No title

ISSN 0003-097X

BIBLICAL ARCHE OF

MARCH 1976

Volume 39 Number I

Aw

It

40?B~ 5;!w

lb

141 Am

"And Manasseh placed an image of Asherah in the 2 Kings 21 temple of the Lord."

Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 1 ~J ~i~i

~

:?:~~..,.t it

..1 The reprint of a unique and widely used S; L. #4 anthology in which .~=&~H separate studies of the ;,r U'lst temple in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and SyriaPalestine as well as the ancient Israelite tabernacle, the synagogue, and the church (Paper) $4.20 form the setpiece. Contributors include 3.00 (for cSPs members) Nelson Glueck, John Bright, W. F. Albright, ASOR is a member of the F. M. Cross, A. Leo Oppenheim, Floyd Center for Scholarly Filson, and others. Edited by G. Ernest Publishing and Services. Wright and David Noel Freedman.

N N,

-.ovii

352 pages

Orderfrom:

SCHOLARS PRESS POBox5207 Montana 59806 AMissoula,

Biblical Archeologist is published quarterly (March, May, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research in cooperation with Scholars Press. Its purpose is to provide the general reader, whether Christian or Jew, believer or non-believer, with an interpretation of the meaning of new archeological discoveries for the biblical heritage of the West. Unsolicited mss. are welcome but should be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Address all editorial to Biblical correspondence Archeologist, 1053 LSA Building, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Address business correspondence to Scholars Press, PO Box 5207, Missoula, MT 59806. Copyright @ 1976 American Schools of Oriental Research. Annual Subscription: $10.00. Current single issues: $2.50. Printed in the United States of America, Printing Department, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. Editor: David Noel Michigan

Freedman,

University

of

Managing editor pro tem: John A. Miles, Jr., Doubleday and Company Editorial board: Frank M. Cross, Harvard University Edward F. Campbell, McCormick Theological Seminary William G. Dever, University of Arizona John S. Holladay, Jr., University of Toronto H. Darrell Lance, Colgate-Rochester Divinity School

.U

?4' Production Manager: James Eisenbraun, University of Michigan

.."

Cover Punic stele with the sign of the goddess Tannit. Tannit's symbol holds a so-called caduceus in her "hand." Below the sign of Tannit is a representation of a dolphin or a fish.

CREDITS "Letters to the Readers":photo of Edward F. Campbell, c/o Edward F. Campbell; photo of H. Darrell Lance, c / o H. Darrell Lance; photo of Floyd Filson, c/o McCormick School of Theology; photo of Lee C. Ellenberger, c/o Lee C. Ellenberger."Excavating Ai": figs. 1,4, 5, 7, 10, Joseph A. Callaway; figs. 3, 6, 8, 9, Richard Cleave. "The Search for Maccabean Gezer":figs. 1,3, R. A. Lyons, Jr.; fig. 2, Susan Moddel. "The Persistence of Canaanite Religion": fig. 1, J. B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures (1969), no. 826, by permission of the publisher; fig. 3 c/o Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences; fig. 4, Anna Maria Bisi, Le Stele Puniche, pl. 36, by permission of the publisher; fig. 5, c/o Journal of Near Eastern Studies and Winchester College; "The Prophet Balaam in a 6th-Century Aramaic Inscription," photo c/o Overdr. Z. W. O-Jaarboek 1973. "Field and Lab: Aerial Photography," photo by Richard W. Cleave. "The Name of God in the Wilderness of Zin":fig. 1, Avraham Hay; fig. 2, Yehuda Dagan; figs. 3 and 4, David Davis. "Archaeology," copyright ? 1974 by The Estate of W. H. Auden, reprinted by permission.

OFic

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST 6 THE NAME OF GOD IN THE WILDERNESS OF ZIN

Ze'ev Meshel and Carol Meyers

2700-year-oldpomegranatesand an inscription:"Givenby Ovadiah,son of Adanah,may he be blessedby YHW."

Jacob Hoftijzer

11 THE PROPHET BALAAM IN A 6TH-CENTURY ARAMAIC INSCRIPTION "O my enemies,consider,consider "Consider, consider, O my . . ."

Joseph A. Callaway

18 EXCAVATING AI (ET-TELL): 1964-1972 New evidencesuggeststhat the Son of Nun'smajorchallenge may have been a housingshortage.

Robert A. Oden

31 THE PERSISTENCE OF CANAANITE RELIGION Atargatis,the goddessof GrecoSyrianHierapolis,is Aramaic cAtarcata, who is a fusion of the UgariticcAshtart and cAnat. Nothing changesbut the names.

A LETTER TO THE READERS

2

FIELD AND LAB: Aerial Photography

37

NEWS FROM THE FIELD

4

Colophon

40

A LETTER TO THE READERS

Publisher Martin Gross calls them "the new literates." Others refer to them as "the invisible university." Dropping College Board scores notwithstanding, the boom in college enrollment during the 1960's has left the United States with a population whose curiosity is not exhausted by television and the funnies. For them, weekends and holidays are a time for National Geographicand Smithsonian, Saturday Review and Harper's, even Daedalus and Scientific American. And since many of them, in what Eric Hoffer has called the highest mass culture in history, look back to college years that included the fascination of archeology, Bible history, the Hebrew and Greek languages, theology, anthropology, and ancient iconography, there is reason to think that Biblical Archeologist may soon be added to their list. Floyd Filson.

The new Biblical Archeologist will provide the general reader, whether Christian or Jew, with what the old Biblical Archeologist set out to provide; namely, an interpretation of the meaning of new archeological discoveries for the biblical heritage which Jews and Christians share. When Biblical Archeologist was founded in 1938, it was thought that scholars with more highly technical and exhaustively documented reports would turn to other publications, particularly to the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, the same group that sponsors Biblical Archeologist. But as it happened, the extraordinary pace of archeological discovery during the past generation - the generation of the Dead Sea Scrolls - led to a kind of scholarly inflation at Biblical Archeologist. Topics grew more specialized, documentation more exhaustive, reader prerequisites

Ted Campbell.

Lee C. Ellenberger.

more daunting. Biblical Archeologist began to lose its identity and to become a second Bulletin. The changes apparent in the current issue, then, are not so much a revolution as they are a reform. A time of stock-taking and change is a time, also, for recollection and gratitude. Biblical Archeologist is deeply indebted to Floyd Filson, formerly of McCormick Theological Seminary, for the breadth and judgment of his years as New Testament consultant; to Robert Johnston of the Rochester Institute of Technology for his work as art editor; and to Lee Ellenberger, who will remain as photo archivist, for labors of love which should long since have received their meed of praise. Most of all, Biblical Archeologist is indebted to its outgoing coeditors, Edward F. Campbell of McCormick Theological Seminary and H. Darrell Lance of Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, for maintaining at no small cost the highest standards of archeological accuracy and objectivity. Drs. Lance and Campbell will nowjoin Frank M. Cross of Harvard University, William G. Dever of the University of Arizona, and John S. Holladay, Jr., of the University of Toronto as members of the editorial board. Impetus for the change of format has come from ASOR's president, Frank M. Cross, and from its vicepresident in charge of publications, David Noel Freedman, who will now assume the general editorship. John A. Miles, Jr., who completed his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1971 and is now associate editor for religion at Doubleday, Inc., will help out as managing editor pro tem. Jim Eisenbraun and Ron Guengerich, graduate assistants at the University of Michigan, will assist in copy-editing and composition. While Biblical Archeologist will continue to report on archeological discoveries as such, its new format also calls for the introduction of "backgrounders."Thus, in the September issue, which will be devoted to extraordinary new finds at Tell Mardikh in Syria, there will be a profile of Sargon the Great and a primer in the Sumerian language; for without some knowledge of Sargon and of Sumerian, the non-professional can scarcely appreciate the importance of the new finds. Such knowledge, however, is not itself as new as the finds: it can be "written up" from reference works. Biblical Archeologist is interested, then, in locating writers (whether scholars, graduate students, or others) willing to write on assignment and able to write in a fresh and accurate style for the non-professional. Biblical Archeologist's core audience, needless to say, will continue to be the scholars of the American Schools of Oriental Research and their colleagues around the world. But it will need the assistance of its core audience to reach its largeraudience. Those interested in writing for Biblical Archeologist on assignment are invited to contact the managing editor at their earliest convenience. Prospective book reviewers are also welcome. The thing is begun:

IP

,

,

I

,L

i•

? .

"

"• 4.

t.. ? w•,4-o"

2 ..

.

- '"v

?

. .

•

.:.

. ...

H. DarrellLance (right)with Werner Lemkeat Gezer.

pmti' ppnenr ptnnrm

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

3

NEWS FROM THE FIELD

15,000 Tablets in "Paleo-Canaanite." Excavations at Tell-Mardikh (ancient Ebla) in Syria have unearthed "one of the most important archeological discoveries of all time," an archive of tablets written in cuneiform but representing a language closer to biblical Hebrew than any yet discovered. Under the direction of Drs. Paolo Matthiae and Giovanni Pettinato, both of the University of Rome, excavations at Ebla have been in progress for ten years. Only during the 1975 season, however, did the excavators penetrate to the levels of occupation from the third millennium B.C., when it appears that Ebla was the seat of a vast empire including most of Palestine. It was at this level, contemporary with the era of Sargon the Greatand the first dynasty at Akkad (ca. 2350-2260 B.C.), that the tablets were found.

In February, 1976, Dr. David Noel Freedman, editor-designate of Biblical Archeologist, flew to Rome for conversations with Matthiae and Pettinato. A special report on the significance of the find, prepared from Freedman's report and from other materials forwarded from Rome, will appear in the September Biblical Archeologist. Briefly, the new finds may be said to have completed the "discovery"of Syria which began with the excavation of Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in the 1930's. Although even the most casual reader of the Bible knows that "the Canaanites"were the nation whose culture and religion were Israel's most constant temptation, Near Easternarcheology had its earliest successes in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Biblical scholarship tended as a result to discuss the religion of Israel against an Egyptian or, more often, a Mesopotamian background. But with the discovery of Ugarit and the decipherment of its language, Canaan came to life. Scholars could now see the face of the rival with whom Israel had had such a protracted struggle. Ebla, it now appears, is another city of Canaanite culture;but where Ugarit was a relatively small coastal town, Ebla - in western Syria, the heartland of ancient Canaan -was an imperial capital. If Ugarit taught us much, there is every reason to believe that Ebla will teach us more - an exciting tale and one only now ready to be told. A "Nabatean" Experiment. Science Digest (March, 1976) reports an agricultural experiment near Nabatean Avedat in the Negev. Prof.

4

Michael Evenari of the Hebrew University selected Avedat for the experiment because presses found there indicated that the Nabateans had grown grapes and olives without irrigation. In the experiment, rainwater (only three inches annually) is trapped in channels that lead to a system of pipes. The pipes carry the water into the fields. Results in peach and almond cultivation are promising enough that a kibbutz near Avedat will try the "Nabatean" experiment soon. Qatar Museum Proposed. The Middle East of London reports that the Emir and Government of Qatar are creating an archeological and anthropological museum. Of particular importance are 2,000-year-old rock carvings outside Doha, the capital of Qatar. It is hoped that the carvings, which have recently suffered at the hands of vandals, will now be transported to the museum for safe keeping. The Archeology of Agriculture. Under the sponsorship of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, excavations will begin this summer at the double site of Tell Halif-Hurvat Rimon, identified variously as biblical En-Rimmon, Ziklag, or Goshen. According to M. E. Shutler in "Lahav Newsletter," the project is designed to see the ancient city - Tell Halif - as a locus in an

environmentand social network which was subject to change.In the excavationof thetell itselfthisbroaderview will be maintained through careful study of "nonartifactual remains:"pollen, macro-floral and faunal remains,lithic eebitage,sedimentation,etc. In addition, extra-tellstudiesof geology,waterresources,modernflora and fauna will be pursued,includingan archaeological surveyof theareaandstudyof the presentculturalgroups, settledand nomadic,and theiradaptationsto the area. These data will help to determinehow people of differentwaysof life haveadaptedor failedto adaptto an arid and changing environment. . . . The Project will

generatehypothesesand theoriesabout man'suse of arid land and about the developmentof urbanismvital to planners of social development and to other social scientists. The Temple Mount and the Messiah. Any report on the worsening "Temple Mount controversy" in Jerusalem will be outdated by the time this issue of Biblical Archeologist goes to press. The following excerpt from the Jerusalem Post may serve, however, as a brief statement of the religious background of the controversy: The TempleMountlies, symbolicallyat least,at the very heartof the Israeli-Arabcontroversy.The destructionof the SecondTemple1,900yearsago has not diminishedits position as the most holy site of the Jews. Since the constructionon the Mountof the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aksa Mosque,in the seventhcentury,it has been the thirdmost holy site in Islam.

MARCH1976

What has preventedthe two rival claims for the Mountfromcomingto a headfollowingthe Israelivictory in the Six Day Warhasbeenpoliticalcautionon thepartof the Israelianthoritiesand JewishHalacha(religiouslaw), whichforbidsJewsfromsettingfoot on theTempleMount until the Messiah'sreturnheraldsthe rebuildingof the Temple. ... Some Orthodox Jews, however, have maintainedthat HalachaforbidsJewsonlyfromstandingwhere theTemplehadstoodandthattherearepartsof theTemple Mountwhich cannot have been part of the Templesite. Amongthose who have maintainedthis in the past is the presentAshkenaziChief Rabbi Shlomo Goren. Nationalist groups which have been attempting pray-inson the Mount periodicallysince 1967 are less inhibitedby religiousconsiderations. In Memoriam Yohanan Aharoni. Biblical archeology lost a major figure last Februarywith the untimely death of Yohanan Aharoni. Biblical Archeologist was in close contact with the Israeli expert until only weeks before his death regardinghis beautifully illustrated historical survey of the Negev, our May cover story. The condolences of all students of the Bible and of biblical archeology are extended to his widow, Miriam. May his memory become a blessing. How to Sing the Bible. Suzanne Hayek Ventura claims to have Musicologist the chant notations deciphered (ta'amei mikra) printed in the Hebrew Bible. A French firm is planning to issue a record on which parts of the Psalms and the Song of Songs will be chanted according to her method. Alas, according to Israel Adler of the Hebrew University's musicology department (Jerusalem Post, February 3, 1976), the Ventura method is quite without historical or scientific basis. The melodies are lovely, he says, but they are "an achievement of the imagination." Bulldozer Archeology. "Looks like it was done with a bulldozer" is the sort of not-for-publication comment sometimes made by archeologist A about the sloppy stratigraphyof archeologist B. Last February the comment could have been made with literal accuracy as a bulldozer accidentally broke open a necropolis near Shechem. The contents of the opened graves were removed for safe-keepirig. No further news has reached Biblical Archeologist. Ruins on the Road. A Palestinian archeological exhibit will tour the United States in late 1976. Funded by the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, a group that has supported projects in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan as well as in Israel, and arranged in cooperation with the Hebrew University and the Israel Exploration Society, the exhibit will open in Los Angeles and move to Chicago, Washington, New York, several European cities, and finally Japan. BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

Fish Story. of Velikovskian "catastrophism" is The recent vogue or waning, depending on which omens are read waxing more seriously. Pacific Meridian Publishing Company has just published The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch and The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Post- Flood Catastrophes, both by Velikovskian Donald W. Patten. On the other hand, the Velikovskian journal Pensce has just announced suspension of publication. Speculation of the Chariots of the Gods variety is to likely bubble a bit faster thanks to The Sirius Miystery, a new study of the religious beliefs of the Dogon, a tribe near Timbuktu in Mali. According to a Reuters report, astronomer-orientalist Robert Semple, who spent eight years studying the Dogon, discovered that the object of Dogon worship is a tiny star orbiting around Sirius. This star exists but is invisible without the most powerful telescopes. It is, Semple maintains, Sirius B, a "white dwarf";i.e., a star in the early stages of collapse, so dense that a matchbox of it would weigh about 50 tons. Dogon priests claim that a single cupful of the material of their star "is heavier than all the grains of sand on earth" and provide details of its orbit that check out to the last detail against the orbit of Sirius B. The hypothesis of The Sirius Mystery',described by Reuters as "a scholarly book," is that the Dogon learned of Sirius B from extraterrestrial visitors of fishlike appearance (an inference from Dogon art). The visit occurred, however, not in Mali but somewhere in the ancient near east, perhaps in Babylonia, before migrations brought the ancestors of the Dogon to their present home. What drew the fishy visitors to earth? Strangely like Semple himself, they were interested in primitive civilizations. New Qumran Film. and the Dead Sea Scrolls" is a twenty-two"Qumran minute color documentary film featuring Dr. Charles T. Fritsch, Professor of Hebrew Languages and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, and Dr. Yigael Yadin of the Hebrew Universityin Jerusalem. There are pictures of Cave I and Cave 4, now almost inaccessible, detailed views of the ruins of Qumran, and views of the Isaiah scroll in the Shrine of the Book. One of the major features in the film is an interview with Yadin in the study of his home. He describes his work on the Temple Scroll and reveals some of his views about the influence of the Essenes on the early Christians. The documentary was produced by Charles Brackbill and filmed by Capitol Films, Jerusalem. Those interested in purchasing or renting a print should contact Mr. Brackbillat Box 2019, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.

Reader contributions to "News from the Field" are welcome.

5

THE IN

THE

NAME

OF

GOD

WILDERNESS OF

ZIN

ZE'EVMESHELAND CAROLMEYERS

When the Israelites encamped at Kadesh Barnea (Numbers 20), were they within the borders of the future Kingdom of Judah or still in No Man's Land, between Judah and Egypt? Fifty kilometers south of Kadesh Barnea, a majorfind of 8thcentury Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions argues the former but leaves a mystery behind. On a solitary hill rising in the wide valley of the Wadi Quraiyah in northern Sinai can be seen the tumbled stone walls of an ancient ruin (fig. 1). The Sinai is full of ruins - way-stations and settlements of all periods from prehistoric times to the present. What makes this site special is, first, that it has yielded a collection of inscriptional materials;second, that these inscriptions are not ostraca, or sherds inscribed with administrative details, the usual run of epigraphic remains, but literary and religious texts, some of considerable length, written on a variety of materials - on wall plaster, on pottery jars, and on stone vessels; and third, that these texts date from the time of the Judean monarchy itself. Such a collection is without parallel in Palestinian archeology, and the tremendous significance of these finds for religious, historical, and geopolitical studies is only beginning to be ascertained. While it may be years before scholars can understand why and how this group of inscriptions came This report on the sensational finds at CAjrud is communicated by Carol Meyers of the A lbright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. All of the information and materials in this article have been kindly provided by Dr. Ze'ev Meshel of TelAviv Universityand are theproduct of his researchof the excavations he has directed. The results of his work werefirst made public at a special meeting of the Israel Exploration Society held at the home of the President of Israel on November 30, 1975.

6

into existence at a seemingly remote desert post, an investigation of the natural conditions in the area indicates rather clearly why this particular place was chosen for inhabitation in the first place. Known as Kuntilet cAjrud (or Kuntilet Quraiyah) on most maps, the site is some 50 km. south of the large oasis of Kadesh Barnea. The crucial factor about its location is that it is situated not far from the main northsouth route from Gaza and Kadesh Barneain the north to Eilat and Ezion-geber in the south. This ancient highway from the Mediterraneanto the Gulf of Aqaba is known as the Darb el-Ghazzeh, or Way to Gaza. Not only is cAjrud located at a fairly central point near this roadway, but also it is situated at a crossroads of sorts. Camel tracks can be found going off in all directions, including towards the mountains of southern Sinai. Evidently, the existence of water in a series of wells below the hill on which the ruins are found contributed to the establishment of this place as a station for desert travelers and traders. The modern history of cAjrud began just over 100 years ago when Edward Henry Palmer of the British Ordnance Survey Expedition to the Peninsula of Sinai was led to this site by his Bedouin guides. Palmer, after the main work of his mission was completed in 1868-69, returned to Sinai with a few of his companions to search for signs of the Exodus and the Route of the Children of Israel through the desert. When Palmer's guides led him to cAjrud, he immediately recognized the importance of its location in relation to the desert highway. He also MARCH

1976

?00. sC "? •. ?

. .? --

4b?..

_

?

. ""

.?

.

?.,

??

.~...oil:• . .. ,;

? •...,.'.' .-:. ? .,;!, .. , ? .•

?.Y•.. .

. .

. i,•.•

-

-Ott

.

T_.4 JA

?

; ,

'Irv.,

,

•.

.

...W.

rrt ,j

.,

~..• ..

•

.

.oo

,

'

OF

APO,,

If.

.

0

.

.

o"AL

Fig. 1. Generalview of the ruinsof Kuntilet'Ajrud,lookingwest, after two seasonsof excavation.On the northandwestcan be seenstorerooms;an opencourtyardis in thecenter.At thebottomof thepicture,on the east,appearsthe entrywaywith flagstone approachand plasteredbenches.The entryis into a long room with plasteredwalls and benches.

picked up numerous sherds, including a fragment of pottery with the letter 'alep inscribed on it in ancient Paleo-Hebrew script. Palmer identified this site with a place called Gypsaria, a station on the Roman road to Aila (Eilat). However, the knowledge of pottery in his day was not sufficient for him to establish that this could not have been a Roman site, since there was no Roman pottery. Furthermore, the existence of the Paleo-Hebrew writing did not interfere with his desire to find the stations listed

Meshel was attempting to grasp the concept of borders in antiquity, of what marked the end of Judean territory and the beginning of the no man's land that separated Judea from the Shur Mitzraim, or Egyptian boundary, further to the west. on the Roman map. Consequently, some maps even to this day carry his mistaken identification of the site, Gypsaria. The next chapter in the modern history of cAjrud BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

comes in 1967, with the Sinai researchesand explorations of Benno Rothenberg. Although Rothenberg spent only a short time examining this site, he was able to recognize that the pottery was exclusively from the Iron II period, from the time of the divided monarchy. The Ecology of the Past. The true importance of the site has now been revealed, some hundred years after Palmer discovered it, because of the interests and efforts of a young archeologist from Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev Meshel. In dealing with a study of the Negev in the time of the Judean kings, Meshel became aware of the significance of environmental factors which determined the fate of the southern territoriesof the Judean kingdom. Natural conditions such as water, climate, and terrain affected the pattern of settlement and rule. Meshel does not separate the study of political history from the environmental history; for him, the "ecology of the past" is integral to an understanding of events which transpired in the past. In order to pursue his interests in Negev conditions, Meshel carred out many surveys, including one in 1969-70 on the Darb el-Ghazzeh as it skirts the western edges of the Negev mountains. He was attempting to grasp the concept of borders in antiquity, of

7

The variety and content of the inscriptions was totally unexpected. As the magnitude of their discoveries became apparent, the workers nearly had to be dragged away from their trenches when it was time for food or rest.

what marked the end of Judean territory and the beginning of the no man's land that separated Judea from the Shur Mitzraim, or Egyptian boundary, further to the west. When Meshel came to Kuntilet CAjrud,he knew immediately that this place was different from any of the desert outposts or highway stations that he had already explored. Whereas pottery tends to be scarce at many desert sites, in a few minutes at cAjrud he collected more than he could carry. Furthermore, Meshel recognized that this abundant pottery is not the typical, rather primitive-looking handmade pottery that is found in the Negev. As a matter of fact, Meshel did not pick up a single piece of Negev pottery! On the contrary, the sherds looked exactly like those known from Judean sites of the

8th century B.c. Finally, in the course of his brief exploration of the site, Meshel picked up three pieces of pottery which had been inscribed before firing with the letter 'alep. These sherds were nearly identical to the one found by Palmer a century earlier. The unique character of the place was thus firmly established by Meshel's survey. It was surely not a Roman station, and it was certainly not an average border or highway outpost. Many such sites had been surveyed but never had such inscriptions been discovered nor had such a complete absence of local hand-made pottery been found. It is not surprising, then, that cAjrud was chosen for excavation despite its relative inaccessibility - it is at least a three-hour drive over desert tracks to the nearest

Fig. 2. Stone bowl ca. 1 m. in diameter, with inscription. The full inscription reads inl tnll T nI~~ I1[•=p~y This picture shows all but the first four letters, these letters having been inscribed on a fragment of the bowl which had not yet been restored when the photo was made.

i saii-i_

Iin - : - --:g i: jii ::-i- i:?:-?li:i

:"r ;? iii

i?~;!?$ ":

.. ?i-d_

r ?.P

dr i :d

:"`a~,

'i

t if f ?:' ~:4*~

--

r:

* ::1

i ::L i:-i ?i~ii

~i

i- ~--,:--~-iiii

ii~:i:-i~i.i~ii- .3 i*iii~ isi 5 i-:_':-~ n?iii:?ii-i:-:i-i--i:-:~-: ;: ~i:igiii~iiiii -i-i--:ii-ii i.i~:::?-::-:-:-:h-:-::-:--:-:~: ::::: :i::-~_ ; -:I:-: ----.-,_ ::-. _i -':a-i:iii:ii .ijiiiii jiiii~iiii~i~ ii;ii~ii:i:i&-i i

.. _-:ii r",r;

~i_ ii?-i? iii:i.,i?i:ii

i?-~i Ii-~?. -~s_???~

liiiiaDi_--i-*--,::1 _~i: ::?:ii~--: ::i:i~iiii-i~-%:ii ?~_ ii::,i:??~~ : ----~ -; i-~_i_ -::zii,i~iii iiii;-i-iiii:;i?-i:-_:i ..:,: i~i-ijikjii~ ia:i---il:'~:-iiriii~ii -: i-i-i:i:~ii~ii.i~iii~-:ii~i :iii~ ii:_~: --::i.. ii-~iii~ -:-i--

I

::...--il:i:ii:i -':-:::::: ::--:::::::: :a:::-:: -::::::::': ::: i ---?i--d--:"-:; -:--:i: --:--:-:-- :-I i,."-':. i::. -i~:ji:ii~i-i:i ii iiiiibii i::iiiii -?:;:-??:i--?:'.--i --i-ii-ili -:: -isi ::I-~i-i-:i-a:i?-i-lii -:i~-i:i"-::ii-r - r :I: ii i i-ii~iiiiiii-ii ::~- i ; i : i-i:`i-i _ -i

5:

""

ai ii~i-ii -:i

iiiii_i:?-

I/

*::i-i i'-.d

iii-i .'iC-ii_ i~ii,~i-i~i: i--:-':i-:I J

'iiiiii?-ii i-__8:-:-~:i:~:-~:ii~i*:---i~ii' - aiiiiiii'liii r. :,: : '~-? :--:'I':' :':~:?''''~'-? -it '-~":--?il ':'~ :':'-: :

; it i"

iii i:r

_:i ii-ri-:-

d':.'Ziliii:--iii --:'i

: i .:- i~-iii

'":53~: ?1

i: E

i :-a ii"ii:i~iji :I:i*i: iiiii::ia

8

MARCH

1976

Fig. 3. Viewto the East from insidethe courtyard of the cAjrudbuilding.The plasteredbenchesnear the entryinto the courtyardcan be seen, in the center. To the rightare plasteredstairsleadingeitherto a toweror a secondstorey.This entryinto the courtyard is from the room with plasteredwalls and benches whichyieldedmost of the inscriptionalmaterials. settlement. Two short seasons of excavation have already been carried out, in October and December of 1975, under the direction of Dr. Meshel and under the sponsorship of the Institute of Archaeology and the Nature Preserves Research Institute of Tel Aviv University, the Department of Antiquities of Israel, and the Kibbutz Institute for the Study of the Land, which provided volunteer workers. In addition, the cooperation and assistance of Avner Goren, Archaeological Inspector of Sinai, has been invaluable to expedition to cAjrud. A preliminary report is forthcoming in BASOR. Already on the second day of the October dig exciting things began to appear, the most excitement being generated by the inscriptions that were unearthed. It soon became clear that this place was to produce more than just the inscribed sherds of the sort that Palmer and Meshel had already recorded in their surveys. The variety of types of inscriptions was totally unexpected; and the content of the inscriptions was quite surprising,especially in such a remote point in the desert. The workers became so enthusiastic with their finds and so wrapped up in their whole endeavor that it became almost impossible to tear them away from their work. As the magnitude of their discoveries became apparent, they nearly had to be dragged away from their trenches when it was time for food or rest. The Inscriptions. Meshel has now listed at least five different kinds of inscriptions that the cAjrud excavations have produced: 1. Single letters inscribed on pottery beforefiring. This was the only type that was known before digging began. In addition to further examples of alep, sherds marked with yod and with the combination qop/res' have also been found, though the 'alep sherds are predominant. The fact that these inscribed letters are all on fragments of large storage jars and have all been executed before the jars were fired has led the excavator to suppose that the jars were made intentionally to be shipped to certain places. These inscriptions seem to be the only ones that could be termed administrative. 2. Inscriptions incised on pottery after the vessel was fired. These inscriptions tend to be short sometimes just a name - but they are not ostraca. They may have served some sort of votive function. 3. Inscriptions on stone vessels. There are four of these to date, one having been found only in February, 1976, by a sharp-eyedarmy officer who visits the site from time to time to see that the local Bedouin are not tampering with the ruins. These inscriptions, which seem to have been cut by the stone worker himself, judging from the sorts of mistakes that were made, are clearly incised along the rims of large stone bowls. These bowls BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

po

IV

-ca2?r. 4,

te

r"

49-9

may also be votive; one reads, for example (fig. 2): "Given by cOvadiah, son of cAdanah, may he be blessed by God" (Fcbdywbnlcdnh brk h' lyhw). 4. Inscriptions on wall plaster. Thus far four such inscriptions have been recovered, along with paintings of animals and humans as well as red, yellow, and black geometric designs. This group consists entirely of prayers or literary pieces. Three of these four plaster inscriptions also bear the phenomenal characteristic of having been executed in the Phoenician script. They had to have been made on the spot, for they appear on the walls of the building and not on any portable object. In contrast, all the other inscriptions are in Paleo-Hebrew script. 5. Inscriptions on whole storage jars. Two complete such jars have been found, and there are also fragments of at least two additional ones. Lines of writing as well as pictures are found around the whole surface of the jars. These are all very long inscriptions and are in the nature of blessings. The excavations at cAjrud have also turned up considerable organic materials, as might be expected in such an arid area. Pieces of cloth, fragments of wood, and segments of rope have been recovered, giving the excavators tangible contact with those who inhabited the site several millennia ago. In addition, examples of the foodstuffs of the ancient inhabitants have been found, including several pomegranates in a remarkable state of preservation - some of them are still whole!

9

Fig. 4. Partof a storagejar, now beingrestored, upon whichappearmany inscriptionsand drawings. The inscriptionvisiblein this pictureis in Paleo-Hebrewand reads"Blessingswith you" (brkt.atkm).The drawingseemsto be that of a horse'shead with reinsleadingaway from it. The pottery produced in the course of excavation has proved to be consistent with what was picked up in the course of surface exploration by Rothenberg and by Meshel. An early 8th century B.C. date seems likely, though it is difficult as yet to pinpoint which decades of that century are involved. Clearly it is a one-period, onephase site, but the absolute termini of the occupation cannot even be supposed without careful study of the ceramic materials. The architecturalremainsconsist of a single, large, rectangular structure, measuring 25 m. x 15 m., with an open courtyardin the center. There are no casemate walls; rather, large storerooms, in which the storage jar inscriptions were found, were built against the outer walls

... paintings of animals and humans as well as red, yellow, and black geometric designs . . . a very special kind of border post. of the building on two of its sides, on the north and on the west. A third side, the southern side, seems to have no rooms built against it. The sole entryway to the building is the fourth, or eastern side. A paved courtyard with plastered benches leads to the doorway, which is in the middle of the outer wall of the building. This door opens into a long room which has plasteredwalls and benches. It is this room which has provided not only the frescoes and wall inscriptions but also many of the other inscriptions (fig. 3). The location of Kuntilet cAjrud near the Darb elGhazzeh undoubtedly bears substantial relationship to the fact of its importance as a border point. This much was clear even before excavation began. However, the nature of the inscriptional and graphic finds that have been recovered by the expedition to cAjrud indicates that this must have been a very special kind of border post. Meshel feels certain that some sort of cultic role must also be assigned to the site. As with all excavations, this particular one has raised questions as well as solved them. In this case, a number of very provocative questions can be posed, questions concerning both the character of the site itself and the holy traditions that seem to be attached to it. They also involve the role of such a site at its situation near a junction of the Darb el-Ghazzeh. Finally, they deal with the function of the post within the territorial domain of the Judean monarchy during the 8th century B.C.All these issues are general, interpretive matters. There is an equally tantalizing set of specific problems provided by the details of the various finds, epigraphic and otherwise.

10

Certainly, as the solutions to these specific problems are worked out in ceramic and paleographic investigation, the larger issues will be greatly clarified. One thing seems to be definite, however, as Dr. Meshel works over the finds to date and lays out his plans for future digging at cAjrud and for surveying its immediate environs:no understandingof the unique finds at this site can be made without a consideration of the total situation. Focusing on any portion of the discoveries alone cannot provide proper answers. Instead, all the conditions that contributed to the establishment of this border post must be explored. The combination of approaches that Meshel and his team represent seems to be well-equipped for such a task.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EdwardHenryPalmer,Desertof the Exodus. London:1871. BennoRothenberg,"AnArchaeologicalSurveyin Sinai, 19671972." Annual of Museum Ha-aretz 14:89-100 (Hebrew).

MARCH1976

PROPHET

THE

6TH

CENTURY

BALAAM

ARAMAIC

IN

A

INSCRIPTION

JACOB HOFTIJZER

In Numbers 22-24, Balaam, a non-Israelite prophet, is ordered by the King of Moab in Transjordaniato curse the invading Israelites. Instead, through God's intervention, Balaam blesses them. In 1967, at Tell Deir- cAlla in Jordan, curses of Balaam werefound inscribed on a stele.

Thefollowing paper is an address given before the Oriental Society in the Netherlands on 19 January 1973. The title in Dutch is "De Ontcijfering van Deir-CAlla-Teksten," and it was subsequently published in Oosters Genootschap in Nederland 5

(1973), 111-34. The texts described by Professor Hoftijzer will bepublished in J. Hoftijzer and G. van

der

Kooy,

Aramaic

Texts

from

Deir

cAlla

(Documenta et Monumenta Or. Ant., XIX), now in press (Leiden: Brill). Material in brackets has been added by the translator, William L. Holladay. In the spring of 1967 a great number of text fragments were found in Jordan at an excavation directed by Dr. H. J. Franken, which, from the location of the excavation, have become known as the Deir- cAlla texts.' The material on which these texts were written was plaster; in this instance the plaster was probably not applied on a wall but rather on an object with the form of a stele. It was only because of the special attentiveness of a Jordanian foreman that material as important as this was recognized in time rather than being shoveled away. The Jacob Hofti/zer of the State University of Leiden, The

Netherlands,is best known for his major share in the

production of Charles-F. Jean and Jacob Hoftijzer,

Dictionnairedes inscriptionss6mitiquesde l'ouest (Leiden: Brill,1965). WilliamL Holladayis LowryProfessorof Old Testament at the Andover-Newton Theological School

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

excavators devoted all the time remaining in their campaign to the task of getting the fragments out of the ground without further damage and particularly to the preservation of whatever text could be saved. Anyone who has had anything to do with material as brittle and delicate as this can understand what the task must have cost in exertion and inventiveness. The fragments are distributed into twelve "fragment-combinations" (aside from a small group which cannot be fitted in anywhere). Special credit is due two doctoral students, Miss V. Kerkhof and Mr. G. van der Kooy, for their assembling of the fragments which belong together, a task of great patience, care, and technical insight. Of these fragment-combinations, two are central; we shall refer to these hereafteras the "firstcombination" and the "second combination." Their importance lies both in the fact that they contain the greatest quantity of text and in the fact that all the remaining combinations can be located with respect to either of the two. Unfortunately the mutual relation between the first and the second combinations is less clear. It cannot be determined with certainty whether they form part of the same column of text or even whether they contain portions of the same text. The condition of the textual material has not made the decipherment a simple matter. The texts (I shall use the plural even though the plurality of texts is naturally uncertain) were thrown outside the building in which they

11

... The Aramaic employed in our texts exhibits several phenomena whichfor Aramaic in general are either unusual or completely unknown-the narrativeform of the verb (Hebrew waw-consecutive imperfect), most probably the Nipc al-conjugation, and possibly the cohortative. had stood, because of earthquake. This building, presumably a sanctuary or a portion of a sanctuary, has not itself been excavated. A fire caused by earthquake charred a portion of the plaster, so that a portion of the texts are no doubt irrevocably lost. There is the further possibility that further remnants of the texts still lie in the ground. Those we do possess at this time are obviously greatly damaged by surrounding conditions. In some places the text is completely or almost completely wiped away, for example in the second half of the second combination. Pieces of straw which had been used to prepare the plaster material have often fallen out, frequently with consequent damage to letters in the text. A great deal of dirt has come to lie on the text, dirt which often is hardly to be distinguished from the ink which had been used. A further reason to be grateful to Mr. van der Kooy is his discovery of a procedure by which to distinguish dirt from ink (at least in the majority of instances) without damaging the text. In some places the text has been affected by moisture so that the ink has become smudged and often has run off into all kinds of little grooves in the plaster. In such cases it has as a rule been extremely difficult to determine whether we are dealing with the original form of a letter (often barely legible because of dirt and damage) or with some secondary form of the letter caused by the way the ink has run off. The script itself (with a single exception) has not offered a great number of problems in distinguishing characters; it strongly resembles the so-called cursive Aramaic script.2 Rather it is the condition of the texts which caused Mr. van der Kooy and me to spend months simply in the identification of characters, letter by letter. The resultof this work was still far from definitive;further paleographic investigation by Mr. van der Kooy and my own attempts at philological interpretation have made many revisions necessary. Beside the obstacles already described, there have been various others which have made it extremely difficult to reach a reasonable understanding of the text. Given the fragmentarystate of the text, we do not possess a single complete line. It was not even possible to determine how long a line was, a fact which would have proved a great help in the potential reconstruction of lost portions. What we now possess is a great deal of text but no continuous portions, simply small scraps. The words are usually separated from each other by the so-called "word-divider";only in a specific number of instances is this not the case. Especially where two words are closely related to each other, the word-divider may be omitted (for example, verb with subject, or in the so-called genitive construction [the construct-chain]

12

etc.). Unfortunately there are no indications of the division between sentences, a circumstance which, given the condition in which the text has come down to us, does not simplify the process of interpretation;3in cases where five or six words of a line are preserved, we have no clear indication whether they belong to one sentence or not. The script is a consonantal one; vowels are indicated only when they occur at the end of a word, and the system for indicating them is defective (the so-called matres lectionis).4 A group of characters representing a given word is therefore susceptible in many instances of more than one reading. Thus the word c mh, which occurs in the first combination, and which probably means "his uncle," may also be given other vowels to mean "her uncle," "aunt," "his/her people," or "with him/her"; the word hlk, which occurs in the second combination, and which probably means "traveler,"could also mean "he went," or "going," or refer to a particular kind of tax. Often about one-half of the words preserved in a line are open to more than one interpretation. Specific typical expressions quickly made it clear that the text is written in a form of Aramaic. This circumstance has further added to the multiplication of possible interpretations of particular words which occur in the texts; for the fact is that the Aramaic of this period (about 700 B.c.) recognized more consonants than the alphabet contained of consonantal characters,5so that in some cases one is left in doubt about which consonant is intended by a character. And beyond these uncertainties, the Aramaic employed in our texts exhibits several phenomena which for Aramaic in general are either unusual or completely unknown - the narrativeform of the verb [the so-called waw-consecutive imperfect of Hebrew6], most probably the Nipcal-conjugation, and possibly the cohortative. The texts themselves are written to a large degree in a kind of poetic idiom. This marks something quite new: Aramaic poetry of this period (i.e., before the Christian era) has until now been unknown. Since poetry may offer not only its own grammatical features but also its own vocabulary which at many points diverges from "ordinary"language it is no wonder that the text contains a number of rare words. Balaam's Curses. In regard to the contents of the text I shall confine myself to the first two combinations, since the remaining ones, to the extent that they offer any legible text at all, add little that is substantial. The first combination contains a prophecy in the name of the prophet Balaam, the son of Beor, known in the Old Testament (Numbers 22-24, Deut 23:5-6, Josh 13:22, 24:9-10, Neh 13:2, Mic 6:5, and see also Num 31:8

MARCH 1976

and 16). According to Old Testament tradition, this nonIsraelite prophet had been summoned by the king of Moab to curse the Israelites, who were marching through Transjordan into Palestine proper; but through God's intervention Balaam was obliged to bless the Israelites rather than to curse them. In the Old Testament Balaam is clearly a figure who belongs exclusively to traditions about Transjordan;it is noteworthy, then, that our texts, in which he plays a central role, likewise come from a Transjordanianholy place. Also, in our texts Balaam has no connection whatever with anything that can be considered characteristic of typically Israelite religion. If one combines the biblical data with those of Deir- cAlla, one must conclude that for a considerable period of time the figure of Balaam took up a prominent position in a specific religious tradition in Transjordan. The form in which the prophecy is narrated resembles those in which certain Old Testament prophecies have been handed down. It is very difficult to explain just why such a portion of prophetic text should occur here on a stele (?). Some help may perhaps be gained from the fact that in the Old Testament various prophecies were preserved (and ultimately gathered up into the canon), in spite of the fact that they had already been "fulfilled,"or, otherwise, had in the strictest sense lost their timeliness. It must mean that these prophecies maintained a high value for later generations even so and were thus thought to be applicable to later situations as well. So it is possible that this Aramaic prophecy, once supposedly uttered by Balaam, was preserved as an important historical example. It is the first prophetic text, so far as I know, which has been discovered up to now written on a wall or the like. One cannot yet estimate, I think, what the consequences of this fact will be for our understanding of this special prophetic type of literature. At the beginning of the prophecy, there is a sort of title, which is unfortunately preserved only in part. In this, Balaam is named seer of the gods; moreover it is recorded that the gods appeared to him in the night, and we have the contents of the short speech which the central deity (probably a goddess) addressed to him. Then follows the description of Balaam's reaction: the following morning he gets up weeping. This attracts the attention of others, and under the leadership of an uncle, who is named, people go to him to ask what is the matter. It is striking at this point that he does not give a word-forword reproduction of the message of the goddess, who had threatened to destroy the land (?) with fire; rather he outlines the situation in much greater detail, employing his own images, and he inserts appeals to repentance. He depicts an assembly of the gods, at which the gods attempt to make the goddess change her mind. In the fragments that remain (a good many) there is no referenceto fire, but there are to the request not to break the bolts of heaven BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

(t), evidently a request not to let a sort of deluge take place; and, beyond this, the request not to envelop the world (or the land) in darkness. Further, there is a description here of many animals, particularly a large number of birds, which are known in the Old Testament (and elsewhere) as "symbols"of destruction. Dr. Franken has argued more than once that the building here is a sanctuary holy to nomads, and it is striking to find here, among the expressions of destruction, that instead of sheep there will be hares (in the Sefire text, too, hares appear as a symbol of destruction - in that text there is a description of a city that is destroyed and becomes a heap of ruins where hares dwell; and hares are reckoned as unclean animals in the Old Testament).7 Some appeals to repentance then follow, to urge the recalcitrant to turn back from the error of their ways, and among these appeals is a formula with a strong similarity to Old Testament style, "hear the admonition," and there is a recollection of an earlier evil which had evidently been averted by divine help. Even though the text is very badly damaged at this point and breaks off, it seems attractive to conclude here that we are dealing with an appeal to history as a warning to bring the "godless" to sound judgment and repentance. The second combination contains - so far as it is intelligible - a series of curses, parallels for which are found in many passages of the Old Testament and in other ancient Near Eastern literature. It is quite probable that

... The words by which his hearers reject Balaam's curse-speech are written in red rather than black ink. these curses, too, were uttered by Balaam, though in the second combination itself there is no trace of his name. However, in a fragment which may be placed in the context of this combination, belonging above it, his name does occur (it probably reads, "O Balaam!"). Balaam's curses appear to have been uttered with referenceto some specific remarks(not preserved) of his audience. Possibly these remarkscontained a rejection of his prophecy which has already been described, so that we might make a connection between the first and second combinations after all, but there is no way to be sure. It is plain that the grievous curses which he utters have not been to the liking of his hearers. They reproach him for stupidity and ignorance (which reproach often carries a hint of depravity): he has taken a poisonous word (or a curseword?) on his tongue.8 They intend to judge him. Though it is plain that discord has reached a high pitch, one gets the impression that everything ultimately has ended in peace and concord once more. Sadly enough, though much of the plaster of this portion of the text has been preserved, the characters have been to a large degree

13

One of the more legibleportionsof the Deir c Alla texts, herea portionof the "secondcombination." wiped away. Before I offer any further remarks about the contents of the texts, allow me just to touch on another matter. The words by which his hearers reject Balaam's curse-speech (or at least the beginning of them) are written in red and not in black ink. In this text the title and the beginning of important turns in the story are written with another ink (red). The superscriptionabove the prophecy and the beginning of the words of the goddess are also written in this ink. An unfortunate consequence is that no black-and-white photographs, no matter how good in quality, reproduce the text written in red to any degree. Beyond this difficulty it must be admitted that in general the value of photographs is quite modest because of the poor state of the text. The photographs often suggest characters, portions of characters, or particular forms of characters which are simply not present in the original. An interpretationof the text which is worthy of the name is out of the question from photographs alone.

?oe

.

t-4

A6z

St,

'16

A Non-Israelite Oracle. It is striking how many points of contact there are between this text and the Old ~E r Testament. The first combination, for example, is the first prophecy of any scope from the ancient West Semitic world outside the prophecies which occur in the Old Testament.9Old Testament data (though not these alone) a4. have therefore offered much help in the understanding of our texts. There is no doubt, however, that our texts in their turn will contribute to the understanding of Old Testament data and will aid in our seeing them in the wider context of the world in which they arose. 31P' ;?~r: 'A~ The night after Balaam had the vision in which the would him from that she came to the message goddess destroy the land (?) with fire (a kind of destruction also known to the Old Testament - one thinks of Sodom and Gomorrah),10he burst into tears, at which point his uncle That an uncle should be the spokesman for the (and others) came to ask him what was happening. I curious a fit of cannot believe that this bystanders is probably no coincidence. When crying was simply is Saul that as reaction (secretly) anointed king by Samuel, he begins (understandable might be) spontaneous to the horrible news that he had learned in the night. In behaving in a way quite unusual for him (1 Samuel 10). my view this could well be the means by which the prophet Thus he falls into a trance, so that people begin to ask attractedattention and gained the hearingfor the message what is happening to him (v 11). Here, too, it is an uncle he wanted to announce. A noteworthy parallel can be who asks the questions (vv 14-15), only Saul evades an found in 2 Kings 8. The prophet Elisha there speaks with answer and speaks about extraneous matters. Here is a the envoy from the king of Damascus and announces to case where our text can help Old Testament exegesis. him (in answer to a question from him) that the king, who There have been attempts to eliminate the rather is sick, shall surely die (v 10). Having stared vacantly at mysterious uncle of Saul and to translate the word in him for some time, the prophet bursts into tears (v 11). question as "governor, prefect," in which case we would Here also the question follows (as in our text) why this has have a referenceto the local Philistine governor," but it is happened. Then the prophet announces to the messenger now plain that we must vote for the uncle after all; and his (Hazael) that he, Hazael, will be king and a formidable role, too, is now somewhat clearer. It is also interestingthat the gods who question the enemy of Israel. Hazael understands the message, assassinates his ruler and takes over his position. goddess at the divine assembly are called idyn, a word 4k

14

MARCH1976

I cannot believe that this fit of crying was simply a spontaneous reaction to the horrible news he had learned in the night. In my view this could well be the means by which the prophet attracted attention .... which can be rendered as Shadday-gods. This datum can make a contribution to the dicusssion (which continues to be quite lively) about the divine name Shadday in the Old Testament. The God of Israel was called El Shadday, for example, in the time of the patriarchs (according to a particular Old Testament tradition), and the word also plays a great role in the book of Job. Who the goddess is who plays such a great role in this portion of text is unfortunately unknown; her name probably began with S, but the name is otherwise lost. It is possible that she is identical with a deity, probably female, sgr, who appears elsewhere in the first combination. This deity has been known till recently only from Punic personal names, 12but lately she has turned up in a Ugaritic sacrificial list.'13 Though the data are quite scarce, it seems very attractive to conclude that she was linked with Ashtar and his wellknown female conterpart Ashtarte.14 In our text she occurs together with Ashtar. It is regrettable that the context is so poorly preserved that nothing more can be made of this. The identification of the goddess with igr thus remains speculative; the situation is complicated by the fact that the name irCI occurs on some shards from the same period,15from Deir-cAlla as well, and this name is clearly not the name of a person but the name of a deity or of a holy place and demands further explanation. In the description of the evil of the past from which rescue was secured through divine aid, there occurs a formula which has parallels in the Old Testament (as well as in other West Semitic literature):"the deaf heard from afar":what they heard is probably the powerful advance of the approaching enemy. In the Old Testament one finds this kind of referenceto those with bodily handicaps in images by which the might and intensity of a particular event is depicted. Thus in Jeremiah (31:8) there is a prediction that among the Israelites returningfrom exile would be the blind, the lame, women with child and those giving birth, "a great company they shall return here." By listing those participants (unlikely at first glance) in a difficult journey home, the prophet depicts the completeness of the return. Similar phraseology is to be found in the Ugaritic Keret text. In a campaign of king Keret there march along, according to the description, the most motley people: "those living alone, widows, the sick (who let themselves be carried on their beds), the blind, newlyweds (who evidently were exempt from military service)." This image likewise expresses with what great enthusiasm the king's subjects devoted themselves to his military undertaking.'6 Here, too, there follows an emphasis on numerousness: they are like locusts on the plain. In our text the deaf who hear serve to emphasize the power of the enemy, and this in turn brings into clear relief the divine rescue. (One may add that "hearingfrom afar" in itself stresses the fact that the sound of the advancing adversarywas very great; cf. for example Ezra BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

3:13, Neh 12:43). The actual "prophecy"of Balaam (that is, what he announced to his hearers) is not--we have already pointed this out -a reproduction of his vision in the night (at least as far as we can conclude from the fragments). We must understand it rather as an application of what he has seen: Balaam has understood from his vision that a grievous divinejudgment is in store. So he tries by the way he "presents"the whole matter to bring about repentance and thereby to forestall the judgment. That the threatened divine punishment could be forestalled by contrition and repentance, according to the ideas of that world, appears also in the book of Jonah, the central problem in which, in my opinion, is the fact that because of the intense repentance of Nineveh the judgment which had been proclaimed did not take place. Balaam depicts the divine assembly (to which I have already referred) and the entreaty of the gods to the wrathful goddess in a way clearly divergent from his own vision. His purpose is to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. How threatening the catastrophe is is indicated by the fact that the gods take pains to avert the evil. This is illustrated particularly by the "images" by which the catastrophe is depicted, such as the breaking of the bolts of heaven, the further impossibility of sheep-breeding (probably one of the most important local sources of subsistence), and the numerous birds which may serve as symbols of destruction. In order that the hearersgrasp as clearly as possible the seriousness of the situation, the prophet addresses them directly. They are described as "recalcitrant"(?), "combatants against" the goddess and later as "enemies."(The designation "enemies"is certainly not unknown in a similar connection in the Old Testament; to offer only one example, in Nahum 1:2, there is mention of enemies and adversaries of God upon whom God will take vengeance.) The intensity of Balaam's appeal to repentance is indicated by the following line: "O enemies, consider, consider; consider, consider, ? . . . ." (the remainder is missing). The Mighty Acts of Sgr. The appeal to history, which close the portion of the prophecy which has been preservedfor us, is also a well-known phenomenon in the Old Testament. To cite one example: in the beginning of Micah 6, where there is reference to a lawsuit of God against his people, God points out, among other matters, that he led the people out of Egypt and then granted capable leadership to them. Such an appeal to history highlights the power of the deity who has done such mighty acts and at the same time highlights the obligation of the people toward such a god. Above all, against such a background any faithlessness toward that god - and apostasy - stands out as all the more reprehensible.Such an appeal to history may be a facet in the attempt to make

15

person is not surprising, since Ugaritic texts depict Mot (Death) as a divine being.'9 In this connection one may cite a line from a lament as a text to some degree parallel the oracle of the man with far-seeing eyes, to this (Jer9:21): "Death has come up into our windows, it the oracle of one who hears the word of God has entered our palaces, cutting off the children from the streets and the young men from the squares."The theme He sees what Shaddai makes him see, of the death of the unborn fetus is also found in the Old receives the divine answer, and his eyes are opened. Testament in passages in which those who have suffered How fair are your tents, 0 Jacob! much, like Jeremiah (20:17-18) and Job (3:11, 10:18)wish How fair your dwellings, Israel! that they had died before birth in the womb. A text like Like valleys that stretch afar, ours, in which the death of the unborn is a motif of cursing, emphasizes the despair of these men [Jeremiah like gardens by the banks of a river, and Job] and their aversion to life all the more strongly: like aloes planted by Yahweh, they prefer a fate worthy of a curse to continuing to live. like cedars beside the waters! One detail worth noticing is the occurrence in a hero arises from their stock, these curses of the term "eternal house" for grave. This he reigns over countless peoples. term is known from Palmyrene, Syriac, and rabbinic texts. One occurrence is known in Punic, and, recently, in His king is greater than Agag, Nabatean,20but the oldest text, till now, which contains his majesty is exalted. the term is Eccl 12:5: "As man goes to his eternal home, God brings him out of Egypt, the mourners go about the streets." The book of he is like the wild ox's horns to him. Ecclesiastes must at all events date from the period after the exile (i.e., the 5th century B.c. at the earliest, and He feeds on the carcass of his enemies, probably a good deal later). So in our text we have an and breaks their bones in pieces. instance from the West Semitic world that is certainly He has crouched, he has lain down, some centuries earlier. We must not forget, however, that like a lion, like a lioness; a related expression, "their homes forever," probably who dare rouse him? occurs in Ps 49:11,21 but the dating of this passage is far from easy. Blessed be those who bless you, The sharp reaction of the hearers of Balaam's and accursed be those who curse you. words of cursing reminds one to some degree of the Numbers 24:3-9 (JERUSALEMBIBLE) reaction of Jeremiah's hearers to him. When Jeremiah urged his fellow countrymen not to emigrate to Egypt in the people turn back from the error of their ways. So our the face of the Babylonians (chap. 42), they, too, reacted text reports that the goddess has averted the evil and (if I sharply: "You are telling lies, the Lord our God has not us ... to kill interpret correctly the remains which are preserved) has sent you . .. but Baruch has set you against is a It into exile . us or take us pity that the (43:2-3). put the enemies to flight, as a panther does a piglet. .." and that lost almost text is of our remainder completely has been interest During the last decade much devoted to the matter of curses, and the second only uncertain conclusions are left to us. I have tried in the foregoing to give you some idea combination of our texts offers us a series of these.'7 Various well-known types of curses are to be found here, of the contents of the Deir- cAlla texts. However severely like the removal from the "tribes of men," the image of damaged they may be, they contain a treasureof material maggots, a curse concerning insufficient clothing, etc. I whose importance lies both in linguistics and contents. I want to stay for a moment with one particular curse; have not discussed the language much, but I believe that namely, "You shall lie on your eternal bed of rest"(i.e., in one of the most important results of research into these your grave). This is a quite rare type of curse; it is usually texts is not the discovery of a prophecy in the name of the said that someone will be slain and then not be buried.'18 well-known prophet Balaam, sensational as that is, but Rarely does the image occur in which someone is to be the fact that we here gain knowledge of a local Aramaic slain as a punishment and then buried; viz., in Nahum dialect hitherto unknown. This will increase our 1:14, where God is presented as saying, "no one else of knowledge of dialectal phenomena of the Near East in the your race shall come any longer into the world (free first millennium B.C.,all the more because we now possess a portion of Aramaic poetry from this period. In fairness I translation) . . . I shall prepare your grave. .. ." Another curse is: "Death shall take away the child must add that if an increase of knowledge in this case does who is in the womb." That "death" is introduced as a not bring an increase of grief, it at least brings an increase THE ORACLE OF BALAAM SON OF BEOR

16

1976 MARCH

of problems. The value of our neat linguistic classifications for this period was already seriously affected, and I believe that the data of our texts will show us all the more how shaky the basis for our classifications was. What is to replace them will be a much more intricate and complicated picture. Our only consolation is perhaps that we shall in this way come a step closer to the linguistic reality of antiquity. Though it has been impossible for me in this presentation to show more than a part of the captivating contents of our texts, I hope nevertheless to have been successful in demonstrating at least something of the significance of this material.

"ordinarily."This possibility is now confirmed by the Deir- Alla texts. 7For the Sefire text, see KA1222-24. The lines cited here are p. 22, lines 32-33. sThe question is whether the word which occurs here, be translated "wormwood" or "curse." should lcnh, 9The prophetic data from Mari are communications about (the contents of) prophecies and visions, given in letters; but they are already from a strictly literary viewpoint and of a quite different genre. For these texts cf., e.g., A. Malamat, Prophetic Revelations in New Documents from Mari and the Bible, VTSup 15 (1966), 207-27; F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in Mari und Israel (Theol. und orientalische Arbeiten 1) (Herzberg am Harz: 1968); J. F. Ross, "Prophecy in Hamath, Israel and Mari," HTR 63 (1970), 1-28. '0See Genesis 19.

NOTES

ISee the first announcement in H. J. Franken, "Texts from the Persian Period from Tell Deir cAlla," Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967), 480-81. The excavation was made possible by the generous support of the Dutch Organization for Pure Scientific Research. The dating in the Persian period (i.e., at the earliest in the second half of the 6th century B.C.) given in the article was later abandoned. 2For a recent study of this type of script see J. Naveh, The Development of the Aramaic Script (The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Proceedings, V, L, preprint) (Jerusalem: 1970). Mr. G. van der Kooy will devote his attention to the problems raised by this type of script in the edition of the texts.

I1See D. R. Ap-Thomas, "Saul's Uncle (1 Samuel X, 1316)," XXV International Congress of Orientalists, Vol. I (Moscow: 1962), 437-38.

12Seenow F. L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (Studia Pohl 8) (Rome: 1972), pp. 41314. 13SeeUgaritica V (Mission de Ras Shamra 16, ed. C. F. A. Schaeffer) (Paris: 1968), text 9, verso 9 (p. 584), in the phrase sgr w'itm. 14See, e.g., M. Dahood, "Hebrew-UgariticLexicography X," Bib 53 (1972), 386-403, on p. 403.

15Thesesmall texts will be published along with the larger plaster texts.

31n inscriptions and the like from this area and this period no sentence-dividers occur. Though one has no expectation of finding any, their lack is still keenly felt in a difficult text like this.

'6See the remarks of the present writer in BO 24 (1967), 66. The passage cited here is found in Krt, lines 96ff.; the passage is repeated several times in the Keret text.

4The use of matres lectionis within a word to indicate long vowels is not found in this text, and this is not to be wondered at, given the historical development of this device; matres lectionis were probably first used to indicate vowels at the end of a word and only later to indicate vowels within a word.

17Tocite a few examples of the literature: S. Gevirtz, "West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law," VTII1 (1961), 137-58; D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16) (Rome: 1964); R. Frankena, "The Vassal-Treaties of Essarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy," OTS 14 (1965), 122-54.

5For a treatment of this matter see among other works R. Degen, AltaramaiischeGrammatikder Inschriften des 10.-8 Jh. v. Chr. (Abhandlung fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 38.3) (Wiesbaden: 1969), pp. 32ff. 6For the problem of the narrative in Old Aramaic, see Degen, op. cit., pp. 114f, n. 21. The present writer agrees with Degen; unfortunately the latter has misunderstood the intentions of the present writer in an earlier article: the present writer indeed intended to depart from the older belief and to propose that we not exclude a priori the possibility that in some forms of the Aramaic, narrative occurred and was used

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

'8See, e.g., 2 Kgs 9:10, Ps 79:3. '9gForthis see, e.g., N. J. Tromp. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether Worldin the Old Testament(BibOr 21) (Rome: 1969), 160ff. 20See the lexica. For the Nabatean example see A. Negev, "A Nabatean Epitaph from Trans-Jordan," IEJ 21 (1971), 5052, in the text cited on p. 50, line 1 (dated A.D. 17). 21For this interpretation see, e.g., M. Dahood, Psalms I (AB) (New York: 1966), pp. 298-99 [the R.S.V. is similar].

17

A.A, -04I

4k

,4

T.4

?

.IN

AIXa~ ,-w4T

.4s?6

'h'

4pPl

EXCAVATING AI

(ET-TELL): 1964-1972

JOSEPH CALLAWAY

In the late 12th century, village life is disrupted. Grain begins to be stored in what has been the temple. A crude, tent-like dwelling is built in the street. Othersigns suggest the arrival of a new population lacking "orderliness and experience in village life of their predecessors." The ruin of Ai, known locally as et-Tell, is a polygon-shaped mound (fig. 1) of 27.5 acres on the south Joseph I1.Callaway, Professor of Biblical Archaeology at the ?outhl:'rn Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, was director ofajoint archeologicalexpedition to Ai under ihe sponsorship of ASOR and a consortium of other institutions, including, most notably, the Smithsonian.

He is the authorof Potteryfromthe Tombsat Ai (et-Tell), London: Colt Archaeological Institute, Monograph Series, No. 2, 1964, and of numerous journal articles.

18

side of the deep Wadi el-Jaya leading east toward Jericho (fig. 3). Israelite pioneers, according to Joshua 7-8, the major literary source, ventured up the wadi from Jericho and established their first foothold in the hill country of Canaan sometime in the 12th century B.c. This story places Ai center-stage in one dramatic episode of Israel's history, but the brevity of the account has always left the readerwondering what else there is to know about the city which apparently lost its name. Three archeological expeditions have been attracted by the lure of unwritten history buried in the MARCH

1976

(Opposite)Fig. 1. The EarlyBronzeAge tell at Ai, looking northeast.

Fig. 2. Stratum

Period

Description

Chronology

Pre-Urban Unwalledvillagesettlement EarlyBronzeIB UrbanC Firstwalledcity of 27.5 acres EarlyBronzeIC UrbanB Secondcity, UrbanC walls widenedand strengthened EarlyBronzeII UrbanA Thirdcity, new walls built outsideUrbanB walls EarlyBronzeIIIA UrbanA' Fourthcity,UrbanA wallsdoubledin widthandstrengthened EarlyBronzeIIIB Iron Age Unwalledvillagesettlementof about 2.75 acres. Iron Age I

ruin of the site. John Garstang hurriedly excavated eight soundings against the city walls in 1928, but never followed up with either a report of the soundings or more extensive excavations. Judith Marquet-Krause did the first significant work at Ai in 1933-35 and discovered the great 27.5 acre walled city of the Early Bronze Age underlying the almost insignificant Israelite village of only 2.75 acres. The expedition was halted abruptly by her death in 1936. The Joint Expedition to Ai was organized in 1963 as a redeployment of certain members of the Shechem Expedition staff with the objectives of (1) completing the

3100-3000B.c. 3000-2860B.c. 2860-2720B.c. 2700-2550B.c. 2550-2350B.c. 1220-1050B.c.

excavations of the Early Bronze Age city; (2) seeking additional evidence bearing upon the Israelite village; and (3) publishing a comprehensive report incorporating usable results from the two previous expeditions. Excavations were carried out in the summers of 1964, 1966, 1968-72. Major emphasis shifted to the preparation of materials for reports in 1970; and the first volume, entitled The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at Ai (et- Tell) was published in 1972. Other reports are in various stages of progress, with one on the citadel and lower city ready for the publisher. Research and analysis of data from Ai have led to

(Below)Fig. 3. The Jerusalemregion,showingAi "...which is east of Bethel." 20

1,10?10

2

TO

NAeBLUS

JORDAN RIVER KILOMETERS

oSCALE

2

4

6

8

OR ZEIT TAIYIBA KHRADDANA

(ET-T-EL

HBE L

(+869

RAMMo

O

KR HATYAN

MUKHMAS

M)

(MICHMASH)

EL-JIB

W

AKH MARIN

BIREH

TRR

KH.

TELL ES-SULTAN JERICHO

*-J

(-258 M)

(GIBEON)

TO AMMAN

ANATA

TO TEL AVIVJAFFA

JORDAN RIVER

JERUSALEM

35 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

3

'5

335 325'

aso

35, SWWE 19

The Postern Gate would have been a narrow tunnel-like entrance through the city wall just wide enough to admit a donkey loaded with two bags and its rider.

7-%-,r, ,:a

r,*,, tsk

ap ~~:3-7 r?"o

Fig. 4. The EarlyBronzeAge II (PhaseIV) PosternGate. Actuallya narrowpassagethrougha wall fivemetersthick, the gate was - as it is here - simply blocked with stones in

time of emergency.

the conclusion that unknown pioneers made their way up the same wadi from Jericho featured in the Israelite source but almost 2000 years earlier. These settlers founded a city ca. 3100 B.c. that was destined to wield a shaping influence upon the hill country of Canaan for 800 years. A summaryof the history and chronology resulting from this research is seen in fig. 2. Most of the Early Bronze Age walled cities in Canaan were preceded by unwalled villages on the same

20

sites. The process of growth and transition from village to walled city is not well-documented, as Lapp points out. Kenyon observes that both Jericho and Tell el-Far ah(N) probably had fully settled communities before the towns were actually enclosed by fortifications. The communities were established in the first part of the Early Bronze Age, and sometime in Early Bronze IC the town walls were constructed. What occasioned the building fortifications, or whether the village inhabitants built them is not clear. These questions seem to have more definite answers at Ai. For one thing, the extent of the city in its village phase was not the same as the walled city phase. Houses of the Pre-Urban village extended down the southern slope of the mound at Sites A and C, beyond the limits of the Urban C fortifications (fig. 5). The first city wall was built right across one-room village houses that happened to lie in the path charted by the first city builders. This suggests that the walled city did not emerge out of a process of village growth, but that a planned layout for the Urban C city was imposed upon the PreUrban village. Furthermore, the layout of the new city implies a sophistication in planning and construction incompatible with the village culture. This is apparent in the zoning of the city's components, the grand scale of new public and private buildings, and the new technology evident in constructions. Zoning is evident in the location and isolation of the acropolis buildings at the highest and westernmost point of the city. To insure privacy and security, a twometer wide enclosure was constructed around the royal quarter on the west side of the temple at Site D. Residences of citizens were located on the east side of the acropolis area and along the inside of the city walls on the south. No complete house of the Pre-Urban village was recovered, but two walls of one at Site A and the terrain under the location of the third wall suggests that it could not have been larger than 4.5 x 3 m. in size. The room was spanned by a roof supported only by the walls on each side. Beginning with Urban C, however, the houses average 9.1 x 4.3 m. in size, with roof-support pillars in the center of every house. This is an average of 39 sq. m. of space over against 12 to 15 in the village houses. New techniques of supporting wider roof spans, of building wider walls to greater heights, and of making bricks at least double the size of those used in village huts suggests a new culture imposed upon the villagers by the Urban C people. And, of course, the 4.5 to 5 m. wide city

MARCH1976

(Below) Fig. 5. Sites excavated at Ai (et-Tell), 1933-35, 1964-72.

D A

G:LOE

(Over) Fig. 6. The Early Bronze Age temple and royal quarterwith Iron Age village ruins on the left and the citadel on the right.

PNECROPOLI

CITYE

: (ETI-TELL) EXCAVATIONS AH B IRON AGE VILLA EI

60

LOWERCITY

CD FORTIFICATIONSANDcOPS CITY :LOWER

-20

EXCAVATIONS

C:CORNER GATE A ND RESERVOIR

TOWERS GATE L: POSTERN 4 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

0

40

1964,66,68-72

OFGATES PHASES

,

. ,50

,

WWE

21

q0

-4

?

?

,

..?

?I

..

,

d' ,

..%

... W,, ,,e_,• "•'40

•• ,',,

P. O.4'0

'

,

,r •1

-.

.

,

,'.,•:

Vo .

,

r.-

,••

46

D rr-

40

-

..".

. '?

.4

,

.

!b op?

.

. %#0A

I

' V"

r);

.4. -. .r,,

. Ot.

4•14

..,0-

-.

,

.

, ,-

.. . .

V

.

, --•

A so

. '...

..

-

"

-

"

••

*-*J*

lo

?4.

Alf

.

'-*

• _ .t

'"•"

-,•

-

2'

?

--:%"-:

-

*

II

v

*t "" "?,

j "•"'!" ,

?'

-I

~

.

'h

`

hLc'

,.,.

x.

?

C

,

,

,,"

i ,

i::• :' 9.'-i'. . .

.:>:

V

,.o

-.. V,,.

,-,

(

--,

'!r! iil i!Q~ ?!!!!! l !T. _:-c _:::-

,"

,-

,•.

is,",

r-ise

* -i !

4_*.*

.'.

i

g,.,'

i

.

.

.4.

.1

.

,w -Iwo

.1

wall enclosing 27.5 acres of city cannot be comprehended as the handiwork of villagers who had lived 100 years in one-room huts no longer than the new city wall was wide. Who, then, were the Urban C city builders, and who were the villagers brought under their control? Pottery analysis indicates that the Pre-Urban village population had a substantial indigenous element rooting back to a Chalcolithic heritage. This is evident in most of the pottery assemblage, particularly in small shallow to hemispherical bowls, the distinctive angularwalled bowl, and angular, flared jar-neck forms. These have antecedents in Chalcolithic forms like those at Aba Matar and Safadi near Beersheba, Azor in the coastal

The height of the rooms - scarcely five

feet from the packed earth floor to the undersideof the transversebeams - suggests a people relatively short in stature. region, Gezer in the western edge of the hill country, Tell el-Farcah (N) north of Ai, and at Ghassul near Jericho. On the other hand, foreign elements in the village culture are indicated by forms introduced into Canaan after the Chalcolithic period. One is a distinctive carinate platter which becomes common throughout the Early Bronze Age. Another is the hole-mouth jar with inwardrolled rim, a form that assumes myriad variations during the next 700 years. Also, a unique line-group painted decoration appears on the village pottery at Ai. This is a diagnostic form of Early Bronze IB, without antecedents in the local Chalcolithic culture, and it becomes almost extinct in Early Bronze IC, the Urban C period at Ai. One jar rim from the construction phase of the Pre-Urban village at Site A has an interesting combination of local and foreign characteristics which suggests that the two population elements had amalgamated before the village was founded. The vessel is a hole-mouth with a thin, tapered rim characteristic of indigenous Chalcolithic forms. On the outside of the rim, however, is a line-group painted design associated with newcomers to the land of Canaan. Since the example was taken from a layer on bedrock underlying the first village house at Site A, we may infer that the two elements of the village population met before they arrived at the site of Ai. Hennessy thinks the foreign elements in this period developed locally. In one sense they did, because a cultural mingling occurred in Canaan before the Early Bronze IB settlement was founded at Ai. However, the ultimate origin must be sought north of Canaan. The carinate platter tradition can be traced to north Syria and Lapp conjectured that the background of the line-group

24

painted design may be as far north as Ciradere in Anatolia. This implies an Anatolian or North Syrian origin for the non-indigenous elements of the village population. The Urban C city builders did not drive off nor annihilate the Pre-Urban villagers, because their pottery traditions continued. New features, however, appear in this period, indicating an influential increment of newcomers in Urban C. These features direct our attention again to the north of Canaan. Prominent among the new pottery forms are (1) the wide platterwith low rim and shallow concavity under the angle of the rim, often with net-burnishedpatterns;(2) the pierced earlug amphorette or juglet with net-painted or burnished decoration; (3) the crisply-finished squared jar-rim; and (4) ovoid-shaped jugs with loop handle attached to the rim or on the neck below the rim. Hennessy cites examples of the squared jar rim from Qalat er-Rouss, Judeideh, and Tarsus. Painted net patterns are found at the same sites, as are examples of the loop-handled jug. The latter is also found at Byblos and Lebea along the coast of North Syria. These forms suggest a coastal and North Syrian origin for the newcomers in Early Bronze IC, an area where urbanization was already advanced enough to allow the kind of knowledge evidenced by the city builders at Ai. The Urban B people in Early Bronze II seem to be a continuation of the same population, as is true also with Urban A in Early Bronze IIIA. Significant Egyptian influence is evident in the temple and royal quarter in Urban A, but no evidence of Egyptian additions to the population have been discerned. Considerable Khirbet Kerak cultural influences are evident in Urban A', Early Bronze IIIB, but these seem to be confined largely to Sanctuary A. Only two or three pieces of Khirbet Kerak pottery have been found in areas outside the sanctuary, so there is no compelling reason to believe that the ethnic composition of the population changed significantly from Early Bronze IC to IIIB. The City Gates and Fortifications Prior to the Joint Expedition to Ai, there were only two gates of Early Bronze Age cities published. One was the Postern Gate at Ai, excavated in 1935, and the other was the Early Bronze I gate at Tell el-Far cah (N). Five more gates have been discovered at Ai since 1964, bringing the total number to six. Fortification towers have been excavated at most of the gates. The gates and towers together seem to be numerous enough to conjecture a preliminary typology of gate and tower forms for the entire range of the Early Bronze Age. A comparative listing of the gates and towers is given in fig. 12. Locations may be determined by finding

MARCH 1976

site designations on the city plans in fig. 5. The Postern Gate, with side walls preserved 3 m. high when excavated, probably reflects the kind of construction used in Urban C and B. Barely 1 m. wide (fig. 4), the gate was actually a passage through the 5 m. wall without a hinged closure. In times of emergency the passage must have been blocked with stones. When the Postern Gate was excavated, stones in the 3 m. tall sides of the passage bulged in upon the opening, indicating a weakness in the stacked field stone construction. This weakness would have shown up during the 140-year use of the gate if the builders had not supported the sides in some way. Most likely the top of the passage was strengthened with a heavy timber roof designed to hold the top courses of the stones in place and prevent the slippage found after the gate was abandoned. This technique would have a parallel in the Early Bronze I gate at Tell el-Farcah, where De Vaux claims he found evidence of a covered passage. The Postern Gate, and probably the other 1 m. wide passages, would have been narrow tunnel-like entrances through the city wall just wide enough to admit a donkey loaded with two bags and its rider. All gate towers in the Urban C and B fortification were built externally, against the outer face of the walls, and in the case of the Citadel tower, on top of the wall also. The prevailing form seems to have been elliptical in some variation during Urban C, and rectangularin Urban B. Semi-elliptical towers were found at the Citadel and Postern Gates. These were elliptical on the side away from the approach road leading to the gate, but straight on the side adjacent to the road. A round tower guarded the Corner Gate at Site K. This tower was round because it sat in the corner of the city wall, with its external face reaching 2700 around from the face of the south wall to that of the east wall where the gate was located. Towers in the Urban A and A' fortifications were built in top of the city wall and set back from the outer face, instead of external to the outer face as in Urban C and B. The Citadel at Site A is representative. Constructed of field stones, the tower was a massive, solid rectangle measuring 9 x 30 m. The city wall curved gently around Site A, visible in the lower right of fig. 6, and the citadel stood high above the wall, commanding the approach to the acropolis area and providing a lookout point over the Lower City. This kind of tower was also built at Site K on top of the ruins of the earlier round towers, and at Site J, where the shape was an elongated ellipse instead of a rectangle. There have been differences of opinion about the nature of the acropolis buildings since their discovery in 1933. Marquet-Krause called the major rectangular building, illustrated in fig. 6, a palace. The discovery of Sanctuary A at Site A convinced her that earlier phases of BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

Fig. 7. A cornerof the EarlyBronzeAgeIIIwaterreservoir at Site K with flagstone-pavedfloor and stone-lineddam.

a

I

44

..

l

A.4

25

kc:4

hMaw

4' -Ar r

0.

the sanctuary were there and not on the acropolis. Albright insisted that the rectangularbuilding was the temple, and his view was supported by Wright, who based his conclusions on a comparative study of temple buildings from Canaan to Mesopotamia. Wright believed that Sanctuary A was simply a storage place for the cultic vessels found there in 1934. Both views have their problems. A careful analysis of the stratigraphy and buildings at Site A in The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at Ai (et- Tell) by the writer led to the conclusion that only Sanctuary A, dating to Early Bronze IIIB, was in fact a sanctuary. Marquet-Krause's Sanctuaries C and B at the same site were domestic houses. This called into question the identification of the acropolis building as a palace, because there must have been a temple or sanctuary in the earlier periods also. Wright's problem has been two-fold. First, he could not locate the royal quarter, which one would expect to be near or on the acropolis, and second, Sanctuary A at Site A was obviously more than a storage house for vessels used elsewhere. The basic problem, therefore, with both views was that a temple and royal quarter could not be identified and related to each other in all the urban phases at Ai. Reexamination of the acropolis and sanctuary remains has led to a solution of this problem. The sanctuary study referred to above opened the way to a solution, but it was not the expected or easiest way. As noted, the early buildings at Site A were found to be domestic houses, and even the building housing the Sanctuary A cultic remains was a domestic house in Urban A, or Early Bronze IIIA. Sanctuary A in Urban A' was the same house remodeled and not an example of sanctuary architecture. This conclusion sent the writer back to the acropolis to search out its ruins for evidence of a temple in earlier periods. Two discoveries provided furtherleads. First, with the help of Ruth Amiran, the artifacts from the acropolis excavations of 1933 were examined again, and two alabaster bowls were found to have a provenance in the acropolis buildings. These bowls were. of imported Egyptian alabaster, like those found in Sanctuary A. A restudy of their provenance placed them in the Urban A phase, or Early Bronze IIIA. Thus two bowls of the same assemblage found at Sanctuary A were in a pre-Sanctuary A stratumon the acropolis. This suggested that the Urban A rectangular building on the acropolis, which bore evidence of strong Egyptianized influences, was the temple in Urban A, and that the cult was downgraded and moved to a remodeled residence at Site A in Urban A'. The second discovery was the royal quarter of the Urban C and B periods. An enclosure wall around the

Fig. 8. The Wadi el-Jaya joining Bethel (modern Beitin), above, to Ai (et-Tell), below, on a hill jutting into the wadi from the left. W. F. Albright suggested that Bethel was settled by refugees who fled up the Wadi el-Jaya after the destruction of Ai.

26

MARCH

1976

m

4dp_ -N%., 0101;plmr

jo,

Tr

ift.

Aj_ .4;

VIC -7z?

zz )PO

/01

AtW

419 100

W_ !7-;s4

iAw 1? Ilk

vo

:10

PO

TL AW

dP

'An. Fig. 9. The terracesof the Iron Age villageof Ai are still to be seen, risingsteeplyabove the Wadiel-Jaya. west side of the acropolis provided the first clue, because it enclosed only the west side, as is evident in fig. 6. Inside this enclosure and on the west side of the rectangular building was the well-known wall with curved, or apsidal, corners. This wall was thought to be a part of the earliest building on the site. However, a section between the apsidal wall and the rectangularbuilding showed that the floor of an earlier building was underneath the apsidal wall. Further examination revealed two rows of small pillar bases partly covered by the apsidal wall. The pillars that stood on these bases supported the roof of a large building on the west side of the rectangular structure. A contemporary outside wall was found in Area D V at the northwest corner of the site. Two major phases of a monumental building adjunct to the west side and each end of the central rectangular structure were defined and planned. Both were inside the enclosure wall of the site. The significance of these discoveries is that the rectangular building must have been the temple at Ai in Urban C, B, and A, and that BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

the royal quarter was located adjacent to the temple in the enclosure during these periods. The buildings of the royal quarterwere constricted in the Urban B rebuilding of the site, although the enclosure wall continued in use. Some expansion of the royal buildings occurred in the Urban A reconstruction of the temple, and the enclosure wall was removed to its foundations. Finally, in Urban A', the remains of the royal quarter were filled with debris to form a fortification around the central building formerly used as a temple, and apparently the ruler of the city moved into the temple quarters. This occasioned the removal of the cult to Sanctuary A at Site A in Early Bronze IIIB. In summary, a listing of the temple and royal quarter phases is seen in fig. 13. The City Water Supply The method of supplying water for Early Bronze Age cities in Canaan is mostly unknown. Some light has been shed upon the problem by the discovery in 1969 of a

27

large, artificially-made reservoir at Site K inside the city walls at Ai. This reservoirwas built above ground level in a kidney-shaped pocket in the southeast corner of the city fortifications. Red clay was brought from outside the city and laid underneath large irregular-shaped flagstones which formed the floor of the pool (fig. 7). Field stones were stacked against the inside face of the city wall, and a thick layer of red clay was laid against the loose stones to form a dam for the pool. Large stones were then

Fig. 10. An Iron Age IB silo granary(right)constructed over a cobblestonestreet(left) of the previousphase.

Houses were partitioned to accommodate more people. A crude wall was constructed across the central room of the temple, creating living space for two families and presumably their tents. imbedded in the face of the dam from the flagstone paved floor to the top, making a sealed open reservoir 2Y m. deep on the low side and 25 m. across at its widest point. In 1970 the staff geologist calculated a capacity of 1815 cu. m. for the reservoir. This supply was probably supplemented by the spring in the Wadi el-Jaya north of the city. The spring is very weak, having a flow of 17.5 gal. per hour, but it could have been stronger in the Early Bronze Age. The reservoir was constructed in Early Bronze and continued in use through Early Bronze IIIB. IliA Where the city obtained its water in Early Bronze IC-II is not known, because no other pool was found. Possibly the springwas a better source during the early periods and had its flow disrupted by the earthquake which apparently destroyed the Early Bronze II city. This would be a source outside the city walls, however, and would be vulnerable to attackers. Further excavations will have to deal with this problem. Fig. 11. Name

Location

City Wall Gate Width

Wall C Site A LowerCity Wall C Wall C Site K Wall B Wall C WadiGate Site J Wall B Wall A Wall A' LowerCity Gate LowerCity Wall B Wall A Site C South Gate

CitadelGate PosternGate CornerGate

28

1 meter 1 meter 1 meter 1 meter 1.5+meters 1.5+meters 1.25 meters 1.25 meters 1 meter 1+meters

TowerForm Semi-elliptical Elliptical,West;Semi-elliptical,East Round Same, rebuilt unexcavated B unexcavated-Urban Elliptical,South, Rectangular,North Same, rebuilt Rectangular,West A unexcavated-Urban

Stratum Period UrbanC UrbanC UrbanC UrbanB UrbanC EB II UrbanA UrbanA' UrbanB EB IIIA

EB IC EB IC EB IC EB II EB IC EB IIIA EB IIIB EB II

MARCH1976

The Iron Age Village Violent destruction overtook the city of Ai ca. 2400 B.C., during the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, and a "dark age" fell upon the land with the appearance of nomadic invaders from the desert. The site was abandoned and left in ruins. Where the population went is a mystery; Albright suggested that Bethel was settled by refugees from Ai (fig. 8). In any case, the site of Ai lay in ruins until ca. 1220 B.C. at the beginning of Iron Age I when a new village settlement was founded upon about 2.75 acres of the acropolis terraces. By that time the name of the great Early Bronze Age city had been lost, and it was known as

town walls. The Early Bronze Age walls stood in disrepair at Ai, but no attempt was made to restore them. The initial settlement was characterized by cobbled streets and a pier-technique of house construction first identified at Bethel by Albright. Both features reflect a high degree of development elsewhere, prior to the settlement at Ai. Cobblestones of the streets, for instance, were set in a specially prepared bed of clay, and houses associated with the streets utilized piers of stacked stones or one-piece pillars of hewn stone to bear the weight of transverse beams. Both the stone pillars and a well-preserved beam aperture in one wall indicate a height of about 1.60 m. from the packed earth floor to the underside of the

Fig. 12.

Temple TempleC TempleB TempleA SanctuaryA

Royal Quarter BuildingC BuildlingB BuildingA BuildingA'

Location Site D Site D Site D Site D Site D Site D Site A Site D

Features 5-pillartemple Twin rows of pillars 5-pillartemple apsidalwall, no pillars 4-pillartemple Rectangularrooms Remodeledresidence Remodeledtemple

"Ai" or "ruin," which undoubtedly was a popular designation as a regional landmark. The Iron Age I settlement at Ai was one of many established in the region about the same time by people who moved in and occupied abandoned sites of cities, such as Tell en-Nasbeh and el-Jib (Gibeon), or new sites such as Mukhmas (Michmas), Rammun (Rimmon), Taiyiba (Ophrah?),Raddana (Ataroth?), el-Ful (Gibeah), and many small campsites on hilltops in the area. Bethel was the only city occupied in the Late Bronze Age, and it was destroyed at the beginning of this period, so the blame may be laid upon the newcomers. Iron Age I housing and artifacts at Bethel share the general characteristics of houses and finds at the newly established sites. We may view the settlement at Ai, therefore, as part of a considerable influx of newcomers who infiltrated the area and apparently met little or no resistance. Several distinctive features characterize the new culture at Ai and other sites. With the possible exception of Bethel, the villages were not fortified with BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

Stratum

Period

UrbanC UrbanC UrbanB UrbanB UrbanA UrbanA UrbanA' UrbanA'

EB IC EB IC EB II EB II EB IIIA EB IIIA EB IIIB EB IIIB

transverse beams. Roofing slats or poles covered with a thick layer of huwwar rested on top of the beams, which were about I m. apart. The height from the floor to the roofing slats on top of the beams was about 1.85 m., suggesting people relatively short in stature. Numerous cereal food processing tools, such as saddle querns, mortars, pestles, and small round ovens for baking bread indicate that the original settlers of the cobbled street village were primarily farmers. Two discoveries suggest that they came from a background of agricultural life, either in the hill country elsewhere, or in the lowlands among hills. The first is evidence of terracing for the control of soil erosion on the east slope of the tell, below the acropolis area in fig. 9 where the village was located, and the second is an artificial water supply utilizing rock-cut cisterns in individual houses. An agricultural terrace was discovered at Site G in fig. 5, on contour 840 where the Iron Age village ended. The terrace was built like a small retainer wall, much like barriersare built in valleys or wadi beds to slow the flow of water and trap eroded soil. The terrace created a strip

29

of arable land behind the retainerof stones, over the ruins of Early Bronze Age houses. Because of the similarity of the terrace and barriers built in valleys, one may conjecture an origin for the villagers in the lowland region west of the hill country. Settlement of the coastal region by maritime peoples may have pressured the villagers to move inland. A system of bell-shaped cisterns was cut into the thick layer of Senonian chalk underlying the houses of the village. No evidence of plaster was found in cisterns used only in Iron Age I, so the inhabitants must have known that Senonian chalk had enough of a self-sealing quality to effectively retain water. Experience in cistern building is seen in a filter-trapleading to the inlet at one house, and a settling basin arrangement beside a small indoor cistern in another. In addition to cereal farming, the original villagers flocks of sheep and goats that ranged the hills and kept wadis between Ai and the Jordan valley. Bones of sheep and goats in every house indicate the source of meat, and a cistern in the Wadi el-Jaya two km. east of the village containing Iron Age I pottery is probably witness to the wide range over which the flocks were shepherded. An interruption in village life occurred during the latter half of the 12th century, ca. 1150-1125 B.C.,and a new phase of building is evident in houses and streets. Numerous silo granaries were built in the open spaces near houses, or over the cobblestone streets, almost closing them. One granary is shown in fig. 10 over the cobblestone street of the previous phase. MHousesalso were remodeled and made to accomodate more people,

usually with additions or partitions of inferior quality walls. A crude shelter-like living space was built in the cobbled street near the silo in fig. 10, and large round silos were constructed in the ruins of the Early Bronze Age temple ruin on the acropolis. The temple walls were not rebuilt, but a crude partition was constructed across the middle of the central room, creating living space for two families and presumably their tents. During the cobbled street phase, large store jars characterized by high, slightly flaring rims with a collarlike fold on the outside down to the neck were common, and these apparently were used for storage of grain, oil and other foods. Large jars, including variations of the collar-rim type, continued in use during the silo granary phase, but the prevalence of the above-ground stone granary structures suggests that they became the major storage facility during the second phase. The sudden transition in the method of storing grain indicates an infusion of people who brought the custom with them, and the manner in which the streets, court areas and temple ruin were converted into ad hoc granaries and shelter-type living areas suggests that these people lacked the orderliness and experience in village life of their predecessors. If there is evidence of an Israelite population at Ai with a nomadic background reflected in the biblical traditions and affirmed by the fellow-travelers and continuers of both Alt and Albright, the silo granary phase during the last period of occupation would he more suitable than the earlier cobblestone street phase. Fig. 13 indicates the Iron Age I phases and suggested chronology:

Fig. 13.

Stratum

Description

Cobblestone Unwalledagriculturalvillage,pier-constructed Street houses,cisterns,terraces,cobbledstreets Silo Samevillage,remodeledhouses,above-groundsilo granaries,expandedpopulation Granary

Period

Chronology

Iron Age IA

ca. 1220-1125B.C.

Iron Age IB

ca. 1125-1050B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JosephA. Callaway,"A Re-Examinationof the LowerCityat Ai (et-Tell)in 1971, 1972,"(with NormanE. Wagner) Palestine Exploration Quarterly(July-December, 1974),

pp. 147-55. "A SecondIvoryBull'sHead from Ai," BASOR213 (Feb., 1974),pp. 57-61. ,

"Ai," Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in

the Holy Land,Vol. 1 (1975),pp. 36-52.

30

MARCH

1976

THE

PERSISTENCE OF

CANAANITE RELIGION R.A. ODEN, JR.

KingManasseh,"wholed Judahinto sin,"placedan imageof Asherah,the Canaanitefertility goddess, in the templeof the Lord (2 Kgs 21:7). New research on a forgotten Greek and "travelogue" arguesthat Canaanitereligionin general-the cult of Asherahin lasted until well into the particular-Christianera. Among this century's archeological surprises, few have generated as much scholarly enthusiasm as the discovery of mythological texts from Ugarit (modem Ras Shamra) in Syria. Nor has any discovery surpassed these texts' impact upon the study of the clash of religions in Canaan and Israel. The list of scholarly disputes now settled by these texts' witness is long and impressive. Thus, the Ugaritic tales of Bacl and cAnat and of their parents and siblings have demonstrated that 'El (fig. 1) is the proper name of the ruling patriarch of the Canaanite pantheon and not just the noun "god" as so many had argued. So too, the texts have vindicated those who argued that the word 'Asherah in the Old Testament designated, at times, a specific Canaanite goddess as well as a cultic symbol (cf. 2 Kings 21). However, the influence of the Ugaritic myths upon the study of Canaanite religion and the Old Testament has not been uniformly calming, particularly regarding the question of the relationship of Canaanite religion as portrayed in the intrigues and conflicts of the Ugaritic myths to the religion of later Phoenicia and Syria as reconstructed from other sources. These other sources include the testimony of the Old Testament about cultic life in the R. A. Oden, Jr., of DartmouthCollege,is the author of Studies in Lucian's De Syria Dea (Harvard Semitic Monographs,1976)and co-editorwith HaroldAttridgeof The SyrianGoddessin the Textsand Translations Seriesof the Societyof BiblicalLiterature(ScholarsPress,1976). BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

lands surrounding Israel, epigraphic materialfrom Syria, Phoenicia and the Phoenician colonies throughout the Mediterranean, and second- and third-hand descriptions of Phoenician or Syrian religion in Greek and Syriac sources from days as recent as the first centuries of the present era. None of these other sources offers a complete picture of Phoenician and Syrian religion; and some of them must be used with a great deal of caution. Still, it is possible from such sources to sketch an outline of Phoenician and Syrian religion as practiced a millennium or more after the destruction of Ugarit about 1200 B.c. The battle is then joined on the issue of the persistence of Canaanite religion. Is there or is there not a significant development to be discerned between the religion described in the Ugaritic texts and that described in later sources? Ulf Oldenburg (The Conflict Between El and Bacal in Canaanite Religion, 1969)asserts that "Eland his family were overcome by Bacal and his partisans, whereby Bacaltook the kingship of the gods from El, who had earlier been the monocratic head of the Canaanite pantheon" (p. 183). This view would then hypothesize a developing series of Canaanite-Phoenician cults, with each subsequent cult's contribution forcing a basic change in the former cult's conception of the pantheon. By contrast, Frank M. Cross in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973) would stress the persistenceinto later times of the fundamental shape of the religion practiced at Ugarit in the mid-second millennium B.c.

31

Fig. 1. Bronzerepresentationof a Canaanitedeity, most probably the gray-beardedpatriarch of the Canaanite pantheon,El.

The issue is perhaps better seen in concrete terms. cAnat is the leading lady in the Ugaritic myths, but after the second millennium B.C., she seems to abandon the stage. There is, for example, no certain referenceto her in the Old Testament. In Judg 3:31 and 5:6, we hear of "Shamgar ben-cAnat,"'but "ben-cAnat"here is probably a referenceto a town in Galilee, or a military designation, as Robert G. Boling argues in his recently published Anchor Bible commentary. It is only on Cyprus, where a text from the 4th century B.C. identifies her with Greek Athena and where she appears in a few theophorous Phoenician and Punic names (names like English Christopher,which contain a sacred element) that we find significant evidence for her continued worship. Those scholars who claim to see an evolution in Canaanite religion could cite this evidence in support of their argument: beginning some time after the mid-second millennium B.C., they would argue, the figure of cAnat was fused with that of another goddess or other goddesses, after which cAnat'sindependent existence was forgotten. The continued vitality of the God 'El would be similarly doubted by such scholars. They would grant that 'El is the acknowledged leader of the pantheon in some Ugaritic texts but insist that he is a god in his dotage, both in post-Ugaritic evidence and probably in some of the "later"Ugaritic texts. Others deny this drastic development in the basic shape of Canaanite religion. This group of scholars has taken the pulse of 'El both in those Ugaritic texts which are reputedly late and in other texts and, in each case, found his pulse remarkably strong. In their view, other deities too, besides 'El, have been accorded premature obituaries. Frequently, the continued vitality of these deities is disguised by their appearance in later mateial under epithets different from those which predominate at Ugarit, or with names of a form reflecting linguistic developments which obtained between the second millennium B.C. and the period around the beginning of the present era. Thus, the name 'Asherah occurs less in epigraphic material from the Phoenician mainland during the first millennium B.C. than does the same name ('ALiratu) in the material from Ras Shamra. Yet thousands of stelae from the Phoenician colonies in the western Mediterranean are dedicated to a goddess Tannit, a name most plausibly explained as an 'Asherah epithet. Again, while there is, as we have seen, an apparently great decrease in evidence for the cult of cAnat after the period of Ugarit's destruction, the later Aramaic form of the name cAnat (cAta) does occur often in texts from Syria in the north to Nabatea in the far south. The same argument can be made forcefully for DEl:the name itself preponderatesat Ugarit as it does not subsequently; but DEl'sreputed demise at the hands of Bac1 Haddu is contradicted by his re-appearance on the 7th-century plaque as clm, and on innumerable Punic stelae as bCl hmn.

Hence, the arguments of those who accent the continuity of Canaanite religion over a very long period are increasingly convincing. Though their task has been

32

MARCH

1976

made difficult by the shifting usage of epithets, by linguistic changes in deities' names, and by the still fragmentaryand localized character of the later evidence, nonetheless new archeological discovery and new attention to sources long ignored make the persistence of the shape of Canaanite religion ever more difficult to deny. Among these long-ignored sources, the Phoenician history of Sakkunyaton, quoted by Philo Byblios and preservedby Eusebius, has been especially helpful. Other sources await full utilization, among them the Syriac homily "On the Fall of the Idols" by Jacob of Sarug and the euhemeristic section on pagan deities in the Syriac Apology attributed to Melito of Sardis. But for the issue at hand a witness equal in importance to any of these is a Greek work entitled The Syrian Goddess. Though included in the Loeb Classical Library's edition of the works of Lucian (in an intentionally archaic translation!), this "travelogue" of the ancient world has been overlooked by Semitic scholarship. What can it tell us about Canaanite religion? The Syrian Goddess. The Syrian Goddess is a summary discussion of several Phoenician cult sites, followed by a lengthy description of the myths, sacred area, and cult of the north Syrian city of Hierapolis (Syriac Mabbi7g),situated northeast of Aleppo, near the Euphrates River (fig. 2). The work is attributed to the 2nd-century A.D. author Lucian. Lucian, as his many works betray and as we know from other sources, combined a birth in the Syrian provincial capital Samosata with training in Greek rhetoric and travel Hierapolis (Mabbug)

Cyprus

*(Ugarit)

Mediterranean Sea

(Jerusalem).

Nile River

Fig. 2. The bordersof "Canaan"are nearlyimpossibleto draw.R. A. Odensuggestsa culturalcontinuityembracing Hierapolis(Mabbug),near the Euphrates,Ugarit on the coast, and, to theWest,the islandof Cyprus.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

Fig. 3. Romancoin from the reignof AlexanderSeverus depictingthe innerchamberof the templeat Hierapolis.On the right,seatedon lions, Atargatis/Asherah/ Hera;on the left, seatedon bulls,herconsort,Bac1/El/ Zeus;in thecenter, a representationof the templechamberwith the symbolof the Syriangoddess.

'

A

..

f

?lI•[•'ll'.

41

,

:

4 0 . , .• _

.4.

.

.,...4

!.

-..

I, jtits~p;l

throughout the Mediterranean world. The Syrian Goddess is sometimes denied to Lucian. The Ionic dialect of the work, which helps to date it to the pseudo-Ionic revival of the 2nd century A.D., distinguishes it from most of the works which are undeniably Lucian's. Still, the touches of humor in The Syrian Goddess are worthy of Lucian, and more important than the question of authorship is that of reliability. Here the evidence is unambiguous: at every place where it can be checked, the information related in The Syrian Goddess proves to be accurate. Hence, the work is a trustworthy account of the religion practiced at the pilgrimage site of Hierapolis, most probably in the 2nd century of this era; and we can confidently ask what relationship this religion bears to that of more ancient Canaan. The answer to this question detracts greatly from the view of those who have claimed to see a dynamic development within Canaanite religion away from the state of this religion in the presumed "early"myths from Ugarit. As its title indicates, The Syrian Goddess describes a religion which gives a place of honor to a female deity, who appears with her consort Bacl (Zeus) on a coin from Hierapolis/ Mabbig (fig. 3). Her native name is cAtarcata, which became Atargatis in Greek. This we know from the testimony of other visitors to

33

Fig. 4. Punic stele with the sign of the goddessTannit. Tannit'ssymbolholds a so-calledcaduceusin her "hand." of a dolphinora Belowthe signof Tannitis a representation fish.

Fig. 5. Egyptianlimestonerelief portrayingthree goddesses-Qudshu, Ashtart,and cAnat-as one.

Hierapolis/ Mabbfig and from epigraphic evidence from Delos, Hatra, Nabatea, and elsewhere. Her name combines the names certainly of CAshtart(Aramaic Ctr) and cAnat (Aramaic ct)), and perhaps also of 'Asherah (Aramaic 'tr). The author of The Syrian Goddess is fully aware of her multiple origin, for he calls her Hera, but notes her assumption of traits of Athena, Aphrodite, Selene, Rhea, Artemis, Nemesis, and the Fates. Her attributes verify the conflate nature of her name. Atargatis is plainly a mother goddess and her cultic representation bears a spindle, both of which are true of 'Asherah in the Ugaritic texts. Her sacred fish also recall the fecundity of the Ugaritic "Lady Asherah of the Sea" (rabbatu 'aLiratu yammi) and of Punic Tannit ('Asherah) whose sign is often accompanied by marine life (fig. 4). Atargatis is also goddess of sexual love with whom are associated doves and sacred prostitutes; the same is true of Canaanite 'Ashtart. Yet the second half of her name, her position as consort of Bac 1Hadad, and (less certainly) her firm association with lions link Atargatis as strongly with cAnat. Now, what is noteworthy about all of this is that the same overlap of name, function, and consort is true of the three major goddesses of Canaanite religion. An Egyptian relief from the time of Rameses III fuses the three Canaanite goddesses in a single figure (fig. 5). An incantation text from Ugaritica V (RS 24.244) witnesses a conflate goddess cAnat-and-cAshtart (cntwcLrt, no word divider); and an Egyptian text makes the same combination. Finally, Frank M. Cross reports an unpublished Phoenician dedication to TannitcAshtart, which gives us the third major Canaanite goddess, "Asherah/Tannit, combined with CAshtart. Though each goddess has and continues to have a distinctive character ("Asherah is goddess of fecundity, CAshtart of sexual love, and CAnat of war), as early as the mid-second millennium B.C. the three goddesses share attributes, titles, and husbands. It seems clear that at every period the three goddesses could be worshipped separately or together. The conclusion from the description of Atargatis in The Syrian Goddess, therefore, is that the religion of Hierapolis is in this regard remarkably similar to that of the Canaanites over 1500 years before. It will not do to

34

MARCH

1976

•w

?

'li

All; ]

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

•I•,Q

35

claim that the amalgamation of the goddesses into a single figure in worship is a development beyond the "early" Ugaritic situation. At Ugarit, as in the Hellenistic world and beyond, each goddess retained her distinct identity, yet could be worshipped with her sisters as one. Intriguing too is the fact that Atargatis' "symbol" (in between Bacl and Atargatis on the coin in fig. 3) reflects the iconography of Punic Tannit, which iconography, it is increasingly clear, derives from the Phoenician homeland. Other aspects of the religion described in The Syrian Goddess lead to a similar conclusion. The inner chamber (thalamos) of the Hierapolis temple is dominated by the statues of two deities who also dominate the cultic life of the city. One is Hera, who is native Atargatis; and the other is identified with Greek Zeus. Lucian, if he is the author of The Syrian Goddess, reports that the Hierapolis inhabitants call Zeus by another name. We know from other testimony that this other name is Hadad, earlier Haddu. The description here of Zeus/ Hadad and his preeminent position in the city's cultic activity again coincides with the situation at Ugarit. In both places and eras, the god is a god of war, whose dress is that of a warrior and whose weapon is lightning. Hadad sits on a pair of bulls at Hierapolis; similarly, his symbol is a hat with a bull's horns in earlier Syrian representations. And even though Haddu in the Ugaritic myths, like Hadad in Syria, is answerable to another figure ('El the leader of the pantheon), both the Ugaritic myths and the cult of Hierapolis are devoted primarily to the affairs of Haddu/ Hadad and his consort. Lastly, as we have just hinted, the religion of Hierapolis betrays its continuity with earlier Canaanite religion by the presence in each of an oracular deity, who is the head of the pantheon, if not its most active member. In the Ugaritic myths, this deity is 'El, whose permission is a prerequisite for the undertaking of any significant action. Thus, Yamm asks 'El that Bacl Haddu be given to him at the outset of the Ugaritic cycle which relates the battle of Yamm and Badl and, Yamm is defeated, when. Bacl Haddu be given to him at the outset of the Ugaritic cycle which relates the battle of Yamm and Badl and, when Yamm is defeated, Badl requests 'El's permission that a palace be built for him. At Hierapolis too there is a god who issues "divinedecrees"(Thesphata), which are a necessary prelude to any sacred or profane activity. His iconography is precisely that of Canaanite DEl.If this god were identified with Greek Kronos by the inhabitants of Hierapolis or by the author of The Syrian Goddess, there could be no doubt about his identity, since "Elis regularly equated with Kronos. He is instead called "the bearded Apollo"; but his iconography and function mean that he can be neither Greek Apollo nor Canaanite Reshep, the usual equivalent of Apollo. Perhaps the name Apollo was

36

attached to this god because of his oracularfunction or in honor of the Seleucids for whom Apollo was an ancestral founder. In any case, his identification with Canaanite 'El is highly probable. This is true not solely because he is a bearded, seated deity who issues divine decrees, but also because human sacrifice was practiced at Hierapolis, a practice which is elsewhere always associated with 'El/ Kronos. It is also intriguing to note the similarity between Hierapolis' native name, Maggtig, and the phrase mabbake naharemi ("the sources of the rivers"), the standard Ugaritic formula descriptive of 'El's abode. However, one suspects that every Canaanite temple was conceived of as perched atop "the sources of the rivers." Canaan and Israel. We would hardly claim that the religion of Hierapolis, as described in the 2nd-century document The Syrian Goddess, exhibits no differences from the religion of the Ugaritic texts. To do so would be to claim the incredible, especially given Hierapolis' vulnerableposition in northern Syria near the Euphrates. Yet in The Syrian Goddess, it is the similarities between these religions, and not their differences, which are most impressive. The document is, then, articulate and persuasive testimony of the persistence of Canaanite religion over many cnturies. And it is the more so when combined with other equally persuasive evidence, especially that from the Punic settlements in the western Mediterranean,such as Carthage,which were founded by and continued to adhere to the religion of the Phoenician homeland. We can expect further revelations from this Punic evidence as a result of the current activities of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Tunisia. The implications of this conclusion for the study of Israelite religion are great. They are great because the conclusion means that in the formative period of the religion of Israel and, indeed, throughout the period of the Old Testament, the religion of Israel'snear neighbors, that religion whose "strange gods" were Israel's most besetting temptation, retained a form quite like that described in the mythological texts from Ugarit. Thus, those who examine the figure of 'El, for example, in the Ugaritic myths and then bring this examination to bear upon Israel'sconception of her God do so with full justice. On the other hand, it is with less than full justice that others undervalue the worth of the Ugaritic texts and regard them as witness primarily to a quaintly archaic religion, dying or dead already in an era before that of the Israelite tribal league which produced such vivid portraits of its God as those in Exodus 15 and Judges 5. The Ugaritic mythological texts bear witness not to an ephemeral stage in a rapidly changing cult, but ratherto a religion whose basic shape remained constant and which continued to command the allegiance of Phoenician and Syrian worshippers for a thousand years and more after the destruction of Ugarit.

MARCH1976

LA -0,0,7

A"

411 lot,_

5t.All,

-116 VC

-.7,r amb-cl,

-ftv

ftw

to

-%low

*Z4,NAY At

im

41 464

j f.-

alt.

f4

:sk

irrm

Ar .PK-

0

-

?,7

101, 401,

-ILI

.1 A

War-

t*io

AW tif

_4wt

Ot 4 OJT.)

0j

A!z

.60 v?_ 14

A'-

_e-y

.u IL

I.Nt

M. %opw

FIELD AND LAB Aerial Photography

The bald spot in your back yard is an archeological clue, but don't read further unless you're willing to fly a mattress.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

On the photograph above, the ruins of the town the Bible calls Ai (see pp. 18-30, "Excavating Ai") are visible in the lower center. But how isolated was Ai? If you were called upon to identify a neighboring site for excavation, would anything on this photograph attract your attention? Biblical Archeologist posed this question to Edward Wingert, a cartographer and aerial photographer from the University of Honolulu. Dr. Wingert's answer is graphically presented on the following page. Legend has it that the first aerial photographs were taken in the American Civil War by a civilian watching a battle from a balloon. His photographs were mere souvenirs, but the military and cartographic usefulness of aerial photography quickly became apparent. By midcentury (remember Gary Powers and the U-2 affair), the techniques of aerial reconnaissance and "photogrammetric engineering" had become extraordinarily sophisticated.

37

city wall - it may only be visible as a whole from the air. It is the recognition of such unperceived large patterns, not only through the vantage of height but also with the skilled use of color and infra-red photography, that has been aerial reconnaissance's major gift to archeology. In the Near East, where the climate is often dry and the terrain rocky, the usefulness of aerial photography is limited. The most dramatic discoveries of aerial archeology have been Roman and pre-Roman remains in England where rain is abundant and most terrain has a covering of moisture-retaining topsoil. In the Near East,

Aerial archeology arose as an unexpected dividend of this new technology. As anyone knows who has tried to make grass grow where a children'sswing has hung, packed earth holds less water and is less hospitable to vegetation than undisturbed earth. The result is a color difference in which vegetation on the packed earth shows up light green against a darker green background or, on bare soil after a rainfall, as light earth against dark. This color difference itself can be seen from the ground; but if the pattern of packed earth is large enough - if for example, it conceals an encampment or the remains of a

-- --- -

-- - - . ,

__ - lll?? 11 --e--?w I*,----?41? - :?7--.-.Z?j 114?i - _7? - I iili?lllllilll!l " I . I ,- , I _ Z,_-?-.'_.'7 , --, ,--.-...-,-I.,?.--,z ), 1. -:-. -7? .-,,:. %? i-, I ,?' 1-_:? ,-:?; " ? I . 1-.? , * I%. , *. :. U, , .: .."-.?.....?.-._._ .-' - " ?;i.lj *'':,7,j_.l:?t-.,-,??'. ?..__--:,?7--. "..., IJ;-k--?: -?;_----.. --?:i?,-.-..?_.. !;?? -.; ,-' Z?I. -l: - . ... - , -

_ - .1 I , - I 1 -

-? -.. .. I, . I -II.*II.-I,.. I ?.'.-T., "?" '.r, ... 11. .I . . ?;?k? A?-,- *f -_ -7w !t-,I-?-..-? .?,N'? ,- :P .1 .I=,-A ,5 ,? ?-. -_e"C? < , -4-;?-.7 ??%.* ,,*,??;7--'?,7; _. k2;-" .f?,_?,4 11111 - ..... , ,.i,-??. .-_ J?%' "IL, . r - __ MW_ a- 49-I..*I.. _-, 1. ?c -?i!T:-:r"'?,.;__ .. -1-:::? =`-7 -.aE ?? ,_1!"%-g ll_?_ . . --,-I -_..__-?,,_ a ..:;?&_ U.:-'.. -.,--?? , I ?r, -,- , _-Clo4'% ?I _ 4 -low -1, .Z _ 4-?, ". i?.; . ----i,71I?- . ?. 7-?', t. i,.? 't; _ . -1??7 ?? .,-.',_-_;`:; I ..._-.1 -, ,/y.;-?r_--1w,-,;;L-c ?? ", . ? MO___ ?:t'4 ?'_4 .4 --,? t-.I__ N-k .,Vw., -4,--,-,? ?-;?A:-_-,;??? , _: ;?-_,??_'_?_,-:? ? ,:Z* . , .xI -:L-,--".t;??',..,., -?". , . ", -.. . %.-? _ , _ ?,Y"-_?7,?.; ."; ,?. f . ?k,..Z7* .';..-, 1. ??,%:_;e__Z_?I_ , , . ??, ic:?, ? . , -. '..." ,:?_ ? -?-..X.7 f .. ? ,? ve ,.? !?. .;I , _ . . , -,lzp .". _ ..__ ._:!-4'?,.-4---,??-?,?? _. ,--.. .1 .. , ,--_'.--,,'.z.?,..,._ , ?v'z .. -.1, A? _=,?'-.__ it , '? -? ?, ?, ";:, . `.V. ".5.4';,. . ;`-,?% /,?f.-__ "' . _ , -.,;;;..-.--4_ ? :% .. V-_ . -j.8 f. -. ... . _?--;-.: -'. " 4,-,.?,iA?'_` ? ? ? 44,7,--i-?,--?npp-i-el'-,?;,,:,??r?--, vvvliv rdcl?-7z??"'._,!rm?, ,,,,. "t. - -_?:, "':.-.4??:__ -;-'?, I.- ..A -j_1, -? ,'r ??![ , . __:. .,e -?07. -.,T.?,?.-?-?-.-'??. i.1.--*" ....,---,. -, ,?4. ,,?? -..--?,.-?;. i-,_%;"_ -jk ?-.-.-* A -.,.. ,,_?.--11 J?_ ?-, -7? _111111? ,,-,?,- -I-.r, ---Z;, I "---.:--. -_-1 ..-,,?^, --.?'-,-to-_?-.??_'_:..? ?I-7? . :...*,?-_ , .-& ..--I-?%' ?-.ni?-f --"I " , -?.,- ,.t-? :_?-,...-? f*.,, * ?-:, _.. .; .% . , , , '.?;? -,?<7?-., . . -__? . --. _. 'q --. , ,'.? f. :-Z;,; . , ,ii? .f-,': -s-C --::"-_.z. z . _ '. ".-. "T -, ..., i. I . V-,:??'?: ? ;?. _,? *44 4?A? ? :_ ,;;4?;, . . , " , ?, :-. ". *-!It. ? 4 . . . I,, ,...??.;:I? -''_ , .'..?' . . -.411 ... ) .?!?.. _.? ._'r . -...-tt"i _. LW. '. .-.-.-.-,_, .+-?:j Y.,fr,_ -? , - -t-? --i4 - . ,?,;;?o.,;-.-.-%-?. ,. . . -:, 4'.....'.. -. . .'-, -... -l.,---,.-,..?? -,z4v '.., . -?*? ro, ill? ? Z.;l -7;.;. f"., . .. ?? " .0. .. , ..,: ': ; * I -..-.,.-. .l._... ? ;?? I -4?-: . , 12.-,:`? -, .. , I , 11 1, ,-.-. -, , -: -,.?z..-*-*?--?-.-F.,-.?.-,?.-..-c.,, --?Z,,z * -__? ...-# -, 1?_??'? ? . -I, . . , . , Z to*?, ? ? _. .. . .? ?. ? ,?? .t,,..N.."" '..-I. ,.4? - If., ."_.-,:. - -:,-!, ..-.?.,?I_ .?.-..,'L,,.-.c_ .itl%-Lk:,'.,?. ? .. ,-?, -...,i:?. ?-11 . *J.' - .?? _,..;.. -4 , Il?.,.,:%%,?ptpl-. -?'.." :4.?'-4-1.x ,;.. ." .- , , -__.. .-.- " -_ 4?? . _. .. I .f'.. -? _tt ?"-!-.:?^_,.rq.-'.1. -??vv?.-.-,?. ...;14 . . __?.-?*<-_-t_ .. --7 .1-1 . -?,, :..,?? ,--I? . jk ,F? -,-,.P-, - -,.-4t, -, .._.,,.?. -.,.: .* - .;?? .-.1 ,-.,f. -.,.7.. .:?-:_.."; " ..,-- ',,..??,.?_, . - t. -_?'. -s* .-,?:. I..`?-..-. -. .t... ...- t.-?,Nl _, ...,I--,-.-?,.?,e __-7: ,.?V??:,,,O --_: .,C.?.??..... --_ --?:7.:,,: -.,__?? ..: .".---.. -1 --'.-..--.? .I,.-. ...-c.I-': -,? ?* - ,,--61'... -,.--*!": -,-.? 1. ,-.-,?.??--?-z ,, ll? 7--?-.1., .,"'A .-?-_ --`l'.::-;,. ,.-..,,II.. -7-t .,,..1 --'?-.: - 11 ?.:,. %,. :,.-.--.?:,:.---_.-Y.-:-,i,,,4.:? .-:: *...---?:? , ,--.A:??.-?-? .". .,:,.:: .,,,.*I ...-,", ._?: -..-?.,...I,I?.kz -?? -???,-.,7, .,-?-..:.., .?.: , --*;,..-;5,.t-, _ -"?-"-'. . , ", -., ""i.-d _? . . ,..,-, .__ ?? :-,.:.::. ..;% ' ? ', 4r.-,--.-:;? -:., .-, '.1 ., I 1. ... :.-> ?.,? .-_,?%--S-_?;?r..-.-]?v, .,-,,-. -1 ," . I. -, . , . I..--:1,.,.. _ ,,.?, _? I ,? . ;_I ., , . . -,, ,; , . .' -'. , 1 ? '.'-. S; .-: ? v ... I . -" , qL_,4,?*,.'.,: ? ?. .-_ -4, , . I .. .,? .7. . , -, . I . I ?.., ? _j .* ? .. . , Z4.: -1 1?^._mm ? -., . i . , ,?. -, ?'? . I ... ? '. , , .. " --,:t-t.. . _Z. .? , . _'IVIM, __ , .: 1?_t,.. , . _ _ I _.?: , .. ? _.??. ... J, .?. ,*..?.,?*? .,. -: _ , : .. ?? . ZA ,:?. ? '.... ? .. ..l.. *, X.7 . v:T;, .? _? ?, . , ,? tl? 1'-?? ..? .. . .,?_.? . . ??!'? ... , , --"itg . . ': ? I ? , , . . , _ . I. ,I. ., ? , -_ I _:? ...k_5 -: ,4 :. 7.W.. ???:" . ..rt .11 . -,-.t _* ,_ .?-.?-:;? -,-:;?, ? , . -. , ? 1. -z * C , . ,?:.?___ . -_ ? . .. V.: , . #,F?::-I-b-7?1-41 .7-.,11 _?;?C? . . --,' , . I , , __: ,; _IW i I -I`-I L -, " I ,,,--?,? I.. .. ? ? , , % I -?.? .-. , -Z?-_,_ ..? . ". " '. '. -L IL, ? . -Z___-?;? ..*-* , . ---, . . -__-*.?? . :1 . ..4", -.. Z ,?? . " . .-,-. . .1r, :--__? . . . ?;-, . ? ---" .: . . ?,,O!.4_ , ? . I , . ..'-_j _-?,.__ . . U. -, . . ,.Iz. , W?O.*:. .." -?,, -,?, ?._ it 7:, ,;?- ". -:?? ,., ,ZZK ? .1,?---;,i-?-?,s --?f,' -... Z lye:-" , * ". I ". ? 1'r I .. . " . , ? . , ? , .." " ? , -:, 1. , ..... ,,, , I ? , ...;,.. -. , . ., .-. , , .,:-?? A. . . .:! _.. _..- -\* .I--?-. .'--- ---:," , , - - ?r-,;". - --...-,- -? .Z:', '---,.,.?;, _x"._ . ?.: q? , .,-.,.. -,-.:.'_",...r, I-;___. , ...:?,i -.,??l --.P.L: .,;e *.%. ?_.-__ .Wi . -,,l-,,-l--oxs4b--_ 111?_ . 41:t?.,l ,I- _-%15-f__., _' . 6.4 -;.-!,?o,---,E_ 74 I , p -? 4_~ ,. :,- -;.? -... ?-: -.--z v". 47.-_j, -.%. ..m.f.-_ .3., '. ?Oi?? .:._* .? : ,.?"., . I~I'ID -k ;? '.1 -,.? ,t ?. I .- ...'' .. -'.,-,; - ,;!:::;- f--`?:t?, 4.; ?_-;:--.--C - ?-, ,-Z._: te?? -, A .7:,i:?.?, 9^ . ;. ,-* ,lr_-&,4p, '!.?? . , F? _ ,?-',? , . . , ? , . . I _?Ikl . . . . . , , . ; k 4 . , : ? ? r . , , ? I 4P . A. I 15$;?l - ..: '. -, .." . __ - __w . ?'....:...-%?,' ,:-I ,. , ., " , . _:_,.'tlj i. -?I-!?,.. . ,? :? '.-_-. - -_j? .,..% :7! ...,'?'.o'-. ,.C-I-,. __ , ,; .,"..lr?;l -, ., ". . C.,,,, --?,? --:7.!,;.;, ?. .-I.-.,-". -<,,0,,? - -.--rt 1-1 ,.60. .-1. , __. 7. -- ,? -'7 - -Z. .-.--,if . P:I. --- ,4-.,. . .I. ,.4... ,-T-, -:._i.._ ?%.,c __ ,_
.1

-

1,

0.

*.,*

.-

_t

il! ?

-.

-

A,

,

-",-I -

-?

7,

,?.,

.?'

?:! .:- ??-'? I"'., .

_;

,

"I - . . ". . I . . - -

, . _? ", - ,

?',

*.

--.1 ,-;,* . *,,;- *,,.,?:-

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

4,;.?

?

*..,.?, ?I.. -II,,I.". :-& --_.?14'`i--".;, I:I?---.?: 11 ,. .-;'.7.,,* ,,.,4.' ?4? .-, ,-"-,-, -_ -I?. 1, --.._ . -%-,,? -1 ._:::?,.Z?,p -...,.-1 -.11 -.-,7, -I-,',;N. I...... % ?,,a----.*-,.: Z.'?? I,-R?-.!!-, I-_? --'-,l?,l.: .-.; -, ..? ?-?0' -,_.,__ ??.?? -.r,-,,,e-_,,n.4_"-;:-? ?. J. '-_-?,', ':, ?f -,it I ;;f.. I _ .. '-? . IV, _. --" .1, ?, .-? ? ., 7: ... , .? _` ,-? I .!f..,..P"4? -I.,_. I !;?? t;, , .f" ! .----", ?1. , , ? -0 .: * . ., I .1 . ?* );? .. f .Q ." . . , .-_ . . ,? . " I I .I..., -"-;.: O -,-,, '_ _, . 7v -, . C?k.,-.,I'-I,', -Z ?. _,?'l ?.;t 1??,4, , ??_ ? ?;. fl? , 'L. I?. %, --,,--1 ..*., 1_7: *,,?L'. .,-- _..?. -..--,. ID 5;??)':!-;' ???-ve', .'t -A': v,, , ,?l ,.A? ??.I."', .:,...-,_' I. ..-I.1 I-'-!.--7' , -.:?._It?? ",. -?_.' .. - ?`t1".. .?----.-Z.'?-:'5 _ - ' . . - ? . _.t-.;.' , A?ea.,<Jifi, -0 ,,-j ?? 11 'l. 1 ! _ ... I . - . __ m , . ? _ ,. I I%. , . . . ' . I,__ , , . , -: . I , _. . "r?? ,_7 ?? ?_-Z -_.,:.,A;."-.-,. ,-.I7-?' ..,"I .??._.-. ._'y._ ,_:.. .?? ?.,-,t., ,II..;,,, -.-. %. 7--.-. ..,.I,I--?.. >?.? -*.-.% ,-? I., ?I.?.. 4e-.? ,?-,-, _.I-.z *- -4 T.,. ,--,.!-"-,.'t ?.,_-01,,I?--. -...?? -.. --,-,-'.--*,, .-*-, -.:. -.,..". .,VI, ,-_? "--.'! ,:, '. ?"..?', .?.; ---h-3 ,:?, .-?_.' s-.: -"?, -.;:,Lz ,.?., ? ?.? ?. . . . , I .,.-,. ,."; . _". .?;?Z? -._., 1 ,* 1?_ _. -,-),;.: .. , . , .1. . , L -, j4----, .,,, .. ? .. ? -. .. ?.. . .1 .-.1. . w-,__ .. .. . I f ? ? __ . . iv. -?.I? -1. . e' : -. -t, ? I!f?l ,? '. . ", ?-: . .. --,,I .., _,_i:% : -'. , _?_f , . .?' -.I.*,. .--.I,. .??..-.. ... ?-.?, ":__ .:?,_ --.4!r -.I..._. '..,'...e , .---, ." % ---",:??','..- .:?...._. ..,-.1 -1 .-?..*_. -.:,-.. II.:-, -11 ._'-'7-.I-.J?'. ?"t--? vI--;".?:,!: ,-,,_ ". ...--:? ..,--"?:S _", .,----;Z.-r? 't *-L-' -_?v...I,,.,Z.;," ---,....",,-' ..I?-I"?-, I.j.-7.1 .. ?--;_:.?? ,.X?, .11 ?,.,?_t - ?_. --? __ ? ? ? . .,.I". ftz?!? .. -".%:?7-:-.,% _! , . __ ?-l . .1 .I--, ,.? I ?". , ? , , . ,. .f1. ? 1. ,:,!--? . . ? . ,. ,-,,, ?? .?; . _. _,;t7 .. -??---!,?' -7-, " .4?erv , "" ,;,? " . . I . '. I . t%.l . ? . . e_"Af`,_-a? ..: , . . -. . ' % , ,? , '.. , ? --.? ?'3.?? -, " , :. _,:-? . , ? I , ,?'t ?,.?,-. I "I % .?' . --7'!_'--..:,l.',' , . --T"n-____ . , . , __1 :-,!,? _-, :. . _ ?l ? . , ?I.4. ---. , -? ?. l._. , I . / . r, t I 1. . --,. . , . I ;,'?O , C_ ?. t. ,?. ".,:?/..I?,.?: ".,.z - -,1?-__: .7.. ..?,-_.I*_ . _, ;-:, I?.--'? ,.?_4, ;?? .4? ,%: _-.-?_ .,,.-?.. I.;?? ._71' .li;,?,? .---1 -4A -,--. jc*%?!:".?? .1 -,I?,-. -,-.-,C??-.-,,. -" :; ,.-_. -,-..;-, --?.%:ii '.. sr-:;?-_;,tf,."-. --,..? .-? I. -... ..`?= .._...-I?.,.I-,.?I-..--:_;?: __ ?,,??*. I?__1 ,?? .4 :'. .,-??'.. - ?,-.--,:;, -..?, ..-_-, .. -? -r.? I-.:, ., , , , " I . .I -?...-.. -."..?-I",-._l,-),2?, . r.v? :?.'-??_ -77 -?. _:!?^,?:. .;_5?? ,:': ?,*, ', ----.4,-'o-Z!7--?r .I;It ,-??-? ,----? I.:1 I--?I?? .?.,__ . -t?,.: I,-frr .-_? :-.?. -.e

I

-

-Lj,

_,

1

A

"

,L:

I.

."i.,

ft-4

1? 1 .

_? %

_

-

-

.?_:,

I

-

.

,

,

-

#

-

N?,

_,

;k?._

I;-

.?;l

-

:._7

-1

,

. .

-l

;

.

-;!.i",?,

-*

f

'.

.

.%

.

?-.

:

,

-;4

?_

_

_

-

,_

.

-

,- ro

.

1

Z

?

-.,:"

".' .

-

,

i?:.

,-.

.I

-

?,

,?

_?

,

n

,

:-

._?-

.

., -

N

?-

,

?c

N

._

?ot

'.

,

?

?,

'!

?

'.:

.,.,. '. ?? --,.,-' ,, , ;-lx,:..I*-!:; -,.? ,_-I" -.,l'.?-_? '? ,,-.; ??.-= ,??: ?'... ,----1, __? L, ?%aI.--.,. --.,--*-?, ...?-?. --..j....,?._ -!L? ,..,. .-. ?.... ,,,, II?--??__--'- ?.,-.,,-." __ ." ??? --.a. ??-_,?;r; _?' ')i% .AI "-:- . ` ,? I --?--.----.,.,-?-._?_ ??-__ - .0 ;?-.I_: .._: _?.-I??1. ._?'__., . -r -?.-'.'? -. .I __ -,.I1, ,._r , - *I. ,'I, _.. .. ?_l: " ,_ ..;., I--,_: ..,-..'. N ?. -'--"'. 9-'? .--,". 't ._'. -..., -?,_ __.--?, -"kl,,5 ,??,? ,_..---, .--:1-.;, ?.,....:. ..? ,... 'A-?"';.1, .> -,:"* , j-, .-?,. .. ,- ,. ,-..-." .t.;, ,-??,,_ ..-_?. .?. ..--. -1.4 ., - ,.,?,?."_.,W. -?_.t't....;;-_, .-..? ,.?-,?l . ..--'... " . ?-0 .: " .?? ? . .,-,Pr.? ,,,." _-t-:?? ?v ..?? N...e .. ,.. -? , , ,'. _.?ai. _-Y ,.-*.- I-.,.:?A?, . - - ?.... I. ...% -,.?.. ?-,.-... _-,.? ,-.,! --t'-" . ., ,I?Tl - -.'.II,I .. . - .I ?li,I'_,..., J4 I - ;.,-.--4 _?, . - -,,_? X ?;-??,t? . ,,<'?? -.,_? Z-? ----,_", , ." . ? ?,1-11 :`?,,?,?`,?I I'-, I . _?_`_;;_;:;, --,. .,:tt_, 1---.W... ..?,.,:?: Z-.?. , '. '. , 1..?..: , . ., . .. ;, ; ; .. ; . .., . -? ,:. ? .1 ? 'e . I -? -.I,# , ,---'.' , . ? I -.:, -, ? .P" .. . -, _ 1;?,? -,., ? ., . I .1 , ... _ " '' I . 11 -, I . ,;? ., ?,?:-,-*,-, ??Q ? , I . . . --, . I I , , .".. ; . . *",. -, -J, , -.. .. I.. ..;, 2: --,-. ,;" , ., ly, '. -, . -_ *A: . . --,%-? --. k;??.: !?? I -_!;_;??:?, . . . !-, ? 1:7? ? ", " 1:.1 , , o . , :? , . -, ? -',, , %-,V??t , , ? _J: , -t_. . ,Z, I . __.I. ?? .-: _ . I .v.; ? . . ? .*I-t -I.:--L.., , I I ;, I 1. , ?l . i., ? ."to . I. . , ; _'?_ . I ,. . . . I..." .-'.. " I L,:? , 'N , 1, ._-4", I , ? . .-. --f ; I I . I. -1. ? ,,,, . -'.--, . I 16 ,.:, -:'! -..--.V?,./...--,""Y ,.,."" .-..,,'-^---I?.--_?'.., ?.. ..-,-, ;.!?-e?,?:" I.-..'...,,-_.,;._?. --S,?? -/.-.'o'_ .,?? _: I...?. ,_,e .-,4. ..-. .1 -?--?.,..-.,?? I.'.1,?.1; j?' '.---.7" ," .1'. ?C ---': _?Z!!7z .?-.?, '.'.-z..-11. ,.I-I.-.?' . ?.I.I ,,C-..?I.,I..,",_* -I.--"I .,,?:v ?..& I.V'I? -.'...-., ."orn ..??_..?:,?*' ?-!,?', -,-1. I.?. .-.," :.-,--&?z ?, ?,_ ?" ---,:? ,-?%4. -.?.'I? 4.-; .? ..r ?-.-.1 , '? .." .--,-'...,?,/."..?? .;7--r-?,, :' .-;O'! .? ..,-.? 7-, O.. -. --I -..--r., .?--..-,?_--*,,?il ,--;.__T.-?: ?.;,?11._-t? ,,,?-.?"-A'%:?;, -.?.-,..; _-el .-...".." 1-1,:a. --; .-.-? ,-._? ,..I:" .m-" .-_', ,__ -?? .I. .;./-,/l.'.. -?.,? .-._.?' ?--z?4A -... --4?? I-17.... -,?, "".iz '-:, 0, -$, . -?, . . ..., -%: ?. .?, I. ? " ,.-. I , ?., I ,; _1? . I .,; J&I "17 -? A ; .1 , , . . , ? : . . ." ".:* . . . ... .( . . lj? ", %, . . or." I , w . , '. ;.W. '' . , ---, I .. ?? ., . . ,? ipel ?,_-, . . , . " ? 1? ? .. . ? ? ** ... .. , . , .?., , 4 _. . .:? .:. ,, . , ? , . ` ,,--.* ": , . ? !Z' .. I ? ?, . ,"... '. " (*_ . . " ., 1, ,? ?.j._.I1? ,,Z;.. f,"? .V, t_'.1 -.?.-flo -.I.---'I-'I .,'..1? .-_.?-_ ,jo .-. -? I . ?.?,..:?.,?_.-:,-? ..." ,? . .;,.. I,-;" I.1, ,-,-,. ,-, , -I-,?': -..,,, "?..:-?,:,? ,:?. --* .. .0 ,-< ;.> , )"! ? . ,, " *.'?. ;-7.. .,I., ?. I. .I?. I.,'. ,4-it 'r"." -4*'-' :?A -,,? -,.I-.,....?.:..?---",., , - .I? II. ...-. I I-r.'e -..- ?_. f-:?M. '.I , . . ...I4- .. ,-1.,I-..".I,_ "r %, -?, .", ?,,, , I.I" -.,...:,.. -.. 1..I?.:._.,?', ;??'.%1'..'-'Z,"' ,-, _I-11 . ,.?. ,.-I?,1. _.. .I-..-, ,? -...r.--_. ...-. .,. -?: "-,., -?, II.-- ,-....-._.-". ",.: ,?? .-. ..-. '..:.,... II *- ,..... ,.?,.- I..-.,-.'?at ..;_ .. _1? , -, -- -?_-? _,;,? ?I....?, ? ,?,?!?_-:?..e ,.r/, " ?,..t?-:% :,:"P I11 I-II.,- . 'I', %,. ...?9.?lf -* '-` ??.' i, :.,,I--.'-:' -7',? ...-, --.-, ..I,'L .?, T _.*. .-?-...1-".., ...I;A? _.-?-% .,c..: .. .IZ' ,? . I. ....,*, .??. . :.- .,- .1, ,.'?r.-.:-,-L, ?'? _!-..":o. ..,.-11 ,L - I,-1 I-?I , .., , I .? - . A . .. , ..'.. .". ,,-.1 ._" , - -.. ,." .,"?, lt_?_ ?...,...??J ,:,. ,.?; ?A. , .. ,.-,?---" .. .. - 1: ,...,,,I ).??,? -._.??.! "".v /1, : ; . ? . .: ., . .?.o I . -, . .,. . -w ,??-, . . , -, .:t;-;?? . ?e ? -1, . , -. . .. " ., . __ . : ,.?;. . -, , . ,. ,,-I I .. . , ?'. r,,-, , , : . .;?. . . ,? .. . . ": -. . , , , . . ,--. , . -" ? ., %L .vi?z I ..r,:L . . t . ,-,-_% . ? t. . I . i , -, : ? . ., I 7' ;,.? I , f.14,!z%.I,? !-, ?, ? ?. I : -_ __ 11 ?l ,j'? , ?r _. a I ,;? _. , z . ." . I ? . I '. , ? ----? I !.:-" ,; -I , ,? _4 _? -?,. ".'..,.,.,,...-,_?",.:Al'Pl..o,,, .1 I . .. .. . ,, . I ,A . . .r?. : , ? ? I ., . . ., " . . , ., N. ? ."-, ..^411le'.)". . ,?-.,__? '41: ? ?, , -?, .. * --#.V ? . 1. !L :-. I . ..' : . ? i". .. -----1. ..;" . w .. ,? -,5?, 5--, , :1 1. I , _?-P_?. . I , .I".. ? ., . " .? . ", , , '?' . -"'r.-j?', 4 -A. . . I ': ;?_ ,? ;. ?'?t , , , . : --? .:,-;;: .. , , I I ; ..;.-' , , . * :? ,"', I ?;,.-?' ? ..!-? . .. .. ,? L I.. I , .:. "?*_ -, '. .*.t ,-?-" . .-? . ....__-_,O?v .., , -;?,?.. . ,:?'._: .,f I *11**-:I.,?,,? ..-, ,? ...% ,.?_ z.?:f ,_-, . -:1 ,.....I,.'.I.-%,... .."'i .-._', -,Z? ...., ?..--", L ".....,Y -.II,,:%? I. L", .'.,,1.",.-??.f N? .--_.,:1. .,_ -"--1 . .-,?;'.., ?? ,tl. I3' ,," -*--4" -,?: '..-?.,.'.. ..,. .". .,-1 ..,-..-? L .,.,..". --.,,_-,,*,. ...---: . ,-,.;? ,_-
-?

'-C

-.

,

-.

-

-

.,P

N-

38

-,!

-%-:?`-

-,

MARCH1976

aerial photographs for archeological purposes must be taken after a rainfall or in the Spring when vegetation, briefly, may be luxurious. In examining such photographs, aerial archeologists watch for long, unnaturally straight lines. Nature, like God, writes straight with crooked lines. Man, it seems, writes crooked with straight lines. Thus, in the photograph shown here, Dr. Wingert is suspicious of the long straight line on the hilltop in the upper left-hand quadrant, particularlysince the line seems "unnaturally"to continue down the slope into the wadi. Nothing, for the moment, can be concluded; but this is the sort of thing aerial archeologists look for. The Near East differs from England in more than climate, of course. From an archeological point of view, a most striking difference is that the location and even the names of literally thousands of cities from now-vanished near eastern civilizations are not forgotten. Archeologists have commented on the extreme conservatism of Arabic place-names, but almost equally striking is the fact that so few places in Arab countries go unnamed. Outside Arabia itself, the names themselves are not Arabic; but the habit of preserving them surely is. The result is that archeologists in the Near East usually know where to start digging. They do not need the help of aerial photography to locate their sites. Moreover, their most important sites, unlike those in England and the New World, are tells. An Indian encampment in North America or a pre-Roman ceremonial site in England may have been built upon once and then abandoned, but in the classic near eastern tell, new settlements are built on the ruins of old for centuries and even millennia. Since only the topmost layer of occupation in a tell-always the most recent and usually the least interesting - is visible from the air, near eastern archeologists have been less aggressive in their use of aerial photography than European and American archeologists. It can happen, however, that even in the Near East, aerial photographs taken in the course of an excavation may reveal the unexcavated, further outlines of a partially excavated building or fortification. In this way, aerial archeology and surface archeology can work in tandem. One of the most important uses of aerial photography is in the preparation of contour maps. In contour mapping, a camera is fastened to the bottom of a plane or otherwise positioned to shoot directly downward. As the plane overflies the site, the camera is triggered at intervals brief enough that the resulting photographs overlap by at least fifty percent. Matching them carefully and calculating a scale from lens angle and altitude, a cartographercan prepare an accurate contour map in a fraction of the time necessary with surfacesurveying techniques. BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

Often more useful for archeological purposes than such vertical composites are oblique photographs. The photograph shown here is what is referred to as a "low oblique." If the horizon were visible, it would be a w"high oblique." The human eye can interpret such oblique photos - the sort of view, after all, that prehistoric man might have had from a mountaintop - much more naturally than it can interpret vertical photos. To appreciatea true "bird'seye view," one has to train oneself to see as a bird does. Professional cartographers do exactly that, but most archeologists are more comfortable with a "mountaintop view." In rare cases, archeological purposes may be served by stereoscopic photography, in which a pair of photographs, taken simultaneously from differentangles, are viewed through distorting glasses. As in the old "3-D" movies, the result is the illusion of depth, an illusion, however, which may tell an archeologist something important about his site. For publication purposes, it is possible to produce a quasi-stereoscopic effect by slicing the pair of stereoscopic photographs into narrow, vertical strips, pairing the strips in a composite photograph, and covering the composite with a sheet of plastic corrugated in such a way that as the photograph is tilted, now one set and now the other of the strips will appear to the eye. We have all seen novelty calendars produced in this way, in which as the calendar is tilted, a puppy wags his tail and bats his eyelashes. There, the effect is movement. Here, where the paired photographs are of the same object, the effect is depth. For research purposes, however, separate photographs and a viewing instrument are required;and even under these circumstances, the archeological usefulness of stereoscopic photography is limited. Perhaps the most surprising use of aerial photography is in underwaterarcheology. The perception of gross patterns, difficult enough in surface archeology on land, is much more difficult underwater.Divers, under the best of conditions, cannot see very far underwater; and sonar cannot "see" at all. Aerial photography has thus been invaluable in gathering information about ruined harbors and "sunken" cities. At last report, no one had yet attempted aerial archeology from a hang glider. Balloons and small planes seem to be the favored vehicles. However, biblical archeologists on a limited budget may be interested in Julian Whittlesey's report in Expedition 15.3 on aerial photography from an airfoil. Accurately described as a "flying mattress," the airfoil is a sophisticated, inflatable kite that requires at least eleven miles per hour of steady wind for reliable operation but at that speed is capable of lifting a grown man off his feet. Whether this feature of the airfoil will recommend its use to biblical archeologists may well stand as a measure of their devotion to their JM discipline.

39

Colophon ARCHAEOLOGY The archaeologist's spade delves into dwellings vacancied long ago, unearthing evidence of life-ways no one would dream of leading now, concerning which he has not much to say that he can prove: the lucky man! Knowledge may have its purposes, but guessing is always more fun than knowing. We do know that Man, from fear or affection, has always graved His dead. What disastered a city, volcanic effusion, fluvial outrage, or a human horde, agog for slaves and glory, is visually patent, and we're pretty sure that, as soon as palaces were built, their rulers, though gluttoned on sex and blanded by flattery, must often have yawned.

the Old Ones bowed down to, but cannot conceit in what situations they blushed or shrugged their shoulders. Poets have learned us their myths, but just how did They take them? That's a stumper. When Norsemen heard thunder, did they seriously believe Thor was hammering? No, I'd say: I'd swear that men have always lounged in myths as Tall Stories, that their real earnest has been to grant excuses for ritual actions. Only in rites can we renounce our oddities and be truly entired. Not that all rites should be equally fonded: some are abominable. There's nothing the Crucified would like less than butchery to appease Him. CODA

But do grain-pits signify a year of famine? Where a coin-series

From Archaeology one moral, at least, may be drawn, to wit, that all

peters out, should we infer some major catastrophe? Maybe. Maybe.

our school text-books lie. What they call History is nothing to vaunt of.

From murals and statues we get a glimpse of what.

being made, as it is, by the criminal in us: goodness is timeless. W. H. Auden

40

MARCH

1976

Newfrom the

AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch

The

Tabernacle Menorah

A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult CarolL. Meyers Edited by David Noel Freedman

DissertationSeries 2

RECONSTRUCTINGCOMPLEXSOCIETIES Editedby CharlotteB. Moore.

Papers and discussion by: Robert McC. Adams, C. C. LambergKarlovsky,and WilliamMoran;James Deetz,RichardBushman;William A. Longacre, George Cowgill; Daniel McCall, Reed Stewart; Craig Morris,Eva Hunt,and John V. Murra;Colin Renfrew,RuthTringham, and lan Todd; WilliamT. Sanders, MartinDiskin, and Michael Coe; George ErnestWright,Jean Perrot,and CharlesL.Redman;GordonR. Willey. A joint publicationof the CambridgeArchaeology Seminar and the American Schools of Oriental Research, Reconstructing Complex Societies attempts to apply some of the ecological, demographic, systemic,and other models used by prehistoricarchaeologyto cognate reconstructionalproblemsin historic archaeology. Publishedby SCHOLARSPRESS