No title

4WAA .

0.......

.

p.-.~h :

-\

?

I...

r.~ .A*

061* a

0

'

a

'

'

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTALRESEARCH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ASOR, 3301 NORTH CHARLES STREET BALTIMORE,MD 21218 (410) 516-3498 0NSOF

Eric M. Meyers, President James Flanagan, First Vice President for Publications E. Rast, Second Vice President for Archaeological Policy WalterW. Robert H. Johnston, Vice Chairman of the Board of T7ustees and acting Chairman Paul E Jacobs, Vice President for the Corporation Lydie Shufro, Vice President for Development George M. Landes, Secretary Roger S. Boraas, Assistant Secretary Holden Gibbs, Treasurer Kate Gould, Assistant Treasurer Stephen Wilhelm, Executive Director Rudolph H. Dornemann, Administrative Director Pam Turner, Administrative Assistant ASOR Newsletter; Victor H. Matthews, Editor Biblical Archaeologist; Eric M. Meyers, Editor Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research; James W. Flanagan, Editor Journal of Cuneiform Studies; William L. Moran, Editor

W.E AlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch(AIAR)

P O. Box 19096, 91 190 Jerusalem, Israel. Seymour Gitin, Director Joe D. Seger, President Carol Meyers, First Vice President Joy Ungerleider-Mayerson, Second Vice President; Acting Board Chair John Spencer, Secretary-Treasurer

BaghdadCommittee forthe BaghdadSchool Jerrold S. Cooper, Chairman Near Eastern Studies The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218

AmericanCenterof OrientalResearch(ACOR) P.O. Box 2470, Jebel Amman, Amman, Jordan.

Pierre Bikai, Director James Sauer, President Lawrence T. Geraty, Vice President Roger S. Boraas, Secretary Randolph B. Old, T7easurer

CyprusAmericanArchaeologicalResearchInstitute (CAARI)

11 Andreas Dhimitriou Street, Nicosia 136, Cyprus. Stuart Swiny, Director Giraud Foster, President Lydie Shufro, Vice President Ellen Herscher, Secretary Andrew Oliver, Jr., Treasurer ASOR Ancient Manuscripts Committee James C. VanderKam, Chairman Department of Theology University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 Damascus Committee Michael J. Fuller, Chairman Anthropology Department St. Louis Community College 3400 Pershall Road St. Louis, MO 63135

Biblical

Archaeologist

P. O. BOX H.M., DUKE STATION DURHAM, NC 27706 (919) 684-3075 Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by Scholars Press, 819 Houston Mill Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, for the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). Subscriptions: Annual subscription rates are $35 for individuals and $45 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $28 for retirees. Single issues are $9 for individuals and $12 for institutions. In foreign countries, add $5 for annual subscriptions and $2 for single issues. Orders should be sent to ASOR Membership/ Subscriber Services, P.O. Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 (telephone: 404-636-4757; Bitnet SCHOLARS @EMORYU1). Postmaster: Send address changes to Biblical Archaeologist, ASOR Membership/Subscriber Services, P.O.Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333-0399. Second-class postage paid at Atlanta, GA and additional offices. Copyright o 1992 by the American Schools of Oriental Research. All rights reserved. No portion of this journal may be reproduced by any process or technique without the formal consent of the American Schools of Oriental Research and Scholars Press. Authorization to photocopy items for personal or internal use is granted for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the copier pay the base fee of $1.00 per copy plus $. 10 per page directly to CCC, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. 0006-8095/$87 $1.00 + .10 Editor-in-Chief

Associate Editor Book ReviewEditor SeniorEditor Designer WalterE. Aufrecht EdwardF.Campbell Douglas L. Esse Volkmar Fritz LawrenceT. Geraty SeymourGitin StephenGoranson

Eric M. Meyers

DavidC. Hopkins JamesC. Moyer ToddMcGee LauraHughes

EditorialCommittee JoAnn Hackett A. T. Kraabel Thomas E. Levy P.KyleMcCarter David W.McCreery CarolL. Meyers S. Thomas Parker

JackSasson Neil A. Silberman MarkS. Smith StuartSwiny L.Michael White

Advertising: Correspondence should be addressed to Dennis Ford or Sarah Foster, Scholars Press, P.O. Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 (telephone: 404-636-4757; fax: 404-636-8301). Biblical Archaeologist is not responsible for errors in copy prepared by the advertiser. The editor reserves the right to refuse any ad. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. Editorial Correspondence: Article proposals, manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to Biblical Archaeologist, P.O. Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscripts must be accompanied by a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. Foreign contributors should furnish international reply coupons. Manuscripts must conform to the format used in Biblical Archaeologist, with full bibliographic references and a minimum of endnotes. See recent issues for examples of the proper style. Manuscripts must also include appropriate illustrations and legends. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to use illustrations. Composition by Liberated Types, Ltd., Durham, NC. Printed by PBM Graphics, Inc., Raleigh, NC. Publisher: Scholars Press

BiblicalArchaeolo A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research

Page186

Volume 54 Number 4

December 1991

Bead Manufacture at Hajarar-Rayhani,Yemen A. John Gwinnett and Leonard Gorelick

186

Stone beads havebeen made andworn since the UpperPaleolithic period. Beadshave been used, appreciatedand collected in a variety of ways throughout history, and often served specific religious functions. The authors study the various ways beads were shaped and polished, a topic that has been largely neglected in bead scholarship.

The Status of Dor in Late Antiquity: A Maritime Perspective Kurt Raveh and Sean A. Kingsley Page198

198

It has long been believed that the small port at Dor along the Israeli coast was overshadowedby a much largerport 13 kilometers to the south at Caesarea.Ancient sources report that and ended with the site being Dor's decline began in 22 B.C.E. virtually abandonedby 390 C.E.Recent research,however,has revealedan intriguing arrayof maritime installations along a 1-mile stretch of shoreline that, along with a plethora of multiperiod material, indicates Dor may have been much more active than previously thought.

The Walls of Jerusalem in the EarlyIslamic Period Jodi Magness

208

During the seventh century C.E.,Moslem tribes from the Arabian peninsula swept through the Middle East and North Africa, creating a vast new empire. Recent excavations have revealed that the Umayyads, the first Moslem dynasty to establish its hegemony over the new empire, sponsoredmany building projects throughout Palestine, including numerous structures on and aroundthe TempleMount and a reconstruction of the city walls at the end of the Umayyad period.

Page208

Old Testament/HebrewBible Textbooks: Which Ones are Best? VictorH. Matthews and James C. Moyer

218

In the fifth part of a series of in-depthbook review articles, Old Testament/HebrewBible textbooks published since 1980 (with one exception) are reviewedfor how they used archaeologyto illuminate biblical studies. Fromthe Editor'sDesk

184

Commentary: Handling Future Manuscript Discoveries Introducing the Authors

235 182

On the cover:An aerial view of the natural harborat Dor, which may have been a much more active port than was previously thought. Photo courtesy of Spectra.

LeonardGorelick

JodiMagness

( 01 ?a

P-4 ?o

o

A. JohnGwinnett

the Authors Introducing JodiMagness has participatedin numerous excavations in IsraelandGreece andcurrentlyservesas the Byzantine ceramics specialist for the excavations at Caesarea Maritima.Dr. Magness receivedher bachelor'sdegreein Archaeologyand History from the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalemand her Ph.D. in Classical Archaeology from the University of Pennsylvania.A revised version of her dissertation "ATypology of the Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery of Jerusalem"is forthcoming from Sheffield Academic Press. A. John Gwinnett is Professor of Oral Biology and Pathology at the State University of New Yorkat Stony Brook.He receiveda dental degreefrom the University of Birmingham and a Ph.D. in Oral Pathology from the University of Bristol,England.His avocationalinterest in archaeology began in the mid 1970s when he started using scanning electron microscopyto study ancient tool marks. He and LeonardGorelick have produced more than 30 papersdealing with the evolution of drilling and engravingtechnology.

182

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

LeonardGorelick operates a private practice in Orthodontics and holds an Associate Clinical Professorshipat the State University of New York at Stony Brook. As a collector of seals, his scholastic interest in them beganin the early 1970s. Dr. Gorelick has coauthoredmore than 30 papers on seals, beads and scarabs,focusing on their significance and methods of manufacture. KurtRavehis the founder and Scientific Director of the Center of Nautical and Regional Archaeology, Dor (CONRAD)in Israel.Since immigratingfrom Holland to Israel in 1974, he has worked as a maritime archaeology inspector for the Israel Antiquities Authority and has directed several land projects and served as a staff member in all terrestrial surveys and excavations in the Dor region. He is the Scientific Director of the Dor Maritime ArchaeologyProjectand is completing a master'sdegree in museology at Haifa University.

Sean A. Kingsleyand KurtRaveh

James C. Moyer VictorH. Matthews

Sean A. Kingsley has been working on underwater surveys and land excavations at Dor since 1987 and is now codirector of the Dor Maritime Archaeology Project, where he is studying the largestcollection of ancient anchors found in any single location in the Mediterranean. He completeda B.A.Honoursdegreeat SaintDavid'sUniversityCollege, University of Wales,andhas excavatedon severalsites in England. Currently serving as Book Review Editor for Biblical Archaeologist, James C. Moyeris Professorof Religious Studies andHeadof the Department of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State University. Dr. Moyer has excavatedat Gezer, Raddanaand The City of David. His publications include severalarticles for Biblical Archaeologist and a coedited book, with William W Hallo and Leo G. Perdue,Scripturein Context II: More Essays on the ComparativeMethod (Eisenbrauns,1983).

Victor H. Matthews is Professorof Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State University. He has published severalarticles in Biblical Archaeologist, as well as three books, PastoralNomadism in the MariKingdom(American Schools of Oriental ResearchDissertation Series 3, 1978),Manners and Customs in the Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), and his most recent work, Old Testament Parallels:Stories and Laws from the Ancient Near East, which was cowritten by Don C. Benjamin of Rice University. Dr. Matthews is the editor of the ASOR Newsletter.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

183

the

From

Editor's

Desk

herecent swirlof publicity concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls should be viewed in the best possible light. After all, the American School in Jerusalem,now the Albright Institute, and the American Schools of Oriental Research have played essential roles in bringing at least some of the most important scrolls to publication within ASOR, first at the Libraryof Congress, then at the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore and then at Duke University. And most importantly,it was William F. Albright, whose birth centennial we have been celebratingthis year,who correctlytermedthe scrolls the greatestmanuscriptfind of the twentieth century.Indeed, he andhis students then at The JohnsHopkins University went on to become the leading figures in researchingthe scrolls:Ivry,Cross,Freedman,Fitzmyer,to name but a few. While it may be said that the media has exaggerated aspects of the debate regardingthe time lag for publication of some fragments,especially those from Cave 4 at Qumran,it has not been off the mark in calling forgreater access to that ancient treasuretrove of biblical and nonbiblical documents. For reasons well known now, some scholars,each for differentfactors,did not allow access to materials assigned them and were certainly delinquent in delivering any sort of publication. The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA)and its AdvisoryCommittee were in the midst of reassigningthe materials and proposinga new schedule for publication when all this publicity emerged.Then came JohnStrugnell'snow famous interview in The Jerusalem Post, which led to his removal from the senior editorship of the Scrolls team and the creation of the new team of Emanuel Tov,EuguneUlrich and Emile Puech.

184

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

It was into this maelstrom that the Huntington Library stepped in September 1991, when it announced that a complete set of large (4"/5") negatives and microfilms of the Dead Sea Scrolls would be made availableto the public at its California facility and by inter-libraryloan. It also announced jointly with Duke University severalweeks later that the Duke University Divinity School Library would receive a complete set of the negatives and microfilm. In subsequent announcements, JerryCampbell, Duke's head librarian and Vice Provost, reaffirmed the Huntington Library'spolicy of full access. So, along with Claremont University, Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati and Oxford University, Duke is about to become another repository.No doubt there will be others, as well. The IAAcalled for a special meeting in early Decemberto discuss the matter of how access will be providedto the unpublished fragments.However,in its first official release on this matter (September25) it stated that the IAA "agreesin principle to facilitate free access to photographsof the Scrolls"and called for a meeting "todiscuss issues relevantto the preservationandpublication"of the corpus.On October27, 1991,the IAAannouncedthat any scholar could consult the material as long as that scholar would not publish it. Although the IAA apparentlywill allow full access to the scrolls, the intention is to allow exclusive publishingrights to the groupof 40 to 50 recently assigned scholars. It seems clear that, as of this writing, the status quo is permanently changed,and for the better. In the United States,at least, there is certainly no possibility of turning back, even though the IAA has decided to approveaccess to photos or negatives on the condition that those schol-

ars now assigned materials to publish should have first rights of publication within the time frame approvedby the IAA and its Advisory Committee. Huntington'sbold and definitive stand on access makes such a position untenable. It is unfortunatethat, 44 yearsafterthe discovery of the first scrolls in the JudaeanWilderness,there is still a lack of agreementamong those most familiarwith their contents and significance on how to proceed with publication. While agreements between Oxford University Press in Englandand the official editorial committee of the Dead Sea Scrolls publications team must and surely will be honored, including the many new assignments made during the last severalyears,business as usual will not be allowed to occur again. While the Oxfordedition will be considered the editio princeps, the authoritative "first edition," there will undoubtedly be cases where other "unofficial"editions precede them. The scholarly community knows well how to distinguish between and what is "first,"and the public will what is "first-rate" also learn to make such a distinction as well. Writingas a concerned colleague and privatecitizen, albeit one with numerous official roles in ASOR, I call once again upon our learned society to establish firm guidelines for publishing manuscript materials and archaeological materials. Nearly two years ago, I called upon ASOR'sAncient ManuscriptsCommittee to articulate a policy on public access to unpublished scrolls and to recommend protocols for appropriate,efficient and timely publication of important unpublished documents of antiquity. The chairman of the committee, James C. VanderKam,has informed me that the committee has prepareda document on access policy that is also being discussed by the Researchand Publications Committee of the Society of Biblical Literature. In view of this, I applaudthe anticipated discussion of ASOR'sCommittee on Archaeological Policy on this subject and on important related issues of great interest to the public. It would not be improperat all for ASOR's membership or corporationto discuss such matters and take appropriatesteps to place such matters on the society's priority list, where they should be.

Now is not the time to place blame or call names or to remind old committees and retired scholars of the exclusivist practices of the past in assigning materials or of allowing certain individuals the privilege of a life-long publication deadline. There has been enough of that. Now is the time to get on with the challenge of getting this material out and into the hands of all who would like to see it, read it and learn from it. The only way to quell the current brouhaha is to devise responsible ways to present such data to the scholarly community and the public with alacrity and maximum efficiency. In a Commentary in this issue, ProfessorJamesM. Robinson proposes severalsteps that would enable the scholarly world to better handle future manuscript discoveries. Hopefully, there will be no lawsuits from concerned parties on either side, and solutions can be found to many of the important issues raised.The positive side to all of this is that there is genuine interest in the public, among students who might be otherwise inclined to study something else, and among younger scholars who feel they can have something to say, if not do, in all of this. Evensome of the more senior people in the field who have been excluded from researchingthe scrolls now feel they might have a "go of it" if complete access becomes a practical reality. ASOR, which played such a central, formative and positive role in early Dead Sea Scrolls researchand publication, and its sister society, the Society for Biblical Literature(SBL),have an obligation to lead and enlighten in the present situation. Let us not leave those who have much less at stake to make decisions that will affect the disciplines of biblical study and archaeologyfor years to come. The time to act is at hand.

Eric M. Meyers Editor-in-Chief

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

185

beads. In Jarmo,Iraq-one of the first we aspire to, by failing to discardour settled food-producingvillages -a old status symbols our chances of small group of perforatedhard stone success are diminished ... people beads (Mohs 5-7) and pendants was continually strain ... to surround excavated(Braidwoodand others themselves with evidence of the 1983).As part of our study of these superiorrank they are claiming" beads (Gorelick and Gwinnett 1990: (1959:7). An early example of the religious 25), we found that it took 100 times longer to drill quartz than to drill aspect of beads is shown on two marble. The difference in manufacMesopotamian cylinder seals from turing time suggested that the use of Uruk that to date to around3200 hard stones may have been made for B.C.E. A string of beads is depicted a special group.The change in social as being brought for offerings at a organizationfrom a more egalitarian, shrine (Frankfort1939:plate ib). A current example are the rosarybeads hunter-gathererway of life to a settled village existence in which social with which Catholic children are roles and differences were arising byA.John Gwinnett taught the mysteries of the faith. and LeonardGorelick might account for the use of hard An ethnographicamuletic example relevant to Yemen is the beenused,appreeadshave Bedouin woman'sjewelry.According ciated and collected almost to FrederickVidal (1985:68) certain Stone beads have universally throughout "configurationsof ... chains and history.In addition to their beads have Talismanic signifibeen made and worn polished beauty, beads often served cance ... A Bedouinwoman'sjewelry specific functions. They were used to is adornment, economic status symthe since indicate social status and religious Upper bol and badgeof fecundity... " importance and were used as amu(italics added). Paleolithic period. lets as well. Stone beads have been made and Methods of Manufacture worn since the Upper Paleolithic The ways stone beads were made has stones as another type of body orna- been seriously neglected in bead period. RandalWhite (1987:3) addressed the issue of the "explosion" ment and status symbol. scholarship.This is somewhat surin the use of beads on the evolutionIn a tangent study on Mesopoprising since it seems reasonableto tamian cylinder seals, we traced a ary implications of bead manufacsuggest that the history of how they ture in the early Aurignacianperiod, similar change in soft to hard stone were made would reflect and comcirca 34,000-32,000 B.C.E.For the usage from the earliest Uruk/Jemdt plement an understandingof the first time, ivory and steatite beads Nasr period, circa 3000 B.C.E.(4 perhistory of all lapidarytechnology. were used as body adornment. White cent hard)through the Sasanian Our appreciationof bead manufacexpressed the following concern: period, circa 200-600 C.E.(99 percent ture stemmed from a functional "with the processes of 'self'definition hard).We suggested that the change analysis and severalreports(Gorelick and social display universal among was due to several factors,namely and Gwinnett 1978:38; Gwinnett modern humans and their evolution- the greaterstatus value of hard and Gorelick 1979: 17)on ancient ary causes and consequences. ... Near Easternstone cylinder seals. stones, the development of status Exotic materials (procured) from envy, and technological improveWe suggested, for example, that the ments in methods of manufacture.It Early Bronze Age cylinder seal was long distances are most often transis our guess that an investigation (in the result of a technological marformed into objects of body ornamentation (and that) visibility was a progress)on changes from soft to riage between the Chalcolithic encriterion for the choice of major par- hard stone beads will disclose a graved stamp seal and the even earsimilar trait. Hard stone beads were ticular objects in which to invest lier cylindrical bead. in the vast majority in the present stylistic information .. and that We published subsequent reports differences in various periods might study. A referenceto status seeking on bead making at a Neolithic site at in our society is relevant to the past imply major differences in social Jarmo, Iraq dating to approximately as well. VancePackardwrote: "ifwe organization." 6500 B.C.E.(Gorelick and Gwinnett For about 25,000 years, only soft aspire to rise in the world but fail to 1990: 25); an Early Bronze Age site at take on the coloration of the group stones' (Mohs 1-3) were used for Shahr-i Sohkta, Iran (Gwinnett and

Bead Manufacture at

Hajar

ar-Rayhani,

Yemen

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

187

Strings of IaIan

DID

D' Il)l~l~

were polished ' Ifo ubigi

made inID

b'eads

using

r~I~

~TI~TI te

I

Cabay

I'l~ll

method

tumbling

hssmpewsfuda

ig

1,000yearsaI.Charactristicsf

asnnhegt sudie,

nl

onhad cnuyBCE

an

al

ton

bad.

Eidnc

Gorelick 1981:10);and more recently in Mantai, Sri Lanka,circa 7001000 C.E. (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1987: 149),Ban Don Ta Phet, Thai-

that were providedfor our study were dated stratigraphicallyand by radiocarbondating from about 1200 B.C.E. to about 100 C.E. (Blakelyand Sauer 1985:4). circa 350 B.C.E. to 350 C.E. land, and Gwinnett forthThe surroundingsand context 1991 (Gorelick of and Wadi Arikamedu, India, al-Jubahwere describedby coming), circa 250 B.C.E.to 250 C.E. (Gwinnett Blakely and Sauer (1985:2):"The and Gorelick 1988: 187).These last barrensand track leads south from three were particularlyuseful in the ancient silt field of Maribthrough the the time the for first sands of the Rub'al-Khahli,along documenting use of diamonds as drills, anticipat- the edges of the ruggedmountains of central Yemen, overprecipitous ing the finding for bead drilling in this study. passes, and finally to WadiBeihan, This article deals with the beads where HajarBin Humeid and Timna' are located. Timna'was the capital excavatedin Yemen at the edge of the largest site in the Wadial-Jubah of pre-IslamicQataban,and Hajar Bin Humeid was a point for frankknown as Hajarar-Rayhani.A 2 by 2 meters stratigraphicprobewas incense and myrrhtransshipment excavatedin 1982, 1984 and 1987 by from productionareaseven further to the south in Arabia.Fragrancean archaeologicalteam from the laden camel caravansmoved north American Foundationfor the Study from the WadiBeihan on their long of Man (AFSM).JeffreyA. Blakely was the Field Director and the Chief and rewardingjourneyto the markets of Egypt,Palestine,andMesopotamia. Archaeologist was JamesA. Sauer. The site covers about 72,500 square They traveledwell-wornpaths along the edges of the Arabiandesert, passmeters. Approximately3,500 specimens and samples of plaster,bone, ing Marib,the capital of Sheba (Saba') and the most powerfulof the ancient charcoal, seeds, beads steatite and other objects were collected, as well South Arabiankingdoms, as they as 242 baskets of pottery.The beads plied their route north. Apparently

188

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Haiar ar-Rayhani,Yemen,is the largestsite in the Wadial-Jubahand coversabout 72,500 square meters. In antiquity, camel caravans carryingspices and fragrancespassed through Wadial-Jubahon their journeyto the markets of Egypt,Palestine and Mesopotamia. With the rise of sea tradein the first centuries C.E., and especially with the advent of Islam in the seventh century C.E.,the route came to be virtually abandoned.

with the rise of sea tradefor spices in the first centuries C.E., and especially with the advent of Islam in the 7th century C.E.,the route came

to be virtually abandoned.It was only with the introduction of powered vehicles in the 1960s that the route between Mariband the WadiBeihan again regularlycarrieda variety of international commodities.... Halfwaybetween Mariband Wadi Beihan lies the Wadial-Jubah,a mountain-ringed,defensible piece of arableland which is about 22 kilometers long and between 3 and 8 kilometers wide." Material. Of the approximately500 beads and bead fragmentsuncovered in the excavation, 107 were stone or mineral. Of these, 87 beads were availablefor study and 64 were selected for analysis. Those severely

clogged,badly broken or extremely weatheredwere excluded. The beads, with dates provided by the excavators,were separatedaccordingto their period and relative hardnesson the Mohs scale (see table) and classified as soft (Mohs 1-3) including calcite, limestone, etc., and hardincluding quartz, mostly carnelian (Mohs 7) and garnet (Mohs 8). There were none in the Mohs 5-6 rangesuch as obsidian, hematite and lapis lazuli. The stones from which the beads were made were identified by LauraBarettaof the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. The surfaces of all of the beads were examined by light optical microscopyfor clues as to methods of shaping and polishing. In previous studies (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1981:11),we found that the method of shapingbeads differedbetween hardand soft stones, which confirmed other reportedfindings (Tosi and Piperno 1973: 1).Wehave also found that it is frequently possible to differentiatebetween tumbling, a mass productionmethod of polishing, and beads that were polished by hand one at a time (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1989: 163). The drill holes of all of the beads were analyzed by making silicone impressions of the holes. Silicone, a highly accurate,flexible and inert material,literally turns the drill holes inside out, therebydisclosing their surfacetopography.The silicone impressions were examined by light optical and scanning electron microscopyin orderto identify the patterncreatedby the drilling technique. The final steps were to effect

technique, finer and finer abrasives are used to reduce the surfaceand as a consequence producedfiner and finer groovesuntil a shiny polished surface was effected. In modern tumbling, a largegroupof beads are rolled in a barrelusing finer and finer abrasives.Insteadof grooves,we found Results Polishing.In 1989,we comparedthe that the tumbling method produced finer and finer pits, which also reappearanceof beads that were polsulted in a shiny, polished surface. ished by tumbling with beads polishedbyhand(GwinnettandGore- The findings were made on quartz lick 1989: 163).In the hand polishing beads made in ancient Mantai, Sri

In most instances such a match was availablefromour previouslyreported experimental drilling. Scanning electron photomicrographswere made for publication and for permanent recording.

either a match or mismatch experimentally to the identified pattern. A 2-by-2-metersstratigraphicprobe was excavatedin 1982, 1984and 1987at Hajar ar-Rayhaniin Yemen.Approximately3,500 specimens and samples of plaster, bone, charcoal,seeds, beads steatite and other objects were collected, as well as 242 baskets of pottery Of the approximately500 beads and bead fragmentsfound in the excavations, 64 were used in this study.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

189

Lankacirca 700-1000 C.E. and polished by tumbling. Microscopically, they resembled the quartzbeads produced for export from present day Cambay,Indiaknown to be polished by tumbling (Possehl 1981:39). Polished brokenbeads and bead fragmentsare among the most conclusive evidence for tumbling since it is well known that breakagedoes occur during this process, and it is highly unlikely that the fragments or brokenparts would purposely be polished by hand. Therefore,the finely pitted, polished broken surfaces and fragmentsthat were found at Mantai were fairly definite proof of tumbling. Wefound characteristicsof tumbling in 38 of the 64 beads studied, only on hardstone beads. The evidence on the remainderwas uncertain. Evidence for tumbling in this

190

sample was found on beads as early as ninth/eighth century B.C.E. To our knowledge, this is the earliest reported.The earliest textual reference to tumbling was describedby Augustus Summers (1851:318), who wrote of two men pulling a leather bag back and forth filled with quartz beads and emery powderfor 15 days. Shaping.In severalinstances, we found evidence that beads were shaped by chipping, similar to the method of flint knapping.This occurredonly on beads made of quartz. In addition, severalbeads were shaped by facetting (i.e. abradingto create planes). In two instances, disc shaped beads were made by drilling a cylindrically shaped bead, then sectioning it. The sequence became evident because the drilling from either end was badly misaligned. When sawing was used on the overlapping,

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Micrographsof a brokenbead in which the edges of the fracturesite have been rounded (arrows),a result of the tumbling process.At right is a higher magnification of the bead. Beadspolishedindividually by hand produced finer and finer grooves.7imbling is a mass productiontechnique where a largegroupof beads is rolled in a barrel,which results in pits being producedinstead of grooves.

misaligned segments, a somewhat hour glass shape resulted. This was evident on a serpentine bead dated to the first century B.C.E./firstcentury C.E. and an amphibolite bead dated to the fourth/third century B.C.E. We had previously reported(Gwinnett and Gorelick 1981: 10)on this hourglass shape resulting from the sectioning of a cylindrical, soft stone bead, in a study of EarlyBronzeAge beads from Shahr-iSohkta excavated by Piperno (1976: 1). Drilling. The drill holes in the entire

C)S

~---I--~-'"~-~--cr~~-----''''-~-I-~

00

of these had the unmistakablepattern left by fixed twin diamond splinter drills. The concentric grooveswere consistently deep and regular.The regularitycan be seen in a long section of the silicone impression. Twelvewere unclear and two were not consistent with diamond usage. sample were analyzed accordingto The regularand deep concentric beads broken Polished two parameters:the pattern on the side wall and the shape of the drill grooveswere similar to those found in our studies of quartzbeads from ar e and holes. Since there were consistent fragments differencesbetween the findings on present day Cambay,India, and in the ancient sites of Mantai, Ban Don most t h e hardand soft stones, these will be among TaPhet and Arikamedu. Proofof the describedseparately.In most of our use of diamond drills in the ancient evidence conclusive previousstudies there were examples sites was based on a comparison of incomplete or misaligned drill the known use of diamond with holes. These were of special value for tumbling. drills at Cambayand their conbecause they disclosed the effect of comitant pattern. Furtherproof the leading edge of the drill, which stemmed from our experimental the side on was evident inforthe clearest ing finding generallyprovides wall of many of the hardstone beads. duplication of the regularand deep mation as to the technology used. concentric side wall pattern (GwinThis was not availableon this sample, Of the total of 57 hardstone beads, nett and Gorelick 1987: 149). Fifteen B and C. in 29 were dewas an and A, Group however, important It is likely that a bow drill similar These micrographs to that used in Cambaywas involved. show beads that There, either twin diamond splinters were shaped by or a single diamond splinter were which chipping, embeddedin an iron rod. The leadproducedfacets that then were ing edge of the rod was drilled or abraded to flatten notched to permit the seating of the the rough,chipped areas. The arrow diamond splinters. The edges of the shows abrasion holes were then closed overthe anomalies. diamond splinters as in a ring bezel. The diamonds projectedout to the side beyond the iron rod, which was made narrowerto permit deeperdrilling. The diamonds also projected beyond the end of the iron rod and were spaced so that they functioned like a core cutting or"pseudo-tubular"

In disk form, beads can be made by sectioning a long, drilled cylindrical form. Holes are drilled on each side, and if the drilling is misaligned, a hole in the shape of an hour glass will result. An example of misaligned drill holes (arrow)on an amphibolite disk bead, which suggests sectioning.

ficiency. Fortunately,the other two parameterswere generally both clear and consistent. Hardstones: GroupsA, B and C, fourth century B.C.E. to first century C.E. The most surprisingand excit-

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

191

drill (i.e. cutting at the perimeter). regular,could have been createdby depth and regularitywas unclear fixed twin diamond splinters that One of the consistent findings and requiresfurther research.It is on the use of the fixed, twin diamond our hypothesis that the irregularpat- became markedlyworn with long tern found in some of the groupD usage. It is of significance that the splinter drill was that it createda hole that was unusually parallelshape of all of the drill holes in the entire hard more so than stone sample either a solid were or rod remarkably copper Frequencyof Hardto Soft Stones parallel. copper tubular The relative frequency of hard to soft stones in each period from the Punch method. drill. This can be beads excavatedat Hajarar-Rayhani,Wadial-Jubah,Yemen. In nearly all of attributedto the the beads that lack of wear of Hard Soft we have studied the diamonds as Group Total A First B.C.E.-first C.E. 5 3 8 century century in the with past, the compared B Third century-first century B.C.E. 9 1 10 the wear of a drilling was done C Fourthcentury-third century B.C.E. 15 3 18 from both ends, In drill. copper D Seventh century-fifth century B.C.E. 0 9 9 the latter some meeting approxiNinth century-eighth century B.C.E. 18 0 18 E mately in the degreeof taper, F Twelfthcentury-tenth century B.C.E. 1 0 1 middle. This more with a copIbtal 57 7 64 minimized accithan a rod per dental fracture. is coppertube, A unique variamanifest. Since tion in the present hardstone sample examples and perhapsin all of the copper (Mohs 3) cannot cut hard was that almost 90 percent of the stone by itself, a loose abrasivesuch group E and F examples may have as crushed quartz or emery must be been due to an earlier diamond drill- drilling proceededfrom the initial used. While the abrasivecuts the ing technique. Forexample, it is pos- end. In severalinstances, evidence sible that the use of diamond abrawas disclosed that the remaining it substrate, simultaneously prosive of inconsistent large and small 10 percent of the perforationwas duces wear on the drill and a coneffected and Gwinby punching from the long sequent taper (Gorelick end and not by drilling from the 1987: nett, 149). fifth censeventh to secondary end. This very likely reGroupD, twi n The sulted in the dischargeof a small, fixed, The side wall pattern tury B.C.E. found in some of the beads in this irregularlyconical shaped fragment dri l diamond similar to that producedby a small to that evident was similar splinter group steel bee-bee pellet when it strikes in GroupA-C. Therefore,the date a hole that created seventh to fifth century B.C.E.is the glass. The wall of the short seconearliest evidence we have found for daryend revealeda series of stress/ was fractureplanes. An experimental the use of the fixed, twin diamond unusually in this drill. Some examples splinter example of the punch method was manifested a variaparallel. reportedby Alexander Miller (pergroup,however, tion of this pattern. The grooves sonal communication 1987)who varied inconsistently from shallow permitted a silicone impression to sizes used with a tubular to deep and they did not have the be taken of the hole. His technique copper grit drill would producethis irregular same regularity.Deep, occasional was performedto verify the original groovesand "collar"formations indi- pattern. Furtherresearchis needed. reportof this method (Chevalier, it will also be to cated the use of a copperdrill with Inizan and Tixier 1982: 55). However, necessary loose abrasives(Gorelickand Gwin- test the use of emery of inconsistent nett 1978:38). It is of interest that Soft Stone Beads grit sizes since the use of a loose abrasivefor ancient drilling is well the remains of a copperfoundry,inThere were only seven soft stone known. We documented the use of a beads, made of limestone, calcite cluding crucibles, slag and charred lowest strafound in the loose abrasiveas early as 6500 B.C.E. and serpentine, all from GroupA, B were wood, at Jarmo,Iraq,(Gorelickand Gwinand C. These were drilled from both tum (Blakelyand Sauer 1985: 8). E and twelfth to nett 1990: ends with some almost parallel and F, eighth Group 25). to determine the It is also In this one with a taperedshape. The side B.C.E. group patnecessary century tern described aboveof variations in if groovesthat were shallow, albeit wall pattern was either rough, mat

192

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

or smooth. The most important finding, however,was that none had the appearanceof diamond drilling. Becausenone disclosed a leading edge, furtherresearchis needed as to the drill and abrasiveused.

of

None

soft

stone

had

the diamond

the

seven

beads

found

appearance

of

drilling.

Importsor Exports The discoveryof diamond usage in this sample raises an intriguing, albeit complicated question. Were these diamond drilled beads made at this site or imported along the well

documented (Casson 1984:39) trade route from India?Since the Yemenite region has a supply of hardstones, it is conceivable that bead manufacture was indigenous and that perhapsthe diamonds came from nearbyAfrica and not from India. An argument against indigenous manufactureis that no partly finished beads nor workshops have been found so far.At this point, both ideas are reasonable speculations requiringmuch further research.The African connection is at present bolstered only by a textual referencefrom Pliny,"Ourancient authorities thought that (diamonds) were found only in the mines of Ethiopiabetween the Temple of Mercuryand the island of Meroe" and that "thespecimens discovered were no largerthan a cucumber seed and not unlike one in color." The Indian connection. The Indian

Micrographsof a silicone impressionof the drill hole from a carnelian bead from Yemen dated to the fourth-third century B.C.E. Sili-

cone, a highly accurate, flexible and inert material, literally turns the drill holes inside out to disclose the surface topographyIn this example, regular,deep concentric grooves (arrow)punctuate the side wall of the drill hole. The depth, shape and frequencyof the groovesis shown in a longitudinal section throughthe impression.

Below left: Diamond drills from Cambay,India, made fromhafts of iron into holes (arrow) in which either twin or single diamond splinters are placed. Below: Micrographcontrasts the single diamond splinter(right)with twin diamond splinters(arrow)projectingbeyond the diameter of the iron haft.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

193

Micrographsof silicone impressions taken fromdrill holes in rock crystal beads from Cambay,India, and Mantai, Sri Lanka.Note the similarity of the side-wall pattern to the previousexample from Yemen.The Cambay bead was drilled with a twin diamond splinter drill.

connection is bolsteredby many considerations. It is well known that India is amply endowedwith a variety of gem stones including natural diamonds.Textualevidence from the Sanskrit "KautiliyaArthra-Sastra" (Kangle1986)dated (controversially) to 320 B.C.E. to 150 C.E., shows that Indians knew: the sources of diamonds ("inmines and streams");specific details of diamonds, such as the various colors (like a cat's eye or the urine of a cow);and the various shapes of natural diamonds, for example the octahedralcrystal shape versus those "devoidof angles and uneven." The Arthra-Sastradescribes a strict, bureaucraticcontrol consistent with an exporter."The Director of Tradeshould be conversantin the prices of commodities of high value

Micrographsof silicone impressions of drill holes in carnelian beads fromthe seventh-fifth and of low value . .. ascertain (concentury B.C.E.The example at left shows a ditions of trade)from (port)regulapattern that can be equated with a diamond drill. The other two examples show a pattern tions and should proceed to where with variationsin depth and frequencyof the there is profit and to avoid (loss)" grooves.The accentuated groovesindicated the arrows are similar to the "collars" by (Kangle1986). caused by the use of a copperdrill and loose Pliny (NaturalHistory book 37, abrasives.

page 15, line 55; Wormington1971)

194

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

describes six types of diamonds, including an Indiantype. While he also describes an "Arabian" type, there is no evidence for this in the geologic surveysof the area,including one that was conducted as partof the WadialJubahproject(Overstreet,Crolierand Toplyn 1985).Pliny (NaturalHistory book 37, lines 62-197; Wormington 1971)also listed more than twice as many (22)types of stones from India as from Arabia(nine). Accordingto Gus VanBeek (1985: trade with Indiawas known. 20) "Someships from Indiaand Africa were allowed by fiat of the Kingof the Sabaeanto tradetheir wares at Qanaforfrankincenseand myrrh .... Merchants (fromShabwa,the capitol of Hadramaut,present day south Yemen)would carryit north to the Mediterranean... and Mesopotamia together with the gold and silver, silks and gems that came by sea from India to Qana"(italics added). FutureResearchwith New Methods As stated previously,the lack of the

disclosure of a leading edge in the drilledholes has limited the certainty that fixed twin diamonds were used in part of Group D and in all of GroupE and F.The reason for the need to equicovate is based on the difficulty in quantifying the exact depth and regularityof concentric groovesthat are either shallower or deeperthan those known to be created by the fixed twin diamond drill. One way that this problem can be clarifiedis by means of an instrument capableof measuring the depth and regularityof the concentricities in the drill holes. The instrument, a profilometer,has been used for many yearsby industry to measure the roughness of metallic and nonmetallic surfaces.It has also been used in dentistry for measuring the roughnessof fillings (Jeffries,Smith Barkmeirand Gwinnett 1990: 169).

When used on epoxy models of drill holes, connected to a recorder that magnifies the irregularityand quantified by a computer, the profilometer may resolve severalimportant issues. Werediamonds used as early as in Groups D, E and F?And were they used as fixed twin splinters or as a loose abrasive?When correlated with the scanning electron microscope, the results, potentially availablewith the profilometer,may providea new and more sophisticated interpretationof scanning electron micrographs.It may also providearchaeology with anothersophisticated investigativemethod for other related problems. Acknowledgments Wewish to thank Merilyn Phillips Hodgson, President of AFSM,and GordonHodgson,Treasurerof AFSM,

A carnelian bead dated to the ninth-eighth century B.C.E. The irregularly shaped conical

hole shows evidence of a percussion technique in which a hole was drilled almost completely throughthe bead from one side. The remainderof the perforationwas completed by the punching technique, which left fractures(arrows)in the substrate.

Micrographsof an experimentalduplication of the punch technique. The arrowpoints to the irregular,conical shape of the punched out side, which contrasts with the geometric shape of the drilled side at far left.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

195

The BiblicalConnection and Yemen of The best known literaryreferenceconnecting Yemento the Bible is that in and circa 950 B.C.E. of Sheba Queen paraphrased (1 Kings 10) (Saba) Isaiah 6 who came to Solomon "with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices and very much gold and precious stones" (italics added).Other referencesto Shebain the Bible areto be found in Genesis 10:7,Psalms 72:10, 15, Isaiah43:3, Jeremiah6:20 and Ezekiel 27:22. Accordingto Philby,"thefirst mention of the tribe (of Saba)in Assyrian records occurs in an inscription of the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-Pileser who recordsan incursion into the territoryof the (Saba),and (745-728 B.C.E.) The a similar inscription from the reign of Sennacherib,circa 705-681 B.C.E. dates at Wadial-Jubah,accordingto JeffBlakelyand JimSauer(1985)"support the biblical tradition of the Queen of Sheba ... as well as the later Assyrian and Babylonianreferencesto the Sabaeansand other Arabs." Gus VanBeek suggestedthat the type of caravanthat made the journey "northto the Mediterraneanwith the gold and silver, silks and gems came by sea from India to Qana. To make the journey north, merchants banded together in great convoys:a caravanmight have as many as 2500 camels and 300 merchants, guides, guardsand drivers ... Kings and tribal chieftains all along the way took great precautions to see that they got their share of the trade... Priests at the Temple of Jerusalemburnt a kilogram of (incense) when saying their daily prayers"(italics added). Strabo,the Greek historian writing in the first century B.C.E.,described the enormous wealth in southern Arabia,especially amongst the Sabaeans. This wealth was derived from their nearly exclusive monopoly of frankincense and myrrh. In high demand throughout the ancient world, Strabo wrote that these were "barteredfor gold and silver and precious stones."By broad monetary analogy, incense was the ancient Arabian equivalent to modern oil wells. Enormouswealth was their common denominator. Accordingto the Interpreter'sDictionary of the Bible "preciousstones is an original Hebrew expression which has come into the English languageby Bible translations... (and)appearsfourteen times in the"Revised Standard Version (Buttrick 1962). The word bead, as such, is not found in the Bible. However,phrasesthat may be relatedto beadsarepresent,including "stonesof remembrance,""costly stones,""stonesof fire"and "stonesfor setting."That beads were valued throughout the lands of the Bible has been well documented and is also suggestedby the finds at Megiddo,Gezer and the necklace of carnelian, agateetc., at Ezion-geber.

for their support of this research project. We would also like to express our appreciation to Dr. JeffreyBlakely for his help, guidance and cooperation in this study, and to Blakely and James A. Sauer for the photographs of the site.

Note 'Mohs values representrelative hardnesson a scale of 1 to 10, with talc at 1 and diamond at 10 representingthe softest to hardestsubstrates.

Bibliography Blakely,J.A., and Sauer,J.A. 1985 The Roadto Wadial-Jubah.Expedition 27: 2-16.

Braidwood,L. S., and others 1983 PrehistoricArchaeologyAlong the Zagnos Flanks. Series:OrientalIn-

196

stitute Publication,Volume 105. Chicago:OrientalInstitute. Buttrick,G., editor 1962 Interpreter'sDictionary of the Bible, volume E-J.Oxford:AbingdonPress. Casson, L. 1984 Patternsof SeabornTradein the First Century A.D. Bulletin of the American Societyof Papyrologists21:39-47. Chevalier,J.,Inizan,M. L., and Tixier, J. 1982 Une Techniquede Perforationpar Percussionde Perles en Cornaline. Paleorient8: 55-65. Frankfort,H. 1939 CylinderSeals. London:McMillan & Co. Gorelick, L., and Gwinnett, A. J. 1978 Ancient Seals and ModernScience. Expedition20: 38-47. 1990 InnovativeLapidaryCraftTechniques in Neolithic Jarmo.Archeomaterials 4: 25-32. forth- Evidencefor the Use of Diamonds in coming BeadMakingat BanDon TaPhet.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Journalof Bead Research. Gwinnett, A. J.,and Gorelick, L. 1979 Ancient Lapidary.A StudyUsing ScanningElectronMicroscopy.Expedition 22: 17-32. 1981 BeadMaking in Iranin the Early BronzeAge. Expedition 24: 10-23. 1987 ExperimentalEvidenceforthe Use of a Diamond Drill in Sri Lanka,ca. A.D. 700-1000. Archeomaterials 1: 149-52. 1988 A Possible LapidaryTrainingPiece from Arikamedu,India.Archeomaterials 2: 187-93. 1989 EvidenceforMass ProductionPolishing in Ancient BeadManufacture. Archeomaterials3: 163-68. Jeffries,S. R., Smith, R. L., Barkmeir,W W, and Gwinnett, A. J. 1989 Comparisonof Smoothness of RestorativeResin Materials.Journalof Ethnic Dentistry 1: 169-75. Kangle,R. P.,translator 1986 The KautiliyaArthasastra,part 2. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Overstreet,W.C., Grolier,M. J.,and Toplyn,M. R. 1985 Wadial-JubahArchaeologicalProject, volume 4. Washington,DC.; AFSM. Packard,V 1959 The Status Seekers.New York: McKay. Piperno,M. 1976 Grave77 at Shahr-iSohkta:Further Evidenceof TechnologicalSpecialization in the 3rd Millennium B.C. East and West26: 1-3. Possehl, G. 1981 CambayBeadmaking.An Ancient Craftin ModernIndia.Expedition 23: 39-46. Summers,A. 1851 An Account of the Agateand Carnelian Tradeof Cambay.Journalof Bombay Branchof The RoyalAsiatic Society 14:318-19. Tosi, M., and Piperno,M. 1973 Lithic TechnologyBehindthe Ancient LapisLazuliTrade.Expedition 16: 1-8. VanBeek, G. 1985 ArabianPeninsula.Pp. 17-39 in Oil Rich Landsof Destiny, edited by GeorgeConstable.New York:TimeLifeBooks. Vidal, F. 1985 Wanderersof the Desert. Pp.61-91 in Oil Rich Landsof Destiny, edited by GeorgeConstable.New York: Time-LifeBooks. White, R. 1987 Originsand Dispersal of Modern Humans. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press. Wormington,E. H., editor 1971 Pliny,Natural Histories, Book 37. Series:The LoebClassical Library. Cambridge,MA, andLondon:Harvard University Press and Heinemann.

The Status of Dor in Late Antiquity: A Maritime

Perspecti by KurtRaveband SeanA. Kingsley

Above:EarlyRoman Imperial iron anchor 1.1meters long dating to the first century C.E. found at a depth of 3 meters in the main bay at Dor. The saltwater triggereda chemical reaction of the iron that caused it to attract the surroundingsand, stone or pottery,which created a hard crust that stabilized the artifact. In contrast to identical anchors examined off the coasts of 7Trkeyand the south of France,the iron within the encrustations of the Dor collection is perfectlypreservedas a consequence of both the low presence of oxygenin shallow waters and the thick mantle of sand that engulfed the anchor soon after its deposition. Unless otherwise noted, all photos courtesy of the authors and the Dor MaritimeArchaeologyProject.Left:This Tshaped Byzantine anchor from the south bay at Dor is a mere 77 centimeters (roughly 30 inches) long and, after conservation, weighed 7.6 kilograms (about 17 pounds).An anchor of this size would have been sufficient for use only on a small fishing boat. Although severalcontemporaryiron stocks have been examined within the harbor,this item was isolated. Remnants of wood within the stock aperturerevealed why so few anchor stocks were found: while the durable encrustation preservedthe general dimensions of the anchor, the wooden bar would have rapidly decayed.

198

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

harintoancient esearch bors and port complexes has tended in the past to concentrate on assessing a site's morphological plan either in a specific period or over a largertime bracket(see Flemming 1972;Oleson 1985;Yorke1986).Tworelated reasons caused harborarchaeologyto drift in this direction. First, practical considerations caused most of the underwaterand coastal surveysto be conducted in months when submergedsediments were relatively stable, undisturbedby the turbulence of storms, which are most punishing in the winter months. The accumulation of sand layersand limited time-scale of most examinations, therefore,providedlittle indication of the nature of remains that may have existed beneath the surface interface.Second, submergedarchitectural features were often the most prominent parts of the harboravailable for study, so sea-moles were mapped,breakwatersmeasured and the configurationof quayschronicled. Dor, 13 kilometers (approximately 8 miles) north of Caesareaon the Israelcoast, is a port by no means typical of this trend. Along a 1-mile length of shore an intriguing arrayof maritime installations, including anti-silt channels, ancient fish ponds, coastal warehouses and the only known dry dock in the eastern Mediterranean(Raban1981:17),were constructed and quarriedout of the rocky kurkar(carbonate-cemented quartzsandstone)surface.But it is the plethoraof multi-periodmaterial recoveredfrom within the shallow waters that has earned the site a greater reputation. One of the most intense and extensive studies of its kind, the Artifact Deposition Survey of the Dor Maritime Archaeology Project has established a balanced cross-section of the city's fortune and associated level of trade as it ebbed and flowed from the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E.to the modern day.

TraditionalImpression

the shore, and thus does not permit

To scholars engagedin plotting the progressof Dor in Late Antiquity, the year 390 C.E. representsa watershed in the site's long history: in a translation of Eusebius'sOnomastikon, Saint Jeromerecordsthat by this date, Dor was deserted (Dahl

uities, book 15:verse 333; Marcus 1980).Considering this, along with the fact that in 10yearsof excavations on land at Tel Dor nothing post-

a smooth landing .. ."(Jewish Antiq-

of Dor in Late Antiquity

dating the mid-third century C.E.has

been found (Sternand Sharon 1987: 209), it is understandablewhy as-

Aerial view of the naturalharborof Dor, 1915:99). Accordingto popular situated beside the modern settlement of around Dor's downfall began opinion, KibbutzNahsholim. South of the tel are a

22 B.C.E.with the urban and mari-

time development of neighboring Caesarea,which eventually cornered the region'scommercial market. A majorelement in this argument is Josephus'sdescription of Caesarea'srise in prominence. He describedJaffaand Dor as "small towns on the seashore and are poor harboursbecause the south-west wind beats on them and always dredgesup sand from the sea upon

chain of offshoreislands protectingthe ancient city's main anchorage,which is obstructed by the encroachmentof sand. Beyondthis southernzone extends the straight coastline toward Caesareaand the SharonPlain. Photo courtesy of Spectra.

sumptions about the city's decline are constantly reiterated(Baly 1974: 127;Meshorer 1986-87: 60). Fifteen years of underwatersurveys carriedout by the Dor Maritime ArchaeologyProjecthave collated a

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

199

body of contraryevidence that recommends these views be readjusted. Focusing on the large Late Roman and Byzantine assemblages that form the basis of the argument,we shall thus examine the evidence of the region'strade in Late Antiquity and attempt to demonstrate that the emphasis was one of stability followed by upwardgrowth, ratherthan continuous demise. Reassessing the details. The first serious doubts over this traditional scenario arose when a unique episcopal basilica was excavatedat the foot of Tel Dor by Claudine Dauphin in 1979. The edifice was used from the time of Constantius the Second (337-361 C.E.)or slightly earlier,to some time after 649, when Bishop Stephen of Dora was introduced to Pope Martin as vicar of the see of Jerusalem(Dauphin 1982-83: 31). Along the via maris, the "wayof the sea"of antiquity, weary pilgrims could regain strength and contemplate the basilica'sproudpossession, a piece of holy rock from Golgotha, before moving on towardsthe prime destinations, the Galilee or Jerusalem. Rather than an isolated outpost, it seems evident that the part church, part rest-house was an important foci within a largernucleus. Whether the relocation of the main settlement at the eastern foot of Tel Dor was the cause or effect of a major social upheavalis uncertain. Nevertheless, this particularchapteris a significant landmarkpermitting us in terms of general topographyto speak of continuity ratherthan total dislocation. Throughout the basilica excavation, a cosmopolitan repertoireof pottery was examined: white Egyptian storagejarsand Late Roman C and North African Red Slip bowls, which were recognized as proof of "therole of Byzantine Dora as a major port and roadjunction on the trade and pilgrim routes linking Egyptand North Africa to the SyroCilician hinterland"(Dauphin 1981: 118-19).With an estimated 8 hec-

200

tares (approximately20 acres)of territory,contrastedto Caesarea's95 hectares (237.5 acres)and Ascalon's 52 hectares (130 acres),Byzantine Dor may well have been a small city (Broshi1980:4-5) but seems to have been particularlyactive for its size. A body of water protectedby a string of offshore islands and reefs, a continuation of the Carmel Mountain terrain,was a major catalyst for this activity. The majority of the Israel coastline is relatively hostile and not endowedwith features favorable for refugeor for conducting trade. Collectively, the small islands oper-

of stone, they were constructed out of lead/woodor iron at the time when Herod draftedgrandioseplans for Caesarea,andexclusively of iron after the first century C.E. Amongst the

repertoireof iron examples recorded over the years at Dor, the largestproportion emanate from the Byzantine period and can be identified by the positioning of the armsat right angles to the shank in a T-shapedarrangement. In severalcases, the armprofile is not fully developed,a transitional feature of Late Roman/EarlyByzantine date. All 15 of the Dor collection, weighing between 7.6 and 32.4 kilograms (17 and 71 pounds), come from between and on the shore side of the two southernmost islands and It has were discoveredat depths of no more been long than 4 meters. Within the secure confines of the believed that port the Dramont F and YassiAda wrecks excavatedoff the south of Franceand at Dor was rendered Turkey,respectively,(Joncheray1975; Bass and van Doorninck 1982)ant h e obsolete by larger chors identical to those used at Dor were a t found, indicating that the range Caesarea. port of the form spans from about 350 to at least 626 c.E. In these examples the iron had dissolved and the dimensions were formulated on the basis of ated as naturalbreakwaters,repelling the full force of the sea, and the the void within the surroundingconavailablegeographicalopportunism cretions. The Dor collection, howwas exploited by ancient mariners as ever, sufferednegligibly from oxidaA small secondary tion so that not only iron but rope early as 1900 B.C.E. harborlay to the north of Tel Dor adheringto the stock and vicinity is while the main anchoragewas to the also frequently discerned during conservation. south, today representedby two Although the anchors were one separatebays divided by a sandbar. of the most prominent classes of In the southernmost sector of this artifacts found during the surveysat area, Byzantine vessels dropped anchor and transferredmerchandise Dor, just how much significance may from ship to shore and vice versa. be attributedto the assemblage? Anchors. As the most effective tool After all, perhaps this large sample was deposited as a result of nautical capableof saving life and cargoif a vessel was caught in one of the inexpertise coupled by the silting of Mediterranean'ssudden storms, the the harbor, which made navigation anchor was valued by ancient marihazardous. A valid case, however, ners not only for its functional ability exists to propose that seafaring conbut also as a piece of psychological, ditions improved in the Byzantine reassuringequipment. Dor is one of period. The sea level at Dor began to the few Mediterraneanharborswhere rise in the early third century c.E. it is possible to trace the complete and peaked around 600 c.E. (Raban evolution of anchors. Initially made and Galili 1985: 349) when naviga-

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

tion of the region'swaterwayswould have been facilitated by a sea level 1.2 meters higher than today. In relation to the dimensions of the anchors from the YassiAda ship (which rangedfrom 2-2.565 meters long for a vessel slightly less than 20 meters with a 5.22 meter beam) and those of Dramont F (1.36-1.8 meters on a ship whose maximum dimensions were 5 by 12 meters) the examples from Dor were relatively small, varyingin length from .77-1.59 meters. The most plausible conclusion based on these statistics is that Byzantine vessels operatingin the waters of Dor probablydid not exceed 12 meters in length on average.

towardsships with a standardlength of about 20 meters (Eisemanand Ridgway 1987: 109). Within a concise area of 150 meters in the southern bay at Dor, we have recordedeight wrecks, three of which are of Byzantine date. DW4 (Dor Wreck4) lies in 1.3 meters of water and is characterizedby a 15-meterspreadof amorphousballast stones, beneath which remnants of the hull were preserved.The interval between adjoiningmortise and tenons, which servedto pin the outer planking on top of one another,is relatively far apart,varyingbetween 17.3 and 31.8 centimeters (approximately 7 to 12 inches). This feature, Merchantvesselsin late antiquity. in addition to the omission of treeTrafficwasnot necessarilyrestricted nails to secure the respective tenons to localcraftandsmallfishingboats. within their mortises, is highly comA woodenstockcoveredwith lead parableto the seventh century C.E. 90.1centimeters(almost1 yard)in wreck from YassiAda and the Pantano Longariniship dated to 600-650 length and recordedunderwaterat Dor weighed as little as 25.6 kiloC.E.(Throckmorton and Throckmorton 1973:263), which is the earliest grams (roughly56 pounds),yet its core of EuropeanOak confirms it known vessel to exclude treenails in this fashion. More laborefficient and belonged to a vessel that began its cost-effective than Greco-Roman journeyon the other side of the Mediterraneanin the first century ship construction, the assembly of C.E. Accordingto literary and archae- Byzantine vessels such as DW4 may reflect the modest amounts that the ological sources, one of the distinguishing factorsof Byzantine trade private sector was willing to invest was a reduction in the size of merin shipping (Bassand van Doorninck chant ships. Names such as the 1982:312). What were the causes, however, gazelle and the swordfish,evocative of swifter and lighter craft, are menthat attractedmerchant vessels from tioned in seventh century texts (Loaroundthe Mediterraneanto the humble port of Dor, which in many pez 1959:71),and the Palestinian monk JohnMoschus, who died in respects lacked the superiortech620 C.E.,described an individual nological attributes of other ports? who built an unusually largevessel of 230 tons that he could not launch, Above right: KurtRavehexamines an area even with the assistance of 300 men (Jones 1964: 843). As state control splintered at the end of the Roman period, a new form of organization replaced it, more independent and perhaps unable or unwilling to maintain the facilities the larger constructions required. By the fourth century C.E., the emphasis had shifted from the 340 to 1,300 ton juggernauts used in the run from Alexandria to Rome

of exposed Byzantineplanking that emerged frombeneatha layer of ballast stones on DW4, one of three Byzantine wrecks that foundered in an 80-meterstretch of sea at the southern part of Dor Although much of the structure was preserved,the generalstate of the timbers underlinesthe rapiddeteriorationof the vessel after it struck a sandbank. Taces of its cargo littered the sea bed up to 20 meters beforethe ship finally lay to rest. Right: The initial appearanceof the hull of DW4after a winter storm. Outerstrakes were attached to each otherhorizontallyby mortise-and-tenonjoints interlockedon diagonally cut scarfs such as the one protrudingat top left.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

201

o. DW4/Bl

Plankingfrom DW4,a Byzantine merchant vessel of the sixth-seventhcenturies c.E.that ran agroundon the sand banks of the south bay.In contrast to Greco-Romanships where the distance between neighboringmortiseand-tenonjoints rarelyexceeded 10 centimeters (almost 4 inches), a fundamental change occurredduring the early fourth centuryc.E. when connectionsarepositioned fartherapart. DW4illustrates this feature as well as the staggeringof treenail holes (used to attach wooden pegs to the inner frames), which was a common method of trying to minimize damage if a plank developeda crack.

years later provedthe vessel was remarkablywell-preservedand at least part of its cargo still intact. A sounding lead, used to measure the depth and nature of the seabed, and a copper pitcher were among the vestiges, DW4/B2 but the characterizingfeature of the wreck consisted of an assembly of amphoraecarefully packed in the hull with rope and straw in between to preventbreakage. At first glance the wreck posed little interpretiveproblems. The small ring handles and deep ribbings coveringthe lower three-quartersof 5ms Dc4/B3 0 cms 0 the surface were indicative of the DW4/B3 latest model of a long line of bagshaped amphoraeproducedlocally Dor was certainlynot a modern,state- depth of 2 meters in the southern bay. (Riley 1979:223). A largebody of similar jarsfrom Caesareawere estiof-the-artcomplex like Caesareahad During the last 30 years the lomated to have been in use most widecal waters have been used as a labobeen in Herod'sheyday.Partof the answerhas alreadybeen touched ratorytesting groundto examine the ly in the early to mid-sixth century C.E. (Keay1984:358), a conclusion in the the dawn of pilgrimage upon: potential and feasibility of working fourth was the Land complemented by results at Carthage during Holy that suggest a "floruit"from 450-530 of mode and as a major century C.E., C.E.(Fulford and Peacock 1984: 121). benefited. f e w t h e o f i s one Dor transportation,shipping The shape of the Dor examples The enlightenment of the biblical differed the of the enhanced harbors Mediterranean subtly,however.Most notable magnetism past narrowgroovingon the upwere the a of the holy display city through to relic in the Dor basilica (Dauphin it is possible where per quarterof the body and neck and a shorter rim, features of the sixth1982-83: 31). Not surprisingly,thereseventh centuries of the LateByzanmerchants of strata least one at t h e trace fore, complete tine were Dor waters of in the period (Tubb1986:60). A close operating of the Christian faith: two sixthof anchors. evolution parallel is a container from Theodotus's store at Emporioin Chios (Balcentury-C.E.bronze steelyardsfound in association with a second late lance, Boardman,Corbett and Hood in In the Israel. underwater inare Dor wreck at 1989)datednumismatically to around progress Byzantine (DW7) 610-613 C.E.Although the Weizof a survey at Dor in 1983, the first cised with crosses and evoke "Jesus mann Institute of Science in Israel Christ the Savior"in Greek in an at- of the three Byzantine ships so far carbon-14dated the wood from the tempt to secure a hazard-freevoyage. examined in the southern harbor wreck to 410 C.E.+ 110years, it But this is only one side of the equa- (designatedDWO)was discovered would be unwise to use this figure buried in the sand. Excavationtwo tion; the other is submergedat a

202

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Effectivetradeduring the Byzantineperiod relied on both a shrewd mind and the possession of a steelyard that evaluated the true weight of an article. Twosteelyards,found on a second Byzantine wreckof the sixth-seventh centuriesC.E.(DW7)in the southern bay at Dor, are similar to steelyardsfound on a seventh century wreck at YassiAda, Tirkey Theaddition of lead on the sleeve of the larger example from Dor suggests the precision of steelyardswas frequently tested to ensure accuracyduring transactions.

as an absolute date rangebecause it is highly likely that the vessel was decades old when wrecked. At some time, therefore,most probablybetween 520 and the first quarterof the seventh century C.E., the ship met its fate. The thick, oxygen depleting blanket of sand that soon engulfed the Byzantine wreck protectedthe hull and coils of rope. Surprisingly, therefore,little indication was gleaned about what producethe bagshapedamphoraecontained. Given the assumption that this particular jarwas the standardcontainer for white wine in the Byzantine period, based upon examples found in winepresses (Zemer 1977:69), how can we explain the absence of seeds or pitch-lined interiors in the Dor collection? Not all of the shapes of amphorae from the wreck were identical, and their fabricsuggests a number of

differingpoints of origin. The round fermentation holes of severalwere breachedpriorto shipment, providing speculation that the vessel was heading for Dor with a secondhand, empty cargo,not to deliver but to purchase.Unlike many ships of the Romanperiod, whose sets of amphoraewere consistently identical, a growingbody of evidence begins to depict the reuse of jarsas a necessary practice in the trade of the Late Byzantine period as availability decreased (vanDoorninck 1989). The dendroarchaeologicalremains fromthe Byzantinewreck were analyzed by Nili Lipshiptzand S. from Tel Aviv University, Lev-Yadun revealingtwo principle materials of construction: cyprus for the ceiling planking and birch for the frames. Alien to Israelbut common in the Mediterraneanregion of Europeand Turkey,the inclusion of birch suggests the ship was not a local craft.

BarbaraJohnson(1986:590) recently pointed out in a study of bag-shaped amphoraefrom Corinth and Athens that we ought to be cautious in assuming the distribution of the type was restrictedto the Syro-Palestinian homeland, a statement reinforcedby the wreck at Dor. Despite the reduction in the size of the merchant ship, the region'strade contacts remained wide, and the class of amphoraein question penetratedas far as Sara-

A thirdmerchant vessel (DWO)was wrecked at Dor between 520 and the first quarterof the seventh century C.E.Its cargoincluded bag-shapedamphoraethat were made locally with subtle variations.Below right: A pitcher of high coppercontent that was also found in the vestiges of this ship. It was probably the personalpropertyof one of the crew.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

203

Quantification of amphoraecollected at Dor duringthe last 15 yearsindicates that trade peaked at Dor once during the Persianperiod, but more substantially from 380-626 c.E. Right: Partsof Byzantine jarscoveredby sand are well preservedwhile the exposed areas developeda coating of marine growth. Next page, from left: a fourth-centuryC.E. carrot-shapedcontainer that probablyoriginated in Syria;a variantof the sixth-seventh centuryC.E.bag-shapedamphorafrom the main bay at Dor;Gazan amphoraof the fifthsixth centuries C.E.from the sea at Dor.

chanein Turkey(Hayes1968:215),

Histria on the western edge of the Black Sea (Scorpan1977:274), and the south of France(Bonifayand Villedieu 1989:31). Whether or not the containers within DWOhad been transportedfrom one of these locations is difficult to sustain without further analysis of the wreck.

In addition AgriculturalProsperity. to the bag-shaped jarsfromthe site andthe copiousquantitiesof identical materialfoundin the threebays at Dor,another12distinctclassesof amphoraefoundin the harborand datedto between380-626 C.E.underline the widenetworkof communicationsestablishedat Byzantine Dor.A possibleattractionforthis commercewasthe procurementof local agriculturalproduceforwhich the area,lyinginsidethe biblical regionof Asher,seemsto havebeen renowned:"Blessedabovesons of Asher,let him be the favoriteof his brothers,andlet him diphis footin oil"(Deuteronomy 33:24).Todayon the outskirtsof Dor,a yearlyaverage of approaching 600 millimeters (roughly23 inches)of rain(Baly 1974:123)supportsthe growthof avocados,lemons,bananasand,of course,grapes. 2 kilometers(1.3 Approximately miles)northeastof the Dorbasilica, recentsurveyshaverecordeda large complexof winepresseshewnout of a soft rockyoutcrop.Of the eightexaminedso far,manywereplastered on the floor,wallsandwithin channels connectingthe treadingfloorsto the collectingvats,probablyto pre204

vent liquid from seeping into the porous rock. Rarelydoes the individual press conform to an identical layout, and nearly all differ in size, either indicating individual ownership or that each was used for a different quality of wine. During a trial excavationin 1989, samples of bagshaped amphoraecomparableto those encountered in the bays at Dor were recovered,and it is tempting to proposethat it was here that this type of jarwas filled with local produce before shipment from the harbor. This connection will be examined further in future seasons.

why Caesareaand Dor are often contemplated within a single geographical and political framework. The proximity of the two cities precludedany possibility that once Caesareabecame the equal in size of the largeand well-known Greek port Piraeus (JewishAntiquities, book 15, verse 332; Marcus 1980),the harbors of Dor could have continued to function in any effective manner. Certainly this view is no longer supportable.A purple dyeing factory seems to have been founded in the Herodianperiod at Dor (Rabanand Galili 1985:343) and the presence of a mint in the city producinggroups of coins from 33/32 B.C.E. to 68/69 Caesareain Relation to Dor Metaphorically speaking,the inter- C.E.depicting a galley or the goddess Tycheholding either a ship'srudder pretationof archaeologicalremains or a cornucopia, the symbol of prosis analogous to a theatrical play in whicha numberof adaptationsare perity (Meshorer1986-87: 67-69), underlines the significance of Dor's possible(Tilley1989:278).Before, insufficientevidenceexistedto op- maritime connection within the pose the theory of Caesareanthalas- city's economy. A coin of Trajan socracy (maritime supremacy)in re- dated to 111/112 C.E. leaves little doubt concerning the prestigious gional trade.In 30 B.C.E., Octavian's position of the city slightly later:the victoryin Egyptestablisheda new form of territorialorderas all the reverseof the coin depicts a bust of statesof the easternMediterranean Doros, son of Posoidonand legendary weredrawninto a Romanorbit (Beebe founder of Dor, abovewhom is writ1983:202). Perhapsthis is the reason ten "year175 of Dora, holy, city of

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

asylum, autonomous, ruler of the (Joshua19:26).To the south extended seas."The latter part is an extremely the coastal fringe of the Sharon, raretitle known only from the coins of especially largeharborcities like The Tripoliand Sidon in Phoenicia predominant 1985: (Meshorer 16).

factor

for

the

Conclusion Otherthan the specific social stimuli, of Dor continuation the predominantfactor for the continuation of Dor as a harborfacility as a harbor facility was its geographicaladvantage.Its coastline formed the southernmost its geographical was section of the Plain of Asher in antiquity and is a mere 9 kilometers advantage. (roughly5.5 miles) from the Crocodile River,usually identified with Shihor-Libnath,where the southern swampyand naturally unattractive boundaryis thought to have existed for port construction: "onlyspecial TAFAT HOPAM!\" HOPA MI -

uO" DOR SHEHAFIT T

LAbG OON /SOUTH BAY

Roman temple v dry-docks(Hellenistic)

BAY

TELL

drj purple dye

-----------

lateronze 40

anti-silt channels

DOR

sand

bar

Plan of the natural port of Dor. The location of the three Byzantine wrecks in the south bay are denoted by asterisks.

SEA

MEDITERRANEAN

MAIN

.LAGOOSOUTBAY

political reasons could advocatethe use of harborson the Sharon-coast" (Karmon1961:51). The earliest harborsin the Near East were often situated on geographicalor political borderlocations because the concept of trade is considered to have initially required neutral meeting places (Revere1957: 51).Although the ideology behind tradealtered dramaticallyover time, the regionaldivision was maintained to the south of Dor. When Herod founded Caesarea,Dor was outside his sphere of direct control (Avi-

age qua••)NRTH

NORTHBAY

o

PORT OF DOR, ISRAEL.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

205

Yonah 1979: 116).To consider the two harborsas competitive forces within a single geographicframe, therefore,may be oversimplifying the issue. Each may well have circulated distinct merchandise and dealt with a separateclientele, to use modern terminology. As one of the principal underlying motives in the construction of Caesarea'sartificial harbor,the appeasement of Rome and Augustus adequately fulfilled the political requirements of Herod the Great. For at least one-and-a-halfcenturies Caesareasurvived as the only largescale port on the Israel coast. Contraryto the allusions of literary sources, however,Dor was not reduced to the role of secondary observer.The scale of the city's trade began to increase in the second half of the fourth century C.E.and reached an unsurpassed level of prosperity, perhaps a consequence of the surge in pilgrimage.The Dor Maritime Archaeology Project'sArtifact Deposition Survey,conducted underwater in Israel, complements the realization on land that the Byzantine period represents a very high pinnacle of material development (Avi-Yonah 1958;Wilken 1988: 236). Opinions about the role of Caesarea in LateAntiquity remain divided. The discovery of 10 coins dating to the Byzantine era in the outer harbor basin (Hohlfelder 1985)are hardly conclusive groundsto arguethat its waters continued to function as the trade magnate of the region. If, as Charles Fritsch and Immanuel BenDor postulated, an earthquakerepossessed this man-made harbor in 130 C.E.(Hohlfelder, Oleson, Raban and Lindley Vann 1983: 134) then, coupled with the general decrease in the magnitude of merchant vessels, perhaps it is not surprising that the ever reliable, modest harbor at Dor was once again judged an appealing option.

206

Acknowledgments reFrom1976to 1986,the underwater mainsfromDorwereexaminedjointly byKurtRavehandShellyWachsmann on behalfof the IsraelAntiquities Authority.Oneof the Byzantinewrecks

in the Roman-ByzantinePeriod.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research236: 1-10.

Dahl, G. 1915 The Materialsfor the Historyof Dor. New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress. Dauphin, C. mentioned in this text (DWO)was partly 1981 Dor ByzantineChurch, 1980.Israel excavatedin 1985underthe directorship ExplorationJournal31 (1-2): 117-19. in collabora1982- On the PilgrimsWayto the Holy of RavehandWachsmann 1983 City. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel tion with a teamfromthe NauticalArArchaeologicalSociety: 25-31. chaeologySocietyin Englandheadedby Eiseman, C. J.,and Ridgway,B. S. Valerie Fenwick. 1987 The Porticello Shipwreck,a MediterWewouldlike to expressoursincere ranean MerchantVesselof 415-385 to thanksto the ShussheimFoundation, B.C.College Station, TX:Texas Dorothy Schussheim, Hy and Lorry A&MUniversity Press. andLindaBaronfortheir Goldenberg, Flemming, N. C. 1972 Cities in the Sea. London:New supportandfriendshipoverthe years. SeanKingsleywasgreatlyassistedin his EnglishLibrary. workbygrantsfromthe Anglo-Israel Fulford,M. E., and Peacock,D. P. S. 1984 TheAvenue du PresidentHabib Archaeological Society, the Academic Bourguiba,Salammbo:the Pottery in and the PalesLondon StudyGroup and Other CeramicObjects from the Fundandextendshis tine Exploration Site. Sheffield:The BritishAcademy. sincerethanksto themall. Haldane,D. 1990 Anchorsof Antiquity. Biblical ArBibliography chaeologist 53: 19-24. Hayes, J.W Avi-Yonah,M. 1968 A SeventhCentury PotteryGroup. 1958 The Economics of ByzantinePalesDumbarton Oaks Papers22: 203-16. tine. Israel ExplorationJournal 8: 39-51. Hohlfelder,R. L., Oleson, J.,Raban,A., and 1979 The Holy Land,a Historical Geogra- LindleyVann,R. 1983 Sebastos,Herod'sHarborat Caesarea phy. GrandRapids,MI:BakerBooks. Maritime. Biblical Archaeologist: Ballance,M. Boardman,J.,Corbett, S., and 133-43. Hood, S. Hohlfelder,R. L. 1989 Excavationsin Chios 1952-1955: 1985 ByzantineCoin Findsfrom the Sea: Byzantine Emporio.Series:The A Glimpse of CaesareaMaritima's British School of Archaeologyat LaterHistory.Pp. 179-84 in Harbour volume 20. Athens, supplementary Archaeology,edited by A. Raban. London:Thames and Hudson. Series:BARInternationalSeries 257. Baly,D. Oxford:BAR. 1974 Geographyof the Bible. London: LutterworthPress. Johnson,B. L. 1986 Syro-PalestinianBag-ShapedAmBass, G. E, andvan Doorninck, E H., Jr. 1982 YassiAda I. A Seventh-Century phorasin the Athenian Agoraand Corinth Collections. Pp. 589-97 ByzantineShipwreck.CollegeStation, in Recherchessur les Amphores TX: TexasA&MUniversity Press. Beebe,H. K. Grecques,editedby J.-Y.Empereur and Y.Garlan.Athens: Bulletin de 1983 CaesareaMaritima:Its Strategicand Political Significanceto Rome. JourCorrespondanceHelldniqueSupplenal of Near EasternStudies 42 (3): ment 13. 195-207. Joncheray,J.-P. 1975 Une Epavedu Bas Empire:Dramont Bonifay,M. and Villedieu, E 1989 ImportationsD'AmphoresOrientales E CahiersD'ArchdologieSubaquaen Gaule (V-VIISiecles). Pp. 17-46 tique 4: 91-132. in Recherchessur la Cdramique Jones,A. H. M. 1964 The LaterRomanEmpire,284-602, Byzantine, edited by V.D6roche and volume II. Oxford:Basil Blackwell. J.-M.Spieser.Athens: Bulletin de CorrespondanceHelldniqueSuppl6- Kapitan,G. ment 18. 1978 Explorationsat Cape Graziano,Filicudi, Aeolian Islands, 1977. Results Broshi,M. 1980 The Populationof WesternPalestine with Annotations on the Typologyof

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Iilii~

:I:I

ii i:'

Ancient Anchors. International

Journalof Nautical Archaeology 7 (4): 269-77. 1984 Ancient Anchors-Technology and Classification. International Journal

of NauticalArchaeology 13(1):33-44. Karmon, Y. 1961 Geographical Influences on the Historical Routes in the Sharon Plain.

Palestine ExplorationQuarterly (Jan.-June):43-60. Keay, S. J.

1984 LateRomanAmphoraein the WesternMediterranean,PartII.

Series: Bar International Series 196. Oxford: BAR. Lopez, R. S. 1959 The Role of Trade in the Economic Readjustment of Byzantium in the 7th Century. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13: 69-85. Marcus, R., translator 1980 Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, books 15-18. Series: The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann. Meshorer, Y.

1985 City Coins of Eretz-Israeland the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. The Coins of Dora. Israel Numismatic Journal 9: 59-72. J. P. Herod and Vitruvius: Preliminary Thoughts on Harbour Engineering at Sebastos, the Harbour of Caesarea Maritima. Pp. 165-72 in Harbour Archaeology, edited by A. Raban. Series: BAR International Series 257. Oxford: BAR. Raban, A. 1981 Some Archaeological Evidence for Ancient Maritime Activities at Dor. Sefunim 6: 15-26. 1985 The Ancient Harbours of Israel in Biblical Times. Pp. 11-44 in Harbour Archaeology, edited by A. Raban. Series: BAR International Series 257. Oxford: BAR. Raban, A., and Galili, E. 1985 Recent Maritime Archaeological Research in Israel. International

19861987 Oleson, 1985

Journalof Nautical Archaeology 14 (4): 326-56. Revere, R. B. 1957 "No Man's Coast": Ports of Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Pp. 38-63

in Tradeand Marketin the Early Empires, edited by K. Polanyi, M. Conrad, M. Arensberg and H. Pearson. New York: The Free Press.

Riley, J. A. 1979 The Coarse Pottery. Pp. 91-467 in

:i .:?

Excavationsat Sidi KhrebishBenghazi (Berenice), volume II, edited by J. A. Lloyd. Tripoli: Socialist People's Arab Jamahiriya, Secretariat of Education and Department of Antiquities. Scorpan, C. 1977 Contribution a la Connaissance de Certains Types Ceramiques RomanoByzantine (IV-VIISiecles) dans l'Espace Istro-Pontique. Dacia 21: 269-97. Stern, E., and Sharon, I. 1987 Tel Dor, 1986. Preliminary Re-

ii

:::::;

~: ...:

...-....

s~~iiiiiiTiiii~iiiiii:~ :i:::::::::: _-:: ::::::::::::: :.:.:.: ::-::lj:-:-:~i::. : ::::???: jI_:_I: ,::.:::::?c~::i?i:l:;i'il :.:.:::::::::::::: 'i::I:i'j:'::::::IIl--:--ia~p :: :':I :

--~r

~:

???-?

:i ~.~,~~

???i

i:::::: :::

:.:.: ,:::: -::illjilii:: :?:III:1:::I::::?:::::::.

-::::

~~~il:ii8\j~j~ 1:::I::::::::: :: ;-siii:i::i::iil:i:.:: :' j; : i~r ~~;: ::::: ?i::::

:::

I:!

::i::

:c?

I:i~l II:

port. IsraelExplorationJournal

:,

37 (4): 201-11. Tilley, C. 1989 Excavation as Theatre. Antiquity 63: 275-81. Throckmorton, P., and Throckmorton, J. 1973 The Roman Wreck at Pantano Longa-

rini. InternationalJournalof Nautical Archaeology 2 (2): 243-66. Tubb, J. N. 1986 The Pottery from a Byzantine Well Near Tell Fara. Palestine Exploration Quarterly (Jan.-June):51-65. Van Doorninck, E H. 1972 Byzantium, Mistress of the Sea: 330-641. Pp. 134-58 in A History of

SeafaringBased on Underwater Archaeology, edited by G. E Bass. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. 1989 The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassi Ada and 11th Century Serge Limani Shipwrecks: Two Examples of A Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as Transport Jars.Pp. 247-57 in Re-

cherchessur la CeramiqueByzantine, edited by V. Deroche and J.-M. Spieser. Athens: Bulletin de Correspondance Hell6nique 18. Wachsmann, S., and Raveh, K. 1984 A Concise Nautical History of Dor/

Tantura.InternationalJournalof Nautical Archaeology 13 (3): 223-41. Wilken, R. L. 1988 Byzantine Palestine, a Christian Holy

Land.Biblical Archaeologist51 (4). Yorke, R. A. 1986 The Harbour. Pp. 243-45 in Excava-

tions at Sabratha1948-1951,edited by P. Kenrick. Series: Journal of Roman Studies Monograph, Number 2. London: London Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Zemer, A.

1977 StorageJarsin Ancient Sea Trade.

subscribe

4 QUARTERLY ISSUES $32 Plus BackIssuesStillAvailable, $9.50Each(IncludesPostage)

TheQueen,Her Spring1990Hatshepsut Special: HerMonuments, Tomb60, Favorite, KingsValley Theban M.Davis Theodore Mapping Project, 1990T.G.H. Phantom Summer James, Temple, Medicine Egyptian RoyalMummy Origins, Mixup, FatPharaoh, Tomb QueenTiyi Problems, Special: Sphinx Fall1990Conservation ZahiHawass, NewKingdom Reliefs, OpetFestival Rameses III Women, Winter '90-'91Boston atGiza,Ankhesenamen, KomOmbo, Prince Guide, Kaemwaset, Egyptology Brunton Portraits Benson &Mut,Michael Spring1991Margaret Hoffman Remembrance, Valley Royal Kings Update, Oasis Dahklah Puzzle, Sarcophagi StepPyramid, 1991Akhenaten son Summer Special: Amenhotep Redford, ofHapu, Amenhotep IllastheLivingAten, Amarna Pros&Cons Kemp, Temple, Coregency ENCLOSED findmyI checkI moneyorderfor: Oneyear(4 issue)subscription to KMT@$32 ............ Canadian $4 additional surfacepostage............. surfacemail $6additional postageforallotherforeign... $9.50eachsinglecopyof '90 O Spring'90 Summer OFall'90 0 Winter '90-'91 '91 O Spring'91 0 Summer TOTAL Foreignordersmustbe paidin U.S.dollars.U.K. customers ormoney (check maypayinPounds Sterling in Pounds sub+ postage is ?21 order).A one-year surface mail,?25airmail. with0 current issue StartmySUBSCRIPTION O nextissue(Winter '91) '91-92,offpressmid-Dec. California residents mustadd7.25% salestax. NAME(PRINT LEGIBLY)

ADDRESS

Haifa: National Maritime Foundation. AFT# CITY

STATE

ZIP

andsendwithpayment Cliporphotocopy todayto:

KMTCommunications

1531GoldenGateAve.,SanFrancisco, CA94115

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

207

for they sponsorednumerous building projects throughout Palestine. These included the foundation of the city of Ramla and the erection of the palaces at Khirbetel-Mefier ("Hisham'sPalace")near Jerichoand Khirbet el-Minyehby the Sea of Galilee, as well as construction on and aroundthe Temple Mount in Jerusalem.Among their more spectacular projects were the Dome of the Rock and the el-AqsaMosque in Jerusalem,which were erected on the Temple Mount by cAbdel-Malek

iThe Walls

ofJerusal

in the

Early0 Isl amic Per od

(685-705 C.E.)and his son al-Walid I (705-15 C.E.). As these monuments

byJodiMagness Excavations

1970s there

in

the

indicated

that

much

more

was

Umayyad Jerusalem

previously

activity than

in

was

thought.

theseventh cenuring tury C.E.,Moslem tribes

from the Arabianpeninsula swept through the Middle East and North Africa, creating a vast new empire. The Moslem conquest of Palestine marked the permanent end of Byzantine rule in the areaand broughtto a halt the process of Hellenization, which had been initiated by Alexander the Great. The city of Jerusalemsurrenderedto the Moslems in 638 C.E. after having risen to a position of prominence in the Roman empire when Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century C.E.'

The Umayyads were the first Moslem dynasty to establish its hegemony over the new empire. Under their rule the country flourished,

208

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

are among the earliest representations of Moslem religious architecture, they have received a great deal of attention from scholars interested in the early Islamic period? During the 1970s, excavations by BenjaminMazararoundthe southern and western walls of the Temple Mount in Jerusalemrevealed a group of monumental structures dating to the Umayyad period. These buildings constitute a series of palaces that appearto have been constructed at the same time as the Dome of the Rock and the el-Aqsa Mosque. One of the palaces even had a bridgeconnecting it with the elAqsa Mosque, presumablyto provide direct access into the mosque for the caliph (Ben-Dov1985: 293-321; Rosen-Ayalon1989: 8-11). Mazar's discovery indicated that there was much more Umayyad activity in Jerusalemthan was previously thought. It has since been suggested that the Golden Gate and Wilson's Arch, in their present forms, were constructed during the Umayyad period, and that the Hulda Gates were also rebuilt at this time (BenDov 1985: 286-88; Rosen-Ayalon 1989: 45). It is clear, then, that there was a great deal of Umayyad construction on and around the Temple Mount. But what was the extent of early Islamic activity in other parts of the city? The magnitude of Moslem activity in the rest of Jerusalem has

been underestimated.There is no doubt that many,if not most, of the Byzantine churches and monasteries aroundthe city were used through the Umayyadperiod (Schick 1987). The same must be true of private houses. Evenso, original construction of the Umayyadperiod not connected with the TempleMount has gone unrecognized,largelybecause of the misdating of Umayyadceramic assemblagesto the Byzantine period. Now, through a better understanding of contemporarypottery,it is possible to distinguish archaeological evidence for a reconstructionof the walls of the city at the end of the Umayyadperiod.An appreciationof the rebuildingof Jerusalem'swalls leads to a clearerunderstandingof early Islamic influence in Jerusalem. The North Wall In 1937-38, RobertW Hamilton conducted soundings at five points along the north wall of Jerusalem, examining the debris that had accumulated outside of it. The results of the excavationswere published in the Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 1944. SoundingA, which was located against the western face of the western tower at the Damascus Gate and

Above:The Old City of Jerusalem,as seen from the Mount of Olives. The Dome of the Rockis visible in the center, with the el-AqsaMosque to its left. After the Moslem conquest during the seventh centuryC.E.,the Umayyads were the first Moslem dynasty to rule over the new empire. TheysponsorednumerousbuildingprojectsthroughoutPalestine.Among their more spectacularefforts were the Dome of the Rockand the el-AqsaMosque, which wereerectedon the TempleMount by cAbd el-Malek(685-705 c.E.)and his son al-Walid1 (705-15 c.E.).Photo by JodiMagness.Below: A reconstructedview (southwest-northeast)of the Umayyadroyal complex at the foot of the TempleMount. Note the bridgeconnecting the largecentralpalace with the el-AqsaMosque,built presumablyto allow the caliph direct access into the mosque. Drawing taken from Ben-Dov1985,page 315, and used courtesyof HarperCollins Publishers.

o

ro

_ -

•

-Ir

r- *..?.

A-

?

;;;

54.

(1

?

4

I""

"'

?

Ikiv

, :";-IF 'L

,•.".r

.

.

--.

.

ii

..

..-

.,

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

L

|?. ?-1:

.,

209

i;I

".•.

included a small exposure of the adjacent curtain wall, providesthe most substantial and valuable sequence (Hamilton 1944: 1-21). The top of the sounding measured approximately 5.5 meters long and 2 meters wide, although the area was reducedfurther down in the shaft. Forthe purposes of recording depths, a datum level was established at the top of the first exposed course on the western face of the western tower.Within the excavatedarea,the faces of both walls were cleared to a depth of slightly more than 10meters below the datum. Probesat the base of the shaft with an iron rodgave the impression that bedrock lay another 1.1 meters below (Hamilton 1944: 1-2). In the section drawings,the accumulations of debris against the wall are visible as more or less horizontal stratagroupedtogether accordingto period. The stratafrom 7.2 meters below the datum to the base of the shaft are labeled "Late while those from Roman-Byzantine," 6.5 to about 2 meters below the datum are labeled "Byzantine-Arab." One part of the areahad been disturbedby a deposit of white limestone chips that intruded into the level against the "Byzantine-Arab" face of the curtain wall. A late medieval or Turkishcesspit had been dug into this intrusive deposit (Hamilton 1944:4). On the basis of masonry styles, Hamilton was able to distinguish various phases of construction and reconstruction in the tower and curtain wall. The original construction of the wall and tower appearsto consist of recut Herodianstones, which Hamilton labeled "Style B"masonry. Most of the tower (courses 3-10) and the lower part of the curtain wall (courses 6-10) are constructed of this style of masonry. However, the upper part of the curtain wall (courses 3-7) is built of smaller, smoothly dressed blocks of stone, which Hamilton labeled "Style C" masonry. He noted that the manner in which the "Style C" stones are fitted into the curtain

210

then abandonedfor a period of time during which debris accumulated over and aroundit. This debris is the level designated"Byzantine-Arab" by Hamilton. The next phase of construction is representedby the repair of the ruined wall in "StyleC"masonry,which was associated with the deposit of white limestone chips that intruded into the "ByzantineArab"level. As Hamilton correctly concluded, the latest objects from the highest undisturbedlevel of debris (the "Byzantine-Arab" level) into which the deposit of builders'

wall indicates that they representa patch that filled a breach in the "StyleB"masonry (Hamilton 1944: 7-8). The deposit of white limestone chips, which lay against courses 3-8 in the curtain wall, representsthe builders'waste associated with the repairof the breach.At the time of this repair,the builders cleared the area to expose the surviving stump of the older wall. The builders then repairedthe breach with "StyleC" masonry,and filled the construction trench with stone chips and other waste (Hamilton 1944: 7-8).

GordonsCalvar

4 k;

re

tAm

1A

k

a

rol I t

o

Hij*A

it

00

'Qlrcr

\

I

a

AOn

co -

sr

an:

0 q

so

od

canT P4W*SCetres

$yr~~~7Q

2

no

19S9O!OIS

Plan of the north wall of the Old City of Jerusalem,showing the location of the areas excavated by Hamilton. In 1937-38, Hamilton conducted excavations in five areas along the north wall. SoundingA, located against the western face of the western tower at the Damascus Gate, providedthe most substantial and valuable sequence. Drawing taken fromHamilton 1944, figure 1.

chips intruded should providea terminus post quem for the repair of the wall (Hamilton 1944:4, 7-8). The ceramic types found in the level, from 6.5 to "Byzantine-Arab" 2 meters below the datum, constitute a relatively homogeneous asfourth century c.E. (Hamilton 1944: 20-21; for the most recent examina- semblage. Some of the more indication of the dating of the initial foun- tive types include "FineByzantine dation of this line of wall, see Wight- Ware,"cooking bowls with wishbone man 1989: 100-3). Later,a breach handles, northern Palestine whitewas made in the wall, and it was storagejars, painted "bag-shaped"

Stratigraphicevidence indicates that the tower and the lower part of the adjacentcurtain wall associated with the "StyleB"masonry phase were either constructed or reconstructed in the late third to early

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

A SOUNDING

?~

~

'K7cc

\p1

73

X?D

9

large"candlestick"lamps, and wheelmade or "Persian"oil lamps. ) All of these wares date to the sixth and seventh centuries C.E.and indicate the period of time duringwhich the accumulation of debris took 10 12 place. The terminus post quem for the repairof the wall, however,is providedby the latest datableceramic types from this level. Although the wares discussed earlier are characteristicof the sixth 7 and seventh centuries C.E.,certain LZ ZF 3-zv, pieces should be assigned to the first half of the eighth century C.E.This is true, for example, of some of the "FineByzantine Ware"bowls, which have parallels at Khirbetel-Mefier. At Mefjer,these bowls are designated "Ware10,"which actually represents the eighth century evolution of "Fine Ware10 examples from Khirbetel-Mefier. Byzantine Ware"(Baramki1944:68Note the deep, hemisphericalshape of many

'L- tTQ4i

6,

19 17 Q~f2-

22 23

21cm.

6.SO - .O0 u.

SI

Above:Byzantine and early Islamic pottery fromSoundingA in Hamiltons excavations against the north wall of Jerusalem.Note the characteristicFine Byzantine Warecups or bowls with incised wavy line in numbers 1 and 2 (and other variantsin numbers3-10). The arched-rimbasins (numbers21-26) are also a common Byzantine type, which seems to have been replacedin the eighth and ninth centuries by incurved-rimbasins (number27). On the other hand, a varietyof shallow bowls and plates developedfrom the Fine Byzantine Wareduring the eighth centuryc.E. (numbers15-20). Drawing from Hamilton 1944.Below: Shallow bowls of this same type, togetherwith deep hemispherical bowls (numbers26 and 27) are common in the eighth century c.E.assemblage from Khirbetel-Mefier.Drawing from Baramki 1944:figure8.

I26EF129I 30

2

1.... I04

rn6F)GiVs '2

zcz

evidence

Ceramic dates

the

wall

city

reconstruction

eighth

of the cups and bowls, which representthe eighth centuryc.E.developmentof the shallower Fine Byzantine Warecups and bowls. Drawing from Baramki 1944:figure 7.

century

the

to

C.E.

69; Whitcomb 1988).Bowls from Hamilton'sexcavations and from Khirbetel-Mefierare among the pieces that most closely resemble each other (see illustrations). The basin with the thickened, incurved rim representsa type that should also be assigned to the first half of the eighth century C.E.The high level at which this piece was found (2.6metersbelow the datum)strengthens the impression that it is one of the latest pieces represented. On the basis of the ceramic and numismatic evidence, Hamilton suggested a terminus ante quem of the second half of the seventh century C.E.or later for this level (Hamilton 1944: 14).This terminus can be pinpointed more accurately to the first half of the eighth century C.E. on the basis of the numismatic

Byzantine and early Islamic potteryfrom SoundingA in Hamiltons excavationsagainst the north wall of Jerusalem.Characteristic Byzantine types include the cooking bowl with wishbone handle (number 1)and the largecandlestick lamps in numbers 10-15. Drawing from Hamilton 1944. )UNDING A

4

s .-

z.OO .

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

211

13 16 20

Fine Byzantine Ware from Yigal Shiloh\ excaJerusalem. The vations in the City of David. pieces at right and center are the characteristic bowls or cups with incised wavy lines; the piece on the left is the shoulder of a jar decorated with incised gashes. Photo by B. Cohen.

who published the final reportin 1985. Accordingto Tushingham,the area of the Armenian Gardenwas unoccupied from the time of the destruction of Jerusalemin 70 C.E. until the reestablishment of a settlement in the third quarterof the sixth century C.E.He has claimed that this

evidence. In fact, the 25 identifiable coins found in this level make it one of the most securely dated assemblages of published Byzantine and Umayyadpottery from an excavation in Jerusalem.The coins date from the sixth century to the first half of the eighth century C.E. (Hamilton 1944: 16-19).The presence of a number of coins of the seventh to early eighth centuries C.E.indi-

cates that the process of deposition continued into the first half of the eighth century and confirms the assignment of some of the ceramic types to that time. These coins also providea terminus post quem for

the repairof the wall. Thus, Hamilton'sexcavationsprovideclear evidence for a reconstruction of the city wall in the vicinity of the Damascus Gate no earlier than the first half of the eighth century C.E. The Armenian Garden Additional evidence for an early Islamic reconstruction of the fortifications of Jerusalemcomes from the areaof the Armenian Garden,which lies in the southwestern corner of the walled Old City. Excavationsin the Armenian Gardenwere carried out from 1962-67 underthe direction of Arlotte Douglas Tushingham,

Byzantineoccupationwas short-lived, and that it came to an end in the second quarterof the seventh century C.E., about the time of the Moslem conquest. Accordingto Tushingham (1985:90, 104-5), the areaof the Armenian Gardenwas unoccupied after the end of the Byzantine settlement until the Ayyubidperiod (thirteenth century C.E.).

However,the chronologicalframework proposedfor the Byzantine occupation levels in the Armenian Gardenis based on the adoption of the earliest possible dates in ranges providedby the ceramic evidence. In this way,Tushinghamwas able to arrive at a date in the third quarterof the sixth century C.E.for the estab-

lishment of the settlement in the Armenian Garden.In fact, all of the ceramic assemblages from the Byzantine levels include a mixture of types that date from the sixth to mid-eighth centuries C.E.This sug-

gests either that the settlement in the Armenian Gardenis actually Umayyad and not Byzantine or that all of the deposits are mixed or disturbed (Magness 1989:662-737). This problem can be illustrated by examining the ceramic material from the foundation trench of the Byzantine city wall in SquareIX of the Armenian Gardenexcavations. Byzantine storage jars from Shiloh? excavations in the City of David. At left is a piece of the rim and shouldter of a Gaza storage jar; the piece in the center is from a northern Palestinian white-painted storage jar. Photo by B. Cohen.

212

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

The city wall at this point runs roughly north to south on the western edge of the western hill. Much of the city wall of the Second Temple period apparentlystood through the late Romanperiod, but this was followed by a majorrebuilding. Tushingham'sassumption that this rebuildingdates to the second

this case, mid-sixth century C.E.)

half of the sixth century C.E.stems

range of these pieces, around 625 C.E.,

from the consideration that it had to be contemporarywith the occupation of the garden,which he assigned to the third quarterof the sixth century C.E. (Tushingham1985:6, 68). The ceramic material from the foundation trench of the city wall in Square IX does include characteristicByzan-

within a given range. These two African Red Slip sherds providea mid-sixth century C.E. terminus post quem ratherthan a mid-sixth century date for the construction of the city wall. Actually, it would be much safer to say that the upperend of the chronological

625 C.E.date for the construction of

cups. An eighth century C.E.date for

these deep hemispherical bowls is confirmed by their presence at Khirbet el-Mefier,where they are classified with the aforementioned"Ware 10"vessels. Another bowl with an incurved rim from the Armenian Gardenassemblage has a parallel among the "Ware10"vessels at KhirbetelMefier.The basin with thickened, incurvedrim also representsa type that should be assigned to the eighth century C.E.,as has been noted in the

tine types such as "FineByzantine Jerusalemrouletted bowls, and Gaza storagejarsor amphoras.There are also three pieces of imported Late Roman RedWarebowls, including two examples of African Red Slip Waredated from about the middle of the sixth century through the first quarter of the seventh century C.E.

(see illustrations). Here is an illustration of Tushingham'sconsistent endorsement of the earliest date (in

I

the wall is further indicated by other wares present in this assemblage. These include a type of deep hemispherical bowl or cup with eggshellthin walls decoratedwith burnished bands.This type representsan eighth century C.E.development of the

Ware,"sixth century C.E.variants of

I

l'

n1i'~~[I

is the terminus post quem for the construction of the city wall. A post-

"FineByzantine Ware"bowls and cups, from which it is distinguished by a deeper,morehemisphericalform, thinner walls and roundedinstead of ring base. The eighth century variant is also distinguished by the absence of the incised wavy line that often decorates the exterior of the earlier

This nearlycomplete Byzantineoil lamp from Shiloh'sexcavations in the City of David bearsa Greekinscription that reads "thelight of Christshines for all."It is representativeof the inscribed variantof largecandlestick lamps of the Byzantineperiod. The fragment on the lower right belongs to a differenttype of lamp dating to the seventh centuryC.E. Photo by B. Cohen.

I

section on the pottery from Hamilton'sexcavations (see illustrations).

Thus, the ceramic material from the foundation trench suggests a late Umayyad rather than Byzantine date for the construction of the city wall in the Armenian Garden. Such a date accords well with the evidence from Hamilton's excavations against the north wall. In addition, Hamilton found no evidence in his excavations for a reconstruction of the city wall in the sixth century C.E.

'"'

lv

This map shows the position of squares in Thshinghams excavations in the Armenian Garden.TRshinghamassumed that the wall was rebuilt in the second half of the sixth centuryC.E.because he consistently endorsed the earliest date (in this case, mid-sixth century C.E.)within a given rangefor occupation of the garden.However,the ceramic assemblage from this trenchhas parallels among the "Ware10"vessels at Khirbetel-Mefier, which date to the eighth century C.E.Thus, the ceramic material from the foundation trenchsuggests a late Umayyad ratherthan Byzantinedate for the constructionof the city wall in the Armenian Garden.Drawing from Tushingham1985.

,

..

... .... .

-

F

". S.

..

a. rt I

iS T -IX

. 9vr.

[A ln

Sq*

IX

Byzantine and early Islamic pottery associated with the rebuildingof the western city wall in SquareIXof Tushingham'sexcavations in the Armenian Garden.The Late Roman Red Wareimports (number 17-19), Fine Byzantine Warebowl(number 23) and Gaza storagejar(number31)are all characteristic Byzantine types. However,the deep hemispherical bowl (number24), delicate bowl with incurvedrim (number22) and incurvedrim basin (number28) should be assigned to the eighth century c.E.Drawing from 7Tshingham1985.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

213

Left: Viewof the courtyardof the Citadel with the round Umayyad tower visible in the center.Archaeologicalevidence for early Islamic fortifications in the courtyardof the Citadel was initially found by C. N. Johns duringhis work in the Citadel from 1934-47, while more was exposed by Hillel Gevaduring his excavationsfrom 1979-80. Below: A closeup of the round Umayyad tower. Wallsattached to the tower on either side suggest that it formed the southernpart of an early Islamic citadel. Photos by JodiMagness.

The Citadel evidenceforearly Archaeological Islamicfortificationshas alsobeen foundin the excavationsin the courtyardof the Citadel.Remainswere firstdiscoveredbyCedricNorman Johnsduringhis workin the Citadel from 1934-47, while more were exposed by Hillel Geva duringhis excavations from 1979-80. The results of Johns'work were published in the Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 1950, and a preliminaryreporton Geva'sexcavations appearedin the Israel Exploration Journalin 1983. The evidence from these excavations indicates that, after the fourth century C.E.,there was no major re-

construction of the fortifications until the Umayyadperiod (Geva1983: 61).At this time, a new fortification system was constructed in the courtyardof the Citadel, which included a massive, round tower,9.8 meters in diameter.Walls attached to the tower on either side suggest that it formed the southern part of an early Islamic citadel. Johnsand Gevaboth dated the construction of this fortification system to the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century C.E.(Johns 1950: 160; Geva

214

1983:61-62; no ceramic material associated with the construction of this fortificationhas been published). Such a date accordswell with the evidence from the north wall and the Armenian Gardenfor a reconstruction of the city wall at about this time. Pits cut into the occupation level aroundthe walls and tower contained an Abbasidgold coin and typical Abbasidpottery types such as early splash-glazedbowls, "Mefier ware,"and channel-nozzle oil lamps with a high tongue handle (Geva 1983:61-62; plate 7A)?

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

The Dating of the FortificationSystem In the three areasalreadyexamined, there is archaeologicalevidence for early Islamic modifications to the fortification system of Jerusalem. These could have been necessitated by any of a number of catastrophes known to have occurredduring the seventh and eighth centuries C.E.,includingthe SassanidPersianconquest in 614 C.E.,the earthquakeof 747 C.E. (Russell 1985:47-49; Whitcomb 1988),and the destruction of the city walls by the caliph MarwanII in

745-46 C.E.(reported by Theophanes;

see Turtledove1982: 112). If the repairswere necessitated one of the latter two events, then by must have been carriedout durthey the Abbasid ing period (that is, after 750 C.E.). In this case, they might be associated with the repairsto the earthquake-damagedel-AqsaMosque carriedout by the Abbasid caliphs alMansur and al-Mahdiin 771 and 780 C.E., respectively.This gains support from the fact that both caliphs are known to have visited Jerusalem(Le Strange 1965: 93-94; Goitein 1982: 180-81). It is also possible that the activities in the three areasexamined earlier were carriedout at different times and by different caliphs. In my opinion, however,several considerations suggest that the activity in these three areas is Umayyad ratherthan Abbasid, and that it is contemporaryand related. First of all, the possibility that either alMansur or al-Mahdiwas responsible for rebuilding Jerusalem'swalls is diminished by reports that funding was tight even for the repairson the el-AqsaMosque (Goitein 1982: 18081). Second, it has been seen that the latest diagnostic ceramic types from the relevant areas in Hamilton's and Tushingham'sexcavations are eighth century C.E.variants of "Fine Byzan-

tine Ware,"which are paralleledby "Ware10"at Khirbetel-Mefier.On the other hand, clearly Abbasid ceramic types, such as "Mefjier ware," glazed wares and channel-nozzle oil lamps with a high tongue handle, are conspicuously absent from these The presence of these assemblages. same Abbasid types in the pits cut into the occupation level associated with the fortification in the courtyard of the Citadel provides a terminus ante quem for its construction. The ceramic evidence thus points to a date in the first half of the eighth century C.E.for the construction activity in all three areas. This is complemented by the numismatic evidence from Hamilton's Sounding A, where the latest coins date to the

first half of the eighth century C.E. Is it possible to pinpoint more closely the date of this building activity? In orderto find out, historical and archaeological evidence must be considered. Perhapsthe most logical point in time to expect such activity would be during the reigns of cAbdel-Malekand al-WalidI. As has been seen, their reigns witnessed the construction of a number of monumental structures on and around the Temple Mount, as well as modifications to the gates leading into it. While such a date is attractive, the numismatic evidence from Hamilton's excavations suggests that

Several

catastrophes the

during

seventh

and

C.E.

centuries

eighth could

have

prompted

modifications to

Jerusalem's fortification system. the restoration of the fortification system was carriedout at a later time.5 This evidence consists of six Umayyad coins found in the "ByzantineArab"level in Hamilton'sSoundingA. Fourof these coins aredatedgenerally to the seventh-eighth centuries C.E.,

one belongs to the eighth century, and one carries the date 110A.H., or 728/29 C.E.(Hamilton 1944: 18-19,

nos. 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28). The last coin was found 2.4 meters below the datum, well within the "ByzantineArab"level. The numismatic evidence thus suggests a terminus post quem of 728/29 C.E.for the recon-

struction of the city wall, at least in the area exposed by Hamilton. Of the Umayyad caliphs who reigned in the period following 728/29 C.E.,several considerations

point to an association of Hisham (724-43 C.E.)with this building ac-

tivity. Hisham and MarwanII (74450 C.E.) are the only Umayyad caliphs during this time who ruled for more than a couple of years. However,the reports that MarwanII destroyedthe walls of Jerusalem(Turtledove1982: 112)make it unlikely that he was responsible for their reconstruction. On the other hand, although there is no direct evidence linking Hisham to such building activity in Jerusalem, the palaces at KhirbetelMefjerand Khirbetel-Minyeh appear to have been constructed duringhis reign (Hamilton 1959: 104;Grabar and others 1960:241).6Furthermore, the rubble-filledround tower at the corner of the two curtain walls in the courtyardof the Citadel has exact parallels at both Mefjerand Minyeh, as well as at other Umayyad palaces such as Qasr al-Hayrand Mshatta, which were probablyalso built during Hisham'sreign (Geva 1983:62; compare Ettinghausen and Grabar1987:46-51). Such a date is supportedby the parallels between the latest ceramic types associated with the reconstruction of the fortifications in Jerusalemand those associated with the construction of the palace at Khirbetel-Mefier.Finally, the 14 years between the coin of 728/29 C.E.from Hamilton's Sound-

ing A and the end of Hisham'sreign provideample time for a restoration of the fortification system. Thus, the archaeologicaland historical evidence points to a date during the reign of the caliph Hisham for the reconstruction of the fortifications of Jerusalem. The overhaul of the fortification system included repairs to the city wall near the Damascus Gate and in the Armenian Garden, and the construction of a new citadel next to the JaffaGate. If this activity is associated with Hisham, then the breach in the wall at the Damascus Gate might have been made at the time of the Sassanid Persian conquest in 614 C.E. This is supported by recently

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

215

published evidence for a destruction level at the Damascus Gate, which is dated to the time of the Persian conquest (Wightman1989:13,26-27). It is not clear whether the same event caused the damagethat led to the reconstruction of the city wall in the Armenian Garden (Tushingham 1985:85-87). Although the restoration of Jerusalem'sfortifications by Hisham is unattested in historical sources, it logically fits in with the other public and military works he sponsoredthroughout the empire7

Conclusion A reexamination of the archaeological evidence indicates that there was a great deal of Umayyad activity in Jerusalem.This activity was not limited to the areaof the Temple Mount, but included a general overhaul of the fortification system of the city. The reconstruction of the fortifications appearsto have been carriedout during the reign of Hisham, who until now has not been linked to building projects in Jerusalem.The recognition that the Temple Mount was not the sole focal point of Umayyad activity in Jerusalem adds a new dimension to our knowledge of the development of the city in the early Islamic period. Acknowledgments This paperwas presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research,held in New Orleans in November 1990. Portions of it are based on my Ph.D. dissertation (see Magness 1989), directed by Dr. Keith DeVriesand Dr. JamesA. Sauer.My current appointment as Mellon Post-Doctoral

Fellow in Syro-PalestinianArchaeology at the Center for Old World Archaeology and Art at Brown University has provided me with the time and resources necessary to write this article.

Notes 1Scholars traditionallygivethe date

of 638 C.E.for the fall of Jerusalem(see Hitti 1951:153;Goitein 1982: 171).How-

216

ever,an alternativesuggestionis thatthe Bibliography to theMoslems citymayhavesurrendered Arndt,M. B. as earlyas the winterof 634/35(see 1987 Lucernearabecondecorazione "avite"

Busse 1986). 2Foroverviewsof early Islamic Jerusalem, see Le Strange 1965;Busse 1968; Goitein 1982. Forrecent studies of the Dome of the Rock, see Rosen-Ayalon 1989;Grabar1990. 3Fordiscussions of the chronology of these types, see Sauer 1982:332-33; Arndt 1987;Magness 1989:81-83. 4The chronology of "Mefjier ware," glazed wares and channel-nozzle oil lamps is problematic.Although these types are often assigned by scholars in Israel to the Umayyadperiod (see, for example, Peleg 1989: 104;Berman 1989: 125),I have found no evidence for their appearancein Jerusalemprior to the middle of the eighth century B.C.E.

(Magness1989:82-83, 357; for a recent consideration of ceramic chronology in relation to Khirbetel-Mefjer,see Whitcomb 1988.)One of the problems that lies at the heart of this issue is the use of historically based terminology ("Byzanto designate tine,""Umayyad," "Abbasid") ceramic types. Thus, most of the types referredto as "Byzantine"in this article actually date to the sixth and seventh

dalloscavodellaProbatica(1956-

1967).LiberAnnuus 37: 241-89. Baramki,D. C.

1944 ThePotteryfromKhirbetel-Mefier.

Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 10:65-103. Ben-Dov,M. 1985 In the Shadow of the Temple,The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. New York:Harperand Row. Berman,E. K. 1989 Glazed Pottery.Pp. 115-30 in Excavations at Capernaum,VolumeI, 1978-1982, edited by V.Tzaferis. WinonaLake,IN: Eisenbrauns. Busse, H.

1968 TheSanctityof Jerusalem in Islam. Judaism 17:441-68.

1986 cOmar's of Imageas the Conqueror Jerusalem.JerusalemStudies in Arabic and Islam 8: 149-68. Ettinghausen,R. and Grabar,O. 1987 TheArt and Architectureof Islam: 650-1250. New York:Viking Penguin Inc. Geva,H. 1983 Excavationsin the Citadel of Jeru-

salem,1979-1980,Preliminary

Report.Israel ExplorationJournal 33: 55-71.

Goitein,S.D. 1982 Jerusalemin the ArabPeriod(638not appearuntil the beginning of the 1099).Pp. 168-96 in The Jerusalem eighth century c.E.Chronologically volume 2, edited by L. I. Cathedra, based terminology, such as "seventhcenLevine.Detroit:WayneState Univermore would be accurate tury C.E.types," sity Press. (see Whitcomb 1988:64; Magness 1989: Grabar,O. 864-65). 1990 The Meaningof the Dome of the sShlomo D. Goitein (1982:178)menRock. Studies in Arab History.The tions that "thename of cAbdal-Malikis Antonius Lectures,1978-87, edited associated with other building activity by D. Hopwood.New York:St. Martin's Press. in Jerusalem.The city walls were reGrabar,O., and others pairedand its gates set up."However, 1960 SondagesAKhirbetel-Minyeh.Israel since the archaeologicalevidence indiExplorationJournal10:226-43. cates a later date for the activity covered R. W Hamilton, in this article, the referencemay be to 1944 ExcavationsAgainstthe North Wall repairson the walls and gates aroundthe of Jerusalem,1937-8. Quarterlyof TempleMount. the Departmentof Antiquities in Palestine 10: 1-54. 6Accordingto Hamilton (1988), Walidibn Yazidwas responsible for the 1959 Khirbatal Mafiar,An Arabian Mansion in the JordanValley.Oxford: construction of the complex at Khirbet ClarendonPress. el-Mefjer,although it was carriedout 1988 Walidand his Friends,An Umayof Hisham. the My suggesduring reign OxfordUniveryad TragedyOxford: tion that Hisham sponsoredthe work on Press. sity the fortifications of Jerusalemaccords Hitti, P.K. well with his reputationas a practical 1951 HistoryoftheArabs from the Earliest and meticulous statesman, in contrast Times to the Present.New York: with the frivolous Walid. Macmillan Company. 7Hamilton (1988:75) notes that Johns,C. N. Hisham expendeda great deal of money 1950 The Citadel, Jerusalem.A Summary of WorkSince 1934. Quarterlyof the on the military and on public works. centuries C.E.,while "Umayyad" types do

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Department of Antiquities in Palestine 14: 121-90.

Le Strange,G. 1965 Palestine Underthe Moslems.Beirut: Khayats. Magness,J. 1989 A Typologyof the Late Romanand Byzantine Potteryof Jerusalem. Ph.D. diss., Classical Archaeology GraduateGroup,University of Pennsylvania (forthcomingfrom Sheffield AcademicPress). Peleg, M. 1989 Domestic Pottery.Pp.31-113 in Excavations at Capernaum,VolumeI, 1978-1982, edited by V.Tzaferis. WinonaLake,IN: Eisenbrauns. Rosen-Ayalon,M. 1989 The EarlyIslamic Monumentsof alHaram al-Sharif,an Iconographic Study.Series:Qedem 28. Jerusalem: The HebrewUniversity. Russell, K. W. 1985 The EarthquakeChronologyof Palestineand Northwest Arabia from the 2nd throughthe mid-8th Century A.D. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260: 37-59. Sauer,J.A. 1982 The Potteryof Jordanin the Early Islamic Periods.Pp.329-37 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan,volume 1, edited by A. Hadidi.Amman:Departmentof Antiquities of Jordan. Schick, R. 1987 The Fate of the Christiansin Palestine During the Byzantine-Umayyad Transition,A.D. 600-750. Ph.D.diss., Departmentof Near EasternLanguagesand Civilizations, University of Chicago. Shiloh, Y. 1984 Excavationsat the City of David 1, 1978-1982. Series:Qedem 19. Jerusalem:The HebrewUniversity. Turtledove,H. 1982 The Chronicleof Theophanes.Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania. Tushingham,A. D. 1985 Excavationsin Jerusalem1961-1967, VolumeI. Toronto:RoyalOntario Museum. Whitcomb,D. 1988 Khirbetal-MafjarReconsidered:The CeramicEvidence.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 271: 51-67.

Wightman,G. J. 1989 The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. Excavationsby C.-M.Bennett and J.B.Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem,1964-66. Series: BARInternationalSeries, 519. Oxford:BAR.

Chicago

i I

I Sennacherib's"Palacewithout Rival" at Nineveh JohnMalcolmRussell

'Thisis anexceptionally finebook,onesureto bea landmark inNearEastern andeffective combination of Russell's JohnMalcolm judicious archeology. evidence andphilology evokesa vividpicture fromart,archeology, history, of seventh-century monarch Ninevehanditsambitious Sennacherib." - JohnBrinkman, of Chicago University Cloth $45.00 368 pages 69 linedrawings,2 maps,68 photographs

St I

if MISi

EarlyAntiquity

LM Diakonof ,Volume Editor Editor PhilipL. Kohl,Project Alexander Translator Kirjanov,

Written in anaccessible coversthe thiscollection styleforthenon-specialist, earliest Asia,India,andChinafrom historyof theancientNearEast,Central thebeginnings of agriculture throughtheadventof theIronAgeandthe Greekcolonization in theMediterranean andBlackSeaareas. "Inproviding bothnewinsights andsubstantive itwillberequired information, forallinterested in thepast."-C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Harvard reading University Cloth $49.95 486 pages4 maps

TheUniversityof ChicagoPress 5801 SouthEllis IL Chicago,

60637

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

217

Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible Textbooks: Which Ones

0..

TD

;*; ?"O

rsJr

are

Best?

by VictorH. Matthews andJames C.Moyer Old Testament/HebrewBible (OT/HB)for undergraduates have become a fairly substantial market for publishers. More than 20 were published during the 1980s alone, and there seems to be no end in sight. This review will concentrate on how well these textbooks incorporatednew archaeological discoveries into their surveys and whether they describedand explained archaeologysuccessfully. These textbooks can also be called surveys of the OT/HBand should be distinguished from the more technical introductions such as O. Eisfeldt, Old Testament Introduction (Harper& Row 1965)or R. K. Harrison,Introduction to the Old Testament (Eerdmans1969).An evaluation of this latter categoryis outside the scope of this article. In four previous articles in Biblical Archaeologist, we have reviewed the archaeologicalinformation in Bible Handbooks (September1985: 149-59), one-volume Bible Dictionaries (December 1985:222-37), onevolume Bible Commentaries (June 1990: 104-15) and Bible Atlases (December 1990:220-31). In the last century, new archaeological discoveries have substantial-

218

ly impacted our understandingof the world of the Bible. Undergraduates studying the OT/HBneed to be introduced to this information.They also need to be made awareof archaeological methods and techniques as well as the values and limitations of archaeologyforthe study of the Bible. Our evaluation will concentrate on how well the textbooks succeed in addressingthese issues. Obviously, undergraduatetextbooks could be evaluatedfrom many additional perspectives, but space does not permit us to do so. We have chosen to examine only those textbooks published since 1980 (with one exception) and to separatethem into two categories: texts that are easier to follow and simpler to read and designed to appealto the beginning student, and those that are more detailed and appeal to the more advancedupper level undergraduate,beginning seminary or graduatestudent. In each category,we proceedby publication date, from oldest to the most recent. Wewill make suggestions on what we believe all introductorytextbooks should include regardingarchaeology, and, finally,we will rate the textbooks and make recommendations.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

OT/HBTextbooksfor BeginningStudents Readingthe Old Testament:An Introduction,by LawrenceBoadt (Paulist,1984) Only published in paperback,this is the least expensive ($9.95)volume available.It is written simply and contains a number of excellent teaching and study aids. There are questions at the end of each chapter, charts (see page 117,Comparisonof Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, and page 127,Comparisonof Babylonianand HebrewFlood Stories),a readinglist for each chapterand indices. All illustrationsand maps (90 in all) are line drawings,which helps keep the price down but detractsfrom the visual aspect. The maps are poorly done and very hardto follow. Following a series of introductory chapters (which deal with the canon, the "Peoples and Lands of the OT," archaeology, the methods of biblical criticism, and the documentary hypothesis and the Pentateuch), the volume follows the order of the English canon. There are also topical chapters interspersed with these sections on the text ("Canaanite Religion and Culture," "Daily Life in Ancient Israel"and "Israelite Worship and

RatedBest OT/HBThxtbooks The theological viewpoint Prayer"). (RomanCatholic) is evident in several places. This can be a problemfor non-Catholicstudents and/orthose unfamiliarwith the issues involved. The poor quality of papershortens the life of the book, which again makes it compareunfavorablyto the more glossy,heavily illustratedvolumes availablefor classes in History, Sociology and Psychology. Boadthas the best coverageof archaeologyin any of the books reviewed in this section. He has a separatechapter,"Archaeologyand the Old Testament"(pages52-68), as well as a chapteron the peoples of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean (pages28-51), which includes an effective (see chart on page 34) discussion of the geographyof these

READIG TH OLD TETAMEN

-

Ilk

t

7A''TAI

Yik

regions. The chapteron archaeology coversthe history of the subject, methods, and short summaries of the majorexcavations in Palestine and the ancient Near East. Literary finds outside of Israel (EnumaElish, Gilgamesh epic, etc.; see inset, page 63) and inside (such as the Moabite Stone; see inset, page 65), are also discussed, and careful comparisons are made with the biblical text. Finally, the book has a section on "The

Beginning LevelTextbooks: Mainstream(tie)

L. Boadt,Reading the Old Testament:An Introduction

Ratedbestvalueat $9.95,providesbalancedanddetailedcoverageof history, andarchaeology aswellasgooduse of comparative geography literarymaterialsandgoodstudentaids.

H. J.Flanders,R. W.Crappsand D. A. Smith, People of the Covenant:An Introduction to the Old Testament,third edition

Ratedbest (excludingprice),attractiveformat,illustratedwell with numerousstudentaids.Detailedcoverageof comparativetexts andeffective presentationof archaeology. Conservative: A. Hill and J.Walton,Introduction to the Old Testament

Mostup-to-date, dealsbestwithcriticalscholarship amongtextbooksforbecontext. ginningstudentsin a conservative AdvancedLevelITxtbooks: Mainstrean: B. W.Anderson, Understandingthe Old Testament,fourth edition

Althoughstill in needof revision,this remainsthe bestadvancedtextbook foruse in a mainstreamteachingcontext. Conservative: W.S. LaSor,D. A. Hubbardand F.W.Bush, Old TestamentSurvey:The Message, Formand Backgroundof the Old Testament

Basedon format,visualqualitiesandattentionto criticalissuesandarchaeology,this is the mostusefultextbookforadvancedconservativestudents. It is nowout-of-date anddeservesto be revised.

tween the ancient Near Easternflood Valueand Limit of Archaeology,"in which Boadtnotes that "Archaeology accounts, he notes: The differences in detail . .. may does not provethe Bible to be 'true' or 'false'"(page67). This is an accusuggest that the biblical writer knew a slightly differentversion [than Gilgamesh],perhapsone an area closer to them, from the Old Testament Reading

has the best coverage of archaeologyin any of the books reviewed in this section.

rate and realistic statement that does not raise students' expectations, but also lets them know the real value of archaeologicalresearchin the reconstruction of the ancient world. After a careful examination of the BabylonianandGenesis accounts of creation (pages109-19), Boadt concludes: "Whilethe Priestly authors obviously knew the Babylonian story,or one similar, and used its outline, they did not accept its theology."In treating the similarities be-

such as Syria ... but Israel re-

jects any sense of a moody, petulant god and describes a God whose will can be known and his way lived and his blessing fulfilled (pages127-28). There is a balanceddiscussion of the date of the exodus, giving both sides, although noting that the thirteenth century date "ismore favored today"and "adate for the exodus in the reign of Ramses II, sometime between 1300and 1280,seems the most likely" (pages162-64). He notes that "thearchaeological evidence for the EarlyIronAge (the period from 1250 down to 1000)is quite mixed"(page200). The problems concerning Ai and Jerichoare

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

219

'

.1.;;T

mentioned briefly,and he does discuss Yigael Yadinand William E Albright, both of whom favorthe evidence of destruction at Hazor as a sign of the accuracyof the biblical tradition. He states, however,that "this does not mean .

..

f` t

.'..

r

i'

'? ;?

14,

that the

whole land was conqueredat once and held onto."Additional theories "ofa peaceful settlement or internal revolt"are reported(pages203-5), and Boadtconcludes that "theactual situation perhapsinvolves elements of all these theories: invasion,gradual infiltration of outside tribes, uprising and confederationof peasants breaking free from the urbanpowers." Aside from discussions of daily life, archaeologyis also mentioned in passing, such as: "archaeological probeshave shown that the population of Jerusalemand its immediate neighborhooddid double in areaduring this (post-exilic)period"(pages 449-50). Boadtalso continues to mention, and to provideinsets of, extra-biblicaltexts throughout the volume, including the Elephantine papyri(pages460-62). The chapter on "WisdomLiterature"makes liberal use of Near Easternparallels. The Old Testament:Its Background, Growth, & Content, by PeterC. Craigie(Abingdon,1986) Published posthumously, this volume displays Craigie'skeen understanding of undergraduatestudents as well as the importance of archaeology for the study of the Bible. It also suffers from not having him present to oversee the final revisions and layout. Craigieincludes a chapteron the historical and cultural background of the ancient Near East and a chapter on "The Old Testament and Archaeology." The latter contains one of the best sections we have found describing the history of the science of archaeology, the major discoveries of the last century (including a detailed look at the Ebla discoveries, pages 88-92), and even a discussion of the term "biblical archaeology"

220

~Z7rl ;`g i!*?.~?~ .`

'''

that highlights the problems in using this expression (pages81-82). He also includes a segment on "theuse and abuse of archaeology"(pages 100-2). In this regard,he notes: Many people would like to use archaeologyto "provethe truth of the Bible,"and there are probably as many who would use it in an attempt to disprovethe Bible ... There are fundamental logical flaws in either of these approachesto the Old Testament (page 101).

Craigiehas one of the best sections we have found describingthe history of the science of archaeology. Subsequent chaptersfeature short summaries of each of the biblical books. Because of the brevity of these segments, archaeologicaldata is only mentioned briefly. (See the comparisonbetween the Atra-hasis epic and the Genesis flood story, page 107.)Critical questions on the date of the exodus and the manner of the conquest are treatedbriefly in a separatechapteron "TheHistory of Israel"(pages255-90).

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Visually, this volume is not particularly attractive. Its black-andwhite photos are too widely scattered, especially in the latter half of the book, and the maps do not look professional. There is, however,a useful annotated bibliographyof aids for the study of the OT/HB,as well as a subject and scriptureindex. This book can be recommended for its chapteron archaeology,but the failure to integrate this emphasis into the remainderof the text makes it unbalanced.The summaries of the biblical books are just too short to provideadequatedetail and attention to the problems raisedby the biblical text and archaeologicaldiscoveries. Storyand Faith:A Guide to the Old

Testament,by JamesL.Crenshaw (MacMillan,1986,out of print;Henin 1992) dricksonreprintforthcoming intended for Although beginners, this textbookis writtenfroma more sophisticatedperspective.Its appeal maythereforebe moreto the advancedstudent,but somebeginningstudentswill be ableto use it profitably. It beginswith an introductory chapterof 31 pagesin whichCrenshawbrieflydiscussesthe geography andtopography of the land.He also a gives goodsurveyof the historyof Israel,which includesthe datingof the exodusandthe threemajorconquesttheories.He also mentions UgaritandQumranbriefly. The restof the bookfollowsthe Englishorderof the canon,bookby book,with emphasison literaryissues.In the preface,Crenshawbluntly states that archaeology,ancient history, sociology, etc., are secondary concerns in his opinion. Whereancient Near Easterntexts provehelpful in illuminating the text they are mentioned, but alwaysvery briefly. This includes the Mesopotamian flood story,Ugaritic texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Much more attention is devotedto authorship,literary artistry,etc. Although archaeological material is used very sparingly,

(1983)and Old TestamentFaith (1986).Drane has a very brief fourpage introduction to "Archaeology and the Old Testament,"which has only about 1,500 words,with pictures and drawings.It has limited scope and is helpful to the beginner, but could be expandedsignificantly. the information is accurate and Only a few of the values and limitations of archaeologyfor biblical up-to-date. There are 59 black-and-white study are noted. Genesis is placed in its context photos, with 10 concentrated in the introduction,and there aretwo maps, in 3.5 pages. Here the adaptationof which reveallittle about topography. ideas from Ugarit is mentioned. The The bibliographyis selective but BabylonianGenesis is compared more extensive than most beginning with the biblical creation account, textbooks. As expected, literary inand the Gilgamesh story of the flood is comparedwith the biblical account of the flood. Again the discussion is helpful for the beginner,but is too brief. The treatment of the exodus and conquest is a little more extensive. There is a summary of dating issues

JOHNDRANE

Crenshaw states that archaeologyis a secondary concern in studying the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.

Drane notes only a

few of the values and limitations of archaeology for biblical study. and an explanation of the complexity of the issues involved.Three theories of conquest are discussed and evaluated (pages62-69). Ugarit is frequently mentioned but never extensively. The most detailed section, Israeland the religion terests dominate. Archaeological books are included on a very limited of Canaan, is 2.5 pages long. The basis. Some of the books are annocoverageis again helpful but could tated and, overall,the selection emeasily be expanded. An obvious strength of this book technical books. phasizes the is textFaith is a and frequent use of black-andStory good white photos (165- more than in book for beginning and more advanced students who are looking for any other volume reviewed).The a literaryemphasis. Those wanting quality is not always the best, but will information be they are generally an aid to illustratarchaeological ing the text. Manypictures of artidisappointed. facts, including severalinscriptions, accompanythe text. Some geographiIntroducingthe Old Testament,by cal scenes are included along with a JohnDrane (Harper& Row, 1987) This book is a revision and combina- number of drawings,chronological charts and 15 maps. One interesting tion of The Old TestamentStory

'

'

type of picture is the modernexample of something ancient. These types of pictures add human interest, although one could question how appropriatesome are.They also become dated quickly. No specific section is devotedto geography,topographyor climate. His use of insets is a helpful feature (see"Werethe Patriarchsrealpeople?" on pages 42-45); however,the print is extremely small. The volume concludes with a very brief bibliography. Overall,this book is a readable and well-illustrated survey of the OT/HBwith brief use of archaeology. What is included is helpful to the beginner,but is so brief that it needs to be expandedto give the student a better understandingof the importance of archaeologyfor the study of ancient Israel. The Old Testament Story,by John H. Tullock, second edition (Prentice Hall, 1987) This book is a revision of a 1981 edition. It is simply written and tends to be a running commentary that follows the English orderof the biblical books. There are a number of pedagogicaldevices such as summaries at the end of chapters,study questions and annotatedbibliographies.It touches only lightly on the difficulties of textual interpretation and, in general, is an uncritical

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

221

-TiE

OLD STORY

JOHNHTULXOCK

treatment of the material. All maps and photographsare in black-andwhite, including many of archaeological sites. There are a few footnotes, a chronological chart (pages 378-82) providinga cross-reference of events in differentareas of the ancient Near East and mainstream dating of the exodus and conquest, plus a subject index. There is a chapteron the "Geographicaland Historical Setting for but not the OT Priorto 1200 B.C."' one on archaeology.A short section (pages 13-19) defines archaeology and discusses its values and limitations. Tullock makes a good point by saying that "while archaeologists have substantiatedand clarified many things in the Bible, the main purpose of archaeologyis neither to furnish museum pieces nor to substantiate a particularbiblical event" (page 13).His discussion includes short statements on site selection, dating, digging and values. Then, in a glossary-likeformat, he notes major discoveries (pages16-17) such as the Rosetta Stone, Ugaritic materials and the Eblatablets. While this is all useful material, it is too brief. In his discussion of creation epics, Tullock describes the similarities with the BabylonianEnuma Elish version, but tends to use a colloquial style: "Marduktook his swordand sliced her into halves like a grapefruit"(page36). He cites both the Gilgamesh epic and Atra-hasis in discussing the flood material, but

222

in little more than outline form. He also notes attempts "toconfirm the flood storyby archaeology"andpoints out that "noneof these attempts have been conclusive"and that "the importance of the flood story does not depend upon the archaeologist" (page41). Only the thirteenth century date for the exodus is mentioned, using the Merneptahstele and cities of Pithom and Pi-Ramsesin the time of Seti I as evidence (page59). No alternativedates other than the twelfth century are given for the conquest. In discussing the fall of Jericho,Tullock points out that "thereare no archaeologicaldata to confirm or deny the fall of the city to

Thullockspends too much effort providingshort summaries of the biblical narrativeinstead of addressingthe problems presentedby the text. Joshua'sarmy"(page95). He passes over the archaeologicalproblem at Ai by saying "thebattle for Ai-or perhapsfor Bethel as the archaeological evidence seems to suggest...." (pages96-97). Alternative views on the conquest are tacked on to the end of the chapter (page113)and described in less than a page- obviously an attempt by the publisher to make as few majorchanges in the text between editions as possible. Each chapterhas a bibliography, and archaeologicalbooks and atlases are well represented.The annotations are an asset, but too many of the books are not the latest or most recent researchin their respective fields. A few of the less technical books are included. This book, which has been widely used in college classrooms,is often too simplistic and spends too much effort providingshort summaries of

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

the biblical narrativeinstead of addressing the critical problems presented by the text. Those professors who adopt Tullock will need to provide significant supplementation to the text.

Peopleof the Covenant:An Introduction to the OldTestament,byHenry J.Flanders,RobertW.Crappsand DavidA. Smith,thirdedition

(Oxford, 1988)

Earliereditions of this work by a team of Baptistscholars were published in 1963 and 1973. Unlike Schultz'volume (see below), which has received minimal revisions, this book has gone through substantial revisions and is current. Furthermore,it provides broadcoverageof the whole field of OT/HBscholarship and is not written solely for conservatives. After a 45-pagesection on "Structure and Interpretationof the Old Testament,"a 25-pagesection titled "Settingthe Stage"explains well the geographyof Palestine and the rest of the ancient Near East. Nine pages on "Archaeologyof the BiblicalWorld" follow, which is successful in introducing the student to the methods and techniques of archaeologyas well as some of the values and limitations of archaeology.However,

Introduction Testament Old

An the

c o

to

I

EDITION

THIRD

ilvnr?

Flar)d(-r, ,

la(kson

Jr.

Rotwrt

Wilson

Crap s

[Inid

AntFx)n\

Smith

there is one unfortunateerror,when it is stated that archaeologists dig in squaresof 15 meters (insteadof 5 meters). This is not an isolated error; the volume deservedbetter proofreadingthan it received. The treatment of the creation story is quite extensive (pages82-99).

The Old'Istament World,by John Rogersonand Philip Davies (Prentice Hall, 1989) This is an attempt by two British authors to apply social-scientific methods to an introductorytextbook. The organizationof the volume thereforeconsists of setting the social stage with chapterson "Geography and Ecology,""SocialOrganization" and "Israel'sNeighbors."One typical the Covenant People of pays comment on their use of the text in with a sense of social good attention to historical conjunctionis found in a perspective caption and archaeologicalissues dealing with Abraham'spursuit of as well as literaryand Lot'skidnappersin Genesis 14:14: issues. religious Although both the interpretation of Genesis 14 and the dating of

Comparison with Enuma Elish is detailed and effective, but the addition of Indian, Polynesian and Fulani creation stories is really unnecessary for beginning students. Less extensive is the treatment of the flood, yet some of Gilgamesh is quoted and a fine comparison is drawnbetween TabletXI and Genesis. The Moabite Stone is discussed briefly and illustrated (pages238-39). The date and route of the exodus are discussed (pages 154-58), and about six pages are devotedto the conquest, appropriately introducing the student to the complexity of this process. This is a student-orientedtextbook that includes a glossary (pages 465-74), a chronological chart (pages 461-64), a subject index and a select bibliography.Each chapterconcludes with questions for further study and a brief annotated selection of books for further study. Maps, charts and regularlyspaced black-and-white pictures enhance the volume. Although some beginning students at an open admission university will find this volume too detailed, it is one of the best for beginning students. There is good attention to historical and archaeologicalissues as well as literaryand religious issues. Overall,we consider it to be an excellent survey textbook.

There is a great deal of archaeologicaldata scattered throughout The Old Testament World.

The third section covers literary aspects of the text, from Creation stories through apocalyptic, and the final section deals with the formation of the text from oral tradition and the development of the canon. This unusual organizationwill be confusing to beginning students unless the instructor is careful to explain its logic and is very familiar with the volume before beginning Abraham around 1800 B.C.E.are the course. There is a great deal of inforproblematical,as well as the fact, to the mation and archaeologicaldata according Judges18:29, Dan was not called until city (especially comparativeliterature) scattered throughout the book. For the twelfth century B.C.E.,this instance: discoveryenables the story of "Wealso know from archaeAbrahamto be readwith greater to the sort of condisensitivity ological investigations that tions implied in narratives Omri (orhis son) built new about him (page259). walls to replace those built by Solomon at Megiddoand Hazor, 111, as well as impressive water tunRP•Rq•( nels at those cities"(page 143). ? !'! OLD I).\AVI1' THE However,the index does not contain an archaeologylisting, nor is there a TESTAMENT specific chapteron archaeology.In the WORLD section on "Populationand Agriculture in 1200 B.C.E.,"ethno-archaeology is referenced,with discussion of the EarlyIronAge settlements and the use of the "four-roomedhouse"(page 28) and the debate over the construction of agriculturalterracesin the hill country settlements (page34). The authors briefly address some of the controversiesthat can be highlighted by archaeology:"reThe second section traces the history cent research . .. suggests that the of the nation from Solomon through Philistines did not have a monopoly the time of Herod.The authors'unof iron"(page36); "thevitality of Canaanite private religion is attestderstandingof "Israelitehistorioged by the large number of figurines raphy"is that "thebiblical writers had to do the best they could with found"(page75);"theconquest of the traditions availableto them, Canaanmay have been less a fight to without having Assyrian recordsand enable the newcomers to settle, as archaeologicalinvestigations to help presented in Joshua, than a number of battles between the Israelite tribes them"(page143).

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

223

and Canaanite city-states that wished to subject them"(page 133). Particularlygood coverageis given to extra-biblicalliterary remains: Ras Shamra(pages73-74); Mesha Inscription (page80);"Hymn to the Aton"and the "Theologyof Memphis"(page94); Hittite and Nuzi texts (pages96-97); Assyrian inscriptions (pages98-102); Merneptah Stele -"Israel's history ... begins around 1230 B.C.E., for the simple reason that this is the earliest reference to Israelin a text that can be dated with confidence"(page 117); Mariprophetic texts (page275);wisdom literature (pages294-95). In their discussion of the parallels between creation stories, the authors note that "the object . . . is not to try

to proveor disprovethe dependence of Genesis on other traditions. It is, rather,to indicate what themes are treated in the texts that have been discovered"(page 198). Visually, this volume is the most attractiveof any reviewed.It has 48 color plates scatteredthroughout the volume, and many more black-and-whitepictures, charts and maps. Most of these illustrations depict archaeologicalsites and objects and have helpful captions, although there are a number of pieces of medieval art (stained-glasswindows and illuminated manuscripts). Because of this greateremphasis on the visual, this volume most closely resembles the survey texts in history and the other social sciences. We applaudPrentice Hall and urge other publishers to follow their lead. It also uses scientific notation in the body of the text rather than footnotes. This is easier for beginning students to handle than footnotes; however, the bibliography at the end of the volume needs to be expanded to include more "popular" articles and books that beginners could immediately use without additional background. The index also needs to be enlarged and a scripture index should be added.

224

The Old'ITestamentSpeaks,by Samuel J. Schultz, fourth edition (Harper& Row, 1990) When this volume first appearedin 1960,it quickly became a best-selling conservativetextbook. It has previously been revised in 1970 and 1980 and has been translatedinto many languages.

theOld

Testament fourth

ea

=edition A

Old

complete

Testament

of

survey

and

history

literature

many others are omitted. Each chapterhas a bibliography, but many of the books listed are now dated. Three indices of biblical references, maps, and names and subjects conclude the volume. There is no archaeology listing in the subjectindex. Fora book that has sold so well, it is surprisingthat the revisions have been so minimal. Only four pages of black-and-whitephotos are included after page 208, and the book remains visually unattractive. The readercan go for too many pages at a time without any visual aids whatsoever.Furthermore,because the revisions have been minimal, the book is quite dated. Fortunately, there are now severalbetter options availablefor conservatives.

CrisisandStory,byW.LeeHumphreys,secondedition(Mayfield,1990)

SMUEL

I SCHULTZ

The archaeologicalinformation is surprisinglybrief. There is no introductionto archaeologicalmethods or techniques and no discussion of the values and limitations of archaeology. The creation and flood stories are discussed briefly,but no comparison is made with extra-biblical literature. Only two pages are devoted to the geographyof Israeland the date of the exodus. A 10-pagesection on the conquest is primarilya

Because the revisions have been minimal, The

Old TestamentSpeaks is quite dated. summary of the biblical narrative. Problems,such as the absence of occupation at Ai, are treated fairly. Some extra-biblicaltexts, for example, the Moabite Stone and the Lachish Letters,are included, but

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Humphreysfocuses on the most recent contributionsof social-scientific and literary scholarship,organizing his book aroundthe Moses-Sinaiand David-Zion stories and three major

Crisis and Story has no separate section on archaeology and its methods. crises in the history of Jerusalem. These crises are the captureof Jerusalem by David and the formation of the kingdom or empire with Jerusalem at the center; the destruction of the city and temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 587; and the destruction of the city and Second Templeby the armies of Rome in 70 C.E. Ratherthan an introduction to archaeologyand the Bible, Humphreysdevotesone paragraphto explaining that archaeologydeals with early life and physical evidence and rarely links particularpersons or events of the Bible with specific discoveries. There is no separatesection on archaeology or its methods; Humphreysdoes state "itis rare,however, for particularpersons or events men-

ll IlIill )(II'llEI I L• r/ff/ r

•

r,

1Z 7M!'4• .-.-•

'

tioned in the Bible to be securely linked with specific archaeological artifacts,levels, or other forms of evidence"(page7). Five pages (pages25-29) are devotedto the origins of ancient Israeland the three majortheories of the conquest (noting a thirteenth century date only as possible), including slow migration, external attack, and an internal uprising. The section concludes with an appreciation for the "reconstructionist" scholars who have "enrichedour appreciation of the complexity of those processes that led to the emergence of Israel"(page29). In his discussion of the external attack view of the conquest, he mentions the archaeological evidence of the "suddenand violent destruction in the thirteenth century B.C.E. of several sites"(page 27), but there is no critical discussion of the problems at Jerichoor Ai that would have been useful at least as an indication of the problems with this view. This may be one of the problems inherent to volumes that are too brief in their discussion (compareTullock).These theories are explained in more detail than anything else relating to archaeology because this is part of his emphasis on social-scientific research. Humphreysmentions the Gilgamesh account of the flood only briefly and notes that "manyof the Yahwist's themes appearin the literature

and mythology of the Near East especially in that of ancient Mesopotamia."In his discussion comparing Gilgamesh with the Genesis flood story,he includes the notation that in "unearthingthis corpus of ancient material during the past century, archaeologists have provideda background that gives new dimensions to the Yahwist'swork"(page81).He sees the Yahwistas creating "aunified structure"from these materials (page82). There is no separatesection devoted to climate and geography.The selected bibliographiesare not annotated and rarelymention archaeological books. A helpful glossary has few terms connected with archaeology. Other than its cover,this is not a particularlyattractivevolume. There are38 black-and-whitepictures widely scattered throughout the book, which depict artifacts and geography,but some are too dark, and there are just too many pages of nothing but text. Although never stated directly, Humphreysappears to share Crenshaw'sopinion that archaeologyis a secondary concern. A Surveyof the Old 'Istament, by AndrewE. Hill and JohnH. Walton (Zondervan,1991) This is designed as an evangelical survey of the OT/HB.After a prologue of 65 pages coveringgeneral introductorymatters, the authors proceedbook by book accordingto the English canon. The books are groupedinto four categories:Pentateuch, Historical Books, Poetic

Hill and Waltonis the best conservative textbook for the beginning student. Books and Prophets-with an introductory chapterfor each categoryof the OT/HB.An epilogue with two chapters,"Towardthe New Testa-

ment"and "WhatWeHave Learned," concludes the volume. The prologue includes a good 11-pageintroduction to archaeology and the Old Testament.The methods and techniques of archaeologycould be expandedin this section, but the values and limitations are well presented. Here, severalof the majorarchives (Ebla,Mari, Nuzi, etc.) are mentioned. It is readilyadmitted that archaeologyhas created confusion and problems,especially on questions of the exodus and the conquest. A 14-pagechapteron geography successfully introduces the student to the ancient Near East and the land of Palestine, and 17 pages are devotedto a historical overview of Old Testament times. This chapter

S1.

N/ff AC

0- F

r} 011•-D TE-ENMN

effectively places biblical events in their historical context. Only in a few places, for example Mesopotamia 2900-2000 B.C.E., is the detail more than the beginning student needs. The discussion of creation and flood epics includes a comparison with Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh. Although helpful, it should be expanded.Other literature from the ancient Near East (MoabiteStone, Lachish Letters,Siloam Inscription, etc.) is mentioned briefly at appropriate places.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

225

bibliographiesat the end of each section and a general bibliographyat the end of the volume. There is no separatesegment on archaeologyand only a very brief discussion of archaeologicalmethods (pages38-40). West does make very effective use of literary parallels from the ancient Near East. For instance, in his discussion of the Genesis creation stories, he quotes from and makes direct comparisons with the Enuma Elish (pages82-84), and in a similar manner references Sandmel representsa Atra-hasisand the Gilgamesh epic perspective(Jewish) in his discussion of the flood narrathat is not present tive (pages94-98). The various peoples associated anywhereelse in the currenttextbook market. with the ancestral narrativesare presented along with the documentary materials used to comparethem with in the Tanak"(page348). However, the Bible (Nuzi, Mari,El Amarna, the bulk of his discussion of archae- Ebla;pages 105-18). West does a ology is assigned to AppendixI (pages detailed job of tackling the problems overdating the narratives(Patriarchs, 507-16), which providesa brief deof a methods, map showing pages 118-23; Exodus,pages 147-52). scription He also providesa balanced examimajorsites, and a discussion of the value of inscriptional remains for the nation of the three principal theories of the conquest (pages203-9). reconstruction of biblical history. While the degreeof detail is Sandmel'streatment of the biblical materials is sophisticated and helpful, it is more than could be will appealto the advancedstudent. handled successfully by many beginHe has a no-nonsense style that ning students. This volume would strives to illuminate the text withOT/HBTextbooksfor out overburdeningit with theologiAdvancedStudents cal jargon.Because it is the only The HebrewScriptures:An Introduc- "Jewish"introductorytext, it fills a andReligious niche, but it is so dated that it should tion to TheirLiterature be revised. Ideas,by S. Sandmel (Oxford,1978) This is the only volume published Introductionto the Old Testament, before 1980 reviewed.It representsa not is that JamesK. West, second edition presby perspective (Jewish) ent anywhere else in the current (Macmillan, 1981) textbook market. While this volume Utilizing a mainstream approach, West first providesa series of introreads very well, its style is beyond that of the average beginning stuductory segments and then follows the English canon in his survey of dent. There are no pictures and the OT/HB.The level of readershipis just 17 maps to break up the visual the advancedundergraduate,and the image on the printed page. After two volume is illustrated fairly well, alpreliminary chapters that discuss the canon and some aspects of the though the layout is not particularly attractive.Student aids include foothistory of the Israelites, Sandmel notes on nearly everypage,a glossary, launches into a series of chapters on names and subjects indices, scripture the prophets. It is not until chapter 25 that Genesis is discussed in the index, chronological chart, outdated

This book is helpful to the beginning student, but it could be improved.There are only 28 blackand-whitepictures, most of which are quite small, but there are 53 excellent charts or graphsand 10 maps. Each chapterconcludes with questions for further study and a bibliographywith some annotations. Time lines are scattered throughout the book, and there is a two-page chronology at the end. The time line is arrangedso that the book must be turned sideways,which makes it difficult to use. Additional aids include an index and a few footnotes, but no glossary. This is the best conservative textbook for the beginning student. It is positive, cautious and helpful. It is up-to-dateand uses archaeological discoveries appropriately.Occasionally, special cases are made where archaeologicaldiscoveries confirm, or at least do not discount, the accuracyof Scripture:"experiencehas shown that calling into question the historicity of the biblical text for lack of evidence is unwarranted,because subsequent archaeologicaldiscoveries tend to confirm Scripture" (page132).

226

context of the "narrativebooks"of the Bible. Sandmel'suse of archaeologyis limited. There are brief referencesto the Babylonianmyth of the flood, from which he notes that "theGenesis flood narrativeis derived"(page 352). He also emphasizes that archaeology's chief value is in confirming the reliability of "thegeneral picture of early Palestinian life as depicted

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

West would be most useful to upperlevel or seminary students in a mainstream or university context.

ant

be most useful to upperlevel or seminary students in a mainstream or university context. It is out-ofdate and needs to be revised.

.

no?

w

Old Testament Survey:The Message, Form,and Backgroundof the Old Testament,by William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbardand FredericW. Bush (Eerdmans,1982) The volume is intended for college students, with footnotes and further readingfor seminary students. The (pages87-107) and of Exodus (pages authors' stated purpose is " . .. to in117-30).The latter includes a detailed troducethe readerto the background, presentation on placing the date of content, literaryquality and message the exodus in the thirteenth century. of the Old Testament as a whole and The conquest is also coveredextenof its various books"(pagevii). The sively, but not with as much detail result is less a survey for college stu- as the exodus. The archaeological dents and more of a detailed "intro- problems are discussed and brief duction"for seminary students. mention is given to alternatives to the conquest (pages203-4). ExtraDespite the detail in this book, there is no section introducing arbiblical literature is cited whenever chaeology,and the term archaeology appropriate.Although the Enuma does not appearin the subject index. Elish is not mentioned by name, On the other hand, there are 27 ref- there is a comparison drawnbetween erences to W.E Albright in the auMesopotamiancreation literature thor index. Archaeological contribu- and the biblical story of creation tions are distributedthroughout the (page73). The same is true for the whole book. flood story.Actually,this work inThere arefive introductorychap- cludes more use of extra-biblical ters. Chapter5 is a detailed section literaturethan most other volumes. on geography(pages40-53). This There are 46 black-and-white helpful chapterconcludes with a photos as well as severalcharts and brief section on the political and maps. Even so, this is not a visually theological significance of geography. The latter typifies the emphasis on theology throughout the volume. In The coverage in Old the remainderof the book, the auTestamentSurveyis thors treat each OT/HBbook in appropriatechronological order,with balanced,with an separatechaptersintroducingvariemphasis on issues of ous sections, such as "Prophetsand interest to Prophecy." There is extensive discussion of the historical context of Genesis

special conservatives.

attractive volume. Inferiorpaper quality has resulted in poorly reproduced photographsin many cases. There are indices for subjects, authors and foreign terms. Each chapter concludes with a select bibliographywith occasional annotations. Extensive footnotes and a general bibliographyare also included. Overall,the coveragein this volume is balanced, with an emphasis on issues of special interest to conservatives.Despite the lack of an introduction to archaeology,this is the best volume for conservatives in the advancedcategory.It should, therefore,be revised as soon as possible, since it is almost 10 years old. The Hebrew Bible:A Socio-Literary Introduction,by Norman K. Gottwald (Fortress,1985) Monumental in scope and style, this volume is perhapsthe most comprehensive of those reviewed.It tackles all of the problems inherent to biblical studies, and in some cases engulfs them with details. Frankly,it is more of a referencework than an introductorytextbook and therefore cannot be recommended to the beginning student. Its properplace is in the seminary or the graduate school where students are better equippedto deal with its critical, social-scientific agenda. On the informationallevel, Gottwald can be applaudedfor providing good surveysof the historical geographyand archaeologicalhorizon of the Near East. He is careful to note that "archaeologicalreconstruction is a slow and laborious process, often misunderstoodby the generalpublic who hears only of this or that sensational discovery" (page 50). In addressing the question of the use of parallel literary materials, he cautions that these parallels "show that there was a vast fund of writings in the wider world which used literary forms very much like the forms of biblical literature and that dealt with the same or similar historical and thematic concerns" (page 51).

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

227

of the ancestors in that region as has often been claimed, since i some of these names occur also in texts from much later cenGottwal turies (page 169). His discussion of the conquest models is quite comprehensive (pages261-76; chart of archaeological evidence page 263). He concludes that "whenthe whole body of biblical archaeologicaldata is examined, the case for the conquest model of Israelite origins in Canaan is sharply reduced if not underminedbeyond iv.: repair"(pages262, 265). He also points out the typological difficulties in the use of the term "Israelite" to describe archaeologicallythe people identified with the conquest This statement is followed by an period and the settlement remains from that time period (page269). extensive table of paralleledtexts Both the index and bibliography which he are says (pages52-55), are comprehensive and very useful. "meantto show that not only did This is a relief considering the mass Israelparticipatein a common geoof material in the volume. There are world but and historical graphical also in a common literaryand religio- no pictures, although there are some cultural world."His failure to discuss excellent charts and diagrams.The result is a visually unattractive most of these ancient texts in any detail (see pages 332-33) weakens book, which has sacrificed, in some the volume's usefulness as well. cases, comprehension for detail. The treatment of archaeologyis somewhat mixed-between the exUnderstandingThe Old ITestament, tremely technical (see chart of sites on pages 60-62), as in the discussion by BernhardW.Anderson, fourth edition (PrenticeHall, 1986) of the chronology on pages 164-65, This is the textbook against which most others are judgedbecause it has dominated the market for more Gottwald provides than three decades. It is a compregood surveysof the hensive volume containing many of historical geographyand the featureswe have come to expect in a survey of the OT/HBwith a archaeologicalhorizon mainstream perspective,including of the Near East. good author and subject indices as A

S

L

o

i

I

e

a

Norman

y

t

K

t

o

o

u

Andersonhas dominated the market for more than three decades.

",If

and more general statements, such as his definition of "Palestinianarchaeology"on page 59. He tends to be cautious in drawingconclusions from the text about specific historical periods: Eventhe existence of northern Mesopotamiancities bearingpatriarchalnames is not as compelling evidence for MB II origins

228

well as a bibliography for each of the chapters. There are several very helpful charts, many black-and-white pictures of archaeological sites and objects and eight color plates (grouped in two sets of four). The maps are somewhat disappointing, lacking clear definition because of the twotone shading (although the same maps appear in other volumes, for example Carmody). The many foot-

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

notes add useful bibliographicreferences. These, however,will probably be of more use to advancedor seminary students than to beginners. There is no chapteron archaeology, geographyor the historical backgroundof the ancient Near East. Each of these topics is coveredin the course of other chapters.Forinstance, a series of peoples (Amorites,Hurrians, Apiru and Aramaeans)are discussed on pages 30-41 in the chapter "TheBeginnings of Israel."The historical geographyof Canaan is found on pages 124-25 as part of the discussion of the conquest. The only extended discussion of archaeology is found on pages 135-37 with regard to the evidence for the conquest. Anderson'sposition on the limits of archaeologyis the following:

UNDERSTANDING THE OLD TESTAMENT

IOUKI IIIIN I10\

1;[R\11-\R[-)\\

k\L)[RS0\

Wereally should not expect archaeology to provethat the biblical story is true just as written. Archaeologyaims to be a scientific discipline, and as such it is not in the service of any special interest (page28). With regardto the creation epics, he notes that the Enuma Elish and the

Gilgamesh Epic"showformal similarities to the biblical account"(page 36). He details some of these parallels in his discussion of the Israelite epic tradition, noting that "theIsraelite story-tellersborrowedfreely from the reservoirof populartradition, although transformingthe material in accordancewith their Yahwistictheological perspective" (page160).It should be noted that he does not treat the primeval materials of Genesis until Chapter 5, after first discussing the exodus event. Most of the majorliterarypieces from the ancient Near East are discussed: Mari, Nuzi, Hammurabi's Code, Ugaritic epics, various Assyrian annals and Egyptianwisdom literature (perhapsthe best section on the use of ancient Near Eastern parallels in this volume; see pages 568-603). This is done effectively, although no great emphasis is placed on these parallels except in the wisdom chapter. In the section on the conquest, Andersonplays out the discussion on Joshua'sversion and how it relates to the archaeologicalrecord(pages13437) and then compares the various views on the occupation of the land (pages137-40). This is a balanced section that coverseach view well and does not choose sides, noting the possibilities as well as the problems with each one. Primaryweaknesses, as we see them, are in the somewhat dated scholarly views expressed.This is temperedsomewhat in the footnotes and the expandedcoverageof the conquest, which includes Mendenhall's and Gottwald'sideas. It is appropriate for gifted or advancedstudents and seminarians,but is too difficult for many beginning students. Visually, it is not very attractive.Despite the color plates and the black-andwhite photos, there are too many pages of nothing but text. This volume has been a major seller for years and has been used as a textbook in many differentcontexts. Despite its need for updating,

it remains the best of the advanced textbooks for mainstream, upper level student settings.

AN INTRODUCTION

An Introductionto the Old Testament and Its Study,by RobertL. Cate (Broadman,1987) This textbook combines a literary emphasis with a historical treatment of the OT/HB.After a lengthy section devotedto general consideraITS AND STUDY tions, each succeeding section is introducedwith an "issues"chapter. Then each book is taken up individually with respect to date, authorship and unity, along with special problems or issues. The contents of Robert L.Cate each book are explained through an outline and description. Coverageis fairly thorough with very few footflood. The Ugaritic tablets are noted notes. Cate writes from a conservain a section dealing with the nature tive perspectivebut he does not of Canaanite religion. avoid problems or difficulties. Unfortunately,this book is visually unattractive.There are no pictures or drawings,although there Cate has no indices, is a four-pagechronological chart study questions, glossary and an 11-pagebibliographywithout or other student aids. annotations. There are no indices, study questions, glossary or other student aids. It will appeal more to "The World of the Old advanced students, although it is Chapter2, readable and could serve many includes but Testament," brief, help- quite sections on students. ful, archaeology,geogbeginning raphy,climate and history.This quotation is typical of Cate'sapproach: ExploringThe HebrewBible, by John The science of archaeologyhas Carmody,Denise L. Carmodyand the most useful been RobertL. Cohn (PrenticeHall, 1988) probably and most abusedof all disciplines While this volume contains a numwhich have been broughtto bear ber of useful student aids (glossary, on the task of understandingthe study questions, a bibliographythat Old Testament (pages29-30). marks items useful to undergraduArchaeologicalcontributions are ates), its readershiplevel is beyond regularlynoted at appropriateplaces. that of most beginning students. Severaloptions are given for dating One example is found in the descripthe exodus (pages 150-53), and seven tion of the exodus: ... two facts seem quite certain. pages are devotedto archaeologyand the conquest (pages210-16). On the First, only a small part of what later became "Israel"in fact exlatter issue, archaeologicalevidence, or the lack of it, is providedin indiperienced an exodus from Egypt. vidual discussions of 11 sites. Second, there was no "Israel" until severaltribes confederated Extra-biblicalsources are frein Canaan (page11). quently mentioned. Enuma Elish is comparedwith the Genesis creation Its format includes a commentary story and the Gilgamesh story of the on each biblical book or canonical

TOTHE

OLD

TESTAMENT

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

229

Exp-u)RiNC# THE

EBREW

BIBLE

DeetrgwartLhCw PzbaLCdiR

section followed by a section on historical background,literary intent and lasting significance. However, the inclusion of a detailed discussion of some scholarly theories is not balancedby alternative positions (see the heavy reliance on Gottwald's theories on pages 11,43, 121, 126).

The detailed discussions of scholarly theories are not balanced by alternative positions. There is no separatesection on archaeology,although the brief section on the history of Israeland the Near East (pages9-15)does referto the archaeologicaldiscoveries at Mari, Nuzi and Ebla.However,there is no mention of the archaeological problems associated with the Joshua account of the conquest. The mention of the Near Easterncreation accounts is very brief (page25) and the comparison of flood traditions is summed up thusly: The story of the building of the ark, the presentation of the differentspecies of animals, and the actual occurrence of the flood drawson Mesopotamianparallels - forinstance,the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh (page29).

230

This is a less successful team effort than others. It is visually unexciting, the print is too small and there are too few pictures.

andRatings Recommendations

Now that we have examined two separatecategories of textbooks and how they cover archaeology,we can move on to propose how archaeology should be presented in the ideal textbook. Wewant to stress that a textbook should be all things to all people as much as possible. Obviously space limitations and cost dictate many compromises. We fully recognize that colored pictures are generally too costly for all but the best-selling textbooks. Likewise, we recognize that in 350 pages or so, selectivity is essential. Still, we think the coverage of archaeologyin textbooks on the OT/HBcan and needs to be improved. First,somewhere near the beginning should be a separatesection devoted to archaeologyand the OT/HB. It does not have to be a whole chapter, but it does need to be a separate unit. The books by Boadt,by Craigie, by Hill and Walton,and by Flanders, Crappsand Smith are the best examples here. In this section the author should introduce archaeology to the beginner.This should include how archaeologistsproceed from site selection to publication. There should also be a description of the tell, dating techniques, etc. Most important is how archaeology helps to illuminate the Bible and what its limitations are. In our opinion this latter point is the weakest part of most textbooks. There is often some indication of values and a statement that archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the Bible. Yet this is usually not explained in enough detail to change the popular conception that archaeology is some kind of panacea for solving biblical problems. For this reason, we believe much more attention needs to be placed on what archaeology can and cannot do for the study of the Bible. Furthermore, we think it is appro-

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

priate to conclude this section with some important discoveries, but also some important problems or revisions of interpretation. A history of Palestinianarchaeologyis not needed here, but it is beneficial to show students a few of the interpretation mistakes made in the past and a few of the revised interpretationsthat new discoveries have requiredand will necessarily requirein the future. Finally,this section should include a description of how the student can keep pace with a rapidly changing field. This could be done in the bibliographicalsection, but we prefera narrativesection, or an inset, that notes journalslike Biblical Archaeologist, Biblical Archaeology Review and Biblical Illustrator.In short, this chaptershould introduce an approachratherthan numerous facts or discoveries. Once archaeologyis introduced, the textbook should proceed to illustrate the values and limitations of archaeologyas appropriate.Since archaeologyis responsible for the discoveryof most extra-biblicaltexts, these texts should be emphasized in every textbook. Wefind the use of extra-biblicaltexts to be the best way to teach students the ancient Near Easterncontext of the Bible. Furthermore,it is the single most important way to preventstudents from readingthe Bible as though it were a twentieth century text that was written yesterday.Here are three specific examples illustrating how extra-biblicaltexts can be used: A comparison of the Gilgamesh account of the flood and the biblical account of the flood. This is an excellent place to introduce students to literary and source criticism. Because of widespread student interest in the flood, they find it fascinating to compare and contrast the two accounts and to better see what the purposes of the biblical writer might be. The Ugaritic texts and their

studies suffer in comparison to textbooks in largermarkets, such as history or sociology, because those biggermarkets allow publishers to spend more on pictures and graphics. In addition to artifacts,we believe it is essential to have photos of excavaThe Assyrian texts. These texts, tions in process (preferablywith peosuch as Sennacherib'sdescription ple to add interest). Photos of tells and some of the geographicalfeatures of his attack on Hezekiah, give are also essential. the student the opportunity to see the same event as described Third, there should be a discusfrom two different perspectives. sion of geography,topographyand climate. No student can understand the literature of the OT/HBwithout All the introductory textbooks make some use of extra-biblicaltexts; a description of the physical world each Israelite faced daily. Weprefer unfortunately few take full advana specific section devoted to these of them. Neither Crenshaw nor tage matters near the beginning of the for devote Humphreys, example, book with notation of the signifimuch time to the Gilgamesh accance throughout the book at approcount of the flood and a significant with the biblipriate places. Good maps to locate literary comparison cal account of the flood. If space places are essential, as is some considerations limit the inclusion of method to indicate the topography of at least parts of Israel. Rainfall translated sections of ancient Near and averagetemperaturemaps are Easterndocuments in the textbook, also helpful. we suggest supplementing it with one of the collections of ancient Fourth,there should be a historical summary that includes IsNear Easterntexts in translation. rael'sneighbors and places Israel in Daily life in ancient Israel the context of the Near East. Some should also be emphasized. There is with the a human fascination description of these neighbors and always this do and other their culture is also necessary, inway people things, is especially true when people do cluding a description of how ancient Israel was both similar to and differdifferently. things significantly ent from its neighbors.If a chronologiBoadt'schapterdevoted to daily life is especially helpful. A special chap- cal organization is used, the historiter is one effective way to emphasize cal backgroundand Israel'sneighbors can be dealt with as appropriate.If a daily life. Another way would be to the life throughout approachis followed, book-by-book emphasize daily then a historical summary similar text either with sidebars,insets or to Crenshaw'sis essential. special sections. The advantageof Whateverapproachis followed, the second approachis that it is a bit easier to focus on each period and the exodus and conquest deserve show some of the limited changes special emphasis. The author should show students how archaeology has that took place during the course created more problems for us than it of Old Testament history. Good pictures of all kinds of artifacts are has solved, how we seek to develop a essential. Gone are the days when chronology from both literary sources and archaeological evidence, and visuals were considered too expensive to include in textbooks. The how new social-scientific developvisual orientation of our society ments are helping reconstruct the demands the best pictures and as early history of ancient Israel. While it is not necessary to go into great many as is economically feasible. Unfortunately,textbooks in religious detail, we believe the book would be emphasis on agricultureand fertility. These are also helpful in showing Israel'sattraction to the gods of her neighbors and the backgroundto legal prohibitions and prophetic harangue.

remiss if it did not show the complexity of the issues relating to the exodus and conquest. Archaeology has not providedfinal solutions, but it has made us more cautious and helps us read the text in new ways. Fifth, we believe bibliographies in beginning textbooks have put too much emphasis on technical books. We suggest authors include popular books and articles on archaeology and the Bible. Furthermore,annotations are essential for students and should note the difficulty of the book or article under review. Sixth, we believe all textbooks should be user friendly.This means each volume should have pedagogical devices that make the mass of material easier for the student to comprehend. Wehave alreadymentioned pictures, charts, maps and bibliographies.To these we would add study questions, glossaries and indices. Study questions should be included at the end of each chapter. Some of these questions should help the student see archaeology'svalues and limitations throughout the whole OT/HB.A glossary should enable the student to review key terms, such as archaeologicalterms, periods and major finds. Finally,indices are essential for any textbook. The student should be able to look up where archaeologyis utilized in the text, as well as scholars, discoveries and key sites. Unlike Crenshaw,we do not think archaeologyis a secondaryconcern in understandingthe OT/HB. Rather,it is one essential approach, along with many others, and should be treated as such by all authors of textbooks. We think all teachers have a right to expect better coverage of archaeology in future beginning textbooks. Authors, publishers and teachers really form a partnership; each of us needs to press the other for improved textbooks. The result will be better education and learning for our students.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

231

OldTestamentSurveyTextbooksNot Reviewed Title GodWithUs:A

Authorand Publisher C. Barthand

Illustrations none

Theological In- G.W.Bromiley, troduction to the editors Old Testament Eerdmans

Dateand Price 1991

Pages Comments 413 Translated and shortened from Indonesian, originally

$29.95

published in sections from 1970-90, designed for use by pastorsandlaypersonsin a mission context. Conservative theological orientation with no attempt to use archaeological data or comparativeancient Near Easternliterature. Extensive subject and scriptureindices.

Introduction to M.B.Dick the Hebrew Bible: Prentice Hall An Inductive the of Reading Old Testament

335 6 black-and-white 1988 $17.00 paper photos, 8 line drawings,6 charts and 3 maps

Workbookformat dealing with a select groupof biblical texts representingeach periodand genreof biblical study. Effectiveuse of extra-biblicalliteraryparallelsin Genesis 1-11and in legal materials. Good discussion of conquest options and archaeologicalproblems (pages121-22).Exercises and text geared to the beginning college student. Helpfulglossary,subjectandscriptureindices andlimited bibliographicsuggestions.

The Old D.R. Gordon Testament:A Beginning Survey Prentice Hall

336 36 black-and-white 1985 photos, 8 maps and $26.80 paper 12-pagechronochart

Balanced, mainstream approach. Good use of parallel literature in section on Mesopotamian influences. No separatesection on archaeologybut archaeologicaldatais discussed regardingconquest.Bibliographyincludes basic research aids plus selected works on each section of volume. Subjectindex only.

333 12 black-and-white 1982 $12.95 paper photos, 4 line MichaelGlazier drawings,5 maps, revised 4 charts and 5-page edition chrono-chart

Canonically arranged,brief, balanced discussion of archaeological techniques and limitations as well as summary of majorextra-biblicalliteraryremains and integration of ancient parallels into discussion of creation and flood. Short, out-of-datebibliographiesfor each chapter, subject and scripture indices, plus appendixon issues of inerrancyand inspiration.Mainstreamposition on dating and historicity.

God's Word to Israel

J.Jensen

An Introduction A.L. Laffey to the Old Testament: Augsburg/ Fortress A Feminist Perspective

none

255 1988 $12.95 paper

Primary emphasis on women's studies, systematically applies feminist interpretationratherthan giving a comprehensive examination of each period or genre. Format includes presentation of episodes, an interpretationand summary. No effort made to draw upon archaeology or extra-biblicalparallels. Helpful bibliographiesafter each chapter,with scriptureand subject indices.

A Guide C.B.Marshall Throughthe Old Testament Westminster/ JohnKnox

158 11 maps, 7 charts 1989 and3 line drawings $14.95 paper

Workbookformatlimits text to majorperiods,personages and genres.Excellent use of ancient Near Easternparallel literaturefor flood epic and legal codes, good brief discussion of neighboringcultures. Helpful glossary,very brief bibliography,but no index. Designed for high school and church school students.

The Worldof the A.S. van der Old Testament Woude,editor

312 65 black-and-white 1989 $24.95 paper photos, 3 charts and 9 maps (translation of 1982 edition)

History and examination of social world and the literary genres of the Old Testament written by many authors. Archaeologicaldata interspersed,especially comparative ancient literature,but no separatesection. Good bibliographies direct further reading, although some are dated due to the gapbeforetranslation.Referencework qualities make it too detailed for beginning students.

Eerdmans

232

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

forBeginningStudentsReviewed BibleTehxtbooks OldTestament/Hebrew Title

Authorand Publisher

Reading the Old L. Boadt Testament:An Paulist Introduction

The Old Testament:Its Background, Growth, & Content

Storyand Faith: A Guide to the Old Testament

Introducingthe Old Testament

18 black-and-white 1986 photos, 10 charts $18.95 and 9 maps

351

with excellentchapterson archaeMainstream approach, ology and the historicalcontext of ancient Israel.Disbriefsummariesof eachbiblicalbookdonot appointingly of archaeologyor manyof the probdiscussion integrate lems faced in interpretationof the text. Illustrations concentratedin the firsthalf of the volumemakethis a fairlyunattractivebookforbeginningstudents.

59 black-and-white 1986 n/a photos, 1 chart and 7 maps

480

Literaryapproachminimizes the usefulnessof archaeology.Excellentdiscussionof literaryparallels,especially between Near Easternand biblical wisdom literature. Additionalattentionto physicalremainsandmoreillustrationsandmapswouldimprovethis volume.

165 black-and1987 352 white photos, 15 $19.95 paper Harper& Row maps, 9 chronocharts and 6 charts

Variedpage format and illustrationsevoking modern

P.C.Craigie Abingdon

J.L.Crenshaw Macmillan (Hendrickson reprintin 1992) J.Drane

The Old J.H.Tullock TestamentStory Prentice Hall

Peopleof the Covenant:An Introduction to the Old Testament

Dateand Price

Pages Comments 22 maps, 44 charts 1984 Catholicperspectivewith detailedtreatmentof 573 Balanced, andhistoricalcontextofancientIsrael.Good and 29 drawings $9.95 paper archaeology useof charts,butadditionalillustrationswouldmakethis volume more attractiveto students.Inexpensiveprice makes possible the use of supplementarytextbooks. Alongwith Flanders,CrappsandSmith,this is the best bookforbeginningstudents.

Illustrations

images make this volume appearmore contemporarythan most of the others reviewed.Archaeological data, which is brief, is very often placed in insets, with small print.

409

Simply written textbook that could be used with high school students. Brief commentary format in most chapters minimizes the material and does not provide sufficient data for students to gain more than a superficial understandingof the Bible.

512 H.J.Flanders, 43 black-and-white 1988 $29.95 R.W.Crapps photos, 12 maps and D.A. Smith and 11 charts third edition

A volume that bridges mainstream and conservative approaches,this book andBoadtarethe best forbeginning students. Good (sometimes too detailed) coverage of archaeology and literary parallels provides balanced understandingof the Bible.

31 black-and-white 1987 $34.00 photos, 11maps, 4 drawingsand 5- second page chrono-chart edition

Oxford

The Old J.Rogersonand 48 color, 68 black- 1989 Testament World P.Davies and-whitephotos, $36.00 14 maps and Prentice Hall 5 chrono-charts

384

Visually the best textbook reviewed, social-scientific approachgearedto the sophisticated beginning student. Good use of archaeologyand literaryparallels.

The Old Testament Speaks

453

Minimal revisions since the first edition in 1960 have not brought this widely used, conservative textbook up-todate.Limiteduse of archaeologyandonly brief mention of literary parallels. Visually unattractive and almost no student aids. Extensive revision is needed.

Crisis and Story: W.L. Introduction Humphreys to the Old Testament Mayfield

38 black-and-white 1990 395 $26.95 paper photos, 9 charts and 8 maps second edition

Well-written, visually interesting, but structurally unusual volume. Emphasis on Jerusalemas focal point for Israelite history. Abbreviated use of archaeology, good student aids.

A Surveyof the Old Testament

28 black-and-white 1991 photos, 53 charts, $22.95 10 maps and 2-page chrono-chart

Newest and best textbook for conservative, beginning students. Good chapters on archaeology,geographyand Israelite history. Excellent charts and many helpful student aids.

S.J.Schultz

8 black-and-white 1990 $24.95 photos, 7 charts fourth Harper& Row and 15 maps edition

A.E. Hill and J.H.Walton Zondervan

479

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

233

Old Testament/HebrewBible 'Ixtbooks for AdvancedStudents Reviewed Author and

Title

Publisher

The Hebrew S. Sandmel Scriptures:An Introduction to Oxford TheirLiterature and Religious Ideas

Date and

Illustrations

Price

17 maps and 1 chrono-chart

1978 592 $18.95 paper

Pages Comments Mainstream scholarship, Jewish perspective. Atypical format first discussing the prophets and then the Pentateuch and Writings.Readershiplevel above that of most beginning students, but would be attractive,if revisedand updated, for upper level and graduate students. Little attention to archaeologyexcept in a 10-pageappendix.No illustrations;excellent, but datedannotatedbibliography.

Introduction to the Old Testament

J.West

86 black-and-white 1981 photos, 21 maps, 4- $36.00 page chrono-charts second and 12 drawings edition

636

Mainstreamapproach,best suited to upperlevel students because of the degree of detail included. Good use of archaeologyandliteraryparallels,but now out-of-dateand in need of revision.

Old Testament Survey:The Message, Form and Background of the Old Testament

46 black-and-white 1982 W.S.LaSor, D.A. Hubbard photos, 9 maps $24.95 and FW.Bush and 15 charts

709

Very detailed textbook, useful primarily in upper level contexts. Now out-of-dateand in need of revision, a helpful volume that provides conservative students with a balancedexamination of many of the questions raisedby the text and archaeology.

The Hebrew Bible: A SocioLiteraryIntroduction

732 N.K. Gottwald 24 maps, 29 tables 1985 and 12 charts $22.95 paper Augsburg/ Fortress

More a referencework than a textbook, this volume provides the most comprehensiveexamination of the biblical materials available.Social-scientific approach,extensive notes anddetailedargumentswill appealonly to advanced undergraduateand graduatestudents. Extensive archaeological data integratedinto text, but no separatesection included.

Understanding the Old Testament

B.W.Anderson 8 color photos, 76 black-and-white Prentice Hall photos, 11 chronocharts, 16 maps and 16 tables

1986 $37.00 fourth edition

701

Long the standardfor textbooks, based on its systematic approach.Well illustrated, this volume remains the best for advancedstudents in mainstream contexts. It is now out-of-datewith respect to its coverageof archaeologyand is in need of revision.

1987 $21.95

539

Conservativetextbook, but with a balanceduse of archaeological data. Degree of detail makes this acceptableprimarily to upperlevel and seminary students. Lackof illustrations lessens usefulness of this volume.

36 black-and-white 1988 J.Carmody, D.L.Carmody photos, 3 charts $35.00 andR.L.Cohn and 7 maps

464

Unnecessarily detailed in some places, but very limited mention of archaeologicaldata and extra-biblicalliterary parallels. Unattractive layout, with illustrations ineffectively used.

Macmillan

Eerdmans

An Introduction R.L.Cate to the Old Broadman Testamentand its Study Exploringthe Hebrew Bible

4-pagechronochart

Prentice Hall

234

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

Commentary

Handling Future

surherecent publicity

roundingthe unpublished fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls has brought about the question as to how future manuscript discoveries should be handled. There was a similar instance of mismanagement in the case of the Nag Hammadi codices, which were discoveredin 1945 in Upper Egypt. These manuscripts were not published until the 1970s when, through the intermediaryof United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO),it became possible to gain access to the material and publish The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, which ended that monopoly and gaveeverybody readyaccess. How should the academic community at largehandle the next majormanuscriptdiscovery? Such discoveries are bound to take place regularly,as evidenced by the steady stream of majorfinds from this century:The ManicheanCodices of Medinet Madi discoveredin 1929; the Chester Beatty Biblical Manu-

Manuscript Discoveries

byJamesM.Robinson AssembledNagHammadicodices.The

codices were found in UpperEgyptin 1945, but were not published until the 1970s. Photocourtesy of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity

(This article was excerptedfrom the William H. Brownlee annual lecture delivered at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity of the Claremont Graduate School on September 19 and is published, herewith, with their permission. The full lecture is published in the Institute's Occasional Paper#23.)

scripts from the 1930s;the Toura Papyriof patristic texts discovered by the British Army during the Second WorldWarnear Cairo;the Nag Hammadi gnostic codices; the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Qumranbeginning in 1947 and followed by nearby discoveriesat WadiMurabbacat,Wadi Daliyeh, KhirbetMird and Nahlal Hever;and the recent manuscript discoveries at Saint Catherine's Monasteryat Mount Sinai. Since it is likely that more ancient manuscriptswill be discovered, it is well worth our while to be better preparedto handle them than we have been in the past. What can be done to see to it that those new discoveries are not processed with the chaotic and unsuccessful procedures that marredseveralpast discoveries? During the twentieth century,we were able to move beyond the widespreaddestruction of manuscript discoveries characteristicof earlier centuries and at least to preserve most of them for prosperity.But can we make a comparableleap forward

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

235

f4

in proceduresso that the texts are properlyhandled and promptly made availableto the scholarly world and the cultured public? What can we do now to see to it that future discoveries will be handled correctly? I would like to make six concrete proposals,based in largepart on my having been deeply involved in setting straight the situation with regardto the very mismanaged Nag Hammadi codices. Seen from the inside, there are problems,but also possibilities, not always noticed from the outside.

rW

?Zoe

i xP?.~qa -W

-

-TI

-lb

ANNE& KI. 1.

i~f~'~~LQ~

-IL

-

A New Ethos for Editiones Principes The person who accepts an assignment for a prestigious first edition, an editio princeps, does so on behalf of and for the academic community and not to the exclusion and detriment of most of the present generation of colleagues. The Dead Sea Scrolls scholars agreed,around 1950, to publish these texts for us all. Yet we have waited all our professional careersfor access to some that are still not available.Whatevermoral justifications led to the arrangements of 40 years ago are no longer applicable.If the scholars involved had been asked then whether they should be given 40 years or more to complete their assignments, certainly these sensible and decent people would have said no. But there was no contingency plan envisagedthen for the situation that has actually evolved. It was at that time less a problem of the individuals involved than of the scholarly community at large.This lack of collective foresight should not be allowed to happen again. It must also be remembered that any first translation, no matter how qualified the scholar, is also the first mistranslation. Over the years, the ongoing scholarly debate corrects and improves the editiones principes until we achieve standard editions that can stand the test of time. In the case of critical editions, as in the rest of scholarship, we have to trust

236

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

the ongoing free debate within the academic community to weed out untenable views and foster views that can last. It is a matter of collective guilt that we have tolerated as a group what we as individuals could hardly justify.Wehave left it to the most directly victimized to lodge their protests, and we have usually not hearkened to their calls for support. Scholarshave known that they could get by and that when they finally succeeded in producingtheir magnum opus, everything would be forgiven and forgotten and they would assume their place in history as great scholars. But we are a transition generation. This truism of the past is no longer fully valid today and will increasingly cease to be acceptable in respectable academic circles.

itself. Therefore,we had to raise most of that money ourselves. Incidentally, the United States is no longer a member of UNESCO. Hence, American participation on a UNESCO committee would now be excluded. There are, of course, learned societies at the international and national levels. There is an International Association of Egyptologists,an InternationalAssociation for Coptic Studies, an International Society of Papyrologists,an international Society for New Testament Studies, international Congresses for Old Testament Studies, as well as equivalent American organizationslike the American Schools of Oriental Research,the American Research Center in Egypt, the Society of Biblical Literature,the Catholic Biblical Association, the American Papyrological Society, etc. A Policy Commission on Future Once a commission to plan for Discoveries future Manuscript manuscript discoveries has Beforethe next discoveryis made and been initiated, its membership should include a variety of scholarly mismanaged, a commission to set for the correct up policies handling organizations to avoid the appearof future manuscript discoveries ance that one learned society is tryshould be in place. It should be dising to exclude others from future interested and functional. Of course, discoveries.This commission would we are talking about international be entrusted with establishing poliand discoveries relevant cies and procedures.Its planning scholarship not just to the United States. Hence, should not await a manuscript disone thinks of such organisms as coverybut should be carriedout UNESCO. It was the International without a specific discovery in mind. Committee for the Nag Hammadi Forthen it would not be a matter of nominated and Codices, partially being confronted with the fait acfunded by UNESCO, that broke the compli of those on the inside track on the Hammadi monopoly Nag introducing the type of self-serving codices. Priorto that, UNESCO had but counterproductivestructures done practicallynothing for a decade. that plagued the Nag Hammadi and Its staff consists not of academics but Dead Sea Scroll discoveries. of bureaucrats,functionaries from Although the specifics of each the participatingstates. UNESCO's manuscript discovery are unique and biannual budget consists of projects the problems are never identical, it proposedby member states. As long is often striking how specifics from as the Ministry of Culture of the one story sound like twice-told tales ArabRepublic of Egyptdid not put when compared with another. Every the Nag Hammadi project at the top aspect needing attention in forthof its requests for funding, nothing coming discoveries cannot be anticihappened.That funding is normally pated, but certain situations can be. limited to meetings of international Hence, some procedures should alcommittees to make recommendaready be worked out and ready to go. tions, not for funding the actual work

On-Call Teamsof Technicians Much of the physical damageto manuscripts is not due to the ravages of time, rats, mildew and the like. In the Nag Hammadi story,natives used manuscripts to light water pipes or cook tea, antiquities dealers discardeddirty fragments to make the rest look cleaner and taped the leaves together to keep them from breakingapart,and conservatorsat museums cut out the leaves one by one without making photographic recordsof their original condition. The greatest damageoccurs at the very beginning, both in terms of conservation and in terms of persons getting monopolistic control. Experttechnicians, identified in advance,should be ready on a moment's notice to fly to the repository of the next manuscript discovery and implement the correct procedures to keep damageat a minimum. Expertsin other fields, such as photography,should also be enlisted. The photographyof manuscripts is a special science distinct from normal professional photography,since it is a matter of taking photographsthat make legible as much text as possible. Bruce Zuckerman of USC, and his brotherKenneth, a skilled photographer,have demonstratedtheir ability to improveon the legibility of the manuscripts themselves. They have worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, on a very ancient Masoretic text of the Hebrew scripturesin St. Petersburg,and, this past summer, on barely legible Manichaeancodices of Medinet Madi in Berlin. The policies workedout by such a planning commission as I have suggested should be distributed in writing as a quasi-official policy document of the academic community to the museums and libraries where new discoveries might crop up. But an authorized spokesperson for such policies should be on call to go promptly to the repository of the new discovery and seek to negotiate compliance with the approved procedures. For one can count on there

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

237

JamesM. Robinson

Ir

o-

•

'oo

I

o?i

.

V7, j

pf

being alreadyon hand, by the time the news of the discovery is made public, persons eager to make their own fortune or enhance their own reputationby such self-seeking and unprofessionalproceduresas have characterizedprevious discoveries.

PoliciesforPrepublication Accessibility

There is nothing wrong with careful scholars preparingeditions with

238

only deliberatespeed, even if that means a generation, as in the case of the JungCodex and the Dead Sea Scrolls. However,they should not be given exclusive publication rights. The rest of the scholarly community should not have to wait for access until the lucky few have demonstrated their excellence to the last detail before publishing the editio princeps of the text. Moderntechnology makes this monopolistic procedureobsolete,

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

quite unnecessary and, therefore, perverse.Partof the agreement to assign a text for publication to a scholar should be the scholar'swritten agreement to conform to new nonmonopolistic procedures. The monopoly on the Nag Hammadi codices was brokenby the publication, in 11 volumes, of The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, from 1972 to 1978 (less than a decade aftergetting access to the material through UNESCO in 1970),with an introductoryvolume in 1984.This is being followed by a 15-volumecritical edition, The Coptic Gnostic Library,from Brill. Twelveof the volumes are already in print and three are at the copyediting stage. There has been a spirit of cooperation, ratherthan competition, much less exclusion, between the English-languageteam and East German and FrenchCanadianteams producingeditions. The Facsimile Edition retails for between $1,000 and $1,500. The price of excellent collotype reproductions such as these has more than doubled since then, so that a comparablefacsimile edition todaywould either requirea massive subsidy or be far out of reach of individual scholars and most libraries.But reproductions of photographsin books has become quite common and hardly more expensive than a pageof printed text, if the quality of reproduction does not have to equal that of collotype plates, and a microfiche edition of facsimiles of a comparable discovery could well retail for less than $100. They could be studied on a microfiche reader or, more practically, scholars could make inexpensive copies in the size of the original manuscripts. Massive machine-readable databases of ancient texts are already in existence and are being constantly augmented with rather comprehensive inputting projects, such as the

source for most of the important manuscript finds. William Brashear,the American papyrologistof the EgyptianMuseum of Berlin, points out that it has become customaryamong papyrologists now to consider five years the duration of an assignment to edit and publish a papyrus.And TheJerusalem Post reportedrecently that "Under PracticalPolicies for Editiones Israel's new antiquities law, archaePrincipes We all recognize the moral right of ological material can be reassigned if not published within five years." a conscientious scholar who, year after year,works on a critical edition How can this new ethos be implemented with regardto important of a previously unpublished text. It would not be fair to that serious manuscript discoveries? In the future, should a scholar scholar for some facile, fast-moving be the task of preparingan his look over to assigned colleague briefly editio princeps to the exclusion of shoulder and get into print first with a poorly researchedarticle that other scholars?If this tradition were to continue because of the moral makes a sensational, often misleadclaim and claims justifications alreadystated, how ing, incidentally could it be done in such a way as to credit for the discovery.It is the truth of this insight that established avoid the quite immoral outcome we the ethos that has led us so far.This have witnessed? Perhapsthe ethos moral position, however,should not we should seek to cultivate would be permitted to function as the justi- entail imposing conditions on such an assignment: fication for the very immoral outThe editor and publisher would come at which we find ourselves Exclusive agreethat the first tasks, to be rights today. publication achieved in a specified time, without deadlines have clearly not such as a year,would be to presuccessful. proven serve the material from loss or The EgyptianAntiquities and to give prompt preumbrella the damage organizaAuthority, tion for antiquities in the Arab liminary access to the academic community. The conservation Republic of Egypt,has the policy should come first, with photothat an authorized archaeological excavation has seven years of exclugraphicdocumentation of each sive rights in which to publish what stage, and without delay.A phoit excavates,after which anyone who tographicfile of the pages should be prepared,which should be wishes can publish these manuscript discoveries. However,scholars in published promptly and inexpensively, and a preliminary Egypthave negotiated that the seven

ThesaurusLinguaeGraecae,directed by ProfessorTheodore Brunnerat the University of California in Irvine. Access to new manuscript discoveries does not have to be held up pending the completion of the editio princeps if the editors do not wish access to be held up.

years do not begin in the year of discovery, but rather from the date of the conclusion of the excavation. Thus, if the excavation can be continued indefinitely, those assigned to publish the discoveries from the early years have, in effect, no deadline, and the original purpose of the legislation has been circumvented. Also, the legislation does not affect finds made during unauthorized excavations, which are actually the

transcription published promptly in machine-readable form. If the preliminary photography and transcription were published on schedule, then the assignment of the editio princeps would be confirmed to that scholar, who would then have, say, four years to publish a critical edition. During this time, users of the microfiche, photographic and machine-readable publications

might be requestedto refrain from publishing a critical edition, although they would be encouragedto publish studies of the texts and to preparetheir own critical editions to appearafter the designated time period has elapsed. At the end of this fiveyear period, other scholars could publish their own critical editions, regardlessof whether the editio princeps had yet to appear. This would be a major incentive for the scholar with the assignment to stay on schedule. The moral claim of the scholar assigned to preparethe editio princeps would have been met by the scholarly community by according the five-yeargraceperiod.The scholar would assume the obligation to give priority to this editing assignment, ratherthan suspending work occasionally to do other scholarly tasks that might emerge, not to speak of the diversions that can distract one from scholarship as a whole. If the scholar has not published within that time, the scholarly community would have no moral obligation to extend exclusive rights beyond the initial period, although the original scholar would certainly be given every encouragement to complete the task. The initial editorial assignment should be explicit and firm as to the five-yearlimitation of exclusive rights to publish a critical edition, and should limit the size of the assignment to what a scholar could be expected to publish during that time. If the new manuscript discovery is too extensive for one person to publish in five years, the material should be divided, with each scholar being given an assignment that could reasonably be completed within the time frame envisaged; or, if the scholarly resources are too limited, not all of the material should be assigned at the beginning. One of the problems with the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the very ex-

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

239

tensive fragmentarydiscoveries from Cave 4 at Qumran simply swamped the few editors that controlled the material. The material should have been assigned seriatim, with one unit of material assigned only when the previous task was completed, and more people should have been trained to help complete the publication within a limited time. A monopolistic procedureoften takes the form of insisting that the first publication of the text be bound into the same volume with the monopolists' follow-up scholarship, with the result that the rest of us must wait on their scholarship to be

critical edition itself being held up. Perhapsfoundations and other funding bodies could be enlisted in the enterprise to see to it that the lucrative grants,an important if unmentioned fringe benefit of being inside a monopoly, are restrictedto those who conform to the practices that assist the whole academic community. In field archaeology,many fundingbodies stipulate that modern archaeologicaltechniques must be observed.The excavations,dependent on such funding, are forcedto conform. One may also think of the efforts currently underwayin the American Schools of Oriental Research to preventfield archaeologists completed. The editio princeps should be clearly defined as not from returningto dig (anddestroy) including any of the editor'sown year afteryear if they do not publish scholarship that goes beyond the (andto this extent preserve)their reminimum needed for the edition sults. A concerted effort could, in a itself. That is to say, learned history- brief amount of time, gain acceptance for a comparableset of standards of-religionsparallels and commentaries or notes on the meaning of the among funding bodies for the publitext should be reservedfor a separate cation of manuscript discoveries. follow-upvolume, ratherthan the

Access to Dead Sea ScrollsPhotographs The following is the text of the October28 announcement by the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center to release photographsof the Dead Sea Scrolls, which effectively brings to an end the present controversyconcerning access. Tobgether with the publication of a definitive catalogue of texts jointly with the AnnenbergResearchInstitute, full access to the Dead Sea Scrollsmaterial will now be assured. -The Editor The Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center (ABMC)wishes to announce a policy of open access to its copies of Dead Sea Scrolls Photographs. This policy has been formulated in response to the October 27 announcement by the IsraelAntiquities Authority that it is grantingaccess to the photographs of the Judean Desert Scrolls at the Rockefeller Museum. The ABMC welcomes this move by the Israel Antiquities Authority and believes it to be a step in the right direction in opening access to DSS materials. The ABMCis in a position to offer top quality, high resolution transparencies (4"by 5"or 8"by 10")forstudy by qualifiedresearchersat the Center in Claremont or through interlibraryloan. Researcherswishing to view published or unpublisheddocuments should call the center at (714)621-6451, or write to The Ancient Biblical ManuscriptCenter, P.O.Box 670, Claremont, CA, 91711. Following its standardpolicies for all holdings, a qualified researcher is defined as one who is able to read the languages of the ancient texts (usually Aramaic,Hebrewor Greek).As is true for all photographicmaterials held by the Center,researcherswill be askedto applyto the appropriateholding institutions for permission to publish photographsof Dead Sea Scrolls documents.

240

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1991

EliminatingConflictof Interestin Administratingthe Manuscripts All discussions of procedurepresuppose one basic change in the way things are organized:the scholars who do the editing should not be irn volved in assigning and monitoring publication rights. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was a long span of time, due to political factors,when there was no effective administrativecontrol other than the control exhibited by the editors themselves. How could they enforce deadlines on each other when they had not met their own deadlines? Publication rights are normally part of the right of ownership,recognized as international law by the Geneva CopyrightConvention (ofwhich Egyptand Israel are not signatories). Usually the owner, often the State, is representedthrough the Director of the Museum in which the manuscript is deposited. Publication rights to a manuscript in a private collection or a merchant'spossession belong to the collector or merchant. Certainly,the owner would like to retain control over the publication. The good offices of the scholarly community, however,through its on-call team of technicians and diplomats and its Policy Commission on FutureManuscriptDiscoveries,might well succeed in putting a healthy distance between the manuscript owner and the scholars assigned the editing. Such proposals as these -the creation of a new ethos, a policy commission, on-call teams of technicians, policies for prepublication accessibility, practicalpolicies for editiones principes and eliminating any conflicts of interest between the administrators and editors - should be worked out in detail and adopted by representational scholarly bodies and put in place before new manuscript discoveries emerge. There is no reason why the processing of manuscript discoveries need remain a jungle. Individually and collectively, we should assume responsibility for a better future.

Whilesearchingthrougha prefabricated metalstorage shedeerilyreminiscentof a fourth-century-B.C.E. stone sarcophagi,the editorsof BiblicalArchaeologistuneartheda cacheof valuablemanualsbelievedto dateto t mid the 1980s.Theseraretexts havebeenidentifiedas a Indexto BiblicalArchaeologist:Volumes Comprehensive 36-45. On a limitedbasis,this pricelessresearchtool is availableto the generalpublicfor$10plus $2.50forshipping. Send payment to Biblical Archaeologist, P.O.Box HM, Duke

Station,Durham,NC 27706.Don'tmiss out on this once-in-a-

lifetime chance toownapart ofthepast!

American

Schools

of

Oriental

Research

1992-1993

Fellowships

TheAlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch

WinnettFellowship atPh.D.and opento scholars (1):$10,000award,

(Jerusalem)

post-doctorallevels.Applicationdeadline:December 15, 1991. FulbrightResearchFellowship

National Endowmentforthe HumanitiesFellowship(1):Stipend

alieninthe upto$27,500, opentoanyU.S.citizenorresident

Jennifer C.GrootFellowship Opento (2):$1,000stipend.

scholars.Application deadline: spouse.Opento post-doctoral October15,1991.

The CyprusAmericanArchaeologicalResearchInstitute (Nicosia)

U.S.forthe last threeyearsandholdinga Ph.D.as of January1, 1992.Applicationdeadline:October15, 1991. DorotResearchFellowship(1):$22,000 stipendplus roomand half board.Opento senior scholars.Applicationdeadline: September15, 1991. AnnualProfessorship(1):Maximumamount of award$18,000. $5,000 stipendplus roomandhalf boardforappointeeand

undergraduate andgraduatestudents.Applicationdeadline: February1, 1992. HonoraryAppointments:No stipend.Opento senior,postdoctoral and researchfellowsand scholars. OtherACORfellowshipswill be availableforthe 1992-93 academicyear.Contactthe ASORoffice in the fall of 1991for more information.

SamuelH. KressFellowship(1):$11,000award.$4,500 stipend plus roomandhalf board.Fordissertationresearchin architectureor art historyand archaeology.Applicationdeadline: October15,1991. GeorgeA. BartonFellowship(1):$5,000 award.$2,000 stipend plus roomandhalf board.Open to seminarians,pre-doctoral studentsand recentPh.D.recipients.Applicationdeadline: October15, 1991. HonoraryAppointments:No stipend.Open to senior fellows, postdoctoralfellows,researchfellowsand scholars.

NationalEndowmentforHumanitiesFellowship:Stipendup to $30,000for humanitiesscholarsholdinga Ph.D.as of January1, 1992. The CharlesU. and JanetC. HarrisFellowship(3)$1,500stipend. Open to scholarsof any nationality.Applicationdeadline: February15, 1992. FulbrightResearchFellowship. HonoraryAppointments:No stipend.Open to senior fellows, postdoctoralfellows,researchfellowsand scholars.

TheAmerican Centerof Oriental Research(Amman)

Mesopotamian Fellowship (1):.$5,0000stipend,opento pre-

TheCommitteeonMesopotamian Civilization(Baghdad)

doctoraland postdoctoralscholars.Applicationdeadline: ArabicSpeakingAcademicImmersionProgram(ASAIP):For February1, 1992. applicationinformationwrite:The ASAIPSelectionCommittee, clo Dr. L. CarlBrown,Programin Near EasternStudies, At-Large JonesHall, Princeton,NJ 08544-1008. EndowmentforBiblicalResearch'Taveland ResearchAwards: DodgeFellowship(1):$10,000award,open to senior scholars. TWo$1,500researchgrantsand sixteen $1,000travelgrants. Applicationdeadline:December 15, 1991. Applicationdeadline:February1, 1992. Forinformationandapplicationscontactthe AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch,3301 North CharlesStreet,Baltimore,MD 21218,

516-3498. (410)

Statementof Ownership, Managementand Circulation October1, 1991 Title: Biblical Archaeologist. Publication Number 0006-0895. Frequency: Quarterly. Four issues published annually. Subscription price: $45 institutions, $35 individuals. Location of Office of Publication: Scholars Press, P.O. Box 15399, Atlana, GA 303330399. Headquarters of publisher: Same. Publisher: Scholars Press, P.O. Box 15399, Atlana, GA 303330399. Editor: Eric M. Meyers, ASOR Publications, P.O. Box HM, Duke Station, Durham, NC, 27706. Owner: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 3301 North Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218. The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the tax exempt status for Federal income tax purposes has not changed during the preceding 12 months. The average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months are: (A) Total number of copies printed: 4,957; (B)Paid circulation, mail subscriptions: 4,379; (C) Total paid circulation: 4,379; (D) Free distribution: 78; (E)Total distribution: 4,457; (F) Copies not distributed: 543; (G) Total: 4,957. The actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: (A) Total number of copies printed: 4,801; (B) Paid circulation, mail subscriptions: 4,158; (C) Total paid circulation: 4,158; (D) Free distribution: 65; (E)Total distribution: 4,223; (F) Copies not distributed: 578; (G) Total: 4,801. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. Dennis Ford, Scholars Press.

110006-085( 11111111

12)54s14-Vi

0006-0895(199112)54t4-V