No title

OF4

The Biblical Archaeologist

TO

Published by TheAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch 126Inrman Mass.02139 Street,Cambridge,

:.;--_ ___

lii8gljr:iiiiiiiii;ii-ii;l88~_ '-iiii:1E: iigt-l(? iB~?~ illl.il~ i:i;'-;;'b ;:l'' iil!:lll:!:iil!i?ii?:Ileiiaiisiia:i:'-

::-::-:--:-:.:::::-.::: :-:;: -:--: -'lj'l:i--;-jii:ijiirii-i.---:i.i i:::iiiiji:-i;::::i:iiiii:i-iii.iii--: i:ii'i::i--i:i:i:-,i-:i; i'::::::::-;:l-li;;liii--;;;;;;;; --:ii;--_;;ii-:-:;-::-i ...-jii:l::::..:~.-~;:;;;;i;li..~.i.j.i; :_::::i-?-ij.i-iiiil_:li-: -::II~-.-:::: :-iiiii _:i-:_;iiiiii:-li-ij:-:_i ;ii-;r-:l-::~i: :I_.__i~:-i; .::--._--:i..:lj;-li-ii;_:;j-I:-:-:~:::: .. ;;;-- _:::ili--i ,;i:::i:ijl:,-iii-~-~~-~~-e-iiiii;aji:j ~~;:ltl~~~ll~iii;~?iic;ii_~:iia:i~iiiiii il'iaii8iil-iii'iiiiiiiiiii-~~li:iiiiili iBiBIBliii~~B-?Biiili i-:-:;iiiiiliii-iji--riiii:jiiiliiii i c~iil:l-~:';;:;:-::'P:;l;i~iiiiieii i%-?a~~i:ipil-i..ijaiiiaiiiiii-l?:':'i iii;~i~::-~-iiii-i:i--::---:-_..:-::::::-

ii~~:iisei~iiiiiiiiiiiil'-;;'-:-!iiiiei iiiiii:iiiiiiiiiii iili'i:~ii-:lleililiiiiiiiiiiiLiiiiii ~;~1:1';111'~;:~~~t~lltlllll:?:s:'l~ -i'iiiiiiii~piiaiisijp~~iii'.:i-~2iiii iio_~i~ii;~~l?:;iiiiiilii:ij:j; _r:;;-!,~;:.ll'-l::I;' iiiiw?:iii;i:ii:iiiiii:rii; _ii:ii-ii:iiias-iii;i;:i-_ii ?iiii-iiiiii:ii?jiiiiiiiliil? iiiii~iiiiijiisii-~l~iiiiiiiiiiiiliii ?':l~:~~z:;;.:l:~::::;il iijiiiiii-,ia?_-iiiiii

;_ ii: :::

i:i:::::::sis:iii:i1 ':--::--: -----

' _::- :-:i?

iiiiii.sjie?i~ :;:;:;::: : -?"i'j?d''

I::i:i-;;-i:i::-: :::: :

I:;i

:ii:s:iiiii::,:?-l-:i iiiiiiiiiiieii~~~a~iie~~jiim s~.~?:.IEti~i~~i~P11-:???11

:iii~~s~~s;ii~~~iiiiiiiiieiiiiii::i~i~~:l:?l;-i:iiiiiii;:i:i~i~ ;-_:i: --I_-:i:: -:

-:i:i:,iii~iii;Eii~_:i::iiii~iciiiiii;~ i:jiiiiiiQ;.igiieiiiijiiiiriii-i-iiiii

r?:...:. ::_:--:-I ?:-I-i::iL;_eii-iiii~i.ii:~-i:-:::i,__::-I-::::i-::?;-::-:-:---:::;:-:: -:i-:::?-;-;l--':-_-::i:":i:i:::~i:j:iii:-ii :i:iiifi~iii-iili:::i:i-_:-i:i-__ :::i~:-1-_::::::: .-..:' .i lii:~-~;i:-R;ii-jji:ii---iiiii:i:i;i:':l ?j;iii~?:Jiiiiiiiii;i:ii a~~iai:i _~ii:ijiii-_iiiiajisiii:iil--:l:jiilr:: I::

.--;-- : i-:-:i::::-::-i li-i::-----i:ii:.-.: :::I:-ii~l:-l-i

_I:;._:i :-i:i-I:_.: :::::i-:--:-:::i::_;:--::--I-;;;-.i--l;; :::::1:::;:;:; ~~-:':s:ii~~-Biii~i~i~i~-~~~~-~'~il:_~--~Ij -:-:~i~: j~j~;:ii;(i~%;i :1; -.-.-_i_:-i_'i;-_ _ i -:;::::-:i--:-:::i-:-;:_-::_i:L-:-:-:-:::: :-:-:i:i:~::::--

ralll~ll i~l~~n~;~~ ~~~s~-ia ~~-~-

;: i::::_ _:_ _.'.----i:j:-:: :::::-:: ::-____ -::::~:::-i~::: _::i~:;:-::::::::i:~::-:----:?---:::-ii:::-:::-::-;?::.-_-:i::-

SiiBii:~_iiiiiii~;,~~i(ii: tli?slt'i ~ig-g~g~-

I

-

-s~El~a~a~aubns~T~-:i:~l

i :-;:::i: -

i~;esi-?,~ r~-r6

:,8ii~iiiiii~,:-i';i1@;iiBElii:i:''6:iIl -iiliiiiil-ii4iilr:i'riiiZ:'s'."iii''

~-~C88 'Ics i~-i:--:--?- _ '-i;i:;;i:ii~~iii'i'r-lil;lil::-;:-l-

":iii~--9iiiii~:iiii~i~i~r-ail~81~_~:"ii i:-:ll-ii:liiiiiii'-Bii--'~''-l?~r~~~l~i ;,i;;i;l-n~~i?iii~it:BI:~-;;iiiii:i~~

Volume38

'i:~

No. 2

-i;i--i~jiiR-ii ii1::;_:?E:: ii:iii:-:--i i-i?iiii.,iii'-iil':i :::l-i:ji:-tii: :::_,:::::i:i:: lii---?-i---:?ii-:iiii;-lii;::::-i:--j ::--ii: : : ."::--_

May, 1975

26

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. 38,

The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (March, May, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to provide readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable accounts of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the Bible. Authors wishing to submit unsolicited articles should write the editors for style and format instructions before submitting manuscripts. Editors: Edward F. Campbell, Jr. and H. Darrell Lance, with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editors at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. Art Editor: Robert H. Johnston, Rochester Institute of Technology. Editorial Board: Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem; John S. Holladay, Jr., University of Toronto. Subscriptions: $5.00per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139.Associate members of ASOR receive the BA automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address, $3.50per year apiece. Subscriptions in England are available through B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back Numbers: $1.50per issue, 1960to present; $1.75per issue, 1950-1959;$2.00per issue before 1950.Please remit with order, to ASOR office. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, Christian Periodical Index, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1975 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,BY TRANSCRIPTPRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH,N. H.

Contents Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey, 26 by Ephraim Stern...................................... AnArchaeologicalContextfor UnderstandingJohn4:20,by RobertJ. Bull ..... 54 60 ... ............. ................. EditorialAnnouncements........... Cover:

A marble cosmetic bowl from Shechem, one of the ornamented objects characteristic of the carver's art in the 8th and 7th cents. It is the right size to fit comfortably in one's cupped hand. Photo by L. C. Ellenberger.

Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey EPHRAIM STERN Hebrew University, Jerusalem

The period, the material remains of whose culture is described below, opens with the Assyrian conquests beginning in 734 B.C. and closes with the destruction of the first Temple in 586 B.C. These were the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and of the last kings of Judah, from Hezekiah to Zedekiah. During this period the kingdom of Judah was at war with three great empiresAssyria, Egypt, and Babylon, and saw two great religious reforms, which were to influence greatly the subsequent history of the Jewish people. At that time the country was divided into three major political divisions: a) In the north, governmental districts were established under direct Assyrian rule, centered at Gilead, Megiddo, Dor, and Samaria. Some of the peoples of these regions, mainly the political and economic leaders of the conquered Israelite kingdom, had been sent into exile. In return, peoples

1975,2)

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

27

from other parts of the Assyrian empire were brought in. With time the different elements would merge to form a new nationality-the Samaritans. b) In the south and southeast were semi-independent kingdoms, the largest and strongest of which was Judah. Ammon, Moab, and Edom also flourished during this period. c) In the southwest was Philistia, which consisted of numerous small city states such as Gath, Ekron, Ashdod, Raphiah, and Gaza. Most of the time these were subject to Assyria, Egypt, or Babylon but at times they gained short periods of independence. In addition there were Phoenician settlements along the country's northern shore which were alternately subject to Tyre or Sidon. Historically too, the period divides into three main phases: a) The period of the Assyrian conquest or hegemony. In Palestine the dates marking the beginning of this phase vary according to the region. In the north the Assyrian conquest begins in the years 733-732. In Philistia the Assyrian period begins in 712, while in Judah it begins in 701. Nominally the Assyrian hegemony ended in 627 with the death of Ashurbanipal but it seems that Assyria had already lost actual control some years earlier. b) The rule of Josiah (639-609). During this short period, Judah, for whom this was a time of expansion, struggled with Egypt over the Assyrian "inheritance" and extended a certain kind of hegemony over districts in Samaria, the Negeb, and around Yabneh in the Shephelah. During this period, following the clash between Assyria and Egypt on the one hand, Babylon and Medea on the other, the Assyrian empire collapsed completely, to be succeeded by Babylon. c) The period between 604 and 586, a time marked by constant Babylonian campaigns. These reached their peak with the capture of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the annexation of the whole of Palestine to the Babylonian Empire. This historical framework is true only of Palestine when taken as a whole, for the fate of each political entity was different from that of its neighbor. The fate of the different states was dependent on two factors: their allegiance to the conqueror, and (even more important) their ability to choose the stronger side. It is therefore not surprising that the history of Judah and its neighbors during this period is marked by alliances and revolts, surrender and destruction (see charts 1 and 6). In the history of Palestine, this is a relatively well documented period. In addition to the detailed descriptions in the Bible (mainly in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, and Jeremiah) and the later literary sources (such as Herodotus and Josephus), there is an abundance of Assyrian sources of all kinds. Foremost are the reliefs which picture sieges of different towns in

28

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. 38,

Chart 1 The Kings of Judah, Assyria, and Babylonia (The dates here used are still at many points matters of scholarly dispute, but they cannot be far wrong and they do permit the broad cultural synthesis undertaken in this article to attach itself to political history. My thanks to H. Tadmor for help in the preparation of this chart and of Chart 6. Judah Assyria 745-727 B.C. Tiglath-pileser III 727-722 B.C. 727-698 B.C. Shalmaneser V Hezekiah 722-705 B.C. Sargon II 705-681 B.C. Sennacherib 681-669 B.C. Esarhaddon 669-627 B.C. 641-640 B.C. Ashurbanipal Amon 639-609 B.C. Ashur-etil-ilani 627-623 B.C. Josiah B.C. 623-612 Sin-shar-ishkun 612-610 B.C. Ashur-uballit Destruction of Nineveh and Harran, 612 and 610 Josiah's death at the Megiddo Pass, 609

Jehoahaz Jehoiakim Jehoiachin Zedekiah

609 608-598 597 596-586

Babylonia 627-605 B.C. B.C. Nabopolassar 605-562 B.C. B.C. Nebuchadnezzar II B.C. B.C.

Destruction of Jerusalem and the First Temple, 586 Palestine, such as the siege of Gezer by Tiglath-pileser III, of Gibbethon and Ekron by Sargon II, and especially the unique series of reliefs showing the siege of Lachish and its conquest by Sennacherib. There are also many monuments and documents which describe the campaigns of the kings of Assyria in the area and their accomplishments in Palestine. The lists of exiles from Palestine discovered in Assyria are also of great importance. Several Assyrian monuments and documents have been discovered in Palestine itself - in Samaria, QAqun, Ben-shemen;, Gezer, and Ashdod. Details of the events towards the end of this period are supplied by the "Babylonian Chronicle" and the Aramaic papyrus from Sakkara in Egypt (which describes the advance of the Babylonian army towards Philistia). 1.TheinscriptionsfromQaqunandBen-shemenhavenotbeenpublished;I am obligedto H. TadmorandI. Eph'alfor informationaboutthem.

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1975,2)

29

t •..•oo•0000 tr

a

r

"• L

0

I IC Fig. 1.

III at Nimrud,depictingthe siege of Gezer.See Designof a relieffromthe palaceof Tiglath-pileser BA, 30 (1967),p. 43.

Fig. 2.

TheSiloaminscriptionfromthetunnelHezekiahhaddugto bringwaterintoJerusalem.

There also have been a large number of local epigraphic finds which give a reliable account of the events of this period. First comes the Siloam inscription from Jerusalem which was inscribed in the time of Hezekiah at the outbreak of the great revolt against Assyria; then there are the Lachish letters which describe events prior to the destruction of the Temple. Further,

30

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol.38,

there is a newly discovered ostracon from Arad, of the same period, which warns the commanders of the Jewish forts in Arad, Kinah, and Ramathnegeb of Edomite attack (see Fig. 3). In addition many ostraca, burial inscriptions, seals, and seal impressions have come from various of the sites excavated. From all this a most instructive picture emerges of the administrative organizations of Judah and its neighbors as well as of daily life.2 .. ..... . U M

iiliiiiii'"iiiiii -ii~iiiiii ':,ili~i::iliilij~rijijri~i;i iiiii~iiiaij;W 4"; niiiiiiiii ';TI ::.:::::;::: :;:;At :;::;0 i~iiiiiiiii

N::

ri::-ii~ -'i-iiii;ij~

ii-iiii?:ii-:;;iii~i~io k-ii

Alili_-::::;~i _ ijiiiii~iii l~iiii~iisii: -iiii wii-i-iNIS, "S :::;;'i:i':' '"'' i:i

Xt

Fig. 3.

:;:::

1 :. OWNIN-i.-i~iiii :?:__ii_:aii_;_

IN

'

The early 7th cent. "Ramath-negeb ostracon" found at Arad in 1967,which directs the deployment of men in the face of impending Edomite attack. From BASOR, No. 197 (Feb. 1970), p. 17, Fig. 1" kindness of Y. Aharoni.

There are indeed few periods in the history of the country when the archaeological finds - written and silent - so accurately reflect the political events and the internal affairs as known to us from the literary sources. And the particular character of these finds fill in our knowledge for those regions which the literary sources deal with but little, such as the districts of the north and the states in Transjordan. 2. See, for example, J. Naveh, Israel Exploration Journal (hereafter, IEJ), 10 (1960), 129-39;Y. Aharoni, BASOR, No. 197 (Feb., 1970), pp. 16-42.

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1975,2)

31

With the increasing archaeological evidence it is becoming clear that during this period the material culture of Palestine tends to show specific characteristics for each region. This difference reflects the varying characteristics of the different peoples in the country: Judeans, Samaritans, Phoenicians, "Ashdodians," Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. The variety shows itself in other spheres too; indeed the latest research points to a difference in languages spoken by these nations. We cannot within the framework of this survey deal with all the data supplied by archaeology. We shall therefore confine ourselves to that evidence which serves to illustrate the typical aspects. The Archaeological Evidence - The Excavations and Their Results

Galilee and the northern seashore This region was the first to fall to the Assyrians, in 733-32. The Assyrian conquest caused general destruction, the results of which are evident at all the sites excavated: Tel Dan, Hazor, En-gev, Beth-shean, Tell Abu Kudeis, Megiddo, and Shikmona. Certain towns never recovered (Beth-shean, Tell Abu Kudeis, En-gev), but most were resettled (see chart 2). Chart 2

733-32

ca. 700

Hazor

Megiddo

Tel Dan Beth-shean

VA Last Israelite town

IV A Last Israelite town

II Last Israelite town

IV Unfortified small Israelite settlement

III B

I

B.C.

604-598

I Last Israelite town ,

ca. 650 ca. 630

IV Last Israelite town

En-gev

III Assyrian fort and palace

III A Capital of Assyrian district II Fort built by Josiah

32

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLO GIST

(Vol.38,

As to the date for the final destruction of all the settlements of this region, we believe that they were destroyed simultaneously during the Babylonian campaigns which took place from 604 on? It is especially likely to have taken place in the year 598, when the Babylonians marched to put down the revolt of Jehoiakim, and began the lengthy siege of Tyre which later must have had repercussions throughout the region. The southern part of the kingdom of Israel The year 720 saw the final conquest of Samaria, which then became an Assyrian province. It is evident that the Assyrian conquest brought general destruction to this district as well. Certainlythis is the conclusion to be drawn from the excavations of the sites in the region: Dothan, Samaria, Tell elFar'ah (north), Shechem, and Bethel (Gezer perhaps is an exception, in that it had already been captured in 734/3 or 732). At all these sites settlement was indeed renewed but few remains have been brought to light by the excavations (see chart 3). The general picture formed by excavations in the region called Samaria is of small unwalled settlements which cover only a fraction of the former settled areas of the different mounds. Only in the city of Samaria were the previous defenses preserved. It is noteworthy that at three sites (Samaria, Shechem, and Tell el-Far'ah) the excavators found two phases of occupation during this period, whereas two other sites (Dothan and Bethel) were each occupied for only a part of the period. As to Gezer, the excavators contend that Judah assumed control of the city in about the middle of the 7th century following initial control by the Assyrians. It is logical to assume that the event took place during the reign of Josiah, about 630, when Judah was extending some kind of hegemony over this district. The final destruction of the settlements in Samaria should be attributed to the campaigns of the Babylonian army. Judah The starting point of our discussion here is the year 701, the year of Sennacherib's campaign. According to one of his inscriptions, he destroyed forty-six towns in Judah (see chart 4).

3. The latest study of the history of the region in the last decades of the 7th cent. B.C. is A. Malamat, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Colombia University, 5 (1973)= Gaster Festschrift, 267-78;see also F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 12 (1953), 56-8.

Chart 3

734-33 ca. 720

B.C.

Dothan

Samaria

II Last Israelite town

VIII Last Israelite town

.... VII B I Assyrian Assyrian occupied occupied town town

ca. 630

586

VII A Judean hegemony ?

S

Tell elFar'ah (N) II Last Israelite town IB Assyrian occupied town

A o

IA Judean hegemony

h _

Chart 4 Bethshemesh 701 B.C.

Tell Beit Mirsim

Lachish

Arad

Beersheba

A2

IV

VII

II

A2

III

VI

I

A2

II

630 609

IIC

598/7 586

1975,2)

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

35

In the first two stratigraphical excavations - Tell Beit Mirsim (Stratum A2) and Beth-shemesh (IIc) - the excavators did not clearly distinguish the layers of destruction attributable to Sennacherib. At Tell Beit Mirsim, Albright mentions a "partial destruction" discernible in the building remains, but this is not substantiated by the finds. At Beth-shemesh, stratum IIc spans a very lengthy period from 825-586 B.C. The results of the excavations at Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah?), Tell-el-Ful (Gibeah), and Gibeon are similarly vague. At these three sites it is most difficult to distinguish between the finds of the 8th and 7th centuries. This is also true of those excavations carried out at the beginning of the century, for example, at Tell Zachariah, Tell es-Safi, Tell Judeideh, and Mareshah, all of which contained finds from our period. The thorough excavations at Lachish have produced two strata belonging to this period: Strata III and II. In the opinion of Starkey, Stratum III is to be dated to the period following Sennacherib's campaign of 701 and its destruction is to be attributed to the first Babylonian invasion in 597, while stratum II represents the following period, 596-586. Levels of the destruction wrought by Sennacherib's campaign have come to light at two sites recently excavated by Y. Aharoni, at Arad (destruction of Stratum VII) and at Beer-sheba (Stratum II); but both towns were rebuilt. It is possible that the situation is similar also at Tell Rabud (Kiriath-sepher) and Tell Erani. Other sites show only partial settlement during this period (all from the latter part, from Josiah's time onward). This is the case at En-gedi (Stratum V) and Bethzur (Stratum III). At still other sites, such as Jerusalem and Ramath Rahel, we can rely only on the evidence of a group of finds spanning but a short time within the period and the conclusions to be drawn from them are fragmentary. As a result of the excavations one fact is certain: in 586, that is, at the same time as the destruction of the first Temple, the destruction in Judah was general. The territory of Benjamin, however, did not suffer destruction at the time and sites such as Bethel, and perhaps even Gibeon and Tell en-Nasbeh, continued to flourish. Another important fact shown by the excavations is that there was a substantial increase in population in Judah in the 7th century B.C.; the existing towns expanded (Jerusalem extended to the western hill, "Mt. Zion"), new settlements were founded (En-gedi), and destroyed ones rebuilt (Beth-zur). It is also important to stress that at every site where there was settlement from the early Israelite period, strata of settlement from our period were also discovered. A similar picture arises from topographic

4. Excavationhas beenrenewedat Lachishunderthe directionof D. Ussishkin.From the results of the first two seasons, it appearsthat the pictureis somewhatmore complicatedthan was thoughtbefore,and StratumIIIhas morethanonestage. Mythanksto Dr.Ussishkinforthisinformation.

36

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. 38,

surveys, which show many additional towns, villages, and fortresses from this period, far more than revealed by the regular excavations., Transjordan Our knowledge of settlements in this region is severely restricted. In Ammon a number of tombs have been discovered and numerous finds have come to light but no systematic excavation of settlements belonging to this period has as yet been carried out. In excavations carried out at Dibon in Moab no stratum from the 7th century has been established with any certainty, but at Heshbon the stratum belonging to this period has yielded some shreds. Our knowledge of Moab stems mainly from groups of tombs at Mount Nebo and Medeba. We have greater knowledge of Edom, for at three sites excavated by Mrs. Bennett - Umm el-Biyara (Petra), Buseirah, and Tawilan - remains of the 7th century have apparently been uncovered. During this period the Edomites also overran the Negeb, as is shown by the excavations at Tell elKheleifeh near Eilat and at Tel Malhatah near Beer-sheba. Philistia Despite the fact that many excavations have been carried out in this district it is possible to rely only on the more recent ones, at MesadHashabyahu, Tel Mor, Ashdod, and Ashdod-yam. There are however important finds from this period from sites excavated by the early archaeologists at Ashkelon, Tell el-Hesi, Tell Ajjul, Tell Far'ah (south), Tell Jemmeh, and Sheikh Zuweyid to mention the most important. With these sites, due to the style of digging and reporting, it is necessary to rely mainly on specific finds, some of which are particularly important, rather than on the report as a whole. Excavations have also been renewed at Tell Jemmeh and Tell el-Hesi which are helping to give an even clearer picture. Our discussion of this district begins with 712, the year in which Ashdod was captured by Sargon II. (Philistia actually fell to the Assyrians as early as 734 but up to the present this has not been substantiated by archaeological data.) Traces of the destruction caused by the campaign of 712 are evident at most sites in Philistia at which excavations have been carried on (see chart 5.) In the period following Sargon's conquest, in the days of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, the region became a transit route for the Assyrian armies on their way to Egypt. It was natural therefore for the Assyrians to establish permanent bases here. Evidence of such a base is to be found at Tell Jemmeh where a most unusual deposit containing Assyrian "Palace Ware" was discovered, as well as part of the Assyrian governor's house, built com5. See now M. Broshi, IEJ, 24 (1974), 21-6. 6. Cf. H. Tadmor, BA, 29 (1966), 86-102.

1975,2)

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

37

pletely of brick and roofed by arches peculiar to Assyrian architecture." Around 630, with the cessation of Assyrian control, The Egyptians conquered the district. Ashdod (Stratum VII) was destroyed after a lengthy siege. For a short time Josiah was able to control the district around Yabneh, as is clearly shown by the fortress uncovered near Yabneh-yam = MesadHashabyahu. This fortress, which existed for about twenty years (630-609 B.C.), was founded by Josiah. It was Judean from its inception until its abondonment by its Greek mercenaries in the face of the Egyptian army in 609 B.C. Chart 5 Tel Mor

Ashdod

Ashdodyam

II

VIII

II

MesadHashabyahu

712 B.C. VII 630 609

VI

Period of Fort

586

Architecture

The conquest of Galilee and the region called Samaria by the Assyrians left its mark on the architectural remains as well. There is a marked difference between the fortifications of the settlements in the Assyrian-controlled provinces and those in the areas under the rule of Judah. Generally speaking the northern towns of this period were left unwalled, and it is possible that this reflects Assyrian policy. Only the two centers, Megiddo and Samaria (the city), were fortified. In Judah the position was different. All the sites excavated are surrounded by strong walls. In the more important cities (Jerusalem, Tell en-Nasbeh, Lachish) these walls were solid, whereas in the country towns (Beth-shemesh, Tell Beit Mirsim) casemate walls continued in use - the kind of fortification involving two parallel walls with perpendicular cross-walls, forming chambers which could be filled up in times of attack. 7. Cf. G. W. Van Beek, IEJ, 22 (1972), 245-6. In my opinion it is also likely that the building excavated by Petrie at Sheikh Zuweyid and called him a "Babylonian temple," is really another Assyrian palace. See W. F. M. Petrie, Anthedon, Sinai (1937), p. 6, Pl. II.

38

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. 38,

010

ii!!ii~i`I tol

2•~~ Fig. 4.

?oooEI

The arrangement of four-roomed houses at Tell Beit Mirsim, with pillars serving as dividers in many of the units. Reconstruction by Y. Shiloh, from Israel Exploration Journal, 20 (1970), p. 187, Fig. 4.

The widespread system of defense forts discovered throughout Judah also deserves special mention. The difference between north and south is also discernible in the layout of the public and private buildings and of the fortresses. In the north, the "open courtyard house" became the generally accepted style of building. This was a building in the Mesopotamian-Assyrian style which included a central courtyard surrounded by rooms on all sides. Judah, on the other hand, continued to follow the ancient Israelite building tradition. The building plan in vogue was the "four-roomed house" with variations (see Fig. 4), where the internal division was based on partitions, either of walls or of rows of pillars.' It is possible that the ancient building style preserved in Judah found its expression also in the magnificent monumental buildings originating in Phoenicia. At the northern sites such as Hazor, Megiddo, and Samaria not one example of this type of architecture has been found which can be ascribed with certainty to the period under discussion. At Judean Ramath Rahel, on the other hand, this ornamental architecture was used in the fortress until its final destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. 8. Cf. R. Amiran and I. Dunayevsky, BASOR, No. 149 (Feb. 1958), pp. 25-32; Y. Shiloh, IEJ, 20 (1970), 18090.

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1975,2)

)"n~~

e~B~Ss~pFr lam .~;??;,

i

~iw-~i-?a

'''''':I:'"::$:.II: ~::::::::;-:: ::-':::;:l-:r:::i:i-::-; :?_:s.- ?. :-::::. - ::--;I:::I ::j:::-:~~::.::?;:l .,:~ -..::i:.?:: -~:?:: ::::.;?'..?:-:._-: : -;--:-::-:_:::I-:::::1YI ~:~_I-;:::~?:`::::? ::':::::::::: :':::--'~':::':-:::::--'-~i~;:~j~: -;..-.1::-?.:-: ..:.---. : ?:.-:..-:-.:;. ??:_i:-- .-.--. -:-::i:I::S:;~?~,?:'~~ ~?r~s;~--:? ,:::,:l;i,;~l-?:: II::l::lii:-l:;: ::::::i:::l~i:: li~::::-:::l'*.:::s ~~~ F :::::::::::-:~:?:: :::?: :_.--.~:,::::l;i:i.i:j i::?l:.?::-:-:-::?:::::?:. :-:.-. --:~-:~:::: : -::: i....-... :::

a-.?~-;l;lc ~il~~S

39

i-aY

::: :~ ~;*i; ?J6ii ~

--

ax~; :::::':?::':~~

I

~

rrs~maa~k

~

~B~sl

-:':;:~:~%~li~s~3~a8&~

'

I

~

I IIIIIIRBBI~BIBB~aP

~s~rs~c~ss~2~

-

~ii~

lea~i~s~l

~~

-?ir:~:j ?ri:~~a

?~

r

IB~y~s~e~P~

??:~:~;:??9??n:?:::-:r-;p;:-~~

:?:?: w i ^"~X ??????~~?i5?~a~~~i~:?~~?~i:~ ?~? :?~~

Fig. 5.

:~~Rfih

One of the vaulted rooms of a 7th cent. official building at Tell Jemmeh in Philistia. Showing Assyrian construction parallels, it contained a fine collection of "Assyrian ware." From Israel Exploration Journal, 22 (1972), Pl. 55 B; kindness of G. W. Van Beek.

40

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol.38,

Lastly we have to mention two palaces, the one discovered in Ayelet Hashahar (near Hazor) and the other at Tell Jemmeh (in Philistia), which may be attributed to Assyrian officials (see Fig. 5). They are exact copies of Assyrian palaces elsewhere, not only in general plan, but also in almost every detail.' Burial Customs

In the 7th century, the burial practices of the previous period, burial in shelf-tombs, remained unchanged. These are underground family tombs, hewn out of the rock. Either a vertical shaft, or a sloping shaft with steps, leads to the entrance of the burial chamber, which was closed by a stone slab (see Fig. 6). From the entrance, more steps lead into the chamber. In some cases, other chambers, added as the number of burials increased, lead off from the main chamber. Around the walls, shelves were hewn on which the dead were placed. Owing to the fact that the tombs were used for generations, it became necessary to remove the skeletons and their accompanying objects from time to time to one of the corners of the chamber in order to make room for fresh burials. Frequently a deep pit was dug in the center of the chamber floor in which the bones of the previous burials were placed. Numerous accompanying objects have been found in the tombs, mainly pottery and personal possessions of the dead person, such as cosmetic articles, jewelry, and seals. In Judah several tombs have been discovered adorned with engravings of human figures, ships, and geometrical designs. Here and there are also inscriptions.'1 Tombs of this type are frequent mainly in Judah, but they have also been found in Philistia, Galilee, and Transjordan. The style transcended nationality in a way house architecture did not. A completely separate category of burial-tombs are the monumental tombs at Jerusalem, in the City of David and Siloam. Many of these were built during the period under discussion, but they are not typical, and we shall not survey them here. Apart from the regular tombs of the country's inhabitants it is also possible to find foreign tombs. Such, for instance, are the typically Assyrian secondary burials in earthenware coffins. This form of burial is confined to the 7th century B.C. and is found concentrated, as we might expect, in the north of the country, within the boundaries of the Assyrian provinces.,, 9. Van Beek, IEJ, 22 (1972), 245-6.The Assyrian palace at Ayelet Hashahar will be published by R. Reich in a forthcoming issue of IEJ. 10. J. Naveh, IEJ, 13 (1963), 74-92; F. M. Cross, in J. A. Sanders, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century (1970)= Glueck Festschrift, pp. 299-306;W. G. Dever, Hebrew Union College Annual, 40-41 (1969-70), 139-204. 11. R. Amiran, 'Atiqot, 2 (1959), 129-32;J. P. Free, BASOR, No. 156(Dec. 1959),p. 27, Fig. 3.

1975,2)

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

"

Fig. 6.

41

Va

Sloping, stepped shaft of Tomb II at Khirbet el-Qom, between Hebron and Lachish, typical of 8th7th cents. tomb styles in Judah. Inside were four shelf chambers. Photo by W. G. Dever, from Hebrew Union College Annual, 40-41(1969-70),Pl. III B.

At several sites along the sea-shore a different burial custom existed which can be unhesitatingly attributed to Phoenician influence, namely the cremation of the dead. At Athlit, for instance, a graveyard has been dis-

42

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLO GIST

(Vol. 38,

covered, dating to the end of the 8th century and the 7th century, which has burials showing traces of charcoal and charred human bones. One grave even contained a typical Phoenician burial urn, of the type also known from Tyrian settlements abroad, such as Carthage in Tunisia and Motya in Sicily. It should however be stressed that according to the evidence of the graveyard at Athlit the Phoenicians stopped the custom of cremation by the end of the 7th century or at the beginning of the 6th century, and interred their dead in different types of rock-hewn tombs. Several of the tombs of this kind discovered as far have monuments on which the names of the dead were inscribed.'2 The Objects and their Characteristics

Pottery The intensive development that has taken place in pottery research makes it impossible to deal with the 7th century pottery of Palestine in generalities as has been done previously. As in many other spheres of material culture, so with pottery, it is possible to identify local cultures according to national frameworks. In other words, we must investigate the types of pottery created by the potters of different peoples, each with traditions of their own and subject to different sources of influence. Although it is possible to find characteristics common to all the pottery produced in the country in that period, for the mutual influences current were no less than at any other time, there are nevertheless decided differences between the pottery of the various nationalities and it is possible to isolate "Israelite," "Judean," "Phoenician," "Ashdodian," "Ammonite," and "Edomite" pottery. The characteristic feature of 7th century strata at the northern sites is "Assyrian" pottery. This pottery, well known through the latest excavations at Nimrud in Assyria, is now accurately dated. The conclusion arrived at on examination of the excavations in Palestine is that far more "Assyrian" ware has been found in the north than in other regions. However, with the passing of time, especially towards the end of the 7th century, small amounts of this pottery type reached the south and isolated examples have turned up in Judah. (There is also evidence of strong Assyrian influence on the Transjordanian pottery, to which we shall come back.) A most remarkable collection of "Assyrian" ware was discovered at Tell Jemmeh in Philistia, but as stated above, this was connected with the palace of the Assyrian governor. It is however very doubtful whether this ware was in fact imported from Assyria and the impression is that in most cases this ware was a local imitation. This conclusion approaches near certainty with regard 12. C. N. Johns, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 6 (1937), 121-52;G. R. Driver, Annualof the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 2 (1953), 63-4.

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1975,2) ?C~: ?

'L

7? ~':1SR!~ :?~ 43 . .t?

?: ?1

,i?? ~. ; ,?? -?5:b?"d ~d

.1? r\

?

43

1? . ??

.-??."

.J

II

~YY

~?i.

'-c= c i ?,-

t?

?

:~r ~,

~j

2. :?Q

^I r,

~t~,t~ :? :\ .? ??~! ~a? r

+.(i_

?~

ri ?.p;~-? r,

r ii?

*:~JJ7 ~?~? ?.~LY~; c I?i?'' ;L ; :

I?? I' ~1~

?r:.zKMr~?r :5? 2'?~

?L;~i~

?-i?I,:?~

~

_ r

"Y

IC

::-~:::1::: :::::::'_:i::i:::?::;::::r3?.;~:: :~-~-:::

"I

?:?:?:?:;:?:?)r:-,~?;?:~: X~~

R

r

s~ n

: :~?

Fig. 7.

::

i

:: ::

i' '

~::i:i::

~;;??;I::::?:?:?:acu ?~~ ~ ~-;?~ ~:-:?:.:;:?:?-?:?;:?;?: ?:r-/?r?.n?:?:-;~~-i:-:? ?::~r~:~:~?~ x?:?:?:?:i::?:i?:?:?: ~ ?: ii

Pottery bowl from Tel Rekesh near Mt. Tabor. Its petal design and general form imitates in clay a style of bronze bowl of probable Assyrian origin. Photo by Z. Radovan, from Israel Exploration Journal, 23 (1973), Pl. 46 D & E.

44

GIST THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLO

(Vol. 38,

to those pottery bowls which do not appear among the pottery of Assyria but are an exact copy of the bronze bowls found in profusion at Nimrud. Local imitators simply used a different material (see Fig. 7). It should be noted that although the "Assyrian" ware in the north is common enough, it constitutes only a small percentage when compared with the general local pottery, which continued slowly to develop from the 8th century tradition (excluding the magnificent "Samaria Ware," which ceased with the destruction of the northern kingdom). In his summary report on the excavations at Shechem, G. E. Wright suggested ascribing the two types of pottery, so different from each other, to two segments of the population in the province of Samaria, the Assyrian ware to the newcomers and the local ware to the Israelite population which had not been exiled. Peculiar as it may seem, it is the pottery from Judah, the region that has been most thoroughly researched, that arouses the most difficult problems. The difficulty arises from the lack of any definite dividing line between the pottery of the 8th century and that of the 7th. The pottery of these two centuries is alike in the type of clay used, in form, and in decoration. Until the finds from the very latest excavations have been published, the differentiation will remain based on detailed typological comparisons between homogeneous collections from the two centuries which show some additional feature fixing the period of their origin, such as seal marks of people mentioned in literary sources, and inscriptions which can be dated paleographically. It is also possible at times to date these collections with the aid of associated imported ware, such as decorated shell and glass ware (see below), or the Assyrian ware which first appeared in Judah at the end of the 7th century. As collections of this kind continue to turn up, it will be easier to distinguish the periods to which the pottery belongs, but it is already clear that despite the general continuity there are some distinctive differences between 8th century collections and those of the 7th. An obvious example is the Judean lamp with the high and thickened base, which belongs only to the 7th century and the first half of the 6th century. It is also possible today to differentiate between two types of pottery cultures in Transjordan, the creative product of two peoples, the Ammonites and the Edomites. Ammonite pottery has been found mainly in eight tombs in and near Amman, capital of modem Jordan. Chronologically, it is possible to divide the Ammonite pottery into two classes. The first, which contains most of the pottery (six tombs), belongs to the first part of the period we are reviewing here. The second class includes pottery from two tombs: the "Adoninur tomb" from the second half of the 7th century and a tomb discovered at Meqabelein from the 6th century. In these two collections, types of pottery are found which are completely different from any-

1975, 2)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

45

thing found elsewhere in the country. Not only does it differ in shape but on several vessels it is possible to see a special design ("stepped decoration") which appears nowhere outside Ammon. Nevertheless, the influence on this pottery of types from the surrounding districts is apparent, as it is in all groups of local pottery during this period. For instance, the earlier class is influenced mainly by the Phoenicians and by the "Samaria ware" of the north, a tradition which was perpetuated in Ammon even in the period following the destruction of Samaria. Only in a few of the pottery types can Judean influence be discerned, while Assyrian influence is visible only in one single type. On the other hand, the later class of pottery shows little Phoenician or "Samaria ware" influence. Instead, influence of Judean types, and an astonishingly strong Assyrian influence, are apparent. It is through the Ammonite pottery that one can almost feel the mounting influence of Assyrian rule in the 7th century. During the last few years our knowledge of the characteristics of Edomite pottery has also grown. It can apparently be divided into two different classes, each of which has its identifying details. One of these is from Edom itself (from excavations at Umm el-Biyara and Buseirah) while the other class comes from the Negeb sites which were under Edomite rule at this time (Tell el-Kheleifeh and Tel Malhlatah).Moabite pottery has however received little study so far, and for the time being we can not classify its specific characteristics. For the present it seems that in this land Judean influence must have been paramount. In the coastal district, too, it is possible to differentiate between two pottery cultures: the Phoenician, along the northern coast, and the "Ashdodian" (as it has been called recently), in the south. But enough has been said about the pottery collections of our period in Palestine to show something of the regional differences and the flow of influences during our century and a half period of study.

Ornamental Objects

The art of ivory carving, which during the previous period was perhaps the outstanding expression of Phoenician creativity, producing artistry much sought after in Palestine, began to disappear at the end of the 8th, and especially in the 7th century B.C. It is possible to date with certainty to this period only a few ivories carved throughout the Near East, and in Palestine almost none belonging to this period have been discovered. The reason for this may lie in the lack of raw material. At any rate, starting with this period the carvers turned mainly to stone, bone, and alabaster. It seems that the change in raw material also brought about a decline in the quality of the

46

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. 38,

Chart 6 Summary Chronological Table 734 B.C. 733-32 722 720 716 712 705 701 674-69 667-63 630 612 609 605 598-97 588-86

Tiglath-pileser III's campaign against Philistia, to the borders of Egypt. Tiglath-pileser conquers Damascus, north Transjordan, and Galilee. Shalmaneser V conquers Samaria. Sargon II conquers Samaria a second time; Samaria becomes an Assyrian province. Sargon's campaign against the Arabs, to Egypt's borders. Sargon captures Ashdod. Outbreak of Judah's revolt against Assyria. Sennacherib's campaign against Judah; forty-six towns taken and destroyed. Esarhaddon's campaigns against Egypt. Ashurbanipal's campaigns against Egypt. Siege of Ashdod by Psammetichus, king of Egypt. Destruction of Nineveh by the Medes. Battle of Megiddo between Judah and Egypt; Josiah killed. Battle of Carchemish; Egypt defeated by the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar's first campaign against Judah; capture of Jerusalem and captivity of Jehoiachin; Tyre under siege. Nebuchadnezzar's second campaign against Judah; capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the First Temple.

workmanship. Now there appears a proliferation of simple and rough geometric designs done by shallow engraving or drilling. The most common of the ornamental articles are the cosmetic bowls made from limestone, whose rim is decorated with geometric designs of two types: circles with a dotted center, or a more complicated network pattern (see cover). It is possible that the decoration was afterwards painted.Cosmetic bowls began to appear at all the country's sites as early as the middle of the 8th century, but only in the 7th century B.C. did their use become common.'3 Very similar from the point of view of circulation and time are the simple articles of bone or shell, which are also decorated with rows of circles and dots. Two other cosmetic articles are typical only of the 7th century. One is the Tridacna squamosa shell, which originated from the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. At the end of the shell a human head is incised, while 13. H. O. Thompson, Levant, 4 (1972), 148-50.

1975, 2)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

47

clothes and ornaments are pictured on the back and edges. The inside of the shell remained untouched and free of any design. The decorations, although at times complicated and detailed, are very schematic. Nevertheless, among the motifs characteristic of ivory carving of the previous period, more remained current in the designs on these shells than in those on any of the other articles. The other typical 7th century article, very similar to the first, is made of small flat bits of alabaster in the form of a human figure." Towards the end of the 7th century two further types of cosmetic articles became common in Palestine and the surrounding area. The first are simple glass vessels, which were mass produced. Most of these are small receptacles, which would have held scented oil, perfumes, and the like. The color of the glass is generally dark blue, frequently with straight, zigzag, white and yellow lines. The second type includes alabaster bottles with handles in the Egyptian style, which were also meant for cosmetics. These two types reached their full diffusion during the Persian period, from the late 6th century on. The generally accepted view among scholars today is that the origin of all these articles is Phoenicia. But to call them "Phoenician" does not rule out the possiblility that some of these articles were produced in the coastal cities of Palestine to the south. These places were without doubt an integral part of the Phoenician sphere of influence with regard to the production of artistic objects during the period under review. Side by side with the influence of the traditional Phoenician art in Palestine were other influences. We have already pointed out the debt of Palestinian potters to Assyrian artistic creations. This relationship is to be found also in a varied series of products in other materials, of which we have already mentioned the Palestinian counterparts of the Assyrian bronze bowls. Similarly, stone vessels of typical Assyrian style have been found in the country.,' Other examples of Assyrian influence are the small limestone incense altars, shaped like a box with four feet, which are imitations of the Assyrian earthenware altars; the bichrome drawing on a pottery sherd found at Ramath Rahel which is typical of Assyrian wall decorations; and the piece of a small stone relief from Tell es-Safi, which resembles the Assyrian sculptural style.1' More such artifacts are sure to turn up; one class may well turn out to be a style of small figurine which is still under study. It is nevertheless clear that despite the similarity between them and Assyrian art, these articles are mostly not imported originals but rather local imitations.

7.

14. C. M. Bennett, Antiquity, 41 (1967), 197-201;W. Culican, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 102 (1970), 65-

15. R. Amiran, 'Atiqot, 2 (1959), 129ff.; R. Hestrin and E. Stem, IEJ, 23 (1973), 152-5. 16. Cf. W. F. Albright, AASOR,2-3 (1921-22),15-7;P. Matthiae, in Y. Aharoni, et al., Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1961 and 1962 (1964), pp. 85-94.

48

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol.38,

Seals

One of the most characteristic features of 7th century strata are the seals and seal impressions which originated in Assyria. These articles served the governing hierarchy. Included are both cylinder and stamp seals, all from the districts of Dor and Samaria, which were under direct Assyrian rule.17 At the close of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th century, Babylonian seals supplanted the Assyrian ones. Most of these seals are conical chalcedony stamp seals with an octagonal face. Most often the motif depicted is a ritual scene, such as a praying figure facing symbolic representations of the gods. These seals continued in use in the Persian period as well. So far, only one impression has been found of a Babylonian cylinder seal, at Tell Jemmeh.' However, the seals and impressions from the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th centuries B.C., unlike those of the previous period, are nearly all local products and they are inscribed in local languages: Hebrew, Edomite, Ammonite, Phoenician, etc. The use of seals is not confined to the 7th century but is known already at the beginning of the 8th century and even earlier. The majority of finds, however, belong to our period, which was in all probability also the period when they were most commonly used. This claim is substantiated both by paleographic evidence and by the archaeological finds. Furthermore, the latest finds appear to verify N. Avigad's suggestion that it is possible to differentiate seals of the 8th century B.C. from those of the 7th; the former were mostly marked by a design which contains both a motif and an inscription, whereas the latter usually had only an inscription. Noteworthy is the wide diffusion of these seals in the kingdom of Judah, and to a lesser extent in Philistia, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Of all the seal impressions found so far only one can definitely be attributed to a monarch of this period. This is an impression of Qos-gebar, king of Edom, found at Umm el-Biyara (Petra). To a similar group belong seals with the name of a king's officer together with his title, such as 'bd hmlk, "servant of the king;" bn hmlk, "son of the king;" n'r hmlk, "servant of the king;" and 'gr 'I hbyt, "(superintendent) over the house." At times the name of the monarch whom the officer served is also mentioned; IHilqiyahu 'bd Hizqiyahu (see Fig. 8) and Elyakim n'r Ywkn. At least one of these titles was also used in the hierarchy of the adjacent kingdoms, as is proved by the seal impression of servants of the kings of Ashkelon, Edom, and Moab. One might conclude that the organization of these kingdoms was similar.1" 17. See, for instance, A.J. Sachs, Iraq, 15 (1953), 167-70;H. and M. Tadmor, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society, 31 (1967), 68-79 (Hebrew). 18. G. Lankester-Harding, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 14 (1950), Pls. XIII:2; XV:9; Petrie, Gerar (1928), Pl. 19:29. 19. N. Avigad, in Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. III (1958), Cols. 74-82(Hebrew); Hestrin and M. Dayagi, IEJ, 24 (1974), 27-9.

1975, 2)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

r

49

I i`i \

??

??

~lli~

?

r r

~k~P~c@ ? :?:?

~t~i;l~

Fig. 8.

Seal impression, probably found in the Hebron area, belonging to a certain Yehozarah son of Hilqiyahu, servant of (King) Hezekiah (Hizqiyahu). Drawn by M. Eichelberg, published in Israel Exploration Journal, 24 (1974), p. 27, Fig. 1.

In most cases, however, the finds include seals and impressions on which only the name of the person, his father's name, and at times also the name of the grandfather or family appear. Through identification of the names on the seals with officers of Judah mentioned in the Bible, and on grounds of similar impressions found at sites far removed from each other, scholars long ago arrived at the conclusion that these seals too belong mostly to royal officers. In most cases it is possible to ascribe the seals to different peoples settled in the country. In addition to the paleographic evidence this can be ascertained mainly by the theophoric components of the names, Yhwh in Judah, Nur in Ammon, Kemosh in Moab, Qos in Edom, Ba'al in Phoenicia, etc. Weights and Measures

A special feature of the period under discussion is the large number of seal impressions found on jar handles (some 1000 have been found), which bear the inscription Imlk ("of [or to] the king"), together with the name Hebron, Sokoh, Ziph, or "Mmit." Because of the interest this subject arouses we shall deal with it here at length. It is possible to divide the impressions into four main groups, each of which can again be sub-divided. Class 1 shows a scarab, the word Imlk and the name of one of the four towns mentioned above. Class 2 shows a winged sun disc and a similar inscription. Class 3 has a rosette impression while Class 4 shows two concentric inscribed circles with a dot in the center;

50

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol.38,

neither of the last two classes includes any inscription. All four groups have been discovered in most of the Judean sites which have been excavated, while, with the exception of Gezer and Jericho, no such seals have been found at sites outside of the boundaries of Judah. Certain scholars maintain that these two exceptions, although they formerly belonged to the province of Samaria, were later annexed by Judah.20

Fig. 9.

Judean jar handles, the central one showing the scarab and the inscription "of the king, Hebron," while the two flanking ones show the winged sun disc and read "of the king, Sokoh." From BA, 35 (1972), p. 105, Fig. 4; note corrected reading.

The archaeological evidence so far seems to point to the conclusion that the first Imlk impressions came into use before the end of the 8th century B.C., that is, in the time of Hezekiah; they continued to be used until the time of the destruction of the first Temple.2" But now there is growing evidence (from Ramath Rahel, En-gedi and Tel Malhatah) that the first two classes were used only during the earlier part of our period, that is from the end of the 8th century until the end of the 7th; the other two classes, on the other hand, were in use from the end of the 7th century until the destruction of the Temple. Furthermore, the general opinion is that the first class predates the second. This distribution seems acceptable, but so far, only the 20. In this manner it is also possible to explain the double-winged Imlk impression found on a survey made at Lower Beth Horon (not yet published; my thanks to Z. Kallai). Two other impressions, also double-winged, have been discovered definitely outside the boundaries of Judah, one at Ashdod and the other at a tel near Kfar Ata in the region of Acre! For Ashdod, see M. Dothan, 'Atiqot, 9-10 (1971), p. 22, Pl. XCV:4; for the other impression, see the Hebrew language archaeological newsletter Hadashot Arkiologiot, 14 (1968),9. 21. Lately there has been a growing tendency - notably by Cross and H. D. Lance - to shorten the period, starting it from the time of Josiah. The latest discovery from Beersheba (level II) clearly shows, however, that at least the first class predated the days of Josiah. It is also interesting to note that this impression was not made on the usual type of jar for Imlk seals. I am indebted to Prof. Aharoni for this information.

1975, 2)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

51

paleographic evidence points to this conclusion and archaeological evidence has been unable to substantiate it. For the moment therefore, we can only state in the most general way that the Imlk impressions, in all their variety, predate the "rosette" and inscribed circles impressions. At times the inscribed circles appear together with the second class of Imlk impressions (the winged sun disc). Currently, Yadin's opinion is the one generally accepted, that the circles impression came to replace the winged sun disc type, which had in the meantime gone out of use, and that the circles impression was in fact a schematic variation of the rosette. A recent discovery, not yet published, clearly shows that this symbol too is nothing but a schematic form of the sun disc. In short, classes 2-4 express the same motif in different ways but all are connected with the sun disc. Many interpretations have been given these various seal designs. It seems that only one problem has been satisfactorily settled: the meaning of the word Imlk. This word, and the accompanying symbol, in its different forms, signified a statutory measure of capacity, a "royal measure." This measure was used not only in Judah, but also in other districts, as is conclusively shown by its use in the Persian period, that is, after the kingdom of Judah ceased to exist. There is also some basis for the opinion of Cross that the seals were used only for wine. " ... Wines are known by their district. It is the key to their taste and quality. But it matters little where grains are grown or where oil is pressed."22 This would also explain the names of the four places found on the seals, meaning that at that time four royal wine presses were established. 23 In addition to these royal wine presses there were others in Judah, as is shown by different engravings: of the six-pointed star (commonly called the star of David), and of birds belonging to the same period, discovered in the fill of the pool at Gibeon, near remains of wine presses; of wine of a place called khl; similarly, engravings on flask handles of the Babylonian period which mention the name Gibeon and Msh. Impressions from the Persian period also contain names of districts or places. The most common impression is Y-h-w-d, which is occasionally accompanied by the "royal symbol." These seals, like the Imlk ones, are doubtless connected with royal wine presses. Seals bearing the inscription of settlements, such as Jerusalem or Msh appeared at one and the same time. Inscriptions on jars from Shikmona read "wine from Gat Carmil," and Gezer is mentioned in a seal from the second 22. Cf. Cross, Eretz Yisrael, 9 (1969), 20-7; A. D. Tushingham, BASOR, No. 200 (Dec. 1970), pp. 71-8; No. 201 (Feb. 1971),pp. 23-35;H. D. Lance, Harvard Theological Review, 64 (1971), 315-32. 23. Another opinion, which I share, sees in the four towns a group of settlements, close to each other, all in the south of the Hebron hills. This is certainly the case with Hebron and Ziph; Sokoh seems to be the town of that name east of Adoraim, some 15 kms. south of Ziph; M-m-9-t has not yet been located, but it should be sought in this area.

52

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. 38,

Temple period (after 520 B.C.). The custom of designating wine according to its place of origin is current in the Bible as well ("wine of Lebanon," "wine of Helbon"), and in the Elephantine papyri ("wine of Sidon"). On the other hand no acceptable solution has yet been found as to why the royal symbols changed so frequently in so short a period. It is usual to regard these changes as reflecting a change of rulers in Judah, or changes in the political orientation (towards Egypt or Assyria), or religious reforms (Josiah), but all these solutions sound somewhat forced because we are here dealing with everyday objects. In addition we have shown that three classes of these seals are but variations of the same motif (the sun disc) whose form is becoming more and more schematic with time. The difficulty is compounded by the fact, now clear, that this symbol was not exclusive to Judah alone. Certain scholars, such as Tushingham, maintain that the scarab was also the symbol of the kingdom of Israel. There is no doubt that the scarab, the winged sun disc, and the engraved circles were also common among the ancient series of symbols of the Canaanite-Phoenician world (Cross). The "Alate version," a sign like the Hebrew letter t, accompanied or not by the word Imlk, appears on the Phoenician and Punic wine-jugs from the period following the destruction of Judah. These have been found at Shikmona on the Palestinian coast, at Elephantine in Egypt, and even at Carthage and the western Punic settlements. This means that the word Imlk on the Judean seals does not necessarily designate the king of Judah but rather the royal statutory measure of capacity which was accepted in the whole area. Recently, J. S. Holladay and F. M. Cross have proposed, and their proposal seems convincing, that the rosette seal served a similar purpose and that it imitated seals of the wine presses of Rhodes and Thasos. In our opinion the symbols of the star of David, engraved on the handles from Gibeon from the period of the first Temple, and the five-pointed star ("shield of Solomon"), on the Jerusalem seals from the end of the Persian period, are in reality also copies of Greek symbols from the places - Chios and Thasos - which served as wine presses. Hence a far reaching conclusion can be drawn with regard to all the other "royal symbols" of the Judean seals. For if the scarab, and afterwards the winged sun disc symbol, with its schematic variations - the sign of the letters 'ayin and tet - were symbols pertinent only to the royal house of Judah, why should they be used in places like Elephantine or Carthage? The same is true of another common artifact from the Judean sites, the inscribed weights. Many stone weights have been found together with the Imlk seals. They have a domed shape with a flat base. They can be divided into three major groupings. One is the "shekel" type, marked with a number and a symbol in the form of the letter 'ayin. This symbol is interpreted by Yadin to be a schematic representation of the scarab; it too, then, is evidence

1975, 2)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

53

for the reliability of the weight. The second group includes weights whose designations are written on them in full: nsp, pym, bq'. The third group consists of extremely light weights with only numbers inscribed on them. All three types are found at almost all the sites excavated in Judah, but archaeological evidence shows that their distribution is in no way confined to this district, for, unlike the Imlk seals, they are found far from Judah's borders. An examination of the stratigraphic evidence at all the sites where it is possible to do so shows, in our opinion, that all three kinds of weights were contemporary with the Imlk seals. This means that they were in use from the end of the 8th century until the destruction in 587, although the weights found so far are mostly from the end of this period. The basic unit of the "shekel" scale is eight shekels, and therefore differs from that used in Mesopotamia (where the system was based on the number six) and that in Egypt (which used the decimal system). This fact proves that the Judean system was related to that of the Canaanite-Phoenician culture which had been in use in the area since the second millennium.2" The examination of the other weights also points to the same conclusion. Nsp is already mentioned in the Ugaritic literature, whereas pym and bq' are mentioned in the Bible in passages connected with the early history of Israel. No doubt weights with these names (even if based on a different scale) had been in use for some time in Israel. In the period of the late monarchy, however, there arose the necessity to use an exact weight system, just as with measures of capacity. It does not seem likely that this need arose just because of the reorganization of the kingdom of Judah. In our opinion, the reason is far more likely to lie with the greatly increased trade, which is also apparent from the measures of capacity described above. This widened trade would have made it necessary to standardize the measures and weights used, a tendency which at the height of this period brought about the first coinage of money in other parts of the ancient world. Indeed, the earliest coins discovered in Israel were minted in the mid-6th century, only some thirty years after the destruction of the Temple in 586. They were minted in different places and the symbols used are many and varied, but all belong to one of three systems: Phoenician, Persian, or Athenian. This fits the picture of life in the area as portrayed both by the sources and by the archaeological finds, namely of expanding Greek trade at the end of the 8th century and mainly in the 7th century, side by side with the prior 24. Recently, Aharoni, BASOR, No. 184 (Dec. 1966),pp. 13-9,as well as R. B. Y. Scott, have proposed that the numbers on the shekel weights are Egyptian (the 4-shekel unit paralleling the Egyptian 5-deben weight). I accept this hypothesis, and see in this comparison an indication of the general tendency to reach a wide standardization of weights and measures (see further below). Nevertheless, it seems that the complete system is not basically Egyptian, and the division into units of 4, 8, etc., is based primarily on the PhoenicianPalestinian system.

54

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. 38,

Phoenician-Egyptian trade; in short, a Mediterranean koine came into being, which reached its peak in the Persian period. Moreover, the solution to the problem of the large number of seal impressions on utensils and weights is to be found in the integration of the kingdom of Judah with the new system of trade and merchandise distribution (both in the kingdom itself and abroad) which was current in the whole area and which did not cease with the destruction of the kingdom.

An Archaeological Context for Understanding John 4:20 ROBERT J. BULL Drew University

While at Jacob's Well and during the course of an argument with Jesus about the proper place to worship God, a Samaritan woman exclaimed, "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain," and thereby directed attention to Mt. Gerizim. It has been assumed that she was referring to the mountain in general as the location of Samaritan worship. Recent archaeological discoveries, given preliminary description in BA, 31, (1968), 58-72, and BASOR, No. 190 (April 1968), pp. 4-19, suggest instead that she was directing attention to a particular place on Mt. Gerizim and that her reference to the termination of Samaritan worship in the past may have been attached to the ruins visible to Jesus and herself as they talked at the well. The eastern slopes of two of the five major peaks of the sprawling mountain rise from beside the current traditional site of Jacob's Well and a little to the south of nearby Tell Balatah where lie the remains of the city of Shechem, the erstwhile chief city of the Samaritans (see the map). From both well and tell, the higher (elevation 2858 ft.) and more distant of the two peaks can be seen, its rocky slopes devoid of trees. At its- summit, the tomb or weli of Sheikh Ghanim, built on the northeast corner of a fortification the Emperor Justinian (A.D. 527-65) had constructed to protect the 5th century octagonal Theotokos church from Samaritan attack, is the one building visible. (It is Procopius of Caesarea who reports on the work of Justinian, in his De Aedificiis V. 7.) A hundred yards south of the weli on the same summit is a flat rock which the Samaritan community has designated as the place where their temple once stood (see the map, and Fig. 11). The nearer and lower of the two peaks

1975,2)

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1o

55

EBAL

~~I

EM

SHECH

..

JAJACOB'S WEL E0

Z

807

TELL

I GERIZIM, 8HE

0' a"'00

'4

ER RAS

,o

HE

!t

~00100

WEL[ OF SHEIKH GHANIM.. FORTRESS OF JUSTINIAN.------TRADITIONALSITE OF SAMARITAN TEMPLE METRIC SCALE

1 TO 1250

Fig. 10. Map of Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal with the Nablus-Shechem valley between them, locating Tell er-Ras and the site of Jacob's Well. Drawn by O. Unwin and adapted by S. Karman.

56

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol.38,

(elevation 2727 ft.), however, is the one which looms immediately above anyone viewing the mountain from Jacob's Well or from the nearby remains of the destroyed city (see Fig. 13). This peak, representing the northernmost extension of Mt. Gerizim, is now partly covered by a stand of pine trees planted in regular terraces over fifty years ago under British Mandate rule. Close inspection of the saddle which joins the northern promontory with the higher peak to the south discloses that a transverse fosse or ditch some 250

Fig. 11. Aerialviewof two peaksof Mt. Gerizim,loolungnorthpast the summittowardTell er-Ras.From lowerleft to upperright,thenumbersindicate1) thetraditionalsite of the Samaritantemple;2) the wellof SheikhGhanimon the NE cornerof the Justinianfortificationenclosingthe octagonalTheotokosChurch;3) Teller-Ras.Photoby R. Cleave.

feet across and thirty feet deep was hewn from the solid rock of the ridge in an ancient effort to separate the northern peak more noticeably from the rest of the mountain. At the summit of this northern, lower peak is a small bare mound called Tell er-Ras, and the mound is visible through the pines on the slope from Jacob's Well in the valley below. The prospect before Jesus and the Samaritan woman when she called attention to Mt. Gerizim would have been the mountain profile described above, minus the more recent additions of the weli and the terraced stand of trees. But the prospect would have included a large ruined structure of the near promontory.

1975,2)

GIST THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLO

57

In the summers of 1964, 1966 and 1968,' there was discovered and excavated on Tell er-Ras a temple of Zeus Hypsistos built under the aegis of the Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) - about which regular readers of BA will have read in 1968. Beneath the Zeus temple was discovered a second structure which we first called Building B. Building B was founded on the bed rock of the mountain top and was set in the midst of a surrounding rectangle of walls which were also for the most part founded on bed rock. The remains of Building B constituted a half cube, sixty-five feet on a side and standing thirty-two feet high. It was constructed of unhewn stone laid in without cement and without any kind of internal structuring (see Fig. 12). The surrounding rectangle of walls, four and a half feet thick, rise to a height of about sixteen feet; together they formed a courtyard 135 feet wide with the half cube in the center. Pottery taken from a foundation trench into which part of one of the walls was set belonged to the 3rd century B.C. The existence of a monumental structure from the Hellenistic period, build immediately above ancient Shechem the former chief city of the Samaritans, combined with such literary evidence as Josephus in his Antiquities 13.254-7 that the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim continued its life until John Hyrcanus destroyed it in 127 B.C., led us to conclude that Building B and its related walls were part of the Samaritan temple complex and that the half cube of unhewn stones was probably the remains of the Samaritan altar of sacrifice. From the top of the existing remains of the altar (elevation 2691 feet), one can see through the trees on the slope of the mountain the location of the Well of Jacob. The well had a church built over it by A.D. 380, but the church was probably destroyed by the Samaritans in A.D. 529. Its cruciform shape, however, could be sketched by Arculf in A.D. 670. The Crusaders found it in ruins, and in the 12th century built a church with a nave and two aisles above a crypt which contained the well. The Greek Orthodox Church bought the land in 1885 and began to build the present unfinished church in 1903. Construction was stopped during World War I and has not been resumed.' The mouth of Jacob's Well (elevation 1641 feet, just 1050 feet below the top of the altar on Tell er-Ras) is found in the crypt mentioned above, some ten feet beneath the floor of the unfinished Greek Church. It required a theo1. Theexcavationson Teller-Raswereunderthe directionof RobertJ. Bullof DrewUniversityandwere sponsoredby ASOR.The late G. Ernest Wright,directorof the JointExpeditionto Tell Balatah-Shechem, providedmen and material, and the SmithsonianInstitutionmade a generousgrant toward the 1968 campaign.In 1964and1966,Teller-Raswasexcavatedundera licenseissuedby theDepartmentof Antiquities of theHashemiteKingdomof Jordan.Inthesummerof 1968,theexcavationoperatedunderjointlicenseof the Hashemitekingdomof Jordan,the Departmentof Antiquitiesof the Stateof Israel,the MilitaryGovernorof Nablus,and the endorsementof UNESCO. 2. For a historyof the churchesat Jacob'sWellsee the Frencharticleby F. M.Abelin RevueBiblique,42 (1933),384-402.

58

THEBIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST allli

:1: : 1: : -: ?

(Vol. 38,

fi

'w;1 k0-:::j~i:i::. :q All::? :::p

Nt:

:

-.

:Li-: : :~:.:

:~~~~-P~.~?s~~?P~aA

llt

:-''-,,::::~::: ~"Am:,:i-~: KOM--

N" O?N

0.:

sm::* Rli~ii.

.......... iii~i'~~ i':~~::::Z

i~ii

-ii-T

Fy.,.

:::I

T::

...... ...

iiii~ii-

REiiiiiiii

mp-iU

raik ja

l

i

?i-~iii~i:i'i::::~

iii:~ai-~~ii i: :

-:

i -lsi-

--;:~ i:

Fig. 12. TrenchonTeller-Rasshowingat the left the easternface of the Samaritanaltar. Notethe rubbleat rightlaidin byHadrian'sengineers;theZeustemplerodeona podiumset atopthe Samaritanaltar. Photo by J. Kellers.

1975, 2)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

59

dolite and some trigonometric calculation to determine it, but it is clear that the remains on the top of Tell er-Ras could have been seen from the well mouth. And this well mouth, by the way, is one of those traditional locations of places in Palestine which scholar and pilgrim alike can take as extremely likely to be genuine. That the existing top of the ruined altar and the present height of its surrounding courtyard walls were standing in the first century A.D. at least as high as they are now is assured by the fact that the Roman engineers of the 2nd century A.D., when charged by Hadrian with building a Zeus temple on an elevated platform, did their job by covering all of the existing remains within the perimeter walls of the Samaritan platform with rubble and cement to a depth of thirty-two feet.

Fig. 13. Viewof the east slopeof Mt.GerizimlookingNNE.Note 1) Tell er-Ras;2) Tell Balatah-Shechem; 3) unfinishedchurchat Jacob's Well.

When the Samaritan woman called to the attention of Jesus that her forebears had worshiped on Mt. Gerizim, there was visible to both, immediately above them, on the nearest peak of that mountain, the ruin of the Samaritan temple. And when the woman referred to the termination of Samaritan worship in the past, the poignancy of her remark would have been appreciated by her hearer, since near them both lay the ruins of Shechem, capital of her people, destroyed by the "Jerusalem" Jew John Hyrcanus some 150 years before, while above them could be seen, as the most evident ruin in the destroyed Samaritan temple complex, the great altar of daily sacrifice, disused since its destruction by that same John Hyrcanus.

60

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol.38,

This Issue of BA and the Future In this number we present an article by Ephriam Stern which first appeared in somewhat different form in the quarterly Hebrew-language journal Qadmoniot. Dr. Stern is the associate editor of Qadmoniot, which has aims similar to those of BA. We hope to be translating other pieces from it, and to see some BA articles translated into Hebrew for use in it. Meanwhile, BA will redouble its efforts to cover the broad range of biblical archaeology, with all the depth in time and width in geography which we have taken "biblical archaeology" to mean. We will move ahead on a longrange plan which envisions a change to a larger format, the use of color photography, and the effort to make our material ever more readable to the inquisitive student, be he scholar or layperson. As always, evaluations and suggestions are welcome from all our readers. "TheTale of the Tell" Nancy L. Lapp has edited a fine little book containing Paul Lapp's lucid reports of work at seven sites which he directed in the 1960's - 'Araq elEmir, the caves in the Wadi ed-Daliyeh, Dhahr Mirzbaneh, Tell el-Ful (Gibeah), Taanach, Bab edh-Dhra', and Tell er-Rumeith (Ramoth-gilead). To introduce the volume, Mrs. Lapp takes three general lectures of Dr. Lapp's which he used as background for his courses at Pittsburgh Seminary but never published, and his "Palestine - Known but Mostly Unknown" from the BA in 1963. The book concludes with a list of Dr. Lapp's own writings, a memorial minute composed by his faculty colleagues in May, 1970, after his tragic death, and bibliography of more technical reports by various scholars pertaining to the seven sites. Thirty-one pictures and an excellent chronological chart are included. The book, The Tale of the Tell, is number 5 in the Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series. This 160-page paperback is available from the printer, Pickwick Press, 5001 Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, at a cost of $6.50 plus postage.