No title

j BIBLICAL i(ARCHEOLOGIST Winter 1981

Volume 44 Number I

En-Gediji

Mizpe

_

En-Gedi

Masada

,

Har Hezron

Mizpe Zohar

Kh. Zif

o ?

Aristobulias

Zip

T.Zif

,*4

Maon

Arad

(T. Arad).

Hebron Bethsura

Bethzur,

Eshtemoa,

Der

Esthemoar4tsce H. Deragot Tappuah, Tephon ?

Adoraim, Adora

Debir

(Kh. Rabud) Tp,

Jethira

Malatha (T. Malhata)

Db"(.RudArad,

Kh.el-Oasa "

JERUSALEM & JUDEA: roads and fortifications (Je)Kabzeel

LEGEND

forts of the second circle third fourth " -.

EAST

0

forts of the cross roads roads (with Roman milestones) Mareshah, Marisa

SCALE

I

Ii

\Lachish :...I

I1

1

i

***

I 110 km !

I

1

6m

7

(T. Ira)

inthetimeofJesus." onJerusalem "Thefinestworkavailable -JACK

FINEGAN, Pacific School of Religion

and summary ofarchaeological "... a fine,up-to-date historical ... splendid ofnew presentation knowledge plans... notable mapsandground photos,telling undiluted by forthoroughness " religious sentimentality. -American LibraryAssociationBooklist

r4r,

OF

,ITY

JESUSI

PHOTOGRAPHY TEXTBYRICHARD M. MACKOWSKI/ BYGARONALBANDIAN to the of three monotheistic beliefs the ancient city of traditions Sacred great to from the worldwho continues scholars and around fascinate Jerusalem pilgrims are drawnby its political, historical,and spiritualsignificance. Now, for serious travelersand students, EerdmansoffersJerusalem,City of Jesus, an engrossingreconstructionof the Holy City as it was 2,000 yearsago. Lavishlyillustratedwith color photos, maps,and charts,and rich in archaeological, historical,and topographicaldetail, it is a magnificentrecordof a time and place uniquelyinspiringin human history. Cloth,224pages,$29.95($27.50throughDec.31, 1980) At your bookstore 080

1

K

B. EERDMANSPUBLISHING CO. WMe JEFFERSON RAPIDS, 25

AVE.

S.E.

/

GRAND

MICHIGAN

49503

Abbreviations AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research AfO Archiv for Orientforschung A NET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Pritchard 1955) A RA B Ancients Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Luckenbill 192627) BA The Biblical Archaeologist! Biblical Archeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bib. Biblica BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society El Eretz Israel IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JA NES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JA OS Journal of the American Oriental Society JA RCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society KA! Kanaaniische und AramAische Inschriften (Donner and Rollig 1962-64) KTU Die KeilalphabetischenTexte aus Ugarit (Dietrich. Loretz. and Sanmartin 1976) Or Orientalia PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly RB Revue Biblique Serm.Semitica Stud. Pap. Studia Papyrologica VT Vetus Testamentum ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins

N T-NEXT

BA

Moshe Kochavidiscusses the historyand archeology of Beginningwiththe earliest remains,dated Aphek-Antipatris. to the start of urbanizationin EretzIsrael(ca. 3000 B.C.E.), Kochavitravels throughtime, takingthe reader up to the present-dayarcheological activities which willbe resumed in 1982. Along the way, he discusses the Aphek of an Amorite prince of the early 2nd millennium,the Canaanite Aphek of the Late BronzeAge (Josh 12:18), as well as a numberof inscribedseals and letters fromdifferentperiods. He deals withthe Philistine,Israelite,Hellenistic,and Herodiancities at the site, and then concludes witha rapidoverviewto the present day.

Top: "Palace-ware"jug from a palace at Aphek-Antipatris (MB IIA). Courtesy of

M. Kochavi.Bottom:Excavatingan

intramural early MB IIA burial.

Photographby M. Weinberg.

BIBICAL('I. ARCHEOI.OGISTWINTER1981 I

BIBLICAL(, ) ARCHEOLOGIST Editor David Noel Freedman

AssociateEditor Harry Thomas Frank

EditorialCommittee

Menashe Har-El is Professor of Biblical Geography in the Department of Geography, Tel Aviv University. An authority on the subject of biblical geography, he has published numerous books including The Routeof the Exodus,This is Jerusalem,and The Journeysof the Judean Desertand the DeadSea.

Bruce E. Schein received a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Yale University and is currently the director of the Lutheran Church in America Holy Land Seminars. His book, Follouingthe Way: The Setting of John'sGospel,appeared in August 1980.

Frank M. Cross, Jr.

Tikva Frymer-Kensky Sharon Herbert CharlesR. Krahmalkov John A. Miles,Jr. WalterE. Rast Production Manager

BruceE. Willoughby

Chief Editorial Assistant

LindaE. Fyfe EditorialAssistants David M. Howard,Jr. TerrenceM. Kerestes GraphicDesigner CherylS. Klopshinske BusinessManager TracyB. Shealy Composition WendyL. Frisch LouiseW. Palazzola DistributionManagers R. Guy Gattis GaryA. Herion GraphicDesignerfor Books Suellen Feinberg JournalExchange Len Niehoff SubscriptionServices BelindaKhalayly,Manager John C. Hardie AndrewE. Hill HamidMerati

Composition by ASOR Publications. Ann Arbor. MI. and Eiscnbrauns. Winona lake. IN. Printed by Printinl Service. The University of Michipn.

2

BIBI.ICAl. ARCHEOI.OGIST WINTER 1981

James R. Kautz, professor of biblical archeology and Old Testament studies, has participated in excavations at Ai, Tell Batashi, and in Central Moab in the Near East, and the Weaver Pottery site in Tennessee. He currently is studying anthropology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Bezalel Porten, professor in the Department of Jewish History at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is a scholar concerned with Aramaic papyri. One of his recent publications, "Aramaic Papyri and Parchments: A New Look," appeared in the Spring 1979 issue of BA. Gershon Edelstein of the Department of Antiquities of Israel is presently a senior excavator with the salvage excavations around Jerusalem, including Mevasseret Yerushalayim. His main interest is ancient agriculture and rural settlements, an aspect of antiquity not yet fully explored. Mordechai Kislev is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Life Sciences at Bar-llan University, Israel. An expert in cultivated and wild plant remains found in archeological excavations, he has an article in press titled "Triticum parvicoccum, the most ancient naked wheat." Otto Meinardus presently is Minister of the Evangelical Church in Stolberg, Germany. He received his Ph.D. in Social Ethics from Boston University Graduate School and has taught at colleges and universities in Egypt and Greece.

is published with the financial BiblicalArcheologist assistance of Zion Research Foundation, a nonsectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

Bahurim Br

A

Beth Harodon

Cover: Map of the roads and fortifications in Judea (eastern orientation).

JERUSALEM

SMetopa Bethlehem

Mezad Mozah

Gilo

• OfBether. Bethth Bether,

Bethther

BIBLICAL' ARCHEOLOGIST Winter 1981

)

Menashe Har-El

Volume 44 Number 1

Jerusalem and Judea: Roads and Fortifications

The physical geography of Judea and clarification of numerous biblical words used to designate its roads. Bruce E. Schein The Second Wall of Jerusalem The debate continues for the location of the second wall of Jerusalem and the identification of its builder. James R. Kautz

Tracking the Ancient Moabites

A description of a recent archeological survey of the plateau of Central Moab. BezalelPorten The Identity of King Adon A recent reconstruction of a late-7th-century B.C. papyrus letter, identifying the writer as King Adon. Gershon Edelstein

& Mordechai Kislev

Otto

Mevasseret Yerushalayim: Ancient Terrace Farming

21

27

36

53

Excavations of artificial terraces provide information about an ancient farming technique that was adapted to the natural, stepped topography of the region.

F. Meinardus The Site of the Apostle Paul's Conversion at Kaukab Four traditional sites associated with the conversion and ministry of the Apostle Paul in and around Damascus are commemorated.

Biblical Archeologist (ISSN: 0006-0895) is published quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to provide the general reader with an accurate, scholarly, yet easily understandable account of archeological discoveries and their bearing on the biblical heritage. Unsolicited mss. are welcome but should be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Address all editorial correspondence and advertising to Biblical Archeologist, 468 Lorch Hall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Address all business correspondence to ASOR, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139.

8

Letter to the Readers Polemics and Irenics Notes and News Colloquia Colophon

57

4 5 60 63 64

Copyright ? 1981 American Schools of Oriental Research. Annual subscription rate: $16.00. Foreign subscription rate: $18.00 (American currency). Current single issues: $5.00. Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, MI 48106. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Biblical Archeologist, 416 W. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 3

Letter to

the

Readers The Winter issue of BA reflects the great variety of specific interests and particular pursuits comprehended in the term biblical archeology. The assembled articles and smaller pieces rangewidely in time and space but within the limits imposed by biblical geography and history. The centerpiece of the current number is another detective story by Bezalel Porten (see BA, Spring 1979), a painstaking investigation of the strange ways and ends of papyrus documents, in this case the copy (presumably) of a royal letter, an urgent appeal for help by King Adon to the Egyptian pharaoh. The only important puzzle in the interpretation of the letter is the kingdom of the sovereign: Over which city did he rule, even if precariously?Just at the place in the document where the city-state was named there is a lacuna in the text. Speculation has been rife, but while scholarly opinion has tended to converge on one of the major Philistine cities, there has been neither consensus nor convincing argument for or against any particular one. Ashkelon, the well-known city on the seacoast, about halfway between the other major Philistine cities, Gaza and Ashdod, has been proposed by a sizable number of scholars and is certainly a plausible conjecture. New evidence has been turned up by our indefatigable sleuth, and as in the case of Poe's "Purloined Letter," in the most unlikely place, in the document itself. In all previously published photographs only the Aramaic letter itself was shown. But there was more, as Porten discovered when he saw the papyrus itself: a colophon or summary in Demotic (a form of Egyptian writing) on the reverse in which the name of the city of King Adon is given. It would be unfair to reveal the solution to the problem which is worked out in careful detail by Porten, but it is entirely in order to point out that the new information itself has given rise to a debate among Egyptologists, and the name remains in dispute. The importance of the identification of the city and the interpretation of the contents of the letter lies in the historical circumstances. The forces of the Neobabylonian empire, led by Nebuchadnezzar, were sweeping westward over the Near East, seizing and swallowing up nations, as described vividly by the prophet Habakkuk. In the path of this irresistible onslaught some small city-state appealed for help to that perennial weak reed, the kingdom of Egypt. The

4

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

David Noel Freedman ultimate outcome was not in doubt although the precise moment and manner of the fall remain unknown. The pathetic and futile appeal of King Adon has survived as a reminder and analogue of the more extensively recorded demise of the kingdom of Judah, the only surviving portion of the ancient realm of David and Solomon. In another article the network of forts and roads surrounding Jerusalem is explored by an eminent geographer, M. Har-El. The description and discussion of these strong points and their links evoke the biblical material, the narratives of the historical books, and the oracles of the prophets. Now the logistics of military attack and defense and commercial exchange are brought to light. Still another feature of the environs of the Holy City is the extensive terracing in ancient times for agricultural purposes. Given the mountainous terrain, even subsistence farming was a hazardous undertaking. The only possibility was to develop terraces on a large scale-in the cities for housing, and in the country for farms. Messrs. Edelstein and Kislev analyze the remains of terrace farming in a suburban development near ancient Jerusalem. For the rest, there is something for every taste: News and Notes, Letters to the Editor, and Colloquia. Come join the party and enjoy the repast. It is with great sadness and regret that we record the death of Tom Frank on 8 October 1980. He was Professor of Religion at Oberlin College, a resourceful teacher, successful author, popular lecturer, travelguide extraordinary, and archeological enthusiast. He was a perennial participant in the affairs of the American Schools of Oriental Research, a regular visitor to our institutes in the Near East, and a key member of the Tell el-Hesi expedition from its inception. For us on the staff of the Biblical Archeologist he was the Associate Editor, but the title does not begin to describe what he did for us and for the magazine. Characteristically he carried much more than his share of the burden of preparing and producing the BA quarter after quarter. He received, evaluated, and edited, which often meant rewriting,articles. He worked incessantly with illustrations and layouts, achieving with our designers and artists dramatic improvements in the short time he was with us. He also had a hand in the various departments of the journal: Book Reviews, News and Notes, Letters to the Editor, and not least the Cover. His hard work, his solid accomplishments, and especially his genial and amiable spirit will be missed

sorely.

Polemics&

Irenics On Chronology In your article "The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets" (BA, December 1978) you wrote: "It is now my belief that the story in Genesis 14 not only corresponds in content to the Ebla tablet, but that the Genesis account derives from the same period. The reason that the story has never been located historically is that scholars, all of us, have been looking in the wrong millennium" (pp.

data, but I am waiting for more insight that may come to us from the Ebla tablets. In the 2nd millennium B.C., however, Israel's sojourn in Egypt left an unwritten imprint upon Egyptian history. Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold into Egypt (1958 B.C.[Gen 37:2]). At age 30 he became governor of Egypt in 1945 B.C. (Gen 41:46). After seven good years and two years of famine, Jacob entered Egypt, being 130 years old (1936 B.C.[Gen 47:9]). By the end of the famine, 151-52). It may interest you that my calculation of the Joseph had served under the same pharaoh for 27 years, biblical genealogies, which I made strictly according to from 1958 B.c. to 1931 B.c. Sesostris I ruled Egypt from the Bible without regard for existing calculations, places 1971 (or 1962) to 1929 B.C. Was he the pharaoh of Abraham's life in the 23rd-21st centuries B.C. Since the Joseph's time? His royal residence was in Itchytowy Adamite priesthood was not a warfaring political (Lisht) near al-Fayyum, and Jacob was given "the best of nation, historical evidence to its existence may be scarce, the land of Egypt," which was a chariot-ride's distance except for the "pillars of stone and of clay" which from the royal residence where Joseph dwelled: was the priesthoods manifested for posterity. The following data land of Goshen the Fayyum and not in the eastern delta of my calculation may be of interest in connection with of the Nile? Sesostris II, who ruled Egypt from 1897 to 1878 B.C., is accredited with the reclamation of the the Ebla tablets. Noah's (local) flood occurred 2517-2516 B.c. Abra- Fayyum. Did Jacob's sons contribute to this accomplishham was born 2226 B.c. and he was 60 years old when ment? Moreover, foreign trade, which was not known in Noah died (2166 B.C., 350 years after the deluge). The Egypt before the 12th Dynasty, flourished during the Babel incident (Gen 11:1-9)took place between 2166 and reign of Sesostris II. Was it introduced to the 12th 2151 B.c.-after Noah's death (Gen 9:29) and before Dynasty during the seven-year famine when, like Abraham's departure from Haran (Gen 12:4), when he Jacob's sons, people from many nations traded their was 75 years old. According to Levi 6:9 (Apocrypha: goods in Egypt in exchange for food? Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs), there was an Still more significant is the comparison of the data Eblaen (EBLA EN) in Abraham's house. The story of of my calculation of Moses' time with Egyptian history. Genesis 14 occurred between 2151 and 2141 B.C.(between Moses was born in 1586 B.C. At that time Pharaoh Abraham's 75th [Gen 12:4]and his 85th year [Gen 16:3]). Seqenenre's throne was threatened severely by the In Gen 17:24Abraham was 99 years old (2127 B.C.)when Hyksos. Seqenenre and, after him, his son Kamose are three men, whom Abraham called lords, visited him and said to have died in battles against the Hyksos, about ate with him. They predicted Isaac's birth "in this season 1570 B.C. The Egyptian royal residence was then in the following year," meaning, in the spring of 2126 B.c. Memphis (18th Dynasty). At that time Israel had (Gen 18:10-14). Then the three lords continued their dwelled already more than 350 years in Egypt and journey to Sodom and Gomorrah. Shortly after their waited for the fulfillment of the prophecies which visit with Abraham, the Valley of Siddim was destroyed, promised to free them from slavery and to bring them as which was therefore in the spring of 2127 B.C. (Genesis free people into Canaan. Thus, Seqenenre's royal 19). In Gen 21:5 Abraham was 100 years old (2126 B.C.) residence was between the Hyksos from the east and when Isaac was born, a year after the destruction of Israel-with 603,550 men able for war at the time of the Sodom and Gomorrah. Traces of the twin cities will Exodus according to Num 1:46-from the south. This hardly be found because houses were built of wood precarious situation may explain the pharaoh'sactions as and/or clay. Wooden structures burned to ashes when recorded in Exod 1:8-14. Timewise, this situation should the Valley of Siddim went up in smoke like that of a be placed before the birth of Moses in 1586 B.c. After the death of Seqenenre and Kamose, Ahmose I became furnace, and the clay dissolved in water. By the way, when Lot approached Sodom (Gen pharaoh in 1570 B.c. Moses was then 16 years old. 13:10), he compared the fertility and the beauty of the Ahmose I defeated the Hyksos, reached a settlement valley with the Garden of Eden. He did not mention the with Nubia, and engaged in building temples. He died existence of the Dead Sea, which is not mentioned in the 1546 B.c. and his son Amenhotep I became king. The same year Moses was 40 years old and had to flee from description of the valley in Gen 14:10 either. At this point, I cannot support the accuracy of my Egypt. Amenhotep I made Egypt a military state; he calculation for the 3rd millennium B.c. with historical died in 1526 B.c. (Exod 2:23) and did not have a son to

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 5

ascend to the throne. One of his previous generals became Thutmose I. Thutmose I made the first of those great additions to the temple of Amon at Karnak, and the sons of Israel groaned under their bondage. When Thutmose I died in 1512 B.C.,Jahweh said to Moses in Midian: "All who sought your life are dead" (Exod 4:19). Thus, Moses, being 80 years old, returned to Egypt in 1506 B.C.The Exodus took place the same year, with Thutmose II being the king of the Exodus. He reigned from 1512 to 1504(?)B.C.Historical records say next to nothing about Thutmose II. Some claim that he died in battle; others say that he died at an early age of illness. He did not have a son to become king after him in 1504 B.C. Note: both kings who pursued Moses did not have sons to succeed them to the throne. Hatshepsut became Queen of Egypt after Thutmose II. She kept peace (for lack of an army?), and she did not engage in any building (for lack of slaves?). When Thutmose III became king after her, he raged in wars and used captives as slaves. Did he have to replace the lost Israelite slaves? In 1471 Thutmose III fought the battle of Carchemish, and five years later Joshua led Israel across the Jordan, when Moses was 120 years old (1466 B.C.).

The conquest of the Promised Land was not completed at the time of Joshua's death (1426 B.C.),as is written in Judg 1:19-36. In the beginning of the 14th century B.C., the Amarna Letters (see EA 287, 288, 290, 292, 298, a.o.) bear witness to the steady progress in the conquest of Canaan by the Apiru (Hebrews). Gideon's battles before 1266 B.C.,as well as those of later Israelite leaders, frequently were fought against Amalekites, who were not a political nation but warrior tribes or mercenaries. Both Ramses II and Merneptah are known to have employed mercenaries which are identified as the pharaoh's army in Egyptian records. The Bible identifies them according to their nationalities or characteristics, which leads to another problem which researchersencounter when comparing historical records of various nations. Places and people were not named according to internationally identical names but according to their characteristics: the "City of Palms" was Jericho, the "City of Peace" was Jerusalem. See also Bab'el, "Gate of God"; Ba'bel, "confusion"; Greek Babylon, "confusion." People in authority were named according to their characteristics: Atrahasis, the Akkadian prophet and seer, became Utnapishtim after the deluge. Abram became Abraham; Jacob's name was Israel after he responded to God's call. Joseph, when becoming governor of Egypt, was named Zaph'-enath-pane'ah ("saviour-of-the-world, or -land") according to Young's Concordance. In Charles'Apocrypha, Joseph was called Sephansiphans, "interpreterof dreams or secrets." Each ethnic group expressed the names of places or people in authority in its native language. It is, therefore, necessary for today's researcher to translate these names so as to find identities. The physical similarities between syllables, as in Shishak and Sheshonk, may eventually be

6

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

misleading. For example, in Semitic terms Joseph's name was Sephansiphans, "interpreter of dreams." What would this identification be in the Egyptian tongue, or in that of Akkad? From this point of view, the translation of names as available from the Eblaite library may yet reveal identities of places, people, and events which concern many ancient nations of the 3rd millennium B.C. If presently known calculations of the genealogies were reviewed and then compared to Eblaite records, they may even correspond. Proper time elements are of vital importance and most revealing. I hope that the response to my letter will be as skeptical and critical as possible. It will lead to further research and greater insight. Karola Kautz Toronto, Canada

Corrigendum The photograph of the papyrus on p. 193 of the Fall 1980 issue of BA was inadvertently published upside down. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused our readers.

qL

7_

Tr

--.' A&

pk*V

-

IfL~

Or

ddwL

Jeu

J--

sae.

a&

tof

anlo4Fo doom

of the mloun-

ictton

'ft.S.11,

lain zones of Judea during the Canaanite period. He focuses on the physical geographi' of Judea anti clarification of the meaning of various terms used in the Bible to designate its roads. 8

-? 4p

i

Menashe Har-El The author attempts to explain the reason fo/brthe unusualli' large number of' roads built in the Judean hills, which were among the m17ostdesolate

e&-

The Kidron valley as it makes its way Judea constitute a consolidated block throughthe Judeandesertsoutheastof rising to about 1.000 m above sea Jerusalem.whichcan be seen on the level. Their steep slopes often made heightsof the hills in the background.Not road building difficult. Yet, from the only weresuch valleysfarmedin ancient of Israelite occupation, timesas today, but they servedas natural beginning First and Second Temple the through roadsfromveryearly times. Photograph and during the Roman and periods A. Erev. by Byzantine eras, more roads were built here than in any other part of the During the Canaanite period the Judean hills were among the most country, including other regions with desolate of the mountain zones of the greater populations. How can this road network in the Judean hills country. They were rocky and forested, lacking the valleys character- around Jerusalem be accounted for? istic of Samaria and Galilee. The To understand this phenomenon southern and eastern borders are and the functions of these roads, it is delineated by deserts, and few important to define the physical settlements were established in the structure of Judea which constitutes region during this period. The hills of the foundation upon which the road

ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981 BIBLICAL.

network was laid out and to clarify the meaning of the various terms used in the Bible to designate these roads: mif d ("lane"). fbTI("path"), natTb ("track"), 6ra1h("way"), derek ("road"), and mnsild ("highway"). The Structure of Judea Judea has varied physiographical features which may be divided into four longitudinal belts: the wide, flat coastal plain: the hill Shephelah ("lowland"): the mountain spine: and the Judean desert with the lower Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea falling away to the east. These physiographical belts constituted an important regional unit in ancient

times due to their physical interconnection and to their links from economic and political points of view. The mountains form the structural backbone of Judea with spurs extending west, east, north, and south. These mountains are bounded on the west by the valleys of Ayyalon, Soreq, Ha Ela. Lachish, and Shiqma which flow from north to south. On the east in the direction of the Judean desert and the Dead Sea, they are bounded by approximately 30 deep canyons. The rainwater flows down from the country's main watershed through the river valleys to the two base levels of the Mediterranean and the Dead Seas. These eastern valleys

constitute secondary regional units. In the north and south the valleys had well-defined geographical boundaries, but their western and eastern borders were less clear because of the overlapping of the various regions. The coastal plain penetrates the Shephelah through river valleys, and the hills of the Shephelah extend into the plain. The Shephelah also overlaps the hill region to the south of the Soreq valley, and hill ranges stand out on the plain to the north of the valley. The mountains slope down to the Judean desert to the north of the Kidron valley, while the desert invades the mountains to the south of the valley. The mountains slope into

BIBI.ICAL ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981 9

-

,..N.' Oi?

S" JERUS

OF THE JUDEANDESERT

.-eONL .

- -

A-S

"y

M s

,-f

L

o

um

1.

IrI

.

,

,-". ,, -... -,

,

_

-*

"

o

Km Carmel -

In the top of high places by the way wherethe paths meet,she standeth;...

SMhaMA'ONla

/

Sll, O

_/ IM

p

Neo Na"".a,

.

-Am

IVo

Ls'

Sodom Oimooo/

IPO"-

"

%s

^Scentrgd -e

the north and south of the Dead Sea. and the alluvial fans of the large valleys enter both the Dead Sea and the mountains. This overlapping of geographical zones intensified the linkages and interdependence between the longitudinal belts of Judea where the mountain backbone constitutes the foundation of each region. Four longitudinal routes followed the main lines of the relief of Judea. These were the famed "Via Maris," which ran along the coastal plain, the mountain road, and two secondary routes: the Shephelah road and the Jordan Valley road.

10

diverge into three spurs, and the Shechem-Gilboa syncline is bounded on either side by the two anticlines of Umm El Fahm in the west and Rammun in the east. The roads along the edges of these anticlines were built as a continuation of the mountain road of the Judean hills extending to the valley of Jezreel and Galilee. In the southern section of Judea to the south of the Hebron range there are also three spurs along which roads were built: southwest to Beer-sheba, south to Malhata. and southeast to Arad, the Negev, and the Red Sea. The main lateral roads also converged on Jerusalem, which was the crossroads of the Judean hills as stated in Prov 8:2:

BIBI.ICAl. ARCHEOIOGIST

L

S10K ,AL E~

ow ~~

The Mountain Roads The mountains of Judea are an elongated anticline which forms the backbone of the country. The crest of this anticline is the home of the largest continuous watershed in the country. It extends for 80 km, and a main road runs its entire length. The Judean mountains are narrowest in the central area in the vicinity of Jerusalem causing the longitudinal routes to converge on Jerusalem. North of Jerusalem the hills broaden out into the hills around Bethel. through which three longitudinal roads were built. In Samaria the hills

WINTER 1981

The continuity of the large settlements on the watershed of the Judean hills over thousands of years resulted in the maintenance of the high status of towns such as Jerusalem. Hebron, and Bethlehem in the hill country and focused on Jerusalem as the capital. Thus a road network was developed connecting these important cities with other parts of the country. especially the Negev to the south and Samaria and Galilee to the north. Jerusalem. which developed in the saddle of the mountains, constituted the link between the settlements of Cisjordan and the Jordan Valley as well as those of Transjordan since most of the lateral roads crossed the northsouth routes near Jerusalem. Eventually an extraordinarily large number of roads were built in the Judean hills. These included two longitudinal routes: the Mountain Highway and the "Way of the Patriarchs."Thirteen lateral roads ascended from the coastal plain, eight of which led to Jerusalem. Some 20 roads ascended from the east (see map) leading from the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley, and the Wilderness of Judea. The chief motive behind the construction of these roads was religious, since they served pilgrims making their way to the holy capital. Commercial-economic and politicalstrategic considerations were only secondary motives. But before dealing

Hills and valleyswest of Jerusalem(with Nebi Samwilin the background).Note the extensiveagriculturalterracingwhich inadvertentlyaddedto the defensesof Judeaby providingartificialobstacles barringthe way of enemy forcesattacking the Holy City. Photographby A. Erev. with these motives which lay behind the construction of these roads and the routes they followed, it is helpful to explore their functions through the meanings of the various terms given to them. The Function of the Road as Reflected in the Terminology The importance of the road varies with the needs of the various historical periods and the means of transport used. When primitive man's chief occupation lay in the search for food for himself and his flocks, and beasts of burden were the wild ass, the donkey, and the mule, he used footpaths. With the appearance of the

horse for riding, and the camel as a beast of burden, the pathways had to be adapted and altered to the needs of the wide, dainty feet of the camel as well as to the horseshoe. The pathways were turned into highways, used chiefly for trading and warfare. With the invention of war chariots roads were built. The transportation system included three components: (a) the infrastructure (observable features in the landscape such as paths, tracks, and roads): (b) the means of transport (such as pedestrians, beasts of burden, and carts): and (c) service facilities (such as inns, reservoirs, cisterns, pools, and wells to provide water, and trees to provide shade and fruits). There has always been correlation between the infrastructure, the means of transport, and the service facilities. Hence, the more highly developed the level of technology, the greater the variety of

means of transport that can use the same infrastructure, and the more sophisticated the service facilities that can be constructed. The expansion or construction of the road network is a clear indication of the prosperity or deterioration of the region as a whole. The mifcdl ("lane") and the fbhF ("path") appear to be synonymous terms and indicate a narrow pathway trodden out by the footsteps of man and beast. E. Ben-Yehuda (1955: 7,354-55) has pointed out that djcal means "a handful."The Hebrew term for narrow path (Num 22:24) is derived from the same root and is understood to be a pathway through the vineyards which was wide enough only for the foot to tread. Evidence that the mifcd6Iis a narrow footpath is also found in I Kgs 20:10: ". . . if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people that follow me . . ." (here .Cda/Tmis translated as "handfuls"). With reference to the

BIBIICAI.ARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981 II

Religious, settlement, and economic factors contributed to the development of a complex network of paths, highways, and roads in the Judean hills. path (sbTl),Ben-Yehuda states that it is derived from the root "to lead" and is related to the Assyrian S'eybulu, which means "path," "circle," or "narrow way." Further evidence of this may be found in Jer 18:15: For my people hath forgottenme, And they have been madeto stumblein theirways, In the ancientpath (~bTl) To walk in bypaths In a way not cast up. It would appear that the first paths were trodden out in the mountains by the cattle on their way to the springs, and also in the river valleys by sheep and cattle seeking water. The earliest footpaths from the Shephelah to the hill country followed the river valleys, such as Ha Ela, Soreq, Kessalon, and Ayyalon. The lane (miscdl) as distinct from the path (?bTl)was a narrow passage between the vineyard fences. It enabled the animal carrying its burden of grapes to pass through easily (Num 22:24). The track (n2tTh), according to Ben-Yehuda, was a narrow road. It appears from many sources in the Bible that the nmtTbor netTbi is a synonym for road (e.g., Isa 42:16; 43:16; 59:8; Jer 6:16; Hos 2:8; Prov 1:15; 3:17; 8:2; Lam 3:10). The difference between them was that the natTb("track") was not as wide as the road, nor was it paved, since it was laid out in more remote locations, as stated in Job 28:7: That path no bird of prey knoweth Neither hath the falcon's eye seen it. The natTbwas characterized by its winding course (Judg 8:6) and was strewn with obstacles, as described in Job 18:10: A noose is hid for him in the ground And a trapfor him in the way. Hence, the natiTbfunctions as the local route connecting proximate sites

12

and settlements, and their meeting place is the road junction. The 5orah ("way") and the derek

("road") were the biblical way and road, constructed and used as main routes as stated in Isa 2:3:

And many peoples shall go and say Comeye andletusgo upto the Mountain of the Lord To the house of the God of Jacob And he will teach us his ways And we will walk in his paths For out of Zion shall go forth the law And the word of the Lordfrom Jerusalem. and Ps 142:4: Thou knowestmy path In the way whereinI walk Have they hidden a snare for me. The paved road was free of obstacles since the rugged parts were flattened by paving as stated in Prov 3:23: Thenshaltthouwalkin thy waysecurely And thou shalt not dash thy foot. Another difference between the natTbor track and the Biblical derek or road lay in the fact that the road was built by the authorities, who also maintained and repaired it, so that it was often termed "the King's Highway." An evidence of this wide way is found in Num 21:22: "Let me pass through thy land; we will not turn aside into field or vineyard; we will not drink of the water of a well; we will go by the King's Highway, until we have passed through your territory." Curbstones were placed on either side of these roads to mark out the way, and to repair it after the winter rains which often washed the road away. The misild ("highway"), the highways of the Israelite period, were merely mountain pathways whose builders picked up the stones that they cleared from the route and heaped them up on either side. Isa 62:10 states: Go through,go throughthe gates, clear ye the way of the people,castup, castup the highway; gather out the stones. In Isa 49:11 the prophet refers to the removal of the stones from the mountain paths:

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

And I will makeall my mountainsa way And my highways shall be raised on high. On the mountain slopes and in locations where passage was difficult, passes were dug out from fissures in the rock. These steep passes were known in Hebrew as macdleh, macdbhr, ccqob, caqrab, and neqeb, which were synonymous terms for passages or cracks in the rock. In Aramaic they are known as nequuta. The Mesha Stone, line 26, refers to the construction of a passage through the Arnon heights in Moab: "I built Aroer, and I made a highway in the Arnon (valley)." A highway was the widest route in the region, paved and built for use in times of siege and war. This much is suggested in Job 19:12: His troops come on together,and cast up their way against me, and encamp about my tent. Why did such a highly developed network of paths, tracks, and highways flourish in the Judean hills? The Religious and Settlement Factor The intensive colonization of the Judean hills by the Israelites is a unique phenomenon, explicable only in terms of the selection of Jerusalem as the capital city, sacred to the people. Jerusalem has several advantages as the capital city and chief sanctuary. Its site was determined by the Gihon spring, which is the most abundant source of water on the crest of the Judean hills. This spring enabled the city to support a large population. Moreover, Jerusalem lies on the Zion ridge, and the original city taken by David was flanked on three sides by valleys: the Kidron, the Hinnom, and the HaGay (Tyropoeon). Consequently, it enjoyed natural protection in addition to the strong man-made fortifications. Situated on the saddle of the Judean hills, Jerusalem lay near the main mountain road junction where routes from the four points of the compass meet. The proximity of the city to the Judean desert, which served as a place of refuge in times of emergency and war, was of additional significance to the capital, and in later antiquity the inhabitants of Jerusalem

wereconnectedwith and dependent upon the fortressesin the Judean desert. In some regionsof the country the main road was built first, because of convenienttopography,and the settlementsdevelopedlater. But in the Judeanhills the oppositewas the case, and the settlementsgrew up beforethe roads,whichweredifficult to build in this region.The sanctityof Mount Moriahon the northernpart of the Zion ridgewherethe Temple was constructedin Jerusalem,along with its selectionas the capital. made it the focus of attractionfor a large population.As the populationof Jerusalemitself grewso did the settlementsin the mountainstogether with the road networkservingthem. The pilgrims'route also convergedon Jerusalem,and in the periodof the SecondTempleapproximatelyone millionpilgrimsfrom all over the country,as well as the Diaspora, madethe journeyon feast days three times a year. The roadswereso full that duringthe month of Adar the authoritieswould repairthem and preparethe reservoirsfor the pilgrims with theircattle and carts (m. Seqal. 1:1).

MAP OF DESERT AREAS

0

tO

t0

lOlt ',

A. Rainy

.

o

....

o

o' "-d --"

arm,

00

sop

-

...

-n~

•"

-

tooo

%f

, .i N

-,1. wit.. 7 ? ...

l

. .

0.

#5

" t-

.s-Lom

?1

!,?Ci .";.'?::

TIL

"--B R--.

.

o.

..

.

•. • r~

/

". .I

?Em

.

?~f

-i .

/3

/ ME

The Economic-Commercial Factor In the economicspherethe kings of Judahand Israelwereautocratic, since the countrieslay along internationalhighwaysand were constantlyin dangerof quasi-warfare if not outrightsiege. The lowlands were the granaryand the centerof flax growingand cattle rearing.The Shephelahwas a suitableenvironment for olive grovesand wheat fields. The mountainswerethe home of the vine and fig trees,and saw the originsof terraceagricultureon as much as 56% of the hills, whichwas uniquein the MiddleEast. The Judeandesertwas a good environmentfor the breedingof sheep,donkeys,and camels.The Jerichovalleywas well wateredand suitedto the cultivationof date palms and balsam,while the Dead Sea valley was a centerfor productionof salt and asphalt.Theseareaswere highlydevelopedin the Second Templeperiodby Herodthe Great. The climaticand pedologicalconditions of Judeawere well suitedto the large-scalecultivationof variedbasic

i:

f

-?~

; --•o-

.........

.. fd•

s?

?r

~?? ...._--s•....

8-?

crops, so that the produceof one regioncomplementedthat of another in yield and season of growth.(See precipitationmap of Judea.) Five ports weresituatedon the coast. Theirmerchandisewas transportedto Jerusalem,while the produceof the mountainsand their hinterlandwas exportedto the coast. The portsweresited at or nearthe mouthsof riverswhichservedas axes of communicationbetweenthe coast and the mountains.Gaza was the southernoutlet of the countryand the port of the Negevand Sinai, and linkedthe tradeof the Red Sea with

-

" . .

..

o.

the Mediterranean countriesand Jerusalem.Ashkelonand Tel Mor, near Ashdod,servedas harborfor the ancient Egyptianseamenon theirway to Canaan,Tyre,and the Hittite kingdoms.Joppa functionedas the port of Jerusalemthroughoutmost of history,and Tell Qasile,at the mouth of the Yarkon,lay on a convenient harbornearthe only lateralriverthat was navigableupstreamto the mountainfoothills.Thus the land of Judea becameone of the most fertile and importantregionsof the country, and its economywas basedon the importand export of goods to and

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

13

The eight roads from Joppa to Jerusalem: (1) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of the Ha Ela valley, Azekah, Bethlehem-90 km. (2) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of the Soreq valley, Beth-shemesh, and Mahasia-82 km. (3) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of Beth-shemesh, the Soreq, and Bether-85 km. (4) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of the N. Ayyalon, Shaar HaGay, and Kiriath-jearim--65 km. (5) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of Lod, Modiin, the Ayyalon valley, Beth Liqya, and Gibeon-62 km. (6) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of Lod, Modiin, the Ayyalon valley, Lower Beth-horon, Elyon, and Gibeon-60 km. (7) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of Lod, Gezer, the Ayyalon valley, Emmaus, H. Aqad, H. Mezad, and Kiriath-jearim-66 km. (8) Joppa to Jerusalem by way of Lod, the Ayyalon valley, Kesalon valley, and Kiriath-jearim-76 km. from the maritime countries and the desert. The Political-Strategic Factor Political factors exerted considerable influence on the development or decline of the transportation network. Political changes on the borders of the country led to changes in the road network, since Judea was a consolidating force between the various regions. The Judean hills and Jerusalem served as fortress and refuge for the inhabitants of the Shephelah and the coastal plain during time of emergency and war. On the one hand, the Judean hills were far enough from the Via Maris which served the military caravans of the great powers, and the obstacles of the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley prevented the penetration of the mountains by armies invading the country along the biblical King's Highway on the highlands of Transjordan. The five western valleys enabled penetration of the mountains from the coast, so that the kings of Judah found it necessary to build fortresses on the edges of the spurs overlooking the Shephelah and the coastal plain. They established large strongholds at the entrances to the valleys at sites such as Lower Bethhoron, Ayyalon, Zorah, Bethshemesh, Azekah, Moresheth Gath, Maresha, Lachish, and Eglon. These served as early bases and forts against enemies who invaded the country from the west. The mountain road which ran along the crest of the main watershed was also fortified, since it

14

was here that the kings of Judah and Israel built their capital cities: Gibeah, Hebron, Jerusalem, and Bethel. The forts of Bethel and Mizpah were built north of Jerusalem, Ofrah to the northeast, Beth-horon in the northwest, Hebron in the south, Ziph and Maon in the southeast, and Adoraim and Debir in the southwest. Two parallel lines of fortifications were also eventually built in the Judean desert overlooking the highways and passes from the Dead Sea and Jordan Valley: the forts of Alexandrium, Aqraba, Docus, Cypros, Hyrcania, Herodium, Aristoblias, Masada, Carmel, and Arad. The majority of the roads in the Judean hills can be attributed to two major historical periods. The time of the kings of Israel and later in the Second Temple period saw the construction of the dense network connecting Jerusalem with the other regions of the country. These roads linked the fortresses and mountain strongholds which were also built as supply and access routes. Hence the mountain region was protected from any prospective enemy that might attack. In order to facilitate their siege of Jerusalem in 69-70 C.E.the Romans built numerous roads to the city from all flanks of the mountains. During the Byzantine period the old roads were repaired in order to facilitate connections between the coastal towns and particularly their capital of Caesarea with the Holy City of Jerusalem. They also provided pilgrims with relatively easy access to sites such as the place of the Baptism

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

of Jesus at the Jordan as well as access for monks to their monasteries in the Judean desert and Jericho valley. Roads and Highways to Jerusalem As already mentioned, 13 roads were built from the coastal towns into the Judean hills. Five of these ascended to Mount Hebron, and the others led from Joppa and the port of Ashdod to Jerusalem (see map on cover). The table in the accompanying box indicating the 8 roads from Joppa to Jerusalem and their lengths will be of help as we assess the significance of these roads. This table shows that the roads ran from Joppa and the other ports at the mouth of the Lachish valley-Tell Mor and Tell Qasile-to Jerusalem. They followed three major valleys along the plain: Ayyalon, SoreqRefaim, and Ha Ela. They also focused on three important fortresses in the Shephelah: Ayyalon or Emmaus in the Ayyalon valley, Bethshemesh in the Soreq valley, and Azekah in the Ha Ela valley. They reached Jerusalem through three central road junctions in the mountains: at Gibeon where the road crossed two lateral routes, at Kiriathjearim where there were three lateral routes, and at Kether where there were three more lateral routes. It is also worth pointing out that five of these roads followed the Ayyalon valley since these were the shortest routes from Joppa to the capital. These follow the Beth-horon Ascent, Beth Liqya, H. Mezad, Shaar HaGay, and the Kesalon valley. Now we will discuss the factors determining the routes from the coast to the mountains, as well as their uses and functions. The road following the river valley indicates that early foot traffic used the natural routes that follow the river valleys, such as the Soreq and its tributaries, and the Refaim and Kesalon valleys. The chief reason for this is the fact that the RefaimSoreq is the only river in the Judean hills that cuts deep into the mountain range. One of its headwaters, the Soreq, rises at Gibeah, the capital of the Israelite kingdom under Saul, and the other headwater, the Refaim, rises at Jerusalem, the capital dating from

the reign of King David. With regard to the route of the road through the valley, we know that during the Canaanite period and the time of the Israelite kingdom no stone base was built for the roads, but the stones were simply removed and passes were cut through the mountains in order to clear the way of obstacles. Thus in those days the road coincided with the valley course, which descended on the western flank of the mountain, and the river plain was a convenient passageway for the caravans for the following reasons: (a) Topographically the valley is the easiest crossing point, and it has fresh pastures for animals of the caravans, as stated in Mic 6:7: Willthe Lordbe pleasedwiththousands of rams. With ten thousands of rivers of oil? and in Jer 2:22: See thy way in the valley Knowwhat thou hast done Thouare a swiftyoungcameltraversing her ways. (b) The valley is a convenient point for orientation, as its origin is always in the watershed and its mouth at the coast or in the Jordan Valley and the Arabah. Thus it is difficult to get lost there, as indicated in Jer 31:9: 1 will cause them to walk by riversof waters

in a straightway whereinthey shall not stumble. For I am become a Father to Israel And Ephraimis my first-born. (c) Most of the sources of water in the country originate in the river valleys, whether they be springs, wells, or water-holes, as exemplified in Ps 110:7: He will drink of the brook in the way Thereforewill he lift up the head . .. and also in Gen 26:19 and I Kgs 17:6. (d) The floodplains and river valleys, in which alluvial deposits from the mountains are concentrated, constitute excellent environments for the establishment of agricultural settlements and commercial towns. These settlements provided a wide range of services and supplies for the

caravans: fodder for the animals, food and shelter for the people, protection from robbers and wild animals, and custom for their merchandise, as shown in Job 30:6: "In the clefts of the valleys they must dwell, in holes of the earth and the rocks": and in Josh 13:9:"From Aroer that is on the edge of the valley of Aron, and the ciltr that is in the middle of the valle.r, and all the table-land from Medeba unto Dibon." The first marches and campaigns mentioned in the Bible in the Judean hills did in fact use the tributary valleys of the Soreq. Two marches apparently followed the Kesalon valley during the time of the Judges: the Danites, oppressed by the Philistines, went up "six hundred men girt with weapons of war," from Zorah and Eshtaol and encamped at Kiriath-jearim(Judg 18:11-12), since the shortest route to Kiriath-jearim was along the Kesalon. 1 Samuel 5-6 refers to the inhabitants of Kiriathjearim who brought the Ark of the Covenant from Beth-shemesh at the mouth of the Kesalon to their own city at the head of the river. The Philistines in their campaign against David at the Zion fortress ascended by way of the Soreq-Refaim, since the battle took place in the Refaim valley and at Baal Perazim at the head of the Soreq-Refaim valley (2 Sam 5:1824). Archeological excavations at sites along the Soreq-Refaim valley have

LowerBeth-horon.Generalview to the east showingthe ascent of Beth-horon. revealed remains from the Canaanite period and the time of early Israelite settlement in the mountains. At Bethshemesh there are remains from the Middle Bronze Age. Manahat in the Refaim is mentioned in the Tell elAmarna tablets from the middle of the 14th century B.C.E.A discovery south of the Refaim at Gillo has revealed the remains of a fortress and tower dating from the time of the Israelite settlement. The numerous valleys of the Judean desert constituted a serious obstacle to passage, since the canyons have steep cliffs which prevented the passage of caravans. Despite this, however, military campaigns apparently did take place in the river valleys in the heart of the desert: Perat (Qilt), Zeelim, and Zohar (see map on cover). Joshua ascended from Gilgal near Jericho through the N. Parat to Gibeon in his campaign against the five kings of the Amorites (Joshua 10). David, fleeing from Saul, led his parents to Mizpeh in Moab by way of the N. Zeelim, and from there he returned to a fortress which may be identified with Masada (2 Sam 22:34). Joram, king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, waged war against Mesha, king of Moab, on the Highway in the wilderness of Edom, which apparently followed the N. Zohar (2 Kings 3). (See map of

BIBIICAI.ARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981 15

U'pperBeth-horon.Generalview to the east showingthe continuationof the ascent. roads and ascents in the Judean desert.) The Road on the Mountain Ascents While the most convenient roads to the mountains followed the various valleys such as the N. HaGay and the Shaar HaGay, the Kesalon, Soreq, and Ha Ela valleys, there.were also four ascents: Beth-horon, Beth Liqya, H. Aqad and Mesad, and Mahasia. All of these were on steep slopes. The Beth-horon ascent and the Ayyalon valley were of critical importance to Jerusalem throughout history, more so than any other road that led up to the capital. We will try to analyze the unique character and function of the Beth-horon ascent. In addition to the advantage of its being the shortest route from Joppa to Jerusalem (60 km), the whole road has only one steep section

16

BIBLICAL.ARCHOI.OGIST

between Lower and Upper Bethhoron, which is 3,300 m in length. The difference in height between the two points is 225 m. After this section the road to Jerusalem follows a convenient plateau formation. This steep ascent has several advantages: its strategic importance as the border between the tribal lands of Benjamin and Ephraim: from the top there is an excellent view of the whole ascent, of the Shephelah, the Ayyalon valley and the coastal plain, and therefore warning can be given of any imminent attack by the enemy, and preparations can be made to deal with it. The cities could be fortified at the weaker points at the extremities of the ascent-as effected by King Solomon-thus preventing incursions by enemy forces, for whoever controls the ascent also controls the road to Jerusalem. After this point there is no topographical barrier on the road to the capital. It is no mere coincidence that of the eight ascents mentioned in the Bible, only one is referred to on

WINTER 1981

the western slopes of the mountains of Israel: the Beth-horon ascent (Josh 10:10: 1 Chr 8:5). Steps were hewn out on this ascent, apparently during the Second Temple period, to facilitate the passage of beasts of burden and prevent them from slipping. Most of the military campaigns in the history of Israel refer to this ascent, originating from the time of Joshua and the Philistines, right up to the modern period and the Six-Day War in 1967. Other ascents in the Judean desert are mentioned in the Bible as sites of battles or as borders between tribes. Such are the Olives ascent, mentioned in the flight of David from his son Absalom, on the Mount of Olives to the east of Jerusalem (2 Sam 15:30), the ascent of Adummim on the border between Benjamin and Judah (Josh 15:7: 18:17), and the ascent of Haziz, which was probably located at En-Gedi, and was the site of a battle between Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and the

inhabitants of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir (2 Chr 20:16). The "Salt Ascent" was of considerable economic significance. It ran from Qumran to Jerusalem and was used to transport salt, spices, and sugar from the oases of the Dead Sea to the capital.

Conclusion: The Circlesof Fortifications The extensive road network that was constructed in the Judean mountains was in the first place a function of the intensive Israelite settlement there, unparalleled in any other part of Israel or the neighboring countries. The chief motive behind the construction of these highways was the selection of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and the construction of the Temple on the Temple Mount. when hundreds of thousands of Jews from Israel and the Diaspora made their pilgrimages to the Holy City. The main highway from the west climbed through the Ayyalon valley and used the Beth-

horon ascent, which was described by Josephus as the road that carries the people, since it served pilgrims, trading caravans, and military convoys. It connected the ports of Joppa and Tell Qasile and the Via Maris caravans with the capital city. The main road from Jericho in the east through the ascent of Adummim used the natural routeway to the south of the N. Perat leading to Jerusalem, and also connected the trading caravans and military convoys traveling from Jerusalem with Rabbath Ammon which lay on the important King's Highway on the Transjordanian heights. The mountain road to the north led out of the capital along the narrowest section of the Judean mountains and branched out in the land of Benjamin and Samaria into secondary routes to the Jezreel valley. Galilee, and Gilead. The road to the south of Jerusalem led to the Hebron mountains whence it branched out in three directions: the southwestern

Jerusalem from the south showing the junction of the Kidron (right) and Hinnom (left) valleys which served as a line of natural defense for the city (the first circle). So strong was this position that the Jebusites shouted down taunts at David's men as they besieged the city located on the Ophel ridge (center with the houses): "You will not come in here," they said. "but the blind and the lame will ward you off" (2 Sam 5:6). Photograph by A. Erev.

branch leading to Beer-sheba and the Shur Highway to Egypt, the southern branch descending along a paved road along the ascent of Deragot to Tell Malhata and Memphis to Elath and the Red Sea to link up with the "Spice Road" coming from Arabia, and the southeast branch leading to Arad and N. Zohar, crossing the Dead Sea valley in the plain of Sedom as the "Highway of the Wilderness of Edom," and finally reaching Moab and Edom. The second motive behind the construction of the roads was

ARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981 17 BIBLICAL.

strategic-political, since fortified Jerusalem was a symbol of the country's independence, and the city's prosperity reflected that of the population, whereas its destruction symbolized a loss of independence. The mountains and the Judean desert which enjoyed natural protection were the main stronghold of Judea and served as its refuge during times of siege and war. Thus the mountains were fortified during the period of the Israelite monarchy, the Hasmoneans, the Great Revolt, and the Revolt of BarKokhba with five concentric circles of 75 defensive fortifications (see cover map). The walls and towers of the city were built of hard, massive limestone. The height of the walls during the First Temple period reached 7 m and that of the towers was 15 m. During the Second Temple period the walls reached 50 m and the towers 45 m. In addition, a natural phenomenon formed a first circle of defense enhancing the man-made fortifications. Since Jerusalem was flanked on three sides by deep valleys it was naturally protected from surprise attacks and invasions. The other four circles were concentric fortifications at the entrances and outlets of the Judean mountains and were built on the valleys and roads ascending from the Shephelah, the Judean desert, the Negeb, and Samaria to Jerusalem. The most important of them are referred to in the Bible as the forts of Rehavam (2 Chr 11:5-12), Menashe (2 Chr 33:14) and Yotam (2 Chr 27:4). The circle closest to Jerusalem was built at a distance of 3-5 km from the city; the third was at 913 km, and the fourth at 17-25 km on the outer periphery and peaks of the mountains, while the fifth circle was built on the terraces of the Judean desert and at the opening of the Shephelah some 25-50 km from the capital (Jer 34:7). The remains of Roman milestones and roads ascending to Jerusalem-built in order to besiege the city-have been discovered at the ascents of Beth-horon, Adummim, Masada, Zeelim, Isiim, and Deragot. All these remains date from the time of the Great Revolt and the BarKokhba Revolt and the subsequent

18

Roman rule of the country. The road from Beth Guvrin through the Ha Ela valley to Jerusalem was built during the time of Marcus Aurelius (ca. 162 C.E.)and Septimius Severus (ca. 201 C.E.).The road from Emmaus to Kiriath-jearimand Jerusalem was built during the time of Maximinus and his son Julius Verus during the years 230-38 C.E. Earlier the book of Lamentations (2:2) had spoken of the destruction of the forts of Judah: "The Lord hath swallowed up unsparingly all the habitations of Jacob. He hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah. He hath brought them to the ground." During the Maccabean revolt the SyrianHellenistic campaign was focused on the control over the roads leading to Jerusalem. During the Great Revolt (66-73 C.E.)Vespasian surrounded the Judean hills and isolated them by conquering the adjoining regions in concentric circles. The battles were waged in the central forts of each region until the siege reached Jerusalem which eventually fell to Titus, his son. A frequently overlooked factor in the defense of Judah and Jerusalem was the massive human endeavor found in the hundreds and thousands of agricultural terraces constructed to heights of 1-3 m. Originally intended for the cultivation of vines and olives, they also served as artificial obstacles barring the way of enemy forces attacking Jerusalem. The terrace fences compelled the invaders to use the highways and ascents in the mountains, and these were well fortified by the ancients. Thus the Judean vineyards and groves served the purpose of defense of the roads and fortresses as early as the reign of King David, as suggested in Ps 89:40-41: Thou hast broken down all his fences Thouhasbroughthisstrongholdsto ruin All that pass by the way spoil him He is becomea taunt to his neighbors. (See also Hos 2:8 and Job 19:18.) There was no region other than the Judean hills where so many forts and indirect obstacles were constructed after expert thought and planning,

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

as is stated in Hos 8:14: "And Judah hath multiplied fortified cities." The purpose of these efforts was to prevent enemies from capturing the holy capital city, thus depriving the people of Israel of their freedom. Selected Bibliography Roads in General Avi-Yonah, M. Road, Roads. Pp. 711-16 in vol. 2 of Biblical Encyclopedia. (Hebrew) 1951 The Roman Roads in the Holy Land. Pp. 81-93 in Historical Geography'of the Holy Land. (Hebrew) Roll, I. 1973 Roman Roads in the Holy Land. Pp. 235-40 in The Roman Period. A. Collection of Lectures and Articles. Hamador Liyediat Ha'aretz Batenuah Hakibbutzit. (Hebrew) Roads in the Judean Mountains Conder, C. R., and Kitchener, H. H. 1883 Pp. 55-58, 187-89, 316-19, 404-5, Sheets Nos. 17, 21, 25 in Judea. Vol. 3 of The Survey of Western Palestine. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Har-El, M. The Journeys of the Patriarchs and 1969 their Settlements in the Land of Canaan. Madac 14: 37-43. (Hebrew) The Ancient Route of Myrrh, Frank1979 incense, and Copper in the Negev. In The Land of the Negev-Man and Desert. Israel Ministry of Defense. (Hebrew) Karmon, Y. 1957 Topographical Influence on the Judean Roads. Pp. 144-50 in Judah and Jerusalem: The TwelfthArchaeological Convention. (Hebrew) Landau, I. H. The Roman Milestones near Giveat 1968 Yeshacyahu. Yediot 28: 232-35. (Hebrew) Roll, I. 1972 A New Milestone near Shacar Hagai. Pp. 272-74 in Eretz Ben'yamin. Hamador Liyediat Ha'aretz Batenuah Hakibbutzit. (Hebrew) Roads in the Judean Desert Beauvery, R. 1957 La route romaine de Jerusalem a Jericho. RB 64: 72-101. Ben Yehuda, E. A Complete Dictionary of Ancient 1959 and Modern Hebrew. New York, London: Thomas Yoseloff. Gichon, M. The System of Fortifications in the 1965 Kingdom ofJudah. Pp. 410-25 in The Military History of the Land of lsrael in Biblical Times, ed. I. Liver.

Maarachoth. (Hebrew)

Har-El, M. 1967 Israelite and Roman Roads in the Judean Desert. IEJ 17: 18-26. 1970a Doth Not David Hide Himself With Us in Strongholds in Horsha. Pp. 157-69 in S. Yeivin Volume. Israel Society for Biblical Research. (Hebrew)

Orientation

in

1970b

1976

The Valley of Salt in the Land of Kikar and the Boundaries of the Negev. Pp. 342-51 in J. Braslavi Volume. Israel Society for Biblical Research. (Hebrew) The Journeys of King David and the Romans in Macaleh Adumim. Maarachoth 250: 1-12. (Hebrew)

Biblical

1979

PEFM

The Route of the Salt, Sugar and Balsam Caravans in the Judaean Desert. Geojournal. Palestine Exploration Fund Maps, Sheets 14, 18, 20-22.

Shalem, N. 1953 Jerusalem and its Desert. Pp. 300-26 in Yerushalayim.Rabbi Kook Foundation. (Hebrew)

Lands

Menashe Har-El The crucial need for orientation in the expanses of the desert as well as in the village and town led the ancients to use certain "landmarks"in order to orient themselves in nature: (1) the sun, which rises in the east, traverses the southern skies (in the northern hemisphere), and sets in the west; (2) natural geographical objects--a land region, mountain, peak, slope, ascent, rock, highland, hill, valley, rift, wilderness, desert, river, ravine, cascade, spring, sea, or peninsula-as noted in the Book of Joshua (chaps. 15-19); and (3) the settlements and roads which were mainly within tribal possession and the country's regions. After the invention of the compass, orientation in the northern hemisphere was toward the magnetic North Pole. But since the sun rises and sets consistently the Semitic peoples faced the sun in their orientation (Num 23:7; Deut 33:15). In other words they faced eastward, which is the direction in front of them while facing the sun. Thus the expression panoh ("to turn") is derived from panim ("face") because one directs his face and eyes kadimd ("forward") toward the sun. Kedem ("east") and kadim (the east wind, which is also the main hot wind) are derived from the same root as kadimd. The Bible notes that the east is the starting point of the sun (Ps 19:7): His rising-placeis at one end of heaven, and his circuitreachesthe other; nothingescapeshis heat. Thus it is obvious that the primary, most consistent, and fixed

medium of orientation was the brilliant sun. In addition, the sun brought the earth's main wind. The Bible refers to the heavenly winds as "the four winds," "the winds of heaven," "the ends of heaven," and "the wings of the earth" (Jer 49:36; Ezek 37:9; Zech 2:10). As Isaiah prophesied (Isa 11:12; cf. also Ezek 7:2; Job 37:3, 38:13; Rev 7:1, 20:8): He will hold up a signalto the nations And assemblethe banishedof Israel, And gatherthe dispersedof Judah From the four cornersof the earth. The main wind here was that of the east. The other winds are described according to man's orientation toward the sun. The wind in the direction opposite of kedem ("forward" or "east"-Ps 139:5; Job 23:8) is macdrdv ("west"-Isa 9:11; Job 23:8) or drdn ("last"-Deut 11:24; Joel Dah.or where the sun sets (Deut 2:20), 11:30;Josh 1:4, 23:4; Zech 8:7), which is over the great sea. Thus the west is referred to as "sea" (Exod 10:19; Num 34:6; Josh 18:14) or "seaward" (Gen 28:14; Josh 16:8). When one's face is turned forward (i.e., toward the east) then the north, sdf6n (Gen 14:15, 24:49; Num 34:7; Jer 4:6), is at the left,)m6Dl. The Arabic term for north is shimal, which is a cognate of the Hebrew SmJ l. The Canaanite god known as Bacal ("lord of the the north (Isa .Sfdn north") resided in 14:13; Exod 14:2; Num 33:7). At the right is yimTn or trmdn, which represents the south (Gen 13:9; Isa 43:6; Ezek 40:24; Eccl 11:3) or Negev (Gen 13:14; Exod 26:18; Ezek 21:2). Therefore, the compass rose. The

winds in their daily course blow from the four corners, influenced by the sun and the earth's orbital spin (Eccl 1:5-6): The sun rises,and the sun setsAnd glides back to whereit rises. Southwardblowing, Turningnorthward, Everturningblows the wind; On its roundsthe wind returns. Turning toward the winds of heaven led various nations to deify the mountain crests in the four winds of the heavens and fix their cultic sites in the direction of the four corners of the earth. As to the east, kedem, the Bible retains "the ancient (kedem) God is a refuge" (Deut 33:27) and "God who has reigned from the first (kedem)." God is spoken of as He "who rides the ancient highest (kedem) heavens" (Pss 55:20, 68:34), "O Lord ... everlasting (mikedem)" (Hab 1:12), and "my king from of old (mikedem)" (Ps 74:12). These all point to an ancient cult of the god of kedem which was located on the hills of the east (kedem) (Num 23:7; Deut 33:15). The Canaanites sanctified the north and apparently built the temple on the to their god Bacal .SfdnAkar, or peaks of Jebel al-Aqra, Makhmal, which is north of Ugarit on the Lebanese coast, near the estuary of the Orontes River. The Bible refers to this site as Hor Hahar (Num 34:7-8), and it is ca. 3,000 m above sea level. The Bible hints at the deification of the north (Ps 89:13): North [sdifdn]and south, You createdthem; Taborand Hermonsing forth your name.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

19

The verse also implies that north and south were names of mountains. Teman, which is at the south wind, was apparently sanctified by the descendants of Esau, the Edomite nomads (Gen 36:1I1,15, 34; Jer 49:7, 20). Zech 9:14 hints at the existence of a Teman cult, but in Hab 3:3 (cf. Ps 78:54) we find: God is comingfrom Teman The HolyOnefromMountParan,Selah. In the west and in the Mediterranean Sea were the Tyrian cultic sites (Isa 24:15): Therefore,honor the Lordwith lights In the coastlands[ivim=islands]of the

sea The name of the Lord, the God of Israel.

Ezekiel says of Tyre (Ezek 28:2; cf. Isa 45:8-10; Dan 11:45): Say to the princeof Tyre:Thussaid the Lord God: Becauseyou have beenso haughtyand have said, "I am a god; I sit enthronedlike a god in the heartof the seas. .. ." If the Semites were oriented toward the east, the Egyptians were oriented toward the south, toward their life-giving Nile and its source, the tall mountains of Ethiopia. G. Posener (1965: 69-78) notes that there are many semantic references in Egyptian which point to the south as the Egyptians' direction of orientation. The Nile, the source, was the Egyptians'kadim ("forward") and beginning. The north was behind, and the end for the Egyptian; to the left was the east and to the right was the west. Thus it seems to ps that the "forward,"or main, wind for the Egyptian was the south wind which swept up from the Sahara to dry the ears of grain in the fields of Egypt (Gen 41:6; cf. Exod 10:13, 14:21; Hos 12:2), or, as we read in Ps 78:26: The east wind movingin heaven... [driving]the south wind by His might. The difference between the Egyptian kedem ("main wind," "south") and the Semitic kedem ("east") is in the Bible's mention of the dual expression k~dmd-mizrahd(i.e., easterly main wind) six times. As the Bible notes,

20

during the Exodus when the Israelites camped in the desert around the Tent of Meeting, Reuben was to the temdn ("south"), Dan to the north, Ephraim y'amd ("seaward," i.e., to the west), and the Camp of Judah was in the direction of kedmd-mizrahd (Num 2, 34:15; Exod 27:13, 38:13; Josh 19: 12-13). This serves to show that while in the Sinai and Negev deserts the Israelites' orientation was not toward the Egyptian kedem, to the south, but toward the kedem east of Canaan. It seems probable that the country's earliest maps, the Bible's "writing down the land," were oriented toward the east. Joshua notes the cartography (Josh 18:5, 8): Joshuaorderedthe men who were leavingto writedown a descriptionof the land, "Gotraversethe countryand writedown a descriptionof it. Then returnto me, and I will cast lots for you hereat Shiloh beforethe Lord." Furthermore, surely the map of the possessions of the seven tribes noted in Joshua 18-19-Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulon, Issachar, Asher, Naftali, and Dan-begins in the east and ends in the west, and the same holds for the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh surveyed in chaps. 16-17. Even the maps (hinted at in the book of Joshua) of the tribes of Reuben and Gad which settled east of the Jordan were drawn from the east, from the edge of the desert, toward the west, ending at the Jordan and the Kinnereth. Later evidence is that of the 6thcentury Byzantine Madaba map (AviYonah 1954). The map, drawn as a mosaic floor, was discovered in a church on Mount Nebo in northern Moab, northeast of the Dead Sea. At the head of the map is east (kadimad, or kidma) and at the bottom is the Mediterranean Sea. South is at the right of the map and north at the left. This serves to show that the ancient maps were oriented toward the east, where the sun rises.

Bibliography Avi-Yonah.M. 1954

The Madaha Mosaic Map. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Posener. G. 1965 Sur Iorientation et Iordre des points cardinaux chez le Egyptians. Nachrichten der akademie der Wissenschaften in Goittingen. PhilologischHistorische Klasse 2: 69-78.

New Testament on Cassette

?.

Satisfaction Guaranteed or Full Refund

Quick Delivery SendS200for Tape w/ampks

& al 6 offers

Tapes

Guaranteed New InternationalVersion.......

$34.95

The LivingBible musicandsoundeffects.......

$34.95

King James Version withor withoutmusic.........

$24.95

The New American Standard ....

$39.95

RevisedStandard ............. $34.95 The LivingChrist 8 hr. dramatizedmusical biography

ofJesus'l fe ................$29.95 SewdTo

Bible Society

Note 'Cf. also Isa 14:13:"1will sit in the mountof assembly,on the summitof Zaphon("north")."

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

M&

World

P.O. Box 495t Brentwood, TN 37027

n Phon Orders Onk,

Or Call for Sdame Day Service

Phlon (1)1:)3713 0•35 In CANAI)A add 10%

THECHRISTIAN

DAMASCUS (4ECHEM)

MOS

OUTR.

QUARTER /

o' q

4

Ix .

DOM

x-xiv

allO

off. F

IGI

0.TR T)

4 tmMW

=S

ML~

A

as

airOUTR. GATE wCXT STA ~~Cn~ ou

(E

Ci

Tin ST_ n*ATI FAARICH OF~

ARMENIAN ARMENIAN

S'

ATE

Bruce E. Schein So they took Jesus; and carrring the cross hbY Himself. He went out to a place called the place- of the skull which in Hebrew is "Golgotha, "where theY' crucified Him and two others with Him, one on either side, and Jesus in the middle. Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans. " Now man*v Judeans read this title, .for the place where Jesus was

CHRC

The Second Wall of Jerusalem

crucified was near the citI'. ...

In the place where He was crucified 'as a garden, and in the garden a new' tombh where no one had ever been laid. (John 19:17-20, 41) These few verses, the location of the Church of the Resurrection (the traditional site of Golgotha-called the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Crusaders), and the tomb of Jesus have combined to make the study of the location of the second wall of Jerusalem anything but unimpassioned. The Protestant Edward Robinson (1856: 312ff.), a pioneer in the field of the historical geography of the Bible, could bend his critical

eye to insure the location of the Church of the Resurrection inside the walls of Jesus' Jerusalem. In spite of his claim of neutrality, this is probably a result of his dislike of the various liturgically oriented denominations who worship there. A noted defender of the authenticity of the Church of the Resurrection, the Roman Catholic Pbre L. H. Vincent (1954: 90-113), presents a detailed description of the supposed remains of the second wall's course. However, he is anything but dispassionate in his Above: Maps depicting the area of the Muristan today. The map on the right details the area around the Holy Sepulchre and the Redeemer Church. Drawings by M. Gabrieli.

ARCHEOI.OGISTWINTER1981 21 BIBLICAL.

attacks on doubters of the Church's authenticity (Simons 1952: 284ff.; Avi-Yonah 1968: 98-125). The long debate has raged over this rather short wall. It had only 14 towers compared to the first wall's 60 and the third wall's 90 (J. W. 5.158; Hamrick 1977: 18-23). No wonder that Josephus only specifically men-

tionsit by namethreetimesin the

Jewish Wars (5. 146, 303, 342. Reference is also made to this wall in J. W. 5.158, 317, 331. The mention of a "second wall" in Ant. 14.476 may refer to the same wall as in J. W. The reference has no parallel in J. W.). Indeed, his description of the wall is in keeping with its length-short. He does not even mention the builder in the sentence he devotes to its description (J. W. 5.146): The secondwall startedfromthe gate in the firstwall whichtheycalledGennath, and encirclingonly the northerndistrict of the town, went up as far as Antonia. Vinceni made a valiant effort to piece together the second wall from what appeared to be sections of the wall uncovered in the area of the Muristan. The Muristan is the area that extends from the south of the Church of the Resurrection to the hill rising from the present David's Street, including the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer. This area was the site of much building activity in the second half of the last century. Archeologists had an opportunity for study of the Old City, which was comparatively rare until the rebuilding of the Jewish Quarter after 1967. Unfortunately, archeology was in its infancy in this period. The most important segment of Vincent's "second wall" ran through the center of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, which is located about 50 m from the traditional Golgotha. This wall was seen and described by C. Schick, a German architect who was employed by the Turkish government. His observations were made before the building of the Redeemer Church in 1893. (The cornerstone of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer was laid on this wall because it was thought to be the "second wall" [Das Deutsche Kaiserpaar 1899: 7, 182].) Vincent's plan for the second wall

22

has been followed on the majority of maps of Ist-century Jerusalem (Yadin 1975: 10). In an article written in 1968, Michael Avi-Yonah did propose a plan differing from Vincent's; however, he turns the line of the wall so that it passes under the Redeemer Church (1968: 124, fig. 6). Perhaps this is the result of earlier material not being reedited before publication. His careful article in 1968 would seem

BIBLICAL.ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

Top: The RedeemerChurchsanctuary locatedabove the excavatedarea. Photographby A. Hay. Bottom:The area of excavationunderthe Redeemer Church.Photographby A. Hay. Opposite:The plan of the excavations underthe RedeemerChurch.Drawingby E. Kriiger.

-....

,f

W f 1120 B*B

w-

3N

-

Ly~W

'v'4

4 N143

,

I

~~t?

.•7"~

B1..14B. 8I

e?i" sE~o

.

II~~818 , iF

q

"t

?

2

"

I[

s,1971-

t.•',92

rtAL" ? . ,.,

l

e

..

,

.

to indicate his final line for the second wall, although the maps in Jerusalem Revealed and Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land which accompany his articles follow Vincent in beginning near the Citadel. In 1970 one of the rare opportunities for excavation in the Muristan occurred when it was decided to do extensive restoration work in Redeemer Church. While the restoration work was in progress above, the area under the floor was to be excavated in order to examine the section of Vincent's "second wall."

This excavation was directed by Ute Lux of Jerusalem's German Evangelical Institute for Archaeology in the Holy Land. The wall reported by Schick and used in the Vincent reconstruction was found immediately. By the end of the first season, it became clear that the wall could not possibly be the second wall of Jerusalem (Lux 1972).' In a further campaign spread over the years 197274, Karel Vriezen (1978) determined that the wall was a terrace wall which was built in the late Roman or Byzantine periods. This means that the majority of maps of the Jerusalem

of Jesus' day based on this section are simply incorrect. Further, it means that probably no part of the second wall has yet been found. The results of the excavation under Redeemer Church are not altogether negative as they relate to the picture of Jerusalem in the Ist century A.D., however. The excavation has served to place a number of the missing pieces together in our reconstruction of Ist-century Jerusalem and to indicate where the second wall may have stood. After clearing the wall on the eastern half of the Redeemer Church basement, an area 3.6 X 2.8 m was excavated to bedrock which lay between 7 and 8 m below the wall! The fill between the wall and bedrock was composed of potsherds dating from the 7th century e.c. to A.D. 70. This fill seems to have been deposited above the bedrock during the time of Hadrian. There do not appear to be any occupation layers. When the bedrock was cleared, it was discovered to have been part of a stone quarry. Partly quarried stones were left, as well as the cuts made in the limestone by the quarriers. This excavated shaft began to focus the picture that had been slowly emerging from this part of the Muristan for almost a century. Paul Groth, the German architect who built Redeemer Church, had already discovered in 1893 that there was such a depth of fill. In order to give proper support to the new church, he laid the foundation pillars on the bedrock. His knowledge of the area under the church was never published. Tension between various groups of Christians has not been the only factor that has affected progress in understanding this part of Jerusalem. Nationalistic feelings have played their part as well! Although the Frenchman Vincent was studying this part of Jerusalem as the church was being built, German distrust or, more precisely, Prussian distrust of the French meant that Vincent was never allowed to study the findings of Groth. Groth himself hoped to publish the pictures and plans made while the foundations were being laid. He, unfortunately, delayed his publication too long. Bombs dropped during the Second World War

BIBLICAL.ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981 23

Above:Theshaftunderthe Redeemer Churchwith the exposed partof the stone

quarryat its base.Photograph by U. Lux. of the Muristan Right:Reconstruction

area of Jerusalemas it was beforeA.D. 70. Drawingby E. Sawadsky.

demolishedGroth'shome in Germany and with it the unpublishedmaterial he had gathered. Fortunately, while

the foundationswere being laid, Groth had sent classifiedaccounting reportsto the Prussiangovernment givingthe depth to which he was forcedto dig in orderto lay the foundationpillars.These reportswere madeavailableas the excavation began. E. Krtiger,the architectfor the restorationof the RedeemerChurch and the excavations,has determined the depth of the bedrockunderthe foundationsof the pillarsfrom these reports.Whenstudiedtogetherwith the excavationresults,the picture underthe churchbecomesimmediately clear. Evidentlythe entirearea where the churchnow standswas once a stone quarry.From the Lux shaft, the quarrysloped down to the north 3.25 m and rose 2.35 m to the west. The pictureunderthe church,in turn, fits the excavationresultsof Kenyon'ssite "c"in the MartinLutherSchool grounds,70 m south of Lux'sshaft. On the same level as the terracewall under RedeemerChurch,Kenyonalso found a Byzantinelevel. Underthis level she excavateda shaft to bedrock which was about at the same level as the bottom of Lux'sshaft. As in Lux'sshaft, the fill was a mixtureof 7th-centuryB.C.and 2nd-centuryA.D. 24

material.Bedrockalso was once used as a stone quarry(Kenyon 1974:229, fig. 37). This part of the pictureof the Muristanin the Ist century,in turn, fits Vincent'sdescriptionof the area just northof the Lutheranproperty. It seems that a seriesof cisternswas later built into this partof the quarry. Whenthese were studied,it was possibleto drawa roughpictureof the northside of the quarryas it rose to a second level now coveredby the Churchof the Resurrection(Vincent 1914:pl. 12).CharlesCouiasnon,the late architectin chargeof the restorationof the Churchof the Resurrectionfor the Latincommunity,was able to excavatea sectionjust south of the tomb of Jesus. This area was also used as a stone quarry.Potterydatingto the 7th centuryB.C.also was found coveringthis highersectionof the stone quarry.2

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

The stone quarry in the Muristan was approximately 150 X 50 m, extending north and south from under the shops north of the Lutheran property to David's Street and east and west from the Muristan Road to the market place behind the Lutheran property to the east. It was observed during recent installation of utilities under the road of the market, Suq al-Atarrin, that in some areas the bedrock is not far below the present level. The second, or higher, level of the quarry on the west, and perhaps the entryway into the deeper section, was evidently located where the Church of the Resurrection is today. Golgotha was probably part of the original hill which was quarried to make this second level. This part was left unquarried because of the poor quality of its stone. As was customary in the Ist century, Joseph of Arimathea bought this part of the

quarry in which to make a family tomb. These excavations and observations, while never finding the second wall, do allow for a much stronger hypothesis as to the location of the wall. This section of Jerusalem has a serious defense problem, as the north side of Jerusalem always has. Any wall built to the north of the towers of Herod's palace and the first wall would lose the natural defense provided by the hill which rises just south of David's Street. The wall would be further weakened by the cross valley which begins by the Pool of the Patriarch or Josephus' Pool of the Towers and runs east to the Tyropoean valley by the Temple Mount. This was not the only place in Jerusalem that presented such a problem. The Antonia was weakened by the hill rising to the north of it. What was the solution at the Antonia? A moat was dug along the north face of the building-wall defense complex (J. W. 5.149-50, 246. This formed the Struthion Pool.). The effectiveness of this "moat" was experienced by the attacking Romans (J. W. 5.467, 523). Evidently the builder of the second wall employed this same defense method but on a larger scale. The valley was deepened by the quarry, and the limestone was used for a building program. Perhaps the stone became part of the second wall itself. The line of the second wall ran just behind the quarry. This can be assumed, given the topography of the Muristan and the rapid drop of the valley and hillside just to the east of Suq al-Atarrin. If any of the northsouth section of the second wall is left, it will probably be found in the market or lying on the quarry floor just east of the Lux and Kenyon excavations. Because the central street for Byzantine Jerusalem was laid exactly through this area, all traces of the wall may have been removed. Gennath, or the garden gate, would be located in the first wall on the south side of the quarry, probably on the south side of the Lutheran hostel property. It would lead to the garden area north of the first wall noted in John 19:42. Interestingly, a line for the wall in this area was already suggested by Gustaf Dalman in 1924, who sensed from the topography of

Herod the Great may have been the builderof the Second Wall. the area that this would be the most probable location of the wall (Dalman 1924: fig. 33). Avi-Yonah followed this line for the second wall in his latest scholarly discussion of its course (1968: 124, fig. 6). He, of course, knew the results of Kenyon's excavation and followed her suggestion that the second wall would probably be found to the east of her dig (Kenyon 1974: 245, fig. 42). Josephus, although never mentioning the quarry, indirectly gives us an example of its effectiveness. Before the quarry was found, one would have expected the Roman army machine simply to roll down the hill from their camp within the third wall, breaking through the second wall on the weak west side, as the topography was in their favor. It was puzzling that they would attack instead from the north side. Here the terrain, sloping both to the north and the east, is more difficult for the battering ram (J. W. 5.317, 331). Now it is clear that if the second wall ran behind the stone quarry, it would be impossible to move a battering ram against the wall without first undertaking the difficult task of filling this "moat." (The person who did fill the quarry was probably Hadrian. He turned the Muristan area into the center of the Aelia Capitolian, pagan Roman Jerusalem.) The quarry also served as a defense for the Romans in A.D. 70 after they gained control of it and began their attack on the first wall. They destroyed the north part of the wall, but left the southern section (the section behind the stone quarry) standing. The Roman soldiers, taking up their positions in the towers of this strong southern section, used the second wall as one of their spearheads in the final attack on the first wall (J. W. 5.347). The course of the wall from the northeast edge of the quarry is usually shown as running along the present Khan es-Zeit Street, turning east to the Antonia near the

traditional Via Dolorosa. This is, in part, so drawn because of a trench Vincent described as running through the Church of the Resurrection in a northerly direction. This was thought perhaps to be a defense moat for the wall. It would seem, however, that this would not be the best strategic position for a wall built on terrain sloping both north and east. The wall would be much easier to defend if it turned toward the Antonia at the northeast corner of the stone quarry. The wall would cross the edge of the flat Ras Golgotha to the east of the present Russian Church. Here the wall would be defended by the corner of the quarry, Vincent's trench, and a natural downward slope to the north. As the wall continued down the hill to the Tyropoean valley, it would also have the added protection of this slope to the east. This line fits the description of Josephus who states that the wall "went up as far as Antonia" (that is, moved north towards it). As Josephus indicates by the short description, the area it "encircled"was indeed very small. The question remains as to who was the second wall's builder. Kenyon found pottery at the bottom of her shaft dating from the 7th century B.c. and dated the quarry to that period. However, she felt (1974: 234) that Herod the Great was the builder of the second wall. Her find may have been nonrepresentative. Lux (1972: 200) found Herodian material in the layer immediately above the quarry. This indicates that Herod may indeed have been not only the builder of the second wall, but the quarrier as well of its defense "moat." If the wall had been older, it would have been recognized as non-Herodian in the Ist century. It would be strange that Josephus would not comment upon this. Although he wrongly assigns the first wall to David and Solomon, nevertheless, he can evidently distinguish older and newer types of walls (J. W. 5.143). This ability to differentiate wall types is also seen in the reference to Solomon's Porch in John 10:23. The name arises because of the difference between the style of Herodian masonry used in building the Temple platform and an earlier wall type to which it was added. This can easily be Observedon the east

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

25

side of the former Herodian temple platform. This wall is Hellenistic as was part of the "first wall" of Josephus. If the second wall had also been Hellenistic, we would expect that it also would be ascribed to Solomon or one of the early kings of Judah. It seems that after Herod strengthened the first wall with the three great towers in the area of his palace and built the Temple platform, he evidently decided to enclose the suburb to the north of the city as a further defense for the main part of Jerusalem. He added a second defense line to the vulnerable eastern half of the first wall after it passed the natural defense of the hill to the south of David's Street. The stone quarry, in turn, acted as a defensive moat for the new wall's vulnerable west side.

Notes

bung unter der Erloserkirche im Muristan im der Altstadt von Jerusalem in den Jahren 1970 und 1971. ZDPV 88: 185-201, and pls. 18-23. Robinson, E. 1856 Biblical Researches in Palestine. Vol. I. Boston: Crocker and Brewster. Simons, J. 1952 Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Bibliography Leiden: Brill. Vincent, L. H. Anonymous 1899 Das Deutsche Kaiserpaarim Heiligen 1914 Jerusalem Novella. Vol. II. Paris: Lande.Berlin:E. S. Mittler. Gabalda. Avi-Yonah,M. 1954 Jerusalem de lancien Testament. 1968 The Third and Second Walls of Paris: Gabalda. Jerusalem.IEJ 18:98-125. Vriezen, K. J. H. Dalman,G. 1978 Zweiter vorlaiufiger Bericht fiber die 1924 Orte und Wege Jesu. Gutersloh: Ausgrabung unter der Erloserkirche Bertelsmann. im Muristan in der Altstadt von Hamrick,E. W. Jerusalem (1972-74). ZDPV 94: 761977 The Third Wall of AgrippaI. BA 81, and pls. 5, 6. 40: 18-23. Yadin, Y., ed. 1975 Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology' in Kenyon,K. the Holy City, 1968-1974. Trans. and 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem.New York: Praeger. abridged R. Grafman from Hebrew. Lux, U. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soci1972 Berichtfiberdie AusgraVorldiufiger ety. 'I am grateful to Dr. Lux for her help in preparing this article and for giving permission to use plans and pictures from her excavation under Redeemer Church. 2The death of Ch. Couiasnon in 1976 has interrupted the publication of his finds.

ASOR Announcement Membership Information: Memberships in the American Schools of Oriental Research are available for the period of the fiscal year (July-June) only. Members receive discount prices on selected ASOR-published books and use of ASOR facilities abroad whenever space is available. Members automatically receive subscriptions to Biblical Archeologist, ASOR Bulletin, and the ASOR Newsletter. At the present time, issues of ASOR Bulletin which will be received will bear last year's date, as publication is behind schedule. Under our new billing policy, renewal invoices will be mailed at the same time as the last issue of Biblical Archeologist due on membership (April 1). Renewal orders will be due within 30 days of receipt of our renewal invoice, as we must allow 4-6 weeks for processing payments. New memberships will be retroactive to the preceding July 1, and issues of ASOR publications already due on membership for that period will be sent in bulk. Membership rates are: Regular, $35/year; Student (with verification and graduation date specified), $20/year; Retired Faculty Member (with verification), $20/year. These rates apply to the July 1980-June 1981 period only.

26

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

Subscription Information: Subscriptions to Biblical Archeologist (published quarterly) are available during the following periods: January-December, April-March, July-June, and October-September. Under our new billing policy, renewal invoices will be mailed at the same time as the last issue due on subscription, which is October, January, April, and July, respectively. Renewal orders will be due within 30 days of receipt of our renewal invoice, as we must allow 4-6 weeks for processing payments. New subscriptions will be active during the period beginning with the current issue, unless otherwise specified. Subscription rates are: Regular, $16/year; Student (with verification and graduation date specified), $10/year; Retired Faculty Member (with verification), $10/year. Overseas subscribers please add $2 postage and handling to the above rates (American currency). For more information write to ASOR Subscription Services, 416 W. Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104. Prepaid Orders (please specify the nature of the order) send to: ASOR Administrative Office, 126 Inman St., Cambridge, MA 02139. Change of address, claims, and general information concerning subscriptions and memberships send to: ASOR Subscription Services, 416 W. Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

Tracking the

Ancient

Moabites

James R. Kautz The plateau of Central Moah provides opportunit'v.for extensive archeological suri'e'l and exploration. Though the region is isolated and has no obvious tells, recent

archeological interest in the area has emerged. particularI1tat Bdh edh-Dhra^C'.hich is located hbet'een the plateau and the Dead Sea. Left: Survey director Max Miller and the ACOR Land Cruiser on the Central Moab plateau. Below: The Wadi Majib. the northern boundary of Central Moab. was called the Arnon in the Old Testament. This view sees the southern rim of the wadi from the northern slopes. Jebel ShThAn.an extinct volcano. can be seen rising slightly above the wadi rim to the right of the center of the photograph.

BIBIICAl.ARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981 27

For a Land Cruiser load of

archeologicalsurveyorsthe exploration of "CentralMoab"is an experiencein aestheticcontrasts,a challengeto academicdiscipline,a continuingdiscussionof logistics,a daily promiseof the delightsof discovery,and a test of endurance and will. This land of Ruthand the Moabitekings is a well-definedhigh plateauoverlookingthe easternedge of the Dead Sea. Its northern boundaryis the rim of the Wadi Mfjib, a 610-m-deepcanyon called the Arnon in the Old Testament.The Majib'sprofounddepth, its cliffs whichrevealchalk and flint strata,

and its reflectionof changingpatterns of hues and shadowsdrawthe travelerback for "one more look"at the Arnon. The Wadi Hess, a bit shallower but no less impressive,marksthe southernlimit. Herethe limestone contrastswith black basalt,and the surroundinghills seem to rise higher and roll less rhythmicallythan those aroundthe Mtjib. On the east the plateauis cut off from the desertby the north-flowing Majiband its tributariesand by flat stretchesof basaltand soil which extend towardthe desertroad. The DeadSea liessome 1,220m below the tablelandof Moab. Every

SfoADABA

Dead

iD e a d. -

. A.r.A * AA UR/SAN4eK JU

note,

S*

Av. N n"h. S

w "ehe.il

.

Bob eEA Pbre

Kh.#ffeAAt*

..AAZR

CENTRAL MOAB ArTHA

Ancient

ite. vith

modern settlement

i

,,:

Ancient resettled

8a

not

Belov600meters .

S

28 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981

site.

wadi whichdrops into it seems by its ruggednessto prefigurethe alien beautyof the sea. CentralMoab providesan imperialchallengeto boredom.Likea Kansaswheatfield,it is largely treeless,brown,occasionallystony, but obviouslyfertile. Basaltrocks appearthroughout,ubiquitousremindersthat Jebel ShThAn-a975-m peak on the plateau'snorthwest-was once an active volcano. As if arrangedto breakthe monotonyof the plains,deep wadis cut into the tablelandon all sides. They beginas shallowdepressions and erodedgullies nearthe central ridgebut soon slice theirways into the substrata,exposingbouldersand rock shelvesin theirdescents. Life on the plateauis as varied as its terrain.Camelcaravans,dusty herdsof sheep,and scatteredblack tents are there,remindersof Mesha, "shepherdof Moab,"and of centuries of pastoralismin this area. Gypsies and bedouinstill appearand disappearovernight,and the loneliest point can somehowproducea curious boy who seems to have sprungfrom the earthwithoutherald-'ddamdh has yieldedyet one more 'ddam. Bedouinpresenceis apparently diminishing,however.The nomads, some from the al Amratribe of Saudi Arabia,have folded their tentsexcept as summerquarters-and moved into the villageswhich have begunto appearall over the plateau. Abi Traba,on the lowereast slopes of ShThan,has grown from 3 houses in 1951to 30 in 1978.Government land policy and waterdistributionare takingshepherdsaway from their flocks and encouragingthem to producewheat.The "desertand the sown"are seldomelsewhereso clearly juxtaposed. Besides these obvious land features the archeological explorer, his eyes plowing their furrows on the soil as a matter of habit, sees the dingier parts of the world: the jawbone of an ass, discarded sardine tins, dungballs of a thousand sheep, a lost lighter, nondegradable plastics, glass and rust-all reminders that the coveted ancient sherds are being joined by modern counterparts. We remark to each other on the differences between excavating and

recentsurveys,includingthe work of ASOR affiliatesJames Sauer, Walter Rast, and R.ThomasSchaub,showed that up and down the Transjordan, Glucckmissedmanysites. way it always was, mutatis mutandis. Withthese and otherquestions "StratumII,"neatlycatalogeda la once was a mountingit seemedto J. Maxwell dungWheeler-Kenyon, Miller(CandlerSchool of Theology, litteredrefusepile! Top: The northern tip of the plateau of CentralMoab has been examined EmoryUniversity)that CentralMoab Central Moab, viewed from the peak of stood in need of carefulrestudy. by travelersand archeological Jebel ShThan.Bottom: Khirbet Medeiyineh Millerhad alreadyinvesteda season geographerssince the early 19th (South) overlooks the head of the Wadi century,but more frequentlysince the at Buseirahwith the BritishSchool Majib. Its double walls, dry moat, and team led by CrystalBennettand had importance were noted by Nelson Glueck Turksinitiatedpolice protectionin in his surveys of the 1930s. writtenseveralarticlesand essays 1894.Seetzen(1805)was followedby Burckhardt(1812),de Saulcy(1851), Tristram(1872),and others. Maps producedby Musil(1907-8)and Briinnowand Domeszewski(1904-9) providedcontext for the brief excavationsby Albrightand Crowfoot

surveying.The stratifiedtell has been sanitizedby the ages, its layers scrubbedby nature'scleansers.The surfaceis morecandid:here is the

(1933) at Ader and B1l4'c, respec-

tively.Thesetwo soundingswerethe only excavationsin the regionuntil EmilioOlavarrispent two weeksat Khirbetel-Medeiyineh(north)in 1976. Nelson Glueckinvestedabout two weeksof rigorousactivityin the area as part of his Transjordansurvey (1933-38),locatingand variously describing33 sites on the plateau proper.His work becamethe standardfor archeologicalunderstandingof the area. In contrastwith similarareasin the West Bankand northernJordan, CentralMoab has been scarcely touchedand little appreciated, perhapsbecauseit is relatively isolatedand has no obvious tells. Recentarcheologicalinteresthas closed in on this area, however. Excavationsas HesbAn,DhibAn,and

f

CArACir,north of the Miijib and at

Buseirahto the south have been partiallypublished.B&bedh-DhrdC, betweenthe plateauand the Dead Sea, has captureda specialplace in the understanding of the Early Bronze Age. As work in surrounding areas has progressed an uneasiness with Glueck's conclusions has grown. Glueck said, for instance, that the area lay vacant from ca. 1800 until ca. 1220, when the area took on a new population. Yet at Dhib~n, Hesbin, and Buseirah very few indications of occupation before ca. 900 have been discovered. Was Glueck wrong? Moreover, other

BIBIICAL.ARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981 29

relating to Moab. Encouraged by J. Pinkerton, a construction engineer who was studying with Miller, he began to plan for a multiple-season expedition, beginning in 1978. J. Sauer, Director of the American Center for Oriental Research (ACOR) in Amman, added impetus with his encouragement and promise of help in logistics and ceramic analysis. By 28 July, Miller, J. Pinkerton, M. Pinkerton, and I had gathered our equipment at ACOR and were ready to load the ACOR-Department of Antiquities Land Cruiser. Our tools included over 100 canvas sacks

directions to ruins which they recognized? What attention should we give to pottery? How detailed should we be in making notes of vessel-types as well as periods? Should we make a plan of every site? How precisely?

(designedfor useby banksto

collecting, studying, and registering surface pottery. On the other hand, we would not undertake intensive examinations of each site, at least in the initial stages of our work. Such studies as statistical recording of sherds according to types and grid locations, geological and chemical analyses, and sounding probes are valuable scientific methods but would detract from the immediate need to gain an overview of the archeological spectrum of the region. We hope that our work will provide a foundation for such intensive study in Central Moab. With these goals in mind we departed Amman for the fields of Moab-an event which was, in retrospect, most touching and

transport money but destined to carry nearly 30,000 sherds through Moab),

detailedmaps, cameras,compasses,

and tough shoes. Not a pick, hoe, or to our names! gu.feh Dozensof questionsand problems had been formulated in the months before. Some of them related to method: Should we try from the

outset to cover every squaremeterof

the plateau? Or should we start with known sites and work their environments? Or would we cover more ground by asking local folks for The crew of Central Moab (1978)

preparesto leavethe ACOR buildingin Amman.assistedby DirectorJames Sauer.

We answeredsuch questionsin

terms of our basic objective: to develop an overview of the settlement patterns of all phases of occupation on the plateau-to the extent that surface evidence permits. Essentially this would mean searching for ancient sites, plotting their locations on maps, noting the observable features of the

ruinsand theirsurroundings,and

,r-r

Nr

/~*

S'

Zl

30 BIBIICAL.ARCHEOIOGIST WINTER1981

encouraging. Here we were-four hopefuls and our meager rolling stock-off to live beside the castle of Kerak and to collect sherds for four weeks. As we loaded the cruiser, a covey of onlookers, well-wishers, kibbitzers, and volunteer porters gathered. Everyone in Amman who at that time was affiliated with ACOR seemed to be there: Annual Professor Edward Schick and wife Barbara (who would soon be teaching at the University of Jordan), student Joseph Hyatt and Robyn Brown, John and Kristen Petersen, en route to a summer's teaching post in Jerusalem via ACOR, and two of the most gracious and helpful people who ever sent off an expedition, Director James Sauer and his wife Susan. This sort of humanness seems to be ACOR. In the friendly but alien culture which is Jordan it was good to have a family. Our home for four weeks was the government rest house at Kerak, just outside the Crusader castle. There Sami Rabadi, the inspector of antiquities for the Kerak district, awaited us. A veteran of several seasons at Bab edh-Dhrfc and Buseirah, Sami was to become a valued team member. His intelligent and kind approach to the people of the region brought us needed help and information, and his cooperation in providing work space and guidance made us frequently grateful that Director Adnan Hadidi of the Department of Antiquities had assigned Sami to our project. In practice our program began with the earlier explorers and travelers, especially Glueck. With clues and assistance from local residents we located the known sites, established their map coordinates, and collected sherds. Within a few days we discovered that, while the explorers had accurately located some sites, they had missed many and had left misleading directions to others. More serious was our observation, based on pottery collection, that Glueck's information on settlement phases and occupational periods was seriously different from ours in some crucial instances. At Abo Triba, for instance, Glueck had noticed two building complexes containing "a number of

buildings,"a dam across the wadi, but no pottery.He surmisedthat it was "anearly Arabicsite."Our surveydiscoveredthe building complexes-now seriouslydismantled for use in the growingvillage-and the dam. Our potterycollection differedradicallyfrom Glueck's however.We found 813 sherds,99 of whichwere usefulfor diagnostic purposes.None of the latterwas "earlyArabic."Ninety-twowere Byzantine,3 were Nabatean,and 4 were Late Islamic-Mamluk or Ottoman.In additionwe locateda seconddam acrossthe wadi and were showna wine or olive pressabout 200 m away. As a resultof our surveywe may now wish to considerAbaiTrabaas one more of the severaltowns associatedwith the Romanroad, whichpassedless than I km west of the site. Otherlocationswhereour collectionssupplementedGlueck's resultswere Miscar and nearby At the formerGlueck CAwarwareh. noted EB IV-MBI ("twenty-third to the nineteenthcenturiesB.C.")as well as "EarlyIron I," Nabatean,and "earlyArabic"sherds.Our ceramic collectionrangedfrom EB I through Iron 1, with 5 clearlyLB sherdsand 48 whichcould be either Middleor Late BronzeAge. Late Roman, Byzantine,and Late Islamicperiods also were representedamong our findings. CAwarwareh,whichGlueck barely mentionsand from which he recordsno sherds,yielded864 sherds. We saved 60 diagnosticpieces,which includedexamplesfrom the EB, LB, Persian,Nabatean,and Late Islamic periods,as well as 9 sherdswhich may be either Middleor Late Bronze Age.

sites which he had overlooked. Of these a few had been noted by earlier travelers such as Seetzen, but several were either unknown to the archeological world before our survey or were noted only in obscure references. Among these were Rujm Umm el-Qleib (south) and "North" Bail•c, both EB IV sites. Crowfoot does mention the latter, in passing, as a ruin across the wadi from the large, impressive Iron Age Baloc (see below). In fact, "North" extends at the wadi rim and least 700 m alongBaltcF seems to have been a sturdily built village from the latest EB period. A thorough excavation of "North" B5lc0 could yield important information on the controversial transition

between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, especially in light of the fact that William Dever has suggested that the EB IV culture flourished mainly in Transjordan. Among our "new" sites was Khirbet el-Mahdricam, discovered during a routine distance-measuring trip. Here over at least 10 acres were strewn stone tools from the Lower and Middle Paleolithic periods, perhaps as ancient as 80,000 years, with a few from later (Upper Paleolithic) cultures: biface handaxes, chopping tools, flake tools, cores, and other pieces were identified by ACOR Fellow Gary Rollefson. Our discoveries had suddenly pushed us behind the curtain of history into the

Left: A Lower Paleolithic biface handaxe. probably part of the tool kit of a band of hunters who camped on the plateau ca. 70.000 to 80.000 years ago. Flint tools were found in a small area at KhirbetelMahari'am and suggested that hunting groups visited the area from ca. 80,000 until ca. 40.000 years ago. Below: Pottery sorting. All collected sherds were counted on the sites. Undecorated and otherwise nonindicative pieces were discarded on site: "diagnostic" sherds were studied. classified as to periods, and are protected for further study in the museum at Kerak.

The significance of these discoveries is far-ranging. As indicated above, Glueck has been widely noted as having found a gap in the occupation of southern Transjordan during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Yet at these two sites, which are only about 2 km apart, we now have evidence of at least some population during these periods. Besides our discoveries of additional ceramic evidence at Glueck's sites we also explored ten

BIBI.ICAI.ARCHEOI.;OGISTWINTER1981 31

world of Neanderthals who probably came to the plateau seasonally in search of wild game. While such results as these would have satisfied our initial goals, we recognized early in the season that some ruins demand detailed notations and plans, especially in cases where new villages are overrunning the ancient ruins. A case in point is Jad':ad el JubOr, a modern village on the site which Glueck knew as Khirbet es-SamrA. Here a few months before our visit a villager had unearthed, and partially destroyed, the apse of a probable Byzantine chapel. Consequently, our work here included measurements, sketches, photographs, and verbal descriptions of the major observable features.

In every case we desired to fix accurate grid coordinates for the sites we located. Here the Hewlett-Packard Company and their representative Charles Cashion entered the fields of Moab with computers and lasers! Cashion braved baggage facilities (a euphemism in many air terminals) and customs officers to bring "Papa Bear" to Jordan. Papa Bear, a bright orange electronic transit, known officially as a "3820 distance meter," fires a low-intensity laser beam at a set of prisms and, in connection with a computer, can "find" the exact horizontal and vertical location of any spot it can reach. On the hills of Moab it could reach almost 3 midespite a heavy layer of haze. With this instrument and several sets

Right:CharlesCashionpreparesto use distancemeasuring the Hewlett-Packard deviceon JebelShThan.The instrument employsa low-intensitylaserbeamand computerfor rapidmapping.Below: BIIOl, seen from acrossthe WadiQurri. The site extendsalong the wadi bankfor about 1 km and is dominatedby the large buildingseen in the rightof this photograph.

32

BIBLICAL.ARCHEOI.OGIST WINTER 1981

of recent maps we pinpointed the locations of all of Glueck's 33 plateau sites and a number of others. Two ruins on the plateau deserve special mention: BAl•Fi and elMedeiyineh (south). BAlRcis important because of its great size (ca. 750 X 325 m) and because a large basalt stele, showing Egyptian motifs, was discoverd there in 1930. It lies beside a wadi which may have provided a perennial water supply (one pool held water in early August) and is the most striking and obvious ruin on the plateau. Glueck found evidence of occupation from the late EB and early MB I periods and from Iron I and II. Nothing indicated to Glueck any use of the site between ca. 1800 and 1250 n.c. Our pottery collection adds several periods to Glueck's summary. Of the 1,073 sherds collected, 666 were recorded as "diagnostic." Among these were 5 EB 1-I11sherds, and only I EB IV piece. More significant were the 5 LB sherds and 37 sherds which are probably LB. BAlOc should, therefore, be added to the list of sites which had some population in the 2nd millennium, although the extent of this occupation should not be exaggerated. BAtIc also yielded to Glueck and to us a distinctive Iron 11 ceramic treatment: black paint in concentric rings with a white wash over a red burnish. Bennett found a similar ware at Buseirah in Edom. The discovery of this style at BAloc raises the intriguing possibility of tracing a peculiar form throughout the Transjordan, with possible implications on the relation of Edom and Moab in Iron II. Balac is an excellent candidate for excavation. If its ceramic range (Early Bronze through Ottoman) indicates its stratification, it could provide a wealth of information, despite J. W. Crowfoot's conclusion after a ten-day sounding that Balac is not important enough for an excavation. Medeiyineh (south) is a walled town (the name means "little city") on the eastern edge of the plateau. Glueck spent most of a day getting to and from it and measuring it. His sketches and general descriptions are accurate, but he seems to have

overlooked several prominent features. First, he found little pottery and thought that little would be found by excavation. Clandestine diggers had preceded us to the summit of Medeiyineh, however, and had strewn large and clearly identifiable Iron I sherds around their trenches. The surface, appearing hard and well eroded to Glueck, may well conceal valuable evidence. Second, while Glueck noted buildings on the surface of Medeiyineh, he did not describe them. Several are of the pillared type found in Iron I strata in western Palestine (cAi, Raddana, Tacanach, Tell el-Farcah [north], Tell enNasbeh, and elsewhere). In one house several stone lintels remain stretched across the standing pillars. Since all pottery found at this site came from the 12th-I Ith centuries B.c., we may surmise that the walls, towers, and buildings are from that period. The best-preserved of these

some conclusions and, even more, to specify questions for future study: (1) We know that prehistoric occupation can be found on the plateau and that it is quite ancient. We must now discover other sites in the migratory patterns of these ancients. (2) The predominant periods of occupation in Central Moab which we have detected by surface observation are the Early Bronze, Iron, Roman, Byzantine, and Late

Islamic. Here we are not far removed from the conclusions of Glueck. Yet our evidence suggests that Glueck was premature in concluding that the plateau was abandoned in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Some human activity deposited sherds at locations A dry-seasonpool in the WadiQurri northof Bali•. Such watersuppliesare rareon the plateau.Perhapsthe rather continuousoccupationof the B1iI34area

was based on the water supply of this and other nearby pools.

buildingsseemsto have followedthe "four-room"plan whichsome have called uniquelyIsraelite.The presence of pillaredfour-roomhouseson the fringesof Moab suggestsa milieu whichcannot be limitedto Israeland may indicatethat sort of cultural contact betweenIsraeland Moab whichthe book of Ruth assumesfor the periodof the Judges. Belowthe wall of Medeiyineh, accessibleby a trackwhichleads aroundthe slope of the hill, are two largecave cisterns.Plaster,some 4-6 cm thick, still clings to the walls for over a meterin height. Medeiyineh(south),while hardly an easy place to reach,is an attractive site for researchon the early periods of Moab in the Iron Age and should be consideredfor excavation.Its presenceand that of a very similar

site ca. 5 km to the north demonstrate that some fortification of Central Moab existed in early Iron I. The Central Moab Survey has only begun. Sacks filled with labeled and registered pottery lie on shelves in the museum of the Crusader castle of Kerak, awaiting companions from numerous other sites in the region and available for qualified researchers. Even at this early date, however, enough has been discovered to draw

BIBI.ICAI.ARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981 33

which, in various other periods, supported sedentary populations. Admittedly, the evidence from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages is relatively sparse here, and we are curious as to the reasons for this. Are sherds from these periods somehow more hidden, not appearing as readily on the surface? Were the people of these ages settled folk or transitory and nomadic? May they have inhabited numerous small sites which are now difficult to detect in the plowed fields? These and related questions will spur our search for small, as yet

undetected,one-periodsites and

tombs. It is not impossible that more extensive MB and LB ruins will be found only in excavations beneath later ruins. (3) We now have reason to call into question the conclusion of Glueck that the 13th-century date of the Exodus is supported by the surface remains in Moab. An Iron Age I house at Medeiyineh (South) stands to the height of the lintels which once supported its roof. The meter stick rests on a rock lintel. Beneath the right end of the stick is the stacked-stone pier which supported the lintel. This discovery was significant since there are few examples known of this sort of building method outside of western Palestine where the technique was employed throughout the Iron Age.

Glueck argued, against the prevailing view of the 1930s, when most scholars held to a 15th-century date for the Exodus, that, since the southern Transjordan was unoccupied between the 19th and 13th centuries, Moses could not have encountered the kings of Edom and Moab until the late 13th century or later. When later excavations provided little evidence from the earliest part of the Iron Age at the prominent tells of Hesban. DhTbin. and Buseirah. many became doubtful that Glueck was correct about an Iron I population in the Transjordan. Our findings of Iron I settlements renew confidence in Glueck's conclusion that there was an Iron I presence on the plateau. but this does not help his case regarding the date of the Exodus. On the contrary, since there apparently was no distinctive occupational gap in this part of the Transjordan at any time during the Late Bronze or Iron Ages, the Israelites, returning from Egypt, might have encountered people in Central Moab at any time during those periods. In other words, no argument for any specific Exodus date can be supported by the evidence from the plateau. (4) Our study of the pottery from the Early Bronze Age in this area raises a problem with another of Glueck's attempts to connect archeology and the Bible. He had thought

that the EB occupationcontinued into MB I (until afterca. 1900H.c.). The abruptcessationof this civilizationmightbe explained,he thought.by the story of Abraham and the warringkingsof Genesis 14. an episodewhich he and others held could be best placedin the 19th century.

Since his "MiddleBronzeI"sites yieldedpotterywhichseems better dated to the earlierend of the EB/MB periodthis line of argument seems to be fruitless. (5) Laterperiods(Nabatean throughLate Islamic)are well represented,as has been known.Our work leads us to considerable curiosityabout the natureof the

populations and cultures of these periods. What did the Romans do here? What sort of Christian life and cults is suggested by the ruined churches? Why do some Islamic periods (e.g., Fatamid and Ommayid) appear so sparsely represented while others (Mamluk and Ottoman) seem to show population gains? Much of the architecture of the Islamic periods remains above the surface but is rapidly deteriorating. (Villagers use stones from these buildings in their homes. Glueck observed features which we cannot see, such as vaulted room at Bailti.) There is need for immediate excavation, exploration, and research by classicists and Islamists. As the Central Moab Survey continues, we should resolve some of these problems-and, by the very nature and experience of our discipline, should also raise several more issues! Our wide-area exploration will continue and should be supplemented by intensive surface study (finding "minor"sites), by scholarly studies from many fields of the physical and humanistic sciences, and by excavation of several sites.

Note In July and Augustof 1979an expandedteam made an intensivesurvey by jeep and on foot whichextendedthe exploredarea to the Kerak area. Over 250 sites were located,rangingfrom cist burialsto major.multiperiodvillagesitesand includingtwo ancientroadways.

34

BIBLICAl. ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

Bibliography Albright, W. F. 1934 Soundings at Ader, A Bronze Age City in Moab. BASOR 53: 13-18. BrUnnow, R. E., and von Domaszewski, A. 1904-9 Die Provincia Arabia auf Grund Zweier in den Jahren 1897 und 1898 unternommenen Reisen und der Berichte friiherer Reisender. 3 vols. Strassburg: Karl J. TrUbner. Burckhardt, J. Travels in Siyriaand the Holy Land, 1822 ed. W. M. Leake for the Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa. London: John Murray. Crowfoot, J. W. An Expedition to Balucah. Palestine 1934 StateExploration Fund ment 1934: 76-84. Quarterly Glueck, N. 1934 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I. AASOR 14: 1-114. 1935 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, II. AASOR 15. 1939 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, III. AASOR 18-19.

Miller, J. M. 1979 Survey of Central Moab. BASOR 234: 43-52. Musil, A. 1907-8 Arabia Petraea. 2 vols. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wien: Alfred H61der. Saulcy, F. de 1853 Vo'yageautour de la Mer Morte et dans les terres bibliques ex~cut de Dbcembre 1850 t A vril 1851. 2 vols. and atlas. Paris: Gide et J. Baudry. Seetzen, U. J. 1854-55 Reisen durch Syrien, Paldstina, Phonicien, die Transjordan-Ldnder,Arabia Petraea und Unter-Aegypten,ed. Fr. Kruse et al. 3 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer. Commentare zu Ulrich Jasper Seet1859 zens Reisen durch St'rien u.s.w.. ed. Fr. Kruse et al. Vol. 4. Berlin: G. Reimer. Tristam, H. B. The Land of' Moab: Travels and 1873 Discoveries on the East Side of the Dead Sea and the Jordan. New York: Harper.

One of the harvested wheatfields and wellworn track leading across the plateau. Much of the plateau is cultivated by heavy equipment and grazed in the postharvest season by the flocks of nomadic shepherds.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 35

Bezalel Porten A late-7th-century B.c. Aramaic

letter, written on papyrus, has been the focus of debate among scholars for over 30 years. The recto of the papyrus contains the appeal of a certain king Adon to the Egyptian pharaoh for military aid against the forces of the king of Babylonia. The discovery of a demotic line on the verso of the papyrus sheds new light on this important document. The discussion focuses on such concerns as the identity of King Adon, the location of his kingdom, and the date of the letter.

;?

,

'4.44 OL-: ?

r:

.

-?-". .... "is

?.... 0.:!!

A recent photograph (November 1978) of the Adon letter in the Cairo Egyptian Museum (J. 86984=3483). The papyrus is encased in a glass frame and was photographed against a white cloth without back lighting. The worm holes cast shadows most severely in lines 3 and 7, which may be confused with writing. A photograph similar to this must have been at the disposal of Dupont-Sommer. Courtesy of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.

The Adon Letter-A New Reconstruction tn

nnri,

O•t Ipy3] 370

p IV=VM~N.1 •l itt; tY ~Vt10 1•02 ['I•09•-•4 • J:?n

14 K43V*'t•~

4K•'n t•],N

n p~~0 mny I'r

nn,]

4T

KIV? .2 l ary~ Np'11t1 vi ['014 •l37i'1

2. Heaven and Earth and Beelshmayin. [the great] god [seek exceedingly at all times, and may they lengthen the days of]

.3 nitD , 4T D[O7n

3. Pharaoh like the days of (the) high heavens. That [I have written to Lord of Kings is to inform him that the forces]

IT,1

v

i1nz

4D ' ~1 T .4 4. of the King of Babylon have come (and) reach[ed] Aphek .. [....

] 1 •DN ['I]N0 IMn ...

1•]'2y "112YaP 104 '

'4

1. To Lord of Kings Pharaoh, your servant Adon King of [Ekron. The welfare of my lord, Lord of Kings Pharaoh may the gods of]

oTMlt ....

yt nmy- J::

.5

. they have seized ...

Win ': .6 6. for Lord of Kings Pharaoh knows that [your] servant [...

4]3~p ['] ' ['4]3•'n ?'l lrt,•' .7 [J:n •Mi• 2 ]mt 4T131nn 11 ~y m•

1 .8

]30 1'-3 -1001tn •rt Mn .9

36 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/WINTER1981

5.. .

7. to send a force to rescue [me]. Do not abandon [me, for your servant did not violate the treaty of the Lord of Kings] 8. and your servant preserved his good relations. And as for this commander[ . . . 9. a governor in the land. And as for the letter of Sindur .. .[

The Adon Letter-Three Reconstructionsand Translations H. L. Ginsberg (1948)

Text ]140

It

Translation y1

J

7-rN

frvn

n

7:

7,4nv 7,?N r 017 Ln 1N]V1 1 r '6 pmN 1Ni.l 4nr

Tt

:1

.t4

]

--

----------1---

-

n---

5

]61D;1'3V-1001 nMI MMM

To Lord of Kingdoms, Pharaoh, thy servant Adon, king of [Ashkelon. May X, the lord of] heaven and earth, and Baalshemain [the great] god, [make the throne of Lord of Kingdoms] Pharaoh enduring as the days of heaven. That [I have written to my lord is to inform thee that the troops] of the king of Babylon have advanced as far as Aphek and have be[gun to (5) ] they have taken [ ] and [ ]. For Lord of Kingdoms Pharaoh knows that [thy] servant [can not stand alone against the king of Babylon. May it therefore please him] to send a force to succor me. Let him not forsake m[e. For thy servant is loyal to my lord] and thy servant remembers his kindness, and this region [is my lord's possession. But if the king of Babylon takes it, he will set up] a governor in the land, and .........

[ J. A. Fitzmyer (1979) [ntyl

v "win Itonsvi

nin ney

[nalz

Text

1}y If$v

Translation -

Mv

.

52,21*v7

tI1tp

jsVym

t]nSt

mi [win mi nr~p-i

mpn:?

[nn in 4~p;r lr

0 ,r

[ [

17V iT4y

tV1um 4', n•i

N7= ]rt H31

J. C. L. Gibson (1975) 097-- -]

2

Jnt

4

] 5 Nen'4 6

? 7 n n`,4m 8 A7n1 a 71y 9 •e• ms Mnm

4r pm %•Mnl '69K• 13 ]m: '~'

rJ10J

inm ?l

. J.1?..]ItnN[

[

I

M

n

wit

tpnm

1817 pmNIN=

[

.

1 n-1 y

J?

mw

......................................

...............-

...........[.......

.............

t

'To the Lord of Kings, the Pharaoh, your servant 'Adon, the king of [ May Astarte, the Mistress] 2ofthe heavens and the earth, and Bacalshamayn, [the great] god, [seek the welfare of my lord at all times and make the throne] 3of Pharaoh (as) enduring as the days of heaven. Since [ the troops] 40ofthe king of Babylon have come (and) have arrived (at) Aphek, and have enca[mped ] [ . .] and ... have taken .L..LW .L [ ] 6for the Lord of Kings, the Pharaoh, knows that [your] servant [cannot withstand him. May my lord be pleased] 7to send an army to rescue me. May [the Lord of Kings, the Pharaoh], not forsake m[e, for] 8your servant has kept [his oath] and his good relations. And this commander [ has set up] a governor in the land and has recorded his changes (?) [ ] Translation

Text 075a

].

`

nymb

pn HmI1

1

JH

4T1,4nN740,:v':•z mla

3

. .... c. 9 .... ----. ----

5

t3 p } r. :.•.lor •r" [.]. .l.VI=

-uN-•

a

-n

1. To lord of kings, Pharaoh, your servant Adon, king of [...... The welfare of lord of kings, Pharaoh, may ...... and all the gods] 2. of heaven and earth and Baalshamayn, the [great] god, [seek at all times; and may they make the throne of lord of kings,] 3. Pharaoh, enduring like the days of heaven. What................. ............[the forces] 4. of the king of Babylon have come; they have reached Aphek and (encamped)............ 5 ......they have taken................. 6. For lord of kings, Pharaoh, knows that your servant ......... 7. to send an army to deliver me. Let him not abandon me .......

9

8. and your servant has kept in mind his kindness. But this territory ............. 9. a governor in the land, and as a border they have replaced it with the border .......

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 37

Over 30 years ago there appeared in two journals of the American Schools of Oriental Research discussions of a letter felicitously designated "An Aramaic Contemporary of the Lachish Letters" (Ginsberg 1948: 2427; Bright 1949: 46-52). This letter was discovered in a clay jar in 1942, along with Egyptian and Greek papyri, by Zaki Saad Effendi, who was excavating at Saqqarah between the step pyramid and the pyramid of Unas. A preliminary report, delivered to the Service des Antiquites d'Egypte, was published three years later (Saad 1945: 80-82). It called the find "part of a letter sent by the King of Babylonia to ... the king of Egypt. ... This letter, written by Adenmblik [=Adonimelech].... "The Director-

General of the Service, Etienne Drioton, entrusted publication of the letter to Andre Dupont-Sommer, who presented the results of his study before the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettreson 30 May 1947 and published a full philological, historical, and paleographic treatment in the first volume of Semitica in 1948. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the papyrus which Dupont-Sommer received from Drioton. The former described it as "excellent,"but its reproduction in the journal leaves much to be desired. The papyrus had suffered considerable worm damage and, when photographed between two pieces of glass, the worm holes cast shadows at their edges which are often indistinguishable from letter traces. DupontSommer never saw the papyrus itself. The document is fragmentary; only the right side is preserved. We can now state that it was not sent by the king of Babylonia nor written by Adonimelech; it was sent by a king named Adon to Pharaoh, appealing for help against the forces of the king of Babylon, which had advanced as far as Aphek. The situation is highly reminiscent of the Rib-Addi correspondence from the Amarna letters (EA 68-70, 74-76, 78-81, 83-85, 88-92) in which a vassal king of the Levant coast writes to Pharaoh, complaining of imminent disaster, protesting loyalty, and requesting immediate military aid. Translation and restoration of our text have been undertaken by numerous scholars,

38

The letter written by King Adon to the Egyptian Pharaoh is reminiscent of the Amarna correspon-

dence.

and we present here for purposes of comparison three versions and translations: (1) the text of DupontSomer as modified by H. L. Ginsberg (1948) and translated by him, (2) the rendition of Gibson (1975: 21), and (3) the most recent restoration and translation, that of Fitzmyer (1979). Much to the consternation of the original editor and of all subsequent scholars, the left edge of the papyrus was torn just where the name of King Adon's realm would have appeared. Did the letter contain any clue as to his identity? Noting that the name Aphek, "Water Source," graced at least four sites, Dupont-Sommer opted for the one identified with Ras el-'Ain = Rosh ha-'Ayin (Antipatris, Pegae) and inclined to identify Adon's realm with one of the Philistine cities south of Rosh ha-'Ayin, namely Ashdod, Ashkelon, or Gaza. Others, including Gibson (1975), identify Aphek with Afqa at the source of the river Adonis (= Nahr Ibrahim) and identify Adon's realm with a Phoenician city such as Byblos, Sidon, or Tyre. Adon and Beelshmayin Does the name of the king, or that of the deity he invokes, provide any clue to his identity? Gibson thinks that both point to a Phoenician identity: "There is no definite proof from elsewhere of a Philistine king calling himself by a Semitic name or invoking a Semitic deity" (1975: 21). To be sure, the name Adon and that of his deity Beelshmayin point to a Phoenician origin, but they are not inconsistent with what we know of Philistine royal names and religion. "Adon" is a hypocoristicon of a nominal sentence name; it may represent either the subject as in Adoniram, "(My) Lord is exalted," or predicate as in Adonijah, "YH is (my)

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

Lord." In the Amarna age there was an Aduna, king of Arka (EA 75:25, 140:10); several Ugaritic lists record a bn adn (KTU 4.90:3, 4.122rev:18; cf. 4.609:33), while Adunu appears in two Neo-Assyrian contracts (Tallqvist 1914: 13). The abbreviated name is comparable to that of Baal, king of Tyre (Borger 1956: ?69), in the time of Ashurbanipal (Kraeling 1953: 18, n. 69). But the epithet "Adon" was not limited to Phoenician names and is to be found in Amorite (Huffmon 1965: 159), Canaanite (Josh 10:1), Hebrew (2 Sam 3:4), and Ammonite (Landes 1961: 81, 83) as well. In Judah the variant names Adonikam = Adonijah (Ezra 2:13 11Neh 7:18= Neh 10:17) occur among the leading families of the Restoration and probably go back to the pre-Exilic period, i.e., to the time of King Adon. The deity Baalshamem (Aramaic Beelshmayin) first appears in the 10th-centuryinscription of Yehimilk of Byblos (KAI4.3) and in the 7thcentury treaty of Baal of Tyre with Esarhaddon (Borger 1956:?69). But he also is invoked in the 8th century by Azitawadda of Karatepe (KA126. AIII.18) and by Zakir king of Hamath and Luath (KAI202.3). All the Philistine deities known to us are Canaanite, and most of the royal names in the Bible and Assyrian inscriptions are West Semitic. The Philistines had a temple (at Gaza?) to Dagan in the days of Samson (Judg 13:23), at Ashdod in the time of Eli and Samuel (1 Sam 5:1-5), and 900 years later in the days of the Hasmonean Jonathan (1 Macc 10:8384). At their site in Bethshean there was a temple to Astarte during the reign of Saul (1 Sam 31:10). Ahaziah son of Ahab was familiar with the shrine in Ekron to Baalzebub (2 Kgs 1:1-8), no doubt a deliberate corruption of Beelzebul (Matt 10:25; 12:24-28HMark 3:22 I1Luke 11:1520). At Ashkelon there are accounts by Herodotus (1.105) of a temple to Aphrodite Urania (= Celestial Astarte; cf. the Arabian male deity Atarsamain: ANET: 291) and by Diodorus (2.4.1) of a shrine to Derceto (from Ugaritic drkt, "dominion"; cf. Albright 1934: 130, n. 53). The West-Semitic names in the royal onomasticon may be tabulated as follows:

Nabuiqbi [1301]), and one in a letter to an unidentified king (Abi-ilu Gerar Abimelech [256]). Two other letters to Patriarchal Pzriod Abimelech (Judg 8:31) Esarhaddon contain the term (1365, Ashdod Azuri 713-712 Azzur (Jer 28:1) 1371), four more to Ashurbanipal 713-712 Ahimoth Chr Ahimetu (1 6:10) (1032 [?], 1120, 1138, 1455), and three Yamani 713-712 Jamin (Gen 46:10) to an unknown ruler. All told, the Mitinti 701 Mattattah (Ezra 10:33) term occurs in just under 40 letters Ahimelech (1 Sam 21:2) and is attested Ahimilki 677, 667 particularly, though Ashkelon Mitinti I 733 Mattattah (Ezra 10:33) not exclusively, in addresses and Rukubti 734 Rechab (2 Sam 4:2) blessings for only these two Assyrian 701 Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24:17) Sidqa kings. The term had its roots in the Mitinti II Mattattah (Ezra 10:33) situation described by Bar-rakib, king 677, 667 of Samal and vassal of Tiglath(cf. seal of servant pileser III (745-727), who boasted that jNpis T nnrr he "ran at the wheel of my lord, king 1934: 223; [Diringer 1936: Bergman 224-25]) of Assyria, in the midst of powerful Gaza 734, 720 kings" (KAI216.8). It admirably Hanun Hanun (2 Sam 10:1) suited Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, Ekron Padi 701 Padon (Ezra 2:44) who, at the height of the Assyrian If our "Adon" is the predicate element. it is comparable to the hypocoristica Empire called up "22 kings of Hatti, Azuri, Hanun, and Sidqa; if it is the subject, it corresponds to the epithets Abi- the seashore, and the islands" for and Ahi-. corvee labor and military campaigns (A NET: 291, 294). When the Pharaoh Vassal of Egypt of = Egypt displaced Assyria as ruler of Sfire 223; 111:7,9, 19f, 27 KAI 224; If neither Adon's name nor that of his the Transeuphrates,the title, in Pss 44:18,89:34). deity are decisive for determining his Aramaic, was applied to him. When Adon thus appealed to Pharaoh the territory passed into the hands of origin, two terms in his letter clarify his status in the international arena. not simply as an independent Persia, the title in Phoenician 'TiN Both terms have Akkadian analogues monarch in need but as a loyal 0=90 was applied to the Persian ruler vassal who had preserved his in the records of Ashurbanipal, king by Eshmunazar of Sidon (KAI 14.18). of Assyria (669-627). Basing his work It was later adopted by the Seleucids good relations in the past and now on a prior study by W. L. Moran wanted his sovereign to reciprocate. and Ptolemies, who likewise had impeThis interpretation has been accepted rial aspirations--Ptolemy II (KA I (1963), Fitzmyer invokes the Akkadian technical treaty term tibta nasa~r, Vattioni (1966: 116), 40.1), Ptolemy III (KAI 19.5-6), explicitly by "preserve good relations" to translate Freedy and Redford (1970: 477-78), Ptolemy IV(?) (KAI 42.2; 43.4-8; cf. line 8 of the letter, "ml "t•y ;Ian~I and Malamat (1975: 128, n. 12). Huss 1977: 134ff.), and the era of Seleucus I (KAI 18.4-5). Meanwhile, Galling (1963: 148"your servant has guarded his good relations" (1965: 53-54; 1979: 239-40). 49) has called attention to the fact In his annals, Ashurbanipal castigated that bil JSarrani, the Akkadian Phoenicia or Philistia? Uaite king of Arabia (lauta king of The location of Adon's realm and the equivalent of Aramaic p•n N=,9 "Lord of Kings," occurred over 30 date of his letter have engaged a wide Kedar), who "sinned against my times in the address of letters treaty and did not preserve the good spectrum of scholars. Within a decade relations I made with him" (Cyl. A after publication, the letter was (Waterman 1930: I-II) sent to treated by ten scholars. It was noted 7.82-88, Cyl. B 7.87-94 = VAB 7/2.64, Ashurbanipal. A subsequent study of 130ff. = ARAB: II 817, 869; cf. Cyl. Akkadian royal epithets by Seux by Dunand (1949) and Pohl (1949) A 972-73 = VAB 7/2.78 = ARAB: II and discussed by Ginsberg (1948), Bea (1967: 56; called to my attention by 828). Similar terminology was used by J. Tigay) showed that this title, whether (1949), Bright (1949), Malamat (1949, him in denouncing the kings of Egypt in hymns, letters, or literary 1950), Thomas (1950), Kraeling and Humbanigash king of Elam (Cyl. compositions, was always addressed (1953), Meyer (1954), and Wright A 1.118-19 = VAB 7/2.12 = ARAB: II to the king and never spoken by him. (1957, 1962). Most of Ginsberg's observations became basic for all 772; Cyl. B 6.93-96 = VAB 7/2.126 = My own tabulation shows that one ARAB: II 867). On the basis of this official employed the title in a letter subsequent treatments. He identified to Esarhaddon (Belushezib [1237]), at terminology, we may restore line 7 of the realm of Adon as Ashkelon upon the letter to read least seven in letters to Ashurbanipal a suggestion of W. F. Albright, who noted that the Weidner tablets (1939: (Adadshumusur [358], Belibni [28082, 284-86, 458 (?),460, 462, 520-21, 928) reported rations doled out to the sons of Aga' king of Ashkelon and to 789-92, 794-95, 1007(?), 1136, 1279 "for your servant did not violate the several other Ashkelonite captives. (?)], Belushezib [895, 1109, 1373 (?)], The relationship between Aga' and Ittishamashbalatu [992], Marduk treaty of the Lord of Kings"(cf. Sfire IB:27f,37f = KA1222;SfireIIB:14=KAI Adon was not discussed nor was the [808], Mardukshumusur[923], and Site

King

Date of Philistine King

Hebrew Cognate

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 39

Map by David M. Howard, Jr.

letter dated more precisely than in the citation from Albright (1932: 86) that the "First conquest of Judah by Chaldeans" was in 603/2. Most scholars have noted the Albright-Ginsberg Ashkelon identification with approval. Meyer demurred, but still favored a southern location, while Thomas and Kraeling inclined toward a Phoenician site. Some accepted a date ca. 605-post-606 (Bea), post-605 (Wright 1957: 175; 1962: 177), 603/2 (Bright 1949)-but others preferred a later date-599/ 8 (Malamat 1949; 1950), 597 (Meyer), 587 (Thomas)-in keeping with their specific interpretation of the circumstances behind King Adon's appeal. Malamat (cf. 1968: 143) and Meyer, for example, felt that the letter indicated only the presence of Babylonian troops and not of Nebuchadnezzar himself (cf. 2 Kgs 24:2), whereas Meyer interpreted the last line to mean "and they would change the borders" (not the scribe, after Dupont-Sommer). The most unusual interpretation is that of Kraeling (1953), who suggested Achshaph in the plain of Acre (cf. Josh 11:1)and dated the appeal to the time of Psammetichus II (595-589) or Apries (589-570). Moreover, according to him, the title "Lord of Kings" reflected the "Assyrian arrangement of putting Egypt under twelve kings"(Kraeling 1953: 18n); cf. the "dodecarchy"of Herodotus (2.147-53). In 1956 a new section of the Babylonian Chronicle was published which appeared to provide the basis for a more precise dating of the Adon letter. Tablet B.M. 21946 records the years 605-595, and on the obverse, lines 15-20 report that in the spring of 604 Nebuchadnezzar set out with his army for Hatti-land. He marched through the land victoriously for several months, collecting tribute from all the kings, and in Kislev (December/ January) seized the king of a certain city, plundered, and destroyed it. The first editor, Wiseman (1956: 28, 85), read uUl(m?). qi(?)-il-lu-nu= Ashkelon, and this reading was accepted by Albright, who reported that in 1954 he had "devoted nearly an hour to studying this passage with Wiseman and Sachs" (apud Quinn 1961:20, n. 5).

40

' A

A

Syria-Palestine

of the 8th-7thCenturies

Byblos Baalbek

SO

00` Sea

Mediterranean

Sidon

-_A_

_Tyre

Achshaph

* Megiddo Bethshean

.Samaria

yarkon River Aphek -. eneb rak Jopp Sou*

g

*Bethdagn *Gittaim

o.*Gibbethon

Ahdo

Ekron.

A_ -

*eJerusalem

TmnahBethshemesh

Revon o

*Gath

Gazail~

Dead Sea

Rapl Raphiah ABeersheba

A

1zDa

1 Gaza

The tablet was restudied by Grayson (1975: 100), who transcribedurx-x(x)-il-lu-nu, translated Ashkelon, and noted "Nothing can be read with certainty." Yet the reading Ashkelon

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

Opposite:Photographof recto taken from above with side lightingthat virtuallyeliminatesall shadowin the text. The dark horizontalstripat the upper edge is the shadowof the measuringbar above it.

A Phoenician identity for Adon is considered possible by Horn (1968), Oded (1977: 470), and Fitzmyer (1979: 236); it is favored by Gibson (1975: 21), and argued vigorously by Milik (1967: 561ff.), who was seconded by Gese (1970: 183, n. 9). On the basis of new readings and restorations, most of which are certainly erroneous and will be treated elsewhere, Milik made Adon king of Si[don] or more likely S[or]= Tyre and identified Aphek with Afqa at the source of the river Adonis (= Nahr Ibrahim;cf. Josh 13:4). Nebuchadnezzar'sarmy would have traveled across Lebanon from Baalbek to Aqoura, turned south at Afqa and Sarita (which Milik restored in line 4 [nyn]tV,),and moved along the left bank of the river to the coast (Dussaud 1927:397). The crest above Afqa stood 1300 m high, was the hardest stretch of the journey, and presumably would have been a stopping point. On the basis of Milik's itinerary, Gibson prefers Byblos, just north of where the river empties into the sea, or Sidon, down the coast. But Vogt (1957: 86) and Horn (1968: 35-36) argue against this northern reconstruction on the grounds that there were easier mountain passes from the Beqac to the coast than the one through Afqa.

ro,

1-4#41,

4

1

ilt,

(zzp 7.,. t~''~ ,,,,,•P

.

..

,

~?

4)

has been accepted universally, and the circumstances leading to its occupation have served as background for dating Adon's appeal to mid/ late 604 by Wiseman (1956: 28) and his reviewers,e.g., Albright (1956: 31, n. 14), Freedman (1956: 55, n. 16), Malamat (1956: 252), N6tscher (1956: 112), Tadmor (1956: 228, n. 21), and Vogt (1957: 87-88). This dated link with Ashkelon has been accepted by some scholars-Bright (1959: 305; 1972: 326), Quinn (1961: 20), Fitzmyer (1965: 43-44; 1979:232), and Mitchell (1967: 416)-but has been either ignored or minimized by those scholars who have treated the text in extenso (except for Fitzmyer)--Donner and Riollig(KA 1266), Gibson (1975: 21), Horn (1968), Koopmans (1962: 16), McHardy (1958: 252), and Vattioni (1966). While Koopmans adheres to the Ashkelon identification, his unexplained date is 605. Donner and R6llig, Gibson, Horn, McHardy, and Vattioni have withheld

any preferenceas to date. Malamat (1968: 142-43) favors winter 601/600, when Nebuchadnezzar fought Egypt to a standstill. Many scholars accept a 604 dating but prefer a different Philistine site. Vogt (1957: 87-88) led the argument for Gaza on the grounds that (1) Ashkelon had been destroyed, according to the Babylonian Chronicle;(2) Aga', not Adon, was its last king; (3) Gaza was an important site and closest to Egypt. He was followed by Galling (1963: 149), Malamat (1968: 142-3, n. 11), Freedy and Redford (1970: 477, n. 77), and Rainey (1975: 55-56). Tadmor (1956: 229, n. 21) raised the possibility of Ashdod in light of the occurrence of a "King of AM-d[u-du]" in Prism 7834 from Babylon in Istanbul (A NET: 308). Malamat (1979: 209) most recently presented three options: "Gaza, Ekron, or Ashdod." To the best of my knowledge, no scholar explicitly and/ or exclusively suggests Ekron, the Philistine city closest to Aphek-Antipatris.

First-hand Examination of the Letter In October-November 1978 I spent a month at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo examining their collection of Aramaic papyri in preparation for a new Corpus of Aramaic Texts of the Persian Period. I had made a point to search out the Adon letter which Dupont-Sommer had reported bore J.[ournal no.] 86984. Much to my surpriseand delight it was filed in one of the same compartments as the Elephantine documents in section R2A7j and bore the serial no. 3483. Its measurementshad never been reported and Dupont-Sommer's photograph turned out to be larger than full-size. The fragment measures 7.7 (top)-8.5 (bottom) cm wide X 9.6 (right)-9.8 (left) cm high. There are no joins. The papyrus is good quality and very light in color, in fact lighter than any of the Aramaic papyri I have seen. It must have been well preserved. The script is very small, runs perpendicular to the fibers, and begins 1.8 cm from the top and 0.9

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 41

nIKLsi 9L~r

~LO9 146l P(~WS6 ~4

-~t- fv

CL~Y *X*~~fji~.l4 iintj j>il "bo

Ir4"rl~rL(..'..c.~

~l~u4u) ?)*

~yL~4W

~j~l

t~3?I44

y~Sao 4

cm from the right, tapering in to 1.4 cm as the lines proceed. The bottom margin is 0.7 cm. How much of the letter is missing? On the basis of formulaic and papyrological considerations, we may assume that half of the letter is missing. Damage to a papyrus occurs at the folds, and there is substantial evidence to indicate that letters were usually folded in half or in quarters (Porten 1980). One of the standard sizes for Aramaic letters in the Persian period was 32 cm (Cowley 1923: nos. 26, 30, 38, et al.). Our fragment might thus be a quarter of a full document, but it is not readily evident how to fill out the blessing formula on such an assumption. It is preferable, therefore, to assume that the original width was half of the standard size, i.e., ca. 16 cm, and what we have is again half of that. Such an assumption allows plausible restoration of formulaic passages in four of the fragment's nine lines. New readings emerge that pose new problems of interpretation

42

(which cannot be treated here). My greatest surprise came as I turned the piece over, bottom up. Written across the third band from the bottom was a demotic line. I turned the piece back to the recto and reconstructed. The scribe had estimated the height of the piece he would need to write his nine lines, cut a piece from his scroll almost 10 cm high, finished his letter, and folded it up from bottom to top-G over F, GF over E, GFE over D, GFED over C; then A down over B and AB over G-C. If the demotic line were an address, then the scribe would have turned the whole roll over again and written the line on band C. If it were a notation added by the recipient, the same refolding process would have taken place after the letter had been read. Demotic notations on the address band of two Aramaic letters from the Arsames correspondence (Driver 8, 9) were evidently added by the recipient (Whitehead 1978: 138ff). In either case the demotic line might reveal the identity of King Adon.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

0

IA

19 'I

3r

CIO

A\ 5"1 C7 • - r... I-M Tt• ... ....... /•~?~, • • "•? ...'C

L.*'

.............

iC -

......

••L_•_,_,•.!•L.I• •_:•,~'?~~.

flb

4c RS

CLA A-bRS _

o

f~

1

Top: Restoration of the Adon letter on the assumption of an original width of 16 cm and a vertical folding in half of the rolled-up letter. Bottom: Illustration of the folding process of the Adon Letter. Both drawings by Ada Yardeni.

Top: Handcopy of the demoticline. Drawingby MichaelFit7patrick.Bottom:

A singledemoticlinewrittenon thethird The foldof theversoof the Adon'letter. wastakenfromabovewith photograph all eliminates sidelightingwhichvirtually shadow.Priorto 1978thislinehadgone andunphotographed. unnoticed

Decipheringa Demotic Line In August 1979I sent a hand drawingof the line to the eminent demoticist,now retiredfrom active teaching,Prof. GeorgeR. Hughesat the OrientalInstituteof the Universityof Chicago.WhenI came to visit him with the photographand infraredslide, he had arrivedat a

partialand tentativedecipherment: r.dp: wr, "thatwhichthe Prince gave."The next word had to be a place namesince it was followed by the placedeterminative,but he had not beenable to decipherit fully. "Whatdo you determine?"I asked. "Well,"he replied,"there'san cay'in,a q, and r, and I'm not certainabout the last sign.""Couldit be n?"I asked. "Yes,it could. I hadn'tthought of that."And so was uncoveredthe possiblereadingof the Philistinecity EKRON.We screenedthe slide and examinedthe photograph,and I questionedHughesand his younger colleagueCruz-Uribe,who was present,severaltimes over to make

sure that "Ekron"was indeedthere and that I was not leadingthem on. I later receivedHughes'interpretation in writingand sent it to another distinguisheddemoticist.RichardA. Parker,emeritusat BrownUniversity, and he concurredon the readingand interpretation. As finallydecipheredand interpretedby Hughes,the fragmentary line readsr.drpD wr1(n) cqrn rn' ... . .. ], "whatthe Prince(?) of Ekrongave to (?) ... [... ]." As Hughespointedout to me, p wr, a reasonablycertainreading,is the normaltitle used by the Egyptiansfor a foreignruler.He would neverbe called nsw, "king."That title was reservedfor Pharaoh.Eventhe mighty HittitemonarchHattusilisis called wr Hti, "Princeof Hatti."in his paritytreatywith RamesesII (Langdonand Gardiner1920:184-85). Whilethe normalword for sendinga letterwas hbh, ProfessorDavid Silvermanof the Universityof Pennsylvaniahascalledmyattentionto the expressiondd PN n PN, "givenby PN to PN,"in the innerand outer addressof MiddleKingdomletters (Griffith1898:72-73;James1962: 127-28),explainedby A. H. Gardiner and K. Sethe(1928:7, 22)as an imperfectiverelativeform,possibly withss.,"letter,"understoodas antecedent(as in the Adon letter). In ourcase,however,the letter,lacking Aramaicaddress,musthavebeen deliveredby somediplomaticcourier, suchas Peteisison of cApy,"envoyfor Canaan(and)for Philistia,"datedby Albright(apudTadmor1961:150)to the Saiticperiod,butearlierby Steindorff(1939:30ff. -22nd Dynasty)andde Meulenaere(letterof 14 March1980).Thedemoticline may havebeenaddedby thiscourierand wouldthusmean"(Theletter)which the GreatOneof Ekrongaveto [PN (for delivery to Pharaoh)]." Alternatively, it may have been added, like the demotic notations on the Arsames letters, by an official at Pharaoh's court. In either case, it would have been written in demotic to facilitate filing in the Egyptian chancery. In true modesty, Hughes concluded his letter of 14 September 1979 with the recommendation that I "submit the demotic line to other Demoticists; some other one might

BIBlICAl. ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981 43

*u1L

disagree with some at least of my reading."At this suggestion, I sent the letter along with photographs to the skilled editor of Elephantine demotic papyri, Dr. Karl-Theodor Zauzich in West Berlin. The "Lieber Bezalel"reply-by-return-mailof 28 September gave the following reading of the line: r.di irm-boh1p3-prn, "What I have sent (given) to (before) the Chief of Prn."The latter, according to Zauzich, is an unidentified site in Egypt. After receipt, the letter would have been referredto the Chief of Prn for appropriateaction. Zauzich concludes by saying that the reading "Ekron"is not excluded but is less likely than the one he proposed. I sent Zauzich's letter to Hughes and Parker, who met in Chicago at the end of October 1979; on 9 November 1979 I received the following reply from Parker:

44

George Hughes and I did have a discussion about your Aramaic puzzle and Zauzich'sreadings.Unanimouslywe rejectedthem. Not from the standpoint that Hughes'readingswere certainbut simplythat withall theirquestionmarks they remainedsuperiorto Zauzich's. Reasonably assured of the Ekron reading, I prepared the present article only to receive a hesitating letter from Hughes dated 19 November, in which he leaned toward Zauzich's skepticism about the letter Cayin.He raised new possibilities and concluded, "Now I must send the ball to your court and asked whether you can make anything of p: wr pn-Grn (or Qrn), 'the prince, he of Grn (or Qrn),' or of p: wr (n) Sgrn (or Sqrn), 'the prince of Sgrn (or Sqrn).'"' I checked the reference tools and could find no site that corresponded to any of the proposals of Hughes. I

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

Leftand center:A MiddleKingdom statuette(objectno. 22.203)reinscribedin the Saitic period(so Albright)by "The King'sMessengerto Canaan(and)to PhilistiaPeteisison of cApy." Such an officialwould have handledthe diplomaticrelationsbetweenAdon and PharaohNecho. Courtesyof WaltersArt Gallery,Baltimore.Right:Hieroglyphic nameand title of an Egyptiandiplomatto Philistia.It reads:wpwty- nsw n p3 Kn(c !)n n Prst p3-dI-'Ist s 3

Drawingby Ada Yardeni.

cp..

sent a copy of Hughes' letter to Parker and wrote again to Hughes. Specifically I wanted to know (1) if Sqrn could be Ashkelon (whereupon we would be back to square one) or Saqqarah (the site where the papyrus was discovered), and (2) whether he was absolutely or only relatively excluding Ekron. The replies from Parker and Hughes were once more reassuring. Parker again rejected the alternate readings and reaffirmed that Ekron was the best solution (3 December 1979). Hughes wrote (29 November-4 December 1979) that "Ashkelon is out of the question because it is always written with

initial 3 or i and k :instead of q, but with s rather than s" and confirmed that "Saqqarah is a purely modern Arabic name." Reconsidering Ekron, he concluded, "I would be willing to go so far out on a limb as to say that a reading p3 wr (n) cqrn n (with, of course, the undisputed r.dat the beginning) and a meaning 'What the Great One of Ekron gave to [......]' should be seriously considered." Zauzich had observed that the nature of demotic writing was such that unless there is sufficient text for purposes of paleographic comparison or contextual illumination, decipherment remains problematic. In his last letter Parker wrote, "I wish I could wave a magic wand and settle all Demotic doubts about your line," while Hughes concluded, "Maybe someone else can take my suggestions and run with them or convincingly refute them altogether." Until someone convincingly refutes Hughes' and Parker's suggestion, I would say that Ekron is topographically suitable, historically acceptable, and paleographically possible. Aphek and Ekron Both Aphek and Ekron are located at critical junctures. Aphek is sited at Tell Rosh ha-'Ayin, i.e., Tell Aphek (= Ras el CAin), Pegae ("Sources") in Hellenistic times, and Antipatris after Herod (Albright 1923). Rising 15 m above the springs of the Yarkon River and covering ca. 25 acres in area, it is the largest and easternmost site along the banks of the river. It lies 14 km from its mouth and only 2.5 km from the hill country to the east and stood at a major crossroads (Kochavi 1975: 17-18). The several branches of the Via Maris in the Sharon plain came together at this point (Mazar 1975: 147ff.) and forked again as they descended into the Philistine plain (Aharoni 1967: 45). From Aphek one could also travel inland along Nahal Shiloh (= Wadi Deir Ballit; cf. 1 Sam 4:12). The town is attested in Egyptian sources in the 2nd millennium-in the lists of conquered towns of Thutmose III (Simons no. 66; ANET: 242), and the annals of Amenhotep II (ANET: 246), and, according to some scholars, already in the Execration Texts of the

accident (2 Kings 1). The prophets Amos (1:8), Zephaniah (2:4), Jeremiah (25:20), and Zechariah (9:5, 7) include Ekron in their oracles of doom against Philistia.

Ekron may be the city of KingAdon. Middle Kingdom (Posener's E 9; A NET: 329, n. 8)-and was one of the 30 or 31 cities whose kings Joshua smote (Josh 12:18;cf. LXX "King of Aphek of the Sharon"). As the Philistines moved against Israel, it became the staging ground for their campaigns in the time of Eli and Saul (1 Sam 4:1, 29:1). A thousand years later Paul spent the night at Antipatris on his way from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Acts 23:31), and the Romans later had to fight there to secure the road as they moved in the opposite direction (Josephus J. W. 2.19.1). In Talmudic times, it was the northernmost border site of Judea (Kochavi 1975:20), and one of Esarhaddon's inscriptions may attest it as lying on the southern border of Samaria (see below). Ekron (LXX Akkaron; Ak. Amqarruna) was a tribal, national, and geographical border site. Identified now with Khirbet al-Muqannac (Naveh 1958: 87ff., 165ff.; also AviYonah, Aharoni, Kallai, Mazar, Wright, but not Albright [1975: 509, n. 3]), the fortified city during its floruit covered 40 acres-the largest Iron Age town in Palestine. It lay along the tribal border, now in Dan (Josh 19:43), now in Judah (Josh 15:11), and on the northern border of "the districts of the Philistines" (Josh 13:2; 1 Sam 7:14). The site is not mentioned in any of the Egyptian or Akkadian texts of the 2nd millennium and appears to have been established in the 12th century as the Philistines advanced inland (Wright 1966: 76; but cf. Judg 1:18 and commentaries). The tell lies in Wadi el-Mekennac, a tributary of the Sorek Valley, just a kilometer from the hills. As a border town, Ekron was the site from which the plague-spreading Israelite ark was dispatched on its providentially guided journey back to Bethshemesh (1 Sam 5:10-6:13), the farthest point in the pursuit of the Philistines by Saul's men after David's slaying of Goliath in the Valley of Elah (1 Sam 17:50), and the city to which Ahaziah son of Ahab sent for an oracle from Baalzebub when he fell ill from an

Assyrian Conquest We have seen that the title "Lord of Kings," by which King Adon addressed Pharaoh, was rooted in the epistolary titulary of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. To reconstruct fully the pattern of relations between Babylonia on the one hand and Philistia, Judah, and Egypt on the other it will be helpful to begin our narrative of events with the rise of Assyria. Patterns of behavior from the earlier period are repeated in the later one and certain constellations under Assyria may serve as analogy for reconstructing events under Babylonia. Fortunately, the city of Ekron is well documented in the Assyrian annals and is displayed prominently on one of the reliefs. The Eponym Chronicle lists the year 734 as "Against Philistia" (ANET: 274). For 35 years the Philistine city-states were to be in a constant state of turmoil as they agitated over the question of whether to submit to the Assyrian yoke or to struggle for independence. Tiglathpileser III (745-727) campaigned two years in succession (734-733) before he secured effective control; Sargon II (721-705) conducted three campaigns (720, 716, 712); and Sennacherib (705681) conducted one campaign (701). The hope of Egyptian support, in Philistia as in Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 17:4), stood behind every decision to resist the Assyrian onslaught. Egypt had every reason to fear Assyrian invasion and sought to support those who would keep her enemy at bay, but political fragmentation during most of the period blocked effective action. Even the thrust of the Nubian conqueror toward the end proved inadequate. The center of attention within Philistia shifted from one citystate to another. In 734 Tiglath-pileser plundered Gaza and forced its king, Hanun, to flee to Egypt. When in 733 Mitinti of Ashkelon withheld tribute, Tiglathpileser invaded Philistia and appointed Rukibti vassal king (ANET: 282-83). Sargon defeated the forces of Hanun

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/WINTER1981 45

-

URU

am -

Transliteration: URU

qa - [dr-?] ru -

Aboveand opposite:Wall relieffrom the palaceat Khorsabaddepictingthe siege of Ekronby Sargon.The city, locatedon the top of a mound,is fortifiedby a low, crenelatedouterwall and a maininner wall reinforcedby towersand mannedby archers.The besiegingforcesconsist of lancers,lightauxiliaryarchers,and two beardless,long-robedarchers(officers?) protectedby shield-bearers.From Botta and Flandin1849:pls. 93 and 99. Left: The name"Ekron"as it appearson Sargon'spalacerelief(pl. 93, panel 10). Drawingby David Weisberg.

rx (= na?)

- am - qa-1 [dr??-]ru -rx' (= na?)

Transcription: dl amqar(r)atna (= pnpY;)

HATTI Dur- Sharrukin Carchemis

Nineve

Hamath

?r;

River

-

BN-blos

: lZediterrfanean Sea

Sea) Babvlon

(wUpper

ELAM

}o

Jerusalem

ARABIA

Memphis

ThebesThe

(Lower Sea_

Worldof KingAdon Map by David M. Howard, Jr.

46

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

of Gaza and Reu, the Egyptian general (of the Bubastite Osorkon IV [ca. 735-12] ?; Baer 1973: 8-11; Kitchen 1973: ??115, 126, 334-35), at Raphiah in 720. He established a military outpost at the "City of the Brook of Egypt" and received tribute from Shilkanni, king of Egypt (= Osorkon IV) in 716. Yamani of Ashdod turned for help to a different "Pharaoh" (= Saitic Bocchoris [ca. 718-712]?; Spalinger 1973: 96ff.; Baer 1973: 23-24), and in 712 Sargon's general (the tartan of Isa 20:1) conquered northern Gath/Gittaim (= Ras Abu Hamid, according to Mazar 1960: 68) and subdued Ashdod-onthe-Sea and Ashdod. Yamani fled to Nubia but was extradited to Nineveh

by its king (= Shabako [ca. 713-698]; Spalinger 1973: 97ff.; Baer 1973: 25), and an Assyrian governor was appointed over the reorganized province alongside a new vassal king (ANET: 285, 286-87, 289; Elat 1975: 64ff.). The wall reliefs in Room 5 of Sargon's palace at Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad) have been related either to the campaign of 720 (El-Amin 1953; Reade 1976) or to the campaign of 712 (Tadmor 1958: 83-84). In the lower register are depicted the siege of Gibbethon (Panels 4-5; Botta and Flandin 1849: pls. 88-89) and Ekron (Door 0/Panel 1, Panels 10-13; Botta and Flandin 1849: pls. 93-94, 99). The other besieged cities lack inscriptions, and it is not possible on the basis of the reliefs alone to determine the order of the campaigns. Nevertheless, whether these sieges occurred in 720 or in 712, we may posit a line of march along the eastern fork of the Via Maris (Mazar 1960: 72) through Lod, Gath-Gittaim, Gibbethon, and Ekron and then westward toward Ashdod (if in 712) or toward the western fork of the Via Maris and down the coast toward Gaza and Raphiah (if in 720).

With Gaza and Ashdod pacified, the focus of rebellion shifted to Ashkelon and Ekron. Again Egypt was at hand. Upon the death of Sargon in 705, Sharruludari of Ashkelon was replaced by the antiAssyrian Sidqa (Marcus 1977: 27ff.). The situation in Ekron is related in detail in the Annals of Sennacherib. An anti-Assyrian coalition of officials (Qakkanakki),nobility (rubltti), and commoners (niph)arrested their king, Padi, and delivered him to Hezekiah to be held as prisoner. Hezekiah played a major role in the revolt and strengthened his position as well. He "smote the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory" (2 Kgs 18:8) and, as we learn from a newly translated "Letter to God" attributed to Sennacherib, "captured and strengthened a royal [city] of the Philistines," perhaps Gath (Na'aman 1974: 26-27, line 11; but cf. Bright 1972: 283, 285). In 701 Sennacherib (705-681) turned his attention to the rebels. He invaded Philistia, doubtless setting out from Aphek and taking the western fork of the Via Maris, and seized and sacked Sidqa's northern enclave at Bethdagon, Joppa, Beneberak, and Azor. He then defeated the allies of Ekron,

"the kings of Egypt" (i.e., the Delta rulers) and "the king of Nubia" (either Shabako or the newly enthroned Shebitku, who sent his general Tirhaka, later "King of Nubia," himself [2 Kgs 19:9]; Kitchen 1973: ??126-29; Baer 1973: 24-25) on the plains of Eltekeh and occupied that town along with Timnah and Ekron. The officials and rulers of Ekron were impaled, her commoners were taken captive, and Hezekiah eventually forced to hand over Padi, who was restored to his throne. The Philistine city earlier captured by Hezekiah (Gath?) was taken by storm with the aid of local auxiliary troops (Na'aman 1974: 26ff., lines I Iff.). In Ashkelon, Sidqa was deposed and Sharruludari restored to the throne. Most of Judah was occupied (2 Kgs 18:13) and plundered and much of it was annexed to loyal Ashdod, Gaza, refavored Ekron, and perhaps Ashkelon as well (Luckenbill 1924: 30-35, lines 73ff.; ANET: 287-88; Naveh 1958: 167-68; Na'aman 1979: 65; Tadmor 1966: 95ff.). Philistia was finally pacified and now became the staging ground for the invasion of Egypt. Already in the reign of Bocchoris an oracle foretold

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 47

Presentationof prisonersfrom Ekronto Sargon,seatedon chariot(at left). From Bottaand Flandin1849:pl. 94. the Assyrian conquest of Egypt and the removal of her gods to Nineveh (Spalinger 1973: 96). Esarhaddon (680-669) undertook one campaign in Philistia at Arsa (679) and three against Egypt (673, 671, and 669), dying enroute on the last. On 19 February 673 "the army of Assyria was defeated in Egypt" (Grayson 1975: 84). In the spring of 671 Esarhaddon set out again for Egypt. An unfortunately fragmentary text presents a military itinerary following the siege of Tyre. Of the first lap, the king says, "A distance of 30 beru from Aphek (u"Ap-qu) which is in the district of kurSa-me-n[a x?] to the city of Raphiah near the 'Brook of Egypt,' where there is no river. I provided my troops with well-water drawn by cords, chains and buckets" (Borger 1956 ?76, obv. 16:18). If Samen[a x?] is an error or erroneous writing for Samerina (Samaria), then our text is clear evidence for Aphek as a major way station on the route to Egypt. On the other hand, since the meaning of btru, whether "mile" (ca. 10 km) or "double-hour," is still debated (cf. Albright 1922: 188-89; Horn 1968: 36-37), the text eludes precise interpretation. In any event, Esarhaddon reached Egypt, captured Memphis on 22 Tammuz (= 11 July), and expelled Tirhaka and his

48

entourage (Grayson 1975: 85). He reorganized the country as an Assyrian province and took the title "King of the Kings of Egypt, Pathros and Nubia" (ANET: 290; Borger 1956 ??9:5, 24:3, 44:4-5, 65:16, 67:5-6). Among the local kings he confirmed in power was Necho of Sais, who also controlled Memphis (Spalinger 1974a: 308ff., 320-21). But Tirhaka soon reoccupied Memphis, and in 669 Esarhaddon headed again for Egypt; he died en route 10 Marcheshvan (= 1 November) (Grayson 1975: 127). Ashurbanipal (669-627) conducted two campaigns against Egypt. To expel Tirhaka once more, he mustered the "22 kings of the seashore, islands, and mainland"in 667. Among these were the same four Philistine kings who ten years earlier had been enrolled by Esarhaddon for corv'e labor in Nineveh-Silbel of Gaza, Mitinti II of Ashkelon (probably the formerly exiled son of Sidqa [Marcus 1977:27]), Ikausu/ Ikagamsu(Cyl. C 1.30 = VAB 7/2.140) of Ekron, and Abi/ umilki of Ashdod (A NET: 291, 294). The Delta kings who violated their vassal treaties and plotted with Tirhaka were punished; only Necho was restored to his throne, and a new vassal treaty concluded with him. His son Psammetichus, given the Assyrian name Nabushezibanni, was made king of Athribis (A NET: 295ff.). This time Necho remained loyal and may have fallen in defense of his city Memphis against

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

Tanwetamani (Tanutamon), successor of Tirhaka (Herodotus 2.152; Kitchen 1973:?354; Spalinger 1974b:322-23). Necho was succeeded by Psammetichus in 664. The following year, Ashurbanipal sacked Thebes (Nah 3:8-9) and essentially ended Nubian rule in Egypt. Rise of Saitic Rule Our sources are silent about the demise of Assyrian rule in Philistia. The steps taken by Psammetichus to establish himself as sole ruler of Egypt can be pieced together carefully (Kitchen 1973 ??360-65; Spalinger 1976). With the aid of foreign mercenaries (A RAB: II 785; Herodotus 2.152), he seems to have completed the process by 656 (Spalinger 1978: 405) and was then ready to turn his attention abroad. To prevent the recurrence of another bigpower invasion of Egypt, he had to control the access routes, particularly the Philistine coast. Though details elude us, Herodotus reports that he turned back the Scythians, who, upon retreating, plundered the temple of Aphrodite Urania (Celestial Astarte) at Ashkelon and that he took Ashdod after a 29-year siege (Herodotus 1.105, 2.157; cf. Jer 25:20). Counting 29 years from 655 would bring us to the time of Ashurbanipal's death. As he took control of Philistia, Psammetichus began to eye Judah. For some five years (627-622) Josiah wavered between an Egyptian and an

Assyrian orientation (cf. Jer. 2:16, 18, 36; Milgrom 1955: 65ff.). Finally he opted for an independent policy and Psammetichus concluded an alliance with Assyria which planted him firmly on the Euphrates with bases at Carchemish (House D, excavated by Woolley [1921: II: 123-29]), Riblah in the land of Hamath (2 Kgs 23:33), and possibly at Megiddo (Malamat 1973: 267ff). The Babylonian Chronicle reports as many as six campaigns of Egypt on the Euphrates in 12 years (Grayson 1975: 91, 95-96, 98-99): (1) In the early fall of 616 the Egyptian and Assyrian armies unsuccessfully pursued Nabopolassar. (2) In the late fall of 610 the Assyrians, and probably their Egyptian allies, were expelled from Haran. (3) In the early summer of 609 King Necho failed in his efforts to aid Ashuruballit king of Assyria in the recapture of Haran. But he did succeed in killing Josiah at Megiddo and reducing Judah to a vassal state (2 Kgs 23:3Iff.; 2 Chr 35:20ff.; Malamat 1975: 126-27). (4) In the spring of 606 the Egyptian army drove the Babylonians from Kimubu south of Carchemish after a four-month siege. (5) In early 605 the Egyptian army marched down the east bank of the Euphrates and expelled the Babylonian army from Quramatu. (6) In the spring-summer of 605 the crown prince Nebuchadnezzar decisively defeated Necho at Carchemish (Jer 46:2) and drove his forces back to Hamath where he inflicted a second defeat. It must have been these victories which Berossus (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.19) had in mind when he said that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the rebellious "satrapin charge of Egypt, Coele-Syria and Phoenicia ... and placed the district again under Babylonian rule." According to him the legitimate successor of Assyrian rule in the west was Babylonia and not Egypt. Babylonian Conquest As Nebuchadnezzar occupied Hamath (Grayson 1975:99, contra Wiseman 1956:69) in the summer of 605, his father died, and he ascended to the

Of the four royal Philistine cities mentioned in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, Ekron was the only one not on the coast. She lay closest to Judah, and her fate might have been linked with that kingdom's. If Jehoiakim held out in 604 and did not submit until 603, throne on 1 Elul (= 7 September). He was determined to occupy Hatti and perhaps Adon was able to do the same. Ekron and Judah were not then go for Egypt. Like Tiglathhe before III and him, simply Babylonian rebels but Egyptian Sargon pileser vassals and could appeal to their had to undertake several expeditions suzerain's treaty obligations. After all, in order to achieve his goal. In seven seven Jehoiakim had been able to extradite he undertook campaigns years from Egypt the fugitive prophet to the west, missing only one year Uriah, son of Shemaiah (Jer 26:20ff.). (600) until the capture of Jerusalem in Extradition is a standard clause in 597. It would have been during this at treaties (Sfire III 4 = KAI 224). stood vassal Nebuchadnezzar that period We are now in the realm of conthe crossroads at Aphek and threatened the vassal of Egypt, "Adon jecture and perhaps the events of correlated When 100 years earlier may guide us in of king [Ekron]." reconstruction. Unlike Padi in 701, with the situation in Judah, these Adon would have chosen to align campaigns reveal two likely years for himself with Jehoiakim, who, like Adon's plea. We may schematize as follows (Grayson 1975: 100-1): Hezekiah, would have given succor and encouragement to Ekron. (1) Post-Elul 605-Shebat 604: When did Adon address his marched about victoriously; vast tribute. appeal for help? In any one of three marched about 604: Sivan-Kislev years (the third year being the least (2) likely): victoriously; appearance of "all the (1) 604-all the kings of Hatti kings of Hatti" before Nebuchadnezzar with tribute; destruction of Ashkelon; presented their tribute to Nebuchadnezzar except the kings of Ashkelon, Jehoiakim's defiance (Jer 36:9ff.); submission or resistance of Adon? Ekron, and Judah. He marched to (3) lyyar-? 603: attack against a city Aphek, halted, and considered his next step. Adon wrote for help. We (name destroyed; Jerusalem? [Vogt 1957: 90]; Gaza [Rainey 1975: 54-5]; may imagine a scene like that described by Ezekiel for the turn of Ashdod, Ekron, or Gaza [Malamat the year 589/8. Nebuchadnezzar is 1975: 131]); submission of Jehoiakim of Adon. submission depicted as standing at the crossroads (2 Kgs 24:1); and deciding, through various means (4) 602: march to Hatti; [booty]; submission of Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1). of divination (belomancy, oracular consultation, and hepatoscopy), (5) ?-Kislev 601: marched about of Jehoiakim whether to head first for Rabbah of submission victoriously; Ammon or for Jerusalem (Ezek (2 Kgs 24:1); gruelling and standstill 21:23-28 [18-23]). The signs point to battle with king of Egypt. It may be to this battle that Herodotus referred Jerusalem. In our year, Nebuchadnezzar took the western branch of the (2.159) when he said that Necho defeated the "Syrians"at Magdolos Via Maris and reduced Ashkelon, forgoing Ekron and Judah. (= Migdol [cf. Jer 46:14] on the (2) 603-Nebuchadnezzar came with Egyptian border) and then occupied cf. Jer 47:1; Gaza; Freedy (= siege equipment and halted at Aphek. Cadytis and Redford 1970: 475, n. 57; Adon sent his vain appeal and was Malamat 1973: 276-77), presumably forced to submit along with an Jehoiakim. It could now be said "The Assyrian garrison. expelling (6) ? 600-Adar 599: rebellion of King of Egypt did not come again out Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1); march to of his land for the King of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the Hatti; spoliation of the Arabs. (7) Kislev 598-Adar 597: march to King of Egypt from the Brook of Hatti; capture of Jerusalem on Egypt to the river Euphrates"(2 Kgs 2 Adar (16 March). 24:7). The royal Assyrian epithet,

"TheKing of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the King of Egypt. .."

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 49

~Fa~i

ta

C h'~~'. .;?i,-

7 ; ???C

-.51

r?.

r)

i... s?; ??- "-: ~~ ;??'~i:i

?:~~?: L

'?'?.;

~L.i.. .. i~:?? 'ii~?:

?Y

?? .-:i .' ...

~:

"

k(

i?:

?.~~

:???. 'i?E;4

:??~P b.

H

"r7"7

9'3~ ~~:~?:

?.

a:

i? :2??'.~

?? .;5.~

;d?:

r:

i? i~ s; :r?.~?

,,

II,,

?r

:'

?.i

'r.

?~ '0?;

?.'~;:

~-es

'I

~~~?- gr?t?7Ha~P1Ca~--~Fr4 ~j$

r?

??s?: ?I?

;"' I

I,

I ?"r.

i

r9

c,

4

~?

r.

0- ?' ?~e~b.? ~: A

.?

~

;xls

*e

"?~ ,,

... ~Q~"?

a

Hh 1. r

'Si' LL..iY r,

''

''C :s j7ql:Ljf.:Y?i .,r .i? ~~.~:I:i s~ ?? I Y~!?~?~;?;!???~~r:J1 i .? ??r

.,". ??? -?.--i.I .?r ii , u

;1?

apea~rrruw~----~'4~5~1~,1:

'1'

i; :~,~?:~s?j"?'' C?;::~' ??,;

.s~

II

~ ~~ i:. :fS

99'

:~?

?., ~::

.:r ~

?1

1

I

?: ?s-

C

.?

re

i

9

An infraredclose-upof the left-handpart of the papyrusshowinglines 3-7. It confirmsDupont-Sommer's readingand restoration:mt'[w]' pq, "reach[ed] Aphek." "Lordof Kings,"adopted by the Egyptian successors, became just another empty title. (3) 598/7-Adon had joined Jehoiakim in rebellion in 600, and Nebuchadnezzarmoved against the two at the end of 598 (or his troops a year or so earlier;cf. 2 Kgs 24:2; Malamat 1950:222-23, 1968: 143). When he reached Aphek, Adon appealed to Pharaoh, still flattering him with the empty title "Lord of Kings"and reminding him that he had been, before being coerced otherwise, a loyal vassal of Egypt, all to no avail. Either later in 597 (Sarna 1978) or in 594 (as most scholars believe), when emissaries from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon gathered in Jerusalem to consider

50

.?;

uIt.

I

rebellion once more, there were no representatives from any of the Philistine towns (Jeremiah 27). They all had been pacified. The same Babylonian archives which report the distribution of rations to Jehoiachin and his five sons in 592 report it for the sons of Aga', king of Ashkelon (Weidner 1939). The fragmentary conclusion of a list of officials at the court of Nebuchadnezzar reads, "the King of Tyre, the King of Gaza, the King of Sidon, the King of Arvad, the King of Ashdod, the King of Mir[. ..], the King of...

308).

.""(A NET:

Bibliography Aharoni, Y. 1967 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Trans. A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster. Albright, W. F. 1922 One Aphek or Four?JPOS 2: 184-89. The Site of Aphek in Sharon. JPOS 1923 3: 50-53.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

CICr 1932

1934

1956 1975

ANET ARAB Baer, K. 1973

Bea, A. 1949

Hit

The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah, with Some Observations on Ezekiel. JBL 51: 77-106. The North-Canaanite Poems of Al eyan Bacal and the 'Gracious Gods.' JPOS 14: 101-40. The Nebuchadnezzarand Neriglissar Chronicles. BASOR 143: 28-33. Syria, The Philistines,and Phoenicia. Pp. 507-36 in Vol. 2, Pt. 2 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University. See Pritchard 1955. See Luckenbill 1926-27. The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt: Notes on the Chronology of Dynasties XXII to XXVI. JNES 32: 4-25.

Epistula aramaica saeculo VII exeunte ad Pharaonem scripta. Bib. 30: 514-16. Bergman, A. Two Hebrew Seals of the cEbed 1936 Class. JBL 55: 221-26. Borger, R. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons K6nigs 1956 von Assyrien. AfO Beiheft 9. Graz.

Botta, P. E., and Flandin, E. Monument de Ninive: Inscriptions. 1849 Vol. 4. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Bright, J. A New Letterin Aramaic Writtento a 1949 Pharaoh of Egypt. BA 12: 46-52. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: 1959 Westminster. 2nd ed. of Bright 1959. 1972 Cowley, A. E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century 1923 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon. Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O.; and Sanmartin, J.; eds. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus 1976 Ugarit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Diringer, D. Le iscrizioni anticho-ebraiche pales1934 tinesi. Florence. Donner, H., and R611ig,W. 1962-64 Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Driver, G. R. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth 1954 Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth 1957, 1965 Century B.C. Rev. and abr. ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Dunand, R. 1949 Bibliographie. Syria 26: 152-53. Dupont-Sommer, A. Un papyrus aramben d'6poque saite 1948 d6couvert &Saqqara. Sem. 1: 43-68. Dussaud, R. 1927 Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et m&diivale. Bibliotheque archbologique et historique 4. Paris: P. Geuthner. See Knudtzon 1915. EA El-Amin, M. Die Reliefs mit Beischriften von 1953 Sargon II. in Dfir Sharrukin. Sumer 9: 35-59. Elat, M. The Political Status of the Kingdom 1975 of Judah within the Assyrian Empire in the 7th Century B.C.E. Pp. 61-69 in Investigations at Lachish, ed. Y. Aharoni. Tel Aviv. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Aramaic Letter of the King Adon 1965 to the Egyptian Pharaoh. Bib. 46:4155. The Letter of Adon to the Pharaoh. 1979 In his A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essavs. Missoula: Scholars Press. Freedman, D. N. The Babylonian Chronicle. BA 19: 1956 50-60. Freedy, K. S., and Redford, D. B. The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to 1970 Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources. JA OS 90: 462-85.

Galling, K. Eschmunazar und der Herr der 1963 K6nige. ZDPV 79: 140-51. Gardiner, A. H. 1950 Egyptian Grammar. London: Oxford University. Gardiner, A. H., and Sethe, K. 1928 Egyptian Letters to the Dead, Mainly from the Old and Middle Kingdoms. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Gese, H.; H6fner, M.; and Rudolph, K. Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altara1970 biens undder Mandaer. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Gibson, J. C. L. Aramaic Inscriptions. Vol. 2 of Text1975 book of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Ginsberg, H. L. An Aramaic Contemporary of the 1948 Lachish Letters. BASOR 111: 24-27. Grayson, A. K. 1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin. Griffith, F. Ll. The Petrie Papyri: Hieratic Papyri 1898 from Kahun and Gurob. Vol. 1. London: B. Quaritch. Horn, S. H. Where and When was the Aramaic 1968 Saqqara Papyrus Written? Andrews UniversitySeminary Studies 6: 29-45. Huffmon, H. B. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari 1965 Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Huss, W. Der 'K6nig der Konige' und der 'herr 1977 der K6nige.' ZDPV 93: 131-40. James, T. G. H. The Hekanakhte Papers, and other 1962 Early Middle Kingdom Documents. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 19. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. See Donner and Rllig 1962-64. KAI Kitchen, K. A. The Third Intermediate Period in 1973 Egypt (1100-650 B.C.). Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Knudtzon, J. A. 1893 Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott. Vol. 2. Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. Ed. J. A. 1915 Knudtzon. 2 vols. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Koopmans, J. J. 1962 Aramiiische Chrestomathie. Leiden: Brill. Kochavi, M. The First Two Seasons of Excava1975 tions at Aphek-Antipatris. Tel Aviv 2:17-42. Kraeling, A. E. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic 1953

Papyri. New Haven: Yale University. See Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin 1976. Landes, G. M. The Material Civilization of the 1961 Ammonites. BA 24: 66-86. Langdon, S., and Gardiner, A. H. The Treaty of Alliance between 1920 Hattulili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt. JEA 6: 181-205. Luckenbill, D. D. The Annals of Sennacherib. The 1924 University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 2. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1926-27 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago. Malamat, A. A New Aramaic Letter to Pharaoh 1949 from the Days of Jeremiah. BJPES 15: 34-39. (Hebrew) The Last Wars of the Kingdom of 1950 Judah. JNES 9: 218-27. A New Record of Nebuchadnezzar's 1956 Palestinian Campaigns. IEJ 6: 24656. The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall 1968 of Jerusalem. IEJ 18: 137-55. Josiah's Bid for Armageddon: The 1973 Background of the Judean-Egyptian Encounter in 609 B.C. JA NES 5: 26779. The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyp1975 tian-Babylonian Maelstrom. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum28: 12345. In The Age of the Monarchies: 1979 Political History, ed. A. Malamat. World History of the Jewish People. Vol. 4, Pt. 1. Jerusalem: Massada. Marcus, D. 1977 Sharruludari, Son of Rukibtu, Their Former King: A Detail of Phoenician [sic!] Chronology. JANES 9: 27-30. Mazar, B. The Cities of the Territory of Dan. 1960 IEJ 10: 65-77. Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel. 1975 Jerusalem. (Hebrew) McHardy, W. D. A Letter from Saqqarah. Pp. 251-55 1958 in Documents from Old Testament Times,ed. D. W. Thomas. Edinburgh and London: Thomas Nelson. Meyer, R. 1954 Ein aramiischer Papyrus aus den ersten Jahren Nebukadnezars II. Pp. 251-62 in Festschrift fiir Friedrich Zucker, ed. W. Muller. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Milgrom, J. The Date of Jeremiah Chapter 2. 1955 JNES 14: 65-69.

KTU

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

51

Milik, J. T. Les papyrus arambensd'Hermopolis 1967 et les cultes syro-pheniciensen Egypte perse. Bib. 48: 546-622. Mitchell, T. C. Philistia. Pp. 405-27 in Archaeology 1967 and Old Testament Study, ed. D. W. Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon. Moran, W. L. A Note on the Treaty Terminology of 1963 the Sefire Stelas. JNES 22: 173-76. Na'aman, N. Sennacherib's 'Letter to God' on his 1974 Campaign to Judah. BASOR 214: 25-39. Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah 1979 and the Date of the LMLK Stamps. VT 29: 61-86. Naveh, J. Khirbetal-Muqanna'-Ekron: An Ar1958 chaeological Survey. IEJ 8: 87-100, 165-70. N6tscher, R. 'Neue' babylonische Chroniken und 1957 Altes Testament. Biblische Zeitschrift 1: 110-14. Oded, B. 1977 Judah and the Exile. Pp. 435-88 in Israelite and Judaean History, eds. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller. Philadelphia: Westminster. Parpola, S. Lettersfrom Assyrian Scholars to the 1971 Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part IIA. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon and Bercker Kevelaer. Pohl, A. Personalnachrichten. Or 18: 512. 1949 Porten, B. Aramaic Letters: A Study in Papyro1980 logical Reconstruction. JA RCE 17. Posener, G. Princes et pays d'Asie et de Nubie. 1940 Brussels: Fondation 6gyptologique reine lisabeth. Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating 1955 to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Quinn, J. D. Alcaeus 48 (B 16) and the Fall of 1961 Ascalon (604 B.C.). BASOR 164: 1920. Rainey, A. F. The Fate of Lachish During the 1975 Campaigns of Sennacherib and Nebuchadrezzar. Pp. 47-60 in Investigations at Lachish, ed. Y. Aharoni. Tel Aviv. Reade, J. E. 1976 Sargon's Campaigns of 720, 716, and 715 B.C.: Evidence from the Sculptures. JNES 35: 95-104. Saad, Z. 1945 Saqqarah. Fouilles royales (1942). Chronique d'Egypte 39-40: 80-82.

52

Saggs, H. W. F. The Nimrud Letters, 1952-Part II. 1955 Iraq 17: 126-60. Sarna, N. The Abortive Insurrection in Zede1978 kieh's Day (Jer. 27-29). El (H. L. Ginsberg Volume) 14: 89*-96*. Seux, M.-J. 1967 tpith'tes royales akkadiennes et sumiriennes. Paris: Letouzey et An6. Simons, J. J. Handbook for the Study of Egyptian 1937 Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia. Leiden: Brill. Spalinger, A. The Year 712 B.C. and its Implica1973 tions for Egyptian History. JA RCE 10: 95-101. 1974a Esarhaddon and Egypt: An Analysis of the First Invasion in Egypt. Or 43: 295-326. 1974b Assurbanipal and Egypt: A Source Study. JAOS 94: 316-28. 1976 Psammetichus, King of Egypt: I. JARCE 13: 133-47. The Date of the Death of Gyges and 1978 its Historical Implications. JA OS 98: 400-9. Stamm, J. J. Die Akkadische Namengebung. Mit1939 teilungender Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 44. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Steindorff, G. The Statue of an Egyptian Commis1939 sioner in Syria. JEA 25: 30-33. Tadmor, H. 1956 Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah. JNES 15: 226-30. The Campaigns of Sargon II of 1958 Assur. JCS 12: 22-40, 77-100. 1961 Que and Musri. IEJ 11: 142-50. Philistia Under Assyrian Rule. BA 1966 29: 86-102. 1971 Fragments of an Assyrian Stele of Sargon II. cAtiqot 9-10: 192-97. Tallqvist, K. L. 1914 Assyrian Personal Names. Acta Societatis Scientiarium Fennicae 43.1. Helsingfors: Societatis Scientiarium Fennicae. Thomas, D. W. The Age of Jeremiah in the Light of 1950 Recent Archaeological Discovery. PEQ 82: 1-15. Vattioni, F. Il Papiro di Saqqarah. Stud. Pap. 5: 1966 101-17. Vogt, E. Die neu-babylonische Chronik uiber 1957 die Schlacht bei Karkemisch und die Einnahme von Jerusalem. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 4: 6796. Waterman, L. Royal Correspondence of the As1930

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

syrian Empire: Translation and Transliteration. Vols. 1 and 2. (= University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 17-18.) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Weidner, E. F. 1939 Jojachin, K6nig von Juda, in Babylonischen Keilschrifttexten. Pp. 92335 in Milanges Svriens offerts i Monsieur Rene Dussaud. Bibliothbque Archtologique et Historique 30. Paris: P. Geuthner. Whitehead, J. D. Some Distinctive Features of the 1978 Language of the Aramaic Arsames Correspondence. JNES 37: 119-40. Wiseman, D. J. Two Historical Inscriptions from 1951 Nimrud. Iraq 13: 21-26. Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (6261956 556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Woolley, C. L. 1921 The Town Defences. Vol. 2 of Carchemish: Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on behalf of the British Museum. 3 vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Wright, G. E. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: 1957 Westminster. 2nd ed. of Wright 1957. 1962 Fresh Evidence for the Philistine 1966 Story. BA 29: 70-86.

Mevasseret Yerushalay The

Ancient

Settlement

Gershon Edelstein & Mordechai Kislev The hills west of Jerusalem witness an ancient farming technique adapted by human design to the natural, stepped topography of the region. Excavations of artificial agricultural terraces provide information about the choice of location and their evolution and construction. The modern village of Mevasseret Yerushalayiin lies in the Judean hills, 7 km west of Jerusalem and about 700 m above sea level. The ancient agricultural settlement is perched on the eastern edge of a plateau above two small wadis which join Nahal Soreq. Nearby are several small

and

its

AgriculturalTerraces

springs. Our excavation began in 1977 and was resumed in 1978 under the auspices of the Department of Antiquities and Museums. E. Eisenberg participated in the second season and geologist A. Horowitz offered valuable advice to our study of the relationship between the settlement and the adjacent agricultural terraces. Earlier Work The characteristic feature of the hills in the vicinity of Jerusalem is their agricultural terraces. Although terraces cover about 50% of these hills, no one has attempted yet to investigate the history of this particular system of land utilization. Some of the terraces are cultivated today, but this is by no means a recent phenomenon. An extensive study undertaken by geographer Zvi Ron (1966) deals mainly with the geomorphological aspects, with little

emphasis on their implications for the history of agriculture in the region. A more theoretical work by de Geus (1975) recognizes the need for field studies of ancient agriculture, especially in the Judean hills. We began our research by excavating a settlement closely associated with the agricultural terraces. Two Seasons of Excavations The small archeological site at Mevasseret Yerushalayim lies on a more or less horizontal surface and includes several natural rock terraces on the slope below. In the 1977 season four periods of occupation were distinguished at the rural settlement. Immediately below the surface are the remains of a large The terracedslope below the ancient settlement,viewedfrom the east. The site lies at the feet of the new buildings. Fig and almond trees are seen on the terraces.

WINTER1981 53 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST,'

early Arabic building. This is followed by a Byzantine level which included two subterranean vaulted buildings that cut into the Roman level beneath. In the earliest level of occupation, the 8th and 7th centuries B.c. (the period of the kingdom of Judah), a wide enclosure wall runs some 20 m. Excavation revealed a stone seal bearing two letters, and much pottery, including a jar handle with a seal impression of the fourwinged scarab with two Hebrew words, Imik hbrn. In 1978 excavations were carried out on the fourth terrace below the settlement-a long, narrow terrace (57 m wide) which showed evidence of ancient structures and cuttings into the rock surface. Excavation revealed a water cistern cut into the bedrock, numerous plastered basins, and channels-all findings characteristic of the oil and wine industries-as well as a large stone belonging to an oil press. Although these installations appear to be associated with the Terracewallsvisiblein the wadi bed, lowerrightcorner.

54

terraces and settlement above, further excavation is necessary to provide concrete evidence for a more accurate interpretation. The Terraces The hills in the Mevasseret Yerushalayim region are landscaped into largely angular terraces as a result of differential erosion in the hard and soft bedrock. This natural, stepped topography formed the foundation for artificial, man-made agricultural terraces. Even though most of the terraces themselves are natural, our study shows that farming them is not simple and in fact requires arduous work. The excavations offer some clues about the construction of these artificial terraces. On each natural terrace, sufficient soil must be accumulated for farming and a flat surface maintained. This is achieved by constructing a stone wall which prevents soil erosion. Our first question concerned the origin of the soil and the method of its accumulation. Was it a product of slow, natural erosion of bedrock or was it transported from elsewhere to

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

the terraces?Several chance cuts of terraces made by a bulldozer revealed horizontal layers of soil of different colors, composition, and sorting. This implies various origins for the soil rather than the in situ erosion of bedrock which would presumably produce a more homogeneous, stratified deposit. We thus assume that soil was in fact brought to the terraces at Mevasseret Yerushalayim from different places and in different periods. Soil could have been brought either from the valley bottom or from the substantial soil deposits at the top of the hill. This finding is in accord with the Mishna, which relates that the terraces or "steps" were artificially filled: In the sixth year, after the rains have ceased,stepsmaynotbebuiltupthesides of ravines,since this would be to make themreadyfortheseventhyear;butthey may be builtin theseventhyearafterthe rains have ceased,since this is to make themreadyfor theeighthyear.Theymay not be blockedin with earth,but made only into a roughstone bank;any stone (lyingin the field)whicha man(building a bank)needbut stretchout his handto take, may be removed(Seb. 3.8).

The evolution of terrace farming is not yet clear. Dry-farming could have developed first in wadi bottoms where the gradual deposition of soil provided favorable conditions. However, these fields were in danger each winter. Heavy rainfalls cause the intermittent streams to swell and flow rapidly down the wadi beds, carrying Hillsidefacingwestward(viewfrom the east). In the wadi below is a wall separatingtwo fields. Above the wadiare openingsof several8th- and 7th-century B.C. tombs hewed in the stone.

away soil and damaging crops. To prevent such disasters, stone fences may have been erected to protect the soil. Fences and channels arranged both parallel and perpendicular to the wadi bed would also determine the direction of the water flow and perhaps result in a more efficient use of the precious water. By transferring and adapting this technique to the hillside, farmers also would be able to exploit the slope for agriculture. On the slopes, innovations in technique that were better suited to

the terrain soon would evolve. Stone walls, 1-3 m in height, were erected from local stones. A certain pattern or arrangement of terraces would emerge once it became clear that building terraces at random is undesirable. Farming only the lower part of a hill, for example, is impractical because rain falling on uncultivated upper slopes flows freely down the hill until it reaches, with considerable impact, the terraces below. Soil and stones may be washed down to the wadi bottom. If, however, the upper slope is cultivated along with the lower, rain damage is mitigated due to absorption by the soil deposits on the upper terraces. Furthermore, the rainfall is used more efficiently because the soil and uncemented stone walls serve as a filter for the rain. The water that falls on the uppermost terrace slowly percolates downward to the lower terraces. Thus, by building on the upper hill, the farmers would create favorable conditions on the lower hill. It is therefore reasonable to assume that one would endeavor to develop the whole slope as a unit. The location of the agricultural terraces is influenced by several predetermined factors such as the topography and nature of the bedrock and the presence of natural springs. If natural springs were available, farmers could have constructed a network of basins and channels for irrigation. Z. Ron draws attention to the planning of irrigated terraces, and he observes that "each spring-irrigated terrace area and irrigation system was built as a complete unit designed in advance .. ." (1966: 111). In addition, a system for storage and subsequent distribution of water is necessary since annual precipitation is limited to four consecutive months. Water from natural springs would not suffice for year-round irrigation. Ron's conclusion can be extended further by inferring that all agricultural terraces were carefully planned and organized before they were built. The very magnitude of the labor involved to create the agricultural terraces suggests that we are dealing with a phenomenon that required considerable planning and organization. Moreover, the extent of the land used in this manner in the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 55

environs of Jerusalem is impressive. If one considers that it was necessary to bring soil to the terraces to construct irrigation channels, stone walls, and various other installations, one must conclude that the agricultural terracing is not entirely the result of the labor of individual farmers. Paths still visible today served as lines of communication throughout the terraces. The construction work appears to have been confined to a relatively short period of time, and the areas covered by the terraces are so extensive that a large number of people must have been engaged in the construction work. Supplies for the maintenance of these people were necessary, and a large-scale enterprise of this type would have been unlikely, if not unthinkable, without centralized organization. In 2 Chr 26:10 it is reported that Uzziah, king of Judah, was an avid lover of husbandry. With his enterprise and power he may have initiated, administered, and controlled the widespread development of terrace farming. From the terraces themselves 8thcentury-B.c. ceramics are plentiful, and, since no earlier pottery was uncovered, the initial work may be

attributed to this period. A cemetery was found opposite the settlement on the slope to the east and was partially excavated by Ora Negbi. Several tombs have been robbed, but ". . . a varied repertoire of pottery belonging to the eighth-seventh centuries B.C. was found ..." (Negbi 1963: 145), thus verifying Iron Age activity in the region. The possibility remains that some of the terraces may have been constructed in later periods. Sherds from the Arabic, Byzantine, and Roman periods were found in the terrace soil, but this is insufficient for dating the terraces if the soil was brought from various places. Over the centuries the terraces have not altered greatly. They continue to be cultivated without major reorganization and are merely maintained and repaired when necessary.

Summary Apart from Ron's study, little attention has been paid to the striking feature of artificial agricultural terraces. A large portion of the Judean mountains as well as other areas in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria are so terraced. There is much to be accomplished in the field by combining archeological, botanical, geological, and pedological analyses. Hillsidefacingwestward,withoutthe wadi Future work will focus on clarifying the processes of planning and bed. Grave mouths are clearly discernible.

56 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGISTWINTER1981

constructing these ancient agricultural terraces. Agronomist Yosef Klatzman has suggested (oral communication) that in today's world strong incentives are necessary to encourage governments to support terrace farming, since this form of agriculture produces low yields in return for intensive labor input. If this situation were applicable in antiquity as well, what then could the incentive have been? Was there a shortage of arable land in relation to the population density in the Jerusalem area? Were the crops raised on the terraces in high demand and very profitable, and possibly products suitable for export? If so, who supplied grains and other staples to the inhabitants of the Judean mountains? The possibility exists that at one time olive oil and wine produced in the mountains were traded, or sold, for other commodities, but who were the first people to exploit terrace farming and why? The site at Mevasseret Yerushalayim is well suited for investigating these problems, and further excavations in the area are planned. Bibliography de Geus. C. H. J. The Importance of Archaeological 1975 Research into the Palestinian Agricultural Terraces with an Excursus on the Hebrew word gbT. PEQ. 107th year: 65-74. Negbi. O. 1963 Notes and News. Mevasseret Yerushalayim. IEJ 13: 145. Ron. Z. 1966 Agricultural Terraces in the Judean Mountains. IEJ 16: 33-49. 111-22.

Otto F. Meinardus Four traditional sites associated with the conversion and ministr' qofthe Apostle Paul in and around the cit ' of Damascus are singled out and commemorated: the "House of Judas, " the "House of Ananias, " the "Site of the Apostle 's Escape, "and the "Site of Paul's Conversion. "

The the

Site

of

Apostle Paul's

at Kaukab Conversion

On the occasion of a recent tour to Damascus I had the opportunity to visit the various traditional sites associated with the conversion and ministry of the Apostle Paul in and around the city. Shortly after the Pentecost recorded in Acts 2, the Christian faith spread to Damascus. The Pharisee Saul, bearing his Roman name Paul of Tarsus, went there to stamp out the new messianic movement. Therefore, Damascus figures prominently in the New Testament in connection with the Apostle's ministry. Almost immediately after his conversion experience "near to Damascus" and his brief stay in the city, Paul left Damascus for Arabia where he spent three years. In his letter to the Galatians (1:17-18) he states that following this period of withdrawal he returned to Damascus to preach. At that time a governor appointed by the Nabatean king Aretas IV (3 B.C.-A.D.40) ruled Damascus (2 Cor 11:32). In later centuries, the Christians of Damascus singled out four biblical sites for commemoration: The "House of Judas," the "House of Ananias," the "Site of the Apostle's Escape," and the "Site of Paul's Conversion." The "House of Judas" Today most visitors to Damascus are led through the ancient Roman vicus rectus, the "Street called Straight" (Acts 9:11) which now is a busy bazaar. On this street is the house of Judas where Paul prayed as Ananias turned to him and laid his hands

The Churchof the Conversionof St. Paul.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 57

The Churchof St. Paul in the city walls at Damascus.

on him. Throughout the Middle Ages a "House of Judas" was shown to the Christian pilgrims who traveled to the Holy Land. Early in the 17th century, the Italian nobleman Pietro della Valle described it as being "a little run down," and later (1673) Monsieur de Th6venot remarked that this house which is near the Bab ash-Sharki used to be a large church dedicated to St. Paul, but which the Turks had converted into a khan or caravansary. I was told that the traditional house of Judas had served for some time as a madrassa, an Islamic school. The House of Ananias The subterranean church of St. Ananias is situated in a narrow lane connecting the Bab ash-Sharki with the Bab Tuimaand is traditionally associated with the house of Ananias. Here, the Jewish Christian Ananias of Damascus laid his hands on Paul, "and immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight .

. .

and he was

baptized" (Acts 9:18). During the Middle Ages the building was used as a mosque, though by the 17th century the site had been acquired by the Latins. The pilgrims and travelers are unanimous in their accounts about the location of this chapel which was and still is served by the Franciscan

Friars of the Custody of the Holy Land. A flight of stairs leads down into the recently reconstructed underground chapel. Numerous votive offerings in the form of candles and tammata (small silver plaques showing certain ailing parts of the body) are placed in front of the icons and religious pictures adorning the room. The friar informed me that Catholic and Orthodox Christians as well as Muslims repair to this shrine for their supplications. The Site of the Apostle's Escape The site of the Apostle's escape, "where his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket" (Acts 9:25) is commemorated by a church built into the southern Roman wall at Bab Kisan. A tradition held by the Christians of Damascus and mentioned already by the 17th- and 18thcentury travelers Th6venot and Pococke states that the gate-keeper George, who was suspected for having assisted the Apostle in his escape, was subsequently stoned to death by the Jews. His tomb is found outside the walls near the Bab Kisan. Like the Byzantine church built on the traditional site of the house of Ananias, the old church commemorating the Apostle's escape was

1981 WINTER ARCHEOLOGIST 58 BIBLICAL

also destroyed and replaced by a mosque. The only remnant of the former church in the Roman wall is a single column standing now near the present shrine. In 1885, H. B. Gregory Joseph, the Greek Catholic (Melkite) Patriarch of Antioch, acquired the property and his successor, H. B. Cyril III, added the land outside the wall. In 1924 H. B. Demetrius Cadi laid the foundation stone of the new Sanctuary of St. Paul in the City Walls which was consecrated on the feast of the Apostles, 29 June 1941. Above the entrance to the church, which has the appearance of a city gate, is a stone window marking the site from which the Apostle is said to have escaped. Inside the gate-church, the Greek Catholic Patriarchate has maintained an orphanage for boys since 1964, administered by the Basilian Sisters of Aleppo. About half a kilometer south of the Bab Kisan, south of the Islamic cemetery, and within the boundaries of the Christian cemetery, the Christians commemorate the site where the Apostle sought refuge immediately after his escape. The Site of Paul's Conversion Paul referred a total of four times in his epistles to his conversion experience (Gal 1:15, 16: 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8: 2 Cor 4:6) while Luke has provided us with three accounts of the Apostle's vision on the Damascus Road, the so-called Antiochene source (Acts 9:1-19), Paul's speech to the crowd in Jerusalem (Acts 22:4-11) and the Apostle's defense before Agrippa (Acts 26:12-18). Only two accounts, however, refer to the site of the conversion, Acts 9:3 and 22:6, where it is merely stated that Paul had the experience "near to Damascus." Early and medieval traditions are not uniform as might be expected concerning the exact location of the site. A 6th-century tradition mentioned by Antoninus of Placentia (ca. 570) and repeated by Willibald, the 8th-century Bishop of Eichstaidt,states that a monastery or a church is situated two miles from Damascus where Christ appeared to

The dedicatoryplaqueat the Churchof the Conversionof St. Paul. unfinished road led to the building. After a while the custodian with the key appeared, warning us not to take any photographs because of nearby military installations. An Arabic inscription on a marble slab states that "This edifice was constructed in memory of the Holy Apostle Paul at the time of the Patriarchate of Theodosius VI of Antioch and All the East and was donated by the Patriarch Alexius of Moscow and All Russia in the year 1965." The interior of the church, covered with marble slabs, appeared unfinished. The beautiful altar in the center of the rotunda could still be seen since the altar-screen (iconostasis) had not yet been installed. The walls were adorned with several icons, the most impressive of which showed the Conversion of Paul. Paul, while the 14th-century pilgrim Antony of Cremona reported that the site of the apparition of the risen Christ to the Apostle was merely one mile distant from Damascus. A late medieval tradition placed the site where Paul saw "the great light from heaven suddenly shining about him" about half a mile south of the Roman city walls in the vicinity of the Christian cemetery, between the tomb of George and the place of the Apostle's refuge. The fact that this site was not even on or near the old Roman road connecting Jerusalem with Damascus was already noticed by Richard Pococke when he visited Damascus in the first half of the 18th century. Already during the Crusader period, however, another location of the conversion experience was visited by the pilgrims as reported by the knight of Arvieux and the travelers of the 17th century. While the archeological remains pointing to a church are insignificant, there is an old local tradition that Paul experienced his conversion at the village of Kaukab, 15 km southwest of Damascus on the road to Jerusalem. In the area there are two sites which we must distinguish, namely, the hillock of MAr Boulos (St. Paul) and the village of Kaukab,

situated on a slight elevation 1 km west of Mar Boulos. MAr Boulos is merely a small volcanic crater where a few archeological remains of a preChristian temple were discovered. Tradition has placed the site of Paul's conversion in the immediate neighborhood of the village of Kaukab, 30 or 40 m below the village and to the southwest near the open plain. At this spot, which is within an Islamic cemetery, there are several architectural remnants of a Byzantine church, namely, the base and a drum of a column and fragments of an architrave. Moreover, the villagers of Kaukab used to relate the story of the conversion of the Apostle Paul to pilgrims and travelers, and showed their visitors the incidental design in the cutting of a stoneblock in which they recognized a knight, who to them could only be St. Paul. Whereas for centuries the tradition of St. Paul's conversion at the site was maintained by the villagers and a few travelers, today an impressive edifice commemorates the conversion of the Apostle. Leaving Damascus on the road to Quneitra, we turned to the left after ca. 16 km and saw situated on a slight elevation in the open fields a rotunda-church, which was enclosed on one side by a small court with several arches. An

Bibliography De Th6venot, J. The Travelsof Monsieurde Thvenot 1673 into the Levant. 3 vols. London. Jalabert, L. 1921 "Damas." Cols. 129-33 in Vol. 4 of Dictionnaire d'Archdologie chritienne et de Liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol and H. Leclerq. Paris: Letouzey et An6. Pococke, R. 1743-45 A Description of the East and some other countries. 2 vols. London: Printed for the author. Valle, P. della 1664 Viaggi di Pietro della Valle il Pelegrino con minuto ragguaglio di tutte le cose notabili cosservate in esse. Rome.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 59

Notes News

&

The Wadi el IJasi Survey, 1979 The original intention was to do an archeological survey of the south of the Wadi el Hasd from the western edge of the plateau leading down to the southeastern plain of the Dead Sea as far east as the Desert Highway at El Hasd close by Qalcat el Hasa. The survey work was to be carried out southward from the wadi a distance of approximately 10 km. However, the archeological richness of the area made it practically impossible for us to do an intensive survey of all the area. We thus concentrated our efforts on the area from the ridge just to the west of the Wadi el Lacbdn, that is, Jebel eth Thamad, westward to where the plateau begins its descent to the southeastern plain of the Dead Sea. The main Karak-Taffla road served as the southern boundary. We did not survey as far south as Taflla but concentrated our efforts on the area to the north and northeast of that town. The actual in-field work took place between 28 October and 8 December 1979. During this period the team, which consisted of Burton MacDonald, Ted Banning, Larry Pavlish, and Nabil Begain, representative of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, surveyed 214 sites. The new sites, as well as those sites already known, were described and photographed; a random sample of sherds and flints was collected to provide indicators for the date of each site. Each site was plotted on either a 1:25,000 or 1:50,000 scale map. The "reading" of the sherds and flints was done by James Sauer, Director of the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman. The types of sites surveyed include open-air stations, caves, tells, rujms, khirbets, roads, cemeteries, agricultural, pastoral, and hunting installations, water facilities, and major cities. The occupation at these sites ranges from prehistoric to modern times, that is, from about 400,000 B.C.to the end of the Ottoman period in Jordan in A.D. 1918. No one had previously found prehistoric sites in the area. During his survey of eastern Palestine in the 1930s Nelson Glueck reported 20 sites from the area. Artifacts from the Paleolithic periods-Lower, Middle, and Upper (ca. 400,000-14,000 B.C.)-were found. Almost everywhere we surveyed we found at least some lithic materials. The artifacts included hand axes, elongated blades, scrapers-disc, end, side and core-pebble-chopper tools, burins, awls, blade cores, backed knives, chisels, and waste flakes. Several Epipaleolithic period (ca. 14,000-8000 B.C.) sites were surveyed. Materials found are characterized for the most part by a microlithic flint industry composed especially of lunates, small blades, and small

60

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981

circular scrapers. The Epipaleolithic materials were usually associated with Early Neolithic materials. Only materials from the Early Neolithic or prepottery Neolithic period (8000-6000 B.c.) were found. At this early stage of our study we have not identified any pottery Neolithic materials (6000-4250 B.C.)The materials found include borers, blades, thumbnail and pushplain scrapers, and gravers. No recognizable material, either lithics or sherds, were found which are, at this stage of our study, attributable to the Chalcolithic period (4250-3300 B.C.). Several EB I-III (3300-2300 B.C.) sites were surveyed. Some of these sites are nothing more than sherd scatters, some are now the sites of modern farms, while others have major architectural remains. Besides pottery and architecture we have a large number of flints from this period. EB IVA (2300-2100 B.C.) pottery was found at several sites, the most important of which is Mashmil. The pottery at this site, however, is predominantly Byzantine. The Middle Bronze Age (1950-1550 B.C.)is poorly represented in the area. Sherds from this period were found in small quantities at two sites where the reading is Middle Bronze-Late Bronze and Middle Bronze-Late Bronze-Iron Age. The Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 B.C.) is somewhat better represented by artifactual materials than the previous one. However, there is no site in the area at which LB pottery is predominant. LI1 pottery was generally found in association with Iron I pottery. The Iron I period (1200-918 B.C.)is well represented in the area. Many Iron I sites were surveyed and some of these date to Iron IA (1200-1000 B.c.) or to the earliest part of the period. There are also many sites where Iron I pottery is found in association with Iron II (918539 B.C.) pottery. Furthermore, there are some sites at which Iron II pottery was predominant. Generally speaking, the earlier part of the Iron II period is better represented than is the latter part. Not one identifiable sherd from the Persian period (539-332 B.C.) was found. None of the sites surveyed produced architectural evidence from the Hellenistic period (332-63 B.c.). However, a few Hellenistic sherds were found at several sites. Pompey conquered Syria-Palestine in 64-63 B.C.In southern Jordan the Nabateans avoided conquest and remained completely independent of Rome until A.D. 106, when they were annexed by Trajan. There is abundant evidence of Nabatean culture in the area. Nabatean sites were found throughout the area. At many of the Nabatean sites, especially along the Wadi el Has~i, Late Roman pottery is present as well. Pottery

from the Late Roman period is dominant at some sites and is associated with Byzantine pottery at several sites. The Byzantine period (ca. A.D. 324-640) was apparently the one of greatest population and greatest number of settlements in the area. Generally speaking, both major and minor Byzantine sites were found throughout the area. The Early Islamic period (A.D. 640-1174) is very poorly represented in the area. Only a few identifiable sherds from this period were found. The Late Islamic period (A.D. 1174-1918) is better represented than the previous one. Ayyubid-Mamluk period (A.D. 1187-1516) pottery is well represented at four major sites and is predominant at two of these sites. Ottoman period (A.D. 1516-1918) pottery is predominant at three major sites as well as at several minor sites. Moreover, at eight major sites the predominant pottery is Late Islamic. The project was licensed by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan under the Directorship of Dr. Adnan Hadidi. It is an affiliated project of the American Schools of Oriental Research, and it was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. Burton MacDonald St. Francis Xavier University Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada

Biblical Symposium in Japan The Society for Old Testament Studies in Japan, sponsored by the Medical Tribune Japan, hosted The International Symposium for Biblical Studies in Tokyo, 5-7 December 1979. Under the general theme "Archaeology and the Old Testament," the symposium consisted of two public lectures and a more restricted forum where 14 scholars presented papers on the scientific theme "The Davidic-Solomonic Period." The two public lectures were given by D. N. Freedman and J. V. Kinnier Wilson. Freedman spoke on "Ebla and the Old Testament," and J. V. Kinnier Wilson gave a gruesomely illustrated lecture on "Medicine in the Land and Times of the Old Testament." The 14 scholars presenting papers in the forum were Werner H. Schmidt, Masao Sekine, R. N. Whybray, Kiyoshi K. Sacon, Dennis J. McCarthy, J. J. M. Roberts, Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, Miriam Tadmor, Tomoo Ishida, Abraham Malamat, Herbert Donner, Yutaka Ikeda, Hayim Tadmor, J. Alberto Soggin, and William G. Dever. Despite political problems which forced a change in sponsors and the transfer of the meeting place from the new Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan to The International House of Japan, the meeting ran smoothly, a tribute to the organizing ability of Yukiya Onodera, secretary of the organizing committee, and his colleagues. The arrangements, which included accommodations in the luxurious Okura Hotel, two fabulous receptions hosted by Prince Takahito Mikasa, and a threeday sight-seeing trip to Kyoto and Nara in western Japan, were first-class in both conception and execution. For

those of us who had never been to Japan before, it was a delightful introduction to a fascinating new world. There were so many highlights to the meeting, and the whole experience was so pleasant that it is difficult for me at this point to isolate the most memorable impressions from those delightful days in Japan. In terms of the papers, all of which will be published soon in English in a symposium volume, I was impressed with how mature Japanese biblical scholarship has become in a relatively short time. All four of the papers presented by Japanese scholars were highly competent, and Ishida's "Solomon's Succession to the Throne of David-A Political Analysis" was absolutely brilliant-the highlight of the meeting. I also found Mettinger's "Yhwh Sabaoth-the Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne" very convincing, partly because he provided extra support for my own new analysis of the Zion tradition. Schmidt's defense of an early date for the Yahwist was a compelling rebuttal to recent attacks on that dating, and both Malamat's treatment of Davidic-Solomonic relations with Egypt and Hayim Tadmor's study of social and political tensions in the Davidic-Solomonic period were up to their usual stimulating standard. The discussion following the papers, which was basically carried on in English, was perhaps less successful than it might have been because, while all the participants and the audience of Japanese scholars could understand written English, many had difficulty commmunicating orally in English. Equally as exciting as the papers, however, was the contact the meeting provided with scholars whose works I had long known, but whom I had never met in person. Neither Whybray nor Kinnier Wilson fit the mental image I had formed from reading their works. Both demonstrated the uniquely British mastery of English that I had admired in their writings, but there were other dimensions that I had not expected-e.g., Kinnier Wilson's expertise in ancient medicine and Whybray's long experience in the Far East. I will remember Soggin and his charming wife as the couple who could discuss any topic fluently and intelligently in any European language one chose. Nor will I forget the dry humor of Mettinger, who introduced his wife as his "former fiancee." One could go on in this vein-I have stories about all of the participants, not to mention raw fish, octopus, squid, sake, etc.-but enough is enough. Nevertheless, it does give a different, more personal flavor to the scholarly enterprise when one can visualize the scholar whose work one is reading. I am grateful, therefore, for the opportunity the symposium provided me to visit Japan, to meet these scholars, and to participate in a stimulating academic exchange. The symposium volume cannot capture all those accents and experiences, but even the bare essays should provide a stimulating treat for students of the Old Testament. J. J. M. Roberts Princeton Theological Seminary

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ WINTER 1981 61

The membersof the InternationalSymposiumfor Biblical Studies which met 5-7 December 1979 at The International Houseof Japanin Tokyo.

My impressions of the symposium could be grouped under three headings. First, after long years of enjoying traditional MidEast hospitality, I wasn't sure that Japan's fabled reputation for welcoming guests could surpass that, but it did. It was truly a "royal reception" we enjoyed, all the more impressive since it was a first visit for many of us. Coupled with the exquisite loveliness of the countryside and the ancient shrines, there was the warmth and courtesy of the Japanese people we met-literally from Prince to peasant. Moreover, everywhere there was the marvelous order and efficiency of Japanese society, which despite a shortage of space and resources manages to convey the sense of a people who enjoy the best of both traditional beauty and modern technology. A visit to modern Japan is an aesthetic voyage into past and future! When I came home I remarkedto someone, "I'veseen the 21st century-and it works!" Second, there was the pleasant surprise that a nonChristian, non-Western country could not only plan but could bring off such an impressive international sympo-

62

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST WINTER 1981

sium on a topic in biblical studies. More impressive still were the young Japanese Christian scholars for whom this was a "showcase." Handling the Hebrew Bible with ease, familiar with all the critical literature in Western languages, reading papers written in impeccable English, they were able to compete and even to excel in a very sophisticated scholarly group. For most of us this glimpse into Japanese biblical and Near Easternresearch was a revelation we shall not forget. Last, there was the symposium itself, which brought about one of the most congenial, fruitful, and stimulating scholarly exchanges I have seen. This atmosphere of earnest, open striving for mutual enlightenment permeated not only the long, intense working sessions, but extended even to the social activities and the tours. For me, even though I had wide travel and scholarly experience, this taste of international living and cooperative enterprise was memorable. William G. Dever University of Arizona

Colloauia The First Ebla Congress The first international convention on the language of Ebla was held in Naples on 21-23 April 1980 at and under the auspices of the Istituto Universitario Orientale: Seminario di Studi Asiatici. The chairman of the organizing committee was the assyriologist Prof. Luigi Cagni of the same Istituto Universitario Orientale; a generous grant from the Centro Nazionale di Ricerche helped defray the expenses. The scope of the convention was to examine the structure of this new language and its relationship with the other Semitic languages, East and West, as well as its connections with the Sumerian cultural tradition. Since only a small percentage of the tablets had been published at the time of the congress, the inquiry into the nature of Eblaite was understandably preliminary; nonetheless, by the end of the congress one sensed that the wide scholarly differences hitherto in evidence had diminished and that a consensus regarding the general classification of Eblaite would be forthcoming sooner than anticipated. Twenty-four scholars were invited to read papers and 22 communications were actually read; two of the invited scholars were unable to come. Though he could not be present, R. D. Biggs of Chicago did submit a paper on "Ebla and Abu Salabikh: The Linguistic and Literary Aspects," which will be published in the proceedings of the congress scheduled to appear in 1981 under the editorship of Cagni. The opening lecture, "The Importance of the Discovery of the Language of Ebla for Near Eastern Studies," by I. J. Gelb of the University of Chicago proved to be an auspicious beginning in that it prompted a number of questions and objections from the audience and set the tone for the lively discussions that followed most of the papers. The closing talk by W. von Soden of Minster, "Conclusione dei lavori del convegno," attempted to summarize the trends that had emerged during the three days of frank and open dialogue. He noted that the opinion expressed by several scholars in recent years that Eblaite was closely akin to Old Akkadian is gradually being abandoned, and that there is a growing consensus that the language of Ebla belongs to Northwest Semitic. Though it contains some interesting Canaanite isoglosses, von Soden noted, Eblaite cannot yet be classified as a member of the Canaanite family. The two semitists propounding a more specific classification than "Northwest Semitic" were M. Dahood, "The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite," and E. Lipinski, "Les formes verbale i Ebla et le Semitique nord-occidental." The former maintained that Eblaite

belongs to the Canaanite family of languages and within this family its closest of kin is not Ugaritic or Phoenician but, surprisingly, Biblical Hebrew. Lipinski, on the other hand, argued that Ist-millennium Aramaic provides the key to a better and more rapid understanding of the tablets. In his communication, "Aspekte des eblaitischen Verbalsystems nach den Personennamen," H.-P. Muller of Hamburg used a more eclectic approach, appealing to Akkadian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic indifferently to explain the personal names. The contribution of J. Krecher of MUnster,"Sumerogramme und syllabische Orthographie in den Texten aus Ebla," elicited a number of interventions because of the new values he ascribed to some of the signs as employed by the scribes of Ebla. In his paper, "I vocabulari bilingui di Ebla: problemi di traduzione e lessicografia sumeroeblaita," G. Pettinato of Rome did not offer any striking new examples from the bilinguals, but he did show, like Krecher, that the Ebla scribes were quite "free-wheeling" and autonomous in their use of the Sumerian signs. "Your comments leave me speechless," was Gelb's reaction to Pettinato's disquisition on the values ascribed to various signs and on the Eblaite treatment of the sibilants. F. A. Pennacchietti of Torino examined "Il sistema preposizionale a Ebla" and attempted to relate the large number of prepositions already attested to possible cognates in other Semitic languages. Arabic seemed to be the language most frequently appealed to by Pennacchietti. In his paper "The Language of Ebla and Akkadian," W. G. Lambert of Birmingham discussed, among other things, a good example of the dative suffix construction with a verb in one of the legal documents. Space does not permit the citation of all the papers read, but perhaps a sufficient number have been noted to explain why one of the participants, a veteran of many national and international congresses, came away saying, "This is the most exciting congress I have ever attended." The liveliness of both the subject matter and the Neapolitan setting combined to make this first Ebla congress a memorable event. Mitchell Dahood, S.J. Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/

WINTER

1981

63

I am Mesha, son of Chemosh[-yat],king of Moab, the Dibonite.My father reignedover Moab 30 years, and I reignedafter my father.Now I built this high place to Chemosh in Qarhoh,a high place of salvation, because he saved me from all the kings and because he made me victoriousagainstall my enemies. Omri was king of Israel,and he afflictedMoab many days because Chemosh was angry with his land. Then his son succeeded him, and he also said, "Iwillafflict Moab."In my days he said so, but I was victorious against him and his house, and Israelwas utterly destroyed forever.Now Omri had taken possession of all the land of Mahadhbah(=Medeba)and had dwelled in it duringhis time and half the days of his son40 years. But Chemosh dwelled in it in my time. Inscription from the Mesha stele, lines 1-9a

4Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder;and he had to deliverannuallyto the king of Israela hundredthousandlambs, and the wool of a hundred thousand rams. 5Butwhen Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelledagainst the king of Israel.6So King Jehorammarchedout of Samariaat that time and mustered all Israel.7Andhe went and sent word to Jehoshaphatking of Judah, "The king of Moab has rebelledagainst me; willyou go with me to battle against Moab?"And he said, "Iwillgo; I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses." 8Thenhe said, "By which way shall we march?"Jehoramanswered, "By the way of the wildernessof Edom." 9So the king of Israelwent with the king of Judah and the king of Edom .... 26Whenthe king of Moab saw

that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundredswordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom;but they could not. 27Then he took his eldest son who was to reign in his stead, and offeredhim for a burntofferingupon the wall. And there came great wrathupon Israel;and they withdrewfrom him and returnedto their own land. 2 Kgs 3:4-9a, 26-27 (RSV)

IronAge IIMoabitefigurinefrom Khirbetel-MedeiyinehThemed (Jordan).Photographby James A. Sauer. Translationby BelindaB. Khalayly.

BIBLE "TOO MUCH" PAGES. AND 33 VOLUMES.14,202 AND FMILYARE TRULY IFYOU YOUR YOU AFFORD NOT SCRPTURE, CAN YOU

CAN

STILL

Ifyou want not only the best possible biblicaltranslation,but also the finest possible biblicaleducation,The AnchorBible is exactly the right size. Foronly a workof this scope can bringyou so close to the actual message of each book of the Bible...towhat it says and how it emerged fromits historicalsetting. Morehas been learnedabout the Bible in the past centurythan in all the previouscenturies of its existence. Contributorsto The AnchorBible are all deeply involvedin this continuing scholarlyrevolution.And because The AnchorBible is being published book by book, subscribers will be getting the results of tomorrow'sscholarship as' well as today's. Theyare, in fact, participatingin an ongoing projectof enormous significance, one that will continue to shed new lighton previously misunderstoodpassages and biblicalepisodes. Answeringquestions about the Bible -as you readthe Bible Whydoes it take a 372 page volume to translateand introducea biblicalbook as briefas Jeremiah? (Actually,more than one cohtributorhas discovered that two volumes are necessaryto do justice to the single book assigned to him!) The answer makes The Anchor Biblean unprecedentedopportunityfor the modem readerto appreciate, perhapsfor the firsttime, the central book of his civilization.Everypage of translationis made clearerby several pages of notes and comments. Ancient texts are illuminedby contemporarylinguistic and archaeologicaldiscoveries. evious or alternatetranslationsare given forall doubtfulpassages. And each volume includes a fascinating introductionwhich is often a book in itself. ReadingThe AnchorBibleedition of a familiarbiblicaltext is a new, wonderfullysatisfying experience. As you readGenesis, forexample, you will discover an intriguingexplanationof why Abrahamintroducedhis wife as his sister when visiting foreignlands. InPsalms, you are given the firsttrans-

SAVE

25%

ON

STILL

GROWING. BUT

INVOLVEDWITH HOLY TO SUBSCRIBE -WHI EACH

lationto take into fullaccount the RasShamrahUgaritictexts-with some startlingexamples of importantprevious mistranslations. As you readthe Gospel of Matthew,you will find the answers to such questions as: Whatwere the actual laws used to bringJesus to trial? How can we follow the events leading to the Crucifixionwith a first-century concept of time? Againand again,contemporaryscholarship makes ancient Scripturemore meaningfulthan ever before. The extraordinaryacclaim continues The AnchorBiblehas already received the highest honorof the Americanpublishingindustry,the Carey-ThomasAward.Aboutthe project as a whole there is general agreement: "Thebest English Bibleyet:'says the BaltimoreSun. "Theoutstanding biblicalcommentaryof ourgeneration:' says ProfessorCyrusGordon."For specialist, scholar,and general reader alike:'says the Boston Globe, "The AnchorBible is one of the greatest biblicalcontributionsof the century:' Comments as each new volume is publishedare just as enthusiastic. "Themost significantworkon the Psalterin the last hundredyears:' S.J. -Frederick L.Moriarity, "Certainlythe most provocative commentarypublished this past year,"-ChristianityTodayon Revelation."Freshand exciting...anew look at the FirstGospel,'-Pulpit Digest on Matthew."Thebest commentaryon John availablein English:'-Christian acclaim such as this Centu'&.ontinuing attests to the originalwisdom of general editors WilliamFoxwellAlbright and DavidNoel Freedman,who sought as contributorsthose scholars best qualifiedto translateand introduce each particularbook 6f the Bible. AnchorBible translatorshave therefore come frommany nations and faiths, and each volume is translatedby an individual,not a committee. Everycontributoris concerned exclusively with

VOLU

what the Bible says, not with any one interpretationof "whatit means:' A familyinvestment Present plans call forThe Anchor Bible ultimatelyto consist of 63 volumes, includingthe Apocrypha. Rightnow,you mayacquireexisting volumes on a convenientmonthlybasis and then receive new volumesas they are published.Youwillreceive a discount of 25%on each volumeas it is sent to you (currentlyAnchorBible volumes are regularlypricedfrom$12.00 to $14.00;subscribers pay just$9.00 to $10.50).And,if you wish,you mayalways returnany volumewithintwo weeks withoutcost or obligation.Finally,you maycancel yoursubscriptionat any time. Therewillnever be a more advantageoustime foryou and your familyto discover the lifelong advantages of an AnchorBiblesubscription.Tostartyourtrialsubscription,mailthe coupon today.

THE ANCHOR &Company, Inc. Doubleday BIB L

GardenCity,NewYorkIID 11530

I

Plc.i a.ccept m aipplication for a trial subs•rnptionto . and send me immediatel, m, cop, of TJtl A',, io mis n the tirstsolumc. G(;i'nei.I understandthat with G(,cenrm(as %ith A.lksucceedlng volumes) I may returnthe book within to, wcck% ithout cost or obligation Otherwlse You

will

bill me for (;'encei at the special subscrber's price of S10.50 s3 50 less than the regular bookstore pruceof $14.00) plus Shirplng and handhn. shI keep dhc•-n. lwdl then hbeshipped one volume a month until I have received all published volumes. Thereafter. I wll receive volumes as they are publshed. I am assured that I may return ans book wthin two weeks without obhgati)ondthat I will be billed individuallh (plus and handling) for all volumes I accept. at a discount of 25'e off the regular bookstore pnce of each sol,hippn?n ume: that Titt A( ttoRnBit t currentCly pricedat 51200 to S1400 per ,olume: and that I may cancel this .ubsripIon at any time without pFnalt.. NAME ADDRESS CITY

^aolSTA TEZIP

.

RE LzA035 SI•NATU

?

?4

?

?-

ThLsotTer valid onlh until October 31. 1981.

A CHARTER BECOME

0. MEMBER OFASOsR *

OF FRIENDS NEAR EASTERN

ARCHAEOLO As

a

Friend,

you

can:

* Join ASOR's Regional Society in your area or start one. ASOR will help. * Meet local archaeologists and other Friends where you live. * Organize Special Study Groups. * "Adopt a Dig" And receive all Benefits of ASOR Membership: Biblical Archeologist-the popular magazine reporting on archaeology and research in the Near East. about regional and national Friends, ASOR InstiASOR Newsletter-read tutes and digs, eight times a year. on digs in Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, ASOR Excavations-volunteer and Tunisia. Syria with ASOR archaeologists when you travel. ASOR Institutes-visit ASOR experts when they lecture in your region. Lectures-meet Annual Meeting-attend ASOR's convention each November and learn about Near Eastern archaeology. *American Schools of Oriental Research Made up of more than 140member institutions in the United States and Canada, plus 2,500 individual members, ASORhas affiliated research and field expeditions in six differentcountries of the Near East: Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,Syria and Tunisia. ASOR is the leading research organization for study of the ancient Near East with overseas institutes, including the Albright Instituteof Oriental Research (AIAR)in Jerusalem, Israel; the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR)in Amman, Jordan;and the Cyprus American Archaeological Reseach Institute(CAARI)in Nicosia, Cyprus. Publications of ASOR include the Biblical Archeologist, the Bulletinof theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, and the Newsletter. American Schools of Oriental Research 126Inman Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Please enroll me as a Charter Member of Friends of Near Eastern Archaeology (ASOR).

My gift of $ may be used to help match a Challenge Grant fromthe National Endowmentforthe Humanities. Check Membership Category:

OjPatron $1000or more LOSponsor $500 O-Sustaining $250

O] Member$100 [] Other $ *non-member

Please make checks payable to ASOR.Send to:

American Schools of Oriental Research 126 Inman Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Name Address State

City Telephone (

)

Zip Occupation

Your gift is tax deductible according to law.

Jericho Ericha

T T.

es-Sultan

City of Salt, Mezad Hasidim

"s-ua

O•Qumran)

r.

T. Abu el-Alayiq

o

Cypros,

Threx

•t

-2

?

a

/ -

• .K_

M

Hyrcania

S Maledomnei

Kh. Mazinn

Muhalhat

Ah.

Docus,Dok,

\

'. .

(Kh. Kban

' Apherema , Ophrah. Ephraim

Rm Remmon

Rimmn,

/

el-Ahmar).

*

Baal Hazor Bal Hazor

,

Mach m as

Michmash,

B,.huri.

Mt. Asor

Ubeidiya

-

..

•

Beth

Bethel ..JERUSALEM .Gibeah. Gabath

Harodon

Herodium SaulMetopa

"

Khu:el-Burj

Bethlehem

-...

Mizpah

Gbn o

Tekoa

Mozah

Waters

Patriarchs

'

Ofthe

,

hBether,

Bethther

U00dr Beth-horon,

"

Kiriath-jearim

M. .,

:,

•t

Adullam

:,•.

B t

eLowehBeth-horon

K

h"

S

A

IBeth M es "

Sochoh,

B., , "hms

Socchoth

Behr 1tte

i

SGezer,Gazara ,

Lod, Lydda Diospolis ,

.tc

M.Azekah

prepared by PICTORIAL ARCHIVE (Near Eastern History) Est. COVER-MAP Based on STUDENT MAPS 'A' & 'B' published as part of the WIDE SCREEN PROJECTby PICTORIALARCHIVE (Near Eastern History) Old School, P.O. Box 19823, Jerusalem Copyrightreservedby PICTQRIALARCHIVE&Est.,.The ISRAELSURVEY

Moresheth-gat(h)