BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST .of. IN "k
Published By
The American Schools of Oriental Research (Jerusalem and Baghdad) Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn.
Vol. XX
December, 1957
No. 4
?~~'or
f
?
A6
~?'?W,~71
?
1A 40;4
Fig.
1.
.24L
1 2
The site of ancient Shechem with the modern village of Balatah resting View from Mt. Gerizim, Mt. Ebal rises at the left; looking northeast. 'Askar lies on its slope in the center: in the lower right corner within church is Jacob's Well.
on its slopes. the village of the unfinished
Contents The Second Indices
Season
to Volumes
of Excavation XVI-XX,
at Biblical Shechem. L. E. Toombs ...... by Thorir Thordarson
by H. C. Kee and .................................... .....................................
S2 106
82
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
'The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, Decemb6r) 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 are related to the Bible. Editors: G. Ernest Wright and Frank M. Cross, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to one of the above at 2330 N. Halsted St., Chicago 14, III. Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; Millar Burrows, Yale University. Subscription Price: $1.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address, $0.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. IN ENGLAND: seven shillings, six pence per year; payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad St., Oxford. BACK NUMBERS: Available at 35c each, or $1.35 per volume. Entered as second-class matter, October 2, 1942, at the Post Office at New Haven, Connecticut, under the act of March 3, 1879. Copyright
by American
Schools
of Oriental
Research,
1957
THE SECOND SEASON OF EXCAVATION AT BIBLICAL SHECHEM Part I. What Goes On At A Dig? Howard C. Kee Theological
Seminary,
Drew
University
Among the questions addressed to archaeologists returning from a season in the field are certain to be the following: What do you do on the dig? Do you do any of the actual digging? How do you know where to begin digging? Do you have to remove the entire mound when you excavate a site? Rather than attempting to answer these questions in generalized terms, this article seeks to illustrate from a major, complex excavation how archaeological work in the field is carried out. This summer a second season of work wasi conducted at Tell Balatah, the site of biblical Shechem in Jordan by the Drew-McCormick Expedition, jointly with the Amerioan Schools of Oriental Research. With Professor George Ernest Wright of McCormick Theological Seminary as Archaeological Director, the excavations were carried out by a staff of twenty-seven people, including besides twenty Americans and four Jordanians, a Canadian,an Australian, and a German. Dean Bernhard Anderson and Dr. David Graybeal of Drew served as Administrative Director and Manager respectively. Supervisors of other aspects of the dig included Drs. H. Neil Richardson, Robert Funk and Ovid R. Sellers of the Jerusalem School, and Professors W. R. Farmer, Lawrence Toombs, Robert J. Bull and Howard C. Kee of the Drew Faculty. A generous grant from the Bollingen Foundation of New York aided the expedition, especially in the matter of helping to make possible the participation in the dig of graduate students from Johns Hopkins and Drew Universities. In charge of surveying was Mr. G. R. H. Wright, already well-kown for his work as archaeological surveyor and architect in Turkey and Libya. The operation at Balatah involved a larger stkff and more
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST .of. IN "k
Published By
The American Schools of Oriental Research (Jerusalem and Baghdad) Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn.
Vol. XX
December, 1957
No. 4
?~~'or
f
?
A6
~?'?W,~71
?
1A 40;4
Fig.
1.
.24L
1 2
The site of ancient Shechem with the modern village of Balatah resting View from Mt. Gerizim, Mt. Ebal rises at the left; looking northeast. 'Askar lies on its slope in the center: in the lower right corner within church is Jacob's Well.
on its slopes. the village of the unfinished
Contents The Second Indices
Season
to Volumes
of Excavation XVI-XX,
at Biblical Shechem. L. E. Toombs ...... by Thorir Thordarson
by H. C. Kee and .................................... .....................................
S2 106
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
1957,4)
83
elaborate operation than most excavations of the past thirty years, so that it cannot be classified as typical dig. But its very complexity will serve to show how great is the massl of detail and how wide-ranging a perspective must be included in a modern archaeological undertaking. Long before work in the field begins, the staff must engage in careful survey of the site, studying both biblical and non-biblical literary sources that may shed light on its history, and accounts of earlier surface surveys or exoavations on the site. In the case of Balatah, there was a vast amount of material, both from the Old Testament and from other ancient Near r, ?IL. ~lb~;? ~?n ~1 ,rr ?3:?, ?? ,I ?,-?: .?15 ?i w:?;. 1*:,t?1? 1... s~ ?1 ., i B: Fl~p?-~l ?l~jy ~r ?~: ? af?.ia~. I~p?
~ ZI:
?i
tl?..rl
rL?:?
i
-~?,
ii
..
yr? r~" ~ ?" ;??
*II C* ~ -?~? ~????-?:~? .i '" * -i. ;~ ?.,, ,?r*5fr~'..' i ?,? Z?_~:i?? ~:?1:; :?. $::h~i~?. i r ;~? a? i- w"` ~,~t~S~; -t:
L:* n; i'i \"P -, ?r
:
b*;*
'?:
re
-~
Fig.
2.
The expedition's
camp
with
the village
school
in the background.
Eastern records, that provides information about crucial events in the life of the city. From the Tell el-Amarna letters we learn of the efforts of Egypt to bring into submission the wily, self-willed Lab'ayu, governor of Shechem. In the Old Testament we hear of Abraham and later Jacob visiting Shechem during the patriarchal period. In the book of Joshua, Israel's covenant with Yahweh is renewed at Shechem. In Judges, Abimelech is crowned king at Shechem (For details see Biblical Archaeologist for February 1957, Vol. XX, No. 1.). On the basis of such scattered literary remains, archaeologists must construct a tentative - though necessarily fragmentary - history of the site. Since a series of excavations by German archaeologists had been carried
84
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
on at Balatah between the years 1913 and 1934, it was imperative that the reports, plans, photographs and materials from the earlier work be studied before the present operations began. In addition to the records themselves, the Drew-McCormick-American Schools expedition had the benefit of the prescence of Dr. Hans Steckeweh, who supervised the last season of German excavation at Balatah in 1934. A necessary part of the preparation for excavating a site like Balatah is to have membersi of the staff familiarize themselves with publications that describe the finds at nearby sites, or at sites elsewhere in Palestine that correspond to the levels of occupation at Balatah. These resources must be available at the site for constant reference in studying the pottery and other artifacts as they emerge during the excavation process. Finally, a oareful survey of the surface must be undertaken, in order to get a picture from the sherds exposed on the sides of the tell as to the periods of occupation of the site, and to discover remains of walls or other structures that protrude from the surface of the mound. In the ease of Balatah there were of course many walls and ruins of buildings exposed to view by the German excavators. Part of the preparation for the new work at Shechem was to select areas that had not been dug but that seemed to give promise of new evidence for the story of the tell. In consultation with the members of the staff, the Archaeological Director decided that excavations should begin at the following sectors: the vicinity of the East Gate. which had been partially excavated by the Germans and then again by the preliminary work of the Drew-McCormick expedition in the summer of 1956; the area just south of the temple complex; a new section of the mound where nothing more than a few trial trenches had been dug by previous excavators. These were designated respectively, Fields I, II and III.
Before the actual digging could begin, it was necessary to set up the camp and assemble the equipment that would be needed. Arrangements for rental of the land had to be made with the owners of the site through the Mukhtar of the village of Balatah, which sits on and just below the southeastern slope of the mound, and which raises a considerable part of its fruit and vegetables: on the relatively level top of the mound. Negotiations for the fig trees and the tomato plants growing on the tell had to be concluded before the first pick was sunk into the soil. The Mukhtar proved to be both highly intelligent and fully cooperative, so that not only did the expedition benefit from his work as arbiter in the negotiations for land rental. but his continued interest in the excavations was of immeasurable aid in protecting the equipment and in employing laborers and foremen from among the men and boys of the village. On more than one occasion,
1957,4)
85
THE BIBLICAL ARCIIAEOLOGIST
some of the women of the village intervened in behalf of a husband or a son who had been fired, or at least not hired, so that he had opportunity to demonstrate his skill in dealing with both men and women. In this work he was aided by his charming, perceptive assistant, Mohanuned Mustapha, who doubled as camp guard and interpreter for the Mukhtar. The location chosen for the camp was on a level spot northeast of the tell, adjoining the three-room schoolhouse that serves the village of Balatall.
,
.-•?=u -.
v.
Fig.
3.
?
,
. .
in 1957. In the foreground, The staff of the Shechem expedition Mr. Khoury of the Palestine chief guard. 1st row, left to right: Mustafa, Hotel, Nablus and Mohammed R. Funk, W. R. Farmer, O. R. Sellers, H. N. Richardson, G. E. Wright, B. Anderson, H. Steckeweh, Farah Ma'ayeh, L. E. Toombs. R. Bull. 2nd. row, left to right: G. L. Sinclair, A. Talbert, L. Ellenberger, S. Yahshan, E. F. Campbell, Jr., Buchanan, I). Graybeal, H. C. R. and J. Boling, N. and 1P. Iapp, P. Hollenbach, Y. Yahshan, Tawflq. Mustafa Absent G. I. H. Wright. Imran 'Abudayyeh, Kee, J. Stewart.
A quadrangle of tents was erected, including nine used by the staff for sleeping purposes, one that served as a mess tent, and one that doubled as kitchen and pottery mending shop. Other tents were used to store equipment and t: house guards and six specialists from Jericho trained by the Kenyon expedition there. One of the rooms in the school was used for surveying and photography work; another was the location of the. recording and drawing operation described below. The thick stone walls cf the school provided welcome relief from the burning summer sun, and protection at night from the cool, damp wind that roared nightly eastward through the narrow pass between Ebal and Gerizim, where Balatah is, located.
86
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
Water had to be brought from the village spring on donkey-back, and some of it had to be processed before it could be used for drinking purposes. A tank trailer belonging to the American Schools was of great assistance in providing water for the camp until the old Pontiac which pulled it broke down. A generator was set up to provide lights to operate the phc.tographing of objects, but as a by-product, it furnished a welcome luxury in the form of lights in the tents during the evenings. Then the whir of electric shavers could be heard on the plain before Shechem. The size of the staff of the Drew-McCormick expedition required that there be a full-time camp manager, with one or two assistants under him to keep the camp in order, to see that food was provided for the breakfasts served in camp and that transportation was arranged when the staff ate its daily lunch and dinner at the Palestine Hotel in nearby Nablus. After the fields were chosen - and, of equal importance, the spots selected for dumping the debris, so as not to interfere with future operations - supervisors were appointed for each field. In those fields where digging was going on in only one or two areas at a time, a supervisor was appointed for the field as a whole. In a more extensive field, like that of the East Gate, supervisors were designated for each area. Working with each supervisor was a foreman. The foremen were all Jordanians, chosen either by reason of previous experience in this capacity, or because they manifested unusual intelligence coupled with leadership ability. One of the men from the village who was appointed a foreman demonstrated a particularly great talent in increasing the efficiency of the laborers under him and in comprehending the meaning of the work he was directing. Next in order of prestige after the foremen came the pickmen. In most cases these were older men. Their job is a coveted one, since they have first chance at discovering coins, scarabs and other objects, for which the workmen receive special reward in the form of "baksheesh."The amount of the baksheesh varies with the relative worth of the object, but must be carefully calculated: if it is too high, it might encourage "planting" objects in the mound - something which is frequently attempted anyway; if it is too low, the workmen may grow careless, and miss something significant or they may keep what they find for later sale. The supervisors discourage the workmen from cleaning the objects they find, since the presence of dirt and perhaps corrosion,assists in establishing whether the coin or scarab was in fact found where it is purported to have been. Behind each pickman stands at least two hoemen, whose tools are a cross between our hoes and a spade. The hoeman scrapes up the dirt into baskets, which he holds in place between his feet. A sharp-sighted
87
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
1957,4)
hoeman may find more objects than a less observant pickman. Surrounding each hoeman is a group of boys - two to four in number, ranging in age from twelve to fifteen - whose job it is to carry the dirt out to the debris heap and dump it. Instead of baskets woven of reeds or rushes, the boysi .•
B -;
i
E r rP -I
I
&
1I
t
,a LJ
I AIL
o
1
FL
*01 ?t-3tqfAO OLTA16 KaJTL LX
TO JAe A"AW
2
1 v. I
.
.?Y.L,
7
76
C 1.rP4
........... "w." M L ..r.......
i ,
. . ...4
,.
..
...... -oo------------------------...
t3
14
IS C.
F EcHEMmL I SHEC..
Fig.
4.
Plan of the Shechem excavations, the five different areas showing in Roman numerals in which work was undertaken in 1957. (The small print in this and the other plans can be read with a magnifying if desirable.) The outlines of the main German glass, are also shown. The Northwest trenches Gate with its three entryways was apparwhile about 1650 B.C., ently erected as a part of the Wall A (Cyolopean) system the East Gate was erected as a part of the Wall B system about 1600 B.C. (see below).
carry the debris in guphas made of rubber tire casings, riveted together. These proved to be much more durable than baskets. The reed baskets were used, however, for transporting and classifying pottery. The expedition this summer benefited from the use of a hand-operated railroad, loaned by Father R. de Vaux from his excavations at nearby Tell el-Far'ah. The railroad was set up to enable the workmen from Field II to transport their
88
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol.
XX.
debris all the way acrossthe tell, where it was then dumped. Among the prized jobs in connectionwith the railroadoperationwere: that of the old gentlemanwho threw the switch each time to let the empty cars enter or leave the siding, and that of the men who pushed the cars to their destinationand then jumped aboardwhile gravitygave them a free ride back to the digging site. As the brokenbits of pottery emerge from the ground, the workers are instructedto place them in a basket, which is tagged and numbered according to field, area and basket number. The baskets from any one areawere numberedconsecutivelythroughoutthe season'soperation.When the workersreach a new level, as indicatedby a burned layer or a floor level or a change in the type and color of the debris, a new basket is begun. The baskets of sherds were brought down off the tell to the pottery shed, where the sherds were washed, placed in the sun to dry, and then given a preliminarysorting by the staff member in charge of the operation. Distinctive sherds were separatedout from the rest and put in a box markedwith the appropriatenumbers. The box was placed on top of the basket with the rest of the sherds and then the baskets were set out in a cleared area arrangedin rows accordingto field, area and basket sequence. Each afternoonthe archaeologicaldirectorchecked through the sherds with the area supervisors,comparing sherds with levels and with other artifactsi,if any, in order to get a provisionaldate for the walls and levels of the tell in each area. In his notebook each area supervisorhad noted down the place of origin of each basket, the depth beneaththe surfaceat which each group of sherdshad been found, any significant changes that took place in the levels; of the mound as they appearedin the side of the excavationas the digging proceded. After the sherds had been examinedand interpretedin this way, characteristic pieces were selected and sent into the recordingroom to be drawn in silhouetteon graphpaper. Later,copies of these drawingswere made, in order to provide two files of sherd samples: one filed accordingto age and type (Middle Bronze,Iron Age, Hellenistic,etc.) and one according to the sequence of their discovery. In addition to drawing the sherds many that were painted or were of a type difficult to reproducein twodimensionaldrawing, were photographed.All were placed in boxes in groupsof fifty for furtherstudyand analysis. In one notebookall find-spots were listed and all sherds selected from each were separatelylisted by number,togetherwith the numbersof all pottery basketsfrom each. Also in the recordingroom,all objectsturned up in the digging were numbered,sketchedand photographed. Coins were processedto increase
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
89
legibility. Nails, jewelry, scarabs, seals and inscribed sherds were cleaned. Duplicate records of all objects were kept for submission to the Department cf Antiquities of Jordan, whose technical director, Dr. Awni Dajani, proved so helpful to the expedition throughout the operation. On the mound, constant vigilance is demanded of the area supervisor. He must be on the lookout to see that no objects are missed by the men as they dig, and that no level or trace of a structure is inadvertently destroyed in the excavation process. He must supervise the tracing of walls in order to discover the nature of rooms or buildings as they are uncovered. He must be careful not to destroy the evidence by which the structure can be dated: that is, the levels and sherds in their positions against the wall. To evaluate this evidence the excavator must begin a small trench some distance back from a wall that he is seeking to date, and then dig up against it in order to analyze the material lying at its base. He must be able to distinguish between ordinary debris and fallen mud-brick walls. In Field III at Balatah an amazingly well-preserved section of brick wall (see below) tested the ingenuity of the workmen and the supervisors to expose the bricks in their fallen condition to be sketched and photographed. Another delicate operation is the removal of debris from around skeletons, which may appear to be preserved in fairly solid form, but which are almost always powder-like in substance, and crumble into dust at the slightest blow. A third type of ticklish excavation is the effort to remove whole or nearly whole jars in such a way as to avoid any new breaks and at the same time to number the fragments so that the pieces oan be put back together and the jar restored. This requires the most careful, painstaking work with a small trowel and a brush. The Drew-McCormick expedition was greatly aided this summer by the presence on the staff of several highly skilled workmen trained and experienced under Miss Kathleen Kenyon during the seasons of her work at Tell es-Sultan (Old Testament Jericho). These men were of great help in keeping the dig neat, all exposed walls clean and the sides of the areas cut sharply sto that their stratification could be read with clarity. In a dig as extensive as this past season's at Balatah, the demands made on the staff photographer are very great. He must take photographs! in black-and-white of each site before excavations begin, and then must continue to photograph the succeeding stages of digging. Particularly, he must be on hand when a wall section, or a burial, or an especially important object is' found in order to photograph it in place. Since the interpretation of the material remaining in the balk (sidewall of the excavation, smoothed off as the digging proceeds to show the levels of occupation
90
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
through which the digging has passed) depends in large measure on the varying colors of the debris, the expedition must have color photographs of the operation as well as the black-and-white pictures for publication. During this season, the photographer was responsible also for getting a record of the operation at Balatah both on color slides, and on movie film. Added to the diversity of photographing jobs to be done was the necessity to improvise a dark-roomfor running tests on the pictures taken. Before digging began and all during the season, the chief surveyor of the expedition and his two assistants were constantly at work - in some cases from dawn to dusk - surveying and mapping the site. The areas to be excavated were laid out in five-meter squares, and fixed levels were established in each case from which to measure depth of excavation. The levels in these areas were related to those in adjoining areas, and these in turn were related to the other fields being excavated on the tell. Efforts; were made to compare the plans of the present excavation at Balatah with the plans published by the German excavators, and errors in the earlier plans were noted. Detailed measurements of all walls and buildings were made as the digging proceeded. In the case of the cyclopean city wall, an effort was' made to sketch the shape and relative size of the huge stones in the section of the wall exposed. Viewed from this side of the ocean archaeology may sound like exciting, almost romantic activity. On the field it is mostly hard work, carried cn in uncomfortable conditions under a searing sun. Since the workday at Balatah began at five A.M., rising time was 4:30, with a snack and some coffee just before five, and a raucous blast of the station-wagonhorn to announce that it was time to start work. A long morning ended with a half hour's break for breakfast, followed by what seemed an even longer four and one-half-hour stretch until the one-thirty P.M. quitting time. After lunch and a rest, there were sites in the vicinity to be visited, pottery to be checked, records to be brought up to date, areas to be surveyed, tents to be staked down against the stiff wind through the mountain pass that threatened at nights to blow the tents away. The routine of the six-day work week was broken frequently by the arrival of visitors - at times distinguished government officials or fellow archaeologists, at times groups of tourists. All had to be welcomed and shown around over the tell. As the season passed and objects from the dig accumulated, a little museum display was arranged, with the basalt stands, sling stones, scarabs, coins, flint blades, the copper snakes etc. Local military and ecclesicasticaldignitaries, interested business and professional men came out from Nablus to see what was going on. Toward the end of the season, the men and boys of the village
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
1957,4)
91
gathered in camp one evening to perform dances and games for the entertainment of the staff. A young man stood in the center of the large ring of spectators and began to play a rhythmic tune on his pipe. A line of men and boys formed a snaky spiral that began weaving and circling around the piper. They sang as they danced, led in both the dance and the antiphonal singing by a young man twirling a handkerchief, singing out a verse to which the others responded with a refrain. A
"•" "'•"" ? ,
??~~
-bsMWN• ....
~
I : 2.
?:
,,
..7..iS~r":
•
-...
r•?h .
-~"" -.
Fig.
5.
';,•ff
.?r,": , .. ... ? -~
.. I
=,•&4.-•
'_y
....
s~~,-6~r~rl
-'
'
.~
The East Gate at the conclusion of excavations in 1957 (see Plan, Fig. 6). View with a vast Arab refugee looking southeast, camp showing in the right background. Photo John Allegro.
rough and tumble game resembling blindman's buff, put on by two skilled amateur pantomimists, brought the evening to a close. After sweetsi were distributed, the villagers departed, leaving the still night to the brilliant stars, the howling of the village dogs, and the crunching footstepsi of the guards moakingtheir rounds of the sleeping camp. After the season closed, the staff returned to the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, where in the School workshops and library
92
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
the important post-season work was done. Area supervisors wrote detailed reports of the progress of excavations in their respective sections of the tell. Drawing, numbering and photographing of the sherds was completed. The numbered sherds were arranged according to type and sequence of development within each of the major pottery epochs. For example, all samples of Middle Bronze bowls, pitchers, jars and cooking pots were grouped together, sherd numbers recorded and photographed as a group. Records of the objects found and samples of the sherds were turned over to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Since by law all ancient objects belong to the Department of Antiquities, unless released to the excavators, a division of the finds was made to determine what material was wanted by the Department and what could be retained by the expedition. With the permission of the government of Jordan, the material granted to the expedition is being shipped back to America for further study in preparation for the official publication of the excavations. Of great interest in this connection is the Hellenistic pottery, which has not received as much attention from archaeologsts as pottery from other epochsi, but which was found in great profusion and in a wide range of types at Balatah. A special project of the 1957 season at Balatah was the analysis of the Hellenistic pottery. At the conclusion of the dig, the surveying staff prepared elaborate plans showing both the outlines of the excavations in each field and a crossi section of the levels excavated during the season. The provisional date assigned to the levels and to the walls and structures is indicated. In addition, sketches of such especially significant areas as the large standing stones of the East Gate were drawn separately. Two more seasons of excavating at Shechem are contemplated - in the summer of 1959 and again in 1961. But months and years of work still lie ahead in order to study and assess the significance of the material uncovered in this year's work. Yet the success of the interpretation of the evidence is directly dependent on the skill and thoroughness with which the highly complex work in the field was carried out. Part II. The Archaeological Results Lawrence E. Toombs Theological
Seminary,
Drew
University
The low mound of Shechem, modern Tell Balatah, rises from a broad, flat valley between the peaks; of Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim. The houses of the village of Balatah creep up from the spring over the southern slopes
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
93
of the mound, and fig orchards and tomato gardens occupy about three quarters of its total area. The remainder of the site is unprepossessing and even repulsive. In the northwest the whole mound was cut down about 5 m. by the German excavators who worked at Shechem prior to 1934. Along the north side of this huge cut runsithe cyclopean wall, with the grass growing forlornly among its huge stones. At the southeast corner of the cut a large section of another major wall is found. This is called by Dr. Sellin "the temenos wall"; it once may have enclosed the citadel area, forming a city within a city. Dominating the center of the German excavations stands the temple, at present surmounted by the foundaton courses of another, later, building, constructed of large field stones, and identified tentatively as a granary, or government store building of the Israelite period.1 Within the excavated area around the Temple a confused array of ruins covers the ground. The outlines of a large building complex can be made out on the surface east and below the level of the temple, where a series of low, badly weathered walls appear. The uncultivated part of the mound, outside the earlier excavations, is covered with brambles and coarse grass, and cut by the scars of numerous trenches, overgrown and partly fallen in. Old dump piles are everywhere, often so worn down that it is next to impossible to say what is dump and what is mound. The general plan, reproduced in Fig. 4, illustrates the features that have been described here, except for the wall complex below the temple courtyard, which does not appear on the drawing. The cultural nadir of Shechem began when Omri built a new capital for his dynasty at Samaria (I Kings 16:24); and again when the center of commerce and civilization finally moved a mile or so west of Shechem with the founding of the Roman city of Neapolis in A.D. 72, on the site where Nablus now stands. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence of the strategic importance of Tell Balatah. If the unimposing hill could be made defensible it would dominate the roads from Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and would control traffic through the pass toward the coastal plain. In earlier days, before siege methods became too formidable, Shechem could be defended by heavy wall structures. The military problem was most acute on the east, where an attacker had a fair run at the city over an open plain, and on the north, where Mt. Ebal crowds down to the city's edge and gives the attacker the advantage of cover and elevation. These facts account for the unusual strength of the defense system of the city. The 1957 season of excavation at Shechem had three major aims: (1) to
1.
See B.A. Vol. XX.1 (1957), p. 25.
??
_x
0-,
+.
GEN-EKAL 87,
DCCC
0
%?UTTING +
cDP1 'CD DCCD
9
1~-9 yaj? +aze 6z
OCD Dc
DC
+M r+n _!,Em -u 872+C rL La MGL
Cro~ DC3
+
471?
+
L'
+ 9\
+
ILLI11 IST1
L~r
(CD *CCC
'd+
NOr .. nr +
9IT 0,06%Ek ~ILLi4
IILO IT rF 'P
I
LXC AVATF-D C:.
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
95
attempt a chronological interpretation of the results of former excavation at the site,2 (2) to ccmplete the work begun in 1956 in the East Gate area (Field I, Fig. 4, NO: 7, 8)3; and (3) to investigate the city fortifications and general stratigraphy at a fresh point along the walls (Field III, Fig. 4, MN: 4, 5, near the northeast corner of the mound and alongside one of the German trenches). To achieve the first aim trenches were dug in the fill against the north wall of the temple, a cleaning operation begun in itsiinteriors and soundings made in the complex of buildings in the courtyard (Field V). Field II was opened just southeast of "the temenos Wall" to establish its date and relationship to the temple complex (Fig. 4, F:7). The aims of the expedition, concentrating as they did on complex defense structures, or on areas already dug over, foreclosed the possibility of many spectacular finds. But, judged by its aims, the 1957 season had substantial results. Crucial dates; for the important architecture uncovered by the German expeditions are now known. The cyclopean wall, for example, was built toward the end cf the Hyksos period, most probably in the latter half of the 17th century B. C. It was breached once, and subsequently underwent a major repair. The temple was erected at about the same time, somewhat earlier than was heretofore supposed. When the temple was destroyed or abandoned could not be determined with certainty, but nothing indicates that the destruction did not take place in the time of Abimelek as Judges 9 suggests. The structure built on top of the temple in proves to belong to the Israelite period, and to have been in existence the 8th century B. C. The work begun in 1956 on the eastern defences of the city was completed and correlated with the structures newly dis;coveredin Field III. It is now possible to give an accurate plan of the East Gate (Fig. 6) and to tell the story of its reconstruction and repair throughout the Hyksos Age (17 - 16 century B. C.). Its modification in the Amarna period (14th century) and during the time of the Israelite settlement is also fairly clear, and important insights'into the cultural and material situation of these times have been obtained. A gratifying feature of this year's work is the wealth of Hellenistic remains which have come to light, particularly the fine Hellenistic house in Field II. When these are fully studied, they will Palestinian provide valuable new informationabout this significant period of history. General Impressions
The last third of the Middle Bronze Age (1650-1550 B. C.) was an 2. 3.
see B.A. XX. For a summary of the German excavations Reported in B.A. XX. 1 (1957), pp. 28-32, and in B.A.S.O.R.
1 (1957), pp. 19-28. 144 (1956), pp. 9-20.
96
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
era of great prosperity for the city of Shechem. During this century both the temple and the cyclopean wall were built, and the defences of the East Gate passed rapidly through a series of building phases each of which carried with it a radical alteration of the defense plan, and involved extensive and costly construction. Although the fortifications are all of undressed stone, their size and quality is unmatched at Shechem in any later period, and they bear testimony to the political organization and energy of the citizenry which erected them. There can be little doubt that Shechem was the foremost city in the area in these times, and that she had control of the highways which converge on the pass under her walls. This impression is confirmed by the Patriarchal narratives in which Shechem is seen as the focal point of the nomadic movements in the area, and the undisputed mistress of central Palestine. The ruins of Middle Bronze Shechem attest, not only its prosperity, but also the turbulence and precariousness of its life. In the roadway through the East Gate the evidence remains of three destructive fires which swept the gate area in this period. The jumble of fallen brick and burned beams which mark the end cf the period testify to the overwhelming catastrophe which laid even the strongest defences in ruin. The attacking army on this occasion was in all probability Egyptian, and the date about the middle of the 16th century. Our evidence for the immediately pre-Israelite period (Late Bronze, 1500-1225) is not extensive, but it is enough to show a cultural decline from the high standards of the Middle Bronze Age. After the Egyptian destruction, a complete rebuilding job was required, and walls and guard rooms went up on a new line of defense. Although neither as massive nor as well made as their predecessors, they were nevertheless the result a strong, highly organized community effort, and a large Late Bronze structure cnly partly excavated in Field III promises to tell a good deal about their civilization. The stratifioation in the guard-rooms of the East Gate shows a striking continuity between the Late Bronze and Israelite occupation. Pottery types changed gradually with no conspicuous breaks, and there was no evidence of violent destruction. The historical situation in this age is far from clear, but the Bible records no conquest of the city or its area by Joshua, and we found fairly clear evidence that there was none. It is not impossible that the Israelites, when they came, found the city in friendly hands and in their turn occupied it without battle and made it for a time the headquarters of their tribal league (cf. Deut. 27; Josh. 8:30-34; 24). The Israelite age is poorly represented in our excavations cf this season. Apart from the granary in the temple area and a few poor
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
1957,4)
97
repairs at the East Gate, little was found from the 10th-8th centuries, and there is as yet a complete gap between the 8th and the 4th centuries. By contrast the extensiveness of the Hellenistic material comes as a surprise. Beginning near the end of the 4th century and extending to the end of the 2nd life in the city flourished. Hellenistic potsherds in great profusion everywhere in the upper levels, and the excellent quality of Hellenistic house construction, combine to form a picture of a prosperous city,
7,
::i:
::A M: ::: -:I-X: :1wj:::::: ::::: -Aa~::::::::: M.W:i
Ai
-: :- 141r: :
Fi:.
7.
one of the large stones Measuring Talbert of the The Rev. Arthur which is 1.50 meters in length.
in the cyclopean Wall of Chicago University
i:
A near the Northwest Gate. is holding a measuring rod
enjoying the protection of stable and orderly government. This happy state did not continue, for towards the end of its existence, the city was twice destroyed by fire. When the end came is not certain. The last dated coin in the Hellenistic levels is a coin of Antiochia, dated 112-111 B.C. The Temple Area
The stones of the granary foundation were mapped and one by one removed. During this process a considerable amount of Iron II pottery of the 8th century B. C. was found in the soil in which the stones were set. The lhst basket of pottery from the temple turned up the only piece of writing found this season. It was a small sherd (Fig. 10) on which were incised the Hebrew letters qoph and yodh in forms resembling those which appear on the ostraca found at Samaria, and earlier than the forms
SHECHEM
io"''o ~ SOON
?~; CA 48H S'oi'PIP:nd. CK,0Eb0,16/ 0?1
WALL~~fS~~~Y)A C17Y l 0 rLA3001-fm'L7 C016M.E
14WAL,
CITY
'rSITE
_a-
C
Fig.
8.
WIL
~C?~P Ai-yi,
I
~~.
prr 10
15
in Field III. north of the East Gate Section through the excavations l left is Wall A 1 of cyclopean stones. Wall B is the large structure tween the two was an artificial fill. two layers of which can be seen, of the slope at the end of the Middle Bronze period. different surfacings wall to the right of center are two and the Middle Bronze "curtain" the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The lower one of cobbled stones ori the "curtain" wall and is thus earlier than this wall. Both floors w of brick burned debris, the upper one covered with great masses to the other side. At wall a door in the "curtain" through two walls of a large Middle Bronze building which was reused in t In the small room of the building shown, centuries. great quantities dozens of cooking pots. including pottery were found, Age kitchen
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
99
in the Siloam inscription.4 It would thus, appear that Shechem was an important administrative center, until well on in the 8th century B.C. The destruction of the Israelite city may, therefore, have to be referred to the Assyrian campaigns of 724-721 B. C.5 Within the temple itself enough undisturbed soil was still in place to permit a section to be cut for the study of the stratigraphy. The heavy plaster floor of the granary was laid directly over the tops of the column
-in
-~--ND
.00
Aw~
~ or(
~ Aa 5L? I?
Fig.
9.
Field V, the temple before of 1957. Work clearance began in the summer area, is proceeding in Fiold II in the background. In the foreground is the cyclopean Wall A, Back of it is another a reconstruction. the top courses of which may here represent of the government repair which may represent Wall B in this area. Remains granary may be seen on top of the temple walls. View southeast.
basesi of the earlier temple. Below this, separated by a layer of debris, were two light plaster floors one above the other, of the temple itself. The associated pottery suggested a date between 1650 and 1550 B. C. and probably in the last half of the period. A trench cut into the marl fill against the outside wall of the temple revealed the foundation trench for the great building's wallsi and yielded pottery of the same type. As work was completed in the East Gate, the working force moved to the temple area and four 2 by 2 m. squares were opened in the building 4. 5.
and offered the opinion stated above. Fere Milik examined the sherd in Jerusalem, made in B.A. XX.1 (1957), p. 30 that the destruction the suggestion This corrects in the 9th century. be the work of the Aramaeans
might
100
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
complex below the temple courtyard. Over this complex a fill of some 3 m. in depth had been poured to make a level court in front of the temple. Here below the fill an earlier type of pottery began to appear in large quantities, the delicate and attractive forms of MB II B (ca. 175016-50 B. C.). Just below the surface left by the German excavation the corner of a room with walls made of carefully fitted small stones was uncovered. Only enough was done here to whet the appetite for more, since the building complex to which this room belonged antedates the temple randhas not been touched by former excavation. The foundation of "the temenos wall" is also at least as early as this building, and perhaps
Fig.
10. Fragment of a large jug or small jar from the granary in Field V. It bears two Hebrew letters (right to left. qoph and yodh), dating from the eighth century B.C., and a portion of a name like Hilkiah Hilqiyahu or Hezekiah probably (originally, Width at widest point 6 cms. Hezqiyahu).
even earlier. With great groaning and shouting eight of our strongest workers performed a labor of Sisypus, moving one of the huge standing stones (massebah) back to its original position in front of the temple entranceno mean feat since it had to be raised 5 m. up an almost vertcal slope of loose rubble. The Eastern Fortifications
Although surface exploration indicates that Shechem was occupied during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ages (4th-3rd millennia B. C.), systematic excavation of the defense system has penetrated only to the levels of the Hyksos period (1700-1550 B. C.). Deeper excavation is impossible without removal of the walls now exposed, which hang threateningly over the deeper trenches. Work was carried forward within the East Gate, deepening the areas begun in 1956, and extending them 6 m.
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
1957,4)
101
south to include the whole of the gate towers and some of the associated city wall. The new area in Field III correlated in a satisfactory way with the walls at the East Gate, so that the fortifications on the eastern side of the mound can be mapped with reasonable accuracy (Fig. 4). The Middle Bronze defences had a complex history which may be broken down for convenience into two main phasest which we now call the A and B systems. The outer or more easterly is the A system. It seems to consist at the East Gate of two parallel walls, joined at intervals by lighter cross walls to form a series of rooms. The outer rampart is of truly heroic proportions, the segment of it which was excavated being peserved to a height of more than 6.3 m., and having stones in its lower
ii"'i%
ii
Fig.
in 11. A clay seal impression found outside the ruined house in Field II. It is Persian of which appears the impression design and was once affixed to a papyrus document, on the reverse side (left). Diameter 2.5 cms.
courses as much as 1 m. in length. This corresponds to the cyclopean wall on the northwest side of the mound and can be traced also in Field III. The double walls of the A system at the East Gate presented an attacker with a difficult military problem at this low and vulnerable point. If he succeeded in pentrating the cyclopean outer wall, his troops would still be isolated within the rooms, exposed to fire from in front and on the flanks, and with yet another wall before them. The chambers were provided with doors on the city side, and were probably used as living or storage spaces in time of peace. The massive outer wall functioned in part as revetment and in part as free-standing defense wall, rising almost vertically at the top of a gentle slope upward from the plain. Within a relatively short space of time the A system with its Northwest Gate was more than doubled in strength by the addition of a new circumvalation (wall B) erected inside and above it. Into this new wall the East Gate was built. It consists of two huge rectangular towers, each 14x5.5m, made of carefully selected and roughly coursed field stones,
102
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
some of which were nearly three quarters of a meter in length. The towers were especially strong on the outside faces, and each had a long, narrow guard-room within. The approach to the gate ran along the south wall of the city, between the gate tower and the inner wall of the A system, which was retained and used as a curb wall for the roadway. Four superimposed cobbled surfaces of the road survive, turning at right angles into the gate. The road level between the towers was successively and rapidly raised, so that it became higher than the house level within the city. Accordingly, a short flight of stairs had to be built leading down to the city level. Since the flat field stones composing the stairway showed little signs of wear, the steps were likely installed almost at the end of the Middle Bronze city's life. This is confirmed by the fact that the skeletons of four to six men were found lying in disarray on the stairs, the bones covered by a heavy layer of ash. Some pieces of bone inlay and considerable pottery came from this' ash layer. In the last burst of building activity during the Middle Bronze Age the crthostat system in the East Gate, described last season, was installed. The eight flat basalt blocks, arranged in four sets of pairs, two on each side of the gateway to form two entries, were probably designed to carry an ornate tower structure. The inside orthostat pairs were somewhat out of line and the rearmost stone of the south pair was leaning very badly and had one corner broken off, possibly from the effects of a battering ram during the Egyptian siege of the city. To judge by the evidences of repeated destruction and rebuilding in the gateway area, this was one of the most vulnerable parts of the city's fortifications, and had often to bear the brunt of the attack. The wall structure associated with the East Gate was the thickest of the MB walls (varying between 3.25 and 3.75m.). It began on each side of the gate towers at a point 3 m. back from their cuter corners, and at the gate ran almost due north and south. The same wall appeared also in Field III where it was again the thickest wall in the area, and was located back of the A system, higher up on the side of the mound. The space between the B and A walls was partly filled in and the surface plastered or cemented over so that the slope would not erode. At the East Gate during its final Middle Bronze phase an artificially filled and plastered slope was also created between wall A and the gate towers, so that the inner wall and dwelling rooms of the original A system were here covered over. In both Fields I and III Wall B is almost precisely 11 m. inside Wall A. An attacker, looking toward the city from the plain
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
103
to the east, would have have seen, therefore, an almost invulnerable fortification system. He would have been faced with the problem of getting his battering-rams and scaling ladders, not only over Wall A, but also up the 11 m. plastered slope to get at Wall B. It seems apparent that he did not attempt it, but instead found the weak point to be within the East Gate, which he was able to force at least twice during the 16th century, thus to destroy Wall B from within, not outside, the city. These walls and towers all carried a superstructure of large red mud bricks, rectangular in shape and with a maximum size of 30 x 30 x 15 cm. The brickwork was reinforced by heavy wooden beams. When the walls collapsed, debris from them filled the gate chambers to a depth of 2 to 3 m. The Late Bronze age builders who reconstructed the city, did not attempt to clear away much of the rubble. They simply leveled up and built their line of defenses back of the main debris piles. Where the LB city wall was is not certain. It may be represented by the heavy wall uncovered for only a meter of its length in the extreme southwest corner of Field I. Our best LB locus was just southwest of the gate. ,Here, beside the roadway leading into the city, was a small paved courtyard. South of the courtyarda wide doorway gave access to a narrow chamber (6.25 x 2.25 m.). A stone bench seems to have run around three sides of this room, which in all probability filled some administrative or public function. Within the room a very good series' of light plaster floors was preserved. Above these, with no evidence of a violent cultural break, a second series of floors was superimposed. The pottery from the upper floors dated from the 12th or early 11th century B. C. The incoming Israelites used the same general building plan as their predecessors, merely walling in the courtyard and making it a second narrow chamber (Fig. 6). The period of the Israelite Divided Monarchy is represented at the East Gate only by two isolated pockets of pottery dating mainly from the 9th-8th centuries B. C. These were found in a lime-filled layer which formed the fill for a shoddy repair along the east wall of the LB-Iron I construction, and which underlay a rough buttress thrown up to support a shaky corner of the building. This, supporting the stronger evidence found in 1956, is;all we have thus far for Jeroboam's"building" of the city (I Kings 12:25). Any real evaluation of the extent of the Israelite settlement at Shechem between 922 and 724 B. C. must await the results of further excavation. The Hellenistic Period
Field II produced the most striking Hellenistic ruins. Just below the
104
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
surface layers were the remains of two or three rooms of a substantial house. Its walls were constructed mostly of unworked field stones, but around the doors and at intervals in the walls dressed stones had been used. In the doorway between two rooms within the house a large iron key and a number of nails showed where a heavy wooden door had been hung. The pantry yielded considerable quantities of pottery, among which were a number of whole bowls. There was a strong suspicion from the beginning that the building had belonged to an important person in Hellenistic Shechem, and the discovery there of a seal, with the marks of the papyrus document to which it had been attached still visible on the reverse side, confirmed the impression. Coins associated with the house indicated that it had been in use throughout the 2nd century B. C. At the beginning of the Hellenistic period the Shechemites used the
-::: ...i~ ?•',7•............ i:.-.. • 57 ... . ....... •i!i:!•7 1ii7
u.u. u.. uu.u.. h... ..... i•Im..uu..
Fig.
12. Iron key to one of the doors
in the Hellenistic
house
in Field
II.
MB defense system, clearing down to MB levels and using the main B wall as the foundation of their fortifications. This accounts for the way in which Hellenistic levels immediately overlay those of MB outside the city walls. The MB beaten earth surface on the slope was reconstructed and used for a time. Then came the first destruction of the Hellenistic city, and the slope outside the wall was covered with a heavy fall of brick debris. This was subsequently leveled off and topped with a second beaten earth surface. In course of time the city wall proved inadequate or unsatisfactory, and was abandoned. At the East Gate it was used as a stone quarry to obtain building stone for a light tower and screening walb erected at the foot of the mound about a meter outside the cyclopean wall. Back up the mound, over the LB-Iron I rooms of the. East Gate, there was a house area in Hellenistic times. Two main levels separated by a layer of ash could be distinguished, the lower of which yielded a beauti-
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
105
ful silver coin of Alexander the Great. In an open space among the housesi, the installations of an olive oil extraction plant were uncovered: storage pit, stone vat, and pressing surface. Field III also yielded significant Hellenistic material. In all our Fields, except Field II, the Hellenistic deposits, particularly in the upper levels, were badly disturbed by plowing and other farming operations. Intensive study of the pottery and stratification will be necessary before firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the latest Hellenistic phase of Shechem, but the best indications are that
*:K ............ "?ii,
..........
Siii!!:iiiii ::$ :iiii:iiiili;.i::iii::iiii i:lil ~iil Fig.
13. A cache of silver and silver-alloy from the Late Bronze "money", dating probably Age and found in Field III. Fragments in this case earrings, of this sort, including when it was necessary weire used in financial transactions to weigh the silver or gold on scales.
intensive occupation of the site cannot have reached far into the 1st century B. C. In the third season, which is projected for 1959, the principal effort will be concentrated on the temple courtyard, and on the excavation of a house area within the city. This should clear up many of the chronological problemsias yet unsolved, and give us more information about the culture and daily life of ancient Shechem, as well as carry our data back in time to the earlier civilizations which flourished on the site.
106
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
INDICES TO VOLUMES XVI-XX Thorir Thordarson University
of Iceland
I. Table of Contents The Age of Abraham in the Negeb, by Nelson Glueck ............ 2- 9 XVIII.1. Ancient Orientai and Biblical Law, by George E. Mendenhall ...... XVII. 2. 26- 46 The 'Araq el-Emir and the Tobiads, by C. C. McCown ..................... XX. 3. 63- 76 XVI. 1. 17- 20 Archaeological News and Views .................................... XVI. 3. 67-68; XVII. 1. 22-24; XVII. 2. 47-48; XVII. 4. 104; XVIII 3. 79- 80 XVIII. 4. 106- 108. Archaeological News from Jordan, by G. Lankester Harding and William L. Reed ........................... XVI. 1. 2- 17 The Babylonian Chronicle, by David Noel Freedman ..................... XIX. 3. 50- 60 The Copper Document From Cave III., Qumran, by J. T. Milik .......... XIX. 3. 60-64 Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, by George E. Mendenhall .... XVII. 3. 50- 76 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Background for the Gospel of John, XVII. 4. 78- 97 by Lucetta Mowry ..................................... XVI. 4. 88- 92 Disease, Bible and Spade, by R. K. Harrison ..................... Editing the Manuscript Fragments from Qumran, XIX. 4. 75- 96 by P. Benoit, O. P. et al ................................................. Elephants in Bible Lands, by Bayard Dodge ...................................... XVIII. 1. 17- 20 XIX. 2. 36- 43 Excavations at Bethel, by James L. Kelso .................................... 2- 11 Excavations at Hazor, by Yigael Yadin ........................................ XIX. 1. Excavations at Old Testament Jericho, by A. Douglas Tushingham .. XVI. 3. 46- 66 Excavations at Old Testament Jericho, XVII. 4. 98-104 by A. Douglas Tushingham ............................ ........................ XIX. 2. 43- 48 The Excavation of Dothan, by Joseph P. Free ..................... Exploring the Manuscripts of Sinai and Jerusalem, XVI. 2. 22- 43 by Kenneth W. Clark ........................................ A Footnote to Biblical History, by Frank M. Cross, Jr. ...................... XIX. 1. 12- 17 XX. 2. 34- 48 Further Light on Biblical Hazor, by Yigael Yadin ........................... The Geography of Ezekiel's River of Life, by William R. Farmer .... XIX. 1. 17- 22 The Gnostic "Gospel of Truth," by Floyd V. Filson ........................... XX. 3. 76- 78 XVIII. 3. 50- 79 Israelite Daily 'Life, by G. Ernest W right .. ..................... XVIII. 1. 9- 17 Judean Lachish, by G. Ernest W right .......................... Last of the Dead Sea Scrolls Unrolled, by N. Avigad ........................ XIX. 1. 22- 24 2- 21 The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves, by Frank M. Cross, Jr. ... XVII. 1. The Nabataeans: A Historical Sketch, by Jean Starcky ........................ XVIII. 4. 84-106 A Neiw Papyrus Manuscript of the Gospel of John, .................. XX. 3. 54- 63 ... by Floyd V. Filson ............... ................ News and Books .........................................XVI........... 2. 43-44; XVIII. 2. 44- 48; XX. 2. 48-52; XX. 3. 79-80. Operation Microfilm at Mt. Athos, by Ernest W. Saunders ............ XVIII. 2. 23- 41 Shechem, 2- 10 I. Shechem In Extra-Biblical References, by Walter Harrelson .... XX. 1. II. The Place of Shechem In the Bible, by Bernhard W. Anderson XX. 1. 10- 19 III. The Archaeology of the City, by G. Ernest Wright ............. XX. 1. 19- 32 The Stevens' Reconstruction of the Solomonic Temple, XV11I.2. 41- 44 by G. Ernest Wright ....................................... Three New Biblical Atlases, by Edward P. Blair ................................. XX. 2. 48- 51 ULmmel-Biyara; by W illiam H. Morton ................................................. XIX. 2. 26- 36 Vatican Excavations and the Tomb of Peter, XVI. 4. 70- 87 by Roger O'Callaghan, S. J. .................................... The Water System at Gibeon, by James B. Pritchard ..................... XIX. 4. 66- 75 The Second Season of Excavation at Biblical Shechem, .................. XX. 4. 82-105 by H. C. Kee and L. E. Toombs ...........................
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
107
II. Index of Authors Allegro, John M. XIX. 4. See P. Benoit, O.P. et al ......................................... Anderson, BernhardW. II. Shechem, The Place of Shechem in the Bible .............. XX. 1. Avigad, N. Last of the Dead Sea Scrolls unrolled ................................. XIX. 1. Baillet, Maurice ..................... XIX. 4. See P. Benoit, O.P. et al .............. ..... Benoit P. Editing the Manuscript Fragments from Qumran ............. XIX. 4. Blair, Edward P. XX. 2. Three New Biblical Atlases ....................................................... Clark, Kenneth W. Exploring the Manuscripts of Sinai and Jerusalem ............ XVI. 2. Cross, FrankM., Jr. The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves ............................. XVII. 1. A Footnote to Biblical History ............................................... XIX. 1. XIX. 4. See P. Benoit, O. P. et al ..................... ......................... Dodge, Bayard .................... XVIII. 1. Elephants in Bible Lands ..................... Farmer,William R. The Geography of Ezekiel's River of Life ........................... XIX. 1. Filson, Floyd V. A New Papyrus Manuscript of the Gospel of John ............ XX. 3. XX. 3. The Gnostic " Gospel of Truth"...................................... Free, Joseph P. ................. XIX. 2. The Excavation of Dothan ....................... Freedman, David Noel XIX. 3. The Babylonian Chronicle ....................... .................... Glueck, Nelson The Age of Abraham in the Negeb ................................... XVIII. 1. Harding, G. Lankester Archaeological N'ews from Jordan ...........................................XVI. 1. Harrelson,Walter I. Shechem, Shechem in Extra-BiblicalReferences ............. XX. 1. Harrison, R. K. ................ XVI. 4. Disease, Bible and Sipade ......... Hunzinger, Claus Hunno XIX. 4. See P. Benoit .......................................... Kee, H. C. and Toombs, L. E. The Second Season of Excavation at Biblical Shechem ............XX. 4. Kelso, James L. XIX. 2. Excavations at Bethel ................................................................. McCown, C. C. The 'Araq el-Emir and the Tobiads ....................................... XX. 3. Mendenhall, George E. XVII. 2. Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law .......................................... Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition ................................. XVII. 3. Milik, J. T. The Copper Document from Cave III, Qumran XIX. 3. XIX. 4. See P. Benoit ................... .............................. Morton, William H. XIX. 2. .Utmm el-Biyara ............................ ....................... Mowry, Lucetta The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Backgroundfor the XVII. 4. Gospel of John ........................................
75- 96 10- 19 22- 24 75-96 75- 96 48- 51 22- 43 2- 21 12- 17 75- 96 17- 20 17- 22 54- 63 76- 78 43- 48 50- 60 2- 9 2- 17 2- 10 88- 92 75- 96 82-105 36- 43 63- 76 26- 46 50- 76 60- 64 75- 96 26- 36 78- 97
108
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
II. Index of Authors (cont'd.) O'Callaghan, Roger T. S. J. Vatican Excavations and Tomb of Peter ............................... XVI. 4. Pritchard,James B. The Water System at Gibeon ...................... XIX. 4. Reed, William R. XVI. 1. Archaeological News from Jordan ............................................ Saunders, ErnestW. Operation Microfilm at Mt. Athos ................. ..................XVIII. 2. Starcky, Jean The Nabataeans: A Historical Sketch ................................. XVIII.4. See P. Benoit ........................................ XIX. 4. Strugnell, John See P. Benoit ......... ........................... XIX. 4. Toombs, L. E. and Kee, H. C. The Second Season of Excavation at Biblical Shechem ............XX. 4. Tushingham, A. Douglas Excavations at Old Testament Jericho ................................... XVI. 3. Excavations at Old Testamen!tJericho ................................. XVII. 4. Wright, G. Ernest Israelite Daily Life ........................................ XVIII. 3. Judean Lachish ........................ ............... XVIII. 1. III. Shechem, The Archaeology of the City ......................... XX. 1. The Stevens' Reconstructionof the Solomonic Temple .... XVIII.2. Yadin, Yigael Excavations at Hazor ........................................ XIX. 1. Further Light on Biblical Hazor ....................................... XX. 2. Ill. General Index Abimelech, XX.1.15.
XX.1.11. Abraham, XVIII.1.4; Achan, XIX.1.17. Achor, vale of, XIX.1.17. XVI.1.4. Adoni-pelet, 'Ain el-Qudeirat (See Qadesh-barnea) 'Ain Feshkhah, XIX.1.20. 'Ain es-Sultan, XVI.3.46. Akitu Festival, XIX.3.53. Albright, W. F., XVI. 3.60, 67; XVII.4.80; XVIII.1.7; XIX.2.36; XVIII.3.54; XX. 3. 72. Allegro, J. M., XIX.4.79. Alt, XVII.2.29; XVII.3.66 n.36; XX. 1.10. Altar of Burnt Offering, XVIII.2.48f. XIX. 2.27. Amaziah, XVI. 1. 4. Ammi-nadab, XVI.1.11. Anania, Apocalypse of John at Sinai, XVI.2.32,38. Arabia Province of XVIII.4.10f3f. Araq el-Emnir, XX.3.63,67. Aretas IV, XVIII.4.95,97f. Armenian Patriarchal Library, XVI.2.40f. Art of St. Catherine's XVI.2.35f. Monastery, Art in Library of Greek Orthodox XVI.2.39f. Patriarchate XVIII.2.22ff. Athos, Mt. Libraries, Atomic Clock, XVII.2.47. Avigad, N., XX.2.51. Babylon, Fall of, XIX. 3.59. X-X.1.21. Balata, Baly, Denis, XX.3.79. Bar Kokhbah, XVI.1.20. XIX.4 79. D., XVII.l.12; Barthelemy, Bernini's Baldachin, .VT.4.74f. XVI. 1.10. Bethany, Pethel, XIX.2.39. Destruction by Israelites, XIX.2.39. Earliest Occupation, XIX. 2.36ff. Excavations, Exilic, XIX.2.41.
70- 87 66- 75 2- 17 23- 41 84-106 75- 96 75- 96 82-105 46- 66 98-104 50- 79 9- 17 19- 32 41- 44 2- 11 34- 48
XIX.2.39. Hyksos Influence, And Philistines, XIX.2.40 Bitumen for Mummies, XVIII.4.85. Boils as Bubonic Plague, XVI.4.91. Booths (See Tabernacles) Buqeiah, XIX. 1.12f. Iron Age II Culture of, XIX.1.15. And Joshua 15, XIX.1.16f. Calendar, XVIII.3.50f. Carbon 14, XVIII.2.45f. Casemate System, XVIII.3.57. on Chrysostom's Commentary Job, XVI.2.38. XVIII.3.57. Cisterns, City of Salt, XIX.1.16. Clark, K, XVI.1.16. XVI.2.22. Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Syriacus, XVI.2.32. Coiffure, XVIII.3.69f. Colophons, XVIII.2.34. Copper, Working of, XVIII.3.75. XVIII. 3.68f. Cosmetics, Covenant, of, XVII.3.70f. Abolishing Abrahamic Vs Mosaic, XVII.3.72. In the Ancient World, XVII.2.28. And the Ark, XVII.3.64f. And Benevolence, XVII.3.56,58. XVII.3.60. Curses and Blessings, XVII. 2.28. And the Decalogue, Its Disuse in 1st Millennium, XVII. 3.56f,61. XVII.3.75. And Eschatology, As Event, XVII.3.51. n.45. XVII.3.70 And Form-Criticism. Hittite, Elements of, XVII.3.58ff,65f. XVII.3.67. Joshua 24 and Hittites, XVII.3.71f. And Kingship, Mosaic Date of, XVII.3.63. Mosaic Origins, XVII. 2.28. and Hittite Sources,XVII.3.65. Murmurings Northern vs Southern, XX.1.17.
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
109
III. General Index (cont'd.) And Oath, XVII.3.52 n.6, 66. in Amarna Letters, Parallels XVII. 3.64 n.31. And Prophetic Dilemma, XVII.3.72f. In Sumerian Texts, XVII3.53. And Recital, XVII.3.58. As Suzerainty or as Parity, XVII.3.55. And Wellhausen, XVII.3.50f. Covenant Code, Concern for Justice, XVII. 2.39. Date of Codification, XVII.2.37f. And Death Penalty, XVII.2.39. And Decalogue, XVII.2.38f. And Hittite Sources, XVII.2.37. And Jesus, XVII.2.40,. Covenanters, And Calendar, XVII.4.87f. And Iranian Religion, XVII.4.82. Moses vs. David, XVII.4.97. Cross, Frank M., Jr., XIX.4.79. XrI. 4.86. Cullmann, Curses, XVII.2.30; XVII.3.60. Curses as Action, XVII.3.66. Awni Bey Dajani, XVI.1.7. XX.4.89. Deuteronomnic Reform, Theology of, XVII.3.74f. Dhiban., XVI.1.6. Dinah, Rape of, XX.1.12. Diringer, D., XVIII.1.12. XVIII.3.55. Domesticated Animals, XIX.2.44. Dothan, XVII.4.104; Dress, XVIII. 3.64. 64. Dying in Debir, XVIII.3.62, XYIII.4.85f.. 'Edom, Edom's End, XVIII.4.86. XVIII.1.17ff. Elephants, el-Husn, XVI.1.4. el-Jib, XVI.1.7. XVI.2.27f. Eneman, M., of Uppsala, En-ged, XIX.1.19. from 1200. XVI 2.25. Evangelion Execration Texts, XX.1.3. Ezakiel, XIX.1.18ff. Scholia of, XVIII.2.34f. Fathers, Filson F., XX.2.48. XVI2.34. Firmans, Fun aces, XVIII.3.73f. Gaius, "Trophy" of, XVI.4.79,86. Garber, P. L. XVIII.2.41. 15, XVI.3.47. Garstang, John, XVI.1.14, XX.4.101. Gates, XVIII.3.58f., Aramaic Version of, XIX.1.23. Genesis,, XVIII.4.86; XVIII.2.46f; Geshem, XVIII.1.17; XX. 3.63. Abdul Kharim, XVI.1.16. Gharreybeh, Gibeon, 68ff. Pool of, XIX.4.66, Water-tunnel of, XIX.4.71ff. Gilgamesh Epic, XVIII.2.44. Headache of, XVI. 4.90,. Gilgamesh, XVII.2.48; Glueck, Nelson, XVI.1.4; XVIII. 4.86; XIX.2.26. XVII.4.80. Gnosticism, XX. 3.77f. Gnostics, "Gospel of Truth," the, XX.3.76ff. L.. H., XX. 2.48. Grollenberg, XVI. 1.14. Gymnasiurr• ,XIX.3- 58. Hananiah, XIX.4.78. Harding, Tl., XVII.1.9; 'A., XVI.1.2. Harrison, XX.2.34ff. XIX.1.2ff; Hazor, XVIIL.4.106ff; XX. 2.41. Canaanite Sanctuary, 9f. Date of Exodus, XIX.1.5, fMykenean Pottery, XIX.1.9. Papyrus Anastasi I, XIX.1.2.
Proto-Sinaitic Alphabet, XIX.1.11. Tunnels!, XX.2.46f. Heaton, E. W., XX. 2.52. Infection of, XVI.4.92. Hezekiah, 13th Century, XVI.2.126 Horologion, E. G., XVIII.2.41 Howland, C. H., XIX. 4.79. Hunzinger, Hyksos, XX.1.31i. Idols, Absence of, XIX.2.40., Illumination XVI. 2.36,40; of Manuscripts, XVIII. 2. 33, 35. XX.3.77. Irenaeus, Ivory, XVIII. 1.17ff. Jabin, JUIX.1.3. Jericho, Amorite Sanctuary, XVII.4.102. City of Hiel, XVI.3.66. XVI.3.49. Date of Hebrew Destruction, Destruction of, XVI.3.48. XVI. 3.49. Earthquake, Evidence of Trench I, XVI.3.64f. Fall of, XVI.3.58. First Excavator, XVI.3.46. And Hyksos, XVI.3.48. Israelite XVI.3.60ff. Invasion, LB Reuse of MB Wall?, XVI.3.68. Late Bronze Problem, XVII.4.103. Supposed LB Walls, XVI.3.57, 63. Neolithic Art, XVI.3.53f. Neolithic Social Organization, XVII.4.101f. New Testament, XVI.1.14. Jeroboam,T XYI.1.13. Jerusalem, Capture of, XIX.3.54f. John, Gospel of, XVII.4.78f. And Baptism, XVII.4.92. And Calendar, XVII.4.87f. And Damascus, XVII.4.86. XVII.4.83. Dualism, Oral Tradition of, XVII.4.85. Protest Against Qumran, XVII.4.89ff. Keller. W., XX.2.51. Kenyon. K., XVT.2.43f; XVI.3.50. Kh. el-Nitla, XVI.1.16. Khirbet Mird, XVII 1.12; XIX.4.78; XX.3.56. Khirbet Qumran, XVI.1.8. Koehler, L.. XX.2.52. 58. Korosec, XVII.3.55, Kraeling, C., XVI.1.17. E. G.. XX.2.48. Kraelinr. Kuhn, XVII.4.82. Lachish, Alphabet, XVIII.1.,12. David Rebuilds, XVIII.•.10. Destruction 15. of, XVIII.1,9, Israelite Destruction of XVIII.1.9. XVIII.1.14. Pork-eating, Letters, XVIII.1.9. Lake Corpus, XVI.2.3,8. "Lamech Scroll," XIX.1.22ff. 12; XVII.2.32. Landsberger, B., XVII.2.30,n XVII. 2,36. Law, Canaanite, of XVII.2.32. Concept Code, And Freedom, XVII 2.30. And Kingship, XVII.2.40f. behind codes, XVII.2.33. Legal Traditions And the New Testament, XVII.2.45f. XVII.2.26f. Philosophy of, Reason for Codification, XVII.2.34. Church of, XVI.1.10. Lazarus, Library of Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, XVI. 2.36ff. Liturgy, XX.1.14; XX.1.18f. Mladeba, XYI.1.4. Mareshah, XVIII.1.16.
110
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST
(Vol. XX,
ill. General Index (cont'd.) Mar Saba, Library of, XVI.2.36. Martin, Victor, XX.3.54; XX.3.60. Martyrs, Cult of, XVI.4.80f. XX. 4.100. Masseboth, XX.1.26; Massoretic Tradition, Fixing of Text, XVII.1.19. Inception of, XVII.1.18. Medical Papyri, XVI.4.88f. Medo-Babylonian XIX.3.51. Alliance, Mesha Stone, XVII.1.22. Milik, J. T., XVII.1.16: XIX.4.79. Minusoule and Uncial, XVIII.2.36. Moses as Kingly Type. XVII.3.74. Murabba'at Caves, XVII.1.8ff. XVII. 1.11ff. Manuscripts, XVIII.2.30f. Mutsicology. XVI.2.34; Mycenaean Language Deciphered, XVII.2.47. Mycenae, Tombs of. XVII.2.47. Nabataeans, XVIII. 4.84ff; XIX. 2.26ff. And Alexander Jannaeus. XVIII.4.90f. And Cleopatra. XVIII.4.93. And Herod, XVIII.4.95, 97. And Paul the A-ostle, XVIII.4.98. And Pompey, 'XVIIT.4.92. Coins of, XVIII.4.96. Language of, XVIII. 4.87. Papyri of, XVIII.4.105f. Trajan's Annexation, XVIII.4.103. Nablus, XX.1.19; XX. 4. 93. XIX. . 51. Nabopolasser, Nebuchadnezzar. XIX. 3. 52. Nag Hammadi, XX.3.76. Negeb, XVII. 2.48. Connection with Transjordan. XVIIT.1.8. Gap in Occupation, XVIII.1.9.MB I Occupation, XVIII.1.6f. Noth, M.. XVr.2.44. Nuclear Studies, Institute of, XVII.2.47. Nuzu Tablets, XVII.2.36,n.32. Obadiah, XVIII. 4. 86,. O'Callaghan, XVII. 1.23. Oil. XVTIT. 3.51f. Omri, XVI.1.13; XX.4.93. Papyri, And Christians in Egypt, XX.3.62f. And Date of John, XX.3.62., Of Gospel of John, XX.3.56f. Papyrus Anasti I, XX.1.4kf. Papyrus Bodmer II. XX.3.54,58ff. Date of, XX.3.59,61. Papyrus Egerton II. XX.3.62. XX. 3.55. Parchment, Pedersen, XVII. 3. 52.nm6. XVIII. 3.54. Pentecost, Peter, Monument to, XVI.4.83f. Constantine's Date of Death, XVI.4.76. Grave of? XVII.1.23f. Name of, Inscribed, XVI.4.82. Portrait of, XVI. 482. Tradition Regarding Place of Burial, XVI,4.76f. 79f, 85. Petrie, XVI.1.4. Petra, XVII]. 4. 84ff; XIX. 2.26ff. on Stone, XIX.2.32f. Drawings Roman Theater, XVIII. 4.106. XVIII.3.52. Plow, of Towns, XVIII.3.59. Population of. XVIII.3.70. Pottery, Esthetics XVI.2.26. Printing Press, First in Palestine, Purple, XVIII3.62. XVIII.1.6. Qadesh-barnea, Qumran, Cave Four, XVII.1.8.
XVII. 1.17ff. Cave Four Manuscripts, Caves, XVrL1.9f. XVII.1.6; Copper Scrolls, XVI.1.9f; XIX. 3.6 Off XVII.1.16. Essene Script, Cryptic XVII.1.20. Date of Writings, XVIII.3.79f. Excavations, XVI.1.18; of, XIX.4.81ff. Description Fragments, Editing of, XIX. 4.'79ff. Fragments, Significance of, XVII.1.18. Fragments, Hisitory, XVII.1.5f. Occupational Qumran Scrolls, Purchase of, XVIII.2.45. for an ailing horse, Ras Shamra, Prescription XVr. 4.92. Rats in Jericho. XVI.4.91. River of Life, XIX.1.17ff. 'XVIII.3.60. Roof-Rollers, XVI.1.6: XVI.1.13. Samaria, XX.1.19; XX. 3.63. Sanballat, Scribes, XVIII.3.77. 3.79. Seals, XVIII. XIX.2.27. Sela, XVIIT.4.84; Sellers, O. R., XVI.1.16. XX.1.20. Sellin, E., XVI.3.47; Septuagint, History bf, XVII.1.12f. XVII.1.18. And 'Samuel-fragment, Shebna, Grave of, XVII.1.22f. Shechem, XX.1.27. Writing, Alphabetic In Amarna Age, XX.1.6ff. And 'Apiru, XX.1.7. XX.4.96. Center of North, XX.1.10.16; XX. 4. 82f. XX.1.28ff: Excavations, Drew-McCormick Joshua's Covenant, XX.1.11. to Bethel, XX.1.11. Pilgrimage XX.1.20ff. Sellin's Excavations, And Sons of Hamor, XX.1.8. Treaty with Israel, XX.1.10. XX.1.26ff. Welter's Excavations, XVII.1.22. Siloam Inscription, XVII.1.11. Simon bar Kokheba and Christians, Sisera, XIX.1.3. Skehan, P. W., XIX.4.79. Skulls., Modelling df, XVI. 3.53. XVIII.1.14. Trephining of, XVI.4.91; Solomon's Mines, XVIII.1.3. St. Catherine Library, History of, XVI.2.25f. XVI.2.22. St. Catherine's Monastery, XIX.4.79. Starcky, J., XVII.1.12: Strugnell, J., XIX.4.79. Sycamore, XVIII. 3.55. XIX.1. 3. Taanach, Festival Tabernacles. of, XVIII.3.52. XVII.4.993f,96. Teacher of Righteousness, XVI.1.llf. Tell-el-Far'ah, Tell es-Sultan (See Jericho) XVIII, 2.41ff. Temple, Solomonic, XVI.1.17 of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament Tirzah, XVI.1.12. XVI.2.27. C., XVI.2.22; Tischendorf, 74ff. Tobiads, XX.3.63, XX.3..72. Tobiah, XX.3.64; Transjordan, Gap in Occupation, XVIII.1.9. XVIII.1.7. MBI Occupation, (See Jericho, New Tulul Abu el-'Alayiq Testament) Um el-Kundum. XV[.1.4. XIX.2.26ff. Umm el-Biyara, Ur-Nammu Code, XVII. 2.33. Vatopedi Gospels, XVIII.2.32. XIX.4.78. XVII.1.4,9; de Vaux, R., XVI.1.16;
1957,4)
THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
111
III. General Index (cont'd.) Vincent, XVI.3.60. Wadi Murabba'at Caves, XVI.1.8. XVI.1.18f. Excavations, XX.1.20. C., Watzinger, XVI.3.47; XVII. 2.28. Wellhausen, Welter, XX.1.26.
Westcott and Hort's Div. of MSS, XX.3.61f. Wright, G. E., XVI.3.67; XX.2.48; XX.3.79f; XX.4. 82. Yadin, Y., XX.2.51. Zenon Papyri, XX.3.70, 73. Zimri, XVI.1.13.
IV. Index to Illustrations CHURCHES Church of St. Lazarus at Bethany XVI.1.15 The Apse of Basilica Constantine, Yatican ........................ XVI.4.81 COINS Nabatean Coins, Petra ........ XVIII. 4.96. The earliest coin found in Palestine, Shechem . ....................... XX.1. 29. DEAD SEA SCROLLS from A Phylactery Murabba'at .... XVII.1.7 XVII. I.9 of Exodus .......... A Fragment A letter of Simon bar Kokheba .. XVII.1.11 A Newly-discovered recension of the XVII.1.13. .................... Septuagint Assembled from Manuscript Fragments XVII.1.19 of Samuel ..................... VIEW OF SITES and TELLS GENERAL XVI.1.7 Dhiban Excavations, 1952......... Khirbet Qumran during excavations X V I.1.9 1951 ............................ XVI.1.11 Caves at Wadi Murabba'at View from Khirbet Qumran ...... XVI.1.12 looking north ................... XVI.1.13. Qumran Caves ................. XVI.3.45 Tell es Sultan from the north .... Iron Age Building Trench 1. X VI.3.65 Jericho Wadi Qumran Cave Four, ......................... XVII.1.5 ................ after excavation Sc-u.bal School in the XVII.2.45 of Mari ................ Palace The ascent from Cave IV XVII.4.77 .................... at Qumran XVII.4.81 .............. Cave V, Qumran Steps leading down to a cistern XVII.4.85 .................... at Qumran XVII.4.91 ........ at Qumran Scriptorium View of Site H, from the northeast, XVII. 4.103 Jericho ....................... Wadi Murra, Negeb ............ XVIII.1.1 XVII. 1.3 Wadi 'Areijeh in the Negeb ...... XVIII.1.7 Ancient terraces, Negeb ........ ihe mound of Lachish from the XVIII.1.11 .................... -'thwest XIX.1.7 "ing, Hazor .................. XIX.1.9 'w, Hazor ................. Hazor ...... XIX.1.11 Enclosure, " baq looking south .. XIX.1.14 .XIX.2.25 -rountain fortress Orchard XIX.2.37 ....... XIX.2.45 XIX.3.49 - .4.667 77
Over Rtuins of Qasr Loolkin Northeastward el 'Abd toward 'Araq .............. XX.3.75 ILLUSTRATED MANUSCRIPTS Illustrated Greek New Testament .. XVI.2.21 Gospel Manuscript ............ XVIII.2.33 The Charter of Dionysius . XVIII. 2.37 INSCRIPTIONS and WRITINGS.... A Safaitic Inscription XVI.1.5 .............. The Oldest Greek Text in the Sinai Library .................. XVI.2.27 Bilingual Lectionary in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchal library XVI.2.29 ................ A Replica of the Code of Hammurabi XVII. ................... 2.29 The Top of the Code of Hammurabi ................... XVII.2.31 A Table from Nuzi ............... XVII.2.41 A Sealed Papyrus Roll .......... XVII.2.43 The Sudjin Stele XVII.3.55 .............. The Sudjin Stele ................ XVII.3.57 The Seal of Ahimelech, Lachish..XVIII.1.16 Chrysostom Commentary XVIII.2.29 ...... The Oldest New Testament Text at Mt. Athos .................... XVIII,2.31 The Gezer Calendar ............. XVIII.3.51 Impression of a Cylinder Seal, Bethel ................. ....... XIX. 2.39 of Makhbiram Inscription ........ XX.2.36 of Jeroboam Inscription .......... XX.2.37 Tobiah Inscription by Doorway and Window XX. 3.69 .................... Weathered Inscription, Tobiah .... XX.3.71 MAPS and SKETHES Plan of the Western End of the Pagan Vatican Cemetery, .............. XVI. 4.73 Cross Section of Niches, Vatican..XVI.4.78 Reconstruction of the Memorial to Peter, Vatican ............. XVI.4.79 Cappella Clementina of the Confessio, Vatican ........................ XVI. 4.81 Open Area P, Pagan Cemetery, Vatican ........................ XVI.4.84 Cross Section of Open Area P, Vatican ........................ XVI. 4.85 Reconstruction of the Judean City of Lachish XVIII.1.13 ........................ Lands and Caravan Routes of the Nabataeans XVIII. 4.82 ................... of Obodas II, Petra .. XVIII.4.99 Sanctuary Plan of Hazor .................. XIX.1.5. Outline Plan of Tell Balata XX.1.13 ...... Cross Section of Construction, Shechem ............. ........... XX.1.17 'Araq el-Emir and Ammanitis .... XX.3.65 Plan of 'Araq el-Emir ............ XX.3.66 PAPYRUS Bodmer II Papyrus .............. XX.3.53 Bodmer II Papyrus ................ XX.3.57 Rylands Greek Papyrus 457 ...... XX. 3.61 PERSONAL OBJECTS Carved Wooden' Comb, Jericho .... XVI.3.61 Bone Handle, Hazor ............. XIX.1.8 Ivory Cosmetic Palette, Makhbiram ..................... XX.2.39 POTTERY Pile of Small Juglets, Jericho .... XVI.3.53
112
THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST IV. Index to Illustrations(cont'd.)
Period, Pottery of Transitional Jericho XVI.3.55 ......................... Jar Beth-Shemesh from Storage in Judah ...................... XVIII.3.53 Water Decanters, Judah ........ XVIII.3.57 Ring-burnished Bowls, Khirbet XIX.1.17 el-Maqari ...................... PUBLIC BUILDINGS and WORKS to Byzantine Nabataean Cistern in XVII.1.5 the Negeb ...................... XVIII.1.15 Lachish ............ Stairway, .......... XVIII.4.105 Reservoir of Bostra Tunnel Cistern at Khirbet XIX.1.15 Abu Tabaq ..................... XIX.4.65 The Pool of Gibeon .............. Stepped Pool of Roman Period, XIX.4.69 Gibeon ......................... XIX.4.73 Tunnel, el-Jib ................... Central Section of Tunnel, el-Jib .. XIX.4.74 XX.3.64 .............. Wadi Sir Aquaduct SCULPTURE Figurine Used in Cursing Rebellious XVII.3.53 .............. of Egypt Vassals XVII.3.65 The Ramesseum ................ and TEMPLE ART TEMPLES The Worked Stone or Massebah. XVI.3.49 ......................... Jericho Neolithic View of the Pre-Pottery 4.101 XVII. Jericho ........... "Sanctuary," of Stevens' Reconstruction XVIII.2.42 ............. Solomon's Temple XVIII.2.43 ...... Altar of Burnt Offerings . .. XVIII.3.62 Statue of Baal, Ras Shamra ...... XVIII.3.69 Mother-Goddess Canaanite XVIIT. 4.93 The Principle Temple. Petra .... 'The Great Place of Sacrifice, XVIII.4.81 ........................ Petra XVIII. 4.96 Altar from Umm el-Jimal ...... XIX.1.1 Basalt Orthostat, Hazor .......... Statue and Standing Stones, XIX. 1.12 Hazor ......................... XX.1.7 Shechem Temple .................. XX. 2.42 Marble Incense Ladle, Hazor ..... Culic Standard of Bronze, XX.2.43 Hazor .......................... XX. 2.46 Canaanite Altar, Hazor .......... XX. 2.47 .... Basalt Table, Hazor Offering XX.2.49 Throne and Seated Male .......... TOMBS AND BURIALS Moabite Tomb and Coffin at XVI. 1.9 .......................... Dhiban General View of the Middle Bronze XVI.3.60 Age Tomb H,18, Jericho ......... Reconstruction of XVI.4.69 Memorial Erected to Peter ........ Human Bones found in XVI.4.71 ...... Underground Niche, Vatican XVI.4.74 Mosaic Pavement, ........ Vatican .. XVI.4.75 Pre-Constantinian Wall, Vatican XVI. 4.77 ........ Marble Column, Vatican Low Relief from the Tomb of XVI.4.89 Horembeb ...................... Neolithic Skeleton, Pre-Pottery XVII.4.99 Jericho ........................ Tombs of Eastern Cliffside, XVIII.4.88 Petra ......................... Nabataean Tomb Near XVIII.4.10' ............... Umm el-Jimal XIX.2.4 Jar Burial at Dothan ............ AAD GATES ,VL.b Trench I from the West, Jericho .. XVI. 3.
Glacis. Stone-faced Outermost Jericho ......................... XVI.3.57 Wall System. Jericho ............ XVI.3.63 Part of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Wall, XVII.4.100 Jericho ....................... Portion of a Wall at XIX.4.95 .................. Ain Feshkhah Stone Slabs in East Gate XX. 1.27 Shechem ........................ XX. 2.40 Corner of Citadel, Hazor .......... XX.3.73 Corner .... Northeast Qasr el-'Abd, MISCELLANEOUS XVI.1.1 .............. Museum in Amman in Mubarak Saad and Assistants Museum . . XVI.1.3 Archaeological Palestine XVI. 2.23 ........ St. Catherine Monastery from the St. Catherine Monastery XVI.2.25 North ...... .................. With the The Clarks XVI. 2.31 Monks .................. Sinaite Library in Greek Patriarchal . XVI. 2. 33 ........... .......... Jerusalem Clark in the Professor XVI. 2.35 .... Library Armenian Patriarchal Wallace Wade, Chief X. VI.2.37 ................... Photographer Library in Patriarchal Armenian XVI. 2.39 ...................... Jerusalem Neolithic Skull, Pre-Pottery X VI.3.51 ......................... Jericho Jars Containing Grain, Jericho .. .. XVI.3.59 XVI.4.91 .......... in Egypt .Syrian Settlers Inscribed Copper Rolls' Eaund in Cave III, Dead Sea ............ XVII.i From Excavated Fragments Cave IV, Qumran XVII..1 ................. Pere R. de Vaux and XVIT 1.' 7 Mr. Yusif Sa'ad ................ School of Oriental Research, American XVII. 2.25 Jerusalem ..................... XVII.2. 35 ...... Vulture Stele of Eannatum of Painting From the Synagogue XVII.3.49 Dura ......................... of the Gods, Procession XVII.3.61 ..................... Yazilikaya Syrians Bearing Tribute to the XVII. 3.69 King ................. Egyptian from Box of Fragments .............. XVII. 4.95 Cave IV, Qumran Flocks, Bedouins Watering X VIII ......................... Negeb XVIII Monastery of Simonopetra ...... XVP of Dionysiou Monastery ........ .XX Library of Dionysiou .......... Silver Gilt Cover of Gospels ... Syria A Plow in Northern Megiddo Ivories....... Relief of Sennacherib Megiddo Ivories A Kiln, Te"' Mortar, u Conil-
