No title

The

BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOGIS 4

Publishedby THE

AMERICAN

SCHOOLS

OF ORIENTAL

RESEARCH

126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass. Vol. XXXIV

February, 1971

No. 1

cr -;t

d

~'S~"~ r?

r IE?L ~I

.~Yb~ r~ ??

~L

I i I

~

~:

~c -,?

":r?i~ _ii

Fig. 1. Statue of Ur-Nina (Ur-Nanshe), mill. B.C.). (mid-3rd de Ninni-Zaza (1967),

the "great singer" at the court of king Iblul-Il of Mari

From Mission PI. XLVIa.

archeologique

de Mari,

III:

Les temples

d'Ishtarat

et

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

2

is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) The Biblical Archaeologist by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, ChicaIllinois 60614. go, Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem. $5.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Subscriptions: 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive the BA automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address, $3.50 per year apiece. Subscriptions in England are available through B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back Numbers: $1.50 per issue, 1960 to present: $1.75 per issue, 1950-59; $2.00 per issue before 1950. Please remit with order, to the ASOR office. The

journal

is indexed

in Art Index,

Index

end of every fifth volume of the journal itself.

to Religious

Periodical

Literature,

and at the

Second-class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1971 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH, N. H.

Contents ... .......2 Mari, by AbrahamMalamat............................................ .2... The "Ghassulian"Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origin of the 23 Hoard from Nahal Mishmar, by David Ussishkin ............................ .......... 39 N elson Glueck: In Memoriam ................................................................................

Mari ABRAHAM MALAMAT Hebrew

University,

Jerusalem

by the author to the (This article is a slightly modified version of the study "Mari" submitted to appear in late 1971 or early 1972); it is printed here by ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA (scheduled illustrations are svecifically Israel. The the kind permission of Kater Publishing Jerusalem, House, in our selected for RA readers. The article fully updates the early article of G. E. Mendenhall 1948 volume. Assyriologists will know that the letter h in all Akkadian words should be understood as the hard letter usually represented with a hook beneath it.)

Mari was one of the principal centers of Mesopotamia during the third and early second millennia B.C. The archaeological and epigraphical discoveries there are of prime significance for the history of Mesopotamia and upper Syria, and for biblical research, especially on Hebrew origins and the formative stages of Israelite history. Mari (sometimes Ma'eri in the cuneiform sources) was located at Tell Hariri, at present about a mile and onehalf west of the Euphrates near Abu Kemal, some fifteen miles north of the modern Syria-Iraqborder. It was in an optimal position for contacts with the west, and its location on the river artery, yet immediately adjacent to the desert, was continually decisive in the shaping of its fortune and character.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 1)

Excavations

3

and Discoveries

The French excavations at Mari, instituted in 1933 under the direction of Andre Parrot, have continued (with a break during and after World War II) into their nineteenithseason in 1970. The archaeological evidence indicates that Mari was founded at the end of the 4th millennium B.C. (Jemdet Nasr period) and reached a cultural-artisticpeak during the first half of the 3rd millennium. Dating to this period ("Early Dynastic II-III,"or "pre-Sargonic")are a ziggurat and several *HATTUSHA

*tANESH

BAZAR)

S(CHAGAR

CACHE45 j

-' ~CARCHE 'SH'

HARRAN

SHUSHARRA - INIVEH M1/ARRAPtHA EKALLATU NN N1N

KARANA,

RREH

(Teuat-Rimah) -rALEPPO ALALAHO

Cyprus

ALALA

ft

EMAR

ASSHUR

TUTTU

UGARIT

t

L

NUZI

*SAGARATIM

,TERA TERQA

v, 45 JADMER ATNA

TAMER

eve~o

BYBLOS

Z S

*DAMASCUS

LAISH

MARI

~3`

*ESHNUNNA

DE~R

TUTTULDER

SUSA,

SIPPAR BABYLON NIPPUR

HAZOR

.ISIN

4

A. M.

LAGASH

URUKLARS

0

00

AMo

Fig. 2. Map of the Near East in the Mari period, prepared by the author.

sanctuaries: the temples of Dagan (where the earliest list of the Mari pantheon was discovered), Shamash, Ninhursag and Ishtar, together with the pair of temples of Ishtarat and Ninni-Zaza. In the three last-named, there came to light many inscribed statues of local kings (such as Lamgi-Mari, Iku-Shamaganand Iblul-I1), lesser royalty and courtiers (Fig. 1). Although Sumerian culture predominated, the characterof the cultic installations, the appearance of bearded figures in art, and especially the occurrence of particular divine and private names are all clearly indicative of a basic Semitic element from earliest times; Semites ruled Mari centuries before the rise of Akkad.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

4

Since 1964, the excavationshave revealedtwo superimposedpalaces from pre-Sargonictimes, most impressivein themselves,including a royal chapelwith an earthenaltar(cf. Exod.20:24); its sacredtraditionwas preservedeven in the Old Babylonianpalacebuilt there some 700 yearslater (see below). Within the palacecomplexa jar came to light containinga "treasure" includinga lapis lazuli beadwith a votiveinscriptionmentioning Mesannepada,founderof the First Dynasty of Ur. This indicatesa close contactbetweenMari and Ur at an earlydate,as do otherfnds fromMari such as shell inlays essentiallyidentical with those of the "Ur standard" (war panel). The pre-Sargonicpalace was destroyedeither by Eannatum of Lagash(mid-25thcenturyB.C.) or by Lugalzaggesiof Uruk (mid-24th century). r

II Y

r. h?

i?- C

- , t.?

.n ~LIC~L~S~LI~t.?.141~'-1

??? r?rr-?j cc; L?`

r

;~~5~,6 )L' ??a ~ZL~?-aIr ?~BJ

5 ~31YY~r-1I?t~k?r~

-r

?,

,~.+~r

r

~,??LL~lr-.

-? ?r '- ~ri~ ?,. ii ~IE~fj)i 4'1 r?b~~? " ?~ ~ r rh r

r?? r??

L-~

. I.er (_i

.?r .('

?'~ C h

Fig. 3. Lapis lazuli bead with votive inscription of Mesannepada, king of Ur, found in the preSargonic palace (first half of 3rd mill. B.C.). From Mission archdologique de Mari. IV: Le 'trisor' d'Ur (1968), P1. XXII.

After Sargon's conquest in the second half of the 24th century, Mari became a vassal city within the empire of Akkad; among the epigraphic evidence from this period are the names of two daughters of Naram-Sin, king of Akkad. In the final two centuries of the 3rd millennium, Mari was a sort of loose dependency of 3rd-Dynasty Ur, flourishing anew under local governorswho bore the title Jakkanakku(eight are known by name). Indeed, a ruler of Mari is known to have given his daughter in marriage to a son of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur. The pre-eminence of Mari throughout the 3rd millennium is well reflected in epigraphic sources: in the Sumerian King List, it appears as the seat of the tenth post-diluvian dynasty; in the inscriptions of Eannatum

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

5

mention is made of the penetration and repulse of forces from Mari as far south as Lagash; and Mari also appears in the inscriptions of Sargon and of Naram-Sin of Akkad. At the close of the 3rd millennium, Ishbi-Irra, "a man of Mari," founded the Isin dynasty and facilitated the collapse of the empire of 3rd-Dynasty Ur. After an obscure period of two centuries (from which several economic texts and 32 inscribed liver models are known), Mari reached its final period of glory, in the 18th century under West Semitic rule. Then Hammurapi, king of Babylon, quashed Mari, and it never regained its formerposition. In the 13th century, Tukulti-Ninurta I conquered the meager settlement there and stationed a garrison in the city for a short time. To round out the archaeologicalpicture, the uppermost layer on the site dates to the Seleucid-Roman period. In the second half of the 2nd millennium, Mari was still sufficiently important to be mentioned in the Nuzi documents (horses and chariots were sent there), -in recently found texts at Ugarit ("Ishtar of Mari" in an alphabetic text, and in an epithet of another deity in a Hurrian text), and in the Egyptian geographical lists of Thutmosis III and probably also of Ramses III (15th and 12th centuries, respectively). The land of Mari appears in the neo-Assyriangeographicaltreatise describing Sargon's Akkadian empire; it was on this basis that W. F. Albright identified Mari with Tell Hariri long before excavation began. Finally, Mari is mentioned in a Greek itinerary,in the (Aramaic) form Merrhan. The Old Babylonian

Palace and Royal Archives

The main discoveries at Mari are from the period of its domination by the West Semitic dynasties in the last quarter of the 19th century and the first half of the 18th century (reckoned on the "middle" chronology; if one uses the "low"chronology of Albright and others, the dates would be 64 years lower). Several temples of this period were built over corresponding sanctuaries of pre-Sargonic times, namely those of Ishtar, Ninhursag and Shamash; a second temple of Dagan, also known as the "lions temple" from bronze lions found flanking its entrance, was founded earlier, by the end of the 3rd millennium. Dagan, biblical Dagon, held a prime position in the West Semitic pantheon, and at Mari bore the titles "King of the Land" and "Lord of all the Great Gods." The outstanding architectural discovery from this period, however, is the royal palace, a structure of unparalleled magnificence and widespread fame in its time (Fig. 4). This residence, enlarged successively by each of the West Semitic rulers at Mari, reached its zenith under Zimri-Lim, attaining an area of about eight acres and including over 300 chambers, corridors and courts. Besides the private quarters for the royal family and en-

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

6

QI

ILl

r?

0

?4

rA)?

I '

0

L

040

i

M

~

i

,,~

.

. ... . . .

..

-

I

forecourt of Zimri-Lim's at Mari. Legend: foreign (B), palace (A), Fig. 4. Plan gateway visitor's quarters (C), kitchen great court (E), old throne-room with murals (F), (D), sacred area (G), sanctuary with earthen altar (H), sanctuary with podium (J), "dining mural hall" with murals (K), store-rooms and workshops (L), court 106 with investiture with statue of goddess on podium (N), throne-room (P), kitchens and (M), entrance-hall bath (Q), palace administration (R), steward's and officials' quarters (S), scribal school (T), royal quarters (V), "king's chamber" (W). The numbered rooms refer to the places administrative (5), where archives have been found: archives, mainly palace provisions and other molds for fancy cakes (77), disc inscription economic Yahdun-Lim's (18), archives economic texts (108), (110), liver models and Hurrian including archives, archives (115), administrative (111), diplomatic palace provisions mainly archives, economic archives (134 & economic archives, including documents of Sumu-Yamam (119), (142). of Yahdun-Lim documents economic and administrative archives, including 135),

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

7

tourage, there are administrativeoffices, a scribal school, quarters for visiting dignitaries, a royal chapel, a throne room and a reception chamber. Service areas included guard quarters, workshops and storerooms.A special elegance was provided in several halls and courts by multicolored frescoes depicting chiefly ritual and mythological scenes, including one depicting the investiture of a king (perhaps Zimri-Lim?) in the presence of several deities (Fig. 5). This ceremony occurs in an idealized garden, its trees guarded by "Cherubim"and symbolically watered by four streams flowing

i~a'AfA

_41-i

AZT-~ VWVWM .

.

1 *7,

Fig. 5. Multi-color wall-painting in the Old Babylonian palace, depicting the investiture of a Mari king. From A. Parrot, Sumer (1960), pp. 279-280.

from a single source - all reminiscent of the biblical paradise story. Many of the figures in these murals are depicted as typical West Semites. The discovery of greatest impact on historical and biblical research comprises the more than 20,000 cuneiform tablets from the several archives in the palace, written in the Babylonian language. So far, some 3000 documents have been published by the noted AssyriologistsG. Dossin (dean of the Mari epigraphers), M. Birot, J. Bott6ro, Mme. M. L. Burke, A. Finet, J. R. Kupper, and the late G. Boyer and Ch. F. Jean; they are published mostly in the series Archives royales de Mari (henceforth ARM), I-XIII (1946-67). Though only a small proportion of the total found, these

8

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

texts have shed much light on the administrative,economic, cultural and political face~tsmainly of upper Mesopotamia and upper Syria in the 18th century B.C., regions previouslyknown only vaguely. The archives were found to be distinguished according to subject. The political-diplomaticarchives (ARM I-VI and XIII) include correspondence between the king of Mari and his agents, both at the palace and abroad, as well as with foreign potentates. The 1000 letters published so far (compare the mere 350 at el-Amarna!) provide the earliest insight into the complexities of suzerain-vassalrelationships, diplomatic protocol, and the fluctuating alliances and plots rampant in the ancient Near East. A noteworthy class of letters is the extensive women's correspondence(so far, only cuneiform copies of 179 documents have been published, in ARM X), revealing the prominent role of females in activities of the realm. The outstanding case is that of Shibtu, Zimri-Lim's"chief wife," who entertained the king's utter confidence, representing his interests during his absence from the city and exercising considerable influence in her own right (cf. Fig. 8). The majority of documents (ARM VII, IX, XI and XII) are economic or administrative in nature, dealing with the maintenance of the palace, official trade abroad, lists of goods, and rosters of persons in royal employ (such as a list of nearly 1000 male and female captives (?) from the Harran-Nahor region, engaged in manufacturing clothes for the palace). Of a unique character are the some 1300 tablets containing lists of daily provisions for the palace, often summarizedby month. Though dealing only with "vegetarian"foodstuffs and beverages, they shed light on Solomon's "provisions for one day" and possibly also his monthly quantities (cf. I Kings 4:22-23, 27 [Heb.: 5:2-3, 7]; cf. also Neh. 5:17-18). The royal table at Mari, known to have entertained hundreds of guests on occasion, was served from spacious kitchens; in one of these were found numerous molds for preparing fancy cakes, some bearing animal and goddess motifs (recall Jer. 44:19 and see Fig. 9). Dozens of legal tablets were also found, mostly contracts concerning transactions and loans of silver or grain (ARM VIII), revealing that the palace served as a sort of exchange. Of exceptional interest is an adoption contract which ensured the "primogeniture"of the "eldest" (that is, first adopted) son, stipulating that he receive a double portion of the inheritance; this is in full accordwith biblical law (cf. Deut. 21:15-17). The very few literary and religious compositions found at Mari include a lengthy Ishtar-ritualin Babylonian, as well as six texts in Hurrian. That Hurrian was used occasionally in diplomatic correspondenceis known from the only other tablet at Mari in that language, a letter written to Zimri-Lim.

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

9

Mari under West Semitic Rule

The origins of the West Semitic, or "Amorite,"dynasties is shrouded in darkness, though there are pointers to north Syria for the local line at Mari. Thus the theophoric name element -Lim, perhaps derived from "folk," "people"(see Ugaritic l'im and Hebrew le'om); is found at both Aleppo (in the dynastic name Yarim-Lim) and Mari (in the royal names Yagid-Lim, Yahdun-Lim and Zimri-Lim). It is also present in the name of Yashi-Lim, ruler of Tuttul (probably the one at the mouth of the Balikh river), several generations earlier th'an ithe time of the above-named. Furthermore, the title "king of Mari, Tuttul and land of Hana" was borne by both .the Zimri-Lim and Yahdun-Lim (Disc Inscription) (on a fragmentary inscription from Terqa, located between Tuttul and Mari). And, indeed, the site of ancestor worship for both the local and the "Assyrian"dynasties at Mari lay at Terqa, about 44 miles to the northwest at the mouth of the Khabur river. Hence, the immediate origin of the West Semitic rulers at Mari would appearto be in the Terqa region. The Reign of Yahdun-Lim. The historical figure of Yagid-Lim,founder of the local dynasty at Mari, is vague and none of his records have been found. Nor have many tablets from the reign of his son, Yahdun-Lim,been published, though in 1965 an archive of some 300 of his economic texts came to light. It is known, however, that Yahdun-Lim was able to stabilize his kingdom, establishing his dominance over the entire middle Euphrates region, as is evident from the dozen known year-formulasand especially the two extant royal inscriptionsfrom his reign. The shorter inscription, the "Disc Inscription," relates that YahdunLim fortified Mari and Terqa, founded a fortresson the desert fringe (naming it after himself: Dur-Yahdun-Lim), and laid out an extensive irrigation system, boasting that "I did away with the water bucket in my land." The other text, the Foundation Inscription of the Shamash Temple, is a splendid literary composition relating his campaign to the Mediterranean coast and to the "cedar and boxwood mountain," where he obtained several types of choice wood "and made known his might." However, this was probablyonly a passing episode and not a lasting conquest. Thirty-five economic texts published in 1970 mention two year-formulas for one Sumu-Yamam, an obscure character who ruled at Mari either before or after Yahdun-Lim. Also elusive is his kinship - whether to the local dynasty or otherwise - because the few other references to him, such as in a "letter to a god" (ARM I, 3), are inconclusive. This same letter also reveals the assassinationof Yahdun-Lim in a court conspiracy, much to the benefit of Shamshi-Adad, scion of a rival West Semitic dynasty, who established himself in Assyria, swiftly gaining control over large portions of Mesopotamia.

10

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIV,

The Assyrian Interregnum. Yahdun-Lim's removal facilitated a takeover by Shamshi-Adad, who installed his son, Yasmah-Adad,as viceroy at Mari. Under his father's tutelage, Yasmah-Adadreorganized the local administration, cultivated ties with neighboring lands, and secured his flank against marauding nomads. Though his brother Ishme-Dagan, upon succeeding to the throne of Assyria, promised to maintain the proitectivepolicy of their father, Yasmah-Adadwas left adrift only three or four ecarslater when he was defeated by Lshnunna, a West Semitic kingdom beyond the Tigris. Altogether, Assyrian control of Mari lasted less then twenty years. The Kingdom of Zimri-Lim. Thus the stage was set for the advent of Zimri-Lim,son of Yahdun-Lim,who in the interim had lived in exile under the wing of Yarim-Lim,king of Yamhad (with his capital at Aleppo). YarimLim, who had become Zimri-Lim'sfather-in-law, was most instrumental in restoring him to the throne of Mari. Thirty-two year-formulasarc known for Zimri-Lim'sreign, though many of them are probably alternates for he cannot have ruled for so long a period. Zimri-Lim'sreign, during the tumultuous interval between Assyria'sdecline and the rise of the empire of Hammurapi, marks Mari at its apogee. It is this period which is best represented by the archives found at Mlari which provide thorough insight into organization of the kingdom. Interestingly, several of Zimri-Lim'sletters have recently been found in the royal archives at Tell er-Rimah (between the upper Khabur and the Tigris), probably to be identified with the city of Karana mentioned in the MTaricorrespondence. Mari had become a principal political force in 1Mesopotamia, alongside Babylon, Larsa, Eshnunna, Qatna, and Yamhad (as is known from a contemporarypolitical report). Relying heavily on his diplomatic cunning, Zimri-Lim developed an elaborate intelligence system, within his sphere of influence and beyond it. Frequent alliances, as with Yamhad and Babylon, were designed to meet the danger of the moment - for example, now against Eshnunna, then against Elam. His military endeavors were directed mainly against the hostile tribal federation of the Yaminites (the previously subdued Hanean tribes were alreadyin his service;for both, see furtherbelow). This political situation crystallized hand in hand with the development of economic ties branching out as far as the island of Dilmun (in the Persian gulf), Elam on the east, Arrapha and Shusharrain southern Kurdistan, Cappadocia in the north, Phoenicia and Palestine in the west, and even Kaptara/Crete in the Mediterranean. Indeed, tolls from caravan and riverine trade were one of Zimri-Lim'sprincipal sourcesof income. This golden age at Mlaricame to an abrupt end, however, when Hammurapi turned on his former ally and conquered the city in his 32nd year, during the consolidation of his empire - the year was 1759 B.C. by the

Summary (dates are "middle chronology" with "low chronology" in parentheses)

B.C.

Rule at Mari

Mari Dynasty

Yagid-Lim

(Sumu-Yamam ?)

1820 (1755)

Yahdun-Lim

(Sumu-Yamam ?) 1800

-

(1735) 1780 (1715)

1760 (1695)

Zimri-Lim

I-ammurapi

of Babylon

12

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIV,

middle chronology, 1695 B.C. by the low chronology. Two years later he orderedthe city razed to the ground. Mari and the West

Mari was bound closely with the lands to the west - Syria and even northern Palestine - in economy, politics, culture, religion and ethnic background. We have noted above the ties between the local dynasty at Mari and that of the kingdom of Yamhad; Zimri-Lim'squeen, Shibtu, was from Aleppo and he appears to have held land there which was either a patrimony or received as a dowry. Similarly, the rival Assyrian dynasty at Mlari secured political ties in the west through the marriage of Yasmah-Adadto a princess from Qatna, Yamhad's southern adversary.Another form of contact with the west is the already-mentionedcampaign by Yahdun-Lim and the later expedition by Shamshi-Adadto the Levant. Zimri-Limis also known to have visited various places in the west: Yamhad, where he had presented a statue to "Adad the great god of Aleppo," and Ugarit, where he was accompanied by a select bodyguard (sabumnbehru; see below). The region father southwest is only sparingly mentioned in the Mari archives, but references are found to Byblos on the Phoenician coast and to the land of Amurru in southern Syria (the Apum of the Mari texts is most probably the one in the Khabur region and not the one near Damascus known from the contemporaryEgyptian Execration Texts and various later sources). In northern Palestine, Hazor and Laish (Dan) are noted in the Mlari archives as the destination of diplomatic and economic emissaries, as well as of shipments of tin (for making bronze), a commodity of importance among the exports to the west. In one instance,.emissarics passing through Mari are on their way to Yamhad, Qatna, Hazor and a fourth place whose name is broken (the traces in ARM VI, 23:23 may be restored to read "Megiddo,"rather than "Egypt,"which is sometimes proposed; Egypt, surprisinglydoes not appearin the Mari archives). On the other side of the ledger, Mari imported from the west horses and fine woods (from the Qatna region), various precious vessels of Syrian and "Cretan"style, Cypriot copper, fabrics and garments (especially from Aleppo and Byblos), and large quantities of foodstuffs such as honey, wine and olive oil. Mari and the Bible

The Mari documents have a manifold bearing upon early Israelite history: chronological,if the so-called patriarchalage is placed in the first third of the 2nd millennium (Middle Bronze II), keeping in mind of course that even the oldest portions of the Bible are of much later date; geographical, for the patriarchalhomeland, Aram-Naharaim,lay within Mari's horizons; ethnic-linguistic, the Hebrews being of the same West Semitic (or Amorite)

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

13

stock as that so very much manifest at Mari; and sociological, for the descriptions of tribalism comprise the most extensive insight into the nomadic and settled phases of the Israelitetribes. Patriarchal Homeland. The cities of Harran and Nahor in the upper Balikh valley, which figure in the Bible as ancestral habitats of the patriarchs, are well documented as important dependencies controlled by governors from Mari (one of whom, Itur-asdu at Nahor, will be the subject of the forthcoming ARM XIV). Both cities were foci of tribal foment; at the temple of Sin at Harran a treaty between the "kings"of Zalmaqum and the Yaminites was sworn against Mari, while at Nahor reinforcementshad often to be called in to quell local uprisings inflamed by the Habiru. Alongside the West Semitic peoples in this region was a considerable Hurrian element (note the typically Hurrian name of king Adalshenni, who at one time gained control over Nahor), which may well have left an imprint upon the initial ethnic and cultural compositionof the Hebrews. The picture revealed in the Mari archives of far-reachingtribal migrations such as those of the Yamin-itegroups, and of caravan conditions between the Euphrates region and Syria-northPalestine, is a realistic backdrop for the biblical narratives of the patriarchalwanderings between Aram-Naharaim and Canaan. Ethno-linguistic Affinities:the West Semitic Idiom. Evidence for the West Semitic origin of the majority of the people figuring in the Nlari documents is revealed in the onomasticon and in specific linguistic features of the Mari dialect. Many of the hundreds of propernames known from the Mari texts are paralleled in the Bible, especially in the patriarchalnarratives and the Exodus-Conquest cycle, but at Mari the names often have theophoric components. For example, Jacob compares to Haqba-Ilammu, I laqbaahim, etc., while Ishmael compares to Yasmah-El, Yasmahb-Adad and Yasmah-Ba'al. Parallels even for the divine names YHWH and Shaddai, and for the epithet Sur, the "Rock,"are possible; for example, Yawi-ila and YawiAdad, and the Shadu/i- and Sura/i- names. The names of the Israelitetribes of Levi and Benjamin also seem to have their parallels. Thus the Nlari tribal 'Yaminites' bears the same connotadesignation DUMU.MES-yaamin(a) tion as Benjamin, namely "sons of the south," though it is preferable not to render the logogram for "sons" as West Semitic balinim, which would yield Ba/inu-yamina, conveniently homophonic with Hebrew Bin),amlin. The West Semitic imprint on the standardBabylonian language in use at Mari is evident to a certain extent in phonology, morphology, syntax and especially vocabulary. The lexical inadequacy of this standard Babylonian in specific spheres brought about at Mari the frequent adaptation of West Semitic expressions,of Babylonian words in new West Semitic connotations,

14

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

and of out-and-out loanwords from the West Semitic - words well represented in biblical Hebrew (often in "exalted"language, as also at Mari). Besides the linguistic yield a comparative study of the West Semitic loanwords at Marl and their Hebrew cognates may broadly illuminate the nature of the societies involved. A list of such lexical items would include the following. Geographical terms: ha;zqumiz Hebrew 'emeq 'valley;'k/qasum = Hebrew qaseh '(desert) frontier;'hen (as a place name) - Hebrew 'ayin 'spring.'Points of the compass: aqdanmatum= Hebrew qedeimi'east;'ahartuii t = Hebrew 'ahar, 'ahor 'west;' north and south are attested in the tribal names DUAIU.AIE? sim'al = Hebrew seilol and DUMU.A ES-yanjin(a) I-eIbrew xvyan1in. ,,- .. . •:.. j iiT::* ...!i.•<;.•::. . ...

:::,•,

........... •::• :•, :.•,,•

.• .. ...

r '•: ..

:-

:

-.... :

Fig. 6. Earthen

altar in the pre-Sargonic

palace

(hall

209).

From Syria, XLVI

.....

(1969),

P1. XIII,

1.

Fauna: ha(ya)rum = Hebrew 'ayir 'donkey foal;' hazzum = I lcbrew 'e= Hebrew 'egel 'calf' (referring to a zoomorphic vessel at 'goat;' higl•l Hebrew Marl). Flora: suhrunzim Hebrew se'orah 'barley;' hillirum hemer 'a fermented drink.' Military terms: be(h)rum - Hebrew bahlur '(select) trooper;' bazahatum,'military outpost' (compare the Hebrew root bs'); sag/qbum 'guard' (later Hebrew zaqip?). Note also mzadrvm•llz later Hebrew miador'dwelling place;' mIas/shkabumw - Hebrew zislhkab 'a lodging;' and probably sablum - Hebrew sebel 'corv6e.' A series of West Semitic terms is also found for tribal organization and institutions which were quite foreign to contemporary Mesopotamia, and therefore found no adequate means of expression in the pure Babylonian

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

15

lexicon. Consider for example the set of terms for various tribal units: gayum = Hebrew goy; hibrum = Hebrew heber; and perhaps ummatum = Hebrew 'ummah. West Semitic verbs unknown in standardBabylonian but with cognates in biblical Hebrew include haki'im'to wait;' 'to be ill;' harashum 'to halemr 'to be silent;' nahaluni( 'to inherit, apportion;' naqaiuimn avenge' (only in 'to 'to kill;' shapatuiim judge, govern' (and see personal names); qatalum below). Patriarchal Tribal Society. The Mari archives provide the most abundant and fruitful source material concerning West Semitic tribes of any ancient Near Eastern source, shedding invaluable light on Israelite tribal society, its structure and organization, as well as upon institutions. The wide range of the tribes mentioned at Mari, from fully nomadic to fully sedentary, and their confrontation with the indigenous population, bear directly upon an understandingof the gradual processof the Israelite settlement in Canaan and their ensuing relationshipwith its inhabitants. The most revealing material at i\ari concerns the broad tribal federations of the Haneans and the Yaminites. The former were concentrated principally along the middle Euphrates and comprised an appreciable segment of the general population (and of the army) of Mari. Indeed, the middle Euphrates region became known as the "land of Hana," and "Hana" was applied also to a type of soldier and a kind of wool. The name, which was basically gentilic, also came to denote the generic concept of (semi-) nomad; it seems to be in this sense that Zimri-Lim was called "king of the Haneans" in parallel to "king of the Akkadians;"together these designations reflect the two main population strata, semi-nomadicand'indigenous sedentary (see below). The Yaminites, "sons of the south," were less settled and posed the greater threat in this period, both to the rest of the population and to the authorities. In their subtribes (Ubrabu, Amnanu, Yahruru, and Yarihu with their affiliated Rabbeans), they were dispersedover a wide arc from the city of Sippar (and even as far south as Uruk) and the eastern banks of the Tigris around to the Khabur and Balikh valleys up to the bend of the Euphrates, where their main concentration lay. In the west, they had crossed the Euphrates toward Mount Bisir (Jebel Bishri) and encroached upon the land of Amurru in southern Syria. Little mention is made in the Mari archives of the corresponding"sons of the north," who roamed the "upper country" in the Harran region, or of the Sutu, the fully nomadic tribe which appears more in subsequent history. The Sutu ranged in the Syrian steppe and the Bishri mountains, raiding the adjacent oasis of Tadmor (Tadmer at Mari, later Palmyra) on at least one occasion. The Mari archives are

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

16

surprisingly silent on the "Amorites"as a definite tribal entity (though one reference is made to a gayu Amurumnas a sub-clan of the Haneans); in general, the designation (both spelled phonetically and wilth the logogram MAR.TU) is restricted to the land of Amurru, far to the west, or to the and "scribe-of-Amurru" (the latter only at military titles "great-of-Amurru" Mari). L;

I

\`

\

'' ~''

I

, r

r C

c

P

Fig. 7. Warrior with prisoner, mosaic of bitumen and shell inlay found in the pre-Sargonic palace. From Syria, XLVI (1969), P1. XV, 1. Patterns

of Settlement

The tribal society depicted in the Mari archives is essentially dimorphic, that is, it encompassesboth nomadic and urban modes, with their inherent distinctions and interactions,social as well as economic. Tribal groups would sometimes undergo a gradual process of sedentation, splitting into partly settled and partly nomadic factions (refer to ARM VIII, 11), or leading a life of transhumance- in the steppe or desert in the grazing season and in urban bases in the "off" months. Depending on the stage of sedentation, the Haneans and the Yaminites dwelt in towns and hamlets (both designated alani at Mari, literally "cities;" the term kaprum 'village' is rare in this context) and engaged in urban-agricultural pursuits as well as herding, or they live in temporaryencampments (nawiim) and engaged in purely pastoral pursuits. At Mari, the standard Babylonian word nawufm'desert, uncultivated field' or even "a savage" took on the West Semitic connotation of a pastoral abode, precisely the connota-

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

17

tion of the Hebrew word naweh (primarily in poetic usage in the Bible). An illustration of this dual mode of life is found in the distinctions Hana Sa nawim (loosely "steppe Haneans") and hibrum a nawnlm,the nomadic faction of a partly settled clan (in this case, of Yaminites). Another type of settlement originating among nomadic and semi-nomadic populations was the hasiarumn (pl. hasiriitum), which, rather than an enclosure for sheep or cattle as usually assumed denotes a dwelling place, as does the cognate Hebrew term h.serim, referring to settlements of the Ishmaelites, the Avvi'tes and the "sons of Kedar" (Gen. 25:16; Deut. 2:23; and Isa. 42:11 [cf. Jer. 49:33], respectively). Tribal Leadership

The Mari archives indicate that tribal leadership was in the hands of family heads (compare the biblical beth-'ab 'family,' the basic unit of the patriarchialtribal organization), called abu bitiiti 'father of the household' (plural at Mari abitt bitim, a West Semitic form equivalent to Hebrew 'abot). The actual tribal rulers were elevated from among these family heads, leading to the use of the expression to designate certain officials; occasionally abil served as a synonym for "tribal chiefs," for example abfi Hana and abii Idamaras. As in pre-monarchicalIsrael, the council of the elders appears in the Mari documents as a central institution, deciding on matters of war and peace, functioning in treaty making and in representing the tribe before the authorities. A capital role in the tribal organization, unknown outside the Mari texts, is that of sugagum/suqaqum (meaning unknown) whose function is somewhat vague. He may have been a sort of mukhtar, chief of a tribal unit or village appointed, or at least approved, by the Mari authorities from among the local leadership;this office was sometimes purchased with money or sheep. At the head of the tribal hierarchystood the "kings"(sarru, pl. arrani), who usually appear in the Mari texts as wartime leaders, which again suggests a special West Semitic nuance, in this case military, much like the Hebrew sar. Thus, Yahdun-Lim'sroyal inscriptions record that he defeated "seven kings, fathers (abii) of Hana" and, on another occasion, "three Yaminite kings." This plurality of "kings"must be understood as referring to subtribal rulers that collectively comprisedthe tribal leadership;such a structure is also found among the Midianites (Num. 31:8; Judg. 8:12), the early Arameans (I Sam. 14:47) and perhaps the Edomites (Gen. 36:31ff.). Tribal Traditions:

Functional

and Religious

The convergence of the West Semitic tribes at Mari with urban Mesopotamia involved a dual process of friction and strife alongside symbiosis and mutual adaptation;this interaction between a tribal heritage and an es-

18

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

tablishedcivilizationwas characteristic also of the settlementof the Israelite tribesin Canaan.In Mari,this was especiallyevidentat the court,where, civilization,much despite the processof assimilationof Sumero-Akkadian of tribaltraditionwas still preserved.We may thus interpretthe adviceof the palaceprefect to Zimri-Limon a point of protocol:"[If] you are the king of the Haneans,you are, moreover,a 'king of the Akkadians.'[My lord] shouldnot ride horses(that is, in tribalfashion). May my lord drive in a wagonand mules (,thatis, in a "civilizedmanner"),and mayhe (thus) honorhis royalty"(ARM VI, 76:20-25). This same distinctionis found at the early Israelitecourt,thoughthere the mule was ridden(II Sam. 13:29, 18:9; I Kings 1:33) and the horseyoked to !the chariot(I Sam. 8:11; II Sam. 15:1; I Kings 1:5). Tribalheritagefromthe nomadicphasedid persistin spite of the curbs of sedentationand acquiescenceto royaladministration of Mari.Tribalcustoms and institutions,legal, militaryand politicalprocedures,and ritualor religiouspracticesall find expressionin the Mari texts. These traditions, largelyunknownoutsideMari, serve to illuminateearly Israelitepractices. Only a few majorpointscanbe outlinedhere. Makinga Covenant.In the largelyilliteratesocietyof the tribe,treaties were concludednot by meansof documentsbut solely by symbolicacts in the casesrecordedin Mari texts,by the ritualof "killingan ass-foal" Semitic expressionapplied here: ha(ya)ram qata(note the purely West ,the luiz). (Anothersymbolicexpressionin this contextis "totouchthe throat.") In one case, a possibleploy was made to introduceother animalsinto the ritual: in a reporton a peace treatymade between the Haneansand the land of Idamaras,a Mari officialin the Harranregion tells his king that "theybroughta whelp and a goat,but I obeyedmy lordand did not allow a whelp and a goat. I caused 'the foal of a she-ass'(cf. Gen. 49:11; Zech. 9:9) to be slaughtered" (ARM II, 37:6-12). The Bible mentionsa parallel ceremony,involvingthe cuttingin two of young animals(cf. the covenant betweenGod and Abrahamin Gen. 15:9-10,and one with the leadersof Judah during the Babyloniansiege of Jerusalemin Jer. 34:18-19). In all these ceremonies,the commondenominatoris the ritualsacrificeof young and tenderanimals. Census. The Mari authorities used to take periodic censuses of the

tribes,both nomadicand settled. This activitywas denoted by the terms ubbubum(D-stem of ebebum), "to cleanse,"and its derivativetebibtum and is mostlikelyWest Semiticin origin. (literally"cleansing,purification"), The purposeof -the census seems to have been militaryconscription,taxation and land distribution,though at least originallyit was accompanied by a ritualof purificationsimilarto that associatedwith the census of the

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 1)

19

Israelites in the wilderness (which involved a tax, the payment of which was regarded as a ritual expiation, Hebrew kippurim; cf. Exod. 30:11-16). Some scholars, however, view the tjbibtum as a purely administrativeprocedure to clear persons or property or financial claims (as would be indicated by the fact that it is carried out by secular, not religious, officials). Patrimony. The Mari legal documents employ, among others, the West Semitic term nahalum 'to inherit or apportion'in referring to land transfers effected within a quasi-famillialinheritance framework and not in the normal sales procedures.This type of transactionwas inherently a part of the patriarchal-tribalsystem, in which land ownership was not on an individual basis but was a patrimony (nihlatum at Mari, Hebrew nahalah). The patrimony could not, theoretically, be transferredother than by inheritance, so various means were contrived to circumvent this rule. The Israelites upheld a similar custom, where the patrimony was considered an inalienable

__

,

_____

_

1

LTomylord]

2

5

say: Thus (said) [Shib]tu maidservant s [your] I have [just given] birth

6

--

7

May my lord

3 4

a son

to twins

and a daughter. rejoice'

Fig. 8. Cuneiform copy of message from queen Shibtu to her husband Zimri-Lim (ARM X, 26)

possession: "the Israelites must remain bound each to the ancestral portion of his tribe" (Num. 36:7; cf. Lev. 25:13, 28; I Kings 21:lff; Ezek. 46:16-17). The "Judge." The Mari documents employ several derivates of the West Semitic root abstract nouns: (verb: participle Sp.t which apitum; aiipi.tum; and serve to elucidate the biblical

siptum Japitiitum), may cognates shaphat,shophet,andimishpat,usuallytranslated"judge"(verb and noun) and "norm,law," respectively.However, neither in the Mari documents nor in the Bible is the primaryconnotationof these termsjudicial (for which Akkadianemploysdayanu);rather,they connote the much broader and his counterpart concept of governorshipand rule. Thus, the svdpitumn in Judges, the shophet, were actually prominenttribesmenwho had acquired an authorityfar exceedingthat of a mere "justice"(and compare the later Punic suffetes). The expression`ipptam met nadi•nuim/lakanum, with in the Mari documents,corresponds to the biblical sim mishpat'to lay down a ruling'(by a duly authorizedperson)employedin connectionwith the authoritativeacts of a Moses,a Joshuaor a David (Exod. 15:25;Josh. 24:25; I Sam. 30:25).

20

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

The Ban. A peculiarexpressionat Mari, asakkamaklalum(literally the asakku"),refersto the infringementof a tabooor the profaning eat "to of somethingrevered;it maybe a loan translationof someWest Semiticconcept parallelingthat of the biblicalban (herem). The asakkuof a particular deity and/or king is frequentlyinvokedin penaltyclausesof contracts,in oaths and in royal decreesas the sacrosanctand inviolableelement. The closestparallel-betweenMari and the biblicalpracticeis in the imposition of the ban on spoils of war (see the Achan incident,Josh. 7). However, whereasthe biblicalban functionedon a purelyreligiousplane (whatever was bannedwas exclusivelyGod's), the tabooat Mari was applicablealso on a human level, and its infringementthere, though theoreticallystill considereda capitaloffence,wasexpiatedby paymentof a simplefine. God of the Father.Among the centralreligiousconceptsof the Hebrew patriarchsis the "Godof the/my/your/his father,"that is, a personal, innominatedeity, reveredby subsequentoffspring(cf. Gen. 28:13; 31:5, 29, 42, and 53; 32:10, 49:25; Exod. 3:6, 15; 15:2; etc.). A directparallel occursin one Mari text, where the king of Qatna swears"bythe name of the god of my father"(ARM V, 20:16; cf. Gen. 31:53), and in another, recently published,where Hammurapi(undoubtedlyYarim-Lim'ssuccessor as king of Aleppo) is appealedto "by the name of (the god) Adad, Lord of A[leppo] and the god of [your] father"(ARM X, 156:10-11). It is of significancefor the biblicalcomparisonthat both instancesare in the west, as are all other referencesto such a deity outsideMari- in the slightlyolder Assyriantabletsfrom Cappadocia,the much later texts from Ugarit (in Akkadian,Ugariticand Hurrian),and, againat Qatna,in temple inventoriesand in an Amarnaletter sent from there. PropheticRevelation.(This subject was the topic of a very recent study in BA, XXXI (1968), 102-24.)The earliestdefinitereferencesto intuitive divinationare found in some twenty-fiveMari texts, revealinga religiousphenomenonindependentof, but alongside,currentexternalmanof Mari largelyactedas the unsolicited tic techniques.The diviner-prophets and spontaneousmouthpiecesof deitiesby meansof ecstatictrances,dreams and the like. Apartfrom male and female laity imbuedwith such esoteric abilities,there were cult diviners,usually attachedto sanctuaries(for example,the Dagan templeat Terqaor the templeof the goddessAnnunitum at Mari) - professionalsdesignatedby such Akkadiantermsas muhhiim (fem. muhhitum), 'frenziedone' and apilum (fem. apiltumn)'respondent.' These appellativesmay well be loan translationsof West Semiticnomenclature,such as the biblical terms nabi' 'prophet'and neshugga''frenzied one, possessed,'as well as certainapplicationsof the root 'nh 'to respond.' The eminenceof biblical prophecylies in its socio-ethicalpathos,its

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 1)

21

^'" ~sy 'r; ' c

3

.d,`?,

r

\Y

? tr

91

;?

?

.e,

~XL r

,flTLC~~.. c; it

~.L

?' c.?c??~ ?-~?, ~?? \Ic :'? 'Y

?

rt

''' '' ?C~~

?

9

~?

~?~"

~i~~5~i

-`iI ??I ~?? ~-

~WF,

r .~Y4 -( ..

~??. ....*t `\.+?

-4

4?Y,

~ii;p~Irr I?r ~ -

? 7r

. .L'

r 7?-1/' '

r

,,

i, ?'?' ~,'4 ?r`D .?~L:-~:~ct9~'

?

s

;;i

?.

?~

a

.?i -?

.?~?'~r .r ,.

1

~iif

c~I

~C;r? n

?i ?

r

r. ~

.r

~c:~? ,... ?r, I-.?' t?~~

?l : I

!?'J

"I

?1 .). .

I I?j;

1 .?

"*?

?:

i

CD.-.

I

bi

?CI 7'

~bf~:L"i'*?r C r .r .C : L

.c

~:`A crti? 1.

C

Y

r

-*Y~j~~cC( "?r.

'`?

'3; ~L.c .~

~vr ?~?~~ r?

''

?~

4' -h;f~?. ?. 4?

I

?,

:) 3? (1

~' ??

'3~3~.~t? J-v?

?e ~( --?~

..

1 ft~? 6?;

-Y~

T re

'''''' C~?~,,

'4

.. * I

h

r

I.

'" ''

P,3 ??

111: -

?t~t(:L:.. r?'1

a goddess, found in royal kitchen Fig. 9. Mold for cakes, representing at Mari palace. From Mission archdologique de Mari, II: Le palais--documents et monuments P1. XIX, (1959),

1044.

religious ideology and its popular level - all of which are missing in the Mari material, where the ruling interests alone are promoted, satisfying local and immediate material demands. Despite this obvious shortcoming, the very manifestation at Mari of intuitive divination, revealing a consciousness of prophetic mission among West Semitic tribes in a period predating Israelite prophecy by centuries, places the history and investigation of Near Eastern prophecy in general, and both earlier and later biblical prophecy in particular,in an entirely new perspective.

22

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

A Select Mari Bibliography General Surveys. A. Parrot, ed., Studia Mariana (1950) with bibliography; Ch. F. Jean, Six campagnes de fouilles a' Mari 1933-1939 (1952); A. Parrot, Mari (1953); A. Malamat in Encylopaedia Biblica, IV (1962), 559-79 (Hebrew) with bibliography; G. E. Mendenhall, BA, XI (1948), 1-19 (reprinted in BA Reader 2 [1964], pp. 3-20); J. R. Kupper ed., La civilisation de Mari (XVe rencontre assyriologique internationale) (1967; henceforth: IIAI XV); A. Petitjean and J. Coppens, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, XXIV (1969), 3-13, with bibliography. Archaeological Reports. A. Parrot, Mission archdologique de Mari, I. Le temple d'Ishtar (1956); II. Le palais-architecture (1958),---peintures et monuments murales (1958) and-documentes (1959); III. Les temples d'Ishtarat et de Ninni-Zaza (1967); IV. Le trdsor d'Ur (1968); Parrot, Syria, XLIV (1967), 1-26 (16th campaign); XLVI (1969), 191-208 (17th campaign); XLVII (1970), forthcoming (18th campaign); W. F. Albright, Journal of the American Oriental Society, XLV (1925), 225-26, XLVI (1926), 220-30; M. Rutten, Revue d'Assyriologie (henceforth RA), XXXV (1938), 36-52; I. J. Gelb, ibid., L (1956), 1-10; M. Civil, ibid., LVI (1962), 213; D. O. Edzard, RAI XV, 51-71; P. Carlmeyer, ibid., 161-69; G. Dossin, RA, LXI (1967), 97-104; Kupper, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XXI (1967), 123-25; A. Moortgat, Baghdader Mitteilungen, III (1964), 68-74, IV (1968), 221-31; E. Soliberger, RA, LXIII (1969), 169f.; A. Caquot, Syria, XLVI (1969), 246f.; M. Astour, Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXVIII (1968), 738. Old Babylonian Archives. ARM series: I. Dossin, Correspondance de Shamshi-Addu (1950); II. Jean, Lettres diverses (1950); III. Kupper, Correspondance de Kibri-Dagan (1950); IV. Dossin, Correspondance de Shamshi-Addu (1951); V. Dossin, Correspondance de lasmah-Addu (1952); VI. Kupper, Correspondance de Bahdi-Lim (1954); VII. J. Bottero, Textes dconomiqures et administratifs (1957); VIII. G. Boyer, Textes juridiques (1958); IX. M. Birot, Textes adminstratifs de la salle 5 du palais (1960); X. Dossin, La correspondance fdminine (cuneiform only) (1967); XI. M. Lurton Burke, Textes administratifs de la salle 111 du palais (1963); XII. Birot, Textes administratifs de la salle 5 du palais (1964); XIII. Dossin, Bottero, et al., Textes divers (1964); XV. Bottiro and A. Finet, Rdpertoire analytique des tomes I ii V (1954). Others: Dossin, Syria, XIX (1938), 105-26, XX (1939), 97-113; idem, RA, XXXV (1938), 1-13; W. von Soden, Welt des Orients, 1 (1947-52), 187-204; F. Thureau-Dangin, RA, XXXVI (1939), 1-28; G. Goossens, ibid., XLVI (1952), 137-54; E. Laroche, ibid., LI (1957), 104ff.; I. Mendelsohn, BASOR, No. 156 (Dec., 1959), pp. 38-40; A. L. Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia (1967), pp. 96-110; Malamat, Qadmoniot, I (1968), 80-87; P. Artzi and Malamat, Orientalia, XL (1971), 75-89. West Semitic Rule at Mari. Dossin, Syria, XXXII (1955), 1-28; idem, RA, LXIV (1970), 17-44; W. F. Leemans, RA, XLIX (1955), 201ff.; idem, Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period (1960), pp. 176-81; B. Landsberger, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, VIII (1954), 35f.; J. M. Munn-Rankin, Iraq, XVIII (1956), 68-110; Kupper, Les nomades en Mdsopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (1957); H. Lewy, Welt des Orients, II (1959), 438-53; idem, RAI XV, 14-28; A. Goetze, Journal of Semitic Studies, IV (1959), 142-47; Gelb, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XV (1961), 27-47; Edzard in Fischer Weltgeschichte, II (1965), 165-91; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (1966), index under Mari; W. Rllig, RAI XV, 97-102; J. J. Finkelstein, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XX (1966), 95-118; Malamat, Journal of the American 87-97; Albright, Oriental Society, LXXXVIII (1968), 163-73; S. Page, Iraq, XXX (1968), Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1968), index under Mari; J. M. Sasson, The Military Establishments at Mari (1969). The West. F. M. Tocci, La Siria nell' eta di Mari (1960); Dossin, Bulletin acad. roy. belg. (cl. des lettres), XXXVIII (1952), 224-39, XL (1954), 130-34; Kupper in Cambridge Ancient History (rev. ed.), II, Chap. 1 (1963); Malamat, Eretz-Israel, V (1958), 67-73 (Hebrew); idem, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXIX (1960), 12-19; idem, in Studies in Honor of B. Landsberger (1965), 365-73; idem, in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century (Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck) (1970), 164-77; B. Mazar, Israel Exvloration Journal, XVIII (1968), 65-97. Mari and the Bible. Dossin, Mdlanges Dussaud, II (1939), 981-96; idem, RA, LII (1958), 60ff., LXII (1968), 75f.; M. Noth, in Geschichte and Altes Testament (Alt Festschrift) (1953), 127-52; idem, Urspriinge des alten Israels im Lichte neuer Quellen (1961); Finet, L'accadien des lettres de Mari (1956); idem, Syria, XLI (1964), 117-42; idem, RA, LX (1966), 17-28; W. L. Moran, Orientalia, XXVI (1957), 339-45; Edzard, Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, N.F., XIX (1959), 357-75; idem, Archiv Orientdlni XXX 168-73; H. Klengel, Orientalia, XXIX (1960), (1962), 585-96; idem, in Das Verhiltnis von Bodenbauern und Viechziichtern in historischer Sicht XLV Ar. Glott. P. Ital., (1960), 37-60. 127-49; J. C. L. Gibson, Fronzaroli, (1968), 75-81; 15-29; idem, Journal of Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions, XVIII (1959-60), le-David Oz Semitic Studies, VII (1962), 44-62; Artzi, in (D. Ben-Gurion Volume) (1964), 71-85 (Hebrew); H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (1965); G. Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period (1966); Malamat, Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXII (1962), 143-50; idem, RAI XV, 129-38; von Soden, Welt des Orients, III (1966), 177-87; W. G. Lambert, 1. Klima, H. Cazelles and M. Rowton, RAI XV; Klima, in Das Biblical Verhiiltnis von Bodenbauern und Viehziichtern (1968), 83-89; L. R. Bailey, Journal of Literature, LXXXVII (1968), 434-38; M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der israelitischen Staimme 102-33. (1967), pp. Tribal Traditions. Dossin, in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (T. H. Robinson Volume) (1950), pp. 103-10; von Soden, Welt des Orients, I (1947-52), 397-403; Noth, Bulletin of the Johns Rylands Library, XXXII (1950), 194-206; idem, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves, XIII (1955), 433-44; idem, Journal of Semitic Studies, I (1956), 322-33; G. Wallis, Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXIV (1952), 57-61; Mendenhall, BASOR, No. 133 (Feb., 1954), 26-30; E. A. Speiser, ibid., No. 149 (Feb., 1958), 17-25; idem, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXIX (1960), 157-63; Malamat, Eretz-Israel, IV (1956), 74-84, V (1958), 67-73 (Hebrew); idem, Vetus Testamentum Supplement, XV (1966), 207-27; ideim, in Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of Die OT Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (1966), 40-49; W. Richter, Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXXVII (1965), 40-72; R. de Vaux, Ugaritica, VI (1969), 501-17; C. Westermann, Forschung am Alten Testamesnt (1964), 171-88; F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in Mari und Israel (1968); J. G. Heintz, Vetus Testamnentum Supplement, XVII (1969), 112-38; Huffmon, BA XXXI (1968), 102-24; W. L. Moran, Biblica, L (1969), 15-55; idem, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the OT (Supp. Ed., 1969), 623-31; J. F. Ross, Harvard Theological Review, LXIII (1970), 1-28.

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

23

The "Ghassulian" Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origin of the Hoard from Nahal Mishmar DAVID USSISHKIN Tel Aviv University

The culture predominant during the Chalcolithic period in Palestine is known as the "Ghassulian Culture," named after Teleilat el-Ghassul in the Jordan valley, where it was discovered in 1929.1 Ghassulian settlements were later discovered at many sites, mainly located in the peripheral areas of the country. They are found in the Jordan valley, the Judean desert, the coastal plain, the northern and western Negev, and even in southern Sinai. On the other hand, the Ghassulians (as we shall call the bearers of the Ghassulian culture) rarely settled in the hilly and northern parts of the country. For various reasons we can safely conclude that the Ghassulians immigrated into Palestine, bringing with them a well defined culture of their own. No distinctive connections between the Ghassulian culture and those which characterized Palestine at the end of the Neolithic period2 can be discerned and the early stages in the development of the Ghassulian culture seem to be missing in Palestine. The typical features of the culture evidently point to external connections and developments which occurred elsewhere, and the Ghassulian settlements are found particularly on sites which previously had not been settled. It is difficult to date accurately the Ghassulian immigration and settlement in Palestine, but they should probably be generally dated to the second half, or even the third quarter of the fourth millennium B.C. A few points characterizethe Ghassulian settlements and culture. The settlements were relatively small, dependent on primitive agriculture, and they lasted for a relatively short period.3 It seems to have been a peaceful era as none of the settlements were fortified. They were finally abandoned, and no signs of deliberate destruction or conflagrationindicating an enemy conquest were found in them. The same culture with its typical imaginative pottery predominatesin all the Ghassulian sites, but in each area we observe a local trend or specializationin the architecture,crafts, and art. These merit our special attention. The Ghassulians introduced to the country crystalized architecturaland artistic concepts and traditions, developed due to an evident aesthetic flair, unusual gifts, technical knowledge and experience in 1. For recent summaries of the Ghassulian culture, see R. de Vaux, Cambridge Ancient History (rev. ed.), I, Chap. IXb (Fasc. 47, 1966); J. Perrot in Supplement au dictionnaire de la Bible, VIII (1968), Co!s. 416-39. 2. They are termed "early Chalcolithic" by several authorities. 3. Except, perhaps, Teleilat el-Ghassul and the Beersheba sites, where several levels or phases were discerned in the settlements.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

24

(Vol. XXXIV,

working with various raw materials. In each area, a special branch of the culture was developed, sometimes reaching achievements unparalleled in later periods in Palestine. And here we should stress one point: the Ghassulian art is strongly connected with the yet unknown Ghassulian religious cult. In other words, the craftsmen and artists were not motivated by pure artistic inspiration but their creations were applied to the Ghassulian cult, and were meant to be used in the rituals. Finally, it should be stressed that it was the Ghassulians who introduced the manufacture of copper to Palestine. Their mastery in metalwork, which will be demonstratedin course of this article, undoubtedly contributed to the general prosperityof the culture.

097

EN IN

DEAD

I~ ..,.?~?~?I2 \i ?FEa~(~LP~ 096

de

N Fig.10.

1

2E

Sketch map of the area of the Ein Gedi temple.

We shall briefly mention a few aspects of the Ghassulian architecture and art. Most impressive in Teleilat el-Ghassul are the paintings which decorated the plastered walls of the houses.4 In Bir-Matar and Bir-Safadi near Beersheba the Ghassulians first lived in large subterranean "houses," sometimes containing a few chambers, and only later changed first to semisubterranean houses and then to above-ground houses.5 In Bir-Matar the remains of a copper industry were discovered6while the inhabitants of the adjacent site, Bir-Safadi, specialized in the art of ivory carving, manufacturing figurines and other objects, probably talismans.7 In Beersheba, as well 4. 5. 6. 7.

A. Mallon, et Perrot, Israel Perrot, Israel Perrot, Syria,

al., Teleilat Ghassul 1, (1934), Exploration Journal, V (1955), Exploration Journal, V (1955), 8-19. XXXVI (1959),

pp. 129-43, frontispiece and Pls. 55-72. 17-40, 73-77; M. Dothan, Atiqot, II (1959), 79-80.

4-12.

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

25

as at other sites, large meticulously carved basalt bowls and chalices,8 as well as beautiful flint implements,9 were found. On the coastal plain many burial caves were discovered, in which the dead were given "secondaryburial" in clay ossuaries.10The ossuaries were individually shaped and decorated, in some cases imitating houses; they present another curious aspect of the culture.

7-.

...'~t

''.

Fig. 11. The rock-terrace on which the temple was constructed, viewed from the spring of Ein Gedi. The Temple in Ein Gedi

We shall now turn to the Judean desert, where the discoveries which form the main subject of this article were made. The oasis of Ein Gedi, situated beside the western shore of the Dead Sea, forms one of the most beautiful spots in the desolate region. Not far from and parallel to the shore stretches a ridge of high cliffs, rising to a height of about 1000 feet. On the lower slope of the cliff, but at a considerableheight above the lake (though still more than 600 feet below sea level), is situated the spring of Ein Gedi, the main source of water in ;theoasis (Fig. 10). Another spring can be found but a few minutes walk to the north, in the gorge of Nahal David. At a distance of about 150 yards to the north of (and some 100 feet higher than) the Ein Gedi spring, between it and Nahal David, a prominent rock terrace was chosen by the Ghassulians to build a (temple (Fig. 11). 8. Perrot, Israel Exploration Journal, V (1955), 45-46 and P1. 3B.

78-79 and P1. 18; Ussishkin, ibid., XVIII (1968),

9. Perrot, et al., Israel Exploration Journal, XVII (1967), 203-16 and Pls. 38-41. 10. E. Sukenik, Oriental Society, XVII (1937), Journal of the Palestine 15-30;

III (1961),

1-83; J. Kaplan, Israel Exploration Journal, XIII (1963),

300-12.

Perrot,

Atiqot,

26

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

This is so far the sole Ghassulian shrine known to us in southern Palestine. No remains of a Chalcolithic settlement were discovered in the area, and one has to conclude that the temple formed a focus for pilgrimage. The fact that shrines were not discovered during the extensive excavations of Teleilat el-Ghassul and the Beersheba sites points to the possibility that the Ein Gedi temple formed a central temple for these settlements as well. The site chosen for the construction of the temple fits well the concept of a central isolated shrine. The rock terrace lies nearly underneath the barren, vertical cliff, ominously rising behind it, and high above the Dead Sea. A

"" ".".....: ":2::: "....

.. "''" ":3":2.......

..---"7::""".

0

t..

mI t5

Fig. 12. The ground-plan of the temple.

large section of the sea can be seen from the site, with the hills of M'oab looming beyond. We can imagine the Ghassulian worshippers traveling to Ein Gedi from far away, climbing the cliffs and, arriving at the temple, stunned by the inspiring view. The main lines of the edifice were visible without excavation. The site was discoveredby Y. Aharoni in 1956, but the absence of pottery on the surface prevented him from dating it." The same year J. Naveh dug a small section in the lateral chamber;he dated the structure and suggested that it 11. Y.

Aharoni,

Bulletin

of

the

Israel

Exploration

Society,

XXII

(1958);

39-40

(Hebrew).

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 1)

27

was a publicbuilding,"perhapsa sanctuary."12 The templewas excavatedin 1962 by the Hebrew Universityexpeditionto Ein Gedi, directedby B. Mazar and the late I. Dunayevsky.'3The clearingof the courtyardwas completedin 1964.'4Followingthe dig, the walls were skillfully strengthened, and the circularinstallationrestored,by M. Jaffe, thus preserving the remainsof the edificefromfurtherdestruction. ---:-: ::-i-i-.-.---.-. :::-::-:i-i-::--i::: -i-i:~i:i-iii~iiii

rr

?'"~

i~?;; ~~

-i ?i

:1:::::~;:::

::::.;:::::

ai:::?i'iiii-: ---.

_

_-i-_,-_ ...

:~*

-:::s

: , r--

x? d

I

~"

?-

??r i

j n ~;,l?t~

:::~:r:i:

'u

I::-:

?~?

,j

a P

-M-

r?_ **

i-;i~-C. ; *~a-,

13. General

:~:::-: : :?-:-d:-:i:iiQi.i-iiB

i,

P

Fig.

r

view of the temple;

1~ Jg r;

-I?i~td"13,

the lateral chamber

I~

1- -~

1.^ri

I

zhir~

::c:z__

is in the foreground.

It seems that the structures of the temple were adapted to the topography, since on three sides the walls reach the edges of the rock-terrace on which the edifice was constructed. The temple includes four separate structures (Figs. 12-13): the main gate-building,the secondarygate, the lateral chamber and the sanctuary.The four structureswere connected to one another by a stone fence, thus forming an enclosure or courtyard. A circular installation was built in the center of the enclosure. The lower part of the walls of the structures was built of stones, fitted with care into the walls, with clay and small stones filling the gaps. The upper parts of the struc12. J. Naveh (Levi), ibid., 46-48 (Hebrew), and in Israel Exploration Journal, VII (1957), 264. 13. The excavation of the temple was supervised by the present author. He is indebted to Prof. Mazar for his kind permission and encouragement to discuss the temple here, in advance of the detailed report now in preparation. A short description of the temple appeared in Archaeology, XVI (1963), 107, and in the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1970), Vol. II, 446-47 (Hebrew). 14. The photographs in figures 13-14 and 17 were taken in 1962 before the excavation of the courtyard had been completed. Figs. 11, 13-15 and 17 are by J. Schweig; figs. 21 and 22 are by D. Harris; figs. 18 and 20 are by the author.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

28

tures were built of sun-dried bricks which, following the collapse of the structures,disintegrated and formed the debris accumulated around the lower parts of the walls. As a result the walls were mostly preservedto a height of one to three feet. Only the fence surrounding the enclosure and the circularinstallation seem to have been built solely from stones. We shall start our description with the main gate-building. This formed the main gate of the enclosure, situated at the edge of the rock terrace and facing the spring of Ein Gedi. It contained outer and inner entrances, and a door was constructedin the former (cf. below). A stone bench, about nine to twelve inches high, was built in the gate-chamber along all the

i-? ~fP~:::~r

? .i*o -Li

w

~cBP ~-R a~S~tBL?:lqCir~~p L~i~

I-1::~1

~i~ ri?

-~?

i: r ":ls" , ~ 1,Yz~-:Sit

~pP~II~P"LBIIYS~~~s.: :.?

y*g P" ~

~Fs~ ~

'4

?, ,. :::

z ~cr-P 'ici:d r- :*i I, - ji

~*-:: :e -:

::" .:::::

c.

i

??:9

~i_ -

?,: i-: *

t

a

gP~90

I?"~i?,-I ~`-I :r :? 13,i.X a::7 "~?i, ~--:'d ?

::1:6 ??m

.a

~ ~B~Ai

i ,:I

8::

aa;

T:

.~: ~:-I-- i_?1*::,?::,::::,:i:_v-i .:,::: r

~s~~ s~J~ r?-- c

.r xP"

:::: :~:-iri:x~

z

~s~P~cL

i

g

"::: ,

s:?:; ,g~

\d

~~ ~B,

ii t,

r W::~,::::::._ ---

j

i

I* r~y:

'r ?;J

i

ih ,-3

Fig. 14. A general view of the sanctuary proper.

walls except the section of the wall to the right of the outer entrance. The bench consisted of a row of large stones with flat tops, with smaller stones and clay filling the gaps. The secondary gate was oriented towards Nahal David, probably for the use of those who came from that spring (Fig. 18). This gate was simpler in plan although finely constructed, and amazingly, it could not be closed, since no door was constructed in it (cf. below)! The lateral chamber measures 7.5 by 4.5 meters (about 25 by 15 feet). The entrance was built in the center of the long wall which formed the chamber's facade. A paved path, 2.25 meters (about 7/2 feecct)long, leads to the entrance of the chamber from the courtyard.A stone bench or step, composed of one row of stones about a foot wide and six to eight inches high, stretches

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 1)

29

along the facade. The chamber had a plastered floor and was found almost empty. Presumablyit was used as a store for the temple's equipment or as a room for the use of the priests. The sanctuary (Fig. 14) forms the largest and the most importantbuildin the enclosure. It is a rectangularstructure, 19.70 meters long and 5.5 ing meters wide (about 67 by 18 feet). Its width was probably limited by the ability of the architects to roof over the sanctuary without using pillars. A stone bench or step, mainly composed of one row of big stones, with small stones and clay filling the gaps, about eight inches high and a foolt or more wide, was constructed on the outside around the walls of the sanctuary. Like the lateral chamber, the sanctuary is of the broad-house type, and its entrance was built in the center of the long wall, with the bench mentioned

?

,..41p •'

K,4

B/

.

:

-)

Fig. 15. The round base in the altar of the sanctuary.

above forming a step in front of it. Two big stones placed in front of the bench form a second, lower step. In the sanctuary,opposite the entrance and adjacent to the rear wall, was constructed the sole altar of the temple. It has the shape of a horseshoe, and is marked by a row of large stones. The altar contained a thick layer of ashes, the accumulatedremains of ritual ceremonies. In the ashes were found burn~ttwigs and tiny bones, pieces of bitumen, many non-marine mollusca, beads and broken clay figurines. In the right back corner of the altar was found a stone base, well carved but a little asymmetrical,and about ten inches high (Fig. 15). It is round and it has a flattened top, while its bottom was left in the rough. Significantly, the base was carved from crystalline limestone, a kind of stone not available in the immediate vicinity of the temple. Thus the base is white in color,

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

30

and it stands out in a temple built of local darker stones. We believe that it formed the base for the statue or cult-symbol of the deity whose cult was performedin the temple. In the central part of the sanctuary, stone benches were found similar to those in the gate-building. They are constructed from large stones with flat tops along the rear wall on both sides of the altar, along the front wall on both sides of the entrance, and in the central part of the chamber on both sides of the altar. On the two sides of the sanctuary, between the benches and the lateral walls, small, round pits were dug in the floor. These are about twenty inches deep and seem to have been refuse pits into which the remains of the offerings were thrown. The pits were found full to overflowing with these remains, and iiiost of the pottery discoveredin the excavationwas found in them.

o_

••

o•

-0

O0

ol m. I

1

2

Fig. 16. Ground-plan of the entrance to the lateral chamber.

Noteworthy is the construction of the entrances to these structures (Fig. 16). Wooden doors seem to have been installed in the outer entrance of the gate-building, as well as in the entrances to the lateral chamber and the sanctuary. A stone socket for the support of the door-hinge was found in the inner, right-handcorner of the entrances. That part of the wall behind the stone-socketformed a recess in the wall, into which the door fitted when opened inwards at an angle of 180'. In the outer entrance of the gate-building there was no such recess;instead, the stone bench was absent along this section of the wall. On the opposite side, in the inner left-hand corner of the entrances, another recess or double-corner,some six to eight inches in width and depth, was constructed. This recess was probably meant to contain a wooden door-frameor a lock for the door. Significantly, no such arrangements were found in the secondary gate and thus it could not be closed with a door. Here the gate passage, in other words the threshold of the entrance, was paved with flat stones stretching beyond the inner edge

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

31

of the gate. The stone thresholdwas found intact,and it did not contain a stonesocketfor supportinga doorhinge. A wordmustbe said at this point on the possibilitythat the structures were decoratedwith wall-paintings,like many buildings in Teleilat elGhassul.15This possiblyis based on the discoveryof a tiny fragmentof paintedplasterin the channelwhich is mentionedbelow. The fragmentis only aboutan inch long and its surfaceis not even - which suggeststhat it belongsto an installationratherthan a wall. The decorationof the main surfaceconsistsof a few parallelwavy lines, one thickpink, and threedark

-.-??"'-"-:/':i--.

,,J-I.

..:

Fig. 17. The circular installation in the courtyard of the temple, with the sanctuary in the background.

blue ones. Significantly, this fragment was plastered and painted twice beforehand, as in the case of Teleilat el-Ghassul, where Hennessy discerned

a wall which was replasteredand repaintedmore than twenty times.'" Finally,we turn to the circularinstallation,ten feet in diameter,built in the highestpart of the courtyard(Fig. 17). In its centera roundbasin, aboutsixteen inches deep and a foot in diameter,was constructed.At present, seven largeflat stonesformthe wall of the basin,the bottombeing the naturalsurface;but, assumingthat the basin was meant to containliquids, it must have been plastered.In fact, it can almostbe provedthat the basin containedliquids.In the sectionof the stone fence between the secondary gate and the lateralchambera built outlet of a channel was discovered 15. See n. 4 above. 16. B. Hennessy, Levant, I (1969),

7.

32

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

(Fig. 18).17The orientationof the channeland the fact that its bottomis built at a level eight to nine inches lower than that of the bottomof the circularinstallation,indicatesthat it was used to dispose of the liquids, probablywater,fromthe basin, althoughit seemsclear that they were not directly connected.The channel was not preservedand it was probably constructedof mud-bricks andclay. The date of the templeand its culturalaffinitieswere determinedby the pottery,mainly the remainsof the offering-vessels found in the refuse the in for Since were it is no surprise used sanctuary. they offerings, pits

rr .n~~

.Ijq~~_

~~~)

f•;C

....

.

Fig. 18. The built outlet of the channel (behind the meter-stick) with the lateral chamber to the right and the secondary gate to the left.

that the inventory mainly includes three types of vessels, namely small and medium bowls, cornets and also a few bowls standing on a hollowed-out foot.'- In addition, a clay model of a bull laden with a pair of churns wasa found in the altar. Generally speaking, the material, techniques, shapes and decorations of the pottery are late Ghassulian. The only find of importance apart from the pottery is a fragment of an alabastervessel found during the clearance of the circular installation. The fragment (Fig. 19) forms part of a cylindrical vessel which has nearly vertical walls as well as flat round bottom. The preserved fragment, ca. 6.9 cms. long and ca 5.5 cms. wide three inches by about 21/2inches), includes a large part of the (less ,than 17. The circumstances of its discovery should be mentioned. It was not noticed during the excavation but found later by I. Dunayevsky and A. Kempinski. They looked for such a channel, deducing that the water basin which they assumed was in the circular installation must have had an outlet. 18. See the pottery published by Naveh in Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society, XXII (1958), Fig. 2 on p. 48.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 1)

33

bottom which shows conspicuous marks of drilling, and the lower end of a section of the side. It is the earliest alabastervessel so far found in Palestine.19 It seems to have been imported from Egypt, where cylindrical alabaster vessels of that kind were manufactured. A few such vessels are reported from the Pre-dynastic period,20 and with the establishment of the first dynasty they became very common.2' Furthermore,our fragment was checked by Dr. Z. Goffer-fromTel Aviv University who found it to be calcium carbonate like the Egyptian alabastervessels. Our fragment is but another link in the evident cultural connections which the Ghassulians maintained with Egypt. Rothenberg's recent discovery of hundreds of Chalcolithic settlements in the sourthernpart of the Sinai peninsula22may per-

/

7""b

,•---

----

/ /

/ .'

//

\

'!~

--,? I --/

/

cmi 0

1

2

K Il =/ ..::

3

-

/

/

\-

7-

Fig. 19. The base of the alabaster vessel found in the temple.

haps supply the answer how, and through what channels, these connections were maintained. Very little can be said on Ithe nature of the cult performed in the temple. Almost certainly it was connected with water. This is indicated by the location of the temple between and above two springs, with the gates oriented towards them. Furthermore,the circular installation and the reconstructed channel were probably connected with water. The alabastervessel, whose base was found nearby, may have been used to fill the basin with water or to empty it. The "water cult" performed in the temple may, perhaps, be connected with eleven undated cup-marks, that is small, round depressions,cut on the surface of four rocks near the Ein Gedi spring. Seven 19. Except perhaps two alabaster mace-heads found in Teleilat el-Ghassul; see Mallon, et al.,

Teleilat Ghassul 1, p. 71, P1. 35:4. 20. G. A. Reisner, Mycerinus: The

Temples

M. F. Petrie,

Tombs

of the

Third

Pyramid

21. W. B. Emery, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, I (1949), there;

LIIIA

W.

22. B. Rothenberg,

The

Palestine

Royal

Exploration

of the Earliest

Quarterly,

CII (1970),

at Giza

4-26.

(1931),

pp.

130ff.

130ff. and esp. Figs. 69A-71

Dynasties,

Part II (1901),

Pls.

LIH-

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

34

of these cup-marksarecut on one rock (Fig. 20); they aretwo six inches ,to deep and four to eight inchesin diameter.We shouldalso mentionthat our resemblanceto the sanctuaryof Megiddo templebearsa strongarchitectural StratumXIX.23The latteris also of the broad-house type with a courtyard in front of it. It was used, as indicatedby the pottery,by the Ghassulians as well as by 'thebearersof the culturelabelled"ProtoUrban"by K. Kenyon. Most interestingare a few brokencornetsfound in the area of the Megiddotemple- exactlyas in the caseof the Ein Geditemple. da'tagive a clearpictureof the historyof our temple. The archaeological It was built on bed rockand was in use duringone relativelyshortperiod. When it was deserted,the site was neverresettled.All the dataindicatethat the templemet its end when it was abandonedby the Ghassulians,and not

r

II

-r ,

Fig.

20.

Rock with seven

"cup-marks"

cut on its surface near the spring of Ein Gedi.

as a result of destruction by an enemy. No traces of fire, or any other signs of deliberate destruction could be found. On the other hand, in parallel to other Ghassulian sites, everything seems to point to the fact that the structures slowly crumbled owing 'to desertion and the effect of wea'ther.Furthermore,the temple was found empty with all its cultic equipment missing. Hardly any objects, with the exception of the alabaster fragment, were found in the enclosure. The absence of such equipment becomes even more conspicuous when we remember the relative richness of the finds in the Ghassulian sites. One has to conclude that when the temple was abandoned its equipment was carried away by the priests. Unforunately, they were 23. G. Loud, Megiddo II (1948), p. 61 and Fig. 390. The stratigraphy and ground-plan of the and and Kempinski, are treated by Dunayevsky to our temple, and its resemblance temple, of Eretz-Israel volume memorial in the forthcoming Dunayevsky by C. Epstein, separately (Hebrew).

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 1)

35

rather thorough, and nothing was left behind. What happened to the temple's equipment and whence was it taken? The Hoard from Nah'al Mishmar

Ghassulian remains were found in many sites, open settlements and caves, in the Judean desert. Of special interest is the evidence of Ghassulian habitation in the caves at the western edge of the desert near the Dead Sea, north and south of Ein Gedi. Many of these caves open on to the barren vertical cliffs of the canyons, the approach to them being difficult or even dangerous. Among the Ghassulian finds from the caves, particularmention should be made of objects made of organic material, such as wood, textiles and baskets, which were preserved in the arid climax of the desert.

I Fa

Ori

01 ::

Fig. 21. The hoard from Nahal Mishmar as found in the cave, covered with a mat and hidden in a niche.

The cave relevant to our subject was excavated by P. Bar-Adon24and labelled by him "The Cave of the Treasure." The cave is situated in the canyon of Nahal Mishmar, about six miles south of Ein Gedi. The cave opens onto the vertical cliff, about 150 feet below the cliff top with an abyss of nearly 800 feet below it. Access to the place was made possible during the excavations with the aid of ropes and rope-ladders.The cave was inhabited twice, first by the Ghassulians and later in 135 A.D., when Jewish rebels of the Second Revolt against the Romans took refuge there. 24.

P. Bar-Adon,

XVI (1963),

Israel Exploration

251-59.

Journal,

XI (1961),

25-35;

XII (1962),

215-26;

Archaeology,

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

36

i

.

, ..•

Fig.

22.

A "wand"

or "standard"

-.Q?-a

from the hoard of Nahal Mishmar.

-.

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

37

Bar-Adonand his assistantsmade their main discoverywhen they removed a stone coveringa naturalniche beside one of the walls in the cave. Its removalrevealeda unique Ghassulianhoard which was hidden in the niche25 (Fig. 21). The hoardcomprises429 articleswhich were carefully wrappedin a strawmat. Mostof the articles,416 in number,are of copper. The hoardincludes the following: about 240 metal as well as one stone and six hematitemace-headsof varioussizes and shapes- rounded,flattenabouttwentychiselsand axes;abouteighty ed, egg-shapedand disc-shaped; "wands"or "standards," some hollow and some solid, which vary in ornamentationand size (Fig. 22); ten "crowns" differingin size and ornamentation (Fig. 23); five sickle-shaped, perforatedobjects,made fromhippopotamus tusks and one concave"box"made of elephanttusk. The articlesportraythe masteryof the Ghassulianartisansin the manufactureof copperobjects,and fheir discoverydrasticallychangesthe earlier idea that the manufactureof metal was still in its infancyduringthat peri od. The articlesare individuallyshapedand decorated,again manifesting the versatileabilityof the Ghassulianartistsand artisans,briefly discussed in the first part of this article.The objects,with the possibleexceptionof the chisels and axes, could hardlyhave been tools or articlesfor daily use. It seems almostcertainthat they were used in the Chalcolithiccult, and that their interpretationand function has to be sought in the sphere of Ghassulianrituals.Thus the copperarticlesformyet anotherclassof Ghassulian art or craft, similarto the wall-paintings,ivories,basaltvessels and clay ossuariesmenltionedabove,in which the talentsof the artistsand artisanswereappliedto producearticlesneededfor the rituals. The Origin of the Hoard

The origin of the hoardand the clarificationof the circumstancesof its being hidden in the cave are the foremostproblemswhich concernus here. It seems,unless future researchaltersthe presentpicture,that these problemshave but one logical solution.The hoard containsan unusually rich series of articles,togetherforminga unique collectionof equipment for use in the Ghassulianritual.The articlesof the hoardmust have been in use in a centralGhassuliansanctuary;26 and it seems that the Ein Gcdi a central shrine a and for temple,being place a pilgrimage,is the only candidate to which the articlesof the hoardcan be attributed.All data fit this conclusionand we can attemptthe following reconstruction. The articles of the hoardformedthe cultic equipmentof the temple,yet theirritualuse 25. For various reasons, the attribution of the hoard to the Ghassulian culture seems to be established. For a different see Perrot, Supplpment au dictionnaire de la Bible, VIII opinion, Col. 441. (1968), 26. Incidentally, some of the articles show signs of considerable use, such as the "crown" 221 and P1. 41, whose projecting ornamentapublished in Israel Exploration Journal, XII (1962), tions are mostly broken.

38

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

A

mat,

iiiii?

i.....

i

......

.....:

pi,

.........

....

Fig. 23. A "crown" from the hoard of Nahal Mishmar, decorated with projecting wings and bird figurines.

so far remains enigmatic to us. When the decision to abandon the temple had been reached, the "priests"methodically assembled all the ritual equipment without leaving even one article behind, and left for good. They traveled only a few miles until they reached the Nahal Mishmar cave, where they stayed for a while. There they decided to continue their journey, and, considering their future return to be certain, chose to leave the ritual equip-

1971, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

39

ment in the cave. They carefully wrapped the articles in a straw mat and hid them in a niche never to see them again.27 The above reconstructionof events must be considered in the light of the wider problematicalaspects of the end of the Ghassulian culture, briefly touched upon in the first part of this paper. The final abandonment of the settlement is not only typical of the Ein Gedi temple, but it is also a general phenomenon in the Ghassulian sites. Assuming that the temple was a center of pilgrimage, one has to conclude that its abandonment probably coincided with that of the settlements such as Teleilat el-Ghassul. The data at our disposal is incomplete and we do not know what form the process of abandonment took. The reasons for the abandonment remain obscure as well. It may have been due to a severe drought or, alternatively, it may have been a flight before an oncoming enemy. The latter could have been the new settlers in the country, the bearers of the "Proto-Urban" culture, or, as some authorities believe, the invading Egyptian army of king Narmer.28 The flight-before-an-oncoming-enemytheory gains weight from the Ghassulian habitation in the desert caves. The desolate nature of the area, the difficulties in obtaining food and water, the difficult access - all these indicate that the inhabitants of the caves were refugees in flight, exactly like the Jewish rebels of the Second Revolt who followed them a few millennia later. This theory can also explain the abandonment of our temple and the hiding of the hoard: one can imagine the priests receiving information on the arrival of the enemy, deciding to leave, meticulously packing the temple's equipment and traveling to the Nahal Mishmar cave, staying there for a time. There they may have received more alarming news about the enemy and hid the equipment before traveling further afield and finally passing into oblivion.

Nelson Glueck: In Memoriam Nelson Glueck's name, synonymous with some of the most important and interesting discoveriesof the past forty years in biblical archaeology,is known to every reader of the BA; indeed, for those close to the ASOR, Dr. Glueck constituted one of the organization'spillars. In an article published in the December, 1959, issue, G. Ernest Wright used Dr. Glueck's career and his warm, compelling style as a model for understanding the task of biblical archaeology. In a number of articles in this journal, Dr. Glueck portrayedhis explorationsin Transjordan,the Jordan valley and the Negeb, 27. If this reconstruction is correct, the dates provided by carbon-14 analysis of the mat which covered the hoard also indicate the date of abandonment of the temple. Two samples of the mat yielded the dates 5390 + 150 (3429 + 150 B.C.) and 4880 -4- 250 (2919 - 250 B.C.). 28. On the possible campaign of Narmer in Palestine, see Y. Yadin, Israel Exploration Journal, V (1955),

1-16; Yeivin,

ibid., X (1960),

193-203.

40

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

his study of the Nabateans, and his excavation of Ezion-Geber. Strikingly, he wrote on Ezion-Geberin our first volume, and then 28 years later wrote a new interpretationof the site for the 1965 volume, gracefully abandoning some of his earlier views. Late in the night of February 12, Dr. Glueck succumbed to a struggle with cancer. He came in with the century, born in June, 1900; he died while still the inspiring president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, which he led for 24 years. For six years in the 1930's he was resident director of the American School in Jerusalem, now named after his beloved teacher and colleague W. F. Albright. Now there exist in Jerusalem two institutions which owe much to Dr. Glueck's energy and vision, for he it was who almost single-handedly brought into being the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School there. A volume can be written about his achievements;indeed no less than two celebration volumes have appeared in his honor within the year. For thousands, however, the finest memorial to him lies in his own series of bring to an aware public the fruits of his own writings which sought ,to of this century engaged and others' labors. No man people more effectively and yet responsibly in what biblical archaeologyis all about. --EFC STATEMENTOF OWNERSHIP,MANAGEMENTAND CIRCULATION (Act of October 23, 1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code) Date of Filing: October 1, 1970 Title of Publication: Biblical Archaeologist Frequency of issue: Quarterly Location of Known Office of Publication: 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts 02139 5. Location of the Headquarters of General Business Offices of the publishers (not printers): 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts 02139 6. Names and Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: American Schools of Oriental Research, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass. 02139 Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., 800 West Belden Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60614 Managing Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., 800 West Belden Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60614 7. Owner (If owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, its name and address, as well as that of each individual must be given.) American Schools of Oriental Research Non-Profit Organization, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass. 02139 8. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities (If there are none, so state): None 9. For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at special rates (Section 132.122, Postal Manual) The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes have not changed during preceding 12 months Actual Number of copies of Average No. Copies 10. Extent and Nature of Circulation Single Issue Published Each Issue During Nearest to Filing Date Preceding 12 Months 6100 6100 A. Total no. copies printed B. Paid circulation 1. sales through dealers and carriers, none none street vendors and counter sales 5500 5550 2. mail subscriptions 5500 5550 C. Total paid circulation 98 100 D. Free distribution 5598 5650 E. Total distribution F. Office use, left-over, unaccounted, 450 502 spoiled after printing 6100 6100 G. Total 1. 2. 3. 4.