No title

iarch Bitieca ofOriental Schools Research oftheAmerican APublication

Conquest The Early in

Palestine

Settlement?

or

Iron

Age

Volume 2 50Number

June1987

OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH AMERICAN SCHOOLS PA19104 4243SPRUCE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ASOR,

JamesA. Sauer,President Eric M. Meyers,First Vice Presidentfor Publications William G. Dever,Second Vice President for Archaeological Policy George M. Landes,Secretary Anne Ogilvy, Theasurer Gough W Thompson, Jr.,Chairmanof the Boardof Trustees Norma Kershaw,Directorof Tours Catherine Felix, StaffAssistant Ann Norford,Coordinatorof Academic Programs Stephanie Pinter, Secretary Susan Wing, Bookkeeper

ASORNewsletter; JamesA. Sauer,Editor Biblical Archaeologist;EricM. Meyers, Editor Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research;WalterE. Rast, Editor Journalof CuneiformStudies; Erle Leichty,Editor

PHILADELPHIA, STREET,

W.F.AlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch(AIAR). P. O. Box 19096, 91 190 Jerusalem,Israel. Seymour Gitin, Director JosephA. Callaway,President JoyUngerleider-Mayerson,First Vice President Carol Meyers,Second Vice President BaghdadCommittee for the Baghdad School. JerroldS. Cooper,Chairman Near EasternStudies, The Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,MD 21218. American Center of OrientalResearch (ACOR). P.O. Box 2470, JebelAmman, Amman, Jordan. David W.McCreery,Director EdgarHarrell,President LawrenceT. Geraty,Vice President Bert DeVries,Secretary Anne Ogilvy, Theasurer

(215)222-4643

\S OFO 0 CI ,4.

0,tw6

CyprusAmerican Archaeological ResearchInstitute (CAARI). 41 KingPaul Street, Nicosia, Cyprus. Stuart Swiny,Director Charles U. Harris,President LydieShufro,Vice President Ellen Herscher,Secretary AndrewOliver,Jr.,Theasurer Damascus AdvisoryCommittee. GiorgioBuccellati, Chairman Center for MesopotamianStudies, University of California,405 Hilgard Avenue,LosAngeles, CA 90024.

Biblical Archaeologist NC 27706 (919)684-3075 P.O.BOXH.M.,DUKESTATION, DURHAM, Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN0006-0895)is published quarterly(March,June,September, December)by the American Schools of Oriental Research(ASOR),a nonprofit, nonsectarianeducational organization with administrativeoffices at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia,PA 19104. Subscriptions.Annual subscriptionrates are $18 for individuals and $25 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $16 for students and retirees.Subscriptionorders and correspondenceshould be sent to ASOR Publications Office, P.O.BoxH.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Single issues are$6;these should be ordered from ASORPublications Office, P.O.Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Outside the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada,add $2 for annual subscriptions and for single issues. Second-classpostagepaid at Philadelphia, PA 19104and additionaloffices. Postmaster:Send addresschanges to ASOR SubscriptionServices, P.O.Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706.

Editor Associate Editor ExecutiveEditor Book Review Editor Art Director Assistant Editor

EricM. Meyers LawrenceT. Geraty MartinWilcox PeterB. Machinist LindaHuff Melanie A. Arrowood

EditorialAssistants JulieHull JenniferAllen C. E. Carter JohnJorgensen Stephen Goranson Timothy Lavallee LueSimopoulos JohnHuddlestun Catherine Vanderburgh EditorialCommittee BaruchLevine LloydR. Bailey JamesFlanagan KyleMcCarter,Jr. Carole Fontaine David McCreery W. VolkmarFritz Carol L. Meyers JackSasson SeymourGitin David M. Gunn Neil A. Silberman A. T. Kraabel JohnWilkinson Composition by LiberatedTypes,Ltd., Durham, NC. Printedby PBMGraphics, Inc., Raleigh,NC. Copyright? 1987by the American Schools of Oriental Research.

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

Archaeolog Biblical Volume50 Number2

A Publicationof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch

70

75

Page70

84

Page84

Homage to the Elders Gloria Anne London BAGuidetoArtifacts EgyptianAmphorae of the New Kingdom and Ramesside Periods Bryant G. Wood Conquest or Settlement? The EarlyIron Age in Palestine VolkmarFritz

101

A TyrianCoin in Jordan Henry O. Thompson

105

The FirstHasmoneanCoins

110

Yigal Ronen A New Look at Chalcolithic Beer-sheba Isaac Gilead

118

The Harborof the Sea Peoples at Dor Avner Raban

66 68

June1987

Introducingthe Authors Letterto the Readers

Cover:The top view on the front and the photographon the back are of the remains of four-roomtype houses at the early IronI site of TelMasos; the aerial on the front is of Ai (et-Tell),which has a modest early Iron I settlement on the acropolis of a largerLate BronzeIII city. Photographsof TelMasos are courtesy of VolkmarFritzand Aharon Kempinski.Photographof Ai is courtesy of JosephCallaway.

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

Page118 BiblicalArchaeologist,June1987

65

the Authors Introducing Gloria Anne Londonreceivedher Ph.D. from the University of Arizona, following undergraduatestudies at Tel Aviv University. She has conducted ethnoarchaeological studies of traditional potters in the Philippines and Cyprus.CurrentlyDr. Londonhas a PostdoctoralResearch Fellowshipat the University of Washington,where she is investigating the archaeologicalevidence of the Israelite settlement period.

GloriaAnne London

With a Ph.D. in Syro-Palestinianarchaeology from the University of Toronto,BryantG. Woodhas participatedin many excavations,including the WadiTumilat Projectat Tell el-Maskhuta,Egypt,and the University of the Negev excavations at Huruvit. Dr. Wood is at present a staff member of the Associates forBiblical Researchin Willow Grove,Pennsylvania. Volkmar Fritz is Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies and Biblical Archaeology at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universitit Mainz, in West Germany. Dr. Fritz co-directedthe excavations at Tel Masos from 1972 to 1975andhas directedthe excavationsat Kinneretsince 1982. He is a member of the editorial board of Biblical Archaeologist. Henry O. Thompson has excavatedat a number of sites, including Shechem, TellHesban, and severalother places in the vicinity of Amman. He served as Director of the American Center of Oriental Researchin Amman from 1971to 1972 and was Visiting Professorat the University of Jordanfrom 1972 to 1973. In addition to his writingamong which is his recent "Balaamin the Bible and at

66

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

Deir cAlla"in the December 1986 issue of BA-he has edited many books, including The Answer Lies Below (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984) in honor of his mentor LarryToombsand Put YourFuturein Ruins (Bristol,IN: WyndhamHall Press, 1985). YigalRonenhas a Ph.D.in Nuclear Sciences from Cornell University and is currently Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Beer Sheva. For the past ten years Dr. Ronen has been interested in Jewishnumismatics. Isaac Gilead is a Senior Lecturerat the Archaeological Division of Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Beer

BryantG. Wood

AvnerRaban Photograph courtesy of Kenneth Weber.

Henry 0. Thompson VolkmarFritz

YigalRonen

Sheva. He received his Ph.D. in prehistoric archaeology from The Hebrew University in Jerusalemand has conducted numerous surveys and excavations of Paleolithic sites in the Negeb and Sinai. Recently he has been excavating Chalcolithic sites in the northern Negeb. Avner Raban,with a Ph.D. in biblical archaeology from The HebrewUniversity, is currently a FacultyMemberof the GraduateDepartment forHistory of Maritime Civilizations at the University of Haifa. He is also Director of the Center for Maritime Studies at that university. In recent years his focus of research has been ancient harbors and he has directed the CaesareaAncient Harbours ExcavationProject since 1975.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

67

i

Letter

to

the

ur regularreadersknow that Biblical Ar-

chaeologist, founded in 1938 by G. Ernest Wright, is now celebrating its fiftieth year of publication. Since this is our summer issue, and summer is when most digs are in the field, perhaps it would be of interest to note Wright'scontinuing influence in the field. This season witnesses some twenty ASOR excavations in four countries. Each project director has submitted a researchproposalto the Committee on Archaeological Policy for review and approval.The committee is chaired by William Dever in his capacity as ASOR's SecondVice President.William Dever is, of course, one of Wright'sforemost students, having worked with him at Shechem and Gezer, subsequently directing projects of his own at both sites. The countries hosting digs this summer are Yemen, Cyprus, Israel, and Jordan.The first is the location of James Sauer's Wadi al-Juba Project. James Sauer, the current President of ASOR, first became interested in archaeology through Paul Lapp, one of Wright's early students; eventually he studied with Wright himself at Harvard,when Wrightwas ASOR'sPresident,writing his doctoraldissertation on ceramic typology at Tell Hesban. Cyprus is in many ways a world unto itself. Wright began the important Idalion Projectthere, a projectthat

68

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

Readers

now has American successors at, among other places, Kourionand Akrotiri. In Israel, Robert Bull, who worked with Wright at Shechem, is now finishing up his own projectat Caesarea Maritima, and Joe Seger, one of Wright'sstudents who worked with him both at Shechem and Gezer, continues to directthe important LahavProject.Wright'slegacy can also be seen in other important projects directed by scholars who, though they were not his students, have been influenced by him: these include Miqne-Ekron, being excavatedby Seymour Gitin (with TrudeDothan); Shiqmim,being excavatedby Thomas Levy;and Sepphoris, being excavated in part by James Strange (Eric Meyers, Editor of BA and ASOR's First Vice President, is Codirector of another dig being conducted there). Once more, Jordanis the country with the most ASOR projects, including the Madaba Plains Project, which I direct. Presently concentrating on and around Tell el-cUmeiri, this project is strongly influenced by Wright: I studied with him as a graduate student at Harvard, cutting my archaeological field teeth at his Gezer dig, and one of my field directors,LarryHerr,was a Wright graduate student, while the other, 0ystein LaBianca,has worked with a number of his students. Another project underway in Jordanthis summer is the Limes Arabicus, a long-termregionalinvestigation of the

Roman frontier east of the Dead Sea. The originator of this project,Thomas Parker,got his start in Jordanat Tell Hesban, which did for Jordanwhat Gezer did for Israelin terms of providing trained field talent for a subsequent generation of dig directors.Similar projectswith respect to period and region are John Edie's Roman Frontier Project and John Oleson's Humayma Hydraulic Project. Furthernorth area series of excavationsor surveyswhose directorshave been influenced more indirectlyby Wright: Edward Banning's Wadi Ziqlab, Patrick McGovern's BaqcahValley,Alan Simmon's cAin Ghazal Survey,and Burton MacDonald'sNortheast cArabaSurvey. G. Ernest Wright would have been proud of the excavations going on today-both for the quality and quantity. He loved to make field rounds, becoming acquainted with the latest discoveries firsthand. That's what he was doing the summer of 1974, right up until a few daysbefore his death. I'll never forgetthe inspiration and excitement of his visit to my projectthat summer. At that time it was Tell Hesban (biblical Heshbon). He was always interested in every aspect of what was going onfrom the finds, to how they were being uncovered,to the health and well-being of the discoverers. American fieldworkis alive andwell today,thanks in largemeasureto the vision and determinationof G. Ernest Wright, mediated by ASOR. And how does one keep up with all the discoveries? Through the pages of Biblical Archaeologist, of course! In this issue, for example, the finds reportedrangefrom the fourth millennium B.C.E. to Hasmonean times, from Israel to its near neighbors, Egypt and Jordan,touching on many subjects that were dear to Wright'sheart. Volkmar Fritz addresses the difficult question of what took place in Palestine during the transition from the LateBronzeAge to the IronAge:Israelite conquest, or settlement, or revolution? As is well known, Wright opted for the first choice, following his teacher William E Albright. He did so consistently through severalpublications right up until his death (see "TheConquest Theme in the Bible,"in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, edited by H. N. Bream,R. D. Heim, and C. A. Moore, published in Philadelphia by Temple University Press in 1974). After evaluating the latest field evidence, Fritz argues for a variation of the second. Avner Raban touches on another of Wright's pet subjects, summarized in BA more than two decades ago in "Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story" (September 1966, volume 29, number 3). Clearly the ongoing excavations at Dor are important for that story. Several articles hark back to a chronological interest Wright had at the beginning of his career fifty years ago. His doctoral dissertation, published in 1937 by ASOR, was The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. Gloria London's piece

brings us up to date on one aspect of that topic in the third millennium, while Isaac Gilead'sessay does the same for the preceding millennium (see Wright's 1937 article in number 66 of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, "Palestinein the Chalcolithic Age"). Known as the foremost ceramic typologist of his day, Wright loved nothing better than to sit down at the pottery-readingtable on a dig. In light of his October 1940 article in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly,"TheSyroPalestinian Jarfrom Vounous, Cyprus,"he would have enjoyed BryantWood'spiece on Egyptianamphorae. At Shechem and Gezer,Wrightbecame interested in coinage, too; he thereforewould have read with interest the articles in this issue by Yigal Ronen and Henry Thompson-the latter a young colleague of his at Tell Balatah (Shechem). So today, almost thirteen years after his death, the presence of G. Ernest Wright continues to be felt in the field and in the pages of this magazine. This is another of his remarkableaccomplishments. LawrenceT. Geraty Associate Editor

In Memoriam: P&re PierreBenoit,O. P The productive life of another giant in biblical archaeologyhas come to an end: PierreBenoit died this springin his beloved Jerusalem.Bornin Nancy, France, nearly eighty-one years ago, he joined the Dominican Orderand soon (1933)came to work for its renowned Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaisein Jerusalem.Knownandloved as its longtime director,from 1953 to 1968 he also edited its prestigious Revue Biblique. Specializing in New Testament studies, he was also a churchman and activeat the SecondVaticanCouncil.Benoitauthored severalbooks and contributions to dictionaries and Festschriftenas well as journal articles. Among the best known are his contributions to the Jerusalem Bible. He received honorary degrees from France, Germany, and Britain, and he belonged to several professional societies, including the Society for New TestamentStudies,which he led for one yearas president. Many an archaeologist will remember Father Benoit's long flowing white robes, his gracious dignity,his ability at the organ,and his pious leadershipin worship.But most of all they will miss his knowledge of the land of Jesusand especially his intimate knowledge of its Holy City.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

69

Roman frontier east of the Dead Sea. The originator of this project,Thomas Parker,got his start in Jordanat Tell Hesban, which did for Jordanwhat Gezer did for Israelin terms of providing trained field talent for a subsequent generation of dig directors.Similar projectswith respect to period and region are John Edie's Roman Frontier Project and John Oleson's Humayma Hydraulic Project. Furthernorth area series of excavationsor surveyswhose directorshave been influenced more indirectlyby Wright: Edward Banning's Wadi Ziqlab, Patrick McGovern's BaqcahValley,Alan Simmon's cAin Ghazal Survey,and Burton MacDonald'sNortheast cArabaSurvey. G. Ernest Wright would have been proud of the excavations going on today-both for the quality and quantity. He loved to make field rounds, becoming acquainted with the latest discoveries firsthand. That's what he was doing the summer of 1974, right up until a few daysbefore his death. I'll never forgetthe inspiration and excitement of his visit to my projectthat summer. At that time it was Tell Hesban (biblical Heshbon). He was always interested in every aspect of what was going onfrom the finds, to how they were being uncovered,to the health and well-being of the discoverers. American fieldworkis alive andwell today,thanks in largemeasureto the vision and determinationof G. Ernest Wright, mediated by ASOR. And how does one keep up with all the discoveries? Through the pages of Biblical Archaeologist, of course! In this issue, for example, the finds reportedrangefrom the fourth millennium B.C.E. to Hasmonean times, from Israel to its near neighbors, Egypt and Jordan,touching on many subjects that were dear to Wright'sheart. Volkmar Fritz addresses the difficult question of what took place in Palestine during the transition from the LateBronzeAge to the IronAge:Israelite conquest, or settlement, or revolution? As is well known, Wright opted for the first choice, following his teacher William E Albright. He did so consistently through severalpublications right up until his death (see "TheConquest Theme in the Bible,"in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, edited by H. N. Bream,R. D. Heim, and C. A. Moore, published in Philadelphia by Temple University Press in 1974). After evaluating the latest field evidence, Fritz argues for a variation of the second. Avner Raban touches on another of Wright's pet subjects, summarized in BA more than two decades ago in "Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story" (September 1966, volume 29, number 3). Clearly the ongoing excavations at Dor are important for that story. Several articles hark back to a chronological interest Wright had at the beginning of his career fifty years ago. His doctoral dissertation, published in 1937 by ASOR, was The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. Gloria London's piece

brings us up to date on one aspect of that topic in the third millennium, while Isaac Gilead'sessay does the same for the preceding millennium (see Wright's 1937 article in number 66 of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, "Palestinein the Chalcolithic Age"). Known as the foremost ceramic typologist of his day, Wright loved nothing better than to sit down at the pottery-readingtable on a dig. In light of his October 1940 article in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly,"TheSyroPalestinian Jarfrom Vounous, Cyprus,"he would have enjoyed BryantWood'spiece on Egyptianamphorae. At Shechem and Gezer,Wrightbecame interested in coinage, too; he thereforewould have read with interest the articles in this issue by Yigal Ronen and Henry Thompson-the latter a young colleague of his at Tell Balatah (Shechem). So today, almost thirteen years after his death, the presence of G. Ernest Wright continues to be felt in the field and in the pages of this magazine. This is another of his remarkableaccomplishments. LawrenceT. Geraty Associate Editor

In Memoriam: P&re PierreBenoit,O. P The productive life of another giant in biblical archaeologyhas come to an end: PierreBenoit died this springin his beloved Jerusalem.Bornin Nancy, France, nearly eighty-one years ago, he joined the Dominican Orderand soon (1933)came to work for its renowned Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaisein Jerusalem.Knownandloved as its longtime director,from 1953 to 1968 he also edited its prestigious Revue Biblique. Specializing in New Testament studies, he was also a churchman and activeat the SecondVaticanCouncil.Benoitauthored severalbooks and contributions to dictionaries and Festschriftenas well as journal articles. Among the best known are his contributions to the Jerusalem Bible. He received honorary degrees from France, Germany, and Britain, and he belonged to several professional societies, including the Society for New TestamentStudies,which he led for one yearas president. Many an archaeologist will remember Father Benoit's long flowing white robes, his gracious dignity,his ability at the organ,and his pious leadershipin worship.But most of all they will miss his knowledge of the land of Jesusand especially his intimate knowledge of its Holy City.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

69

Tombsat Jebel Qacaqirarrangedin rows cut into the bedrockof the hill. Adjacent to some tomb entrances are capstones that once sealed the openings. Photographson this and facing page are courtesy of William G. Dever.

to theersBy Homage Gloria

Most

inancient burials

Israelwere in isolated tombs or large cemeteries, and few have been found in association with domestic debris.Twelve kilometers from Hebron at JebelQacaqir,however,tombs with habitational debris have been found (Dever 1972).These tombs revealnew aspects of mortuary practices in the late third millen-

70

nium B.C.,especially with regard to

the treatment of community elders. The Site JebelQacaqirwas discoveredin 1967 by villagers of Deir es-Samit who were using deep-plowingmachinery to improveagriculturalfields. Some modest Chalcolithic, Iron II, and later deposits have subsequently been identified, but most finds date

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

Anne

London

to the EarlyBronze IV period.' On the hilltop are at least four caves with habitational debris (Dever 1981;Gitin 1975;London 1985). Twelvecairns, or rock piles, and a "dolmen"-typeconstruction were also found. Although a boundary wall skirting the hill, and a kiln in the valley cannot be dated definitely to the late third millennium B.C.,no

other period seems likely. The tombs

Above left: A disarticulated skeleton in tomb B46 at Jebel Qacaqir.Above:A view inside an undisturbed tomb (B43)containing four individuals. The bones of a woman fifty years of age were among the finds, as were the remains of a young goat.

Smith (1982)were disarticulated without exception. Random bones were missing, which suggests that these are secondary burial deposits. Pots, metal objects, and animal TombB54B at Jebel Qacaqircontained nine individuals, including a female aged fifty to sixty bones (mainly sheep and goats years, two females aged forty to fifty years, and threemales of similar advanced age. This Horwitz, n.d.) were found, and a double-chamberedtomb also held the remains of five animals in addition to five ceramic spindle whorl purchasedfrom the pieces: a lamp (farright, upside down), an amphoriskos(rightof the pelvis at the far right cornerof the tomb), a cup (left of the amphoriskos),and a bowl underneatha large storagejar villagers is attributed to one of the (centerleft). tombs. In the sixteen excavatedtombs, multiple burials are predominant, with as many as nine skeletons per are arrangedin rows cut into the hill leading down into a circularburial be others untomb. Individual interment was chamber bedcut into the limestone slope. (Theremight detected below agriculturalfields rock. (Twodouble-chamberedtombs slightly less common. A largeprowere also found.) Some have lamp currently under cultivation.) Many portion (26 percent) of the remains had been robbedbut sixteen were are of individuals who were over fifty niches cut into the chamber walls, found undisturbed;these were sysand others have shallow depressions years old when they died. Individuals who died between the ages of forty tematically excavatedby William G. in the floor. Stone piles and stone in and forty-nine account for 28 percent Dever were chips occasionally deposited (1972). of the burials; those between twenty the chambers. The Tombs and Their Contents The forty-sixskeletons excavated and thirty-nine, 13 percent;and those between one and nineteen, 33 percent. Each tomb is entered via a shaft by Dever and examined by Patricia

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

71

e*l

Aviv

Jerich

,,

el-Jib

JebelQacaqir

.-'

Because

animals

in EB IV, remains

the

in

72

burials

their is

very

significant.

(Pritchard1963:figure 35). And in tomb P3 at Jericho,animals in a "desertkite,"or triangularenclosure, are renderedon a tomb wall (Kenyon 1965: 138).It should also be noted Mapof southernLevantshowingsitesmentionedin the text. that the life-style in southern Palestine during EarlyBronze IV was pastoral nomadic (Dever 1980),with a This is probablynot a representative substantial portion of the commusample of the population. People nity wealth residing in the herd. The between twenty and forty-ninemay slaughter of animals would thus have been less often accordedsechave involved a real economic commitment on the part of the ondaryburials than their elders. Although it is impossible to at- community. tribute the animal bones to particular There is, in addition, other eviskeletons in the multiple burials, all dence that suggests that the elders of but one of the burial chambers with the community were accordedsome an individual aged fifty or older held homage upon death. The tomb consuch bones. Two individual burials- taining just one individual, over fifty one of a man and one of a woman, years of age, has a decoratedfacade, each overfifty- contained animal and the entrances to ten other tombs the individual interments are decoratedwith incised patterns remains; of younger people did not contain of triangles, cross-hatching,checkeranimal remains. boards,and horizontal, vertical, or oblique lines. Unfortunately,these IV Bronze Practice latter tombs had been robbed,thereEarly Mortuary Based on the largenumber of reby preventingan association of the mains for individuals over fifty years age and sex of the interredwith of age at death, it appearsthat the other contents of the tomb. It is inolder members of the community at teresting that these same incised JebelQacaqirreceived preferential patterns characterizethe pottery burial treatment. Such special treat- found within and could representa ment and the high-valuegraveconfamily trademarkor insignia. Had tents accompanyingboth men and the tombs been found intact, it women point to the apparentritual might have been possible to find a slaughter of sheep and goats to com- correlation between the incised patterns on the pots and the tomb memorate the death or secondary burial of elders. This would have facades. Those burial chambers with been no small tribute. A great deal decoratedentrances are among the of value was placed on animals dur- largest at the site and may well have ing EarlyBronze IV,as evidenced by been reservedfor distinguished their frequent depiction in art forms people. like pottery decorations and graffiti. The cemetery at Jericho.Because the At el-Jib,for instance, animals were cemetery at JebelQacaqirhad been incised on the shoulders of pots almost entirely robbed except for N

of

presence

human

valued

highly

were

bb

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

sixteen tombs, the ideas given above are based on a small sample and need further testing. The Jericho cemetery, with 356 tombs from Early BronzeIV,provides a useful sample for this purpose (Kenyon1960, 1965), although not one free of problems. First, Jericho,in sharp contrast with JebelQacaqir,is largely characterized by single burials. Second, the excavation and retrievaltechniques used were not what one might desire. Deterioration and roof collapse were noted by Kenyonas inhibiting the collection of bone material. Third, the small percentageof bones from thirty-fourtombs that was submitted for study was retrievedlargely from the elaborately furnished "Outsize" tombs (the name given by Kenyonto the largestof the chambersat Jericho), noted for their generous floor plans (Cornwall1965;Grosvenor-Ellisand Westley 1965;Hughes 1965),thereby skewing the results. Fourth,specific sex and age data are lacking. We can work aroundmost of these problems, however.If preferential treatment were accordedcommunity elders, we might examine the outsize tombs for evidence that these were reservedfor the older segment of the population and that animal bones were regularlydeposited there. It is unfortunate that all age data for the EarlyBronze and Middle BronzeAge skeletons at Jerichowere combined (Hughes 1965)and that consequently we lack specific age data for those buried in each tomb, including the outsize category.The paleopathological report (the study of ancient evidence for disease) of eighteen skeletons from the outsize tombs, though, does list symptoms

The

Jebel

findings Qacaqir

suggest received burial

at

elders

special honors.

found in what appearto be primary burials involving a different type of ceremony from that associated with the disarticulated(secondary)burials. The bones, pottery,and metal objects in the secondaryburials must have constituted the final step in a multistaged burial procedurewhose initial ceremonies are perhapsrevealedby the cairns or tumuli found at numerous EBIV sites. Related evidence at other sites. Human remains, pottery,and metal lo 2o0CM. artifacts have been excavatedat var5 o ious cairns of the Negeb (Cohen and Dever 1980:32) and Sinai (Clamer A jar from el-Jibwith animals incised on the and Sass 1977: 249). These stone the University upperbody. Courtesyof Museum, University of Pennsylvania. piles may be all that remain of the first mortuary rites. At BAbedhDhrac, Paul Lapp(1966:95) reported EBIV cairn burials in the form of of arthritis for nine individuals shallow cists coveredby stones. The (Brothwell1965: 687). Arthritis is not conclusive evidence of advanced body might have initially been age but it suggests that those buried placed under the stones along with in the outsize tombs were elders. animal bones, pots, and metal obFourteenof the eighteen outsize jects soon after the death of an individual. Later,most of the bones and tombs contained sheep or goat remains, and in one tomb, the remains artifacts could be collected and reof ten animals were found. This sug- deposited in a permanent tomb chamber. At JebelQacaqirsome gests that, as at JebelQacaqir,older members of the society received spe- skeletons lay on a bed of stone chips in the tombs, perhapsreminiscent of cial funerarytreatment. At Jericho this included a largeburial chamber the initial cairn ceremony.The presence of pots and animal bones in the containing a wide variety and large of with quantity pots, along secondary burial could mean that a beads, feast was given by the mourners and metal objects, animal bones, wood, that partof this meal was contributed leather, and other perishables. Unlike the other 338 Jerichotombs, the to the deceased. outsize chambers were segregated, in an area away from the main tell Conclusion and the smaller tombs. The findings at JebelQacaqirsuggest The skeletons in most Jericho that certain community elders, both tombs were disarticulated. The armen and women, received excepticulated skeletons, commonly actional burial honors that included metal were companied by daggers, slaughteredsheep and goats. The

Potteryfrom the tombs at Jebel Qacaqir. The incised, or combed, patterns on them are similar to those on the decoratedfacade of several tombs and thus might representa family trademarkor insignia.

biblical phrase "tobe gatheredto one's fathers"is undoubtedly an echo of the custom of secondary burial, which continued on in Palestinian burials for more than two millennia (Meyers1970). The death of an elder might have involved the transferof property, wealth, and power and would have been an important event for those who inherited the economic or political status of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the burial prac-

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

73

tices would have more significance for the living than for the deceased, and the occasion might have served a dual purpose:to pay homage to the elders, and to mark a new regime. To examine the social organization of EBIV further,we need a largerdata base and more complete analyses of the human and animal skeletal remains than are currently available.As more sites are systematically excavated,the information providedwill enable a reassessment of previous reconstructions of the social milieu and a more sensitive appraisalof life in the late third

2Richard ScheuerandHebrew UnionCollegegenerouslymadethe workpossible,thuspreventingthe completepillageandloss of the site. Bibliography

Brothwell,D. R. 1965 The Paleopathologyof E.B.-M.B.and Middle BronzeAge Remainsfrom Jericho(1957-8 Excavations).Pp. 685-93 in Excavationsat Jericho, VolumeII: The TombsExcavatedin 1955-8, edited by K. M. Kenyon. London:British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Clamer,C., and Sass,B. 1977 Middle BronzeI. Pp. 245-54 in Qedem 7, PrehistoricInvestigations in Gebel Maghara,NorthernSinai, millenniumB.C. andJ.L.Phillips. editedby O. Bar-Yosef Jerusalem:Institute of Archaeology, Acknowledgments The HebrewUniversity. It is with much appreciationthat Cohen, R., and Dever,W G. 1980 PreliminaryReportof the Second I thank William G. Dever for his perSeason of the "CentralNegev Highmission to study the JebelQacaqir lands Project."Bulletin of the Americeramics. Dr. Dever also kindly can Schools of Oriental Research providedthe photographsof Jebel 236: 41-60. Qacaqirtaken by Theodore A. Rosen. Cornwall,I. W. 1965 Collections of Animal Bones from My work was made possible by Tombsof E.B.-M.B.Outsize Type.Pp. grants from the American Schools of 702-3 in Excavationsat Jericho, Oriental Research (Zion Research VolumeII: The TombsExcavatedin Foundationand the Samuel H. Kress 1955-8, edited by K. M. Kenyon. London:British School of ArchaeFellowship 1983-84), Hebrew Union ology in Jerusalem. College, the Lucius N. Littauer Dever,W G. Foundation,the University of Ari1972 A Middle BronzeI Site on the West zona, and RichardScheuer.This Bankof the Jordan.Archaeology25: paperwas written at the University 231-33. of Washingtonwhere I held a Stroum 1980 New Vistas on the EBIV ("MBI") Horizon in Syria-Palestine.Bulletin PostdoctoralResearchAwardin the of the American Schools of Oriental Studies Jewish Program. Research237: 35-64. The University Museum gener1981 CaveG26 at JebelQacaqir:A ously grantedpermission to reproDomestic Assemblageof Middle duce the el-Jibvessel. BronzeI. EretzIsrael 15:22*-32*. Gitin, S. Finally,I would extend my 1975 Middle BronzeI:"DomesticPottery" thanks for editorial work to Lotta at JebelQacaqir,A Ceramic Gaster and the editors of Biblical Inventoryof Cave G23. EretzIsrael Archaeologist. 12:46*-62". Grosvenor-Ellis,A., and Westley,B. 1965 PreliminaryReporton the Animal Notes Remainsin the JerichoTombs.Pp. 1Theperiodbeing discussed here is 694-96 in Excavationsat Jericho, a time 2000 2200 through basically B.c., VolumeII: The TombsExcavatedin referredto by most as EarlyBronzeIV, 1955-8, edited by K. M. Kenyon. although designatedby some as Middle London:British School of ArchaeBronzeI. The habitational debris in the ology in Jerusalem. four caves mentioned subsequently was Horwitz, L. K. from all periods,but especially from n.d. FaunalRemainsfrom JebelQacaqir. EBIV.The cairns and the "dolmen"-type Hughes, D. R. 1965 Human Bones,I. Reporton Metrical construction possibly date to EBIV.

74

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

andNon-MetricalAspectsof E.B.-M.B. and Middle BronzeAge Human Remains from Jericho(1957-8 Excavations).Pp. 664-85 in Excavations at Jericho,VolumeII: The TombsExcavatedin 1955-8, edited by K. M. Kenyon.London:British School of Archaeologyin Jerusalem. Kenyon,K. M. 1960 Excavationsat Jericho,VolumeI: The TombsExcavatedin 1952-4. London:British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1965 Excavationsat Jericho,VolumeII: The TombsExcavatedin 1955-8. London:British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Lapp,P.W 1966 The Dhahr MirzbcanehTombs:Three IntermediateBronzeAge Cemeteries in Jordan.New Haven:American Schools of OrientalResearch. London,G. A. 1985 Decoding Designs: The Late Third Millennium B.C.Potteryfrom Jebel Qacaqir.University of Arizona Ph.D. dissertation.Ann Arbor:University Microfilms. Meyers,E. M. 1970 SecondaryBurialsin Palestine.Biblical Archaeologist33: 2-29. Pritchard,J.B. 1963 The BronzeAge Cemeteryat Gibeon. Philadelphia:University Museum. Smith, P. 1982 The PhysicalCharacteristicsand BiologicalAffinities of the MBI Skeletal Remainsfrom JebelQacaqir. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research245: 65-73.

Benefits of LIFEMEMBERSHIP in ASOR Life members of ASOR receive the ASOR Newsletter, Biblical Archaeologist, the Bulletin of ASOR, and the Journal of Cuneiform Studies as complimentary subscriptions. A life membership contribution is matchable by the Challenge Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities on a 1:3 basis. See page 128 for details.

Of and

the

New

Kingdom

Ramesside Periods

By

Bryant

G.

Wood

(the end of the reign of Amenhotep II or the beginFowling scene from the tomb of Nakht at Thebes dating to approximately1430-1420 B.C.E. ning of the reign of ThthmosisIV).The scene shows birds being netted in a papyrusthicket, then plucked, gutted, and hung to dry in the sun. In the backgroundare the amphoraethat will be used to transportthe dried birds to the master'slarder.Photographis from Davies (1917).

in the Levanthavefrequentlyun-

covered vessels from the Late Bronze and Iron Sxcavations Ages (approximately 1500 to 500 B.C.E.) that have been grouped under the general category of Canaanite jar (Grace 1956; see also Amiran 1969: 140-42). Within this category,three types, each linked to a specific region of the eastern Mediterranean,have been identified: the Phoenician store jar common to northern Palestine has a carinated(keel-shaped)shoulder and short neck; the store jar of southern Palestine is characterized by a rounded shoulder; and the amphora from Egypt is known by its distinctively slender shape. When a ceramictypologist studies a particularvessel,

three majorquestions are asked:What is its date?Where was it made? How was it used? Because of the limited nature of the evidence surviving from antiquity, these questions are often difficult, if not impossible, to answer. In the case of the amphora, however, the wealth of epigraphicand pictorialdatafrom Egyptmakes it possible to answerthese with unusual precision, and we can even trace the evolution of its form over hundreds of years in great detail. General Description The most striking feature of the Egyptianamphorais its pointed or slightly rounded base,' a seemingly incom-

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

75

Above: Vintagescene from the tomb of Nakht at Thebes showing workersharvesting the grapes,while others are pressing out the juices. The amphoraein the background would be used to ferment and store the liquid. Photograph is from Davies (1917).Right: Stamped clay caps from Tell el-Farcah(South)in Palestine. The impressions depict a male deity standing on a lion, one holding a scepteror spearin his right hand. The caps were found in association with the remains of forty-fivelarge jars in a large Egyptian-stylebuilding that dates to the Nineteenth Dynasty. Drawing is based on numbers 5 and 6 in plate 61 of Starkeyand Harding(1932). p

modious feature (see Tufnell 1958:220). The vessel could hardly have been meant simply for storage because the pointed base necessitated an external means of support. In fact, the amphorawas the primaryshipping container in antiquity (Grace 1956, 1961;Amiran 1969: 140;Akerstr6m 1975; Casson 1981). As such, the major design consideration was not stability but strength (Parr1973). The weakest point in a large jar with a flat base is the junction between the base and the sidewall. A pointed base effectively eliminates this weakness and allows the vessel to be pivoted and tilted, picked up, set down, and otherwise manhandled with much less risk of damage. The amphorawas used for transportinga variety of commodities. Hieratic inscriptions placed on the amphorae mention such goods as wine, beer, ale, milk, honey, oil, fat unguent, meat, mutton, fowl, fish, curds, grain, beans, fruit, eyepaint, gum, incense, and myrrh (Griffith 1894; Gunn 1923; Fairman 1933, 1951; Hayes 1951; Smith 1976: 181-82; Leahy 1978: figure 1; Hope 1978: 24-25).? The Egyptianamphorawas held upright by a stand, two types of which were commonly used: an annular stand made of firedclay or basketwork,and a tripodmade

76

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

p

p

?

NcI

of bronze or possibly wood. This was obviously a vital accessory,even to the point of its being transportedalong with the vessel. For instance, a painting in the tomb of Parennefer,craftsman of the king, at Amarna (around 1375-1360 B.C.E.), shows Parennefer'sservants carrying amphoraeladen with gifts for their master from the king; each also carries a tripod stand gracefully cradledin the crook of his arm. The Egyptianamphorawas thus a utilitarian vessel, although an effort was made on occasion to enliven it. The well-known festive scene from the tomb of Nakht, fromthe end of the reignof AmenhotepIIor the beginning of the reign of Tuthmosis IV (around 1430-1420 B.C.E.),3 depicts an amphora that has lotus flowers covering its mouth and a collar encircling its neck. In some instances collars were painted on the jars, as well as grape or fig vines, no doubt done to suggest the contents (Norman Davies 1923a:plate 1;Montet 1937:51;Hayes 1951;Brack and Brack 1977:tafel 15;Hope 1978: 16-17, 70). Amphoraein the Wine Industry the common use of the Egyptian amphora far most By was for bottling wine. After workers had harvested the

0 .-

-10cm

Above left: Bronzestand fromlevel IV at Beth-shean,dating to the twelfth century B.C.E. Drawing is based on figure 102.1 in James(1966).Above center: Crosssection througha typical amphoraseal. Drawing is based on figure 8a in Hope (1978).Right: Festive scene from the tomb of Nakht at Thebes. Note the amphora,on a tripod stand in the backgroundon the right, is decorated with a collar and coveredwith lotus flowers. Photographis from Davies (1917).

Above: Limestone stamp from Amarna in Egypt.Stamps of this type were used to impress the clay caps of freshly sealed amphorae.Drawing is based on plate 32.6 of Frankfortand Pendlebury(1933).Right:Amphora with clay cap and seal (MetropolitanMuseum of Art 36.3.38). The seal bears the name of Hatshepsut, and a hieratic label on the jar is preceded by the date "Regnal the label also names the year 7"(of T7thmosis III),that is, about 1498 B.C.E.; type and quantity of wood oil that the jar contained. The jar, which is 64 centimeters high, was found in the tomb of the parents of Sennemut, Hatshepsut'sarchitect, at Deir el-Bahari,Thebes. See Lansingand Hayes (1937) and Hayes (1957).Photographis used courtesy of the MetropolitanMuseum of Art, RogersFund, 1936.

grapes and pressed out the juice, they would pour it into amphorae for fermentation. When fermentation was complete, each jar was sealed with a rush bung and a stopper(Hope 1978:26-32); a clay capwas then fashioned around the outside of the neck and stamped with the vintner's official seal4 A number of stamped clay seals have been recoveredin excavations (Gunn 1923;Fairman 1933, 1951; Hayes 1951; Cernyr1965: 1-4; Smith 1976: 162-75; Brack and Brack 1977: 68; Hope 1978: 3; Leahy 1978: 29-44), as well as the stamps themselves (for instance, Petrie 1897:7, plate 3.23; Frankfortand Pendlebury 1933:plate 32.6; Smith 1976: 166, 170, plate 49). Following sealing, a hieratic label was written in ink

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

77

This relief fromAmarna, around 1375-1360 B.c.E., shows a Syrian

soldier drinkingdirectly from an amphora by means of a "drinking tube set."Plate 17 from Spiegelberg and Erman(1908).

Amphoraefrom the tomb of Tutankhamun,dating to around 1352 B.C.E. Thirty-sixsuch jars were found, twenty-six with hieratic labels with dates rangingfrom the thirty-firstyear of Amenhotep III (around1357 B.C.E.)to the tenth year of Tutankhamun(around 1352 B.C.E.). Jar434 (on the left) bears the inscription "Year5. Wine of the House-of-Atonof the WesternRiver.Chief VintnerAny," while jar 486 (on the right)has an inscription that reads "Year4. Wineof the house-of-Aton,life, prosperity,and health, of the WesternRiver.Chief VintnerNen"(Cerny1965: 1).Photographis used courtesy of the GriffithInstitute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

on the shoulder of the jar indicating the year, type and quality of wine, the estate responsible forproductionand bottling, the location of the vineyard,andthe name of the chief vintner. The jarswere then storedin orderto agethe wine. Some was aged for a considerable length of time. Jarsdating to the second year of Amenhotep II (around 1449 B.C.E.)were found in the tomb of Tjanuni, an official of Tuthmosis IV (around 1425-1417 B.C.E.). These jars were thereforetwenty-five to thirty years old at the time they were placed in the tomb (Brackand Brack 1977:68, 70). One of the amphorae in the tomb of Tutankhamun (around1361-1352 B.C.E.)bearsan inscription with a date of the thirty-first year of Amenhotep III (about 1387

0o -

10cm

Ropesling and beer jarfrom the tomb of Meryet-Amunat Thebes, dating to around 1443 B.C.E. Meryet-Amunwas the Queen of Amenhotep II in the early years of his reign. Drawing is based on figure 18 in Winlock(1932).

of a strainer,a right-angledtube, and a cup. The strainer was placed on one end of a reed and inserted into the jar. The right-angledtube was then attached to the other end of the reed.A second reedwas attached to the other end of the tube andwas used like a strawto drawthe liquid from the vessel. A small cup, which was perhaps used to sample the contents before serious drinkingbegan, completed the set (Griffith 1926).After the primarycontents had been consumed, the amphorawas used for secondary purposes, such as the carryingof water.

Origin of the Handled Amphora In the Middle Kingdomperiod (approximately2130-1680 B.C.E.),largejarsof this type did not have handles and they B.C.E.), making it thirty-five years old when placed in 3 tomb and 1965: Tutankhamun's requireda rope sling and two men to carrythem. At the (Cerny' 4)?P an reached its it became Once amphora destination, beginning of the New Kingdom (about 1570 B.C.E.), howa store jar.When it came time to dispose of the contents, ever, a new type suddenly appeared.This new type was some people found it more convenient to work directly ovoidin shape andhad two vertical handles. The addition from the amphora(atleast in the case of beverages),rather of handles sometime aroundthe end of the Middle Kingthan first transferringthe contents to a smaller, more dom represented a major technical innovation for the easily managed container. For this, a special "drinking ancient Egyptians,who normally were slow to adoptnew tube set"made of copperor bronze was used. It consisted ideas. With handles, an amphoracould be carriedby one

78

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

quickly adopted the new design, accordingto this view, and began fabricatingthe jar themselves (Montet 1928: 200; 1937:50-51; Grace 1956;Parr1973).Impressedtwin cartouches of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III (Bruyere 1937: 92) indicate, however, that the handled amphora was made in Egyptalready during the joint rule of these two monarchs (around 1504-1482 B.C.E.),prior to the

Asiatic campaigns of Tuthmosis III.

The Egyptian amphora was a

utilitarian

transport Above:Syro-Palestinianstore

jarfromTellel-Dabca,an Asiaticsettlementin the EgyptianDelta.Thejardates to theMiddleBronzeJIB period(around1600R.cF.). Drawingis basedon figure 6B in Bietak (1986).Right:

Amphoradatingto the fiftiethyearof RamessesII (around1255.c..), fromthe tombof Apyat Thebes(see Davies1927:39).Photograph is courtesyof the Egyptian TheMetropolitan Expedition, Museumof Art.Scaleis unknown.

man, although the rope sling continued to be used in some cases. The Egyptianamphoraof the early New Kingdomis similar in shape to the Palestinian store jarof the Middle Bronze II period (about 1800-1500 B.C.E.).That there is a

connection between the two is agreedby all, but there is disagreement as to the exact nature of the connection. Ruth Amiran believes that the amphoraeof the early Eighteenth Dynasty were all imported into Egypt, and only later were they locally produced(Amiran1969: 141). The evidence indicates, however, that the early Eighteenth Dynasty amphorae were fabricated in Egypt. Many of them were impressed with royal cartouches prior to firing (Bruyere1937:92) and their hieratic labels indicate that they were filled with locally producedwine and other native Egyptianproducts. A more popular theory is that the handled jar first came from Asia by way of spoil, tribute, and trade during the sole reign of Tuthmosis III(about 1482-1450 B.C.E.),as illustrated by tomb paintings (see, for instance, Davies and Davies 1933:plates 3-7; Norman Davies 1935:plates 10 and 11; 1943:plates 21-23, 44, 48, 49).6The Egyptians

variety

used

vessel, of

and

store

to a

commodities.

New discoveries in the Delta suggest a means by which these vessels were introduced to the Egyptians. Excavations and surface surveys in the eastern Delta in recent years have revealedAsiatic settlements dating to the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, about 1800-1570 B.C.E.(Bietak1975, 1986;Holladay 1982:44-47, 50; Redmount 1984).These Asiatic settlers brought with them, and no doubt continued to produce locally, their native wares, including the handled store jar.Manyexamples of handled Syro-Palestinianstore jars have been recoveredfrom these settlements. The Delta region is the areawhere most of the royal vineyards were located according to the hieratic labels (Fairman1933;Hayes 1951;Smith 1976:183;Lesko 1977: 23, 28-29; Hope 1978: 24). It is reasonable to suggest, therefore,that the handled storejarwas introducedto the Delta vintners by the Asiatics who immigrated to this area at the end of the Middle Kingdom. The vessel then followed a development of its own in Egypt, quite apart from its development in Syria-Palestine. TypologicalDevelopment a By assembling corpus of dated examples, one can establish a series of Egyptian amphorae that shows the typological development of this vessel with a precision not usually possible in the study of ancient Near Eastern ceramics. This typology is characterizedby a long neck and an outward-foldedrim to accommodate the clay cap, a roundedshoulder,anda taperedlowerbodythat becomes increasingly narrowover time (Holthoer 1977:97). In the accompanying sidebar well-dated examples illustrate clearly the evolution of its form. Tothis I would adda few comments. Number 5, from the tomb of MeryetAmun, Queen of Amenhotep II,contained a residue that, according to chemical analysis, was from a high-quality beer (Winlock 1932:32-33). In this case the jarhas a short neck, which is possibly because it was made specifically

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

79

Ir.

i ?

(()

?. ..•,..•;

80

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

< v,.4t)

,,,

The

Dated Amphorae of the New Kingdom and Ramesside Periods 1. Shellal, Nubia, cemetery 7, tomb 5. From the joint reign of

typological development of the Egyptian be established amphora can with

unusual

precision.

Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III (1503-1482 B.C.E.).Dated by car-

touches of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis IIIthat were impressed separately into the jar while the clay was soft. Reisner (1910: figure 304.1). 2. Deir el-Medineh,tomb 1165.Fromthe joint reignof Hatshepsut andTuthmosis III.Dated by a handleless jarwith cartouches of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III that was found in the same tomb. Nagel (1938:figure 63.6). 3. Deir el-Medineh, tombs 1322-1325. From the sole reign of Tuthmosis III (1481-1450 B.C.E.). Dated by two cartouches of Tuthmosis III.Brilyere (1937:25.3).

4. Thebes, tomb of Tjanuni. From the second year of Amen-

hotep II (1449 B.C.E.).Dated by a hieratic inscription. Brack and

Brack(1977:tafel 63.2/28). 5. Thebes, tomb of Meryet-Amun, Queen of Amenhotep II. From the eighth year of Amenhotep II (1443 B.C.E.).Dated by the

death date of Meryet-Amun.Winlock (1932:figure 17e). 6. Thebes, Temple of Amenhotep II.From twenty-sixth year of Amenhotep II (1425 B.C.E.). Dated by a hieratic inscription.

Petrie (1897:plate 5.3). 7. Thebes, areaC1 at Malkata.Fromthe thirtieth to the thirty-

ninth year of Amenhotep III (1388-1379 B.C.E.).Dated by histori-

cal information. Hope (1978:figure la). 8. Thebes, Tombof Tutankhamun,Carterobject 486. Fromthe fourth year of Tutankhamun (1358 B.C.E.). Dated by a hieratic

inscription. Cernjy(1965:1). 9. Thebes, Deir el-Medineh, tomb 359. From the sixth year of Ramesses II (1299 B.C.E.).Dated by a hieratic inscription. Nagel

(1938:figure 8.2). 10. Thebes, Deir el-Medineh,tomb 359. Fromthe forty-seventh year of Ramesses II (1258 B.C.E.).Dated by a hieratic inscription.

Nagel (1938:figure 10.11). 11. Gurob town site. From the fifth year of Merneptah (1232 B.C.E.). Dated by historical circumstances.

Petrie (1890: plate

20.32). 12. Thebes, Templeof Siptah.Fromthe fourth year of Tewosret (1206B.C.E.).Dated by a hieratic inscription. Petrie (1897:figure 17.23). 13. Thebes, Ramesseum. Fromthe thirteenth year of Ramesses III (1186 B.C.E.). Dated by a hieratic inscription. Spiegelberg

(1923:figure 27). Note: Numbers 2, 3, 9, and 10reproducedwith the kind permission of the Institut FrancaisdArcheologie Orientale du Caire.

as a beer container. Beer was made on a day-to-daybasis for immediate consumption and was not sealed and stored for long periods of aging (Hayes 1951).A long neck to accommodate a seal and a clay cap therefore was not needed as in the case of wine jars. Number 8 is one of thirty-six wine jarsfound in the tomb of Tutankhamun; twenty-six of these jars have identifying hieratic labels dating them to between the thirty-firstyear of Amenhotep III (about 1387 B.C.E.)and the tenth year of Tutankhamun(about 1352B.C.E.-Cerny 1965).I would note here that an Egyptianamphoraof the Tutankhamun era was found in Palestine in a tomb at Acco (Ben-Ariehand Edelstein 1977:figure 10.9;compare Grant 1929: 173,center right;andGrantandWright1939: 123).By the time of Ramesses II (around1304-1237 B.C.E.) the Egyptianamphorahad become very narrow(numbers 9 and 10).A very close parallelto number 11from the fifth year of Merneptah (about 1232 B.C.E.),although somewhat longer (69 as compared with 56 centimeters), was found in tomb 114at Deir el-Balah, 14 kilometers southwest of Gaza (Dothan 1979: 14, 16). Conclusion The pictorial and epigraphicdata from Egyptcombine to providea rareinsight into the provenience,function, and formalevolution of the Egyptianamphora.Such information is useful not only to students of ancient Egypt but also to those working with the archaeologicalremains of other areasof the Levant,since this type of vessel was no doubt used in a similar manner throughout the eastern Mediterranean. What is more, Egyptian amphorae are sometimes found in contexts outside Egypt,thus making them important for dating purposes and for studies in cross-culturalconnections. Notes This article is a revision of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Researchin New Yorkon December 20, 1982. 'For the method of fabricatingthis type of vessel, see Rye 1981: 134-37. For a technical description of the ware, see Holthoer 1977:98; Hope 1978:62-75. 2These inscriptions, in their fullest form, include the year, commodity, source (estate/region),the occasion for which the commodity was prepared,the title andname of the donorin the case of a donation, and, in the case of wine and meat products, the name of the official who prepared it (Leahy 1978: 5). Egyptian amphorae are thus a ceramic typologist's dream-

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

81

come-true,forhere we havea vessel that is labeledwith its date, provenience,and function. 3Thedates used in this article arethe high dates of Hayesin The Cambridge Ancient History, third edition, volume 1, part 1

(1970):173-'93;and volume 2, part 2 (1975):table (A) on page 1038. 4Fora detailed description of Egyptianwine-making, see Lesko 1977: 15-21. 51t is unlikely that the jars in Tutankhamun'stomb were reused, as suggestedby Lesko (1977:23). If the jarswere reused, then those responsible for the refilling left the original label intact and did not affix a new label, a situation that seems highly improbablein view of the Egyptianpenchant forprecise record-keepingand accounting. Out of the 1,400labels found at the palace-city of Amenhotep III at El Malkata in western Thebes, only a few showed evidence of reuse-a second inscription had been written over the original inscription in severalinstances (Hayes 1951;Hope 1978: 8). 6Jarsof this type continued to be importedafterthe time of TuthmosisIII,as evidencedby latertomb scenes (seeDavies and Faulkner 1947; Save-S6derbergh1957: plate 23) and hieratic labels reading"wine of Khore[Syria-Palestine]" (Fairman1951; Hayes 1951;Hope 1978: 12, 75).

Bibliography A. Akerstr6m,

1975 More CanaaniteJarsfrom Greece. Opuscula Atheniensia 11: 185-92.

Albright,W.F

1938 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol.2: The BronzeAge.

Series:Annualof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch 17.NewHaven,CT:AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch.

Amiran, R. 1969 Ancient Potteryof the Holy Land.Jerusalem:MassadaPress. Ben-Arieh,S., and Edelstein, G. 1977 TombsNear the PersianGarden.cAtiqot 12 (EnglishSeries). Bietak,M. 1975 TellEl-Dabca2. Wien:Verlagder OsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften. 1986 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Mortimer WheelerArchaeological Lecture 1979. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. [Reprintof 1981 edition] Brack,A., and Brack,A. 1977 Das Grab des Tjanumi: Theben Nr. 74. Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Bruybre,B. 1937 Rapport sur les Fouilles de Deir el Midineh (1934-1935), Deuxiime Partie:La Nicropole de l'Est.Cairo:Imprimeriede lInstitut FrancaisdArchdologieOrientale. Casson, L. 1981 MaritimeTradein Antiquity.Archaeology34(4):37-43. J. Cern,, 1965 Hieratic Inscriptions From the Tomb of Thtcankhamiin. Tutcankhamin's TombSeries2. Oxford:The University Press. Davies, Nina de G. 1963 Scenes From Some Theban Tombs. Oxford:The University Press. Davies, Nina de G., and Davies, Norman de G. 1933 The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb,Amenmose, and Another. London:EgyptExplorationSociety. Davies, Norman de G. 1906 The Rock Tombs of El Amarna 4. Series: Memoir of the

82

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

ArchaeologicalSurveyof Egypt16.London:EgyptExploration Fund. 1908 The Rock Tobmbsof El Amarna 6. Series: Memoir of the ArchaeologicalSurveyof Egypt18.London:EgyptExploration Fund. 1917 The Tombof Nakht at Thebes. New York:The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1923a The Tombsof 7tvo Officials of Ththmosisthe Fourth.Series: The ThebanTombsSeries Memoir3. London:EgyptExploration Society. 1923b Akhenaten at Thebes. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9: 132-52. 1927 7tvo Ramesside Tombsat Thebes. New York:The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1935 Paintings From the Tomb of Rekh-Mi-Reat Thebes. New York:The MetropolitanMuseum of Art. 1943 The Tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes, Volumes 1 and 2. New York:The MetropolitanMuseum of Art. Davies, Norman de G., and Faulkner,R. O. 1947 A Syrian Trading Venture to Egypt. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 33: 40-46. Dothan, T 1979 Excavationsat the Cemeteryof Deir el-Balah. Qedem 10.

H. W Fairman,

1933 The Inscriptions.Pp. 103-109 in The City of Akhenaten, Part 2, by H. Frankfort and J. D. S. Pendlebury.Series: Egypt ExplorationSociety Memoir 40. London:EgyptExploration Society. 1951 The Inscriptions.Pp. 143-223 in The City of Akhenaten, Part 3, by J. D. S. Pendlebury.Series: Egypt ExplorationSociety Memoir 44. London:EgyptExplorationSociety. Frankfort,H., and Pendlebury,J.D. S. 1933 The City of Akhenaten, Part 2. Series: Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 40. London:EgyptExplorationSociety. Grace,V R. 1956 The Canaanite Jar.Pp. 80-109 in The Aegean and the Near East:Studies Presentedto Hetty Goldman on the Occasion of her Seventy-FifthBirthday,edited by S. S. Weinberg.Locust Valley,NY: J.J.Augustin. 1961 Amphoras and the Ancient Wine 7Tade.Athens: American School of Classical Studies. Grant,E. 1929 Beth Shemesh (Palestine):Progressof the HaverfordArchaeological Expedition. Series: Biblical and KindredStudies 2. Haverford,PA:HaverfordCollege. Grant,E., and WrightG. E. 1939 Ain Shems Excavations(Palestine),Part5 (Text).Series:Biblical and KindredStudies 8. Haverford,PA:HaverfordCollege. Griffith, E L. 1894 The JarInscriptions.Pp.32-34 in TellEl Amarna, by W.M. F. Petrie. London:Methuen. [Reprinted1974by Aris & Phillips, Warminster,England.] 1926 A Drinking Siphon FromTell El-cAmarnah.Journalof Egyptian Archaeology 12:22-23. Gunn, B. 1923 Inscriptions of 1922. Pp. 142-68 in The City of Akhenaten, Part1,byT E. E.PeetandC. L.Woolley.Series:EgyptExploration Society Memoir 38. London:EgyptExplorationSociety. Hayes,W.C. 1951 Inscriptionsfromthe Palaceof Amenophis III.Journalof Near EasternStudies 10:35-56, 82-111, 156-83. 1957 Variafrom the Time of Hatshepsut. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Kairo 15:78-90. Instituts.Abteilung Holladay,J.S., Jr. 1982 Tell EJ-Maskhuta:PreliminaryReport on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978-1979. Series: American Research Center in EgyptReports,volume 6, Cities of the Delta, part 3. Malibu,

Petrie,W.M. E 1890 Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London:Kegan Paul, Trench, Trtibner. 1897 Six Templesat Thebes. London:BernardQuaritch. Redmount,C. 1984 Wadi Thmilat Archaeological Survey. Unpublished paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research,December 1984, Chicago. Reisner,G. A. 1910 The Archaeological Surveyof Nubia: Reportfor 1907-1908, Volume 1. Cairo:National PrintingDepartment. Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery Technology:Principles and Reconstructions. Series: Manuals on Archaeology4. Washington:Taraxacum. T. Save-S6derbergh, 1957 Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs. Private Tombs at Thebes, Volume 1. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. Smith, H. S. 1976 The Fortress of Buhen: The Inscriptions. Excavations at Buhen 2. Series: Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 48. London:EgyptExplorationSociety. Spiegelberg,VonW 1923 Bemerkungenzu den hieratishcen Amphoreninschriftendes Ramesseums. Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Spracheund Altertumskunde 58: 25-36. Spiegelberg,VonW, and Erman,A. 1908 Grabsteineines syrischenS61dnersaus TellAmama.Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Spracheund Altertumskunde 36: 126-29. Starkey,J.L., and Harding,L. 1932 Beth Pelet Cemetery.Pp.22-32 in Beth-Pelet2. Series:British School of Archaeology in Egypt Publication 52. London: British School of Archaeologyin Egypt. Tufnell, O. 1958 Lachish4: The BronzeAge. London:OxfordUniversity Press. Winlock, H. E. 1932 The Tombof Queen Meryet-Am-nat Thebes. New York:The MetropolitanMuseum of Art.

CA: Undena. Holthoer, R. 1977 New KingdomPharaonicSites:The Pottery.Series:The ScandinavianJointExpeditionto SudaneseNubia 5: 1. Stockholm: The ScandinavianJointExpeditionto SudaneseNubia. Hope, C. 1978 Excavations at Malkata and the Birket Habu 1971-1974, Volume 5: A Technological Study of the far Sealings and Amphorae.Warminster,England:Aris & Phillips. James,E 1966 The IronAge at Beth Shan:A Study of Levels VI-IV.Philadelphia:The University Museum. Lansing,A., and Hayes,W.C. 1937 The EgyptianExpedition 1935-1936. Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 32 (1),part 2: 3-39. Leahy,M. A. 1978 Excavationsat Malkata and the BirketHabu 1971-1974:The Inscriptions. Series: Egyptology Today 4 (2). Warminster, England:Aris & Phillips. Lesko,L. H. 1977 King Tht'sWine Cellar.Berkeley,CA: B.C.Scribe. Montet, P. 1928 Byblos et l'gypte: Quatre campagnes de fouilles a Gebeil 1921-1922-1923-1924. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 1937 Les Reliques de l'ArtSyriendans l'Egyptedu Nouvel Empire. Publications de la Facult6des Lettresde l'Universit6de Strasbourg,Fascicule76. Paris:Societe d'Edition:LesBelles Lettres. Nagel, G. 1938 La ceramic du Nouvel Empire ' Deir el Medineh, 1. Cairo: Imprimeriede lInstitut FrancaisdArcheologieOrientale. Parr,P.J. 1973 The Originof the CanaaniteJar.Pp. 173-81 in Archaeological Theoryand Practice,editedby D. E. Strong.London:Seminar. Peet, E. T. and Woolley,C. L. 1923 The City of Akhenaten, Part 1. Series: Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 38. London:EgyptExplorationSociety.

In

the

Next

BA

Palestinein theMiddleBronzeAge: TheZenithof the Urban CanaaniteEra by WilliamG.Dever

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

83

Conquert ? or Settleme~4ne~ lt The

Early

By

Volkmar

Iron

Age

in

Palestine

Fritz

aerial view of the site of Ai (et-Tell),which ostscholars that An agree has a modest IronI settlement on the

the Israelites first appearedin Palestine around 1200 B.C.E.,in

the period at the end of the Late BronzeAge and beginning of the Iron Age. There is much disagreement, however,about how they came into possession of the land. In general, three explanations have been advanced, with each at the center of a contemporary"school."The first, whose spokesmen have included William E Albright,G. ErnestWright, JohnBright,and Paul Lapp,is that migrant Israelite tribes acquiredthe land by conquest. The second, developed by such scholars as Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth, and Manfred Weippert,is that nomadic Israelites, in search of new pastures, infiltrated the land, graduallybecoming a sedentary people. And the third, initially advancedby George Mendenhall and subsequently promotedby Norman Gottwald and Cornelis de Geus, is that a social reorganization took place among the people of the Canaanite city-states, including an important group that had escaped from bondage in Egypt, and this caused a decisive transformationof the settlement structures. None of these competing and largely incompatible explanations-

84

only acropolis of a largerLate BronzeIII town. Houses in the peripheryseem to have constituted a ring of defense. Theperiphery houses were built in the three-roomstyle, while the interiorhouses were of the pillarhouse style. Inset: Pillar-typehouses at Ai (et-Tell)of the Iron I period with hewn stone roof-supportpillars on the right and stacked stone pillars on the left. A small storagesilo is cut into the bedrockfloorin the rightcorner. Photographsused courtesyof JosephCallaway.

which may be termed, respectively, the invasion hypothesis, the infiltration hypothesis, and the revolution hypothesis - has gained a consensus, probablybecause each has important weaknesses.The invasionhypothesis, with its naive adoption of the traditional interpretationof the book of Joshua,does not take into account the critical analysis of biblical books since the Enlightenment. The infiltration hypothesis fails to explain the fall of the Canaanite city-states, especially since the collapse of the Late BronzeAge culture presents no precondition for the settlement process. And the revolution hypothesis is forced into a laborious explanation of the conditions conducive to revolt and reorganization,without being able to give sufficient reasons for this development. In addition, none has thus far satisfactorily taken note of recent archaeologicalfindings.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

r

--•

I

jr 1

2

3 - r--r-' 7 ... 3.

i I I

5

"6**

5

"

6

The developmentof the early Israelitehouse out of the broad-roomhouse accordingto examples from Khirbetel-Meshashand Tel Isdar.A simple broad-roomhouse (1)may be expanded by adding rooms on the long side while the entrance and position of the courtyardremainconstant (2).Thehouse is enlarged by the addition of rooms on the long side with the relocation of the entrance on the narrow side of the house (3, 4) and its orientation lengthwise. The conversionof 3 and 4 into the so-called "three-room" (5)and "fourroom"house (6)is carriedout by the addition of a room on the narrowside.

A reconstructionand plan of houses from the early IronAge settlement of KhirbetelMeshash. The houses are in both the broad-roomarrangement,with entrances on the style, with entranceson the short side of long side of the house, and of the "four-room" the house.

In the early Israeliteperiod, a definite architecturaltype, the four-roomhouse, was widely dispersed throughoutthe country and is considered characteristic of this period. This type of house remained in use down to the end of the First Templeperiod (about 1000-586 B.C.E.).Thisphotographshows well-constructed four-roomtype houses of strata I and II in areaA of the IronI site of TelMasos. Photographis used courtesy of VolkmarFritzand Aharon Kempinski.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

85

The

Imported artifacts

help

Mycenaeans

in

Bronze dating destruction. Age In this paper I shall first evaluate what recent archaeological findings can tell us about the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Palestine. This evaluation, which will be done without reference to written material, except for those inscriptions found at the site of excavation, will be done by focusing on three key issues: the end of the Late Bronze Age cities, the layout of early Iron Age settlements, and the material culture of the early Iron Age. Following this I shall then briefly discuss how this fits with other kinds of evidence - specifically, written (biblical and nonbiblical texts) and social science evidence. In a sense, then, we will be choosing which of the competing hypotheses deserves a consensus, but I want to emphasize that my primary concern is not on the theory. Only with an independent and theory-free scrutiny of all the evidence - the archaeological results, biblical and nonbiblical texts, and the ethnic and social composition of the population-can we hope to gain satisfactory insight into how the Israelites came into possession of the land of Canaan.

The Endof the LateBronzeAge Cities It is extremely difficult to determine the exact date of the destruction of the various cities at the close of the Bronze Age. Clearly datable finds, such as those marked with a cartouche of an Egyptian pharaoh, give a terminus post quem (that is, an earliest possible date) but they cannot provide an exact date; a margin of at least two to three decades must always be taken into consideration. Imported Mycenaean ware can also

86

The Late BronzeAge citadel of Mycenaeoverlookingthe plains of the Argolid. The citadel incorporateda "palace"complex at its highest point (right)which could be defended alone, and an uppertown within the fortifications on the lower side of the citadel (left). In addition, the remains of a lower town outside the fortification walls have recently been discovered.Photographis used courtesy of StevenSidebotham.

he Mycenaean civilization developed on mainland Greece in the Late BronzeAge (the sixteenth throughthirteenth centuries B.C.E.). Although derivedfrom the name of the citadel of Mycenae, the term Mycenaean refers to the homogeneous mainland civilization that coveredseveralregions, each dominatedby a single administrativecenter.The centers were often located in cyclopean, "palatial"citadels, typically overlooking coastal plains and therefore within easy access of the sea. Among the best known of these citadels are the acropolises of Athens, Mycenae,Tiryns, and Pylos. Apparently aggressive by nature, the Mycenaeans soon absorbedtheir Minoan neighbors,whose culture dominatedthe island of Crete.The tradeof the Minoan merchants, who had monopolized the south Aegean markets, passed into the hands of the Mycenaeans.Along with their competitors in Cyprus and Ugarit on the Levantinecoast, the Mycenaeansplied the seas of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean,trading textiles, olive oil, luxury goods, and precious metals, as well as copper and tin for the production of bronze.The significance of Mycenaeantradeis indicatedby the abundanceof waresfoundas farawayas south Italy,Sicily,Egypt,and the Levant.Mycenaean merchants also exported perfumes in attractive vessels called stirrup-jars, found in great quantities in the East.These vessels have provedan invaluable aid in relating and dating stratigraphiclevels of the Levant. Although written in signs that representdifferentsyllables ratherthan in the Phoenician alphabet, the Mycenaean language, known to us from the LinearB tablets, is linguistically nothing more than an early form of Greek. The script, however, is related to Minoan Linear A, a non-Indo-European, possibly Semitic, tongue. The MycenaeanLinearB tablets discoveredthus far tell us little of the history of the LateBronzeAge in Greece. Insteadthey are, for the most part, inventories and receipts for goods broughtinto the palaces to be redistributedinto the countryside. To date, nothing like the Ugaritic or Eblaite librarieshas been found. Anthropologically, the Mycenaeans were quite distinct from their Minoan neighborsas well as from their classical Greek successors. Evidence from the shaft gravesat Mycenaerevealsthat severalof the Mycenaeansstood a towering six or more feet tall. This is in contrast to the short-statured Minoans, whose skeletons indicate that they stood a mere five to five-and-ahalf feet tall at most. It has been suggested that the Philistines are somehow related to the Mycenaeans, that possibly they were refugees from the collapse of Aegean civilization who formed the multinational horde known collectively as the Sea Peoples. It was these groups who threatened Egypt at least twice and afterwardsettled in lower Palestine. Certainly some of the customs of these

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

Examples of MycenaeanIII ware from tomb 387 at TelDan. The krater(center) typifies the Mycenaeanstyle of decoration with its horizontal bands and frieze on the upperbelly of the vessel. The pilgrim'sflask (foregroundlower right)and assorted pyxides are also characteristicMycenaeanforms. Photographis used courtesy of the Israel Museum.

Philistines remind one of Aegean customs. Forinstance, the story of David and Goliath andbattle by"championship"(see 1 Samuel 17)remindsone of the Homerian battle scene between Achilles and Hector (Hindson 1971). The placing of a gold disk overthe mouth of the deceasedis an Aegeancustom that was practicedby the Philistines as well. Philistine pottery closely resembles Late Mycenaeanin shape and decoration.Indeed,as depicted in the reliefs of Medinet Habu, the Philistine physiognomy is non-Semitic. If not actually Mycenaean Greek, then certainly they had significant contact with Aegean civilization. The Mycenaeancivilization came to an end sometime around 1180B.C.E., at which time Greece and the Near East lapsed into a Dark Age. There have been many explanations for this collapse, from climatic change to invasion. Greece was not the only land that suffered severe disturbances.The entire easternMediterranean,including the Hittite empire in Anatolia, the Canaanite city-states, and the Egyptianempire, were all threatened by invaders,yet Egyptalone survived, if only barely.It was this realignment of power in the Near East that may have given a young Israelite nation the opportunity to mature. For further information, see J. Chadwick, The Mycenaean World (London:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1976.);Emily T. Vermeule, Greece in the BronzeAge (Chicago:Phaidon, 1974);William H. Stiebing,"TheEndof the Mycenaean Age,"Biblical Archeologist (pages 7-21, volume 43, number 1, 1981); Edward E. Hindson, The Philistines in the Old Testament (Grand

Rapids:BakerBookHouse, 1971);Nancy K. Sandars,The Sea Peoples (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978). JohnS. Jorgensen

A cartoucheof Merneptah(1224-1204 or 1213-1203 B.c.E.)on a sword from Ugarit. Merneptah,the last of the strongpharaohsof the Nineteenth Dynasty, expelled the Libyans from the western Delta region that, during the reigns of earlierpharaohs,had been allowed to fall into foreignhands. This sword gives the terminuspost quem (the earliest possible date) of material from the stratum in which it was found. Photographis used courtesy of Claude Schaeffer.

be consulted, which in turn can be given a date by referring to Egyptian chronology; yet, here again, one must give or take a few decades. Because the Egyptian chronology of the New Kingdom has been adjusted as a result of research done by Eric Hornung (1964), the dates used until recently can only be accepted subject to critical examination. The following is based on the reigns of the pharaohs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties as shown in the accompanying sidebar. The few destruction layers of Canaanite cities with datable finds can then be classified accordingly. Hazor. In Hazor, the destruction of the last Late Bronze Age city, stratum XIII, was fixed at 1230 B.C.E. by

Yigael Yadin (1972) on the basis of

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

87

Palestine

Egypt Nineteenth Dynasty Ramesses I 1306-1304 or 1295-1293 B.C.E. Sethos (Seti)I 1304-1290 or 1293-1279 B.C.E. 1290-1224 or 1279-1213 B.C.E. Ramesses II 1224-1204 or 1213-1203 B.C.E. Merneptah Sethos (Seti)II 1204-1194 or 1203-1196 B.C.E. 1194-1188 or 1196-1190 B.C.E. Siptah Tewosret 1188-1186 or 1190-1188 B.C.E. 7tventieth Dynasty Sethnakhte 1186-1184 B.C.E. Ramesses III 1184-1153 B.C.E. Ramesses IV 1153-1146 B.C.E. V 1146-1142 B.C.E. Ramesses 1142-1135 B.C.E. Ramesses VI 1135-1129 B.C.E. Ramesses VII Ramesses VIII 1129-1127 B.C.E. IX Ramesses 1127-1109 B.C.E. Ramesses X 1109-1099 B.C.E. Ramesses XI 1099-1070 B.C.E.

Aegean

Late Bronze Age IIB Mycenaean IIIB

Early Iron Age

Mycenaean IIIC

Note: It is not yet possible to choose between two sets of alternative dates for the Nineteenth dynasty, and the dates used until now for the Twentieth Dynasty will undoubtedlyhave to be lowered.The famous battle led by Ramesses IIIagainstthe Sea Peoples, in the eighth year of his reign, which is depicted in reliefs at Medinet Habu, must thereforebe datedback to 1177B.C.E.

imported Mycenaeanware belonging to the MycenaeanIIIBperiod. This date had been taken over from A. Furumark(1941),who equated the end of the reign of Ramesses II

with a cartouche of Queen Tewosret together with pottery typical of the end of the LateBronze Age confirms that pottery of this type was still in use at that time. Consequently,Hazor in 1234 B.C.E.with the end of the stratumXIIImust havebeen destroyed at the end of the thirteenth or the wares. This equation, MycenaeanIIIB is In in inaccurate. however, beginning of the twelfth century. Ugarit the last Late Bronze Age layer a Ashdod. The same date may be assumed for the end of the Late Bronze swordwas found that carriedthe cartouche of Merneptah,whose reign Age cities elsewhere, where Mycenaean IIIBpottery has been found. lasted until 1204 or 1203 B.C.E.; Mycenaean IIIBware has been found These wares are still present in stratum XIVin Ashdod. In stratum XIII, in abundancein this layer.The use of MycenaeanIIIBware is therefore pottery belonging to Mycenaean IIIC:1is alreadypresent; the transiprovenuntil about 1200. V. R. dA. Desborough (1964)had alreadyfixed tion from stratum XIVto stratum the date of transitionfrom Mycenaean XIIIin Ashdod can thereforebe fixed at around 1200 B.C.E. or slightly later. IIIBto Mycenaean IIICat around 1200 using finds from the Aegean to A more exact classificationof stratum substantiate this date. P.Astrim XIIIas Canaanite or Philistine is not yet possible. (1972)suggested an even lower date of around 1190 B.C.E.,and this has Megiddo.In Megiddo,stratum VIIA been accepted by most scholars. The represents the last unmistakable Cadiscovery at Tell Deir cAlla of a vase naanite city. In its layout it resem-

88

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

A vase carryingthe cartouche of Queen Tewosretfrom TellDeir cAlla provesthe town's existence around 1190 B.C.E.Based on

a drawing from H. J.Franken'sarticle "Excavations at Deir cAlla in Jordan," VetusTestamentum 11 (1961).

bles stratum VIIB,which, according to the presence of imported Mycenaean IIIBware,was destroyedaround 1200. In addition to objects marked with the cartouche of Ramesses III, fragments of Philistine ceramic were also found in stratum VIIA.Furthermore, a bronze pedestal carryingthe name of Ramesses VI was found hidden under a wall of stratum VIIB,but it probablybelongs to stratum VIIA. The Canaanite city can therefore hardly have been destroyedbefore 1135 B.C.E.The following stratum,

VIB,differs considerably from the preceding one. The largelong-room temple was not rebuilt; instead houses were erected on the site. The settlement was not fortified, and consequently there was no city-gate. Nevertheless, one cannot simply assume that this site was an Israelite settlement, as YohananAharoni (1971)has done. The four-roomhouse with its many variations, so typical

City-wall

Hazor

W

M

since these still appearin stratum X12. A foundation-stonebearingthe name of Ramesses II most probably belongs to stratum X13, although it was not found in situ. The destruction of this layer thereforeprobably took place around 1220 B.C.E. Further settlement following Canaanite tradition carriedon through strata X12 to X10 into the second half of the twelfth century; the scarabof Ramesses IV gives a terminus post quem, his reign lasting from 1153to

IO

Plan and reconstructionof Canaanite courtyardhouses in Megiddo.Drawings from the

OrientalInstitute,Universityof Chicago.

I

1146 B.C.E.

Shechem

cOURT

O

O

-?a o 0

0

o

0

5

o

lOm

Shechem for the new Israelite settlements, is missing from strataVI and V in Megiddo,although the use of pillars is evident. Even a palace of Late Bronze Age characterwas found in stratum VIA. StrataVIBand VIA can be regardedas "descendants"of the Canaanite city, because the transition to the Israelite settlement did not take place before stratum VB at the end of the eleventh century. It is not until strataVAand IVBthat one can definitely identify an Israelite presence, dating back to the first half of the tenth century. Megiddowas therefore most probablyinhabited by descendants of the Canaanites, at least until the beginning of the monarchy in Israel- although the exact date of the takeoverby the Israelites must remain vaguely fixed at around

1000B.C.E.

Aphek. In Aphek the acropolis of stratum X13 was destroyedbefore the end of Mycenaean IIIBwares,

Megiddo 0rz-

. .

TLIII

TH - ST -O-5 04

.

I- I

0I

1_

I

II

20~

Long-roomtemples in Palestine from the Late BronzeAge. Temple1 from Hazor stratum XIIIis in a simple long-roomplan with a raised bema (platform)at the rear where the statue of the deity must have stood. Temple2 from Shechem, with its central long room, shows frontporch, and rear "storeroom," elaboration of the simple long-roomplan. Temple3 from Shechem with its hypostyle long room has a tower to each side of the front entryway Temple4 from Megiddo follows closely the pattern of temple 3 from Shechem, though without the hypostyle hall. Thereis evidence for a stairway ascending one of the two towers.

Gezer. The Canaanite city in Gezer stratum XIVwas probablydestroyed under Merneptaharound 1210.This assertion is not only substantiated by the Merneptahstele, on which the conquest of Gezer is expressly mentioned, but also by the fact that the name of this pharaohappearson two cartouches on an ivory chain found at the site. With respect to strata XIIIto IX, and until stratum VII,which marks the takeoverof the town by Solomon around950 (see 1 Kings 9:15-17), William G. Dever (1976)regardsstrataXII-XIas Philistine, although the proportionof Philistine pottery is relatively small and the majority of the vessels represent a continuationof the LateBronze Age tradition. Until the final publication of the finds, a decision can only be made with reservations. Gezer, however,appearsstill to have been inhabited by Canaanites in the twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C.E. The fact that Ramesses III,Ramesses IV,RamessesVIII,and Ramesses IX of the Twentieth Dynasty are mentioned in excavated inscriptions from Gezer is very conspicuous. Although a direct placement of these inscriptions in the various strata is not possible, since they originate from R. A. S. Macalister's excavations (1912), they do prove certain ties with Egypt during the whole of the twelfth century. That Gezer did not become an Israelite city before the middle of the tenth century is indisputable. Lachish. In Lachish a cartouche of

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

89

The '

•].'

.'-.

: ,

'"

.

--':-X-"

Bronze

Late

of

destruction

? ""

attributable one

isn't

cities

various

to

event.

-.':..

? ""-':'7.'' V'-

I'

• 0

•

CRETE .''"?ft..

.... .?:: ..

::"...

:::,

:'.-

Me iteran an

t

Ramesses IIIprovidesproof of the existence of stratum VI into the middle of the twelfth century. The site remained uninhabited until the city's construction in stratum V during the tenth century. Tell eshSharicahpresents a similar history; in the last Canaanite city of stratum IX, in addition to a cartouche of Ramesses II, inscriptions were found on vessels giving the latest date as the "Year20 + x,"evidence which also points to Ramesses III.Stratum IX thereforedid not end until the middle of the twelfth century. Resettlement occurredat the end of the eleventh century in stratum VII; stratum VIII,which lies between these strata, is representedby pits of various sizes. Such data lead to the supposition that nomads were occasionally present. Beth-shean and Tell el-Farcah.Two sites, Beth-sheanand Tell el-Farcah (South),may not be considered in this connection, although various monuments carryingthe names of the pharaohsof the Eighteenth and

90

Nineteenth Dynasties have been found there. Because of the lack of stratigraphicalcontrol, no exact sequences and dates of the various [• ea levels can be determined. All that has been established for both cities is that they survived the transition from the LateBronzeAge to the early Iron Age; the city on Tell el-Farcah was even fortified by a wall and a city-gate.An Egyptiangarrisonwas stationed in Beth-sheanfrom the reign of Tuthmosis III(1490-1436 or 1479-1425) onwards.The presence of Egyptiantroops may be assumed at least until and during the reign of Ramesses III,as seen in the inscription of Ramesses-Weser-Chepesch. The existence of Beth-sheanas a Canaanite city is apparentuntil the end of the eleventh century. Conclusions. The few locations with datablefinds present a complex picture of the end of the Late Bronze Age. The decline of the Canaanite cities was not a sudden occurrence but a process stretching over a long Cartoucheof Ramesses III from Lachish period of time that lasted at least the 50 years from 1200 to 1150 B.C.E. providesproofof the existence of stratum VI into the middle of the TWelfthDynasty. This decline appearsto have paralRamesses is considered the last of the fighting pharaohs. His repulsingof the Sea Peoples leled the gradualdecline of Egyptian and campaigns into both Libyaand Palestine hegemony, established during the restoredEgyptianhegemony in those regions. Eighteenth Dynasty, under the reign Among the captives broughtback from his of the Ramessides after Ramesses III. march throughPalestine and Syriawas the chief of the Philistines. "Theforeignlands and countries are strippedand broughtinto Egyptas slaves... the countries which came from the Islands in the midst of the Sea advanced on Egypt. .. the net was made

ready for them to ensnare them"(FromThe VictoryHymn of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu).After his reign, Palestine slipped once again out of Egyptiancontrol. Cartoucheis approximately15 centimeters long. Drawing from Ussishkin (1983).

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

The destruction of urban centers as they had existed since the Middle Bronze Age IIA in Canaan, therefore, cannot be traced back to a single historical event; the destruction must be regarded as the result of various conquests, the instigators of which cannot usually be determined. The only case in which one can be reasonably sure of the conqueror

is Gezer, where, with all probability, stratum XIVwas destroyedby the Egyptianpharaoh.In all other cases, the aggressorscannot be identified. Yet at least several acts of destruction may be attributed to punitive expeditions of the Egyptiansand to raids carriedout by the Sea Peoples, who are constantly mentioned in Egyptiansources from the time of Merneptahonward.Significantly, in connection with the final victory of Ramesses IIIover the Sea Peoples in the eighth year of his reign (1177), there is no evidence of a wave of destruction directed against the Canaanite cities by these groups. The settlement of the Philistines on the coastal plain and their engagement in the history of the country appearsnot to have begun before the second quarterof the twelfth century

Sea

f Gaile

B.C.E.

It is, of course, possible that the war raids of the individual towns against each other contributed to a mutual destruction. The "Habiru,"a groupknown as a general threat especially from the Amarna letters (as the diplomatic archive discovered at El-Amarnaon the middle Nile is commonly designated),may have contributed to the disappearanceof the city-states. Whateverthe cause, the decline of the cities was an extended process, which led to a certain hiatus around 1200. A further break in occupation appearsto have occurredafter the reign of Ramesses IIIin the second half of the twelfth century, when Egyptianrule rapidly declined. But it is impossible to trace back this marked change to a single historical event. Settlement history after the destruction of the Canaanite cities is even more complex. According to present knowledge, four different cases can be determined: sites, such as Lachish, where settlement was interrupted until the foundation of a new city in the early part of the Israelite monarchy during the tenth century; sites, such as Hazor, where settlement was interrupted except

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

91

A scarab of Seti I (Nineteenth Dynasty) from TelMasos. Seti I'sreign was marked by successful campaigns and the recoveryof the Asian empire, bringingall of southern Palestine and much of northernPalestine including the JezreelPlain under Egyptian control. The scarab depicts the pharaohin the "smiting"pose ready to strike an Asiatic captive. The "smiting"pose was a common, propagandisticway of depicting the pharaoh, especially at times of military action. Photographis used courtesy of VolkmarFritz and Aharon Kempinski.

for occasional settling of a modest nature by groups like the Israelite tribes; sites, such as Megiddo,Aphek, and Gezer, where settlement was continuous (the inhabitants of such settlements cannot be definitely identified through the material culture, and, because the possibility of a certain continuity in the population cannot be disregarded,the inhabitants could have been the surviving Canaanites);and sites, such as Ashdod, where settlement was continuous, including the Philistine takeoverof the city later in the twelfth century. It appearscertain that Canaanite culture survived in some areas after the destructionof the cities. Although the power and organizationalstructures, as such, of the city-states were broken, a certain continuity of Canaanite tradition is displayedin the rebuilding of severalcities. EarlyIron Age Settlement The establishment of new settlements in the early Iron Age took

92

A bronzestatuette of a seated god or ruler A tablet of the goddess Astarte and daughter in a temple in the Egyptianstyle from the Iron I period, around 1100 B.C.E.Photograph is

used courtesy of PictorialArchive.

place mainly in areas removedfrom the sites of the Canaanite cities in Galilee, in the central mountains and in the Negeb. Aharoni (1970) was able to provethe settlement of Galilee outside the old urban centers in the early Iron Age. The same facts

from the Late Bronze Age, around 1400 B.C.E.

The style of dress and the position of the seated figureshow Egyptianinfluence. Photographis used courtesyof Pictorial Archive.

tion is the settlement on KhirbetelMeshash, which covered6 to 8 acres. Hazor.The early IronAge strataXII and XI at Hazor do not represent a continuation of the Canaanite city. Yadin(1970)called stratum XIIseminomadic; only modest remains in the form of walls, ovens, and storage pits are found there. The remains of a building were discoveredin stratum The Iron XI;the building was constructed witnessed with a row of stone pillars typical for this period, but its complete plan new settlement could not be reconstructed.A cultic interpretationof it is highly quespatterns. tionable in spite of the hoard of bronze objects discoveredthere, also can be obtained from surveysin which included a figurine of a standthe area of the central hill country. ing god. The settlements in both The Negeb was entirely uninhabited strata lasted for a short period of time during the twelfth and eleventh during the Late BronzeAge. The establishment of new settlements in centuries. the plains, however,cannot be ruled Tell Qiri. It is not possible to ascertain out completely; occasionally a dewhether Tell Qiri, between Megiddo serted city also was reinhabited.All and Jokneamon the borderof the those settlements that have been Jezreelplain, was inhabited during examined to date are relatively small the Late Bronze Age, since remains and measure about 2 acres.An excep- of this era may have been cleared

early

Age

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

when the early Iron Age settlement was established. This is, in any case, a new city that was founded in the twelfth century. The town was never fortified, although it lasted into the second half of the eighth century; further stratigraphicaland architectural details are lacking. Ai. In Ai a modest early Iron Age settlement is situated where the acropolis of the EarlyBronzeAge once stood. The houses that have been exposed on the periphery appear to have constituted a ring of defense. They are built accordingto the type of the three-roomhouse but their construction is extremely irregular.Inside the village the living quarterswere much more uniform and carefully built with monolithic stone pillars. These houses were constructed accordingto the model of the pillar house, in which rooms were built only on both long sides of the courtyard;the room at the short side, so typical for the four-room house, is missing. JosephCallaway (1970)distinguishes between two settlement layers in the time from 1200to 1050 B.C.E. KhirbetRaddana.The village at Khirbet Raddanawas established in the mountains on previously unsettled land, approximately6 kilometers east of Ai. The carefully built dwellings with monolithic stone pillars were constructed as three-room houses. The city was founded around 1200 and was abandonedalreadyby the middle of the eleventh century; two phases have been distinguished, with a break appearingaroundthe year 1125.Aharoni's(1971)assumption that the city dates back to the thirteenth century,which is based on three charactersin proto-Canaanite writing foundon a handle,is unfounded as far as the pottery is concerned. The early Iron Age houses exposed during the excavations in Bethel also had pillars, but a complete groundplan could not be established because of the restricted excavation area. Shiloh and the Settlement Near Bet Gala. A further early Iron Age settle-

The Raddana bowl is unique to the IronI period. The remains of nine handles arepreserved evenly spaced around the bowl- a total of twenty is possible- and two zoomorphicspouts (bulls'heads). Photographand drawing are used courtesy of JosephCallaway.

ment in the central hill country was excavatedat Shiloh (KhirbetSeilun), the destruction of which is believed to have occurredaround 1050;the foundation may go back into the twelfth century. Another early Iron Age settlement is found approximately 2 kilometers north of Bet Gala. It, however,comprised only a few buildings that lay within a vast circular wall. This wall was built to keep in the animals ratherthan to protect the inhabitants. Amihai Mazar (1981)defined the place as a "fortifiedherdsmen'svillage,"although

the definition "groupof farmsteads" would be more appropriate.The pottery shows that the settlement existed during the transition from the Late BronzeAge to the early Iron Age (around 1200 B.C.E.)and that the

farmsteadswere deserted after a brief term of occupation. Jericho.At Tell es-Sultan, ancient Jericho,the early IronAge settlement was not recognized during the German excavations.Helga and ManfredWeippertfirst identified the settlement on the basis of the published pottery (H.Weippertand M.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

93

Weippert1976).Resettlement of the tell, which had been deserted since the fourteenthcentury,could possibly have begun alreadyin the twelfth century; it certainly took place during the eleventh century. This settlement existed for only a short period of time. In Iron Age II the tell remained uninhabited until the eighth century B.C.E.

Izbet Sarta.The settlement in Izbet Sarta,approximately2 kilometers east of Aphek, has a total of three settlement layers.The oldest, stratum III,consists of a row of moderately small houses and dates to the twelfth century. Numerous silos, with inner walls made of stone, were constructed in the vicinity of the houses. An exceptionally large four-roomhouse, measuring 17by 11meters, was found in the center of the settlement in stratum II. After the settlement had been abandonedin the middle of the eleventh century, it was inhabited once again in stratum I until the end of the eleventh or beginning of the tenth century.

TellQasileh.TellQasileh,on the

other hand, is indisputably a Philistine settlement. Three early Iron Age layers have been discovered: Stratum XIIdates to the second half of the twelfth century, and strata XI and X date to the eleventh century. With the exception of the temple, the architectureexhibits no continuity. The temple developedfrom a small squarebuilding to a rectangular construction with two rooms. The houses in stratum X show the use of pillars and the style of the three- and four-room house as well as the pillar house. The settlement was fortified and can be identified as Philistine from the pottery. es-Sebac. At Tell es-Sebac in the Tell Negeb, three early Iron Age layers can be distinguished that date to the period from 1200 to 1000 B.C.E.Stratum IX consists of pits on the northern slope of the natural hill under the tell. These pits were covered in some way as protection against sun and rain. The building of solid houses

94

An isometric reconstructionof the cultic area of Tell Qasile. This temple appearsto be a restorationof an earlierstratum XI temple reusing three of the four stone walls. The east wall was replaced by a new anteroom.Into the floor were set two cylindrically cut pillar-bases. The wide court of the earlierstrata was divided into walled northeast and northwest sections. In the northwest courtyardwas a small room adjoining the north wall of the temple, southwest of which a shrine of an earlier stratum was still in use. Drawing courtesy of Amihai Mazar.

begins in stratum VIII,where the four-roomhouse with its standard elements can be distinguished. Ze'ev Herzog (1984)reconstructed stratum VIIas a circle of four-roomhouses that was accessible through a type of gateway.The space in the middle of the circle remained clear. Because this reconstruction is based on the poor remains of only five houses, it is extremely hypothetical, even though the placement of the houses in Ai was also recognized as circular. Additional houses stood outside the circle of defense. In any case, it must

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

not simply be assumed that all early IronAge villages were not fortified. Tel Isdar.A certain ordercan be seen in the settlement on Tel Isdar,approximately 18 kilometers east of Beer-sheba,which dates to the eleventh century. Here, the detached broad-roomhouses stood in a circle without presenting a closed ring of defense. Khirbetel-Meshash. The largest settlement from this period discovered to date is on Khirbetel-Meshash in the Negeb. Five settlement phases beginning with the twelfth century

The stratum XII temple at the site of Tel Qasile dating to the Iron IA period. The brick walls shown here belong to stratum XII, which lies under the stone walls of strata XI and X. The pillar bases belong to stratum X. The temple consisted of a single room with plastered benches along the walls and a beaten lime floor.A raised platform of plastered brick that originally may have contained steps is located at the west end of the room (rightrear).The back area may have served as a storeroomas in the later temples of strata XI and X. In the courtyardeast (left)of the temple were found burnlayers, suggesting that organicmaterial had been gathered togetherand burned.The ashes contained sherds, animal bones, a scarab, and an ivory knife handle. Photographused courtesy of Amihai Mazar.

can be distinguished in this village. Only ditches, ovens, and a few wall remains were found in stratum IIIB; this points to sporadicsettling of seminomadic peoples. The construction of solid houses begins in stratum IIIA,where the three-roomhouse is alreadyin use. In stratum II, where two phases can be distinguished, the settlement presents an unusually informative picture. The four-roomhouse with variations is dominant, but the employment of other constructions, which shows a certain distinction in social and ethnic respects, is also apparent;however,it is not possible to drawexact conclusions about the inhabitants from the architecture.In addition to the broad-roomhouse with stone pillars and the Canaanite courtyardhouse, an Egyptiandwelling has also been identified. The dwelling is of the same type found at Tell el-Amarnaand at the twelfthcentury-Palestinesites of Tell el-

Farcah(South)and Beth-shean.In addition to tillage, there is evidence of metalwork within the finds. Two so-called flowerpots do not prove Egyptianpresence in the settlement. The same can be said for the scarab dating from the Nineteenth Dynasty found on the surface of the site. Philistine pottery,"bichrome style"jugs, and fragments of bowls of so-called Midianite ware point to the wide-rangingconnections of Khirbet el-Meshash, reaching as far as the Phoenician coastal cities and into northwest Arabia.Indications of fortification are not found, although a certain amount of protection was gained from the circular arrangement of the houses on the periphery of the settlement. Twobuildings, accordingto their size and the thickness of the walls, apparentlyserved a defensive purpose. Stratum I is badly preservedbecause of severe erosion, but the occasional four-roomhouse and a small fortress have been iden-

Above:An Egyptianprivatehome from Tell el-Amarnaconsisting of three "strips"one behind the other-entryway, living quarters, and sleeping quarters.This type of house appearsin Palestine in the early IronAge in villages under Egyptiandomination and has also been found at Tellel-Farcah(South)and Beth-shean.No evidence has been found to justify the assumption of the presence of any Egyptianofficial at these sites, however, though this type of house does suggest Egyptianinfluence. Below: An Amarna-type house at Khirbetel-Meshashwith its almost square layout and arrangementof rooms in three "strips."

tified. The settlement was abandoned for unknown reasons. It is not possible to ascertain the dates of the beginning and end of the settlement. Stratum IIIBmay date back as far as the beginning of the twelfth century, and stratum I may

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

95

have persisted until the beginning of the tenth century. It is equally impossible to say when the transition from stratum IIIato stratum II took place, but it may have been as early as the end of the twelfth century. Conclusions. The early Iron Age settlements provideno uniform overall picture of settlement history in the country. The settlements vary greatly in size, rangingfrom those with only a few houses (BetGala, TelIsdar) to a largevillage with 1,000 to 1,500 inhabitants (Khirbetel-Meshash). Not all of them existed during the entire epoch. Severalwere abandoned after a brief period of settlement (Hazorstrata XIIand XI, Bet Gala, Tel Isdar).Most were founded at the beginning of the twelfth century (Ai, KhirbetRaddana,Izbet Sarta,Tell esSebac,Khirbetel-Meshash).They were abandonedin the middle or towardsthe end of the eleventh century, but several survived until the end of the IronAge IIB(TellQiri). Only in very few cases were the villages transformedinto walled cities in the early part of the monarchy (Telles-Sebac).Hence, it cannot be said that settlement history was continuous from the early IronAge to IronAge II. Most settlements were not fortified, but in some cases the circularlayout of the houses affordeda certain measure of protection. The ethnic identification of inhabitants is not possible at the sites, except for Tell Qasileh, where Philistine pottery was found. The architectureof the settlements, however,shows great conformity in method and style. The predominant broad-room,three-room and four-roomhouses cannot be tracedback to their origins, although they are undoubtedly an entirely new type of house that can hardlybe regardedas having developed from the Canaanite courtyardhouses of the Middle and Late BronzeAges. The newly founded settlements at these sites clearly differfrom those that were built on top of the Canaanite cities. The majority of the latter

96

.P- -a IOII-. 1?--

&,-"%.-

Painted bowl of unknown proveniencein the Philistine style with spiral decorations from the Iron I period. It dates to around 1100B.C.E.Photographis used courtesy of PictorialArchive.

were likewise unfortified, but the dwellings demonstrate a continuation of Canaanite building tradition. The majority of the early Iron Age settlements thus differin appearancefrom the Canaanite cities and their descendants in the early Iron Age The establishment of villages outside the former city-states therefore cannot have been carried out by the former inhabitants of those cities (as the revolution hypothesis would have it). The structure of these settlements seems ratherto indicate a groupof people who were not related to the Canaanites and who must be identified on the basis of their material culture. The Material Culture of the Early Iron Age No comprehensive examination of the various remains that takes local characteristics and regional differences into consideration has yet been carriedout. The classification of individual types of artifacts is therefore unavoidablyrestrictedto basic observations.With regardsto

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

pottery remains, the kraterwith more than four handles indicates the emergence of a new style; the goblets made in the south were designed with a concave profile and a stepped base. The cooking pots were given handles; the overlappingrims were often very strongly emphasized; the

In

the

Age,

early the

culture and

Iron

material mixes

old

new.

opening was made smaller by forming a rim that bent inwards.The biconical jug slowly disappearedand was replacedby the one-handled cooking jug. The pithos possessing the so-called collared rim-warewith elongated body, thickened rim, and two handles can also be tracedback to types of the Late Bronze Age. A

An ostracon from Izbet Sartain the protoCanaanite alphabet. The old Hebrew alphabet may have developedout of this without the mediation of the Phoenician alphabet. Theproto-Canaanitealphabet, which consists of twenty-two characters,became the script and took writing out of the "popular" monopolized realm of the priestly or scribal class and put it into daily use as evidenced by the presence of ostraca rather than just official documents. Development of the Canaanite alphabet occurredsomewhere between 1500 and 1200 B.C.E. Drawing from

Kochavi(1977).

new technique of polishing the surfaces of the vessels before firing becomes apparentin the eleventh century. With regardsto metallic remains, Ora Negbi (1974)has shown-on the basis of finds in Megiddo stratum VI, objects from tomb 1010at Tell esSacidiyeh, and objects in tomb 90 in Beth-shean-that metal-craftingfollowed Canaanite tradition in the early Iron Age. Because Canaanite occupation can be assumed in all three sites, the continuity in metal work is not surprising.Isolated finds from newly founded villages Ilso provethis continuity. In Megiddo stratum VI, Hazor stratum XI, Ai stratum III,and Khirbetel-Meshash stratum III,specimens of the socalled lugged axe were found. This form was common throughout the Near East during the Late Bronze Age and was maintained well into the eleventh century. Daggers and knives also show a continuation of common shapes and techniques. The preservationof Late BronzeAge traditions is also seen in the use of clothing pins. It was not until the end of the early IronAge that the pin was replacedby the fibula, which originated from the Aegean. As has been provenby the ostracon from Izbet Sarta,the protoCanaanite alphabetwas in use in the early Iron Age settlements, even though further text finds are ex-

tremely rare.The old Hebrew alphabet may have developedwithout Phoenician mediation directly from proto-Canaanite.The material culture of the early IronAge therefore represents a further development of Late Bronze Age culture in all areas except architecture. The Problem of the Occupation of the Land The objects of the early IronAge indicate complete dependence on the culture of the Late BronzeAge. Because the early IronAge settlement cannot be regardedas an offshoot of the formerCanaanite cities,

Archaeological evidence

support or

does

not

conquest

revolution.

this continuity is best explained by intensive, prolonged contact with the Canaanite culture. This contact must have already occurredin the Late Bronze Age before the beginnings of sedentary life, because cultural development during the early Iron Age in the newly foundedvillages parallels that in the settle-

ments that succeeded former citystates. The results of archaeological researchindicate that early IronAge culture was highly dependent upon Late BronzeAge culture and they preclude conquest of the country by new immigrants. Only in the construction of dwellings do the new settlements show a certain degree of independence, an observation that strengthens the assumption that the architecturedeveloped independently, especially since the broad-room and four-roomhouse apparentlywere not adaptedfrom other cultures. These types of houses may have developed from tent constructions, although what type of tent was used in the second millennium is not known. Given these considerations, it is not possible to believe that the population in the early IronAge settlements derivedfrom certain groups from the cities. Their inhabitants, the Canaanites, definitely continued to live in the country after the destruction of their cities between 1200 and 1150, as the continuation of settlement history in Megiddo, Gezer, Beth-shean,and other places demonstrates. Variouscities in the coastal plain were taken overby Philistines after 1177, and thus the question of whether these settlements were established voluntarily or under pressurefrom the Egyptians remains a puzzle.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

97

The only people known who could have founded the settlements outside the former Canaanite citystates and who differ from the Canaanites and the Philistines are the Israelite tribes. They did not take over the cities but settled on "empty" territory.Their origins cannot be reconstructedon the basis of the material culture; anthropological researchmay someday solve this puzzle. The cultural dependence of the Israelite tribes on the Canaanites can be explained only by the supposition that close relations existed between them before the twelfth century. This type of symbiosis is characteristic of the socalled culture-landnomads, who inhabited the plains surroundingthe cultivated lands and who stayed there for lengthy periods in their search for pastures, at the same time developing close contacts with the towns. This form of nomadism differs radically from that of the bedouin in the desert and entails a partly sedentary life, out of which there develops an economic, and probablya political, symbiosis and adoption of cultural goods. The culture-landnomads are known from all ages, especially in Mesopotamia, and the Mari texts provideplenty of documentary evidence of their existence in the second millennium. (Inthe Amarna letters there is also mention of the Sutu-nomadsin the vicinity of the towns.) This type of nomadism, called "enclosednomadism"by Michael B. Rowton (1974),is difficult to reconstruct for the later Israelite tribes. The most probable suggestion put forward by Rowton is that the individual tribes alternated between nomadism and sedentary life (socalled integrated tribes); however, they might have been seminomadic people with a fixed routine of sedentary and nomadic periods according to season. The exact situation is impossible to reconstruct. With the gradual decline of the Canaanite city-states after the year

98

1200 and their complete collapse after 1150,the basis for the prevailing symbiosis no longer remained;a gradualoccupation of settlement areas and the abandonment of a nomadic lifestyle probablyresulted from this development after 1200. The final abandonment of nomadic life occurredon the peripheryof former Canaanite settlements, as the Canaanite survivors and the new population groups of the Philistines, who filled the gap left by the Egyptians and assumed power from 1150 onwards,laid further claims to the former territories of the city-states. The Israelite tribes were therefore

tion of the land by the Israelite tribes probablyoccurredin a way similar to the so-called infiltration hypothesis -which must, however,be modified. The various groupsthat settled in the country from the twelfth century onwardscannot merely be regardedas former nomads. Periodsof a partially sedentary life must have interspersedtheir nomadic existence; otherwise the wide-rangingadoption of Canaanite culture during the last phase of the Late Bronze Age cannot be explained. Therefore,I would like to call the new theory the symbiosis hypothesis. Details may not be obtainedfrom

Decorated bottle with red wash (left)and stirrup-jugin Philistine style (right)dating to the Iron I period around 1100B.C.E.Philistine ware is an eclectic style of Mycenaeanand local Canaanite patterns. Photographis used courtesy of PictorialArchive.

left with only the occupation of the borderlands,but here and there, where the Late BronzeAge cities had been entirely abandoned,new settlements were established on the ruins. The occupation of territories by the Israelite tribes can be regarded as the end of nomadic life and a change to permanent settlement.

biblical sources. The book of Joshua is of no historical value as far as the process of settlement is concerned. The stories in Joshua 1-11 are etiological sagas, composed during the time of the monarchy and intended to provethe conquest of the entire land by all of the tribes under the leadership of Joshua.The lists in Joshua 12-24 originate from the The Historical Course of Events same period and are meant to supOurexaminationof the archaeological port the fiction that the various material has shown that the occupa- tribes shared the land.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

The symbiosis hypothesis of the occupation of the land presented here, however,can be supportedby three texts whose historical accuracy withstands critical examination: the Merneptahstele, the Songof Deborah in Judges5, and the so-called list of unconquered cities in Judges 1. The Merneptahstele. The Merneptah stele, which dates fromthe last decade of the thirteenth century B.C.E., carries the oldest known written mention of Israel and provides indisputable definition of Israel as a people. The mention occurs between and the naming of Kncn ("Canaan") the former the area Hr, describing governedby Gaza and the latter the northern part of Palestine. Furthermore, there is mention of three cities -Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenocamand their overthrow.A campaign against these cities by Merneptah has been disputed, but even if such a campaign did not take place, the stele is important because it is an independent witness and was not adaptedfrom existing texts. The victory song provesthe presence of a group of people known as Israel in Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age. No mention is made, however, of their exact whereabouts or their way of life. The Song of Deborah. The Song of Deborah in Judges5 tells of a victory of the Naphtali and Zebulun tribes over the Canaanites, in the southern part of the Jezreelplain. This victory was apparentlyregardedas out of the ordinary.The remaining tribes were invited to the victory celebration, and all those who appeared are named; those who did not attend are expressly rebuked. Ten tribes are named in all: Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir, Zebulun, Issachar, Reuben, Gilead, Dan, Asher, and Naphtali. Surprisingly, neither Judah nor any other southern tribe is mentioned. The text shows that the existence of Cannanite cities is assumed and that the Israelite tribes had already adopted a sedentary way of life. The exact date of the battle must remain

open; it may have taken place about 1100 B.C.E. The communal celebration of a victory of two tribes overan undefined alliance of Canaanite cities shows the solidarity of all the tribes, although it demonstrates no alliance in the form of a tribal union. Moreover,the capacity of the tribes to act presupposes an appropriatesocial hierarchyand military organization. Eventhough the causes areunknown, the battle provesthat relations of the tribes with the Canaanite citystates were not exactly peaceful. The fact that the Canaanites were still superior in military respects is im-

stele

Merneptah and Judges

and

5

The

support

1

the

symbiosis hypothesis. pressively recordedby the mention of chariots. The battle was probably fought for political superiority and not to gain additional land or to destroy settlements. The Song of Deborah bears witness not only to the coexistence of Canaanites and Israelites but also to the type of military conflict in the form of an open battle. A certain balance apparently existed between the two, and any attempt to change this to the advantage of one people was answered with military force. Judges 1. The so-called list of unconquered cities in Judges 1:27 and following probably originally dates to Solomon. This is indicated by the stereotyped statement that the inhabitants of each city mentioned were forced into compulsory labor by the Israelites; this practice of forced labor is not only expressly mentioned in Solomon's time (1 Kings 9:21-23) but also is totally unthinkable before

his time. This list thereforecorrectly presupposesthe conditions existing in the pre-stateperiod. The rather late date of the list does not rob it of all value, and the explanation has a realistic basis in the circumstances. Apart from the cities named, the existence of Megiddo,Beth-shean, and Gezer during the EarlyIron Age is also proven.Everythingpoints to the fact that Canaanites continued to inhabit these places. The transition to Israelite cities probablyoccurredduring the reign of Solomon, and his development of Hazor, Megiddo,and Gezer is especially emphasized in 1 Kings 9:15. The list in Judges1 thereforepresupposes the existence of many Canaanite cities in the early Iron Age, even though severalhad lost their power and were no longer fortified. In documenting his provinces,Solomon took the territories of these cities into consideration (1 Kings 4:14). The events in the pre-stateperiod were determined by the coexistence of various peoples in the country, and the Philistines obviously filled the gap by taking power in the second half of the twelfth century, following the collapse of Egyptian hegemony under the last Ramessides. The establishment of the monarchy by Saul and the related unification of the tribes must be regardedas a response to the threat of Philistine power.The entire country did not come under Israelite rule until after the wars of David. The text therefore reflects the course of events from the time of the occupation of the land. The coexistence of the "original" inhabitants and the Israelite tribes, however, can only be explained by the fact that the country was not conquered but occupied by a process of settlement that took place over a longer period of time.

Bibliography Aharoni,Y. 1970 New Aspects of the IsraeliteOccupation in the North. Pp. 254-65 in Near EasternArchaeologyin the

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

99

Meshash. Bulletin of the American Century.Essays in Honor 7whentieth Schools of Oriental Research241: of Nelson Glueck, edited by James A. Sanders.New York:Doubleday. 61-73. 1971 KhirbetRaddanaand Its Inscriptions. Fritz,V.,and Kempinski,A. IsraelExplorationJournal21: 130-35. 1983 Ergebnisseder Ausgrabungenauf der Hirbet el-Msa~(TelMasos)I-III. Alt, A. 1953a Die Landnahmeder Israelitenin Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz. Furumark,A. Palastina.Pp. 89-125 in Kleine 1941 Chronologyof the MycenaeanPotSchriftenzur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, volume 1. Munchen:C. B. tery.Analysis and Classification. Stockholm:RoyalAcademyof LetBeck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung. 1953b Erwigungenuber die Landnahmeder ters, History,and Antiquities. de Geus, C. H. L. Israelitenin Palistina. Pp. 126-27 in Kleine Schriftenzur Geschichte des 1976 The Tribesof Israel. Assen/Amsterdam:VanGorcum. VolkesIsrael, volume 1. Miinchen: C. B.Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung. Gottwald, N. K. 1979 The Tribesof Yahweh.A Sociology Astr6m, P. 1972 The Late CyprioteBronzeAge. Arof the Religion of LiberatedIsrael 1250-1050 B.C.E.Maryknoll,NY: chitecture and Pottery.Series:The Orbis Books. Swedish CyprusExpedition,volume IV,part 1C. Stockholm:The Swedish Helck, W. 1968 Die BedrohungPalastinasdurch CyprusExpedition. einwanderndeGruppenam Endeder A. Ben-Tor, 18. und am Anfangder 19. Dynastie. 1979 Tell Qiri. A Lookat Village Life.BibVetusTestamentum 18:472-80. lical Archeologist 42: 105-13. Herzog, Z. Biran,A., and Negbi, O. 1984 Beer-ShebaII. The EarlyIronAge 1966 The StratigraphicalSequenceat Tell Settlements. Tel Aviv:The Institute Sippor.Israel ExplorationJournal of Archaeologyand RamotPublish16: 160-73. ing Co. Buhl, M.L.,and Holm-Nielsen, S. 1969 Shiloh. Copenhagen:The National Hornung,E. 1964 Untersuchungenzur Chronologie Museum of Denmark. und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. Callaway,J.A. Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz. 1970 The 1968-1969 cAi (et-Tell)Excavations. Bulletin of the American James,F 1966 The IronAge at Beth Shan. PhiladelSchools of Oriental Research 198: 7-31. phia:The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Callaway,J.A., and Cooley,R. E. 1971 A SalvageExcavationat Raddanain Kitchen, K. A. 1973 The ThirdIntermediate Periodin Bireh.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research201: Egypt(1100-650 B.C.).Warminster: Aris & Phillips, Ltd. 9-19. Klengel,H. Cross,F.M. 1972 Zwischen Zelt und Palast. Wien: 1980 Newly FoundInscriptionsin Old Canaaniteand EarlyPhoenician VerlagAnton Schroll and Co. Kochavi,M. Scripts.Bulletin of the American 1969 Excavationsat Tel Esdar.cAtiqot 5: Schools of Oriental Research238: 14-48. 1-20. 1977 An Ostraconof the Periodof the Desborough,V.R. dA. 1964 The Last Myceneansand TheirSucJudgesfrom'IzbetSartah.TelAviv 4: 1-13. cessors. An Archaeological Survey c. 1200-c. 1100B.C.Oxford:ClarenLapp,P.W. don Press. 1967 The Conquest of Palestine in the Light of Archaeology.Concordia Dever,W G. 1970 Gezer.In Encyclopediaof ArchaeTheologicalMonthly 38: 283-300. Matthews,V.H. ological Excavationsin the Holy 1978 PastoralNomadism in the MariKingLand, VolumeII. Jerusalem:Israel dom (1830-1760B.C.)Cambridge, ExplorationSociety and Massada MA:American Schools of Oriental Press. Research. Dothan, T. 1982 The Philistines and TheirMaterial Mazar,A. 1980 Excavationsat Tell Qasile I. Qedem Culture.Jerusalem:IsraelExplora12. Jerusalem:IsraelExploration tion Society. Society. Fritz,V. 1981 Giloh: An EarlyIsraeliteSettlement 1981 The Israelite"Conquest"in Light of Recent Excavationsat KhirbetelSite Near Jerusalem.IsraelExplora-

100

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

tion Journal31: 1-36. Mendenhall,G. E. 1962 The HebrewConquest of Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist25: 66-87. 1973 The TenthGeneration.The Origins of the Biblical Tradition.Baltimore: The JohnsHopkins University Press. Negbi, O. 1974 The Continuity of the Canaanite Bronzeworkof the LateBronzeAge into the EarlyIronAge. TelAviv 1: 159-172. Oren, E. 1982 Ziklag-A BiblicalCity on the Edge of the Negev. Biblical Archeologist 45: 155-66. Rowton,M. B. 1965 The TopologicalFactorin the Hapiru Problem.Pp.375-87 in Studies in Honorof Benno Landsbergeron his Seventy-fifthBirthday.Chicago:The University of Chicago. 1973 UrbanAutonomy in a Nomadic Environment.Journalof Near Eastern Studies 32: 201-15.

1974 EnclosedNomadism. Journalof the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17: 1-30. 1976 Dimorphic Structureand Topology. Oriens Antiquus 15: 17-30. 1977 Dimorphic Structureand the Parasocial Element. Journalof Near Eastern Studies 36: 181-98. Shiloh, Y. 1970 The Four-roomHouse - Its Situation and Function in the IsraeliteCity. IsraelExplorationJournal20: 180-90. 1973 The Four-roomHouse -The Israelitetype House. Eretz Israel: 277-85.

(Hebrew) 1978 Elements in the Development of TownPlanning in the IsraeliteCity. Israel ExplorationJournal28: 36-51. Ussishkin, D. 1983 Excavationsat TelLachish1978-1983: Second PreliminaryReport.TelAviv 10:91-195. Weinstein,J.M. 1981 The EgyptianEmpirein Palestine:A Reassessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 1-28.

Weippert,H., and Weippert,M. 1976 Jerichoin der Eisenzeit. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 92:

105-148. Weippert,M. 1971 The Settlement of the Israelite Tribesin Palestine:A Critical Survey of Recent Debate. London:SCM Press.

Yadin,Y 1972 Hazor. The Head of All Those Kingdoms. Joshua11:10.London:Oxford University Press.

A

Coin Tyrian ordan

in By

Henry

O.

Thompson

theexcavations of uring

Khirbet al-Hajjar,a Tyrian (Phoenician)coin was discovered.'James A. Sauer (personalcommunication; see also 1986)has noted that the coin, which seems to be dated to the postoccupation period of the site, may be the oldest to be recovered from a stratigraphicexcavation in what is today modern Jordan.2When first found, it was heavily corroded and thought to be copper or bronze, but in fact it is silver, though there is probablya large proportionof copper in the alloy (see Lambert 1931 for a similar situation). Cleaning of the Hajjarcoin revealedan obversewith the figure of a god or king mounted

on a hippocampus

-a

winged sea

monster of Greek mythology with the head of a horse and tail of a dolphin. The hippocampus swims to the right over the waves. Beneath the waves is a dolphin also facing right. The riderof the hippocampusappears to have a "bun"at the back of the head as part of the hair, but it is possible that it is part of a close-fitting cap, turban, or helmet and that the bun is a decoration on the headgear. The right hand may hold reins, while the left holds what appearsto be a strung bow. It is not clear whether an arrowis nocked or not. Only the bust of the figure is visible. The arms may be bare, although diagonal lines might represent clothing, perhapsa

The obverse(top)and reverseof the Tyrian (Phoenician)coin found at Khirbetal-Hajjar. The coin, about 2 centimeters in diameter,is silver,although its heavily corrodedcondition when found suggests that it contains a large proportionof copperin the alloy. Photograph is courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Jordan.

hirbet al-Hajjar,within the ancient kingdom of the Ammonites,lies severalmileswest and slightly south of Amman,ancient Rabbath-ammon, the capital of the Ammonites.Excavationsat uncovered Hajjarhaveunexpectedly a roundtowersimilarto eighteen othersthroughouttheancientkingdom, both roundand square,that

K

perhapsservedas a DEWline, or distant early warning system. Unlike other known examples of these guard towers, the Hajjartower has an outer fortification wall. Only four other towershave thus farbeen excavated,however,so that the fortifications at Hajjar may not be unique. The site was probablyabanA portion of the tower found at Khirbetal-Haijar.

doned around 600 B.C.E., at the end

of the IronAge IIperiod.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

101

Khirbetal-Hajjar.

chlamys, a style of robe fastened at the shoulder. A cable bordersurrounds the entire scene, which is off center as though the slug were placed in the die slightly askew or the obverse die itself were defective, as suggested by the reverse. The reversehas a cable border that is centered properlyaroundthe outer edge of the coin. Here, a bird stands to the right with its head viewed frontally.Such a bird is usually called an Athenian owl but it also resembles the Egyptian hawk, symbol of the Egyptiangod Horus. The ears and stippled breast, however,suggest the owl ratherthan the hawk. The tail feathers and claws are all well articulated. On the other side of the bird are the crook and the flail, the Egyptiansymbols of royalty.They usually appearheld over the left shoulder, though here they are under the left wing. The Hajjarcoin is a fairly common type of Tyriancoin with a dolphin on the obverseand an owl on the reverse.A number of this type were found in a hoard at Tell Abu Hawam (Lambert1931)and in the hoardfound at Acco (Betlyon 1982:39-76; Kindler 1967).One has been found at Hazor (Yadinand others 1960:32), one at Daliyeh (Cross 1974;see also 1963, 1966, and 1969),and several at ByblosS? It has been suggested that the dolphin and waves reflect the maritime importance of Tyre(Hill 1910).

102

Earliercoins of this type have only the dolphin on the obverse.The figure riding over the waves may symbolize dominance over the sea, while a mounted hippocampus may suggest dominance over the creatures of the sea. In Greek mythology the riderwould be identified as Poseidon, correspondingto the Semitic Melkart (Melqartor Milqart), the Phoenician Bacalon these Tyrian coins. Betlyon (1982:46), however, has claimed that the traditional identification with Melkart must be avoided,as there are no expected underworldimages. Identifying the figure as BacalHadad,BacalShamem, or 'El is also unsatisfactory.'El was not a rider;Bacal Shamem rode the clouds, and BacalHadaddid not use a bow in battle. It is true that Bacal Shamem was a deity of the sea and storms, but Betlyon has stated that since we do not know how he was pictured in this period, we should limit ourselves to calling the deity "marine."He has also noted the dolphin in the entourage of marine deities; thus its presence here presumably representsthe divine (Betlyon 1982:40; see also 67-70, notes 44-47).

The owl appearson Athenian coins by the mid to late fifth century B.C.E. Betlyon, however,noted the resemblance of the bird to the Egyptian hawk, concomitant with the Egyptianiconographyof the crook and flail, though the resemblance is

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

Obverse(top)and reverseof a silver sheqel, the largest 7Triandenomination. Betlyon (1982:40, plate 4, number 6) dates it in his

first series (435-410 B.c.E.). Photographs are

courtesy of The American Numismatic Society,New York.

more markedfor the body than the head. He called the style of the owl Syro-Phoenician. Lambert(1932)arrangedthe coins of Tyreinto four groups.Group I has a dolphin (andno accompanying figure)on the obversewith a murex shell under the waves. (The murex is the source of the famous Tyrianpurple dye.)The Hajjarcoin falls into groupII. The coins of this groupwere minted on thick fabric and tend to be somewhat cruder than later series. The coins of group IIIresemble those of groupII, but the fabricused was thinner. Coins of group IV resemble those of groupII as well but are in the Athenian weight standard.4Lambertsuggested that the coins of groupIIIare stylistically closer to those of groupI with its triple line of waves and an owl with a ruffled neck. This may be in the style of the Hajjarcoin, although, because of its condition, this is not certain. The Hajjarcoin is in the Phoenician standardminted on thick fabric like the coins of groupII.

An example of another 77rian coin. Obverse and reverseof a didrachm in the Athenian standard (fora similar coin, see Betlyon 1982:58 and plate 6, number 1). The obverse features a figuremounted on a sea horse. On the reversean cayin (the small circle on the right side) is an abbreviationfor cUzzimilk, which means "Milk[the King, or Milkart]is my strength".the vertical lines on the left of the cayin stand for the year in his reignaround 346 B.C.E., making it part of Betlyon's seventh series (347-332 B. .E.). Photographs

are courtesy of The American Numismatic Society,New York.

Betlyon (1982)has arrangedthe Phoenician coins that he studied into seven series. The first and second series have only a dolphin on the obverse?The Hajjartype appears throughout the other five series datHe has suging from 390-332 B.C.E. that when coins were first gested struck at Tyre,they probablydid not have inscriptionsor dates;he believes, however,that these were addedsoon after.The Hajjarcoin does not have an inscription, but he cited examples throughout the series that have no inscription either. In his third series, 390-377 B.C.E.,the coins are minted on a thick fabric, correspondingto Lambert'sgroupII. The thin fabric, Lambert'sgroupIII,appearsin the fourth series, 377-357 B.C.E.The Athenian standard,Lambert'sgroup IV,appearsas Betlyon'sfifth series, In his dating from 357-355 B.C.E.

fourth series, some examples lack the dolphin, some include the murex, and several new types include the head of a satyr or a ram. The dolphin alone appears on the obverse in some instances. The sixth series is dated between 355 and 351 B.C.E.,and the seventh between 347 and 332 B.C.E.,issued under the authority of cUzzimilk. While the Hajjar coin cannot be dated with precision, it would appear most likely to belong to Betlyon's third series, minted on thick fabric, and hence to date to between 390 and 377 B.C.E. Both authors cited a dispute over the date of the introduction of the Athenian weight standard. Earlier scholars, such as Seyrig (1957), thought that it was introduced by Alexander, but Cross (1974) noted that a significant amount of material is firmly dated by archaeological context to the pre-Alexandrian period, 375-335 B.C.E.He also noted the appearance of the standard at other sites such as Tell Abu Hawam (see Stern 1968) and Tell el-Fukhkhar (ancient Acco), and this further confirms the date for the Hajjar coin (see Seyrig 1957; Kindler 1967). In any event, the isolated Hajjar example does not help answer the question of when the Athenian standard was introduced; the data interpret the Hajjar coin rather than vice versa. The importance of the Hajjar coin is in its location and its antiquity in Jordan.

locus 16, the outer wall of the round tower.This suggests that the fill comprising locus 6 was deposited sometime after the tower had gone out of use. 2Colin M. Kraayand PeterR. S. Moorey (1968)reporteda hoardof coins in the HeberdenCoin Room of the Ashmolean Museum in Jordan.It reportedly comes from the Hauranareaon the border.While they Jordanian-Syrian called it the "Jordanianhoard,"its provenance is uncertain. In a later publication, (Thompson,Moorkholm, and Kraay 1973:202-03), the location was described as near ancient Bostra.If this is so, the coin representsthe oldest known to the writer. The burial is estimated at about 445 B.C.E.There are 89 coins ranging from 500-450 B.C.E.

3Additionalexamples havebeen cited by Babelon(1910:volume 2, part 2, 607627; volume 3, part 2, plate 122.11-26); Baramki(1968:25 andfollowing,numbers 86-89); Hill (1910:cxxvi-cxxix, 229-30, plates 28.9-17, 29.1-17); Jones(1971: 132-33); Lemaire(1976);and others. 4The Phoenician standardfor the silver stater or the double sheqel ranges from 12.53-12.90 grams.The silver sheqel in the Athenian standardranges from 8.11-8.53 grams (Betlyon 1982:62, note 7). 5His first series is datedbetween 435 and 410 B.C.E.and the second between 410 and 390 B.C.E.The descrip-

tions roughly parallel Lambert'sgroupI.

Bibliography

Babelon,E. F.C. 1910 Traitedes monnaies grecqueset romaines. Paris:Leroux. Baramki,D. 1968 The Coins Exhibited in the Archaeological Museum of the American Universityof Beirut. Beirut:AUB Notes Centennial Publications. FawziZayyadine,codirectorof the Hajjar Betlyon,J.W dig, has done furtherstudy of the towers 1982 The Coinageand Mints of Phoenicia: at Hajjarand has suggestedto me in a The Pre-AlexandrinePeriod.Chico, California:ScholarsPress. personal correspondencethat they were Boraas,R. part of landed estates. Furtherexcava1971 A PreliminarySoundingat Rujm tions are urgent, for the sites are disal-Malfuf(North).Annual of the before the modern bulldozer. appearing Department of Antiquities, Jordan Forrelated excavations,see Boraas(1971) 16:31-46. and Thompson (1973, 1977). E M. Cross, 'The coin, Hajjarobject number 36, 1963 The Discovery of the Samaria was found in locus 6 of areaB, square 1. Papyri.Biblical Archaeologist 26: 4. Locus 1 was surface soil; locus 2 was a 1966 Aspects of Samaritanand Jewish rocky subsurfacelayer,and locus 3 was a History in LatePersianand Hellenissoft yellow fill. Locus 6 was another soft tic Times. HarvardTheological Review 59: 201-211. yellow fill beneath locus 3 and over

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

103

1969 Papyriof the FourthCentury B.C. from Daliyeh: A PreliminaryReport on Their Discovery and Significance. New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, GardenCity: Doubleday. 1974 "Coins."Discoveries in the WadiedDaliyeh. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research41: 57-59. Hill, G. E 1910 Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London:The British Museum. Jones,C. M. 1971 Old TestamentIllustrations. Cambridge:University Press. Kindler,A. 1967 The Mint of Tyre-The MajorSource of SilverCoins in Ancient Palestine. EretzIsrael 8: 325-24. Kraay,C. M. and Moorey,P.R. S. 1968 TwoFifth Century Hoardsfrom the Near East. Revuenumismatique 6: 10. Lambert,C. 1931 A Hoardof Phoenician Coins. Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 1: 1. and Other Coins of 1932 Egypto-Arabian, the FourthCentury B.C.Foundin Palestine. Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 2: 1. Lemaire,A. 1976 Le monnayagede Tyret celui dit dAkko dans la deuxitme moitie du IVmesiecle. Revuenumismatique (series6) 18: 11-23. Sauer,J.A. 1986 Transjordanin the Bronzeand Iron Ages:A Critique of Glueck'sSynthesis. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research263: 1-26. Seyrig,H. 1957 Antiquit6s syriennes:64. Surune pr6tendue&retyrienne. Syria34: 93-98. Stern,E. 1968 The Dating of StratumII at Tell Abu Hawam. The Israel Exploration Journal18:4. Thompson, H. 1973 Rujm al-Mafuf South. Annual of the Department ofAntiquities, Jordan 18: 47-50. 1977 The Ammonite Remains at Khirbet al-Hajjar. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 227: 27-34. Thompson, M., Moorkholm, O., and Kraay, C.M. 1973 An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York: The American Numismatic Society. Yadin, Y., and others 1960 Hazor II. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

104

THE KEYTO JESUS' TEACHINGS Fifteen years in preparation, THE CHRISTIANBIBLE was developed to give the Christian Faith the meaning of Jesus' Word as he intended it to be given. Based on the King James Version, this integrated version combines all four gospels into one testament that incorporates about 240 corrections derived from the original Greek manuscripts. It includes several newly recognized testaments, and provides comprehensive explanations and crossreferences. THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE, compiled and interpreted by Carl C. Austin, is the work of an inspired individual with a mind unencumbered by traditions, doctrines, or other preconceptions which might have conflicted with his mission - to document accurately the true words of our Savior. In his research, Austin uncovered and corrected mistranslations, mispunctuations, and adulterations in the King James Version which have created contradictions, caused confusion, and prevented Man from finding the real meaning of many of Jesus' teachings. The complete lack of contradictionor diversity of purpose found in THE CHRISTIANBIBLEattests to the accuracy of the meaning of these reinterpretations. THE CHRISTIANBIBLE restores communication between Jesus and mankind while providing new insights into the often conflicting influences that have interfered with our being given a clear understanding of the purpose $23.75 Postpaid for which he came. Order From:

an C.austin Whispering

The

Pines,

North

of

Keys

28327

Carolina

the

-rilf.

(I

IAN

I gl

.

I:

low

* Over600Pages* Soft Leather Texture Binding * GoldDieStamped Cover&Spine* Gilded PageEdges* Large, EasyToReadType e SilkRibbon Page * Large Marker 6" x 9" DeluxeEdition

Kingdom

BY CARLC. AUSTIN The Reverend Carl C. Austin, author and interpreter of THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE, has now brought the same clear, penetrating gifts of inspired explanation and analysis to the most perplexing question mankind has ever posed. Austin not only shows us that the spirit does indeed survive physical death, but he uses the teachings and Word of Jesus to fully explain the nature of this spiritual world and the simple requirements for attaining eternal life. In so doing, he has uncovered new knowledge about the true meaning and intent of Jesus' ministry which has been hidden since the first Bible was established in the 4th Century. In Book I, there are eight Discourses dealing with The Spirit and Eternal Life and all the information necessary to understand exactly what this means. In Book II, are the Words of Jesus, in eight additional Discourses that deal with the meaning of each of Jesus' teachings and the purpose they were meant to serve. THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM is perhaps the most timely and significant book ever published. In it is the most logical presentation ever made of the meaning of life and the solution to its problems which so many diligently seek today. 470 Pages - $19.25 Postpaid Order From:

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

e C.atstiin 1-0

Whispering Pines, North Carolina 28327

KeTj

* The Problem of Teaching * The Origin of Jesus * The Spirit & Eternal Life * Teaching in the Spirit * The Power of the Spirit SPower of the Holy Spirit * The Parables " Preparation of a Minister " Meaning of Jesus' Word * On Prayer * The Power of Goodness * The Meaning of Marriage Jesus' Miracles ** On Healing * Relation to Old Testament * Prophecies of the Two Messiahs

Coins The First Hasmonean

Obverse(oranchor)side of the Alexander Jannaeuscoin of the anchor-and-lilytype. The original inscription on it read "Yehonathan the King,"but it was overstruckwith the inscription "Yonathanthe High Priest and the Council of the Jews."

By

Reverse(orlily) side of the Alexander Jannaeus coin of the anchor-and-lilytype. The lily has been overstruckwith double cornucopias. Partof the old title "YehonathanKing"can still be seen at the top.

Ronen

Yigal

howasthefirst Hasmonean ruler to strike coins? A leading theory is that it was Alexander Jannaeus(Meshorer 1966: 41-47; 1982:35).I would like to propose, however,that it was actually YehudaAristobulus I. Three persons from the Hasmonean dynasty were known by the name Aristobulus. Aristobulus I was the ruler of Judeafrom 104 to 103 B.C.E. Aristobulus II, son of Alexander Jannaeus,ruled from 67 to 64 B.C.E. Aristobulus III,grandsonof Aristobulus II, was the last Hasmonean high priest and died in the year 35 B.C.E.,probably put to death at

Herod'sorder.

Aristobulus

have first to

I may

the

been

Hasmonean

mint

coins.

We know from Josephus(in Against Apion; see Thackeray 1966) that the Hebrew name of Aristobulus I was Yehuda.Josephusalso tells us (in The Jewish War,book II;see Thackeray 1967)that Aristobulus III was given the Greek name of Yonathain, which is taken from the He-

brew name Yonathan.What is not known for certain is whether the Hebrew name of Aristobulus II was Yehudaor Yonathan. It is Jewishtradition to name sons after their grandfathers.This tradition has been observedsince time immemorial and was particularly applied to the priestly and other aristocraticfamilies, and the Hasmonean dynasty was no exception. Except for the Hasmonean ruler Hyrcanus I, all royalsons were named after their grandfathers.In this time period, Shimon named one of his sons after his father,Mattityahu. Alexander Jannaeusnamed his eldest son afterhis father,HyrcanusI, and Aristobulus II named his eldest

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

105

Obverseof a coin with the inscription "Yonathanthe High Priest and Council of the Jews."

son, Alexander,after his father, Alexander Jannaeus.Alexander,the son of Aristobulus II, named his son Aristobulus IIIafter his own father. (EvenHyrcanusIInamed his daughter Alexandraafter his mother, Salome Alexandra.)There is thereforea strong likelihood that Aristobulus IIIwould be named after his grandfather,Aristobulus II, and both grandfatherand grandsonhave the same Hebrew name. It is much less likely that Aristobulus IIwas named after his uncle Aristobulus I-who, after all, imprisoned AlexanderJannaeusand killed his mother and brother.After suffering such humiliation at his hands, would Alexander Jannaeus have named his son after his brother, Aristobulus I? If Aristobulus IIIwas named after his grandfatherAristobulus II, and if the Hebrew name of the grandson were Yonathan,then the Hebrew name of the grandfather,Aristobulus II, was Yonathan.During the same period, the Hellenistic kings traditionally named their sons after themselves. The successive line of rulers under the name of Antiochus

106

andPtolemy areillustrative examples of this. Even the Jewishkings of the Herodiandynasty adoptedthis tradition. Herod named his sons after himself, and AgrippaI named his son AgrippaII after himself. The naming of the son after the father, however,is not a Jewishtradition. Accordingly,my hypothesis is that Alexander Jannaeuswas torn between adopting the Hellenistic tradition and maintaining the Jewish one. Therefore,he named his son Yonathan,which could be considered either a name different from his own, Yehonathan,or the same. We do have some evidence supporting this hypothesis. The Alexander Jannaeuscoins of the "anchor-and-lily" type with the inscription "Yehonathanthe King" were restruck with the inscription "Yonathanthe High Priest."Kanael (1963)speculated about this unusual phenomenon: Jannaeuswas to go furtherin his effortstowinthefavorofatleastthe moderatePharisees;a largepartof the flower-anchor serieswereoverstruckwhile still in the mint. The

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

originalinscription bearingthe regnaltitle in bothHebrewandGreek, and the accompanyingsymbols, wereoverstruck bya Hebrewlegend the High Priestand the "Jonathan Councilof the Jews," togetherwith the formertypes (awreatharound the inscription,and cornucopiae In otherwords, with pomegranate). Jannaeusseemingly gave up his royaldignityon coinsandreturned to the earlierinscriptionsandsymbols. No similar developmentis known in ancient numismatics; here is striking evidence of the vehemenceofpublicfeelingsin this constitutionalmatter. Meshorer (1982:77-78) has arguedconvincingly against this theory. Citing JosephNaveh (1968), he notes that in the year 78 B.C.E. (the time of Jannaeus'concessions to the Pharisees)there were other coins of Alexander Jannaeuswith his royal title both in Greek and Aramaic script. So why were only the coins of the anchor-and-lilytype restruck? The only differencebetween the two types of coins is that one type includes the lily. Meshorerquestioned why the Pharisees would have objected to this design. And even if they did disapproveof the symbol, why would Hyrcanus II, a devout Pharisee, have depicted the lily on his own coinage?An explanation for the recall of the anchor-and-lily coins must be found elsewhere. Meshorerfurther suggested that the change to Yonathanis of an aesthetic nature, and that the spelling was contingent upon how many characters could be inserted neatly on the coin. It is difficult for me to accept this explanation; people are usually very sensitive about the correct spelling of their names, and I doubt that Alexander Jannaeus would have permitted an incorrect spelling of his name on so many coins. I would like to suggest instead that the Hebrew name of Aristobulus II was Yonathan. Should this be the case, it would provide a logical explanation for the overstriking of the coins and the "Yonathan"coins that were not

overstruck.When Aristobulus II seized power,he wanted to strengthen his claim to the throne by minting coins. The fastest way to do this was to overstrikehis father'scoins, many of which probablyremained in the treasury.Laterin his reign Aristobulus II minted his own coins, which have the inscription"Yonathan the High Priest and Council of the Jews." I do accept the Meshorer theory and supporting evidence that the coins struck with the Yehohanan name were minted by Hyrcanus II (Meshorer1982: 84-87). As a result, the Yehudacoins that, accordingto my theory, were struck by Aristobulus I, were the first Hasmonean coins. There are other arguments, none of which are in themselves conclusive, that support the claim that YehudaAristobulus I was the first Hasmonean ruler to mint coins. YehudaAristobulus I was the first Hasmonean ruler to proclaim himself king. It was a tradition in the ancient world that one of the first acts of anyone who seized the throne was the minting of coins. As a result it is conceivable that Aristobulus I minted coins in orderto announce his reign over Judea,although he probablydid not dare call himself king on the coins. The act of minting coins could not have been too difficult for Aristobulus I because there was a mint in Jerusalem where coins had been struck earlier in the years 131, 130, and 129 B.C.E. in name of Antiochus Euergetes (Sidetes). In addition, there is evidence that the coins were struck in Jerusalem as late as 106 or 105 B.C.E. by Antiochus VIII. In 104/3 B.C.E.Ashkelon began to mint its own coins. The historical circumstances that led to the minting of coins in Ashkelon, similar to those in Judea, might also have influenced Judea to mint coins. The relative rarity and good condition of the Yehuda coins suggest that they were minted during a

short period of time. Aristobulus I in fact ruled for less than one year. Finally, there is only one type of Yehudacoin, although there are two major styles of it. In comparison, Mattathias Antigonus, who ruled for three years, minted five different types of coins in three denominations. The lack of variety in types of coins would thereforesuggest a short period of minting. Although about 200 differentdie varieties of the Yehudacoins have been found (Meshorer1982:47), I am of the opinion that it is possible in one year to produce this quantity of dies for a single coin. In conclusion, my theory suggests that the Hebrew name of Aristobulus II was Yonathan,and that he was the one who overstruckhis name on his father'scoins, and also minted his own. Furthermore,I suggest that the first Hasmonean coins were minted by Yehuda Aristobulus I in the year 104/3 B.C.E.

Bibliography

Kanael,B. 1963 AncientJewishCoinsandtheir Biblical HistoricalImportance. Archaeologist 26: 38-62.

Meshorer,Y. 1966 Jewish Coins of the Second TemplePeriod.TelAviv:Massada

Press.(Hebrew; Englishversion, 1967)

1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage, Volume 1: PersianPeriodThrough Hasmonaeans. Dix Hills, NY:

AmphoraBooks. Naveh,J. 1968 DatedCoinsof AlexanderJannaeus. Israel ExplorationJournal 18:20-26.

H. St.J.,translator Thackeray, 1966 JosephusI. The Life.Against Apion. Series:The LoebClassi-

cal Library. MA,and Cambridge,

London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. 1967 JosephusII: The Jewish War, Books I-III. Series:The Loeb Classical Library.Cambridge,

UniMA,andLondon:Harvard and Heinemann. Press versity

A NewBookfor a ProspectiveVolunteer by anExperiencedVolunteer...

ArchaeologicalAdventuresin Israel A Practical Guide by ArnoldJ. Flegenheimer (Roth Publishing, Roslyn Heights)

Paperback:$9.95 (will)encourageand reassureotherswhomay be thinkingaboutthe possibilityof diggingin the landof the Bible... conveysthe kindsof detailseitherignoredor assumedin the standard manuals... (in an) informalstyle (fromthe prefaceby PhilipJ. King,Professor of BiblicalStudies,Boston College,and former Presidentof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch) Please send me copies of Archaeological Adventuresin Israel. Enclosedis a checkfor $ to coverthe cost of the book, handlingand shippingcharges.* and shipping *Handling charges$1.60for single copies,$3.00for 2 to 5 copies.Forlargerorders, pleaseenquire. Pleasemakecheckspayableto UB Foundation, andremitto Chair,Department of Classics, SUNYAB,Buffalo,NewYork14260 Name (pleaseprint) Street City

State

Zip

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

107

Beer-sheba allow structures reconsider to us

The

traditional

interpretations.

by

Isaac

Gilead ne of the more interesting phenomena in Near

Eastern archaeology can

A

AT

LO.OK

NEW

be found in the northern the "undergrounddwellings" Negeb: of the Chalcolithic period. These structures fourth-millennium-B.C.E. were first discoveredduring the 1950s at Tell Abu Matar (Perrot 1955) and Bir es-Safedi,near Beersheba. Although they have not yet been published in detail, additional data have recently become available (Perrot1984),and during the first years of this decade new excavations carriedout in areas adjacentto known sites have discoveredmore undergroundstructures (Eldarand Baumgarten1985).The newly discoveredstructures offer us the chance to reexamine this phenomenon andto reconsiderthe traditional interpretationthat they served as dwellings. Accordingto Perrot(1984:80-85), there are three types of "underground dwellings"at Tell Abu Matarand Bir es-Safedi.The earliest are entered by a short undergroundgallery,which begins in a semi-undergroundcourt. The actual "dwelling"consists of an elongated or a rectangularchamber that averages7 meters long and 3 meters wide. Both the court and the chamber feature various installations such as hearths,silos, andbasins.

Chalcolithic Beer •

S*

-sba ~

-?

b~f

"

*

O' .

110

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

177

1;s

1i9

:1' ?:

:? :-?:

.

.

.

09t oo i2i 7

b

260

':.::.Be"r.sheba

MataQrc

~

~7 Q>

~ter eO

\

/

~Xrvat

1Safedi

071--

--071 t

,gt..•,..,t N\

K>5z

12718

/

9

Facing page: One of the undergroundgalleys at Bir es-Safedi that leads to a large underground chamber. Left:map of the Beer-sheba area.Below: Photographof an excavated area at Bir es-Safedi showing Perrot'searly and late phases. The latest phase consists of surface structuresof stone on top of earlier undergroundrooms.

Two types of undergroundstructures were in use during the next, or intermediate, occupation phase. One is the "undergroundshelter,"a structure sunk into the surface depression formed by the collapsed ceilings of the earlier large chambers.These shelters are usually either circular or oval, with stone and brick walls that make their areas(about15 square meters) smaller than those of the earlier chambers.There are many hearths and basins in these but no silos. The other type of underground structure from this phase is made of a series of small (about9 square meters) oval chambers that are interconnected by undergroundgalleries. Hearths and silos are less frequent here than in the other structures. The latest occupation of the site according to Perrotis representedby ordinaryrectangularsurface constructions. They are made of brick walls laid on a stone foundation, and the area of each is about 18 square meters. Since his preliminary publication of Tell Abu Matar,Perrot(1955, 1984)has interpretedthis complex of undergroundstructures as domestic dwellings. The technology for the digging of these structures appeared in the Near East during the fifth millennium B.C.E.,possibly in connection with copper mining and water

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

111

11

The

sites

treated

13

14

be

may

using

2

a

"socio-spatial paradigm." J H

extraction. It is not surprisingthat the undergroundstructures were found in the semidesert zone, where digging the soil is easy. This kind of "dwelling,"accordingto Perrot(1984: 87-88), is ideal for the Negeb: It is easier,in fact,to excavatethan

G

to construct... in a region where

buildingmaterials,woodaboveall, is practicallymissing.The undergrounddwelling,better than the cave, suits the dimensionof man andhis needs;likethe cave,it offers a feelingof security;harmoniously fashioned,it presentsnonaggressive J forms,womblike,reassuring.The underground dwelling,a developed andbioclimaticarchitectureof the firstdegree,representsanidealtype of habitationin the Negeb. (My translationof the originalFrench.) I would like to argue in the folH lowing pages against this interpretation, which has almost unanimously been agreedupon (see for example: Kenyon 1979: 59-61), and to demonstrate on theoretical and practical grounds that the undergroundstructures were not used as dwellings. G Beforeanalyzing the various structures and pits of the Beer-shebasites, I will briefly outline the traditional approachto the problem and contrast it with the one employed by me. Two Approaches The traditional approach,which may be referredto as the "chronostratigraphicalparadigm,"has dominated archaeologicalpractice and interpretations in Palestine for almost a century. It was established by Flinders Petrie at Tell el-Hesi in 1890 and later elaboratedby William E Albright

112

10

11

1

1

10

11

12

13

(1956:23-48). The essence of this paradigmis that the variability of archaeological assemblages is a consequence of different cultural traditions that replace each other and in most cases representdifferent ethnic groups.The "chronostratigraphic paradigm"is interested more in the history of the site than in the daily

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

life of its inhabitants at any given phase. The massive trenching of many sites in Syria-Palestine,in orderto revealthe history of the place, is the best example of the dominance of this paradigm. The current approachto the structures of the Chalcolithic period at Beer-shebain general and the un-

14

14

15

16

17

sive phases are characterizedby new and different structuring of the habitations and activity loci. I would like to treat the same issue in another frame of reference, which we can referto as "the sociospatial paradigm."The essence of this paradigmis that the variability between assemblages is primarily a consequence of social and economic variability.Assemblages change because of readaptationsto the changing natural and human spheres.In orderto study in detail the organization of a community, largehorizontal parts of the site have to be exposed. In such cases the stratigraphyis of a secondary importance. The excavations of Ruth Amiran at Arad (see Amiranand others 1978)and Yohanan Aharoni at Tel Beer-sheba(see Aharoni 1973)illustrate horizontally excavatedsites and the potential of such methodology. With this approachwe are not primarily interested in the history of the site; instead, we try to reconstruct the life on the site at a given time, examining it as a spatial phenomenon that illustrates anthropological aspects of an extinct community and not a succession of building phases. If it is suggested, for example, that the undergroundstructures were used as dwelling units, our approach is to ask what the implications of this troglodytic existence would be for the community. How are the essential routine activities performed, and how do they modify the nature of the site? How are they reflected in the stratigraphyand the postoccupational debris that serve as the basis

18

Beter .Horvat

15

16

17

18

for our study?

17 1_16

dergroundstructures in particularis typical of this paradigm.Much attention has been paid to the different levels of fills inside the structures, and many attempts have been made to correlate them and reconstruct the history of the sites by identifying successive stages or phases (Perrot 1955;Dothan 1959).It has been sug-

gested that at a certain period the sites featureda specific, generally uniform characterand structure- for example, large undergroundchambers. At some point in time this layout of the site, this phase, ended, and a new phase began- for example, the undergroundshelters and, later, the surface structures.The succes-

Understanding the Beer-sheba Sites With the socio-spatial approach in mind, let us now turn to the Beersheba sites that feature pits and underground structures. IIorvat Beter. Dothan (1959: figure 3) separated the archaeological deposits excavated at Horvat Beter into three phases: I-III. A study of his top plan reveals an interesting phenomenon:

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

113

although the later stages (Iand II) consist only of stone structures with no pits, the earlier phase (III)was almost exclusively characterizedby small pits or basins. Based on his interpretations,we can ask what mode of life resulted in such a strange dichotomy? On one hand, why did the earliest inhabitants dig so many pits and not bother to erect structures? On the other hand, why did the inhabitants of the later phases (I and II)not need or use even one pit? Posing such questions is justified on the basis of the rich information now available,part of which was even availableduring the 1950s. This evidence reveals that during many periods of the prehistory and history of Israel,various kinds of pits were located near or inside structures. Natufian architecture (datingto about 10,000 to 8,000 B.C.E.) provides an example of this (Bar-Yosef 1983), and it was very common during the Chalcolithic period and even later. A typical example of such a layout is Teleilat el-Ghassul (Mallon and others 1934).I wonder why in the 1950s, many years after the work on Teleilat el-Ghassul was published, the excavatorof HorvatBeter-where structures and pits were also foundsuggested a different interpretation for his finds. Why is there a phase of pits without structures and then phases of structures without pits? In the western part of the excavated areaat Horvat Beter,pits were found inside and near the structures. A few of these pits had been overlain by walls -which is probablywhy the excavatorattributed the pits all over the excavatedareato the early phase of occupation (III);thus, phase III consists of twenty-six pits and no structures. When this phasing is closely examined using the published data (Dothan 1959:figure 3), its validity can be challenged. It is interesting that the eastern section is mostly characterizedby pits that could be contemporarywith one of the phases in the west. While the averageelevation of the pit openings

114

have

Traditionallywe interested in the daily any given

the

in life

history of

its

more

of

a

site

inhabitants

than at

phase.

in the east is 259.77 meters, the average of the elevation of the loci to the west is 259.55 meters-that is, the surfaceof the earlier level IIIis higher than the later levels I and II! Another example that illustrates the problems associated with the excavator'sscheme is the relation between locus 6 of level II and loci 23 and 24 of level III.Loci 23 and 24 are two shallow pits found adjacent to the round structure, 6, of the later phase. The elevation of locus 6 is 259.35 meters, while the shallow pits open at elevations of 259.62 and 259.52 meters. Here again, the later locus is lower than the earlier loci! Although the excavatorpublished a relatively large area comprising about 700 squaremeters, his interpretation was stratigraphicallyoriented, which is, as we have shown above,problematic in this case. The pits in the east and a few of the pits in the west must be contemporary with the surface structures and must have been used as installations, similar to other habitational complexes of the same time-span. The traditional approachtreated the excavatedareaas a stratigraphical problem to be solved. Our approach tries to view the site as a place selected by a certain community to live in where a wide rangeof activities could take place. Our interpretation of the datais thus more anthropological than stratigraphical.In front of the structures, adjacentto them, and inside them, pits were dug for storage and other activities. At HorvatBeter the pits are more common in the area east of the surface structures.In addition to the Chalcolithic settlement at Teleilet el-Ghassul, this

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

been

type of occupation is known for numerous societies during many periods (see,for example, Macdonald, Starkey,and Harding 1932:plates IV, VI, VIII,IX;Ussishkin 1980:figure 3; Oren and Gilead 1981:figure 4). An almost identical spatial organization, "thehousehold cluster,"is reported from Mesoamerica (Winter 1976)and regardedas typical of an agricultural,pre-urbansociety. After a certain time-span, while life in the site continued, perhaps after a few seasons or years, the use of an element ceased; changes and modifications were carriedout: The use of a pit was stopped and a wall was built aboveit; pits collapsed and new pits and installations replaced the old ones. The stratigraphicdifferences between pits and walls does not necessarily representa start of a new phase. In the few cases in this example where there is a temporal differentiation between walls and pits, the differences are minor and cannot be used as criteria for an overall temporal division.

TellAbuMatarandBires-Safedi.By

the same approach,it is also possible to reevaluatethe problem of the "undergrounddwellings"known from Tell Abu Matarand Bir es-Safedi (Perrot1955, 1984),which arelocated to the west and northwest of Horvat Beter.As mentioned earlier, on the basis of stratigraphicalobservations, Perrotreconstructedseveral developmental phases of occupation, with the earliest being the large undergroundstructures.The latest phase consisted of surface structures of stone, built on top of the earlier phases. In the case of Horvat Beter, where the archaeological sediment

is thin, the stratigraphicalobservations are controversial.At Tell Abu Matarand Bir es-Safedi,the archaeological sediment is thick, and there is no doubt that the surface structures are of a higher elevation than the subterraneanelements. My aim here is not to question the stratigraphybut to analyze the current interpretationof the structures as subterraneandwellings, as suggested by the excavator.How did people live below the ground?What are the stratigraphical implications of such a mode of dwelling? The undergrounddwelling at the Beer-shebasites is an exceptional phenomenon in Near Easternarchitecture (Perrot1984: 87, note 4). The only advantageof these dwellings is the coolness that prevails there during the hot summer days;however, accordingto Iris Eldarand Yacaqov Baumgarten,who recently excavated undergroundstructures at Bir esSafedi,"Inthe winter it was admittedly extremely cold underground, but a fire on the communal floor, as we ourselves had occasion to light, improvedmatters considerably.Rain was decidedly a problem"(Eldarand Baumgarten1985: 137;emphasis added).The modem archaeologists can stand the extreme cold by lighting a fire, but did the original inhabitants use fire inside the underground structures?Accordingto the recent excavations the answer is negative: "None of the undergroundchambers

kin 1970: 113).Also self-evident are the problems facing parents having to carrybabies in and out of the undergroundhouse, as well as the danger of collapsing ceilings. So exceptional is such a mode of dwelling that Herzog (1978:29) suggested that the structures were dug by a group of immigrating troglodytes of unknown origin.

An underground"dwelling"at Bir es-Safedi. This rectangularchamber contained the remains of an entombed individual.

... evinced occupation levels" (Eldar

and Baumgarten1985: 139).Firewas used only in the open courtyards:"As opposed to the galleries and rooms, hearths and clearly discernible floors were found here" (Eldar and Baumgarten 1985: 137). Winter is not the only problem for those living below the ground: "In the absence of windows and doors..,. the rooms were in total darkness even during the day.... Moreover, the entering and exiting of the house required a hard physical effort that involved finding a way in a curved and dark tunnel" (Ussish-

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

115

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the traditional interpretation, it is obvious that extensive daily activities had to have been carried out on the surface abovethe undergroundhouse. This attempt to reconstruct the mode of life goes against the common principle that strataof higher elevations are later in date. The inhabitants of the sites raised sheep, goats, and cattle, all of which would have stayed on the surface. Probablycertain installations were built to facilitate raising the herds. The preparationof food must have also been done in the open. It is clear that even if the inhabitants of the site dwelled in the underground structures,there must have been on the surfacean archaeologicalhorizon that was contemporaryto the stratigraphically lower undergrounddwelling. The material culture found in the various levels does not refute, and even supports,my suggestion that there is no differencewhatsoever between the assemblages defined as early and those defined as late. The possible overall contemporaneity of the structures above and below ground, as well as the disadvantagesof life below ground, does suggest a nonstratigraphical approachto the interpretationof the structures discussed above.The inhabitants of the sites dwelled in structures on the surface where most of their daily activities took place. Eldarand Baumgarten(1985: 139) suggest that the rectangular, ground-levelstructures are, in fact, a protective enclosure aroundthe submerged courtyard.Such a suggestion is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of the data. These structures are broadrooms, perfectly constructed (Perrot1984:figures 6, 11;plate 4), and typical of this time-span. From the top plan (Perrot1984:figure 6) it is also evident that they do not protect any of the submergedcourtyards. Undergroundstructures could have been used as storagefacilities or for other functions as yet unknown. Because such a site was occupied for

116

the indeed If

must

undergroundstructures used

for

storage,

reevaluate

organization

the of

the

a long time, changes were liable to occur, such as the collapse of underground structures,which were then sealed, deserted, or replaced.The fate of the structures on the surface was similar. Such a dynamic does not imply that the inhabitants changed their mode of life or that new inhabitants arrived,as is suggestedby the traditional approach.In this case the stratigraphyhas a very limited chronological significance. With the passage of time an increase in the size of the settlement or change in its organizationcan be found in the large areas immediately adjacentto the site and not on top of it. Conclusions and Summary I have attempted to demonstrate that the undergroundstructures of the Chalcolithic period at Beer-sheba were not used as dwellings. Because of the uniqueness of these structures, it seems to me that the traditional stratigraphicalapproach,which is problematic, even in the simpler case of Horvat Beter,cannot be applied in this special case. Although the floors of the surface are higher than those of the undergroundstructures, they can definitely be of the same period of occupation. If the undergroundstructures were not used as living space, then what purpose were they created for?Without a detailed publication of the structures and the finds associated with them it is difficult to answer such a question. It is hoped that the detailed results of the excavations will soon be published. Nevertheless, on the basis of the preliminary publications (Perrot 1955, 1984),it is possible to suggest

Biblical Archaeologist, June.1987

then

were we

socioeconomic northern

Negeb.

that in most of the cases the structures were used as storage facilities (Gophna 1982:89). A good illustration of this point is one of the best preservedundergroundstructures, 128 (Perrot1955:26-27, figures 4, 6, and 7),where ten jarsof different shapes were found on the surface of level 4. This structurewas connected by an opening to structure 126, which contained the burial of a newborn child. The passageinto 128 is via tunnel 139. Eventually,according to Perrot(1955:28), "cave128 was blocked up after some ten jarsand various pots had been placed in it; the burial . .. in 126 occurredat the same time followed by the blocking of the round window which opened out on cave 128. Laterwe shall find that the wall was soon opened up again and the wall sealing the entrance was demolished." The presence of numerous jars, and the blocking and opening of the undergroundstructureare suggestive of a storagefacility. The blocking of structure 128 at Tell Abu Mataris not an exceptional phenomenon. Ussishkin (1970: 113)said of the site, "Domestic artifactshad been stored in an exemplary orderin one of the silos: pottery bowls were put one inside the other and the small vessels inserted into the largerpots. Later the inhabitants blocked with big stones the room entrances and closed the houses. ... Thus many rooms were exposed the way their owners left them- intact and locked." Ussishkin (1970)thus interpreted the finds as indicating a planned and organizeddesertion of the site. The fact that structures were reopened, however,makes the interpretationof

them as storage facilities more plausible. I would add that the majority of the undergroundstructures recently excavatedat Neve Noy (Eldar and Baumgarten1985: 139),near Bir es-Safedi,were devoid of finds; no occupation debris has been observed. This clearly indicates that people did not dwell there. The possibility that the underground structures were used as storage facilities raises a set of questions about the social and economic organization of the northern Negeb. Such questions have recently gained more attention (Levy1986; Gilead, in press).A focus for further research should thereforebe the attempt to reconstruct the social and economic basis of the local inhabitants as a backgroundto the appearanceof such structures. This treatment of the structures and pits of the Beer-shebasites demonstrates that an overemphasis on the stratigraphicalaspects limits and considerablybiases the attempt to reconstruct the past, and the overemphasis is not confined to the study of the Chalcolithic period. It is not, however,my intention to arguethat the days of stratigraphyare over. Stratigraphyis, and will be, one of the central pillars of archaeological research.Nevertheless, it should be coupled with a socio-spatial analysis that seeks to reconstruct the whole life of a community at a certain time. Acknowledgments This study was supportedby the fund for basic research administered by the IsraelAcademy of Sciences. I would like to thank J.Perrotfor his permission to publish the photographsof the undergroundstructures. The drawingswere prepared by Tally Karinkin and YuvalGoren. I also thank Thomas E. Levy,who read a draftof this paper and made useful suggestions.

Beer Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv:Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology. Albright,W.E. 1956 The Archaeologyof Palestine. Baltimore: PenguinBooks. Amiran, R., and others 1978 EarlyAradI: The Chalcolithic Settlement and EarlyBronzeCity 1. Firstfifth Seasons of Excavations, 19621966. Jerusalem:IsraelExploration Society. Bar-Yosef, O. 1983 The Natufian in the SouthernLevant. Pp. 11-42 in The Hilly Flanks and Beyond,edited by P.H. Smith and P. Mortensen.Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Dothan, M. 1959 Excavationsat HorvatBeter(Beer Sheva).cAtiqot 2:1-42. Eldar,I., and Baumgarten,Y. 1985 Neve Noy: a Chalcolithic Site of the Beer-shebaCulture. Biblical Archaeologist 48: 134-39. Gilead, I. in press The Economic Basis of the Northern Negev Inhabitantsduringthe Chalcolithic Period.Michmanim. (Hebrew) Gophna,R. 1982 The Chalcolithic Period.Pp. 76-94 in The History of EretzIsrael, volume 1, edited by I. Ephal.Jerusalem: KeterPublishingHouse. (Hebrew) Herzog,Z. 1978 The Chalcolithic, Canaaniteand Israelite Periods,Pp. 27-38 in Beersheba, edited by Y.Gradosand E. Stern.Jerusalem:KeterPublishing House. (Hebrew) Hole, E, and Heizer, R. F. 1973 Introduction to PrehistoricArchae-

In

the Sumerian

ology, third edition. New York:Holt, ReinhartandWinston. Kenyon,K. M. 1979 Archaeology in the Holy Land, fourth revisededition. London: ErnestBenn. Levy,T E. 1986 The Chalcolithic Period.Biblical Archaeologist 49: 82-108. Macdonald,E., Starkey,J.L.,andHarding,G. L. 1932 Beth Pelet II. PrehistoricFara.Series: British School of Archaeologyin Egypt 52. London:British School of Archaeologyin Egyptand Bernard Quartich. Mallon, A., Koeppel,R., and Neuville, R. 1934 Teleilat Ghassul, I. Rome:Pontifical Biblical Institute. Oren, E. D., and Gilead, I. 1981 Chalcolithic Sites in Northeastern Sinai. TelAviv 8: 25-44. Perrot,J. 1955 The Excavationsat Tell Abu Matar. Israel ExplorationJournal5: 17-40, 73-84, 167-89. 1984 Structuresd'habitat,mode de la vie et environnement:Les villages souterrains des pasteursde Beershevadans le Sud d'Isradl,au LWe millenaire avantl'Nrechretienne. Paleorient 10/1:75-92. Ussishkin, D. 1970 The Chalcolithic Periodin EretzIsrael. Qadmoniot 110-25. (Hebrew) 1980 The Ghassulian Shrineat En-gedi. TelAviv 7: 1-44. Winter,M. C. 1976 The ArchaeologicalHousehold Cluster in the Valleyof Oaxaca.Pp. 25-31 in The EarlyMesoamerican Village,edited by K. V.Flannery. New York:Academic Press.

Next

BA

Cuisine

by HenriLimet

Bibliography Aharoni,Y.,editor 1973 Beer Sheva I. Excavationsat Tell

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

117

TheHa t 1

0

ByAvnerRaban he tell of ancient Dorcalled Khirbetel-Burjby the Arabs- is located on Israel'sMediterranean of Mount Carmel. south coast, and south of the tell are North, east, a series of large,well-protected,but rather shallow bays and lagoonsformed as a coastal sandstone ridge has been partially erodedand flooded by the sea. Although there are at present sandy beaches next to it, it

mayhavebeenvirtuallyan island

4,000 years ago when the postglacial transgressionof the sea reached its highest level. The site has a long nautical history (seeWachsmannandRaveh1984), b*utit is of particularinterest be5 cause it is the only harborattributed Sby historical testimony to one of the Sea Peoples (see Sandars1978, as well as the sidebaraccompanying the present paper). The first archaeologicalexcavations at Tel Dor, directedby John Garstang,were carriedout by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalembetween 1923 and 1925. Bedrockwas reached in only one section, the southwest slope of the tell, exposing some pottery of the twelfth to thirteenth centuries B.C.E., Above: The Philistines in battle (around1200 B.C. E.). The armor is based on that shown in the reliefs at Medinet Habu; the sword is in the style of those found at Gaza; and the shield decorations are based on those found on Philistine pottery of the early IronAge. Drawing is adapted from a reconstructionby GertrudeLevy.Left:The submergedquay in the bay south of TelDor. Note the ashlar masonry that comprises the ancient loading stage. Because of centuries of undertrenching throughwave action, the quay today inclines toward the sea.

118

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

ofthe SeaPeop including decoratedpieces of the Philistine style. Trialexcavations were conducted by Israel'sDepartment of Antiquities in the 1950s, but they dealt only with the Roman theater on the northeasternside of the site. In 1980 Hebrew University, The IsraelExplorationSociety, California State University at Sacramento,The ". University of California at Berkeley, and Boston University undertook a joint expedition to conduct largescale annual excavations at Dor. Its leader,EphraimStern of the Archae- . ological Institute of Hebrew University (see Stern 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1985),sought the participation of Haifa University's Center for Maritime Studies in studying the archaeological evidence for ancient maritime activities. The center has studied such issues since the mid 1960s, primarily by conducting longshore and underwater surveys,tracing archaeologically dated evidence for ancient sea levels, and plotting man-madestructures and installations that might referto changes in land-searelations over the centuries (see Sneh and Klein 1984).In our collaboration with ProfessorStern, however,we have expandedour researchand conducted a series of trial excavations along the shoreline of the tell (see Raban 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985a, and 1985b).These excavations,although farfrombeing completed,havealready revealeda multitude of installations An artist'sreconstructionof the topographyof Dor around 1200 B.C.E. Note especially the sandstone ridgeprotectingthe harborfrom the open sea, and the rock-cutpassage, which served an antisilting function. View is from the south.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

119

Excavations

have

Dor

fish

washing

RocyBottom Channels Washing

tanks

piscinas,

catchers,

0

wave

.,Love

Slipways-

and

GreatPodium

channels.

for Temples

Wave-Catcher

dated to between the Middle Bronze Age and the Byzantine period. The discoveries, which have included such harborfeatures as quays,landing stages, shipyards,fish tanks and piscinas, purple-dyeingfacilities, wave catchers,andwashing channels, testify to the richness and complexity of maritime activities throughout the history of Dor and the everchanging sea levels and water lines to which her installations had to be adjusted. In this paperI would like to report on the work done thus far on the southern side of the tell. Before doing this, however,I will briefly sketch what we know of Dor and the Sikuli (the group of Sea Peoples who used Dor as a harbor)from historical sources. Historical Referencesto Dor and the Sikuli The earliest known historical reference to Dor comes from the reign of Ramesses II (who ruled in the first half of the thirteenth century B.C.E.). It is mentioned in a list of coastal cities in Canaan that was found in his temple at El-Amra(Nubia). Another Egyptianreferenceis in a papyrusdated to the time of Judges - around 1100 B.C.E.The papyrus

tells the story of Wen-Amon,an Egyptianofficial sent to Byblos to buy cedar logs for the sacredbargeof Amon (see Pritchard1955:25-29)

120

I

ship-

quays,

yards, and

revealed

installations

such as

at

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

N rasive

tform

Shehafit Island

Dor Island

o

man

Tafa ncho

y Bottom

Hufami

A plan of present-dayTelDor and vicinity The fish pond of Kibbutz Nahsholim is the site of the Middle BronzeAge haven. The islands once werepart of a coastal ridge or peninsula, which protected the harborarea from the open sea.

1\

/

-- ....i ,,1.

_ ,•

AB -_

--

\

-

_~

mQ

Q

•"

•

---~

.

D~f

s,,,,

C----

_2_

\

r"

A FQ~

..

Sh-elf

COO

c0 0 o

E

O

OOj

Sandy

Beach N

Plan of the quay area on the southeast side of TelDor. Note the retaining wall (H),the western segment of the quay with ashlar headers (B, C), the well and drainagechannel area (D), the Hellenistic city-wall (F)cutting the eastern end of the retaining wall (H),the tenth-century-B.C.E. cross-wall (M),and the remains of earlier ashlar headers (E).

and it contains the passage,"Ireached Dor, a town of the Sikilaia [Sikkulo]." In addition to the referencein the story of Wen-Amon,the Sikuli are mentioned in an Egyptianpapyrus that gives a final summary of the activities of Ramesses IIIin the north (PapyrusHarris I: LXXVI,7; see Pritchard 1955:262). Written soon after his death, it says: I extendedall the frontiersof Egypt and overthrewthose who had attackedfromtheir lands.I slew the Denyenin their islands,while the Sikuli and the Philistines were made ashes . ..

I settled them in

strongholds,bound in my name. TheirmilitaryclasseswerenumerI asous as hundred-thousands. them all with for signedportions clothing and provisionsfrom the treasuriesandgranarieseveryyear. There is also a reference in a twelfth-century text from Ugarit (RS 34.129) to the Sikuli as pirates dwelling in ships (see Dietrich and Loretz 1978). Dor is mentioned several times in the Bible. Three occur in the book of Joshua.The first (11:2)identifies Dor as an ally of Jabin,king of Hazor;

the second (12:23)is in a list of thirtyone kings defeatedby Joshua;'and the third (17:11)mentions Dor among the cities designated to be within the western half of the inheritance of Manasseh. (The last does not referto the city of Dor but, rather,to "theinhabitants of Dor and its villages.")In the book of Judges(1:27)it is emphasized that "Manassehdid not drive out the inhabitants of ... Dor, nor her villages Finally, it is mentioned [daughters]." in 1 Kings (4:11).It seems that Dor was not taken by the Israelites until early in the tenth century B.C.E.,

during the reign of David, whose son, Solomon, made Dor one of his twelve districts (1 Kings 4:11).2 The Bible'sreferences to the Sea Peoples are confined to the Philistines. They are described only as militarily superiorurbanpeople, ironsmiths,farmers,andwine-makers, with no referenceto their undertaking maritime activities of any kind. The single exception- if one accepts that Dan is the equivalent of Denyen, as suggested by the late Yigael Yadin -comes

from the Song of Deborah

(Judges5:17):"Andwhy doesDan

remain in ships?"

Excavatingthe SouthernSide Ourexcavationsof the southernside ofTelDorhavethusfarrevealedmany interestingfeatures,includingquays anda well anddrainagechannel. Thequays.Thesouthernsidehastwo sections:a fingerlikepromontoryto the west andaccumulatedoccupationallevelsto the east.Thepromontory,basedon the coastalsandstone ridge,is the highestpoint of the tell andwasprobablyusedas the town's citadelor acropolisfromits earliest days.It laterbecamethe site of a Crusadercastle,CastelumMarle. The rockybaseterminateson the lee side in a verticalcleft surrounded by an abrasiveshelfjustbelowthe waterlevel.This is whereGarstang's expeditiondugits trenchin 19231924.The easternhalfhas no underlyingbedrock,andthe occupational levelswerebuilt into the lee side of the coastalridge.This sectionis washedbythe waterof the big southernbayat its base,but its eastern edgefacesa sandybeach- a product

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

121

of a recent influx of sand that filled in part of the originally deeperbay. In the washedsection is an ashlarpavedquay,or landing stage, made from three or four lines of long rectangular slabs, their narrowsides facing the sea. It now tilts slightly towardsthe sea-perhaps the effect of centuries of undertrenchingwave erosion. The quay is some 35 meters long on its east-westaxis and 11 to 12 meters wide. The eastern and western ends seem to have been flanked by great rectangularstructures;only the bases of the southern walls of these structuresremain, to the height of two courses of the huge ashlar "headers,"about 3 meters long and 1 meter high. The western structure reaches the easterncleft of the coastal ridge;the eastern one is partially buried under the sand of the beach. The lee side of this quay is covered with building stones that over the years have eroded and fallen from the southern slope of the tell. After tracing and surveyingthe quay,we began clearing off some of these blocks in orderto establish an architectural/stratigraphiccontinuity from the sea-washedpart of the quay to the undisturbedoccupational levels of the tell proper. The original surface of the platform, at the waterfront,is comprised of two or three courses of flat slabs laid on fine wind-blown sand without any shells or pottery sherds;it is at about the present mean sea level (m.s.l.). It is quite clear that when this landing stage was built, the body of water next to it was separated from the open sea and thus exerted no wave energy-a topography similar to the present lagoon basin of Tanturahon the southern side of the bay.The base of the eastern flanking structure was found to sit on muddy loam at about 1 meter below mean sea level. The presence of some pottery sherds from the Chalcolithic and EarlyBronze I periods on the top of this mud represents an early stage during which the sea was much lower and farther

122

Above: Variousphases of the quays at area A. The ashlar floor higher up on the beach represents the later phase, constructed after the rise in sea level, while that lower on the beach representsthe initial phase of the harborfacilities. Right:Ashlar headers from area C dating to the twelfth century B.C.E.are

among the earliest yet found. Until now, such headers have been found only in much later structuresdating to the eighth to the fifth centuries B.C.E.

away,west of the coastal ridge.The pottery sherds at the base of the structure are to be dated to the late thirteenth and perhaps early twelfth

centuriesB.C.E.

At the lee side of the quay,below the fallen blocks and on the western segment (areasB and C), is a course of slim ashlar"headers"that resemble a type known until now only from much later seawalls and quaysdated to the eighth through fifth centuriesB.C.E.-of such Phoenician sites as Tabatel Hammam in Syria, Tyrein Lebanon,and cAthlit in Israel (see Hult 1983).This is a step towards another, later platform whose surface is some 35 to 40 centimeters above mean sea level. In places the surface of this higher stage is covered with a layer of limey marine encrustation, a sign of its once being flooded by the rising sea. The eastern segment (areaA) is overlaidwith a 4-by-9-meterplat-

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

ap. -

-U

q^-

form, on top of whose ashlar base is a pavement of carefully dressed and laid rectangularslabs. The platform was connected to the now-buried occupational level by a 2-meter-wide pavement of similar construction. It seems that the connecting pavement was addedat a later stage, for,while the platform sits on fine sand, it lies on wave-carriedshells and stones. Also found below the pavement were some water-wornpottery sherds of the LateBronze Age. The platform was later dismantled and the paving slabs used, laid on their narrowsides,

Wvoviews of the rectangularwell in area D.

to raise the pavement to about 1.8 meters abovethe present mean sea level. The higher pavement was soon after incorporatedinto a long retaining wall (H)that runs along over 50 meters of the foot of the tell. At this stage it was only two ashlar courses high and served as some sort of quay;its face was coveredwith large, flat, rectangularslabs (measuring 1.8x 1.0x 0.3 meters),each with a rectangular groove on two adjacent corners. This type of slab, with the same twin holes in the face (probablyto enable connection to a hoisting device), is known also from ashlar walls at Enkomi, Cyprus. The best parallel, though, is from the paved face of the "Bastions"found outside and below the earliest defense walls at Kition. These rectangularstructures, two of which were found by Vassos Karageorghis(1976:53-55), have been dated to the late thirteenth It is very probablethat century B.C.E. their original function was as quays or landing stages in the inner harbor of the sacred areaof Kition'stemples. The wall (H)was later, at its eastern end, cut by the Hellenistic city-wall, and, at its western end,

early Iron Age that seems to follow the contours of the rocky southeastern edge of the promontory. that is in parts preservedto a height Much of the debris that coveredits of over 3 meters was built on top of lee side has since been erodedby the ashlar courses, probablyduring the second half of the eleventh censixty years of exposure to the eleIt was lined on its southern ments; the erosion has revealedits tury B.C.E. crescent shape and shown us that (sea)side with a compact floor of crumbled sandstone mixed with red there was a topographichollow to the east of it that was pavedbefore loam that was laid on the tumbled rocks and wave-carriedshells cover- the wall was erected. Apparently this pavement was within the first ing the earlier quays. This floor seems to have been quay'swestern flanking structure. A rectangularwell, measuring well protectedfromthe then-receding 1.8 by 1.6 meters, with ashlar paving sea. Many crushed pottery vessels, mainly conical holemouth jarsof the stones lining its inner faces, was eleventhcenturyB.C.E.,were foundon sunk through the pavement and the its surviving parts.The sediments underlying abrasiverocky platform to a depth of about 50 centimeters on it are mainly black muddy subbelow the present mean sea level. stances deposited while the enclosThe well's sidewalls were originally ing walls to the south were still intact. It is thereforeclear that the sea built to a height of 85 centimeters abovethe pavedfloor. Considering had regressedfrom its earlier level that it was to drawfrom the freshon the south side of the site during water table, which lies just on top of the eleventhcenturyB.C.E. andthat the people of Dor had used what had seawater in the ground,the well's been the waterfrontto build some depth indicates a sea level of about 60 to 80 centimeters below today's. "terrestrial"structures. This technique of utilizing a shallow The well and the drainagechannel. Justto the west of the series of quays, coastal water-tablewas known along Garstang'sexcavationsuncoveredan the Levantinecoast as early as the Neolithic period.At nearbyTanturah impressive, retaining wall from the

replacedby the cross-wallsof the

tenth centuryB.C.E.A rubblewall

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

123

the local Arabvillagers had their main well on the southwest side of the lagoon, where it is still visible, although partly submerged,today. Pottery sherds found on the floor aroundit date the well at Dor to the late thirteenth century B.C.E. Its walls were subsequently heightened by the addition, in two stages, of more courses of ashlar slabs. In the first stage a new limey floor, 60 centimeters higher than the original one, was laid. This seems to be contemporarywith the retaining wall to the west. The second stage was the addition of a drainagechannel, which runs by the eastern side of the well and leads from the built areawithin the tell southward,towardsthe sea. To build the channel, 60 centimeters high, rectangularstone slabs were placed 45 centimeters aparton the flat stone pavement;they then served as supports for the largerslabs of the same type that coveredthe channel. The covering slabs were incorporatedinto the floor of the third, and highest, phase of the well. The construction of this floor- crumbled sandstone mixed with compact red loam - seems to correspondwith the one found further to the east. Many crushed, clay jars (with conical mouth-holes) and some other pottery types, dated to the late twelfth or early eleventh century B.C.E.,were recoveredfrom the floor. The top of the well then reached 2.7 meters abovemean sea level, its surrounding floor some 60 centimeters lower. The well went out of use some time later. A rubble wall was built across its mouth and a correspondingfloor was laid next to it - dated by pottery finds to around 1000 B.C.E. More or less the same date is attributed to the two massive crosswalls to the east (M and L), whose foundation trenches were cut into the red floor. Curiously, they and most of the other massive structures of the early tenth century B.C.E.at Dor were made from huge limestone rubble blocks. It seems that the newcomers who rebuilt this coastal site

124

The

Sea

Peoples

n the twelfth century B.C.E., the relativepeace and prosperityof the Aegean was brought to an abruptend. The balance of power in the entire eastern Mediterraneanwas upset as the superpowers,weakenedby internal troubles, were assaultedby a series of maraudingpeoples:the Mycenaeancivilization of the Aegean,the Hittite empire in Anatolia, andthe city-statesof the Levantall collapsedbetween 1250and 1150B.C.E. Only Egypt,albeit in a much weakened state, managed to ward off the catastrophethat shook the rest of the known world. Egyptianinscriptions and reliefs on monuments at Luxorand Karnak commemorating the victories of the pharaohsMerneptahand Ramesses III overthe invaders(1210and 1176B.C.E.) coin the term "SeaPeoples"and arethe written source for our knowledge of those responsible for the upheaval. only The foreigncountries ... made a conspiracyin their islands. All at once the lands were on the move, scatteredto war.No country could standbeforetheir arms. . . . Their league was Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh [Sikuli], Denyen and Weshesh. (Fromthe victory stele of Merneptahat Medinet Habu) Some of the Sea Peoples seem to have come from the Aegeanand western Anatolia, and some had little or no connection at all with the sea or the "islands,"though they originatedin lands that the Egyptiansassociated with the sea. Troy and the people of the Troadin northwesternAnatolia may be represented by the Weshesh, if they are the same as the people of Wilusa (possibly Ilion) known from Hittite letters, and by the Tjeker if they are the people known by the Romansas Teucre,Trojanancestorsof the Etruscans.The Amarnaletters in conjunction with Hittite documents link the Denyen with the areajust north of Ugarit on the Orontes river.If these are to be recognized as the Danaans (Greeks)of Homer, then they may representMycenaeans at the trading city of Ugarit. As for the Peleset, there is an etymological connection with the Philistines of the Levantinecoast, though on the stele of

carried large calcite boulders all the way from the inland Carmel range, for a while unaware of the better quality of the local sandstone. This suggests that their origin was the hilly hinterland of the country and that they were thus the Israelites of the time of David.

Evaluatingthe data. The archaeological research conducted thus far at Dor's southern side suggests the following succession of events from the late thirteenth to the early tenth century B.C.E. In the late thirteenth century B.C.E.,

when the maritime installa-

tions were first erected, the topography was somewhat different from The well and adjacent drainagechannel in area D.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

Ramesses IIIthey are pairedwith the Teresh,who are believed to have been coastalAnatolians. Finally,the Shekelesh [Sikuli]have origins that seem to be found not in Anatolia or Syria but rather in Sicily. (See Sandars 1978 for a detailed discussion of origins.) The Sea Peoples themselves were probablyset in motion by largefactors. Though the civilizations of the eastern Mediterraneanwere highly sophisticated, they accounted for only scattered or isolated urban pockets with bureaucracies intensely self-centered and preoccupied with details. There were two basic economic classes: those that dwelled and worked within the palatialwalls and the overwhelmingmajoritythat lived outside them. Pirates infested the shorelines, and barbarians,always just beyond the narrow confines of the known world, took advantageof any opportunity to plunder the rich towns. Rainfallin this areais always scarce- a seasonal shift in the trade winds could mean a catastrophic drought and famine, with the only relief found in the granariesof the fortifiedpalaces. Such a fragileecology, economy, and society meant that the civilizations of the Aegean and Near East stood precariously balanced. In any of these civilizations or in any of their socioeconomic facets, a minor crisis could quickly turn into a major catastrophe, setting maraudingbands of dispossessed or starvingpeople on the move. Whatever the reason for the invasion, Egypt, having repulsed them, allowed some of them to settle in the southern Levantunder her suzerainty. Among the sites inhabited by these peoples were the Philistine city-states of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gath, as well as the harbor-townat Tel Dor. Forfurtherinformation, see Nancy K. Sandars,The Sea Peoples (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978);EdwardE. Hindson, The Philistines in the Old Testament (GrandRapids:BakerBook House, 1971);R. A. Crosslandand Ann Birchall, editors, Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean (Park Ridge, New

Jersey:Noyes Press, 1974);V. R. dA. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors (Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1964);TrudeDothan, The Phili-

stines and Their Material Culture (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society,

1982).

JohnS. Jorgensen

An artist'srenderingof a Sikuli ship unloading at the quay in the well area (D) of Dor. Note that the original landing stage, now under water beneath the ship, has been rendereduseless by the rising sea.

foreign

"The

made

countries a

conspiracy

their at

islands.

All

lands

the

once

on

were

scattered

No stand

in

the

move, to

country before

war.

could

their

today's. The sea level was over a halfmeter lower, and what is at present a bay open to the sea southwest of the tell was the innermost part of a long narrow lagoon that opened to the sea about a mile further south. The series of rocky islets that today give partial protection to the lagoon from the open sea was more continuous (that is, the islets were less eroded); less sand lay on the lee side; and no tombolo divided the lagoon from the bay. This paleotopography allowed ships to moor anywhere in the lagoon (Late Bronze Age anchors and jars were found on its bottom); the establishment of a quay at the northern inner end, within the built site of Dor, enabled the movement of goods and the conduct of various commercial and military activities in the port. The sea level rose constantly, albeit gradually, from the late thirteenth to the early tenth century B.C.E. The people of Dor had to adjust the quays and the well at least twice, perhaps three times, to the realities of that transgression. The rising of the sea would have exacerbated the incursion of sand into the lagoon. The answer was to cut a channel through the rocky shelf then enclosing the bay's western side. This completed the circulation of water, and

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

125

though the rising sea permitted the tide to surge over the further eroded shelf-as confirmed by the concentrations of wave-carriedstones and shells-the additional turbulence itself slowed down the siltage and helped to keep the haven navigable. When the eustatic trendreversed, from transgressionto regression, towardthe middle of the eleventh century, the harborfacilities at the south side of the tell fell into disuse, and the areawas incorporatedinto the built, terrestrialsettlement. By this time the local Sikuli may have ceased to be one of the Sea Peoples in the true sense of the term-that is, they may have not actually been involved in maritime activities. The growingpower of the Israelites in the hinterland and of the Tyriansand Sidonians on the high seas weakened their domain. A generation later David took the site and addedit to his kingdom. Conclusion Although our research is far from complete, what we have learned thus far is significant: The harbor installations at Dor are the first to be securely attributed to one of the Sea Peoples. Furthermore,the architectural and engineering concepts found there can now be sought in similar, earlier structures around the Mediterranean. The only BronzeAge harbor that has stone quaysknown to date is the Minoan one at Malia, Crete (see VanEffenterre1980: 75-77). There, the quays are made accessible via a rock-cutnavigational channel leading from the open sea to an inner lagoon. This was pavedon one side with rectangularslabs. (SeeVan Effenterre1980.) As mentioned above,there are quay platforms at Kition that resemble and are contemporarywith the one in areaA at Dor. The two sites were settled by maritime people during the late thirteenth century B.C.E.; and many "composite"three-hole, stone anchors (probablyanothertech-

126

EasternMediterranean:Cyprus, Ugarit, and NeighboringRegions. Series:Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology66. G6teberg,Sweden. Karageorghis,V 1976 Kition:Myceneanand Phoenician Discoveriesin Cyprus.London: Thames and Hudson. Pritchard,J.B. 1955 Ancient Near EasternTextsRelating to the Old Testament,secondedition. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. Raban,A. 1981 Recent Maritime Archaeological Researchin Israel.International Journalfor Nautical Archaeology 10: 293-308. 1982 Notes and News. Israel Exploration Journal32: 145-47; 256-59. 1983 Recent MaritimeArchaeological Researchin Israel.International Journalfor Nautical Archaeology 12: 229-41. 1985a Recent MaritimeArchaeological Researchin Israel.International Journalfor Nautical Archaeology 14: 332-49. 1985b The Ancient Harboursof Israelin BiblicalTimes. Pp. 23-29 in Harbour Archaeology,edited by A. Raban. Series:B.A.R.InternationalSeries 257. Oxford:B.A.R. Rainey,A. 1982 ToponymicProblems.TelAviv 9: 132-36. Sandars,N. K. 1978 The Sea Peoples.London:Thames and Hudson. Schaeffer,C. E.A. 1962 Ugaritica IV.Series:Mission de Ras Shamra15. Institut Frangaisd'Archeologie de Beyrouth.Bibliotheque Notes archeologiqueet historique 74. Paris: 'It shouldbe notedthatthe firsttwo PaulGeuthner. referencesin Joshuabearthe additional Stern,E. M. Ben-Dov (1976) adjective"napha." 1980 Notes and News. Israel Exploration was recentlysuggestedthat"napha" Journal30: 209-13. reminiscentof theHomericterm"napee," 1982 Notes and News. IsraelExploration whichmeans"aforestorwoodin the Journal32: 107-17. Notes and News. Israel Exploration 1983 It a be Sea plain." might People'sequivaJournal33: 259-61. lent of the biblicalterm"Sharon." See 1985 Notes and News. Israel Exploration also Rainey (1982). Journal35: 60-64. with the appellative"napha." 2Again, Sneh, Y.,and Klein, M. 1984 Holocene Sea LevelChangesat the Bibliography Coast of Dor, Southeast Mediterranean.Science 226: 831-32. Ben-Dov,M. 1976 napha-A geographicalterm of posVanEffenterre,H. sible "SeaPeople"Origin. TelAviv 3: 1980 Le Palais de Mallia et la citi Mino70-73. enne. Series:IncunabulaGraeca76. Rome. Dietrich, M., and Loretz,O. 1978 Das "Seefrahrende Volk"von Sikila. Wachsmann,S., and Raveh,K. 1984 A Concise Nautical History of Dor/ Ugarit-Forschungen10:53-56. Tantura.InternationalJournalfor Hult, G. 1983 BronzeAge Ashlar Masonryin the Nautical Archaeology 13:223-41.

nical innovation of the Sea Peoples) were found in both. Recent excavations at Maa-Palaeokastroon the west coast of Cyprus and Ras Ibn Hani in Syriahaiverevealedmore ashlar "header"structures;these have been related to newcomers from the sea with a material culture similar to that of the Sea Peoples (though not exactly that of the Philistines). It seems that our discoveries at Dor have confirmed Claude E A. Schaeffer'sassumption, based on his excavations at Enkomi and Ugarit, that a new ethnic group settled the Levantinecoast and that the "ashlar builders,"with their technical knowhow and material culture, should be sought among the BronzeAge cultures of the Aegean (see Schaeffer 1962). The courses of slim "headers" in the seawalls at Dor are instrumental in testing another assumption. This type of marine structure became the trademarkof later Phoenician harborinstallations. Werethe engineeringand nautical technologies broughtby the Sea Peoples to the Levantindeed the triggerthat set off the burst of maritime activities of their "children,"the Phoenicians, only one or two generations after the total destruction of the great Bronze Age civilizations of the Near East?

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

caemc IF THIS IS TREASON, I AM GUILTY Allan A. Boesak This collectionof addressesand sermons

from 1979 to 1986 shows

all

aspectsof Boesak'sinvolvementin the anti-apartheidmovement.It includes

pieces that offer analysis of the church's

role in politicalissues,as well as sermonsand articlesshowing a deep biblicalunderstandingof the issues at stake. Paper, $7.95

MAKING HIGHER EDUCATION CHRISTIAN The History and Mission of Evangelical Colleges in America Edited by Joel A. Carpenter and Kenneth W. Shipps The essayspresent&e here reflecta maturing

of community

Paper, $3.95

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS New International Commentary on the New Testament Gordon D. Fee This replacement volume in the

NICNTseries

providesa

scholarshipfocused on the unfinished businessof developinga thoroughly Christianapproachto offer new higher education.Theycontemporary. theoreticalperspectiveson the aims and basesof educating,candidassessments of shortcomingsin evangelical scholarship,and concretesuggestions tforeffectiveapproachesto contemporaryproblems.

readable,verse-byverseexpositionof the text of I Corinthians. Writtenprimarilvfor pastors,teachers, and students,the commentaryis faithfulto the biblicaltext and incorporatesthe best elementsof previousworks. "A work of high distinction,which will add lusterto the series."

Paper, $16.95

Cloth,

BEGINNING NEW TESTAMENT STUDY Bruce Chilton Providinga brief overviewof major issuesof historyand interpretation, BruceChilton gives guidanceboth on the culturalworld of the original writersand on key questionsthat arise when their words are appliedto the world of today.The closing chapters providea balanceddiscussionon the placeof the New Testamentin moderntheology. Paper, $9.95

MEGIDDO Cities of the Biblical World Graham I. Davies This volume is the firstto give a comprehensiveand illustratedaccount of German,Israeli,and American archaeologicalfinds at Megiddo. Paper,$8.95 THEOLOGY AND MINISTRY IN CONTEXT AND CRISIS A South African Perspective John W. de Gruchy In this book John W. de Gruchvoffers a majortheologicalstudy of ministry contextualizedwithin the realities of the resentSouth Africansituation. Paper,$9.95

108

EVANGELICAL WITNESS IN SOUTH AFRICA An Evangelical Critique of Evangelical Theology and Practice A group of concernedSouth African evangelicals,who found theirtheologyp inadequateto addressthe crisisthey were facing,critiquethe theology and practiceof evangelicalChristiansin South Africaand elsewhere.

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

$27.95

BACKGROUNDS OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY Everett Ferguson In this book Ferguson documentsthe Roman, Greek,and Jewish backgroundsof

early Christianity:

'

with the aim of" increasinghistorical understandingof both the New Testamentand the earlychurch.Designed as an introductorytextbook,this volume will makepossiblemore intelligentuse of commentariesand referenceworksand will makestudentsand teachersaware of primaryand secondarysources. Paper,$22.95 PSALMS, PART I, WITH AN INTRODUCTION TO CULTIC POETRY The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Volume XIV Erhard Gerstenberger This is the fifth volumeto appear V in TheForms of the Old Testament Literature,a seriesof 24 volumeswhich will presentformcriticalanalysisof everybook or unit in the Old Testament(HebrewBible). Paper,$21.95

oo00s

A CONCISE EXEGETICAL GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK Revised Fifth Edition J. Harold Greenlee A significantimprovementover previouseditions,this fifth edition is a thoroughgoingrevisionof the Grammar,basedon Greenlee'sfurther yearsof teachingand research. Greenleehas expandedseveralsections of the book and has addedan index to over 7oo New Testamentpassages referredto in the book. Paper,$5.95 EXPLORING GOD'S WORD A Guide to John's Gospel Donald Guthrie To promotemore expositionalstudy of the biblicaltext, noted biblicalsch;olar Donald Guthriehas preparedthese sermonoutlines for the Gospelof John. While the aim is to discoverwhat the text actuallysays,the guiding purposeis to help Christiansapplyeach text or portion of Scripturcto thcir daily lives. Paper,$-.95 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN COLLEGE Revised Edition Arthur F. Holmes The authorhas extensively revisedseveral chapters,has eliminatedonegenderlanguage, and has included two new chapters: "LiberalArts as CareerPreparation" and "TheMarksof an Educated Person." Paper,$6.95 ISRAEL ALIVE AGAIN Ezra and Nehemiah International Theological Commentary Frederick Carlson Holmgren IsraelAliveAgain interpretsthe books of Ezraand Nehemiahin the context of the Hebrew Bible, exploringthe theologicalmeaningsof these often slightedbooks, and emphasizingtheir relevancefor the churchtoday. Paper,S9.95 THE KAIROS DOCUMENT Challenge to the Church Second Edition For this revisedsecond edition, the Kairostheologianshave substantially revisedthe chapteron prophetic theology in orderto clarif, points that the\ believedhad not been well developedin the firstedition. To keep the documentas simpleas possible for easy reading ordinarypeople, elaborationshave amendmentsandby. been kept to a minimum.The mood, sharpness,vigor,and simplicityof the originalhave been maintained. Paper,$2.95

II DARWIN'S FORGOTTEN DEFENDERS The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought David N. Livingstone

This book is the first systematic investigation of the response of evangelical intellectuals in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to Darwin's evolutionary theories. Paper, $9.95

VOICES FROM THE HEART Four Centuries of American

Piety

Edited by Roger Lundin and Mark A. Noll A celebration of the richness and complexity of the Christian spiritual experience, this wide-raninmg anthology includes selections by both well-known and obscure Americans--beginning with the Puritans and ending with such twentieth-century figures as Flannery O'Connor, Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Updike. Each selection is introduced with a brief biographical sketch of the author. Cloth, $19.95

THE STEEPLE'S SHADOW On the Myths and Realities of Secularization David Lyon

David Lyon argues that there is a fundamental fault in the sociolog, which predicts an inevitable withering away of the Church's influence on eople's lives. aper, $9.95

THE RESTLESS HEART The Life and Influence of St. Augustine by Michael Marshall

Believing that St. Augustine has been too long buried "beneath the dust and debris of much brilliant scholarship," Michael Marshall offers this fully illustrated, popularly written biography in the hope of interesting others in the life and work of this important Church Father. Cloth, $19.95

THE PAGAN TEMPTATION Thomas Molnar In the face of a rationalized and demythologized Christianity, says Molnar, many have sought alternate myths and symbols to understand the world. This is the pagan temptation. The only way to counter it, Molnar argues, is to restore myth and symbol to a vital role in the faith. Paper, $11.95

TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES JAMES (Replacement) Douglas Moo Paper, $4.95

REVELATION (Revised) Leon Morris

Edited by Buti Tlhagale and Itumeleng Mosala

Paper, $6.95

DEMOCRACY AND THE RENEWAL OF PUBLIC EDUCATION Encounter Series, Volume 4

Richard John Neuhaus,

General Editor In this newest addition to the

HAMMERING SWORDS INTO PLOUGHSHARES Essays in Honor of Archbishop Mpio Desmond Tutu

ENCOUNTER

EncounterSeries,

leading educators and analysts examine

the currentstatusof

the American public education system and propose ways in which it might be made more democratic and representative of our pluralistic society. Paper, $9.95

WORKING THE ANGLES The Shape of Pastoral Integrity

Eugene H. Peterson

Peterson calls the attention of his fellow pastors to three basic acts that are so critical to the pastoral ministry that they determine the shape of everything else. The acts-prayer, reading Scripture, and giving spiritual direction-are acts of attention to God in three different contexts: oneself, the community of faith, and another person.

Paper,$7.95

PUBLIC THEOLOGY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY Christian Stewardship in Modern Society

This book includes personal tributes to Desmond Tutu, theological discussions on the South African struggle, and essays on the complex political and social situation. A fitting tribute to a man who has dedicated his life and ministry to the liberation of the oppressed and exploited, Hammering Swordsinto Ploughshareswill help readers discern a truly biblical response to the South African situation and to oppression wherever it occurs. Paper, $12.95

GOD THE EVANGELIST How the Holy Spirit Works to Bring Men and Women to Faith

David F. Wells Introduction by J.I. Packer

This study places the preaching and believing of the gospel in the wider context of the Holy Spirit's work in creation, history, and the church. Paper, $6.95

Prices subject to change. For more information on these and other recent Eerdmans titles, write for a copy of our latest catalog. Examination copies of most publications are available to qualified professors.

Max L. Stackhouse

Stackhouse argues that the chief task of the Christian steward is to cultivate a new public theology to shape the structures and policies of public life. Paper, $8.95

At yourbookstore,or write:

725

E

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING CO.

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

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

109

AMERICANSCHOOLSOFORIENTAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS at

CYPRUSAMERICANARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCHINSTITUTE 1988 - 1989 The American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) are offering over $170,000 in researchfellowships, professorships, scholarships, and travel grants for the academic year 1988-1989. ASOR's awards are available to students at all levels, from undergraduateto postdoctoral scholars, and qualified individuals are invited to apply. The awards are designed to offer opportunities for study in humanistic disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, biblical studies, epigraphy,history, history of art and architecture, literature, philology, prehistory, and topography. The program encourages study of the Middle East, from prehistoric times to the modern era. ASOR is an equal opportunity organization. The Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, one of the American Schools, is the only residential archaeological institute on the island of Cyprus. Located in downtown Nicosia, it serves as a meeting place where archaeologists of all nations gather in convivial surroundings. Facilities include a common room, sherd and collections room, and living quarters. The library is growing rapidly and is supplemented by the more extensive library of the nearby Cyprus Museum. CAARI benefits from close ties with the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus, and also serves as a center for the dissemination of information about the archaeology of Cyprus.

FULBRIGHT FELLOWSHIPS.Beginning in either July or September of 1988, up to three positions will be available: (1) a research fellowship for postdoctoral research related to the grantee's doctoral dissertation; (2) a senior research fellowship for research in any field of the fellow's choosing; and (3) a student fellowship for doctoral research. The Fulbright postdoctoral fellowships (1 and 2) are for a minimum term of six months and a maximum term often months. Please note that these fellowships are intended for the purposes of genuine scholarly exchange; American nationals working at foreign universities are not eligible.

PACIFICSCIENTIFICCOMPANYFELLOWSHIP. The PacificScientific CompanyFellowshipprovidestwo awardsin the amountof $2500 eachin supportof researchin Cyprusat CAARIfor a period of three months. Predoctoralandpostdoctoralscholarsmayapply.

Contact: Fulbright Program Advisor at your institution Council for International Exchange of Scholars (for postdoctorals, 1 and 2) 11 Dupont Circle, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-4968

Contact: Dr. Stuart Swiny, Director CAARI 41 King Paul Street Nicosia 136, Cyprus Dr. PatriciaM. Bikai 1102 Neilson Street Albany, CA 94706 (415) 524-5874

Institute for International Education (for predoctoral, 3) 809 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 (212) 883-8200 Deadlines: September 15, 1987 (for postdoctorals, 1 and 2) October 31, 1987 (for predoctoral, 3) ANNUAL PROFESSORSHIP.One 9-to 12-month postdoctoral professorship is offered. It provides free room at CAARI for the professor and spouse, although CAARI cannot accommodate dependent children. No stipend is included. Contact: ASOR 4243 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 222-4644 Deadline: November 15, 1987

HONORARY FELLOWSHIPS.Six- to 12-month honorary fellowships at CAARI are available. These provide no stipend and no room-and-board benefits. They are honorary positions only, in one of the following categories: Senior Fellow, for those holding the Ph.D. five years or more; Postdoctoral Fellow, for those holding the Ph.D. less than five years; Research Fellow, a predoctoral position; and Scholar, for undergraduates. Contact: Dr. Stuart Swiny, Director CAARI 41 King Paul Street Nicosia 136, Cyprus

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

127

The

Schools

American

invites

to

you

$

15.00 1200.00"

0 O

1500.00"

[

Research

join OF O%

YourASOR membership coversthe calendar period of July 1987 through June 1988. Your membership qualifies you for participation in the ASOR annual meetings in December 1987. Members receive substantial discounts on ASOR publications. As a member, one is eligible to apply for study grants and fellowships. Members have full access to the overseas facilities in Amman, Jerusalem, and Nicosia; this includes travel benefits and reduced rates at the scholars' residences. annual membership life membership (single) life membership (joint)

Oriental

of

v,

z -t

4 x

A life membership contribution to ASOR would be

*Lifemembershipmaybe paidin fourequalannual matchable by the ChallengeGrantfrom the National installmentsof $300.00 (single)or $375.00 (joint). Endowment for the Humanities on a 1:3 basis. Please make check or money order payable to American Schools of Oriental Research. Paymentmust be in U.S. dollars. SUBSCRIPTIONPRICES

MEMBERS in U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada outside U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada NONMEMBERS individual in U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada outside U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada students, retirees,and handicapped in U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada outside U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada institutions in U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada outside U.S., U.S. possessions, or Canada

Biblical Journal of Studies Archaeologist Cuneiform

Bulletin of ASOR

ASOR Newsletter

$ 33.00 35.00

$ 12.00 14.00

$ 28.00 30.00

$ 14.00 16.00

40.00 44.00

15.00 17.00

35.00 39.00

18.00 20.00

35.00 39.00

14.00 16.00

30.00 34.00

16.00 18.00

50.00 55.00

22.00 24.00

45.00 50.00

25.00 30.00

Should you have any questions concerning membership,please contact ASOR Membership Services, Box HM, Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. (919) 684-3075. 128

Biblical Archaeologist, June 1987

4;4k

fir

44 I._

.4b

414k? . 2t u ?~~~eLCTL~2~~~,r v LI '14

OF:

t oo A.

AV

lo

qj?

4, f.. .ii

.. .

. ..fr