. ..- .-
..... ..... ' .:-.-
;
." -"......4
?
I
t. SI
-. .
.
. .. i
. ,?
, .:
B
. 11
-."
'., I .. .
IB I
: .
. .
, . I. .- . 7 ,.. . .
.?
....
. I I. . .. - . .
I
-
....
.
-.
.A. . I . . . .i .?... ...-. ,
,
,:.
:i: .. ..1..Su•. m,,re. .19 2 ,,• ...... -
....'
-
:
--
1
ii
..... ,,-(.
-, .
L.
I. -
. .. ., .
.
..-
" . ",
."
.
-.
?.?. : . 4 . O . ,
-
..?. . ., .
. . . . . ., . ,?-I..'I..". .:,,
".d
.. -?i'" , ? .
? . -.
..
.
.......
I ?-.. I . . ...?.-. .I . .. ... .. ...... ...1' . .-" i ..Vo u m . 4 N mb rI :. ....
..
:i" . , ,;:.'
-
,
.
. i . .--,.,,.,. . -
F 1....., - , ,_,..."
'.
: :;
."
?1-.
.,. ..1. ,.
IC
'. " ? .? 9
,
. r , 7..I.:
;
.:
..". ,
L
..-." , ,, - . -".... . -
, ,
!%..
.
I
.
..
.1
.
I
..
".
.
..
? .-
4.: " . .... . -. . . .1.f :o• ?"." . ," -.. '". ?:..~i. ... ;I... .I . ,. .,_,, ; , ,, . ". ?. . - . ., . , ,.-, 1, . , I ...." . I ?, , , . , .. .,I . ". ,-? • , } , '. . , .4 . . - 1:.. . . . '. .. ' . • : . I. ,.T ,. '• . I,.I.. . I % i• :•:' "•(, . "". i _ , . I " ? . .....- .."..i .;, ." 5 -..-I •.,-1.. ... ...I. , .: " ?... .:.. ::'" . V , ..I.... .- -1? A • I., ,..I,I . I-,?:.., I '.'.. •' .-" . ..-... .:1.. .'. , ! , :... •.., I. ..:. . ....... ... ? . :e p ..,. I ,.I... ..... . .... ...... , ,. . . . 11' ?. .Ok . k .. ". ?, .. . . .. ? .: ...I .,.. .. . . ,... ....... ... . . _ ... ,. .._. " ,.., .:., I " .. .:,,-...• ..,..,, ? .... :I ... . :' I . . ., 1 ,. Ll . -,•?.I: ... . ,..-. --" ... i,, " .'* . -....."",,, . ?.,I..,,'....,.:••'.. .,. , .,'.?.......... 4"t- I , 1. I "• "' - .,.... ..' . .. '.-.. .. i.:-, .;" ?".,...:I ?.,". . ..",. ",." :. .-. '" ; . • . ," , o. . ."., ,.',. ' ........".?% . ...,.. ••" •. ...-v•.'.:.... : : ,I. " • . •"? • -,• .: : • . :•: .. -:. ;. :,..,,.: :,-...... -.. • .".:-,.-.. • - :.. .. , .leI,. .: • " : '. i - t ,- • . ".".. .,: "',-. I " i .". , 1' .1 . - . " ., . .. , : .' "•" . . . •1. .": " . • ', ". ..... I ..? • "" . I. ,• . ",. ." , ..I,,.." -%.... ..v.."., .,,". , " . •.'..-., . .....". ,. . . " .'" ' ...., .. .• " . ,.. , ,..-& ., ?...':-..,. i ? . • • I. , •. ". ... : . ,, . . . .. . ..• /_ . . .:.....I, .. ..". ,. It . •... ,
. . ...,
F
.. , ,"i
.?
I... G.4
, •. • .......•. ;. .1 ....I....-... . .. .• ......... .'. . I..: ::- :'... ..:. .: i .?•,. •. I i .• ...
. .. ,,, .... ...•, . I; 7. . 1. -.,5 I. I :" ' . "-I _. . ...-." , . -.. , . -%. . .•,..,,
. . I-.
. . I.,..,,
. - Ii .?,. . .1-0' • , :$ ..... .. -,. . • . .•.'t.•
. ..,..
?
.i
4
.
. .i ,,._.,
.
... .-,I
.>.-
. . I.." .ii•::. -I ..
. - ..
,;...,.
.. .. ..,
. "
.
-. .
. ,
,
.-. .....-I , .
?x-, ??,ii.
. .
:;:i
-.
, ,-. ...;--.,,, .I.........
.
.
.. :
ki
I.I
ii !: •i ..? .•?
~
I .-.
.
!.I.• l • ....:
I.. ?. I. -
'.1
I
., I...
. ?:. - -. ..... ,..'t...
...?..
1:
11-. .I . " z- b)??. . ". . -..." Z.
.. -. I..,...,.i,P .. it .. ,".. ,,b.""". . .. S,:.. ;.. -,-?(? . - ,,,", I . I- , ?iZ 11"
I.
.. -.
1 %
, ,'.',
.,, ..
-,? ,?I--,
.
I.1
. . .. ...I.-. .
..- .
.......
. -? .1 ,L ,-
.. .1.I. :,. ?.. . j. ? o?.,
-
. , . I.
?-. .'
-,
. ,
....
,
-:.....j W
,.
-, ,1, ".,
,.,.. ..- - -, I,,:-,'.. ,,, .";" .:" :.:.-1 ..- ,,...-....,.., ,:,.,.. I.,,f,... " !,.-, '.I....b .. -, . -p ,. -'I,,I ..?.. .-' ,.",'-" -. - .,., ,I',? ?-`.. ,. -. ..-.,.-_ :,, .-. ........._ ...
,',
..
.. .
.
V
,,
. I
P, *"
... 1
. .'
". 1".... ?
,
"
"
7. ...•
-
" ., ..
%
1:I.'
I :. • .
.,"
t .
,
,
.
i? 4"?., . ,.,..-: . .,e,1 :,. ..
....,
..
i .:li i: . .....,,,
I
'
,"
..
•- •
, ,.' ?,&;?;
i kW
"-
:
.
I...
.
A I, , .,,
."
. •
.•
... . .
.
.
-? '".......-...I.. I . ..-. .?-..."
.
0.. .*....
. ?.. . .
;
4
k -
I.., ., ?.. , - ,) -,- .-... - .. j ?,I....., . ,., .. . . .. .;.... -. .. . . . I . .. . . .. ..: I..., i.,:I, -, -. . . ,.,.,I , I :., I-? I .1m . ,,, - , ... ?,. . .5 - . - "I.... . a" , . . , Il - .I ' .,, ;. .%.% . . ,.;:.. ...., .., :11",I --r,I0. ??? . i '. ; i ? : ?2, "' -?., I . ?.4..",: ? , .?? ?? ,.,, L , ,"# -- , ,-I, .:.- . - ?1., . . ? +?' . - -??, - ~.IIu?.,: .' ? ?.'A ,?..-1 1 ., . I. ? .... .. .: - . . ..'e.,:.? .., , 1,--.. . , , , . " ... . ,I I . '?.,. .. . .. . I -. ..",I.,: - - , ... . v . r . ?; , , I ;. --I? . ?I.. I." .,,, 1?7. : ? ..1.,I??..,.. ., , - .,. ,, I -4?, . , -." ., r" '' ?-, . ..1: , .1 , ,I.-,. * .4?e I 4 ? . ., . .e , ,. .",,. . , , .?. . ? " ? - , N. , X I .. ,,.., w I . .. 1 I .....".. ? ? , .: - ? . f ?. ...,-;
w,
.
,
..
.'
,
....
. ...,,4 ,,.- ..". . - - --;.-
.
?
.
.
.... I. .. ?.... ..
.. •
... • . .., ,?.... ..... . "• .. I . . . • ? * ( . ...... %? ?I ,' . ." , . ... ,I I . ?
.." . . - . .I.I 'he
.
. " "
,
.
.
?,
•% ' .I...
,
.
. . . .•.:: . - 1i••: - .. I- i•, I - . ,: , ".., I. . I,. :I . -1,...,:. . . - :i in i-i . "... ..•. : .'f .. .-" .. :.:I•?..• . :. . .. . .,. , ... ., . .jI:,-j...-.. .- .., . . . .. .. :I -. . .... v:.}i. . , ...:11 ,. . . . I . ?•.,- , .-.. :%......,-,I " .. .. ... ....,., ..- : . , . .. .. -. I:. . .. 1 .:`.. I •.. ' . , . . . -1 , . .. . • ' . . i,~. r-- -: . - . .. .I! . '.. . ....,. ,. I.,,.I. . ." . :I .-.I.. ..-I• ?i .:•. 1• .;..-.I-:.. ..?el. - , .."-. ::. ' -.......... ,-... -.,.-I I -, 1 ?. .. ., .I '". , ?~. .v% . .... .. .. ...I ? ?. .. ..: ' :. , ,, . , ...... ,. I . .. . •i : j,?? Iue • !;} -•''••: ' - . . -. •:. :; . . . .., ...?.,•.', . . ..., I--, .-•,'k•? .?--"!. . . .-??. I.•'':" , ? . i. . : -. . . , I. . II.. -i . , . . : ." , • : ::"• '. : ;. ", ..-,? m. ,? 1 ? I . . , , .: , .... I I .. 1 1 .. i ... -:.;? . .r. . ... . .... - -. ," - `A .. .,.., , .,? , . , . -L . .?-..... ?')?,,. .'.?: ?I'w .?T! -r . . . , . . I . . -?.4.
; ... . I...II..,.-..,
.1'
.I
I.'t , . .P . !.,-% ' !•
. :. . ,, -": • ; • . .-.!•.? -~~~~~~~I
: %,:
, ', )
.
"
, 1 • : I. • I ,: . • : . ." 1 I.:1,, ." I''.i. . -..., : 1? . " :.. ,: . : • ."- :. •".:,:" :. '.: -%. .. , : .,:. .I :I • .? :• S-, ,. :. "-:1.?;;' ."v . ":. -. . ;, ,..:•.. % .1 "..- .,I. .; 4r ; ..... . .:•.. .: . -' ':: • . , ..-,,i Y...?:: ? .; -. I , ,• ., . .• ' .- : . '" . i .) . .. . . 'Li .."( • ". . . ., :' . e....., .'-.:,, ..:..:.• . .I .I: :.2.:.. .. , ..., i,,..,,• ?.,:..-. • . ."•.:. "..."... .'..•..,:• . # .. . .. .-,.. '...: . ,!: .. ., . ,. !.• ... . ... :,:• . . • < .: .. . . . ..?, •?.-. o,?,..: .4 .. . ... . -... . . ., . ... .. _... .... I , . ..1 . . . ",....:.:.......... -.1. '.: I , ? .. ?-..,..... ..,%.. 1 - ". ., ,...,. I I . .--..,.. . ."- ? .. a..I , Y:l .,-: . . . :, . '- - ... ,..; .. -, . i,.-I, .."1 % '. . - . , . , i . .I . . . "...-:, -. .. -. "".4 •' . . • . " . : h- ? .i:.,i- .i ....?..,.1"" . •- .... . f? ...1,..., i,I.. . . '. .....?... . .....:..1"
..
'
!
I
I
, . - I"-..
-
--
j,
...... . . .? . . . ,- . - - , I : : . .. , I"..:.-: i,,:,.•?: . :,' , •. •,?x:.,- I: . •; • , . ,,"'`.. ? *•.• I -. .: - . . - . ... :4.% ? ': ? ,,? ? , .; . , •. ,,, .,,.j,. . . ,
.
'" .
~
?
I
.
.
.. I....,
a -
.
I
!
...
. .
11
'. .
.
II I I,,,
,1.II
I
.''"
"
' •"i .. -,• . ' it'., I". ,... ' .. ... .• •
,
I•. ..* " ,.• :.
. -
-""
(Reisner No. 16a)
IN
THE
NEXT
BA
Duringthe excavationsof the Harvard Expeditionat Samariain1910, G.A.Reisnerdiscoverednumerouspotsherdswithinkinscriptionsina buildingadjacentto the royalpalace.Recentresearchon these ostraca assisted byinfra-redphotography, has providednew byIvanT.Kaufman, inthe into the administration of the tribal district of Manassah insights 8th centuryB.C.and increasedourknowledgeof the developmentof Hebrewwriting.
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
129
C
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST
Editor DavidNoel Freedman AssociateEditor DavidE Graf AssistantEditor MarshaD. Stuckey EditorialCommittee FrankM. Cross,Jr. TikvaFrymer-Kensky SharonHerbert CharlesR. Krahmalkov JohnA. Miles,Jr. WalterE. Rast
AlanR. Millardis professorof Hebrew,Akkadian and Near EasternArchaeologyat the University of Liverpool.He has workedon numerous excavationprojectsin the Near East and currently is epigraphistwith the BritishArchaeological Expeditionat TellNebi Mend(Qadeshon the Orontes)in Syria.
PierreBordreuilis Charg6de Recherchesof the CentreNationalde la RechercheScientifique.A residentof Lebanon,he is a memberof the French ArchaeologicalExpeditionto Ras Shamraand of the Franco-SyrianExpeditionat Ibn Hani, andis preparingthe volumeof WestSemiticinscribed seals for the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.
EliezerD. Orenis professorof Archaeologyand AncientNear EasternHistory and Chairmanof the ArchaeologyDivisionat Ben Gurion Universityof the Negev, Israel. He has directed the archaeologicalexpeditionto North Sinaiand the excavationsat Tellesh-Shariaandis authorof The Northern Cemetery ofBeth-Shan, published
by Brillin 1973.
AmihaiMazaris a SeniorLecturerin the Institute of Archaeologyat The HebrewUniversity, Jerusalem.He has directeda numberof excavationsin Israel,includingthe Philistine sanctuaryat TellQasile, andis the Field Director of the TellBatash(Timnah)expedition. BiblicalArcheologist(ISSN: 0006-0895)is published quarterly(Winter,Spring,Summer,Fall)by the American Schools of OrientalResearch.Its purposeis to providethe generalreaderwithan accurate,scholarly, accountof archeologicaldisyet easilyunderstandable coveriesand theirbearingon the biblicalheritage.Unsolicitedmss. arewelcomebut shouldbe accompanied by a stamped, self-addressedenvelope. Address all editorialcorrespondenceand advertisingto Biblical 468 LorchHall, Universityof Michigan, Archeologist, Ann Arbor,MI 48109.
AlbertZuidhofis a formerElectronicsTechnical Officerat the NationalResearchCouncilof Canada,wherehe participatedin HighAccuracy MeasurementResearch.Now retiredandlivingin Ottawa,Ontario,his lifelonghobbyhas been the
Copyright ? 1981 American Schools of Oriental Research.Annual subscriptionrate: $16.00. Foreign subscriptionrate:$18.00(Americancurrency).Current single issues: $5.00. Second class postage paid at Cambridge,MA 02139. POSTMASTER: Sendaddresschangesandallbusiness correspondenceto ASORSubscriptionServices,4243 Spruce St., Philadelphia,PA 19104. Compositionand printingby PrintingServices, The Universityof Michigan.
130
study of ancient science and technology.
Biblical Archeologist is published with the financial assistance of Zion Research Foundation, a nonsectarianfoundationfor the study of the Bible and the history of the ChristianChurch.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST
(P
1982 Summer
3 Volume 45Number
PierreBordreul
A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscrnptions
135
AlanR. Milard
In Praise of Ancient Scribes
143
FiezerD. Oren
Ziklag: A Biblical City on the Edge
Ala R. Milard and
AmibalMazar
of the Negev
Three Israelite Sites in the Hills of
167
Judah and Ephraim AlbertZuidhof DavidNoel Freedman
DEPARTMENTS
155
King Solomon's Molten Sea and (t)
179
MitchellDahood, 1922-1982,In Memoriam
185
Letterto the Readers
132
Polemicsand Irenics
133
Notesand News
188
Book Reviews Finkelstein,The Ox that Gored (Frymer-Kensky) Malamatand Ephcal,The Age of the Monarchies(Miller)
189
andFreedman, Hosea(Lewis) Andersen
Mackowski,Jerusalem,City ofJesus and Wilkinson,Jerusalem as Jesus Knew it (Baly).
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
131
Letter to
the
Readers As one of the most significant archeological finds in recent years, the Tell Fekheriyeh statue discoveredin 1979is the subject of the featuredarticle in this issue of BA. Now on display at the National Museum in Damascus, this basalt stone imageof a rulerof Ancient Guzan has engraved on it the first known Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription. In their preliminary analysisof this find, Alan Millardand Pierre Bordreuilargue persuasively for a date of the 9th century B.C.for the statue. If their conclusion is correct,the bilingualtext containsthe earliest Aramaicinscriptionso far discovered, with immediate implicationsfor all future discussions of the development and disseminationof the West Semitic alphabet. Since the find was madein the Syrianheartlandand not the Phoenician coastland, some revision in previous theories about the early history of this language and script seems inevitable.In particular,the new text may help to shed some light on the disputed chronologyof the Greek adoption of the West Semitic script, which recently has been assignedto earliercenturies, even as early as the 12thcentury B.C.(see BA 43 [1980]:22-25). Other implicationsof the discovery are carefully outlined by the authors in their valuable study. Anotheraspect of epigraphyis the focus of a separate essay by Professor Millard.His concern here is with the commontendency of moderntextual critics to emend obscureor perplexingtexts. Aside fromthe fact that mistakesare inherentin any humanenterprise,the frequentnote in ourBibles that "otherauthoritiesread" would seem adequateenough to justify this approach. But againstthis methodology,Millardarguesin favor of one of the cardinalprinciplesof textual criticism:"The more difficultreadingis to be preferred."In supportof this thesis, he provides numerousillustrationsof precautionarymeasuresemployedby ancientscribesin the transmission of documents and cites several cases where peculiarreadingswere proven to be correct. In sum, Millardsuggeststhatthe ancientscribes shouldbe given the benefit of our doubts.
132
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
Othercontributionsto this issue provide some interestingnew informationabout the early monarchical periodin ancientIsrael. Eliezer Orensummarizesfor us six seasons of excavations at Tellesh-Sharia,now generally assumed to be ancient Ziklag, the scene of David's brief tenure as a Philistinemercenaryprior to his rise to power as king of Israel. Located on the Philistine frontier near Gaza, this border city of the Negev reflects the impact of the majorNear Eastern cultures of Egypt and Assyria, as well as that of the provincial powers. Nevertheless, the cultural continuity of the Early Iron Age occupation levels at the site offers some cautionagainstany facile archeological correlationsof the materialevidence withpoliticaltransitions. Amihai Mazar's explorationsof several small settlements in the central hill country near Jerusalem also add to our knowledge of the period. Of special value is the insight his investigationsprovide into the militaryorganizationand defensive system of the kingdom of Judah. In Albert Zuidhof's study of King Solomon's MoltenSea, anotherdimensionof this creativeperiodis broughtto our attention;from his examinationof the dimensions of the temple laver, we gain a keener appreciation of the engineering skills and technological accomplishmentsof ancient Israel. If the mathematical precisionhe finds seems surprising,we need only to be remindedof the advancedmathematicaltechniquesand accuracy of the ancient Babylonianastronomers.But even for this computerizedgenerationsome warningis necessary before proceeding with his argument:this exercise in ancient mathematicsis to be followed with pocket calculatorin hand. These articles are followed by a special memorial to MitchellDahood, internationallyknownprofessorof Northwest Semitic Languagesin the Faculty of Near Eastern Studies of the PontificalBiblicalInstitute. It is altogether fitting that these words were penned by DavidNoel Freedman,his friendandcolleagueof many years, as we all mourn his passing.
'j&E
c4
* .
Polemics& jrenics Sinai Inscriptionsand the Nabateans The article "NabateanInscriptionsin Southern Sinai" (BA 45.1 [1982]:21-25) by Dr. A. Negev was very interesting, particularlyhis observationthat out of 1,100personalnames written in Nabatean script and listed in the CorpusInscriptionum Semiticarum, "950 occur in only 1 of 4 Nabatean
regions" (i.e., Edom, the Hauran,northernArabia, and the Sinai). While this observationcertainlyhas implicationsfor understandingthe socio-cultural composition of these regions, I question Dr. Negev's interpretationof this strange fact. In his opinion"thisremarkablerarityof sharedpersonal names from regionto regionindicatesthat the settlementsin the variousregionsof the Nabateanrealmbeganin a relatively earlyperiodandthateach regionheldan indigenousNabatean populationloosely tied to the inhabitantsof the other regions of the kingdom." This conclusion fails to appreciate the demographic, economic, political, and social variety of the indigenous people encounteredand amalgamatedby the Nabateansduring their expansion. Dr. Negev assumes that the inscriptions in Nabateanscriptwerethe productonly of Nabateans,not of otherculturalgroups:this is comparableto associatingGreek script only with Greeks. As a consequence, the possibilityis eliminatedthatthe greatvariationin personalnamesreflectsa moreheterogenoussocial environment.Ratherthanresulting only fromscatteredpopulationsof Nabateanswith a common social and cultural heritage, the names might have come primarilyfrom individualsof numeroustribalgroups of pastoral nomads who undoubtedlyoccupied the regions during the same periodand utilizedthe same script. However,most of the inscriptionsin Edom, the Nabatean homeland, were probablywrittenby the Nabateans themselves. In sum, the Nabateankingdomvery likelydid not consist merelyof clusters of Nabateansscatteredthroughoutseveral regions. It was more probablycharacterizedby a sparse but heterogenouspopulationwhere relatively small urbanareas were separatedby broadexpanses of desert and steppe populated by pastoral nomads, all incorporatedtogether by an attenuatedinfrastructureand a complexityof social and economic relations. Jack D. Elliott, Jr. Cobb Institute of Archaeology Mississippi State University
A Response: Ethnicity and the Sinai Nabateans Although Jack Elliott seems to have provided a reasonable alternative to my views, he does not produce any evidence in support of his argument. The Nabatean Aramaic script was almost solely used by the Nabateans. The only other ethnic group that is known to have utilized this language and script was a handful ofJews in NorthArabia and the Sinai: they may be considered Nabatean Jews, just as Jews in the USA who use English are called American Jews. Other Arabian tribes contemporaneous with the Nabateans and inhabitants of the same regions used the Safaitic and Thamudic Arabic languages and scripts. Furthermore, Elliott ignores the fact that my analysis of Nabatean personal names was restricted to those published in the CIS in the past century. As I indicated in my article, "Until a similar analysis is provided ofthe Nabatean personal names discovered during this century in the Sinai, the Negev, and other regions of the kingdom, these conclusions can be understood only as tentative." Nevertheless, since the Nabateans controlled these areas for almost a millennium, it does not seem inappropriate to call their inhabitants "Nabateans."
AvrahamNegev The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Corrigenda
The followingcorrectionsshouldbe noted for the Winter1982 issue of BA. For Michael E. Stone's article on "Sinai ArmenianInscriptions,"the captionon p. 27 belongs with the photo on p. 29; the caption on p. 28 belongs with the photo on p. 27; the captionon p. 29 belongs with the photo on p. 28. In addition, the Acknowledgmenton p. 31 should read "Withoutthe aid and guidanceof U. Avner(T. Samuelianand W.Adlerjoined me on variousof the expeditions)the field work would have been well-nighimpossible." For L. Y. Rahmani'sarticle on "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs," the following corrections should be observed. The caption on p. 43 should read "The tombsof Abasalom,Bene Hezir and Zechariahare the major monumentsfrom left to right";the caption on p. 46 should read "JehoshaphatCave and Absalom Monument,after Avigad 1954:94 fig. 52";the sentence on p. 48, col. 1, 1.4, should read "Thusthe Zechariahtomb chambershouldbe seen as a partof the chapelbuiltin A.D. 352 by an importantcitizen of Eletheropolisnamed Paul." Oursincereapologiesto the respectiveauthorsfor these unfortunatemistakes.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
133
ASOR PUBLICA TIONS Members of ASOR are entitled to the member price, given in parentheses, of all ASOR publications, including the following titles. Please note order information below. BOOKS
ASOR EXCAVATION REPORTS
Scrolls from Qumran Cave I. Color Photographs by John C. Trever. Edited by Frank M. Cross, David N. Freedman, James A. Sanders ................. .$30.00
Taanach I: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. $25.00 ($20.00) By Walter Rast .................... ./
The Biblical Archaeologist Readers, Vols. I and II. Edited by Edward F. Campbell, Jr., David N. Freedman, and G. E. C-$9.00 ($7.20) P-$6.00 ($4.80) Wright (reprint) .................. The Other Side of the Jordan. By Nelson Glueck ........................... Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975). Edited by Frank M. Cross
$10.00
$8.00 ($6.40)
ASOR ANNUALS
$10.50 ($8.40)
Vol. 43: ASOR Preliminary Excavation Reports: Bab edh-Dhra, Sardis, Meiron, Tell el-Hesi, Carthage(Punic). Edited by David N. Freedman $17.50 ($14.00) ................ Vol. 44: Archeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project-Euphrates Valley, Syria. Edited by David N. Freedman $20.00 ($16.00) Vol. 45: The Third Campaign at Tell elFul: The Excavations of 1964. By Nancy L. Lapp and others $25.00 ($20.00) ................ Vol. 46: The Southeastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition: An Interim Report of the 1977 Season. By Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub ................ $25.00 ($20.00)
To Order: Send your order and payment to Eisenbrauns P.O.B. 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590
The Tell el-Hesi Field Manual. By JeffreyC$15.00 ($12.00) A. Blakely and Lawrence E. Toombs P$12.00 ($ 9.60) Excavations at Ancient Meiron. By E. M. Meyers, J. F. Strange, and C. L. Meyers $42.50 ($26.00) SUPPLEMENTSTO BASOR
Tyrian Influence in the Upper Galilee. ByC-$12.00 ($9.60) Richard S. Hanson $8.00 ($6.40) ................P-
Vol. 41: Discoveries in the Wadi edDaliyeh. Edited by Paul W. and Nancy Lapp ...........................
The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai (et-Tell). By Joseph A. $25.00 ($20.00) Callaway .........................
USA
Master Card and Visa are accepted; please supply your card number and the expiration date. Please add shipping charges to your payment as follows:
No. 20: Reconstructing Complex Societies: An Archaeological Colloquium. Edited .$8.00 by Charlotte B. Moore .............
($6.40)
No. 21: Report on Archaeological Work at Suwwanet eth-Thaniya, Tananir, and Khirbet Minha (Munhata). Edited by C-$9.00 ($7.20) P-$6.00 ($4.80) George M. Landes ................. No. 22: Cylinder Seals of Third-Millennium Palestine. By Amnon Ben-Tor $12.50 ($10.00) ASOR DISSERTATION SERIES
No. 2: The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the C-$9.00 ($7.20) Biblical Cult. By Carol Meyers ...... P-$6.00 ($4.80) ASOR MONOGRAPH
SERIES
No. 1: Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts. By Robert T. Anderson
$8.00 ($6.40)
No. 2: Matres Lectionis in Ancient HebrewC-$12.00 ($9.60) Epigraphs. By Ziony Zevit .......... P-$ 9.60 ($6.40) No. 3: The New Discoveries in St. Catherine's Monastery: A Preliminary Report on the Manuscripts. By James H. Charlesworth .....................
Order total United States $0.00 - $15.00 $15.00 - $25.00 $25.00 - up
Foreign (including Canada) $0.00 - $20.00 $20.00 - up
$6.00 ($4.80)
Shipping Charge Minimum:$1.50 10% of order total 5% of order total
Minimum:$2.00 10% of order total
A
FROM
STATUE
SYRIA
WITH
AND ASSYRIAN
ARAMAIC
INSCRIPTION A. R. Millard and P. Bordreuil
The oldest extant Aramaic text engraved on this recently found statue of an Assyrian provincial official in Syria provides some exciting new clues for the early history of this language and script. In recent years the soil of Syria has yielded many major archeological discoveries, the palace at Ebla with its extensive archives being the most sensational. Now another object of first importance has come to light. Enlarging his field with a bulldozer in February 1979, a farmer unearthed a lifesize stone statue of a man, engraved with many lines of writing.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
135
of the HaburRiver,oppositeGuzan. Mapof Syria:TellFekheriyeh(ancientSikan)is locatedon one of the tributaries
uhan TAbdin
*Mar lash 6rf
*Karatepe ake*z Sam'alu
n*
*Duru
na
Nasib
S
"t Ca rc
e Uadatu
emish
Uar'-an arranKaat
.aSsbn
il Azaz" p ~~~~~Jebel igu *ArpadNap Balsup (
b
*Tell.Tayinat2(alab
Nerab
(
l~K\
.
el
al
imah
Nineveh
oeie
Afi
Dur-katlimmu
m Qarqar
**
'km amath
50
0
Arvad
1 -.
km
k
This statue and its inscriptions add in manyways to our knowledgeof Syrian history, culture, and language, and we aregratefulfor the opportunity to make them known to readersof the Biblical Archeologist. A detailed edition, La Statue de Tell Fekherye et sa bilingue assyro-arambenne is pub-
lished in Paris,andpreliminaryreports arealso available(AbuAssaf 1981;Abu Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982). Our study of the statue has been published at the urgent invitation of the DirectorGeneralof the Departmentof Antiquitiesand Museumsof the Syrian ArabRepublic,Dr. Afif Bahnassi, and the Director of Excavations, Dr. Adnan Bounni. To them and to their colleagues in the National Museumat Damascus, where the statue is displayed, we offer our thanks for their generosity and help.
The Place of Discovery To understandthe significance of the statue, some familiaritywith the region where it was found is necessary. The discovery was made at the edge of the ruined city now known as Tell Fekheriyeh,which lies at the southern edge of Ras el-'Ayn, close to the
136
Mr
~Tadmur
Syrian-Turkish frontier. Both the modernsettlementandthe ancientone owe theirexistence to the strongspring beside themwhichis a principalsource of the River Khabur,a majortributary of the Euphrates. Excavations were made on the tell by an expeditionfrom the University of Chicago in 1940 (McEwan, 1958). In 1955 and 1956 Anton Moortgat made soundings on behalf of the Max Freiherr von Oppenheim Stiftung (Moortgat 1956, 1957, 1959). Occupation at the site stretched from prehistoric to late Roman times. A building of the late second millennium B.C. contained cuneiformtablets (H. H. Giterbock in McEwan 1958,86ff.). About 1? miles (2 km) from Tell Fekheriyeh, and on the other side of the KhaburRiver, stands another ancient mound, the famous Tell Halaf. Baron Max von Oppenheim'sexcavations here (1899, 1911-13,1927-29)discoveredfine paintedpotterywhich has given the name Halaf to a whole cultureof WesternAsiatic prehistory(see Frankel1979).The mainstructuresuncovered were monumental buildings decorated with unique stone statues and bas-reliefs. Cuneiform inscrip-
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
tions on them declare that they belonged to "the palace of Kapara,king of Guzan." The city is thus identified with a place knownfromAssyrianand biblical texts (see below). Ever since this discovery was made there has been vigorous debate over the age of the sculptures. The excavator placed them in the third millennium B.C., claiming Kapara re-used them in his palace (von Oppenheim 1933, 1939), but no one accepts this today for the evidence clearly points to a date between 1000and600 B.C.,contemporary with Kapara. Currentopinion favors the 9th century B.C.,perhapsthe later decades (see Orthmann1971;Mallowan 1966:331 n.22, 344 n.18; Akurgal 1979, argues for the late 8th century B.C.;Genge 1979: 127, prefers a date earlier in the 9th century). Assyrian inscriptions first mention Guzanwhen reportinga campaign by Adad-nirariII (ca. 911-891B.C.).He received tribute from its ruler Abisalamu ca. 894 B.C.AshurnasirpalII, Adad-nirari'sson, took tribute from Guzan, ca. 881 B.C. and again about five years later when on the way to Carchemish(for the texts see Grayson 1976:pars. 433, 553, 584). Herein lies
the strategic value of both sites; they control a major segment of the best route from northern Assyria to the Euphratescrossingat Carchemishand on to the Mediterranean.Any army moving west fromAssyria would need to be assured these cities were in friendly hands. Assyrian records tell nothing more of Guzan until 808 B.C. when the army may have moved to crush a revolt there(the sourcefor this is an entry in the Eponym Chronicle [see Luckenbill1927:433]). Duringthe 8th century B.C.Guzanwas certainlya part of the Assyrian empire, for the names of four of its governors are known. Each of them served as eponym, thatis to say,gave his nameto a year in the Assyriansystem of dating, in the same way as the archons at Athens or the consuls at Rome. When Adad-nirari II went to Guzan he also visited "Sikan which lies at the source of the Khabur."Tell Fekheriyeh suits this description admirably, and is commonly identified with Sikan. The inscriptions on the statue strongly support this. Whether or not Sikan was the same place as earlier Washshukanni,capital of the Mitannikingdom in the 15thand 14th centuries B.C.,remainsundecided, althoughwe argueit was. The cuneiform tablets found in the Americanexcavations do not name the place. The Statue A basalt block had been carefully carved to represent a man standing with his handsclaspedat the waist, and his feet together. The head had been brokenoff in antiquity,but was recovered with the body so that the figureis complete apartfromthe tip of the nose and the end of the beard. Hair and beard are curled, the body is covered with a short-sleeved tunic reachingto the ankles, and a shawl is draped over the left shoulder and tucked in at the waist. Both tunic and shawl have fringes along their lower edges. On the feet are sandals tied with thongs, carved especially well. The man wears no jewelry, no diadem or insignia of rank, and carries no weapon or staff of office. In style the statue has obvious links with the Assyrian statues of the 9th century B.C. of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III (see Strom-
menger: 1970).However, the rarityof such sculptures and our ignorance of preceding phases in the development of Assyrian carving means that arthistorical comparisons cannot give a close dating for this figure. What is clear is the Assyrian influence. The statue contrasts sharply with the non-Assyrian concepts of the Tell Halaf images, althoughthe workmanship of some of those pieces is of equally high order. The Inscriptions
Upon the skirt of the man two inscriptions are engraved, and it is they that give the statue its real importance. About two-thirds of the space is occupied by a text in the Assyrian cuneiform script and the Assyrian dialect. The 38 lines of writing, each ruledfromthe one beside it, do not run horizontally as in other Assyrian inscriptions, but vertically, from the waist to the hem of the tunic. In the space left at the back of the statue the second inscription is incised, in the west Semitic linear alphabetand in an Aramaicdialect. Its 23 horizontallines of writing more than filled the space available; the penultimateline begins far to the right of the others, beneath the ends of the Assyrian lines, and the final line is squeezed on to the border of the fringe. This arrangementdemonstratesthe priorityin time of engraving of the Assyrian inscriptionand its importance to those who erected the statue. As we read the inscriptionsit becomes apparent that they are very similar.In fact, the Aramaicis, in large part, a translation of the Assyrian. This is the first lengthy bilingual Assyrian-Aramaictext to be discovered. Apartfromclerical notes on clay tablets, no other examples of such translationsurvive from the Assyrian period. In Persian times there are several cases of official translations, including the Behistun inscription of Darius I in Persian, Babylonian, and Aramaic. The practice of translation is attested over a very long period among scribes using the cuneiform script, and is seen in the versatility of Sennacherib's general before Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:26). If the date we propose for the statue is accepted, it preserves the oldest Aramaic composition so far known, and makes a major contribu-
tion to our knowledgeof the history of the language. Translation
Wenow present a fairly literaltranslation of the Assyrian text with the variations of the Aramaicin parentheses. The compositiondivides naturallyinto two parts. To Adad (The image of Hadad-yis'I whichhe has set up beforeHadadof Sikan), regulatorof the watersof heavenand earth, who rainsdownabundance, whogivespastureandwateringplacesto the peopleof all cities(to all lands), who gives portionsand offerings(rest andvesselsof food) to (all)the gods, his brothers, regulatorof (all)rivers, who enrichesthe regions(alllands), the mercifulgod to whomit is goodto pray, whodwellsin Guzan(Sikan), to the greatlord,his lord, Adad-it'i(Hadad-yis'i), governor(king) of Guzan, son of Shamash-nuri(Sas-nfiri),also governor(king)of Guzan, for the life of his soul, (and)for the lengthof his days, (and)for increasinghis years, (and)for the prosperityof his house, (andfor the prosperity)of his descendants, of his people, (andfor the prosperity) (and)to removeillnessfromhis body (fromhim), for hearingmy prayer(andfor making his prayerheard), (and)for acceptingmy (his)words, he devotedandgave(heset upandgave to him). shallrepairits (And)whoeverafterwards ruinedstate (shallraiseit to erectit anew), mayhe putmy name(on it). (And)whoevererasesmyname(fromit) andputshis name, mayAdad(Hadad),the hero,be his adversary. This first section, lines 1-18of the Assyrian, 1-12 of the Aramaic, seems to be a complete text for a simple dedication. What follows is another complete text, composed when the original statue was restored, and perhaps when the status of the ruler was enhanced. The statue of Adad-it'i (Hadad-yis'i) governor (king) of Guzan, (and of) Sikan, (and of) Azran, for perpetuating(exalting and continuing?) his throne,
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
137
,.uuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUU, 33
S
9hqlt:t1~1A
x9:jo1",/Mz QCh.
48vv
t
q- 1"
y 0ticx,1,AivY4?
-
.9r'
It* AVIf:Hy1 $t)c -f7~~,~)o q 0 : -?:, akq? =, l--I:h •<01x •,y.,o •:•zt•.?"I 0<
.1
• ,S
x?'.Vt
:a.•
:
423
Facshnileof the Aramaicinscription ;',? .'f]
lI
(and)for the lengthof his rule(life), (and)so thathis wordmightbe pleasing to godsand(to people), this statue(image)he madebetterthan before. BeforeAdad(Hadad)whodwellsin Sikan, lordof the Khabur, he has set up his statue. Whoeverremovesmy namefromthe furnishingsof the house of Adad (Hadad),my lord, my lordAdad(Hadad)shallnot accept his foodandwaterfromhim(fromhis hand), myladyShala(Sawl)ditto(shallnotaccepthisfoodandwaterfromhishand); (and)mayhe sow,butnot harvest; (and)mayhe sow a thousandmeasures (of barley), (and)mayhetakea se'ah(afractionfrom it); ewesnotsatisfya (and)mayonehundred lamb(sucklea lamb,butitnotbesatisfied); (and)mayone hundredcows notsatisfy a calf(sucklea calf,butit notbe satisfied); (and)may one hundredwomenbakers not fill an oven(one hundredwomen bakebreadinanoven,butnotfillit); maythegleanergleaninarefusepit(and,
138
,.•-
,r
mayhismengleanbarleyfroma refuse pit, andeat), may disease, plague, and pestilence (mayplague,thestaffofNergal)notbe cut off fromhis land. Hadad-yis'i,Ruler of Guzan The statue represents the dedicator; his name is Aramaic.Its first element, hd in Aramaic,shortenedfrom Hadad which we have used in English for simplicity,was the name of the stormgod of Syria and Mesopotamia.Other sources prove he was a leadingdeity at Guzan, and the dedication shows his standing.The second elementcontains the same base as certainancientnames in Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Old South Arabic. This is y-sh-' in Hebrew, seen in Joshua(=Jesus) meaning"to save." Thus the name means "Hadad is my salvation." A peculiarity in the Aramaicof the statueinscriptionis the way it has s (samech) in this and other words (e.g., ysb "to sit, dwell") where all other Old Aramaic texts would writesh (shin) as in Hebrewand Akkadian. Hadad-yis'i's father bore the name Shamash-nuri,"Shamashis my
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
light." Whilesuch a namecouldbelong to more than one ancient Semitic language, the writtenform in the Aramaic text, ssnwry,demonstratesits originin an Assyrian dialect. Therefore the father had an Assyrian name, the son an Aramaicone. Each was titled "governor" in the Assyrian text, and there can be no doubt about the meaningof this; each in turn was subject to the king of Assyria. The Age of the Statue As we have seen, the history of Guzan is largelyunwritten.No othertexts are available naming Hadad-yis'i as its ruler. Nevertheless, there are sufficient clues for us to propose a date in the middle of the 9th century B.C.for his rule and the carving of his statue. The history of the period 1200to 800 B.C. in northern Mesopotamia is not fully recorded,yet it is sufficiently well known to point to one date for the statue as more probable than any others. In the 11thand 10thcenturies B.C. the Assyrians were in decline. From about 1050to 930 B.C.theirkings hardly ventured from the homeland. Westof the TigrisArameantribeswere
roaming,settling in old towns and setting up new kingdoms. They would name a region after a tribal leader, so the areaof Guzanbecame Bit Bahyan. Assyrian kings had held some control over upper Mesopotamiaafter the fall of the Mitanni kingdom early in the 13thcentury B.C.,and when the kings of the 9th century led Assyrian troops back into the area they claimed they were recovering their own territory. Occasionallythey referredto the Aramean incursions and capture of Assyrian-heldtowns long before (see Malamat1973:138).It is hardto envisage Hadad-yis'iand his father serving as governors for weak Assyrian kings while proclaimingthemselves "king"' to the local people, and producinga statue so thoroughly Assyrian in character.Thereforea date before ca. 900 B.C.seems unlikely. To maintaina date in the 8th century B.C. would involve fitting the father and son between the governors of Guzannamedfor the years 793,763, 727, and 706 B.C. This suggestion is possible, but faces objections on the grounds of features in the Assyrian spelling and the Aramaic script. Ourdate for the statue in the mid9th centuryB.C.is historicallysatisfactory and accords with many of the details of the scriptand language.It rests upon the identification of Shamashnuri, the fatherof Hadad-yis'iwith the Shamash-nuriwho was the Assyrian eponym for 866 B.C.Althoughthe extant lists of eponymsdo not includehis title, his turn of office falls in the same year of the king'sreign(Ashurnasirpal II's) as do the eponymates of the later governorsof Guzanfor the appropriate kings. Furthermore,the eponym before him appears to have been governor of the adjacentregion, Tushkhan, and the governor of Guzan. Tushkhan was conquered by Ashurnasirpal II early in his reign, a conquest commemoratedby a stone stele, now in the British Museum. The Status of the Rulers Consequently, Shamash-nurimay be seen as an Assyrian appointedto rule Guzanby his master,or as a local ruler who was comfirmedon the throne, or put there by the Assyrian king, and who adopted an Assyrian name as a token of loyalty. His son followed on the throne.A new piece of information
in this context is the double status the Fekheriye. However he was schooled, ruler held, governor in the Assyrian the scribe was probablymore experienced in setting out legal and administext, king in the Aramean. No other trative documents than monumental cases like this are documented,but no or texts inscriptions. comparablebilingual parallel are available. Other Assyrian provincial governors were powerful enough The AramaicText While the Aramaicversion opens difto erect steles or other monumentsin from the Assyrian, having a ferently their own names (Nergal-eresh at clause similar to those dedicatory Sab'a, Tell al-Rimah, and Tell Sheikh the Bar-Hadadstele and the opening Ahmed [the ancient Dur-katzimmu], Zakkur Zakir) stele (see E (formerly to name Til at Shamshi-ilu and Barsip, Rosenthal in Pritchard 1969:655; Gibtwo), and it may be they bore the title son: 1975: the clause 3, 8), presentation "king" in Aramaic, too. While the follows the so that it Assyrian closely Aramaicterm (mlk)may have a wider even has the verbs "he set and up gave range than "king" in English, corre- to him" at the end. Furthermore, the to the scribe rather "ruler," sponding titles of Adad and the render prayers could have written a word for "goverthe Assyrianliterallyfor the most part. nor" if he wished. Old Aramaichas a In two cases they include Akkadian word cognate with the Assyrian (skn, words written in Aramaic letters; found on bricks at Hamath), and at "watercontroller"appearsas gugallu some point absorbed the Assyrian and "vessels of food" is 'dqwr, gwgl, word in its dialect form as sgn which adagfiru or diqaru, reprepassed into biblical and later Hebrew apparently sented a differentwordin the Assyby (e.g., in Isa 41:25). rian.Therearedifferenceswhichresult from the modes of expression of the The AssyrianText two languages,and some which areinAs noted already,this is the first examexplicable, as in the last line. Nonetheple of a bilingualinscriptionfor Assyrian and Aramaic, and the Aramaicis less, the two texts are so similarthat clearly a translation. In the Assyrian there can be no doubtthe Aramaicis a translation. text there are recognizable stock In its language the Aramaic afphrases, indeed, the first part is little more than a compilation of epithets fords much to interest scholars. No andpleas thatfind parallelsin a variety other lengthy composition in Aramaic is knownfromso earlya date, or froma of Akkadian compositions. The site in the eastern part of Syria. Basiepithets appliedto Adad include some that could be attached to any major cally it belongswith othertexts classed deity. (The title "who gives portions as Old Aramaicwrittenin the 8th cenandofferings"describesMardukin the tury B.C. (see Rosenthal in Pritchard 1969:655-61and Gibson 1975).Those closing hymn of the Babylonian Epic of Creation.)The curse "mayAdad(or texts are not uniform, apparentlywitanother deity) be his adversary" is nessing to the existence of various dialects in the cities of the Arameans. found regularlyin other texts. Those The Tell Fekheriye statue brings evitexts are not monumentalor votive indence for another dialect. In addition scriptions,however,but legal deeds of to its own peculiarities, it has some neo-Assyriantimes. In them the curse features which are regularlyfound in serves as a sanction against breach of the Imperial Aramaic of the Persian contract. Although those documents are later in date than the statue, there Empireand biblicalAramaicbut have not been known hitherto in earlier need be no doubt the phrase was current in that context during the 9th cenperiods. Many have thought the origins of Imperial Aramaic lay in the tury B.C.;the accidents of survival and dialect spoken in Assyria towardsthe discovery deprive us of examples. All end of the Assyrian Empire, and the these and other details suggest the new text points in that direction. Toscribe who drafted the inscription was educated in an Assyrian school. He gether with the grammatical dilearned the same conventions as vergences, the inscriptionadds several wordsto the known vocabularyof Old scribes who worked for Ashurnasirpal II whose texts alone share certain Aramaic. This is to be expected, for the amountof Old Aramaicrecovered forms with the statue from Tell
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
139
is very small, andits content quitelimited. (Most writing was done on papyrus, leather, or wax-coated wooden tablets, andthese only survive in unusual circumstances). Some of the words are alreadyfound in biblical Hebrew (e.g., masqe "watering place," cf. Gen 13:10describingthe desirableplainof Sodom), others are not recorded until much later. The word "refuse pit" or "dung pit" does not recur until a thousand years after the statue was inscribedwhen it was used in the Aramaic targumsof the OT to render various words ("gate of potsherds,"Jer 19:2;"refusepit" Ps 113:7, etc.). Along with its contributions to Aramaic language studies, the statue has a markedlyidiosyncraticAramaic script. Epigraphists agree that the Aramaicalphabetwas descendedfrom the father of all alphabetsinvented in Canaanearlyin the second millennium B.C. Its immediate ancestor was the Phoenician alphabet of 22 letters. When compared with the earliest Phoenicianinscriptions(1lth and 10th centuriesB.C.)andthe otherspecimens of Old Aramaic, this inscriptionhas a very archaicappearance.Thereareletter forms unparalleledafter the early 10thcentury B.C.(e.g., mem with vertical zig-zag head, triangulartailless daleth), and one is without analogy after the 11thcentury (the "inverted" lamedh). Thus a firstglance mightlead to a datinglate in the 11thcentury B.C. on paleographiccriteria. Our analysis of every letter has convinced us this first impression is misleading. Other forms, among them the he, the yodh, the kaph, are clearly more developed. Certain letters are unique in their shapes, the waw with horizontalfoot, and the sade made like mem with an extra stroke at the top. Togetherthese featuresimplythat we are faced with a local derivative of the Phoenician alphabet, perhaps adopted as early as 1000B.C., and which continuedin use and produced its unique characteristics. This conclusionsuits well the surprising'ayin, a circlewith a pointin the center.The 'ayinwith the pointis reckoned to have disappearedat the end of the llth century B.C.from Phoenician. Thatit could survive is shown by its presence in some archaicGreekinscriptions of the 8th century B.C.
140
Paleography alone is too uncertain a means for dating the Tell Fekheriyehinscription;its sources are too meager. In this case we have the evidence of the Assyrian text and script, suggestinga date after 900 B.C., the historical context that is required for the statue, andourargumentfor the identity of Hadad-yis'i's father with the eponymof 866 B.C.to weighbeside the vagariesof the Aramaicscript.The mid-9thcentury B.C.date seems inescapable. Its significance for Aramaic and West Semitic epigraphy,and for theories about the date when the Greeksborrowedthe alphabet(such as J. Naveh 1980) requires additional study. BiblicalSidelights Nothing in the inscriptionshas a direct relationshipwith the Bible. The texts illustratethe situationof a small state under Assyrian aegis, the use of two languages,andthe traditionalpiety of a ruler. In the curses upon a later ruler and his people should he erase Hadad-yis'i'sname two passages happen to find theirnearestparallelsin the Old Testament. The curse "May he sow a thousand measures of barley, may he take a se'ah" (that is, may he reap less than one thousandthpart of what he sows) can be set beside Isa 5:10 where the Lord has sworn "A ten-acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine, a homer of seed only an ephah of grain" (that is, the harvest will be about one tenth of the amount sown). The same idea is expressed in Deut 28:38; Hag 1:6. The curse of dearth, "May one hundred women bakersnot fill an oven" or more specifically from the Aramaic, "May one hundredwomen bake breadin an oven but not fill it" is comparablewith the "WhenI cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat but you will not be satisfied." Other curses on the statue echo curses in ancient treaties and royal inscriptions in Assyrian and in Aramaic. What they show is the richness of a common reservoir of colorful imprecations that were at the disposal of ancient Semitic speakers and writers. They are drawn from the common
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
phenomena of daily life in predomisocieties. nantly agricultural Similarities between them do not necessarily prove any direct relationship. Withinthe Aramaictext are three words which are immediatelyrelevant to understandingbiblicalHebrew.One is part of Hadad's epithet "who enriches the regions."The Assyrianverb is employed alone or with words for wealth, luxuriance,or specificallywith oil in this sense. The Aramaicverb is 'dn, new to our Old Aramaiclexicon, its meaning undoubtedin the light of the Assyrian, and of the biblical Hebrew cognate noun and verb. In the context of a god who provides all that is necessary for food production,it is hardto divorcethe Aramaicwordfrom the name of the "delicious Paradise" of Genesis 2, the Garden of Eden. Commentatorshave preferredto link the namewith Sumerianedin "steppe" since the recovery of cuneiform sources (e.g., Speiser 1964: 16); now the traditionalexplanation,a place of luxuriance, may regainforce. The statue is referredto by two Aramaic words, both with Hebrew cognates. The initial word of the inscriptionintroducesit as dmwt', "the image." At the start the second part the word used in the Aramaic is slm "statue," in the Assyrian its cognate salmu. This is not a means of distinguishing the two parts of the inscription, for dmwt' reappearsthree lines later.These two wordsin theirHebrew dress are the famous "image" and "likeness" in God's creationof man in Gen 1:26;cf. 5:3. Their clear application to this stone statue, the only ancient occurrenceof the words as a pair outside the OT, provides fuel for the debate over the meaningof the clause in Genesis 1 (see Clines 1968; Barr 1968). How long Hadad-yis'i's statue stood in Hadad'stemplein Sikanwe do not know.Israelitesdeportedby Assyrian kings from Samariato "Gozanon the Habor River" (2 Kgs 17:6) may have seen it there. Ponderingtheirfate and the Assyrian rule of Gozan, they may have been tempted to think both YahwehandHadadwerepowerlessbefore Assyria, as Sennacheribclaimed (2 Kgs 19:12).
Bibliography Abu Assaf, A. 1981 Die Statuedes HDYS'Y,K6nigvon der Guzana. Mitteilungen Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft113: 3-21. AbuAssaf, A., Bordreuil,P., andMillard,A.R. 1982 La premiere bilingue assyroaram6enne: la statue de Tell Fekherye.
Comptes
rendus de
l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Octobre-Decembre, 1981. E. Akurgal, 1979 Analyseiconographique,stylistique et structuralede l'architectureet de Ia sculpturede Tell Halaf. Pp. 10-28 in Florilegium Anatolium. Melanges offerts a Emmanuel Laroche. Paris: Editions de Boccard. Barr,J. 1968 The Image of God in the Book of Genesis. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library51: 11-26. Clines, D. J. A. 1968 The Imageof God in Man.Tyndale Bulletin 19: 53-103.
Frankel,D. 1979 Archaeologistsat Work:Studies on Halaf Pottery. London: British MuseumPublications. H. Grenge, 1979 Nordsyrisch-siidanatolische Reliefs. Copenhagen:Munksgaard. Gibson, J. C. L. 1975 Textbookof SyrianSemitic Inscriptions, 2: Aramaic. Oxford:Clarendon Press. Grayson,A. K. 1976 Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, 2. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz. Luckenbill,D. D. 1927
Ancient Records of Assyria and
Babylonia, II, Chicago:University Press. Malamat,A. 1973 The Arameans. Pp. 134-55 in Peoples ofOld TestamentTimes, ed. D. J. Wiseman.Oxford:Clarendon Press. Mallowan,M. E. L. Nimrud and Its Remains, London: Collins. McEwan, C. C. 1958 Soundings at Tell Fakhriyah, Chicago: Oriental Institute. 1966
Moortgat, A. 1956 Vorlaufiger Bericht Uiber eine Grabung auf dem Tell Fecherije 1955, Annales archcologiques de Syrie 6: 39-50.
1957
Archiologische Forschungen der Max Freiherrvon OppenheimStiftung im N6rdlichenMesopotamien 1956. Annales archeologiques
de
Syrie 7: 17-30. 1959
Archidologische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim Stiftung in nirdlichen Mesopotamien
1956.K61n-Opladen. Naveh, J. 1980 The Greek Alphabet, New Evidence. Biblical Archeologist
43:
22-25. Oppenheim,M. von 1933 TellHalaf. London and New York: Putnam. 1939 TellHalaf, une civilisationretrouvwe en Mesopotamie. Paris:Payot. Orthmann,W. 1971 Untersuchungen zur spilthethitischen Bildkunst. Bonn: Habelt. Pritchard,J. B., ed. 1969
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed.
Princeton:University Press. Speiser, E. A. 1964
Genesis, Anchor Bible, New York:
Doubleday. Strommenger,E. 1970 Die neuassyrischeRundskulptur,2. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
LIVING HISTORY Experience the past first hand with coins from ancient Judea, the Roman Empire & Byzantium. Pontius Pilot Lepton issued in name of EmperorTiberius 4 c.30 A.D. These coins, similar to those impressed on the Shroud of Turin drew the ire of Judea with their pagan symbolism. $39.50 Average condition ........ Roman ImperialA Bronze Coin issued during 4th century A.D. Each bears the portraitof the first Christian Emperor, Constantine the Great, or his son, as well as Roman soldiers. Fine to Very Fine condition ................$19.50 .
Byzantine Follis depicting Christ with cruciformhalo. Reverse inscription: "Jesus Christ, King of Kings" or cross. 10th to 1Ith century. $29.00 Average condition ........ Mastercard-stndall raisedinib. Allow 4 weeks oinrdeliver'. Postage $2 extra.
Coin
illage M
M
o
1560 POSTRDJP.O.B.417 CT 06430 FAIRFIELD,
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
141
Announcement
ASOR Subscription Services is now being handled at ASOR's Administrative Offices. Please send all subscription orders, claims, complaints, payments, and information requests for Biblical Archeologist, the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Newsletter, the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, and all correspondence regarding membership in ASOR to: ASOR Subscription Services 4243 Spruce St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 The distribution of all ASOR books and back issues is now being handled by Eisenbrauns. Please send all orders, information requests, claims, and payments to: Eisenbrauns P.O. Box 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590
142
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
~~,~I~-~tP
IN
PRAISE OF ANCIENT SCRIBES
Alan R. Millard
the Aleppo Codex described recently by M. H. Goshen-Gottstein (BA 42 [1979]:145-63).This manuscriptrepresents at its fullest the meticulous concern of the scribes for the accurate transmissionof the sacred text. Their activity in copying the text followed long-established patterns, eventually codified in tractates appended to the
In this analysis of ancient scribal traditions, encouragement is found for greater confidence in the received text of documents and little support is given for the common practice of emending difficult texts.
Babylonian Talmud (Soferim, Masseketh Torah).
The Biblical Archeologist, like every
A.D. 133) and Aquila's even earlier
other activity concerned with Old Testament study, owes its existence entirely to generationsof Jewish scribes, who copied and recopied the books of the Old Testamentfor more than 1,500 years. Until recentlyonly the products of the last thirdof that time were available. The most extensive example is
The question of how old these practices, or the attitudes they embody, might be has received only limited attention, partly because of the lack of early material. Respect for small details of the text characterized the teaching of Rabbi Akiba (died ca. Greek renderingof the Old Testament. Carefor the precise wordingof the biblical text is attested, therefore, at the start of the Christianera. The application of this care to the copying of texts is thought to have been Jewish imitation of Greek custom (Lieberman 1950).In the course of this papera dif-
ferentoriginwill be indicated.Withthe discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the last three decades have given scholars the privilegeof studyingHebrewmanuscripts of the Old Testament much older than any previously known. Investigations of scribal techniques in the Scrollshave been published,but an overall and balancedevaluationhas to wait until all the texts are made available. In the famous Isaiah Scroll from Cave I the obvious correctionsdisplay the faults of the originalscribe and the attention of another. Other fragmentary manuscripts, varying from the traditional "Massoretic" text, have given rise to varioushypotheses about earlier stages of their history and the fluid situation at Qumran(Cross and Talmon 1975). Without older copies, any opinions remainhypothetical. Althoughearliercopies of any partof the Bible are denied us, neighboringcultures can show how ancient scribes worked, and such knowledge can aid evaluation of the Hebrew text and its history.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
143
Babylonianscribalpractices The most prolific source of ancient documentsis Mesopotamia.Therethe practice of writing can be observed frombefore 3000 B.C.Almost from the start customs arose which endured untilthe demise of the cuneiformscript at the beginning of our era. Scribes categorizedand listed words in regular order,probablyto be learned by rote. From the middle of the third millennium B.C.a significantnumberof literary compositions survive, written in Sumerian,but in some cases copied by scribes with Semitic names. Their names are known because they are given in colophons, concluding the copies. Here, at an early date, is a sign of responsibility;a signed copy could be traced to its writerfor credit or reproof, or to check a source. A few works recentlyassignedto this era, the Early Dynastic III period, prove to be the ancestors of several copies previously known from Old Babylonian times, some seven or eight centuries later (Biggs 1980).Now the textualhistory of one or two compositionscan be investigated. In editing a hymn in praise of the city of Kesh, R. D. Biggs commented that "there is a surprisingly small amount of deviation" between copies of the two periods, and "TheOldBabylonianversionis a faithful reflectionof a text that had already been fixed in the Sumerianliterarytradition for centuries" (1971:196).The archivesof Eblaare now revealingthat the basic scribal conventions and textbooks were commonto that Syrian city as well as to the cities of Sumer
Jctd.
ATRAHASIS
. k.
" '
? ,
--A-I.#.IA...,,
about 2300 B.C.
It is the Old Babylonian period, the age of Hammurabi,that has bequeathed to us the largest collections of early literature.The principalfinds have been made at Nippur, Ur, and Kish, but it is clear that the material was known over a wider area. So far as can be determined, these tablets are the exercises of students in schools. That is why many duplicate texts are found, enabling the reconstruction of whole compositions from numerous incomplete copies. It is worth emphasizing the number of manuscripts available for individual compositions, in some instances 20 or 30, occasionally 50 or 60, all of approximately the same date. When they are set side by
144
Colophon of a cuneiform tablet. Epic of Atrahasis, Tablet I, ca. 1635 B.C. Author's hand-copy (Line drawing, Cuneiform Texts XLVI, British Museum, Pl. XII reproduced by courtesy of the British Museum).
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
3ctd.
•.
side in a critical edition the scribalerrors are made plain, and they fall into the recognizedclasses. Largenumbers of differencesappearwhich are not errors. The majorityare variants in orthography; the minority, a relatively small number,are true variantswhich occasionally allow manuscriptsto be groupedby type of text (see e.g., Hallo and van Dijk1968).Colophonsoccurin some of these copies, though not frequently.Most common is a note of the total number of lines. In a long text, every tenth line mightbe marked,and subtotals entered at the foot of each column. Evidently a check was made with an exemplar after the copy had been completed. Sometimes a correction was made in the text, and if a line was foundto have been omitted, it was writtenon the edge of the tablet with a horizontalline markingits correct position in the text. (Thisappearsto have been done on the Snake Charm text fromRas Shamra.)If a compositionoccupied more than one tablet, the last line of the tablet would stand as the first of the next. The Old Babylonian manuscriptsof the AtrahasisEpic display these points, each ending with a comprehensive colophon: 1st tablet, "When the gods like man" (the title), number of lines 416, scribe's name, month, day, year. (Lambert and Millard 1960:31-32). Just as third-millenniumworks were copied in Old Babyloniantimes, so compositions of the early second millennium were copied in the first. Again opportunitiesarise for comparison of copies made many centuries apart. There are compositions which were copied for a millenniumor more with minimal change. The "Laws of Hammurabi" exemplify this. The latest edition lists over three dozen
ATRAHASIS
,.
:..:....
..LI,..-
•
"-.- ..,
451
%AN% l
.,Af,
e11......
Lo•Aer
TabletIII,columniii,lines40-53,showing ofcuneiform Section text,EpicofAtrahasis, variousspacingsof words,and one wordon a half-line,ca. 1635B.C.Author's hand-copyof CuneiformTexts XLVI, BritishMuseum,Pl. XVI.
manuscripts, many only small fragments, ranging from Hammurabi's days until Nebuchadnezzar's (Borger 1963: 2). Variations are basically in spelling: there are examples of in grammatical "modernization" forms and a few small differences of wording. Another example of faithful transmission is the poem edited as "The Return of Ninurta to Nippur." The editor listed 64 variants from the 207 lines of Sumerian text attested by 54 manuscripts from Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, Middle Assyrian,
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
145
ous to us. Second, scribes were careful not to split a word between the end of one line and the start of the next; in fact, they normally avoided breaking phrases. Wheretherewere insufficient words to fill a line fully, the scribe would space his signs and ensure that there was one at the end of the line. Occasionallytwo lines of an exemplar might fit onto one line of the copy. Third, when the two lines were complete in themselves, a "colon" in the copy would mark the division. This "colon" varies its form between one vertical or diagonal wedge, and two diagonalwedges. If a scribewas forced by exigency of space to breaka wordor a phrase,he could writeit below the far end of the line, sometimesprecededby the "colon." The "colon" also served to mark glosses. From an early date, scribes adopted various orthographic techniques to ease the reader's task, spelling syllabically words written with word-signs,for example marking them off with this sign. The Amarna Letters and the Ras ShamraAkkadian texts providemanyexamples of Akkadian writings with words glossed in a throughout the first millennium B.C., local language,the gloss usually being sometimes with the name of a scribe's marked by the "colon." Finally, cercolleague or senior as the inspectoror tain copies of literarytexts madein the collator of the copy following the first millenniumB.C.have doublets: a scribe'sname. In the laterperiod,also, word isfollowed by a synonym or varthereare addeddetails of the exemplar iant, separatedfrom the main text by or exemplars; for example "copied the "colon." The explanationoffered from a tablet from Babylon," provid- is that these are the readingsof different exemplars.This becomes a regular inga pedigree, as it were, for the text. Certainother points illustratethe featurefor distinguishingthe text from scrupulosityof the scribes in handling the comment in the learned commentexts, their traditionalism, and their taries of the Babylonianacademies. care as glossators attemptingto eluciThroughout the history of date texts. First, scribes copying from cuneiformwritingtherewas a tradition clay tablets mightfind their exemplars of care in copying. Babylonianscribes damaged. In some cases they may were aware of their weaknesses and have been able to restorethe damaged established various conventions to text and hide the fact from us. Some- overcome them. No one could claim times the scribe simply recorded the they always succeeded, but it is imporNeo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. Of those 64 variantshe stated that "only twelve can be said to involve a real alterationof the sense of the line in question, and in no case is the sense of the text as a whole affected" (Cooper 1978). On the other hand, some works show majordifferences between the earlierand the later copies. In none is this more obvious than the Epic of Gilgamesh.However, the differencesin this case are not simply the result of scribalerror;they are due in largepart to deliberateeditorial activity. Reasons for some of the changescan be proposedin the lightof known developments in religious thought;for the majorityno reasoncan be offered,andindeed, it is hardto find any significancein them. Perhapsit is pertinentto observe that when a manuscript of only one period survives, it is impossibleto predictwhetheran earlier or a later copy might or might not differ, and if it were to differ, how it would do so. But this is a matterthat rises beyond our primaryconcern, the activity of the scribes as copyists. The tradition of the colophon persisted
damage by writing "break" or "recent break" in smaller script on his copy, even when the restoration seems obvi-
tant to be aware of the fact that they tried.
a-na
1arri
b13i-ja
me__---d
n~u adamuia
ilnnime il~ni"
u
1 1u-va-ar-da-ta
um-ma
7 u%7 mi-la a-na
barrir
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
bel-ia
u ka-ba-tu-ma U su -1'-ru-ma
~1 .ri arr il
le-el-ma-ad
a-na-ku bglu-a yu-u-g-i-r1a bslu-1a
pl-ta-ti
snbme?
ma-a'-da
i-ba-?a-ti
igtgnen ri arri -
1
ma-gal
u yi-ki-im-ni i-ni
\ ya-s
il->ma-ad
l
1 arri
U •_ Yib ?Jli-!j a
iri -
I
To the
king,
my god
and
thus Seven at
my sun, Suwardata
and
the
both and
my lord,
(says)
seven
feet
king
my lord
be
the
king
my lord
send
in and
be
I have
times the
king
servant: fallen
my lord,
on my back.
May the
Let
of
your
on my stomach
me archers
me .
save
aware
I am alone
avware that
number
great
let
So may the
146
ardu-
ma
ma-aq-ta-ti
,,meg
(gloss:
witha Canaanite to thePharaoh, Amarna letterno.282,sentbyShuwardata Opposite: ofthe hand-copy, bypermission gloss,reverseline3. BritishMuseum29851,author's of the Amarnaletterwiththe translation BritishMuseum.Above:transliteration beneath.
afia
him king
!
save
me)
my lord
JZ...fr
----
I . l
EarlyWestSemiticScribalPractices After the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200-1100B.C.),Babylonianinfluence in the Levant grew weak. The political situation was one cause of this, and another,in the sphereof writing, was the rise of the alphabet. With the simple script of 22-30letters, writing ceased to be a scribal monopoly. Nonetheless, scribes still held a major place in the productionof documents, and doubtless they were responsible for introducingand maintainingvarious conventions that are apparentin survivingtexts. Unlike the Babylonian scribes, early Hebrew clerks and their colleagues did not hesitate to break a word between one line and the next if space ran out. The likelihood of misunderstanding was minimized, however, by the habitof dividingeach word from its neighbor.Continuouswriting, without spaces between words, familiar from Greek manuscriptsas a fruitful source of error,was avoided. This practice of worddivision was noted by some modern Old Testamentscholars but ignored by others who sought to emend the Hebrewtext by dividingthe words differently.Tenyears ago it was demonstratedthat scribes who wrote Ugaritic, Early Phoenician, Hebrew, and Moabitewere accustomedto word division by a point (Millard 1970). Where Aramaic dominated, the word-dividerwas not usual, but from the Persian Empire onward spaces were left regularly between words. (The newly found statue of an Arameanprinceof the mid9thcenturyB.C. in the Damascus Museum has a clear mark of separationbetween words.) To date, no preexilic Israelite literary manuscriptis available. The longest early Hebrew text in its contemporaryform is the Siloam Tunnel Inscription. Longer compositions from adjacent regions do exemplify the work of scribes using the alphabet. There are many early Hebrew ostraca (Andr6 Lemaire collected 250 or so in his valuable Inscriptions Hebriaiques 1: Les Ostraca [Paris, 1977], many of them illegible) and several dozen graffiti. Yet strangely, longer texts are few. In contrast, early Aramaic texts of some length have been found, but few ostraca or graffiti. Only time may tell whether this situation is the accidental
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
147
lp/0
I
.0 Cit ,0):, 6,<W,,
J74'T
1%00to -M -lo /I, O
<'1
(, "
5
/
X0y
/
15
,,//44/s
15
0g41 ,l
go
i
/
Al
ofanAramaic Facsimile treatytext,SefiresteleII, faceB, showinginsertedline,ca.
750B.C.Copiedby J. Starcky,in A. Dupont-Sommer, Les inscriptionsarameennesde Sefire, 1958.
148
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
resultof chance discovery or has other causes. In these longer Aramaic texts some indications of techniques that wouldhave been equallyat homein the process of writing or copying a book may be seen. One reservationis necessary: texts written on stone are likely to have been tracedby a scribe in ink, then engravedby a sculptoror mason, a techniqueapparentlyvisible on some Assyrian stonework(J. E. Reade cited by Paley 1976:117, 123 n. 24). Therefore, some irregularities and errors may not be truly scribal. The three stelae from Sefire near Aleppo, bearing the treaties BarGayah king of KTK (a place of uncertain identity) made with Matiel of Arpadabout 750 B.C.,are the most extensive inscriptions, about 175 lines preservedto some extent. In his recent edition of the stelae, John Gibson (1975:20)has noted "severalmistakes, certain or probable, by the stonecutters." In all he lists fourteen, but the number that can be counted as "certain"is very much smaller,possibly no more than three or four. The presence of an ancient correctionis as interestingan erroras modernscholars can detect. Face B of Stele II reads: "the treatyand favour which the gods have made in Arpad and among its people; and if Matielwill not obey, and if his sons will not obey, and if his nobles will not obey, andif his people will not obey...." The repetition of "will not obey" lends itself easily to the error of haplography,and, in fact, the words "if his sons will not obey" in the second phrasewere omittedoriginally. After the thirdline had been incised in the stone, the missing words were squeezed in between lines 2 and 3. A similar error was made by the person who wrote the Aramaicdialect text about Balaam on the plaster of a temple wall at TellDeir Alla in the Jordan valley about 700 B.C.(see J. Hoftijzer,BA39 [1976]:11-17).The firstline of the text, as restoredby A. Caquot and A. Lemaire on the basis of Hoftijzer's edition, reads, "The record (spr) of Balaam, son of Beor, the man who saw the gods. Now the gods came to him by night..." (Caquot and Lemaire1977:194).Writingthe text on the vertical plasteredface of the wall, the scribe omitted "to him" before
"the gods" and had to insert it above the line. (Similaromissions were rectified in two other places.) This restoration involves an adjustmentto Hoftijzer's edition and is attractive, yet leaves a space at the beginningof the first line. Indentationwas not normal at the beginningof a text, so another word should be supplied at the start, and the most likely wordis the demonstrative pronoun, "this" (znh). The
narrativemightthen commence:"This is the recordof Balaam,son of Beor, a man who saw the gods was he. Now the gods came to him by night...." This inscriptionfrom Deir Alla probably representsa column of a scroll. It has the upper and left-hand margins ruled (the right was provided by the corner of the plasteredface) and headings written in red ink in Egyptian style. It is the nearest we can come to
1 31
2 -.
,
Pi"
~
the appearanceof a book in Palestine about the time of the prophetIsaiah. The oldest actualexampleof West Semitic literature in book or scroll form so far recoveredis the "Proverbs of Ahiqar" from among the papyri from the island of Elephantine at Aswan (see B. Porten, BA 42 [1979]: 74-104).Epigraphicstudy has datedthe manuscriptlate in the 5th centuryB.C.; thus, it reflects book productionat the
ia
oj".•
A ,,=;-_-7---4 . _. _
O
A1
,1-
"?,, '44j
12
-.0,...-
t.
4
-
ye
"
.
7/
1YVJYcI
13
is
"'z ",- '
17
" --
.
. ...
. ...
. . . .
i
Facsimile oftheopening sectionoftheBalaam inserted textfromTellDeirAlla,showing wordinline1,ca. 700B.C.Thewritingappearsto be laidoutas a columnof a scroll. (J. Hoftijzer,AramaicTexts from TellDeir Alla, Brill, pl. 29).
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
149
The earliest survivingWest Semitic scroll book, parts of the Sayings of Ahiqar, papyrus(cols. 9, 10),fromElephantine,late 5th century B.C.(Photographsby courtesy of StaatlicheMuseen, Berlin,kindlymade availableby Dr. B. Porten).
time of Ezra, the time when, traditionally,the Aramaicor squarescript (called "Assyrian") was adopted by Jewish scribes. Here it is interestingto see how the introductorynarrativeis written in long lines, each one filled, the words separated from one another by small spaces, and not broken between one line and the next. (The
... LA,,A*4L
wt- w
~~?*von? 14trrW *4.44" 't"N" •
r
,bpAJ
'44..
-' . ., -" M zfd,..4' ,, Rrywr-11r~
to'5,
~j4 jilt.
ii
: t
. _.
.
.
4nP6
150
%~
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
,
scribe was not concernedto justify his left-handmargin!)In the section containing the proverbs the scribe often ended one proverband left the rest of the line blank, startingthe next one on a new line. Sometimes he markedthe end of a proverbwith analep-like sign, whether or not the next proverbfollowed on the same line. Other proverbs are distinguishedfromeach other by a horizontal stroke between the lines. The commencement of each proverb on a new line is not regular, however, nor is the insertion of the
terminalmarkor the bar. Scribal Accuracy These diverse examples of extrabiblical documents reveal how ancient copyists wrote their texts, and how they tried to write them so they would be readilylegible to anyone trainedin the same conventions. In this atmosphere, too, the early copyists of the Old Testamentbooks were bred. That they maintainedsimilarhigh standards of careful and accurate copying is proved, at least in certainrespects, by the following collection of examples. Within the Old Testament are numerous foreign names, many of them alien to the western Semite. (Foreign names pose problems in all languages and scripts; the various spellings of East European or Oriental names in our newspapers illustrate that.) Where ancient writings of these names are available, detailed study shows the Hebrew writings represent
the contemporaryforms very closely. Thus the names of the Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileserand Sargon, as handed down throughthe Old Testament,turn out to be accurate reflections of the Assyriandialectforms of these names. Tiglath-pileseris found in an almost identical spelling on the Aramaic Bar-Rakkabstele from Zinjirli,carved duringhis reign, or very shortly after. Sargon, occurringin Isa 20:1, has become familiar in Akkadian dress as Sharru-ken,but in Assyria duringthe king's rule, the sh was pronounceds and the k as g as in Tiglath-pileser. These are normal sound-shifts between the Babylonian and the Assyrian speakingregions in the early first millennium B.C. They are demonstrated by the way Sargon's name is spelled in Aramaic letters on two documents. In the Aramaicletter written on a potsherdsent to Ashur,the old Assyrian capital city, from southern Babylonia, Sargonappearsas sh, r, k, n, shar-ken,while on the Aramaicseal of one of his officers, known from an impression found at Khorsabad, Sargon's new city in Assyria, it is s, r,g, n, sar-gon. It is exactly that spellingthat has been preserved in the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testamentin a passage agreed to stem from Isaiah, throughwhatevertransformationsand vicissitudes the prophet's words may have passed (Millard1976).A comparable precision can be arguedfor other foreignnames throughoutthe Old Testament, as continuing study and discoveries indicate. In a recently published papyrus fragment from Elephantine,dated 484 B.C.,the name of king Xerxes (Ahasuerus)is seen for the first time written in Aramaicwith prostheticalep as in the OldTestament and in Akkadian (Degen 1978: 29, no. 4). From the same age there also
survives a seal now in the British Museum. According to its Aramaic inscription, this cylinder seal belonged to a Persian, Parshandatha son of Artadatha. Where an identical name is read in Esth 9:7, the likelihood that the Jewish scribes correctly preserved a good Persian name seems high (Millard 1977).
Facsimileof a steleof Bar-Rakkab fromZinjirli,givingTiglath-pileser's namein
Aramaiclettersin line 3, ca. 730 B.C.(E van Luschan,Ausgrabungenin Sendschirli
4, 1911,p. 379).
A
*)
Xs
0
-Ae
js
0
20
Now these minutiae may not seem to be of great consequence, and may simply show the scribes could transmit names with precision. There is a corol-
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
151
lary, however, which deserves em- to six lines of textual apparatus to phasis: in each case mentioned, the every page in the currentcritical ediSeptuagint differs considerably from tion of the text, the Biblia Hebraica the Hebrew. Sargon, in Isa 20:1, be- Stuttgartensia? Jeremiah may be came Arna; Parshandatha was dis- peculiar in respect to its Septuagint torted throughPharsannestainto be- version, but the problemsinvolved are come two names, Pharsan and Nes- such that to emend the Hebrewon the tain, in Codex Vaticanus.These cases, basis of the Greek would seem a very not confined to one book, should at risky business indeed. least warn againstrelianceon the SepThe precedingparagraphssuggest tuagintfor emendationof propernames ancient copyists were not likely to be in the Old Testament,unless the evi- so careless. If this is true, then textual dence againstthe Hebrewtext is very emendations should become rarities. Before charging an ancient and strongindeed. the of this Indeed, paper anonymous copyist with error,every purpose is to point to the care which was an possible explanationof the form that integral part of a scribe's skill in the seems objectionableshouldbe sought. ancient Near East. The practices of For example, over 30 years ago G. R. scriptoria in imperial Rome offer a Driver (1948) argued that Hebrew strong contrast, as the complaints of could tolerate a lack of congruencein several ancient authorsreveal, but the genderor numberbetween subjectand mass production techniques applied predicateor a noun and a resumptive there were probablynever at home in suffix if another word or words interthe world of the Old Testament. vened. His examples are numerous, Rather,from the examples presented, and from many others, a copying process can be discerned that included checking and correction, a process that hadbuilt-indevices to forestallerror. Some of these, the counting of lines or words in particular,reemerge in the traditionsof the Massoretes in the early Middle Ages. That device is so obvious that a connection with Babylonian practice is unlikely It is partof an attitudewhichwas common: the copyist's task was to reproducehis I exemplaras faithfullyas possible. Be waryof emendations!. In this lightthe way the OldTestament text is viewed by scholarshipseems to need some modification.The Dead Sea Scrolls make explicit what had previously been supposed by many, that the Massoretic text preserves an earlier text-type currentin the &enturyor so prior to the Fall of Jerusalem. Between the completionof some books of the OldTestamentandthe Scrollsthere is a relatively short period of time. (How short will dependuponopinions about the age of each book.) Only in that period can the great majority of the errorstextual critics and commentatorsclaim to find in the Hebrewtext have arisen. Is it conceivable that those who copied Jeremiah'sprophecy for over four centuries made so many mistakesas to requireon averagefour
152
'ii
varied, and convincing, yet many of them are still emended in BHS to obtain a "normal" grammatical form, sometimes with referenceto the Septuagint, which could not tolerate the discord (e.g., Exod 30:4; Jer 28:10; Prov 18:21). In the same article he drew attention to what has become known as the "double-dutysuffix," a pronominalsuffix on one word having force equally for a parallelword without the suffix(e.g., Ps85:10"Surelyhis salvation is near for those who fear him, that [his] glory may dwell in our land"). Discovery of this device in Ugaritic stimulated its recognition in Hebrew. Again, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia emends the text by inserting a suffix where one word of a pair lacks it, sometimes invoking the Septuagint(so in Ps 85:10it reads "his glory"; also 35:5, 6). So emendationfor superficialreasons of grammarshould not be an au-
I!
/ii
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
:'
dI
Cylinderseal bearingthe Persianowner's son namein Aramaicscript,Parshandatha 5thcenturyB.C.;actualsize. of Artadatha, (BritishMuseum89152,reproduced by permissionof the Trustees,copyrightBritish Museum).
'
tomatic exercise. Equally, emenda- works and appliedthem to the existing tions to remove hapax legomena situation. But their interpretationand should be a last resort. As more an- application were kept distinct; they cient texts are recovered, more of the were not incorporated into the text unique words in the Old Testament (Millard1978).Now it is possible that gain satisfactoryexplanationswithout only aftera text gainedan authoritative emendation. Even if there is no alter- status would the scribe provide a native evident, any emendation of- commentary, a process modern fered should be properly supported scholarshipcannot observe. and compatible with ancient scribal Turningto the biblicalbooks, it is practice. Further,there should always noteworthythatthe Septuagintandthe be a recognitionthat the text may be Aramaic Targumsalso fit the text. to right after all. Of course the scribes their times. The simplest cases are the mademistakes, and some of themwere replacementsof obscure place-names. perpetuated.It is the scholar's duty to In Isa 48:12 Sinim of the Hebrew (= try to discover them and to correct Aswan) is representedby Persiain the them; it would be wrong to argue that Greek;the old nameAramin Isa 9:11is we have received a perfect Hebrew replaced by Syria. In the Aramaic text. The present argumentis that we Genesis Apocryphonfrom Qumran,a too freely underratethe abilityand the more imaginativeretelling of Genesis accuracyof those copyists to whomwe than the standard Targums, Kaptok owe the Old Testament.There are no (Cappadocia)replaces the Ellasar of grounds for supposing they were less Gen 14:1.Such changes are not found attentiveto theirtask thanthose whose in the Hebrewtext. Therefore,applicaproducts have been recovered in tion of the Hebrew text to currentafmodern times. fairs, havingan effect on the text itself, is unlikely to have occurredlater than the makingof the Greek translationor Scribal Alterations the Aramaic paraphrase. How much For the work of scribes as copyists was done before those stages cannot there is much informative material be discovered at the customs present; from the ancient world, from which a of the if the comscribes, Babylonian few pieces have been used here. With is valid, suggests there was litparison their copying, reliably or not, the tle done, if any at all. scribes commonly face the accusation of alteringor modifyingthe texts they copied. They are not reckoned as AncientScribesalso wereHuman! editors, a more wide-rangingactivity Everyone who writes and copies is and one beyond the scope of this study, aware of the likelihood of mistakes in but as glossatorsandinterpreters,add- their own work. Ancient scribes were ing commentsandexplanations,apply- equally prone to failure. The convening the text to currentcircumstances. tional "introductions"to the Old TesObviously, without manuscript evi- tament and handbooksof textual critidence it is almost impossible to prove cism instruct their readers in the that words have been addedor altered. categories of scribal errorthat appear Again, the practicesof ancientscribes, in ancient manuscriptsand may be devisible in extant specimens of their tected in the Old Testament.There is work, suggest caution should accom- no doubt that errors were committed pany every claim to detect glosses or by copyists and have passed into the interpretations in the biblical text. printed text. The modern reader's Scribes writing cuneiform normally readinessto detect them should not be signalled the presence of a gloss, as greaterthanhis readinessto admitthat mentioned already,although no cases ancient scribes and copyists could also have come to light in early WestSemi- be as precise and carefulas he andmay tic texts. The commentariesof the Ak- have known their business better than kadian scholars working in the first he. The ancient scribes deserve our millennium B.C. interpreted standard thanks and praise!
BIBLIOGRAPHY Biggs, R. D. 1971 An ArchaicSumerianVersionof the Kesh TempleHymn from Tell Abti Salabikh. Zeitschrift syriologie 61: 193-207.
1980
fiur As-
The Ebla Tablets: An Interim Perspective. Biblical Archeologist
43: 76-86. Borger,R. 1963
Babylonisch-assyrische
Lese-
stiicke, Heft II. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Caquot, A. and Lemaire,A. 1977 Les textes arameensde Deir Alla. Syria 54: 189-208.
Cooper,J. S. 1978
The Return of Ninurta to Nippur.
Rome: PontificalBiblicalInstitute. Cross, E M. and Talmon,S. 1975
Qumran and the History of the Bib-
lical Text.Cambridge,MA andLondon: HarvardUniversity. Degen R. 1978 Neue Fragmente aramiischen Papyri aus Elephantine. Neue Ephemeris fiur Semitische graphik 3:15-31.
Epi-
Driver, G. R. 1948 Hebrew Studies. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: 166-76.
Gibson, J. C. L. 1975
Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II: Aramaic Inscriptions. Ox-
ford: Clarendon. Hallo, W. W. and van Dijk, J. J. 1968
The Exaltation
of Inanna.
New
HavenandLondon:YaleUniverstiy. Lambert,W. G. and Millard,A. R. 1969
Atra-hasis. The Babylonian Story of
the Flood. Oxford:Clarendon. Lieberman,S. 1950
Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New
York:JewishTheologicalSeminary. Millard,A. R. 1970 "Scripto Continua" in Early Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies 15:
1976
1977
1978
2-15. Assyrian Royal Names in the Old Testament. Journal of Semitic Studies 21: 1-14. Persian Names in Esther. Journal of Biblical Literature 96: 481-88.
Text and Comment. Pp. 245-52 in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies; Essays in Honor of W. S. LaSor, ed.
G. A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Paley, S. M. 1976 King of the World. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
153
NEW
FROM
PUBLICATIONS ASOR
Annual of ASOR 45The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964 By Nancy L. Lapp and others
The New Discoveries in St. Catherine's Monastery:A PreliminaryReport on the Manuscripts By James H. Charlesworth
This volume is the report of excavations at Tell el-Ful and the 1964 campaign in particular. In addition to the discussions on the pottery, architecture, and artifacts, the historical importance of Tell el-Ful, identified as Gibeah of Saul, is analyzed throughout all its occupations, but most importantly during the time of the Philistine settlement and expansion. 313 pp., 35 figures, 81 plates, 14 plans.
The discovery in 1975 of a massive hoard of ancient manuscripts at St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai did not come to public attention until 1977 and still remains largely surrounded by secrecy and confusion. Presented here are the first photographs of some of the recent discoveries, along with a collection of previously published information about the discovery and a further update. xv + 45 pp.; 7 plates. ASOR Monograph Series, No. 3.
List Cloth $25.00 ASOR Members'Discount $20.00 Annual of ASOR 46The Southeastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition:An InterimReportof the 1977 Season By WalterE. Rast and R. ThomasSchaub The initial findings of the excavations in the Southeastern Dead Sea Plain, particularly at Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira. The book is divided into three main sections: Settlements, Burials, and Environment and Region. It is hoped that this volume is just the beginning of further research concerning the Cities of the Plain. 190 pp., 119 figures.
List Cloth $25.00 ASOR Members'Discount $20.00
List Paper $6.00 ASOR Members' Discount $4.80
To
Order:
Send your order and payment to Eisenbrauns P.O.B. 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590 USA Master Card and Visa are accepted; please supply your card number and the expiration date. Please add shipping charges to your payment as follows: Order total
Shipping Charge
United States $0.00 - $15.00 $15.00 - $25.00 $25.00 - up
Minimum: $1.50 10% of order total 5% of order total
Foreign (including Canada) $0.00 - $20.00 $20.00 - up
154
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
Minimum: $2.00 10% of order total
Jericho
?AA to
-CO
As hdod
&AshdodJerusalem
_
-Ashkelon
Lachish La Hes•A ATell Nagila
Tell AGaza
A
elTellTell
Gedi
AjjulEn
Tell esh-Shari
Aell A
Tell Jemmeh"
Tell Haror (Tel Tell aHalif Sera') Ge rar
Tell el-Farah elfj"•
/ 0
"W 4ft-.
,,
,Arad
10sp0K
BeerSheba
0 I
ZIGLAG city on the
the
A
biblical of edge
NEGEV
Eliezer Oren Excavations at this site, associated with David's service as a vassal to the Philistine king ofGath, provide some interesting evidence ofthe activities ofthe major powers of Egypt and Assyria in the region and new insights into the cultural lifestyle of a border settlement.
10
20 Km
The Archaeological Division of Ben GurionUniversity of the Negev under the directionof the present authorhas recently completed six seasons (19721978)of intensive excavations at Tell esh-Shariain the northwesternNegev. The rich architectural remains that have emerged shed new light on the material culture of this region in the Canaanite, Philistine, Israelite, and later periods and its relations with coastal Israel, Egypt, and the Aegean. The identification of Tell esh-Sharia with one of the biblical cities in the northwestern Negev has been disputed by scholarswho have suggested Hormah (W. F Albright), Gerar (A. Alt), and Philistine Gath (G. E. Wright). Following Y. Press, others have offered biblical Ziklag - King David's city of refuge (B. Mazar, Y. Aharoni,Z. Kalai, E. D. Oren).Based in part on historical and geographical information,this last identificationis
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
155
supported by stratigraphic data coupled with the unusually large collection of finds, including imported and inscriptionalmaterials, retrieved by the excavations at Tell esh-Sharia.
to become king over Israel. Finally, Ziklagis listed amongthe Judeancities during the period of the return from Babylonianexile (Neh 11:28). EvidentlyZiklagplayedan important role in the formative stage of David's kingship:it was at Ziklagthat Ziklagin the Bible Biblical sources reflect Ziklag's long the founder of the Israelite dynasty history. Mentioned in Josh 15:31as a gainedhis firstexperienceas a ruler,or city of Judahand in 1Chr4:30as a city vassal king, of a city. From Ziklag, he in the territory of Simeon, Ziklag is exercised control over the southern also called a town in the "country of frontier zone and, through periodic the Philistines"(1 Sam 26:6-7) or the raidsand punitiveexpeditions, kept in "Negev of the Cretans"(1 Sam 30:14). check the nomadic tribes in the ThatZiklagwas inhabitedby some Sea neighboringNegev and Sinai deserts Peoples may also be deduced from its as far as the borderof Egypt (1 Sam name which is certainly non-Semitic, 27:8-10).The importanceof Ziklagas a deriving probably from Sekel/Tjeker militaryand perhapsfrontieradminis- a groupof Sea Peoples in the Egyptrative center is further indicated by tian records of the New Kingdom the Amalekite raid on the region of period. In Saul's time it was underthe Nahal Gerarthat culminatedin the depolitical patronageof PhilistineGath, structionand burningof Ziklag(1 Sam and it was Achish, king of Gath, who 27-30).Fromthe distributionlist of war gave Ziklagto Davidas a refugeduring spoils and gifts it seems that David's his flight from Saul (1 Sam 27:6). leadership over the Israelite tribes in Thereafter, Ziklag became Israelite southern Judah was already estabcrown propertyand served as David's lished while he resided in Ziklag. In headquartersuntil he went to Hebron short, Ziklag served as David's
156
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
General viewofTellesh-Sharia, to thesouth. TheEgyptian of Stratum IXis on residency theleft:thefour-room houseof Stratum VII is on the right. springboardto Hebron where he was officially recognizedas king of Judah (2 Sam 2). Thus, the period at Ziklag undoubtedly became an important landmarkin the dynastic traditionhence the unique statement "and thereforeZiklagbelonged to the kings of Judahuntil this day" (1 Sam 27:6). The Regionand Its History Tell esh-Sharia (Tel Sera on modern maps of Israel) is situated in the northwesternNegev midwaybetween Gaza and Beer-sheba.This regionwas the site of considerable political and military contact - and confrontation -
between Egypt and Canaan and,
later, between Judahand Philistia, as well as Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. Its strategicand economic importance is attested by the large numberof ancient mounds in this small area, e.g.
Tell el-Ajjul, Tell Jemmeh, Tell elFarah, Tell Abu Hureireh, Tell eshSharia, Tell Nagila, Tell Hesi, Tell Halif, and a score of smaller Bronze and Iron Age sites. The dominantfeature of this region is the WadiGaza or Nahal Besor which circles southward from Gaza to Beer-sheba. Tell eshSharia is located on its tributary,the Wadiesh-Shariaor Nahal Gerar. The regionof Nahal Gerar,or biblical "Landof Gerar,"is subjectto frequent fluctuations in climatic precipitationpatterns.The vagariesof rainfall (annualaverage300 mmor 11.8inches) in this area make droughta constant threat. Frequently,low yields or crop failuresarethe result. At the sametime the low-lying plains of loess soil, in good years, yield excellent harvests of wheat and barley. In one such year, accordingto Gen 26:12, "Isaac sowed in that land (Gerar)and reaped in the same year a hundredfold." This region, lyingbetween the settled country and the grazing land of the nomads, was always coveted by those in search of pasture for their flocks. For instance, when the tribalarea of Simeon was extended into the land of Gerar, the tribeof Simeonwent there "to seek pasture for their flocks. And they found rich, good pasture and the land was quiet and peaceable" (1 Chr 4:39-40).As a magnetfor nomadsfrom the desert on the south, the regionfrequently was the scene of conflict between its settled inhabitantsand incursive groups. Such was the case when the Amalekites crossed Nahal Besor and terrorizedthe country,leaving behind burned cities (1 Sam 30). Systematic excavations of some sites and surface explorations of others indicate that the land of Gerar was alreadydensely settled as early as the Chalcolithic period in the fourth millennium B.C.E. In the Middle Bronze Age the cities of Nahal Besor and Nahal Gerar were heavily fortified and formed an elaborate defense system along the southern border of the settled country. Perhaps the Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac were active in the Land of Gerar during this period (Gen 20-21, 26). With the capture of Sharuhen (Tell el-Farah or Tell el-Aijul) the last Hyksos stronghold was lost and Egyptian domination over the province of Canaan was established. The
particularlystrong Egyptianinfluence in this region is evident from both the materialcultureof the excavated sites and literarysources, such as the reference in 1 Chr4:39-40to the inhabitants of the Land of Gerar: "for they (the sons) of Ham (Egypt) had dwelt there of old." In the course of theirexpansionist activity in the 12th-11thcentury B.C.E.,
the Philistines and other tribes of the Sea Peoples moved from their coastal cities eastwardandgraduallythe entire area of the western Negev became Philistine territory. Thus, the northwestern Negev became known as "Negev of the Cretans"(1 Sam 30:14) because of its inhabitants- the Sea Peoples
-
and the city of Gerar a
center of the "Landof the Philistines" (Gen 21:32). During the reign of king Saulthe regionwas called the "Fieldof the Philistines"(1 Sam27:7, 11)andfell within the territory of Gath of the Philistines. After David's flight to this area,he was grantedthe town of Ziklag as a place of refuge. FollowingDavid's military successes the Land of Gerar became Israelite territory and was populatedby Philistines as well as by families of both Judah and Simeon until the end of the monarchicperiod. In the course of the Iron II and III periods this region witnessed the invading armies of Egypt (Shishak, Zerah/OsorchonI, and Necho), Assyria (Tiglath-pileserIII, Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, Sennacherib, and and Esarhaddon), Babylon (Nebuchadrezzar) and served for a time as a forwardposition of Assyria on the border of Egypt. During the Roman-Byzantine era the region of Nahal Gerarbecame part of the impe-
accumulation of habitational debris may reach 8-10 m. Quarryingoperations during the construction of the Turkishrailroadnearbyformeda wide, deep crateron the western slope. Surface explorations on the mound indicated that the site was inhabitedfrom the Middle Bronze Age to the Byzantine period, the 17th century B.C.E. to
the 6th century C.E.Six seasons of excavations in two major areas (A, D) and three smaller ones (B, C, R) unearthed numerousoccupationalstrata from the Chalcolithic to Islamic periods. Since the entiresummitof the tell was utilized as an Islamic cemetery, over 150 stone-lined and other types of individual graves were recorded. These graves disturbed the upper occupationallevels down to the Iron Age buildings of Stratum VII. Some poorly preserved floors and installations of the early Islamic and Mameluke periods (Stratum I) were traced in Area A.
The Site of Tellesh-Sharia:
Byzantineperiod (StratumH) Remainsof a large structure,probably a church or monastery,were recorded on the summitof the tell where a fragmentary mosaic floor was discovered by chance in the early 1950s. To the north, in Area D, a drainage system was excavated which had plastered stone-linedchannels leadingto a plastered pool that contained dozens of ribbed Byzantine water jars. In Area R, on the southern bank of Nahal Gerar,a well preservedbathhousewas partly excavated. It consisted of a hypocaust with red-brick arched niches and clay pipes builtin the walls, as well as a system of stone-lined channels for drainage.The pottery repertoireincludedlate RomanRed Slip Warethat provided a 5th-6th century C.E.date for the latest use of the bath-
Excavations and Stratigraphy The mound is shaped in the form of a horseshoe with very steep slopes on all but the western side where apparently the city gate was located. Nahal Gerar meanders around the mound, and several springs still yield permanent fresh water. The area of the ancient city on the summit of the tell is approximately 16 dunams (4 acres) and is 168 m above sea level. Judging from the kurkar outcrops at the base of the mound, the
Roman period (Stratum III) During the Roman period the town evidently moved down to the plain on the south bank of Nahal Gerar (Area R), and the summit of the mound was only occupied sporadically. Just below the surface in Area D, the remains of a large, 1st-century Roman villa, which was enclosed C.E., by a stone wall and protected by a massive stone-built watchtower, were uncov-
rial domain of Saltus Gerariticus.
house.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
157
ered. This structure was largely destroyed by the Islamic graves and Byzantine drainage system, leaving only the stone foundations and sections of the floor. On the floors were heapedfragmentsof paintedwall plaster decoratedwith geometricandfloral designs in white, yellow, red, blue, green, andblack. Similarcolorfulfrescoes of the Herodianperiodare known fromthe Jewish Quarterin Jerusalem, Herodium,Masada, and Jericho. The debrisof the villa containednumerous examplesof Aretinepottery,Nabatean and pseudo-Nabateanwares, "Herodian" oil lampsand measuringcups of white limestone. Some fragmentary walls associated with Hellenistic ceramics such as fish-plates imply a short-livedoccupation duringthe late Hellenistic period, ca. 2nd-ist century B.C.E.(StratumIV). PersianPeriod(StratumV) The Persian period, 5th-4th century B.C.E.,is represented,as in other sites in the northern Negev, by numerous grainpits. In Area A a well preserved brick-linedsilo, some 5 m in diameter, of the same type recordedat neighboring Tell Jemmeh, was uncovered. The brickfloor of the silo was covered by a thick layer of organic matter,perhaps the remains of grain or cereals. Architectural remains of the Persian periodwere exploredin Area D where two building phases were distinguished above the levelled debris of StratumVI. The groundplan suggests that these were courtyard houses, similarin plan to structuresat Ashdod and Tell es-Saidiyeh. These buildings and storagepits yielded a largecollection of domestic pottery and glazed Attic wares, bone spatulae, bronze fibulae, Greek terracotta figurines, Aramaicostraca, and a finely worked limestone incense altar which was decorated on two sides with incised Proto-Aeolic capitals topped with lotus leaves.
Above:A GreekterracottafromStratumV. Below:incense altarfromStratumV.
158
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
Iron Age III (StratumVI) Stratum VI of the 7th-6th century B.C.E. is the last fortified city at Tell
esh-Sharia.In Area A and overlooking Nahal Gerara large structure,cut into by the brick-linedsilo of StratumV, was exposed. It was apparently a citadel which guarded the southeastern approachto the city, as the structure has a thick enclosure wall with parallel interior long rooms. Several storage pits nearby,one about 7 m in diameter and 3 m deep, were cut through the successive earlier strata down to the Late Bronze Age structures. The pits yielded many spiral burnished bowls, Assyrian Palace Ware bowls and local imitations thereof, pillar figurines, fragmentsof painted East Greek pottery, and Hebrew ostraca. One ostracon mentions the place-name Ezem, perhaps the same city listed in the territory of Simeon (Josh 19:3). The northern and northeastern approachesto the city wereguardedby
a massively built citadel (Area D and on the northernedge of the tell). Rectangularin plan, the structureconsists of long (14 m), narrow (basement?) halls and is enclosed by a very thick wall(4 m wide) preservedto a heightof 2 m. A massive brickplatformprojects from the wall to the south. The citadel was apparentlyconnected to a defense system of the city wall by what seemed to be a casemate wall. On the brick-lined floors of the basement (?) halls were scattered a multitude of objects, including a remarkable socketed, crescent-shaped bronze standardwhich symbolizes the moon-god,Sin. Of a type knownfrom Assyrian reliefs, this is the first example found outside Assyria. Lying nearbywas a heavy ironchain, ca. I m long, endingin an instrumentwithfour pitchforklikeprongs,used perhapsas a grapplingdevice for climbingwalls. A well-preserved, socketed bronze spearheadwas recordedon the floor of the central hall (a staircase leadingto
N
......
"----A
Above:AreaD, "Assyrian" fort, Stratum VI. Below:StratumVI, pillarfigurines.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
159
the upperstories ?). Similarspearsare representedon Assyrianreliefs and on orthostats from north Syria. The debris of the fallen walls yielded fragments of delicate Assyrian Palace Ware,a faience statuette of the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet, and a long Aramaicostraconwhichis understudy by ProfessorFrankCross. A groupof intactvessels was retrievedfromunder the fallen bricks in a small room adjacent to the east wall of the citadel, includinga jug inscribedon its shoulder with the word lyrm ("belonging to Yoram[Yeremiah?]"). Excavations duringthe 1978season in the spacious open courtyardto the east of the citadelyielded evidence for iron-workinginstallations, probably for military purposes. Scattered over the areawere charcoal,ironslags, broken crucibles, and clay tuyeres or pipes for bellows. In fact, an intact smithy for repairingiron implements came to light just to the east of the enclosure wall. It consisted of a small pit lined with bricks and coated with vitrified clay. To the upper part were affixedclay tuyeres, and in frontof the opening was a small depression containing charcoal and an iron adze or
160
Above,left:crescent-shapedbronzestandardandbellfromAreaD, "Assyrian"fort. Above, right: jug with Hebrew inscription from Area D, "Assyrian" fort. Below: Middle Corinthian aryballos, Area D, Stratum VI.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
spearhead. Similar installations were recorded by Sir Flinders Petrie near the Assyrian vaulted structureat Tell Jemmeh; they also occur in the Iron of Mesad Age III fortress Hashavyahu. The rooms of the citadel at Tell esh-Sharia itself were found practically buried under heaps of burned bricksandcharredbeams, testifyingto the wholesale destruction by fire that turned the bricks red and resulted in the collapse of the upper stories. Ceramic evidence such as Assyrian PalaceWare,mortaria,basket-handled jars, and other characteristicIron Age III pottery suggests that the citadel at Tell esh-Sharia was destroyed in the late 7th centuryB.C.E.This date is confirmed by the finds from a series of large pits which cut into the floors of the citadeland were, in turn, sealed by the StratumV occupationallevel. The pottery assemblage of these pits, which were evidently cut shortly after the destructionof the citadel, is identical with that of the latterand included also a MiddleCorinthianaryballosof a late 7th-century B.C.E. type.
The repertoireof StratumVI as a whole compares nicely with 7that Mesad century deposits Hashavyahu, En-gedi, Tell Jemmeh, andAshdod. The presenceof Assyrian Palace Wareand Assyrian bronzes indicates thatthe citadel, like nearbyTell
Jemmeh, was occupied for some time by Assyriantroops, perhapsduringthe reign of Esarhaddon.At present, the circumstancessurroundingthe end of this level are not known. Amongthose who might have been responsiblefor its destruction are Nebuchadrezzar duringone of the early Babylonianmilitary expeditions to southern Palestine, one of the Saitic kings (Necho?) during an Egyptian campaign, or Josiahin a Judahitethrustto the west. IronAge II (StratumVII) Stratum VII in the 10th-9thcentury B.C.E. witnessed, no doubt, the most intensive Iron Age buildingactivity at Sharia.It is representedby fouror five phases of rebuildingwith considerable accumulationof debris. The architecture was found in an excellent state of preservation.The sun-driedmud-brick walls of this stratumare usually set in deep foundation trenches filled with kurkar and topped with alternating layers of bricksandkurkarThe bricks are consistently of high quality and uniformin size. The latest phase in the early 9th century B.C.E. came to an abruptend, apparentlyas a resultof an earthquakefollowed by fire. The architectureof StratumVII in Area A is representedby well-planned publicand privatestructures,of which the best preservedis a groupof characteristic Iron Age four-room houses.
Building 149, for example, in the northwest corner of the excavated area measures13by 11m, and its walls have survived to a height of some 2 m. Remains of white plaster are still visible on the walls. Enteredfrom the street on the north, the buildingconsists of a rectangularcourtyard(6 x 8 m) flanked by narrow rooms on its southern and eastern sides and very thick walls on the northernand western sides. The courtyardis divided by a row of seven pillarsof whichonly the large stones are preserved. The west wing of the courtyard,which was apparentlycovered by a roof, was found paved with large pebbles and crushed chalk, while the floor of the eastern wing was made of beaten brick material; a brick bench also ran along the east wall. This wing must have served for cooking andbakingfor it contained clay tabuns, small depressions sunk into the floor and lined with sea shells, as well as cooking pots still restingon ashes. Around these installations were encounteredmany intact or restorable storage jars, cooking pots, hand-
house(149),looking Below,left:four-room east, AreaA, StratumVII. Below,right: four-room houses,AreaA, StratumVII.
A.
'ii
/1!
.,1
,,.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
161
of four-mroom house lined on the outer face with kurkar Above,left:Courtroom (149),AreaA, StratumVII. Above,right: blocks, laid in alternatingheadersand sectionof ashlarbuilding,AreaD, Stratum stretchers.The stone blocks are nicely VII. squaredand draftedwith flat margins on three sides, leavinga raisedboss in the center.The remainsofkurkarchips in the foundationtrenchesindicatethat burnished bowls and jugs, footed the final dressing of the stones took chalices, anda sizableheapof unbaked place at the site. One of the rooms in clay balls that were used as jar stop- this buildingyielded a largenumberof pers or clay heaters. Scatteredamong complete storage jars and burnished the vessels were stone grinders and bowls of late 10th-or early9th-century pounders as well as pottery palettes B.C.E. types. and ivory sticks for mixing cosmetics The Shariamasonryobviously reor herbs. Two small rooms on the east calls the ashlar buildingtechnique of were found virtually empty of finds royal architecture,well known at sites and served in all likelihood as stair- like Hazor, Megiddo, Samaria,Gezer, cases to the second story of the house. and Ramat Rahel. Tell esh-Sharia is ThatBuilding149hada second story is evidently the southernmost occurevidentbothfromthe completevessels rence of such an architecturalfeature. on top of the considerableaccumula- It should be noted, however, that in tion of fallen bricksand the exception- contrast to true ashlar masonry, the ally thick walls on the courtyard's walls at Shariaare built of mud-brick western and northern sides. A wall and only the outer facing is of drafted that collapsed in an earthquakealso ashlar masonry. Moreover, the presfell intact into the long hall bordering ence of a plasteredbenchthatwas built the courtyardon the south. against the full height of facing ashlar In Area D and partly under the blocks indicates clearly that the fort of StratumVI the impressive re- draftedstone blocks were, in fact, inmains of ashlar buildings were visible anddesignedfor the foundation explored (StratumVII). These build- courses only. This conclusion is ings were recorded on either side of furthersupportedby the remainsof the what seemed to be a street leading to plasteredbrick wall that was superimthe northeasterncornerof the tell. The posed upon the ashlar foundation walls of the best preserved structure courses; the characteristic 6'gap" in on the west are up to 2 m in height. between was apparentlyfor the inserThey areconstructedwith brickswhile tion of wooden planks.The analysisof the three foundation courses were architectureat Sharia,particularlythe
162
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
incorporationof ashlarblocks in foundation courses of brick construction, suggests a curious mixtureof two differentbuildingtechniques:that of true ashlarmasonryof the IronAge type in Palestine and the orthostat construction technique of the Syrian littoral during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Ashdod is the only other site in Iron Age Palestinewherea similarbuilding techniquewas observed. There, however, the ashlarblocks or quoins were integrated in the brickwork only in order to strengthenthe corners of the 10th-centuryB.C.E. gate, but not the actual walls. The walls of the ashlar buildings were erected directly on the foundations of earlierstructureswith a rather similargroundplan. The latterreached in some places a depth of 1.50 m and were constructed, like the four-room houses of AreaA, with layersofkurkar fill. The floors of some of the rooms were lined with bricks and the courtyardswere, likewise, paved with wadi pebbles. The pottery ensemble from these buildings, including hand burnished pottery, dated to the 10thcentury B.C.E. Sometime toward the
end of that century the old walls were razeddown to the foundationlevel and new structuresof ashlarfinish withthe same ground plan were erected. The buildings of Stratum VII in Area D were burned down by a tremendous fire that left behind masses of charred beamsandbakedbricks.Assuming,as
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII
Area(s)ofTell
Era
Stratum
periods EarlyIslamicandMameluke Byzantineperiod(4th-6thcenturiesA.D.) Romanperiod(1stcenturyA.D.) Hellenisticperiod(2nd-IstcenturiesB.C.E.) Persianperiod(5th-4thcenturiesB.C.E.) IronAgeIII(7th-6thcenturiesB.C.E.) centuriesB.C.E.) IronAgeII (10th-9th centuriesB.C.E.) IronAgeI (12th-lIth LateBronzeIll-IronAgeI (early12thcenturyB.C.E.) LateBronzeIII(13thcenturyB.C.E.) LateBronzeII(14thcenturyB.C.E.) MiddleBronzeAgeIIc-LateBronzeAgeI centuriesB.C.E.) (17/16th-15th Chalcolithic, EarlyBronzeI, MiddleBronzeI
is generally believed, that ashlar masonry was the standard architectural feature in royal centers of Judah and Israel, it might be postulatedthat the construction of ashlar-facedwalls in StratumVII at Tell esh-Shariawas part of a moreambitiousbuildingproject of one of the Judean kings who reignedin the 10thor early 9th century B.C.E.One hypothesis would be to ascribethe buildingof StratumVII to Solomon or Rehoboam, who systematically built and fortified the cities of Judah. Its destruction by fire might have occurred during Shishak's invasion in 924 B.C.E.(2 Chr 11-12). Alternatively, the large scale building of Stratum VII might be attributedto KingAsa, who accordingto 2 Chron 14 was responsible for the building and fortification of cities all over Judah during his long years of peaceful reign. The destruction of StratumVII might then be related to the late 10th-century invasion of southernJudahby Zerahthe Ethiopian (2 Chr14:9).It is likely thatthis episode was far morethana briefmilitaryoperation. Instead, Zerah occupied the southerncoastal plainand Judeanlowland, including the northern Negev, until he was defeated at Mareshahby the large army of Asa. Afterwards, "Asa and his men pursuedthem as far as Gerar. . . . They destroyed all the cities aroundGerar. . . and they plunderedthe cities" (2 Chr14:13-15).Asa's response was very likely not a pursuit,
D D, R A,B,D,R D A,B,C,D A, B, D A, B, D A, B A A A A A
and white bands on a red background, and irregularlyburnishedbowls. The association of Philistine pottery with the four-roomhouse of StratumVIII implies that this type of building belonged originally to the Philistine architectural tradition and that it was IronAge I (StratumVIII) The architecturalantecedents of the adopted by the Israelites to become a standard feature of the Stratum VII four-room houses of Stratum VII in Area A were discovered immediately town plan and, indeed, of Israeliteand Judahite architecture throughout the below in the earlier Stratum VIII of Iron Age I. In this level, there were at country. The early occurrence of the four-room house in an 11th-century least three phases of rebuilding, the B.C.E. context is well attested in the latest of which followed closely the I material culture of Palestinian Iron of houses four-room of the groundplan Stratum VII. The architecturalconsites, includingthose in the Negev. At Tellesh-Sharia,then, the trantinuity is manifestedby the superposition of walls which are built directly sition from Philistine Iron I (Stratum VIII) to Israelite Iron II (StratumVII) upon earlier ones, the location of kitcheninstallationsin the courtyards, evidently did not involve any destructhe succession of pebbled floors and tion or gap in occupation, as the conrows of stone bases for pillars as well tinuity of materialculture was apparent in the ceramicassemblagesof both as the paved floors at the entrance to strata. The latter observation testifythe building on the north. During the removal of the remains of the four- ing to the occupation of the city room house south of Building 149 it throughoutthe Iron I-II periods by a was discovered that it, too, was con- Philistinepopulation furthersupports the identification of Tell esh-Sharia structed directly over an identical with biblical Ziklag. East of the fourbuildingwith three parallelrooms, one of which was paved with wadi pebbles room houses just describedand on the and the other equipped with cooking edge of the tell the foundations of and baking installations. These build- StratumVII buildingswere sunk into ings were associated with late Philis- thick layers of ash which belongedto a tine pottery of the 11thcentury B.C.E., series of huge storage or refuse pits of such as bell-shaped bowls with hori- the late 12th-11th centuries B.C.E. (StratumVIII a-c). The earlierpits cut zontally tilted handles, "beer jugs" into the destructiondebris of the last with strainers, pilgrim flasks, "Ashdod" pottery painted with black Canaanitesettlementin StratumIX. but rather a well-plannedand coordinated operationaimedat regaininglost Judeanterritoryas far as the Land of Gerarand reestablishingcontrolof the area borderingPhilistia and Egypt.
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
163
C14
,.
.. .
...
BronzeAge Settlements (StrataIX-XIII) of the CanaanThe impressive-remains ite city of Tellesh-Shariawere encounteredover a good part of AreaA down to bedrock. As the succession of LB settlements developed without interruptionfromthe earliest, StratumXII, to the latest, StratumIX, untilits final destructionin the mid 12thcentury,it is appropriateto describe the occupational remainsin chronologicalorder. The earliest habitational remains (StratumXIII)are foundin the form of installations, tabuns, and pits that were constructeddirectlyon bedrock. These were intermixedand coveredby a thick layer (40-50 cm) of loess and ash. The finds - pottery, flint tools, and bones
-
e ,-,
Above,left: "Governor'sResidency,"StratumIX. Above,right:sectionof the same
the wallof an Israelite house;ash layersof the Philistinestratum(VIII)below four-room house(Stratum jug VII)arevisiblein thedistantarea.Below:Canaanite withibexandpalmtreemotif,StratumIX.
belonged to a poor sea-
sonal settlement of the ChalcolithicEB I as well as EB IV (or MBI)period. These observations conforni with the settlement pattern in the northern Negev duringthese periods. The earliestCanaanitecity was establishedin the last phaseof the Middle Bronze(MB IIc) or the very beginning of the Late BronzeAge (LB I). To this phase, StratumXII, belongthe remains of a massive structure, probably a palace, erected in the southeastern corner of the tell. The structurewas built on a 100-120cm high artificially raised platform that had been constructedof largefield stones and wadi pebbles set under the corners of the building.The space was packed with sand and ash that had been collected
164
..
..
. •.•,-:,•.,.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
Fromtopleftclockwise: ImportedMyceneanvessels,StratumX; Egyptianfaience flask,StratumX; scarabsealof the 19thEgyptianDynasty,StratumX.
from the Chalcolithic-EB IV sites nearby.The walls of the palace(?) were some 2 m thickandpreservedin places to the height of 2.5 m. Alternating courses of brown and white bricks (40 x 60 cm) were carefullylaid down and coated with thickplaster.The portion thus far excavated consisted of a rectangularhall (8 x 5 m) enclosed by a thick wall and flankedon the east by a series of small rooms. Three or four (StratumXII 4-1) phases of rebuilding involved the raising of floors and the additionof partitionwalls and installations. In the upper phase a brick buttress and a clay tabun were added along with a small brick platform (bamah?) that was backed against a carefullyroundedstone base. The pottery types from the earliest floor date to MB IIc or LB I, whereas the specimens fromthe uppermostfloor,including painted Bichrome and imported Cypriote wares, may be attributedto the 15th century B.C.E.Excavations down to bedrock in the "TurkishCrater" and the step trench on the north
slope indicated that the earliest Canaanitesettlement, occupyinga relatively large area of the tell, was apparentlya well-plannedcity with public buildings. Stratum XI of the 14th century B.C.E. is representedin Area A by a large structure on stone foundations and a wide open courtyard.The space of the courtyardwas pitted withfavissae that were full of animalbones intermixed with pottery vessels including carinated bowls, painted kraters and bowls with pedestals, perforated cylindricalstands, and many Cypriote containersof WhiteSlipand Base Ring types. These favissae attest to the presence of some cult (sanctuary?) buildingnearby. The last LB strata (X-IX) in the 13thandearly12thcenturiesB.C.E.have been examinedover a wide areain the southeasterncorner of the tell and the eastern slope. In the southernsection of AreaA andabove the courtyardand favissae of StratumXI a large structure, Building 1118, with thick walls
and a circular,mud-brickgranarywas excavated (StratumX). The main hall of the buildinghad plasteredbenches and a small plasteredplatformwith a stone-built basin in front. The three successive floors of Stratum X were packed with a largenumberof pottery vessels intermixed with charcoal and animalbones. The collection includes Egyptianalabastervases, pottery containers in the shape of pomegranates, ivory inlays, cylinder seals and scarabs, and numerousMyceneanand Cypriote vessels. Among the pottery forms to which a special ceremonial significance may be attributed were tubularstands pierced with holes and decorated with palm trees and ibexes and many cup-and-saucer bowls. Nearby were recordedfavissae containinganimalbones, as well as Egyptian and Mycenean objects. The various features in Building 1118,that is, plasteredbenches, a platformand (libation?) basin, numerous favissae, animalbones, and cult vessels, testify to the use of the structure as a
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
165
tioned "Year4" and "Year 10." The occurrence of cartouches of Rameses III in this deposit indicates that the destructionof CanaaniteLachish, like that of Ziklag, should be dated in the
Scarabsealof the 19thEgyptian Dynasty,StratumX.
mid 12th century B.C.E.
sanctuary.The evidence of the raising of floors and the cutting of newfavissae indicates that this building continuedto be used as a sanctuaryin the succeeding phase, StratumIX, until it was destroyed by fire in the mid 11th century B.C.E. Immediatelybelow the surface of the steep eastern slope and underthe Iron I deposits of StratumVIII a massive and well-preserved structure which has been identifiedas the Governor's Residency (Building906) was excavated. Three structural phases (IX 3-1) were distinguished in this building. Building 906 was originally squarein plan(ca. 25 x 25 m), including a centralcourtyardor hallwith column bases and small(basement?)rooms on three sides. Some of the rooms had paved mud-brickfloors, and charred beams have been identifiedas cedar of Lebanon.The considerableaccumulation of brokenbricks and pottery vessels on top of the burned bricks and beams testifies to a thoroughdestruction by fire that turned the bricks red and resulted in the collapse of the upper stories. The excavated rooms of Building 906containedan astonishingprofusion of pottery vessels mixed with charcoal and animalbones. A large proportion of the ceramic collection belongs to a type of plainbowl with string-cutbase which is a well-knownfeaturein New Kingdom Egyptian contexts and is
166
very common,for instance,in the third structureof the Fosse Templeat Lachish. Carinatedbowls and jugs decorated with the palm-tree-and-ibex motif and pilgrimflasks with painted concentric circles were also found. Egyptian imports are representedby drop-shaped vases and high-necked cups, faience and alabaster vases, as well as beads, amulets, and scarabs.A numberof bronze objects were found on the floor of one room, includinga socketed staff, finished with a loop in the form of the Egyptian scepter, as well as two small (votive?) copper ingots. Another room yielded lumps of Egyptian cobalt blue pigment, probably for decorating pottery vessels, ivory objects, and Egyptian scarabs andseals of the 19th-and20th-Dynasty types. Perhapsthe most intriguingfind was a group of eleven bowls and ostraca inscribedwith Egyptianhieratic of the late New Kingdom.These texts deal with largequantitiesof grain,presumablytaxes paid to the local temple or fort. Oneof the inscriptions,studied by Orly Goldwasser,mentions "Year 20 + X," most likely of Rameses III. The largest group found thus far in Palestine, these records shed considerable light on the tax system in CanaanunderEgyptianrule. It shouldbe noted that contemporarydestruction debris of Stratum VI at Lachish yielded a few hieraticinscriptionsconcerning measures of grain and men-
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
The analysis of the ground plan and architecturaldetails of Building 906 suggests that it is actually a local version of the Egyptian courtyard house of the New Kingdom. Similar mud-brickstructures are known in a number of LB-early Iron sites in Palestine, e.g., Beth-Shan, Tell Hesi, Tell Jemmeh, Tell Masos, Tell Farah (S), andperhapsalso Aphek. The wide distributionin Palestine of "residencies" constructed on Egyptian architecturalmodels pointsto the administrative reorganization of Egyptian governmentin the provinceof Canaan duringthe reign of Rameses III. This assumption is supportedby Egyptian documents of the 20th Dynasty. The destruction of the residency at Tell esh-Shariamarksthe end of Egyptian controlof this regionafter the death of RamesesIIIor one of his successors. It should be noted that Building 906 was constructed directly on the foundations of a similar structure (Building2502, StratumX, of the 13th century B.C.E.), the walls of which had
been razedcompletelyto makeway for the new structure.The transitionfrom StratumX to IX did not involve a destructionor hiatusbut rathera gradual and continuous rebuilding. Concerning the chronological position of StratumIX, the rich collection of pottery finds representsthe final phase of LB materialculture and includes elements of the incoming early Iron. In addition, neither Mycenean and Cypriote imports nor Philistinesherds are represented.This observation implies that Aegean importationceased by the end of the 13th century B.C.E., while Philistine pottery was not available before the end of Rameses III's reign in the mid 12th century B.C.E. This conclusion is confirmed by the presence of early Philistine sherds only in Stratum VIII and above the destruction debris of Stratum IX. The destruction by fire of Stratum IX and the end of Canaanite material culture at Tell esh-Sharia resulted directly from the attack either of a group of Sea Peoples or of raiding nomads (Amalekites?) from the Negev.
Three
ISRAELITE
SITES
hills and
Surveys and short-term salvage excavations in the central hill region of ancient Judah, north and south of Jerusalem, have disclosed new information about life in the early Iron Age. Three such
the in of JUDAH
settlements
el-Marjameh, and Khirbet Abu et-Twein -are selectedfor this analysis of ancient Israelite culture in small settlements some distance from major population centers.
EPHRAIM
Amihai Mazar Shechem
Kh. El- Marjama
i
--
",,-.
*JERUSALEM
-
Gilohe --_
Dead- Sea-
Kh.Abu-Et-Twein Hebro0 Hebron
ISea 5
,L-
10
15km.
- Giloh, Khirbet
-
.
South and north of Jerusalemlies the hill country,whererockandcragthrust harshly to create a barrencontrast to the urban center which is the city of David. In comparisonwith Jerusalem, the mountainsof Judah and Ephraim are little known archeologically.Over the past five years, however, that has begun to change; excavations of three sites in the region have producedsubstantial new evidence for various aspects of IronAge materialculture.The three sites are Giloh, the location of a new suburb of modern Jerusalem, where we uncovered the remainsof a small settlement from the earliest phase of Israelite settlement in the region; Khirbet el-Marjameh,near Ain es-Samiyeh, whereremainsof city fortifications dated to the period of the Israelite Monarchywere revealed;and KhirbetAbu et-Twein,on the western slopes of the Hebron Hills, where a fortressand a smallvillage datedto the period of the Monarchywere discovered. A tower from the same period was found at Giloh, erected on the ruins of the village from an earlier period of settlement. Together these discoveries and their biblical connections comprise an importantcontribution to the archeological research of the Iron Age.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
167
Giloh:A 12th-centuryB.C.E. site near Jerusalem The earliestand perhapsmost exciting site of the threeis in the new suburbof Giloh,1 on a high ridge (835 m above sea level) overlooking Bethlehem on the southeast, Jerusalemon the north, andthe JudeanDesert on the east. This highridgeprovidednaturalprotection, and a small village was founded here when the tribe of Judahfirst settled in this region. The settlers must have faced great difficulties,for the ridge is very rocky,remote, and far fromgood land and any natural water source. Perhaps it was these very difficulties which caused the site to be deserted not long afterwards. M. Kochavi discoveredthe site in his survey of the areain 1968(Kochavi 1972: 36). Extensive building operations on the ridge duringrecent years necessitated urgent rescue excavations, which were carried out during 1978-79.2At the beginningthe site was not a very promising one; a surface survey showed that much of it was eroded away and that the naturalbedrock was exposed to the surface in many places, while a Jordanianmilitary position built on most of the area caused furtherdestructionto the site. Nonetheless, a series of probes and excavation of wide areas produced data sufficientfor basic reconstruction of the historyand structureof the site. The ancientsite is abouttwo acres in size. Excavations show that around 1200 B.C.E. a fortification wall sur-
roundedthe ridge. Long internalwalls divided the settlement area into large units of open courtyardsand adjacent dwellings. The outer defensive wall itself is knownonly in part. In AreaE, at the northeast part of the site, it was a doublewall, composedof an outerwall 1 m wide and an innerwall 1.8 m wide, built 2.5 m further south. This outer wall consisted of large, unworked boulders, while the inner wall was constructed of regular, straightened courses. This fortification system continued further to the east and then turned south in a right angle. In Area F excavation exposed the continuation of this wall. Despite the poor preservation of this segment, a line of the 1.5-m-thick wall of large, unworked stones is discernible. Inside it and parallel to it stands a dwelling's
168
S
U
IP
S *0
H
K
0
M
L
*7 Q
P
S
T
U
A
C
Iron Age I Excavated C-1
Iron Age I surface traced
1---1
Iron Age IHypothetical Iron Age II
I
Byzantine and later
1A
L Area-D
E
.
-i;-Area .' t
I
SCAre
12',r~
AreaB//C
o
o,13
o1.
....
.
...o ..a F,
...A
K ,
"
-
1
M
N
0
P
5
Q
U
C
tion arounda comparativelysmall village illuminatesthe security problems of Israelite settlement in this region. Inside the settlement excavation discovered parts of long walls which once divided the area into several units. This division may well indicate the society's social structure;each unit the early 12th century B.C.E. could have held one social unit, probThe outer wall was clearly part of ably an extended family.The one unit a fortification system, but several excavated held a 9 x 23 m courtyard questions about the wall remainunan- surroundedby walls of largeunworked swered. For example, did it surround stones and, on the northernside of the the whole site, or only its southernpor- courtyard,a dwelling. The dwelling opened from the tion? And was the wall built with the outer or later? of the settlement courtyard and held an inner founding The variety of buildingtechniquesand courtyardas well, divided into roofed dimensions in the various sections of and unroofed parts by a row of three the wall indicate that the fortification pillarsand a pilaster.One of the pillars was not one homogeneous projectbut was a squared monolith, while the was built by several groups of inhabi- others were long unworked slabs of tants, each responsiblefor the building rock. North of the courtyard stood a of a particularsection of the fortifica- long rectangularroom, and on its west tion. The buildingof such a fortifica- were two additionalrooms.
outer wall. Further south, the wall curves towardthe southernside of the site, where large unworked rocks about 1m in diameterstill arevisible on the surface. All the excavated areas contain floors and an accumulationof debris, including characteristictypes of pottery sherdswhichcan be datedto
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
0
1>\32
3
....*
Jerk,,
The house was poorly built;large rough stones constituted its outer walls, and smaller stones laid in uneven courses made up the innerwalls. The unevensurfaceof the bedrockwas left unleveled, and the builders constructedthe dwellingaroundan undisturbed rock scarp. No raising of the floor level or other alterations in the building indicate lengthy use of the house. Its plan recalls the plans characteristicof later Israelite houses known as Four Room Houses, which also used a rowof pillarsto dividetheir courtyards. These houses became common during the period of the Judges,and the house at the Giloh site appears to be an early prototype of such houses. The findsin the dwellingandother excavated areaswere mainlysherdsof a limited number of pottery vessel types. Most common were cooking pots, storagejars, and pithoi, together comprisingmorethan80%of the finds. Pithoi with a "collaredrim" make up about 35% of all the sherds. Such pithoiare very common in sites attributed to Israelitesettlement, like Beth-
23 ,. ..!7'-p is %d<0
.
mPSI
Above,left:generalviewof theIronI house ofthehouse atGiloh(top)andthecourtyard with a rectangular pillarin situ (bottom). Above,right:a planof the IronI house. Below: a store jar from the house and rim fragments of "collared rim" jars from the excavations of Giloh.
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
169
el, Ai, KhirbetRaddana,andBeth-Zur and were thoughtby scholarslike W.EF Albrightand Y Aharonito be characteristic Israelite pottery from the periodof the Judges.However,the distributionof similarpithoi in sites like Megiddo,probablynot Israeliteat this period,andat Sahab,in the heartof the Ammonite territory (Ibrahim 1978), casts doubt on this restricted ethnic attribution. Whatever the origin of these pithoi, they unquestionablyplayed an importantrole in the daily life of the Israelitesettlers. The cooking pots are very important for dating. They include two types, one which resembles Canaanite cooking pots of the Late BronzeAge, and anothersimilarto the cooking pots of the period of the Judges, Iron I. The presence of both types in the same buildings, which must have been occupied only for a comparativelyshort period, points to a date during the 12th century B.C.E. for the occupation of this site. The settlementmay be definedas a fortified village, built by settlers in transition from seminomadic life to permanent settlement. The large courtyardssurroundedby walls could have served as pens for cattle;the long dividing walls suggest division of the site among several large residential units, probablyaccordingto tribal social structure;the poor buildingtechnique shows an absence of building traditions,andthe similarityof pottery shapesto those used by the Canaanites implies no original pottery-making tradition among the new settlers. Additionally, the limited number of vessel forms used in the settlement points to only an elementary material culture, as does the absence of any objects of art or "small finds" of any sort. Identificationof the settlers with the earliest families of the tribe of Judah who settled in this region suggests itself naturally.The architecture of the excavated private house, apparentlyan early example of typical Israelite private architecture, reinforces this conclusion;the site at Giloh effectively illustrates the process of Israelite settlement in the central hill country. The relation between the archeological finds and the biblical
170
sourcesfor the settlementof the Israel- Jerusalem. Jerusalem, of course, remained a Jebusite enclave in the hill ite tribesin theirlandis one of the most controversial subjects in biblical ar- countryuntilits conquestby the Israelcheology. Recent studies on this sub- ites in the time of King David. The ject tend to eliminate the role of ar- historicityof Judg1:8,which mentions cheology in this debate or to associate a conquest of Jerusalemby the tribe of the finds with Alt's theory of peaceful Judahin an earlyphase of the conquest and settlement, is much debated, but Israelite infiltration of areas unoccupiedby Canaanitesprecedinga later whether the narrativeis authentic or phase of territorialexpansion to the from a later,unhistoricaltradition,the Shephelahandthe plains(see Weippert defensive system built at Giloh must 1971:127-46;Miller 1977:252-84;Aha- have been related to the problems roni 1975:120-22).Against this theory posed by its proximity to Jebusite stands that of W. E Albright (1935; Jerusalem. 1939) and other scholars who, with The archeologicalevidence shows some variation, accept the basic data that the inhabitantsdesertedthe site at in the books of Joshua and Judges as Giloh early in the periodof the Judges, valuable historical narrativesand try sometime during the 12th century to use the archeologicalfinds as aids to B.C.E., for unknown reasons. Warfare betterunderstandingof these sources. may have destroyed the settlement, The archeological facts revealed perhaps during conflicts between the by the excavation at Giloh make an new settlers and the Jebusites of importantnew contributionto the sub- Jerusalem,or its inappropriatenessfor ject, displayingthe foundationof a new sedentary life could have brought settlementin a remote, previouslyun- about the end of settlementat the site; neitherpossibilitycan be overlooked. occupied area in the vicinity of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, a settleNo direct sources aid in identifyment founded when important ing the site with one of the ancient Canaanite cities like Lachish in the place namesin the region,but one posShephelahwere being destroyed. The sibility comes to mind. In the battle of pottery types found at Giloh showed the Valley of Rephaim, David conthat settlementtheretook place almost queredthe Philistinesin a place called at the same time as or a little later than Baal Perazim (2 Sam 5:20), and Isaiah the destructionof Lachish.This is true mentions The Mountain of Perazim at other settlement sites excavated in (Isa 28:20).The componentBaalin the the land of Benjamin, north of name in Samuelmusthave to do with a Jerusalem. cult place for Baal, probablyon a high Such finds show a process of mountain close to the valley of Refoundation of new settlements in the phaim. The Giloh site lies close to the hill country during the 12th century Valleyof Rephaim,the only archeologB.C.E.True,some of these settlements, ical site fromthe periodof the Israelite like the one at Giloh, grew up in areas settlement in this region. Although, without previous Canaanite settle- accordingto the pottery finds, the site ment. Yet, so far as I can judge, the was probablydeserted duringthe 12th archeological evidence does not sup- century B.C.E.,long before the time of port a long process of peaceful settle- David, surely the name of the ruined ment in these areas during the Late settlement was known for generations Bronze Age as arguedin the theory of after the site was abandoned.The site A. Alt. If Alt's theory is correct, that alleged phase of peaceful penetration cannot be attested archeologically. The remains of fortifications at our site argue against a peaceful life there. The selection of a site for settlement on a high, remote hill and the concurrent necessity of defending it well illustrate the defense problems faced by the new settlers, problems which may have arisen from the special situation in this area close to
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
may well, then, be identified with Baal Perazim. During Iron II a watch tower was built at the highest point of the site (see below). Perhaps this later reuse of the place led Isaiah to mention the place again, merely omitting the component Baal and calling the place The Mountain of Perazim. A connection may also be possible between the name Perazim and Peres, the ancestor of David. The family of Peres was one of
the most important in the tribe of Judah, and the place-name may well have come from the family name. The connection, if proved, would indicate the importanceof Giloh in the earliest phase of the local settlement of the tribe of Judah. Israelitecity fortificationsat Khirbet el-Marjameh At the heartof the landof Ephraimlies the site of Khirbetel-Marjameh(map reference 1816.1554),near the importantfountainof Ain es-Samiyeh,at the northeasternfoot of the mountain of Baal-Hazor.Most of this area on the eastern slopes of the mountains, a northernextension of the JudeanDesert, is dry and today almost deserted; the easternmost Arab villages of the mountains, such as Kafr-Malik, are situatedfurtherwest. Oursite is a kind of small oasis in this desert. The rich fountainof Ain es-Samiyeh flows in a deep ravine surroundedby high cliffs. Further to the east lies a small plain valley, easily irrigatedby the spring. The valley is drained by Wadi Auja, which winds throughthe desert untilit reaches the JordanValley. The combination of ever-flowing fountain and rich land in the nearby plain providedideal conditionsfor life in this place; indeed, during several periods the place was almost the only areain this remote regionto be extensively occupied. The mainarcheological discoveries in this areaare the vast MB I cemeteries found all around,including the cemetery of Dhahr Mirzbaneh, excavated by the late P. Lapp (for a general discussion see Dever 1972). Other occasional discoveries have shown that the areawas occupied during the EB and MB II periods. The primary ruin in the vicinity of the fountain, though, is Khirbet el-Marjameh. Khirbet elMarjameh means "the ruin of the heaps of stones," an accuratedescription of and name for the site. Our survey and probes show that these heaps were created by the destruction of massive buildingsfrom the Iron Age. Naturalconditions dictated the shape of the site. It was a town built oft a steep slope, an end of a longer ridge whichcontinuesto the northwest.The hillis surroundedby steep slopes on all sides, yet at the southernside, nearthe fountain,a verticalcliff rises almost30
Khirbet is intheravine lookingnorth.Thefountainof Aines-Samiyeh el-Marjameh, on theleft. In thedistance,DhahrMirzbaneh canbe seen.
m high, providingnaturalprotection. At the highestpoint of the site comes a naturalgeologicalbreak,whichcreates a kind of naturalmoat separatingthe site fromthe continuationof the ridge. The generalareaof the ruinis almost 10 acres, a largeareafor an Israelitetown of the Iron Age. The topographic features exploited by the builders of the town closely recall those of other important mountain sites, like Jerusalem and Hebron, both of which are also situated on a narrowridge sloping toward a fountain and dominatedby a highercontinuationof the same ridge, like the situationof our site. W. E Albright(1923)surveyed the site of Khirbet el-Marjamehand suggestedthatan ancient high place existed at the top of the hill. In 1968 Z. Kallai again surveyed the site, and he repeated Albright'shypothesis. Both scholars offered suggestionsfor the identification of the site, Albrightidentifyingit witha city called "Ephraim,"relyingprimarily on the biblicaltext: "Absalomhad sheepshearersin Baal-Hazor,which is beside Ephraim" (2 Sam 13:23). He conjecturedthat the name "Ephraim" originallydesignateda place and only later became a geographicalterm. He foundfurthersupportfor this interpre-
tation in John 11:54,where a city by this name is mentioned, as well as in Eusebius' Onomasticon. Kallai opposed Albright's identification and offered an alternative one (1972:191-204).Accordingto him, the site should be identified with the place-nameBaal Shalisha, mentioned in the Elisha narrative(2 Kings 4:42). In additionthere is a referenceto "the land of Shalisha"in the story of Saul and the lost asses (1 Sam 9:4). Both of these suggestionsarebased on obscure data, and the lack of any more precise source forestalls their unequivocalacceptance. Like Albright and Kallai, I was under the impression that there must have been a sacred "highplace" at the top of the site. One can see therea rock plateau, reached by five steps cut in the rock. The rock was cut in straight lines, and small depressions of the "cupmark"type were cut into it. The vertical rock scarp at the back of the plateaugives the place a very unusual character,suggestingthe existence of a sacred site there. These indications encouragedourteamto carryout short trialexcavationsat the site for two seasons, in October 1975and April 1978. These quickly revealedthe absence of any basis for the sacred place
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
171
hypothesis but uncovered interesting remainsof a fortificationsystem of the Israelite town. A thorough survey of the site made priorto the excavations showed that a city wall surroundedthe whole site, an area of about 10 acres. Inside the wall large heaps of stones, the remains of collapsed houses, are arranged in terraces along the slope. Lines of winding streets can still be tracedgoingup the hill alongthe slope. The town was planned, then, as a series of terraces surroundedby a city wall and surmountedby a huge fortification. Concentratedat the top of the hill, near the rock scarp and rock plateau, excavation was easy; the Iron Age walls lie just below surface soil, founded on the bedrock, which is not far below the surface. Excavation revealed two parts of the city's fortifications: a massive city wall and a huge tower which overlooked the higher continuationof the ridge. The city wall was built as an extension of the rock scarp, which was incorporated into the defensive system. The 4-m-widewall is composed of two attached strips of massive stone construction,each 2 m thick. Since the wall is close to the steep slope of the hill, a revetmentstructurewas necessary to protectits foundationfromerosion. In one place, close to the rock scarp, the revetmentwas made of five lines of massive stones, builtat various levels in a generalwidth of 3.5 m. The city wallwas preservedonly to a height of one course of stones. At a later phase, still duringthe IronAge, the innerpartof the city wall went out of use, as is shown by the discovery of two walls of a. building, partlybuilt on top of this innerpart of the city wall. Of this buildingwe excavated five rooms, the floors of which lay close to bedrock,coveringtwo pits containing EB pottery. On the floors and above the inner part of the city wall we found large quantitiesof pottery, including storage jars, kraters, bowls, a unique strainer vase, and a bronze bowl. All of these finds can be dated to the 9th-8th centuries B.C.E. The buildingremainswere attachedon the east and south to the exposed rock surface.Otherbuildingsmayover time have disappeared through erosion.
172
Above:reconstruction of the IronAge city of Khirbetel-Marjameh (drawnby L. endof thecity, at the northwestern Below:the IronAgefortifications Reetmeyer). showingthe wall(at right)andtower(at left);viewis towardthe northeast.
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
The roundedtower,generalview,looking tower.Between the two walls we found east. pottery sherds which can be dated to the 10th century B.C.E. These sherds Two cisterns cut into the rock are in are the only indicationof the date for style and technique characteristicof the constructionof the tower; it could have been built duringeither the 10th Iron Age construction. Wealso followedthe city wall 15m or 9th century. toward a large heap of stones at the The southernpart of the building northernend of the site. Here we un- is poorly preserved. Remains of two covered the foundationsof a massive walls at the upper part of the stone structurewhich defended the weakest foundationgive some indicationof the pointin the city defense, its connection plan of the upper part of the building, to the continuationof the ridge. Be- while the lines of rock quarrying cause this higherridgeallowedan easy further south probably indicate the approachto the town, it had to be well continuationof the buildingin this didefended. Defense was provided by rection. If this assumptionis correct, construction of a large, rectangular then the buildingwas no less than30 m buildingwith a semicircularshape at long. The steps cut in the bedrock, its northern side. From outside the whichcouldbe seen beforethe excavatown, then, the structureappearsto be tion started,probablyprovidedaccess to this large building from the lower a circulartower, 14.4 m wide. As the northernpart of this struc- partof the town. The areawest of these ture stood on the slope of the natural steps was quarriedin a way showing moat which separatedthe site fromthe that it served as a foundationfor two rest of the ridge, the lower part of the rooms. Duringquarrying,rectangular structurewas simply a massive fill of stones were cut, probablyto serve as stones, intended to provide a level monolithic pillars in houses of the foundation for the upper part. Only period, like those found at Khirbet this lower foundation has been pre- Abu et-Twein(see below). All these foundations may well served, its outer part built of large stones laid in straightcourses and its have been part of a large military inner fill made of rubble. The stronghold,14.4 x 30 m large, built at maximum height of built-up fill re- the highest yet weakest point in the quiredto achieve a level area was 6.5 city. The whole complex is one of the m. In a trenchexcavatednearthe outer largest Israelite city fortifications so lower face of the tower we found re- far discovered. The outer, rounded, face of the buildingmust be definedas mains of an outer circular wall, perhaps an outer revetment for the a tower or bastion, with dimensions
inferior only to the huge bastion defendingthe city gate at Lachish. Other comparabletowers have been discovered at Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah) and Hazor, but these are smaller. The roundedface of our tower recallsfreestanding circular towers of the Iron Age excavated a few years ago by the Israeli Department of Antiquities at el-Mahruqand at Rujm el-Mukhayer on the road from the JordanValleyto the Samaria mountains and opposite the Jabbokriver. The survey and excavations show thatan importantIsraelitecity stood at Khirbet el-Marjameh. The fortification of the site was constructedeither during the United Monarchyor after the division of the kingdom, and the city probablyflourisheduntil the general destructionof the Kingdomof Israel in the Assyrian conquest of 722 B.C.E.This was the only fortifiedtown in this remote region, far from any major road. Its existence was due to the combination of unique natural conditions: a good fountain, a fertile valley, and a site easily defensible. Whateverthe identificationof the site, it probablyplayed an importantrole in the settlement pattern of the Israelite kingdomin this area. Along most of the circumference of the structure a row of monolithic pillars divided the area between the two walls, creatinga kindof backbone to the building. Further subsidiary walls were attached to them or filled the spaces between them, creating smaller rooms. Similar rectangular monolithic pillars are a common feature in IronAge Israelitearchitecture, yet the way they were used here is unprecedented, an original invention based on a well-known Israelite construction technique. Parallelto the northernside of the building stood a row of 16 such pillars, all of which could be traced by a slight clearing of the stones on the surface of the ruins. Thin partition walls erected between the pillars and the outer wall of the structure created numerous rooms, three of which we excavated along with other rooms north and south of the gate room. On the southeast, a long rectangular hall divided by a row of eight pillars stretched from the gate to the south outer wall. Only on the southern side of the building was
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
173
the row of pillars interrupted, by a large room (no. 1) with a special entrance from outside the building and another entrance leading to a central courtyard. In all the rooms we found a thick layer of fallen stones covering the floor, which was usually made of beaten earth and laid upon the bedrock or upon a fill of stones intended to level the slope of the hillunderthe floor.The finds in the rooms were scarce, only comparatively small pottery sherds found among the fallen stones in the rooms;the floors were almostemptyof finds. Inside the gate room excavators found an oven on the floor level. We excavated the central courtyard to floor level only in a smallarea, nearthe gate room. Here the natural rock remained rough and unworked.
99-10
0. . 9.
174
00. "91
.
98 1"0"01"
~~~~100.00
** *
'
-
V,,,
?
995$5•/"
•,
"
,,
10-2
Fortsand Towersin the JudeanHills In 1974Z. Kallai and I, with students from the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University, conducted surveys in the western slopes of the Hebron mountains. One of the sites discoveredin this survey attractedour particularattention; duringtwo short seasons in 1974-75I returnedand excavated there.3The site, KhirbetAbu et-Twein(map reference 1585.1193),is situated on a remote hill, about 670 m above sea level, in the middle of the western slopes of the Hebron hills, east of the Valleyof Elah. Deep ravines surroundthe hill on three sides, while on the southeast it joins a ridge which continues to the watershed of the mountains,near the modernvillage of Kefar-Etzion.The hill gives a superb view towards the Sheplelah and sites like Azekah, Socoh, and Mareshah. The surfacesurveyof KhirbetAbu et-Twein revealed remains of a large building,30 x 30 m, builton bedrockat the top of the hill. Most of the building's walls could be detected between heaps of fallen stones. The corners of the building were built of large rocks, about 1.5 m in diameter. Pottery sherds found in the survey indicated that the building was in use during Iron II (8th-7th centuries B.C.E.). The excavation that followed the survey exposed the gate room, part of the central courtyard, and seven of the rooms. In sum, it revealed the unique plan of the building, one almost unparalleled in Iron Age architecture of Israel.
9
10.0.10
1"0209908
0"
9977'•
• . ,. _ . , , .:,,
a
am e-~------
•
-
Iso
LR
WiJ
reconstruction Below:isometric Above:planof thefortressat KhirbetAbuet-Twein. of the fortress.
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
At the centerof the easternside of the buildinga gate roomwith outerand inner doorways providedentrance. A bench stood on the left side of the gate room, and an opening on its right or northernside led to a side chamber, probablya guardroom.Thegateled to a centralcourtyardsurroundedby rooms on all four sides. These rooms were builtbetweenthe outerwallof thebuilding and a parallelinnerwall separated by a distance of 6 m. Alongmostof the circumferenceof the structurea rowof monolithicpillars dividedthe areabetweenthe two walls, creatinga kindof backboneto the building. Furthersubsidiarywalls were attached to them or filled the spaces between them, creating smaller rooms. Similar rectangularmonolithic pillars area commonfeaturein IronAge Israelite architecture,yet the way they were used here is unprecedented,an original inventionbasedon a well-knownIsraelite constructiontechnique. Parallelto the northernside of the buildingstood a row of 16 such pillars, all of which could be tracedby a slight clearingof the stones on the surfaceof the ruins. Thin partitionwalls erected betweenthe pillarsandthe outerwallof the structurecreatednumerousrooms, threeof whichwe excavatedalongwith otherroomsnorthandsouthof the gate room. On the southeast,a long rectangularhall dividedby a row of eight pillarsstretchedfromthe gate to the south outerwall. Onlyon the southernside of the buildingwas the rowof pillarsinterrupted,by a large room (no. 1) with a specialentrancefromoutsidethe building and another entranceleading to a centralcourtyard. In all the rooms we found a thick layerof fallenstones coveringthe floor, whichwas usuallymadeof beatenearth andlaid uponthe bedrockor upona fill of stones intendedto level the slope of the hill underthe floor.The finds in the roomswere scarce, only comparatively small pottery sherds found amongthe fallen stones in the rooms; the floors were almostempty of finds. Inside the gate roomexcavatorsfoundan oven on the floor level. We excavated the central courtyardto floor level only in a smallarea,nearthegateroom.Herethe naturalrock remainedrough and unworked. The pottery sherds found in the excavation of the fortress can be di-
vided into two groups: pottery types characteristicof Judah in the 8th-7th centuries B.C.E.and sherds of slightly later types, to be dated to the 6th or early 5th centuries B.C.E. The two
types were mixed together among the fallen stones. The absence of remainsfrommore than one architectural phase in the building and use even of the original floors until the end of its life led us to concludethat the fortresswas founded duringthe laterpartof the periodof the Monarchyand continuedto be in use, without change, throughout the 6th century. The general disaster which engulfedJudahwith the destructionof Jerusalemin 587 probablydid not affect this remote building. Another possible explanation of the finds would be that the building was founded in the Persianperiodand thatthe IronAge sherdsare strayfinds which were mixed with the building material.Werejectthis explanation,as the buildingwas builton bedrock,and there exists no previous stratum to have provided Iron Age sherds. In a small section excavated below the beaten earth floor of the gate room we found a thin fill of earth mixed with pure Iron Age pottery reachingdown to bedrock. This fill, laid during the constructionof the building,provides furtherevidence for its dating. This evidence points to a continued use of the buildingthroughout
Southwesternroomof the fortress;view is
towardthe south.
the 7th-6th centuries. Alternatively, the buildingmay have been deserted during the destruction of Judah, yet not destroyed,andslightlylaterreused by people who remainedin the land after the exile, the "vine dressers and labourers" mentioned by Jeremiah (52:16).Evidence for occupationin the regionof Bethlehemafter the destruction of Jerusalemcan also be found in the book of Jeremiah(41:17). The surface survey in the vicinity of the hill revealed remainsof a group of privatehouses builtat the foot of the hill, on its southeastern side. About ten houses were scatteredover a wide area with large open spaces between them. Monolithicpillars stood among the ruins of these houses. The fate of this small settlementat the foot of the hill was differentfromthat of the large building at its top. Here the surface survey did not find any sherds later than IronII. This settlementmustthen have been destroyed or abandoned with the destruction of Jerusalemby the Babylonians. The plan and the location of the largebuildingat the top of the hill identify it as a fortress, despite the fact that the walls of the buildingare thin and not very strong, except the corners, which were strengthened with large
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
175
rocks. The plan shows that it was a public building, well defended by a gate room with a guard chamber and containing various rooms, some of them, like room no. 5, storehouses or stables. The best architecturalparallelsto this buildingarefortressesfoundin the central Negev and dated to the 10th century B.C.E.4Some of these fortresses recall this buildingin plan and dimensions, althoughthe monolithicpillars are unique to Khirbet Abu etTwein. Also common to the Negev sites is a small settlementcomposed of scattered houses near the fortress. In spite of the chronologicalgap of some 200-300years, the two phenomenacan be compared.Both suggestan Israelite effort to settle areas previouslyunsettled.5 At Khirbet Abu et-Twein the newly settled area is a strip of previously unoccupied mountain slopes which almost completely lack fertile soil. This stripof mountains,probably forested in biblical times, separated two Israeliteareas of dense urbansettlement, the inner Shephelah and the watershed region along the road from Jerusalem to Hebron. The Khirbet Abu et-Tweinsite is one of few to occupy this gap. Two similarfortresses have been discovered in the same region, not morethan4 km northand northwestof our site. One is a fortressat the summit of a ridge near a place called Deir Baghl, and the other is at KhirbetTabbaneh (or Tibneh), on a ridge of Bethlehem (see map for location).6In each of these sites a singlefortresswas found, without attached buildings. Their plans, dimensions, and building techniqueswere similarto those found in our building,and in both sites Iron Age pottery was found on the surface. Like our building,the other two stand on high places overlooking the Shephelah.This concentrationof similar buildingsin a comparativelysmall region parallels yet again the earlier settlements in the Negev, where similar clusters of sites have been found, most of themincludinga singlefortress or a fortress with an attached small settlement. Why did men erect the buildings on the western slopes of the Judean Hills? Perhaps they were administrative centers of royal estates such as
176
probablyexisted duringthe period of the Monarchy(de Vaux 1961;124-26). The sites are, however, far from good land and situatedon the top of hills or ridges with difficult access. Khirbet Abu et-Twein, for example, demands an exhausting climb up steep slopes, and the building stands in an open place which suffers from fierce winds in winter. Such a location is most unsuitable for an administrativecenter with mainly economic responsibility. The second possible explanation of the buildings'purpose seems more promising: the buildings must have been militaryfortressesconstructedas partof a defensive system for the kingdom of Judah.The Bible supportsthis explanation, saying of the deeds of King Jotham,the son of Uzziah, "He built cities in the hill country of Judah and forts and towers on the wooded hills" (2 Chr 27:4). Uzziah, Jotham's father, is said to have built similar towers in the desert (probably the JudeanDesert or parts of the Negev), while Jehoshaphatbuilt fortresses "in Judah"(2 Chr 17:12).Jothamprobably continued his father's project, which was intended to defend areas which were almost unpopulated, areas like the Desert of Judah and the wooded western slopes of the JudeanHills. The building at Khirbet Abu etTwein, as well as the other forts found nearby,could have had various functions. The building was probably primarilyintendedto be barracksfor a small military unit, with its own stables, storerooms, and living quarters. Such a unit would have been responsiblefor guardingthis unoccupied region and securingthe roads passing through it, though the site is not located on any clearlyimportantancient road. Two factors appear to have been dominant in the choice of this hill for building the fort: its superb view of the Shephelah and its natural protection on all four sides. Apparently, then, one of the main functions of the garrison stationed here was to maintain visual communication between the cities of and the higher the Shephelah mountains of Judah. Both the Bible and the Lachish Letter No. 4 prove that the use of beacons for military communication was common in Judah during the period of the Monarchy.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
Jeremiahsays: "Blow the trumpet in Tekoa, fire the beacon on Bethhakkerem" (Jer 6:1), while Lachish Letter No. 4 reads: "And let [my lord] know that we are watchingfor the signals of Lachish, according to all the indicationswhich my lord hath given, for we cannot see Azekah" (trans. of WF.E Albrightin Pritchard1955:322). The writerof this letter must have been situated at a fort overlooking both Azekah and Lachish. Only forts on the western slopes of the Judean hills, like our fort and its two neighbors, satisfy such a requirement. KhirbetAbu et-Tweinhas good visual communication with sites such as Azekah, Socoh, Tell Judeideh, Mareshah, and even Lachish itself. One can easily see the two other nearbyforts mentionedabove, as well as the ridge of Mevo-Beitar, farther north. On this latter ridge an IronAge site was discovered at Khirbet elAbhar (map reference 1606.1252). Though one cannot identify with certainty remains of a fort at this latter site, such a fort might well have existed there. The site has a good view of Khirbet Abu et-Twein and of another small fort discovered at Hurvat Eres (map reference 1589.1364).7 This latterfort, 20 x 20 m in area, is also situatedon the top of a high hill and surroundedby steep slopes on all four sides. The site has a superbview in all directions, includingthe coastal plain, Beth-Horon, and the ridges aroundJerusalem,which held a chain of forts and towers (see above). A network of forts on the Judeanhills might easily have allowedthe rapidtransmission of urgent messages through fire signals. Our site could have played an importantrole in the transmissionof such signalsfromthe Shephelah.Only two more forts would have been necessary for the transferralof messages fromthe Shephelahto Jerusalem (see the map, where the lines indicate possible routes for fire signals). Whenreferringto the buildingoperationsof Jotham,the Bible uses two differentterms: biraniot, "forts," and migdalim, "towers." This differentiation accords well with the archeological finds. Our excavation found remains of a tower at the site of Giloh, built during the later period of the Monarchy.This tower was constructed
at the northeast corner of the site, at the highest point of the hill, and provided an excellent view for great distances, including the western hill of Jerusalem, fortified during this same period, the region of Bethlehem, and ridges west and north of Jerusalem, includingthe fort at Hurvat Eres and the fort excavated by W. F. Albrightat Tell el-Ful. The excavated remains of the Giloh tower include foundations of a squarestructure,10x 10m, with outer walls 2 m wide. A wide partitionwall dividesthe squareinto two equalparts. The walls are built of large stones in a techniquerecallingother IronAge fortificationsin Israel, especially the Iron Age city wall of Jerusalem,discovered in the Jewish Quarter.The walls are preservedto a heightof almost1m, and no entrance has been found in them; apparentlythe preservedportionwas a podium, while the guard rooms were on a higherlevel. A foundationfound outside the northern wall may have been the base of a staircaseleadingto the upper part of the tower. Similarly planned towers were built during the Iron Age at Tell enNasbeh (Mizpah) and at Hazor, but those towers were part of a city fortification. A similarbut largertower was discovered by the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Israel at FrenchHill, north of Jerusalem.8This latter tower also hada raisedpodium,built of largerectangularblocks of local flintstone. The foundationof the podiumwas divided into compartmentsfilled with rubble. This site is halfwaybetween Tellel-Ful and Jerusalemand could have served both for guarding the northern approachto the city and for transferring urgentmessages by way of fire signals from sites farther north, such as Tell el-Ful, Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), and even Nabi-Samuil,the highestpoint in the region north of Jerusalem.9 The two towers at Giloh and that at FrenchHill were probablypart of a defensive system surrounding Jerusalem. The large palace-fortress excavated by the late Y. Aharoni at Ramat-Rahelprobably was the most importantsegmentin this chainof sites on the ridges surroundingthe capital. By constructingthese strongholds,the kings of Judah overcame one of the most serious defects in the defense of
Jerusalem, its enclosure on all four sides by higherridgeswhich prevented long distanceviews and allowedunimpeded surpriseattacks on the city. It is thus possible to define two types of independent, free-standing buildingsused in the militarysystem of the kingdomof Judah.These buildings created strongholdsin densely populated areas, protected roads, and provided visual communicationbetween variousparts of the kingdom.The first type, squarefortresses with a central courtyardsurroundedby rooms on all four sides, may be identifiedwith the biraniotof the Bible; the second type, smaller massive structures with a raised podiumenablingthe buildingto dominate its surroundings by its height, may be identified with the biblicalmigdalim. When were these defenses constructed? Were all of them, or all in either of the two groups, plannedand built simultaneously,or were they the result of a gradual, long-lasting process? The biblical reference to Jotham'sbuildingof forts and towers in the wooded hills arguesthat at least some of these structureswere built as part of a well-plannedprojectinitiated by the kingdom. The group of three closely related forts, KhirbetAbu etTwein and its neighbors, may have
Generalviewof the IronAge II towerat Giloh;viewis to thenorth,towardthewestern suburbsof modernJerusalem. been such a plannedgroup, built during a specific short period. As the earliest pottery in our fort may well be dated to the 8th century B.C.E.,andas the areain whichall three were constructed was probably a woodlandin antiquity,these threeforts may indeed be those built by Jotham. The towers with massive podiums in Giloh and FrenchHill may tentatively be assigned to the great fortification projects of Jerusalem during the 8th century B.C.E., probably during the
time of Hezekiah, projects of which the wall in the Jewish Quarteris a fine example. This suggestion is merely guesswork, however, and these two could well have been built later, perhapsduringthe 7th century. Some of these structures were used again in the period after the destruction of Jerusalem. At Khirbet Abu et-Twein excavators found pottery which can be dated to the 6th-5th centuriesB.C.E.,pointedto a continuation of the use of the buildingduring that period, while a coin of the YHD type found at the tower in FrenchHill points to a use of this structureduring the 5th-4th centuries B.C.E.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
177
Summary The three sites surveyed in this article provideexamplesfor the development of the Israelite pattern of settlement from the earliest settlementduringthe 12th century to the period of the Monarchy.The Iron I site at Giloh is a good example of the earliest, almost experimental,type of permanent settlement. We may assume that in this phase pastoralismwas still an important factor and that the inhabitants were organized in a tribal social system. This first experiment was not very successful, and the site was deserted after a while, probablyin favor of more suitable sites, which developed into fortified cities. The site of Khirbet el-Marjameh exemplifiessuch a fortifiedtown in the mountainsof the land of Ephraim.Its location; far from any majorroad system, indicates that the Israelites developed a dense populationin this hill country and took advantageof every importantwater source accompanied by good land. The forts andtowers in the landof Judah are evidence of the sophisticated military organization which
existed throughoutthe kingdomduring the 8th-7thcenturies, an organization intendedto fill in the gaps between the areas of dense urbansettlement,to defend the capital, and to provide a system for rapid communication in emergency. The three sites together contribute much to our fuller understanding of Israelite material culture duringthe Iron Age. Notes 'The nameGilohwas given to the new suburbof Jerusalembecause of its proximityto the townof Beit-Jalah,whichwas supposedto recall the biblical name Giloh. However, the biblical town of Giloh should be somewhere in the southernpartof the Hebronmountains,southof Hebronitself, accordingto its location in Josh 15:50.
2Theexcavationswerecarriedout underthe sponsorshipof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof the Governmentof Israel and the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Students of the Institute of Archaeologyassisted the writer,and Mr.I. Vatkin preparedthe plans. A detailedreporton the excavationshas been submittedto Israel Exploration Journal.
3The excavations were carried out during August1974andJuly1975underthe sponsorship of the Institute of Archaeologyof the Hebrew
University and the Kefar Etzion Field School. Studentsof the Instituteof Archaeologyandthe staff of the Field School assisted the writer.A detailedreportwill be publishedin Eretz4srael 15 (AharoniVolume, Hebrew). L. Reetmeyer preparedthe drawingsin this article. 4The two examples which were excavated arethe fortressesat HurvatRitma(Meshel1977) and Har Bokar.For generalsurveys of the subject see Aharoni (1967), Cohen (1979), and Meshel (1977;1979). 5See Cohenand Meshel (above, n. 4), who join Aharoniin explainingthe Negev fortresses as a projectinitiatedby one of the kings of the United Monarchy,as againstsuggestions(by B. Rothenbergand A. Negev) to attributethese structuresto local seminomadsof the Negev (Amalekites?). 6Thefortressat Deir Baghl(mapreference was discoveredby M. Kochaviin 1968 1594.1228) (Kochavi 1972:41). The fortressat KhirbetTabwas discovered baneh(mapreference1547.1224) by Z. Meshelandsurveyedagainby the author. 7The fortress at Hurvat Eres was discovered by Z. Meshel and surveyed again by the author. The site is situated west of Kibbutz west of Jerusalem. Maale-Hachamishah, 8Thefortressat FrenchHill was excavated in 1968by Orah Negbi for the Departmentof Antiquities.It is now preservedin a publicgarden. 9Iron Age sherds were picked up by the author on the northernslope of Nabi Samuil. Farthersouth, at Khirbetel-Burj,G. Edelstein excavatedremainsof an IronAge settlementfor the Departmentof Antiquities.
Bibliography Aharoni,Y 1967 Forerunnersof the Limes:IronAge Fortresses in Negev. Israel Exploration Journal 17: 1-17.
Excavationsat TellMasos. TelAviv 2: 97-124. Albright,W. E 1933 The "Ephraim"of the OldandNew
Ibrahim,M. M. 1978 The CollaredRim Jar of the Early IronAge. Pp. 116-26inArchaeology
1935
1939
Kallai, Z. 1972 Baal Shalisha and Ephraim. Pp. 191-204 in Hamikra Vetoldot Israel: Essays in Memory ofRon Yishai, ed.
Archaeology and the Date of the HebrewConquestof Palestine.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58: 10-18.
The IsraeliteConquestof Canaanin Bulletinof the Lightof Arclhaeology.
J. Liver. Jerusalem. Kochavi, M. 1972
Mazar,A. 1981a Giloh:An EarlyIsraeliteSettlement Site Near Jerusalem.Israel Exploration Journal 31: 1-36.
1981b The Excavationsat KhirbetAbu etTwein and the System of Iron Age
Exploration Journal 22: 95-112.
178
Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey in 1967-68.
Jerusalem: ArchaeologicalSurvey of Israel [Hebrew].
the American Schools of Oriental Research 74: 11-34.
Cohen, R. 1979 The Israelite Fortresses in the Negev Highlands. Qadmoniot 12: 38-50. Dever, W G. 1972 Middle Bronze I Cemeteries at Mirzbanehand Ain Samiya.Israel
Aviv 4: 110-35.
and the Levant:Essaysfor Kathleen
Kenyon, ed. R. Mooreyand P Parr. Warminster:Aris and Philips.
1975
Testament. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 3: 36-40.
Meshel, Z. 1977 Horvat Ritma- An Iron Age Fortress in the Negev Highlands.Tel
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
1979
Who Built the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev Uplands? Cathedra for the History of EretzIsrael and its Yishuv 11: 3-28
[Hebrew]. Miller,J. M. 1977 TheIsraeliteOccupationof Canaan. Pp. 213-84 in Israelite and Judean
History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller.London:SCM Press. Pritchard,J. B., ed. 1955
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress. Vaux, R. de 1961
Ancient Israel, its life and Institu-
tions. London:Darton,Longman& Todd. Weippert,M.
Fortresses in Judah. Eretz-Israel 15:
1971
The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. London: SCM
229-49(Hebrew).
Press.
KING
The molten sea was a large, bronze water reservoir set on the backs of twelve bronze oxen and placed in the court of Solomon'stemple(1 Kgs 7:2326, 39-47).The diameterwas about5 m (16feet), the heightabout2.5 m (8 feet), and the volume amountedto roughly 45,000 liters (12,000 U.S. gallons). Therecan be littledoubtthatit was one of the greatestengineeringworks ever undertakenin the Hebrew nation. Its size is comparableto some of the largest churchbells cast in moderntimes. But several difficulties complicate the analysis of the design of the vessel, its dimensions and the volumetriccapacity. Also, the ratio between circumference and diameter of the circular ('r) in the Bible. vessel is not mentioned That there are two volumes specified, 2000bathsin 1Kgs 7:26and 3000baths in 2 Chr4:5, presentsanotherproblem that must be solved. Finally,the Bible does not directly indicate which cubit was used, the royal or temple cubit of 51.8 cm (20.4 inches), or the common cubit of 44.4 cm (17.5inches). The purpose of this article is to present a technical and mathematical analysis of the molten sea. For this analysis the dimensionsand technical details found in the biblical account have been accepted as recorded. But before providingany computationson the sea, solutionsto the problemsmentioned above are required.
SOLOMON'S
MOLTEN SEA
AND
(ir)
Albert Zuidhof
TechnicalDetails The followingdatain 1Kgs 7:23-26present a fairlydetaileddescriptionof the shape and dimensionsof the sea: Thenhe madethe moltensea; it was round,tencubitsfrombrimto brim,and fivecubitshigh,anda lineofthirtycubits measuredits circumference. Underits brimweregourds,... compassing the sea roundabout... castwithit whenit was cast. It stood upon twelve oxen ... ; The seawassetuponthem,andall
In earliercomputationsof the capacity of the great laver of the First Temple,some details regardingthe shape and the dimensionswere not adequatelyconsidered, resultingin erroneousconclusions.A carefulanalysis of the descriptionof the laver demonstratesa striking agreementwith the archeologicaland documentary evidencefor the measuresof both length and capacity in ancient Israel.
theirhinderpartswereinward.Its thick-
nesswasa handbreadth; anditsbrimwas madelike the brimof a cup, like the flowerof a lily; it held two thousand baths. The text states clearlythat the sea was round. Thereforeits shape must have been either cylindricalor hemispherical.In v 25 we read that the sea
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
179
was supported by twelve oxen with their "hinder parts" turned inward. Cows, includingthose depicted in ancient art, generally have a flat back, which providedpropersupportfor the sea. Therefore,a cylindricalshape can be assumed and is supported by the subsequentmathematicalanalysis. The sea apparentlywas not the typical straight-walled mathematical cylinder.In v 26 it is indicatedthat the vessel was equippedwith a brim.Also, a slight curvaturemust have been provided at the lower edge where the sidewallmeets the bottomas sharpcorners are usuallyavoidedin largermetal castings. In the text the brimof the sea is first comparedwith a cup and then witha lily.Manycupsandbeakers,both ancientandmodern,show such a brim, and a lily has outwardcurvingpetals. Consequently,we will assume that the sea was providedwith a curved brim, ten cubits in diameter. Anotherfeatureof the sea werethe two rows of gourds (v 24). These "gourds,"most likely sculpturedin relief on the outside of the vessel, do not affect the volumetric capacity and thereforewillnot be discussedin detail.
10
-..•. .
- . ? .
1 hb.
30 IM TI,.>rsllr:ll;
.30
(Exod 38:21-23,andcf. 32:4;Acts 7:22). Computationsbased on the biblicaldimensionsfurtherconfirmthatthe cubit of seven handbreadths(28 fingers)was used for the tabernacle. Anotherpointin favorof the appliThe Cubit cation of the seven-handbreadthcubit The Bible does not directlymentionif in the constructionof the tabernacle the royalcubitof seven handbreadths or and temple is the fact that the number the common cubit of six handbreadths seven is so frequentlyencounteredin was used for Solomon's temple. In 2 connection with religiousceremonies, Chr 3:3 we find the expression"cubits as in seven days, seven sabbaths, or of the old standard."This can hardly seven sprinklingsof blood. meananythingotherthana referenceto Archeologistshavealso uncovered the so-called Cubit of Moses, the evidence for the dimensioningof cult standardemployedin the construction objects in royal cubits. The altarfound of the tabernacle.Wemay assume that at Beersheba was three royal cubits the Hebrews used cubit rods derived high (Aharoni1974:2-6). fromthe RoyalEgyptianCubitof seven We may conclude that the royal handbreadths,as their craftsmenrhad cubitis the logicalchoicefor moltensea originallylearnedtheir trade in Egypt computations.
THE ROYAL EGYPTIAN
4
ONE HAND-
DIGITS.-1
, L..0"-.
I
6
~0 67
II
20-67
180
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
(OF 4 DIGITS)
mi
"
ONE SPAN - 7 DIGITS.
viewof the moltensea Above:a simplified withallthedecoraanditsbasicdimensions tionomitted.Below:the EgyptianCubitof seven handbreadths (Courtesyof the Science Museum,London).Fifteenof the 28 divisionsaresubdivided fromhalfa finger downto 1116 of a finger.Thesymbolsused are a verticalstrokefor a unitandan invertedU forten;thepointedovalsabovethe rowsof symbolsindicatethatunitfractions aremeantinsteadof wholenumbers.The which onlyexceptionto thisschemeis haditsownspecialsymbol,ascan1/2, beseenin thefirstfingersectionattherighthandside of thecubitrod.Asanexampleof theEgyptianmeasurements, the notationfor 1/14is shownseparately.
CUBIT
EQUALS 4 SPANS (OF 7 DIGITS) =- 7HANDS
2 HALF-CUBITS
-
I
A
Y
The Bath The volumeof 2000bathsfoundin 1Kgs 7:26differsfromthat of 3000baths in 2 Chr4:5. A possible approachto the solutionof this problemis the assumption of a different capacity for the bath measurereferredto in 2 Chr4:5. It appears that the author of Chroniclesin some cases convertedthe figuresin his sources to money and measures used afterthe Babylonianexile. Evidenceof this canbe foundin 1Chr29:7wherethe daric, a coin of the PersianEmpire,is mentioned during the time of King David. Instances of changingthe value of a measurewhile keeping the name intact have been commonthroughouthistory (Zuidhof1978:443). For instance; the Sumerianshad gur measures that couldhold 144,300,or 2600silas respectively.A modernexampleis the approximately 20% difference between the American and Canadian gallon. The bath was probablyno exception, and it is possiblethatthe postexilicbathwas a smallerunit derivedfrom the load of a donkey. A donkeyloadwas called imer in Akkadianand homer in Hebrew(Scott 1962:834).This measurementwas basicallya grainmeasurebutalso was in use as a liquid measure (Ezek 45:11).The homerwas equalto ten baths(liquid)or ten ephahs(dry).As the carryingcapacity of a Mesopotamiampack-ass was about 90 kg or 200 lbs according to Lewy (1944:65-73), the probablevolumeof the originalhomermaybe calculated.It is likelythatthe originalimeror homerwas the volumeof a 90kg load of barley as the donkey was used by the Sumeriansfor theirbarleyexports.The specific weight of barley is approximately 0.6 kg per liter resulting in a volume of about 150 liters for this homer. A derived bath of roughly 15 litersmayhavebeen in generaluse after the exile. Three thousandunits of this bath measure would have filled the 45,000 liter molten sea. This proposed postexilicbathhadabouttwo-thirdsthe capacityof the preexilicbath of 22-22.8 liters. Dimensionsand "Pi" (7) Carefulreadingof 1 Kgs 7:23-26shows that the outside dimensionsof the sea are being described. The description readslike an observer's, or perhapsan
inspector's, report of a finished product. Wecannotrecoverany detailfrom the text but the inside dimensionsmay be determined and the volumetric capacity computed. The biblicalaccountmentionsfirst the brimto brimdiameterof ten cubits (v 23). A line stretchedacross the top would easily have measuredthis. The outside height (H) of five cubits was also easily measured.Finally we read: "A line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." The text does not specify the location of this measurement. Wasit aroundthe brimor below it? Furtheranalysiswill show this to be an importantpoint. To stretch a line arounda curvingbrimis not easy.Even with the aid of many helpers stationed aroundthe roughly15 m circumference of the sea, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to prevent the line from sliding down. On the other hand it is not difficultto stretch a line arounda straightcylindricalwall. It is then reasonable to conclude that the 30-cubitcircumference(C) was measured below the brim. The last mentioned dimension, the thickness (t), is givenas one handbreadth(v 26). Above we have chosen the royal or temple cubit as the unit of measurement.As this cubitwas seven handbreadthslong, wallmustbe the one-handbreadth-thick introducedin the calculationsas 1/7or 0.1429cubit. Enough informationis now availableto determinethe insidedimensions of the sea and calculate its volume by meansof the equation:v = 7rr2h.For7r the value 3.14is in generaluse today,or V = 3.1416in case greateraccuracy is needed. The Bible is silent about the
value of 7T employed for the design of the sea. In our initial calculationswe will simplyuse ir = 3.14.The extravolume aroundthe brimwill be ignoredas it is a negligiblepartof the totalvolume. In the design a decrease in volume aroundthe bottom may have been introduced to compensate for the extra volume at the top. Fromthe above it follows that the ten-cubitdiameteracross the top of the vessel does not functionin the computations; we need the main outside diameter(D) underthe brim. D can be calculatedfrom the circumference(C) as follows:
D = C+ = 30 + 3.14 = 9.554 cubits To determine the inside diameter the wall thickness (t) must be sub(d) tractedtwice. This leads to: d = D - 2t = 9.554 - 2/7 - 0.2857 = 9.268 cubits 9.554 = Finally,the internalheight(h) may be found by subtractingthe thickness from the externalheight: h = H - t = 5 - 1/7 = 5 - 0.1429 = 4.857 cubits All essentialdimensions,as neededfor the computation of the volumetric capacity and size of the sea, are now available.Detailedcalculationsmay be foundin the accompanyingchart.So far all calculations can be easily verified with pencilandpaper.Those dealtwith in the chartaremorecomplicated,but a simple4-function,8-digitcalculatorwill be found adequate.
.
10
i
,o
9.268(d)
0.1429 (t)
•
9554
(D)
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
181
CircleandCylinderEquations 7 = 3.14
CIRCLE
d = 2r = c - 7 r = V2d= c 27r c = 7Td= 27rr A = 7rr = c3 + 4r
d = diameter
r = radius c = circumference A = surface area
CYLINDER h = height v = volume = rr2h= c2h + 4r
HebrewMeasuresof Length
Fingers cm inches
Royal cubit 28 51.8 20.4
Handbreadth 4 7.4 2.91
Common cubit 24 44.4 17.5
Finger
dAP
1 1.85 0.728
HebrewMeasuresof Capacity Homer or Cor 0.1 36000 720 220
Bath or Ephah 1 3600 72 22
Seah
Hin
Omer
Cab
Log
72 18 10 3 6 Multiplier 50 200 360 600 1200 Cubic fingers 4 1 7.2 24 12 Logs 1.22 0.306 2.2 7.33 3.67 Litres* *An approximatevalueof 22 litersfor the bathwas proposedby W. F Albrightandstill is widelyaccepted(Scott 1970:351).A closerestimate.22.8 liters,is proposedin this study.
The Coveringsof the Tabernacle(Exodus26 and 36) The tabernaclehada cover of animalskinsthatmeasured44 x 30 cubits.Theinside cover was made of linen and measured40 by 28 cubits. Both covers consistedof two sections connectedtogetheralong 30-cubitedges and 28-cubitedges, respectively.The sections werejoined by means of 50 loops attachedto the edges with metalclaspsinsertedthroughthe loops. It is logicalto assumeequalspacingof the loops with a loop at each cornerto preventloose hangingends. This calls for 49 equal spaces between the 50 loops. Withthis informationit wouldbe possible to calculatethe distancein fingers betweenthe loops if we knewthe lengthof the employedcubit.Let us computethis distancewithbothcubits,the 28-fingerroyalcubitandthe 24-fingercommoncubit, forbothtabernaclecoverings.A 28 cubitsectionwas either28x 28 = 784or 28x 24 = 672fingerslong. Because therewere49 spaces betweenthe 50 loops, we divide both lengths by 49 and find the followingfor each space: (1) for the royalcubit:784 + 49 = 16fingersper space, (2) for the common cubit: 672 --+49 -= 13/7 fingers per space.
The 30 cubitsections were either30 x 28 = 840or 30 x 24 = 720fingerslong, dependingon the cubitused. Proceedingas above we find the followingfor each space: (3) for the royal cubit: 840 + 49 = 171/7fingers per space, (4) for the commoncubit:720 + 49 = 1434/49fingersper space.
Therewouldbe a practicaldifficultywith the commoncubitin measuringoff the spaces between the loops on the 30-cubit-longsections. Todivide a fingerof 18.5mminto 49 partswouldnecessitatea distancebetweenmarkson a measuring rodof 18.5+ 49 = 0.38 mm. No such precisionwas reachedin ancienttimes as far as is known.Thereforeprecisionto 1/49of a fingermustbe ruledout butprecision to 1/7of a finger(2.6 mm)was possible, and we may concludethatthe royalcubit was used for the tabernacle.
182
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
Summaryand Conclusions Based on these computationswe may conclude that the molten sea was a circularcylindricalvessel with a volumetric qualityequal to 7,200,000cubic fingers for all practicalpurposes.Dividing 7,200,000 cubic fingers by the 2000 baths of 1 Kgs 7:26, we find that one bath equals 3600 cubic fingers. This leads to a furtherdevelopment,that all Hebrew measures could be converted into a roundnumberof cubic fingers. The bath may be converted into modern measurementsby calculating the volume of 3600 cubic fingers in liters. Withone finger equal to 1.85cm, the resultis 3600x 1.853 = 22,794cm3, which we may roundoff to 22.8 dm3or liters. This is a somewhatlargercapacity than the widely accepted 22 liters proposedby Albright(Scott 1970:351). A value close to 23 liters, derivedfrom double-bath size jars, has also been proposed(Scott 1958:210-11).Furthermore,in Talmudictradition,one log was equalin volume to the amountof water displacedby six hen's eggs of "middlesize." Onthisbasis R. B. Y Scott calculated 6-6.5 U.S. gallons (22.7-24.6 liters) for the bath (Scott 1970:350). For the purposes of this analysis the water displacementof close to a hundredeggs of all sizes was measured (each egg separately).It was foundthat the averagevolumeof an egg is about53 milliliters.Withthe bathequalto 72 logs or 6 x 72 = 432 eggs, this resultsin 22.9 liters per bath, very close to the computed volume of 22.8 liters. In the light of the above figures,Albright's22-liter bath seems to be on the low side, and it may be appropriateto considerthe 22.8 liters, derivedfrom the cubit, as being the moreaccuratevalue for the volume of the bath measure. A furtherconsequence of the moltensea analysisis the emergence of a Hebrew value for ir equal to 3.136.This is a closer approximation to
ir
= 3.14159 .
.
. than the
Egyptian 256/81 = 3.1605 or the Babylonian 25/8 = 3.125, but not as close as the later Greek value 22/7 = 3.1429(Beckmann1977:198). The analysispresentedin this article shows thatthe technicaldescription of the sea and the numbersrecordedas the dimensionsin the biblicalrecordare correct. Moreover,they lead to a very satisfactoryagreementwith archeolog-
Computations Under the heading, Dimensions and "Pi" (7r), all the required dimensions for furthercalculations were derived. The computed results were roundedoff to four significantdigits, and this will be continuedto obtain the requiredaccuracy.Also, in furthercalculationsall dimensions will be converted to fingers. The dimensions are conveniently grouped together in the tabulationbelow. External dimensions are denoted by capital letters and internaldimensions by lower case letters. Dimensions of the Molten Sea
Cubits Fingers
C 30 840
D 9.554 267.5
R 4.777 133.8
Where: C = Outside circumference D = Outside diameter R = Outside radius H = Outside height
H 5 140 t d r h
d t 0.1429 9.268 4 259.5 = = = =
r h 4.634 4.857 129.8 136
Wallthickness Inside diameter = D-2t Inside radius = R-t Inside height = H-t
All dimensionsare now availablein fingermeasurefor calculatingseparately: (1) Volumeof the metalcasting + Volumetriccapacity = V;(2) Volumetriccapacity = v; (3) Volume of the metal casting = V-v. The calculations proceed as follows: V = 7rR2H= 3.14 x 133.82x 140 = 7,870,000 cubic fingers v = 7rr2h = 3.14 x 129.82x 136 = 7,195,000 cubic fingers V-v = 675,000 cubic fingers The above computations were performed on a 4-function 8-digit calculator. The roundingof intermediateresultswas left to the calculator,but the finalanswers were rounded off to four or three significant digits. Consideringthese final answers, only the difference V-v = 675,000 looks interesting.It is equal to 33 x 52 x 1000,factors the ancient mathematicianswould find relativelyeasy to deal with. V and v seem far too complicated; they cannot be factorized into small numbers. They are also boundto be somewhatoff the markas we have used 7T= 3.14, a value not known in antiquityto the best of our knowledge at present. However, the figure computed above for v, 7,195,000, is very close to 7,200,000 (the difference is only about 0.07%). And, importantagain, 7,200,000 is a numberthat makes sense in ancient mathematics because it is equal to 2 x 602 x 1000. Adding 675,000 to 7,200,000 resultsin 7,875,000 = 32x 53x 7 x 1000- smallfactors once more- and it differs only by about 0.06% from the computed value 7,870,000. For the sea, includingits volumetric capacity of 7,200,000 cubic fingers, we have now obtained the following useful results: V = 7,875,000 cubic fingers, C = 840 fingersand H = 140fingers. By employingV, C, and H in the formulaV = C2H + 47r and rearrangingit to 7r = C2H + 4V, we are able to compute 7T and consequently D and R. Wefind 7r = (8402x 140) + (4 x 7,875,000)which leads to a remarkableresult: 7r = 3.136 = 392 + 125 = (23 x 72) + 53 = 562 + 1000. The external diameteris D = C +- = 840 + 3.136 = 2676/7 fingers, and dividingby 2 results in R = 133' or 133.93fingers. Subtractingthe wall thickness t from R leads to r = R - t =/14133'
/I4
- 4 = 129' /I4 fingers. After obtaining the internal
radiusr we can recomputethe volumetriccapacity as follows: v = 7rr2h= 3.136 x x 136= 7,199,864cubic fingerswhich, for all practicalpurposes, may be (12913/14)2 rounded off to 7,200,000 as the difference is less than 0.002% or 20 parts per million. For comparison, the volume of the sea may also be computed with the modern value IT = 3.1416 used throughout.This results in the values r = 129.69 fingers and v = 3.1416 x 129.692x 136 = 7,186,260 cubic fingers, about 0.2%short of 7,200,000.
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
183
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ical and documentary evidence for steps would be the meltingout of the measuresof length and capacity. wax and pouringthe liquidbronzeinto the cavity.It was a tremendousaccomFor a mathematical-technical all calculations we considering the following may repeat plishment proof with the commoncubit. This resultsin facts: bathvaluesof 14.1litersfor the preexilic (1) Since bronze shrinkswhen sobath and 9.4 liters for the proposed lidifying, the clay for the core of the postexilic bath. These values are un- casting mold needed a porous filler to realisticallylow. A hemisphericalshape preventcracksin the casting.Yet,at the of equal heightand diametermust also same time the core structurehad to be be ruled out because it would only be strongenoughto withstandthe pressure able to hold two-thirdsof the capacity of the molten bronze. (Calculations of the equivalentcylindricalmoltensea. show that the sea weighed about 36 metrictons or 40 short tons.) (2) The outside mold was exposed Casting of the Molten Sea In 1 Kgs 7:46 we read that the sea was to the samepressureandwouldrequire cast "in the clay groundbetween Suc- reinforcement,probablywooden poles coth andZarethan"in the Jordanvalley. all around. The casting process must have been (3)Topreventcracksorflaws, castsimilarto the "lost wax" methodstillin ing in one continuousoperationwas reuse for largebronzebells. Basicallythis quired.For a 5-m-diametervessel that would involve a wax model of the sea had a relativelythin wall and weighed being fashionedupside-downover the 36 tons, this was not a simple task! The sea servedfor manyyearsas a thoroughly dried core of the casting mold. Onthe outsidesurfaceof the wax waterreservoirfor the temple.The end model the sculpturingfor the gourdlike came when the Chaldeansbrokeit into projectionshad to be performed.After pieces and transportedthe bronze to this was completed, the foundrymen Babylon(Jer52:17).It was a tragicand had to build up the outside mold over ingloriousendfor sucha masterpieceof the wax model and let it dry. The final ancient engineering.
A
in
The Biblical Archaeologist 37: 2-6.
Beckmann,P. 1977 A History of 7r(pi). FourthEdition. Boulder,CO: Golem. Lewy, H. 1944 Assyro-Babylonian and Israelite Measuresof Capacityand Rates of Seeding. Journal of the American Oriental Society 64: 65-73.
Scott, R. B. Y 1958
1970
the
The Hebrew Cubit. Journal ofBiblical Literature 77: 205-14.
Weightsand Measuresof the Bible. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader,
Vol. 3, eds. E. E Campbell,Jr. and D. N. Freedman.GardenCity,NY: Doubleday. Sellers, O.R. 1962 WeightsandMeasures.Pp. 828-39in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible, Vol. 4. Nashville/New York: Abingdon. Zuidhof,A. 1978 King Solomon's Molten Sea, VII: Two or Three Thousand Baths or Both? Clarion, The Canadian Reformed Magazine 27: 443-45. Win-
nipeg: Premier.
of
well-documented study
research archaeological
Aharoni,Y 1974 The Horned Altar of Beersheba.
recent
Land.
Holy
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL by Yohanan Aharoni edited by Miriam Aharoni translated by Anson F. Rainey
Unsurpassed as an introductory text in its field, this comprehensive work by renowned archaeologist and scholar Yohanan Aharoni examines Israel from its prehistoric beginnings through the fall of the first temple in the early sixth century B.C.E. With clear maps and diagrams, it offers the results of generations of archaeological work and presents authentic challenges to many currently held positions. This translation from the original Modern Hebrew edition sheds important new light on the latest archaeological controversies, findings, and research. Hardbound, $27.50 Soft Cover, $18.95; Available from your local bookstore.
PRESS THE WESTMINSTER 925 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
184
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
THE
ARCHAEOLOGY LAND OFTHE OF
ISRAEL
666~666
YOHANAN AHARONI
qWY"
MITCHELL DAHOOD IN MEMORIAM 1922-1982, MitchellDahooddied on 8 March1982. It was suddenand unexpected. He had always been a healthy,active person, who worked and played strenuously, travelled widely, and kept himself in good physical and mental shape by walking briskly everywhere in old Rome, especially before and after the good Italian meals, which he relished with the appetite and taste of a hearty gourmet, and by conducting friends, acquaintances,and visiting colleagues on informaltours of the museums, exhibits, churches, and other landmarks of the city which he loved and consid-
ered his permanenthome. If his death was suddenand premature,it was also tranquiland peaceful - he was kneeling at evening prayer in the chapel of St. Mariain Via when a massive heart attack felled him. He was dead in minutes withoutever regainingconsciousness. Mitchell was my friend and colleague; I mourn his passing. We had known each other for many years and had shared a common tradition of scholarshipand training.We were the same age and studied with the same teacher,the late W. F Albright,whom
we admired and followed. We exchanged letters and shared ideas and scholarly reflections over the years of our acquaintance,and we worked together for more than a decade on the major scholarly product of his career
-
the three-volume translation and
commentaryon the Book of Psalms in the Anchor Bible series - he as author,I as editor.The work was entirely his, and responsibilityfor it, with all the credit and blame thereto attached, sat easily on his shoulders. For upwards of a decade he laboredmightily on this great example and test of his
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
185
method, his approach, his technique, and the results obtained in analyzing classic Hebrewpoetryandinterpreting the materialin the lightof NW Semitic language and literature. It was a monumental effort, and the work stands as a tour de force of Dahoodian linguistics, a fair sample of his work with the Bible and the literaryremains of the ancient Near East, especially Ugaritic texts. Although he had already published extensively in this particularfield of study and had an indexed bibliography of larger and smallerstudies of the Bible in the light of NW Semiticsto his credit(compiled by one of dozens of able students whom he trainedat the PontificalBiblical Institute in Rome), his work on Psalms was the first coordinatedand continuous study of a major book of the Bible using those approachesand techniques. The results were astounding. I was perhapsbetterpreparedthan most for what came from Mitchell's desk to mine in those years, since his work was an outgrowthof the pioneering laborof earlierscholarsin the field, especially Albright. Mitchell's own publications, including hundreds of brief notes on the Hebrewtext, amply indicate the natureof his analysis and the direction in which his work was moving. His successive volumes on the Psalms and the other scholarly ventures in which he participated,as well as his supervision of students who methodicallyappliedhis techniquesto other poetic books of the Hebrew Bible, had a strongbut uneven impacton the scholarlyworld. Probablymost of the experts were shocked by his results; theirs remains the prevailing reaction. So much of his work challenges the traditionaland contemporary translations and interpretations that scholars have been slow to accept either his theory (presuppositions and approaches) or his practice (methods and results), and strident voices here and there have urged that the whole effort be discarded as worthless or worse: more harmful than helpful in the pursuit of truth and progress in understanding the poetry of the Bible. It is too early yet to attempt a serious evaluation of his labors, and many more years will be needed to grade his effort. Uncritical acclaim (conspicu-
186
ously absent) and blanketdisapproval are equally out of place. More to the point is the realizationthat Mitchell's was a work of extraordinaryimportance for our discipline,that it opens a door -
many doors - to the chambers
in which are locked the mysteries of Hebrew and NW Semitic literature, especially poetry. On two basic principles I agreed with him wholeheartedly,though less so in his formulationof these, and still less in the ways in which he applied themandthe resultsobtained.Thefirst principleis the essential importanceof the study of comparative materials, especially in Northwest Semitic (principallyUgaritic),the languagegroupto which Biblical Hebrew belongs directly. Hardly anyone would quarrel with the idea that much can be learned fromsuch studies:lightis shed on NW Semitic by the use and applicationsof biblical materials to the inscriptions, and vice versa. Muchdebate over specific applications and the details of renderingand interpretingis to be expected, but without experimentation and discussion, without conflict among scholars willing to float ideas and test opinions in the marketplace, there can be no progress.Mitchellwas a fearless leader in this respect. He deserves respect and commendation for leadingus into the deeperand more turbulentwaters where we must learn to swimif we areto reachfirmground. Mitchell's second principle was thatwe mustdealwith the text we have and not emend it into something we would prefer to have. His decision in favor of the Massoretic text was not promptedby some visceral adherence to classic Christian or Jewish orthodoxy on this point, but ratherwas based upon the sad but incontestable truth that for the most part the poetic and prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible have a very narrow textual base upon'which to restore or reconstruct a more original text. Except in the case of Jeremiah, the Hebrew MSSand the versions offer little in the way of good variant readings, and the MT remains the text of choice, inadequate and questionable as it may be in many places. While Mitchell emphasized the value of the consonantal text, thereby allowing himself and his students as well as the rest of us ample maneuver-
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
ing space in dealingwith such matters as word division and specific verbal and nominal forms of roots, his was hardly a rigid and dogmatic position. His stricturesagainstmoreradicalconjectural emendation, while unpopular amongmembersof the traditionalcritical establishment who pepper the pages of diplomatic editions and scholarlycommentarieswith such fancies, have provedto be consistentwith the temper of our times as more and more students of the poetry of the Bible are turning away from groundless creativityand returningto the preserved text. Treatingthe consonantal text of the Psalteras thoughit were an ancient inscription,like a Ugaritictablet,while avoidingtraditionalrenderingsand interpretations and conventional scholarly wisdom on readingsand reconstructions, Mitchell came up with proposals and suggestions that often were radical,occasionallyoutrageous, but always stimulatingand customarily provocative. His volumes have done more to shake up the field of biblical poetry and scholars who have an interest,vested or unsecured,in it than anythingelse that has happenedin our time. Duringthe last few years the concern, even consternation, aroused by Mitchell's earlier proposals has been compoundedby reports about and initial publication of the Ebla tablets. Mitchell plunged in while others prudentlyheld back or stood aside. It is far too earlyto tell whatthe resultswill be, but there can be no question that the study of the Ebla tablets will have a significantimpact on biblical studies, especially in the areas of languageand literature.Points of contact in terms of culture,commerce,andtopographyalready have been established, and much more will emerge in due course. In the meantime Mitchell's chapter on Ebla and the Bible in Pettinato's volume on Ebla will stand as the first serious scholarly endeavor to relate the two blocks of material. It will serve as platform or launching pad for further investigation. I am convinced that Mitchell's approach was essentially right and valid, that his procedure was serious and scholarly, and that his work in NW Semitic and in Biblical Hebrew poetry
MitchellDahood(r.)andGiovanniPettinato(1.)discussingthe Eblatablets.
will be recognizedas a majorcontribution to the elucidationof that difficult corpus. Manyof his proposalsand solutions will prove to be correct. His isolation and identification of grammatical features and linguistic and literarydevices have already been or are in the process of being confirmed andhave been addedto the bagof tools used by the scholarly fraternity,even by those who oppose his work. The phenomenonof double-dutyparticles, the omission of prepositiOnsand pronominal suffixes where sense and meaningrequirethem, the collocation of abstract and concrete forms of nouns in parallel construction, and many other elements of NW Semitic and Biblical Hebrew poetry, have become part of the discussion and literature and are all but taken for granted now.WhileMitchellwas not the firstto note many of these features, he made the most extensive analysis and application of the data to large units of the Bible. His labors are being continued and expanded by the many students
whom he trained. The list of publications, already long, is growing constantly.If his voice and pen are stilled, his students and colleagues will carry on the effort, andin the end the results, continuously corrected and refined, will be validatedand in turn will validate the principles and premises that he invokedat the start and that guided his labors thereafter. Mitchell Dahood, Jesuit scholar and teacher, professor of biblical and Northwest Semitic studies at the Pontifical Biblical Institute for more than 20 years, is dead. For friends and colleagues, for studentspast, currentand even future, it is a very sad occasion. He should have lived out his days, at least another decade or two, to carry on his work, to validateandverify,correct and refine his results, as only he was qualifiedto do. His colleaguesand his students, who learned much from him about the intricacies and complexities of Biblical Hebrew poetry, will carry on the good work as best they may.
Mitchell Dahood Farewell, friend.
is dead.
David Noel Freedman
Tohonorhis memoryandhis work,I and othershave proposedthe establishmentof a lectureship inthenameof MitchellDahood,to be heldannually at somesuitableinstitution or location - in orderto preserve(in published form) the results of research into NorthwestSemitic inscriptionsand theirrelationship to the biblicaltext. Expressionsof interestin andsupport wouldbe welcomed forthisenterprise andheartilyappreciated. Pleasewrite to me at The Universityof Michigan, Programon Studiesin Religion,468 Lorch Hall, Ann Arbor,Michigan 48109.
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
187
Notes News
&
TabghaMosaicRestorationProject The famousmosaicfloor of the 5th centuryByzantinechurch at Tabghawas recently restored by the Israel Museum of Jerusalem.Tabghais located on the northwesternshores of the Sea of Galilee;accordingto tradition,it is the site of the multiplicationof the loaves and fish describedin Mk 6:30-46. Excavations at the site in 1932by A. E. Maderand A. M. Schneiderrevealed a large mosaic floor, includinga section thatdepictsa basketwithloavesof bread(markedwithcrosses) and flanked by two fish. Other mosaics at Tabghainclude depictionsof fauna and flora, a type of Nilometer (perhaps representinga device used to measurethe water levels of the Sea of Galilee), several Greek inscriptions, and extensive geometric designs. These mosaics are some of the finest examples of this art form in Israel.
The restorationprogrambeganin 1980,commissionedby the Committeeof GermanCatholicsfor the Holy Landandthe BenedictineOrder.The 500 meterfloor areaformsan integral part of a new churcherected in cooperationwith the Israel Museum.The sectionwiththe loaves andfish is the only piece to have been movedfromits originalposition;it was formerly locatedbehindthe altaradjacentto the synthronos,butit is now placed in the frontof the altarwhereit can be viewed by the congregationduring services. The central nave and aisles, whicharecoveredwithgeometricdesigns,are scheduledto be relaidwith newly constructedmodularunits. This newlyconstructedstone churchwas dedicatedon 23 May 1982,the SundaybeforePentecost.Exceptforthe modificationsmentionedabove, it preservesthe originaldimensions and designsof the 5th centuryByzantinechurchfloor,which haditselfbeenplacedoverthe remainsofa 4thcenturychapel.
188
1982 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
New YorkArcheologicalExhibit A new exhibition,Israel in Antiquity:FromDavid to Herod, openedat the JewishMuseumin New Yorkon June 15th.This permanentinstallationdrawson the recentexcavationsat the ancient cities of Lachish and Jerusalem,illuminatingJewish history,cultureand religionfrom the IronAge to the Second TemplePeriod(1000B.C.E. to 70 C.E.). The exhibitis divided intofourparts:Methodsof Archeology,Lachish:An IronAge City, Jerusalem: Capital of Judea in the Second Temple Period, and The Early Synagoguesand the Originof Jewish Symbols. Over 180 objects ranging from gold, silver and carnelianjewelry to metalweapons, glass and pottery are on display. DuringMayandJune, in conjunctionwiththe openingof the exhibit,a series of lectureswerepresentedentitled"From Sanctuaryto Synagogue."The speakers,who includedDavid Noel Freedman, Carol Meyers, Michael Eisman and Eric Meyers, explored various aspects of Jewish religious practices in ancienttimes.The lectureserieswas madepossibleby a grantfrom the Dorot Foundation. Curators of the archeological exhibit are Andrew S. Ackermanand Susan L. Braunstein.A grantfrom Max and Betty Ratnerof Cleveland,Ohiomadethe exhibitionpossible; theirown collectionof antiquitiesfromIsraelarefeaturedin the display of objects, along with the Museum'scollection from the 1930sexcavationsat Lachish. Replicasof ancientdomestic dwellingshave been constructedso thatthe artifactsmight be displayed in a naturalsetting. The Jewish Museumis located at 1109Fifth Avenue in New York.
Torontoto Host 3rd InternationalCongresson Egyptology For the first time, the Canadianmembers of International Egyptologists will host the 3rd InternationalCongress on Egyptology.The Congresswill be held from 5-12September 1982at the Skyline Hotel in Toronto,Canada.It is expected that between 700 and 800 delegates will attendthe Congress which is held every three years. Two themes have been developed for the meeting:"Archaeology of Egypt" will consist of 32 reports on current activities;the second theme, "EgyptianPhilology,"will have 32 paperson linguistics,inscriptionsandliterature.Therewill also be an opportunityfor delegates to present their own papersat the Congress.The topics will rangefromPharaonic history to Greco-RomanEgypt. For informationabout the conferencewrite the International Conferenceof Egyptology,Congress Secretariat,961 EglintonAvenue East, Suite 200, Toronto,Ontario,Canada M4G 4B5.
Book.
ReViews The Ox That Gored, by J. J. Finkelstein. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71/2. 89 pp. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1981; $12.00. This is a wonderful book. More importantly, this slim volume is a major book for our understanding of both biblical law and cosmology. Finkelstein has taken the laws of the Goring Ox in Exod 21:12-17 and, by minute analysis of the text and comparison with the Mesopotamian materials, has illuminated some of the basic principles of biblical thought. He has then followed these laws of the goring ox in their ramifications in the medieval period, and ultimately into present legal issues. The Ox That Gored was a tripartite project, only two of which parts are included in the present volume: the section on the biblical law itself, and that on the trial of animals in the medieval period and the deodands in early English law. The third part, which deals with deodands, the law of forfeitures and related mattters, was published as a law article in Temple Law Quarterly46 (1973): 169-290. It is not directly relevant to the biblical laws but is a fascinating study in which Finkelstein traces the principles that he has outlined in the biblical ox laws into the 20th century and shows that certain basic principles of the biblical ox laws, i.e., the subordination of the individual to a larger group and the transcendant concerns of the "sovereign" (in the U.S., Congress), continue to influence law in our day. Because of economic considerations, the editor (Maria DeJ. Ellis) could not include this section in the posthumous publication of The Ox That Gored; she does, however, offer to send the remaining offprints of the article to interested parties. The first part of the book, on the biblical laws themselves, will be of most interest to the readers of this journal. Finkelstein points out that in the biblical view, the universe was explicitly man-centered, and this is the fundamental principle underlying all of Western cosmology. The salient feature of the biblical goring ox law, and one that differentiates it from Near Eastern law, is the provision that the ox be killed, irrespective of whether it had gored before or was at fault in the present goring. Furthermore, it is killed by stoning, a penalty reserved for the extirpation of major revolts against the world order. By killing a human being, the ox has objectively revolted against his superior in the hierarchy. This objective guilt is a source of contamination which must be removed because it poses a danger to the entire community. This is not the only important biblical principle that Finkelstein finds reflected in the laws of the goring ox, and he discusses such important matters as objective guilt, culpable homicide, the ransom of the owner, and the vicarious punishment of the Mesopotamian laws. He finds a sharp distinction between the biblical and Mesopotamian laws of the goring ox, for the Mesopotamian laws reflect a cosmological outlook which perceives the environment as a continuum: the
same value scale is applied to man as to all else, and the courts invoked whatever penalty they thought appropriate for a given case. Biblical law restricts physical punishment to wrongs against the life and limb of persons and public law. One of Finkelstein's important observations about biblical law is that it includes only those prescriptions that relate to the Bible's central thesis that Israel was bound by a pact with God to conduct its life according to His prescriptions. We do not have information about mundane matters. What we do have distinctly sees the world as hierarchy governed by man. Above the individual man, however, is societal man; and above society is God, the ultimate sovereign, whom Finkelstein sees as the personified abstraction of the sum of man's qualities. These ideas-the dominance of man over nature, the subordination of the individual man to the corporate whole and all to the sovereign God-become the foundations of Western society and law. In the second part of the book Finkelstein shows what happens when the biblical ideals became "Holy Writ" in a group with political power, i.e., in medieval Europe. He shows that trials of animals are not found in primitive societies, but first begin to appear in Europe in the 13th century, along with the general reception of canon law. It was justified by biblical argument. Like animals prosecuted for bestiality, the animals who killed humans were seen as a rebuttal of the divinely ordained hierarchy and thus as undermining the moral foundations of the universe. The destruction of the animal was the only way to restore cosmic equilibrium. In English law, however, such animals were in fact not put to death: they (and inanimate objects which caused human death) were deodand, i.e., to be given to God. However, they were not destroyed. The assessed value was given to the king, who in English law was considered the vicar of God. The English kings, more powerful than those on the Continent, annexed to themselves the prerogative of representing the divine authority to whom the community felt responsible. Many biblical expiations thus became pecuniary forfeitures in English law. This book is not easy to read. When Finkelstein died suddenly in 1974-at the early age of 52-he left the manuscript of this book in various stages of completeness. The book is therefore quite terse and does not show the felicitous style of Finkelstein's articles. Maria DeJ. Ellis, whose own expertise is not in biblical law or in the history of law, wisely refrained from expanding Finkelstein's manuscript. The book therefore reads like a pr6cis, to be read slowly and savoured. Many thanks are due to Dr. Ellis for following the book to its completion. It is a valuable study and makes us mourn Finkelstein's death all over again. Tikva Frymer-Kensky Wayne State University
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
189
TheAge of the Monarchies:PoliticalHistory,eds. A. Malamat
and I. Ephcal. Vol. IVII/1of The World History of the Jewish People, 1st. ser., Ancient Times, ed. B. Mazar. Pp. xviii + 386. Jerusalem: Massada, 1979. $39. The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and Society, eds. A. Malamat and I. Ephcal. Vol. IV/2 of The World History of the
JewishPeople,1st. ser., AncientTimes,ed. B. Mazar.Pp. 340 + 28 figs. + 43 pls. Jerusalem: Massada, 1979.
The WorldHistory of the Jewish People is an ambitious publi-
cationprojectinitiatedin 1952withthe intentionof providinga new and authoritativehistory of the Jewish people from the beginningto the present. Pre-monarchicaltimes are covered in three volumes which have appearedalready:At the Dawn of Civilization (1964), Patriarchs (1970), and Judges (1971).
Presumablya futurevolume will cover the Exilic and Persian periodsandthus connectwith two morepreviouslypublished volumes: The Hellenistic Age (1972) and The Herodian Period (1975).
Each volume in the series consists of a collection of essays written by well established scholars, most of them Israeli,on topics relevantto Jewishhistoryduringthe period covered by the particularvolume. Whilethe volumes can be readin chronologicalsequence, they aredesignedso thateach can stand alone as an independentreferencework. Actually, the individualessays also can standalone, as each represents the views of its particularauthor;the discerningreaderwill notice that positions taken in one essay do not always harmonize with those takenin others. This is to be expected in a collective work where the contributorswere allowed appropriatefreedom. Volume IV, The Age of the Monarchies, includes 24 es-
says by 20 authorsandis publishedas two separatebooks. At
the core of the first book (IV/1, Political History) are seven
essays (by M. Tsevat,B. Mazar,D. N. Freedman,S. Yeivin,I. Ephcal,H. Reviv, and A. Malamat)which attemptto reconstruct the sequence of political events from the days of Samueland Saul to the fall of Jerusalem.Supportingessays deal with biblical and non-biblicalwritten sources for the monarchicalperiod(N. M. Sarna,N. Avigad),chronology(H. Tadmor),surroundingnations (B. Oded), Assyrian domination in Palestine (I. Ephcal)and matters pertainingto the Negev and Judah'ssouthernborder(Y Aharoni).The second book (IV/2, Culture and Society) includes the following es-
says: "Kingshipand Ideaology of the State" (S. Talmon), "Literary Creativity" (M. Weinfeld). "The Emergence of Classical Hebrew" (Ch. Rabin), "Religion: Stability and Ferment" (M. Greenberg),"The Structureof Society" (H. Reviv), "Administration"(Sh. Yeivin), "Trade and Commerce" (M. Elat), "The Archaeological Sources for the "Craft and Industry" (E. Period of the Monarchy" (Y. Yadin), Stern), and "Dwellings and Graves" (E. Stern). All of the essays are written for general readers. At the same time they are comprehensive and well documented. Forty-eight pages of well selected photographs (24 in each book) as well as occasional drawings and diagrams make the volume attractive and increase its usefulness. Simply to describe this latest addition to The WorldHistory of the Jewish People series is to indicate its importance: it represents a rather comprehensive analysis by primarily Israeli scholars of the available evidence pertaining to the age of the monarchies and an attractive presentation of the conclusions which these scholars think can be reached from this evidence. For comparison purposes, a somewhat similar collection of essays by a more international team of scholars
190
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
would be the volume on Israelite and Judaean History in The Old Testament Library series (1977; reviewed in BA 41:
189). A noticeable difference between the two is that the contributorsto the WorldHistory volume tend to place more confidencein the biblicalmaterialsfor purposesof historical reconstruction and, correspondingly,are somewhat more confident in their own ability to reconstructthe politicaldetails and social circumstances of biblical times. Yeivin's treatmentof "The Divided Kingdom"stands out in this regard. Thereis also a tendencyin some of the essays to attribute the Israelite monarchies an excessively prominentrole in ancient Syro-Palestinianaffairs. Malamat sets this course alreadyin his Forewordto the volume: "Neitherbefore nor, indeed, since the days of Davidand Solomonhas a sovereign state in the Palestine-Syriaareabeen so vast and mighty,the controllingforce between Mesopotamia(andAnatolia)in the northandEgyptin the south, for a while overshadowingthem politically and economically" (IV/1, p. xv). Many scholars will regardthis as a bit of an exaggerationof the extent and might of the Davidic-Solomonickingdombased on biblical claims which mightbe read more critically.Even those who agreethatDavidandSolomonexertedsuchfar-reachingpolitical influence will rememberthat Damascus (under Hazael and Ben-hadad)also had its period of eminence among the nationsbetween MesopotamiaandEgyptandleft moreverifiable traces in the literatureof its neighbors. As indicated above, the essays (chapters) are well documented.Unfortunatelythe notes areplacedat the end of each book andlistedaccordingto chapternumbers.Touse the notes, therefore,one mustkeep trackof the chapternumbers, whichareindicatedotherwiseonly in the Tableof Contentsof each book and on the first page of each essay. This can be an inconvenience, especially when referringback and forth to notes on diferentchapters. J. Maxwell Miller Emory University Atlanta, Georgia
Hosea:A NewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary, by Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, 701 pp. The Anchor Bible, vol. 24. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc. $14.00.
This 24th volume of the Anchor Bible is the first of five volumesprojectedto cover the TwelveProphets.The general formatis that alreadyfamiliarto readersof the AnchorBible series. A translationof the text of Hosea incorporatesthe authors'exegetical insightsinto the Englishtext of the book. An introductiongives an interpretativehistory of Hosea research and offers its own distinctive interpretationof the book. A bibliographyof 20 pages includes commentaries, books, monographs,and articles. The translationis repeated in outlined sections accompaniedby eleven illustrationsof archeologicalobjects, and by notes which give culturaland linguisticinformationsetting the book of Hosea into the 8th century B.C. culturalbackground.Finally,there are detailed indices. The whole makesa very largebook;however,as withthe other Anchor Bible volumes, the space consumed by the translationleaves the readerwithless expositionthanthe size of the book might suggest. The style of commentforces the
readerto look back repeatedlyto the translationto find relevance. Designedfor scholars,not for generalEnglishreading, the translation confronts the reader with names like benBeeri, bat-Diblaim, and Ehyeh (clear enough to Hebrew readers);occasionallyHebrewword orderis used, and terms like "enfeebled"areincluded. "Must"(archaicfor wine) as a renderingfor tirosh is dominant. The authors project that the first three chapters of the book of Hosea are by a disciple of Hosea who had access to intimatefamilyinformation.This discipleattemptsto portray experiences of the prophetas being illustrativeof Yahweh's experiencewith his people. The thirdchapteris thoughtto be an epilogueto the firsttwo, givinga laterstagein the prophet's experiences. The second part of the book generally is assumedto have been editedlater,but specific evidence for this theory is hardto identify.The book is thoughtto be essentially the work of one person;the text is basicallysound. Affirming that odditiesarein the text is preferredover affirmingcorruptions. Assuming that the MT, despite its difficulties and obscurities, is superiorto all versions, the authors have attemptedto work out their commentson its basis. While emphasizing our increased knowledge of Hebrew grammatical phenomena,they give little place for hypotheticalcorrection of corruptions;they aregenerallyunwillingto alterthe text in the face of difficulties.Nor is any evidence foundto substantiate adequately the case that Hosea wrote in a northern dialect of Hebrew. The career of Hosea is assigned to 750-740 B.C. The authorsareconvincedthatGomeris the only womaninvolved in chapters 1-3, and that the events narrateddid take place. Aftera good start, Gomerbecomes involved in the Baal cult. Rejectingthe possibility that "womanof harlotry"means a potentiallyloose woman, the authors argue that it means a wife who had become promiscuous. This description of Gomeras a womanof harlotryis thoughtto be the prophet's later interpretationof God's commandthat he marrysuch a woman. The marriageis real, not allegorical;the childrenare Hosea's and the names are intentionallyartificial. Chapters4 to 14are consideredcomposed of largerunits with more cohesion than has been thought true by some earlierinterpreters.It is assumedthatthe book displaysmore literary sophistication in composition than has previously been suspected. Though perhaps edited in the 6th century, these chapters are thought to contain little or nothing later than the 8th century. It is suspected that Hosea drew his strengthfor his personalmaritalstrugglefromhis belief in the love of God ratherthan in the converse that has often been assumed. In style, the text is foundto be a blendedmixtureof prose and poetic elements. Mingledtogetheras the two are, a line between them cannot be drawn. A statistical study of the occurrence of particles in the prose and poetry sections is included. A caution is issued against overassurance in presenting a form critical case. The mingling of prose and poetry in the book in indistinguishable portions is responsible for the failure of form criticism to yield agreed results in the study of the book. The historical controls and definitions of forms that could lead to assured results are yet lacking. It is felt that Wolff in his commentary has not successfully delineated the forms upon which his case rests. The absence of allusion to any specific historical personage in chapters 4 to 14 makes it almost impossible to date any of Hosea's oracles with certainty. The authors of this study choose to make only cautious guesses about the historical occasions. They find no cause to abandon the references to Judah as spurious. The hopeful
oracles are retained largely on literary grounds. They find Hosea unclearon the kind of religionhe condemned. This scholarly, technical, detailed treatmentof Hosea suggests that the authors(one of whom is the GeneralEditor of the Anchor Bible series) have a differentreaderin mind thanthat statedfor the entireseries: "the generalreaderwith no specialformaltrainingin Biblicalstudies."The readerhere and there will find himself confrontedwith scholar'sjargon sending him searchingfor the significanceof such terms as inconcinnities,riposte, condign, merismaticpair,gravamen, anaphoric, homonymous root, alloform, brachylogy, kataphoric,sproutage,and pasticcio, for which he needs a moretechnicalsource. He will need to readHebrewin transliteration(oftenwithoutvowels) to follow the discussionin its details, and he will need to have considerableknowledgeof Hebrew grammarin order to grasp what is being said. In general,the ordinaryreaderwill findthathe is carriedthrough more detail than he wants to know. The technicalscholar,on the otherhand, will find here a wealth of materialtreatingthe linguisticfeaturesof the book of Hosea. Majorattention is given to explainingthese features. Phrasesare treatedwith statisticsgiven of theiroccurrence elsewherein the book of Hosea as well as elsewherein the Scriptures. It is to be expected that a commentaryby the Editorof the BA would makegreatuse of relevantarcheologicalmaterial, thoughthe book is in no sense an archeologicalcommentary on the book of Hosea. Linguisticparallels and explanations of difficultforms fromAkkadian,Ugaritic,and Mari materialsare noted, with fuller treatmentgiven to Ugaritic. The untrainedreaderwill experiencesome frustrationin that he is referredto technicaltreatmentsof archeologicalmaterial whichis alludedto but not summarizedhere. Ugariticphrases in transliterationwithout translationare at times cited as explanations. Jack P. Lewis HardingGraduateSchool Memphis, TN 38117 Jerusalem:City of Jesus. An Explorationof the Traditions, Writings,and Remains of the Holy City from the Time of Christ, by Richard M. Mackowski, S.J. x + 219 pp. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. $29.95.
Jerusalem as Jesus Knew It: Archaeology as Evidence, by John Wilkinson. 208 pp. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978. $8.95.
Both these books deal with the same subject-Jerusalem in the time of Jesus-and of the two John Wilkinson's is certainly the better. Compact enough to be included in the baggage of the discerningtraveler and to be carried in the hand when exploring the Old City, it is based on the solid scholarshipcharacteristicof the writer, who, as many readers of BA must know, has an intimate knowledge of the city. For a considerablenumber of years he has "gone about the city and markedwell the bulwarksthereof," and his detailed personalresearchis evidenced again and again in this book. He is a little insecure concerningquestions of climate in his first chapter, but thereafter he is a guide whom it is a pleasure to follow, since he writes with admirableclarity. The many black and white photographs are all informativeand reasonablyclear, thoughthey would have profited from being printed on glossy paper. The
1982 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER
191
aerial photographs by Stuart Inglis are excellent, and the device in these and other pictures of a small white arrow to indicate exactly what is being discussed is helpful, especially for those unfamiliar with Jerusalem. The many diagrams, and especially those superposed on a street plan of the present city, are admirably clear, though they are sometimes so small that it is difficult to read the letters on them. Wilkinson's method is to conduct the reader about the city and its immediate environs, following the Gospel accounts of the activity of Jesus in Jerusalem from the Presentation in the Temple to the events of Holy Week and the Resurrection, and even indeed a little beyond, pausing at times to append theological comments. The culminating effect of this peregrination is a remarkably vivid picture of Jerusalem in those days. The whole is made all the more coherent by his preliminary argument for the evidence of Herod the Great's rebuilding of the city on a grid plan, which he illustrates by showing how this is supported by a number of the medieval roads. Not everyone will be convinced by his argument, but it is very persuasive and well worth consideration. Every serious visitor to Jerusalem should possess a copy of this book and use it there, though, if the binding of my copy is anything to go by, the pages will probably fall out as he or she is jostled in the narrow streets of the Old City! Mackowski's book is another matter. It is certainly the more sumptuous of the two and is adorned by a large number of admirable photographs by Garo Nalbandian, as well as 24 of Richard Cleave's beautiful aerial views. It is also evident that Mackowski has done a lot of serious research and that he has explored the city thoroughly. Yet there are very important weaknesses. First, if ever a book cried out for detailed plans, it is this one, but the many plans provided are inadequate. The vague relief base is of little help for understanding the topography, and the great majority of the plans give small indication of how they are to be related to the modern street plan. The map of Modern Jerusalem inside the end cover is of only moderate help, since not all the streets are shown. Moreover, places mentioned in the text do not always appear on a map or diagram, e.g. St. Mark's Street (p. 48) and Sebil Qait-Bai (sic), which he suggests stands on the site of the Holy of Holies (p. 121). The uninstructed reader is likely to be further confused by the use of different versions of the names of certain streets, e.g. "el-Arman Street" and "Street of the Armenians," both on p. 111, and again "Tariq Bab es-Silsileh" on p. 67, but "Chain Street" on the end map, and "Street of the Chain" on p. 106. Mackowski is frankly a careless writer and is guilty at times of errors and infelicities for which one would reprove an undergraduate. He speaks of Nebi Samwil "which geographers would identify as the high place of Gibeon" (p. 12), but then rightly identifies Gibeon with el-Jib on p. 183. At times he lapses into geographical nonsense, e.g. "In some parts of ancient Palestine the conditions were very much like those in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Philistine coastal plain and the Jordan valley are for the most part sandy regions" (p. 18), and "From the great Anatolian Plateau in Asia Minor . ., through the countries of the Middle East, the land is parched and dry for at least half the year" with "cities and towns scattered here and there, sometimes hundreds of miles apart" (p. 71). The caption for plate 66 (p. 70) is inaccurate and that for plate 112 (p. 131) seriously so. He is quite wrong
192
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER 1982
in saying that the Syrian Orthodox community's claim that the church of St. Mark is the site of the Upper Room is "of very recent vintage" (p. 195) and that General Allenby entered Jerusalem "after the battle of Megiddo" in 1917 (p. 181), for the battle of Megiddo took place in September of 1918. He is almost insultingly wrong to say that "by surrendering to Salah ed-Din [Jerusalem] was spared from total destruction by the overpowering forces of Islam" (p. 141), for the record of Muslim treatment of the Holy City would suggest quite otherwise. He is far too apt to say that something "must be true" and then build extravagantly on this basis. Thus, his highly questionable assertion that the southwest of the city was the Essene Quarter is made the basis for an account of the movements of Jesus, who he believes was closely related to the Essenes. His statement concerning Mt. Zion that "the unbroken historical chain regarding the founding of Christianity on this site is solid" is extreme (p. 147). He asserts that there "can be no doubt" about the site of Golgotha and of Jesus' tomb and then develops a very speculative account of what the area must have been like at that time. The place for this book is, I fear, the coffee table and neither the study nor the classroom, but I cannot resist ending with two absurd results of the slapdash style. The first is that "death was a very common occurrence in antiquity, much more so than now" (p. 157). How much more common, one wonders, than once for everybody. The second is that "Palestine and Transjordania were placed under the British Council" in 1917 (p. 181). The British Council is roughly the equivalent of the USIS, and so let us be grateful that that never happened! Denis Baly Kenyon College Gambier, OH Books Received Aling, Charles E, Egypt and Bible History. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981. Pp. 145. $5.95. Bruce, E E, Bible History Atlas: Popular Study Edition. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Pp. 93 + 96 color maps. $14.95. Farmer, W R., Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Scripture and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.Pp. xiv + 300. $21.95. Hengel, M. ,Acts and the History ofEarliest Christianity. Tr.J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Pp. ix + 149.$8.95. Levine, Lee I. (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981. Pp. viii + 199. $20.00. Louis, K. R. R. Gros (ed.), Literary Interpretations ofBiblical Narratives, Volume II. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982. Pp. 320. $10.95 (pb). Nibbi, Alessandra, Ancient Egypt and Some Eastern Neighbours. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Press, 1981.Pp. xviii + 221. $24.00. Simon, M.,Jewish Sects at the Time ofJesus. Tr. J. H. Farley. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Reprint of the 1967 edition. Pp. xii + 180. $5.95 (pb). Soggin, J. Alberto, Introduction to the Old Testament. Revised edition. Tr. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. Pp. xxxvi + 508. $27.50. Vermes, Geza, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Reprint of the 1973 edition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Pp. 288. $6.95 (pb).
.$coss...
S
A badge used to be your reward for achievement in Scouting. Now, satisfaction is-knowing that you're helping Scouting shape young lives.
S The National Boy Scouts Alumni is helping do just that.
..family
Enroll Today. By joining, you will encourage young
people to follow high ideals-the Scouting has always taught.
ideals
Now that's a Good Turn.
National Boy Scout Alumni Enrollment Form Please fill out this form and return it with your membership fee.
To: National Boy Scout Alumni Family
wall certificate. I'm enclosing my check for:
I'm glad to be back in Scouting!
El 1-yr. membership $10Address
Name
Please enroll me as a NationalBoy Address Scout Alumnus. I understand El 3-yr. membership$30 and you City
membership entitles me to the receive a FREE Norman Rockwell Alumni Bulletin, The Annual print State Report, a membership card, and a
ZIP
Please make checks payable to Boy Scouts of America. Your membership fee is tax deductible. National Boy Scout Alumni * 1325 Walnut Kill Lane * Irving, Texas 75062-1296
