ca7lllI
D 9 gptv
4es
R S.J
..SII
V.5
mon
UAE
S
f. SI.**
SILOAMTUNNE
bu' I t
by Hezekiah or the
~II
I)1 L~1
L
I07
'S..I
B
icalArch
rld fromMesopotamiato the Mediterranean Perspectiveson the A Publicationof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch W
138
____
-
-?r
150
1
Wasthe SiloamTunnelBuiltby Hezekiah?
SyncretisticandMnemonicDimensionsof ChalcolithicArt:A New HumanFigurinefromShiqmim
ThomasE.LevyandJonathanGolden The largeChalcolithic(ca.4500-3500BCE) village and mortuarycomplex of Shiqmim in Israel's Negev has produced a unique diminutive human figurine. Its anthropomorphic featuresare captivating,but it also shares in the abstractartisticstyle of "violin-shape" figurines. Uniquely bringing together these two distinct southern Levantine artistic traditions, the Shiqmim figurine permits us to see overlapping cultural, stylistic, spatial, and chronological dimensions of the Chalcolithic culture of Palestine.The intrinsicallybeautiful bone carving may also have had a more concrete social function: the authors suggest it may have served as a mnemonic device.
1,
A
September1996
JohnRogersonandPhilipR.Davies A walk through Hezekiah's tunnel offers one of the unforgettable highlights of a visit to Jerusalem.The adventure of the scary passage through its narrow limestone confines gives way to marvel over the engineering feat and multifarious associations with a rebellion narrated so fully in Hebrew Scripture.Top it all off with an inscription telling of the final moments of the tunnelers' epic midpoint encounter, and even the most inept guide cannot fail to rouse a tour group to a level of awe. But what if it's not Hezekiah'stunnel after all? Rogerson and Davies review the history of the Gihon water system and of the line of the walls of the city,biblicalreferences to the water system, and the genre and the paleography of the inscription. Their conclusion? Will a walk through the Hasmonean tunnel still be thrilling?
-1
Ile
Volume59 Number3
s
160
A Typologyof WestSemiticPlaceNameListswith SpecialReferenceto Joshua13-21
RichardS. Hess The heart of the book of Joshua offers place name lists, the origin and purpose of which have long been debated. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the existence of many kinds of place name lists in documents from the larger West Semitic world, especially the cuneiform tablets of Mari, Alalakh, and Ugarit. Comparing these lists with the lists of Joshua 13-21 reveals the origins of particular lists and the fashioning of the whole as a land grant document contextualized within a larger covenant document.
Spae160
171
TheOlivePit andRomanOilMaking
E. LoetaT7reeandEvangeliaStefanoudaki The importanceof olive oil in the ancient Mediterraneanworld can hardlybe exaggerated: from lighting to diet and cosmetics, no other oil came close to the olive's multitudinous usages. The significance of olive oil contrasts with how historians often demonstratetheir ignoranceabout its production. Case in point: the repeated assertion that Roman oil manufacturerspitted their olives before crushing them. The authorsdebunk this notion in theirreconstructionof Romanoil productionand its specialized tools, examining modem oil productionin the process. Since the idea of Roman olive pitting arises in part from Roman writers like Cato who felt that to crush the pit was to ruin the flavor of the oil, the authors add an experimental dimension to their investigation as well. Variouslypreparedoils are put to the taste test. Can even the connoisseur tell the difference between oils produced with or without crushing the pit? On the cover: The Siloam inscription,cut from the rockwall of the Jerusalem tunnel, had been located six meters from the tunnel's currentoutlet. It records the final moments of tunneling when workers digging with pick-axesfrom opposite ends adjusted their excavation to the sound of their counterparts. Almost universallyjudged to be contemporaneous with a late eighth centurydate for the constructionof the tunnel, the text may be paleo-Hebrewfrom a later century accordingto the authors of the lead article.Photo by ErichLessing.
From
the
Editor
As the weeks of a summer field season pass and the pace of discovery gathers speed, news inevitably filtersinto dig camp about finds elsewhere in the Middle East. Travelersand e-mail bring word of more tablets at Ugarit, a rich palaeolithic site at the Azraq oasis of Jordan, a dedicatory inscription mentioning Ekron and two of its kings from Tel Miqne (see this issue's Arti-Facts).Depending upon how unproductive your square is turning out to be or how few and far between are the recordable sites of your survey region, such news is often unnerving. Even a neighboring square may look like a paradise of finds for its few broken figurines. It is easy to become overly focused on the treasures in the trash of the ancient world so that one loses contact with the larger archaeological endeavor. One can also lose sight of the broad experience that participationin archaeologicalprojectsaffords,especially those that transportone into a culturalworld quite dissimilar to one's home. Long negotiations for permissions and several years of waiting certainly raised my level of anticipation with respect to what stupendous finds would greet my summer's digging. The large (13x16m) ruralbuilding was well preserved on three sides with at least 1.5 m of deposition. The mid-slope setting amidst terracedvineyard and fig trees appealed to my imagination of a scene from an idyll. Therewere cisterns and a substantial cave complex. But none of these tantalizing leads proved reliable. The bedrock rose rapidly in the midst of the building, depriving it of much accumulation. The trenches that did delve deeply came upon a surface that had been well cleaned when the house was abandoned, apparently in orderly fashion. Diggers unearthed very few items of material culture, and these were mostly broken. We learned much about the structure of the building and its history, but there was nothing to stand up and crow about at mealtime. Except for Miriam. Miriam was the owner of the site, yet an extremely poor woman who lived twenty-five meters from the edge of our first square. Miriam and her blind mother occupied a cinderblock shack half the size of the ancient building with no running water and no electricity. She used the ancient cistern for her water supply. The cave complex was a dove cote. The portions of the building site itself were part of her arable land. She harvested the grain, figs, and grapes. Miriam was our overseer from the moment we pounded in the first piece of re-barto the moment we raked over the backfilland said good-bye to all our labors. She was as much a part of the archaeological experience as the digging, sifting, and recording.This unsought but unavoidable ethnographic dimension reminded us constantly about the once-living who had built and abandoned the objects of our excavation and the now-living among whom we had the privilege, even the audacity, to work, imposing our values upon a foreign landscape. Miriam had her own set of values to protect and little patience for ours. Many of us would certainly prefer to work autonomously, independent of the claims of another set of values. Miriam reminded us regularly that such independence is no longer realistic in our time and perhaps no longer ideal. Accompanied by numerous finds or nothing worth mentioning, it is the broader, cross-culturalaspects of the archaeological experience that are fundamentally significant. Likewise, we dare not lose sight of the cross-cultural dimensions of archaeological interpretationthat are necessarily involved in connecting the nowliving with the once-living.
a/?vtL H-opkQ*
BiblicalArchaeolo on theAncientWorldfrom Perspectives to the Mediterranean Mesopotamia
EditorDavid C. Hopkins Art DirectorBucky Edgett,LuckyProductions Book Review EditorMichel Fortin Arti-FactsEditorsBruceand CarolynRoutledge EditorialAssistants Mary PetrinaBoyd, Ellen Rowse Spero EditorialCommittee KennethG. Hoglund JefferyA. Blakely ElizabethBloch-Smith Douglas A. Knight Betsy M. Bryan MaryJoanLeith GloriaLondon J. P.Dressel ErnestS. Frerichs Jodi Magness Ronald S. Hendel Gerald L. Mattingly RichardS. Hess GaetanoPalumbo Paul Zimansky Subscriptions Annual subscriptionrates are $35 for individuals and $45 for institutions.Thereis a special annual rate of $28 for students, those over 65, physically challenged, or unemployed. Biblical is also availableas part of the Archaeologist benefits of some ASORmembershipcategories. Postage for Canadianand other international addresses is an additional $5. Payments should be sent to ASORMembership/Subscriber Services,P.O.Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399 (ph:404-727-2345;Bitnet:SCHOLARS@ EMORYUI).VISA/Mastercardorders can be phoned in. Back issues Backissues can be obtainedby calling SP CustomerServicesat 800-437-6692or writing SP CustomerServices,P.O.Box 6996, Alpharetta,GA 30239-6996. Postmaster Send address changes to Biblical ASORMembership/Subscriber Archaeologist, Services,P.O.Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399. Second-classpostage paid at Atlanta,GA and additional offices. Copyright ? 1996by the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch. Correspondence All editorialcorrespondence should be addressed to BiblicalArchaeologist, 4500 MassachusettsAvenue NW, Washington,DC 20016-5690(ph:202-885-8699;fax:202-885-8605; email
[email protected]).Correspondence regardingsubmissions for Arti-Factscan be sent to Bruceand CarolynRoutledge, Departement d'histoire,Universite Laval,Ste-Foy,Quebec, CanadaGIK 7P4. Book Reviews All books for review should be sent to: ProfessorMichel Fortin,Departement d'histoire,Universite Laval,Ste-Foy,Quebec, Canada GIK 7P4.Books entering Canadashould be marked:EducationalMaterialfor Review; No CommercialValue-GSTExempt. Advertising Correspondenceshould be addressed to Leigh Anderson, ScholarsPress,P.O. Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399(ph:404-7272327;fax:404-727-2348).Ads for the sale of antiquitieswill not be accepted. BiblicalArchaeologist(ISSN0006-0895)is published quarterly(March,June,September, December)by ScholarsPress,819 Houston Mill Road NE, Atlanta,GA 30329,for the American Schools of OrientalResearch(ASOR),3301 North CharlesStreet,Baltimore,MD 21218.Printedby Cadmus Journal Services, Baltimore, MD.
t~ij\
the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah?
Was
By JohnRogersonand PhilipR. Davies EXPLORED THE SINCE EDWARD ROBINSON
TUNNEL
in 1837,it has occupied a prominent SILOAM place in the of the of This telling history Jerusalem. paperreassesses theplaceof whathasbecomeknownas "Hezekiah's tunnel"andproposesa new theoryof thedatesof construction of its variouscomponents.Theargumentconsidersthreesets of evidence:first,the historyof the Gihonwatersystemand of the line of the walls of the city; second, biblical references to the Gihonwater system;and third,the genre and the paleography of the inscriptionfound in the so-called "Hezekiah'stunnel."Thebottomline canbe simply stated: on the evidenceavailableto us, the tunnelwas not builtby Hezekiahbut severalcenturieslater.
EVER
Archaeology
TheGihonWaterSystem The Gihon spring lies on the eastern ridge of the hill known as the "Ophel"or "Cityof David."A seriesof channels and tunnels,made over several centuries,has led the water from the Gihon spring to other places where it was moreaccessible.Of these,threeneed to be consideredhere. Thefirstis a complexconsistingof a steppedpassage,a shaft, and a tunnelwhichbroughtwaterfromthe springto a point where it could be accessed from the top of the shaft reachedby the passage.The shaft itself is known as "Warren'sShaft,"afterthe explorerwho discoveredit in 1876.The passage and the shaft are partly natural,which explains the curiouslayout of the entiresystem (see Gill 1994).This provisionis obviouslystrategic,and its designpresupposes that,at the timeof its construction,the citywall ranbetween the springand the accessshaft. The second system was once known as the "SecondAqueduct,"though we shall follow Y.Shilohin callingit the "Siloam Channel." This waterway is partly rock-hewn tunnel and partly stone-covered conduit, and it runs through to the birketelhamraor "Old Pool of Siloam."The choice of this outflow was probably due to the existence of a reservoir collecting rainwater running down the Tyropoeon valley. However, small apertures in the channel suggest that it also served to irrigate the Kidron valley or perhaps even some terracingon the slopes. As all excavators agree, this was a water system which, unlike the shaft, was operable only in times of peace. Not only did the channel run outside the walls, it would have drawn the attention of any besieging army to the presence 138
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
Aerialview of Jerusalemfrom the south shows the spurof the City of David.The Siloamtunnel carrieswater from near the mid-pointof this spurto its southerntip. The date when this outlet was enclosed within the walls of the ancient city is a crucialissuefacing students of the water system.The photo makes clearthe topography with which the buildersof southern and western walls would have reckoned. Photo courtesyof RichardCleave.
of the springand thus would have put the city's own supply in jeopardy. It was therefore unlikely to have been constructedin timeswhen therewas even a threatof war. Finally,thereis a tunnel,which runs undergroundto a spot nearthe present"Poolof Siloam."The tunnelutilized partof the shaft system at its northernend and part of the channel at its southern end, where it reversed the channel'searlierslope and thusthe directionof the flow.Because of this apparentreuseof partof an earliersystem,it looksas if the tunnelis laterthanthe channel.Ussishkin(1976)has a differentinterpretation,positing an originallyshortertunnel. It is, in any case, intrinsicallyimprobablethatafterthe tunnel was in use, an external channel was also cut to bringwaterto a pool very nearthe tunnel'sexit.It is importantto rememberthatthe volume of waterfromthe Gihon is neitherhuge norconstant,and the tunnelis capableof carryingall the availablewater;subsequentwaterworkswould not increasethe capacity.
The Old City Siloam ool
Central Valley
Se\ The Citadel
City Wall Wal
City
Sel
Warren'-sSaf.
W
Gihon
0
m
100
Wpring
Kedron-Valley
A The illustrationshows the three Gihon water systemsdiscussedin this article: Warren'sShaft (crossingthe line of the city wall at the time it was built),the "Siloam Channel"runningoutside the line of the walls, and the "Hezekiah'sTunnel,"ending in the SiloamPool outside the city wall. Shiloh 1984:66-67,fig. 30.
City
Wal
Vertical Shaft
> Thisshows the Warren'sShaft system, with the shaft on the right descendingto a basin into which the Gihonwater flowed, a staircaseand a semi-circularpassage leading underthe wall and, on the left, the entrance chamberinsidethe walls.The course of the latertunnel can also be seen. Shiloh 1984:68, fig. 31.
Hezekiah's Tunnel -
-To
the
-
Tth
Vaulted
Chamber
Gihon Spring
,,
The reason why a tunnel should havebeenbuiltwhen an existingchannel broughtthe water fromthe spring to very nearly the same spot is presumablystrategic,for a tunnelsecures thewatersupplyfromthe Gihonspringfromaccessoutside thecitywall.Sucha featwas therefore mostprobablyprompted and At all events,thechana serious need. by perhapsurgent nel must have been eithertemporarilyor permanentlycut off when the tunnelwas hewn. We can draw reasonableconclusionsabout why these three systems were built, and the evidence, as well as the
m
5
0 MM -:3M --Z
logic,pointsto the tunnelbeingthe latestof them.It is thereforenow necessaryto try to put these systemsinto a firmer chronologicalsequenceandassigndates.Sinceboththeshaft andtunnelservethestrategicpurposeof bringingwaterfrom outside the wall to a place inside the wall, the crucialfactor in dating these waterworksis the line of the city wall duringthe historyof Jerusalem. 59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
139
/
- ---
N
\kI
\
\\>
\\W~\&(
(,0
according to Kenyon
- according to Geva ...........according to Grafman \\h
-
m I
I.
/
~.
M5,,O NT
\\\~
vigad's Wall ..
Site of alley Gate
~i I
:I
.\QI Wallof Old City
--`66
......-'
0
m
i !!/li 1161
The Wallsof the "Cityof David" Since the excavations of Kenyon (1961-67),Avigad (196971), and Shiloh (1978-82), there is general agreement about the line of the eastern city wall of Jerusalem from the Middle BronzeAge onwards, but the same is not true of the other city walls. We must therefore deal with the crucial eastern and western sides separately. Eastern Wall The excavations by Warren,Guthe, and then Macalister concluded that the city wall of the Jebusite-Davidic and Solomonic period had run along the crest of the hill. But this wall, as Kenyon showed, would have run some twenty-seven meters west of Warren's Shaft. This posed something of a problem,because,like nearlyeveryone else at the time, Kenyon assumed that 2 Sam 5:6-8 described Joab clambering up a sinnor to capture the Jebusite city. When she came to excavate, she therefore concluded that the Jebusite wall already must have run between the spring and the shaft. This is why her trenchran dose to the Gihon spring (Kenyon1974:76). The wall running along the top of the ridge, as she argued, and as is now generally accepted, belongs to the Persian period. Kenyon's excavations uncovered part of what she dated as a Middle Bronze wall, running between the spring and the shaft, about two thirds of the way down the slope towards the spring. In fact, she argued that the line of this wall deliberately ran towards the spring so that the shaft system could be constructed. However, although Warren's Shaftcannot be dated on purely archaeologicalgrounds, BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
\.
2
I
/ M
200
Threeproposed reconstructionsof the WesternWallof Jerusalemat the time of Hezekiah,showing how two of them encompassthe pool of Siloam.The earliersize of the city wall appearsas a thin unbroken line (right).The thickerunbrokenline representsthe modernwall. Williamson1984:86.
140
iJL
~ 1ij
2~OM
0
.......
I)'
101 07l!l
Siloam HinnomValley
j!j,
~-\~~__~A\\~~~ !ij
/i
'7i
I)
Thisshows the relationshipbetween IronIIsites and Avigad's reconstructedwall (laterfinds on Mt. Zion [insidethe southwestern cornerof wall] are not shown). No finds are shown anywhere in the southeast corner.Avigad 1980:58,fig. 36.
few scholars subsequently have put it as early as MB. But at any rate, archaeologists agree that, regardless of its date of construction, the eastern walls of the city ran between the shaft and the Gihon spring until the Persian period. In the Persian period, the wall ran higher up the easternhill, and the access to Warren'sShaftwould then have been outside it. The eastern wall does not seem subsequently to have been moved furtherdown the hill, and the shaft therefore remained strategically useless, though in times of peace it afforded a convenient enough way of getting water, perhaps by the "WaterGate" mentioned in Neh 3:26;8:2, 3, 16; and 12:37. WesternWall There are several suggestions as to the line of the western wall. The three basic proposals-from Kenyon, Grafman, and Geva-enclose increasingly large areas. In Kenyon's view, there had been no settlement on the Western hill until the Hasmonean period. Thus Hezekiah's undertaking posed something of a mystery. According to various (especially Israeli) archaeologists, however, the mystery has been solved and Kenyon proved wrong. Evidence was found of settlement on this hill from the late Iron II period (eighthseventh centuries). The evidence is not in great quantity,but it is spread over a fairly large area, within the Old City in the Jewish Quarter, the Citadel, and Mount Zion (on the latter,
\V
N
./ (I
3
72/\
)
I\-
:\I
7.4
7
673
7\2i
750
r
'^I 3
57,
37 "1 0
250Mi
I1,c
<7~j735-
60
The line of the city walls in the Hasmoneanperiod.The unbroken line representsexcavated sections, now clearlybeyond the Siloam pool. Avigad 1980:66, fig. 38.
see Chen et al. 1994). The crucial structure,however, is a section of seven-meter thick city wall, unearthed by Avigad. The wall segment suggests that at some time during the IronAge the western wall of the city included part or all of the western hill. However, no more wall has been found to indicate its extent southwards. This is very unfortunate, and in the absence of further data wall reconstructions have proceeded on the basis of assumptions. On the assumptionthat the Siloam pool was obviously within the city walls when the tunnel was constructed, and since the book of Kings says Hezekiah built a tunnel, Avigad, followed by other archaeologists, simply drew the late Iron II wall accordingly. Yet Avigad's map of Jerusalem'swall (previous page, right side) shows two peculiar features. First,excavated sites congregate at considerable distance from the southern line. Second, the southern wall follows an unsuitable and unnecessary line down and up a steep slope as it crosses the Tyropoeon valley. Avigad asserts that this is the correct line of Hezekiah's city wall: "it must have been, according to the Bible, as well as according to logic" (1980:60).But logic is not on his side at all, and we shall see presently that the Bible is not either. As for logic, Kenyon objected that her own excavations on the south-eastern slope of the western hill yielded no Iron II relics. Avigad argued that not every place within the
wall needed to be settled. But, first of all, it is unlikely that a wall would be built covering a larger area than necessary except for topographical reasons which do not obtain in this case. Secondly, once a wall is built, settlement would be expected to take place within its haven over time. This seems not to have happened. Kenyon's case is not, then, a mere argument from silence: it is a reasonableinferencethat unless the south-eastern slopes yield evidence of settlement, the area was not inside the wall. Shiloh's counter-claim (Shiloh 1984:25, 35 n.16) that Kenyon's conclusions were based on too limited evidence bypasses the fact that his own excavations were unable to provide any either (see also Geva 1994:6). This is a loud silence! There is a further consideration. The reservoirs and associated fortifications in the Tyropoeon valley into which the tunnel and channel flowed are all dated by the Shiloh investigatorsto the Second Templeperiod. The investigatorsassume that FirstTemple period reservoirswere on the same site, but have found no evidence to support this supposition (see Shiloh 1984:23). Again, we have an absence of data upon which an unjustified assumption has been laid-purely on the basis, as far as one can see, that the Siloam tunnel was built by Hezekiah. Here is a classic instance of the biblical text (or rather,an interpretationof it) overriding clear archaeological indications. In fact, it is more likely that the Hasmoneans (ca. 15237 BCE), not Hezekiah,enclosedthe pool. Avigad'sreconstruction fares better this time than Kenyon's. Kenyon does not have the Hasmonean wall enclosing the pool. But her line of city wall is less logical because it is unnecessarily long; it outlines but does not cross the Tyropoeon valley. While at present the line of the Hasmonean wall cannot be fully reconstructed, it is only in the time of the Hasmoneans that we can say the pool was very probablyinside the wall while the spring and shaft were both definitelyoutside.This period is therefore the most probable time of construction of the tunnel, and until there is evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to accept such a date. If we now put the water systems and the lines of the walls together,we get what seems a very neat and logical sequence. The shaft system is built first, at a time when the walls run between it and the spring. Next comes the channel. But the channel betrays the water source and therefore jeopardizes the security of the shaft. It also feeds a reservoir that lies outside the city walls, greatly to the benefit of any besieging army. So the channel most probably belongs to a time both when the shaft was strategically useless, such as when the walls were higher up the slope, and also when no immediate or recurrentthreat of hostilities was present. The channel supplied irrigationfor agriculturethat developed on the side of the hill below the walls. The most likely time for building such a channel is the Persian period. Last comes the tunnel, whose constructionimplies a water source outsidethe walls, a pool insidethe walls, and suggests a period of hostility, when the city might be attacked. The Hasmonean age fits these requirements very well indeed. BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
141
The political situation under the Hasmoneans required a protected water supply,since therewas a continualexternal threatfrom the Seleucids.To enclose --the reservoir pools within the walls, block off the Siloam channel, and build a tunnel is a plausible enterprise at this time. In addition to fulfilling the archaeological data dealt with above, a Hasmonean date for "Hezekiah's"tunnel both fits the historical sequence of Gihon systems and furnishes the most likely circumstances for such a system. Before leaving this part of the argument, we can return to Warren'sShaft. ori i Can it be dated more precisely?Kenyon as that the thought, already mentioned, Middle Bronzewall was connectedwith the construction of the earliest water system, the shaft;she actually dated this wall to "as early as 1800" (1974:78), which would imply that the shaft was also as old. But she also seems to accept a datingfor the shaftof "LB-EI." B.Mazar realized that if Kenyon's reasoning was right,the shaftmust go backto the "early second millennium," and that is what he opted for (1975:163).But Shiloh puts n o wt8:01 in tenth-ninth the shaft the centuries (1984:23). He gives a reason for this: "Warren'sShaftwas built according to the usual formulae for Kenyon'sreconstructionof the Hasmoneancitywall, excludingthe undergroundwater systems at royal centresin the tenth-ninth Pool of Siloam,follows a good strategic line along the crest,but the centuries BCE."He is thinking of the similar installations at same strategicconsiderations(necessaryat that time, but not earlier) make it all the more likelythat the pool lay insidethe walls. Kenyon Gibeon, Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor, for which he even sup1974:200,fig. 29. plies a comparativetable of the gradients (1984:22).The water systems at Megiddo, Yible'am, and Gibeon include stepped passages and tunnels designed to bring water securely from BiblicalReferences outside the city to inside. These systems are variously assigned The primary historical value of the relevant biblical texts to the period of the Judeanand Israelitemonarchies.A. Mazar is to give us information not about the time of Hezekiah, but about the time of the writers. In this respect, several texts are dates Warren'sShaft to the "divided monarchy,"explaining that this kind of system was a great Israeliteinvention (Mazar very important for gauging the history of the water systems. 1990:480).There are, indeed, no precise indications of date, Our discussion of these texts must necessarily be perfuncbut it seems to us rather excessive to assign both Warren's tory. tunneltoJudeankings.Afterall,if in Hezekiah's The first biblical passages is 2 Kgs 20:20, with which we ShaftandHezekiah's time therealreadyexisteda perfectlysafewatersupply,one posbegin not because we think it is the earliest text, but because it is one of the more straightforward: sibly of recent construction, why would he need to build another one, especially one which went underneath the city and came out on the other side? However, if Hezekiah did notbuild the tunnel, there are no reasons why Warren'sShaft should not be assigned to Hezekiah's time nor indeed to his reign. Indeed, this suggestion, though it cannot be proved, is supported by the biblical evidence, as we shall see. In such a case, we should probably think of Hezekiah improving the The rest of the deeds of Hezekiah, and all his might, and he made the pool and the passage and broughtwater the inhabitants how natural system used, presumably,by existing in former times (Gill 1994). into the city,are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? TEMPLE
PLA rFORM
,j
I'O
1 10
....~lc.......
142
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
.
.
:_U;~"?H~f:;.~i'i~;Y~_~;BL~jF~-~ ~i~5~:--~?li~RRL~;i~I~?f?llC7~-~T?r7;-. c~ T-I-' ?, h ~". ;, ~~i~i "i.?Y?c;yJ~raC1`L~F:n,;'E.'~::~3~n': '`'"\ i- 1 . ~3~glk ... r;7P: ~~h~L~-~ ~:id~P;i,,;~3ffgcl t r all;HI: ;~L??.~CF~y ~?UIYr:~3 iF?lc~4lr?:4c~: ;~l~ji? fY"I ?L~r4rw~?'5r. Fjttp~ ?.'Yo'~t?~: Y 1:?i?V r^l4,'
"~L~i~~
4) ..'.ICL. ~
r ?, ~,"zi~
:?
?i? r? x~1-?: :-C-~J~':~ ;i -i, *-jci: :Mh~:L
"~:~
r~"4 ?;i ,I: t~~ ?L~F; :7 -?OC;er3iZI?C I'Y I 1 c''':i:tr: .*l..rO~Li. i .?i '"r 3'?r~~se~_??,e::i~ ri~
t'
4
~aYI~C
f~ : II
?
and Shear-jashubyour son, at the end of the passage of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller's Field."
I
b ~t"l"~ '~ :,;d?: ?Pi i;i' ~?CP-~. ?ri:
c,
The spot referredto is the same one mentioned in Isa 36:2 (2 Kgs 18:17) as the place where the Assyrian commander met Hezekiah. It is clear from these other texts that the spot is outsidethe city. There are several reasonable guesses one could make as to its location. One is that the reference is not to the Gihon system at all. But if it is, we must remember that we cannot date this story. It could originate from the postexilic period (the dating of any part of the book of Isaiah is notoriously disputed), when the walls of the city were on top of the hill, and the shaft was outsidethem. In this case, the writer would also have known of the channel! The pool under the shaft would then be known as the upper pool, and the pool at the end of the channel the "lower pool." But this is unnecessary speculation: because of the uncertainty of dating, we simply cannot be sure of the meaning attached to the terms. All that matters, in any case, is this:we can say that in 2 Kgs we still find no reference to a tunnel. 2 Chr 32:3-4 is another relevant text:
He planned with his officers and his mighty men to stop
The Siloampool-which dates to the SecondTempleperiod-as it currentlyappears.Ifthe tunnel transportedwater for strategic reasons,then this pool must have been within the walls of the city.It is much more likelythat this was the case during Hasmoneantimes than duringthe era of Hezekiah.
the water of the springs that were outside the city; and they helped him. A great many people were gathered, and they stopped all the springs and the brook that flowed throughthe land, saying, "Whyshould the kings of Assyria come and find much water?"
Of what water system is the writer thinking?It is not clear what htlh might refer to exactly: the verbal root clh means "go up, rise, climb, ascend," that is, vertical and not horizontal. But the uses of the noun in the MT suggest a number of meanings, including "trench," but not "tunnel" (See also 1 Kgs 18:32,35, 38;Jer30:13;Isa 7:3;and Ezek 31:4).Moreover, Warren's Shaft itself comprises a horizontal passage leading water from the spring to a pool, from which the water is accessible from a vertical shaft. So there is no exegetical argument in favor of the tunnel and against the shaft system. It is simply wrong to say that this verse ascribes the tunnel to Hezekiah. We think it ascribes the shaft to him, and we think it had to do so, because at the time Kings was written there was no tunnel. We should also look briefly at Isa 7:3:
From this passage we might deduce that the Siloam channelwas in existenceat the time of the Chronidler,who supposes (or lets his readers suppose) that it existed earlier and that Hezekiah stopped it up, together with all the other watersources. It is strange, however, that the construction of an alternative water supply for the city is not mentioned at the same time, but only at the end of the chapter,where v. 30 reads:
Andthe Lord said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Go forth to meet Ahaz, you
.
. :
This same Hezekiah closed the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon and directed them down and west to the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works. Despite the impression given by many paraphrastic translations, the Chronicler's Hebrew can mean that Hezekiah closed off the pool formed by the spring, and diverted the water downwards and westwards, into the city of David. 59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
143
VV
W' -4
17-x
This is precisely what the shaft system does. The tunnel in any case does not bring the water either west of the city of David (a possible translation) or into the city of David. The Chronicler appears to have deduced, sensibly enough, that the shaft must at one time have opened inside the city,even though it did not in his own day. So he makes the reasonableinference:Hezekiah built this shaft. Thus what the Chronicler says, like the author of Kings, can be used to support our view of the matter, attributing a shaft, not a tunnel, to Hezekiah. The next text, Isa 8:6-8, also seems to be referring not to the tunnel, but to the channel:
IT:
'
jig T ITt
T TT
TT
a-t4?
*~
*
144
vonr
~
'*
x
.
'2 '* '
*
(N~
*
*
~
. E121 D]Y~
.78.~nn
%ow
.
i tK Ot
. n . hf MAl
Drawingand transliterationof the Siloaminscription.The text narratesthe final meter and a third of excited tunneling as two teams of diggers approachtheir meeting point. It reads: [See]the boring.And this was the mannerof the boring.While [the stone masonswere] still [strikingwith] the pick-axe,each man towards his comrade,and when there were still three ells (1.35 m) to bore thro[ugh,there was hear]dthe voice of a man shouting to his comrade, as there was a resonance(?) in the rock,in the south and i[n the nor]th.And on the day of the boringthe stone masons had struck,each towards his own comrade, pick-axeagainst [pick]axe.Thenthe water ranfrom the springto the pool for 1200 ells (540 m.). And 100 ells was the height of the rockover the heads of the stone masons.Drawingfrom Gesenius, Kautzsch,Cowley,HebrewGrammar,front matter Translationby K.A. D. Smelik,Writings fromAncient Israel.Trans.by G.Davies.Louisville:Westminster/John Knox,1991,p. 70.
The contrast made here seems to be between the partly visible watercourse outside the walls, with the gentle gradient, from which water flows into irrigation channels, and an Assyrian army outside the walls ready to destroy the city. Again, this text cannot be dated, but if our dating of the channel is correct, it was written in the postexilic period. (The channel may also underlie Ezek 47:1.) Ben Sira 48:17 [19] is often quoted in connection with the tunnel and is an especially important text because of its dating, just before the Hasmonean period:
mSnn,
*~
P P 1 (iy l.19.* 2 **.? . rnp. iM.D~n r 'wit. M 19* m . r*n8.8 01 'VNNI . . b 1 0 jn. . D'ti 8181r MN Din~~mbt. WK3 3n.W8M*} '~ ;In
130
Because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River,mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory; and it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks; and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.
nipm
J~~-c?rsrrT tl
4
*
I
-7Z
var3~
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
nvn=
=:mifns
0 rrtov c6zoi, ztlv 'EiKtcas CXOIpo0cv aca'iciu yaycv EusjfCLov cV ov tbv i(?)) &op 6cpu1evCt6-ilpqp dKcpzorov, Kai (o6%ovicTv Kpflvas ets l6cUaa.
Hezekiah fortified his city and brought the water to its midst; he pierced the rockwith iron and enclosed the pool with mountains (the Greek has something like: "built fountains/springs to the waters"). Does this Jerusalem resident know of a tunnel? His words are poetic and not easy to paraphrase precisely into prose. But the languagefitsthe shaftbetterthan the tunnel.Hezekiah's traditional pool-the Siloam pool-is not, unlike the pool within Warren'sShaft, "enclosed with mountains." But the description would nicely fit the only underground water system connected to the Gihon in Ben Sira'sday-Warren's Shaft. The final text, again often cited in this connection, refers to pools made by Hezekiah (Isa 22:8-10):
:?yst
nfi
3pj'L"
12m DW
N~o
0
nm
1 r' 'pp r-nN sT*
/-
:rni
"'
T
Phoen. Ahlr.Ship.
1K X f9
-F 17I
K
li
Seal Sem. no.6 Ivor. Haz. desh.Xer.See.
Gezer
3 9-
fV 9
x
Y
j1
146
aa
v' yy y
Y'f
y
T I. X ;z n
Mr (O
R
yt Ill
4
~
~
00
0
91>1
etue
7 7r
6
00
13 1
Y
eD
7
y
V
1
tI
t
0#t VnV
Y.+ ?t LIX toninth Tenth centuries
III
W
f
ti
1
Lachiah v v I
x
i,ii
A
xxBelt
fJ ff7~
]17 J
X Eighth century
AA,
71
'r
7 y~rt 7
g
0,:2,
.
/ Se
f~9r
cre
04F*
tfr
I
r7
j
'9
O
#~ 7 3 04.~ CL
00
Apo
P40
9~
4-4
4%
71
'
.
C
00a
7
'
14
t
r
XnaA 3CIr
i j~
t
I
vf,
71~7
u rY'
' A
q
4 4
44 4- 4
r 13
34
4f -7 11.73
1
4
EA
00
>'
111 1q gAa4
4 4f4
40
f
11
I
D
j 4 4
4
1 rf~rz~
't
X% Tenhonnt
J
C
f9it~ )
Z.
ya Ob
r\
44
Arad
7
@ A '
Seal Tell Bu.Yawn. Oph. OGbeon no.114 A B
I 1?
VE-3
)
Inecr. Stanps S SS Nis. 311w.Silo.jar III
f(4f 39 9
'9
A
r
Hazor A B C
-?
Y44r
4
1
Seal Tell oetr.no.13 l"a.CIIOl
~ Seventh century
rv
I?
4
Sixth Century
A comparisonof the Siloamscriptwith the other IronAge scripts.Despitesome peculiarities,the inscriptioncan be fit in the IronIIscript sequence. But it can also be reasonablyinterpretedas a productionof the SecondTempleperiod. Paleographyitself is not decisivefor dating the inscription. From Gibson 1973:117-18.
And you saw that the breaches of the city of David were many, and you collected the waters of the lower pool, and you counted the houses of Jerusalem, and you broke down the houses to fortify the wall. You made a reservoir between the two walls for the water of the old pool. But you did not look to him who did it, or have regard for him who planned it long ago.
century, and he argued that the Siloam alphabet accorded more closely with the alphabet of the second century BCE onwards: "paleographicallythe Siloam Inscriptionfalls somewhere near the beginning of the Christian era" (Pilcher 1897:181).His views were taken up partly,or wholly, by others. S. A. Cook, concluded that if placed early, the Siloam Inscription"embarrasses,and will always embarrassHebrew palaeography," adding that "the palaeographical evidence B. Mazar says this text refers to activity of Hezekiah buildscarcely hinders us from thinking of the time of Simon, son the new wall which to must have of Onias [ca.219-196BCE]" ing (1909:308).W.Casparialso endorsed according Avigad embraced his pool (1975:177)!Yetthere is no referencein this a Hasmonean-Herodian date (1911:931). and to "pools," There have, of course, been many discoveries since these passage to a tunnel. The text refersto a reservoir, Hezekiah have been and even have and newer research has modified some of Pilcher's zvhich credited, words, may may woith built. Only conjecturelinks this activity zoiththe unmentioned arguments. It is now clearly possible to find parallels to the tuinnel. SiloamInscriptionfromthe ninth to the seventh centuries(Renz In short, no biblical text can be said to ascribe the tunnel, 1995 11/1:96-208,together with the tables in III).But there are or any tunnel, to Hezekiah. No biblical text betrays any other discoveries that buttressratherthan undermine his suggestion. Inscriptions in paleo-Hebrew have been discovered knowledgeof a tunnel. What the biblical texts do say is consistent with our view that Hezekiah was credited with the from the Hasmonean period (see McLean 1982:3-18). shaft and possibly with reservoirs.Repeated assertions about The fundamentalissue in the dating of the Siloam Inscripbiblical testimony to Hezekiah's tunnel simply do not, we tion is the extent to which paleographical analysis can be might say, "hold water!" conclusively applied. The late Second Temple paleo-Hebrew inscriptions exhibit considerable variety (McLean 1982:106: The Inscription "...number of viable alternative forms..."), for the reason That the script of the Siloam Inscription is to be dated that we are probablydealing with a largely artificially-revived in the last quarterof the eighth century BCE is today accepted script behind which lies no continuous tradition. Despite the without question (see Renz 1995:I,179).However, there has claims of McLean (1982:19-20),the only attested use of this not always been such scholarlyunanimity.In 1897,E.J.Pilcher, script is on certain coins, a usage which is probably described the development of the Old Hebrew alphabet from entirely conventional and displays no typological developthe Panammuwainscriptionthroughthe Eshmunazarinscrip- ment. The Samaritanscript appears to have had virtually no tion to the alphabetused on Jewish coins fromJohn Hyrcanus influence. It has been suggested that "the old script was preto Bar Kokba. He believed that he could establish the type served alive in some narrow circle, presumably by a of alphabet being used in Southern Palestine in the eighth coterie of erudite scribes, as a Biblical book hand" (Cross BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
145
1 1961:189n.4; see also Hanson 1964:42and McLean 1992:19), but this hypothesis (which is merely inferential) cannot be accepted as a pretext to defend the application of paleography to Hasmonean paleo-Hebrew texts as a whole. For the fact is this: in the present state of our knowledge, it is frequently not possible to prove on paleographicevidencealone a text in paleo-Hebrew datesfrom,say, theeighth-seventh Wzhether centuriesor is Hasmoneanor later. This indecisive conclusion is not simply an uninformed assertion. It is illustrated by the wide-ranging scholarly dating of inscriptions. A white marble stone was found in 1968 on Mt. Ophel. Its fragmentary inscription was dated to the end of the eighth century by Mazar but to the Herodian period by Yadin (Renz 1995:189-90).As Renz admits in this case, "a definitive decision is difficult, since all the letters are also pre-exilic."The Ketef Hinnom inscription offers a similar case. It is dated by Barkay to the seventh century and by Renz (on paleographical as well as other grounds) to the Hasmonean period (Barkay 1986; Renz 1995:1,447-56). The point is not that either Barkay or Renz is wrong; only that paleography of itself does not permit certainty where such comparisons are concerned. For our purposes, this uncertainty is sufficient, and no further discussion of paleography need be pursued. But it is helpful to point out the degree of similarity between certain late Second Temple period paleo-Hebrew scripts and the Siloam Inscription. Thus, if the script of 4QpaleoExodm is compared with that of the Siloam Inscription, the similarities are quite impressive. With the exception of tet and samek, which are not attested in the Siloam text, the only letters that are not very similar are zvazo,yod (and even here, though 4Q yod has a hook on the tail, this feature is missing from the addition to the Qumran manuscript at Exod 11:8-12:2,so that the yod is thus very similar to that in the Siloam script [Skehan 1992:84-85and plate XI]),kap(which, in any case, is quite singular according to Renz 11/1:162), and qop.Additionally, when Renz's typologies and parallels are studied (unfortunately,they omit seals and weights), there is not one single text that has as many similaritieswith the Siloam script as 4QpaleoExodm. The script of 4QpaleoExodm is closer, for example, than the Siloam tomb inscription (Jer[7]:1-2in Renz 1995:1,261-64).McLean compares the Siloam alepto the alep of 4QpaleoDeutb rather than 4QpaleoExodm (1992:53). The fact that other Hasmonean or Herodian scripts are unlike the Siloam Inscription (e.g. the Givrat Hamivtar inscription [Naveh 1975:74])only illustrates the diversity of this revived script; it does not serve to confirm the early dating of the Siloam Inscription. As frequently noted, the Siloam Inscription displays a number of peculiarities when set in an Iron II sequence. The comparative table in Gibson shows these (1973:117-18,fig. 8). There is no ancient parallel to the alep,there maybe a double hooked zayin in the Yavneh Yam inscription, and there may be a parallel to the sadehin one of the Lachish ostraca, while the qopnow seems to be more isolated. Pilcher's comparison table also merits attention. It places the Siloam 146
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
2
3
4
5
6
q
Err --
f
-
=z• =
Z
Y* Yi
j
~y
/ (7 -
-
:•
Jd
3r
h -
7
6
_ '
o00
4"%P C.)
-
-
+
WV
_-
(
x
W
x
CA
X
Alreadyin 1897, Pilcher'scomparisonwith Hasmonean-Herodian scriptsled him to suggest a Herodiandate for the Siloaminscription, a suggestion subsequentlyignored. 1) John Hyrcanusand JudasAristobulus,2) AlexanderJanneus, 3) Antigonus,4) Haggai b. Shebaniahand late seals, 5) Siloam inscription,6) Jewishrevolt 66-70 CE,7) BarKochba. Pilcher,1897,plate II.
inscriptionwithin a sequence of (the then-known)Hasmonean and Roman scripts. Our point is not that Pilcher's sequence is better (we have argued against the value of such exercises), but that neither sequence is clearly more convincing than the other. In addition to paleographic difficulties, some of the linguistic featuresof the Siloam Inscriptionbecome problematic if it is early. For instance, while zoazois used in the Siloam Inscription to mark possession in the third person masculine, he appears in this capacity found in the Yavneh Yam inscription and the Lachish ostraca (Gibson 1973:28, line 2 of the Yavneh Yaminscription; p. 37 Lachish Ostracon ii line 5). If a later date is accepted for the Siloam Inscription,it also becomes possible to explain the zovazin bzfvdand in as matreslectionisratherthan as evidence for the diphthong mw.oSp azo. But here again, with some evidence on both sides, we are likely to fall short of any clear conclusion. If, archaeologically, the Siloam Inscription can be dated eitherin the eighth century or in the Hasmonean or a later period, then the only way that our argument can be attacked on paleographical grounds is by a demonstration that,
:\:s
ri e
?
~h? IIT~~
?
0 '/ ? "?/cm
I ""
2
c
had not also been found? Paleography is not immune from the dangers of circularity.One of the difficulties in accepted views of dating Hebrew scripts is that there are cases where, in the absence of evidence other than paleography, texts are assigned dates, and then play their part in supporting the whole edifice of the dating of scripts. Thus, the inscribed ivory pomegranatediscoveredin an antiqueshop in Jerusalem in 1979 has been dated on the grounds of the similarity of its script to that of the Siloam Inscription and two other texts (Renz 1995:192-93). But because we believe we have shown that the Siloam Inscription can be dated on archaeological and historical grounds to the Hasmonean period, paleographical use of the Siloam Inscription for dating other. inscriptions should be abandoned.
|
Conclusions
The Ketef Hinnominscriptions,engraved on thin silverplaques, consist of benedictoryformulas.The rolled-upcharmswere excavatedfrom a tomb chamberin Jerusalem'sHinnomValley.They are dated variouslyto the seventh century(by their excavator)and to the Hasmoneanperiod.Wide-rangingdating of inscriptionsby scholarscautions against relyingupon the resourcesof paleography itself. FromBarkay1986.
paleographically, the Siloam Inscription couldnot have been written in the later period and could only have been written in the late eighth century. The burden of proof is on defenders of the Iron II dating to prove the impossibilityof a late SecondTempledating. For the reasons we have already given, we doubt this proof is possible. It does not suffice to claim that the script canfit an IronII sequence.The problem with the Siloam Inscription is that, because of an apparently secure dating, all its grammatical and paleographical features have been regarded as early. One of the consequences of our argument is that attempts to reconstructthe history of Hebrew scripts can only be based upon texts whose dating can be established other than by paleography.Cross has pointed out that when paleo-Hebrew fragments were first found in Qumran Cave I it was proposed that they were archaic,from the fifth to fourth centuries BCE(1961:189 n.4). It is tempting to ask what would have become the scholarly orthodoxy on their dating (and that of 4QpaleoExodm)if theirplace of discovery had been unknown or if texts with mixed paleo-Hebrew and Jewish scripts
We have argued that "Hezekiah's Tunnel"is a misnomer. The archaeological data strongly suggest a Hasmonean date, the biblical data show no awareness of a tunnel built by Hezekiah, and the paleography permits no decisive conclusion. The possibility that Hezekiah was responsible for Warren'sShaftremains.We do not wish to claim that we have offered a conclusive case, nor do we expect that the weight of nostalgia and tradition attaching the tunnel to Hezekiah will allow our conclusion to be enthusiastically received. We also anticipate that paleogaphers will resist our attack on the authority that their science tends to enjoy. However, it is our claim that the balance of proof has shifted and that instead of asserting that Hezekiah built the tunnel, scholars should consider whether they are able to prove this assertion, or even to argue for its probability.
Bibliography Amiran,R. 1975 The WaterSupply of IsraeliteJerusalem.Pp. 75-78in Jerusalem in theHolyCity1986-1974,editedby Yigael Revealed. Archaeology Yadin.Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety. Avigad,N. Oxford:Blackwell. 1980 Discovering Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah,M. 1975 Excavationsin Jerusalem-Review and Evaluation.Pp. 21-40in in theHolyCity1986-1974,edited Revealed: Jerusalem Archaeology by YigaelYadin.Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety. Barkay,G. Walls.IsraelMuseum A Treasury 1986 KetefHinnom. FacingJerusalem's Catalogue274.Jerusalem:The IsraelMuseum. Caspari,W. 1911 Die Siloainschrift, ein WerkdernachexilischenRenaissance.Neue 22:873-934. kirchliche Zeitschrift Chen,D., Margalit,S., and Pixner,B. BelowtheGate 1994 MountZion:Discoveryof IronAge Fortifications edited by of the Essenes.Pp. 76-81in AncientJerusalem Revealed, H. Geva.Jersualem:IsraelExplorationSociety.
Cohn,E.W. 1987 New IdeasAboutJerusalem's Jerusalem:Franciscan Topography. PrintingPress.
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
147
Cook,S. A. 1909 The Old Hebrew Alphabet and the GezerTablet.PalestineExploration Fund QuarterlyStatement41:284-309.
-dc
r~
Cross,F.M. 1961 TheDevelopmentof theJewishScripts. Pp. 133-202in TheBibleandtheAncient NearEast.Essaysin Honorof William editedby G.E.Wright. FoxwellAlbright, GardenCity,NY:Doubleday& Co. Flog,J. P. 1987 DavidundJerusalem. Arbeitenzu Text and Spracheim AltenTestament30. St Ottilien:Eos Verlag. Geva, H. 1994 Twenty-five Yearsof Excavationsin Jerusalem,1967-1992:Achievements and Evaluation. Pp. 1-28 in Ancient edited by H. Geva. Revealed, Jerusalemn Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety. Gibson,J. C. L. 1973 A Textbook ofSyrianSemiticInscriptions I:HebrewandMoabiteInscriptions. 2nd ed. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Gill, D. 1994 How They Met:Geology Solves Mystery of Hezekiah'sTunnelers.Biblical Review20/4:20-33,64. Archaeology
'.
A,3
If ' .-- --.4
:
-
?, ,' "--?a' .•-- ;
In'
Pil
I
,,
r.
It 4"t~
fl-73~-4_7_7r
-3?.
?I?-
-,%to .
'
"I
••
"
'
- -
w
:4lo
Svc
Hanson,R. S. 1964 Paleo-Hebrew Scriptsin theHasmonean Age. Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch 175:42. Kenyon,K. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem.London/Tonbridge:ErnestBenn. Mazar,A. 1990 Archaeologyof the Landof the Bible 10,000-586B.C.E.New York:Doubleday. Mazar,B. 1975 TheMountainof theLord.GardenCity, NY:Doubleday.
Leaffrom the Qumranpaleo-Exodusmanuscript(4QpaleoExodm). A comparisonof Hellenistic-Romanpaleo-Hebrewscriptswith the Siloamscriptyields impressivesimilarities. McLean,D. M. There is no other text with as many similaritiesto the Siloaminscriptionas 4QpaleoExodm. 1982 TheUseandDevelopment ofPaleo-Hebrew The fact that there are also many late SecondTempleperiod scriptsthat are unlikethe Siloam intheHellenistic andRoman Periods. Ph.D. inscriptiononly servesto manifestthe diversityof a revivedhand. Photo fromSkehanet al. diss., HarvardUniversity. 1992. Naveh, J. 1975 A New Tomb-Inscriptionfrom Giv'at Hamivtar:Jerusalem Shaheen,N. 1977 TheSiloamEndof Hezekiah'sTunnel.PalestineExploration Revealed. Pp. 73-74 in Archaeologyin theHolyCity 1986-1974, Quaredited by YigaelYadin.Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety. terly109:107-12. Pilcher,E.J. 1897 The Date of the SiloamInscription.Proceedings of theSocietyof BiblicalArchaeology 19:165-82.
Shiloh,Y. 1984 Excavationsat the City of David 1:1978-1982.InterimReport of the First Five Seasons. Qedemn 19. Jerusalem:Hebrew University.
Renz,J. 1995 Diealthebrdische Handbuch deralthebriiischen Inschriften. Epigraphik, Simons,J. 1952 Jerusalem Researches vols. I, II/1, and III,edited by J.Renzand W.R6llig.Darmstadt: in theOldTestament: andTheories.Leiden: Brill. WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft. Skehan,P.et al., eds. Sayce,A. H. 1992 Discoveries in theJudean DesertIX:QumranCave4, IV,Paleo-Hebrew 1888 Recordsof thePast,London:Bagster. 148
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
Oxford: andGreekBiblicalManuscripts. ClarendonPress.
EDITOR
Christopher Chippindale CambridgeUniversity
Ussishkin,D. 1976 TheOriginalLengthof theSiloamTunnel in Jerusalem.Levant8:82-95. Vincent,L. sousterre.LesricentLesfouilles 1911 Jfrusalemt d'Ophel.London:HoraceCox.
ANTIQUITY
Williamson,H. G. M. 1984 Nehemiah's Walls Revisited. PalestineExploration Quarterly116:81-8.
Volume 69, 1995
1995 ORDERFORM
Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology ASSISTANTEDITOR Cyprian Broodbank Institute of Archaeology, University College London
growing reputation Antiquity's depends on it offering a great range of first-rate papers and notes, and a full review coverage of the new literature. All this, and a personal editorial, is packed into a well-made book of manageable size, published quarterly. and teachers It's what busy professionals need to keep up-to-date.
IN 1995 PUBLISHED ARTICLES
O Please enter my subscriptionto
Roger Anyon & T.J. Ferguson Cultural resources management at the ANTIQUITY Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, USA Volume 69, 1995 (four issues): E Institutions Gabriel Cooney & Stephen Mandal US$99/S54 E Individuals US$62/S32 Getting to the core of the problem: recent E Students US$39.99/S19.99 petrological results from the Irish Stone Axe Pleasenote:S sterlingratesapplyin Europe,USs Project rates elsewhere.Customersin the EUand in Irene Good Canadaare subjectto theirlocalsales tax. O I enclose the correct remittance. The significance of the textiles from the Hohmichele Rigaud, Jan F. Simek & Jean-Philippe Name............................. ............ Ge Thierry Address .............................. ....... Mousterian fires from Grotte XVI (Dordogne, France) City/State.............................. Michael Fulford & Ian Tyers The date of Pevensey and the defence of an Zip code............. ................. O Please charge my Mastercard/ ImperiumBritanniarum
AmericanExpress/ Diners/ Visa / JCBCardNumber:
Special number, published with the December 1995 issue:
Douglas Edwards & James F. O'Connell Broad spectrum diets in arid Australia Chris Gosden or furthersubscriptioninformationplease Arboriculture and agriculture in coastal ontact: Papua New Guinea JournalsMarketing(X95) OXpR&Simon Oxford University Press Holdaway JOURNALS Stone artefacts and the transition 2001 EvansRoad, M.J. Morwood & D.R. Hobbs Cary,NC 27513, RM Themes in the prehistory of tropical USA Fax919 677 1714 Australia
date: Exp.
in theUniversityof Sheffield JohnW.Rogersonis recentlyretiredfromhis Professorship whereforfifteenyearshe servedas headof theDepartmentof BiblicalStudies.A prolificwriter, Rogersonhas producedthe invaluableAtlasoftheBible(Factson File,1985)andnumerousother of theHebrewBible.Rogersoncurrently volumesfocusingon thehistoryof modeminterpretation totile Bibleand is planninga monographon theSiloaminscription. editstheCambridge Companion Dr.PhilipR.Daviesis co-publisherof SheffieldAcademicPressand Professorof Biblical Studiesin theUniversityof Sheffield.Inthe formercapacity,Davies'snamehasbecomeubiquitous on theshelvesof currentbiblicalstudieslibrariesas theeditorof scoresof volumes.His own work has rangedwidely-from theperilsof writinghistoriesof ancientIsrael(InSearch ofAncientIsrael, 1982andQumiran, of theQumranliterature(TheDamascus Covenant, 1992)to theinterpretation 1982).Daviesreceivedhis Ph.D. fromtheUniversityof St.Andrewsin 1972aftertakingBAand MAdegreesfromOxford.
59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
149
Syncretistic
~ ,? e5)
and
.~i.';f~? ?~a;l: I 1~4~ 1 ~Q~91 ?I~% :34-.;C ~f~ ?..cl: !:=3~ *'?~:': '"1??~~ ~*4 ~i?il*~,?lsa
ii:aI.tl *_*I' ?l;r /~6 ?
.: ::::~
Mnemonic Dimensions of
b": r
.r :-?I? r? O~~B 3-' a
:Ij~i~b :?": ((~k7-~: r ~n.t
:t~,ir
?$i
.r Cll)
,:r :i:L:
??11'311~ s:i~w
I ".i??:: I )?
)~
Art
~J~~ n t
.*;
ii?I:-:.? r,-r IF;i
'Ilrc*,a,
B~
rbx ~
3( r
`~t r ?~c~:
ilfI:li:9.? ii ?~.
r a'
t )1.
,-
-~a~*.i4 Q~il I-. J ~%;9:i~a
.?:?~t; ,? ?-~rfi *-
pt
-~ %: r9i ~ ?-,:?I *: ?? -
:id
?I
??i?-i;:,,
PEfligLll ll?
T~t~
'":r F lc, "~i? ~alib:.
A
New
Human
::::,:; i
1: ~F~:~?;:k?4 'r"L~t~i~:rft kP6;
.* a ~ iif~i
~
?
ri~ka::?
i?
i:a
1-'
Chalcolithic
?pgF:;
u
44/'
Figurine from Shiqmim
`:"
:? ;????r:-~~?s:; ???
By ThomasE. LevyandJonathanGolden
The newly discoveredfigurine stands a scant 9.52 cm tall. Excavators had originallyplaced it with the other bits and pieces of bone and DEAL WITH MATERIAL THE PAST CULTURE OF tooth of the faunal sample.The human-shapecarvedcow scapula ARCHAEOLOGISTS in the laboratory.Beyondits beguiling beauty,its was rediscovered through systems of classification and typology. However, the categorieswe createare so frequently uniqueness lies in its apparent synthesisof two different Chalcolithic artistictraditions,"abstract"stone, violin-shapefigurinesand more employed that they often begin to assume the a of facts. This is it is appearance priori perhaps why partic- representationalivorystatuettes. Photos by MarjolaineBarazzani, when discover an excavators ularly interesting idiosyncratic CNRS,Jerusalem.
artifact that seems to defy simple classification. This is the case with a small figurine unearthed during the 1993 exca- artistic traditions:on the one hand, "violin-shape" figurines, vations at Shiqmim, a large Chalcolithic (ca. 4500-3500 BCE) and anthropomorphic ivories on the other (cf. Perrot 1959; village and mortuary complex in Israel's northern Negev Levy and Alon 1985a, 1992). In fact, until recently, the two desert (Levy 1987,1995).Field work produced a small, human separate categories of figurative art could only be related figurine, which on its own represents an exquisite object of through various other types of well-known Chalcolithicartiart. But it is also unique for the Chalcolithic period: it is fash- facts,e.g. both occur in associationwith basaltstands, v-shape ioned from bone, a material rarely used at that time for bowls, cornets, and other objects. However, in addition to sculpturesof any sort, particularlyfor human representations. the new figurine from Shiqmim, recent discoveries at the What is perhaps most fascinating about this newly disPiqelin Cave indicate that the distinction between these two covered objectis that it reflectstwo distinctsouthernLevantine styles is beginning to break down. The discoveries point to 150
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
r'
ooe
(I
COO e C.
!. .... ~ .. a
:.:...-..:.
a
d **-.*...:
00
~
OO.
j "
';
00 ? Cii o oceoc o~ e oe.
o
" ..
".
C:
r '..'
:. ii•..
~?
co
e,
::00
Adapted to a thin bone, the figurine shows a profile with slightly protrudingnose and waist. Itspunctate decoration apparentlydoes not sketch out any anatomicalfeatures, yet the face is representationally styled. Drawingby DanielLadiray,CNRS,Jerusalem.
shoulder which appears to have been broken in antiquity. While the body of the figurine is more or less abstract with punctate decoration, the head (width = 1.64 cm) is modeled in some detail. The eyes are represented by two round 6 mm depressions, and its right eye still retains a round, pierced shell inlay. Two punctate marks just below the nose indicate the nostrils. No mouth is indicated, and there is no neck or limbs. The torso, which is 2.4 cm wide at the shoulders, tapers to 1.58 cm at the waist and is dotted with three vertical columns of seven punctate marks. The holes are ca. 2 mm in diameter,and form lines that are not precisely regular,as all three curve toward the right and then back just at the waist. A small bulge can be seen in the abdominal region, below which there are two more punctate marks. The lower portion of the body is 3.4 cm wide and rectilinear in shape, with hips that flare upward. This part of the body, like the violin-shape figurines, resembles the typical Chalcolithic palette form, particularly in its rounded corners and slightly convex shape. Two horizontal rows of punctate marks,seven in each, one just below the other,occur just below the middle of this section. Two more horizontal rows of such marks dot the lower margin of the figurine, this time in rows of eight. The back of the figurine has no modeling, bearing only a series of scratches from the margin of the head in toward the neck at an angle of about 75 degrees. These scratches appear to be part of the manufacturing process, incurred when the figurine was crafted. Alternatively, the scratches may be utilization marks, reflecting how the figurine was used in antiquity.
Contextof the Artifact an overlap or co-occurrence of violin-shape figurines with the head of an ivory figurine (Gal 1995:20,pl. ii). In the following discussion, we attemptto understandthis new figurine in terms of its place in the corpus of Chalcolithic figurines, particularly with regard to the apparent "bridge" it creates between the two local, yet separate styles. Moreover,in striving to work toward an archaeology of late fifth-fourth millennium Levantine religion rooted in the scientific tradition and empirical methodology (cf. Alon and Levy, in prep; Renfrew 1995), we suggest that the new Shiqmim figurine points to previously unrecognized syncretistic and mnemonic elements in the cognitive systems of Chalcolithic societies.
Descriptionof the Figurine
The newly discovered figurine' is carved out of bone, perhaps a scapula of a cow (Bos taurus)as suggested by the figurine's width and flatness as well as the shallow depression running the full length of its back. The object is 9.52 cm tall and less than 1 cm thick. In profile it appears to have three planes: one from the very top of the head to the bottom of the nose, with a small bump for the nose; a second plane from the shoulder to the waist; and a third from the waist down. The figurine is complete except for the edge of left
The Shiqmim Chalcolithic village and mortuary center are located ca. eighteen km west of the city of Beershevaalong the north bank of the Nahal Beersheva. A regional survey of this drainage and the nearby lower Nahal Besor indicates that Shiqmim was the largest late fifth-fourth millennium village in this area and formed the apex of a two-tier settlement hierarchyreflectinga chiefdom level of social integration (Levy 1995). The site has produced evidence of metal working (Levy and Shalev 1989;Shalev and Northover 1987), subterranean architecture (Levy et al. 1991), pottery production (Levy and Menahem 1987), rectilinear architecture (Levy 1987), and other assemblages of artifacts. The Phase I excavations (1982-1984)focused on a broad horizontalexposure of the upper strata at the site. The Phase II excavation seasons (1987-1989, 1993) aimed at exploring the developmental history of the site from its earliest basal layers to its abandonment (Levy et al. 1991).The deep 1993 stratigraphic excavations at Shiqmim employed a new geophysical survey instrumentknown as GeophysicalDiffractionTomography (GDT) to discover a wealth of previously unknown subterranean tunnel and room complexes (Witten et al. 1995;Levy et al. 1996). With the exception of a few intrusive Byzantine pits, the site existed entirely within the Beersheva Valley-Chalcolithic cultural horizon. BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
151
Close-upof the neckless and armlessfigure. The nose bears punctate nostrilsand one eye still peers out as a round inlayof piercedshell. The back has been worked but not modelled. The visiblescratcheson the backof the head may be artifactsof manufacturingor may represent utilizationmarks.Photos by MarjolaineBarazzani,CNRS,Jerusalem.
The majorityof the Chalcolithicivories discovered in Perrot's 1950s excavations of nearby Safadi came from contexts such as pits in subterranean rooms. The Shiqmim figurine came from an open-air pit in Stratum IIa at the northern end of the village excavations. The pit possessed a diameter of nearly 1.5 m and was slightly more than 1 m deep with a volume of ca. 1.7 m3.2Along with the figurines, in the pit's ashy, silty fill, excavators retrieved a digging stick weight and a spindle whorl. While they also collected charcoal from the pit for C-14 analysis, due to the unusual circumstances by which the figurine was recognized (see acknowledgments), this organic material has not yet been submitted for study. The pit was situated near a rich complex of open-air and subterranean architecture.This location may provide a contextual clue to the social setting in which the figurine played a role. The pit sat six meters northwest of a large rectilinear building (Room 13) which has been defined as a non-domestic, corporatebuilding (Levy and Alon 1987;Levy et al. 1991). 152
59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
Immediately to the east of the pit was an unusually large bell-shaped silo, also dating to Stratum IIa, which presumably was used for grain storage. About 2.5 m to the west of the pit lay the opening to Subterranean Room 8, one of the latest underground structures to be radiometrically dated at the site (RT-1322,5190 + 75 BP,4212(3996) Cal BCE);Levy et al. 1991).This underground room contained numerous storage pits and grinding equipment. The architecturalfeatures in this part of the Shiqmim lower village imply that Subterranean Room 8 functioned as a public storage facility associated with Room 13. Like other corporate buildings at Shiqmim, Room 13 had a plastered white floor. It also contained two semi-circular stone-built installations along its south wall. The paucity of domestic artifacts and debris and its similarity in layout to the main temple building at EnGedi (Ussishkin 1980) suggest that Room 13 was a locus of cult activities. It is not surprising to find such an anthropomorphic figurine in a pit near corporateand storage facilities.
' Gaza
7Gerar..LiI1 0
400 m
Gilat 00o
ZoumellrWx-
O
Besor
O00
oV
e
I
0
Zecelim
.P
0 Shiqmim 20 m 0o
Osnat Oo
0o o
Arad
' b LMatar0
0
10
-C
500
0
m
Beer.
0
S0m0 l Cesevaf
0
Safadi0
es
400 m 0
k
06500
i
m
..
Shiqminsat on the north bank of the NahalBeershevawhere it presidedover the Chalcolithicsettlement of the drainage system as its largest village. Differentartistictraditionsexisted even within this relativelycircumscribedculturalregion. The new Shiqmimfigurine createsa representational"bridge"between these different yet localstyles.
ChronologicalConsiderations
Before proceeding further with a comparative study of Chalcolithic figurines, a brief discussion of the chronological sequence from which they come is appropriate.A growing body of complementary data join together to fashion the following thumb-nailtemporalsketch for Chalcolithicsettlement in the northern Negev. Gilat, which produced a small but significant component of late-Neolithic Wadi Rabah culture (ceramic sherds, Levy et al. in prep), represents the earliest Chalcolithictradition under discussion. Despite evidence for cultic activities (Levy and Alon 1993 and references there) and intra-regionalintegration(Goren1995),Gilat lacks a metallurgical component. This absence may be chronologically significant. Based on the importance of metallurgy in Negev Chalcolithic economies (Levy and Shalev 1989; Shalev and Northover 1993) and given the range of symbolic and artistic artifactsfound at Gilat, we would expect to find copper objectsby the developed Chalcolithic.Copper metallurgy represents the hallmark of this genre. While the difficulties in using copper as an indicator of spatial and temporal relations warrants a discussion of its own, it can be suggested
here that the dearth of metal at Gilat, in contrast with the extensive evidence for metal production at Abu Matar,Bires Safadi, and Shiqmim conforms with the view of Gilat as an earlier site, with the Beersheva valley sites representing the more developed phase of the Chalcolithic. Radiocarbon dates from Bir-es Safadi clearly indicate that occupation of this site is later than at Gilat (Joffeand Dessel 1995;Gilead 1994).Aside from TeleilatGhassul, Shiqmim has the longest sequence of occupation for any of the southern Levantine Chalcolithic sites, and overlaps chronologically with both the earliest and latest Chalcolithic settlements in the northern Negev. Given this site chronology, we may propose a general sequence whereby violin-shape figurines, known primarily from Gilat, generally appear early in the Chalcolithic, while the ivory figurines of the Beersheva sites, are typical of the later phases of the period.
ChalcolithicArtistic Traditions In general, Chalcolithicfigurines can be divided into several distinct categories. For the present purposes we will restrict our discussion to two main groups of human 59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
153
.'*'
~x~;ot,?::?
~,:i"=-r: -??i;t~~,px4*rl"'"~
J.-
?*r a, ,
--i
1
i
e
/
%~9$*cr.i--l~sbla~_'~n~c~t~~:::-r'
-rC.
,?:
~I. -.
- .,..
-?~?~-,-fr;z,? ~41?
r
?i:
f~t~
rtC~ : r ~~~
F, ....
ri~s~t :
~E~s~ L'
?*Jr(?:
-"i~tC~ Z~3~A~P-~S :?? jJ
'?-I~~Lt:I?-.;li~iPT1~ Ts~~~ ..ii?~? -_r:i
? ,?.s)?I
J`
..
i
:;j
~~.:;?
-i t? i
ll?I?'~~a\
z
r~f.i~: '4 `-? ?c;": ?
?-;?,? ?~,.L~?-~\?"-*~J.'.~e -?-~'? _~lr?~L~BBFe~S1~~~21~
.;? ?il
:'
r,
~? ;,.?:?~
p,-~r=-a
r.;~?, ;L~jr:f
?:?...
The figurine emerged from a pit (L.4147; coordinates P-12)belonging to Stratum (? ;;v~ ??f Ila.Thepit stood adjacentto an open-airsilo, ~CCl~i .?.~?'l`i c i~ ?, :$l~a~ a-jIv ~l~l~hhJP: :I just two and a half metersfrom the ~I entranceto the subterraneanstoreroom '.4 :~?;;;; s='; li!f* ,?tr~ i: ira! .:r :-::;,: Room8) and was six meters (Subterranean ? '~??u';;t;s :: (?? ic:J from the non-domestic ?t~-~ building 13 (to its n~ ,:.~. ?.? := ?Xi? ?, J. ;":"LZII~-ciT~l ~-~t~t? . I nl? 1.' f~:c B 13's :* of The end southeast). cat " building Y~'A$i~if~iC ~:::: T?r :?s ,c??:?:.??*?~~'~t; : of the bottom wall enters the northern $1 ?~ t, ;:?=r photograph which is oriented toward the ?I";S:~~u-? northwest. Locus4147 is the small(diameter ??I, ~ ? ?" jihY .s;s?.~:w~'L;I~%C: _.?~ ~i = ca. 1.5 m) round pit above the tip of the ?~cl~-I ~? :?-;e"? c zt-:~:"" ~J 'j ~f~zj '-?.=~:? .( 3,'/? --'n-~--?I~t;?_~e , k ??I stone wall, opposite the meter stick.This ~r tlb,;rSCII i?1~-,I :0ClfJS t-'F3 ~fl'?` 4~. i ir I /: ilF~ :? corporate context may be a crucialhint ;.? ?.r :8?. ;rr-?_~y~c7 IUI.L -t ;h~ 'ictl4;' about the utilizationof the figurine.Final C ~C~ :. ...1 j:i:?s ., -i f~:I?.PY ~ o ??l;~?~,C .ur plan P. c?~~:e '' by Morag Kersel,ShiqmimExpedition; ;; ~ ;~,~"I iu~~i?i ;?~??"::?F?T* ~C ?? X~aFt~r~6~I~ photo by T E.Levy. ~~. ) ~:;~t ~:~tra~ :)t*
i
-It
r,
r, ,-?~si? . ~.:
-?-
-?~t
figurines because they are most pertinent to an understanding of two particular objects from Shiqmim-the bone figurine published here for the first time and an SHIQMIM 1993 ' AREA D anthropomorphic basalt statuette head reported some time ago (Levy and Alon 1985, 1987). Large statuettes such as the Gilat woman and ram are not included in the figurine category utilized here (Alon and Levy 1989).Animal figurines and the small trapezoidal pendants with 1-"1"1 SERII.I-4 two holes pierced at the top, which may or may not be U 41 f ~?~cC~;-L4142 "violinThe first are also excluded. group, figurines, 1711.07 M%9 l L4 + shape"figurinesas they arecommonlyknown, aregenerally are most abstract W171 L4194 i flat, rectilinear,highly figurines. They 17&21 171.74 frequently made of stone, although there are rare L 4206 4m 413 Talk 1.11L7 f~Y 1~O.D L42.5 examples of bone and ceramicmaterialswhich have been found at Gilat (Alon and Levy 1994). L4 L, L N?4114" - 26 PA. GE L41O6 I,%I1. The second group relevant to this discussion com"'1 I?t IOOM 1-4231 1.494 1-0%1-13 ivories from the Beersheva of a set anthropomorphic prises &t a. 430ItNCE' NRuI sites of Abu Matar and Bir-es Safadi, in addition to one 74. L4175 1-417U 0 Isvno~l unprovenienced figurine, which have few similarities I~r LC~B)1. \ SA~ -t ~s 4185+')n with the violin-shape genre. This latter group are modSMOGM L 4103 Isll eled with much greaterdetailresultingin a morenaturalistic, CIIAMNER even exaggerated, human representation. The number 1 Wl of ivory figurines include two complete males (Perrot three heads and (Perrot 1959:pl 1959:pl. ii; 1964:pl. li) iii; 1964:pl. lii), as well as a female which is missing the head (Perrot 1959, fig. 1)-all from Bir-es Safadi. One I -T T L= example from Abu Matar represents the head and torso culture probably emerged out of traditions associated with of a woman (Perrot 1955:pl. 22A), and one other example be to a who is considered headless woman, pregnant Gilat.At the same time, radiocarbondata indicates that Gilat depicts final and Shiqmim and perhaps the Beersheva sites were at least one is While its unknown, (Perrot 1968). ivory origin with breasts woman a rather of partially contemporaneous in the earlier phases. Thus, we large fully sculpted figurine and Tadsee two distinct, yet related cultural traditions living no more of statuettes to this (Amiran corpus clearly belongs than sixteen kilometers apart in the northern Negev. mor 1980:pl. 17:a-d). It is reasonable then to suggest that the roots of the BeerSome of the chronological problems related to the sites sheva cultureare ultimately to be found in that of Gilatwhose where these figurines originated were discussed above. At material culture has its origins in the Chalcolithic assemthe same time, certain spatial and/or cultural factors also warrant mention. Evidence suggests that Gilat developed blages from TuleilatGhassul in the lower JordanValley (Levy out of the local Wadi Rabah tradition, while the Beersheva et al., in prep). Furthermore,it is also interesting to consider --
L.-406U
41911
40"4 1.O
4 m.
13
N
154
59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
-
0
p
R
I. r?~ .
r
rs.
Basaltstatuette head previouslyfound at Shiqmim.One of the socalled "Pinocchio"figurines,it representsanother manifestationof the naturalisticmodelling of the new figurine. Suchmodeling is also characteristicof the Beershevaivories.The bone figurine'sprominent nose and high orbits bring it into even closer contact with the basalt head. Photo courtesyof the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority.
the ways in which these different, yet neighboring cultural groups, with relatively distinct cognitive systems may have interactedin a social context. Tradebetween the groups must certainly have gone beyond the objects that were exchanged, involving such social aspects as technological style, socioeconomic values, and iconographic systems inextricablefrom the actual material goods. The ideological distinctiveness of these neighboringarchaeologicalentities may also be reflected in the archaeozoological record from the region. As Grigson (1995) has shown, the people at Gilat consumed relatively large quantities of pig, whereas the Beersheva valley inhabitants ate none. More important, it is highly probable that human genetic material was exchanged through intermarriageamongst these neighboring polities in the northern Negev. With social exchange comes the exchange of ideas, in this case, perhaps the systems of meaning and ideological beliefs embedded in the two artistic traditions seen in the different figurines. This series of exchange processes may have helped produce the syncretisticfigurine described here. It was noted earlierthat the violin-shape figurines,known also from Ghassul, Qatif, Nahal Besor,and other locales, are highly abstract,differing in several significant ways from the
Beersheva valley figurines. Most obvious are differences in shape and the style of representation. In "typical" violinshape figurines of the early Chalcolithic, the head and neck are stylized, represented only by a narrow, rectangular thin board (Alon and Levy 1989).Ivory statuettesfrom Safadi and Abu Matar,on the other hand, display human features which are in fact, exaggerated. For instance, several ivory figures recovered at Safadi and the Shiqmim basalt head, all bare rather large noses as well as large rounded eyes ( Perrot 1959;Levy and Alon 1985a).Where rendering of the body is concerned, the violin-shape figurines depart even farther from naturalistic human representation in that they usually lack any features beyond highly stylized shoulders and waist. Figurinesfrom Safadiand Abu Matar,on the opposite extreme,displaynot only all fourlimbs,but othernaturalistic elements such as digits, and in some cases, breasts and genitalia (where preserved). In general, it can be said that the Beersheva figurines achieve three dimensional representation, while the violin-shape figurines, although sculpted in the round, are highly abstract, two-dimensional human symbols. What this means in terms of ancient belief systems is difficult to say. The classification and interpretation of these objects are important issues which must be addressed. The violin-shape figurines are, in fact, so abstractthat in earlier researchit was only with reference to Cycladic figurines that the Negev sculptures had been construed as representing the female body (Alon and Levy 1989:187;Renfrew 1991). While they have often been interpreted as representing female figurines or even fertility goddesses, it is no coincidence that the term, "violin-shape" figurines is more commonly used. However, the discovery of a large violin-shape figurine with breasts in the Gilat sanctuary complex (Alon and Levy 1994) and a small violin-shape figurine with breasts (Levy 1987:515)now safely links these objects with the female gender. Still, unlike the more anthropomorphic figurines from Bir-es Safadi and the Gilat Woman (Alon and Levy 1989:191),violin-shape figurinesrepresenta level of abstractionin figurativerepresentation not often seen in the Levantine archaeological record. The question of how to classify Chalcolithic figurative art and the delineation of artistictraditions is difficult. Defining the objectsat hand as figurativesculptureor representation, in particular human figures, creates a useful category for analysis. However, artistic traditions are often determined by the medium or material that is employed in their manufacture. The majority of the fifty-nine violin-shape figurines found at Gilat during the 1975-77,1987, and 1990-92seasons was fashioned from stones, including limestone, granite, sandstone, and other rock types. Only two samples "deviate" from this norm--one is made from terra cotta and the other from bone (Alon and Levy 1989:table 6). In addition, it would appear that similar techniques of drilling, grinding, and polishing were employed in the manufacture of all of these figurines. It must be recognized, however, that a reconstructionthat emphasizes the physical properties in the selection of BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
155
materials represents but one possibility. We need to bear in mind that these figurines were indeed symbolic items and that a purely functional interpretationmay not suffice. There has been speculation about the meaning of these objects, mostly centering on their possible cultic significance, e.g., associations with fertility (Amiran 1989;Alon and Levy 1989; Epstein 1978). Epstein (1978) has suggested that the peculiarly large nose on many of these figurines indicates the "breath of life," with cultic implications which cross-cut the many regionalChalcolithicculturalentitiesfound throughout Palestine.The notion of a culticaffiliationfor these figurines is supported by data which clearly places them in cultic contexts; for example, a small cache discovered at Bir-es Safadi (Perrot1959)and the plethora of violin-shape figurines found at the cult center at Gilat (Alon and Levy 1989; Levy and Alon 1993). In terms of the traditions of Chalcolithic representational art and symbolism, the Shiqmim figurine discussed here is unique in that it appears to combine elements of both the "violin-shape" figurine tradition and that of the Beersheva ivories. From the neck down, the new figurine is characterized by the rectangular, palette-like shaped lower body and v-shape torso so typical of the violin-shape figurine tradition. Yetwhen viewed in profile, an expansion in the shape of the body can be observed. Whereas the violin-shapes appear straight, or flat, the upper body of the Shiqmim figurine moves forward and its lower body moves backward. Likewise, the Beersheva ivories generally have both a projectingchest and pronouncedbuttocks.ThleShiqmim example contains a sculpted anthropomorphic head. Its more naturalistic modeling of a nose and the representationof the eyes with inlay make it remarkablysimilar to the Beershevaivories (Perrot1959:pl.ii) and the Shiqmim anthropomorphic basalt head-a generic known as "Pinocchio figures." It is worthy of note thata headless violin-shapefigurine from Shiqmim also displays breasts, yet no other detail on the lower body. Looking exclusively at facial structure,the Shiqmim bone figurine is perhaps most like the basalt head from Shiqmim (Levy and Alon 1987:511),with high orbits connected with a singularly large and also wide nose to produce a stylized effect. In terms of gender, the Beersheva ivories can usually be distinguished into male vs. female categories based not only on anatomical differences,but also the presence of holes drilled around the face which have been interpretedas receptacles for facialhair on male figures (Perrot1959).Anatomical features and the absence of facial drilling make it possible to interpret the new anthropomorphic bone figurine from Shiqmim as female. The fluidity of elements from different traditions is also apparent in the fact that punctate marks decorate the lower body of the Shiqmim figurine in several places. Punctate marks occur on the head and face of two figurines from Bir-es Safadi (Perrot 1959:pl II, III) and one from Abu Matar (Perrot 1955:pl. 22) and in the groin area and underarms of the headless figurine from Subterraneanroom 793-798 156
59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
Violin-shapefigurine from Gilat.This20-cm high granite statuette is a singularly"abstract"artifact.The bone figurine from Shiqmim sharesthe shouldersand hips of the violin-shape:the rectangular lower body and v-shapetorso. But, like the Beershevaivories,the bone-carvedShiqmimfigurine is not flat and possessa naturalistically renderedhead. Thusthe Shiqmimfigurinefuses two stylistic traditions.Photo by A. Wolkecourtesyof D. Alon.
at Bir-es Safadi. However, while this form of decoration has never been found on violin-shape figurines, punctate design is an important motif in Chalcolithic art. The marks also appear on an ivory blade from Shiqmim (Levy and Holl 1987:717)and in the ivory "sickles" found in the Cave of the Treasure and at Shiqmim (Bar Adon 1980:16-20;Levy and Alon 1992:70).
Beersheva Figurines as Mnemonic Devices
Societies without written histories use a wide range of mnemonic devices to stimulate memory and the telling of their group's past. As Kuchlerand Melion (1991:3)point out, memory is "a process precipitated and shaped by the relaying of visual information." Thus, images can stimulate modes of recollection as well as influence how memory
is constituted (Layton 1992:209).Cross-culturally, there are numerous traditional societies throughout the world which employ mnemonic devices. In the Islamicworld, prayerbeads (masbaha)are used to remember the ninety-nine names of Gd. Amongst the Inca, the quipuwas employed as a recording device made of cord and string (Moseley 1992:13).However, contemporary ethnographic studies of mnemonic devices from Central Africa provide some of the best possible models for interpreting the prehistoric example presented here. In a recent study of memory, history, and art utilized in the central African kingdom of the Luba people, Roberts and Roberts (1996) analyze a wide range of Luba mnemonic devices-including memory boards, ancestor figures, and divination instruments from the eighteenthstaffs, royal twentieth century CE-to demonstrate the centralityof visual arts and related material culture to the formation, development, and remembrance of Luba kingship and political relations. The Robertsshow how visual representationplays the key role in the making of Luba histories of kingship and center/periphery political intercourse. This cultural anthropology provides rich base-line data for the interpretation of art forms in non-Westernsocieties that can illuminate some of the meaning embedded in prehistoric art such as the Shiqmim violin-shape figurine. It is suggested here that the Shiqmim figurine not only reflects the syncretistic melding of two cognitive systems from neighboring northern Negev communities, but was also used as a mnemonic device to aid in the perpetuation of local memory (largely beyond the grasp of the archaeologist) about the local late fifth-fourth millennium societies in the Beersheva Valley. The social dimensions of West and Central African art provide important processual insights and models for interpreting the figurine discussed here and "primitive" art in general. One of the most significant Lubamemory devices is the lukasa,a flat, hand-sized wooden object studded with beads and pins or covered with incised or bas-reliefideograms (Robertsand Roberts1996:37). Each bead on the lukasa board stimulates an association of specific memories. During certain rituals, a lukasais used to teach neophytes sacred lore about culture heroes, clan migrations, the foundations of sacred rule, the spatial loci of activities and offices within the kingdom or within a royal compound, and other social constructs.Thus, Lubamnemonics are not used to produce rigorous descent genealogies or king lists, but a "meaningful configuration of selected, nego-tiated events around 'loci of memory'" (Robertsand Roberts 1996:38). Loci of memory or lieu de mrmoire (Jewsiewicki and Mudimbe 1993:101)provide a material basis around which past events structure present memory. With the lukasa, each bead and button stimulates memory of past images and places. Lukasas are all anthropomorphic or zoomorphic and represent the founding ancestress of the most important lineage association. They do not symbolize thought so much as stimulate it, and their multireferentialiconography provides a multiplicity of meanings (Robertsand Roberts 1996:42).In
itt itf
. rpe
,Ir
2 4 s"
L41
~t~P -A I ~RnoJ~ ~'1L ROY ,6Ua~ 1s~eA lo~
;A
.
A traditionalLukasamemory boardfor which, accordingto anthropologist MaryNooter Roberts,a "reading"was made by Luba court officialsin the formercapitalof KalalaIlunga.Couldthe new Shiqmimfigurine--as well as other elaborate punctate design artifacts-have served similarlyas a mnemonicdevice among Chalcolithiccommunities?FromRobertsand Roberts1996:140-41.
the same way, we suggest that the new Shiqmim figurine, with its enigmatic punctate design motif and anthropomorphic female head, may have functionedas a mnemonic device related to the elite lineages in the Beersheva valley. Each incised dot or series of dots in objects such as the Shiqmim figurine or the Chalcolithicivory "sickles"would have played a similar mnemonic role in prehistoric southern Levantine societies.
Conclusion The newly discovered figurine from Shiqmim is special in several ways. Both in its use of bone as a medium and in its combination of elements from different yet related northern Negev Chalcolithic artistic traditions, this artifact is outstanding. The Shiqmim figurine transcends the boundaries which have previously demarcated two distinct groups of Chalcolithic human figurines. Based on the new figurine, 59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
157
tions and dip lines which may represent washed the figurative art assemblages of late Africa, showing the homeland in sediment. fourth millennium Palestine fifth-early of the Luba people can now be recognized as overlapping in cultural, stylistic, spatial, and Bibliography chronological dimensions. Seen in Alon, D. this context, the Shiqmim figurine rep1976 Two cult vessels fromGilat.Atiqot11:116resents a syncretistic melding of 18. Chalcolithic ideological constructs1977 A Chalcolithic temple at Gilat. Biblithe anthropomorphic cal Archaeologist40:63-65. namely, Zairee "Pinocchio" motif so characteristic of the Beersheva Valley culture and the Shaba Alon, D. and Levy, T. E. Region 1989 The Archaeology of Cult and the Chalconstruct so comviolin-shape figurine colithicSanctuaryat Gilat.Jotrnalof Mediterranean mon in the Patish and lower Jordan Archaeology2:163-221. valleys. More importantly, this combi1994 Violin Shape Figurinesand Cult at Chalnation of styles reflects the exchange of colithic Gilat. Ariel 100/101:166-71. (Hebrew) deep-seated regional Chalcolithic ritual beliefs that were brought together Alon, D. and Levy, T. E., eds. n.d. Archaeology,Anthropologyand Cult: TheSanctuaryat Gilat (Israel). at the Shiqmim settlement center in the Beersheva Valley. London: Leicester University Press. (In prep.) Finally, using recent ethnographic research, it is also proposed that figurines,and other objectswith elaboratepunctate Amiran, R. design, functioned as mnemonic devices to aid in the 1989 The Gilat Goddess and the Temples of Gilat, En Gedi, and Ai. transmission of memory among Chalcolithic communities. di brollzeanlcien, Pp. 433-53 in L'urbanizationde la Palestie h lI'Tige edited by P.de Miroschedji. Oxford: BAR Int'l Series 527: Oxford. Together,these two explanatoryframeworksrooted in anthropology help shed light on this impressive new piece of Amiran, R. and Tadmor, M. Chalcolithic representational art.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Sarah Whitcher who "re-discovered" the figurine reported here in the summer of 1994 during the laboratory study of the 1993 faunal sample from Shiqmim. We are grateful to Catherine Commenge, Marjolaine Barazzani, and Daniel Ladiray of the Centre de Recherche Francais, Jerusalem (CNRS) and its director, M. Blanchtiere,for providing the beautiful illustrationsand photographsproducedhere.Thanksto MoragKerselfor producing the final plan of the Shiqmim excavations used here. Thanks also to David Alon, co-director of the Shiqmim excavations for his insights. The fieldwork for this projectwas generously supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic Society, and the C. Paul Johnson Family Charitable Foundation. This project is a joint expedition of the University of California, San Diego and the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology (NGSBA), Hebrew Union College-JewishInstituteof Religion,Jerusalem and is affiliatedwith theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch. We would like to also thank A. Biran,directorof the NGSBA, for his logistical support.
Notes 1The figurine is categorized as Object number 47/93 - Locus 4147, Basket A374. 2 The
pit (Locus 4147) has a diameter of 1.45 m, is 1.04 m deep, and has a volume of ca. 1.72 m' and is situated between squares 013/P13. Locus 4147 contained an ashy, silty fill which contained some mottled brown silts. The fill in the upper portion of the pit contained some fine lamina-
158
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
1980 A Female Cult Statuette from Chalcolithic Beer-sheba.IsraelExploratiomn Journal30:137-39.
Bar Adon, P. 1980 The Cave of the Treasure.Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Epstein, C. 1978 Aspects of symbolism in Chalcolithic Palestine. Pp. 22-35 in edited by R. Archaeologyin the Levant:Essaysfor KathleenKcenyon, Moorey and P. Parr. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Gal, Z. 1995 Piqe'in, 1995. HadashiotArkeologiot103:20-22. Gilead ,I. 1994 The History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva Area: The Radiocarbon Aspect. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research296:1-13. Goren, Y. 1995 Shrines and Ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: The View Through the Petrographic Microscope. Archaeometry37:287-306. Jewsiewicki, B. and Mudimbe, V. Y. 1993 Africans' Memories and Contemporary History of Africa. In History Making in Africa,edited by V. Mudimbe and B. Jewsiewicki, an issue of History and Theory:Studies in the Philosophy of History 32(4). Joffee, A. and Dessel, J. P. 1995 Redefining Chronology and Terminology for the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. CurrenltAnthropology36:507-18. Kuchler, S. and Melion, W. and Representation.Washing1991 ImagesofMemory: On Remiembering ton: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Layton,R. 1992 TheAnthropology ofArt.2nd ed. New York:CambridgeUniversity Press. Levy,T. E. 1986 The ChalcolithicPeriod.BiblicalArchaeologist 49:82-108. 1991 RadiocarbonChronologyof the BeershevaCultureand Predynastic Egypt. Pp. 345-56in TheNile Deltain Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC,editedby E.C. M. Vanden Brink.Jerusalem:Van den Brink/IES. 1995 Cult, Metallurgyand RankSocieties-ChalcolithicPeriod (ca. 4500-3500BCE). Pp.226-44in TheArchaeology ofSocietyin theHoly Land,edited by T. E. Levy.New York:FactsOn File,Inc. Levy,T.E., ed. I. StudiesConcerning Societiesin theNorthern 1987 Shiqmim Chalcolithic NegevDesert,Israel(1982-1984).BARInternationalSeries 356. Oxford:BAR.
des gisements prehistoriquesde la region de Beersheba.Syria 36:8-9. ' 1964 Lesivoiresde la 7e campagnede fouilles Safadi,pres de Beersheva. EretzIsrael7:92-3. au Dictionalire dela 1968 s.v. "Prehistoirepalestinienne"in Supplement BibleParis.8:286-466. Renfrew,C. 1991 TheCycladicSpirit.Abrams:N.P.GoulandrisFoundation. 1995 Towardsa CognitiveArchaeology.Pp. 3-12in TheAncientMind: editedby C. Renfrewand E.B. Elements ofCognitiveArchaeology, W.Zubrow.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Roberts,M. N. and Roberts,A. F. ArtandtheMakingof History.New York:Prestel, 1996 Memory-Luba The MuseumforAfricanArt. Shalev,S. and Northover,J. P. 1993 The Metallurgyof the Nahal MishmarHoard Reconsidered. 35:35-47. Archaeomnetry
Levy,T. E. and Alon, D. 1985a An AnthropomorphicStatuettefromShiqmim.AtiqotXVII:18789. Shalev,S., Goren,Y.,Levy,T.E., and Northover,J. P. 1985b Shiqmim:A ChalcolithicVillage and MortuaryCenter in the 1992 A ChalcolithicMace Head from the Negev, Israel:Technologi11:17-83. NorthernNegev. Palaeorient cal Aspectsand CulturalImplications.Archaeometry 34(1):63-71. 1992 A Corpusof IvoriesfromShiqmim.EretzIsrael23:65-71(Hebrew). 1993 Gilat.Pp. 506-511in TheNewEncyclopedia ExcaofArchaeological Shalev,S. and Northover,J.P. vationsin theHolyLand,editedby E.Stem.New York:Doubleday. 1987 The ChalcolithicMetal and MetalworkingfromShiqmim.Pp. 357-71in ShiqminI, editedby T.E.Levy.BARInternational Series Levy,T.E. and Holl, A. 356.Oxford:BAR. 1987 Theoryand Practicein HouseholdArchaeology:A Case Study fromthe ChalcolithicVillageat Shiqmim.Pp.373-410in Shiqmimn Ussishkin,D. I, edited by T. E. Levy. BARInternationalSeries 356. Oxford: 1980 The Ghassulianshrineat EinGedi. TelAviv7:1-44. BAR. Levy,T. E.and Menahem,N. 1987 TheCeramicIndustryat Shiqmim:Topologicaland SpatialConsiderations.Pp. 313-32in ShiqmimI, edited by T. E. Levy.BAR InternationalSeries356. Oxford:BAR. Levy,T.E. and Shalev,S. 1989 PrehistoricMetalworkingin the SouthernLevant:Archaeomet20:353-72. allurgicaland SocialPerspectives.WorldArchaeology
Witten,A. J.,Levy,T. E.,Ursic,J.,and White,P. New Viewson theShiqmim 1995 GeophysicalDiffraction Tomography: 10:97-118. SubterraneanVillageSite (Israel).Geoarchaeology
" r?r;arrgr-?~ ??~ai ~;8~?9~iD\~2~.'
ThomasE. Levy (right)is '~r~iB~ftf~? )-t r) 'r Professor of :t.? ~~~ :II)( J d r' i. ,* Levy,T. E.,Alon, D., Grigson,C., Holl, A., Goldberg,P.,Rowan,Y.,and and Anthropology *_?P?sr~-?~--?--I??I\ i Smith,P. b t*..e JudaicStudiesat 1991 SubterraneanSettlementin the Negev Desert,ca. 4500-3700BC. the Universityof i 'C~: \I" andExploration NationalGeographic Research 7:414-31. California,San J :I b Diego. Formerly I*:t he was Assistant Levy,T.E.,Commenge,C., Kansa,E., and Alon, D. t:~fi~HI1&I~F~f~i~W:%8;~ n.d. The LateNeolithic-ChalcolithicTransitionin SouthernIsrael: Directorat the W.F.Albright Radiometric,Typologicaland CulturalConsiderations.Tobe Instituteof submittedto Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch. (Inprep.) ArchaeologicalResearch(1985-1987)and the Nelson GlueckSchool of BiblicalArchaeology,HebrewUnion College-JewishInstituteof Religion(1987-1992).Prof.Levy receivedhis Ph.D.fromthe T. A. D. and Alon, Levy, E.,Witten, J., Universityof Sheffield,England.His most recenteditedbook is 1996 Denizensof the Desert.Archaeology 49:36-40. TheArchaeology ofSocietyin theHolyLand(1995;NY:FactsOn File; London:LeicesterUniversityPress). M. E. Moseley, JonathanGolden(left)is currentlyworkingon his PhD at the 1992 TheIncasandTheirAncestors.London:Thamesand Hudson. the orginsand use of Universityof Pennsylvaniaresearching copperduringthe Chalcolithicperiod.He receivedhis BAin Perrot,J. Classicaland OrientalStudiesfromBrandeisUniversityin 1990. 1955 TheExcavationsat Abu Matar,NearBeersheva.IsraelExploration Goldenhas excavatedat NahalTillah, Shiqmim,Gilat, as well as Journal5:17-41,73-84,167-89. sites in Italyand the UnitedStates. 1959 Statuettesen ivoireet autresobjetsen ivoireet en os provenant ?n
-? ?c-,:?'~-ibCi9~T;Z'*~??
rBP"ls~~4L~4P~
~8~-:?.^Xb~2pj:r.mi
,,
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
159
~~t
AilL~i .A, - -r
~ 7L,?
.
?~I
-.,h __?_lv ?;r
?461
W :,.kW 046 r`'-??T
A ."
~tl ILC
9'.810 lb,All
A
.~A.
'C ?-??El
A,
.
,
A.
PK% A,2' -AAA,;-c?q-~0-- A- , Ni
?
f.
A,-
J,''?~.
?-:.. 711
1
Ai??~~ e ~ ~ zrjb -?~*i L~ : :~F. IA.
I~?e~
w
_r.
jof~
~
~
~;LG:,S
c
'
?iXI
P
~?
AI
~A,; ?it~~.,
.I
Nit
?ift
~~it
*i\
?r'd =~_ IONC~
04
I1L41,"
--%
??
IL A~b
rl
AAA.:A,
I -~~-
AA
A? A r~ wk~CILC
r
By RichardS. Hess
WHAT
Samariaand surroundingterrain:the place name listsof Joshua 17:23 that tie this territoryto Manassehare unique among the listsin NAME Joshuaand the extrabiblicallistsstudied.Theyconsistof clan names ANDPURPOSE OFTHE PLACE ISTHE ORIGIN ratherthan place names.These listsmust be understood in relation lists in the Hebrew Bible, especially those that occur in the book of Joshua, chapters 13- to Israelitekinshipstructures.Photo courtesyof RichardCleave.
21? HovWdoes the form and function of these texts compare with similar documents from the West Semitic world? Answers to these questions highlight the role of the biblical place name lists in their present context. As a working definition, "place name lists" describes a group of three or more names of places in a related sequence. In Joshua 13-21, it is possible to distinguish three types of place name lists. First, there are the tribalboundary descriptions. These have their place names separatedby prepositions and verbs.' Since AlbrechtAlt's pioneering work, the boundary descriptions have been treated separately from the other place name lists (1925a;b). They will not be considered here in detail. However, since they form the literarycontext of the tribal place name lists, they will be considered in terms of the function of all the place names in their present biblical context. The boundary lists are Type A. 160
59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
A second group of lists, Type B, is closely integrated into the tribalboundary descriptions. Place name lists of Reuben, Gad, Zebulun, and Asher occur within or are appended directly to the boundary descriptions.2 The third group of lists, Type C, consists of those that are distinct from the tribalboundary descriptions. These include TransjordanianManasseh (Josh13:31),Judah (Josh15:21-62), CisjordanianManasseh (clans Josh 17:2,daughters Josh 17:3, and towns in Issachar and Asher Josh 17:11),Benjamin (Josh 18:21-28),Simeon (Josh19:2-7= 1 Chr 4:28-32),Issachar(Josh 19:18-20),Naphtali (Josh 19:35-38),Dan (Josh 19:41-46),the towns of refuge (Josh 20:7-8), and the Levitical towns (Josh 21:8-42= 1 Chr 6:57-81).3In comparison with the Type B lists, they are longer and appear separable from their present literary context.
Place NameListsin Joshua TypeA TribalBoundary Descriptions Reuben Josh13:16-21 Gad Judah Manasseh Benjamin Zebulun Asher Naphtali
Josh 13:25-27 Josh 15:1-12 Josh 17:7-10 Josh 18:12-20 Josh 19:10-14 Josh 19:26-30 Josh 19:33-34
TypeB UstsIntegratedinto TribalBoundary Descriptions Reuben Gad Zebulun Asher
Ancient Near Easternand Biblical Town Lists Although this study will consider place name lists from Assyria and Egypt that touch upon the West Semitic world, special attention will be given to lists found at the West Semitic sites of Middle Bronze Age, Mari and Alalakh, and at the Late Bronze Age cities of Ugarit and Alalakh.4 At these sites, there are six types of place name lists: military, religious, boundary, town constructions, land grants, and administrative. MilitaryLists The military lists are the best known. They include lists of places conquered by the author and lists of places that the author lost because of rebellion or battle. Lists of conquered places are common in royal inscriptions. Egyptian pharaohs of the New Kingdom and later mentioned western Asiatic place names, including Palestinian sites.5 They are found in the inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian kings.6 The biblical list of areas ruled by Artaxerxes might also be included (Ezra 4:7, 9). Corresponding to these lists of conquests are the biblical lists of sites conquered by the Neo-Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileserIII(2 Kgs 15:29)and Sennacherib(2 Kgs 19:1213 = Isa 37:12-13). There is also a list of towns captured by the Philistines when Ahaz was king of Judah (2 Chr 28:18). A similar list from Amarna Age Transjordandescribes seven villages of Garu that became hostile to the town of Ashtartu (EA 256, lines 19-28). Lists of conquest do not occur among the texts at Ugarit and Alalakh. This is because these cities have few records of military campaigns of conquest. In Israelite literature,the recordsof conquestsof Joshua'ssoutherncampaign include a place name list, although in Josh 10:28-42repeated descriptions of the acts of conquest separate the place names. Youngerhas likened this form and style to conquest accounts of the great powers of the ancient Near East (1990:226-28). The list of towns and their defeated kings in Joshua 12 also
Josh 13:17-20 Josh 13:27 Josh 19:15 Josh 19:25-26, 28, 30
TypeC TownListsDistinctfromTribal BoundaryDescriptions Benjamin Dan Judah Simeon Issachar Naphtali Manasseh Towns of Asylum Towns of the Levites
Josh 18:21-28 Josh 19:41-46 Josh 15:21-62 Josh 19:2-7 Josh 19:18-21 Josh 19:35-38 Josh 13:31; 17:2-3, 11 Josh 20:7-8 Josh 21
belongs here in terms of function. However, in terms of form, with the repetition of "king of GN [GeographicName], one," this list looks a lot like an administrative text. Religious Lists The second type of place name list is the religious type. The places named become the source or target of magic or divine actions. In the Bible this recalls the oracles against the nations found in many of the prophets.7Place name lists are found in the description of Philistine and Arabian places that will drink God's wrath (Jer 25:20, 23) and of Moabite towns that are facing judgment (Ezek 27:10, 13, 23). Both examples form parts of larger lists of place names where the names are separated by notes and other descriptions. A list in Ps 83:7 enumerates towns that plot against God and are condemned. Taking the form of a report, the list of northern tribes who celebrated Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chr 30:18) may also belong here. Lettersfrom Mariinclude similar lists. One (ARM26 AEM I/1 103, lines 8-10) enumerates a list of places named in oracles. Another (ARM 26 AEM I/1 235, lines 11-12) recounts a dream in which three towns are enteredby an armed enemy. A thirdexample (ARM26 AEM I/1 184, lines 8-10)lists places whence come clods of earth used for oracles. Although not religious in content, a fourth Mari text lists locations of much grain (ARM26, AEM I/1 154, lines 33-34)in reportform much like the Chronicler's list of Passover celebrants. All of these religious lists are well integrated into the larger prose or poetry sections of which they are a part. They do not possess a formal title or summary that sets them apart from their surrounding context. BoundaryLists The third type of list is the boundary or boundary dispute. In one letter from Mari there appears a list of towns disputed by Mari and Babylon (ARM 26 AEM I/2 449, line 60). Examples of boundary descriptions appear on three 59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
161
tablets from Ugarit.8s These are part of a collection of related tablets and fragments that preserve different editions of the same treaty.The Hittite king imposed this vassal treaty. It defined the border between Ugarit and its northern neighbor, Mukish. Most of the boundary descriptions list place names that are separated by prepositions and other words indicating a border (See further Hess 1994b:128-31, 13438). These are similar to Type A of the place name lists from Joshua 13-21.The three texts from Ugarit already mentioned also preservelists of placename lists with no intervening words. These resembleType B of the place names from Joshua 13-21. These lists have no special title or summary. They are integrated into the already existing boundary descriptions. Thus there are three areas of similaritiesbetween the lists of Type A and Type B and the boundary descriptions from Ugarit (Hess 1994b). First, all these boundary descriptions possess 1) an introduction and a conclusion indicating the land or lands on behalf of which the boundary is concerned; 2) brief narrativenotes that interspersethe boundary descriptions; and 3) in the case of duplicate descriptions of the same boundary, slight variations in the spellings, sequence, and selection of the place names as well as in the appearance of prepositions and notes that occur between the place names (Richardson 1969:97-98). A second area of similarity has to do with the parties involved with fixing the boundary. As in the case of the Israelite tribes and in the case of the boundary descriptions from Ugarit and Hattuia, the parties involved and present at the point of decision represent the lands on both sides of the boundary. The third area of comparison between these two types of lists addresses the purpose of the descriptions. The context of the ancient Near Easterntexts within a treaty suggests that they served to define a legal relationship between the political groups involved. In the case of the Joshua text, God establishes a covenant with Israel and uses the boundary descriptions to define the fulfilment of promises made to the nation's ancestors in the context of formal covenant ceremonies which occurbefore(8:30-35)and after(24)the allotment. A similar cultural context and thus a similar date should be applied to the origin of the boundary descriptions in Josh 13-21 (Hess 1996:56-60). TownConstructions The fourth group of place name lists consists of the town constructions. These occur in Numbers where the tribes of Gad and Reuben preserve lists of towns built in their tribal allotment in Transjordan(Num 32:34-38).1 Kgs 9:15 records Solomon's fortifications at Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. 2 Chr 11:5-10lists the fortifications of Solomon's successor,Rehoboam.The inscriptionof Mesha,king of Moab, also enumerates towns that he fortified (lines 9-10, 26-30; Gibson 1971:75-77).Although Mesha's statements form part of a dedication stele and occur in the firstperson, they resemble the other three accounts insofar as they all form part of a narrative and they all use the verb, bnh (•13) "to build," in 162
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
order to describe what was done to the towns named. The Mesha stele and the accounts of Solomon and Rehoboam claim a royal origin. Like Mesha's proclamation, Solomon's account may have originated as part of a public document (Montgomery 1934:46-52;Hurowitz 1992:248).The Numbers account and the Mesha stele recount town building in the same Transjordanianregion and even include some of the same town names in their lists. Mesha mentions Baal-meon, Kiriathaim, Aroer, Beth-bamoth, Bezer, Medeba, and Bethdiblathaim.The firstthreenames also appearin Num 32:34-38. Land Grants Land grants constitute the fifth group of texts in which place name lists occur. These include place name lists at Alalakh, in Egypt, and in the Levitical town lists from Josh 21 and 1 Chr 6. Middle Bronze Age Alalakh text AT 456 is partly damaged at the beginning of the tablet (Wiseman 1958:124-29;Draffkorn 1959:94-97).Where it can be read, a list of place names appears. These constitute the region that Yarimlimhas ruled (Wiseman 1958:125-29).This is followed by a donation to Yarimlimof the town of Alalakh in return for the military aid that he gave to Abba-AN, leader of Halab. Thus the town list heads the document, but does not form part of the grant. Instead, it appears as a historical recollection of the area already possessed by the king. In its place and in its function, it resembles the place name lists of Reuben and Gad in Josh 13:17-20and 27. These also appear at the beginning of the "land grant" of Josh 13-21 in which God bequeaths the land west of the Jordan to Israel. As in AT 456, the places named in Reuben and Gad arealready possessed by Israel. Thus it serves to review and affirm the land already occupied by the vassal, and it prepares for the additional land that will now be given. Benjamin Mazar has made the suggestion that the list of towns given to the Levites (Josh21) can be compared with an Egyptianlist. This document, PapyrusHarrisI (ANET:26062), names Palestiniantowns controlledby the New Kingdom empire and given to Egyptian temples for their upkeep (Alt 1953a; Mazar 1960:204-5; Boling 1985:28; Boling and Wright 1982:495). Dating from the twelfth century BCE,the text lists estates of the god Amon and includes towns of Canaan. The estates form part of a description of Ramses III's gifts to the temples and include food and luxury items, as well as towns. Ramses III speaks in the first person as the giver of these gifts. Thus there are significant differences between the Egyptian lists and that of the Levitical towns in their present contexts. Josh 21 is not part of a larger list of items given to the priesthood by the ruler who uses the first person in discourse. Instead, it is a list of towns given by Joshua, Eleazar, and the tribal leaders and constitutes a grant from the inheritances of the tribes. As God had given to Israel the land of Canaan, so Israel returned the favor and gave part of the land back to God, in the form of towns and pasture lands that the Levites received. This is the context of Josh 21:1-3. It is also the reason for the position of the town list at the end of the tribal allotments. Israel first had to receive its land before it could give any of it away. The
place names. Lists of people or commodities may also be consideredinsofar REVERSE OBVERSE as they contain names of places associated with each item listed. w Ir Aw f•i!•• ar ie t srgtrF rAdministrative records from the *-*-orb* wa b arir ew F kr4b-4s30<< 0Arer palaces of Ugarit and Alalakh appear ~ *r& A*vrbk4r +r~wr W'•--PAr4-trsr *w Jr on clay tablets with a specific type of r r 4 physical organization to the text. The b?*4r Wwmwr r 0-o rw4*orr 4r first line of the text may be a heading indicating its purpose.9 For example, 4"o W At it*MK we~rtkndo AT 224 begins, an-nu-tu4LU.MESa-na tf 4 W1kr W ifr "F-W atrL?4ff KUR mi-ta-ni i-la-ku, "These are men who came from Mitanni" (cf. AT 141). AT 187 begins tup-pi URU r...wr rw 4 T 40soi wo rT r "tablet of the cities DIDLI.H[I.A...], Is AT AT AT 341, AT 329, 197, of..."(cf. %{ L F- f AT 457 S~-ab--: 395). begins DUMU.MES,"sons r ea 7ar~ 4r atMrsP I5 **RlFbf followed of," by a place name (Wise4 45 4,?-rff 4r?r and man Hess 1994:501).Sometimes a rFbr r4 *mw4p-#pr ~ WM aM n4k at the end of the line of text occurs t h F4M number and type the list, summarizing Tf I?K 4IR F 4W r ^.-JW a we f r*70T-f w of items.10Expressions similar to those 4pin the introductioncan occurin this posia a4 wnre e Wtur tion as in the census list of AT 163: an-nu-tuLU.MESa "These are the men ir PT who..." (cf. also AT 184). Terms such *w 44 rp 0-wA, 4r as kalima,"all together," and naplhar,"a total of," written logographically as Similarto a land grant, this listfrom Alalakhdetails the transferof propertyin exchange for SU.NIGIN,also occuras partof the summaries.11Solid lines drawn across the annual payments.LikeLeviticallistsin Josh 21, this MiddleBronzeAge rosternotes the D. Tablets tablet may separatethe heading and the the towns. From J. The districts with Wiseman, Alalakh (London: accompanying BritishInstituteof Archaeologyat Ankara,1953). summary from the list of items.12Sometimes these lines divide the list into smaller groupings. At other times the tablet has a solid line context of the parallel Levitical town list in 1 Chr 6 does drawn between every line of text or has a solid line drawn not alterthis impression (cf.vv. 54 and 64). The Leviticaltown list should be understood as a land grant which supplements through each line of text (CTA68, RSO 7, 4 [RS 34.131]). At the larger grant of Joshua 13-19. Alalakh the list can also take the form of two or three parA furtherparallel to the Leviticallist comes from the Mid- allel columns. Occasionally, the list may occur as part of a tablet with other writing on it.13 dle BronzeAge text from Alalakh,AT 56. This text also begins with a list of place names and territories and goes on to Three Forms of AdministrativePlace Name Lists discuss their ownership. However, it is not a land grant, but There are three general forms of administrative place a text recording the transfer of these regions in exchange for and a annual for the name lists from Ugarit and Alalakh. The first form positions an initial payment continuing payment the place name at the beginning of each line. The second form life of the seller. Its similarity to the land grant suggests that the two share a common source. The text also specifies positions the place name at the end of the line. In the third that the towns are given qa-du-umpa-ti- u-nu "with their disform, the place name occurs alone on each line. The list is tricts" (line 4). This recalls the Levitical town list of Josh 21. often uniform, with each line having the same set of elements Thereeach town is given wcet-migr2ieha"with its surrounding in each position.This createsthe appearanceof severalcolumns on the tablet. Occasionally, this is not the case. AT 162, for pasture land." AdministrativeLists example, lists personal names "from" specific places. Several names can occur on each line without regardto columnar Members of the sixth group of place name lists are those found in administrative documents. These constitute the arrangements. There are many examples of the first form of place name largest sample. Examples from Ugarit and Alalakh will be considered here. Administrative place name lists also appear list at Ugarit. For example, a recently published tablet has fifty lines, each with the name of a town followed by a spethroughout the Hebrew Bible, e.g., 1 Kgs 4:7-19 (Hess n.d.). This will include lists whose primary purpose is other than cific number of people (LU.MES);(RSO7, 4 [RS34.131]).This
swfa jrbw $orOT Of w w4w w
10
r w&rNt a?
Nr
\
1
**
20lr 2
5
so
itsA&rr AD-ww-4r
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
163
text probably records a census of the 38) lists the returnees.Eachplace name number of individuals recruited for is preceded by 'ang "men of" and followed by a number. Thus the list royal purposes from each of the places named. On other tablets, each line combines typical features of the first contain a followed a and second forms of administrative may place by period of time, the number of wine jars or mealists. Ezra2:59 (= Neh 7:61)lists towns from which returnees had no written sures, the number of other commodities such as flour, asses, or bronze, or the pedigree. This list is introduced like number of archers.14 Most often the some of the above administrative lists, list contains simply a place name folwPjlleh hacolfmmi..., "These are those lowed by a number, without any who went up from...," followed by as to the nature of the items specification place names (see also the introduction or persons enumerated.15 At Alalakh, to the place name list of Neh 11:31-35). this first form, in which each line begins Theseexamplesdemonstratethe endurwith the place name, is less frequent.AT ing form of the place name lists in 197 refersto social groupings of tuppaleni administrative documents of the West and ehelna, in which thirteen towns Semitic world. are each followed by a personal name. Lists from Joshua13-21 The second form of administrative Having identified forms and funclist opens with some other item at the begintions of West Semitic town lists, it is ning of each line. This is appropriate to consider the lists followed by a place name. from Joshua 13-21.The towns For example PRU 2.33 [RS lists of Type C will be coneach linewith sidered. 17.293]begins Theywill be grouped There of." folskn,"governor according to their regions '. and considered in terms of lows a place name where the ' their biblical form and their governor rules. Another text from Ugarit structures each possible relationship to other line as "x silver shekels West Semitic town lists. at Lists: TheSouthern Town deposited y village" (PRU x 3, p. 191[RS 15.179], kaspu Benjamin (Josh18:21-28), MESgu-kuURU y). Dan (Josh19:41-46),Judah \ Most of the place name lists (Josh15:21-62),and at Alalakh are of this second Simeon (Josh19:2-7) which the name Previous study of the in type, place " comes lastjn each line.16Many Judeanlists has emphasised contain adpersonalname followed the districts into which the a either with CTA 68A is scored with a solid were or towns (above, top) by place name, directly organised and the date and an intervening expression.17Some texts line between every line of text. FromCTApL. number of these districts. The southern district (vv. 21-32) corresponds with specify the people named as warriors 51. of classes such as the mariannu(AT 152 some of the list of Simeon (19:2-8).Alt and 22) or hapiru (AT 180-82). Others 66. The line of list CTA first related the three districts of the west(above) many with a of the each line sometablets states the number, purpose list-making. ern hill country,the Shephelah(15:33-44), begin times referringto persons,houses, grain, FromCTApl. 50. to the territory controlled by the cityor of silstates of Adullam, Lachish, and Keilah horses, sheep, asses, quantities text lists place names by themselves (PRU (Alt 1925b:286).Rainey noted that these districts are organver.18One Ugaritic 5.74 [RS 18.73]). However, the text is fragmentary with the ised according to the east-west valleys which penetrate the entire right side of the tablet missing. Therefore, additional hill country (1983:7).An additional district lies fartherwest, informationcould have existed on each of its lines. An unpub- along the Mediterranean(vv. 45-47).Threedistricts are found in the southern mountain region (vv. 48-51, 52-54, 55-57). lished text from Alalakh lists only place names, but its nature also prohibits conclusions about its form These include the districts where Debir and Hebron are fragmentary Place name located. A region to the north appears in vv. 58-59. The lists, completely separated from any (82/13). are with other information, therefore not attested certainty Septuagint preserves an additional twelfth district (includat either Ugarit or Alalakh. ing Bethlehem) at this point, one that does not occur in the The biblical texts contain several lists that resemble the Masoretic Text. The wilderness district along the Dead Sea administrative place name lists.19Ezra 2:21-35 (= Neh 7:26- appears in vv. 61-62. On the basis of survey work and 164
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
the biblical lists, the adminexcavations, the settlement of this Dead Sea region does not istrativedocuments can record their own introductions and predatethe eighth centuryBCE summaries for each of these (Greenhut 1993). Scholarshave argued that subsections. or Dan Two differences occur Benjamin originally a tribal that district between the cuneiform texts preserved formed part of Judah. They and those from Joshua. First, note thatboth Judahand Benthere are few glosses in the contain the towns of cuneiformtexts.This may sugjamin Kiriath Jearim and Beth gest that these glosses were not partof any originaladminArabah, and both Judah and Dan containEshtaoland Zorah istrative documents, but were added later,perhapsat the time (15:33, 60-61; 18:22;19:41).20 When we examine the fornri . of their incorporation into of the town lists of Judah, S Josh 13-21. Indeed, the author of glosses such as Simeon, Dan, and Benjamin, we find that they share sevJosh 18:28,which designates eral features. First, they all the Jebusitecityas Jerusalem, an introduction idenand Josh 19:47, which possess the list. also tifying They explains the Danites' failure a statement to possess summary occupy their allotment, at the end of the list. Someexpectedthe readerto undertimes this summary includes stand them as lateradditions. the number of towns.21Every A second differenceis the list includes at least one gloss presence of a list of town to explain the name of a town names without anything else or to describe something about appearing in the list. With the the tribe's occupation of the lists that we considered, the CTA67 representsan example of town names on each line were preceded region. The town lists of Judah and Ben- administrativelistwith a summaryinscribed or followed by additional information, differ from those of Simeon and on the reverse such as the number of items or the name (side 2, bottom). jamin Dan in that they follow border descrip- FromCTApl. 50. of a person.These town lists fromJoshua tions. Both Simeon and Dan conclude do not sharein these features.Eachtown their town lists with glosses explaining why these do not fol- appears alone, with no additional information. At this low boundary descriptions. For Simeon, it is because it level of comparison, the Joshua town lists have no parallel was given part of Judah's share as its inheritance. Thus it with extrabiblicaltown lists of the West Semitic world. They should follow Judah's boundary description. For Dan, it is are unique. However, this is not because they were originally because the tribe could not occupy its allotment and had to something other than administrative documents. They share settle elsewhere. Thus it may be assumed that these town too many other features to deny them an identification as lists would normally accompany a boundary description. administrative documents. Instead, it is because they serve Notes appear to explain exceptional cases. a function in their present context that is different from Dan alone does not divide its town list into smaller group- any of the cuneiform place name lists examined here. ings with the number of towns appearing at the end of Thus, both the addition of glosses and the "streamlined"style each subsection. Otherwise, these summaries with the of the southern place name lists suggest that their purpose total number of towns characterise the southern town lists. is different from that of other administrative documents. All of these characteristicshave parallels with the admin- The NorthernTownLists:Issachar (Josh19:18-21)and istrative documents that we considered from Alalakh and Naphtali (Josh19:35-38) The town list of Naphtali resembles those of the southUgarit. Introductions and concluding summaries are found in administrative documents and in the town lists. ern town lists. It possesses an introduction and a summary statement including the number of towns. That of Issachar Sometimes, as with Benjamin, Issachar, and Dan, similar of identification at the and the also has an introduction. However, it lacks a summary stateexpressions appear beginning end of the document. A summary of the number of items also ment or any conclusion. We might explain this by observing characterisesboth groups of texts. Some of the larger admin- that this list alone precedes its tribal boundary description. istrative documents divide their texts into subsections just This may be the reason for the absence of a summary stateas do the lengthier lists of Judah, Benjamin,and Dan. As with ment. However, we have noted that not all administrative BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
165
studies in Israelite lineage and documents fromAlalakhand Ugarit That statements. kinship (Jay 1988; Oden 1983; Prepossessed summary witt 1981:87-98)and of research in be the case as well. Neihere, may the agriculture of highland Canaan ther of these northern town lists Thus resem(Borowski 1987; Frick 1989; Hopthey possess glosses. kins 1985). As reflected in the ble the cuneiform administrative lists even more closely than do the patriarchal narratives of Genesis, southern town lists. kinship groupings developed speThe Central TownLists:Manasseh cific patterns through which people (Josh13:31; 17:2-3,11) gained an identity (see furtherHess Of the three central town lists, 1994a). Townsof Asylum (Josh20:7-8) Josh 13:31and 17:11can be considRecent discussion of the towns ered Type B lists, well integrated of asylum has focussed on their into the boundary descriptions.Josh 17:11recordsa list of towns thatMan~;~~ priestlycontextand a postmonarchic asseh possessed, although they were date.22Lhr found examplesof Joshua ~rr~tt~?~~n4$~Jz4~-t iFf I20's towns of asylum in the ancient located within the allotments of L ~ Near Easterntreatystipulationclauses Asher and Issachar.Josh13:31records fk~r~ir Tft some places possessed by Manasseh (L6hr 1930;Butler 1983:214).This is ~T~Tr ~iY m~M4/' an important clue, but stipulation east of the Jordan.Both of these lists form part of narrative statements clausesby themselvesbearno resem~ftj~Auntr blance to these verses. Instead, Josh that appear at the conclusion of the ~Py 1~rli4/ LOPrIf 20:7-8 forms part of a larger narraallotments of Transjordanian and tive that describes how the divine Cisjordanian Manasseh. The Tranlaw was carriedout. The form of this of the land list sjordanian forms part text is not like that of an adminisin to Manasseh recorded Josh grant trativetown list, because it is so well form its 13:29-31.As already noted, in the present context is best underintegrated into its narrativecontext. It is more like a land grant in which If a land it was stood as grant. the towns are given to a particular an docuadministrative originally class of person, those who commit name ment, the brevity of the place accidentalhomicide. Of course, they list (only Gileadand two towns) sugdo not own the towns. Instead, they gests that it is better understood are given a privileged access to the as a Type B place name list. This is towns as places of asylum (See Num one list that is so thoroughly incor34.131. The text of text RS 35:9-34; Deut 4:41-43; 19:1-13). They Drawing Ugaritic porated into the larger boundary and a number are located after the tribal allotments a list of towns followed records territorial descriptions that it has lost by The of in each town. document is of Josh 13-19 for the same reason as the its original identity. As for the Cisjorpersons census. similar lists Levitical towns. It is necessary for the danian note of Josh 17:11,this town list probablya Functionally of and tribes first to receive their inheritance has no summary. Its introduction is not may also reversethe order persons lists before they can allocateparts of it to othlike any other, describing tribes other their towns. Biblicaltexts contain several name ers. than the one under consideration, i.e., that resemblethe administrativeplace Townsof the Levites (Joshua21) Manasseh. It also has a gloss. Under lists.FromRSO7pl. 2. The origin and purpose of the Levitcloser consideration, this list appears to be TypeB.Although it is separatedfrom the precedingbound- ical town list has been the subject of extended discussion (Hess 1988a:911).The dates of specific additions to the list ary description (vv. 7-10) by a few introductory words, it and of its final form have been disputed. forms a natural part of the boundary description. This is tribal boundaries because it lists additional areas outside the The function of this document as a land grant has already been noted. Formally, its structure and complexity resemthat belong to Manasseh. the as recorded ble The place name lists of CisjordanianManasseh Judean town lists of Josh 15. Introductions as well as with numerical information are repeated in are not summaries those in Josh 17:2-3are unique among studied. They The few glosses summarize inforeach of the subsections. and but clans" names "their called place (migpe~itam) "daughin earlier follow to mation found names that the would not One ters" (banot). Joshua,e.g., the identificationof Kiriath expect Arba with Hebron and Anak and the notes on the towns of be place names were it not for the context of the tribal allotments. Because these lists are without parallel, it is nec- asylum. This document resembles the northern and southessary to examine them from the twin perspectives of recent ern town lists of Type C in its similarities and differences
rl?r~-C~k
r
166
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
respecting the cuneiform administrative town lists. Like these other Joshua lists, the author intended the readers of this text to perceive it as having a similar origin in officialadministrativetexts.
C I
ConcludingObservationson Joshua 13-21
Notes IPrepositions
include "from," Il "to," Cal rmin "on,"and Cad"unto."Boundary descriptions can also include the term gebail"border."In Josh 1321 they include: for Reuben, Josh 13:16-21; for Gad, Josh 13:25-27; for Judah, Josh 15:1-12;for Manasseh, Josh 17:7-10;for Benjamin,Josh 18:1220; for Zebulun, Josh 19:10-14; for Asher, Josh 19:26-30; and for Naphtali, Josh 19:33-34.
This study of West Semitic place h Manas name lists suggests the following conclusions regarding the construction of 2 These include: for Reuben, Josh 13:17-20; for the documents found in Josh 13-21. Gad, Josh 13:27;for Zebulun, Josh 19:15;and for Asher, Josh 19:25-26,28, 30. To distinguish these 1) The TypeC place name lists, those town lists from those that are separate from their thatareseparatedfromtheirsurrounding Dan min description is not an arbitrary deciboundary Benj context, divide into two groups. First sion. The lists of Gad and Asher are placed within are the southern and northern place the boundary descriptions of their tribes. Those name lists and the Levitical town list. of Reuben and Zebulun follow the boundary These possess forms similar to admindescription of their tribes with no intervening words. The tribes with distinctive and separate istrative documents. This was their town lists have no boundary descriptions (Tranoriginal form before they were incorsjordanian Manasseh, Simeon, and Dan) or they ,o ,o porated into their present context. Their are clearly separated from those descriptions. % involved a minimum of For Judah, there are eight verses of narrative incorporation separating the two parts. For Manasseh three alteration,primarilyevident in the addiverses separate the earlier town lists (vv. 2-3) tion of notes and glosses to explain and an introduction of four words distinguished archaic terms or ideas. Map of tribalterritories. the town list that follows the boundary descrip2) The other Type C place name lists tion (v. 11). Benjamin has thirteen words of are the central town lists. These have conclusion to its boundary and introduction to the town list. Naphtali introduces its town list with two words, designating the fortified towns. a different origin, perhaps related to family records and Issachar,whose town list follows its boundary description, introduces the do not resemble extrabiblical genealogies. They place town list with two words (19:22). name lists in their form. 3) The Type B place name lists, those that are well inte3 Omitted from consideration are Josh 13:2-5,the land that remained unconinto their were context, grated boundary description originally quered,and Josh 13:9-13,the regionsborderingthe Transjordanianallotments. of those part boundary descriptions,designated TypeA. Thus These are composed largely of gentilics rather than place names. A and Type Type B place name lists were probablynever sep4For Mesopotamia and Egypt, ANET will be used. Texts from Mari arate, but were originally part of boundary descriptions. cited here may be found in ARM 26 AEM I/1 and ARM 26 AEM 1/2. Texts 4) The similarities of the form of Joshua 13, 20, and 21 from Ugarit will be cited according to excavation number (RS) and one with place name lists found in land grants suggests that this or more of the following: CTA; KTU; LAPO 14/2; PRU 2-5; and RSO 7. Texts from Alalakh will be cited according to AT number. A bibliography function was intended for the biblical lists. Indeed, the whole for additional publications of these texts may be found in Hess (1988b:69of Joshua 13-21claims to be a land grant document. The study 87; 1992:113-15).Some unpublished texts from Alalakh will also be referred of this form is important for understanding the rationale to. These include AT 457 and two texts without AT numbers: 76 and 81/20. behind the present structure of the allotments and asylum 78/2 and 83/13 are published by M. Dietrich and 0. Loretz (1970:104-5, and Levitical town lists. 108). There is also a relevant Amarna letter from Pella, designated EA. 5) A larger context to the town lists of Joshua 13-21 lies 5 Egyptian pharaohs whose inscriptions preserve these lists include Thutin the covenant renewal ceremonies that the book posimose III,Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV,Amenhotep III, Horemhab, Seti I, tions before (Josh 8:30-35) and after (Josh 24) the tribal Ramses II, Ramses III, and Sheshonq I. See ANET:253-64. allotments. As the Hittite king contextualized the boundary 6 The following Neo-Assyrian rulers provide such inscriptions: Tiglathdescriptions of Ugarit within a larger treaty document, so the book of Joshua contextualizes the boundary descriptions pileser I, Ashumasirpal II, Shalmaneser III,Adad-nirari III,Tiglath-pileser within a largercovenant document. The study of the covenan- III,Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal. See ANET:301. tal context of the tribal allotments serves to underscore their 7 Isa 13-27; Jer 45-51; Ezek 25-39; Amos 1-2; Zeph 2; Zech 9. See also Dan presentation as part of the divine gifts and commands that 2 and 7. Israel received (see also Weinfeld 1993). o
8 PRU 4, pp. 48-52 [RS 17.340] lines verso 3'-7'; PRU 4, pp. 65-67 [RS 17.62] lines 5'-6', 11'-14', 16'-19', 22'-24'; PRU 4, pp. 67-68 [RS 17.339A] lines 4-8.
9CTA66 [RS11.836+ 11.842],CTA68, PRU 2.33 [RS17.293],AT 152 (reverse), AT 180, AT 181, AT 182, AT 187, AT 197, AT 220, AT 224.
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
167
10AT 181, AT 182. The summary appears alone on the reverse of CTA 65 [RS 11.850], CTA 67 [RS 10.045], and CTA 71 [RS 11.716]. In all these cases the list is in Ugaritic while the summary is in Akkadian. Other texts with a summary in the same script as the text include PRU 2.33 [RS 17.293], PRU 3, p. 189 [RS 11.790],AT 163 (obverse; the reverse has a different list). AT 152 and AT 162 have their summaries on the left edge of the tablet. 11For kalima,cf. AT 341 and AT 342. For naphar= SU.NIGIN, cf. CTA 65 [RS 11.850], CTA 67 [RS 10.045], AT 329, AT 341, and AT 342. 12The heading is separated from the list in CTA 66 [RS 11.836 + 11.842]. The summary is marked by a solid line in AT 181, AT 182, AT 187, AT 330, and AT 343. Heading and summary are separated by lines in PRU 2.33 [RS 17.293].A solid line appears at the bottom of the list on AT 152 (obverse), AT 339, and AT 457. The use of solid lines in order to structure cuneiform texts is well known. It is not limited to administrative documents but includes literary and epistolary texts, as well. For an example from Late Bronze Age Amurru, see Hess 1990.
13CTA 71 [RS 11.716]has a single line between lines 59 and 60. AT 161 has a line drawn after the fifth line of text, dividing two groups of warriors. AT 162 has 16 solid lines dividing the text into segments of 1 to 6 lines of text each. AT 180 has four lines defining four groups of warriors. AT 197 has six solid lines on its obverse that divide the text into groups of personal names, each introduced by a place name. AT 341 has two solid lines but the reason for the divisions at these places in the list is not obvious. For two columns, cf. AT 161. For three columns, cf. AT 197. However, this is primarily a personal name list with place names introducing each group. KTU 1.91 [RS 19.15] = LAPO 14/2, pp. 174-77 contains instructions about offerings to be given to various deities on the verso while the place name list appears on the reverse. See also PRU 2.33 [RS 17.293]. AT 228, on the obverse, lists individuals by number from each town. On the reverse, the text describes how these Suteans were held on charges of theft. 14Time periods: CTA 66 ([RS 11.836 + 11.842], PRU 3, p. 190 [RS 11.830]). CTA 66 is a Ugaritic text where the length of time is specified in terms of months (yrh[m]and of days, usually five days RS 11.380 fol(hmrymm). lows each place name by a number. On the first line this number is followed by the term for "day" (U4.ME).
Wine: CTA 65 [RS 11.850], CTA 67 [RS 10.045], CTA 68, KTU 1.91 [RS 19.15] = LAP 14/2, pp. 174-7. CTA 67 has a number on each of the twelve lines of place names. This is sometimes followed by kbd, indicating a type of wine. Although the list is in Ugaritic,the total on the reverse is written in Akkadian. The list of KU 1.91 includes a number on each line, sometimes followed by either yn "wine" or msb. Commodities: Flour, wine, and oxen PRU 3, pp. 188-189 [RS 10.044], bronze PRU 3, p. 191 [RS 15.20], asses PRU 5.40 [RS 18.99]. CTA 69 [RS 10.086] lists weights (tkl and nsp) after each place name. Archers: CTA 71 [RS 11.716] 15sCTA 68; CTA 70 [RS 11.724 + 11.843]; CTA 72 [RS 11.832]; PRU 3, p. 189 [RS 11.790]; PRU 3, p. 190 [RS 11.800]; PRU 3, p. 191 [RS 11.830]; PRU 5.41 [RS 19.41]. 16 In addition
to the texts listed here, unpublished Alalakh fragments number 76 (not the same as AT 76) and number 81/20 share this form. 17AT 141, AT 161, AT 166, and 76 (an unpublished fragment) show the personal name followed directly by a place. Examples where an expression intervenes include I-na, "from" (AT 457), i-na E, "from the house of PN at GN" (AT 162), DUMU, "son of" (AT 152 and AT 184), and Li, "man [i.e., citizen] of" (AT 220).
IsA number followed by a place name occurs in lines of 81/20. Num-
168
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
bers of persons (LUC.MES)are listed in AT 163 (reverse), 223, and 224. Numbers of houses are found in AT 185, 187, and fragment 78/2. Cf. also fragment 83/13 where "house" is followed by a place name on each line. Amounts of grain are found in AT 287 and in the Old Babylonian text AT 271. Texts mentioning numbers of horses include AT 329, 330, 338, and 339. Numbers of sheep and asses occur in AT 341-343, and 352. Quantities of silver are listed in AT 395. 19
For a study of the place name list in 1 Kings 4, see my "Form and Structure of 1 Kings 4:7-19," forthcoming. 20 For further critical discussion, see Alt 1925b, Aharoni 1959, Boling
and Wright 1982:393,Cross and Wright 1956,Fritz 1994:164,Kallai 1986:37475, Kallai-Kleinmann 1958, Nalaman 1991:5-33. 21Introductions:for Judah, Josh 15:20;for Benjamin,Josh 18:21;for Simeon, Josh 19:1-2 (1 Chr 4:27-28); and for Dan, Josh 19:40-41. Summary Statements: for Judah, Josh 15:32, 32, 41, 44, 51, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62; for Benjamin,Josh 18:28;for Simeon, Josh 19:8(1 Chr 4:33);for Dan, Josh 19:48. Judah does not possess a summary statement for the entire list, only for the groupings that form subsections to the list. The summaries include the number of towns for Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, but not for Dan. 22 Rof6 1985; 1986; Ben Zvi 1992. Ben Zvi's postmonarchic date assumes an ideology that the land east of the Jordan is Israel's by right as much as the land west of the Jordan. This appears in texts that he dates as postmonarchic, i.e., Deut 2, Judg 11, and Num 21.
Bibliography Aharoni, Y 1959 The Province List of Judah. Vestus Testamentum9:225-46. Alt, A. 1925a Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palistina. Reformationsprogramm
derUniversitiitLeipzig.Leipzig,reprintedin KleineSchriftenzur
Geschichtedes VolkesIsrael. 1.89-125. Munich: C. H. Beck. 1925b Judas Gaue unter Josia. PalestinaJahrbuch21:100-16;reprinted in
KleineSchriften zur Geschichte desVolkesIsrael2.276-88.Munich:
C. H. Beck. 1953a Agyptische Tempel in Palistina und die Landnahme der Philis-
ter.Pp. 216-30in KleineSchriftenzur Geschichte des VolkesIsrael. Munich: C. H. Beck.
ANET(AncientNearEasternTexts) 1969 AncientNearEasternTextsrelatingto theOld Testament, 3d ed., edited by J. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ARM(ArchivesroyalsdeMari) 1988a Archivesepistolairesde Mari I/I, edited by J.-M. Durand. Archives royales de Mari 26. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations. 1988b Archives epistolaires de Mari I/2 ,edited by D. Charpin et al. Archives royales de Mari 26. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations.
AT(AlalakhTablets) 1953 The Alalakh Tablets.Edited by D. J. Wiseman. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Ben Zvi, E. 1992 The List of the Levitical Cities. Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament. 54:90-99. Boling, R. G. 1985 Levitical Cities:Archaeology and Texts. Pp. 28-32 in Biblicaland
RelatedStudiesPresented to SamuelIwry,editedby A. Kortand S. Morschauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Boling, R. G. and Wright, G. E.
1982 Joshua.A New Translationwith Introductionand Commentary. The Anchor Bible 6. Garden City, New York:Doubleday.
Borowski, O. 1987 Archaeologyin Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Butler, T. 1983 Joshua.Word Biblical Commentary 7. Waco, Texas: Word.
Hopkins, D. C. 1985 The Highlands of Canaan. Social World of Biblical Antiquity 3. Sheffield: JSOT. Hurowitz, V.
1992 I HaveBuiltYouan ExaltedHouse.TempleBuildingin theBiblein Lightof Mesopotamianand NorthwestSemiticWritings.JSOT Supplement 115. Sheffield: JSOT.
Cross, F. M. and Wright, G. E. 1956 The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah. Jour-
Jay, N. 1988 Sacrifice, Descent and the Patriarchs. Vestus Testamentum 38:52-70.
CTA (Corpus des tablettes en cundiformes alphabetiques ...)
Kallai, Z. 1986 HistoricalGeographyof the Bible.Jerusalem:Magnes; Leiden: Brill.
75:202-26. nalof BiblicalLiterature
a'Ras 1963 Corpusdestablettesen cundiformes decouvertes alphabetiques Shamra-Ugaritde 1929 a'1939, edited by A. Herdner. Mission de Ras Shamra 10; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Paul Geuthner.
Dietrich, M. and. Loretz, O. 1970 Die soziale Struktur von Alalah und Ugarit (IV). Die E = Listen als Quelle fiir die Erforschungder gesellschaftlichenSchichtung von Alalah im 15. Jh. v. Chr. Zeitschriftfiirassyriologie60: 88-123. Draffkorn, A. 1959 Was King Abba-AN of Yamhad a Vizier for the King of Hattuha?
Studies13:94-97. Journalof Cuneiform EA (Dieel-Amarna-Tafeln...) 2 v. Edited 1915 Dieel-Amarna-Tafeln mitEinleitungundErliduterungen. by J. A. Knudtzon. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Frick, F. S. 1989 Ecology, Agriculture and Patterns of Settlement. Pp. 67-93 in The
Worldof AncientIsrael:Sociological, andPolitical Anthropological,
Perspectives,edited by R. E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fritz, V. 1994 Das BuchJosua.Handbuch zun Alten Testament 1/7. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Gibson, J. C. L.
1. Hebrew 1971 Textbook Volume andMoabite ofSyrianSemiticInscriptions. Inscriptions.Oxford: Clarendon. Greenhut, Z. 1993 The City of Salt. BiblicalArchaeologyReview 19/4:32-35, 38-43. Hess, R. S. 1988a S.v. Tribes, Territories of. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.Rev.ed., edited by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans. 1988b A PreliminaryList of the Published Alalakh Texts. UgaritForschungen 20:69-87. 1990 Rhetorical Forms in EA 162. Ugarit-Forschungen22:137-48. 1992 Observations on Some Unpublished Alalakh Texts, Probably from Level IV. Ugarit Forschungen24:113-115. 1994a Asking Historical Questions of Joshua 13-19: Recent Discussion Concerning the Date of the Boundary by A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 1994b Late Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary Descriptions of the West Semitic World. Pp. 128-38 in Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedingsof
theInternational Symposiumon UgaritandtheBible,Manchester, September,1992, edited by G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey. Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag.
andCommentary. 1996 Joshua: An Introduction TyndaleOld Testament n.d.
Commentaries. Leicester: IVP. The Form and Structure of Kings 4:7-19. In prep.
Kallai-Kleinmann, Z. 1958 The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan.Vestus Testamentum 8:134-160.
Texteaus Ugarit) KTU(Diekeilalphabetischen Texteaus Ugarit.Einschliefilich derkeilal1976 Die keilalphabetischen Texteaufjerhalb Edited phabetischen Ugarits.Teil1. Transkription. by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker;NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener.
1995 TheCuneiform Texts Alphabetic fromUgarit:RarIbnHaniandOther Places(KTU: Second, Enlarged Edition). Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag. LAPO (Litteratures anciennes du proche-orient)
TomeII. Textesreligieuxet rituels.Introduction, 1989 Textesougaritiques traduction, commentaire,edited by A. Caquot and J.-M. de Tarragon. Litteratures anciennes du proche-orient 14. Paris: Cerf.
L6hr, M. 1930 Das Asylwesen im Alten Testament.Halle: Max Niemeyer. Mazar, B. 1960 The Cities of the Priests and Levites. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum7:194-205.Reprinted as pp. 134-45 in BiblicalIsrael:State and People, edited by S. Ahituv. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. Montgomery, J. A. 1934 Archival Data on the Book of Kings. Journal of Biblical Literature 53:46-52. Na'aman, N. 1991 The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. TelAviv 18:3-72. Oden, R. A., Jr. 1983 Jacob as Father,Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives. Journalof BiblicalLiterature102:189-205. Prewitt, T. J. 1981 Kinship Structures and the Genesis Genealogies. Journalof Near
EasternStudies40:87-98.
PRU2 (Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit) 1957 Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit,2. Textesen cundiformes des alphabitiques archivesest, ouest et centrales,edited by C. Virolleaud. Mission de Ras Shamra 7. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Klincksieck.
PRU3 (Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit) 1955 Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit,3. TextesAccadiens et Hourrites desarchives est, ouest et centrales, edited by J. Nougayrol. Mission de Ras Shamra 6. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Klincksieck.
PRU4 (Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit) 1956 Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit,4. TextesAccadiensdesarchivessud,edited by J. Nougayrol. Mission de Ras Shamra 9. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Klincksieck.
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
169
PRU5 (Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit) 1965 Lepalaisroyald'Ugarit,5. Textesen cundifornles des alphabetiques archivessud, sud-ouestet du petit palais, edited by C. Viroulleaud. Mission de Ras Shamra 11. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Klincksieck. Rainey,A. F. 1983 The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schoolsof OrientalResearch 251:1-22. Richardson,M. E.J. 1969 HebrewToponyms.TyndaleBulletin20:95-104. Rof6,A. 1885 Joshua20:Historico-Literary CriticismIllustrated.Pp. 131-48in Biblical editedbyJ.H. Tigay.PhiladelCriticism, Empirical Modelsfor phia:Universityof Pennsylvania. 1986 The Historyof the Citiesof Refugein BiblicalLaw.Pp. 205-239 in ScriptaHierosolymitana XXXI,edited by S. Japhet.Jerusalem: Magnes.
36
38 -40o
Aalah 36
U
arit SYRIA
V o Mari
34
32
RSO7 (RasShamra-Ougarit) 1991 Unebibliotl'que (1973), ausuddelaville.Lestextesdela34ecampagne edited by P. Bordreuil.Ras Shamra-Ougarit7. Paris:Editions Recherchesur les Civilisations. Weinfeld,M. 1993 The Covenantal Aspect of the Promise of the Land to Israel. Pp. 222-64in ThePronmise of theLand:TheInheritance of theLandof Canaanby theIsraelites.Berkley:Universityof California. Wiseman,D. J. 1958 Abbanand Alalah.Journalof Cuneiform Studies12:124-29. Wiseman,D. J. and Hess, R. S. 1994 AlalakhText457. Ugarit-forschungen 26:501-508. Younger,K. L.,Jr. 1990 AncientConquestAccounts.A Studyin AncientNearEasternand BiblicalHistoryWriting.JSOTSupplement98. Sheffield:JSOT.
Dr. RichardS. Hess earnedhis Ph.D.in WestSemiticLanguagesand Literatureat HebrewUnion College (Cincinnati)in 1984.Post-graduate studies have takenhim to Universityof Cambridge,the AlbrightInstituteof ArchaeologicalResearch,and the OrientalInstitute.Aftersix yearson the facultyof GlasgowBibleCollege, Richardnow serves as Readerin Old TestamentStudies,Roehampton Institute,London.He is the authorand editorof numerousvolumes, including AmarnaPersonalNames,(Eisenbrauns, AncientNear 1993)and "IStudiedInscriptions frombeforetheFlood": to 1-11 Genesis Eastern,LinguisticandLiterary (EisenApproaches brauns,1994)as well as many articlesin the most distinguished journalsof ancientNear Easternstudies.Dr.Hess servesas a editorialcommittee. memberof BiblicalArchaeologist's
170
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
To placeyoursubscriptionto BiblicalArchaeologist, simplycompletethis form and returnit to ScholarsPress,P.O.Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399.Individualordersmustbe prepaid by checkor moneyorderdrawnon a U.S.bank or by VISAor MasterCard. Foreven faster service,call at 404/727.2345 with VISAor informationhandy! MasterCard Don'twait! HaveBiblicalArchaeologist delivereddirectlyto yourselfnow! $35 individuals $28 students,over 65, or unemployed $45 institutions (Non-U.S.addressesplease add $5 for postage.)
The
DOive
Romnan O
and Making Fit
By E. LoetaTyreeand EvangeliaStefanoudaki .. ,..
can be gauged from its extraordinaryrange of uses as
a basicfood source,principallightingfuel,and main ingredientin body careproducts.Olive oil probably providedone-thirdthe caloriccontentof a peasant(largely cereal-based)diet in such areasas Italyand Greece,with a probableannualconsumptionof about fifty litersper person (Foxhall1990:79-80). Olive oil has an advantagein that it is tastier than most seed oils since it requires less processing to extract.Even as a lighting fuel, olive oil offered advantages.It could be producedin largerquantitiesthan seed oils (suchas linseed,poppy seed, and sesame).It also burnedwithoutproducinga bad odor as animalfat or castoroil did.And olive did not competewith cerealsforarable land as did flax, the source of linseed oil (Stager1985:183 n. 6). As a body careproduct,olive oil formedan essential basefornumerousmedicinalointments,soaps,bathoil, skin oil, perfume,and cosmetics.As one example, it was used in the gymnasium(especiallythe greatRomanbathhouses) forbathingby rubbingthe oil into the skinand scrapingoff, with a strigil, the oil and dirt.Such was the importanceof olive oil thatit gave thegenericnameto all oil (derivedfrom oleiiuim/elaion).
Ii . ;
?.
. O :o
.
~~
. i.,=.
.,~~~t
•'
',•
.•"
": YP
OlivePittingand OliveOil Production
Several years ago, while investigating modern methods of olive oil production,I (ELT)critiquedseveralpapers that referredto an ancientRomanpracticeof pitting olives during oil making.The notion thatolives were pitted during oil productionastonishedme not only becausepittingis impracticalin termsof modernprocedures,butalsobecause
Freshoil flowing into a containerat the Niterosfamilyoil mill in Nemea, Greece.While in contemporaryeconomy and cultureoil has lost the preeminentplace it held in antiquity,methods of oil production(crushingand pressing)must still cope with the same characteristicsof the fruit.Photo by the author.
it is extremely labor intensive. A review of the modern literaturediscussing ancient oil production revealed that Forbes initiated this misconception in the 1950s (1958:65),and it had remained, for the most part, unchallenged. Was there any data that would decide this question? I was fortunate to be able to collaborate with Evangelia Stefanoudaki at the SubtropicalPlants and Olive TreesInstitute of Chania, Crete.The results of our research add to our knowledge of ancient oil processing and should put to rest any imagination of an olive oil manufacturing scene alive with scores of ancient Roman olive pitters. Variousmethods were used in antiquityforcrushingolives, from the simple to the complex. All that is needed is a simple
pounder in a stone basin or a heavy stone roller(columndrum) rolled on a large, flat stone. More complex were rotary mills which fall into two main types with many regional variations (see Frankel1993for a possible additional category).The simpler and less expensive type had one or two cylindrical millstones and the other, a specialized crusher called a trapetuiin,had two convex millstones that were suspended (to avoid crushing the pit) and had various metal fittings. Rotary oil mills made their first, certain, appearance in the Mediterranean in the Hellenistic period (mid-fourthcentury BCE). All are believed to have a common origin, from somewhere in the western Mediterranean, possibly Italy (Moritz 1958:60; Needham 1965:174-204;Frankel 1993:480). BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
171
-r?._
olive pit during traditional oil making. In our experiments, we were unable to i-~isBs~i~8~7~i? ::r~ use a Roman model (although we used "Jbl~F~I~k"C~i~~'-il~_~L~~\ ~: ? :i~i~?~Jqf~'lT~t;~i' ':: a traditionalcrusher in Eleusis), but we We analyzed the design of the trapetumn. did so since the misconception that Romans pitted the olives used in oil .3 ?:.;~ makingarisesfromthe misunderstanding of the Roman recommendation to use ZI: 'f a trapetumn to avoid crushing the pits. ' Cato,among others,advocatednot crushing the pit because he believed that the ~l'~fS~hs?i"~ s crushed pit adversely affected oil flai~i~i :1 ;~P~_~d~ZY vor (Agr.66.1). Even though it does not ~ f~ make any difference to our investiga??S~ . ?~-I ?.?r:?i?? i~~ :?2~.-i ~~"'":'; i -i tion whetherCatoand his fellow Romans I ;? I:I: I: I ~1T~ :: :. ? :i were i-r::; ii:i%???~ ?,?:-;: :I right or wrong, we did examine ti~-?? i-. .?..I ::: ::-:'`: ~6F j the j ~? validity of this belief, and we will ?; ??.~: I..'"~"r~"' ::; -: 1:: : :.i.--.i.~ i?i?l~.?i?~ offer some suggestions as to its possi??i?:i ?~-~ ble origin. A few ripe olives (Olea europaea L.)hang from a branch.The indespensibilityof the olive, Over the years archaeological studand especiallyits oil, in the ancient circum-Mediterranean world appearsobvious in a short ies had concluded that the trapetuin list of its uses: lighting, cooking and diet, cosmeticsand medicinalpreparationsas well as probably removed the flesh from the ceremonialroles.Photo from the Beegle Collection. olive pit: our researchhas borne this out (White 1975:225;Cotton and M6traux oil mills increased oil more We do not 1985:71). Rotary yield by thoroughly agree, however, that pits were removed the and crushed saved time and because that or Forbes was correctto state that Greeks discarded, mixing paste, they could be turned two an men or driven animal. and Romans they by by pressed kernel-free,crushed olive fruits (Forbes became most common the Roman They during period,spread- 1958:65;similarly, Cotton 1979:63 and White 1984:71). Our much of the Mediterranean at ing throughout by least the first reading of the ancient literature shows no evidence that and CE.The trapetuim, with its convex millstones, the Romans suggested pitting olives for oil production. On centuries BCE was characteristic of Italy (especially the Bay of Naples) the contrary,Roman advice to mill owners was "not to crush and the Aegean (Drachmann 1932:8-11;Foxhall 1993:191). the pit." Our earliest such reference is Cato (Agr. 66.1), who, A variant form, used in Israel, could handle larger capacities in the mid-second century BCE,recommended not crushing due to a ceiling support stabilizing the millstones (Klonerand the pit to avoid imparting a bad flavor to the oil. This the a was and approach to the problem continued until at least belief However, Sagiv 1993:125). specialized trapetlun crusher which was more expensive to purchase and to main- the time of Columella in the first century CE.Columella advotain. It was probablyfor this reason that it appears not to have cated using a crusher adjustable to fruit size to ensure not been universally adopted. Indeed, crushers with cylindrical crushing the pits and spoiling the flavor of the oil (Rust. millstones were common, for example, in northern Syria, 12.52.6-7). The caveat of both authors was "to avoid crushIsrael, Cyprus, and N. Africa (see Frankel 1993:478-80). ing the pit." No mention was made of pitting the olives. The oil market at Rome appears to have been dominated Apparently, then, the Roman writers themselves assumed at first the first and that the pits were not removed and discarded;otherwise they then by, Spain (from century BCE) North Africa, from the first to third centuries CE(Mattingly would not have warned against crushing pits during pro1988b:51;Hitchner 1993:500).Fragmentation of the Roman duction. The Catonian Trapetum empire during the Late Roman period (third to seventh cenOur first step was to determine if the trapetiumwith its turies CE)broke this monopoly and allowed regions like mainland Greece to compete in its own local (Aegean) raised (convex) millstones designed not to break the pit, market (van Andel and Runnels 1987:116-17). This may would in fact leave most pits intact.Since reconstructedcrushaccount for a large number of trapetaof Late Roman date ers, of which thereexists only one, in Pompeii,arenot available known from Greece.After the seventh centurycE,rotaryolive for use in experimentation, our approach necessarily had to mills seem to have gone out of fashion and out of use every- be theoretical.To address this question, we examined Drachwhere in the Mediterraneanuntil the last few centuries(Forbes mann's reconstructed design of a trapetum,based on literary and Foxhall 1978:41;Kardulias and Runnels 1995:110). evidence (CatoAgr.20-22),and dimensions of extant remains. We surveyed the ancient literature as well as A trapetumwas a two-stone rotary crusher with a deep stone conducted experiments to determine what happens to the bowl and cylindrical central post. The millstones were -.
172
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
~~ ??:
supported by a horizontal axle protruding beyond the basin to provide handles for propulsion. The axle pivoted on an iron pin, allowing the millstones to revolve simultaneously O around the basin and on the axle. Drachmann recognized that the shape and placement of the millstones were critical to the crusher's intended function of not breaking the pits. The millstones were convex on the outer side, matching the inner curve 1~41~ ob. of the basin. They were raised one Roman inch the and were above basin also one floor (1.84 cm) 34 inch from the nearest point of the basin. The distance from the midpoint of each of the millstones to its outer edge increased gradually, making the millstones appear to flare away from the basin at their edges. This flare or curve appears to have been intended to force olives into the narrow path behind the convex side of the millstone in order to strip the flesh from the fruits without breaking the pits. This combination of features-the curve of the millstones and their precise distance from the basin as described in Roman texts-is clearly indicative of a design intended not to break the pit. Based on experiments, discussed below, with a crusher which did not break all the pits even though the millstones were in direct contact with the basin, it is theoretically plausible that the trapetumwas successful and left most pits intact. This would be the result, of course, barring any complications such as large or firm fruits jamming the mechanism or throwing it out of alignment. In fact, there was no means to compensate for a larger fruit size, since the distance between the millstones and basin of the trapetumwas set at the time of construction and could not be adjusted. Columella realized this flaw, and the consequences of trying to adjust the millstones were noted by both Drachmannand White (Rust.12.52.6;Drachmann1932:4445; White 1975:229).If the millstones were raised or lowered they would either be too close to the basin and abrade or too distant to operate efficiently. It appears, then, that the trapetumwas constructed for a particularfruit or pit size, and the use of larger fruits would be a critical factor in the number of pits left intact after crushing. The crushing surface of the convex side of the millstone was limited to the area below the (top)The Romantrapetumwas a specializedolive millconsistingof two convex millstones that lip of the basin. To increase the crusharounda verticalpost in a deep bowl as pressurewas applied by meansof a horizontal the of rotated ratio ing surface, height-to-width the millstones was increased and the This axle. drawingof the Catoniantrapetumindicatesthe basin;centralpost;lip;millstone; basin was made deeper and narrower horizontalaxle;and ironpin.The pointsA and B demonstratethe millstoneflare. After Drachmann193:137,fig. 1. (conical shaped). The millstones were set more deeply into the basin, almost (center)A horizontalsection of basin,centralpost, and millstoneat the height of the basin lip the shows the center of basin (0); center of millstone(X);and the gap created between the two. to hole for the horizontal axle, up A representsa gap of 1 Romaninch (1.8 cm) between the millstoneand basin,while B which increased both efficiency and indicatesa wider gap. The curveof the millstonesand their precisedistancefrom the basin capacity. Extant examples of this type are known from the Pompeii region, suggest that Romanengineers designed the trapetumso as not to crushthe pitswith the In before 79 CE. some models, fleshy fruit of the olive. After Drachmann1932:139,fig. 4. dating the curve above the crushing level was (bottom) Trapetummillstones. Left:convex millstoneof a Catoniantrapetum.Center: millstonewith the curveremovedabove the crushingline. Right:slender convex millstone cut back, perhaps to eliminate superfluous stone and weight (Drachmann making use of the whole curvefor the crushingsurface.LIPmarksthe height of the basin lip (the crushingline).After Drachmann1932:145,fig. 11. 1932:46). .
,..
?
lo.
.
to ?
?.
*
...
?. .....
.
..
.
.
.
.,...,,..
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
173
5~s~-
~
,e -c~
Y
"
L L Il
S~111(?? .? r .? ???
(? . ~E;Y~-
.?;
A Olive oil processorscarriedthe crushedolive pulp to a varietyof pressesin the ancient world. Likethis beam press,these installations squeezed and compressedthe olive paste, expressingthe oil along with a much greater quantityof water.Workersthen collected the oil using some constellationof separatorvats. Thisdrawing of a reconstructedIronIIbeam and weight pressfrom Israelshows the leverage that the beam presswielded; nevertheless,olive pits that were part of the pulp were probablynot crushedin the process. FromBorowski1987:122,fig. 20.
7
The motor-driventraditionaloil millowned by the Demetrios Dimafamily in Eleusis,Greece.Apartfrom the electricpower,the mill was comparableto ancient crusherswith cylindricalmillstones rotating directlyon the olives. Sincethe Romantrapetumwas not availablefor experimentation,this crusherprovideda close approximationin our test of whether Romancrusherssmashedthe pits as they made pulp out of the olive'sfleshy fruit. Photo by the author.
??r` "?"r~-;]r
:-4
-77, W7
The CrushingProcessandthe OlivePit
On average, an olive fruit contains twenty-two percent oil, most of which is located in the flesh (mesocarp;Kiritsakis 1990:13). There is some oil in the skin (epicarp) and about two to four percent in the pit, which includes the stone (the hard, woody covering or endocarp) and the soft seed within (endosperm and embryo; Kiritsakis 1990:12; Di Giovacchino 1991:14).Plant cells must be crushed to release 174
BiblicalArchaeologist59:3 (1996)
the oil, hence the necessity of crushing the fruits.Crushingrequiresapplying force to the fruit. To accomplish this a wide range of equipment has been used since antiquity: mortars and pestles, t 1 various types of rotarymills with stone millstones, and, recently,hammer mills. No matterthe method, crushingcreates a paste.The paste needs to be mixed, and this is today done in a separatebasin from the crusher using a rotating blade (comparable to a "dough hook"). Mixing coalesces the oil into largerdroplets to promote flow during pressing. The paste is scooped into woven sacks or onto circularpress mats which are then stacked into the press. Pressing squeezes and compresses the stack, releasing the oil from the paste. Except for the modern centrifuge system, ancient and modern presses (including the beam press, screw press, and hydraulic press) are all loaded and operated in this manner. The oily liquid from the press must be collected and separated. Separation is required because, in addition to oil, pressing releases water from the fruit (fifty to seventy percent water) and fruit solids. The oil rises to the surface, enabling its collection. Traditional and modern oil production methods crush the whole fruit, including the pit. Presumably, crushing the whole fruit increases oil yield. During crushing, the pit's broken edges pierce the flesh releasing oil. During pressing, crushed pits promote oil flow and provide solid, compressible matter to help prevent the soft paste from running off the press mats or from being pushed aside in the sacks. The pit is important enough in modern production that research labs have established the pit sizes producing optimal flow without blocking the pores of the woven press mats (Di Giovacchino 1991:19). In attempting to determine whether or not pits would have been crushed in Roman oil production, our second step was to use a modern, traditional-style rotary mill in Eleusis, Greece (courtesy of Demetrios Dima). The mill was comparable to an ancient crusher with cylindrical millstones rotating directly on the basin floor. The two millstones and crushing floor were graniteand were set within a metal basin. Samples of crushed paste were taken aftercrushing and mixing and their content analyzed. The fruit flesh was reduced to a pulp, which is the whole object of crushing. The fruit skin, being tough, often maintained its integrity. The pits were stripped of their flesh but, surprisingly, not all the pits were crushed. Most of those that broke were smashed into many tiny pieces, although a few broke only into large pieces (see table next page). Most seeds were crushed beyond recognition. Those that survived were either broken into pieces, with their seed coats attached, or they appeared to be intact but were actually "empty" seed coats remaining after expulsion of the seed itself. Pits that remained intact clearly had been pushed aside the by revolving millstones. This type of crusher is designed
with the intention of crushing the entire fruit, including the pit. It was one hunContents of a 0.5 liter sample of olive paste (Olea europaea L.cv. Megareitiki) dred percent successful at crushing the after crushing and mixing with a traditional two-stone rotarymill (millstones 170 cm high, 85 cm wide, and 40 cm thick). Comparableresults were obtained fruit flesh which contains the bulk of with smaller samples. Dima Mill, Eleusis,Greece. the oil. And yet, only an estimated fifty to seventy-five percent of the pits were Leaf Fruit Pits Stones Stones Seed Seed crushed. Thus, successful crushing of skin intact small coats pieces large pieces the fruitflesh does not necessarilyinvolve pieces pieces the pits. crushing 1 30 18 5 12 5 many Our third step was to determine if the pits which remained intact during the process of crushing the olive fruit Contents of a 0.5 liter sample of olive press cake (Olea europaea L.cv. would subsequently have risked being Megareitiki)after two-stone rotarycrushing and pressing in a hydraulicpress at 300 kg/cm2(4,300 psi). Dima Mill, Eleusis,Greece. broken in pressing. If so, this would have increased the percentage of broLeaf Fruit Pits Stones Stones Seed Seed ken pits, and might suggest the need to skin intact small coats pieces pieces large pieces remove intactpits in between the process pieces of crushing and pressing. To test this, 23 11 50 8 25 many many we sampled press cakes (residue produced by pressing) from a small laboratorypressand a modem hydraulic press. In our testing with a laboratorypress,batchesof crushed needless to say, have been prohibitively labor-intensive. It is paste (three of "Mastoidis" olives and one of "Koroneiki" one thing to pit olives with a modern pitting device, but it is olives) with all pits intact were pressed at 205 kg/cm2 (2,940 quite another to pit manually all the olives in a grove. psi). Not a single pit was broken.' A 0.5 liter sample taken from a hydraulic press, operated Other rotary crushers at its standard pressure of 300 kg/cm2 (4,300 psi), suggested Certain olive crushers which resemble a Catonian that while small pits escaping the crush of the millstones trapetum,because of their convex millstones, are actually sigmedium and sized additionally escaped compression, large nificantly dissimilar. Such is the case for Hellenistic crushers tended to be crushed. Visual with of a single convex millstone at Maresha,Israel (Klonerand pits inspection large chunks of press cake confirmed these results, showing small, Sagiv 1993:123-25).Compared to the trapetum,the capacity intact pits dotting the press cake like almonds in a chocolate of the crushing basin was greater,the millstone rested on the bar, with the presence of considerably fewer larger pits. It basin floor, and the gap between the single millstone and should be stressed, however, that the pressure of modern basin was larger, 8.0-9.0 cm. Such differences indicate that is than that of ancient beam these crushers were meant to handle greater capacities withpresses considerably higher which 1-4 at out either the problem of large fruits jamming against the presses, reportedly operated only kg/cm2 (1457 psi; Mattingly1988:182-84).Withan ancient press,breakage millstones or the concern about breaking the olive pit (since rates during pressing were surely not higher-and presumthe millstones rested on the basin floor). were in much lower-than our and would not It does not make sense to lump together, in the catetests, ably have prompted the removal of olive pits before pressing. gory of trapetumt,all Hellenistic and Roman olive crushers To summarizeresultsthus far,our investigationhas shown: with revolving millstones regardless whether the millstones were convex or cylindrical(e.g., as done by Frankel1993:478). 1) that there is no evidence in the ancient literature that Romans pitted olives for oil; 2) that Romans recommended The Catonian trapetumand other crushers with convex (or using a specialized olive crusher to avoid crushing the pit; modified convex) millstones, like those at Maresha and had design featuressuitablefor its intended one at Olynthos, operated on a slightly different principle 3) that the trapetumt function and conceivably fulfilled its purpose; and 4) that an than crushers with cylindrical millstones and broad basins. ancient press, operating at a low psi, probably would have (For the Olynthos crusher see Foxhall 1993:189,fig. 5). The left most pits intact. basins of the formerhad confined, limited space which relied Although we cannot prove that Romans did not pit their on the weight of the olives and confined space to keep the olives for oil production,we can conclude that it was unlikely olives near the crushing stones. (For the distinction of the that they did so. If they pitted the olives, they would not have operating principles we are grateful to Harriet Blitzer.) This ("intensive")method would crush the flesh partially by needed, and recommended, specialized crushers to avoid crushing the pits. And, since any pits left intact after crush- pressure of the olives against the basin and millstones without, perhaps, crushing so many pits. ing most probably were not broken during pressing, it was for Romans to and remove discard The broad, shallow basins for crushers with cylindrical unnecessary manually in oil a Such millstones necessitated shoving the olives back into the path would, pits during any stage production. practice BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
175
A Olive crusherwith a single, cylindricalmillstonefrom TiratAn "extensive"crushing Yehuda,Israel,late second centuryBCE. device:the olives had to be shoveled beneath the millstoneas it turned.After Hestrinand Yeivin1977:30,fig. 1. 7 Thisdrawing of a late Hellenisticcrusherwith convex millstone from Maresha,Israelshows that it possesseda gap (X)of 8.0-9.0 cm between the millstoneand basin lip.The Mareshacrusherprovides an example of an "intensive"crushingdevice:with confined, limited space, it relied on the weight of the olives and the confined space to keep the olives near the crushingstone. After Klonerand Sagiv 199:126,fig. 5.
of the millstones as the millstones revolved and pushed the fruits aside ("extensive" method). The fruits are crushed only when they come under the millstone, breaking the pit in addition to crushing the flesh. The greater the diameter of the crushing stones, the greater the number of fruits crushed per revolution. The CrushedPit and Oil Flavor Is there any validity to the Roman belief that the pit spoils flavor? Little testing has been done, and results have proved variable. A group of eighteenth-century French oil producers conducted twenty tasting tests, detecting no difference in flavor in oils produced with and without the pits crushed (Amouretti 1986:155).But in the 1980s,when an Italiangroup 176
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
pitted fruits with a stoner and compared the oil from these pitted fruits with oil from crushed whole fruits, ninety-five percent of these tasters preferred the oil from olives without the pit (Almirante et al. 1987:28-29). In order to conduct tests which were assuredly blind, we made and evaluated oils from fruits with and without the pits crushed. "Mastoidis"olives picked at theirpeak of maturity in February 1993 provided the raw material for laboratory-sizedsamples. We crushed one batch with a brass mortar and pestle to insure that all pits were broken. We employed a Getriebebau Nord brass screw grinder, with a 0.90 m long screw, to crush only the flesh of the other batch. A laboratory press at 205 kg/cm2 (2,940 psi) pressed the samples, and the oils were centrifuged and filtered. We conducted these organoleptic tests, which evaluate elements percieved by the sense organs, following taste and aromatic standards established by the International Olive Oil Council (1991). A panel of eight tasters, trained in olive oil testing, blind tested and scored each sample. The results showed an average score of 7.00 and 7.3 on a scale of 1 to 9 for the oil made with and without pits crushed respectively. A score of 7 and above indicates good quality oil with no perceivable defect in smell or taste. Although there was a preferencefor oil from olives without the pits crushed, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the oils of either treatment. Next, we investigated the possibility of using analytical methods as an additional means of assessing organoleptic qualities.Oils made from differentolive varieties arebelieved to contain the same chemical constituents, varying only in the ratioof constituents,which additionally fluctuatesaccording to fruit maturity (Montedoro 1989:29).These subtleties and the great number of substances which constitute flavor have hindereddevelopmentof chemicalanalysesindicative of organoleptic qualities (Cucurachi1975:62).Recently,however, a few tests have been developed, including one for bitterness (Rosales et al. 1992). We used the bitterness test to compare oil made with and without the pits crushed. We collected mature "Koroneiki" olives in February1993 and prepared them in the same manner as the "Mastoidis"olives mentioned above. Samples were extractedwith 6 ml octadecyl(C18)columnsand theirabsorbance was read at 225 nm ( Rosales et al. 1992).The resulting intensity of bitterness readings ranged from 2.2 to 4.3 for the samples made with uncrushed pits and 2.5 to 4.5 for the ones with the pits crushed. No significant difference was found between the two types of oils. Pit oil comprises such a small percent (two to four percent) of the end product that today pit oil is considered inconsequentialin comparison to other factorsaffectingtaste. The most significant factorsare fruit health, storage, and processing. The olive variety, soil conditions, and climate also have an influence on oil taste, and the taste preference of the consumer is another factor. Pit oil, then, is not the only factor,nor necessarilythe most significantof many factors,which can affect the final product.
Perhapsthe belief that crushed pits affect oil flavor is relatedto the opinion, both modernand ancient,that less mechanical pressure produces superior oil. The first oil (the firstflow of oil fromthe olive fruit)is purerand more delicatein tastebecauseit containsonly oil dropletsand not theotherfruitsubstancesreleasedwith addedpressure.This oil is releasedduring crushing,prior to pressing,and was consideredby Pliny (HN 15.6.23)to be the "flower"of the oil. It pools in the centerof the crusheror mixerand can be extrudedfrompressmatsundertheweightof thestackwithout any added pressure. Alternatelythe belief that crushedpits affectoil flavor maybe relatedto the "flower's"limitedsupply,higherprice, andconsequentappealto the rich.Forexample,Romanagriculturalwritershighlyvalued"greenoil"madefromimmature, greenfruits(CatoAgr.65;ColumellaRust.52.1-2;PlinyHN 15.2.5; also see Foxhall 1993:184). Green olives have a lower oil contentthanmaturefruits,and it was recognized thatolives picked at the stage of turningblackoffered the bestbalancebetweenoil quantityandflavor(PlinyHN 15.2.6; "Greenoil"was limiteddue to also see Foxhall1990:327-29). low yield fromthe fruitand a shortseasonforsuitablefruits. The"flower"of theoil was trulya minusculefractionof any batch of oil. Similarly,oil made without crushed pits was probablylimitedbecauseit requireda specializedcrusher, which we know fromCato (Agr.20-22)was costly to constructand transport.
?, ..~?. ( ki
L?L?.il jr?rcr?r r~er.~ :~ccr?
?C'~-1C.'`C ~r~ccpr,;I
.? 2'1
?
..
r
~
1-
Blackbasalt olive mill photographed at Capernaum,Israel.Thiswas the most common type of crusherin the Levantduringthe Hellenisticand Romanperiods.An example of an "extensive" crushingdevice with a raisedlip on the lower stone to contain the olives while they were being crushed.Photographcourtesyof D. Hopkins.
gestions:HarrietBlitzer,ethnologist;MarinaIatrithou,formerly head of the Olive Oil ChemistryLaboratoriesof the Ministryof Commerceof Greece;andAristidisKoutsaftakis of the SubtropicalPlantsand Olive TreesInstitute,Chania, Crete.Wealso thankBahriErsoyof the OliveResearchInstitute in Izmir,Turkeyfor his collaboration with us in an Conclusion unreportedtaste test using "Gemlik"olives (the resulting TheRomansbelievedthatcrushingtheolivepit adversely oils were too bitterto evaluateprobablydue to the use of a affectsoil flavor.Althoughthe Italiantest showed a prefer- centrifugefor the pressing step). Thanksalso to Roxanna ence for oil made withoutthe pits crushed,the Frenchtests Doxsanfor reproducingthe illustrationof the beam press. and our testsshowedno significantdifference.Oliveoils are This work was partlyfunded by the EthnobotanyFundof complex,makingminorvariationsbetweenoils difficultto the BotanyDepartmentof the Universityof Vermont. detectwith eitherorganolepticor analyticalanalyses.Subtle differencesin tastepreferencesmake this determination Notes even moredifficult.Pitoil comprisessuch a smallpercentof 1 Theresultsof this test arenot presentedin tabularformsince the table the end productthat it is not the only factor,nor necessar- would simply indicatethatzero pits were broken. ily themostsignificantof manyfactors,whichcanaffecttaste. Specialtyolive oils wereproducedby at leastthe timeof Catoin thesecondcenturyBCE. JudgingfromVarroand Pliny Bibliography in the Elder the firstcenturiesBCEandCE,specialtyproducts for the tables of the rich experienced considerable growth. These included a greater variety of olive oils. The desire for limited, quality oils at the expense of bulk oils is evidenced by practices and technological advances, such as the Roman trapetum,which would otherwise seem impractical. Removing and discarding olive pits during oil making was probably not one of these procedures; and as we have demonstrated, it would have been unnecessary.Any concern for the olive pit spoiling oil flavor could be met, as the Romans themselves noted, by using a specialized crusher to ensure that pits were not broken.
Acknowledgments
Almirante,P.,Baccioni,L., Bellomo,F.,and Di Renzo,G. C. 1987 Installationsfor the Extractionof Olive Oil fromStonedOlive Paste.Olivae17:24-29.
Amouretti,M. -C. 1986 Lepain et I'huiledanrsla Greceantique. De I'araireauimoulin. Paris:Les BellesLettres. Borowski,O. 1987 Agriculture in IronAgeIsrael.WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns. Cotton,M. A. 1979 TheLateRepublicanVillaat Posto,Francolise.PapersoftheBritish Volume. London:TheBritishSchool Schoolat Rome,Supplemental at Rome.
We wish to thank the following people for helpful sug59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
177
Cotton,M. A. and Metraux,G. P.R. 1985 TheSan RoccoVillaat Francolise.The British School at Rome and The Instituteof FineArts,New YorkUniversity.
Kloner,A. and Sagiv,N. 1993 TheOlive Pressesof HellenisticMaresha,Israel.Pp. 119-36in La Bulletinde corredu vin et de l'huileen Miditerrande, production spondance hillenique Supplement XXVI,edited by M. -C. Amourettiand J.-P.Brun.Paris:tcole Franqaised'Ath'nes.
Cucurachi,A. 1975 Final Operations.Pp. 60-76 in Manualof Olive-OilTechnology, D. J. edited by J. M. M. Moreno.Rome:Food and AgricultureOrga- Mattingly, 1988a MegalithicMadnessand Measurement.Or How ManyOlives nizationof the United Nations. Couldan OlivePressPress?OxfordJournal 7/2:177ofArchaeology 95. Di Giovacchino,L. 1988b Oil for Export?A Comparisonof Libyan,Spanishand Tunisian 1991 Olive Oil Extractionby Pressing,Centrifugationand PercolaOlive Oil Productionin the Roman Empire.Journalof Roman tion:Effectof ExtractionMethodson Oil Yields.Olivae36:14-41. 1:33-56. Archaeology Drachmann,A. G. 1932 AncientOilMillsandPresses.Copenhagen:Levin& Munksgaard.
Montedoro,G. F. 1989 Oil:Varietyand Technology:TwoFactorsAffectingQuality.Olivae29:28-30.
Forbes,H. A. and Foxhall,L. 1978 The Queen of All Trees.Expedition 21/1:37-47.
Moritz,L.A. 1958 Grain-MillsandFlourin ClassicalAntiquity.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Forbes,R.J. andEngineering. The Life 1958 MantheMaker.A HistoryOfTechnology of ScienceLibrary.London:.Abelard-Schuman.
Needham,J. and Ling,W. 1965 ScienceandCivilizationin China.Vol.4 PhysicsandPhysicalTechnology;PartII MechanicalEngineering.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Foxhall,L. 1990 Olive Cultivationwithin Greek and RomanAgriculture:The Rosales,F.G., Perdiguero,S., Gutierrez,R.,and Olias,J. M. 1992 Evaluation of TheBitterTastein VirginOliveOil.JAOCS69/4:394Ancient EconomyRevisited. Ph.D. diss., University of Liver95. pool. 1993 Oil Extractionand ProcessingEquipmentin ClassicalGreece. L. E. du vin et de l'huileen Miditerrande, Stager, Pp. 183-200in Laproduction 1985 TheFirstfruitsof Civilization.Pp. 172-88in Palestinein theBronze Bulletinde correspondance helleniqueSupplementXXVI,edited and IronAges:Papersin Honourof OlgaTufnell,edited by J. N. by M. -C. Amouretti and J. -P. Brun. Paris: tcole Franqaise Tubb.London:Instituteof Archaeology. d'Ath'nes. van Andel, T.H. and Runnels,C. 1987 BeyondtheAcropolis:A RuralGreekPast. Stanford:Stanford Frankel,R. du and the molaolearia.Pp. 477-81in Laproduction UniversityPress. 1993 The trapetum Bulletinde correspondanceh1lvin et de l'huileen Miditerrande, White,K. D. leniqueSupplementXXVI,editedby M. -C.AmourettiandJ.-P. 1975 FarmEquipment Cambridge:CambridgeUnioftheRomanWorld. Brun.Paris:tcole Franqaised'Athene. versity Press. 1984 GreekandRomanTechnology. Aspectsof Greekand RomanLife. Hestrin,R. and Yeivin,Z. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress. 1977 Oil fromthePressesof Tirat-Yehuda. Biblical 40/1:29Archaeologist 31. Hitchner,R. B. 1993 Olive Production and The Roman Economy: The Case of IntensiveGrowthin the RomanEmpire.Pp. 499-508in Laproduction duvinetdel'huileenMiditerranke, Bulletinde correspondance hillenique SupplementXXVI,edited by M. -C.Amourettiand J. -P.Brun.Paris:tcole Franqaised'Athenes. InternationalOlive Oil Council 1991 International OliveOil CouncilProcedures Assessfor Organoleptic mentof VirginOliveOil,ResolutionCOI/T.20/Doc.no. 3/Rev. 1, May 1991.JuanBravo10,28006.Madrid,Spain. Kardulias,P.N. and Runnels,C. 1995 TheLithicArtifacts:FlakedStoneAnd OtherNonflakedLithics. Pp. 74-139in ArtifactandAssemblage.theFindsfroma Regional Surveyof theSouthernArgolid,Greece,edited by C. Runnels,D. J. Pullenand S. Langdon.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Kiritsakis,A. K. 1990 OliveOil.Champaign,IL:AmericanOil Chemists'Society.
178
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
Dr.LoetaTyreehas trainingin both archaeology and the naturalsciences.In 1974she completeda dissertationon the sacred caves in Creteand received her Ph.D.in Art HistoryandArchaeologyfromthe Universityof Missouriat Columbia. Since1991,Loetahas been associatedwith the AmericanSchoolof Classical Studiesat Athens.Her professionalresearchhas focusedon the olive fruitand includesphytolithanalysis and its applicationto ancientstoragejarresiduesand an olive DNA study to determinewhen olives were firstcultivatedin Crete. Loetais currentlyupdatingher dissertationfor publicationby J.C. Gieben.
Arti-Facts Arti-Facts Editor's Note: The nature of scholarly publishing entails a significant time-lag between the initiation of most archaeological researchprojectsand the generaldiseminationof information about those projects. While this is a natural product of the need for careful analysis and review, it also limits the possibililties for
New
communication and co-operation at an early stage in the life of a project.With this in mind, we are encouraging new field projects to "adverstise" their existence in "Arti-Facts"by detailing aspects of their organization, research problems, and long-term goals before their first season in the field.
in
Excavations Announcement:
Project
The 1996 season will be the first archaeological excavation at the site of Khirbat al-Mudaiyina on Wadi eth-Themed in central Jordan. This site is located southeast of Madaba and probablywas part of the ancient kingdom of Moab, as known primarily from Biblicalreferences and the Mesha Inscription. Based on the resultsof surface surveys of Glueck (1933) and Daviau (1995), ceramic evidence suggests occupation during both IronAge I (pre-monarchic) and Iron II (monarchic period) at Khirbat al-Mudaiyina on Wadi eth-Themed. Surveyors also identified a Roman/Nabataean building near the site, and excavations will begin at this site, in addition to the tell, during the 1996 season. Because Khirbat al-Mudaiyina is positioned on the south bank of the wadi at a place that may have served as a ford, researcherswill investigate the wadi system and the ancient sites on its south bank (Kh. al-Mudaiyina and er-Rumeil), as well as a line of fortified sites several kilometers north of the wadi (Qasr ez-Zacfaran,Khirbat and Rujm al-Hari,and Khirbataz-Zona) as part of a regional survey under the supervision of J. Andrew Dearman. Ceramic evidence indicates that these sites-known already to earlier explorers-were heavily utilized during the Iron Age and the early Roman period. The project will investigate this strategic wadi by both regional
/
i-`-
~ ~ ~ ~ -
n;5;4'8iS
f"'r
Khirbatal-Mudaiyina survey and excavation in order to identify whatever characteristicsmay exist of a political and culturalborderbetween the ancient Moabites, Israelites, and Ammonites. Sincethe 1933work of Glueck,no regional surveys have been carriedout between Wadi Mujiband Wadieth-Themed,althoughextensive work has been done south of WadiMujib by J. Maxwell Miller.Moreover,no sites north of Dibon (excavated by Winnett and Tushingham for the Royal OntarioMuseum) have been excavated along Wadi eth-Themed, with the exception of Khirbat Iskander, an Early Bronze Age site on Wadi Heidan to the west. To address this serious gap in knowledge, a study of the evidence for land use in the surrounding fields will provide data for agriculturaland pastoraleconomies
~~
~
'
~
~
~
the
Land
of
Moab
during various periods. Random and purposive site survey will locateadditional minor sites and provide data needed to understand the relationship between known sites on both banks of the wadi. This data will contribute much needed information concerning the location of ancient roads, communication networks, and the role of the wadi itself in the economy of the region. Ceramic material, especially from Iron Age Khirbatal-Mudaiyina,will provide an importantcorpus forcomparisonwith betterknown pottery from Ammonite sites further north, such as Tall al-)Umayri, Tall Jawa (recently excavated by the author), and Amman as well as with the pottery from the Moabite city of Dibon to the south. Developments in ceramic technologyand the rangeof decorativemotifs will illuminate cultural change, the extent of potting traditions, and the dynamics of economic exchange during a period of early state formation. These ASOR-affiliated excavations are sponsored by WilfridLaurierUniversity and will serve as a field school, offering both graduate and undergraduate credit (registrationdeadlinefor summer1997is December 1996).
P. M. Mich6tleDaviau WilfridLaurierUniversity
9 ilical / ~ Archae'orgi ?J 9Ty
~
~
-
Statues
from
CAin
Ghazal
at
the
Smithsonian
Members of the renown lime-plaster statue assemblagefrom Pre-PotteryNeolithic B CAinGhazalhave emerged from the Smithsonian's ConservationAnalyticalLaboratory (CAL)to make theirfirstpublic appearances. The display includes two human figures, three double headed busts, and three faces modeled on human skulls. All approachlifesize dimensions and represent the oldest ever found in the sculpture (7200-6500 BCE) Near East. Bulldozers accidentally uncovered the cache of statues in 1983while excavating for roadconstructionthroughpartof CAinGhazal on the outskirtsof Amman. Becausethe statconservators ues were fragileand fragmentary, with archaeologists decided to working remove the entire block of earth containing the statues and ship it directly to the CAL. After much analysis of the statues' construction principles, conservators removed the fragments, strengthened the pieces, and reassembled them into their original shapes. Carol Grissom, a senior objects conservator at CAL was responsible for the CAinGhazal project. Two other caches of statuary have since been excavated at CAinGhazal, bringing the total number of sculpted representations to thirty-three individuals. The statues come from the first period of settlement when the site was already a flourishing village with long-range contacts. However they are to be interpreted,the statuesmust reflectsophisticated public ceremony, suggesting that CAinGhazal was a prominentLevantinereligious center. After a hiatus of a few years, Zeidan Kafafi and Gary Rollefson have renewed excavations at the site. "Preserving Ancient Statues from Jordan" is curated by Ann Gunter, associate curator of ancient Near Eastern art at the Sackler Gallery, and will be on view until April 6,1997. An interactive computer program can be accessed on the www at
.
Arthur M. Sackler Gallery press release, adapted
chneoloi~th3
iri: ttS
'
Masada Discoveries
at
For six weeks in the summer of 1995, excavations were carriedout in Camp F and on the Roman siege ramp at Masada under the auspices of the Israel Parks Authority. Camp F is located below the northwestern side of the mountain,by the foot of the ramp, and belongs to the Roman siege works at Masada. These seige works include eight camps encircling the site, a circumvallation wall, and the ramp. Because F is one of the two largest camps (the other is Camp B on the east side of Masada) and is close to the top of the mountain, it is believed to be the site of the headquarters of the Roman general Flavius Silva. It is generally agreed thatCamps B and F housed the main strength of the TenthRomanLegion (about5000men). Camp F consists of a roughly rectangularenclosure,whose dry stone walls originally stood about ten feet high. Four gates, one on each side, gave access to two main roads which converged in the center of the camp, where the officers'quarters(praetorium) and A were located. headquarters (principia) smaller square enclosure in the southwest corner of the camp (Camp F2) is believed to contain living quarters of a small garrison left at the site after the fall of Masada in 73 or 74 CE. Among the units uncovered in 1995 in the centerof Camp F was a huge three-sided rectilinear structure that opened towards the east, perhaps the officers' tricliniumor
Royal
Temple
Found
at
1995:
Camp
F
dining room, which constituted part of
the
praetorium.
Nearby were the remains of a large tent unit which apparently served as officers'quarters, judgingfromits size, location,and unusually richfinds. These Romanseige rampand camps beneath the plateau of Masada. included large, restorablefragments of delicate,painted Nabataeanbowls as well who shared the tent cooked their food occuas luxury glass imported from Italy.Next to pied the corners of the vestibules. All of the this unit stood a raised,squarestone podium, units in Camp F were constructed of drytribunal from which the comlaid field stone walls, which originallystood apparentlythe mander addressed his troops and reviewed about three to four feet high. Leather tents The itself parades. headquarters might be pitched above these walls would have been unit uncovered just held in place by iron pegs. represented by another to the west, which had beautifully plastered The 1995 excavations at Masada were walls. co-directed by B. Arubas, H. Goldfus, and subdivided smaller The legions were into G. Foerster,all of the Hebrew University of units reflectingbattle formations and campJerusalem, and J. Magness of Tufts Uniof men ing arrangements. Each group eight versity. D. Nelson of Northwest College in formed a mess-unit (contubernia), eating Wyoming supervised the excavation of in A and a tent the field. the ramp, and 0. Ron supervised work in together sharing row of such mess-units was uncovered in Camp F. S. Girard of Princeton University the 1995 excavations in Camp F2. Each conwas the computer consultant. Excavations will resume in the summer of 1997. sists of a small rectangular room encircled on three sides by earth and stone benches, with a small vestibule or anteroom in front. Jodi Magness The remains of hearths where the soldiers TuftsUniversity
Inscription
Philistine
Ekron
The thirteenth and final season of the Tel Miqne-Ekron prohas discovereda royaldedicatorytemple inscriptionthatprovides ject conclusive evidence of the identity of Ekron, one of the five capital cities of the Philistines. The five-line inscription bears the name Ekron and the kings Achish and his father Padi. The dedication is inscribed in Phoenician script on a large block of stone and is the first such inscription found in Israel. Excavators uncovered it in the ruins of a temple that formed part of a monumental palace. In 603 BCEduring the campaign of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, attackers burned the palace and the entire city to the ground.
The newly discovered inscription states that Achish, the son of Padi, king of Ekron, built a temple dedicated to a goddess. Achish corresponds to the name Ikausu, who is mentioned in the Assyrian annals of the seventh century BCEas the king of Ekron. Ikausu was one of the twelve kings of Mediterraneanseacoast called upon by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon in the first quarter of the seventh century BCEto provide building materials and their transportfor constructionof Esarhaddon'spalaceat Nineveh. Ashurbanipal, his son and successor,also called upon the vassal kings of the Philistine cities,includingIkausuof Ekron,to supporthis militarycampaign against Egypt and Ethiopia. Padi, the father of Ikausu, is mentioned in the Assyrian King Sennacherib'sannals of his 701 BCE military campaign in which Sennacherib conquered Ekron, which at that time was under Judean control. He restored its status as a city-state and forced Hezekiah,
lia act
1
?-? O
rh
ig /
King of Judah, to reinstate Padi as king of Ekron. The discovery of the inscription was made in mid-July by an archaeologicalteam headed by Professor Trude Dothan, Director of the Philip and Muriel Berman Center for BiblicalArchaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,and ProfessorSeymour Gitin,DorotDirectorand Professorof Archaeology at the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Researchin Jerusalem.They will be joined in its study by Hebrew
The
Roman
Economy
Aqaba of
Aila
University epigrapher Professor Joseph Naveh, who had originally suggested the identificationof TelMiqneas PhilistineEkron.
TelMiqneProjectpress release, adapted .
ProfessorsSeymourGitinand TrudeDothan examine the inscribedstone tablet that containsthe names of Ekronand two of its kings.
The
Project: the
on
In the summer of 1996the RomanAqaba Projectlearned more about this ancient port, now within the modern city of Aqaba in southernJordan.Foundedby the Nabataeans in the first century BCE, Aila soon developed into one of the major international ports on the Red Sea. Variousproducts, including frankincense,myrrh,and spices, were transferred between ships and camel caravans traveling between the Roman Empire and its eastern neighbors. The Romans annexed Nabataea in 106 CEand constructed a great highway, the via nova Traiana, to link Syria with the Red Sea. Aila was the southem terminusof this road.The port continued to prosper in the Byzantine period. A new Islamictown was foundedsoutheastof Byzantine Aila in the mid-seventh century,leading to the decline of the classical city. The project focuses on the evolution of Aila'seconomyduringthe Nabataean,Roman, and Byzantineperiods.The researchincludes a regional environmental and archaeological survey of the environs of Aila and excavation of the city itself to uncover structures and artifacts relating to the economy. In 1996 the projectteam of forty-six foreign staff and students and seventy-five Jordaniansexcavated widely scattered sectors of the city. Excavation resumed within two mudbrick domestic complexes, both founded in the Nabataean period and then reoccupied after the Roman annexation. Various evidence suggested that Aila
Red
Sea
was producing Nabataean common ware pottery in the firstcenturyCE.Diggers uncovered another large segment of the Byzantine city wall, built of stone in the late fourth or early fifth century.The city wall has now been traced for over one hundred meters. Excavation also revealed more of a massive mudbrick structureof the fourth century CE that measured at least 25 by 20 meters.Some internal walls supported arched doorways and vaults and were decorated with painted plaster. A stone-built staircase suggested a second story. The building yielded many artifacts,including over one hundred coins. The particulars of the building plus the eastward orientation of both the structure itself and its associatedcemeterysuggest a Christianbasilica.A bishop of Aila is attested in 325 CE.If this structure was, in fact, a church (and this suggestion is unproven),it would be the earliest known church in Jordan and one of the earliest known in the world. Quantitiesof artifacts,such as pottery, glass, metal, coins, stone, animalbones, and botanical remains shed much light on the city's economy.Ceramic show transportjars (amphorae) that Mediterranean wine and oil was shipped through Aila, as were fine ceramic table wares, exotic stones, copper,
it'
.
-
.,
1? : ?-,, ~ a
and glass. The artifactsalso imply that Aila was not only a centerof tradebut also hosted several industries, including production of pottery, glass, and copper. The project's survey again focused on the hinterland of ancient Aila and southeasternWadiAraba(one of the city'sprincipal access routes). It recorded seventy-five new archaeological sites, bringing its total roster to some 234 sites. The best representedperiods were Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, and Early Roman/Nabataean. The Roman Aqaba Projectis sponsored North Carolina State University and by directedby S. ThomasParker.Principalfunding for the second season was provided by grants from the National Geographic Society, Samuel H. Kress Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Lockheed MartinCorporation,and NCSU. A thirdseason is planned for 1998.
S. ThomasParker North CarolinaState University
IT
ye ;i
a
i'
r
ia~e
S~ Mo?A~ - JA
77"
I> ElizabethAnn PollardLisiexcavates a Byzantineceramicvessel restingupside down within the massivemudbrickstructure(church?)at Aila.
8 •! :
"~~~l
rB i .. i+? +•
al
...
cjaoloi~st591n?;3t~ 5 .:
"
.. ..
I . ' 0• .-3.. • : ,,, . ,9..
:
':
+.. ..
. ::•: .• 7 "',
r. C
.ts .
7+
•+ • ' .
.
.,:••. ;•:<::7• ..7:+ .. .. •++. +;i , •. .•.•-. ?
'
•. '
.
+ " ,,. ',. ++• ,
:
. , ". . •+++::+:;•".t+> ?• ":t. . ++.. :•. . ..+;,, ."+•++]7!
- .. ::+:-,.
Analytical Techniques Near
in
Eastern
Archaeology: Ethnographyand Pottery Study
Can the ethnographicstudy of modern ceramic industries be relevant to understandingthe archaeologicalrecord of the ancient Near East? My research in Egypt addressed this question by studying the actions of modem Egyptian potters and pottery vendors as well as householder interactionwith the pottery vessel. Two of the most interesting aspects of this study were 1) the sideby-side existenceof two differentpottery traditionsand 2) the purposes for which jars were reused. Archaeologists often consider distinct pottery styles to be identifying characteristics of particular societies. This assumption generally holds true in modern Egypt. However, in Middle Egypt two significantly different pottery styles co-exist. The most commonly used vessel for water storage is the ballas.The ballasis a tall, broad, wide-mouthed container.Its base tapers to a rounded point. While this is the most common vessel for storage, the people around Minya in Middle Egypt often prefer the qidra. The qidra is a shorter, round vessel, with a rounded base and a more restrictedmouth. While the ballasis made on the kickwheel, the qidrais made by beating the clay into a rounded depression in the ground. Use of the qidra is localized in ,..~ "
\
~ ?\-"' ": ~ag~ .;.,.
~: ,--(r
?r
ts
???
.r
~.,
si .ii
be put through its neck and out its base, and the ballas is hung from the house rafters as a pigeon nest. Reuse continues until the vessel is reduced to large potsherds. Ethnography reminds us that excavated pots and potsherds originally existed within a completeworld of activity of their users. The static "moment in time" nature of the archaeological record makes it impossible for archaeologists to observe the activities that led to finaldepositionof the pottery.Through looking at these modem use-patterns, the archaeologist may come to see why vessels are distributed as they are in a given excavated context.
SusanEllis-Lopez HeritageCollege
'i
k~l
r
.-,q
U
ibl w
kwCr
A brokenballas is re-usedas a pigeon nesting site.
In'?i: :...1??i~ ,?r I:; ZZli? ?F )?'~? Y\?VU~; Y~ rt ~r~ , ~~rrl 'yZ, 39i~5~'! ??
.....:?;l?-1~Y, E ,'
?'
.i'
preference, but its use does not exclude the ballas. Both the shape and construction of the vessels are significantly different, yet both are found in this area. Householders in the area own one style or the other, as the need for household waterstorage only requiresone vessel. In many public areas, however, both vessels sit side-by-side holding water for passers-by. Observations of pottery reuse also producedmany surprises.When a vessel is broken or otherwise unfit for its original use, it is put into secondary use. Small jars are used for holding salt. Large potsherds hold water for fowl. Large open bowls are used for roosting for ducks and chickens. Broken water storage jars are used for washing. The ballasis the most versatile. When it is no longer permeable and capable of water storage, it is used to make and store cheese. If it is broken, a rope can
,.t. ::e iblicnlArcrza~~
-i ".
r? ?~
II
:i ~" il~
i,'
ru5F
T -?~
~P4~-~g$-
t
p
,, ,,
,??
,? *
,
---
~8~ n~i
r ':::. 1?:; ,? 9
.k?si' `R` ?i.? :,? .1.
and Gender Material Culture: The Archaeology of Religious
JMA
-Journal
of-
Mediterranean
Archaeology
Women
Editors: A. BernardKnapp,John E Cherry
the archaeological significance of T he MediterraneanSea as facilitator or barrier of
By RobertaGilchrist,xii + 222pp. New York:Routledge,1994;$55.00. The author has a twofold purpose for this book to look at the relationship of gender and material culture through a case study and introduce the archaeology of medieval religious women. The first goal is an excitingtopic which will draw many readers, both those interested in gender studies and those interested in the application of sociological topics in archaeology. In order to achieve its goals, the book begins with a rather technical discussion of gender, archaeology, and the relationship between archaeology and history. The next two chapters introduce nunneries and the settings in which they were located,both physicallyand socially.Then the authorlooks at the architecture of nunneries and contraststhatwith the architectureof monasteries for men, trying to find meaning in the differences.Yes, monasteries can be for men or women, nunneries being the alternatename for the women's group. The next chapter presents a spatial analysis of the architecture. The final chapter offers a discussion of alternative religious vocations for medieval women and the evidence for them. Gilchrist accomplishes her first goal beautifully.She has used a balancedapproach to gender studies, neither overemphasizing nor neglecting archaeological evidence. In fact, the subtitle might better read "aninterdisciplinarystudy of religiouswomen." This balanced approach is from the same mold as Carol Meyers' DiscoveringEve (Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1988). Along the way the author accomplishes a secondary goal, using documents "to expand or corroborateratherthan to provide explanation" for archaeological evidence. For people interested in works with a feminist agenda, this book is excellent.
~1?:cn
culture and material culture has long been recognised. Yet only JMA considers the region delimited by the Mediterranean as an archaeological and geographic entity, and providesa medium for syntheticstudiesthatdeal with the broader archaeological and 07 interdisciplinary issues of the circumMediterraneanregion. Aimed at the internationalarchaeological community, JMA publishes material that deals with local or regional production, development, interaction,and change in the Mediterranean world, and with assumptionsthat can be extrapolatedfrom relevant archaeologicaldata.JMAstrivesto presentproblem-orientedstudiesthatdemonstrate a sound methodological and theoreticalframeworkas well as a broadsampling of regionaland temporalissues.The time periodsof interestrangefromthe Palaeolithic through the earlyModern. The areainvestigatedis limited to the islandswithin, and the lands and regions that border or have a demonstrable impact on the MediterraneanSea. Beginning with volume 7 (1994), JMA has moved to a larger format and will publish more materialin each issue. Guidelinesfor Contributorsare availablefrom the editors. SUBSCRIPTION
in volumesof two numbersperyear. JMAappears The price,postageincluded,for Volume8 (1995)is: Individuals Institutions ?20.00 or $30.00 Studentsmaysubscribe at the aboverateless25%, withtheirsubscription the nameand submitting of theirinstitution. address For ordering information call:
2-,
?60.00 or $90.00
Sheffield Academic Press
Tel: +44 (0)114 255 4433 Fax: +44 (0)114 255 4626 e-mail: [email protected] editors: [email protected] [email protected] World Wide Web: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/companies/shap Throughoutthe book, the author seeks alternatives to standard male oriented interpretations of evidence. For example, her basic premise is that nunneries were not unsuccessful monasteries-as is usually thought-but monasteries founded for different purposes than those of their male counterparts.The author also critiques feminist studies that devalue the domestic
al rclzae gis 59i3 rclne~oIo~t091.:
role because it was occupied by women in a subordinate position. She argues that the domestic role can have value regardless of whether the actors are dominant or subordinate. The book practicesa mixed approachto specialist language. Sociological terms are defined before use, and the definitions are restated at a later time if necessary for
IsraelFinkelstein LIVING ON THEFRINGE: TheArchaeology andHistoryof the Negev,SinaiandNeighbouring Regionsin the BronzeandIronAges and isthefirstoverall Thisvolume ofthelong-term settlement synthesis thattookplaceinthearidzonesofthesouthern Levant. demographic processes Thisvastarea, whichincludes theNegev, theSinaipeninsula, thesouthern andtheHejaz Transjordan plateau (NWArabia) despite beingdryandsparsely animportant roleinthehistory oftheancient NearEastasbotha populated, played routeofcontact between moredensely settled andasasource ofvaluable regions rawv materials andnatural resources. examines thepolitical, and economic Finkelstein thattookplaceinthesouthern theprocesses of deserts, demographic processes including sedenterization andnomadization, andtheriseandcollapse ofdesert polity. ISBN 1 85075 555 8 cl ?40.00/$60.00 Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology, 6
210pp
AlexanderH. Joffe
SETTLEMENT ANDSOCIETY INTHE EARLY BRONZE I &II AGE SOUTHERN LEVANT: andContradiction ina Complementarity Small-Scale Complex Society
Thisimportant volume focuses onthetransition Bronze I tothe fromtheEarly Bronze IIperiod to 'urban' whichsawtheshiftfromvillage inthe Early society Levant. thistransition interms oftheemergence of southern Joffediscusses the'state' andtrade-oriented economies. Thebookisthusthefirst 'urbanism', - attempt tocreate a coherent model ofthedevelopment ofsocial inthis complexity IC
area.
Winner oftheIreneLevi-Sala PrizeforbooksontheArchaeology of Israel 1995 ISBN 1 85075 437 3 cl ?25.00/$37.50
Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology, 4
150pp
KathrynA. Bard
FROM FARMERS TOPHARAOHS: fortheRiseof Evidence Mortuary ComplexSocietyin Egypt inEgypt oneoftheearliest states tous,a known By3000BCtherehadevolved statewhoseterritory stretched alongtheNilefromtheDeltatotheAswan. Howdoweexplain theprocesses involved intheriseofthiscomplex society? Muchofthearchaeological forsociocultural evidence atthisperiod comes change fromcemeteries, sothisstudy undertakes ananalysis ofburials attwoPredynastic cemeteries inupper andNagada). Thedatashowa movement (Armant Egypt towards social inEgyptian differentiation andtheriseofa complex increasing society structure. social ISBN 1 85075 387 3 cl ?25.00/$37.50 in Mediterranean
Monographs
Archaeology,
IF
clarity. On the other hand, knowledge of medieval terms such as advowson, rights of multure, and eremitic, is assumed. If a reader is unfamiliarwith medieval religious terms, a dictionary is a handy tool. The author has also forgotten that the majority of her readers will not understand the finer points of medieval religious life without some explanation. For example, there are a number of vague references to
crs
I
I-
?!.1; ??
-
?-
?
i:
?)w
2
150pp
i 40p
the requirements of religious communities which are never spelled out. It would have been appropriate to state clearly at some point the distinctions which are pertinent to the study. In spite of this, the author manages to present religious women as an entity separatefrommen. Therefore,the goal of introducing religious women is achieved to some degree. The book's origin as a dissertation can
~lb~~zy~c~vS{:~t~
~i~
ibl
ical
be readily seen in its technical presentation which includes copious evidence for its assertions and makes for heavy reading. The conclusion of each chapter presents a much more readablesummation of the high points of the chapterand in some cases more clearly states assumptions which were previously vague and confusing. The author makes frequent use of figures, a total of seventy-three,plus five tables. The majority of the figures are floor plans of various nunneries, which are extremely helpful to the readerwho is not familiarwith medieval religious architecture.The figures include a number of surveys and two aerial photographs. The labeling of the floor plans and photos is not as clear as it should be. Arrows pointing to interesting features, or clear labels on features in the photos, surveys and floor plans which were discussed would have added immensely to their usefulness. This book obviously falls outside the realm of biblical archaeology; however, the methods used and the bibliography should prove useful for biblical archaeologists trying to illuminate the role of women. Archaeologists of the pre-Roman periods will never have evidence which is so clearly male and female, but archaeologists of the early church might actually have a similar set of circumstances to investigate. What might prove most useful are the author's comments on using sociological methods in archaeology."Studiesof gender and space," she asserts, "must ask how space reinforces or transforms one's knowledge of how to proceed as a man or woman in one's society" (p. 151).Takeout the referenceto gender, substitutealmost any othersociologicalinterest, and this statement is a valuable guide for archaeologists. Personally, some of the author's comments on feminism, male-oriented interpretations, and walking the fine line between the two extremes were the most thought provoking and therefore useful aspects of the book. These viewpoints bring into question not only interpretationsof the past but understandings of our present situation, which can only be a good thing.
Jean M. Alley Vanderbilt University
Archzaeolo
L~ri?
~? .4
"Ii~
of
Civilizations
the
Ancient
J.M. Sasson,editorin chief, 4 vols.,2,966 pp., 620ills. New York:Charles Scribner'sSons, 1995;US $449. All Biblical Archaeologist readers will probably agree with the editor's opening statement in the Introduction to these volumes: the civilizations of the ancient Near East are the world's oldest, and they were uncommonly significant in human history.They were remarkablydiverse and occupied a large region of the world.... In addition to their historical achievements, these societies have generated culturally vital traditions in art, architecture, literature, and all the other domains normally associated with the word "civilization" (xxv). Thus, the aim of this four-volume reference set is to explore several, but not all, aspects of the emergence and development of the diverse cultures of the ancient Near East from the Early Bronze Age (3200 BCE)
East
Near
to the Hellenistic Era (325 BCE).Cultures described are those of Egypt, Syria,Canaan, Anatolia, Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assur), Arabia, Iran, and Central Asia, although not all of them are given the same importance. The editor in chief was advised by an Egyptologist, John Baines (Oriental Institute, Oxford), a Hittitologist, GaryBeckman(Universityof Michigan), and an archaeologistand arthistorian,Karen S. Rubinson (University of Pennsylvania). The editors encountered a problem with defining exactly the book's geographical framework: Although the bulk of the contribu-
tions to Civilizations of theAncientNear Eastillumines the civilizations that arose in the core areas of Egypt, Syro-Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, we have tried not to ignore developments in the Arabian Peninsula and in Northeast Africa.We have included essays on Aegean and Anatolian cultures commonly neglected by both classicists and
near eastern specialists, such as those of Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes, Troy,Gordion, Lycia, Lydia, and Caria. Occasionally we have found it worthwhile to stray from our principalsetting,either to track significant cultural movements back to their sources beyond the Near East, as in the essays on Central Asia or to document the impact of the Near East on regions beyond its confines, as in the contributions on the Mediterranean islands and on South Asia (xxvii). As a result,it is not always obvious from the title of an article whether or not Egypt is included when the author uses the expression "WesternAsia"or "NearEast"Moreover, in some instances,the same topic is discussed in separate articles relating to different geographical areas of the Near East. The set consists of four thick and wellbound volumes of about 650 to 850 pages each, neatly formatted in two columns. It comprises 189 original essays of between 5,000 and 12,000 words, most of which summarize material already published in scholarly books and journals. The essays were written on request by 180 scholars of
* Tel Kabri
Tel Nami
Tel Dor
&Rlshkelon onHabri, Dor, Reports nami. miqne-Ekron. bhSeymour Edited Gitin
L.Johnson. Barbara IWilliam Trude Dothan. contributions Seymour G.Dever. bymichal With Gitin. lrtzV. Stern and Lawrence E.Stager, Ephraim Wolf-Dietrich niemeier. IN A COLLOQUIUM ATTHE1992 AIA ANNUALMEETING DELIVERED BASEDONPAPERS * TEL KABRI: AEGEAN FRESCO PAINTINGS IN A CANAANITE PALACE by Wolf-Dietrich
Niemeier
* NAMI: A 2ND MILLENNIUM INTERNATIONAL MARITIME TRADING CENTER IN THE MEDITERRANEANby * TEL MIQNE-EKRON:
THE AEGEAN AFFINITIES OF THE SEA PEOPLES' (PHILISTINES')
* Tel
MichalArtzy
SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN
Miqne-
Ashkelon
INIRON AGEI by TrudeDothan * TELMIQNE-EKRON ANDFOREIGN OFECONOMIC B.C.E.: THEIMPACT INTHE 7THCENTURY INNOVATION VASSAL Gitin ONANEo-ASSYRIAN CITY-STATE INFLUENCES CULTURAL bySeymour * TELDOR:A PHOENICIAN-ISRAELITE TRADING CENTER by EphraimStern * ASHKELON: LAND OFTHEHOLY WINEEMPORIUM by BarbaraL. JohnsonandLawrenceE. Stager * ORIENTING EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY THE INNEAR STUDY OFTRADE by WilliamG. Dever 122 pages with 104 figures. ISBN 0-7872-0486-2 Price: AIA Members: $27.00; Non-members: $30.00. Add $4.00 for shipping and handling for first copy and 500 for each additional copy. To order by Visa or MasterCard, call AIA Order Department: (800) 228-0810 or (319) 589-1000 Or send orders and make checks payable to: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 4050 WestmarkDrive, Order Department, Dubuque, IA 52002 I;r "
:;"
;? dr:?~ T~I?-,~Qe4~-r~ ?, ui:s---- ~C~i~LPi~
?
u~
1" """'" iiI!?TTi t\Y1 ~ ~Irclza~YdlOts~ir:3.
4L
cD')'C~p'-iJW*L~;;iev tci r''
~'?r
-fi
;1~_-4~~ ?i'si~?2~
"
VE
bl:
')~i~:,n rt \:??v -
~"~ula-~ii,-s ?~E~.6?:.. -:r . .~*
1
~: ,I. :~
r.
,;
:;r
'n;
;
.
,
... :: . .~LE*dlll? ..t0.rY-:';~-~m~-~jPr
~-
.k"
??;???? I:::-:[`g~ F:"::~ .?i:~ t i~
~ . :-ml;, 1--?.- : ,- :-;i?I:
international repute, each of whom is described briefly at the end of volume IV.Articles are organized in eleven parts of uneven length, each dealing with a different theme: western thought; environment; population; society; history and culture; economy and trade; technology and artisticproduction; religion and science; language; writing and literature;visual and performing arts;and retrospectiveessays. Eachof these eleven parts is described below. Within each part, articles have been arranged in an arbitrary culture-by-culture sequence. All contributions feature, at the end, a useful annotated bibliography for furtherreadingand internalcross-references to some of the more relevant articles in other parts of the set. Many articles are accompaniedby special box features that quote a famous ancient text, focus on an unusual detail, or highlight a topic under debate. The very professionally laid-out text is enhanced by some 400 photographs, 200 line drawings, 50 maps, and many tables, including a comparative chronology. At the end of volume IV, the readerwill certainlyappreciatethe very thorough index filling, inminute letters, 148 pages in three columns! It would be presumptuous for a single reviewer to try to assess the value of each contribution on such an array of topics and periods. However, it does seem worth-while to inform the potential reader of the exact contents of this four-volume set, since the general title and broad sub-titles might lead one to confuse this reference book with an encyclopedia, which it is not. The editors themselves confess as much in their Introduction, having willingly sacrificed "the benefits of a single point of view for the advantage of multiple perspectives" (xxx). Descriptions of the contents of each of the four volumes will be completed with comments on the arrangement of parts in the set, on the relevance of some contributions and the absence of others needed to cover satisfactorily the topic.
In addition to their historicalachievements, these societies have generated culturally vital traditionsin art, architecture,literature, and all the other domains normally associated with the word "civilization." the westernworld, be thatof:Egypt in ancient Greekand Roman (L•szloIKikosy)and European thought (Helen Whitehouse), or Mesopotamiain Greek(Am6lieKuhrt),European (JohnM. Lundquist),and even modem thought (John Maier). As thought is often related to religious thinking in the study of ancient civilizations, MartinL. West weighs the influence of "The Ancient Near Eastern Myths in Classical GreekReligiousThought,"while M. J.Geller examines "The Influence of Ancient Mesopotamia on Hellenistic Judaism,"and Morgens Trolle Larsen summarizes "The Babel/Bible Controversyand ItsAftermath." Editors considered Peter T. Daniels's article on the history of "TheDecipherment of Ancient Near Eastern Scripts" to fit better in this section than part 9 (see below) probably because ancient writing is a very informativeexpression of past civilizations's
thought. Part2: TheEnvironmentdescribes the climate fluctuations (KarlW. Butzer),flora and fauna (Allan S. Gilbert)of the ancient world, and then discusses the environment's role in Synopsis shaping the political and economic develVolume I opment of the Middle East:"TheAgricultural Part1:TheAncientNearEastin Western Cycle, Farming, and WaterManagement in the Ancient Near East"(ChristopherJ. Eyre). Thoughtevaluates the impact of the ancient Near East on the ideas and institutions of Special emphases are given to vegetables
;s?
~r:ki "?i!:":Y~ ." ;w??'' '? .` .pe
h-
-
-?--r;e
~-:?-?
i,".
i.
^~?~ ?r
':?
I~i
?). ??-. ?~i ~~~;i~py~ 1?9
:
:
~4a.',h r?
n
'()'"' *P~J, ?'~t-,?\~1
''L.r~'o~s f.l~t
?~LD~jl~S~YSI~(C~ ~:? : ,t ,'?
I?.
; .2?i
identity through geographical diversity, either in Egypt (Anthony Leahy), Anatolia (Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate), or Mesopotamia where two very different ways of life coexisted: urbanism (Elizabeth C. Stone) and nomadism (Glenn M. Schwartz). Part4: SocialInstitutionsinvestigates several types of institutionsancient peoples devised to give order and purpose to their lives. The public institutions examined are: A. state administration in Egypt (Ronald J.. Leprohon); Mesopotamia (J. N. Postgate); Hittite Anatolia (Gary Beckman);and Canaan and Ancient Israel(G6sta W.Ahlstr6m); B. military organization, which is intimately linked to state administration, in Egypt (Alan R. Schulman);Mesopotamia (Stephanie Dalley); and Hittite Anatolia (Richard H. Beal); C. social and economic organizationof palaces and temples, the two main secular and religious symbols of public administration,in Egypt(DavidO'Connor); and Mesopotamia (JohnE Robertson),supplemented with architecturalpresentations of what palaces and temples were like in Egypt (JohnBaines),Mesopotamia (Michael Roaf),and Canaanand AncientIsrael(William G. Dever), an editorial choice that might be justified by the fact that these large public structures represent the results of the evolution of specific social institutions. Several legal and social institutions that ruled people's life also existed, along with the public ones, in Egypt (David Lorton), Mesopotamia (Samuel Greengus), Hittite Anatolia (HarryA. Hoffner,Jr.),Achaemenid Iran(PierreBriant),and Canaanand Ancient Israel (Hector Avalos). As a complement to this section, some aspects of privatelife are describedfor Egypt
(Geraldine Pinch), Mesopotamia (Marten Stol), Hittite Anatolia (Fiorella Imparati), and Canaan and Ancient Israel (Mayer I. Gruber),including clothing for Egypt (Rosalind M. H. Janssen) and Mesopotamia (Dominique Collon). Although artisansand artists that practiced in Egypt (Rosemarie
IJ
?i
?r:r ~C hl?I . ~r T~C'eU?IM;C~~~Ly ~l~f. 1
(JaneM. Renfrew)and animalhusbandry (BrianHesse) in the ancient Near Eastern human diet. The very brief Part3: Populationanalyzes the movement of peoples across regions and the cultivation of regional
?-a? .~"; "
iQ ,,3,, iblical Archad w
;:L
L
.';
*-~d~~
~$
-"'"
?-ar?~
??3
8% .~-~n$ b-;?'
::;~;:
?-?: ::
-r
?
Drenkhahn)and Mesopotamia (Donald Matthews) formed specific social classes resulting from the social organization at that time, the topic might have been more relevant to the section on artistic production (part 7) or visual and performing arts (part 10). Volume II The entiresecond volume is devoted to Part5: HistoryandCulturewhich aims at presenting an overview of the historical evolution and socio-political development in different geographical areas of Western Asia: Egypt, Mesopotamia,Iran,Anatolia,Syria-Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. As an appropriate introduction to this part, the contribution by Frederick H. Cryer focuses on "Chronology: Issues and Problems" for the periods concerned. For Egypt, FekriA. Hassan describes its prehistoricdevelopment, BarryJ. Kemp tells us how it was unified and urbanized, and William J. Murnane produces an overview of its historicalperiods. Certainof those periods are given more importance than others: the Middle Kingdom (Detlef Franke) and the era of Ramesses II (KennethA. Kitchen). Furthermore, the editorial committee felt that the Kingdom of Kush deserved a special treatment(WilliamY.Adams). One might wonder what the articleson "Buildersof the Pyramids" (Rainer Stadelmann) and Akhetaten (Rolf Krauss) are doing in this section, since both deal more with art and archaeology and would have been more at home in part 10 (see below). The history of Western Asia from the times of hunting and gathering societies to the appearance of writing at the end of the Uruk period is told by Hans J. Nissen and is continued to the end of the Neo-Babylonian period, for Mesopotamia only, by Dominique Charpin.The volume pays special attention to a number of great figures from those times and a few important cities, the selection of which is entirely arbitrary: the kings of Akkad (Sabina Franke),Shulgi of Ur (JacobKlein), Shamshi-Adad (Pierre Villard), the assyrian colony of Kanesh in Anatolia (Klass R. Veenhof),the site of Mari (Jean-ClaudeMargueron),king Hammurabi of Babylon (Jack M. Sasson), the Kassites (WalterSommerfeld),the kingdom of Mitanni Z,
'W V=
?,,
4'.ct5'r
rchae!
The unsystematic treatment of each theme and of each cultural area is ... the
majorcriticismto addressto this set designed to serve as a reference book. (GemotWilhelm)-strangely enough,inserted with articleson Syria-Palestine--theprovincial town of Nuzi (MaynardPaul Maidman), Esarhaddon: king of Assyria (ErleLeichty), Assyrian rule of conquered territory(A. Kirk Grayson), and Nabonidus king of Babylon (Paul-Alain Beaulieu). When the readerreachesIran,the reader might be surprised to find "The Art and Archaeology of WesternIranin Prehistory" (OscarShiteMuscarella)included here,while the art and archaeology of the Achaemenid Empire is included in part 10, volume IV! The history of Elam and Achaemenid Persia is recounted by Burchard Brentjes,that of Susa and Susiana in the second millennium by Francois Vallat, and that of the Persian Empire by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Editors thought they should expand the area of WesternAsia to include CentralAsia and the Caucasus in Bronze Age (Philip L. Kohl) and in IronAge (B.A. Litvinsky).This decision is to be welcome, for this region has been neglected in the past in general works on the Near East such as this one. In Anatolia, history begins with the Hittite Empire(. G. Macqueen),with an emphasis on king Khattushili III (Theo P. J. van den Hout), and continues with the kingdom of Urartu (Paul E. Zimansky), the Neo-Hittite City-States of Karkamish and Karatepe in North Syria (J.D. Hawkins)--misplaced, in my opinion, with Syria-Palestine-Phrygia (G. Kenneth Sams), Lycia (TrevorR. Bryce), PR
"r
593
~~
Lydia (Crawford M. Greenewalt, Jr.), and Caria (John D. Ray). Hans Giinter Jansen describes the findings at Troy, emphasizing the link between the Mediterranean world and the Hittites. An overview of the Bronzeand Iron Ages of Syria-Palestineis given by Niels Peter Lemche. It is supplemented with separate descriptions of: Ebla (Lucio Milano),Ugarit (W.H. van Soldt),Amorite tribes (Robert M. Whiting), the Sea-Peoples and the Philistines (Trude Dothan), the Aramaeans (Paul E. Dion), Ahab of Israeland Jehoshaphatof Judah (Joseph Blenkinsopp), and the Phoenicians (Edward Lipinski). This part,and consequently this volume, closes with contributionsby R6my Boucharlat on the "Archaeology and Artifacts of the Arabian Peninsula" and by M. C. A. Macdonald on "North Arabia in the FirstMillennium BCE." Another excursion outside the traditional boundaries of the ancient Near East for which the editors should be congratulated. However, more archaeological sites deserved the full description given for Mari, Ebla, and Ugarit. Certainly more sites than these three have yielded large quantities of literarydocuments or archaeological monuments upon which the history of the AncientWesternAsia is based. Consequently, as the providers of the primary sources of historical evidence, more attention should have been paid to a greaternumberof archaeological sites. More generally, while the selection of articles by the editorial committee had to be made from the contributions they received, this reference book would have gained more depth if a thorough and systematic coverage had been given to both historical events and archaeological sites that produced significant public structures and large state archives. Volume III Part 6: Economyand Tradebegins with discussions of the general characteristicsof the economy of Egypt (Edward Bleiberg) and Western Asia with a particular emphasis on Mesopotamia for the latter (Norman Yoffee). Michael C. Astour presents the main overland trade routes used in antiquity in Western Asia, excluding Egypt. Sea transportation is approached through George "
Green); theology, priests, and worship in Egypt (Herman te Velde), Mesopotamia (F.A. M. Wiggermann),HittiteAnatolia(Gregory McMahon),Canaan and Ancient Israel (Karel van der Toorn), and in Elam and AchaemenidIran(HeidemarieKoch);prayers in Egypt (John L. Foster), Mesopotamia (William W. Hallo), and Hittite Anatolia (Johan de Roos); death and the afterlife in Egyptian(LeonardH. Lesko),Mesopotamian (Jo Ann Scurlock), Hittite (Volkert Haas), and Hebrew Thought (Paolo Xella); witchcraft, magic, and divination in Egypt (J.F. Borghouts), Mesopotamia (WalterFarber), andArtisticProduction Hittite Anatolia (Gabriella Frantz-Szabo), Part7:Technology and in Canaan and Ancient Israel (Jeandescribes briefly a selection of technologiMichel de Tarragon).Finally,prophecy and cal innovations and their role in historical and economic developments in the Near apocalyptics is treated by James C. Vanderkam for the entire ancient Near East. East in general, such as: mining and metContributionson sciencedeal with: medalwork (James D. Muhly)-with a note by K. Aslihan Yener on tin processing in Anaicine, surgery, and public health in Egypt tolia; fortification of cities (Amihai Mazar), (Kent R. Weeks) and Mesopotamia (Robert pottery (FrederickR Matson);textiles (Carol D. Biggs); mathematics, astronomy,and calendars in Egypt (Gay Robins) and Bier);and cylinder seals and scarabs (Holly Pittman). Regarding jewelry and personal Mesopotamia(FrancescaRochbergand Marornaments,therearespecificarticlesby James vin A. Powell). F.Romano on Egypt, by Zainab Bahrani on Jean-Jacques Glassner's article on Western Asia, and by Jeanny Vorys Canby "Progress, Science, and the Use of Knowon Anatolia. Similarly, furniture is treated ledge in Ancient Mesopotamia" could be separately, in Egypt by Peter der Manuelian considered as some sort of conclusion for this section although it is not placed in the and in Western Asia by Elizabeth Simpson. list of contributions as such. Incidently,artiFinally, Ann C. Gunter makes a few very des bearingon religionaremixed with others general comments on some fabricationtechon science; there is no separation between niques for artifacts made out of stone, the two. clay, metal, glass, wood, bone, ivory, shell, and textile, some of which are more thorVolume IV Part 9: Language,Writing,andLiteraoughly explained in other articles. tureaddresses, at the start,the still unsolved This is another section that could have been better covered, particularlysince mateproblem of the origin of writing as a result rial remains constitute such a large portion of a system of record keeping (Denise of our knowledge of the ancient Near Schmandt-Besserat). East. Afterwards, numerous languages are In Part 8, editors combined Religionand presented by various scholars:Sumerian(D. Sciencesince, at that time and in that region, O. Edzard), Semitic (John Huehnergard)-with a separatearticleon the semiticalphabet the two concepts overlapped. Giorgio Buccellati's article on "Ethics and Piety in (William D. Whitt), Egyptian and other the Ancient Near East"is offeredas an intro- Afroasiatic languages (Antonio Loprieno), duction for this part. Indo-European languages of Anatolia (H. understand: one should Melchert)and finally less-understood Craig By religion, in and (Jacobus (Gene B. Gragg). Following this languages Egypt myth myth-making are overviews of Egyptian (Donald B. van Dijk), Mesopotamia (W. G. Lambert), Hittite Anatolia (Ren6Lebrun),and Canaan Redford), Sumerian (Piotr Michalowski), Akkadian (Jean Bottiro), Hittite and Hurand Ancient Israel (Mark Stratton Smith); religious iconography in use in Egypt (Erik rian (Alfonso Archi), and Canaanite,ancient Israelite and Phoenician (Simon B. Parker) Hornung) and Mesopotamia (Anthony F.Bass's comments on sea and river craft in the ancient Near East,including Egypt. This is followed by A. Bernard Knapp's consideration of trade relationships between the Near East and islands in the Mediterranean during the Middle and LateBronzeAge and D. T.Potts' of traderelationswith South Asia and Northeast Africa. Methods of exchange are also described for WesternAsia in general (Daniel C. Snell) and AchaemenidBabylonin particular(Francis Joannes), as is the process of communication through messengers and ambassadorsin WesternAsia (GaryH. Oiler).
AAls . . .;
"
' "••'• " ....
tfI'IT .
9:
ib hcal
literatures. Some particular literary genres are more precisely defined, such as: tales of magic and wonder fromEgypt (SusanTower Hollis); autobiographies in Egypt (Olivier Perdu) and WesternAsia (EdwardL. Greenstein); epic tales from Sumer (Bendt Alster), one of these being Gilgamesh (William Moran), and more on the deeds of kings (Mario Liverani) or flood narratives (Brian B. Schmidt); Mesopotamian lexicography (Miguel Civil);Near Easternhistoriography (Johnvan Seters),humor and wit (Benjamin R. Foster), and love lyrics (Joan Goodnick Westenholz). More general aspects of literacyas a culturalfactorare describedby: H. Vanstiphout, "Memory and Literacy in Western Asia;" J. A. Black and W. J. Tait, "Archives and Librariesin the Ancient Near East";Edward F. Wentes, "Scribes of Egypt" and Laurie E. Pearce, "Scribesof Mesopotamia." There is a special presentation of the Amarna lettersfromCanaan(ShlomoIzreel) and a discussion on the contemplative life in the ancient Near East as we can imagine it from literary productions (James L. Crenshaw).
Artsexplains andPerforming Part10:Visual the aesthetic principles, techniques, and forms that constitute ancient art. "Art and Ideologyin AncientWesternAsia"by Michelle I. Marcus might have been a good introductory article for this section, had it dealt with more thanjust the neo-Assyrianperiod. "Proportions in Ancient Near Eastern Art" (Guitty Azarpay) and "Aesthetics in Ancient Mesopotamian Art" (IreneJ. Winter),with a note on the Egyptiancounterpart by John Baines, fill the section's purpose very well. A more pragmatic approach to visual arts is developed in the survey of reliefs, statuary,and monumentalpaintingsin Egypt (RobertSteven Bianchi)and in Mesopotamia (Agnbs Spycket).ForAnatolia, architectural decorations,statuary,and stelaearedescribed by Kay Kohlmeyer.MargaretCool Root gives an overview of our stateof knowledgeregarding the "Art and Archaeology of the Achaemenid Empire" and Annie Caubet does the same for "Art and Architecture in Canaan and Ancient Israel." There is only one thematic essay dealing with visual arts, and it is on "EroticArt in the Ancient Near East"(FrancesPinnock).
i
Archae AhJ .."
Performing arts are here restricted to music and dance in Egypt (RobertD. Anderson), an article based mostly on artistic representations, Mesopotamia (Anne Draffkorn Kilmer), using observationsfromiconographicrepresentation, remains of actual musical instruments recovered and cuneiform tablets, and Hittite Anatolia (Stefano de Martino). Most of the articles placed in this part could have been included in the
andArtisticProsection on Technology duction. Part 11:RetrospectiveEssays,the last part, contains seven especially appealing memoirsby leadingscholarsin which they recollect and discuss their contributions to ancient Near Eastern scholarship: "autobiographicalsketches by prominent scholars who have succumbed to the lure of these civilizations," as the editors put it (xxxi). Although very touching and charming,one might question the inclusion of such unusual pieces of literature in a text designed as a reference work. Edith Porada writes a personal statement about her careerin the field of ancient Near Easternart that has spanned over half a century. It is quite amusing to realize thatshe was initiallypushed to become interested in glyptic art, a field in which she has made herself quite a reputation. FrankHole explains how anthropological archaeology came to the Near East and how he was in part responsible for the application of this new approach, particularly in the way fieldwork should be carriedout. A fascinatingstory for those dedicated to the development of this new way to tackle old problems. Seton Lloyd relates his experiences in the 1930s as a member of Frankfort'sexpedition to the Diyala valley in Iraq.In addition to being a sensitive reminiscence, recapturing the spirit of these "good old days," it is also an eyewitness account of the class of professional excavators that produced so much of the material remains on which we now found most of our interpretations of the past. Thornkild Jacobsen tells us in detail about his very busy lifetime's search for Sumer and Akkad in ancient texts, from the time of his study in Denmark through his career at the Oriental Institute of the
Bi
W1a-t
r
--...t
it:
...the most appealing, original,and comprehensive reference book on this enormouslyrich area of study. University of Chicago, where he served as director for a while, and at the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Literaturesat Harvard University where he was professor of Assyriology. T. G. H. James provides us with a very personalreview of the development of Egyptology after forty years of continuous professional involvement in the Department of EgyptianAntiquitiesof the BritishMuseum in London. Hans G. Gilterbock recalls how he participated in the resurrection of the Hittites as an epigrapher in spite of serious political problems that forced him into exile in the United States, where he made a successful careerat the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. At last, Cyrus H. Gordon gives his own account of his work on such various topics as Hittite language, Nuzi tablets,Ugaritic texts, and Eblaite.He mastered a global perspective of the ancient Near East in a unique manner.His personal recollectionof his own career should be complemented with texts published by his friends in a previous issue
literature. Some of the eleven parts of this set have been neglected relative to others. For instance, only 120 out of ca. 2800 pages of text (leaving aside the index) were devoted to Economy and Trade, i.e. a meagre four percent of the entire set! Furthermore, articles inserted into this part are rather varied and eclectic. The unsystematic treatment of each theme and of each culturalareais, in my mind, the major criticism to address to this set designed to serve as a reference book. The editors seem aware of this situation, stating: To the authors we suggested very briefly what topics and themes might be explored in their essays. Other than that, we left authors to treat their topics in whatever manner they thought best. We were aware that by inviting a large number of authors without setting strict guidelines or imposing a rigid format we risked spawning some imbalance in the treatment of topics" (xxix). ....and so it happened! Instead of trying to furnish an intellectualjustificationfor this situation, the editors admit that "it cannot
be said thatCivilizations of theAncientNear East has a complete sampling from all the articulationsnow currentin the field" (xxxi). A puzzling confession for such a reference work that has the appearance, the size, and the weight...of an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, the publication of Civi-
NearEast"fillsa serious lizations oftheAncient
void in reference literature" (xxxii), insofar as it brings together for the first time in one accessible resourcescholarship that was previously scattered in hundreds of monographs and journal articles. It marks a significantstep in ancientNear Easternscholarshipand will be indispensablein the future to those interestedin ancient history,ancient the Biblical of literature,arthistory,religiousstudies,anthroArchaeologist (59:1[1996]). pology, and archaeology. Contributions by Although most of the contributions are reputable scholars from all over the world very broadand summarizethe stateof knowledge in this wide field of AncientCivilizations make this set, at the moment,the most appealof theAncient Near East, a few are quite ing, original, and comprehensive reference narrow and address specific issues of interbook on this enormously rich area of study. est for some scholars only. It would have Michel Fortin been better in addressing a general audience UniversitiLaval with a broad to stick to overview articles very on to those focused perspective, as opposed scholarly problems still debated in the
9
'0~L4'" ?
U-1
iJ' ~??
'
IN THE CAUGHT ELECTRONIC
a
I try to use the Internetand the Web in my art and archaeology courses, not so much as research tools (I find them not yet developed enough),but as experiments in designing new ways of approaching teaching and learning. So I design projects for the students, and test their results - thus, they help me learn new technology while they learn to evaluate what they find. The results of their projects I have downloaded as new web-sites; and of course my dog Max has gotten into the act with his own home-page, Max'sDog Page (see boxes).
Student InternetProjects
IN
OPPORTUNITIES V". a t Y
NET
ARCHAEOLOGY
1
bb
.Iw t -S .1 GA
=\3 -Za~A
,,,
,,1
T7
? Sf..
..
44
16mu
bc
-
r
,
The last column was written as stuIBM .Pb dents in my Greekartclass were turning in the usual term projects:architectural ''u u41 drafting, vase-painting iconography, sculpture and society.But some projects The MadabaMapof Jerusalemis the oldest detailed cartographicdocument in the word. Made about the year 565 CEfrom over two millioncolored stone cubes, the map formed the involved computers. I was interested in learning more about locating webmosaicfloor of a Byzantinechurchin the biblicaltown of Medeba,today Madabain Jordan. It depicted the Holyland from Lebanonin the northto Egyptin the south. Jerusalem,the sites with images of Greek art, and I'm still much intrigued about the cre- HolyCity,constitutesthe earliest urbanmapping known. followed a linkto We began our tripto the map at http://www.duke.edu/web/jyounger/, ation of web-courses. and found the map at I first gathered a team of students http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/ABZU_NEW.HTML, As always, the originalcompressed"JPEG" to design a mini-Greekart course using image http://www.israel.org/mfa/maps.html. reworked to make it of downloaded from the Web has been slides. them quality. publication extensively personal Downloading as gif-files took time (some 7 to 8 minutes per slide) and, if the resolution was highest (from 300 K wrote my doctoral dissertation (on a typewriter with carbon to 1 MBper slide),it consumed a lot of memory.Only aboutl50 paper), I laugh. Given this predilection, I wanted the students to show slides fit on a CD-but from good files we could crop and me howthey gatheredinformation,and what computersearchreduce to suit our purpose. Other members of the team created a text around these images and the bare bones of engines could do. I myself have used some from time to time. an inter-linked web site. The result is modest-it's "under Many I can make use of at home by logging into the uniconstruction," but I plan to have future classes work on versity library system. I can't keep track of them all, though, it. their commands and URLs (Universal Resource Locators = improving "addresses"),so I depend greatly on the patience of the kind Search people behind the reference desk. But I have discovered that Engines Computer The second student projectinvolved locating sites in other it is possible to look up the TOC (Table of Contents) for certain periodicals (like BA!),for a specific volume and year, archaeologies -but how? Over the last couple of years and discover the exact author,title, and page numbers-very students seem to be getting dependent on computerized If a for completing bibliographies. for research. resource isn't "onconvenient search-engines doing But what if a goal were less specific? I designed three proline," it "doesn't exist." Well, we all know this is nonsense, but the belief that relevantknowledge is contemporaryknow- jects.The firsttwo were to discover web-sites on "Underwater Archaeology"and "Mayanarchaeology";I already had some ledge parallels the general lack of student interest in history before they were born. I sympathize of course; the new tech- acquaintance with these web-sites, and I was interested in nology is so, well, new, it makes everything before the 1970s what students could come up with on their own. For underseem laughable - at least when I think back at how I water archaeology, the student presented a fairly complete Caughtin the Net
59:3(1996) BiblicalArchaeologist
191
list of sites and programs, while for Mayan the two students found an additional twelve sites to the ones I knew about already. The third project posed a greater challenge for its topic was vague: sites that contained images of Greek and Roman art. In the final report the student expressed frustration at having had to trackdown lots of promising titles only to find most did not pan out.
Searchingthe Net
While I was impressed by the student results, I was also intrigued by the difficulties. So I attempted one of my own. Last issue you may remember,my dog Max had poked his nose into this column, as curious pointers do. It started off as a joke, but the editor asked for a photo, and once Max sniffed fame he was off and running. This suggested therefore a decent excuse for trying out search engines: to discover web-sites for "The History of the Dog." I used two types of search engines, Gopher servers that you access from your user-prompt on the Internet and Net Searchesthat you access from your Webbrowser (in this case, Netscape). I found the two Gopher servers not very helpful for the beginner-gophering can in fact be very useful, and I'll have to devote more time to it in a future column. There are two major search engines, Veronica and Archie (cute, no?). For "Veronica,"log into the Internet and at your user prompt, type in "gopher"; follow "Other Information Servers" and "SearchGopherspaceusing Veronica."I firstselected "Gopher Directories by Title"(at NYSERNet),and typed in the words "dog history". This should have yielded every site that had "dog" and "history"in its title--I got nothing. So I simplified the search string to just "dog" and got eighty-two web titles; none looked at all interesting, but at least it was simple searching.So, I changed to "GopherSpaceby Title"(again NYSERNet)and found thirteen titles for "dog history"--but, again, none seemed like anything I wanted. For "Archie,"at my user prompt, I typed in "archiedog" and got about fifteen results, but they whizzed by so fast I couldn't examine them. I typed "archiedog I less" to get the information screen-by-screen, and though I could now read them, I found the entries incomprehensible. "Archie"apparently gives you the host and pathways for gophering, but
when I tried one I did not get very far. In any case, though "Archie" was assuring me that each item did indeed have something to do with "dog," seeing just the Gopher URL, I was baffled as to how. So I turned to the search engines available over Netscape (see "Ready,Set, 'Search'"by JackEgan in the April 29 issue of U.S. News & World Report). Once you have accessed your web-server, you can click on a button in most browsers (my Netscape search button is labeled "Net Search")and get a large menu of numerous search engines. I tried six, and as I did so I began to understand the frustration of my students. First, do avail yourself of the concise help menu that instructs you how to enter a search string. On "Lycos,"the simple word "dog" came up with 39,049 sites! With most of these search engines you can enter strings like "+dog -cat," meaning you want web-sites that concern dogs, not cats. Second, you should know that what you are searching for is not necessarily the web-site title, but rather a descriptionof the web-site. A simple search for "dog AND history" (690 sites) included the home-page of a sophomore "history" major who liked "dogs." Whatever string I typed in, it seemed, I got a mish-mash of sites. While I did find a few that had something to do with "TheHistory of the Dog," as well as a few others that looked interesting ("TheCat in History"), most were either useless, irreverent(or worse!), or incomprehensible-what did "Bird News" have to do with dogs? I also began to weary of the constant, jazzy, distracting advertisements. It was curious though: after a half-day of surfing for dog history, I found almost nothing I could use. Those sites that looked promising had questionable quality. Still, I felt gratified after all this work: sure, I had found little and was tired and frustrated, but finally the glitz had began to wear off, the faddishness and newness of the toy had began to bore. I clearly need to talk with my students about this next term-perhaps they too are tiredof the frustration,and maybe we all need to rediscover, together, research in (horrors!)the library. If you have any comments or questions, or would like to see a topic discussed, e-mail me: [email protected] or check out my Web home page: http:/ /www.duke.edu/ web/jyounger/.
Other Archaeological Gateway Sites produced from student projects, Spring 1996 Sites of illustrationsof Greekart: http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/GrkArt.sites/ compiled by AnthonyWai Mayanarchaeology: http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/Mayan.sites/ compiled by John Kelvieand Jodi Colangelo Nauticalor UnderwaterArchaeology: http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/Nautical.sites/ compiled by LesAiello
192
BiblicalArchaeologist 59:3(1996)
Max'sDog Page Max'sFriendis putting together a "Historyof the Dog" web-site: At the http://www.duke.edu/web/jyounger/Maxs.Dog.FAQs/ moment, it contains a few other web sites and some referencesto studies about the dog in classicalGreece,but we need more information.Ifyou have something you'd like to contribute,please e-mail Max'sFriend: [email protected].
Caughtin the Net
Explorethehistoryandcultureof theancieh OX
T.HE
ODENC.YC.LOEIO
GY ARC7H 4 ar j s T
IN
VOLUMES
5
r
EDITORIN CHIEF:ERIc M. MEYERS,DuKE UNIVERSITY iirB,,
~r?g i
Sn 1,125 entries, this unique reference explores lthe archaeological data relating to the ancient Near East-the sites, languages, material culture, archaeologicalmethods, organizationsand institutions, and major excavatorsand scholarsof the field. Ranging
r W~I: i
peoples, there are specialized entries on all aspects of the material cultural remains such as ceramics, glass, and metal. And synthetic
?;
i i ~jV
'
?
I~
I
i
'.--~BsB.~-iP~L~I~~i~ a
i?!
I ~3,
a c
i
''i g?_ :
;:
i
and students of archaeology,as well as ancient art and architecture, languages,history,and religion. FALL 220 LINE 1996 2480 PP.;415 HALFTONES, 30 MAPS DRAWINGS, FOR THE 5-VOLUME SET
To ORDER OR FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL 1-800-451-7556. IN CANADA, PLEASE CALL 1-800-387-8020. PRICE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND APPLIES ONLY IN THE U.S. FOR A BROCHURE, PLEASE CALL 212-726-6087.
UNIVERSITY
BBB
L ~IS~i :s
Published under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research, the encyclopedia brings greater breadth to the study of archaeologyin the biblicalworld. It is a valuableresourcefor scholars
OXFORD
:i-
?,.
articles on such subjects as medicine and music allow researchersto pursue topics not normallyassociatedwith archaeologyin a new way.
$575.00
i
C,
the coastalregions of North and East Africa. In addition to up-to-datesite reportsand entrieson ancient places and
""* it
~-:
from prehistorictimes to the earlycenturiesof the rise of Islam, it covers the civilizations of Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia,Anatolia, Iran,Arabia,Cyprus, Egypt, and
I:
r
PRESS
SiclmSiqmimFigune This newly discovered figurine
stands a scant 9.52 cm tall. Beyond its beguiling beauty,its uniqueness lies in its apparentsynthesisof two different Chalcolithicartistic traditions:"abstract"stone, violinshape figurinesand more representationalivorystatuettes. CNRS Barazzani, Photoby Marolaine
