No title

Arch Biblica

A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research

50th to

-Ill

Volume 50 Number 1

March 1987

AnniversarySalute the

Founder

of BA

L

Biblical Archaeologist P. O. BOXH.M., DUKESTATION,DURHAM,NC 27706 (919)684-3075 Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), a nonprofit, nonsectarian educational organization with administrative offices at 4243 Spruce Street; Philadelphia, PA 19104. Subscriptions. Annual subscription rates are $18 for individuals and $25 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $16 for students and retirees. Subscription orders and correspondence should be sent to ASOR Publications Office, P.O. Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Single issues are $6; these should be ordered from Eisenbrauns, P. O. Box 275, Winona Lake, IN 46590. Outside the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada, add $2 for annual subscriptions and for single issues. Second-class postage paid at Philadelphia, PA 19104 and additional offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to ASOR Subscription Services, Department BB, P.O. Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834.

Editor Associate Editor Executive Editor Book Review Editor Art Director Research Associate

Eric M. Meyers Lawrence T Geraty Martin Wilcox Peter B. Machinist Linda Huff Kathryn E. Dietz

Editorial Assistants Melanie A. Arrowood John Jorgensen Stephen Goranson Timothy Lavallee Lue Simopoulos John Huddlestun Catherine Vanderburgh Editorial Committee A. T. Kraabel Lloyd R. Bailey Baruch Levine James Flanagan Carole Fontaine David W. McCreery Volkmar Fritz Carol L. Meyers Jack Sasson Seymour Gitin David M. Gunn Neil A. Silberman John Wilkinson

Copyright:' 1987 by the American Schools of Oriental Research.

J3,~~usu Placein

the

of Cultu're Histond

--, .

;•

r. .....

!'s ???

-j,? z!?

g~?:

.

?

Biblical Archaeologist is not responsible for errors in copy prepared by the advertiser. The editor reserves the right to refuse any ad. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. Editorial Correspondence. Article proposals, manuscripts, and editorial correspondence should be sent to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O. Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscripts must be accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Foreign contributors should furnish international reply coupons. Manuscripts must conform to the format used in Biblical Archaeologist, with full bibliographic references and a minimum of endnotes. See recent issues for examples of the proper style.

Composition by Liberated Types, Ltd., Durham, NC. Printed by PBM Graphics, Inc., Raleigh, NC.

i

His

Advertising. Correspondence should be addressed to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O. Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706 (telephone: 919-684-3075).

Manuscripts must also include appropriate illustrations and legends. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to use illustrations.

"MASTERPIECE" ScienceMonitor -Christianp

One of the most popular and significant works of cultural history in years is at last available in paperback.Jaroslav Pelikan'scompelling study illuminates the changing image of Jesus in Western civilization within cultural, political, social, and economic realms. "An enlightening and often dramatic story...as stimulating as it is informative."-John Gross, TheNew YorkTimes

At bookstores or call toll-free(800) 638-3030. Majorcredit cards accepted. $8.95 I PERENNIAL

LIBRARY

HARPER& ROW PUBLISHERS L

A rchaeo ogist Biblical A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research Volume 50 Number 1

March 1987

5

An Interview with Mrs. Emily Wright Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers

Pi"t

i

i

5~ Page

On the occasion of BA'sfiftieth anniversary,Mrs. Wright tells about the founding of the magazine and provides insight into the other important achievements of her late husband, G. Ernest Wright.Accompanying the interview are remembrances of Wrightby AvrahamBiran,William G. Dever, and Dennis E. Groh.

10

G. E. Wrightat the HarvardSemitic Museum CarneyE. S. Gavin

Out of all the activities in a life of service, Wright's success as curatorof the Semitic Museum is probablyhis least-acknowledgedaccomplishment. Archaeological Sourcesfor the History of Palestine

The EarlyBronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism Suzanne Richard

22

The EarlyBronze Age saw a 750-yearurban age encompassed by a preformativeperiod at the outset and a period of regression towardthe end. How are we to understandthese two dramatic episodes of sociocultural change?

ii~•

...

The Paleo-HebrewLeviticus Scroll from Qumran

45

K. A. Mathews

This scroll is an important piece of evidence for understanding scribal practice and for reconstructing the textual history of the Hebrew Bible.

Old Testament History and Archaeology Max Miller Page22 Pg

55 ",

55

Nonwritten, artifactual evidence is silent by nature and not particularlyuseful for dealing with specific historical facts. Yet the artifactual recorddoes occasionally speak with a distinctive voice that biblical historians should be preparedto hear.

2 3

Introducingthe Authors Fromthe Editor'sDesk Page 55

Front cover: G. Ernest Wright and Prescott H. Williams looking over surface remains at Tell er-Ras in 1964. Photograph from the collection of Edward F Campbell. Back cover: Wright and Frank Moore Cross in 1956, standing with vehicle used for the Shechem expedition. Photograph by George M. Gibson courtesy of McCormick Theological Seminary.

Biblical Archaeologist is published with the financial assistance of

the Endowment for Biblical Research,a nonsectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTMARCH 1987

1

% a ' :nr ? 5

~

h

*;

~?Ei~"

S

r

From

the

Editor's

n this issue,the firstnumberof ourfiftiethvolume, the editors offer a special tribute to the founder of Biblical Archaeologist, the late and beloved G. Ernest Wright, and to his still vigorous wife, Emily, who for many years assisted him with the magazine. A half-century ago a strong feeling had developed in ASOR that the archaeological discoveries made in the Middle East and their relevance to biblical studies needed to be communicated to a public broader than that being reached by its prestigious Bulletin and Annuals. So it was that Millar Burrows, then president of ASOR, appointed Wright "field secretary,"with the charge of seeing that the organization's work was more widely published. Wright was at that time a recent Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins, not yet thirty years old. Trained by W. E Albright, he had a thorough understanding of archaeology, with field experience at Bethel, a part in preparing the publication of the Beth-shemesh project, and an established mastery of the typological analysis of pottery (his dissertation, The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age, was published by ASOR in 1937). At the same time, his skill in biblical studies was assured by a deep interest in theology. Added to these talents was an interest in, and a marked ability for, communicating with a nonspecialist audience. He was obviously a young scholar with great potential, but Burrow's choice of him for the position could be seen as prescient, because Wright would go on to become one of the giants of the field. One of his first enduring contributions was the founding of a magazine he titled The Biblical Archaeologist in 1938. The magazine's beginning was modest. The four issues of the first volume covered only 32 pages. But it was readable and eminently reliable. From the start, Wright set high standards and had quality assistance: Millar Burrows, Ephraim N. Speiser, and W. E. Albright, among others, lent editorial support, and Mrs. Wright efficiently handled the challenging matters of copyediting, production, and fulfillment. And BA grew as its subject grew. Since its founding, there have been enormous changes in scholarship. During his twenty-five years as editor and subsequent twelve

2

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

Desk

years as a member of its editorial board, no one was more aware of these than Wright, or more able to adapt to them. He embraced the "new archaeology" with enthusiasm, and he carried on his biblical studies and theological inquiry in the light of new methodological approaches. Wright was an active editor who worked tirelessly to acquire the best articles, and he published all of the leading figures of the day. Many of these articles are still studied and referred to. In addition, he contributed thirtysix articles himself -not including his book reviews or columns of 'Archaeological News and Views." In his editing, as well as in his other work, he labored diligently to bring biblical studies and archaeology into a closer and closer dialogue. In the words of Philip J.King, ASOR's immediate past president and historian: "Wright was a versatile scholar who distinguished himself in both biblical theology and biblical archaeology. The convergence of these two disciplines was central to his conception of biblical studies. Holding to his basic position that revelation comes through event, Wright understood biblical faith as rooted in history and saw it as archaeology's function to recover the historical foundation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition" (pages 106-07 in American Archaeology in the Mideast [Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1983]). When in 1963 he turned over sole editorship of BA to Edward F Campbell, Jr., who had served with him as coeditor since 1959, the magazine was an established and effective force in the field: a forum for communication between disciplines, as well as a means of bringing laypeople effectively into the field. Campbell and subsequent past editors-H. Darrell Lance, who coedited with Campbell from 1972 through 1975, and David Noel Freedman, editor from 1976 through 1982-worked hard to assure BA would maintain this stature. In 1980 an ASOR task force, chaired by Campbell, reviewed the organization's first eighty years and made recommendations for its future course. Two of these pertain directly to ASOR publications in general and BA in particular. One urges ASOR "to improve and accelerate dissemination of the results of scholarly research," and the other suggests that its trustees "develop and sustain

programs for communicating to the general public the results and significance of researchwithin ASOR'sfields of interest, including influencing the educational system at all levels to expand attention to the roots of human heritage that lie in the ancient Near East."(See pages 265-66 of King's book for the complete set of recommendations.) These recommendations, which were adoptedby the trustees as guidelines, are strong affirmations of views often expoundedby Wrightas editor of BA and later as president of ASOR. As BA enters its second half-century, we of the present editorial staff pledge ourselves to live up to the tradition of readability and reliability established by Wright.Wenote that archaeologyas "handmaiden"of the historian and biblical scholar has come of age of late, and a new dialogue has begun. Not everyonewill be able, like Wrightand a few others, to master both archaeologyand Near Eastern/biblicalstudies, but BA will continue to be a forum for communication between the two disciplines. G. ErnestWrightlives on not only in the pages of this

magazine and in the legacy of ASOR. He continues to be a central and vital force in biblical archaeology through his students, dozens and dozens of them, including all the current senior officers of ASOR. He was not only a mentor but a dear friend to those of us who were privileged to study with him. Helping students to the outer limits of his physical strength, Wright demanded excellence. This he got, in addition to respect, love, and admiration.The field is evergratefulto him- and to Mrs. Wright, whose constant support of him as well as her work on behalf of BA also inspire admiration.We salute both of them, andwish Mrs.Wrightandher family all the best in the years to come.

Eric M. Meyers Editor

Introducing the EricM. Meyers,Editorof Biblical Archaeologist, is a 1962 honors graduateof Dartmouth College. He received his M.A. from BrandeisUniversity in 1964 in Near Eastern and Judaicstudies and earned his Ph.D. with distinction from HarvardUniversity in 1969 in Near Eastern languages and literatures. He first studied with G. Ernest Wright at the Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem in 1964-65, where he also worked with FrankCross. It was at Wright'sinvitation that he joined the first Tel Gezer excavation team in 1964, and he was part of the Gezer staff until 1969, when he conducted ASOR'sfirst survey of ancient synagogues, an effort that included excavations at Khirbet Shemac, Meiron, Gush Halav, and Nabratein in the Upper Galilee. Carol L. Meyers, Associate Professor of Religion and Associate Directorof Women'sStudiesat Duke University, received her A.B. with honors in biblical history at Wellesley College. While an undergraduateat Wellesley, she met G. ErnestWright,who helped her secure a place with the excavations at Ashdod. She then attended his archaeology seminar at Harvardand was his field assistant duringthe first season of the Harvard-HebrewUnion College excavations at Gezer. She holds an M.A. and Ph.D. from Brandeis University and has excavated for twenty-five years at sites in Israel and North America.

Authors

Currently,she is Co-directorof the Joint SepphorisProject and serves as Vice President of the W. E Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. A frequentcontributorto learnedjournalsand a member of the editorial board of Biblical Archaeologist, she has collaborated with Eric Meyers on many publications, including their recent Anchor Bible volume on Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Carney E. S. Gavin is a Bostonian priest who has served the HarvardSemitic Museum as Curatorsince 1975 and as Associate Director since 1981. Trained at Boston's Latin School, Boston College, Jesus College at Oxford, and the German universities in classical languages and history,FatherGavinbeganexcavatingin the Middle East at cAraq el-Emir (Jordan)in 1962. Subsequent excavations and surveyshave been complemented by his extensive joint research with most of the region'smuseums, national libraries, and departments of antiquities. His 1965 dissertationat the Universityof Innsbruckanalyzed the origins of church architecture,and his 1973 dissertation at HarvardUniversity explored the glyptic art of Syria-Palestine. From his position with the Semitic Museum, he has launched numerous rescue missions to find, organize,copy,use and share endangereddocumentation important for the history of the Middle East.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

3

~---iii

::::: -iff:~c`:

a 1-10

Ciaro•lL. Mcvers

?r

*\

::

~ps~~al r, `S*

,? 84-_?~~~ R:

:E~

Carn•

Suzanne Richard

;i~~iii

• • <

!!:.:

E. S. _Gavin

Suzanne Richard, who received her Ph.D. in Near Eastern archaeology from The Johns Hopkins University in 1978, is Assistant Professor at Drew University. Since 1981 she has been directing excavations at the Early Bronze Age site of Khirbet Iskander in Jordan and has published a number of articles on these excavations. She has also published on the topic of sociocultural change at the end of the Early Bronze Age, a specialization that grew out of her dissertation. K. A. Mathews is a Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Criswell College. He received his Ph.D. from The University of Michigan in the Department of Near Eastern Studies. In collaboration with David Noel Freedman and Richard S. Hanson he published The PaleoHebrew Leviticus Scroll (Winona Lake, IN: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1985). During his graduate years he assisted in the editing and production of Biblical Archeologist and the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

...

K.A. Mathews

B

r

I .. ..:..,...••. ...

Max Miller is Director of Graduate Studies in Religion at Emory University, where he has been teaching since 1967. He directed an archaeological survey of the region of ancient Moab and has excavated at Tel Zeror, et-Tell,Tel cArad, Beer-sheba and Buseirah. Strongly interested in the relationship of archaeology to biblical history, Dr. Miller has published widely in that area. His other publications include The Old Testament and the Historian (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976) and, coedited with John Hayes, Israelite and Judean History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977). His most recent volume, coauthored with John Hayes, is A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986).

.. ,•.......

Max Miller

4

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

MARCH 1987

An

with

Interview

r

1

Mrs. Emi ly

right

by EricM.Meyersand CarolL. Meyers

Wright(farright) walking with three students in Lincoln Parknear the McCormick Theological Seminary about 1944. Courtesyof the Seminary

04-*:

i~ .ncs,

4?

My wife, Carol, and I met with Mrs. Emily Wright on May 23, 1986, at her home in Lexington, Massachusetts. The purpose of our visit was to reminisce with her about her late husband, G. Ernest Wright, and the founding, fifty years ago, of Biblical Archaeologist. Mrs. Wright, in robust health, spoke animatedly about the magazine and its humble origins, about her years with her husband, and about the trials and tribulations of a couple who were totally committed to getting out the results of new research in Near Eastern archaeology, especially as it illuminated the Bible, to a public that had few opportunities to hear about such material. What follows is a partial transcript of that wonderful conversation. I have edited it so that it includes

~

lij"

P~

'4

those matters most relevant to the celebration of BA's fiftieth birthday. By publishing this interview, we not only give homage to the magazine's first editor, but we also recognize its first production manager, subscription fulfillment officer, assistant editor, typist, archivist, and layout artist: Emily Wright. Thank you, Mrs. Wright, for all you have done all these years. Meyers: With the magazine now entering its fiftieth year, perhaps we could begin by asking you how BA was founded. Mrs. Wright: It was founded in Dr. Millar Burrows' office at Yale Divinity School. Dr. Burrows was at that time

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1987

5

president of the American Schools and Ernestwas the so-called field secretary,which meant he had to go out and find money- fund-raisingand public relations and that kind of thing. The RockefellerFoundation,I think, had given a matching grant, and ASOR was supposed to double the money-for every dollar received, ASORhad to raise two -which I assure you in the 1930s was not easy. One of the clear lacks was that there was nothing available from the American Schools to speak to the lay public. It was all technical stuff. So Ernestgot the idea that there should be a publication for young people -he was thinking particularlyof Bible teachers, Sundayschool teachers, ministers, that kind of layperson.I don'tknow how, but he wrangled a special little budget for it-very little, looking at the first number.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

FeSearch of Oriental The Americzn Schools Conn' Ne 9 Prospctc Haven, Th ,'w , .,,

February,

No.

1938

Vol._•

Cherub of

Fig. 2. Cherub of Fig.

.

his

Raphael, from naft.

lowing loving

BI ao Bibiton daaon- throa

Sitn SiBtAne AT

Graecooan

-v

the

supporting

Ti3*5, g 8apariiOf ira ybthe

boy, winged fo1 stiny

EE THE jn.UBIIL?

think Of a cherub from Today we thtradition as borrowed aeartists re . directly Of Renaissance ar ode o ionce on , was dir tesct s pp

Th i . .R o n

s " or Erot e , f a ctul The

(See

what they

ofebl.

usfromtex tpicturestif

)

1)

ays that

were like

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

2THE

Mrs.Wright:But, of course, Ernest had in his own mind that in time it would be more than just a help for the immediate task. The question then arose:What should we call the new journal?This made for many late-into-the-night

Fig

ruliarat . onbefore f rh che n o.

forg•O.tt as already (stlik.century bi of the OldTestament tionsos and Josephus time of Christ, "no one can tell

Meyers:What you'resaying, then, is that because he was involved in fund-raising,Ernestfelt that some sort of publication was needed to explain the work of ASOR and why it was valuable.

is edited by G. Enest Wright, under The Biblical cheologist the direction of the Board of Editors of the American Schools of Oriental Research, consisting of Professors W. F. Albright of Johns Hopkins Universit, Miller Burows of lale University, ad E. A. Speiser of the It is to be published quarterly. The subUniversity of Pennsyvania. scription price is 50/ per _yar. with was decorated of thetheTabernacle veil Since Since the veil of the Tabernacle was decorated ob-ith embroidered cherubim, and the walls and the religious with adorned of Solomon's them, lavishly temple jects we them in contemporary Syroought to be able to identify The account of the Ark of the Covenant art. Palestinian with wings can be considered. If, shows that only a creature

conceived as enthroned on a golden bull.

upon the golden

3

cherubim

or standing

W. F. Albright

from 4 B.C. to who reigned in Galilee Herod Antipas, "that 39 A.D., was strong and clever enough to be called fox" by Jesus (Luke 13:32) and "king" by Mark (Chap. 6:14), and more clever than but he had a neighbor who was stronger he. That was Aretas IV (9 B.C.-40 A.D.), king of the NabaHerod had whom St. Paul mentions in I Cor. 11:32. taeans, to married the daughter of this king; but during a visit

ofanimals and we allknown study representations therefore,

hybrid creatures, partly animal, we find one which is much so much so that more common than any other winged creature, that is the with the cherub is certain: its identification In Egypt the winged sphinx or winged lion with human head. and in and the Babylonia griffin appear; wingless sphinx but in Assyria the winged bull with a human head prevails; domiwhich is and Palestine it is the winged sphinx Syria nant in art and religious symbolism. as "He who The God of Israel was often designated sitteth The concep(on) the cherubiim" (I Sam. 4:4, etc.). tion underlying this designation is weil illustrated by representations of a king seated on a throne supported on each side by cherubim, which have been found at Byblus, Hamath, and Megiddo all dating between 1200 and 800 B.C. Fig. 2 is the first mentioned, showing King Hiram of Byblus (Period of the Judges) seated upon his cherub throne. incense Pottery altars found at Taanach and Megiddo are archaeological parallels to the wheeled layvers ("bases") of Solomon's temple, which were decorated with lions and cherubs, to according I Kings 7:36. The primary function of the cherub in Israelite religious symbolism is illustrated by two Biblical passages. A very ancient hymn, found twice in the Bible, has the words, "And He rode upon a cherub and did fly" (I Sam. 22: is Ezek. Ps. second 18:11); the 10:20. 11, Ps. 1:11); second is Ezek. 0:0.The conception of the deity as the standing or as enthroned on an animal or hybrid creature was exceedingly common in the ancient Near East, but it was most common in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia between 2000 and 700 B.C. In Babylonia the figure of a deity is replaced in certain cases by a winged shrine and cea d asye later by by aa thunderbolt. o later So in Israelite symbolism between 1300 and 900 B.C., the invisible Glory (Jehovah) was

6

ARC!iAE,,LJG:IS

e Nabataean bring a fe• tle d :'at.E.r's kingdom.

princess

t: t*e

safe-

~ : pow..r w .asnot ed :. Aretas, to howe.ver, .,e Ee contr1li,1d, -o' ,his small kingdom. t-.e bju:dar!es ty-

tra?

NEIGHBOR HEROD'S NABATAEAN

T BE bIBLICAL

4

routes

ti

the

north

as

far

as

soutt.e and Lamabcus

e ssouth i nto Arabia and the mouth c'. y aa t Hs ,ea. hardy Arabs who had iaded ca S aestors of t.e Edomites during the fourth century b.., trritry were and taken Petra (Sel ~ the hm home driven their own capital. Old By cunning dip:o.a:y Testament)fromfortheir the caravan routes, derived from controlling and the wealth , of Aretas had brought their i1tthe fat er and grandfather and power. tie coqntry to a state of affluence of on the art and religion A mine of information these Nabataeans in the time when Christ was teaching in the Mishna has been Palestine and the rabbis were developing of a small temple at Khirbet etopened by the excavation of ti.e Dead Sea. This Tannur, not far from Petra, southeast the intersection temple, built in an admirable location of two valleys, was richly adorned with and images atw statues of the favorite gods and goddesses. Fig. 3 is an altar of incense which was found there by the American School's excavations. On the front is the figure of Baal whom they thought to be the same as the Greek Zeus and the Roman JupThe chief was sometimes iter. goddess Atargatis, represented as a fish-goddess, and sometimes as a goddess of grain. Another figure is the goddess of Good Luck, Tyche, shown onr, the left side of the altar in pig. 3. Fig. 4 shows a workmar liftiing a block of the pavement to find a small receptaclP for offerings An inscription below. tells us that a ma by the name of Natayrael had built this temple during the second year of his king, Aretas IV: that is, in 7 B.C. The religion there was another of those pagar repracticed which confronted the early disciples ligions of Jesus. G.E.W. ANNOUNCEMENT

Fig. 3.

A Nabataean Altar.

Fig. 4. for Offerings.

A Receptacle

over whom he so Rome he had met his sister-in-law, Herodias, lost his head that a marriage was arranged with her. For dewas imprisoned and John the Baptist nouncing this marriage, later beheaded. the daughter of Aretas, Herod's first wife, fled to her father, who sent an army and soundly defeated his son-in-law. The ancient historian us that Aretas' Josephus tells daughter had asked to be sent to Machaerus, Just east of the Dead Sea. Director Glueck of the American School of Orienthis tal Research in Jerusalem has been thoroughly exploring and has discovered region, that Machaerus was in Herod's of only territory, but so close to the border that a flight

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

The need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoraccount of archaeological oughly reliable discoveries as to the Bible has been frequently they are related expressed of late. The Bulletin and Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, like similar are other publications, a bit too technical for the hundreds of ministers and Bible teachers who are not specialists in the field. To meet this need the experiment, of which this is a prospectus, leaflet is being launched. The plan is to publish at 50 a year a small popular quarterly,.describing and interpreting results of the Biblical The Archaeology. material used will represent authoritative rethe latest search, as exemplified by the samples which appear in this number. The form, size, and contents will depend largely upon the response which the project receives. Suggestions and advice on these points are earnestly Kindly f desired. send them with your subscription and Q0 to the American of Oriental Fesearch, Schools 409 Prospect St., New Haven, Connect icut.

conversations with various people. It was decided that who subscribed,and the first hundred,and so on. it should be something about Bible, because archaeology Meyers:What was the response to BA in those early in the popular mind usually meant classical archaeyears? ology or Egyptianarchaeology.So it was named The Biblical Archaeologist. Mrs.Wright:I would say it was pretty good. There was It was about that time that Nelson Glueck found nothing else like it. It was a real breakthrough.People who were interested in biblical criticism, biblical hiswhat he thought were Solomon'sMines, and something else was found, so there was quite a spreadin the New tory, history of the Middle East - any of that - thought YorkTimes, and this gave us something to pick up and it was good. in a Of course, once we were successfully under way, publication. put One of the first articles was on the Good Shepherd. the next job was to get articles. That was almost harder. We hunted through archaeology ii-:i:-i~ -i~:i:i-i':ii-i-i Meyers:How did you go about it? :::: ----: ::::-:: volumes to find the classic picture ~ii ijiiIii ii E-ii-i :--:_ : :1:?-i~i-_ _1 i:-r'-;_: : :..::z:-ii~iiiii Mrs.Wright:Ernestwould write to of the shepherdwith his sheep. :- :--::'::-:: :-- .:...::: ;:: : : -; scholars and ask for articles or sugwho Millar was Gladys Walton, ;: ii Burrows'Yale secretary,helped. A gest topics, and if someone gave a lot of her time came to be devoted likely paperat the annual meeting with the Society of Biblical Literato ASOR. xii he ture, would ask for it, or for an Meyers:Dr. Burrowsmust have adaptationof it. It was difficultbeen very supportive of your it is still difficult, I think-to get activities. scholarly people to write popularMrs. Wright:Oh yes! Youknow, ly. Some of the papersthey would hand in were awful - dry as dust, he was a real New Englander;he unclear. Then I would try to edit didn'tdouble overwith enthusiasm about anything. But it turned out them, or in some cases rewrite them. Of course, there were those that when you got to know him who better he was really enthusiastic. got absolutely livid at the idea of their sacred material being alAnd you have to think of what tered. And authors would have things were like in the thirties. trouble getting things in on time Tight. Nothing like BA had ever and providingillustrations. been done and the main thing was to try to match the grant. Meyers:Things haven'tchanged What took a lot of time was Wrightand Mrs.Emily Wrightat a costume party in much! the early 1950s. Courtesyof the McCormickTheogetting him a mailing list. To May we ask, what was Profeslogical Seminary. whom would we send sample sor Albright'sreaction to BA? copies? Mrs.Wright:Oh, he was totally supMeyers:Did you use the ASOR portive.He wrote some things himmembership list to start with? self. Fora man of his age and backMrs. Wright:We used the membership list and a list of ground,he did amazingly well in writing popularthings. all the seminaries in the country.And we put together a Meyers:He was a magnificent writer. list of people at various colleges. I discoveredOhio had Did McCormick Seminary help the magazine in more colleges at that time than any other state. So we those early years?Forinstance, did they providean just sent out sample copies to likely people. office? Meyers:Youwere the first subscription fulfillment officer. Mrs. Wright:That's right. And I continued to be long after we left New Haven. I still kept track of the subscriptions and did the billing. All this from Chicago. Meyers:From McCormick? Mrs. Wright:Yes.It was really a very simple, basic kind of thing. We kept track of the numbers: the first fifty

Mrs. Wright:No. That wasn'tpossible because the faculty members themselves didn'thave offices per se. The faculty town houses were enormous, though, so each faculty member had an office in his own home. What he did there was up to him. Youcould say they were supportive in that there were never any complaints that he was not using all his time for the benefit of the seminary; of course, they could see that what Ernest was doing was giving McCormick publicity, too, and a

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

7

name for ministering to laypeople, and so on. And his colleagues in biblical studies were very helpful, many contributing articles to BA. Meyers:Youobviously playeda central role in the magazine for many years. Mrs.Wright:I finally stoppeddoing the clerical work, the billing and the mailing, in 1943. Beforethat I did all the mailing! Everythingwas hand addressed,and I addressedeverything, the magazines as well as the bills. I know the year because I couldn'tmanage two babies and BA too. That doesn't mean I wasn't, literally, living next door to it. Meyers:But you continued to copyedit and that sort of thing even after 1943? Mrs.Wright:Oh yes. Meyers:Might we change directions here and ask when Ernestgot the idea for the Shechem excavations?

:~:: :::;71,

41

The area of the Bethel expedition that was under the charge of Wright in 1934. Courtesy of the Harvard Semitic Museum (GEW 4.34).

Mrs.Wright:I can'tanswer that accuratelybecause I think he got the idea before I knew him, maybe when he was a student and working on the Bethel dig. Ernest went arounduntil he knew every possible tell in the area.Whether Albright might have said, "Now there is a place that looks interesting and one should consider digging it,"or whether it was Ernest'sown idea, I don't know. But I think he had had this dreamof digging at Shechem for a long time. He and FrankCross, when Frankwas a student, would talk about the great, fortified sites - the logic of their dating and geography, where they would be, why they would be there, and when they would have been strong. It goes back so far and was discussed in so many different contexts, that I

8

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

really can'tsay when he got the idea. I do know that he had definite plans to go back and dig there many years before he was able to do it. There was a little thing like WorldWarII that came and wrecked everybody'splans to do anything. And I know when he made up his mind to go ahead and do it. The yearbefore we spent hours and hours and hours with catalogues and price lists. Meyers:Forequipment? Mrs.Wright:Yes.There was nothing overthere. Youhad to bring everything.And in those days there was very little to make camping easier. I remember our counting up how big the staff would probablybe so we could determine the number of cots, blankets, sheets, pillowcases, and cooking utensils that would be needed, not to mention equipment to dig with and bags to purify water with. Meyers:Did you ever go into the field with Ernest? Mrs.Wright:Only the year that we lived over there. Meyers:Youhad a big family, of course. Mrs.Wright:Yes,and I couldn'tsee leaving my children to go anywhere.Besides, there was never enough money to take everybody.Todaythere are grants available, sometimes for a spouse or a daughteror a son to go as an assistant something-or-other.But if Ernest got a grant to get himself somewhere it was a real achievement. And you know, heat really affects me. I wouldn't have been any help. I remember going on one of those field trips in 1965 to a dig that JeanPerrotwas conducting. I scared everybodyto death. Evatook one look at me - my blood pressurewas rising, I was dizzy, I must have looked terrible- and took me in the jeep as fast as she could to some nearbykibbutz to cool me off and give me lemonade. After that I don'tthink anyone ever regrettedmy having not been on a dig. Meyers:You may not have been on the digs, but you continued to be very involved with ASOR activities, especially after Ernestbecame the president. Mrs.Wright:I am always amazed at what young people today don'tknow about their spouses. With Ernest, everything was discussed. Evenbefore we were engaged. The first article he wrote, before he got his doctorate, was "The Troglodites of Gezer," and I lived through its creation. Meyers: Where did you meet Ernest? Mrs. Wright: In Baltimore. Meyers: Are you from Baltimore? Mrs. Wright: No. I'm the original girl from thirty-third street-Brooklyn. Meyers: You have lost most of your accent.

u-~

___

At b

b.

j

(r

1;.4

i''',.1

r"'

A

(I

7-Z

Above: Left to right, Lawrence E. Toombs, Wright, and Daniel R Cole pottery reading at Shechem in the summer of 1962. Courtesy of the McCormick Theological Seminary Above right: Robert Funk (left) and Wright checking pottery at Shechem. Courtesy of Lee C. Ellenberger. Wright with the principal of the Balatah school and the village mukhtar, Selman Suleiman, during the 1957 season at Tell Balatah (Shechem). Courtesy of Lee C. Ellenberger.

Mrs. Wright:I never had any.My mother was British and a West Indian. Meyers:So you met Ernest at JohnsHopkins? Mrs. Wright:Yes.I went down there to become director of education at the Episcopal Cathedral Church, which is practically across the street from the Homewood campus. All the graduatestudents lived in the area around it.

Meyers:What year was he in at Hopkins? Mrs. Wright:His third. He had gotten his master's.He was writing his thesis, just finishing it. So, of course, the reason he married me was for my dowry:I provided a typewriter that worked - his had given up - and I had

saved enough money that he could print his thesis. In those days JohnsHopkins wouldn't grant a degree unless you published your thesis, and so he had to find the wherewithal for publication. Meyers:So you got marriedbefore he actually finished. Mrs. Wright:No. Actually, we were marrieda month after. Meyers:But you were already involved in ASOR publications from the moment you courted Ernest Wright. Mrs. Wright:I didn'tknow they were ASOR publications as such. He talked about this weird thing, this organization. And he talked all the time about the school in Jerusalem;he had alreadybeen there, living there in the winter of 1934-35. He knew all along that sometime he planned to go back. And, as I say, I think the idea was that he would have gone back to do active work had it not been for the war. Meyers:Beforewe get into the ASOR presidency,would you describe what the transition from McCormick to Harvardwas like?

Mrs. Wright:Forme personally it was coming home. I never liked Chicago. Ernest made the change with some reluctance. He was really quite ambivalent about it, but his attempts to persuade McCormick to affiliate with the University of Chicago had failed. He saw that the seminaries were training people to become ministers who could do church work and pastoral work but they weren'ttraining anyone to teach future generations of ministers, and the contemporary generation of teachers was growing smaller. Meyers:The issue was, who was going to awardPh.D.s to people who could train these ministers? Mrs. Wright:Yes. So long as seminaries remained isolated and were just seminaries they would never be able to do that. He tried very hard to move both the faculty and the trustees to, in some way, arrangean affiliation that would make it possible to train students and grant them graduatedegrees. It was clear that wasn't working. Meyers:It was very important, then, to Ernest to have as much of a role in divinity education as in graduateeducation, and Harvardwas a place where he could do both. Mrs. Wright:Yes.I remember the decision to go to Harvardwas made while I was in the hospital bed with acute appendicitis; I was quite sick. The decision had to be made that week, however,and he came to the hospital every day and we discussed it. He had alreadyhad his first heart attack by then. Meyers:The first heart attack was in 1956, wasn't it? Mrs. Wright:It was 1957 or 1958, I think. It had clearly affected him; he had lost some of his fire,but he went to Harvardwith quite a lot of enthusiasm. He didn'tunderstandthe way Harvardworked, though-or didn'twork. He found a sort of alienationpeople didn'tconnect with people; they duplicated each other's work, didn'tcommunicate. Ernest was the one

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

9

who said that at least the Divinity School people should get together, and he started these Monday lunches for faculty in the Semitic Museum building, because they would only see each other at faculty meetings and not socially. Then he saw that each of the museums around the university was functioning quite apart from all the others; there were no concerted efforts. So he wrote a letter and proposed that there be a sort of museum council-very informal; he wasn't thinking of anything formal - and the suggestion was absolutely not accepted. No way! Now, of course, they've all gotten together except, I know, the Semitic Museum is not a part of it but the other museums are part of some kind of organization. That was very much an eye-opener for him. Meyers: Was he made curator of the Semitic Museum at

the time of his appointment?

G.

E.

Wright

At the Harvard Semitic Museum by

Carney

E.

S.

Gavin

Mrs.Wright:No. FrankCross was curatorthen, but Ernest took over eventually. The university provided an extra stipend for that, which Ernest paid to a graduate student to do the legwork. Meyers: How was it that so many students began to come to Harvard in the late fifties and sixties? It seemed to blossom as no other time in the study of Old Testament and archaeology. Mrs. Wright: Well, Ernest and Frank Cross were quite well known by then. Ernest had really made a name for himself at McCormick. He traveled a great deal, he lectured often, and he wrote and he wrote and he wrote. And Frank Cross had been in on the ground floor of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Meyers: The Westminster book Biblical Archaeology was written in 1955 and published in 1957, before you left McCormick. When this came out his name was immediately associated with biblical archaeology. Mrs. Wright: The Biblical Archaeologist had already partly accomplished that, of course. For a magazine that tiny and that limited, it apparently had, as these things go, a very wide readership. One of the things we really did try from the beginning was to see that all the college and seminary libraries got copies even if no one in the faculty subscribed. Meyers: So The Biblical Archaeologist came to Harvard with you. What year did Ernest become president of ASOR? Mrs. Wright: In 1966. I didn't want him to do it. Meyers: Mainly for health reasons? Mrs. Wright: Yes. But I think A. Henry Detweiler, who preceded Ernest as president, also had health problems, although we didn't know it at the time. (It was only a year or two later that he died.) He worked very hard to

10

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

he HarvardSemiticMuseumwas foundedin 1889"to promote sound knowledge of Semitic languages and history."Despite its long and distinguished history, however, it was in a perilous condition when G. ErnestWright assumed curatorshipon July 1, 1966.It hadbeen relegatedto the basement of its own building, with its funding unsatisfactoryand much of its collection dispersed.In the springof 1958the university'slawyershadfelt compelled to warnthe president and the deans formally that the treatment of the museum was contrary to the terms of the bequest by the founder,Mr.JacobHenry Schiffof New York.It is an indication of its institutional fragility at the period of Wright's arrivalthat the museum was not informed of that admonitory legal opinion until more than a decadeafterit had been given. By then, however,his efforts to rescue the museum had begun to succeed, and they would be even more brilliantly successful. Wright revivified the museum, thus preserving an importantresourcefor scholarsin the field. Butbeyondthis, his curatorship also had a profound effect outside the museum. The strategies he used have been widely adopted around the world, and have led to international collaboration for the preservation,exploration, and presentation of the heritageof the ancient Near East. In addition, the cataloguers and conservation specialists assembled under him have recoveredand restoredscores of long-neglectedcollections in older repositoriesand have helped open new museums overseasand in the U.S. Consequently, museums concerned with the ancient Near East have been dynamically linked in joint investigations and preservationefforts that have redefinedmuseum work. Out of all the activities in a life of service, Wright'ssuccess as curatorof the HarvardSemitic Museum is probably his least-acknowledgedaccomplishment. He deserves our special appreciation- an appreciationthat can only growas we look more closely at what he accomplished. Museum Origins HarvardUniversity has a legacy of studying the ancient Near East. In 1764 the first of a succession of ten scholars

persuade Ernest to take over for him. We were in Jerusalem in 1964-65 and Detweiler even came to see us there. The job was too much for anybody to try to do and also carry a full teaching load. Meyers: In addition, Ernest must have had fifteen or so

students in archaeologyand biblical studies each year.

The HarvardSemitic Museum as it appearedaround 1905. Courtesyof the HarvardSemitic Museum.

assumed the Hancock Professorshipof Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages(the third oldest titled chair, and the oldest chair in Hebrew,in North America).A consequence of this interest was the acquisition of artifacts by individuals associated with the university. For instance, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century alumni returnedfrom their grandtours with oriental antiquities- JohnLowell,for example, acquired a stela of Rameses II. These objects would eventually find their properhome in the museum. Jacob Henry Schiff was a generous patron of higher education (he had donated a million gold marks to the University of Frankfurtin his native Germany) and very interestedin Semitic history (asa foundingpatronof Haifa's Technion, he had insisted on Hebrew as its language of instruction). During the 1880s he was invited to Harvardto join meetings of the Semitic Club to discuss archaeological explorations and fresh decipherments with CrawfordH. Toy,David Gordon Lyon, and others who had recently returned from Assyriological seminars at German universities. Schiffbecame deeply interestedin Harvard.Until 1920 he came up from New Yorkeach year to present personally his prize for the "best undergraduateessay on a Jewish subject"submitted to the Menorahsociety, and in 1889 he donated initial museum funds-subsequently also providing sums to cover collections, travel, excavations at Samaria,and the entire cost of erecting a building. In the words of its first curator, David Gordon Lyon, "Themuseum aims at nothing less than this: to collect and preserveimportant remains of the Semitic past; to provide the materials of original research;to diffuse knowledge by the inspection of objects relating to Semitic geography, history, life, art, and literature;and to explore the ruins of the homes of the Semites." Purchasing expeditions were dispatched abroad to gather many hundredsof casts and antiquities-especially cuneiforrptablets and vastly diversecollections of illustrative materials-all housed during the museum's first two decadeson the secondfloor of the PeabodyMuseum.Locally, New Englandcollectors and travelling Syro-Lebanesemerchants-bringing assemblages of intact glasswareand pottery, which were at that time of indeterminate provenance

Mrs.Wright:There was just a horrendousamount of work to do. It was doing what he had done in the years before as field secretary-building public relations, raising money, as well as writing up programsand going down to Washingtonto persuadepeople to buy them. Meyers:And then you had the political problem of the Arabboycott after the war in 1967. Mrs.Wright:And, of course, Ernest alwayshad these plans, just as he'ddreamedof Shechem long before that was a reality. He talked about how we have to search further and further aroundthe Mediterranean.He wanted to know where the Phoenicians came from. He planned to go to Spainultimately, and Carthage,Cyprus. These projectswere all in his head. He even knew that eventually you'dhave to go east to the borderof India. There was no limit to what he was envisioning. But he was always hamperedby the lack of funds and often a lack of cooperation. As he tried to write his reports, there was always something going wrong with one school or another;there was always something that needed fixing or rebuilding. E. Meyers:Youknow I came to graduateschool at Harvard in 1965, just before Ernest became president of

ASOR.What strikes me looking back on this is that with all he had to contend with-the presidency of ASOR, his position in the Divinity School and the School of Arts and Sciences at Harvardwith the huge influx of students that came to sit at the feet of Ernest and FrankCross, the health problems-he never begrudgeda single second of his time to any of us. Mrs.Wright:He never begrudged.He'dalwaysbeen that way.He would go to great lengths to see that every student got his grant,his job.He wrote uncountable letters of recommendation for students' futures. By the end it was all this nitty-gritty stuff that interferedwith his creative, scholarly, biblical, and church work. He

had less and less strength and time. He had a terrible time with things like trustee meetings. Meyers: Yet he handled it with such dignity and skill! Mrs. Wright: But I had the basket case that came home after every one of those things. So in the end he was much more short-tempered than before. He would get very angry at people going abroad and doing what he thought was a disservice to the schools by taking up political cudgels over a particular matter. For Ernest,

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1987

11

each institute was an American school, an American organization, part of ASOR. He insisted that we have to find out what we can about the past for the good of mankind, that we are not politically oriented. And he faced something that I think you no longer face; those last years were when the women's lib business was at its height and most acrimonious, and he was continuously being accused of not giving due rights to women. E. Meyers: Nothing could be further from the truth. I'dlike to tell you a story that perhaps you don't know. When Ernest encouraged me and enabled me to start a new expedition in Israel, which began in 1970, though the survey was conducted in 1969, he was well aware of the fact that I was married to another aspiring academic archaeologist. Ernest had, of course, inspired Carol when she was still an undergraduate at Wellesley when she participated in his seminar. We had talked about the difficulties of being a married professional couple, and he was so supportive and so sensitive that when our first child, Julie, was born and it came time to put that expedition into the field, Ernest awarded Julie Meyers -now a rising freshman- a travel scholarship so that the three of us could be on the dig in our first campaign and could stay together as a family. Mrs. Wright: Well, you see, he knew that I hadn't gone and our children hadn't gone until that year when Danny and Carolyn were there. George, of course, and his wife had gone on their own through the Peace Corps and then later for their own graduate work and that's why I wanted David and Barbara to go when they went. Because I didn't want David to feel that he was the one member of the family who'd never gotten there. Ernest knew this. He had known so many of these disastrous dig marriages that he wanted to be sure that families weren't split or broken in any way. I remember the first time that Frank went over and he went for not just a summer as I recall but for a whole year. And Ernest was in no way going to allow him to go and allow Betty Ann, his wife, and Susan, his baby daughter, to stay home. E. Meyers: Ernest, in that sense, was a visionary. He saw some of the damage and difficulties created by these long three- and four-month separations; he saw the greater role of women in academic life in archaeology before anyone else saw it; and he made every effort to see that families and professional families could stay together overseas. So unusual. Let me close by asking what you think of Biblical Archaeologist today. Mrs. Wright: I think it's beautiful! I can't believe it's the same little four pages that we typeset and started. Considering what we had to work with then, I don't think we did too badly, though.

12

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1987

Ruinsof the churchat Emmaus being viewed by W.E Steinespring and W F Albright 1934. Courtesyof the HarvardSemitic Museum (GEW4.25).

but undoubtedly from Levantine tombs-furnished additional thousandsof artifacts.FromAndover,by oxcart,came still more thousands of specimens of flora, fauna, agricultural tools, and other miscellanea from the collection of Selah Merrill, which was assembled in the 1870s in connection with his effortsfor the ill-fatedAmericanPalestine ExplorationSociety, a predecessorof ASOR. In addition to acquiring such study collections, the museum fielded several major expeditions. Chief among these were: Samaria/Sebastiyeh(1907-12),where our assistant curatorGeorgeA. Reisnerevolved two of today'smost fundamentally useful field techniques, photologging and stratigraphic "debrisanalysis";Sinai (late 1920s), where the museum, in conjunction with Catholic University of America, found the earliest alphabetic inscriptions in "Proto-Sinaitic"script at Serabit el-Khadem and photographicallyrecordedSt. Catherine'smonastic manuscripts; and YorghanTepe (1926-31), near Kirkuk, where the midsecond-millennium city of Nuzi (andbeneath it, the thirdmillennium site of GA.ZUR) yielded some of the most coherent cuneiformarchives,the earliest glassware,and the "world'soldest map." The museum'sregularoperatingexpensesweredefrayed by the university and sharedbetween the Faculties of Arts and Sciences (which covered 70 percent of the cost) and Divinity (which covered30 percent),accordingto what was recognized as the museum's contribution to teaching and researchin each faculty.Fundsfor acquisitions and expeditions were independentlyraised,largelythroughMr.Schiff's munificence. The Museum's Plight Obscurity cloaks the plummeting of the fortunes of the museum in the period prior to Wright'scuratorship.The recently discovereddiariesof DavidGordonLyonpoignantly express a frustration during his last years as curator that sadly parallelsthe mood of the final reportsof his successor, Robert H. Pfeiffer.Lack of funds, and restrictions on any funding efforts, became a perennial problem,but Lyonand Pfeifferstruggledvaliantly against forces far more sinister than poverty.The museum's founder, JacobHenry Schiff, had become estranged from Harvardafter his good friend Charles W.Eliot retired as president. The Hancock professorshipwas left unfilled for a quarterof a century (1929-53) before Pfeifferwas invited to assume it, a position that he

G. ErnestWright born September5, 1909, in Zanesville, Ohio married July 31, 1937, to Emily E. DeNyse

children George Ernest, David DeNyse, Daniel Shedd, Carolynn Arria

education

The Palestinian room of the HarvardSemitic Museum around 1905. Courtesyof the HarvardSemitic Museum.

A.B., 1931, College of Wooster B.D., 1934, Presbyterian Theological Seminary A.M., 1936, Johns Hopkins University Ph.D., 1937, Johns Hopkins University

honorarydegrees

held forthe last five yearsof his life. DuringWorldWarII,the museum was taken over for military uses to train chaplains and Japanese-languagespecialists. Indeed, university administrators showed such little sympathy for the museum that when Pfeiffer died on March 16, 1958, after twentyseven years as curator,the museum was left leaderless for three-and-one-halfcrucial months, during which time: a committee concluded that the museum building "is not now, and for some years past has not been, an effective instrument forpromotingknowledgeof Semitic history and literature";collections were dispersed, and those various, wide dispersions were not recorded (indeed, as Pfeiffer's family walked to his memorial service, they passed the museum's cherrywood cases being tossed from third-floor windows to smash on the groundbelow); the building was convertedto house the new Center forInternationalAffairs, "for a period of five years or less," which then actually extended until 1979. When the new Hancock professorFrankMoore Cross was appointedcuratoron July 1, 1958,he was able to rescue some space for the museum (two offices and two basement classrooms), and he predicted that Wright's impending arrivalwould mean that "thecollections and workroomsof the Semitic Museum will shortly be put to increasedscholarly use." Wright'sCuratorship:Wholesome Caring Wright's tenure as curator can be seen as occurring in successive phases: First years (1961-67). During his first years the museum's wintery plight made it necessary for him to concentratehis efforts almost totally on developing faculty and programs for the Department of Near EasternLanguagesand Literature, in pursuanceof an academic strategyprudently developed duringthe curatorshipof Cross (1958-61),who served as chairman of the departmentin this period. The dispersalof much of the collection sadly continued because of the absence both of space for storage and funds for fitting care: manuscripts (Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew)as well as papyri(Greek)were removedto the safer environment of Harvard'sHoughton Library,while most of the numerous nineteenth-century casts of ancient Near Easternstatuary and inscriptions were transferredto Brandeis University. Some traditions were valiantly maintained duringthe

D.D., 1949, College of Wooster A.M., 1958, Harvard University Litt.D., 1967, Alma College L.H.D., 1972, Dropsie College L.H.D., 1973, St. Anselm's College LL.D., 1973, Widener College

ordained 1934, to ministry of Presbyterian Church

academic positions Haverford College 1937, Research Assistant McCormick (Presbyterian) Theological Seminary 1939-40, Instructor in Old Testament 1941-45, Assistant Professor 1945-58, Professor in Old Testament History and Theology Harvard University 1958-74, Parkman Professor 1961-74, Curator, Semitic Museum

visiting positions Oberlin College Graduate School of Theology 1949, Haskell Lecturer Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary 1951, Markland Lecturer 1954, Moore Lecturer School of Evangelical Theology, Buenos Aires, Argentina 1959, Carnahan Lecturer Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School 1964-65, Visiting Director

field activities ASOR Bethel Expedition 1934, participant ASOR 1938, Field Secretary Drew-McCormick-ASOR Research Expedition to Shechem 1956-64, Archaeological Director Hebrew Union College Excavation at Gezer 1964-65, Director ASOR 1966-74, President Joint American Archaeological Expedition to Idalion 1971-74, Director

died August 29, 1974

Note: For a comprehensive listing of Wright's publications, see Magnalia

Dei, The MightyActs of God:Essays on the Bible and Archaeologyin Memory of G. Ernest Wright, edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1987

13

since 1966, no one could envisagethe schools without him. (I didn'tbelieve it myself, so I looked up the records;I had thought that he had been presidentforat least ten or fifteen studied together, fifty-threeyears ago. Freshfrom years.)It was this concern and complete identification with W tehe excavationsat Bethel,the young, sincere,intense, the American Schools that helped him a year after his bright-eyedstudent came to Johns Hopkins to begin the appointment to meet the new situation following the Sixcourse that would lead him to the pinnacle of American day War in 1967. It is as though his previous years and biblical scholarship.I have a photographof those days- all experiencewere awaitingthis hour of trial and challenge."I of us carefree,smiling into a bright future, all of us some- am determined,"he wrote me in July 1967, "thatwe shall what mischievous. But the gleam in Ernest's eyes was remain very active in Jerusalem,on good terms with our perhapsmore mischievous than the others!I saw this gleam hosts and friends, and at the same time expand our activiagain manyyears later when he introducedme for a lecture ties vigorously in Arab lands. Some have tried to persuade at Harvardon the TelDan excavations.He was like a school- me that such a policy will not work. I say that it must."And boy,up to his triumphant tricks. "Hereis the pottery exca- he concluded, "Iam a long way on the roadto provingmy vated at Dan,"he said with a great twinkle in his eyes, "and critics wrong."This desire to cooperate, to synthesize, to here are de Vaux,Glueck, and myself, the great expertssolve problems, helped him on his way. He said, "It takes and all of us agreeon the Middle BronzeAge date!"Yes,they time to developa perspectiveas to how we shouldwork. I am were all there, the three of them- all of them gone now. in an uneasy position of trying to make policy between Five weeks before his death he was in my office-the different polarities of viewpoint." He was also concerned same intense, sincere, bright eyes, the hair whiter, but the with the relationship of the American Schools to the same fiery zeal. He was talking of future plans centered Hebrew Union College. But he stated unequivocally,"Our around the two cardinal principles of his life-the excel- relations with the Hebrew Union College should be colence of Americanscholarshipandthe furtheringof biblical operativeanduncompetitive."He askedfortime; he pleaded, archaeology.He was intent. "Iwill not have incompetent "Don'tmake my life and tasks more difficult!"I didn't;none work in the name of the schools,"he said. "Iwill not support of us did. Forwe respected his integrity and sincerity. He an excavationwhich is not directedin accordancewith the rejectedthe suggestion of remaining quiet for a year-that highest degree of scholarship."I believe that he was moti- is, to do nothing-"because," he claimed, "that is also a vated by these two interests, study for its own political judgment. The only way for Americans to be sake, and the standardand involvement of American schol- nonpolitical is to try and do business as usual." This arship.Tothese two was addeda third, which intuitively he policy-"business as usual,"which has foundthe American saw complementing the others-the centrality of the Schools actively engaged since 1967 in numerous excavaAmericanSchools of Oriental Researchin this task. This is tions-has established the schools as the leading foreign not to say that he was not continuously searching for the institution operating in the Near East. It pavedthe way for path to the ultimate goal. Although Ernest'smajorarchae- the intricate solution suggestedby G. ErnestWright,which ological work was at Shechem, in 1963 he planned a joint proved to be the wise one, not only politically but also Union College prehistoricprojectat Kabri administratively. "Our future,"he told me, "is with the Harvard/Hebrew in Galilee. Perhapsthese were shades of his earlier interests whole of the ancient Near Eastas faras archaeologicalwork is concerned.I feel that if we make the correct,nonpolitical in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. He was not free of doubts and conflicts. For years I solution, in the long run this will be advantageous,because argued with him that he could not work at Shechem as American archaeology has never been involved in Near though in a vacuum. I urged him to come and compare Eastern politics."Anyone who dared undermine the posinotes, to tell us what he was doing and see what we were tion of impartialityof the schools sufferedhis wrath!He did doing at Dan. He hesitated. And yet he was the first foreign not mince words,either. He said to those who he believed scholarto send us slides of his excavations,which I was glad were upsetting the delicate balance he so carefully built, to presentto the IsraelExplorationSociety meeting in 1961. "This is the first and most outrageousviolation of this rule He eventually overcamehis doubts completely, and in 1964 of impartiality in the living memory of everyonepresent at he became the first archaeologist working in Jordanto the meetings." This was not easy for him. He frankly deliver a lecture in West Jerusalem.I remember how de- admitted that "itis against my grain, it is extremely painful lighted he was with his reception at the Ratisbonnelecture for me to have to write a letter in this vein.""Youunderhall. stand,"he told them, "that my office as American Schools No doubt his appointment as visiting director of the President requiresit."That was his concern-the position HebrewUnion College Biblical and ArchaeologicalSchool of the American Schools. He did not hesitate when he in 1964-65 was a turning point in his thinking. His work at thought it necessary to decide in May 1974 on a jarring Shechem and then at Gezer, coupled with his determina- action to savethe schools. Whenwe urgedhim in a cable not tion to perpetuate American archaeological work in the to sell the propertyof the school in Jerusalem,but on the Near East, enabled him to weather the storm with a sure contrary to increase the school's activities, he freely adhand and to establish the American Schools as the leading mitted that all he wanted was to create an atmosphere of foreignarchaeologicalinstitution of the area. It is a tribute crisis for the sake of the schools. And it worked!He was forto his personality and accomplishments that, although at eversearchingandplanning. He had a grandiosescheme - a his death in 1974he had been president of the schools only brilliant archaeologicalprojectcentered in Galilee, aimed

An

14

American

Scholar

1987 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH

at seeking the roots of early Christianity and synchronizing them with those of formative Judaism. His concern for the training of scholars was great, and he would not hesitate, as part of that training, to discipline them. He didn'teven objectwhen others did it. It was typical of Ernest, and entirely in character, to say, "I have been hearing reports of the 'Dutch Uncle' lectures that you gave some of our people. I want to express to you my complete satisfaction and my congratulations!"I can see the same schoolboyish grin- a sort of benevolent deviltry,the fatherteacher who would scold his disciples for their own good. I miss him. I miss the frank, friendly encounters, the intensity and sincerity. We all miss him. In a sad poem the Hebrew poet laureate Bialik speaks of loneliness: All of them the wind took; All have flittered away, And I am left alone, alone. AvrahamBiran Director, Nelson Gleuck School of Biblical Archaeology Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem

This reminiscenceandthe one byWilliamG. Dever havebeen adaptedfromtalks givenat a memorial serviceforG. ErnestWrightin Jerusalem on September8, 1974.Theyareprintedwith the permissionof Mrs.Emily Wright,the HarvardSemitic Museum, andthe authors.

N

,

4

at Tel s: potter) re V ), directn Iet, and.7b

p

.

i M ourt•••e

the in 1967 votio)s in

x

r

readng

tomphotoHarvard W 111.

~r

Wright

as

a

Teacher

of all the aspects of the characterand accomplishOutment of Ernest Wright,I have chosen to write about

him as a teacher-first, because my own relationship with him was primarilythat of student to teacher, and, second, because I am convinced that of all his achievements,that as a teacher will live longest. What makes a man a great teacher?It is a truism that one teaches better by example than by precept. Thus the most importantquality of a greatteacheris the ability to set an example.But by this I mean not simply brilliant scholarship - although obviously one must be a master of the discipline in which he attempts to train others. Brilliance by itself, however, untempered by other qualities, may be merely dazzling. The tragic result for many students of a "brilliant"teacher is a lifelong trauma-a paralyzingsense of inadequacythat may prevent them from ever fulfilling their potential. More important than a teacher's virtuoso performance is his personal devotion to truth. In a time when the pursuit of knowledge has degeneratedinto academic politics, it may have seemed naive, but ErnestWright believed that all the paraphernaliaof scholarship and the prestige of academic institutions meant nothing if they were not avenuesto truth. His greatnessas a teacherlay first of all in the examplehe set of the love of learningfor its own sake.One knew instinctively that here was a man forwhom scholarshipwas a true vocation- a Divine "calling." None of us will everforgetErnestas a man who realized that truth remainsa mysteryonly partiallypenetrated,who wrestled often with his own sense of inadequacy,but never doubted that learning was the one pursuit worthy of man. Even when we become weary of the academic "game,"or disillusioned with the pettiness of so much that is called scholarship,or despairof our own integrity in the quest for truth, that vision of his remains. It is perhaps his most precious legacy to his students. A second quality in a great teacher is the ability to inspire. Ernestnot only believedthat the truth mattered,he also believed that it could be grasped,even if only in part. Forhim scholarship was not something esoteric that only the elite could pursue. It was the struggleof a good student to disciplinehimself, to workharduntil he had masteredthe basic materials,to gain enough confidence to try a bold new approach,to persist until a breakthroughhad been made. Ernestwas in manyways a typically Americanpragmatist.I rememberhim literally "snorting"at some Continental biblical scholars who seemed to him so imprisoned in philosophical systems that they were unable to assimilate the new knowledge becoming available through archaeology. Ernest's sometimes rather dogmatic assertions seemed to some either parochialism or arrogance,but they were neither; these assertions were simply a reflection of his conviction that by hardheadedthinking one could make

16

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

museum's subterranean exile: Distinguished lecturers, usually three each year, came to present their discoveries. The HarvardSemitic Series continued sporadic but prestigious publication. Dissertation research on important archaeologicaltopics and student opportunities for handson pottery study in the museum and summertime excavations abroadwere painstakingly coordinated through the museum. In addition, some importantwork was done. The cuneiform collections were reassembled, catalogued (by D. O. Edzardin 1962),and storedin metal cabinets- in such a way that an Akkadianseminar room was somehow insertedinto a basement areapreviously devotedto control mechanisms for water and electricity. Throughout those years, together with Cross, Wright graduallyacquiredimportantancient seals - significant for their age, inscriptions, and iconography.Notable in particular is a collection of black, distinctively conical, Iron Age stamp seals that Wrighthad early recognizedas deriving fromthe time of a fundamentalchange in writing (when the pen replacedthe stylus) and in sealing practice (when, instead of using cylinders to roll patternedbands onto clay envelopes or tablets, stamps were used to emboss bullaethe small clumps of clay that secured the string or thongs that bound rolled-upleather or papyrussheets). Some key ceramic assemblages were selectively purchased in this period- including the Bab edh-Dhrac material correctly dated by Paul Lappand Wright (to the twenty-third-twenty-firstcenturies B.c.)as early as 1963-64. Numismatic acquisitions included the Barton(Palestinian) collection and the Bedoukian Armenian (Roupenian Dynasty) coins. Two modest but deeply significant policies instituted duringthe first phaseof Wright'scuratorshipdeserveparticular attention; they indicate both his magnanimous spirit and his pragmaticforesight for propermuseum functioning: First,he reinstituted the museum'spublic educational programs-however

embryonic-by

repeatedly inviting

children from churches and public schools (some 500 in 1966)for"gallerytalks"and "guidedtours"afterhours in the museum's subterraneanworkrooms; and, second, he dispersed financial resources-however meager or direly needed internally-to foster teaching in the Near East department and research overseas. Only two permanent funds for the museum existed at Wright's arrival: The "Teacher'sEndowment,"originally instituted for public education at and through the museum, was temporarily redirected-with tactical prudence- towardsincreasingthe Near East department'sefficacy and used to supplement the salaryof the preeminent Assyriologist Thorkild Jacobsen. The Schiff Fund (for the "Purchaseof Antiquities"), which was selectively employed by Wrightfor acquisition of pottery and seals, was mainly and most wisely used to support archaeological projects in the field. Wright's years of sponsoringvarious expeditions through the Schiff Fund exemplify the recognition of the wisdom, indeed necessity, of wide-ranginginstitutional collaboration.Such use of the fund carefully avoided the dubious acquisition practices of major U.S. museums at that period (when illegally obtained "treasures"were sometimes proudly

unveiled only to be hidden awayin embarrassmentshortly thereafter as their recent provenancecame to be known). Indeed, through genuine personal sympathy for the dedicated custodians of heritagein the nations where ASORexcavated,Wrightanticipated public recognition of the grave moral challenges reared by international art-trafficking, and his creative redirection of the Schiff Fund actually precededmost UNESCO policies or antiquities regulations in the Near East. Justifying Schiff Fund sponsorship for excavations abroadwas much later to encounter resistance from Harvardlawyers when I attempted to formalize practices instituted by Wright;scientific patronageoverseaswas not seen to fulfill legally the fund'sclear original intent: to buy artifacts for the museum. Accordingly, Wright's carefully wordedexplanation of 1962 deserves notice: "[SchiffFund] money has been invested each year in archaeologicalprojects- this being the best way today to secure ceramic horizons in various periods in orderthat a critical attention to ceramic chronology in dating archaeological discoveries can be taught." I have added italics to stress Wright'ssubtlety in circumventing legal objections by implying, respectively,that: results cannot be expected immediately (aswith anyinvestment); without moralistically criticizing practices at sister institutes, the museum pragmatically recognizes expedition sponsorshipas now the best means of acquisition; the critical scientific value of excavated specimens as well as their usefulness for teaching purposes fulfill the basic collection-building intention of the Schiff Fund. Upon retrospection,widely rangingSchiff Fundgrants (usually small in themselves yet often vitally useful in attracting other patronagebecause such museum sponsorship clearly expressed the endorsement of an expedition by Wright) can be tallied with admiration for his prophetic instincts: The McCormick/ASOR'sBeth-zur expedition under PaulLapp;J.Strugnell'sNabateaninscription surveys at Petra;Diana Kirkbride'sNeolithic explorations throughout southern Jordan;JosephCallaway'sexcavations at Ai; Hebrew Union College's Gezer excavations; the early survey phases at Bab edh-Dhrac,all received Schiff Fund support, usually throughout several seasons, as did, of course, Wright'sown initiatives at Shechem, Idalion,and Carthage. Especially notable is continued sponsorship of the diverse soundings and excavations at Ein al-Janurby JacobKaplan (whose tiny kibbutz room, filled with carefully gathered sherdsfromthe littoral between TelAviv and Jaffa,was once tellingly described by Wright as "today'smost exciting museum"). Such Schiff Fund supportreflects Wright'swholesome and holistic vision: The museum sponsored fieldwork "on both sides of the Middle East'sIronCurtain."The work was conducted by U.S., local, and international teams; by wellestablished institutes such as the British School in Jerusalem and ASOR; as well as by isolated scholars-even if some enjoyedonly tenuous academic affiliations. And the work concernedpreliteraryand postbiblical levels at major historic tells, as well as throughout disparate,little-known regions. Fortunately,the altruistic tradition of museum spon-

new contributionsto our knowledge.He was also convinced that no one man had a monopoly on truth and that teamwork was essential if progresswas to be made- a view that gave an unusual sense of cooperation and cohesiveness to the "school"he founded. As a teacher, it was Ernest'sdelightful irreverence,his refusal to be impressed with great names or prestigious schools, his insistence on looking again at the primary source material, that made his classes so stimulating. His students will always remember that heady feeling that, with his insistence and support,we were working together on the veryfrontiersof knowledge.Evenin his absence,that inspiration, so deeply ingrained,continues. A final mark of a great teacher is the ability to discern an individual's best qualities, and the willingness to encourage the student in their fullest development. Here it was Ernest'sremarkablepersonal devotion that made him the rarestof teachers. Youknew when Ernestacceptedyou as a student that he was making a commitment to you -a rather frightening prospect, since he often took us more seriously than we took ourselves.He simply wouldn'tsettle for less than our best: He prompted,he prodded,he cajoled, he threatened,but aboveall he never gave up! With all his students, Ernesttook up a distinctly paternalrelationship. One mark of that relationshipwas his generouspromotion of his students, whether it was helping them find teaching positions when they got their degrees, or encouraging them in their first tentativepublications, or defendingthem loyally when they found themselves in scholarly controversy.There was in Ernestnone of that suspicion or jealousy that so many teachers feel towardtheir own students. He alwaystook satisfaction andpridein their progress-even if he rarely spoke of it to them directly.Another, more complex aspect of his paternal relationship with his students was the wayin which he toleratedtheir daringto differwith him. I once challenged one of his favorite notions, on the both in public and in print. subjectof "biblicalarchaeology," Although he voiced his concern in a long, fatherly letter that made it quite clear how far he thought I had strayed from the fold, he eventually came to accept and even to respect my position. That his students ventured to differ with him is perhapsthe best measure of the influence of his own vigorous style of thought and expression. A part of the lasting greatness of Ernest Wright was certainly his influence as a teacher. Not even William Foxwell Albright surpassedhim in that. It was remarkable enough that he so dominated the field himself; but perhaps even more significantly, his contributions to archaeology continue and expand through the work of the students he left. He was, indeed, mentor of an entire generation of American archaeologists, and for that, perhapseven more than for his other achievements, future generations of scholars will rememberhim, as we do today,with affection and gratitude. William G. Dever Professorof Near East Archaeology University of Arizona

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH

1987

17

4P q dr Nrjw~F

.

)~

9~

B

-

r ~~

V

t~p

r)-

~C

~rlbLfi~(L1~*_ttl~~ ? ~ rrrr r ? ~?C ~1,

(r~j

L.TJW(~ ? -~

r?

.4

r

1

~L

?c( ??.i

rl L

j~1

I 3,

Ir- )

ii n

,1

1'

r

It): f;

r

r

r

(,cl

~I

'$

4g

~

c\ ~---

I

j~

1~ 1

.,p

At

T

the

Winslow

Lectures

he beautifully tailored dark suit that the speakerwore was "Baskins"at its best. The exquisite matching tie spoke of executive authority.The white hair indicated pure standing.But the voice was entirely Midwestern, "patrician" and the audience was enthralled. G. Ernest Wright had come to Seabury-Western Theological Seminary to respond to John L. Peterson's 1973 William C. Winslow Lectures, "Tellel-Hesi 1973-Surface SurveySettlement Patterns." As Wright spoke he would pluck one volume after another off the hip-highpile of books at his side - showing, illustrating, readingus snatches of pertinent information. His main point was a blockbuster:Hesi was not that important a site in the political structure of the northern Negeb. Archaeologically,the site would yield precious and important information. But Hesi was an outpost, a guardpost, for more importantsites like Lachish (Telled-Duweir)and not, as he and others had thought, a central focus of life in that region, or to be identified as Lachish itself (as Claude R. Conder and FlindersPetrie had thought). Before him sat not only a learned audience but an audience that contained donors,friends,and participantsboth individualand institutional - in the Hesi Project.With humor, warmth, and flawless command of the sources, Wright brought us all to a more realistic (if scaled-down) version of what Hesi might be expected to yield. At the end of his life, his students report that he was fond of saying, "Thereis a Wrightway and a wrong way."At the Winslow Lectureshe acted out, to his hearers'delight and edification, a more basic and enduring example of his contribution to biblical studies and archaeology.Partof the "Wrightway"was to admit when one was wrong. It was his commitment to the realia of the Scripturesand the stones, to the sheer gracious and unapologetic search for truth in the biblical worlds that I most admired about him and, happily,that I see most alive and well in the generations of students that he trained. Dennis E. Groh Professorof the History of Christianity Garrett-EvangelicalTheological Seminary

Above left: Wrightat Shechem in 1957. Courtesyof the Harvard Semitic Museum (GEW311).Above: The staff at Shechem in 1962. Frontrow (left to right):JohnS. Holladay,Jr.,RobertSchnell, I. Alberto Soggin, G. R. H. Wright,J.Stanley Chesnut, Siegfried H. Horn, Rafiq Dajani (representingthe JordanDepartment of Antiquities), and William G. Dever.Second row: JamesF Ross, JosephA. Callaway, Paul W Lapp,LawrenceE. Toombs,G. Ernest Wright,EdwardF Campbell, Jr.,RobertI. Bull, GeorgeM. Landes,and Ovid Sellers. Thirdrow: Mrs.JosephCallaway, David Voelter,Daniel P Cole, MurrayB. Nicol, Mrs. RobertJ.Bull. Mrs.GeorgeM. Landes,and Mrs.I. Alberto Soggin. Fourthrow: RogerS. Boraas, Byron C. Shafer, Delbert R. Hillers, CarlF Graesser,Albert E. Glock, Fuad Zogbi, Joe D. Seger,H. Darrell Lance,and Henry O. Thompson. Not pictured: Hanna E. Kassis, Prescott H. Williams, Jr.,and Lee C. Ellenberger. Courtesyof Lee C. Ellenberger.

The Infancy of Judaism, The Birth of Christianity June 7-12, 1987

The FirstAnnual Johns Hopkins University Seminar on Archaeology and the World of the Bible * Designed for those with an interest in biblicalarchaeology * Distinguished presenters from Johns Hopkins and other leading universities * Illustrated presentations on such topics as: late biblicallearly post-biblical Judaism, archaeological discoveries such as the Qumran scrolls, emergence of the synagogue tradition, early Christian history * Held in Baltimore on The Johns Hopkins University's Homewood campus * On-campus residential accommodations Formoreinformation,call or write: The JohnsHopkinsUniversitySchoolof ContinuingStudies 102 Macaulay Hall-N

Baltimore,Maryland21218 (301) 338-8490 An affirmative actkonlequalopportunity Institut•on

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

21

The

Rise

and

of Urbanism Collapse SuzanneRichard

by he EarlyBronze Age

3400-2000 B.C.;' (around

abbreviatedas EB)marks the first urbanera in the southern Levant,an era graphically portrayedby the fortified cities and towns of the EarlyBronze II to III periods in Palestine. A concomitant of the urbanizationprocess was the growth of more complex socioeconomic and political (that is, "state") institutions. The emergence of the "state"in the Near East represents the culmination of processes dating back to the late Upper Paleolithic period (approximately 15,000 B.C.), when the incipient stages of domestication and sedentarization become apparentin the archaeologicalrecord.

trusive or indigenous phenomenon in the land of ancient Palestine? Palestine has always been considered something of a hinterland, backwater,or at best a land bridge between the great empires of the ancient Near East. Although toward

3100 B.C.and was 50,000 at 2700 B.C.

(Adamsand Nissen 1972;Adams 1981).In Palestine (excludingTransjordanand the Negeb), however,at around 2700 B.C.the entire popula-

bears on one of the still-debatedissues concerning the transition from the "proto-urban" period to the urban

tion has been estimated at only approximately 150,000 (Broshiand Gophna 1984).Urbanism in Palestine duringthe EarlyBronzeAge is not comparableto that of MesopoThe Early Bronze Age in tamia. Nonetheless, whether PalesPalestine saw a 750-year tine should be called a provincial or urban age encompassed by secondary"state,"a demonstrable "complex"society (so defined in a preformative period at Wenke 1984 and Redman 1978) the outset and a period of existed at that time. It is the emerregression toward the end. gence of the "state"in Palestine and How are we to understand its subsequent collapse that I hope to illumine in this article. these two dramatic epiThough its traditions owed a sodes of sociocultural great debt to the more advancedculchange? tural spheres on its borders,Palestine throughout the EarlyBronze Age exhibited its own unique culthe end of the EarlyBronzeAge Pal- tural configuration.In stark outline estine was indeed a hinterland, dur- it had a seven-hundred-and-fifty-year ing periods of urbanism the country urban age encompassed by a preforbecame a strategiccrossroadsof inter- mative period (rise)at the outset and regional trade and communication. by a periodof urban regression (colThis position benefited Palestine lapse) towardthe end. How are we to understandthe two dramaticepiculturally and economically, yet it also renderedit vulnerable to the sodes of sociocultural change that mark the shift to urbanization and political and economic vicissitudes of neighboringurban systems. later a shift to deurbanization?Are In Mesopotamiaby the mid-tothey to be seen as abruptchanges late fourth millennium, most of the caused by outside forces or as more landmarks of urbanism, such as gradualindigenous adaptations?Not sophisticated irrigationtechnology, surprisingly,scholars are divided on this issue for both the forepartand sociopolitical hierarchies,craft specializations, far-flungtrade,writ- the end of the period. ing, monumental structures,and huge cities, had appeared.Although History of Research The term Early Bronze Age was demographicestimates are notoriously difficult, the estimated popuadoptedby William E Albright and

Early Bronze Age: Is urbanism an in-

lation of Uruk was 10,000 at around

Around 10,000 B.C. throughout the

Near East established early village communities were beginning to foreshadow the ongoing evolution toward cultural complexity that would ultimately lead to the first city-states. The remains dating to the Early Neolithic period (around8500-6000 B.C.) at Jericho(the earliest walled town in the world),Beidha, and cAin Ghazal illustrate that Palestine was as advancedas any area in the Near East. Soon thereafter,however,Palestine began to lag behind its northern neighbors in the progressiontowards complex societies. Indeed, it was a land of small, regional, village and pastoral societies at a time when major advances towardthe development of the city-state system in Mesopotamia were underway (sixth to fourth millennia B.C.).This factor

22

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1987

other early archaeologists in the

Fai ;r $;?,

Age

Archaeological Sources for theHistory ofPalestine

uil??a ?'::?r;.?'C' r Ir?.?'C

*I s ~Ed

9~?FI"..,: j; 9*)*

i

.r ..

i

'-~~

fj ~L

rcL;le i

r-, '' 1o ?

I

.L i. .~3J '

I -u

~,

?

si~1J,

5

r ?-,

Approximate Date B.c.

Palestine

3400-3100 3100-2700

EarlyBronzeI EarlyBronzeII

Egypt

Predynastic FirstandSecond Dynasties 2700-2350/2300 EarlyBronzeIII Thirdthrough FifthDynasties (OldKingdom) 2350/2300-2000 EarlyBronzeIV SixththroughEleventh Dynasties (OldKingdomFirstIntermediate)

Mesopotamia

Protoliterate JemdetNasr/Early DynasticI EarlyDynastic II-III III Akkadian/Ur

1920s.Thus, third-millennium deposits in Palestine were correlated with the roughly contemporaneous EarlyHelladic (Greek)and Early Dynastic (Mesopotamian)periods, and the Three Age System of Stone, Bronze, and Iron as used by Old Worldarchaeologists was still maintained. Since copperwas the metal primarily used during the Early BronzeAge, we are left with a tacitly accepted misnomer for the period. Bronze metallurgy became common only in the Middle BronzeAge

graphicprinciples by early archaeologists and the inevitable mixture of pottery,his stratigraphicand ceramic typological study, with minor revisions, has stood the test of time. Since then the acceleration of archaeologicalactivity, excavation, and, particularly,surveyin the region has, uncovered,hundredsof sites dating to the EarlyBronzeAge. A recent work lists some 888 sites (Thompson 1979),though this includes ephemeral sherd scatters. The actual number investigatedis around 100. The

(around 2000 B.c.), although recent

dates of 3400 to 2000 B.c., based on

researchindicates that the technology was introduced during the Early BronzeIV period (Stech, Muhly, and Maddin 1985). It was Albright'sstudent, G. ErnestWright (1937),who first undertook the task of systematically analyzing the entire corpus of excavated materials dating to the Early BronzeAge. By utilizing data from Megiddo,Beth-shean,Jericho,Ai, BabedhDhrac, and other sites, he subdivided the age into four stratigraphicallydefined cultural periods - EarlyBronze I to IV.Despite the less-than-rigidapplication of strati-

Vesselsfrom EBII known as Abydos Wareare either red polished orpainted with a decoration of bands of trianglesfilled with dots. The jugs shown above are from Arad. Photographcourtesyof the IsraelExploration Society The drawing below is fromAmiran and others 1978.

4.

.

.0.0.

.

....... '' 000 101

correlations with Egyptianmaterials and recent carbon-14determinations, reflect the trend to a higher chronology for the beginning of the period (Dever1982;Weinstein 1984a).There is general agreement that the end of the EarlyBronze and the beginning of the Middle BronzeAges should be coeval with the renascent Twelfth Dynasty of Middle KingdomEgypt, around 1991 B.c.

The term Early Bronze is commonly used, except by the Israeli school, a few of whom preferthe term Early Canaanite (Dothan 1985).This latter usage has provokedmuch dis-

Examples of red painted pottery,with distinctive basketrydesigns, from the EBIB/PUB period. Drawings courtesyof Ruth Amiran.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

23

u

Since copper was the metal primarily used during the Early Bronze Age, we are left with a tacitly accepted misnomer for the period. Bronze metallurgy became common only in the Middle Bronze Age.

however,implicitly suggests stronger continuity with what followed,while the term Proto Urban correlatesPalXvestine cross-culturallywith the Protoliterate and Predynasticperiods in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Whateverthe terminologicalpreference, the real issue is the growth of urbanism.Wasurbanism in the Early Drowerand Bott6ro 1971)and in BronzeII and IIIperiods a local develfrom and texts Ebla Pardee Examples of pottery from the EB IA period (Vigan6 Above: red burnished pottery of Kenyon's PUA: is it more accurate to opment, or was the traditionbrought probably 1984), spouted vessels and high-looped handled cups the describe Bronze Early Age popu- in from Syro-Mesopotamia?On this were popular forms. Below: gray burnished lation as point, there is a growingtrend to view proto-Canaanite.LinguisEsdraelon ware of Kenyon's PUC; a series of knobs or molded decoration is characteristic. and urbanism as primarily an indigenous Canaanite tically culturally, Drawings courtesy of Ruth Amiran. civilization manifested itself in the development (Amiran 1970a, 1985, Middle and Late BronzeAges. 1986; Miroschedji 1971-his prethe of urbaine wealth Despite period;Schaub 1982).I will archaeological materials at hand, the problems illustrate below through a comparative analysis of material culture and that confrontedAlbright (namely, sites that the urban city-states did views on conflicting terminology evolve from indigenous urbanization and sociocultural change) still defy resolution today.Perhapsmost con- processes in EarlyBronze I. A related question concerns the founding to scholar and lay reader alike is the perplexingarrayof terms relation between the inhabitants of used by various scholars for the fore- EarlyBronzeI and the precedingLate part and end of the age. Both periods Chalcolithic peoples. Again, the curare transitional in nature and by def- rent trend shows a shift from a preinition lend themselves to various occupation with new population interpretations.The perennial debate groupsin favorof indigenous continuover foreign invasion versus indigeity (Callaway1972;Miroschedji 1971; Schaub 1982;Amiran 1985).It now nous cultural continuity highlights the difficulty in explaining change appearsthat most Palestinian tradiin the archaeologicalrecord.These tions of the EarlyBronzeI period and other issues that dominate the (burialpractices, burnished and painted pottery, lithics, temple and scholarly literature will be examined below. (Forother perspectives domestic architecture)are at home on the EarlyBronzeAge the readeris in the southern Levant;that is, they referredto the following surveys: are a development from the local cussion, most of it concerning the Late Chalcolithic. inherentproblemsin utilizing ethnic- Hennessy 1967;Lapp1970;Amiran related terms to describe a period, 1970a;Wright 1971;de Vaux 1971; Finally,at issue is the chronology of three different types of pottery Kempinski 1978; Kenyon 1979; Rast especially in the absence of written traditions that appearduring the records.We do not know the ethnic 1980; Ross 1980; and Ben-Tor 1982.) mix in Palestine at that time because transitional period:red burnished no epigraphicremains have yet been I Bronze Early (EBIA or PUA), redpainted (EBIBor found.Wedo know that the Amorites to 3100 PUB), and gray burnished Esdraelon (3400 B.C.) !

i

F

or westerners (MARTU/Amurru,

that is, west from the point of view of Mesopotamia)comprised an important ethnic element in Syriaand, in light of close cultural and religious correspondences,probablyin Palestine as well (Liverani1973).Although several referencesto Canaanites exist in Egyptiantexts dating to the Old Kingdom (deVaux 1971;

24

Issues. Whether scholars utilize the Early Bronze IA-B-C of Wright (1958, 1971) and Lapp (1970) or Kenyon's term Proto Urban'A-B-C (abbreviated as PU; see 1960, 1979), both sides agree that the period was proto-urban in the sense that it preceded the urban city-states that appeared at the transition from Early Bronze I to II. The terminology of Early Bronze I,

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

ware (EBIA or PUC). Although de Vaux believed that PUA/PUC pottery belonged in the Late Chalcolithic period, most scholars follow Wright and Kenyon in situating these wares after this period. At numerous sites the PUA/PUC wares are clearly contemporaneous and are earlier than the painted PUB pottery tradition. Schaub (1982) has shown that there

is a general agreement that the painted pottery tradition (EBIB/PUB) played a critical role in the origin of urbanculture in the following phase. Until recently,scholarsgenerally agreedthat the standardrepertoire of red-slippedand burnished pottery forms of EarlyBronzeIC (Kenyon's EBI) was the hallmark of the Early Bronze Age and that fortifications were introduced at that time (Lapp 1970).It is graduallybecoming clear, however,that EBIC does not exist as a separatephase, since it cannot easily be separatedfrom EBII traditions (Schaub 1982;Dever 1982;Esse 1984).In light of this new trend, virtually all the late EBI fortified sites must now be datedto the EBIIperiod. Archaeological record.The Early Bronze IA period is known best from numerous excavatedcemeteries, although some settlement occupation is attested. Burial traditions during this phase, however,point to a significant pastoral-nomadicelement whose population becomes less visible as sedentarization progresses. Disarticulated (secondary)burials in large, natural caves or chamber tombs west of the Jordan(but in shaft tombs in Transjordan-Bab edh-Dhracand probablyJerichotoo) characterizethe group.Generally the skulls were lined up next to a central bone pile. This reverence towardthe skull dates back to the Neolithic period when throughout the Near East a type of ancestor veneration characterizedburial customs. Associated pottery vessels, probably filled with food and drink, may also point to a belief in an afterlife. Although burial traditions changed later with permanent set-

tlement in EBII, it is important to remember that the shaft-tomb tradition continued throughout the Early Bronze Age in Transjordan. Whether or not this tradition signifies the perpetuation of the customs of a fringe group, the tradition climaxed in the Early Bronze IV period and is then found throughout PalestineTransjordan. Concurrently, pastoral-

At sites such as Tell elFarcahNorth and BAibedhDh4ic, the open, unwalled villages of EB IB continued without interruption into EB II, at which time fortifications were erected and general expansion ensued.

Top:The well-laid-out blocks of rectangular houses within fortifications at the EBII site of Tellel-FarcahNorth make it clear that town planning was practiced. FromKempinski 1978. Bottom:A female figurinefound at BLab edh-Dhricin a tomb (F2) dating to the EB IA period. Withits birdlikeface, piercedearflaps, upraisedarms, and stomach projection,it typifies a genre of mother goddess or fertility figurine found in the Near East. It is about 15 centimeters tall. Photographcourtesy of WalterE. Rast. /

ism and nonurbansettlement peaked. Oscillations along the sedentarypastoralor urban-nonurbancontinuum were endemic to the Near East and thus played a role in culture change in nearly all periods. A look at a few sites will demonstrate the indigenous development from EarlyBronzeIB (not EBIC)into EarlyBronzeII. Schaub (1982)has synthesized much of the material from the sites with greatest horizontal exposure and has shown that at Babedh-Dhrdc,Ai, Tell el-Farcah North, and Arad there were open, unwalled villages that continued without interruption into the next phase, at which time fortifications were erected and general expansion ensued. Even the classic, bench-lined broadroomhouse of EarlyBronzeII and III,which was interconnected with otherhouses andgroupedaround a courtyard,has its antecedents in EarlyBronzeI (in fact in the Late Chalcolithic), although it had not yet been standardized.Schaubhas also shown continuity in pottery forms, despite different decorative techniques of burnish, paint, or slip. And he noted stratigraphicand cultural continuity in burial traditions -from shaft tombs, to round, mudbrick houses with stone-lined entryways, to the classic charnel-house tombs of Early Bronze II and III at BAbedh-Dhric. Although we lack adequate published data, settlement patterns in Early Bronze I suggest some economic/political interdependence between large and small sites - that is, at least a two-tiered ranking system. A recent study even reveals some vertical integration among large (10 to 20 acres), medium (2.5 to 10 acres),

FORTIFICATIONS

N/

FORTIFICATIOS

.

II

$-_

.

.

:8::: i[i::::

and small (under2.5 acres) sites (Joffe1985).The numerous small sites dating to EarlyBronze I, such as Malhata (2 acres)in the vicinity of Arad (22 acres), suggest a developing hierarchicalorganization(Amiran 1985).A similar relationship probably existed between Bab edh-Dhrac and the smaller sites of es-Safi and

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

25

00'

Feifeh in the southern Ghor (Rast and Schaub 1974).More thorough analysis of settlement patterns would probablyuncover such relationships near most of the big sites like Tell el-FarcahNorth, Ai, Tell Gath, Megiddo,Jericho,Beth-yerah, Dothan, Tell Aphek, and Beth-shean. In addition to the picture of unwalled villages, we have evidence of so-called temple-towns or centers that in terms.of community organization immediately precede the citystate stage (see Redman 1978).A "twinned"temple at Megiddo(stratum 19)was separatedfrom a residential areaby a walled courtyard.Twolarge broadroomscontained an altar on the long side opposite the door. Human and animal cultic drawings, incised on stones, were found on a platform. As has been noted (Kempinski 1978),the size and general plan suggest that Megiddo served as a central shrine for the area.Differentiation of public and residential areas attests a growing social stratification. Tell Gath (TelErani)likewise has revealedurban development in stratum 8, where a largebuilding (function unknown) with substantial stone walls exhibits the continuous development of a public areathrough several phases (Kempinski 1978). Although the stratification of the site is difficult, it appearsthat within the EarlyBronzeI period a defensive wall surroundeda large settlement that included a distinct public area.The site of Jawain northeastern Jordan,where a largefortified site with a sophisticated hydraulictechnology in evidence has recently been excavated,should also be noted (Helms 1981). Jawa appears to date to the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I period, although we must await final publication of the pottery and associated architecture for confirmation. As regionalization receded in Early Bronze I, site distribution reflects the choice of more defensible areas close to water sources that promoted agricultural development (JordanValley Jezreel Valley, Galilee,

26

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

and Shephelah).This shift to the more highly cultivable areas can be correlatedwith the development of horticulture, especially the grape, date, and olive (Stager1985).The agriculturalpractices established at this time (cerealcultivation, horticulture, goat- and sheepherding) representthe beginning of a Mediterranean,mixed economy that remained characteristic of Palestine throughout this and succeeding eras. The most striking development in EarlyBronze I was the dramatic increase in commerce and the beginning of what became an intricate web of relations with Egyptthat would last through three millennia. Throughout its history Palestine was a country whose stability waxed and waned in reaction to the political situation of that giant at its southern border.Although trade with Egyptis evidenced in the Late Chalcolithic period, the floruit for these interrelationships was the EarlyBronze I and II periods. This topic will be discussed as a unit below, but it is important to note here that strong cultural influences from the north are also apparentat this time (Amiran 1970a;Hennessy 1967).Pottery,artifacts,seals, the broadroomhouse, religious architecture (andthus traditions) demonstrate that culturally, and probably ethnically, Palestine belonged within the cultural sphere of greater Syro-Mesopotamia. Thus, the general archaeological picture in EarlyBronze I appearsto indicate a sociopolitical patterning similar to that of the preceding Late Chalcolithic period, but with important distinctions. Levy's (1986) analysis shows that the inhabitants at that time, although still strikingly regionalized, had already reached a certain level of cultural complexity in terms of production, craft specialization (particularly metallurgy), and intra- and interregional commercial relationships. He has argued effectively that these developments and, especially, a two-tiered site settle-

SINAI S IT

Red

Sea

ment pattern imply a rankedsocial orderingthat we may term a chiefdom (see Service 1962).This model describes a movement from egalitarianism (tribalsociety) to a pre-state rankedsociety where managerial authority based on kinship rested in the hands of a leader who ruled from a particularcenter. The chiefdom model generally fits the archaeologicalrecordof Early Bronze I, although a distinction may be made in the degree of intensification and stabilization of a Palestinian society whose economy was founded more on agricultureand trade.The underlying process- urbanizationis apparentin the following areas: development towarda three-tiered (orstate)hierarchyof sites; expansion of agricultureand thus food surplus; growth in intra- and interregional trade;less regionalization in site settlement and craft specializations (ceramics,metals); and indications of developing social stratification in the differentiation of public and residential areas.The general picture in EarlyBronzeI is one of growingsociopolitical complexity, as Palestine's economy was linkedwith neighboring regions in an interregionaltrade network. In summary,the data suggest that in EarlyBronze I, urbanization processes - anticipated in the Late Chalcolithic period- gainedmomentum and steadily evolved into the urban city-state institutions at the transition from EarlyBronzeI to II.

IA

When a society reaches a certain level of growth in trade, technology, population, and complexity, the development of an infrastructure(the state) to support its administration tends to occur (Trigger1972).A correlativeof this development (thoughnot evidenced in Palestine) is usually an institutionalized hierarchywith centralized secular or religious leadership (aprince or priest). Therefore,one need not, as in the past, explain the development of urbanization processes or the construction of urban fortifications by the arrivalof new peoples. With trade routes to guard,inevitable competiton among major centers, the ever-presentthreat of pastoralnomadic groups on the borders,and political stability to maintain, defensive measures were necessary. EarlyBronze II (circa 3100 to 2700 B.C.) The city-state. The fully emerged city-state system is in evidence by shortly after 3100 B.c. About half the

population was distributed throughout the hill countryof Galilee, Samaria, and Judea-the areas of highest agriculturalreturn,particularlyolive oil and wine production. Analyses of settlement data (Joffe1985;Broshi and Gophna 1984) indicate a clear three-tieredranking system in the distribution of site sizes, implying a more centralized organizationalnetwork. Sites generally rangefrom large (20 acres or more) and medium (10to 20 acres) cities and towns to small (2.5 to 10 acres)and very small (less than 2.5 acres)villages and hamlets. Size alone suggests that an

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

27

g: :: !?i~~ ?0*41

--i:-

The large number of small villages during EB II indicates that there was still a significant social component of sedentary/pastoral peoples in the rural areas whose nonurban traditions ran counter to those of the urbanites.

i:s: :::::

:i :-:

r: :

:P: \1: i-I i,

This fenestratedincense stand, dating to EB III, was found at Ai. Fromvolume 1 of the Encyclopediaof ArchaeologicalExcavations in the Holy Land(EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1977).

i ii

1--_-__ : i:-:::

i:

-iiiii?is:_ :,:iil_.iiii~iiii :-'~:_iw~-.::::::-:a:: :'_ii-:::~ii-::i:,--: _::i iai i::::=~:;i-i:-~mi-~iii:-ipi-i-:::-~::' -b:::::::_:i-:/:::::/:~: s i

:: ii

. i:-

intermediate administrative organization operatedbetween the large ruralagriculturalproducersand the urban redistribution centers. It is significant that small villages, especially hamlets (less than 2.5 acres),are proportionatelythe most numerous. This is an important statistic because it underscores that there was still a significant social component of sedentary/pastoral peoples in the ruralareas whose nonurban, more kinship-basedtraditions ran counter to those of the urbanites. In times of centralized political authority,these groups could be controlled by the urban principalities. At other times these loosely confederatedtribal groups were relatively autonomous, as is evident in the EarlyBronzeIVperiod. Although elements of city planning can be discerned at numerous sites- Bab edh-Dhrac, Jericho,

~ii:i-i?~i-i---

i:i ?i'ipi'::~-:::::~:: --'Xiiiiiii 'a:: ii``-l-,:.:-~:i--i-ii:~ -ii-_-i% iii~iiiiiiisii i:i?:iiri:i:i-l:~,~,~~:~: ii~?i-il~-. ii-,ii~iili

-:i?i:l:i i--i:::Z ::~i::: :~i_::i~i: iii;:ii~iii:i-si i-i:i~i-iii i:. ili~i~?i~l ::::,: :::~i :i.B:: --::, ?-ai iiiiii-i~ : i~iiiiiii il:ii-i-ri-~ iiiiiDii i-iii~i:ii-ii~ii:i -id:i?-i-ii-iiliii:-ir Li-i:i::ii~~:i?-iDi:~i:ii-l B::::::1 ~i-i -i-i ii* :B:;.:_.::,::: -, ,---~ -iiii~ i:iiji~i :: :i::::: :i:: :-:i_:-::: :"::: ::~iii:i :::L --_---~::--=:: :-._Fi: ~::-:: : :::. i _, ci:':'?_iii~i:i:ii-:-i ~:iiiii~i I~i~i-iI*i:: ii ::~: ,::::

Zoomorphicalabaster vessel found in the sanctuary at Ai. Reconstructed,it is in the shape of a waterskin. The identity-of the animal depicted is uncertain,although it has been suggested that it is a hippopotamus. Note the knotted band moldings on the neck and legs. A complete "hoof"is found on the extant right leg. PhotographfromAmiran 1970b.Drawing from Callaway 1978.

28

Dothan, Beth-yerah,Beth-shean, Megiddo,Taanach,Aphek-I will concentrate on those sites with the greatest horizontal exposure:Ai, Arad,and Tell el-FarcahNorth.

such as storagejars,querns,andgrinding stones. Followinga violent destruction, phase 4 saw the rebuilding of the acropolis structure (clearlya temple in this phase) and especially the strengthening of the fortifications. Whether caused by earthquake activity or attack by enemies, destruction layers,as at Ai, characterize the cities of the EarlyBronze II and IIIperiods.In fact, the fortifications at Jerichounderwent seventeen rebuilds. Arad.Our best picture of city planning comes from the northern Negeb site of Tell Arad (strata2 and 3). Fourteenseasons (Amiranand others 1978;Amiran 1980)have revealed a wide horizontal exposureof the 22-acresite, which is surrounded by a 2.4-meter-widewall fortified at intervals by semicircular exterior towers. Social stratification is witnessed clearly by a series of monumental buildings (sacredprecinct and "palace")at the center of the mound (althoughnot on an acropolis) as well as the differentiation of domestic houses in several areasjust within the fortifications. Evincing continuity with earlier cultic practices, the sacredprecinct includes a "twinned" temple, alongwith a bamah (sacrificialaltar)and favissa (a repository for discardedcultic objects) in its courtyard.Other largepublic buildings near a reservoirpoint to municipal control of the water administration. Whether a religious or civil authority was in control is unknown, but based on the preeminent position of the sacredprecinct at Arad (andother sites), it would seem

Ai. Situated in biblical Ephraim, the 28-acre site of Ai (Callaway 1972, that, as in Mesopotamia, a religious 1980) already epitomizes in phase 3 the classic urban center of Palestine. elite exercised considerable control. The layout of strata 2 and 3 also Occupying the acropolis is a large shows planning in its system of streets broadroom building that appears to and blocks of houses. Major streets be a temple. Surrounding the city is a 4-meter-wide wall cut by a series of parallel the outer perimeter wall, and 1-meter-wide openings (gates), which transverse streets radiate like the were defended by nearby huge towers spokes of a wheel from the center city or agora. The courtyard house, (elliptical and round). Within the still found in the Middle East today, fortifications appear typical broadis exemplified by a series of interroom houses that include hearths, connected, bench-lined broadroom ovens, and domestic appurtenances

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

ii~-~r

--:-:, "

a

~B?~~-I-_ ? :--::

::-:::-

i

---

houses arrangedarounda courtyard where domestic work took place. Largercompounds possibly indicate differences in wealth, although this may simply reflect the extended family that appearsto have been the basic domestic unit. Paleobotanical remains indicate a typical Mediterranean,mixed economy. Barleywas the dominant plant, but einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat were also cultivated. Legumes,lentils, peas, linseed, olive stones, and vine pips, as well as sheep, goat, and cattle bones were also recovered. Tell el-FarcahNorth. Six phases at Tell el-Farcahprovideanother glimpse of urban planning in Early BronzeII (deVaux 1971).In the earliest phase, one of the best-preserved gates in Palestine was discovered. Two chambered,brick towers about 10 meters long (still preservedto approximately4 meters in height) flank a wide passagewaythrough the city-wall. The town plan is already clear in this phase. Intersecting, pavedstreets divide blocks of interconnected, rectangularhouses, some with benches and rows of bases to support roof pillars. Two pottery workshops and a two-story kiln were found, attesting to the beginning of the mass production of pottery throughout Palestine at this time. Excavationuncovereda temple with an open hall and sanctuary,although it apparentlywas located in the midst of a residential block. At this site the defenses were also strengthened throughout EarlyBronzeII, including the addition of a glacis (or earthen embankment). These archaeological data generally equate with political authority probably centralized at the city-state

level. But it is doubtful whether, as in Mesopotamia, any of the independent city-states ever acquired hegemony over other major centers, although the series of destructions at some sites may reflect internecine competition. The data also point to an economy based on intensive agriculture and an international network

:~::: :; 'R , .:.?I~i':~:~,;?~:::~::~i_ ~?l:i:i~~~ '------'" - :-i

??-;4

cri

i

::::::

.

TellAradgives us our best pictureof city planning in the EarlyBronze.The citywall, towers, and private dwellings excavatedin the southern section can be seen in an aerial of the site. Courtesy of PictorialArchive.An isometric reconstructionof the fortified city from EBII shows the separationof public areas, in the center,from residential areas, along the wall. Radial streets connect the two areas, and the site is encircled by a wall fortified with bastions. Drawing by Lane Ritmeyeris used courtesy of the Israel Museum. The ceramic house model, found at Arad, reveals the typical rectangularor broadroomhouse of the third millennium

,.

/

< -

.....

R.C.E.with the door on the long side. Courtesy

of the IsraelMuseum and David Harris.

of trade and a redistribution system (discussed below). Differentiated urban sectors presupposea complex social stratification elevated beyond kinship ties, and the centrally located temples suggest a cultic uniformity indicative of a priestly elite. Most apparent,though, the striking uniformity of the material culture and city-state design throughout Palestine is a sign of an integratedsociety. In summary,during Early BronzeII there existed cities, towns, and villages with a fully integrated society among which there were complex interrelationships and interdependencies.

ForeignRelations with Egyptin EarlyBronze I and II The nature of foreign relations with Egypt (that is, whether the archaeologicaldata indicate trade or political domination-Yadin 1955; Yeivin 1960)has been a debatedissue for some time. This topic was recently the subject of an article in BA (Wright1985),where an excellent review of the problem and of the con-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

29

troversialmaterials is contained. As Wright(1985),Weinstein (1984b), Ben-Tor(1982;1986),Amiran (1974), Beit-Arieh(1984),and Ward(1969) have all argued,there is no compelling reason to infer that Palestine was at this time under Egyptianpolitical domination. And the intensification of interregionaltradehelps to explain the steady evolution toward those state institutions that are needed to carryout trade effectively. I have alreadynoted that as early as the Late Chalcolithic period, numerous contacts between the two regionsreflect a growingrelationship. Egyptianmaterials in Palestine include slate cosmetic palettes, flint knives, gold and other semiprecious beads, maceheads, stone bowls (including alabaster),seals, and pottery. In Egyptthe presence of potteryespecially ledge-handledjarsand types of jugsknown as AbydosWaretestifies to the steady importation of agriculturalproducts,olive oil, and wine (see Ben-Tor1982 and 1986 for specifics and references). At southern coastal sites such as Tell Gath and cEn Besor,where Egyptianpottery is said to predominate in the ceramic assemblages (Yeivin1960;Gophna 1976),it is clear that Egyptianswere living in the country.In the EarlyBronzeI cemetery at Azor, located up the coast, skeletal remains identified as African have been found (Ben-Tor 1975).The combined evidence, especially the sixty-fourEgyptianseal impressions found at cEnBesor (Gophna1976;Schulman 1976, 1980), suggests that Egyptestablished trading communities to facilitate the export and import of trade goods. The discovery at Arad and Tell Gath of sherds bearing the incised serekh (royal insignia) of Narmer, the traditional first king of the First Dynasty, provides a means to synchronize Palestinian and Egyptian material culture and chronologies at about or just before 3100 B.c. The discovery of 110 sites along the northern Sinai coast (Oren 1973a)

30

Petrographicanalyses of pottery have shown a direct link between Aradand severalnearby sites in EB II, indicatingthat Aradhad control over the mining and distributionof copper in the region.

Tell Gath and cEn Besor is uncertain. The above sketch serves to underscorethe effect of intraregional and interregionaltrade in the development of urbanism in Palestine, and gives us a glimpse of the high level of specialization and complexity that characterizedthe urban centers. Although we do not have texts to strongly supports the view that interregionaltradeflowed between the describe the complex social context two countries along the most impor- the archaeologicalrecordmanifests, we do know that trade is a highly tant caravan route - the Via Maris of the known from specialized activity. A high orderof Egyp(Way Sea), division of labor and a centralized tian sources as the Wayof Horus. The main roadfollowed the coast authority is requiredto procureraw before turning inland towardthe materials, manufacturegoods, and oversee transport,storage,financial EsdraelonValleyand points north, and legal services, distribution, and as far as Syria.Although Egyptian numerous administratively related finds are rarerin the north, objects at Azor, Gezer, and Megiddodemon- activities. strate that trade continued up the Via Maris.The agriculturalproduce EarlyBronze III 2700 to 2350/2300 B.C.) from the more highly cultivable (circa The zenith of urbanism. At the belands in the north probablypassed ginning of the EarlyBronzeIIIperiod, through the entrep6ts of the south the urbanizationprocess revitalized to to prior shipment Egypt. Aradappearsto be the regional itself. The number and size of the urban centers in this period show center of her own tradenetwork. that urbanism in Palestine had About forty related sites dating to reached its zenith. These sites feain discovered Bronze II were Early ture the most massive fortifications the copper-miningarea of southern Sinai (Amiran,Beit-Arieh,and Glass yet seen in this age. Lackingtexts to 1973).Nebi Salah and Sheikh Muhe- inform us of the basis for this growth, sein, among six excavatedsites (Beit- we are at a loss to explain the imArieh 1981),were relatively small pressive city-states. Similarly,the causes for the collapse of all these of and generally comprised a series prosperousurban centers by the end subrectangularhouses interconnected probablyas a defensive mea- of EarlyBronzeIIIremain somewhat sure. Petrographicanalyses of pottery enigmatic. The new prosperitycoincided have provena direct link between Aradand these colonies, indicating with significant regional shifts in settlement patterns. Numerous sites that Arad had control over the mining and distribution of copper. From were abandonedat the end of Early the copper implements (axes, chisels, BronzeII and not reoccupied:Tell el-

awls) and clay crucibles found at Arad, the site appears to have been a manufacturing center as well. Clumps of bitumen (an important adhesive) found in several rooms may indicate another raw material the city exported. Presumably these products were traded within the region and also to Egypt, although whether directly or indirectly through the intermediary Egyptian entrep6ts like

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

Farcah North, sites in the Golan and Sharon Plain, Tell Gath, cEn Besor, Arad and its satellite sites, and the northern Sinai coastal sites. Concurrently, the north was eclipsed as the center shifted to south-central Palestine, where a cluster of urban centers dominated the landscape: Tell el-Hesi, Lahav, Tell Yarmut, Lachish, Jericho, Ai, Aphek, and B~b edh-Dhric. New sites were founded

in the south in EarlyBronze III:Tell Beit Mirsim, Bethel, Beth-shemesh, and Numeira. On the basis of the pottery, the south-central sites appear to have survived longer than those of the north (Deverand Richard 1977). This period of urban growth in Palestine coincided with flourishing urban centers in Syria.Increased tradewith prosperingEBIIIcities like Ugarit, Byblos,Hama, andEblawhich at that time was rising to the zenith it would reach in EarlyBronze IV- is indicated. Northern elements become more apparent:temple and palace architecture;numerous Syrianstyle cylinder and stamp seals (BenTor 1978);carvedivory bulls' heads from Jericho,Beth-yerah,Ai, and Bdb edh-Dhrac;as well as a new ceramic tradition (the KhirbetKerakware). And, as I noted earlier,there is generally a commonality in ceramics and metals (Hennessy 1967),which demonstrates close relations and sharedtraditions with the greater Syro-Mesopotamiancultural sphere. Similarly,the EarlyBronzeIII period in Palestine generally equates with the Old Kingdomperiod in Egypt,the brilliant flowering of the PyramidAge. With the establishment of a powerful centralized government at the beginning of the Third Dynasty, Egyptextended its interests beyond its northern borders (see Drower and Bottero 1971 for details).This expansion is reflectedin the WadiMagharain central Sinai, where stelae depicting the pharaoh Asiatic"have been found. "smiting&the At the beginning of EarlyBronzeIII, Egyptassumed control of the tur-

the abandonment of Arad'scolonies, the disruption of the trade network, and the collapse of Arad. 0 5m Inscriptionaland artifactualdata also illuminate Egypt'sincreased relations with Syria,as it established UnitA at Nebi Salah,oneof thesatellitesof a tradingcolony in Byblos with its Arad duringEB II. Photographand drawing

quoise and copper mines in central Sinai, in all probability a factor in

increased intraregional trade combined to revitalize the economy and

from Beit-Arieh1981.

Egypt had abandoned or downgraded its overland trade route along the north coast of Sinai by the end of EB II, and its trade with Palestine during EB III was minimal. own temple to Hathor. Egypthad apparently ceased to use, or had downgraded,the overlandroute in favorof maritime trade, a policy shift that led to the abandonmentof the string of caravansites along the north coast of Sinai by the end of EarlyBronzeII (Oren 1973a).Given the paucity of Egyptianmaterials in Palestine (and vice versa),it appearsthat tradebetween the two was minimal during EarlyBronze III. That such a blow to the economy of Palestine did not result in its total collapse is a measure of a highly specialized urban system that is supported by a diverse economy. Apparently the city-states were not solely dependent on tradewith Egyptto support the system. Increasedtrade and influences from Syria at this time (Hennessy 1967;Rast 1980), migration of peoples from abandoned sites and ruralareas,and probably

The ivory bull head found at Beth-yerah.This luxury product, which measures 4.4 by 3.4 centimeters and which dates to EBIII,may have functioned as a ceremonial or cultic object. Courtesyof the Israel Museum and David Harris.

precipitate renewedurbangrowth. The sites. A wide exposure at Megiddo on the summit of the mound reveals a view of what must have been a flourishing city-state (Kempinski 1978;Kenyon 1979).In stratum 16 there appearsa new style in temple design, with parallels in northern regions. This so-called megaron temple consists of a broadroom house to which a pillared porch was appended.But, as in earlier periods, the altar is positioned in the broad-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

31

4le

'r

I 1?fA.

Outdoor altar ("high place") at Megiddo from EB III. Made o7t stone, it was used for animal sacrifices. From Kenyon 1979. ,inhewn

room on the long side opposite the doorway.In the courtyardbehind the temple a huge circular stone altar with a staircasewas also uncovered. This outdoor high place constructed of unhewn stone was used for the sacrifice of animals. In form and tradition this sacredprecinct foreshadowsCanaaniteand later Israelite cultic practices. A residential area, perhapsfor priests, separatesthe temple area from the lower terrace, where excavationuncoveredthe largestpalace yet found. It is in the typical northern style, consisting of multiple rectangularrooms, corridors, and interior courtyards.In stratum 15 the sacredprecinct comprises three megaron temples, which now appearclearly to have been founded in EarlyBronzeIII(Kempinski 1978)ratherthan EarlyBronze IV (Kenyon1958). An Egyptian-stylegranary,where vast agriculturalsurplus was stored, was found at the huge (50-acre)site of Beth-yerah(calledKhirbetKerak today-Maisler, Stekelis, and AviYonah 1952).The building measures 30 by 40 meters and includes 9 round silos built aroundan inner court. A new Anatolian-style lustrous pottery, named KhirbetKerakware, was first identified at the site. Forsome time it was thought that this new pottery representedinvaders;however,today it is generally believed that the Khirbet Kerakpeople were a groupof migrants who settled in the country and were graduallyassimilated to the native population (Hennessy 1967; for an opposing view, see Amiran 1986).Whether designating a new

32

Stratum 16 (EB III) at Megiddo: the sacred precinct, with megaron temple (4040), altar (4017), and possible priest]% residence (4114), is separated from the large northern-style multiroomed palace (3177). From Kempinski 1978.

group of people or simply a tradeware, which was thereafterproduced locally at Beth-yerahand exchanged at nearbysites, this pottery tradition demonstrates cultural contact with northern areas.The repertoireof vessels is unique, not only in form but in firing technique, which produced a partly black and partly red surface.KhirbetKerakvessels are distinguished by a cyma profile, deeply grooveddecorations, and knobs and appendagesof various sorts.

Whether the product of invaders or immigrants, or simply a tradeware whose manufacture was adopted at Beth-yeral, Khirbet Kerak ware demonstrates cultural contact with northern areas in EB III.

ICP This bowl from Beth-yerab is a fine example of Khirbet Kerak ware. The inside and the bands around the rim and base are red, while the central section has been smoke-blackened. Dating to EB III, it is 24 centimeters high and 47 centimeters in diameter. Courtesy of the Israel Museum and David Harris.

EarlyBronzeII. Modifications to the rebuilt temple include various construction techniques known in Egypt at that time (Callaway1978). These include sawed column bases, hammer-dressedstones laid in the manner of mudbricks, and a sophisticated plastering technique used to decorate the walls as well as the floor and pillar bases. At the beginAlthough northern cultural inning of the EarlyBronzeIIIBthe fluences are more evident at this temple was convertedto secular use contacts with are still and a new sanctuary,consisting of a time, Egypt For apparent. instance, Egyptian courtyardand holy of holies, was combs and a cosmetic palette were established in a former residence found at Babedh-Dhr c (Rast 1980), along the citadel wall. A cache of and I have alreadymentioned the Egyptianalabastervessels - probably Egyptian-stylegranary(Currid1986), heirlooms from EarlyBronzeII although it may have derivedfrom (Amiran 1970b)that apparentlyhad Anatolia (Amiran 1965;Kempinski been removedfrom the broadroom Evidence for influEgyptian temple -was found mixed with Khir1978). ences are particularlyclear at Ai bet Kerakware and other northernwhere, as at Megiddoand Beth-yerah, style cult objects in this sanctuary. a new city plan emerged following Accordingto the excavator,the downthe destruction of the city during gradingof the Egyptianizedtemple

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

The public granary at Beth-verah during EB III. The partitioned circular storage areas or silos, each measuring 7 to 9 meters in diameter, were sunk slightly into a pavement. The entire complex covered an area 40 meters by 30 meters. From Kempinski 1978.

coincided with lessening Egyptian influence (Callaway1980).These organizationalchanges also coincided with the expansion of the citywall from 4 to 8 meters in phase 7. A similar picture of prosperity and massive fortifications in Early BronzeIIIcould be shown at Bethshean, Taanach,Tell el-Hesi, Tell Yarmut,Lahav,and Jericho.Massive fortifications, rebuttressedrepeatedly during the period, characterize these sites. Current excavations at Tell Yarmutare graduallyuncovering a monumental complex called the white building, which may be a temple or palace because it is clearly separatedfrom the residential areas. During EarlyBronze IIIthe fortifications reacheda width of 37 meters, including an inner wall, stone glacis, and outer wall (Miroschedji1984). In Transjordan-where numerous sites dating to the EarlyBronze Age are known from survey but few have been excavated- a similar picture of urbanism is emerging. Massive defenses of stone and mudbrick and residential areasdivided by streets characterizethe urban center of Bdbedh-Dhracand nearbyNumeira (Coogan 1984). Recently, on the high southwest side of Babedh-Dhrac,a sacredprecinct with a broadroom temple and a possible outdoor circular altar of the Megiddo type were discovered(Rastand Schaub 1980). Recent exposure of massive fortifications at Mughayyir dating to Early Bronze III (Mittmann 1986) and sur-

veys that show Tell el-Husn to be the largest EarlyBronzeAge site in Transjordanindicate that urbanism was as widespreadthere in EBIIIas it was to the west of the JordanRiver. Regional differencesbetween the two areas seem limited thus far to some pottery types and to burial traditions. Two-story,mudbrick, broadroom houses with steps down to the interior are used for burial at Bab edh-Dhrac.These charnel houses contain severallayersof burials. Elsewhere during EarlyBronzeIII,caves

Charnel houses or funerTar buildings are characteristic of the EB II and III periods at B(b edh-Dhra,. Above: Bones, skulls, and pot tery pushed against a brick wall of charnel house A 55. Below: A 55 as it appeared after a bout 60 burials and 120 pottery vessels had been excavated. Photographs courtesy of Walter E. Rast.

The tradition of multiple primary burial during EB III reflects the practices of a dense and highly nucleated population.

objects in bone, such as cups, combs, and a knife handle; and two small Mesopotamian votive beds as well as votive cups. Two copperhoardshave or chamber tombs were the rule. been discovered,one at Tell el-Hesi the of shared custom Both, however, (Bliss 1898)and the other at Kfar tradiburial. This Monash multiple primary (Hestrin and Tadmor1963). tion reflects the practices of a dense At the former site a crescentic axeand highly nucleated population, head was found along with a number where communal burials appearto of spearheadsand adz blades. The be the norm. KfarMonash hoardincludes types It is generally held that social paralleledin both Syria and Egypt most often indicated stratification is and has been variously dated to Early in BronzeII(Ben-Tor by differences wealth-that is, 1971)or III(Watkins status objects (often imports) found 1975).It comprised thirty-fivepieces, in certain graves.This does not apincluding a variety of tools and weapons along with fragments of silver pear to hold true generally for our region during the urbanEarlyBronze leavesandsmall copperplates,thought II and IIIperiods, where pottery and by some to be armorbreastplates. an occasional metal implement con- Babedh-Dhrachas produceda numstituted the common gravegoods. ber of metals in EarlyBronze IIIlevStatus vessels are, however,attested els- 9 daggers,1 javelin head, 2 cresat a few settlement sites and cemecentic axeheads,and 4 chisels (Rast teries (fordetails see Hennessy 1967). 1980).In general, however,metals as The sanctuary at Ai included nuwell as other status objects were not merous Egyptian vessels and objects: abundantin Palestine during the urban EarlyBronzeII and IIIperiods. alabaster bowls, jars, and figurines;

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

33

Urban collapse. By 2350/2300 B.c., the city-state system had collapsed and all the tells were abandoned; urbanism in Palestine no longer existed. Paradoxically,it was during the EarlyBronzeIIIperiod that the system seemed strongest;in fact all the data seem to suggest that political control was more firmly established at that time. The monumentality of the public/religious sectors shows an intensification of social stratificationand presumablygreater control by a political elite. The size and continued rebuttressingof defensive works could only have been organizedby a highly centralized political authority with control over a significant laborforce. The massive food-storagefacilities discovered in this period, the size of the major centers, and the evidence that many of these sites were occupied to their capacity imply an increase in urban population. Urban growth in Early BronzeIIIwas characterizedby highly nucleated urbancenters. As these centers absorbeda growingpopulation, smaller sites were depopulated or abandoned.Indeed, some data suggest a correspondingdecline in sedentaryvillage settlements (Fargo 1979).I have alreadynoted above that at the end of EarlyBronze II numerous sites were abandoned. A similar phenomenon has been noted in Mesopotamia,where settlement surveysshow that when urban centers became highly nucleated, the population of outlying areas receded (Adamsand Nissen 1972;Adams 1981).A concomitant of this appearsto be lessening polit-

the urbanprincipalities and the tribal groups. We are far from being able to explain definitively the collapse of the urban centers at the end of Early BronzeIII,although there are some clues in the archaeologicalrecord that allow us to speculate. Although urbanism reached its zenith during this time, the period was apparently not a tranquil one. The massiveness of the fortifications, their continued rebuttressing,and especially Egyptian inscriptional and pictorial evidence of raidingemphasize the high

level of militarism in.this period (Callaway1978;de Vaux 1971). Throughout the Old Kingdom (the Third through Sixth Dynasties), that is, EarlyBronzeIIIand the first part of EarlyBronzeIV,Egyptian raids against "theAsiatics"are attested (Drowerand Bottero 1971). The best evidence comes from the tombs of Dishasha and Saqqara, where fortified towns, some with towers, are shown under siege by

EarlyBronze IV 2350/2300 to 2000 B.C.) (circa Urban regression.Although current anthropologicalviews on culture change place greateremphasis on isolating internal mechanisms in orderto explain processes of change, earlier scholarship tended to view abruptchange in terms of "invasions of new peoples."In the face of such abruptsociocultural change at the end of EarlyBronze III,where urban-

ical control by urban centers and expanded autonomy for tribal societies of pastoral nomads. That such a situation existed in Early Bronze III in Palestine is suggested by the archaeological record in the subsequent Early Bronze IV period, when, in the absence of centralized authority, we see a shift towards greater sociopolitical autonomy. Increased autonomy for tribal elements may have resulted in hostilities between

Egyptian troops. The people who are besieged are depicted clearly as Asiatics. There are other references to expeditions against fortified towns in a "land of figs and vines," and to a defeat of "the Asiatics, Sand-dwellers," and the Shasu - a term later known to apply to the nomads of our region. Thus the textual references to continual raiding by Egypt may explain the monumental fortifications of the period, and it would also provide

ism was succeeded by nonurban settlement and nomadism, it is no surprise that invasion theories were appealed to as an explanation for these dramatic events. The most enduring has been the Amorite hypothesis. Although first espoused by Albright in the 1920s, it was Kathleen Kenyon who revitalized this theory in the 1960s as a result of her excavations at Jericho (see the most complete treatment in Kenyon,

34

The massive fortifications of EB III suggest constant hostilities, which disrupt trade, inhibit agriculture, and place undue demands on the labor force and army. These stresses may have led to the breakdown of the urban system by the end of the period.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

one rationale for immigration to the cities as the more sedentary-based ruralpeoples sought protection. Others presumablywould have opted for the more mobile life of pastoral nomadism. It is known that constant hostilities disrupt trade,depopulatethe areas aroundcities, inhibit agricultural productivity,and place undue demands on the laborforce and army. Such stresses, if they occurred, may have led to social unrest, political upheaval,and the final breakdown of the system by the end of EarlyBronzeIII.It should also be noted that a shift to drier conditions, for which there is some climatological evidence (includingtextual documentation for drought slightly later in Egypt)may have also playeda role in the process of deurbanization(Butzer 1970;Bell 1971;Horowitz 1974). The precise reasons may never be known. I must stress, however,that there is no evidence to posit, as has been done in the past, a nomadic invasion as explanation for the collapse of the urban city-state system (see Kenyon,Bottero,and Posener 1971).

EBMII

EBIV

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that Palestine was invaded in EB IV or that town and village life was eradicated. Bottero,and Posener 1971).There she discovered346 shaft tombs with varyingtraditions, which she presumed indicated several different incoming tribal groups.She connected these data with movements of Amorite pastoralnomads who are docu0C C mented in late-third-and earlysecond-millennium Mesopotamian texts and who eventually superseded the Sumero/Akkadiandynasts in the early second millennium B.C.In this view, then, the Amorites swept into D Palestine, destroyedthe urban cen0 ters, and precipitateda period of nomadism (EBIV)in the area.The archaeologicalrecordappearedto confirm this view, since previously Early These drawings illustrate the typological development and continuity between the pottery of BronzeIV had been attested prinEB III and EBIV:(A)inverted-rimbowls, (B)"teapots,"(C)four-spoutedlamps, and (D)ledgecipally only by large isolated cemehandled jars. teries and ephemeral settlements. In light of newer data and curencompass Palestine, except periph- shows a more regional cast (asin rent scholarly trends, there is no erally. Political upheavaltowardthe EarlyBronzeI), although there is a end of the Sixth Dynasty led to socio- great deal of overlap.In terms of pocompelling evidence to suggest that there was an invasion;that Amorite political disintegration, as Egypt litical organization,the highly intenomads from Syria overranthe entered its own Dark Age (the First gratedculture of EarlyBronzeII and country; or that town/village life was Intermediate Period,the Seventh III,which occurredcontemporanecompletely eradicated.Indeed, the through Eleventh Dynasties). The ously with urbanism, no longer growing evidence for cultural conexisted. A loosely integratedsociety presence of over 400 settlements in tinuity between EarlyBronzeIIIand the Negeb and Sinai in EarlyBronze comprising a largepastoralpopulaIV supports our contention that the IV testifies to an internally weakened tion, small agriculturalcommuniof the and collapse city-state system Egyptunable to protect its frontiers. ties, and a few regional centers the subsequent adaptationto nonThe lack of prosperityin Palestine (small towns) reflects a readaptation urban and pastoral subsistence strat- must be viewed against these larger to a level of political autonomy probinternational currents, particularlya ably best explained by the chiefdom egies were a result of gradualinternal processes (for an opposing view weakened Egypt. model (discussed above). In this periodPalestinewas indeed History of research.In the late 1960s see Amiran and Kochavi 1985). The end of Early Bronze III in a hinterlandwith less complex socio- and early 1970s great strides were Palestine coincided with the demade in researchon the EarlyBronze political systems and a less specialized subsistence economy, although IV period. Amiran brought order struction of numerous sites throughout Syria. Whereas the highly urban- some intra/interregionalcommercial into the corpus of EarlyBronze IV relations are attested. The uniforized culture to the north, closely (herMiddle BronzeI) pottery by subtied to widespread prosperity through- mity of Levantinemetal objects in dividing it into "threefamilies" out Mesopotamia, continued and Palestine, as well as the presence of (1960).Dever later elaboratedthe indeed flourished in Early Bronze IV a few Syrian imports, indicates the regional nature of this corpus by discontinuation of some trade in this (Ebla'sapogee), this new and dynamtinguishing five (1971)and later six ic cultural horizon in Syria did not period. The ceramic corpus,however, "families"(1980).Pragshowed that a

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

35

sedentary component existed in Transjordanat this time and that the ceramic repertoireexemplified both continuity from local traditions and a foreign element (1974).A new horizon of degeneratered-slippedand burnishedpottery at Babedh-Dhrac likewise showed continuity from the EarlyBronzeIIIand could be comparedwith ceramic types west of the Jordan(Schaub1973).Dever (1973) termed this pottery the "missing link"between EarlyBronzeIIIand the "classic"Middle BronzeI of Palestine and suggested renaming the resultant phases of the period (Early BronzeIVA,IVB,and IVC).Thus the case for the continuity of indigenous traditions during EarlyBronzeIV began to grow (Oren 1973b),along with a preferenceforthe EarlyBronze IVA-Cterminology and a call for the abandonment of the Amorite hypothesis and invasion theories in general (Richard1980;Dever 1980). Since there is no consensus yet on the properterminology for the period, the various terms previously adoptedand still found in the scholarly literature should be noted. They are:Early BronzeIV (Wright1937); Middle BronzeI (Albright 1932); Intermediate Early Bronze/Middle Bronze (Kenyon1951);Intermediate BronzeAge (Smith 1962;Lapp1966); Early BronzeIIIC/EarlyBronze IV/ Middle BronzeI (Albright1965);and Early BronzeIV/MiddleBronze I (Dever 1970).The most often used terms are Early Bronze IntermeIV, diate Early Bronze/MiddleBronze, and Middle BronzeI. The term Middle BronzeI is still used by those who believe that continuity in form exists with the following Middle Bronze Age pottery. Recent analyses have shown, however, that this alleged continuity is ephemeral at best (Gerstenblith 1980; Dever 1985a). In Syria also, at least at Ebla (Mazzoni 1985), the Middle Bronze Age assemblage represents a transformation "not to be linked with Early Bronze tradition." Unlike the Early Bronze III to IV transition, a com-

36

A sedentary component existed in Transjordanduring EB IV,and the ceramic repertoire exemplifies both continuity from local traditions and a foreign element. parison of EarlyBronzeIV/Middle BronzeAge materials reveals that the differences far outweigh the similarities. Most scholars who use Kenyon'sterm Intermediate Early Bronze/MiddleBronzetoday concede that significant continuity does exist with the EarlyBronzeIIIand that the period is not the "interlude" Kenyonenvisioned. (Fora recent defense of the term Intermediate BronzeAge, see Amiran and Kochavi, 1985.)Thus, the currenttrend is to describe Wright'soriginal Early BronzeIV (partiallyreassignedto EarlyBronzeIII;Dever and Richard 1977)and Albright'soriginal Middle BronzeI by the term Early BronzeIV (2350/ 2300-2000 B.C.),often divided into phases A, B, and C. Note that the term Early Bronze IV has now been adoptedfor Syria (Matthiae 1981;Dornemann 1979). Pastoralism.An important step forwardoccurredwhen a new anthropologicalmodel of pastoralnomadism, in contrast to Kenyon'sconception of nomadism, was suggestedby Dever (1973, 1977, 1980)as a means to understandthe socioeconomic context of transitory archaeological remains of EarlyBronzeIV.Pastoral nomadism is an important socioeconomic institution throughout antiquity, although excavation has not concentrated on small seasonal sites. Then, as today, pastoral nomadism was a very important institutionalized alternative in semiarid or steppe zones, where desert and cultivable lands converge. Pastoralists must be seen as necessarily coexistent with agricultural society with which they trade, labor, and sometimes war. There is an "economic interdependence" between the two because each has a need for the

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

other'sproducts (Spooner1973). Their mobility naturally brings them into contact with neighboring regions, suggesting one possible conduit for cultural exchange.Both modern ethnographicresearch(for example, the Rwalabedouin of southern Syria- Johnson 1969)and the documentation of relations between sedentists and nomads in the texts of Mesopotamia (Rowton 1980 and earlier referencescited there; Buccellati 1966;Luke 1965;Matthews 1978)suggestthat pastoralnomadism is a good explanatorymodel for a certain component of society during EarlyBronzeIV (particularlyin the Negeb and Sinai-Dever 1985b). The first complete plan of a seasonal village dating to EarlyBronze IV has been discoveredat BecerResisim, and we can now say much more about the socioeconomic organization of pastoralists. Some eighty curvilinear structures arrangedin clusters havebeen excavatedat this site in the western Negeb highlands (Dever 1985b).The size of these huts suggests that they were only used for sleeping quarters.The processing of foodstuffs and tending of animals took place in open areasbetween the buildings. There is no evidence for social stratification;ratherthe picture is one of an egalitarian,tribal society. These houses appearto be the seasonal habitations of transhumant pastoralistswho subsisted on goat- and sheepherding,some dry farming,and trade. Largecemeteries with similar pottery found some 80 miles away in the hills aroundHebron (JebelQacaqir)may suggest their migratoryroute. Surveyshave discovered some 400 nonurban settlements similar to Becer Resisim throughout the Negeb and Sinai. These data may illuminate several Egyptian texts of the First Intermediate period (for example, The Instruction for King Merikare and The Admonitions of Ipuwer) that relate the attempts of Egypt in the First Intermediate period to stem the tide of Asiatics into Egypt.

Pastoralists necessarily coexist with agricultural society, with which they trade, labor, and war. There is an "economic interdependence" because each has a need for the other's products. Sedentism. The discovery of sedentary sites in Transjordanhas over the past fifteen years or so revolutionized our thinking about EarlyBronzeIV society. Whereaspreviously it was thought that the areawas inhabited solely by nomads, it is now clear that permanent settlements existed and that urban traditions continued into the EarlyBronzeIV period.

It is now clear that permanent settlements and urban traditions existed in the Transjordanin EB IV.A similar level of sedentism may be discovered in western Palestine. Indeed, surface surveys indicate that small agricultural villages did exist.

r

~? j

-?~C -.

?.'r

'2 ,dI.

~Z MopIr

~

jr 6A

~

;d:

-

k1

?rs4;0 T;

'(;C

.~?'Add loot

iYIdL vo/Cti

Some eighty curvilinear structures dating to EB IV have been excavated at Becer Resisim. The inset shows one of these huts as it was reconstructed with beam, chalk-slab, and plaster roof (only one segment completed). Courtesy of Rudolph Cohen and William G. Dever.

Thus our picture of sedentism comes primarily from Transjordan, where excavations at Babedh-Dhrac (Schauband Rast 1984),Aroer (Olvarri 1969),Iktanu (Prag1974),Khirbet Iskander(Parr1960; Richard 1986),Ader (Cleveland1960),Tell abu en-cNiaj (StevenFalconer,personal communication), Tell Umm Hammad (Helms 1986),and current excavationsat Tellel-cUmeiri (Geraty With this view from Transjordan,it and others 1986)have revealedvariis probablethat a similar level of ous levels of permanent multiphased sedentism will be discoveredin settlement, from small agricultural western Palestine, and indeed survillages to small towns with strong face surveysindicate that small agri- urban traditions. Surveyhas uncovcultural villages do exist (Esse 1982; ered dozens of other settlement sites in Transjordanof the EarlyBronzeIV Zori 1962, 1977). At the present time, however, evidence of settleperiod;these sites will undoubtedly ment in western Palestine - aside fill out the picture alreadyemerging of a greaterlevel of social complexity from the seasonal sites in the Negeb and Sinai - has been excavated at than hitherto conjecturedfor this period. only a few of the major tells (for A detailed look at KhirbetIsexample, Hazor, Megiddo, Jericho, kander will suffice to demonstrate Beth-shean). The evidence for continuity in permanent settlement and the strong connections with the the diffusion of burial and ceramic EarlyBronze IIIthat we have mentioned above (Richardand Boraas traditions into Palestine (Dever 1984, in press; Richard 1986).Khir1985a) demonstrates that Transbet Iskanderis a 7.5-acresite surjordan played a pivotal role in Early roundedby a 2.5-meter-wideperimBronze IV, but for reasons as yet not eter wall with reinforcedcorners entirely clear.

that appearto be square towers.At the southeastern corner of the site a two-chambered,bench-lined gate has also come to light. These fortifications are the first and, thus far,the only such defenses known in the EarlyBronzeIV period. A wide exposure just within the northwestern fortifications has revealeda series of interconnected broadroomhouses (one with a bench) groupedarounda courtyard.Tabuns (cooking ovens), huge saddle querns,mortars,grinders, flint sickle blades, and storage areas all underscorethe agricultural base of the community. It appearsat this point that there are five major phases to this domestic complex. In one phase some fifty whole or restorable vessels (the largest corpus of intact domestic vessels found at an EBIV sedentary site) were recovered in a storeroom of pottery. Some vessels contained the remains of carbonized grain and one included the complete skeleton of a mouse! Two large cemeteries in the vicinity complete the picture of a well-defended, permanently established agricultural community. On a smaller scale, KhirbetIskandermirrorsthe town planning we have described at Early

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

37

'~rS~D~k'

~4`:

? %i'

~C i,~.? -.1-.I~

*cr?L~ i ~,~-?? ?r ~~t !2?; I

L~A'ufL`k~~ ~CI.LC~C?. 1~1 ..?~ `'1?r = t~."

s

~?r3t-~-.

'c`~32?i-? 1?.

:. ~c~ \L? .. "1~3j~L~ ..

; .. `i

1,?

BronzeAge sites such as Arad,Ai, Tell el-FarcahNorth. Additional ex..-e cavation is necessary to determine tr~ ?~~c~ 1Jii~Y: * '+1 whether there is a separationof -?-A.. 'z'?' '' r :8`. ? ~?r ----------.,,, ?I~lSr~~Y~ i:C?i` *. ~.g; domestic and public buildings, and .? 2'Y;L ~'~:if a sacredarea exists at the site. A chamber of an EBIV shaft tomb at Khirbet That some regional centers included Iskandercontaining the multiple disarticua sacred area is now confirmed by lated burial of at least three people, along with seven ceramic vessels. the recent discovery of a cultic structure at Babedh-Dhrac(Schauband Rast 1984).In light of this discovery, a reuse of the Megiddosacredprecinct (at least temple 4040) in this period, and likewise an EarlyBronze IVdate for the menhir-templeat Ader !I * now seem plausible. Har Yeruhamis also said to have a small sacredarea. Burial traditions and material culture. Other components of the Early BronzeIV culture reflect similar continuities with EarlyBronzeIII: Twvodomestic installations excavated at shaft-tomb,pottery,lithic, and metal Khirbet Iskander. Above: A tabun, or cooking oven. Below: A large saddle quern used for traditions. As I have noted, the shaftgrinding grain. tomb tradition (known in Transjordansince EarlyBronze I) is found throughout Palestine in EarlyBronze own-~ IV.The tomb generally consists of a round or square shaft, 1.0 to 2.5 meters in length, connected to one or more round or squarechambers of various dimensions with domed roofs. Following interment a blocking stone was set at the entrance and the shaft was filled in. Both primary (usually single) and multiple, disarticulated (secondary) burials are attested. The variety of tomb-types-cairns, built tombs, and dolmens are also known - and burial practices (Kenyon,Bottero,and Posener 1971)is a good indicator of a loosely integratedsociety of politically autonomous groupswhose customs reflect kinship-basedpatterns.

the case in EarlyBronzeIV as well. Syrian imported pottery (wheelmade, grayteapots and painted and incised cups), a beautiful silver cup from Ain es-SamiyabearingMesopotamian mythological scenes, andnew metals and innovations in ceramics all underscorecontinuing tradewith Syria,although on a relatively small

The metal industry displays both local and new Syrian types, and the pottery has a peculiar hybrid quality that is still a point of contention among scholars: Do these new elements represent the presence of new peoples or simply foreign influences? As we have noted in the Early Bronze I to III periods, traditions current in Syria very shortly thereafter were diffused into Palestine and such was

The basic red-slippedand burnished EarlyBronzeIIIrepertoireof platters, bowls, jugs, and jarsexists in EarlyBronze IV,although in degenerate form and showing decorative motifs, such as a rilled exterior, adoptedfrom a type of decoration in vogue in Syria at this time. The influence, probablyderivedfrom trade and cultural contact between the

ro~

?e i~i2"\ 'I c .?.Y

?it'''' 1;"

r,

.+

4;

?~.

C= ~b: ..

el..

The last standing menhir, or commemorative marker, at Khirbet Iskander. Although their specific purpose is not known, menhirs are generally considered cultic objects because they have been found associated with cemeteries and sanctuaries.

38

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

-urn

Intact vessels found in the storeroom at Khirbet Iskander.

scale.

C Yt

:

-*f

a

,<;~? ,,Ss'" wr

i~

T

Silvercup found in an EBIV shaft tomb at Ain es-Samiya. Clearlyan import, it is decorated with scenes employingMesopotamian mythological motifs. Photographand drawing courtesy of the Israel Museum.

O~JII

-j

shift to a new sociocultural phenomenon (see Salzman 1978).The most telling evidence for this new view on sociocultural change lies in the archaeological recordof EarlyBronze IV,where the actual transitions and continuities from EarlyBronzeIII two areas,is restricted to decoration, are manifest. In this view, then, a few new forms, and- in the later there is no need to posit foreign well-firedbuff pottery-technological advancescurrent in Syria (Dever migrations from Syria (Prag1985). Culture change between Early Richard Mazzoni 1973; 1980; 1985). IIIand IV has in the past Bronze new look to the The pottery merely been viewed as a bipolar shift from reflects concurrent ceramic changes sedentism to nomadism, whereas in in Syria;however,because in Palestine these ceramic innovations coinreality the shift was from urban to nonurbanand pastoraladaptivestratcided with sociocultural change, their uniqueness has in the past been egies -that is, from specialization in mode of production to a multioverly stressed. The most obvious new element resource, less specialized economy as a natural adaptationfollowing the among the metal types is their quandemise of the urban centers. Recent tity in comparison with earlier periresearchsuggests that specializationods. They are mostly found as tomb light of the growingevidence for per- despecialization is a more adequate offerings (Dever 1972),although manent sedentary sites. These sites perspective from which to view Early examples are known from domestic and their material culture illustrate Bronze IV adaptationin Palestinecontexts (BecerResisim). The quansociocultural continuity with Early Transjordan(Long1986; see Bates tity of metals and the evidence for local manufacture (ingots at Becer Bronze III,and thus support a model and Lees 1977). This new perspective on Early Resisim and elsewhere in the Negeb, of culture change, especially for and analyses evidencing true bronze Transjordan,which is less abrupt BronzeIV is totally in concert with than hitherto believed. Small towns newer anthropologicalconceptions metallurgy)point to a high level of craft specialization in this industry and villages, agriculture,and pastoof society, sociocultural change, and and to trade. The recent discovery of ralism are indigenous elements in the processes of sedentarization and settlement pottery from EarlyBronze EarlyBronzeIII.Sociocultural nomadization (see AdamsandNissen IV near the WadiFeinancopper 1972;Nissen 1980;Adams 1978, change at the EarlyBronzeIII/IV mines (Knauf1986)in southern horizon (in this case greaterpastoral- 1981;Salzman 1978, 1980a, 1980b). To understandchange, it is imporTransjordanindicates that the mines ism and village life as opposed to is underhave been this urban better worked tant to view society- a complex set may during settlement) in stood as a of period. change emphasis pro- of organizations,institutions, cusSociocultural change:a reevaluation. duction and organizationin response toms - as fluid rather than rigid. Our perspective on the EarlyBronze to irreversiblestresses on the urban Within this society, there is a range of life-styles and institutionalized alIV period has changed radically in system, ratherthan as an abrupt

Culture change in Palestine between EB III and IV was once viewed as a bipolar shift from sedentism to nomadism. In reality the shift was from urban to nonurban and pastoral adaptive strategies: from specialization in mode of production to a multiresource, less specialized economy. This was a natural adaptation following the demise of the urban centers.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

39

ternative strategies (forinstance, urbanism,villagelife, andpastoralism) upon which there is greateror lesser stress dependingon circumstances (Salzman 1980a).In EarlyBronzeIV there was an emphasis on nonurban (village and town) and pastoralsubsistence strategies in the absence of centralized political control. This fluidity in subsistence strategies (culturaladaptation)along the urbannonurbancontinuum providesthe mechanism for sociocultural change. Change becomes apparentin the archaeological recordwhen the aggregate of subsistence strategies shifts, as happenedin EarlyBronzeIV. Sedentarization/nomadization oscillations do, however,occur. They can be documented in the ethnographicpresent (Salzman 1980b)and in antiquity, as texts and surveysilluminate the movements of nomads into the towns and back to pastoralism, dependingon the political and economic climate (Rowton 1980 and earlier works; Buccellati 1966;Luke 1965;Matthews 1978;Adams and Nissen 1972;Adams 1981).Such oscillations must be viewed, however, as part of a largerurban-nonurban process that is cyclical throughout antiquity. Indeed, at the beginning of the Middle BronzeAge, as a result of flourishing Egyptianand Syrian cultures, there was a swing back to urbanism in Palestine. Conclusion This surveyhas attempted to illustrate the fundamental adaptability of the indigenous population in the rise and collapse of urbanism in the Early Bronze Age. The view that Early Bronze civilization represents one cultural continuum from Early Bronze I to IV is not new: G. Ernest Wright drew the same conclusion in 1937 almost solely on the basis of ceramic continuity. What I have attempted to do, in light of the wealth of data available today, is provide a theoretical framework within which to understand some of the processes underlying sociocultural continuity

40

and to illuminate change- growth and decline - as a necessary dynamic in cultural evolution. Note 'Recentevidencesuggeststhat3200

B.C., the traditionaldate of the beginning

of the EarlyBronzeAge/endof the Chalcolithicperiodshouldbe raisedto 3400 B.C. Seethe sectionin this paperentitled "Historyof Research." Acknowledgment I would like to thank William G. Dever for readingthe first draftof this article and suggesting valuable revisions. Bibliography Adams,R. M. 1978 Strategiesof Maximization,Stability, and Resilience in Mesopotamian Society,Settlement, and Agriculture. Proceedingsof the American Philosophical Society 122: 329-35.

1981 Heartland of Cities. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. Adams,R. M., and Nissen, H. 1972 The Uruk Countryside.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Albright,W.F 1-932 The Excavationof TellBeit Mirsim I: The Potteryof the First ThreeCampaigns. Series:Annual of the American Schools of OrientalResearch12. New Haven,CT:American Schools of Oriental Research. 1965 Some Remarkson the Archaeological Chronologyof Palestinebefore about 1500 B.C.Pp.47-60 in Chronologies in Old WorldArchaeology, edited by R. W Ehrich.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Amiran,R. 1960 The Potteryof the Middle BronzeI in Palestine.IsraelExplorationJournal 10:204-25. 1965 YanikTepe,Shengavitand the Khirbet KerakWare.Anatolian Studies 15: 165-67. 1970a The Beginningsof Urbanizationin Canaan.Pp. 83-100 in Near Eastern Archaeologyin the TWentiethCentury:Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, edited by J.A. Sanders. GardenCity, NY:Doubleday. 1970b The EgyptianAlabasterVesselsfrom cAi. Israel ExplorationJournal20: 170-79. 1974 An EgyptianJarFragmentwith the Name of Narmerfrom Arad.Israel ExplorationJournal24: 4-12. 1980 The EarlyCanaaniteCity of Arad:

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

The Results of FourteenSeasonsof Excavations.Qadmoniot 13:2-19 (Hebrew). 1985 The Transitionfromthe Chalcolithic to the EarlyBronzeAge. Pp. 108-12 in Biblical ArchaeologyToday, edited by JosephAviramand others. Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety, IsraelAcademyof Sciences and Humanities, and the American Schools of OrientalResearch. 1986 The Fallof the EarlyBronzeAge II City of Arad.Israel ExplorationJournal 36: 74-76. Amiran,R., Beit-Arieh,I., and Glass, J. 1973 The Interrelationshipbetween Arad and Sites in SouthernSinai in the EBAII. IsraelExplorationJournal23: 193-97. Amiran,R., and Kochavi,M. 1985 Canaanat the Close of the Third Millennium BCE-An Independent Culture or the Final Phase of the EarlyBronzeAge?Pp. 361-65 in EretzIsrael 18. Jerusalem:Israel ExplorationSociety (Hebrew). Amiran, R., and others 1978 EarlyArad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and EarlyBronzeAge City I: First-FifthSeasons of Excavations 1962-1966. Jerusalem:IsraelExploration Society. Bates,D. G., and Lees,S. H. 1977 The Role of Exchangein Productive Specialization.American Anthropologist 79: 824-41. Beit-Arieh,I. 1981 A Patternof Settlement in Southern Sinai and SouthernCanaanin the Third Millennium B.C.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research243: 31-55. 1984

New Evidence on the Relations

between Canaanand Egyptduring the ProtodynasticPeriod.Israel ExplorationJournal34: 21-23. Bell, B. 1971 The Dark Ages in Ancient History. American Journalof Archaeology 75: 1-26.

A. Ben-Tor, 1971 The Date of the KfarMonashHoard. IsraelExplorationJournal21:201-06. 1975 Twvo Burial Cavesof the Proto-Urban Periodat Azor, 1971;The First Season of Excavationsat Tel Yarmuth, 1970. Series:Monographsof the Institute of Archaeology,Qedem I. Jerusalem:Institute of Archaeology, the HebrewUniversity. 1978 CylinderSeals of ThirdMillennium Palestine. Series:SupplementSeries 22. Cambridge, MA: American

Schools of OrientalResearch. 1982 The Relations between Egyptand the Landof Canaanduringthe Third Millennium, B.C.Journalof Jewish

Studies 33: 3-18. 1986 The TradeRelations of Palestine in the EarlyBronzeAge. Journalof the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29: 1-27. Bliss, E J.

1898 A Mound of Many Cities, or Tellel Hesy Excavated,second revisededition. London:Palestine Exploration Fund. Broshi,M., and Gophna,R. 1984 The Settlements and Populationof Palestine During the EarlyBronze Age II-III.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research253:

1972

1973

1977

Middle BronzeI Period.Harvard Theological Review 64: 197-226. Middle BronzeAge I Cemeteries at Mirzbanehand cAin-Samiya.Israel ExplorationJournal22: 95-112. The EBIV-MBI Horizon in Transjordanand SouthernPalestine.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research210:37-63. Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.E.:The ArchaeologicalPicture. Pp. 70-120 in Israelite and Judean History,editedby J.H. HayesandJ.M. Miller. Philadelphia:Westminster. New Vistas on the EBIV ("MBI") Horizon in Syria-Palestine.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Esse, D. L.

1982 Beyond Subsistence:Beth Yerahand NorthernPalestine in the Early BronzeAge. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Chicago.

1984 A ChronologicalMirage:Reflections on EarlyBronzeIC in Palestine. Journalof Near EasternStudies 43: 317-30.

Fargo,V. 1979 Settlement in SouthernPalestine During EBIII. Ph.D. dissertation, 1980 University of Chicago. Geraty,L. T, and others 41-53. 1986 MadabaPlainsProject:A Preliminary Buccellati, G. Research 237: 35-64. Reportof the 1984 Season at Tell 1966 Amorites of the Ur IIIPeriod.Naples: el-cUmeiri andVicinity. Pp. 117-44 1982 Review of R. Amiran, and others, Instituto Orientale de Napoli. in Supplement24 to the Bulletin of EarlyArad: The Chalcolithic SettleButzer,K. W. the American Schools of Oriental ment and EarlyBronzeCity I: First1970 Physical Conditions in Eastern Research,edited by W.E. Rast. Fifth Seasons of Excavations 1962Europe,WesternAsia and Egypt Winona Lake,IN: Eisenbrauns. 1966. Israel ExplorationJournal32: beforethe Periodof Agriculturaland 170-75. Gerstenblith,P. Urban Settlement. Pp. 35-69 in 1980 A Reassessmentof the Beginningof 1985a Fromthe Endof the EarlyBronze CambridgeAncient History,third the Middle BronzeAge in Syriarevised edition, volume 1, part 1. Age to the Beginningof the Middle Palestine. Bulletin of the American Bronze.Pp. 113-35 in Biblical ArCambridge:CambridgeUniversity Schools of Oriental Research237: Press. chaeology Today,edited by J.Aviram 65-84. and others. Jerusalem:IsraelExploraCallaway,J.A. tion Society,IsraelAcademyof Sci1972 The EarlyBronzeAge Sanctuaryat Gophna,R. 1976 Excavationsat cEnBesor.cAtiqot ences and Humanities, and the cAi (et-Tell):No. 1. London:Quartich. American Schools of OrientalRe1978 New Perspectiveson EarlyBronzeIII (English Series) 11: 1-9. search. in Canaan.Pp.46-58 in Archaeology Helms, S. W 1981 Jawa:Lost City of the Black Desert. 1985b Village Planningat BecerResisim in the Levant:Essays for Kathleen Ithaca:Cornell University Press. and Socio-economic Structurein Kenyon,edited by P.R. Mooreyand Excavationsat Tell Um Hammad. Palestine. 1986 IV Bronze P.J.Parr.Warminster:Aris and PhilPp. Age Early 1984. Levant 18: 25-50. 18-28* in EretzIsrael 18. Jerusalem: lips. IsraelExplorationSociety. 1980 The EarlyBronzeAge Citadel and Hennessy, J. B. 1967 The ForeignRelations of Palestine A Report LowerCity at cAi (et-Tell): Dever,W.G., and Richard,S. 1977 A Reevaluationof Tell Beit Mirsim During the EarlyBronzeAge. Colt of the JointArchaeologicalExpediStratumJ.Bulletin of the American No. 2. Cambridge, tion to cAi (et-Tell): ArchaeologicalInstitute Publications. London:Quaritch. Schools of Oriental Research226: MA:American Schools of Oriental 1-14. Research. Hestrin, R., and Tadmor,M. 1963 A Hoardof Toolsand Weaponsfrom Dornemann,R. H. Cleveland,R. KfarMonash. Israel Exploration 1979 Tell Hadidi:A Millennium of Bronze 1960 The Excavationof the Conway High Place (Petra)and Soundingsat KhirJournal 13: 265-88. Age City Occupation.Pp. 113-51 in ExcavationReportsfrom the Tabqa bet Ader. Series:Annual of the Horowitz, A. 1974 PreliminaryPalynologicalIndicaDam Project- EuphratesValley, American Schools of OrientalRetions as to the Climate of IsraelDursearch34-35. New Haven,CT: Syria,edited by D. N. Freedmanand American Schools of OrientalReJ.M. Lundquist.Series:Annual of ing the Last6000 Years.Paleorient2: 407-14. the American Schools of Oriental search. Research44. Cambridge,MA: Joffe,A. Coogan,M. D. American Schools of OrientalRe1985 Settlement Patternsand Social 1984 Numeira 1981.Bulletin of the search. American Schools of Oriental ReOrganizationin EarlyBronzeI and II search 255: 75-81. Canaan.Paperpresentedat the Dothan, M. annual meeting of the American 1985 Terminologyfor the Archaeologyof Currid,J.D. Schools of OrientalResearch. the Biblical Periods.Pp. 136-41 in 1986 The Beehive Buildingsof Ancient Biblical ArchaeologyToday,edited Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist 49: Johnson,D. L. 20-24. 1969 The Nature of Nomadism: A Comby J.Aviramand others.Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety,Israel parative Study of PastoralMigraDever,W G. tions in SouthwesternAsia and 1970 The "MiddleBronzeI Period"in Academyof Sciences and HumaniNorthernAfrica.Series:Universityof ties, and the American Schools of Syria-Palestine.Pp. 132-63 in Near OrientalResearch. EasternArchaeologyin the tventiChicago,Departmentof Geography ResearchPaper118.Chicago:Unieth Century:Essaysin Honorof Drower,M. S. and Bottero,J. 1971 Syriabefore2200 B.C.Pp.315-62 in Nelson Glueck, edited by J.A. Sanversity of Chicago. ders.GardenCity, NY: Doubleday. CambridgeAncient History,third Kempinski,A. revisededition, volume 1, part 2. 1978 The Rise of an Urban Culture:The 1971 The Peoples of Palestine in the

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

41

Urbanization of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Jerusalem: Israel Ethnographic Society. Kenyon, K. 1951 Excavations at Jericho, 1951. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83: 101-38. 1958 Some Notes on the Early and Middle Bronze Age Strata of Megiddo. Pp. 51--60' in Eretz Israel 5. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1960 Excavations at Jericho. Volume 1: The Tombs Excavated in 1952-4. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1979 Archaeologyin the Holy Land, fourth edition. New York: Norton & Co. Kenyon, K., Bottero, J., and Posener, G. 1971 Syria and Palestine c. 2160-1780 B.C. Pp. 532-94 in Cambridge Ancient History, third revised edition, volume 1, part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knauf, E. A. 1986 Ancient Copper Industry in the Eastern Wadi Arabah. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Tubingen, Germany. Lapp, P. 1966 The Dhahr Mirzbineh Tombs: Three Intermediate Bronze Age Cemeteries in Jordan. Series: Publications of the Jerusalem School 4. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1970 Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 101-31 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Tw7entieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, edited by J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Levy, T. E. 1986 The Chalcolithic Period in Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist 49: 82-108. Liverani, M. 1973 The Amorites. Pp. 100-33 in Peoples of Old Testament Times, edited by D. J. Wiseman. Oxford: Clarendon. Long, J. C., Jr. 1986 Sedentism in Early Bronze IV Palestine-Transjordan: An Analysis of Sociocultural Variability in the Late Third Millennium, B.C. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Luke, J. T. 1965 Pastoralism and Politics in the Marin Period: A Reexamination of the Character and Political Significance of the Major West Semitic Tribal Groups on the Middle Euphrates, c. 1829- 753 B.C. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Maisler, B., Stekelis, M., and Avi-Yonah, M. 1952 The Excavations at Beth Yerah (Khir-

42

bet Kerak) 1944-1946. Israel Exploration Journal 2: 165-73 and 218-29. Matthiae, P. 1981 Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company. Matthews, V. H. 1978 Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom (ca. 1830-1760 B.C.). Series: American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 3. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Mazzoni, S. 1985 Elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla in Comparison with Syro-Palestinian EB IV. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 257: 1-18. Miroschedji, P. R. de 1971 L'poque prc-urbaine en Palestine. Series: Cahiers de la Revue biblique 13. Paris: Gabalda. 1984 Tel Yarmut--1981. Pp. 112-13 in Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1982, volume 1. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Mittmann, S. 1986 The German-Jordanian Excavations at Mughayyir. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Tubingen, Germany. Nissen, H. 1980 The Mobility Between Settled and Non-settled in Early Babylonia: Theory and Evidence. Pp. 285-90 in LArcheologie de 17raq du debut de li'poque Ndolithique i 333 avant notre ere. Series: Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 580. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Olavarri, E. 1969 Fouilles 'acAr6cer sur l'cArnon. Revue Biblique 76: 230-59. Oren, E. D. 1973a The Overland Route Between Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 198205. 1973b The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and its Cultural and Chronological Setting. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210: 20-37. Parr, P. Excavations at Khirbet Iskander. 1960 Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan 4-6: 128-33. Prag, K. 1974 The Intermediate Early BronzeMiddle Bronze Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Levant 6:

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

69-116. Ancient and Modern Pastoral Migration in the Levant. Levant 17: 81-88. Rast, W E. 1980 Palestine in the Third Millennium: Evidence for Interconnections. Scripta Mediterranea 1: 5-20. Rast, W E., and Schaub, R. T. 1974 Survey of the Southeastern Plain of the Dead Sea, 1973. Annual of the Department of Antiquities 19: 5-53. 1980 Preliminary Report of the 1979 Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 240: 21-61. Redman, C. L. 1978 The Rise of Ciivilization. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Richard, S. 1980 Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 5-34. 1986 Excavations at Khirbet Iskander, Jordan: A Glimpse at Settled Life During the "Dark Age" in Palestinian Archaeology. Expedition 28: 3-12. Richard S., and Boraas, R. S. 1984 Preliminary Report of the 1981-82 Seasons of the Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 254: 63-87. in press The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan:Third Preliminary Report, 1984 Season. In Supplement 25 to the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, edited by W. E. Rast. Ross, J. F. 1980 The Early Bronze Age in Palestine. Pp. 147-70 in Historical Essays in Honor of Kenneth R. Rossman, edited by K. Newmyer. Crete, NE: Doane College. Rowton, M. B. 1980 Pastoralism and the Periphery in Evolutionary Perspective. Pp. 291301 in Larcheologie de [Iraq du deibut de c1pocque Neblithique i 333 avant notre ere. Series: Colloques Internationaus du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 580. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Salzman, P. C. 1978 Ideology and Change in Middle Eastern Tribal Societies. Man 13: 618-37. 1980a Introduction: Processes of Sedentarization as Adaptation and Response. Pp. 1-19 in When Nomads Settle: Processes of Sedentarization as Adaptation and Response, edited by P C. Salzman. New York: Praeger. 1985

1958 The Problemof the Transitionbetween the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Pp. 37-45* in EretzIsrael 5. Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety. 1971 Archaeologyof Palestine from the Neolithic Throughthe Middle BronzeAge. Journalof the American Oriental Society 91: 276-93. Saint-Joseph 45: 205-21. 2-19. Wright,M. Watkins,T. E 1985 Contacts BetweenEgyptand Syro1975 The Date of the KfarMonashHoard 1982 The Origins of the EarlyBronzeAge Palestine During the Protodynastic WalledTownCulture of Jordan.Pp. Again. Palestine ExplorationQuarPeriod.Biblical Archaeologist 48: 67-75 in Studies in the History and 107: 53-62. terly 240-53. Weinstein,J.M. Archaeology of Jordan1. Amman: 1984a RadiocarbonDating in the Southern Yadin,Y Department of Antiquities. 1955 The EarliestRecordof Egypt'sMiliLevant.Radiocarbon26: 297-366. Schaub,R. T, and Rast, W E. 1984 PreliminaryReportof the 1981Expe1984b The Significanceof Tell Areini for taryPenetrationinto Asia? IsraelExdition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan. ploration Journal5: 1-16. Egyptian-PalestinianRelationsat Bulletin of the American Schools of the Beginningof the BronzeAge. Yeivin, S. 1960 EarlyContacts BetweenCanaanand Oriental Research254: 35-60. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research256: 61-69. Egypt.Israel ExplorationJournal10: Schulman, A. R. 193-203. 1976 The EgyptianSeal Impressionsfrom Wenke,R. J. 1984 Patternsin Prehistory:Humankind's Zori, N. cEnBesor.cAtiqot (EnglishSeries) 1962 An ArchaeologicalSurveyof the 11:16-26. First ThreeMillion Years,second Beth ShanValley.Pp. 135-98 in The 1980 MoreEgyptianSeal Impressions edition. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Beth Shan Valley:The Seventeenth from cEnBesor.cAtiqot (English Press. Archaeological Convention.JeruWright,G. E. Series) 14: 17-33. salem: IsraelExplorationSociety. 1937 The Potteryof Palestine from the Service,E. R. 1977 The Landof Issachar,Archaeologi1962 Primitive Social Organization.New Earliest Times to the End of the cal Survey.Jerusalem:IsraelExploraYork:RandomHouse. EarlyBronzeAge. New Haven,CT: tion Society. American Schools of OrientalReSmith, R. H. 1962 Excavationsin the Cemeteryat search. KhirbetKufin,Palestine. London: Quaritch. A NewBookfor a ProspectiveVolunteer Spooner,B. by anExperiencedVolunteer.... 1973 The CulturalEconologyof Pastoral Nomads. Series:Addison-Wesley Modulein Anthropology45. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley. Stager,L. by ArnoldJ. Flegenheimer 1985 The Firstfruitsof Civilization. Pp. (Roth Publishing, Roslyn Heights) 172-87 in Palestine in the Bronze and IronAges: Papersin Honourof Olga T71fnell,edited by J.Tubb. (will) encourage and reassure others who may London:Institute of Archaeology, be thinking about the possibility of digging in University of London. the land of the Bible ... conveys the kinds of Stech, T, Muhly,J.D., and Maddin,R. details either ignored or assumed in the stan1985 MetallurgicalStudies on Artifacts dard manuals ... (in an) informal style from the TombNear cEnan.cAtiqot (from the preface by Philip J. King, Professor (EnglishSeries) 17:75-82. of Biblical Studies, Boston College, and forThompson, T. L. mer President of the American Schools of 1979 The Settlement of Palestine in the Oriental Research) BronzeAge. Series:Beihefte Zum TubingerAtlas Des VorderenOrients, Please send me copies of ArchaeoReine B,Nr. 8. Wiesbaden:Ludwig logical Adventures in Israel. Enclosed is a Reichert. check for $ to cover the cost of Trigger,B.E. 1972 Determinants of UrbanGrowthin the book, handling and shipping charges.* Pre-IndustrialSocieties. Pp. 575-99 *Handlingand shippingcharges $1.60 for single in Man, Settlement and Urbanism, $3.00 for 2 to 5 copies. For largerorders, copies, edited by P J.Ucko, R. Tringham,and pleaseenquire. G. W Dimbleby.London:Duckworth. Pleasemakecheckspayableto UB Foundation, andremitto Chair,Department of Classics, Vaux,R. de New York 14260 SUNYAB, Buffalo, Palestine in the Bronze 1971 Early Age. Pp. 208-37 in CambridgeAncient Name (please print) History,third revisededition, Street volume 1, part 2. Cambridge:CamState Press. bridgeUniversity City Zip m

1980b WhenNomads Settle: Processesof Sedentarization as Adaptation and Response,edited by P. C. Salzman. New York:Praeger. Schaub,R. T. 1973 An EarlyBronzeIV TombfromBab edh-Dhrdc.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research210:

Vigan6,L., and Pardee,D. 1984 LiterarySourcesfor the History of Palestine and Syria:The EblaTablets. Biblical Archaeologist 47: 6-16. Ward,W 1969 The SupposedAsiatic Campaignof Narmer.Melangesde l'universite

Archaeological Adventuresin Israel A Practical Guide Paperback:$9.95

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

43

Paleo-Hebrew

The

Leviticus

scroll Qumran

from

BYK.A. MATHEWS t is nowthirtyyearssincethe

discovery of the Leviticus Scroll in (designated"11QpaleoLev" the system of abbreviations used by Qumran scholars; see BA 48/2, page 78). Its recent publication (Freedmanand Mathews 1985)was not quick in coming, but this may prove fortuitous. The scroll, which might have been dismissed as banal during the early years of Qumran

studies when everyone was caught first Qumran manuscripts, the many in the the excitement of spechoneycombed hills overlooking the up tacular finds, can now be rightly Dead Sea were set upon by local as an of recognized bedouin, in hope of profit, and arimportant piece evidence for understandingEssene chaeologists, in the name of science. scribal practice and for reconstructThus, in January1956, Tacamireh the textual of the Hebrew bedouin ing history happened upon a cave, later Bible. designated cave 11,about one mile north of the Qumranruins. Although From Desert the cave was not easily explored, its to Museum DiscoveryAfter the discovery in 1947 of the entrance having been made nearly

IF

f-~

i-

---'

:z 4- r(

01.44

, ..i

,,

..•?~~~~~r ,a•'?"

•.

ke

. . .- -. .-,,:I

. o.

" ,"t

- -

,.~ .

.,. ir

.•

A*'o

4

/ c~a .4r

V

r

._". .

IRV ?

t

",".." l?

inaccessible by rockfalls,2the special effort requiredto enter was rewarded by what was found there- a remarkable cache of manuscripts, including two attractive scrolls. Soon after this, in early Februthe bedouin approachedthe Palary, estine ArchaeologicalMuseum of Jerusalem(now the Rockefeller Museum) and offeredtheir finds for sale. Rolandde Vaux,in the field at that time leading his fifth campaign in the Dead Sea region under the auspices of the JordanianDepartment of Antiquities, the Lcole Archeologique Frangaise,and the Palestine ArchaeologicalMuseum, learned of the discoveryand located the cave, recoveringa remnant of fragments left behind by the earlier diggers. Among the fragments he retrieved were severalpenned in paleo-Hebrew characters(de Vaux 1956: 574), the older Hebrew script that predates the Aramaic or "square"style. These pieces were later identified as belonging to one of the scrolls possessed by the bedouin-the Leviticus Scroll. The museum purchasedthe bedouin holdings in May after sev-

eral months of negotiations; the new acquisitions were a scroll of Psalms, "onesmall scroll of Leviticus,"and fragmentaryportions of other works?0 The right to study and publish the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa)was acquired in October 1961by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR),and the RoyalAcademyof Amsterdam achieved a similar agreement in December for the fragmentary works (vander Ploeg 1962:543). The Leviticus Scroll, however,remained unassigned for severalyears. ASORcontinued to be interested in the scroll, but the nationalization of the museum by the Jordaniangovernment in 1966 and the uncertainties surroundingthe Six-DayWarin 1967 interruptedserious discussions. Late in 1967, however,ASOR and the new caretakersof the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Israeli government, officially assigned it to David Noel Freedmanfor study. Freedman'spreliminary report followed in 1974 and revealedthe primaryvariants of the text. The full study was accomplished by Freed-

man and myself, with contributions by RichardSimon Hanson, and was published in 1985.4 Description The scroll is housed in the Rockefeller Museum of Jerusalem(with the exception of one fragmentthat came into the possession of Professor Georges Roux of Francein January 1967 through an agreement arrangedby Khalil IskanderShaheen [Kando]).The 11QpaleoLevmaterials include one continuous "scroll"of sevencolumns, coming fromLeviticus 22-27, and seventeen disconnected fragments,rangingin content from Leviticus 4-21. The continuous piece has six columns of inscribed writing and a final, blank column. The extant scroll measures about 1 yardlong (100.5 centimeters) and 3 inches in height (7.5 centimeters);it consists of 2 sheets of tanned goat leather sewn together between the third and fourth columns. When unrolled the scroll has an arclike shape, similar to the Psalms Scroll in appearance(Sanders 1965:3). The top and bottom edges

;k,

a-

-

-

;no

f4dfj

:so4 6'r

ALP

46

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

are irregularbecause of deterioration. This continuous piece comes from the lower portion of the original scroll, as indicated by the presence of a bottom margin, and from its final seven columns. The last column (column 7) of our preservedportion is preparedfor use but has no writing. We can easily explain this absence of writing since the preceding column (column 6) is text from Leviticus' last chapter (specifically,27:11-19). The scribe must have completed copying the last verses of the book (27:20-34) at the top of column 7, which is no longer preserved,and left the remaining, lower lines of the column unused. The original height of the Leviticus Scroll is estimated at 25 to 26 centimeters, five times greaterthan its recoveredremnant. This estimate is made by averagingletter and line counts in conjunction with the existing column size. Its original height, then, is comparableto the larger scrolls from Qumran, such as the Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa)at 26 to 27 centimeters and the Psalms Scroll at 25 to 26 centimeters (Burrows,Trever,

lk

is an ancient practice, and its regular appearancein paleo-Hebrewtexts reflects (alongwith the script)the desire of the scribes to make the texts appearmore ancient (forexamples, see Skehan 1955;Baillet, Milik, and de Vaux 1962: 56 and 105-6). Another feature of the scroll, which immediately strikes the observer,is the repeatedoccurrence of a largeHebrew letter-the waw. This letter is part of an elaborate paragraphingsystem by which the scribe designated sections and subsections of the biblical book. The system works as follows: Writingfrom right to left, after the scribe had copied the last word of a section, he would inscribe the waw in the midst of the remaining, open space of the unfinished line to signal that a new section followed;the first word of the new section would then ScribalPractices Dots were placed as dividersbetween be written on the next line at the words;they provideclear, consistent right-handmargin. word spacing.This featureis common This waw, it should be pointed among paleo-Hebrewmanuscripts out, is not technically an editorial but is not found among"square"-letter sign because it is part of the text, not texts. The use of scribaldots or strokes extraneous to it (as are the marginal

and Brownlee 1950:xviii; Sanders 1965: 5). The leather is ruled with horizontal guidelines, from which the scribe "hangs"his letters; these lines are traversedby vertical ones to create columns separatedby intercolumnal margins.In lining his manuscript the scribe produceda borderthat serves as a frame and showcases the text. Since the final column is lined but has no writing, we may assume that the scribe lined a whole sheet before he began writing. Ruling is widely attested among the Qumran manuscripts and was done with a sharpeneddevice made of bones Regularityin line and word spacing gives the Leviticus Scroll a tidy, pleasing appearance,enabling the readerto peruse the text easily.

-Og

+..

-ago*

-7, L.+.?

*

r7?La --

I~P~FLQ~r~~bl*

rK

.3~~ 17??r.1.Si~

j.

g

--,

lip.4

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

47

signs of the Isaiah Scroll).Each of four times this paragraphingwaw occurs in the Leviticus Scroll the letter is grammatically connected to the following verb.Thus we have a special case 6f the Hebrew construction known as the waw consecutive; in this construction the waw, which is normally attached to the beginning of the following verb,acts as a conjunction (and plus verb).In the paragraphingsystem of the Leviticus Scroll, however,the waw is detached from the verb and placed in the middle of the blank space remaining on a line at the end of a section, while the verb (the first word of the next section) is written at the righthand margin of the next line. This system enhances the clarity of the book's layout, since the large waw is easily detectable;it also adds a pleasing aesthetic dimension. Other scrolls from Qumran also have section symbols. The Exodus Scroll (4QpaleoExm),a paleo-Hebrew text from cave 4, has a large waw that functions in the same manner as in the Leviticus Scroll (Skehan 1955: 185).One of the Psalms scrolls

Takentogether,we have six (4QPsb),although written in "square" contains a letters, paleo-Hebrew examples of these two procedures. the letter is not Five more cases, where lacunae (or waw; however, part of the text properand thereforefunc- gaps in the text) occur, can be reations solely as a division marker sonably deduced from these attested, observablepatterns. Our examina(Skehan 1964:314, note 3). Among the extramarginalsymbols occurring tion of these eleven occurrences in in the Isaiah Scroll is one that relight of the thematic development of sembles a paleo-Hebrewwaw and the book of Leviticus made it poswhich may have been createdby sible for us to determine that the analogy with the paragraphingwaw scribe used the waw method for like that of the Leviticus Scroll. Per- marking sections and the non-waw method for subsections. haps at Qumran the waw was used This system is a precursorto the initially to function both syntaclater sectioning of the Hebrew Bible tically in the sentence and to serve as a paragraphmarker;later it was into parashot (ordivisions) by the medieval Jewishscribes known as adoptedor modified for paragraphthe Masoretes.The Masoretesmarked ing purposes alone. A similar method was used by sections of Scripturewith the letters our scribe to designate a subsection; pe and samek, and when these the line of the precedingparagraphis Masoretic divisions are compared ended short of the left-handmargin, with the scroll, we discoverthat as in the "waw-method,"and the most correspond. Another scribalfeatureoccurs in beginning word of the subsection starts on the succeeding line. In this the scroll at Leviticus 18:27(fragment use, however,the waw is not sepa1:2)and concerns the correction of a ratedfrom the word to which it is misplaced phrase.In transcribing Leviticus 18, the scribe anticipated customarily prefixed.This method, which we termthe "non-wawmethod," Leviticus20:23-24, where the subject matter is similar, and mistakenly inappearstwice in the scroll.

ik j o•.

.

~Clr W--

1000,1 WN

to"

A, r

?~PN

~rl~-04 t 'I

..

,Z

~3

rujfu~ .

4"?-i7• ? -,

qj-

'u -l4a

~E7~`~S

44W? crit-jr4

48

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

"

1987

serteda phrasefrom it. This insertion, as it stands in the text, interrupts the sense of the sentence, making it unlikely that the interpolation (or insertion) was intentional. The interpolation is longalmost one line of writing-and therefore when the scribe recognized his errorhe managedto avoid making an unsightly erasureby enclosing the intrusion within brackets,which served to alert the readerto the irregularity.Similar bracketsare found in Greek papyri;called perigraphai, they indicate that a portion of text should be deleted (Turner1971: 18). Byusing this techniqueof perigraphai, the scribe could correct his mistake without effacing the text and detracting from the general appearanceof the scroll. Because a portion of the scroll is missing, the opening bracketis missing from this text, but the closing bracket is legible. The position of this scribal marking and the additional space that follows it suggest that the scribeinsertedthe perigraphaimmediately before he resumed his copying of Leviticus 18:27.

Scriptand Date The paleo-Hebrewscript of the scroll imitates the archaic or "oldHebrew" script used during the seventh to sixth centuries B.C.E. Although the Aramaic, or "square," script was more widely used at the time that the Leviticus Scroll was written, a small conservative circle of Jewishscribes preserved-theold charactersin an attempt to mimic the Hebrew letters of the preexilicage (priorto 586 B.C.E.). A comparison of the paleo-Hebrew charactersof the Leviticus Scroll with their seventh-centuryprototypes revealsthat the characters evolved over time; the changes, however, are not substantive. Paleo-Hebrewwas well known among the Essene scribalcommunity, which scholars believe was centered at Qumran after its members withdrew from Jerusalemin the second century B.C.E. Twelvemanuscripts completely written in the script have been recoveredfrom Qumran and date from the second to first centuries B.C.E.All of the texts are of the Pentateuch and Job. Also, a few paleo-Hebrewcharacters occur in some otherwise "square"-script manuscripts at Qumin these ran; cases, the older script is used in the writing of the tetragrammaton (YHWH)and other Hebrew divine names in orderto show spe-

cial reverence.The practice of distinguishing the divine name by a different script was employed not only by the Essenes but also by Jews elsewhere7 The popularity of the ancient letters may be attributed to the Essenes' obsession with the distant past, their lives being largely modeled after the Mosaic community of the wilderness years (Yadin1962: 38-39). The Essenes perpetuatedthe ancient script for these reasons, but they restrictedit to the Pentateuch and Job-both because of their age and because these books were traditionally believed to have been written by Moses duringhis wilderness sojourn (BabylonianTalmud,Baba Bathra 14b-15a-see Simon and Slotki 1935: 71).s Although most pentateuchal materials recoveredfrom Qumran are in the "square" characters,the letters were obviously paleo-Hebrew familiar to the scribal comvery the munity. Among paleo-Hebrew texts, several evidence a skillful hand. Forexample, in his analysis of the ExodusScroll,Hanson (1985a:20) remarksthat its scribe was a "careful and consistent workman"who produced a "handsomescript [that was] quite formal in appearance."Also, the presence of ligatures (letters consistently joined together)in

Left:Fragment1:2of 11QpaleoLevOn the second line a closing bracketis visible. Thescribe used bracketsto mark text that he had mistakenly inserted. This and the photographof the continuous portion of the scroll are from Freedmanand Mathews 1985.Below: Column 27 of 11QPsa.This scroll is written in "square" script. Note, however,in the fourth line that the tetragrammaton(YHWH,the divine name) is written in paleo-Hebrewscript. FromSanders 1965. 1..

4,.~

j4,

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

49

than the coins. The Qumran scripts are closer to the earlier Hasmonean examples and thereforeare assigned to the early first century B.C.E.(Han-

son 1985a:21-22).

in the conservative spelling it is written with a he. Proto-rabbinicspelling is markedby two features:Its spellings reflect the development of diphthongal contraction;and it has an erratic, restrictedusage of a new spelling feature-the writing of long o (derivingfrom an accented long a) by waw. This category is termed proto-rabbinic,because it is essentially (with minor modifications) the same pattern the rabbisadopted for the official biblical texts, which were standardizedat about 100 C.E. The exemplars of this kind at Qumran are more common than the conservative type; the Leviticus Scroll is counted among the proto-rabbinic style. Proto-Samaritanspelling was a popularsystem among Essene scribes; numerous biblical and nonbiblical manuscripts occur in this pattern.1' It is distinguished by the fuller use of internal vowel letters for marking long vowels; the use of waw for vocalic o (derivingfrom a stressed long a) is extended, and there is evidence of two long o sounds (that deriving from aw and that deriving from an accented long a) collapsing together. Also, there are the first signs of the confusion of pharyngeal and laryngealletters - for example, the interchange of cayin and 'alep.

Spellings and VariantReadings The Leviticus Scroll, unlike the hundreds of manuscript pieces of cave 4, is marvelously preserved,having clear readingsat most points. This Bronze Hasmonean coin with paleo-Hebrew fact and our good fortune in recoverscript. This coin, which is one of those used to ing a substantive sample of the origdate the scroll, was struck by the high priest inal work make it easier for the epigYehohanan. Courtesy of Pictorial Archive. rapherto assess the significance of the scroll for the transmission of the paleo-Hebrewmanuscripts indicates HebrewBible. a familiarity with the script (Siegel Spellings. A comparison of represen1971: 170). tative texts at Qumran (dating250 The scribe of the LeviticusScroll, B.C.E.-100 C.E.) With epigraphicmaterials from many sites throughout however,was not as disciplined as the scribe of the Exodus Scroll. His Judah(forinstance, Jerusalem,Arad, letters suggest a freerspirit. Hanson, and Kuntillet cAjrud)reveals a shift who also published an early study in the patterns of spelling- or orof the exempaleo-Hebrew thography.The spelling patterns of (1964) of caves and has written the preexilic period developedin a plars 1, 2, 6, a definitive reporton the script of chronologically unilinear manner, the Leviticus Scroll (1985a:15-23; but postexilicorthographyhadanother see also 1985b).He remarksthat the basis. Fourdistinct types of spelling inconsistent workmanship of the -some preservingolder conventions led him to conclude that beand others introducing innovations script hind the letters was "asingle scribe -were simultaneously in use at who was a somewhat hasty fellow Qumran: who could be careful and patient at Conservativespelling, which is one sitting but hurried and impaclosest in kind to the preexilic spelltient at another"(1985a:15). ings of the Judahitedialect (as opThe dating of the paleo-Hebrew posed to the Israelite dialect of the (Pharyngeal letters like cayin are scrolls is determined by comparing formed deep in the throat by the sudnorth), is representedby a Samuel their scripts with the paleo-Hebrew fragment (4Samb),dating to about den opening of the glottis; laryngeal 250 B.C.E.(Cross 1955: 163-72; 1963: legends of the Hasmonean coinage; letters, such as 'alep,constitute the by this procedure,Hanson (1985a: 120-21; 1975:311;Freedman 1962: simple emission of breath. While 23) concludes that the Leviticus and 92 and 102).Its distinctive character- cayin and 'aleporiginally had differExodus Scrolls date to about 100B.C.E. istic is the retention of the letters ent sounds, they graduallymerged We know that Hebrew script first waw and yod to mark the diphand were substituted for one another appearedon the coins of Alexander in spelling.) The proto-Samaritan thongs aw and ay.9 (See the accomJannaeus (103-76 B.C.E.),and his suc-

cessors continued the practice to the time of Mattityah Antigonus (40-37 B.C.E.).

It is remarkable,as Hanson discovered,that the peculiar shape of the Hebrew letter he occurring on the coins imitates the kind of he that appearsin the Leviticus and Exodusscrolls, making them earlier

50

panying sidebar on Hebrew vowel letters.) Also, the conservative system sometimes offers a different spelling of the third-masculine-singular pronoun attached to singular nouns. (In Hebrew, the possessive pronoun - his -is not a separate word but is joined to the noun as a suffix.) Whereas this possessive was commonly spelled with a waw in the postexilic period,

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

spelling system is the precursor of the liberal use of vowel letters (with some modifications) that characterizes the Samaritan Pentateuch. Hasmonean spelling reflects the linguistic tradition of the second to first centuries B.C.E.;it radically redefined the basis for spelling by giving new priority to vowel height over vowel length. Texts occurring in

Biblical scholars have tended to characterize Qumran scrolls into types according to one of the three major witnesses to the Hebrew text chief bearersof meaning in Hebrew,as in other Semitic alphabets,are Septuagintal, proto-Masoretic, or Thethe consonants; vowels serve merely to specify more particularly the Samaritan. This has been partly a meaning conveyed by the consonants. For example, while the consonant result of the traditional conception of vowels particularizethe meaning group'klcarriesthe generalidea of "eating," the history of the Hebrew Bible that furtherinto forms such as "food"and"heate."Inventorsof the alphabetdid not was developed before the Qumran indicate vowels,relyingon the native readerof the languageto determinefrom discoveries. It was, however, largely a the context which meaning was intended. result of the predominant view Since a given consonant group, however, can have many meanings, among American scholars that the attempts were made to limit possible vocalizations. Some effort was contextual history of the Hebrew Bible sidered necessary to indicate vowels- at least major,long vowels. From the consists of three distinct textual ninth century,Hebrewbeganto indicate a long vowel at the end of a wordwith the consonant that was formedwith the same vocal organas the vowel sound: families (or text-types) that develyod was used for a final i (andlate e); waw was used for final u (latero);andhe oped in relative isolation at three for final a and other sounds. This usage soon became standard. centers of Jewish scribal life -AlexAs these vocalic consonants, (he, waw, and yod) came to mark vowels, andria, Palestine, and Babylon." (See they often lost their distinctive consonantal sound. As a result, the vowel the accompanying sidebar on local precedingthe letter and the one following it fell together and formed a diphtexts theory.) thong. For example, the third-masculine-singularsuffix attached to nouns Other scholars, however, have was originally pronouncedhu. When the h was precededby an a sound and it not found the scrolls to bear the dislost its consonantalsound, the u and a fell togetherformingthe diphthongau. tinctive earmarks of one text-type to Similarly,when wu was precededby a and the w sound was lost, the au diphthe exclusion of another. In fact, thong was formed. In time, these diphthongs were further contracted into whether the term text-type is approlong vowels, such that au contractedto long o. While vocalic consonants originally were used only at the ends of words, priate at all remains open. E. Tov they eventually became used to indicate long vowels within the body of a (1981: 274) has suggested that the word. Where vocalic consonants appear,the writing is said to be full; when main witnesses reflect only three they are absent in words in which they are expected to appear,the writing is texts and are not so distinctive in said to be defective. As a rule, the later the text, the fuller the spelling; in textual profile as to justify their beRabbinicHebrew,text vowel letters are used to mark even short vowels. ing considered textual families.12 Furthermore, the problem of the Adaptedfrom Moshe Greenberg,Introductionto Hebrew 17 18. and Prentice Cliffs, NJ: Hall, methodology of how one determines pages 1965), (Englewood textual affiliation has not been resolved. The textual makeup of the Leviticus Scroll supports Tov's contenthis form are relatively rare. Whereas best categorized as proto-Samaritan, but the scribe (or scribal tradition) of tion (1981: 275). It does not mirror the other systems infrequently add one tradition; it has a mixture of the Leviticus Scroll preferred the vowel letters, Hasmonean spellings indicate long vowels in any position, proto-rabbinic system. This fact sug- readings and a high number of and sporadically write short vowels gests that the proto-rabbinic type as unique variants as well. It is, thereas well. The confusion of pharyngeals early as 100 B.C.E.was gaining wider fore, an inferior witness, the kind of text one would expect of a sectarian and laryngeals is more common; also, acceptance. Why the rabbis adopted this system for their scriptures canthree long o sounds (that deriving manuscript antedating the stabilizanot be said with certainty. Perhaps tion of the Hebrew Bible. from aw, from accented long a, and the selection of the proto-Samaritan from u) have collapsed and the spellThe scroll does not correspond their doctrinal the have for vowel no to the enemies, pattern of the paleo-Hebrew ings regard origins. style by and the rabbis' to desire Hasmonean pronunciation has a of cave 4 in regards to textual texts Samaritans, archaic retain the flavor of the shortand vowel for or spelling. Its atypical affiliation final, long possessive er spellings led to their decision. verbal suffixes and its sound is also nature suggests that the textual hisVariant readings. The Leviticus Scroll tory of the Hebrew Bible may be far regularly written. Eventually, both is the earliest witness to Hebrew the conservative and Hasmonean more complex than we have thought. in and Leviticus our thus I have chosen one of the more fell of use out possession patterns altogether. Paleo-Hebrew manuscripts from is important in our study of the Heinteresting readings attested in the brew text before its textual fixation scroll in order to illustrate how it cave 4 possess the fuller spellings around C.E. 100 can assist text-critics in their task. and are 1966: probably 89) (Cross

Hebrew Vowel Letters

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1987

51

T

Local-TextsTheory

he finds from Qumran,which beganappearingin 1947,opened a new era in the textual study of the HebrewBible. Although the early-discovered Isaiah Scroll closely follows the readings of the Masoretic text, fragments from Exodus (4QExa)and Jeremiah(4QJerb)from cave 4 contained readings more akin to the Septuagint.Other works, such as 4QNumb, reflect readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and yet other texts parallel various Greek versions. Given such differences in textual readings,scholars have attempted to schematize the textual types found at Qumran and to sketch their relationships. Buildingupon the work of William E Albright,FrankMooreCross has constructed a local-texts theory that posits three related yet distinct textual families, each deriving from a major center of Jewish life-Egypt, Palestine, and Babylonia.Accordingto Cross, two strandsof textual types branchedoff veryearly fromthe biblical tradition:the Babyloniantext-formin the (post)exilic community and the Old Palestinian text-formin Israel.Between the late fourth and early third century B.C.E.,the Old Palestinian type further divided into a Palestinian type and Egyptiantype (amongthe Jewsin Alexandria). Cross has contended that the Palestinian text-type is the basis of the SamaritanPentateuch;the Babyloniantradition,transportedback to Israelat some point, underlies the Masoretic text. The Egyptiantradition is reflected in the Septuagint. These textual families underwent occasional revision on the basis of other versions,yet Cross maintains that at the most basic level all texts and versions derive from these three geographically distinct textual types. This theory is explaineed in detail in Cross 1975.

"free"style or interpretativebent of the Greek translator(s)ratherthan accepted as testimony to the existence of a different Hebrew reading preservedby the Greek. Now, textcritics must weigh carefully each divergence as a possible variant, since we have recoveredHebrew manuscripts that have readings that previously were only attested in the Greek version. On many occasions, these Hebrew texts have vindicated the translation as a faithful rendering of the Hebrew Vorlage(that is, the text used as the basis of the translation). In this example, we can see how the scroll shows that the Greek translation is a reflection of a true Hebrew variant. Since the addition of "inhim"also appearsin the scroll, it indicates that the Greek scribe faithfully translated the Hebrew text that lay before him.

Conclusion Through his manuscript, our scribe has offeredtestimony to the scribal interests of the Essenes. He reflects the community's concern for tradiThe verse is given in translation and these words have similar or identical tion and antiquity by preservingthe in Greek and Hebrew in the accomendings (known as homoioteleuton). paleo-Hebrewscript. The protoIn this case, because a phrase (which panying sidebar. rabbinicspelling he perpetuates like15:3. Defilement is underlined below) occurs twice in Leviticus by wise speaks of his desire to simulate bodily dischargeis the subject of the close proximity, the scribe'seyes something of age with its more chapter.It is part of a section of cere- accidentally skipped from the first conservative tendencies. monial laws (chapters11-15)that occurrence of the phrase to the next. This sense of traditionalism, concern the ritually clean and unIn our example, the material omitted is balanced by innovation however, clean members of the congregation. from the Masoretic text is given in and the use of contemporaryscribal Verse3 in the scroll possesses a parentheses. practices. The paragraphingsystem And this is his uncleannessin his readinglonger than that in the he employs is innovative and distinif his bodyflowswith his Masoretic text. This longer variant discharge: guishes his manuscript among the is also found in the Greek and Sadischargeor his body is stopped Qumran corpus. Also, the use of the from his discharge,(it is his unmaritan versions. device, the perigraphai, bracketing in cleanness him. All the his days The Masoretic version reflects a to a textual deviation was well flows or his is signal body body stopped Hebrew text that omitted an extenfrom his is it unhis known his among peers. discharge), sive portion because of a scribal cleanness. The as a witness to manuscript, errorknown as haplography:the Also noticeable is the fact that althe of the text, history compromises single writing of two identical (or the Samaritanand Greek our expectations and refuses to be though similar) words or groups of words share in the longer text against the classified textually along traditional that occur together in succession. Masoretic text, the Greek has the lines. With the Leviticus Scroll now Such omissions take place when a further addition of the phrase "in available, the publication of all scribe mistakenly looks aside (called him."Beforethe Qumran discoveries Qumran "scrolls" and all the manuparablepsis), causing him to copy unearthed Hebrew texts, such variscript finds of cave 11 is completed. only one of two words or groups of ances between the Hebrew and When the complete publication of words. This erroris common when Greek were often attributed to the the Qumran discoveries occurs, no

52

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

Exampleof VariantReadings

T

he following provides the Hebrew and Greek text discussed in the "Variantreadings"section of this paper;an English translationof each is also provided.Bracketsindicate portions of text that are missing from the original document because of a deformity in the text; material within bracketshas been restoredon the basis of other readings. Leviticus

I5:3

Leviticus Scroll [NM tnKr•

tol ti`lWt an t1e t12 t1 n=eN ItMl t w [1 • i6,1nnt

t] Irnet M' 7r1t "inn 2t= ir[,•r 1i ] To IvI•'• •,•

[And this] is his uncleanness in his discharge:[if his body flows with his discharge or his body is stopped from his discharge,it is his uncleanness] in him. All the days [his body flows or his body is stopped from his discharge,it is his uncleanness.] Greek Text

6K 6laTo; aUTroU K Kai o)roq 6 v6o •o; Tr UKaOapo~aqau'rof" •ov y6vov oF, O t pUGosG, oG rfl; f1qouvolCGTfKfev laeta6roO 86tah IPG6a0e, aibtril i dKaOepotai aUtoO fv l at, flrtipatU1 rto 6oeSq o(0t0azot auTzouI ouvGozrlKeVzT a6z" ctiv. G(OYaIaOtzo 86t zTfl PDoemGC ctro5 dKcetOactpoait

And this is the law of his uncleanness: whoever has an excretion from the discharge of his body, which his body has contracted through the discharge, this is his uncleanness in him. All the days of the flow of his body, which his body has contracted through the discharge, it is his uncleanness. Samaritan Pentateuch "n"

?:

11,1114m

Irm

It

rm

14

IZIT

M1nInv 4

l

n

Ir

I rx 18fir nm

6

M14TI

And this is his uncleanness in his discharge: if his body flows with his discharge or his body is stopped from his discharge, it is uncleanness. All the days his body flows or his body is stopped from his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Masoretic Text And this is his uncleanness in his discharge:if his body flows with his discharge or his body is stopped from his discharge,it is his uncleanness. Note: The Masoretic text has an extensive haplographybecause of parablepsis caused by homoioteleuton. The material omitted is given below in parentheses:

doubt a new generation of text-critics will be called upon to assimilate the full range of their readings and to write anew the textual history of the Hebrew Bible, dissolving old theories and constructing new. Notes

Fora fuller discussion of the points covered in this paper,the readeris encouragedto consult Freedmanand Mathews 1985. 'Localbedouin not only initiated the recoveriesof the Dead Sea Scrolls but were also responsible for the discoveryof caves 2, 4, 6, and 11,which together have yielded the vast majority of the manuscriptfinds. During the period of 1952 to 1958, bedouin also removed inscribedtexts from caves farto the south of Qumranat Nahal Hever,Wadi Murabbacat,and En-gedi,and about five miles to the west of the ruins at Khirbet Mird. 2Caves 3 and 11,located in the same areaamong the rocky cliffs to the north of WadiQumran,were closed off in antiquity by naturallandslides (deVaux 1973:51 and 57). 3This transactionwas summarized for the author by museum personnel in 1979. 4Freedman'sreportwas followedby another textual review by E. Tov (19781979).The scroll was the subject of my dissertationat the Universityof Michigan in 1980. My recent analysis (1986)of the scroll'stextual profile takes into consideration severalreadingspreviouslyunavailableto these preliminary inquiries and therebyprovidesa fuller examination. sSee the ruledbut unused lines of the Psalms Scroll and the Habakkukpesher (Sanders1965:plate 17;Burrows,Trever, andBrownlee 1950:plate 61);the drawing of lines by a sharpinstrument is mentioned by the editors of the Isaiah Scroll and the Genesis Apocryphon (Burrows, Trever,andBrownlee1950:xiv, xx; Avigad and Yadin1956: 14). 6Hanson(1985a:23) observes,"Allin all, one must marvel at how little this script evolved from the late preexilic examples."See also Hanson 1985b;F.M. Cross 1961:189; 1962:23; and Siegel 1971:170-71. 7Fora discussion of this scribal activity among the Jews,see Mathews 1983:550-51. Siegel (1971)has shown

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

53

that the writing of divine names in the peculiar script was used to signal caution against reading aloud or erasing the holy name(s) in the text. 8The origins of the script, its use during Maccabean times, and its eventual rejection by the rabbis is traced by Mathews (1983). 9In the fifth century B.C.E. the Judahite dialect contracted these diphthongs (aw became o and ay became e). The Israelite dialect experienced diphthongal contractions before the fifth century. 1'Cross (1966: 89-90) reports that many texts from Qumran use a fuller spelling pattern, which he termed "Maccabean style." "The local-texts theory is explained in detail in Cross 1975. One example of classifying Qumran texts according to a major witness involves the Leviticus Scroll; in his preliminary report, Freedman (1974: 533) concluded that the scroll was "Palestinian" in character. 12Tov presented his reservation concerning this aspect of the local-texts theory in his review of Ulrich's analysis of 4QSama and the Septuagint tradition and in his essays on methodology (1979a, 1979b, 1980).

1963 The Discoveryof the SamariaPapyri. TheBiblicalArchaeologist26: 110-21. 1966 The Contributionof the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text.Israel ExplorationJournal 16:81-95. 1975 The Evolutionof a Theory of Local Texts.Pp.306-20 in Qumranand the History of the Biblical Text, edited by E M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press. Freedman,D. N. 1962 The MassoreticTextandthe Qumran Scrolls:A Study in Orthography. Textus2: 87-102. 1971 The Old Testamentat Qumran.Pp. 131-41 in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology,edited by D. N. Freedman and J.Greenfield.GardenCity, NY:Doubleday. 1974 VariantReadingsin the Leviticus Scrollfrom QumranCave 11. Catholic Biblical Quarterly36: 525-34. Freedman,D. N., and Mathews,K. A. 1985 The Paleo-HebrewLeviticus Scroll (llQpaleoLev).WinonaLake,IN: American Schools of Oriental Research. Hanson, R. S. 1964 Paleo-HebrewScriptsin the Hasmonean Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 175:26-42. 1985a Paleography.Pp. 15-23 in The PaleoHebrewLeviticusScroll(11QpaleoLev), Bibliography Avigad,N., and Yadin,Y. by D. N. FreedmanandK.A. Mathews. WinonaLake,IN: American Schools 1956 A GenesisApocryphon,A ScrollFrom the Wildernessof Judaea.Jerusalem: of OrientalResearch. 1985b Ancient Scribesand Scriptsand the The MagnesPress/TheHebrew Clues They Leave.Biblical ArchaeUniversity. ologist 48: 83-88. Baillet, M., Milik, J.T., and de Vaux,R. 1962 Les 'PetitesGrottes'de Qumrtan, Mathews,K. A. 1983 The Backgroundof the Paleo-Hebrew Planches. Series:Discoveries in the TextsandQumran.Pp.549-68 in The JudaeanDesert of Jordan3. Oxford: ClarendonPress. Wordof the LordShall Go Forth. Burrows,M., Trever,J.C., and Brownlee,W.H. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedmanin Celebrationof his Six1950 The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's tieth Birthday,edited by C. Meyers Monastery,volume 1. New Haven, and M. O'Connor.WinonaLake,IN: CT:American Schools of Oriental American Schools of Oriental Research. Research. Cross,F.M. 1955 The Oldest Manuscriptsfrom Qum1986 The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Textof the HebrewBible. ran.Journalof Biblical Literature 74: 147-72. Catholic Biblical Quarterly48: 171-207. 1961 The Development of JewishScripts. Ploeg, J.van der Pp. 133-202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East:Essays in Honor 1962 LeTargumde Jobde la grotte 11de Premierecomof William FoxwellAlbright, edited Qumrfn (11QtgJob). munication. Medelingenkoninklijke by G. E. Wright.GardenCity, NY: nederlandseAkadamie van WetensDoubleday. 1962 EpigraphicNotes on HebrewDocuhappen,Afd. Letterkunde25: 9. Amsterdam:N. V.Noordhollandische ments of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.:III.The InscribedJarHandles UitgeversMaatschappij. from Gibeon. Bulletin of the Ameri- Sanders,J.A. can Schools of Oriental Research 1965 ThePsalmsScrollof QumranCave11. 168: 18-23. Series:Discoveries in the Judaean

54

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

Desert of Jordan4. Oxford:Clarendon Press. Siegel, J.P. 1971 The Employmentof Palaeo-Hebrew Charactersfor the Divine Names at Qumranin Lightof TannaiticSources. Hebrew Union College Annual 42: 159-72. Simon, M., and Slotki, I. W, translators 1935 The Babylonian Talmud:Seder Nezikin, VolumeII, Baba Bathra. London:The Soncino Press. Skehan,P.W 1955 Exodusin the SamaritanRecension from Qumran.Journalof Biblical Literature74: 182-87. 1964 A Psalm Manuscriptfrom Qumran (4QPsb).Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36: 313-22. Tov,E. 1978- The TextualCharacterof the Leviticus 1979 ScrollfromQumranCave 11.Shnaton 3: 238-44 (Hebrew). 1979a The TextualAffiliations of 4QSama. Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament 14:37-53. 1979b The RelationshipBetweenthe Textual Witnesses of the Old Testament in the Lightof the Scrollsfrom the JudaeanDesert. Beth Miqra77: 161-70 (Hebrew). 1980 Determiningthe Relationshipbetween the QumranScrolls and the LXX:Some MethodologicalIssues. Pp.45-68 in 1980ProceedingsIOSCS - Vienna.The Hebrew and Greek Textsof Samuel, edited by E.Tov. Jerusalem:Academon. 1981 The Text-CriticalUse of the Septuagint in Biblical Research.Jerusalem: Simor. Turner,E. G. 1971 GreekManuscriptsof the Ancient World.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Ulrich, E. C. 1978 The Qumran Textof Samuel and Josephus.Series:HarvardSemitic Monographs19. Missoula, MT: ScholarsPress. de Vaux,R. 1956 Fouilles de KhirbetQumran.Rapport prdliminaire sur les 3e, 4e, et 5e

Campagnes.Revue Biblique 63: 533-77. 1973 Archaeologyand the Dead Sea Scrolls, revisededition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. Wieder,N. of the Sect of 1953 The "Law-Interpreter" the Dead Sea Scrolls.The Second Moses. Journalof Jewish Studies 4: 158-75. Yadin,Y 1962 The Scroll of the Warof the Sons of LightAgainst The Sons of Darkness, translatedby C. Rabin.Oxford: University Press.

r

-f

Ilkr

tI o~.

-r

,d9 i414

Al lo

~

t

7' Ift?-n ~ftb

L

Ile, in ? og~

Ag,

ftv 'a, 5~

r ,, ;I

,?~?1/

i

ll1 vi

Bedouins in the Khunzeh Gorge encountered by the early explorers of the Near East. From In Scripture Lands (1891), by Edward L. Wilson.

BYMAXMILLER

R

atherthanseparately thebroadfieldsof Old considering

Testamenthistory and Middle Easternarchaeology,this paper will look at the interface between the two -where the results of archaeologicalresearchare relevant to our attempts to reconstruct the history of Israel during Old Testamenttimes. More specifically, it will focus on nonwritten, artifactualevidence from Palestine and explore the potential, as well as the limitations, of this kind of

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

55

ON

...........

0,

VsPAl ::MM

..... ....

Three of the pioneers of Palestinian archaeology. Above: Edward Robinson, a nineteenthcentury American scholar who did some of the earliest work on physical and historical geography Left: Sir Charles W. Wilson, a nineteenth-century Englishman who, as a member of the Royal Engineers, oversaw the first scientific mapping of Jerusalem and also launched a reconnaissance of Palestine for the purpose of identifying appropriate sites for excavation. Below left: Sir Flinders Petrie, an Englishman whose excavations around the turn of the century are generally considered to have established Near Eastern archaeology as a scientific discipline.

The Development of Palestinian Archaeology

evidence for the study of ancient political history. In dealing with the topic thus limited, I shall first present a sweeping overview of key developments in the emergence of Palestinian archaeology as a modern, scientific discipline and point out correlations between these developments and simultaneous discussions on biblical history. I shall then make some general observations about the current status of the discipline. Finally, I shall discuss some specific areas in which artifactual evidence aids in the understanding of biblical history.

56

At the risk of oversimplification, I can distinguish three main phases in the still-emerging discipline of Palestinian archaeology. The first phase, which took place in the nineteenth century, was marked by explorations, general surveys, and mapping projects (see Silberman 1982); these were conducted by the pioneers of the discipline - such as Ulrich J. Seetzen, Ludwig Burckhardt, Edward Robinson, Captain Charles Wilson, Sir Charles Warren, Claude R. Conder, and Horatio H. Kitchener-and they yielded results that to this day have relevance for studies in biblical history. These pioneers produced our first reasonably accurate maps of Palestine - admittedly with some areas identified only tentatively. They surveyed - somewhat more tentatively, especially in the Transjordan-the surface archaeological remains of the land. Finally, they made significant headway in clarifying the historical geography of Palestine. Edward Robinson's Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions and George Adam Smith's The Historical Geography of

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

Potterydatingwasa significanttechnical breakthrough, yet it alsoproducedthefirst realproblemin attemptsto correlate withthe archaeology biblicalaccountof Israel'shistory. the Holy Land are not just classics; they contain most of what we know today about Palestinian toponymyincluding ancient place-names and the approximate or specific locations of biblical cities and villages. This sort of information is basic for any attempt to reconstruct the history of biblical times. The explorers of this period were not, for the most part, trained biblical scholars. Yet there were hopes, expectations, and claims expressed from various directions that their work, by confirming and clarifying the Bible, would combat the views of literary critics of the day such as Julius Wellhausen.1 The second phase in the development of Palestinian archaeology extended from about 1890, when Flinders Petrie began excavations at Tell el-Hesi, to the 1940s, when World War II and the partition of Palestine led to the reduction, but never the cessation, of archaeological fieldwork (see Albright 1949: 23-48; King 1983). Attention was turned during this phase to the major tells of Palestine, many of which were excavated with a wide variety of techniques. The primary goal of the excavators was to disentangle the successive occupational strata of the tells, to date and trace the architectural remains of each stratum, and to correlate the archaeological record of each site with Palestinian history as

known from written sources. Excavation and dating techniques gradually became more sophisticated and standardized,the most important breakthroughduring this phase being pottery dating. Pottery dating came as a mixed blessing, however.Although it enabled archaeologists to date the successive strata and associated architectural remains of their tells more accurately,it also producedthe first real problem in attempts to correlate archaeologywith the biblical account of Israel'shistory-the case of Jericho.Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger excavatedat Jericho(TellesSultan) in 1907-11 and they separated three city phases, which they identified respectively as the Canaanite city that Joshuadestroyed, the Israelite city founded during Ahab'sreign, and a postexilic Jewish settlement. By the mid-1920s,however,pottery dating was coming into its own, and Watzingerrecognized that the Jerichopottery did not support their initial dating of the three city phases. On the contrary,his reexamination of the pottery led him to conclude, and to publish in 1926, that "inthe time of JoshuaJericho was a heap of ruins on which stood perhapsa few isolated huts" (Watzinger 1926:208). Watzingerclaimed, in effect, that archaeologydisproved the historicity of the biblical account of the conquest of Jericho. Controversyraged.JohnGarstang, among the many who were convinced that Watzingerwas wrong, conducted further excavations at Jerichoand minor soundings at Ai and Hazor, from'which he concluded that all three sites were still active cities as late as 1400 B.C. (Garstang 1931: 61). He proposed this as a reasonable date for the conquest, and this dating gained wide acceptance during the 1930s. William O. E. Oesterley and Theodore H. Robinson even used it in their book, A History of Israel (Robinson 1932: 132). Yet others, particularly pottery specialists such as William F. Albright and Pare

withpoliticalhistory, Lessconcerned of thenewbreedwantto archaeologists and knowaboutcommunal configurations howpeopleutilizedorexploited theirenvironment. L. H. Vincent, found Garstang'sinterpretationof the archaeological evidence unconvincing. In the meantime Albright, Albrecht Alt, and Martin Noth were hammering out their own distinctive approachesto early Israelite history, and these would eclipse Garstang'ssolution to the conquest problem by the early 1940s. This brings us to the third and last phase, a period that extends from the aftermath of WorldWarII to the present (see Dever 1985).This phase has witnessed increasingly rapidchanges in Palestinian archaeology and may be characterizedby four developments:First, there have been majorimprovements and increased consensus in excavation techniques - in particular,the socalled Wheeler-Kenyonmethod,2 which provides more stratigraphic control. Second, archaeologicalprojects today are usually designed with more specific goals in mind than before- for instance, to solve particular problems or to fill in specific gaps in our knowledge. This means, among other things, fewer long-term excavations at big tells, more attention to one-periodsites, and a return to surface surveys.Third, archaeological teams are being drawnfrom an increasingly broaderrangeof disciplines, more now from the sciences than from the humanities. The teams are composed of geologists, botanists, zoologists, hydrologists, and the like and supportedby student volunteers ratherthan locally hired laborers.Thus a broadervariety of data is collected, collected more carefully,and hopefully more com-

ly among some American archaeologists, there is a noticeable shift of interest awayfrom historical towards anthropologicalkinds of questions. Less concerned with the political history of ancient times, archaeologists of the new breedwant to know what sort of communal configurations existed among the people who lived there andhow they utilized or exploited their environment. This shift reflects the influence of "new archaeology,"which emerged among New Worldarchaeologists.It also represents a negative professional reaction to methodological abuses perpetratedunder the generalbanner of "biblicalarchaeology"-which often slanted and arbitrarilyinterpreted archaeologicalfindings in an attempt to correlate them with the biblical record. Meanwhile, duringthe fifties and early sixties, Albright'sapproach to archaeologyand biblical history, expounded and developedby G. ErnestWrightand others, gained dominance among English-speaking scholars. On the other hand, German scholarstendedto follow the approach of Alt and Noth, and this resulted in sharpdebatebetweenthe two "schools" (see especially Bright 1956;Wright 1958, 1959;von Rad 1960; and Noth 1960).The essential differencebetween the two approacheswas that Alt andNoth insisted that a thorough literary-criticalanalysis of the biblical materials was the properstarting point for reconstructing Israelite history,while Albright and his followers held that archaeological evidence would take precedence over many of the historical uncertainties raisedby

pletely understood. Fourth, especial-

literary-critical research, and there-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

57

fore that "archaeologicalsolutions" were the properstartingpoint for reconstructingIsraelite history. During the sixties, however,as professionalism among Palestinian archaeologists increased, biblical archaeologyin general and the Albrightian archaeologicalsolutions in particularbegan to run aground.The "biblicaltheology"movement, with which biblical archaeologywas closely allied, lost momentum (see especially Childs 1970).More often than not, new archaeologicaldiscoveries createdproblems for ratherthan provided support for the Albrightian positions. By the seventies there were even strong frontal attacks against Albright'ssolutions. Thomas Thompson systematically dismemberedAlbright'scase for the historicity of the patriarchsand the "PatriarchalAge"(Thompson 1974).I workedthrough the supposed archaeological evidence for a thirteenthcentury Israelite conquest and attempted to demonstrate that this evidence presents more problems than supportfor such a view (see Miller 1977a, 1977b).William Dever objectedto the very concept of "biblical archaeology"and insisted that Palestinian archaeologymust declare independence from biblical studies. Otherwise, he claimed, there will continue to be an inherent bias that will limit the archaeologist'sscope and distort his or her final conclusions (Dever 1974;compare Dever 1984). The Present Scene I would offer three general observations about the current relation of archaeology to biblical history. First, I think we must concede that much of the biblical archaeology package has collapsed. For instance, even though Thompson's study has been criticized on several counts, no one has succeeded in reconstructing an archaeological case for the history of the patriarchs since his attack on Albright. Some of the secondary literature and even some field archaeolo-

58

A majorproblemwithestablishing thelocationsof biblicalsitesis that areoftenmadewithout identifications properattentionto theliterary-critical complexities of biblicalmaterials. gists still equate the widespreaddisturbances in Palestine at the end of the LateBronzeAge with an Israelite invasion, but there have been no recent attempts to defend this view, and I do not think it can be defended. Solomon'sstables at Megiddoand copper works at Elath turned out to be nothing of the kind. In effect, therefore,practitioners of biblical archaeologyhave an image problem on both sides of the disciplines they combine. Fromthe biblical studies side, they face charges of having perpetratedmisleading archaeological solutions to questions in biblical history. Fromthe archaeologicalside, they are told that historical questions are not the most important ones to ask and that those trained in biblical studies do not belong in the trenches anyhow. At the same time, although we may be less certain now than two decades ago that archaeologycan solve historical problems,I can see a renewed appreciationof its value for clarifying the material culture of Palestine duringbiblical times and the relevanceof this kind of information for understandingthe biblical texts. This is in keeping with the current shift of interest among archaeologists, and biblical scholars, awayfrom political-historical questions to environmental-anthropological issues, and it drawson the strength of archaeology,which is the recoveryof the material culture of earlier times. Finally, it is clear today that Dever's objections to the casual professional blending of biblical studies and field archaeologyhave been

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

heard, even if some think that he may have overstatedthe problem somewhat and that a radicalseparation of the disciplines is neither realistic nor advisable.It is understood now that excavatingwith the Bible in hand is no longer appropriate, that Palestinian archaeologymust have its own agenda,and that the archaeologist must have archaeological training. If anything, emphasis may have fallen too heavily on this final requirement.The paperspresented at the annual meetings of the American Schools of Oriental Research are largely descriptivenowadays - "show-and-tell"-with only

rareattempts at historical interpretation or broadsynthesis. I have encountered field archaeologists who claim with pride to be "dirt archaeologists,"as if to suggest that there is some virtue in ignoranceof the ancient written sources and how these may relate to their work. Not all archaeologists claim this virtue, of course. Some of the most naive and arbitrarycorrelations made between items from Palestinian archaeology and Old Testamenthistory come, not from biblicists who play loose with stratigraphy,but from field archaeologistswho fail to take into account that the biblical materials are also stratified and complex. The crucial matter, in my opinion, is not whether scholars should dareto cross disciplinary lines but whether in doing so they respect the procedures,warrants,and limitations of the different kinds of evidence they drawupon. Forthe specifics of history, we must depend primarily on written records.

. ........ ....... X-I.d.X-.---, ,ftwl Wl, ?i:lilt .... .. 1-1 Z=.r ... ....... ... .......

"V~

jdm-.?

41' ?

IL

14, .. lj X?I G.17

An early map of the Galilee from Edward Robinson'shistoric book Biblical Researches. Robinsonproduced this by referringboth to previousmaps and to his own travels.

A late nineteenth-centurytopographicmap of northwesternPalestine,one of a genreof maps generatedthroughthe many mappingprojectsof the time.

Biblical History and Archaeology Even though political-historical questions are not at the top of everybody's agendaright now, some of us are still interested in exploring the political history of biblical times. Admittedly, artifactualevidence is not very useful for dealing with these kinds of questions; for the specifics of history, we must depend primarily on written records.Nevertheless, archaeologycan be relevant to our work. If we are to use it effectively, however,we must be awareof some critical points. Historical geographyand toponymy. Biblical toponymy- establishing the geographicallocations of the biblical cities and villages - remains a very soft areain contemporaryscholarship -yet one that is basic to research in biblical history. Our atlases suggest that we know much more than we actually do. A majorproblem is that site identifications are often made without properattention to the literary-criticalcomplexities of the biblical materials. Certainly this was true with the nineteenth-century explorerswho made many of the initial site identifications. There is the addedproblem that a site identification merely suggested in a professional publication can find its way

into secondaryliterature,be repeated several times, and graduallyachieve the status of scholarly consensus without ever having a strong case made for it or taking into account the implications the identification has on related issues. Once a proposed identification is incorporated into the biblical atlases, there is no turning back; it takes on canonical status. Isbet Sartah,supposedly biblical Ebenezer,is an example of a doubtful and not yet fully examined identification well on its way to achieving "scholarlyconsensus"simply by being repeatedoften enough (see Miller 1984).The traditional equation of Tell el-Ful with Gibeah of Saul illustrates how a site identification, once it has achieved "scholarly consensus,"lingers on long after much of the supportingevidence has been conceded as invalid.4 There is another aspect of the softness of biblical toponymy.When excavations at a previously identified biblical site do not producewhat is expected, one of the first things we hear is that the identification must be wrong. This pattern has been particularly noticeable with the conquest cities-those which, according to the book of Joshua,resisted the Israelite invasion of Canaan. One

after another Jericho,Ai, Arad, Heshbon, and Yarmutproducedlittle or no remains from the LateBronze, the supposed conquest period.In each case, at least one person proposed that the excavatedsite was misidentified - that the real Jericho, Ai, Arad,Heshbon, or Yarmutmust have been somewhere else, perhaps nearby.In short, the uncertainties of biblical toponymy become a convenient "out"when the archaeological evidence does not seem to square with biblical claims. This whole areaneeds more concentrated attention at the moment, and it is one where the issues of biblical history and Palestinian archaeologyare necessarily intertwined. Artifactual evidence. Although it is a good source for clarifying the material culture of times past, artifactual evidence is a very poor source of information about specific people and events. "The stones don'tlie,"it has been said, "becausethey don't say anything."Artifactual data typically are neutral on historical matters and subject to a rangeof interpretations. Often, therefore,when such evidence is cited in supportof the historicity of a biblical text or of the certainty of a particularhistorical position, this means nothing

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

59

more than that the data in question can be interpretedto fit the particular text or position. Take,for example, the question of the Israelite conquest and occupation of Canaan. JohnBimson, in his book, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, offers an updatedarchaeologicalcase for the historicity of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.His methodological approachis very similar to Albright's.Yethe challenges Albright's thirteenth-century dating of the conquest, placing it instead at the end of the Middle BronzeAge (the midfifteenth century by Bimson'sreckoning). JosephCallaway,on the other hand, who excavatedat Ai, one of the conquest cities, sees the archaeological evidence pointing towarda gradual,essentially nonmilitary, Israelite settlement of the central Palestinian hill country.Callaway'sapproachis very similar to that of Alt, except that his interpretationof the archaeologicalevidence leads him to conclude that the settlers came primarily from the coastal regions to the west ratherthan from the desert fringe to the east and that they were agriculturalfolk forced inland by the Sea Peoples ratherthan seminomads coming in search of pastorage(Callaway 1985).Finally,Norman Gottwald sees the general disturbances in Palestine at the end of LateBronzeAge as supportingevidenceforhis theorythat Israel emerged from a widespread peasant revolt that, accordingto the theory, would have occurredat about that time (Gottwald 1979: 192-203, 650-63). The fact that these widely variantviews about Israelite origins all claim archaeological support simply illustrates, in my opinion, that the archaeological evidence is ambiguous, or essentially neutral, on the subject. One should always consider whether the same data might just as well be interpreted otherwise. I find it useful, in fact, to distinguish three levels at which archaeological evidence finds its way into discussions of biblical history. At the first level,

60

the artifacts serve as tangible illustrations of the material culture of a particulaVhistorical period- early Iron Age -housesand pottery vessels illustrate everydaylife duringthe period of the Judges;proto-aeolic capitals give us a glimpse of architectural design from the period of the separatekingdoms; and so on. This is the most appropriateuse of artifactualdata in historical studies. Yet even this use can be overplayedas when it is claimed that certain

Amongthecitiesthat Solomonis saidto havebuiltareHazor, Megiddo,and Gezer.

Artifactual data are not always entirely neutral on historical matters, however.There is a third leveloccasionswhere a correlationbetween certain artifactualdata and the written recordsseem reasonablyfirm, or where the artifactualevidence speaks with its own distinctive voice in one way or another, sometimes even preempting the written sources or prevailing theories. Consider the following examples. Understandingmonarchial history.An important benchmark for establishing a correlationbetween the artifactualrecordand the specifics of biblical history is Solomon's building program.Among the cities that Solomon is said to have built are Hazor, Megiddo,and Gezer, which can be identified fairly certainly with present-dayTell el-Qedah,Tell el-Mutesellim, and Tell Jezer,respectively. City gates and connecting casemate walls dating from approximately the tenth century B.C.have

been found among the ruins at all three sites, their similar plans suggesting that they were part of a single royalbuilding project(see Lance 1981: 73-90). The case is not entirely conclusive. Forexample, there is some stratigraphicaluncertainty at Megiddo. Nevertheless, it is now the general consensus, and I think correctly so, that archaeologistshave identified the Solomonic strataof the three cities in question. This providesa benchmark, in turn, for recognizing houses. pre-Solomonic and post-Solomonic At the second level are those phases at the sites in question and, numerous occasions where certain by comparingthe pottery, at other be can data reasonably Palestinian sites. archaeological correlatedwith a particularitem in Samaria (present-day Sebastiyeh) written documents or be called upon provides another benchmark, alto support a particularhistorical though again we are speaking only same data the may also, of a high degree of probability rather position; yet sometimes just as reasonably,be in- than absolute certainty. Since Omri terpretedotherwise. This is the situ- is reported in 1 Kings to have founded ation with the question of the IsraSamaria, it makes sense to attribute elite occupation of Canaan.A great the earliest building phase at Sebastideal of what one reads in popular yeh to him. Likewise it makes sense newsand to assign a second building phase at especially books, articles, paperreleases pertaining to biblical Sebastiyeh, which followed soon after the first, to Ahab, also rememarchaeologybelongs to this level.

early IronAge features,such as the so-called collared-rimjarsand fourroom houses, are distinctively Israelite, simply because they turn up in Palestine in the earlyIronAge, which we equate in turn with Israel'searly tribal period. Has it been established that the Jebusites,for example, did not use the same kind of jarsand live in the same kind of houses? Recent work in the Transjordansuggests that the Ammonites and Moabites used similar jarsand lived in similar

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1987

--I?:

"

i" '"W

-I-?i~ 1

;

----J~

:C:: -I:?ii ,:i

s:".

PI~

I ;

.? r "

1

r"

: I i: "::r: *::?~: ::

?~ ~

i-:.-;--?:a?

;rrC? s'i

i?~?~ .n!;Plu'--~ :::;i:

:iiii

-

?~:

g ~"~I~ ~ *i; :'i ;

t~?: ;?r : :"::?~ :-:::~~~:~::: ?::i.~aii-i-:l ":-:::: -- : :i : -:;--:: :::\; -:";::?_i~_jji~_jg~: ::iiti~id-~*::i " ?-*~':~ig * :

,:::: I__.

~4;8 ~ii" ?liii--il:r-

i

_

-P~Y~91

:;::

ii--i'ii-;ai I

ii

ii

?;?~--~i

.s.

.;;,;

7--iia:o~'?"'-;~

i~i?"

Twoof the so-called stables of Solomon at Megiddo.FromMegiddo(1939),by RobertS. Lamon and GeoffreyM. Shipton. Courtesyof The Universityof ChicagoPress.

-

?:??ail i

iiiii(_ li-%ii:i;-:---?;Y~::::i

; ;;~~

"-'W~~ *i':':;"" C?";..' ---~

;?-

-L?.i.

I:::::i?E:il:" ::' -I: I:::::::_::L _;-: ,: ~ie i:, ;::::~:~~-:;~:iii: ~':

i:i

;?:?; -;

i~'?"I ..Y?-

::

???~ , ? ,- - 1

-z

~4!:s ~a:~ r-*

I

?-?.*E :~:. a? ::~:~::::

:'x

;"

;i:

i;C:~~ _ ?:?::?

:*

.~g~e:

si:-i -i ~:~-~-~ ~~::-ii~j~i~ :i--~:-::;: e~~i~;e i,:--;i-!:-ii-iii-~?l_:6?

:"'"' ili:~i~~; ; :I;:

B5

R' ::-i:i:

: ~i 1~----~

_

i~i~_B

?i

i?la,,~ :?::

~a

s~D"i-xi ; .. - -?-?i#::

bered in 1 Kings as a builder. The qualification that this is less than absolutely certain is because the earliest pottery found at the site, presumably to be associated with its first phase, looks very much like the pottery associated with the supposedly Solomonic phase at Hazor (see Miller 1976:40-46). Finally,it seems reasonablycertain that we have a third benchmark

and our biblical atlases depict his empire as extending literally from Egyptto the Euphrates.Yet commentators have long since observed that the biblical descriptions of his power and wealth are as vague as they are fantastic, and that the few really tangible details providedactually suggest a rathermodest operation. Forone thing, Solomon seems to have developeda cash-flow probat Lachish - assuming that Lachish lem that resulted in his giving up is correctly identified with Tell edsome twenty cities to Hiram of Tyre Duweir. (The pros and cons of this (1Kings 9:11-14).The archaeological identification have been arguedby evidence quite clearly seems to sugGosta W Ahlstr6m in 1983 and by gest that Solomon'sgrandeurhas Graham Davies in 1984.) Stratum III been exaggerated. at Tell ed-Duweirwould represent loose. Nevertheless, even with these Although the city plans and arthe city phase sacked by Sennacherib qualifications, the artifactualrecord chitectural remains that can be assoin 701 B.C., an event described on his ciated with his reign are fairly imoccasionally has a distinctive voice to be heard. palace walls at Nineveh. pressive by local Palestinian stanThe narratorsof Kings and dardsof the early Iron Age, they are Beginning with these benchmarks and working out to others by Chronicles would have us believe, modest when comparedto those of for example, that Solomon was a fan- the precedingBronzeAge, and even constantly comparingthe pottery from one site to the next, it is postastically wealthy and powerfulruler when comparedwith a following sible to develop still further correla- whose domain extended from the phase of the Iron Age. The later and more impressive IronAge phase to tions, each with its own relative Egyptianfrontier to the Euphrates. He was a great builder, and goods which I referis the one associated degree of certainty, between the arwith the Omride dynasty.At Hazor, chaeological strata and the periods poured into his empire from the far of the Israelite and Judeanmonarchy. corners of the earth. Historians gen- for example, the fortifications were With few exceptions, such as when erally have taken these claims essen- expandedand strengthened,apparentwritten materials turn up in the tially at face value. Solomon'sreign ly by the Omrides, beyond those of is presented as Israel's"goldenage," Solomon'sday.Impressivewater tunstrata,these correlations are very

Thusfar verylittle evidence inscriptional hasemergedin Palestine.Is it toomuchto hopethatsooneror laterwe will uncover somerealarchives?

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

61

nels were engineered at both Hazor and Megiddo. Solomon's stables at Megiddo, probably not stables after all, turn out now to be Omride. In short, the same artifactual record that suggests that the grandeur of Solomon's reign has been overrated also suggests that the Omride period represented the (still rather modest) "golden age"of ancient Israel, at least as far as material wealth and engineering accomplishments were concerned. One would never have suspected this from the biblical materials, although it is confirmed by nonbiblical documents contemporary with Old Testament times. In these documents Omri and Ahab are the first biblical characters to be mentioned, and a hundred years after Omri's death the Assyrians still referred to Israel as "the land of Omri."

Conclusion Let me reemphasize that the comments in this paper have been focused intentionally on nonwritten, artifactual evidence. This sort of evidence, which is silent by nature, is not particularly useful for dealing with specific historical questions. Yet the artifactual record does occasionally speak with a distinctive voice that biblical historians should be prepared to hear. Finally, I concede that my distinction between written and nonwritten archaeological evidence, although useful for the purposes of this presentation, is somewhat arbitrary. At least some mention should be made of the increasing number of small inscriptional finds - ostraca, seals, seal impressions, and the like -that are turning up in Palestinian sites. Perhaps the most notable thing to be observed in this regard, however, is that thus far very little inscriptional evidence has emerged in Palestine. Is it too much to hope that sooner or later we will uncover some real archives? If and when we do, especially if we find archival material from the Iron Age, I predict it will revolutionize studies in Old Testament history.

62

Notes the Geba/Gibeahproblemhave not reThese observationson Old Testament sulted in unanimity, it is a sharedconclusion of these studies that a simple history and archaeologywere presented in 1984 in connection with an annual equation of Gibeahwith Tell el-Ful canlecture-discussion series sponsoredby not be maintained (see Demsky 1973; the Society of Biblical Literature.The Blenkinsopp 1974;Miller 1975). purposeof the series is to provideintroductions to and currentstatus reportson various fields of researchrelatedto bibliBibliography cal studies. Ahlstr6m, G. W. 1983 Tell Ed-Duweir:Lachishor Libnah? 'JuliusWellhausen,incidentally,published his Prolegomena to the History of

Israel in 1878, the same year that Claude R. Conderand Horatio H. Kitchener completed their surveyand mappingof western Palestine. 2MortimerWheeler,the distinguished British archaeologistand the teacher of KathleenKenyon,developeda system known as debris analysis while diggingat the Romano-Britishtown of Verulamium (England)in the 1930s.Kenyonassisted him and helped him improvethis archaeological method. Basicallyher procedure, which she used in her excavationsof Jerichoduringthe fifties, and which has been modified with its continued use at other sites, was characterizedby stratigraphiccontrol and carefulrecording,as she dug the site in stratifiedlayers,within five-metersquares.When this grid method of excavationis used, sections (that is, the vertical surfacesthat are exposed)automatically occur on the four sides of each five-metersquare.Kenyon paid special attention to drawingthe sections, and she also did daily pottery analysis- although not quite the same as G. ErnestWright'ssystematic potteryreadingsessions at Shechem. Kenyon's meticulous technique guaranteesexcellent control but it also should be pointed out that it allows for only a limited exposure of the site. 3Forinstance, JamesMoyerreada paperin 1983 at the southwestern sectional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literatureentitled "Archaeologyand Old TestamentWisdom Literature."Philip King'stopic for the 1984Zion Lectureship was "TheContribution of Archaeology to Biblical Studies as Illustratedin the Eighth Century Prophets."The Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research255 has articles on the findings at Khirbetel-Q6m and Kuntillet cAjrud and their relevancefor understanding popularYahwisticworship in ancient Judah. 4Whilerecent attempts to clarify

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

Palestine ExplorationQuarterly115: 103-04. Albright,W.E 1949 TheArchaeologyof Palestine. Baltimore: PenguinBooks. Bimson, J.J. 1978 Redating the Exodusand Conquest. Series:Journalfor the Studyof the Old TestamentSupplement5. Sheffield: Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament. Blenkinsopp,J. 1974 Did Saul MakeGibeon His Capital? VetusTestamentum24: 1-7. Bright,J. 1956 EarlyIsraelin Recent History Writing. London:SCMPress. Callaway,J.A. 1985 A New Perspectiveon the Hill Country Settlement of Cannaanin IronAge I. In Palestine in the Bronze and IronAges: Papersin Honourof Olga Tufnell,edited by J.N. Tubb. Series:Occasional Publicationof the University of London,Institute of Archaeology 11.London:Institute of Archaeology. Childs, B. S. 1970 Biblical Theologyin Crisis. Philadelphia:WestminsterPress. Davies, G. I. 1984 Tell Ed-Duweir-Ancient Lachish:A Responseto G. W.Ahlstr6m.Palestine ExplorationQuarterly116:25-28. Demsky, A. 1973 Geba, Gibeah, andGibeon-A Historico-GeographicalRiddle.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research212: 25-31. Dever,W.G. 1974 Archaeologyand Biblical Studies: Retrospectsand Prospects.Series: William C. Winslow Lectures.Evanston, IL:Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. 1984 The Relationshipbetween Bible, Oriental Studies and Archaeology from the Perspectiveof an Archaeologist. Pp.31-45 in A Symposium on the Relationshipbetween Bible, Oriental Studies, and Archaeology. Series:Occasional Papersof The Horn ArchaeologicalMuseum at AndrewsUniversity 3. Berrien

Springs,MI:SiegfriedH. Horn ArchaeologicalMuseum. 1985 Syro-Palestinianand Biblical Archaeology.Pp.31-64 in The Hebrew Bible and Its ModernInterpreters.Philadelphia/Atlanta:FortressPress/ ScholarsPress. Garstang,J. 1931 Joshua-Judges.London:Constable & Co. Gottwald,N. K. 1979 The Tribesof Yahweh.Maryknoll, New York:OrbisBooks. King,P.J. 1983 American Archaeologyin the Mideast: A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Winona Lake,IN: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lance,H. D. 1981 The Old Testamentand the Archaeologist. Series:Guides to Biblical Scholarship,Old TestamentSeries. Philadelphia:FortressPress. Miller, J.M. 1975 Geba/Gibeahof Benjamin.Vetus Testamentum25: 145-66. 1976 The Old Testamentand the Historian. Series:Guidesto BiblicalScholarship, Old TestamentSeries. Philadelphia: FortressPress. 1977a Archaeologyand the IsraeliteConquest of Canaan:Some Methodological Observations.Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109:87-93. 1977b The IsraeliteOccupation of Canaan. Pp. 213-84 in Israelite and Judean History,edited by J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller. Philadelphia:Westminster Press. 1984 Site Identification:A ProblemAreain ContemporaryBiblical Scholarship. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalbistinaVereins99: 119-29. Noth, M. 1960 Der Beitragder Archiologie zur Geschichte Israels.Pp. 262-82 in VetusTestamentumSupplements 7. Leiden,Netherlands:E. J.Brill. Robinson,E. 1867 Biblical Researchesin Palestine and the Adjacent Regions:A Journalof Travelsin the Years1838 & 1852 by EdwardRobinson,Eli Smith and Others, third edition. London:J. Murray. Robinson,T H. 1932 A History of Israel. VolumeI: From the Exodus to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Silberman,N. A. 1982 Digging for God and Country:Exploration, Archaeology,and the Secret Strugglefor the Holy Land, 1799-1917. New York:AlfredA. Knopf.

Smith, G. A. 1894 The Historical Geographyof the Holy Land.London:Hodderand Stoughton. Thompson, T. L. 1974 The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives:The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Series:Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fiurdie Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133. New York:Walter de Gruyter. von Rad,G. 1960 Historyandthe Patriarchs.Expository Times 72: 213-16. Watzinger,C. 1926 "ZurChronologieder Schichtenvon Jericho,"Zeitschrift der Deutschen MorgenlandischenGesellschaft 80: 131-136. (Fortranslatedexcerptsee Notes on Excavations.Palestinian ExplorationFund Quarterly1926.) Wellhausen,J. 1878 Prolegomenato the History of Ancient Israel. Gloucester,MA:Peter Smith. Wright,G. E. 1958 Archaeologyand Old Testament Studies. Journalof Biblical Literature 77: 39-51. 1959 ModernIssues in Biblical StudiesHistory and the Patriarchs.Expository Times 71:292-96.

A BEAUTIFULLY POPULARLY ILLUSTRATED, WRITTEN TO GUIDE THERELATION BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY tellusaboutBible Whatcanarchaeologists times?Canarchaeologyprove or disprove theBible?Howdo modernarchaeologistssetabouttheirtask? Theseandmanyotherfascinatingquestionsarediscussedinthislavishlyillustrated surveyof biblicalarchaeology today.Ateamofexpertshasbeencommisof sionedtoopenupsomeofthemysteries archaeology,andto answersuchquestionsas: WhatdidJesuslooklike?What heroes weaponsdidtheOldTestament Where use?Wherewas Jesuscrucified? arethelakesidecitiesof Galileetoday? infullcolorthroughout, DISIllustrated THEBIBLEis an ideal introducCOVERING

tionto biblicalarchaeology. Cloth,$14.95 .~~i~r~c~a

~r

Irr-e ~i.

?i:

i'

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION of August 12, 1970; Section 3685, Title 39, (Act United States Code) of BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST, published quarterly at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. General business offices of the publisher are located at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Name and address of publisher is the American Schools of Oriental Research, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Owner is the American Schools of Oriental Research, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Known bondholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities: None. The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes have not changed during preceding 12 months. The average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months are: (A) Total number of copies printed: 7,009; (B) Paid circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 50; (2) Mail subscriptions (paid and/or requested): 5,410; (C) Total paid circulation: 5,460; (1D)Free distribution by mail, carrier or other means: 125; (E) Total distribution: 5,585; (F) Copies not distributcd: (1)Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 1,424; (2) Return from news agents: 0; (G) Total: 7,009. The actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date are: (A) Total number of copies printed: 7,500; Paid circulation: (1)Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 200; (2) Mail subscriptions (paid and/or requested): 5,073; (C)Total paid circulation: 5,273; (1)) Free distribution by mail, carrier or other means: 140; (E) Total distribution: 5,413; (F) Copies not distributed: (1) Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 2,087; Return from news agents: 0; (G) Total: 7,500. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. (signed) Martin Wilcox Assistant to First Vice President for Publications, ASOR

'??

I?r ?Y ti7 u

?x ?/

; c;3~ ?r.?,??

,?

C

iii.

.t

?f ,, -r? h J?l\i).

5

.

z,

.r .~ "?~:~ ~~ ~ \r

? ??,i(

n :... ,

. ?yl:

?

C

t~a `

II r,:X ~zr-

r r-??

r

5?'

ii

I

r .i)

DISCOVERING THEBIBLE

Archaeologistslook at Scripture Editedby TimDowley At

* ..r hookstorc,

Ir write:

IWM.B. EERDMANS IEmm lPUBLISHING CO. ?I-

I|AN

.• %t NI

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

<(,

k\la)R

'11(H |I

4 491, 4

63

California Museum of Ancient Art & Pepperdine University Present... THE

SUMERIA FOUR

DAYS

IN

MAY

The first master class on Sumerian Civilization in the United States

May 8-11, 1987, Los Angeles, California Featuring Samuel Noah Kramer

A rare opportunity to learn from one of the fathers of modern-day Sumerology. Dr. Kramer has spent his life adding to our knowledge of the earliest civilization in history. By piecing together fragments of 4,000-year-oldclay tablets inscribed with cuneiform writing, he has uncovered startling facts about the Sumerians - showing the great debt which modern-daycivilization owes them. Author of over 25 books, Dr. Kramer is able to communicate his broad knowledge to laymen and academic audiences alike. Friday evening, major address:

"The Queen and the Shepherd: Sumerian Tales of Love, Death and Resurrection" The William and Marlene Huss Annual Lecture on Sumerian Civilization delivered by Dr. Kramer Japan America Theater 244 South San Pedro Street, Los Angeles, California May 8, 1987, 7:30 pm Reserved seating $10.00 Saturday evening, theatrical event:

West Coast Premiere of "Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth" ancient poetic myth about the Great Sumerian Love Goddess, Inanna, as recreated by storyteller Diane Wolkstein with musician Geoffrey Gordon Smothers Theater Pepperdine University, Malibu, California May 9, 1987, 8:00 pm Reserved seating $12.00 Saturday - Monday:

Three-Day Master Class on Sumerian Civilization For more information, brochure and schedule for "The Sumerians: Four Days in May" write to: California Museum of Ancient Art Dept. C, P.O. Box 10515 Beverly Hills, CA 90213 or call (818) 762-5500.

44

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

Nine separate sessions exploring the important contributions which the Sumerians made to world civilization, including Mother's Day topics on the Goddess of Love. Other scholars participating in the Master Class include: Professor Wolfgang Heimpel, noted Sumerologist from the University of California, Berkeley and Dr. William Fulco, West Semitic scholar from Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles Pepperdine University, Malibu, California May 9-11, 1987 Inquire about fees, academic credit and housing

EERDM THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland Translated by Erroll Rhodes "Succinctlyand engagingly written, with insightful illustrations, this introduction to textual criticism is a masterpiece. Nothing availablecompares to its level of excellence and usefulness. . . . Here is a most helpful guidebook in the art of text criticism by masters of the craft." ---JamesH. Charlesworth Cloth, $29.95

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN

THEOLOGY

Volume i, The Science of Theology

Edited by Paul Avis This new series offers an integrated presentation of the unfolding of Christian thought in its various aspects. Volume One presents a study of the changing understandings of the discipline of theology from the beginnings of the Christianera to the present day. Paper, $14.95

CONFLICT AND CONTEXT

Hermeneutics in the Americas

Edited by Mark Lau Branson and C. Rene Padilla "A timely and significant publishing event; one that will help bridge the gap between North and Latin American theological discussion." -Duane L. Christensen Paper $13.95

THE ANOINTED COMMUNITY The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition

Gary M. Burge "An exegetical and theological treatment of the Holy Spirit in the Johannine literatureis long overdue. Dr. Burge has therefore published a book which is both timely and intrinsically valuable." -Ralph Martin Paper, $19.95

64

SPEAKING THE TRUTH

Ecumenism, Liberation, and Black Theology

James H. Cone "JamesCone is the premier black theologian writing today. And this book is vintage Cone-prophetic, passionate, pertinent, and provocative. West -Cornel Paper, $8.95

DISCOVERING

THE BIBLE

Edited by Tim Dowley This and lavishly popularly,-written illustrated book outlines the nature of biblical archaeology and pinpoints some of the exciting areasof archaeological discovery in recent years. Cloth,

$14.95

CHRISTIAN ANARCHY Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers

Vernard Eller A provocative examination of the Christian relationship to the state and all wordly powers. Paper, $13.95

THE SUBVERSION OF CHRISTIANITY Jacques Ellul Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley Pointing to the many) contradictions beMtween the Bible and the practice of the church, Jacques Ellul assertsin this i stimulating book that what we today call Christianityis actually far removed from the regvelation of God. Paper, $9.95

A KARL BARTH READER Edited by Rolffoachim Erler and Reiner Marquard Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley These selections from Barth'ssermons, letters, addresses,and published writings serve as an excellent introduction to his thinking and faith. Paper, $6.95

INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION 1536Edition

LESS THAN CONQUERORS

John Calvin Translated andAnnotated by Ford Lewis Battles Of special interest to scholars, this translationof the first version of John Calvin'sInstitutes is annotated with extensive notes and references. Cloth, $25.00

Douglas W. Frank "An important and prophetic theological critique of the foundational assumptions on which most of the distlnctives of twentieth-century American evangelicalismhave been based." --George Marsden

How Evangelicals Entered the Twentieth Century

Paper, $I4.95

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1987

THEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT John Goldingay "Goldinga has written a book that is bold, darimig,and compelling in its argument; and more than that, it is interesting.... Goldingay not only talks about biblical theology, but does it-and with power." -Walter Brucggcmann Paper, $14.95

TENDING THE GARDEN

Essays on the Gospel and the Earth

Edited by WesleyGranbergMichaelson In order to develop and articulatea specificallybiblical environmental ethic, a variety of authors examine the relationship of God, humanity, and all creation. Paper,S8.95

IMAGING GOD

Dominion as Stewardship

DouglasJohn Hall "This is an urgently needed book. Douglas John Hall completely renovates the traditional Christian 'triumphalistanthropology' by rcconstructing, on solid biblicalfoundations and xwit impressive theological documentation, the pivotal themes 'the image of God' and 'dominion over the earth.'" -H. Paul Santmirc Paper, $8.95

AMERICAN CHARACTER AND FOREIGN POLICY Edited by Michael P. Hamilton Nationally-known expertsin political history, economics, sociology, and religion look beyond the symptoms of crisis to focus on those experiencesin our past which continue to influence the formation of U. S. foreign policy. Paper, $II.95

REINHOLD NIEBUHR AND THE ISSUES OF OUR TIME Edited by Richard Harries A distinguished group of academic vwritersdiscuss currentissues and ask xwhatlight Niebuhr can shed on them. Paper, $9.95

THE REALITY OF CHRISTIAN LEARNING Edited by Harold Heie and David L. Wolfe "This is a malor how-to-do-it regarding the integration of faith and learning ... It could significantlyadvanceefforts at integration among Christianscholars and teachers." -Arthur F. Holmes Cloth, $19.95

Academic Outstanding Books --987 UNDERSTANDING CULTS AND NEW RELIGIONS Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe "IrvingHexham and Karla Poewe make a convincing case for the importance of understanding the social and cultural conditions which have led to the proliferation of new religious movements.... I recommend the analysisof this book, and endorse it as a useful tool for anyone interested in understanding the appeal of New Age religion." -Terry Muck Paper, $8.95

A BURNING AND A SHINING LIGHT English Spirituality in the Age of Wesley Edited by David LyleJefrey An anthology of some of the best English spiritualwriting in the age of the Great Evangelical Revival. Paper, $16.95

COUNTING

THE COST

The Economics of Christian Stewardship Robin Kendrick Klay "Klay presents a compelling, no-nonsense survey of key contemporary issues of political economy. .. This work should be required reading for both conservative and liberal pashave tors, seminarians, and laity twho tired of recent ideological celebrations of capitalism or of socialism as the clue to human salvation." Max L. Stackhousc Paper, $9.95

EVERYTHING IS POLITICS BUT POLITICS IS NOT EVERYTHING A Theological Perspective on Faith and Politics H. M. Kuitert Prominent Dutch theologian H. M. Kuitert argues that the institutional church acts to its detriment when it makes political pronouncements and intervenes in the democratic process. aper, $8.95

ON MORAL MEDICINE Perspectives Theological in Medical Ethics Edited by Stephen E. Lammers andAllen Verhey "For the first time we now have a book that brings together some of the most important and significant theological reflection about medicine and the troubling moral issues that often surround medicine. Superbly organized and introduced, this book wif be invaluable in courses in ethics, theology, and philosophy." -Stanley Hauenras Paper, $25.oo-Cloth, $35.00

ADVENTISM IN AMERICA Edited by Gary Land Written by Adventist scholars who felt a need to better establish and understand their denominational identity and the foundation of their theological beliefs, this book offers a comprehensire, objective, and accuratehistory of the denomination. Paper,$14.95

THE SILICON SOCIETY David Lyon In this timely and interesting study, Lyon evaluates the computer revolution from a Christian perspective. Arguing that the shape of-the "silicon society is not a foregone conclusion, he makes a compelling case for finding a proper sense of direction for information technology. Paper, $4.95

NUMBERS Text and Interpretation

A Practical Commentary B. Maarsingh Paper,$6.95

r'

THE BOOKS OF HAGGAI AND MALACHI New International Commentary on the Old Testament PieterA. Verhoef "This is a careful, thoroughly researched book can be wthich recommended as a twarmly reliable and up-to-date commentary." -JohnJ. Collins $2.9 Cloth, $2i.95 BETWEEN

CHRIST

AND CAESAR Classic and Contemporary Texts on Church and State Edited by Charles Villa-Vicencio "This collection of church documents, introduced by informed commentaries, is an excellent text book for seminary and college courses on social ethics and liberation theology." -Gregory Baum "A text book, referencebook and resource book rolled into one, yet it glows with a powerful, contemporary prophetic witness." -Allan Boesak Paper, $16.95

AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY A Case Approach Edited by Ronald C. White, Jr., Louis B. Weeks, and Garth M. Rosell "This book is unique in its approach and certainlyseem to be ideally for use as a basic text in survey suited .would courses in American church history.' -A rthurS. Link "For discussion leaders in schools, colleges, and churches seeking to move their roups to more serious wrestling with merica'sreligious history, the book is a treasure.' -Mark A. Noll

HOW KARL BARTH

Paper, $11.95

Edited by Donald K. McKim A distinguished group of contemporary theologians write about the varying ways Karl Barth has influenced their thought and their lives. Paper, $9.95

Prices subject to change.

CHANGED MY MIND

Examination copies of most publications are availableto qualified professors.

CONFESSION, CONFLICT, AND COMMUNITY The Encounter Series, Volume 3 General Editor, Richard Neuhaus

Paper,$5.95

At your bookstore, or write: 675I

IE

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING CO.

JEFFERSONAVE.S.E. / GRAND RAPIDS,MICH. 49503 255z

c;

At!;cC~

41.

co

1 are

Blanc I~"m? WUV.W IL,

IIL

G.

Ernest

Wright

(1909-1974)

?-