No title

Do ,'IeC

91

rr

4A!

9

VA,

A

14

r A",

cFit: I

:I

?1;17,

;?I

o0

4j?rn ~

VS OF 0

0

y'

J

1~

ca n

~~1~

JSOTTo Publish ASOR Monograph Series

The American Schools of Oriental Research and JSOTPress are pleased to announce the resumption of the ASOR Monograph Series. At least two monographs a year will be published in the areas of ASOR'straditional interests, especially biblical studies and ancient Near Eastern history and archaeology. Manuscripts are now being solicited for the fourth and subsequent numbers in the series. Submit manuscripts to: Eric M. Meyers Editor, ASOR-JSOTMonograph Series Box H.M. Duke Station Durham, NC 27706

Archaeolo Biblical Volume 47 Number 1

A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research

March 1984

'

ii .~''

?.

ft-w

..o

t

d6

'rn• T4: ,'Y--, i,•., •

Page 25 6

...•~h -:.:

1•2,

...;.':Ci~~ ....

Page 44

LITERARYSOURCESFOR THE HISTORYOF PALESTINEAND SYRIA The Ebla Tablets

36

18 New Discoveriesat Ebla: The Excavationof the WesternPalaceand the RoyalNecropolisof the AmoritePeriod Paolo Matthiae Recent work at Tell Mardikhsuggests the existence of a cult dedicated to royal ancestors.

BA PORTRAIT

The Successand Failureof RobertAlexanderStewart Macalister Page A. Thomas At the beginning of the twentieth century Macalisterexcavatedthe important site of Gezer. Although he made numerous finds, and later became the leading figure in Irish archaeology,his work in Palestine is now considereda failure. Why?

The Bible and Archaeology

Page 50 47

Eric M. Meyers This paper,based on a plenary address given at the 1983 annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research,considers the relation between biblical studies and archaeologyin the Middle East.

LorenzoVigan6 and Dennis Pardee The first essay in a new series providesa bibliographicoverview of this important site.

33

•---.-.-

•

41

Joe D. Seger Tel Halif and Tel Serachave been identified as the most likely sites of the town given to David by the king of Gath. Using biblical information as a guide, this paperevaluates the archaeologicalevidence in support of each site.

THE MUSEUM TRAIL

The MichiganStateUniversity 55 SamaritanCollection Robert T Anderson The Samaritancommunity is an important resourcein the study of the Bible, and this museum collection preservesmany of its artifacts.

44

ENIGMATICBIBLE PASSAGES

and Plowmen": "Vinedressers 2 Kings25:12and Jeremiah52:16 J. N. Graham The fate of the Jewsexiled to Babyloniawhen Nebuchadrezzar

New Evidence of the SamaritanDiaspora has been Found on Delos A. T Kraabel Two recently published inscriptions from steles found on the Greek island of Delos providenew insight on the Samaritans.

The Location of Biblical Ziklag

conquered Judah in 586 B.C. is well

known. What happenedto the people who were left behind?

DEPARTMENTS 3 4 58 63

From the Editor's Desk Introducingthe Authors Book Reviews Books Received

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

ASOR 1984-85

9OF op,

Biblical

Archaeologist

Editor Eric M. Meyers

Associate Editor JamesW.Flanagan ManagingEditor

Martin Wilcox Assistant to the Editor Karen S. Hoglund

Book Review Editor

IN THE NEXT BA

Peter B. Machinist

EditorialCommittee Lloyd R. Bailey

Carole Fontaine Volkmar Fritz Lawrence T. Geraty David M. Gunn

A. T. Kraabel BaruchA. Levine Carol L. Meyers JackSasson JohnWilkinson Art Director

SubscriptionsManager

Harini Kumar AdvertisingSales Allan E. ShubertCompany 198 Allendale Road King of Prussia,PA 19406 215-265-0648

Article proposals, manuscripts, letters to the editor, and all other editorial correspondence should he sent to the Editor,Biblical Archaeologist, ASOR Publications Office, Box HM, Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscripts must be accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope bearing the proper return postage. Foreigncontributors should furnish international reply coupons. Books for review should be sent to Dr. Peter B. Machinist, Department of Oriental Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. Composition by ProType,Inc., Chapel Hill, NC. Printed by Fisher-HarrisonCorporation, Durham, NC. Second-class postage paid at Philadelphia, PA 19104 and additional oflices. Postmaster: Send address changes to ASOR Subscription Services, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Copyright , 1984 by the American Schools of Oriental KResearch.

2

/

9a

1m

4

Fellowships Scholarships Professorships Travel Grants

The American Schools of Oriental Research is offering over $143,000 in research, study and travel grants for the academic year 1984-85 and the summer 1985. Awards are available to undergraduates, graduate students, seminarians, and post-doctoral scholars. Awards offer opportunities for humanistic study in the Middle East from prehistoric through Islamic times. Recipients participate in the stimulating scholarly community of the Albright Institute for Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman, or the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute in Nicosia. Available awards include: National Endowment for the Humanities Post-Doctoral Research Fellowships, up to $22,000 stipend, in Jerusalem and Amman Annual Professorships in Jerusalem, Amman, and Nicosia, with room-andboard benefits Barton Fellowship in Jerusalem, with roomand-board benefits plus stipend up to $2,000 Kress Fellowship in Jerusalem, with stipend up to $8,500 Shell Fellowship in Amman, with stipend up to $6,000 Mesopotamian Fellowship, with stipend up to $5,000 W. F. Albright Fellowship, with stipend up to $5,000 Christian Science Zion Research Foundation summer study and travel grants, with stipends of $1,500 and $1,000 Honorary awards in Jerusalem, Amman, and Nicosia

Linda Huff Editorial Assistant Melanie Arrowood

Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR),a nonprofit, nonsectarian educational organization with administrative offices at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Subscription orders and all business correspondence should be sent to ASOR Subscription Services, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Annual subscription rates: $16 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $18 foreign. Special annual subscription rates for students and retired faculty: $10 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $12 foreign. (To qualify for student or retired faculty rates, send a copy of a document that verifies your current status.) Current single issues: $5 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $6 foreign. Students and retired faculty: $4 in the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada; $5 foreign. Members of ASOR automatically receive Biblical Archaeologist as one of their annual membership benefits.

~o0

Mari is one of the majorurbansites excavatedin the Near East overthe last century,and the next issue of BA spotlights it with severalarticles, including a study of Zimri-Limby Jack Sasson,"Mari,the Bible, and the Northwest Semitic World"by Andre Lemaire,"ZimriLim'sPalaceat Mari" by Marie-Henriette Gates, and "TheMari Archives"by Dennis Pardee.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

Applicationdeadlinefor most awardsis November 1983.Fordetailsand applicationinformation,%write ASORAdministrativeOffice,4243SpruceStreet, Philadelphia,PA 19104,Tel.(215)222-4643/4644.

Student working in the laboratory sherd collection room at CAARI. Increasing numbers of researchers make use of the Institute's sherd collections as well as geological and mineral samples. Photo S. Swinv.

Fromthe Editor'sDesk This

features two issueofBiblicalArchaeologist

articles on the important site of Ebla (Tell Mardikh,fifty kilometers south of Aleppo).The one written by LorenzoVigano represents the first installment in a new series we are running entitled "LiterarySources for the History of Palestine and Syria." Each article in the series is a bibliographicessay written with the generalreaderin mind but primarilydirectedto the college, seminary, and beginning graduate student. Dennis Pardee,of the OrientalInstitute at the University of Chicago, conceived the idea of these essays, and he, along with our BA staff, is preparingand editing the contributions, whose topics also include the Mari archives; Hebrew,Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite inscriptions; the Dead SeaScrolls;andPhoenicianandUgaritictexts. In addition, there arein the works severalgeneralarticles on the linguistic and epigraphichistory of the Levant.We at BA plan to publish these essays together eventually as a textbook. Surely this publication programdemonstrates the commitment of the American Schools of Oriental Researchto studying the written sources of man'spast as well as investigating the anepigraphic remains of monuments and other kinds of nonwritten data. This issue of BA also includes an article on Ebla by Paolo Matthiae, directorof the excavations conducted at the site by the Italian ArchaeologicalExpedition to Syria of the University of Rome. Lately,activity has been concentrated in the areaof the WesternLowerCity, which is situatedin frontof the RoyalPalaceG of the StateArchives. Among the most importantresults of recentwork-which is summarizedin Matthiae'spaper- is the discoveryof the WesternPalace of the Middle BronzeI and IIperiods, and the identification of the royal necropolis of the Middle BronzeIIperiod.Both of these discoveriesbearheavily on the reconstruction of culture of one of the major urban centers of inner Syria in the period of the Amorite dynasties. When reading the essay by Vigano, please keep in mind the new cuneiformdiscoveriesreportedby Matthiae. These occur in a Middle Bronze II context and include a complete tablet with envelope and two cylinder seal in-

scriptions. The combined evidence of the tablet and the seal impressionsprovideus with the name of the last king of Ebla,Indilimgur (circa 1600 B.c.). The evidence garneredby Matthiae for the demise of this culture around1600B.C.is substantial, andwe leave it to our readersto draw their own conclusions about the broadersignificanceof this materialforthe reconstruction of Near Easternhistory aroundthe middle of the second millennium B.C. The suggestion of Matthiae about the cult of ancestorworship,which flourishedin Ugaritin the Late Bronze II period and in Ebla towardthe end of the Middle Bronze II period, is of special importance to BA readers.In particular,the distance that Matthiae suggests separates the biblical term rephaim from rp'umand the two worlds they representmay now be measured in centuries rather than in millennia. For the student of the biblicalworld,the hithertoremoteworldof inner Syriahas finally been mademoreaccessibleby the reportingof these fascinating and important discoveries from Ebla of the Amorite period. Matthiae'sarticle,by the way,was originallypresented as part of a 1983 symposium on Ebla organized by the University of Pennsylvaniaunder the sponsorship of the American Schools of Oriental Research.This material is being presentedfor the first time to English readers. We are delighted to be able to present these two excellent articles on Ebla to the readers of Biblical Archaeologist.

EricM. Meyers Editor

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

3

Photographby JerryBauer Photograph by Doug Knutson

PaoloMatthiae

JoeD. Seger

A. T Kraabel

Introducingthe Authors Lorenzo Vigano received his Ph.D. from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome where his dissertation, Titoli e Nomi di YHWH alla Luce del Semitico del Nord-ovest, was supervised by Mitchell Dahood. He has taught Ugaritic and Phoenician at the Institutum Biblicum Franciscanum in Jerusalem, and since 1980 he has been studying the Ebla texts at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Dennis Pardee is Associate Professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago. He has published numerous articles and reviews, and in 1980-81 he was a Fulbright Senior Lecturer at Aleppo University, during which time he also worked on collating Ugaritic tablets in Aleppo, Damascus, and Paris. Since 1964 Paolo Matthiae has directed the Tell Mardikh excavations of the Italian Archaeological Expedition to Syria. In a BA interview in 1976 Professor Matthiae said, "Iwas born in Rome. My family is Italian, but of German origin. I studied at the University of Rome with orientalists [Francesco] Gabrieli and [Sabatino] Moscati. My father was an art historian specializing in the Italian medieval period. I too, in my youth, was interested in art history, but mainly of the Near East. After 1964, when I first went to Tell Mardikh, my interest in art history was somewhat modified by research in the field. This experience has certainly changed my original interests." James D. Muhly is Professor of Oriental Studies and Chairman of the Graduate Group in Ancient History at the University of Pennsylvania. Among his other important positions, he is also Director of the Center for Ancient Metallurgy and Co-director, with Robert Dyson, of the Sumerian Metals Project in the University Museum. Dr. Muhly reports, "In the Sumerian project we

4

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

have just finished work on material from Tepe Gawra and the Royal Cemetery of Ur, and we hope to extend this work to Nippur, Tell Fara,and Tell Billa." An ordained minister of the United Methodist Church and a member of the North Arkansas Conference, Page A. Thomas is also Associate Librarian, Head of Technical Services, and Cataloger of Rare Books and Special Collections at Bridwell Libraryof the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. As a volunteer on the Tell Gezer staff in 1968 and 1969 he became interested in R. A. S. Macalister, and he did a research paper on the "Fortifications of Gezer" that emphasized the excavations of Macalister as reported in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly from 1902 through 1905. Mr. Thomas' portrait of Macalister in this issue is a result of his continued fascination with the archaeologist. Robert T. Anderson is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at Michigan State University. He has previously served as president of the Midwest American Academy of Religion and of the Central Michigan American Institute of Archaeology. In addition to several articles on Samaritan materials, Dr. Anderson is the author of Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978). A. T. Kraabel received his Th.D. from Harvard Divinity School and currently is Vice President and Dean of Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, which he refers to as the "Switzerland of Iowa." Dr. Kraabel writes, "My interest in the past has always been at the point where biblical studies, classics, and archaeology intersect, and I became interested in excavating synagogues as a result of my work as E. R. Goodenough's last research assistant and as a con-

LorenzoVigan

J.N. Graham

RobertT Anderson

sequence of the discovery of the synagogue at Sardis by a Harvard-Cornellexpedition under the leadership of G. M. A. Hanfmann.I joinedthe Sardisstaff,andwrotemy dissertationon the Jewsof Greco-RomanAsia Minor.Then, because of mutual connections with Goodenough, Eric Meyersand I got together and createdthe KhirbetShemacprojectwith some powerfulhelp from G. E. Wright.My involvement with Shemac ended after publication of the first phase (1970-1973), and I began to work more intensively on the Sardispublications. I have a chapteron the Judaismof Sardisthat concludesthe final reporton the Sardis Synagogue(inpress),andI am workingon a similar chapternow for the final publication of the Churches of Sardis.

PageA. Thomas

Joe D. Segeris Middle EasternArchaeologistfor the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University. He is also Director of the LahavResearchProject,a private organization formedto forwardfield researchat Tel Halif. Dr. Seger,who has a Th.D. from HarvardUniversity, directed the Hebrew Union College excavationsat TellGezerin the fall of 1969,the springof 1970,andall seasons from 1972through1974,andhe is currently a Trustee of the W. E Albright Institute for Archaeological Researchin Jerusalem.

J.N. Grahamis Head of the Religious Studies Department in a high school in SouthWales.His master'sin OldTestamenthistory fromUniversityCollegeCardiffinvolvedan investigationinto life in Palestine duringthe periodof the BabylonianExile. Workon his degreebeganhis interest in the relationshipbetween archaeology and biblical study, and he has developedthis interest by introducing related courses in his school. As an aid for other teachers he has produced a handbook entitled The Dead Sea Habakkuk Commentary. JamesD. Muhly

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

5

Literary

of

Sources for the History Palestine and Syria

e

EBLA

SbTab by LorenzoVigand revisedand edited by Dennis Pardee

largemound of 140 acres and 50 feet high, located in the vicinity of the modern Arab village of Mardikh in Northern Syria, attracted the attention of many archaeologists in the the mound resisted identification (Matthiae 1980: past, yet 16-39; Pettinato 1981a: 20-21). It was only after a decade of excavation of the site by a team from the University of Rome (Matthiae 1980: 40-61; Pettinato 1981a: 23-28) that, in 1968, its name appeared in an inscription on the torso of a headless statue and this barren tell was identified as the site of the ancient city of Ebla, which Sargon, founder of the Old Akkadian dynasty, and his grandson Naram-Sin proudly claimed to have conquered and to have put to the

6

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

torch (Hirsch 1963: 38 and 75 and following; Pettinato 1981a: 14-19; 1980a). Tell Mardikh is located about 42 miles south of Alepon the road to Hamath in the northern Syrian plateau, po roughly midway between the Euphrates river and the Mediterranean Sea. Its geographical location on one of the main arteries of caravan traffic made Ebla a center of trade and political power in ancient times, open to Mesopotamia on one side and on the other to the Great Sea and its coasts as far as Egypt. The settlement of Ebla had already begun at the end of the fourth millennium s.c., and the city attained its apogee in the middle of the third, but after that it

experienced a slow but steady decline until its final destruction around 1600 B.C.(Matthiae 1980: 52 and 56). Archaeology Paolo Matthiae, at the head of a group of archaeologists from the University of Rome,beganexcavatingthe site in 1964 (Matthiae 1980:40-64; 1974; 1975:see 1979c for an English version of this article). The first objective was to determinethe natureof what was apparentlythe ramparts of the LowerCity. Digging began in the southwest corner and soon brought to light part of the wall and one of the city gates from the Amorite period (aroundthe year 2000 B.C.). Concurrent excavation on the west side of the Acropolis soon uncovereda temple designatedTempleD. During the campaigns of 1966 and 1967 the badly damaged RoyalPalace E of the Middle Bronze IIA period and sector G on the Acropolis were excavated.The year 1968 was marked by the discovery of a torso of a votive statue with an inscription dedicatingit to Ishtaron behalf of Ibbit-Lim,son of Igris-Hepa,king of Ebla(Pettinato1970; 1981a: 23-28; Lambert1981a), andby the consequentidentification of the site (Matthiae 1970; Astour 1971: 18; Pettinato 1981a:28). Encouragedby this, the excavationswere expandedto severalpoints along the outer wall of the LowerCity, and the southeast gate with its associated fortifications were located and excavated. Only in 1973 did the Royal Palace G, dated around

2700-2400 B.c.,begin to appear.It was locatedon the lower westernflankof the Acropolis;it hada largeAudienceHall connected to the higher part of the Upper City by a stairway.The following year forty-twotablets were found in a small storageroom of the same palace, and then, in 1975, in two small rooms an archive of approximately 16,000 tablets and fragmentsof tablets was discovered(Matthiae 1975, 1979c).In one of the rooms the tablets were written or copied by scribes;in the second they were filed in order on woodenshelves.Thoughthe shelves themselves burned and collapsed in the destruction of the palace, the indentations (Matthiae 1980: 150-58) in the walls for the supportsof these shelves arestill visible today.It is worthmentioning that the fire was not completely destructive,for it bakedthe clay,thus preventingany furtherdamageto the tablets. In 1976an additional1,600tabletsandfragmentswere recoveredin rooms adjacent to the Archives (Matthiae 1977:148-76, especially 162andfollowing).The campaign of the following year, in which the excavations were expandedto the west side of the PalaceG, was markedby the discoveryof the PalaceQ andthe necropolisof the Amorite period, dated to around 1700-1650 B.C.(Matthiae 1979a). Summingup, the primarybuildingsdiscoveredto date at Eblabelong to two differentperiods:EarlyDynastic III, representedby the RoyalPalace G on the Acropolis,with its AudienceHall surroundedprobablyby a portico,andby the Administrative Quarterswith the Archives; and the Amorite period, from around 2000 to 1600 B.c., attested by

the City Gate A, the Temple D, the SanctuaryB2, the Fortress M, the temples BI and N, the ramparts, and the Building Q with the annexed necropolis and its tombs of the Princess and of the so-called Lordof the Goats (Matthiae 1979b). The Texts The total of the texts foundat Eblais morethan 17,000clay tablets, fragments included, and, of them, about 1,650,1 including the most important of the complete or nearly complete tablets,havebeen published in two main series: one, by the InternationalCommittee forthe Publicationof the EblaTexts (compareMatthiae 1978:41 andfollowing; unsigned 1978) set up by the Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria of the University of Rome, called Archivi Reali di Ebla (ARET);and a second, Materiali Epigrafici di Ebla (MEE), by the Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. The clay tablets of the Royal Archives of Ebla utilize the cuneiform writing system introduced by the Sumerians. The tablets themselves may have different shapes: Small round tablets, usually with short economic accounts and functioning like an invoice, were transferred on to large rectangular ones with full summaries reporting the transactions of several years. There are also square tablets with round edges and with two to five columns per side;

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1984

7

:ANATOLIA' Carchem'sh. Allk Aleppo,,,

Marl

A"j...ms

BabylosKish .

ersalem.

?t?~;

AbuSlbh :,Fara

fI 1A_

,)S?d iizaAg. these contain a few Sumerianwordswith Eblaitetranslations. They may be considered school exercises and are found together with large rectangularones, which may hold an entire glossary (Pettinato 1979a: xvii and following). Another peculiarity of the Ebla tablets, in common with the pre-Sargonictexts in Mesopotamia, is that each item is enclosed in a separatesquareor rectangularbox, termed a case; the cases arearrangedin vertical columns. These featuresandthe shape of the cuneiform signs, what the experts referto as paleography,point to a dating of the Ebla tablets around 2600-2500 B.C.,shortly after those found at Faraand Abu Salabikh (Pettinato 1981a:9-12; Picchioni 1981a). The majority of the clay tablets found at Ebla deal with the economic reportsof expenses or acquisitions to the royalpalace. These reportslist a wide rangeof goods: from precious metals like gold and silver, to wool, garments, weapons, or rations of barley for the palace personnel. Another groupof texts deals with lists of variousprofessions, of animals, birds, fish, miscellaneous words, geographicalnames, and so on (Pettinato 1981b;Arcari 1982),a practiceso common in ancient Mesopotamiathat the dimensions andthe shapeof the tablets,the numberof columns on each side, and the number of cases in each column are almost perfectly identical with tablets found in other distant locations like Uruk, Nippur,Kish, or the previouslymentioned FaraandAbu Salabikh(Biggs1981: especially 129-33; Pettinato 1981b: xxi-xxvi; Nissen 1981).So it is possible to say that these kinds of tablets from Ebla fit well into the Mesopotamian tradition and pattern of lexical texts, and that they should be included

8

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

with the forerunnersof the canonical lists in the Babylonian periods. Very close to the content of the type of texts mentioned above is the Vocabularyof Ebla (Pettinato 1982; 1981c;Archi 1980a),which is composed of a list of 1,450 Sumerian words followed by their Eblaite counterparts. The Vocabularyof Ebla (VE)is the result of a patient reconstructionof this lengthy text from 114tablets. This list is based on four principal sources: a largetablet with the Sumerian terms only (TM 75.G.2422; compare Pettinato 1982: 118-30), the bilingual texts A and B, and the text Az, which starts at the entry number 1090.2Besides these there are 40 tablets or fragmentsthat could be considered "excerpts"of the VE (Pettinato 1981c: 244 and following; 1982:xxvii-xxix, 91-113, 347-81). Their origin is almost certainly the school milieu, and they were used by young students to learn the Sumerian signs and their pronunciation.3The real name of the VE comes from its firstentry:se-bar-UNKIN,which could mean"bookof the assembly" (Pettinato 1981c: 249 and note 20).4 This list follows an acrographic order-that is, the words are groupedaccordingto the initial sign of the Sumerianterm. The first section begins with the sign NIG- andends with the repetition of the same symbol; this one is followedby a second segment characterized by the KA- sign, and anotherby SAG-,Uj-,SA-,1-, GIS-,and so on; in total there are ninety-three sections in the VE (Pettinato 1981c: 246-50; 1982:xviii-xxi). The treatybetween EblaandAssur belongs to the few historical texts (Pettinato 1976a: 48; 1976b: 14; 1981a: 103-05; Sollberger1980;Picchioni 1981b);it is a long commercialagreementregulatingtradebetweenthe two cities. It starts by listing the localities under their respective

dHaddad,and dAmarik. These charms were performed against evil spirits (GIDIM/DINGIR-HUL),scorpions (GIR),and serpents (MUS),using branches of tamarisk (giSINIG),andend almost invariablywith the "invocation" of dNIN-GIRIMx, a well-known deity in the incantation texts from Faraand in the ZA-MIhymns of Abu Salabikh (Biggs1974:37 and 55; 1968:80, note 55).

Twoviews of the Western Palace (formerlyknown as Building Q). Above:Mudbrickstructuresfrom the northeast quarteras seen from the north. In the background is the southwest City Gate A dating to the Middle BronzeI to II period. Left:A room with sixteen grindstonesin situ. Photographsused courtesy of PaoloMatthiae.

jurisdictions;then it gives regulationsabout trade,taking special care to avoid a double taxation of merchants. Messengersarethe concernof the next section, which sets up rules that will assure them food supplies and lodging duringtheir travels.Another important section contains regulationsforthe releaseof citizens keptin custodyin the foreign city. The treaty ends with a curse in uncommon form in the name of the Sun-god,of Haddad,and of the assembly of gods. Moredifficult to explainis the so-calledmilitary campaignof Eblaagainstthe rivalcity Mari.GiovanniPettinato (1981a:99-102; 1977a;1980b)regardedEnna-Daganas the generalof the Eblaitearmy,who laterbecame king of Mari (seealso Kienast 1980).D. O. Edzard(1981a)consideredthis a "letterof introduction"of the new king Enna-Daganto his colleague of Ebla. Finally,we may mention a groupof twenty-eight incantations (EN-E-NU-RU)recordedin ten tablets (Mander 1979; Pettinato 1979b). Some are written completely in Sumerian,some, surprisingly,in Eblaitewith the mention of Semitic deities such as dKamis,the river god Balikh,

History The Near East in the third millennium B.c.The political situation of the NearEastin the middleof the thirdmillennium B.c. shows the presence of three major areas of interest and power. The Egypt of the Old Kingdom enjoyed one of the most prosperous periods of its history, marked by the building of the great temples to the gods at Abydos, Heliopolis, and Memphis andby the construction at Giza of the great pyramids bearing the names of the three pharaohs, Khufu (Cheops), Khafre (Chephren), and Menkaure (Mycerinus)(see Gardiner 1961:77-106). The name of the second of these pharaohs was written in a hieroglyphicinscription found on a bowl at Tell Mardikh, and the name of Pepi I, an Egyptianking belonging to the following Sixth Dynasty, is mentioned on the coverof an alabasterjar (ScandoneMatthiae 1979; 1981). In Mesopotamia, the various Sumerian cities of the south were busy fighting each other for supremacy(Hallo and Simpson 1971: 46-54; Jacobsen 1957: especially 120-37); among them should be mentioned Ur, Kish, Lagash, Umma, Adab, Nippur, Shuruppak,Tuttul, and Gasur;all of them are mentioned in the Eblatexts. In the north, Mari was the major challenger of Ebla power,and it seems that, at least fora while, Eblawas able to have the rival city under its control (Pettinato 1981a: 99-102; 1977a; 1980b;see also Kienast 1980). In the northeast, Assur was already present on the scene, and even in this case, Ebla enjoyeda slight advantage.This is the impressionthat comes out of the commercial treaty from the Ebla Archives (Pettinato 1976a: 48; 1976b: 14; 1981a: 103-05; Sollberger 1980; Picchioni 1981b). There is no mention of Akkad nor of its first king, Sargonof Agade,who appearedlater, about 2350 B.C. Very little was known before the discovery of Ebla about the history of Syria and Palestine in the third millennium B.C. From the Royal Archives, however, we now know that in this area as well a prosperous civilization was flourishing, not only around Ebla but also along the coast of Lebanon and along the banks of the Upper Euphrates and the Balikh. Many small but wealthy city-states were present already in Syria and Palestine, and it seems that, though one might temporarily prevail over another, they enjoyed a great degree of political independence, while being bound together by a common background and heritage. Ebla. In a period for which historical data are very limited,

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

9

the tablets from the Royal Archives (Pettinato 1981a: 69-99) shed new light on the life of this buried city. The Eblatexts reportdatacoveringa very short period,fortyto fifty years, and they come from a single archive. This makes it possibleto reconstructa list of five kings (EN)and to learn about the presence of an assembly of "elders" (ABxAS),the structureof the administration,the roleplayed by the royalfamily, and even the approximatecity population, estimated at about 260,000 (Pettinato 1981a:134). The list of kings at Ebla is reconstructed as: Igri'Halam, Irkab-Damu,Ar-Ennum,Ebriumand his son IbbiSipi'. It is evident, then, from the tablets that, first, the dynastic succession was not yet institutionalized and it was,perhaps,introducedby Ebrium;that, second,the term of office of the king was limited in time, apparentlyto a period of seven years, since former ENs are mentioned together with the EN-king in charge;and that, third, the royaloffice may have been elective, because the first four EN-kingswereapparentlyunrelated.Moreover,besides the queen (maliktum),often mentioned with the king, some other members of the royalfamily also playedimportant roles in Ebla politics. A good example is Ibbi-Sipi', who held high offices in the previous administrations;he was governorunderthe kings Igri'-Halam,Irkab-Damu,andArEnnum;he was made co-regentunder his fatherEbrium; and he finally became king. had imporThe daughtersof the king (DUMU-MI-EN) tant positions in the temple; two of them, Za'aheand Tarkabbu,(Pettinato 1979c: 15; 1979d:99), daughters of Ibbi-Sipi',held the office of Sa'iltu,"dreaminterpreter"of the Sun-god. A final note aboutthe history of the city. It seems that Eblawas destroyedtwice: by Sargonof Akkador,morelikely, by his grandsonNaram-Sin,and a second time around 1600 B.C.

Social Life The city of Ebla was comprised of the Upper City, the Acropolis or administrative section, and the LowerCity (Pettinato 1981a: 115-54; 1976c). The last consisted of quarters (E-DURUs)associated with the respective city gates, which were dedicated to dDagan,dUTU (the Sungod),Bacal,5and dRasap. The Acropoliswas formedby the administrationcomplex, the so-called saSAGxki;6 its four main buildings mentioned in the tablets are the palace of the king (i-EN), the main palace (E-MAIx), the stables (i-GIGIR), and the palace of... (E-AM). At the head of the administration there was the king (EN) together with the "elders"(ABxAS). Besides these and the royal family, which played a special role in the political arena, the high officials were the "governor"of the administration complex (LUGAL saSAGxki), the superintendent of IGI.NITA-officials (LUGAL IGI. NITA. IGI. NITA), the superintendent of the administration-personnel

10

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

This tablet (TM75.G.1321)from the Ebla archivesdemonstrates the peculiar arrangementof individual items written in cuneiformand enclosed in separatesquares that are lined up in verticalcolumns.

(LUGAL IR11.IR1l),and the superintendent of the messengers (LUGAL KAS4.KAS4).Under them were "commissioners"(MASKIM),"supervisors" (UGULA),and finally the personnel (IR11.IR11). Merchants,artisans,textile workers(TUG.NU. TAG), carpenters (NAGAR), metalworkers (SIMUG),farmers (ENGAR), gardeners (GIS. NU. KIRI6),and shepherds (SIPA)were professions mentioned in the Eblatexts. Also mentioned were the more genteel professions of doctors (A. ZUx) and judges (DI.KU5). The school systemwas veryactiveandwell-organized; at the head there was the "dean,principal"(UM-MI-A), followed by "teachers"(DUB-ZU-ZU = "the one who knows the scribal art"),and scribes (DUB-SAR)(Pettinato 1981a:230-42; 1975-1976). A note should be addedregardingthe calendar.From the economic reportsfound in the Archives, it has been possibleto reconstructtwo calendars(Pettinato1974/1977; 1977b; 1981a:147-53), each with the complete series of twelve months, and to learn that the newer one was adoptedunder the reign of Ibbi-Sipi'.Froma first evaluation and comparison,seven out of twelve month-namesof the "OldCalendar"of Eblaarethe same as those found in the pre-Sargonictexts of Mari (Charpin1982). Religion Little is known about religion at Ebla (Pettinato 1981a: 244-69; 1980c: 31-48; 1979d;Archi 1979-1980; Miller 1980).Whatwe know comes fromtablets listing offerings presentedto differentgods of the pantheon, from a group of divine names found in the Vocabularyof Ebla,and from theophoric personal names. The buildings identified as temples havenot yet been connectedwith anyof the major

..

.~

...

u

.;' -..

~

(

~

::

.

, a. i

Clyabe? M7..71)rmroL279falcG

deities;no tablethas been founddescribingfestivalsor lists of gods such as at Faraand Abu Salabikh,and no texts of a specifically ritual nature have been found. Familiarnames of Sumeriangods, however,arementioned side by side with deities of Semitic or Canaanite extraction; in other words,a form of religious syncretism was in operation at Ebla. Relatedto this, however,two furtherelements should be considered. In the EN-E-NU-RUincantations several Sumeriangods arementioned, such as dEnki,the LUGAL ABZU, "theking of the Netherworld"(Pettinato 1979b),7 with his spouse dNinki, dEnlil,8 dNidaba (Falkenstein 1966: 110and following; Sjoberg1969: 148;Behrens 1978; Civil 1983a), dUtu, and dSIG7.AMA.9A minor role is playedby Canaanite/Semitic deities such as the rivergod Balikh, dKamig,and dHaddad. An opposite phenomenon occurs in the reportsof the official cult at Ebla. In these tablets the EN-king, the queen, the elders, and so on presented the established numbersof offeringsto the "official" godsof Eblaon the day of their festivals,andin these texts foreigndeities arerarely mentioned. So we can say that Eblawas open to Sumerian influence and a kind of religious pluralism was apparent; on the otherhand,the officialcult honoreda specificgroup of local deities, among whom we must name DINGIR-AMU - "thegod of my father"- and DINGIR-EN--"the(personal) god of the king"(Pettinato 1979d: 104). The main place in the pantheon was held by Dagan it is written dda-ganon(alwaysmentioned as dBE,"Lord"; ly in personalnames).His preeminenceis unopposed,and it is stressedby the epithets dBEDINGIR.DINGIR ("Lord of gods")and dBEKALAM-tim("Lordof the land")or dBE KALAM-tim = ti-lu ma-tim ("thedew of the land")of the Vocabulary of Ebla (number 795), with the variant DINGIR.KALAM-tim("godof the land")or dBEga-na-naim ("Lordof Canaan"). It was not peculiarto Eblathat Daganshould enjoythe

first position in the pantheon, for he was considered the main deity in the rival city of Mari as well, and, further south along the Euphrates, in Tuttul (compare dBE / LUGAL du-du-luki-"Lord/kingof Tuttul")and in other cities (comparedBEbi-la-nuki- "Lordof Bulanu"). Another importantgod,who receiveda largenumber of offerings, was dNI-da-kul (Archi: 1979a; Pettinato 1979d:107and following; Baldacci 1982:223, note 15);he remainsunidentified.Therewere two rivergods,dba-ra-du ma-du,the Euphrates(Pettinato1979d:103;Edzard1981b: 112),and dba-li-ha,the Balikh river.Some have, therefore, read dNI-da-kulas i-da-kul and identified him with the Tigris (compare Hebrew hiddeqel); one would expect, however,the writing i-da-kul.The cult of dNI-da-kulwas widespread as is shown by the epithets dNI-da-kularu2-ga-duki ("N.of Irqata"in Lebanon),dNI-da-kullu-baanki("N.of Luban"in the area of Alalakh), or dNI-da-kul saSAGxki ("N.

of the Acropolis").

- Resheph (Pettinato 1979: 109 and followdRa-sa-ap Dahood ing; 1977),1 the Canaanite god of pestilencehad an important place at Ebla, since a city gate bore his name andhe was equatedwith dNergal,the Sumeriangod of the netherworld,in the Vocabularyof Ebla.LikedDagan and dNI-da-kul,Resheph was worshipped in other cities besides Ebla;see dra-sa-ap'a-da-niki("Reshephof Atani"), ar-mikiar-miki("R.of the cities"),dra-sa-ap dra-sa-ap gu-nuki ("R.of Gunu"),dra-sa-apdu-ne-ebki("R. of Tunip"),and dra-sa-apsaSAGxki ("R.of the Acropolis"). Among the god names of Sumerianorigin mentioned above, we can add:dNinki, wife of Enki; dUTU together with dUTU.SAL(apparentlythe Sun-goddess-we should remember that in Canaanite the Sun was feminine in gender);dSin,the moon-god;dNidaba,the goddess of the scribal art;dAgnan,the god of grain;11di hara,goddess of justice, oats, and war,12who in this stage seems to be still separated from Ishtar; the goddess Nin.kar.du;13 and dSamagan,protectorof flocks (Lambert1981b). Of common Semitic origin are deities like d'A-da (Haddad,the Semitic storm god);dag-da-ar (Ishtar,the goddess of love and war); dga-mi-i' (Kamish-the biblical Kemosh: Pettinato 1976b);dga-sa-lu(Kothar-at Ugarit Ktr-w-hss-the skilled one, god of metalworking, music, and dancing and merrymaking). Some of the god names appear just in personal names as a theophoric element; among them should be mentioned: ba-al (Bacal;Pettinato 1980d: 201-09), never preceded by the divine determinative; dda-mu (Damu; Dahood 1981a), perhaps connected with the Semitic root dam ("blood"); dli-im (Lim), who had such an important place at Mari; dma-lik (Malik; compare biblical Molek); and, finally, the controversial dia (Ya; Pettinato 1976a: 48; Miller 1980-1981), which serves as substitute for the element -il ("El,god")in some personal names but who is not, in any case, to be identified with Yhwh, the God of Israel. In tablets attributed to the reign of Ebrium/Ibbi-SipiB, the

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

11

interchangeof the elements -il and -ia is evident in names such as mi-ga-il/mi-ga-ia(NI) or en-na-il/en-na-ia(NI). Alfonso Archi (1979b)denied the presence of a god Yaat Eblaandregardedthe ending-iaas a hypocoristicon(ashort form of the same name). Giovanni Pettinato (1980e; 1980f)14answeredback quoting the personal name dia-ramu (TM75.G.1347rev.v:12;"Yahas been exalted"),which was read by Archi (1979c; 1980b; 1981)AN.NI-ra-mu = il-i-ra-mu:("mygod is exalted").The lattervalue of the sign AN = il, however, as mentioned by Archi himself, is unusual. Gelb (1981: 27) has read, without hesitation, DINGIR-Ni-ra-mu= 'iluni-ramu ("ourgod is exalted"). Thus, because of the ambiguity of the cuneiform writing system, a completely decisive form in favorof the interpretation as a divine name has not yet appeared. Anotherfactorthat should be mentioned is that some gods appearin the month names of the new calendar introducedby Ibbi-Sipis,the last king of Eblamentioned in the tablets: itu nidba2be-li:monthof the feastof the lord(Dagan); monthof the feastof Astabi; itu nidba2das-da-bi5s: itu nidba2d/'-da:monthof the feastof Haddad; monthof thefeastof Adamma; itu nidba2da-dam-ma-um: monthof the feastof Ishtar; itu nidba2das-dar: monthof the feastof Kamis. itu nidba2dga-mi-ij: The mention of these godnames in the new calendarcould be interpretedas an increasein importanceof these godsin the Eblaitepantheon;andit should be stressedthat among them dA'tabi and dAdammaappearlater in the Hurrian pantheon.15 The Language Twomain positions have emergedamong scholarsregarding the classification of the language of the Ebla tablets. GiovanniPettinato,the firstepigrapherof the Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, ascribed it to the Northwest Semitic family as Old Canaanite with a very close tie to Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Hebrew(Pettinato1975; 1976a; 1979e: especially 17; compare Garbini 1978a; 1978b; Dahood 1981b;Fronzaroli1977a:40 and following). Since this is not the place to proceed into such analysis,I will limit myself to mentioning some elements which emergefrom the datapresently available.Pettinato (1976a:50; 1977c:238; see also introduction by M. L. Jaffe in Pettinato 1979e: 3) declared that 80 percent of the materialin the tablets is Sumerianand 20 percentEblaite. This does not mean that the languageused in the tablets was Sumerian; the Sumerian signs conceal the Eblaite. Eblaitewas the languagespokenat Ebla,and,in spite of the massive presenceof Sumerianlogograms,used probablyas a formof shorthand,the Eblatablets arewritten in Eblaite (Gelb 1981:13;Fronzaroli1980:39). This is evident from formslike I.NA.SUM-kum("hehas given to you;"Pettinato 1981a:66, note 8; Fronzaroli1979:4; Lambert1981c:158) or SU.BA4.TI-su4 ("hehas received it/him"; Gelb 1981: 18).

The endings -kum and -su4 are Eblaite pronominal suf-

12

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

of settled by the end the fourthmillennium B.C., its height Ebla in the reached

Already middle

declined

of

the

steadily

third.

It

until

then its

final

destructionaround1600 Bc. fixes added to the Sumerian form and show that the Sumeriansign was readas an Eblaiteword.This is shown more clearly in the fully glossed example found in the Vocabularyof Ebla (number 795). DINGIR.KALAM-tim ("godof the land")in the Sumerian side is equated with be-lu ma-tim ("thelordof the land")in the Eblaitepart,and the -tim appendedat the end of KALAM-timshows that it should be considered a "phoneticindicator"and that the the Eblaite, not the term should be readma-tim ("land"): Sumerian,word for "land." The only texts written entirely in Sumerian are the lexical lists, which follow a pattern already long established throughout Mesopotamia. In these texts, a phenomenon which later became common in the school milieu was occurring alreadyat Ebla:the use of syllabic spelling or glossae (Civil 1975; Krecher 1969). Often, in excerpts of the Vocabularyof Ebla,the Sumerian term is followed by its syllabic spelling-that is, its pronunciation- andonly then the Eblaitecounterpartis added.This use was so common at Ebla,certainlynot limited to single words, that a given tablet may contain only the syllabic spelling of a lexical list known to us from other texts or sources written in standardorthography.Fourtablets of this kind were foundat Ebla,16which makes us think that they were commonly used as teaching aids.In fact, during the training period the young students had to memorize lexical lists in order to "master"Sumerian, which was foreign to them. This was the first step toward being recognized as an "expert"in the scribal art (Foster1982). Syllabicspellingis preferredin the GeographicalAtlas (GA)as well, while at Abu Salabikh,where an incomplete copy of the GA was found, the Sumerian logograms are favored.Some examples will clarify the point. GA 105: dMUSki (McEwan1983: 215, note 6) of the Abu Salabikh which is recension is read in the Ebla texts ne-ra-[ah]ki, one of the values of the Sumerian sign MUS. GA 246: SU + ZIki is parallel to sa-gu-ma-akkiat Ebla. GA 48: AMBARki (Abu Salabikh) parallels a-sa-tiki. GA 233: (Ebla). irhanxki(dMUS:DIN:DUB)parallels ur4-ha-anki Summing up, it could be said that, contrary to the situation at FaraandAbu Salabikh,Sumerianwas a foreign languageand its presenceat Eblawas relatedto the writing

system and the training of scribes in the school. This peculiarity of Eblais supportedby the widespreaduse of syllabic spelling, the Eblapaleography,and the system of writing markedby the use of certain forms and syllabic values not attested elsewhere. I. J.Gelb of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, was plainly unhappywith that and manifested his opinion in a long article, "Thoughtsabout Ibla"(Gelb 1977).He declaredthat "theclosest linguistic relatives of Eblaic are Old Akkadian and slightly less Amorite"and that "thefarthest are Ugaritic, and, even farther,Hebrew but he rejectedthe idea that Eblaitehas to be (Canaanite)"; considered "adialect of Old Akkadian"(Gelb 1981: 52; 1977: 25). His classification of the Semitic languages "disregardsall such divisions as 'eastern'and 'western' 'northwestern'and 'south-western,'and simply lists in chronological orderthe eight attested Semitic languages [Akkadian, Amorite, Ugaritic, Canaanite, Aramaic, (classical)Arabic,South Arabic,and Ethiopic]with their dialects."He says "Iblaicshould be added to that list as a ninth Semitic language"(Gelb 1977:28). Another point that Gelb emphasized was the influence of the so-calledKish Civilization at Ebla:"Kishwas controlledby rulersbearingAkkadian(Semitic)names."He assumedthat "Akkadian" was their language.Kishwas able to impose its dominion in the protohistoricalperiod not only over Babyloniain the northern section of southern Mesopotamiabut even overUpperMesopotamiaandMari. Eblabelongedto the latter areaandhas to be consideredas underthe controlof Mari.(Accordingto Gelb,the language He supportedhis opinion by spoken at Eblawas "Mariote.") citing strong similarities in the writing, the common use of a decimal system, common terms formeasures,andthe fact that the names for years and months in both cities were the same. Gelb elaborated and restated these arguments in "Eblaand the Kish Civilization,"a lecture presentedat the ConvegnoInternazionaleheld in Naples, April 21-23, 1980 and published in La Lingua di Ebla (Gelb 1981). In commenting on these two positions, I should mention that the languageof Eblabelongs to an early stage of Semitic and we should not be surprised to discover similarities with other languages of the same family, especially with those chronologically close to it. I am of the opinion, however,that languages cannot be removed from time and place of origin. Both parametersshould be kept in mind, because both elements play an important role in the configurationof their peculiarities.Takinginto consideration only one of these parameterswill result in a nonobjective approachto the language.The question of the presence of a Kish Civilization in Mesopotamia reaching out as far as Mari and even to Ebla, though possible, cannot be demonstrated with the data now at our disposal. Gelb is certainly right, however,when he insists that, in languageclassification,"grammar[hasprecedence]

over lexicon" and "within grammar, morphology over phonology and, even more, over syntax"(Gelb 1977: 17). But, as pointed out by EdwardUllendorff(1978),"themost urgenttask is not the'elucidationof interrelationships'but a simple, straightforward,and full descriptive analysis of Eblaic,"because "classification. .. is by its very nature almost always an exercise in special pleading."' In other words,the Eblaite dependence on Sumerian was peculiar and reflects a stage earlierthan the Sargonic periodwhen that areawas unified politically and culturally by the rulers of Akkad. The EblaTabletsand Syro-PalestinianHistory in the Third Millennium B.c. The tabletsof Eblaareof limited use forthe reconstruction of the history of Syria and Palestine in the middle of the third millennium B.c.They focus on a very short periodof time, few texts areconcernedwith political relationships with other cities, and the tablets provide relatively few historical data (forexample, the name of the yearput as a dateat the end of some of the tablets).It is important,then, to state explicitly just what kinds of data do emerge from these tablets. It will be clear fromthe precedingoutline of the texts themselves that, forSyriaitself, these texts areof directuse to the historian of economy, religion, and language,with fewerdataon political history.In addition, the thousands of personal names provide indirect witness to language, religion, and ethnicity. Other sources of information are the study of the types of goods, their origins, and the volume of the trade. This enables us to form an idea of the economical prosperity of this areaandto begin to understandthe causes of the political struggles.Furtheranddeeperstudy of the data coming out of the economic texts and the Geographical Atlas may prove to be very helpful in increasing our knowledge of the history of this area. The excavationof othermounds in the region,already in progress, will also help to confirm the patient reconstruction of the events discoveredin the economic accounts. As regardsthe northerncoastal areaandthe southern region, later known as Canaan or Palestine, the data are much less direct. Nevertheless, information from the economic reports,for example, can help to reconstruct a partialmap of cities active in the periodof the Eblatexts. One discovers that Ugarit was already present on the scene,1"even though, unexpectedly,it is nevermentioned in the administrativetexts. Moreover,it was not used as a portfacility forEblaon the Mediterranean;rather,this role was playedbyTilum, locatednearAlalakh (Pettinato1978: 57;18

Archi 1980b: 2).

We can assume, on the other hand, that Lebanon alreadyenjoyeda kind of political identity,since it is called KURki la-ba-na-an("theland of Labanan"; Pettinato 1980b:

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

13

236; 1983:107-09), and locations like Arwad(GA 197;Pettinato 1978: 58; 1981b:240; Archi 1980b:2), Irqata(Pettinato 1981d:30; 1981b:240), and Ulaza, north of Byblos (Fronzaroli1977b:147)can be identified. From the mention of deities attested as Canaanite deities in the second millennium, we can now be certain that godssuch as Bacal,Kemosh,andReshephwerealready worshippedby the middle of the third millennium B.C. Published Texts As mentioned earlier,the texts havebeen publishedin two main series.Forthose publishedby the InternationalCommittee of the Universityof Rome,see Edzard1981(volume 2) and Archi and Biga (volume 3). Forthose published by the Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, see Pettinato 1979a(volume 1),Pettinato 1981d(volume2), 1981b (volume 3), and Pettinato 1982 (volume 4). Fortexts relatedto EN-E-NU-RUincantations,see Pettinato 1979b; to calendars, see Pettinato 1977b and 1974/1977; to administration, see Pettinato 1976c (TM 75.G.336);to history, see Sollberger1980, Pettinato 1980b, and Edzard 1981a;and to the "official cult," see Pettinato 1979c. Notes IAccordingto Pettinato 1979a,the numberof the complete tablets is about 1800 and there are approximately4700 fragmentsand about 10,000very small fragments. 2The first two texts are the result of several"joins";the text A is formed by seven fragments: TM 75.G.2000 + 2005 + 2006; TM 75.G.3528;TM 75.G.4526;TM 75.G.4504;TM 75.G.3433.The text B is a join of fourfragments:TM 75.G.2007;TM 75.G.2004 + 2001 + 2003. The text Az is a join of two: TM 75.G.10023 + 11301. that is, pronunciationsof the Sumerian 3Theabundanceof "glossae" words,is peculiarto these texts; see Pettinato 1981c:256f. 4Fora different interpretationsee Archi 1980a: n. 1, "liste de la totalit6";Krecher1981:135f.,reads6e-bar-kinx. ,Even in this case the name of Bacalis not precededby the determinatived(DINGIR,god). 6Thisgroupof signs was readearlierby Pettinatoas E-MI+ SITAxki, and then as SA-ZAxki. Civil 1983bhas shown that LAK384 should be readSAGx,and the entire complex: saSAGxki("sa" being a phonetic indicatorforthe correctreadingof SAGx). 7CompareTM 75.G.2459rev.iii: 7-8. See VE 803: dEN-KI= 'A-ug, Ea. 8Notethat Enlil does not enjoythe firstplace among the Sumerian gods. See VE 802: dEN-LIL= i-li-lu. compareCivil 1969. 9Perhapsthis should be readdAMA:SIG7; 'oSee Fulco 1976;Xella 1979-1980; Xella and ScandoneMatthiae 1981. 11In the VEthreeentries arededicatedto A'nan, the personification of grain: 811, dAgNAN-MAH = a-za-na MAH; 812, dASNAN = a-za-na-an;813, dASNAN-TUR= a-za-nax-u9-tir;see Civil 1983a:45. = ig-ha-ra/la.Her name VE 809: dGAxSIG7(BARAlo)-ra 12Compare See is spelled also dGAxSIG7(BARAo0)-i9 and dLAGABxSIG7(BARA7).-i. Edzard1981b:112. 13VE798: dNIN-KAR-DU= ni-ga-ra-duA / ni-ga-la-duB. see the presenceof YaoutsideEblain the thirdmillennium B.C., 14For Mander1980:especially page 190 and following. 15Adamma has been identifiedwith an "altesyrischeGottheit"(Haas 1982:97, 99), associatedwith Kubabaand, later,with Cybele. Agtabiis

14

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

the Hittite godof war,identifiedwith Ninurta.See Laroche1976a;1976b: 96. 16InPettinato 1981b:texts 45 and 46 (wordlist B)paralleltext 61; texts 12through 17 (animallist A) paralleltext 62;texts 48 and 49 (word list D) paralleltext 63; and text 39 parallelstext 64. See Civil 1982. 17Ugaritappearsonly in the GeographicalAtlas 5: ug-ga-ra-atki 18SeeGA 162:ti-lumki;the Abu Salabikhversionomits it.

Bibliography

Arcari,E. 1982 La Lista di Professioni "EarlyDynastic Lu A."Series:Annali dell'IstitutoOrientaleSupplemento32, Napoli. Archi, A. 1979a Diffusione del culto di dNI-da-kul.Studi Eblaiti 1: 105-13. 1979b The EpigraphicEvidence from Ebla and the Old Testament. Biblica 60: 556-66. 1979c dii-ra-muat Ebla.Studi Eblaiti 1:45-48. 1979- Les dieux d'Ebla au 3e millenaire avant J.C. et les dieux 1980 d'Ugarit.Annales ArchdologiquesArabes Syriennes 29-30: 167-71. 1980a Lestextes lexicaux bilingues d'Ebla.Studi Eblaiti 2: 81-89. 1980b Ancorasu Eblae la Bibbia.Studi Eblaiti 2: 17-40. (SeeArchi 1981forEnglishversion.) 1981 FurtherConcerningEblaandthe Bible.BiblicalArcheologist44: 145-54. Archi,A., and Biga,M. G. 1982 Archivi Reali di Ebla. Testi,III. TestiAmministrativi di Vario Contenuto (Archivio L. 2769: TM 75.G.3000-4101). Roma: Universita degli Studi di Roma. (ARET3) Astour,M. 1971 Tell Mardikhand Ebla. Ugarit-Forschungen3: 9-19. Baldacci,M. 1982 Note semitico-occidentalisulla geografiareligiosaad Ebla.Bibbia e Oriente 24: 219-27. Behrens,H. 1978 Enlil und Ninlil. Rome:Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Biggs,R. D. 1968 The Abui Tablets:A PreliminarySurvey.Journalof Sal•bikh CuneiformStudies 20: 73-88. 1974 Inscriptionsfrom TellAbu Salabikh. Series:OrientalInstitute Publications99. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. 1981 Eblaand Abu Salabikh:The Linguistic and LiteraryAspects. Pp.121-33 in LaLinguadi Ebla,ed. by L.Cagni.Napoli:Istituto UniversitarioOrientale,Seminariodi Studi Asiatici. Charpin,D. 1982 Mari et le calendrier d'Ebla. Revue dAssyriologie et dArchdologie Orientale 76: 1-6. Civil, M. 1969 Notes Brhves.Revued'Assyriologieet dArcheologie Orientale 63: 179. 1975 Lexicography.Pp. 123-57 in Assyriological Studies No. 20: SumerologicalStudiesin Honorof ThorkildJacobsen.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. I. OriensAntiquus 21: 1982 Studieson EarlyDynastic Lexicography. 1-26. 1983a Enlil andNinlil: The Marriageof Sud.Journalof the American Oriental Society 103:43-66. 1983b The Sign LAK384. Orientalia 52: 233-40. Dahood, M. 1981a Il dio Damu nelle tavolettedi Ebla.Pp.97-104 in Sanguee AntropologiaBiblica,volume 1,ed. E Vattioni.Roma:PiaUnione Preziosissimo Sangue. 1981b The LinguisticClassificationof Eblaite.Pp.179-89 in LaLingua di Ebla, ed. L.Cagni. Napoli:Istituto UniversitarioOrientale, Seminariodi StudiAsiatici.

Dahood, M., and Pettinato,G. 1977 Ugaritic r'pgn and Eblaite rasap gunu(m)ki.Orientalia 46: 230-32. Edzard,D. O. zum Briefdes Enna-Daganvon Mari.Studi 1981a Neue Erwdigungen Eblaiti 4: 89-97. verschiedenen 198lb ArchiviRealidi Ebla.Testi,II. Verwaltungstexte Inhalts (aus dem Archiv L.2769).Roma:UniversitAdegli Studi di Roma.(ARET2) Falkenstein,A. 1966 Die InschriftenGudeas von Laga'. Series:AnalectaOrientalia 30. Rome:Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. Foster,B.R. 1982 Educationof a Bureaucratin SargonicSumer.ArchivOrientailni 50: 238-41. Fronzaroli,P. 1977a L'interferenza linguisticanella Siriasettentrionaledel Il millennio in L'InterferenzaLinguistica, ed. R. Ajello. Pisa: Atti del Convegnodella SocietAItalianadi Glottologia:Perugia,24 e 25 aprile 1977. 1977b WestSemitic Toponymyin NorthernSyriain the ThirdMillennium B.C.Journalof Semitic Studies 22: 145-66. 1979 Un atto realedi donazionedagliArchividi Ebla(TM.75.G.1766). Studi Eblaiti 1:3-16. 1980 Note sul contatto linguistico a Ebla.Vicino Oriente3: 33-46. Fulco,W.J. 1976 The Canaanite God Resep. New Haven:American Oriental Society. Garbini,G. 1978a Lalingua di Ebla.La Paroladel Passato33: 241-59. 1978b Pensieri si Ebla.Annali dell'Istituto UniversitarioOrientale, Napoli 38: 41-52. Gardiner,A. H. 1961 Egyptof the Pharaohs.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Gelb, I. J. 1977 Thoughtsabout Ibla:A PreliminaryEvaluation,March1977. Series:Syro-MesopotamianStudies 1/1.Malibu, CA: Undena Publications. 1981 Eblaand the Kish Civilization. Pp.9-73 in La Linguadi Ebla, ed. L.Cagni.Napoli:IstitutoUniversitarioOrientale,Seminario di Studi Asiatici. Haas,V. 1982 Hethitische Bergg6tterund hurritischeSteindiamonen.Mainz am Rhein:VerlagPhilipp von Zabern. Hallo, W.W.,and Simpson, W.K. 1971 The Ancient Near East. A History.New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich. Hirsch, H. 1963 Die Inschriften der K6nige von Agade. Archiv ffir Orientforschung20: 1-82. Jacobsen,T. 1957 EarlyPolitical Development in Mesopotamia.Zeitschriftffir Assyriologie und VorderasiatischeArchidologie52: 91-140. Kienast,B. Sicht. 1980 Der Feldzugsberichtdes Ennadaganin literlirhistorischer OriensAntiquus 19:247-61. Krecher,J. 1969 Glossen.Pp.431-40 in ReallexikonderAssyriologie,volume 3. Berlin:Walterde Gruyter. in denTextenaus und syllabischeOrthographie 1981 Sumerogramme Ebla. Pp. 135-54 in La Lingua di Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Napoli: Istituto UniversitarioOrientale,Seminariodi Studi Asiatici. Lambert,W.G. 1981a The StatueInscriptionIbbit-Limof Ebla.RevuedAssyriologie et d'ArchdologieOrientale 75: 95-96. 1981 lb The Readingof AMA.GAN.SA.Acta Sumerologica3:31-36.

1981c The Languageof EblaandAkkadian.Pp. 155-60 in LaLinguadi Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminariodi Studi Asiatici. Laroche,E. 1976a Glossairede la languehourrite:Premierepartie(A-L).RevueHittite et Asiatique 34: 161p. 1976b Pantheon national et pantheons locaux chez les Hourrites. Orientalia 45: 94-99. Mander,P. 1979 Presenzadi scongiuri6n-e-nu-ruadEbla.Orientalia48:335-39. SF23 = SF24 e paralleli 1980 Breviconsiderazionisul testo"lessicale" da Abfi-Salabikh.OriensAntiquus 19: 187-92. Matthiae,P. 1970 Mission archeologiquede l'Universit6de RomeATellMardikh. Annales ArcheologiquesArabes Syriennes20: 55-71. 1974 Tell Mardikh.Origine et d6veloppementde la grandeculture urbaine de la Syrie du nord A l'epoque des royaumes ouestsemitiques. Archdologia69: 16-31. 1975 Eblanel periododelle dinastieamoreee delladinastiadi Akkad. Scoperte archeologische recenti a Tell Mardikh (Tab. Orientalia 44: 337-60 (see Matthiae, 1979c). XXIX-XXXVIII). nouvelles recherches ar1977 Le palais royal protosyrien dq'bla: cheologiques a Tell Mardikhen 1976. Pp. 148-74 in Comptes Rendus de lAcademie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres, 1977. Paris:EditionsKlincksieck. 1978 PreliminaryRemarkson the RoyalPalaceof Ebla.Series:SyroMesopotamianStudies2/2. Malibu,CA:UndenaPublications. 1979a Scavi a Tell Mardikh-Ebla,1978: Rapportosommario. Studi Eblaiti 1: 129-84. 1979b PrincelyCemeteryand AncestorsCult at EblaDuringMiddle BronzeII:A Proposalof Interpretation.Ugarit-Forschungen11: 563-69. 1979c Eblain the Periodof the Amorite Dynasties and the Dynasty of Akkad: the RecentArchaeologicalDiscoveriesat TellMardikh (1975),translationof Matthiae 1975by M. L. Jaffe.Series: Monographsof the Ancient NearEast 1/6.Malibu,CA:Undena Publications. 1980 Ebla.An EmpireRediscovered.London:HodderandStoughton. (Translatedby C. Holme from Ebla. Un Impero Ritrovato. Torino:G. Einaudi, 1977.) McEwan,G. J.P. 1983 dMUSand RelatedMatters.Orientalia 52: 215-29. Mtiller,H. -P. 1980 Religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungenzu den Textenvon Ebla. Zeitschriftendes Deutschen Paliistina Vereins96: 1-19. 1980- Gab es in Ebla einen Gottesnamen Ja? Zeitschrift fiir 1981 Assyriologie und VorderasiatischeArchiiologie70: 70-92. Nissen, H. J. im 3. Jahrtausend 1981 BemerkungenzurListenliteratur Vorderasiens (gesehenvon den ArchaischenTextenvon Uruk).Pp.99-108 in La Linguadi Ebla.ed. L.Cagni. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale,Seminariodi Studi Asiatici. Pettinato,G. 1970 Inscriptionde Ibbit-Lim,Roide Ebla.Annales Archeologilqules Arabes Syriennes20: 73-76. 1974/ II Calendariodi Eblaal Tempodel Re Ibbi-Sipiksulla base di 1977 TM.75.G.427.Archiv fiir Orientforschung25: 1-36. 1975 Testi cuneiformi del 3. millennio in paleo-cananeorinvenuti nella campagna 1974 a Tell Mardikh = Ebla. Orientalia 44: 361-74. 1975- I testi cuneiformidella BibliotecaReale di TellMardikh-Ebla. 1976 Series: Rendiconti della Pont. Accademia Romana di Archeologia48. Roma:TipografiaPoliglottaVaticana. BiblicalArcheologist 1976a The RoyalArchivesof TellMardikh-Ebla. 39: 44-52. 1976b Carchemis-Kar-KamiS.Leprimeattestazionidel IIImillennio.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

15

OriensAntiquus 15: 11-15. 1976c Aspettiamministrativie topograficidi Eblanel IIImillennio Av. Cr. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 50: 1-15. 1977a Relations entre les royaumesd'Eblaet de Mari au troisiame millenaired'apresles archivesroyalesde TellMardikh-Ebla. Akkadica 2: 20-29. 1977b Il calendariosemitico del 3. millennio ricostruitosulla base dei testi di Ebla.OriensAntiquus 16:257-85. riflessioni e prospettive. 1977c Gli archivirealidi TellMardikh-Ebla: Rivista Biblica Italiana 25: 225-43. 1978 LAtlanteGeograficodel VicinoOrienteAnticoattestatoadEbla e ad AbuiSalaibikh(I).Orientalia 47: 50-73. 1979a Catalogo dei testi cuneiformi di Tell Mardikh-Ebla.Napoli: Istituto UniversitarioOrientale.(MEE1) 1979b Lecollezioni en-6-nu-rudi Ebla.OriensAntiquus 18:329-51. 1979c Culto ufficiale ad Ebladuranteil regnodi Ibbi-Sipis.Orientis AntiquiCollectio,XVI.Roma:Centroperle antichitae la storia del artedel vicino oriente. (Also publishedas 1979d.) 1979d Culto ufficiale ad Ebla duranteil regno di Ibbi-Sipis.Oriens Antiquus 18:85-215. 1979e Old Canaanite Cuneiform Texts of the Third Millennium Recovered during the 1974 Season at Tell Mardikh-Ebla, translatedbyM. L.Jaffe.Series:Monographsof the AncientNear East 1/7.Malibu,CA: Undena Publications. 1980a Ibla(Ebla).Pp.9-13 in ReallexikonderAssyriologie,volume 5. Berlin:Walterde Gruyter. 1980b Bollettinomilitaredellacampagnadi Eblacontrola cittadi Mari. OriensAntiquus 19:231-45. 1980c Polytheismus und Henotheismus in der Religion von Ebla. Pp.31-48 in Monotheismusim Alten IsraelundseinerUmwelt, ed. O. Keel. Series: Biblische Beitrage 14. Fribourg:Verlag SchweizerischesKatholischesBibelwerk. 1980d The Bible World.Essaysin Honorof CyrusH. Gordon,ed. G. Rendsburgandothers.New York:KTAVandInstituteof Hebrew Cultureand Educationof New YorkUniversity. 1980e Ebla e la Bibbia. Oriens Antiquus 19: 49-72 (see 1980f for Englishtranslation). 1980f Eblaand the Bible. Biblical Archeologist43: 203-16. 198la TheArchivesof Ebla.An EmpireInscribedin Clay.GardenCity, NY:Doubleday. 1981b Testilessicali monolingui della biblioteca L. 2769- ParteITesti;ParteII-Tavole. Napoli:IstitutoUniversitarioOrientale.

(MEE3) 1981c I vocabolari bilingui di Ebla: Problemi di traduzione e di lessicografiasumerico-eblaita.Pp.241-76 in La Linguadi Ebla, ed. L.Cagni.Napoli:IstitutoUniversitarioOrientale,Seminario di Studi Asiatici. 1981d Testi amministrativi della biblioteca L. 2769, ParteI- Testi (1980);ParteII- Tavole(1981).Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale. (MEE2) 1982 Testilessicali bilinguidella bibliotecaL.2769, ParteI: Translitterazione dei Testi e Ricostruzione del VE.Napoli: Istituto UniversitarioOrientale. 1983 LeCitta Feniciee Byblosin particolarenella documentazione epigraficadi Ebla.Series:Atti del I CongressoInternazionaledi StudiFenicie Ponici,Rome,ConsiglioNazionaledelle Ricerche. Picchioni, S. 198la Osservazionisulla paleografiae sulla cronologiadeitesti di Ebla. Pp. 109-20 in La Linguadi Ebla, ed. L. Cagni.Napoli:Istituto UniversitarioOrientale,Seminariodi Studi Asiatici. 1981b Ricostruzione segmentale del testo storico TM.75.G.2420. OriensAntiquus 20: 187-90. ScandoneMatthiae,G. 1979 Vasiiscritti di Chefrene PepiI nel palazzorealeG di Ebla.Studi Eblaiti 1:33-43. 1981 I vasi egiziani in pietra dal PalazzoReale G. Studi Eblaiti 4: 99-127. A. Sj6berg, W, and Bergmann,E. 1969 The Collection of the SumerianTempleHymns. Series:Texts fromCuneiformSources3. LocustValley,NY:J.J.Augustin. Sollberger,E. 1980 The So-CalledTreatyBetweenEblaand'Ashur'StudiEblaiti 3: 129-55. Ullendorff,E. 1978 Review of I. J.Gelb, Thoughts about Ibla. Journalof Semitic Studies 23: 151-54. Xella, P. 1979- Le dieu Rashap a Ugarit. Annales Archeologiques Arabes 1980 Syriennes29-30: 145-62. Xella, P.,and ScandoneMatthiae,G. 1981 Hcyt,'wdi Biblo = Rahap?Rivista di Studi Fenici 9: 145-52. unsigned 1978 Lapublicationdes textesd'Ebla.Zeitschriftfir Assyriologieund VorderasiatischeArchiaologie68: 160.

The American Schools of Oriental Research & St. Mary'sUniversityof San Antonio present a

Biblical and Archaeological Graduate Study Tour of

Jordan,

Israel,

Sinai,

Cyprus

June 26 - August 2, 1984

Cost: $3,600 per person Major Faculty: Charles H. Miller and MaryK. Milne Department of GraduateTheology, St. Mary'sUniversity Guest Lecturers: ASORDirectors and active field archaeologists Graduate students of ASORinstitutions are eligible for six graduate credit hours from their own institutions, if approved by their advisors. For more information, contact the ASOR Corporate Representative on your own campus or Professor Charles H. Miller, St. Mary's University, One Camino Santa Maria, San Antonio, Texas 78284, (512) 436-3310.

16

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

International

The

Institute

for

Mesopotamia Area

Studies

IHome

Seminar

Program LANGUAGE

ARCHAEOLOGY

RELIGION

HISTORY

LITERATURE

ART

FORDETAILS CATALOG: ANDA FREECOURSE NAME STREET CITY STATE

ZIP

HOME SEMINAR PROGRAM L POB 787 MALIBU,CA 90265

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

17

atM

The Excavation Palace Western

Royal the •....

m~

. ,m•

•

• .,,.

.

..

.

...•r

.

_

the

of and

the

Necropolis of Period

A morite

•J .

4V

k14

View of the western side of the Acropolisat Ebla. Squaresclosest to the viewer belong to the excavation of the WesternPalace;those furtherin the backgroundare associated with RoyalPalace G. Inset: Excavations in the WesternPalace uncovereda bowl containing a cuneiform tablet and its envelope, which recordthe name of one of the last kings of Ebla during the Middle BronzeII period.

I

MATTHIAE BYPAOLO

scription in Akkadianwas a major factor in identifying the site as Ebla. Between 1974 and 1977 activity concentrated on the RoyalPalaceof Early BronzeIVA(circa2400-2250B.C.).

This phasewashighlightedby the definiteidentificationof Royal dikh by the Italian Archae- PalaceG andthe importantdiscoveryof the StateArchives.In 1978an ological Expedition to of of the attemptwasmadeat limitingthe University Syria westernedgeof the greatCourtof Rome has taken place in three main phases. The first, from 1964 to 1973, Audienceof PalaceG. This wasthe was largelygiven to excavatingthe beginningof the thirdphase,which has resultedin the discoveryof the Middle BronzeI-II city (circa 2000-1600 B.C.).This decade also imposingpalatialbuildingof the WesternPalace,previouslycalled witnessed the discovery,outside of its original context, of the headless BuildingQ orPalaceQ, in the Lower inwhose cuneiform City West,as well as the identificaroyalstatue tion of the royalnecropolisof the lasttwo centuriesof the greatcity andthe excavationof the firstprincely tombs.Thepresentpaperreports on the workconductedin this phase through1982.

The

doneatTellMarwork

Theresearch intheWestern

Palaceandin the royalnecropolis has madea basiccontributionto our knowledgeof the secondandlast

ofEbla, greatstageoftheflourishing the so-calledOld Syrianperiod-the ageof the Amoritedynasties,which Thecontents endedaround1600B.C. of the royalnecropolisandthe proximity of the tombsto the palace,to SanctuaryB2,andto TempleBI lead

to someextremely coninteresting

clusionsabouttopography, ideology, andreligiousinstitutionsof the Amoriteperiod.Wecan,as a result, interpretthe unity of the LowerCity Westof Old SyrianEblaas the first

evidenceofoneofthe archaeological

basicideologicalinstitutionsof the MiddleBronzeIIAmoritedynasties.

Weseeherea cultdedicated to illustriousroyalancestors,rp'um-well knownfromUgaritictexts-who guaranteedprosperityin this urban center.

The WesternPalace: A New AdministrativeBuilding

of the OldSyrianPeriod The WesternPalacewas built during Middle BronzeI-that is, duringa

period that dates between 2000 and 1800 B.c. (Matthiae 1980a: 113-14;

1982a:52-54, figure 24; 1982b:125) and which correspondsto the dynasties of Isin and Larsain Babylonia. Currently it is impossible to discern autonomous architecturalunits so that successive stages in the construction of the palace can be identified. It is likely that most of it was built in a short time. It is also probable that it went through a series of restorationsand rebuildingsin order to preserveit. It is a huge building. With a length, running north-south, of slightly less than 115meters and a width that varies between 60 and 65 meters, it forms an irregularrectangle nearly 7,300 squaremeters in area.The plan shows the use of a unit, freely adaptedand repeated throughout, consisting of two, and occasionally more, rooms and a court (see Naumann 1971:368, figures 292 and 498 through 501). Also, blocks of rooms have often been juxtaposed,as evidenced by the frequentabutting of parallelwalls (Matthiae 1982c:308-09; in press). The architectureof the Western Palace is particularlyhelpful in identifying the peculiar characteristicsof the Archaic Old Syrianculture. In fact, it follows some basic criteria of the period concerning the distribution of space. The inner courts are quite small and rectangularin shape and areusually parallelto the outer walls of the building. Between the courts and the outer walls are some orthogonal rooms. There is a reception suite in the central areaof the palace, and movement within the palace was semiperipheralvia a chain of small inner courts. Several staircases of three or four ramps,set against outer walls, led to a residential areaon the second floor (Matthiae 1982c:313-14, figure 10; 1982b: 122-24; in press). These architecturalelements contrast sharplywith typical Old Babylonianbuildings, whose basic units consist of a central court with

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

19

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

0

lOOm

Simplifiedtopographical mapof TellMardikhshowingtheareasof

excavation at the end of the 1982season. The letters denote various sections of the city; the grayareasindicate a rapidchange in elevation.

directly antedates the portico of the later palace of Alalakh IV and the socalled bit hilani (anAmorite term for the entrance portico)of the first millennium B.C. (Woolley 1955: 107-13, figure37; Frankfort1952: 126-31; Margueron1978: 170-76). The reception suite in the Eblaite building, with its latitudinal tripartite structureand two central rooms separatedby a portico, is a typical Old Syrianplan that appearsat Alalakh VIIand IV and, with some variations,at Tilmen Huiyuikand at Qatna (Matthiae 1982c:313-15). The distinctive architectural characteristicsof Ebla'sWestern made of monolithic slabs-usually Palaceand the similarity of these to made of basalt and sometimes characteristicsof other palatial markedby niches - all comparevery buildings of the Old Syrianculture closely with the techniques used in providean important confirmation of Alalakh VII of the autonomy and peculiarity of contemporarypalaces and Tilmen Huiyk IIC3 (Woolley the architecturaltradition of Upper 1955:91-106, figure35; Orthmann SyriaduringMiddle BronzeI and II, 1966: 165-66, figures 47 and 48). The the period of Amorite prevalenceand WesternPalace'sentrance portico Hurrianexpansion. Certainly,the two had great urbancenters of Ebla, Qatna, columns) (which perhaps long rooms parallelto both the sides of the court and to the outside walls. In the Mesopotamianpalaces, traffic radiatedout in multiple directions from the central court; moreover, staircases are less frequent (Margueron 1982:465-98, 531-83). Although the WesternPalaceat Ebladiffersgreatly from Mesopotamian architecturefrom the Old Akkadian to the Old Babylonianperiods, it does contain elements of the Old Syrianstyle. Thick, massive foundations using largeblocks with a high socle for mudbrick superstructures,frequent coveringsof limestone and basalt walls, doorways

20

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

and Carchemish contributedgreatly to defining the main monumental architecturalstyles that distinguished the urbanimage of cities in Syro-Palestine.These centers markedsettlements from northern Syriato southern Palestine with basic elements of architecturaland urbanistic unity (Matthiae 1981a: 199-208). Thus, the huge earthen ramparts of Upper Syriawere built after Middle BronzeI-as at Ebla-with the so-called sandwich technique. They arethe prototypesthat led to the diffusion and improvementsof the inner wall, the earthen basement, and lastly the stone revetement that was found in Palestine duringthe Middle BronzeIIC(Parr 1975: 19-36; Seger 1975:42-45; Kochavi,Beck, and Gophna 1979: 161-65). The typical Old Syriantemple plan with single cella and long room, which occurs in TempleB1 and Temple N of Ebla'sLowerCity, is similar in concept to the LongTemple of Hazor,areaA, and to the great fortresstemples of Megiddoand Shechem (Kuschke1977:336-39; Ottosson 1980:53-62). The large palatial temples with longitudinal tripartite structure,like TempleD of Eblaand the Templeof Alalakh Stratum IV,are the forerunnersof a long tradition that spreadoverUpper Syriato the EuphratesValleyand over northernPalestine, as shown at Hazor in the OrthostatsTemple,area H, duringMiddle BronzeIICand Late BronzeI and II (Ottosson 1980: 27-37). The long city gates with three buttresses, two gateways,and two pairs of siderooms, which are so frequent in Middle Bronze II Palestine from Gezer and Beth Shemesh to Hazor, Shechem, Tell Farcah, and Yavne Yam, were modelled after those of the great centers of Upper Syria from Ebla to Alalakh and Tell Tuqan, as well as Carchemish and Qatna (Matthiae 1980b: 158-67; Kaplan 1975: 12-14). Most likely the vast region between the Taurus mountains and the Arabian desert

C 'S

c

L..

.*,,,,

\\

,,

5-..

., \.

4k

Above:The northernstaircase and entrance to the northeasternquarterof the Western Palace. Viewis from the south. Below: Photographof the eastern wing of the WesternPalace'sreceptionsuite viewed from the north and schematic plan of the reception suite.

" \

"..

.-0

10

20m 0

Isometricschematic view of the WesternPalaceduringthe Middle BronzeI to II period.

neveragainexperiencedsuch cultural unity as it did duringthe Middle BronzeI and IIof Syriaand the Middle BronzeIIAto IICof Palestine. Artifactsfrom the WesternPalace Soundingsmade below the floors of the final phase of the building in both the east and north sections of the WesternPalace revealedthe presence of a still earlierfloor containing typical pottery of Middle BronzeI Syria(phaseI).This pottery assemblage included a number of open carinated bowls with high and sharp carinationand rims folded outward; many uvular jarswith outturned rims having two sharpedges; and traditionalcarinatedbowls with short, thin vertical rims and outer moldings. There were also several

specimens of uvular or biconical jars with horizontal rims turned outward and combed bands on the shoulders (Matthiae 1982a:figure 24). Whereverthe floor of phase I was reached,the fill contained only fragmentsof brokenbricks, never any ashes or traces of destruction, This leads us to believe that the WesternPalacewent througha series of restorationsand rebuildings,not as a consequence of destruction, but in orderto preservethe building. It is likely, although the data is somewhat speculative, that the second phase of the WesternPalace, (phase IIa),which is representedby the last floor of the building, belongs to the beginning of the Middle BronzeII period.Latein this phase (IIb)modifications led to the sealing of some doors and to the restorationof the or-

a . ., ._

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH1984

0

21

?:

7 2-tb

jI.

1Im

ofhthae

d;

~16.

r

qp'r

L

-760I

'VI

;t~~

-e J?r -7.

'4d

r'.

3br,.. . N

"!I +II- o III 4?

:'

heLor Tomof I To

b bf

t

e

Lird

'i of

h

e*

oats

4F

'

L

/

li

'%?

411

AATOjr c? ,-:"*

~~. ..78

~I

A .2 ??, 100_ 9t~i.1 , ..' C'-,

'44, '

e

j,

~

?1 ?.V9,

;4r

~~~.0 4

Above:Schematic plan of tombs from the royalnecropolis.Above right: Courtand roomsof the WesternPalacein the eastern staircase quarter;view is from the north. Discoveredbeneath the floor of this court was the entrance dromos to the T7mbof the Princess.Left:Cylinderseal impressionon the shoulder of a jar found in the Western Palace.Thegod Haddad and the goddess cAnat are depictedgiving life to a prince. The cuneiform writing accompanyingthe scene indicates the seal belonged to a son of King Indilimgurof Ebla.

thostats(Matthiae1979a:148-49; Thisworkwasapparently 1980c:10). still goingon whenthe complexwas finallydestroyed. T'o vasesin the ceramichorizon of the endof the MiddleBronze IIperiodat Eblaareunique:These aretwo importantmonochromekraterswith painteddecorationsof birdsfacingeachotheron eitherside of plants.Theyprobablybelongto a

22

NorthSyrianpalatialproductionand mustbe relatedto the rarepainted monochromesherdsof the Palestinian MiddleBronzeIICof Shechem (ToombsandWright1963:51,63, andfigure26). The northwestern sectionof the was well Palace preserved, Western despiteextensivesackingduringthe finaldestructionaround1600sc. Severalimportantfindsin this area at the levelof the destructiongave unexpectedinformationaboutthe lastyearsof this MiddleBronzeII city.Amongthe most important findswerea completecuneiformtablet with its envelope,andfragments of anothertabletfoundin a globular bowlwith thin flaringrim.Bothdocumentsdateto the OldBabylonian periodandgivethe text of a legal documentconcerninga loanof silver

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH1984

(Matthiae1980a:116-17;Kupper,in press).The fragmentcontainspartof a datingformula,whichmentionsa personnamedIndilimgur.He almost certainlywasthe last-or one of the last-kings of Eblaat the endof MiddleBronzeII(Matthiae1982c: 125-26). The numerousnamesof witnessesin the documentsarein largepartnot Amorite,andcanbe consideredpartlyas Hurrian(Kupper, in press;Matthiae1980b:116-18). This corresponds quitewell with the diffusionof the Hurrianethnicelement,whichprobablytookplace duringthe eighteenthcenturyB.c. followingthe reignsof Hammurapi of BabylonandYarim-Lim of Aleppo. Suchdiffusionis evidentwhenone comparesthe Maritexts,around 1800B.c.,andthe Alalakhtablets, datingbetween1700and 1650B.c. (Wilhelm1982:17-19). Severalfragmentsof provision jarswhichhadcylinderseal impressionson theirshoulderswerefound in the samesectionof the Western Palace.In eachcasethe cylinderwas rolledin a verticaldirection.Twoimportantsealsaredocumentedbythe jarimpressions.Onebeautifulcylinderdepictsthe godHaddadandthe goddesscAnatgivinglife to a prince; it hastwo lines of cuneiformwriting, revealingthatit belongedto a Thiswouldexson of Indilimgur. plainthe seal'shighartisticquality. The ceremonyit represents,the bestowingof lifebythe goddesscAnat,

is certainly relatedto the idea of kingship in the Yambadmilieu (Matthiae 1969:35-41; Collon 1975: 146-48). The seal is exceptional for its height of 7.5 centimeters and is certainly a masterpiecewithout stylistic parallelin the MatureOld Syrianglyptic productioneven in comparisonto those of Aleppo/ Yamiad (Collon 1975:146-52; 1981: 33-43). The second cylinder is smaller but of similar high formal quality.It bearsa representationof a dignitaryfaced by the godHaddad fMatthiae 1980a: 114-16, figure 14). It is probablethat the combined evidence of the legal tablet and of the seal impressions gives us the name of the last rulerof Ebla,Indilimgur, who reignedat the time of the Old Hittite kings Hattushili I and Murshili I. Three Royal'Ibmbsfrom the Middle BronzeII Necropolis The excavations of Mardikhlevels IIIAand IIIBof the WesternPalace led unexpectedly to the identification of the Middle BronzeII royal necropolis (Matthiae 1981b:62-65). The palace was built on a rock layer rich in naturalcaves, some of which were used by the Eblainhabitants for places of burial. Fourtombs have thus farbeen identified beneath the central areaof the palace. A fifth cave,located under the pavement of the receptionsuite of the palatial complex, was only possibly used as a tomb. Discovereda few meters east of the outer wall of the palace was a sixth cave that certainly was used as a tomb. A seventh tomb was also positively identified while two other caves,probablyhaving funeraryfunctions, were found south of the main palacefacade.Only three hypogeaof the nine previously identified below the best preservedareaof the WesternPalacewere fully explored (Matthiae 1979a: 149-78; 1980c: 11-20; 1980d;1982d:5-14). A partially excavatedcave to the south had been reemployedas a waste deposit for animal bones.

The three royaltombs identified below the floors of the east-central area of the WesternPalacewere originally partof a complicated system of caves;they were artificially connected to each other during the Middle BronzeIIperiod.At that time the caves were preparedfor funeraryuse. Although minor uncertainties do exist, we believe that the Tombof the Princess, located to the south, was the oldest, followedby the larger Tombof the Lordof the Goats to the east, then by the more recent Tomb of the Cisterns to the west (Matthiae 1980a: 100-02; 1982d:6-8). The Tombof the Princess included a short dromos, or entranceway,with steps descending from the south to

the north plus a small burial chamber (numberQ.78.A).The tomb was closed to the north by a thin mudbrickwall which probablycollapsed as a result of water infiltration. It most likely dates to the beginning of the Middle BronzeII period, around 1800 B.C.,or slightly

before.The Tombof the Lordof the Goats, in contrast, had a vertical entrance shaft to the north. It included a squarehypogeum (number Q.78.B2),a short gallery (number Q.78.B1),and a semicircular hypogeum (numberQ.78.C)sealed by a massive wall of largestones. This tomb was originally the richest. It belonged to a king who died around 1750 Bc. or slightly later.The Tomb of the Cisterns received its name from two ancient cisterns whose openings in the ceiling boss had been blocked when the caves were convertedinto tombs. It too had a funeraryshaft, here located to the

Upper left: The northernsection of the burial chamber(numberQ.78.A in the Tombof the Princesscontaining Middle BronzeIIpottery Upper right: The semni. circularhypogeum(numberQ.78.C of the Tombof the Lordof the Goats shown beforeit was excavated. Thejars belong to the nearbyTombof the Princess.Left: Painted mnonochrome iug with metope decorationfound in the Tombof the Princess.Tre vessel is made of white clay and belongs to the Middle Bronze11 period.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

23

east, that was adaptedas a staircase. The Tombof the Cisterns was used sometime around 1700 B.C.The three

royaltombs exploredto date correspond to the classic tomb type of the Middle BronzeII in Syro-Palestine which had a funerarychamber and entrance shaft; the short staircase dromoi of the tombs of the Princess and of the Cisterns are partial exceptions to this type (Kenyon1964: 167-477; Montet 1928). TIbmbof the Princess. A variety of objects was found in the Tombof the Princess including ceramic and stone vessels plus a cache of exquisite jewelry.Severalitems suggest the presence of considerableforeign influence at Ebla,if not direct commercial contact with other cultural centers. The pottery included ap-

sardonyx,and gypsum from the tomb are sophisticated palatial productions and indicate Ebla'sclose contact with other ancient Near Easternpeoples. The elegant stone vases with sharpprofiles are identical in shape to a fragmentary bronze vase of the Lordof the Goats and are similar to the rarebronze "Montetjars"found at Byblos and TepeHissar (Matthiae1979a:161-62; 1980d:8). Evidence for interconnections between Eblaand Anatolia is providedby a faience vase with two

Gold jewelry from the Tombof the Princess.An earor nose-ring(approximately3.1 cm in diameter) with granulateddecoration,six braceletsof twisted gold strands decorated with granulation,and a togglepin with twisted shaft and star-head.All of the jewelry and objects shown in this article are presentlyin the Archaeological Museum of Aleppo. Relative sizes arenot

maintained.

_______________

#1

proximately seventy vases, most of which were constructed of light simple ware,with some rarebrowngreen polished dishes and a small groupof jugs of painted monochrome brownware.The jarsof the simple warebelong to the end of the Middle BronzeII;typical specimens of the middle and final phases of Middle BronzeII are absent. The largepainted jugs certainly belong to the same workshop that produced some fragments of Alalakh X ware, for they have the same typical metope decoration.They probably were importedfrom the areaaround Antioch. Stone vases of alabaster,

24

P~Q

handles and pointed base that apparently belongs to the same morphological class as a rock crystalvase from Acemhdyiik (Matthiae 1980c: 13-14, figure 14;Ozguc 1966:48, figure 4). A very important set of jewelry was discoveredburied with the female skeleton from the Tombof the Princess. These jewels are of Old Syrianand perhapsEblaiteproduction. They include six bracelets of twisted gold strandsthat have tiny balls of gold solderedonto them, a technique called granulation.These bracelets are a rareelaborationof an earringtype known from Cyprus,

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

Ugarit, and Tell el-cAjjul(Sharuhen). The only comparableexample of a gold bracelet producedin a similar fashion is from the RoyalTombII of Byblos (Matthiae 1981c:210-11, figure 46; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 115; Montet 1928: 170).The princess' golden toggle pin is a masterpiece of jewelrymaking.It belongs to the same tradition as the well-known toggle pins from Palestine that have twisted shafts. The Eblapin, however,has the typical star-headof Old Syrianworkshops,which are attest-

Simpleceramic vessels fromhypogeumnumber Q.78.B of the Tombof the Lordof the Goats.

ed in bronzeexamplesfromAlalakh andcentralSyria.An ear-ornosering,discoveredamongthe jewelry, wasmadewith two thickleavesof goldsolderedtogetheranddecorated with remarkable granulation.It also is of Syro-Palestinian productionand is similarto goldexamples,of somewhatinferiorquality,from MiddleBronzeIICTellel-cAijul (Matthiae1980d:14-15;1981c: 1971: 211-14;Maxwell-Hyslop The last in 116-18). piece the set is a necklace,whosecenterpieceis a by lapis-lazuliscaraboidsurrounded a lost cloisonnddesign.Itsbeadsare of the collaredmelon-shapetype whicharewidelyattestedthroughout the ancientNearEastduringthe MiddleBronzeIIperiod(Matthiae 1981c:212-13). of the Lordof the Goats.Ofall Tobmb the tombs,thatbelongingto the of the Goats"wasthe richest, "Lord yet it didnot escapeviolation.The bodyburiedtherehadbeendisturbed;onlyhumanlongbones, whicharenowbeinganalyzed,remainedscatteredon the tombfloor.

The grandscale of this burial indicates that the deceased was a member of the royalfamily who died around 1750 Bc.or slightly later (Matthiae 1979a:162-78; 1980a: 102-07; 1980e: 195-202; 1982d: 10-12). This date is reinforcedby an Egyptianceremonial mace found in the tomb. The mace belonged to the

pharaohHetepibrecHarnedjheriotef, probablythe ninth king of the Thirteenth Dynasty, who briefly reigned around 1760 B.C.It is even possible that the name of the buried person is known, for an engravedcuneiform inscription on the rim of a silver bowl from the semicircularcave reads"belongingto Immeya."Unfortunately no title accompanies the name (Archiand Matthiae 1979). Nothing else is known of Immeya except that this same name appears as the apparentlynonroyaladdressee on an Old Babylonianletter.The letter was found intact on the slopes of the Tell Mardikhacropolis in the Middle BronzeIIdebris (Kupper,in press).Although there is no proof, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Immeya of the letter and of the bowl inscription are the same person, perhapsa king or a prince of Eblain the second half of the eighteenth century B.C.(Matthiae 1982c: 125-26). All of the ceramic vessels from the Tombof the Lordof the Goats, including nearly sixty vases of simple ware,were found in the first hypogeumwhere the funeraryshaft opened. In this same areawere remains of what probablywas a chariot coveredwith bronze plaques. In the semicircularcave were bronze

andHistoricalPhasesof L1 Mardikh" Archaeological MardikhI Mardikh RA MardikhIIBI Mardikh iB2 Mardikh IIIA MardikhIIIB MardikhIVA MardikhIVB MardikhVA MardikhVB Mardikh VC MardikhVIA MardikhVIB MardikhVII

c. 3500-2900 c. 2900-2400 c. 2400-2250 c. 2250-2000 c. 2000-1800 c. 1800-1600 c. 1600-1400 c. 1400-1200 c. 1200-900 c. 900-720 c. 720-535 c. 535-325 c. 325-60 3rd-7thcent.

Protohistoric Period Period EarlyBronzeI-mI EarlyProtosyrian Period EarlyBronzeIVA MatureProtosyrian Period EarlyBronzeIVB LateProtosyrian MiddleBronzeI ArchaicOldSyrianPeriod MiddleBronzei MatureOldSyrianPeriod LateBronzeI EarlyMiddleSyrianPeriod LateBronzeII RecentMiddleSyrianPeriod IronI Neo-SyrianPeriod or IronII Aramaean and'Neo-Hittite" IronIII Age PersianAge HellenisticAge LateRomanandByzantineAge

'Takenfrompage52 of Matthiae 1981a

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTtMARCH1984

25

weapons,gold jewelry,ceremonial dresses, display emblems, stone vases, and ivory amulets. Unlike the Tombof the Princess, this tomb contained some globularbowls with flaringrims, typical of the middle and final phases of the Middle BronzeIIperiod. Many of the bronze objects from this tomb are very poorly preserved because of repeatedwater infiltration. They include decorations of lost wooden furnitureas well as weapons and emblems. There are severalfragmentsof "entorsade" revetment plaques, probablybelonging to legs of furniture.Particularly interesting are two goat heads, each attached to a peg, which may have decoratedthe ends of the armrestsof a throne;two small statues of squatting goats appearto have decorated the top of the throne'sback. These pieces are unique and it is difficult to identify their place of manufacture, although they are probablyof North Syrianproduction.Weaponsfrom the tombs include spearheadsand fenestratedaxes of the long narrow or duckbill type that are typical of Syriaduringthe Middle BronzeII period (Matthiae 1980f:58-62). A few bronze artifactsfrom the tomb, however,point undoubtedly to a connection, and possibly an actual provenance,in western Iranas confirmedby recent finds from the excavations in the region of Hamrin in eastern Iraq.Fourpeculiar"bells" from the tomb may also demonstrate contact with western Iran,for their closest comparisons,although of inferiorcraftsmanship,are found in tombs fromTepeGiyan IV (Pinnock 1979). The extraordinaryoriginal wealth of the Tombof the Lordof the Goats can only be surmised when one considers what must have been plunderedduring the sack of the WesternPalaceat the end of the seventeenth century B.C.The gold

jewelrywhich was left behind was largelyof Syrianand probably Eblaiteproduction,while a smaller

26

amount came from contemporary Egyptian,most likely pharaonic, workshops(ScandoneMatthiae 1982). Among the typical Old Syrian productionsare a largenumber of

Above:This bronzeobject, representingthe forepartof a goat. was found in the Tombof the Lordof the Goats. It is attached to a peg and may have originally decoratedthe armrest of a throne.Below:A bronzefenestrated ax with axial molding also from the Tombof the Lordof the Goats.

beads which, in the case of the rare pseudobarreltype with central squaresections, are made of gold, lapis lazuli, and camelian. The other types are more interesting for their parallels to beads found in other partsof the ancient Near East.The gold tubularbeads from the Tombof the Lordof the Goats have been found in palatial contexts in royal tomb IIIof Byblos and in the treasury hoardof the palace of MegiddoVIII (Matthiae 1981c:216-17; Montet 1928: 169-70; Loud 1948:25 and 173).Seven spindle-shapedbeads are quite important.They are cast and fluted with elongated collars and are clearly models for well-known, although uncommon, hammeredgoldleaf beads of Middle BronzeIIC Palestinian sites like Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell el-cAijjul(Sharuhen),Tell FarcahS, and Megiddo(Matthiae 1981c:214-15; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971:125-26). The wonderfulcast melon-shapedbeads with plain collars belong to a class of beads known

A lapis-lazuliand gold pendant (approximately3 cm wide) in the shape of an eagle and an Egyptianfingerring(approximately 2.2 cm wide) with cloisonnddecoration from the Tombof the Lordof the Goats.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

from Larsato Assur and Sharuhen. Many round,gold-leafstuds, each having four holes, were also found in the tomb. They certainly once belonged to ceremonial garments.A

similar stud was found at KultepeIb, where it was probablyimportedfrom northernSyria,while rosette-shaped types from Megiddoand Sharuhen are imitations dating to the beginning of the LateBronzeI (Matthiae 1981c:220-21; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971:134;Loud 1948: 164). The jewelrycollection also included a lapis-lazuli pendant in the shape of an eagle and a complete necklace with three sections having a coiled or "entorsade"decoration and three disks with granulatedstar patterns(Matthiae 1981c:217-18). The granulationof this Eblanecklace is of comparablehigh quality to the celebratedDilbat necklace now in the MetropolitanMuseum of Art. The six-pointedstar in Eblaite jewelry,however,is a typical Old Syrianpattern (Maxwell-Hyslop 1971:88-91). Among the gold jewelryof Egyptian productionfrom the tomb area beautiful finger ring with a cloisonne decorationof two lilies flanking a scaraboid,and a fragmentary necklace in the shape of a lily (Matthiae 1981c: 224-25). The lily is sym-

bolic of Upperor southern Egyptand is a popularmotif in Egyptianart. Both the ringand the necklace were workedin a reddish-coloredmetalquite differentfrom the light-colored gold used in Old Syrianjewelry-and their quality is comparableto products of the late Twelfth Dynasty. Twosplendid limestone maces with handles of ivory,silver, and gold are certainly ceremonial pharaonic objects (ScandoneMatthiae 1982).In each mace a segment of the handle was made of a silver cylinder covered with thick gold leaf. One uninscribed mace had a lozenge-shaped patternpierced into the gold leaf, resembling in technique and decoration a knife handle from tomb IIat Byblos (Montet 1928: 160).The second mace, bearingthe name of PharaohHetepibrechas the hieroglyphic royalname flankedby two baboons.The baboon is well known in Egyptianscenes of the adoration of the sun; in Syriathey frequently appearin ritual contexts in glyptics (ScandoneMatthiae 1979;Matthiae 1981c:222-24). The hieroglyphs were incorrectlyrepairedat Eblain

Gold artifacts found in the Tombof the Inrd of the Goats. Shown clockwise fromupper left are rwo sizes of studs. melon-shaped beads fapproximately1.I cm in diameter).an object with granulationand inlaid lapis lazuli. and two groupsof tubular and one groupof pseudobarrelbeads.

Thi gold necklace fromthe Tombof the Lordof the Goats has three sections with "entorsade" decorationand threedisks featuringthe typical Old Syriansix-pointed-starmotif

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTMARCH1984

27

thin ivory pieces set back to back so that only their outer faces were visible. This was attached to two ivory rods at the top and two at the bottom. Small bronze pegs were used to attach human figurines onto the outer faces. A serpent, lion, and bear, all carvedin the round,were fixed similarly to the rods.The compositions on both sides of the amulet are very intriguing. On one side a funerary banquet scene is depicted with the protagonistsitting before an offering table coveredwith loaves of bread.The man is bareheadedand holds a shepherd'scrook. In front of him are servants and two peculiar figures,a male and a female, shown frontally in the nude. These two frontal figures appearon the other side of the amulet that features a scene of the adorationof a bull by two baboons with a secondaryfigure holding an axe (Matthiae 1979a: 173-75; 1980c: 17-18; 1980d:14 and 1hree views of an Egyptianmace of tne 1mrteentn Dynasty pnaraon ieteplorec 17).The scenes on this amulet can Harnediheriotef,discoveredin the Tombof the Lordof the Goats. Made of ivory,silver, and be in the sun. a two baboons adoration show traditional scene details these interpretedin light of a passage of of Egyptian gold, from the Ugaritic poem of Keret, where the oldest son and daughter are responsible for taking care of the names (ScandoneMatthiae 1979: antiquity when at least three signs became detached.These two maces funeraryceremonies for their dead 122-23). Twoivory amulets were also from the Tombof the Lordof Goats father,the king. On the basis of the found in the tomb. One very fragshould be considered as gifts from poem, the two scenes of the amulet the Egyptianpharaohto a king of depict the main funeraryrite and the mentary amulet included at least three goatlike figures carvedin ivory. king's death. In the banquet scene Ebla.It is significant that the The other was in very good condition the king would be the protagonist PharaohHetepibrecadoptedthe in spite of its fragility,perhaps and the beneficiary of the feast while unusual title of "Sonof the Asiatic" his soul is symbolically represented or, accordingto another translation, because it was protectedby jarfrag"Sonof the farmer,"among his royal ments. It was made of two series of by the bull on the other side in a

An ivory amulet from the Tombof the Lordof the Goats. Small carvedanimal and human figureswere attached to ivory plaques with tTronze pegs. This side of the amulet depicts a banquet scene.

28

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

Ivorygoatlike figuresfrom a fragmentary amulet found in the Tombof the Lordof the Goats.

scene attested in the ritual of Dumuzi, a Mesopotamian divine shepherd king. Ibmb of the Cisterns. The third tomb was clearly autonomous since it had its own funerary shaft with stairs. It suffered most from the pillage. In fact, it contained onl:y some fragmentary bronze objects, scattered gold studs, some ceramic vessels, and stone vases, one beautiful example of which may be Egyptian. It is possible that the uninscribed Egyptian mace belonged to this tomb. Partial remains of a human skeleton, including a skull which is now being studied were scattered on the floor of the first cistern. The Ancestor Cult in an Amorite Capital City The royal necropolis of the Amorite period is situated in the center of the urban settlement at Ebla. Such a location was probably already an Eblaite tradition in the Early Syrian period, and it can be observed elsewhere in the region during this time. The location of royal tombs of Ur and Alaca Huyuk indicates that it was a tradition in lower Mesopotamia and central Anatolia as early

1975and 1976,datingto the mid orthirdquarterof the thirdmillennium B.C.,subsequent work at Tell Mardikh,ancient Ebla,has concentrated upon the buildings and underground tombs of the Middle BronzeAge, from the first half of the second millennium. The ItalianMission to Syriahas now establishedthat Eblawas a site of majorimportanceduringtwo crucial periodsof ancient Near Easternhistory:the Old Akkadianperiod,the time of Sargonof Akkadand his grandsonNaram-Sin,andthe Old Babylonian period,the time of Hammurapiof Babylonand Sam'i-AdadI of Assyria. Curiously there is as yet little trace in the archaeologicalrecordof settlement at Ebladuringthe transitionalperiodrepresentedby Gudeaof Lagash,the Third Dynasty of Ur, and the Isin-Larsa period. Yet the abundant textual evidence survivingfromthe late thirdandearly second millennia B.C.contains many referencesto Ebla.The referencesto Eblain the various inscriptions of Gudeaof Lagashareof specialinterest,yet difficultto relateto anythingpresently known from the excavationsat Tell Mardikh. Perhapsfuturework at the site will help to clarify this problemwhich, as it stands,is a good example of a cardinalrule in archaeologythat one does not alwaysfind what one is looking for.PaoloMatthiae and his colleagues went to Tell Mardikhlooking for an Old Babylonianor Middle BronzeAge site. The importanceof the site in the EarlyBronzeAge (thirdmillennium B.C.)provedto be a pleasant but unexpected surprise. The discoveryof over 15,000clay tablets fromthe EarlyBronzeAge palace at Tell Mardikh, and the claims made regardingthe historical and biblical referencesand allusions contained in those tablets representa scholarly controversythat has been featuredin the pagesof BAas well as everyjournaldevoted to the study of the ancient Near East,to say nothing of the popularpress.Those who work on the tablets from Ebla are now doing their best to put all this hullabaloo behind them and to look upon Ebla as a Syrian city producing material relevantto the culture and history of BronzeAge Syria. This is not to deny the importanceof contacts with Palestine or Egyptthe significanceof those contactsandthe archaeologicalandhistoricalevidence they provideis broughtout verywell in the presentpaperby PaoloMatthiae.It is rather a question of emphasis and primaryfocus. The importance of the materialuncoveredat Eblais not to be seen in termsof its bearinguponthe Bible but for what it revealsabout BronzeAge Syria. The present controversyover Ebla and the Bible should not be seen as something new in the history of Assyriologybut ratheras the latest episode of an ongoingdebatethat has dominatedthe field fromits inceptionoverone hunthe field andto dredyearsago.Variousattempts havebeen made to "secularize" establishAssyriologyas an independentdiscipline,freefromanydirectassociations with Old Testamentor biblical studies. The foremost scholarassociated with such developments in the United States would be AlbrechtGoetze who, during the course of his scholarly career,carriedon a running battle with scholarssuch as W.E AlbrightandE.A. Speiserwho, accordingto Goetze, practiced what he referredto as "LevantineAssyriology." That phrase was spoken with a tone of voice used also for "biblical archaeology."In light of the currentdebateoverterminology,carriedon in BA and other publications as well as at the plenarysession of the recent meeting of the American Schools of OrientalResearchin Dallas, Texas,it is important to keep in mind the long-standingand far-ranginghistory of this controversy. JamesD. Muhly

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1984

29

as the middle of the third millennium ti.c.At Byblos the royal tombs of the dynasty contemporary with the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats at Ebla were in the central region of the city, and were perhaps also related to some monumental buildings. And although an unclear stratigraphic situation does not permit us at present to make a definite connection between the tombs and the palace of the Middle Bronze IIC at Tell elcAjjul (Sharuhen), the relation between the tombs and a funerary cultic building and a palatial edifice at Tell ed-Dabaca (Avaris), the Hyksos capital city in the eastern Delta, is certain (Tufnell 1962: 28-37; Stewart 1974; Bietak 1970: 24-29; 1979: 247-63). At Ebla, it is probable that the Western Palace, Temple BI, and Sanctuary B2 are specially related to the royal necropolis. Their proximity to it is certainly one thing that strongly suggests this, and there are other facts that support this idea. Consider, for example, Temple B1-which is built according to the typical Old Syrian plan, with a long room, which appears also in Temple N at Ebla, in the Long Temple of Hazor, and in the major temples of Middle Bronze IIC of Palestine at Shechem and Megiddo. There is evidence that Temple BI was dedicated to Rashaph, the god of the netherworld, plague, and war, who corresponds to the Mesopotamian god Nergal. A sculpted ritual basin found in this temple depicts not only a banquet scene -which is a typical representation for this class of monumental fitting in Ebla-but also two series of soldiers. The soldiers are appropriate to Rashaph's role as god of war (Matthiae 1965). In addition, according to texts found in the Archives, one of the four gates and one of the four quarters of the Early Syrian city were named after Rashaph (Matthiae 1981a: 184). There is no doubt that the quadripartite pattern of Early Syrian Ebla was preserved in the Old Syrian city, and it is likely that the

30

divine names given to gates and quarters of the city reflected the major temples in their regions. There are also indications that Sanctuary B2 is related to the royal necropolis. Sanctuary B2 has an irregular plan; there is a big central cella with a podium that requires a bent-axis approach, small square cellas, and long rectangular cellas. This plan is virtually unknown in the classical typology of the SyroPalestinian temples dedicated to deities, and it corresponds in some typological characteristics to the socalled Double Temple F of Hazor (Matthiae 1981a: 128-30; Yadin 1972: 95-98). This building is also topographically related to a burial area and is oriented towards the The Old Syrianperiod, the age of the Amorite dynasties, ended around 1600 B.C.,after about fifty

years of struggleprovokedby the Old Hittite kings Hattushili I and Murshili I. Within a few decades

ble to view the Western Palace, which is clearly related to kingship, the temple dedicated to the god of the netherworld, and the sanctuary used for the cult of the royal dead as a unitary monumental complex. This is the first organic archaeological evidence for one of the basic ideological institutions of the period of Amorite dynasties in lower Mesopotamia and Upper Syria: the cult of royal, illustrious, and heroic ancestors, who guaranteed the prosperous development of the urban community. This is the practice of the cult of the rp'um, which is well known from the Late Bronze II ritual texts from Ugarit and which certainly goes back to, and was typical of, the Middle Bronze II period there (Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin 1976; Healey 1978: 85-88; Pope 1981: 174-79). The text documenting Hammurapi's genealogy indicates that it was also practiced in Mesopotamia during the Middle Bronze II period.

beginning around 1650 B.C.,these

kings descended from Anatolia to Upper Syria,besieged and took Alalakh (in the region of Antioch), Urshu (nearEbla,possibly Tell Tuqan),almost certainly Ebla itself, and, afterwards,Aleppo, the center of the powerfulkingdom of Yamhad.Lastly,Murshili I took Babylon,where the last king of Hammurapi'sdynasty reigned. west, the direction of the dead (Yadin 1972: 43-44). It can be proposed that both Sanctuary B2 and Double Temple F fulfilled a funerary cultic function. The articulated organization of the cultic furniture, with altars for small images, perhaps made of bronze, and now totally disappeared, basalt slabs for animal offerings, and daises for vegetable offerings, is quite suitable for the functions of a royal funerary cult (Matthiae 1979b: 567-69). Thus we believe that the three buildings at Ebla are related to the royal necropolis and that it is possi-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTMARCH 1984

Conclusion Important results can now be obtained by a comprehensive historical interpretation of all the available field data for centers like Ebla that are important in the history of the urban civilization of Syro-Palestine. Such a synthesis enables us to draw attention to both the forces of discontinuity and continuity in history thereby drawing attention to what is truly distinctive in a culture. As a consequence, it is possible to perceive the significant differences between the Old Syrian culture of Upper Syria and the cultural world of biblical Palestine. For instance, the very ancient designation of the royal ancestors, rp'um, in the first millennium B.c.loses the deep meaning of a religious ideology and ritual practice, which had been basic in the urban culture of Middle Bronze II in the second millennium (Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin 1976: 50-52; Pope 1977). A radical semantic change, therefore, is evidenced in the

#.p

,

. . .

.

0

.

,. :

.

0

Sm

?.

SSchematicplan of SanctuaryB2durng the Middle Bronze lperiod.

term as it moves from one culture to anotherand from the second millennium to the first millennium and the ancient values are cancelled. The opposite meaning which the biblical term rephaim takes-designating, on the one hand, the shadows in the netherworldand, on the other hand, the mythical beings of a remote past-is the most eloquent proofof the cultural distance between these two worlds. In the springof 1983,upon the initiative of the InternationalInstitute forMesopotamian AreaStudies, five membersof the Italian ArchaeologicalExpeditionto Syriaof the Universityof Rometraveledthroughoutthe United States presentinglectures and seminars.The team, which includedA. Archi, S. Mazzoni,F.Pinnock,G. Scandone Matthiae,andthe presentauthor,visited twenty universitiesand institutions. At the Universityof Pennsylvaniathe presentations of the Italianscholarswerepartof a sym-

Thesymposposiumon the Ebladiscoveries. iumwassponsored bytheAmericanSchools AlsoattendingwereS. of OrientalResearch. J.D.Muhly,andJ.Sauer.The N. Kramer, presentpaperis a somewhatmodifiedversion of a lecturegivenat thismeeting.

Bibliography

Archi, A., and Matthiae,P. 1979 Una coppad'argentocon iscrizione cuneiformedalla"Tombadel Signore dei capridi." Studi Eblaiti 1:191-93. Bietak,M. 1970 VorlkufigerBerichtfiberdie dritte KampagnederOesterreichischeAusgrabungenauf Tell ed-Dab'aim OstdeltaAegyptens(1968).Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Kairo26: 15-41. 1979 Avarisund Piramesse.Archaeological Explorationin the EasternNile Delta. Proceedingsof the British Academy 65: 225-89. Collon, D. 1975 The Seal Impressionsfrom Tell AtchanalAlalakh.Neukirchen-

Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlagund Butzon& BeckerKevelaer. 1981 The AleppoWorkshop.A SealCutters'Workshopin Syriain the Second Half of the EighteenthCentury B.C.Ugarit-Forschungen13: 33-43. Dietrich, M., Loretz,0., and Sanmartin,1. 1976 Die ugaritischenTotengeisterrpu(m) und die biblischen Rephaim.UgaritForschungen8: 45-52. Frankfort,H. 1952 The Originof the bit hilani. Iraq 14: 120-31. Healey,I. F. 1978 RitualText KTU 1.161-Translation and Notes. Ugarit-Forschungen10: 83-88. Kaplan,I. 1975 FurtherAspects of the Middle BronzeAge IIFortificationsin Palestine. Zeitschriftdes Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 91: 1-17. Kenyon,K. M. 1964 Excavationsat Jericho,1I. The Excavatedin 1955-8. LonTobmbs don: BritishSchool of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kochavi,M., Beck, P.,andGophna,R. 1979 Aphek-Antipatris,Tel Poleg,Tel ZerorandTel Burga:FourFortified Sites of the MiddleBronzeAge IIAin the SharonPlain. Zeitschriftdes Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 95: 121-65. Kupper,J.-R. in Lestablettes paltobabyloniennesde Studi Eblaiti 5. press Tell Mardikh-Ebla. Kuschke,A. 1977 Tempel.Pp.333-42 in Biblisches Reallexikon.ed. K.Galling.Tfibingen: I. C. B.Mohr(PaulSiebeck). Loud,G. 1948 Megiddo,11.Seasons of 1935-39. Chicago:The OrientalInstitute. Margueron,1. 1978 Un"Hilani"tiEmar.Annualof the American Schools of Oriental Research44: 153-76. 1982 Recherchessur les palais misopotamiens de fi6gedu Bronze.Paris:Institut Francaisd'Archologie du procheOrient. Matthiae,P. 1965 Lesculture in basalto.Pp. 125-58 in Missione Archeologicaltaliana in Siria, 1964. Roma:Universitadegli Studi di Roma. 1969 Empreintesd'uncylindrepalkosyrien de Tell Mardikh.Syria46: 1-43. 1979a Scavia Tell Mardikh-Ebla,1978:Rapportosommario.Studi Eblaiti 1: 129-84. 1979b PrincelyCemeteryand Ancestors Cult at EbladuringMiddleBronzeII: A Proposalof Interpretation.Ugarit-

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH1984

31

Forschungen11:563-69. 1980a Campagnede fouilles AEblaen 1979: les tombes princiereset le palais de la ville basse a l'6poqueamorrheene. Academie des Inscriptionset BellesLettres,ComptesRendus 1980, 94-118. 1980b Sondaggia TellTuqan,1978:Rapporto preliminare.Studi Eblaiti 2: 129-94. 1980c Fouilles a Tell Mardikh-Ebla,1978:le BAtimentQ et la n6cropoleprinciere du BronzeMoyenII.Akkadica 17: 1-51. 1980d TwoPrincelyTombsat Tell MardikhEbla.Archaeology33: 8-17. 1980e The PrincelyTombsof Middle BronzeIIat Eblaand the ContemporarySyro-PalestinianCemeteries. Studi Eblaiti 2: 195-204. 1980f Sulle asce fenestratedel'Signoredei Capridi'Studi Eblaiti 3: 53-62. 1981a Ebla.An EmpireRediscovered. GardenCity, NY:Doubleday. (Translatedby ChristopherHolme from Ebla. Un ImperoRitrovato. Torino:G. Einaudi, 1977.) 198lb A Hypothesis on the PrincelyBurial Areaof MiddleBronzeIIat Ebla. Archiv Orientalni 49: 55-65. 1981c Osservazionisui gioielli delle tombe principeschedi MardikhIIIB.Studi Eblaiti 4: 205-25. 1982a Fouilles a Tell Mardikh-Ebla,1980:le PalaisOccidentalde l'6poqueamorrheene.Akkadica 28: 41-87. 1982b The WesternPalaceof the Lower City of Ebla:A New Administrative Buildingof MiddleBronzeI-II. Archiv ffir Orientforschung,Beiheft 19: 121-2'. 1982c Fouille?de 1982ATell Mardikh-Ebla et a Tell Touqan:nouvelles lumieres sur l'architecturepaleosyriennedu BronzeMoyenI-II.Academie des Inscriptionset Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus299-331. des PalastesQ in 1982d Die Fulrstengraber Ebla.Antike Welt 13:3-14. in Fouilles a Tell Mardikh-Ebla,1982: press nouvelles recherchessur l'architecture palatine d'Ebla.Academie des Inscriptionset Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus. Maxwell-Hyslop,K. R. 1971 WesternAsiatic Jewellryc. 3000- 612 B.C.London:Methuen & Company. Montet, P. 1928 Byblos et l'Egypte.Quatrecampagnes de fouilles a Gebeil. Paris: de Beyrouth. Institut Francais Naumann, R. 1971 ArchitekturKleinasiens von ihren Anfangen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit. 2. erweit. Auflage.

32

Tuibingen:VerlagErnstWasmuth. Orthmann,W. 1966 Tilmen Huiyuik. Archiv fiir Orientforschung21: 165-66. Ottosson, M. 1980 Templesand Cult Places in Palestine. Uppsala:ActaUniversitatis Upsaliensis. N. Ozguic, 1966 Excavationsat Acemhoyuk.Anadolu 10:38-52. Parr,P.J. 1975 The Originof the RampartFortifications of MiddleBronzeAge Palestine and Syria.Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins84: 18-45. Pinnock, E 1979 Nota sui "sonagli"della "Tombadel Signoredei Capridi"Studi Eblaiti 1: 185-90. Pope,M. 1977 Notes on the RephaimTextsfrom Ugarit.Memoirsof the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19: 163-82. 1981 The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit.Pp. 160-79 in Ugaritin Retrospect,ed. G. D. Young. ScandoneMatthiae,G. 1979 Un oggettofaraonicodella XIII dinastia dalla"Tombadel Signoredei capridi."Studi Eblaiti 1: 119-28. 1982 Eblaund Aegyptenim Alten und Mittleren Reich.Antike Welt 13: 14-17. Seger,J.D. 1975 The MBIIFortificationsat Shechem and Gezer.A Hyksos Retrospective. Eretz-Israel12:34"-45". Stewart,J.R. 1974 Tellel-Ajjul.TheMiddle BronzeAge Remains. G6teborg:Studies in MediterraneanArcheology. Toombs,L. E., andWright,G. E. 1963 The FourthCampaignat BalAta (Shechem).Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research169: 1-60. Tufnell,O. 1962 The CourtyardCemeteryat Tell elAjjul,Palestine. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeologyof the Universityof London3: 1-37. Wilhelm, G. 1982 Grundzitgeder Geschichte und Kulturder Hurriter.Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft. Woolley,C. L. 1955 Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at TellAtchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. Yadin,Y 1972 Hazor.TheHead of All Those Kingdoms.London:OxfordUniversity Press.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

,VS OF 0,9/

OF

r

WINo

-,641,

AmericanCenterof OrientalResearch in Amman, Jordan

welcomes visiting scholars and interestedlaymen. Programsinclude: Archaeologyclasses Lecturesand seminars Guidedsite visits A researchlibrary Studycollections Annualappointments Scholars'residence Vehicleand equipmentrental Liaisonwith local officials Rescuearchaeology Forfurtherinformationcontact: ASORAdministrativeOffices 4243 SpruceStreet Philadelphia,PA 19104 Tel:(215)222-4643

Moving?

Make SureBA Moves With You Please attach your magazinemailing label to this coupon and send both to: ASORSubscriptionServices, 4243 SpruceStreet,Philadelphia,PA 19104. Be sure to include your new addresson the form.Thank you!

Attach Label Here

Name (please print) YourNew Address City State

Zip

BA

The

Success and

PORTRAIT

Failure o

4 Stewart Matalistet Robert Alexander

byPageA.GTha

i

.

'PA.

.

.

/

..

.

'kA41rF,.

Wh

e•

AP

-A

.

'/'

"

IIIF 7 . 41 .0...4

Cc~

-

6.

,1

'"

."

tt";

r

6

&,' ,, .

_0

.

JON*

'A ?.6IF

,.-?.,9"-0

RobertAlexanderStewartMacalisterat Gezeraround 1905. Photographused courtesy of David Ussishkin and WilliamG. Dever.

n thefirstyearsofthetwentiethcentury,whenPales- systems, the famous "Gezercalendar"(a small piece of

tinian archaeologywas just past its infancy, Robert AlexanderStewartMacalisterexcavatedat the important site of Gezer, located on the northernmostedge of the Shephelah at the foothills west of Jerusalemin the valley of Aijalon.The qualifications he broughtto the job were solid: He was intelligent and had already distinguished himself as an archaeologist with his work in EnglandandIreland.His energyon the jobwas impressive: Excavatingalmost continuously between 1902and 1909, he workedthroughtwo-thirdsof the thirty-acresite. And his efforts resulted in rich finds, including four city-wall

limestone inscribedwith a mnemonic Hebrewpoem having to do with the agriculturalactivities of the twelve months of the year),anda largeamount of pottery.Despite his industryand the high regardin which he was held by his contemporaries, however, many authorities now feel that most of what he did at Gezer was wasted. Macalister'sfailureat Gezer mayat firstseem surprising, especially when one considers that afterhe finished his work in Palestinehe returnedto Irelandto become the leadingfigurein Irisharchaeology.Whydid this able man, whose other work was successful, including other work

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH1984

33

Portraitof RobertAlexander StewartMacalister,used courtesy of the RoyalIrishAcademy

he did in Palestine,failat Gezer?The storyis an interesting one. Macalisterwas born in Dublin, Ireland,in 1870, the son of a distinguished professorof anatomy at Cambridge University.His early education was at Rathmines School in Dublin. His interest in archaeologyappearedearly,and he published his first paper on the subject when he was twelve. After a period of study in Germany,he took his M.A. degree from Cambridge. There is no question that he was brilliant and cultivated: He was an accomplished linguist, able to write a goodversein Arabic;a first-ratemusician who was organist and choirmasterat the AdelaideRoadChurch in Dublin; and a popularlecturerknown for his lucidity and humor, and sometimes for his flights of conjecture. Beforehe went to Palestine,Macalisterhad studied an earlySaxoncemeterynearCambridgeandhad made an extendedarchaeologicalsurveyat Fahan,nearDingle, on the west coast of Ireland.He was twenty-eight when he was appointed to succeed A. C. Dickie as the assistant field secretaryof the Palestine ExplorationFund (PEF)and as associate to the American archaeologist F. J. Bliss. He joinedBliss at Tell ez-Zakariyehin the fall of 1898,and for two years they worked together at four sites in the Shephelah:Tell es-Safi(Gath),Tell ez-Zakariyeh(Azekah), Tell el-Judeideh(Moresheth-gath),and Tell Sandahannah (Mareshah,Marisa).

34

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

Macalisterreturnedto Englandbriefly when the permit for excavationin the Shephelah expiredin the fall of 1900, but when Bliss retiredas directorof excavationsfor the PEF,Macalistersucceeded him in 1901.He went back to Palestine near the end of that year, and he began excavating at Tell Gezer in June 1902. His effortsthere attractedmuch attention. Interestin archaeologyin Palestinewas high, as witnessed by the fact that two other majorbiblical cities, MegiddoandTaanach, werealso being excavatedat that time. Macalisterkept the projectvisible with a series of reportspublished in almost every issue of PEF'sQuarterly Statements from 1902 to 1909 (eventuallyedited togetherand published in 1912as the three-volume The Excavation of Gezer). At firstMacalistergainedmomentum because he was finding more than anyone ever imagined he would. Eventually,however,as his permitandmoney wererunningout, he became discouraged. In 1909, while he was still excavatingat Gezer, he was elected the first professorof Celtic archaeologyat University College, Dublin. He accepted this position, retiring,except for a briefexcavation in 1923on the hill of Ophel in Jerusalem,fromPalestinian archaeology. Macalister went on to a very successful career at home. He taught at University College, Dublin, until his retirementin 1943.He edited the journalof the Society of Antiquaries of Irelandfrom 1910until 1918;and he was elected vice president (1916 and 1921) and president (1924-1928)of that society.He wasalso elected to membership in the Royal Irish Academy in 1910, becoming its president in 1926. During this periodhe published a great deal and was the foremost figure in Irish archaeology. Why,then, has his work at Gezer provenunsatisfactory?Actuallythere areseveralreasons.First,althoughthe excavationwas the largestundertakenup until that time in Palestine, and although as many as 200 laborerswere employed at one time there, Macalister was, in a sense, working alone. He was the sole scientist at the site, and he struggledvainly to handle all the field direction,surveying, drafting,photography,recording,and other technical jobs that are necessary for a successful project. Second, Macalisterwas determined "toturn overthe whole mound,"a tell which is much largerthan most in Palestine,beforethe expirationof his permit. He was convinced that Palestine was in danger of being plundered for its antiquities. In addition, he very much hoped to locate a royal archive. Thus, Macalister worked quickly and, especially in the later years, often carelessly. Third, and most important, is the method of excavation employed by him. Macalister's only training for excavating in Palestine had come from his work with Bliss from 1898 until 1900. Bliss was the pupil of Sir Flinders Petrie, who was the first person to classify pottery systematically so as to indicate its date. Bliss had been sent to Egypt by the PEF for six months to study Petrie's method

of excavating,especially the way of identifying the age of pottery.Petriehimself had only workedin Palestineat Tell el-Hesi (his Lachish) for six weeks in 1890. When his workersdesertedhim for the harvesthe returnedto Egypt, leaving the PEFwith a permit to dig but without an excavator.In Egypt,Petrie informed Bliss that he (Petrie)had extractedall the secrets the site would yield by the trench method and that it was up to Bliss to cut down the mound itself, layerby layer.Bliss, in his Development of Palestine Exploration(1907;p. 275), remarks-after diggingfor only two years, and only on the northeast corner of the tellthat "pendingthe development of the law of X-raysor the practicalapplicationof the mysterious fourthdimension, such piecemeal removalof a town is the only possible condition for the exhaustive examination of an underlying

Macalister, archive

royal

quickly

but

hoping at

to

Gezer,

find a worked

carelessly.

occupation."Such was the genealogy of Macalister'straining in the methods of field excavation in Palestine. At Gezer,Macalisterused the trench method. Beginning at the eastern end, he dug a single trench forty feet wide that ran the entire length of the tell. He then dug a similar trenchnext to this one anddumpedthe debrisfrom it into the first, eventually filling it. He continued this processwith subsequenttrenches,workinghis way across the tell. Eachtrench was dug down to bedrock,as deep as forty-two feet in some areas. The problem with this approachis that it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of the tell's stratigraphic levels. Its shortcomings are perhaps best illustratedby comparingit to a method that was developed later and used in subsequent excavations that were conducted at Gezer in the one-thirdof the tell that Macalister wasn'table to turn over.These excavationshaveemployed the American "balk-debrislayer,"which is an adaptation of the Wheeler-Kenyon method. Excavationsareconducted within five-metersquares.The unexcavatedareasbetween squares,called balks or catwalks, preservea recordof the stratigraphy. Carefulrecord-keeping,which indicates the position of each find three-dimensionally, is also a part of this approach, and this is another methodological area in which Macalister has been severely criticized. For instance, William G. Dever, who directed much of the modern work at Gezer, has said, If Macalisterhadobservedandrecordedthe findspotsof objects... andhadrelatedthe findsto the plans ...

we could have used our more precise

knowledgeofthedateofcertainkeyitemsto redate most of the architecturein the variouslevelsand

thuscouldhavesalvagedmuchofthe materialdug lost. by him. As it is, it is irrevocably Macalisterwas awareof these methodological issues. Concerning the trench method, he says, in a 1904 report to PEF: Therearemanydrawbacksto pittingvarioussectionsofthemoundwithdisconnected trenches,the chiefbeingthedifficultyofestablishing theconnection of corresponding strata,especiallywhena differentnumberofstrataarefoundin thedebrisofthe moundin differentplaces. Apparently,however,his haste, andpossibly the complexity of the stratigraphy,convinced him to continue using the method. On the question of recordingfind-spots,perhapsit was also haste that led him to say,"Theexact spot in the mound where any ordinaryobject chanced to lie is not generally of great importance." Thus, the excavationsof Macalisterat Gezerwerenot successful, and it is easy to sympathize with subsequent excavators for the frustrations he caused them. In his defense, however, it should be noted that at the time Macalisterwas working, most of the techniques of Palestinian archaeology that were eventually to yield such a wealth of knowledgehadnot yet been developedor refined. Also, the excavationof a tell, with its many stratigraphic levels certainly requiresdifferent,though not necessarily superior, skills from those used by Macalister so successfully in Ireland.Finally, the mistakes of Macalister, althoughimportantones, should not be allowedto obscure what he did accomplish in Palestine. In addition to his finds at Gezer, he should be rememberedfor his drawing and descriptionof KhirbetShemacnear Safed;his work on the caves of Mareshah;his identification of Tell Hum as ancient Capernaum;his location of Sycharat TellBalatah rather than cAskar or Nablus; his identification of Taricheae as Kerak;his sharing in the identification of Laish (Dan) with Tell el-Qadi; his recognition of Tell Belcameh(Ibleam)as an importantsite forexcavation;and his conclusion that Zercin was not the site of Jezreel. RobertAlexanderStewartMacalisterdied at his home in Cambridge on April 26, 1950, at the age of eighty. Despite the problemswith much of his work in Palestine, the following statement, taken from an obituaryin Quarterly Statements, still has much truth to it: His name will alwaysbe associatedwith the excavations at Gezer, an excavationwhich might almost be said to mark the beginning of scientific archaeology of Palestine.

Suggestions for FurtherReading Dever,W.G. 1967 Excavationsat Gezer. The Biblical Archaeologist 30: 47-62. Dever,W G., and others 1971 FurtherExcavationsat Gezer, 1967-71. The Biblical Archaeologist 34: 94-132.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

35

The

SERicAL

ERSBIL and

ecent yearshave witnessed

theascent anddecline of

the discussion on whether there is such a discipline or field of archaeologyas biblical archaeology Many leading scholars in the field havebeen concerned to convey the fact that they were true scientists at work, and therefore cogently arguedfor a nomenclature that was neutral with respect to the Bible. They have suggested that those engagedin archaeological work in the Holy Landand surrounding areasbe known as Palestinian archaeologists or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists.The change in nomenclature, they believe, would convey in a simple and yet dramatic way the state of the field today and it would separateit from the days of the not-so-distantpast when giants like Albright,Glueck, de Vaux,and Wrightwere preoccupiedwith correlating the biblical recordwith archaeologicalevidence. The fact of the matter is, however,that there is a deep reservoirof supportfor maintaining an overt connection between the Bible and the material culture of the biblical world. Summerexcavations in Israel and Jordanbring nearly a thousand American young people to those countries each year and involve dozens of colleges, universities, and seminaries. The majorumbrella organizationin the United States coordinatingthis activity, the American Schools of Oriental Research,also the publisher of Biblical Archaeologist, has experiencedan unprecedentedspurt of activity in the past decade and is

36

Archa

Idealized cross section of a tell, with colors indicating differentstrata.

responsiblefor communicating the results of archaeologicalresearch not only in Israeland Jordanbut also in Cyprus,Tunisia, Syria,Yemen, and other Near Easternareasas well. Interest in the Bible at colleges and universities is also on the rise after having been eclipsed for a while by a fascination with eastern religions. Forexample, at Duke University where I teach, there is virtually no

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

limit to the number of students who would enroll for a course in Old or New Testament.This pattern is repeatedon many campuses throughout America, and on many campuses it is possible to study biblical archaeologyspecifically, especially where the unique resourcesof an institution provide instruction in Bible and archaeology. In America, biblical archaeology

is usually offeredin departments of religion and in divinity schools (with archaeologyin general offered as a part of the curriculaof departments of classics, anthropology, Near Easternstudies, and so on). In contrast, in Israelthe "professional" archaeologists are largely set off from departmentalcontexts and function in separatedepartments or institutes. The Israelis,nonetheless, are the real practitionersof biblical archaeologytoday.In this respect they are the true inheritors of the Albright tradition. Yet,because the Israeli archaeologists are institutionally isolated from those who study Bible or Jewishhistory, in an intellectual as well as a physical or administrativesense, a gap is thereby.createdbetween the literary historian and the cultural historian. (Thereare notable exceptions of course.)Because most Palestinian-or Syro-Palestinian- archaeologists in America are not isolated in purely archaeologicalcontexts at universities, such a gap exists to a lesser extent in this country at present. The divergentsettings in which biblical archaeologyis pursued in the United States and in Israel suggest something of the division that underlies the field today.Such divi.sion is clearly the result of the impact of what has come to be known as the new archaeology.Emerging out of New Worldarchaeologywith its environmental focus and concern for new approachesand methods for information retrievaland interpretation, it finally began to make its mark on biblical archaeologists in the late 1960s. Strangeas it may seem to some, the accommodation to these new approacheswas spearheaded by G. ErnestWright,then president of the American Schools of Oriental Researchand ParkmanProfessor of Divinity at HarvardUniversity. As a professorof Old Testament and Albright'sleading disciple in field archaeology (and,incidentally, the founderof the magazine Biblical Archaeologist), Wrightwas the

same earth that late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-centuryarchaeologists viewed as the expendable and annoying blanket overhidden artifacts was now sifted and screened for pollen samples, minute seeds, and other organicmaterials. Geologists who once were concerned only with the depositional history of a site were now conducting researchon the provenanceof specific stones or artifacts and commenting on the region as a whole and the resources it providedfor village life. Natural scientists and biological scientists alike were rediscoveredand engaged in a dialogue about ancient ecology. Finally, the social scientists, especially anthropologistsalong with some sociologists, began to take part, and although their impact on the discipline is yet to be fully felt, their concern for the reconstruction of social patterns based on archaeological data has alreadyhad profoundeffects upon biblical archaeology, and their interpretation of some of the material evidence has been most helpful and constructive. Indeed, one could say that regardlessof how Americans describe what they are doing in Israelor Jordanit is alreadya fact that archaeologicalresearchis being conducted in a way that reflects the new archaeologyin its broadest sense, including both techniques of data collection and modes of interpreting those data. Because so many archaeologists G. Ernest Wrightdirectingexcavations at Tell who work in biblical lands insist Gezerin 1965. Photographby EricM. Meyers. adamantly on being known as Near Easternarchaeologists,or as Syroceramic typology remained a central Palestinian archaeologistson the if not the central component of the one hand or biblical archaeologists new archaeology,other subspeon the other,the differentperspectives that they bring to the discipline cialties were to become regular components of the vast arrayof sub- of archaeologymust be explored.As we will soon discover,it is not so disciplines which now constitute the complex, broaddiscipline of much what one brings out of the archaeology.The bones, human and groundthat determines one'splace animal alike, that previous generaalong this continuum; it is rather what one brings to the field by way tions discardedwere now cleaned and boxed and sent to specialists all of training,background,and theoretical considerations. overthe world for examination. The

individual uniquely qualified to respondto the challenges of a changing discipline. The Idalion Expedition in Cyprus was his modest attempt to respondto the new winds that were blowing. The seeds were sown, however, and biblical archaeology,as conducted by Americans at least, was never to be the same again. One could say that the debate which ensued in the 1970s, whether to retain the name biblical archaeology or not, came in direct response to Wright'sefforts to move the discipline in new directions. Although

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

37

EricM. Meyers(left)and G. Ernest Wrightexamining potterysherds from TellGezerin 1965. Photographby Carol L.Meyers.

The 1950s was a period that led many to believe that the primary aim of biblical archaeologywas to corroborateScripture.The most famous publication espousing this point of view was WernerKeller's The Bible as History, incorrectly translatingthe German title which might better be rendered,'"TheBible is Indeed Correct."And then there was Nelson Glueck sitting on a camel, Bible in hand, writing about his explorations in the desert, declaring that the Bible is the most reliable guide to ancient Palestine, insisting on its historicity. This mixing of archaeologyand biblical history is uniquely indicative of the legacy of biblical archaeology,a legacy which has been both a blessing and a curse. The late J.J.Finkelstein put the negative aspects of it this way in an article entitled '"TheBible, Archaeology, and History,"as he went about criticizing Glueck's approach: Myuneasinesshasto dowiththeapparentreadinessof an influential numberofbiblicalscholarsto enlist the substantial gainsmadeduringrecent decadesin our knowledgeof Israelite and biblical historyperhapsunintentionallyin the currentcampaignto sellthepublicon a 1959-modelpiety incorporating all

38

the latest scientific gadgets. By stampingtheBiblewiththeapproval of scientific authority,an accommodation is ostensibly achieved withthepopularfaithin a sciences-faiththatmustprogressively deepen as the realmof sciencerecedeseven furtherfromthe horizonof general comprehension. April1959,p.349) (Commentary Whether the cautions urgedby Finkelstein were justified or not, his comments serve to highlight the kinds of difficulties that have persisted in the field of biblical archaeologyto this day. Let us put the matter in a slightdifferent ly way.We may differentiate between those scholars in the field of biblical archaeologywho place the biblical word as the primarycorpus of evidence from which all history flows and those who place the biblical world in its material manifestation as the primary datum from which all interpretation of history emerges.In the case of the former,there is a concentration on ancient recordsand a persistent attempt to explain and pinpoint certain historical events; an emphasis on the ratherbarebones of political history characterizessuch an approach.In the case of the latter,

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH1984

there is an absolute attention to the details of material culture and an attempt to isolate and identify various stages of culture without respect to specific historical time; historical interpretationis clearly secondaryto the evidence. Whereasthe old biblical archaeologydealt with specific events of unique interest to the biblical audience, the new biblical archaeologydeals with the totality of cultural factorsin a more direct fashion. By removing the word biblical from the discussion and substituting Near Easternor Syro-Palestinian, perhapswe can say more clearly what the new biblical archaeology really does. By eliminating the emotionally loaded term biblical, perhapswe can cast our scholarly nets even wider than beforeand can do so without prejudiceto the nature of archaeologicaldata. Surely there is a place for the new biblical archaeologyor Near Easternarchaeology,or whatever we shall call it, without destroyinga concomitant interest in the Bible. And it seems to me that we should be skeptical about archaeologists who want to dig in periods that are identified only in historical or,more precisely,biblical terms. In such instances the data become secondary to a historical situation that has a priorplace in the excavator'smind before the first spade is placed into the ground. Indeed, recent years have seen any number of these kinds of expeditions. One, led by astronautJames Erwin, set out to recoverNoah'sark (anda popularfilm on the subject has grossed millions of dollars at the box office). Yetanother groupseveral years ago set out to recoverthe Ark of David from a cave in the wilderness of Ein Gedi, only to return home empty-handed,broke,and more than slightly embarrassed. Even more recently, a grouphas claimed to have found that Ark in a Transjordaniansetting. In such instances we should not automatically

It

is

historians important that and archaeology to inform

assume that the archaeologists were incompetent field people or technicians. Rather,we must call into question the motives and fixed set of historical questions governingtheir mode of inquiry. David Noel Freedmanremarked in his final issue as editor of Biblical Archaeologist: Two perfectly respectable and responsibledisciplinesareinvolved: researchandbiblical archaeological studies. Both have validatedtheir claimsto beingauthenticscientific approachesand proceduresfor exploringa particularbody of data. Eachhasits ownprerequisites, technical apparatus,scholarlynorms, and verifiable results. .... Further-

moretheyimpingeuponeachother on important points, e.g. for a biblicalscholarto ignoretheresults of archaeologicalresearchin the Near East,especiallyin the SyroPalestinianregionand duringthe BronzeandIronAges,wouldbefoolhardy;similarlyany archaeologist workingin those areasduringthe same periodswould be foolish to disregardthe biblical materials, especiallythose concerningplaces andevents. Whether the term biblical archaeology is maintained is secondary to the more central concern of whether the researcherconcentrating in Near Easternhistory and culture will allow both scientific biblical study and scientific archaeologicalinvestigation to inform one another in a constructive way. Surely it is much- perhaps too much- to expect someone today to work in both fields. But that surely was the intention of Albright when he coined the phrase biblical archaeology;and if dropping the term means divorcing these two interdependent components of historical research, archaeology and biblical studies, then I am against changing the

of one

the

Near another

allow

East

in

a

biblical constructive

studies way.

name. Tobe sure, each discipline may speak with its own distinctive voice, but only the investigatorwho deals with all primarydata is truly qualified to distinguish between the descriptive,taxonomic task and historical interpretation. Palestinian archaeologyhas clearly emerged from a concern with the biblical past alone, and it would be a mistake to ignore its potential as a separatediscipline irrespective of such a particularhistorical context. Archaeology is first and foremost a discipline that is devotedto recoveringthe remains of past cultures. These cultures can be as recent as modern times-and some archaeologicalprojectsdo indeed concentrate on the immediate past (forinstance, the University of Arizona garbageproject).It goes without saying that when archaeological data are recoveredfrom historical periods whose date and provenanceare firmly established and completely obvious, the task of taxonomy and classification as well as interpretationis greatly simplified. But the archaeologistwho is faithful to his discipline is committed to as total an information retrieval as possible, given the normal limitations of time, manpower,and budget.The task is not only to get as much data as possible but also to do this in a way that is not biased in favorof one type of artifact.A common criticism of Old Worldarchaeology has been its special attention to fine ceramics or to ceramic typology while expending insufficient attention to ceramic technology.

made to recoverthe fullest possible rangeof information. New methodology has also shown us that it is no longer acceptable to study a site in isolation from its regional affiliations and the environmental factorsoperatingupon both. Forantiquity it is especially important to establish the regional patterns of usage for artifactswhose life spans may spreadover centuries. The sum total of the information recoveredfrom a site thus constitutes a basic building block for assessing relationships, for determining cultural horizons that may be distinguished by certain combinations of environmental features and artifactualand architecturalassemblages. As such proceduresare followed year afteryear,season after season, the cumulative effect and worth of the data will become apparent.Previously excavatedand published materials can be reinterpretedand perhapsillumined, and their merit or lack of merit can be fully exposed. In such an approach the data themselves constitute a clear and independent source of information. The data and only the data are interpreted,or reinterpreted, against analogous collections of data;ultimately a relative or unrefined chronology along with other modes of understandingcan be proposed for the context of the evidence. This is pure archaeological research.If the material being examined is perceivedto come from a period that relates to the biblical record,I agreewith Freedmanthat it would be foolhardyto ignore the

Because some kinds of data may still be overlooked by Old World archaeologists, and because some data might lie beyond the ken of our present range of questions and techniques, an utmost effort must be

biblical materials.

Similarly,it is simply foolish for the modern biblical scholar to ignore the results of pertinent archaeological research. Examining the history of any human community in light of

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

39

archaeologicalevidence provides historians with many more questions and possibilities than they would have were they to approach the study from the perspectiveof literaryhistory alone. If I may drawa classic example from biblical studies, until recently a historian relying solely on the Bible would tend to view the beginnings of Israel in terms of a military conquest by a united groupof invadingtroops led first by Moses and then by joshua. Thinking largely in terms of political history,such a historian might try to set dates forthe series of battles that comprised this event, attempt to pinpoint the sites of the variousencounters between Israelites and indigenous Canaanites,and trace the outlines of the ensuing Israelitetribal organization.Thanks to the social sciences, and especially to the pioneeringscholarshipof Mendenhall and Gottwald, we know that such a reconstructionis no longer possible. Biblical history, rather,is a complex patternof social organization and change, with accompanying religious development;it is not just a catalogue of battles or a biographyof kings and prophets.When a biblical scholar is equally at home in the worldof artifactsas in languageand literature,and when all of these can be critically analyzed and used, then we havebiblical archaeologyat its optimum level. Manypeople, however,feel it is no longerpossible for any single individual to work both sides of the street. They would agreethat Albrightdid it in his day but that no one can do justice to both disciplines any longer.They feel that this is particularly true since the archaeological component of such an enterprise has expandedgeometrically since the peak of Albright'swork. They areprobablyright.Although I have no doubt that there will be a sufficient number of field archaeologists aroundfor years to come who will be able to do superiorwork, and

40

although biblical scholarship rooted in literaryanalysis will surely prosper and mature as a discipline, I am not convinced that our society and its institutions of higher learning will be able to produceenough scholars groundedin both literary sources and material culture. Most scholars of the Bible, scholars of Old and New Testaments,cannot be critical about a particulardig or excavation report,let alone be qualified to identify an object as LateBronzeIIor Iron I, EarlyRomanor Middle Roman.Similarly,most historians of the early Church or of ancient Judaism could not be botheredwith the actual physical remains of that world, even though such a setting would include art and artifacts.In general, the historians of these traditions haveasked the archaeologists to communicate the results of their investigations in such a way that they, the literary,social, and economic historians, can make use of the insights of archaeology without having actually to do field work. I think our nonarchaeologicallyinclined colleagues have a point. The burdenof the fully integrativeapproachis on the archaeologist.Is it too much to ask those who do archaeology to synthesize more while not sacrificing their commitment to complete, more scientific reporting? In other words,it would seem that literaryscholars want archaeologists to prodthem into seeking new approachesand into discoveringnew ways of assessing old problems. Unfortunately,Near Easternarchaeologists have not been doing this prodding.Despite the importance of social-scientific models for historical or cultural reconstruction, for instance, only the rarearchaeologist in our field has published in a languagedemonstratingan awareness of such models. Fewscholars, biblical scholars included, haveattempted to synthesize; few have attempted to raise issues that colleagues in other disciplines could

BIBLICAL ARCHIAEOLOG I STrMARCFH 1984

and should address.Scholarlypublication, therefore,its direction and its format, is an item that bears heavily upon the futuredirections of our disciplines, especially on archaeology. Biblical history is indeed being rewrittenwith the help of biblical archaeology;but, as I have indicated, it is a most challenging undertaking. Many specialists must work together to recreatethe culture and historical setting of the Bible. Eachspecialist and each discipline has its place and its role to play in the recoveryof the past. One day these many specialties will be integratedin a way that makes possible new levels of human understanding;then and only then w\illbiblical archaeologyhave come of age as a discipline unto itself. Meanwhile, we shall have to content ourselves with a field that is divided overterminology but united in its dedication to the recoveryof the past and its search for the truth. This article is a slightly mnodifiedversion of an addressgiven in I1llas, Texas, on December 20, 1983. at the plenary session ot

the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch duringits annual meeting with tiheSociety of BiblicalLiteratureand the American Academyof Religion.

THE MUSEUM TRAIL "•_-F. .......

"

The

. ..

-..,;?..... .

. .

- ,.

'-if

materialsat MichiganStateUniversitypresents a fine selection of relativelyscarceartifactsand manuscripts.The materialswereacquiredin the early part of this century by E. K. Warren,a wealthy manufacturerfrom Three Oaks, Michigan, who first encountered the modem Samaritan community during a visit to Palestine in 1901.Impressedby their povertyand disturbed by the abandon with which they were selling theirpreciousreligiousartifacts,Warrenformulateda plan by which the community could gain financialsecurity.In the meantime, Warrenhimself purchased many of the treasuresto hold in safekeepinguntil the Samaritanscould repurchasethem. The plan nevercame to fruition;Warren died and the Samaritanmaterials,legally partof Warren's estate,wereshippedto ThreeOaks wherethey wereplaced in a Warrenfamily museum. In 1950 the Warrenfamily closed the museum, and after negotiations with several institutions, the various collections weregiven to MichiganStateUniversity Since Michigan State had no biblical scholar at that time, and informationreceivedfrom other institutions in response to circulation of photographs of the material was not helpful, it was still some time beforethe Samaritanitems were recognized.The materials, with the exception of a brass scroll case and several modem paper scrolls, were placed in cardboardboxes in a storage area under the bleachersof the footballstadium until a renovationof the area led to their rediscoveryin 1968. The oldest item in the collection is a piece of bluishstreaked, white marble bearing an inscription (Exodus 15:13,11)datingbetween the thirdand sixth centuries A.d A few months beforeits discovery,the inscriptionhadbeen published by JohnStrugriell(1967:555-580) on the basis of a casting that had been made in the last century.The latter was found in the Musee de l'Ecole Biblique in Jerusalemwith an attached note reading:"Emmaus.Inscription acquiredby the American ArchaeologicalInstitute" (predecessorof the American Schools of Oriental Research).It is thus one of four Samaritan inscriptions found at Emmaus and was probablya lintel over a synagogue doorway. Three fifteenth-century-A.Dmanuscripts and a fragment of a fourth, handwritten on animal skins, are the most dramatic of a series of Pentateuchs. Two of these manuscripts (probablyby the same scribe, although he used two differentnames)arefine examplesfromthe wellknown Munes family of scribes in Egypt,a majorcenter of the Samaritandiaspora.They representthe eighteenth (CW 2484 copied in 1474 A.D.) and thirty-first(CW 2478

k#X&<4i..'

s u.. , 1*j, -Q. .%.>.k

ofSamaritan Warren collection Chamberlain

A

ay to

.7a *

%J

r

r ,..~,, - 2.;? ..K3• ' -• .?q ?,'., ... .6f ... 4PMC&? ...:,~i

. \.-~~d KIRA i •,,[

?

,,

"

,

."

.

.

.

k

.

7*1r

'5 L.?,?,.

,. ".. ?_. o • ??•i

<

.

?

,.

.,

-,

.

,,rr i

,

,-

"

?"

?

Copyof the fourthcentury Samaritantheological work. Memar Markah,made in 1750.A note at the back claims that the book was read by the governorof Syria.Ibrahim Paasha,in the early nineteenth century Photographcourtesy of MichiganState UniversitySpecial Collections.

by Robert T Anderson

The

Michigan

State

University

Smaita

Co llectio BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH1984

41

The

The

Samaritans

fromtheNorthern Samaritans claimdescent

Tribesof Israelwhose political autonomy ended with the invasionof the Assyriansin 722 B.C. Often in tension with the Jewsof the Southern Kingdomof Judahwho consideredthe northernersat best a peopleof mixedblood,they neverthelesssharedwith the Jewsan acceptanceof the sacrednessof the Pentateuchand a celebrationof common festivals.By the firstcenturyB.C. the schism betweenthe two groupshadbecome quitefixed and each community preservedindependent scriptural and ritual traditions. The Samaritans were objects of persecution from Greeks and Romans and were seriously diminished in number and well-being by the Christian emperor, Justinian, in the sixth centuryA.D.They prosperedin varying degrees under Muslim rule. During times of stress they fledto othercities of the Mediterraneanworld,particularly CairoandDamascus,but their centerremainedat Nablus or Shechem at the foot of their sacred Mount Gerizim where they hadestablisheda temple in the fourthcentury B.C. They have continued to celebratetheir chief festivals, notablyPassover,on the mountain top,although the temple was destroyedin 128B.C.The community had almost disappearedunder Ottoman rule: At the end of the First WorldWartherewerefewerthan 200 Samaritans.Presently they number about 500, equally divided between Nablus and Holon, a suburbof Tel Aviv. The parallelbut separatehistoryof JewandSamaritan has been a boon for biblical scholarship, since the SamaritanPentateuch preservesa textual witness relatively independentfromboth the MassoreticHebrewand the Greektexts and is often a help in resolving or illuminating textual problems. copied in 1484 A.D.) of thirty-three Pentateuchs he claims to have copied. CW 2484 is also listed as manuscript Lamedh in Ben-Zvi's catalogue (1943: 314). The third fifteenth-century Pentateuch in this collection is a product of the other major center of the Samaritan diaspora, Damascus, from whence the first Samaritan manuscripts to reach Europe were brought in the early seventeenth century. One manuscript (von Gall C; 1918: IV) by the same scribe as CW 2473 was purchased in Damascus by the Frenchman, Nicolas Peiresc, in 1628 A.D. (Each of these Pentateuchs is available on microfilm through the office of Dr. Fred Honhardt, director of University Archives and Historical Collections at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.) Also from Damascus is a handsome brass scroll case bearing inlaid silver inscriptions and designs. It was one of the few items not stored under the stadium. I had seen it lying open in a museum show case with a paper scroll

42

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

The sixteenth-century scholar, JosephScaliger,was the firstwesternerto become intriguedwith the potential value of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and he visited the Samaritan community at Cairo in an unsuccessful attempt to procurea copy.In 1623a copydid arrivein France through the agency of Pietro della Valle and the French Consulate in Constantinople. Immediately it became a weapon in the polemics between Roman Catholic and Protestantscholarsoverthe primacyof the Greekversus the Hebrew text. Since the Samaritan agreed with the Greek at severalpoints, it became an important text for RomanCatholics.Withintwo decadesthe SamaritanPentateuch had been published in polyglot editions in both FranceandEngland.Duringthat same time period,Archbishop Usher was using a SamaritanPentateuch in his studies of biblical chronology. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Europeaninterest in the Samaritansshifted from their Pentateuchto the beliefs,practices,andsocial structureof the tiny, impoverished contemporary community. But early in the twentieth century interest in the Pentateuch was reawakenedby the publicationof von Gall'scollation of severalSamaritantexts. Subsequentlydoctrinal statements and texts characteristic of the Samaritans have appearedamidst the discoveriesat Qumran;this suggests that Samaritanstudies may help illuminate the religious context in which the Dead Sea documents were composed. RobertT. Anderson

across it in the late 1950s. Hidden by the rather insignificant modem scroll, it offered no clue to its own importance or the unique collection of which it was a part. The case was crafted in 1524, as revealed by the inscription which also identifies both the case maker and the person who did the inscriptions. Adolph von Gall, in the preface to his work on Samaritan Pentateuchs, speculates that this case held the famous Abischua scroll in the Samaritan synagogue at Nablus (von Gall 1918: LII).Two German tourists describe the transfer of the scroll from another case to its present case in 1860 (Barton 1921: 18). The remaining items all date to a later time but are not without interest and even intrigue. A Samaritan Pentateuch written in Arabic in 1685 (CW 10262) underscores the excitement caused by the arrival of a Samaritan Pentateuch in France earlier in that century. The latter appeared in two polyglot editions, and a leading scholar of the time, Jean Morin, published a work arguing that the

2-

Samaritans preserved the original text as revealed to Moses. A note included in CW 10262 claims that it was copied from an old text which was in Paris in 1684. Was there a Samaritanin Paris in 1685? "Jacob'sBible"(CW 2481) is one of two fairly recent Pentateuchswith special interest. Jacob,high priestof the Samaritancommunity from 1861to 1916,copied this text in three columns bearingSamaritanHebrew,an Aramaic Targum,and Arabic. Notes in the text indicate that this was a particularlydifficult period in his life as three sons died in quick succession. In the back of the volume he recordseach time he has readthroughthe book, a total of 460 times. The 'Tailor'sCopy"(CW 2482) is the other unique modern work. A 1920 letter from William Bartonto F.W. Chamberlain describes it as a "daintylittle volume for which I see Mr.Warrenpaid the equivalent of $25 to help a crippledtailor. It was a high price but it is a very pretty little book."A note attached by a later curatorfurther informsus that the tailorboughta sewing machine with the money.It is a tiny volume measuring 10.9centimeters by 9.7 centimeters, with thirty-six lines of text to a page,and the minuscule pagesaredecoratedwith severalslogansand acrosticsworkedinto the patternof the text. Forexample, a circle in the midst of the text of chapter35 of Numbers bearsletters spelling "MountGerizim."The tailor,whose name wasTahar,shows up in a census publishedby Robertson (1962:279). In addition to the Pentateuchs (andthere are several additionalmodem texts handprintedon paper),there is an eighteenth-century copy of the fourth-century Memar Markah,the chief theological work of the community (a Levitical type in MacDonald'sclassification, 1963) and severalliturgical works for use in the various Samaritan festivals. Most of these date from the eighteenth century. Students of papermakingand bookbindingwill find special interest in these Levantineexamples. The paper bears a variety of watermarks and several volumes are bound in tooled leather with multicolored doublaires (patternedinside covers), string binding, and projecting flaps to cover the front of the book when the volume is closed (envelopeand fore-edgeflap). The Samaritan Collection is divided between two units at MichiganStateUniversity.Most of the collection is in the University Archives and Historical Collections; the rest, notably the MemarMarkah,is in SpecialCollections. Both units are located in the basement of the main librarybuilding. A description of the entire collection is available (Anderson 1978). Whileon campus,studentsof the NearEastcouldalso make a visit to the university'sKresgeArt gallery,which is within walking distance and has a nicely displayedexhibit of Greco-Romanand Egyptianmaterials plus a few prehistoric, Hittite, and Hurrian figures. These include some ninth-century-Rc. bronze weapons and animal

cJ

-

~siva

'4C!'4

~-.?luwwtwa.stflQ~racu

:4kv

A9*fry

w'M

rCfL?

~I

-

s-e

d.J

.4

-c

?C*qW- .

t

'

V

rwk'CVS~eL~ 14w

~~h~l~e~% -i

'Q...-

.-~q~Ct*~~~b4

'

4L

Top:Fragment(CW 2478b) found inside manuscriptCW2478a. It apparently was used as a bookmark.Middle: Marbleslab bearingan inscriptionfrom Exodus (15:13.11j.This may have originally been a lintel over the doorway of a Samaritansynagogue. Photographcourtesyof MichiganState University Archivesand Historical Collections. Bottom:Scrollcase with inlaid silver inscription and decoration.

figures from Luristan, a late-sixth-century-ac.kylix, a thrice-publishedRomanmosaic floorfromAntioch on the Orontes, a marble Anatolian spade figure, a marble Cycladic female figurine,a Hurritefemale figurine made of clay, and a Hittite female figurine made of clay found in Syria. Bibliography Anderson,R. T. 1978 Studies in SamaritanManuscriptsand Artifacts. American Schools of Oriental ResearchMonographSeries 1. Cambridge,MA: AmericanSchools of Oriental Research. Barton,W E. 1921 The Warand the SamaritanColony. Bibliotheca Sacra 78: 1-22. Ben-Zvi,Y. 1943 Migginze Shomron.Sinai 13:245-51, 308-18. Gall, A. von. 1914 Der HebridischePentateuchder Samaritaner.(Reprintedin -18 1966.)Giessen: Topelmann. MacDonald,I. 1963 MemarMarqah.2 volumes. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft84. Berlin:Topelmann. Robertson,E. 1962 Catalogueof the SamaritanManuscriptsin the John RylandsLibrary.Manchester,England:lohn RylandsLibrary. Strugnell,I. 1967 Quelques inscriptions samaritaines.Revue biblique 74: 555-80.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

43

Evidence of the Diaspora Samaritan has been Found Delos on

New

BYA. T KRAABEL

D

is oneoftheCycladesislandsjustsouth elos and east of the Greek mainland. Its place in

Greco-Romanhistory is an honoredandan old one. In Homer's Odyssey (book VI, line 162), a visit he made to the altar of Apollo at recalls Odysseus and Delos, Virgil'sheroAeneas praises"thismost pleasant island"(Aeneid,book III,line 73).Delos is also significant in Jewish history in that the oldest synagogue yet discoveredin the MediterraneanDiasporawas found there. PhilippeBruneau,who conductedthe final excavationsof the building,has datedits earliestphaseto the firstcentury Kraabel1979). Now we have the first B.c. (Bruneau1970; evidenceforthe existence on Delos of a community of people relatedto the Jews- the Samaritans,well known from a number of New Testament references. Bruneau has recently published two steles with inscriptions of considerable importance because of the new understanding they provide of the early history of the Samaritans and their spreadthroughoutthe ancient Mediterraneanworld (Bruneau1982). The firstinscriptionis wholly preserved,andBruneau

Photograph and drawing of a stele from Delos dating between 150 and 50 .(:cPhotograph usCed

dates it to between 150 B.C. and 50 B.c. It reads:

Francaise d'Archeologie.

Ev A'•jkc'Iapacktitat oi dOGi irapX6pEvotEci iEp6v 'Apyaptsiv

XpooGV oaTeCavoI0tv

lapanitova'IdooorFnpdvq vog Kvoatov e6EpyoaiaS EveFevrg uEiSauTo6?. The Israelites on Delos who make offerings to hallowed Argarizein crown with a gold crown Sarapion,son of Jason,of Knossos,forhis benefactions towardthem.

44

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

courtesy

of Philippe

Bruneau,

copyright

Ecole

Bruneauis correctin interpretingArgarizeinas equivalent to Har Garizim, Hebrew for Mount Gerizim, the holy mountain of the Samaritans.He refersto John4:20. Jesus is speaking with a woman of Samaria, who says "My Samaritanancestors worshippedGod on this mountain, but you Jews say that Jerusalemis the place where we should worshipGod"(Today'sEnglishVersion).The mountain is Gerizim.

-.-I

........ ..

lZ~S.

.-

i .:.',

.-:

",

k.

'

.. SEA SBL.ACK

~

?' ".."i..::".-:c~

.

%

7 IN;, :c5, ,:

" "

o

et

?:;

~ ~

~

~

?:;"T"T;'.

...'X .?~dr ..,.--s :i~~~ a~,";s-??tr

3

::

..:•":

..:...... . .

...

_L

t -. "- ..

: •';/

lb

.

IN '-

-

I?

AE~AS

....

•..

.:3...*..;-

SEA." .MEDITERRANEAN

-~OUNTGERII

esae

Phocaea on the Ionian coast of Asia Minor. She was honoredboth with a gold crownandwith the rightto a seat of honorin frontof the congregation(CII738,which is also 250-175 B.C.),is not complete, but it is certain that the inscription number 13 in Lifshitz 1967;Tation'sstatus is groupresponsibleforit thought of themselves in the same ably discussed in Brooten 1982: 143-44). way.They describedthemselves as: Bruneauholds that these Samaritansand the Jewsof the nearby synagoguelived in a kind of "ghetto"(heuses the cit icp6v •itov 'Apoi 'Iopa~ik-rat oahap6opcvot term French juiverie),but that should not be taken in the yaptsiv .... medievalor easternEuropeansense. It is unlikely that they (the)Israelites (on Delos) who make offeringsto were restrictedto this areaby the Delian Gentiles or that hallowed, consecratedArgarizein.... only Jewsand Samaritanswere permitted to live on this The wordsin parentheses arerestoredon the assumption part of the island. What we know about Jewishlife in the Greco-Romanworld suggests that the term ghetto would that this inscriptionwas structuredin a mannersimilar to the first. In this inscription, Gerizim is both "hallowed" be an anachronism here. Why did the Samaritanscall themselves "Israelites"? (hieron)and "consecrated"(hagion),while only one adjective is used to describeMount Gerizim in the firstinscrip- Aren'tIsraelitesJews?Not necessarily!The term Israeletai can also mean "those from (the Northern Kingdom) tion. This is a minor variation, and essentially the same the the that erected to Israel"I Since the Samaritans came originally from the is used designate wording group steles. Both inscriptions were found only one hundred HebrewBible'snorthernkingdom,Israel,ratherthan from meters from the synagogue. Judahin the south, they have as much right as the Jewsto that title, perhapsmore. I suspect too that on Delos they As a classicist I was struck by how properly Greek areusing the term for a second reason as well-that is, to both steles are. The same design is found time and again across the Mediterraneanworld: a rectangular shaft of lay claim to it, lest the Jewson Delos gain full possession of it. The fact that both inscriptions refer to "Israelites" white marblewith a fine wreath carvedin high relief, the one: the was double associated with MountGerizimmay indicatethat this has it. honor a The below gold inscription this on the benefactor bestowed wreath ceremonially alreadyoccurred.Without the referenceto Gerizim most (for wereJews. Delians that and the 1982: Danker see mighthavethoughtthat these "Israelites" inscription custom, 467-71), Is the Delos synagogueSamaritan?Bruneausays no, recordsthe honor in a public andpermanentfashion. Jews alsousedthis traditionalform.In aboutthe thirdcenturyA.D., and he has the numbers on his side. There is only one Tation, daughter (or wife) of Straton, son of Empedon, known Samaritan synagogue in the Mediterranean donated an entire synagogueto the Jewishcommunity of Diaspora, that at Thessalonica from a much later period

The otherinscription,which Bruneaubelievesto have been a century earlierthan the first (aroundthe period of

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

45

(Lifshitz and Schiby 1968; the inscriptional evidence is dated to the fourth century A.D.),but all the other exca-

vated synagogue buildings, the fragmentarysynagogue remains (mosaic floors, architecturalmembers), and the many synagogueinscriptions outside Palestine appearto be Jewish (Goodenough 1953-68; Shanks 1979; Chiat 1982; Lifshitz 1967; Kraabel 1979). The Samaritan Diaspora was not extensive. Further, we know from Josephusthat therewas a Jewishcommunity on the island at the time this synagoguewas established (see the end of this note). There are, however,no unmistakably Jewish features to the building or its inscriptions. Indeed, there has never been full agreement that the building was a synagogue(seethe summaryin Shanks 1979:43-45). I am persuadedby the evidencethat it is (Kraabel1979:491-94), and if so, it is not impossible for it to be a Samaritan synagogueratherthan a Jewishone. Whatwere Samaritansand Jewsdoing on Delos? The evidence indicates that they were inhabitants, not just a transient population. The island is small, less than two square miles, but significant in cult (it is the legendary birthplaceof Artemis andApollo),in political andmilitary history,in internationalrelations and internationaltrade. Its foreign colony in this period included many Romans, and others from various locations in the Aegean and the Mediterranean.I suspect that it was tradeand, to a lesser extent, internationalpolitics that broughtSamaritansand Jewshere to settle. Ourpreviousknowledgeof the SamaritanDiasporain this period was limited to Josephus, who noted the presenceof a Samaritancommunity in Egypt(forexample, Jewish Antiquities, book XI, paragraph345; book XII, paragraphs7 and following; book XIII,paragraphs74 and 78). The Delos inscriptions now suggest a Samaritan presence over a much wider geographic area and at an earliertime than previouslythought.This raisesa number of new questions about the extent of the Samaritan Diaspora and the relationship between Jewish and Samaritandiasporic communities. I would like to close with two comments about the First, relationshipof Samaritans(andJews)with "Gentiles." Sarapion,son of Jason,of Knossos, need not have been a fellow Samaritan.He could havebeen a paganbenefactor, someone who aidedthe Samaritancommunity forhis own reasons, political, economic, or personal. In this same period Jews in Egypt were honoring benevolent pagan rulers with inscriptions in their synagogues and prayers on their behalf, and during the reign of Nero, Julia Severa, a Gentile of high status in Acmonia, Phrygia, underwrote the cost of a synagogue there.2 Neither in Phrygia nor in Egypt were these patrons converts to Judaism. Second, it is important to note that life outside Palestine, in the Greek world, did not corrupt these Samaritans and Jews, or lead them from their traditional piety. The Samaritans of Delos still sent their offerings to

46

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

Mount Gerizim, and the Jews (if that building is theirs) established a synagogue. And two decrees preservedby Josephusspecifically protect the rights of Delos Jewsto observetheir ancestralcustoms, sacredrites,andcommon meals (Jewish Antiquities, book XIV, paragraphs213 through216),andexempt them on religious groundsfrom military service (JewishAntiquities, book XIV,paragraphs 231 and 232). Notes 'There is an exact parallelin CII742, which is an inscriptionfrom Smyrnain Ioniaof the secondcenturyA.. Herea long text mentions hoi leadingto the pote Ioudaioi.This is usually translated"theformerJews," conclusion that these werea groupof apostates.They are,rather,"people that is, immigrants,not nativesof Smyrna.Here,as on formerlyof Judea," Delos, the term is geographical,not religious (Kraabel1982:455). 2The inscriptions from Egypt are Lifshitz 1967: number 86 (CII 1432),number92 (CII1440),number93 (CII1441),number94 (CII1442), number95 (CII1443),number96 (CII1444),andnumber99. The donation of JuliaSeverais recordedin Lifshitz 1967:number33 (CII766).See also Brooten1982:144 and the text and translationon 158.

Bibliography

Brooten,B.J. 1982 Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidenceand BackgroundIssues. Chico, CA: ScholarsPress. Bruneau,P. 1970 Recherchessur les cultes de Delos a 14poquehellnistique et des tcoles franqaises a l'poque imperiale. Bibliotheque dAthenes et de Rome 217. Paris:EditionsE. de Boccard. 1982 Les Isra6litesde Dd1oset la juiverieddlienne.Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellnistique 106:465-504. Chiat, M. J.S. 1982 Handbookof SynagogueArchitecture.BrownJudaicStudies29. Chico, CA: ScholarsPress. CII CorpusInscriptionumludaicarum: Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIesiecle avant Jesus-Christau VIIesiecle de notre ere, ed. Jean-BaptisteFrey.Vatican:Pontificio Istituto di ArcheologiaCristiana, 1936-1952. Danker,E W 1982 Benefactor:EpigraphicStudyof a Greco-Romanand New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis:Clayton PublishingHouse. Goodenough,E. R. 1953- JewishSymbolsin the Greco-RomanPeriod.Thirteenvolumes. 1968 New York:PantheonBooks. Kraabel,A. T 1979 The Diaspora Synagogue. Aufstieg und Niedergang der rbmischen Welt:Geschichte und KulturRomsim Spiegelder neueren Forschung,II.19.1:477-510. 1982 The RomanDiaspora:Six QuestionableAssumptions.Journal of JewishStudies33:445-64 (specialnumberin honorof Yigael Yadin). Levine,L. I. editor 1981 Ancient SynagoguesRevealed.Jerusalem:IsraelExploration Society. Lifshitz, B. 1967 Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives. Paris: J.Gabalda. Lifshitz,B.,and Schiby,J. 1968 Une synagoguesamaritaineAThessalonique.RevueBiblique 65: 368-78. Shanks,H. 1979 Judaismin Stone: The Archaeology of Ancient Synagogues. New York:Harperand Row.

Th0e00 Loaino

i~

ic

TelHalif. Upper left: Stone-lined bin from stratum VII.The bin contained ash debris. Lower left: Philistine sherds from the ash debris in stratum VII. Upper and lower right: Front and back views of a fragmentary ceramic figurinefound in the ash debris of stratum VII.

the sanoutcast from

with you?"So thatdayA'chishgave him Ziklag;thereforeZiklag has belongedto thekingsofJudahto this

court of Saul, David fled first into the wilderness of day. (1 Samuel 27: 5-6, Judahand then into the Revised StandardVersion) territoryof the Philistines. Here he The problem of identifying the and his band sought, and received, actual geographicalsite of the refugewith A'chish,the king of biblical city of Ziklag has exercised Gath. After a brief sojourn,David apstudents of the Bible and archaepeals for a place to be given him in since ology early in the century;' one of the "countrytowns"rather however,despite the fact that than in the royalcity itself. biblical accounts providea number Davidsaidto A'chish, "IfIhavefound of significant clues, and after almost favorinyoureyes,let aplacebegiven a full me in oneofthecountrytowns,that century of intensive archaeI may dwell there;for why should ological exploration and study, no firm consensus has yet emerged. dwell in servant the your royalcity

Biblical Information on Ziklag The geographicalprofile presented by biblical data representsZiklag as a site on the southwestern flank of Judah(Joshua15:32);it was at least an initial part of the inheritance of the tribe of Simeon (Joshua19:7), and lay within the Philistine sphere of influence in pre-Davidictimes (1 Samuel 27:5 and following). At the same time it is known to have been located within rangeof harassment by the Amalekite tribes of the Negeb who, in the absence of David and his men, burnedthe city and deported its women and children (1 Samuel 30). Additional information is also providedby Nehemiah 11:25,in which Ziklag is mentioned among sites occupied by Jewsfollowing the returnfrom the Babylonianexile.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

47

the biblical Valleyof Gerar,on the northern fringesof the Negeb desert. Their strategic importance in antiquity was conditioned by their border positions along this valley, just to the north of which ranthe major, year-round,access route from Gaza and the coast into the Hebronhills. In the late 1930s A. Alt (1935: 318-24) and PereF.M. Abel (1938: 318) arguedfor the identification of Ziklag with Tel Halif and this association gained a modest consensus.2 However,the publication of YohananAharoni'slandmarkstudy of historical geographyin 19623 markeda shift in opinion, especially among Israelischolars, to favoridencenturies B.C. tification with Tel Serac.4Excavations at both sites, begun in the Work 1970s, have demonstratedthat each Archaeological claims based on the archaeohas to Relating Ziklag Basedon the aboveoutline and conlogical record. Excavations at Tel Serac.Workat Tel tinuing archaeologicalexplorations, discussions in recent years have Seracwas conducted duringsix summer seasons between 1972 and 1978 servedto narrowthe focus of the under sponsorshipby the Archaeosearch to two of the most probable site candidates.These are Tel Halif logical Division of Ben Gurion Tell and Tel University. The projectwas directed Khuweilifeh) (Arabic Serac(ArabicTell esh-ShariCah),sites by Eliezer Oren (1978, 1982).Thirteen majorstrataof occupation were which lie in close proximity to one identified including significant reanother in the southeast cornerof the Plain of Philistia. Both are mains of the IronI (stratumVIII), located along the Wadiesh-ShariCah, IronII (stratumVII),and Persian Historically and archaeologically these data requirethe search for a site (1)of modest prominence somewhere in the northern Negeb areaof southern Israel;(2)that has evidence of occupation with some Philistine influence duringthe late IronI period (eleventh through tenth cenand (3)that shows indicaturies B.c.); tions of citywide destruction just priorto David'sascent to kingship in Jerusalemat around 1000 BC In addition, the site should (4)have evidence of occupation duringthe subsequent IronI and IronIIperiods (late tenth through seventh centuries B.c.),as well as (5)duringthe Persian period in the late fifth and fourth

48

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

(stratumV) periods (see chart).Arguing for identification of Tel Serac with Ziklag in his 1982 article in this magazine, Orennotes that stratum-VIIIlevels providedample evidence of Philistine-type pottery; this clearly shows that the site was well within the sphere of Philistine influence duringDavid'stime (p. 163).In addition he emphasizes that a continuity of architectural features exists between stratum VIII and stratum VII.As of even more significance, however,he cites the presence in stratum VIIof buildings made with ashlar (cut-block)stones (p. 162).Because such masonry is usually found in association with royalarchitectureat such sites as Hazor,Megiddo,Gezer, Samaria,and Ramat Rahel, he infers in its existence at Tel Seraca connection with Judeanroyaldynastic traditions and correlationwith the note in 1 Samuel 27:6 that "Ziklaghas belonged to the kings of Judahto this day."Following the Babylonianexile in the fifth and fourth centuries

B.C.,Tel

Serac was re-

occupied, apparentlyas a storage center. Oren (1982: 158)indicates that two distinct Persian-period building phases were identified. Excavationsat Tel Halif. Meanwhile, between 1976 and 1980, four summer seasons of excavationwere also conducted at Tel Halif by the Lahav ResearchProject,an effort for which I serve as director (Seger1979, 1980, 1983;Segerand Borowski, 1977).At Tel Halif fifteen majoroccupation stratahave been identified (see chart).These include, as at Tel Serac, IronI (stratumVII),IronII (stratum VI),and Persian(stratumV) period levels. The character of these Halif remains, however, is somewhat different. During the first four seasons stratum-VII levels were probed only in very limited areas, but exposure was sufficient to indicate that in the eleventh century the site supported only a very modest settlement. Direct evidence of Philistine influence is so far limited to just a small collection of late-eleventh-

TelHalif. Upper left: Aerial view from the north. Lowerleft: IronII fortifications from stratum VI. View is from the north. Above:Persian structuresin stratum V

century degenerate-stylePhilistine potsherds.Moreover,whereas at Tel SeracOren could remarkon the architecturalcontinuity between IronI and IronII strata,at Halif the transition from the tenth to the ninth century'is markedby dramatic architecturalchange and development. This included a massive refortification of the site (Segerand Borowski 1977: 163;Seger 1980: 224-25). In the IronIIperiod,Tel Halif enjoyedan era of relatively high prosperitywith traces of settlement expansion well beyond the city-wall confines to the east and north. This stratum-VIoccupation continues to flourish until the end of the eighth century, afterwhich the city is destroyedduring one of the Assyrian campaigns through southern Judah,very possibly by Sennacherib in 701B.c.Following a brief

reoccupation in the early seventh century, the site is abandonedcompletely for more than a century. Evidence from stratum V,however, indicates that recoverytakes place again in the late fifth and fourth centuries. This Persian-periodresettlement was of some significance, as shown by the presence of substantial public architecturein field II, on the mound's summit, and by widespread ceramic evidence (Seger1980:223). How Well Do T1 Seracand el Halif Conform to the Biblical Requisites for Ziklag? At this point a more detailed review of the archaeologicaldata as it relates to the above-mentionedbiblical requisites for identifying Ziklag is in order. A site of modest prominence located in the northernNegeb. Both sites

easily fulfill the generalgeographical condition of being located in the northern Negeb, and both enjoy a relative historical prominence as demonstratedby their respective archaeological recordsof persistent occupation from before 3000

B.C.

Arguments that favorTel Serachave emphasized its location furtherto the west and more immediately out in the Philistine plain, a position more securely within the sphere of Philistine control and influence. In support of this position, Oren (1982: 156)notes that the name of Ziklag is of non-Semitic, and most probablyof Aegean origin, and arguesthat it was part of the "Negebof the Cherethites"(Negebof the Cretans)mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:14.s Moreover, from Serac,as is contended by Aharoni (1967:257, n. 7), sorties could be launched against the

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

49

Amalekites without passagethrough territoriescontrolled by Israelites in the Judeanhills and eastern Negeb regions.Likewise, on the assumption that Philistine Gath, which A'chishruled, was at Tell es-Safi,6 almost twenty-threemiles to the north, the relative independence of David'srule, and of his ability to deceive A'chishby reportingattacks on Judeanterritorieswhile in fact raidingAmalekites and others in the Negeb proper(1 Samuel 27: 8-12), is better explained. These latter points, however, could apply equally to Tel Halif. In fact, its geographicallocation is in severalways more strategic.Halif lies eight miles directly east of Tel head of the drainage Seracat the.very Its mound is of Wadiesh-Sharicah. located astride a saddle in the westemmost ridgeof hills that extends south like a fingertowardBeersheba. Fromhere it commands ready access both to the Philistine plain on the west and to the ascent into the JudeanHills across the valley to the east. At the same time it is within easy rangeof the Negeb regions to the south and has the advantageof strategicpassageboth directly out throughthe plain to the southwest and along the flank of Israelite-held territoryto the east. In fact, from the story of the distribution of spoils won in David'sretributiveraidon the Amalekites in I Samuel 30: 26-31, it would seem, in contrast to what Aharoni implies, that David and his men did not have much problem at all with movement through southern Judah.Thus the site's location at the eastern borderof the Shephelahplain makes it logically still within the expansive sphere of the rule of Gath, while its position adjacentto the JudeanHills provides an ideal screen behind which David could move south beyondIsraelite territoryinto the Negeb and operate his deception on A'chish. Evidenceof occupation with Philistine influence duringthe late Iron I period.What at first appearsto

50

be the strongest argumentfavoring Tel Seracis the clear and abundant presence of Philistine cultural remains in IronI stratum VIII.From the evidence reportedby Oren (1982: 163)there can be no doubt that in the twelfth and eleventh centuries the site was firmly within the sphere of Philistine cultural influence. Accordingly,if one assumes, with him, that A'chishdeeds overto David the control of a well-established Philistine center, then Tel Seracis the necessary candidate.

above,the archaeologicalremains show occupation of only a modest scale in the eleventh century, with limited traces of Philistine cultural influence. It is much easier to see how David, with his growingbandof followers,could conveniently assume control oversuch a site, and how, in the circumstances, A'chish could acquiesce to such an arrangement and see benefit in it. Indications of citywide destruction just priorto David'sascent to kingship around 1000 &c.Oren (1982: 163)reportsthat "atTell eshSharia . the transition from .. Philistine IronI (StratumVIII)to IsraeliteIronII (StratumVII) did ... not involve any destruction or gap in occupation."This stands in direct contrast to the expectation of evidence for late-eleventh-century destruction that the biblical account of Amalekite raidingand burningin 1 Samuel 30 would lead us to have. FromTel Halif the stratigraphic evidence is somewhat more accommodating. In the 1980season, probes reachedstratum-VIIlevels in all three majorexcavation fields (fields Bulfshead froma libation vessel found in I-III).As alreadynoted, exposures stratum Vii. TelHalif. All photographsused in this article are by PatriciaO'Connor-Seger, were limited. In field III,for example, Designhouse.and are used courtesy of the stratum-VIIarchitecturalfeatures LahavResearchProiect. and stratigraphyhad just begun to appearand details were not yet fully A bit of reflection, however,sug- defined. In field I, areaB10,however, gests that another point of departure three distinct IronI subphases were identified.8Remains from the may be more reasonable.While David seems clearly to have won his earliest of these (stratumVII,area way into friendshipwith A'chish,it phase c) were the best preserved.Inis nonetheless doubtful that A'chish cluded were remnants of severalwall would readilygive a thriving Philisfoundations and a section of courttine city into the hands of so recent yardsurface (L.B10035).This surface an enemy. One might suppose that was coveredwith a scatter of he would ratherlook for an othersmashed pottery and numerous wise marginallysettled location, small objects, including a ceramic ideally a borderoutpost, where bull-shapedhead from a bowl or kerDavid and his band could assume nos vessel. Although there was no control without any sizeable disloca- evidence of burningon this surface, tion of priorresidents,7and where, it seems clear that willful destruction terminated its use. Moreover, presumably,David'senmity with Saul could be exercised in behalf of although the collection of ceramic the Philistine cause. Such a scenario evidence was small, sherds of would nicely suit the data provided Philistine-type were included, and an eleventh-centurydate for the by stratum VIIat Tel Halif. As noted

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIMARCH1984

close of the phase was clearly indicated. Fromfield II, area 1, on the central mound, additional stratum-VII evidence was recovered.9Here, however,only two IronI phases were noted. The earliest of these (stratum VII,areaphase b) included remains of a fairly largestone-lined pit or bin which, as found, was filled with a twenty- to thirty-centimeter layerof ash debris (L. 1036).Fromthis locus came a number of interesting artifacts including a somewhat unique ceramic female figurine. Associated pottery included more eleventhcentury late-Philistine-style decoratedsherds.Although it cannot be finally determined what occasioned the deposit of ash in the bin, it is clear that the ash layermarks the transition to the succeeding, tenth-century,stratum-VII,areaphase-a level above.During this later phase the bin was still used at upper levels and severaladjacentwall structureswere added. Takentogether,these data thus arguethat Tel Halif did in fact suffer some form of disruption at the close of the eleventh century.More thorough exposure is necessary, however,beforethe full characterof this interruption,and of its citywide presence, can be confirmed with certainty. But the possibility of association with the Amalekite disruption cannot be ignored. Evidence of occupation during Iron I and Iron II periods. Another argu-

ment advancedby Oren in supportof the identification of Tel Seracwith Ziklag is the characterof the architecture in the city's stratum-VII, tenth-through-ninth-century phases. Without question the presence of ashlar-type masonry in structures at Serac is suggestive of royal architectural traditions. At face, evidence of such royal building activity, whether, as Oren (1982: 162-63) discusses, by Solomon or Rehoboam, or subsequently as part of the aggressive reconstruction program of Asa at the very end of the tenth cen-

Comparison of Major Strata Tel Serac

Tel Halif

Stratum

Period

Dates

Stratum

Dates

Modern Arab

I

1800-1948 A.D.

II

700-1300 A.D.

Islamic

700-1300

AL).

I

III

200-600 A.I.

Byzantine Roman

300-600 A.D. 0-100 A.).

II III

IV

300-100 B.c.

Hellenistic

200-0

IV

V

500-300 B.C.

Persian

500-300

VI A VI B VII VIII IX A IX B X

XI XII

gap 700-650 B.C. Destruction 900-700 B.C. 1200-900 B.C. 1300-1200 B.C. 1400-1300 B.C.

B.C.

gap 700-580 B.C. Destruction 1000-850 B.C.

Iron Ia

V VI VII VIII

Iron I

1150-1000 B.C. Destruction 1200-1150 B.C.

Late Bronze II

1300-1200 1400-1300

B.C. B.C.

X XI

1650-1400

B.C.

XII

3500-1900 B.C.

XIII

Destruction Late Bronze I 1475-1400 B.c. 1600-1475 B.C. gap 2400-2300 2500-2400

B.C.

IX

gap B.C.

B.C.

Early Bronze III

Destruction XIII

2900-2500

XIV

3200-2900 B.C.

Early Bronze II Early Bronze I

3500-3200

Chalcolithic

XV

B.C.

B.C.

aTheIronAge divisions used here follow those of Albrightwith IronI 1200-900 B.C and Iron II 900-600

B.C.

tury,would seem appropriateat a site originally associated with the founderof the dynastic line. In establishing this line of argument, however,it seems clear that undue literal significance is given by Oren to the note in 1 Samuel 27:6 which states that "Ziklaghas belonged to the kings of Judahto this day."Commentators (see for instance, Caird 1953: 1023)readily identify this notation as a gloss by the Deuteronomic editor(s).As such, some caution is advised in the extent to which it should be taken as evidence that Ziklag did in fact receive special attention or unusual treatment by Judeankings afterDavid. It could as well be understoodmore modestly as a simple affirmationby the later

editors that the formerPhilistine outpost had remainedwithin the sphere of Judeancontrol and influence since David'stime. It may be suggested also that the significance of Ziklag'srole in general is overstatedby Oren.The length of David'ssojournwith A'chishand at the site was not in any event more than two years.The Masoretic text (Hebrewtext) for 1 Samuel 27:7 has one year,four months, while the Septuagint (Greektext) simply reads"four months"(Caird1953: 1023).This is much shorterthan his subsequent stay in Hebron,which is recordedas seven years and six months (2 Samuel 5:5).Moreover,there is no evidence that he made any effort to

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

51

restorethe city once his revengeon the Amalekites had been taken (1 Samuel 30:26 and following). In fact, it would appearthat he spent no more than a few days at Ziklag after he returnedfrom the raidon the Amalekites and receivedword of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1 and 2). Thus, although it is evident that David'sbrief use of the site placed it within the sphere of subsequent Judeancontrol, the supposition that beyond this its status was acknowledgedby special attention from later monarchs is very uncertain. Notably, except for referencesin the severalterritorial lists of Joshuaand Chronicles, and the single mention in Nehemiah 11, these Samuel accounts providethe only explicitly historical attention given to Ziklag within the biblical tradition. Fromthis perspectivethe sequence of remains from the tenth and ninth-eighth centuries at Tel Halif can quite as easily be relatedto Ziklag'ssubsequent history as can those at Tel Serac.After a modest recoveryin the early tenth century at the end of stratum VII,a dramatic reconstruction effort occurredinitiating the stratum-VI,Iron-II-period phase of occupation. This too can be understoodas part of the redevelopment effort initiated by Solomon or his successors. Evidence of major stratum-VIrebuildingexists in all areaswhere excavationshave so far taken place at the site. To date these efforts have been concentratedalong the western fortifications and in zones of domestic architecture.No work has yet been startedon the mound's eastern summit where we might expect the main public buildings of the Iron Age to be located. If ashlar buildings of the type found at Tel Serac should exist at Tel Halif, they would almost certainly be in this section. As noted above, however, the presence (or absence) of such masonry need not be considered a sine qua non for identification of the site as Ziklag.

52

Fromall other indications the settlement at Tel Halif can be seen to develop and flourish with at least the same vigor as that at Tel Seracduring the late tenth and early ninth centuries. Moreoverthis Halif occupation persists throughout the ninth and eighth centuries, well afterthe destruction of stratum VIIat Tel Seracand the apparentabandonment of that site around850 B.C.(Oren 1982: 162-63). Tel Seracin turn recoversin the seventh century (stratumVI)afterthe fall of Halif, and occupation continues through the period of Assyrian domination until the Babylonianconquests of the early sixth century. Evidence of occupation duringthe Persianperiod in the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.As observed previously,both Tel Seracand Tel Halif providearchaeologicalevidence of resettlement in the Persian period. Thus both are in accordwith the recordof Jewishreoccupation reportedin Nehemiah. That record, however,except for the possibility that some geographicalclue might be latent in the orderof the sites that are listed, contributes no other useful information to help us understand the size or characterof the occupation at the site duringthis later time. Conclusions Fromthis review of the biblical and archaeologicalevidence it seems necessary to conclude that although a reasonablecase can be made for the location of Ziklag at either of these two sites, neither can claim final proof.The crisis in identification remains. PersonallyI am more convinced by the argumentsfavoringTel Halif. It is a site of quite obvious strategic importance lying at the bordersof the Shephelah,the Judean hills, and of the Negeb desert. Moreover,it sits at a key position along the only perennial trafficroute from the coast through the region into the Hebronhills. Yet it has been generally overlookedin discussions

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

of the region, not only by Israeli scholars,'0but even by W.F.Albright, whose majorexcavationeffort was just eight kilometers to the north at Tell Beit Mirsim." With the beginning of more recent excavationactivities, however,speculations about the site have increased.The most reasonablealternativehypothesis about its identity associates it with the biblical city of Rimmon or Enrimmon. This city is mentioned with Ziklag in the territoriallists of Judahin Joshua(Joshua15:32)and also as part of the inheritance of Simeon in Joshua 19:7.12Others have identified it with biblical Hormah and with Goshen.13 Meanwhile, Tel Serachas likewise been identified with various other biblical cities including Hormah and Gerar.14But perhapsthe most serious alternative was proposedby G. E. Wright(1966: 83-85) who arguedthat Tel Seracwas itself Philistine Gath. Certainly the evidence of considerablePhilistine presence at Tel Seracexposed by Oren does nothing to refute that possibility. Moreover,it is clear that one of David'sfirst acts as king was to captureGath and make A'chish his vassal, using the city as a buffer against the Philistines (1Chronicles 18:1).Under Solomon A'chishremains a vassal (1Kings 2:39-40) and the tenth-century ashlar construction of Tel Seraccould well be interpretedas part of a Judeaneffort to support and consolidate the rule of A'chishoverthe region. Thus, while this is not the occasion to elaborately arguethe case, the identification of Tel Halif with Ziklag and Tel Serac with Gath would providea very tenable scenario. As noted above,however,present data do not allow the arguments to be pressed further. What remains is to await the results of furtherexcavations and the more refinedpresentation and analysis of the archaeologicaldata so far recoveredin hopes that continuing researchwill providemore definitive conclusions.

Acknowledgment This manuscript in its original form was included in Faith Being Formed,a festschrift for Lionel A. Whiston, Jr.,Professorof Old Testament Studies, EdenTheological Seminary,WebsterGroves,Missouri, presented to honor his retirement, May 1983. The writer is pleased to acknowledge a sincere indebtedness to a very special scholar, mentor, and friend whose rigorousscholarship helped to inspire and shape his careerchoices. Notes 'Among the earliest reliablespeculations are those of W.E Albright,who places Ziklag at KhirbetZuheiliqah primarilyon the basis of an assumed etymological connection of the site names: ziqlag = zihlaqby a process of dissimilation. See Albright 1924a:157. 2This identification is followedin various subsequent handbooks.See, for instance,Miller and Miller 1952:840, and Gold 1962: 957. 3Aharoni'sbook was published in Hebrew in 1962.In 1967an Englishversion,entitled The Land of the Bible, A Historical Geography,was published. 4SeeAharoni 1967:25 and throughout. The first scholarto seriously arguethe identification with Tel Seracwas Press 1955: 806-07. Others include Kallai 1967:300; Mazar 1975: 114,n. 12;and Rainey 1976. 5Oren'sconclusion that Ziklag was partof the Negeb of the Cherethites is somewhat questionable.The passagein 1 Samuel 30:14 reads,"Wehad made a raidupon the Negeb of the Cherethitesand upon that which belongs to Judahand upon the Negeb of Caleb;and we burnedZiklag with fire"(RevisedStandard Version).Logically,Ziklag could be associated with any of the three territorieslisted, or its special mention could markit as yet a fourth geographicalentity. FromAharoni's1958 study of the Negeb territoriesit seems almost certain that both Tel Seracand Tel Halif would fall within the domain of the Negeb of Judah. 6Problemsin identifying the location of Gath arealso complex and have similarly engagedscholars in an elaboratedebatewhich is beyondthe scope of reviewhere. See especially Mazar1954;Aharoni 1958;Biilow andMitchell 1961:particularlypages 109and 110;and Kassis 1965.The consensus among Israelischolarsnow follows the identification with Tell es-Safi. In 1966 G. E. Wrightadvancedthe proposalthat Tel Seracitself might be Gath of the Philistines, but this suggestion has not as yet won acceptance;see Wright 1966. 7Thisperspectivewas first articulatedby Dan P.Cole of the LahavProject'ssenior staff in the course of work duringthe 1980field season.

8Excavationwork in field I was directed by Paul F.Jacobs,and the detail providedhere is based on his field reportfor the 1980 season. 9DanP.Cole directedworkin field II,and the detail providedhere is drawnfromhis field reportfor the 1980 season. 10SeeAharoni 1967: 184,300, and 377. He identifies Tel Halif with Goshen but provides no argumentor discussion. attention to Tel Halif is 11Albright's limited to a passing referencein his introduction to the environsof Tell Beit Mirsim. See Albright 1938:2. 12Thisidentification was originallysuggested by R. Gophna.See Biranand Gophna 1970: 151,n. 3. Fora convenient summaryof the argumentsinvolved,see Seger 1983. 13Aharoni1967:377 identifies it with Goshen, and Na'aman1980:95 identifies it with Hormah. 14Albright1924b:7 identifies it with Hormah, and Alt 1935:318-24 identifies it with Gerar.

Bibliography Abel, F.M. 1938 de la Palestine:ParLe P Geographie F -M.Abel des FrbresPrecheurs. TomeII. GeographiePolitique. Les Villes. Paris:LibrairieLecoffre,J. Gabaldaet Cie,Editeurs. Aharoni,Y 1958 The Negeb of Judah.IsraelExploration Journal8: 26-38. 1967 The Landof the Bible, A Historical Geography.Philadelphia: Westminster. Albright,W E 1924a Egyptand the EarlyHistory of the Negeb. Journalof the Palestine Oriental Society 4:131-161. 1924b Researchesof the School in Western Judea.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15: 2-11. 1938 The Excavationof TellBeit Mirsim, VolumeII, The BronzeAge. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research17,edited by M. Burrows and E. A. Speiser.New Haven,CT American Schools of Oriental Research. Alt, A. 1935 Beitriigezur Historischen Gdographieund Topographiedes Negeb:III.Sharuhen,Ziklag, Horma, Gerar.Journalof the Palestine Oriental Society 15:294-324. Biran,A., and Gophna,R. 1970 An IronAge BurialCaveat TelHalif. Israel ExplorationJournal20: 151-69. Billow,S., and Mitchell, R. A. 1961 An IronAge IIFortresson Tel Nagila. IsraelExplorationJournal11: 101-10.

Caird,G. G. 1953 I-II Samuel:Introduction.Pp. 855-75 in The Interpreter'sBible, volume 2 (alsoexegesis forI Samuel throughoutpp. 876-1040 and for II Samuel throughoutpp. 1042-1176). Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press. Gold, V.R. 1962 Ziklag. Pp.957-58 in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, volume 4. Nashville: Abingdon. Kallai,Z. 1967 The Tribesof Israel:A Study in the Historical Geographyof the Bible. Jerusalem(in Hebrew). Kassis,H. E. 1965 Gath and the Structureof the "Philistine"Society.Journalof Biblical Literature84: 259-71. Mazar,B. 1954 Gath and Gittaim. Israel Exploration Journal4: 227-35. 1975 Cities and Districts in EretzIsrael. Jerusalem(in Hebrew). Miller,M. S., and Miller, J.L. 1952 Harper'sBible Dictionary New York:Harperand Row. Na'aman,N. 1980 The Shihorof Egyptand Shurthat is BeforeEgypt.TelAviv 7: 95-109. Oren,E. D. 1978 Tell esh-Sharica(TellSeraC). Pp. 1059-69 in Encyclopediaof Archaeologyin the Holy Land, volume 4, edited by M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern.Jerusalem:Massada Press. 1982 Ziglag-A BiblicalCity on the Edge of the Negev.Biblical Archaeologist 45: 155-66. Press,J. 1955 A Topographical-Historical Encyclopediaof Palestine,volume 4. Jerusalem:RubinMass (in Hebrew). Rainey,A. E 1976 Ziklag. Pp.984-85 in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume.Nashville: Abingdon. Seger,J.D. 1979 TelHalif (Lahav),1979.Israel ExplorationJournal29: 247-49. 1980 TelHalif, 1980.Israel Exploration Journal 30: 223-26. 1983 The Lahav Research Project: Investigations at Tell Halif, Israel, 1976-1980. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 252: 1-23.

Seger,J.D., and Borowski,O.

1977 The First Two Seasons at Tell Halif. Biblical Archaeologist 40: 156-66. Wright, G. E. 1966 Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story. The Biblical Archaeologist 29: 70-86.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

53

ENIGMATIC BIBLEPASSAGES

and Plowmen" "Vinedressers 2

Kings

25:12

and

Jeremiah 52:16

byJ. N. Graham

I

n importantcomponent in anybiblical studies

courseis"TheHistory ofIsrael!'Uponreaching

the sixth century B.C. and studying the dramatic events leading up to the collapse of Judah at the handsof the Babyloniansunderking Nebuchadrezzar, the student'sattention is focused on the exile of the Jewsto Babylonia.The textbooks tend to concentrate on those Jews deported to Babylonian cities because the biblical data are weighted in their direction. This bias occurs because the biblical material was redactedmostly by the exiles themselves. Should the student, despite this bias, wonder about fate of Jewswho never left Judah,some texts provide the him with a brief answer: None remained,exceptthe poorestpeopleof the land. (2Kings24:14) Thecaptainof theguardleft someof the poorestof the landto be vinedressers andplowmen. (2Kings25:12andJeremiah 52:16). The Chroniclerwent even furtherwhen he describedthe land of Judahduringthis time as "desolate"(2 Chronicles 36:21).An initial impressionis formedfromthese passages of an almost empty,barrenland,with only a few miserable laborersscratchinga wretchedexistence fromthe soil. The references serve as a contrast to the usually detailed descriptionof the deporteeson their way into exile. Byexamining two of these texts-2 Kings25:12andits parallel, Jeremiah52:16-one may gain a clearer picture of life, especially economic life, in sixth-century Judah. These two passages reveal that the lower classes of Judeansociety became "vinedressersand plowmen"after the departure of the landed, aristocratic, and skilled

*Unlessotherwiseindicated,all Biblequotationsarefromthe Revised Standard Version.

Lachish En-gedie

U

SI

r

0

5

10milms

ern-n,..___

classes.This phrase,sometimesin reverseorder,appears severaltimes in the OldTestament,althougha different Hebrewwordfor"plowmen" is sometimes used:for instance2 Kings25:12,Jeremiah52:16,2 Chronicles26:10, Isaiah61:5,andJoel1:11.Thecontextofthe passagescontainingthis expressionis significant.In all but the last occurrencethe"vinedressers andplowmen" arenotfreeor laborersbut areunderservice,generallyto self-employed the crown.In 2 Chronicles26:10,kingUzziahemployed

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTMARCH 198455

The Mozahjar handle and a drawing of the inscriptionon it. Photographused courtesy of Nahman Avigad.

nothing, and gave them vineyardsand fields at the

0

1

2

3 cm

forcedlaborin his policy of exploiting his land'seconomic and agricultural resources. The "vinedressers and plowmen"featurein this royaleconomic plan. Isaiah 61:5 similarlyhas these workmenengagedin compulsorylabor previously done by Jews. Although the meaning of the term "vinedressers"is clear, that of the word"plowmen"is less so. Translations varyfromthe specific ("plowmen"inthe RevisedStandard in The New English Version) to the general ("laborers" root behind this term and "fields"in The Hebrew Bible). Jeremiah39:10(onwhich see below)has been takento refer to terracefarming.This philological study andexcavation work on Iron Age terraces to the west of Jerusalem at were MevasseretYerushalayimsuggestthat the "plowmen" workmenengagedon highly organizedterracedestatesproducing export-qualityproducesuch as wine and oil. At first glance the presence of the expression "vinedressersand plowmen"in our two passagesdoes not fit the argument of a state-managedeconomic plan but rather suggests that the Babyloniansmerely left the remaining Jewsto their own devices. This is not so. Babylonian policy towardsconqueredterritories,as with most imperial powers, was to utilize their resources to the benefit of the state. Justas the deportationof the "mighty men of valor . . . and all the craftsmen and the smiths"

(2 Kings 24:14) was aimed at using Judean skills in Babylonia (confirmedby the Weidnerration lists which mention Jewsin state employment), so was the making of the "poorestof the land to be vinedressersand plowmen" part of this overallpolicy. This is confirmed by Jeremiah 39:10, which is an amplified version of our parallel texts: the captainof the guard,left in the Nebuzaradan, landof Judahsome of the poorpeoplewho owned

56

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

sametime (emphasisadded). The words "at the same time" associate Nebuzaradan's allocation of land to those who stayed in Judahwith his deportationof others to Babylon(verse9). Once a provincial governor had been appointed, this policy was imGedaliah plemented further:"Servethe king of Babylon,";' advised the people; "Gatherwine and summer fruits and oil, and storethem in yourvessels"(Jeremiah40:9 and 10). These versesthus contain evidence of a deliberateBabylonian economic and agriculturalpolicy towardsJudah. Various archaeological findings can now be marshalled in supportandclarificationof this policy involving "vinedressersand plowmen" in state enterprises. Some vinedressersworkedon vineyardsin the territoryof Benjamin at Mozah and Gibeon, as witnessed by wine-jar handles from these sites. In 1972 a handle was published bearing the Hebrew inscription "The Mozah. Shual."It once belonged to a jarused for storing wine. Mozah was a famous wine-producingareaand Shual is presumablythe name of the vintner (whosefamily name is ancestralas the borderbetween Benjaminand Ephraimis called the "land of Shual"in 1 Samuel 13:17).This inscribed handle from the sixth-century B.C.points to the production of wine at Mozah duringthe Babylonianadministration of Judah,a situation which continued in some form into the Persian period (as evinced by twenty jar handles mentioning Mozah of that time). The inscription is similar in form to those on jarhandles from Gibeon (which was possibly a royalestate), some of which may be of sixth-century date and so furthercorroboratethe theory of wine production in this region. One estate apparentlytaken overby the Babylonians outside Benjamin to the southeast at En-gedion the lay Dead Sea'swest coast. Excavationshaveuncoveredremains of a perfume industry dating from the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth centuries. The hypothesis has been formulatedthat the workshopstherewerestaffed by a guildof workersunderroyalcontrol.The main product was balm. How the estate beganandwhat befell it afterthe Babylonianinvasion is reflected in a Talmudic tradition relating to one of our texts, Jeremiah52:16: Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers . . . and husbandmen [plowmen].... R. Josephlearnt:This means balsamumgatherersfromEnGedi to Ramah. (Shabbath 26a, Freedman 1938)

discovered at Lachish it is known that Gedaliah (if the same man is implied)had anothertitle. It reads"Gedaliah who is overthe house."This office was incorporatedinto the bureaucracies not only of Judah but also those of Mesopotamia and Pharaonicand Ptolemaic Egypt. Contained in the semantic range of the word "house"in this title is "royalestate."So GovernorGedaliah was also in chargeof, and may alreadyhave had experience in, royal estate management. With Mizpahas its center,the Babylonianplan divided those areasof Judahinvolvedinto districts for administrativepurposes.Some of these continuedto be used by the Persians(Nehemiah3:9, 12,and 14-18).The Hebrewword for "district"(pelek)used here is related to one Akkadian term forforcedlabor ([p]ilku),which strengthens the connection posited between these districts and the forced labor of the "vinedressersand plowmen." An inscribed jarhandle from the En-gediestate may provide insight into the Babylonian system of tribute assessment and collection. The inscription could be in Aramaicand read"belongingto the lord"(meaning"property of the lord").The title "lord"means "king"and would refer to Nebuchadrezzar, as in Daniel 4:19 (v. 16 in Aramaic).This inscriptionis similarto the numerousroyal Judeanjarhandlesbearingthe inscription"belongingto the king"which functioned as a government-controlledstandard for levying tax in kind, and so may be similar in purpose. Although a quantity of the producefromthese estates would have been for home consumption, the remainder would have been exportedto Babyloniaas tribute or on a commercial basis. Archaeological and textual findings have indicated that wine (from Mizpah, Mozah, and Gibeon), balm (fromEn-gedito Ramah),and oil and dyes (fromMizpahand the Mediterraneancoast)wereproduced by the "vinedressersandplowmen."These weregoodexport commodities incurringsmaller transportationcosts than bulkieragriculturalproducesuch as grain.This last link in the Babylonianplan-the export of tribute and goods to Babylonia-is illustrated by two cuneiform tablets of Nabonidus'reign.They dealwith the transportationof pro-

This source reveals that after the anointing oil had been hidden by Josiah,kings were anointed with this balm oil. The possibility exists, therefore,that duringJosiah'sreign, En-gedibecame a royal estate manufacturingbalm. The Babylonians,realizingthe estate'spotentialandthe market for balm (it had been a majorJudeanexport accordingto Ezekiel 27:17),took it over. Dyes, including the famouspurpledye extractedfrom shellfish, were also producedby the Judean"plowmen"or workmen.Dye plants datingto this periodhavebeen found at Mizpah.The same Talmudictraditionreferredto above also states that the plowmen of Jeremiah52:16caughtfish forpurpledye from the promontoryof Tyreas faras Haifa. Initiated by Nebuzaradanof the invasion forces, this Babylonianeconomic policy was soon taken over by the provincial governorGedaliah. The province'scenter was Mizpah.Its choice may havebeen occasionedby morethan Jerusalem'suninhabitability. It lay in the territory of Benjamin, an area which, judging from archaeological discoveries, had escaped the full destructive force of the conquest. Babylonianinterventionin Judah'saffairsin 597 B.c. would have led to an appreciationof the economic and tribute potential of this and other regions of the country. So, a decade later, invasion plans may have deliberately avoidedcausing damageto them. Gedaliah put the economic plan into operation as indicated by Jeremiah 40:9 and 10 (quoted above) and Josephus: He imposedupon them the paymentof a fixed tributeto the kingfromthe cultivationof the soil. (JewishAntiquities,Marcus1958) That the payingof tributeandforcedlaborwerefundamental to this operationaresuggestedtoo by Lamentations 1:1 where Jerusalem"hasbecome a vassal."The Hebrew for these words involves the payment of tribute (Esther10:1) and the imposition of forced labor (see, for example, Exodus 1:11).In Gedaliahthe Babylonianshad selected an ideal man to superintend their plan. A pro-Babylonian, Gedaliah came from a family of royalservants (his grandfather Shaphan had been Josiah's secretary of stateJeremiah 41:2; 2 Kings 22:3). From a seal impression

.

...

gor

.. Ail-, -. ,..

-,..--•,..ol•

"

-.

Drawings of the seal impression of Gedaliah from Lachish.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

57

duce from the eastern Mediterranean coast to Erech. As with Judah'scommodities, the Erech tablets list only luxury goods, including wine, spices, and purple-dyed wool and fabrics. The probable route taken for them was down the Euphrates, with Carchemish as the embarkation port. Because Judean prisoners of war were deported via Riblah (2 Kings 25:6 and 20), such a route for tribute from Judah is possible. It is difficult to assess how successful this economic plan involving the "vinedressers and plowmen" was or how long it lasted. The En-gedi estate was soon terminated, as evidence of its destruction reveals. This may have been occasioned by the collapse of order following the assassination of Gedaliah. The plan of Babylonian exploitation of Judean land and labor, however, stuck in the minds of the inhabitants. After the restoration of the country had begun under the Persians, the prophet known as Trito-Isaiah promised the people that: Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreignersshall be your plowmen and vinedressers. (61:5) "Iwill not againgive your grain to be food for your enemies, and foreignersshall not drinkyour wine for which you have labored; but those who garnerit shall eat it and praisethe LORD, and those who gatherit shall drink it in the courts of my sanctuary." (62:8and 9; compare65:21 and following)

Historical References Freedman, H., translator 1938 Shabbath. Volume I in Seder Moced (part of the Babylonian Talmud), series ed. I. Epstein. London: The Soncino Press. Pp. 112-13 (Shabbath 26a). Marcus, R., translator 1958 Josephus VI: Jewish Antiquities, Books IX-XI, series ed. T. E. Page and others. London and Cambridge: Heinemann Ltd. and Harvard University Press. P. 245.

Suggestions for FurtherReading Further information on this subject and full bibliographical details can be found in the writer's master's dissertation Palestine during the Period of the Exile, 586-539 B.c. (University College Cardiff, University of Wales, 1977). Consult also: Edelstein, G. and Kislev, M. 1981 Mevasseret Yerushalayim. The Ancient Settlement and its Agricultural Terraces. Biblical Archeologist 44: 53-56. de Geus, C. H. J. 1975 The Importance of Archaeological Research into the Palestinian Agricultural Terraces with an Excursus on the Hebrew Word "gbi'"Palestine Exploration Quarterly 107: 65-74. Oppenheim, A. L. 1967 Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C.Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21:236-54.

58

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

Introduction to the New Testament. Volume I: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age; Volume 2: History and Literatureof Early Christianity, by Helmut Koester;volume 1:xxxiv + 429pp.; volume2: xxxiv + 365 pp. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1982. Volume 1: $24.95 (Cloth);volume 2: $22.95 (Cloth). It's all here. That's both the good news and the bad news. Good news, because nearly anything you want to know about the New Testament and its context can be found in these 800 pages. The detailed tables of contents (volume 1: 29 sections, 126 subsections; volume 2: 22 sections, 92 subsections) and the extensive indexes make it easy to find things, and the bibliographies, keyed to each subsection, map the whole terrain well. Bad news, because comprehensiveness has been bought at the price of diffuseness. Introductions to the Bible are not famous as easy reading, and Koester's is no exception. There is much, very much, that is excellent in these two volumes. Koester's observations on Gnosticism-its origins, its rhetoric, its influence on the New Testamentmake some of the best sense currently in print on that much controverted subject (for instance, volume 1, pages 234, 246, 273, and 381-89; volume 2, throughout, especially 225-33). He understands with uncommon clarity the significance of different ways of interpreting the Old Testament for determining categories of early Christian believers (volume 2, pages 117-18). He reminds us, as far too few New Testament scholars do, that the Greek heritage of the early Christians included not only the metaphysics of Plato but also the somber, shadowed dramas of Euripides (volume 1, pages 122-23). With insight that is both sociological and evangelical, he highlights the danger that an incipient elitist consciousness posed to the first generations of Christians (volume 1, page 191). The rest of this review could list further important contributions to the subject (for instance, a sensitive appraisal of apocalyptic and an appreciation for the creed of the early Catholic church); however, since Koester's eminence will ensure a wide readership for these two volumes, I will take this occasion to raise questions about method that ought to be further debated among New Testament scholars. Koester declares at the start a "principle of boldness," one with which I wholeheartedly agree. 't is much better to advance scholarship, and thus our understanding, through hypothetical reconstruction than to ignore new

and apparentlyproblematicmaterials."Moreover,Koester sagely warnsthat we cannot "expectlargelysecureresults" (volume 1,pagexxii). Frequently,however,I wished he had temperedhis bold challenge with his sage warning.I kept hearing the late Samuel Sandmel asking why New Testament scholars seem so ready to claim clear conclusions where the evidence is just resolutely inconclusive. The twentieth century in New Testament interpretation, which came in with Schweitzer'sconvictionthat Jesuswas certainly an apocalyptic preacher,is preparingto go out with Koester'sassertion that "nothingindicates that Jesus was an apocalyptic seer or visionary" (volume 2, pages 77-78). The contradictionitself is less noteworthythan the sharedconfidence at each end of the century that we can gaugethe precise place (ornon-place)of apocalypticin the teaching and self-consciousness of Jesus. There is a problem inherent in a historical-critical method that is insufficiently awareof its own limitations. It is so easy forone section'shypothesisto become the basis for the next chapter's argument; or, conversely, for an assured result to appear elsewhere as a guess. The historical plausibility of Jesus'baptism by Johnbecomes proof that "Jesuswas a disciple of John,"and then the chronologyof Jesus'careercan be tied to "somepoint after he had joinedthe sect of Johnthe Baptist"(volume2, pages 73-74). Koestersuggests (volume 2, page321) it is unlikely Lukewas unacquaintedwith Paul'sletters. Sevenpages later the silence of Acts about Paul's letters becomes evidence that "Lukewas even convinced that the church would do better without Paul'sletters."Arguments from silence arealwaysweak, and certainly inadequatefor supportingthis kind of deduction.Oragain,realisticEucharist imagery in John6 is attributed to interpolation because John"otherwise"speaks in another way (volume 2, page 187)-but this of course simply begs the question about how John"speaks"If the alternativeimageryis his, then he "speaks"both ways. A few pages after the passage is hypotheticallydenied to Johnthe denial has become a fact from which furtherconclusions about the provenanceof John'sGospel aredrawn(volume 2, page 193).Any reports in early Christian literature of a reconciliation between Peterand Paulbeforethey died aretaken as evidence only of a subsequent blending of the traditionsstemming from each of them (volume 2, pages 290 and 310); that they

portrayedas an outpost of SyrianChristianity.Ourpicture of early Christian development needs to take regional diversityinto account, but can we be so precise?Form-and redaction-criticismwhen tied to "regionalcharacteristics" can easily startgoingroundin circles.Forexample,Koester prefersSyriato Rome forMark'sGospel because "itis better to assume that Markwas written in a majormetropolis of the east where variouslines of fully developedtraditions had intersected"(volume2, pages 166-67).ButMarkmight just as well be important evidence that traditions had alreadyintersected elsewhere, maybe in Rome. Volume 1 is a history of the Hellenistic world from Alexanderthe Greatto the end of the second century C.E., with many observationsessential to an accurateappraisal of the New Testament- forinstance, differencesin social position were characteristically irrelevant in religious associations (volume 1, page 62); the public characterof education in the Hellenistic city reinforcedthe insistence of Christian missionaries on the public characterof their message (volume 1,page96);Greekconceptsareat the root of the mysteryreligions,so one need not look to the "orient" for sources (volume 1, page 197);magic was everywhere (volume 1,pages 376-81). Sometimes, though, especially in the first hundredpages,Koesterloses sight of the main task in the interest of completeness. I have yet to figure how my understandingof the New Testamentis enhanced, even indirectly,by knowing that "thekings of Pergamum were especially concerned to improve cattle breeds, and their stud-farmsbecame famous"(volume 1, page 75). The division of this introduction into two strictly distinct volumes brings one kind of orderto the material; but I believe the division works at cross-purposes to Koester'sconviction "thatthe student of the New Testament must learn from the outset to understand the writings of the earliest period within their proper historicalcontext"(volume 1,pagexxi).Volume 1 repeatedly asserts the thoroughly Hellenistic and syncretistic characterandformationof Christianity(forinstance,pages 97 and 98, 167, 201, and 357);but such analysis would be more persuasive,and would stick longer with the reader, if the account of the history and literatureof early Christianity werewoven togetherwith the history,culture, and religion of the Hellenistic age. Volume 2 is innovative in that it assigns no privilegedstatus to the books of the New

might actually have got together in Rome and been reconciled is not even mentioned as a hypothesis to be disputed. New Testament interpreters increasingly focus on the cities of the Hellenistic world as the setting for early Christian development and on regional types of theology and practice. It is important for us to realize that fewer roads led the early Christians to Rome than earlier generations thought, though I wonder if quite as many should lead modem scholars to Syrian Antioch as Koester argues. Syria becomes the home, not only of Matthew, but also of Mark and John; Gnosticism comes from there too; and Egypt is

Testament among the literary productions of early Christianity, but it is rather old-fashioned in being isolated from the detailed discussion of context which is provided in volume 1. The division means that the Hellenistic age functions as a backdrop, not a stage, for the drama of early Christianity. In no way do I discount the importance of getting the world of the New Testament into focus- both wide-angle and telephoto. To overlook "the sociological and context which determined the life of the eartheological Christians" would be to treat the ly (volume 2, page 61)

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

59

New Testamentitself as a docetic mirage.But I doubt we really have as much precise knowledge about those contexts as recent New Testament scholarship supposes. In early Christian studies it is peculiarly difficult to break free,even momentarily,fromthe circle of "textillustrating context which then explains text" Modern interpreters make theoretical distinctions between form and content. In practice, however,for both historical and theological judgment, form trumps content nearly every time, and criticalworkssuch as Koester'sarepunctuatedby "obviously,""certainly," "suppresses"or "nolonger"(when "proves;' the fact is limited to silence), "unthinkable." Koester'sintroduction is decisively shaped by wellestablished convictions and conventions of modern New Testamentscholarship,so the book is a reliableguideto the field. At the beginningof this reviewI said that it'sall here. Not quite.I would like to see New Testamentstudyrecover some faint-or even lost-emphases.

Koester has named

as the essential "historical" "sociological"and"theological" New to the Testament When an introduction contexts. 13 "no only single special says about 1 Corinthians charisma can prove the presence of God, which can be documented solely by love, as Paul explains in a didactic poem"(volume 2, page 125),the "theologicalcontext"has been shortchanged. PatrickHenry SwarthmoreCollege Excavation in Palestine, by Roger Moorey, 128 pp. Guildford,Surrey,England:LutterworthPress,1981;?4.95 (Paper).Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans, 1983; $6.95 (Paper). Jericho, by John R. Bartlett, 128 pp. Guildford, Surrey, England: Lutterworth Press, 1982; ?4.95 (Paper).Grand Rapids: Win.B. Eerdmans, 1983; $6.95 (Paper). Qumran, by Philip R. Davies, 128 pp. Guildford, Surrey, England: Lutterworth Press, 1982; ?4.95 (Paper).Grand Rapids: Win.B. Eerdmans, 1983; $6.95 (Paper). These volumes, all by British scholars (Moorey of Ashmolean Museum, Oxford;Bartlettof TrinityCollege, Durham;andDavies of the University of Sheffield)arethe first three titles in the Lutterworthseries, "Cities of the BiblicalWorld"The stated aim of each volume, excluding the introductory and background title, Excavation in Palestine, is to describe"theexcavationand finds of a particular site and show how this evidence can help our understandingof the world of the Bible."Twoother titles now in preparationare Ugarit and Beersheba and Arad. General editor of the series is Gordon I. Davies of the University of Cambridge.

60

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

By language, style, and format, these books are designed for a broadspectrum of readersand should appeal especially to the serious layperson. Professionals will benefit nevertheless from the seasoned perspectives and up-to-datepresentations of the authors. Each volume is provided with numerous black and white photographs, sketches, maps, and site-plansof excellent quality,as well as brief footnotes, bibliographies, indices, and chronological tables. Moorey'sExcavationin Palestine sets the tone forthe series, emphasizing the relevance of archaeological evidence for the material culture portrayedin the Bible, ratherthan speculatingunduly abouthistoricalidentifications of biblical events and personalities. The author cautiously assertsthat "archaeologicalinformationproves nothing about the biblical tradition, it only offers fresh matter in the weighing of probabilities"(page 121). He devotes primary attention to archaeological method, including a review of the history of excavationin Palestine, the characteristicsof tells, site identification and survey, and the variousprinciplesand techniques associatedwith excavation method. In the so-called "Wheeler-Kenyon" of there discussions are dating techniques, the addition, and smaller finds (forexample, of typology architectural a brief summaryof epigraphy. ceramics,metals, coins), and the methods he disfor By way of providing examples to many of the major the reader cusses, Mooreyintroduces Palestinian sites. Although the author defends the Wheeler-Kenyon technique,with its consistent use of balks andmeticulous in-situ studyanddrawingof sections, he informsthe reader of the Israeli architectural approachand its concern for large-scalehorizontal exposure.He perceives,moreover,a growing assimilation of the Wheeler-Kenyonand the Israelimethods,notablyat Telled-Duweir(Lachish).Other recent developments in Palestinian archaeology,some of them featuresof the new archaeology,do not go unnoticed, such as the heightened interest in the natural and larger environmentof tells and the additionof naturalscientists to excavation teams. It is Moorey'scontention, however, that the more theoretical assertions and goals of the new archaeology-that is, those involving theories of social organization,behavioralpatterns,and religious concepts premisedexclusively on archaeologicaland environmental data, are primarily applicable in prehistorical and New World contexts. In assessments of the Palestinian Bronze and Iron Ages, he believes that archaeological inference properly seeks the support of historical parallels and ethnographical analogies. Moorey does not enter into the debate, now current in American scholarship, respecting the propriety of the His one usage of the nomenclature biblical archaeology. expression is in reference to "that complex region where the 'archaeology of Palestine' and 'biblical archaeology' overlap"(page 121). His chief concern, it would appear, is

not with labels, but with the necessity of a critical and disciplined methodology which will guide the search for biblical connections in the archaeologicalrecordand avoid the abuseswhich havetoo often plaguedthis undertaking. One could hardlywish fora better summaryof the excavationsat Telles-SultanandTululabuel-calaiqthan that provided by Bartlett's Jericho. Beginning with helpful descriptions of the geographicaland geological character of the lowerJordanValleyand a briefhistory of excavation at Jericho,the author devotes a chaptereach to the Natufian through Pre-pottery Neolithic, Pottery Neolithic, Bronze, Israelite, and Hasmonean-Herodian periods in Jericho'spast. There is naturallya heavy dependenceupon Kenyon's work and conclusions, but a commendable featureis the incorporationof otherviewpoints, including some recent revisions of Kenyon'spositions. Forexample, the authorfinds fewerdifferencesbetween the Pre-pottery Neolithic A and B cultures than were envisioned by Kenyon, and he questions the identification of the MiddleBronze-IIplasteredrampartswith the Hyksos or othernewly arrivedpeoples in Palestine. He is also careful to steer the readerthroughthe complexities of nomenclature,such as the differences between the British "Intermediate EB-MB"and the American "EBIV"(or"IIIB")and "MBI." In his chapter on the Israelite period, Bartlett discusses the biblical referencesto Jericho,and addresses the question of Joshua'sconquest. The nature of the biblical story, he believes, makes it impossible to relate with any confidence the biblical and archaeological evidence, so as to discoverprecisely what event underlies the Joshuatradition.He rejectsthe explanationof the erosion of the remains of a Late Bronze city, as well as Bimson's recent argument for a fifteenth century Israelite destruction of the site. "Thesolution of the problem,"he asserts,"ismore likely to be foundin the correctevaluation of the literaryevidencethan in furtherexcavationat TellesSultan"(page 107). Thus, the liturgical style of Joshua6 causes him to seek its setting in a cultic ceremonyat Gilgal and to speculate abouta connection between the conquest tradition and the settlement of the Benjaminites in the twelfth or eleventh century B.C. Readers familiar with the popular literature on Qumranand the Dead Sea Scrollswill yet find a fresh and helpful review in Davies' Qumran. The famous story of how the scrolls were discovered, recognized, and purchased is retold, but with a brevity and reserve reflecting an awareness of the contradictory versions and the impossibility of reconstructing the exact course of events. A more detailed treatment is given the excavations at Khirbet Qumran and CAin Feshkha. Also very briefly noted is P.Bar-Adon'swork at CAinel-Ghuweir. For those who have not worked through Roland de Vaux's detailed reports of the excavations, Davies provides solid summaries of each of the five main phases of occupation: (1) the Israelite (eighth-seventh centuries B.c.) (2) Ia (late second century

B.C.); (3) Ib

(103-31

B.c.);

(4)II (4 B.C./A.D. 1-68); (5) III (A.D.

67-74). A sequence of clearly drawn site-plans, with numbered locations, enhances and clarifies the descriptions of the phases. Davies' almost exclusive dependence on de Vaux's reports is understandable,given the latter's role as the excavatorand primary interpreterof the monastery remains. One misses, however,any mention of the recent challenges to de Vaux'spositions, concerning forexample the dating of phases of the Khirbet,set forth in the impor:tablissetant work of E. -M. Laperrousaz,Qoumran: L' ment essinien des bords de la mer morte (Paris:Picard 1976). Davies includes descriptionsof the individual scrolls only insofaras the literaryevidence combines with the excavatedfinds to permit a reconstructionof the community'sphysical,social, economic, and religious life. His positions on the identity, leadership,and organizationof the sect fall well within the rangeof "mainstream"interpretations.The Esseneidentificationis defendedandthe community's backgroundsare traced to the Seleucid period, whether from Hasidic or BabylonianJewish elements is uncertain.The MaccabeanleaderJonathanis viewedas the "WickedPriest,"andhis acceptanceof the high priestly office in 152 B.C.was the crisis which provokedthe sect's move to Qumran. Davies regardsas fruitless, efforts to identify the Teacherof Righteousness;but, assuming that the Teachercomposed portions of the Hymns scroll, he finds there much aboutthe Teacher'scharacterandideals. One interestingdeparturefrom familiarinterpretationsof the sect'sbeginningsis the view that "thehouse of exile"to which the Wicked Priest pursued the Teacherwas some place other than Qumran. No solution is offeredfor the perplexing question of what happenedto the sect during the periodof Herod'sreign,other than the suggestion that the membershippossibly dispersedto other Essene settlements in differentparts of Palestine. Sensitive to the difficulty of decipheringthe details of community organization, especially the relationships among the several roles or offices within the sect (for example, maskil, mebagger,pagid), Davies nevertheless offers the readera plausible manner of envisioning the community's life in each stage of its existence. The occupants of the site duringthe three crucial periods,Ia, Ib,

and II, are regarded as basically the same community of Essenes. In period Ia they were led by their maskil (initially the Teacher himself), who admitted members into the community, examined and instructed them, and directed their worship life. Period Ib is viewed as Qumran's "heyday," when the size of the community was increased by additional Essenes seeking refuge from John Hyrcanus' policies. During this period, dual authority was exercised by the tnebagger-whose role likely corresponded to that of the maskil of period Ia-and the Chief Priest. Little is made of the council of fifteen men mentioned in 1QS, col.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

1984

61

8, due to the slight and ambiguous nature of the evidence concerningthem. Similarly the units of "thousands,hundreds, fifties, and tens"are viewed as a feature of Essene idealism ratherthan actual community divisions. Period IIis characterizedas "Qumranpreparedforwar,"when the Qumran Essenes joined with other Jewsin opposition to the Romans.This periodwitnessed the composition of the WarScroll and the anticipation of an alliance with other Essenes forthe purposeof fighting the greatbattle soon to come. In summary, these three volumes can be highly recommendedto personsinterestedin clear,balanced,and up-to-datesummaries of the topics and sites with which they deal.It is to be hopedthat the same quality of scholarship andwriting style will characterizefuturetitles in this series. JamesKing West CatawbaCollege Joshua:A New Translationwith Introduction and Commentary,by RobertG. Boling, with an introduction by G. Ernest Wright.xix + 580 pp. TheAnchor Bible 6. Garden City, New York:Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1982; $14.00. The old artof commentarywriting has become difficult if not impossible.Biblicalcommentary,once a matterof text andtradition,has become a matterof text and scholarship, where text means something quite differentfrom what it once meant and scholarship includes diversedisciplines, each jealous of its own prerogatives.Where there are so manylevels of analysisthe commentaryformatis strained. The case may be particularlyacute forthe book of Joshua, a book which centers important controversiesin several disciplines. The Anchor Bible commentary on Joshuaaddresses all of the relevantconcerns, from text criticism to theology,andthat is the achievementof the book. It brims with information and opinions. That there is some unevenness in the quality of the informationand opinion is to be expected;that the commentarylacks cohesion and structure is equally to be expected and, unfortunately,is equally true. Partlythe book is the victim of unfortunatehistory. The introductionby G. ErnestWright,nearly complete at his death, is left unrevised here. The essay does not serve as a properintroductionto the book, exceptin a generaland adventitious manner.Boling'swork, which is differentin tone and substance from Wright's,is buried in notes and scattered sections of commentary. Some introductory materials, a kind of precis of a properintroduction, were drawntogetherby Boling in the first commentary section (pp.128-38) but they areinadequate.As a result, pieces of historical exposition are found in notes next to grammatical items of minor importance.Argumentscannot be

62

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

sustained;topics areraised,dropped,and raisedagain.To take a single example of the sort of thing that can happen in a commentary of this kind, Wright's introduction devotes a major section to the ideology of holy war in ancient Israel,and Boling contradicts much of what Wright has to say in a few sentences addressedto the Rahabstory (p.151).It is a hardbook to fix, even if one grantsthat commentaries are meant to be consulted and not read. The commentary itself has the familiarAnchorBible format:translation, notes, and comment foreach literary unit. The translation,like most in the AnchorBibleseries, is quirky.At one point, Boling conjuresup old Westerns: "Headfor the hills, or else the posse may discover you!" (p.140).(Shouldn'tthat be, "Headforthe hills orthe posse'l cut you off"?)At other points, the translationveerstoward the King James Version: "Joshua rent his clothes..."

(p.217).The notes havebeen dividedinto two sections, one for text-critical matters and the other for everythingelse that needs explaining.The text-criticalnotes areprefaced with a briefexplanation of the theories of FrankM. Cross on the Septuagintalrecensions (pp.108-10). It is a matter of some curiosity that in the text notes themselves the recensions arenot mentioned. In general,the text adopted for the Anchor Bible translation is longer than either the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint: Boling frequently restoresandseldom deletes.Thereareoccasionalexamples of the sortof handwashingexplanationthat one frequently encountersthese daysin text-criticalmatters,like "equally genuine variantreadings"(genuine to what?). The generalnotes are usually full, even breezy.They are weakest on grammar,best on geographyand archaeology. Boling succeeds in these notes at the difficult task that was the originalintention of the AnchorBible series: He makes the explanationscomprehensibleto the general reader. More than that, he makes them interesting, sometimes arresting. Beyond these general remarks on format and tone, there are two matters of substance which should be addressed.Both lie close to the heart of the book. The first is the particularway in which Boling deals with the literary history of the book. He supposes two editions: Dtr 1 (Deuteronomic)from the period of the Josianicreformin the late seventh century B.C.E.,and Dtr 2 (Deuteronomis-

tic) from the periodbetween the death of Josiah(609B.c.E.)

and the fall of Jerusalem (587/86 BC.E.).The first edition, compiled from older translations, was reformist, along the lines of early Jeremiah. It called for a restructuring of the monarchy and the cult, so that the king would become the spiritual leader of the people and the cult the preserver of Deuteronomic orthodoxy. The second edition was revolutionary and theonomic. Having given up on reform, it called for a return to the older, anarchistic program of early Yahwism. Much of the commentary deals with the tension between the two editions. For example, Boling treats the story of the defeat at Ha-cAi (chapters 7 and 8) on two

levels. On the first level, the story is an attempt by Dtr 1 to absolve Joshua of responsibility for an ignominious and, apparently, infamous defeat, thus protecting Joshua's reputation and literary role as a prototype of Josiah. On the second level, Dtr 2 has formed an association with the story of the defeat of Gibeah in Judges 19-20, bracketing tragic history under the rubrics of disobedience and individual initiative. The literary exercise thus limned is useful but misleading. The history of editions and the interpretation of the book are not the same thing. It is likely that the book of which Joshua is a part went through several editions, and it may be that the two most important editions correspond to Boling's descriptions, but it is methodologically improper to assume that just because a text has a complex structure, this complexity must be due to, and thus is automatically evidence for, the text having passed through several editions. Take the story of Ha-CAi, mentioned above. It is a story of considerable complexity, as Boling has noted. Achan is guilty but Joshua is not innocent; the defeat of a hero is cast within an antiheroic narrative. This complexity inheres in the text as we have it; it does not require further explanation, though attempting to explain the genesis of the text is an acceptable enterprise. It is even possible that the complexity arose partially as an accident of the fusion of two points of view-two editors, say-but that must be demonstrated by evidence which is independent of the complexity itself. Otherwise the argument is merely circular. What is postulated as historical explanation is often nothing more than ersatz literary interpretation. A similar problem arises from Boling's treatment of history in the book of Joshua. Boling assumes that all the following are historical: an unreformed, pre-Mosaic Israel, reflected in the patriarchal narratives of the Pentateuch; a religious or ideological revolution introduced by Yahwists from Egypt; the core of most of the narratives in the book of Joshua, including the Jericho story and the campaign in the North (chapter 11);and the importance of Joshua as a leader of Israel during the period of the formation of the Yahwist confederacy. Boling can manage all this only because he does not pay much attention to the status of the narratives in the book of Joshua as historical evidence. A good example is the Jericho story. Finding an explanation for some of the peculiarities of the story in schistosomiasis, as Boling does, helps to establish the credibility of the story in general terms-something seismic may have happened to the walls of Jericho and some group may have walked around the city seven times-but we have no way of establishing the essential historical data-when and by whom? There is much in the book of Joshua which is internally plausible, but not much which is reliably historical. Just as a distinction must be made between the history of editions and the interpretation of the book, a distinction must be made between the history of early

Israel and the theological essay which is the book of Joshua. Clayton Libolt East Lansing, Michigan

BOOK PUBLISHERS

Please send all review copies to: Dr. Peter B. Machinist Department of Oriental Studies The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721

~iiiiii~iii~iliiiZi~iiiii:j:i-r:ii.ii

Norman K. Gottwald, editor, The Bible and Liberation. Political and Social Hermeneutics. (Revised edition of A Radical Religion Reader.) Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1983, xii + 542 + 4 pp. $35.00 (Cloth), $18.95 (Paper). K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant. The Life and Times of Ramesses II. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, Ltd., 1982 (Distributed by Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey), vii + 272 pp. $29.00 (Paper). Philip J. King, American Archaeology in the Mideast. A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1983 (Distributed by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana), xv + 292 pp. $15.00 (Cloth). Abraham Malamat, Yisra'el be-Tequfat Ha-MiqraC ( Israel in Biblical Times. Historical Essays.) (In Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute/ Israel Exploration Society, 1983, 20 + 338 pp. No Price (Cloth). Martin McNamara, M.S.C., Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament. Series: Good News Studies 4. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983, 279 pp. $10.95 (Paper). Maxwell Miller, Introducing the Holy Land. A J. Guidebook for First-Time Visitors. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1982, x + 189 pp. $13.95 (Cloth). Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., St. Paulis Corinth. Texts and Archaeology. Series: Good News Studies

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

63

6. Wilmington, Delaware:Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983, xxi + 192 pp. $7.95 (Paper). AvrahamNegev, Tempel,Kirchen und Zisternen. Ausgrabungenin der WihsteNegev Die Kultur der Nabatider.Stuttgart:Calwer Verlag,1983, 258 + 2 pp. DM 36.00 (Cloth). EdwardSchillebeeckx, Paul the Apostle. New York: CrossroadPublishing Co., 1983, 144 pp. $14.95 (Cloth). Morris Silver, Prophets and Markets. The Political Economy of Ancient Israel. Series: Social Dimensions of Economics. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 1983, xiii + 306 pp. $35.00 (Cloth). Ben Zion Wacholder,The Dawn of Qumran. The Sectarian Torahand the Teacherof Righteousness. Series: Monographsof the Hebrew Union College 8. Cincinnati: The Hebrew Union College Press, 1983 (Distributedby Ktav Publishing House, Inc., New York),xviii + 310 pp. $25.00 (Cloth). Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer,Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth. Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer. New York: Harper & Row,

1983, xix + 227 pp. $16.95 (Cloth), $7.95 (Paper).

oS

THE NEXT BA

Mart

OF 0

CyprusAmerican

W.E Albright Instituteof

Archaeological

Archaeological Research in Jerusalem

in Nicosia,Cyprus

ResearchInstitute

is pleasedto announce new Academic Excavation Appointments Fieldtrip Publication Fellowships programs and improved Researchlibrary Workshops Scholars'residence Forfurtherinformationcontact: ASORAdministrativeOffices 4243 SpruceStreet Philadelphia,PA 19104

welcomes visiting scholars and interestedlaymen.

Facilitiesandprograms include: Researchlibrary Scholars'residence

Annualresearchappointments Study collections

Informalsummerseminars Periodiclectures

Guidedsite visits Vehicleandequipmentrental Forfurtherinformationcontact CAARI(41KingPaul St., Nicosia, Cyprus)or: ASORAdministrativeOffices 4243 SpruceStreet Philadelphia,PA 19104 Tel: (215)222-4643

Tel: (215) 222-4643

64

IN

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

AT EXCAVATIONS ANCIENTMEIRON byE.M.Meyers, J.F Strange, andC. L.Meyers Meiron'sarchaeological history exemplifiedthe historicalcurrents shapingPalestineearlyinthe ChristianEra.The extensiveexcavations includedthe majesticsynagogue,and residential andmanufacturing areas;all of whichcontributeto the authors' analysisof Meiron'shistoryandeverydaylife. 12?" x 12?", 75 drawings, 61 plates,68 b &w photographs. A scholarlyreportfor seriousstudentsof

biblicalarchaeology, byleading authoritiesintheirfield. Price:$42.50. Orderfrom POB275, WinonaLake, Eisenbrauns, add Indiana 46590. Ifprepaying, andhandling. $2.50 for shipping

#178.

ANNOUNCINGI

"Image

of

nalysis

Shroud

the

of

Turin

SThe Filas Filmstrip Series is privileged to announce its newest filmstrip, "IMAGE ANAL YSIS SOF THE SHROUD OF TURIN," a simplified summary and digest of the 66-page Haralick Sreport on digital analysis of the Shroud. This study was done by Dr. Robert M. Haralick, SDirector of the Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. The Haralick report presents supporting evidence for the existence of at least six letters of the name of Tiberius Caesar plus the characteristic astrologer's staff and money-shape pattern belonging to a coin issued by Pontius Pilate in 29 A.D., as existing in imprints over the right eye of the Man of the Shroud. Other implications from the Sreport confirm the Shroud as the model of Byzantine icons of Jesus from the sixth century Sand suggest the existence of a "modesty cloth" and a possible phylactery on the Man of the SShroud. This is the first complete digital analysis ever made of Shroud photographs. The filmstrip presents this new supporting evidence for the dating of the image on the Shroud, Sadding dramatically to earlier evidence that the Shroud is not a forgery and is the burial cloth . of Jesus Christ. $530.00 LENGTH:100 frames,30 minutevoice cassettewith narrationby FrancisL. Filas, S.J., Professorof Theology at Loyola Universityof Chicago.

IN THEFILASFILMSTRIP SERIES: MATERIALS OTHER #177: PONTIUSPILATECOINSON THETURINSHROUD. $30.00

100 frames, 30 minute cassette description.

"THE DATINGOF THE SHROUD OF TURIN FROM COINSOF PONTIUSPILATE," Informational Packet $6.50 with numismaticsketches,2 slides, I color print, 14,000 wordMonograph. CHRIST? JESUS OF PHOTOGRAPH IS THIS THE THE TURIN: SHROUD OF #163. $25.00 84 frames,38 minutecassetteexplanation. OF THESHROUDOF TURIN: A DOCUMENTARY. #173. THE1978 EXPOSITION 113 frames,30 minutecassetteexplanation. $25.00 I

1SROD

O

*TRINPRMOION

PECAL:Sv

1.50-#771#6,

13&

Infrmtonl

#160. JERUSALEM,66 A.D. Modelreconstruction.105 frames,42 minutecassetteexplanation. #164. THE DESERTSOF BIBLICALISRAELTODAY. 135 frames,31 minutecassetteexplanation. IN JERUSALEMTODAY. #165. BIBLICALLOCATIONS 133 frames,38 minutecassetteexplanation. IN GALILEETODAY. # 167. BIBLICALLOCATIONS 133 frames,31 minutecassetteexplanation. #169. THESEACOASTOF THE BIBLETODAY. 135 frames,30 minutecassetteexplanation. #170. LITERARYFORMS: A KEYTO UNDERSTANDTHE BIBLE. 92 frames,20 minutecassetteexplanation. OF JESUS. #172. THERESURRECTION Audio-visualrecapof New Testamentnarratives.116 frames,25 minutecassetteexplanation. #174. WHEREJESUSLIVED- AS IT LOOKSTODAY.

ake:'7.00

$22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00

(Children's filmstrip: 5th grade and under.) 70 frames, 15 minute cassette explanation.

$20.00

#175. PLACESPAULVISITEDAS THEY LOOKTODAY. 106 frames,27 minutecassetteexplanation. #176. THEEBLATABLETS:THEIRRELEVANCETO THE BIBLE.

$25.00

100 frames, 30 minute cassette description.

$35.00

All cassettes for these filmstrips have automatic/manual signals to advance strip. Printed keys for each frame. Musical interludes. Except as noted, production, narration and photography by Francis L. Filas, S.J. PLAS

NOT:*e6o

OT.6fr

6rv66sinorerto6

ee66anit.6n

qalty6650%beowmake

DISTRIBUTED BY: Cogan Productions, A Division of ACTA Foundation, Suite A, 11134 Youngtown Avenue, Youngtown, Arizona, 85363. If ordering for institution, please give name of person ordering. If individual, please give credit reference. (No delivery charges if payment with order. U.S.A. ONLY.)

54

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH1984

BA

GUIDE TO ARTIFACTS

Essays examine the variedtypes of artifactsand other material evidence with which Near Eastern archaeologists are concerned. The length of each essay is 1500-2500 words. Authors are asked to discuss either a general category (examples:glass, mosaics, lithics, sarcophagi, metal objects, bones, seeds), or a specific "subspecies"within one of the largercategories (examples:the coinage of a particularregion or period, a peculiar or unusually significant type of ceramic ware or glaze, a kind of tool, cylinder seals). Youmay mention that a heated scholarly debate exists regardingthis or that artifact,but please do not take a polemical stance or furnish a detailed recapitulation of the controversy.Explain, in jargonfree language,how this type of artifact or material evidence assists us in the overallreconstruction of the Near Easternpast. Why,in other words,is it an important piece of the historical puzzle? It is unnecessary to use any kind of formal references citing scholarly literature.If you like, you may appenda short (fewerthan ten items) list of "Suggestionsfor FurtherReading."

Ir

..

0_"1

- -I

-

-

__

THE MUSEUMTRAIL Withthis column,we hopeto drawattentionto some of the lesserknown,comparatively unheralded museumcollectionsandspecialexhibitsin which NearEasternartifactsaredisplayed.The lengthis 750-2000 words. We are interested in hearing about those municipal, university, seminary,and other museums that house impressive-but

not necessarily huge-

collections of ancient Near Easternobjects. The author should make the readerfeel that a particular collection or exhibit is indeed worth travelingout of one'sway to view. Forthe time being, we are restrictingour coverageto museums in the United States, Canada, Jordan,Israel,Cyprus,Egypt, Syria,Great Britain, and Ireland.Eventually,coveragemay be worldwide.

If you wish to do an article for one of our new departments,please dropus a line. Tell us the subject you have chosen, and briefly describe what the content of the article would be. We'llreply promptly to let you know whether your proposalis suitable for BA.

Please send all queries, proposals, and manuscripts to: Editor Biblical Archaeologist ASOR Publications Office P.O.Box HM Duke Station Durham, NC 27706

sow

AFM?b"

i

v-L

I 01*.