No title

*

* 0

B bi

cal

reacologa

A Publicationof the American Schools of Oriental Research

New Excavations at Sepphoris

Volume 49 Number 1

March 1986

AMERICAN SCHOOLS

OF

ORIENTAL RESEARCH

PA 19104 (215)222-4643 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE,ASOR,4243 SPRUCESTREET,PHILADELPHIA, James A. Sauer, President Eric M. Meyers, First Vice President for Publications William G. Dever, Second Vice President for Archaeological Policy George M. Landes, Secretary Kevin G. O'Connell, Assistant Secretary Charles U. Harris, Treasurer Elizabeth B. Moynihan, Chairman of the Board of Trustees Susan Wing, Bookkeeper Stephen M. Epstein, Coordinator of Academic Programs Norma Kershaw, Director of Tours

ASOR Newsletter; James A. Sauer, Editor Biblical Archaeologist; Eric M. Meyers,

Editor Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch;WalterE. Rast, Editor Journalof Cuneiform Studies;Erle Leichty,Editor

W.F.AlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch(AIAR). P. O. Box 19096, 91 190 Jerusalem,Israel. SeymourGitin, Director Thomas E. Levy,Assistant Director JosephA. Callaway,President First Vice JoyUngerleider-Mayerson, President CarolMeyers,Second Vice President KevinG. O'Connell,Secretary-Theasurer

OO

OF 0=

OS

o

o.

: r"I I&L

1

P

BaghdadCommittee forthe Baghdad

School.

McGuireGibson, Chairman Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 1155East 58th Street, Chicago, IL60637. American Center of OrientalResearch (ACOR). P. O. Box 2470, JebelAmman, Amman, Jordan. David W.McCreery,Director Gough W.Thompson, Jr.,President LawrenceT Geraty,Vice President Nancy Lapp,Secretary Anne Cabot Ogilvy, Treasurer

CyprusAmerican Archaeological ResearchInstitute (CAARI). 41 KingPaul Street, Nicosia, Cyprus. StuartSwiny,Director CharlesU. Harris,President LydieShufro,Vice President Ellen Herscher,Secretary AndrewOliver,Jr.,Treasurer Damascus AdvisoryCommittee. GiorgioBuccellati, Chairman Center for MesopotamianStudies, University of California,405 Hilgard Avenue,Los Angeles, CA 90024.

Biblical Archaeologist P.O. BOXH.M., DUKESTATION,DURHAM,NC 27706 (919)684-3075 Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), a nonprofit, nonsectarian educational organization

with administrativeoffices at 4243 Spruce Street,Philadelphia,PA 19104. Subscriptions.Annual subscriptionrates are $16 for individuals and $25 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $14 for students and retirees.Subscriptionorders and correspondenceshould be sent to ASORSubscriptionServices, Department BB,P.O.Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834. Single issues are $6; these should be orderedfrom Eisenbrauns,P.O. Box 275, WinonaLake,IN 46590. Outside the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada,add $2 for annual subscriptions and for single issues. Second-classpostagepaid at Philadelphia, PA 19104and additionaloffices. Postmaster:Send addresschangesto ASOR SubscriptionServices,Department BB, P.O.Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834.

Editor Associate Editor ExecutiveEditor Assistant Editor Book ReviewEditor Art Director AdvertisingDirector

EricM. Meyer, T. Geraty Lawrence MartinWilcox KarenS. Hoglund PeterB. Machinist LindaHuff KennethG. Hoglund

EditorialAssistants Melanie A. Arrowood RebeccaFranco Nephi W.BushmanII Stephen Goranson Thomas Grey KathrynE. Dietz LauraC. Fogt JenniferP.Heald StephenLarson EditorialCommittee LloydR. Bailey A. T. Kraabel BaruchLevine JamesFlanagan David W McCreery Carole Fontaine VolkmarFritz CarolL. Meyers JackSasson SeymourGitin Neil A. Silberman David M. Gunn JohnWilkinson Composition by LiberatedTypes,Ltd., Durham, NC. Printedby PBMGraphics, Inc., Raleigh, NC. Copyright? 1986 by the American Schools of OrientalResearch.

Advertising.Correspondenceshould be addressedto the ASORPublicationsOffice, PO. BoxH.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706 (telephone:919-684-3075). Biblical Archaeologist is not responsible for errorsin copy preparedby the advertiser. The editor reservesthe right to refuse any ad. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. EditorialCorrespondence.Article proposals, manuscripts,and editorial correspondenceshould be sent to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O.Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscriptsmust be accompaniedby a self-addressed,stampedenvelope.Foreign contributorsshould furnish international reply coupons. Manuscriptsmust conform to the format used in Biblical Archaeologist,with full bibliographicreferencesand a minimum of endnotes. See recent issues for examples of the properstyle. Manuscriptsmust also include appropriate illustrations and legends.Authorsare responsiblefor obtainingpermission to use illustrations.

iblical Arc A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research

4

aeo

ogis t

Volume 49 Number 1

March 1986

Sepphoris -"Ornament of All Galilee" Eric M. Meyers, Ehud Netzer, and Carol L. Meyers

20

The Beehive Buildings of Ancient Palestine John D. Currid

26

Jews,Christians, and the Gallus Revolt in Fourth-Century Palestine BarbaraGeller Nathanson

37

Is Cyprus Ancient Alashiya? New Evidence from an Egyptian Tablet Shelley Wachsmann

42

Political Conditions in the EasternMediterraneanDuring the Late Bronze Age Robert S. Merrillees

51

Three Ancient Seals Nahman Avigad A Note on the Seal of Peqah the Armor-Bearer,Future King of Israel PierreBordreuil

Page 4

54

56

On the Archaeological Evidence for a Coin-on-EyeJewish Burial Custom in the First Century A.D. William Meacham

59

The Coin-in-Skull Affair: A Rejoinder Rachel Hachlili and Ann Killebrew

60

"Whose Likeness and Inscription is This?"(Mark12:16) L. Y Rahmani

Page 42 2 61

Page 51

Introducing the Authors Book Reviews

Biblical Archaeologist is published with the financial assistance of the Endowment for Biblical Research, a nonsectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

1

Introducing the

Authors

John D. Currid Carol L. Meyers

Eric M. Meyers

Eric M. Meyers, Editor of Biblical Archaeologist, is Professor of Religion at Duke University. Holding the M.A. from Brandeis University and the Ph.D. from Harvard University, he has been excavating in Israel for more than twenty years. He has also worked in Italy in the catacombs at Venosa. Eric Meyers is married to Carol Meyers, with whom he has collaborated and coauthored many articles and books, including their forthcoming Doubleday Anchor Bible volume on Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Ehud Netzer is a graduate in architecture at Technion University in Haifa and holds a Ph.D. in archaeology from Hebrew University, where he studied with the late Yigael Yadin. A member of the faculty of the Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University, his areas of special teaching expertise include field methodology and surveying. He has served as an archaeologist and architect at many digs in Israel and is a renowned expert on Herodian architecture and remains. His digs at Herodium and Jericho have attracted worldwide attention, and he is presently one of the executive editors of the final Masada publication. Carol L. Meyers, Associate Professor of Religion at Duke University, is currently on leave, holding a prestigious Howard Foundation Fellowship. During this time she is completing a manuscript on women in ancient Israel. She holds the M.A. and Ph.D. from Brandeis University and has excavated for over twenty years at sites in Israel and in North America. She has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a frequent contributor to learned journals, and is a member of the BA editorial board. John D. Currid, an Instructor of Religion at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, is currently completing his Ph.D. at the Uni-

2

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Ehud Netzer

Pierre Bordreuil

Barbara Geller Nathanson

Robert S. Merrillees

Shelley Wachsmann

versityof Chicagoin Syro-Palestinianarchaeology.His dissertation is a study of IsraeliteIronAge storagepractices.He has been a staffmember on excavationsat Carthageand Tell el-Hesi and he is presently the Director of the LahavGrain StorageProject. BarbaraGeller Nathanson is presently a Mellon FacultyFellow in the Committee on the Study of Religion at HarvardUniversity, where she is pursuingresearchon the impact of the Christianization of the Roman Empire on the Jewish and pagan communities of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.in SyroPalestine.She receivedher B.A.from Princeton University and the Ph.D.in Religionfrom Duke University,writing her dissertation on the fourth-centuryJewish revolt during the reign of Gallus Caesar.Shehas taught courses on Palestine in late antiquity at Wellesley College and at Clark University, from which she is currently on leave. ShelleyWachsmannhas served as the Inspectorof Underwater Antiquities in the IsraelDepartment of Antiquities since 1976. As the department'smarine archaeologist, he is responsible, togetherwith his colleague KurtRaveh,for discovering,recording, and protecting Israel'snautical heritage. He received his B.A.and M.A. in Near Easternarchaeologyat Hebrew University's Institute of Archaeology,where he is currently working on his Ph.D., writing a dissertation on seagoing ships and seamanshipin the BronzeAge Levant.He has divedextensively in the MediterraneanSea, the Sea of Galilee, and the Red Sea, and is the author of numerous articles dealing with ancient watercraftand the results of underwaterwork. RobertS. Merrillees is a specialist in the Bronze Age archaeology of Cyprus and has long been interested in the ancient eastern Mediterranean. A graduate of Sydney and London universities, he has published numerous works on Levantine antiquity,especially concerning pottery productionand trade.

In between times he is a diplomat and currently serves-as AustralianAmbassadorto Israel. Nahman Avigad studied architecture in Czechoslovakia and archaeologyand Bible in Jerusalem.During the past fifty years, he has won numerous covetedprizes in the field of archaeology, but he is best known for his recoveryof Jerusalem'sUpperCity. He is currently preparinga book on West Semitic seals. PierreBordreuilis Chargede Rechercheof the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. A resident of Lebanon, he is a memberof the FrenchArchaeologicalExpeditionto RasShamra and of the Franco-SyrianExpeditionto RasIbnHani. He is also preparingthe volume of West Semitic seals for the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.

William Meacham is with the Centre of Asian Studies at the University of Hong Kong. Educatedat Tulane, the Sorbonne, andthe Gregorian,he has lived in Hong Kongsince 1970,where he has conducted a number of excavations for the Hong Kong ArchaeologicalSociety at Neolithic andhistorical sites. In 1980 he beganresearchingthe Shroudof Turinand issues that relate to it.

Rachel Hachlili and Ann Killebrewhave jointly published severalarticles on the Jewishcemeteryof the SecondTempleperiod at Jericho. Hachlili received her Ph.D. in archaeology from HebrewUniversity.Killebrewis currentlyworkingon a graduate degreein archaeologyat HebrewUniversity and is the Editorial Coordinatorof a new series on historical geographyfor BA. L. Y.Rahmanirecently retiredas Chief Curatorof State Antiquities with the IsraelDepartmentof Antiquities and Museums. He has done extensive research on many topics, including tombs and funerarycustoms in ancient Israel.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

3

by SEPPHORIS Eric M. Meyers,

Ehud Netzer, of "Ornament and CarolL.

Meyers

All The

Galilee" modern visitor to an-

cient Sepphoris sees a large irregular hill rising from the lowlands of Galilee. On its southern and eastern sides a forest of spindly pine trees stretches along the slopes. On the northwestern edge a cluster of buildings, including an orphanage run by Italian nuns and the towering unroofed walls of a never-completed Crusader church, huddles against the scarp. The steep northern slope has discouraged both natural and man-made cover, but the massive remains of an ancient building can be seen where the embankment has eroded away. Only the top of the hill remains barren, with the exception of the ever-present ground cover of thorns and thistles and a towering square citadel. The citadel, which dates in its present form to the end of the nineteenth century, rests on foundations laid during the Byzantine period and possibly renovated in the Crusader period around 1200 C.E.(Strange and Longstaff 1984: 51). It incorporates large ashlar blocks, including several sarcophagi from the Roman period, in its lower courses. The fortress is both a landmark and a lookout point. The roof of this three-story building (10.50 meters high, or more than 30 feet above ground level) offers a commanding view of the great Sepphoris plain known as Sahl el-Battuaf. From nearby Nazareth (four miles to the east) the Sepphoris hill, which rises 115 meters from the surrounding plain, is unmistakable with its cita-

4

del looming above the tree line of the modern forest. The location of the Sepphoris hill has at least some of the necessary

.

characteristics that would make it a likely place for human habitation-arable lands stretch around it and its height allows for security and self-defense. Only a good source of water on the hill's summit is lacking, but the ancient inhabitants worked to overcome that liability and made Sepphoris - or Sippori as it is known today in Hebrew-a city of considerable importance in late antiquity. Sepphoris in History The ruins visible on the northern scarp are not the only indications of the site's long history. Sepphoris has a literary pedigree that is both substantial and broad. The Jewish historian Josephus provides the earliest literary attestation of Sepphoris (Jewish Antiquities 13.2.5-see Marcus 1961: 397). He first mentions the site in reference to Ptolemy Lathyrus' unsuccessful attempt to capture the city during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (circa 100 B.C.E.);somewhat later, Gabinius (57-55 B.C.E.)divided Palestine into five councils (synedria Greek for Sanhedrin) and chose Sepphoris as the administrative center of the Galilean one (Jewish Antiquities 14.5.4-see Marcus 1961: 495; The Jewish War 1.8.5 - see Thackeray 1956: 79). Thus, by the time of Herod the Great, Sepphoris was the foremost city in Galilee. Josephus calls the site "orna-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

N N

Twosmall bronzefigurines,depicting charactersfromclassical mythology,were discovered in a cistern in area 84.1. The identity of the statuette above is uncertain but it may be a young satyr with donkey'sor goat's ears. The figureis seated on an object that may be a water skin. He holds a musical instrument in his right hand and in his left is a stylized cluster of grapes.The figurine'sanimal ears and musical instrument remind one of the young shepherd-godPan.Theson of Hermesin some traditions, Pan was regularlydepicted partially human but with the horns, ears, and legs of a goat and his characterwas also "goatish"-full of lust, energy,and fertility. Like shepherds,he was a musician and a wandereron hillsides. The figurine is 6 centimeters high. The other bronzefigurineprobably representsPrometheus.He is depicted in a position that reflects the myth where he has been chained to a rock or pillar by Zeus to undergocontinual tortureby an eagle that daily tearsat his liver, which is regenerated everynight. The stance of the figurinerepre-

ment of all Galilee" (Jewish Antiquities 18.2.1-see Feldman 1965: 25) in reference to the building program carried out there by Herod Antipas early in the first century C.E.Antipas himself called the city "Autokratis,"which possibly indicates its role as a capital city with selfautonomy. Although it lost some prestige when Antipas shifted his northern base to Tiberias, it again became capital of Galilee under the procurator Felix (52-60 C.E.). 'b:f~Pp Another ancient designation of Sepphoris provides insight into its political role in Roman Palestine. The city is said to have taken a pacifistic stand in the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 c.E.), with its citizens unwilling to oppose Rome. Josephus contends that he himself led two separate attacks against the recalcitrant Sepphoreans (Thackeray 1961: 33 and 137-39). The city coins of Sepphoris verify its reluctance to engage in

warfare. Coins minted for the year 67/68 bear the legend Eirenopolis, "City of Peace." Note also the report in Josephus' The Jewish War (3.3032), which reads: FromAntioch Vespasianpushed on to Ptolemais [Akko,which is on the coast]. At this city he was met by the inhabitantsof Sepphorisin Galilee, the only people of that province who displayed pacific sentiments. For,with an eye to their own security and a sense of the powerof Rome, they had already,before the coming of Vespasian,given pledges to Caesennius Gallus, received his assuranceof protection, and admitted a Roman garrison; now they offered a cordial welcome to the commander-in-chief,and promised

Below: View of the citadel. Also called a fort or fortress, this square building (14.95 meters square) is the most prominent structure at Sepphoris and can be seen from as far away as Nazareth, several miles to the east. According to the finds made by the team from the University of South Florida in 1983, the citadel's foundations date to the Byzantine period but it has been rebuilt many times. Most of the present cornerstones are rubble-filled Roman sarcophagi that were probably incorporated into the building during Byzantine or Crusader times. Most of the upper courses of stones were also taken from other buildings or cemeteries and reused for the citadel. The most recent rebuilding took place in the late nineteenth century during the reign of Abdul Hlamid (1846-1909). An inscription dating to that period states that the building was to be used for educational purposes, and in 1931 the University of Michigan expedition found it still in use as a schoolhouse by the local villagers.

N

sents Prometheus bound to a pillar with his hands free and spread. The left hand points downward Landthe right one is rLaisedand turn ed toward his chest. PrometheuZs' right leg is raised and supports theieagle. The figurine style is finely modeled in ai Greco-Roma•n and is 7.5 high. centimzeters

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

5

their active support against their countrymen. (Thackeray1956:585) The fact that the name of Vespasian appears on the Sepphoris coins just one year before he became emperor tends to corroborate Josephus' claims about the pro-Roman stance of the local population. The inhabitants of Sepphoris apparently added the future emperor's name to the coin legend on their own initiative and not on the orders of a high official. A similar action was undertaken by the officials of Caesarea Maritima who also put Vespasian's name on their coin mints in anticipation of Vespasian's ascent to the throne. If Sepphoris was pacifistic during the first revolt, it may have changed its course of action by the time of the second revolt (132-135 C.E.). Perhaps its population was enlarged after the first war by refugees from more nationalistic Jewish centers.

r

c U 6 crJ rS u a :-?

Aerial view of the twelfth-century Crusader church of Saint Anna. The church was left unfinished for unknown reasons. In Crusader times Sepphoris, known as Le Sephorie, was a fortress and city in the principality of Galilee.

6

At any event, some of the fomenters of the second war against Rome in the time of Bar Kokhba were citizens of Sepphoris. The notion that the citizens of Sepphoris constituted a major cause of the second war, however, is to be questioned. JudeoRoman coins continued to be minted

in Date

at Sepphoris for most of the period between the two wars. Although there is a fifteen-year cessation of coinage right before the second revolt, attributing such a gap to the existence of rebellious factions in Sepphoris must also be questioned. One of the factors that cast

Important Dates the History of Sepphoris Event

circa 100 B.C.E. Ptolemy Lathyrusunsuccessfully attacks Sepphoris on a Sabbathduringthe reignof the Hasmonean rulerAlexander Jannaeus. 57-55 B.C.E. Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria,makes Sepphoristhe seat of one of the five synedria (orhigh courts). 39-38 B.C.E. Herodthe Greatattacks Sepphorisin a snowstormandtakes it from Antigonus. 4 B.C.E. Judas,son of Ezekias, leads a revolt and invades the royal arsenal at Sepphoris.Varus,the Roman legate of Syria, retaliatesby destroyingthe city and selling its inhabitants into slavery. 3 B.C.E. Herod Antipas rebuilds the city into "the ornament of all Galilee"and calls it Autokratis. Sepphorisbecomes the capital of Galilee and Perea. 19 C.E. HerodAntipas moves his capitalto Tiberias. circa 54 c.E. Under the procuratorFelix, Sepphorisonce again becomes the capital of Galilee. 66 c.E. During the first Romanrevoltthe residents of Sepphorisare reluctantto fight andeventuallytake a pro-Romanstance. 67-68 c.E. Sepphorisissues Eirenopolis ("Cityof Peace")coins. 117-139 C.E. During Hadrian'sreign the city is apparently known as Diocaesarea. A Capitoline temple is functioning at the site. circa 200 C.E. RabbiJudahHaNasi moves to Sepphoriswhere he lives for seventeen years and completes the codification of the Mishnah. 308 c.E. A martyrdom of Christians may have taken place in Sepphoris.(A Syriac text of Eusebius is not clear on the location.) 306-337 c.E. During Constantine the Great'sreign, Josephusof Tiberias receives permission to build a church in Sepphoris. 351-352 c.E. A revolt,which beganin Sepphoris,is crushedby Gallus. 363 c.E. A majorearthquakeoccurs in the area. 374 c.E. Emperor Valens exiles some Nicean Christians to the Sepphorisarea. 451 c.E. A bishop of Sepphorisattends the council of Chalcedon. 518 c.E. Bishop Marcellinusattends a Jerusalemsynod and rebuilds a Sepphorischurch. 570 c.E. Antony of Piacenza, a pilgrim, visits a Sepphoris church associated with Mary.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

doubt upon the rebellious nature of Sepphorisis the extremely positive way in which Jewish-Romanrelations in Sepphorisappearfor the generations following the revolt of 132 to 135 C.E. The best example of this is found in the coinage of the emperor Caracalla(also known as Antoninus, who reignedfrom 198 to 217 C.E.) minted at Sepphoris.By this time Sepphoriswas known as Diocaesarea, and the inscription on the coins provides astonishing testimony to a treaty of friendship between the Roman Senate and the Sepphoris Council-the official establishments representingthe two peoples. The coins' legends are a variation of the following: "Diocaesareathe Holy City, City of Shelter,Autonomous, Loyal(a treaty of) friendship and alliance between the Holy Council and the Senate of the Roman people." This numismatic testimony of the early third century to a treaty between two peoples named in formal and official language is unique in the annals of ancient coins. It demonstrates the important political and also economic role of Sepphoris. Furthermore,it indicates that the municipal council of this Roman provincialcity was made up of Jewish members. This may be the only instance in the country in which the members of the council (boule in Greek)were local Jewish residents. The Roman policy of investing the local citizenry with control of this particulartown ultimately may have brought about the downfall of Sepphoris. In 351 C.E.the Jews of

Palestine once more rose up against the Romans.During the reign of Constantius II (337-361 C.E.), opposition to the local sovereignty of Gallus Caesar began at Sepphoris. The Jews of the city overcame the Roman soldiers garrisoned there, and their leader - a man named Patricius -took charge. The Romans, under Ursicinus, marched on Sepphoris and ended the brief uprising but did not end the Jewish presence at the site. (Formore on the Gallus revolt, see

Sepphoriswas once calledDiocaesarea.

SSepphos

'

Tiberat

Haii

S

Nazareth

Constans (AE4, 17 mm)

obverse bust to left reverse two soldiers flank standard;inscription: GLORIAEXERCITVS (gloryof the army)

LateRoman rulerof Constantinian family (AE4, 15 mm)

obverse

bust to right reverse wreath;inscription within: VOTXX MVLTXXX

BarbaraGeller Nathanson'sarticle in this issue of BA.) The importance of Sepphorisin the history of Palestine is matched by its centrality in religious tradition. Indeed,the role Sepphorisplayedin the religious and spiritual development of ancient Judaismis undoubtedly part of the dynamics of its involvement in political and economic affairs.And Sepphoriswas not only a pivotal site for Jewishlife in the first centuries of the Common Era- early Christianity found a congenial home in Sepphoris,and Roman paganism was also representedby the imperial officers and bureaucratsstationed in the Galilean capital. The Peoples of Sepphoris Literaryreferencesto Sepphoris abound in both ancient rabbinicliteratureand in the writings of the church fathers.It is clear that in addition to the paganRoman influence found in many easternMediterranean centers, the burgeoningJewish life in Galilee after the wars with Rome was well representedat Sepphoris, as was the spreadingChristian population of Galilee in the periods both before and afterthe legalization of Christianity by Constantine and its adoption as the state religion by Theodosius the Great in the fourth century. Jewishlife. Next to Jerusalem,no city of the ancient world is mentioned as frequently in the rabbinicliterature as Sepphoris.At the beginning of the third century aroundthe time, or perhapsa little later than, the JudeoRoman coins under Caracallaappear,the city was the seat of Rabbi Judah HaNasi (also known as Judah the Prince or Patriarch). Rabbi Judah is famous in Jewish religion and literary history as the codifier or redactor of the Mishnah-the core of the Talmud (that is, the commentary on the Mishnah that was edited in Palestine around 400 C.E.and in Babylon around 500 C.E.).His presence at Sepphoris for seventeen years coincided in part with the location

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

7

Constantius II(AEcentenionalis, 23 mm)

HerodI (AEhadris [8 prutot],25 mm) __-

uring the first season of excavationa total of 134 coins, which have now been preliminarilycleanedand inspected, was unearthedby the JointSepphorisProject. Twenty-six are so broken, worn, or corroded that they are beyond recognition. A large number of the coins (fortysix) are Romanbronzes dating to the first

SS

AiilvP

half of the fourth century C.E.,but more

?

. -&

-

.

obverse

obverse bust to right reverse soldier spearsfallen horseman;inscription: FELTEMPREPARATIO (the happinessof the time is restored)

TreboniusGallus (ARantoninianus, 22, mm)

tripodwith crown;inscription:BACIAEQC HPQAOY(KingHerod) reverse incense burnerwith two palm branches and starabove

AgrippaII (AElarge,27 mm)

P '?~ 'u

_.I c -I .

IL .4;?•J

• ?`

c

C .

,

obverse radiatebust to right reverse Junoseated;inscription: IVNONIMARTIALIS(Junothe Warlike)

8

precise identification is difficult because of their poor state of preservation. Two coins are silver and at least two more are made of a very debased silver called billon. Unfortunately the provenance of one of the silvercoins, which was the earliest coin from the season (dating to the reignof PtolemyII),is questionable. The rest of the coins aremade of bronzeor brass. Five of the coins were struck under the Jewish kings of the Second Temple period. A large bronze coin of AgrippaII carries the portrait of Vespasian, under whom Agripparuled. Coins minted duringthe reignsof the emperorsCaracalla,Elagabalus,and Trebonius Gallus represent talmudic Sepphoris.Interestingly,the coin of Caracalla was the only coin discovered that came from Sepphoris,which had its own mint beginning in 68 C.E.It depicts a tetrastyle temple on its reverse. The coin, which was identifiedby YacakovMeshorerof the IsraelMuseum, is in extremely poor condition. The Elagabaluscoin was also a Palestine issue and may have been struck at Akko, located on the nearby Mediterranean coast. AlexanderJannaeus(AEprutah, 16 mm)

c .. .

Preliminary

~~,

E ??~ ~rV c

~c

AU

obverse

obverse

bust (ofVespasian)to right reverse Tyche(goddess)with cornucopiaand barley ears;inscription:ETOYKSBAA1PIHlA (year26 of King Agrippa)

upside down anchor;inscription: AAEEANDPOY(KingAlexander) BACIAEQC

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTMARCH 1986

reverse

star in wreath;Hebrewinscription:"Yonatan ha melech"(Jonathanthe King)

Coins

Found

Sepphoris

at

Date

Number of Coins

Ruler/Period

284-247 B.C.E. Ptolemy II 222-187 B.C.E. Antiochus III 103- 76 B.C.E. Alexander Jannaeus 37-4 B.C.E. Herod I (the Great) 50- 96 c.E. AgrippaII 98-117 C.E. Trajan Caracalla 198-217 C.E. 218-222 C.E. Elagabalus Trebonius Gallus 251-253 C.E. Gallienus 253-268 C.E.

1* 1 3

1 1

Salonina (wife of Gallienus)

1

307-337 C.E. 330-346 C.E.

Constantine I (the Great) Constantine I (commemorative)

317-326 C.E.

Crispus

1

335-337 C.E. 317-337 c.E.

Delmatius Constantine II (Caesar)

1 3

Constantine II Constans Constantius II Valentinian II

2 4 5 1

337-340 337-350 337-361 375-392

C.E. C.E. C.E. C.E.

sius I (491-518 C.E.).In ceramic typology,

however,archaeologistsreferto the Early Byzantine period as beginning in the last half of the fourthcentury C.E.Thus, while no Byzantine coins were found, many coins were discoveredthat indicate occupation at the site during the late fourth century. In sum, the coins unearthed in the first excavation season indicate occupation at the site from at least the Seleucid period through the nineteenth century. Note that in the legends to the photographsof coins in this article, the following designations have been used: AE denotes a bronze coin and AR stands for silver; the number or word coming after this indicates the denomination (little is known about the denominations of Late Roman coins, so this is indicated by a number,"4"beingthe smallest);the figure in millimeters gives the averagediameter of the coin. David Hendin

14 11

4th century C.E.

Late Roman,mainly period around Constantine I

7th century C.E. 661-750 C.E. 1250-1517 C.E.

Arab Byzantine Umayyad Mameluke

46 1 1 1

1 4 19

Arabic,unidentified Turkish-OttomanEmpire Cannot be identified

1517-1918 C.E. ?

With the exception of a single ArabByzantinecoin, there is a distinct absence of Byzantine coins. One must not, however, misconstrue this information. Numismatists generally begin chronologies of Byzantine coinage with Anasta-

1 3 1

Diocletian Constantius I Licinius

*Theprovenanceof this coin is questionable.

Gallienus (billon antoninianus, 22 mm)

Constantine II (AE3, 20 mm)

-gr~ ~

,r

L..

f

~~\Sc; KL

-C;

EJ?: 4

.

C-w9v>\n

T?44-

7-.

?'

~5~---Y

The largest number of coins were Late Roman bronzes dating to the period of Constantine I (the Great), his family, and his contemporaries. Many of these coins were found on the floor, and in a cistern beneath it, of a house in area 84.1 that was apparentlydestroyedduringthe revolt of Gallus in 351 C.E.

2 1 1 1 1

284-305 C.E. 305-306 C.E. 308-324 C.E.

Report

Constantius II (AE4, 17 mm)

U. S?;r cst'?in

t~-?~fl

~sCP

a*;a s,

I

obverse radiatebustto right reverse Venusstands left; inscription: VENVSVICTRIX(Venusthe Conqueror)

obverse

obverse

bust to left reverse camp gate;inscription:PROVIDENTIAE CAES(foresightof the emperor)

bust to right

reverse twosoldiersflankingtwostandards; inscrip-

tion: GLORIAEXERCITVS (gloryof the army)

1986 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH

9

LegendsaboutRabbiJudahdepicthimsofull of wisdomandpolitical acumenthateventhemightyemperor humbledhimselfbeforehim. there of the Galilean Sanhedrin-the central body of Jewishlegal and spiritual life during the Roman period (Tanhuma2, 2:5-see Buber 1885). Even after RabbiJudahdied and the Sanhedrinmoved to Tiberias, Sepphoris remained the home of an important rabbinicalacademy for a century or more. RabbiJudahis important in Jewishhistory not only for his association with the SepphorisSanhedrin and the codification of the Mishnah but also for his close relations with the Roman emperor.Indeed, the special place that Sepphorisheld in the political structure of Rome'seastern province may be partly attributed to Judah'sreputation and diplomacy. The rabbiniclegends that describe the sage'srelations with the emperor are unclear as to which emperoris involved. The stories call the emperor Antoninus

-

a popular name that

could have referredto any number of emperors.Recently, however,numismatic evidence along with talmudic lore has been interpretedas indicating that Caracallawas the emperor in question. RabbiJudahapparently lived until 222 C.E.,several years

after Caracalla'sdeath. The rabbinic scholars who cited the legends about RabbiJudahwere interested in aggrandizinghis school of thought. Hence the stories must be seen as exaggeratedor idealized statements about both Judahand Caracalla.They depict RabbiJudah as an ideal figure - almost in the

mode of Solomon-so full of wisdom and political acumen that even the mighty emperorhumbled himself beforehim. One tale has the emperor crowdingbefore RabbiJudahand exclaiming, "Wouldthat I served as a mattress unto thee in the world to come" (BT,cAbodah Zarah 10b - see

Epstein 1935: 53). Such legends have

10

no factual basis, yet they do attest to RabbiJudah'sskill and perhaps obliquely suggest why Sepphorisfor a time was well regardedby Rome. Christian Representation.Because of its proximity to Nazareth, it was only natural that Christians should also have made their mark on Sepphoris. Traditionhas it that Joachim and Anna (the parents of Mary, mother of Jesus) were residents of Sepphoris.This tradition is still upheld in the Italian orphanageon the site where in July of 1985 the sisters organizeda celebration to commemorate the two-thousandth-yearanniversaryof the birth of Mary. The ancient Christian community also participatedin local politics. Earlyin the fourth century a man named Justus-perhaps a convert who had earlier gone by the name of Josephus-was appointed governorof the city. He seems to have markedhis accession to that office by building a Christian church. The revolt against Gallus may be related to this shift in governance. Although the ensuing destruction of the city brought about a decrease in its importance, the Christian community, like the Jewishone, continued at Sepphorisfor some time. In the fifth and sixth centuries the city was the seat of a bishopric, whose bishops participatedin at least two ecumenical councils during that period. Presence of Judeo-Christians.One other groupdeserves mention along with the Christian and Jewishgroups at Sepphoris.The early Christian presence there may have included a group of minim or Judeo-Christians, who by the fourth century had mergedwith the flourishing Christian community (Btichler1956). A second-centuryMishnaic source mentions a certain Sepphor-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

ean named Jacob,who is unknown in Christian sources. Jacobis said to have discussed Jesuswith Jewsand to have healed the sick in Jesus' name. Another Jewishsource, the MidrashRabbah,reports a conversation between this min, Jacob,and RabbiEliezar (anotable sage of the second century). Jacoband Eliezar discussed the issue of the expenditure of monies collected through the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog (compareDeuteronomy 23:18),and Jacobrespondedwith a veiled allusion to Jesus. By the third century, the church father Eusebius mentions "Christians"of Sepphoriswhile references to minim at Sepphorisin the Jewish sources fade. As elsewhere in Christendom, the fourth century at Sepphoris probablysaw the ascendancy of Gentile Christianity. Pagansat the site. Underlying and overseeingthe Christian and Jewish communities at Sepphoris,at least until the fourth century,was a pagan Romanpresence. The very shift in Sepphoris'name to Diocaesarea on the city coins of the late second century is a reflection of paganinfluence because Diocaesarea means "dedicated to Zeus."The designs on the Diocaesarea coins from the period are also notably pagan.This is in bold contrast to the Sepphoriscoins producedin Trajan'stime, all of which bear the name "Sepphoris" and symbols congenial to Judaism. It is difficult to know whether the paganname for Sepphorisrepresents an attempt to control the local Jewishor Christian community or constitutes a response to a Roman segment of the population. One would suspect the former.Nonetheless, the existence of paganinfluence at Sepphoriswas sustained for as long as the empire remained

pagan. The talmudic stories about Rabbi Judah and the emperor reflect the interchange between pagans and Jews as well as the stature of Judah the Prince. They inform us obliquely about the pagan presence at Sepphoris. In sum, the literary sources richly document the existence of a mixed population at ancient Sepphoris. Jews and Christians lived together with Romans at this urban center during a period of critical importance to the development in Galilee of all these groups. Furthermore, the written records reveal the leading political, economic, and religious position that Sepphoris held in antiquity. The issue that the archaeologist faces, in light of this abundance of literary testimony concerning the peoples and the historical role of this Galilean site, is what an investigation of the material culture can provide for the task of reconstructing the past. Does one look for corroboration of the written accounts? Does one hope to discover aspects of ancient life that the sources do not reveal? These questions and others like them hover in the background of any archaeological investigation of Sepphoris. Archaeological Evidence from Earlier Excavations Archaeological work at Sepphoris began at the beginning of the twentieth century with the most visible remains of ancient settlement-the unfinished Crusader church of Saint Anna. The French scholar Prosper Viaud excavated part of the church in 1908 and in the process discovered remnants of a mosaic floor that probably belonged to a Byzantineperiod synagogue. An Aramaic inscription from that floor was removed from its original context and is now displayed in a small restored chapel of the Crusader building. It reads as follows: Remembered be for good Rabbi Yudan,the son of Tanhum the son of... who gave ....

The Roman theater shown afterits excavation and clearance by the Jewish National Fund.

In 1931 an expedition from the University of Michigan, led by Leroy Waterman, excavated for three months at Sepphoris. Waterman and his associates laid out two large trenches on the summit of the site, one on the northeast and the other on the

basilica. Waterman believed it was dug into the rock for fear of persecution from the Romans. Other scholars, however, have since repudiated the Michigan interpretation because the architectural remains are more likely that of a villa. The absence of

TheMichiganteamdiscovereda Romantheaterdug into the slope. northeastern northwest. Their most notable contribution was the discovery and excavation of a Roman theater dug into the sharp northeastern slope. Although badly disturbed, the theater's proportions and character were established by the Michigan team. It is a semicircular building with a diameter of 74 meters and a seating capacity of 4000 to 5000 people. Less convincing is the Michigan interpretation of a large building excavated in the northwestern trench. Cut into bedrock in its earlier phase and later adorned with columns and a mosaic floor, this building was identified as an early Christian

any Christian sign or symbol makes it doubtful that the building was used for religious purposes. Other archaeological discoveries at Sepphoris have been accidental. In the late 1950s an inscription describing the renovation of a church by the bishop Marcellinus (518 C.E.)was found by chance, and in 1979 roadwork near the orphanage uncovered a magnificent animal rhyton of the Persian period. The latter discovery, along with the frequent appearance of Iron II and Persian sherds in the trenches of the excavations carried out in the summer of 1985, attests to occupation at Sepphoris before

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

11

-7

K 14

1931 WI.

Artist'srenderingof the animal rhyton that was accidentally discoverednear the Italian orphanageat Sepphorisin 1979. The rhyton dates to the Persianperiod (around400 :c.E.) and the drawingis usedcourtesyof Qadmoniot.

the Hellenistic period. Although significant structural remains of the late biblical period have not yet been discovered, the ceramic evidence tends to confirm traditional sources, which recall a preexilic settlement at Sepphoris (Mishnah cArakhin 9.6 - see Danby 1933: 553; Megillah 6a-see Epstein 1935: 27-28). Archaeologists have also investigated some of the burial caves cut into the rocky area surrounding the hill. In 1930/1931 a tomb with a plaster inscription identifying it with Rabbi Judah was excavated by Eliezer Sukenik. Nahman Avigad also investigated a second- or third-century mausoleum known as the Tomb of Jacob'sDaughters. Despite the importance of the site and the sporadic, and often accidental, recovery of elements of its archaeological past, no sustained and systematic investigation of Sepphoris was undertaken until recently. In the 1980s two related excavation teams, both spin-offs of the Meiron Excavation Project (which had worked at four sites in Upper Galilee since 1970), turned their attention to this

12

II-

RemainsexcavatedbyJSP in 1985

GridsforJSP

L271/ W Undergroundcavities E . Waterman andStrange

-a

]

ail r rM

_excavations -_

site. A University of South Florida team headed by JamesE Strange

conducted surveys and soundings in 1982 and 1983. Full-scale excavations were carried out by the Strange expedition and also by a combined Duke University-Hebrew University group directed by the authors in 1985. The 1985 Joint Sepphoris Project Most of the work carried out by the latter expedition (known as the Joint Sepphoris Project or JSP)was concentrated on the summit of the hill, although a series of soundings along the southern slopes helped to clarify the extent of the ancient settlement.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Occupational Periods. The stratigraphic picture that emerged reflects rather closely the information that has been gleaned from the literary sources. The earliest structural remains uncovered so far date from the late Hellenistic period. Romanperiod remains appear extensive, particularly in the third and fourth centuries C.E.A disruption of city life in the mid-fourth century probably can be related to the suppression of the rebellious Sepphoreans at the time of Gallus Caesar. It came as no surprise to find a resumption of town life well into the Byzantine period (fourth to sixth

North

-

--_I_ ---4

r

JFS 1983

JFS 1983 JFS 1983

LW

V

7W

I

JFS 1985

0

10

LWV 1931

v-kt77

•% •

Grove Grove . •'•q:\•"?" ,Cactus ......J

d

20 meters 4 4,

t1 f

PineForest

45 4i

centuries), for the inscriptional materials had clearly indicated such would be the case. The written sources, however, fail to provide much detailed information beyond the sixth century. Archaeological material now has established that the vigorous Byzantine settlement was followed by occupation in the Arabic period (seventh century and following). Occupation was continuous into the seventh century and, while the upper levels are badly disturbed, ceramic evidence indicates that the site may not have been abandoned until late Crusader times. The nineteenth- to twentiethcentury Arab village of Saffiriya one of the largest in modern Palestine-was built over the ancient ruins, leveling them in many cases and robbing out all visible masonry for structural reuse or as material for the lime kiln established in the vicinity of the Roman theater. The building activities of both the modern and ancient inhabitants of Sepphoris, who tended to level down to bedrock and reuse existing materials, have left us with only fragmentary architectural remains despite the long occupational history of the site. Public and Private Buildings. The theater is still the most notable of the large public buildings that must have crowned the hill during the era when it served as capital of Galilee. A tentative first-century date, achieved by the JSPprobes into its foundations, probably means that the

Above: Plan of the excavatedremains at Sepphoris.The Roman theater,at the upperright, was investigated by the Universityof Michiganexpeditionin 1931(markedLWfor the directorLeroyWaterman),the University of South Florida excavationsin 1983(markedJFSfor directorJamesE Strange), and the 1985 Joint SepphorisProject(JSP)in areas 85.2 and 86.2. The other major areas excavatedby the JSPin 1985 are 84.1, 84.2, 84.4, 85.1, 86.1, and 95.1.Left:Stairsand passage formingone of the vomitoria(exits)of the theater The vomitoriawere over2 meters wide and wereprobablycovered with cylindrical vaults.

N eel E: m

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

13

We areall familiarwith the use of radarin aviation andmeteorology,not to mention its role in detecting speeding motorists on our highways, but its usefulness is not limited to these areas.For instance, geologists have employedit for yearsto probesoils down to bedrock.And recently an attempt has been made to apply it to archaeologicalproblems. In 1980 Peter Fischer used what is called subsurface-interfaceradar(in which the transmitted electromagnetic signal is reflected back from the interface between two substances of different densities) at the site of Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus. He published the tracings of his graphics recorder beside photographsof the actual excavations (see pages 48-52, 63, and 64 in volume 63 of the Swedish Annual Studies in MediterraneanArchaeologyG6teborg:Paul Astrdms Firlag, 1980). In Israel, LambertDolphin used it to discover a chamber beneath the western tower of the Herodium that would likely have escaped detection for some time with ordinary archaeological methods ("GeophysicalMethods for Archaeological Surveys in Israel,"SRI International, December 1981,page 3). During the summer of 1985, in the dig that I direct at Sepphoris,we also used subsurface-interfaceradar.The equipment relies on a boxedantennathat is draggedor towedhorizontally overthe surfaceof the ground.A cone-shaped signal is broadcaststraightdown into the soil, and the signal is reflectedback from a buried feature-for instance the interface between soil and stone or between a void and soil-and is picked up by a receiving unit. A graphics recorder produces a tracing of the echo. No special computers or other analysis equipment is needed for interpretation. With this equipment it is possible to detect dense featuresas small as one centimeter in diameter,if they are not buried too deeply. (At greaterdepths, features this small cannot be distinguished.) At Sepphoriswe were able to penetrate as deeply as 16 to 17 meters to detect voids, though we generally probedfor architectureat about 8 meters or less. During the 1985 season, my assistant director,RichardBatey of Rhodes College in Tennessee,was in chargeof the radar.He used it to determinemajor features in the groundbeforea squarewas opened at a particularspot. In this way the radar detected Early Roman cisterns, a large Byzantine wall, the exterior wall of the Roman theater, openings to underground chambers alreadydiscoveredby the Excavationsat Sepphoris(asour dig is designated)in 1983, and unidentified cavities in the vicinity of the citadel. It also showed that there was no detectable architecture in one area that had already undergonea week's digging.It was thus judgedprudent to abandonthat area. The applicationof subsurface-interfaceradarin archaeologypromises to open up new avenues of survey and prospecting before excavation. For example, it is possible to accomplish a carefulradaranalysis of a given partof a tell or ruin and detect major foundations, walls, and other architectural remains-even to map them-without excavation. In addition, one may detect and map voids such as cisterns, storagerooms and pits, tunnels, and other features,even if they contain filtered-in soil. It should be noted, however, that at present the equipment for this is rathercostly and expensive to transport.In addition, waterin the soil greatly interfereswith the penetrationof the signal (clayhas a similar effect),andthis kind of radarhas poor angularresolution. Despite these problems,the future use of radarby American archaeological teams in the Levant is especially promising. It is hoped that miniaturization in the next few years will help diminish the problems of cost and transport. And since American teams generallywork in the summer when soils aredry,waterinterferenceshouldn't be a problem.Wealreadyhavenews that soil-interfaceradarwill be used at Tel Halif in Israel, and my team at Sepphoriswill certainly returnwith radarfor the 1986 season. JamesF.Strange

14

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Above: View taken from inside the citadel looking east towardarea86.1Below: Overview of the excavation areas (84.1, 84.4, and 85.1) near the west side of the Sepphorishill. The view is towards the northwest, and the pine trees behind the excavation trenches arepart of the reforestationcarriedout by the Jewish National Fund.

In the center of this photo is a deep stone-lined water installation (C-125) that was discovered in area 86.1.A silo, lined with stones, is visible in the foreground.At the left is a large stone platform,part of the fragmentaryremains from Byzantine or later times that lie over the large fourth-centurystructureuncoveredin this area. The water installation was cleared to a depth of about 9 meters in the 1985 season but excavation was temporarilyhalted because of the difficulty and dangerof lifting largestones from the bottom of the installation. Workon it will resumein the 1986season-it is possible that the key to understandinghow water was brought into the city from the aqueducts to the east may lie at the bottom of C-125.

theater was one of Herod Antipas' building projects. Just to the south of the theater other remains of public structures from the Roman-period city (first to fourth centuries c.E.) came to light. A large building (in area 86.1), with an associated street paved with limestone plaster, may have been a fortress. It was bounded on the north by a two-meter-wide wall. On the western edge of the summit the expedition laid out a series of trenches that exposed part of the city's domestic quarter. These areas (84.1, 84.2, 84.4, 85.1, and 95.1) included several mikvaot (or ritual baths - one of which was eventually used as a pottery dump in which hundreds of restorable vessels were recovered), a large building whose full extent is still unknown, and fragmentary remains of earlier structures from the late Iron Age or early Persian period. The poorly preserved public and private buildings of Sepphoris provide scant reflection of the oncethriving urban center. On the other

hand, many underground cavities beneath the city, discovered quite unexpectedly, are well preserved and provide information about ancient life at Sepphoris that was not recorded in the literary sources. Underground Sepphoris. It will probably be years before the underground installations are fully mapped and their typology established. Yet even after only one season of exploration,

it is clear that countless cavities in

the rocky hillside were hollowed out of the bedrock and used for different purposes, many- it seems- having to do with the use and storage of that precious commodity, water. Sepphoris, as we mentioned earlier, has no spring or permanent source of water within its bounds. Remains of at least two aqueducts, coming from springs several kilometers east of the site, have been discovered. At present it is not known whether one or both of these aqueducts reached Sepphoris. It is also unclear how the water actually came into the city and how it was stored. A large water installation

(C-125) in the center of the public building excavated in area 86.1 may provide the answer. It has been cleared to a depth of nine meters but the bottom has not been reached. The difficult operation of pulling boulders and fill from its depths will continue in the 1986 season. The role of this large water installation in Sepphoris' overall water system has yet to be determined. Many other underground caviat the site were clearly discovered ties In nearly every area as cisterns. cut teams in which the dug - in both courtyards and basements of domestic structures - cisterns were discovered. The cry "cistern"rang out again and again as the student diggers came upon one after another of these installations that allowed for the storage of water, somehow brought from afar or channelled into them during the rainy season. The Waterman and Strange expeditions also recorded the discovery of many cisterns. The several that have been fully excavated indicate that they were probably dug in the Early to Middle Roman period (first to third centuries C.E.)and continued in usage probably for several centuries thereafter. Many questions have arisen concerning the cisterns. For instance, does the vast number of cisterns reflect the subsistence needs of a large population or were they involved in using water for other purposes such as industrial processes? One reason why these questions are difficult to answer is that the cisterns appear to have a complex architectural and functional history. While some are simple, single, bell-shaped or cylindrical cavities, many others utilize natural declivities. More confusing is the existence of multichambered cisterns. In some cases the underground spaces have a common entry. Other times the cavities are oriented more linearly and have connecting channels or tunnels leading from one cavity to another; and at times they have multiple entryways. The struc-

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

15

Above left: 7Tvostudents emergingfrom a cistern in area 84.1. This cistern, also shown in the drawing on the left, was fully excavated and appearsoriginally to have been dug into the bedrockas a silo. It was subsequently used as a cistern, and ultimately its opening was concealed. Threeadjacent undergroundcavities connect with this cistern. Many vessels and other objects, including the two bronzemythological figurines, were found in the cistern. The student on the right holds one of the statuettes, and the student on the left points to two third-centurylamps. Above right: Resting on the edge of a cistern in area 85.1 are the two bronzefigurines found in a nearby area. Among the ceramic remains discoveredin this cistern are the three jars shown resting on the flagstone pavement. These jars, which date to the Middle Romanperiod (third century),are broken,in nearly identical fashion, on the edge of the lip opposite the handle. The damage does not appearto have renderedthem nonfunctional and may be the result of an ancient Jewish tradition of dealing with potterypurchasedfrom non-Jews.The Jewishowner may have intentionally altered such a pot, by chippingit slightly, so as to "finish"its manufacture,therebymaking it a "Jewish"vessel.

tural variety of these underground chambers may indicate different pei iods of construction or different functions. Water storage apparently was not the only purpose underlying the ancient excavation of underground chambers. Some cavities may have been cut originally as silos while others, intended as water cisterns, were later used for storage. The discovery of storage vessels in some of them rather than the expected wate: jars or jugs indicates that the inhabitants kept supplies as well as water in subterranean cavities. Some of the underground cavities had doorways and may have been intended for more than occasional human presence. There is no solid evidence to support it, but the analogy of the so-called Bar Kokhba hiding places discovered in the environs of Jerusalem and the Judean Shephelah has raised the possibility of a similar function for the vast network of chambers and passages beneath the surface of an-

16

-

The

Preliminary

Lead

Report-

Weight

She lead weight that was discoveredby the Joint SepphorisProjectin the 1985season is inscribedon both sides in Greek. Side one consists of three lines or registers with the top and bottom registers apparentlydepicting a colonnade (perhapsrepresenting the marketplace or agora of ancient Sepphoris). The colonnade is similar to the representationof the cardo on the famous mosaic map from Madaba.The central line specifies the amount of the weight. The reverseside (side two) has five lines of inscription that identify the official in chargeof the market. Unfortunately,the inscription is not in good condition-some of the letters are either damagedor missing. The artifact weighs 1018 grams (36 ounces). Since the common unit of weight in the Roman world, the libra (Greeklitra), equalled approximately 340 grams (12 ounces), the Sepphorisweight is the equivalent of three such libras. In the Greco-Romanworld the libra was often used in multiples to weigh heavier items (forexample, 2 libras, 6 libras, and 12 libras), and the inscribedexpression"halflitra"foundon the weight refersto half of a six-libra unit. Weknow of manyagoranomoior marketinspectorsbut this inscription is the first to name Simon (Shimon)-certainly a Jew- from a city with a Jewish population. YacakovMeshorer

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

tvo of the plastered water installations discoveredin area 84.2 on the western edge of the site. On the right is a steppedpool (2.53 by 1.53 meters)that is 1.33 meters deep at the bottom of the stairs. On the left is a square,plasteredpool (1.40 by 1.40 meters),measuring 0.94 meters deep. Between them, and under the half-meterstick, is a shaft leading down into an undergroundchamber that may have originally been a basement storageroom that was later sealed and used for water storage.These adjoining pools areperhaps bathinginstallations that can be identified as mikvaot or ritual baths.

cient Sepphoris. The historical information about the political orientation of Sepphoris' inhabitants, alternately supporting or opposing Rome, makes the existence of chambers for the security of persons or goods a possibility. On the last day of the 1985 season a complex of underground cavities, estimated to be the size of a football field, was discovered almost casually. Inured by the repeated uncovering of openings leading to cisterns or chambers, some of which were narrow and very difficult to enter, the excavators hardly noticed one last tiny entrance to an underground space in area 85.1. No one small enough to fit through the one opening was available at first. But finally, hours before the expedition packed away its tools, a brave, slender volunteer was lowered into the dark space below and spent those final hours discovering a labyrinth of subterranean spaces. The returning 1986 team will have to deal with a systematic exploration of these and other cisterns and chambers.

Abovegroundwater installations.

c 3Y N y,

Side One

Side Two

hMIAITPIN

APOPANOMO TTWNCIMWNO AIANOT IOTCTOC

half litra [libra]

[TIIOT

under the market inspection of Simon son of Aianos son of Justus

Another special group of water installations was found in startling abundance at Sepphoris and must be related, in part, to the many cisterns. Again, in nearly every area the excavators came across small, plastered, stepped pools. A typical one is approximately 2 meters long, 1 meter wide, and 11/2to 2 meters deep. Some of these pools appeared in pairs and some were isolated examples. Others were found adjacent to or on top of earlier pools cut into the bedrock. All seem to be related to nearby cisterns. What was the intended purpose of all of these plastered pools? The discovery of so many of them marks the beginning of extensive research that must be carried out on the use of such pools in antiquity. At present, through comparison with similar features at sites like Jericho and Jerusalem, it seems reasonable to suggest that they were bathing pools.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

17

Their dimensions and stairs further indicate that they were intended for ritual bathing. The abundanceof these installations is peculiar. Most Galilean examples of ritual baths, or mikvaot, are single structures meant to serve a whole community (as in medieval to modern times where one or two bathing complexes served the entire Jewishpopulation of a town). But in the daysbefore the destruction of the Temple,at least in Jerusalem, everyoneentering the temple precincts was requiredto be ritually Fragmentof terrasigillata pottery dating to pure. This mandated a multiplicity of baths. Perhapsthe existence of so the LateRoman/Byzantineperiod (mid-fourth century c.E.).The sherdhas a stamped Byzanmany baths at Sepphoris,in a comtine crossmonogram with circles in each munity with the soundest rabbinic quadrant.Similar monogramshave been in Galilean sites such as Gush Halav credentials, represents a transitional found and Nabratein as well as in other countries phase between the many bathing of the east Mediterranean. installations in privatehouses that existed in late-SecondTemple times to the community or public baths of fact- a unique lead weight uncovered the Roman and later periods. in fill materials in an area (84.4)on Although the identity of these the western side of the summit (see pools as ritual baths seems likely, the identity of their users is far more sidebar).This weight bears an inscription that providesthe archaespeculative. There is no doubt that the Jewishinhabitants would have ologists' dream of harddata:a man's used the baths, but what about the name, his title, and the amount of local Christiansor Jewish-Christians? the weight. The fact that the official Werethey also concernedwith purity mentioned in the inscription apparand hence eager to cleanse themently bore a Jewishname attests to the local autonomy of the Jewish selves as a sign of their readiness to enter the kingdom? community in economic matters. numismatic and rabbiniceviThe the to In addition Artifacts. Special that this was so thus receives dence at of discovery bathing pools Sepdramatic disthat were the artifacts support from one small phoris, coveredin the 1985 season provided but significant artifact. firm evidence for the religious comFinally,evidence of the pagan munities that coexisted there. A presence at Sepphoriswas provided fragmentof terra sigillata ware from by another striking discovery-two tiny but elegant bronze statuettes of an early fourth-centurycontext (in area 84.1)was stamped with a cross. figures from classical mythology. Although only a small portion of the Foundin a cistern in the basement of a house in area 84.1, having fallen original ceramic plate survives, the when the house was destroyed there in cross itself is preserved its entirety. in each With small circles quadrant, by fire, these figures- like the lead from known a the cross is of type weight - are apparently unique to other Galilean sites (such as Caper- Roman Palestine. naum) and is a convincing piece of Conclusion Christian symbolism. have thus excavations The recent is at Jewishpresence Sepphoris markedby another astonishing arti- revealedarchitectureand artifacts

18

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

that dramatically supplement and expand our knowledge of ancient Sepphoris.Preliminary interpretation of the finds has allowed the excavatorsto relate the site's chronology and population to what the written sources contain. Further seasons of excavationwill add to this body of artifactualand textual information, and future years of study of the more subtle aspects of the material remains will allow the reconstruction of the economic and social aspects of ancient life that constitute the real core of daily existence at this Galilean center. Acknowledgment The excavatorswould like to thank the JewishNational Fund for their generous support and assistance in the preparationand clearing of the site, and for the excavation and clearance of the theater. Bibliography Avigad,N. 1974 The "Tombof Jacob'sDaughter"at Sepphoris.EretzIsrael 11:41-44 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah,M. 1961 A Sixth Century Inscriptionfrom Sepphoris.IsraelExplorationJournal 11:184-87. 1978 Sepphoris.Pp. 1051-55 inEncyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations in the Holy Land4. Editedby M. Avi-Yonahand E. Stern.Jerusalem: MassadaPress. Boelter,E 1977 Sepphoris-Seat of the Galilean Sanhedrin.Explor3: 36-43. Buber,S., editor 1885 MidraschTanchuma.Ein agadischer Commentarzum Pentateuchvon Rabbi Tanchumaben Rabbi Abba I-III. Vilna, Poland:no publisher. Biuchler,A. 1956 The Minim of SepphorisandTiberias in the SecondandThird Centuries. Pp. 245-74 in Studies in Jewish History,edited by I. Brodieand J.Rabbinowitz.New York:Oxford University Press. Conder,C. R., and Kitchener,H. H. 1881 Surveyof WesternPalestine, Volume 1: Galilee. London:Palestine Exploration Society. Danby,H., translator 1933 The Mishnah. London:OxfordUniversity Press.

Epstein, I., editor

BackIssues of

1935 The Babylonian Talmud.Seder Nezikin 4. London: The Soncino Press. Feldman, L. H., translator

1965 JosephusIX:JewishAntiquities, Books XVIII-XX.Series:The Loeb

Classical Library. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann. Freyne, S.

gist BiblicalArchaeolo Biblical Archaeol6gist -.•

1980 Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E.to 135 C.E. Notre Dame, IN: University Press. Klein, S. 1939 Sepher Ha-Yishub. Jerusalem: Palestine Historical and Ethnographical Society (Hebrew). Marcus, R., translator

1

kLT~I--; i

I~

Eminent SumerologistSamuelNoah Krameroffersa remarkablereviewof laments in the earliest culture of the ancient Near East.Other articlesdiscuss the Scythian threatto ancient Israelandthe originsof counting in the Near East.(Spring83, SumerianLamentations)

~~..iBa 5BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

LI~:il f?

1961 JosephusVII:JewishAntiquities, Books XII-XIV Series: The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann. Meshorer, Y. 1979 Sepphoris and Rome. Pp. 139-71 in

Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, edited by O. Morkholm and N. M. Waggoner. Belgium: Cultura Press. Miller, S.

1984 Studies in the History and Tradition of Sepphoris. Series: Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 37. Leiden: E. J.Brill. Rose, H. J.

\.iii,~ir?l ~II.I)1 ~rJll(~r1111 4(11111.ri.(l)l ?Il)ll.lll.)(i()ll\

'K!

In a significantarticle,BezalelPortenoffersa sweeping overviewof the Aramaicpapyrifound at Elephantine. Otherarticlesprovidea glimpse into village life in ancient Israelunderthe monarchyandAvigad'sfinds relatedto Baruch,secretaryto the prophetJeremiah. (Spring79, ElephantinePapyri)

Please send check or money order,payableto the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch,for $3.25 postpaid(U.S.)for each issue ordered.Be certainto specifywhich issues you want. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. ASORPublications P.O. BoxH.M., Duke Station Durham,NC 27706

1959 A Handbook of GreekMythology. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc. Strange, J. E, and Longstaff, T. R. W 1984a Sepphoris (Sippori), 1983. Notes and

News. Israel ExplorationJournal34: 51-52. 1984b Sepphoris (Sippori) - Survey 1984. Notes and News. Israel Exploration Journal 34: 269-70. Sukenik, E. L. 1932 Some Remains of Sepphoris. Tarbiz 3:107-09 (Hebrew). Thackeray, H. St. J., translator

1956 JosephusII: The Jewish War,Books I-III. Series: The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann.

1961 JosephusI: The Life.Against Apion. Series: The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann. Tsuk, T 1983 The Water-Supply System at Sepphoris. Unpublished interim report. Viaud, P.

1910 Nazareth et ses deux de Eglises lAnnonciation et du Saint Joseph d'apresles fouilles ricentes. Paris:A.

If you are interestedin the ancientNear East and want to know thejest currentscholarshipon it, subscribe to

Bibl'j

l Ajchaeologist,

'>1';K.

. for 49 yearsthe leadingnmagaziflei the field. b fore And if ~t have for four your $14. heve,;ubscribed you can reteive first ispues just Please'entermy

sul

.

criptionto BiblicalAndhaeologist,

S? I am a ne(.:.subscriber and eligible for the low ir oductory rat (fou'i: Sissuesfor $14). D I want to my subscription at the low regular rate ($16 for four issues).

res.upe ; ..

C Please bill me.

[•d.enclose

S Name

Address

City

'-

?

State

Zip

-, . . Country. " $2 per yearif orderingfromoutsidethe U.S. or Canada.Send check money :• to: ASOR . order AC.d in U.S. dollars,payableto the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch; SubscriptionServices,DepartmentBB,P.O.Box3000,Denville,New Jersey07834. 2BA3

Picard et Fils.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

19

The

Beehive

ne of the rarest building types of ancient Palestine is the beehive building, so called because of its characteristic conical dome. The standard plan of the beehive structure is an aboveground, circular-designed, conical dome set upon a large foundational platform. Buildings of this type have been found and excavated at Arad (Early Bronze II), Beth Yerah (Early Bronze III), Bir el-cAbd (Late Bronze), and Tell Jemmeh (Hellenistic). All were erected as independent structures that dominated their surroundings. Their dimensions and plans attest to their public nature. In the following pages, I will present a survey of beehive buildings in Palestine and then attempt to interpret the buildings' original function.

Buildings of Ancient

Palestine

Material Remains of Beehive Buildings Arad. At the site of Arad, located in the Negeb approximately 30 kilometers east-northeast of Beersheba, a series of stone-built platforms was discovered. These platform structures appear in strata 2 and 3 of the site, coinciding with the Early Bronze II period (3000-2800 B.C.).

byJohnD. Currid

20

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

The plan of the structures is mostly elliptical (averaging 4 meters in diameter), although a few squared versions with similar dimensions were uncovered. All of the platforms reach a height of 20 to 50 centimeters and have a leveled top surface. The construction technique of the platforms is identical - the sides are built in orderly courses of large stones, there is a well-made bin, and the fill is composed of different-sized stones. It is likely that

NORTH

0

5

l N

the top surfaces of the platforms were plastered, like platform 1230 in area K where the remains of hard, burned-clay plaster were found on the leveled surface. This surface probablyserved as the floor for the conical dome that stood on top of the stone platform. Beth Yerah.At the site of BethYerah,on the southwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, a building of largeproportions (approximately1,200 square meters) was found. It dates to the EarlyBronzeIIIperiod (approximately2800-2400 B.c.). This building occupies the northern part of the tell

and is borderedon the west and south by various walls of rooms that parallel those of the building. It is clearly separatedon all sides from these complexes, however,by pavedstreets (about2.5 meters in width) that run north, west, and south of the building. In short, the complex is isolated from other areasof occupation at Beth Yerahand its size indicates that it maintained a position of special prominence. The plan of the complex is roughly rectangular (anglesat 880), measuring 40 meters fromeast to west and 30 meters from north to south. It consists of a small central hall that is reached from the outside by a long corridor,surroundedby a massive, so-calledfoundational wall. On top of the wall at least nine large, stone circles were sunk 10 centimeters below the surface of the foundational wall or pavement. The averagediameter of the circles is 8 meters, varying anywhere from 7 to 9 meters. These nine circles are the remnants of the bases of the circular-designedconical domes. Birel-cAbd.In 1973 Eliezer D. Oren directeda significant

of the BethYerah structure indicates itsimportance. The

10 meters

size

Farleft: The Beth Yerah structure.Photographis used courtesy of the Israel Departmentof Antiquities and Museums. Left:Plan of the Beth Yerahstructure.Drawing is courtesy ofIstanbulerMitteilungen.

salvage project at the site of Bir el-cAbd in the northern Sinai, some 20 kilometers from Nahal Yam.Apartfrom a majorpublic building in the northern part of the mound (areaA), Oren'smost important discoverywas a series of four cylindrical chambers, located in area B, which date to the fourteenth century B.C.

The complex consists of four attached chambers, each in an elliptical shape averaging3.8 meters in diameter.The walls aremade of brick, in a header-stretcher fashion, and are preservedto a height of 1.8 meters. The floors of the chambers are also constructed of brick that is laid in alternatinggroupsof header-stretcher.(Aheader is a brick laid so that only the end appearson the face of the wall, while a stretcher is a brick laid so that only the side appears.)Its bricks are joined together with a bonding of darkgraycement, andthe interior of each chamber was originally completely plastered with a combination of mud and gypsum, although only remnants of the materials now remain. A section of the superstructure,or dome, of one of the chambers (IV)was preserved.It was constructed by alternatingthree rowsof brick-buildingtechnique: a row of headers,a row of stretchers,and finally a row of upright or standing bricks. With every successive row, fewer bricks were used and the spaces between them widened. The bricks inclined more inward as each row took the wall higher. Dark gray cement filled the spaces between the bricks and a layerof cement coveredthe dome'sentire outer wall (Oren 1973). Severalbeehive structureshave been recov'ell Jemmeh.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

21

Above:TheMelos vase. This steatite vessel, dating to the EarlyBronze Age, is in the shape of a building complex. Sevencylindricalcontainers are arrangedaround a central space and stand on a projectingledgelike base. The plan of this Greek vase has been variouslyinterpreted; it is usually considered to representa granary Photographis from JihrgenThimme'sArt and Culture of the Cyclades (Chicago:The Universityof ChicagoPress, 1977),used courtesyof C. F Mueller Verlag.Below: Drawing of a tomb painting at Thebes. This shows an Egyptiangranarywith five silos surroundedby an enclosure wall. Grainis being put in from the top- the doors at the bottom of the silos were intended for the extractionof the grain.

rc~

i 17U 3rCI~I4ti3z Y~tC~S~~C'.:

?'L~ ~11;3 t'd Lonoc'ois?? ? 'C ~-~LY3CCIC:(~

r.,

r, II? ifJt~C'*v ci;?~

33rc.? ~?

\~ "C3~:~OI~:~OCI~ nnr n rir\ '~ ''??nCCO.SUUn20' .DO.L,?~')~:CAi~ i ^^~~ct.CI~C J* i)OriP ;C~~iiV Col.uo ?r 1~ !i~nCi11\1!00 L'VlhU O~i:D~i'07L'rnc ~rL7CoUU C:L)C; ~( 70 .JIC~V,~n-l)ll!nP ?O ~~i?'~I ";?"~ !oc~?l!,Y"oo V,,yL':'`~cil J i I?/ /II/ 1~0~ P 1\'I~Cn,,L .CL( i C ch~jI!ILj Z~tlC;:1i nY Y~.L X CVCJ~UCV?I] L:a ..,~rc~:?:l?3 ~.?? ~?;/~ .lC

i ...

~~~a /

,

~~?:?: r:~:??i' / r ???:I

;?: ~ t

i?/::? c? I:~

22

I:

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

ered at the site of Tell Jemmeh in the northwestern Negeb. In the 1920s Sir Flinders Petrie found eleven such facilities; seven were grouped together stratigraphically succeeding the major AB building of the Iron Age (1200539 B.c.).Three additional beehives, found by Petrie, were located on the southern edge of the tell, and another was discovered on the plain west of the site. More recent excavations at Tell Jemmeh, under the direction of Gus W. Van Beek of the Smithsonian Institution, have revealed two more such structures dating to the Hellenistic period (late fourth to third centuries B.c.). They are both situated to the north of the Petrie soundings. The primary beehive structure uncovered by Van Beek was constructed inside a large circular pit that had been cut into the earlier strata of the mound. There were probably two building phases of the complex. In the first phase a circular mudbrick wall was created inside a pit with an interior diameter measuring 6.33 meters. Approximately 1.5 meters above the base of the circular wall is a ledge that probably served as the base of the conical dome. Six courses of the dome are preserved, all consisting of slightly sloping mudbricks. Two doorways, located on opposite sides of the building (northwest and southeast), open into the structure. Steps lead down from the entrance to a high platform that projects out from each doorway. Later, the original conical dome collapsed and was rebuilt in a smaller fashion. Presumably the other beehives at Tell Jemmeh closely resemble the one just described. Therefore, Petrie had found a circular wall with a cone-based ledge projecting from the wall much like the complex of Van Beek's discovery. Petrie also uncovered stairways leading into the buildings located on the western ridge area of the site. Interpreting a Building's Function One of the most vexing problems that faces the archaeologist is the interpretation of a building's function. This difficulty stems primarily from the fact that after an ancient structure has been excavated, the investigator is left with a very incomplete record of the original design of the building. Usually what is uncovered through excavation are the remains of destruction, including only partial remains of the superstructure, some floors and foundations, and various shattered contents inside the structure (especially pottery fragments). On the basis of such physical evidence archaeologists attempt to determine what purpose a building might have served. Building contents. In seeking to define an ancient building's function, archaeologists seem most often to base their conclusions on the interpretation of a building's contents. One example of this line of reasoning is found in the excavations of stratum 9 at Tell Mor, where Moshe Dothan discovered a structure belonging to the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 B.c.). Dothan determined the building's function as follows: "The main find here were

[sic] store jars, indicating that the building undoubtedly served as the central storehouse of the port" (Dothan 1977: 889). Another example appears in the field reports of the excavations at Tell Michal. Here archaeologists unearthed a room (locus 92) from the Persian period, determining that it served as a storage area because "storage jars were uncovered in the debris of Locus 92" (Herzog and others 1978: 109). Numerous other instances may be cited for this type of deduction. A major drawback to this deductive process, as John S. Holladay and others have pointed out, is that the contents of a building may not be an accurate indication of a building's designed function. Small-find evidence may merely represent final-use function or the building's purpose just prior to its destruction or abandonment. So, for example, a barn that has been restored as a restaurant has a final-use function as an eatery and a designed function as a farm building. For the investigator who is attempting to deduce designed function, small-find evidence may be misleading. Architectural principles. A second important way that archaeologists attempt to determine an ancient building's function is on the basis of architectural principles. It is a basic principle that building design is the consequence of sociocultural factors (for example, family, clan structure, and social organization), modified by climate, technology, and available building materials, and that form succeeds function. It is, therefore, correct to conclude that the original design of a building accurately reflects its intended function. In other words, building design is dictated by functional demands. (So, for instance, one would not expect to find a horse stable built with small proportions, with one room, and located in the middle of a built-up area in town. Functional demands of horse care obviously required a large building with numerous stalls, located in an accessible open area.) An investigator may, therefore, accurately interpret the designed function of a building based upon its original concrete expression. The comparative method. A third approach taken by archaeologists to determine the function of an ancient building may be described as the comparative method. According to this procedure, the investigator defines the

purpose of a building by comparing it with other buildings of similar plan and design (whose function is known) from different cultures or geographical regions. For example, when G. R. H. Wright interpreted the function of the major Iron Age building at Shechem (known as the granary), he concluded that it was a temple because its design and plan closely resembled the Etruscan templetype (Wright 1968: 31-32). Of the three stated procedures used to interpret a building's function, the comparative method will be stressed in this article. The purpose here is to illustrate the use of this particular archaeological methodology with a study of Palestinian beehive buildings.

The Function of Beehive Structures Originally, many of the excavators of beehive buildings were perplexed concerning the function and purpose of these structures. For example, the excavators of Beth Yerah noted in their primary report that "asfar as we have been able to determine, no similar construction has come to light in the excavations in Palestine, in the Near East, or even in other parts of the Ancient World" (Maisler, Stekelis, and Avi-Yonah 1952: 227). The archaeologists of Arad also indicated their bewilderment, emphasizing that this architectural phenomenon is unknown at any other site in Israel (Amiran and others 1978: 17). The proposed functions for the beehive structures have been many and varied. Although some have suggested these structures served as fortresses, palaces, sanctuaries, threshing areas, and even (when considering only the circular foundation) as platforms for huts and tents, it is doubtful whether any of these suggestions can be supported. For instance, the only artifactual evidence

Thebeehivebuildingshavebeen asfortresses, interpreted palaces, andthreshing areas. sanctuaries, found that suggests a ritual purpose for the buildings was a pottery stand that was contained in a courtyard oven at Beth Yerah. (But, as has been shown, this type of smallfind evidence is not very convincing.) In reality, the comparative method of archaeological research provides enough evidence to conclude that the beehive buildings served as granaries. Furthermore, the beehive building plan and arrangement was a normal scheme for ancient granary complexes. In ancient Greece, for example, this is the style and plan of the Melos vase (which is an Early Bronze Age vessel in the shape of an ancient Helladic granary consisting of seven circular bins or aboveground cones surrounding an open court, and a gateway and entrance in the same position as the Beth Yerah structure in Palestine). The Melos model bears a striking resemblance to the building at Beth Yerah. Similar Greek granaries have been found in Arcadia, Thessaly, at the site of Orchomenos in central Greece, and Mallia on the island of Crete. It is likely that the beehive style of granary construction was imported from Egypt, where it probably originated. Considerable evidence exists concerning the granaries of ancient Egypt. Their form, structure, and design were essentially the same throughout antiquity. In general there were two types - one with a rectangular and the other with a circular or elliptical ground plan.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

23

Above:A beehivegranarymodel fromthe Egyptiantomb of Kamenaat El Kab.The complex includes twelve silos surroundinga rectangular courtyardwith an entrance at one side. Drawing is used courtesyof IstanbulerMitteilungen.Below: Drawing of a house, two beehive granaries,and a building of unknown function, based on a tomb painting at Tellel-Amarna.

Beehive granaries continued in Egypt throughout the pharaonic (2705-332 B.c.), Ptolemaic (332-30 B.c.), and Roman periods (30 B.C.-A.D.395). Many were found in the ruins of Tell el-Amarna and Kahun, where they were constructed in either clay or brick and measured 2 to 3 meters in diameter. They were built in groups of three to five. Modern examples of beehive granary buildings are abundant. In Hungary, for example, numerous village communities-like Nagivan and Kiskunfelegy-store in round cereals granaries supported by foundational platforms of a size and shape comparable to those of ancient Palestine. Conclusion On the basis of comparative evidence from other parts of

the ancient worldandfrom modern times, it is likely that the Palestinian beehive buildings served as granaries or storehouses. The beehives contain circular-planned, aboveground conical "silos" of a unique type and dimension (except at Arad). They are set on a foundational platform, with only one entryway to the complex. This ground plan seems to fit best the pattern of grain storehouses both in ancient Egypt and Greece, and it does not closely resemble any patterns of other known architecture. Bibliography

Circular buildings were usually constructed of clay with a corbeled roof (much like a beehive), and measured approximately 5 meters high and 2 to 3 meters in diameter. They were often built in one or two close rows (in groups of five or six) in a courtyard surrounded by a rectangular enclosure with a single entryway. Characteristically, these granaries were uniform in their design and construction. They were filled by men on ladders who poured grain through a door at the top of the granary. The grain was eventually removed through a trapdoor at the bottom of the structure. These beehive storehouses first appeared in Egypt during the Early Bronze Age at El Kab, where a beehive granary model was found in the tomb of Kamena (which dates to the Fourth Dynasty, 2650 to 2500 B.c.-roughly the same time as the Beth Yerah structure). The model shows a granary complex consisting of twelve conical silos surrounding a rectangular courtyard with its entrance in the width of one of its sides. All of the silos are connected, each has an aperture in the top (presumably for depositing grain), and some are closed by a lid. This design is strikingly similar to the Beth Yerah structure.

24

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Amiran,R., and others 1978 EarlyArad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and EarlyBronzeI City.First-fifthSeasons of Excavations,1962-1966.Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety. Borowski,O. 1979 Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan. Dothan, M. 1977 Tel Mor.Pp. 889-90 in Encyclopediaof ArchaeologicalExcavations in the Holy Land 3. Edited by M. Avi-Yonahand E. Stern. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,Inc. Herzog,Z., and others 1978 Excavations at Tel Michal 1977. Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University. Maisler,B., Stekelis,M., Avi-Yonah,M. 1952 Excavationsat BethYerah(Khirbetel-Kerak)1944-1946.Israel ExplorationJournal2: 218-29. Oren,E. D. 1973 Bir el-cAbd (Northern Sinai). Israel ExplorationJournal23: 112-13. Petrie,W.E 1928 Gerar.Series:Publications of the EgyptianResearchAccount 43. London:British School of Archaeologyin Egypt. Rickman,G. 1971 RomanGranariesand StoreBuildings.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. VanBeek, G. W 1972 Notes and News: Tel Gamma. Israel ExplorationJournal22: 245-46. 1983 Digging Up Tell Jemmeh.Archaeology36/1: 12-19. Wright,G. R. H. 1968 Temples at Shechem. Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft80: 1-34.

SPECIALPREPUBLICATION OFFER!

BiblicalArchaeologistannouncesthe forthcomingpublicationof:

A COMPREHENSIVE INDEXTO

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST VOLUMES 36-45 (1973-1982) Compiledby D. BruceMacKay

Using the latest in computer technology, Mr.MacKayhas produced a major reference tool covering a critical decade of research on the ancient Near East. The Index contains the following features: * a comprehensive general index that includes geographical place-names; * a complete author index to all articles, reviews, and notices that appeared in BA during these years; * a full Scripture index; * an index to all illustrations that appeared in these issues. Over 28,000 individual entries provide a detailed overview of this important epoch in archaeological studies. Prior to the actual release of this work, we are pleased to be able to offer this limited time opportunity to purchase the Index at a significant savings. The anticipated price for the volume after publication will be $11.95 per copy. If you order your copy before publication, you may purchase a copy for $9.95! Please use the form below to place your advance order. ISBN 0-89757-008-1

c.230pp paperbound

Please send me copies of A Comprehensive Index to Biblical Archaeologist, Vols.36-45 (1973-1982) at $9.95 per copy, plus .75 for postage and handling (total $10.70). D Payment enclosed 1 Please bill me. Name Address City

State

Zip

Mail your order to: ASOR Publications Office, Box HM, Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. For information call (919) 684-3075.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

25

NATHANSON GELLER BY BARBARA he last half of the fourth century A.D. is frequently described as an era of ser-

ious political, economic, and cultural persecution and impoverishment for the Jews of Palestine (Graetz 1908: 311). But was this really the case? In order to evaluate the impact of the first generation of Christian rule on the Jewish communities in Palestine, this paper will present information on the legal and economic status of Palestinian Jewry; its settlement patterns; the attitudes of the rabbis toward Christian rule; and a possible Jewish revolt against Christian rule in the midfourth century. Legal Status of the Jews The traditional understanding that the fourth century was a disastrous period for the Jews of the Roman Empire is largely based on interpretations of three groups of material: texts from the Palestinian Talmud (abbreviated PT) and rabbinic midrashim; laws from the Theodosian Code (abbreviated CTh- a compilation of imperial edicts from the reign of Constantine in 313, until 438 when it was published under Theodosius II); and the church canons of the fourth century. Rabbinical references. The rabbinic texts are ambiguous in their wording and are difficult to date with any precision. Saul Lieberman convincingly argued that many, if not most, of the texts cited by the supporters of the view that Jews underwent persecution during the fourth century

and the Gallus Revolt Jews, Christians, Palestine in Fourth-Century 26

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

Marbleportraitof Constantine the Great from the Basilica of Maxentius. This fourthcenturysculpture was originallypart of a colossal seated statue of the emperorthat was probablymore than thirty feet high. The head is 2.6 meters (8 feet, 6 inches) tall. Photograph is used courtesy of Hirmer VerlagMiinchen.

do not date to the fourth century but ratherto the second and third centuries - and even if this dating is disputed, they do not describe or allude to Roman persecution of the Jews in

the third or fourth centuries (Lieberman 1946). Rabbinic references to

Roman abuses, like overtaxation,are characteristicof the complaints of inhabitants of the provinces throughout the Roman empire and should not be interpretedas evidence of Roman anti-Jewish activity. The Theodosian Code. Evidence

from the Theodosian Code is also ambiguous regardingthe treatment Synagogueat KhirbetShemac in the UpperGalilee, dating to the fourth century

A.D.This site, along with others like Gush Halav, continued to thriveat a time

when some cities in the Galilee werepartially destroyed because they revolted against the Roman troopsunder Gallus. Photographis from Meyers,Kraabel,and Strange1976 and is used courtesy of the American Schools of Oriental Research and Duke University Press.

of Jews. The laws of Constantine (A.D.307-337), Constantius (A.D. 337-361), and the later emperors of the fourth century certainly reflect the church's desire to separate Jews from Christians and to limit the spread of Judaism. Thus, Constan-

tine issued legislation forbidding

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

27

Jews to disturb anyone who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity (CTh 16.8.1 and 16.8.5-Pharr 1952: 467). These edicts did not infringe on the traditional rights and privileges of Jews in the empire, but served to protect the recent convert, and were consistent with Constantine's policy of religious toleration promulgated in the Edict of Milan (A.D.313). Constantinian legislation also called for the punishment of conCoin depictingConstantinethe Greatwearing verts to Judaism (CTh 16.8.1-Pharr a diadem, the emblem of royalpower. The 1952: 467) and demanded that a Jew diadem stopped being worn by RomanemperorsduringJulius Caesar'sreign but Conforfeit any slave that he purchased stantine adopted it as a regularpart of the and circumcised. Under such conroyalregalia. The coin weighs 6.81 grams and the slave would be set free ditions has a diameter of 24 millimeters (.96 inches). The coin was minted at Siscia (in Yugoslavia) (CTh 16.9.1-Pharr 1952: 471). These aroundA.D.326 to 327. Photographis from laws reiterated similar legislation Sutherland1974, used courtesy of Office Du that was passed in earlier centuries Livre,Switzerland. by Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-171) and Septimius Severus (A.D.193-211).1' z Finally, during the reign of Constantine, laws were passed that partially J -?~" eliminated an earlier exemption that ~c? C' ,i?i had freed all Jews from compulsory ~r~Li~ .. J?_? *r?: service in the decurionate (the local 1 municipal council), a service that V~-C:r ?i '' was regarded as burdensome and j ?, financially oppressive. Thus, in an edict of A.D. 321, which was addressed to the decurions of Cologne, Constantine permitted the nomination of Jews to the city council but also allowed two or three people from each group of Jews to be excused Gold medallion showing Constantine the from this service in view of the Great with the sun-godSol. Thepagan god Sol, who frequently appearedon Constantin- former exemption (CTh ian coinage,probably became identified with 16.8.3-Pharr 1952: 467). Christ.Themedallion was struck at Ticinium Although these laws marked a in A.D.313 in celebration of the conference between Constantine and Licinius at Milan, change in the status of the Jews, they from which the famous edict emergedthat should not be interpreted as evidence made Christianity a toleratedreligion. It of anti-Jewish sentiment or persecuweighs 39.78 grams and has a diameter of tion. They served to bring the Jews 42.7 millimeters (1.7inches). Photographis used courtesy of Hirmer VerlagMiinchen. in line with the other people of the

empire. Indeed, Jewish "clerics,"like their Christian counterparts, were exempted from compulsory service in the decurionate. The pre-Christian Romans had exempted Jews as part of their recognition of Judaism as a "legitimate religion," which allowed all Jews to be excluded from positions and activities (for instance, pagan sacrifice) that would have infringed on the practice of Judaism (Digest 27.1.15-Mommsen and Krueger 1973: 395-96; and Krueger 50.2.3-Mommsen 1973: 896). With the union of Rome and Christendom, however, service in the decurionate was no longer accompanied by pagan ritual. Although the content of Constantine's legislation on Jews and Judaism did not exceed those of his predecessors, the tone of Roman law during his reign began to reflect the vocabulary and sentiments of ecclesiastical canons and pronouncements. Thus an edict issued early in Constantine's reign reveals a harsh and negative attitude toward Judaism in its wording: It is our will that Jews and their elders and patriarchs shall be informedthat if, after the issuance of this law, any of them should dareto attempt to assail with stones or with any other kind of madness-a thing which we have learnedis now being done-any person who has fled their feralsect and has resorted to the worship of God, such assailant shall be immediately delivered to the flames and burned with all his accomplices. I. Moreover,if any person from the people should betakehimself to their nefarious sect and should join their assemblies, he shall sustain with them the deserved punishments. (CTh 16.8.1-Pharr 1952: 467)

While it is not clear that this law

Theselaws shouldnot be interpreted as evidenceof anti-Jewishsentiment or persecution.

28

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

was of significant practical use, it may have contributed to the Jewish communities' feelings of unease, because it suggested that the old entente between Rome and Judaism, which had functioned effectively

since the end of the Bar Kokhba War in A.D. 135, was beginning to change. Constantius issued a decree commanding women converts to Judaism (who had formerly been bound to the imperial weaving factory) be returned to the factory (Bachrach 1985: 408-09)? Jews who converted Christian women to Judaism were subject to punishment. Again, the language of the decree is harsh: Insofar as pertains to the women who were formerly employed in Our imperial weaving establishment and who have been led by the Jews into the association of their turpitude, it is our pleasure that they shall be restoredto the weaving establishment. It shall be observed that Jews shall not hereafter unite Christian women to their villainy; if they should do so, however,they shall be subjectto the peril of capital punishment. (CTh 16.8.6-Pharr 1952:467) In evaluating the significance of Constantius' legislation, one must note that he issued much harsher decrees to close pagan temples and to eliminate pagan sacrifice by making it a capital offense (CTh 16.10.46 and 16.10.2-Pharr 1952: 472-73). Provincial governors who failed to carry out these laws were subject to punishment (CTh 16.10.4-Pharr 1952: 472). From the end of Constantius' reign until the reign of Theodosius (A.D.379-395) there are no extant laws in the eastern empire affecting Jews and Judaism. Julian (A.D.361363), however, expressed a favorable and supportive attitude toward the Jewish community in his writings and in his unsuccessful attempt to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple- an endeavor intertwined with his effort to discredit Christianity and restore pagan practice? Protective laws were also issued. There is some evidence of isolated incidents during the fourth century in Rome and Dertona in Italy, in Tipasia in North Africa, and in Callinicium in Asia,4 where synagogues

were destroyed or appropriated and changed into churches by Christians (Parkes 1969: 187; Simon 1948: 265; Seaver 1952: 45-46). By A.D.386 the Christians of Antioch had taken possession of the synagogue associated with the tomb of the Maccabean martyrs and transformed it into a Christian martyry. Neither the date during the fourth century nor the way this occurred is certain (Wilken 1983: 88; Simon 1936: 413-20). There are no records of such episodes in Palestine during the fourth century. The situation of the Jewish communities outside of Palestine probably differed from that of their Palestinian counterparts, where the Jews constituted a significant portion of the country's population. Although there is no evidence that the Roman government instigated activities such as synagogue burnings, these events indicated an increasingly unrestrained, antiJewish populace that may have been encouraged by the government's negative sentiments towards the Jews. The government did issue laws during the fourth century to protect Jews and Jewish property from Christian mobs. It is sufficiently established that the sect of the Jewsis forbiddenby no law. Hence We are gravely disturbed that their assemblies have been forbidden in certain places. Your Sublime Magnitude will, therefore,after receiving this order, restrainwith properseveritythe excesses of those persons who in the name of the Christian religion, presume to commit certain unlawful acts and attempt to destroy and despoil the synagogues.(CTh16.8.9 -Pharr 1952:468) Protective legislation like the above undoubtedly reflected the government's desire to maintain law and order in the face of anti-Jewish incidents and to assert its own power over the church. The laws may have reflected, albeit in weakened form, the Roman tradition of recognizing Judaism as a legitimate religion. Finally, they may have reflected

This fourth-centurybronzehead of Constantius II was originallypart of a monumental standing figureof the emperor.Constantius was the third son of Constantine the Great and was deeply interested in theology. The head is 1.77meters (5 feet, 9V2 inches) tall. Thephotographis used courtesy of Hirmer VerlagMiinchen.

This marble statue'sidentity is not entirely certain but is thought to be Julian the Apostate. Julianopenly professedhis paganism and proclaimed general toleration of all religions when he became Augustus. Of particular note was his unsuccessful attempt to rebuild the JerusalemTemple.In this statue from Italy, Julianis portrayedin the guise of a Greekphilosopher.It measures 1.75meters (5 feet, 8? inches) tall. Photographis used courtesy ofHirmer VerlagMunchen.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

29

Rome's perception of the wealth and power of some Jewish communities in the empire (Bachrach 1985). When studied in its entirety, the evidence from the Theodosian Code reveals a desire to limit the spread of

Judaism;it also suggests a change in the attitude of Rome towards its Jewish population, and, in its protective legislation, bears witness to anti-Jewish activities and sentiments in the populace. There is no evidence, however, that during the first generation of Christian rule the Jewish communities (inside or outside of Palestine) were persecuted by the Roman government or experienced a marked change in their traditional modes of self-government and in the privileges that they had enjoyed since the inception of the empire. Church canons and writings of church fathers. The laws of Constantius and his father reflected the sentiments and concerns expressed at the church councils of Elvira (early fourth century A.D.),Nicea (325), Antioch (341), and Laodicea (360). The canons from these councils prohibited marriage with Jews, adultery with Jewesses, the blessing of fields by Jews, the participation in feasts with Jews, and the observance of the Jewish Sabbath and Passover.? A fourth-century compilation of Syrian church canons prohibited both the Christian laity and clergy from entering synagogues and celebrating Jewish festivals (Apostolic Constitutions 8.47.65, 70-Funk 1905: 584; see also 8.47.62-Funk 1905: 582). Both the church canons and the laws of the Roman government assumed that Jews and Christians were interacting and that Judaism remained a powerful attrac-

tion to Christians and to potential pagan converts to Christianity. Although anti-Jewish sentiments in the writings of the church fathers antedate Constantine, they assume greater significance in the fourth century because the authors addressed a larger audience and now possessed political power and a close relationship with the local and imperial governments (Krauss 1893, 1894a, and 1894b; Parkes 1969; Seaver 1952; Simon 1948). Much of the patristic anti-Jewish material, however, was a response to the threat Judaism posed as an attractive alternative to Christianity. Thus, John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish sentiments were expressed with greatest virulence in sermons that he delivered in A.D. 386 to 387 in Antioch-the home of a large, vibrant, and thriving Jewish community at this time (Wilken 1983; Harkins 1979). Sermons that Chrysostom delivered in Constantinople, which did not have a large Jewish community, were less virulent in tone (Grissom 1978: 217). Economic Status of Palestinian Jewry In general, the Christianization of the empire brought a massive influx of capital to Palestine and, as Michael Avi-Yonahnoted, this was a major factor in bringing increased material prosperity and cosmopolitanism to fourth- and fifth-century Palestine for all of its inhabitants, including Jews, Christians, and pagans: The adoptionof Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empirenaturallyrevolutionizedits [Palestine's]position completely; from an obscure province it became the Holy Land,pamperedby emperors

ChurchcanonsandRomanlaws assumedthatJudaismremaineda powerfulattractionto Christians.

30

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, is featured on this coin that was struck in Ticinium around A.D. 325. She was the first of several Roman noblewomen who, according to ancient texts, made pilgrimages to Palestine during the fourth century Helena began her journey in 326, when she was in her late seventies. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius claimed that Helena instigated the building of two churches in Palestine - one onl the Mount of Olives and another in Bethlehem. These churches formed part of the massive building projects undertaken by Constantine in Jerusalem and its environs. Photograph is used courtesy of Hirmer Verlag Miinchen.

whatevertheir treasurersmight say. The streamof prosperitywhich then began to flow explains better than any other factor the astonishing prosperity of Palestine in the Byzantine period. (Avi-Yonah1958: 41) From the time of Constantine, massive church-building projects were undertaken to create a visible manifestation of the legitimacy and permanence of Christian rule, which, in turn, was understood to be an outward sign of the truth of Christianity. Money poured in from both the government and from private individuals. The influx of pilgrims, beginning in the fourth century, also created service industries (such as innkeeping) to cater to their needs. The fourth-century Christian pilgrim, as part of his quest for perfection, undertook the dangers of travel to Palestine in order to visit the holy places - reputed sites of the events of the Old Testament and New Testament - and therein confirmed the validity of his faith (Wilkinson

1977: 42-43). Many of these pilgrimage sites were also revered by the Jews as holy places. The appropriation of sites by the Palestinian church was another means of illustrating the victory of Christianity, as well as the power of the Christian church, in Palestine. The writings of Eusebius in the early fourth century reveal that by this time the Palestinian church had begun to develop its identity as guardian of a Christian Terra Sancta (Groh 1977 and 1979). Constantine's conversion had allowed the church to concretize this perception of itself. This partially entailed the supplanting of Jewish holy places and, in general, the appropriation of the Jewish notions of the Holy Land and the inextricable relationship between land and people (Wilken 1985: 462-66). It is reasonable to suspect that this phenomenon would have engendered feelings of unease, anxiety, insecurity, and loss of cultural equilibrium among the Jewish communities of fourthcentury Palestine. As noted earlier, all of the communities of Palestine experienced a period of revitalization and material prosperity in the fourth and fifth centuries. Although the situation in fourth-century Palestine was somewhat atypical, insofar as some of its material growth was linked to its status as the Christian Holy Land, the fourth century was generally a time of economic recovery, increased prosperity, and social stability throughout the eastern empire. The radical monetary, administrative, and economic reforms, which were introduced by Diocletian (A.D.284-305) to combat the social, political, and fiscal anarchy of the third century, were continued and developed by Constantine and Constantius. By the mid-fourth century these reforms had created a vastly improved situation throughout the East. Whereas the third century was a period of "social disintegration and economic decline [for the Jewish communities of Palestine], it would appear that

during the course of the fourth century, there was some kind of general improvement, and Palestinian agriculture took a turn for the better" (Sperber 1978: 64). The evidence from the rabbinic corpus suggests that not only did agriculture improve but prices in Palestine (as in the rest of the empire) were stabilized in the first half of the fourth century. By the time of Constantius, prices were not radically higher than they had been in the second century, especially if calculated in gold. There appears to have been a resurgence of confidence in coinage and a return to a money economy by all social classes following the chaos of the third century (Sperber 1974: 149-53; 178-81). This is not to say that fourthcentury Palestine was free of inflation, overtaxation, poverty, and occasional famine and drought. Indeed, overtaxation continued to result in the abandonment of land, the flight of peasants and small landowners, and the concentration of land holdings in the hands of a few families most of whom, even in the predominantly Jewish regions of Palestine, were non-Jewish (Sperber 1978: 10218).6 Nonetheless, although the economic situation in fourth-century Palestine was not optimal, it was

better than it had been in the previous century.

at this time some Jews moved from Lower Galilee to the less Romanized, less Christianized, and more rural regions of Upper Galilee and Gaulanitis. They seem to have settled in clusters of villages in close proximity to one another - as if to create a Jewish Holy Land within, but removed from, the heartland of Christian Terra Sancta (Groh 1977: 92-93; Meyers 1976; Meyers and Strange 1977; Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1979). During the fourth and fifth centuries the majority of Palestinian churches were located outside of Galilee-the heartland of the Jewish population in Palestine (Ovadiah 1970). This pattern did not begin to change until the sixth century when one finds major churches at Yarum, Suhmata, Hamita, Shavei Zion, Arav, et-Tabgha, and Capernaum "effectively encircling the Jewish areas of Upper Galilee" (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: 18). Field examinations of sites in the Golan indicate "that in the rural zone which lies north-east of the sea of Galilee the population in Byzantine times was exclusively Jewish [and that] this limited area was surrounded on three sides (to north, south and east) by regions inhabited almost entirely by Christians" (Maoz 1985: 65).

Attitude of the Rabbis Tbward Christian Rule in the FourthCentury Although there are a number of texts The Christian appropriationof Palin which Palestinian rabbis of the estine as its Holy Landmay explain mid- to late-fourth century anticithe gradualshift in the distribution pate the fall of Rome, the rebuilding of the Jewishcommunities in Byzan- of the Jerusalem Temple, the advent tine Palestine, which began in the of the messiah, and the salvation of mid-fourth century. Surveys of the Israel, it is impossible to determine Galilee and the Golan suggest that with certainty whether these texts Jewish Settlement Patterns

Jewssettledin clustersof villagesas if to createaJewishHolyLandwithin ChristianTerraSancta.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

31

s,

t

~I~~C~

were related to contemporary events or were "academic" exegeses of biblical or mishnaic passages, embodying generic observations about Rome and Israel. It seems likely, however, that at least some of the fourthcentury texts were a response to the anticipation of, and disappointment following, Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple. The rabbinic corpus of the fourth and fifth centuries is strikingly silent concerning the union of Rome and Christendom, as if to suggest that in the context of the rabbinic conception of the roles that God had assigned the nations as part of his plan for Israel, there was no reason to differentiate between pagan and Christian Rome (Neusner 1985). Jacob Neusner noted the following, however, concerning the rabbis who composed the Palestinian Talmud: Yetsilence is also a response .... By harpingon how they decidedthings and inserting into the processes of legal theory precedents established in their courts, and by representing the life of Israel in such a way that the government of the nation was shown to be entirely in the hands of the nation'slearned, legitimate authorities, the Talmud'ssages stated quite clearlywhat they thought was going on. Israel remained Israel, wholly subject to its own law, entirely in control of its own destiny, fully possessed of its own land. Testimony to and vindication of the eternity of Israellay in the continuing authority of Israel'ssages, fully in control of God'sLightand law for Israel. (Neusner 1983: 196-97) The reasons for the completion of the Palestinian Talmud at the close of the fourth century are unclear (Cohen 1976: 28-29; Neusner 1983: 23-24). Perhaps this reflected the desire of the rabbinic leadership to insure stability and continuity of Jewish practice in the face of growing anti-Jewish sentiment in the empire. Or possibly it can be understood as a response to the new economic prosperity of the region, as the Jews attempted to accommodate

32

'i

'i

'' ?i ?L~-~m ' dr? u

Qr

I ?~ ~L?lr.l ?r ?rrrc 4%~r`C? n~ ?.~Lh~~ '? ?\

r r

ii

-~?~~ ;?\ `~?~S~=t *(.

??

Yi

Iri

;~ "r~~ ~?~?~ I'cif~r

:?r?\ .i

?

'4. ~~

~mr~ac~ r

I

:1 i 'f

~fSr-~

Above left: Coin of Julianminted at Thessalonica aroundA.D.361 to 363. It exemplifies the beardedstyle of portraiturethat characterizedJulian'sindependent coinage. Above right: Numismatists and historians have long puzzled overthe meaning of the bull depicted on some of Julian'scoinage. It has been interpretedas signifying Julian as the leader or guardian of the populace, as Julian'sbirth sign, as an Apis bull used in the worshipof a mystery cult, or as a sacrificial animal. The coin weighs 8.71 grams and has a diameter of 28 millimeters (1.12 inches). It was minted in ConstantinoplearoundA.D.361 to 363. Photographsare used courtesy of Office Du Livre,Switzerland.

breviary in A.D.360) sandwiched his description of the revolt between reports of the usurpation of Magnentius- Constantius' rival in the West The Gallus Revolt data and sug- -and the execution in A.D.354 of archaeological Literary A.D. or in 351 that Gallus, yielding a date for the revolt 352, during gest of A.D.352 or 353. Victor wrote, "and the reign of Gallus (351-354) - Conmeanwhile an insurrection of the stantius' Caesar in the East - a segment of Palestinian Jewry engaged in Jews who had raised up Patricius imarmed struggle against the armies of piously in some sort of kingdom was Rome (Nathanson 1981). The revolt suppressed" (Liber de Caesaribus and Greundel was was seemingly short-lived and 42.9-12-Pichlmayer is the This 1970: 128). only mention suppressed by Gallus' troops. The whom about of nothing rabbinic leadership apparently was Patricius, else is known. not involved. In A.D.380, commenting on Literary references. The revolt is dethat took place in the year events scribed in the breviary of the fourth352, Jerome noted the following: century pagan historian Aurelius Gallus crushed the Jewswho murVictor, in Jerome's Chronicon, and in the soldiers in the night, seizdered the mid-fifth century continuation arms for the purpose of rebeling of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Even lion. murderingthousands of by the church historian Socrates, as men, even innocent children. And well as in the works of several later their cities of Diocaesarea,Tiberias Christian chronographers (Nathanand Diosopolis and many villages son 1981: 40-90). The revolt is menhe consigned to flames. (Chronicon tioned in Christian chronographies for 352-Helm 1956:238) that, although they sought to demon- Jerome is unique in his mention of strate the truth and permanence of the destruction of Tiberias and Lod the New Israel, were generally less (Diosopolis), for which there is no prejudiced in their treatment of Jews corroborating evidence from the raband Judaism than were other genres binic corpus or from archaeological of patristic literature. data. Some of Jerome's details, howAurelius Victor (who wrote his ever, may be accurate. Both classical

themselves to a pluralistic society without sacrificing their identity.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

occurred in Sepphoris and its environs, and perhaps also in the region of ,vi,9 Tiberias. A text from the Palestinian . . .. Talmud describes the activities of the people of Sepphoris during the -. Nal'ratein ! ..• . ,"." ...M eirone :,.* days of Ursicinus: • I.!.•.:" Chot': ,:.!z.i5•. .,'ni .i (It came to pass) in the days of . Telelluhadar .. Ursicinus the king that the people of Sepphoriswere sought. And they '? had placed plasters on their noses and no one recognizedthem. But in the end an evil tongue informedon corigt Si~i?Na rtes fete Beth Shearim . " :•: them and all of them were captured / . ., ..•,,,:, i.) ',..:,S,,xaabtiS. .; because of the information against : . ~::,•-~ ,,, ,, ~ them. (PTSota 9.3, 23c) Although it is unlikely that the in" "• habitants of Sepphoris wore masks : % ' ... . . ..:-.17. .: : . .., t5.• . (_ ... . . . • . to elude the Romans, it is reasonable to interpret this passage to mean , '"archaeological data S"..". 0 that in the days of Ursicinus-per.... : Sitesaffectedaccordingto •i ...:. 7.. :. ., haps in the days of Gallus - some :!ii "a:•";;'literary data : . of the population of Sepportion iw . . , ? phoris hid from the authorities, most likely the Romans. Two additional talmudic textsthat refer to Ursicinus describe the rabbinic abrogation of some Jewish laws that prohibit working on the and rabbinic sources indicate that And their city, Diocaesarea,he orSabbath. In them the rabbinic leaderderedto be broughtdownto level the Romans maintained a garrison is depicted in its role as mediaship ground. (Ecclesiastical History II. in Diocaesarea (Sepphoris), although tors between the Roman government 33-Migne 1864:297) the size of the force that was staand the The rabbis voice a populace. Although the three seemingly tioned there is unclear (Notitia Digattitude towards Ursiciconciliatory independentliterarytraditions differ, nitatum, 34, 28-Seeck 1876: 73; nus and the laws of the Sabpermit they minimally suggest that the reMiller 1984: 14-59). bath to be to avoid broken, perhaps volt encompassed Sepphoris(DioFinally, Socrates, writing apfurther conflict between the Roman proximately ninety years later, about caesarea)in LowerGalilee and its army and the Jewish population (PT environs. the year 352, commented: Sheviith 4.1, 35a; PT Bezah 1.6, 60c). Severaltexts from the rabbinic While at the same time there came These and several other texts are corpus (most of which are found in to pass with respect to the East difficult to interpret (PT Berachoth the PalestinianTalmud)referto anotherinternalwar.Forthe Jewsin Neusner 1983: 228-29; PT 5.1, 9a; Diocaesarea of Palestine raised up Ursicinus, the commanderof the To be sure, they Megillah 3.1, 74a). arms against the Romans and laid Roman army in the East duringthe not allude to the events or aftermay waste near those places. But then reign of Gallus. They may allude to Gallus who was also called Constanmath of a but instead revolt, may conditions createdby an occupation describe the routine conditions of tius, whom the Emperorappointed army in the aftermathof a revolt. Caesarandsentto the East,dispatched life in Palestine. mid-fourth-century These texts suggest that the revolt a forcewhich prevailedagainstthem. A consideration of the Ursicinus texts in their entirety, however, and in conjunction with the pagan and Christian notices of the Gallus Revolt, suggests that the texts are probably linked to the revolt. Archaeological data. The archaeological evidence for the Jewish revolt is largely indirect or circumstantial, yet seems to indicate that a significant Gallus Revolt ? ?; ,.-: :.The :.i .

?

I

I

!

"GalluscrushedtheJewswho murderedthe soldiersin the night, seizing armsfor the purposeof rebellion."

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

33

response to the revolt or more likely upheaval did take place in Galilee was the result of the combined during the mid-fourth century. The evidence is primarily from recent ex- impact of the Gallus Revolt, severe cavations and surveys in Upper and taxation, disturbances following Lower Galilee and the Golan, and Julian's death in 363, and the great earthquake of 363. These sites were suggests that at least several cities and villages were abandoned or deJewish centers of population in prestroyed (completely or in part) during dominantly Jewish regions of Palestine during the fourth century.8 the mid-fourth century. The reasons for the abandonment or destruction The archaeological and literary data suggest that the revolt was lim-the Gallus Revolt, pressure from ited and selective in character. A taxation, disturbances following the town might be involved, whereas a close of the reign of the emperor Julian in 363, or the great earthquake neighboring community was seemof 363 (Russell 1980; Amiran 1951: ingly unaffected. The reasons why some communities became involved 225; Brock 1977)-are unclear. while others remained outside of the Because the archaeological evidence for the fourth century includes conflict are unknown. For example, Nabratein and Meiron were abanso much numismatic data, it is posdoned in the mid-fourth century, sible to be quite precise about some whereas the neighboring sites of of the events that took place during Khirbet Shemac (Meyers, Kraabel, mid-century. It would appear that and Strange 1976) and Gush Halav the partial destruction of Sepphoris the Bunnell and (Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Han1937) (Yeivin 1937; son destruction at Beth Shearim greater 1979) continued to thrive for some time. and 1973: 18-19, 35; Avigad (Mazar Mazar 1978) may be connected to the Conclusion revolt. Both sites preserved evidence It seems clear that the revolt was not a of physical destruction in the midfourth century, together with breaks true war. Perhaps it should be thought of as a series of severe and destructive, in the pottery and coinage. Current excavations at Sepphoris provide interconnected, local disturbances. additional evidence of destruction in In view of the objective political and economic conditions in fourththe mid-fourth century (see article and this century Palestine, it would appear Meyers, by Meyers, Netzer, that the revolt was caused not by The destruction of the issue of BA). economic or political hardactual of the at least and part synagogue, but with a of ship, perhaps by feelings of culChorazin, together village break in its coins from 340 to 390, is tural and political deprivation on the part of the rebels, relative to what they probably connected with the revolt had enjoyed under pagan Rome and, (Yeivin and Avigad 1978; Meshorer possibly, relative to the enhanced 1973)7 The abandonment of Meiron status of the growing Christian pop(Meyers, Meyers, and Strange 1974 and church in Palestine. ulation and 1978) and Nabratein (Meyers, The revolt may, therefore, have Strange, and Meyers 1981 and 1982) been a response to the Christian in Upper Galilee may have been a

claim that Palestine was their Terra Sancta-a claim that was now supported by the Roman government. The Gallus Revolt, like the shift in the pattern of Jewish settlement in the latter half of the fourth century, may have been an attempt to establish a physical Jewish land of Israel in the face of Christian Terra Sancta -a harsh way by which the Jewish people in Palestine became acculturated to Christian rule? To return to the original question, the data do not support the contention of Graetz and others that the latter half of the fourth century was a period of unmitigated disaster for Palestinian Jewry. The data do, however, suggest that the first generation of Christian rule was a period of strong, popular and ecclesiastical, anti-Jewish sentiment and an era of increasing insecurity and dislocation for the Jewish communities of Palestine.

The archaeologicalandliterarydata suggestthatthe GallusRevoltwas limitedand selectivein character.

Epistles 40, 41-Migne 1880: 1148-69; Beyenka 1954: 6-19, 385-97. s5Canonsof Elvira, numbers 16, 49, 50, 78-Hefele 1907: 231, 249-50, 26062; Laeuchli 1972: 128, 132, 135. Council of Nicea, Life of Constantine 3.18Heikel 1902: 85-87; Richardson 1952: 524. Canons of Antioch, number 1-

Notes and 1Digest 48.8.3-Mommsen Krueger 1973: 853; Paulus, Sententiae 1941: 407; The Scrip5.22.3-Riccobono tores Historiae Augustae, Severus 17.1 -Magie 1921: 409.

2Themeaning of this text is uncertain. Most scholarsunderstandit to mean that Jewishmissionaries marriedthe women of the imperial weaving factory. Bernard Bachrach, however, presents a strong argument that the women were united with the missionaries in Judaism and not in marriage. 3Levenson 1979; Bowersock 1978; Wilken 1983: 138-45; Julian, Epistle 51 -Wright 1923: 176-81; Against the Galileans -Wright 1923: 318-427. 4ForRome see Ambrose, Epistle 40 -Migne 1880: 1148-60 and Beyenka 1954: 6-19; for Dertona see Acta Sanctorum, De Sancto Innocentio, April, tome 2-Bollandus 1675: 483. For Tipasa see Passio Sanctae Salsae - Monceaux

1902:8. ForCallinicium see Ambrose,

34

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Percival 1956: 108; Hefele 1907: 714-15. Canons of Laodicea, numbers 16, 29, 37, 38-Hefele 1907: 1008, 1015, 1019; Percival 1956: 133, 148, 151. 6A.H. M. Jones noted that many farmers in the empire left the land because farming was no longer profitable. The economy of the empire was primarily agricultural. The main tax of the government, which accounted for more than ninety percent of its revenue, was a tax on agriculture - a combined tax on the cultivated land (iugatio) and on the people (capitatio) (Jones 1974: 82-83). 7Coins from the reign of Constantius were discovered at nearby Capernaum below the synagogue in an area that, according to the excavators, was leveled in preparation for the building of the synagogue. This raises the possibility that an earlier structure was destroyed during the reign of Constantius, perhaps during the Gallus Revolt. 8Dan Urman believed that a significant number of sites in the Golan (including the large site of Tel el Juhadar) were abandoned or destroyed in the midfourth century, perhaps in connection with the Gallus Revolt (Urman 1979: 65, 84, 160, 196, and 258). 9It is possible that the Gallus Revolt was another example of militant Jewish messianism and, as such, was typologically similar to the Jewish revolts of the first and second centuries. The data for the revolt, however, only raise this as a possibility.

Bibliography Amiran,D. 1951 A RevisedEarthquakeCatalogueof Palestine. IsraelExplorationJournal 1:223-46. Avigad,N., and Mazar,B. 1978 Beth Shecarim.Pp. 233-34 in Encyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations of the Holy Land 1. Editedby M. Avi-Yonahand E. Stern.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. Avi-Yonah,M. 1958 The Economics of ByzantinePalestine. Israel ExplorationJournal8: 39-51. Bachrach,B. 1985 The JewishCommunity of the Later RomanEmpireas Seen in the Codex Theodosianus.Pp.399-421 in ToSee Ourselvesas Others See Us: Christians, Jews, "Others"in LateAntiquity. Editedby JacobNeusner and ErnestS. Frerichs.Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Beyenka,M. M. 1954 Saint Ambrose Letters.Series:The

Fathersof the Church26. New York: Fathersof the Church. Bollandus,J.,and others, editors 1675 Acta Sanctorum,April tome 2. Antwerpand Brussels:n.p. Bowder,D. 1978 TheAge of Constantine and Julian. London:PaulEleth. Bowersock,G. W 1978 Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversity. Brock,S. P. 1977 A LetterAttributedto Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuildingof the Temple.Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40: 267-86. Bunnell, C. 1937 Coin Catalogue.Pp. 62-68 in Preliminary Reportof the Universityof Michigan Excavationsat Sepphoris in Palestine in 1931 by L. Waterman, S. Yeivin,and C. Bunnell. Ann Arbor, MI:University of MichiganPress. Cohen, J. 1976 RomanImperialPolicy towardsthe Jewsfrom Constantine until the End of the PalestinianPatriarchate. Byzantine Studies 3: 1-29. Funk, E X., editor 1905 Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, 2 volumes. Paderborn, Germany:LibrariaFerdinandi Schoeningh. Graetz,H. 1908 Geschichte der Juden4. Fourth edition. Leipzig:OskarLeiner. Grissom, F. 1978 Chrysostomand the Jews. Studies in Jewish-ChristianRelationsin Fourth CenturyAntioch. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,The SouthernBaptist Theological Seminary. Groh, D. 1977 Galilee and the EasternRoman Empirein LateAntiquity.Explor3: 78-93. 1979 The Rise of ChristianPalestine: EusebianFormulae.Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature-AmericanAcademy of Religion,November, 1979. Harkins,P.W, translator 1979 Saint John Chrysostom:Discourses Against JudaizingChristians. Series: The Fathersof the Church 68. Washington, D.C.:Catholic University. Hefele, C. J. 1907 Histoire des conciles d'apr~sles documents originaux 1. Paris:Letouzey et Ane. Heikel, I. A., editor 1902 Eusebius Werke1. Series:Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller7. Leipzig:Teubner. Helm, R., editor 1956 Eusebius Werke7. Die Chronikdes

Hieronymus. Series:Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller48. Berlin: Akademie. Jones,A. H. M. 1974 Over-taxationand the Decline of the Empire.Pp. 82-89 in The Roman Economy:Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, edited by P Brunt.Oxford:Basil Blackwell. Krauss,S. 1893 The Jewsin the Worksof the Church Fathers:I. JustinMartyr,II.Clement of Alexandria,III.Origen.Jewish QuarterlyReview 5: 122-57. 1894a The Jewsin the Worksof the Church Fathers:IVEusebius,V. Ephraem Syrus.Jewish QuarterlyReview 6: 82-99. 1894b The Jewsin the Worksof the Church Fathers:VI.Jerome.Jewish Quarterly Review 6: 225-61. Laeuchli,S. 1972 Powerand Sexuality: TheEmergence of Canon Law at the Synod of Elvira. Philadelphia:TempleUniversity. Levenson,D. 1979 A Source andTraditionCritical Study of Julian'sAttempt to Rebuild the JerusalemTemple.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,HarvardUniversity. Lieberman,S. 1946 Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries. Jewish QuarterlyReview 36: 329-70. MacMullen,R. 1969 Constantine. Series:Crosscurrents in WorldHistory.New York:Dial Press. Magie,D., translator 1921 The ScriptoresHistoriae Augustae 1. Series:The LoebClassical Library. New York:G. P.Putnam'sSons. Maoz, Z. 1985 Comments on Jewishand Christian Communities in ByzantinePalestine. Palestine ExplorationQuarterly 117: 59-68. Mazar,B. 1973 Beth Shecarim.Reporton the Excavations during 1936-1940, Catacombs 1-4, volume 1. New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversity. Meshorer,Y 1973 The Coins from the Excavationsat Chorazin.EretzIsrael 11:158-62 (Hebrew). Meyers,E. 1976 Galilean Regionalismas a Factorin Historical Reconstruction.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research221:93-101. Meyers,E., Kraabel,A., and Strange,J. 1976 Ancient SynagogueExcavationsat KhirbetShemac UpperGalilee, 1970-1972. Durham, NC: Duke

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

35

University Press. Meyers,E., Meyers,C., and Strange,J. 1974 Excavationsat Meiron in Upper Galilee 1971-1972.A Preliminary Report.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research214: 2-25. 1978 Excavationsat Meiron in Upper Galilee-1974, 1975. SecondPreliminary Report.Pp. 73-98 in Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research43. Cambridge,MA:American Schools of OrientalResearch. Meyers,E., and Strange,J. 1977 Surveyin Galilee: 1976. Explor3: 7-17. Meyers,E., Strange,J.,and Groh, D. 1979 The Meiron ExcavationProject: ArchaeologicalSurveyin Galilee and Golan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research233: 33-58. Meyers,E., Strange,J.,and Meyers,C. 1981 Preliminaryreporton the 1980 Excavationsat en-Nabratein,Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research244: 1-25. 1982 SecondPreliminaryReporton the 1981Excavationsat en-Nabratein, Israel.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research246: 35-54. Meyers,E.,Strange,J.,Meyers,C., andHanson,R. 1979 PreliminaryReportson the 1977and 1978 Seasons at Gush Halav (el-Jish). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research233: 33-58. Migne, J.-P.,editor 1864 Patrologiaecursus completus. Series graeca.Volume67. Paris:J.-P.Migne. 1880 Patrologiaecursus completus. Series latinae. Volume 16. Paris:J.-PMigne. Miller, S. 1984 Studies in the History and Tradition of Sepphoris.Leiden:Brill. Mommsen, T., and Krueger,P., editors 1973 Digest. Pp. 29-926 in Corpusluris Civilis 1. Zurich:Weidmann. Monceaux,P. 1902 Les Colonies Juivesdans l'Afrique Juives Romaine.Revuedes Etudes 44: 1-28. Nathanson, B. G. 1981 The FourthCentury Jewish"Revolt" During the Reignof Gallus. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Duke University. Neusner, J. 1983 Judaismin Society,The Evidenceof the Yerushalmi.Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. 1985 StableSymbols in a Shifting Society: The Delusion of the Monolithic Gentile in Documents of LateFourth Century Judaism.Pp. 373-96 in Tb See Ourselvesas Others See Us: Christians,Jews, "Others"inLate

36

Antiquity. Chico, CA: ScholarsPress. Neusner, J.,translator 1984 The Talmudof the Land of Israel.A PreliminaryTranslationand Explanation. Sotah, volume 27. Chicago: University of Chicago. Ovadiah,A. 1970 Corpusof Byzantine Churchesin the Holy Land.Translatedby R. Kirson. Bonn:PeterHanstein. PalestinianTalmud 1948 Palestinian Talmud.Vienna,Cracow, KrotoschinEdition.Jerusalem: Shulsinger(Aramaicand Hebrew). Parkes,J. 1969 The Conflict of the Churchand the Synagogue.New York:Atheneum. Percival,H., translator 1956 The SevenEcumenical Councils of the Undivided Church:Their Canons and Dogmatic Decrees, Togetherwith the Canons of All the Local Synods WhichHave Received EcumenicalAcceptance. Series:A Select Libraryof Nicene and PostNicene Fathersof the Christian Church, SecondSeries 14. Grand Rapids,MI:William B.Eerdmans. Pharr,C., translator 1952 TheodosianCodeand Novels and the Sirmondian Constitution. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press. Pichlmayer,E, and Greundel,B., editors 1970 Aurelius Victor:Liberde Caesaribus. Leipzig:Teubner. Riccobono,S., editor 1941 Fontesluris RomaniAnte Justinianis. Florence:Barbera. Richardson,E. C., translator 1952 Life of Constantine.Pp. 481-559 in Eusebius: ChurchHistory,Life of Constantine the Greatand Oration in Praiseof Constantine. Series:A Select Libraryof Nicene and PostNicene Fathersof the Christian Church,Second Series 1. Editedby Philip Schaffand HenryWace.Grand Rapids,MI:William B. Eerdmans. Russell, K. W 1980 The Earthquakeof May 19 A.D. 363. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research238: 47-62. Seaver,J. 1952 Persecutionof the Jewsin the Roman Empire300-438. Lawrence,KS: University of Kansas. Seeck, O., editor 1876 Notitia Dignitatum. Berlin: Weidmann. Simon, M. 1936 LaPol~miqueanti-Juivede S. Jean Chrysostomeet le mouvement judaisantd'Antioche.Pp. 403-21 in Milanges FranzCumont,Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves.Brussels: L'nstitut de Philologie et d'Histoire

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Orientaleset Slaves. 1948 VerusIsrael:Etude sur les Relations entre Chretienset Juifsdans l'Empire Romain135-425.Paris:E.De Boccard. Sperber,D. 1974 RomanPalestine 200-400. Money and Prices. RamatGan:BarIlan University. 1978 RomanPalestine200-400. TheLand. RamatGan:BarIlan University. Sutherland,C. H. V. 1974 Roman Coins. New York:G. P Putnam'sSons. Urman, D. 1979 The Golan duringthe Romanand Byzantine Periods:Topography, Settlements and Economy.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,New York University. Volbach,E W 1962 Early ChristianArt. Photographyby Max Hirmer.New York:HarryN. Abrams. Wilken, R. W 1983 John Chrysostomand the Jews: Rhetoricand Reality in the Late FourthCentury.Berkeley,CA:University of CaliforniaPress. 1985 The Restorationof Israelin Biblical Prophecy:Christianand Jewish Responsesin the EarlyByzantine Period.Pp. 443-71 in ToSee Ourselves As Others See Us: Christians, Jews, "Others"inLateAntiquity. Editedby JacobNeusner and Ernest S. Frerichs.Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Wilkinson, J. 1977 JerusalemPilgrimsBeforethe Crusades. Warminster:Aris and Phillips. Wright,W C., translator 1923 The Worksof the EmperorJulian3. Series:LoebClassical Library.New York:G. P.Putnam'sSons. Yeivin,S. 1937 Historical and ArchaeologicalNotes. Pp. 30-31 in PreliminaryReportof the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphorisin Palestinein 1931by L. Waterman,S. Yeivin,and C. Bunnell. Ann Arbor,MI:University of MichiganPress. Yeivin,S., and Avigad,N. 1978 Chorazin.Pp. 299-301 in Encyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations of the Holy Land 1. Editedby M. Avi-Yonahand E. Stern.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. Zenos, A. C., translator 1952 Socrates:ChurchHistory.Pp. 1-178 in Socrates,Sozomenus:Church Histories. Series:A Select Libraryof Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathersof the ChristianChurch,Second Series 2. Editedby Philip Schaffand Henry Wace.GrandRapids,MI:William B. Eerdmans.

I/

ALMKWA(5

p.bbt

~ crr~rr

(k

~??Doe

%A`I~YUI~

i/ Many ancient stone anchors are under the water along Israel'sMediterraneancoast. It has been said that "lost stone anchors, like clues in a paper-chase,both mark the sea-lanes of antiquity and hint at the navigational habits of ancient seafarers" (Frost1973:399). One such anchoris shown here in situ on the seabed at Dor.

Map showing Amanmasha's projectedroute from Byblos to el-Amarnavia Alashiya (probablyancient Cyprus). Amanmashais the messenger described in the el-Amarna tablet 114.

ne of the most absorbing,and often perplexing, areas in the study of the ancient Near East is that of historical geography.'Ancient texts mention numerous lands, cities, and other geographicentities. It has been possible to identify and locate many of these (with varying degrees of certainty), yet others remain elusive. We know that they existed but their locations remain problematic. Few place-names have been the cause of so much scholarly study and argument as that of Alashiya. This site is mentioned in a number of second-millennium texts from Egypt,Ugarit, Mari, Alalakh, and Boghazkoy. The scholarly debate over the location of Alashiya began in 1895when Max M~illerfirst identified the ancient site with ItCyprus.2 is generallyagreedthat Alashiya was located somewhere in the northeastern region of the Mediterranean Seabasin but its precise identification variesfrom Cilicia in southern Turkeyto north Syria and back to Cyprus. The literature dealing with this problem is voluminous. The purpose of this paperis to discuss one specific text whose significance for the location of Alashiya appearsto have been overlookedin the past. el-AmarnaTablet 114 In el-Amarnatext number 114 Rib Addi, the much embattled king of Byblos who lived in the fourteenth cen-

tury B.C.,complains to the Egyptianpharaoh of his precarious situation. According to Rib Addi, the sea route along the coast is held by his mortal enemy, Aziru. Rib Addi'sships are in dangerof being captured: Maythe King,my Lord,be apprised thatAziruis hostileto me andhas seizedtwelveof mypeople,andhasplaced a ransombetweenus of fifty (shekels)of silver.And the peoplewhomI hadsent to Sumura,he seizedin Yaclia.The ships of the people

Beruta(and)Sidon of TY[re], areall in Amurru. (lines 6-14)

Following this Rib Addi writes: And,behold,now has becomehostile to me, in leaguewith Iapac-Addi Aziru. And he has actually seized one of my ships

and,behold,thushe is sailingforth uponthe sea in orderto capture my (other)ships.

(lines15-20) The land routes are also closed to Rib Addi: Now,

[erasedpersonalname]m[y]messenger I have sent again and again.

Howmanydays(times)haveI senthim withouthis beingable

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

37

to enter into Sumura?All roads are cut off to him. (lines 32-38) Near the end of the letter Rib Addi emphasizes his isolation by reminding the pharaoh that he had to send the messenger, Amanmasha, to Egypt by way of Alashiya: Under the circumstances it goes very badly with me. Here is, the other,Amanmasha. Ask him if I did not send him (via)Alashiya to thee. (lines 49-53) Another el-Amarna text (number 113, lines 35-44) mentions that a person named Amanmasha had been stationed in Byblos. The last lines in text 114 raise the question of why Rib Addi considered this information supportive of his claim of distress and request for assistance from the pharaoh. Holmes (1969: 159) has correctly noted that in this text Rib Addi implies that things are going so badly for him that in order to send Amanmasha home to Egypt, he had to dispatch him by a route different from the normal coastal route between Byblos and Egypt. It is possible, however, to take this reasoning one step further: If Alashiya was located north of Byblos (either in the Syrian littoral or in Cilicia), then Rib Addi's strategy would be totally incomprehensible. Not only would Amanmasha be sailing in a direction exactly opposite to his destination, but this would also require him to sail along the Syrian coast -precisely the area that Rib Addi wanted the ship to avoid. If Alashiya, however, is to be identified as Cyprus or part of Cyprus, then Rib Addi's actions make perfect sense. To avoid enemy ships lurking along the coast, Amanmasha's vessel sailed west-northwest, striking out across the open sea from Byblos to Cyprus and from there, with the aid of the predominantly northwestern winds, to Egypt (Casson 1971: 272). Thus, on the basis of this admittedly circumstantial evidence, it seems necessary to locate Alashiya in Cyprus. The question as to whether the toponym defined all or only part of the island, however, remains. Wenamon's escape from the Sekels Robert R. Stieglitz has suggested to me that a parallel to Rib Addi's action may be found in the Egyptian tale of Wenamon (Goedicke 1975: 115-29). Wenamon, a priest of the Egyptian god Amon, was sent to Byblos around 1100 B.c. with the mission of bringing back timber for the holy barque of Amon at Karnak. While his ship was anchored at the city of Dor on the first part of the journey to Byblos from Egypt, the gold and silver that he had brought to pay for the timber was stolen. Subsequently, Wenamon stole back part of his losses from a ship belonging to the Sekels (a group of the Sea Peoples) of Dor.

38

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Rarescenes showing the way stone anchors were raised are depicted on two Cypriotejugs from the seventh century B.c.The anchor'srope was passed througha ring at the top of the mast or apparentlyalong the yard. This primitive device for raising the anchormay have been the reason some anchors were left on the seabed: If the seas were high and, for whateverreason, the ship had to leave its place of mooring,a captain would probablycut the ropeand leave the anchorratherthan raise it and have a stone weighing severalhundredkilograms swaying precariouslyoverhis fragilehull. Drawings are after Karageorghis and des Gagniers 1974.

Thesmall fisherman'sportof Gebail (theancient site of Byblos).Photographby David Frank,? Department of Antiquities and Museums, Ministry of Education and Culture,State of Israel.

~~fis

r .?,\

r

Y/

,~ i/u~ IC

i

`s: A :

--J

/AI Y

; I I;1~42/:P

L~a\ ~ ;J~~7~ \r

/Z;,iI, rttrrr /e I

r

V )/

I ,,is~ rt J: a

r. rt~LiaL \~F~4 , Ct tL

E?

7 I

.?

!~7

\;;;.

I

j

h

I 2r;

\\ ?r'Q

"

r ri :r \? Irt~~~' +rr s i,

]C~ 3 j

1I

r,

~\ er

?,

r d? 3,

,,

?r\

i+ *\ +?

r?

-c,

liniBr

\

1111~

IIIIC)

i

drr

,j

r

//

Iri

t Syrianmerchant ships arrivingat an Egyptianport are depicted in this drawing of a painting from the tomb of Kenamunat Thebes (dating to the reign of Amenhotep III, 1405-1367 B.c.). This is the most detailed representationof Syrianseagoing vessels from the Late BronzeAge.

Later,aftermany trials andtribulations, when Wenamon was finally preparedto sail from Byblos with his timber, eleven Sekel ships arrivedto captureWenamon's ships. SakarBaal,the king of Byblos, showed Wenamona peculiar, yet well-known, type of Middle Eastern hospitality-he refusedto let the Sekels molest Wenamonas long as he was anchored in the king's harbor-but suggested to the Sekels that they pursue Wenamon once he left it.

When Wenamon left Byblos, he mentions that the winds drovehim to Alashiya. Apparently,in this manner, he managed to avoid the lurking Sekel ships that had expectedhim to take the normal coastal route to Egypt.In doing this, whether intentionally or due to a storm that drove him off course to Alashiya, Wenamon avoided a hostile coastal course in the same manner that Amanmasha had done some two and a half centuries earlier.He was eventually able to return safely to Egypt. Conclusion Although information given in el-Amarnatablet 114and the tale of Wenamonsupportthe identification of Cyprus with ancient Alashiya, there are admittedly several remaining problems, not the least of which is that no epigraphic evidence connecting Alashiya with Cyprus has yet been discoveredon the island.Until more evidence is developed,the identification cannot be conclusive.

Acknowledgments I have had the good fortune of being able to discuss the Alashiya problem with two of its leading protagonistsDr. Robert S. Merrillees and ProfessorJamesD. Muhly. I also want to thank ProfessorTrudeDothan for her valuable comments; ProfessorAnson Rainey for very kindly retranslating the lines of el-Amarna text 114, which is quoted in this paper;and Dr. RobertStieglitz for bringing to my attention the relevanceof Wenamon'sescape from the Sekels. Notes 'Fora generalintroductionto the studyof toponomysee Aharoni 1967:94-117.

2Literature on the subjectis extensive.Forbasicsummaries for and againstthe Alashiya/Cyprus equationsee Merrillees 1972andMuhly1972andmorerecentlyHellbing1979. Bibliography Aharoni,Y 1967 The Landof the Bible:A Historical Geography.Translatedby Anson E Rainey.Philadelphia:WestminsterPress. Casson, L. 1971 Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press. Catling, H. W, and Nikolaou, K. 1967 Composite anchorsin LateBronzeAge Cyprus.Antiquity 42: 225-29. Davies, N. de Garis,and Faulkner,R. O. 1947 A Syrian TradingVentureto Egypt. Journalof EgyptianArchaeology 33: 40-46.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

39

Frost,H. 1963a FromRopeto Chain:on the developmentof the anchor in the Mediterranean.The Mariner'sMirror49: 1-20. 1963b Under the Mediterranean.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 1969a The stone anchorsof Ugarit. Ugaritica 6: 235-45. 1969b The stone anchorsof Byblos.Milanges de l'Universit8SaintJoseph,Beyrouth45: 425-42. 1970 Bronze-Agestone-anchorsfrom the EasternMediterranean: dating and identification. The Mariner'sMirror56: 377-94. 1973 Anchors,the potsherdsof marine archaeology:on the recording of piercedstones from the Mediterranean.Pp. 397-406 in MarineArchaeology:Proceedingsof the XXIIISymposiumof the Colston ResearchSocietyheld in the Universityof Bristol April 4th to 8th, 1971. Edited by D. J. Blackman. London: Butterworths. 1979 Egypt and stone anchors: some recent discoveries. The Mariner'sMirror65: 137-61. 1982a On a sacred Cypriot anchor. Pp. 161-66 in Archdologie au Levant,Recueil RogerSaidah. Series:Collection de la maison de l'orient Mediterranden12, Serie Archdologique9. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient. 1982b The birth of the stocked anchor and the maximum size of early ships: thoughts prompted by discoveries at Kition Bamboula,Cyprus.The Mariner'sMirror68: 263-73. Goedicke,H. 1975 The Reportof Wenamun.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins University Press. Green,J.N. 1971 An underwater archaeological survey of Cape Andreas, Cyprus, 1969- 70: a preliminaryreport.Pp. 141-78 in Marine Archaeology: Proceedings of the XXIII Symposium of the Colston Research Society held in the University of Bristol, April 4th to 8th, 1971. Edited by D. J. Blackman. London: Butterworths. Hellbing, L. 1979 Alasia Problems. Series: Studies in MediterraneanArchae-

ology 57. G6teborg,Sweden:Paul Astrims Fdrlag. Holmes, Y.L. 1969 The ForeignRelations of Cyprusduring the Late BronzeAge. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University. Ann Arbor,Michigan:University Microfilms. 1971 The location of Alashiya. Journalof the American Oriental Society 91:426-29. Hult, G. 1977 Stone anchors in Area 8. Pp. 147-49 in Hala Sultan Tekke3, Excavations 1972 by P Astrom, G. Hult, and M. S. Olofsson. Series:Studiesin MediterraneanArchaeology45/3. G6teborg, Sweden:PaulAstrims Firlag. Kapitan,G. 1984 Ancient anchors-technology and classification.International Journalof Nautical Archaeology 13:33-44. Karageorghis,V., and des Gagniers,J. 1974 Le ciramique chypriotede style figurd.Age du Fer(1050-500 av. J.-C.).Rome:Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche,Instituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolicidistribuzione. Merrillees,R. S. 1972 Alasia. Pp. 111-19 in The Proceedings of the First International Congressof CyprioteStudies, 1969,volume 1.Nicosia: The Departmentof Antiquities, Cyprus. Muhly,J.D. 1972 The Landof Alashiya:Referencesto Alashiya in the Texts of the SecondMillennium B.C.andthe History of Cyprusin the Late Bronze Age. The Proceedingsof the First International Congressof CyprioteStudies, 1969, volume 1. Nicosia: The Departmentof Antiquities, Cyprus. Sayed,A. M. A. H. 1978 The recently discoveredport on the RedSea shore. Journalof EgyptianArchaeology64: 69-71 and plate 11. Shaw,J.W, and Blitzer,H. 1983 Stone weight anchors from Kommos, Crete. International Journalof Nautical Archaeology 12:91-100. Wachsmann,S., and Raveh,K. 1983 Stone Anchors.El haYam17:33-34; 18:28-29 (Hebrew).

July 15-25, 1986 As a part of the celebration dedicating the new building for ACOR,the center's director, David McCreery,will lead a unique tour of Jordan. In addition to Jerash, Petra, Ain Ghazal, and other well-known locations, the tour will visit current excavations in the field and newly discovered sites. Participants will also join H.R.H.CrownPrince Hassan, H.R.H.Prince Raad, and other dignitaries at the gala opening of the new building on July 17. The tour will cost $1,990, double occupancy, which includes round-trip airfare between New York and Amman, deluxe hotel, most meals, behind-the-scenes activities, and expert guidance throughout. To qualify for this special rate, participants are asked to make a $500 tax-deductible contribution to ACOR. A limited number of spaces are available, so act now.

Formore information,send the coupon below to: KarenSwehla, InternationalStudy Tours, 1435 EarlDrive, Reno,Nevada 89503. Orcall collect between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.,Pacifictime, (702) 747-2374. Please give me more informationon the ACORtour of Jordan. Name Address State

City Telephone

(

)

Sponsored by the AmericanCenterfor OrientalResearch(ACOR), one of the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch(ASOR)

40

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

ZIP

I

p~

5~1~1"j~~ ia~tdBA1~; aI

42

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

* Hattusas

/ ""t

I

TULJGOL

L\

0

* Alalakh --

Tell Brak

* Ugarit

Qadesh

4

•, ,

only Egypt came close to possessing the attributes of modern statehood. From the time of the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt around 3100 B.c., the Nile Valley had for all prac-

tical purposes become a nation with a fixed population and definable borders within which the authority of the central administration, headed by the pharaoh,ruled supreme. Though at certain times in its history during the second and third

Farleft: A Hittite warrioris carvedin high relief on a section of the King'sGate at Hattusas, the capital of the Hittite empire. This guardianof the gate is shown wearinga belted kilt and a helmet and he carriesa battle-ax and short sword. The relief is 2.25 meters tall and dates to the fourteenthcentury B.c. Left:Colossal sandstone statue of Akhenaten from Karnak,measuring more than 4 meters tall. Originallyknown as Amenhotep IV this unorthodoxking of the EighteenthDynasty instituted a number of radical changes duringhis reign (1367-1350

millennia

B.C.).

He is principally remembered for his

adoption of the worshipof the sun-diskAten and his abandonment of the numerous gods of the Egyptianpantheon. Some scholars, therefore,view Akhenaten as the first monotheist. The art of the period, which is characterizedby distortion of the human body and an emphasis on naturalism, has been called revolutionaryand is certainly uncanonical. Drawings are by LindaHuff.

B.C.,

when the power of the

Egyptiangovernment was weakened by internal dissent or external intervention and regional rulers emerged who fragmentedthe political structure of the country, the underlying unity of the Egyptianpeople always reasserteditself, and by the period of which we are talking the position and prerogativesof the pharaohwere unchallenged. Not even during the heresy of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV),who promoted a monotheistic religion and who departed,albeit in an idiosyncratically Egyptianway, from traditional political and religious orthodoxy in the first half of the fourteenth century B.c., was

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

43

there any move to upset the constitution or unity of the country.

The Hittites The Hittite kingdom of this time was of a different order from Egypt. The Hittites were Indo-Europeans who invaded Asia Minor and imposed themselves on an indigenous population that had a different language and different ethnic origins. And whereas the geographical confines of the Nile Valley undoubtedly contributed to the consolidation of an Egyptian nationality and provided throughout the pharaonic period well-defined, if indefensible, frontiers, the home base of the rulers of Anatolia afforded no such intrinsic

The

subsequently fortified early in the fourteenth century B.c. The "land" itself comprised the great loop of the Halys River (now Kizil Irmak) in the middle of its course, together with the plain to the south of the salt lake, Tuz Gal, and was bounded on all sides by mountainous formations. Beyond these highlands the Hittite rulers faced potentially hostile tribes, especially to the north and the east, rival principalities or kingdoms like Arzawa in the southwest and Kizzuwatna in Cilicia, and opposing empires such as Mitanni and Egypt. The Mitannians The Mitannians were also migrants who had infiltrated north Mesopo-

Hittites

rescue of the Hittites from historical obscurity is one of the great The achievements of nineteenth- and

twentieth-century scholarship. Long known from the Bible as one of the tribes that was found occupying the Holy Landwhen the Israelitesarrived,it was only through explorationand archaeological discovery that their homeland, history, language,and religion were identified and reconstructed,andtheir contribution to events in the Near East in the second millennium B.C.determined. To the surprise of the academic community the Hittites turned out to be Indo-Europeanmigrants, who originally came from southeast Europevia northwest Anatolia around3000 B.C. and settled in the central highlandareaof Asia Minor,where they became politically dominant towardsthe middle of the second millennium B.c.The historical "landof Hatti,"as it is known from texts of this time, was a state createdby kings ruling from Boghazkey,which later became the capital of an empire extending into south Syria. Though assigned a warlike reputation, doubtless because of their well-recordeduse of the light horse-drawnchariot, the Hittites developed a distinctive civilization whose closest parallel is probablyto be found in the Crusaders'Levant.It was marked by massively fortified settlements and exceptional minor arts. Just who the Hittites in ancient Palestine were remains a tantalizing mystery. RobertS. Merrillees

advantages. The hub of the empire was a city located in a region that lacked the topographical features, resources, and population necessary to give it a territorial cohesion comparable to that enjoyed by Egypt. The capital of the "land of Hatti," Hattusas, modern Boghazkoy, lay on the northern slope of the central Anatolian plateau, on a spur that was a natural stronghold but was

44

tamia and north Syria and came to political power over the native Semitic inhabitants. They ruled a loosely knit confederacy of Hurrian princes (see the Mitanni sidebar for a description of the Hurrians) from their capital Washshukanni, which has not yet been located but is believed by many to lay in the vicinity of the headwaters of the Khabur River. From this city their power extended into

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

north Syria, Armenia, and the upper reaches of the Tigris, but its limits, being political rather than geographical, were not fixed and tended to shift as the allegiances of its constituent client-states changed. "Khurri land,"though used as if it were synonymous with Mitanni, evidently signified a territorial unit in its own right, that lay to the north of the confederacy and corresponded to the original homeland of the Hurrians. It has been suggested that Khurri land preceded Mitanni as a center of power and influence but was overtaken, though not entirely supplanted by, the ascendancy of the Hurrian princes, who joined together in a new and more militant union. Outside these two "lands"were other principalities governed by Hurrians, which, though not part of Mitanni, probably sympathized with its rulers and made common cause when confronting its enemies. Syria and Palestine At the opposite end of the political spectrum from Egypt were the citystates in Syria and Palestine. Each of these city-states had as its nucleus a large urban settlement that was protected by stout fortifications and located in a commanding position astride major land and sea routes. Surrounding these cities, which were centers of administration, industry, and commerce, were hinterlands bounded by sea, mountains, or desert; these contained the human and natural resources required for sustaining daily existence, and included villages, pastures, and grazing lands that supplied manpower and commodities to the cities. The city-states, which prospered from trading with and plundering each other, were in turn subjected to the strategic and economic designs of the larger political powers, like the Hittite, Mitannian, and Egyptian empires. As a result they were caught in a tide of shifting alliances and allegiances as the military and diplomatic might of the main protagonists ebbed and

???

~? ~?l?c...r'

i. ?-?\

ii ?,

`'\??~'

?c? ?'(.'4 ?~?rrrr

rye ??. j~r;r"~x

"" ..., ?,? I,~o~ ~~??~\~~~~\~\?~C

I.

'zi~ ~~?~?~?~sc??

?? ?? :" '',

.. "

~c?; y. ;ru/ ~

r -V -tplklr. ?-~~ SE ?-?-':~'ff ?i ?9~1 c ??

~j'tl ~7i~??LCI) ??`

/P/r?1 ..

\???.

?? Ji?kPi~

rr

?? i. ~1??'

..,. ''

II

''rjl

~

?Y,.

.~365??.

..

1

1!4: r:i ..

?\\~~

Cyprus The history of Cyprus at this time cannot be easily reconstructed because the Cypro-Minoan texts from the island and Ras Shamra (Ugarit) cannot be read yet and there is disagreement on the identification of the ancient place-name of Alashiya, which many writers take to indicate part or the whole of Cyprus. Archaeological data, however, suggest that internal conditions were peaceful, that trade inside and outside the island was flourishing, and that the pattern of settlement was dominated by large towns around the east, south, and west coasts that served primarily as centers for industrial and commercial activity. None of these cities, whose foundations mostly go back to the mid-seventeenth century B.C., appears to have been protected with fortified walls until the thirteenth century B.C. at the earliest - and even then they were not all fortified, and the fortifications do not all date to exactly the same period. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the

b

~1~5

fir' ~..~

~ jt~?;S

CII?rJ??

i

,~ D*? rY

~Sf~

''li Ir

\\ C??;\j;i;';

\\

??i:''

flowed through the region. Jealous of their autonomy, the city-states never lost an opportunity-such as the death of a metropolitan king, the defeat in battle of the dominant imperial power, or the relaxation of external authority-to rise in revolt and assert their independence. Their rulers never stopped scheming, entreating, and fighting.

,?

, r

Si~-?,.r. ????

~?~a~ _r -~SiE~s~T~

I?,i ?r

;rrr c' L~

;iLLY.

Reconstructionof the southern fortification walls (dating to the fourteenthcentury B.c.)around the Hittite city of Hattusas (modernBoghazk6y).In front of the main casemate wall with its large towersis an outer,lower wall. In the center foregroundis the entrance to an impressive postern gate.

?-?' -u\~

.. ?-

Seafaring in

the

Late

Bronze

Age

Much of the commercial intercourse between the communities around the eastern Mediterraneanbasin, even those within reach of each other by land, was carriedout by ship, and seafaring,which had been practicedas early as the fourth millennium B.C.in the region, reachedits apogee in skill, regularity,and activity duringthe fourteenthandthirteenth centuries B.c.It is evident from textual, pictorial, and archaeologicalevidence that Egypt,and every principality or city-state with access to the sea from the Aegean to the Levant,had ships flying, as it were, under their own home flags. Who built, owned, and manned these vessels is still the subject of scholarly debate,and whether one "nation"or another ruled the waves at any stage in this period is an issue of undiminished controversy.It cannot, however,be doubted that ships were constructed at many places around the east Mediterraneanincluding Cyprus- and belongedto the rul of these states, or to merchants ,rs There is no reason to acting on behalf of the government or independently. believe that any one political entity- Mycenaean/Minoan,Hittite, Cypriote, Syro-Palestinian,or Egyptian-monopoli2 ed the sea lanes in the LateBronze of another'sships, except, Age or was in a position to regulatethe m "vement of course, where entry to territorial waters was concerned. Navies and sea battles are not attested until the late thirteenth century B.c.,but the use of ships for maraudingand piracy can be shown to have been a not uncommon occurrence.The raidsof the aptly named SeaPeopleswere the culmination of a process of increasingly hostile use of the maritime environment. RobertS. Merrillees

threat they faced came from abroad rather than inside the island, and there can be no doubt that the disruptions to human habitation and culture at the end of the thirteenth century B.C.were the result of foreign invasion. At the same time evidence is lacking to support any contention that Cyprus was ruled as a single, centralized, constitutional or political unit; it is more likely that there were

multiple autonomous urban entities. Moreover, the fact that no Hittite or Egyptian objects inscribed with royal names from royal sources have thus far turned up in scientific excavations of fourteenth- and thirteenthcentury sites makes it highly unlikely that Cyprus, or any part of it, was ever subjected to imperial domination or even influence from the mainland.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

45

Around 1285 B.c., near the Syriancity of Qadesh on the u ??~?-?t RiverOrontes, two powerful empires-the Egyptians Land the Hittites-vied for control of Syria. The battle, which was repeatedlyrecordedon carved walls of C ??j Egyptiantemples, has been the subject of many discusrt~`c~\-?~ sions. A portion of the Egyptianarmy,led by Ramesses II, was approachingthe city, in anticipation of a confrontation with the Hittites, when they were joined k~ --f tj-?Cr by several tribesmen who turned out to be Hittite r I I r. decoys. Thenew travelersmisled the Egyptiansin to rii 3 that the Hittites were in still thinking Aleppo. ,IIL-i.Is?,l P? Ramesses, feeling confident afterlearning this t i:-Si' I i (r= I' news, continued on to Qadesh instead of waiting I( ~C (L,,L to be joined by the other divisions of the Egyptian IC~ :? IIt. b-i: C1i! army.Luckily,Egyptianscouts capturedtwo c, ' ' Hittite spies and forced them into revealingthat ?,lcr?)~T z F;, the Hittite forces were waiting in ambush a ul ~ 1 short distance away. The Egyptians,having little time to preparefor battle, were attacked, and a .v .? total victory by the Hittites was only prevented r1~ .-I --~?~ ?? by the late arrivalof an Egyptiansupport-force. i.~S~L;I?: \t-7?1 This extra help enabled the Egyptiansto drive the Hittite chariot forces into the river,where they sought safety on the other side. The next ~cl C,, morning Ramesses took the initiative against j -:~iw` -------the much largerHittite army,which was led by '1 ~~--U1~L~~ .3.

~tr

a stalemate, although both sides eventually claimed victory.This drawing is of one part of the battle depicted at the Ramesseum in Thebes.

;117

I,

i

7

I:

r'

c~

/1

i

1LLi'

t

t.-o4-??i!

?cr

I-jr1' ?? i/Z'

It~ ;riBI s

.J

'-e ~ jc~

,1

rr"` .. ?? ~~ ~C~r~:; .:.:....;i......~..l-....;..-.--.I----? ~~a~,

i,, c?'~ r, s.cr----~ ~ '?~I .?, -I j~

\v'`??-

ir

r-v

i't/I:''

I-i

t~

Ir-

rr

\ \---. ?.

?C

II;

,ZJ

I,

,, 1-r, rI -v

r~l` ~

??~;211~ I~ :?

?r i~T~r: ?')

??

?~`rt~~~Y ~

Is? /` c ~C

..,. ~-?~-LC-_" I 121 .~...~ r.e?r J. ~ ~?;7...... ---~:;.~:~ ,~?: rl.l......_.l:~.~~?~~.~~-.-,.,..,--..... ....~.. C: r.i;` r cf~~ Lr;?C'i? J r ~sr~ J

?i~

~T~___Ka

4

c'~;;Z!

~~.z

I

.. ~"`~~C

i_?'1II:

r/ ,L I

??? i;I'

?C~? Ih

?~

?CI~

r--

C/ r

I "

--?I.,--"' I

I?i ?1 I??i,

L~? \

-;j

?, \"'

~trT~~-c?~ /

/rfy ~! !i d

a

;li

-I

~ rlr"

CCrL~'~ 111 ru .~

,i?t~; ~----,

,r! C

n

\c,.i;

: '~

O ~--Y_

?,i~~i?

c=~~

L'C/ ~~53= ci~C~~.'14

)

'h

r

r

Y~L1

,,:1.1-

m king Muwatallish. The battle probably ended in

"'

''

'

,

C;I

k

z

L

rW

cr I' i%;

.tiC1 tl ,,

fi

--I?-

,,-::??

,7..

.r.

?r

..?t. .I? ~-r??'? 1

C?~;

i -?. c ?Gh

???-?-?\. -----?C---?CT?----?l--~? --??-?~-??~-C?.---m-????rr-r?--????~? ?????-???? ii ''II .? ?)\'?~? ..., 1. ??~. .~~-,~YY~,~,~ 1-~-~---I-1 ---_--? --?- .,I )').".,,Y-.--..,,Y.i-~I--~~I-LI---Y;YIY?-Y-YII ?-??Y-?--l------? ?~.

Conflict Syria's strategic location - at the crossroads between Anatolia and Palestine, and between Mesopotamia and the east Mediterranean-gave it a political and commercial importance out of all proportion to its own territorial integrity and natural resources. In the first half of the fourteenth century B.C. Egypt's control of Syria, which had been established by Thutmosis III in the fifteenth century B.C.,began to slacken as a result of the military inactivity of the later Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, whose preoccupation with internal matters created a power vacuum in the area. That Egyptian rule was not directly challenged until the second quarter of the fourteenth century B.c. may be attributed to several factors. In the first place the only regime in a position to assert its claim to Syria, the Hittites, had itself been under attack from within Anatolia and did not succeed in overcoming internal opposition until a strong ruler as-

46

cended the throne about 1380 B.C. in the person of Shuppiluliumash I. In the second place the Mitannian kingdom held sway over upper Mesopotamia and the adjacent parts of eastern Syria and enjoyed good diplomatic relations with Egypt. There may even have been some understanding between the Mitannian and Egyptian rulers concerning their respective spheres of influence in Syria. This alliance, which enabled both sides to maintain the status quo and deter any potential Hittite threat, was nevertheless put under serious strain when Shuppiluliumash I concluded a treaty with the king of the Khurri land, who was the adversary of the Mitannian king Tushratta. Tushratta's expectations of Egyptian intervention to help redress the balance were not fulfilled by Akhenaten. When in 1365 B.c. the Hittite emperor moved against Tushratta, Mitannian authority over Syria collapsed and was replaced not by a unified administration but by a series of treaties with important city-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

states in the north that secured the Hittites' southern flank. There ensued a struggle for power among the various principalities located between the Hittite and Egyptian dominions; this came to an end when Shuppiluliumash I destroyed the Mitannian kingdom and subjugated the citystates of Syria. Hittite hegemony over Syria remained unchallenged by Egypt until the Nineteenth Dynasty, when Seti I sought at the end of the fourteenth century B.C.to reassert Egypt's preeminence in Asia. Having consolidated his hold on Palestine, he then engaged the Hittites in battle, regaining control of southern Syria before concluding a peace treaty with the Hittite ruler Muwatallish, who had not long before ascended the throne. Seti I's successor, Ramesses II, whose reign spanned much of the thirteenth century B.C.,returned to the attack shortly after his accession and fought the Hittite army outside Qadesh, but neither side was able to claim complete victory. The Egyptian forces

I

L

least contributing to the collapse of, the Hittite empire, and devastating Syria and Palestine beforebeing halted at the EgyptianDelta.

j

'';-

Accommodations Securingtheir territorialconquests r in Syriaand Palestine and extending their areas of influence as a bufferto \i their opponents'ambitions became \Ii the principal concerns of the Hittite ___ ''1)~HI and Egyptiankings. Apart from the practice of regular,normally annual, military campaigns into the vanquished territories (bothto crush any hint of insurrection and replenish supplies of foodstuffs, livestock, raw materials, and manufacturedgoods), the rulers of both empires brought CaptiveSea Peoplesareportrayedin this drawingof a scene fromMedinetHabu whereRamesses the full paraphernaliaof diplomatic IIIis shown presentingthem beforetwo Egyptiangods. Drawingis fromNelson and others(1930). coercion and persuasion to bear on the city-states. In addition to the installation of a member of the royal new Hittite king Khattushilish III did, however,stage a tactical retreat family or household as governorin: that enabled Muwatallish to advance concluded a peace treaty in about the subjugatedcity or province, a 1270 B.c.; this initiated a period of as far as Damascus. In any event, member of the local ruling dynasty relative security and friendly relafollowing this major clash, both could be chosen as district adminissides found themselves-no doubt tions between the two kingdoms. trator,assisted by a metropolitan "adpartly because of their concentration This tranquil era came to a rude end visor,"and made to swear an oath of when invadersof still-uncertain orion the Syrian front - faced with fealty, which, if broken, would incur troubles in other parts of their own gin (calledthe Sea Peoples)began the wrath of the gods or, failing that, their depredationsin the east Medi- of man. These vassals, who had to go empires and unable or unwilling to do more than skirmish with each terraneanabout the end of the thirthrough all the motions of obeisance, other. Finally Ramesses II and the teenth century B.C.,destroying,or at from doing regularpersonal homage to their overlords,submitting to every demand made of them, to humbling themselves in public address,were W d~~le responsible for raising and sending ~r ~iJw wPt the annual tribute. If not requiredto e~s ~rt ~*~4~ supply troops for the metropolitan ~k~ 4* ?4~bret 4~ army when fighting in their own regions or even further afield, they had ~ir ~ffck~~~?:t~~~geOl ~~~~~I at least to provision the campaigning 1tP ptc~~$ tc~-a.i F3~~~~~ P~ 'j ~ <~t C'FP~t~ forces. They were not allowed any ~\eQ ?cwa~a-t~~QiK Ft~fTPfP~p ESW4~*! direct contact with foreign powers but they enjoyed,at least in theory, security of tenure and an assurance of protection from external aggression. Diplomatic marriagesand the taking of hostages were other means employed to enforce vassals'loyalty. The history of the north Syrian coastal emporium of Ras Shamra, Thepeace treaty between Ramesses II and the new Hittite king Khattushilish III has been discoveredboth in Egyptand Anatolia. The Hittite versionis shown in this drawing of one of ancient Ugarit, is instructive in this the clay tablets that was found in the Hattusas archive. regard,for not only does it epitomize ?

I.

\

i

\~-

'

Ji

/

W

I

/

c -

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

47

B.C.

Egyptians

Hittites

Mitannians

Assyrians

Syrians

1500 Thutmosis III (1490-1436) 1450

Mitannian domination

1400

1350

1300

1250

Amenhotep III (1405-1367) Akhenaten (1367-1350) Tutankhamen (1347-1339) Horemheb (1335-1308?) Seti I (1308-1291) Ramesses II (1290-1224)

Mitanni overthrown

Mitannian influence in north Syria period" '"Amarna (c.1400-1350)

Tushratta Shuppiluliumash I (1375-1335)

Egyptianconquest

Ashshur-uballitI (1365-1330)

Hittite conquest

Murshilish II (1334-1306) Muwatallish (1306-1282) Battle of Qadesh (1285)

Khattushilish III (1275-1250)

Invasionof the Sea Peoples

1200

Note:Theinformation tablesinAncientIraq(NewYork:TheWorldPublishing givenaboveis basedontable5 of thechronological Company, 1964) byGeorgesRoux.

the fluctuating fortunes of the citystates in this pivotal region but it also appears to have had a direct and decisive effect on the pattern of trade in the east Mediterranean basin. In the early fourteenth century B.C., at the time of Ammishtamru I, Ugarit was within the Egyptian sphere of influence. Evidence for an exchange of gifts and correspondence between the ruling families of Ras Shamra and the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, marked especially by a royal marriage in the mid-fourteenth century B.C.,confirms the diplomatic link and friendly relations between Ugarit and Egypt. Faced, however, with a double threat from the Hittite king Shuppiluliumash I in the north

48

and Aziru of Amurru to the south, Niqmaddu of Ugarit made a treaty with Aziru, who subsequently entered into an agreement with Shuppiluliumash. As a result Niqmaddu had to accept the sovereignty of the Hittite emperor and pay a large annual tribute. Though evidently not occupied by the Hittites and loyal to its overlord for the rest of Niqmaddu's reign, Ugarit under his successors may have joined a general uprising in Syria against the Hittite king Murshilish II, encouraged by the Egyptian pharaoh Horemheb. In any event the attempted secession was unsuccessful, and this time the Hittite king placed Niqmepa, his own choice, on the throne of Ugarit about 1325 B.c. For the rest of the four-

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

teenth and all of the thirteenth century B.C.Ras Shamra seems not to have strayed from the Hittite fold, though the peace treaty between Khattushilish III and Ramesses II probably allowed a resumption of diplomatic contacts with Egypt in the second half of the thirteenth century B.C.Even then the Hittites appear to have refrained from directly intervening in the city's internal affairs. Commercial Contacts The dynamics of the interconnections between the kingdoms, principalities, and city-states around the east Mediterranean in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.c. were unquestionably economic, as resource-

The

Mitanni

Effortsto isolate the Mitanni in the dynasty of kings known as the Mitanni controlled one of the three archaeological record have met with dominantpolitical centers in the eastern little success. The location of their capiMediterraneanduringa 150-yearperiod tal city Washshukanniin the northern beginning in the fifteenth century B.C. Khabur can only be conjectured. The Their kingdom extended from northern likeliest site has generallybeen thought Iraqto the Mediterraneancoast in a belt to be Tell Fekheriyah on the Thrkishthe width of modem Syria, a zone that Syrian border. Several expeditions, the broughtthem into contact with the per- most recent in the mid-1950s by a Geriod's other great powers:the Hittites of man team, have failed to produce imAnatolia and the Eighteenth Dynasty pressive second-millennium remains pharaohsin Egypt.Indeed, it is through however. Recent analyses of the trace their diplomatic correspondence with elements and thermoluminescence of the Hittite and Egyptianrulers that the clay used for tablets written by Mitanni Mitanni kings come into sharpestfocus, kings, presumably at Washshukanni, for they have otherwise left little recog- and discovered in archives elsewhere nizable mark on the second-millennium have cast further doubt on Fekheriyah's Syrianlandscape. suitability: The clay bears no relationThe most surprisingfeature of the ship to wares from that site, nor indeed Mitanni is their ethnic identity. Their fromany in the Jezirah,the areawatered names are Indo-Aryan,as are their gods by the KhaburRiver and its tributaries Indra, Mitra, and Varuna, who are in- to the east. Moreover, the number of voked on a treaty between the Hittite settlements in this region seems to deking ShuppiluliumashI (1375-1335B.C.) cline sharplyin the mid-second millenand the Mitannian Mattiwaza. Textual nium, and candidates for the Mitanni referencesfromfifteenth-and fourteenth- capital are consequently few (A. Dobel, century archivesindicate, however,that W. J.van Liere, and A. Mahmud, "The the Indo-AryanMitanniconstitutedonly WaSukanni Projectof the University of a small aristocraticminority within the California-Berkeley,"Archivfiir Orientterritory they administered. The area forschung, volume 25, pages 259-64, was essentially populated by Hurrians 1974-1977). It is instead two sites from (anautochthonous,or indigenous,group the fringesof the Mitanni kingdom that alreadyestablished in north Syriaby, at have until recently provided the only the latest, the end of the third millen- well-defined occupation levels for the nium, and whose languagewas neither period. In the east, excavationsat Nuzi, Indo-Aryan,Indo-European,or Semitic near Kirkuk in northern Iraq, revealed but perhaps ancestral to the Urartian the palace of a governorto the Mitanni spoken in the Caucasian highlands by king Shaushshatar (mid-fifteenth centhe first millennium). Although the tury) enclosed by an extended residenMitanni intruders appearto have ruled tial district and temples.The second site in close association with a Hurrian with Mitanni connections sits at the landed bureaucracy in the fifteenth other end of the kingdom. Alalakh (Tell century, control gradually passed into Atchana),in the modern TurkishHatay, Hurrianhands. After around 1350 B.c.a was a small vassal-principality with divided Mitannian Syria was assimi- again a palace, temple, and houses, but lated into the political spheresof the As- of coastal Syriantype. Ourpictureof the syriansin the east andthe Hittites in the Mitanni world may soon be much enwest. Mitanni palace intrigues, abetted riched, however, thanks to renewed by the machinations of the Assyrian excavations in the upper Khabur, the king Ashshur-uballitI (1365-1330 B.C.), kingdom's capital district. Current exand the Hittite ShuppiluliumashI put a cavations at Tell Brak are beginning to close to the Mitanni kingdom. uncovera monumental secular building

A

dated to the mid-second millennium, and this has been associated with Mitanni seals and pottery. Outside this diffuse archaeological framework, certain categories of artifacts, iconographicmotifs, and technological developmentshavebeen ascribed to a Mitanni culture. A luxury ware decorated with white paint on a dark groundandshapedprincipallyinto thinwalledchalices orgobletshas been found from Assyria to the Levantinecoast in levels dated from the fifteenth to thirteenth centuries B.C.It has consequently been associated with a Hurrian/Mitannian aristocracy, although the ware seems an indigenous developmentfrom earlier pottery types. More specifically Indo-Aryan,perhaps,are certain motifs on Mitanni royalseals; an uprightpillar below a winged disk is related by H. Frankfort(CylinderSeals: A Documentary Essay on the Ancient Near East, London:Macmillan, 1939)and others to the Indo-Aryanconcept of a "pillarof heaven"supporting the sky. King Tishratta'sgift of an iron object to the Egyptian Amenhotep III,and presumed Mitanni hegemony over the iron mines of Armenia, could suggest that the Mitanni rulerswereintimately connectedwith known technological advances in ironworkingduringthe latter half of the second millennium. Finally,a Hittite treatise on horse-training, the author of which bears a Mitanni name, implies a reputationin equestrianmatters,although the Mitannirole in introducingthe horse into Mesopotamiaremains ambiguous. The Mitanni, then, representone of severalsecond-millenniumethnic groups in the ancient Near East whose historical presence is documented but whose archaeological presence still eludes us. Their case should caution us against oversimplification in interpreting anepigraphic ancient societies where the subtleties of social and ethnic relationships may well remain concealed in a mute archaeologicalcontext. Marie-HenrietteGates

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

49

deficient places like Egypt or Ugarit sought to obtain the commodities necessary for maintaining the living standards (and supremacy) of their ruling elites. Apart from securing the spoils of war and the extraction of tribute, the latter even engaged in

some peaceful trade,which it is generally thought they monopolized. Since the Old Kingdom, Asia had supplied Egypt with wood, including resins; oils, particularly olive oil; semiprecious stones like lapis lazuli; and tin or bronze, none of which was locally available in the quantity or quality desired. From about the middle of the fifteenth century B.C. Egypt began adding to its imports copper and iron and diversifying its sources of supply to include Mycenaean Greece, Anatolia, and Cyprus. The Hittite empire's main requirements appear to have been metals such as tin, foodstuffs, and manpower in the form of slaves. A citystate like Ugarit, which was rich in primary produce, had also to import its metals, particularly copper and tin, but acted as an entrep6t (an intermediate trade center) with its own industrial base. It therefore provided other city-states in Syria and Palestine, as well as the Hittites and Egyptians, with raw, processed, and manufactured goods such as cereals; oils and wine; and articles in metal, ivory, glass or faience, and stone. Cyprus, Crete, and Greece had to obtain their tin either in metallic form or in bronze from abroad, and in turn exported large quantities of pottery, much of it serving as containers for oils, unguents, or drugs. During this period there was a significant change in the pattern of trade, for which Ugarit's submission to the Hittites seems to have been responsible. Whereas until the mid-fourteenth century B.C., Cypriote and Mycenaean vases had been conveyed in considerable numbers, evidently via Ras Shamra, to Egypt, their importation all but ceased after the death of Akhenaten. Trade with Palestine, however, continued unabated. All this

50

Baurain,C. 1984 Chypreet la Mediterrandeorientale au Bronzerecent.Synthesehistorique. Series:AtudesChypriotes6. Athens: Acolefrangaised'Athenes. Conclusion Buccellati, G. 1967 Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria. The fourteenth and thirteenth cenAn Essay on Political Institutions turies B.C.witnessed an exchange of with Special Referenceto the Israelpeople, goods, and ideas between the ite Kingdoms.Series:Studi Semitici 26. Rome:Istituto di studi del Vincountries bordering the east Medicino Oriente,Universitadi Roma. terranean basin on a scale unpreceDrioton, E., and Vandier,J. dented in Levantine prehistory. This 1975 L'Egypte.Des origines la conquBte efflorescence of diplomatic, comt dAlexandre.Fifth edition. Paris: mercial, and social contacts was no Presses universitairesde France. revolution, as the foundations had Edwards,I. E. S., and others 1973 The CambridgeAncient History. been well laid in the sixteenth and ThirdEdition. Volume2, part 1. Hisfifteenth centuries B.c., but the intentory of the Middle East and the sification of relations was a phenomAegean Regionc. 1800-1380 B.C. enon of the age and led to the highCambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. est degree of material affluence and 1975 The CambridgeAncient History cultural cross-fertilization achieved ThirdEdition. Volume2, part 2. Hisduring the Bronze Age. Nor did these tory of the Middle East and the interactions betoken a lessening of Aegean Regionc. 1380-1000 B.C. belligerency or warfare, for hostiliCambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. ties between the pharaohs of Egypt, Gurney,O. R. the Hittite emperors, and the Mitan1969 TheHittites. Secondedition. London: nian kings provided the backdrop PenguinBooks,Ltd. against which all the developments Lucas,A. and events in the region took place. 1962 Ancient EgyptianMaterials and This constant state of armed confronIndustries. Fourthedition, revised and enlargedby J.R. Harris.London: tation, which did not interfere with E. Arnold & Co. trade, culminated in the mass moveMerrillees,R. S. ment of peoples at the end of the 1968 The CyprioteBronzeAge Pottery thirteenth century B.c. This put an Foundin Egypt.Series:Studies in end to the coastal towns of Cyprus, MediterraneanArchaeology18. Lund, Sweden:PaulAstroms F6rlag. the Hittite empire, and some of the D. J. Muhly, city-states along the Syrian/Palestinand Tin. The Distribution of 1973 Copper ian littoral and altered the whole MineralResourcesand the Nature of pattern of settlement and civilization the Metals Tradein the BronzeAge. Series:Transactionsof the Connectithroughout the east Mediterranean cut Academyof Arts and Sciences basin. Only Egypt emerged from this 43. Pp. 155-535. Hamden:Connecticatastrophe unscathed. cut Academyof Arts and Sciences. Nelson, H. H. and others Suggested Reading 1930 Medinet Habu-Volume I. Earlier Historical Recordsof Ramses III. Series:The University of Chicago, 1973 Acts of the InternationalArchaeologOrientalInstitute Publications 8. ical Symposium, "TheMycenaeans Editedby JamesH. Breasted.Chicago: Nicoin the EasternMediterranean," The University of Chicago Press. sia, 27th March-2nd April 1972. Sanders,N. K. Nicosia: Republicof Cyprus.Minis1978 The Sea Peoples. Warriorsof the Antry of Communications and Works. cient Mediterranean1250-1150B.C. Departmentof Antiquities. Series:Ancient PeoplesandPlaces 89. G. Bass, E London:Thames and Hudson. 1967 Cape Gelidonya:A BronzeAge Shipwreck. Series:Transactionsof the Strange,J. A New Investigation. 1980 Caphtor/Keftiu. American Philosophical Society Series:ActaTheologica Danica 14. New Series 57, Part8. Philadelphia: Leiden:Brill. American Philosophical Society.

came to an end with the upheavals caused by the Sea Peoples about the end of the thirteenth century B.C.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

n this note I shall describe three West Semitic seals that have not been previously published. The seals are of unknown provenance and were acquiredby various collectors from antiquities dealers in Jerusalem. The Seal of Neriyahu the King'sSon This is a scaraboidseal of darkbrownish to grayishstone. It is perforatedlengthwise and is 17 millimeters long, 14 millimeters wide, and 10 millimeters thick. The flat face of the seal, surroundedby a single borderline,is engraved with a two-line inscription in ancient Hebrewcharacters. The inscription, divided by two horizontal lines, readsas follows: Inryhw bn hmlk

(Belonging)to Neriyahu son of the king

In the second line the first and fourth letters are partly blurred.The bet misses the lower stroke of the triangle head, and the mem has lost two of its downstrokes at its top. The seal belonged to a person who bore the title "son of the king."No prince by the name of Neriyahu is known from the Bible, and the four persons who are designated in the Bible as "sonof the king"and who performofficial duties are not known to have been princes. So far thirteen seals and seal impressions have been found to bear this designation. The meaning of it has been the subject of a lengthy dispute among scholars (for a summary, see Lemaire 1979). Some scholars have denied any connection between these title-bearers and the king's family. They believe the title-bearers were ordinarycivil officers who bore such a pretentious title for historical reasons. At present, however,the prevailingview is that the owners of these seals were not necessarily sons of the king properbut members of the royalfamily at largewho were entrusted by the king with various functions in his administration. Several such functionaries are mentioned in the Bible. One of them, Yerahmeel,the king's son (Jeremiah36:26)who servedunder king Jehoiakimof Judah,has been identified with the owner of a Hebrew seal (Avigad1979). The name Neriyahu (Neriah), meaning "Yahwehis my lamp (light),"occurs in the Bible as that of the fatherof Baruch the scribe and Seriah the chief chamberlain (Jeremiah36:4 and 51:59). On seals this name appears very frequently.Our Neriyahu, who should be, according to the prevailing view, of royal descent, was apparently very active in performinghis office. Twoother seals that bear the name Neriyahu will appear in a forthcoming publication. The script of the seal is of the formal cursive hand that prevailed on the Judean seals of the seventh century B.C.

wiramiraiw~riej~riii

.r

,?

~ I

I5L

*

;r ??

?-

1

?? r / ~1

rr?

?C

i'

?(r

.r?r

t

? ~I ?/

?(

i

? ?\

--

??

?

Impressionand drawing of the Neriyahu seal.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

51

The Seal of Tan'el This is also a scaraboid seal; it is of reddish limestone, perforated lengthwise, and is 24 millimeters long, 18 millimeters wide, and 12 millimeters thick. An interesting feature of this seal is its iconography. It is engravedwith various motifs to full capacity. The dominant representation is the figure of a roaring lion, facing left (on the impression of the seal). The lion is modeled in a realistic style that expresses the violent force of the beast. The so-called king of animals was always a favoritemotif in decorativeand symbolic art in the ancient Near East. In glyptic art, too, the lion was favored, and there exists a considerable group of such seals. The best known of them is the famous Shemac seal from Megiddo, which is a masterpiece of glyptic art (Reifenberg1950:figure 1).The representationof lions is generallyrelatedto a North Syrianschool of artbut in the main it unmistakably reflects the forcible naturalism of lions renderedin contemporaryAssyrian art. The lion of this seal is not of the same artistic caliberas the Megiddo seal, but it does not lag farbehind in its generalpowerful expression. One would think the lion alone would suffice to providethe seal with an attractive appearance.The sealcutter,however,seems to havebeen of a differentopinion. He must have considered his work unfinished as long as there were vacant spaces aroundthe lion. These spaces were filled in various ways. To the left (onthe impression)is the head of a horned animal;below there is a complete horned animal; to the right is an Egyptian ankh, above which is a long-tailed creature, perhapsa scorpion or a lizard. The custom of filling in decoratedareasto capacityis a well-known trait in ancient Near Eastern art and is called the horror vacui ("fearof vacancy").We find it practiced on other seals as well (Rahmani 1964; Avigad 1964). As if even this decoration were not enough, apparently the purchaser of the seal in antiquity had it inscribed with his name. The seal-makerhad not left any specific space forthis, and in fact most ancient seals were not inscribed in this way.The letters of his name arethus distributedin the lacunae that were left aroundthe figure of the lion. There are five discernible letters,

Impressionof the Tan'elseal.

Impressionof the Shamashcazarseal.

Itn'i,

which can be read:(Belonging)to Tan'el,or Ten'el.Neither of these readings is satisfactory.It seems likely that the engraverof the inscription, irritatedby the need to scatter letters around the seal, skipped the second letter of the inscription, or the first letter of the name, which should read:(n)tn'l-that is, (Na)tan'el. It should be noted that misspelled names are not uncommon in West Semitic epigraphy. Natan'el is a known Hebrew name and occurs on seals. The forms of the letters aleph and taw attest also to the Hebrew characterof the inscription. 52

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

Profileand bottom of the duck-shapedseal.

The Seal of Shamashcazar This attractive Aramaic seal is made of grayish chalcedony and is shaped in the form of a stylized Mesopotamian duck-weight (it is reminiscent of an Ammonite seal-Avigad 1970: plate 30.1). The duck has its head turned to the rear, with its beak resting on its back; part of its head has been broken off. The seal, which is 15 millimeters high, also has a hole that could be used to suspend it on a string. The seal makes an egg-shaped impression, 19 millimeters long and 14 millimeters wide. The two lines of inscription are separated by three symbols: an ankh (the Egyptian symbol of life), a star (the symbol of the goddess Ishtar), and a crescent (the symbol of the moon-god). The inscription reads: lTmiczr (Belonging)to Shamashcazar cbdshr (son of) cAbdgahr The theophorous name Shamashcazar-meaning "(The god) Shamash is of help"-is the equivalent of the later Aramaic form Shamashcadri. It is comparable to other theophorous names like Eshmuncazar or Hadadcazar. The meaning of the second line is ambiguous. It probably represents another theophorous name, the patronymic cAbd~ahr. It is the Aramaic equivalent to the Phoenician cAbdyerah and comparable to theophorous names like cAbdishamshi or The word bar cAbdihadad. ("son")has been omitted, as it frequently is on seals. Another interpretation of the inscription, put forward by Frank Moore Cross (1983: 61), is to separate the two elements of the name - cAbd and Sahr - and to regard the owner of the seal as the servant (that is, priest) of the god Sahr. Accordingly the legend would read "(Belonging) to Shamashcazar, the servant of Sahr." Sahr is the Aramaic equivalent of the Babylonian moon-god Sin (compare Saharonim -"moon-shaped or-

naments"-in Judges 8:21 and Isaiah 3:18; see also the tomb inscription from N~rab in Syria that commemorates 4nzrb kmr Shr bnrb - "Sin-zera-ibni, priest of Sahr in Narab"-Cooke 1903: number 64.1; Donner and Rollig 1964: number 225.1). The script of the seal inscription shows surprisingly great similarity to the formal cursive hand of the Hebrew seals. Only the zayin and the slightly open heads of bet and resh reflect the Aramaic trend. The seal may originate in Syria, but its engraver must have been familiar with the Hebrew script. A date of the eighth to seventh century B.C.seems right for this seal. Bibliography Avigad,N. 1964 The Seal of Jezebel.Israel ExplorationJournal 14: 276, plate 56.C. 1970 Ammonite and Moabite Seals. Pp. 284-95 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the ?tWentiethCentury:Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, edited by J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1979 JerahmeelandBaruch,King'sSonand Scribe.BiblicalArchaeologist 42: 114-18. Cooke, C. A. 1903 A Text-Bookof North-SemiticInscriptions.Oxford:Clarendon. Cross, E M. 1983 The Seal of Miqneyaw.InAncient Seals and the Bible, edited by L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte.Malibu,CA: Undena. Donner,H., and Rollig,W 1964 Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lemaire,A. 1979 Note sur le titre bn hmlk dans l'ancien Israel. Semitica 29: 59-65. Rahmani,L. Y 1964 TwoSyrianSeals. IsraelExplorationJournal14: 180-84, plate 41.E Reifenberg,A. 1950 Ancient Hebrew Seals. London:The Eastand WestLibrary.

The American Schools of Oriental Research & St. Mary's University present a

Biblical and Archaeological Graduate Study Tour of

Jordan,

Israel,

Sinai

&

Greece

June 24- July 29, 1986 Cost: $3,900 per person Major Faculty: Charles H. Miller & Mary K. Milne, Dept. of GraduateTheology,St. Mary'sUniversity Guest Lecturers: ASOR Directors and active field archaeologists Graduatestudentsof ASOR institutionsare eligiblefor six graduatecredithours fromtheiroun institutions,if approvedby theiradvisors. For more information, contact the ASOR corporate representativeon your own campus or Professor Charles H. Miller, St. Mary's University, One Camino Santa Maria, San Antonio, TX 78284-0400, (512) 436-3201

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

53

A

Note

on

the

Seal

of

Museum); and MSRY (probably Musuri of Moab, on a seal that belongs to the Cabinet des M6dailles de la Bibliothbque Nationale de Paris).' Some individuals without a crown have been identified; they are dignitaries: SBNYW (Shubnayau, servant [=minister] of Uzzyau2 - Galling 1941: number 125; Vattioni 1969: number 67-on a seal that belongs to the Mus6e de Louvre); and L'SN' and L'SN' cBD 'HZ. These latter two are seals of Ushna, servant (=minister) of Ahaz; the first belongs to the Israel Museum (Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1979: number 40), and the second belongs to the Yale University Museum (Galling 1941: number la; Vattioni 1969: number 67; see Bordreuil, in press). The seal of Peqah (Galling 1941: number 137; Vattioni 1969: number 4), which belongs to the Vorderasiatische Museum of Berlin, raises an interesting question. It cannot be classified easily among any of these three groups. It represents a human being striding left and wearing an Egyptian wig, a short tunic, and a long mantle. He holds a javelin in his upraised right hand, while his left arm has disappeared in a break. In front of the man stands a two-pronged object of uncertain identification. The three letters PQH are engraved behind the figure along the right edge; these are vocalized Peqah (JakobRost 1975: number 177). The owner of this seal bears the name of an Israelite king who reigned between 740 and 730 B.c. It may thus be possible to add this seal to the group above identified as kings; on the other hand, since the figure is not shown wearing a crown,3 perhaps it should be put among the seals of dignitaries. Let us examine these two options in more detail. This seal appeared at the end of the nineteenth century and was purchased in Palestine by Charles Clermont-Ganneau from an antiquities dealer in Nablus. Thus, the character of the purchaser is reliable, and we should note the proximity of the modern town of Nablus to the ancient city of Samaria, which was the capital of the Israelite kingdom (Clermont-Ganneau 1896: 320 and following). One suspects that the identification of the seal-bearer with the Israelite king Peqah (see 2 Kings 15:25) had not escaped the attention of ClermontGanneau, who wrote: "If the son of Remalyah [that is, Peqah] ever had a seal, it must have been remarkably like

Peqah the Armor-Bearer, Future King of Israel by PierreBordreuil

e know of more than twenty West Semitic inscribed seals that represent a striding man-facing left or right, bearing a staff or a scepter in one hand, and usually raising the other hand with palm forward. About ten of these bear the Egyptian crown. Three others may be identified with kings known from Assyrian historical sources: 'BYBcL (probably Abibaal of SamsimurunaGalling 1941: number 135; Vattioni 1981: number 27 - on a seal that belongs to the Florence Museum); HNN (probably Hanun of Gaza-Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1979: number 123-on a seal that belongs to the Israel

54

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

this."Todayit is possible to follow this line of researcha bit further.I propose two reasons for such an identification, the first of which has just been mentioned: (1)the geographicalproximity of Peqah'scapital to the place of purchase;and (2)the fact that the script is appropriatefor an eighth-century date, particularly the archaic qoph with round head known from Byblos around 900 B.c. (Donner and Rollig 1965-1968: number 7), from an eighth-century statue with a Phoenician inscription in Seville (Gibson 1982: number 16), and from an inscrip-

tion discovered at Hazor (LPQH-"belonging to Peqah"Yadin 1960: 73 and following, plate 171).4 An objection to this identification could be raised on the basis of the paraphernalia of the figure on the seal. If this figure is Peqah, he is represented without a crown, which argues for placing him among the court dignitaries whose authority was granted - such as Shubnayau, a minister of Uzzyau. This is in contrast to figures on other seals shown wearing a crown who are clearly kings and whose authority was inherent in their office, such as Musuri, king of Moab. However, the portrayal of Peqah without a crown is not inconsistent with what is known of Peqah from the Old Testament. This point can be seen in reexamining the imagery of the seal. The characteristic element that allows us to identify the man on the seal, who wears no crown but who bears a king's name, is the javelin that he is brandishing; remember that on seals of this type the right hand is usually empty, with raised palm forward. Although the Bible gives us few details about Peqah,

I believe that we have here the first representation ever known of a future king of Israel, brandishing the javelin of his office: Peqah, son of Remalyah(u), armor-bearer of Peqahyah, king of Israel.

it does give us an account of his accession to the throne:

Notes My thanks to ProfessorDennis Pardeeforhelping me to express my thoughts in English. 'These three kings are mentioned in the Annals of Esarhaddon (Abibaaland Musuri: Oppenheim 1969: 291 and 294) Tiglath-PileserIIIand SargonII (Hanun:Oppenheim 1969:282 and 285). 2The iconographic style of the Abyau seal (Galling 1941: number 85; Vattioni 1969: number 65) belongs to another group. 3One may be certain that Peqah does not wear a crown. There is a chip just above the figure'shead and the resulting lacuna does bear a superficialresemblanceto a crown, but it is indeed a chip and not a crown. 4Itmust be admittedthat this document mentioning Peqah is of particularimportanceforthe identification of the ownerof the PQH-seal.

He assassinated Peqahyah, the former king, whom he had served as a1iT, probably during the two years of Peqahyah's reign between 742 and 740 B.C. The meaning usually given to the word 3ali5 in the Old Testament-that is, "third man (on a war chariot)"has recently been called into question. Some now believe that ali9 is a title of the qatil type, analogous to such titles as nagid and paqid, which are used to designate an office in the king's service. This rank, being below that of the king and of his principal officers, would thus be "ofthe third rank" (Mastin 1979: 154). The title ili• could therefore include the office of aide-de-camp and armor bearer -that is, someone "on whose hand the king leaned" (2 Kings 7:2, 17-haBai• '2ier-lammelek niacan cal-yad6). It may be objected that though the use of the threeman chariot was not constant in Syria-Palestine at the beginning of the first millenium B.C., it is known in the middle of the ninth century from the palace reliefs of Assurnasirpal II at Kalak and in the time of Sargon IIthat is, only about ten years after Peqah's reign (Mastin 1979: 131). We can suppose that the ali3 acted during battles in the royal chariot as bodyguard and armor-bearer. This function of protecting the king is represented on the seal of Peqah by the upraised javelin, a function that was, ironically, to be reversed some time later when Peqah assassinated the king he was empowered to protect. It is evident that the accession of Peqah to the throne meant that this seal would fall out of use and be abandoned. But we can hope that some day a second seal of Peqah will be unearthed describing his function at Peqahyah's court in the terms quoted above from the two seals of Ushna, servant of Ahaz. One may even hope for the discovery of the seal of Peqah as king, like the known seals of Abibaal, Hanun, and Musuri. For the time being,

Bordreuil,P. in press Inscriptions sigillaires ouest s~mitiques III:sceaux de dignitaireset de rois syro-palestiniensdu 8e et du 7e sidcle avantJ.C. Syria61. Clermont-Ganneau,C. 1896 Archaeological Researches in Palestine, volume 2. London: Committee of the Palestine ExplorationFund. Donner,H., and R611ig,W 1965-68 Kanaanidischeund Aramiische Inschriften, volumes 1-3, second edition. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz. Galling, K. 1941 Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausendsv. Chr. vornehmlich aus Syrienund Palistina. Zeitschriftdes Deutschen Palistina-Vereins64: 121-202. Gibson, J.C. L. 1982 Textbookof SyrianSemitic Inscriptions,volume 3 of Phoenician Inscriptions.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Hestrin, R., and Dayagi-Mendels,M. 1979 Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period-Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite,Phoenician,and Aramaic.Jerusalem:IsraelMuseum. Jakob-Rost,L. 1975 Die Stempelsiegel der VorderasiatischenMuseums. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Mastin, B.A. 1979 Wasthe the Third Man in the Chariot?Supplements to Sali• VetusTestamentum 30: 124-54. Oppenheim,A. L. 1969 Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. Pp. 265-317 in Ancient Near Eastern TextsRelating to the Old Testament, third edition, edited by J. B. Pritchard.Princeton:Princeton University Press. Vattioni,F 1969 I sigilli ebraici.Biblica 50: 357-88. 1981 I sigilli fenici. Annali dell'Istituto UniversitarioOrientale di Napoli 41: 177-93. Yadin,Y 1960 HazorII. Jerusalem:The MagnesPress of the HebrewUniversity.

Bibliography

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

55

On

the

Jewish

Evidence for a Coin-on-Eye Archaeological in the First Custom Burial Century A.D. by WilliamMeacham

Writing in Biblical Archaeologist recently, Rachel Hachlili and Ann Killebrew(1983)pose the question: Was the coin-on-eyecustom a Jewishburial practicein the SecondTempleperiod? They avoidgiving a direct answer,concluding that the custom was "notusually part of the burial ritual"and affirming that there is no archaeologicalor literary evidence for the custom everbeing practiced by Jewsof anyperiod.In my opinion, however,there is good reason to believe that the custom was on occasion practiced by Jewsof the first and second centuries A.D.in Judea.The question takes on special importancewhen relatedto the evidence that coins were placed over the eyes of the body whose imprint appearson the Shroudof Turin.I have argued elsewhere (Meacham1983)that the shroud should now be consideredas authenticated-that is, that it bears the imprint of Christ'sbody.Includedin this attempted authentication was a reference to the Jerichoburials,first reported by Hachlili (1979),as verification of a hypothesisgeneratedfrom shroudstudies that coin-on-eyeburial was practicedby first-centuryJews.I am now dismayedto find that the Jerichofield datahas been poorly reportedand improperlyhandled. Becauseof its considerablesignificance vis-a-visthe shroud,the data deserve a rigorousscrutiny. Much effort is expendedby Hachlili and Killebrewon interpretinga text from Bender(1894, 1895)and clearingthe confusion surroundingit. They condemn in ratherstrong and unwarrantedterms the "unfoundedbelief"of certain shroud researchersregardingthe custom, their "misuseof the [archaeological]data,"and "misleadingand false statements." Jumper,Jackson,and Stevenson (1978) are admonished for their conclusion that the coin-on-eyepracticewas "customary" among Jewsat the time of Jesus,when the correctchoice of words should have been "ararecustom."The confusion in the shroudliteraturedoes not, however,

56

as evidence that the placement of coins over the deceased'seyes was a prevalent Jewishburial custom of the first century A.D.....

This unfounded belief. .. ."It is

Hachlili, however,who first put forward this belief when she wrote (1979:34) of the Jerichocoins: "Twoadditional coins of Herod Agrippa I (41-44 A.D.)were

?

Holy Shroud Guild, Esopus, New York 12429

arise mainly from a misinterpretationof the Bendertext but from Hachlili's own first reporton the Jerichoexcavation, published in 1979 in Biblical Archaeology Review. When the statements and omissions made in this reportare comparedwith those of the recent BA article, Hachlili and Killebrewmay be seen to have committed a number of archaeological mistakes, misinterpretations, unjustified conclusions, reversals,and omissions of a quite serious nature.They are certainly in no position to criticize in such harsh terms the researchof others, especially when their own mistakes have been glossed over and left unexplained. A mea culpa would have been more in orderthan a pedantic tone. In their article (1983:147),it is stated that: "TheJerichocoins have been cited

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

found in a skull. The coins originally must have been placed on the eyes of the deceased (probablyas payment to Charon... .)"[emphasisadded]. This statement is moderatedin its 1983 recapitulation:"Inthis article [the 1979 report]it was stated that [the coins] had apparentlybeen placed on the deceased as payment to Charon,"leavingout the certainty and specific location on the eyes mentioned previously.Surely shroud researchersshould not be so heavily faulted for misinterpretingor misusing an 1894-1895 source (Bender) quoting an earlier source (Frazer1886) quoting even earlier sources (Bodenschatz, Gubernatis),when such distortion of a Hachlili statement is made by Hachlili just four years later. Why did she not simply admit her own part in generatingthe belief in a coin-on-eye burial custom and explain her reasons for so interpretingthe evidence at the time? The JerichoCemetery Data Much more serious are the archaeological mistakes apparentin the handling, interpreting,and reportingof the field data. Hachlili and Killebrewstate that "a reexaminationof the evidence"leads them to believe that the coins were placed in the mouth, because the two coins were found stuck together (afact taken to indicate they were originally placed in contact with each other.)This condition of the coins was of course immediately apparenton their discovery but it was not reportedin the 1979 article. Indeed,to do so would have greatly weakenedthe confident conclusion offeredby Hachlili that the coins were

instance only a single coin was present. There are groundsto believe, however, that this coin too was placed overthe eye. Indeed,this second occurrence of a coin inside a skull rendersthe coin-inmouth hypothesis virtually impossible to sustain. Another coin was also found in tomb D/18, but its location has changed suspiciously since 1979. Then it was reportedas "foundwith coffin burials," whereas in 1983 it was "foundin the debris,at the entrance to the tomb"and "seemsto have fallen into the entrance debris."Its date (63-40 B.c.)howeverfalls within the rangeof coffin-burialtradition in the first century B.c.;it is thus ratherearly to be taken as an intrusion after the tomb'sclosure. (Do the remains in the central chamberof D/18 really represent5 to 7 primaryburials in a space of 1.5 x 0.9 m? Or could this the possibility of direct placement of the chamberhave been used for secondary burials in the first century A.D.?)It would coins in the skull, but Hachlili and Killebrewdo not discuss it. Rather,they appearto be possible, at least, that this make the confused statement that the coin was originally placed over the other coins were "intentionallyplaced inside eye of the skull with coin inside. Instead of falling into or remainingon the skull, the tombs at the time of burial,"which it could have been dislodgedfrom this would not be true if primaryburial took skull and found its way to the "damaged" place outside the tomb. entrance in the course of subsequent There are in fact five possible exmovement in the tomb. This interpretaplanations for the coins in the skulltion is supportedby the absence of coins namely, they were originally placed on the eyes, in the nose, in the mouth, from the other 120 (1979report)or 50 directly in the skull during secondary (1983report)Jerichotombs, with the sole exception of the pair of coins found burial, or they are intrusive. The fact inside the tomb D/3 skull. That is, the that the coins were stuck togetherdoes coins occur in pairs,and find their way not rule out an original placement on the eyes or in the nose (anotherpossibil- into the skull. Unfortunately,there is scant data ity not discussed by the authors).A final possibility to be mentioned is excavator's availablefrom the two reportson the erroror a fraud;Hachlili should declare Jerichoburialsto make even rudimentary assessments of the various alternatives. in what circumstances the coins in the The authors intended in 1983 "topresent skull were found, by whom, and what for the first time a detailed description of verification exists. Could for example the coins found in the Jerichocemetery," the two coins have been introduced,or their location mistaken, by a laboratory but neither the coins nor the skulls are located on the tomb plans. The attitude workercleaning the skull? Fromthe 1983 article comes the of the skulls (especially importantfor new information not mentioned in 1979 the coffin burial)is not indicated, nor is the location of the coins within the that a single coin (4 B.C.-A.D. 6) was skulls. (Normal care in the removalof found inside another skull, in a coffin burial in tomb D/18. Again, the omission the deposit from inside the skull should have allowed for the first discoveryto be of this fact from the earlier reportis not located approximately;thereafterall explained;it was referredto in 1979 skulls should have been x-rayed.)My simply as one of two coins "foundwith coffin burials."And again, the new infor- guess is that the coin in the entrance of tomb D/18 was some 150 to 200 centimation conveniently indicates to Hachmeters awayfrom the skull containing lili and Killebrewthat the Jewishpracthe single coin, which was on a bench tice was to place a coin or coins in the beside the entrance. But why should one mouth, not on the eyes, since in this

originally placed overthe eyes. Nowhere in the 1983 article is an explanation given of this omission or of how two coins stuck together were first interpretedas being on the eyes. Worsestill, no mention was made in the earlier report that the skull in question was part of the many secondaryburials in tomb D/3. This circumstance, if correct,raises

Therearefive possible forthe explanations coinsin theskull.

be guessing?Finally,no illustration or information is given on the overlapof the two stuck-togethercoins, nor is there any description of the condition of the eye sockets and nasal areasof the skulls in question. Assuming an ordinarysupine position of burial, the possibility of a coin droppingfrom the mouth through the foramenmagnum and into the skull is virtually nil, accordingto an anatomist (N. Jablonski,University of Hong Kong) and a physical anthropologist(M.Pietrusewski, University of Hawaii)and judgingfrom my own inspection of burials with coins in the mouth. An ultimate position for the coin in the throat, near the cervical vertebrae,or even in the upperthorax(!)would be likely to result from an originalplacement in the mouth. Evenwith the most favorableinclination of the head by 15 to 20 degrees, the possibility of a passagefrom the mouth is only slight. Among dozens of exhumations of 5-yearburials conducted by the Anatomy Department of the University of Hong Kong,loose teeth were often found near the cervical vertebrae,the shoulders,even among the ribs, but not one had found its way into a skull. Furthermore,the coins in tomb D/3 were in a secondaryburial. Passage from the mouth into the skull would have had to take place duringthe brief time of primaryburial, when the foramen magnum would almost certainly have been blocked by intact cervical vertebrae. Passagevia the eye sockets is also less likely in a brief period of primary burial, but two instances of coin-inmouth burial leaving coins only in the two skulls can safely be regardedas impossible. Further,it is doubtful that the corrosion/adhesionprocess of the two coins would have precededtheir movement because of decomposition; that is, they would very likely have separated, especially if their plane of contact was parallel to, or even at 45 degrees to, gravity.To my mind, there are fewerdifficulties and improbabilities in concluding that the two coins came into contact once inside the skull. Direct placement of the coins in the skulls is a distinct possibility, especially in the case of the secondaryburial. The two coins were most probablyplaced at first on the eyes, and then intentionally deposited in the skull when the bones were transferredto the cave tomb. In the coffin burial of

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

57

The evidence from the shroudfor coins placed on the eyes also must be considered.Leavingaside the question of identifyingthe shroudfigurewith Christ, other data such as the Dead Sea pollen types, Semitic physiognomy,beardand pigtail, and crucifixion wounds combine to indicate an origin in RomanPalestine. The evidence for coins being placed on the eyes of this crucifixion victim rests primarilyon computerprojectionsfrom body-contourinformation in the image. A realistic three-dimensionalbody figure can be generated,but with a flattened areaovereach eye. There is a consensus amongvariousanalysts (Jackson,Jumper, and Stevenson 1978;Tamburelli1983; Haralick 1983)on the interpretationof these flat areasas solid round objectscoins, potsherds,or disks. The "Filas markings"are of secondaryimportance, in that the size and shape of the Pilate coin published by Filas (1982)does match the projectedobject. The letterlike shapes that Filas and Haralickreadas "UCAI"are anomalous in the general image-on-weavepatternand occur in the correctposition on the projectionobject. The archaeologicalevidence from The Coin-on-eyeBurialCustom Informationgiven by Hachlili and KilleJericho,cEnBoqeq,and the shroudthus brew of a burial at the fortress site of cEn presents a very strong case for the proposition that coin-on-eyeburial was Boqeqwith a coin (aroundA.D.133)on each eye socket is extremely important occasionally practicedby Jewsin the first and second centuries A.D.in Judea. and runs contraryto their argument.It This is a reasonablededuction but it is, is a second-century-A.D. Judeanburial, of course, not yet proven;however,unwith a BarKokhbacoin (A.D.132-135) quite close by,and was possibly of a Jew. founded statements that "thiscustom existed only duringfairly recent times After noting that the excavatormaintains it is impossible to determine the [amongJews]"(Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 151)and "nordoes such a custom nationality or place of permanent residence of the interred,why do the authors exist at the time [firstcentury A.D.]at all" then conclude that it is "highlydoubtful" (Rahmani1980: 197)do not contribute to an understandingof the question. that the burial was Jewish?Surelythe Moody Smith'snotion that "onecould presence of a coin from the BarKokhba revolt counts for something, as does the arguethat the coins [on the eyes] prove fact that rebels were active in the Judean the shroudto be a later fabrication" wilderness. The letters and documents (Smith 1983:254) is an example of convoluted deduction from such statements. of BarKokhbawere found cached near Hachlili and Killebrewassert that En-gedi,just 30 kilometers north of cEn the traditional is also a This practiceof coin-in-mouthburial did region Boqeq. place of refuge (Davidfrom Saul)and last rarelyappearamong Jewsbut cite no stand (Masada).cEnBoqeqalso lies south direct evidence for this apartfrom the of the zone aroundJerusalemexcluded Jerichocoins. The discoverythat they mention of two coin-in-mouthburials to Jewsfrom A.D.135-220; apparently there were second-centuryJewishsettle(aroundA.D.117)at the NabateanArab site of Mampsis does, however,indicate ments in southern Judea.But, most imthat this custom was also practicedin portantly,the cEnBoqeqburial estabsouthern Judea,perhapsrarelyamong lishes that the coin-on-eyeritual was found in second-centuryJudeaand could Jewsas well. The dating of archaeologithus have been practicedby Jewor Gencally identified burial rituals involving coins is tightly defined to the first and tile, Christian or pagan.

tomb D/18, the coins were probably placed on the eyes and remainedthere until the skull was disturbed.Consideration of other archaeologicalevidence and the probableJewishreligious significance (discussedbelow) of a coin-on-eye ritual strongly supportthe conclusion that the Jerichocoins "mustoriginally havebeen placed on the eyes"ratherthan in the mouth. They were not simply a secondary-burialofferingplaced inside the skull. Hachlili was probablycorrect in 1979, without realizingthe complexity of the issue. To summarize the evidence for a coin-on-eyepractice at Jericho:(1)the passagefrom eye to skull is likely, whereas from mouth to skull is highly unlikely; (2)passageinto or placement in the skull occurredtwice; (3)coins occur in a pair in two tombs but are not found in the many other tombs excavated; (4)there is archaeologicalevidence of coin-on-eyeburial in second-century Judea;(5)there is an ancient Jewishreligious tradition that would supportcovering the eyes with objects.

58

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

early second centuries in Judea:around 4 B.C.-A.D. 6, 41-44, 117,and 133. One would certainly be justified in arguing that the evidence of coins on the eyes of the shroudfigure indicates a date within this period. It should be pointed out that a facile link should not be made between the coin-on-eyeor coin-in-mouth custom and the pagannotion of payment to Charon.While the use of coins in burial may well be the result of Greekinfluence, the custom may havebeen absorbedquite readily into existing Jewishtraditions and religious notions, without necessarily bringinga paganaccretion. The ritual significance of closing the eyes of the deceased is noted in the Bible (Genesis 46:4)and in the first/second-century Mishna (cited in Rahmani 1980).The use of coins for this purposemay have had a special significance, for instance in raretypes of death, or may have occurred more randomly,but there is no reason to posit automatically a belief in Charon. Coins placed in the mouth, hand, or pocket of early Christian burials were intended as a tribute to St. Peter (Gennaro 1980:40);the Gates of Heavenhad replaced the River Styx! Another example of coin-in-mouth burial in Asia serves to illustrate the persistence of this custom with changing The Chinese religious comnnotations. have an ancient tradition of placing jade, precious metals or coins in the mouth and other orifices to preservethe body. When southern Chinese began to practice secondaryburial (aroundA.D.5001000),the jade or coin-in-mouth custom was retained(andis still widely practiced) but with a new meaning-prosperity in the afterlife.The coin-on-eyecustom is not reportedarchaeologicallyor historically, but recent exhumations in a Hong Kongcemetery revealedcoins of the 1950s on the eye sockets of two individuals. Apparently,as in ancient Judea,the coin-on-eyecustom evolved as a minor offshoot from the principaltradition. In sum, we may conclude that the evidence for coin-on-eyeburial among JudeanJewsis strong. first-century-A.D. The absence of final archaeologicalproof may be partly accounted for by the rarity of the practice and by the prevalenceof secondaryburial duringwhich the coins were removed.It seems likely to me that such proofwill be forthcoming with the excavationof furtherprimaryinterments in Judea.But the precise significance of

this minor custom, and why it may have been practicedin the burial of Christ, will probablyremain unknown.

The

Coin-in-Skull Affazir:

Bibliography Bender,A. P 1894 Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews,Connectedwith Death, Burial, and Mourning.IV.Jewish Quarterly Review 7: 101-18. 1895 Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews,Connected with Death, Burial, and Mourning.V.Jewish Quarterly Review 7: 259-69. Filas, F 1982 The Dating of the Shroudof Thrin from Coins of Pontius Pilate, second edition. Youngtown,AZ: Cogan. Frazer,J.G. 1886 On Certain BurialCustoms as Illustrative of the Primitive Theory of the Soul. The Journalof the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 15:64-104. Gennaro,G. 1980 Lamoneta sull'occhioe la lettura dell'iscrizione.Sindon 29: 38-43. Hachlili, R. 1979 Ancient BurialCustoms Preservedin JerichoHills. Biblical Archaeology Review 5(4):28-35. Hachlili, R., and Killebrew,A. 1983 Wasthe Coin-on-EyeCustom a JewishBurialPracticein the Second Temple Period?Biblical Archaeologist 46: 147-53. Haralick,R. M. 1983 Analysis of Digital Images on the VA: Shroudof Turin.Blacksburg, SpatialData Analysis Laboratory, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute. Jackson,J.,Jumper,E., Mottern,B., and Stevenson,K., Jr. 1977 The Three-dimensionalImageon Jesus'BurialCloth. Proceedingsof the US Conferenceof Researchon NY: the Shroudof Turin.Bronx, Holy ShroudGuild. Jumper,E., Jackson,J.,and Stevenson,K., Jr. 1978 Imagesof a Coin on a BurialCloth? The Numismatist 91: 1350-57. Meacham,W 1983 The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology.CurrentAnthropology 24: 283-295 and 305-311. Rahmani,L. Y. 1980 The Shroudof Turin.Biblical Archaeologist 43: 197. Smith, D. M. 1983 Mark 15:46.The Shroudof Turinas a Problemof History and Faith. Biblical Archaeologist 46: 251-54. Tamburelli,G. 1983 Comment. CurrentAnthropology 24: 302-04.

A Rejoinder by RachelHachliliand Ann Killebrew n reply to William Meacham's comment on our article in number 3, volume 46 of BA, we wish to make the

following observations: Wewere quite surprisedby the misunderstandingof the archaeologicaldata and the resulting misquotations appearing throughout Meacham'sarticle. In the opening paragraphhe misquotes us by saying that the custom was not usually

nature of a preliminaryreport- and particularly of a popularaccount- is very generaland nontechnical, mentioning only the highlights of the excavation. Thereforeit is usually written beforethe excavatorhas had sufficient time to research every aspect of the results fully. Subsequentor final excavationreports often correct and elaborateon points first mentioned in the preliminaryre-

Cautionmustbe takenin drawingconclusions reports. frompreliminary part of the burial ritual. We would like to ports. The final reportof the Jericho repeatthe concluding paragraphfromour Jewishcemetery,with detailed plans of each tomb and a full discussion of the article in orderto clarify our position: Wemay safelyconcludefromour disfinds accordingto tombs, togetherwith cussionthatthe placementof coinsinan anthropologicalreportof the human side tombswas not usuallypartof the remains, has been completed and is lackburialritual,particularly amongJews.... ing only the funds to publish the volume. Thoughthe practiceof placingcoinsin The two coins found in a skull in the mouth does sporadicallyappear, tomb D/3 were discoveredduringthe more rarely among Jews,the placing of and cleaning of the skull in processing coins over the eyes is reportedin only the Anatomical and Anthropological the at Therefore, one case, cEn Boqeq. Laboratoryof the TelAviv University. claim that placing coins over the eyes was a common Jewish burial practice Regardingthe coins in tomb D/18, a tomb of the coffin-burialtype, one of the duringthe SecondTempleperiodcannot be substantiated either by the archaecoins was found in the debris of the ological or literary evidence. (Hachlili entrance and one in a damagedskull (as and Killebrew 1983b:152) originally reportedboth in Hachlili 1979 We agreethat Hachlili's first preand Hachlili and Killebrew 1983b).In all liminary reportregardingthe interpreta- a total of 120 tombs were surveyed,and tion of the two coins found in a skull of these 50 were excavated.A more carefrom tomb D/3 was unfortunatelymisful readingand understandingof the taken (Hachlili 1979:34). It must be 1979 and 1983 articles is suggestedto pointed out, however,that this was a Mr. Meacham. preliminaryreportwritten very shortly It is impossible for a coin to enter an after the completion of the excavations intact skull, either through the orbit or at the Jerichocemetery.In orderto make palate. As with the case of most exthe most recent archaeologicaldiscovcavatedskulls, the skulls from Jericho eries availableto the generalpublic, the were alwayspartly damaged,which could

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

59

this minor custom, and why it may have been practicedin the burial of Christ, will probablyremain unknown.

The

Coin-in-Skull Affazir:

Bibliography Bender,A. P 1894 Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews,Connectedwith Death, Burial, and Mourning.IV.Jewish Quarterly Review 7: 101-18. 1895 Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews,Connected with Death, Burial, and Mourning.V.Jewish Quarterly Review 7: 259-69. Filas, F 1982 The Dating of the Shroudof Thrin from Coins of Pontius Pilate, second edition. Youngtown,AZ: Cogan. Frazer,J.G. 1886 On Certain BurialCustoms as Illustrative of the Primitive Theory of the Soul. The Journalof the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 15:64-104. Gennaro,G. 1980 Lamoneta sull'occhioe la lettura dell'iscrizione.Sindon 29: 38-43. Hachlili, R. 1979 Ancient BurialCustoms Preservedin JerichoHills. Biblical Archaeology Review 5(4):28-35. Hachlili, R., and Killebrew,A. 1983 Wasthe Coin-on-EyeCustom a JewishBurialPracticein the Second Temple Period?Biblical Archaeologist 46: 147-53. Haralick,R. M. 1983 Analysis of Digital Images on the VA: Shroudof Turin.Blacksburg, SpatialData Analysis Laboratory, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute. Jackson,J.,Jumper,E., Mottern,B., and Stevenson,K., Jr. 1977 The Three-dimensionalImageon Jesus'BurialCloth. Proceedingsof the US Conferenceof Researchon NY: the Shroudof Turin.Bronx, Holy ShroudGuild. Jumper,E., Jackson,J.,and Stevenson,K., Jr. 1978 Imagesof a Coin on a BurialCloth? The Numismatist 91: 1350-57. Meacham,W 1983 The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology.CurrentAnthropology 24: 283-295 and 305-311. Rahmani,L. Y. 1980 The Shroudof Turin.Biblical Archaeologist 43: 197. Smith, D. M. 1983 Mark 15:46.The Shroudof Turinas a Problemof History and Faith. Biblical Archaeologist 46: 251-54. Tamburelli,G. 1983 Comment. CurrentAnthropology 24: 302-04.

A Rejoinder by RachelHachliliand Ann Killebrew n reply to William Meacham's comment on our article in number 3, volume 46 of BA, we wish to make the

following observations: Wewere quite surprisedby the misunderstandingof the archaeologicaldata and the resulting misquotations appearing throughout Meacham'sarticle. In the opening paragraphhe misquotes us by saying that the custom was not usually

nature of a preliminaryreport- and particularly of a popularaccount- is very generaland nontechnical, mentioning only the highlights of the excavation. Thereforeit is usually written beforethe excavatorhas had sufficient time to research every aspect of the results fully. Subsequentor final excavationreports often correct and elaborateon points first mentioned in the preliminaryre-

Cautionmustbe takenin drawingconclusions reports. frompreliminary part of the burial ritual. We would like to ports. The final reportof the Jericho repeatthe concluding paragraphfromour Jewishcemetery,with detailed plans of each tomb and a full discussion of the article in orderto clarify our position: Wemay safelyconcludefromour disfinds accordingto tombs, togetherwith cussionthatthe placementof coinsinan anthropologicalreportof the human side tombswas not usuallypartof the remains, has been completed and is lackburialritual,particularly amongJews.... ing only the funds to publish the volume. Thoughthe practiceof placingcoinsin The two coins found in a skull in the mouth does sporadicallyappear, tomb D/3 were discoveredduringthe more rarely among Jews,the placing of and cleaning of the skull in processing coins over the eyes is reportedin only the Anatomical and Anthropological the at Therefore, one case, cEn Boqeq. Laboratoryof the TelAviv University. claim that placing coins over the eyes was a common Jewish burial practice Regardingthe coins in tomb D/18, a tomb of the coffin-burialtype, one of the duringthe SecondTempleperiodcannot be substantiated either by the archaecoins was found in the debris of the ological or literary evidence. (Hachlili entrance and one in a damagedskull (as and Killebrew 1983b:152) originally reportedboth in Hachlili 1979 We agreethat Hachlili's first preand Hachlili and Killebrew 1983b).In all liminary reportregardingthe interpreta- a total of 120 tombs were surveyed,and tion of the two coins found in a skull of these 50 were excavated.A more carefrom tomb D/3 was unfortunatelymisful readingand understandingof the taken (Hachlili 1979:34). It must be 1979 and 1983 articles is suggestedto pointed out, however,that this was a Mr. Meacham. preliminaryreportwritten very shortly It is impossible for a coin to enter an after the completion of the excavations intact skull, either through the orbit or at the Jerichocemetery.In orderto make palate. As with the case of most exthe most recent archaeologicaldiscovcavatedskulls, the skulls from Jericho eries availableto the generalpublic, the were alwayspartly damaged,which could

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

59

allow coins to enter from any part of the skull (fora preliminaryreporton the anthropologicaldatafrom the Jericho Jewishcemetery, see Arensburgand Smith 1983: 135-139, figures 1-9). The main reason why the appearanceof the two cases of coins in skulls was explained as coins placed in the mouth is because this custom is well known in the Hellenistic world (Kurtzand Boardman 1971:211;Toynbee1971:49, 119, 124, 291, and note 16).During this period, many Jewswere influenced by the Hellenistic culture surroundingthem and they on occasion adoptedHellenistic practices and customs (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983a: 127 and 128).Needless to say,Jewswho adoptedsuch customs did not necessarily accept the pagan significance of such practices. As the religious beliefs of the proponents of the coin-on-eyecustom play a strongpart in their insistence for the existence of this custom among Jews duringthe Second Templeperiod, it is doubtfulwhether anyargumentor further evidence will convince them otherwise. Basedon our thoroughexamination of the published archaeologicalevidence from Jewishburials in Israel (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983b),the only two intances of coins in the skull were found in the JerichoJewishcemetery.Wewish to restate clearly that there is no archaeological or literary evidence for the practice of placing coins overthe eyes among Jewsduringthe Second Templeperiod.

Likeness

"Whose

Inscription Is

This?"

60

(Mark

12:16)

by L. Y Rahmani

I

n respect to William Meacham's comment on the article by Hachlili and Killebrew,some short remarksare called for. One notes with satisfaction the (I hope final) abandonmentof the belief in an ancient Jewishburial custom of covering the eyes of the deceased with any objects at all and specifically with coins. Concerning the still-maintained belief that coveringthe eyes of the deceased with coins might have been a minor custom or rare custom practiced

on occasion by Jewsof the first or second centuries A.D.in Judea,Meachamproduces now three discoveries.These are, in chronologicalorder,as follows: The Jerichotombs (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 148).Concerningthese, I find myself in agreementwith Meachamon one point only-namely that the publication of a detailed andfully documented reportshould have precededany discussion and drawingof conclusions about the significance of certain details of these discoveries.Answers to this question and all other matters concerned with these tombs are thus left to the excavators. Preliminaryto this, however,I would like to point to the well-known intrusive Bibliography nature of small objects into ancient Arensburg,B., and Smith, P. tombs or caves of any characterand the 1983 Appendix:The JewishPopulationof furthermoving of such objects inside Jericho100 B.C.-70A.D. Palestine such spaces, all through the action of ExplorationQuarterly115:133-139. Hachlili, R. small rodents or flooding by rainwater. 1979 Ancient BurialCustoms Preservedin This is especially true when one is dealJerichoHills. Biblical Archaeology ing with a large amount of collected Review 5(4):28-35. as is the case in the communal bones, Hachlili, R., and Killebrew,A. charnel of tomb D/3 at Jericho,where 1983a JewishFuneraryCustoms duringthe the foramenmagnum of each skull was SecondTemplein Light of the Exopen to such intrusive objects.It is even cavationsat the JerichoNecropolis. Palestine ExplorationQuarterly115: more true when such an object is found in the debrisof a tomb'sentrance- for 109-132. instance tomb D/18. 1983b Wasthe Coin-on-EyeCustom a JewishBurialPracticein the Second The shroudfigure.Meacham and others TemplePeriod?Biblical Archaewish to identify this figure as that of ologist 46: 147-153. Christ, and some (forinstance Filas Kurtz,D. C., and Boardman,J. 1982)see it as having its eyes coveredby 1971 GreekBurial Customs. London: images, identified as unique specimens Thames and Hudson. of coins minted by Pontius Pilate in the Toynbee,J.M. C. name of the EmperorTiberius in the 1971 Death and Burialin the Roman World.London:Thames andHudson.

and

year A.D. 29.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

Leavingaside for the moment all questions pertainingto the antiquity of this shroud (perhapseventually to be provedby C-14tests), the identification of the said spots as coins, and in particular as those of Pilate (forthe doubtfulness of such an identification see Wild 1984:44-45), and accepting, for argument'ssake, such identification as suggestedby Filas and Meacham,one finds oneself confrontedby the following question: Is it plausible that two strictly observantand pious Jews,both members of the Sanhedrin- Josephof Arimathea and the Pharisee Nicodemus (Luke 23:50;Mark 15:43;John3:1 and 7:50)together with Christ'sown relatives and disciples, would include in a pious burial, undertaken"inthe manner of the Jews"(John19:40),an obscure foreign practice?Moreover,in orderto do so, would these good Jewscover the eyes of a Jewwho had just been put to death by the Romans in a most cruel manner with coins minted by the Romanprocuratorwho had orderedthis execution, coins carryingthe name of the emperor Tiberius, in whose name such a death sentence had been pronouncedand whose name appearsoverthe emblem of the lituus, the Roman auguralstaff-a paganemblem which surely was irritating and offensive to Jerusalem'sJewsof the day (Meshorer1982: 180)? I suggest that using such coins in daily business and using them to pay "Caesar'stribute"(Mark12:17)was an inevitable necessity of life; howeverto use them in the manner suggestedby Filas and Meacham is neither necessary nor, indeed, likely. The cEnBoqeq interment (Gichon 1970:139).This interment had indeed a BarKokhbacoin in the soil of its vicinity, though not actually found in context of the burial itself. It can thus not serve in any way to determine the identity of the deceased or his nationality or religion. Two silver denarii, which were found near the skull and at the height of its eye sockets, carryingthe portraitand name of the RomanemperorHadrianand dated to around A.D. 133, may hint at one

allow coins to enter from any part of the skull (fora preliminaryreporton the anthropologicaldatafrom the Jericho Jewishcemetery, see Arensburgand Smith 1983: 135-139, figures 1-9). The main reason why the appearanceof the two cases of coins in skulls was explained as coins placed in the mouth is because this custom is well known in the Hellenistic world (Kurtzand Boardman 1971:211;Toynbee1971:49, 119, 124, 291, and note 16).During this period, many Jewswere influenced by the Hellenistic culture surroundingthem and they on occasion adoptedHellenistic practices and customs (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983a: 127 and 128).Needless to say,Jewswho adoptedsuch customs did not necessarily accept the pagan significance of such practices. As the religious beliefs of the proponents of the coin-on-eyecustom play a strongpart in their insistence for the existence of this custom among Jews duringthe Second Templeperiod, it is doubtfulwhether anyargumentor further evidence will convince them otherwise. Basedon our thoroughexamination of the published archaeologicalevidence from Jewishburials in Israel (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983b),the only two intances of coins in the skull were found in the JerichoJewishcemetery.Wewish to restate clearly that there is no archaeological or literary evidence for the practice of placing coins overthe eyes among Jewsduringthe Second Templeperiod.

Likeness

"Whose

Inscription Is

This?"

60

(Mark

12:16)

by L. Y Rahmani

I

n respect to William Meacham's comment on the article by Hachlili and Killebrew,some short remarksare called for. One notes with satisfaction the (I hope final) abandonmentof the belief in an ancient Jewishburial custom of covering the eyes of the deceased with any objects at all and specifically with coins. Concerning the still-maintained belief that coveringthe eyes of the deceased with coins might have been a minor custom or rare custom practiced

on occasion by Jewsof the first or second centuries A.D.in Judea,Meachamproduces now three discoveries.These are, in chronologicalorder,as follows: The Jerichotombs (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 148).Concerningthese, I find myself in agreementwith Meachamon one point only-namely that the publication of a detailed andfully documented reportshould have precededany discussion and drawingof conclusions about the significance of certain details of these discoveries.Answers to this question and all other matters concerned with these tombs are thus left to the excavators. Preliminaryto this, however,I would like to point to the well-known intrusive Bibliography nature of small objects into ancient Arensburg,B., and Smith, P. tombs or caves of any characterand the 1983 Appendix:The JewishPopulationof furthermoving of such objects inside Jericho100 B.C.-70A.D. Palestine such spaces, all through the action of ExplorationQuarterly115:133-139. Hachlili, R. small rodents or flooding by rainwater. 1979 Ancient BurialCustoms Preservedin This is especially true when one is dealJerichoHills. Biblical Archaeology ing with a large amount of collected Review 5(4):28-35. as is the case in the communal bones, Hachlili, R., and Killebrew,A. charnel of tomb D/3 at Jericho,where 1983a JewishFuneraryCustoms duringthe the foramenmagnum of each skull was SecondTemplein Light of the Exopen to such intrusive objects.It is even cavationsat the JerichoNecropolis. Palestine ExplorationQuarterly115: more true when such an object is found in the debrisof a tomb'sentrance- for 109-132. instance tomb D/18. 1983b Wasthe Coin-on-EyeCustom a JewishBurialPracticein the Second The shroudfigure.Meacham and others TemplePeriod?Biblical Archaewish to identify this figure as that of ologist 46: 147-153. Christ, and some (forinstance Filas Kurtz,D. C., and Boardman,J. 1982)see it as having its eyes coveredby 1971 GreekBurial Customs. London: images, identified as unique specimens Thames and Hudson. of coins minted by Pontius Pilate in the Toynbee,J.M. C. name of the EmperorTiberius in the 1971 Death and Burialin the Roman World.London:Thames andHudson.

and

year A.D. 29.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1986

Leavingaside for the moment all questions pertainingto the antiquity of this shroud (perhapseventually to be provedby C-14tests), the identification of the said spots as coins, and in particular as those of Pilate (forthe doubtfulness of such an identification see Wild 1984:44-45), and accepting, for argument'ssake, such identification as suggestedby Filas and Meacham,one finds oneself confrontedby the following question: Is it plausible that two strictly observantand pious Jews,both members of the Sanhedrin- Josephof Arimathea and the Pharisee Nicodemus (Luke 23:50;Mark 15:43;John3:1 and 7:50)together with Christ'sown relatives and disciples, would include in a pious burial, undertaken"inthe manner of the Jews"(John19:40),an obscure foreign practice?Moreover,in orderto do so, would these good Jewscover the eyes of a Jewwho had just been put to death by the Romans in a most cruel manner with coins minted by the Romanprocuratorwho had orderedthis execution, coins carryingthe name of the emperor Tiberius, in whose name such a death sentence had been pronouncedand whose name appearsoverthe emblem of the lituus, the Roman auguralstaff-a paganemblem which surely was irritating and offensive to Jerusalem'sJewsof the day (Meshorer1982: 180)? I suggest that using such coins in daily business and using them to pay "Caesar'stribute"(Mark12:17)was an inevitable necessity of life; howeverto use them in the manner suggestedby Filas and Meacham is neither necessary nor, indeed, likely. The cEnBoqeq interment (Gichon 1970:139).This interment had indeed a BarKokhbacoin in the soil of its vicinity, though not actually found in context of the burial itself. It can thus not serve in any way to determine the identity of the deceased or his nationality or religion. Two silver denarii, which were found near the skull and at the height of its eye sockets, carryingthe portraitand name of the RomanemperorHadrianand dated to around A.D. 133, may hint at one

fact only: that this is not the burial of a Jew.Here again I consider it practically impossible that duringor afterthe Bar Kokhbawar any Jews,even those who wished to include in their burial rites this obscure foreignpractice of covering the eyes of the deceased with coins, would have used coins carryingthe face of Hadrianand his name-which became in Jewishlore from that time on a byword for cruelty,eventually to be accompanied by epithets like "mayhis bones rot"or simply "wicked." Conclusion In the political, religious, and psychological situation in which the Jewishpopulation of Judeafound itself both under the Romanprocuratorsand duringand immediately after the BarKokhbawar, the Jewsdid have to use coins minted by the hated Roman enemy in tradeand to "renderto Caesarthe things that are Caesar's"(Mark12:17).Use of such coins in Jewishburial (evenif one accepts that such an un-Jewishpractice might have been used in some isolated cases in Jewishburial)must howeverbe ruled out: In no human society will people use an enemy's"likeness and inscription"in rites intended to serve, honor, or protect their beloved dead. Thus, in the above-mentionedthird case we are not concerned with a Jewish burial. Nor, for all that, are we in the second case, even if it is assumed that the shroud'santiquity is definite and that the spots in question are images of coins minted by Pontius Pilate. Bibliography Filas, F.L. 1982 The Dating of the Shroudof Tlrin from Coins of Pontius Pilate, second edition. Youngtown,AZ: Cogan ProductionsDivision. Gichon, M. 1970 Excavationsat cEnBoqeq. Qadmoniot 12: 138-41 (Hebrew). Hachlili, R., and Killebrew,A. 1983 Wasthe Coin-on-EyeCustom a JewishBurialPracticein the Second TemplePeriod?Biblical Archaeologist 46: 147-53. Meshorer,Y. 1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage:VolumeII: Herodthe GreatthroughBar Cochba. New York:AmphoraBooks. Wild, R. A. 1984 The Shroudof Turin,Probablythe Workof a 14th Century Artist or Forger.Biblical ArchaeologyReview 10(2):30-46.

Ancient Myths and Biblical Faith:Scriptural by FosterR. Transformations,

McCurley, xiii + 192 pp. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983; $11.95 (Paper).

In early as well as in late antiquity,the majorityof people in the western Mediterraneanand Syria-Palestineassumed that both a heavenly and earthly reality existed and that these realities were interdependent.Eventsin the earthly reality correspondedto events in the heavenly one, or could be an effect of heavenly causes; through magic, human inhabitants of the earthly reality could affect inhabitants of the heavenly one. Man'sexplanations of the existence of these heavenly and earthly realities and the way they appearedin natural or historical events were myth. Within the ancient Near East, three distinctive bodies of myth developedthat, as direct and indirect evidence suggests, were known in some form by the Yahwistic theologians of the IronAge and by the early Christians of late antiquity: Egyptian, Mesopotamian,and Canaanite. It is thereforeneither surprisingnor unexpectedto discovermany direct referencesand allusions to these myths within the variegatedcollection of writings from early and late antiquity identified as Scripture.In the Hebrew and Greek scriptures,the myths no longer explicate or clarify the universe presupposedby the mythmakers.The biblical writers- I use this term for the sake of convenience, fully awareof the complexities that it intimates-did not assume a necessary and automatic nexus between the two realities. Thus, the god was not bound by or to naturalphenomena; quite the contrary,not only did he control them but he also determined their nature.Man could not manipulate the god through magic. The question that McCurley sets out to study in this interesting volume is how first Israelites and then Christians were able to express their perceptionof reality when the conventional language and metaphorsof god-talkwere drawn from the mythmakers.The answerthat he suggests is that they transformedthe old by filling it with new meaning, either subtly by controlling the context of the

referenceor obviously by ascribingto either YHWHor Jesusthat which the mythmakersin their god-talkascribedto other named forces. After a brief introduction setting forth his thesis, McCurley studies three conceptions in their ancient Near Eastern mythical expressions,and then in their Old Testamentand New Testamenttransformations:orderversus chaos (chapters 1-3), divine and human sexuality (chapters 4-6), and the quality of the sacred mountain (chapters7-9). A brief unit entitled "Summaryand Some Implications forthe Church"concludes the book. The richest concept discussed by McCurley,and the paradeexample for the thesis that he presents, is that of orderversus chaos. After showing the variousways in which this abstract notion was expressedin the myths of Marduk-Tiamat,Re-Apophis,and BaalYamm,Lotan,Shalyat,he discusses their transformations.In the HebrewBible, Leviathan,Lotan,Rahab,and Yammare chaotic forces that YHWHdefeats, subdues, or rebukes.These are never serious forces that could actually cause chaos, because by and largethe world was conceived by Israelites as an orderlyplace. The referencesto these transformed chaos figuresdo, however,help to develop the notion of YHWHthe champion, YHWHthe warrior.These figures also are importantin Israelite conceptions of historical experiences and eschatological expressions. Similarly,in the New Testament, Jesusrebukesthe sea and walks on its waves;he rebukesunclean spirits. Among the enemies in the final battle of the book of Revelation,a seven-headed creatureis found (12:3);and as part of the dawn of the new age, the sea is no more (12:1). Throughouthis analyses, the author is meticulous in his attention to the contexts in which the transformedallusions occur. Thus, his work presents some new exegetical insights that augment the kerygmaticcontent of stories such as those of Jesusand the Sea of Galilee in Mark4:35-41 and 6:19 mentioned above. McCurley'sdiscussions of the second concept are much less conclusive. Since YHWHis never describedin terms of sex, as distinct from grammaticalgender, and Jesus,although a male, is never describedas being sexually active, the author is forcedinto somewhat trendy exegesis in orderto graspthe significance of the transformationsfrom sexually

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

61

critical scholarship,the second section exploresthe Holy Landthroughthe guise of five suggesteditineraries:the King's Highwayto Petra;Gilead, Bashan,and the Decapolis; Jerusalemand vicinity, whose discussion continues in the third section; the southern hill country,Negev, and Dead Sea Valley;and the northern hill country,Mediterraneancoast, and Galilee. The third section is intended for supplemental readingand on-the-spot reference;it includes a history of the Holy Landin outline, glossary of terms, charts, suggestions for furtherreading, and so on. There is a three-pageindex listing the places mentioned in the itineraries.Writingin a lucid style, the author handles his subject matter with precision, and demonstratesgood knowledge of the sources involved.Thirty-one maps, substantial chronologicalcharts of people, places, and events, and illustrations contribute to the usefulness of the text for the first-timevisitor to the Holy Land. The strength of this book undoubtedly lies in the same areawhere its weaknesses become apparent:It does not aim to coverall aspects and expressions of life in the Holy Land.The text is mainly expository and positive, yet more often Ziony Zevit than not its citations from the Bible and The University of Judaism extrabiblicalmaterial need additional commentary to explain and supplement. Forexample, YigaelYadin'sacquisition Introducingthe Holy Land,by Max of the Temple Scroll was in 1967 shortly Miller, x + 189 pp. Macon, Georgia: afterthe Six-DayWar,but his knowledge MercerUniversity Press, 1982; $13.95 of the scroll'sexistence goes back to the (Cloth). early 1960s (see Yadin'sprefaceto his The TempleScroll [Hebrewedition; Most guidebooksto the Holy Landfall into one of three categories:those that Jerusalem,1977]andASOR Newsletter, are history-orientedand scholarly;those number 7, November 13, 1967).Again, that are semipopularand journalistic,in quoting uncritically Eusebius'Ecclesiastical History,book 3, chapter5, leaves the best sense of the term; and those that are concernedwith stretchingyour the targetedaudience with the impression that the wickedness of the Jews dollar and day to the fullest return, caused crimes againstChrist and his which areunclassifiable. The guide under review,initially a series of typeapostles, which led to the divine justice of the total destruction of the Jerusalem script printouts for the use of Christian tour groups (seminaryand lay) to Israel Templeand the removalof the "whole and Jordan,is definitely not of the third generationof evildoers from the earth" in 70 C.E.And Eleazar'sspeech to the variety;it is, however,a mergerof the zealots at Masadais viewed by many as first two categories. The book is divided into three sections. historiosophyvia Josephusand not factual historicity as Miller suggests. The first providesbackgroundinformation on the Holy Landin the context of Furthermore,Miller occasionally history,from its earliest referencesdown treats disputed issues gingerly,even to present-dayboundariesand disputes superficially.Thus, the British-Jewish between Israelis and Arabs.After a understandingthat led to the birth of the number of general discussions about the State of Israeldid not begin in 1917with need for a balance between tradition and the BalfourDeclaration, as he avers,but

active gods. Thus, he interpretsmarriage metaphorsand referencesto YHWHas father and husband as being sexual (pages91-98), even though within the Israelitemilieu and within their contexts they are essentially legal. He interprets Genesis 1:27to mean that Elohim is describedas "bisexual"(page99). (Did he perhapsintend "hermaphrodite"?) By restrictinghis basic myths to those of the ancient Near East, McCurleyis able to conclude that the use of the Holy Spiritremovesthe accounts of the birth of Jesusin Matthew and Lukefrom mythological tendencies (page106).Had McCurleyconsideredcontemporary myths from the Hellenistic milieu, I am not sure that he would have reachedthis conclusion. Ancient Myths and Biblical Faith is clearly intended for a popularaudience. It breakslittle new ground,contains but twenty-sevennotes, and refersto only a few secondarysources from which its conceptual frameworkand much of the datawere derived.It is also clearly and well written, containing much interesting and stimulating material within its pages.

62

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

much earlierin 1895when Zionist activists beganpressing British politicians towardthe recognition of a Jewishstate in a British-heldNear Easternterritory. Finally,the twenty-fiveblack-and-white photographsthat are dispersedthroughout the volume could be of better quality and scope. In conclusion, Miller'sguide to the geographyand history of the Holy Land has succeeded, though less than admirably.A non-evangelicalChristian audience would benefit more from Zev Vilnay'sThe Guide to Israel (Jerusalem, 1983),which, however,does not treat the GuideHoly Land"beyondthe Jordan." books, like the discipline of Palestinian archaeologyitself, reflect the presuppositions of their authors and the restrictions of contemporarypolitics. Zev Garber Los Angeles ValleyCollege American Archaeologyin the Mideast: A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research,by Philip J.King,xv + 292 pp. Philadelphia: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1983; $15.00 (Hardcover). In 1975 The American Schools of Oriental Research(ASOR)celebratedits seventy-fifthanniversary.The need for a modern surveyof American archaeology in the Middle East was recognized,and the anniversarywas deemed a suitable occasion for such a study.In consequence, a history of ASORwas commissioned. This book is the result. The author,a pastpresidentof ASOR, has written an interesting and anecdotal account of American archaeologyin the Mideast. King focuses on ASOR,describing the birth, growth, and change of the organizationin its 80-yearhistory,and ending his account, for all practicalpurposes, in 1980. The book correctlybegins with EdwardRobinson, showing the stronginfluence of biblical studies on the early explorersof nineteenth-century Palestine. King points out the strong linkage of the Bible and archaeologyin the societies that sprangup duringthe later part of the century to explore the "landof the Bible."This influence is clear in ASOR'soriginal agendawith its strong biblical orientation. Biblical scholars formeda majority of ASOR'sfirst leaders, and this close connection has continued. Having detailed the ancestry of

ASOR, Kingthen turns to the vast number of projectsit has sponsoredover its history. Among the people connected with these are archaeologists,biblical scholars,and folklorists. King is well awareof the impact of political turmoil upon the work of ASOR. Despite its international nature, ASOR has often been constrainedin researchby the shifting political arrangementsof the various Middle Easternstates. ASOR's currenthands-offpolicy regardingthe WestBank is a prime example. In the course of the survey,nearly all of ASOR's majorarchaeologicalprojects are mentioned, and much non-ASOR,even nonAmerican, work is touched on. King stresses that ASORhas not functioned in a vacuum. He devotes space to Kathleen Kenyonof England,Rolandde Vaux of France,and particularlythe Israelis. King surveysthe Baghdadschool, a wellneeded reminder to Syria/Palestinespecialists that ASOR'sinterests are not always coterminous with theirs. Joining the first center in Jerusalem,now called the W.F.Albright Institute of Archaeological Research(AIAR),new centers in Amman, the American Center of Oriental Research(ACOR),and Nicosia, the CyprusAmerican ArchaeologicalResearch Institute (CAARI),point to the continued vitality of ASOR.A good case is made for long-termdirectorshipsat the various schools, in light of the success of William E Albright, Nelson Glueck, Paul Lapp,William Dever, and James Sauer.In concluding his study,the author touches on the current"biblicalarchaeology"debate. Lists of the presidents of ASOR, school directors,and institutional members are found in the appendices. Also included are sample exam questions for the Thayerfellowship from 1906. They are an interesting comment on the breadthof knowledge expected at that time of an ASOR Fellow. This is not a critical history of American archaeologyin the Mideast. Important aspects of that history are glossed overby the concentration on ASOR. Changes in other fields, such as anthropology and theology, which affectedarchaeology in the Mideast, are ignored.A majorweakness is the lack of a serious examination of problems of theory and method. Thus, the techniques practiced by the various excavatorsare too often treatedonly superficially.The appraisal of Clarence Fisher'swork, for example, is misleading. Kingpresents Fisheras

carryingon the work of G. A. Reisner. Although Fisherworkedwith Reisner, Reisner'srevolutionaryfocus on debris formation was not an essential element of Fisher'swork at Beth Shan or elsewhere. Reisner considereda tell to be the productof human activity, which could best be understoodby analyzing the nature of the various deposits making it up- fills, erosional deposition, dumps, and so on. In contrast, Fishersaw a tell as a series of architecturalphases, and focused on the recoveryof complete plans of separatephases. This approach kept debris studies in an infancy.Fisher's dominance of American archaeologyin Palestine resulted in Reisner'swork being ignoreduntil the 1970s. As for King's short discussion of the current debateon biblical archaeologyit misses the watershed nature of the changes in archaeological theory and method. Questions of chronologyand history,the focus of biblical archaeology,areperipheralto the anthropologicalorientation of SyroPalestinianarchaeology.Unless both archaeologists and biblical scholars are tolerant of the legitimate interests of each other, the new nonbiblical orientation of archaeologycould split ASOR.If schism is not to occur, archaeologists must make the new results understandable to the biblically oriented scholars in ASOR. Despite these weaknesses, King's study fills a majorgap in the field. This is a worthypaean to a vital and changing organization.If ASORis to continue to grow,the strengths of its past, particularly its internationalism and its commitment to a broadrangeof interests, must be retained.This study should help.

prise a largepart of the New Testament, but Paul is also the leading characterin the book of Acts, the first attempt to recount the early growth of the church. Paul also appearsas the theologian par excellence, the one man who gave definitive shape to the developingChristian tradition in the years after Jesus'death. It is difficult to tell the story of early Christian history without making Paul the hero. The present work challenges the view that Paul was the paramount force shapingthe mainstream of early Christian life. Few scholars would dispute Paul's importancein the first century or his influence in later centuries, but it is only as New Testamentscholarshiphas matured and developedthe techniques to readthe other documents of the New Testament (particularlythe gospels) as reflections of the life and thinking of the communities in which they were written that it has become possible to describe the early history of the Christian movement with greaterconcreteness,particularly in terms of cities and locales. The work under review is just such an attempt, and it succeeds ratherwell under the severe limitations that sources impose on any effort at reconstruction. What the two authors have done-the one (Brown)a professorat Union Theological Seminaryin New YorkCity and the other (Meier)a professorand chairman of The ScriptureDepartment of St. Joseph'sSeminary (Dunwoodie)in Yonkers,New York-is to narratethe developmentof the Christian tradition from its beginning in two majorcities of the RomanEmpire-Antioch in Syria and the imperial capital, Rome. Manyof their conclusions are necessarily tentaThomas W.Davis tive, yet their overallpoint is suggestive: that in these two cities it was not Paul's University of Arizona views that carriedthe day but a less radiAntioch and Rome. New cal outlook that showedgreaterappreTestament Cradlesof Christianity,by Raymond E. ciation for the Jewishroots of ChristianBrown and JohnP Meier, 242 pp. New ity and might best be associated with the name of Peter. York:Paulist Press, 1983; $4.95 (Paper). In the earliest stages Christians in The figure of Paul of Tarsuslooms so the two communities requiredgentile convertsto keep some of the Jewishoblargein the New Testamentthat the earliest history of Christianity appearsto servances,though they did not insist on conform to the contours of his biography. circumcision. This contrasts with the stricterJewishChristians on the one ManyBibles conveniently display three or four pages of maps at the end of the hand, who insisted on full observanceof text chartingPaul'smissionary journeys, the Jewishlaw and those Christians,on the other,who saw no value in Jewish suggesting that the spreadof the early Christian movement followed his itinercustoms and practices.ForAntioch, ary.Not only do the letters of Paul comMeier drawson the Gospel accordingto

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

63

Matthew,which he, like many other scholars,thinks was written in Antioch. ForRome, Brownbuilds his case on the close ties he sees between the Jewsof Rome and Jerusalempriorto the emergence of Christianity;on the way Paul presents his case to the Jewsthere in the book of Romans (forexample, he recognizes that the RomanChristians, in contrast to the Galatians,had receivedfrom others a valid form of the gospel);on the book of Hebrews,which he believes derives from Rome;and on evidence in other writings associated with Rome, for example 1 Peter.Browneven finds confirmation in the fourth-centuryChristian authorAmbrosiaster,who reports that the Romans"receivedthe faith although with a Jewishbent." The obvious difficulty with these views, a difficulty that attends any effort to reconstructearly Christian history, not just that of Brownand Meier, is that they requireassent to so many details of interpretation,each building on the other and many open to dispute, that the presumedcumulative effect of the evidence is not as persuasiveas it appears. Much of the argumentrests on supposed ideological differencesamong different groups,a fragilebase on which to construct the history of communities. There is little external evidence to supportthe proposals,though the authors do try to exploit what is available.In places, terms are used anachronistically,for example, for Paul,"anti-Semitism"for "orthodoxy" Cicero, and "liberal"for a groupof elite leadersin Jerusalem. YetI came awayfrom the book with a renewedawarenessof the significance of the non-Paulinetraditions in early Christianity and the sense that Meier and Brownhad made some very reasonable suggestions. Their overallargument merits consideration and is worth pursuing further.This is a serious and thoughtful book, and the authors know full well the difficulties of their undertaking. They are awareof their presuppositions and are self-critical.Yetthey are willing to offer an interpretationof the whole, to synthesize the work of different scholars, and to offer a fresh way of looking at the emergence of the early Christian movement. The book will be of value to scholars but it is written with a generalreaderin mind.

BOOK PUBLISHERS Please send all review copies to: Dr. Peter B. Machinist Department of Oriental Studies The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721

In

the

BA

Moving?

Make Sure BA Moves With You Please attach your magazine mailing label to this coupon and send both to: ASOR Subscription Services, Department BB,PO. Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834. Be sure to include your new address on the form. Thank you!

The Chalcolithic Period in Palestine

Attach Label Here

by Thomas E. Levy Name (please print)

First in a new series on chronological periods in biblical archaeology

RobertL. Wilken The University of Notre Dame

64

Next

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION of August 12, 1970; Section 3685, Title 39, (Act United States Code) of BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST, published quarterly at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. General business offices of the publisher are located at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Name and address of publisher is the American Schools of Oriental Research, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Owner is the American Schools of Oriental Research, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Known bondholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities: None. The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes have not changed during preceding 12 months. The average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months are: (A) Total number of copies printed: 7,475; (B) Paid circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 0; (2) Mail subscriptions (paid and/or requested): 6,025; (C) Total paid circulation: 6,025; (D) Free distribution by mail, carrier or other means: 160; (E) Total distribution: 6,185; (F) Copies not dis tributed: (1) Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 1,290; (2) Return from news agents: 0; (G) Total: 7,475. The actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date are: (A) Total number of copies printed: 8,000; Paid circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 0; (2) Mail subscriptions (paid andlor requested): 6,111; (C) Total paid circulation: 6,111; (D) Free distribution by mail, carrier or other means: 155; (E) Total distribution: 6,266; (F) Copies not distributed: (1) Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 1,734; Return from news agnts: 0; (G) Total: 8,000. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. (signed) Martin Wilcox Assistant to First Vice President for Publications, ASOR

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

YourNew Address City State

Zip

__ --

:

THE MAGAZINEOF MYTH AND TRADITION ~rr~r

PARABOLA 5\

?e

/;

Essential questions opened anew with Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, Peter Matthiessen, Isaac Bashevis Singer, P.L. Travers, Elaine H. Pagels, Barry Lopez, Richard Niebuhr and others.

W"A thick, richly illustrated, book-like journal, PARABOLA is for those who read, re-read, pause and think, then read again."

TheUtneReader a

."... Let me say that my admirationfor the

workthat PARABOLAis doingincreases

with each issue. When people ask me how to

beginthe studyof mythology,I tell themto subscribeto yourmagazine." JosephCampbell Subscriptions: $18/year(4 issues).Currentissues:$5.50 each. Back issues: $7 each. For further information about

PARABOLA MagazineandBooks, write:

PARABOLA 150 Fifth Avenue, New York,N.Y. 10011

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1986

41

Let

Pictorial

Archive

You

Bring

the

Lands

Bible

Pictorial Archive materials are designed to complement individual or group (classroom) Bible study. The following lists only a few of the more than forty items that are available. For more information, see future issues of BA or write to us at the ASOR Publications Office, P.O. Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706.

Student Map Manual: Historical Geography of the Bible Lands This unique Bible atlas contains 111maps of the Levant done in contour-based relief-shading. It features extensive cross-referencing (to the Bible; to historical sources; to the Encyclopediaof Excavation in the Holy Land; to the BibleAtlas; to Israel/Palestine MacmillanBibleAtlas, recently republished by George Allen and Unwin as the Modemrn grid references; and to the extensive visual material of Pictorial Archive), many helpful indexes, including one that summarizesthe occupational history of each site, and indications of communication and road systems. Contents: 1. Regional maps (17 maps), 2. Archaeology (10 maps covering Chalcolithic through Late Roman and Byzantine periods), 3. Canaanite period (1 map covering Early Bronze), 4. Canaanite period (9 maps covering Middle/Late Bronze), 5. Israelite Conquest (6 maps), 6. Settlement and Judges (7 maps), 7. Samuel and the United Monarchy (7 maps), 8. Divided Kingdom "A"'(8 maps), 9. Divided Kingdom "B"(7 maps), 10. Persian period (2 maps), 11. HellenisticlHasmonean period (13 maps), 12. Herodian period (13 maps), 13. Late Roman and Byzantine periods (5 maps), 14. Archaeology of Jerusalem (4 maps), 15. Indexes. Plus map presenting Israel/Palestine grid references and map of Sinai. In order to present as many maps as possible in this atlas, there are no photographs and text has been held to a minimum. However, the atlas can be supplemented by what is undoubtedly the most extensive and highest quality collection of visual materials on the Bible lands generally available, including the following:

Bible Lands Exhibit: Introductory Unit These 8 posters compose a visual introduction to the Levant. The set surveys the area systematically, region by region, and features photographs chosen for their quality and informativeness. Each poster is approximately 25" x 38" and is printed in 5 colors with a protective plastic-laminated finish.

Bible Lands Exhibit Color-Slide Set The 160 photographs contained on the posters of the Introductory Unit are also available as a set of 35-millimeter slides, mounted in a spring-clip plastic file, with printed captions.

Bible Lands Exhibit: Satellite Maps of the Levant The satellite map sets will be offered again in a future issue of Biblical Archaeologist. Orders already received will be processed when the maps have been received in our office.

Order Form for Pictorial Archive Material I would like the following: StudentMapManual(BA001) $24 BibleLandsExhibitIntroductory Unit (BA002)* $80 BibleLandsExhibitColorSlideSet (BA003) $160

49/1

Name Address City

State

ZIP

*comesunfoldedin a tube Country Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham,NC 27706. Send no Send ordersto: ASOR PublicationsOffice, P.O. money; you will be invoiced for the properamount, plus shipping and handling. Subscribersto Biblical will be given a 10%discount. Items will be shipped upon receipt of payment. Telephone Archaeologist numberfor questions:(919) 684-3075. Because we are a nonprofitorganization,we operateon a limited budget. We must thereforeinsist upon prepaymentof ordersforPictorialArchive materials.We appreciate the understandingand cooperationof our customersin this matter.

-::: ::::I:: ::: ::::;-

he modern visitor to anScient Sepphoris sees a large irregularhill risingfrom the lowlands of Galilee. On its southern and eastern sides a forest of spindly pine trees stretchesalong the slopes. On the northwesternedge a cluster of buildings, including an orphanage run by Italian nuns and the towering unroofed walls of a never-completed Crusaderchurch, huddles against the scarp. The steep northernslope has discouraged both natural and man-made cover, but the massive remains of an ancient building can be seen where the embankment has eroded away. Only the top of the hill remains barren, with the exception of the ever-present ground cover of thorns and thistles and a towering square citadel ...

~d~ :'

4, ff t:_~i ,~~~*~C-~a~i~B~~Bta~~g~s~:~aAa'lP~; ~rs~i~r '.8

C_~ ~~i7L-~

i