how it illuminates the nature of the Philistine champion. Goliath is, of course, first a literary character portrayed in epic fashion. He is unknown from contemporary sources outside of the Bible, itself a work of literature. It is unknown how many stories about him may have been transmitted in Israelite and Philistine circles, or even if he actually existed. For this article, this issue is not important. The aim is to ascertain how the storytellers and writers who transmitted this tale through the centuries, and the audiences who heard or read it, envisioned this Philistine champion, real or not. It is important, then, to note that efforts to see the descriptions of Goliath's gear as reflecting some sort of mercenary Greek hoplite (Finkelstein 2002: 143) or retrojection of a Hellenized "Philistine" culture of the sixth century and later into the past (A. Yadin 2004: 385-86) are not without their own problems. The scale armor worn by the Philistine and the existence of the shield-bearer who accompanies him are not part of the seventh to fifth centuries' hoplite ^ The differences between the shorter LXX text and the longer Masoretic text fortunately do not have much bearing on the is.sues considered here. See I.s.ser (2003: 28-34) for a recent summary and bibliography on these issues.

BASOR 360

repertoire (Finkelstein 2002: 145-46; Millard 2009: 338-39). To be added to this list of incongruous elements is the giant's probable bronze sickle sword, a weapon of the second millennium. As will be clear from the following discussion, these three elements are part of the heritage of the ancient Near East. If the description of the giant is supposed to faithfully depict a Greek warrior of the editor's era, this mixing of Greek and non-Greek elements is odd. On the other hand, the preponderance of bronze among the Philistine's weapons and armor, save for the massive iron spearhead, is not a weighty argument against seeing him as based on a type of Greek hoplite from the editor's era (contra Millard 2009: 341). Greek hoplite gear from 700 B.c. and later was mostly bronze (Snodgrass 1957: 38, 42-43), except for the iron spearhead (Snodgrass 1957: 50-53, 57; Hanson 2000: 71-84). However, the emphasis placed by the author on the bronze composition of certain pieces of equipment is significant and may suggest an early date (see below). Before going on to a case-by-case analysis of the military equipment listed in 1 Samuel 17, it is next necessary to survey the obstacles facing scholars who would clarify this subject. This will eliminate certain theories and objections at the start. First and foremost, it must be stated that there are no late 1 lth-century B.c. sources that document the appearance of Philistine warriors that would be contemporary with the biblical Goliath. This is a crucial point. Those who argue against an Iron Age I context for this gear note that the 1 Samuel 17 descriptions do not match the appearance of the Sea Peoples warriors depicted in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu ca. 1175 B.c. (A. Yadin 2004: 375-76; Finkelstein 2002: 142-43; Rofé 1987: 132). This, however, is something of a red herring. It is well known that the material culture ofthe Philisdnes evolved in the period after their arrival in south coastal Canaan (Stager 1995: 334-35; Dothan 1982: 95-96). Ceramics offer the clearest example of this. The initial form of Philistine pottery is now known as Philistine Monochrome (formerly Mycenaean fIIC:lb). Within a generation, this had developed into the justly famous Philistine bichrome. By the end ofthe 1 f th century, many forms had disappeared and decoration became a hand-burnished red slip with dark brown decoration. If one aspect of Philistine material culture could undergo such a variety of changes over 150 years, we should not absolutely expect that the weaponry of the military aristocracy who used this pottery would remain static over the same period. Other useful data lacking for this investiga-

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

tion are intact burials of Philistine wardors and Philistine textual sources of any kind, such as the types of weapon inventories known from Crete.^ Also lacking are any further biblical passages detailing Philistine military gear. Thus, any study attempting to elucidate this topic is forced to evaluate the 1 Samuel 17 passage in comparison to the texts and material culture that stand at the distance closest to it both chronologically and geographically. The resulting image cannot help but be something of a pastiche; the only question is if the image created is largely early or late, or truly chronologically mixed. It is now time to consider the actual list of gear with which Goliath is said to be armed. While some have considered this a hodge-podge of equipment that makes Goliath an almost ahistorical figure out of some fable (Galling 1966: 167), it is actually the very composite nature of his panoply that so strongly suggests his role as a Philistine chariot warrior of the late Iron Age I period. The text describing Goliath's weaponry and armor reads as follows (1 Sam 17:4-7 NRSV): And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. He had greaves of bronze on his legs and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam, and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him. If Goliath was a chariot warrior, it may seem odd that this passage does not mention his chariot and its driver. However, the biblical writers were often sparing of details unnecessary to their purpose. The chariot is not mentioned because the duel was fought on foot and the vehicle played no part in it; therefore, the writer left it out. Also, much information is encoded in biblical passages in terms that were readily accessible to the writer's audience but which may today slip past the modern reader unfamiliar with what the vocabulary used by the writer signifies. The language used by the author of the 1 Sam 17:4-7 text (as discussed below) would have made it abundantly clear to his audience that a chariot warrior, and no other type of soldier, was being described; the presence of a chariot was implicit in the very words used to depict Goliath.

' See, for example, Uchilel 1988.

ARMOR The author introduces Goliath's armor with ] "? n^nj, "and a helmet of bronze was on his head" (17;5; LXX KEpiKcipaXaia, not distinguished there as bronze). In 17:38, Saul gives his n^^m l?3i¡7 to David to wear. The term ÏDip / ^513 is usually considered a loanword into Hebrew because of the interchange of 3 and p (Speiser 1950: 47; Sapir 1937: 75), possibly from Hittite (Sapir 1937: 75, Hittite küpajji, "cap"; Ellenbogen 1962: 82; Rabin 1963: 124-25; Beal 1986: 642-43) or Hurrian (kuwaiji; Tischler 1983: 640-41), though Palache thought it had a Semitic origin (1959: 40). Singer even considered it a possible loanword from the Philistine language (1994: 336). In the ¡Had 15.536, the possibly related Kvpßaxoc suggests the top part of the helmet to which the crest/ plume was attached (Szemere'nyi 1974: 153; Brown 1971: 5-6). Other than its likely foreign origin, however, little can be gleaned from the brief biblical description. No mention is made here of any decorative features, crests, etc. Since the materials from which the Medinet Habu type of helmets used by the Philistines were fabricated are unknown (none have been found), there is no way to know if Goliath wore this, or some other type of headgear (Dezsö 2001 : chart 1 for helmets from the end of the second millennium).'' In 1 Sam 17:49, when describing how the sling stone wounds Goliath, LXX adds that the stone penetrated ôtà Tfjc AEptKEcpaXaiaç "through the helmet," perhaps suggesting that a helmet with some type of noseguard was envisioned. The lack of such a detail in the Hebrew may be accidental, or may indicate that Goliath's helmet did not have such a noseguard (Galling 1966: 163). The lack of a noseguard would include the Philistine "feathered" helmet (fig. 1), but could also include any number of other Bronze and Iron Age helmet types, frotn the various conical and crested Assyrian types (Yadin 1963: Vol. 2: 420-25, 452) to those worn by Canaanite charioteers or Egyptian nobles as depicted in Egyptian monuments (figs. 2, 3; Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 192-93, 196 top, 242 top; Kendall 1981: figs. 2-3, 5-8). Canaanite chariot warriors * This is a basic problem underlying the work of Deem ( 1978), who assumes thai Goliath must still have been wearing the satiie type of "feathered" helmet depicted at Medinet Habu around 150 years earlier. It is also diflicult to envision how a typical Iron Age sling stone, about the si/.e of a modern tennis ball, would not simply have broken Goliath's leg, if. as Deem suggests, it hit just above the top of one of his greaves, rather than incapacitating him by dropping down inside the top of the greave, a very unlikely scenario.

JEFFREY R. ZORN

BASOR 360

Fig. 1. Two Sea Peoples' chariots as depicted in the relief of the land baftle on the walls of Ramesses Ill's mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. Both chariots have a driver and two warriors carrying two spears each. Atter MH 1: pi. 32; courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

are shown as late as Sety I (ca. 1285 B.C.) wearing plumed helmets (fig. 4; RIK 4: pis. 11, 23). Helmeted warriors either riding chariots or holding horses are also known from late Mycenaean vases (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: pis. 11.1B(?), 11.8, 11.28, 13.28(?)). A finely decorated, crested, 11th-century bronze helmet from Tiryns had protective cheek flaps (Kendall 1981: 227, fig. 10). Such helmets could be fabricated from sheet bronze, or from bronze scales, similar to those used for body armor (though most likely smaller and stitched to leather backing; see the discussion of Goliath's armor below), and were lined with wool. They could be plain or could have crests or plumes of different types (Dezsö 2002: 204-10). The helmets made of scales could weigh from about 2.0 to 3.5 kg, though sheet-metal types would have been lighter and therefore offered less protection (Kendall 1981:211-14). The text then continues with D'tl'pÚ'i? IVIiyi, "and an armor of scales," also made of bronze and weigh-

ing 5,000 shekels. The feminine form ntí7¡?tp¡7 denotes "scales," either of fish (Deut 14:9-10; Lev 11:9-10, 12) or of crocodile (Ezek 29:4). Literally, he wears a siryôn of scales. The terms siryôn (5x) / siryän (2x) / siryôn (2x) are vadants of the word for "armor" (henceforth simply siryôn) It is a loanword from Akkadian siriam (CAD 5 313-15) and is likely Hurrian in origin (saryanni; Speiser 1950: 47-48; Oppenheim 1950: 193; Koehler and Baumgartner 2001: 769). In late biblical texts, siryôn seems to become a generic term for "body armor" (Neh 4:10, 2 Chron 26:14, Isa 59:17, perhaps Jer 51:3).-'' The LXX generally renders siryôn ^ In general, it seems that scale armor, in which each scale is overlapped by scales in the same row. and by scales in the row above, is less common in the ancient Near East by the eighth century, tt is often replaced by lamellar armor in which the rows do not overlap each other. Compare the illustrations in Stillman and Tallis 1984: ñgs. 15, 30, 87, 88, of the Late Bronze Age, with figs. 127, 128, 130. 141-46, 148, 153, and 154 ot the eighth and seventh centuries. See also Yadin 1963: Vol. 2. 407. 418-19. 424, 430-32,

I

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

Fig. 2. Examples of helmets worn by Syro-Canaanite chariot warriors depicted on the chariot of Tuthmose IV. After Kendall 1981: fig. 8; courtesy of T. Kendall.

as GwpaKoç or breastplate, though in 1 Sam 17:5 it is rendered as a GwpaKa áX.i)aioü)TOú, or a breastplate of chain mail, suggesting that the translator did not really understand the nature of the armor. In other passages, it is clear that this is a type of armor worn by elite mounted troops, especially charioteers (Jer46:4). In 1 Kings 22:34/2 Chron 18:33, King Ahab of Israel is hit by an arrow j^'ltt'n j'ST D''p?1'^ T? ' probably the area where the armored sleeves connect to the main body armor, while fighting from his chariot (Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 196 top). Saul tries to equip David in his own 442-43. 446. 4.'>2 and 4.'>8 for the Assyrian types. Mallowan (1966: 410 fig. 336a. d) presents some excavated examples and notes on p. 4()y that the majority of armor recovered was iron. Such later Assyrian armor tended to be short-sleeved and reached to about the waist. The term Siryôn would describe both scale and lamellar armor.

set of siryôn armor (1 Sam 17:38).^ I Sam 17:5 is the only passage where the siryôn is specifically likened to scales, perhaps to make clear to the audience that it is exactly this kind of chariot warrior scale hauberk or tunic that is intended. The siryôn in this passage is not "mail" as in the sense of chain mail, but a type of hauberk composed of overlapping bronze scales sown onto an underlying tunic of wool, linen, or leather (the most extensive discussions are Kendall 1974: 263-86; Hulit 2002; '' Saul has a helmet, sword, and perhaps armor apparently very much the same as Goliath. I Sam 13:22 indicates the rarity of swords among the Israelites. That Saul would be so equipped would be very appropriate for the Israelite leader, since he would have the best gear in the Israelite army and. because of his status, would perhaps have even possessed a chariot. Of course, it might simultaneously function as a literary device to indicate to the reader that the similarly equipped Saul should have been the one to light Goliath.

' [T

• IM

(

JEFFREY R. ZORN

Fig. 3. Syro-Canaanite plumed helmets brought as gifts, from the tomb of Menkheperre-Seneb (TT 86), Thebes. Reign of Tuthmose III. After Kendall 1981: fig. 2b; courtesy of T. Kendall.

Ventzke 1986; also Oppenheim 1950: 192-95; CAD S: 313-14; Dezsö 2002; 2004; Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 8485, 192-93, 196-97, 214, 216-17, 237, 240-41). Such a tunic could reach to the knees and could also have sleeves to cover the arms as far as the elbows (or even the wrists), collars, and flaps hanging from the waist (figs. 2, 5; Kendall 1981: 202-3), though shorter versions, protecting only tbe upper torso, with or without sleeves, also existed. Different parts had different size scales; for example, scales covering the body were larger than those covering the arms. The body of such a tunic could have 400-600 scales, and the arm sec-

BASOR 360

tions warranted an additional 150-550 smaller scales. Armor of this type is known from depictions in three Egyptian tombs: those of Kenamun (Davies 1930: pi. 16), Paimosi (Lepsius 1849-1856: Plates Vol. 5, Sect. Ill pi. 64), and Ramesses III (ChampoUion 1845: Plates Vol. 3, pi. 262). Such a suit of armor gave its wearer a great deal of protection and a good degree of flexibility.^ Examples of such hauberks recorded in the Nuzi texts have been estimated to have weighed typically around 16.8 kg, with some examples as much as 26.3 kg (Kendall 1974: 276-78). Bronze scales excavated at Kamid el-Loz suggest a weight of ca. 15.4 kg for a hauberk covering the thighs, and ca. 20.7 kg for one reaching to the shins (Ventzke 1986: 173-79). Goliath's scale hauberk of 5,000 shekels of bronze weighs about 56.7 kg. Thus Goliath is credited with wearing armor somewhat over twice tbe weight of the heaviest Nuzi and Kamid el-Loz reconstructions. In tbe second millennium, such armor could be made entirely of bronze, as credited to Goliath (Dezsö 2004: 320; 2002: 195-98). The cost of the materials and labor involved in fabricating such a bronze scale hauberk, however, meant that it was only used by elite chariot warriors at Nuzi; and similar use by only the most important or elite chariot warriors probably was the rule across the ancient Near East at this time.** Scale armor made entirely out of leather, such as a specimen found in Tutankhamun's tomb (Hulit 2002: 86-99), or of composite leather and bronze scales, as suggested by tbe Nuzi texts, would have been cheaper to produce and likely more common (Hulit 2002: 99100). Less affluent chariot warriors had to make do with leather armor, or composite bronze-leather armor (Kendall 1974: 278-79; Dezsö 2002: 197-98). Infantry also typically made do with leather armor (if they had any at all). Single scales of bronze armor from ' Experiments by Hulit (2002: 116-33) with replica Egyptian archery equipment and sections of replica leather, bronze, and composite leather-bronze scale armor showed the effectiveness of such armor. At a range of only 7 ni, the arrows used were not capable of penetrating either of the latter two types of armor, and even the all-leather armor was quite effective against several types of arrows. In actual combat, at increased range, all these types of armor would provide significant protection for a chariot warrior. * For example, in a section of the text of Tuthmose Ill's Megiddo campaign related to chariot equipment, he carries off only two suits of bronze armor from the rulers of Kadesh and Megiddo, but 200 suits of leather armor (Lichtheini 1976: 33-34). Similarly, among the lavish list of presents sent to Egypt by Tuäratta of Mitanni are several suits of armor for a chariot (EA 22:37-41). Two suits of leather armor are for the horses, another suit of leather armor is for a warrior, but there is only one suit of bronze armor for another warrior, presumably the Egyptian king (Moran 1992: 55).

I

2010

AN IRON AGE f PHfLISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

Fig. 4. Canaanite charioteers fleeing from Sety I. Note the plumed helmet and the typical rectangular Canaanite-style shield. Adapted from RIK 4: pi. 11; courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Late Heffadic IlIC (LH fffC) Tiryns and Mycenae suggest that such armor was known in Greece just before the period of the Goliath story; however, the use to which such armor was put, either in a symbolic role or in actual combat, is uncertain (Maran 2004: 18-24; Catling 1970; Kendall 1981: 230). fron Age Greek use of scales on linen corselets seems to be something picked up after coming into contact with Near Eastern

armies where scales were already in use (Snodgrass 1967:90-91). The weight of such an armored robe made it cumbersome and tiresome to walk very far. The bronze bell cuirass of the early Greek hoplite was similar in weight to the Nuzi armor and was a source of great discomfort to those wearing it, especially in a hot climate (Hanson 2000: 78-79). Riding into battle helped

ir

JEFFREY R. ZORN

Fig. 5. Example of scale hauberk from the tomb relief of Kenamun. Minus the collar, which seems to have disappeared from use before the Ramesside era, this is the sort of armor worn by Goliath. After Davies 1930: pi. 16; Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, J. Watson Library (532 eg6 Q v. 5).

mitigate the armor's weight. During the first millennium, iron began to be commonly used for fabricating scale armor (Dezsö 2004: 323). The text specially emphasizes how the armor is both like fish scales and is completely fashioned from bronze; this may be an indication of an early date (Millard 2009: 341).' A writer working near the end of the Iron Age might have been expected to describe scale artnor fabricated from iron, such as was known in Assyria at that time. In fact, LXX at this point describes the armor as okKov Kai m5r|pov), "bronze and iron," which is what one might expect from a source

' If Goliath's siryôn was truly completely bronze, it could be taken as additional evidence in support of understanding hitn as a chariot warrior. However, it is uncertain whether the biblical writer would have bothered to differentiate between armor completely of bronze, and composite bronze-leather armor. See also n. 5 above.

BASOR 360

late in origin. It may be, then, that when the author of the 1 Samuel 17 account likens Goliath's armor to fish scales, he is describing a type of armor no longer very common in his time and with which his audience would not be so familiar. If so, this might suggest a ninth-century or earlier context for Goliath's armor. On his legs Goliath wears n^'TO riTO^I, or greaves of bronze (1 Sam 17:6). The Hebrew is singular (a dual, or perhaps dual plural, is expected), but most commentators follow LXX Kvr|(iT5eç and render this expression in the plural (McCarter 1980: 286). Mishat is a hapax, which is not surprising because greaves were not used in the Bronze or Iron Age Near East. Greaves, however, were well known in Bronze Age Greece, especially toward the end, in LH IIIC (Drews 1993: 176-77; Luce 1975: 102), and are mentioned in Homer's Iliad (Bowra 1961). They are common on Mycenaean vases from Greece, Cyprus, and even the Near East depicting warriors and hunters (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: pis. 9.2, 11.43, 11.49, 11.53) and also in wall paintings (Immerwahr 1990: pis. 6 4 65, 68, 73-74). Sometimes the greaves in these representations may be fabricated from cloth or leather, but some at least are made of bronze. The existence of bronze greaves is attested by actual examples found in excavations. Perhaps the most famous specimens were found with the elaborate suit of bronze plate armor from the tomb at Dendra (Verdelis 1977:44-48, pi. 22), but other examples are known, again from the LH IIIC, in Greece and Cyprus (Papadopoulos 1979: 160-61; 1999: 268-69, 271, pis. 56c, 59a; Catling 1964: 140-42, pi. 18a-c). It seems, however, that this type of armor faded out of representational art in Greece by the end of the 12th century (Drews 1993: 177). It is important to note here that while the most famous depictions of greaves are shown on foot soldiers, as on the Warrior Vase (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: pi. 11.42), they are, however, also shown worn by chariot crews or warriors otherwise handling horses and so presumably members of chariot crews (fig. 6; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: pis. 11.3, 11.7, 11.16, 11.18, 11.28, 11.38, 11.59(7). 13.28-29). Every part of Goliath's panoply—his scale hauberk, helmet, and greaves—is armor worn by chariot warriors, either from the ancient Near East or Greece, and attested down to the very end of the Late Bronze Age. '"

"' Garsiel (2009: 401-2, 409) correctly understands Goliath as well protected from tnissile fire, and as an elite member of the Philistine army, but does not see that this very panoply is what marks him out as a chariot warrior.

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

Fig. 6. LH HIC rail chariot on a krater from Tiryns, showing warrior and driver both carrying shields and wearing greaves; the rear warrior is also equipped with two spears. After Crouwel 1981: pi. 59: courtesy the Allard Pierson Museum.

weapons, along with the bow and spear, carried by a horse; and in Job 41, it is one of the weapons that prove ineffective against Leviathan. None of these passages offers a decisive context for understanding its meaning. LXX renders it in a variety of fashions, including as a spear/javelin, burning weapon, sword/ dagger, and in this passage, as a shield, all of which suggests the word was not well understood, had a very generic meaning, or was in transition (Williams 1998). The key problem with understanding the nature of the kîdôn is how it is juxtaposed with other weapons in the 1 Samuel 17 passage. First, javelins were not carried slung across a soldier's back. Foot soldiers would carry them in a free hand or in the same hand as a shield, while chariots often had a special "quiver" attached to the vehicle for this purpose (Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 233 upper). The second problem arises from 17:45, where David accuses Goliath of coming against him with 3"in and spear and kîdôn. Later, in 17:5051, David draws the fallen Goliath's hereh out of its sheath and decapitates him with it. Hereb is the generic Hebrew term for a sword. If the kîdôn is a sickle sword, what is the hereb in these verses? In the case

WEAPONS Between his shoulders Goliath carries a liT?! n, some sort of bronze weapon (17:6). Kîdôn is not a common word in biblical Hebrew. Besides occurring in this verse, and also later in 17:45, it is found only in Josh 8:18, Jer 6:23 and 50:42, and Job 39:23 and 41:21. There is considerable debate about its meaning. Some favor a javelin {NRSV\ King 2007: 353), while others believe a sickle sword (fig. 7) or scimitar is intended {NJB\ McCarter 1980: 292; Molin 1956 and Williams 1998 are the most extensive treatments and prefer the sickle sword identification)." In Josh 8:18, Joshua waves his kîdôn as a signal for his troops to attack. In the Jeremiah passages, mounted invaders who will de.stroy Jerusalem and Babylon are equipped with bow and kîdôn. In Job 39, it is one of several " Emery (1998: 130-31) aLso surveys the material. He notes that the multiplicity of renderings in LXX may indicate that by the time of 1 QM 5: 7. 10-13. the key passages for understanding the weapon as a curved sword, the word may have taken on a completely new meaning, or simply that one of the meanings then current had been accepted, whether or not it was the intended meaning of the original Hebrew. Of course, the Qumran author may have had the corred sense. Emery's suggestion to consider the possibility that the kîjôn was a mace or battle ax is even more problematic. In the Jeremiah and Job 39 passages the weapon is used by cavalry, and neither the ax nor the mace is depicted as a cavalry weapon in the first millennium.

Fig. 7. Sickle swords of the Middle (right) and Late (left) Bronze Ages. Note the less angular form of the later swords. After Yadin 1968: col. 947:22-27; courtesy of the Bialik Institute.

10

JEFFREY R. ZORN

BASOR 360

presented a cylinder seal bearing an image of the goddess Isfitar from around 700 B.C. (1966: 166, 168, fig. 17). On this seal Ishtar carries both a sickle sword (an anachronism here) and a straight sword slung across her back. Whether this reflects any sort of historical reality is problematic, though, because she also carries two crossed quivers on her back; this seems an impossibly crowded arrangement of weaponry. On the other hand, the artist clearly could conceive of a warrior equipped with two types of swords. That Goliath carries two different types of sword may thus not be a problem in the text but an actual reflection of Sea Peoples' military tradition. Fig. 8. Sea Peoples warriors in the service of Ramesses III fighting against Libyans. The warriors with "feathered helmets" carry swords slung across their chests. The figure on the left clearly has two swords. After MH 1: pi. 19; courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the university of Chicago.

of 17:50-51, McCarter thought that hereb was a genedc term for a "sword" and that, in the case of 17:45, it referred to the kîdôn (1980: 294). It is clear from 17:45, however, that Goliath carries both a hereb and a kidôn. In other words, if the kîdôn is a sword, Goliath is described as bearing two such weapons. Some help in resolving this situation may come from Medinet Habu. Sea Peoples warriors at Medinet Habu are depicted with swords slung across their chests, indicating that carrying such a weapon across the upper torso in some fashion was not an uncommon practice (fig. 8; MH 1: pis. 19, 34). It is especially worth noting that Sea Peoples wardors depicted with a sword slung across their chests are sometimes shown fighting simultaneously with another sword in tfieir hand (fig. 8; MH 1: pi. 19). One of the swords is usually a short sword, while the other is a longer type. It might thus be that the kidôn is a type of short sword, though its use by mounted warriors in Jeremiah and Job may still favor a sort of scimitar shape. Perhaps the kîdôn carried across Goliath's shoulders is a conflation by tfie biblical author of the baldric that carried tfie sword, the strap of which would be across the shoulders, and the sword itself. On the other hand, while the Sea Peoples warriors at Medinet Habu carry their swords across tfieir chests in Iliad 3:330-340, Paris and Menelaus are said to carry tfieir swords across their backs, so it is also possible that Goliath's kîdôn was literally between his shoulders.'^ Galling '^ Indeed, the rest of the gear with which Paris and Menelaus equip themselves is very similar to Goliath's armor and weaponry.

The understanding of the kîdôn as a sickle sword is consistent with references to its cognate in cuneiform (katinnu), where it is typically copper/bronze and a weapon of the god Baal, possibly Hurrian in origin (Heltzer 1989). While the author of the 1 Samuel 17 passage does not emphasize the weight of the weapon, as he does for tfie armor and spearhead, he does draw attention to the fact that it is made of bronze. When describing the spear, he puts special emphasis on the massive weight of the iron head of the spear. If the kîdôn were a javelin with a metal head, the author could have described it in a similar way, noting that its head was bronze. Its description as a kîdôn of bronze may suggest that the entire weapon was of bronze (or at least the most substantial and visible part of it), just as the description of the armor of bronze emphasizes its most obvious physical characteristic. If this surmise is correct, then the interpretation of the kîdôn as a sickle sword is strengthened, since such weapons were cast as single objects and were not composite items, as were javelins. '•* If the kîdôn in the Bible is indeed a typical Near Eastern sickle sword, adopted by the Philistines after living among tfie Canaanites, then the hereb here may be some version of the long straight sword carried by Philistines and other Sea Peoples in late New Kingdom reliefs. In fact, in the tomb of Kenamun at Thebes (Davies 1930: pis. 20, 22) and in the tomb of Ramesses III (Champollion 1845: Plates Vol. 3, pi. 264), botfi short straight swords and sickle swords are depicted as part of the weaponry associated with the nobility who made up tfie chariot warrior class. Tfie presence of two different swords would obviate the potential problem of drawing a sickle sword from a sheath (King 2007: 353), though it should be noted " Contra Garsiel (2009: 403-4), a javelin of solid bronze is not likely. Such weapons had a wooden shaft and metal (or stone) head.

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

that by the end of the Late Bronze Age, the great angularity seen in sickle swords of the Middle Bronze Age had often disappeared, and so a scabbard of some sort for tbe more gently curved sickle swords of that era might be possible (compare Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 207 with 172). The scimitar-like kîdôn would make an excellent weapon for downward slashing from the chariot cab (Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 233 upper), whereas the hereb would be better employed on foot. Pharaoh Sety I is depicted many times in his chariot with a sickle sword, even as he runs down his vanquished foes (fig. 9; RIK 4: pis. 4, 6, 12, 13, 31, 35, and esp. 28), and so also Ramesses III (Heinz 2001: 313,1.32). Such swords are depicted as part of the weaponry and armor dispensed to the Egyptian army prior to Ramesses Ill's campaign against the Sea Peoples (MH 1: pi. 29). Although the sickle sword seems to disappear from the arsenals of the ancient Near East soon after tbe end of the Bronze Age, curved swords of several types continued to be used, at least to some extent, into tbe latter part of the Iron Age. Such examples are known from Judah in tbe Lachisb reliefs (Ussishkin 1982: 84-85, 105, 109; Maier 1996) and from other Assyrian depictions, as at Tell Ahniar(Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936: pi. 11 lower) and Nineveh (Albenda 1986: 83, pis. 97 upper, 143), and other sources (Maier 1996)."'* So tbe existence of scimitars in Jeremiah and Job might reflect these later types of curved swords. In any event, while the sickle sword interpretation seems, on balance, to be more preferable, either type of weapon could be found among the equipment of a chariot warrior. Goliath bears a rT'jn, a spear with a massive head, said to weigh 600 shekels, approximately 6.8 kg (17:7, 45). This is a spear not easily thrown, even by a giant. The usual weapon of the Syro-Canaanite-Mesopotamian chariot was the composite bow (Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 192-95, 198-200, 206-7 bottom, 214-16, 233-34, 240; Vol. 2, 334-35). However, supplementary weapons were needed by the chariot crew if their vehicle was disabled, or they otherwise found themselves in close combat. Such weapons include the sickle sword (Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 194, 233), ax (Yadin 1963: Vol. I, 193), javelins, as noted above (Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 234, 240; Vol. 2: 334-36), and the spear (Yadin 1963: I"* Emery (1998: 137-38) notes that no examples of sickle swords have been found in archaeological excavations. His discussion, however, leaves out the depictions of curved blades in Assyrian reliefs discussed here. If ktdân was used to designate a Late Bronze Age-style sickle sword, it would make sense that it would be used for scimitar-like swords of the Iron Age as well.

11

Vol. 1: 243 top). The 1 Samuel 17 text puts great emphasis on the Philistine's spear. It is thus not surprising that the crews of the Sea Peoples' chariots at Medinet Habu fight with spears (flg. 1; Yadin 1963: Vol. 2, 336). The spear was also a primary chariot weapon among the Hittites (fig. 10; Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 23839; Kuentz 1928: pi. 40 far right, 42 upper center), and it is also found carried by chariot-borne Mycenaean Greeks (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: pis. 11.IB, 11.16, 11.28; Immerwahr 1990: pi. 67).''* Goliath fights with a weapon most appropriate to a chariot warrior from the Aegean-Anatolian world of the end of the Late Bronze Age.'^ The spear is also described as DniX ilüS 1n''3n [yV]], usually rendered as "The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam" or "like a heddle rod" (Yadin 1955; Yadin 1963: Vol. 2, 354-55; Galling 1966: 158-59, 161 ). A variety of issues are connected with this aspect of the weapon. The first involves understanding the nature of a heddle rod spear, and the second has to do " This is not the place to rehash the debate over how chariots were employed in Mycenaean Greece. Here it will be noted only that before LH IIIC, some see them as used to carry mounted lancers (Greenhalgh 1980). while others follow Homer and see them as essentially battlefield taxis for noble warriors (Littauer 1972; Littauerand Crouwel 1983; 1996), and some even reconstruct them as Near Eastern-style archery platforms (Drews 1993: 122-24). Much depends on the interpretation on the Kadesh reliefs of Ramesses II. ln those reliefs. Hittite chariot crews (usually three-man, but also sometimes two-man) are rarely shown armed, and in those cases where they carry a weapon, it is not the bow. but almost invariably a spear, and the chariots do not have bow cases. This is unlike in the reliefs of Sety I, where Hittite chariots have two crewmen, bow cases, and the crews are bow armed. The debate centers on whether there was a change in Hittite chariot tactics and equipment between the reigns of the two pharaohs. or if Ramesses IPs artists were instructed to depict the Hittites as bow-less (Drews 1993: 12122). Even so, even Drews acknowledges that by LH IIIC, late Mycenaean rail-chariots were likely conveyances for infantry, rather than vehicles used in battle (1993: 116; also Stager 2006b: 169). and it is this latest use, closest in date to the period of the I Samuel 17 story, that is of most importance here. In any event. Sea Peoples warriors, even the few depicted in chariots, in the reliefs of Ramesses III are primarily depicted with spears, with a few swords as well. "" It is also possible that the bow may have been a part of Goliath's gear, but that for the purposes of a duel, such a weapon was not considered appropriate and so was left aside. Note that the rear Sea Peoples' chariot in the Medinet Habu relief is shown with both bow case and quiver behind the wheel of the chariot (fig. 1 ). Whether this is because Sea Peoples' chariots were normally so equipped, or the Egyptian artist added this as a conventional piece of chariot equipment, is itnpossible to say because this is the only example. In 2 Sam 1:6. Saul is approached by Philistine chariots, while in I Sam 31:3 he is pressed hard and the archers lind him. It may he that these were Philistine chariot-borne archers, though the text is just frustnitingly vague enough to prevent certainty.

f2

JEFFREY R. ZORN

BASOR 360

Fig. 9. Sety I brandishing his sickle sword from his chariot. Note also the two javelins with tassels in the quiver at the rear of the chariot. After RIK 4: pi. 28; courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the university of Chicago.

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

13

Fig. 10. Hittite three-man chariot crews at the battle of Kadesh as depicted on the reliefs of Ramesses II at the Ramesseum. Shown are two types of shields, rectangular and concave, and spears carried by the middle crew members in two of the chariots in the bottom row. After Kuentz 1928; pi. 40; courtesy of the Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

with whether this part of the description is original to this passage or is borrowed from elsewhere. In an article devoted to explicating the nature of the heddle rod spear (or javelin), Yadin (1955) concluded that this weapon was a type of javelin thrown by a lash wound around the back part of the shaft. The free end of the lash was a loop held by two fingers on the throwing hand. When the javelin was thrown, the rotation caused by the unwinding of the lash caused the weapon to fly truer and farther, and gave it more penetrating power (Yadin 1955; 67). Galling (1966; 158-61 ) noted that the parallels cited by Yadin tended to be later, often tnuch later, than the setting of the Goliath story. However, the key aspect, that some kind of loop or short length of material hung from some point of the shaft, is still valid. Javelins or short spears with loops, straps, or tassels at their butt ends are depicted as part of the standard equipment of late New Kingdom chariots (e.g., MH 1; pis. 9-10, 16-19, 2224, 31-33, 35, 37-38; RIK A\ pis. 3-6, 9-11, 13, 2728, 31, 33, 35), and on occasion the pharaoh is shown wielding one in hand-to-hand combat (RIK 4: pi. 29). A javelin such as this would not be out of place among Goliath's equipment if he were a chariot warrior.'^ In the Bible, heddle rod spears are rarely mentioned, being found only in stories set in the early Davidic " This follows the interpretation ot Galling (1%6: 158-60), who sees the loops associated with the heddle rod as approximating the appearance of the tassels/ribbons seen at the butt end of the short spears/javelins found as part of standard Egyptian chariot equipment. This is contra Yadin (1955: 64-68), who sees the loop as part of a thong wrapped around the javelin and used to increase distance and accutacy when thrown.

era. For example, a spear of this type is found in the hand of the Egyptian warrior defeated by Benaiah in 1 Chron 11:23 (but not in its parallel in 2 Sam 23:21), A more significant passage is 2 Sam 21:19, where Goliath, equipped with a heddle rod spear, is slain not by David, but by a certain Elhanan, one of David's warriors. How can the same Philistine champion have been killed by two diflerent opponents? That this confusion over who fought Goliath was seen early on as a problem in the text is witnessed by the parallel account in I Chron 20:5, where the Philistine warrior fought by Elhanan becomes Lahmi, the brother of Goliath. Some have argued that David and Elhanan are the same person, with the latter being a birth name, and the former a throne name, or similar (Garsiel 2009: 397-99). The problem with this explanation is that no such name for David is otherwise attested. Like the three other warriors in this passage, Elhanan is to be understood as an individual distinct from David: one of his champions (Dempster 1992). Was the name Goliath taken from a tale involving Elhanan and inserted into the story about David, who originally fought an unnamed Philistine champion, or was it the other way round? Or did two traditions about the defeat of a Philistine giant originate independently at the same time, with different heroes in each account? Because Goliath's name occurs only twice in 1 Samuel 17, and David's opponent is otherwise denoted as "the Philistine," most commentators have preferred the theory that the name Goliath was inserted into a tale about David from an original tale about Elhanan (McCarter 1980: 291; A. Yadin 2004: 376-77). However, there is no a priori reason that either of the other two theories should have

14

JEFFREY R. ZORN

priority over the other or be excluded from consideration. The uncertainty about the origin of Goliath's name in the 1 Samuel 17 account is important because the heddle rod spear seems to be attached to the same tradition as that name. Hence, if Goliath's name was brought into the Davidic story from some other source, it is likely that the heddle rod spear came from the same source. When considering the nature of the spear carried by Goliath, it may be best to exclude its description as a heddle rod type, though, as noted above, a javelin of this type would not be inappropriate for a chariot warrior.'^ Just as Goliath's armor is at home among the gear of a chariot warrior, so too are his sickle sword (or javelin), possibly a straight sword, and his spear part of the standard weaponry of such a warrior. Indeed, that Goliath carries two swords is entirely consistent with Sea Peoples' practice.

BASOR 360

his shield-bearer, in the Kadesh poem (Kitchen 1996: 9-12; Lichtheim 1976: 68, 70; Thomson 1997). Is the sinnäh type of shield suitable for use in a chariot? This is a crucial issue. No text unequivocally mentions the use of the sinnäh in a chariot, but the IJO shield is likewise not mentioned in a certain chariot context. Some texts do mention shields in contexts that could involve chariotry or cavalry, but both types of shield are mentioned in these passages (Jer 46:3-4; Ezek 38:4). One approach to resolve this issue is to examine the types of weapons employed with these two shields to see if they suggest any difference in use between them. Many occurrences oí sinnäh are colorless expressions, often used simply in parallel to the more commonly attested mägen (Jer 46:3; Ezek 23:24, 38:4, 39:9; Ps 35:2,91:4) or as one element among a list of other war materials, and so give no clear sense of how the sinnäh was used. In Ezek 38:4 the hereb is used by those carrying either sinnäh or mägen. The Chronicler often OTHER CHARIOT-RELATED uses sinnäh in combination with Vtí'^ (1 Chron 12:9, ELEMENTS 12:25;2Chron 11:12, 14:7, 25:5), a type of spear, but Besides his personal gear, there are two other ele- also once with hanît (1 Chron 12:35), the most comments in the narrative that suggest that Goliath is best mon word for "spear." Unfortunately, the difference understood as a chariot warrior. The first is the refer- between these two types of spears is also not clear. ence to the shield-bearer, n}'¡¡?i am) in 17:7. This is Many translations use "lance" for römah, and this carthe only time the Hebrew scriptures mention a shield- ries with it the image of a mounted warrior, but the bearer (in contrast to Abimelech, Saul, Jonathan, and römah is often a weapon of the foot soldier. In LXX Joab's arms/armor-bearers in Judg 9:54, 1 Sam 14:7- römah is rendered by 'kóyx'^ ("spear"), aeipofiáatric 17, 16:21, 31:4-6, and 2 Sam 23:37 and their paral- ("barbed lance"), and most commonly Sópu ("pike/ lels in 1 Chronicles; Hurowitz 2007). Neo-Assyrian spear"), but hanît is also commonly rendered by 5ópi) kings, or their archers, are depicted behind a shield (e.g., 1 Sam 13:19,21:9,26:16; 2 Sam 1:6,21:19,23:7, carried by a shield-bearer firing up at a besieged city 18). In 1 Sam 17:7, Goliath's spear is first a oópu and (Yadin 1963: Vol. 2, 388-90, 393, 407, 409, 418-19, then a >ióyxr|! All that can be said, then, is that both 424-25, 434-35, 462-63), and by late Assyrian times types of shield could be used with either a sword or spear-wielding shield-bearers formed a shield wall to some type of spear. So, the type of weapon most often protect archers behind them (Yadin 1963; Vol. 2,442- associated with the sinnäh does not clarify its nature. 43, 450-51). These are the forerunners to the Persian Another approach is to look at passages that docusparabara formation, familiar from the Persian Wars ment how the sinnäh was used in battle. However, of Herodotus (for the battle of Plataea, see 9:61). How- only in Ezek 26:8 is the military use of the sinnäh ever, by far the most important type of shield-bearer clearly attested. There it is used by the Babylonians in the Bronze and Iron Ages served as a member of against Tyre in a siege operation in which it is lifted a chariot crew. It was his duty to protect the warrior up or raised (•''¡?n). Assyrian reliefs do show large from archery fire. This is well attested in both Egyp- body-shields used for sheltering archers in sieges (see tian (Yadin 1963: Vol. 2, 334-37) and Assyrian art above), but many other types of shields are used in (Yadin 1963: Vol. 2: 420-21, 452), and also in texts, sieges as well, depending on the specific action. A as, for example, when Ramesses II speaks to Mena, large shield would be used to protect archers firing at defenders on the walls, but those assaulting the walls (either by breaching it or by using ladders to go over '" It might also be the case that Goliath was equipped with it) would need smaller, more maneuverable shields both a spear and a javelin and that the editor has conflated the two which they would "lift up" to protect themselves from descriptions here.

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

missiles coming from above (Yadin 1963: Vol. 2,406, 411,418,421-25,448,462). So, this passage does not help clarify the appearance of tfie sinnäh. The passage that may have the most potential for suggesting some distincdon between tfie two types of shield is I Kgs 10:16-17 (and tfie parallel account in 2 Cfiron 9:15-16), where Solomon is said to have fabricated 200 sinnâh shields of gold weighing 600 shekels (ca. 6.8 kg) and 300 mögen shields of gold weighing 3 minas (ca. 1.7 kg; in 2 Chron 9:16 they are 300 shekels each). Of course, the weights given here may be exaggerations, or perhaps in some way symbolic. However, even if Solomon did not produce such golden shields, tfie biblical author did see some difference between the two types of shield. Because of the greater amount of gold used to produce a sinnäh, commentators and translators have assumed that it was a larger shield, one that might cover the entire body. Hence, some translations render sinnäh as "large shield" (e.g., NRSV in the 1 Kings 10 and 2 Chronicles 9 passages; Millard 1994: 286, Garsiel 2009: 401 ). Clearly, a shield large enough to cover the entire body would be too unwieldy to use on a chariot. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine how a shield designed to cover the entire body—that is, the height of a human being, or more—could easily be put on display. Such shields were intended for use in sieges and were usually bent or curved over at tfie top (see Yadin 1963: Vol. 2,407, 418,424 for examples). Could such a shield be hung from a wall? Because of this traditional interpretation of tfie 1 Kings 10 passage, tfie mägen is usually understood to be a small shield, which would then seem more suitable for use by a shield-bearer on a chariot. The weight of the gold is misleading, though. Gold is the most malleable and ducdle of all metals. A single gram of gold can be beaten thin enough to cover 0.6 m^ (New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., s.v. "gold"). For example, the dimensions given for Solomon's temple in 1 Kgs 6:20-21 cover approximately 1500 m^, including the floor. Assuming, for the sake of this example, that this was the surface area of the interior of the temple, it would take 2,500 grams, or 2.5 kg of gold, to cover this area in gold leaf. In other words, the gold of a single sinnäh could cover the interior of the temple more than twice over. Clearly, given tfie malleability of gold, tfie amount of gold said to be involved in the fabrication of these shields says little about their actual size. In fact, granting for the moment the accuracy of these weights, the gold could be some decorative element covering only part of the shield, such as

15

the rim, a central boss, both, or something else (for a shield with a thick boss, see Job 15:26). The round shields used by the Judaeans depicted in tfie Lachish reliefs have a central boss that could have been metal, with the rest being leather-covered wood (Ussishkin 1982: 73-74, 80-84, 100, 103). Just as Solomon's ivory throne (1 Kgs 10:18) was not solid ivory, so the shields do not necessarily have to be understood as solid gold. So, even the relative amounts of gold said to have been used in these shields says nothing certain about their size. A sinnäh of solid gold might well be smaller than a mägen with only a central gold boss. Like tfie sinnäh, so too could the mägen be used in sieges and with swords and spears. The amount of gold used in Solomon's shields reveals nothing certain about the size of the two types of shields. There may be some other difference between tfie two types, other than sheer size or use in battle—such as, perhaps, shape. Shields used in the ancient Near East were rectangular, rectangular with rounded top, oval with concave sides (i.e., "Figure Eight," "Violin," or Dipylon, as it is called in Greece; Snodgrass 1967: 44-45, 19-20), and circular/oval. For example, shield-bearers in Egyptian chariots might carry the rectangular shield with rounded top, as when Ramesses II fought the Libyans, or as shown as part of the standard equipment being manufactured for a chariot (Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 202; Vol. 2, 334-35), but they carry circular shields when fighting against the Sea Peoples (Yadin 1963: Vol. 2, 336-37). Canaanite chariot crews bear rectangular shields (fig. 4; Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 83-84, 192-93, 216-17; RIK A\ pis. 11, 23). Concave-sided shields were typical of Hittite three-man chariot crews (fig. 10; Yadin 1963: Vol. 1. 84, 88, 229, 238-39), but they also used a rectangular variety (fig. 10; Yadin 1963: Vol. 1,238-39; RIKA: pi. 34). Philistine chariot crews attacked by Ramesses III carry a round shield (fig. 1; Yadin 1963: Vol. 2, 336; 1968: 958). Even if one grants that the 1 Kgs 10:16-17 passage indicates a difference in size between the sinnäh and tfie mägen, this may signify a difference only in this specific situation. That is, the key difference may actually be one of shape, but in this passage the audience is also informed of a difference in size. There is nothing in this passage, or any other, that proves that on another occasion a sinnäh could not be smaller than a mägen. In Classical Greece, there were also shield-bearers. For example, Onesilus, who led a rebellion of tfie cities of Cyprus against the Persians in 497 B.c., had a shield-bearer (Herodotus 5:111-12), as did Xenophon

16

JEFFREY R. ZORN

(Anabasis 4.2.20). Alexander the Great's elite foot unit, the Hypaspsists, were literally "shield-bearers." However, the early textual references seem to associate these shield-bearers with military leaders as personal bodyguards. There is no indication in the 1 Samuel 17 account that Goliath was such an army commander. In the end, there is nothing inherent to what is known about the sinnäh type of shield that precludes its use by a chariot-borne shield-bearer. If Goliath's shield-bearer, like other aspects of his gear, is of Canaanite derivation, a rectangular shield might best fit the context." Galling (1966: 157-58) makes much of the reference to, and subsequent disappearance of, the shieldbearer from the narrative (1 Sam 17:7, 41); however, in reality a shield-bearer makes little sense in a manto-man duel fought with swords or spears. A shieldbearer could not move and react to the motions of a man some distance behind him, whom he cannot see. Even if the shield-bearer could constantly position himself to block incoming blows, how could the warrior behind him strike at an opponent standing in front of the shield-bearer? The warrior would need a spear of great length to reach past his shield-bearer to strike at his adversary. The shield-bearer in 1 Samuel 17 is not mentioned because he was expected to play a part in the duel, but simply because of the close association between such personnel as members of the same chariot crew. Once the ritual taunting ends and the duel commences, the shield-bearer would have to withdraw so that the warrior could fight. Note that the text never speaks of Goliath himself using a shield. He expected the Israelites to send out a warrior equipped similarly to himself. Had Goliath known that the Israelites would send a slinger, he might have kept his

" Understanding Goliath's shield-bearer as one of the members of his chariot crew obviates Berginer's theory (2000: 726; Berginer and Cohen 2006: 32-34), which views the shield-bearer as a sort of seeing-eye dog for a visually impaired Goliath. Note that the understanding of cuneiform .siniuitum as a shield is derived from its use in Hebrew sinnäh. On its own, sinnatum does not clarify the type of shield meant by .sinnäh. Berginer also labored under the false impression that 1 Kgs 10:16-17 necessitates that a sinnäh is by nature larger than a inâgën. Although he was aware of the use of shieldbearers in sieges and in late Assyrian armies, he completely missed the use of such personnel in chariot crews. Thus, contra Berginer and Cohen (2006: 34), their evidence does not prove "beyond the shadow of a doubt that the literal meaning of 'shield bearer' is impossible forTOSNICT] in the context of I Sam 17:7,41." Nothingelse in their evidence is decisive for seeing Goliath as visually impaired. Indeed, if he were a member of a chariot crew, good vision would be a major requirement.

BASOR 360

shield-bearer close at hand, until he was able to close the distance from his missile-armed opponent! The final element that may be chariot related is another rare expression in 1 Sam 17:4 and 23 where Goliath is called an Q'^53n-tt'''K. These verses are the only instances in which this term is used in the Hebrew Bible. The expression otherwise only occurs once in a broken passage in Ugaritic (CAT 2.33:34; see below). It seems that even early on, there was uncertainty about its meaning. LXX renders it as àvfip Suvaióo or "powerful man." By the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it had become a term for "infantry" in general (McCarter 1980: 290-91). The usual English translation of this term is "champion" or the like. Commentators, lexicons, and translations all seem to derive this term from the preposition byn as a dual noun, understanding it literally as "theman-of-the-in-between-two" (Driver 1913: 139; de Vaux 1971: 124; McCarter 1980: 291; Rofé 1987: 132; A. Yadin 2004: 380-81).^» The question then is, "in-between-two" what? The usual understanding is that the term refers to a champion who takes his stand between two armies to engage in single combat. However, is this really what it originally meant? Since the expression occurs only here, translators and commentators have attempted to deduce its meaning from the basic sense of the underlying preposition, the context of the story, and from possible analogies in other cultures.-' There is, however, another possibility, based not on the context of the story, but on Philistine military custom. Most scholars are familiar with the general depictions of Sea Peoples' troops on the reliefs of Ramesses II showing the battle of Kadesh ( 1274 B.c.), and the reliefs of Ramesses III depicting his victories over land and sea contingents of Sea Peoples a century later (1178 B.c.). They have been republished many times. What is less well known is that these reliefs include depictions of Philistine chariots, and these chariots have three-man crews (fig. 1 ; MH 1 : pi. 34; Yadin 1963: Vol. 2, 336). The exact positioning of the crew 2" Garsiel (2009: 396-97) suggests that •'5:3ri-ttr'K is a play on p ^ in verses 1 and 3. If the suggestion iidvanced here is correct, it may be that the author of the 1 Samuel 17 account created a different word play by using the preposition in conjunction with the technical term coined for the third man in the chariot. 2' Hoffner (1968: 224) suggested that the Hebrew term was analogous to the Hittite expression piran huyanza, translated as "one who runs/marches in front." Here, however, there is no real indication that the term has anything to do with the individual's position in the open ground between two armies. In fact, this Hittite expression seetns more analogous to the Hebrew expression for the men who run before a king's chariot, as in I Sam 8:11 and 1 Kgs 1:5.

2010

AN IRON AGE f PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

members in the Sea Peoples' chariot cabs is difficult to make out. In the Kadesh reliefs. Hittite three-man chariot crews are depicted with the driver and shieldbearer forward in the cab, while the spear-wielding warrior is set back and between the other two (fig. 10; Yadin 1963: Vol. 1, 238-39). A three-man chariot is even known from the late Mycenaean world (Hiller 1999: pi. 73.17a). This may have been the same arrangement in the Philistine three-man model, or it may be an Egyptian artistic convention to clearly depict three warriors in a small space. Be that as it may, one crew member woufd have to be between the other two. The typicaf Canaanite or Egyptian chariot, with which the Israelites were most familiar, had only a two-man crew. "The man-in-between-two" would then be a term coined by the Israelites to designate the main warrior in the less familiar type of Philistine chariot (the other two being the shield-bearer/secondary warrior and the driver).2- Moreover, if Albright (1958: 38 and n. 12) was correct in his analysis of Ugaritic bns bnny, as something like "the person who is between the two of us" or "intermediary, neutral individual," in a late Ugaritic prose text (CAT 2.33:34), then we may even have a cognate usage to Hebrew 'îs-habbënayim from the time not long before the period in which the biblical story is set.-'' It is striking indeed that the only parallel to this unique Hebrew expression, found only embedded in a story set in the 11th century, itself comes from the 12th century. This may be evidence of an early and limited period of use for this term. As was the case with the armor and weapons, the presence of a shield-bearer and the phrase "the manof-the-in-between-two" fit in very weff with an interpretation of Gofiath as a chariot warrior.

" This is not the place for an extended discussion ofthe Hebrew term .VÎT/I.Î. It has been argued that this is the word for the third man in a chariot. Others, though, have argued for more general meanings, such as "ofticer" of men in a special kind of military unit. See the discussions in Rabin 1963: 133-34: Mastin 1979: Na'aman 1988; Schley 1990. for various theories, explanations, and literature. In any event, except for the Hittites and Philistines, and possibly at Ugarit. three-man chariot crews do not begin to appear in the ancient Near East before the ninth century B.C., and are not common before the eighth century, so a specially coined term for a "third-man," the 'îH-habhêiuiyim. might well be expected in a text recalling an event from the Iron I era. - ' Unfortunately, the expression so far occurs only once in Ugaritic. RSKi.402/CTU2.33. and the understanding of it in that context is to a large part dependent on the one occurrence in Hebrew! For two examples of how it is handled, see Pardee 1984: 216, 220 n. 32, and also del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003: 229. Carmignac (1955: 354-57) discusses its use at Qumran.

17

CONCLUSION As Gaffing (f966) and others (e.g., A. Yadin 2004: 376) have recognized, the description of Goliath's armor and weaponry in 1 Sam 17:4-7 does appear to be a hodge-podge of elements from different cultures. However, this does not mean that they do not reflect a historical reality in the southern Levant in the latter part ofthe Iron Age I. By this time the Philistines had been inhabitants of their coastal territory for about 150 years, living within a persi.stent Canaanite culture itself influenced by Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Hittite Anatolia. Something of a blending of the culture of the Philistine overlords with that of their subjects is not unexpected. Indeed, such a blending is manifest soon after their arrival, in the creation of the distinctive Philistine bichrome pottery tradition, which borrowed elements from many neighboring cultures. Goliath is equipped with greaves out of the Mycenaean world, and his spear is a weapon prominently depicted among chariot-borne warriors ofthe Aegean-Anatolian world, including the Philistines themselves. So, too, the terminology suggestive of a three-man chariot crew fits what is known of Hittite and Philistine chariots of the beginning of the Iron Age. His scale armor, sickle sword, and shield-bearer derive from the ancient Near East. Considering again Goliath's gear and the general trajectory of the development of Philistine culture in the Iron I period, it would actually be odd if a Philistine chariot warrior of his era were completely unchanged from those depicted at Medinet Habu (Millard 2009: 339; contra Rofé 1987: 132). In fact, when one looks at the constellation of words used for his gear, often found only in this passage and/or exotic in origin, and certain other descriptive elements related to him, it makes a great deal of sense to view Goliath as a Canaanized Philistine chariot warrior equipped with just the sort of panoply that one might well expect in this region in this era. His equipment shows that he was not some common soldier dragooned from the ranks for this combat. Clearly he was an elite warrior, perhaps one of the most well equipped in the Philistine army (fitting, indeed, for the army's champion in a ritual duel), and the elite warriors of this era came from the marvannii chiU"iot warrior class.-"* -•* On the Indo-Aryan origin ofthe term maryannu. its use in the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni. its spread from there throughout the ancient Near East, and the special role of these chariot warriors, see theworksof Albright 1930-193 hO'Callaghan 1950-195 l;Rainey 1965: 19-21; Reviv 1972. The Egyptians so valued these warriors that they took them prisoner in battle. Such actions are recorded

18

JEFFREY R. ZORN

Do Goliath's helmet, greaves, scale armor, spear, scimitar, sword, and shield-bearer occur in other contexts, some of them of the late Iron Age? Yes. Howfor Tuthmose III and Amenhotep II (Pritchard 1969: 237, 245-46); Ramesses III expressly lists them among the contingents used in his battle against the Sea Peoples (Pritchard: 1969: 262). Whether a Canaanized Philistine chariot-borne warrior of the late Iron I period typically fought from his chariot (as was the norm in the ancient Near East), or dismounted to fight, as seems to be the case in LH IIIC contexts and in the Iliad, remains uncertain.

BASOR 360

ever, each piece of equipment carried by Goliath, his shield-bearer, and his enigmatic designation as "theman-of-the-between-the-two," have parallels among chariot warriors of the end of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Aegean-Levantine world, and this seems more than fortuitous. In other words, while the story of David and Goliath may have been edited late, the description of Goliath himself preserves very well indeed a memory of a chariot-borne warrior of a bygone era.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article is dedicated to the memory of my former professor, colleague, and friend Victor R. Gold of Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, Califomia, who passed away in September 2008. Victor was fond of saying that he was W. F. Albright's last Ph.D. student, and it is my hope that the present article combines all the best qualities of Albright's approach to the Bible; weaving together data from its text and the ancient versions, with other relevant evidence from ancient Near Eastern texts, art, and archaeological remains from Syria-Palestine. This is a much expanded version of a paper given at the 2009 annual tneeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Early drafts of this paper were reviewed by a number of colleagues, who

provided helpful feedback, suggestions on how to improve content, and recommendations on additional bibliography. I would like to thank Aren Maier, Lauren Monore, Gary Rendsburg, David Powers, and Lawrence Stager for their assistance in this regard. Thanks also to S. Rebecca Martin for help with certain aspects of the Greek, and to Mark Smith for answers to some questions on Ugaritic. Additional thanks are due to the two anonymous reviewers of this paper, who pointed out areas that needed some additional work, finetuning, and clarification. Final thanks to the ancmed Yahoo discussion group (especially Duncan Head and Jim Webster) for useful feedback. Any remaining problems or errors in the text are the author's responsibility alone.

REEERENCES Albenda, P 1986 The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria: Monumental Wall Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin, from Original Drawings Made at the Time of Their Discovery in 1843-1844 by Botta and Flandin. Pads: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. Albright, W. F. 1930- Mitannian Maryannu, "Chariot Warriors," and 1931 the Canaanite and Egyptian Equivalents. Archiv für Orientforschung 6; 217-21. 1958 Specimens of Late Ugaritic Prose. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 150; 36-38. Beal, R. H. 1986 The Organization of the Hittite Military. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago. Berginer, V. M. 2000 Neurological Aspects of the David-Goliath Battle; Restriction in the Giant's Visual Field. Israel Medical Association Journal 2: 725-27.

Berginer, V M., and Cohen, C. 2006 The Nature of Goliath's Visual Disorder and the Actual Role of His Personal Bodyguard: WU n:sn (l Sam 17:7, 41). Ancient Near Eastern Siudies 43; 27-44. Bowra, C. M. 1961 EYKNHMIAES AHAIOI. Mnemosyne 14; 97-110. Brown, J. P. 1971 Peace Symbolism in Ancient Military Vocabulary. VetusTestamentum2\: 1-23. CAD 5 1984 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vol. 15; 5. Chicago; Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Carmignac, J. 1955 Precisions apportées au vocabulaire de l'Hébreu biblique par la guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres. Vêtus Testamentum 5: 345-65.

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

CAT= Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O.; atid Sanmartín, J., eds. 1995 The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ihn Hani, and Other Places. 2nd ed. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palä.stina.s und Mesopotamiens 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Catling, H. W. 1964 Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford: Clarendon. 1970 A Bronze Plate from a Scale-Corslet found at Mycenae. Archäologische Anzeiger 85: 441-49. ChampoUion, J.-F. 1835- Monuments de l'Egypte et de la Nubie, d'après 1845 les dessins exécutés sur les lieux sous la direction de Champollion-le-jeune. et ¡es descriptions autographes qu 'il en a rédigées. 4 vols. Paris: Didot. Crouwel, J. H. 1981 Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. Davies, N. de G. 1930 The Tomb of Ken-Annm at Thebes. 2 vols. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 5. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Deem, A. 1978 ". . . And the Stone Sank Into His Forehead": A Short Note on 1 Samuel XVII 49. Vetus Testame/iium 28: 349-51. Dempster, S. G. 1992 Elhanan. Pp. 455-56 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday. Dezsö, T. 2001 Near Eastern Helmets of the Iron Age. BAR International Series 992. Oxford: Hedges. 2(X)2 Scale Armour of the 2nd Millennium B.C. Pp. 195-216 in A Tribute to Excellence: Studies Offered in Honor ofEmo Gadl, Ulrich Luft, László Török, ed. T. A. Bacs. Studia Aegyptiaca 17. Budapest: Universite' Eötvös Lorand de Budapest. 2004 Panzer. Reatlexikon der Assyriologie 10: 31923. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dothan, T 1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1993 A Double-headed Bronze Linchpin from Tel Miqne/Ekron. Eretz-Israel 24 (Abraham Malamat Volume): 62-67 (Hebrew), *233-*34 (English summary). Dothan, T., and Drenka, A. S. 2009 Linchpins Revisited. Pp. 97-101 in Exploring the Longue Dure'e: Es.mys in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

19

Drews. R. 1993 The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 u.c. Princeton: Princeton University. Driver, S. R. 1913 Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel: With an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Eacsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps. 2nd rev. and enl. ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Ellenbogen, M. 1962 Eoreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology, London: Luzac. Emery, A. C. 1998 Weapons of the Israel ite Monarchy : A Catalogue with Its Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Implications. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University. Finkelstein, I. 2002 The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 21 \ 131-67. Galling, K. 1966 Goliath und seine Rüstung. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 15: 150-69. Garsiel, M. 2009 The Valley of Elah Battle and the Duel of David with Goliath: Between History and Artistic Theological Historiography. Pp. 391-426 in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, ed. G. Galil, M. Geller, and A. Millard. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 130. Leiden: Brill. Greenhalgh, P. 1980 The Dendra Charioteer. Antiquity 54: 201-5. Hanson, V. D. 2000 The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Berkeley: University of California. Heinz, S. C. 2001 Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches: Eine Bildanalyse. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 18; Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 17. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Heltzer, M. 1989 Akkadian katinnu and Hebrew kîdôn, "sword." Journal of Cuneiform Studies 41: 65-68. Hiller, S. 1999 Scenes of Warfare and Combat in the Arts of the Aegean Late Bronze Age: Reflections on Typology and Development. Aegaeum 19:319-.30. Hofïner, H. 1968 A Hittite Analogue to the David and Goliath Contest of Champions. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30: 220-25.

20

JEFFREY R. ZORN

Hulit, T. D. 2002 Late Bronze Age Scale Armour in the Near East: An Experimental Investigation of Materials, Construction, and Effectiveness, with a Consideration of Socio-economic Implications. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Durham. Hurowitz, V. A. 2007 The Biblical Arms Bearer (D^Vs Hmi). Pp. 34449 in "Up to the Gates of Ekron ": Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. ed. S. W. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar, and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Immerwahr, S. A. 1990 Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. University Park: Pennsylvania State University. Isser, S. 2003 The Sword of Goliath: David in Heroic Literature. Studies in Biblical Literature 6. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Kendall, T 1974 Warfare and Military Matters in the Nuzi Tablets. Ph.D. dissertation. Brandeis University. 1981 Gurpisu sa awèli: The Helmets of the Warriors at Nuzi. Pp. 210-31 in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians: In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman, Vol. 1, ed. M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. King, P J. 2007 David Defeats Goliath. Pp. 350-57 in "Up to the Gates of Ekron": Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. S. W. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar, and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. King, P J.. and Stager, L. E. 2001 Life in Biblical L'irael. Lousiville: Westminster John Knox. Kitchen, K. A. 1996 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translated & Annotated: Translations, Vol. 2: Rameses II, Royal Inscriptions. Oxford: Blackwell. Koehler, L., and Bautngartner, W. 2001 The Hebrew and A ramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans, from German. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Kuentz, C. 1928 La bataille de Qadech: Les textes ("Poème de Pentaour" et "Bulletin de Qadech") et les bas-reliefs. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire 55/2-3. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

BASOR 360

Lepsius, C. R., ed. 1849- Denicmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopen. 12 1856 vols. Berlin: Nicolai. Lichtheim, M. 1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings, Vol. 2: The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California. Littauer, M. A. 1972 The Military Use of the Chariot in the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age. American Joumal of Archaeology 76: 145-57. Littauer, M. A., and Crouwel, J. H. 1983 Chariots in Late Bronze Age Greece. Antiquity 57: 187-92. 1996 Robert Drews and the Role of Chariots in Bronze Age Greece. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15: 297-303. Lorimer, H. L. 1950 Homer and the Monuments. London: Macmillan. Luce, J. V 1975 Homer and the Heroic Age. New York: Harper &Row. Maier. A. 1996 The "Judahite" Swords from the "Lachish" Reliefs of Sennacherib. Eretz-Israel 25 (Joseph Aviram Volume): 210-14 (Hebrew), 96* (English summary). Mallowan, M. E. L. 1966 Nimrud and Its Remains, Vol. 2. London: Collins. Maran, J. 2004 The Spreading of Objects and Ideas in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: Two Case Examples from the Argolid of the 13th and 12th Centuries B.c. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 336: 11-30. Mastin, B. A. 1979 Was the Salis the Third Man in the Chariot? Pp. 125-54 in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J. A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 30: 310-20. Mazar, A. 2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution. Pp. 15-30 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox. McCarter, P K., Jr. 1980 / Samuel: A New Translation. Anchor Bible 8. Garden City: Doubleday. MH 1 = The Epigraphic Survey 1930 Medinet Habu, Vol. 1: Earlier Historical Records of Ramses III. Oriental Institute Publications 8. Chicago: University of Chicago.

2010

AN IRON AGE I PHILISTINE CHARIOT WARRIOR

Millard. A. 1994 King Solomon's Shields. Pp. 286-95 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 2009 The Armor of Goliath. Pp. 337-43 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Molin. G. 1956 What is a Kidon? Journal of Semitic Studies 1: 334-37. Moran. W. L., ed. and trans. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Na'aman, N. 1988 The List of David's Officers (SàlUîm). Vetus Testamentum 38: 71-79. O'Callaghan, R. 1950- New Light on the Maryannu as "Chariot-War1951 rior." Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung I : 309-24. Olmo Lete, G. del. and Sanmartín, J. 2003 A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2 vols. Trans. W. G. E. Watson, from Spanish. Handbuch der Orientalistik, I. Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 67. Leiden: Brill. Oppenheim, A. L. 1950 Review of Business Documents of the NewBabylonian Period, by H. H. Figulla. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 4: 188-95. Palache, J. L. 1959 Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon. Trans, and ed. R. J. Z. Werblowsky, from Dutch. Leiden: Brill. Papadopoulos, T. J. 1979 Mycenaean Achaea. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 55. 2 vols. Göteborg: Aströtn. 1999 Warrior-Graves in Achaean Mycenaean Cemeteries. Aegaci/w 19: 267-74. Pardee, D. 1984

Ugaritic. Archiv für Orientforschung 30. Pritchard, J. B., ed.

31:211-

1969

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton University.

Rabin. C. 1963 Hittite Words in Hebrew. Orientalia N. S. 32: 113-39. Rainey, A. F. 1965 The Military Personnel of Ugarit. Journal of Near Ea.ttem Studies 24: 17-27.

21

Reviv, R. 1972 Some Comments on the Maryannu, Israel Exploration Joumal 22: 218-28. RIK 4 = The Epigraphic Survey 1986 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. Vol. 4: The Battle Reliefs of Sety I. Oriental Itrstitute Publications 107. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Roté, A. 1987 The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology. Pp. 117-51 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress. Sapir, E. 1937 Hebrew '"Helmet." a Loanword, and It.s Bearing on Indo-European Phonology. Journal of the American Oriental Society 57: 73-77. Schley, D. G. 1990 The SâliSîm: Officers or Special Three-Man Squads? Vetus Testamentum 40: 321-26. Singer, 1. 1994 Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel. Pp. 282-338 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Snodgrass, A. 1967 Arms and Armour of the Greeks. Ithaca: Cornell University. Speiser, E. A. 1950 On Some Articles of Armour and Their Names. Joumal of the American Oriental Society 70: 47-49. Stager, L. E. 1995 The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan ( 11851050 BCü). Pp. 332-48 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File. 1998 Forging an Identity; The Emergence of Ancient Israel. Pp. 123-75 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M. D. Coogan. New York; Oxford University. 2006a Bihiical Philistines: A Hellenistic Literary Creation? Pp. 375-384 in "/ Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times": Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor ofAmihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Si.xtieth Birthday. Vol. I, ed. A. M. Maier and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake. IN; Eisenbrauns. 2006b Chariot Fittings from Philistine Ashkelon. Pp. 169-76 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Es.wys on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. ed. S. Gitin.

22

JEFFREY R. ZORN

J. E. Wright, and J. P Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Stillman, N., and Tallis, N. 1984 Armies ofthe Ancient Near East, 3000 BC to 539 BC: Organisation, Tactics, Dress and Equipment. Wiltshire: Wargames Research Group. Szemerényi, O. 1974 The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente Lux. Joumal of Hellenic Studies 94: 144-57. Thomson, J. K. 1997 A Shield Bearer and Warrior of Ramesside Times. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 83: 218-22. Thureau-Dangin, F., and Dunand, M. 1936 Til-Barsib. 2 vols. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 23. Paris: Geuthner. Tischler, J. 1983 Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar, Vol. 1: a-k. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 20. Itinsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universitet Innsbruck. Uchitel, A. 1988 Charioteers of Knossos. Minos 23: 47-58. Ussishkin, D. 1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 6. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Vaux, R. de 1971 Single Combat in the Old Testament. Pp. 122-35 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Trans. D. McHugh, from French. London: Darton, Lotigman & Todd.

BASOR 360

Ventzke, W. 1986 Der Schuppenpanzer von Kämid el-Löz. Pp. 161-82 in Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kämid el-Löz in den Jahren 1977 bis 1981, ed. R. Hachmann. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 36. Bonn: Habelt. Verdelis, N. M. 1977 The Metal Finds. Pp. 28-65 in The Cuirass Tomb and Other Finds at Dendra. Part I : The Chamber Tombs, by P. Aström. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 4:1. Göteborg: Aström. Vermeule, E., and Karageorghis, V. 1982 Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Williams, P J. 1998 ]ÍT? Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (SAHDj. http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/ CARTS/SAHD/kidonUNI.pdf (accessed 1 January 2010). Yadin, A. 2004 Goliath's Armor and Israelite Collective Memory. Vetus Testamentum 54: 373-95. Yadin, Y. 1955 Goliath's Javelin and the n'JIN IIM. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 86: 58-69. 1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light ofArchaeological Study. 2 vols. Trans. M. Pearlman, from Hebrew. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1968 Armor, Arms. Cols. 931-76 in Entsiklopedyah Mikra'it, Vol. 5. Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik (Hebrew).

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The Archaeology of the Israelite Cult: Questioning the Consensus AvRAHAM F A U S T

The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, 52900 Israel [email protected] In Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel Israelite forms of religious expression have received a great deal of scholarly attention. Archaeologists and biblical scholars have scrutinized the textual and archaeological data, and a consensus regarding the frequency and distribution of Israelite places of cult seems to be emerging. The aim of this article is to reexamine the available data on Israelite places of worship within the broader context of Bronze Age and Iron Age temples. The evidence suggests that current views on ancient Israelite cultic sites, while offering many important new insights, have focused on exceptional cases that have been mischaracterized as representative samples of Israelite religion. A different view of Israelite cult practice is therefore offered, one that has the potential to shed new light on Israelite religion.

I

sraelite religion(s) has (have) received a great deal of scholarly attention from archaeologists and biblical scholars. Past generations of scholars often employed biblical archaeology in the service of understanding the scripture, while modern scholarship, driven by a "secular" agenda, has also attributed considerable importance to this hotly debated subject. Indeed, dozens of books and hundreds of articles have been devoted to the topic. These studies have scrutinized the textual and archaeological data, and a consensus about Israelite cult places has emerged. The present article reexamines the available data on Israelite cult buildings within a broader environment and argues that a different interpretation of these structures may be helpful in understanding Israelite cult.

Definition The term "cultic building," as used in this article, is comprehensive and refers to any structure built specifically for religious purposes. This includes nearly all of the buildings that scholars have defined as temples, shrines, sanctuaries, and other related structures. Admittedly, such terms have been used diiferently by different scholars. J. S. Holladay, for example, defined sanctuaries and shrines in the following way: "I take the term 'sanctuary' to refer to a larger, multicomponent or presumably multicomponent structure generally incorporating exterior space (courtyard or témenos) into the overall design. A 'shrine,' as the term is used here, is smaller and simpler than a sanctuary, ideally being a unitary structure such as a single room or a cult room with attached storerooms." He added, " 'shrines' tend to be integrated into their surrounding neighborhoods. 'Sanctuaries' dominate and define their neighborhood" (Holladay 1987: 282, n. 1; see also Hess 2007: 39). Scholars have used various terms to describe these structures. Zevit (2001:123-24), for example, referred

DEEINITION AND IDENTIFICATION

The discussion of cultic buildings is fraught with difficulties, and two preliminary notes—one regarding the terminology used in referring to such buildings and the other regarding their identification as cultic—are therefore in order. 23

24

BASOR 360

AVRAHAM FAUST

to "cult complex," "cult center," "tempfe," "tempfe compfex," and "shrine," among other terms, whife Dever (e.g., 2005: fff, 135, f67) discussed "focaf shrines," "pubfic open-air sanctuaries," and "monumentaf temples" (see also Hess 2007: 3f2-f4). It must therefore be stressed that the wide definition adopted in this articfe embraces both Hoffaday's shrines and sanctuaries as well as practically any other definition that has been employed by scholars for buildings that were built for cultic purposes. The differences between the various definitions are irrelevant for the purposes of this articfe. If there is agreement that a buifding was buift specificafly for religious purposes, it falls within our definition of a cultic buifding. Since the distinction between the various possible subtypes of cultic structures is not important, we wiff use the terms "cultic buildings," "temples," "shrines," and "sanctuaries" interchangeably. At the same time, we will not address expressions of religion within the household or discoveries that are interpreted as small cultic corners within buildings.' Nor will we try to identify the biblicaf terms for those buifdings. These have been the subject of extensive research (e.g.. Smith 2002; Nakhai 200f ; Zevit 200 f; Haran f981), but have no bearing on the main arguments presented here. Identifying Cultic Buildings Identifying cult in archaeology is notoriously difficult (cf. Flannery 1976: 329-33). Over the years various explicit methods have been offered to overcome the difficulties of interpreting archaeological finds as indicating cuft. The most notabfe and influentiaf study on the identification of cuftic sites has been Renfrew's f 985 study ofthe sanctuary at Phyfakopi (see afso Renfrew f994; Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 416-f7; Levy 2006). Renfrew examined a number of traits—refating to architecture and other archaeofogicaf remains—that he viewed as being indicative of cuft. Among these traits was a setting or architecturaf entity that focuses attention or creates a boundary between this worfd and another one, or that exhibits evidence of participation and offerings to a deity. His approach has been expficitly followed in numerous recent studies of Israelite refigion(s) (e.g., Zevit 200f : 82-83; see afso Nakhai

' Attempts to identify cultic activities in the archaeological record of ancient Israel are numerous (e.g., the cult room at Lachish; Aharoni 1975: 26-32), but the identification of many of the suggested Iron Age cultic structures or corners can be debated.

200f: 35-36; Hess 2007: 37-39; and others). Since many ofthe studies discussed in this article, especially those used to compile the "fists" of cultic buildings, have expficitfy used Renfrew's criteria, it is clear that at feast most of these buildings exhibit a sufficient number of the traits to qualify them as "cultic." It is not the aim of this article to discuss and reevafuate the structures that have been interpreted as cuftic (afthough, to err on the side of caution, f wifl sometimes comment on structures whose cultic nature has been seriously questioned). What is important is that a number of scholars have empfoyed similar criteria when identifying various types of Bronze Age and Iron Age structures found in cities and villages as weff as in different geographicaf regions. Since similar criteria were (generally) used in establishing tbe cultic nature of most structures, any striking differences in their distribution would call for some explanation. The patterns discussed in this paper regarding the distribution and frequency of cultic buildings are thus valid, and not a result of the application of different criteria for different societies, nor of the use of different methods for identifying cultic buildings. Hence, the existing "database" of cultic structures is appropriate for comparative purposes as well as for identifying patterns in the distribution, use, and even existence of such structures. In light of the above, different patterns should be seen as significant and meaningful, resulting from behavioral characteristics and not from differences in archaeological interpretation.

BACKGROUND Israelite refigion(s) has (have) fong been of great interest to bibfical schofars. (fn pface of a comprehensive review of the refevant fiterature, readers are referred to Hess 2007: 43-80, with previous literature cited there; see more below.) From the inception of archaeofogicaf work in the region, scholars were eager to identify any evidence of religious practices. The bibficaf dimension added to the "normal" interest of schofars in ancient refigions (cf. Ffannery 1976: 331; Frye f996: 56). While many of the earfy attempts to study Israelite religion and to identify temples and shrines on the basis of the archaeological finds were eclectic and derived from incidentaf finds (see, e.g., the assessment of Wright f 978: f 49), more systematic attempts foffowed. Recentfy, archaeofogical discoveries of cultic items as welf as the critical analysis of the biblical information on Israelite religion(s) have led many scholars

2010

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE CULT

to attempt to reconstruct the location and manner in which Israelite religion was practiced. A growing consensus has emerged in the last several decades over the role and function of religious buildings in Iron Age Israelite society. This consensus identifies various loci of cult, from the household to the national capitals • (e.g., Jerusalem). The discussion below focuses on the architectural evidence for cultic buildings dated to the Iron Age II—the period of the Monarchy in Israel and Judah—and the suggested typologies of the function of those structures. Typology of Cultic Buildings: The Emerging Consensus Holladay's (1987) influential article, "Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach," identified various loci of cult and created a typology of those buildings and spaces. The article defined which type of cult was typical of what setting (urban, regional, and so forth), based on the characteristics of the various structures identified. It then extrapolated from these finds to the situation in Israel and Judah at large, distinguishing between "established" regional shrines and "state" temples on the one hand, and "non-conformist" shrines on the other. "Non-conformist" shrines were buildings in which the cult practiced there deviated from the statesponsored religion. Holladay's "typology" of temples and shrines suggests that the "established worship" was practiced at the town and the national level as well as at the neighborhood level (1987: 267-68). Other scholars followed Holladay's lead, and although their typologies are not always identical, the concept of central, regional, and local cultic centers at several levels is now widely accepted. Hess (2007: 297-314) has followed Holladay's classification, at least in its general outlines. After presenting the evidence from many sites at which he believes proof of cultic activities has been unearthed, he refers to the existence of "local shrines" (Hess 2007:312), concluding that "during the later divided monarchy (eighth to sixth centuries B.c.) the high places continued as state-sponsored religious centers, while cult centers appeared at village sites, along trade routes, and in alternative nonconformist contexts" (Hess 2007: 314). Dever has viewed the evidence as indicative of a similar reality and concluded that different types of temples were built in various locales (see, e.g., Dever 2005: 174). Zevit (2001), in what is perhaps the most detailed study of Israelite religions, scrutinized both

25

the archaeological and non-archaeological evidence and also concluded that "the religion was practiced differently at home, village, sanctuary, urban temple, and extra-urban sanctuary" (2001: 265). Borowski (2003: 54), in describing daily life in biblical Israel, wrote: "... it is safe to assume that every city and town had a cult center or a shrine" (see also Borowski 2003: 24). Finally, Nakhai (2001) described a phenomenon in which temples, sanctuaries, and shrines have been found throughout the landscape. Biblical scholars, in discussing the cultic changes following the religious reforms of the late Iron Age, have frequently noted that local sanctuaries and temples were widespread before these reforms. Hence, Hagedorn (2005: 204) refers to "all the local shrines which have previously been centres...." Vogt (2006: 44, 46) also speaks about the "local sanctuaries" that existed until the time of Josiah (see also Albertz 1994: 128,206; for the multiplicity of shrines, see also Smith 2002: 161;McNutt 1999: 176-78). A common thread in many of these studies and typologies is the view that the Israelites built temples and local shrines in almost every locale, and that beyond the household cult there also existed neighborhood and village shrines, town shrines, regional cultic centers, and central temples in the national capitals. Indeed, regarding "the relationship between local and central sanctuaries" a consensus has emerged that "during the whole monarchical period both existed side by side" (Kessler 2008: 89; this, until the time of Josiah).2 The Logic behind the Typology The authors of the above-mentioned studies scrutinized all of the available archaeological evidence that directly and indirectly related to Israelite religion and cult. They looked at every possible clue in order to reconstruct every possible form of religious practice, and then extrapolated from the available information to understand Israelite religion(s) at large. These studies have explicitly or implicitly agreed that the fragmentary data uncovered is representative of a larger whole. For example, Dever (2005: 170-75), after discussing the temple at Arad, writes that, "all things considered, there is no reason to suppose that the Arad temple is

^ The reference to Josiah follows Kessler's assessment. The present article focuses on identifying the archaeological pattern, not the circumstances surrounding the reform or its historicity, nor other possible religious reforms.

AVRAHAM FAUST

26

unique or even exceptional. Rather it appears to be an example of what was probably a widespread phenomenon—local temples" (Dever 2005: 175). Hess (2007: 303), in a similar vein, suggests that "the sanctuary at Arad probably represents a regional center" (see also Hess 2007: 312), while Albertz (1994:128) views it as a "regular temple complex" and an example of "provincial sanctuaries." But while studies such as the ones cited here have been exemplary in their scrutiny of the archaeological evidence, in their interdisciplinary approach to the data, and in their critical look at the textual sources, in my opinion their conclusion should be reexamined. Indeed, a more (archaeologically) contextual approach to the available data indicates that the evidence that served as their basis for reconstructing Israelite cult places is the exception rather than the mle. Hence, the emerging picture is not representative of Israelite religion. Extrapolating from the exceptions has not given us a picture of the whole, but rather a distorted image. NON-ISRAELITE TEMPLES IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES Before trying to assess the data from Iron Age Israel and Judah, we should look at the evidence from Canaanite, i.e., non-Israelite, cult places. A look at the situation in other Levantine cultures of the Bronze Age and Iron Age will give us a background against which to examine and compare the situation in Israel and Judah. Temples in Late Bronze Age Settlements Although Late Bronze Age strata have been unearthed at more than a few sites, the exposure of these levels has been limited. To a large extent, this has been a result of the demographic decline that characterized the period and the fact that many sites either did not have Late Bronze Age occupation or the occupation during this period was relatively limited in scope (Gonen 1992: 216-17; Bunimovitz 1995: 321-24). In addition, in many instances the Late Bronze layers were deep below the mound's surface and thus enabled only limited exposure. Hence, the number of Late Bronze Age dwellings that have been excavated, for example, is limited (see, e.g., Gonen 1992: 221). However, despite the limited archaeological exposure, over the years more than 20 Late Bronze Age temples have been unearthed in the southern Levant (for general treatments, see Nakhai 2001: 119-60; Hess 2007:

BASOR 360

125-40; Gonen 1992: 222-32; Mazar 1992: 169-83; Ottosson 1980; Wright 1985: 218-23). A selective list of temples includes Shechem, Hazor (at least four temples), Megiddo, Lachish (two temples), Tel Mevorakh, Beth Shean, Timnah, Amman airport, Tel Kitan, Pella, Tel Nami, and probably also Tell Abu Hawam, Tell Abu Al-Kharaz, Tell Deir 'Alia, Tell Safut, Khirbet Umm ad-Dananir, and Shiloh. Nahariya, Tel Mor, Gezer, and perhaps even Mt. Gerizim (if the structures can be dated to the early phase of the Late Bronze Age), might also be included in the list.^ Finally, a recent discovery from Tall el-^Umayri (Herr and Clark 2009: 76-81) might supplement the list of Late Bronze Age temples. It is therefore clear that during the Late Bronze Age, temples were common and widespread. There was at least one temple in each settlement (including relatively small settlements), and in some cases there was more than one such structure at a single site. Furthermore, a number of temples have been unearthed outside settlements (e.g., the Fosse Temple at Lachish and the Amman airport temple), providing additional evidence for the wide distribution of temples in this era. Rural Cult in the Bronze Age Due to the demographic decline of the Late Bronze Age, no examples of Late Bronze Age villages have been excavated to an extent that would allow for any social analysis of a community. However, the data from Middle Bronze Age villages may be considered illustrative. Six Middle Bronze Age villages have been excavated or surveyed to an extent that allows some reconstruction of settlement planning and community organization. These have been discussed in detail in a recent analysis of the social organization of the Middle Bronze Age Canaanite village (Faust 2005a). The sites are Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer 1994; 1995), Tel Kitan 3 This is a partial list composed of sites mentioned by Gonen (1992: 222-32) and Nakhai (2001: 119-60); it excludes some sites at which no architectural remains (or other sufficient evidence for temples) were unearthed, e.g., Aphek, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and even Jafifa, as well as the structure north of Jerusalem, the remains of which were unearthed at St. Etienne (and interpreted by Barkay as a temple). Mazar (1992: 169-83) was more critical, rejecting the identification of some of the above-mentioned sites as temples, but even he identified more than 10 such buildings. Furthermore, since Mazar did not discuss all the relevant sites (e.g.. Pella), it is likely that even the most critical "counting" will end up with a figure that approaches 15 Late Bronze Age temples.

2010

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE CULT

(Eisenberg 1976; 1993b), Givat Sharet (near BethShemesh) (Bahat 1975; 1993), Nahal Rephaim (Eisenberg 1993a), Manahat (Edelstein 1993), and probably Kfar Rupin (Gophna 1979). Interestingly, temples have been unearthed at all six sites. Differences exist between the sites: at some, the temples were large and dominated the settlement (Tell el-Hayyat and Tel Kitan); at others, the temples were small (Nahal Rephaim, Manahat, and Givat Sharet). The important point, however, is that temples appear to be typical of Middle Bronze Age villages. Overall, these sites suggest that during the Middle (and probably Late) Bronze Age, temples were prevalent in rural settings, and there was probably a temple or cultic building in every Canaanite village (Faust 2005a). Iron Age Temples Outside the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah Although the polities surrounding the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah have been excavated to a much more limited extent, temples have been found fairly frequently in those regions. In Philistia, for example, a series of Iron Age temples were found at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1980) and at Ekron/Tel Miqne (Dothan 2003; Gitin 2003), and another one was unearthed at Nahal Patish (Nahshoni 2008; 2009). In addition, a temple has very recently been reported at Tell es-Safi/ Gath (see, e.g., the report by Hartman 2010)."* It thus seems that temples were a typical feature of Philistine sites. Interestingly, Ekron and Gath are the only sites among the four that continued into the Iron II period, and both sites had temples dating to that period. Although excavations in Moab have been extremely limited, a temple or shrine was recently found at Khirbat al-Mudayna (Daviau and Steiner 2000). Cultic structures have also been found outside settlements, such as at Wadi Thamad Site 13 in Moab (Daviau and Dion 2002), at Khirbet Qitmit in the Negev (Beit-Arieh 1991; 1995), and also just outside the fort of "^En Hazeva in tfie Aravah (Cohen and Yisrael 1995: 224-28). Whether these structures should be associated with the Edomites (e.g., Beit-Arieh 1991; 1995 [for Qitmit]) or any other group is of less importance (we tend to associate the phenomenon with the Arabian trade; see already Finkelstein 1995: 139-53). •' Some scholars also identified a temple at Ashdod (e.g., Wright 1985: 224; Dothan 1993: 100; Nakhai 2001: 197). Still, it is likely this was only a cult room, part of a larger building (Mazar 1992: 186); in order to err on the side of caution, it will not be discussed here.

27

What is notable is that these group(s) in the southern parts of Israel and Jordan built special structures for cultic purposes. Temples are also known from the Iron Age polities to the north of Israel and Judah. Despite their limited exposure. Iron II temples have been unearthed at various sites in the Aramaean states to the north, e.g., at Tell Ta'^yinat, "^Ain Dara, Aleppo, and Hama (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 370-75). The same is true for the Phoenician cities: while excavations have been extremely limited in number and scope. Iron Age Phoenician shrines have been exposed at Sarepta, Tell Sukas, and Tell Arqa, and probably at Kition on Cyprus (e.g., Markoe 2000: 125-29).^ TEMPLES IN IRON II ISRAEL AND JUDAH Despite the large number of excavations of Iron Age II levels in Israel and Judah, and the large overall exposure of many sites, and notwithstanding the great academic interest in Israelite religion(s), hardly any temples or buildings devoted to cultic purposes have been unearthed in the areas of these kingdoms. One can scrutinize the list of cultic places supplied by various scholars, but to no avail. Most of the Iron II cult places are caves or cultic corners within structures (and the cultic nature of many has been doubted). The only "real" temple excavated in Israel and Judah is the temple at Arad (Aharoni 1993, and references cited therein). The complex at Dan might also be included (Biran 1994: 159-233), although the identification here also depends on the biblical text. In an article on the temples of the Bronze and Iron Ages, Mazar (1992: 161-83) devoted a lengthy discussion to the many temples of the second millennium B.c.E. and then noted the paucity of evidence for temples in the Iron II (Mazar 1992: 183): "[WJhereas finds from the Late Bronze Age are abundant, only a small number of sacred structures from the Iron Age II (tenth-sixth centuries B.c.) have been uncovered in Israel. These buildings are diversified in form and each of them is problematic" (p. 183; emphasis added). The only two examples of excavated Iron Age II temples cited by Mazar are the temple at Arad and the complex at Dan (Mazar 1992: 184-86; see also Niditch 1997: 19). Other scholars have tnentioned ' For a longer list of possible non-Israelite temples, see Nakhai 2001: 197, n. 26; the identification of some of the sites on the listas cultic can be que.stioned.

28

BASOR 360

AVRAHAM FAUST

only the sanctuary at Arad (e.g., Ottosson 1980: 108; see also Fritz 1995: 147; Wright 1985: 214, 252; Dever 2005: 170). The scarcity of temples was also expressed in Barkay's (1992) chapter on the Iron II period in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (Ben-Tor 1992). Although this is the longest chapter in the book (and rightly so, given the large exposure of levels from this period), it does not have a section or heading on temples and cultic structures, in stark contrast to chapters devoted to earlier periods (see, e.g., Gonen 1992: 222-32; Kempinski 1992: 174-175, 196-97). Many of the scholars cited above, who discussed Israelite religion(s), were, of course, aware of the paucity of the evidence, and Dever (2005: 170) explicitly wrote that "the only known full-fledged Israelite temple of the monarchic period is the one excavated at Arad . . ." (see also Dever 1983: 573). Zevit admitted (2001: 124) that, "by quirk of fate, the clearest incontrovertible examples of cult sites relative to the religion of Israelites come from excavations at sites belonging to Israel's Iron Age neighbors . . ." (see also Wright 1985: 248-49; Fritz 1995: 145). While the present article is not suggesting that the temple(s) at Arad (along with the probable sanctuary at Dan) was (were) the only cultic building(s) that existed in Iron Age II Israel and Judah—it is quite clear that there was one in Jerusalem, for example, and one may assume that there were a few more that have not yet been discovered—the evidence indicates that such buildings were a rare phenomenon, much rarer than in the Bronze Age or in the surrounding Iron Age polities. Urban Temples in Iron Age Israel and Judah Iron II levels have been exposed at dozens of sites in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, but as noted above, hardly any temples have been found. Moreover, a number of Iron II levels were excavated to a uniquely large extent—such an extensive exposure has no parallel in the second millennium B.C.E.—but to no avail. For example, the site at Beth-Shemesh has been excavated almost in its entirety by three expeditions (see Bunimovitz and Lederman 1993; and additional references), but no shrine was found. At Tell en-Nasbeh (biblical Mizpah), too, almost the entire Iron Age II city was exposed (Zorn 1993a; 1993b; and references), but no temples were found. The situation in Tell Beit Mirsim is similar (Albright 1943; 1993; although its exposure was less massive). Large areas were excavated also in Beersheba (e.g., Herzog 1993), but despite the search, no temple was found (a dismantled horned altar was discovered, but no cul-

tic building). The excavation of Iron II levels at other sites—e.g., Hazor and Tell el-Far'^ah (N)—also greatly exceeded those at most Late Bronze Age settlements, but still no Iron II cultic buildings were unearthed. It is important also to consider the changing urban landscape in various Iron Age cities, where areas that for centuries served sacred purposes changed their character and became secular in the Iron II. As Ottosson (1980: 106) has noted, "at sites such as Megiddo, Hazor and Shechem, where clearly delimited temple areas could be excavated,. . . the cultic tradition vanishes completely during the Iron Age" (see also Halpern 2000: 559). In summary, other than at Arad, and perhaps Dan (along with Jerusalem, which is known from literary sources), no temples are known from urban sites within the area encompassing Iron Age II Israel and Judah. Rural Temples in Iron Age Israel and Judah A number of Israelite Iron II villages have been excavated to a large extent (e.g., Faust 2000b), especially at Khirbet Jemein (Dar 1986), Beit Aryeh (Riklin 1997), and Khirbet Jarish (Amit 1989-1990). In some cases, such as Khirbet Jemein and Beit Aryeh, almost the entire area of the settlement has been excavated. Still, despite the fact that this exposure was larger than that of the Bronze Age villages described above, and notwithstanding the eagerness of archaeologists to find evidence for Israelite cult, no temples or shrines were found at any of these sites. ISRAELITE T E M P L E S :

A QUANTIFIED ANALYSIS If temples were as prevalent in the Iron II as in the Late Bronze Age, many dozens of temples should have been found, since the Iron Age II levels have been exposed to a much greater extent than those of the Late Bronze Age. This phenomenon is the result of a number of factors. For one thing, the Iron II was a much more densely populated period, with a much higher population than during the Late Bronze Age. The population of the Iron II (west of the Jordan River) has been estimated at 400,000 (Broshi and Finkelstein 1992), while that at the peak of the Late Bronze Age has been estimated at only 50,000 (e.g., Dever 2003: 98; Stager 1998).^ Although the precise numbers can s Other scholars have suggested slightly lower (46,000 people according to Herzog 1999: 48) or higher (60,000 people according

2010

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE CULT

be debated, the general trends are clear, since the various studies have used similar methods and coefficients. Admittedly, the total figures compare the Late Bronze Age population with the entire population of the Iron II (and not just in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah). According to Broshi and Finkelstein (1992: 54), the estimated population of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah was 332,500 (west of the Jordan River only), i.e., six to seven times larger than the estimated population of the entire country in the Late Bronze Age. The differences between the two periods can be seen not only in the number ofthe estimated population, but also in the number of excavated sites. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (NEAEHL; Stern 1993)^ and the salvage excavation databases (e.g., Faust and Safrai 2005) can serve as a general guide (the latter covers only Cisjordan, and while the former includes also a few sites in Transjordan, those have not been counted). The number of sites in the NEAEHL (which is biased toward large sites and mounds) in which settlement remains from the Late Bronze Age were found is only 87, while the number of Iron ff settlements is 158. When the salvage excavations database (which is biased toward small, rural sites) is examined, the difference becomes even larger: while only 45 Late Bronze Age settlement sites might be inferred, the number of fron II sites is 136.^ The above data reveal that the country was far more populated during the Iron II than during the Late Bronze Age, and sites belonging to the Iron Age fl were excavated to a much larger extent than those belonging to the Late Bronze Age. Hence, more remains of all types (including cultic buildings) should be expected to turn up in the Iron II levels—if they were present in the same frequency. Furthermore, the above evidence reveals only part of the gap between the two periods, since it takes into account only the number of sites and not the extent of exposure of the different strata. Many Iron 11 fevels—which typically are the upper levels in most ancient mounds—have been exposed to a large extent (as noted above), while no Late Bronze Age sites have

to Broshi 1993a: 423; 60,000-70.000 people according to Broshi 1993b: 14) figures. ^ I did not include the information from the fifth volume ofthe NEAEHL. The data in the first four volumes are sufficient for statistical purposes, and since the fifth volume also includes many small sites, it is less suitable for comparative purposes (and its "urban" bias is more limited). " The vast majority of the excavations were carried out within the boundaries of the Iron Age II kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

29

been excavated to such a degree. This means that the actual difference in exposure is much larger than that revealed only by looking at the number of sites. The number of excavated Late Bronze Age dwellings versus those of the Iron Age can serve as a good example of this gap. Gonen (1992: 22f), for example, has noted the scarcity of excavated dweflings from the Late Bronze Age. Daviau (f 993: 2f 9-436) examined the evidence for excavated structures from the Late Bronze Age, and whife she concfuded that the data on many of the structures were insufficient for her purposes, her study gives an idea as to the number of complete structures that were exposed. One can debate whether a house faffs into the category of a complete building, but it seems that a generous counting of complete houses will arrive at a total of no more than 45 buildings throughout the country (including structures that Daviau did not study in detail due to the lack of available information). Since the above was a generous estimate, it is safe to assume that enlarging the number of excavated Late Bronze Age dwellings to 50 will be the maximal figure possible.' As for the Iron Age II period, well over 200 Iron II dwellings have been exposed in Israel and Judah,'" and if the archaeological evidence is carefully examined, the number will probably be larger still, especially if the non-Israelite regions (e.g., the coast and the northern valleys) are also taken into account. To err on the side of caution, we can compare a high figure of 50 Late Bronze Age dwellings and the low estimate of 200 Iron fl dwellings. If such numbers are taken as a rough guide to the areas exposed for both periods, we should expect to have roughly four times more Iron II finds than simifar finds from the Late Bronze Age, shoufd their relative frequency be similar. On a random basis, we might therefore expect ' The aim in "counting" the structures is not to arrive at an estimate ofthe number of Late Bronze Age buildings, nor at the total and exact number of excavated dwellings. Rather, it aims to establish a basis of comparison between periods. If a few more houses were excavated after Daviau's book was published (or even if some structures were not discussed by her at all), this is immaterial for our purposes and would not change the overall picture. '" In an earlier work, for example, I disctissed (2005b: 232-36), 130 complete houses, but this is only a partial list (compiled in 1997, for other purposes) of complete hou.ses, and even then one could have added dozens of additional structures at various sites. For example, only 26 structures at Tell en-Na.sbeh were discussed in Fau.st 2005b: 81-85, whereas Zorn (1993b: 116-20) analyzed some 70 structures (most of which can be regarded as "complete"). For Beth-Shemesh, the discusstion includes only three structures, though dozens were exposed. A similar situation exists wilh regard to additional sites, e.g., Beersheba and Tell Beit Mirsini.

30

BASOR 360

AVRAHAM FAUST

Iron II temples to be more numerous by a factor of four than those of the Late Bronze Age. Since at least 20 Late Bronze Age temples have been unearthed, no fewer than 80 Iron Age tefnples might be expected to be found, if they were as frequent in this period as in the Late Bronze Age. Since this is not the case, and an unequivocal Iron Age temple has only been found at Arad (and perhaps one also at Dan), it is clear that the finds are not random, and the difference is remarkable and requires an explanation." The same phenomenon is true when comparing the Iron Age II finds in Israel and Judah with those of their neighbors. In Philistia, for example, only four Iron II Philistine sites have been excavated to an extent that allows for discussion (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron [Tel Miqne], and Gath [Tel Zafit/Tell es-Safi]), and even those were excavated only to a very limited extent. At Ekron, for example, only 4% of the area of the Iron Age site was excavated (Gitin 1998: 276), and the situation at other sites is similar. Thus, the discovery of the temples at Ekron (and probably at Gath) indicates that temples existed in Philistia,'^ and there were possibly even a few at every site. Given the extensive exposure of so many sites in Judah and Israel, the absence of temples within those kingdoms is striking, especially when compared with Philistia, Phoenicia, Moab, and other nearby regions. It seems, therefore, that the absence of built temples or shrines is an important feature of Israelite religion (see already Dever 1995: 205; Faust 2006: 93-94). This stands in contrast to the way Canaanite religions were practiced during the Bronze Age, and also to the Iron Age religious practices outside Israel and Judah. Therefore, the absence of built temples may be considered a unique characteristic of Israelite religion, and this phenomenon needs to be addressed. The Absence of Evidence Critics will say that it is impossible to argue on the basis of the non-discovery of something. While this claim sounds sensible, it is not necessarily the case. If no research has been done, then we cannot say that since something was not found, it did not ex" The above is not intended to give a sense of exact numbers, but it does convey the lack (or rarity) of temples in the Iron Age. Even if one were to claim that only 10 "real" Late Bronze temples have been identified—the rest being secular buildings—the number of Iron Age II temples would still be extremely low when compared with those of the Late Bronze Age, and this is what the quantified discussion is intended to express. '^ Note that some scholars suggested that a temple was found also at Ashdod (see above, n. 4).

ist. When research has been conducted, however, and certain finds that were supposed to be found were not, then the lack of such finds might be meaningful. The harder one looks for something that, on the basis of evidence from other sites or periods, is supposed to be present (but is not), the more the absence gains significance, and eventually one may conclude that that "something" is at least very rare. The absence of pig bones in certain contexts (whatever the explanation for tbe absence; see, e.g., Hesse and Wapnish 1997; and references cited there) is a good example of where the absence of evidence requires an explanation. Yet another example of "absent" elements—tombs of the early Iron Age—will be discussed below. We have seen that from a quantitative perspective, temples were expected to be found in Iron Age Israel and Judah. Their absence is therefore significant. DISCUSSION Our survey of non-Israelite cultic structures in the Bronze and Iron Ages puts the archeological finds in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in their proper context. The archaeological evidence discussed by previous studies on Israelite religion(s) might indeed relate to cult, but as far as cultic structures (like Arad) are concerned, they are exceptional rather than the rule. As a whole, "real" temples or sanctuaries are almost entirely missing from tbe archaeological record of Iron Age II Israel and Judah. There was no "city temple," "village shrine," or "neighborhood sanctuary" in those polities, and there were no regional cultic centers spread across the landscape—or at least no identifiable special structures that were built for this purpose. Older scholarship was heavily influenced by tbe biblical data, and to a large extent Israelite religion was reconstructed on the basis of the interpretation of the texts. Israelite religion has been a focus of intensive research; and prior knowledge, based on the text, has long influenced the research questions. To be more specific, we "knew" that the Israelite religion was practiced all over the country until Josiah's reforms, and therefore we reconstructed such a religion (or religions).'3 Biblically driven conceptions influenced historical reconstructions. Thus, "at the end of the monarchy in Judah the relationship between local and central sanctuaries was reversed. While in the préstate period there were only local sanctuaries, and dur-

'3 For the significance of Josiah's (and Hezekiah's) reforms in this context, see, e.g., Albertz 1994; Vogt 2006; see also Fritz 1995; 145; Borowski 2003; 24.

2010

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE CULT

ing the whole monarchical period both existed side by side, under Josiah at the end of the seventh century the local sanctuaries were closed and the cult was centralized in Jerusalem" (Kessler 2008: 89; see also Hagedorn 2005: 204; Vogt 2006: 44, 46). What seems clear is that scholars have used the data from Bronze Age Canaanite temples to reconstruct the existence of Iron Age cult buildings.''' The few (exceptional) Iron Age cultic buildings in Israel and Judah have been regarded as representative, and have been used to complement a picture that, on the basis of a hypothesis derived from the Bible, has been drawn using the evidence from the Bronze Age or from neighboring Iron Age cultures.'^ While such an integrative methodology, which incorporates updated archaeological data with critical textual analysis, is the right approach in many cases, it also has its risks. It appears that in this case, the biblically driven expectations led (1) to a strong will to look for evidence for cult in general and cultic structures in particular (and at times encouraged the interpretation of finds as cultic, even when the evidence was questionable, but this is beyond the scope of this paper), and (2) to extrapolate from the finds, i.e., to use the data that was unearthed as an example of what must have been the reality. While this would be the right procedure when the finds are representative, it does not seem to be the case here. Instead, unique situations have been treated as representative examples of Israelite cult-places.

31

any Iron Age I (and early Iron Age II) burials have been found in Israel and Judah, but although this was "known" (e.g., Tappy 1995: 65-66; Ilan 1997a: 385; 1997b: 220), the pattern was not systematically considered until recently (Kletter 2002; Faust 2004). Studies of Iron Age burial practices quite naturally concentrated on the famous Judahite tombs of the late Iron Age (and on the few tombs from the earlier phases of the period), and the "absence" of the finds from most of the period was not dealt with. The few early tombs that were unearthed were discussed, and the degree of continuity between them and those of the preceding and succeeding periods was analyzed. As a result, the most important element—that most of the population was not buried in such tombs—was often left unmentioned. This was yet another case where archaeological scholarship has focused on the exception and ignored the rule, if the evidence, for whatever reason, was not present. After well over a century of extensive archaeological research on ancient Israel, we cannot ignore elements that were supposed to be found but were not. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

An interesting question is, why has this pattern not been identified before? The answer lies in several factors. First, we must remember the biblical infiuence and the expectation of archaeologists to find the period's many supposed shrines. Not less important, however, has been the tendency of archaeologists to explain the evidence that has been unearthed, and, with a large degree of justification, to ignore "things" that have not been found. As with the temples discussed here, the same has been true for burials. Hardly

Temples have played an important role in many periods and societies and are therefore abundant among the remains of many cultures. Still, despite the exposure of large areas—sometimes almost complete settlements—archaeologists have unearthed hardly any Israelite Iron II cult buildings. Given the many excavations and the large exposure of Iron Age settlements—exposure that greatly exceeds that of other periods—this rarity seems to be a significant aspect of Israelite cult. However the Israelites practiced their religion, the archaeological evidence suggests that it generally was not performed in temples or other cultic buildings erected for this purpose. The realization that temples and shrines were rare in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah is an important step in understanding Israelite religious practices and should encourage scholars to reframe their understanding of Israelite religion.'^

''' In some cases, previous studies of Israelite religion(s) also treated Iron Age non-Israelite sites, and this has added to the eonfusion. Compare, for example, Nakhai's discussion of (Iron I) Tel Qiri and similar sites (2001: 174, 176), with FinkeKstein's (1999) and Faust's (2000a) views of that site's inhabitants as Canaanites. '^ To this, scholars have added the limited evidence for cultic activity unearthed in other locations, such as inside structures or in corners or rooms (.see, e.g., Aharoni 1975: 26-32; note that even those may be questioned in many cases).

" To reiterate, there is archaeological evidence for cult in the Iron Age, but not for cultic buildings as defined above (with the exception of the structures mentioned in the text). The evidence for eult in other locales can teach us a great deal about how the Israelites did practice cult, but the argument in this paper has been that it was only rarely practiced in structures ereeted specilically for this purpose.

Why Was the Pattern Not Identified?

32

AVRAHAM FAUST

BASOR 360

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I had the opportunity to discuss some of the ideas expressed in this article with Raz Kletter, William Dever, and Ziony Zevit, and I am grateful to them for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank the late

Professor Hanan Eshel for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this article, and to the editor of this journal and the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. All mistakes and errors are, of course, mine.

REFERENCES Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Schwartz, G. M. 2003 The Archaeology of Syria: Erom Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000-300 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University. Aharoni, M. 1993 [Arad] The Israelite Citadels. Pp 82-87 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster. Aharoni, Y. 1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish Vj. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 4. Tel Aviv: Gateway. Albertz, R. 1994 A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Trans. J. Bowden, from German. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. Albright, W. E 1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. 3: The Iron Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 21-22. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1993 Beit Mirsim, Tell. Pp. 177-80 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster. Amit, D. 1989- Khirbet Jarish. Excavations and Surveys in Is1990 rae/9: 157-58. Bahat, D. 1975 Excavations at Giv'at Sharett near Beth-Shemesh. Qadmoniot 8/30-31: 64-67 (Hebrew). 1993 [Beth-Shemesh] Givat Sharet. Pp. 253-54 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. I, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster. Barkay, G. 1992 The Iron Age II-III. Pp. 302-73 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor. Trans. R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven: Yale University. Beit-Arieh, I. 1991 The Edomite Shrine at Horvat Qitmit in the Judean Negev: Preliminary Excavation Report. Tel 18: 93-116.

1995

Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series 11. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Ben-Tor, A., ed. 1992 The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Trans. R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven: Yale University. Biran, D. 1994 Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Borowski, O. 2003 Daily Life in Biblical Times. Archaeological and Biblical Studies 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Broshi, M. 1993a Methodology of Population Estimates: The Roman-Byzantine Period as Case Study. Pp. 420-25 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1993b The Population of Iron Age Palestine. Pp. 1418 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: PreCongress Symposium: Population, Production and Power, Jerusalem, June 1990: Supplement, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Broshi, M., and Finkelstein, I. 1992 The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287: 47-60. Bunimovitz, S. 1995 On the Edge of Empires—Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 BCE). Pp. 320-31 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Eacts on Eile. Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. 1993 Beth-Shemesh. Pp. 249-53 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster Cohen, R., and Yisrael, Y. 1995 The Iron Age Fortresses at 'En Haseva. Biblical Archaeologist 52,: 223-35.

2010

Dar, S. 1986

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE CULT

Hirbet Jemein—A First Temple Village in Western Samaria. Pp. 13-73 in Shomron Studies, ed. S. Dar and Z. Safrai. Tel Aviv; Hakibutz Hameuchad (Hebrew). Daviau, P. M. M. 1993 Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine: Domestic Activity Areas and Artefact Distribution in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. JSOT/ASOR Monographs Series 8. Sheffield; JSOT Daviau, P M. M., and Dion, P-M. 2002 Moab Comes to Life. Biblical Archaeology Review 2Sn:3S-49, 63. Daviau, P. M. M., and Steiner, M. 2000 A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re.search 320: 1-21. Dever, W. G. 1983 Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient Israel; An Essay in Archaeological Systematics. Pp. 571-87 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O'Connor. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. 1995 Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel's Origins. Biblical Archaeologist 5S: 200-213. 2003 Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids; Eerdmans. 2005 Did God Have a Wife ? A rchaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans. Dothan, M. 1993 Ashdod. Pp. 93-102 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. I, ed. E. Stern. New York; Simon & Schuster. Dothan, T. 2003 The Aegean and the Orient; Cultic Interactions. Pp. 189-213 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. Edelstein, G. 1993 Manahat—A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 26/\03-\04: 96-102 (Hebrew). Eisenberg, E. 1976 The Middle Bronze Age Temples at Tel Kittan. Qadmoniot 9/36: 106-8 (Hebrew). 1993a Kitan, Tel. Pp. 878-91 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

33

Land, Vol. 3, ed. E. Stern. New York; Simon & Schuster. 1993b Nahal Rephaim—A Brotize Age Village in Southwesterti Jerusaletn. Qadmoniot 26/103104; 82-95 (Hebrew). Falconer, S. E. 1994 Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Valley; A Study of Bronze Age Rural Cotnplexity. Pp. 121-42 in Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and S. E. Falconer. Washingtoti, DC; Smithsonian Institution. 1995 Rural Responses to Early Urbanism; Bronze Age Household and Village Econotny at Tell elHayyat, Jordan. Joumal of Field Archaeology 22; 399-419. Faust, A. 2000a Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during the Iron Age II. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 132; 1-27. 2000b The Rural Cotnmunity in Ancient Israel during Iron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 317; 17-39. 2004 Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology; The Lack of Iron Age I Burials in Highlands in Context. Israel Exploration Journal 54; 174-90. 2005a The Canaanite Village; Social Structure of Middle Bronze Age Rural Communities. Levant 37; 105-25. 2005b Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Perspective. Jerusalem; Yad Ben Zvi (Hebrew). 2006 Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance. London; Equinox. Faust, A., and Safrai, Z. 2005 Salvage Excavatiotis as a Source for Reconstructing Settlement History in Ancient Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137; 139-58. Finkelstein, I. 1995 Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6. Sheffield; Sheffield Acadetnic. 1999 State Fonnation in Israel and Judah; A Contrast in Context, A Contrast in Trajectory. Near Eastern Archaeology 62; 35-52. Flannery, K. V, ed. 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York; Acadetnic. Fritz, V. 1995 The City in Ancient Israel. Biblical Seminar 29. Sheffield; Sheffield Academic. Frye, R. N. 1996 The Heritage of Central Asia: From Antiquity to the Turkish Expansion. Princeton; Wiener.

34

Gitin, S. 1998

2003

AVRAHAM FAUST

The Philistines in the Prophetic Texts: An Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 273-90 in Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, ed. J. Magness and S. Gitin. Brown Judaic Studies 320. Atlanta: Scholars. Israelite and Philistine Cult and the Archaeological Record in Iron Age II: The "Smoking" Guti Phenomenon. Pp. 279-95 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power ofthe Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gonen, R. 1992 The Late Bronze Age. Pp. 211-57 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor. Trans. R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven: Yale University. Gophna, R. 1979 A Middle Bronze Age II Village in the Jordan Valley, re/AviV 6: 28-33. Hagedorn, A. C. 2005 Placing (a) God: Central Place Theory in Deuteronomy 12 and at Delphi. Pp. 188-211 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 422. London: T & T Clark. Halpern, B. 2000 Centre and Sentry: Megiddo's Role in Transit, Administration and Trade. Pp. 535-75 in Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons, ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern. 2 vols. Monograph Series 18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Haran, M. 1981 Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the Bible. Pp. 31-37 in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Hartman, B 2010 Temple Found in Philistine Home of Goliath, Jerusalem Post, 29 July 2010. http://www. Jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article. aspx?id= 182962 (accessed 22 September 2010). Herr, L. G., and Clark, D. R. 2009 From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jordan: Digging Up Tall al-'^Umayri. Near Eastern Archaeology 72: 68-97. Herzog, Z. 1993 [Beersheba] Tel Beersheba. Pp. 167-73 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava-

1999

BASOR 360

tions in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster. The Canaanite City between Ideology and Archaeological Reality. Pp. 42-50 in Material Culture, Society and Ideology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel, ed. A. Faust and A. Maeir. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew).

Hess, R. S. 2007 Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Hesse, B., and Wapnish, P. 1997 Can Pig Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East? Pp. 238-70 in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, ed. N. A. Silberman and D. Small. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 237. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Holladay, J. S. 1987 Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach. Pp. 249-99 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, P D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. Ilan, D. 1997a Burial Sites. Pp. 384-86 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 1, ed. E. Meyers. New York: Oxford University. 1997b Tombs. Pp. 218-21 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 5, ed. E. Meyers. New York: Oxford University. Kempinski, A. 1992 The Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 159-210 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor. Trans. R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven: Yale University. Kessler, R. 2008 The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Introduction. Trans. L. M. Maloney, from German. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kletter, R. 2002 People without Burials? The Lack of Iron 1 Burials in the Central Highlands of Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 52: 28-48. Levy, T. E. 2006 Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, London: Equinox. Markoe, G. E. 2000 Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California. Mazar, A. 1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One: The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

2010

1992

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ISRAELITE CULT

Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Pp. 161-87 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period: In Memory of Immanuel (Munya) Dunayevsky, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem; Israel Exploration Society. McNuU, P M. 1999 Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Louisville; Westminster John Knox. Nahshoni, P. 2008 Evidence for Cult in a Rural Shrine in the Northwestern Negev. Paper presented at a conference on Philistines in Southern Israel; New Studies, Ben-Gurion University. 2009 A Philistine Temple in the Northwestern Negev. Qadmoniot A2I\3%: 88-92 (Hebrew). Nakhai, B. A. 2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel. ASOR Books 7. Boston; American Schools of Oriental Research. Niditch, S. 1997 Ancient Israelite Religion. New York; Oxford University. Ottosson, M. 1980 Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. Acta Universtatis Upsaliensis, BOREAS 12. Uppsala; Altnqvist & Wiksell. Renfrew, C. 1985 The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. Supplementary Volume (British School at Athens) 18. London; British School of Archaeology at Athens. 1994 The Archaeology of Religion. Pp. 47-54 in The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow. Cambridge; Cambridge University. Renfrew, C , and Bahn, P 2004 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. 4th ed. London; Thames and Hudson. Riklin, S. 1997 Bet Aryé. 'Atiqot 32; 7-20 (Hebrew), 37*-38* (English summary).

35

Smith, M. S. 2002 The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans. Stager, L. E. 1998 Forging an Identity; The Emergence of Ancient Israel. Pp. 123-75 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M. D. Coogan. New York; Oxford University. Stern, E., ed. 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem; Israel Exploration Society. Tappy, R. 1995 Did the Dead Ever Die in Biblical Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

298; 59-68. Vogt, P T 2006

Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. Wright, G. E. 1978 A Characteristic North Israelite House. Pp. 149-54 in Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr. Warminster; Aris & Phillips. Wright, G. R. H. 1985 Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. 2 vols. Handbuch der Orientalistik 7;I;2;B3. Leiden; Brill. Zevit, Z.

2001 Zorn, J. 1993a

1993b

The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. New York; Continuutn. Nasbeh, Tell en-. Pp. 1098-1102 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 3, ed. E. Stern. New York; Simon & Schuster. Tell en-Nasbeh; A Re-Evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Was There a Joint Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by Tyrian Phoenicians and Early Israelites?* BARRY J. BEITZEL Department of Old Testament and Semitic Languages Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 2065 Half Day Road Deerfield, IL600I5 [email protected] There existed somewhere on the Mediterranean Sea an Iron Age site or sites known outside the Bible as "Tarshish" by Phoenicians, Assyrians, and possibly by Canaanites. Evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, a site identified as Tarshish was occupied by an early Phoenician military force, as Phoenicians are otherwise known to have been navigating a broad sweep of the Mediterranean as early as the tenth century B.c. This essay's conceptual premise is that this evidence is sufficient to challenge the so-called generic interpretation of "Tarshish" and "the ship(s) of Tarshish" often referenced in respect to the Hebrew Bible and may even be sufficient to entertain the notion that the Solomonic narratives relating to Tarshish be accorded a certain measure of historical plausibility.

Mediterranean would return from Tarshish with more varied cargoes (cf. Lipiñski 1991: 5-6; 2004: 225-26). istorical notices in the Hebrew Bible seem How many times or with what frequency the vessels to speak of a maritime partnership between may have plied the Red Sea we are not told, but both Tyrian Phoenicia and early Israel, accord- the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler indicate that ing to which Hiram and Solomon commissioned one voyages to Tarshish would return every three years joint merchant fleet on the Red Sea which sailed to (1 Kgs 10:22b; 2 Chr 9:21b). the destination port of Ophir (1 Kgs 9:26-28; 10:11A number of influential historians today regard 12; 2 Chr 8:17-18; 9:10-11) and another fleet on the Hiram's partnership with Solomon on the Red Sea Mediterranean Sea which traveled as far as Tatshish as a reliable tradition (e.g.. Miller and Hayes 2006: (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21). The text indicates that the 194, 206-11; Miller 1997: 11; Katzenstein 1996: Red Sea operation, whatever its nature, focused almost 1.244-45; Soggin 1984: 78; cf. Ahlström 1993: 518; exclusively on exploiting the gold resources of Ophir Aubet 2001: 64-68; Malamat 2004: 190-98, 203-7; (located either in East Africa or in the southwestern Liverani 1991: 68-73, but see now 2005: 100)'—one Arabian Peninsula; Moritz 1923: 65-117), while, by that would have to be characterized as a plausible contrast, it appears the royal fleet ["pKib TWiK] on the argument lacking any sort of external corroboration (see below)—whereas many of these same authorities view any such nautical enterprise on the Mediterra* An earlier draft of this essay was presented at the annual meetnean with great skepticism, perceiving in this case that ing of the American Schools of Oriental Research. San Diego. 16 INTRODUCTION

H

November 2(K)7. I am grateful to the members of the audience for their helpful comments. In particular, I wish to express appreciation to Ayelet Gilboa. who kindly drew my attention to the recent discovery of materials at Huelva, Spain. My essay also has benefited immensely from several stimulating conversations with Carolina Lopez-Ruiz and from the attentive critique of my colleague Lawson Younger.

' In another iteration. Ikeda (1991: I l3-2.'i) understands these texts to mean that Hiram's men constructed "ships of Tarshish" for Solomon at their shipyards in Phoenicia and then dispatched them to a port along the Jaffa coast, where they were dismantled, transshipped overland to E/ion-geber, and subsequently reassembled there to sail the Red Sea to Ophir.

37

38

BARRY J. BEITZEL

the biblical historians were engaging in hyperbole, tendentiously describing in grandiose style a "golden age" of Solomon.2 Moreover, or perhaps as a result, a great many biblical scholars conflate all these texts into a single maritime activity and locate the undertaking on the Red Sea, either on literary-critical grounds or on the strength of an account that describes a faifed nautical venture of Jehoshaphat (see below). As a consequence, a very broad spectrum of contemporary scholarship embraces the notion that the biblicaf expression "the ship(s) of Tarshish" in its original usage represents either a poetic or mythic designation for the Sea generaf ly or must denote a certain type of nauticaf vessef of oceangoing quafity or size. This essay aims at presenting key evidence to undergird two propositions: (f) that there existed on the Mediterranean Sea an Iron Age site or sites known outside the Bibfe by Phoenicians, Assyrians, and possibfy by Canaanites, as "Tarshish," which was occupied on at feast one occasion by Phoenicians; and (2) that earfy Phoenicians were navigating a broad sweep ofthe Mediterranean by the tenth century B.c. f befieve this evidence is sufficient to chaffenge the generic understanding of "Tarshish" and "the ship(s) of Tarshish" referenced above and may even be sufficient to entertain the notion that the Solomonic narratives refating to Tarshish in the Hebrew Bibfe be accorded a certain level of historical pfausibifity.

TARSHISH: A GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION ON THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA

The burden of my quest must inevitabfy commence with the word "Tarshish" itseff, a fexeme found in both the Bibfe and Near Eastern fiterature. Beyond its appearance in the Bible as a personaf name (e.g.. Gen fO:4; f Chr 7:10) or a precious stone or jewel (e.g., Exod 28:20; Ezek 1:16; Dan fO:6), Tarshish occurs some fO times as an efement in the expression "the ship(s) of Tarshish" (e.g., f Kgs f0:22;22:49;Isa2:f6; 23: f ; 60:9; Ezek 27:25), and 14 times as a pface-name, often in association with the port cities of Tyre (e.g..

- The element of hyperbole or even ideologically driven glorification is sometimes found in ancient Near Eastern literature relating to royalty—whether in the context of personal accomplishments, military victories, architectural achievements, wisdom and wealth, or large and inflated numbers—where its usage is understood not to be inherently incompatible with an essentially historical reading of a text (e.g.. Barr 2000: 59-101: Frendo 2004: 41-61; see also Liverani 2005: 99-100; Mazar 2003: 89; 2007: 143-45, 164-66).

BASOR 360

Isa23:f, fO-f5) or Joppa(e.g., Jon 1:3), the island of Cyprus (e.g., Ezek 27:7-f 2), the region of fonia (e.g., Isa 66:f9), the isfands/coastfands (e.g., Isa 23:6; Ps 72:10; cf. HALOT 1.38), or other places located in the Mediterranean world.-^ Given these latter 24 citations, Tarshish is actually the most frequently attested placename in the Bible located outside of Canaan. When one turns to the early"* extra-biblical references to "Tarshish," a similar conclusion situating the entity in proximity to the Mediterranean must be drawn. Parenthetically, while the current number of attestations is limited, these reflect remarkable diversity, in terms of geographic distribution, linguistic differentiation, and social function. We note first an eight-fine Phoenician dedicatory inscription accidentaffy discovered in a secondary usage very near the archaeological site of Nora, located on the south coast of Sardinia {KAI 46 = CIS 1.144; see fig. 1). The 1.05-m limestone stele is dated palaeographicafly to the ninth century (Cross 1972: 13-14; 1986: f f8-20; so Bunnens f979: 40; Gibson f982: 25; Röffig 1983a: 127-28; Lemaire 2007: 282; Rollston 2008: 77); it describes a mifitary force under the direction of a Phoenician officer [ngd\ (cf. Krahmalkov 2002; 213) named Milkiàtôn. According to Peckham (1972: 459-60; cf. Ahlström f99f: 43), Mifkûtôn's mifitia had been defeated in battfe and driven from (a pface cafled) Tarshish [btrss],^ but it had subsequently arrived safely in Sardinia [bsrdn]. Milkûtôn and his men would now be able to live in peace in Sardinia and, as a result, the officer dedicated the inscription to his god Pummay. fn contrast to the anafysis of Peckham,

^' Further support for Tarshish as a designated place may be found in verbs associated with the name: iVn (e.g.. 1 Kgs 22:48 |MT 49]). m:: (e.g.. Jon 1:3a: 4:2, plus -H directive), NU (e.g.. Jon 1:3b. plus -n directive), and i:3X (e.g., Isa 23:6, plus -H directive). See also K3rtt^'tt^iriDin Jer 10:9a. '' Later classical literature also attests to the lexeme "Tarshish" (see Hippolitus of Rome. Chronicle 71; Chronographer of A.D. 354. Libro de la generadon del Mundo 1.73; Hilarianus. Origen del genero humano 183; Crónica Alejandrina 50 | Bauer and Strzygowski 1906: 1011). but such documentation is too late to be helpful in the pre.sent discussion. On the other hand, it may be of interest to note that Burke (2006) has found the name "Tarshish" attached to two small very ancient sites in inland Lebanon, though a precise occupational profile of these sites is presently unknown. ' T h e view of Dupont-Sommer (1948: 15-16, 21-22) and Delcor (1968: 331-34. 351-52)—who read the line in question as ht-rs-'s ("house/temple of the headland/cape of INogarl"). instead of b-rrs.^ ("from/in/at Tanshish")—has already been critiqued by Gibson (1982: 25-27, and nn. 1-2). For an in-depth philological and lexicographical treatment ofthe Nora Stone, refer to Zuckerman 1991 ; .see also Lipiftski 2004: 234-43.

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Fig. 1. The Nora Stone (KAI 46 = CIS 1.144). Courtesy of the Ministry of Heritage and Cultural Activities—Superintendent for Archaeological Heritage of the provinces of Cagliari and Oristano.

Cross (1972: 2003) understands the Nora Stone to be describing Milkûtôn's victory over native Sardinian forces at Tarshish. Now able to live at peace among the vanquished Sardinians with his troops, Milkûtôn forthwith erected this stele dedicated/addressed to his king Pummay (= Pygmalion, king of Tyre). Despite these other lingering interpretational uncertainties surrounding the Nora Stone, it is commonly taken as fact today that trss in line 1' makes reference to a given place-name. Scholars working on this text bave sought to locate Tarshish in northern Sardinia itself (Neiman 1965: 115 n. 13; Cross 1972: 15-16; Krahmalkov 2000: 499) or somewhere east or southeast of Sardinia (Ahlström 1991: 44), while others argue that the logic of the situation described in the stele requires Tarshish to have been situated beyond the island of Sardinia from the

39

viewpoint of the Phoenician homeland (i.e., to the west of Sardinia), probably in coastal Spain (Peckham 1972: 466-68; 1998: 352; Elat 1982: 60-62; but see del Castillo 2003). Whatever the case, here is an unambiguous reference to an Iron Age place-name known as "Tarshish" that seems to require its placement somewhere on or immediately adjacent to the western sector of the Mediterranean Sea. The stele makes equally clear the fact that this site had been occupied by a Phoenician military force, perhaps from Tyre, which lends strong support to the supposition that, by this date, Phoenicians were substantially involved in the western Mediterranean in the kind of .ïy.îtematic activities that required sotne form of sustained security there. A second extra-biblical attestation of the name occurs in a seventh-century Esarbaddon stone slab found at Assur (KAH 1.75 - Assur 3916 = Istanbul 6262; cf. Borger 1967: 86-89; Parpóla 1970: 349; see fig. 2). This alabaster inscription was apparently designed to commemorate some of the Assyrian king's greatest architectural and political accomplishments. It declares that Esarhaddon, having vanquished Tyre— described as an island in the middle of the sea (cf, Ezek 27:32)—proceeded to tread on the brook of Egypt and to conquer Egypt, Pathros, and Nubia, carrying away much booty from king Tirhakah's realm (note the Assyrian's preoccupation with Tirhakah in other carved stelae and reliefs—e.g., Pritchard 1954: 154 [#447]). Finally, and perhaps with sotne exaggeration and nourish, Esarhaddon's scribe brings this literary piece to a crescendo by boasting that "all tbe kings who live in the middle of the sea \sá MURUB^ tâmtim\ cf. CAD 8.144b; 18.153a; AHw 888b]*'—/ww the land of Yadnana \tdtu mat Ya-da-na-iui - Cyprus (Bagg 2007: 121-22; Grayson 1991a: 127)),7 (and)

the land of Yaman [mat Ya-män = Ionia, the area of a first-millennium Greek settlement on the coastlands of southwestern Asia Minor and/or its adjacent islands, written Yam/wan in neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian records],** as far as the land of Tarshish \a-di mat '' The wide majority of citations of the expression MURUB^ tämtim refer generically to the sea itself (e.g.. CAD 13.7; 18.152-53) or to what in the early first millennium B.t\ would have been islands in the middle of the sea (e.g., Cyprus |Bagg 2(K)7: 121-221; Arvad IBagg 2(X)7; 27-291. Tyre |Bagg 2(X)7: 235-37|, Sidon |Bagg 2007; 226-29|, or Dilmun [CAD 13.7a; 18.154a|). ' See also his pristii B, where Esarhaddon claimed sovereignty over "10 kings of Yadnana" (cf. Parpóla 1970; 183; J. Smith 2(X)8; 275-78). * Assyrian written sources as early as Sargon II attest to a "latid of Yaman/Yamanian.s" (written Ya-nian. Ya-miin-a-a. or

40

BARRY J. BEITZEL

BASOR 360

O)

.c o c X

d -3

'S o O CM (D

(D

S

W

o •D

CM

d)

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Tar-si-si\ for this reading, consult Borger 1967: 86 and n. 10; Bagg 2007: 251 ]'^—fell at my feet and presented me with heavy tribute" (refer to CAD 8.144-45 for Esarhaddon's use of this expression elsewhere; cf. 17/2.297a). The scene concludes with the summary statement: "(Thus) I established (my) dominion over the kings of the four quarters (of the world)."

Ya-am-na-a-a) and sparingly to a "land of Yauna/Yaunians" (written Ya-ii-na or Ya-ii-na-a-a: consult Parpóla 1970: 186-87; Bagg 2007: 123-24, 129). The "land of Yaman" is arguably related to biblical Yâwân and classical Ionia (Saggs 1963: 77-78; Zadok 1985: 186-88; Brinkman 1989: 54-55. 66-67: Belmonte Marín 2001: 339-40: Lópe/.-Ruiz 2(K)9: 260). situated on the western horizon from an Assyrian perspective. In the annalistic literature of Sargon, the Yamanians are regularly listed in contexts with Arab tribes who otherwise are said to live "in the faraway |Syrian| desert"" (e.g., Tamudi. Ibadidi. Marsimani, Hayapa; cf. ;4A'£'r 286a), with political/ethnic entities located in south-central Asia Minor (e.g.. Que, Hilakku. Sinuhti. Muski. Kaski. Tabal, Blt-Purütaií, Gurgum). and/ or with still other entities positioned in the southern fringe of the Levant (e.g., Samaria. Bit-Hunirî. Ashdod. Gaza. Egypt at Raphia) (cf. Lemaire 2000: 54-62). These names occur in stock phrases. in no particular pattern or discernible sequence, that generally appear in segments where Sargon"s scribes are somewhat boastfully summarizing what might be called the outer limits of his far-flung military exploits. However, in contradistinction to all the other entities, the Yamanians are explicitly associated with the Mediterranean Sea, being repeatedly described as "those who live in the middle of the sea" (e.g.. Gadd 19.54: 199. pi. 51; cf. CAD 15.146a). "those who live like tish in the middle of the sea'" (e.g.. Fuchs 1994: 359; cf. C4D 11/2..340a; 18.7a). or "those who live like fish in the middle of the sea of the setting Sun" (e.g.. Fuchs 1994: 76: cf. C'/ÍO 4.269a; 17/1.336). Whatever else can be said about the location of Yaman in neo-Assyrian literature, it was clearly a western locale on the sea and/or reached by sea. In view of the fact that we have no record of a Sargon II campaign on the Mediterranean west of Cyprus, it has been suggested that neo-Assyrian Yamanians were nautical predators from the area known in the classical period as Ionia (e.g.. Herodotus 1.142. 148; 2.178: Strabo 2.5.31; cf. BAGRW. map 56 |D5|). who periodically engaged the Assyrians in naval ho.stilities along the Cilician coastal regions (Röllig 1976-80: 150; Brinkman 1989: 56; Fuchs 1994: 440). This kind of aggression is very likely to have been triggered by the fact that, as early as the reign of Sargon, Assyria's ever-widening northwestern extremity extended overland as far as Phrygia, less than 200 km from the Yamanian heartland (Parpóla 2(X)3: 99-103). While traditionally the "land of Yauna"" has been equated with Yaman and was thus al.so located in Ionia (Saggs 1963: 77-78; 2(M)1: 165; Brinkman 1989: 55: Fales and Postgate 1992: 56), Na'aman (2004a; 2004b) has recently .suggested that Yaman and Yauna were separate geographical entities, the latter theoretically to be located along the northern Phoenician coast at Ras el-Bassit (classical Posideion; cf. Courbin 1990). some 33 km north of Latakya and adjacent to the southern flanks of Mt. Cassius (see BAGRW. map68|A21). '' For West Semitic /.{/ represented by cuneiform Av/ in placenames, consult Na'aman 2(X)4a: 35-36.

41

This inscription makes plain that Assyrians knew of a geographical place'" called "Tarshish" that appears to have been situated sotnewhere in the Mediterranean (so Bunnens 1979: 330-48, esp. 341; Lipinski 1992c: 440; 1995b: col. 780; Lemaire 2000; contra del Castillo 2004). And if one assumes a logical geographic, directional progression in Esarhaddon's pronouncement—"from Cyprus, and Ionia, as far as Tarshish""—a location for Tarshish sotuewhere west or north of the southwestern Asia Minor coastline would seem to be in view (cf. Ldpez-Ruiz 2009: 260; Lipinski 2004: 226-27; Koch 1984: 103-9; Elat 1982: 57-58). One should note in passing a situilar juxtaposition of Tarshish and Ionia in Isaiah (66:19) and observe that Ezekiel's lamentation over Tyre (chap. 27) makes mention of Cyprus (v. 7b), Ionia (v. 13a), and Tarshish (v. 12) in one and the same context (cf. Liverani 1991:66-72). A third Near Eastern text mentioning Tarshish, more recently published out of the Shlotno Moussaleff collection by Bordreuil, Israel, and Pardee (1996: 49-61; 1998: 2-7), is a seventh-century five-line Old Hebrew ostracon of unknown provenance and uncertain authenticity. Taken at face value, the document speaks of an individual who commands that three shekels of silver frotn Tarshish [ksp tr/s.s] be donated to the temple of Yahweh [byt yhwh]. In their detailed analysis of what they regard as an authentic ostracon (1996: 75-76), Bordreuil, Israel, and Pardee situate the site of Tarshish on the Mediterranean Sea, most likely the western Mediterranean (1996: 54-55; 1998: 5). Ofcour.se, this question of the osttacon's authenticity remains methodologically pivotal to any interpretation, and thus caution is warranted.'^ '" Repeated use of the territorial semantic indicator KllRlmalii with Yadnana. Yaman. and Tarshish provides unmistakable indication that geographical entities are involved. ' ' For the idiom uUu ... adi denoting a succession of directional points in space, also employed elsewhere by Esarhaddon. refer to CAD 1/1.116b; 7.286b; cf. GAG S§114j-k. 118e-f; see also Bunnens 1979: 314. Lipinski (2004: 227) suggests that the notion of extensive royal authority is similarly expressed in Ps 72:10, where "kings of Tarshish and the islands"" is paired poetically with "kings of Sheba and Seba."" ' ' T\vo unprovenanced ostraca tVom the Moussaïetî collection were originally published together by Bordreuil, Israel, and Piu'dee (see now CoS 2.174-75 [2.50-"Temple of the Lord ostracon." which mentions "silver from Tarshi.sh"]; 3.86-87 |3.44-"Widow's Plea ostracon"]). Leading epigraphers are in substantial agreement that both ostraca were written by the same hand: therefore, to demonstrate that one is a forgery would be to dismiss the other simultaneously from historical consideration. Berlejung and Schule (1998) judge the ostraca to be of dubious authenticity, based largely on

42

BARRY J. BEITZEL

Furthermore, aside from the provenance and authenticity question, this text is actually the least helpful in our geographical quest, though it does clearly demarcate Tarshish as a geographical place (DobbsAllsopp et al. 2005: 569; Davies 2005: 161), one somehow related to silver (cf. 1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21; Isa 60:9; Jer 10:9; Ezek 27:12).'^ With or without the Moussaieff ostracon, however, a cogent argument can be advanced from both biblical and Near Eastern literatures that "Tarshish" consistently denoted the name of an ancient historical site or sites that must have been situated somewhere in the Mediterranean world.'"* their analysis of the Widow's Plea ostracon, according to which certain lexemes found there are elsewhere thought to be attested only in post-exilic literature (their argument has been effectively vitiated by the work of Lemaire [1999: 5-8 [). Eph'al and Naveh (1998) raise serious doubts about the genuineness of the ostraca, basing their appraisal on problematic features of palaeography and on the phenomenally striking number of epigraphic parallels found in previously published Iron Age sources and in the MT. According to Rollston (2003: 135-73), a strange alchemy of orthographic irregularities, graphemic anomalies, and both early and late palaeographic forms renders the ostraca as modern forgeries. Pardee (personal communication) continues to regard the ostraca as authentic (cf. Shanks 1997: 31, which reports on palaeographic dates assigned the ostraca by Yardeni, Cross, and McCarter). It seems unlikely that this can be resolved at the present time. '•' In this regard, one is reminded of the eighth-century Hebrew ostracon found atop Tell Qasile that mentions "the gold of Ophir" (cf. I Kgs9:28;e.g.,Maisler 1950-1951; 204. 209-10; Mazar 1993; cf. Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2005:403-4). Classical attempts to link the Phoenicians with the Red Sea based on an association of the Greek word (poiviKtAjç and the "Red" Sea (e.g., Pomponius Mela, Chorographia 3.8.72-73) have rightly been rejected by Semitic scholars (seeRöUig 1983b: 80 n. 12). '^ The vexed question of the location of Tarshish has given ri.se to a massive bibliography. To the more than a dozen identifications of Tarshish helpfully summarized and assessed in the works of Koch (1984). Lemaire (2000), Lipin.ski (2004: 225-65). Padilla Monge (2006: 233-36), and Lopez-Ruiz (2009: 258-68), one can add the site of Rhodes (Speiser 1964: 66). Though this intriguing question may be tangential, it does not bear materially upon the central aims of the present essay, beyond the impelling consideration that relates Tarshish to a historical site or sites located in the Mediterranean world (i.e., not in coastal East Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, or India: or not adopting one of the generic options). That said. I wish to add three caveats. While archaeological research over the past 30-35 years having to do with the Phoenicians and the Mediterranean has generally contributed to a more positive assessment of the reliability of classical sources and dates (e.g., Throckmorton 1987: 92; Casson 1991; 18; Niemeyer 1993; 337; Lipiñski 1995a; 1326-31; Moscati 1999a; 47-48; Fantar 1999; 199-201; Krahmalkov 2002; 208-15; Coldstream 2003; 247-49; Neville 2007: 83-85; Dietler and Lopez-Ruiz 2009; 299-300), in my judgment a methodology that seeks to locate Tarshish fundamentally on this basis continues to be unavailing. Similarly, I find a purely linguistic/

BASOR 360

The semantic field of "the ship(s) of Tarshish" [C'U'in m''3X/''3X] is likewise central to my investigation. How is one to understand this biblical phraseology? May it be construed generically to connote a certain type or quality of seaworthy vessel, without regard to any possible geographical denotation? The ancient world was certainly familiar with nautical expressions of a generic type, such as "ships of the sea," "ships of trade," "ships of war," and the like. Ancient literature attests, for example, to "large ships," "small ships," "passenger ships," "royal ships," "fishing ships," "deep-going ships," "planked ships," "cargo ships," "merchant ships," "ships of reeds," "ships with battering rams," "ships with sails," "ships with rows," "ferries," "ships of a [particular] deity" (e.g., Enlil, Ea, Anu, Osiris, Amon-Re; refer to Mäkelä 2002: 150-51 ), "ships of a [particular] provincial governor or king" (e.g., Ba'^al, Thutmose III, Ramesses II), "ships of a [particular] sea captain/owner" (e.g., refer to Yardeni 1994: 73-76; Hoftijzer and van Soldt 1998: 337-43), or "ships of a [particular] people" (e.g.. Hittites, Egyptians, Tjekker); it can make reference to various parts of a ship or to different types of military vessels used in combat (e.g., Kamose at Avaris; Ramesses III against the Sea Peoples) (consult Strömberg Krantz 1982: 32-74; Bikai 1992: 134; Bartoloni 1999; etymological approach to this question to be strained, unconvincing, and even complicating. Such an approach is sometimes manifested, for example, in connection with the two Mediterranean locations of Tarshish most prominently embraced today; (1) Tarte.s.sos in Iberia (but that root appears to be '^turl/d-, whether of Greek or Iberian extraction; Celestino and Lopez-Ruiz 2003; 22-23; Padilla Monge 2006; 237-39; Lopez-Ruiz 2009; 261-63; cf. Correa 1992), and (2) Tarsus in Cilicia (but that root appears to be Virz in neo-Assyrian; Parpóla 1970: 349; Bagg 2007: 251-52; Lipiñski 1991; 4; Lebrun 1992: 59; cf. Bron 1979: 183). In the former instance, it is difficult to see how the etymon TiU'tessos can be related to any Semitic root, aside from a searching conjecture of one sort or another (e.g., Gordon 1978). And even if in the latter instance one were to attempt to construct a linguistic identity by appealing to two Hittite texts where the name of Tarsus is written Targa (cf. del Monte and Tischler 1978: 408), in my view there remains the serious etymological/orthographic dilemma of having to explain the presence of the second sibilant written at the end of the word in Phoenician, Hebrew, and neo-Assyrian. as Lemaire (2000: 53-54) recognizes. Finally, I would argue that attempting to locate Tarshish on the basis of distinctive metalliferous richness in either Iberian Tartessos or Cilician Tarsus is futile, as both regions have historically possessed more than ample and varied mineral resources (consult, in this regard, Fernández Jurado 2002; Padilla Monge 2006: 239-42). It seems to me that the best way forward in the present conundrum of attempting to locate Tarshish .still resides in the analysis of the admittedly sketchy clues found in epigraphic sources from high antiquity, augmented where possible with a growing body of clear and sustainable archaeological support.

2OfO

PHOENfCfANS AND fSRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Aubet 2001: 174-75; Artzy 2003: 242-43; Monroe 2009: 89-93; Routledge and McGeough 2009: 25). In vivid contradistinction to all of this, however, one finds the expression "the ship(s) of X," where "X" is otherwise demonstrably known to have been a geographical entity. This turns out to be fairly common in antiquity. Thus, for example, early Akkadian literature describing the seafaring merchants of Ur and Eridu is replete with references to "the ship(s) of Magan," "the ship(s) of Meluhtia," and "the ship(s) of Dilmun." While the exact location of these places continues to be a topic of some discussion (Magan = Oman, Meluhlia = Indus Vafley, Dilmun = eastern Saudi Arabia?), it is indisputable without exception in these early texts that the "X" element specifies a particular geographical locale. At the same time, Mesopotaniian literature occasionally refers to "the ship(s) of Akkad," "the ship(s) of ASSur," "the ship(s) of Mari," or "the ship(s) of Ur." Simifarfy, East and West Semitic and/or Egyptian texts make mention of "the ship(s) of Arvad," "the ship(s) of Carchemish," "the ship(s) of Ugarit," "the ship(s) of Lukka/ Lycia," "the ship(s) of Punt," "the ship(s) of Gebaf/ Byblos," "the ship(s) of Kittim/Cyprus," "the ship(s) of Keftiu/Kaptaru/Crete"; Hittite literature references "the ship(s) of Ahfiiyawa/Achaea."'*' Once again, it should be quite clear in all these instances that the "X" element represents a known geographical entity and that the expressions originally designated either the destination point or the provenance of the respective vessels (Padilla Monge 1994: 56; 2006: 233-34; cf. Wachsmann 1990: 78; Bass and Wachsmann f 997: 34; Lopez-Ruiz 2009: 256). Over time an originaf geographical denotation may have shifted, as when Dilmun, apparently originally situated in what is today eastern Saudi Arabia (so Larsen 1983: 16-18; Potts 1995: 1455), was relocated in the Ur Iff period to the island of Bahrain (cf. Edzard and Färber 1974: 193; Engfund 1983: 35-37; Potts 1990: 85-86). Similarly, Melufiha, though originally located somewhere near the Indus Valley (so Edzard, Färber, and Sollberger 1977: 121; Afster f983: 41; Potts 1990: 154-58), was shifted to Nubia by the advent of the neo-Assyrian period (cf. Heimpel 1993: 53-55; Zadok 1985: 311-12; Parpóla 1970: 245-46); and Magan, originally positioned at or near Oman (so " In what is perhaps another example of "the .ship(s) of X," Tal (2009) has recently argued that the ledger entry "the ships of kzd/ry" found in a customs account at Elephantine refers to the geographical site Tell Ghazza/Tel Ya'oz, located near the mouth ofthe Nahal Sorek on the Plain of Philistia.

43

Edzard and Färber 1974: 114-15; Edzard, Färber, and Sollberger 1977: ff3-14; Nashef 1982: 182; Vallet f993: f 63-64), came to denote part of Egypt or Nubia in neo-Assyrian texts (cf. Alster 1983: 41; Heimpel 1988: f96; Potts 1995: f456; Parpóla 1970: 234). Thus, the "ship(s) of Dilmun," "ship(s) of Meluhha," or "ship(s) of Magan" in these later literatures had apparently come to designate a completely diflerent geographical arena. Likewise, an original geographical denotation may have evolved in its meaning or application and even become obscured, as when a "ship of Meluhha" or a "ship of Dilmun" was later called a ''magillu-ship" (a kind of boat; so CAD 10/1.44b; AHw 576b) or possibly a ''mahba-ship" (a seagoing vessel; so Alster 1983: 71 n. 77; cf. CAD 1 /1.221 ; 10/1.77), when "ship(s) of Gebal/Byblos" evolved into a generic expression for any seagoing craft (so Ward 2010: 43; Bietak 2006: 290), or when "ship(s) of Keftiu/Kaptaru/Crete" catue to designate Mediterranean travel to many différent destinations (so King f999:96*;cf. Ahfström 1991:47).'* This, in fact, appears to be the case with the only other usage ofthe expression "the ship(s) of X" in the Bible (Dan 11:29-30; cf. 1 Mace 1:16-28; 2 Mace 5:1-11; Polybius 29.27), where "the ships of Kittim/Cyprus" arguably relates to the arrival in Egypt of a Roman fleet commanded by Gaius Popilius Laenas from various points in the Mediterranean, including Rome (e.g., Hartman and Di Leila 1978: 270-71, 297-99; Montgomery 1979: 455). In these situations, however, there seems always to have been a historical antecedent to this evolution that originally related to the location of a given ship's "• In an effort to obtain its prized and fascinating commodities— especially myrrh trees and aromatics. but also exotic animals and animal skins, ebony, ivory, electrum. and gold—Egyptian monarchs from at least as early as the Sixth Dynasty, and regularly thereafter, dispatched their ships to the proverbial land of Punt, located in eastern Sudan, south of Egypt and west of the Red Sea (Lichtheini 1975-80: 1.23-27; Kitchen 2(X)4; 2005: 7-12). Nevertheless, in the poetic "hymn of Amon-Re"—part of the large, granite stele of Amenhotep III originally placed in his mortuary temple but later appropriated by Merneptah and known today on its reverse side as the so-called Israel Stele—Amenhotep celebrated some of his outstanding accomplishments on behalf of his deity: to the south he forced the wretched Kushite princes to bow in surrender before Amon-Re, to the north he caused the countries of Asia to bring heavy tribute, to the west he surrounded the Libyans so that none could escape, and to the east he forced the lands of Punt into submission {ANET 375-76: Lichtheim 1975-1980: 2.46-47). In this case, it appears that Punt was not a precisely defined geographical entity south of Egypt and west of the Red Sea. but it had evolved into an abstract region located somewhere in the direction of the sunrise.

44

BARRY J. BEITZEL

BASOR 360

destination or provenance. In other words, whenever the expression "the ship(s) of X" was applied to a different geographical arena or came to be applied generically, this appears to be only a secondary or derivative application, not a native original application. I am aware of no exception to this in ancient literature. To argue, therefore, that the biblical expression "the ship(s) of Tarshish" originally designated some type of generic oceangoing vessel, or that the phraseology must be interpreted as such even in what is arguably its earliest historical attestation in the Bible (Koch 1984: 9-28), flies in the face of this documentation and appears to represent an assertion that must stand without the benefit of evidentiary support from antiquity.

Uzziah slept with his ancestors, and he was buried with his ancestors in the burial field which belonged to the kings. . . and Jotham his son reigned in his stead" (2 Chr 26:22-23). Or again, "Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did and all his might, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel? And Jehu slept with his ancestors, and he was buried in Samaria. And Jehoahaz his son reigned in his stead" (2 Kgs 10:34-35). We notice how the summarizing formulae (what Halpern and Vanderhooft [ 1991 ] refer to as the "Death and Burial Formula") begin with a standard introduction ("Now the rest of the acts of [a particular king]") and a reference to an external annalistic written source If what I am advocating here were to be the case, (e.g., "Chronicles of the Kings of Israel," "Chronicles how then is one to understand the texts relating to Je- of Jehu the son of Hanani," "Chronicles of Shemhoshaphat, the linchpin material utilized in the support aiah the prophet," etc.), followed in sequence by (1) of a generic interpretation of Tarshish and an account a statement about sleeping with one's ancestors (i.e., that unmistakably places both Tarshish and the ships presumably making reference to dying a nonviolent of Tarshish on the Red Sea, not the Mediterranean death; Alfrink 1943), (2) a notification of burial,'^ and (1 Kgs 22:48-49 [MT 49-50]; 2 Chr 20:35-37)? Ac- (3) a declaration of legitimate succession. With arrestcording to the account in Kings, Jehoshaphat—on his ing consistency, this pattern obtains in the case of 18 own—constructed at Ezion-geber ships of Tarshish in- of the 19 kings of Israel (Hoshea is the only exception, tended to travel to Ophir for gold [naVV IV'IVIT) nVM but his reign was interrupted by the Assyrian assault m'SlK], but these were destroyed in the port before of Samaria, and we are given no information about his they could depart. Apparently at that point, Ahaziah end). The same pattern appears with 15 of the 19 kings king of Israel suggested some sort of joint nautical of Judah (again, those near the end [Jehoahaz, Jehoiaundertaking, but his proposal was rejected by the Ju- kim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah] have no such documendahite monarch. In the more amplified and somewhat tary formula, but other anomalies occur in these regnal divergent rendition found in Chronicles, Jehoshaphat accounts; Glatt-Gilad 2001: 192). The pattern is the from the start joined with Ahaziah in building ships same whether the king was from the north or the south, at Ezion-geber to go to Tarshish ¡r\3bb nv^K nwvb whether recorded in Kings or Chronicles, whether cit^I'''^i'^n]. But in response to their joint initiative, judged ing a standard secondary source or a more peripheral by the Chronicler to be wicked, a prophet from Mare- source, whether the king's reign was short or covshah—Eliezer—announced to Jehoshapbat that the ered several decades, whether the king was militarily Lord would destroy his ships. The account concludes strong or weak, whether or not the king was succeeded that the ships were wrecked, at an unspecified location, by a member of his own dynasty, or whether the king was assessed by the biblical historians in positive or and were not able to go to Tarshish negative terms. Notably, these statements are contained entirely within the respective summary conclusions of Jeboshaphat's reign (1 Kgs 22:45-50 [MT 46-51]; 2 Chr 20:31-21:1). In my judgment, this consideration must not be underestimated or too easily dismissed. There is an astonishing degree of uniformity in the way the reigns of Israelite and Judahite kings are summarized in the biblical text (cf. Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991; Glatt-Gilad 2001 and the extensive literature cited there). I cite typical examples: "Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, from the first to the last, are recorded by Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. And

'^ Beginning with Hezekiah, the standard burial formulary for Judahite kings—"X was buried with his ancestors (in the city of David)"—is modified to expressions such as "X was buried in his house," "X was buried in the garden of his house." "X was buried in the garden of Uzza," "X was buried in his own tomb," and the like. Based in part on this curious formulaic variance, Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991; 189-94) suggest a change in the authorship of regnal evaluations starting with Hezekiah. Burial notices for Israelite monarchs tend to be more abridged (e.g., "X was buried," "X was buried in Tirzah," "X was buried in Samaria"). For later Israelite kings, these data are more commonly otnitted.

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Admittedly, there are instances when not all elements of this pattern are present—as when reference is omitted to sleeping with one's ancestors (e.g., Amon), identifying one's burial place (e.g., Jehoash), or naming one's successor (e.g., Ahab)—and there are a few cases where more than one element may be missing. However, almost without exception, this standard formula is never interrupted with the insinuation of novel, additional material (whatGlatt-Gilad [2001; 201] calls a "supplementary notation"; cf. Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 215). And even on those few occasions where an additional notation appears, it nortnally represents either a general summary of a given king's life of warfare (e.g., "there was continual war all his days"), it is a vague indication of a given king's personal prowess (e.g., "all that he did and all his might"), or, in place of the statement about sleeping with one's ancestors, the biblical historians describe unusual circumstances relating to a given king's death (e.g., mention of a foot disease that killed Asa or an incurable disease of the bowel that killed Jehoram, a conspiracy that killed Joash or Amaziah, or the plight of Josiah's untimely death at Necho's hands or of Shallum's death at Menahem's hands). In sharp contrast to this consistent, rather predictable pattern stands the summary record of Jehoshaphat. It is precisely into the middle of the Jehoshaphat formula—immediately after reference to a secondary .source (I Chr 20:34b; cf. 1 Kgs 22:45 [MT 46|) and immediately before reference to his sleeping with his ancestors, being buried in Jerusalem, and being succeeded by Jehoram ( I Chr 21:1 ; cf 1 Kgs 22:50 [MT 51])—that one finds the interjection of unique notations having to do with his building a fleet of ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir or to Tarshish,'** with Ahaziah's possible partnership with him in the enterprise, and with the wrecking of his fleet before it could arrive at its destination. In my judgment, one must be wary of embracing a historico-critical predilection having to do with the location of Tarshish and/or foundationally anchoring an assertion of a single nautical enterprise on summary notations that, in point of fact, may be exegetical outli'* Could this locational modification in Chronicles—if that is how we are to understand the text (e.g., Dillard 1987: 73: Japhet 1993: 802)—be a further indication of the geographical fluidity that had occurred in conjunction with "Tarshish" by the time of the Chronicler (cf. Strömberg Krantz 1982: 48-51; Glatt-Gilad 2001: 202)'? I also note in passing that Josephus's treatment of this event {Ant 9.16-17) indicates that Jehoshaphat's ships were intended to sail to Pontus and the trading stations of Thrace.

45

ers. My thoughts here are somewhat akin to Lipinski's (1992a; 2004: 195-202; 2006: 184); though perhaps as an overreaction to the usual interpretation of these perplexing texts, Lipinski asserted that Jehoshaphat's failed venture, and even the destination site of Ophir itself, had to be situated on the Mediterranean Sea, not the Red Sea. Based exclusively on this same record, but at the other end of the geographical spectrum, Stieglitz (1984; 140-42) argued that the logistics of a nautical fleet constructed at Ezion-geber and commissioned to sail to Tarshish (which he avers was situated in southern Spain) must have entailed the clockwise circumnavigation of continental Africa." Could there be another option? Long ago, Albright's analysis (1941: 21; 1961: 347; cf. Speiser 1964: 66) led him to suggest that we should expect a name such as Tarshish to become associated with various trading emporia situated in more than one location {à la Meluhha, Magan, Dilniun, Byblos; note also what occurs later when at least three separate Phoenician

''' I am aware of this viewpoint in literature as early as the late 19th century (e.g., Zöckler 1876: 28-29). Circumnavigating the continent of Africa from the head of the Gulf of Klal/Aqaba as far as the mouth of the Guadalquivir River in southern Spain represents a distance of some 27,350 km and would have included the Cape of Good Hope—one of the most treacherous seafaring passages in the world. Even more telling, this view presupposes what in the ninth century B.c. would almost certainly have been an unrealistic, even imponderable, empirical formulation: that the continent of Africa was understood to be entirely surrounded by water in a way that meant uninterrupted passage from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea was nautically possible. In this regard, it is pertinent to recall that Herodotus (4.42), while he does speak of the late seventh-eentury B.c. Phoenician circumnavigation of continental Africa, observes that his comments relate to how continents were still being mistakenly mapped as late as his own day (and notably, even the first projection and the second projection maps of Ptolemy |ca. A.D. 90-1681—cartography's high-water mark prior lo the time of Mercator—depict the southeastem coast of Africa taking a sharp eastward turn and adjoining continental Asia, thus enclosing the waters of the Red Sea. Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean, and separating them from the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea; cf. Berggren and Jones 2(X)0: pis. 1-2). Though Herodotus apparently doubted his own story, certain details of his account (e.g.. (he sun rising on their right as they rounded the sotilhern tip of Africa; seed time and harvest time in the southern hemisphere; a "three-year" venture) have nevertheless led modem authorities in the main to regard this seventh-century undertaking as historically viable (so Godley 1981-1982: 241 n. 1: Penhallurick 1986: 127; Throckmorton 1987: 50b; Gras, Rouillard, and Teixidor 1989: 87-88; Wach.smann 1990: 77-78: Lipinski 1995a: 1331). In the context of the Jehoshaphat text, however, circumnavigating continental Africa seems to me to represent both an empirically presumptuous and a needlessly circuitous option.

46

BARRY J. BEITZEL

sites become known as Carthage).^'^ Given the four generations between Solomon and Jehoshaphat and the estimated interval of some 100 years between their alleged nautical ventures, it is possible that the Jehoshaphat narratives may represent an evolutional application of the expression "the ship(s) of Tarshish," rather than reflecting its native original denotation. Whatever the case, I would urge caution against allowing the Jehoshaphat corpus to dictate and categorically redefine the meaning of the expression "the ship(s) of Tarshish," inasmuch as this is the only known material in antiquity, biblical or otherwise, explicitly to locate the ships of Tarshish, and even the site of Tarshish itself, somewhere beyond the Mediterranean Sea. EARLY PHOENICIANS PLYING THE MEDITERRANEAN What evidence can be adduced to demonstrate that Phoenicians were sailing the waters of the Mediterranean Sea by the tenth century? Discussions addressing the chronology of Phoenician westward expansion often include elements that may lack sufficient modal clarity or precision in dating. Thus, for example, the western presence of certain technological innovations ascribed to more advanced Phoenician craftsmanship (e.g., cupellation;-' see Gonzalez de Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2008: 652; Fernández Jurado 2002: 250-51; Blanco and Luzon 1969: 128-30) or of novel artistic motifs of an oriental kind (e.g., warrior stelae; see Celestino Pérez and López-Ruiz 2006; Celestino Pérez 2009: 233-38) may very well be suggestive of an early Phoenician presence at this or that location across the Mediterranean, but such evidence is not decisive, in my judgment, unless it is found in a secure stratified context or can be controlled by other more objective criteria. Coldstream (1998: 353-55) and Markoe (2000: 32, 148-50) have shown conclusive evidence of direct contact between Tyre and Lefkandi in the form of tenth-century datable tombs containing distinctive Phoenician bowls and pitchers, and late second-millennium bronze statues of the Phoenician god Melqart have been discovered off the southern coast of Sicily and on the Iberian coast west of Gibraltar (see Aubet 2001: 201-4; Albanese Procelli 2008: 464; refer to Falsone 1993 for an in-depth artistic analysis ^^ Cf. LXX. which sometimes renders tt'^tt'in '' A process known in Spain as early as the tenth century B.c. where lead was heated by a strong air current so that the metal could be converted into an oxide, leaving pure silver in its solid state (cf. Bondi 1988: 247).

BASOR 360

of the Sicilian bronze), but how or when any of these objects got there or who was responsible is not yet clear (see, e.g., Popham 1994: 28-33). Even employing distinctive Phoenician bichrome or red-slip pottery found in an unstratified context may be problematic in this regard. I wish, therefore, to confine my remarks to the fairly narrow contours of what I consider to be more precise and less ambiguous evidence. The story is quite likely to be greater than this, but it strains credulity to imagine how it could be less than this. A plausible case has sometimes been hypothesized that the upheaval associated with the end of the Late Bronze Age was actually fortuitous for Phoenicia's political and maritime fortunes (e.g., Sherratt 2003: 51-54; Markoe 2000: 23-32; Klengel 2000: 23-27; Barako 2000: 525; Bondi 1999: 31-42). The destruction of the Hittites and the neutralization of significant city-states across Cyprus, North Syria, and the Syrian coast ended any further serious threat from the north, and the death of Ramesses III appears to have led to a temporary eclipse of Egypt's nautical endeavors on the Mediterranean in the south.^- Meanwhile, largescale Mycenaean trading networks into the Levant and their maritime stranglehold on the mid-Mediterranean collapsed around 1200, and Assyria was unable to sustain its expansionism as far west as the Mediterranean until the ninth century. As a result, Phoenician coastal cities were momentarily no longer at the mercy of passing imperial armies or competitive naval interests, and they seem to have emerged as autonomous, commercially active, and even prosperous entities in the early Iron Age (Karageorghis 1992; Gras, Rouillard, and Teixidor 1989: 83-85; Stern 1990: 27-31; Stieglitz 1990; Iakovidis 1993: 317-20; Lipinski 1993; Zaccagnini 1996; Moscati 1999b: 18; Marriner, Morhange, and Doumet-Serhal 2006: 1524-32), as Phoenicians rather freely began to sail farther west (Liverani 1987; Aubet 2008: 248-55). A Tiglath-pileser 1(1114-1076 B.c.) campaign inscription makes reference to his receiving Phoenician tribute from Byblos, Sidon, and Arvad of a kind that implies a flourishing maritime activity on their part. -- Note the corresponding attenuation of Egyptian control in Canaan at the end of the reign of Ramesses III (Weinstein 1992; Killebrew 2005: 51-83; Monroe 2009: 34). At the same time. I concur with the evaluation of Barako (2000) and Gilboa (2005: 67-70) that, at present, any extensive Philistine maritime and/or trade involvement on the Mediterranean during the early Iron period lacks evidentiary support (contra Sherratt and Sherratt 1991: 37375; Sherratt 1998: 293.302-7). Zaccagnini (1996) has demonstrated that Tyre began to play a predominant role in trade with Palestine and Egypt in the early Iron era.

2010

PHOENICL\NS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

and at one point he speaks of going aboard the "ships of Arvad" and being transported to the land of Amurru (Grayson 1991b: 37-38; cf Bunnens 1983: 175); in a text from the reign of Assur-bel-kala( 1073-1056 B.c.), the Assyrian monarch speaks of boarding the "ships of Arvad," going on an expedition into the depths of the Mediterranean Sea, and killing a "whale" [nähiru] (Grayson 1991b: 103; cf. Budge and King 1902: 13839). Around the same time, Zekerbaal, king of Byblos, boasts in the Wenamun papyrus (a story set ca. 1075 B.c.) that he had several merchant fleets under his authority, including some 20 cargo/chartered ships [mns] moored in the harbor at Byblos and another 50 freighters [br] anchored at Sidon (cf. Lipiñski 2006: 163-64; Casson 1991: 47-54; Bikai 1992: 132-33).23 It may be significant to observe that Zekerbaal appears to have been involved in a kind of "for profit" nautical trading organization or joint commercial enterprise on the Mediterranean which operated in business partnership with political operatives from outside Byblos*"* (e.g., Werekter, from Sidon) and even beyond the bounds of Phoenicia itself (e.g., Smendes, from Tanis).^-^ Whatever the case, these early Iron texts clearly paint a picture of altered political circumstances in which the Phoenicians were no longer beholden to the surrounding Mediterranean powers.^*' Moreover, there are approximately 31 shipwreck findspots presently kn " Goedicke (1975: 68-69, 169) argues that Zekerbaal was boa.sting here to Wenamun that his 70 vessels, though formally registered in Byblos and Sidon, were actually moored in Tanis at the time. In either event, Zekerbaal's openly cavalier treatment of this Egyptian priest of Amun, together with his boastful maritime confidence, unmistakably reflects shifted political circumstances in Phoenicia. ''' For models of profit-seeking via trading partnerships in the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, see Monroe 2009: 105-39, 284-98. " So the report of Wenamun 1.59-2.2; see Wh 3/1.254; Hoch 1994: 240-41; Goedicke 1975; 68-69; for the report of Wenamun as a work of historical fiction, see Sass 2002. Note, too, the repeated use of the cognate verb [IDPI] in a similar context in 2 Chr 20;35-37; cf. W/iLOr 1.288a. ^^ By the ninth century, Phoenicians were constructing warships for the Assyrians and moving them overland as far as the Euphrates River (Aubet 2001: 32-41). Still later, a similar procedure was adopted by Alexander the Great, when he needed ships for his proposed circumnavigation and conquest of the Arabian Peninsula (Arrian, Anabasis 7.9.3). ^' Scholars readily acknowledge that isolating and identifying a discrete shipwreck from high antiquity may be problematic in several respects. In the first place, with a tew notable exceptions, such early wrecks are normally identified on the basis of discovering di.stinctive and/or in.scribed anchors, datable cargo containers, widely varied cargoes or other artifacts, anchorage architecture, and the like, rather than timber remains from the hull of a ship itself.

47

in the greater Mediterranean world that can be reliably dated to the mid-ninth century or earlier^^ (consult Parker 1992; Galili, Dahaii, and Sharvit 1993; Illsley 1996; Jurisid 2000; Wachsmann and Davis 2002; Kingsley 2004; Galili and Rosen 2008; see table 1), and a few of the latter reportedly include Phoenician materials and/or equipment.-** Phoenicians were undoubtedly present at several places across Cyprus by the 11th century (Peckhain 1992b: 412; Markoe 2000: 170), as amply demonstrated by inscriptions (Peckham 1992a: 351-52; Cross 2003: 259), stratified pottery (Bikai 1983;

There are some places in the Mediterranean that served as natural anchorage points across a broad sweep of time (Kingsley and Raveh 1996: 57-75; Raban and Galili 1985; Wachsmann and Davis 2002; 499-500; cf. Kingsley 2004: 29-44), and today these are little more than shipwreck graveyards containing multiple wrecks. Under such circumstances, differentiating separate and discrete shipwrecks is vexed, tedious, and ultimately, at times, inferential. Another aspect of this problem may perhaps be illustrated through the narration of the shipwreck of the apostle Paul (Acts 27), during which there were apparently two points where some of the ship's cargo was thrown overboard (vv. 18, 38). another point where anchors were cut loose from the stern (v. 40). and still another point where the vessel itself ran aground (v. 41). If evidence from all these locations were to be uncovered, one might naturally misinfer multiple shipwrecks. In addition to these considerations, my list of published wrecks may well be incomplete; in any event, it is very likely to be seriously skewed as a consequence of the variegated geomorphology of the Mediterranean seafloor. Thus, for example, shipwreck sites are much more apt to be discovered in the mild gradient and shallow waters of a concordant shoreline, with submerged or partially submerged sedimentary ridges (e.g.. Israel; cf. Wachsmann 1990; 72, which estimates an average of one known wreck every 1(K) m along the Israeli coast), or in the distinctive geomorphological domains prized by sponge fishermen (e.g., Turkey) or sports divers (e.g.. southern France). Contrariwise, putative wrecks from high antiquity oft the rocky cliffs and sharply angular Mediterranean shelves of .southern Spain or Italy, buried in more than 150 feet of water, are not easily discovered and are almost unknown (Throckmorton 1987; 217; Parker 1980:50-51). -* The accidental discovery of a hieroglyphically inscribed anchor dating to approximately 1(XX) B.c. has recently been announced (Ziflioglu 2008); together with some other artifacts, the anchor was found off the shore of Kyrenia on the northern coast of Cyprus. This may eventually prove to be yet another early shipwreck site. ^'* Some of this evidence has been reported but still awaits publication. It is also necessary to acknowledge that this evidence is fairly limited in scope and that certain components continue to be the subject of fervent debate. For the Formentera material, see Parker 1992: 418 (unpublished); for the Rochelongues Point data, refer to Penhallurick 1986: 104-6 (partially unpublished); tor the Huelva wreck, see Parker 1992: 213; Penhallurick 1986: 101-3; Coffyn 1985: 211-12; Bisi 1987: 246. On the debatable question of shipwreck ethnic identification, refer to Wachsmann 1998: 211-12 (and see bibliography cited there).

48

BARRY J. BEITZEL

TABLE

BASOR 360

f. Ancient Shipwreck Findspots in the Mediterranean Wodd

Location

Approximate date B.c.

Source(s)

Galili and Rosen 2008: 1931a Parker 1992: #362: Jurisic' 2000: 3 Parker 1992: #741; Galili 1985: 143-53; 1987: 167-68 Galili, Dahari, and Sharvit 1993: 63-65 Galili and Rosen 2008: 1930b www.archaeology.org/1 (K) 1 /etc/ minoan_shipwreck.html Parker 1992: #1079; Illsley 1996 Parker 1992: #816; Wachsmann 1998: 209ab Wachsmann 1998: 209c; Lefkovits 2006 Parker 1992: #42 Parker 1992: #544; Pulak 1997: 235 Parker 1992: #503 Parker 1992: #1193: Pulak 2005 Parker 1992: #540; Raban and Galili 1985 Throckmorton 1987: 214 Pulak 1997: 235; D'Agata 2003 Galili and Rosen 2008: 1928a Galili and Rosen 2008: 1929a Galili and Rosen 2008: 1930 Galili and Rosen 2008: 1931b Galili and Rosen 2008: 1931b Galili and Rosen 2008: 1931b Galili and Rosen 2008: 1931b Galili, Dahari. and Sharvit 1993: 61-63 Parker 1992: #418 Parker 1992: #208 Penhallurick 1986: 104-6 Parker 1992: #494; Wachsmann 1998: 208c; Kingsley 2004: 131 Karageorghis 1995: 62; Vichos and Lolos 1997; Fhelps. Lolos. and Vichos 1999; Lolos 2003 #30 Hof Dor. Israel 900 Kaiman 2004 #31 Huelva, Spain 850 Parker 1992: #508; Coffyn 1985: 2 i I ; Bisi 1987: 246 * For other evidence of Late Bronze Age seaborne contacts between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, or between the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel, consult Harding 2007. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29

'Atlit N.. Israel Dokos. Greece Neve Yam (C), Israel Apollonia/Arsuf, Israel 'Atlit S., Israel Pseira (Crete). Greece Sheytan Deresi. Turkey Pignataro di Fuori (Lipari). Italy Netanya, Israel Antalya Bay. Turkey Kyme (Euboea), Greece Hishuley Carmel, Israel Uluburun. Turkey Kefr Shamir. Israel Arbatax. Sardinia Sozopol, Bulgaria* Ashkelon N., Israel Sedot Yam. Israel Neve Yam, Israel Kefr Samir (A), Israel Kefr Samir (B), Israel Kefr Samir (C). Israel Kefr Salim S.. Israel Yavneh-Yam, Israel Formentera (Baleares), Spain Cape Gelidonya, Turkey Rochelongues Point. France HaHoterim (A), Israel Point Iria. Greece

EBA 2200 2150 MBA MBA 1800-1675 1600 1575 1500 1450 1450 1400 1325 1300 LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA/Iron 1250 1200 1200 1200 1200

Kopeke 1992: 105-6; Lipinski 1995a: 1324; Bell 2009: 34-38), and distinctive architectural evidence found on land (Artzy 1987: 82) and in harbors (Collombier 1988: 43-44; Raban 1993; 1998: 430-33). This is axiomatic in the discipline, and Muhfy (f970: 45-46) argues that Phoenicians had actually colonized the island before the end ofthe tenth century (see most recently Aubet 2000; Karageorghis 2008: 189-98; cf. Belén Deamos 2009: 212). Phoenician evidence across Crete dates perhaps as early as the fate lfth century and, in any case, not fater than the fOth century. A bronze bowf/cup containing a Phoenician inscription was found in situ in an

unpfundered tomb (J) at Tekke, a northern necropolis of Knossus. On palaeographic grounds. Cross (f980: 17a; 1986: 124; 1987: 7f; 2003: 227-30) dated this inscription to the late 11th century.-^" It appears that Cross's palaeographic analysis can be affirmed with substantial confidence by the fact that this undisturbed tomb also contained some early Greek protogeometric '" Cross's date has been accepted by Naveh (1982: 40-41). Puech (1983: 394). Lipinski (1983: 131-32). Negbi (1987: 248): cf. Bikai 1989: 133. Other scholars (Sznycer 1979: 90; Gras. Rouillard, and Teixidor 1989: 85; Markoe 2000: 33, 172) date the in.scription to the tenth century: Amadasi Guzzo (1992: 315) dates the text to the ninth century.

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

pottery (11th century) as well as a Late Minoan IIIC lentoid seal (1 Ith century). Moreover, across the island on Crete's southern coast, hundreds of fragments of characteristic tenth-century Phoenician pottery have been found at Temple A at Kommos, some in stratified contexts (see similar finds in Temple B), together with a distinctive tri-pillared Phoenician shrine and a great number of Canaanite jars, all of which point unmistakably to some sort of Phoenician initiative and sustained presence there by that time (Albright 1941: 20-21; Niemeyer 1993: 339; Boardman 2001: 36; Muhly 2004: 34). On Sardinia, we have three early Phoenician texts. These texts represent neither articles of trade nor something of an heirloom quality (cf. Trump 1980: 241-46); they are all monumental in nature and therefore strongly suggestive of a Phoenician presence there. In addition to the Nora Stone (see above), they include the Nora Stele (CIS 1.145), dated by Cross on the basis of a detailed palaeographic analysis to the 11th century (1984: 62-63; 1986: 120-24; 1987: 65-72), His date has been accepted by a host of scholars (so Naveh 1982: 40-41, 59; Baliuuth 1992: 218; Webster and Teglund 1992: 448; Negbi 1987: 248; and Lipinski 1983: 129-33), though the stele has been dated to tbe tenth century by Röllig (1983a: 126). Moreover, a small stone fragment (CIS 1.162) found at Bosa, in northwest Sardinia about 100 miles from Nora—consisting of a few letters but part of a monumental inscription—is dated palaeographically by Albright (1941: 20), Cross (1986: 120; see now 2003: 256, 263, 337), and Lipinski (1992b: 166) to the ninth century. Furthermore, leading Sardinian scholars (e.g., Barreca 1986; Balmuth 1992) have long argued that Phoenicians were substantially present on both the northern and southern coasts of Sardinia by 1000 B.C., basing their claim on distinctive Phoenician bronze figurines found at numerous coastal and inland sites on Sardinia, but dated purely on stylistic grounds (Lo Schiavo, Macnamara, and Vagnetti 1985: 51-62; Bisi 1987: 227-36), More recently, however. Serra Ridgway (1987: 251-52) has reported the tantalizing discovery of a portion of one such figurine found in a sealed locus that cannot be dated later than the tenth century (cf. Giardino 1992; Ridgway 1994:40-41; Lo Schiavo 1995).^' " Because of its indispensable navigational reference point and its considerable supply of metallic minerals, the island of Sardinia is believed to have served as a pivotal tran.sportation nexus in early Iron Age commercial routes across the Mediterranean and beyond

49

Unambiguous evidence of a considerable Phoenician occupation in coastal Spain dates to the end of the tenth century or the beginning of the ninth century B.c. In 1998, as part of excavations conducted for purposes of urban expansion at the modern city ol' Huelva— on the Atlantic coast immediately north of the mouth of the Rfo Tinto (Tartessos River)—a huge site now thought to have been an ancient Phoenician emporium was accidentally unearthed (González de Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2004; 2006; 2008). To date, tnore than 3,200 pieces of distinctly Phoenician pottery of various types have been discovered in situ, together with vestiges of goods from all over the Mediterranean, including Italy, Sardinia, Greece, and Cyprus, The Phoenician materials are largely of a domestic or industrial nature (including ivory tTianufacturing and silver metallurgy), rather than being luxury or prestige items, which may be taken to suggest the presence of a full-fledged Phoenician settlement and not merely of a transit station for trade (cf. Belén Deamos 2009: 196). Radiocarbon tests conducted on several animal bone samples of substantial size taken from the Phoenician stratum—where the quality of the determinations was assessed as excellent—have yielded a mean calibrated age of 930-830 CAL B.C.,^- with a low error analysis (± 25 years) and a high degree of probability (Gale and Stos-Gale 1988; 382-83; Chapman 1990; 262-64; Burgess 1991; 36; Giardino 1992; 304-7; Kopeke 1992; 105; Stos-Gale and Gale 1992; 317; Sherratt and Sherratt 1993; 264-71, 365; Lo Schiavo 1995; Rufz-Galvez Priego 1997; 98-99, 109-14). For the strong inference that Phoenician trading vessels had sporadically appeared on the shores of Malta by the tenth century, the reader is advised to consult Sagona 20()8b; 504-12. Bondi (1988; 245-46) infers a Phoenician pre-colonial presence in coastal Libya by no later than the 11th century. And for late-tenth to mid-ninth-century evidence of a Phoenician presence at several coastal and inland sites across western Sicily, refer to Tanasi 2009; 54-58. '- Radiometrie calibration indicates that the bone samples date between 1000 and 820 CAL B.C. (± 15 years). Even allowing for the standard deviation, one of the samples yields a calibrated age that is fully contained within the tenth century, while the remaining sainples fall within the tenth-ninth centuries. To the degree that contemporary high-quality '•*C analysis ofl'ers an independent dating asset, albeit one only recently given a significant role in Near Eastern chronological discussions, all the associated Phoenician pottery found at Huelva render the "new chronology" discussions that center in Israel today even more complicated, tenuous, and perhaps even problematic (e.g., Finkelstein 2000; 2005; Gilboa, Sharon, and Boaretto 2008; 168-92; see also González de Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2008; 648-52; Sagona 2008a; Nijboer 2008a; 370-74; Lehtnann 2008; 213-17; Mazar 2005; and refer now to van der Plicht, Bruins, and Nijboer 2009). Additional highquality, short-lived, large-size radiocarbon samples discovered in a clear stratigraphie sequence are needed to allow for a lower standard deviation and improved measures in date fixation.

50

BARRY J. BEITZEL

(94%) (Nijboer and van der Plicht 2006: 31-33; Nijboer 2008a: 370-74)." Accordingly, these highquality, short-lived, large-size remains removed from the Phoenician stratum, the oldest of their kind in the westem Mediterranean, are strongly suggestive of an ongoing Phoenician presence in Spain; in the words of the Spanish excavators, they are "remarkably close in date to Hiram and Solomon . . . only a difference of a few decades, if any" (Gonzales de Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 27; cf. 2008: 642-46; see also Nijboer 2008b: ^ ^' Note the eorrelation and possible relevance of these results with the average dates obtained for Tel Rehov IV (cf. Bruins, van der Plicht, and Mazar 2()O3a: Coldstream and Mazar 2(X)3: refer also to Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2003: 568; Bruins, van der Plicht, and Mazar 2003b: 568) and other sites manifesting a major destruction level identified as marking the end of Iron I occupation (cf. Mazar and Carmi 2001; Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; van der Plicht, Bruins, and Nijboer 2009). •''' This recent evidence at Huelva can be augmented by additional early materials in coastal Iberia, including (a) some 20 tombs at Laurita (Cerro de San Cristóbal, near Almuñécar). each containing an alabaster incineration urn, four bearing the inscribed cartouche of a ninth-century pharaoh (Osorkon II; Takelot II; Shoshenq III) (Padró 1985: 49-97; Pellicer 2002: 52-53, 65-70); (b) the Iron Age rupestral painting of seven Phoenician boats found at Laja Alta (near Jimena de la Frontera) (Coffyn 1985: 261-74, 290 pi. 14: cf. Gras. Rouillard. and Teixidor 1989: 89-92); (c) the mid-ninth-century Huelva shipwreck that appears to have included Phoenician materials (Bisi 1987: 246; cf. table 1): and (d) perhaps the Berzocana bronze bowl of an oriental character from Extremadura (near the Portugal border; cf. Wachsmann et al. 2009: 227-28: Aubet 2009: 295-306; Arruda 2009) (see Padilla Monge 1994: 60: Niemeyer 1993:339-40; 1995: 253; Burgess 1991: 25; Bondi 1988: 247-48; Trump 1980: 248). Beyond this, more than a dozen Phoenician settlements largely clustered in eoastal estuaries dominated by a navigable river (Aubet Semmler 1999: 285-97; 2002a: 80-84) and providing access into hinterlands rich in copper, silver, and other ores (Aubet 2009: 284-95) date on present evidence to the late ninth or early eighth century (see Schubart 1995: Niemeyer 2006: 153; Neville 2007: 11-21, 83-104; Belén Deamos 2009; for the site locations, refer to the maps in Treumann 2009: 170; Aubet Semmler 2002b: 105; and Pellicer 1992: 72). However, I wish to emphasize that these settlements, though very small in size (most are less than 5 ha), manifest aspects of full-scale occupation and clear evidence of actual Phoenician "colonization" (cf. Schubart 1995): their remains include aligned houses, metallurgical workshops, furnaces, mining components or other telltale signs of metalworking (e.g.. vitrified slag, bellows-pipes, kilns, charcoal, miner's tools, metal fragments), inscribed vases, bronze statuettes, various domestic wares, and rock-cut articulated graves. Moreover, we know that the Iberian silver mines, particularly around Rio Tinto, were being exploited in the early Iron Age. as demonstrated by well-stratified slag layers dated by means of distinctive pottery (Rothenberg et al. 1989: 61-62; cf. Elat 1982; 61-62; Blanco and Luzon 1969: 124: Markoe 2000: 184-85). An 11 th-century silver hoard exhumed from Tel Dor manifests a metallic composition consistent with what is found in Rio Tinto ores (Stem 2001: 25; cf. Sto.s-Gale 2001, for a

BASOR 360

This evidence may tell us when Phoenicians first engaged in the systematic settlement of the western Mediterranean and even the Iberian Peninsula, but it begs the question: When did Phoenicians first arrive there? Is it more logical to assume that the earliest Phoenician settlements in the west had been founded on impulse by intrepid seamen passing that way for the first time around 930-830 B.c., or by traders/merchants who after perhaps as many as two to three generations had developed the need for more permanent stations and not just small onshore moorings? Boardman's seminal studies (e.g., 2001) raise the specter of earlier possible settlements that did not take root, if only because of a decision to move on and find a better location. Scholars are in agreement that the earliest Phoenician pre-colonial contacts in the west would have been in the form of seasonal landing camps or sporadic prospecting stations that would have left little or no recognizable material traces (e.g.. Bondi 1988; Burgess 1991: 36; Pellicer 2002: 58; Mata 2002: 159; Rodriguez 1997: 177; Markoe 2000; 33).^5 !„ jhe vvords of Niemeyer (1993: 342), these early ventures were not even designed to "hoi.st the flag," much less to plant the flag. Students of early Mycenaean expansionism/colonization on the Mediterranean (e.g., Kilian 1990:465; cf Moscati 1989:41-43), or Greek expansionism/colonization (e.g., Pomeroy et al. 1999: 90-95; Tsetskhladze 2006; cf. Aubet 2001: 347-54), describe what they call a "phased pre-colonial development" that lasted several generations.-^^ It seems entirely justifiable to similar discovery among eighth-century silver objeets at Shechem; consult Fernández Jurado 2002: 252-59 for an analysis of Rio Tinto ores). And lead isotope analysis of materials taken from the harbor at Sidon reveals that Phoenician metallurgy in this period employed ores imported from Rio Tinto mines (Doumet-Serhal 2008: 41 and the bibliography cited there). Though other finds are too late to bear directly on this argument, it is worth noting that approximately 10 Phoenician texts dating as early as the eighth century have thus far been discovered in Spain (Fuentes Estañol 1986; see also Cunchillos 1990). that a scaraboid seal from the same period containing a short Old Hebrew inscription has been found at Cádiz (Avigad and Sass 1997; 128, 515), and that Iron Age Phoenician bronzes of Iberian origin have been discovered at Huelva and Cádiz (Falsone 1993: 54-55). ''' For a similar observation related to Assyrian commercial expansionism at KaniS, see Özgüc 1972: 245-46; Sherratt atid Sherratt 1991:356-57. ''' For a similar modus operandi having to do with Greek expansionism on the Black Sea. consult Tsetskhladze 1994: 11319: cf. Grammenos and Petropoulos 2007. The somewhat equivocal expression "pre-colonial" has mo.st recently been studied by Dietler 2009: 20-23; Celestino Pérez 2009: 229-32; cf. Aubet 2001: 17284;Bendala 1997.

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

make the same sort of claim for the process of Phoenician expansionism across the Mediterranean, especially .since we know that their first settlements in particular were reasonably compact and were often established on characteristic offshore island topography and/or on virgin soil or in a region sparsely inhabited by indigenous populations (Niemeyer 2006: 146-60; Wachsmann et al. 2009: 222). Lipinski (1995a: 1324a; cf. 1993: 323) suggests that Phoenician pre-colonial expansionism probably lasted about 100 years, and Aubet (2001: 173, 181-82, 200-11) proposes that it may have taken up to 150 years; they concur that it was begun during the tenth century (cf. Niemeyer 1993: 337-44; 1995: 255-60; Bondi 1988: 246-49, 254-55; Bunnens 1979: 329; Moscati 1989: 44-52). CONCLUSION To conclude, the existence of Phoenicians across the breadth of the Meditenanean by the tenth century is supported by epigraphic documentation and both nautical and terrestrial archaeological discovery, perhaps augmented by logic. While the evidence points overwhelmingly to a tnotivation of mercantilism, in which the Phoenicians were driven to a great extent by the presence of metal resources in the west (see Bondi 1988: 250-51; Lipinski 1992b: 167; Niemeyer 1995: 250-52, 264-67; Fantar 1999: 200-201; Fernández Jurado 2002; Neville 2007: 135-58)," which would be consistent with the biblical verdict, the dynamics and modalities of Phoenician maritime activities are not well known at all, and in any event the "process" probably cannot be reduced to a uniform, homogeneous pattern, either geographically or geopolitically. Moreover, at the end of the day, direct proof of any Judahite participation in the Mediterranean Sea trade is still lacking. Burgess (1991: 33) speculates that Hiram permitted Solomon a share in his alreadyexisting Tarshish trade as a quid pro quo for access to the new trade of the Red Sea and Ophir.-^^ Miller •" In addition to metals, various other economic rationales have been propo.sed. Thus, for example. Treumann (1997; 2009) argues for a motivation of trade, but trade in timber rather than metals. Wagner and Alvar ( 1989) suggest an agricultural motivation, according to which people fleeing potential deportation and/or degraded natural resources sailed west for survival. For a brief discussion of what other economic motive(s) may have brought the Phoenicians to the far west (e.g., salt, murex, slaves), refer to Arruda 2009: 123-28: Buxd 2009: 155-60; Dietlerand López-Ruiz 2009: 302-3. '" The recently reported work of Levy at Kh. en-Nahas/Feinan. about 50 km south of the Dead Sea in western Jordan (Levy et al. 2(X)8; N. Smith and Levy 2008. and bibliography there), has conclusively demonstrated the presence there of a thriving industrial-scale

51

and Hayes (2006: 208-11; cf. Wachsmann 1998: 327) argue that tfie Red Sea venture was really "a Phoenician undertaking in which Solomon was allowed to participate" because he controlled access to the Gulf of Aqaba (cf. Bass 1995: 1430a, for a more optimistic appraisal of Solomon's involvement). I submit that the essence of their inferential argument, including its asymmetrical political character, might just as well be applied to the evidentiary record that exists for Phoenicians on the Mediterranean, as it is not clear to me how a joint nautical venture to a foreign port on the Mediterranean is inherently any more exaggerated or ideological than a similar claim made for the Red Sea,-^*^ where virtually no distinctive Iron Age evidence of either Judahite or Phoenician nauticalism has yet been discovered.""' Despite the paucity of indigenous epigraphic sources across the entire Levant during the early Iron Age as compared with what is known from either the Late Bronze Age or the Iron IIB-C period (see Davies 1991; Renz and Röllig 1995: 3.3-4; Schule 2000: 23-29; Dobbs-AIlsopp et al. 2005; Horowitz and Oshima 2006; Byrne 2007), and despite the lack of Egyptian sources having to do with the Levant in this period (cf. Weinstein 1992; Meyers 2001: 175-76; Kitchen 2003: 114-27), we have clear archaeological evidence for tenth-century settlement/expansion along the mid-Mediterranean coastline, approximately copper production center as early as the 11th-10th centuries (cf. van der Plicht. Bruins, and Nijboer 2(K)9: 224, 239-40). Whether this mining activity was controlled by Judah, Edom, Egypt, or another political entity is unknown. Likewise, whether it was in any way related to the tenth-century Negev Highland "fortresses"" and/ or to some sort of nascent trade on the Red Sea remains to be seen (cf. Mazar 2003: 92-93). -'' In this regard, it may be pertinent to note it was nautical journeying to Ophir that is said to have netted Solomon quantifiable— even fabulous—sums of wealth (I Kgs 9:28b; 2 Chr 8:18b). On the other hand, aside from the fact that both the Ophir and Tarshish references are embedded in narratives relating to the Judahite king's material splendor, the text provides no specific information having to do with the quantitative or economic benefits derived exclusively from Tarshish pursuits. •"' Beyond what appears to exist architecturally at the Jezirat Fara'un harbor (see Raban 1998: 430-43). as well as some Iron I pottery found on the island itself (Rothenberg 1972: 203-7; Flinder 1989: 41). I am unaware of any early Iron Age evidence that is distinctively Phoenician or Judahite in character—di.scovered on or adjacent to the Red Sea—in the form of occupational debris, textual materials, pottery finds, shipwreck findspots. or the like. In this regard, one might consult Edwards and Head 1987; Khalil and Mustafa 2(K)2: 529-34; Mumford and Parcak 2(X)3: Lunde and Porter 2004; Starkey 2(K)5: or the draft abstracts of the Red Sea Project. Part III (S(xiety for Arabian Studies; October 27-28,2006), and see the bibliography cited there.

52

BARRY J. BEITZEL

between Tel Shiqmona and Teil Qasile,'" which is ascribed by several scholars to Judahite and/or Phoenician activity (e.g.. Mazar 1990: 387-90; Zaccagnini 1996; Liverani 2005: 86,96-97). While it seems probable that Judahite involvement in early Mediterranean trade would have been quite limited—perhaps both in scope and in time—it is well conceivable that Solomon (begging the question of his existence) may have

•»I Relevant data appear in NEAEHL 1.10-12, 117-139,359-61 ; 2.656; 3.1031-33, 1037-38; 4.1373-75; OEANE 1.9; 2.169-70; 4.21, 373-76; cf. Kingsley and Raveh 1996; 9-14; Galili and Rosen 2008.

BASOR 360

invested in some Phoenician Mediterranean operations, that Judahites may have crewed or deployed on some Phoenician vessels, or even that Judah may have co-sponsored its own fleet. Accordingly, while tnany internal complexities still require elucidation, given the unambiguous archaeological presence of Phoenicians across the Mediterranean by the tenth century, combined with the equally unambiguous epigraphic attestation of an early historical site or sites on the Mediterranean known as Tarshish, it seems reasonable to me to accord a certain measure of historical plausibility to the Tarshish narratives of the Bible in this regard.

REFERENCES

NEAEHL = Stern, E., ed. 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: AHw = von Soden, W., ed. Israel Exploration Society. 1965- Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. WiesNEAEHLSupp = Stern, E., ed. 1981 baden; Harra.ssowitz. 2008 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological ExA N £ r = Pritchard, J . B . cavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 5; Supple1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old mentary Volume. Jerusaletn; Israel Exploration Testament. 3rd ed. with Supplement. Princeton, Society. NJ; Princeton University. OEANE = Meyers, E. M. Ant = Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. 1997 The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the BAGRW=Td\hen,R.}.A. Near East. 5 vols. New York; Oxford University. 2000 Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Wb = Erman, A., and Grapow, H. Princeton, NJ; Princeton University. 1982 Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. 7 vols. 4th CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of ed. Berlin; Akademie. the University of Chicago. CIS = Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. CoS = Hallo, W. W., and Younger, K. L. References 1997- The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden; Brill. 2002 Ahlströtn. G. W. GAG = von Soden, W. 1991 The Nora Inscription and Tarshish. Maarav 7; 41-49. 1969 Grundriss der Akkadisehen Grammatik. 2nd ed. 1993 The History of Ancient Palestine. Minneapolis; Analecta Orientalia 33, 47. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Fortress. HALOT= Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W. Albanese Procelli, R. M. 2008 Sicily. Pp. 461-86 in Beyond the Homeland: 2001 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. SaTestament. Study ed. 2 vols. Leiden; Brill. gona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement KAH = Me.sserschmidt, L.; Weber, O.; Delitzsch, F; and 28. Leuven; Peeters. Schroeder, O. 1911 Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts. 2 Albright, W. F 1941 New Light on the Early History of Phoenician vols. Wissenschaftliche Veröffetitlichungen der Colonization. Bulletin of the American Schools Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 16, 37. Leipzig; of Oriental Research S3: 14-22. Hinrichs. 1961 The Role of the Canaanites in the History of KAI = Donner. H., and Röllig, W., eds. and comps. Civilization. Pp. 328-62 in The Bible and the 2002 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 5th Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William ed. 3 vols. Wie.sbaden; Harrassowitz. Abbreviations

2010

PHOENICIANS AND fSRAELfTES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Foxwetl Albright, ed. G. E. Wright. Garden City. NY: Douhleday. Alfrink. B. 1943 L'Expres.sion Vnia^ Dï 332^. Oudtestamentische Studien 2. \Qb-\'Á. Alster, B. 1983 Diltnun, Bahrain, and the Alleged Paradise in Sumerian Myth and Literature. Pp. 39-74 in Diltnun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, ed. D. T. Potts. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 2. Berlin: Reimer. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1992 Nora. P. 315 in Dictionnaire de ta civilisation phénicienne et punique, ed. E. Lipinski. Tumhout: Brepols. Arruda, A. M. 2009 Phoenician Colonization on the Atlantic Coast of the Iberian Petiinsula. Pp. I 13-30 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. M. Dietler and C. Lopez-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago. Art/y, M. 1987 On Boats and Sea Peoples. Bulletin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research 266: 75-84. 2003 Mariners and Their Boats at the End of the Late Bronze atid the Beginnitig ofthe Iron Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. Tel Aviv 30: 232-46. Aubet, M. E. 20CK) Aspects of Tyrian Trade and Colonization in the Eastern Mediterranean. Miinstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelgeschichte 19: 70-120. 2001 The Phoenicians and the West: Politics. Colonies, and Trade. Trans. M. Turton, from Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 2008 Political and Economic Implications ofthe New Phoenician Chronologies. Pp. 247-59 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven: Peeters. 2009 Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente. 3rd updated and enl. ed. Arqueología 37. Barcelona: Bellaterra. Aubet Semmler, M. E. 1999 Spain. Pp. 279-304 in The Phoenicians, ed. S. Moseati. Trans, from Italian. New York: Rizzoli. 2002a Notes on the Economy of the Phoenician Settlements in Southern Spain. Pp. 79-95 in The Phoenicians in Spain: An Archaeological Review of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.c.E.: A Collection of Articles Translated from Spanish, ed. and trans. M. R. Bierling. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

2002b

53

Phoenician Trade in the West: Balance and Perspectives. Pp. 97-112 in The Phoenicians in Spain: An Archaeological Review ofthe EighthSixth Centuries B.C.E.: A Collection of Articles Tratistated from Spanish, ed. and tratis. M. R. Bierling. Winona Lake, IN: Ei.senbrauns. Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Bagg, A. M. 2007 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Vol. 1: Die Levante. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 7/1; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswissenschaften 7. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Balmuth, M. S. 1992 Phoenician Chronology in Sardinia: Prospecting, Trade and Settlement before 900 B.c. Pp. 215-27 in Numismatique et histoire économique phéniciennes et puniques: Actes du colloque tenu à Louvain-la-Neuve, 13-16 tnai 1987, ed. T. Hackens and G. Moucharte. Studia Phoenicia 9; Publications d'histoire de Tart et d'archéologie de l'Université catholique de Leuven 58: Numistnatica Lovanietisia 9. Leuven: Université catholique de Leuven. Barako, T. J. 2000 The Philistine Settlement as Mercantile Phenotiienon? American Journal of Archaeology 104:513-30. Ban-, J. 2000 History and Ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the End of a Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University. Barreca, E 1986 Phoenicians in Sardinia: The Bronze Figurines. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology 2: 131-44. Bartoloni, P. 1999 Ships and Navigation. Pp. 84-91 in The Phoenicians, ed. S. Moscati. Trans, from Italian. New York: Rizzoli. Bass. G. F. 1995 Sea and River Craft in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 1421-31 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3, ed. J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner. Bass, G. F. and Wachsmann, S. 1997 Ships and Boats. Pp. 30-34 in The Oxford Encyclopedia ofArchaeology in the Near East. Vol. 5, ed. E. M. Meyers. New York: Oxford Utiiversity. Bauer, A., and Strzygowski, J. 1906 Eine Alexandrinische Weltchronik: Text und Miniaturen eines griechischen Papyrus der

54

BARRY J. BEITZEL

Sammlung W. Goleniscev. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 51/2. Vienna; Holder. Belén Deamos, M. 2(X)9 Phoeniciatis in Tartessos. Pp. 193-228 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. M. Dietler and C. López-Ruiz. Chicago; University of Chicago. Bell, C. 2009 Continuity and Change; The Divergent Destinies of Late Bronze Age Ports in Syria and Lebanon across the LBA/Iron Age Transition. Pp. 30-38 in Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean: Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at St. John's College, University of Oxford, 25-6th March 2006, ed. C. Bachhuber and R. G. Roberts. Themes from the Ancient Near East BANEA Publication Series I. Oxford; Oxbow. Belmonte Marín, J. A. 2001 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 12/2; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswissenschaften 7. Wiesbaden; Reichert. Bendala, M. 1997 A Thorny Problem; Was There Contact between the Peoples of the Sea and Tartessos? Pp. 89-94 in Encounters and Transformations: The Archaeology of Iberia in Transition, ed. M. Bahnuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira. Monographs iti Mediterranean Archaeology 7. Sheffield; Sheffield Academic. Berggren, J. L., and Jones, A. 2000 Ptolemy's Geography; An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Princeton, NJ; Princeton University. Berlejung, A., and Schule, A. 1998 Erwägungen zu den neuen Ostraka aus der Sammlung MoussaVeff. Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 11; 68-73. Bietak, M. 2006 The Predecessors of the Hyksos. Pp. 285-93 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P Dessel. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. Bikai, P M. 1983 The Imports from the East. Pp. 396-405 in Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, ed. V. Karageorghis. Konstanz; Universitätsverlag Konstanz. 1992 The Phoenicians. Pp. 132-41 in The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from beyond the

BASOR 360

Danube to the Tigris, ed. W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque, IA; Kendall/Hunt. Bisi, A.M. 1987 Near Eastern Bronzes in Sardinia; Imports and Influences. Pp. 226-46 in Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, Vol. 3; Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World, ed. M. S. Baltnuth. BAR International Series 387. Oxford; BAR. Blanco, A., and Luzon, J. M. 1969 Pre-Roman Silver Miners at Riotinto. Antiquity 43; 124-31. Boardman, J. 2001 Aspects of "Colonization." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322; 33-42. Bondi, S. R 1988 Problemi délia precolonizzazione fenicia nel Mediterráneo centro-occidentale. Pp. 243-55 in Momenti precoloniali nel Mediterráneo antico: Questioni di método, aree d 'indagine. evidenze a confronto, ed. E. Acquaro, L. Godart, F. Mazza, and D. Musti. Collezione di studi fenici 28. Rome; Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1999 The Course of History. Pp. 38-45 in The Phoenicians, ed. S. Mo.scati. Trans, from Italian. New York; Rizzoli. Bordreuil, P.; Israel, E; and Pardee, D. 1996 Deux ostraca paléo-hébreux de la collection Sh. MoussaVeff. Semitica 46; 49-76. 1998 King's Command and Widow's Plea; Two New Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical Period. Near Eastern Archaeology 61; 2-13. Borger, R.

1967

Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von

Assyrien. Archiv für Odentforschung, Beiheft 9. Osnabrück; Biblio-Verlag. Brinkman, J. A. 1989 The Akkadian Words for "Ionia" and "Ionian," Pp. 53-71 in Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schroder, S.J., ed. R. F Sutton, Jr. Wauconda, IL; Bolchazy-Carducci. Bron, F 1979 Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe. Hautes études orientales 11. Geneva: Droz. Bruins, H.; van der Plicht, J.; and Mazar, A. 2003a '""C Dates from Tel Rehov; Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, Science 300/5617; 315-18. 2003b Response to Comment on "'''C Dates from Tel Rehov; Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings." Science 302/5645; 568. Budge, E. A. W., and King, L. W. 1902 Annals of the Kings of Assyria in the British Museum, Vol. I ; The Cuneiform Texts with Translations, Transliterations, etc., from the Original

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Documents in the British Museum. Londoti: Trustees of the British Museum. Buntiens, G. 1979 L'expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée: Essai d'interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. Etudes de philologie, d'archéologie et d'histoire anciennes 17. Brussels: Institut historique belge de Rome. 1983 Considérations géographiques sur la place occupée par la Phénicie dans l'expansion de l'empire Assyrien. Pp. 169-93 in Studia Phoenicia /-//, ed. E. Gubel, E. Lipinski, and B. Servais-Soyez. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 15. Leuven: Peeters. Burgess, C. 1991 The East and West: Mediterranean Influence in the Atlantic World in the Later Bronze Age, c. 1500-700 B.c. Pp. 25-45 in L'Age du Bronze atlantique, ed. C. Chevillot and A. Coffyn. Beynac-et-Cazenac: Association des musées du Sarladais. Burke, A. A. 2006 Tarshish in the Mountains of Lebanon: Attestations of a Biblical Place Name. Maarav 13: 123-25. Buxo, R. 2009 Botanical and Archaeological Dimensions of the Colonial Encounter. Pp. 155-68 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. M. Dietler and C. Lopez-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago. Byrne, R. 2007 The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 3A5\ 1-31. Casson, L. 1991 The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Celestino, S., and Lopez-Ruiz, C. 2003 Sacred Precincts: A Tartessian Sanctuary in Ancient Spain. Archaeology Odyssey 6/6: 21-29. Celestino-Pérez, S. 2009 Precolonization and Colonization in the Interior of Tartessos. Pp. 229-51 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. M. Dietler and C. LopezRuiz. Chicago: University of Chicago. Celestino-Pérez, S., and Lopez-Ruiz, C. 2006 New Light on the Warrior Stelae from Tartessos (Spain). Antiquity 80: 89-101. Chapman, R. 1990 Emerging Complexity: The Later Prehistory of South-East Spain, Iberia, and the West Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

55

Coffyn, A. 1985 Le Bronze final atlantique dans la Péninsule ibérique. Publications du Centre Pierre Paris 11 ; Collection de la Maison des Pays Ibérique 20. Talence, France: Université de Bordeaux III. Coldstream, J. N. 1998 The First Exchanges between Euboeans and Phoenicians: Who Took the Initiative? Pp. 353-60 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jertisalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2003 Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronological Debate in the Southern Levant. Tel Aviv 30: 247-58. Coldstream, J. N., and Mazar, A. 2003 Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology. Israel Exploration Journal 53: 29-48. Collombier, A.-M. 1988 Harbour or Harbours of Kition on Southeastern Coastal Cyprus. Pp. 35-46 in Archaeology of Coastal Changes: Proceedings of the First International Symposium "Cities on the Sea-Past and Present, " Haifa, Israel, September 22-29, 1986," ed. A. Raban. BAR International Series 404; University of Haifa, Center for Maritime Studies, Publications 2. Oxford: BAR. Correa, J. A. 1992 La epigrafía tartesia. Pp. 75-114 in Andalusien zwischen Vorgeschichte und Mittelalter, ed. D. Hertel and J. Untermann. Forum IberoAmericanum 7. Cologne: Böhlau. Courbin, P 1990 Bassit-Posidaion in the Early Iron Age. Pp. 503-9 in Greek Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology Held in Honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall, Sydney, 9-14 July 1985. ed. J.-P Descœudres. Canberra: Humanities Research Centre. Cross, F M. 1972 An Interpretation of the Nora Stone. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208: 13-19. 1980 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 1-20. 1984 Phoenicians in Sardinia: The Epigraphical Evidence. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology 1: 53-65. 1986 Phoenicians in the West: The Early Epigraphic Evidence. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology 2:

116-30.

56

1987

BARRY J. BEITZEL

The Oldest Phoenician Inscription from Sardinia: The Fragmentary Stele from Nora. Pp. 65-74 in "Working with No Data": Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. D. M. Golomb. Winona Lake, IN: Ei.senbrauns. 2003 Leaves from an Epigrapher's Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cunchillos, J.-L. 1990 Las inscripciones fetiicias del Tell de Doña Blanca (III). TDB 89001 y 89003. Aula Orientalist: 175-81. D'Agata, A.-L. 2003 Bronze Age Mediterranean and the Western and Southern Black Sea Regions. Paper presented at the British Academy Black Sea Initiative. Davies, G. I. 1991 Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 2005 Some Uses of Writing in Ancient Israel in the Light of Recently Published Inscriptions. Pp. 155-74 in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Aian R. Mil lard, ed. P. Bienkowski, C. Mee, and E. Slater. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 426. London: T & T Clark, del Castillo, A. 2003 Tarsis en la estela de Nora: ¿Un topónimo de Occidente? Sefarad 63: 3-32. 2004 Tarshish in the Esarhaddon Inscription and the Book of Genesis. BilMa e Oriente 46: 193-206. Delcor. M. 1968 Réflexions sur l'inscription phénicienne de Nora en Sardaigne. Syria 45: 323-52. del Monte. G. E, and Tischler, J. 1978 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 6/1; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswissenschaften 7. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Dietler, M. 2009 Colonial Encounters in Iberia and the Western Mediterranean: An Exploratory Framework. Pp. 3-48 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. M. Dietler and C. López-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago. Dietler, M., and López-Ruiz, C. 2009 Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: A Coda. Pp. 299-312 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician. Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. M. Dietler and C. López-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago.

BASOR 360

Dillard. R. B. 1987 2 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 15. Waco, TX: Word. Dobbs-AIlsopp, F W.: Roberts, J. J. M.: Seow, C. L.; and Whitaker, R. E. 2005 Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven: Yale University. Doumet-Serhal, C. 2008 The Kingdom of Sidon and Its Mediterranean Connections. Pp. 1-70 iti Networking Pattems of the Bronze and Iron A^e Levant: The Lebanon and Its Mediterranean Connections, ed. C. Doutnet-Serhal. Beirut: Lebanese British Friends of the National Mu.seum. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1948 Nouvelle lecture d'une inscription phénicienne archaïque de Nora, en Sardaigne {C.I.S., I, 144). Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 92: 12-22. Edwards, A. J.. and Head. S. M., eds. 1987 Red Sea. Oxford: Pergamon. Edzard, D. O., and Färber, G. 1974 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéifortTies 2; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswissenschaften 7. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Edzard, D. O.; Farber, G.; and Sollberger, E. 1977 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der präsargonischen und sargonischen Zeit. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 1 ; Beihefte zutn Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswissenschaften 7. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Elat, M. 1982 Tarshish and the Problem of Phoenician Colonisation in the Western Mediterranean. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periódica 13: 55-69. Englund. R. 1983 Dilmun in the Archaic Uruk Corpus. Pp. 35-37 in Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, ed. D. T. Potts. Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient 2. Berlin: Reimer. Eph'al, I., and Naveh, J. 1998 Remarks on the Recently Published MoussaiefF Ostraca. Israel E.Kploration Journal 48: 269-73. Fales, F. M., and Postgate, J. N., eds. 1992 Imperial Administrative Records, Part 1: Palace and Temple Administration. State Archives of Assyria 7. Helsinki: Helsinki University. Falsone, G. 1993 Sulla cronologia del bronzo fenicio di Sciacca alla luce délie nuove scoperte di Huelva e Cadice. Pp. 45-56 in Studi sulla Sicilia Occi-

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

dentale in onore di Vincenzo Tusa. ed. C. Gallou. Padua; Bottega d'Erasmo. Fantar. M. 1999 North Africa. Pp. 199-230 in The Phoenicians, ed. S. Moscati. Trans, from Italian. New York; Rizzoli. Fernández Jurado, J. 2002 The Tartessian Economy; Mining and Metallurgy. Pp. 241-62 in The Phoenicians in Spain: An Archaeological Review of the Eighth-Si.xth Centuries B.C.E.: A Collection of Articles Translatedfrom Spanish, ed. and trans. M. R. Bierling. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbiauns. Finkelstein, I. 2000 The Philistine Settlemetits; When, Where and How Many? Pp. 159-80 in The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. E. D. Oren. University Museum Monograph 108; University Museum Symposiutn Series II. Philadelphia; University Museum. 2005 The Low Chronology Update. Pp. 31-42 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology. Te.xt and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London; Equinox. Finkelstein. I., and Pia.setzky, E. 2003 Comment on "'^C Dates from Tel Rehov; IronAge Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings." Science 302/5645; 568. Flinder, A. 1989 Is This Solomon's Seaport? Biblical Archaeology Review 15/4; 30-43. Frendo, A. J. 2004 Back to Basics; A Holistic Approach to the Problem of the Emergence of Ancient Israel. Pp. 4 1 64 in In Search of P re-exilic Israel: Proceedings of the O.xford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day. Joumal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 406. London; T & T Clark. Fuchs, A. 1994 Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen; Cuvillier. Fuentes Estañol, M. J. 1986 Corpus de las inscripciones fenicias de España. Aula Orientalis 4; 5-30. Gadd, C.J. 1954 Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud. Iraq 16; 173-201. Gale, N. H., and Stos-Gale, Z. A. 1988 Recent Evidence for a Possible Bronze Age Metal Trade between Sardinia and the Aegean. Pp. 349-84 in Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, ed. E. B. French and K. A. Wardle. Bristol; Bristol Classical.

Galili, E. 1985

57

A Group of Stone Anchors from Ne we-Yam. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 14; 143-53. 1987 Corrections and Additions to "A Group of Stone Anchors frotn Newe-Yam." Intemational Journal of Nautical Archaeology 16; 167-68. Galili, E.; Dahari, U; and Sharvit, J. 1993 Underwater Surveys and Rescue Excavations along the Israeli Coast. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 22; 61-77. Galili. E., and Rosen, B. 2008 Marine Archaeology. Pp. 1925-34 in NEAEHLSupp. Giardino. C. 1992 Nuragic Sardinia and the Mediterranean; Metallurgy and Maritime Traffic. Pp. 304-16 in Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea: Studies in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth. ed. R. H. Tykot and T. K. Andrews. Motiographs in Meditertancan Archaeology 3. Sheffield; Sheffield Academic. Gibson. J. C. L. 1982 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 3; Phoenician Inscripti<ms including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford; Clarendon. Gilboa, A. 2005 Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast—A Reconciliation; An Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 337; 47-78. Gilboa, A.; Sharon, I.; and Boaretto, E. 2008 Tel Dor and the Chronology of Phoenician "Pre-Colonisation" Stages. Pp. 113-204 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastem Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven; Peetets. Glatt-Gilad, D. A. 2001 Regnal Fonnulae as a Historiographie Device in the Book of Chronicles. Revue biblique 108; 184-209. Godley, A. D, trans. 1981- Herodotus. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library 1171982 120. Cambridge; Harvard University. Goedicke, H. 1975 The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University. González de Canales, F.; Serrano, L.; and Llompart, J. 2004 El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900-770 a.C.j. Madrid; Biblioteca Nueva. 2006 The Pre-Colonial Phoenician Emporium of Huelva ca. 900-770 BC. Bulletin Antieke

BeschavingS\: 13-29.

58

BARRY J. BEITZEL

BASOR 360

Bronze Age Levant, by S. Wachsmann. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University. Horowitz, W., and Oshima, T. 2006 Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Titnes. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Iakovidis, S. E. 1993 The Impact of Trade Disruption on the Mycenaean Economy in the I3th-12th Centuries Studies 31: 5\-52. B.c.E. Pp. 314-20 in Biblical Archaeology Today, Grammenos, D. V, and Petropoulos, E. K., eds. 1990: Proceedings ofthe Second International 2007 Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 2. 2 Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, vols. BAR International Series 1675. Oxford: June-July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Archaeopress. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Gras, M.; Rouillard, P: and Teixidor, J. Ikeda, Y. 1989 L'Univers phénicien. Paris: Arthaud. 1991 King Solomon and His Red Sea Trade. Pp. 113Grayson, A. K. 32 in Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H. I. H. 1991 a Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (704-669 Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His B.c.). Pp. 103-41 in The Assyrian and BabyloSeventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. Mori, H. Ogawa, nian Empires and Other States ofthe Near East, and M. Yoshikawa. Bulletin of the Middle from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., ed. Eastern Culture Center in Japan 5. Wiesbaden: J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. HamHarrassowitz. mond. E. Sollberger, and C. B. F Walker. 2nd ed. Cambridge Ancient History 3/2. Cambridge: Illsley, J. S., comp. Cambridge University. 1996 An Indexed Bibliography of Underwater Archaeology and Related Topics. International 1991 b Assyrian Rulers ofthe Early First Millennium BC Maritime Archaeology Series 3. Oswestry, I (II14-859 BC). Royal Inscriptions of MesopoShropshire: Nelson. tamia. Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto: University of Toronto. Japhet, S. Halpern, B., and Vanderhooft, D. S. 1993 I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. 1991 The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries B.c.E. Hebrew Union College Annual 62: 179- Jurisic, M. 2000 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic: Maritime 244. Transport during the First and Second CentuHarding, A. F. ries AD. BAR International Series 828. Oxford: 2007 Interconnections between the Aegean and ConArchaeopress. tinental Europe in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Moving beyond Scepticism. Pp. 47-54 Kaiman, M. 2004 Ofil^'shore Fitid Dates to King David's Time/Arin Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehischaeologist Hopes 3,000-Year-Old Wood Is from tory across Borders, ed. I. Galanaki, H. Tomas, Ancient Ship. San Francisco Chronicle, 28 OctoY. Galanakis, and R. Lafñneur. Aegaeum 27. ber 2004. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. Liège: L'Université de Liège. cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/28/MNGIQ9HJSDl.DTL Hartman. L. F, and Di Lella, A. A. 1978 The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23. Garden Karageorghis, V. 1992 The Crisis Years: Cyprus. Pp. 79-86 in The CriCity, NY: Doubleday. sis Years: The 12th Century B.C. frotn beyond the Heimpel, W. Danube to the Tigris, ed. W. A. Ward and M. S. 1988 Magan. Pp. 195-99 in Reallexikon der AssyriJoukowsky. Dubuque. IA: Kendall/Hunt. ologie, Vol. 7. ed. E. Ebeling and B. Meissner. 1995 Trade Relations between Cyprus, the Aegean Berlin: de Gruyter. and the Central Mediterranean during the Late 1993 Meluhha. Pp. 53-55 in Reallexikon der AssyriBronze Age. Pp. 61-63 in Proceedings ofthe ologie, Vol. 8, ed. E. Ebeling and B. Meissner. International Symposium: Cyprus and the Sea, Berlin: de Gruyter. Organized by the Archaeological Research Unit Hoch, J. E. ofthe University of Cyprus and the Cyprus Ports 1994 Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Authority, Nicosia 25-26 September 1993. ed. Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. PrinceV Karageorghis and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: ton. NJ: Princeton University. University of Cyprus. Hoftijzer, J., and van Soldt, W. H. 2008 Les phéniciens à Chypre. Pp. 189-214 in Net1998 Texts from Ugarit Pertaining to Seafaring. Pp. working Patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age 333-44 in Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the 2008

The Emporium of Huelva and Phoenician Chronology: Present and Future Possibilities. Pp. 631-55 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven: Peeters. Gordon, C. H. 1978 The Wine-Dark Sea. Journal of Near Eastern

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Levant: The Lebanon and Its Mediterranean Connections, ed. C. Doumet-Serhal. Beirut; Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum. Katzenstein, H. J. 1996 Sotne Reflections on the "Tarshish Ship." Pp. 237-48 in Alle Soglie delta Classicith: II Mediterráneo tra tradizione e innovazione: Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati, ed. E. Acquaro. 3 vols. Pisa; Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali. Khalil, E., and Mustafa, M. 2002 Underwater Archaeology in Egypt. Pp. 51934 in International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology, ed. C. V. Ruppé and J. F. Barstad. Dordrecht; Kluwer Academic. Kilian, K. 1990 Mycenaean Colonization; Norm and Variety. Pp. 445-67 in Greek Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology Held in Honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall. Sydney. 9~l4July 1985, ed. J.-P Descœudres. Canberra; Hutnanities Research Centre. Killebrew, A. E. 2005 Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians. Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel 1300-1 iOO B.c.E. SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9. Atlanta; Society of Biblical Literature. King, P J. 1999 Travel, Transport, Trade. Eretz-lsraet 26 (Frank Moore Cross Volume); 94*-105.* Kingsley, S. A. 2004 Shipwreck Archaeology of the Holy Land: Processes and Parameters. London; Duckworth. Kingsley, S. A., and Raveh, K. 1996 The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of Underwater Surveys, 19711991. BAR Intetnational Series 626. Oxford; Tempus Reparatum. Kitchen, K. A. 2003 Egyptian Interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II. Pp. 1 13-32 in Symbiosis. Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Raman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. 2004 The Elusive Land of Punt Revisited. Pp. 25-31 in Trade and Travel in the Red Sea Region: Proceedings of the Red Sea Project /, Held in the British Museum, October 2002, ed. P Lunde and A. Porter. Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 2; BAR Internatiotial Series 1269. Oxford; Archaeopress.

2005

59

Ancient Peoples West of the Red Sea in PreClassical Antiquity. Pp. 7-14 in People of the Red Sea: Proceedings of the Red Sea Project II, Held in the Briti.ih Museum, October 2004, ed. J. C. M. Starkey. Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 3; BAR International Series 1395. Oxford; Archaeopress.

Klengel, H. 2000 The "Crisis Years" and the New Political System in Early Iron Age Syria; Sotne Introductory Remarks. Pp. 21-30 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastem Studies, Supplement 7. Leuven; Peeters, Koch, M. 1984 Tarschisch und Hispanien: Historisch-geographische und namenskiindliche Untersuchungen zur phönikischen Kolonisation der Iberischen Halbinsel. Madrider Forschungen 14. Berlin; de Gruyter. Kopeke, G. 1992 What Role for Phoenicians? Pp. 103-13 in Greece between East and West: IOth-8th Centuries BC: Papers of the Meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts. New York University, March Í5-I6th 1990, ed. G. Kopeke and I. Tokutnaru. Mainz am Rhein; von Zabern. Krahmalkov, C. R. 2000 Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Studia Phoenicia 15; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta90. Leuven; Peeters. 2002 Phoenician. Pp. 207-22 in Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, ed. J. Kaltner and S. L. McKenzie. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 42. Atlanta; Society of Biblical Literature. Larsen, C. E. 1983 The Early Environment and Hydrology of Ancient Bahrain. Pp. 3-34 in Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, ed. D. T. Potts. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 2. Berliti; Reitiier. Lebruti, R. 1992 Baal Krntrysh. Pp. 58-59 in Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, ed. E. Lipinski. Turnhout; Brepols. Lefkovits, E. 2006 Ancient Anchorage Found at Netanya. The Jeru.salem Post, 31 October 2006. Lehmann, G. 2008 North Syria and Cilicia, c. 12(X)-33O Bci:. Pp. 20546 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastem Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven; Peeters. Lemaire, A. 1999 Veuve sans enfants dans le toyautne de Juda. Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 5: 1-14.

60

BARRY J. BEITZEL

Tarshish-7i3rii.ïi: Problème de topographie historique biblique et assyrienne. Pp. 44-62 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai. ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 81. Leiden: Brill. 2007 West Semitic Inscriptions and Ninth-Century BCE Ancient Israel. Pp. 279-303 in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel, ed. H. G. M. Williamson. Proceedings of the British Academy 143. Oxford: Oxford University. Levy, T. E.; Higham, T; Bronk Ramsey, C ; Smith, N. G.; Ben-Yosef, E.; Robinson, M.; Münger, S.; Knabb, K.; Schulze, J. P; Najjar, M.: and Tauxe, L. 2008 High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating and Historical Biblical Archaeology in Southern Jordan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:

BASOR 360

H.-J. Fabry and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

2000

2004

Itineraria Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia 18;

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 127: Leuven: Peeters. 2006 On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 153. Leuven: Peeters. Liverani, M. 1987 The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: The Case of Syria. Pp. 66-73 in Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1991 The Trade Network of Tyre According to Ezek. 27. Pp. 65-79 in Ah, Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and Arwient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph'-al. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. 16460-65. Jerusalem: Magnes. Lichtheim, M. 2005 Israel's Hi.uory and the History of Israel. Trans. Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Read1975C. Peri and P. R. Davies, from Italian. London: ings. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California. 1980 Equinox. Lipinski, E Notes d'épigraphie phénicienne et punique. Ori- Lolos, Y. 1983 2003 Cypro-Mycenaean Relations ca. 1200 BC: Point entalia Louvaniensia Periódica 14: 129-65. Iria in the Gulf of Argos and Old Salamis in the 1991 Introduction. Pp. 1-9 in Phoenician and the Saronic Gulf. Pp. 101-16 in Sea Routes: InterBible: Proceedings of the Conference Held at connections in the Mediterranean, I6th-6th c. the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of BC: Proceedings of the International Symposium March 1990, ed. E. Lipinski. Studia Phoenicia Held at Rethymnon, Crete, September 29th11 : Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44. Leuven: Octoher 2nd, 2002, ed. N. Ch. Stampolidis and Peeters. V. Karageorghis. Athens: University of Crete. 1992a L'or d'Ophir. Pp. 205-14 in Studia Phoenicia IX: Travaux du Groupe de contact interuniver- Lopez-Ruiz, C. 2009 Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Probsitaire d'études phéniciennes et puniques sous lems and Historical Implications. Pp. 255-80 in les auspices du Fonds national de la recherche Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoescientifique, ed. T. Hackens and G. Moucharte. nician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. Publications d'histoire de l'art et d'archéologie M. Dietler and C. Lopez-Ruiz. Chicago: Unide l'Université catholique de Leuven 58. Leuversity of Chicago. ven: Université catholique de Leuven. 1992b Expansion phénicienne. Pp. 166-67 in Diction- Lo Schiavo, F 1995 Cyprus and Sardinia in the Mediterranean Ttade naire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique. Routes toward the West. Pp. 45-60 in Proceeded. E. Lipifiski. Turnhout: Brepols. ings of the International Symposium: Cyprus 1992c Tarshish. Pp. 440-42 in Dictionnaire de la civiand the Sea, Organized by the Archaeological lisation phénicienne et punique, ed. E. Lipinski. Research Unit of the University of Cyprus and Turnhout: Brepols. the Cyprus Ports Authority, Nicosia 25-26 Sep1993 The Session Moderator's Introduction. Pp. 321tember 1993, ed. V. Karageorghis and D. Mi24 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Prochaelides. Nicosia: University of Cyprus. ceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July Lo Schiavo, F; Macnamara. E.; and Vagnetti, L. 1985 Late Cypriot Imports to Italy and Their Influ1990. ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: ence on Local Bronzework. Papers of the British Israel Exploration Society. School at Rome 53: 1-71. 1995a The Phoenicians. Pp. 1321 -33 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near, Vol. 2, ed. J. M. Sasson. New Lunde, P., and Porter. A., eds. 2004 Trade and Travel in the Red Sea Region. Society York: Scribner. for Arabian Studies Monograph 2: BAR Interna1995b W-^-pltarm. Cols. 778-81 in Theologisches tional Series 1269. Oxford: Archaeopress. Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Vol. 8, ed.

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Maisler, B. 1950- The Excavations at Tell Qa.sîle: Preliminary Re1951 port III. Israel Exploration Journal 1: 194-218. Mäkelä, T T 2002 Ships and Shipbuilding in Mesopotamia (ca. 3000-2000 B.c.). M.A. thesis, Texas A &M University. Malamat. A. 2004 The History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. Leiden: Brill. Markoe, G. E. 2000 Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California. Marriner, N.; Morhange, C ; and Doumet-Serhal, C. 2006 Geoarchaeology of Sidon's Ancient Harbours, Phoenicia. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1514-35. Mata, D. R. 2002 The Ancietit Phoenicians of the 8th and 7th Centuries B.c. in the Bay of Cádiz: State of the Research. Pp. 155-98 in The Phoenicians in Spain: An Archaeological Review of the Eighth—Sixth Centuries H.C.E.: A Collection of Articles Translatedfrom Spanish, ed. and trans. M. R. Bierling. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrautis. Mazar, A. 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000586 B.c.E. New York: Doubleday. 1993 Tell Qasile. Pp. 1204-12 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Lcmd. Vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2003 Remarks on Biblical Ttaditions and Archaeological Evidence concerning Early Israel. Pp. 85-98 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan. Ancient Israei, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. E. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Ei.senbrauns. 2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution. Pp. 1530 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox. 2007 The Spade and tbe Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History Relating to the Tenth-Nitith Cetituries BCE. Pp. 143-71 in Understandinfi the History of Ancient Israel, ed. H. G. M. Williamson. Proceedings of the British Academy 143. Oxford: Oxford University. Mazar, A., and Btonk Ramsey, C. 2008 '"»C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response. Radiocarbon 50: 159-80.

61

Mazar, A., and Carmi, I. 2001 Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Strata at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov. Radiocarbon 43: 1333-42. Meyers, C. 2001 Kinship and Kingship: The Early Monarchy. Pp. 165-205 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M. D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University. Miller, J.M. 1997 Separating the Solomon of History from the Solomon of Legend. Pp. 1-24 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. L. K. Handy. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11. Leiden: Brill. Miller. J. M., and Hayes, J. H. 2006 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westtninster. Monroe. C. M. 2009 Scales of Eate: Trade, Tradition, and Tran.sformation in the Eastern Mediterranean ca. 13501175 BCE. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 357. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Montgomery, J. A. 1979 The Book of Daniel: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. Edinburgh: Clark. Moritz, B. 1923 Arabien: Studien zur physikalischen und historischen Geographie des Landes. Hatitiover: Lafaire. Moscati, S. 1989 La "Precolonizzazione." Pp. 41-52 in Tra Tiro e Cadice: Temi e problenii degii studi fenici. Studia Púnica 5. Rome: Università degli studi di Roma. 1999a Colonization of the Mediterranean. Pp. 47-56 in The Phoenicians, ed. S. Moscati. Tratis. ftotii Italian. New York: Rizzoli. 1999b Who Were the Phoenicians? Pp. 17-19 in The Phoenicians, ed. S. Moscati. Trans, from Italian. New York: Rizzoli. Muhly, J. D. 1970 Homer and the Phoenicians. Berytus 19: 19-64. 2004 Excavating Minoan Sites. Archaeology Odyssey 7/2: 26-37. Mumford. G. D., and Parcak, S. 2003 Pharaonic Ventures into South Sinai: El-Markha Plain Site 346. Joumal of Egyptian Archaeology 89:83-116. Na'aman, N. 2004a Ra'shu, Re'si-suri, and the Ancient Names of Ras Ibn Hatii. Bulletin of the American Schools of Orientai Research 334: 33-39. 2004b Re'si-suri and Yauna in a Neo-Assyrian Letter (ND 2737). Nouvelles assvriologiques brèves et utilitaires 3: 69-70 (no. 68).

62

BARRY J. BEITZEL

Nashef, K. 1982 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 5; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswissenschaften 7. Wiesbaden; Reichert. Naveh, J. Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction 1982 to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Leiden; Brill. Negbi, O. Early Phoenician Presence in the Westem Medi1987 terranean. Pp. 247-50 in Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, Vol. 3; Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World, ed. M. S. Balmuth. BAR Intemational Series 387. Oxford; BAR. Neiman, D. Phoenician Place-Names. Journal of Near East1965 ern Studies 24: 113-15. Neville, A. 2007 Mountains of Silver & Rivers of Gold: The Phoenicians in Iberia. University of British Columbia Studies in the Ancient World 1. Oxford; Oxbow. Niemeyer, H. G. 1993 Trade before the Flag? On the Principles of Phoenician Expansion in the Mediterranean. Pp. 335-44 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem; Israel Exploration Society. 1995 Expansion et colonisation. Pp. 247-67 in La civilisation phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherche, ed. V. Krings. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 20. Leiden; Brill. 2006 The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean. Between Expansion and Colonisation; A Non-Greek Model of Overseas Settlement and Presence. Pp. 143-68 in Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, Vol. 1, ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze. Mnemosyne, Supplement 193. Leiden; Brill. Nijboer, A. J. 2008a A Phoenician Family Tomb, Lefkandi, Huelva and the Tenth Century BC in the Mediterranean. Pp. 365-77 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven; Peeters. 2008b Italy and the Levant during the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age ( 1200-750/700 BC). Pp. 423-60 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven; Peeters. Nijboer, A. J., and van der Plicht, J. 2006 An Interpretation of the Radiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest Indigenous-Phoeni-

BASOR 360

cian Stratum Thus Far, Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (South-West Spain). Bulletin Antieke Beschaving^l: 31-36. Özgüc, T. 1972 An Assyrian Trading Outpost. Pp. 242-49 in Old World Archaeology: Foundations of Civilization: Readings from Scientific American, ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. San Francisco; Freeman. Padilla Monge, A. 1994 Consideraciones sobre el Tarsis bíblico. Aula Orientalis 12; 51-71. 2006 Tarsis y TapzTJaaoç de neuvo a examen. Aula Orientalis 24; 233-42. Padró i Parcerisa, J. 1985 Egyptian-Type Documents: From the Mediterranean Littoral of the Iberian Peninsula before the Roman Conquest, Vol. 3; Study of the Material, Andalusia. Leiden; Brill. Parker, A. J. 1980 Roman Wrecks in the Western Mediterranean. Pp. 50-51 in Archeology under Water: An Atlas of the World's Submerged Sites, ed. K. Muckelroy. New York; McGraw-Hill. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and 1992 the Roman Provinces. BAR International Series 580. Oxford; Tempus Reparatum. Parpóla, S. 1970 Neo-As.'iyrian Toponyms. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 6. Kevelaer; Butzon & Bercker. Assyria's Expansion in the 8th and 7th Cen2003 turies and Its Long-Tenn Repercussions in the West. Pp. 99-111 in Symbiosis. Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000. ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. Peckham. B. 1972 The Nora Inscription. Orientalia N. S. 41; 457-68. 1992a Phoenicia, History of. Pp. 349-57 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York; Doubleday. 1992b The Phoenician Foundation of Cities and Towns in Sardinia. Pp. 410-18 in Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea: Studies in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth. ed. R. H. Tykot and T. K. Andrews. Sheffield; Sheffield Academic. Phoenicians in Sardinia; Tyrians or Sidonians? 1998 Pp. 347-54 in Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean: Proceedings of the International Colloquium "Sardinian

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES: A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Stratigraphy and Mediterranean Chronology, " Swiny. American Schools of Oriental Studies Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, Archaeological Reports 4. Atlanta: Scholars. March 17-19, 1995, ed. M. S. Balmuth and R. H. 2005 Who Were the Mycenaeans Aboard the UluTykot. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology 5. Oxburun Ship? Pp. 295-309 in Emporia: Aegeans ford: Oxbow. in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean: Proceedings ofthe lOth International Aegean ConPellicer, M. ference, ed. R. Lafifineur and E. Greco. Aegaeutii 1992 Aproximación a la esencia de Tartessos. Pp. 25. Liège: L'Université de Liège. 29-73 in Andalusien zwischen Vorgeschichte und Mittelalter, ed. D. Hertel and J. Untermanti. Raban. A. Forum Ibero-Americanum 7. Cologne: Böhlau. 1993 Architecture and Harbor Installations. Pp. 12-15 2002 Phoenician and Punie Sexi. Pp. 49-77 in The in Phoenicians on the Northern Coast of Israel Phoenicians in Spain: An Archaeological in the Biblical Period, ed. A. Rabat! atid R. StiegReview of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.c.E.: A litz. Haifa: Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum. Collection of Articles Translated from Spanish. 1998 Near Eastern Harbors: Thirteenth-Seventh Cened. and trans. M. R. Bierling. Winona Lake, IN: turies BCE. Pp. 428-38 in Mediterranean Peoples Ei.senbrauns. in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth CentuPenhallurick, R. D. ries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, 1986 Tin in Antiquity: Its Mining and Trade throughed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stem. Jerusalem: out the Atlcient World with Particular Reference Israel Exploration Society. to Cornwall. London: Itistitute of Metals. Raban, A., and Galili, E. Phelps, W.; Lolos, Y; and Vichos, Y, eds. 1985 Recent Maritime Archaeological Research in Is1999 Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 rael: A Preliminary Report. International JourBC: Proceedings of the Intemational Confernal of Nautical Archaeology 14: 321-56. ence. Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998. Ath- Renz, J., and Röllig, W. ens: Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology. 1995 Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 Pomeroy, S. B.; Burstein, S. M.: Donlan. W.; and Roberts, vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchgesellJT schaft. 1999 Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cul- Ridgway. D. tural History. New York: Oxford University. 1994 Phoenicians and Greeks in the West: A View Popham, M. from Pithekoussai. Pp. 35-46 in The Archaeol1994 Preeolonization: Early Greek Contact with the ogy of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to East. Pp. 11-34 in The Archaeology of Greek Sir John Boardman. ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze and Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John F. De Angelis. Monograph 40. Oxford: Oxford Boardman, ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze and F. De AnUniversity Committee for Archaeology. gelis. Monograph 40. Oxford: Oxford University Rodriguez, A. R. Committee for Archaeology. 1997 The Iron Age Iberian Peoples of the Upper GuaPotts, D. T. dalquivir Valley. Pp. 175-91 in The Archaeology 1990 The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, Vol. 1 : From Preof Iberia: The Dynamics of Change, ed. M. Di'azhistory to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Andreu and S. Keay. London: Routledge. Oxford: Clarendon. Röllig, W. 1995 Distant Shores: Ancient Near Eastern Trade with 1977 Ionier. P. 150 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, South Asia and Northeast Africa. Pp. 1451-63 Vol. 5, ed. E. Ebeling and B. Meissner. Berlin: in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3, de Gruyter. ed. J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner. 1983a Paläographische Beobachtungen zum ersten Pritchard, J. B. Auftreten der Phönizier in Sardinien. Pp. 1251954 The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to 30 in Antidoron: Festschrift für Jürgen Thimme the Old Testament. Princeton. NJ: Priticeton zum 65. Geburtstag am 26. September 1982, ed. University. D. Metzler, B. Otto, and C. Müller-Wirth. KarlsPuech, É. ruhe: Müller. 1983 Présence phénicienne dans les îles à la fin du Ile 1983b On the Origins of the Phoenicians. Berytus 31 : millénaire. Revue biblique 90: 365-95. 79-93. Pulak, C. Rollston, C. A. 1997 The Uluburun Shipwreck. Pp. 233-62 in Res Ma2003 Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Atitiquiritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean ties. Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols from Prehistory to Lene Antiquity: Proceedings for Laboratory Tests. Aííííími' 10: 135-93. ofthe Second International Symposiutn "Cities 2008 The Phoenician Script of the Tel Zayit Abeceon the Sea, " Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18-22, dary and Putative Evidence for Israelite Literacy. 1994, ed. S. Swiny. R. L. Hohlfelder, and H. W. Pp. 61-96 in Literate Culture and Tenth-Century

64

BARRY J. BEITZEL

Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, ed. R. E. Tappy and P. K. McCarter. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. Rothenberg, B. 1972 Timna: Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London; Thames and Hudson. Rothenberg, B.; Garcta Palomero, F.; Bachmann, H.-G.; and Goethe, J. W. 1989 The Rfo Tinto Enigma. Pp. 57-70 in Minería y metalurgia en ¡as antiguas civilizaciones mediterráneas y europeas. Vol. 1, ed. C. Domergue. Madrid; General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. Routledge, B., and McGeough, K. 2009 Just What Collapsed? A Network Perspective on "Palatial" and "Private" Trade at Ugarit. Pp. 22-29 in Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean: Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at St. John's College, University of O.xford 256th March, 2006, ed. C. Bachhuber and R. G. Roberts. Themes from the Ancient Near East BANEA Publication Series 1. Oxford; Oxbow. Rutz-Gálvez Priego, M. 1997 The West of Iberia; Meeting Point between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic at the End of the Bronze Age. Pp. 95-120 in Encounters and Tran.sformations: The Archaeology of Iberia in Transition, ed. M. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 7. Sheffield; Academic. Saggs, H. W. F 1963 The Nimrud Letters, 1952—Part VI. Iraq 25; 70-80. 2001 The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Cuneiform Texts from Nitnrud 5. London; British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Sagona, C. 2008a Chronology of the Phoenicians at Home and Abroad; The Nature of the Evidence. Pp. 1-9 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastem Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven; Peeters. 2008b Malta; Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Pp. 487-536 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers In Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven; Peeters. Sass, B. 2002 WenatTiun and His Levatit—1075 BC or 925 BC? Ägypten und Levante 12; 247-55. Schubart, H. 1995 Péninsule ibérique. Pp. 743-61 in La civilisation phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherche, ed. V. Krings. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 20. Leiden; Brill. Schule, A. 2000 Die Syntax der althebräischen Inschriften: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Grammatik des

BASOR 360

Hebräisichen. Alter Orient und Altes Testatnent 270. Münster; Ugarit-Verlag. Serra Ridgway, F. R. 1987 Commentary; Some Remarks on A. M. Bisi's Paper; "Near Eastern Bronzes in Sardinia; Imports and Influences." Pp. 251-52 in Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, Vol. 3; Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World, ed. M. S. Balmuth. BAR International Series 387. Oxford; BAR. Shanks, H. 1997 Three Shekels for the Lord. Biblical Archaeology Review 23/6; 28-32. Sherratt, A., and Sherratt, S. 1991 From Luxuries to Commodities; The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems. Pp. 351-86 in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989, ed. N. H. Gale. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90. Jonsered; Âstrom. Sherratt, S. 1998 "Sea Peoples" and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. Pp. 292-313 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trucle Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem; Israel Exploration Society. 2003 The Mediterranean Economy; "Globalization" at the End of the Second Millenniutn B.C.E. Pp. 37-62 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. Sherratt, S., and Sherratt, A. 1993 The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium BC. World Archaeology 24: 36\-7S. Smith, J. S. 2008 Cyprus, the Phoenicians and Kition. Pp. 261303 in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven; Peeters. Smith, N. G., and Levy, T. E. 2008 The Iron Age Pottery from Khirbat en-Nahas, Jordati; A Prelitninary Study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352; 41-91. Soggin, J. A. 1984 A History of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia; Westminster.

2010

PHOENICIANS AND ISRAELITES; A NAUTICAL VENTURE?

Speiser, E. A. 1964 Genesis. Anchor Bible I. Garden City. NY: Doubleday. Starkey, J. C. M., ed. 2005 People of the Red Sea: Proceedings of the Red Sea Project II, Held in the British Museum, October 2004, ed. J. C. M. Starkey. Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 3: BAR International Series 1395. Oxford: Archaeopress. Stern, E. 1990 New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re,search 279: 27-34. 2001 The Silver Hoard from Tel Dor. Pp. 19-26 in Hacksilher to Coinage: New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece. ed. M. S. Balmuth. Nutnistnatic Studies 24. New York: American Numismatic Society. Stieglitz, R. R. 1984 Long-Distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East. Biblical Archaeologist Al: 134-42. 1990 The Geopolitics of the Phoenician Littoral in the Early Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279: 9-12. Stos-Gale, Z. A. 2001 The Impact of the Natural Sciences on Studies of Hacksilber and Early Silver Coinage. Pp. 53-76 in Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece. ed. M. S. Balmuth. Numistiiatic Studies 24. New York: American Numismatic Society. Stos-Gale, Z. A., and Gale, N. H. 1992 New Light on the Provenience of the Copper Oxhide Ingots Found on Sardinia. Pp. 317-46 in Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea: Studies in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth. ed. R. H. Tykot and T. K. Andrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Strömberg Krantz, E. 1982 Des Schiffes Weg mitten im Meer. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testatnent Series 19. Lund: Gleerup. Sznycer, M. 1979 L'inscription phénicienne de Tekke, près de Cnossus. Kadmos 18: 89-93. Tal, O. 2009 On the Identification of the Ships of kzd/ry in the Erased Customs Account from Elephantine. Joumal of Near Eastern Studies 68: 1-8. Tanasi, D. 2009 Sicily at the End of the Bronze Age: "Catching the Echo." Pp. 51-58 in Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean: Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at St. John's College, University of Oxford 25-26th March, 2006. ed. C. Bachhuber and R. G. Roberts. Themes from the

65

Ancient Near East BANEA Publication Series I. Oxford: Oxbow. Throckmorton. P., ed. 1987 The Sea Remembers: Shipwrecks and Archaeology from Homer's Greece to the Rediscovery of the Titanic. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Treumann, B. W. 1997 The Role of Wood in the Rise and Decline of the Phoenician Settlements on the Iberian Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago. 2009 Lumbermen and Shipwrights: Phoenicians on the Mediterranean Coast of Southern Spain. Pp. 169-90 in Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, ed. M. Dietler and C. Lopez-Ruiz. Chicago: University of Chicago. Trump, D. H. 1980 The Prehistory of the Mediterranean. New Haven: Yale University. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1994 Greek Penetration of the Black Sea. Pp. 111-35 in The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze and F De Angelis. Monograph 40. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Tsetskhladze, G. R., ed. 2006 Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas. Vol. I. Mnemosyne, Supplement 193. Leiden: Brill. Vallet, E 1993 Les noms géographiques des sources susoélamites. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 11: Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswissenschaften 7. Wiesbaden: Reichert. van der Plicht, J.; Bruins, H.; and Nijboer, A. J. 2009 The Iron Age around the Mediterranean: A High Chronology Perspective from the Groningen Radiocarbon Database. Radiocarbon 51:213-42. Vichos. Y, and Lolos, Y 1997 The Cypro-Mycenaean Wreck at Point Iria in the Argolic Gulf: First Tlu)ughts on the Origin and the Nature of the Vessel. Pp. 321-37 in Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, ed. S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder, and H. W. Swiny. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 4. Atlanta: Scholars. Wachsmann, S. 1990 Ships of Tarshish to the Land of Ophir: Seafaring in Biblical Times. Oceanus 33: 70-82. 1998 Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University. Wachsmann, S., and Davis, D. 2002 Nautical Archaeology in Israel. Pp. 499-517 in International Handbook of Underwater

66

BARRY J. BEITZEL

Archaeology, ed. C. V. Ruppé and J. F. Barstad. Dordrecbt: Kluwer Academic. Wachsmann, S.; Dunn, R. K.; Haie, J. R.: Hohlfelder, R. L.; Conyers, L. B.; Ernenwein, E. G.; Sbeets, P; Peinheiro Blot, M. L.; Castro, F; and Davis, D. 2009 Tbe Palaeo-Environmetital Contexts of Three Possible Phoenician Anchorages in Portugal. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 38:221-53. Wagner. C. G., and Alvar, J. 1989 Fenicios en occidente: La colonización agrícola. Rivista di studi fenici 17: 61-102. Ward, C. 2010 From River to Sea: Evidence for Egyptian Seafaring Ships. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2/3: 42-49. Webster, G. S., and Teglund, M. 1992 Toward the Study of Colonial-Native Relations iti Sarditiia frotn c. 1000 BC-AD 456. Pp. 448-73 in Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Eootprint in the Sea: Studies in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth, ed. R. H. Tykot and T K. Andrews. Shetfield: Shefield Academic. Weinstein, J. M. 1992 The Collapse of the Egyptian Empire in the Southern Levant. Pp. 142-50 in The Crisis Years: The I2th Century B.C. from beyond the Danube to the Tigris, ed. W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque. IA: Kendall/Hunt.

BASOR 360

Yardeni, A. 1994 Maritime Trade and Royal Accountancy in an Erased Customs Account from 475 B.c.E. on the Ahiqar Scroll from Elephantitie. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293: 67-78. Zaccagnini, C. 1996 Tyre and the Cedars of Lebanon. Pp. 451-66 in Alte Soglie delta Classicita: ¡I Mediterráneo tra tradizione e innovazione: Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati. ed. E. Acquaro. 3 vols. Pisa: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrañci Internazionale. Zadok, R. 1985 Geographical Names According to New- and Late- Babylonian Texts. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 8; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B, Geisteswis.senschaften 7. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Ziflioglu V 2008 A Unique Anchor Discovered. Turkish Daily News, 11 April 2008. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.eom/h.php?news =a-unique-anchor-discovered-2008-04-11. Zóckler, O. 1876 Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical, Vol. 7. New York: Bible House. Zuckerman, B. 1991 The Nora Puzzle. Maarav 1: 269-301.

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation November 10,2010 Title: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Publication Nutnber 0006-0895. Frequency: Quarterly. Four issues published annually. 2010 subscription price: $200 institutions, $200 individuals. Location of Office of Publication: ASOR at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, 5th floor, Boston, MA 022152010. Headquarters of publisher: 656 Beacon Street, 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215. Editor: Jatnes Weinstein, Department of Classics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Owner: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 656 Beacon Street, 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215. The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the tax exempt status for Federal income tax purposes has not changed during the preceding 12 months. The average number of copies of each issue during the preceding 12 months are: (A) Total number of copies printed: 1770; (B) Paid circulation, mail subscriptions: 1577; (C) Total paid circulation: 1577; (D) Free distribution: 15; (E) Total distribution: 1592; (F) Copies not distributed: 193; (G) Total: 1770. The actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: (A) Total number of copies printed: 1630; (B) Paid circulation, mail subscriptions: 1397; (C) Total paid circulation: 1397; (D) Free distribution: 15; (E) Total distribution: 1412; (F) Copies not distributed: 218; (G) Total: 1630. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. Andrew G. Vaughn, American Schools of Oriental Research

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Innovation or Technology Immigration? The Qanat Systems in the Regions of Udhruh and Ma^an in Southern Jordan FAWZI ABUDANH Department of Archaeology AI-Hussein Bin Talal University P.O. Box 285 Wadi Musa-Petra. Jordan fawziabudanh(2>ahu.edu.jo

S A A D TWAISSI

Center for Nabataean Studies AI-Hussein Bin Talal University PO. Box 285 Wadi Musa-Petra, Jordan

This paper investigates the Qanat system, one of the most elaborate water supply .nstems developed in the ancient world, with special reference to the newly recorded evidence from the regions ofMa'an and Udhruh in the southern part of Jordan. The origin and date of this system in the region are studied, along with its impact on the ecommty of the peripheral and arid regions of southern Jordan during late antiquity. The origin and diffusion of the Qanat system in the ancient world are also considered.

controlled slope. Such a technique has become widely known in the literature as the "Qanat system" (English 1968; Lightfoot 1997; 2000; Bazza 2007).

INTRODUCTION

I

n the ancient world, agriculture was the prime mover of settled life and subsequent urbanization. Ancient societies understood that water is a vital provision for ensuring high food production to supply their settled cotnmunities and accotnpanying population growth, and they soon developed various techniques to collect, carry, and redistribute the natural water sources of springs, rivers, and rainwater. These techniques included dams, aqueducts, barriers, reservoirs, earthen banks, and canals. Such techniques were designed to manage water on the surface for domestic and agricultural purposes. These contributed significantly to the evolution of complex societies in the ancient Near East, especially in Mesopotamia and Egypt (Murphy 2007; Gamble 2007; Bazza 2007). It was only in the first millennium B.C. that societies learned how to extract underground water for daily use and agricultural utilization. This development heralded a new phase in agricultural evolution and human-environmental interaction, as it enabled people to carry water in larger volumes into more arid and remote regions. The new water system was based on a series of shafts, commonly placed at intervals 20 to 30 m apart and connected at their bottoms by a tunnel with a

THE QANAT SYSTEM Although there are various definitions of the Qanat system in the literature, all agree that it is a technique for extracting underground water by conveying it from aquifers in the highlands or alluvial fans, or from shallow aquifers in stream valleys, to the surface at lower levels via a horizontal tunnel that taps underground water through gravitational effect. The tunnel is always connected to the surface by a series of shafts. The same technique occurs all over the world, but it is concentrated in the Middle East, tnainly in Iran and Arabia, and is identified under different names. It is known in Iran, South Asia, and notthetn China as Karez. (Cressy 1958; English 1968; Rahtnan 1981; Khan and Nawaz 1995; Hussain et al. 2008), Aflagg in Arabia (Wilkinson 1977; al-Nasif 1981; Sutton 1984; al-Tikriti 2002), Qanat Ronumi in the Levant (Lightfoot 1997), Foggara in Tunisia and Algeria (Cressy 1958), Khettara in Morocco (Lightfoot 1996a), and mina and Yafuga in Spain (Beektnan, Wiegand, and Pint 1999; Barnes and Fleming 1991). ln our study

67

68

ABUDANH AND TWAfSSf

BASOR 360

Fig. 1. Map ot Jordan and the study area within the rectangle.

region (fig. 1 ), the system is known as Dhwawi. (The authors of this paper are originally from this region and are famifiar with the local terminology for this system.) The same system is also found in Cyprus (Endreny 2008) and even in the Americas (Barnes and Eleming 199f; Beekman, Wiegand, and Pint 1999). The word Qanat, however, is the most commonly attested name of the system in the literature. Hodge (1992: 21) asserts that the word derives from Akkadian qanu, which means "reed," whereas the authors believe it is an Arabic word meaning "channel." Re-

gardless of the origin of the word, there ate certain characteristic features and techniques of the Qanat system that are the same all over tbe world, primarily in terms of regional environtnent, topography, and the system's features. Qanat systems are usually found in areas where the average annual rainfall ranges from 100 to 300 tnm. Many scholars point to Iran as the place where this technique was first invented, and it was in use there from at least the eighth century B.C. (English 1968; Hodge 1992: 21; Lightfoot 1996b; 324; 2000; Beek-

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

man, Wiegand, and Pint 1999). The earliest Qanat system in Iran is dated to the eighth century B.c. on the basis of a reference to the Oanat system in the tablet of Sargon II which documents his campaign in the region of Urartu (Javan, Hassanli, and Shahrokhnia 2007; Moosavi 2007). Iran has the highest concentration of Oanat systems in the world—more than 50% of the known systems, amounting to some 32,164 active systems with a total discharge of about 9 billion m-* (Salih 2006). Nevertheless, recent fieldwork in the United Arab Emirates conducted by Magee (2007: 86-90; 2005: 222-24) has revealed Qanat system clusters that appear to predate the earliest known Qanat systems from Iran. These new Qanat systems have been dated to the Iron Age II period, commencing about 1000 B.c. and seen by Magee (2007: 90) as a response to climatic changes that led to aridity and shortage of underground water in southeastern Arabia. A new reading of the Sargon II tablet may well support this hypothesis. Salvini's (2001: 143-50) new reading has led to the conclusion that there is no reference to a Qanat system in the tablet. This reading, along with tbe new data frotn southeastern Arabia, has led Magee (2005; 2007) to argue that the Qanat system technique was in use in southeastern Arabia at least 200 years before its parallels in Iran (Magee 2005: 227-28). But wherever the earliest Qanat system in the ancient world was initiated, the technique eventually spread around the world and contributed substantially to the development of societies in arid regions. THE QANAT SYSTEMS IN THE STUDY AREA

69

The present authors went to this site twice anil took GPS points for each of the recognizable shafts. Dhwawi Udhruh is about 1 km to the south of the Roman fortress at Udhruh and to the east of Tell Abara (fig. 2). Three lines of vertical shafts were dug in a relatively flat terrain. An aerial photograph (fig. 3) shows them as they were in 2007. For study purposes, the authors gave thetii names from north to south: the northern line, the central line, and the southern line of shafts. The three lines seem to intctsect at one point, at the edge of the tnodern ioad between Ma'an and Udhruh. However, it is certainly possible that the southern line extends farther south and then heads eastward via Wadi al-Fiqai; many shafts can be seen on the southern bank of the valley east of the modern road between Udhruh and Ma'an. The shafts ate cutrently filled in but are easily recognizable by the earth circles around them. The latter would have protected the shafts from being eroded when they were in use, as they still stand to a considerable height. These circles were created when the excavated soil was being dug during the construction of the tunnels. The area within each circle is about 2 m in diameter. It is worth mentioning that to the west of Tell Abara and on top of the southern line of shafts, a modern cistetn is still tapping the gtoundwater in that area. Where does this Qanat system go or deliver water? Killick (Killick, cd. 1987: 28) mentioned that the system near Udhruh could end at a Nabataean reservoir (Birket Udhruh ) farther east. This idea seems likely for the following reasons: •

The Qanat System in the Region of Udhruh Three sites in the vicinity of Udhruh exhibit evi- • dence for the Qanat system. These are ( 1 ) Dhwawi Udhruh, south of Udhruh; (2) a site near Jebel alTahuna; and (3) a site near Al-Hussein Bin Talal University. Dhwctwi Udhruh ("the lights of Udhruh") is a local name given to three galleries of the Qanat sys- • tem to the south of Udhruh. The word Dhwawi refers mainly to the shafts that, to the local people, look like lights; indeed, the soil color supports this designation. This site was first reported by Alistair Killick (Killick, ed. 1987: 28) and then studied by Lightfoot (1996a) along with other Qanat sites in Jordan. The site was redocumented and mapped by Abudanh in 2003 (Abudanh 2(K)4) during fieldwork in the region of Udhruh.

The three strings of shafts meet at one point—most likely to form one tunnel. This tunnel continues eastward, and it must have appeared somewhere on the surface like an artificial spring, The available evidence indicates that the tunnel ran across Wadi al-Fiqai where, according to the local residents, a spring used to flow in the valley just below Khirbet al-Fiqai, This spring should have been the tunnel's opening. The archaeological evidence collected from the valley, below and to the north of Khirbet al-Fiqai, shows that an aqueduct connected Birket Udhruh (the reservoir) with a water source at a point in Wadi al-Fiqai. The conduit runs south-north across Wadi al-Fiqai before it heads east-northeast on the edge of a shallow hill parallel to the same valley. Most of the channel in the valley is carried on a wall; a considerable part of it is

70

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

BASOR 360

Birket Udhruh Khirbet al-Fiqa Birket al-Fiqai

N 2,000

1,000

0

2,000 meters

A

Fig. 2. Map of the Udhruh Qanat system.

Still standing to a height of about 1.5 m (fig. 4). The channel is made of lime mortar and is about 0.20 m wide. Thick walls, probably to store the water from the Qanat system, were also seen in the valley bed. Another aqueduct or channel seems to have connected with the same source and supplied water to another reservoir located southeast of Khirbet al-Fiqai. The second site, the Qanat system near Jebel alTahuna, was brought to the authors's attention by David Kennedy (personal communication, 2004). It appears in an aerial photograph taken by Kennedy in 1998. The authors have been able to identify two clusters of the Qanat to the west of Jebel al-Tahuna from the aerial photographs, and their existence was confirmed through Google Earth images (fig. 5). On the ground, the shafts are not as clear as those at Udhruh. This is probably due to the erosion caused by seasonal floods, in addition to the similarity in color between

the shafts and the ground on which they were constructed. Nevertheless, the authors managed to spot them and took coordinates for each shaft. The first cluster of tbe Qanat was located about 4 km west of the site; the second cluster was situated about 2 km to the west of Jebel al-Tahuna. The longest line of the Qanat does not run all the way to Jebel al-Tahuna; we noticed that this line ends in a ditch-like earth feature located close to the last shaft on a lower level and can be traced for a considerable distance (about 700 m). Significantly, it runs over a dry stream eastward until it intersects the second line of the Qanat system. It is safe to assume that water from the first Qanat used to flow into the tunnel of the second Qanat cluster (fig. 6). The second line starts at a point west of Jebel al-Tahuna and parallel to a dry watercourse and heads eastward toward the ancient reservoirs at Jebel al-Tahuna. The Qanat system was located to the west of Jebel al-Tahuna. This is appropriate because the receiving points (the reservoirs) have to be at a lower eleva-

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

71

Fig. 3. Oblique aerial photograph of the Udhruh Qanat system (courtesy of David Kennedy).

tion, as gravity is the decisive factor in the water flow. Moreover, the area to the west and north of the site is a large natural catchment area and is still a remarkable region for tapping underground water (Killick 1986: 438-39). At the north base of the Jebel, there is a major pumping station providing the city of Ma'an with water; many wells had been dug in the area around Jebel al-Tahuna by the end of the 1990s. The Qanat system near Jebel al-Tahuna seems to have been the motivating factor for the establishment of a significant settlement site like Jebel al-Tahuna in what would otherwise be a remote area. A large enclosure encircled settlement structures, agricultural fields, and two reservoirs to the east of Jebel al-Tahuna (Kennedy 2000: 173; Abudanh 2006) (fig. 7). The latter were constructed to receive the water flowing from the tunnel of the Qanat system. Surface channels were al.so built to take water from the tunnel to the first and second reservoir (fig. 8). The third site is the Qanat system near Al-Hussein Bin Talal University (fig. 9). This site, not reported in any previous fieldwork conducted in the region of

Udhruh, was discovered by the authors. Two short lines of shafts extend over the ground to the west of the Ma'an-Udhruh modern road. Like the systetn at Dhwawi Udhruh, the two lines of shafts meet at a point to form a line of shafts that runs eastward. Not too far from the modern road, the underground tunnel appears to end in a inoat-like earthen feature (fig. 10). To the east of this feature was a relatively large enclosure surrounding what seems once to have been an agricultural area. The Qanat System in the Region of Ma'an In the city of Ma'an, there is a well-known site that the local people call Dhwawi. In terms of dimensions, the Qanat system of Ma'an (Dhwciwi Ma'an) is probably as long as the one south of Udhruh. Earlier travelers and scholars who investigated the region did not notice the existence of this system (e.g., Wallin 1854: 121-30). But, in fact, previous research focused on the aqueduct and reservoir in Wadi al-Shamyieh, and the discussion of the archaeological features

72

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

BASOR 360

Fig. 4. A wall carrying a channel in Wadi al-Fiqai.

at al-Hammam and al-Mutrab, both east of Ma'an, leads to the consideration of the system that provided water to the two sites. Early in the 20th century, it was reported that the reservoir at al-Hammam was supplied with water by a channel from the spring of Basta (about 20 km west of Ma'an) (Jaussen and Savignac 1909: 41; see especially the accounts of Gray Hill and Vincent reported in Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904: Vol. 1: 5). Stein (1940: 435) reported a large reservoir and enclosed fields near Ma'an, fed by a channel from Udhruh. The authors believe that the proposed channel is the Qanat system itself, but earlier travelers and scholars were confused by the fact that the Qanat system was located in the area west of Ma'an on the way toward Basta. Stein's suggestion regarding the canal from Udhruh is not reasonable in the light of the available evidence and the considerable distance between the two sites. Despite the fact that the growth of the city of Ma'an caused significant dainage to this

system, especially in the city center area, the system can still be traced in the area southwest and west of the city center (fig. 11 ). Three lines of shafts make up the Qanat system ofMa'an. They run parallel to dry watercourses, and there is a considerable distance between the starting points of each line. The longest (northern) line runs from a point northwest of the Princess Haya Stadium in a south-southeast direction and meets the southern line just on the edge of a watercourse south of Ma'an Fite Station. The southern line runs from a spot southwest of the meeting point and heads northnortheast to intersect the first line (fig. 12). The central line starts from a point several kilotneters to tbe west of the Princess Haya Stadium and runs eastward until it intersects the northern line east of the stadium. The northern line is distinguished by many shafts located at irregular intervals (ranging from 10 to 20 m), while the southern line consists of a combination of shafts and a ditch-like feature. The latter forms a substantial

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OE SOUTHERN JORDAN

73

Fig. 5. Aerial photograph of al-Tahuna Qanat system. (Image © 2007 DigitalGlobe.)

part of the southern line of the Ma'an Qanat system. The ditch-like feature appears to have been created by digging up the soil between the shafts for some unknown reason, or it may point to a later rehabilitation and reuse of the system. Tbe ditch-like feature can be seen in association with most of the Qanat systems in the study area; but it is not clear if it was a technical requirement or was due to a later reuse, as suggested above. The central line consists of many shafts; a considerable number of them no longer exist or cannot be traced owing to the expansion of modern houses in the area. From the point where the three lines coine together, tbe system can be barely traced, but it seems to have continued eastward along the valley. Furthermore, the growth ofthe city has obliterated the system particularly in the region east of the farms area. Consequently, it is not possible to determine with certainty where the system delivered its water. Nonetheless, there is enough evidence to make some reasonable suggestions in this respect. The Qanat system itself apparently follows a certain topographic feature, and it most likely heads northeast to Wadi al-Sbamyieh. Archaeological evidence for the distribution and storing of water has long been reported in Wadi al-Shamyieh (Brtinnow and Domas/.ewski 1904: Vol. 1,3-6; Jaussen and Savignac 1909: 38-40; Kennedy 2000: 174-76; 2004: 184-86; Genequand 2003: 25-35). The water storage techniques include aque-

ducts, surface channels, and a large reservoir. The reservoir measures 60.20 x 59.90 x 4.70 m (Genequand 2003: 28) and was constructed on a flat ground. Water was brought by an aqueduct from its source to the reservoir. Another conduit, more than 5 km long, was constructed to distribute water to other consumption points east ofthe al-Hammam reservoir. On either side of tbe conduit that emerges from the large reservoir of al-Hammam and runs over the plateau, gardens were recorded and noted previously (Jaussen and Savignac 1909: 38-40). Next to the al-Hammam reservoir, a rectangular structure was reported, and it continued to exist until it was totally bulldozed sometime after 1998 (see Kennedy 2004: 185, fig. 18.2 caption). Fortunately, the structure was drawn (Parker 1986: 101, fig. 45) and was photographed from the air (Kennedy 2004: 185, fig. 18.2) before its disappearance. TWo more structures (al-Mutrab and Khirbet al-Samra) to the east of al-Hamtnam were also reported by early travelers and later on by archaeologists, and they are still fairly well preserved (Briinnow and Domaszewski 1904: Vol. 1: 3-6; Jaussen and Savignac 1909: 38-40; Genequand 2003: 29-33). The creation of two more sites east of al-Hammain should be attributed to the erection of a good water supply systetn. The entire feature is encircled by a wide enclosure forming a triangle with its head near the al-Hammam reservoir (Genequand 2003: 27, fig. 1).

74

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

BASOR 360

Fig. 6. Map of al-Tahuna Qanat system.

Apart from this research, no effort was made to thoroughly study and determine the water source(s) that supplied the al-Hammam reservoir and the whole region. Nineteenth-century explorers mentioned a channel from Basta, but recent research either failed to consider the water source or focused on the archaeological features. Genequand (2003) refers to several springs in Wadi al-Shamyieh, and he points to Ayn al-Shamyieh (spring) as the water source for the large reservoir of al-Hammam. Based on field observation, we can confirm that there are no traces of the aqueduct near Ayn al-Shamyieh. Instead, architectural features, probably part of a conduit and resembling the aqueduct of al-Hammam, were seen on the plateau east of and above the al-Shamyieh spring. Travelers' accounts indicate the presence of many springs in and around Ma'an, but none of them linked these springs with the reservoir at al-Hammam (e.g., Jaussen and Savignac 1909: 34-36). Had such a link existed, it could have been easily noticed and consequently re-

ported by 19th-century travelers, since they visited the region when Ma'an was tnore or less a small and divided town (Wallin 1854: 121-30). We suggest that the Qanat system west of Ma'an was the major water source for the reservoir of al-Hammam and the ancient settlement sites nearby. Local springs also could have been utilized and probably fed the reservoir. We believe that the lack of awareness of the presence of the Qanat system led to the uncertainty concerning the water source that supplied al-Hammam reservoir.

Common Elements The Qanat systems discussed above share some features in common. All of the Qanat systems show inconsistency in the distance left between the shafts, and this can be seen even in a single line. In some segments, the gap between shafts exceeds 10 m, whereas in other parts of the same line the space between shafts is no more than 3 m. The four Qanat systems were

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

75

Fig. 7. Aerial photograph showing the ruins at Jebel al-Tahuna (courtesy of David Kennedy).

associated with a ditch-like feature, either at the end of the line of tbe shafts or between the shafts. Also, regardless of the number of shaft lines at each site, the shafts and consequently the underground tunnels meet at one point and continue as a single line to the place where water was utilize. Finally, all of the sites where the Qanat systems end are associated with wide fields encircled by significant enclosures, always located to the east of a large reservoir. These features collectively indicate that the four clusters of the Qanat systems were started in the same period and were probably constructed by the same engineers. However, we must take into account the possibility that new branches were added or existing lines were redirected in later periods. The Qanat System's Impact on the Region's Economy The Qanat system in the study area had a clear contribution to the region's economy. The archaeological evidence shows that the region had an agriculture-

based economy, and the Qanat system significantly sustained that economy. The few settlement sites in the region could not have existed without the utilization of the Qanat system. The four sites of the Qanat system in the study area show explicit relations between the hydraulic system, the settlement sites, and huge enclosed agricultural fields. The agricultural enclosures and settlements, as elsewhere in the world, were located at the end of the Qanat system, or more precisely at or near the water delivery points. At three sites, water was collected in large reservoirs. The cisterns were carefully constructed and coated with waterproof plaster to store water and irrigate the fields, which usually extend eastward from the reservoirs. Enclosures were constructed of earth and stones and sotTietimes built walls; these served to protect and probably define the agricultural fields. The size of each re.servoir shows that water was abundant and sufficient to cultivate what would otherwise be deserted land. The size of fields at each site points to a substantial quantity of production. The enclosed land east of alHammam reservoir at Ma'an, for example, is about

76

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

BASOR 360

Fig. 8. The remnants of a surface channel at Jebel al-Tahuna.

536 ha (Genequand 2003: 25, 33). The type of soil would also support the cultivation of crops and olives, and the Qanat system sustains water year-round. At Jebel al-Tahuna, for instance, a large piece of a stone press (probably for olive oil production) was recently uncovered (fig. 13). Farming vegetables and olives is still a common agricultural activity in the atea between

Udhruh and Ma'an. The volume of production, judging from the area of the fields, indicates that the whole region, or at least the major settlement clusters, may have benefited from the assutned agricultural products. Apart from Jebel al-Tahuna, no significant settlement complexes were documented close to the water and the farming features mentioned above at the four

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

77

Fig. 9. Map of the Qanat system near Al-Hussein Bin Talal University.

sites. Only single structures were found in the direct vicinity—probably to look after the fields and maintain the Qanat system. Date of Construction and Use ln Jotdan, the Qanat system can still be traced in different parts of the country, particularly in northwest Jordan and in the area around Ma'an (Lightfoot 1996b). However, the topography of the latter region is different and its Qanat system is significant in terms of dimensions and layout. Jordan flourished during the Nabataean period and continued to do so in Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic times. The Nabataean urban centers and settlement clusters in Jordan and elsewhere exhibit advanced water harvesting and distribution systems (Glueck 1935; 1968; Hart and Falkner 1985; Hart 1986; MacDonald 1988; Oleson 1992); yet the Qanat system has not been attested at any of these centers. This does not mean that the Nabataeans

did not know the technique. It is probable thai their development and utilization of other water supply .systems that required only minimum effort and manpower made the use of other techniques preferable. Lightfoot ( 1996b) concluded that tnost of the Qanat systetns in Jordan are located near Rotnan sites, suggesting that this technique was introduced and used during the Roman period. In another study, Lightfool (2000: 218, 224) confirms that "it was the Romans who first transferred the technology to Jordan." Lightfoot's hypothesis is quite reasonable in light of the historical and archaeological evidence from the Graeco-Roman centers in northwest Jordan—namely, the Decapolis tegion. However, we believe that the Qanat systems in the study area were first introduced during the late Byzantine or early Islamic period. Lightfoot (2000: 218-20) does admit that Qanat systetns were in use and some were built during the early Islamic period in Syria and Jordan, but he repeatedly attributes the introduction of the Qanat technique to the Romans. He

78

ABUDANH AND TWAfSSI

BASOR 360

Fig. 10. The moat-like feature at the end of the Qanat system near Al-Hussein Bin Talal University. (Image © 2009 DigitalGlobe.)

also makes it clear that the system was introduced to Jordan from the north through Syria (Lightfoot 2000: 217-19), whereas we propose that the system may have come to the study area from the south through the Hijaz. Many clusters of Qanat systems are attested in the Hijaz and elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula (Kobori 1973: 60-66; Lightfoot 2000: 219-24; Scagliarini 2001-2002: 569-79). However, the possibility that the Qanat system came to the region througfi a northern line—from Syria, for exampfe—cannot be excfuded if one considers the fact that the sites associated with the Qanat system cfustering in the study area flourished during the Byzantine period. On the other hand, since northwest Arabia is geographicaffy

cfose to the study area, it would be possible to assume technology immigration. However, this assumption raises a serious question regarding the time period of the system's introduction and utilization. Four periods can be safely suggested in this respect: the Nabataean, the Roman, the late Byzantine, and the early Islamic. It has long been established, based on historical and archaeological evidence, that northwest Arabia— namely, Madin Safeh (Heggra) and tbe adjacent areas—belonged to the Nabataean kingdom at least from tbe first century A.D. (Bowersock f983: 95-99; Kennedy 2004: 37). Before that, the Nabataeans must have known the region through their fong invofvement in the spice and aromatics trade between southern Arabia

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

Legend *

Dhwawi Ma'an al-Hammam Reservoir

o

500 1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000 meters

Fig. 11. Map of Ma'an Qanat system.

79

80

BASOR 360

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

• ^ ^

-

^

, - > '

•X^

yy

•• :

Fig. 12. Aerial photograph showing the meeting point of the Ma'an Qanat system. (Image © 2008 DigitalGlobe, © 2008 Europa Technologies.)

and the flourishing states, including Rome and other Mediterranean kingdoms (Bowersock 1983: 16-18). Major overland trade routes, heading to Petra, passed northwest Arabia for many centuries, probably from the first century B.c. (Fiema 1991; 283). Thus, if the Qanat system technology was already in use in northwest Arabia or elsewhere in the peninsula, the Nabataeans, given their familiarity with the region, should have noticed such a technique and might have also adopted and used it in their homeland, including the study area. However, the published Nabataean water supply systems lack any evidence pointing to the utilization of Qanat systems (Oleson 1995: 707-19; 2001: 603-14); therefore, the Nabataean period can be safely excluded. During the Roman period, particularly from the fourth century A.D., the study area was important to the empire's security—as the construction of a le-

gionary fortress, early in the century, at Udhruh would suggest. Nevertheless, the Romans are not the first candidate for initiation of the Qanat systems in the study area, not because they were not aware of the technique, but because water was abundant at Udhruh where they constructed a military camp. On the other hand, the place where the Qanat system of Udhruh delivered water is relatively far from the fortress and exposed to the desert inhabitants—the plausible threat to the Romans during this period (Parker 1986). Additionally, the historical and archaeological evidence indicates that the Romans did not stay for long in the region. Kennedy and Falahat (2008: 152) suggest that the Roman fortress at Udhruh may have been abandoned after a generation or so. With respect to the Qanat system at Ma'an (see discussion below), the Roman presence there is not certain yet, and the results of recent fieldwork suggest major settlement activi-

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

81

Fig. 13. The stone press at Jebel al-Tahuna.

ties during the Byzantine and early Islamic periods. For these reasons, the Roman period would also be excluded. Southern Jordan was also in direct contact with Arabia, particularly with the Hijaz. during the late Byzantine and early Islatnic periods. Again, long-distance trade is said to have been the tnotivation of this contact, and one of the presutned trade routes between the Hijaz and Syria (Bostra) and Palestine (Gaza) passed southern Jordan, particularly through the area around Ma'an (Fiema 1991: 283; 2002: 239-40). The archaeological evidence from the regions where Qanat systems are found indicates significant late Byzantine and early Islamic .settletnents. It is therefore quite possible that the growth of settlement in these periods required the securing of permanent water sources. The increase and density of settletnent and, tnore itnportantly, the scarcity of water sources—springs, for instance—led to the introduction and utilization of the Qanat system

technique despite the fact that it requires great effort and significant manpower. What supports this suggestion is the presence of Qanat systetns in association with Byzantine settletnents in the Negev in similar climatic and topographic conditions ( Avner and Magness 1998: 46-49; Kennedy and Riley 1990: 71 ). Ba.sed on these data, it can be said that the Byzantine inhabitants in the study area, since they were in the tegion before the comtnencetnent of the Islamic period, were most likely responsible for building the region's Qanat system. It is al.so reported that Qanat systems were built during the early Islatnic period in some parts of the Negev, as at Yotvata and Evrona (Feuer 2006: 1). The Qanat system at Yotvata, at 4.5 km, is the longest in Israel. Another system was found at Nahal Argaman south of Yotvata (Avner and Magness 1998: 47). At Evrona, the Qanat system is not preserved as well as at Yotvata, but the layout of the associated features.

82

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

the agricultural fields and irrigation channels, is quite similar to the ones at Ma'an in southern Jordan. Most important is that datable materials were recovered from the excavated buildings at Evrona, including Umayyad coins and an ostracon written in Arabic (Avner and Magness 1998:48; Avner 2002: 389-407). These Qanat systems, like the ones in the study area, obviously had a positive impact on the region's economy by expanding agriculture to remote and very dry places. Although a Qanat system can be used at any time if the system is repaired and maintained, there is enough evidence in Syria and Jordan to show that new Qanat systems were constructed during the early Islamic period (Lightfoot 1996b: 325). It is very difficult to establish a firm date for the Qanat system in the regions of Udhruh and Ma'an in southern Jordan. No reference in any historical record points to the construction of such a water supply technique in the study area, and the archaeological evidence is not clear. Previous research is also not helpful in this respect since the system was not thoroughly investigated. No written evidence or datable materials were found in association with the four sites of the system. Datable materials can only be found at sites where the systems that discharged water into big reservoirs were located near ancient settlements. Scholarly suggestions concerning the date of settlements are few and do not cover the evidence from the study area. Only the ancient structures east of Ma'an (al-Hammam and al-Mutrab) were previously considered. They were even studied as single sites, not as parts of a complicated archaeological landscape that contains water management systems (Qanats and reservoirs), enclosures, and agricultural fields. Parker (1986: 100-102) and Brünnow and Domaszewski (1904: Vol. 1, 3-6), for instance, investigated the structures of al-Hammam and al-Mutrab as Roman military sites related to the eastern Roman frontiers. In 2002, Genequand (2003) conducted fieldwork in Ma'an and reinvestigated the ruins. His conclusions clearly point to the early Islamic period on the basis of ceramic evidence and the obvious similarity in plan and layout between the structures east of Ma'an and other well-dated early Islamic buildings in Jordan (Genequand 2003: 33). A place called Admatha (Ammatha) is mentioned in the Petra papyri discovered in 1993 inside the Petra Church. The papyri date to the sixth century A.D., specifically to the period between A.D. 537 and 593 (Gagos and Erosén 1998; Fiema 2002: 208-9). Ammatha is, for instance, attested in papyri Inv. 67 and Inv. 64-1-66.1 (Gagos, Koenen, and Daniel 2007: 69; Gagos and Koenen 2007: 82). The

BASOR 360

commentators on both documents link Ammatha with the site of al-Hammam near Ma'an where the Qanat system of Ma'an used to flow, as suggested in this study (Gagos, Koenen, and Daniel 2007: 70; Gagos and Koenen 2007: 84). Gagos and Fröse'n (1998: 475) also identify Ammatha as al-Hammam. Papyrus Inv. 64-1-66.1 mentions a church at Ammatha (Gagos and Koenen 2007: 84). The region ofMa'an is also attested in early Islamic sources, in the story of a certain official called Abu Earwa Amer al-Judhami. The same sources mention that this person was the Romans' governor for the region of Ma'an. The tale reports that he was killed by the Romans due to his conversion to Islam (Musil 1907: 309; Schick 1994: 149). The Petra papyri obviously demonstrate that Ammatha (probably modern al-Hammam) was a flourishing place during the Byzantine period, and the same can be said about the early Islamic sources. Such evidence supports the hypothesis presented in this paper concerning the date of the Qanat system in the study area. However, this evidence does not eliminate the possibility that the site had earlier phases of settlements, but it probably reached its zenith in the late Byzantine and early Islamic periods. At Udhruh, water was abundant from its perennial spring which discharged water just near the northeast comer of the fortress. Thus, it seems unreasonable to assume that the Romans constructed the Qanat system near Udhruh while water was abundantly available from its nearby spring. In fact, the delivery point of water from the Qanat is located several kilometers southeast of Udhruh—likely too far to be satisfactory for the fortress. Most of the Roman militai'y sites in Jordan were associated with reservoirs and cisterns either within the outpost and/or just outside it, but not at a distance—for security reasons (Kennedy 2004). The fortress at Udhruh was dated by a building inscription to the early years of the fourth century (Kennedy and Falahat 2008: 151-69), and the site is repeatedly attested in historical sources from that time. The archaeology at Udhruh includes a Byzantine church outside the Roman fortress, but unfortunately the date of it is still unknown. The Beersheba Edict, a Byzantine list of tax-paying towns, puts Udhruh in second place among the towns of the province of Palaestina Tertia, paying 63 solidi (Mayerson 1986). The sixth-century archive of Petra papyri frequently cites a place called Augustupolis. Some of the documents were even issued or written at Augustupolis (Gagos and Koenen 2007: 79-88; Gagos and Caldwell 2007: 171-78). Many scholars, particularly the analysts of the scrolls, identify Augustupolis with modern Udhruh (Fiema

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

2002: 209). ff this identification is accurate, Udhruh and its vicinity appear to have been a rich place in the sixth century. There were sown lands, irrigated areas, and water supply systems at Udhruh (Augustupolis) and nearby, as revealed in tbe papyri (Buchholz and Mustonen 2007: 187-99). Historically, early Islamic sources shed significant light on Udhruh and its close neighboring town al-Jerba (Schick 1994: 149), documenting that in A.D. 630 Udbruh and al-Jerba, among other flourishing towns in the Hijaz and southern Jordan, feared the Arab Musfims and so decided to pay the poll tax in order to guarantee peace and protection (Musil 1907: 309). Although there is no reference to tfie amount of poll tax the inhabitants of Udhruh and al-Jerba paid, the event itseff is worthwhife, as it indicates that the region was prosperous or at least had major settlements, most likely with an agriculturebased economy. The sites recorded in the vicinity of the Udhruh Qanat system during fieldwork conducted in 2003 (Abudanh 2004; 2006) revealed ceramics of different periods. On the one hand, the late Byzantine and early Islamic periods are significantly present at the sites where the Qanat sy.stems' water was utilized. On the other hand, substantial Nabataean pottery sherds can be found at other sites in the same landscape where the Qanats were located; however, these sites seem not to have been in a direct connection with the Qanat systems. Khirbet al-Hesieh, for instance, is located a few hundred meters southwest of tbe Qanat system of Jebel al-Tabuna, but clearly guards a spring in tbe gully north of it. In fact, most of the springs in the region of Udhruh were associated with small structures, probably to control and protect water sources. Two reservoirs were supplied with water from the Udhruh Qanat system. Water flowed in surface channels, partly raised on a wall, to reach the reservoirs, as they were located some distance from where the Qanat system discharged water. On a hill just above the delivery point, a multi-unit structure (called Kbirbet al-Fiqai) and a small separate structure were documented, in addition to some circular holes dug into the ground. The pottery sherds collected from around the reservoirs were tentatively dated to the early Islamic period, whereas the pottery collected from Khirbet al-Fiqai was safefy designated as Nabataean. The small structure and the earthen holes appear not to bave been made coincidentally with the complex structure. The stones of the smaff structure were brought from Udhruh, as they resemble tbe stones of the Roman fortress, and its masonry in general differs from the stonework of the larger structure. The circu-

83

lar holes occupy the area below the major structure, and some of them can be found within the structure, which may indicate that the site was already abandoned when these features were dug. Their function is not obvious, but it is likely they were kilns used to produce lime to construct the wall that carried the channel across Wadi al-Fiqai. Ovens were found east of Ma'an, and the surveyor believes they may have been used to produce lime to build the walls carrying the water channels (Genequand 2003: 32). One also would expect a water collection feature—a cistern, for instance—below Khirbet al-Fiqai, where the Qanat system ends, if the khirbet and the system were contemporary. Despite the fact that the presence of Khirbet al-Fiqai near the Qanat system and the associated features requires a critical explanation, it seems that the topography and the geology of the region forced the Qanat system's engineers to take it to the point befow Khirbet al-Fiqai. In brief, the Qanat system may well postdate Khirbet al-Fiqai, which yielded numerous Nabataean potsherds if one considers the ceramic evidence from the reservoirs and the small structure, which also seems to have been built in a later period. There is no decisive evidence to date al-Tahuna's Qanat system precisely. It is obvious that the system was created to supply water to the settlement cluster that emerged east of Jebel al-Tahuna. Datable materials were not found in association with the Qanat system itself; therefore, the evidence from the archaeologicaf features at Jebel al-Tahuna is extraordinarily valuable. No inscriptions or datable materials other than pottery were found at the site. The late Byzantine and early Islamic periods are the best represented periods at the site according to the ceramic evidence. As a consequence, it is quite reasonable to suppose that tbe system was initiated by the founders ofthe late Byzantine and early Islamic town or village at the base of Jebel al-Tahuna. The settlement at Jebel al-Tahuna appears to have been established during tbe late Byzantine period and continued to thrive during the early Islamic period. Kennedy (2004: 182-83) has tentatively suggested that al-Tabuna might be Theman—the garrisoned village mentioned by Eusebius in his Onomasticon. Kennedy (2004: 183), however, noticed the similarity between the archaeological features at Jebef al-Tahuna and those east of Ma'an, and Killick ( 1986: 438) refers to the site as a Byzantine town. Tbe Qanat system near Al-Hussein Bin Talal University is not associated with ancient settlement features, nor does it have any datable materials (such as pottery). However, the general layout of the system and tbe enclosure shows a lot of similarity with the

84

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

other Qanat systems discussed above. This similarity may boost the likelihood that this Qanat system was started during the late Byzantine and early Islamic periods, just like the other systems. Finally, we do not know how long the Qanat system in the study area continued to function. Judging from the state of preservation of the associated features, particularly the aqueducts and reservoirs, and considering the existence of mills and stone presses, the remains strongly suggest a long period of use. Dates for the mills and stone presses at al-Hammam and Jebel al-Tahuna would be especially helpful. It was reported that the army of the Great Arab Revolution had camped at Jebel al-Tahuna and al-Fiqai because water was available at both sites. The Arab army was besieging the Ottoman forces located at Ma'an in 1918 (alMajali and al-Drou 1995: 231-35). The Qanat system of Ma'an appears to have lasted for a longer period of time, and according to accounts from local inhabitants, the system may have remained in use until the 1970s. CONCLUSION The aim of this paper was to introduce the Qanat systems from two regions in southern Jordan—Udhruh and Ma'an. It also considered the question of the system's origin and date. Four sites in the study area show important Qanat systems previously unknown or only briefly mentioned in tbe accounts of early travelers as

BASOR 360

well as more recent investigators. These systems, as shown in this study, encouraged the development of settlement sites and supplied water for wide agricultural fields in what otherwise would be dry lands. The discussion concerning the provenance of the system clearly indicates that the Qanat system in the study area was not an innovation but came to the region via cultural contacts with adjacent regions, particularly Syria and northwest Arabia or al-Hijaz. The introduction of such a water supply technique appears not to have been known or used during the Nabataean period. None of the major Nabataean sites, especially the ones that were founded in similar topographic and climatic conditions, display this type of water supply method. The Qanat system in the regions of Ma'an and Udhruh is obviously directly connected with settlement sites and agricultural fields. The datable materials from these sites and the general layout of the associated archaeological features point to the late Byzantine and early Islamic periods. The system was clearly in use during these two periods and may have been initiated in the late Byzantine period and then continued to be utilized into the early Islamic period. Other periods of occupation do exist at some of these sites but do not show a direct link to the Qanat system. Historical records support this conclusion inasmuch as the regions of Udhruh and Ma'an aie frequently mentioned in written documents from these time periods.

REFERENCES Abudanh, F. 2004 The Archaeological Survey for the Region of Udhruh 2003, Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 48; 51-69. 2006 Settlement Patterns and the Military Organisation in the Region of Udhruh (Southern Jordan) in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Al-Majali, B., and al-Drou, Q. 1995 At-Tarikh at-'askari tit-thawrah at-'Arabieh atKubra at-Ardh at-Ardun. Amman; Jordanian military printing. Al-Nasif, A. 1981 Al-'Ula (Saudi Arabia); A Report on a Historical and Archaeological Survey. Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 8; 30-32. Al-Tikriti, W. Y 2002 At-Aflaj fi' dawtat at-imarat al-'arabiyat almutahida: Dirasat fi anzimat at-rayy al-qadima. Abu Dhabi; Ministry of Information and Culture.

Avner, U. 2002 Ancient Water Management in the Southern Hege\.ARAM 13-14; 389-407. Avner, U., and Magness, J. 1998 Early Islamic Settlement in the Southern Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 3\0\ 39-57. Barnes, M., and Fleming, D. 1991 Filtration-Gallery Irrigation in the Spanish New World. Lettin American Antiquity 2; 48-68. Bazza, M. 2007 Overview of the History of Water Resources and Irrigation Management in the Near Fast Region. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply 7; 201-10. Beekman. C. S.; Wiegand, P S.; and Pint, J. J. 1999 Old World Irrigation Technology in a New World Context; Qanats in Spanish Colonial Western Mexico. Antiquity 73; 440-46. Bowersock, G. W. 1983 Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University.

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

BrUnnow, R. E.. and Domaszewski. A. von 1904- Die Provincia Arabia auf Grund Zweier in den 1909 Jahren 1897 und 1898 Unternommenen Reisen und der Berichte früherer Reisender. 3 vols. Strassburg: Trübner. Buchholz. M.. and Mustonen, M. 2007 Draft of A Division of Property. Pp. 187-99 in The Petra Papyri III, eds. A. Arjava, M. Buchholz, and T Gagos. American Center of Oriental Research Publications 5. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research. Cressy, G. 1958 Qanats, Karez and Foggara. Geophysical Review 48: 27-44. Endreny, T. A. 2008 Estimating Recharge Rate for Qanat-based Water Supply in Northern Cyprus: A Case Study Using Remotely Sensed and In-Situ Data. Urban Water Joumal 5: 161-71. English, P W. 1968 The Origin and Spread of Qanats in the Old World. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 112: 170-81. Feuer. H. N. 2006 Human Ecology of the Southern Arava: Environmental Perspectives of Ancient Desert Dwellers, http://www.hartfeuer.net/academic/ FeuerHunianEcologyEnv06.pdf (accessed September 1.2010). Fietna, Z. T. 1991 Economics, Administration and Demography of Late Roman and Byzantine Southern Transjordan. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Utah. 2002 Late Antique Petra and Its Hinterland: Recent Research and New Interpretations. Pp. 191-252 in The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 3: Late-Antique Petra, Nile Festival Building at Sepphoris, Deir Qal'a Monastery, Khirbet Cana Village and Pilgrim Site, 'Ain-'Arrub Hiding Complex and Other Studies, ed. J. H. Humphrey. Journal of Rotiian Archaeology Supplement 49. Portsmouth, Rl: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Gagos, T., and Caldwell, R. C. 2007 Tax Receipt. Pp. 171 -78 in The Petra Papyri III. ed. A. Arjava, M. Buchholz, and T. Gagos. American Center of Oriental Research Publications 5. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research. Gagos, T., and Frosén, J. 1998 Petra Papyri, /^/IÍK/«/ of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42: 473-81. Gagos, T., and Koenen, L. 2007 Request for Transfer of Taxation. Pp. 79-88 in The Petra Papyri III. ed. A. Arjava, M. Buchholz, and T. Gagos. American Center of Oriental Re.search Publications 5. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research.

85

Gagos, T: Koenen, L.: and Daniel, R. W. 2007 Request for Transfer of Taxation. Pp 67-74 in The Petra Papyri III, ed. A. Arjava, M. Buchholz. and T. Gagos. American Center of Oriental Research Publications 5. Amman: Atnerican Center of Oriental Research. Gamble. C. 2(X)7 Origins and Revolutions: Human Identity in Earliest History. New York: Cambridge University. Genequand. D. 2003 Ma'an, an Early Islamic Settlement in Southern Jordan: Preliminary Report on a Survey in 2(X)2. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 47: 25-36. Glueck, N. 1935 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, II. Anntial of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Re.search. 1968 Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev. New York: Norton. Hart. S. 1986 Some Preliminary Thoughts on Settlement in Southern Edom. U-vant 18: 51-58. Han, S., and Falkner, R. 1985 Prelitninary Repott on a Survey in Edom, 1984. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29: 255-77. Hodge, A. T 1992 Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, London: Duckworth. Hussain, I.; Abu-Rizaiza, O. S.; Habib, M. A. A.; and Ashfaq, M. 2008 Revitalizing a Traditional Dryland Water Supply System: The Karezes in Afghanistan. Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Water International 33: 333-49. Jaussen, A., and Savignac, R. 1909 Mission archéologique en Arabie, Vol. I: De Jérusalem au Hedjaz Médaine-Saleh. Publication de la Société française des fouilles archéologiques. Paris: Leroux. Javan. M.: Hassanli. A.: and Shahrokhnia, M. 2007 The Ancient Qanats of Iran. Pp. 531-34 in Insights into Water Management: Lessons from Water and Wastewater Technologies in Ancient Civilizations: Selected Papers from the 1st IWA Internatiimal Symposium on Water and Wastewater Technologies in Ancient Civilizations Held in Iraklio, Greece, 28-30 October 2006. eds. A. N. Angelakis and D. Koutsoyiannis. Water Science & Technology, Water Supply 77/1. London: IWA. Kennedy, D. L. 2000 The Roman Army in Jordan. London: Cotincil for British Research in the Levant.

86

2004

ABUDANH AND TWAISSI

The Roman Army in Jordan. 2nd rev. ed. London: Council for British Research in the Levant. Kennedy, D., and Falahat, H. 2008 Castra Legionis VI Ferratae: A Building In.scription for the Legionary Fortress at Udruh near Petra. Journal of Roman Archaeology 21: 150-69. Kennedy, D., and Riley, D. 1990 Rome's Desert Erontier from the Air. London: Batsford. Khan, M. F. K., and Nawaz, M. 1995 Karez Irrigation in Pakistan. GeoJournal 37: 91-100. Killick. A. C. 1986 Udruh and the Southern Frontier. Pp. 431-46 in The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986. Vol. 2, ed. P Freeman and D. Kennedy. BAR International Series 297; Monograph of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 8. Oxford: B.A.R. Killick, A. C, ed. 1987 Udhruh: Caravan City and Desert Oasis: A Guide to Udhruh and Its Surroundings. |Rom.sey] Hampshire, Eng: Killick. Kobod, 1. 1973 Some Notes on Diffusion of Qanat. Orient: Report of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 9: 43-66. Lightfoot, D. R. 1996a Moroccan Khettara: Traditional Irrigation and Progressive Desiccation. Geoforum 27: 261-73. 1996b Syrian Qanat Romani: History, Ecology, Abandonment. Journal of Arid Environments 33: 321-.36. 1997 Qatiats in the Levant: Hydraulic Technology at the Periphery of Early Empires. Technology and Culture 2&: 432-5h 2000 The Origin and Diifusion of Qanats in Arabia: New Evidence from the Northern and Southern Petiinsula. The Geographical Joumal 166: 215-26. MacDonald, B. 1988 The Wadi el Hasä A rchaeological Survey, 19791983, West-Central Jordan. Waterloo. ON: Wilfrid Laurier University. Magee, P. 2005 The Chronology and Environmental Background of Iron Age Settlement in Southeastern Iran and the Question of the Origin of the Qanat Irrigation System. Iranica Antiqua 40: 217-31. 2007 Beyond the Desert and the Sowti: Settlement Intensificatioti in Late Prehistoric Southeastern Arabia. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 347: 83-105.

BASOR 360

Mayerson, P. 1986 The Beersheba Edict. Zeitschriftfür Papyrologie und Epigraphik 64: 141 -48. Moosavi, S. 2007 Qanat Invention Puzzle. Pp. 535-40 in Insights into Water Management: Lessons from Water and Wastewater Technologies in Ancient Civilizations: Selected Papers from the 1st IWA International Symposium on Water and Wastewater Technologies in Ancient Civilizations Held in Iraklio, Greece, 28-30 October 2006, ed. A. N. Angelakis and D. Koutsoyiannis. Water Science & Technology. Water Supply 77/1. London: IWA. Murphy, D. 2007 People, Plants and Genes: The Story of Crops and Humanity. Oxford: Oxford University. Musil. A. 1907 Arabia Petraea. Vol. 2: Edom: Topographischer Reisebericht, Part 1. Vienna: Holder. Oleson, J. 1992 The Water-Supply System of Ancient Auara: Preliminary Results of the Humeima Hydraulic Survey. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 4: 269-76. 1995 The Origins and Design of Nabataean WaterSupply Systems. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 707-19. 2001 Water Supply in Jordan through the Ages. Pp. 603-14 in The Archaecjlogy of Jordan, ed. B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski. Levantine Archaeology 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Parker, S. T. 1986 Romans and Saracens: A History of the Arabian Erontier. Dissertation Series 6. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research. Rahman, M. 1981 Ecology of Karez Irrigation: A Case of Pakistan. GeoJournai 5: 7-15. Salih, A. 2006 Qanats, a Unique Groundwater Management Tool in Arid Regions: The Case of Bam Region in Iran. Pp. 79-87 in The Global Importance of Groundwater in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Groundwater Sustainability, January 24-27, 2006, Alicante, Spain, ed. G. Bergkamp and J. MacKay. Westerville, OH: National Ground Water Association. Salvini, M. 2001 Pas de Qanat en Urartu! Pp. 143-56 in Irrigation et drainage dans i'antiquité: Qanats et canalisations souterraines en ¡ran, en Egypte et en Grèce, séminaire tenu au Collège de Erance, ed. P Briant. Persika 2. Paris: Thotm.

2010

THE QANAT SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN JORDAN

87

Scagliadni, F. Sutton, S. 2(K) 1 - The Origin of the Qanat System in the al-'Ula 1984 The Falaj ; A Traditional Co-operative System of 2002 Area and the Gabal "^Ikma Inscriptions. ARAM Water Management. Waterlines 2/3; 8-11. 13_ 14: 569-79. Wallin, G. A. Schick, R. 1854 Narrative of a Journey from Cairo to Medina and 1994 The Settlement Pattern of Southern Jordan; Mecca, by Suez, Araba, Tawilá, al-Jauf, Jubbé, The Nature of the Evidence. Pp. 133-54 in The Hail, and Nejd, in 1845. Joumal of the Royal Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: Papers Geographical Society of London 24; 115-207. of the Second Workshop on Late Antiquity and Wilkinson, J. Early Islam, Vol. 2; Land Use and Settlement 1977 Water and Tribal Settlement in South-East Pattems. ed. G. R. D. King and A. Cameron. Arabia: A Study of the Aflaj of Oman. Oxford; Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam I. Clarendon. Princeton, NJ; Darwin. Stein, A. 1940 Surveys on the Roman Frontier iti 'Iraq and Trans-Jordan. The Geographical Journal 95; 428-38.

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Book Reviews Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Elfenbeine aus Megiddo und Lachisch: Inschriftenfunden, Fiaschen, Löffel, by Erika Fischer. Alter Orient und Aites Testament, Band 47. iUlünster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007. XIV + 456 pp., 23 tabies, 138 piates. Cioth. €148.00. [Distributed in North America by Eisenbrauns]

of its long history, Fischer astutely asks how long an initially foreign tnotif or form would have been regarded as such, and she attempts to discern aspects of reception, adaptatioti, and meaning from the formal properties of the objects thetnselves, arguing that Egyptian elements in Levantitie ivories should not be understood as exoticistns but rather as integral to the character of Levantine culture (pp. 42-43). Following this is a chapter on the sources of Late Bronze Age Levantine elephant and hippopotamus ivoiy—groutid already covered in large part by others (in particular, Caubet and Poplin; reviewed in Gachet-Bizollon 2007: 15-26) and to which can now be added the skeletal retiiains of an elephant excavated from the MB-LB palace at Qatna in 2008. The final chapter in Part A reviews the history of excavations and archaeological evidence for Megiddo and Lachish, including detailed discussions of the so-called Tteasury at Megiddo and Grabentempels at Lachish, where many of the ivories were found. Regarding the disputed function of the Megiddo Treasury—originally thought to be a tteasute house but sub.sequently reinterpreted as a cultic structure, tomb, or even an ivory carving workshop—Fischer reviews the evidence in detail but comes to no conclusion (pp. 11925), hoping instead that, although beyond the scope of her study, a critical examination of all the finds in Jetusaletn and Chicago might resolve the question (p. 344). One might quibble with sotne of Fischer's vigorous reappraisals of details (for example, on p. 121 regarding the depositional sequence of the Megiddo Treasury ivories, Fischer places too much weight on a single entry frotn Loud's field diary, without taking into account the teal-titne aspect of Loud's notetaking, in which his understanding of the deposit changed as he excavated it tnore fully), which often leads her to make strongly worded critiques of previous scholarship; nonetheless, her syntheses of the archaeological evidence are thorough and tneticulous. The second part of the book examines thtee types of Egyptian or Egyptianzing ivories in close detail: those inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs, ves.sels in the shape of horns and women, and spoons in the shape of swimming girls. Fi.scher probes these ivories with regard to the ptedominant question of Egyptian presence in the Late Btonze Age Levant, which has often been approached thtough the Megiddo and Lachish ivories, particularly those with Egyptian inscriptions. For both sites, however, Fischer argues that there is insufficient evidence for any long-standing Egyptian presence. A critical element in her argument is the fact that the inscribed ivories from Megiddo—in particular, a tnodel writing palette bearing the cattouche of Ramses III—wete most certainly in a secondary, if not tertiary, depositional context. The model writing palette, not tiieant to be functional, most likely originated as a grave offering rather than a diplomatic gift (p. 164). It tnost probably arrived at Megiddo after being robbed from its original tomb context, although

The Late Bronze Age period in the Levant is justly celebrated for its assemblages of ivory carving. Atrtong these, tho.se excavated at the sites of Megiddo and Lachish are considered some of the most important, along with those from the northern Levantine city of Ras Shamra-Ugarit. The ivories from all three of these locales have been the subject of major studies in recent years. For Ugarit, Jacqueline Gachet-Bizollon's 2007 final catalog presented the entire corpus for the first time (Gachet-Bizollon 2007; Feldman 2009b). That same year saw the publication by Erika Fischer of a select group of ivories from Megiddo and Lachish: those with hieroglyphic inscriptions and those in the form of vessels and spoons that follow Egyptian or Egyptianizing types. Fischer's study is a revised and expanded version of part of her dissertation, and while concentrating on a narrowly defined corpus of ivories, the volume includes extensive discussion and documentation relating to ivory carving in the Late Bronze Age Levant, aspects of ivory working in general, and the archaeological contexts of the Megiddo and Lachish ivories as a whole. Overall, Fischer argues that prior historical interpretations drawn from the artistic evidence retnain unsubstantiated and tbat only with close and careful study of the pieces thetnselves can one attempt to use these artifacts to arrive at historical interpretations. The volutne is divided into two parts. The first part consists of three chapters that provide background evidence for the corpus of ivories from Megiddo and Lachish that are the focus of the three chapters in the second part. Fischer begins with a general overview of ivory carving in the Late Bronze Age (Part A, chapter 1) in which she outlines the different object types and techniques as well as the main archaeological sites in the Levant that have produced ivories, apart from Megiddo and Lachish. Unfortunately, Fischer was not able to include the results of Gachet-Bizollon's catalog of ivories from Ugarit, which was published in the same year and would have augmented and amplified her discussion. Fischer also addresses in this chapter the important topics of ivory carving workshops, of which practically no archaeological or textual evidence survives, and foreign influences in Levantine ivories of this period. She notes that it is difficult to reconstruct the relationship between ivory carver (artisan) and patron/comtnissioner, which has implications for analyzitig the finished products (p. 34). With respect to foreign influences, and noting the ongoing cross-cultural exchanges to which the Levant was subject over the course

89

BOOK REVIEWS

90

the exact mechanism by which it made its way into the collection of the Treasury ivories remains uncertain. Likewise, Fischer sees no reason to associate the individuals named on the other inscribed ivories from Megiddo (the singer Krkr and the "Great Prince of Ashkelon") with the city of Megiddo or the "owner" of the ivory collection (pp. 16476). She does, however, suggest reading the title "Great Prince of Ashkelon" as a reference to the Egyptian god Ptah, which would indicate a cult of Ptah at a southern Levantine city, raising yet other, unanswered questions about Egyptian presence in the Levant. For the uninscribed ivories—vessels and spoons—Fischer concentrates on determining places of cultural origin and thus directions of influence, despite a paucity of evidence for their dates of production. She relies mainly on stylistic and typological comparisons for this part of the study. Rejecting prior interpretations of the spoons as cultic or burial items, Fischer associates them with cosmetics and New Kingdom love poetry. Despite the wealth of assembled information and the numerous insights into its interpretation that Fischer compiles in this large volume, readers may ultimately feel disappointed in the lack of broader conclusions presented by the author, whose final sentence of the book expresses her own apparent frustration with what she perceives to be the insufficient body of evidence ("Weitere Funde werden hoffentlich helfen, die notwendigen Präzisierungen vorzunehmen"). One wishes, for example, that rather than abandoning the possibility of saying something about the Megiddo Treasury ivories because the function of the structure cannot be definitively ascertained, Fischer might have ventured to pursue the depositional relationships of the ivories to one another and to the other finds from this locus in order to suggest reconstructions of larger pieces of furniture (or the impossibility of such reconstructions; cf. Feldman 2009a) instead of presenting this as an avenue of research in the conclusion without further elaboration (p. 344). Indeed, this is a common trope throughout the book, in which Fischer meticulously presents the known evidence for the excavated pieces, thoroughly reviews and critiques previous interpretations, and then suggests future, not yet undertaken, studies that might provide new interpretations. The result is a valuable resource that gathers together a large quantity of evidence, but that perhaps will leave readers yearning for greater resolution. Marian H. Feldman University of California at Berkeley feldman @ berkeley.edu

REFERENCES Feldman, M. H. 2009a Hoarded Treasures; The Megiddo Ivories and the End of the Bronze Age. Levant 41; 175-94.

BASOR 360

2009b

Review of Les ivoires d'Ougarit et l'art des ivoiriers du Levant au Bronze Récent (RSO 16) by J. Gachet-Bizollon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 354; 88-90. Gachet-Bizollon, J. 2007 Les ivoires d'Ougarit et l'art des ivoiriers du Levant au Bronze Récent. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 16. Paris; Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations.

Byblos, cité sacrée (8e-4e s. av. J.-C), by J. Elayi. Supplément no. 15 à Transeuphratène. Paris: Gabalda, 2009. 273 pp., 3 figures, 8 plates. Paper. €65.00. Published as a supplement (no. 15) to Transeuphratène. Byblos, cité sacrée by J. Elayi is a history of the Phoenician city of Byblos in the late Iron Age and Persian periods. These were successive eras of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian domination over the affairs of the Phoenician citystates. Byblos had been the most powerful maritime city in the region in the second millennium B.C.E., far overshadowing other cities such as Tyre, Sidon, and Arwad. But by the eighth century B.C.E., Byblos had become a small, isolated city, closed in on itself, without a fleet, or army, or a desire for conquest. Elayi asks; "How can one explain the eclipse which fell upon this city during the first half of the first millennium BCE?" Even so, the author argues that by ca. 445 B.C.E., Byblos "decided" to change and open itself to the exterior world, militarizing itself. Locally and regionally, the city exercised a very strong moral authority because it was "Byblos the sacred." The author begins with a detailed discussion of the sources that may illuminate the history of Byblos. She offers her views on an important group of Phoenician inscriptions, including the votive inscription of Yehawmilk to the b'lt gbl. Maurice Dunand's 1960s excavations at Byblos have been partially published, but they were not stratigraphie excavations. The published materials from the excavations and the extant coins from the earliest Byblian, or Giblite, mint remain the substance of the primary sources at the historian's disposal (pp. 28-29). Elayi describes the territory surrounding Byblos and speculates on which areas were under Byblian control. Her personal observations and suggestions concerning the ancient topography of the region surrounding Byblos are suggestive of the scope of Byblian influence. These are areas that cry out for more research. Detailed maps or plans would have helped the reader to better follow her arguments. The simple plans included in the "figures" of the volume contain few references to the sites discussed in the text. More information on these isolated areas inland from Byblos would be helpful in the future. The author's work suggests that a detailed archaeological surface survey would be in order to map and catalog sites from the Iron II and Persian periods.

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

BOOK REVIEWS

90

the exact mechanism by which it made its way into the collection of the Treasury ivories remains uncertain. Likewise, Fischer sees no reason to associate the individuals named on the other inscribed ivories from Megiddo (the singer Krkr and the "Great Prince of Ashkelon") with the city of Megiddo or the "owner" of the ivory collection (pp. 16476). She does, however, suggest reading the title "Great Prince of Ashkelon" as a reference to the Egyptian god Ptah, which would indicate a cult of Ptah at a southern Levantine city, raising yet other, unanswered questions about Egyptian presence in the Levant. For the uninscribed ivories—vessels and spoons—Fischer concentrates on determining places of cultural origin and thus directions of influence, despite a paucity of evidence for their dates of production. She relies mainly on stylistic and typological comparisons for this part of the study. Rejecting prior interpretations of the spoons as cultic or burial items, Fischer associates them with cosmetics and New Kingdom love poetry. Despite the wealth of assembled information and the numerous insights into its interpretation that Fischer compiles in this large volume, readers may ultimately feel disappointed in the lack of broader conclusions presented by the author, whose final sentence of the book expresses her own apparent frustration with what she perceives to be the insufficient body of evidence ("Weitere Funde werden hoffentlich helfen, die notwendigen Präzisierungen vorzunehmen"). One wishes, for example, that rather than abandoning the possibility of saying something about the Megiddo Treasury ivories because the function of the structure cannot be definitively ascertained, Fischer might have ventured to pursue the depositional relationships of the ivories to one another and to the other finds from this locus in order to suggest reconstructions of larger pieces of furniture (or the impossibility of such reconstructions; cf. Feldman 2009a) instead of presenting this as an avenue of research in the conclusion without further elaboration (p. 344). Indeed, this is a common trope throughout the book, in which Fischer meticulously presents the known evidence for the excavated pieces, thoroughly reviews and critiques previous interpretations, and then suggests future, not yet undertaken, studies that might provide new interpretations. The result is a valuable resource that gathers together a large quantity of evidence, but that perhaps will leave readers yearning for greater resolution. Marian H. Feldman University of California at Berkeley feldman @ berkeley.edu

REFERENCES Feldman, M. H. 2009a Hoarded Treasures; The Megiddo Ivories and the End of the Bronze Age. Levant 41; 175-94.

BASOR 360

2009b

Review of Les ivoires d'Ougarit et l'art des ivoiriers du Levant au Bronze Récent (RSO 16) by J. Gachet-Bizollon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 354; 88-90. Gachet-Bizollon, J. 2007 Les ivoires d'Ougarit et l'art des ivoiriers du Levant au Bronze Récent. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 16. Paris; Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations.

Byblos, cité sacrée (8e-4e s. av. J.-C), by J. Elayi. Supplément no. 15 à Transeuphratène. Paris: Gabalda, 2009. 273 pp., 3 figures, 8 plates. Paper. €65.00. Published as a supplement (no. 15) to Transeuphratène. Byblos, cité sacrée by J. Elayi is a history of the Phoenician city of Byblos in the late Iron Age and Persian periods. These were successive eras of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian domination over the affairs of the Phoenician citystates. Byblos had been the most powerful maritime city in the region in the second millennium B.C.E., far overshadowing other cities such as Tyre, Sidon, and Arwad. But by the eighth century B.C.E., Byblos had become a small, isolated city, closed in on itself, without a fleet, or army, or a desire for conquest. Elayi asks; "How can one explain the eclipse which fell upon this city during the first half of the first millennium BCE?" Even so, the author argues that by ca. 445 B.C.E., Byblos "decided" to change and open itself to the exterior world, militarizing itself. Locally and regionally, the city exercised a very strong moral authority because it was "Byblos the sacred." The author begins with a detailed discussion of the sources that may illuminate the history of Byblos. She offers her views on an important group of Phoenician inscriptions, including the votive inscription of Yehawmilk to the b'lt gbl. Maurice Dunand's 1960s excavations at Byblos have been partially published, but they were not stratigraphie excavations. The published materials from the excavations and the extant coins from the earliest Byblian, or Giblite, mint remain the substance of the primary sources at the historian's disposal (pp. 28-29). Elayi describes the territory surrounding Byblos and speculates on which areas were under Byblian control. Her personal observations and suggestions concerning the ancient topography of the region surrounding Byblos are suggestive of the scope of Byblian influence. These are areas that cry out for more research. Detailed maps or plans would have helped the reader to better follow her arguments. The simple plans included in the "figures" of the volume contain few references to the sites discussed in the text. More information on these isolated areas inland from Byblos would be helpful in the future. The author's work suggests that a detailed archaeological surface survey would be in order to map and catalog sites from the Iron II and Persian periods.

2010

BOOK REVIEWS

Their relationship to Byblos and the other Phoenician cities could then be studied more fully. The author divides her historical analysis of Byblos into two major periods: the eighth to sixth centuries B.c.E., and the sixth to fourth centuries B.c.E. Working from primary sources such as the Assyrian Annals and frotn secondary material written about the events of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-:Babylonian periods, Elayi paints a picture of a city that had once been protninent. Byblos is mentioned in the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser I, ca. 1115-1077 B.c.E., who came to Phoenicia to receive the tribute of Byblos, Sidon, and Arwad and to participate in a fishing expedition. By the titne of the Israelite king, Solomon, in the 10th century, Byblos had fallen behind its rival cities of Sidon and Tyre. Byblos was ignored, and the king of Israel ordered wood for the construction of the Jerusaletn Temple (p. 52) from Hiram of Tyre. This may have been no alfront to Byblos, but rather an ecotiotnic consideration given the proximity of Sidon atid Tyre to the Israelite homeland. It would have been more costly to itnport labor atid construction materials from Byblos, far to the north. Such local economic issues may have had little to do with foreign policy decisions by Byblian or Israelite officials. The author assumes that Byblos was an important part ofthe Iron II and later Persian periods. Indeed, was Byblos able to determine its own fate iti those years of the eighth through the sixth centuries? How much control did the city exercise over the surrounding area? How large was this area? Scholars debate the possible autonomy of such stnall citystates in relatioti to the major players in the region, including Assyria, Egypt, and Babylonia. Elayi assumes that Byblos maintained its own territorial sovereignty and some measure of independence from its overlords. A turning point in these vassal relationships occurred during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III, who became fully involved in the Mediterranean world (pp. 68-69). When Sennacherib launched his infamous campaign of 705-701 B.c.E. he was merely trying to maintain control over the far western shores of his Assyrian realm. Elayi argues that during this time of crisis—with initial military action directed primarily at Luli of Sidon— Luli maintained local control from the Tyrian city of Kition on Cyprus. Assyrian eyes were focused farther to the south on Hezekiah's kingdom and the rebellious cities of Lachish and Jerusalem. What can scholars glean from the sources concerning events farther to the north along the Phoenician coastline? Tyre, in Elayi's reconstruction, remained independent—an impregnable fortress in an Assyrian sea (p. 81). Indeed, when Esarhaddon established his treaty with Tyre, Byblos gained new territories in reward for its fidelity to the crown. After a short interlude of Egyptian rule in the late seventh century, when Assyria fell to Babylonian anns, Byblos found itself under Nebuchadnezzar's administration. Soldiers of Byblos served as mercenaries under the Babylonian king, fighting in the victorious campaign against Nubia in

91

593 (p. 108). The Greek sources do not tnentioti a Byblian commander of ships. This leads the author to suggest that Byblos was not a maritime power at this titne (pp. 134-35). As Babylon, and then Persia, expanded their influence into the Mediterranean basin, challenging the Greek/Atheniati trade apparatus, Greek texts recount that Persia put a Phoenician navy and merchant marine to sea. Elayi suggests that while Sidon, Tyre, and Atwad were recovering from deportations suffered under their Mesopotatnian overlords, only Byblos was spared these degradations. By 525 B.c.E., Persian dotnination was cotnplete, frotn Mesopotamia to Egypt and the Levant, with Petsian armies in Ionia and Lydia. A great territorial expansion had occurred. Phoenicia played an itnportant role in the defetise of this huge empire (p. 125). Indeed, the "kings" of Sidon, Tyre, and Arwad met in a council of war with Xerxes to do battle with the Greek fleet: Byblos, according to Elayi, did not play a part in this expedition because it did not have a fleet (p. 131 ). Much of the evidence we have for this period cotnes ftotn Herodotus or Diodorus of Sicily, who wrote about Persia's efforts to deploy its military forces for action against the Greeks. The king of Sidon was ñtst atnotig his peers in Persian esteem, although the highest military rank ("adtiiital") in the fleet was always a Persian billet (Briant 2002: 490). The Sidonians led the Phoetiician contitigetit of the navy in the Graeco-Persian wars. It ended in hutniliating defeat. The debacle at Salatnis tnarks a turning point in Elayi's history, for this begins the second period in the histoty of Byblos. According to Elayi, during the ecotiomic perils that plagued Phoenicia in the aftermath of these wars, including the Athenian raids of the 460s and the revolt of Inaros in Egypt (carried out with Athenian aid), Byblos took the lead atnong the Phoenician cities and struck coins to bolster their sagging economies (p. 138). The author maititains that Byblos was not simply a force in this titne period, but an autonomous force. What role might the Persian government have played in the development of coinage and tnints in the fifth century B.c.E.? Briant's history has sketched a pictute of Persian centralized control over economic and political affairs. If Byblos had autonomy to strike coins, this fascitiating theory should be further explored. Would the Great King of Persia have allowed Byblos to strike coins on its own, without a centralized policy that had Petsian approval? If Elayi is correct in her analysis, then Byblos built its navy and its mint on the initiative of an unknown Bybliati king (pp. 141-43). These early coins depict ships equipped with battering rams and bearing armed tnarines. Byblos, by ca. 450-430 B.c.E., was a "player" in Phoenician affairs. In the end, Elayi further posits that Byblos was a dilïetetit sortof place than it had been in the second tnillenniutn B.c.E. Byblos was located in a vastly difterent "cultural zone" from Tyre and Sidon to the south, or frotn Arwad and Syria in the north. Byblos had chosen a position of "neuttality." The author sees local officials asserting forceful leadership iti the fifth and fourth centuries B.c.E. She associates Byblos with

92

BOOK REVIEWS

the worship of Hathor-Isis from Egypt and with the wine cult of Adonus/Dionysus. The ultimate nature of the Ba'tat Gebut, or "goddess of Byblos," needs to be more fully studied (pp. 196-97). The goddess was worshipped in her own right and as an intercessor for the people with the gods. Byblos, in short, was a quiet, tranquil city during the Persian period, to which Phoenicians would come to celebrate their religion and its fertility festivals. Elayi hypothesizes that the city had become prosperous, its coinage paralleling the economic development of the other Phoenician cities. The coins of Tyre and Sidon were also very important economically for all of Phoenicia in the fifth and fourth centuries, helping to rebuild the postwar economy. But our knowledge of Persian-period Phoenicia, and the city of Byblos, is still riddled with gaps. There are inscriptions that the author discusses and lists in an appendix. But we have little other evidence except for the coins. The texts tell a story in which Byblos played a lesser role than Sidon, Tyre, and Arwad, particularly in the Persian military campaigns against Egypt and the Greeks. Yet Byblos must have been involved in these campaigns as well. How are we to interpret the dearth of evidence from the prejudiced Greek sources? This volume will be of interest to specialists in Phoenician history, particularly from the period of ca. 800 to 400 B.C.E. The author provides an extensive bibliography, including some rather obscure francophone articles not easily accessed in American libraries. The book synthesizes some of Mme. Elayi's previously published papers, which are cited throughout the volume. Her historical analysis rests on the tacit assumption that Phoenician cities in the NeoAssyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and middle to late Persian periods exercised autonomy to establish their own political, economic, and military policies. Briant and other scholars, however, analyze the Persian period quite differently, arguing for a controlling, centralized Persian policy. Most scholars argue that there was a greater degree of autonomy in the earlier period, when Byblos was vassal to its Mesopotamian sovereigns. But years of war and major security concerns with a troublesome Egypt gave birth to a tighter Persian policy toward its subject peoples. Complete publication of Dunand's excavations may provide more information to assist in reconstructing Byblos's history. New archaeological excavations and regional surveys would also be helpful. John W. Betlyon The Pennsylvania State University [email protected]

REFERENCE Briant, P 2002

From Cyrus to Atexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Trans. P. T. Daniels, from French. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns.

BASOR 360

The Reorganisation of Provincial Territories in Light of the Imperial Decision-Making Process: Later Roman Arabia and Tres Palaestinae as Case Studies, by Joonas Sipilä. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, Volume 126. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2009. vi -i- 328 pp., 6 figures, 11 tables, 8 maps. Paper. €30,00. Modern scholarship on the government of the Roman Empire holds that the emperors reacted to events, instead of initiating innovative policies (Millar 1977). The study under review here challenges that assumption by analyzing how the decision to make provincial changes was formulated. In fact, Sipilä argues that the government of the empire used provincial reorganization as "a larger scale proactive instrument for administering the provinces" (p. 214). This work is divided into two discrete sections, both roughly equal in length. The first half comprises a sophisticated analysis of the factors that influenced the imperial decision-making process, with a special emphasis on the decisions to make changes at the provincial organizational level. The second part looks at the provincial changes in the southern Levant (eventually the provinces of Tres Palaestinae and Arabia) as a case study to explore the implications of the aforementioned analysis. The introduction establishes the structure of the work, in terms of content as well as of theoretical assumptions and methodological practice. The author should be applauded for directly addressing the underlying theoretical ideas that influence the work. Sipila takes a "social constructivist" approach, postulating that the ruling elite of the empire was not a homogeneous group and both influenced and was influenced by multiple discourses that shaped the identity and policies of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the study invokes expressive rationalism, which suggests that outcomes can be influenced by a wider range of factors (such as shared cultural assumptions) than those defined by instrumental rationalism, which seeks optimal benefits from the smallest effort. The following chapters explore how provinces functioned, what information was available to the imperial government and how that information was interpreted, as well as the factors that impacted decisions, and patterns of provincial changes. One of the most important issues facing the imperial government was how to obtain accurate information, especially for peripheral regions. Communications to and from the center could be haphazard, unreliable, or even impossible, depending on the location and season. Because information on areas distant from the decision-making elite could be surprisingly incomplete and inadequate, the bulk of governmental decisions fell to the provincial governors. To look for patterns within provincial organizations, a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was performed using 74 provincial divisions and 30 provincial additions (these exclude the provincial changes in the southern Levant) dated from 15 to 536 C.E. QCA is a technique used to draw infer-

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

92

BOOK REVIEWS

the worship of Hathor-Isis from Egypt and with the wine cult of Adonus/Dionysus. The ultimate nature of the Ba'tat Gebut, or "goddess of Byblos," needs to be more fully studied (pp. 196-97). The goddess was worshipped in her own right and as an intercessor for the people with the gods. Byblos, in short, was a quiet, tranquil city during the Persian period, to which Phoenicians would come to celebrate their religion and its fertility festivals. Elayi hypothesizes that the city had become prosperous, its coinage paralleling the economic development of the other Phoenician cities. The coins of Tyre and Sidon were also very important economically for all of Phoenicia in the fifth and fourth centuries, helping to rebuild the postwar economy. But our knowledge of Persian-period Phoenicia, and the city of Byblos, is still riddled with gaps. There are inscriptions that the author discusses and lists in an appendix. But we have little other evidence except for the coins. The texts tell a story in which Byblos played a lesser role than Sidon, Tyre, and Arwad, particularly in the Persian military campaigns against Egypt and the Greeks. Yet Byblos must have been involved in these campaigns as well. How are we to interpret the dearth of evidence from the prejudiced Greek sources? This volume will be of interest to specialists in Phoenician history, particularly from the period of ca. 800 to 400 B.C.E. The author provides an extensive bibliography, including some rather obscure francophone articles not easily accessed in American libraries. The book synthesizes some of Mme. Elayi's previously published papers, which are cited throughout the volume. Her historical analysis rests on the tacit assumption that Phoenician cities in the NeoAssyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and middle to late Persian periods exercised autonomy to establish their own political, economic, and military policies. Briant and other scholars, however, analyze the Persian period quite differently, arguing for a controlling, centralized Persian policy. Most scholars argue that there was a greater degree of autonomy in the earlier period, when Byblos was vassal to its Mesopotamian sovereigns. But years of war and major security concerns with a troublesome Egypt gave birth to a tighter Persian policy toward its subject peoples. Complete publication of Dunand's excavations may provide more information to assist in reconstructing Byblos's history. New archaeological excavations and regional surveys would also be helpful. John W. Betlyon The Pennsylvania State University [email protected]

REFERENCE Briant, P 2002

From Cyrus to Atexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Trans. P. T. Daniels, from French. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns.

BASOR 360

The Reorganisation of Provincial Territories in Light of the Imperial Decision-Making Process: Later Roman Arabia and Tres Palaestinae as Case Studies, by Joonas Sipilä. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, Volume 126. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2009. vi -i- 328 pp., 6 figures, 11 tables, 8 maps. Paper. €30,00. Modern scholarship on the government of the Roman Empire holds that the emperors reacted to events, instead of initiating innovative policies (Millar 1977). The study under review here challenges that assumption by analyzing how the decision to make provincial changes was formulated. In fact, Sipilä argues that the government of the empire used provincial reorganization as "a larger scale proactive instrument for administering the provinces" (p. 214). This work is divided into two discrete sections, both roughly equal in length. The first half comprises a sophisticated analysis of the factors that influenced the imperial decision-making process, with a special emphasis on the decisions to make changes at the provincial organizational level. The second part looks at the provincial changes in the southern Levant (eventually the provinces of Tres Palaestinae and Arabia) as a case study to explore the implications of the aforementioned analysis. The introduction establishes the structure of the work, in terms of content as well as of theoretical assumptions and methodological practice. The author should be applauded for directly addressing the underlying theoretical ideas that influence the work. Sipila takes a "social constructivist" approach, postulating that the ruling elite of the empire was not a homogeneous group and both influenced and was influenced by multiple discourses that shaped the identity and policies of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the study invokes expressive rationalism, which suggests that outcomes can be influenced by a wider range of factors (such as shared cultural assumptions) than those defined by instrumental rationalism, which seeks optimal benefits from the smallest effort. The following chapters explore how provinces functioned, what information was available to the imperial government and how that information was interpreted, as well as the factors that impacted decisions, and patterns of provincial changes. One of the most important issues facing the imperial government was how to obtain accurate information, especially for peripheral regions. Communications to and from the center could be haphazard, unreliable, or even impossible, depending on the location and season. Because information on areas distant from the decision-making elite could be surprisingly incomplete and inadequate, the bulk of governmental decisions fell to the provincial governors. To look for patterns within provincial organizations, a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was performed using 74 provincial divisions and 30 provincial additions (these exclude the provincial changes in the southern Levant) dated from 15 to 536 C.E. QCA is a technique used to draw infer-

2010

BOOK REVIEWS

enees based on a small number of cases using causal conditions for analysis, each with two variables—in this case, yes and no. The seven causal conditions used in this study are ( 1 ) did the change occur to a frontier province, (2) was there a precursor to the province, (3) was there a concentration of military forces, (4) was the province close to the emperor, (5) was there frequent unrest, (6) was there religious tension, and (7) was the province economically significant. QCA demonstrates that no one factor or pattern of characteristics was common to provincial changes throughout the life of the empire. This is a significant conclusion; however, sotne factors played a larger role than others. A provincial division was more likely to occur to an economically significant province, and provinces defined as distant from the emperor were less likely to be divided. It was rare for a province that possessed a concentration of military forces to be involved in a provincial addition or combination. The majority of provincial combinations joined provinces that were not close to the imperial center, were not on the frontiers, did not contain large numbers of military forces, were not locations of unrest, and were not economically significant. In other words, these provinces were just not that important, and so there was little risk in increasing the power of the governors of these provinces. Five major phases of provincial reorganizations were detected. The first phase, termed the formative period, lasted from 15 to 123 c.E. During this period, provinces along the frontier were divided (such as Moesia and Pannonia), and client kingdoms in the east were incorporated into the empire. The provincial realignments were mainly concerned with splitting powerful military commands to prevent civil wars, and the economic conditions of the provinces were not important. The second phase, termed the crisis period, lasted from 169 to 284. This period marked the first major encroachments on the empire's frontiers, and sotne provinces were combined to make military commands stronger to face these threats, while the risk of rebellious generals created a contradictory impulse to separate powerful military garrisons. Economic conditions became more important factors in this period in provincial divisions, presumably because the smaller regions allowed a greater exaction of tax revenues. The third period involved Diocletian's reforms, when approximately 30 divisions of provinces and zero combinations occurred. During this phase, the authority of governors was decreased, in terms of both geographical extent and power. As the provinces shrank in size and importance, it became important to have military (duces) and administrative officials (vicarii) who held authority greater than the provincial governors. The fourth period of changes was deemed the administrative period and dates to the post-Diocletianic fourth century. During this phase, "the reorganisations of provincial borders were now regularly seen as an effective and 'legimate' instrument in administering the provinces" (p. 127). It appears that the supra-provincial levels of government (praetorian

93

prefectures and dioceses) brought attention to more local concerns, especially for provinces distant from the imperial center. Local elites and Christian bishops also became important players in provincial organizations in this period. From ca. 396 until Justinian, there were only three provincial reorganizations, as the provincial governors became increasingly less relevant and the empire lost large segments of the west. During the phase of Justinian's reform, five major reorganizations took place, and the role of governors became increasingly fiscal. The last four chapters detail the case study of the provincial changes in the southern Levant, specifically the regions that became the provinces of Tres Palaestinae and Arabia. This begins with a discussion of the geography, climate, and peoples of the region, continues with a short description of the annexation of Judaea and the Nabataean Kingdom, and ends with a discussion of relatively minor provincial developments in the region until the reign of Diocletian. A detailed discussion of a controversial set of provincial organizations follows next. These transformations resulted in the creation of three Palaestinae provinces and a much reduced provincia Arabia by the fifth century. During Diocletian's rule, the sections of provincia Arabia south of the Wadi al-Hasa in modern Jordan (southern Jordan, Negev Desert, and Sinai Peninsula) were attached to the province of Palaestina. Sipilii argues that this change was necessary because the transfer of the X Fretensis legion to Aila would have resulted in four legions under one governor in provincia Arabia. The following chapter deals with additional provincial changes in the area during the fourth century. First is the obscure New Arabia which appears in P. Oxyrhynchus 3574 and might correspond to the item Arabia mentioned in the Verona List. Sipilä argues that New Arabia was created by Licinius and included the Negev Desert (including Eleutheropolis), southern Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula, but this new province was dissolved into Palaestina by Constantine. Next, Sipilä argues that southern Transjordan was separated from Palaestina and returned to the province of Arabia between 325 and 337. Then, in 357/358, the Negev and Sinai were also detached frotii Palaestina and added back to Arabia. The final change took place around 392, when the Negev, Sinai, and southern Transjordan were again cut from Arabia and comprised the province Palaestina Salutaris (later Palaestina Tertia), and Palaestina Secunda was separated from northern Palaestina. Thus Sipilä argues that there were five reorganizations in the fourth century in the southern Levant. The end of the chapter discusses possible reasons (economic, military, and religious) for these putative provincial changes, based on the earlier discussion of the "administrative period." A few criticisms of the intetpretation of these provincial changes are in order. First, Sipilä accepts vague geographical indicators as evidence of provincial changes, but there is little indication that such attributions were intended to indicate provincial changes. For example, a bishop Asterius

94

BOOK REVIEWS

is described as being from Petra "in Arabia" in a number of sources (e.g., Hardouin, Labbei, and Cossart 1715: 1.273). Does this indicate a provincial change or just that Petra was culturally and historically a part of the province of Arabia? A second objection is the use of subscription lists in cburch councils to understand provincial changes. For example, the Council of Constantinople (381) lists two provinces of Arabia, one of which was called the Province of Bostra and included the cities Dionysius, Adraa, Constantia, and Neapolis. No bishops are attested for the second province (Mansi 1758-1798: 3.568-69; Ruggieri 1993). Does this imply that there were two separate Arabian provinces, or that a scribe made a mistake? Later councils are very imprecise. For example, at the Synod of Constantinople (536), the bishops of Petra, Augustopolis, Aila, Zoora, Iotabe, and Mount Sinai signed under Third Palestine, but, elsewhere, Zoora and Iotabe appear under Palaestina Secunda, which is clearly contradictory and incorrect (Schwartz 1924-1940: 3.25,3.37,38, 116, 126, 184). This imprecision in later lists suggests that earlier church council subscriptions cannot be taken as indicators of provincial changes. Third, the previous quantitative analysis of provincial changes undermines Sipilä's fourth-century reconstruction of the southern Levant. No other provinces went through such tumultuous administrative changes in this period, and Sipilä has previously argued that peripheral regions (which surely the Negev and Transjordan must have been in the fourth century) were much less likely to be involved in provincial changes. The final chapter examines the reasons for a slight increase in the size of Palaestina SalutarislTertia in the fifth century when the Karak Plateau was appended to the province from provinica Arabia, possibly for military (increase the power of the dux of Palaestina) or religious reasons (increase the administrative power and prestige of the bishopric of Jerusalem). For many reasons, this book functions as two very different works, in terms of both scope and usefulness. The first section, the quantitative analysis of provincial changes, is quite thought-provoking and adds much to current scholar-

BASOR 360

ship. If expanded to provide more information about each of the provincial changes, perhaps a paragraph on each (currently there is a one-line description of each provincial change relegated to a table at the end of the work), this would become the standard work on provincial changes. However, because the second section focuses on provincial changes that are controversial and lacking conclusive evidence, these provincial changes do not help explain the model created in the first section. In fact, these provincial changes only occur in the late third to mid-fifth century, which is a much stnaller scope than the work as a whole. Despite these criticisms, this is a well-researched book and a welcome addition to our understanding of how the imperial government functioned. Walter D. Ward University of Alabama at Birmingham wd ward @ uab.edu REFERENCES Hardouin, J.; Labbei, P.; and Cossart, G., eds. 1715 Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales ac constitutiones summorum pontificum. Vol. 1 : Ab anno Christi 34 ad annum 450. Paris: Ex Typographia Regia. Mansi, J. D., ed. 1758- Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima col1798 lection. 31 vols. Florence and Venice: Zatta. Reprinted Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlangsanstalt, 1961. Millar, F 1977 The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 BC-AD 337. Ithaca: Cornell University. Ruggieri, V. 1993 The IV Century Greek Episcopal Lists in the Mardin Syriac. 1 (olim Mardin Orth. 309/9). Orientalia Christiana Periódica 59: 315-56. Schwartz, E., ed. 1924- Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Vols. 1-4. 1940 Berlin: de Gruyter.

ERRATUM In a review published in BASOR 359 (2010): 95-96 of The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical Near East (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), edited by Beth Alpert Nakhai, an author of one of the articles was misidentified. "Baking and Brewing Beer in the Israelite Household: A Study of Women's Cooking Technology" was written by Jennie R. Ebeling and Michael M. Homan.

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

94

BOOK REVIEWS

is described as being from Petra "in Arabia" in a number of sources (e.g., Hardouin, Labbei, and Cossart 1715: 1.273). Does this indicate a provincial change or just that Petra was culturally and historically a part of the province of Arabia? A second objection is the use of subscription lists in cburch councils to understand provincial changes. For example, the Council of Constantinople (381) lists two provinces of Arabia, one of which was called the Province of Bostra and included the cities Dionysius, Adraa, Constantia, and Neapolis. No bishops are attested for the second province (Mansi 1758-1798: 3.568-69; Ruggieri 1993). Does this imply that there were two separate Arabian provinces, or that a scribe made a mistake? Later councils are very imprecise. For example, at the Synod of Constantinople (536), the bishops of Petra, Augustopolis, Aila, Zoora, Iotabe, and Mount Sinai signed under Third Palestine, but, elsewhere, Zoora and Iotabe appear under Palaestina Secunda, which is clearly contradictory and incorrect (Schwartz 1924-1940: 3.25,3.37,38, 116, 126, 184). This imprecision in later lists suggests that earlier church council subscriptions cannot be taken as indicators of provincial changes. Third, the previous quantitative analysis of provincial changes undermines Sipilä's fourth-century reconstruction of the southern Levant. No other provinces went through such tumultuous administrative changes in this period, and Sipilä has previously argued that peripheral regions (which surely the Negev and Transjordan must have been in the fourth century) were much less likely to be involved in provincial changes. The final chapter examines the reasons for a slight increase in the size of Palaestina SalutarislTertia in the fifth century when the Karak Plateau was appended to the province from provinica Arabia, possibly for military (increase the power of the dux of Palaestina) or religious reasons (increase the administrative power and prestige of the bishopric of Jerusalem). For many reasons, this book functions as two very different works, in terms of both scope and usefulness. The first section, the quantitative analysis of provincial changes, is quite thought-provoking and adds much to current scholar-

BASOR 360

ship. If expanded to provide more information about each of the provincial changes, perhaps a paragraph on each (currently there is a one-line description of each provincial change relegated to a table at the end of the work), this would become the standard work on provincial changes. However, because the second section focuses on provincial changes that are controversial and lacking conclusive evidence, these provincial changes do not help explain the model created in the first section. In fact, these provincial changes only occur in the late third to mid-fifth century, which is a much stnaller scope than the work as a whole. Despite these criticisms, this is a well-researched book and a welcome addition to our understanding of how the imperial government functioned. Walter D. Ward University of Alabama at Birmingham wd ward @ uab.edu REFERENCES Hardouin, J.; Labbei, P.; and Cossart, G., eds. 1715 Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales ac constitutiones summorum pontificum. Vol. 1 : Ab anno Christi 34 ad annum 450. Paris: Ex Typographia Regia. Mansi, J. D., ed. 1758- Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima col1798 lection. 31 vols. Florence and Venice: Zatta. Reprinted Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlangsanstalt, 1961. Millar, F 1977 The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 BC-AD 337. Ithaca: Cornell University. Ruggieri, V. 1993 The IV Century Greek Episcopal Lists in the Mardin Syriac. 1 (olim Mardin Orth. 309/9). Orientalia Christiana Periódica 59: 315-56. Schwartz, E., ed. 1924- Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Vols. 1-4. 1940 Berlin: de Gruyter.

ERRATUM In a review published in BASOR 359 (2010): 95-96 of The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical Near East (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), edited by Beth Alpert Nakhai, an author of one of the articles was misidentified. "Baking and Brewing Beer in the Israelite Household: A Study of Women's Cooking Technology" was written by Jennie R. Ebeling and Michael M. Homan.

Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.