No title

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

Published By

The American Schools of Oriental Research (Jerusalem and Baghdad) 409 Prospect St., New Haven 11, Conn.

Vol. X

Fig.

1.

No. 4

DECEMBER, 1947

A tentative en-Nasbeh,

reconstruction of the fortifications Vol. I, P1. 2:5).

of Tell

en-Nasbeh.

(From

McCown,

Tell

TELL EN-NASBEH G. Ernest Wright McCormick Theological

The the year with the Religion

Seminary

outstanding event in the field of Palestinian archaeology during 1947 was the publication of two magnificent volumes dealing excavations of the Palestine Institute of the Pacific School of at the site of Tell en-Nasbeh. They are published jointly by the

70

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they are related to the Bible. Editor: G. Ernest Wright, McCormick Theological Seminary, 2330 N. Halsted St., Chicago 14, III. (Only editorial correspondence should be sent to this address.) Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; Millar Burrows, Yale University. Subscription Price: 50c per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, 409 Prospect St., New Haven, 11. Entered as second-class matter, October 2, at the Post Office at New Haven, Connecticut, under the Act of March 3, 1879.

Palestine Institute and the American Schools of Oriental Research, under the editorship of Dr. C. C. McCown. Considering all of the difficulties under which the Editor, who was not the director of the excavations, had to work, the result is an achievement for which he and his collaborators deserve high praise. Tell en-Nasbeh is a small mound about eight miles directly north of Jerusalem on the main road leading to Galilee. Excavations were begun in 1926 under the direction of the late Dr. F. W. Bade with the aid of Dr. C. S. Fisher and the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. They were continued through four successive campaigns between 1927 and 1935. The death of the director in 1936 left the burden of interpretation and publication to Dr. McCown and to Mr. J. C. Wampler, who was a member of the staff during the last three campaigns and to whom the detailed analysis of the pottery in Vol. II is due. The discoveries indicate that apart from a brief occupation about 3000 B. C. when Palestine had its first "boom" age, the main history of the town fell between about 1100 and 300 B. C. In other words, the ruins are those of a small Israelite town, one of the many established by Israel in the hill country early in the period of the Judges. The debris on top of the mound is thin and consequently very mixed in character. There is little stratification in the sense that several clearly defined levels, one on top of the other, can be distinguished. Evidence for only two main architectual levels, dating between the llth-8th and 7th-4th centuries respectively, seems to have been found. Within those two levels this reviewer has noticed occasional homogeneous groups of pottery which date to the first part of their respective periods. How could such groups have been preserved unless something had occured to isolate and protect them? Thus there were undoubtedly partial destructions or building phases within the two levels. Other than this little can be said about the town's stratification. Yet in spite of this discouraging fact significant discoveries were made. Tombs filled with pottery were unearthed which are of particular value in furthering our knowledge of ceramic chronology. Furthermore, this site, like Bethel a short distance to the north, was not so thoroughly devasted by the Babylonian armies in 587 or 586 B. C. that it remained unoccupied throughout the following period, as did many of the Judean towns. Consequently, a wealth of broken pottery and objects from the Persian period came to light which will be of considerable help in

1947, 4) 1947,4)

I"HE THE BIB~ICAL BIBLICAL ARCH~AEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGIST

71

establishing a more refined means of dating in an obscure period of the country's cultural history. Among other discoveries may be mentioned the following: three long-roomed buildings of a type found in several other places, and which in all probability were originally erected as granaries, though one of them may have been later converted into a residence for the local official. These buildings, as Albright has pointed out, were undoubtedly of the type designated by the term miskenoth in I Kings 9:19 (English, "storecities"; Hebrew literally, "cities of granaries"). There were also a number of stamped jar handles with inscription L-mlk, "Belonging to the king." These were from jars, dating from the eighth, seventh, and early sixth

" :i .-''"~~ .........

Fig.

2.

The mound of from Jerusalem P1. 9:1).

Tell en-Nasbeh from the southeast. In the foreground the main road Vol. I, passes by the foot of the tell. (From McCown, Tell en-Nasbeh,

centuries, which were used, evidently, as standard measures in the Judean fiscal system. None of these were found at the neighboring Bethel. Tell en-Nasbeh, then, was a part of the Judean kingdom, while Bethel lay outside of the northern boundary, except, perhaps, for a short time under Josiah. A bronze fragment with a cuneiform dedicatory inscription and a pottery fragment with Hebrew characters spelling an Assyrian name, both dating from the late 8th or 7th century, may be added to the growing list of objects which testify to the presence of Assyrians in the country. A beautifully carved seal (Fig. 3) bears the name of its owner, "Ya'azanyahu, servant [officer] of the king." It therefore belonged to a royal official, who in all probability was the same person as the Jaazaniah,

07 7/..

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

an army commander, mentioned in 2 Kings 25:23 and Jer. 40:8. Twentyeight post-exilic jar handles bear an enigmatic inscription which appears nowhere else except for a single example from Jericho. The three letters on them have been variously read and have occasioned considerable debate. Dr. Bade thought that the letters were m s p, "Mizpah", a proof th-at the site was the ancient Israelite town of Mizpah. In this opinion he has received the support of Dr. C. C. Torrey. Other scholars have been unconvinced, claiming that the more probable reading is m s h, though no entirely satisfactory explanation of its meaning and significance has yet been offered. Without question, however, the iost important single discovery was that of the town's fortifications. During the earliest period of the town's history (llth - 10th cents.) a measure of protection was afforded by a comparatively thin rubble wall, which averaged little more than a yard in thickness. About 900 B. C. this wall was replaced by a massive fortification which in general ran a little more than thirteen feet in average thickness. Retaining or supporting walls greatly increased this width at the bottom, and the addition of nine or ten rectangular towers at intervals made the whole a fortification of unusual strength. At the base was a platform of huge blocks, a yard or more in thickness. The exterior was overlaid with a thick coating of heavy plaster to make scaling difficult on the part of attackers. A number of interesting peculiarities, such as the variation in thickness, in character of the masonry, in the towers, in the buttressing, in the offsets and change of direction, suggest that the wall was built in sections, like that of Nehemiah in Jerusalem, by gangs of varying skills. The gate was a double one, typical of the period, though perhaps the best preserved yet found in Palestine. Here, then, is a comparatively small Israelite town, comprising slightly less than eight acres in extent, and yet provided with this tremendous fortification. The question is: Why? Had the wall dated from the 17th or 16th centuries B. C., no one would have been surprised, because such walls were common then. At the large and important fortress of Megiddo a comparable wall, nearly twelve feet wide, was erected during the tenth century (by Solomon?). But in the smaller Israelite towns of the hill country nothing like this is known. At Debir, Bethshemesh, and Shechem during the tenth century "casemate" fortifications, consisting of double walls with cross walls between, were built, presumably because they were less massive and less difficult to erect. In seeking an explanation our attention turns immediately to the accounts of the wars between Israel and Judah, after the division of the kingdom, and especially to the interesting incident recorded in I Kings 15:16-22. There we are told that Baasha king of Israel fortified Ramah "that he might not suffer any to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah." Thereupon Asa appealed to Ben-hadad king of Damascus, paying a sizable sum for his aid. Ben-hadad attacked Israel from the north, forcing Baasha to retire from Ramah. Asa then instituted a conscription in Judah ("none was exempted"), carried away the building material

1947, 4)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

73

which Baasha had collected at Ramah, and therewith fortified "Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah." Ramah without doubt is the modern er-Ram, and Geba the modern Jeba' (see Fig. 4). According to this passage as it now stands, therefore, Asa by fortifying Geba was protecting the approach to Jerusalem via the inner or Mukhmas (Michmash) road, the route clearly described in Isaiah 10:28-32. The other site, Mizpah, should, therefore, be located along the main north-south road, and in view of the discoveries at Tell en-Nasbeh we are inevitably led to this site for the location of the ancient Mizpah. Yet, alas, matters are evidently not that simple, for we are now plunged into the midst of one of the warmest debates in the field of

Fig.

3.

The inscripfound at Tell en-Nasbeh. made from the seal of Jaazaniah The impression Vol. servant of the king." (From McCown, Tell en-Nasbeh, tion reads: "To Ya'azanyahu, I, P1. 57:4).

Palestinian topography. Is Tell en-Nasbeh the site of Mizpah? There are scholars who are positive that it is; there are others equally positive that it is not! Consequently, Professor James Muilenburg's thorough discussion of the subject in Chaps. II-IV of Excavations at Tell en-Nasbeh, Vol. I, becomes one of the most interesting and important parts of the publication. It is impossible here to review the various arguments in detail; we can merely touch on certain of the central issues. A short distance south of the mount of Tell en-Nasbeh is the site now called Khirbet 'Attarah. The ruins there do not antedate the Roman period, so they themselves cannot represent an Old Testament town. Yet the name is an old one, almost certainly derived from the Hebrew Ataroth. What is more natural to conclude, therefore, than that Ataroth was the ancient name of Tell en-Nasbeh ! After the destruction of the city, the mound was abandoned, and a new town with the same name was established nearby. Such a transfer of a place name was a very common thing in ancient times. If our site is Ataroth, then it would well fit the town of this name on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

74

(Vol. X,

which is mentioned in Josh. 16:2, 5 and 18:13. Certainly this Ataroth lay somewhere in that area and Tell en-Nasbeh would appear a likely candidate for it. Furthermore, a few kilometers to the southwest is a modern village

.o

/ ..;

...

. o..

wf, ". ,I TIrillI, "tI(

A,L

,-

..

*

./

?. .

.

.0.0"

1_. ------... I

*..

-ATI

a-utmt

:.

/ Fig. 4.

v

Map showing Tell en-Nasbeh in relation to other sites in the area north of Jerusalem. (From McCown, Tell en-Nasbeh, Vol. I, p. 51).

called Nebi Samwil ("the Prophet Samuel"). It is a commanding site, nearly 3000 feet above sea level, with a wonderful view; it would well fit the name Mizpah, which means "watchtower." Then, too, its connection with Samuel could easily be explained if it were ancient Mizpah, since the latter was one of the towns of Samuel's circuit (I Sam. 7:16). Consequently, since the time of Edward Robinson who studied the area in 1838, Nebi Samwil has been a favored candidate for the Biblical Mizpah. With regard to the incident in 1 Kings 15:16-22 Professor Albright maintains that while Baasha's attempted fortification of Ramah was offensive in character, the actions of Asa were purely defensive. He

1947, 4)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

75

further believes that the "Geba of Benjamin" mentioned here must be emended to "Gibeah of Benjamin" because elsewhere the tribal designation "of Benjamin" is never used of Geba but always of Gibeah. Consequently, Asa actually fortified the mounds of Tell el-Ful (Gibeah, the site of Saul's fortress-capital) and Nebi Samwil (which Albright believes was Mizpah). These two mounds are the highest points in Benjamin and they control all three northern approaches to Jerusalem (the main road, the Michmash-Geba road, and the road on the west from Gibeon: ej-Jib in Fig 4). In fact, the excavations at Gibeah support this view of the situation. In 1922-23 Albright found that after Saul's fortress had been destroyed at the site, a new one was hastily erected about the time of Asa. Large square stones were used which had been carefully smoothed on one side, yet the smooth sides were turned inward or to one side. These stones, says Albright, "obviously came from another fortress, since they are entirely distinct from the stones employed in the earlier fortresses." In short, this third fortress at Gibeah "was built . . . during the Divided Kingdom, by a king of Judah who brought building stone and timber from another fortress to build one of his own, and who obviously built in great haste" (see Annual of the American Schools . . ., Vol. IV, 1924, pp. 92 and 39). In view of this discussion we are left in something of a quandary, for Albright, and others who support the same view, have argued very convincingly. Yet the fact remains that the great wall at Tell en-Nasbeh was certainly built as a border fortification during the Israelite-Judean wars, and the passage in 1 Kings 15:16-22 makes good sense as it stands if Mizpah could only be identified with this site. Among the other passages in the Old Testament which bear on this problem, none is as important as Jer. 40-41. Jerusalem has fallen to the Babylonians, and Gedaliah is left in charge of the defeated country. Headquarters are established at Mizpah, and the scattered remnants of the Judean army gather around him. One of the commanders, Johanan, warns Gedaliah that another commander, Ishmael, is in the employ of the Ammonite king and plans to slay him. Gedaliah refuses to believe Johanan, but at a convenient time Ishmael does that which Johanan had predicted. Two days later a company of eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria came by on their way to the ruined temple in Jerusalem with clothes rent and offerings in their hands. Ishmael meets them, lures them to Mizpah, and there kills all of them except those who promise to pay a reward for their lives. Where should Mizpah be according to this narrative? The men from the north were certainly traveling along the main road. If Mizpah were at Nebi Samwil, how could Ishmael have seen them so far away? Albright says that the men would have had to come to Gedaliah for permission to go to Jerusalem and for protection from bandits in the unsettled state of affairs. The text, however, gives the impression that it was Ishmael who persuaded them to visit Gedaliah, whence we assume that they had not

76

THE BIBLICAL ARCIIAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

originally intended to do so. Consequently, Muilenburg is quite justified in saying that this passage strongly suggests the location of Mizpah at Tell en-Nasbeh, where it would have been right on the high road, to which no detour would have been necessary, and from which Ishmael could easily have apprehended the party from the north. But to continue ! After his iniquitous acts, Ishmael gathered up all the people who remained in Mizpah, including the king's daughters, and departed with them for Ammon in Transjordan. Johanan, meanwhile, heard of what had happened and set out "to fight with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and found him by the great waters that are in Gibeon" (ej-Jib in Fig. 4; for another reference to this pool at Gibeon, see 2 Sam. 2:13). The captives were freed, but Ishmael with eight men escaped. Now, then ,is there any further light on the location of Mizpah from this pasage? To Albright this is one of the strongest possible arguments for the identification of Nebi Samwil with Mizpah. The most natural route for Ishmael to take in his flight to Ammon would be via Ramah (er-Ram), Geba (Jeba'), and the Wadi es-Szuweinitto the Jordan Valley. If he started from Nebi Samwil, he would have had to pass by Gibeon. If, on the other hand, Mizpah were at Tell en-Nasbeh, what was Ishmael doing at Gibeon? He could not possibly get to Ammon by going in the opposite direction? If he started from Tell en-Nasbeh, Johanan should have cought him in the neighborhood of Geba instead of at Gibeon. Muilenburg admits the force of this argument, but does not feel it is decisive. Albright assumes that Johanan and his men were in the neighborhood of Jerusalem in order to keep watch over Ishmael. But, says Muilenburg, if we suppose that "Johanan and his fellow officers and their troops had stationed themselves in the region just to the north where they might be in constant touch with the little community at Mizpah," Ishmael "would naturally veer to the south in order to escape any encounter with him." Yet certain questions still arise. The fact that Ishmael starts off for Ammon with a company of captives, including the king's daughters, would appear to indicate that he did not expect any immediate trouble from Johanan. Why, then, did he journey with such a company from Tell en-Nasbeh (if we suppose this to be Mizpah) by such an out of the way route as that by Gibeon? Why did he not go to Geba, or at least to Jerusalem by the main road, there to cut across to Transjordan? If Johanan's men were at the east and south, why did he not turn northward where easier passes to the Jordan existed in any event? Or, in a final extremity of questioning, if Johanan's men were north, east, and west, why did he take any captives at all? Would he not have attempted an immediate escape as best he could, since he was nearly surrounded ! There are no certain answers to any of these questions, unfortunately. All that we know is that Ishmael was found at Gibeon and that he started in all probability either from Tell en-Nasbeh or from Nebi Samwil! Neither Muilenburg nor Albright is dogmatic about his position in the matter. Both have tried to be dispassionate. Yet when all has been said,

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

1947,4)

77

the one favors Tell en-Nasbeh for Mizpah, the other Nebi Samwil; and each has able scholars to whom he can appeal for support. This reviewer, unfortunately, is unable to make up his mind, and for him the problem remains one of the most intriguing and yet unsolved problems of Palestinian topography. THE

OF THE CIVILIZATION Nelson Glueck

EDOMITES

Hebrew Union College

At the beginning of the 13th century B. C. a new agricultural civilization appeared in Transjordan belonging to the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites and Amorites. They belonged to the Semitic groups that took possession of Transjordan perhaps in the 14th or early 13th century B.C., and probably partly absorbed and partly drove out the Bedouins, who since about 1900 B.C. had been the masters of most of the land. Prior to the 20th century B.C., the arable lands of Transjordan had been occupied by sedentary inhabitants. During successive periods of more or less intensive development, going back at least as far as 4000 B.C. certainly, their agricultural civilizations had risen and fallen and superceded each other, leaving ancient sites and indestructible artifacts behind to testify to their former presence. Archaeological discoveries may have confirmed the account in Genesis 14:5-7 of how the Eastern kings led by Chedorlaomer conquered all of Transjordan, by subduing and destroying one after another all the fortified sites which lay in their path, from Ashtaroth and Ham at the northern end to el-Paran at the southern end of the territory which later o01became known as Edom. This civilization, destroyed about 1900 B.C., never again recovered from the blow, as a long line of ancient sites testify, most of which were never again occupied, or at least not until after the lapse of approximately 600 years. In the interval, particularly in the areas later designated as Moab and Edom, sedentary civilization of the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze periods, extending between the 20th and 14th centuries B.C., did not flourish, as it did to a larger degree in northern Transjordan, in the Jordan Valley and particularly in Cisjordan. It is significant in this connection, that neither the Egyptian lists of towns nor the Tell el-Amarna tablets refer to Eastern Palestine in the period extending from the 20th to the 14th centuries B. C. Edom and Seir are first mentioned in the records of Mernepthah (cir. 1235-1227 B.C.) and Ramses III (cir. 1198-1167 B.C.). It may further be mentioned in this connection, that there are no archaeological traces of Horites in either the hill country of Edom or in the Wadi Arabah or in southernmost Palestine, unless under Horites are to be stood purely nomadic groups, such as the Edomites must have found and conquered when they entered southern Transjordan (Genesis 14:6; 36:21, 22; Deuteronomy 2:12). The Semites who occupied Transjordan about the 14th century B.C. soon broke up into natural groups. This was conditioned partly by the

78

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol.X,

fact that they represented originally separate tribes or tribal groups, however closely related in general they may have been to each other. Fully as important, however, for the partition of Eastern Palestine into the kingdoms of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and the two Amorite kingdoms of Gilead, were the natural land divisions of the entire country. It is bounded cn the west by the Wadi Arabah, the Dead Sea and the Jordan River Valley, on the east and south by the desert, on the north by the wide and deep and precipitous Wadi Yarmuk, which separates it from Syria. These kingdoms were marked off in the main from each other, traveling from the south to the north, by the wide and deep natural boundaries of the Wadi Hesa (the River Zered), the Wadi Mojib (the Iliver Arnon), the Wadi Zerqa (the River Jabboq), and the Wadi Yarmuk. The main period of the development of these kingdoms during the Iron Age extended between the 13th and 8th centuries B.C., after which a period of deterioration set in, culminating in complete destruction in the 6th century B.C. These were highly advanced, strongly organized, internally well integrated kingdoms. The land was dotted with well built stone villages and towns. The borders of these kingdoms, which can now be accurately fixed, were fortified by strong fortresses (Fig. 5), built usually on eminences and commanding a view of each other. The agriculture of these kingdoms was intensive, their pottery well-made, their commerce sensibly ordered, their literature in all probability of no mean order, if one may draw inferences from the inscription of Mesha or the background of the Book of Job. The wealth of these kingdoms, even under Assyrian domination, may be judged from the tribute paid to Esarhaddon. Edom paid 12 manas of silver, in comparison with 10 manas of silver paid by Judah; Ammon paid 2 manas of gold; Moab paid 1 mana of gold. The development and wealth of the countries of Transjordan, which existed contemporaneously with those of Israel and Judah, were very real, however scanty the literary remains and memory of their existence have chanced to be. The archaeological survey of Edom revealed why it was that a foreign group could not enter the territory of Edom without permission. The permission refused, the applicants for entry must perforce turn aside as the Israelites were compelled to do (Numbers 20:17; 21:22). Strong fortresses barred the way on all the frontiers of Edom and of Moab north of it. The high, comparatively fertile and well-watered Edomite plateau ends suddenly in the south, with sheer or precipitous walls and slopes marking the abrupt fall to the desert of the Wadi Hismeh, which stretches to the Red Sea and Arabia. Edomite armed escorts probably guarded caravans which travelled through the Wadi Hismeh (Fig. 6) and the Wadi Yitm to the Wadi Arabah and to Ezion-geber:Elath on the north shore of the eastern arm of the Red Sea. The main line of defense, and for all practical purposes the southern border of the Iron Age kingdom of Edom, was marked by a line of fortresses along the southern edge of the plateau, dominating the Jebel Shera. The eastern border of the Edomite kingdom was even more strongly

1947,4) 1947,4)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS ARCHAEOLOGIST TH E BIBLI~-CAL

79 79

protected than the southern, its defenses being marked by a long line of fortresses situated on the highest hills in the arid, uncultivated region between the Desert and the Sown. From one end of the country to the other, it would have been possible to transmit fire or smoke signals in a very short time. This line of fortresses continued northward and marked also the eastern boundary of Iron Age Moab. The north boundary of Edom was marked by the Nahal Zered (Wadi Hesa), and the west by the Wadi Arabah, both of them clear, natural geographical limitations. These northern and western boundaries were

Si'.

5.

one of the important in the eastern Qasr el-'Al, fortresses ancient Kingdom of Moab. (From Annual of the ASOR, Vols.

system of XVIII-XIX,

defence in the Fig. 37).

no less strongly protected than the eastern and southern, although there were not actually as many fortresses and police-posts. In the first place, the danger of Bedouin invasion was not great from the west, and was non-existent from the north. In the second place, the deep canyon of the Wadi Hesa and the inhospitable rift of the Wadi Arabah were in themselves formidable barriers to would-be invaders. Nevertheless, strong posts protected these fronts also. The possibility that Edomite power once extended into parts of southern Palestine is suggested by a number of Biblical verses which definitely locate Edom-Seir on the west side of the Arabah. These verses reflect the Idumaean settlement in southern Palestine, where many Edomites settled after being expelled from Edom proper by the Nabataeans, who in time took over their former territory. These Edomites became known as Idumaeans, when their name was grecized. From their midst stemmed Herod the Great. His son, Herod Antipas took as his first wife the daughter of the Nabataean king, Aretas IV, thus completing a circle of history. Miany of the Edomites who remained in their original territory were absorbed in time by the Nabataeans, just as those

80

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

who found a new home in southern Palestine became Judaized. It is this Idumaean settlement in southern Palestine that the author of Deuteronomy 23:8 probably had in mind when he said: "Youshall not abominate [consider as outside the pale of the community] an Edomite, because he is your brother," meaning those Idumaeans who had been Judaized and had become Yahweh worshippers. Within its main boundaries, Edom in the Iron Age was a thriving, prosperous, civilized kingdom, filled with cities and towns and villages, with its economy based on intensive agriculture, trade, and, to a certain extent, industry. The passage in Amos 1:12 referring to Bozrah and Teiman as being evidently in the northern and southern parts of Edom, respectively, suggests the relative positions of Buseirah in tne north, which is to be identified with Bozrah, and Tawilan near Petra in the south, which is to be identified with the Teiman of that verse. The Edomites were devoted to the gods and goddesses of fertility. Townspeople and peasants had in their houses cruce pottery figurines, representing the deities whose good will they sought. Thus, near Buseirah (Bozrah) was found a 9th-8th century B.C. pottery figurine of a fertility goddess, wearing a lamp as a crown, and holding in her hands what seems to be a sacred loaf of bread -or is it a tambourine (Fig. 7, left)? The Edomite and other Transjordanian pottery of the 13th-6th centuries B.C. in itself bespeaks a highly developed civilization. Much of the ware is similar to contemporary ware in Palestine. However, there are differences, sufficiently large, to compel an individual classification. The distinctiveness of some of the Iron Age pottery of Edom and Moab may perhaps be ascribed to influences emanating from Syria via the trade-route that followed the "King's Highway" (Numbers 20:17; 21:22), which has been marked by the same line throughout all the historical periods of Transjordan. The orientation of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Gilead, for cultural as well as topographical and geographical reasons, may be said to be directed more to the north and south than to the west, that is, mainly to Syria and Arabia rather than to Palestine. It may be emphasized with regard to the Iron Age pottery of Edom and Moab, that its beginnings go back not later than the first part of the 18th century B.C. Thus do archaeological facts bear out the validity of details, or of the background, of Biblical accounts. The precedence of the beginnings of Edomite and Moabite pottery, for instance, over those of Israelite pottery, has a direct relationship to the account in Genesis 31:31-39, which lists 8 Edomite "kings",who reigned in the land of Edom before the Israelites had a king. It becomes impossible, therefore, in the light of all this new archaeological evidence, particularly when studied in connection with the deposits of historical memory contained in the Bible, to escape the conclusion that the particular Exodus of the Israelites through southern Transjordan could not have taken place before the 13th century B.C. It will be recalled

1q47, 1947,4) 4)

I"HE LICA L ARCCHAEOL OGISTT THE BIB BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

81

that the Israelites begged the Edomites and Moabites in vain for permission to travel through these kingdoms on their way to the Promised Land. The Israelites were compelled to go around these kingdoms, and finally force their way westward to the Jordan via the north side of the Nahal Arnon (Wadi Mojib), which at that time was the southern part of the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites. Had the Exodus through southern

Fig.

6.

the Wadi Hismeh from the southern Overlooking Annual of the ASOR, Vols. XVIII-XIX, Fig. 12).

edge of the

Edomite

plateau.

(From

Transjordan taken place before the 13th century B.C., the Israelites would have found neither Edomite nor Moabite kingdoms, well organized and well fortified, whose rulers could have given or withheld permission to go through their territories. The relationship between Israel and Edom throughout much of their history was a stormy one, characterized by unremitting enmity and almost continuous warfare. The main cause of the discord between them was the struggle for the control of the strategically important trade-route down the Wadi Arabah, and the possession of the rich copper- and iron-mines which abounded in it. Long before the advent of the Israelites, the presence of the mineral deposits in the Wadi Arabah was known and the mines exploited in all probability by the Qenites and the Edomites, to whom they were related through the Qenizzites (Genesis 15:19; 36:10, 11, 42). It was the Qenites, who were native to this region and whose very name indicates that they were smiths, and the related Qenizzites, many of whom were also smiths by profession, who probably first imparted to the Israelites and Edomites

82

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

information about the ore deposits in the Wadi Arabah; and who introduced the Israelites and the Edomites to the arts of mining and metallurgy. The Bible tells us (Genesis 4:22) that Tubal-Cain (a Qenite) was the first forger of copper and iron instruments. That the Qenites were at home in Edom is indicated by Balaam's punning proverb with regard to them in Numbers 24:21: "Everlasting is thy habitation and set in the Rock [Sela] is thy nest [Qen]". The pun on Qen and Qenite is obvious, and Sela is to be identified with Umm el-Biyarah in Petra. There was also an ancient trade-route that led from Sela or Petra to the Wadi Arabah, then south to Ezion-geber:Elath (or Aila as the Nabataean-Roman-Byzantine site which took its place farther to the east, nearer modern Aqabah, became known later on), and westward via Qurnub to Gaza and Ascalon. This trade-route from Sela or Petra to Gaza and Ascalon assumed particular importance during the Nabataean period. However, it was undoubtedly of large importance also during the times of the Edomite kingdom and the United and Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This was probably the route used for slave-traffic between Gaza and Edom, mentioned, for instance, in Amos 2:6. The wealth of the Edomites and the rapid rise of the Nabataeans who succeeded them may be partially explained by their control of the minerals and the trade-route of the Wadi Arabah. The prosperous periods in the history of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah and then of the kingdom of Judah have a direct relationship to the periods during which they controlled the Arabah and a port on the Red Sea. It is probable that David carried on the exploitation of the mines in the Wadi Arabah after he had subjugated and enslaved the Edomites (II Samuel 8:13-15; I Kings 11:15-16). The pottery which was used during this and all the remaining parts of the Iron Age, continued to be Edomite, just as Nabataean pottery continued to be used after the Romans had occupied the Nabataean sites in it. The exploitation of the mines in the Wadi Arabah was undoubtedly intensified during the reign of Solomon. Indeed, it may be said that he was the first one who placed the mining industry in the Wadi Arabah upon a really important industrial scale. Solomon, to be sure, had to contend with the guerilla warfare waged against him by Hadad, prince of Edom, who had returned to Edom from Egypt, whither he had fled from David when the latter conquered Edom (I Kings 11:17-19, 25). When we next hear of Edom, it was ruled by Jehoshaphat through a deputy governor (I Kings 22:47). One may assume, therefore, that Judah had retained control over Edom from the time of Solomon on. It was probably towards the end of the reign of Jehoshaphat that the Edomites made a raid on Engedi (II Chronicles 20:1 if.). During the reign of his son, Joram, Edom revolted and set up a king in place of the former Judean deputy (II Kings 8:20-22). At this time the nation probably regained control of the Wadi Arabah and seized the port-city and industrial center of Ezion-geber:Elath, identified with

THE BIBLICAL BIBLICALARCHjAEOLOGISTT ARCHAEOLOGIST THE

4) 1947, 4)

83

Tell el-Kheleifeh on the north shore of the Gulf of Aqabah, the eastern arm of the Red Sea. For about a century, Judah was unable to push forward again into Edom, which during this period evidently worked the mines in the Wadi Arabah. Edom, however, was not long to enjoy its independence. Amaziah of Judah waged successful war against it, capturing Sela, whose name he changed to Joktheel (II Kings 14:7; II Chronicles 25:11.12). His

Fig

7.

Figur ines found near Buseirah (Bozrah) in Edom. (From Annual of the ASOR, Vols. XVIII-XIX,

Fig.

19).

capable son Uzziah completed the conquest of Edom begun by his father, it being recorded that he recovered Elath from Edom (II Chronicles 26:1.2; II Kings 14:22). Edom then remained subect to Judah till the time of Ahaz, when it regained possession of Elath (II Kings 16:6). After that Judah was never again strong enough to dispute Edom's control over the Wadi Arabah, though Edom itself became progressively less able to hold and exploit it. Elath continued to be occupied by the Edomites till the downfall of their kingdom in the 6th century B.C. It is to this final period of Edomite independence, before succumbing, like Judah, to Babylonian conquest, that we assign the Edomite stamped jars found in Period IV of the excavations of Tell el-Kheleifeh (Eziongeber:Elath). These jars were stamped with a royal seal in ancient Edomite-Hebrew characters readinBeing: "Belonging to Qosanal, the Servant of the King" (see BA I.3, pp. 15-16). Qosanal is a typical Edomite name, of a well-known Edote and then e the first part of which Qos i th name Nabataean deity. It seems likely that this Qosanal, who was probably an Edomite, was the officer commanding the district of Elath, and was the representative (servant) of the Edomite king of the time (cf. Bulletin of

84

THE BIBLICA LARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

the American Schools of Oriental Research 79, p. 13; Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1941, p. 474). Why it was that an inspired handful of religious geniuses in Israel and Judah developed the idea of one great God, and that the people of the Book has maintained itself to this very day, while Edom and the Edomites, and the other contemporary kingdoms and peoples of Transjordan have long since disappeared into the limbo of the past, is explained by the rational as an accident of history, and by the religious as the result of the handiwork of God. Bibliography: Glueck, Nelson: The Other Side of the Jordan, 1940. "The Excavations of Solomon's Seaport: Ezion-geber," in Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1941. Annuals of the American Schools of Oriental Research, XIV, XV, XVIII-XIX. EDITOR'S Our Tenth Birthday With this number the first ten years of the B. A. are successfully concluded. In the issue of May, 1945 (Vol. VIII, No. 2) the last progress report was presented. At that time the circulation was approximately 2000 copies, of which 1766 were mailed to paying subscribers. At that time also the goal for 1947, when Vol. X would be completed, was set at 3000. I am happy to report that this goal has been reached and passed. Some 3347 copies of the September issue (Vol. X, No. 3) were sent out, of which 3036 went to subscribers. The 311 free copies go to all members of the American Schools of Oriental Research above the rank of Associate Member and to various other people scattered throughout the world. Forty-five foreign countries appear on the mailing list, of which Canada, England, and Palestine lead in the number of subscribers. The American School in Jerusalem distributes 80 to 100 copies of each issue, while British sub-

REPORT scriptions (between 90 and 100) are handled by B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., 48-51 Broad Street, Oxford, at the rate of three shillings per year. At first sight the financial report is not quite so encouraging. In Vol. VIII, No. 2 the recipts and expenditures for the years 1938 through 1944 were presented. The figures for the last three years are as follows: Year

Receipts

Expenditures

1945 1946 1947

$1,628.93 1,760.18 1,292.55

$1,010.00 1,826.27 1,451.12

Totals

$4,681.66

$4,287.39

Taken together the last three years show a profit of $394.27, or $131.42 per year, for the cost of bookkeeping, office assistance, etc. It is thus evident that the B. A. could not be published at the price that it is, were it not for the fact t h a t the American Schools of

1947,4) 1947, 4)

THE BIBLICAL THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGIST

Oriental Research maintain an office in New Haven which handles the journal without charging its full share of office expense. We should all be thankful to the Schools for this service, especially to Mrs. Gladys R. Walton, the New Haven secretary, who works so hard and so diligently to keep our affairs in order. A cause for concern is the fact that during the last two years we have not balanced the budget, but have spent more money than we have taken in. The primary reason for this is our attempt to keep all back numbers in print in order to meet the heavy demand on the part of new subscribers for complete files of the journal. During the War a number of issues were exhausted. These have now been, or are being, reprinted, and as they sell out should pay for themselves. If, however, inflation prevents us from balancing the budget, something will have to be done. Our first move will not be to increase the cost of the yearly subscription, but instead to increase the price of back numbers. This step will be taken, however, only when we are compelled to take it ! Errata In the "Progress Report" of May, 1945, alluded to above, your editor indulged in a bit of bragging, to wit: "There is a certain degree of pride in the fact that already our journal has a larger circulation than any other dealing specifically with Biblical, archaeological, or oriental subjects." Subsequently, I received a very nice letter from Dr. A. A. Kampman of the Netherlands' Institute for the Ancient Near East.

85

He gently called my attention to the fact that the "JaarberichtEx Oriente Lux", the periodical of the Netherlands' Oriental Society, has a circulation of 4000 copies of each issue. Bragging never fails to get one into trouble! Our apologies, but at the same time our heartiest congratulations to our friends in the Netherlands ! In Vol. X, No. 1 your editor was hard put to find pictures for illustration. He ransacked the B. A. files and found three which he wanted to use but the source of which was unknown. These are Figs. 4, 5, and 9. The last, through faulty guesswork, was credited to Nelson Glueck. I have learned that Figs. 5 and 9 were taken by none other than Dr. Millar Burrows, President of the Schools and this year the Director of the School in Jerusalem. If anyone is interested, Dr. Burrows can even identify the figures in No. 5! I still do not know who took the photo in Fig. 4. My guess is that it was either W. F. Albright or J. L. Kelso, but this note may bring forth the desired information! I dared to use these photographs only because I was desperate and because I knew that their original owners were undoubtedly my friends who surely would not sue me! Anyway, they could not have done so, since the photos were not copyrighted ! There are a number of other things which I should like to say regarding the B. A., and especially concerning archaeological n e w s from Palestine and elsewhere, but lack of space prevents me from doing so at this time. G. E. W.

86

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

INDICES TO VOLUMES VI-X MargaretWallace i. Table of Contents How Did Early Israel Differ From Her Neighbors, by G. Ernest Wright VI.1. Archaeological News and Views .................................... The Earliest Christian Books, by C. C. McCown...................... Archaeological News and Views .................................... Significant Recent Finds of Coins in Palestine, by Millar Burrows..... Sodom and Gomorrah: II. The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain, by J. Penrose Harland................................... Archaeological News and Views, prepared by H. G. May............. The Jordan, by Nelson Glueck ..................................... Archaeological News and Views.................................... The Writing of an Old Testament Book, by J. Philip Hyatt........... Synagogues in Palestine, by Herbert Gordon May .................... The Babylonian Scientist and His Hebrew Colleague, by George G. Cameron ..................................

11311VI.. VI.2. 21VI.2. 32VI.2. 37-

10 20 12 31 36 39

41556268711-

54 60 67 70 80 20

VI.3. VI.3. V .4. V1.4. V1.4. VII..

VII.2. 21- 29 32- 40 VII11.2.30- 32

.................................. Archaeological News and Views. The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East, Explanation, V11.3. 41- 44 by G. Ernest Wright..................................... I. The Egyptian Temple, by Harold H. Nelson................ V11.3. 44- 53 II. The Mesopotamian Temple, by A. Leo Oppenheim.......... V11.3 54- 63 VII.4. 65- 77 III. The Temple in Palestine-Syria, by G. Ernest Wright........ IV. Temple, Synagogue, and Church, by Floyd V. Filson........ V11.4. 77- 88 1- 16 Israelite Belief in Immortality, by Ovid R. Sellers ...................VIII.1. 17- 20 Archaeological News and Views ...................................VIII.1. 41- 58 Ugaritic Studies and the Bible, by H. L. Ginsberg....................VIII.2. .2. 59- 60 Archaeological News and Views... ................................V Archaeology and St. Paul's Journey4s in Greek Lands, Part IV-Ephesus, . .3. 62- 73 by Merrill M. Parvis .. ............................... 73- 80 Ephesus and the New Testament, by Floyd V. Filson.................VI111.3. Palestinian Pottery in Bible Times, by J. L. Kelso and J. Palin Thorley V111.4. 82- 93 93- 99 Moses and the Sinai Inscriptions, by Herbert G. May................V111.4. Manuscripts of the Old Testament in Hebrew, by Henry S. Gehman. ..VI 11.4.100-103 A Brief History of Judah From the Days of Josiah to Alexander the IX. 1. 2- 16 Great, by W . F. Albright ................................ IX. 1. 16- 20 Christian BLlrialUrns? by Carl H. Kraeling .......................... Use in Textual Criticism, by Harry M. Orlinsky.. IX.2. 21- 34 The Septuagint-Its IX.2. 34- 42 The Septuagint and the New Testament, by Floyd V. Filson .......... IX.3. 45- 61 Transjordan, by Nelson Glueck..................................... IX.3. 62- 67 Archaeological Fact and Fancy, by Stephen L. Caiger ................. IX.4. 70- 73 The Near East in 1946, by John A. Wilson .......................... IX.4. 74- 88 Slavery in the Ancient Near East, by I. Mendelsohn .................. 6 X. 1. 2The Manna of Sinai, by F. S. Bodenheimer .......................... 7- 24 . X.1. Biblical Archaeology Today, by G. Ernest Wright.................... Recently Published Greek Papyri of the New Testament, X.2. 25- 44 by Bruce M. Metzger .................................... X.3. 46- 68 The Tabernacle, by Frank M. Cross, Jr............................. X.4. 69- 77 Tell en-Nasbeh, By G. Ernest W right.............................. X.4. 77- 84 The Civilization of the Edomites, by Nelson Glueck .................. II. Index of Authors Albright, W. F. A Brief History of Judah From the Days of Josiah to Alexander the Great............................ Bodenheimer, F. S. The Manna of Sinai..................................... Burrows, Millar Siqnificant Recent Finds of Coins in Palestine ............

IX. 1.

2-

16

X. 1.

2-

6

37-

39

V.2.

1947, 4)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

87

Caiger, Stephen L. IX.3. 62- 67 Archaeological Fact and Fancy............................ Cameron, George G. 40 The Babylonian Scientist and His Hebrew Ccleaugue. V11.2.21-29,32Cross, Frank M., Jr. X.3. 46- 68 The Tabernacle .......................................... Filson, Floyd V. V11.4. 77- 88 Temple, Synagogue, & Church ............................ 73- 80 Ephesus & The New Testament ..........................VII1.3. IX.2. 34- 42 The Setpuagint & The New Testament .................. Gehman, Henry S. . V111.4.100-103 Manuscripts of the Old Testament in Hebrew ............ Ginsberg, H. L. 41- 58 Ugaritic Studies and the Bible ..........................VI11.2. Glueck, Nelson V .4. 62- 67 The Jordan .............................................. .......................... IX.3. 45- 61 Transjordan.................. X.4. 77- 84 The Civilization of the Edomites .......................... Harland, J. Penrose Sodom & Gomorrah: The Destruction of the VI.3. 41- 54 ................. Cities of the Plain ..................... Hyatt, J. Philip V.4. 71- 80 The Writing of an Old Testament Book .................. Kelso, J. L. & Thorley, J. Palin 82- 93 Palestinian Pottery in Bible Times ......................V11.4. Kraeling, Carl H. IX . . 16- 20 Christian Burial Urns .................................... May, H. G. VI.3. 55- 60 Archaeological News & Views............................ 1- 20 VIIl.. Synagogues in Palestine .................................. 1.4. 93- 99 Moses & The Sinai Inscriptions ..........................VI Mendelsohn, I. IX.4. 74- 88 Slavery In The Ancient Near East ........................ Metzger, Bruce . X.2. 25- 44 Recently Published Greek Papyri ........................ McCown, C. C. VI.2. 21- 31 The Earliest Christian Books............................. Nelson, Harold H. The Significance of the Temple in The Ancient VII.3. 44- 53 Near East. I. The Egyptian Temple...................... Oppenheim, A. Leo The Significance of The Temple in The Ancient VII.3. 54- 63 Near East. II. The Mesopotamian Temple ................ Orlinsky, Harry M. Its Use in Text Criticism............. IX.2. 21- 34 The SeptuagintParvis, Merrill Archaeology & St. Paul's Journeys in Greek Lands. VI 11.3. 62- 73 Part IV. Ephesus ....................................... Sellers, Ovid R. 1- 16 Israelite Belief in Immortality...........................VIII.1. Thorley, J. Palin 82- 93 Palestinian Pottery in Bible Times ........................V111.4. Wilson, John A. IX.4. 70- 73 The Near East in 1946 .................................. Wright, G. Ernest 1- 10 How Did Israel Differ From Her Neighbors ................ VI.. 13- 20 The Significance of The Temple in The Ancient Near East. Part III. The Temple in Palestine-Syria ............ VII11.3.41- 44 7- 24 X.1. Biblical Archaeology Today .............................. X.4. 69- 77 Tell en Nasbeh .........................................

88

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. X,

III GENERAL INDEX Abel, Pere F. M., X. 1. 10. Acts, 19, VIII. 3. 79-80 VI. 2. 32 Agriculture, W. F., VI. 1. 2; VI. 1. 13; VI. 2. Albright, VI. 3. 52, 60; VI. 4. 70; VIII. 4. 33-34; 97-98; IX. 1. If; X. 4. 71. Alexandrinus Codex, IX. 2. 28. Alphabet, VI. 1. 2; VIII. 4. 101. Alt, Albrecht, VI. 1. 17; IX. 1. 12; X. 1. 7. 10. Amarna Tablets, X. 1. 14. American School of Oriental Research in IX. 3. 57; IX. 4. 70; X. 1. Jerusalem, 7, 10. X. 4. 70. Angels, VI. 1. 10f. VI. 3. 55-57. Anglo-Israelism, VI. 1. 8-9; IV. 2, 32. Anthropomorphism. Apple of Sodom, VI. 3. 49-52. Aquila, IX, 2. 23. Fact & Fancy, IX. 3. 62f. Archaeological VIII. 4. Periods of Palestine, Archaeological 83-89. Archaeology of Ephesus, VIII. 3. 62-67. and St. Paul's Journeys. VIII. 3. Archaeology 62f. of The Tabernacle, X. 3. 59. Archaeology Artemis, Silver Shrines of, VIII. 3. 76-77. Worship of, VIII. 3, 75-76. VII. 2. 36-38. Astronomy, Ataroth, X. 4. 73. Baal, VII. 4. 68. Babylonian Scientist, VII. 2. If. Bade, F. W., X. 4. 70. Beatty Chester, Papyri, VI. 2. 25f; IX. 2. 23; IX. 2. 36; X. 2. 35. Bewer, Julius A,, VI. 2. 34. Biblical Archaeology Today, X. 1. 7f. Biblical Religion, X. 1. 18-22. Blair. Edward P., VIII. 1. 20. F. S., X. 1. 2f. Bodenheimer, Books (Christian), VI 2. 21f; VI. 4. 71f; VIII. 1. 19-20; VIII. 4. 100-103; X. 2. 25f. Bronze Age, VIII. 4. 83-84: IX. 3. 53-58. Burial Customs, VIII. 1. 17-18. Burial Urns, IX. 1. 16. Burrows, Miller, VI. 2. 37f. Caiger, Stephen L., IX. 3. 62. Calendar, VII. 2. 24, 26-27. Cameron. George, VII 2. 21. Canaan, VI. 1. 2f; VII, 4. 68f. VI. 1. 2f. Canaanites, Canaanite Poetry, VIII. 2. 55-58. Chalcolithic Age, VIII. 4. 83. Church, VII. 4. 77f. Cities of The Plain, VI. 3. 41f. Civilization Of the Edomites, X. 4. 77f. Of the Jordan Vallev. VI. 4. 62f. Clapp, Frederick. G., VI. 3. 43f. Clay Tablets (See Writing Mtaterials) Climate, VT. 4 63. Codices, VI. 2. 22f; IX. 2. 23. Coins, VI. 2. 37f. Commerce. VI. 1. 3-4. Conquest, X. 1. 13. Coulter, VI. 2. 35 Covenant, VI. 1 18. Cross, Frank MI., X. 3. 45f. Crowfoot, VI. 4. 70. Culture, VI. 1. 4 In The Home, VII. 4. 87-88. Dalman, Gustav, X. 1. 10. Darius, IX. 1. 10. Dates, VI. 4. 64. Dead Sea, VI. 3. 42f; IX. 3. 58. Deity & Temple, VII. 3. 48-50. IX. 2. 22. Demetrius, of Israel, VI. 3. 57. Deportation Desert, IX. 3. 48-54. Diodoros, VI. 3. 46. Disease, VII. 2. 28-29. 32-34. Dominican Ecole Biblique, X. 1. 7.

Dye, VI. 1. 3. Edom, IX, 3. 48, X. 4. 77f. Egyptian Temple, VII. 3. 44-53. Eleazer, IX. 2. 22. Elephantine Papyri, IX. 1. 10. Elisha, VI. 4. 62. Elijah. VI. 4. 62. VI. 3. 42. El-Lisan, of Bible Life, VIII. 1. 19. Encyclopedia Ephesus, VIII, 3. 62-67. VIII. 3. 73f. Ephesus And The New Testament, Position of. VIII. 3. 74. Strategic Wealth of, VIII. 3. 74-75. Worship of Artemis, VIII. 3. 75-76. Shrine of Artemis, VIII. 3. 76-77. Emperor Worship in, VIII. 3. 77. Jews in, VIII. 3. 77-78. Magical Practices of, VIII. 3. 78. Paul's Ministery in, VIII. 3. 78. Acts 19, VIII. 3. 79-80 IX. 4. 70. Epigraphic Expedition, Exile, VI. 3. 59. IX. 1. 6. Exodus, VI. 4. 68-69.; IX. 3. 65; X 1. 4, 13. Ezekiel. IX. 1. 6. Ezra, :IX. 1. 10f. VI. 4. 63. Fertility, Filson, 3. 73f. Floyd V., VII. 4. 77f. VIII. IX. 2. 34f. Finegan. Jack., IX. 2. 43-44. Fisher, C. S., X. 4. 70. Fire, VIII. 1. 18. Fouad Papyrus, IX. 2. 23. Geclaliah, IX. 1. 4. Gehman, Henry S., VIII. 4. 100-103. Geikie, VI. 3. 51. X. 1. 10. Geographie de la Palestine, Geography, X. 1. 9-10. Geometry, VIL 2. 38-40. German Evangelical Institute, X. 1. 10. Gezer, X. I. 8. Ginsberg. H. L., VIII. 2. 21f. Glueck, Nelson, VI. 4. 62. f. IX. 3 45f. IX. 4. 70. X. 1. 10. X. 4. 77f. Golah, IX. 1. 5. Gomorrah, VI. 3. 41f. X. 1. 13. Gordon, C. H., VI. 1. 2. VI. 4. 70. Gospel of John, VI. 2. 25. X. 1. 16. Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, Grammar, X. 1. 10-11. Greek Language and Culture, IX. 2. 34f. Greek Papyri of the New Testament, X. 2. 25f. Haggai, IX. 1. 9. Hammurabi Code, X. 4. 80. Hanani. IX. 1. 11. X. 1. 12. Haran, Harland, J. Penrose, VI. 3. 41. Hebrew Grammar, IX. 2. 33. VIII. 4. 100-103. Hebrew Language, Hebrew Religion, Its Origin & Development, X. 1. 19. Hebrew Scientist, VII. 2. If. IX. 1. 17. X. 1. 7. Hebrew University, Hellenistic Period, VIII. 4. 84. Herodotus, VI. 1. 3-4. IX. 3. 54-61. Highlands, Historical & Archaeology, Interpretation X. 1. 11-17. Hyatt, J. Phillip, VI. 1. 2. VI. 4. 71f. Age, X. 1. 13; X. 3. 48. Hyksos Images, VI. 1. 16. VIII. 1. If. Immortality, Sources of Information, VIII. 1. 3-4. Beliefs of Primitive Peoples, VIII. 1. 4-5. VIII. 1. 6-10. Among Egyptians. Beliefs, VIII. 1. 10-11. Babylonian Canaanite Concepts, VIII. 1. 11-12. In Old Testament, VIII. 1. 12-14. Archaeological Evidence, VIII. 1. 14-15. Ink, VI. 4. 78-79. Iron Age, VIII. 4. 84. Israel, VI. 1. If. VIII. 4. 71f. Israelite History, X. 3. 47.

1947,4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

VI. 1. 20. Israelite Traditions, X. 4. 72. Jaazaniah, IX. 1. 5. Jehoiachin, Jeremiah, VI. 4. 71-72; IX. 1. 2f. Jerusalem Museum, IX. 4. 70. Jewish Publication Society, IX. 2. 24. Jordan River, VI. 4. 62. V. 2. 43. Joseph of Arimathea, Josephus, VI. 3. 45. IX. 1. 11. IX. 2. 38. X. 1. 2. Joshua, IX. 1. 8. IX. 2. 26f. X. 1. 14-15. Josiah, IX. 1. 2f. Judah, History of, IX. 1. If. Judaism, IX. 2. 34f. Kelso, J. L., VIII. 4. 82f. Kenyon, VI. 4. 70. Kootcher. Morris, VI 2. 32. Carl H., IX. 1. 16. Kraeling. Mme. Judith, VI. 2. 32. Krause-Marquet, Lachish Letters. IX. 1. 3; IX. 2. 31. Lecanora, X. 1. 2. IX. 4. 79. Leviticus, "Light From The Ancient Past", IX. 2. 43-44. X. 1. 10. Linguistics, VI. 1. 4. Literature, Maccabean Period. IX. 2. 24. Mahmal, X. 3. 60. Manna of Sinai, X. 1. 2f. IX. 4. 83-85. Manumission, VIII. 4. 100ff. IX. 2. 21ff. Manuscripts, X. 2. 25ff. Margolis, Max Leopold, IX. 2. 26-27 Martial, VI. 2. 24. VIII. 4. 102-103. IX. 2. 26. Masoretes, VII. 2. 38-40. Mathematics, Mattock, VI 2 36. Sir John, VI. 3. 47. Maundevile, May, H. G.. VI. 3. 55. VII. 1. lf. VIII. 4. 93f. IX. 4. 70. X. 1. 8. Megiddo Expedition, Mendelsohn, I., IX. 4. 74f. Mesopotamian Temple, VII. 2. 54f. VII. 2. 34-35. IX. 3. 47. Metallurgy, Metzger, Bruce M., X. 2. 25f. Mishkan, X. 3. 66. Mishnic Period, IX. 2. 24. Miskenoth, X. 4. 71. Mizpah. X. 4. 73f. Moab, IX. 3. 48. Morality, VI. 1. 16f. Moses & The Sinai Inscriptions, VIII. 4. 93f. Mount Nebo, VI. 4. 62. Museum, VI. 2. 32. Mythology, VI. 1. 7f. McCown, C. C., VI. 2. 21f. VI. 4. 69. X. 4. 70. Nash Papyrus, VIII. 4. 100. IX. 2. 31. Near East in 1946, IX. 4. 70f. IX 1. 6. Nebuchadnezzar, VIII. 1. 18. "Needle's-Eye", IX. 1. 10. Nehemiah, Nelson, Harold H., VII. 3. 44f. Neolithic Age. VIII. 4. 83. New Testament Greek Sources, X. 1. 31. Northern Kingdom, IX. 1. 3. Nuzi, IX. 4. 76. X. 1. 12. Oil In Palestine, VI. 3. 53. Omens, VII. 2. 26-38. Oppenheim, A. Leo, VII. 3. 54f. IX. 1. 17. IX. 2. 43. Ossuaries, Orlinsky, Harry M., IX. 2. 21f. X. 1. 19. Oesterley, Ostraca, VI. 4. 76. of Antiquities, Palestinian Department IX. 1. 17. VI. 2. 33. Palestinian Population, Palestinian Pottery, VIII. 4. 82f. Archaeological Periods, VIII. 4. 83-89. Artistic Achievement of, VIII. 4. 89. Decoration of, VIII. 4. 90. Household Idols, VIII. 4. 90-91. Other Uses of, VIII. 4. 92-93. Papyrus ( See Writing Materials). Parchment ( See Writing Materials). Palestine Institute, X. 4. 70.

Parvis, Merrill M., VIII. 3. 62f. Paul's Journeys & Archaeology, VIII. Pen, VI. 4. 77-78. Pentateuch. VIII. 4. 100. IX. 2. 37. Persson, Axel, VI 3 52. Philo Judaeus, VI. 3. 45. Pim, VI. 2. 34. VI. 1. 6. Polytheism, VI. 4. 76. Potsherds, X. 3. 61-63. Priestly Tabernacle, Priestly Tradition, X. 3. 32. Pritchard, VI 4. 70. Progress Report, VIII. 2. 59-60. Prophets, VI. 1. 6. VIII. 4. 100. Qubbah, X 3. 69-64.

89 3. 62f.

Ras Shamra, VI. 1. 2; VII. 4. 68; X. 3. 51. IX. 1. 3. Rechabites, Religion, VI. 1. 4. IX. 1. 7. Restoration, Robinson, X. 1. 19. Roll (Book), VI. 2. 22. Roman Period, VIII. 4. 84. VI. 1. 18-19. Ruler-Servant, I Samuel 13: 19-21, VI. 2. 33f. Sanders, Henry A., VI. 2. 24, 26, 31. Sargon, YI. 3. 57-59. Sarim, IX. 1. 4. Scheide, John, Biblical Papyri, IX. 2. 23. Scientific Attitudes, VII. 2. 22-28. Scientific Records, VII. 2. 24-26. Scientist, VII. 1. If. Scribe's Kit. VI. 4. 78-80. Sellers, Ovid R., VIII. 1. If. IX. 2. 21f. Septuagint, And The New Testament, IX. 2. 34f. As a Jewish Work, IX. 2. 24. Character of, IX. 2. 25-32. Importance of Chester Beatty Manuscripts. IX. 2. 36. Other Phases of Study, IX. 2. 32. Use of, In New Testament, 1X. 2. 34-42. Shakan, X. 3. 66. Sharuhen, X. 1. 8. Shekinah. X. 3. 68. Sinai Inscriptions, VIII. 4. 93f. VI. 2. 22, 25. IX. 2. 23. Sinaiticus, IX. 2. 28. Simon of Cyrene, VIII. 1. 18. IX. 1. 12. Sin-uballit, Slavery in Ancient Near East, IX. 4. 74f. Attitude of Religion Toward, IX. 4. 88. Economic Role of, IX. 4. 86-88. Legal Status, IX. 4. 80-85. Scources of, IX. 4. 74-80. Sodom, VI. 3. 42. X. 1. 13. Strabo, VI. 3. 44f. Sukenik, VI. 2. 32, 38. VI. 4. 70. Sumerian, VII. 2. 35. VII. 3. 46-48. Symbolism, VII. 1. If. VII. 4. 77. Synagogues, Ark or Shrine, VII 1. 16. VII. 1. 8. Byzantine, VII. 1. 16. Candlesticks, Church, Temple &, VII. 4. 77f. VII. 1. 6. Dura-Europos, VII. 1. 2. Earliest, Facade, VII. 1. 13. in Jerusalem, Inscription VII. 1. 11. 18. Location, VII. 1. 14. Orientation of, VII, 1. 12. Origin, VII. 1. 2. VII. 4. 78. Pictures & Figures, VII. 1. 19-20. Porch & Courts, VII. 1. 14. The Priest, VII. 1. 17-18. Role of, VII. 4. 83. Roman Period, VII. 1. 3. Seating Arrangements, VII. 1. 17. Separation of Women in, VII. 1. 14. Temple &, VII. 1. 11-12. Tabernacle, VII. 4. 72. X. 3. 45f. Tacitus, VI. 3. 46. Talmudic Period, IX. 2. 24. X. 4. 3. Tamarisk, Targums, IX. 2. 24, 32. Tatian's Diatessaron, X. 2. 42-44. Tell Beit Mirsim, VI. 4 .70.

90

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Tell en-Nasbeh, X. 4. 69f. Ten Lost Tribes, VI. 3. 55. Tent Ideal, X. 3. 57. Temple & Community in Egypt, VII. 3. 50-53. VII. 3. 42. In Israel, VII. 4. 76-77. In Mesopotamia, VII. 3. 60f. VII. 3. 42. Church &, VII. 4. 85. 4. 79. Herod Rebuilds the, VII. "House of The Lord", VII. 4. 74-76. VII. 4. 65f. In Palestine-Syria, Temple, Synagogue and Church. VII. 4. 77f. Temple of Solomon, VII. 4. 73. Temple Form & Ritual, VII. 4. 70. Textual Criticism, IX. 2. 21f. Theodor, O, X. 1. 6. Thorley, J. Palin, VIII. 4. 82f. VI. 3. 58. Tiglath-pileser, Topography, X. 1. 9-10. VI. 4. 68, 69. IX. 1. 13. Transjordan, IX. 3. 45f. "Uber das Tamarisken-manna des Sinai", X. 1. 6. Ugarit, VIII. 2. 45. IX. 4. 74. X. 4. 48. Ugaritic, VIII. 2. 41f. Form & Quality of Canaanite Poetry. VIII. 2. 55-58.

(Vol. X,

& Chronological Geographical Definition, VIII. 2. 42-45. Ideas & Ideal, VIII. 2. 50-54. Materials for Study, VIII. 2. 48. Writings & The Bible, VIII. 2. 49. Writing in Western Asia, VIII. 2. 45-48. Utfah, X. 3. 60. VI. 2. 22. IX. 2. 23. Vaticanus, IX. 2. 26. Vellum (See Writing Materials). Vulgate, IX. 2. 23. X. 2. 42. Wampler, J. C., X. 4. 70. Weights, VIII. 2. 48. "Westminster Historical Atlas To The Bible", VIII. 1. 19-20. IX. 3. 68. Wall Maps", IX. 3. 68. "Westminster Wilson, John A., IX. 4. 70f. Wood Tablets (See Writing Materials). Wright, G. Ernest, VI. 1. 1. VII. 3. 40-43, VII. 4. 65-77. VIII. 1. 18. VIII. 2. 59-60. X. 1. 7f. X. 4. 69f. Writing, IV. 4. 72. Writing Materials, VI. 2. 22f. VI. 4. 72f. X. 2. 26-27. Yashabh, X. 3. 67. Zedekiah, IX. 1. 4. Zerubbabel, IX. 1. 8.

IV. Index to Illustrations BOOKS AND WRITING MATERIALS Codex Sinaiticus Greenfield Papyrus Writing Materials Codex of The Gospel of John Beatty of Codex of Paul Scribes Writing Diptychon & Scribal Kit Lachish Letter Clay Tablet Scribe Kits The Book of the Dead Aramaic Document Septuagint Text Nash Papyrus Papyrus Fouad Sheide Papyri Codex Ephraemi Beatty Papyrus of Paul's Epistles CHERUBIM Canaanite Cherubim Throne COINS Shekel of Year Four Coin of Tiberius Coin of Augustus Coins From the Fourth Century DEITIES Horus Ea Sun-God Tiamat Sekhmet Snake-God Fertility GENERAL VIEWS, SITES AND TELLS Air View of the Jordan Valley Dead Sea Judean Wilderness Salt Morass Tell el-Meqbereh Tell Abu Kharaz Village Near Megiddo Harbor at Ugarit Latakia, Syria View of Lebanon Mountains Plain of Antioch Ruins at Ephesus Ruins at Persepolis Rain Pool in Transjordan Desert Roman Dam in Transjordan Desert

VI.2.23; IX.1.29 VI.2.25 VI.2.28 VI.2.29; X.2.39 V 1.2.30 VI.4.71,73 VI.4.75 VI.4.77 VI.4.78 VI.4.79 VI11.1.5 IX.1.11 IX.2.35 1X.2.35 IX.2.37 IX.2.41 X.2.29 X.2.37 V . 1.9 X.1.63 Vl.2.37 VI.2.38 VI.2.39 IX.1.13,15 VI.1.1 Vl.1.3 VI.1.3 VI.1.3 VI.1.5 Vl.1.7 VI.1.9 VI.3.41 VI.3.47

V1.3.51 VI.3.53 V1.3.67 VI.3.67 VI 1.2.25 VI 111.2.41 VI! 1.2.43 VI11.2.55 V111.2.57 VI11.3.61 IX.1.7 IX.3.46 IX.3.47

1947,4)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Ain Beweirdeh Water Hole at Amri Wadi Hismeh Crusader Castle of Kerak Tell el-Maqlub Tell el-Husn Ziggurat at Aqar Quf Wadi Feiran Tamarisk Tree in Wadi Feiran Shittim Tree in Wadi Feiran Excavation Camp at Tell Beit Mirsim Round Tower of Amman in Transjordan Palmyra Gate in Dura-Europos Tell en-Nasbeh A Moabite Fortress, Qasr el-'AI

INSCRIPTIONS AND WRITINGS Excavation at Persepolis Memorial Stones of Esarhaddon Inscriptions from Sinai Alphabetic Inscriptions from Palestine Aramaic Inscriptions Gospel Lectionary Ostracon from Egypt MAPS Dead Sea ......... Ancient Near East Ephesus and Its Environs Transjordan The Tribal Area of Benjamin North of Jerusalem POTTERY Pottery Jar from Assyria Jars of Grain at Beth-Shemesh Potsherds Sorting Judean Water Jars Bowls from Bronze Age Vases from Cyprus Storage Jar PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS Megiddo Water System Qeseir Amra Reservoir at Umm el-Jemal Main Thoroughfare in Roman Gerasa Roman Theater of Amman Palestine Arch. Museum in Jerusalem Reconstruction of the Fortifications of Tell en-Nasbeh A Moabite Border Fortress, Qasr el-'AI SEALS Cylinder Seal Seal at Tell Asmar Mesopotamian Seal Seal at Uruk Seal of Jaazaniah STATUETTESAND FIGURINES The Goddess Sekhmet Goddess of Fertility Baal Idol from Megiddo Assyrian Demons Bronze Stand from Megiddo Bronze Weight from Ugarit Egyptian Potter Egyptian Princess Edomite Figurines, from near Buseirah SYNAGOGUES Capernaum, Model Benches in Plans of Ancient Interior of Dura-Duropos Interior of Beth Alpha Mosaic Panels of Beth Alpha Mosaic Floor of Gerasa Theodotos Inscriptions Plan of Eshtemoa Ark & Candlestick Ark on Capernaum Frieze Arch of Titus Zodiac Circle from Khirbet et-Tannur Levels in Gerasa Limestone Relief in Jerusalem

91 IX.3.50 IX.3.53 IX.3.56; IX.3.57 IX.3.63 IX.3.65 IX.4.69 X. 1.1 X.1.3 X. 1.5 X. 1.9 X. 1.17 X.2.41 X.4.71 X.4.79

X.4.81

VI 1.2.23 VI 1.2.26 VI 11.4.96 V 11.4.96 IX.1.19 X. 1.33 X. 1.35 VI.3.45 VI 11.2.44 VI 1.3.63 IX.3.51 X.4.74 VI 1.2.35 VI 11.4.83 VI 11.4.85 VI 11.4.87 VI 1.4.89 VIII11.4.91 VI 11.4.92 VI 1.2.29 IX.3.52 IX.3.55 IX.3.59 IX.3.62 X.1.15 X.4.69 X.4.19 VI.1.13 VI.1.19 VI 1.3.53 IX.3.73 X.4.73

.......

V1.1.5 .;V11.3.42 V1.1.13 V .1.15 V1.1.17 VI 1.2.33 VI 1.2.37 VI 1.2.51 VII1.4.81 IX.1.9 X.4.83 VII.1.1 V I.1.3 VI .1.4 VI .1.4 V 1.1.7 VI 1..8,9 V 1.1.10 VII.1.11 V11.1.13 V11.1.13 V 1.1.15 VI .1.17 VI1.1.18 V11.1.19 VI1.1.19

92

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAELOGIST

TABERNACLE As Conceived by Dr. Conrad Schick Tent Shrine Plan of and Its Court Reconstruction of Tabernacle The Qeresh Galling's Mosaic Tent Miniature TEMPLES AND TEMPLE ART Nekhbet at Medinet Habu Ramses III Before Sokhar Rite of Opening of The Mouth Facade Temple Tower Ground Plan of Babylonian Assyrian Sanctuary Monument from Nineveh Canaanite Temple at Beth-shan Temple at Megiddo Plan of Temple at Ai Three Temples at Megiddo Temple Area in Jerusalem Sacred Rock, Jerusalem Ground Plan of Dura House Temple of Artemis at Ephesus Plan of Temple of Artemis Reconstruction of Arkadiane, Ephesus Reconstruction of Harbor Gate, Ephesus Plan of Church of Saint Mary, Ephesus Baptistry and Basin of Saint Mary, Ephesus Ruins of a Nabataean Temple, Khirbet Tannur

X.3.45 X.3.49 X.3.55 X.3.55 X.3.57 X.3.59 X.3.67 VI 1.3.43 VI 1.3.49 VII.3.51 VI 1.3.55 V 1.3.57 VII.3.59 VI 1.3.61 V 1.3.63 VI 1.4.65 V 1.4.69 VI 1.4.71 VI 1.4.73 V 1.4.81 VI 1.4.83 VI 1.4.87 VI 11.3.65 VI 11.3.67 VI 11.3.69 VI 11.3.71 VI 11.3.73 VI 11.3.75 IX.3.61

TOMBS Painting at Deir el-Medina Painting in Tomb of Menna Royal Cemetery at Ur Warrior's Grave at Damghan, Persia Shaft Tombs at Megiddo Jar Burial at Tell el-Judeideh, Syria Burial at Beth-zur Tombs of Persian Kings, Nagsh-i-Rustam, Iran Tomb of Cyrus, Pasargadae, Iran Jewish Ossuary Tomb in Transjordan Painting of Fifteenth Century, showing brick making Entrance to burial chamber, Beth-Shearim Bas-relief from Tomb of Mereruka

VIII.1.1 VII .1.3 VII .1.7 VIII .1.1 V I11.13,14 V111.1.15 V111.1.16 IX.1.1 IX. .1 IX.1.18 IX.3.58 IX.4.77 X.1.19 X.2.25

Found in Excavations Adzes from Ugarit

V .2.35 VI11.247

TOOLS

MISCELLANEOUS Portrait of A Girl V .2.1 Scene of Papyrus Marsh VI.2.27 Apples of Sodom VI.3.51 Coronation Chair with Stone of Scone VI.3.57 Sargon VI.3.59 Abdul Hamid ibn Emir Hamzeh el-Yaqub VI.4.61 Abd Ihmeid Abdul Heir Vl.4.65 Relief from Tomb at Sakkara VI.4.71 Ancient Sumerian VI 1.2.21 Modern Farmer VII.2.21 Silver Lyre V11I.1.9 Bas Relief from Ugarit VI 1.2.53 I Darius IX. 1.5 East Door at Tripylon IX. 1.8 Dr. James Alan Montgomery IX.2.22 Paul de Lagarde IX.2.25 Max Leopold Margolis IX.2.26 Alfred Rahlfs IX.2.27 Dr. Nelson Glueck IX.3.48 Sheikh Audeh ibn Jad IX.3.49 Qal 'at er-Rabad IX.3.60 Monumental Stone of Naram-Sin IX.4.75 Bronze Band from Palace of Shalmaneser III IX.4.79 Bronze Band from Palace of Shalmaneser III IX.4.81 Reliefs from Nineveh IX.4.83,85 Station Wagon from American School of Oriental Research ..................X.2.21 Professor Ernst von Dobschuetz X.2.31