No title

The

ARCHAEOLOG

BIBLICAL

Of Publishedby THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Jerusalem and Bagdad Room 102, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Mass.

VOL.

February,1968

XXXI

No. 1

; 5

a,. .

""'

I.. .

.,-*

.,.

4 ''~5

:;r, • •.

',

'

?''., ..,r, ..

,"li

.

?

,

,.=

v .

.:

S.fA~~~ i

~

,!

",db

,**,""

Fig. 1. Hebrew ostraconfrom Arad,from about 600 B.C. It is addressedto Eliashib.

Contents Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple, by Yohanan Aharoni ........................................2 Archaeological News

and Views ........................................32

2

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) The Biblical Archaeologist by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60614. Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem. $3.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Subscriptions: 625 Mt. Auburn Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Associate members of ASOR receive the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to the same address, $2.00 per year apiece. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In England: twenty-four shillings (24s.) per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back numbers: $1.00 per issue and $3.75 per volume, from the ASOR office. Please make remittance with order. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, 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, 1968. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES or AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH, N. H.

Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple YOHANAN AHARONI Hebrew

University,

Jerusalem

The borderand desert regions hardly constituteoptimumconditions for human habitation.They definitely do, however,create ideal sites for this is furtherfacilitatedby man. Borderfortressarchaeological investigation; es and settlementsare outpostsof civilizationand, as such, are the prime targetsof maraudersand invaders.This makesfor numerousoccupational levels overshortperiods,usuallywell coveredby thick layersof debris.Preservationof finds is aided by arid conditionsand fine-grainedwind-borne loess soil, which quicklycoversa site. These, togetherwith the importanceof ancientAradin its heyday,are the reasonfor its singularand specialinterest.They accountfor the remarkand for the astonishing ablestateof the remains,for the detailedstratigraphy, mostof the in first time Palestinian For the of archaeology, inscriptions. yield strataare accompaniedby literaryremains,contributingmuch towardstheir and chronology. interpretation As often with excavations,here no simplesolutionor easycorroboration of the writtenmaterialis readilyat hand. Realityis alwaysmuch morecomplicatedthan historicalraw materialsseem to indicate.Indeed,afterfive seasons of excavations,'the "Kingof Arad who dwelt in the Negeb" (Num. 1. The five seasons of excavations at Arad were carried out during 1962-67 on behalf of the Hebrew University, the Israel Department of Antiquities and the Israel Exploration Society. The University of North Carolina joined these institutions for the fifth season, when Prof. B. Boyd served as co-director with the author. Much aid was also given by the Arad Development Project, the Israel Museum, the Haaretz Museum (Tel Aviv), the Wenner-Gren Foundation and other institutions. Photographs published here were made by J. Schweig (6, 9-11, 13, 17), H. Burger (7-8, 16), D. Harris (5) and the author. The plans were drawn by M. Feist and P. Zavazki.

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

3

21:1) has become a very real problem. In contrast, the Israelite city, hardly mentioned at all in the Bible, has emerged as a place of unique importance. An enigmatic passage mentioning the "Negeb of Arad" (Jud. 1:16) is now revealed to hold a totally unexpected meaning, intimately connected with the unanticipated find, on the site, of an Israelite temple from the period of the monarchy. This is the first and only such temple discovered in scientific excavations. In the present resume, our main aim is to dwell on this discovery and on the Hebrew documents, and their historicalevaluation. The tell of Arad is comprised, virtually, of two settlements, differing in character, area and period. Thus, the areas of excavation have been divided between the author and Ruth Amiran, who is in charge of the excavation and study of the earlier settlement. The latter was a large urban settlement extending over an area of more than twenty acres, larger even than a city like Megiddo. It was at its height in EB II (ca. 2,900 - 2,700 B.C.) and was preceded by an open, scattered settlement from the Late Chalcolithic period (ca. 3,400 - 3,150 B.C.) and by a preliminary phase of pit- and cavedwellers from the later part of the EB I (ca. 3,000 - 2,900 B.C.). The EB II city was surrounded by a stone wall some eight and onequarter feet thick, with semicircular, projecting towers at regular intervals. Since the major part of the city was never rebuilt after its destruction around 2700, the ruins were uncovered immediately below the modem surface. This enabled us to lay bare a considerablesection of a very early city with modest means and remarkablespeed. The city was well planned, divided by lanes into various quarters.Most surprising is the architecture of the dwellings, built according to a fixed and consistent plan, justifying Ruth Amiran'suse of the term "AradHouse." This is a rectangular "broadhouse" with entrance on one of its long walls. The floor was dug twelve to twenty inches into the loess soil, with two or three steps leading down into the house. A door socket is often found at the left side of the door-opening. Benches lined the walls and, in the center of the room, one or more slabs were found, some apparentlyhaving been used as a kind of table, and others, in the larger houses, as bases for wooden columns supporting the roof. A unique clay model of such a house, found in one of them, shows the roof to have been flat with raised edges, perhaps for the collection of rainwater. This architecture was previously known only in public buildings of approximatelythis period, such as in the temples at Megiddo, Ai and Engedi. It is now obvious that it was, in general, the typical architecture of Palestine in the early phases of the Early Bronze age. The rich finds on the floors were also surprising. Outstanding were many large store-jars,some still containing carbonizedgrain. Round and square

4

(Vol. XXXI

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

platformsof stone and brick apparentlyserved as foundations of large granaries. It is obvious that agriculturewas commonly practiced here. We may ask whether the many stores were the answer of the ancient population to the problemof frequent droughts,so typical in this region even today. Some of the pottery vessels show a lustrous red burnish; some are painted with red-browngeometricaldesigns. Similar vessels are known mainly from First Dynasty tombs in Egypt (especially Abydos), classified as foreign imports from Palestine or Syria. Our finds indicate that Arad (if this indeed was the name of the early city, which seems very doubtful) was one of the centers of the manufacture and export of this ware. The manifold trade with Egypt is also attested by Egyptian pottery found at Arad. These finds are of much importancefor the chronology of the early periods and may have some bearing on the existence and flourishing of the early city. What was involved in this trade with Egypt and what was the raison d'etre of such a large city in this semi-aridregion? Still more surprisingis the lack of any well or spring in the vicinity. The water supply could come only from rainfall and runoff. How did the inhabitantsmanage to overcome these obstaclesin such an early period? These are basic questions which still demand thorough investigation.

..•.,.

....

,',

.•

hid

Fig. 2. The Iron age citadel mound, at the end of excavations. The Later

Settlement

After its complete destruction, before the termination of EB II, the site lay deserted for over 1,500 years. Only towards the end of the second millennium B.C. did the second chapter of settlement start, lacking all but a geographical relation to its predecessor.The absence of any occupation during the Canaanite period properraises the difficult question of the "King of Arad" in biblical tradition,a question to which we shall return later. During the 11th century B.C., a small open village was founded on the southeasternridge of the ancient city (Stratum XII). We may suppose that this was a settlement of the Kenites, who inhabited the Negeb of Arad according to Judges 1:16. As we shall see, this Kenite village is of special interest for the historyof the Arad temple.

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

5

In the 10th century, probably in the time of Solomon, a strong fortress was erected on the site (Stratum XI), with an open settlement clustered around it. This was virtually the characterof the site for nearly 2,000 years; only the rulers changed. After the period of the monarchy (Strata XI-VI), the hill was occupied successively by fortresses of the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods (Strata V-III). The Roman fortress fell into neglect with the removal of the limes fortifications to the south (A.D. 106). It is characteristicof the pax Romana that the fortress was neither destroyed nor resettled, but disintegrated slowly. Only after the Moslem conquest was the site reoccupied, its last phase being a sheikh's residence or a caravanserai (Stratum II). Our latest stratum (I) is made up mainly of medieval tombs.

Ns.. rae

,.oo T~Tt

Fig. 3. The 9th century solid wall superimposed on the 10th century casemate wall.

The Iron age fortress was a square of approximatelyfifty meters (164 feet) on a side. In spite of its limited size, this was one of the major Israelite strongholds in the south, comparable to Kadesh-barneaand Ezion-geber. It was built on the main road descending to the Arabah and Edom, dominating the southeastern border region of Judah, the biblical Negeb of Arad. Its importanceis indicated by its unusually strong fortifications.The first fortress (Stratum XI) was surroundedby a casemate wall of the standard measures: the outer wall is about 1.60 m. (63 inches) thick, and the inner about 1.40 m. (55 inches), with a two meter (80 inches) space between. The wall was provided with square projecting towers, one at each corner and two along the

6

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

sides between. The eastern casemate wall was even stronger,for the gate was on this side, near the northeastern corner. The gate tower projected about twenty-six feet from the line of the wall and had three piers on each side. If we add to it the room of the casemate wall behind, through which the entryway led, we have a gate of the general form of the typical Solomonic fourpiered gate. Its total length was about sixteen meters or fifty-two and onehalf feet (thirty-six cubits or six reeds?). A thick burnt level, which covered the floor of the gateway, gives evidence of the violent destruction of the Stratum XI fortress.

~ ~~ ? '?,,•''••

~

~

. ..i

~

~

.. ,.".•.••,!

.

'0..1,.. ..,

.

,.-.

1."I: . .

~

'•

~

'4,'

......

... .

"?

..........

.•O

.

,,.x,•

,

?

,

Fig. 4. The 9th century zig zag wall. To its left are remnants of the 10th century towers and house of the early Iron age settlement.

In Stratum X, the fortificationswere remodeled completely. A solid wall about thirteen feet thick replaced the casematewall and was built in a unique zig-zag manner with small indentations at fixed intervals (Fig. 4). The gate was removed to the center of the eastern side. It passed between two towers protruding about six and one-half feet from the line of the wall. A second, outer wall, built in a similar manner but smaller, stood on the lower part of the slope. On the western side, opposite the gate, a unique water tunnel was discoveredbeneath the two walls, hewn into the rock to a depth of more than six feet and covered with stone slabs. Superimposed above it was a postern, about three and one-half feet high, built into the foundations of the solid wall and also covered with large stone slabs. The water tunnel led into large, plasteredcisterns cut into the rock beneath the buildings of the citadel. What was the source of water for this elaborate system, keeping in mind that the only source in the vicinity was rainwater and runoff, and that the outlet of

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

7

the tunnel is at much too high a level to have conveyed water by sheer gravity? The only possible answer is that water was taken from the cisterns dotting the entire region. We can imagine a row of water carriers, probably using donkeys, daily bringing water and pouring it into the tunnel at its outer end. Thus, the cisterns of the citadel could always be kept full to capacity without disturbingdaily routine within the citadel. That the solid wall existed through four strata (X-VII) is apparently due to its exceptional strength. In the later strata,however, additionalparallel lines were built inside the fortress, again giving it the appearance of a casemate-type fortification, the outer wall remaining the solid one. It seems improbable that the intention was to strengthen the foundations of such a massive wall. We may assume, therefore, that the purpose was to enlarge the top of the wall for the sake of warriorsand equipment. In the last Iron age stratum (VI), after the complete destruction of the solid wall, a new casemate wall was constructed with eight projecting towers, similar in plan to the fortressof Kadesh-barnea.Arad seems to be a good example of the changes of the fortification system during the period of the monarchy. In the 10th century B.C. the casemate wall was the common type of fortification.2A casemate wall more than sixteen feet thick would also have furnished adequate barracksand store rooms, taking full advantage of the limited means of the kingdom. It seems that panic reigned after the conquests of Shishak and Ben-hadad I. As far as we know, during the first half of the 9th century all fortified cities of major importance were surrounded by massive, solid walls, usually having projections and recesses, superimposed over the earlier casemate walls (e.g. at Hazor, Tell en-Nasbeh and Ezion-geber). Arad indicates a reversion to the casemate type wall in the 8th century B.C.; indeed no solid wall built after the 9th century has been discovered.3After all, this, was the most utilitarian type of fortification,fitting a small kingdom such as Judah. Moreover, the defenders of any wall were evidently considered the most importantfactor and, therefore, the width of the top of the wall became of prime importance. Contrary to the alterations in the fortifications, the layout of the main buildings within the citadel hardly changed at all in the six Iron age strata (Fig. 5). The gate led into a courtyard of limited size. The two main structures of the citadel were the temple and the storehouse, in its northwestern and northeastern corners, respectively. The main living quarters, 2. Y. Aharoni, BASOR No. 154 (May, 1959), pp. 35ff.; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (1963), p. 322. However, it is doubtful whether this principle was absolute. It is still the belief of the present writer that at Megiddo the solid wall originates in the 10th cent. and was built together with the Solomonic gate. 3. Ramet Rahel may be an exception. There the inner casemate wall is surrounded by an outer solid wall; cf. Aharoni et al., Ramet Rahel, Seasons 1961 and 1962 (1964), pp. 51ff., Fig. 6. Here, however, it also had the function of a terrace wall supporting a large fill.

(Vol. XXXI

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

8

situated in the southern part of the citadel, were divided into some seven units. Between these and the temple, west of the courtyard, were various workshops with installations for distilling perfume, metal working and other crafts. The gate was near the northeasterncorner,but its exact position changed from time to time. From Stratum IX on, it was transferredfrom the eastern to the northern side and the visitor now had to pass through a corridorbetween the storehouse and the temple. The intention may have been to restrict access to these two public buildings alone, while the rest of the citadel remained out-of-boundsto travelers.

+

+

'ra

se'q

:F3rt

Owe,

o-.,r2.. pe11

V,.,

+++..+A,

?

,

i

' '.. . : s ?~ ??~i

+ .o

+:+ .. • . .

(!

,qq-

':

-., ?? 'ti+i! i,,e+::L•'!t+

.. ...

..,. .

... -- ... .....:•

i

+

:+•+

Fig. 5. Model of the citadel in Stratum VIII (late 8th cent.) prepared by the Israel Museum.

In reconstructing the plan of the citadel, we are assisted by a unique find in Stratum IX, a stone seal with a peculiar design, apparently a representation of the general layout of the fortress (Fig. 6). Visible are the wall, the narrow corridorbetween the store to the right and the temple to the left, the rectangular court and, behind it, the areas of the dwellings and workshops. The temple is depicted as a high, rounded structure. Had the temple really a rounded roof, or is this only an artistic expression of its outstanding importance? In all seven Iron age strata (the six fortressesand the early settlement), an abundance of vessels and implements was found in thick burnt levels. This is the most detailed stratificationof this period encountered so far in

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

9

any Judean mound. The pottery range is defined between the 1lth century (irregular hand-burnish) and the early 6th century B.C. (late Iron age types identical with Lachish II, Tell Beit Mirsim A2, Ramat Rahel VA, etc.). More over, for the destruction of the earliest and latest fortresses,we have virtually absolute dates. Pharoah Shishak mentions the fortress of Greater Arad (hqr 'rd rbt) among the places captured by him in the fifth year of Rehoboam son of Solomon (ca. 920 B.C.). It is most plausible that the first fortress (Stratum XI) was destroyed at this time. A large amount of pottery found in the casemate wall, sealed by the superimposedsolid wall, is evidently one of the best dated collections of this period (Figs. 7-8). On the other hand, the last fortresswas destroyed at the very end of the monarchy, probablyduring

.. .......

1wp~t~

mewI

A6~e r;?

iA

Fig. 6. Stone seal with general plan of the citadel; at the right, the seal's impression.

Nebuchadnezzar'sfirst campaign (ca. 598 B.C.). This is clearly indicated not only by the pottery but also by the script and contents of the ostraca,as we shall see below. Since in the intervening 320 years there are four more destruction levels, the possible error in their dating is minimal. These stratigraphic considerationsare, of course, of vital importance also for the dating of the ostracaand the temple, to which we shall now turn. The Ostraca

During the five seasons of excavation, over 200 ostracawere found, nearly half Aramaic (from approximately400 B.C.) and the rest Hebrew, from the time of the monarchy. This was not just a chance find, like at Samaria or Lachish where a group of ostraca was found within one special room. The ostraca, that is, sherds inscribed in ink, were found in various rooms and strata,and they were a common phenomenon of the excavations.There hardly passed a week without the discoveryof additionalostraca. This epigraphic abundance, so very unusual in Palestine, demands an explanation. The regional aridity is, of course, a major reason for their preservation but certainly not the only one. It is becoming more and more probable that in daily royal and military administration the use of sherds as a

10

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

cheap and easily available writing material was common. Since at Arad we were uncovering not a city but a relatively small, though important citadel, the presence of ostraca cannot be thought of as accidental. To this we may add special precautions taken in our work so as to prevent the loss of sherds with faint script, and to prevent their being scrubbed "clean" during the usual sherd washing. One of the afternoon duties of our area supervisorwas the "dipping"of the pottery. Every sherd was dipped into water and both sides examined closely. During the work, the eyes of the excavatorsbecame attuned to discerning ostracaand, towards the end, a good many were spotted actually in situ, on the tell. Many of the ostraca are fragmentary;on some only single letters are visible. However, the importanceeven of these should not be underestimated. Most of the ostraca derive from the later strata, yet every stratum beginning with the first citadel is representedby at least a few. Thus, again for the first time, we have a paleographic series of Hebrew scribal hands from the late 10th century B.C. on, which may be of much help for the dating of other documents. Two examples may suffice. (1) In the last season our first and only wellstratified ostracon of Stratum XI was found. It contains about ten well-preserved characters,some paleographicallyimportant(for example, b, z, t, n, m, s, q). This is by far the earliest Hebrew ostraconknown, antedating the Samaria Ostraca by about 150 years; it belongs to the earliest stages of Hebrew cursive. Comparatively,its script stands between the Gezer Calendar and the Moabite Stone. Taking into consideration, however, the primitive nature of the Gezer Calendar, the Arad ostracon may be approximatelycontemporary. As 10th century B.C. Hebrew cursive, our example is an isolated instance and the lapidary inscriptions, as usual, show distinctly conservative trends. (2) The exact date of the SamariaOstracais still widely disputed. Examining their script, we find in it a unique yodh with an additional cursive hook at its tail. Scholars thought that this was peculiar to the Samaria Ostraca, but it now appears also at Arad in inscriptions of Stratum X. It is, therefore, obvious that this form was used for a certain period and that it is of chronological significance. The termination date for Stratum X at Arad cannot be later than the beginning of the 8th century B.C. (or possibly the latter part of the 9th century). The Samaria Ostraca, therefore, evidently belong to about the same period. Fortunately, a good part of the ostraca are important not only paleographically but also in their contents. Some are preserved remarkablywell; some are complete and unique documents. To deal briefly with the Aramaic ostraca, most were found in refuse pits, and are dockets of the Persian garrison. Their contents are quite monotonous. They contain mainly personal

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

11

names and quantities of various materials such as wine, oil, flour and silver. One mentions X "of the banner (troop) of Abdihai" (ldgl 'bdhy), a formula similar to that known from Elephantine. This gives evidence of the military unit garrisoningArad in this period. Most of the Hebrew ostraca apparently derive from the archives of the royal citadel; their contents are more varied. Some contain lists of private names, occasionally with the addition of numerals and, in several cases, an indication of the produce, such as wheat (h.tm). The corpus of private names appearing in these documents, from the 9th century until the end of the monarchy, is of much interest. As at other sites, the theophoric Yahwistic component of the names from the later strata supplants other elements, especially the general term el. Not even one name, however, contains ba'al, a frequent element at Samaria. Moreover, the element yahu is already quite common in ostraca and seals from the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., e.g. Derashyahu, Nakhonyahu, Shebanyahu, etc. In the Samariaostraca,similar names contain the Yahwistic element in the form "yau"(yw), e.g. Gadyau, Shemaryau, etc. Is this phonetic and orthographicvariation due to regional, dialect differences between Judah and Israel, or was it typical for both areas in a particular period? The second possibility has usually been accepted on the basis of two seals mentioning the name Uzziah, in the form "Uzziyau"('zyw). The Arad ostracaprove that "yau"and "yahu"were mere dialect forms which appeared simultaneously in Judah and Israel. The Uzziyau seals are exceptional;they may have been made in a northernworkshop. The vast majorityof personal names are Hebrew; a few are foreign, however, apparently Egyptian and Greek. The latter probably belong to mercenaries, mentioned in the later ostraca as we shall see below. Several ostracawere found in rooms bounding the temple and apparentwith it. Seven are a sort of slip, each with the name of a single connected ly person, e.g. "Eshyahuson of Ezer"or "Son of JHemda."However, two contain the names of priestly families, well known from the Bible: Meremoth and Pashhur (Fig. 17). These "slips"most probably served as lots for the priestly terms, such as indicated in the Bible for the Jerusalemtemple. On a fragment of a large bowl, names of families and numerals were written in various directions. Among them appear also the "sons of Korach" (bny qrh). This may be a list of donations for the temple. Some ostraca are letters which have a more or less stereotyped opening formula: "Your son Yehokhal sends for the welfare of Gedalyahu (son of) Eliur, and for the welfare of your house, the blessing of all . . . and now . "; "Your son ( . . . son of) Yenahemyahu sends (for the welfare of) Malkiyahu the blessing of . . . and now ... "; and "1Hannanyahusends for the welfare of Eliashib and for the welfare of your house; may Yahweh

12

? ''

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

?*i*

a:!

I:'

i;

(Vol. XXXI

"?

,

'

•

.

-.

:,m

aooa -.

\!

, ",

,

'I:i8" :"

.

>

All-

I-r-

9

. 4k

I,

A-

-

vow-

,

. rn...

. .. ..

-9.. i ?

Fig. 7. Late 10th century pottery found in the casemate wall.

.

-

,

.~

"

..........

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1968, 1)

13

ask (for thy peace). And now ... ." A similar opening formula is known from letters of the Canaanite period, e.g. the el-Amarnaletter or the Ta'anach tablets. This apparently is a most ancient formula used perhaps mainly in royal administration.

/"

/

---

w _

.... •__•liiu~i.,--.

Fig. 8. A bowl with irregular hand burnishing, from the casemate wall.

Most interesting are the contents of a group of ostraca from the last Israelite fortress (Stratum VI). They belong to the end of the period of the monarchy, probably to the time preceding Nebuchadnezzar's first campaign (ca. 600-598 B.C.). Seventeen of them, found in one room, are remnants of the archive of a high official, possibly the commanderof the last citadel. His name was Eliashib son of Eshyahu, and the ostracaare short letters addressed to him, mostly containing orders to provide certain people with rations of wine and bread. It is, therefore, obvious that they served as a sort of requisition slip for official travelerspassing through the fortress,and they were thus kept in the archive of Eliashib as evidence for delivery of provisions. Some contain additional short orders and memorandaon other matters.At least two of them are ordinaryletters;the opening formula of one has been given above. Three of the most interesting of the Eliashib ostraca have already been published.4 One of the best preserved letters (Fig. 1) reads: "To Eliashib, and now: Give the Kittim 3 baths of wine and write the name of the day. And from the rest of the first flour let 1 ephah of flour be mixed to make bread for them. From the wine of the basins give." (Italicized English words in the translationsare uncertain as to reading.) 4. Cf. Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ), XVI (1956), 13ff.

Iff.; BASOR No. 184 (Dec.,

1966), pp.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

14

(Vol. XXXI

Not only the quantities but also the quality of wine and flour are precisely indicated, and that the travelers be provided with baked bread. Who are the Kittim (ktym) mentioned in this and severalother ostraca?In the much later Dead Sea Scrolls, this term is an attribute of the Romans. In the Old Testament, the word Kittim usually refers to the Greeks, that is, to the inhabitants of the Aegean Islands and, in particular,Cyprus, where there was a city named Kiti, Kition. The Kittim who were providedwith wine and bread at Arad were probably mercenariesin the service of Judah. This assumption is strengthened by the discovery of Greek pottery from the latter part of the 7th century B.C. in two Judean fortresses,at Mesad Hashavyahu on the coast and at Tell el-Milh in the Negeb, south of Arad. They perhaps filled chiefly the garrisons in the more remote fortresses.In one letter, Eliashib is told to give the Kittim wine and bread "for the four days."Could this have been for four days of travelingto some particulardestination?

lk? I'

MIA

??

?sSIP

llill

?J~l

~% ~

t

L-, '"4

~

~

~

~

Owl ... ..•,

Fig. 9. Hebrew ostracon addressed to Nahum and containing a date formula.

The exact date of the delivery of the provisions had to be noted ("and write the name of the day") and such a note has been preserved on one ostracon (Fig. 9). It is addressedto a certain Nahum (nhm) who is orderedto proceed to Arad, to collect there a jar of oil: "To Nahum, and now: Come to the house of Eliashib son of Eshyahu, and take from him 1 (jar of) oil, and send (it) to me quickly, and seal it with your seal." The "house"of Eliashib is either the royal fortress of Arad or its storehouse. Incidentally, this is the only ostracon in which the patronymic of Eliashib is given. Nahum fulfilled the order and the letter was evidently deposited in the archive of Eliashib as a record for the delivery. A note to this effect was added on the reverse, starting with a date, the first reference to a

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1968, 1)

15

specific day in date formulae in Hebrew epigraphy: "On the 24th of the month gave Nahum oil by the hand of the Kitti, 1 (jar)." Here one of the Kittim serves as a messenger of Nahum. The numeral in the date formula is denoted by an Egyptian hieratic sign. This constitutes a definite proof that in the royal administrationof both Judah and Israel (Samaria), hieratic numerals were used, striking new evidence for the influence of Egyptian prototypes in the Israelite administration.5

"'%

'(C

~~"'"~~~"4< d

itt. ;

.

"'~J%':.

~~.,~~>fr?$4B98 i~

lit>,

~

~

~ ?~7

Fig. 10. The Eliashib seals; each is about one-half inch across.

Another ostracon also mentions the dispatch of oil in sealed jars. We are fortunate that several of the seals used in the officialbusiness of the citadel have been recovered. In a room adjacent to the archive of Eliashib, three Hebrew seals were found, two still with remnants of the cord on which they had been strung (Fig. 10). The reader can imagine our surprisewhen, after cleaning them, we read the same Hebrew inscription on all three: "(Belonging) to Eliashib son of Eshyahu." This is one of the rare instances when Hebrew seals have been found in situ, and is probably the only occasion where something is known of the functions of their owner. These so-called "private seals" evidently belonged to a royal functionary, even though no title appearson them. This again raises the question of the use of the Hebrew "private"seals and seal-impressions,so relatively common in Judah during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. We now suspect that many were used in the royal administration,even if they lack any officialdesignation. It also becomes obvious that the same functionary would possessmore than one seal at a given time, probably so as to enable their use by several of his subordinates.6 Astonishing as it may seem, the Eliashib seals do not belong to the same stratum as the Eliashib ostraca, but are actually from the earlier stratum 5. BASOR No. 184 (Dec., 1966), pp. 13-19. 6. Cf. Aharoni, Eretz-lsrael, VIII (1967), 101-103 (Hebrew).

16

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

(Stratum VII). The small room in which they were found evidently served in a similar capacity as the later archive beside it. Together with the seals, we found in it a rich assemblage of unusually beautiful Iron age pottery (Mrs. Eliashib's finer dish-ware?), two shekel weights, an ornamented tridacna shell and several ostraca.One of the latter is written in Egyptian hieratic, the first of its kind in this period. It has been published by Prof. S. Yeivin and evidently contains a distribution list of wine, barley and animal fats.7 Among the Hebrew ostracafrom this room, there is an excellently preserved list of a wheat distribution (htm) to various persons. Its script is definitely earlierthan that of the Eliashib ostracafound in the later stratum.This means that Eliashib served in his capacity at Arad through two strata, for a period of at least twenty or thirty years; this is a clear example showing how the same people quickly rebuilt the citadel after its destruction, according to approximatelythe same plan. Some of the ostraca contain additional information on the functions of Eliashib. Besides various assignmentsof supplies, he had to do with taxes and tithes. In one of the letters, Eliashib is orderedby a certain JHannanyahuto come to Beersheba "with the burden of a couple of asses."It seems that the fortress at Arad was with;in the command of Beersheba. Both were probably royalmilitaryand administrativecenters in the Negeb. One of the most intriguing letters was sent by one of Eliashib's subordinates (Fig. 11): "To my lord Eliashib, may Yahweh ask for thy peace. And now: give Shermaryahu . . . and to the Kerosite give . . . And regarding the matter which thou commandestme - all is well. He dwells in the house of Yahweh." We cannot be sure of what the bearersof this letter received at Arad, for the products are indicated only by symbols. The rest of the letter is so brief that it is difficult to understand the details. Two particulars,however, seem clear and these complement each other. The second of the two people mentioned is apparently a member of the Keros family, one of the families of Temple servants ("Nethinim") mentioned in Ezra 2:44 and Nehemiah 7:47. This name is too unusual to doubt the connection. And which temple is intended? The Arad temple is out of the question, not only because it was already destroyed in Stratum VI, as we shall see below, but also because the given information makes it clear that this "House of Yahweh" was located at the place from which the letter was sent. Since it was written at the very end of the monarchy, after Josiah's strict limitation of worship to Jerusalem alone, only the Jerusalemtemple could be meant. This is the first instance of a direct reference to the temple in ancient Hebrew epigraphy. Its appearance 7. IEJ, XVI (1966),

152ff.

1968, 1)

17

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

in a document from Arad (with its Judean temple) is hardly accidental. Evidently the fortressat Arad served as an administrativeand cultic center, where the royal rite could still function, even after Josiah'sreforms. This serves as a good introductionto the Arad temple;but firstwe should mention another unique ostracon,found in the most recent season of excavations. Though unstratified, the script definitely belongs to the same time as the Eliashib ostraca (Stratum VI). A clearly historical event is mentioned, probablyone hinted at in the Bible. On the obverse of the ostracon,unfortunately only a few traces of letters are discernible, including the beginning,

~t~rr ~?Ir rs. .i~p!~ ?6I: :elip. .I

ji,

ITO ?

Mr.3r~ x

:t

~

'AL

L~

Ia

.Y~:F:Ka

A

?

.

l,

?~"

Fig. 11. Hebrew ostracon addressed to "my lord Eliashib," mentioning "the House of Yahweh."

"to"('l), the start of the usual opening formula of a letter. On the other hand, the reverse is preserved remarkablywell, and deals with the urgent dispatch of men from Arad to a certain Elisha at Ramath-Negeb, against a threatening Edomite attack. The commander of Arad obviously showed some reluctance to fulfill the order, probably in fear of remaining with inadequate defense forces. Our letter thus contains a severe warning: "And the word of the king is with you on your responsibility (literally: on your souls)! Behold, I have sent to admonish you: Are the men with Elisha; lest the Edomites come thither!" This is a most dramatic message. Information was received of the approaching enemy, and the Judean army in the south was rallied at the border Ramath- (or Ramoth-) Negeb, i.e. the heights of the Negeb, is mentioned in the Bible on the border of Simeon (Joshua 19:8) and in the list of places

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

18

(Vol. XXXI

to which David sent part of the spoils of the Amalekites (I Sam. 30:27). Though it has not been identified, from our letter it becomes evident that it was situated on the Edomite border, probably southeast of Arad. This makes its identification with Horvat 'Uzza (Khirbet Ghazzeh), a large Judean fortress situated on the mountain ridge some five miles southeast of Arad, most probable,for this site guarded the steep ascent of the road from Edom.s

t.. ,

I I

ii rl

I

I

. ..

I

I

r-I

,

'

-•

[

i '-

'

I III

L, _

. .. I I

Fig. 12. Plan of the temple of Stratum XI, the Solomonic period.

The Edomite attack, to which also Arad probablyfell victim, occurredin the last years of the period of the First Temple. We may assume that the letter refers to the assault hinted at in the Bible in the days of Jehoiakim,preceding Nebuchadnezzar'sfirst campaign (I Kings 24:2; Jer. 35:11 - reading Edom, instead of Aram). The Temple

This brings us to the most surprising discovery at Arad: the Israelite temple. The temple proper was founded together with the first fortressin the 8. Cf. Aharoni, IEJ, VIII (1958),

33ff.

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

19

10th century B.C.; however, it was preceded by an open high-place in Stratum XII. This high-place adorned the summit of the hill and was surrounded by the open village occupying the lower slopes. It consisted of a paved area some 100 feet long, enclosed by a temenos wall about three feet thick. On the northern side of the pavement, remnants of a square, stone-built altar were found. South of it was a crescent-shapedbamah filled with bricks. Near the altar, we encountered many pits with burnt bones and the burnt skeleton of a young lamb, lacking the head. The fragment of a well-smoothedbasalt slab found near it is probably a broken massebah. The temple was erected on the northwestern part of the pavement, which now became the northwesterncorner of the fortress.Together with its side rooms, it was a building over sixty-five feet long and forty-nine feet broad, occupying a vital part of the relatively small citadel. The entrance was on the eastern side, with the holy-of-holiestowards the west. Its original plan was simple and symmetric (Fig. 12): The main room (hekal) was a distinct broad room, with a projecting cella (debir) in the center of the western side, preceded by three steps (Fig. 13). On the steps two well-finished stone altars were found, apparentlyhaving flanked the entrance at a later phase. On their concave surfaces were found the charred remains of some organic material, evidently the last burnt offerings. Inside the debir was a small, square, paved bamah and, beside it, a fallen massebah, well-finished and rounded on its upper part. Two cruder flint slabs were leaning against the wall, plastered over. Were these earliermassebot,already out of use but kept "covered"in the

debir? Around the walls of the hekal were plastered benches, probably for the offerings and cult vessels, though nothing was found on them. Flanking the entrance on the outside were two stone slabs, probablybases of pillars, calling to mind the biblical Jachin and Boaz. The relatively large courtyardwas of the same width as the hekal. An altar for burnt offeringsstood near its center, a square structure built of earth and small field stones, in accordance with biblical law (Ex. 20:25, etc.). The altar was covered by a large flint slab surrounded by two plastered runnels evidently for collecting sacrificial blood. The entrance to the court was always from the east but it moved, first to the southern corner and then again back to the center. At first we were surprisedby these frequent changes, until we discovered them to correspond to the transfer of the citadel gate. The entrance of the temple was always kept in harmony with the gate, in order to ensure a direct approach to the temple through a courtyardor a corridor. Besides the altars and massebot, not many cult objects came to light in the temple, probably because it was thoroughly rifled after each destruction. Fragments of a smashed incense burner of clay were found in a small cell

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

20 I~-"rlT~,

~,~??~F~,? ri

''?~-

(Vol. XXXI

,,

?? ?:??:0~~'5 ..

'

''' r; r.,??.:f~t;?T ''

''I

?;71~'?E.tW Y-,

~2~ f i: I ~B~~

r

.-? C~??ZYICLr~ ...,~..?, ..,..... ?. .r

,?-

r

I

e~

rlla I

I

3;

,, ~L 1l_C

'+., r .. ?'i?`

?,?

??

r

?t`'-

tl

L, i',

f?

")~

L~;Cl~~iI~IT~R `"~4t

U

?. ???-,tf r?

~I

-r

.ir

???? ~.?? -c?`~ .?/jlr .-' ji.~c?-r h~nrrr* Fv ,-,:~,~ r ~?r?m.L -A? ~i: ~B" :. .r

;r;?,~ `c~C e-t~i?? : :?~CI~.??

.r~.-

j

r?~'?'? r.. .z ?

J~ ;t ~C -I?~,*~

r ?; r?

,i4na~ .'r'''"'r~ c? r

li~-; C?.C(. t s~

c

i?~?.-?;-IX ~=;c~i o,,

4-1 ''

iC ;e L?'~?.* . ICh~C~J~h.?r; ~?~?~~\

~??( ,f?

r?

:rZ

*' :i;r r"r`

. ?? :

Fig. 13. The Holy of Holies of the temple.

besidethe altar,whereritualvesselshad apparentlybeen kept (StratumX). Near the altar too, a small bronzefigurineof a crouchinglion was found (StratumX). Two areshallow, (StratumIX) alongwith severalpottery-bowls burnishedplateson each of which two identicalsignswere incised,the letter of qodesh(qds 'holy'), qof in ancientHebrewscript,perhapsan abbreviation and a sign resemblingthe ancient kaf. Two stone blockswith depressions carvedon theirsurfaceare probablyofferingtables.One, with two largecirculardepressionsand a smallerone betweenthem,closelyresemblesan offer-

THE BIBLICAL ARCHEAOLOGIST

1968, 1)

21

ing table from the Moabite temple at Khirbet Ader.YNear the entrance to the temple, remains of pottery kilns of Strata VIII and VII were discovered. From the vessels found beside them, it seems that mainly vessels for use in the temple were fired here. Of special interest are, of course, the ostracawith priestly names, found in the side rooms of the temple, as mentioned above. This description of the temple is rather simple and short, but the problems which it raises could fill several volumes of the Biblical Archaeologist. Let us briefly tackle only some of the most striking questions and conclusions.

..~.

r.•,

OP ;w os~??

•

"~1~LT,;~i'i'S41 _ ,,• :,'al ,• , . ..... ,.. .,, . law~rr ,PIP 41 iri ~ ~ ol 04 T~~ •~ AWN.nu Agor '""•

.

?Y

"I;II: rliA .

•

..

;,

.,'

. .

.•?

Fig. 14. The altar for burnt offerings.

This is the first temple from the period of the monarchy to be discovered in Palestine, and its comparisonwith the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem is, therefore, most intriguing, still more so as, even at first sight, there are some amazing similarities, and there are differences. First of all, two basic similarities: The east-west axis is identical in the Arad temple, the Solomonic temple and the biblical descriptionof the Tabernacle in the desert. Orientation of a temple is hardly accidental, obviously being connected with the particularconcept of worship. A westward orientation is very rarein the Near East and the only other good example is the temple at Tell Tainat in northern Syria. The temple proper includes several adjacent rooms on the east-west axis and is preceded by a rather large courtyardwith an altar for burnt offerings. The Jerusalem temple had three successive units: the biblical ulam, hekal 9. R. L. Cleveland, AASOR, XXXIV-XXXV (1960),

82, P1. 19*A.

22

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

and debir. The Arad temple had actually only two rooms, or rather one room with a central, projecting cella. The difference, however, is not so distinct as may appear at first. There is disagreement among scholars as to whether the debir was a separate chamber or a special, inner part of the hekal. The biblical ulam is clearly not reckoned as part of the building proper, but as a porch or vestibule added to it. The measurementsof the house do not include the ulam (I Kings 6:2f.), which was built in a special sort of masonrysimilar to that of the court (1 Kings 7:12). On the other hand, the courtyard at Arad was divided by a step (a remnant of the ancient altar) into outer and inner parts. Functionally, the inner part, about one third of the total, may be equated to the biblical ulam. This brings us to the question of the two beautiful pillars flanking the entrance of the Jerusalem temple - the biblical Jachin and Boaz. At Arad the flanking stone bases were found at the entrance to the hekal, in the ulam, if we accept this as the definition of the inner part of the court. Scholarly reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple unanimously places these pillars in the court, at the entrance to the ulam. Is this a real difference, or is it just that the accepted reconstructionof the temple should be reconsidered?Without entering into the question of the function and meaning of these two pillars, it is clear that they were not specificallyan Israelitephenomenon, but are found in earlierand contemporary Canaanite and Phoenician temples. It seems that, in all relevant examples, the two pillars stood in the ulam and not in the court, as in the temple at Tell Tainat and in a Late Bronze age temple at Hazor. Does the biblical description really differ? The location of the pillars is defined in two passages. The text in I Kings 7:21 is obscure and has both ulamnand hekal. The parallel passagein II Chronicles 3:17, however, states explicitly: "He set up the pillars in front of the Holy Place" (hekal). If we read in a preceding verse (15) that he made the pillars in front of the house, there is no reason to regard these statements as contradictory.We have already mentioned that the house does not include the ulam; thus, in front of the house and in front of the hekal is actually one and the same. Only Ezekiel's description (40:49) may be interpreteddifferently, though even there the matter is not beyond doubt. Taking all the evidence into consideration,it seems to me most probable that in the Jerusalemtemple, too, the two pillars stood in the ulam at the entrance to the hekal. The ulam was perhaps an open porch, similar to that at Arad, and this may explain the omissionof details of its height in Kings. An even more complicated, but no less fascinating problem is measurements and proportions.As mentioned above, the hekal at Arad was a broad room (ca. 2.7 by 9 m. or about 9 by 30 feet) while the hekal in the Solomonic

1968, 1)

23

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

temple was a long room, forty cubits long and twenty cubits wide. Evidently not broad enough, the Arad hekal was enlarged in the next phase (Stratum X) by a further 1.5 m. on the north; this led to a dissymmetricalplan, the celia now being off center (Fig. 15). In turn, the wall of the court was moved northwards. These alterations eliminated many of the rooms north of the temple, partly with the enlargement of the temple and partly with the elimination of the casemate wall. This, evidently, is the reason for the northern side of the courtyard having been occupied by a row of rooms. The altar, formerlyfree-standing,now stood against these rooms.

i

~-_--------_-

!

'

i

1._;

L

...................

- - -------------' -- - --

--------

o1

Fig. 15. Plan of the temple of Stratum X, with its enlarged hekal.

These striking alterations in the plan of the sacred building are necessarily of some special importance, particularly as great pains were taken to preserve the old, traditional structure during these repairs. The debir, for example, remained in exactly the same spot throughout all phases. It was originallybuilt against the casemate wall; when the solid wall was constructed about three feet farther out, the debir was neither enlarged nor removed, but the space between it and the wall was filled in. The altar, too, was always rebuilt on the same spot.

24

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

After studying the various changes introduced in the dimensions of the temple, we arrived at the conclusion that these probably had to do with a change in the standardof the ancient cubit. The exact standardof the Hebrew cubit in the period of the monarchy is unknown. In Egypt, two variant standards were in use, one the "commoncubit" of about 45 cm. (about eighteen inches) and one the longer "royalcubit" of about 52.5 cm. (almost twentyone inches). Comparing these two standardswith the measurements of the hekal, we discovered a surprising correlation: The length of the hekal was, at first, twenty cubits according to the short cubit and, after its enlargement, was again twenty cubits - accordingto the largerroyal cubit. In other words, the difference in dimensions is in proportion to the difference between the two Egyptian cubits. That this is not just accidental is proved by the examination of the other dimensions. Virtually all were enlarged in Stratum X in accordancewith this same proportion. The width of the hekal, for instance, was six cubits. The difference of ca. 45 cm. was first achieved by reducing the width of part of the wall, mainly at the entrance to the debir. Later, however, it was necessary to strengthen and broaden the wall and, therefore, the eastern wall too was removed, in Stratum VIII. Its width was now about 3.15 m., i.e. six royal cubits. The altar was enlarged, probably in Stratum X, by some 35 cm., approximatelythe differencebetween five commonand five royalcubits. This phenomenon seems to shed light on an enigmatic biblical passage. In II Chronicles 3:3, the dimensions of the temple are given: "These are Solomon'smeasurementsfor building the house of God: the length, in cubits of the old standard,was sixty cubits, and the breadth twenty cubits." Which old standard?It is now clear that the standard cubit was changed in Judah at the end of the 10th or at the beginning of the 9th century B.C., from the smaller cubit to the Egyptian royal cubit (cf. also Ezekiel 40:5). The reason for this change is unknown; we can suppose that it was connected with a restandardization of measurements, later recognizable also in the adjustment of the shekel weight according to the Egyptian deben.10 The Jerusalem temple remained, down to its destruction, according to the old standard of the 10th century. The temple at Arad was readjusted during its reconstruction. It is to be supposed that the royal citadel set the standardfor the whole region, thus explaining the laborput into the alterations. Being quite sure of the exact dimensions of the temple, we can note that, surprisingly enough, the breadth of the temple, i.e. its north-south measurement, was precisely the same as that of the Jerusalem temple twenty cubits. This could hardly be accidental. The length (east-west) of the hekal, how10. Cf. BASOR No. 184 (Dec., 1966), p. 18.

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

25

ever, is completely different: six cubits at Arad, against forty cubits (or sixty, including the debir) in Jerusalem. How can this striking discrepancybe explained, in light of the other common measurement? These questions still require thorough investigation and comparisonwith available plans of more or less contemporarytemples; we may, however, offer a few hints possibly pointing in the right direction. A striking fact is the appearance of the proportionof twenty to six in the biblical description of the tabernacle.The movable desert sanctuary was constructed of wooden boards, each one and one-half cubits broad joined by "tenons" (Ex. 26:16ff.). Its dimensions are given as twenty by six boards!This is usually taken as thirty by nine cubits; we may now, however, ask whether the meaning was not that the boards were overlapped half a cubit each, and that not only the proportions but perhaps also the dimensions of the tabernacle were twenty by six cubits, exactly as the hekal at Arad. This is not the only similarity between the tabernacle and the Arad temple. Another striking resemblance is the altar for burnt offerings. The Arad altar is a square of five cubits, and three cubits high. These are exactly the dimensions of the altar in the tabernacle (Ex. 27:1; cf. II Chron. 6:13!). These conformities again can hardly be accidental, nor can its general layout and the contents of the Arad temple, which also correspond to the biblical description of the tabernacle. Yet there remains a fundamental difference: The tabernacleis described as a typical long room, its entrance being on a shorterside; at Arad the hekal is a typical broad room with the entrance on a longer side (Fig. 16). In spite of their having similar dimensions, they are at a variance of ninety degrees. How can we explain this strange but quite apparent fact? I can offer only a first, tentative solution. We can perhaps suppose that the biblical description of the tabernacle was influenced by the Solomonic temple, a fact accepted by various scholars. Since the Solomonic temple as a whole, and its hekal in particular,had the shape of a long room, the tabernacle was perhaps viewed in the same manner. Was the basic plan of the Solomonic temple an enlargement of the tabernacle, in which the breadth of twenty cubits was retained, the plan of the tabernaclelater being regarded as a replica prototype of its splendid successor at Jerusalem?In any case, it seems to me that the Arad temple was initially built in accordancewith the plan of the tabernacle, and that this was the basic plan of all early Israelite temples. It is to be supposed that the temple at Shiloh, and probably also those at Bethel and Dan, were similar structures. One fact seems to be beyond doubt, that the sanctuary at Arad was a genuinely Israelite temple, a "House of Yahweh" in the language of the Bible and our ostraca. This is borne out by its plan and contents, especially the

26

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

Hebrew ostracawith names of priestly families, and by the mere fact that it was an integral part of the royal fortress, built and rebuilt together with it, beginning with the first fortressin the days of Solomon. Even its later history agreesremarkablywith the changes in worship in Israel,as related in the Bible. The altar of burnt offerings in its latest phase belongs to Stratum VIII. In Stratum VII we found an intact floor with various vessels and an oven on the same spot. Astonishingly enough, the Stratum VII temple had no altar

i

. . . .. l r

"

? ? 1UM~

n l?'mWl*LY??.. . .

""

7""", .,•

;.

.L-.:

"?~8tumxmp~:N

Fig. 16. Model of the Stratum X temple made by the Israel Museum.

for burnt offerings. This was the last phase of the temple in general. In the last Iron age fortress (Stratum VI), the temple was no longer rebuilt and the casemate wall cut through the temple quite deliberately.We may recall that the Eliashib ostracawere found in a room of this same wall, which evidently belong to the last period of the monarchy. Arad seems to elucidate the two stages in the centralization of worship carried out by Hezekiah and Josiah, respectively. Its first stage, in the days of Hezekiah, was the prohibition of sacrifice,while only its second stage, in the days of Josiah, brought about the complete abolition of worship outside Jerusalem. That this is the biblical tradition is hinted in the words put in the mouth of Rabshakeh before the walls of Jerusalem: "But if you say to me, 'We rely on the Lord our God,' is it not he whose high places and altarsHezekiah has removed,saying to Judah and to Jerusalem,'You shall worship before this altarin Jerusalem'?"(II Kings 18:22; Is. 36:7). On the other hand, it is obvious that the priests remained in the various cities of Judah up to the days of Josiah, who cared for their

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

27

sustenance in Jerusalem.In no place do we have any indication that Hezekiah had anticipated him in this. Thus, we come to the most important and far-reaching historical question: How can we explain the foundation of an Israelite temple just at Arad, and what are its implications? It is now obvious that the Solomonic temple in Jerusalemwas not the only temple in Judah in the period of the monarchy. Yet why was Arad specificallychosen as the site for a second, though smaller and more modest temple, and was this the only temple beside that in Jerusalem? Prof. B. Mazar has already opened this discussion with a most illuminating suggestion.11He draws our attention to the passage in Judges 1:16, mentioning the settlement of "the descendants of (LXX-Hobab) the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law"in the Negeb of Arad. The Mosaic tradition emphasizes his strong connections with this Kenite or Midianite family. Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite (!), Moses' father-in-law,was asked by Moses to accompany the Israelite tribes to the land of Canaan . . . "for you know how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and you will serve as eyes for us" (Num. 10:29-31). These passages are clearly connected with the traditions on Jethro the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law.It therefore becomes most likely that this Kenite family, related to Moses through Hobab, occupied important functions in the early Israelite priesthood and worship. Obviously, in this connection, its settlement in the Negeb of Arad is mentioned. The early open village of Arad, with its central high-place, apparently represents this famous Kenite establishment. The ancient editors and readers were doubtless well acquainted with the temple of Arad and its tradition. For us, the passage in Judges 1:16 was rather meaningless until the discoveries of the archaeological excavations. This assumption is strengthened by a second passage mentioning this Kenite family in the period of the Judges in the description of the clan of Jael the wife of Heber: "Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as Elon in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh" (Judges 4:11). The name Elon (oak, terebinth) suggests that this was a sanctified place connected with a holy tree, possibly a sanctuary, like other places with the element Elon-Allon (e.g. Elon-moreh near Shechem, where Abraham built an altar - Gen. 12:6). The relationship to the family of Moses was a fundamental attribute in the early Israelite priesthood. A good example is the priesthood of Dan, who related their genealogy to the grandson of Moses (Judges 18:30). 11. B. Mazar, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XXIV (1965),

297-303.

28

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

These considerations elucidate the tradition of the Kenite high-place at Arad, serving evidently as a central sanctuary for the whole region. However, traditions of holiness, holy trees, bamot and altars were connected with various sites, and we have no reason to suppose that at all of them were temples erected in the period of the monarchy. We must again stress the fact that the temple proper at Arad was built only in the 10th century B.C., together with the first fortress, as an integral and prominent part of it. Was the Arad high-place of such special importance that it became the only place outside Jerusalem where a temple was erected by Solomon? If this were true it would give fresh impetus to the old Kenite theory, which sees in their surroundings the origin of Yahwistic worship. The crucial point for the solution of this difficult problem is whether there existed other temples in Judah during the period of the monarchy; and, if there are indications of additional temples, at which sites? Explicit information on the erection of temples exists only regarding northern Israel. Jeroboambuilt the temple of Bethel and Dan in order to attract the people from Jerusalem and the house of David. These temples were royal institutions (Amos 7:13) and Jeroboamwas blamed mainly for appointing priests "who were not of the Levites" and for fixing days of festivals "which he had devised of his own heart" (I Kings 12:26ff.). In disgrace, they are called "houses of the bamot" (I Kings 12:31, etc.). From the words "against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the bamot which are in the cities of Samaria,"it seems probable that temples existed also in other cities of Israel. Not only in Israel, but also in Judah: " . . . do not seek Bethel, and do not enter into Gilgal or cross over to Beer-sheba" (Amos 5:5); "Those who swear by the sin of Samaria,and say, 'As thy god lives, O Dan', and, 'As the way of Beer-sheba lives'" (Amos 8:14). Beer-sheba, Bethel, Dan, Gilgal and probably Samaria the capital of Israel are singled out by the prophet as places of sinful worship. Can we detect any common characteristicsin all these places, in order to explain their selection for the erection of temples? All are, of course, sanctified places from the pre-monarchicdays: Bethel and Beer-sheba from the patriarchalage, Gilgal from the days of Joshua, and Dan from the days of the tribes' inheritance. From the Bible, however, we hear of various other places with similar traditions of no less importance, without any indication that temples were built there in the period of the monarchy. All the places singled out for the erection of temples have one common geographical feature, which is true also for Arad: all are near the borders of the kingdom, either of Israel or of Judah. Is this merely accidental? Or may we rather assume that a temple was an indispensable institution at the royal administrativeand militarycentersdominatingthe borders?

1968, 1)

29

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

This was probably not an entirely new institution in Israel. Already from the period of the Judges, we possess various indications of temples, altars and massebot which symbolized the borders and gave them divine sanction: the massebot and gal-'ed on the Aramean border (Genesis 31: 45-54), the worship of Ba'al of Pe'or on the Moabite border (Num. 23: 28; 25:1ff.), the altar of Yahweh at Mizpah on the Ammonite border (Jud. 11:11, 29ff.), and the erection of an altar on the border of the Jordan "at the frontier of the land of Canaan" (Josh. 22:11,25). It is possible also that the "Stone of Ezer" (Eben-ezer) on the Israelite-Philistine border was an altar or massebah (I Sam. 4:1, 7:12). Later on we hear, in the Mesha inscription, of an Israelite temple at Nebo near the Moabite border, also a place sanctified in Mosaic tradition. This elucidates the choice of Bethel and Dan by Jeroboamon the extreme borders of his kingdom. The intention was to give divine and royal authority to the new borders. It also explains why Bethel especially suffered the wrath of the followers of Judah and the house of David, since in their eyes it constitutedan illegitimateborder. ?p~? ?~Y: "

Cxt~a~r~.~~ 1:""~'~;iS "''I $ jlB '''""6i ?Brgvrr~?~ ' f'~'~:'' 6~1[p????e ~?,::215?~a&:~I~'L ..

'Pt.

r?

i:,ll':?:.'lnYZlp~ ??.1???~ ~? ??????~'"~! ?I' 'Q 9~a~

1/

I....C~r.~b~rY:?s~lr' B ~~i?",?,:

IF 1

*I

U

$"' :?

Bi:

v ?~

?.'

'' ,Y,,

?

t

":sl;?.fi''

??

?; 'YS~~?~

j? r

Fig. 17. Two Hebrew ostraca from the temple, the one at the right naming Meremoth and the one at the left naming Pashhur.

Furthermore,the temples of Arad and Beer-shebawere hardly the only Judean temples outside Jerusalem. When Josiah carried out his great religious reforms in his 18th year, he defiled the temples and altars in Israel, "and he slew all the priests of the bamot who were there, upon the altars" (II Kings 23:15ff.). In any case, it is clear that he did not transfer these priests to Jerusalem. In Judah, on the other hand, "he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled high places where the priests had burned incense (!), from Geba to Beer-sheba"(II Kings 23:8). There were obviously legitimate priests at the various bamot up to that time, and Josiah transferred them to Jerusalem in order to eat "unleavened bread among their brethren" (II Kings 23:9). Arad gives us an idea of how these bamot looked. In the above passage we also hear of another place, Geba, apparently Geba of Benjamin near the northern Judean border.

30

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

There a Philistine garrison resided in the beginning of Saul's reign (I Sam. 13:3) and obviously this same place was called "the hill (= Geba, Gibeah) of God", where a bamah existed already in that period. The place was fortified by Asa as one of his strongholds on the Israelite border (I Kings 15:22). We may now assume that a temple was erected at Geba in the days of Asa or Jehoshaphat with the stabilization of the Israelite-Judeanborder. It symbolized the fact that the kings of Judah renounced - at least temporarily- their ambition to regain the lost northern territories."FromGeba to Beer-sheba"became a slogan for the borders of Judah, similar to "from Dan to Beer-sheba"in the days of the United Monarchy. These were the royal citadels which dominated the border areas; a vital part of each of them was evidently the royaland sanctifiedtemple. These discoveries further shed light on the centralization of worship in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. It is a well known fact that religious renaissance and cultic reforms in Israel were usually connected with a national revival and liberation from foreign domination. The digressions of Ahaz and Manasseh were obviously carried out under the Assyrian yoke, while their abolition in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah were connected with revolts and liberation. Yet, foreign cult objects were introduced first of all into Jerusalem and its temple, while we have no information of their influence on the rural temples. What was the reason that only these were suddenly considered idolatrous, after being accepted from the time of the United Monarchy as symbols of royal and divine sovereignty? We may now assume that this was connected with their function as royal border sanctuaries. It was Hezekiah who revived Davidic ambitions to reunite the kingdom under his rule, after the downfall of Samaria, a dream which was finally realized by Josiah until his tragic death at Megiddo. The border sanctuaries, and especially Bethel and Geba, now constituted an obstruction to the unification of the kingdom. The desired concentration of the nation around Jerusalem and the house of David dictated their elimination. Finally, the existence of the Kenite high-place and the Solomonic temple may also solve the problem of Canaanite Arad. Several suggestions have already been put forward to explain the absence of a Canaanite city at Tel Arad, which seems to contradict biblical tradition. Glueck has suggested that the "king" of Arad was in reality only a tribal chieftain who encamped with his people on and around Tel Arad, but who did not live in a fortified city there.'2 Mazar believes that the Negeb of Arad is a regional 12. N. Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (1959),

p. 114.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1968, 1)

31

designation, like the Negeb of the Kenites, etc., while "the king of Arad" resided, in reality, at Hormah, which he identifies with Tell el-Milh.13 Fritz argues that the traditions on the wars with Arad and Hormah are only etiological stories, originating around the Early Bronze age city on which the citadel of Arad was founded in the Israelite period.'4 It is impossible to discuss here in detail these suggestions. All three have in common the denial of the existence of a Canaanite city with the name Arad. This suggestion seems to me improbable in the light of the repeated biblical tradition on the war against the king of Arad, the dweller of the Negeb near Hormah (Num. 14:40ff., 21:lff., 33:40; Deut. 1:44; Josh. 12:14).

CALEB

T. Arad

KENITES Beer-sheba

Kh. Gharreh S I M SIZrEON

E

0

N

T. Meshash T. el-Milh

JERAH

*

2

4

Kh. Ghazzeh

MEEL

Aroer

km.

Fig. 18. Map of the Negeb region in the Early Iron age.

It seems more probable to suppose a shifting of the name. My suggestion is that Canaanite Arad is to be identified with Tell el-Milh, where our trial excavations revealed traces of a magnificent Middle Bronze age fortification. Tell el-Milh is situated about seven miles southwest of Tel Arad. Only four miles to the west is Tell Meshash, which shows traces of occupation in the same periods and was of special importance in the Early Iron age I. Both have an abundance of wells, which are completely absent at Tel Arad. The identification of Hormah with Tell Meshash has already been considered by various scholars. This hypothesis is strengthened by the Shishak list. How may we explain the mention of two fortresses called Arad five years after the death 13. B. Mazar, Journal of near Eastern Studies, XXIV (1965), 297-303. 14. V. Fritz, Zeitschrift der deutschen Paldistina-Vereins, LXXXII (1966),

331-342.

32

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

of Solomon: "Arad Rabbat" (= the great) and "Arad of the House of yrhm," possibly the biblical Jerahmeel. We may suppose that the Canaanite city was settled by Jerahmeelite families and became part of the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites, while the Kenites settled down in the northern domain of the city, which became the Negeb of the Kenites (I Sam. 27:10; 30:29; cf. map, Fig. 19). With the construction of the chain of fortresses, Solomon again fortified the older sites at Tell el-Milh and Tell Meshash. A new and most important fortress, however, was built at Tel Arad, Shishak's Arad Rabbat. It is now obvious that Tel Arad was chosen not only because of its excellent strategic location, dominating the entire region and the main road to Edom and the Arabah, but also because of the sacred traditions connected with it. If the venerated hill was the traditional Kenite high-place in the Negeb of Arad (Jud. 1:16), we can understand why the new citadel had to bear the same name, and how the duplication in the name of the two neighboring fortresses came about: Arad the Great and Arad of the Jerahineelites. This is a long story, but one that is far from being finished. It probably opens an even lengthier discussion regarding several fundamental questions of biblical history and the early stages of Israelite worship. The discussion may become endless if no other such temple is found to enable a comparison with that at Arad. For this reason, we have begun excavations at the so-called "Solar Shrine" at Lachish, which shows a striking resemblence to the earlier Arad temple.15Lachish was the main stronghold on the Philistine border. Had it perhaps also traditions of an earlier temple? The most promising site, however, is the tell of biblical Beer-shcba, which has not yet been touched by the archaeologist'sspade. We hope that excavations at these two sites will put the various hypotheses discussed above on a more stable plane - though they may well raise scores of additional problems,as does each new archaeologicalexcavation. 15. See provisionally IEJ, XVI (1966),

280f.

Archaeological News and Views We are fortunate to have Dr. Aharoni's stimulating article to lead off the thirty-first year of publication of the Biblical Archaeologist. Its two major themes, concerning the Arad sanctuary and the Arad ostraca, are subjects of considerable excitement both for the historian and for the professional archaeologist. Among other things, Dr. Aharoni's experience at Arad is likely to lead most of his archaeological colleagues to look with a great deal more care for the written material which we know should have

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

33

been coming up in Palestinian sites; his method of "dipping"sherds before scrubbing them may indeed become standard practice! It ought also to be noted that there has arisen some little controversyabout the stratigraphyat Arad and therefore about the dating of the finds. In a brief note in Israel Exploration Journal, XV (1965), p. 180, Yigael Yadin has pointed out that the drafting on the ashlar blocks embedded in the casemate wall of Stratum VII's fortress is characteristicnot of the Israelite period but of Hellenistic and Early Roman times. Pottery experts will study the pieces published in Figure 7 of this issue with a view to whether they are indeed all characteristic tenth century forms, while palaeographerswill work on the ostraca and inscriptions with a view to their place in the fixed sequence of written materials already known. This is the way in which archaeological interpretation goes forward. It is important to have the data before us, and Dr. Aharoni has given us a clear and precise statement of his own interpretations of his data. Readers may be interested to follow the discussion, both in Yadin's note and in other publications to come.

Readers of the BA are regularly writing in for news about current and upcoming projects, sometimes with a view to possible participation. Then, too, there is curiosity about how the changes in political control in Palestine will affect continuing operations. This is the way the schedule looks for this coming summer as far as American activities are concerned. Through the good offices of the Department of Antiquities of Israel, which has been most cooperative, three excavations in the West Bank territorywith which the American Schools of Oriental Research is connected will go forward. One will take place at Taanach, under the direction of Dr. Paul Lapp; another will continue at Ai under Dr. Joseph Callaway; and the third will take place at Shechem and on Tell er-Ras under Dr. Edward Campbell, Dr. Lawrence Toombs, Dr. James Ross, and Dr. Robert Bull. Each of these excavations, as readers know, is undertaking the last season of work in a prolonged series, reportsof which have appearedin past issues of the BA. The great concern of the American Schools at this time is directed, however, at reestablishing its contacts with the Arab nations and at seeking anew the opportunity to participate in the discovery of the cultural heritage of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. To this end, a major push to raise money for the opening of a new School in Beirut and for reopening work in Baghdad is underway. An excellent team of American scholars will hope to be in Baghdad this coming fall, going as individuals but awaiting the time when cultural relations between Iraq and the United States are open and when diplomatic relations are reestablished. Of great significance

34

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

is the fact that an expedition will be working in Jordan, under Dr. Siegfried H. Horn at the site of Heshbon, in which the American Schools has a part. Also involved are plans for the opening of an office of the American Schools in Amman, Jordan. It must be emphasized that the American Schools is a non-political organization whose interest is in the cultural history of the Near East. Its members hope to be able to carry on archaeologicalresearch throughout the Near East under all hegemonies, and that is the end toward which the Schools' program now is being plotted. From what has been said, I think it is clear that there are real hopes for the accomplishment of this aim. Meanwhile, there is other American or American-relatedwork going forward in Israel. At Ashdod, work will be renewed under the Israeli Department of Antiquities with the cooperation of Dr. James Swauger and the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh. Mention is made in Dr. Aharoni's article of the work to be done at Lachish, in which Dr. B. Boyd of the University of North Carolina will participate.The largest American project in Israel proper will be the Gezer excavation under Dr. William Dever and Mr. H. Darrell Lance, supported by Hebrew Union College's Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem. Mention of the last two projects leads back to the question of participation by American volunteers and travelers, and allows me to indulge in a little free advertising. The Gezer work is carried out by volunteers, and Professor Lance has sent the following invitation for publication in the BA. "The fourth season of the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School Excavations at Tell Gezer, Israel, will take place in two sessions next summer, from June 24 to July 12 and from July 15 to August 2. Persons interested in participating as members of the Volunteer Staff are invited to write for information to Prof. H. Darrell Lance, Gezer Volunteer Program, 1100 South Goodman Street, Rochester, New York 14620." Another quite different program known to me will include participation in actual excavation, at Lachish and at another site yet to be announced. This is under the auspices of the Institute for Mediterranean Studies, and will be led by Dr. Victor Gold. It covers the dates July 12 to August 30, and includes not only time in Israel but also guided study and travel in Greece, Crete and Rhodes. Information on this program is available from Professor Victor R. Gold, 1533 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California 94709. Both this program and the Gezer one carry academic credit for the participants. In prospect for future issues of the BA are a number of interesting items. Professor Keith Beebe of Occidental College will present a study of

1968, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

35

the typical house of biblical and pre-biblical times, with attention to understanding the frequent, but not always lucid, biblical references to house features. Professor Samuel Laeuchli of Temple University will be writing about Mithraism and its participation in the religious panorama of New Testament times, with special reference to the work done at Ostia by a team from Garrett Theological Seminary. Reports will be forthcoming on some of the digs to be carried out this summer. G. Ernest Wright and I are going to work on the question of amphictyonic cult centers, and there is further prospect, about a year from now, of a study by Victor R. Gold of Serabit el-Khadem, the mining center in the Sinai peninsula, which will include reference to the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions; Dr. Albright has recently contributed some gigantic steps toward their decipherment and these results will inform Dr. Gold's study. The last issue of the BA went out to about 5000 readers, but we are always delighted to add to our subscription list. Procedures for subscription are given in the masthead of this and all issues. Edward F. Campbell, Jr.

36

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXI

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (Act of October 23, 1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code) 1. Date of Filing: October 1, 1967 2. Title of Publication: The Biblical Archaeologist 3. Frequency of issue: Quarterly - February, May, September, December 4. Location of Known Office of Publication: 625 Mount Auburn Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 5. Location of the Headquarters or General Business Offices of the publishers (not printers): Room 102, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 6. Names and Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: The American Schools of Oriental Research, Room 102, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Editor: Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., McCormick Theological Seminary, 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 60614 7. Owner (If owned by a corporation, its names and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, its name and address, as well as that of each individual must be given.) Archeological Service Organization with no owner President - G. Ernest Wright, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Mass. 02138 Secretary - James B. Pritchard, University Museum, 33rd & Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 Treasurer - William L. Reed, 917 Wolf Run Rd., Lexington, Kentucky 40504 8. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities (If there are none so state): None. 9. Paragraphs 7 and 8 include, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting; also the statements in the two paragraphs show the affiant's full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stocks and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fida owner. Names and addresses of individuals who are stockholders of a corporation which itself is a stockholder or holder of bonds, mortgages or other securities of the publishing corporation have been included in paragraphs 7 and 8 when the interests of such individuals are equivalent to 1 percent or more of the total amount of the stock or securities of the publishing corporation. 10. Extent and Nature of Circulation Average No. Copies Single Issue Nearest Each Issue During To Filing Date Preceding 12 Months A. Total no. copies printed 6300 7300 B. Paid circulation 1) sales through dealers, none none vendors, counter sales 5154 6154 2) mail subcriptions C. Total paid circulation 5154 6154 D. Free distribution 161 161 E. Total distribution 5315 6315 F. Office use, left-over, unaccounted, 985 985 spoiled after printing G. Total 6300 7300