0
oo Pevspeci
LeL o
oi the Ancient Worldfrom Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean eft
VoL58 No.1
March1995
VW .7.
:Wyk". ?
:
.T•
"
21s
4t.
••
"
Biblical Archaeo ?
i
i
il
l
ii
to the Mediterranean Perspectiveson theAncientWorldfromMesopotamia A Publicationof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch
2
Volume58 Number1
March1995
Herdersor Homesteaders? A NeolithicFarmin WadiZiqlab, Jordan E. B. Banning
Around 8000 BCE,the early farming villages of the Neolithic revolution disappeared. Explanations have been offered-from invasions, to socio-political dysfunction-but still the question remains: where did the villagers go? Through systematic sampling of steam terraces,the Wadi Ziqlab Project is exposing Late Neolithic campsites and other small sites that hold the promise of putting the heirs of the first villagers back on the map.
IL
14
page 2
SearchingforBenchmarksin the BiblicalWorld: as FieldArchaeologist TheDevelopment ofJosephA.Callaway GeraldL.Mattingly
Collected as carefully as his stratigraphic data, Callaway's correspondence opens a revealing vista on his archaeological life. Letters show that Albright,Wright,and Kenyon regarded him as an exemplary field archaeologist. Apart from his field work, Callaway left a legacy of contributions to the dialogue between archaeological and biblical research.
26 ;cl;4
NewLighton KingNarmerandthe Protodynastic Egyptian
Presencein Canaan
ThomasE. Levy,EdwinC.M.van den Brink,YuvalGoren,and DavidAlon Immortalized on a stunning palette, Narmer, the last king of Egyptian Dynasty 0, has surfaced in the southern Negev in the form of his serekh (royal emblem) incised on the shoulder of an Egyptian storejar. Clear stratigraphy bolsters the value of this early manifestation of relations between Egypt and the southern Levant.
VI?
4-P
37 page 14
~t'r: yr?l.rr J :
,I R r: r
sy~ii
;J~ .? L ?al.
?: :1.
49
W ;?
~
The HalakhicLetter(MMT) details debates over sacrificial law and ritual purity that fueled the schism that produced the Qumran sect. Originating among disaffected Sadducees, the letter derives from an early point in the sect's history.When the Hasmonean high priesthood failed to respond, the dissident group withdrew into the wilderness by the shores of the Dead Sea.
i-s-
~F r!
Sect OriginandEarlyHistoryoftheQumran
LawrenceH. Schiffman
Notes,News,andReviews Flying Amphoras! Bob Hohlfelder investigates the mysterious "Cave of the Amphoras'"off the coast of Cyprus. Plus, excavations at Qadir H6ytik and a review of the new edition of Finegan'sclassic TheArchaeologyof the New Testamnent.
rx~,l
page 49
ON THECOVER: The recently discovered royal emblem (serekh sign) of Narmer incised on a storejar sherd excavated from the Halif Terrace,Israel,is superimposed upon the verso of the Narmer Palette. Narmer,last king of the Egyptian Dynasty O,prepares to strike a captive from the Delta region.
American
of
Schools
Oriental
Research
OF
o mvx$
I
1995-1996 Boardof Trustees P.E.MacAllister,Chairman of theBoani RobertJohnston,Vice-Chairman KevinG. O'Connell,Vice-Chairman of theBoanrd EricM. Meyers,President R.Thomas Schaub,FirstVice-President, Puiblications CAP Joe D. Seger,Vice-President, Donald Wimmer,Vice-President Corpomtion Treasurer Finance, W.H. Holden Gibbs,Vice-President Public Relations Vice-President, Shufro, T. Lydie ErnestFrerichs,Vice-President-at-Large JamesE Ross,Secretary
Classof 1995
Classof 1996
Classof 1997
David Albright PaulaBurger JerryCooper KevinG. O'Connell R.ThomasSchaub GoughT.Thompson
ErnestFrerichs W. H. Holden Gibbs RobertJohnston JamesMuhly JonathanRosen RichardScheuer LydieShufro
CharlesHarris JeffreyKurzweil George Landes P.E.MacAllister James E Ross Joe D.Seger GeraldVincent
HonoraryTrustees
Trustees Corporation
AlexanderAbraham FrankMoore Cross Norma Kershaw Philip King C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky GoergeLandes Leon Levy MartinMeyerson JohnWarrington
PaulY.Hoskisson JohnMcRay WalterRast Donald Wimmer
Trustees OverseasInstitutesandCommittee ElizabethCarter,Baghdad GiraudFoster,CAARI MichaelFuller,Damascus ArtemisJoukowsky,ACOR J.MaxwellMiller,AIAR RandolphB.Old,ACOR Andrew Oliver,CAARI AIAR JoyUngerleider-Mayersont,
AffiliateInstitutionalTrustees Stephen L. Dyson, ADA Holland Hendrix,SBL David I Owen, AOS
AdvisoryBoard
Gus VanBeek EugeneGrant Alfred Gottschalk Eileen Guggenheim-Wilkinson ElizabethMoynihan LawrenceStager 36
58:1(1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
From
the
Editor
Riddles and conundrums are especially appealing at certain stages in one's life. Certainly,they fascinate in pre-adolescent years, as my daughter'spesky riddling attests. The operation of riddles depends upon a gap in knowledge, a missing piece of data that must be supplied deductively. Thus, because of archaeology's intrinsic properties, it is as filled with riddles as it is beset by ignorance. Archaeologists work at an enduring stage of riddling. Here's a delightful one: How can second century BCE amphoras constitute the roof of a cave beneath the sea? Bob Hohlfelder's brief note in this issue of BA provides a solution: Spilled out of a lacerated, ancient hull, the pottery knitted together over time through the natural processes of reef formation. Erosion then undermined the reef, turning what was once a superficial deposit into the ceiling of a subterranean grotto. Recreational divers off the southwest coast of Cyprus can see it for themselves. Most archaeological riddles are not so satisfyingly solved. What sets Abu Gosh, Beidha, and Jericho apart from Ain Ghazal, Ramad, and Wadi Shu'eib? The former three (and many others) collapsed in the middle of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period. What accounts for the disappearance of these centuries-old large farming villages? Perhaps the term "disappearance"is misleading--a typical riddling device. Instead of "vanish,"the term is better understood as a socio-cultural transformation from more nucleated to more dispersed settlement patterns. If settlement sites were more dispersed, then they are more difficult to locate. Ted Banning's Wadi Ziqlab Project takes aim at this conundrum with both survey and excavation tools. Along the terraces of this dry stream bed, invisible on the surface and buried in alluvium, are remains of the campsites to which the heirs of the abandoned villages scattered. Turning from pre-history to the earliest historical era, epigraphic discoveries pose riddles concerning the interaction between the emergent Egyptian civilization and its Canaanite flank: Can you catch catfish in the Negev desert? If the "catfish"is the stylized serekhof early Egyptian King Narmer, then the excavators of the Tell Halif terrace have answered affirmatively.Tom Levy and his collaboratorspose for themselves the more complex riddle of the significance of Narmer's royal emblem for charting the region's cultural evolution. Like the flying amphoras of Hohlfelder's cave, tell-based stratigraphyregularly offers up impossible riddles: from "floating" walls to inverted fills. Among American archaeologists, Joseph Callaway was an early master of stratigraphic excavation. The stratigraphicperplexities aside, Callaway's most enduring legacy may be his reasoned pursuit of the dialogue between archaeological data and biblical text. Callaway believed that the excavation of the ancient Palestinian tells was "alaboratory of scientific Bible study." Riddles at the intersections of biblical and archaeological disciplines, however, expose their nightshade side-their role in political games of ingroup/out-group knowledge and control. Employment, publication, funding possibilities all are at stake in the riddling enterprise. The same holds true for archaeology's role in cultural-resource management. While archaeological riddles include the playful ("flying amphoras") and the methodologically perplexing (socio-cultural change), they can also be very serious business, hardly a stage through which we will soon pass.
BiblicalArchaeolo Perspectiveson theAncientWorldfrom to theMediterranean Mesopotamia
Editor David C. Hopkins Art Director Bucky Edgett,LuckyProductions Book Review Editor James C. Moyer EditorialAssistant Mary PatrinaBoyd EditorialCommittee JefferyA. Blakely Douglas A. Knight Elizabeth Bloch-Smith Mary Joan Leith Gloria London Betsy M. Bryan J. P Dressel Jodi Magness Gerald L. Mattingly Ernest S. Frerichs Gaetano Palimbo Ronald S. Hendel Paul Zimansky RichardS. Hess Kenneth G. Hoglund Subscriptions Annual subscription rates are $35 for individuals and $45 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $28 for those over 65, physically challenged, or unemployed. Biblical is also availableas part of the beneArchaeologist fits of some ASOR membership categories. Postage for Canadian and other international addresses is an additional $5. Payments should be sent to ASOR Membership/Subscriber Services, PO. Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399 (ph: 404-727-2345;Bitnet:SCHOLARS@ EMORYUI).VISA/Mastercardorders can be phoned in. Back issues Backissues can be obtained by calling SP Customer Services at 800-437-6692or writing SP Customer Services, PO Box 6996, Alpharetta,GA 30239-6996. Postmaster Send address changes to Biblical ASOR Membership/Subscriber Archaeologist, Services, PO. Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399 Second-class postage paid at Atlanta,GA and additional offices. Copyright ? 1995by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Correspondence All editorial correspondence 4500 should be addressed to BiblicalArchaeologist, Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington,DC 20016-5690(ph: 202-885-8699;fax:202-885-8605). Books for review should be sent to Dr.James C. Moyer,Department of Religious Studies, Southwest Missouri State University 901 South National, Box 167,Springfield,MO 65804-0095. Advertising Correspondence should be addressed to Leigh Anderson, ScholarsPress, PO. Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399(ph:404-7272327;fax:404-727-2348).Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. BiblicalArchaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895)is published quarterly(March,June, September,December) by Scholars Press, 819Houston Mill Road NE, Atlanta,GA 30329,for the American Schools of Oriental Research(ASOR),3301 North Charles Street, Baltimore,MD 21218.Printed by Cadmus JournalServices, Baltimore,MD. OF
C47 2 0C,1 S
David C. Hopkins Editor
O
)
",
Ilkig
lit
? BECdB~~CPLe~
.r3 _.darF
c
~
~
?
~~~g
Vz
Y
it~. ~
C~
'-;"tar:-
eq.
~ ~r- NITO
vi
-70,
ZA:: 41,
or
~
?nr:*`l"
IVA:
Y7,j4 %,='
pq
7r, :*l
~
Homesteaders?
A NeolithicFarmin WadiZiqlab,Jordan By E. B. Banning EIGHT YEARS THOUSAND AGO,
ABOUT somethingdramatichap-
pened to the largevillages that had dotted the landscapefor more than a millenniumin what is now the regionof Israel,Jordan,and southwesternSyria.The people had developeda commitmentto agriculture and animalhusbandry,and their aceramicculturestretchedfrom southernJordanto the foothillsof the Taurusmountains.Forreasonsthat still puzzle archaeologists,these people virtuallydisappearedfromthe archaeologicalrecord(Kenyon Rollefson Moore1973:37-41; 1979:43; and K6hler-Rollefson 1989;Rollefson 1989).Sitessuch as Abu Ghosh,Basta, Beidha,and Jerichowere abandoned, some of them forever. One possibleexplanationfor the
relativedearthof sites belongingto the eighth millennium BP1was that
these early farmershad not really vanished.Instead,they adopteda very differentsettlementstrategy accompaniedwith the potteryand other sweeping technological changesthat often lead archaeologists to proclaimthe dawn of a new culture.Excavationsin and arounda small site in northernJordannow give us some insightsinto this possibility,and allow glimpses into the kinds of social and economicchanges which may have prompteda switch from a nucleatedto a much more dispersed settlementpattern.
TheNeolithicof the Southern Levant
Whether ornotNatufian(ca. 12,000 to 10,500BP)sites
representthe firsthorticulturalsettlementsor the firstvillages of intensivehuntersand gatherers, the Natufiansset the stagefor the developmentof largevillages with an increasingrelianceon cerealgrains and legumes thatcould be cultivated. By about9000 BPtherewere many such villages acrossthe southern Levant,of which CAinGhazaland Jerichoare well known examples,and theirinhabitantswere cultivating
Above:Thewell-preservedstructureat the southernend of Tabaqatal-BOma (AreasD35 and E35)hasa clay-linedsilo in one wallof its mainroom,laterusedfor a flexed burial, and a smallerroomaccessedfromoutside.Photographby T.Dabney.
Anti-Lebanon mountains
Mediterraneaniann Sea
ains
*ORamad
KGiladi * * Hagoshrim Beisamoun*
Munhatta
golan
Rehub Neve Ur •in sBeth Abu Hamid .al-Farah
Druz
T.Abu Suwan 0 JabalAbu Thuwwab Wadi Shu'eib
Wadi Rabah * Bashan St Lydda
.ebel
Wadi Ziqlab
* t
Ghrubba
'Ain Ghazal
Dhuweila
T.Ghassul
Jeric , Murraba'at Dead Sea
Wadi Jilat Wadi Ghazeh
0
Dhra' 0 10 20 30 40km 0
U"':.
•
,, :.
....P~
20
30mi
A Map of the southern Levant.TheWadi Ziqlabresearcharea in western Jordan encompasses a wadi system that drainsthe plateau region into the Jordan RiverValley. With its abundant water and other natural resources,WadiZiqlab attracted prehistoric settlers during the Neolithic period. Other Neolithic sites pepper this region of the
i•: ..-• ...
1, ?
10
'."
NearEast.Drawingby E.Banning. i• •i,, ..: :: .•'•,• :. '= .".;~ : , ,
"
:.i?-•:" .:;!,.i'•: , ... .
.
'. .
?
.
.N"
'~ .~ . , ,~ ,.... •.:
~
. .
i !~ ! • ~
~.,
~
" •"., ,:; •...".::• ,,/ ; :".... :•.:::.:•::',•:< •''•i:i::i"••::::".. :" : :"":I ?"'" : .a" i p: ". '•- •?""" '-; -,,";-4:
'
i ,f " •:
."<.!•,=• ? ;• f,?• . ",:.
. - .,
•• . . . o
, "
,
,
. " ,.,I? :;..w.. ,o . . . .:
~ •~:•• ~~tr • ~ ~•. .: ,...,~.1ll•l••lll•
~
,,•<:Y:•?,,;,'
""• ':,.":•.;t;
", .
"•">: ' " "i. ,".,'.•.:a., .,•,. .. .."[".•... . .,.....: ? . ?,•,. . . .
.
,
.
?
,
.
..
.
, "
,
_ :. , • ti'' ;- "..".:•• . ..-. . ' ," ,•. ....,? :.. .? . .. , x , , ' • " < ., ,. , . •.. .
•':'' ,%"::•.:t:.•;:• •,•::iW .;&• ; -' ;i • ! , .- =', V
.
4 View of the latest Neolithic building
discoveredat WZ200 to date,in AreaD31. Two corners have bench-like features, while the farthest corner has a feature incorporating a crackedgrinding stone and a
ceramicdisk.Photographby T Dabney. BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1 (1995)
3
I?Ib
M'
9-'---.---.-ii? 5
-~?'A4
?r-
V:
-
f
-V. ,P.
-? : Il~t? :,;;:~Jl?
':~ .~~4~;:;:.LT ~l MI =: ~i~rIF.
P-0 '?"'p
~ ij"~'t'K~
rP itt-; lf
.0
?v ?,1??-
~
?~:? I
-
~~g 41W
I ~~i37
~u-ur
fi ?~
re'
NC
~
:~I :
!-? ..- .---
-
-.??ii?~~~~~r~ '- "
c
-
t
:j~t
-'
-' "- -
<'i?'t
j?j?C1~
--
?
;OWNi~~t
-
'4.
A
'?'_ k
k~1?2.I~c~~
ef
J
4
-
t
~ ~
10 44f~workF milw~C~g
P. ~rPtx >:&,rQ:; ?~?:-NW T -At ';kW
f
~
=?:.;s
? t
-
4F
4r
%I-WNi
I "k fs
i
~
aJP-.1
wr,
4r I ti?; fz; ~?? ~;?;~3!ri
'rY~3XLIL3 41_~-7(?r~I
". e4J
T
V*'
_40 I'V.
?Fw.
inthe lower-part of Wadi-Abu southof the mouthofWadiZiqlab, isprobably muchlike Hydrophytlvegetation Ziyad,a fewkilometers thevegetation that once occurrednearTabaqatal-BCnma,-Photograph by S Monckton.
domesticatedwheat and barley.During the ArchaicNeolithicor PrePotteryNeolithicB (PPNB,ca.
goods and body treatmentsuggest that therewere status differences,at least in death,two millenniaearlier 9500-8200 BP),domesticated sheep or PPNBvillages (Wright1978:215-19) became the source to have seem been goats pre-eminent remarkablyegaliof animalproteinfor villageswith tarian.GaryRollefson,one of the populationsthatsome archaeologists excavatorsof "AinGhazal,notes that have estimatedin the thousands. someiburialsshow a relatively Evenif we assume thatlargepartsof shoddy treatmentthat suggeststhat these sites were occupiedbyrgardens, these individualswere held in low animalpens and open spaces,rather esteem.Most PPNBburials,however, than houses,most of these settleare extremelyconsistent:male and ments must haveboastedat least five female,they areheadless,tightly hundredinhabitantsand had comflexed skeletonswith few or no grave plicatedrequirementsfor organizing goods,placed in pits beneaththe fine theireconomiclife and settling plasterfloors of theirhouses (RollefRollefdisputes. son, Banninget al.1984:161-66; If this populationconcentration The sktills, son, Kafafiet al. 1990:113). involvedgreaterpoliticalcomplexity which were saved and often decothan thatof theirNatufianpredecesrated,may have served in a cult that also included plasterportraitbusts sors,we are shortof evidenceto and statues.This could have been buridemonstrateit,WhilekNatufian als with theirvariatiofisin grave one of the means of buildingsocial 4
BiblicalArchaeologist.58:1 (1995)
solidarityin the faceof an unprecedented populationdensity.Yetthere are no known temples-the Jericho temples are actuallyhouses-and thereis little variationin the size or design of domesticarchitedturethat might suggest centralizedcontrolor hierarchy. Nor Arethere centralized storagefacilitiesthatwe would expect if redistributionhad-anyimpottancein the economy.Eachhouse had its own small storagebins,where any are preservedat all, and,as Kent Elarinery(1972)suggests,niaclear familie may have had full control over theirown economic destinies. Relativelysuddenlyaround8000 BP,almost all of these familiesappear to have packedup and left.One questionis "why?"While archaeologists once attributedthe abandonment to a predatoryinvasionof pottery-usingpeople fromthe north
today most (e.g. Kenyonm1979:43), would look to some combination of natural and economic forces. Some have pointed out that densely occupied villages with their new juxtaposition of humans, animals and trash, and their far-reaching ocial connections, provided new opportunities for the transmission of diseases that
and K6hler-Rollefson 1989:37).Others have looked to climatic change (Perrot 1968:404;Moore 1973:37-38),and some to the possibility that the villagers' social system was simply not up to the challenge of keeping the peacizeamong hundreds of families that competed for land, wateir,wood, and other resources.
villages and the shrinking or 'impoverishment' of others represented a substantial shiftin settlement systems. Specifically; it could have represented a switch from population aggregates with heavy costs in organizatioih and conflict resolution to dispersed settlement systems cohsisting of farmsteads, tiny hamlets, no-
L.-
'cm ""
Flintsicklebladeswere the most abundantof the relativelyrareformalizedstone tools on the site. Mostof the lithicsrepresentedan expedienttechnology,consistingof casuallymade-andquicklydiscardedflakes.Photographsby T Dabney.
could have devastated their-inhabitants (Rolston 1984).Some, including Rollefson, reflect our own concern with envirofimental destruction tosuggest that over cutting forest, overgrazing by goats, and general mismanagement of their lands made large Neolithic villages untenable in most parts of the southern Levant (Moore 1973;Rollefsonand Simmons 1987;K6hler-Rollefson 1988; Rollefson
Another question is "where-did they go?" Few people woutildnow suggest that invaders simply wiped them out. One possibility is that diseases vastly decreased their numbers. If so, the victims must not have been buried in the normal way as we cannot point to any surge in the number of graves. If economic forces were an important factor,however,it seems likely that the abandonment of most
madic camps, or some combination of these. Probably the most popular theory at present is that, an increase in •with the importance of herding, most peoplv adopted the mobile settlement pattern of the pastoral nomad. Some sites in the eastern desert of Jordan, such-as Dhuweila (Betts 1988), do seeim to show that PPNB hunting camps, probably associated with the BiblicalArchacIlorist (1995) 5•8:1
5
Af
Arii
VK.
Ad'
A long-roomedhouse with a circular, plaster-linedhearthnearits southernend in AreasG34,G33,and H34at WZ200. Photograph by T Dabney
gazelle traps called 'desert kites, evolved by the Late Neolithic into pastoral campsites. In the better watered highlands of western Jordan and Israel,however, only the growth in the frequency of sheep and goat bones (Kbhler-Rollefson 1988,1992; Kohler-Rollefson, Gillespie et al. 1988) and the perception that later Neolithic sites are insubstantial or "impoverished" (Kenyon 1979:41-43) point to pastoralism. Yet the large numbers of sickle blades that occur at most of these sites, if recent research on the blades' function is correct (Anderson-Gerfaud 1983,1988; Unger-Hamilton 1985,1989),suggest that mixed farming continued to reign supreme. Some of the relatively few known sites of the Late Neolithic suggest that a shift in settlement strategy 6
Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
may havebeen involvedin the disappearanceof PPNBsites.Only at CAin Ghazal,Ramad,and WadiShu'eib,so far,do we have reasonablyconvinciig evidence for continued occupation of early Neolithicvillages (de Contenson1969,1971,1981,1985; Rollifson and Simmons1987;Rollefsonand Kohler-Rollefson 1989).Eventhere, the villagesthat followed may have diminished in importanceor become only seasonallyoccupied.Beisamoun (Lechevallier1978)and Yiftahel (Garfinkel1987)might also point to continuitybetween the ninth and eighth millennia BP.They have archi-
tectureof PPNBtype associatedwith lithics and raresherds thatcould be LateNeolithicor Rollefson'sPPNC (PrePotteryNeolithic C).Othersites with radiocarbondates in the eighth
millennium BP,such as CAinRehub
(Muheisen, Gebel et al. 1988),are extremely scarce, and some of the ones that seem to date to the seventh millennium, such as 'Ain al-Jarba (Kaplan 1969;Anati, Avnimelech et al. 1973),Tell Wadi Fidan (Adams 1991), Ghrubba (Mellaart 1956),Tell Qiri (Ben-Torand Portugali 1987),and Tululiot al-Batashi (Kaplan 1955;Kaplan 1958),may have been only farms or small hamlets. Only a few, such as Jebel Abu Thuwwab (Kafafi 1988)
and WadiRabah(Kaplan1958),appear to have been larger,although not nearly as large as many of their PPNB predecessors. If there was a shift to a dispersed settlement system about the time that pottery began to become important in the tool kits of the southern Levant, this has major implications for our ability to find and recognize sites
of this key period in Near Eastern prehistory.Not only would the sites be smallerand less obtrusive,especially if they were campsites,but they might well be located in habitatsthat PPNB farmersscorned as locations for theirvillages.They could even be predominantlyin places that modem archaeologicalsurveys systematically overlook. The WadiZiqlabProject
he WadiZiqlabProjectbegan
in 1981as a regionalsurvey to investigatechanges in rural land use throughthe distributions-of settlementsand agriculturalinstallations.One of the questions the project addressed was the apparentcycle
of settlementaridabandonmentfrom the Neolithic onward(Banning1985). It became obvious during this survey that systematicwalking across the surfaceof the landscapewas an excellentway to locate relativelyobtrusive IronAge,LateRoman,and medieval villages.Howevermany sites that were small,unobtrusiveor of poor visibility were missed. In particular,largepartsof the survey area that were coveredwith forestor had alluvial or colluvialsoils would almost never revealsites unless they were either recentor had standing architecture.JohnField,the project's geomorphologist,has found that in some stretchesof WadiZiqlabmore than a meter colluvium overlies Late Romanand medieval deposits,while
more than 150landslides in early 1992 have had an even more devastating effect on site visibility. Some of the places where it was impossible for surfacesurvey to locate unobtrusivesites,were, furthermore,potentially prime real estate. Alluvial terracesand colluvial deposits at the bottom of valleys,in particular,never showed evidence for human occupationpriorto the Romanperiod unless a streamor road cut accidentallycut througha site.Yetthese stream-sidelocations, which were close to permanent springs and some of the best sources of flint,would once have been on the naturalmigrationroutes,for both humans and their prey,between the warm JordanValleyand cooler up-
A finger-nailor spatula-impressed vessel found smashedabove a cobble surfaceused afterthe abandonmentof the long structurein AreasG33,G34,and H34.Photographby T Dabney
-"". !
'
i
cenimeer
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
7
w..
41,
.-
lands.They would once have flanked lush jungles of tamarisk,poplar, reeds,and other stream-sidevegetation that not only provided vegetable food and rawmaterialsfor architecture and basketry,but also a habitat for wild boar and other tasty animals. Evennow when these vallevs look much more bleak than they did in the first half of the Holocene,tentdwelling herdsmen consider the stream terracesto be the prime locations for their tents because of the proximityof springs and theshelter from wind or stm that the canyon walls can provide. In 1986and 1987,in conjunction with excavationsat selected sites that the 1981survey discovered,we began a programof systematicallysampling the stream terracesof WadiZiqlabby small trenches (Banning,Dodds et al. We only had time for one 1987,1989). such trenchin 1986,and it revealed nothing.But in 1987two trenches in a terracenearby created immediate excitement.TrenchA intersecteda large,LateNeolithic tomb with whole pots, a stone bowl or mortar,and parts of two badly damaged human skeletons.TrenchB cut deeper into the deposits and found undisturbed deposits containing tools of pre-agri-
culturalKebarancampsites(ca.18,00 - 12,000 BR).
In 1990and 1992we returned to this site,which we named TabaqatalBihma(Arabicfor "OwlTerrace")in honor of a family of owls living in a rockshelterat the site.Weconducted much more extensiveexcavations with the goals of determiningthe
The terracedesignatedWZ200 (lowerright),at the confluenceof two streamchannels and neara spring,is today a preferredlocationfor tent-dwellingherders.Photographby H.Kim. 8
BiblicalArchaeologist58:1 (1995)
extent of the Neolithic occupation and learning about the economy of the people who lived there (Banning 1992; Banning, Rahimi et al. forthcoming). After cutting small trenches in various parts of the terrace, we determined thatThe Neolithic settlement was quite small. it was restricted to the eastern end near the confluence of two stream channels and was not far from a spring. Increasing our attention on this area revealed well preserved ruins of seven small structures, but it appears
C
J4
SJ33WZ
o
0
Wadi Ziqlab Project
200 Tabaqatal-BOma
..
LateNeolithicArchitecture ExcavatedAreas 1992
I134
133
?L
0
0 H33
H34
o
Unexcavated
G35
9-3
I
oI
H35
'n
G3
00
0
0
G34
U cF3 Unexcavated F32
F3
1S7
Unx
F34
SF36
00
E32 E34
E3
E35
E36
D35
C
5
D36
O'0I
Planview of the excavationareasand LateNeolithicarchitectureat Tabaqatal-BOma. Drawingby M. Campbelland M.Kersel.
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
9
much of the adjoininghills. It may also have included wild boar from the thicketsthat may have lined the stream edges. Occasionalfinds of wood charcoalfrom the Neolithic levels are predominantlyconifers, however,suggesting the possibility that Neolithic farmingpracticesmay have involved slash-and-burn.Pine is usually the first tree to invade abandoned or burned fields in this region. A series of radiocarbondates on this charcoal,and on the collagen from some bones, now gives usa firmeridea of when this small site was used than the artifactsalone can do. A few dates on bones from Kebaranlevels that lie in deposits below the Neolithicbuildings clusterbeBP, tween14,850?160and 11,500?100 ratherlate forthe Kebaran.Twodates on collagen frombone fragments from the largecist-graveexcavatedin 1987provide one date of 7800?70BP (6800-6450cal error The at WZ 200. Neolithic different from several dates radiocarbon BCE),while andeposits uncalibrated Graphsummarizing unlikely that the settlements total populationever exceeded twenty people. Unfortunatelyplant remains are scarceon the site,but hundreds of flint sickle blades with sheen caused by the silica in leaves suggests that its inhabitantswere harvestinggrain on the nearbyhillsides.A largeproportion of sheep or goat among the faunal remainssuggests that they were also pasturinganimals there,no doubt depending on the nearby springsto water them over dry summers if the streams faltered.They were also raisingpigs and consuming more game than you would expect, consideringthe near-absenceof flirattipped projectilesin what we found of their tool kits.The game included small amounts of quail and partridge and both red deer and fallow deer from the Mediterraneanoak-pistachio foreststhat probablycovered
that the whole site consisted of no more than two or three structuresat any one time.Many of our excavation areas revealedoutdoor surfaceswith scattersof trashand a few pits.There were also three more outdoor graves built of stone and covered with stone slabs like the one we had discovered in 1987,as well as simplerburials within abandonedstructures.And therewas pottery,lots of pottery,in addition to animal bones, lithicsand grinding stones.One smashed pot belonging to a late phase of the Neolithic occupationwas coveredwith fingernailimpressions. The generalcharacterof the Iremains suggests that what we have found here is a sequence of farmsteads.Since we appear to have found most of the structuresthat occurredon the site and not all of them are contemporary,it seems
BCE scaleat rightis onlyapproximate,and mostof the calibrated barsrepresentthe 68%confidencelimits.The-c
RadiocarbonYearsBP
CalibratedDate BCE
I
4,600
6,000 5,100 6,500
5,500 T t
5,800
7,000
(48504360 cal
BCE)would place
it near the transition from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. Severaldates on bits of burned twigs from houses of the middle of the Neolithic occupation on the site clusterfairly well, with 6900t70, 6670?70, 6670?60, 6630?80 and 6590?70 BP,and
6,200 7,500
f
6,600
a second group clustersa little later,with 6380+70, 6350?70and 6190?70 BP.
Charcoalfrom an upper layer containingsome
8000
10
other of 5740 Br
Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
sherds of LateRomanpottery dates 1680?60 BPand charcoalassociated with Byzantinepotteryand a breadmaking hearthprovides dates of 1460?60 BP.When these are calibratedand put into theirstratigraphic contexts,the LateNeolithic levels appearto span the period 6600 to
A...
4600 cal BCE,while the dates in the
third to seventh centuriesCErepresent much latercamping activity on the site,probablyby nomadic pastoralists.This puts the best preserved structureswe excavatedmore than a millennium afterthe PPNB abandonments,but the fragmentsof the oldest structureson the site,forwhich we have as yet no absolutedates,could belong to the eighth millennium BP. The single date of 7800 BPand a single Yarmoukiansherd we have found are far from conclusiveevidence for eighth-millenniumoccupation. Continuingthe Surfaceand Subsurface Surveys
n additiontoinvestigating
Tabaqatal-Bimnaintensivelywe have been increasingour-samof ple trenchesin other stream terraceswhile also looking eagerlyfor any otherevidence for Neolithic cecupationof WadiZiqlab. The subsurfacesurvey sampled eleven terracesin 1990and three more localitiesin 1992.These localities,numberedWZ 300 to WZ-313, did providemore evidence for elusive tracesof human use of Wadi Ziqlab'sslopes and valley bottoms. Twotrenches in terracesupstream from Tabaqatal-B%ma along the tributary that flows from the south (WZ 300 and 302), revealed small numbers of artifacts some 1.6 m below the modem surface. The former may represent traces of Neolithic use of the terrace.The most successful trenches were downstream. Two trenches hear the springs called. 'Aytin Ziqlab (WZ 308) produced quite a bit of stratified material apparently ranging from the PPNB through Late Roman times, but appeared to be redeposited.Two
View of the springat 'AyunZiqlab(WZ308) duringexcavationof two test trenchesand daysbefore new roadconstructionburiedthe site,and the spring,underseveralmetersof roadbedin 1990.Photographby T Dabney.
trenchesat WZ 310,about 800 m downstreamfromTabaqatal-Bima, immediatelybegan to revealabundant,well preserved LateNeolithic artifacts,some of them closely paralleling the latest Neoithic materialat Furtherexcavation Tabaqataf-Bmurn. in 1992has shown that the upper deposits,those that contained the greatestamount of LateNeolithic and EarlyChalcolithicmaterial,are mixed, and that the site also shows EarlyBronzeAge pottery.Weexpect it to continue to provide good information on the end of the Neolithic in Jordan.Soundings at localitiesWZ revealed 312and 313,mrheanwhile, flakesand cores that helped us identify the most likely flint source for the tools that occur at TabaqatalBl3ma. In addition,our workin Wadi Ziqlabover the years increasedlocal villagers'awarenessof prehistoric artifacts,and this led to the discovery of two more Neolithic sites.One,WZ 119,is a scatterof lithics and ground stone fragments,about the same size as Tabaqatal-Bfima,lying four km upstreamon a steep slope.While a
small sounding at this scatterin 1993 showed that the artifactsoccurred only in the plow zone, a second sounding up slope at WZ 121 revealedthe likely sourceof the artifacts.Therewe encountereda stone wall associated with abundant lithics, sherds and bones, all apparentlydating to the LateNeolithic.The other site,WZ 120,is a hamlet or small village next to WadiZiqlab'smost important spring, CAinSabha, six km
downstream.Withsome four meters of culturaldeposit extending from the PPNB or ArchaicNeolithic, throughthe Yarmoukianto the Early BronzeAge,althoughnot necessarily without interruption,this site will figure prominentlyin our future investigations.Twodates from contextsnear the bottom of a cut into WZ 120are 8430?70 and 8100?70BP, close to the end of the PPNB. As a result of our recent field work,we now know that at least four, and probablyfive, Neolithic sites stretchof Wadi occur over a ten kmrn where springs are abundant Ziqlab, and the stream was once permanent instead of seasonal.These include BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
11
one certainand one possible PPNB site of the late tenth to late ninth millennium BP,while LateNeolithic materialoccurs at four sites. Of these, two may belong to the Yarmoukian culture (probablydating to the eighth millennium BP)while at least two document a quite differentLateNeolithic culture and include material culture from the very end of the Neolithic or beginning of the Chalcolithic around 4600 BCE (5740Bpr). Earliersurveys have also documented LateNeolithic sites at TellFendi and Tellal-Arba'innear WadiZiqlab'sconfluencewith the JordanRiver.Consequently,we not only look forwardto studying the interactionbetween some of these sites,but are in a good position to evaluatewhether people from the PPNB village at CAinSabhaspread out to found neighboringfarmsteads and hamlets afteradopting a ceramic technology,or the PPNB inhabitants were replacedby pottery-usingpeople who colonized the region. During future work in Wadi Ziqlab,we hope to increaseour samples fromWZ120,121,and 310and to completethe systentaticsampling of streamterracesalong the WadiZiqlab canyon.It is possible that the program of subsurfacetesting will ultimately reveala dispersed settlement patternin the LateNeolithic with communities of farmersscatteredin a linear fashionto make optimal use of the region'spatchyenvironment,to reducecompetitionfor resources,and to improvecommunicationand'exchangebetween the JordanValley Plateau. and the Transjordanian
partnerin the researchas well as our antiquitiesrepresentative,the crews of the various field seasons, and the people of al-Kuradistrict,who have facilitatedour work there.
Acknowledgments Workin WadiZiqlabhas enjoyed financialsupport from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,American Schools of OrientalResearchand Universityof Toronto.I would like to thankAdnan Hadidi, Ghazi Bisheh and SafwanTell,who, as successive directorsof the Departmentof Antiquities of Jordan,encouragedour work,HikmatTa'ani,Whohas been a
Anati, E, Avnimelech, M. et al. 1973 HazoreaI. Archivi 5. Capo di Ponte,
12
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
Notes
Maison del'Orient 5, Lyons. 1988 Using PrehistoricStone Tools to Harvest Cultivated Wild Cereals: Preliminary Observations of Traces and Impact. Pp. 175-195in Industries et Technologie. Lithique: Tmracelogie Edited by S. Beyries. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports.
1Exceptwhere stated otherwise, these are uncalibrated dates in 'radiocarbonyears' before present (BPr)using the Libbyhalflife. Calibrating these dates by reference to tree rings shows that radiocarbondates underestimate the true age in this time range by about 1,000years. In this article I show cahbrateddates, our best est imates of the true age, as "cal Bc."
Banning, E. B. 1985 Pastoraland Agricultural Land Use in the Wadi Ziqlab,Jordan:An Archaeological and Ecological Survey Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto. 992 1992 Excavationsat Wadi Ziqlab,alArchaeological Kura,Jordan.Cmaadian AssociationNewsletter12(2):3-4.
2 Since this paper was originally written, the 1993excavations at "AinGhazat have uncovered an unusual Neolithic structure containing a large, circular,plastered feature that Gary Rollefson (personal communication; see also BiblicalArchaeologist describes as a temple. 57:411994]:239-241) For the moment, I would describe this structure'sfunction as indeterminate.The Jerichomegawn(Gaistang and Garstang 1948:46-50)is simply at the upper end of the size range for PPNB houses, but is otherwise typical. Kenyon! claim that the carefully plastered basin in another Jericho structure and the building? "unusual plan some ceremonial use" (Kenyon ...suggest 1979:34)is untenable. The plan is in fact typical of PPNB houses, the "plastered basin"is a domestic hearth, and the size of the structure is-not at all unusual. The probable cult stone found in another structure, and the numerous plaster skulls, busts, and statues found at Jerichoand rAin Ghazal suggest that ritual behavior took place in domestic contexts,as is common in many cultures today (see, e.g., Blier1987).
Banning, E. B.,Dodds, R. R, et al. 1987 Report on The Wadi Ziqlab Project 1986 Season of Excavations.Aimual of theDepartmentof Atitiquitiesof 31:321-42. Jordma 1989 Wadi Ziqlab Project1987tA Preliminary Report.AnnualoftheDepartmentofAntiquitiesof]ordw:33:43-58.
SelectBibliography Adams, R. B. 1991 The Wadi Fidan Project,Jordan, 1989.Levant23:181!83.
Brescia,Italy:CentroCamunodi
Studi Preistorici.
Anderson-Gerfaud,P 1983 A Consideration of the Uses of Certain Backed and "Lustered" Stone Tools from the Late Mesolithic and Natufian Levels of Abu Hureya and Mureybit (Syria). les sutir Pp. 77-105in Tracesd'UtiliWstion OutilsNolithiqrtesdu Parche-Orienrt. Editedby M.-C.Cauvin.Travauxde
al. E. Banning, B.,Rahimi, D.,et of Excavationsin n.d. The 1992 Season Wadi Ziqlab,Jordan.Annualof the Department ofAntiquitiesoflordan-in press. Ben-Tor,A. and Portugali,Y. 1987 TellQir, a Villagein theJezreelValley: Excaztions Reportof theArchaeologicalr 1975-1977. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology,The Hebrew Urniveristy of Jerusalem. Betts,A. 1988 1986 Excavationsat Dhuweila, EasternJordan.Levant 20-.7-21. Blier,S. E 1987 TheAnatomyofArchitecture. Ontology andMetaphorin Batammaliba ArchitecturalExpression. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. de Conienson, H. 1969 Quatribme et cinquikme campagnes a Tell Ramad, 1967-8Rapport prdliminaire.Annales 19:26 AraorsSyrienmws Archdologiques 1971 Tell Rantad,a Village of Syria of the 7th and 6th Millennia B.C.Archaeology 24278-85. 1981 Le Nrolithique de Pp. Damaschne, dunLevant. Edited 467-70in Prdhistoire by J Cauvin and ESanlaville. Paris: CNRS. 1985 La region de Damas au Ndolithique. AnnalesArchdologkiues AratesSyriennes35:9-29.
Flannery,K.V. 1972 The Origin of The Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica. and the Near East:A Comparative Study. Pp. 23-53 in Man,Settlement and Urbanism. Edited by P Ucko, R. Tringhamand G. Dimbleby.London: Duckworth. Garfinkel,Y 1987 Yiftahel:A Neolithic Village from the Seventh Millennium R.C.in Lower Galilee, IsraeLJoumnal qfField 14(2):199-212. Archliaeolkgy Garstang,J.and Garstang,J.B. E. 1948 TheStoryof Jericho.Marshal,London: Morgan and Scott. Kafafi,Z. 1988 Jebel Abu Thawwab: A Pottery 451Neolithic Village in Jordan.Pp. 71 in ThePHristonyof Jordan.Edited by A. N. Garrardand H. G. Gebel. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.
Kaplan,J.
1955 Tuleil Batashi in the Sorek Valley Israel ixploration Journal5:273-74. 1958a Excavationsat Teluliot Batashi in the Vale of Sorek. retz-Israel 5:9-24, 83*-84*(Hebrew with English summary). 1958b Excavationsat Wadi-Rabah.Ismrael Joumal 8:149-6Q Explomtion 1969 Ein el Jarba.Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon.Bdulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch194:2-31.
Kenyon, K. M. in theHolyLand.Lon1979 Arcmhaeology don: Ernest Benn. Kbhlei--Rollefson,I. 1988 The Aftermath of the Levantine Neolithic Revolution in Light of Ecologic and Ethnographic Evidence. Pahorient14(1):87-93. 1992 A Model for the Development of Nomadic Pastoralismon the Transjordanian Plateau. Pp. 11-18in Ibstomlismin the Archaeolgical Le-ant, Materialsin Anthropological Perspectives.Edited by O. Bar-Yosefand A. Khazanov.Madison: Prehistory Press. Kdhler-Rollefson,I.,Gillespie, W.,et al. 1988 The Fauna from Neolithic CAin Ghazal. Pp. 423-30 in ThePrehistory ofJordan.Edited by A. Garrardand H. G. Gebel. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.
Lechevallier,M. 1978 AbouGoshet Beismnomu, Deux Giseavantl'?re mientsd;i VIleMillhnaire en Ismil. Paris:AssociaChrritietnme tion Pal6orient. Mellaart,J. 1956 The Neolithic Site of Ghrubba. Annualof theDepartment of.Antiquities of Jordan3:24-40. Moore,A. 1973 The Late Neolithic in Palestine. Levant10"36-6& Muheisen, M., H. G. Gebel, et al. 1988 AMnRehub,a New Final Nattifian and YarmoukianSite near lrbid. Pp. 472-502 in Twhe Pehistoryoflordan. Edited by A. N. Garrardand H. G. Gebel. InternationalSeries. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports. Perrot,J. 1972 Pr6histoirePalestinienne. Pp. 286au Dictionnaire 446 in Suppletment de la Bible.Vol.8. Paris:Letouzey et An6. Rollefson,C., Kafafi,Z., et al. 1990 The Neolithic Village of 'Ain Chazal, Jordan:Preliminary Report on the 1988Season. Bulleitiof the Americman Schoolsof OrientalResearch 27:95-116. Supplement Rollefson, G. and Kbhler-Rollefson,I. 1989 The Collapse of Early Neolithic Settlements in the Southern Levant. Pp. 73-89 in FIple and Culturein Change.Edited by I. Hershkovitz. BritishArchaeological Reports, Oxford. Rollefson,G. O. 1989 The Aceramic Neolithic of the Southern Levant:The View from 'Ain Ghazal. Paltorient15(1):135-40. Rollefson, G. O.,Banning, E. B, et al. 1984 The Pre-PotteryNeolithic B Village of 'Ain Ghazal (Jordan).Mitteihmgen derdeutschenOrientGesellschaft 117:139-83. Rollefson, G. O. and Simmons, A. H. 1987 The Life and Death of cAin Ghazal. Archaeology 40:38-45.
4r
r
E. B. (Ted)Banning was born in Montreal, Canada,and received his Ph.D.in Near Easternarchaeology at University of Torontoin 1985.He is now Assistant Professorin the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.Dr.Banning was a senior staff member of the "AinGhazal excavationsin Jordanfrom 1982to 1989,has directed the Wadi Ziqlab Projectsince 1981,and has also participatedin archaeologicalsurvey and ethnoarchaeologyin Wadi al-Hasa and near Beidha,in southern Jordan, and in WadiTumilat,northeastern Egypt.
Unger-Hanmilton,R 1985 Microscopic Striations on Flint Sickle Blades as an Indication of Plant Cultivation. WorldArchaeology 17:121-126. 1989 The Epipaleolithic of the Southern Levant and the Origins of Plant Cultivation. Crtrrent Anthropology 30:88-103.
G.A. Wright;
1978 Social Differentiation in the Early Natufian. Pp. 201-23in SocialArcheand Dating. ologyBeyondStubsistence Edited by C. L Redman, M.J. Berman, E.V Curtin et al. New York:Academic Press.
Rolston,S. L. 1984 Skeletal Studies-in Jordan:Some Opportunities for Cooperative Research in Anthropology. Paper presented at conference,Anthropology in Jordan:State of the Art, Amman, Jordan.
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
13
for Benchmarks Searching in
the
Biblical World:
The Developmentof JosephA. Callaway as Field Archaeologist
MEW.
"O~t 49OW
No overthe courseof five majorandtwo excavatedAi/et-Tell JosephA. Callaway(1920-1988) minorseasonsfrom1964through1972.Knownfor hisworkat Ai (wherehe sitsamidstthe hadpreviously dug with Kelsoat Beitin, earlyIronAge remainsin thisphoto),Callaway Photocourtesyof the Callaway family Wrightat TellBalatah,and Kenyonat Jerusalem.
14
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
By GeraldL. Mattingly SEPTEMBER 8, 1974, SUNDAY, FrankMooreCross,Jr.,delivered a eulogy for G. Ernest Wrightat Harvard'sMemorial Church.In this tribute,Crossmade the followingremarks: ErnestWrightis best known as an archaeologicalscholar,and his contributionsto Near Eastern archaeologyremainas his most imposing and enduringscholarly monument.It has seemed strange to many that ProfessorWright throughouthis life pursued interests in biblicaltheology and in archaeology.Eitheris enough for an ordinaryscholar.ToErnest Wrightthe combinationof fields made simple sense. Biblicalrevelationis mediatedin historical events.Hence the biblicalscholar, or indeed the seriousChristianor Jew,is necessarilya historianof the ancientpast.And the best way to increasehistoricalknowledge of the biblicalera is to dig up the Near East(Cross1974:4). Tobe sure,many facetsof the old "BiblicalArchaeology"approach havebeen modified or abandoned since Crossreflectedon Wright's interestsin both theology and archaeology.Butto many people,the associationbetween faithand history or between the biblicalnarrativeand its historicalcontextseems perfectly natural(cf.Dever1980;Davis 1993). Likehis friendand mentor,G. ErnestWright,JosephCallaway looked at the Bible with the eyes of an archaeologist. When he launched his own dig at Ai/et-Tell in 1964,he was driven by some of the same presuppositions that motivated Ernest Wright. Like most other Americans who became interested in the archaeology of ancient Palestine in the 1950s and 1960s,the distinctive approach called "BiblicalArchaeology" was a powerful impetus in Callaway's career (Callaway 1961,1966;cf. Davis
Buthis understanding 1987:133-302). of the relationof archaeologyto the Bible,particularlythe Old Testament, was farfromnaive,and it was not easily linked with Christianapologetics.Forexample,his long-term researchin the Chalcolithicand Early BronzeAge culturesof Palestineprobablyhis most importantcontributionto the field-indicates that Callawayhad seriousinterestsin archaeologyperse.In fact,Kenyon's suggestionthathe study the Early Bronzetombs at Ai was,initially,the majorcatalystfor organizingthe "JointExpeditionto Et-Tell"(Callaway1964:v). The purpose of this articleis to identify some of the personalities and intellectualfactorsthat caused JosephCallawayto shift his focus
chaeology-e.g., Petrie,Woolley, Carter,Wheeler,Albright,Kenyon, and Yadin.WhileCallawaymay not fall into the same category,his impact on Syro-Palestinianarchaeologywas considerable.Moreover,his leadership in Societyof BiblicalLiterature and AmericanSchoolsof Oriental Researchcircles,his influenceat the seminarywherehe taught,and the friendshipand inspirationJoseph Callawayofferedto many people in the internationalarchaeologicalcommunity provideamplejustification for such an inquiry. In additionto a far-reaching legacy as friend,pastor,and teacher, Dr.Callawayleft behind a significant "papertrail"of books,articles,essays, syllabi,unpublishedarchaeological records,and a massivefile of corre-
low lump"-
At the centerof a ceramicanalysissession,G.ErnestWrightsitswith DanColeand LawrenceToombsat Shechemin the summerof 1962.Wrightwas bothfriendand mentor whom he supervisedduringthreeseasonsat Shechem.Eventually, to Callaway, Wright field methods.Callaway sharedWright'spresuppositions cameto esteemgreatlyCallaway's Photofromthe E.ECampbellCollection. with regardto "biblicalarchaeology."
fromOld Testamenttextualstudies to Palestinianfield archaeology.Investigationsof this kind are not all that common,thoughit is clearthatmuch can be learnedin the process.Today we have extensivebiographicalstudies of some of the giants of field ar-
spondence.Afterprovidinga brief sketchof Callaway'spersonaland professionalbackground,which was the foundationon which he built his archaeologicalwork,this essay will identify some of the steps thatJoseph Callawaytook in his pursuitof 58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
15
... . • • :. ?...
7i• •~-W • • •••
• •• •
O ?A•i
• :
:~i-
• .. ? •
.... .. •
••
...."
. .. .?.. .•
AN
14
~•I.
o
•
.
..
......
Hebrew language courses, but his major emphasis was on the relation between the Bible and Near Eastern archaeology.Throughout his career, Professor Callaway was involved with ASOR in a number of capacities, and during the final twenty-four years of his life-from 1964-1988-he was preoccupied with his research and writing on Ai/et-Tell. (A fuller biographical treatment can be found in Rust 1988.)
ArchaeologiCallaway'sPre-Ai/et-Tell cal Experience
as development osephCallaway's
left behinda massive A meticulousexcavatorand an organizedcorrespondent, Callaway whichoffersan intimatedocumentationof Callaway's file of correspondence development isseen hereadjacentto a Roman as an archaeologist.FromDecemberof 1968,Callaway eratomb at Ai.Photocourtesyof the Callaway family. historical and cultural benchmarks in the biblical world. This is not an attempt to psychoanalyze Professor Callaway,though he has provided us with extensive documentation of his activities, opinions, and hopes. The primarysource for this study is his correspondence file, which was consulted with the consent and encouragement of the Callaway family. Callaway'sPersonal and
ProfessionalBackground
wasbornin osephAtleeCallaway
Warren,Arkansas, in 1920.In 1940, he married SaraTullos,who also experienced the joys of dirt archaeology through fieldwork at Shechem, Jerusalem, and Ai. An interest in Christian ministry led Joseph-at the age of twenty-eight-to leave his farm and enroll at Ouachita College, in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. Joseph and Sara Callaway and their two children moved to Louisville, Kentucky in 1951,so he could continue his preparation for the ministry at Southern Baptist The16
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
ological Seminary.While Sara worked and took care of the children, Joseph was a full-time student and a fulltime pastor at a church in southern Indiana. His seminary work kindled special interest in Hebrew language, Old Testament,and archaeology. After receiving the Master of Divinity degree in 1954,Callaway entered the seminary's graduate school and received the Th.D. degree in Old Testament Studies in 1957During his years of graduate work, Callaway was a Fellow in Biblical Archaeology and an Instructor in Biblical Hebrew. While Professor William H. Morton was away from campus, studying in Jerusalem and excavating at Dhiban, Joseph taught archaeology at the seminary, even while he completed his dissertation on the Natureof Messianismin the Old Testament. After teaching for a year at Furman University, Callaway returned to Louisville to join the faculty of Southern Seminary,where he taught from 1958until his retirement in 1982. During those twenty-four years, Joseph taught Old Testament and
a field archaeologist was stimulated by many factors,from his Arkansas farming background, to his academic preparation, to his personal acquaintances. As a result of his seminary studies in Old Testament and ancient languages he began to think about the historical and cultural context of the Bible and realized that archaeological fieldwork held great possibilities for his own approach to biblical study. And, as Sara Callaway puts it, his first dig convinced him that dirt archaeology was "where the action is."
Bethel/Beitin Dr. Callaway participated in the Pittsburgh-XeniaTheological Seminary's excavation at Bethel/Beitin, in 1960,which was under the direction of James L. Kelso. Albright had conducted soundings at Bethel in 1927, and full-scale excavations were launched in 1934;Bright,Pritchard, and Wright were among those who participated in the 1934 season. Kelso continued work at Beitin in 1954,1957, and 1960 (King 1983:90,130),and it was this last season of excavation that Callaway joined. Kelso'swork has not been treated with much respect, because of "the absence of proper stratigraphicalcontrols in excavation" and because of his "biblical preconceptions" (Moorey 1991:71).Such criticisms are important to note, since the Bethel expedition was the setting for Callaway's earliest training in excavation methodology an experi-
ence thatput him into directcontact with the 'AlbrightSchool"and the developmentof "BiblicalArchaeol-
own development as archaeologicalfield worker. ogy." In a 1961letterto Kathleen Jerusalem In 1961and Kenyon,Callawayadmittedthathis "summer[of 1960]at Beitinwas 1962Callaway somewhatdisappointingbecause Dr. also participated T. Kelso...did not have the resourcesof in the firstand money or techniqueto do a thorough second seasons of excavationat piece of work."In this same letter, ProfessorCallawaycomparedhis Jerusalemin a experienceat Beitinwith the various projectthatwas under the direcmethodologiesused at Shechem,but the main purpose of the letterwas to tion of Kathleen confirmhis plans to study under M. Kenyonand PereRolandde Kenyonat the Instituteof ArchaeolVaux.Most imogy.In otherwords,Callawaywas preoccupied-from the outset of his portantis the factthatthese archaeologicalfieldwork-with a searchfor the best excavationtechtwo digging seasons in Wrightand Callawayreadingpotteryat Shechem.Theenduring nique,the method thatwould yield the most accurateresults.Ultimately influenceof Callaway's Jerusalemcame experienceat Shechemandthe personal his work at et-Tell(between1964and on eitherside of he formedtherecan hardlybe overestimated. In relationships additionto Wright,Callaway workedalongsideLawrence Toombs 1972)would be regardedas "themost Callaway'sLonmeticulousdig in the Kenyontradidon sabbatical, withwhom he initiallyplannedthe JointExpedition to Ai.Photo tion"(King1983:150; where he studied courtesyof the Callawayfamily Moorey but the transformationof with Kenyonat 1991:128), the Instituteof JosephA. Callawayfromarm-chair sabbaticalwere completed,however, archaeologistto field archaeologist Archaeology.ThisJerusalemwork was,for all practicalpurposes,the began at Bethel. Callawayhad zeroed in on et-Tellas Balatah field a site wherehe could refinehis application-a practicum-for Shechem/Tell Callawayparticipatedin the third, the seminarwork,research,and writ- excavationmethodologyand make a fourth,and fifthDrew-McCormicking thatCallawaydid in Londonin positivecontributionto the underASORexpeditionsto Shechem,in the fall termof 1961and the winter standingof ancientPalestine'shistory and 1964,where he served termof 1962.His participationin and culture. 1960,1962, a real archaeological"apprenticeship" Kenyon'sexcavationgave him a under the directionof G. Ernest chanceto learnher stratigraphictech- Callaway'sExcavationat Ailet-Tell (1964-1972) Wright.As King (1983:142,144) sugnique firsthandand,once again,it work at Shechem... establishedand/or sealed a number gests,"Wright's was a watershedin the archaeology of friendshipsthatwould proveresearly as the fall of 1960, of Syria-Palestine...andalmost every wardingfor the balanceof his career Lawrence Toombsand laterexcavation...reflectedthe influBenco-workers at Parr, Callaway, (e.g.,Kenyon,Tushingham, ence of the Shechem project" to nett, Shechem, Hennessy). began correspondabout (e.g., their own dig in Jordan.As a Taanach,Gezer,Ai; cf. Dever 1973:2,4; Thus,in termsof his pre-Ai/etfielding In of terms excavaTell Callresult of their fieldwork, 1991:100). Moorey archaeological joint participationin tion technique, pottery analysis, and in took five excavation final part away Kenyon's year of teachingat the its role as a field school, the Shechem seasons in what was then Jordan: Instituteof Archaeology(in 1961-1962), Bethel(summer,1960),Shechem both Toombsand Callawaywere Expedition represents a marked imattractedto the biblicalsite of Ai, (summer,1960),Jerusalem(summer, provement over preceding American work in the Middle East. And, as we which had alreadybeen explored, 1961),Jerusalem(spring,1962),and will see, Callaway's experience at Shechem(summer,1962).He worked primarilyby the FrencharchaeoloShechem and the personal relationfor a thirdseason at Shechem,in gist,JudithMarquet-Krause. Though 1964,afterhe opened his own project he participatedin the planningof the ships he developed with Ernest at et-Tell.Longbeforethis round of Ai excavationfor some time,Toombs Wright and other project participants were of inestimableinfluence on his field experiencesand his London reluctantlydroppedout of the project Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
17
becauseof an illness in his family. ButCallawaypushed aheadwith his plans,enlistingthe participationof a numberof scholarsfroma host of institutions.He had a specialinterest in the site'sEarlyBronzeAge history and,naturally,the Old Testament accountof Ai'sfall to the Hebrews
Joshua7-8(Callaway1968;cf.references listed in Drinkardand Gibson In otherwords,Profes1988:463-64). sor Callawaywas compelledto deal with one of his oft-repeateddictums: 'An archaeologicalexcavationof a Biblicalcity is a laboratoryof scientific Biblestudy."
reflectinsightsgleaned fromnearly six thousandpages of correspondence.Not every dispatchJoseph Callawaywrote or receivedremains in the two largefile cabinetsin his basementstudy,but those manila folderscontainremarkablycomplete runs of letters.
t v
v
j
G UTT . ...... ..... LOWER C L
irc vi
K
A[ ATIONS (ET-TELLI-EX A: SANCTUARY AND CITADEL _1Z SME w 8: IRON AGE VILLAGE 40 w 6 20 C: FORTIFICATIONS AND LOWER CITY D: ACROPOLIS G: LOWER CITY H: FOffriFtCATIONS : JK: 1`011TIMATIONS AND WADI GATE M CORNER GATE AND RESERVOR L: POSTERN GATE (F TOWERS PKSB CAMWw .us V!as well as the Krauseexcavations. site planshowingthe locationof the Ai/et-Tell Thefamiliaraerialview of Aiand Callaway's Callaway possesseda specialinterestinthe dominatingEarlyBronzeAge historyof the site.Hecompletedhispublicationof thisaspectof the ReportsSeries. appearedin the ASORExcavation projectin 1980when TheEarlyBronzeAge Citadeland LowerCityat Ai (et-Tell)
added an importantdimensionto the dig'spotentialsignificance,as well as helpingin fund-raising.Buttherecan be no doubt thatCallaway,alwaysa sticklerfor details,broughta methodologicalagendato Ai/et-Tell.One of his primaryobjectiveswas to recover and presentan accuraterecordof the site'sstratigraphy, bringingfurther refinementto the Wheeler-Kenyon method and the Albright-Wright traditionof potteryanalysis. It is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss Dr.Callaway'schanging views on the biblicalproblemof Ai. Sufficeit to say thatthe historyof et-Tell'soccupation,which is known throughCallaway'spainstakingfieldwork,forcedhim to rethinkhis views on the natureand historicityof 18
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
Callaway'sDevelopmentas FieldArchaeologist,as Reflectedin Selected Letters
wasanorgaosephA.Callaway nized man;his golf game,his landscaping,his classroomlectures,his potteryanalysis,his architecturaldrawings,and his personal correspondenceare among the aspects of life thatCallawayapproached in a systematicfashion.This study does not takeinto accountallof the letters,memoranda,aerograms,and postcardsthatCallawayexchanged overa thirty-yearperiodwith friends,acquaintances,and colleagues,many of whom were/are notablefiguresin Syro-Palestinian archaeology.Whatis said here does
Sixtyletters,which were written to and froma small groupof individuals,providethe informationforthis survey.These revealingdocuments were writtenbetween 1960and 1979, but the vast majorityof them date to the 1960s.Thiswas the decadein which Callawaydid most of his fieldworkand when his shift fromOld Testamentprofessorto field archaeologist was effected.Clearly,these lettersrepresenta largepercentageof the contactsthatJosephA. Callaway had with certainotherscholarsthroughpersonalcorrespondence--and reflectthe give and takeof ideas in an especiallyformativeperiod of his life. Likeotherscholars,JosephCallawaycorrespondedwith a varietyof
the March, 1993issue of BiblicalAr1963),but it is clear that many other people to get help or information on influexercised and details that scholars numerous subjects chaeologist("Celebratingand Examinsignificant on ence on Callaway must be handled during an archaeoing W E Albright") demonstrate that specific points. William E Albright's impact is, indeed, alive and logical excavation. Indeed, his correAlbright well. On a great number of points, his all of the ancient Like students spondence seems to fall into two arconclusions and reconstructions and Near East Syro-Palestinian major categories. First, there are the admimust be modified or rejected, but his had letters in which he sought "counsel," great chaeology, Callaway it overall synthetic approach remains in was ration for Albright, since a word that appears frequently his for that had worked classic and continues to provide a realized communication with certain individAlbright in a that he stimulus for the modem generation. decades uals. He used letters to obtain impor(Calldiscipline in Van rather late life. tant counsel or advice on excavation Though he would not repeat the away) entered The Beek's edited volume, Scholarship extremely negative assessment that strategy and methodology, use of the Foxwell sciences in archaeological research, (1989),and Kenyon made of Albright's work at ofWilliam Albright Bethel (in a letter to Callpottery analysis, chronological debates, and so forth. away on January 10,1967), Dr. Callaway did tell NorFor example, in a 1966 letter man Wagner (September to Claire Epstein (of the Israel Museum), Callaway 26,1969) that he thought said "there are two or three Marquet-Krause,the earlier excavator of Ai, "was a problems that you might be much better archaeologist able to advise me on or at least in the field than confer with someone in Israel about before we arAlbright was at Bethel."On the other hand, Callaway rive there in August." He stood in awe of the imthen proceeded to ask her a mense learning manifested series of detailed quesin Albright's Fromthe Stone tions-on pollen analysis, the meaning of the name Ageto Christianity, originally Ai, Egyptian control of the published in 1940,and Professor Callaway recomhill country around Ai, and mended an annual reading the identity of an alabaster of this classic to his gradufigurine. Callaway conate students. cluded the letter by saying "I have a lot more quesCallaway became actions but I will not burden quainted with Albright through the annual meetyou with anymore lest you be so discouraged that you ings of the SBLand ASOR, and Joseph'sparticipation won't even answer my in the Bethel excavation letter." Second, there are the gave him a special point of contact with the master letters in which Callaway ceramicist. The corresponworked out details regarddence between Albright staff, equipment, ing dig and Callaway,which ran finances and travel plans. from 1963 until 1970,reLetters from both flects a mutual respect and found are often categories a candor that reveals a in a single file folder, bond of trust. (Throughout it is that a obvious though the years, it should be small group of scholars stood at the center of his noted, Callaway addressed WEAlbrightexamhis letters "Dear Professor advice network. As far as I One of Callaway's frequentcorrespondents, inesartifactsat JohnsHopkinsUniversity circa.1955.Albright can tell, the "big four" Albright,"while the latter used-with no were-not surprisingly-regardedCallaway's plannedexpeditionto Ai as "splendidnews" skillas a ceramicchronologist. and had highpraiseof Callaway's preference-"Dear Joseph," Albright, Wright,Kenyon, Jr.Archivesof the "Dear Joe,"and "Dear CallPhotocourtesyof the FerdiandHamburger and de Vaux (cf. Callaway's JohnsHopkinsUniversity letter to Wright,April 5, away.")
..
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
19
your feelingsaboutthe...sometimes irresponsibleremarksmadeby ceri i~i ?.• . .. • ! tain Europeanarchaeologistsabout Nelson Glueckand some other Professor Americanarchaeologists." went on to suggestthatthe Callaway tended "to set up little Europeans interand were "more kingdoms" ested in dominatingthanin coexisting,"a tendencyhe noted was lackingin Albrightand his students. Thenhe closed this subjectwith this confession:"Asformyself,I have seen the need for the utmost graceand considerationof othersafterworking with potteryand sectionsmyselfand discoveringhow much latitudethere is for interpretationeven with the most moderntechniques." G.ErnestWright Beginningin 1960,Wrightmade a Therelationship between with Mt.Geriziminthe background. TellBalatah/Shechem profoundimpacton an impressionin 1960. The lectures ableCallawayin termsof both excathe Shechem staff when and joined began Callaway Wright Callaway vationmethodologyand the general that Callaway laterinvitedWrightto deliverat SouthernBaptistTheologicalSeminary of a BiblicalCity(1964). approachto archaeologyand biblical becameWright'smainpublicationon the dig:Shechem:Biography studies.ButWright'sinfluenceon In limits. a Alknew no the from excavator, many people,includingProfessor Callawaysoughtinput isletter dated a of technical on number 24, Albright Callaway,went beyond the technical January 1967, bright and professionallevels.The file of "I have admiration for said it that the letters and is obvious sues, great and abilities lettersthatCallawayexchangedwith own sent fromBaltimoreto Louisville your archaeological were typed in enthusiasticsupportof have no doubtthatyou will become Wrightis thickerthanmost,and there can be no doubt thatthese men deone of the foremostauthoritieson what Callawaywas doing at Ai/etancientPalestineif the world contin- veloped a close camaraderie,once Tell.Forexample,when Albright ues more or less as we know it this learnedthatProfessorCallawaywas Callawayprovedhimself as a peer, In wrote not just an eagerstudent. in a 1970 he at to et-Tell letter,Albright 1964, year." planning dig to Callaway:"Now thatwe have said "thisis splendidnews,since a During a discussionperiod that was loss of led by Wrightin Callaway'sfirst the almost suffered the latest excavation there,using irreparable good at Shechem,on July6,1960, season Paul are one of the a deal should throw very Lapp,you techniques, great our enthusiasticbeginnernoted-at few competentGentilepotterychroof lighton the historyof the site" 5:30p.m.-"Do not takepicturesof nologists." Albright'sinter(September10,1963). In a letterdated October25,1965, areaswhen they arenot cleanedfor est in Callaway'smethodologyconIn the same lecture, tinued.AfterProfessorCallaway Albrightalso raisedthe issue of Euphotography." submittedhis firstarticleon Ai to the ropeanslursand attackson the credi- Callaway also observed that Schoolsof Orien- bility of Glueck'ssurfacesurveys: Bulletin of theAmerican "Theiridea thatGlueck'snearlytwo talResearch, Wright follows Albright way of Albright(in a 1965letter) said "asI had expected,the reportis a thousandsites scatteredoverTranputting together archaeological evidence and tradition for reconmodel,and the photographsand sjordanand the Negev...cannotbe is absolute struction of history.This is used surface dated from the to be whatever leave nothing plans nonsense.I have neveryet had to desired-at least at this stageof arby Maisler & IEJ[IsraelExploration Journal] group. German of of the correct potterydating any chaeologicaltechnique."' school of Alt reject this & use the vast numberof sites,which folAs is well known,Albrightwas form criticism & literary evidence alternata of his low consistent as one of of pattern capable faultfinding, alone. 1970lettersto Callawayindicates,as it ing periodsof occupationand In a 1967letter,Callabandonment." brimswith harshcriticismof Still later,in a letter from 1963, Nielsen'swork at Shiloh.But awayaddressedAlbright'sconcerns: with "I am in for Wright scrawled Callaway a preview completesympathy Albright'spraise JosephCallaway, ....
20
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
of a lecturehe was writing: I'm not sure my 1st lectureis going to be nice as my formulais: A man'sinterestin archaeology (&history)is to be measuredby
TheBiography influentialShechem: ofa Biblical City(1964).Callaway'scuriosity and confidencein the value of Wright'sviews are reflectedin the arrangementshe made forWrightto speak on tenoccasionsduringhis
Notice the steps in Callaway's procedure-stratigraphyfirst,followed by potteryanalysis-the reversal of the Albrightapproach(Dever
1973).
Therecan be no doubt that19611962is the single most important academicyear for the developmentof JosephCallawayas a field archaeologist. He had the 1960Betheland Shechemseasons underhis belt,he joined Kenyon'sJerusalemdig in the summerof 1961,and then went on to study at the Instituteof Archaeology, in 1961-1962, returningto Jerusalem and Shechemin the springand summer of 1962.In a letterto PeterParr, Callawaysaid "myyear at the Institute became a turningpoint in my Even careerin field archaeology." beforehis directcontactwith Kenyon,however,this letterof February,1961,provesthatCallaway'sattentive study of MortimerWheeler's fromtheEarthwas bearing Archaeology fruit.Dr.Callawayknew that"thereis greatvarietyin the ways of analyzing stratigraphyin the field and presentbut he agreedwith that Arab to had labor at Ai, Wright suggested Callaway previous experienced Hiring ing it in reports," Wheeler(1954:56)who insistedthat workerswell-trainedby Kenyonat Jerichobe employedat Shechem.Someof these men the "firsttaskof an excavatoris with at et-Tell.Photocourtesyof the Callaway alsoworkedfor Callaway family It was his returnto stratification." and Shechem,in 1962, he saw both in When Louisville. his interestin theology.The more Jerusalem sojourn that a said 1960 these the less (in gave Callawaythe opportunity plans,Wright archaeology! theology, his new insightson it to test that was "rather this nonWhat is letter) frightening Why? strange, historicalbent that classicaltheol- becauseI wonderwhetherIVe stratigraphicanalysis.In letterswritthat In to last ten in 1967(October21)and 1969 stuff out with the social shares enough long!" ogy today thatsame letter,Wrightand Callaway (June25),ErnestWrightrecognized sciences and philosophicalexiscontinuedto interactwith Sellin's tentialism?That'sprettystrong. Callaway'sexpertiseand would refer to work to him as "agenius in archaeological on I'll have to say it with a grin. Shechem, reports trying field work"and "oneof our field out stratigraphy. On February17,1961, Such quotationsallow us to see Callaway geniuses." So Callawaywas instrumentalin thatWrightgave Callawaynumerous reportedthe followingprogressto techniabsorb both to bringing the Wheeler-Kenyon Wright: opportunities method to Shechem, where, accordcal archaeologicalskills,as well as an the I am article on which an of ing to his January 5,1961,letter to preparing approachby components MiddleBronzeAge streetat one comparesbiblicaland archaeoKenyon, he saw at least three excavain arwhich is a tion methods used in four fields of Shechem data. study logical it method. The relationshipbetween these Basically operation. In a 1963 letter to Wright chaeological involvesthe reconstructionof the two men began when Callaway (December 5), Joseph suggested that the Shechem dig line up Arab workthe streetin framework of the the Shechem sequence project joined ers ("technicians") from Jericho,who wall unit by controlled summerof 1960.In the fall of 1960, were familiar with Kenyon'sstratistratigraphicexcavationand the CallawayinvitedWrightto deliver with this framework of the NortonLecturesat the Southern graphic digging. Wright liked this filling and relevance historical These idea, and the next season saw many meaning BaptistTheologicalSeminary Shechem workers replaced with the lectureswere laterpublished as the by potterystudy. Oft,
Wl", 141
IV
AA
BiblicalArchaeologist58:1 (1995)
21
more experienced alumni of Kenyon's Jericho dig. Still later,Callaway employed some of these same experienced technicians in his own project at et-Tell. Wright used a September,1965 letter as an opportunity to confess to Callaway that he-that is, Wright"goofed badly on dating Stratum 12 in Field IX,"since some Late Bronze Age pottery was overlooked. Professor Callaway later wrote to Doug Tushingham, a friend from the Jerusalem digs, to suggest that "it would be wonderful if everyone who excavates had to do a publication before he went in the field."Since this "cannotbe the case,"the excavator must hazard his/her best interpretation "and wait for someone else to come along and make whatever modifications have to [be] made." Something of Callaway's characteris evident in two lines he wrote to Ernest Wright on September 27,1967: "Thank you again for your interest and helpfulness in our work at Ai. I am continually amazed at the cooperation and helpfulness of so many people who contribute toward the success of an excavation in Palestine."
(January14,1960),Callaway informed her of his 1961-1962sabbatical plans and said: "I am very much interested in spending the year studying the archaeological excavation methods which you teach. For sometime I have been impressed with your methods of excavation."Notice that even before Callaway had worked or studied with Kenyon, he corresponded with her on the subject of "section drawing and interpretation."In of letter from January of 1961,Callaway told Professor Kenyon that Wright
away's delight when he read Kenyon's comment on this matter in a letter addressed "My dear Joe" and dated October 2,1962:"What I can say is that if the connection were official, I should have no fear that we should be caused any embarrassment by the standards!"Five years later (in January of 1967),Kenyon also acknowledged Joseph'smastery of stratigraphic digging when she suggested that he expand his Ai project to include Bethel, since she knew that Callaway would do a much better job
KathleenM.Kenyon If Albright and Wright offered Joseph A. Callaway philosophical and biblical food for thought, Kathleen Kenyon-in 1961and 1962-taught him a technical skill that was subsequently adopted by almost all archaeologists working in SyriaPalestine. As Dr. Callaway put it, Kenyon'sdistinctive contribution to Palestinian archaeology is "the analysis of successive strata from vertical profiles" (Callaway 1979:122).In addition to working under her tutelage in Jerusalem in 1961and 1962,Callaway was a participant (with Lawrence Toombs,Claire Epstein, and Rafik Dajani) in Kenyons last seminar at the Institute of Archaeology, in 1962. There can be no doubt that Callaway admired Dame Kenyons devotion to students, as well as her honesty independence, and diligence (Callaway 1979:124-125). In his first letter to Kenyon 22
Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
Kathleen Kenyon examines a balk at Ai during her 1966 visit. Callawaylearned stratigraphicmethod from Kenyon,first at the Jerusalemdig and subsequently at the London Instituteof Archaeology where he spent a sabbatical leave. Photo courtesy of the Callawayfamily
allowed him to experiment at Shechem with "acontrolled stratigraphic technique" which he learned from her book, Beginningin Archaeology.With tongue-in-cheek, he commented "it worked very well because I began in an area which had nine cobblestone streets, one above the other." When Callaway and Toombs were making plans for their initial season at Ai/et-Tell, there was some discussion of Crystal Bennett joining their expedition, either as an official representative of the British School or as a private participant. Imagine Dr. Call-
than Albright! Callaway's letters to Kenyon frequently include a statement that reads "If you have any counsel or comments, I should be glad to have them." In his letter to "Kay"on January 12,1963,for example, we see the kind of advice Callaway often sought in this correspondence: The problem about which I would like your opinion is when to date the termination of Early Bronze occupation and tombs at 'Ai.I have developed the position that it occurred in the earliest
part of EBIII,althoughyou state in JerichoI that the flat"platters" indicatelate EBIIIfor Sanctuary A. ErnestWrighthas the same opinion.However,thereare flat in TombA127which is "1platters" EBII,and I think all of the pottery which can be called EBIIImay also be late EBII or earlyEBIII, parallelingroughlythe periods representedat Tellel-Far'ah,althoughTellel-Far'ahhas no flat And thereare no "platters." pointed-basepiriformjuglets,
stand,or if it should be revised while thereis time. Justbeforeher death,"K." expresseddelightat the publication afestschrift in theLevant, of Archaeology done in her honor.In this letterof June23,1978,she praisedCallaway's contribution,"New Perspectiveson EarlyBronzeIIIin Canaan,"and said "Ishall make greatuse of it in the final assessmentof E.B.Jericho,on which I am at presentworking."As was true forAlbrightand Wright,
"'?, p
AprT
mattersof stratigraphyand ceramics-were highly regarded.Their close associationbegan with the 1961 and 1962excavationsin Jerusalem, but Josephrecognizedthe expertise that de Vauxacquiredduringhis nine seasons of digging at TellelFar'a,North.As plans for the first season at Ai were underway,Callaway said to Perede Vaux:"Iwill probablybe callingupon you for counsel and some help fromtime to time"(March14,1963).De Vaux praisedCallawayforhis effortsto
Pei
71
V7,
f M,
tiw
lw Or, methodshe had meticulousadherenceto the controlledstratigraphic Thesquaresandtrimmedbalksof SiteCat Aitestifyto Callaway's journeyedto Londonto studywith Kenyon.
exceptone in TombB which can be EBII,nor KhirbetKerakware. Neitherare thereany verticalburnishedtaperedstump-base jugletsand jugs like those from Tomb D12...I should like to know
if you thinkmy conclusionwill
Kenyonhad learnedthatJosephCallaway'sexpertisein things archaeologicalwas considerable. Rolandde Vaux Callaway'scorrespondencewith Perede Vauxwas not extensive,but it is clearthat de Vaux'sjudgments-in
obtainan accuratepotterysequence and stratigraphiclinks between architecturalremains(December23, 1963).In Marchof 1965,Fatherde Vauxwas a guest lecturerat Southern Seminary,at Callaway'sinvitation.ProfessorCallawaytook the 58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
23
opportunity to have de Vaux visit in his home "to go over the Ai pottery and plans and offer some counsel on interpretations" (October 21,1964). Once again, Callaway's character is reflected in a word of thanks sent to Roland de Vaux in 1965,after his Louisville lectures: I feel that our students have a new dimension [in] their understanding of archaeological research in Palestine since you are the first representative of your school to speak here. Also, I feel that new channels of communication have been opened between us and our Catholic brothers for the interchange of ideas and even work together.
Tel Arad. In a 1969 letter,she reminded him that C-14was only recently applied to field research in Palestine, and this new method must be checked and checked. In fact, Callaway made further investigations and eventually used radiocarbon dates in working out the chronology at et-Tell, and in 1977 he and James Weinstein published a major sur-
cognizanceof one anothers work." To his credit, Callaway expressed interest in several avenues of investigation that originated in New World archaeology (cf. Moorey 1991:165).
Obviously, Professor Callaway understood how international-how ecumenical-the archaeological enterprise must be.
OtherImportantCounselors
As noted above, Callaway wrote many letters of inquiry to fill in some of the gaps in his own knowledge and experience. This approach proved its value by bringing him lengthy and informative responses to a multiplicity of questions, most of which were related to the use of the natural sciences in archaeological research. For example, his March 5, 1965,letter to James B. Pritchard (and his University of Pennsylvania Museum staff) solicited advice on radiocarbon dating, paleoethnobotany (identification of seeds), paleozoology (identification of animal bones), palynology (identification of pollen), and archaeological geology. In a 1965 letter, Peter Parr,from the University of London, responded to similar questions and informed Callaway that American laboratories provided the most reliable C-14 results. After obtaining a group of C-14 analyses on Ai materials, Callaway discussed the results with Ruth Amiran, one of the principal excavators of
Conclusion
n a daywhenmanyvoicesare lamenting the scarcity of scholars who can handle both archaeological and biblical data, it is clear that Joseph A. Callaway was a leading figure among those who have fostered the dialogue between these two fields. In his roles as teacher and administrator, he promoted this cause with interest and enthusiasm, always aware that the responsibility of publishing the Ai/et-Tell material
4
24
vev in the Bull'tiuof tHlL AJlrica17l Schoolsof Orieltal Reearclhon "Radiocarbon Dating of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age." In a similar quest for guidance on the inter-disciplinary approach, Professor Callaway sought advice from his friend at the Smithsonian, Gus Van Beek. While corresponding with each other concerning their essays on "Biblical Archaeology" (published in late 1960 and early 1961),Van Beek suggested to Callaway that New World archaeologists had much to offer Near Eastern specialists and vice versa. Van Beek said, "It is too bad that so rigid a geographical curtain has been raised between us so that we take so little
BiblicalArchacohNist58:1 (1995)
The Ahiludjar handle: though found not at Ai, but during a salvage excavation of Ai's neighbor Kh. Raddana, Callawaywas drawn to associate this named individual with the better known IronAge architecture at Ai. One constellation of buildings became "Ahilud'shouse," manifesting Callaway'sdesire to enter into the "living world of the Bible."Photo courtesy of the Callawayfamily.
rested upon his shoulders. In his final letter to Kenyon, written on June 30,1978-less than two months before her death, Joseph admitted: "Phasing out of field excavations in Palestine was not an altogether pleasant experience because I had a letdown feeling that one must have when one retires life's work. Preparing reports on the excavations has proved to be less exciting than doing the digging." In 1978,as he reflected on Kenvons death, Callawav
wrote these words to Norman Wagner, a member of the et-Tell staff: "I have had occasion to recall that Lapp, Wright,de Vaux, and Kenyon have left large parts of their excavations' research to be published by others." The fact that Joseph A. Callaway did not fulfill all of his publication goals is cause for regret-but only momentarily He accomplished many other things in his lifetime, and his reputation as a field archaeologist is untarnished. And in terms of his interests in linking biblical studies and archaeological research, Joseph heeded the warning that Mortimer Wheeler sounded in Archaeology from the Earth(1954:13):'Archaeology is a science that must be lived, must be 'seasoned with humanity' Dead archaeology is the driest dust that blows." In an essay on 'Archaeology and the Bible,"part of his introduction to volume one of the Broadnman BibleCommentary (1969:49),Dr. Callwrote: away By rediscovering the intellectual and spiritual world of the Bible in archaeological research, we have the possibility of getting to the Bible with new insights into its timeless truth. We are enabled to approach the biblical revelation assisted by the steady guidelines of Near Eastern history and culture. And by working within the guidelines of actual history, we are led into the living world of the Bible, to the people who gave us the Bible.The legacy of archaeology to the Bible is, therefore,life, its own life.
Bibliography Callaway,J.A. 1961 BiblicalArchaeology Reviewaind Expositor58:155-72. 1964 Potteryfrom the 7Toubsat Ai (et-Tell).
Colt ArchaeologicalInstitute MonographlSeries. London:Quiaritch. 1966 The Emerging Role of Biblical Archaeology Reviewz anidExpositor 63:199-209 1968 New Evidence on the Conquest of
'Ai.
87:312of BiblicalLiteratuirv
20. Jounila 1969 Archaeology and the Bible.Pp.4148 in TheBroadinan BibleCOnnientary/, Vol.1 (rev.ed.).Edited by Clifton J. Allen. Nashville: Broadman. 1979 Dame KathleenKenyon,1906-1978. BiblicalArchaeologist42:122-25.
Cross,E M. 1974 George ErnestWright:A Tributeto Him at His Death. HarvardDivinity
Bulletin5/1:1,4. Davis,T.W. Ph.D. 1987 A Historyof Biblical Arhaeologty. diss., University of Arizona. 1993 Faith and Archaeology:A Brief History to the Present.Biblical AircaeoltgyReview19/2:54-59. Dever,W G. 1973 TwoApproaches to Archaeological Method-the Architecturaland the Stratigraphic.ErctzIsrael11:1-8. 1980 BiblicalTheology and Biblical Archaeology:An Appreciationof G. ErnestWright.Harvard Theo•ogical Review 73:1-15.
Drinkard,J.E,Jr.;and Gibson,J.M. 1988 Joseph A. Callaway:Select Bibliography.Pp. 463-64 in Beiclhnarksi) Timeand Culture:An Introdutction to
Palestinian Archaeologyt.Edited by Joel E DrinkardJr.,Gerald L. Mattingly, and J.Maxwell Miller.Atlanta: Scholars Press.
ProfessorGerald L. Mattinglyhas served on the staffs of numerous field projects,including three seasons with EmnoryUniversity'sArchaeological Survey of Centraland Southern Moab. He is the author of scores of articles and essays on diverse subjects in biblical studies and Near Easternarchaeology. Dr.Mattingly serves on the editorial He is committee of Biblical Archaeologist. currently Professorat Johnson Bible College. Most recently,he was visiting scholar at the College of William and Mary.
King, E J. in theMideast: 1983 AmericanArchaeology A History of thieAmerican Schools of OrientalResearch. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research. Moorey,P.R. S. 1991 A Centuryof BiblicalArchaeot)lgy.
Cambridge:LutterworthPress.
----------
Rust,E. C. 1988 BiographicalSketch of JosephA. Callaway: Christian Minister, Old Testament Professor, and Field Archaeologist. Pp. 456-61 in Beiichmarks in Timeand Culture:An Introductiowto PalestinianArchaeolcgy. Edited by Joel E Drinkard Jr.,Gerald L. Mattingly, and J. Maxwell Miller. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wheeler, R. E. M. 1954 Archaeoogyfrom the Earth.Oxford: Clarendon.
BiblicalAIrhaeologist 58:1 (1995)
25
New
on
Light and
the
King
Narmer
Protodynastic
ECENT EXCAVATIONS INISRAEL'S northern Negev desert, carried out under the ausof pices the new Nahal Tillah Regional Archaeology Project,are beginning to shed new light on the character of late Protodynastic/Early Dynastic Egyptian/Canaanite interaction, ca. 3300-3000 BCE.Of key importance are new data concerning the role of one of the earliest historically known Egyptian kings, Narmer, in the expansion of the Nile Valley civilization. One of the central research problems on which the Nahal Tillah project focuses is the nature of core periphery relations and the impact of core civilizations on their less socially complex neighbors. Specifically, how -jodo newly emergent "pristine"civilizations impact and influence culture change in their less socially developed peripheries? These kinds of questions are linked to broader issues of culture evolution, especially the rise of secondarystatesin the ancient Near East. In July of 1994, excavations in the Nahal Tillah area near Kibbutz Lahav tp] recovered a wealth of new data that bear on this problem. In soundings on the Halif Terraceat the Silo site, large numbers of imported Protodynastic/Early Dynastic Egyptian pottery vessels, architecture,a clay seal impression, and a new incised sherd bearing the serekhsymbol of King Narmer were found. Narmer, known to archaeologists from the exquisite large stone palette which contains his ThefamousNarmerPalette,discoveredin a cacheof votiveobname symbolized as a catfish, was once thought to have been responsijectsat Komel-Ahmar(Greekname= Hierakonpolis) bythe late nineteenthcenturyexcavations of Quibelland Green.Composed ble for the first unification of upper of slateand standingca. .64m high,the two-sidedpalettedepicts and lower Egypt sometime between 3050-3000 BCE.This article outlines KingNarmerin the smitingpose,wearingthe crownof Upper expansionintoCanaan the archaeological and historical Egypt.Thefinalkingof Dynasty0, Narmer's of hegecontext of the new Narmer serekhand appearsto havebeen predicateduponhisestablishment is a detailof the newly examines the importance of this early monyoverthe Deltaregion.Superimposed discoveredserekhsignon a sherdfoundat the SiloSite,Halif epigraphic artifact for southeastern Israel.PhotographbyZevRadovan,courtesyT Levy. Mediterranean Terrace, archaeology.
EgyptianPresence in Canaa
.-tI
.,,44
.'
..1
26
:
By ThomasE. Levy,EdwinC.M. van den Brink,YuvalGoren,and David Alon
w fl~lk
Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
?.
The Nahal Tillah Study Area
he Nahal (Hebrew;Arabic= wadi) Tillah is a small secondary seasonal drainage which debauches into the larger Nahal Gerar and is located near the interface between the Irano-Turanian semi-arid and Mediterranean environmental zones of Israel'snorthern Negev and southern Shephelah. The area is characterized by Eocene chalk hills, dissected by small secondary drainages, with many small valleys in-filled with loessial sediments. Rainfall averages ca. 400 mm on an annual basis. Approximately one kilometer to the northeast of Nahal Tillah, the Halif Terracerises to ca. 490 meters above sea level and marks the water-shed between the Nahal Gerar in the west and the secondary drainages which flow into the Biqa'at Yaval(Yavalvalley) in the east. The area dominates an important ancient transportation/ trade route east-west from the Mediterranean coast, northsouth through the southern Shephelah, and northward through the Judean mountain system. The Nahal Tillah region facilitated trade between the northern Negev and the more humid Mediterranean areas to the north.
ukv, i dL
Az.
144 -f
-qlwp
4-k
AL
\AI
0fti
-
ject grows out of earlier pioneering research in this environmental contact zone carried out under the direction of J.D. Seger of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University and D. Alon of the Israel Antiquities Authority on the Halif Terrace. The Halif Terrace, extending over an area of some ca. 13 hectares, is located on the eastern side of Tel Halif (Arabic = Tell Khuweilifeh) on the grounds of Kibbutz Lahav (Alon 1974,1977a-b; Seger 1990-91; Seger et al 1990). Seger's precise work provides an essential stratigraphic cornerstone which demonstrates the rich evidence for
WI.
il s:
Previous Excavationsin the Nahal Tillah Region
he NahalTillahregionalpro-
:,v
PR I 14
ek
44
A*-49k
dL
The HalifTerracecovers ca. 13 ha on the eastern side of TelHalifand marksthe watershed between two wadi systems.At ca. 490 m above sea level, the area commands important communication routes. All photographs courtesy T Levy
the elusive Chalcolithic through Early Bronze I sequence in southern Israel (Seger et al 1990).In the late 1980s,J.P Dessel (1991)made the first systematic attempt to understand the changing nature of Egyptian - south Levantine interaction based on an indepth ceramic analysis of material
from Seger' excavations on the Halif Terrace(Sites 101and 301).Recently, Alon and Yekutieli (in press) made a similar, but less quantitative study, using data from Alon's eight probes on the Halif Terracecarried out in the early 1970s.As a total of ten probes have been made on the Halif Terrace, 58:1(1995)27 Biblical ArcWhaeologist
,;1"'-
P
,
•
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
Area C -
?
?-----
--4--+--
+
~+
-+
I
- --
+4
-----
+-Ir-
+
+"
'I
,
'
+
I
Area B
+
Serekh (L.14 B.259) -
--- +
""
A IArea
I
+,,
i
I I
Canaan.
'
'
I
'
,
1
- --
--
MIeters
Schematicmapof SiloSiteExcavations, 1994,HalifTerrace. Bymakingan extensivehorihavebeen ableto explorethe socialdynamics zontalexposureat the site,archaeologists representedbythe mutewallsand artifactsfoundat the site.
researchers have given separate names such as "Site101,""Site 301," (Seger et al 1990),and the "Villa Site" (Alon and Yekutieli in press) with the different excavation operations as the sites. Together,these early excavations cover an area of ca. 1,703m2. To distinguish our new work on the Halif Terracefrom the previous excavations, we use the term "Silo Site" which reflects the nearby "corn 28
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion initiated a pilot excavation and survey in the Nahal Tillah region. This included a large horizontal sounding (ca. 800 m2) on the Halif Terracewhich was labeled the "Silo Site."Survey and excavations in 1994 confirmed a full stratified sequence of Chalcolithic, Early Bronze IA, and Early Bronze IB on the Halif Terrace (see page 33 below for comparative stratigraphic table of the Silo Site and other southern Palestinian sites). Using geophysical survey techniques, A. Witten from the University of Oklahoma located a significant number of potential Early Bronze burial caves in the research area. Most important is the widespread evidence for a substantial late Protodynastic/Early Dynastic Egyptian presence in the Nahal Tillah region, with evidence of possible administrative functions on the Halif Terracewhich rival or complement Tel Erani (e.g. Brandl 1992) as the generally accepted center of early Egyptian activity in southern
mulch" silos established by the local kibbutz on the terrace.
TheNewNahalTillahExcavations: Silo Site,HalifTerrace uilding on the workof these earlierresearchers,in the summer (July-August)of 1994,the Universityof California,SanDiego and the Nelson GlueckSchoolof
The 1994 excavations have revealed large quantities of Egyptian prestige goods including Egyptian Late Ware ceramic vessels, a small faience jar,Egyptian storage jars, and administrative artifacts such as a clay bullae, or stamp impression, depicting a flag hieroglyph (NTR) which generally represents the concept of God in ancient Egyptian. Alternatively,it may represent a procession. Clay bullae from the Early Bronze I period are extremely rare in Palestine. The discovery of the clay bullae from the Halif terrace marks the second time one of these administrative artifacts has been found outside of En Besor in Palestine (cf. Gophna 1992,1995; Schulman 1976).At Tel Erani,Kempinski and Gilead (1991)found several which are difficult to read. In addition to these special finds, the analysis of ca. 990 kilograms of pottery recovered during the 1994 Silo Site excavations indicate a sharp increase in Egyptian pottery in the late EB I (Stratum IIB) ca. 3200-3000 BCE.Addi-
10m
VV.
2
A clayseal impression with the flag hieroglyph (NIR)usually the conceptof Godin ancientEgypt.Itmayalsodepicta interpretedas representing were "royal"processioncarryingflags or banners.Untilnow,similarclayseal impressions at 'EnBesoron the Negevcoastalplain,with a knownonlyfromRamGophna's excavations artifactwillhelpscholarsbuild few examplesfoundat TelErani.Thistype of administrative a morerobustpictureof earlyEgyptiantradeand exchangein ancientCanaan.
tionalexcavationwork on the terrace will hopefullyprovidecomprehensive archaeologicaldatawhich will help clarifythe tempo and character of the Egyptianpresencein southern Palestine(Levyet al in prep).The remainderof this paperfocuses on the contextand significanceof an additionaladministrativeartifact-a beautifullypreservedserekhsign depictingKingNarmer.
exposureswhich providearchaeologists with a broadview of the layout of these formativesettlements.The recentwork at NahalTillahand the HalifTerracewas similarlyorganized to maximizethe amountof site expose in the relativelyshortfive week digging season.Threemain excavation areaswere established(A, B,and C) with AreaA situatedon the most southernaspectof the site.Fourdistinct archaeologicalstrata,with some subdivision,were defined:I,IIa,IIb, III,and IVA totalof nine 5 x 5 meter squareswere opened in AreaA where some of the best preserved late EarlyBronzeI architecturecame to light.Of interesthere are the archaeologicalremainsfromStratum IIbwhich correspondsto the late EBI (EBIB)horizondating to approximately 3300-3000 BCE.
Forthe most part,the StratumIIb architecturein AreaA is non-domesIt can all be stratiContext: tic in character. TheSerekhin Archaeological connected acrossthe NahalTillah graphically excavationareabecause of the presvertheyears,ourexcavations ence of a hard-packedfloor (Locus in the northernNegev have 30) made of mud plaster.An excepbeen aimed at investigating tionallywell preservedroom (Room the social dynamicswhich are repre- I) was found in the centerof this surface.The room measures4 meters sented in the late fifth-thirdmillenof in record nium BCE lengthfromeast to west and 3 archaeological meterswide fromnorthto south this region (cf.Levy1995).Conse(exteriormeasurements).No quently,excavationstrategieshave evidenceof domesticactivitieswas focused on obtainingextensive found in this relativelysmall room which has roundedcorners.Instead, the followingobjectswere found: four LateWareEgyptianceramic vessels,a faiencevessel,two unfinished limestonemaceheads,and otherfinds. Some four metersto the east of f
.
,
.t
.
...
VANIgo
Thesevesselswere EgyptianLateWareceramicvesselsfromRoom1,SiloSite,HalifTerrace. foundon floorsassociatedwiththissmallroom.PhotographbyZevRadovan,coutesy T Levy
Room I, a beautifully preserved circular stone structure (Locus 22) was found. The diameter of this structure is 3.4 meters, forming a nearly perfect circle. It consists of an enclosing wall which is made of large (30-40 cm x 15-22 cm) stones that define the perimeter.There is only one course of stones preserved. The center of the structure is paved with smaller stones. Similar circular structures have been found at contemporary BiblicalArchaeologist58:1 (1995)
29
Late EB I sites in southern Israel such as Palmachim (R. Gophna and E. Braun,pers. comm.) and Tel Malhata (small; Amiran et al. 1983).The general consensus is that these represent the stone foundations of circular grain storage silos. Several important artifacts were found in association with this structure. An Egyptian "bagshape" vessel was found directly on the surface of the circular installation, as was another unfinished periform limestone mace head, and other objects. An EB IB fill directly above the surface of the circular structure produced the most significant discovery: a ceramic sherd inscribed with the serekhof Narmer. Compared with the corpus of serekhsfrom southern Palestine, this newly discovered sample comes from perhaps the most secure archaeological context of the published assemblage. The close association of the large circular "silo"and the building with Egyptian prestige goods indicates the presence of a possible public storage area in this part of the Halif Terrace.The discovery of a Narmer serekhand the clay bullae in this area highlights the potential of Area A for revealing important new dimensions of royal Egyptian trade with southern Canaan. SoutheasternMediterraneanRegional
Context
ecent excavationsin the Nile Delta of Egypt at a number of mostly settlement sites dating from the late Predynastic to the Protodynastic/Early Dynastic periods (ca. 3500-2800 BCE)provide us with a much better understanding of the final stages of the Lower Egyptian Chalcolithic Maadi culture (cf. Kaiser 1957,1990;van den Brink 1992a).These new excavations in the Delta are crucial for understanding the processes which led to the rise of early Egyptian civilization (Wenke 1991).They provide the missing link concerning the processes which brought about the transition from a late Chalcolithic, fairly homogenous 30
Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
Mediterranean Se a * Azor
* El Maghar Tel Afridar * Erani,, Tel Ma' ~az az Tel Ma' Nahal'Tillah 0Lachis•h.. _* Halif Terrace Taur Ikhbeine En Besor
Arad
Omar
Buto. Minshat.Abu EI-Tel El (S) *.
Tell Ibrahim Awad
:Iswid 0
0
Abusir el-Meleq *.
100
50
150 km
mi 100loo
* Tura
Memphis Tarkhan
50
.
*
. "(A
Map of Southeastern Levantshowing the location of NahalTillah.
Lower Egyptian culture called the "Maadi-Buto culture" (von der Way 1992:1)to the following, Protodynastic period, characterized by a material culture with traits shared by the people of both the Delta (Lower Egypt) and Upper Egypt. This "new" material culture reflects the so-called "Unification of the Two Lands" of Upper and Lower Egypt. From an archaeological perspective, this is attested by a single, very homogeneous, Early Dynastic material culture which appears rather suddenly throughout Egypt. Until recently,it was not possible to clarify the temporal processes which characterized the earliest interrelations between Egypt and its eastern neighbors. This approximately 500 year time span was lumped together into 'late Predynastic/Early Dynastic' for Egypt and Early Bronze I for ancient Canaan or Palestine.
Since the early 1990s with the increase in science-based source area characterization analyses and traditional comparative studies, it is now possible to distinguish between the various stages of interaction of the contemporary cultures of Egypt and Canaan. These include: the late Chalcolithic of Lower Egypt, late Naqada IIc-d Upper Egypt, and Early Bronze IA Palestine; and Proto and Early Dynastic Upper and Lower Egypt and Early Bronze IB Palestine. In the future, even finer temporal divisions may be possible. However, at least four distinct stages in the earliest contacts between Lower and/or Upper Egypt and Early Bronze I A-B Canaan can now be distinguished (cf. Gophna 1992;Tutzundic 1993;Hartung 1994).It is in this more refined temporal sequence that the significance of the new serekhmust be evaluated.
vz,
o
cmcm
Fromleft to right:Detail of the newly discovered serekh sign on a ceramicsherd found at the Silo Site, HalifTerrace,Israel.Fragment of an incised serekh sign of Narmer,TellIbrahimAwad, Phase 6,
The New Narmer Serekh from the Halif Terrace
the Chalcolithicthrough Srom the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in southern Canaan there is evidence for a slow but steady increase in trade and exchange with Egypt (e.g., Stager 1992).This process crystallizes in the late EB I with evidence of royal trade and exchange based mostly on the presence of Egyptian style clay cylinder seal impressions (bullae) and incised serekhsigns. To date there are ca. 18 incised serekhsigns which have been found in Israel,only three of which could be positively identified with Narmer (cf. Amiran 1974;Brandl 1992:447;van den Brink, in press, in prep). In fact, two of the "nameless" or anonymous serekhscome from the Halif Terrace(cf. Gophna 1972;Seger et al 1990:5,fig. 4; van den Brink,in prep). Thus, the sercklipresented here is not a surprise per se. However, a combination of factors make the Silo Site serekhof special interest. First, most of the known sercklisfrom Israel are either in too fragmentary a state of preservation or do not contain a
5
Egypt.Photo by Edwin CM. van den Brink.Fragmentof an incised serekh sign of Narmerfrom TombB2, Umm el-Qaab, Abydos, Egypt.Courtesyof G. Dreyer.
name. The Silo Site example can be unambiguously attributed to a known king-Horus Narmer. Second, unlike most of the other serekh signs, the example presented here comes from a stratigraphically controlled context. The Silo Site serekhrelates to the later part of the early Egyptian-south Levantine relations, i.e., at the end of the Dynasty 0 in Egypt, contemporary with the very late portion of the EB IB (Stratum IIb,Silo Site). Petrographic examination has shown conclusively that the single pottery sherd with the serekh(Locus 14,Basket 259) is composed of Nile silt and originated in Egypt (see below). The incised serekhrepresents Narmer, the last king of Dynasty 0. The serekhwas incised into the clay before the vessel was fired, and with the exception of a small part of its upper left corner,is completely preserved. The pottery sherd measures ca. 10.5x 10.5cm, has a thickness of 10 mm, and comes from the shoulder area of a hand-made, burnished Egyptian storage vessel. The vessel appears to have been handmade, the exterior surface carefully scraped,
smoothed over, and finally burnished. No slip was applied. The break in the sherd shows that it was completely oxidized with a red core. The interior surface of the fragment is gray,the exterior surface a graypink. The serekhitself measures ca. 6 x 4 cm. Its frame, generally believed to represent the outline of a royal palace (Wilkinson 1985:99ff),consists of two incised, vertical straight lines, topped and cut by a single, horizontal curvilinear line. Its base consists of two horizontal lines, a longer one cutting the right outer vertical line. There is an additional shorter incised stroke which effectively closes off the base of the serekh.A single horizontal line at approximately a third of the serekli height subdivides it into an upper and lower register. Three vertical short strokes, all cutting the serekhIbase line, fill the lower register.On most serekhs,it is generally accepted that this schematically represents the recessed paneling of a mudbrick palace facade (Wilkinsonl985:99ff).A more elaborate example of such a serekhrepresentation, executed in stone, was 58:1(1995) Biblical Arcthaeohgist
31
from Tomb B1/2 (ascribed to IryHor) found in the vicinity of Narmer's own tomb (B17/18)in the royal cemetery at Abydos from Dynasty 0 (- 1).' Petrographic Examination Visual examination of the ceramic sherd The life-likecatfish representationfrom Narmer'spalette is an with the incised abbreviated form (N'r)of the king'sname. The catfish is framed by serekhsuggested the facade of a royal palace. that it was nonlocal and came from the Nile valley. found on a stele of King Djer of DyHowever, to be certain of its origin, Y. nasty I (Wilkinsonl985:99ff).The Goren carried out a petrographic name or so-called compartupper examination of the sherd shortly after ment contains a rather schematic its discovery. The results of the petrothe NY' of hieroglyph representation It consists of a catfish). graphic study in the laboratories of (representing the Israel Antiquities Authority in two lines, the upper one horizontal, the lower one slightly oblique/diagoJerusalem were compared with results obtained from similar material nal, and both slightly cutting the at other Early Bronze and Egyptian serekli right vertical frame line (thus The the fish's tail). Protodynastic sites. effectively forming The petrographic fabric of the lines converge towards the left part of sherd in question corresponds with the compartment and sketchily outthe typical characteristics of what has line the catfish'sbody; two smaller been termed as "Nile silt" (Bourriau additional strokes on its left side indicate the fish's "whiskers." 1981:14).This term refers to pottery in Egypt from local abmanufactured is an but this sign Although Nile sediment. All the main features breviated form (NY')of the king's full of Nile silt were observed in the exname N'r-mr(cf Kaiser and Dreyer amined sherd and are totally foreign the similarity to other 1982:n.194c), to the known petrographic corpus of N'r(mr)signs (incised both within wares (Goren 1992;Porat Canaanite curvilinear well as as topped straight 1989).Thus, the sherd and the vessel serekhs)on pottery and stone vessels (cf. Godron 1949:pl.1) found both in bearing the serekhis of certain Egyptian origin.2 and outside of Egypt, makes a positive identification of this particular Conclusions:Implications serekhwith the last king of Dynasty 0, of the New Serekh i.e. Horus Narmer, possible. The general style of the new Halif Terrace n exploringthenatureof theexserekh,with its curvilinear top, the absence of a falcon surmounting the pansionary dynamics of early catfish schematic the pristine states such as Egypt (cf. serekhi, very of and absence the Algaze 1993),epigraphic data like the representation, the second name component (mr), clay bullae and the newly discovered serekhfrom the Silo Site (Halif Terfinds its closest parallels in the Nile Delta sample found at Tell Ibrahim race) provide scholars with an unAwad (Phase 6-van den Brink usually fine-grain tool for monitoring social interaction. Although our samand another no. 8, 3) 1992b:pl.2,fig. 32
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
ple is extremely small (n = 1!),a typological study of serekhbearing Egyptian storage vessels by van den Brink (in press) has shown that it is possible to isolate earlier (i.e.,Type III) storage jars from later ones (i.e.,Type IV) which bear the serekhof King Narmer. On the basis of a single serekh-bearingsherd, it is impossible to attribute definitively the fragment to one of these Type IV jars. However, circumstantial considerations point to a later date in the lengthy reign of King Narmer, which stretched for a period spanning between 30 to 60 years (Emery 1961).These considerations include the following: 1) Of the two closest parallels to our serekhsign, one comes from Tomb B2, Umm el-Qaab,Abydos, Egypt. This sample comes from the immediate vicinity of Narmers own tomb at Abydos. Assuming that the Tomb B2 serekhsample was incised on the ceramic vessel while funerary arrangements for Narmerg burial were being prepared around the time of his death, its stylistic similarity with the Silo Site sample indicates that the two were produced at the same time and perhaps from the same workshop. This points to a late date for the Silo Site serekh,near the end of Narmers reign. 2) Paleographic considerations also point to a late date in Narmers reign for the Silo Site serekh.Assuming that the earliest examples of Narmer's name are the fullest and most explicitly written (i.e., with both signs NYand mnr)and that only later it was felt sufficient to refer to Narmer only with the first part of his we conclude that our name (i.e., NYX), sample reflects the end of Narmer's reign. 3) Based on the ceremonial Narmer Palette discovered almost 100 years ago (e.g., Fairservis 1991),it seems that King Narmer had to consolidate a strong foothold in the Nile Delta, before intensive contacts could be established with more eastern regions such as EB IB Canaan. Thus, only after a period of political consolidation of the Nile Delta was Narmer
0
Correlation of E ,gyptl*a.n and LOWER EGYPT
Southern Strafi
.
Canaan
Igra-p
UPPER EGYPT
hy SOUTHERN CANAAN
Buto,str.V
Ummel-Qaab,Abydos: TombZ TombO TombB10/15/19
KingDjet KingDjer KingAha
TelArad,str. III el Maghar 'EnBesor,str. II
EBII
Dynasty0 (Naqada IIlbl-IIIcl)
Buto,str. IV
TombB17/18 TombB7/9 TombB1/2
KingNar(mer) KingKa KingIry-Hor
TelHalifTerrace, Silo site, str. Ilb TelErani,str.V TelArad,str. IV 'EnBesor,str. Ill
EBIB(late)
Dynasty'00' (Naqada Illal-2)
Buto,str. Ill
TombsU/f; U/g; U/h TombsUls;U/i TombsU/k;U/j 'Scorpion'
TelErani,str.C Azor,cave tombs
EBIB(middle)
Transitional (Naqada llc-d2)
Buto, str. II
Hierakonpolis: Tombs100 ('paintedtomb'), 101 Locality29A
TaurIkhbeineh TelErani,str. D Lachish(NW)
EBIB(early)
LateChalcolithic (Naqada lib)
Buto,str. I Maadi
Matmar: Tomb3131
Site H IkhbeinehEBA TelHalifTerrace, Silo site, str. Ill
Chalcolithic
Maadi
Dynasty 1 (NaqadaIIic2)
able to turnhis royaladministrative machinerytowardnew foreignhorizons,such as the Negev. The NahalTillahproject,although only in its infancy,has alreadyadded significantdatato the debateconcerningthe natureof the late Protodynastic/EarlyDynasticEgyptian presencein Canaan.The discoveryof an unambiguousincised serekhsign with the name of Narmer,most likely dating fromthe end of his reign,adds textureto models concerningthe processof earlyEgyptianexpansion into southernCanaan.Whileit has generallybeen assumed that the centerof Egyptianactivityin Canaan focused on the site of TelErani,the administrativeartifacts,the imported prestigeitems,and the discoveryof
Wadi Beersheva TelHalifTerrace, Silo Site, Str.IV Shiqmim Abu Matar Bires-Safadi
monumentalEgyptianDynasty1style architectureat the HalifTerrace (cf.Levy et al. in prep)highlightthe possibilitythatthe Egyptiantrading and administrationnetworkin southernCanaanwas much more complexthanpreviouslythought. Justas the small site of 'EnBesorhas producedover90 clay seal impressions relatedto EBIBadministrative activitieson the coastalplain,the HalifTerracecan now be linked to a similarsystemof exchange.Petrographicanalysisof the Silo Site seal impressionas well as additionalexamples are needed beforethe characterof that tradecan be defined. Nevertheless,the discoveryof the Narmerserekhfromthe HalifTerrace offersconclusiveevidenceof royal
Egyptianinterestand relationswith this strategiclocationin southern Canaan.The full impactof those relationscan only be understood throughfurtherexcavation. Acknowledgments Wewish to especiallythankJoeD. Segerforhis support,field visit and discussionsconcerningour excavation work on the HalifTerrace. Thanksalso to RamGophna,Elliott Braun,RuthAmiran,Zvi Lederman, Dan Gazit,Stevenand ArleneRosen, and othercolleaguesfortheirfield visits and deliberations.G. Dreyer kindlyprovidedone of the serekh photographspublishedhere.Finally, we would like to thankJ.Golden,the field supervisorof AreaA and his assistant,BrentMyottefortheirfine
58:1(1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
33
64:57 (Hebrew) excavation work at the Silo Site, and YorkeRowan, Morag Kersel (surveyor), Alon, D. and Yekutieli,Y. Ibrahim AI-Assam, and Michael Jasn.d. The "SiloSite"in Lahav.Atiqot. min for their contributions to the field (English) In press. project.Thanks also to Professor A. Amiran, R. Biran,Director,Nelson Glueck School 1974 An Egyptian Jar-fragmentwith the of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Name of Narmer from Arad.Israel Union College-Jewish Institute of 24:4-12. Exploration Journal Religion (HUC-JIR),Jerusalem,for his Amiran, R.,Ilan,O.,and Arnon, C. help as project advisor and Dr. Paul 1983 Excavationsat Small TellMalhata: M. Steinberg (HUC-JIR,New York)for Three Narmer serekhsIsraelMuseum his support. Finally,we are grateful to journal2:75-83. Mr.C. Paul Johnson and the C. Paul Johnson Family Charitable FoundaBourriau,J. 1981 tion and the Samuel Kress Foundafrom theNile Pottery el-Ga'ahl Umnm Camthe Arab Before C)mquest. Valley tion for much of the financial support University Cambridge bridge: that made this project possible. Press.
Endnotes 1 The TellIbrahimAwad serekhderives from Phase 6; see van den Brink1992b:pl.2, fig. 8, no. 3). The Abydos example is preserved on two conjoinablefragments,the right one found during excavationsby Sir Flinders Petrie (1901:p]. XLIV,1 [B1]),and the left one found during re-excavationwork by Dreyer (cf.Kaiser and Dreyer1982:230[aus B2] fig. 14,no. 40).
Brandl,B. 1992 Evidencefor EgyptianColonization in the SouthernCoastalPlainand Lowlandsof CanaanDuring the EBI Period.Pp.441-477in TheNileDeltain 4th-3rdMillenniumi Transition: B.C Editedby E.C.M.van den Brink. Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety.
2 When examined under polarized light in the petrographicmicroscope,the main features of Nile silt are as follows:
Dessel, J.P 1991 CeramicProductionand Social Complexity in FourthMillennium Canaan:A Case Study from the Tell Halif Terrace.Ph.D.diss., University of Arizona.
a) a contents of poorly sorted sand to silt quartz in varying quantities and size ranges;
Emery,W B. 1961 ArchaicEgypt.London: Harmondsworth.
b) a high proportionof accessory and heavy minerals including mainly minerals of the mica and feldspargroups;
Fairservis,W A., Jr. 1991 A Revised View of the Na'rmer Palette.Journal of theAmericanResearchCenterin Egypt28:1-20.
c) straw and other vegetal matter (phytoliths) commonly apparentin the clay body; d) a non-calcareousmatrix is with abundant mica minerals.
Bibliography Algaze,G. 1993 ExpansionaryDynamics of Some EarlyPristine States.American 95:304-333. Anthropologist Alon, D. 1974 Lahav-TelHalif. HadashotArkheologiyot51-52:28-29(Hebrew) 611977a TelHalif.HadashotArkheolhgiyot 62:40.(Hebrew) 631977b TelHalif.HadashotArkheologiyot 34
58:1(1995) Biblical Archaeologist
Godron,G. 1949 Apropos du nom royal Nr-M'r. de Annalesdu ServicedesAntiquitds 49:217-220. I'Eg•tpte Gophna, R. 1972 Egyptian First Dynasty Pottery from Tel Halif Terrace. Museanm Haaretz Bulletin14:47-56. Gophna, R. 1992 The Contacts between 'En Besor Oasis, Southern Canaan, and Egypt during the Late Predynastic and the Threshold of the First Dynasty: A Further Assessment. Pp. 385-394 in The Nile Delta in Transition:4th-3rd MillenniumB.C.Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Gophna, R. 1995 EarlyBronzeAge Canaan:Some Spatial and DemographicObservations. Pp. 269-281in TheArchaeology Land.Edited by of Societyin theHohly T.E.Levy.London:LeicesterUniversity Press. Goren,Y 1992 PetrographicStudy of the Pottery Assemblage from Munhata.Pp. 329-360inThiePottetyAssemblage of theSha'arHagolanandRabahStagesof Munhata(Israel).Edited by Y Garfinkel.Paris:Editions Recherchessur les Civilisations. Hartung, U. 1994 Bemerkungenzur Chronologie der Beziehungen Agyptens zu Sud Kanaanin splitpridynastischer desdeutschen Zeit. Mitteilungen Abteilung Archiiologischen Inhstituts, Kairo60:107-114. Kaiser,W 1957 Zur inneren Chronologie der GeoNaqadakultur.Archaeologia graphica6:69-77 1990 Zur Enstehung des gesamtdigyptisdes chen Staates.Mitteilungen deutschen Instituts, Arclhiologischen AbteilungKairo46:287-299. Kaiser,W and Dreyer,G. 1982 Umm el-Zaab.Nachuntersuchungen im frihzeitlichen Kbnigsfrieddes hof. 2 Vorbericht.Mitteilungen delutschenArchidologischlien Instituts,
AbteilungKairo38:211-269. Kempinski,A. and Gilead, 1. 1991 New Excavationsat TelErani:A PreliminaryReporton the 1985-1988 Seasons. T•lAviv18:164-191. Levy,T E.,ed. 1995 The of Societyin theHoly Archaeok•,gy Land. London:LeicesterUniversity Press;New York:FactsOn File,Inc. van den Brink,E.M. C., T Levy, E.,Alon, D., E. n.d.
and Kansa, The New Nahal Tillah Regional Archaeology Project: Considering the Early Egyptian Presence in Canaan. In Douglas Esse Festschrift. Edited by S. Wolff. In prep.
Petrie, W. M. F 1901 Diospolis Parva.The Cemeteriesof Abadiyehand Hu, 1898-1899London: Quaritch. Porat, N. 1989 Composition of Pottery: Application to the Study of the Interrelations
between Canaan and Egypt during the 3rd Millennium B.C.Ph.D.Diss., the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Schulman,A. 1976 The Egyptian Seal Impressions from 'En Besor.Atiqot11:16-26.
;;kf
Seger,J.D.
1990 TelHalif -1987Excavations andSurveys in Israel7-8:69-71.
1991 TelHalif-1989. Excavations and in Israel9:67-68. Suirveys Seger,J.D.,Baum,B.,Borowski,O.,Cole, D. P., Forshey,H., Futato,E.,Jacobs,P E, Laustrup,M.,O'Conner-Seger,E and Zeder,M. 1990 The BronzeAge Settlements at Tell Halif: Phase 11Excavations,19831987Pp. 1-32.in Preliminary Reportsof 1983Excavations, ASOR-sponsored 1987.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchSupplement Number 26. Edited by WE. Rast.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press. Stager,L. E. 1992 The Periodizationof Palestine from Neolithic throughEarlyBronze Times. Pp. 22-41in Chronologies in Old WorldArchaeology 3rded.Edited by R.W Ehrich.Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Tutundzic,S. P 1993 A Considerationof Differences between the PotteryShowing PalestinianCharacteristicsin the Maadian and GerzeanCultures. 79:33of EgyptianArchaeology Jouirnal 55. van den Brink,E.C.M.,ed. 1992a TheNileDeltain Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium B.C.Jerusalem:Israel ExplorationSociety. van den Brink,E.C. M. 1992b Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Ibrahim Awad, Seasons 1988-1990.Pp. 43-68 in The Nile Delta in Transition:4th-3rd MillenniumB.C. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. The Incised Serekh-Signs of Dyn.d. nasty 0-1: Complete vessels. Early Egypt. Edited by In J.Spencer. London: Occasional Papers of the British Museum. In press. The Incised Serekh-signs of n.d. Dynasties 0 - 1. Part 2:Fragments. In prep.
Pictured here are David Alon (left) and Thomas E. Levy, co-directorsof excavationsat Shiqmim and Gilat as well as those in Nahal Tillah.Alon is a researcherwith the Israel Antiquities Authority and has, over the last fifty years,carriedout innumerablesurveys in the northern Negev and discovered thousands of sites. Alongside directing excavations at Abu Hof,TellBeit Mirsim,and other locales, he has published numerous articles on the Chalcolithicperiod of the southern Levant and, with Ofer Bar-Yosef, NahalHemnar Cave(1988;Atiqot 18). Levy is Professorof Anthropology and JudaicStudies at the University of California,San Diego. Formerlyhe was Assistant Director at the WE AlbrightInstitute of Archaeological Research(1985-1987)and the Nelson Glueck School of BiblicalArchaeology,Hebrew Union College-JewishInstitute of Religion (1987-1992). Prof.Levy received his Ph.D.from the University of Sheffield,England.His most recent edited book is TheArchaeoloyof Land(1995;NY: FactsOn File;London:LeicesterUniversity Press). Societyin the Hoh! The two other co-authors are YuvalGoren and Edwin C.M. van den Brink.Vanden Brinkis an Egyptologist who took his BAand MA degrees in Egyptology at the University of Amsterdam.He is currentlycompleting his doctoraldissertation at TelAviv University based on a regional and diachronicstudy of settlement patternsin the northeasternNile Delta in Egypt. His most recent edited book is TheNileDeltain Transition:4th-3rdMillennium RC.(1992;Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety). YuvalGoreniis a senior scientist in the InterdisciplinaryResearchDivision at the Israel Antiquities Authority.Goren took his doctorateat the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has co-directed excavationswith PeterFabianat the Chalcolithicmortuary site of Kissufim.Dr.Goren has published numerous articles concerning petrographicanalysis of ceramicindustries for all the archaeologicalperiods in the southern Levant.
Wilkinson, R. H. 1985 The Horus Name and the Form and Significanceof the Serekh. of theSocietyfor theStudy of Journal 15:98-104. EgyptianAntiquities von der Way,T
Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety. Wenke,R. J. 1991 The Evolutionof EarlyEgyptian Civilization:Issues and Evidence. 5:279-329. Journal of WorldPrehistory
1992 Excavationsat Tellel-Fara'in/Butoin 1987-1989 Pp.1-10in TheNileDeltain 4th-3rdMillennium Transition: •RC. Edited by E.C.M.van den Brink.
Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
35
Origin Early
and
History of
the
The
History of
U.-PA
Judaism ER,
Qumran Sect
.5 M.
e
Background
By Lawrence H. Schiffman o
mO
h
T
ODE
f
h
r
s
'I
a
*1
i t y
n
THESCHISM THATGAVE UNDERSTAND
birth to the Dead Sea sect, we . need to frame it against the background of Jewish history and sectarianism in the Hellenistic period. But we now have even more specific information about the particular conflicts, mostly over sacrifices and ritual purity, that led the sectarians to break away and form a distinct group. Indeed, we will see that the origins of the sect are to be traced to the internal priestly turmoil associated with Hellenistic reform, the Maccabean Revolt, and the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty and high priesthood.
h L
o
of
s
L
f
Qum
e
i b
r
a
r
r
a
y
n
Foreword
Chaim
by Potok
Evidenceof the HalakhicLetter Qumrantext,todayknown as the Halakhic Letterdemonstrates quite clearly that the root cause that led to the sectarian schism consisted of a series of disagreements about sacrificial law and ritual The full name of this purity. document is MiqsatMacaseha-Torah (some legal rulings pertaining to the Torah).The writers of its text list more than twenty laws that describe the ways their practices differed from those prevailing in the Temple and its sacrificial worship. But even more important, the document reveals more precise information than we
As itstitlesuggests,LawrenceSchiffman's the DeadSea Scrollsendeavorsto Reclaiming placethe Qumrancommunityand its literaturefullyin the midstof the historyof Judaism. withthe Templeleadersilluminatethe Thedynamicsof the DeadSeasect'scontroversy successfulemergenceof rabbinicJudaismafterthe Romanmilitaryvictoryas well as onJudaism. going issueswithincontemporary have previously had about the origins of the sect. The HalakhicLetterbegins with a statement about its own intent: These are some of "our (legal) rulings" [regarding Go]d's Torah which are [some of] the rulings of [the] laws which we hold, [and
a]ll of them are regarding [sacrifices] and the purity of... (HalakhicLetterB1-3).2 The first sentence announces that what follows are some of "our [legal] rulings" that "we hold." Throughout the letter the authors refer to themselves in the plural. What then
58:1 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
37
... 3:
I
;,gg
TheHalakhicletter,also knownas MiqsatMacaseha-Torah("SomeLegalRulingsPertaining to the Torah"), demonstrates the fundamental originsof the Qumransect in disputesaboutsacrificial lawand ritualpurity.Writtenbeforethe emergenceof the Teacherof Righteousness,the letterwas sent by disaffectedSadduceesaimingto convinceSadduceeswho continuedto servein the Templeto renounce incorrectviewson mattersof Jewishlaw.Thisportionof Fragment C(4Q39814-16ii) representsthe letter'sepilogueand containsthe reference(Miqsat...)that hasbecomethe moderntitle of the text. Photograph? IsraelAntiquitiesAuthorityusedcourtesyof L.H. Schiffman.
followsis a list of twenty-twohalakhicmattersoverwhich the sectarians disagreewith the addresseeof the letter.Formost of these,the text includesboth the view of the writers as well as that of theiropponents. Suchphrasesas "butyou know"and "butwe hold,"indicatethe polemical natureof the text.Laterwe will look at one of the document'sspecific laws,which demonstratesunquestionablythatthis groupadheredto the Sadduceantrendin Jewishlaw. The second partof the letterreturns to generalprinciples,presenting the writers'generalviews on the schismnow underway.The authors state:
participationin the ritualsof the majorityof the people. The purpose of this documentwas to call on their erstwhilecolleaguesin Jerusalemand the Hasmoneanleaderto effecta reconciliationthatwould allow them to returnto theirrole in the Temple. Needless to say,reconciliationmeant acceptingthe views this document put forth.Accordingly,the authors make the generalstatementthatthe addresseesknow thatthe members of this dissidentgroup arereliable and honest,meaningthatthe list of laws is indeed being strictlyobserved as statedby the authors. At this point,the letterplainly explainsits purpose:
[Youknow that]we have separatedfromthe mainstreamof the peo[ple and fromall theirimpurities and] frommixing in these mattersand frombeing involved w[ith them] regardingthese matters.Butyou k[now thatthere cannotbe] found in our hands dishonesty,falsehood,or evil LetterC7-9). (Halakhic
[Forindeed] we have [written] to you in orderthatyou will investigatethe Bookof Moses [and] in the book[s of the p[rophetsand of Davi[d..., in the deeds] of each and every generation(Halakhic LetterC9-11.
The writershere statethatin acceptingthe aforementionedrulings,they had to withdrawfrom 38
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1 (1995)
monarchy),as well as the historyof the generations. The textnow turnsto what is to be found in those particulardocuments,thatis, the Scripturesthatthe sectarianswant theiropponentto search.The addresseeis told (again in the singular)that it has been foretold thathe would turn aside from the path of righteousnessand, as a result,suffermisfortune.The textof Letterthen predictsthat the Halakhic in the End of Days,the rulerwill returnto God. All of it is in accord with what is writtenin the Torahand in the Prophets.This time the authors do not mentionthe Writings,probably becausethe relevantblessings and curses do not occurthere. The textnow returnsto the discussion of the kings,recallingthe blessingsfulfilled duringthe time of Solomon,son of David,and the curses visited on Israelfromthe days of Jeroboam,son of Nebat (ca.922901BCE,son of Solomon),throughthe time of Zedekiah (597-586BCE,last
The sectarianshavewrittento the addressee(now for the firsttime in the singular)in orderthat "you"will examinethe words of the Torah,the Prophets,and David (presumablythe biblicalaccountsof the Davidic
king of Judah). Next the writersstatethatin their view some of the blessingsand curses have alreadycome to pass: And we recognizethatsome of
Z3
•
!!•gj,
ii I
i
you some of the rulingspertaining to the Torahwhich we considered were good for you and your people,for [we have seen] that you have wisdom and knowledge of the Torah.Understandall these [matters]and seek fromHim that He correctyour counsel and distancefromyou evil thoughtsand the counsel of Belial,in orderthat you shall rejoicein the end when you find some of our words correct.And let it be consideredright for you, and lead you to do righteousness and good, and may it be for yourbenefit,and for thatof LetterC26-32). Israel(Halakhic
Here the phraseMiqsatMacasehaTorah appears.The authorsstatethat the letteris intendedfor the benefit of the addresseeand the nation.The !!!!•...... ...L• ..... ......•i •:•• •.. .... ... • : ,_ addresseeis creditedwith being wise and having sufficientknowledgeof the Torahto understandthe halakhic imatterspresentedin the letter.3The call on him to mend his way writers i! i i iiii'R4 and renounceall of his incorrect views on mattersof Jewishlaw. Doing so will lead him to rejoiceat i•• • the end of this period (the End of ?i•,Ai Days),forhe will come to realizethat the writersof the letterare indeed correctin theirviews. His repentance will be judged a righteousdeed, beneficialboth forhim and for all Israel. Thisplasteredchannelwas partof an extensivewatersystemthat includeddamsin the One of the interestingfeaturesof cliffsoverlookingthe site,an aqueductto transportthe waterto the community's cisterns, Letteris the way the the Halakhic and mikva'otBesidessupplyingphysicaland ritualneeds,the wateralsosupportedthe sizeablepotteryworkshop.Photographfromthe BeegleCollection. grammaticalnumberof addressees shifts.In the introductorysentence, the letteris addressedto an individfinal repentanceof Israel. the blessingsand curses which In light of these beliefs,the auual, but in the list of laws, the authors are writtenin the B[ookof Mo]ses thorsexhortthe addressee(singular) engage in a dispute with a group have come to pass,and that this is to recallthe events surroundingthe the End of Days when they will ("you,"plural). When the text returns examine to its main argument-at the concluand of Israel's to in Isra[el] for[ever...] reigns kings, repent that of the list of laws-it shifts back their and to note those sion will not (Halakhic deeds, backsli[de] they to the singular. We will see later that who observedthe laws of the Torah LetterC20-22). the plural sections are addressed to were sparedmisfortune,theirtransSuch was the case Herethe authorsrevealtheirbepriests of the Jerusalem Temple, and gressionsforgiven. with David,whom the addresseeis the singular to the Hasmonean ruler. lief thatthey are currentlyliving on To understand the nature of this text, the vergeof the End of Days,a notion asked to remember. The authorsthen sum up why we will consider an example of one that laterbecame normativein Qumof its halakhic controversies-the law ranmessianicthought.It is also clear they sent this textto the addressee: thatthey consideredtheirown age regarding liquid streams: And indeed, we have writtento the period foretoldby the Bibleas the BiblicalArchaeologist58:1 (1995)
39
[And even] regarding(poured out) liquid streams,we sa[y] that they do not have [pu]rity.And even the liquid streamsdo not separatebetween the impure [and the] pure.Forthe moistureof the liquid streamsand (the vessel) which receivesfromthem are both consideredone identical LetterB56-58). moisture(Halakhic This enigmaticrule refersto questions of ritualpurity in the pouring of liquids fromone vessel to another. In a case when the uppervessel is pure and the lowerone is not, the questionin our textconcernswhether the uppervessel-the sourceof the liquid stream-can be renderedimpure when the streamitself links the two vessels together.The textof the Halakhic Letterassertsthatthe entire is entity "onemoisture,"thatis, that the impuritydoes rise backup the stream,againstthe directionof the flow,so as to renderthe uppervessel impure. This law has a close parallelin the Mishnah.There,in reportinga number of disputesbetween the Pharisees and the Sadducees,the Mishnahstates: The Sadduceessay: "Wecomplain againstyou Pharisees.For you declarepure the (pouredout) 4:7). liquid stream"(M.Yadayim In contrastto our textand the Sadduceanview quoted in the Mishnah, the Phariseesruled thatin such cases the streamdid not impartimpurity to the pure vessel from which it was being poured. To them, the impurity of the lower vessel could not flow up, against the flow of the stream, to render the upper vessel impure. Because the Sadducees, in this and many other cases, share the same positions we find in the HalakhicLetter,we can convincingly show, using this and other Qumran texts, that the Qumran sect had a substratum of Sadducean halakhic views. It appears that this letter was 40
58:1 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
writtento the head of the Jerusalem establishment,the high priest.The comparisonswith the kings of Judah and Israelmust havebeen particularlyappropriateto someone who saw himself as an almostroyalfigure. In the letter,the ruleris admonished to takecarelest he go the way of the kings of FirstTempletimes. Sucha warningcould be addressedonly to a figurewho could identify,becauseof his own stationin life,with the ancient kings of biblicalIsrael. Lettermakesno menThe Halakhic tion of the Teacherof Righteousness or any otherleaderor officialknown fromthe sectariandocuments.Because the sect'sown officialhistory, Fragments, presentedin the Zadokite claimsthat theirinitialseparation fromthe main body of Israeltook place some twenty yearsbeforethe coming of the teacher,we can conLetterwas clude thatthe Halakhic writtenby the collectiveleadershipof the sect in those initialyears.This explainswhy the teacherdoes not appearin this text. HistoricalRamifications
haswide Letter heHalakhic ramificationsfor our understandingof Jewishhistoryin the Hasmoneanperiod.In the letter, the views ascribedto the opponents of the emergingsect are the same as those usually attributedin rabbinic literatureto the Phariseesor the early Rabbis.When MishnaictextspreservePharisee-Sadduceeconflicts overthe same mattersdiscussed in the HalakhicLetter,the views of the letter's authors match those of the Sadducees. Only one possible explanation can be offered for this phenomenon: The earliest members of the sect must have been Sadducees unwilling to accept the status quo established in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt.4The Maccabees, by replacing the Zadokite high priesthood with their own, reduced the Zadokites to a subsidiary position for as long as Hasmonean rule lasted. Even after
leavingJerusalem,the Dead Sea sect continuedto referto itself or its leaders as the "Sonsof Zadok."Our text makes clearthatthe designation "Sonsof Zadok"is to be takenat face value.These were indeed Sadducees who protestedthe impositionof Pharisaicviews in the Templeunder the Hasmoneanpriests. Thatinterpretationexplainswhy Letterconthe writersof the Halakhic stantlyassertthatthe addressees know the authors'views to be correct.The foundersof the sect aimed theirhalakhicpolemics(addressed to a pluralopponent)at theirSadduceanbrethrenwho continuedto serve in the Templeand acceptedthe new reality.It was these remaining JerusalemSadduceeswho now followed views known to us fromPharisaic-rabbinicsourcesand who, in the view of the authorsof this letter, knew very well thatthe old Sadduceanpracticeswere otherwisethan what they were now observing. Althoughit may be hardfor us to conceivethata schismof modemrns such magnitudecould occurover what appearto be minor aspectsof rituallaw,we must rememberthatto the variousfactionsin the Jerusalem priesthoodand to the Jewishpeople in ancienttimes,the correctconduct of sacrificialworshipwas the primary guarantorof theirwelfare.Indeed, they regardedthe sacrificial systemas the prime connectionof the people of Israelto God, the sourceof blessing for the land and its inhabitants.Had not many Jewsonly recentlyrisen up in armsin the MaccabeanRevoltin orderto ensure the purity of that worship against foreign, pagan influence? Now, in the aftermath of that rebellion, no one was willing to accept easily the conduct of this worship in any way inconsistent with his own particular views. Thus, when Temple worship was entrusted to a usurper-the Hasmonean high priest who acted according to already existing Pharisaic views-some pious Sadducees formed a sect and seceded from
Awl Alt,
VC -Amf 401-
OFF OF
p
Ni NO
-20W
41t
'oAR
4%
N? -
44Thesite'sdeepestand sole Qumranfirstcameto lifein the LateIronIIperiod,probablyas an militaryoutpostof the Judeanmonarchy. roundcisterndatesto that era.Aftercenturiesof abandonment,the site was re-builtduringthe Hellenistic period.Whilethe extentof the earliestrenewalof occupationremainsunclear,majorconstructiontotallyre-shapedthe site beginningaboutthe time of JohnHyrdata correlatewiththe literarydata on the group'shistory.Thewithdrawalto Qumranwas led bythe canus,ca. 135BCE.Archaeological withina generationor so of the foundingof the sect. Photographby LawrenceH.Schiffman. Teacherof Righteousness participation in the ritual of the Jerusalem Temple. At first the sect sought a reconciliation. When that failed, the members experienced disappointment and confusion. The dissonant Zadokite priests increasingly saw themselves as a sectarian group. We can date the true beginnings of our sect to the moment the Qumran Zadokites' moderate attempts at reform failed, convincing them that Hasmonean succession was not temporary but permanent. Some have challenged this theory of the sect's Sadducean origins, arguing that it does not explain the group's more sectarian or radical tendencies, especially the animated polemic and xenophobia so often
found in later sectarian texts. But those later texts reveal the eventual effects of the earlier schism. After they failed in their initial attempts, exemplified by the HalakhicLetter,to reconcile and win over the Hasmoneans and the remaining Jerusalem Sadducees to their own system of Temple practice, the Qumran Zadokites gradually developed the sectarian mentality of the despised, rejected, and abandoned outcast. Accordingly, they began to look upon themselves as the true Israel, condemning and despising all others. Another challenge to this theory is the incongruity between some of the beliefs of the sect in its heyday with teachings Josephus attributes to
the Sadducees. However, Sadducean priests were not uniform in their degree of Hellenization nor in all their beliefs. Josephus's descriptions concern only the somewhat Hellenized Sadducees of the Roman period. Moreover, I am not claiming that the Dead Sea sect as we know it is Sadducean, only that its origins and the roots of its halakhic tradition lie in the Sadducean Zadokite priesthood. The HalakhicLetteris a sectarian document from the earliest stage in the sect's development, when its members still hoped to return to participation in Temple worship. It is not even certain that the letter postdates the beginning of the selfBiblicalArchaeologist 58:1 (1995)
41
The TempleScrollin process of being unrolled.ThisQumrantext is essentially a re-written Torah.Likethe HalakhicLetter, it derives from pre-existent sources of the Sadducean tradition and dates to the early Hasmonaean period. The TempleScrollrepresents a polemic against the policies of the Hasmoneansand the rulingsof the Phariseesand bears little relationshipto the teachings of the Qumrancommunity as they are known from the later sectarian documents. Photograph from BA archives.
/
'Itv dr
f
o.,I:
•••,
I
0
*ypAq '.•91)4
-0
% 4 00,
?
7."f..
imposed exile of the sect. In this document we learn of the disagreements about Jewish law that led to the formation of the sect. It was only later that the Teacherof Righteousness and other leaders, most probably priestly, developed the group that was to produce the complete corpus of sectarian texts. Another Qumran text-the TempleScroll,essentially a rewritten Torahinto which the author has inserted his own views on Jewish law-is also composed of sources deriving from the Sadducean tradition.5Indeed, the finds at Qumran are now providing us with insights into this tradition never before available. The revelations contained in the HalakhicLetterdemand that we reevaluate some of the older theories identifying the sect with known Second Temple groups. First, the theories that seek to link the sect and its origins with the Hasidim (pietists) must now be abandoned. Other theories tying the emergence of the sect to some subgroup of the Pharisees 42
58:1(1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
are certainly no longer tenable. The dominant Essene hypothesis, if it is to be maintained at all, requires radical reorientation. Those holding this theory must now argue that the term "Essene" came to designate the originally Sadducean sectarians who had gone through a process of radicalization until they became a distinct sect. Alternatively,they must broaden their understanding of the term to include a wide variety of similar groups, of which the Dead Sea sect might be one. The notion that the collection of scrolls at Qumran is not representative of a sect but is a balanced collection of general Jewish texts must also be rejected. There is by now too much evidence proving that the community that collected those scrolls emerged out of sectarian conflict and that that conflict sustained it throughout its existence. The Halakhic Lettercharacterizes the conflict as a disagreement over points of Jewish law with those in control of the Temple in Hasmonean Jerusalem.
Further,the nature of the collection, even if it contains many texts not explicitly sectarian, which might have been acceptable to all Jews in Second Temple times, is still that of a subgroup with definite opposition to the political and religious authorities of the times.
TheExodusto Qumran
whocomhenthegroup
Letter posed the Halakhic decided to move to Qumran,the memberstook a decisivestep in their own evolution. They now defined themselves as a dissenting
groupstrugglingagainstan unsym-
pathetic majority.This was not a sudden step, however. It seems likely that
the Qumrancenterwas established
after a period of groping that lasted about a generation. Only then did the sect retreat to Qumran. The Teacher of Righteousness, whose leadership had been established sometime after composition of the letter,probably influenced the decision.
manuscriptsof this textindicatethere was additionalmaterialat the beginning of the ZadokiteFragments,they
preservevery little significantmaterial fromthat section,which must at one time havebeen partof a much longerpassage.The textof the ZadokiteFragmentsas preserved in
medievalmanuscriptsbegins by declaringthat in ancienttimes,Israel went astray.As a result,God "hid His face"and allowedthe destruction of the FirstTemple(datedin modem scholarlychronologyto 586 BCE).Yet a remnant of the defeated
people remained,and it was they who ultimatelyformedthe sect. In this narrative,the sectariansregard theirway of life and belief as a direct continuationof biblicaltradition, claimingto be the tradition'strue recipients. The textpresentsits understanding of the formationof the sect as follows:
IY TheQumranmanuscripts of the DamascusDocumentconfirmedthe inferredrelationship of the communityto medievalmanuscripts discoveredpreviously. Thisfragment(4Q271 [Df])relatesthe biblicalinjunctiongoverningfraudin economictransactions (Lev25:14)to the text describesan exodusfromthe landof Judeato the marriagepractices.Elsewhere, landof Damascus. Damascusfunctionsas a symbolfor the sect'swithdrawalintothe wilderness.Photograph0 IsraelAntiquitiesAuthorityusedcourtesyof L.H.Schiffman.
How can we determinethe nature and date of the exodusto Qumran? Our conclusionsmust rest on the archaeologicalfinds at KhirbetQumranand on the literaryevidenceof the sectariantexts.And centralto an understandingof the event is familiaritywith the textknown as the ZadokiteFragments,the first scroll dis-
coveredby SolomonSchechter among the manuscriptsof the Cairo genizah.6Today,we know of at least nine additionalmanuscriptsof this text,which were found at Qumran. Affinitiesin languageand ideology
indicatethatthis documentbelonged to the Qumransectarians.Further, othersectariantextscontainexcerpts fromthattext,indicatingthatit indeed was a documentcentralto the thoughtof the Qumransect. Modem scholarsreferto this textalso as the DamascusDocumentor Damascus
Covenant due to its symbolicreference to Damascusas the land of the sect's exile. The textis divided into two parts:the Admonitionand the laws. Our discussionfocuses on the Admonition.Althoughthe Qumran
And in the period of wrath, threehundredninety yearsafter He had handed it (the Temple) over to Nebuchadnezzarking of Babylonia,He rememberedthem (Israel)and caused to grow from Israeland Aaronthe root of a plant (i.e.,the sect) (Zadokite Fragments1:5-7).
This officialchronology,written the sectariansthemselves,poses by problemsfor scholars(Rabinowitz 1954).If we calculatefromthe modem scholarlydatingof the destruction of the FirstTemple,we arriveat 196BCEfor the foundingof the sect. This dating does not square with the archaeological data, however. Further, based on evidence in the Halakhic Letter,the sect must have formally separated itself after the Maccabean
Revoltof 168-164BCE.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that ancient Jews did not have a chronology that matches ours for dating the destruction of the First Temple. Because of a vast gap in the chronology of the Persian period, it is doubtful whether ancient Jews could BiblicalArchaeologist58:1 (1995)
43
havemade such a calculationwith any degreeof accuracyTherefore,we can only assume thatwe have approximateinformationfromthe period.Wethereforemust be contentto datethe foundingof the sect sometime in the second centuryBCE. The textof the Zadokite Fragments then tells abouta period of confusion followedby the rise of the sect's leader,the Teacherof Righteousness: Thenthey understoodtheir transgressionand knew thatthey were guilty.Theywere like blind (men) gropingon the roadfor twenty years.ThenGod paid attentionto theirdeeds for they soughtHim whole-heartedly,and He set up for them a Teacherof Righteousnessto directthem in the way of his (the teacher's)heart 1:8-11= Da2 I (Zadokite Fragments 12-15). It appearsthat duringan initial period-perhaps of twenty yearsthe sect was leaderlessand perhaps even formlessuntil the Teacherof Righteousnessestablishedhis leadership overit. Only with the teacher's emergenceand his assumptionof controldid sectarianteachingsand a distinctiveway of life take shape. Fromwhat we learnedearlier fromthe Halakhic Letter,we can accept as reliablethe accountin the Zadokite that describesthis initial Fragments between the schismand the period the of teacher'sleadership. emergence It was duringthatperiod,most probLetterwas sent ably,thatthe Halakhic and a reconciliation attempted. After their failure to win over the Jerusalem Sadducees and the Hasmonean high priest, the sect became a permanent entity, no longer expecting to rejoin the Jerusalem establishment. The Teacherof Righteousness assumed leadership of the sect and introduced his teachings; at that time or shortly thereafter the sect moved to its site in the wilderness at Qumran. Both the archaeological dating of the site and the literary materials 44
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
----------
WAS-
;W5
Ai?
tx-
Viewof WadiQumranfromwithinCave4 whichcontainedapproximately 550 manuhewncavewas probablyaccessibleto the site by a wooden causescripts.Theartificially Whileits librarycontainedmanytexts way.Linedwith shelves,it servedas the sect'slibrary. that mighthavebeen acceptableto allJews,the natureof the community's collectionwas sectarian. from the Collection. undeniably Photograph Beegle
aboutDamascusconfirmthe fact. The Zadokite has a porFragments tion thathas become known as the "WellMidrash"(6:3-11), which promiimfeatures the Damascus nently It an is excellent agery(Brooke1980). exampleof pesherinterpretation,a formof biblicalinterpretationthat readsbiblicalverses as prefigurations of contemporaryevents.Here a verse fromNumbersis interpreted:'A well which the officershave dug, which the notablesof the people have dug..." (Numbers21:18). The Zadokite Fragments explains: The well is the Torahand those who dig it are the returnees(or: penitents)of Israelwho leavethe land of Judeaand who live in the land of Damascus(Zadokite Fragments6:4-5). On the faceof it, this textseems to referto an exodusof the sectarians fromJudeato Damascus,where they settled,at least for a time. Belowthis, on the same page,the sectariansare describedas:
those who enterthe new covenantin the land of Damascus (6:19). Againthis textrefersto an exodusto Damascus. Beforecontinuing,I would like to commenton the expression"new covenant."In severaltextsthe sectarians termthemselves"thosewho have enteredthe covenant,"referringto the new covenantthey enteredwhen they constitutedor joined the sect. This idea derivesfromJeremiah which speaks of a renewalof 31:31-32, God'scovenantwith Israelin the End of Days.The termas it is used in this textmust be sharplydistinguished fromthe Christianconceptof a new covenant,thatis, a New Testament, which will replacethe old covenant (so-calledOld Testament)with a new scripture. In anotherpesher-typeexegesis, the text(Zadokite 7:14-21) Fragments interpretsAmos 5:26-27,'And you shall carry...thestarof your God which you have made foryourselves, and I will exile you fartherthan
Damascuswhich is the new 20:11covenant(Zadokite Fragments 12).
I I
Letter Writingbeforethe Halakhic deduced was known, many scholars fromthese passagesthatafterthe initialschism,therewas an actual exodusto Damascus.This theory furtherclaimsthatin Damascusthe sect took shape and set down the IO. foundationof its teachings.From there,it is assumed,the groupmoved on to the sectariansettlementat Qumran.Some have actuallysought to locatea historicalevent thatmight have led to that exodus.Othershave suggestedexcavationof modem-day Damascusin an attemptto find the remainsof this group. Whatthen is Damascus?(Davies 1990;Iwry 1969;Milikowsky1982; cf. North 1955a;Wieder1962:1-52; Knibb1983)Is it a realplaceor a metaphoricalterm?Weknow thatthe sectarians,especiallyin the Zadokite oftenspokein code words. Fragments, Wefind all kinds of pseudonymsfor actualpersonages,yet almostnevera personalname thatwould allow a definiteidentification.TheJewish sects of the day arenevermentioned 4f? by name even thoughwe see numerous referencesto them designated 4,, with code words in the sectarian texts.Why then should we fall into the trapof takingplacenames literWadiQumranflows towardthe plateausite (left)and DeadSea beyond.Runofffromthe cliffswas capturedand channeledto the site wheneverthe winterrainsfilledthe dryriver ally?Ratherit is more likelythat "Damascus"is a code word for bed. Caves10,4, and 5 arevisibleon the left.Photographby LawrenceH.Schiffman. Qumran. The notion is strengthenedeven those people who had entered Damascus."Therewe find: moreby the use of Damascusas a the new covenantin the land of Damascusand have turnedaway symbol in othertextsof the period. And the "star"(Amos 5:26)is The New Testament pictures Paul and rebelled,and turned aside the interpreterof the law (the fromthe well of living waters receiving a vision of Jesus on the sectarianofficialwho interprets road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6). It is (Zadokite Torahfor the sect with divine Fragments 19:33-34). Damto who comes likely that the symbolic meaning of inspiration) Damascus as an eschatological is God's waters" of The "well ascus (Zadokite 7:18-19). living Fragments Torahas correctlyinterpretedby the stopover would have led to its use here. Indeed, even in Amos 5:27 it is sectarians.The Damascustheme is A literalreadingof this passage connected with the destruction of continuedfurtheron when the text suggeststhatthe interpreterof the describesthose: syncretist Israelites-those who had law left Judeaand joined his fellow mixed worship of the God of Israel sectariansat Damascus.Lateron, in with pagan ways-in the End the have ...who to who ceased sectarians despised describing of Days. covenantand the agreement live accordingto the ways of the sect, In addition, we should mention land of in the to swore which of: the Zadokite they speaks Fragments 58:1(1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
45
the suggestionthatDamascuswas actuallyat one time the name of the toparchy(administrativedistrict)in which Qumranwas situated.This suggestionassumes thatQumran, even thoughit is locatedon the western shoreof the Dead Sea,was at one time partof the same administrative unit as Damascusand could,therefore,bearits name. In any case,these possibilitiesall takentogetherallow us to regard Damascusas a symbol.Accordingly, we need not seek any specificexodus to Damascus.Rather,we can assume thatthe desertsettlementof Qumran was the Damascusto which the sectariansreferredand thatit was there thatthe sect establishedits settlement at aboutthe same time as the Teacherof Righteousness(perhaps the very same firstinterpreterof the law) came to the fore. It is indeed curiousthatthe sectariantextsfromQumrancontainno mentionof the name of the site;Khirbet Qumranis the Arabicname. Some scholarshave theorizedthatit may be the biblicalplaceSecacah7 (Joshua15:61),althoughthis is probably an IronAge site locatedfour miles (seven kilometers)southwestof Qumran.In any case,it was to Qumran,not to Damascus,thatthe sect migrated. Thereis one additionaltext,Rule thatmust be considthe of Community, ered herebecause it makes the connectionbetween the sectarian's separatismand the desert.8Ruleof the also known as Manualof Community, (a Christianmonasticterm Discipline imposed on the text),was one of the first seven scrolls discovered in cave This almost intact document lays 1. out the basic theology of the sect as well as its rules of admission and initiation and its code of punishments. At one point, the scroll speaks of the separation of the Qumran sectarians from the main body of Israelites:
midst of the settlementof the people of iniquityto go to the desert,to cleartherethe roadof the Lord,as it is written,"Inthe desertclearthe roadof the Lord; straightenin the wildernessa highwayfor our God"(Isaiah 40:3).This is the interpretationof the Torah[which]He commandedthroughMoses to observe,accordingto everything thatis revealedfromtime to time, and as the prophetshave revealed by His holy spirit(RuleoftheCommunity8:12-16). The passageappearsto referdirectlyto the exodusto the desert.But in fact,this separatismis to be understood symbolicallyas fulfillingthe commandof Isaiah40:3to preparea way throughthe wildernessas part of the preparationsfor the End of Days.The passagethen goes on to tell us how to interpretthatpreparation. Topreparethe way in the desert means to interpretthe Torah,specifically to explainit accordingto sectarian interpretations. Despiteits mentionof the wilderness, the textmakesno directconnection between the sect and the desert region.Nonetheless,it is only against the backgroundof the sect'ssettlement at Qumranthatsuch desert imagerymakes sense. In fact,the desertmotif is extremelyprominent in sectarianliterature.The sectarians saw themselvesas living a pristine life like thatof the Israelitesin the period of desertwandering.Further, they saw themselvesas havinggone into the desertto receivethe Torah, just as Israelhad in the periodof the Exodus. All this is to be expected from a group that had left the more thickly settled areas of Judea to relocate in the wilderness, there to maintain its own standards of sanctity and purity. The sect came into being, then, after the Hasmoneans had taken over
the high priesthood,about152BCE. When these form a community in Israel, according to these rules they shall be separated from the 46
58:1(1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
Thereafter,they attempted, as we can see from the HalakhicLetter,to reconcile with their Zadokite-Sadducean
brethrenwho continuedto servein the JerusalemTemple,as well as with the Hasmoneanleaders.When this failed,they still were leaderlessuntil, at some point,the Teacherof Righteousness aroseto lead them.It was he who gave the sect shape and direction.Eventuallyhe led the group fromits Sadduceanoriginstowardits intenselyapocalyptic,sectarianmentality and towardthe manybeliefs that differentiatedthe sect fromthe Sadducees.Probablyduringthe early yearsof the teacher'scareer-within a generationor so afterthe founding of the sect-the membersof the group establishedthe sectariancenter and libraryat Qumran. Note This articleexcerptspages 83-95 of LawrenceH. Schiffman,Reclaiming theDeadSeaScrolls: TheHistoryofJuthe daism,theBackground of Christianity, LostLibrary Qumran. Philadelphia of and Jerusalem:JewishPublication Society,1994. Notes 1Theexistence and contents of the Halakhic
Letter werefirstreportedby Qimronand in two separateartiStrugnell(1984,1985) cles,bothentitled'AnUnpublishedHalakhicLetter." Furtherdiscussionmaybe
found in Schiffman (1990)."Theentire text,
in an earlyversionof theeditionby Qim-
ron and Strugnell,was published-without
the permissionof theeditors-in Eisenman Editionof theDead and Robinson,A Facsimile Sea Scrolls,(1991)in the Publisher'sForeword, by Shanks,as figure 8. This edition
was in turnbasedon Kapera(1990).Figure 8 appeared only in the first edition of Eisenman and Robinson,but was subsequently removed in accordwith the ruling
of an Israelicourt.Thistextwas the cause of the lawsuit by Qimron against Shanks.
2Alltranslationspresented here are by the author,except for biblicaltexts,which for the most part follow the New Jewish Publiare cation Society translation.Squarebrackets used to indicate restorationsmade by scholars to fragmentaryscroll texts. Parenthesis
material areused to indicateexplanatory added to the translation.
3Generaldiscussion of the various systems of Jewish law observed during the Second Templeperiod, togetherwith a more detailed discussion of the HalakhicLetter,may
be found in Schiffman (1989,1991)and Baumgarten(1991).Extremelyimportantis Sussmann (1989/90). The first to realize the Sadduceanhalakhic tendencies of the HalakhicLetterwhen only a short passage from it was known, was Baumgarten (1980:163-64).A thorough study of the law of the document is found in Qimron and The text of SussStrugnell (1994:123-77). mann'sHebrew article appears in translation with selected footnotes in that same volume, on pp. 129-200.
phy-O'Conner (1972A,1972B,1985)who analyzes this text. See also Davies (1982a). For a discussion of the sectarians'viewing themselves as the direct heirs of biblical Israel,see Talmon(1989:11-52).
4The HalakhicLetterconfirms the priestly
8SeeTalmon(1966)and Schwartz (1992b:2943) on the significance of the desert and the exodus to it in the thought of the Qumran sectarians.On the influence of the Bible in general, see Freedman (1971).
origins of the sect, which fact had been suggested by, among others, Cross (1971);cf. also Schwartz (1990,1992a).The historical relevance of the HalakhicLetterto the founding of the sect is discussed in Schiffman (1990).On this issue, see Qimron and who see the letter as Strugnell (1994:109-21), originating during the leadership of the Teacherof Righteousness.We,however,see the letter as dating to before his career. 'In addition to the HalakhicLetter,another Scroll,also shows Qumran text,the Temple some affinity with Sadduceanhalakhah, as shown in Schiffman (1989).Attention was called to Sadducean elements in the Temple Scrollby Lehmann (1978).This and other articles by Lehmann on the scrolls are collected in his Massotu-Massa'ot(1982).The Sadduceanconnection was also proposed early in Qumran researchby North (1955b). Burgmann (1989)also alleges a Sadducean background for this scroll, but Burgmann fails to argue his thesis in a sustained manner,dealing only with the Levitical Scroll.This connecfavoritismin the Temple tion is also prominent in Wacholder on which see Basser (1984) (1989:99-169), who raises some of the fundamental problems in Wacholder'sargumentation. 6The Zadokite Fragments provides important
informationfor determining the history of the sect's establishment. This text was first published by Schechter (1970),and has recently been reedited by Qimron (1992). For a description of the manuscripts of this document that were discovered in Qumran cave 4, see Baumgarten (1992). The text of these manuscripts has now been published from preliminary transcriptions by Milik in Wacholder and Abegg (1991-92) in fascicle 1. On the reliability of the medieval copies, see Baumgarten (1992:62). See also Rowley (1952) for the relationship of the genizah find to the Qumran corpus. The best commentary remains Rabin (1954). Extremely important is Ginzberg, (1976) which was a path-breaking study of this text. See Davies (1983), for a study of the 'Admonition",' which, however, ignores the legal section of the text. Davies shares the notion of Babylonian origins for the Essenes with Mur-
7Thisidentificationhas been suggested by Bar-Adon(1977)and Allegro (1960:68-74). Cross and Milik (1956)suggest that Qumran is to be identified with "The City of Salt."A useful discussion of both views may be found in Davies (1982b:36-40).
.
Bibliography Allegro,J. M. 1960 TheTreasure of theCopperScroll. Garden City,NY: Doubleday. Bar-Adon,P. 1977 Another Settlement of the Judean Desert Sect at 'En El-Ghuweiron the Shores of the Dead Sea. Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research 227:1-25. Basser,H. W 1984 The RabbinicCitations in Wacholder'sTheDawnof Qumran. Revuede Qumran11:549-60.
LawrenceH. Schiffman is Professorof Hebrew and JudaicStudies at New York University'sSkirball Department of Hebrew and JudaicStudies and in the Department of Near EasternLanguages and Literatures.Dr.Schiffman received is Ph.D. from BrandeisUniversity.He currently serves as one of the editors of the journal DeadSeaDiscowriesas well as the Oxfordn of theDeadSea Encyclopedia was In he 1991, appointed to the Scrolls team publishing the scrolls in the longstanding Oxford series, Discoveriesin the Desert. Jiudean
IsraelMuseum. Baumgarten,J. M. 1980 The Pharisaic-SadduceanControversies about Purity and the QumBurgemannH. ran Texts.Journal 1989 11QT:The SadduceanTorah.Pp. of JewishStudies 31:157-70. 257-63in Temple ScrollStudies.Edited 1991 Recent Qumran Discoveries and by G. J. Brooke.Sheffield:Sheffield Halakha in the Hellenistic-Roman Academic Press. Period.Pp. 147-58in JewishCivilizationin theHellenistic-Roman Period. Cross, EM. Edited by S. Talmon.Philadelphia: 1971 The EarlyHistory of the Qumran TrinityPress International. Community. Pp. 70-89in New 1992 The Laws of the DamascusDocument In BiblicalArchaeology. Directions in CurrentResearch.Pp. 51-62in Edited by D. N. Freedman and J. C. TheDamascusDocumentReconsidered. Greenfield.GardenCity,NY: Edited by M. Broshi.Jerusalem: Doubleday. IsraelExplorationSociety and the Shrine of the Book, IsraelMuseum. Cross, E M. and Milik, J. T 1956 Explorationsin the Judaean Brooke,G. J. Buqah. Bulletinof theAmerican 1980 The Amos-Numbers Midrash Schoolsof OrientalResearch 152:5-17 (CD7l3b-8la) and Messianic Expecta-
tions. Zeitschrift fir dieAlttestamentlis- Davies, P.R. che Wissenschaft 92:397-404. 1982a The Ideology of the Templein the DamascusDocument. Journal of Jewish Studies33:287-301. Broshi,M., ed. 1992 TheDamascusDocumentReconsidered. 1982b Qumran.Cities of the Biblical World.GrandRapids:Eerdmans. Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociAn Interpreta1983 TheDamascusCovenant: ety and the Shrine of the Book,
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
47
tionofthe"Damascus DocumenL"
Journalfor the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement Series 25. Sheffield:JSOTPress. 1990 The Birthplaceof the Essenes: Where is "Damascus"?Revuede Quman 14:503-19.
Eisenman, R. H. and Robinson,J. M. 1991 A Facsimile Editionof theDeadSea withan Introduction Scrolls,Prepared andIndex.With a Forewordby H. Shanks. 2 vols. Washington,DC: BiblicalArchaeologicalSociety. Freedman,D. N. 1971 The Old Testamentat Qumran. Pp 131-41in New Directionsin Biblical Edited by D. M. FreedArchaeology. man and J.C. Greenfield.Garden City,NY: Doubleday. Ginzberg, L. 1976 An UnknownJewishSect.New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Iwry,S. 1969 WasThere a Migrationto Damascus? The Problemof sby ysr'l. EretzIsrael9:80-88.& Kapera,Z. J. 1990 An Anonymously Received Prepublicaltion of the 4QMMT.The QumranChronicle Apendix A, no. 2. Knibb,M. A. 1983 Exile in the DamascusDocumentL Journal for theStudyof theOldTestament99:99-117 Lehmann,M. R. 1978 The Temple Scrollas a Source of SectarianHalakhah.Revuede Qumran9:579-8& 1982 Massotu-Massa'oL Jerusalem:Mosad HaravKook. Milikowsky,C. 1982 Again: DAMASCUSin Damascus Documentand in RabbinicLiterature. Revuede 11:97-106. Qumran Murphy-O'Conner,J. 1972a A Critiqueof the Princes of Judah 79:200(CD VIII,3-9). RevueBiblique 216. 1972b A LiteraryAnalysis of Damascus DocumentXIX,33-XX,34. Revue 79:544-64. Biblique 1985 The DamascusDocumentRevisited. RevueBiblique 92:223-46. North, R. 1955a The Damascus of Qumran Geography. PalestineExploration Quarterly 48
Biblical 58:1(1995) Archaeologist
87:34-38.& 1955b The Qumran "Sadduces."Catholic BiblicalQuarterly17:44-68. Qimron, E. 1992 The Textof CDC. Pp. 9-49 The DamascusDocumentReconsidered. Edited by M. Broshi.Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety and the Shrine of the Book, IsraelMuseum. Qimron, E. and J. Strugnell 1984 An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran. Pp. 400-407in BiblicalArchaeology Today: Proceedings of theInternational on Biblical Congress Jerusalem, Arcaeology, April1984. Edited by J.Amitai. Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety,The IsraelAcademy of Sciences and Humanities, in cooperationwith the American Schools of Oriental Research. 1985 An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran. IsraelMuseumJournal 4:9-12. 1994 MiqsatMa'aseha-Torah. With contributions by Y Sussman and A. Yardeni.Discoveries in the Judean Desert 10.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Rabin,C. 1954 TheZadokite DocumentsOxford: Clarendon Press. Rabinowitz,I 1952 The Authorship,Audience, and Date of the de VauxFragmentof an Unknown Work.Journal of Biblical Literature 71:19-32. 1954 A Reconsiderationof "Damascus" and "390Years"in the "Damascus" ("Zadokite")Fragments.Journal of BiblicalLiterature 73:11-35. Rowley,H. H. 1952 TheZadokite andtheDead Fragments SeaScrollsOxford:Basil Blackwell. Schechter,S. 1970 Documents ofJewishSectaries: Fragmentsofa ZadokiteWork. Prolegomenonby J.A. Fitzmyer.2 vols. New York:Ktav. Schiffman,L. H. 1989 The Temple Scrolland the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period.Pp. 246-50 in Temple Scroll Studiesedited by G. J. Brooke. Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press. 1990 The New HalakhicLetter(4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect. BiblicalArchaeologist 53:64-73. 1991 Qumran and RabbinicHalakhah. in the Pp. 138-46in JewishCivilization Hellenistic-Roman Period,.Editedby S.
Talmon.Philadelphia:TrinityPress International. Schwartz,D. R. 1990 On TwoAspects of a Priestly View of Descent at Qumran. Pp. 157-79in andHistoryin theDead Archaeology SeaScrolls:TheNew YorkUniversity in Memoryof YigaelYadin. Conference Edited by L. H. Schiffman.Journal for the Study of the PseudepigraphaSupplement Series 8. JSOT/ASORMonographs2. Sheffield:JSOTPress for ASOR. 1992a "Lawand Truth":on Qumran Sadducean and RabinicViews of Law.Pp. 229-40 in TheDeadSea Scrolls:Symposium Papers,TelAviv, March 1989Editedby D. Israel, Dimant and20-24, U. Rappaport.Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1992b Studiesin theJewishBackground of WissenshaftlicheUnterChristianity. suchungen zum Neuen Testament 60. Tiibingen:J.C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Sussmann, J. 1989/90Heqer Toldotha-HalakhahuHirhurim Megillot Midbar-Yeudah: TalmudiyimRishonim le-'Or Megillat "MiqsatMacaseha-Torah." Tarbiz 59:11-77 Talmon,S. 1966 The "Desert Motif" in the Bible and Qumran Literature.Pp. 31-63in BiblicalMotifs,Origins,andTransformations.Edited by A. Altmann. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity. 1989 TheWorldof Qumran from Within: Collected StudiesJerusalem:Magnes Press. Wacholder,B. Z. 1983 TheDawnof Qumran:TheSectarian andtheTeacher of Righteousness Torah Cincinnati:Hebrew Union College Press. Wacholder,B. Z. and Abegg, M. G. 1991-92A Preliminary Editionof theUnpublishedDeadSeaScrolls:TheHebrew andAramaicTexts fromCaveFour2 fascicles.WashingtonDC: Biblical Archaeology Society. Wieder,N. 1962 TheJudeanScro/lsandKamism.London: East and West Library.
The
and
Notes,
News, Cave
of
Reviews
the
Amphoras By RobertL. Hohlfelder
si
VERY SENSING LA THOUGH SOPHISTICATED
devices now exist for locating targetsbeneaththe sea, marine archaeologistsstill rely heavily on spongers,fishermen,and local scuba shop operatorsfor clues to possible new underwatersites.Peoplewho make theirdaily living fromthe sea are invaluablesourcesof information and, of course,misinformationas well. The realitybehind this latter assertionis thatcountlesscups of coffee,tea, or morebracing substanceswith such individuals most often lead to empty dives. Ancient wreckage,so preciselyremembered in the tavern,cannotbe found againin the open sea; a field of amphorasturns out to be only a few sherds;or an alleged hull fromlong ago has been inexplicably transformedinto a dinghythat sank yesterday.Buthere is where one starts,and sometimes these leads exceedanyone'sexpectations.Scores of shipwrecksoff the Turkishcoast have come to the attentionof personnel of the Instituteof NauticalArchaeologyof TexasA&MUniversity in just this manner.In Cyprus,the unique archaeologicaltreasure,the Kyreniashipwreck,was discovered by accidentby AndreasCariolouin the early 1960s,as he searchedfor spongesoff the northerncoast of this island (Swinyand Katzev1973:339). As part of my study of the maritime life of the harbor of ancient Cypriot capital of Paphos (Hohlfelder 1993;Hohlfelder and Leonard 1994; Leonard and Hohlfelder 1994),I have been spending time with anyone who knows the waters around the Paphos Promontory and who will speak with me about what lies be-
~rus Paphos
caesarea .... . ... ..
rusalem
Santa Barbara CA Geographixbm
..........4 .
_...............
....... .
Dei d se SeMS
exandnia
01992 Magellan
.
1
Sketchmapby KathrynH.Barth. Locationof the MouliaRocksin southwesternCyprus.
neath the sea. Todate,the sharingof diving storiesover Keobeer has been more pleasurableon a personallevel than informativeat a professional one. Most dives made to substantiate tales of greatunderwatersightings have led me to poke aboutaimlessly in patchesof poseidon grassor to starewistfully at barrenexpansesof sandy ocean floor,attemptingto conjure up what was not there.One recentepisode,however,turned out quite differently. Diving instructorsat CyDive,the leading scuba operationin Paphos and westernCyprus,had told me of an unusual dive site at the nearby Moulia Rocks (340 43' N, 320 26' E).
These two rockyshoals are locatedto
the southeastof the ancientport and may havebeen a marinehazard throughthe ages.Thereone could find the "Caveof the Amphoras,"a shallowhollow in the naturalreef thathad a ceiling of amphoras!When I askedhow these ceramictransport containersmighthave lodged on the ceiling of an underwatercave,I was informedthat,afterthey somehow had managedto roll into the cave, theircontentsof fruitor otherfoods began to ferment.The resultantgas within the containerseventually caused them to float upwardsuntil they reachedthe ceiling.Marineorganismsmoved in and made their home on the pots,providinga naturalconcretionor bonding to lock BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1 (1995)
49
theirnew homes togetherin such an unusual location.As time passed,the containersbecameaffixedto one anotherand to the roof of the cave. Whata greatstoryand imageamphorasmagicallylevitatingfrom the ocean floor!Whateverthe veracity of this improbablescenario,who could resista dive at the "Caveof the Amphoras"to see what was actually there? In Octoberof 1994,I visited this site with a small team of marinearchaeologistsand architectswith the intentionof solving the mysteryof the levitatingamphorasand of drawing and photographingthe remains of these amazing,flying pots.'Tomy surprise,they were actuallytherestucktogetherto createa ceramic vaultingwithin what seemed at first glanceto be a small cave.The transport containerswere no longerwhole, however,but were smashedinto the fragmany pieces. Regrettably, state of the mentary potteryrendered the fermentationgas propellanttheory of amphoraascensionconsiderablyless plausible. A more probable,but a farless enticingor mysterious,explanation for the appearanceof this pottery assemblagein such an unlikelyspot involveda maritimetragedy.Some.
.
..........
Oct To A
Recordingthe ceiling of "The Cave."Photograph by R.L.Hohlfelder.
time earlyin the second centuryBCE, aroundca. 185BCEor slightlylater,a freighterran agroundon the Moulia Rocks.2Eitherits captainhad made a mistakenearan unfamiliarnavigationalhazard,causinghis ship to founder,or,runningfromheavy seas, he had failed to reachthe shelter these shoals offeredfromstorms drivingin fromthe west. Perhaps tragedystruckas he was seeking refugein the protectedharborof
. . .
. ....... ....
-p Va ...... .... ... ... ............. .. .
We:
...........
. ..
.
sn
............
........... .....
xr.
!V?-f
.
..
Z.Wn..-_ IF RIM,
M?2 &W
ON
?MM ...... .....
k,W ...........
VOR 'M?
... VRNINi., 2 IMEN ?.Kwu?
... ........
Ims
m 4?:
IN
ON
me ... ..................
.... .... IF ?n
S
F.If
Is
.
F
me. -
.
.
Sketchof a portionof the ceilingof "TheCave". Drawingby ChrisBrandon. 50
W
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
N:
M-j
N
. ........
Paphos,which was actuallywithin sightwhen his ship smashedinto the rocks.The particularscannotbe recovered. Whatis certainis thatthe reef damagedhis vessel, probablytearing open partof its hull. Cargoand ballast stones scatteredoverthe shoal. Some of the Rhodianwine transport containersrolled aroundon the reef until they,and some othermiscellaneous pottery came to rest in a naturaldepression. This restingplace saved the amphorasfromfurtherdispersion,but did not protectthem fromadditional damage.Swells,surge,and waves took theirtoll. The pots brokeapart, but remainedwithin the depression as a coherentdeposit.Perhapsthe pitchthatlined many of these containershelped to attractmarinelife thatbegan to live on the fragments. Overtime,this assemblageof broken potterynaturallyconcreted,becoming a componentof the surfaceof the reef itself. But therestill was no cave.This mass of potteryca. 2.8by 1.5m with a thicknessof ca. 1 m still restedon the ocean floor.Somethingfinallyhappened to changethat situation.Perhaps one of the many earthquakes thathave hit this sectionof Cyprusin
were even more treacherous, Ap since theirlocations were known only to I41pethose seafarers f --e^ Alp A NOW intimatelyfamiliar with the waAf, ters on which they sailed.? "TheCaveof the Amphoras" has importance in a totallydifferO's ent way as well. Ancientballaststones restin a pocketin the shoalnear"The As a destination Cave".Photograph by R.L.Hohlfelder. for recreational scuba divers,it the last two thousandyearscaused may be without parallelin the the reef to breachwhere the pottery Mediterranean.The diving commuhad accumulated.Sea surgebegan to nity of Paphosand westernCyprusis eat awaythe sand and rockbeneath well awareof the uniquenessof this the deposit.Eventually,only fragdeposit and is treatingit with approments of whole vessels,now firmly priatecareand respect.So far,the intertwinedand lockedin place, "Cave"is an excellentexampleof an what to underwater remained,forming appeared archaeologicalsite,combe a ceiling of a small cave. pletely open and availablefor sport The ultimatefateof the merchant- diversto visit and enjoy,thathas not man thatcarriedthese amphoras been damagedby its popularity. remainsunknown.If it sank on the In this regard,it plays an exemMouliaRocks,the sea has reclaimed plary didacticrole in heighteningthe trace of it. The surf that relentany sensitivityof the recreationaldiving this reef would lessly pounds long communityto Cyprus'culturalmatehave the hull. Perrialheritagebeneaththe sea. Public ago pulverized on the other the awareness of the richness,imporhand, haps, captain was lucky.He may have freed his and tance, vulnerabilityof archaeoship afterits mishapand somehow logicalsites remainsvital to their coaxedhis injuredvessel to a safe survival,whetherthey are on land or underwater.Who can predictwhat anchoragealong the nearbyCypriot coast. benefitsmight derivefromthe "Cave we shall never know of the Amphoras?"Perhapsone of its Although hundredsof annualvisitorswill be preciselyhow this maritimedisaster the personwho finds the nextKyreended, this missing piece of the puzzle in no way diminishesthe impornia shipwreckand, most importantly, tanceof "Caveof the Amphoras." reportsits locationto the appropriate Althoughthe scientificvalue of this governmentofficials. potteryassemblageis slight,the very existenceof this site providesa vivid Notes to the hazard testimony navigational 1Thesurveyteamconsistedof ChrisBranposed by the MouliaRocksand a don (architect), JohnLeonard(marine starkreminderof the daily dangers MaliaNemechek(marine archaeologist), facedby all ancientmariners.Over and KathrynH. Barth(archiarchaeologist), the millenniathathumanityhas tect).All of theseindividualsalso particisailed on the open sea to and from patedin the 1991and 1992underwater explorationsof the Paphos harbor.Funding and before detailed Cyprus pilot for these few days of field work was probooks or chartsexisted,such shoals
f4t 0%
vided by Dean Charles R. Middleton, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Colorado,whom I thank for his continuing support of my researcheffortsover the years. I also thank Cherry Dobbins and the staff of CyDive for their professional and friendly dive shop. I must also extend my gratitudeonce again to Dr. Demos Christou, Directorof the Departmentof Antiquities of the Republicof Cyrus,for his permission to continue underwaterinvestigations in the Paphos area and to Dr. Stuart Swiny,Directorof the Cyprus American ArchaeologicalResearchInstitute,for his enthusiastic encouragementof underwater explorationsin Cyprus and his administrative and logistical support. He is always there when needed most. 2Afield reading of the ceramicmaterialwas made in situby John R. Leonard.His preliminary identificationof the visible pottery,both in the "Cave"and above it on the shoal, was that the majorityof the sherds were from Rhodian transportamphoras dating from ca. 200-185BCE. 3CompareStadiamos,an anonymous "pilot"book from sometime in the Roman era (estimates range from the first century BCEto the fourth century CE), and the Vol.V,published by the Mediterranean Pilot~ BritishAdmiralty (Taunton,1988).The latter contains all the informationa mariner needs; the former is so general that it would be of little or no practicalvalue to an ancient seafarer.
Bibliography Hohlfelder,R. L. 1993 The Paphos Ancient HarborExplorations,1991.Pp. 255-56 in Reportof theDepartment of Antiquities, Cyprus Hohlfelder,R. L. and Leonard,J. R. 1994 UnderwaterExplorationsat Paphos, Cyprus:The 1991Preliminary Survey,Annualof theAmerican Schoolsof OrientalResearch 51:45-62. Leonard,J. R. and Hohlfelder,R .L. 1994 Paphos Harbour,Past and Present: The 1991-1992 UnderwaterSurvey. Pp. 365-379in Reportof theDepartmentof Antiquities, Cyprus Swiny,H. W and Katzev,M. L. 1973 The Kyrenia Shipwreck:A FourthCentury BC Greek MerchantShip. Pp. 339-355in MarineArcheology Edited by D. Blackman.London: Butterworths.
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1 (1995)
51
The
Alisar
Regional
Project
to capacity,the lake createdby this dam will coveran areaof 24,806ha. Severallargemounds in the dam areahave alreadybeen surrounded by waterand will soon be lost. These includeCemalliH6ytik in the Egri Ozu valley,as well as Orta,Kiciik, and Dedik H6yiiks in the KanakSu valley.Although(adir Hoyuikis threatened,only the lowerportionsof the site will be affected. Variousaspectsof the project
(1993-1994)
GelingiillltiDam Project.While aerial photography,mapping,and survey continuedon and aroundAlisar itself,the primaryfocus of our activities in 1994were concentratedon obtainingas much informationas possible about(]adirH6yuikand the long valley thatconnectsit with otherancientsettlementsin the area,
RESUMEDALISAR XCAVATIONS in centralAT dur-
Turkey Hoyiik ing the summerof 1993as partof a projectdesigned to answer questionsleft unresolvedwhen the the originalOrientalInstituteexcavations ceased in 1932.Initialsite survey was followedby test excavations on the lowerterrace.A new topo-
!
.
R?;,h: 'F..
?
. ". .;,"
..l.t
.
.
Aerialphotographof AlisarHo6ykshowingareasexcavatedfrom1927-1932 bythe OrientalInstitute.Photographcourtesyof Geoffrey Summersof the KerkenesDagSurveyProject and Frangoise
graphicmap of Alisarwas also begun, and a RegionalSurveywas undertakento documentthe cultural inventoryof the surroundingKanak Su basin. In 1994,the attentionof the excavationteam temporarilyshiftedto nearby(adir H6yiik becauseof the impendingthreatto the site by waters fromthe newly constructed 52
58:1 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
the whole lengthof which is to be flooded. Effortsin the vicinity of (adir Hbyfikincludeda systematic site surveyand an intensified regionalreconnaissanceof the areato be impactedby the new lake. Partof a regionalprojectthatwill provideirrigationwaterfor much of centralTurkey,the GelingiilliiDam was completedin 1993.When filled
which were centeredon the mound at AlisarH6yiik continuedin 1994, the most detailedof which was the topographicmappingof the site. Aerialphotographywas accomplished with the aid of a cameraladenballoon suppliedby the KerkenesDag SurveyProjectbeing conductedby Geoffand Franqoise Summersof MiddleEastTechnical
valley plain. The main mound is approximately240 x 185m and has a lower occupiedterracethat runs for another200 m along a ridgeto the northeast.In 1993,an initialinspection of the site revealedoccupation from at least the Chalcolithicthrough the LateRoman-Byzantine periods. Excavationbegan in a narrow step-trenchsituatednear the base of the mound which producedIronAge materials.A 2 m thicklayerof burned mudbrickfound just below the surfacesuggestsa broaddestruction acrossthis portionof the site in the late IronAge. Theburned mudbrickappearsto have come froma wall higherup the slope which had tumbledinto our excavationarea.
University.Workalso continuedon refiningthe Alisarceramicrepertoire, includingthe firstpublicationof Chalcolithicpotterywith curvilinear decoration.These pieces,which suggest connectionswith the Balkans, areparalleledby examplesfrom Giuzelyurtand KamankaleH6yiik in Turkeyand by specimensfromthe Precucutinephase of the Thracian Vincaculture. (adir Hbyiik is locatedapproximately13km northwestof Alisar 10 km and southeastof the largegranite outcroppingknown as KerkenesDag. Situatedalong the northernedge of a long east-westvalley thatmay have been a majorancientthoroughfarein antiquity,?adir rises 32 m abovethe
A broaddefensivewall with a nicely fashionedinteriorface emergedfrombeneaththe burned mudbrick.The partiallyexposed wall seems to be partof a fortification systemthatcan be seen completely encirclingthe mound. The deepest portionof the step-trenchalso contained the remnantsof what appears to be a smallerBronzeAge wall which has an orientationroughly perpendicularto the main fortification wall. The highest section of the steptrenchrevealedthe comer of a room or buildingwith a series of plaster floors,and severalpieces of Achaemenid(Persian)grayware along with otherpotteryshowing 420
Va
Istanbuu
Aras
•. • • .. a rO -__ ../ .X•..Ais . ...............................................................................................................a
Ankara
~
k
f
(h
~G6lii"••L
To Yozgat
Beysehir
Kerkenes Da)
?adir
Gelingillii
Gelingillii Lake
Dam
" Alisar HoyOk Su
Alisar Regional Survey Area
To
Kayseri
MAPof Anatolia (Turkey)with inset of Alisarregions. BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
53
i~ i
i........................! i
i
!
l
i
i
i !
.
.
.
.
!
i
Achaemenidinfluencesand apparently datingto the 5th centuryBCE. Twosoundingswere dug as a control for materialsexcavatedfromthe main trench.One encountereda wall of Romandatefollowedby Hellenistic remainsbeforereachingvirgin soil at a depth of two meters.On the opposite,southernside of the mound, the second sounding producedlargeamountsof blackpolished potteryin associationwith obsidiandebutage.Examplesof a red-blackpolished potteryknown fromothercentralAnatoliansites such as Kiosk,Oyma Aga<,Diindartepe,and Ikiztepewere found in levels below those which produced the initialblack-polishedpottery.The whole assemblageis tentativelydated on the basis of parallelsfromthese sites to the Chalcolithicperiod, thoughthereis some basis for extendingthis datebackinto the late Neolithic. Plansfor the 1995season include work at both Alisarand (adir Hdyiiks.Althoughthe primaryfocus of the projectwill continueto be on (adir Hdytik,we plan to continue our work at Alisarby exploringthe dynamicsof site developmentwith environmentaland geomorphologic studies which will includecoring and the use of groundpenetrating 54
58:1(1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
radar.At (adir, workwill continuein the step-trenchextendingthe trench to the top of the mound. On the south side of the mound, the sounding in squarewill be expanded.The RegionalSurveyteamwill also continue to documentthe KanakSu valley'sculturalinventory RonaldL Gorny
(adir H6yik, viewed fromthe north.The southernside rises32 m abovethe levelof the plain.
IronAge citywallat (adir H6yUkand smallerBronzeAge wall(right)excavated inthe step trench.
The the
Archaeologyof Beginning of the
By JackFinegan,lviii + 409 pp. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, (Rev.Ed.) 1992;$59 ($29.95paper). SGENERATION OFARCHAEOLOGISTS AND students of the New Testament have used this book by Jack Fineganas a principalsource for primaryreferencesand balanced judgment on the relationof archaeological and ancient literarydata to the life of Jesus.Even to peruse casually one of his volumes is to be impressed with the superb scholarshipof this author.The 1992publicationof this timely revision of TheArchaeology of the New Testament: TheLifeofJesusand
the
New
Early
Testament:
The
accessible to a wider market and more easily justifiable as a classroom text. The change to large bold type for headings greatly enhances its use as a research document. A tremendously helpful improvement is the
of
Jesus
and
Church
addition of labels on each photo and diagram,making identificationmuch easier. Photography,a perpetuallycomplex and expensive part of the production of a book, is enhanced in the revision in the vast majorityof cases (e.g. ?8),althougha few need improvement(e.g.?57,not focused well; ?110,poorly illustratesthe Octagon; ?162,background,ratherthan foreground, should be in focus as
theBeginning Church oftheEarly by
PrincetonUniversityPress is, therefore,a welcome event. In a market containingvirtuallyno substantive works on the subject,Finegan'sbook has stood without parallel.This revision assures a continuationof that position. A number of importantchanges in formathave made an excellent book even better.Retainingits same 8 1/2 by 11inch format,the revision has expanded the 273 page work into 409 pages. The work is divided into four majorsections:The Life of John the Baptist(pp. 3-21),The Lifeof Jesus (pp.22-291),Tombs(pp.292338),and The Cross (pp.339-390). The number of sub-sections (to which I will subsequentlyreferby the symbol ?) is increasedfrom 296 to 344. By my count, the list of abbreviations of works cited adds 101to the previous 143.The publicationof this largevolume in paperback,as well as hardback,will make it more
Life
HistoricalPeriodsin Palestine"(xxiiixlix). Thereis an added tableof months in Roman,Egyptian,Macedonian, and Hebrew calendars. Twelvenew names are added to the "ChronologicalList of Sources,"including that of Irenaeus. For those familiarwith the previous volume, occasionalrelocationsor transpositionsof sections will be evident. For example,the aqueduct (old ?95) and the theater(old ?97) at CaesareaMaritimahave been transposed in the revised edition (theater ?128and aqueduct?131).The sections discussing the walls of the JerusalemRussianHospice and the ancient arch in the hospice have been transposed (old ?159,160and new ?223,224).The cisternat the Antonia Fortressin Jerusalem(old ?176)has been relocatedin the new edition
(?221).
o
-60
the primaryillustration). Almost fifty additionalphotos are included in the revision:ten of Bethlehem, ten of Nazareth,plus twentyseven others including two new diagrams(?120and ?138).Another photo (old ?126)is deleted in the revision. This edition includes a list of bishops of the Jerusalemchurchwith explanatorycomments (pp. xxxiixxxvi),a five-pageexcursuson "The JudaeanChristians"(pp. xxxvii-xli), and an eight-pageoutline of "Festivals of the EarlyChurch"(p. xliixlix). This last section on festivals contains chronologicalmaterialin addition to that previouslypresented in the "Tableof Archaeologicaland
An occasionalchange in the title of a section has been made for the better,nowhere more evident and welcome than in the change from the culturallyoffensive "Wailing Wall"(old ?151)to "WesternWall" (?189). The new edition contains an expansionof the list of archaeological periods from a mere thirteenperiods with dates (old ?xix) to a table of archaeologyand historicalperiods (new ?xxiii-xxvii)which lists six periods down to IronII, where a brief descriptionof each period is added including highlightsof eleven more periods. Romanand Byzantineare most extensivelynoted, and the author appropriatelyexpands Araband Turkishinto Muslim Arab,Crusader, Mamluk,Ottoman,British,and State of Israel. Throughout the revision two chronologies are employed with almost equal validation for the life of Christ-the traditional one and Jerry Vardaman'searlier one (e.g. see new ?180, p. 193.There are thirteen referBiblicalArchaeologist 58:1 (1995)
55
ences to Vardamanin the index). Extendedfootnotes(xxiv-xxv)give alternateearlierdatesforJesusand Johnthe Baptist(basedlargelyon Vardaman's work),e.g.: Jesus' birth-12
BCE(5 or 7 BCE)
Pilate'stenure-15/16-25/26 CE (26-36 CE) John the Baptist-15 CE(29 CE) Jesus'ministry-15-21 CE(29-33 CE)
A numberof diagramshavebeen improvedin this edition.The diagramof the synagogueexcavationin now shows the areasof Capemrnaum excavation(old ?60,new ?89).The diagramof the octagonalstructure (Peter'shouse?)at Capernaumis updatedto includethe resultsof Lofreddaand Corbo'sexcavations (old ?69,new ?99).An aerialphoto of CaesareaMaritimawith superimposed numbers(old ?88)is replaced with a drawingof the excavatedarea showing "chiefsites and monuments"by number(new ?120). However,the diagramfails to include the recentlydiscoveredstadiumimmediatelynorthof the theater. The diagramof Jerusalem(old ?135)is replacedby a new and enlargedone (new ?173)which deletes modem city designationsand is much easierto read.It also updates the earlierdiagram'slocationsof the walls of Jerusalemby correctlyextendingthe westerncity wall southward fromthe JaffaGateto a point below the newly discoveredEssene Gateand then eastwardbeyond the Pool of Siloam, thus encompassing the within the walls FineHowever, pool gan'sexplanation of a perplexing statement by Josephus regarding the relation of the wall to the Siloam Pool leaves something to be desired. Finegan'stranslation of Josephus' comment (JewishWar4.5.2 ?145) that makes him say the southern wall "ranabove(uJpevr) the fountain of Siloam" is misleading, as are all the major translations of Josephus (Comfeld, Williamson, St. J. Thackeray,and to a lesser extent Whiston) which 56
renderit similarly.However,translating the prepositionas "above"contradicts otherstatementsby Josephus,as well as the geographyof Jerusalem, and Fineganis thus led to conclude thatJosephusonly meant "that Siloamwas visible fromwhere the wall descendedby the UpperCity above,while the wall went on around the Poolof Solomon,probablyto be identifiedwith Birketel-Hamra" (p. 191). I have shown that a different translationof this prepositionin Josethe SiloamFounphus (i.e.,"beyond tain"ratherthan '"above the Siloam resolves the contradiction Fountain") while preservingthe integrityof Josephus'text(McRay1991:190). Thus,I agreewith Finegan'sinclusion of the fountainwithin the wall, but not with his (and others')strained interpretationof Josephusor his statementthat "inJosephus'description the firstwall is evidentlyenclosing this area,and this is now archaeologicallyconfirmed"(p.219). Anothersignificantalterationin diagramsis made in referenceto the ConstantinianBasilicain Jerusalem. Fineganreplacesthe formerdiagram by Vincent(old ?181)with a new one by Corbo(new ?225)which is quite different,showing the resultsof recent excavations.Forexample,the baptistery,locatedconjecturallyin Vincent'sdiagramsouth of the Anastasis (or Rotunda),is removedby Corbo.Now Fineganremarks:"The areaimmediatelyon the southwest side of the Rotundahas not been explored, but this was mostprobably the location of the baptistery..." (italics mine, p. 264). Three apses have been added to the outside wall of the Rotunda, on the north, west, and south sides. Finegan also changes his mind about the identification of the Psephinus tower, located in the northwest comer of the present city wall. He now disallows the possibility of this being the first century tower, but asserts that it is only built from reused Herodian stones. (old ?161; new ?201).
In his discussionof the two Pools of Bethesda,Fineganformerlyhad suggestedthey may havebeen the work of Herodthe Great(old ?146). Now (new ?204)he suggestsan earlier period duringthe time of Simon the high priest (220-195BCE)
Moresignificantly,forthose interested in biblicalmatters,Finegan, rightlyI think (McRay1991:115), changeshis identificationof the praetoriumof Pilate(whereJesus John appearedbeforethe procurator, 18:28ff)fromthe Antoniafortress(old ?174,p. 158)to the upperpalaceat the JaffaGate(new ?215,pp. 252-253). The date for the GardenTombis correctlychangedin the revision fromByzantine(old ?191)to the Iron Age,eighthto seventhcenturiesbce (new ?237),but with no supportive evidence.He simply writes:"...it is now believedthatthe GardenTomb dates originallyfromthe eighthand seventhcenturiesB.C...."However,a fifty-pagediscussionof tombtypology and dating,which supportsthis earlierdate,is includedin the third division of the book entitled"Tombs" (pp.292-338,see also McRay,1991: 206-214).A valuablediscussionof the tombunderthe Holy Sepulchre Church(probablythe tombof Jesus) and a drawinghypotheticallyreconstructingthattombis containedin
? 227
AlthoughFineganincludesarticles on the locationof the Templein Jerusalemby Kaufmann(northwest of the Dome of the Rock)and Bagatti (southof the Dome),he continues (new ?180)to defendits locationat the Dome itself,as in the formervolume (old ?142)and in his Lightfrom theAncientPast (p. 180,326f). Since the revised edition was published in 1992,his volume does not include the definitive article of Israeli architect Leen Ritymer (1992:24-45)which finally provides decisive evidence for locating the Temple on the site occupied by the Dome. Ritmeyer's evidence has changed my view (since the publication of my book in 1991 defending Kaufmann'slocation), and I now agree with him and Finegan.
In additionto the photography mentionedabove,encyclopedicadditions made to the textof the book, which have almost doubled its size, includethe following: 1.Bethlehem-(new ?119-123) fromnine pages to twenty-one,including sections on Herodiumand Masada. 2. Nazareth-(new ?46-57)from seven pages to twenty-two. 3. Capernaum-(new ?88) material on the Tzefarisdig and the domestic dwellingsin associationwith "Peter'sHouse." 4. Tabghaand Chorazin-(new ?80-87) 5. Kursi(Gergesa)-(new ?105-
106) 6. Jerash(Gerasa)-(new ?119) floor mosaic. 7 CaesareaMaritima-(new ?127) Mithramedallion,(?130)Byzantine Churchmosaic,(?133)promontory palace. 8. Bethany-(new ?146)rock grotto,(?150)Williamof Tyre. 9.Bethphage-(new ?153)rolling stone. 10.Mountof Olives-(new ?170) the tomb of the Virgin. 11.Jerusalem-(new ?173)material fromthe eleventhcenturyand later. (new ?180)partiallyrewritten; changesview (old ?142)on John2:20, arguingnow thatthe Templewas completedat thattime. (new ?192)excavationssouth of TempleMount. (new ?193)Fleming'sdiscoveryat the GoldenGate. (new ?196) Burnt House. (new ?200) Cardo Maximus. (new ?201) Damascus Gate. Menahem Magen'sexcavation of one hundred feet of the great plaza inside Hadrian'sGate (Lower arched gate). (new ?202) north city wall; added material from Sara Ben-Arieh and Ehud Netzer's dig proving the wall (and two newly discovered towers) faced north. Finegan disagrees with their identification of this as Josephus' third city wall, and reaffirms
Hamrick'sview of a Jewishdefensive wall-haphazardly and quicklybuilt. (new ?205)Added materialon the Churchof Mt. Zion (whichFinegan says marksthe spot of the Upper Roomof Jesus)fromEpiphanius, Origen,Eusebius,Aetheria,and the mosaic in the churchof SantaPudenziana. (new ?206)door of the Syrian OrthodoxChurch. (new ?209)tomb of David. (new ?211)summaryof the history of the Churchof Zion. (new ?212)luxuriousHerodian houses in the courtyardof the Armenian monastery;firstfrescoes with animalsfound in Israel. (new ?215)the Praetoriumof Pilate,textdoubledin size. (new ?222)Via Dolorosa. (new ?226,230-232,235) lengthy additionson the churchof the Holy Sepulchre. (new ?244)expandsmaterialon Emmaus,but it dates only to the period between 1485and 1944;adds a paragraphon Abu Gosh (p. 288). (new ?258)expandson TellenNasbeh and includesa briefsummary of tomb types. (new ?329)graffitiin the Vatican Excavations.
of ancientsites and monuments,this book is a mine of information,even if excessivein places. I am confidentthis revisionwill be criticized,as my book was, fornot includinga full treatmentof the sociologicalimplicationsof archaeology for the interpretationof the New Testamenttext(cf.JamesStrange's review of my book and my response in a recentissue of this journal, In thatreview Strange 1993:153-161). wrote thatI (McRay)"didnot hope to furtherthe discussionof historical reconstructionof the world of Jesus and the apostles,as evidentlywas the hope of JackFinegan"(in this particular volume).I find this statementto be as irrelevantto Finegan'sbook as it is to my own, becauseFineganmakes no attemptto providea sociological reconstructionof the ancientworld. UnlikeStrange,however,I do not find this to be a weaknessin a volume which is writtenfor a different purpose.Fineganwrites that "the presentbook has to do, then,with any thingswhich can be found, chiefly in Palestine,which are connected with or castlight upon the life of Jesusand the existenceof the early Christianchurch"(p. v). In this quest, I thinkhe has succeededadmirably.
The final fifty pages (339-389)of Finegan'stextare devotedto an overviewof the availabledatarelating to the historyof the crossmarkin Christiantraditionand its relationto similarmarksor signs in otherancient culturesand languages.This section will be of as much interestto
Bibliography
historians of the early Church as to archaeologists. One of the few weaknesses of the book is that Finegan discusses more Byzantine literature on church buildings and holy places than is necessary or desirable to most readers interested in New Testament period data. From another perspective, this may be one of the strengths of the book. For those whose primary interest is patristic literature or Byzantine architecture, particularly that which is relevant to debates on the location
Finegan,J.
1959 LightfromtheAncientPast:TheArchaeological Background ofJudaismand 2nd. ed. Princeton: Christianity.
PrincetonUniversityPress.
John McRay,
1991 Archaeology andtheNew TestamenL Grand Rapids:BakerBook House.
Leen Ritymer 1992 Locatingthe Original Temple Mount. BiblicalArchaeologyReview 18(2):24-45
James Strange 1993 Archaeology andtheNew Testament? Jim StrangeReviews John McRay's New Book and McRay Responds. BiblicalArchaeologist56(3):153-161.
JohnMcRay WheatonCollegeGraduateSchool Biblical
58:1
57
of
People
the
Sea:
The
By TrudeDothanand MosheDothan. XII+ 276pp. New York:Macmillan, 1992;$25.00. ONTRARY THE TOPOPULAR MYTH,
Philistineswerenot the uncultured,destructivebarbarians as the Bibleportraysthem and their name has come to represent.Leading the chargein this changingviewpoint are the Dothans,Trudeand Moshe.Theirlife'sworkhas been dedicatedto discoveringwho the Philistineswere,and what they were about.This lifetimeof archaeological discoveryhas led to drasticchanges in our interpretationof Philistine culture.The culmination,so far,of this researchis bound togetherin theirbook Peopleof theSea:TheSearch
forthePhlistines
Thebook has a very easy reading style to it, slippingsmoothlybetween the Dothans'firstpersonaccounts and an informativetextbooknarrative.The textfollowsa well-defined chronology,leadingthe reader throughthe historyof the Philistines and the attemptsto ascertainwho they were.The Dothans'travelstake them from ancientCanaanto Egypt, Greece,and Cyprus.Along the way, the Dothansdescribehow they came to devotetheirlife'sworkto digging and discovery.Numerousdrawings and pictures,includingseveralpages of colorphotographs,help one visu-
The
Walls
of
[Editor'sNote:A detailedsynopsis of this volume canbe found in the previousissue of BA,57:4,December 1994.] 58:1(1995) BiblicalArchaeologist
for
the
Philistines
alize and understandthe information in the book. Whilethe book does not containbibliographicalreferencesas would a scientifictext,this is partially made up forby a pseudo-bibliography titled "SuggestionsforFurther Reading." A good deal of the evidencefor the Philistinescomes fromthe excavationsat Ashdod by MosheDothan and TelMiqne(PhilistineEkron)by TrudeDothanand SeymourGitin. Togetherthese sites,alongwith other excavations,providethe physical remainswhich contributeto our understandingof the aspectsof Philistineculture.One of those aspects thathas been vigorouslydebated was the originsof the Philistines.In PeopleoftheSea:The Search the Dothans for thePhilistines a detailed provide explanationof the Philistines'Aegeanroots and the main link in supportingthis hypothesis, the transitionalMycenaean IIIC1:bpottery.Philistinepotteryis shown to have derivedfromLate BronzeAge Mycenaeanpottery throughthis transitionalMycenaean IIIcl:bware.The MycenaeanIIIC1:b potteryis an Aegeanpotterystyle, but is made fromlocal materials found near sites such as Ashdod, Ekron,and Ashkelonwhere it has been found.The laterpotteryform identifiedas distinctlyPhilistine closely resemblesthis transitional
Jerusalem:
By GregoryJohnWightman,x + 331 pp. + 31 pls. MediterraneanArchaeologySupplement4. Sydney,Australia:MEDITARCH, 1993;$115.
58
Search
From
the
Canaanites
OLD HEWALLS OFJERUSALEM'S
CITY dominateits modem urban landscape.However,they represent just the latestin a long succession of city walls,which have not alwaysfollowedthe same lines. Using a combinationof archaeological and textualevidence,Wightman tracesthe developmentof the city
style in formand decoration.While the potteryprovidesthe strongest evidencefor an Aegeanconnection, othermaterialremainsarediscussed and illustratedto strengthen these ties. However,as the Dothanspoint out, controversystill exists overthe integrationof the Philistinesinto the Canaan.The questionis, can the makersof the MycenaeanIIIC1:b potterybe consideredtrue Philistines who graduallyevolve theirown pottery style,or were the makersof MycenaeanIIIC:bpotteryan as yet unidentifiedgroupof Sea Peoples who occupyCanaan,followedby a second immigrationof the real Philistines. This controversyshows thatthere is still a greatdeal to be learned aboutthe Philistines.However,People of theSea:TheSearch for thePhilistines with an us up-to-dateevaluprovides ationthatthe Philistineswere not the bruteswe thoughtthem to be, but ratherwere an advanced,sophisticatedculturehelpingusherin the IronAge.Withits readabletextand abundantillustrations,this is a good book thatties togethera greatdeal of researchand bringsthe readerup to the presenton the topic. PeterWarnock ofMissouri-Columbia University
to
the
Mamluks
walls and gates of Jerusalem,from theearlysecondmillenniumBCE.to the mid-secondmillenniumCE.The chaptersare arrangedin chronological sequence,each focusingon a specifichistoricalor archaeological period. Wightman'spresentationis thorough and usuallybalanced.When
thereis a dispute overthe interpretation of the evidence,he presentsall possibilitiesand makeshis own suggestions (whichoften differfrom currentscholarlyconsensus).Though Wightmanincludedthe most recentlypublishedarchaeological evidence availableto him, the continuing processof excavationand publicationalreadynecessitatesa reconsiderationof his conclusions. Forexample,excavationson the northeasternslope of the City of David have exposed a massive stepped stone structure(or "glacis"). YigalShiloh,the last to excavatein this area(his Area G),dated the glacisto the 10thcenturyBCEand identifiedit as the substructurefor a Davidiccitadelbuilt to supportthe City of David'seasternslope.Beneath the glacis are artificialterracescomposed of interlocking,rectangular compartmentscontainingstone fills. The terraceswere datedby Kathleen Kenyonand YigalShilohto the Late BronzeAge,and identifiedas the substructureof the Canaanite-Jebusite citadelof Jerusalem.Wightman followsKenyonand Shilohin definingthese as two distinctarchitecturalunits constructedthreeto four centuriesapart;accordingly,the "terracesystemformedthe substructure of partof the Jebusitecitadel,or Fortressof Sion"(p.22),while the glacis "robbedthe terracesof their primaryfunctionby againnarrowing the occupationalareaat the summit of the hill" (p. 37).However,JaneM. Cahilland David Tarler(the latter's name is consistentlymistransliterated
IronAge city wall may have extended as far as the Citadel(nextto the modem JaffaGate).However,he argues that its continuationto the south did not follow the currentline along the westernedge of the southwesthill, but lay fartherto the east,thereby excludingthe areaof the Armenian Garden.Wightmanrejectsa more westerlytraceas "notstrongly founded,"but his suggestedline is even less likely in light of the archaeologicalevidenceand topographic considerations(see Geva,H., "Respondents."Pp.620-624in Biblical The debates Archaeology Today, 199W0 concerningthe lines of Jerusalem's walls in the late IronAge and at the end of the Second TemplePeriod have politicalas well as academic significance,for it was at these times that the ancientJewishcity reached its greatestextent.Scholarlyopinion is divided among two main schools of thought,the "minimalists"and the "maximalists." Wightman'sbias in favorof the "minimalists"is clearest in his discussionof the "ThirdWall." FlaviusJosephusrelatesthatwhen Jerusalemwas destroyedby the Romans in 70 CE,it was protectedon its northernside by threewalls. The constructionof the northernmost, and latestof the three (the "Third Wall"),was supposedlybegun by Herod AgrippaI and completedby the Jewishrebelsupon the outbreak of the Revolt.Wightmansides with the "minimalists"in rejectingthe identificationof a line of wall found to the northof the modem Old City (calledthe "Mayer-Sukenik" wall),as
by Wightman as "G. Turler'), who are preparing the material from Shiloh's excavations in Area G for publication, have recently suggested that the terraces and glacis belong to a single, contemporary architectural unit dating to the 13th/12th centuries BCE(see Cahill, J.M. and Tarler,D., "Respondents." Pp. 625-26 in BiblicalArchaeology Today,1990 Edited by Avraham Biran and Joseph Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993). Wightman accepts the possibility that the northwest corner of the late
the Third Wall (for recent excavations along this line of wall see Tzaferis, V, Feig, N., Onn, A., and Shukron, E., "Excavationsat the Third Wall, North of the Jerusalem Old City."Pp. 287292 in AncientJerusalemRevealed. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994).Instead, he repeats Emmett W. Hamrick'ssuggestion that the "Mayer-Sukenik"line represents a "fourth wall" erected at the time of the Revolt, or proposes alternatively that it may have been constructed by
the TenthRomanLegionafterthe end of the Revolt.Bothsuggestionsare implausiblein the absenceof any supportinghistoricalevidence. Wightman'svolume providesthe firstsynthesisof the archaeological and textualevidence forthe walls of Jerusalemthroughoutthe city'shistory.It representsa monumental undertaking,and will undoubtedly become the standardreferenceon the subject.My commentshavenot been intendedto detractfromWightman's fine work,but to alertreadersto the problematicand equivocalnatureof the evidence,and to the constant changesbroughtaboutby the excavation and publicationof new archaeologicalremains. JodiMagness TuftsUniversity
Master1aAr
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
59
recent HUMAN RIGHT AND RELIGIOUS VALUES
MODELS FOR SCRIPTURE
An Uneasy Relationship?
John Goldingay
Edited by Abdullahi A. An-Na'im, Jerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, and Hendrik M.Vroom 0506-X, paper, $26.99
RESSOURCEMENT:Retrievaland Renewal in Catholic Thought THE LETTERON APOLOGETICS and HISTORY AND DOGMA
0 146-3, paper, $19.99
BEYOND POVERTYAND AFFLUENCE Towardan Economyof Care
Bob Goudzwaard & Harry de Lange Translated and edited by MarkVanderVennen 0827-I, paper, $14.99
Maurice Blondel
ETHICS AFTER CHRISTENDOM
0819-0, paper, $18.99
Towardan Ecclesial ChristianEthic
THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT VOLUMEVII ke-*lys Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry 2331-9, cloth, $39.99
Vigen Guroian 0128-5, paper, $12.99
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT THE BOOK OF GENESIS Chapters 18-50
Victor P.Hamilton
FROM CHRIST TO THE WORLD
2309-2, cloth, $39.99
IntroductoryReadings in ChristianEthics
JESUS AND ISRAEL
Edited by Wayne G. Boulton,Thomas D. Kennedy, and AllenVerhey 0640-6, paper, $24.99(s)
TREMBLING AT THE THRESHOLD OF A BIBLICALTEXT James L. Crenshaw 0720-8, paper, $10.99
FROM OLD REVELATIONTO NEW A Redaction-Criticaland Tradition-Historical Study of TemporalTransitionsin Prophetic Prediction
SimonJ. DeVries
0683-X, paper, $29.99
THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IN CALVIN'S THEOLOGY Third Edition
EdwardA. Dowey,Jr. 0107-2, paper, $18.99
CHRISTIAN LIBERTY A New Testament Perspective James D. G. Dunn 0796-8, paper, $10.99
THE JUSTICE OF GOD A Fresh Look at the Old Doctrineof Justificationby Faith
James D. G. Dunn &Alan M.Suggate
One Covenantor Two?
David E. Holwerda 0685-6, paper, $12.99
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN AFRICA Elizabeth Isichei 0843-3, paper, $19.99
SEASONS OF GRACE Reflections from the ChristianYear
James F.Kay Foreword byThomas G. Long 0783-6, paper, $9.99
A HANDBOOK TO BIBLICALHEBREW: An Introductory Grammar
Page H. Kelley,Terry L. Burden, and Timothy G. Crawford 0828-X, paper, $17.99
THE SONG OF MOSES A TheologicalQuarry
George A. F.Knight 0599-X, paper, $12.99
THE DECALOGUE AND A HUMAN FUTURE The Meaning of the Commandmentsfor Making and Keeping Human Life Human
Paul L. Lehmann
0797-6, paper, $9.99
0835-2, paper, $17.99
INTERSECTIONS
THE FEMINISTQUESTION
Post-CriticalStudies in Preaching
Edited by Richard L. Eslinger
60
BOOKS
FeministTheologyin the Lightof ChristianTradition
Francis Martin
0714-3, paper, $12.99
0794-I, paper, $29.99
THE FIRST THEOLOGIANS
THE UNRELIEVED PARADOX
A Study in Early ChristianProphecy Thomas W. Gillespie 3721-2, cloth, $24.99
Studies in the Theologyof Franz Bibfeldt Edited by Martin E. Marty and Jerald C. Brauer 0745-3, paper, $14.99
BiblicalArchaeologist 58:1(1995)
from
EERDMANS
THE RESPONSIBILITY PEOPLE Eighteen Senior Leaders of Protestant Churches and National EcumenicalAgencies Reflect on ClhprchLeadership
Edited byWilliam McKinney 0744-5, paper,$24.99
GOD IN THE WASTELAND The Realityof Truthin a Worldof FadingDreams
David F.Wells 3773-5, cloth, $19.99
STUDYING WARTHE CHURCH'S PEACE WITNESS
NO MORE?
FromJust War to Just Peace
Edited by Marlin E. Miller and Barbara Nelson Gingerich 0555-8, paper,$14.99
Edited by BrianWicker 0823-9, paper,$15.99
CREDIBLE CHRISTIANITY
THE BOOK OF ACTS IN ITS FIRST-CENTURY SETTING
The Gospelin ContemporarySociety Hugh Montefiore 3768-9, cloth, $19.99
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN RevisedEdition Leon Morris 2504-4, cloth, $39.99
Edited by Bruce W.Winter
VOLUME 3: THE BOOK OF ACTS AND PAUL IN ROMAN CUSTODY Brian Rapske 2435-X, cloth, $37.50
VOLUME 4: THE BOOK OF ACTS IN ITS PALESTINIAN SETTING Edited by Richard Bauckham 2436-6, cloth, $37.50
CONSULTING THE FAITHFUL What ChristianIntellectualsCan Learn from Popular Religion
Richard J. Mouw 0738-0, paper,$6.99
THE OPEN SECRET RevisedEdition Lesslie Newbigin 0829-8, paper,$12.99
FIRST-CENTURYCHRISTIANS IN THE GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD SEEK THE WELFARE OF THE CITY Christiansas Benefactors and Citizens
Bruce W. Winter 4091-4, paper,$18.99
THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT An Introductionto the Biblia Hebraica
THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND MarkA. Noll 3715-8, cloth, $19.99
Second EnglishEdition Ernst Warthwein Translatedby ErrollERhodes 0788-7, paper,$19.99
THE REFORMATION Roots and Ramifications
Heiko A. Oberman 0825-5, paper,$29.99
SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY Edited by Murray Rae, Hilary Regan, and John Stenhouse 0816-6, paper,$29.99
CHRISTIANITY AND ECONOMICS IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA The Oxford Declaration and Beyond
Edited by Herbert Schlossberg, Vinay Samuel and Ronald J. Sider 0798-4, paper,$10.99
PREACHING CHRIST TODAY
Eerdmans ISBN Prefix: 0-8028Prices subject to change without notice. "s" after the price indicates a limited discount. For more information on these or other Eerdmanstitles, or for details about our textbook examination policy,contact the EerdmansTextbook Department at 1-800-253-7521 (FAX 616-459-6540) and ask for a copy of our most recent Academic Catalog.
The Gospel and ScientificThinking
Thomas F.Torrance 0799-2, paper, $5.99
TEXT, CHURCH,
AND WORLD
Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective Francis Watson 3774-3, cloth, $34.99
I 475L g 5
WM.
B.
EERDMANS
PUBLISHING CO.
255 JEFFERSONAVE. S.E. / GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503
A4
-61
'U
/X
Theceilingof fragmentsof amphorasin "TheCave"in waterssouthwestof the ancientCypriotport of Paphos. Howdid these sunkenceramicsbecome the roof of an underwatercave?. Photograph by R.L.Hohlfelder
