No title

The

BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOGI ?or

Published by THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Jerusalem and Bagdad Drawer 93-A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn.

VOL. XXVIII

February, 1965

No. 1

I

Fig. 1. The fine bronze figurine found in debris of the 15th century B.C. in Field VII at Shechem Photo: Lee C. Ellenberger.

2

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago 14, Illinois. Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University. Service Agency, 31 East 10th $2.00 per year, payable to Stechert-Hafner Subscriptions: Street, New York 3, New York. Associate members of the American Schools of Oriental Research receive the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to the same address, $1.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In England: fifteen shillings per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back Numbers: Available at 600 each, or $2.25 per volume, from the Stechert-Hafner Service Agency. No orders under $1.00 accepted. When ordering one issue only, please remit with order. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second-class postage PAID at New Haven, Connecticut and additional offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1965. PRINTED

IN THE

UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, PETERBOROUGH,

BY TRANSCRIPT

PRINTING

COMPANY

N. H.

Contents

Tell el-Fil1, by Paul W. Lapp ................................. The First Excavations at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, by James B. Pritchard ..... Archaeological News from Jordan .............................

2 10 17

Tell el-Fi~ PAUL W. LAPP, The American

Director

School of Oriental Research,

Jerusalem

To follow up on the excavations of Professor W. F. Albright in 192223 and 1933 (BA, XXVII [1964], 52-64), and to salvage additional archaeological material while the site was still available for excavation, the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem jointly with Pittsburgh Theological Seminary undertook a campaign at Tell el-FIl (Gibeah of Saul) from May 4 to June 13, 1964. Three areas were excavated: a trench was taken from the west against the northwest corner of what Albright considered the southwest tower of the Fortress of Saul; a considerable area to the north of this tower was excavated to bedrock near the western edge of the summit; and on the eastern edge of the summit another, larger, area was cleared to bedrock directly north of that area cleared by Albright in 1933. The west trench against the southwest tower revealed the tower's foundation trench which contained pottery of the post-Philistine phase of Iron I. Strata lying against the buttressing of the west face of the tower contained the same pottery and should be considered a repair during its Iron I use. The ceramic chronology of this period is not precise enough

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

3

to propose a dating closer than between the last quarter of the IIth and mid-10th centuries B.C. While it is therefore not categorically proved that the fortress belonged to Saul, the identification rests on evidence about as strong as archaeology is ever able to provide - especially in light of the comparably strong case for the identification of Tell el-FQllwith Gibeah of Saul. In fact, no rival hypothesis of any substance has been proposed, and the evidence upon which Albright based his identification of 1922-23 stands confirmed. In the same trench a portion of the sloping revetment, which Albright attributed to the latter part of Iron II, was dismantled. The pottery from

i2 M

c ...Pi. i:?::-'--::::::::.::-:: -: ::::W

E

ii:iciiii:_ii~liii :i::ii-I i . .. :i-:i~~-iri:~i~i~_ -~iii~i ol 44ii

Fig. 2. Tell el-FIl seen from the north. Photo by P. H. Williams, Jr.

the dismantling confirms his results and conclusions. Only slight modification is required in that this pottery can be more precisely assigned to the late 7th - early 6th century B.C. horizon rather than the 8th - 7th century B.C. A poorly constructed banking west of the revetment, not dated in the earlier reports, belongs to the hurried Hellenistic repair of the defenses at the time of the Maccabees. Perhaps the most controversial issue arising from the earlier campaigns centers around Albright's proposed reconstruction of Saul's fortress. It has been objected that the contours of the mound preclude the extension of the fort eastward as far as the reconstruction necessitates, and it has been felt by some scholars that Saul had only a defensive tower, not a larger fort at Tell el-FOl. New light on this problem was unearthed north of the tower area in the form of a three-meter fragment of the west wall

4

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

of Saul's fort (see figs. 3 and 4). Its attribution to the fort is assured: it is nearly on a line with the west wall extending north from the southwest tower previously excavated; it is the same 1.50 meter width; it has strata of earth against it on each side containing exclusively what we have called the 1000 B.C. pottery horizon. Albright's view, that Saul had not merely a tower but a fort here, is vindicated. Under the wall was a .30 meter layer of clay on bedrock, corresponding to the pre-fortress phase reported by Albright in the tower area. Yet, his views do need modification. The wall fragment just mentioned extends north of the north wall of the fort according to Albright's reconstruction (see BA XXVII.2, fig. 14). This shows that the north-south axis of the fort was longer than Albright proposed, and it may be considered a hint that the longer axis of the fort, as the contours of the mound would tend to indicate, was the north-south one, not the east-west as Albright proposed. According to Albright, the rectangular fort was of the casemate type. It is clear that there was no wall in the preserved Iron I debris east of our wall fragment to correspond to the inner wall of the casemate. Accordingly, as Albright has agreed in subsequent private correspondence, the view that Saul's fort was a casemate must be abandoned. The preservation of a small segment of the fort's west wall was quite fortuitous. Between this segment and the tower Iron II operations had cleared the entire area to bedrock, and to the north Hellenistic constructions rested on the natural surface of the tell. The only other traces of Iron I occupation appeared on the eastern edge of the summit. Here, a silt deposit on the floor of a silo and a pocket in a deeply excavated cavity in bedrock contained pure Iron I pottery. The pottery of the pre-fortress phase indicates an occupation in the first half of the 12th century B.C. while the pottery associated with the fortress belongs to the period of about 1025 - 950 B.C. There seems to have been a definite gap in occupation during the period of the Philistine ascendancy, and there seems to be no evidence to recommend the view that Saul's fort had been originally a Philistine construction. Gibeah was a strongly fortified site in the last decades of the Iron II period, and its population seems to have increased substantially as the sixth century progressed. To the strategic revetted tower unearthed in the earlier campaigns two new defensive elements may be added. The first is an Iron II casemate. This has been keyed into the lowest courses of the north face of the revetment, which, it may be recalled, enclosed the southwest tower of the fortress of Saul. The .80 meter outer wall is separated from the .50 meter inner wall (see fig. 3) by an intersice of about 1.50

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

5

meters. At the north end of our excavation along the east edge of the summit appeared another portion of what could be presumed to be the same casemate because of its closely parallel dimensions and type of construction. The inner wall of the casemate was traced without a break for over 20 meters along the eastern edge of the summit and presumably continues south immediately to the east of Albright's 1933 excavations. The outcr wall was founded on bedrock and in places was built against a vertical face cut into bedrock. Its width varied between .75 and .35 meters

.....Lk.7i ..............

,.Mr.........

Fig. 3. Plan of excavated remains at Gibeah. The tower of Saul's fortress is at lower left. Running away from the revetment along its north edge is the Iron II casemate. At the north end of the inner line of the casement is the newly recovered fragment of fortress wall.

because of the packing of its inner phase against sloping bedrock. In the few places it was preserved above foundation in our excavations it was some .80 meters thick. This is the first casemate to be excavated in Palestine from so late in the Iron H period, but the evidence for its dating seems incontrovertible. Only a tiny vestige of the other new Iron II defensive element was preserved. This was a sloping revetment to the east of the casemate, preserved to a height of four courses in one spot, elsewhere to a height of only

6

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

one or two miserable courses resting on bedrock. Farther down the eastern slope were remains of an attempt to shore up this revetment. It is tempting to suggest that there was a revetted tower similar to the one at the southwest on the northeastern corner of the summit, but the vestiges so far unearthed make it impossible to go beyond suggestion. Further excavation in the northeast corner of the summit would be desirable. A few additional fragmentary Iron II remains may be noted. Inside the east casemate was the corner of a well-built Iron II building with foundations cut nearly a meter into bedrock and a meter thick. Fragments of the floor associated with this building had over 20 cm. of ashy destruction debris upon it. This is the only evidence of the 1964 campaign to be connected with the earlier evidence that this occupation ended with destruction. A few of the silos and a cistern had layers of silt containing pure Iron II pottery on their floors, notably a silo near the center of the mound and a cistern within the casemate on the west side. After the destruction of Tell el-Fill, presumably during Nebuchadnezzar's campaign of 597 B.C., the site soon became quite heavily populated again as the huge quantities of pottery from the latter part of the 6th century B.C. testify. In our excavations to the northwest we discovered a large, well-plastered cistern divided in half by a partition wall containing, at the floor, a passageway 1.70 meters high between the two halves. (Only half the cistern was excavated, and the similarity of the two halves is merely an assumption.) The cistern is cut 5.25 meters into bedrock and has a maximum diameter of 4.95 meters. From the debris which filled it came 93 full baskets of pottery and not a few objects. Most important was the lowest silt layer which contained 49 baskets of pottery forming a homogeneous group to be assigned approximately to the last half of the 6th century B.C. Other clear evidence of later 6th century occupation came from the area west of the west casemate. Here were substantial walls laid on bedrock but of smaller stones than those of Iron II proper. Peaceful conditions seem to have prompted occupation outside the still-standing Iron II defenses. The end of this occupation is difficult to specify precisely, but it must not have been far from 500 B.C. It is interesting to note that Gibeon, Bethel, and Shechem seem to have been abandoned about the same time. There seems to be no satisfactory historical explanation of these facts though the abandonment of these sites is apparently not associated with any destruction. To be especially noted is the apparent prosperity of these towns in the late 6th century in marked contrast with evidence from sites excavated to the south of Jerusalem. In any case, our results point to a strongly fortified town in the latter part of the Iron II period which con-

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

7

tinued to prosper for something like a century after a Babylonian destruction. After this abandonment the site lay unoccupied until the latter part of the third century B.C. and then became a populous Hellenistic town during the last half of the second century B.C. The vestiges of Hellenistic occupation before about 165 B.C. recovered in this campaign were minimal, and examination of the pottery at the American School in Jerusalem suggests a similar result for the earlier campaigns. A single mortarium rim, a few jar rims, a few jug rims, and a stamped handle bearing the letters yrilm between spikes of a star (if my dating of this stamp is correct) are all the ceramic remains pointing to a third century B.C. date. To be sure, we have recovered more Ptolemaic coins, but cursory analysis indicates that the majority of the coins belong to the second century B.C. This contradicts the judgment of the final publication of the second campaign that "there is no evidence that the mound was occupied during the period of the Maccabees, as it was first thought; instead it lay in ruins during the second and part of the first century B.C." Actually, the second century B.C. was one of the site's most flourishing centuries, as Albright already recognized after the first campaign. It is difficult to decide about the extent of the late third century occupation since it is possible that there was a substantial occupation which was swept away in the second century B.C. But since these operations left fragments in pockets of Iron I, Iron II, and 6th century occupation, the lack of something comparable from the third century suggests that occupation was slight until the second quarter of the second century B.C. The 175 B.C. ceramic horizon is clearly represented in one silo group from the east side excavation, a pottery cache on bedrock north of the new trace of Saul's wall, and in relation to a doorway and a few other vestiges of construction on bedrock nearby. These structures are composed of rectangular blocks of soft limestone, many of which are reused in later Hellenistic walls. These later walls comprise two clearly distinct phases of the east side, and a two-meter thick wall on the west side with its subsequent rebuild. A good series of Hellenistic floors is to be associated with the later phase on the west side, and a floor of each phase is preserved over large areas of the eastern plot. The end of Hellenistic occupation is difficult to specify precisely. It probably came about 100 B.C. In any case, the two phases belong substantially to the last two-thirds of the second century B.C. On the east side the earlier of the well-preserved Hellenistic phases cleared out, repaired, and added an interior buttress to the Iron II casemate. To the west of the casemate bedrock was shaved away so that the

8

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

western ends of the Hellenistic rooms are partially hollowed out of bedrock. In the later phase the casemate is filled with rubble and a new wall line over a meter to the west of the casemate delimits the eastern edge of the town. As in the case of the inner casemate wall, this line could be traced all along the eastern edge of our excavations for over 20 meters. The two-meter wall on the west must have originally served some defensive purpose but as we found it, it had what were apparently domestic floors on both sides. It may be presumed originally to have extended north from the Hellenistic tower of the earlier excavations but had been subsequently robbed by later Hellenistic builders. The later Hellenistic phase on the west side consisted of several well-preserved rooms with intact floors - occasionally with complete Hellenistic vessels still resting on them. A curious plaster installation from this phase was built against the north face of the Iron II revetment. It consisted of four quarters, each something over a meter square separated by partitions and connected by drains. Details demand graphic presentation. The installation seems too complicated to have been merely a series of settling basins, and perhaps the installation should be related to a dyeing industry. Other periods of occupation were represented by a few sherds only. There was one sherd only which could be clearly assigned to Early Bronze III from the eastern excavations and a few early Middle Bronze II sherds around a flint outcrop at the northwest corner of the summit. The latter included the well-known cooking pots with holes pierced through just below the rim. The Early Roman period was represented by a few sherds from the surface layers at the eastern and western edges of the summit. The few lamp nozzles, jar rims, and coins recovered this season could easily have been left by the soldiers of Titus, who camped at the site the night before they reached Jerusalem in A.D. 70. No structures could be assigned to these periods. We found nothing like the abundance of first century B.C. - first century A.D. pottery reported from the earlier campaigns. Perhaps this was actually pottery from the 100 B.C. horizon, or perhaps there had been an isolated Early Roman installation just north of the north face of the Iron II revetment which had been completely removed by the earlier excavations. Nearly all the 24 silos cleared had been used in the Hellenistic period. It has been suggested that the numerous silos in the east side of the mound are quite similar to the large number discovered at el-Jib which have there been associated with a wine industry. This campaign produced no evidence that any of the silos were so used. In most cases there is no direct evidence for determining whether a silo was cut in the Hellenistic or Iron age. One silo had been used in the Iron I period, and another had been cut before

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

9

an Iron II wall was built over it. Another had a mid-second century B.C. wall built over its mouth, and two others had respectively good end of Iron II and late 6th century pottery groups in deposits on their floors. Most of the silos are quite similar in shape. Some were capped by well-cut round stone lids, others by capstones with plugs fitting into the small mouth of the shaft. The larger-mouthed silos with round drum-like stone caps probably were originally used in the Iron I period while those with small openings capped by plug lids seem to have been cut in the Iron II

W. 40

r

ob

I,

A6-

".

,

,•

,

Fig. 4. The new fragment of the fortress wall from Gibeah in foreground, with the inner line of the Iron II casemate wall behind it (the shorter meter stick is on it). Photo: Paul W. Lapp.

period. It seems doubtful that any of the silos were originally Hellenistic. The silos were undoubtedly standard equipment for the Iron age house, for storing grain and large jars containing oil, wine, or water. Even some of those from el-Jib were quite probably used for such ordinary purposes. We came upon only two plastered cisterns. The silos had no plaster except that in a couple of instances natural cavities in bedrock were filled with stones and cracks with sherds and the cavity then covered with a layer of mortar. This was presumably to keep out rodents or moisture. The two well-plastered cisterns, the larger having been described above, were both considerably larger than the silos. Both had 6th century B.C.

10

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

depositson their floors and were later reusedin the Hellenisticperiod.A well-preservedchannel was associatedwith the smallerone. The object registryincludes,in addition to about 100 vessels of the late 6th centuryB.C., 25 coins (mostlyPtolemaicand Seleucid),six Hellenistic lamps,six 6th centuryB.C. lamps, 21 well-preservedbone picks and spatulas,eight animal and human figurineheads and bodies,stampedjar handles including Imlk, yhd, and yrilm varieties,and two jars bearing Hebrew inscriptionsof the late second centuryB.C. Most of the objects, with the exceptionof the coins, came from the silos and cisterns.

The First Excavations at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh JAMESB. PRITCHARD The University

of Pennsylvania

Midway between the Lake of Tiberias and the Dead Sea stands the impressive landmark of Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, situated about a mile to the east of the Jordan River. This mound of 20 acres rises to a height of 40 meters above a vast plain of arable land that is once again being made productive by water which flows through the East Ghor Canal system. Although the tell was occupied extensively in biblical times its ancient name has not been preserved. Nelson Glueck has argued that it is the site of Zarethan,1 preferring this identification to the earlier suggestion of Zaphon that was made tentatively by Albright2 and accepted as probable by Abel." Th'l'esite was chosen for excavation because of its strategic location in the center of a large agricultural area and the abundance of surface pottery from the Bronze and Iron ages. A series of excavations here should make a significant contribution to our knowledge of the culture and history of the Jordan Valley, a relatively neglected area of biblical Palestine. The first excavation at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh was begun on January 1 and continued through February 29, 1964. It was sponsored by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and directed by the writer. In addition to the cooperation generously voted by the trustees of the American Schools of Oriental Research there was the aid supplied by Dr. Awni Diajani, director of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, who lent four members of his department to augment our staff: Moawiyah M. Ibrahim, Ahmed Shistawi, Hassan Mamlouk, and Khair Nimer Yassin. Other participants in the excavation were: John E. Huesman, S. J., Asia G. Halaby, Thoma& L. McClellan, Gustav A. Materna, Subhi Muhtadi, Jacques Lagarce, Robert H. Smith, and Terry Ball. 1. AASOR, XXV-XXVIII(1951), 340 ff.

2. AASOR, VI (1926), 46. 3. Geographie, Vol. II, p. 448.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

11

Work during this first season of two months was done in three areas: a (1) residential area on top of the northwestern part of the higher mound; (2) a stairway leading down the north side of the mound; and (3) a cemetery on the bench, or lower mound to the west. The 8th Century Houses

In an area of about 750 square meters at the northwest of the mound there was found the well-preserved ground plan of a residential section that contained ten almost identical houses - six were more or less fully excavated - arranged symmetrically between two straight, paved streets (fig. 5). A typical house measures 8.50 m. long by 5 m. wide on the inside. It consists of a large room and courtyard, 6.25 by 5 m., and a smaller room at the back of the house, that measures 2 by 5 m. The roof of the

Im:

ze::~~:::"::":::~' -'i:'" ::1:: i: I.: i: : : : j

Ok~~~i~~i~if' .

........;'i~l

i~':

:"iY~ i:

.: :

Fig. 5. To the left of the straight street is a row of almost identical houses, each with columns and a courtyard.

larger room was supported by 4 columns of mud brick, and seems to have extended over two-thirds of the front room; the remaining area was a paved courtyard. The entranceway from the street led into the covered portion of the front room; another door opened from the sheltered part of the front room into the smaller room at the back. The remarkable feature of the residential district of the town is the conformity of each house to the same general plan and measurements. Although there is evidence for repairs and slight alterations the conclusion is inescapable that these houses were built at the same time and according

12

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXVIII,

to a city plan. The pottery found in the burning which everywhere covered the floors of these houses points to a date within the 8th century B.C. for the destruction of the city. The results of Carbon-14 tests made upon the charred beams lying on the floors confirmed this date. The large cooking area lay to the west of these houses. Among the five ovens there were broken cooking pots, sheep bones, and a deep layer of wood ash. Obviously this section of the residential area had been a kind of communal kitchen. The well-preserved 8th century stratum was not the last occupation of the mound. Storage pits had been cut into these houses and the foundation of a city wall was found to have been built over the paving in the court of one of the identical houses. The upper settlement, however, was so badly denuded that we did not recover any recognizable house walls. 'lhe Stairway

tarty in the campaign it was noticed that there were two walls running down the north side of the tell outside the line of the city wall at the top. Since they extended northward in the direction of the springs at the edge of the Wadi Kufrinje we guessed that they might have been a part of a passageway from the Inside of the city to the water source below. A trench cut across the line of the walls revealed well-built steps. The stairway, 1.75 to 2.25 meters wide, was excavated for a distance of roughly fifty meters; within this stretch there were eighty steps and wider platforms. We estimated that about fifteen meters of the upper part of the stairway had been washed away in the denudation which had removed the upper rim of the tell. When the forty steps which would have been required for the missing part of the stairway are added to the total number still in place we have a total of 120 steps for the sixty-five meters from the edge of the top of the tell to the bottom, where the stairway takes a turn to the right. At the lower end of this section of the stairway we uncovered six more steps leading downward toward the east, but for lack of time we did not follow the stairway further. The most distinctive feature of this stairway built of large stones from the wadi bed is a mud-brick wall, forty centimeters thick, that divides the passageway into two equal parts. Since this well-built wall would have been quickly dissolved by the rains without a roof to protect it, it is fairly certain that the entire passageway was covered over and that the wall served to support the roof. These supports were probably of wood, since there were found no stones large enough to have spanned the distance between the side wall and the mud-brick wall. The latter may well have served another function: the separation of the up-going traffic from that going down.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

13

ifi - --,

mL ?:I

Fig. 6. Bronze

tripod with

bowl

riveted

to the three prongs

at the top, from the "queen's"

tomb.

Probes into the sides of the stairway made clear the method of construction. It had been built by cutting a trench down the north side of the tell; the trench was then lined with stones which served as the outer walls for the tunnel. Since the east wall was found to be standing to a

14

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

height of 21/2meters (a little over eight feet) in one place, it is obvious that there was enough room for a water carrierwith a jar on his head to negotiatethe passage. The function of the stairscan be surmisedfrom analogousexamples at el-Jib, Megiddo,and elsewhere:it servedas a means for getting water from the springwhen the town was undersiege. The staircasewas in fact a secrettunnel; its roof was below the groundlevel of the side of the hill and camouflagedso that it could not be detectedby the enemy. There must have been some defensivemeasureat the lower end of the tunnel, where the water came from the ground, but we shall have to wait for another season to see how this measurefor civil defense is built at the bottom. The Cemetery

A sounding was begun at the north edge of the lower mound to the west for the purpose of determining the stratification of the settlements in the Early Bronze Age. Sherds from the early periods of this age were found everywhere on the surface. However this objective had to be abandoned when it was discovered that this area had been used as a cemetery at the end of the Late Bronze and the beginning of the Iron I age. Seventeen burials were discovered, of which two were of special interest. Tomb 102 contained a disarticulated skeleton wrapped in cloth and imbedded in a slab of bitumen, preserved to a length of 1.40 meters; the width at the east end was thirty-four centimeters. A bronze sword, fortynine centimeters long, and fitted with a bronze handle and pommel, was encased with the bones in the bitumen slab. Except for the decoration of incised circles and triangles along two lines on the blade it is not essentially different from one found at Ras Shamra in 1954.4 The tomb goods in the "bitumen" tomb included six pottery vessels, a bronze cup with a strap handle riveted to the shoulder, three bronze bowls, a bronze spear point, two bronze rings, two bronze arrowheads, and a scarab. The bitumen slab lay upon a bed of stones and the entire burial had once been incased by a tomb of mud brick, now almost entirely destroyed by denudation. The richest burial in the cemetery is a tomb, measuring 3.25 by 1.50 meters ion the inside, built of mud bricks (fig. 7). It contained a single burial with the skeleton extended on its back with the head to the west the usual orientation within the cemetery. The grave goods consisted of a large collection of articles of personal adornment: more than five hundred beads of carnelian and gold, two 4. Ugaritica III, P1. 10, pp. 277-78.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

15

::id -i:e~:.::iF

::::j::--:

i:.:::jj:::o:: -":"--

:::I . ::, ::::: .:i:::-: :.?. ::: ::::_:?:-:::i: :8:-::::-:: :-:-:::::?i:i::::: :-::::'::i. ".'...-" :ii_:-i:ii::*: -?::::i .::i:~: ":::::::::::~:-' :::: ::;i:::::j:

lii::?~iEi-ii'iiiiii~ii'?ii8;;. ::::::-::..

e:-:::i :i:::::::::.::

Fig. 7. The brick-lined tomb of the "queen" with deposits of pottery, bronze, carnelian, ivory. gold and electrum in place around the skeleton.

16

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

splendid toggle pins of electrum, and two electrum plates decorated with a herringbone design and suspended by an electrum chain from the neck. Arranged around the head and shoulders of the occupant of the grave were two unguent bottles of ivory, an ivory box with sliding lid, a larger one decorated with rosettes and bull's head, and an ivory spoon of the well-known Egyptian type. r"- -::-'-~~'-?~~:--~~-*: -: ~-~~"~~'~'-~-i--'--:---~~~i-:;~~~~~

ii ?

---?-??_--------r---??-??-?-: -?-;-?

-:?- -

:::::j:1

:: :-::i i::

.i_-i~

i

:?

Fig.

8. Wine

service

set of bronze

tray, bowl,

strainer,

and juglet,

found

in the "queen's"

tomb.

Like the "bitumen" burial this tomb contained a number of bronzes. A tripod of bronze resembles Cypriote examples, except that it has a bronze bowl riveted to the three prongs at the top (fig. 6). A large couldron, measuring forty-eight and one-half centimeters in diameter, is of hammered bronze, and equipped with two handles riveted securely to the rim.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

17

A bronze lamp in the form of a bowl with pinched spout on one side of the rim appears in place of the usual pottery lamp found in tombs. In one corner of the tomb there appeared a set of four vessels of cast bronze: a platter, measuring thirty-one and one-half centimeters in diameter, with two handles firmly attached by twelve rivets; a plain bowl; a strainer with a loop handle, one end of which was riveted to the body; a juglet, ten and one-half centimeters high, with a twisted loop handle splayed at the lower end where it is attached to the body (Fig. 8). That this is not a chance or casual assortment of bronzes is apparent from the appearance of three of the forms (small bowl, strainer, and handle and rim of juglet) in Tomb 229 at Tell el-Far'ah (Sharuhen),5 four similar pieces found in the collection of bronzes of Locus 1739 of Stratum VI at Megiddo,6 and a bowl and strainer found in the Governor's Tomb at Tell el-'Ajjul.7 There is a scene carved on a box lid of ivory found at Tell elFar'ah (Sharuhen),8 which shows an important person who is drinking a bowl of wine which is being filled from a flask. This scene suggests the possibility that our collection of bronzes constitutes a wine-drinking set for some important person. The considerable number of bronze vessels and other objects found in these two tombs suggests that there must have been available at this site in the 13-12th centuries a considerable amount of bronze; in fact it is not unreasonable to suppose that it may have been a bronze-working center. In the light of these discoveries the tradition preserved in I Kings 7: 45-46 is of no small interest: "Now the pots, the shovels, and the basins, all these vessels in the house of the Lord, which Hiram made for King Solomon, were of burnished bronze. In the plain of the Jordan the king cast them, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarethan." 5. 6. 7. 8.

Beth-Pelet I, P1. 34:203, 204, 213. Megiddo II, Pls. 189-190. Ancient Gaza III, P1. 8: 14, 15. Beth-Pelet I, P1. 55.

Archaeological

News

from Jordan

This issue of BA concerns itself with six sites in Jordan where excavation has taken place during the past year. In this section, the editor and his colleague at the American School in Jerusalem, Dr. Bruce T. Dahlberg of Smith College, have worked with interim reports supplied by the excavators. A regular feature of the journal Rivue Biblique, which originates from Jerusalem, is a chronicle of this kind, and we are grateful to Pere Benoit, its editor, for permitting us to publish material submitted jointly

18

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

to us before the Revue appears. It is hoped that a subsequent issue of BA can take up some of the fascinating work going on in Israel. Shechem

For the fifth summer of the last nine, the Drew-McCormick expedition worked at the site of ancient Shechem. The large staff was led by G. Ernest Wright of Harvard, with Edward F. Campbell of McCormick Theological Seminary and Robert J. Bull and James F. Ross of Drew University as his assistants. Other staff came from many institutions, among them Southern Baptist Theological Seminary represented by Joseph Callaway, fresh from work at Ai. At the conclusion of the 1962 campaign at Shechem, the problem had remained of closing the stratigraphical gap between the early part of Iron II (stratum IX of the 9th century) and the end of Middle Bronze (about 1530 B.C.). Work in Fields VII and IX near the center of the mound had elucidated nine strata dating from 100 B.C. back to the mid9th century; work in the public buildings on the west of the mound had begun where earlier German excavation had left off and had clarified strata from the Middle Bronze age. Work in 1964 concentrated in the two stratigraphic cuts, Fields VII and IX, and then on clearing up detailed questions arising in previously dug areas and exploring a few other supposedly minor projects. It is from these latter minor projects that the great surprises of the summer came. The tie-up of the stratigraphy was achieved in Fields VII and IX. In both fields, the 9th century stratum IX discovered in 1962 and understood to be an occupation brought to an end during squabbling with the Arameans was found to be a more substantial rebuild of a poor stratum X. Stratum X pottery suggests the turn from the 10th to the 9th century. Stratum XI just below it shows rather dramatic evidence of destruction, into which the X people cut their rough buildings, reusing walls sticking up through the rubble. The best historical sense seems to be that the destruction of stratum XI is the responsibility of Shishak of Egypt, in 918 B.C. In Field VII, stratum XI proved to have several phases of occupation, although Field IX showed only one. Stratum XII, represented by a fine courtyard house in Field IX but only by fragments and scraps of architecture in Field VII, first appeared to the excavators to be close in time to stratum XI. Its fine pottery suggested a date when Israel was prosperous and strong, probably the era of David and Solomon. Such are the exigencies of archaeological interpretation, however, that it has proved necessary to hold up judgment on this until further study of the pottery. It now begins to appear that stratum XI represents the Iron I period at Shechem, although

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

19

further study of the pottery must decide this. Stratum XII in these fields belongs to the 14th century, when the notorious Lab'ayu, known from the Amarna letters, was active. In Fields VII and IX we have yet to clarify the remains of Joshua's time (the 13th century B.C.). The courtyard house of stratum XII in Field IX has two rooms flanking the courtyard and three rooms along its back, recalling the Iron age style known from elsewhere at Shechem, at Tirzah, and other sites. To the rear of the house was an alley, and then a substantial wall angling across the area dug, leaving behind it a small triangle of working space for the excavators. Here was found on the stratum XII floor, a huge worked

:: N ~:k::::? v.X--:?:

ii:r;.-:

'xx.::::ii:-:~:

~~-l~t-~ I:i::::::_: :;::?::r:. Bii:~~:"P~?s~P I I~Cs ?~ ~99~8~i~~-~LI-~~-, ~ s L:::R::m iii:-i~~ii:iiii::j_,i-N, %b,-: q:2.:

iX:?I

.:.X::-:ai

'.

Fig. 9. Remains of sanctuary (?) in Field IX at Shechem. The large standing-stone lies against the balk, and the indication of the brick platform is in the balk to its left. The wall in the foreground is the back wall of the stratum XII house. Photo: Lee C. Ellenberger.

stone weighing a quarter of a ton, apparently a ritual standing-stone (massebah) of which Shechem has its share in the temple area previously dug. Near it was a brick platform covered with plaster; a rougher brick platform characterized an earlier phase of the same room, and through the floor under it a jar had been dug containing a collection of beads, of ceremonial bone pieces and a lamp. This sanctuary, if such it is, continued in use through stratum XI before its final destruction. In Field VII, there emerged a stratum dateable to the 15th century below stratum XII. Little block-shaped rooms and a large firepit were preserved quite well in a thick layer of destruction debris; in the debris

20

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

and not on the floors and surfaces was a good selection of pottery and objects, including the prize find of the summer, a fine bronze statue of a god (fig. 1). It stands seven and one-half inches high, from the top-knot of the headdress which is like the white crown of Upper Egypt to the end of the tangs which anchored the feet into a pedestal. Legs, arms, torso, and crown all have grooves in the metal into which was tucked the edges of a sheathing of different metal, apparently silver. There are similar figurines known from Syria and Lebanon, and rarely from Palestine (one at Gezer and one at Megiddo); an unusual feature of the Shechem one is the position of his arms. They are at his sides, bent at the elbow and then extending in front of him. The fists close around a core of metal, which certainly suggests that he held something, perhaps a spear in one hand and a dagger in the other. Hence, the Shechem figurine belongs in overall character to the Baal-Resheph group of which numbers are known from Syrian and Lebanese sites. Much more study must be accorded this magnificent specimen, and fuller publication will appear in time. The workmanship is in many respects as good as any yet published, and far beyond that of many known. Immediately below the 15th century structures in Field VII appeared remains of a building belonging to the end of the Middle Bronze age, tying to the destruction of Shechem's East Gate and to the end of the lowest building of the Fortress Temple. What is strange, however, is that going below stratum XII in Field IX catapulted the excavators across more than two hundred years of history, back to the time of the Courtyard Temple of the period about 1750-1650. Field IX is nearer the spring of water which has always supplied the site than is Field VII, and it is not far from the Fortress Temple. And yet to all appearances it was unoccupied throughout the period when the Fortress Temple was in its most impressive form. Field IX did yield fine strata of MB IIB (about 1750-1650) and MB IIA (about 1850-1750), and then a cobbled surface with round structures of the Chalcolithic period. Below this was sterile clay, and then a muddy pool of water issuing from a crack in bedrock. Robert Bull, who spent most of the summer clearing up problems in the East Gate, studying Roman-Byzantine rock-cut tombs (along with one Bronze age one) along the road north of the tell, and exploring for remains of a Christian church east of the tell, had also been studying the implications of certain coins minted at the Neapolis mint in the second century A.D. They represent a temple of Hadrian up on Mt. Gerizim above Shechem, with a ceremonial staircase approaching it from the valley and a series of little structures, shrines perhaps, or columns, around it. Exploration of wooded Tell er-RAs, the spur of the massive mountain

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

21

which rises right above Shechem, showed an artificial mound on its top which was strewn with chips and fragments of stone, some of them with signs of carving on them. A sounding in the mound immediately revealed the foundations of a monumental building, rectangular, about 45 by 73 feet, with at least one piece of beautifully drafted facing stone still in place. Its style and structure point directly to a Greek temple type. Around it is a precinct wall marking out the "platform" on which the building stood, while on the sides of the mound were found ten niches built up out of stone and plaster, again with their good facing stone gone. This must indeed be the remains of Hadrian's temple. Even more important is i-::::::):1:jg:::;i::i:::8:ii:l:I:?i:':?:::::: -:---:-l-:~-_~P~-ai:~~-~~9~-~i3~p~~~-~ -... i::;i:'-i -:l:-;-::-'ail..-.--:i:!--i i-i:~--:::::~?r? :~-:li.i::_-----ii:i:ii:-:1: :::'::-:r?:iii'Piiiii ijiii~i i-----:::-----: :i-l's:-: :::-:ii:-:i:i?:::l:::--:-:r,_r_':i-_-:;::-iiii'ii~iiilii-i-ii3i:d' :iiiiiiii-iiiili:i:i:i-il--li-5-i-ii:i il;iiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiii ii-i:;i-i;i;j:-i-i.jfi:i:-i:irliiiiiiji-ii?ii-iiiiiiiiiiiil~l:i;iiio:iii--isl -ii:_ii:_jiilili-i:i-:-i-iiii-i- :iiiiii;iiiiiiiii:ii---i:iii i:iiii ii i-i-iiiiiii-iii-iiii iii-ii-iii:-: _iiiiiiiiiiiiiii-:iiii I-I::-::-.'-.-...; iiiil::i::i;i ii:i:i? ii:iliij-il:iii-li';ii:i?i.j:i:;iji.i~ij .'.ii:ii:l::i'i::_ii:i ii-ii-i-ii iii_?i:ii?--:: :I_-:--?I?_:::__: : _-_:::::i:-::--_:---lil:'' ''?-''':':'''.'-:' i: -I':''i' -'1'1':"'1' ''"'"-li:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii?iiiiiiii I'::i'l:::-:?:;: -:i:::-:I::i:::-:::: -:i:?' i?.'is:::??.'li-:;i '''''''"''' ''i'''"''''''''''"''''' ... ""'''''''''' :...-.-.-.--?'I::-:: .. iiii ::i::iii:-i:ii::-i?:iii .... .......; 'I:li:i:f:i::iiiiil:il~:I: i:i:--:.: -i-..-.-. -i:i-iii-iii-.-.-;-iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii i:i; iI: I:::: :,:i:ii.ri-i:i:i-;il-i-i-;l-iiiii-iil:il i:il:-iii:i'~ri:i i::iiiiilj-~:i:i:i:~I-l:i:iiP::iinii:il' -:i:_:iI:i._: i: :_ ::: :--:-?:::-i:-:':':i:_:8:_::':'-:':i:?:-:: I:i:-:i:l:l:;::i8i:'::I::-::-::::: _: :i'iii?i:i?iliri-ili'iiii::ii-iiiiii'i:i .-. _:::,i:_,:__i:iiii'iii--ii i:i-i-i:-iii-i:i-:i:ii-i.i :.-::I:: ::: ::: ::::::i ::::: i::::: ::r:::j :::::: i:: ::::i:l:ii:::;-;l:::;-::il:i;:i::l:l:l :::::::-::i:::i:_:-i:::i:i:ii:x:i:;::l: ::;::: :_:_:,::ii::i:ii-j:ilii'l--iiiiiiiiiiii :::i:i-ii-i -i:_i-iiili:i-:i-ii-:-i-i:_-ii-i::i:__:i :::::::::::::--:-:':-iii.w:i::;.-iiii; :::::::::::::::j::::::::::: . ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::i:::::::::::::::-:::::::::::::::::::: i:-:t::-::-:: :..._.-:::: :::_:i :::::::::::::::-: : :::-:-:::-:-:I: :-:::: :: ::::::::-:::::-:::::::: : :_::::i::;:::jj::jii:::i:::::::: '-?-:::::?:?-:? :-:-:::-::;:::_::::::::l:::i:;:::::;;l;: :::::::: :::i -:i: :':::I:I?: :-:. . :-.:::-

~i

Fig. 10. Tell er-Ras rising above the buildings of modern Nablus (ancient Neapolis), temple remains have been found. Photo: Lee C. Ellenberger.

on which

the fact that a lot of the stone in this building is reused from an earlier building, and in one place below the temple a portion of an earlier foundation has been found. Now it must be remembered that this artificial mound is made up almost entirely of chips of stone, which generations of stone robbers have left behind. The pottery in it is scattered and it is not in any sense "stratified." What has been recovered is mostly Roman, or even later. A few pieces are Hellenistic. What is required is the securing of some good stratigraphy to go with these buildings. That will be a project for 1966. In the meantime, any suggestion that the lower building may indeed be the Samaritan temple, built with Alexander's permission at the end of the 4th century B.C., must be considered tentative. It is appropriate to mention here a splendid volume which has now

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

22

(Vol. XXVIII,

appeared about Shechem. By the expedition's director, G. Ernest Wright, founder and long-time editor of the BA, it is entitled Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. McGraw-Hill published it in January, 1965. It is designed to present the story of the excavation for the intelligent reader who will stretch a bit; all who know Dr. Wright's style will correctly anticipate a very readable book which invites the reader to join in the interpretation of the finds. This is an excellent volume for those who enjoy the BA. There are 113 pictures, and seven appendices by members of the Shechem staff, who take up a variety of technical matters in an illuminating way. There are 270 pages and the cost is $7.95. - E. F. C. Jerusalem

Results of the 1961-1963 seasons at Jerusalem were summarized by Dr. Kenyon for the BA in the May, 1964, issue.' It may be recalled that the chief problem to which these campaigns have been directed thus far is that of the delineation of the boundaries and topography of the earliest (Jebusite, pre-Israelite) city and of the changes therein subsequently, during the Israelite period. Also of major interest has been the north wall, not located thus far, of New Testament Jerusalem, which bears on any historical evaluation of the traditional sites of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre. According to the requirements of ancient Jewish practice (and the tradition of Heb. 13:12), these places must have been located outside the city wall of the time. Today, of course, they lie inside the present walls (16th century A.D.) of the Old City. So far as the 1964 campaign is concerned, Miss Kenyon offers no new evidence on this problem, at least at this time, and the situation is that described in the 1964 BA, and in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly for 1963, pages 14-16. The following summary of the 1964 campaign is based on, and largely reproduces, an account supplied to the Revue Biblique and the BA by Miss Kenyon. Some explanatory amplification has been added. The work continued in 1964 on the same scale as in previous years (in 1963 there were 35 staff and a labor force of 400). It continued under the auspices of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the Royal Ontario Museum, but owing to Pare de Vaux's absence in the United States, the Ecole Biblique did not participate this year. The principal task continued to be that of tracing the walls of the earliest city, shown in previous seasons to be confined to Ophel, the easternmost of the two ridges (the silted-up Tyropoeon valley between them) which run south from the present Old City and lie mainly outside its southern wall. Previous seasons have also shown that a line of wall on the 1. See further

Palestine

Exploration

Quarterly

(1962),

72-89;

(1963),

7-21;

(1964),

7-18.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

23

eastern crest of Ophel is not Jebusite nor Davidic, as previous excavators have supposed. It is in fact the wall established by Nehemiah, and the so-called Tower of David projecting from it was added in the Maccabean period.2 Miss Kenyon's previous seasons have also discovered the ancient Jebusite wall low on the very steep eastern slope of Ophel. It appeared to be as early as ca. 1800 B.C. in origin and to have continued in use until the 7th century B.C., when it was succeeded by another wall slightly farther to the west (BA, XXVII.2, fig. 6). In 1964, a further length of this later 7th century B.C. wall was cleared, but excavation did not reach the level of the wall founded ca. 1800. It will be recalled that in 1963 there was discovered outside and below the line of this earliest eastern wall a small chamber containing two monoliths, possibly sacred standing-stones. Among the features of this structure was a wall containing in it a blocked doorway, standing only about a foot away from the rock scarp. This wall rested on a huge boulder placed against the scarp, resting not on the flat bedrock at the foot of the scarp but about eighteen inches above it. Speculation as to whether this stone blocked an opening to a recess where libations might be poured, or to a cave, remained unsatisfied at the end of 1963. In a public lecture at the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem after the 1964 season, Miss Kenyon described the removal of the boulder, which led to the discovery that there was nothing behind it but more rock scarp! An important stage in delimiting the earliest (pre-Solomonic) city on its north side was reached. Previously, since 1961, excavations on the summit of Ophel in an area immediately to the north of the 1923-6 excavations (a little north of the "Tower of David,") showed that here the earliest occupation was Iron age (i.e. Israelite), perhaps 10th century B.C. In 1964 a small clearance just to the south, on the edge of the summit scarp to the rear of the Nehemiah wall, showed that here there were Late Bronze age levels preceding the Iron age levels. It would seem therefore that in the strip between, at present inaccessible beneath a path and field boundary, must lie the northern wall which lasted down to the time of David. Work continued on three sites on the western slopes of Ophel, but the line of the earliest city-wall has still not been located. However, Miss Kenyon sees a possible solution to the problem of the southwest angle of that wall, wherever its precise location may ultimately prove to be. Z. Miss Kenyon does not comment on this point, but it can be observed that her evidence that Nehemiah's wall was the first to be built after the destruction of 587 (Palestine Exploration Quarterly [1963], 15) argues against the hypothesis of Julian Morgenstern and others that there had been an earlier post-exilic rebuilding of the walls prior to a posited destruction of Jerusalem ca. 485 B.C. See Hebrew Union College Annual, XXVII (1956), 101-79; XXVIII (1957), 15-

46; XXXI (1960), 1-29.

24

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

Although as yet it has not been determined when the city expanded to the northern part of the western ridge (opposite Ophel, across the Tyropoeon), it has nevertheless been established in previous seasons that the southern end of this western ridge was not included within the walls until the first century A.D. This created difficulties about the line of defenses in relation to the pool of Siloam which lies in the lower Tyropoeon valley between the two ridges. The purpose of Hezekiah's tunnel in the 8th century B.C. was to bring water of the spring Gihon (Virgin's spring) - outside the eastern wall below the east slope of Ophel - within the city on the west slope of Ophel. But any line of defenses projecting from the eastern ridge to enclose the pool into which the tunnel runs would extend to the foot of 'the steep slope of the western ridge, a position obviously quite unacceptable on mili-tary grounds. An examination of the slope of the eastern ridge (Ophel) provides the answer. The southern tip of this ridge has been cut away by the construction in comparatively recent times of a dirt roadway that leads down from the lower slope of the western ridge, across the narrow Tyropoeon to cut away the southern tip of Ophel, thence to join the present asphalt road in the Kidron valley, paralleling Ophel on the east. The construction of this road causes Ophel now to terminate in an abrupt rock scarp or low cliff face at the north side of this dirt road. Along this north edge of the road, partially underneath the rock scarp, there lies for most of its length the channel through which runs the outflow from the Siloam pool. Thus the artificial scarp cuts a section lengthwise along this channel, revealing that the channel was originally a rock-cut tunnel. Accordingly Miss Kenyon deduces that the original Siloam pool was completely rockcut, in fact a vast underground cistern and not as today an open pool. Therefore it was not necessary for the ancient wall to enclose the pool, but only to protect access to it from inside the city. Evidence of this would have disappeared in the subsequent collapse of the roof. At the southeastern tip of the western ridge, further clearance elucidated some of the problems of the massive walls previously exposed in this area. The wall of enormous boulders abutting the scarp of the western ridge was shown to be the wall of a dam, crossing the Tyropoeon valley towards the eastern ridge, forming in the first century A.D. the dam-wall of the older Birket el-Hamra (the pool immediately adjoining the lower side of the pool of Siloam; perhaps the old pool of Siloam). This dam-wall was found to be built over an earlier wall, probably Maccabean. Outside it, to the south, were deposits of the 7th century B.C., implying that there was a wall across the valley against which they had accumulated.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

25

An unsuccessful effort was made to locate this wall. What was found, firmly sealed by the Iron age levels, was a series of galleries, with several branches. They are presumably water-channels, but their purpose for the time being is obscure. Further up the Tyropoeon valley work was completed on the Herodian structure, concerning which there had been speculation in the previous season as to whether it might conceivably be the amphitheater mentioned in Josephus. The structure proves now to be a street, paved with magnificent slabs, and the much destroyed remains of steps leading up to a higher terrace to the east.

?G?C 30 40 5U 60 70 FW SZ-71-, K-ElERS

"'0

A THE IRON SANCTUARY AGE VILLAGE B/

C THE FORTIFICATIONS THE ACROPOLIS

_

.D

Fig. 11. Plan of excavations at et-Tell.

In the southwest corner of the Old City, in an open area belonging to the Armenian Patriarchate, work progressed in 1964 for the third season. Excavation beneath the level of the important 14th century A.D. (Mameluke) great vaulted bazaars reached previously penetrated to bedrock in a number of places. It has become apparent that all the lower levels have suffered tremendous erosion. Intersecting gravel-filled channels cut from Byzantine levels right down to rock. As a result, little more was discovered of the Byzantine building of last year's sounding which produced the attractive mosaic, except a fragment ol an adjoining apse.

26

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXVIII,

Such erosion implies the collapse, or probably a series of collapses, of a wall or walls, probably the town walls, to the west and probably not far distant. It is hoped to investigate this problem further next year. Of the earlier levels, a few fragments of walls of the Roman period were found. They do not suggest buildings of a military character, and the headquarters of the Tenth Legion have therefore still to be located. It will be recalled that in the previous season there were found here some score of fragments bearing the legionary stamp LEG. X. FR. A deposit of the 7th century B.C. was also found here in 1964, but it had the appearance of rubbish imported from elsewhere, rather than an occupation layer, so there is as yet no clear evidence as to the earliest occupation of this northern part of the western ridge. -B. T. D. Ai (et-Tell)

The imposing site of et-Tell (ancient Ai) saw excavations resumed May 4 to June 24, 1964, 28 years after previous work was terminated by the untimely death of Mme. Judith Marquet-Krause.3Et-Tell is located in the hill country above Jericho, some 13 miles west and slightly north of that city. It lies on a height about two miles east-southeast of modern Beitin (biblical Bethel), and it covers a circular area of about 25 acres. Under the direction of Professor Joseph A. Callaway of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in association with Professor Kermit Schoonover of Perkins School of Theology and Professor Robert J. Bull of Drew Theological Seminary, the new expedition is sponsored by the institutions mentioned together with the Semitic Museum at Harvard and the American Schools of Oriental Research. In the Old Testament Ai enjoys greatest prominence as a Canaanite city. A later Israelite town of a similar name and evidently not at et-Tell, but possibly somewhere nearby, gains briefer mention in the Bible. As explained below, archaeological evidence complicates understanding of the Biblical reference to both locations. The Canaanite city appears first in the patriarchal narratives. After Abraham entered Canaan and had visited Shechem, he moved southward and pitched his tent at "the mountain on the east of Bethel ... with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east" (Gen. 12:8). After a sojourn in Egypt, Abraham returned to the same place, after which he and Lot went their separate ways (Gen. 13:3-12). Canaanite Ai appears the second and last time in the Bible in the account of Joshua's conquest of the land. After Jericho, Ai is the military 3. The excavation report was published posthumously: J. Marquet-Krause, Les fouilles de 'Ay (et-Tell), 2 vols., 1949. See also the extensive summary, with plates, by L.-H. Vincent in Revue Biblique, XLVI (1937), 231-66, and in English a briefer summary by W. F. Albright in American Journal ot Archaeology, XXXIX (1935), 140-41.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

27

target of the Israelites. Initially defeated because of the disobedience of Achan (Josh. 7:1-26), Israel attacked Ai a second time and conquered its defenders by ruse and ambush (Josh. 8:1 ff.), leaving the city "a heap of ruins, as it is to this day" (Josh. 8:28). Interestingly, the Hebrew name for the Canaanite city (always with the definite article: hd'ay) means simply "the heap" or "the ruin." It suggests that the original Canaanite name of the city was lost to Israelite memory.

.f

i

-

W4 3

c"

-A

Fig. 12. A typical Early Bronze II ledge-handle jar on the floor of Sanctuary B at Ai. Note the red vertical stripes on a white slip. Photo: Joseph A. Callaway.

The identification of Canaanite Ai with et-Tell ("the mound") rests on more than the striking correspondence in meaning between the ancient and modern names. The Biblical passages mentioned place Ai close to and just east of Bethel (modern Beitin). Et-Tell satisfies the topographical requirements, and it is the only tell in that neighborhood.4 The few Biblical references to Ai from its Israelite period are linguistically and geographically ambiguous. Ezra 2:28 (=Neh. 7:32) mentions 223 (in Neh., 123) "men of Bethel and Ai." The "Aiath" (Hebr. 'ayyat) of Isaiah 10:28, on the route of the advancing Assyrians as also the "Aija" (Hebr. 'ayya) of Nehemiah 11:31, in both cases without the article, has 4. Albright discusses the identification at length in AASOR, IV (1922-23),

141-49.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

28

been thought by most scholars to refer to Ai or to a site near it that has inherited the name or a form of the name. Until 1964 it had been thought that such a location was to be recognized in Khirbet Haiyan, about a mile south of et-Tell. Etymologically Haiydn could have descended from 'ayyat.5 Now, however, Dr. Callaway reports that in 1964 a sounding by his expedition at Khirbet Haiyan yielded Islamic evidence to bedrock and it therefore is no longer a candidate for the location of Biblical Ai. The excavations of Mme. Marquet-Krause in 1933-35 showed that there had been an extensive Early Bronze age city on et-Tell with nothing thereafter until a smaller Iron I (ca. 1200-1000 B.C.) Israelite occupation, after which no Iron II (ca. 900-586 B.C.) or subsequent occupation was in evidence. Owing to the death of Mme. Marquet-Krause,the posthumous publication of her excavation report by her husband, Yves Marquet contains only 27 pages of text, but the two-volume work offers a meticulous inventory of the finds together with extensive plans, photographs and drawings, providing abundant material for later synthesis. It will be seen that the absence of any Canaanite city later than EB greatly complicates interpretation of the biblical Israelite conquest of Ai, for the mound was unoccupied at that time and had not been occupied since before the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. Whether the tradition in Joshua claims for Israel a conquest in reality attributable to her predecessors in the land (over 1000 years before!), or whether Israel's conquest of a different site has in the tradition been transferred to Ai, can only be conjectured. The latter theory gains plausibility when one considers that Judges 1:22-26, which seems an older tradition than that of Joshua 7-8, describes the conquest of Bethel by the Joseph tribes but says nothing of Ai. The archaeological evidence for the violent de3truction of Bethel in the 13th century B.C. is well known. The absence at et-Tell of any signs of Iron II remains, together with the negative evidence of the 1964 sounding at Khirbet Hiayin, complicates indeed the Biblical references to the Israelite town belonging to Iron II. Dr. Callaway reports that in 1964, the following sites were excavated on et-Tell: Site A, the Sanctuary; Site B, the Iron age city, on a terrace below the previous Iron age city excavation; Site C, the Early Bronze city walls at the eastern extremity of "The Lower City"; and Site D, the Acropolis, previously called the Palace. Site E was the sounding at Khirbet Haiyan. Two major Sanctuary phases were identified, equivalent to previouslydesignated "A" and "B". The former Sanctuary "C"is a sub-phase of "B." On the Acropolis the magnificent stone structure called the "Palace" was 5. Albright,

AASOR,

IV (1922-23),

144.

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

29

found to be contemporary with Sanctuary A, the latest Early Bronze age phase at et-Tell, and the corridor wall with curved corners surrounding the Palace was part of an earlier structure contemporary with Sanctuary B, dating to Early Bronze II. Two phases of Iron age buildings were found, dating to Iron age I. It seems that the Iron age city was confined to the uppermost terraces of ;:-..i::::l:i~ij:::::ii :il'B:::'::::::::':":::::::::P~iL~::~8

S$~i~?~I~I~i:i:iiiiiI

:-:::::?: :-:: -:::,:::? :2:::::: ::::::i:::j ":":::::::':::':::;:ii:::;i::?:l:;i :ti:i~--~i::;..~.;:'-:-:::-~~iJ ::::::::::: :a:::j ::i::::::: -::i:x:::-:,.:::::::;;:,.,,: :~~-:i~~i~l~ :i::::-:::j::~i.::j: :::::'''"::' -:jI :-i:::ill::;:?:?:-:-illli~iiiiiiiiiii: ,,, ::::::"-:' ::::?: :?:i~:~~~a~-_;Ii~l:~a':':'i~i"~:`r?~l: ::::::?:?:I?;j:;il:l:-W~I:h-j,:?:,:a: -:lj::i,:,:j::,?: ii.'::'"::::':."::::-: ::: :--:'I: ':: . .:.

: :. :::::j :-':::;~::-:: :::::::::-:::i :::::: ::::::::: ::: ::::...--: i:::::?:-:::: :;:::::::::;i:::::: :_::::: :::::-?;::?,:.-:-:i:'j::1:::j::::j -:? ':i:::j:::::::r:::-?:?-:: ::.:,:;: ':i::i::l::::: ::::::i::: j i:':;':lj:::::i:::i:j:::::_::: ::::':::':::::::::::::':: ~~:~ji~i~i.ij':,l,,,~:; r:ij:-_1:jj:-:::i:::i::; ~#:IC:: :::::~:~:li? ;::-:::?:::?: -::-:::?;:::::::r::.:::.??.:.?: ::;:;:; il,;l:.i;ij:i~i:~:ilrllj?ii~ijlii:i-jij ii-iiiiiiih

Fig. 13. An Early Bronze II fortification wall in the front square. In the square behind it is the earliest city wall of Ai. Photo: Joseph A. Callaway.

the tell and that it was unfortified. Actually it was a small village, which suggests that it was dependent upon a nearby city for military security, possibly Bethel. No evidence of Middle or Late Bronze was found, nor, as we have seen, was there Iron II evidence. Thus the Biblical problem of the conquest

30

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

of Ai by Joshua, as well as of the location of the Iron II "Aiath" and "Aija," remains.-B. T. D. Hebron

In recent times, the city of el-Khalil (er-Rahman), the site of ancient Hebron, has been one of the most revered cities of Islam; its name, meaning "the Friend (of the Merciful One)" relates it to Abraham, received as the first Moslem, and recalls to Christians such passages as James 2:23. It has been thought nearly impossible for a western team of archaeologists to get permission to dig there, but in the summer of 1964, an American Expedition To Hebron, under Phillip C. Hammond of Princeton Theological Seminary, secured the rights and began the excavation, at what must be considered one of the most important as yet unexcavated sites in Palestine. With Princeton were associated the University of Southern California, Luther Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Virginia Theological Seminary. The archaeology of Hebron gives promise of settling or at least throwing light upon some vexing questions concerning the early history of this city. There is almost an air of apology about the way in which the Old Testament narrative mentions Hebron in the patriarchal stories. It is regularly referred to not as Hebron but as Kiriath-arba; this is the name of the city where Sarah dies in Genesis 23, whereupon a parenthetical note adds that this is Hebron. When Abraham buys the cave of Machpelah from Hittites in the region of his camping place at Mamre, the location of the cave is given as "in front of Mamre [which ought to mean to the east of Mamre], that is, Hebron". Locations of these sites are fairly well established row, with Mamre at Ramet el-Khalil on the northern outskirts of modern Hebron and the cave securely connected to the cave under the present great mosque, called the Haram el-Khalil, but a question must remain about just where Kiriath-arba was, and about the implication of its name, which ought to be "fourfold city." Another feature of the mystery is the curious note in Numbers 13:22: "Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt." Why make an issue of the date of Hebron's founding? Recent scholarship has strongly favored taking this to mean that Hebron goes back to about 1700 B.C., at about the time when the Hyksos founded Avaris, their capital in the Nile delta. The conclusion stems from archaeological evidence that Avaris, Zoan (with its Greek counterpart Tanis), and the Raamses of Exodus 1:11 are all to be located at the same spot, San el-Hajar, and are different names in different periods. Now what relation exists between Zoan and Hebron? It has been maintained that biblical tradition recalls a link between the Hyksos and the patriarchs, particularly Joseph. Recently some very cogent

1965, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

31

questions have been raised about the archaeological situation at San elHajar, especially by native Egyptian archaeologists.6 At all events, any light from the archaeology of Hebron may help to clarify the whole matter. There is another matter of curiosity. One of the kinglets of the Amarna period, in the mid-fourteenth century B.C. controlled the territory around Hebron. He is quite concerned about Keilah, eight miles northwest of Hebron, as one of his cities being raided by an unfriendly neighbor. Keilah does not, therefore, seem to be his headquarters, and for one reason or another most other nearby sites are eliminated from consideration. Could Hebron have been his center? A knowledge of the history of the site in that period might solve that question. A brief resume of Hebron's later history would include its part in the conquest narratives (Josh. 10, and then 15:13-14, plus Judg. 1:10, 19-20), its role as a "city of refuge," and its extremely important connection to David in his early years. Indeed it was the capital of the new monarchy for David's first seven and one-half years. Rehoboam refortified Hebron just after the division of the monarchy (II Chron. 11:10) and there is a suspicion that pharaoh Shishak of Egypt took it in 918 B.C., because he refers in his conquest list to a "field of Abram" which ought to be down that way. A convenient summary of the biblical and post-biblical information is given in Victor R. Gold's article on Hebron in the Interpreter's Bible Dictionary. It is premature to report decisive archaeological results. The presence of 7th century B.C. royal stamped jar handles at other sites, which name Hebron among four cities which were perhaps royal potteries or wine production centers,' is pertinent. Mader's work at Ramet el-Khalil helped to clarify the topography of the region and provide parallel material."The first campaign of the American Expedition had first of all to determine the location of the ancient city. Ruins on Jebel er-Rumeideh, the hill directly west of the great mosque, have recommended it, but scarcity of surface pottery of the right periods has raised doubts. On Jebel er-Rumeideh, the Expedition opened four areas. One produced a fine Islamic house, a discovery which helped no little to interest the inhabitants of Hebron and to dispell the notion that western archaeologists are in Jordan only to study biblical remains. Elsewhere, Dr. Hammond reports Byzantine and late Roman remains, below which, in only one of the areas, was good Israelite period stratification. This area also produced material from the 6. My thanks to Dr. John van Seters for a lucid account of this problem and its possible solutions presented to a seminar at the American School in Jerusalem this winter. His presentation was based upon materials from his Yale doctoral dissertation. 7. D. Diringer, BA, XII (1949), 70-90; and more recently P. W. Lapp, BASOR, No. 158 (April 1960). 11-22. 8. E. Mader, Mambre, 2 vols., 1957.

32

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

fifteenth century B.C. Two areas produced Middle Bronze age strata, with what appears to be a city wall of the entire MB period, about 2000 to 1550 B.C. Several places produced Early Bronze IA and the transition back to Chalcolithic, from around 3000, including two tomb tests which found their way into caves where people lived. Another tomb test probed a place where a local resident had found a fine tomb from Middle Bronze to Iron I, and had pretty well cleaned it out before letting anyone know. Tests in areas other than on Jebel er-Rumeideh were inconclusive or else helped to eliminate certain places from consideration as ancient sites. Dr. Hammond employed, for the first time to any extent in Palestine, a proton magnetometer, an instrument which can detect iron objects in the soil, and also burned structures, rubbish heaps, and even walls and caverns, with considerable success. While there are some good reasons for thinking that its use will be limited in such a rocky and pitted land as Palestine, it deserves a good tryout, and Dr. Hammond reports some success in spotting caves. One campaign can hardly be expected to settle many questions about Hebron; even some of the problems about location remain. Limited Israelite occupation on Jebel er-Rumeideh is puzzling, and the lack of Hellenistic is curious. A blank in the Late Bronze age (1550-1200), except at its very beginning, is also surprising, since sherds of that period have been found on the hill by previous explorers. However, not much ground has been opened as yet, and time will tell more. -E. F. C.