No title

J BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST Spring 1980 Volume 43 Number 2 Highlights of the next BA James M. Fennelly, an authority in a...

Author: American Schools of Oriental Research

8 downloads 533 Views 15MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

J BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST Spring 1980

Volume 43 Number 2

Highlights of the next BA James M. Fennelly, an authority in ancient ritual, takes us back to the ceremonial citadel of Persepolis, constructed by Persian emperors from the time of Darius I until the fall of the empire to Alexander the Great. In a step-by-step account of the 12-day ritual celebrated in observance of the New Year, Fennelly recaptures the spirit of the sacred drama by means of which Persian society was ritually reconstituted in the image of the absolute at the site of Persepolis. Andrew S. Ackerman, Director of Education at the Jewish Museum in New York City, describes a unique workshop for children designed to re-create the experience of life in ancient times through participation in many activities, including those using only the technology of ancient man.

N

THE

NEXT

BA

BIBLICAL(, ARCHEOLOGIST Editor David Noel Freedman Associate Editor Harry Thomas Frank Editorial Committee Frank M. Cross, Jr. Tikva Frymer-Kensky Sharon Herbert Charles R. Krahmalkov John A. Miles, Jr. Walter E. Rast Production Manager Bruce E. Willoughby Chief Editorial Assistant Kent P. Jackson Editorial Assistants Wendy L. Frisch Linda E. Fyfe David M. Howard, Jr. Terrence M. Kerestes

Robert Biggs is Professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, where he is also Associate Editor of the Institute's Assyrian Dictionary.One of his major publications is a volume of early Sumerian texts from AbUi Sal-bikh. This volume of texts has provided scholars working on the Ebla tablets with their closest parallels, both in date and type of texts.

Dr. J. Kenneth Eakins, a licensed pediatrician, is Associate Professor of Archaeology and Old Testament Interpretation at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and is the osteologist for the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi in Israel.

Eric M. Meyers, the author of several recent studies in synagogue architecture and archeology, is Professor of Religion at Duke University. He has been involved in archeological excavations in Israel since 1964, most recently as Director of the Meiron and Gush Halav excavation projects.

Virginia Bortin is a Californiabased writer and journalist with a particular interest in archeology. Among her credits are TV documentaries, a series for television, and magazine articles. Currently she writes a syndicated column for newspapers called "Digging the Bible."

Graphic Designer Cheryl S. Klopshinske Business Manager Tracy B. Shealy Composition Wendy L. Frisch Margaret G. Jensen Distribution Manager R. Guy Gattis Journal Exchange Len Niehoff Subscription Services Belinda Khalayly, Manager Andrew E. Hill Hamid Merati Ebla photographs in this issue of BA are by permission of the Director, Department of Antiquities, Syrian Arab Republic, or by permission of the Director of the Aleppo Museum. Compositions by ASOR Publications. Ann Arbor. MI. and Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake. IN. Printed by Printing Services. The University of Michigan.

66

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980

Biblical Archeologistis published with the financial assistance of Zion Research Foundation, a nonsectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

Cover: Illustration by John B. Klausmeyer. Back cover photo courtesy of the Joint Expedition to Tell el-Hesi.

; BIBLICAL(t,. ARCHEOLOGIST Spring 1980

Robert Biggs

Volume 43 Number 2

The Ebla Tablets: An Interim Perspective

A careful reexamination of the tablets from Tell Mardikh in light of linguistic information from other ancient records. J. KennethEakins Human Osteology and Archeology A physician-archeologist examines the bones from a Bedouin cemetery and discusses the value of his findings for archeological research. Eric M. Meyers Ancient Synagogues in Galilee: Their Religious

76

89

97

and Cultural Setting

A look at some early synagogues-their architectural design and the worship that took place within their walls. VirginiaBortin Science and the Shroud of Turin A famous piece of cloth-believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus-undergoes a series of thorough examinations at the hands of highly trained physical scientists. Biblical Archeologist (ISSN: 0006-0895) is published quarterly (Winter. Spring. Summer. Fall) by the American Schools of OrientalResearch.Its purposeis to providethe generalreaderwith an accurate, scholarly, yet easily understandableaccount of archeologicaldiscoveriesand theirbearingon the biblicalheritage. Unsolicited mss. are welcome but should be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressedenvelope. Address all editorial correspondenceand advertisingto Biblical Archeologist. 1053 LS&A Building.Universityof Michigan.Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Address all business correspondence to ASOR, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge,MA 02139.

SchoolsofOriental Research.Annual a 1980American Copyright subscription rate: $12.00. Foreign subscription rate: $14.00 (Americancurrency).Currentsingle issues:$4.00. Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. MI 48106. POSTMASTER:Send addresschanges to BiblicalArcheologist, 1053 LS&A Building, Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor. MI 48109.

109

68 69 118

Letter to the Readers Polemics and Irenics Notes and News Book Reviews

119

Tribute GeraldLankesterHarding1901-1979, by Fred V. Winnet

127

Colophon

128

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 67

Letter to

the

Reaaers

For this issue of BA we have a diversified selection of articles. The subjects range from the Ebla tablets, by now a familiar item in these pages and a conversation piece across the country, to the Turin Shroud-equally a subject of widespread speculation and controversy. In addition there are papers on the Synagogues of Galilee, a subject of renewed interest in recent years, and Human Osteology and Archeology, a highly specialized topic but decidedly important and rewarding for the student of the past. The Ebla tablets-whose notoriety matches that of discoveries in the past century and whose contents any have been a source of controversy and speculation-are viewed by a recognized authority in the intricate study of cuneiform, especially Sumerian and early Akkadian. Robert Biggs of the Oriental Institute has published a substantial number of tablets from Abia Salablkh, which resemble the Ebla tablets in some respects and are slightly earlier in date (ca. 2500 B.C.E.). One extraordinary datum already confirmed is the presence at Ebla of a topographic list very similar to one at Abii SalabTkh.The correspondence and especially the sequence are so close that some relationship (presumably both are derived from a common original) between them is certain. How and why this should be are matters for further consideration. For the present, Professor Biggs deals with the implications and ramifications of this extraordinary discovery and makes many telling observations about what legitimately may be expected in the course of analysis and interpretation of the texts. His is a sober and settling evaluation of the claims and counterclaims, and a moderate judgment steering clear of the Scylla of cheap sensationalism and the Charybdis of undue skepticism. Such dangers are clearly present in any discussion of the Turin Shroud, which has been condemned as a pia fraus at the same time that it has been extolled as both divine miracle and authentic fifth gospel. Without trying to decide an issue which perhaps can never be settled entirely, Virginia Bortin has undertaken a careful presentation of the issue and the evidence, as much as has been released and reported by the scholars and scientists who recently engaged in an intensive examination of the oblong cloth. While the final reports and evaluation of this investigation will not be available for some months yet, we thought that a serious appraisal of the known data

68


David Noel Freedman along with the various theories and explanations of the properties and features of the Shroud was in order. We also promise a follow-up when the final report of the investigation is released. If it is asked why the BA should publish an article on the Turin Shroud, whose history can only be traced to the Middle Ages, the answer is that the special reverence in which it is held by many, and the remarkable features of the Shroud already confirmed by scientific study, place it in a category of its own, and the purported links with the Ist century of the Christian Era make it a fit subject for the BA. The Synagogues of Galilee are both important and unusual: important because they reflect a period when Judaism flourished, a powerful and vital renewal after one of the most tragic and traumatic experiences of the Jewish community (the wars of Independence in 66-70 and 132-35 which resulted in the destruction of the holy city and the holy temple, and the end of the Second Commonwealth); unusual because there is clear, if mute, evidence of a Judaism little suspected by scholars and largely absent from the Talmudic tradition-a Judaism which was influenced by the cultural and artistic standards and achievements of the contemporary world and which absorbed or adapted them as it proceeded on its own uncharted way. The remaining article belongs to the age of change, the ongoing revolution, or reformation, of the archeological enterprise. The "new archeology" is dramatically different, although organically descended from its forebears: in essence the romantic figure of the lone digger liberating the treasures of the past from the clinging dirt has been replaced by the team of scientists who concentrate their minds and a multitude of instruments on the same formerly discarded dirt, salvaging data of extraordinary value, and recovering from the accumulated debris the essential features of a bygone society. Human bones, a subject of concern to a variety of groups, have an importance for archeology that increases all the time, with expanding implications for understandingthe many facets of community life. The value of osteology is limited only by the availability of primarydata and the time and energy of the osteologists. A medical doctor, J. K. Eakins, tells of his experience at Tell el-Hesi, an ASOR-sponsored dig, what may be learned about human beings through the study of their bones, and what contribution it can make to an understanding of the human part. AM

~

~-

Polemics&

lrenics

Genealogies and Number Systems I read with great interest Robert Wilson's "Between Azel and Azel"(BA, Winter 1979: 11-22) on interpretation of the function of genealogies in biblical and prebiblical times. I would like to add a note of my own in this connection, regarding the Sumerian list of antediluvian kings. It is obvious that the excessive span of years given for each reign is not to be taken literally. However, I suggest that they can be explained as a simple error in scribal transcription. A portion of the list, as translated in Jacobsen's "Sumerian King List." is included here for reference:

second, third, fourth, and fifth place instead of the first, second, third, and fourth. The total would then be read as twelve thousand, three hundred forty. The error is a factor of ten. A slip of two places would induce an error factor of 100. Referring now to the portion of the King List as referenced above, I suggest that in the scribal transcriptions and retranscriptionsthe place order was slipped two places and that each number is in error by a factor of 60squared or 3,600. This may have been a simple error due to sloppy transcription or an error based on misreading and the tradition that antediluvian kings were godlike and their reigns intended to be longer. Nevertheless, the error is there. I suggest that this error had become Whenthe kingdomwas loweredfromheaven,the kingship scribally standardized and accepted by the time that the was in Eridu. In Eridu,Alulim became king and reigned tablets now available were written. 28,800 years. Alalgar reigned 36,000 years. Two kings In any event, if each of these reigns is divided reignedits (i.e. Eridu's)64,800years.... In Bad-TiberaEnthe result is exact, with no remainder in 10 out 3,600, men-lu-Anna reigned 43,200 years; En-men-gal-Anna by 14 of instances. The actual years of reign of these kings reigned28,000 years:divine Dumuzi,a shepherd,reigned of as shown, are actually 8, 10, 18, 12, 8, (or groups kings) Three its 108,000 36,000 years. years. ... kings reigned 10, and 30 years. These spans are quite reasonable. It should be noted, however, that the Sumerian It should be noted further that of the kings after the cuneiform number system used a sexagesimal place- flood, each span of years as translated for 17 out of the order notation. This means that the system was base- first 20 reigns is exactly divisible by 60; the place order sixty rather than our own base-ten and that the order in has been slipped by one. Furthermore, in many of the which each digit/symbol (or symbol cluster) appeared reign values which are not exactly divisible by 60 or 3,600, determined the final value of the notation. the translations seem to be a round-off and are suspect by For example, in our current system the number the author. written "1234" means 4 times ten-raised-to-the-zeroAn interesting speculation arises regarding the power (i.e., 4 X 100 = 4 X 1 = 4) plus three times ten- unnatural ages of individuals in the antediluvian raised-to-the-first-power (i.e., 3 X 101= 3 X 10 = 30) plus genealogies of the Old Testament. Did the extended lifetwo times ten-to-the-second (squared)-power (i.e., 2 X spans, as written, stem from the author's being steeped in 102 = 2 X 100 = 200) plus one times ten-to-the-third a common tradition of "long life for the Ancients"-or (cubed)-power (i.e., 1 X 10' - 1 X 1000 = 1000). This total were the authors simply victims of mathematical errors in is read as "one thousand, two hundred and thirty four." the transcriptions of tablets similar to those available to In base-sixty notation, however, the first-place digit modern archeologists? (furthest right) would be read as times 60-to-the-zeropower (i.e., 4 X 600 = 4 X 1 = 4); the second digit is times Burton S. Rudman 60-to-the-first-power (i.e., 3 X 601 = 3 X 60 = 180); the North Shore Society third is times 60-squared (i.e., 2 X 3,600 = 7,200); the Archaeological Institute of America fourth digit is times 60-cubed (i.e., 1 X 216,000). (The parenthesized numbers are in our own base-ten system.) All of the texts that mention the reigns of the antediluvian This numeral "1234" would, in the base-60 system, be and early'postdiluvian kings agree that these monarchs read as "two hundred twenty-three thousand, three ruled for extraordinarily long periods of time. Although hundred and eighty-four." the various texts do not always record precisely the same Note further that the Sumerian system had neither a each king, all of them preserve the tradition that zero nor a decimal point. A "digit" meant to be in our reign.for the early' rulers were long-lived. This tradition is also second place, for example, might have been written larger preserved outside of the Sumerian King List, most than a "digit"meant for the first place. Consider then our notably in the List of Rulers of Lagash (Journal of own system without benefit of zero or decimal point to Cuneiform Studies 21: 279-91), and may have influenced designate a reference from which to count places. The the Phoenician and biblical antediluvian traditions. The group "1234"could be read erroneously as occupying the precise significance qf these long reigns is unclear, and


they may simply be a way of expressing the widely held notion that the ancients lived in a "golden age "markedby social and political peace and stability. The incredibly long reigns mentioned in the Sumerian King List and the List of the Rulers of Lagash may conceivably be the result of some sort of numerical speculation, although no satisfactory explanation along these lines has been advanced so far. Numerical speculation may also lie behind the long lives attributed to Israel's ancestors mentioned in Genesis 1-11. The Massoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch sometimes assign different ages to these early figures, and many attempts have been made to uncover the principles lying behind the numerical variants. However, to date no comprehensive explanation has been found for them. Even though it is not possible to determine precisely/ the original function of the lengthy reigns mentioned at the beginning of the Sumerian King List, they are not likely to be the result of scribal error. In addition to the *fact that the tradition of long-lived ear/v rulers is preserved outside the Sumerian King List, the way in which Mesopotamian scribes wrote numbers did not leave room for the sorts of mistakes that could lead to such a large inflation of the figures. It is, of course, impossible to know how figures might have been written in any sources that the scribes might have used in compiling the King List, but we may assume that there was some continuityvin scribal practice. In the period from which the King List comes. scribes mayvhave used a sexagesimal number system, but when they wrote a number on a tablet they did not use a notation system analogous to the Arabic siystem, in which the order in which each number sy'mbolappears determines its value. Rather, the scribes used a system somewhat analogous to the Roman numeral system, in which specific signs are repeated and then added together. Thus,for example, in the text which is used as the basic text for Jacobsen 's critical edition of the King List, the scribe did not write the number 36 by writing the sign.for 6 and then next to it writing the sign for 3. Rather, he wrote three times the single small wedge (Winkelhaken) indicating the numbr 10 and then wrote a sign composed ofsix vertical wedges, each indicating the number 1 (col. 3, line 34). Thefinal number is thus the total of 10+10+10+6 (written 1+1+1+1+1+1). The same system is followed in writing larger numbers. In the antediluvian section of the King List Enmen-gal-Anna's 28,800-year reign is indicated by writing 3,600 (SAR) eight times the diamond-shaped sign .for andcannot (col. 1, line 14). Thesignfor3,600 is distinctive be confused with the single vertical wedge designating the

that the total number is the product of 3,600 multiplied by 10 and saves himself the trouble of repeating the SAR sign ten times. The composite sign cannot be confused easily with any other number sign. The scribe's writing might have resulted from a misreading of the number 3,600, which would have been written with a single SAR sign, but the writing could not be a misreading of 360, which would have been written by repeating six times the single vertical wedge indicating the number 60 (cf col. 4, line 33). Similarl/i, the composite sign for 36,000 could not be the result of the scribe's mistaken reading of the number 10, which would have been written with a single small wedge (Winkelhaken). It is thus difficult to conceive of a set of circumstances under which scribal errors might have led consistentl/v to massive inflation of the figures in the scribe's original. To be sure, scribes sometimes made mistakes, and numbers written on or near the edge of the tablet were sometimes abraded. But scribes did not make the same mistakes consistently, and the abrasion of signs normally leads to a decrease in a number. We must therefore assume that the scribe intended to record these long reigns, even if we do notfiul/y understand his reasons *fordoing so. Robert R. Wilson Yale University

Professorial Authority and the Aleppo Codex In discussing the question of Canaanite inscriptions in America (BA, Summer 1979: 137-40), Marshall McKusick makes an astonishing suggestion. He writes, "Here we come to the nub of an amazing conflict. In the good old days of scholarship it was enough to say, 'The authorities in the field agree that the arguments are wrong'; regardless of the merit of the position, no one would hazard a further opinion against the weight of august professors. But in this modern day everyone wishes to be his own authority. .. ." Does Professor McKusick really mean that no one should suggest that august professors can be wrong? There was a time when the authorities agreed the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and a heavy object fell more rapidly than a light object. Were Magellan, Copernicus, and Galileo wrong to hazard different opinions? The six "Canaanite inscriptions" which McKusick discusses seem to me, on the basis of the evidence presented here and elsewhere, to be without value. On the other hand, I am not convinced by Professor Cross' condemnation of the Shapira scrolls number 1, so the number 28,800 could not easily have been the result qf the scribe's misreading a smaller (Biblical Archaeologjy Review, January/ February 1979: number such as 8, which is normal/l written with a sign 43); I prefer to leave the verdict open. Am I not entitled composed bi' repreating eight times a single vertical to hold and express an opinion which is not the same as wedge. Similarly, using a slight variation qf the system, that of an authority? the scribe writes Dumuzi's 36,000-year reign by' writing By coincidence, the same issue of BA contains an the diamond-shaped sign for 3,600 and then writing example of the dangers of not questioning the opinion of inside it a single small wedge (Winkelhaken) designating an eminent authority, and of the problems which can the number 10 (col. 1, line 15). The scribe thus indicates then arise. In his article on the Aleppo Codex, Professor

70


Moshe Goshen-Gottstein says that Professor Umberto Cassuto "flatly denied the possibility that the Aleppo Codex could have been the codex used by Maimonides" and that Cassuto "never indicated the reasons for his judgment because as he said, they were of too technical a nature for public announcement" (p. 156). This can only be described as fantastic. Did no Bible scholar question Cassuto's pronouncement? With all due respect to Cassuto's eminence, did he bestride the narrow world of biblical scholarship like a colossus? How could any discipline allow one person to say, in effect, "the Aleppo Codex is not the one used by Maimonides. Take my word for it, children. The matter is too deep for your limited minds." Since when does modern scholarship accept the word of an eminent authority without demanding evidence? Are we back in the Middle Ages, unable to challenge the opinions of Aristotle? I find it incredible that Cassuto went unchallenged, but this seems to be what Goshen-Gottstein says: "It was inevitable that his [Cassuto's] judgment had to be accepted.... he had never stated his reasoning and nobody was aware of the facts" (p. 156). I cannot help wondering what might have happened if Cassuto had been challenged by his peers in 1946, if he had stated that Deuteronomy 32 was written in 67 lines in the Aleppo Codex, and if it had promptly been shown that 67 lines was what Maimonides actually called for. Is it possible that the Israeli scholars would have tried to exert pressure on the Aleppo Jewish community? Might we have gotten the entire Codex photographed before one-fourth of it was destroyed? Such speculation is futile, except to point out the dangers of not hazardingan opinion against the weight of an august professor. But two other questions still disturb me. First, I mean no disrespect to Professor GoshenGottstein when I ask if he has the right (as I interpret McKusick's comments) to challenge Cassuto's opinion. Does the fact that Goshen-Gottstein is a professor give him that right?Would he be unable to make the challenge if he were only an assistant professor, or if he were a scholar with no academic post? Second, Cassuto did say that his reasons were very technical. Goshen-Gottstein has made an inspired guess that Cassuto was referringto the 67 lines of Deuteronomy 32. I find Goshen-Gottstein's reasoning quite easy to understand, and I make no pretense to being a biblical scholar. Is it possible that Cassuto was not basing his opinion on Deuteronomy 32? Could he have based his view upon Exodus 15, or on some other passages in the missing portions of the Aleppo Codex, or upon some technical aspect of the extant text that no one else has noticed? This lingering doubt can never be resolved unless something is found in Cassuto's papers. Let me conclude by saying that I agree with Professor Goshen-Gottstein's opinion that the Aleppo Codex is the one used by Maimonides and with his reconstruction of Cassuto's reasons for taking the opposite view; that I reserve the right to change my opinion if any new data, or any more convincing interpretation of the same data, should be published: and

that I maintain others have the right to agree or disagree without being bound by authorities in the field or by the weight of august professors. Leslie Reggel Pittsburgh, PA East and West Re: "Polemics and Irenics," BA, Summer 1979. Before I launch into my own polemic, I must congratulate BA on the marvelous success of its transformation in the past few years. BA has managed the near impossible: it has become more accessible to the average reader, and more of a forum of lively exchange, without in any way diminishing its high standards of academic quality. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein's invaluable article on the Aleppo Codex is a case in point (though, being a former student of his at NYU, I may be forgivably biased in this regard). In this benign context, therefore, it was with a sense of real dismay that I read the enigmatically irresponsible contribution of Marshall McKusick in the same issue, dealing with another of my former NYU professors, Cyrus Gordon. It is not that I hold a particularbrief for Professor Gordon's theories concerning trading contacts between ancient civilizations and the New World. It is simply that I have come to expect better of BA's editorial policies. McKusick, with all due deference, "does a job" on Gordon. To lump the work of a proven scholar together with the sensationalist maunderings of an opportunist like Erich von Diniken and to condemn Gordon on the basis of such guilt by presumed association approaches the scurrilous. The only explanation I can find is that McKusick, despite his bibliographic notations, has never read Gordon's work. He assumes, for example, that Gordon propounds a theory of "migrations of the New World," like those of Fell and Van Sertima. In actuality, Gordon is far less ambitious, maintaining only the possibility of limited trade contacts in various periods over long ages of time. Such voyages were, we know, well within the limitations of ancient technology and thus cannot be dismissed out of hand. Gordon also admits the very real possibility of forgery in the evidence he adduces, such as the Paraiba inscription and the Kensington stone, though McKusick seems blissfully unaware of this aspect of Gordon's analysis (see Riddles in Histor'y,New York: Crown, 1974, 2nd ed.). Finally, Gordon has, contra McKusick, "countered the arguments raised by Frank Moore Cross" in the latter's 1968 piece in Orientalia 37. This was done in Gordon's two subsequent books on the subject (1971, 1974), which raise some new possibilities, such as the acrostic-telestic cryptograms, that Cross has yet to "counter." Indeed, Cross' recent summary of his 1968 Orientalia argument in BAR never mentions these subsequent works by Gordon.


Whether Gordon's later rebuttals of Cross constitute a "successful"defense is a separate and far more difficult question. We are dealing here with a controversy between two of the foremost philologians of ancient languages of modern times. My only point is that McKusick does a real disservice to the readers of BA in failing even to acknowledge that this academic engagement is taking place. Gordon may well be wrong in his assessment of the evidence, and his theories are certainly open to scholarly criticism. But his stature and past achievements at least establish him as worthy of serious consideration, such as Cross originally showed. McKusick, who seems to have studied the question in some depth, may well be the one to do the job. But his letter to BA, which condemns by association and innuendo rather than fact, is simply not sufficient for the task. The readers of BA deserve better. Dr. Eugene J. Fisher Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations Washington, D.C. Readers of theforegoing letter by Dr. Eugene Fisher may be deceived by two serious charges-that my scholarship is superficial, and my discussion of Professor Cyrus Gordon's theories "approaches the scurrilous." Dr. Fisher is incorrect on both counts, and I will rep/l at some length to clear the air. Professor David Noel Freedman, editor of Biblical Archeologist, chose to publish my article professional scrutiny after.favorable a major issue of great interest to because it concerned many readers. The title "Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone? "was followed by two questions in the text. Did the biblical world of the Canaanites extend to America? Do mysterious tablets from the Western Hemisphere representa scripture in stone more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls? Either the biblical world extended to America or it did not. Professor Gordon says that Canaanites and Hebrew explorers reached America, taught the natives human sacrifice, and did much else besides. Dr. Fisher takes the position that questions about Canaanites in A merica remain unsolved enigmas which scholarship has not vet resolved. I say something very different. Scholarship has settled the matter. All of the reported Canaanite-Phoenician- Hebrew inscriptions found in America are either frauds or misidentified. I must emphasize here that my article in BA centered on the inscriptions: "If genuine, these tablets provide unassailable proqf that the influence of the biblical world reached the WesternHemisphere at an early date. Iffalse, they do not disprove the Phoenicians 'arrival on these shores, but they knock away a major prop of its linguistic evidence" (McKusick 1979a: 138). I then proceeded to explain whyl authorities have rejected the six mostfamous examples of alleged Phoenicianlike inscriptions. (1) The exchange qf views published in Orientalia b v prqfoessorsFriedrich, Cross, and Gordon in 1968 convinced the Phoenician experts that the Paraibainscription from Brazil was an obvious 19th-?entury forgery'.

72


Professor Cross published his less technical explanation 1979 after in the Biblical Archaeology Review in January' BA was BAR in The article by Cross press. myiarticle.for convince every layman that the vowel marks, should mixture of letters and vocabularyfrom different periods, and substitution of Hebrew for Phoenician, all go to prove that the forgertY was based on 19th-centuryl handbooks on Phoenician which contained the same errors as thosefound on the Paraiba inscription. Thereis room for doubt. simpl' What about the Paraiba cryptogram? Do (2)no.further Professor Gordon's two cryptograms prove that the inscription might be genuine? The book Riddles in History by Professor Gordon (1974) misled a number of people about the status of cryptography. I published an article showing that the Paraiba cryptograms represented an erroneous solution to the question of authenticitiy. This article appeared in BAR last summer (McKusick 1979b) and was written to remove the last doubts surrounding the Paraiba forgery. My argument was that Profissor Gordon (1974) attempted to show that cryptograms demonstrated the authenticity of controversial inscriptions. Yet each case he chose represented a spurious solution because the examples were known forgeries-the Kensington runestone, Spirit Pond runestones, the Vinland Map, and final/l the Paraiba inscription. I refer Dr. Fisher and others to my article. (3) There is not space enough here to discuss American Norse cryptography. Professor Erik Wahlgren and I have just completed a lengthy and detailed study of the subject. Cryptography was developed by two enthusiastic amateurs, Ole Landsverk and A lf Monge, in an attempt to defend the Kensington runestone, and their book on the subject applied cryptography more widely to other runic inscriptions. Every Scandinavian specialist totalli' rejects their work. In our studiy, Profissor Wahlgren, who is an eminent specialist in medieval Scandinavian languages, provides the first successfiul translation of the Spirit Pond frauds, one of Gordon 'sillchosen examples in Riddles in History. The analysis by Wahlgrensuggests that the Spirit Pond runestone.fbrger picked words out of Zoiga's Old Icelandic Dictionary, probably the 1967 edition, but was unfnamiliarwith Icelandic grammar. He borrowed some runes and words ffrom the Kensington stone, elements which appear in no Scandinavian runestones. The Spirit Pond narrative is partl' pornographic andcontains startlinganachronisms. We are told, for example, that the Vikingsin lOlI on the Maine coast are drinking cherrlybrandy two sailing da's fo)om Ca(nada). It turns out that the Spirit Pond runestone forger scrambled the word dividers as a probable spoofon crvptograt'hl dev'elopedhb'Lancdsverk and Mlonge in 1967. / mention this because I have not avoided the issue of cryptography, either on the Paraiha stone or elsewhere.

(4) I wish to inrformreaders that I am not a casual scholar w'hen it comes to the subject o(f trans-Atlantic c?ontacts. Mv hook Atlantic Voyages to Prehistoric

America is in press. The Foreword to it is written by Dr. Gl'n Daniel, DisneylProfessor and head of archeology at

Cambridge University. In addition to mjvpublications in BA and BAR, I have published articles this past year on other topics dealing with mysterious visitors to the New World;these are listed at the end of this reply to establish my- credentials in viewing the theories of Professor Gordon and Professor Fell with skepticism. Theylare both, in the words of Professor Daniel, "deluded scholars, " a conclusion he reached after reading their books, and his review was published in the New York Times in 1976. (5) Dr. Fisher states that "McKusick, despite his bibliographic notations, has never read Gordon's work. " He uses as examples that Gordon admits the ver- real possibility of forgery to explain the origin of the Kensington runestone and the Paraiba inscription. As his third example he states that I have misrepresented Gordon 's position about migrations to the New World, whereas his professor only suggested limited trade contacts. I will cite chapter and verse to show that Dr. Fisher may wish to reconsider his views. According to Gordon (1974. 35-36) "Monge', encouraged by Landsverk, has authenticated the Kensington Stone by' solving its cryptograms. " He further states that "The Paraiba, Kensington, and Spirit Pond texts have cryptograms confirming dates byhtheir double. Thisfeature locks the three texts in together as examples qf the same historic development " (Gordon 1974: 155). Elsewhere he states that "The Kensington Stela, like the Paraiba Inscription, is demonstrably authentic .. (Gordon 1974: 113). Similar statements which clearl/v define his position occur et passim. If more recent evidence has led Professor Gordon to change his interpretations, this would clarifiymatters, for I am citing positions published in his 1974 book. Does Professor Gordon limit his theories to restricted trade contacts? I did not misrepresenthis views. For example, "The links we have observed between the Old World and America reflect the contributions of numerous peoples, from different directions, during many millennia "(Gordon 1971: 174). In another context he writes "that there was a scientififcal/v and technologically developed civilization that penetrated virtuall/v every'part of the world in remote antiquity "(1971: 174). The Key by John Philip Cohane (1976) traces what the author alleges are Canaanite loanwords in ancient languages throughout the world, and a reader ofthe book is encouraged to accept such a conclusion because of the Preface written by Prqfessor Gordon, who explains that

sought escape by turning to pseudoarcheology and speculation. Thehbooksofthe New Mythologycollectivelv describe Atlantis, wandering Vikings, ancient Irish, astronauts from outer space, Neolithic Scandinavians, Chinese explorers, Indian my'stics, Iberian seafarers, Australian aborigines, Egyptians, Crete, refugees.from Greek sailors, and of course the CanaanitePhoenicians. If'all these speculations were true, there would have been no the American Indians. room.for These books have been written by zealous, misinformed amateurs abetted by the commercial presses which profit from their work, for the books often have huge sales. Unfortunately, there is a handful of misguided scholars such as Professor Barry Fellfrom Harvard, and they have misled the reading public about prehistorv. It appears that Professor Gordon is another academic member of the team supporting the New Mythology. I write only oqfhisspeculations about prehistoric America, which is not an area of his academic specialization. It must be emphasized that I am not criticizing his wellknown contributions to Mediterranean studies.

of merchant mariners. (6) I now speak to the broader issue. During the 1970s new speculations about prehistoric times have flooded the paperback marketplace. Examples of these hooks

In press Atlantic Voyages to Prehistoric America. Carhondale, IL: Press. Southern Illinois LUniversityv Wahl~ren. L., and McKusick, M. B. 1979 American Norse (CrptographY in Theory and Practice.

world commerce was united bi a Semitic trading network

be found in every airline terminal and bookstore in the countrYI , and they are commonl/l sohi in

rmay

Bibliography General references appear at the end of my 1979 BA article; thefbllowing list simply gives citations from this reply, mainl. from m' own work. Cohane, J. P. The Key. New York: Schocken. 1976 Cross, F. M. Phoenicians in Brazil? Biblical Archaeology Review 1979 5.2: 36-43. Gordon, C. H.

1971

Before Columbus. Links between the Old World and

Ancient America. New York: Crown. 1974 Riddles in History. New York: Crown. McKusick, M. B. 1979a Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone? Biblical Archeologist 42: 137-40. 1979b A Cryptogram in the Paraiha Inscription from Brazil.

BiblicalArchaeologyReview5.4: 50-54. 1979c 1979d 1979e

The North American Periphery of Antique Vermont. Antiquity 53: 121-23. The Davenport Stone, A Hoax Unraveled. Early Man 1: 9-14 (Spring). Some Historical Imnplicationsof the Norse Penny from

Maine. Meddelelserfra Norsk NumismatiskForening 3: 16-24.

40- page typescript submitted

to American

Antiquity.

a rack of' Marshall McKusick stores, drug stores, and ev'erywherethat haslarger.foocl i we seen the 1970s have w'hatI 'will UIni'ersit of lowa paperbacks. During term as the "New Mythology" filled

with frmntasies,

errors. The de?ade of the n vsticism, and compouLlnded 1970s has been a period when the reading public has


Cryptopuzzle Professor McKusick suggests that it might be useful to have a statement on scholarly reaction to the "cryptopuzzle" theory of Alf Mong& and Ole Landsverk, by which they attempt to validate "runic" inscriptions in North America and Latin text on the so-called Vinland Map. The importance of that to your journal may lie in the fact that Professor Gordon has wholeheartedly accepted their findings and in turn applied them toward validating the Paraiba inscription. Physical science has now established that the Vinland Map cannot be older than about 1920. That in itself would invalidate the cryptogram reasoning, if it had not already collapsed from its own absurdity. Every runologist, every competent philologist specializing in Scandinavian in North America, England, France, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries, agrees that the Kensington inscription is a modern hoax, and one of the hoaxsters has confessed. The inscriptions on three small stones at Spirit Pond, Maine, have been utilized by Landsverk, Gordon, and their followers in a further attempt to document their assertions. Professor Einar Haugen of Harvard has explicated in meticulous detail what should immediately be obvious to anyone who can make out runes: the characters-despite an ostensible 350 years separating the two self-dated messages (10111362)-are patently derived from Kensington. In fact, two of the runes at Spirit Pond and Kensington are found nowhere else in the world. Many of the words in the Spirit Pond message are anachronistically modern. One example will suffice: sailing-ship. Though the carving purports to be Old Icelandic, that language had no word, and needed none, for a ship with sails. What other kind of ship was there? The Spirit Pond inscriptions use modern dating and mathematics. They are inscribed along with a map of the area-labeled Vinland-that shows the area as it appears today, not a millennium ago when the topography was different. There are many other features based on modern discussions of the Vinland sagas and the Kensington stone. In addition, thereare pornographic features. Most amusing of all is the fact that the message was scrambled in order to give the appearance of a crYptogram. My guess is that this is a fraternity house joke, a satire on the would-be cryptographers. The negative verdict is not purely a product of linguistic reasoning. The theory launched by Landsverk et al. is completely rejectedbydistinguished archeologists, historians, and cryptography experts. The theory has no consistency whatever, being totally arbitrary. And is it not staggering that a "system" claimed to apply to medieval Norse should equally apply to ancient Phoenician? Those who make such equations are, to put it charitably, rather far removed from real life. Erik Wahlgren UCLA An Exercise in Futility If there be those who presume that the recent articles by Oded Borowski (1978: 42-43) and Frederic R. Brandfon

74


(1979: 5) concerning the relationship between archeological research and the more general field of anthropology or any of the other social sciences are evidence of the genesis of a problem, let them be disabused. The exact problem was debated hotly at least as long ago as the mid-1930s by people engaged in archeology in the eastern United States. That they were excavating Native American, not biblical or biblical-related"sites,is no matter. The question was, and apparently is, whether or not archeology, particularly in the instances of the Biblical Archeologist references, is historical research or a species of some other social science. Disputation in the matter is an exercise in futility. It reaches the crescendo of sound and fury we are informed is the hallmark of an idiot's tale but has given no evidence that it serves a useful purpose. Nevertheless, the matter exists and must be confronted. In their letters, both Borowski and Brandfon more or less agree with an attitude that I find most useful-an attitude that allows rapport between the adherents of both sides of the argument. Archeology is a body of techniques developed to enable extraction of all possible physical evidence left by those who lived before us, and these techniques now include employment of specialists in other disciplines relying on extraction and interpretation of physical evidence. The techniques are designed to assure the reliability and completeness of evidence recovered. It is in the interpretation of the physical data recovered that the other disciplines-history, anthropology, paleontology, paleobotany, numismatics, ceramics-enter the arena. The body of data recovered by the methods of archeology is infinitely interpretable. In my experience, one reason many archeologists are not willing to accept the definition of archeology as a body of techniques is that they feel this reduces them to the status of technicians or craftsmen, although both surely are honorable estates. What such folk fail to realize is that archeologists have it both ways. As masters of a body of techniques, they can have the satisfaction of a technical work well done and of activity whose results are visible, immediately applicable, and establish the foundation upon which the intellectual structures can be erected. In their other roles as historians, paleographers, anthropologists, art historians, or what not, they can bask as well in the satisfaction of intellectual odysseys in the heady atmosphere of academia. Bibliography Borowski, O. 1978 Biblical Archeology and Biblical Anthropology. Biblical Archeologist 41: 42-43. Brandfon, F. R. 1979 Biblical Archeology and Biblical Anthropology? Biblical Archeologist 42: 5.

James L. Swauger Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh, PA

Hire More Workers,

PayLess

Taxes! Employers! You can get a tax credit of up to $3,000 each time you hire a worker eligible for the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit. And it's easy. Just hire the worker, fill in the blanks on the eligibility voucher, and drop it in the mail to your local Job Service office. No red tape, no complicated record-keeping. It makes good business sense and it helps people who need jobs. Hire more workers, pay less taxes. Help put America to work.

Contactyour local Job Service or IRS office for details on the

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit.

.. I

...........

Targeted

Jobs Tax

Credit

a public by the U.S Department Prepared as the service of Labor and Internal Revenue Service.

EBLA Research Mediagraphics is pleased to announce the availability of a set of 40 beautiful color slides of the ruins of ancient Ebla. Some of the photographs seen in this issue of BA are reproduced from the set. Taken by archeologist James E. Jennings,

these slides capture the splendor of a oncegreat empire from the perspective of an expert. Included are insightful explanatory captions. Send $25.00 to Research Mediagraphics, 300 Stanley Rd., Winfield, IL 60190.


Robert Biggs

0I 1, 'I A

The Ebla

V

> :,

Tablets

An Intcrspi P'crspectivce

76


A imost five years have passed since the discovery of the ro val archives at Tell Mardikh, and the intriguing questions which this remarkablefind has raised still remain. A prominent cunei.formist takes afresh hut careful look at the issues, the controversies, the publications, and the implications of Ebla and its texts. It happens every few decades that an archeological discovery attracts widespread publicity and popular attention. One can think of the sensational discovery a century ago of tablets which revealed a Babylonian flood story, the discovery of Ugarit on the coast of Syria with its new language written in an alphabetic cuneiform script and its unsuspectedly rich literature. There was Mari on the middle Euphrates in Syria with its palaces and thousands of cuneiform tablets. More recently, there was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were the archeological sensation of the 1950s. Most of the excitement about these particular finds can be attributed directly to a concern with the Bible and the claims that were made concerning their relevance for the Bible. Now Tell Mardikh-Ebla in Syria has been hailed as a discovery of even greater importance. Again, it is the supposed connections with the Bible that have caught a great deal of attention and have been reported extensively in the popular press and in religious publications, especially in the United States. Because of the wide publicity given the Ebla finds, and exaggerations and distortions in some newspapers and other elements of the popular press, it may be useful for readers of this journal to consider the finds from a different perspective in the context of comment on a new book about Ebla (Bermant and Weitzman 1979). A great deal has been written on the Ebla texts by persons unfamiliar

with cuneiform writing of the mid-3rd millennium and who have an inadequate appreciation of the difficulties and ambiguities involved. I have myself faced some of the same problems now being treated by the Ebla epigraphers. Since 1963 I have been working with the Sumerian tablets from Abi Saldbikh, a site in Iraq which is close in date to the Ebla tablets. The closest parallels for the Ebla tablets are in fact from Abti Salabikh. More than 100 lexical texts which were already known from Fara and Abai Salabikh have been identified among the Ebla tablets (Pettinato 1977a: 237). I comment, therefore, from the perspective of a scholar who has considerable experience in reading the script of the time of the Ebla tablets and who has long been familiar with some of the genres of texts found at Ebla. I wish to stress that I have no knowledge of the unpublished texts from Ebla and have not discussed them with any members of the Ebla team. Reading 3rd-Millennium Cuneiform In previous discussions of the Ebla tablets too little emphasis has been put on the difficulty of reading and understanding cuneiform texts of the mid-3rd millennium and the complexities of the writing system. One must keep in mind the distinction between writing and language. Writing is a means for expressing language in a more or less permanent form. How well the writing system expresses the language it is being used for, and how much of that language can be Opposite:A fragmentof the list of geographicalnamesfrom Abfi SalhbTkh, now duplicatedby a tabletfrom Ebla. Above: Tablet from Abu Salabikh. This

Sumerianlist of occupationshas been found at a numberof Near Easternsites of the 3rd millenniumB.c. Severalof the cuneiformsigns are survivorsfrom early times and are knownonly in copies of this text. Below: Obverse of a school exercise

tabletfrom Abi Salabikhwith an otherwiseunknownSumerianmyth concerningLugalbandaand Nin-sun, parentsof Gilgamesh.Severallines can be understood,but most of the text is obscure.

Courtesy of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.


Map by Kent P. Jackson.

Harran Carchemit

Aleppo

Arrapba *

.----

Ebla A-ure

Terqa Manri

Mediterranean Tadmor

i :9-

eDamascus Sippar *

Babylon Abu Salibikh

*Fara

A

The Near East, showingthe relative locationsof Ebla,Fara,Abti Saldbikh,and other importantancientsites. recovered solely through an examination of its written remains is very much a matter of the nature and limitations of the writing system. The writing system used for Sumerian was a logo-syllabic one. That is, it consisted of signs for words (logograms) and signs for sounds which were not necessarily words (syllabograms). In a logo-syllabic system, almost all nouns and verbs are written with logograms, while syllabograms are used for words like prepositions and conjunctions, for grammatical markers such as those for gender, number, case, tense, and mood, and for spelling out names and foreign words. By contrast, the adaptation of cuneiform writing to Akkadian was made in the form of a logogram-including syllabic system (much the same way that modern English writing is a logogramincluding alphabetic system), where most words were spelled out syllabically and logograms were used mainly as abbreviations for common words. Indications are that the adaptation of cuneiform to the language of Ebla was also of this type, although a very large number of logograms were used in writing, a situation that also may have been true of the earliest Semitic texts from Mesopotamia. This extensive use of logograms means that the words intended in the texts are known to

78

us through their Sumerian equivalents, although the reading of the word in Eblaite may not be known. Grammatical elements that relate the words to one another in order to form sentences may not be present or, if present, are written syllabically in Eblaite. Thus their meaning can only be guessed at on the basis of comparisons with known words in other Semitic languages. It appears, in fact, that there are no texts written entirely in syllabic Eblaite; thus, in large measure the texts are understandable only to the extent that the Sumerian logograms can be interpreted. The period before the time of Sargon of Akkad may be divided into three stages in the order of difficulty of understanding the texts. The first would be represented by the Sumerian texts from Fara, which probably date to around 2600 B.C. The next would be the Abi Salabikh texts, which date approximately from the same time or possibly a bit later. Then, probably a little later, would come the Ebla tablets. In the case of both Fara and AbUiSalabTkh,there are many signs that we do not yet know how to read; grammatical elements that correspond to our prepositions "to," "for," "in," etc. are usually not written; in Fara texts the signs quite often are not written in the sequence in which they should be read, though in AbUiSalabTkhtexts there is somewhat more of a tendency to write the signs in the reading


order. In Ebla texts it appears that the signs are usually written in the correct reading-sequence, and it looks as though most rare and unusual signs have been dropped from the scribal repertory. There is, nevertheless, the fact that most cuneiform signs have more than one syllabic reading and often one or more logographic reading as well. In addition, there is no special mark or even blank space to separate one word from another. In view of all these difficulties, it is only natural that there will be improved readings, particularlyin names, as scholars working with the Ebla tablets become more familiar with the Ebla syllabary. It should be recalled that although the number of readings for individual cuneiform signs seems overwhelming when viewed as a whole system, in actual practice the number of syllabic signs used in a particulararea at a particulartime tends to be somewhat restricted. When dealing with a new group of texts, it takes some time to get a feel for these scribal practices. One must first establish the syllabic readings of signs in known and recognizable words and only then can one be reasonably certain when reading unknown words or names. A case in point is the sequence of signs A. EN. GA. D U.KI, which with a slight rearrangementof the signs was read A-ga-du EN"'and interpretedas "Akkad of the king" (EN is the logogram standing for the Eblaite word for "king"). It was later realized that EN has a syllabic reading ru in Ebla texts, and the signs are to be read A-ru-ga-duki,the name of a town (Matthiae 1978c:253), now transcribedby Pettinato as Arukatu (Pettinato 1979:23). It is precisely this type of refinement in establishing the normative syllabary that has led to corrections in reading names in the Ebla texts, such as the supposed third and fourth cities of the "cities of the plain." As for understanding the Ebla texts, one would think that economic and administrative documents should be relatively easy to understand. This is only partly so, for often, even if one understands every word in a text, one still does not know its real purpose. One is often reduced to saying "document concerning barley" and not being able to say whether the

James E. Jennings. Copyright ? 1978 Research Mediagraphics.

The northwestentranceto Tell Mardikh. The outer mounds,visiblein this picture, are actuallyearthenrampartswhich surroundedthe ancientcity and were intersectedby severaldepressionsthat markthe location of the city gates. barley is being issued or received and for what purpose. The word lists, or lexical texts, as they are usually called, are a special case. This genre goes back to the very earliest stages of writing in Mesopotamia, around 3000 B.C. Because of conservative tendencies among Sumerian scribes, these very old lists of words were kept in the written tradition long after many of the signs ceased to be used in ordinary documents. Perhaps the pronunciations and the meanings of these signs had been kept alive over the centuries among the most learned of scholars, but I suspect that it was strictly an oral tradition in Mesopotamian cities such as AbU Salabikh and Fara (ancient Shuruppak). Some of these texts, I

understand, are represented at Ebla with pronunciations written out syllabically. Of more direct relevance for Sumerian studies are other lexical lists that may have been composed nearer to the time of the Fara and Abti texts, such as a list of birdsSal.bikh long known from Fara and now from Ebla as well (Pettinato 1978b). The use of many syllabic signs in the Ebla version in a number of cases confirms Sumerologists' conjectures for reading certain signs and combinations of signs; in other instances, the Ebla text provides the proper reading for signs that have multiple possible readings in Sumerian. Clearly, this text, and many other lexical texts from Ebla utilizing a more explicit orthography, will eventually have a considerable impact on our ability to understand words in early Sumerian. In some cases, however, the Ebla texts give variants which we cannot at present reconcile with what we know of Sumerian writing, and we remain as preplexed as ever.

The problem is even more serious when it comes to literary texts, primarily poetic. It is often difficult to determine what such a text is about; in many cases, one has only the faintest glimmer of what a text might be about, with understandable words here and there furnishing the only clues. The only exception is a text recognized as a prototype of a later text written with a more explicit orthography. Without such a "modernized" (18th-century-B.C.)parallel, most literary texts from Fara and Abfi Salabikh are extremely difficult to understand. It is rare to find two or three consecutive lines that can be translated with any confidence. (An attempt has been made [Bing 1977] to translate part of one of the more nearly comprehensible texts from AbU Salabikh, though in my opinion very little is certain except the names of the protagonists and that it is a dialogue.) On the basis of what is published so far, little can be said about the literary texts from Ebla. Some 30


James E. Jennings. Copyright @ 1978 Research Mediagraphics. Trumuse ....

Above:Surveyof the citadelexcavation, showingthe grid system.Looking southeastfrom the photographer'stower. Below:Stone orthostats,ca. 2 m high, at the outerentranceto the southwestgate.

identification and interpretation of these tablets may well be just as tentative as are the identifications of the texts from Ab5 Saldbikh. I suspect that they will turn out to be only partially intelligible at best.

have been recognized among the school texts alone (Pettinato 1975-76: 53), and it has been reported widely that there are both a flood story and a creation story. Pettinato has cited four lines from a collection of proverbs (1977a: 232) but refrained from attemptinga translation, although Dahood (1978b: 93) has no hesitation. It is only fair to give warning that the

Recent Publications For readers of Biblical Archeologist who may have obtained most of their information on Ebla from some of the more or less preliminary presentations in this journal, I wish to call attention to an important new book dealing with Ebla. Chaim Bermantand Michael Weitzman have teamed up to do a superbjob of

80


presenting a balanced account of the extraordinary finds at Ebla (Bermant and Weitzman 1979). In preparing the book, the authors talked at length with both Paolo Matthiae and Giovanni Pettinato as well as to Syrian authorities. It is almost a timetable of the events of discovery, the first tentative announcements, the later refinements and corrections. Not only have they spoken with the principals involved, but they have consulted a number of other scholars who are experts in various fields of ancient Near Eastern studies. It is thoroughly up-to-date, for they have had access to manuscripts of several articles that were in press and that have appeared subsequently, mostly in Italian. Many of the topics I touch on here have been discussed in some detail by Bermant and Weitzman. They present a general overview of Mesopotamian history through the 3rd millennium and a very informative chapter on views of the historicity of the Bible and the theories on the origin of Old Testament narratives, as well as a chapter on the decipherment of cuneiform with comment on the present state of decipherment of some of the early Mesopotamian writing. All in all, they have presented an upto-date and unbiased overview of the spectacular finds at Ebla. I recommend it highly for anyone who wishes to be reliably informed about Ebla. Some of the questions I touch upon here are dealt with in some detail by Pettinato in the introduction to his catalog of the cuneiform texts from Ebla (Pettinato 1979b). This catalog gives a description of 6641 tablets to which he had access. He also provides more detailed information on the number of tablets found. He estimates that there are approximately 16,500 registry numbers but points out that only about 1800 are complete tablets, while 4700 are fragments, and about 10,000 are chips or tiny fragments with one or two cuneiform signs. He believes that the entire archive excavated in 197476 did not contain more than 4000 tablets at the most (Pettinato 1979b: xvii). The catalog has valuable indexes of names of deities, personal names, place names, and Sumerian

NormaKershaw

and Eblaite words cited. The catalog provides a wealth of new information, much of it useful only to cuneiform

specialistsat thispoint.

The principal overview of the Ebla tablets in English remains that of Pettinato in BA (May 1976: 44-52). In view of his explicit statement that "this report must necessarily be preliminary and the interpretation of the findings tentative," it may be useful to review some of the tentative findings in light of subsequent work, especially since much of it has appeared in Italian. There remain some uncertainties about the dating of the finds. Recalling that Pettinato believed he had found mention of Sargon of Akkad in the tablets, he first espoused a date in the Akkad period (ca. 2400-2250 B.C.)for the royal archives and, at the same time, rejected my dating of the Abil Saldabikhtablets to about 2600 B.C. (Pettinato 1975-76:55, n. 35). His view of Ebla was that "we are looking at the greatest power in the ancient Near East during the 3rd millennium, a power that not only could stand up to the Mesopotamian empire of Akkad but at times could also reduce it to vassalage." He has since recognized that his reading of the name of Sargon of Akkad was erroneous and that there is therefore no evidence that Akkad was ever a vassal of Ebla (Matthiae 1977c: 253). Thus, the radical revisions in history and chronology of the 3rd millennium in the Near East that were first proposed are no longer advocated. Pettinato (1976: 48) now proposes a date of about 2500 B.C.for the archive, a date that I believe is likely to stand, though, quite naturally, since at least five generations of rulers are represented in the archive, some of the documents may well belong to the Akkadian period. In fact, there seems substantial reason to agree that the destruction of the palace was due to Naram-Sin, who boasted that never before since the creation of man had any king conquered Ebla. The discovery in 1977 of an Egyptian vase fragment in the Royal Palace G with an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Pepi I, whose reign is generally accepted as overlapping the reigns of both Sargon and his

grandson Naram-Sin, certainly supports the date long advocated by Matthiae on other archeological grounds (1978b: 26-27; 1978c: 542). Pettinato (1979a: 14, n. 66) disagrees that the destruction was due to Naram-Sin, but his reasons are to be given in a volume not yet published. Pettinato's proposal (1976: 48) to read the signs NI-a- UD-DU as Duud-ia and to equate this with Tudija,

Stairs to the royal quarterof PalaceG, leadingfrom the courtyard. one of the early kings of Assyria, has not won any substantial support among cuneiformists, as far as I am aware. The equation is accepted without question by Freedman (1978: 164) and Dahood (1978b: 97). A more normal reading would take UD.DU together as the Sumerian verb e, "to


Reverseof an accountfrom Abi Salfibikh concerningbarleyand emmer.The middle columngives the summaryand the name of an official.


go out, to send out." As far as I know, Pettinato has not withdrawn his suggestion, but one should bear in mind that it must be considered tentative. The Ebla Texts and the Bible More controversial are some of the frequently repeated suggestions for rather explicit connections between the Ebla tablets and the Bible. While any new material from the ancient Near East can shed additional light in a general way upon the ancient world of Egypt, Mesopotamia, SyriaPalestine, Arabia, etc. and indeed is most welcome, such discoveries in the past usually have been vastly overrated in some quarters in regard to specific relevance to the Old Testament. A case in point is Nuzi, once much touted as providing valuable insights into the age of the patriarchs. It is now generally agreed that the Nuzi finds are of no direct relevance for the Old Testament (Thompson 1974: 196-297). I do not believe that anyone should be accused of deliberately misusing or distorting the preliminary and tentative results based on an initial reading of the Ebla tablets to

82

support particular doctrinal views or particular historical interpretations. Nevertheless, I believe there has been a tendency to ignore the repeated cautionary remarks about the tentativeness of many suggestions and an insufficient appreciation of the very real difficulties in understanding the texts in the first place. A case in point, and an important one, is the supposed mention of the five "cities of the plain," including Sodom and Gomorrah, in the biblical sequence on an Ebla tablet. It now turns out (Freedman 1978: 143, citing M. Dahood) that corrections in reading the names have eliminated the third and fourth in the sequence that was claimed to parallel Genesis 14, and that, moreover, they do not occur on the same tablet as the supposed Sodom and Gomorrah in any case. It should be stressed that there is no published evidence to support an identification of Ebla cuneiform si-damu with Hebrew and e-mna-ra sidr5m One would need with Hebrew cdmard. a number of occurrences of words from Ebla written with the cuneiform sign si and a number of cognates in other Semitic languages to see


whether si corresponds to Canaanite samek. The case of e-ma-ra is even more difficult. One would need to show that the Ebla writing convention utilizes the sign e to reflect etymological CaIin or aivin. Until the proposed readings are better sub-stantiated it would seem prudent to withhold drawing further similarities with no relevance whatever for either the existence or location of Sodom and Gomorrah. It remains to be seen whether attempts to clarify obscure passages in the Old Testament on the basis of words in Eblaite (Dahood 1978a) will gain substantial acceptance by scholars. It should be pointed out that Dahood's methodology in utilizing Ugaritic to clarify biblical passages had been criticized widely (Pardee 1979: 146, citing James Barr), and it seems likely that similar reservations would apply to his use of Eblaite. Pettinato's proposal to read Ya(w) in some personal names (1976: 48-49) has drawn wide attention. He was careful to say (48) that he considered the matter a crux and stated explicitly that "it could be rather understood as a hypocoristicon, i.e., a shortened form." Others have made explicit a proposal to see in Ya(w) a reference to Yahweh, one of the names of God in the Old Testament. What often has been overlooked in the discussions, and which only a cuneiformist would probably realize, is that the cuneiform sign being read ia oria can also be read i, li, and ni. The vwadded to Ya, making it more closely resemble the Old Testament writing, is, apparently, based solely on the name Su-mi-a-u, where the elements a-ti are, to me, of dubious interpretation. There are at least three different possibilities in interpreting the names with ii: first, Pettinato proposes that it represents a divine name; second, Pettinato alternatively suggests that it is a hypocoristicon, i.e., an element in shortened or "pet" names, very common in Akkadian and Amorite

NormaKershaw

A royal podiumin the EB courtyard,used for audienceswith the king. (that is, a name such as Ubar-~ama, can be shortened to Ubar-ya); third, it is possible that ni rather than ia is to be read, thus producing, for example, a name "He-has-redeemed-me" rather than "Ya-has-redeemed." As far as typology of Semitic names is concerned, both are typical, that is, "The-god-X-has-redeemed-me" or "He-has-redeemed." Dahood, who apparently favors the idea of a god Ya, nevertheless observes, "the problem of the ambiguous ending -y would be neatly solved if some good examples of yavcould be found in the initial position" (Dahood 1978b: 106). There is insufficient evidence published so far to decide the issue, but I would agree with Bermant and Weitzman when they say, "The evidence so far adduced for the worship at Ebla of a god Ya is quite unconvincing" (1979: 182). Unwarranted conclusions have been drawn in some circles concerning similarities between personal names used at Ebla and names occurring in the Old Testament. Some are cited by Freedman (1977: 3), but most have not been published anywhere in the preliminary reports in transliteration and are therefore not verifiable at present. Names such as Ishmail (meaning "The-god-Il-hasheard") are very common in Old Akkadian (Gelb 1957: 274-75) and Amorite (Gelb forthcoming). A considerable number of names of this type also occur at Abil SalabTikh (Biggs 1967: 61-66; 1974: 34-35) and elsewhere in 3rd-millennium Mesopotamia, so there seems to be little evidence for a unique relationship between names in the Old Testament and names in Ebla. As Pettinato put it, "Semitic names of the Fara period are typologically and linguistically identical to those in the Ebla texts so much so as to make one think that they have the same cultural and linguistic origin" (197576: 56, n. 36). Another controversial matter in the Ebla tablets is the relationship of Eblaite (in which some 20% of the texts are reported to be written) to other Semitic languages. Pettinato

considers it to be clearly distinct from Old Akkadian, the language of the time of Sargon and his successors in the Akkad dynasty in Mesopotamia, and Amorite, a language used in the north and west of Mesopotamia. He considers it closer to the languages of Canaan in the Ist millennium B.C., especially Phoenician and Hebrew. Because it is so much earlier, he first proposed to call it "Paleo-Canaanite" or "Old Canaanite" (Pettinato 1975). Defining relationships among languages is a notoriously difficult matter, all the more so when they are separated by a thousand years or more. One's conclusions will obviously be affected by the choice of features which one considers significant. In 1977, I. J. Gelb of the Oriental Institute, Chicago, who is well known as an authority on Semitic languages, particularly Old Akkadian and Amorite, published a preliminary discussion of the Eblaite language based on published material and some additional information which Pettinato furnished him (Gelb 1977). Most of the analysis is based on personal names of the sentence type such as "He-has-redeemed-me," since in the administrative texts the verbs usually are hidden by their Sumerian equivalents. In fact, personal names probably will account for the greatest part of the Eblaite vocabulary and virtually all the grammar of Eblaite that can be recovered (Garbini 1978: 242).

Without repeating here the details of his comparison-on such matters as the form of verbal preformatives, how the passive and causative are formed, and other linguistic features-his conclusions can be summarized. He considers that the closest relatives of Eblaite are Old Akkadian and Amorite; Ugaritic is more distantly related, and Canaanite (that is, Hebrew) is still more distantly related. Yet, he agrees with Pettinato that Eblaite is clearly not a dialect of either Akkadian or Amorite. Gelb does not claim to have settled the question of the relationship of Eblaite to the other Semitic languages, but it seems quite clear that the initial proposal to associate it with Biblical Hebrew should not be accepted as an established fact. Dahood (1978b) defends the identification of Eblaite as Canaanite and cites a great many names from unpublished texts to illustrate language features which he believes he can identify. One can hardly argue the question when so little evidence is available, but I suspect that his vocative 1, superlative, and double negative ma-in may well be challenged. In short, the problem is a difficult one, and it is surely too early to take up firm positions (Ullendorf 1978). Ebla and the ancient Near East There can be no doubt that there were substantial contacts between Ebla and some of the cities of

BIBL.ICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 83

NormaKershaw

importance, that it not only received but gave something of itself to The Sunumerous Mesopotamia" (1976: 52). The Mesopotamia. evidence he cites is a list of geomerian lexical texts duplicating those previously known from Fara and AbUi graphical names first known from Salibikh found at Ebla are the most Abii SalabTkhwhich I published in 1974 (Biggs 1974, nos. 91-111, obvious evidence. There were also transliterated pp. 71-78). A duplicate, contacts with Mari, principally of a commercial and military nature virtually intact, was discovered at Ebla. The better state of preservation (Pettinato 1977). Mari, Ebla, and and the more explicit spelling in the Aboi Saldbikh are also linked by use Ebla copy permitted Pettinato to of the same month names (not recognize that it includes many previously discovered in texts from Syrian place names (Pettinato 1978; Mesopotamia) and the same system of indicating regnal years (Gelb 1977: the second part of the article will 8). A further link is the use of the presumably include proposals for identification of cities in the list). He Semitic words for "hundred"(mi-at) and "thousand" (li-im) in the same concluded, reasonably enough, that the text was therefore composed at three cities (Biggs and Postgate 1978: Ebla and subsequently transmitted to 106). These words were not known from previously discovered texts in Mesopotamia. This is an attractive and may well be correct, Sumer. proposal pre-Sargonic Wider implications have been though it is not necessarily the only drawn by Pettinato on other bases. explanation. I would observe first that I To quote him, "Many are the significant data which show that Ebla consider it impossible to derive the Aboi Salabikh version from the Ebla was a creative center of notable

The Archives Room from the EB palace.

84


version directly. The Abi Salabikh version is written in a less explicit orthography, using a number of rare or even otherwise unique cuneiform signs of unknown reading, whereas the Ebla version uses ordinary syllabic signs all of which can be read with no difficulty. Wherever the text may have been drawn up originally, it seems to me that both the Ebla and Abti Salabikh versions must derive from an older source which had all the ambiguities and rare signs of the Abti Salabikh version. The fact that this geographical list incorporates sections of lists known already in the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3000 B.c.) (personal communication from Margaret W. Green of Berlin) indicates use of some older Mesopotamian sources and in any case implies links between AbNiSalabikh and Ebla earlier than the time of the Abi SalabTkhtablets. I suspect that Kish may have had a more pivotal role in the relationships among Ebla, Mari,

Aboi SalabTkh,and other cities of central Sumer than can be shown from the sparse information available from Kish itself (Gelb 1977: 15), and that such a list might well have been composed at Kish. The finds from Ebla (and I refer not only to the tablets but to the excavations as a whole) already have produced a great deal of information about Syria, especially in the 3rd millennium, in history, commerce, art, and architecture, and about the place of Syria within the ancient world. Some of the texts already published provide substantial help in reading and understanding Sumerian texts of the 3rd millennium. The excavators deserve thanks for making so much information available so promptly in their extensive preliminary reports and other publications. Much more can be expected from Ebla. In fact, recent excavations have revealed a rich cemetery of the early 2nd millennium (reported on by P. Matthiae at the Rencontre assyriologique in Copenhagen in July 1979 in a paper entitled "The Princely Tombs of Middle Bronze II at Ebla and the Contemporary Syro-Palestinian Cemeteries"). Ebla has indeed opened up whole new vistas. I would stress again, however, that in my opinion the Ebla tablets will have no special relevance for our understanding of the Old Testament.


Above:A Sumerianliterarytext from Abii Salbikh, ca. 2600 B.c. In spite of recentadvancesin understandingearly Sumerian,it remainsvirtuallyunintelligible even to specialists.The last column on the rightis the colophon, which includesa numberof Semiticnames. Below:A LustralBasin from the Ishtar Temple.

James E. Jennings. Copyright C 1978 Research Mediagraphics.


JamesE. Jennings.Copyright? 1978ResearchMediagraphics.

The village of Mardikh is a colorful reminder of a life-style which is millennia old. Houses with the beehive-shaped mudbrick domes are remarkably efficient in repelling cold winter rains as well as blistering summer heat.

This article is an updated and shortened version of a lecture given to the Chicago chapter of the Archaeological Institute of America in January 1978.

Bibliography Bermant, C., and Weitzman, M. Ebla: A Revelation in Archaeology. 1979 New York: Times Books. Biggs, R. D. 1967 Semitic Names in the Fara Period. Orientalia 36: 55-66. 1974 Inscriptions from Tell AbafSaldbikh. Oriental Institute Publications 99. Chicago: University of Chicago. Biggs, R. D., and Postgate, J. N. 1978 Inscriptions from Abu Salabikh, 1975, Iraq 40: 101-17. Bing, J. D. 1977 Gilgamesh and Lugalbanda in the Fara Period. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Societ'y of Columbia University 9: 1-4. Dahood, M. I libri profetici e sapienziale dell' 1978a antico Testamento alla luce della recoperte di Ebla e di Ugarit. Civiltia Cattolica 1978: 328-40. 1978b Ebla, Ugarit and the Old Testament. Vetus Testamentum, Supplement 29: 81-112. Freedman, D. N. 1977 A Letter to the Readers. Biblical Archeologist 40: 2-4. 1978 The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets: Ebla and the Cities of the Plain. Biblical Archeologist 41: 143-64. Garbini, G. 1978 La lingua di Ebla. Parola delpassato 33: 241-59.

86

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING

Gelb, I. J. 1957 Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1977 Thoughts about Ibla: A Preliminary Evaluation, March 1977. SvroMesopotamian Studies 1: 3-30. forthComputer-aided Analysis of AmoStudies 21. Chicoming rite. Ass*vriological cago: The Oriental Institute. Mander, P. Presenza di scongiuri n-&-nu-ruad 1979 Ebla. Orientalia 48: 335-39. Matthiae, P. Tell Mardikh: The Archives and 1977 Palace. Archaeologj' 30: 244-53. Recherches archeologiques 'a Ebla, 1978a 1977: le quartier administratif du Palais Royal G. Acadimie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, comptes rendus 1978: 204-36. 1978b Gli scavi di Tell Mardikh-Ebla e il loro valore storico. Annali di Ebla 1: 3-16, given also in English: The Excavations at Tell Mardikh-Ebla and their Historical Value. Annali di Ebla 1: 19-30. 1978c Tell Mardikh: Ancient Ebla. American Journal of Archaeology' 82: 540-43. Pardee, D. 1979 Review of T. Penar, "Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38: 145-46. Pettinato, G. Testi cuneiformi del 3. millennio in 1975 paleo-cananeo. Orientalia44: 361-74. 1975-76 I testi cuneiformi della biblioteca reale di Tell Mardikh-Ebla: notizia preliminare sulla scuola di Ebla.

Rendicontidellapontificia accademia romana di archeologia 48: 47-57. 1976 The Royal Archives of Tell MardikhEbla. Biblical Archeologist 39: 44-52. 1977a Gli archivi reali di Tell MardikhEbla: reflessioni e prospettive. Rivista biblica 25: 225-43. 1977b Relations entre les royaumes d'Ebla et de Mari au troisieme millenaire, d'apres les archives de Tell MardikhEbla. Akkadica 2: 20-28. 1977c I1calendario semitico del 3. millennio ricostruito sulla base dei testi di Ebla. Oriens antiquus 16: 257-85. 1978a L'Atlante geografico del Vicino Oriente antico attestato ad Ebla e ad AbU Salablkh (I). Orientalia 47: 50-73. 1978b Liste presargoniche di ucelli nella documentazione di Fara ed Ebla. Oriens antiquus 17: 165-78. 1979a Culto ufficiale ad Ebla durante il regno di Ibbi-Sipi'. Orientis antiqui Collectio 16. Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente (= Oriens antiquus 18: 85132). 1979b Catalogo dei testi cuneiformi di Tell Mardikh-Ebla. Materialiepigrafici di Ebla 1. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli. Thompson, T. L. 1974 The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ullendorf, E. Review of 1. J. Gelb, "Thoughts 1978 about Ibla." Journal of Semitic Studies 23: 151-54.

Published Texts from Ebla Since it has been reported in the popular press that none of the Ebla tablets are published yet, it may be useful to describe briefly here the ones that have in fact been published either with transliteration or simply in a legible photo. 1) Pettinato and Matthiae, "Aspetti amministrativi e topografici di Ebla nel III millennio av. Cr.," Rivista degli studi orientali 50: 1-30. Administrative document concerning barley rations, 7 columns on obverse, 8 on reverse. 2-3) Pettinato, "ED LU E ad Ebla: la ricostruzione delle prime 68 righe sulla base di TM.75.G. 1488," Oriens antiquus 15: 169-78. Two tablets with an Early Dynastic list of professions, duplicating and restoring the fragmentary list already known from Abi (edited in Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 12 Sal.bikh [Rome, 1969]: 1621). No. 2 is published in a color photo in National Geographic, December 1978: 758. 4-6) Pettinato, "ll calendario semitico del 3. millennio ricostruito sulla base dei testi de Ebla," Oriens antiquus 16: 257-85. Transliteration and translations of three offering lists, the first with 5 columns on the obverse, the second with 5 columns on both obverse and reverse, the third with 7 columns of both obverse and reverse. 7-8) Pettinato, "ll calendario di Ebla al tempo del re Ibbi-Sipis sulla base di TM.75.G.427," Archiv f•ir Orientforschung 25: 1-36. Includes transliteration of a large administrative document with 14 columns on both obverse and reverse recording issue of flour rations and a smaller tablet with 4 columns on both obverse and reverse recording issue of foodstuffs (?). 9-10) Pettinato, "Liste presargoniche di uccelli nella documentazione di Fara ed Ebla," Oriens antiquus 17: 165-78. Two tablets (one large, the other a brief school exercise tablet) listing Sumerian names of birds, important for establishing the reading of a number of names in the previously known copy from Fara. Photo of obverse of no. 6 also in Matthiae, Ebla: un impero ritrovato (Turin, 1977), fig. 49. 11-12) Pettinato, "L'Atlante geografico del Vicino Oriente antico attestato ad Ebla e ad Abi Salabikh (I)," Orientalia 47: 50-73. One small tablet with geographical names and a large tablet, 11 columns on obverse, 2 on reverse, duplicating and restoring the previously published list from Ab5 Salibikh. 13) Pettinato, "Gli archivi reali di Tell Mardikh-Ebla: riflessioni e prospettive," Rivista hihlica 25: 239-40. Transliteration and translation of a letter, 6 columns on obverse, 1 line on reverse. Photo and English translation also in Nature/Science Annual, 1978 (Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1978): 40. A somewhat different interpretation of the letter is given by Garbini (1978: 255-59).

14) Matthiae, Ebla: un impero ritrovato (Turin, 1977). Photo on cover. Memorandum (?) from Ib-ri-um, in Eblaite written mainly in Sumerian logograms mentioning many towns. Obverse with 10 columns. 15) ibid., fig. 43. Photo of administrative document, obverse with 31 columns. 16) ibid., fig. 44. Photo of administrative document recording various amounts of silver paid (?) to a number of individuals, obverse with 11 columns. Also published in Annali di Ebla [1], pl. 16, no. 2. 17) ibid., fig. 45. Photo of administrative document recording deliveries, principally textiles, obverse with 10 columns. 18) ibid., fig. 46. Photo of lexical text, mostly Sumerian names of objects, obverse with 14 columns. 19) ibid., fig. 47. Photo of a small rounded tablet with 23 lines of an incantation, twice mentioning Nin-girim, Sumerian goddess of incantations (see Mander 1979). 20) ibid., fig. 48. Photo of a small administrative document mentioning amounts of gold and silver. (Fig. 49 = no. 6, above.) 21) ibid., fig. 50. Photo of administrative document dealing with textiles, obverse with 14 columns. 22) ibid., fig. 51. Photo of historical text frequently mentioning Ib-lul-II, king of Mari, obverse with 9 columns. 23) Howard LaFay, "Ebla: Splendor of an Unknown Empire," National Geographic, December 1978: 73031. Photo of an administrative document, account of rations or wages, obverse with 7 columns. 24) ibid., p. 748. Small narrow school exercise tablet, 10 lines, including the Sumerian phrase an-ki-bi-da, "heaven and earth." Transliterated by Pettinato, "I testi cuneiformi della biblioteca reale di Tell MardikhEbla: notizia preliminare sulla scuola di Ebla," Rendiconti della pontificia accademia romana di archeologia 48: 50-51. 25) ibid., p. 758, lower left. Photo of small round tablet, obverse with 6 lines, record of deliveries (?). 26) ibid., lower right. Photo of small round tablet, account of livestock, obverse with 16 lines. 27-30) Pettinato, Culto ufficiale ad Ebla durante il regno di Ibbi-Sipif. Orientis antiqui Collectio 16. Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente (=Oriens antiquus 18: 85-132). Transliteration and translation of four offering lists, the first with 11 columns on the obverse, 12 on the reverse; the second with 12 on the obverse, 9 on the reverse (excluding blank columns); the third with 12 on both the obverse and reverse;the fourth with 8 on the obverse and 7 on the reverse. The first and third texts are published with excellent photos.

BIBI.ICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

SPRING 1980 87

ournal

of

DHARMA

An International Quarterly for Dialogical and Cross-Cultural Studies on World Religions Published by THE CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF WORLD RELIGIONS Dharamaram College, Bangalore 560029, India All Manuscripts for Publication (typed double-spaced and footnotes appended at the end may be sent directly to Dr. Francis Vadakethala (Editor-in-Chief) on the address as above: All Business Correspondence, Exchange Advertisement, Subscriptions etc. should be addressed in U.S.A., Canada. Mexico and other Latin American Countries to: Mrs. Joan Stein (Associate Secretary), Journal of Dharma, 804 Grove Lane, Santa Barbara, California 93105. Tel: (805) 687-5236. Back Issues Available (single copy: $2.00/per vol. $8): 1975-'76: Vol. 1, Nos. 1 & 2 :Meeting of Religions " No. 3 :Religious Experience 4 :Time and Timelessness 1977

1978

1979

Vol. II,

".

:Moksha and Liberation

2 :Meditation 3 :Suffering and Evil 4 :Myth and Mysteries

Vol. Ily,

". 1

:Religion and Human Development

Vol. IV,

". 1

:Religion: Search & Research

Current Issue

2 3 4

2 3 ". 4

:Ashrams and Ascetics :Revelation :Culture and Worship :Mysticism :Death and After life :Law and Morality

Scheduled for 1980-81 (To be published according to Calendar year quarters: March, June, September and Dec. 1980: Hermeneutics; Feminine Aspect of God; Spiritual Guides; Tradition and Modernity. 1981: Negative Theology; Mission and Transmission; Faith-BeliefTradition; Religious Pluralism. Annual Subscription rates from January 1980, for U.S.A., Canada, Mexico and Latin American Countries: Surface Mail: US $.10 or its equivalent Air Mail: US $.13 or its equivalent

88


Human Osteology &Archeologqy J. Kenneth Eakins The excavation of human skeletal remains has contributed substantialli' to many' areas of research into man's past. Specialists in the study' of bones are now piecing together information not only about burial customs but also about such things as the history of disease, human development, diet, infant mortalitly, and the risks of childbirth in ancient times. In this report Dr. J. Kenneth Eakins discusses his work as osteologist at the excavation of Tell el-Hesi and the importance oqfhis specialtY' our understanding of' .for ancient people.

Human bone is often encountered during the process of an archeological excavation. Whether present in isolated burials or large cemeteries, it tends to provoke perplexing questions. How does one excavate a grave carefully but with reasonable speed? What can be learned? Is the information gained worth the time and effort? The author's interest in these questions is the result both of his background in medicine and archeology and of his experiences as a member of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi, Israel, especially during the 1977 season when he served as osteologist. The author's participation in the 1977 season was made possible partially through a grant from the Association of Theological Schools, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Arthur Vining Davis Foundation. During the first four seasons of modern work at Hesi (1970-75) over

400 Bedouin graves were excavated from the Muslim cemetery located in Field I on the Acropolis at the northern end of the site (Toombs forthcoming). A more ancient cemetery from the Persian period (6th-4th centuries B.C.), containing more than 40 graves, was excavated in Field III at the southeastern base of the acropolis during the 1970 and 1971 seasons (Coogan 1975). In the 1977 season, 158 Bedouin graves were excavated in Field VI on the South Ridge. Associated coins suggest that this cemetery was in use in the 14th-16th centuries. Use may have continued into a considerably later period (O'Connell, Rose, and Toombs 1978). Physiology of Bone The human skeleton contains about 206 bones plus 20 deciduous teeth, replaced by 32 permanent teeth. The bones are not inert, as some imagine, but are a dynamic part of an individual. Supplied with blood

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST

/

SPRING 1980 89

to Tell el-Hesi. Courtesy of the Joint Expedition ..... ........

•iii::• :::•==•i•!•j• i=;i'- :I:i= ::i???=:_i•= ii=i=i,=,,= :?=.....

vessels and nerves, they participate in the metabolic processes of the body. On a weight basis they are about two parts mineral, chiefly calcium and phosphorous, and one part organic material including fats and proteins. Many important functions are performed by the skeleton. It provides support and framework

90

The excavationof a skeletonat Tell elHesi, showingthe care requiredin the treatmentof humanremains.

for the softer tissues and permits efficient locomotion. Certain portions, such as the skull and rib cage, serve a protective function by encasing vital parts of the body. Blood is produced by the bone marrow, and bones provide a reservoir of minerals. Some bones have a highly specialized function, for example, the tiny bones in the


ear which make normal hearing possible. Teeth aid in biting and chewing food. In early life the bones grow rapidly and many developmental changes occur. Several diseases and other disturbances, including trauma and dietary problems, can leave their imprint on the skeleton. Depending on the cause, the telltale evidence might be abnormally thick or thin bones, perforations, breaks, bone spurs, elongated or shortened bones, and various deformities including bones with bowing. As an individual grows old, his or her bones tend to undergo degenerative changes, becoming weaker and less elastic. When death occurs, the bones begin to disintegrate. Organic portions break down into water, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. Loss of mineral content and anatomical form occurs gradually and is influenced by numerous factors. When subjected to such disruptive influences as plant roots, rodent activity, surges of soil water, and wide temperature changes, bones break up quickly. The rate of decay is also influenced greatly by the pH of the soil. When the p1His low (acidic soil), the mineral content of bones is lost quickly. Bones buried in soil with a high pH (basic soil) tend to retain their minerals and their structural integrity for a long time. Under reasonably good conditions bones can retain recognizable form and structure from a few hundred to a few thousand years. More rarely, when certain conditions exist, bones may become fossilized and last indefinitely. The process of fossilization, or mineralization, is complex and not fully understood. The first crucial step in the process is for the bones to be buried, whether by design or chance, very quickly. Otherwise, they will be destroyed by weathering and perhaps by animal activity. As the organic

Experts can learn much about an ancient individual'smedical history from his bones: chronic diseases often cause characteristic bone changes. portions of the skeleton decay, the skeleton becomes very porous and ground water can easily permeate the bones. If the water contains certain mineral substances, especially lime and iron, these may be deposited in the bones. This is particularly apt to happen where the bones dry out periodically. Eventually, the bones may be completely replaced with mineral substances. This process of fossilization occurs slowly and not always at a uniform rate. The degree of mineralization of bones is not, therefore, a very precise way of determining how long the bones have been dead. Archeological Recovery of Bone Since the proper excavation of bone is a time-consuming process, the archeological staff of a dig must be committed to the philosophy that the skeletal material is as genuinely artifactual as a piece of jewelry or a clay pot and is not merely an unwelcome, intrusive element. A period of initial orientation and training of selected teams permits excavation of burials with maximum efficiency in terms of time and results. A basic knowledge of human skeletal anatomy is essential. Excavations in Israel, at least those dealing with historical periods, are usually carried out in squares of 5 x 5 m. The work is commonly done today by volunteers under the watchful eye of an experienced supervisor. The larger area is subdivided into smaller units, or loci, on the basis of the features encountered. At Hesi, when the presence of a burial is first suspected, a locus number is assigned and the grave is excavated as a unit. The goal is to expose the entire

skeleton, if present, as quickly and as carefully as possible. At first, the overlying soil may be removed cautiously using a gentle scraping motion with the edge of a trowel. The point should never be stuck blindly into the earth. Frequent brushing is necessary to keep the field clean. As the bones appear, one's knowledge of anatomy allows excavation to proceed with confidence. Soon the most useful tools are spoons, small soft brushes, and dental picks. A rubber bulb syringe can be used to clean fragile areas with gentle puffs of air. Bones are exposed as fully as possible without completely removing the underlying supporting soil. Portions which have been exposed but are no longer being worked on are protected from the direct rays of the sun by some type of covering. Strips of old canvas are satisfactory for this purpose, if care is taken not to drag them across the bones. During the process of excavation one remains alert for skeletal elements that have been dislodged from their normal anatomical position. Teeth and bones of the fingers and toes are often found loose in the soil. Epiphyses, small pieces of bone that during the growth are not yet fused to the main bone of which they are a part, can easily be overlooked and damaged or discarded even though the soil is sifted. This is especially true if the skeleton is that of an infant. When the skeleton has been exposed fully, the observable data are noted carefully and recorded. A standardized method of gathering and recording this information has been developed for the type of burials encountered at Hesi. This was devised by Senior Field Archeologist Lawrence Toombs, with the assistance of others, and is described elsewhere (Toombs forthcoming). Where the volume of osteological material is great, as at Tell elHesi, access to a computer for the storage and retrieval of data is invaluable. Basic data collected at Hesi include the orientation and

position of the skeleton and its individual parts, the direction in which the eyes looked (almost always toward Mecca), the sex, and the age at death. Initial observations about sex and age often need to be refined during the removal of the bones and their later study. Experience has shown that unless certain basic measurements are done in situ, these may be impossible to obtain later because of breakage occurring during removal, transport, and cleaning. The measurements of certain key bones can be obtained in the field with the use of a tape measure and spreading calipers. For example, one can measure the length and diameter of long bones in the arms and legs. Also, various dimensions of the skull, including length and breadth, can often be determined in situ. Information about the grave itself is noted by the archeologist. Any objects in the grave are described and photographed. At Hesi this chiefly has been simple jewelry-rings, bracelets, and necklaces. As with the skeletal remains, this information is collected in a standardized manner and recorded on computer sheets. In most cases, photographs are desirable before the skeleton is removed. When these have been completed, the bones are removed carefully. It is necessary for the soil to have been cleared away sufficiently so that the bones can be lifted gently without tugging. Three containers, usually paper or plastic bags, are required. The skull and any loose teeth are placed in one container (at times a plastic bucket is best), the long bones in a second container, and the remaining portions in a third. Rough handling must be avoided because breakage occurs very easily. The containers, carefully labeled, are taken to a designated area where they are first registered in the central registry. Following this, the bones are cleaned; ordinarily, gentle brushing is adequate. Washing with water, if done at all, must proceed


SPRING 1980 91

Mark Smith

Mark Smith

Left: Upper arm bone (humerus) of a

teen-agegirl. The epiphysishas not yet fused to the shaft of the bone. Right: Vertebraof a young child.The two halves of the archeshave united,but fusion to the vertebralbody has not yet occurred.

(A) ('3

Opposite: Adult skull. Examination of the

teeth provideshelpfulclues to age, diet, and dental health.

"i

very cautiously. Quite often, human bones from archeological sites are too fragile to tolerate washing. During the process of cleaning, any nonosteological material included can be sorted out and redirected as necessary. Pieces of shell, pottery, and stone are often found, having been mistaken in the field for bone.

.l

ii

Study of Recovered Bone

Much has already been learned while the skeleton was in situ. Now, however, further systematic investigation can be carried out at a more leisurely pace. All the bones from one locus are spread carefully on a table. A trained observer will easily spot any animal bone that may be present. It should be separated out and redirected to the one responsible for its study. Division of the bones into three categories aids systematic study. There are flat bones: the pelvis, scapulae (shoulder blades), ribs, sternum (breastbone), and skull. Another category is tubular bones: the long and short bones of the arms, hands, legs, and feet. Finally, the irregular bones include the following: vertebrae, patellae (kneecaps), small bones of the wrists and ankles, and portions from the base of the skull. What was the age of the individual at the time of death? Some idea can obviously be obtained on the basis of size. An adult skeleton would never be confused with that of an infant. The size of individual bones can sometimes be of help if control data are available for the population group represented. The stage of development of the bone is very helpful, particularly prior to adult

92

life. The fusion of epiphyses occurs at a predictable time, often allowing one to determine age with a high degree of precision. The condition of the vertebrae provided much useful information in the Hesi material. At birth each vertebra consists of three portions. Two of these fuse together to form an arch between one and three years of age. The arch fuses to the third portion, or body of the vertebra, between three and seven years of age. Teeth are good indicators of age up to the adult period of life. Although the rate of eruption varies, the general pattern is well known and fairly consistent. On the basis of teeth, epiphyseal development and fusion, and bone size, the age of a child or infant usually can be determined within a range from six months to two or three years. During adolescence the precision is usually no better than three to four years. After adult status has been achieved, it is often impossible to determine age except in very general terms. The presence of tooth wear and arthritic changes in various bones may provide some helpful clues. The actual age of the bone (how long since death occurred) is usually determined on the basis of


the archeological stratigraphy and datable grave offerings. Absolute dating by means of Carbon 14 determination is possible but not altogether satisfactory for osteological material. This is because the residual organic portion, which is the datable component, is often minute. Also, the portion of bone being analyzed is destroyed in the process. New methods of absolute dating which may prove quite useful are being developed by scientists. Fluorine analysis can be performed to establish the relative dates of bones found together. The principle behind this procedure is rather simple. Ground water usually contains small amounts of soluble fluorides which become fixed to the mineral complexes of bone through a chemical reaction. The longer bones remain in the earth the more fluoride they will acquire. Many variables influence the rate at which this occurs, and fluorine analysis is not used for absolute dating. Bones placed in the same ground at the same time, however, will have similar fluorine content. One can determine, therefore, whether bones found together actually do come from the same period. The osteologist also tries to determine the sex of the skeleton. In

Jirgen Czechowsky

adult life this can be done with great accuracy if enough of the skeleton is present. The single most useful portion is the pelvis, where a number of differences exist between the bone structure and configuration of males and females. For example, in the female the pelvis is more spacious and less rugged, the pubic angle is wider and more rounded, and the sciatic notches are wider. In the adult the skull is the second most helpful portion of the skeleton for determining sex. The male skull tends to be larger and thicker, and a number of prominent ridges develop where muscles insert into the bone. These are especially noticeable above the eyes, behind the ears, and at the back of the skull. Other bones, particularly the sternum, may provide useful information, but in the absence of the pelvis or the skull, sex is often impossible to determine with certainty. In the infant and child it is usually impossible to specify the sex unless the pelvis is available in good condition for the study. There are characteristic differences here even in earliest life which permit differentiation.

When two or more skeletons are found in the same grave, it may be difficult to determine which bones go with which skeleton. This is especially true if the bones are disarticulated, as in a secondary burial. Clues deriving from general size, age, and sex are helpful, but some doubt may remain about individual bones, particularly the smaller bones of the skeleton. Skeletal Pathology Gross examination of the teeth and bones often reveals important information about the medical history of the deceased. Microscopic and chemical analysis may be helpful in specific instances, but for the most part, these remain experimental areas with little reliable data available. All of the human skeletal material recovered during the 1977 season at Hesi was examined for evidence of trauma and disease. In addition, a large collection of bone from previous seasons was reexamined. The teeth of this Bedouin population revealed a minimum of decayed and missing teeth and almost no recognizable orthodontic problems. Tooth wear, however, was moderate to marked. The first

molars erupt at about six years of age with the second and then the third (often called wisdom teeth) appearing at intervals of approximately six years. In the teeth recovered at Hesi one usually could detect a progressive wearing away of tooth enamel with the first molars showing the greatest wear. All of this suggests a diet low in refined sugars and high in coarse, hard, perhaps gritty food. Evidence of bone trauma was occasionally found. It is usually possible for the skilled observer to determine whether a bone was broken during life or during the excavation process. A femur from an elderly adult showed a bowing (perhaps a congenital defect) plus a fracture which appeared to have occurred shortly before death. A leg bone (fibula) from the 1973 season showed evidence of a healed fracture with callus formation. One adult skull from the 1977 season revealed a large perforation in the posterior portion (occipital bone) apparently sustained at the time of death. This did not appear to be a case of trephination, a surgical procedure on the skull which has been practiced since early times. In this procedure a hole is made in the skull by scraping, cutting, or drilling. It is done to relieve increased pressure in the skull following head trauma or resulting from certain diseases. Skulls bearing evidence of this operation have been found in numerous archeological sites around the world. Many infectious diseases involve the skeleton. The staphylococcus bacteria is an example of one organism that can cause acute and chronic bone infection (osteomyelitis). Chronic diseases such as leprosy, syphilis, and tuberculosis often cause characteristic bone changes. For example, tuberculosis can involve many bones of the body, but one frequent result is destruction of vertebrae with resulting spinal deformity. Syphilis can cause anterior bowing of the tibia, characteristic deformities of the


MarkSmith

regard is rickets due to a lack of vitamin D. No evidence of any bone pathology due to vitamin lack was found. Rickets may have been rare because of the sunny climate and outdoor life-style of the Bedouins. On the other hand, this healthful effect of the sun may have been only partially realized because of the habit of keeping the body well covered with long clothes. Babies born prematurely are most susceptible to rickets, but these unfortunate persons regularly died before this complication could develop. Several examples of skeletal remains of infants apparently born prematurely were found in the 1977 excavations. Certain types of anemia often result in a thickening of the skull. Thus far none of the skulls examined by the author gave any evidence of this. Mild cases may have escaped attention since no real standard has yet been established for skull thickness in this particularpopulation. These and other measurements of bone need to be accumulated for this particular people.

Mandible of an adult male, showing

moderateloss of enamelof molars.The thirdmolarsare congenitallyabsent. skull, and malformed permanent teeth. Leprosy can cause deformity and loss of bones in the hands and feet. No certain example of these chronic diseases was found in Hesi during the 1977 season. A leg bone (tibia) from the Hesi 1977 season and an arm bone (radius) from the 1973 excavations did show evidence of nonspecific osteomyelitis. An adult lumbar vertebra excavated in 1973 had a collapse of the front portion. This was probably the result of infection or trauma.

94


A number of the adult vertebrae showed evidence of arthritic change, with excess bone growth along the margins. This is a common complication of the aging spine, especially of its lower portions. Two finger bones also revealed evidence of osteoarthritis. No evidence of tumor or growth disturbance due to endocrine or metabolic disorders was found in the Hesi material examined in 1977, which was not surprising; since these conditions are rare, one would not expect to find this type of pathology very often. Skeletal defects can result from a deficiency of certain vitamins. The most common problem in this

SPRING 1980

Disposal of Bone The osteologist usually wishes to retain some of the skeletal material for additional study. Careful packing is necessary in order to avoid damage during shipping and generous use of foam rubber as padding is helpful. It is usually best to defer any planned restoration of broken bone until it reaches its final destination. Fracture of tubular bones often can be repaired easily using a good, clear non-water-soluble glue. Reconstruction of a skull is more difficult and must be done slowly and carefully by someone thoroughly familiar with the normal anatomy of this part of the body. If bones are to be kept for a long period of time, particularly if they are very fragile, consideration should be given to treatment with some type of preservative. Soaking in a soluble plastic solution is probably the best approach. Of course, this interferes

Jirgen Czechowsky

with any further chemical testing of the bones. Bones should always be handled with respect and with awareness that the excavation of human skeletons is a sensitive issue with many persons. There is no place for a callous disregard for the feelings of others. The practice at Hesi is to rebury most of the bones at the site once all the available information has been obtained. This is done in a mass grave, the location of which is carefully noted and entered into records.

Mark Smith

Above:The thigh bones of an adult. The one on the left suffereda breakin the upperportionpriorto death.

Below: Lumbar vertebra of a middle-aged

arthriticadult. Note excess bone growth at the margins.

The Importance of Osteological Data The archeologist usually deals with the material remains produced by previous cultures. In the case of skeletal material, however, one has the remains of the people themselves. In addition to general information about the history of disease and human development, one may be able to learn much about the history and culture of a specific population. Population size of a site may be at least partially surmised when the number of graves in the cemetery serving the community has been determined. Burial customs, including grave offerings, reflect the religious concepts of the people. The diet may be ascertained to some degree by changes in teeth and bones, and some evidence relating to the general health of the community is usually available. The Hesi cemetery, for example, contained a vast number of graves of infants and young children and many graves of young women. It seems clear that the Bedouins had a very high infantmortality rate and that childbirth was a hazardous experience for the mother. Not enough attention has been paid to the influence of illness on history and culture. Does the best general always win the battle? Perhaps not, especially if he has been up all night with a toothache or if his troops are decimated with an acute illness. Is it possible that a particular culture stagnates because

BIBILICALARCHEOLOGIST

SPRING 1980 95

JUrgenCzechowsky

Adult burial,showingcurvatureof the spine.

of a high incidence of chronic disease or dietary deficiency or repeated epidemics of acute illness? The study of human bones provides pieces of a puzzle which can be joined to the bits of information coming from other facets of a modern archeological expedition. The result is a more meaningful and reliable whole.

96

Bibliography Anderson, J. E. 1971 The Human Skeleton: A Manual.for Archaeologists. National Museum of

Canada. Bass, W. M. 1971 Human Osteology: A LahoratorYand Field Manual of the Human Skeleton. Columbia, Missouri: The Missouri Archaeological Society. Brothwell, D. R. 1972 Digging Up Bones, 2nd edition. London: British Museum (Natural History). Coogan, M. D. 1975 A Cemetery From the Persian Period at Tell el-Hesi. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 220: 37-46. Cornwall, 1. W. 1974 Bones *for the Archaeologist, rev.


edition. London: J. M. Dent and Sons. El-Najjar, and McWilliams, K. R. 1978 Forensic Anthropology. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Krogman. W. M. 1962 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. O'Connell, K. G.; Rose, D. G.; and Toombs, L. E. 1978 Tell el-Hesi 1977. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110: 75-90, pls. 5-9. Steinbock, R. T. 1976 Paleopathological Diagnosis and Interpretation: Bone Diseases in Ancient Human Populations. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Toombs, L. E. forthTell el-Hesi Excavation Reports, IL coming Cambridge. MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Introduction The institution of the synagogue is surely one of the most significant of the achievements of ancient Judaic civilization. Not only did the synagogue directly influence the genesis of sacred architecture in both the Christian and Islamic traditions, but more importantly for the Jewish tradition, it provided the logical successor to the Temple in Jerusalem. For classical Judaism, therefore, the synagogue becomes the vehicle whereby the religion and community of the Jewish people are transported to other parts of Palestine and to the Diaspora. There is a genuine sense in which nascent rabbinism or early Pharisaism could well be called "synagogue Judaism." While we know a great deal about the synagogue buildings of the Talmudic period (after 200 C.E.), there is a marked lack of archeological evidence for synagogue structures in the more formulative stage of classical or synagogue Judaism prior to 200 C.E. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that despite the presence of such archeological data, the synagogue as a social and religious institution already was developing. As a center of prayer and worship (beth tefillah), as a center of study (beth midrash), and as a center for communal assembly (beth knesset), the synagogue in its inception was not dependent on externals of any kind. Indeed, the meager archeological data of this formative period is in direct contrast to the picture we derive from the literary tradition, especially Josephus and the New Testament. John Wilkinson has recently proposed that there were 365 synagogues in the Jerusalem of the late Second Temple (Wilkinson 1976: 76-77), but these surely are nothing more than "meeting places." It is important to emphasize, therefore, that previous scholarship on ancient synagogues, as well as present scholarship, focuses primarily upon the later post-200 C.E. period with few exceptions. The aim of the present study is to show how earlier researches on the subject of ancient

Palestinian synagogues created a developmental typology which has led to a somewhat mistaken understanding of various cultural and religious currents in the Talmudic period. This earlier scholarly tendency may be illustrated best in the writings of the late M. Avi-Yonah, who categorized the variety of synagogue types and proposed the following chronology and typology: 1) the Galilean, or basilical, synagogue is the oldest of all Palestinian synagogues; 2) the broadhouse represents a transitional phase in the development of the synagogue and reflects a time when greater efforts were expended to fix a permanent place for the ark; 3) the apsidal building represents the final stage of development in which the worshipper enters opposite the orienting wall which points to Jerusalem and faces directly the sacred Torah Shrine (Avi-Yonah 1973a: 29-43).

Ancient

Early and Recent Researches Thirty-five years ago the late Herbert Gordon May undertook to summarize the subject of "Synagogues in Palestine" in the pages of this journal (1944: 1). He began his insightful and important article with these words:

Synagogues

in

Their

Galilee:

Religious

and

Cultural

Setting

Eric M. Meyers The synagogue, one of the most important institutions of Judaic life, has been an object of scholar/l investidecades. In recent gation.for several of these years, structuresfrom an early' period have been unearthed by archeologists, revealing facts and artifacts that contribute significantly to our knowledge of life and worship among ancient Jews.

Both Christian church and Mohammedan mosque, in their origins, were indebted to the synagogue. Occasionally we find that synagogueshave been transformedinto churchesandmosques. At Gerasain Transjordana synagogue wasrebuiltas a church,andat Eshtemoa, south of Hebron,one was turnedinto a mosque.The NewTestamentrecordsthe importance of the synagogue in the beginningsof Christianity.Because of these things, and becauseof the significance of the synagoguein ancientand modern Judaism, there is a natural interest in the earliest synagoguediscoveries. Professor May wrote with a characteristicenthusiasm, but on this occasion he was reflecting the scholarly excitement that greeted the then "recent"discoveries in Palestine


at Beth Shecarim (Sheikh Abreiq) in western Galilee, Eshtemoca in the Judean desert, el-Hammeh on the Yarmuk, Beth Alpha near Beth-shan, and Jericho in the Jordan Valley, and in the Diaspora at Dura-Europas on the middle Euphrates. To this very day these sites would be features in any list of the most important archeological discoveries of Roman and Byzantine Palestine and Syria. But those were the achievements of another time and another era in scholarship. Since that time the entire archeological enterprise has been transformed, and the study of ancient synagogues as they relate to early Christianity and Talmudic Judaism seems to have come of age. For the first time, there exists today in the scholarly world a compendious list of

Sidon1 %1

Jea

or

j

-.ENLARGEMENT....

,I

Sa. FAT

A

,

*AKKO

--"a,"

N

~. -

I'-,,

.fit'

,

,, --~~.wScale: Principal Map

1

?

.

,

-

-

-?

:

,

.:, ,..o!?r

llb

u

..

:

.4

. ,

all of the archaeologicaland literary materialreferringto synagogues,Torah schools and law courts (seats of the Sanhedrin) in Israel from the first century A.D. up until her conquest by Islam in the seventh century A.D.

Bar'am Sa'sa''0 * Dabura GushHalave * Katzrin H. Shema'. * . Dikka Meiron * H. Ammudim Korazim Kfar Kanna Arbel a Umm Kfar Nahum HussifaBet ('Isfiya)f el-Kanatir ppori She'arim. 'Tzippori Gader Hammat e Yafia Sumak Sumak Mediterranean Hammat T'veriya

II

and Reeg 1977:XXI). (Hiittenmeister This list has appeared as part of the Tiibinger Atlas project, which embraces the entire ancient Near Eastern world. Prior to this time the most significant original work in this field had been done by the German team of Heinrich Kohl and Carl Watzinger before World War I (Kohl and Watzinger 1916) and conducted on behalf of the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft. Kohl and Watzinger, who mapped and partially uncovered 11 ancient synagogues, followed in the footsteps of the well-known American explorer Edward Robinson.' the famous French Semitics scholar Ernst Renan, and of course the ubiquitous British explorers and surveyors, C. W. Wilson, C. R. Conder, and H. H. Kitchener. Jewish archeologists, establishing the Palestine Exploration Society, embarked on their own survey and study of ancient synagogues. The earliest of these was the work at Hammath near Tiberias in 1921. The most important of these projects dealing with synagogues already had been reported and published when May wrote in 1944. The central

Bet Alfa *

/0

Caesarea

Bet Yerah

Bet She'an Rehov* Gerash

Hulda

Na'aran Jericho She'albim *

Jerusalem Ashqelon

Bet Guvrin Gaza Ma'on (Nirim)

En Gedi* Sussiya a Eshtamo'a Masada

Above: Topographic map of northern Palestine, indicating important sites.

98 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1980

Below:Locationmap of major synagoguesites in Palestine.

,-

,.

Groundplansof majorsynagoguesites, after Ariel Avi-Yonah.

---

0

M.?j

,

M

J

M

ItI

0

0O

5

0

o 5

0 SI

5

IFAHo 5

1

GAZA

5

0

M .L.

0

MM

51

01

10

BET ALFA

0500 I

M

L

1

.

5

HAMMAT GADER

I M

,,

a

0

0 M

,

GERASA

EN GEDI

0

a

IML-

'

figure in both the pre- and postWorld War II period was Eliezer Lippa Sukenik, whose pioneering work is the cornerstone of all modern study and exploration of ancient synagogues (1934). The past decade has witnessed an unprecedented flurry of activity in Israel, in the West Bank, and on the Golan Heights. As a result of this new work, a much-needed period of scholarly reevaluation in the field of synagogue studies has evolved. It was only a few years ago, before work commenced at the site of Khirbet Shemac (Teqoca haGalilit) under the aegis of the American Schools of Oriental Research (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976), that a kind of scholarly rigidity reigned in the field. The struggle between Franciscan excavators of Capernaum and various Israeli archeologists over a late chronology2 (Avi-Yonah 1973b: 43-45) hopefully marks the end of an era which understood the evolution of the ancient synagogue as being characterized by a developmental typology such as we have noted above (Avi-Yonah 1973a). Startling new discoveries at Gamla in the Golan, at Tarichaeae (Magdala) on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at Herodium and Masada in the Judean wilderness have established that the earliest synagogues in ancient Palestine existed in the Ist century C.E. The full publication of these discoveries doubtless will be significant for understanding the nature of the development of the synagogue building itself. For the later periods the final publication of the Israeli discoveries at Susiyah, Eshtemoca, En-gedi, Rehov, Beth-shan, and other new sites will further elucidate many other key issues.

5

ESHTEMOA

KHIRBAT

SUSYA

JERICHO

The Basilica The major results of earlier archeological investigations produced a view of the origin and development


of the synagogue building which prevailed until only a few years ago. This view maintained that a special type of building or edifice originated in Galilee sometime in the 2nd-3rd centuries C.E.and, hence, was called the "early Galilean" type. This type is characterized by an elaborate triple-portal facade which faced south toward Jerusalem. The floor of such a structure was thought to be paved with simple stone slabs. Its ground plan is basilical, with two rows of columns running northsouth and often with a transverse row closing the shorter northern side. Accordingly, space is divided into a central nave and two side aisles. An upper story, or gallery, is usually assumed to have existed along these three rows, though it is a matter of dispute whether or not it was used exclusively for women in the ancient period (Safrai 1969). However, the very existence of a second story is being questioned today. The excavators of Capernaum, for example, now are convinced that there was no gallery whatever at Capernaum and that a simple shed roof was carried by a total column height-from base to capital-of 5 m. In addition to the abovementioned features, there were often stone benches along the sides for worshipers. It might be reasonably conjectured, however, that many worshippers simply sat on the floor, as is the customary practice to this day in a mosque, since there was never sufficient bench space provided to utilize most of the interior space effectively. In the basilica as in the variant forms of the ancient synagogue, the major architectural concern, if not theological concern, is the wall of orientation which faces Jerusalem. It generally is assumed that this, the most salient and telling feature of the synagogue, is derived from the biblical practice of praying toward Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8:44 parallel 2 Chr 6:34; 1 Kgs 8:48 parallel 2 Chr 6:38; Dan 6:11). This custom achieves a legal force in the rabbinic period when it is translated into law

100

(U. Ber. 4.8b-c ), but the same principle also seems to have been operative in the Ist-century buildings at Masada and Herodium (Foerster 1973: 224-28).

All of this presupposes the existence of some kind of Torah shrine (either portable or permanent) on the interior southern (Jerusalem-facing) wall, even though none has been found in situ; the evidence at both Meiron and New discoveries have Capernaum is supportive of such a establishedthat the earliest theory (Strange 1976: 140-41). At Beth Shecarim, a novel arrangement synagogues in Palestine is found in the basilicalike synadate to the 1st century gogue excavated there: a raised bema, or podium for the reading of C.E. the scrolls, is situated in the back wall of the nave opposite the three monumental doorways which face toward The principle of sacred orientation may be observed in the basilical Jerusalem. The building dates from structure as in the American excava- the second quarter of the 3rd tions at ancient Meiron (Meyers, century to the middle of the 4th century (Avigad and Mazar 1976: Strange, and Meyers 1978), where the triple facade faces south towards 233-34). If, however, the Torah shrine might have been portable and Jerusalem. Most scholars would was wheeled out during services, agree that such an instance then we would not expect to find a corresponds to a time when the ark was not yet a permanent fixture in trace of it (Kraabel 1974: 438). The excavators at Beth Shecarim, the synagogue but was a portable structure which was wheeled out however, noted a significant change toward the last phase of the building's into the main sanctuary during of or The reader history when a Torah shrine was worship. precentor, relocated on the Jerusalem wall. The scripture, would stand before it and excavator of the En-gedi synagogue also face Jerusalem. Possible also observed a similar shift (Avirepresentations of the portable ark Yonah 1973a: 341). Both instances may be observed in sculpture at in tend to suggest a major theological and mosaic elseCapernaum where (Hachlili 1976: 43-53). In our development sometime in the late 3rd or early 4th century C.E. when view, the portable ark of the public reading of scripture in a synagogue harks back to Nathan's rebuke of David (2 Sam 7:4ff.), worship setting reached a high point. Whether or not such a shift can be when the prophet argues poigrelated to external circumstances nantly in theological terms for a movable shrine. affecting the Jewish community, such as the Christianization of the Both the orientation of the basilica and the suggested location empire or the reading of scripture of the ark require the so-called by sectarians, is a matter which deserves further study. "awkward about-face" of the worThe origin of the basilica is shiper. That is, if the Jerusalem entrances were both functional and generally conceded to be in the used as the focus of worship, the typical Greco-Roman basilica, possibly mediated to Palestine through worshipper would have to turn around immediately after entering builders employed by Herod the Great. Herod was himself one of the the building from the south. The lack of an entry on the northern, or most notable patrons of Roman building in the entire eastern opposite, side necessitates such a Mediterranean world. Still others turnaround. At Meiron, as well as most other basilical sites, no would suggest that the basilica is mediated through Syro-Roman and convincing proof of entrances either on the north, east, or west has yet Nabatean prototypes. In any case, been found. the synagogue qua basilica is still


Above:Architect'sreconstructionof Gush Halavsynagogue.Middle:Block plan of Gush Halav synagogue.Below:Isometric reconstructionof Gush Halav synagogue, looking northwest. innovative in the sense that it has adapted a public structure which emphasizes the exterior and has modified it to suit its own unique religious purposes. New discoveries now indicate a much higher degree of flexibility in dating all types of synagogues and attest the simultaneous existence of one type alongside another. For example, Capernaum, a basilica, is widely regarded as late, or Byzantine, whereas Khirbet Shemac, a broadhouse, is early. It is our contention that the only certain way of dating any ancient building is through scientific excavation and scholarly evaluation of the data which emanate from such excavation. With respect to the generalcategories of synagogue buildings, in addition to the divergencies in ground plan and internal furnishing already mentioned, present excavations provide even further anomalies so that even a concept of a standard basilica cannot be maintained any longer. The 1977-78 American excavations at the ancient site of Gush Halav (Giscala) just a few kilometers north of Meiron (Meyers 1978: 25354) reinforce the opinion already stated that only careful excavation can provide the answers to serious questions of dating and typology. In the jargon of field archeologists, this site provides a classic example of the axiom which states that the answers always lie below. In the case of Kohl and Watzinger, who had excavated at Gush Halav during their survey in the early part of this century, they clearly did not go far enough in their work. Their published plan of Gush Halav indicates that they erroneously took what are now clearly storage areas as the closing, or interior, wall of a very large square basilica (Kohl and Watzinger 1916: pl. 15). Our work at Gush Halav demonstrates the

...

•..

% ii::,:

??cs

/.

ii'--

1 ..

-

O

Y) -


Reconstructedsynagogueat Gush Halav, looking northwest. errors in the German typological assumptions and strongly supports the notion that variety exists even within the broadly defined category of "basilical synagogues." To be sure, the founding of the Gush Halav synagogue can be dated to the 3rd century C.E. But the southern wall, which faces Jerusalem, has only one entrance, namely, the one with the down-facing eagle incised on the underside of its lintel stone. If a gallery for additional seating existed, it would have been on the northern side where the only other certain entrance to the building has been found. What is

102

"basilical" about this building is its two rows of four columns running north-south. It is rectangular only if we take its newly discovered, interior, load-bearing walls as defining the interior space of the building. Indeed, the interest of this building lies in the fact that these interior walls, on the west, north, and east, demarcate the interior space of the building and internally transform a roughly square structure-originally thought by the Germans to be the synagogue interior-into a rectangular basilica. That is to say, it had a large corridor on the western side, a gallery on the north, and a series of rooms along the eastern side. This is a unique arrangement in this kind of building.


Of major interest also is the bemna,discovered along the southern wall, which happens to be the only ashlar wall among all the exterior walls. The bema dates to the 4th century, or second phase of the building's use, and is off-center in the building, just to the west of the sole entrance on the Jerusalemfacing south wall. Among the debris, however, were found smaller pieces of architectural fragments that suggest an aedicula, or Torah shrine, in conjunction with this bema, possibly built atop it or perhaps in still another phase. The discovery of the bema represents the first of its kind in the general category of buildings we call basilical except for the anomalous situations already noted at Beth She arim and En-gedi.

L~l

13

m5

1?7

161

I

14

8

A6

Synogogue I

I

2

3

IZ] r~5#7 Left: Two phases of Khirbet Shemac synagogue. Right: Isometric reconstruction

1'

3 ?4 #?6

ASl

of KhirbetShemacsynagogueshowing trafficpatterns.

Synagogue II

New data are thus bringing new insights. While the material from Gush Halav alters somewhat the older views, it underscores the capacity of an individual religious community for originality within certain boundaries. The overall architectural forms, however immersed within the Greco-Roman provincial world they may be, reflect a freedom from rigidity that is refreshing to the student of Roman provincial art. The Broadhouse The broadhouse synagogue receives its designation because its wall of orientation is one of the longer, or broader, walls as opposed to the shorter end-wall in the basilica. Despite the fact that the oldest known example of this type comes from Dura Europas and dates from the first half of the 3rd century C.E., this type of building in Palestine was traditionally thought to be late (4th century C.E.) and transitional (that is, between the Roman basilical and the Byzantine apsidal synagogue). In general, its appearance seems to coincide with a time when

a fixed receptacle for the Torah had been adopted. Among the known broadhouse synagogues, however, the bema is the most widely attested feature and always is situated on the Jerusalem-orienting wall. The broadhouse represents one resolution of the awkward about-face required by the basilica: the worshiper could enter as easily through the short wall (and face the Torah shrine) as through the long wall opposite the shrine. Or, the broadhouse simply may represent an independent predilection for an architectural type which already had a lengthy history in ancient Palestine. Both solutions find attestation in the first and only Galilean broadhouse excavated: at Khirbet Shemac, just I km south of ancient Meiron. Conclusive dating of two major phases of the Khirbet Shemac broadhouse synagogue to the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E. once again forces students of ancient synagogues to put aside preconceived developmental notions of stages in their history and study the evidence alone. Khirbet Shema', while clearly a broadhouse with orientation in both

stages on the long south wall, differs from its closest parallels at Susiyah and Eshtemoca in Judea by having internal columnation running eastwest, 900 off the wall oriented toward Jerusalem. None of the other broadhouse synagogues excavated to date has supporting columns in the sacred area; rather, they use radically widened walls to support their superstructure.3 It should be underscored that in this discussion the dates arrived at for the phases and salient features of the synagogues at Khirbet Shema', Gush Halav, and Meiron are based upon the chronological data provided by "critical loci" recovered during excavation. In every case these data synchronize well with the chronological data recovered from the rest of the site. They are the result of careful consideration of all ceramic and numismatic materials in conjunction with geological information available about ancient earthquake patterns in Upper Galilee. The three sites lie in a region of intense earthquake activity, from ancient times until the present. In fact, the Safed-Gush Halav-Meiron


area constitutes a major fault line, in the Safed epicenter (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: 37-39). While this reality has created untold damage and suffering through the years, it has in many ways made the archeological task easier. At Khirbet Shemac we were able to conclude that the first synagogue building of the second half of the 3rd century C.E. was destroyed completely in the great earthquake of 306 C.E. The evidence for the destruction of Synagogue I at Kirbet Shemac emerged dramatically in the course of excavations beneath the floor in the east end of the second, or post-306, building; here were recovered fragments of columns, capitals, and bases all shattered so badly that they could be used only as rubble building material or fill. The destruction date of the second Shemac building can be arrived at with some ease since there is a sharp break in the coin evidence after 408 c.E. Since most 5th-century coins were produced under Arcadius and Honorius early in the century, and hence specimens would not normally be expected, the best explanation for such a radical break in the coin profile is a sudden abandonment of the site. This is further corroborated by the tumbled and badly shattered debris of Synagogue II. Dating by the closest "strong earthquake" after 408 C.E., it is possible to conclude that the occupation of the entire site-comparing all the data from the entire town-came to an abrupt end in the earthquake of 419 C.E. Scientists of the Geologic Survey of Israel, who have just concluded a long-range study of the Upper Galilee region, have studied the pictures of the destroyed in situ remains of Synagogue II and were able to confirm the direction of the ancient fall, which is determined by the fault lines recently plotted by them. Their study has also corroborated the direction of the Gush Halav collapse and has enabled us to explain the extensive repairs done at Meiron in the first half of the 4th century C.E. In sectioning, or cutting through, the bemnaat Khirbet 104

Above: Reconstructed synagogue at

KhirbetShemac.Note hema in centerof south wall and Study Houseadjoining, upper right. Below: View of Khirbet

Shemacsynagoguebeforereconstruction, looking east. Opposite, above: Architect's

reconstructionof KhirbetShemac synagoguewith Study House at right. Opposite, below: Menorah lintel from

KhirbetShema', northernentrance.

Shemac, we were fortunate enough to recover a number of coins which enabled us to conclude that the people at Khirbet Shemac did not wait long to rebuild their sacred sanctuary but attempted to reestablish their lives immediately. Since the rubble-filled bema dates to after 306 and because an earlier bench runs through it and along the southern wall, it may be concluded that there was no bema in the 3rdcentury building. Fractured remains of smaller architectural elements, however, suggest that a Torah shrine probably stood on this wall in the first structure. The origin of the broadhouse, therefore, need not be sought at Dura, in our opinion, but may be viewed as being descended from the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST , SPRING 1980

basic Syro-Palestinian broadhouse temple. In the case of Khirbet Shemac, we apparently have a "mixed" type, a kind of merger between the Roman basilicaviewing the building east-west with its two rows of four columns-and the Syro-Palestinian broadhouseviewing the building along the long southern-orienting wall. In any event, it represents a novel adaptation of existing prototypes and gives ample testimony to the ingenuity of the designers. The Apsidal Synagogue The third general category of synagogue building is the apsidal building, clearly the latest of all types (judging from attested remains and inscriptions) with a basilica-

10

50

100

like interior. The novelty of this synagogue type (which began in the 5th century C.E. and continued until the 8th century) lies in the fact that the apse points in the direction of Jerusalem and constitutes the focus of worship. It represents another resolution to the awkwardness of the basilical arrangements described above by enabling the worshiper to face directly in the sacred direction by entering from the east, or any side opposite the Jerusalem Wall. In this type of structure the apse usually is separated from the rest of the sanctuary by a screen and often serves as the repository for the Torah shrine and possibly for the storage of old scrolls. In many buildings there is a platform, or bema, within the apse,

I cm. suggestive of the place where the reader or precentor stood, along with the cantor (hazzan), translators, and elders. In this regard it is functionally equivalent to the bema at Khirbet Shemac or Gush Halav, though in those places there is only room for the reader of scripture, or hazzan (t. Sukk. 4.6 and parallels). The apsidal building provides the best possible arrangement for explaining the rabbinic mention of the elders sitting with their backs toward Jerusalem, i.e., to the orienting wall (t. Meg. 4.21). According to this same rabbinic source, the only other time when leaders turned their backs to Jerusalem was during the recitation of the priestly blessing by the priests themselves. In the apsidal struc-

ture, perhaps because of Byzantine strictures against the building of new synagogues and even limiting repairs to points of breach, emphasis now is shifted from the exterior to the interior. This shift in emphasis, if indeed such a conclusion is correct, usually is observed in the colorful and richly decorated mosaics which adorn the floors. These mosaics often consist of depictions of biblical episodes but sometimes present borrowed Greek themes as well, such as the signs of the zodiac (Hammath Tiberias, Beth-shan, and others). Often, too, the mosaic directly in front of the apse represents the Torah shrine flanked by the seven-branched candelabra (Beth Alpha). Parade examples of the apsidal synagogue may be found at Maon, Jericho and Gaza, Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias (last phase), and Hammath Gader. In summary, one might characterize the state of synagogue studies as being in flux. New material has created a healthy climate of reconsideration and reevaluation. To be sure, many of the old theories have foundered, but that is how those who put them forward would have had it. While there is no longer any typological approach to this subject, the old types still persist. Today, however, they persist in startling new variety. Ultimately when all the new data are published, we will know far more about the ancient synagogue than ever before. Architectural Diversity: Does it indicate a kind of religious pluralism? One of the most interesting derivative aspects of ancient synagogue study is the implication the multiplicity of types has for the study of Judaism in the late antique period. We have suggested elsewhere that a systematic survey of synagogue sites indicates a kind of clustering by region (Meyers 1976b: 99). The Upper Galilee seems to be rather conservative in representational art and almost totally lacking in the richly decorated and highly colored mosaics such as are found in Lower Galilee and especially in


Perspectiveand cutawaysection of KhirbetShemacsynagoguelooking southwest:Study Hall is at right.

the Jordan Valley. The relatively meager nature of the art remains attested in Upper Galilee suggests a kind of conservatism rather than a limited repertoire of symbols. The list of decorative elements is brief, with eagles and menorahs predominating. The occasional appearance of well-executed geometric designs and other elements of architectural relief suggests a very real awareness of Roman provincial art. There is apparently no strong desire in the extreme north to break with contemporary architectural standards, though, in general, the level of execution is not always of the highest standard. That is to say, the architectural detail provides the feeling that one is a bit removed from the mainstream of imperial Roman art forms. Yet the quality of execution of certain individual features, such as the eagle lintel at Gush Halav, is very high and reflects the availability of qualified artisans in the area. If a certain conservatism is at work in the mountains of northern Galilee, with similar material culture attested in the Golan, then one is forced to ponder seriously the implications of a rich Jewish representational art in the neighboring Jordan Rift region. One inference to be made is that the sponsors of such art felt few constraints in placing Helios and the signs of the zodiac in the heart of their worship area (Hachlili 1977: 62). While it is quite possible that some of the scenes represent a kind of syncretism with Greco-Roman culture and religion, the minimalist position suggests a simple borrowing of motifs and use within a completely Jewish context. There is no doubt that Greek is far better represented in these areas, and it therefore follows that such Hellenized Jews would be the first to commission works of art that reflected the more cosmopolitan tastes of the day. The evidence from

106


the catacombs at Beth Shecarim (Avigad and Mazar 1975: 234-47) proves conclusively that much of the rabbinic leadership of the Talmudic period was deeply Hellenized and that it saw no basic conflict between Greek language and culture and Jewish learning. A growing flirtation with mysticism and astrology, well documented in the rabbinic literature, also may account for this kind of flexibility. It is no longer necessary to explain any JudeoHellenic hybrid by recourse to a kind of illicit mysticism not sanctioned by the rabbinic authorities, as the late E. R. Goodenough suggested (1953: 3-32). The mere presence of the Hammath mosaics in such a center of Jewish learning as Tiberias itself suggests that locales of Jewish learning were no less Hellenized than Husaifa or Naaran. In addition to the conservative tendency in representational art which characterizes the Upper Galilee, the extreme northern highlands may be distinguished from Lower Galilee in other ways as well. A statistical survey of known inscriptional remains suggests a prevailing attachment to Hebrew and Aramaic. though Greek also is known (Meyers 1976a: 97). It is the more Hellenized southern Galilee which attests to the widespread use of Greek. Also, there exists in Upper Galilee and the Golan a unique ceramic repertoire that is absent from Judea and only present in part in Lower Galilee. Despite the conservative nature of Upper Galilee, however, the presence of imported fine wares and an unusually high incidence of coins from the port city of Tyre attests to a highly developed trade network

SPRING 1980

and rather sophisticated material culture. It is quite clear that many of these differences may be the result of the rugged topography of the Meiron mountain range which separates the two Galilees, but it also is clear that those who settled the Upper Galilee did so with the express purpose of seeking refuge from the vast Roman administrative control network which was so effective in Lower Galilee and in the south (Avi-Yonah 1977: 133-35). So there is great diversity and discontinuity of sorts between the two Galilees and between north and south. There is also, as we have indicated, great diversity in synagogue types even within a single region, as we have noted at Khirbet Shemac, Meiron, and Gush Halav. To our mind, such diversity within a region reflects man's perennial need to differentiate himself from his closest neighbor. It need not indicate much more than this, however. In the case of Gush Halav, situated deep in the wadi below the upper city where remnants of another ancient synagogue have been found, there is the additional possibility that one segment of the community might have been JewishChristian. Indeed, one of the published tombs from the acropolis area has been identified recently as Jewish-Christian (Saunders 1977). The Italian Franciscans have maintained for many years that Gush Halav was an ancient JewishChristian stronghold in Galilee. They also contend that a multireligious community existed at Capernaum where the Christian House of Peter stands alongside the great synagogue. They further argue the

presence of a Jewish-Christian community, a view called into serious question by others (Strange 1977: 67-68). The mere existence, however, of the kind of data described here suggested that the rationale for self-differentiation and even for site location may be rooted in a genuine religious pluralism. Until such time as the subject of Jewish-Christianity in ancient Palestine achieves a kind of scholarly control and consensus, however, it seems that few people would be prepared to understand such diversity of material culture in religious terms. Loosening the fetters of a rigid typological understanding of the synagogue thus can open up new ways of understanding the Judaism of Roman and Byzantine Palestine. Considering blocks of material in terms of regions enables us to understand the rich diversity which must now be associated with a rabbinic Judaism usually thought of as "normative" or monochromatic. In addition to shedding light on the matter of pluralism, a study of the material culture of Galilee indicates a level of culture that points to a peak of material culture in the late Roman and Byzantine periods. It is at this time, ca. 400 C.E., that the Palestinian Talmud was completed. In the west the Babylonian Talmud always has been held in higher esteem, for Palestinian Jewry was thought to be in eclipse at this time. But in light of the high level of material culture from the Byzantine era, it becomes very difficult to conceive of the Palestine of this period as having declined in any sense. It is possible, however, that tensions in the 4th century contributed to some population movement. Indeed, a recent site survey of the Galilee-Golan region suggests a slightly earlier peak for Lower Galilee, 3rd-4th centuries C.E., and a slightly later peak for parts of Upper Galilee and the Golan, 4th5th centuries C.E.. pointing to a general shift northwest onto the volcanic highlands of southern Syria

as pressures from the Roman imperium seem to mount (Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978). It is quite probable that such a shift in population can be related to new methods of taxation in kind as runaway inflation ate away at the pocketbooks of the Roman governors.

in 527 C.E.,when Jews were repressed and ultimately persecuted. Such prosperity is evidenced in the extent of synagogue- and church-building despite reported hostilities between Jews and Christians in the patristic literature (Wilkinson 1977: 179-81). The intense building activity and relative prosperity may be understood also as a result of the new status-Holy Land-which Palestine achieved as new wealth and masses The synagogues indicate a of pilgrims poured into the country a newly Christianized Empire. high level of culture and a fromThough one tends to think of rich religiousdiversity. Palestinian Jewry as being in decline after Constantine, new archeological data force us to rethink this question. For reasons still unknown, One of the real puzzles yet the Palestinian version of the to be resolved in the quest to Talmud, compiled around 400 C.E., understand the transition between does not signify the end of Jewish the Roman and Byzantine periods in creativity in the Holy Land, but Palestine is the role of the revolt rather indicates a high point in both against Gallus Caesar in 351 C.E. All the material as well as literary of the 15 or so localities affected by culture of the Jewish people. this major disruption are located in The Byzantine period similarly Lower Galilee. There is no evidence marks a high point in the history of whatever that the Upper Galilean Christianity as it also witnesses an highlands were affected by this unprecedented program of church outburst of political fervor. There building in the Holy Land. In our had been massive attempts on the view, this building activity cannot be of Rome to urbanize this due part part entirely to imperial efforts of Palestine. The revolt in the reign during and following the reign of of Gallus Caesar suggests that such Constantine. Rather, it testifies also a policy had gone just a bit too far. to the tenacity of the JewishUpper Galilee, which like the Golan Christian church in Palestine. was not administered in such a In short, the history of Romanfashion, did not join in. It is quite Byzantine Palestine is yet to be possible that Hellenistic inroads were written. It is clear that this will so great in Lower Galilee at the occur only when literary historians time of Gallus that they no longer and archeologists join hands in such were acceptable, and Jews, when an endeavor which will undoubtedly faced with the right opportunity, shed further light on both church and synagogue. again sought access to redemptive media4 in their attempt to achieve political sovereignty. Upper Galilee's conservatism and location in the hinterland could have made joining this abortive venture quite unnecesNotes sary, because Upper Galilee had This article was written in August 1977. constituted a sort of refuge area 1Americaninvolvementin Palestinianstudies since the days of Bar Kochba. begins with Robinson, who was one of the While the relative calm in the members of Union Theological Semifounding Eastern Empire was broken briefly nary. His first visit to the Holy Land resulted in by the Gallus Revolt, a measure of his pioneering work, Biblical Researches in prosperity reigned in Palestine until Palestine (1841). Trained as a biblical scholar, the accession of Emperor Justinian Robinson's explorations on horseback led him to BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 107

identify and locate many of the premier sites in Palestine. His greatest contributions to archeology are perhaps his studies in the newly developing field of historical geography. For a summary of his career, see Wright (1970: 3-8). 2Around 1973 there was a flurry of excitement in Israel as the Italian Franciscans announced to the world that the synagogue site at Capernaum, mentioned in the New Testament, dated to the 4th-5th centuries C.E. of the Byzantine era. Excavated by Fathers V. Corbo and S. Loffreda, the late dating upset many of the older theories regarding the development of the so-called Galilean/early or basilical synagogue. James F. Strange, while subjecting their publications to critical review, has basically accepted the late dating (1977: 70), though raising many other substantive issues. 'We have refrained from speaking in detail about the recent excavations at Eshtemoca by Z. Yeivin and at Susiyah by S. Gutman, Z. Yeivin, and E. Netzer because only the most preliminary reports are yet available in Qadmoniot 5 (1972), no. 2, an issue devoted entirely to ancient synagogues. Also included in this special issue are reports on En-gedi by D. Barag, Y. Porat, and E. Netzer and on Beth-shan by D. Bahat. The Israel Exploration Society, however, is publishing an updated, English language version of this issue which also will include updated remarks on Khirbet Shemac by the author. The publication has been in press since 1977. 4The extent of destruction of Jewish villages and towns in the times of Gallus is sufficient to justify speculation that the revolt of the Jews at this time was a millennial uprising of sorts with messianic underpinnings.

Bibliography Avigad, N., and Mazar, B. 1975 Beth Shecarim. Pp. 229-47 in vol. I of Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada. Avi-Yonah, M. 1973a Ancient Synagogues. Ariel 32: 29-43 (Hebrew). 1973b Editor's Note. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 43-45. 1977 The Holi' Land. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Foerster, G. 1971 Les Synagogues de Galil&e. Bible et Terre Sainte 130: 8-15. The Synagogues at Masada and 1973 Herodium. Eretz Israel 11: 224-28 (Hebrew). Goodenough, E. R. 1953-69 Jewish Symbols ofthe Greco-Roman Period. New York: Bollingen. Groh, D. E. 1977 Galilee and the Eastern Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. Explor 3: 78-93.

108

Hachlili, R. 1976 The Niche and the Ark in Ancient Synagogues. Bulletin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research 223: 43-53. 1977 The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Art: Representation and Significance. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228: 61-77. Htittenmeister, F., and Reeg, G. 1977 Die antiken Siynagogen in Israel. Beihefte zum Ttibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients No. 12/1. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kohl, H., and Watzinger, C. 1916 Antike Srnagogen in Galilaea. Leipzig: Wissenshaftliche Veriffentlichung der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Kraabel, A. T. 1974 Ancient Synagogues. Pp. 436-39 in supplemental vol. 16 of New Catholic Encyclopedia. Loffreda, S. 1973 The Late Chronology of the Synagogue of Capernaum. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 37-42. May, H. G. 1944 Synagogues in Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist 7: 1-20. Meyers, E. M. 1976a Synagogue Architecture. Pp. 842-44 in The Interpreter'sDictionariyofthe Bible. Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon. 1976b Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 221: 93-101. 1977 Gush Halav 1977, Notes and News. Israel Exploration Journal 27: 253-54. Meyers, E. M.; Kraabel, A. T.; and Strange, J. F. 1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirhet Shemac, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970-1972. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 42. Durham: Duke University. Meyers, E. M., and Strange, J. F. 1977 Survey in Galilee: 1976. Explor 3: 7-18. Meyers, E. M.; Strange, J. F.; and Groh, D. E. 1978 The Meiron Excavation Project: Archeological Survey in Galilee and Golan, 1976. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 230: 1-24. Meyers, E. M.; Strange, J. F.; and Meyers, C. L. 1978 Second Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Ancient Meiron. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 43: 73-103. Naveh, J. On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic 1978 and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues. Jerusalem: Macariv (Hebrew).


Safrai, S. 1963

Was there a Woman's Gallery in the Synagogue? Tarbiz 32: 329-38 (Hebrew).

Sailer, S. J. 1972 Second Revised Catalogue of the Ancient Synagogues of the Holi' Land. Jerusalem: Franciscan. Saunders, E. W. 1977 Christian Synagogues and Jewish Christianity in Galilee. Explor 3: 70-78. Strange, J. F. 1976 Capernaum. Pp. 140-41 in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon. 1977 Review Article: The Capernaum and Herodian Publications. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 226: 65-73. Sukenik, E. L. 1934 Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London: Oxford University. Wilkinson, J. 1976 Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem during the Byzantine Period. Palestine 108: 75-101. Exploration Quarterly 1977 Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips. Wright, G. E. 1970 The Phenomenon of American Archaeology in Palestine. Pp. 3-40 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth in Honor Century: Essays of Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Science

andthe

Shroud of Turi

Courtesy of Shroud of Turin Research Project.

following now came up, went right into the tomb, saw the linen cloths on the ground, . . . Peter set out with the and also the cloth that had other disciple to go to the tomb. They ran together, but been over his head; this was not with the linen cloths but the other disciple, running faster than Peter, reached the rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple who tombfirst; he bent down and reached the tomb first had on saw the linen cloths lying also went in; he saw and he the ground, but did not go believed (John 20: 3-9). was who in. Simon Peter Virginia Bortin

For 400 years the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist at Turin, Italy, has housed the most venerated object of Christendom: a swath of linen, 14'3" X 3'7", believed to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Imprinted on the shroud are detailed back and front images of a crucified man. Is this indeed a miraculous legacy-the oldest "photograph" ever known? Or is it a fabulous hoax? In the fall of 1978, a group of scientists with varied backgrounds and widely differing convictions gathered at Turin


Precedingpage:Cathedralof St. John the Baptist,whichfor the past 400 years has housedthe TurinShroud.Above:Body imageof the man of the Shroud, computercontrastenhanced,showing back and front imagesin greaterdetail than could be seen with the nakedeye. Below: Closeup of the Shroud linen,

showingits herringboneweave, knownto have been used in the MiddleEast during Jesus'time.

to begin a series of tests that they hoped would offer some answers. Although the shroud had been tested before, results were murky and inconclusive. This latest examination was to be the most extensive ever undertaken-science meeting mysticism in an attempt to explain the linen's elusive image and how it was formed.

Courtesy of Jean Lorre and Don Lynn.

Courtesy of Don Bosco Films. New Rochelle. NY. All rights reserved.

110


SPRING 1980

Description of the Shroud That image is the full figure of a man, estimated to be 5'10" tall, weighing 170-75 pounds. He is bearded, his hair possibly pulled back into a ponytail, a popular way in which Jewish males of Jesus' time handled their long locks. Body markings on the image correspond with Gospel accounts of the wounds received by Jesus before, during, and after his agony. Dumbbell-shaped imprints on the back suggest scourging with a flagrum, a Roman whip ending in bits of bone or metal. Dark spots on the forehead and top of the head may be blood from puncture wounds caused by a cap made of thorns. A large bloodlike stain at the figure's right side could have resulted from the thrust of a centurion's lance. The body is naked, with hands crossed over the pelvic area. Pottery sherds or coins seem to be placed over the eyes. There is a large bloodlike stain at the wrists, but none on the palm; heavy, bloodlike stains appear on both feet, which appear to rest left slightly on top of right. There is no evidence of the legs being broken. The shroud itself is of tight linen weave in a herringbone pattern. The fabric is sturdy, but not coarse, handloomed of relatively heavy thread, in an excellent state of preservation.

Courtesy of Shroud of Turin Research Project.

Scientists preparing for one of the experiments, a series of ultraviolet visible

and infraredphotographs.

The image is sepia in color, with a slightly darker, slightly violet tone forming the bloodlike stains. Upon examination, the body image appears to be extremely subtle and seems to recede back into the linen the closer it is examined. Scientific Testing in 1978 The 1978 test series occurred following one of the shroud's rare public expositions, which took place between 26 August and 8 October, to celebrate the cloth's 400th anniversary in Turin. So great is public interest and so rare the chances to view the relic, during its six-week display 3,330,000 persons filed past the blackframed case in which it was mounted behind the cathedral's main altar. Immediately following the exposition's close on 8 October, the American and European scientists gathered to begin their experiments. Turin authorities had given them just five days. One of the scientists, Donald Lynn of Cal Tech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told the author: "To the best of our knowledge we can never prove that this is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. If it is a fake, we may be able to prove that. But we can never prove authenticity, only the absence of fakery." The researchers did hope, however, through a series of carefully planned and controlled experiments, to collect enough information about the cloth and the stains to ascertain by what process the mysterious image might have been formed. For more than a year they had been anticipating this moment. The atmosphere in the large room where they awaited the shroud was tense, expectant. Because they had been given so little time, the scientists' experiments had to be carried out on a 24-hour basis, the sequence choreographed like a ballet. The American team of 20 scientists, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, was coordinated by physicist John J. Jackson and

aerodynamics professor Eric Jumper of the U.S. Air Force Academy. The group represented many disciplines: physics, aerodynamics, chemistry, electro-optics, radiation physics, computer technology, and others. They were associated with world-famed institutions including Cal Tech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, The Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Sandia Corporation, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, and The Air Force Academy. None of these research facilities was an active sponsor of the endeavor, however. The Holy Shroud Guild, an organization devoted to disseminating information about the shroud, had obtained much of the financing. Test equipment had been loaned or rented, film provided by Kodak and Polaroid. The group existed then, as now, solely through donations from the public. The commission administering the shroud, including its chairman, Msgr. Jose Cottino, offered full cooperation throughout the test period. Professor Luigi Gonnela, a physicist at the Turin Institute, was technical monitor and a key element in the program's success. Father Peter Rinaldi, founder of the Holy Shroud Guild, offered invaluable assistance in coordinating the project with Turin authorities. An order of nuns called

the Poor Clares was present to unstitch part of the shroud's 19thcentury backing cloth for certain of the experiments. It was this same order which, 450 years before, had been called upon to repair the shroud after it nearly perished in a disastrous fire. Tests were conducted in the former Prince's quarters of the old Royal Palace, a strangely incongruous setting for a scientific laboratory. The scientists had constructed their own frame for the shroud, and special magnets held the cloth in place. The frame's exposed portions were covered with mylar to prevent contamination of the cloth from rust or oil. Experimenters wore laboratory gloves to handle the fabric but removed them when it was necessary to feel the fiber. Security at the test area was stringent: personnel were required to wear two different identification badges. Tests were scheduled so that no more than six or eight persons could work with the shroud at any one time. The first tests were largely photographic. X-radiography was used to show whether there was underpainting or other information not to be seen by the naked eye. A vitally important aspect of this

BIBL.ICALARCHEOLOGIST SPRING 1980 III

investigation was the measurement of X-ray flourescence. If an object is bombarded with a primary beam of X-rays, then secondary X-rays, or flourescence, are emitted. X-ray flourescence can offer information about various elements present in a test sample and the amount of their concentration. Researchers were interested particularly in the possible presence of iron, potassium, and phosphorus-elements of blood--as well as any heavy elements such as calcium or metals which might be present in the various stains. Ultraviolet flourescence photos, it was hoped, would provide clues as to whether or not there were bloodstains present or retouching of the image. Infrared measurements were made in an attempt to determine how the various stains affected the thermal characteristics of the cloth. Infrared also could bring to light any image not visible with regular photography. Macrophotography was used to magnify portions of the cloth up to 40 times original size. High-resolution photos would be translated later into numbers for computer analysis and enhancement studies of the image. With this method, textural differences at any point on the cloth and the relative color and intensity of various stains and marking could be measured accurately. Photographic testing was followed by particulate sampling, in which a special chemically inert, nonflourescent tape was pressed onto the cloth. It then was peeled back to collect fibers and particles that might be present, such as dried blood, pollen spores, etc. These would be analyzed later. Five years before, during earlier experiments, tiny samples of the shroud had been removed for analysis. It had been hoped this would be part of the 1978 procedure in order to provide material for carbon dating. But as of now, the Archbishop of Turin still has not given permission for the vitally important carbon testing to take place. The Archbishop is interested that carbon dating be done, but awaits two or more viable proposals that scientists agree are the best and most accurate of those methods currently available. One plan, said to

112

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST,

Film%.S NY. All right% ('ourtes\ of I)on Bosco New. Rochclle. . .. . . rescrved.

be accurate to within 120 years, has been presented in Turin by Dr. Harry Gove of the University of Rochester. But thus far no second proposal has been offered. As now conceived, testing would involve several techniques to be done independently, followed by a comparison of results. Because the available shroud sample is too small, the traditional Libby beta counting technique, which some experts believe to be the most precise, cannot be carried out. The other methods would revolve around a recently developed accelerometer technique, which separates carbons 14 and 12 from other interfering elements in an atomic accelerator system at high velocity. By comparing the ratio of the two types of carbon, the age of a given sample is calculated. It is highly unlikely, however, that Turin authorities will give permission for carbon dating to begin until several experts in the field are capable of conducting such tests with a high degree of accuracy and credibility. If, as scientists theorize, coins were placed over the eyes of the shroud figure, dating might be facilitated through image enhancement to reveal further information about the presence of such coins. A recent discovery of Ist-century-A.D.Jewish tombs near Jericho lends substance to the possibility that coins may have been used. Pagan tradition holds that a coin must placed on the body as

SPRING 1980

payment to Charon, guardian of the River Styx, which the dead must cross. Jews often used coins or pottery sherds to close a corpse's eyes, believing they must not open before glimpsing the next world. At Jericho, coins were found which had fallen into a skull after having been placed on the eyes after death (Hachlili 1979: 34). Dr. Robert Bucklin, an American pathologist and county coroner, examined the shroud image prior to the 1978 testing. He made several interesting observations which coincide with biblical accounts of bodily injuries inflicted upon Jesus prior to his crucifixion. Quoted in American Medical News, 13 April 1979, Bucklin says that superficial abrasions over both shoulder blades could have been made by carrying a heavy object. This may have been the horizontal bar of a cross, later attached to a permanent upright beam. From the nature of the abrasions, Bucklin estimates the object to have weighed 80-100 pounds. The victim, states Bucklin, has more than 100 marks from shoulder to calf which could have been caused by a whiplike instrument, probably the Roman flagrum. Shroud imprints suggest the man's arms were lifted over his head during the scourging. Marks about the head suggest to Bucklin that sharp objects like oneinch thorns could have passed

Courtesy of Don Bosco Films. New Rochelle. NY. All rights reserved.

whether this same method was used in crucifying the shroud figure. But nails driven through the wrists are apparent in both cases.

Opposite:To the left, a dorsalview of the Shroudimage,showingabrasionson the shoulderarea and morethan 100scourge marks.To the right,a blowupof the area, showingthe scourgingmoreclearly. Above:To the left, a close-upof one of the scourgemarksclearlyshows the dumbbellshapewhichmight have been made by a Romanflagrum(reproduction to the right),a whip endingin piecesof bone or metal. Below: The Shroud

images,front and back, negativeand positive.At the bottomcan be seen how a photographicnegativeclarifiesdetailsnot apparentto the nakedeye.

through the skin and subcutaneous tissues of the scalp, lacerating blood vessels and causing much bleeding. Bucklin also noticed a minor deviation of the nose and slight swelling of the right cheek, suggesting the victim was struck in the face, causing a possible fracture of the nasal cartilage. Crucifixion was a particularly cruel and slow form of death, which usually resulted from asphyxiation. The condemned had to thrust himself upward on his nailed feet to breathe. If the nail failed to hold, he died quickly. To hasten death, the legs were frequently broken. In this case the victim's legs were not broken; he seems clearly to have been lanced in the right side. Shroud scientists are interested in archeological evidence of crucifixion found in 1968 during excavation by Vasilius Tzaferis of Jewish cavetombs at Givcat ha-Mivtar. Tzaferis (1970: 31) has determined that the man whose bones were buried there was crucified sometime during the Ist century A.D., before destruction of the Temple. Anthropological observation of these bones by Nicu Haas (1970: 58) offers evidence of crucifixion procedure at that period to substantiate markings on the shroud image. Although the use of one large nail driven through the heels to secure both feet is clearly demonstrated in the Givcat ha-Mivtar finding, the scientists have not determined yet

Earlier Examinations The 1978 test series at Turin proved to be the most extensive ever undertaken. But earlier examination of the shroud already had revealed startling information. In 1898, an Italian photographer, Secondo Pia, first photographed the image. Pia was surprised to discover that his negative plate showed a far more lifelike image than could be seen on the cloth. In effect, his negative turned out to be "positive," demonstrating a depth and clarity never before apparent. In 1931, a second set of photographs was taken by Giuseppe Enrie, which confirmed the legitimacy of Pia's work and portrayed the shroud in even greater clarity (Wilson 1978: 13-16). Scientific examination of the cloth in 1969 and again in 1973 offered some misleading information but clearly demonstrated that the image is superficial and does not penetrate into the threads as would occur if it were painted on (Sox 1978b: 89-90). Other tests during the 1973 series excited particular interest. A Belgian, Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology examined fabric samples from the shroud. Under a microscope, Raes could detect traces of cotton on the linen threads, showing that the shroud was woven on equipment also used for weaving cotton. Cotton is not grown in Europe but was introduced to the Middle East from India by the 7th century B.C. (Sox 1978b: 91). Also in 1973. Swiss criminologist and botanist Max Frei took particulate samples from the shroud surface and microscopically observed them. Frei alleges that he found pollen spores from plants common to the desert regions around the Jordan Valley, as well as from Turkey and the Mediterranean area (Wilson 1978: 62- 63). The Americans, Jackson and Jumper of the Air Force Academy, were intrigued by reports of the 1973 testing. Utilizing the Enrie photo-


/

SPRING 1980 113

Courtesyof Don Bosco Films,New Rochelle,NY. All rightsreserved.

graphs and a sophisticated VP-8 Image Analyzer, which can reveal topological details about the surface of planets, they decided to do preliminary enhancement studies, trying to bring out qualities of the likeness not readily observable. Theirs was an extraordinary discovery; the image is three-dimensional; that is, a realistic statue could be constructed based solely on the intensity of the image. This was determined after viewing photographs with the analyzer, which demonstrated that the process forming this image acted uniformly on both the top and bottom of the body and was present even in places where the cloth could not have touched the form. The degree of darkening on the cloth is proportional to the body's distance from the cloth. If the image had been produced solely by direct contact, there would have been anatomical distortion which, surprisingly, is not the case. These preliminary studies and the many extant theories about how the

114


shroud image came to be motivated Jackson and Jumper to contact various scientists around the country who had knowledge, or an area of expertise, which might be useful in studying the shroud. In 1977, at Albuquerque, this group met for the first U.S. Conference on Research on the Shroud of Turin. The session ended with scientists proposing that a program of direct testing of the shroud be carried out in Turin to permit further analysis. Father Rinaldi placed their recommendations before Italian authorities and by May of 1978 was able to indicate that the American group might be permitted to perform their tests. In planning the Turin experiments, these scientists could not rely on historical evidence of the shroud's true age; the linen can be traced with certainty only to the 14th century. Although Jesus' burial cloths are mentioned in the Gospels, they appear to differ from the Shroud of Turin. The Gospel of John describes

SPRING 1980

the burial garments as consisting of more than two cloths, one for the head and "the linen cloths." The Turin shroud is one long swath, plus a separate strip of linen, six inches wide, stitched onto one side, running the length of the cloth. The weave of this strip is identical to the herringbone of the shroud, and scientists report that they detect markings on the piece similar in type to body markings on the shroud. It is tantalizing to speculate whether the linen strip is not "the cloth that had been over his head"-the chin bandage referred to in John 20:7-8 -later stitched onto the shroud for safekeeping. There are a few scattered references to Jesus' shroud in the early Christian era. Some of these indicate that the shroud was given to Simon Peter and remained in his possession (Sox 1978b: 45-46). Early mentions of the cloth may be limited because it was an embarrassment to its possessors. Jews believed that anything which touched a corpse is

Courtesyof Jean Lorreand Don Lynn.

Above: Computer-enhanced view of the face on the Shroud.Linesacrossthe photographare causedby creasingof the cloth. Opposite:This painting,by 16th-century artistClovio, demonstrateshow the body of Jesus would have been laid in its shroudto createa back and front impression. impure, while early Christians played down the crucifixion, depicting Jesus' death in a restrained manner, without details of his physical suffering (Sox 1978a: 255-56). Journalist Ian Wilson (1978) has attempted to connect the Turin shroud with the legendary cloth of Edessa, or mandylion, seemingly lost to history after the 10th century. The mandylion, or "kerchief," bore upon it a facial image of the crucified Christ and was copied from the 6th century on. It is supposed to have been given to King Abgar V, a Christian convert who reigned from A.D. 13-50 at Edessa, now the town of Urfa in southeast Turkey. Historical reports of the mandylion began appearing in the 6th century, after it turned up sealed within the Edessa city wall. These early references to the Edessa image state that it was "not made by hands" and observers describe it as being blurred, like the Turin likeness. Though mentions of the Edessa mandylion began to

disappear after it was brought to Constantinople in the 10th century, earlier copies of its image show a striking resemblance to the face on the Turin cloth. Wilson can point to more than 13 facial peculiarities which are identical. Although the Edessa image appeared to be a head-only portrait, Wilson quotes a 6th-century text which refers to the cloth as "doubled in four." When the Turin shroud is thus folded, only the head can be seen, and it appears to be curiously disembodied. The journalist postulates that the shroud's full figure was not apparent until the cloth reached Constantinople. Before that time, it had been folded, mounted, and displayed as a facial image-perhaps to obscure its use as a burial shroud, since early Christians feared the cloth might be destroyed by Jews, who believed it to be impure. Historical References to a Shroud From the early Christian era until the 14th century, there are sporadic references to a shroud. One fairly reliable 13th-century account is provided by Robert de Clari, knight of Picardy and a chronicler of the Fourth Crusade. De Clari describes seeing a shroud similar to the one at Turin in the monastery of Our Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae at Constantinople "stretched up every Friday, so that one could well see on it the figure of our Lord. .. ." After the merciless pillage of Constantinople by crusaders in 1203, de Clari reported "nobody knew, neither Greek nor Frank, what became of this shroud when the town was taken" (Sox 1978b: 47). It is highly likely that during this period someone stole the cloth and held it secretly. Around 1356, 150 years later, it suddenly turned up in the family of a knight of modest background, Geoffrey de Charny, seigneur of Lirey, near Troyes, France. De Charny was always reluctant to say how he had obtained the cloth, but his son alleged that it was a gift and his granddaughter Margaret called it "a spoil of war" (Sox 1978b: 39). During de Charny's lifetime, the shroud was housed in a church which he founded at Lirey. The knight died at the Battle of Poitiers, clutching the

Royal Banner of France and defending his king, John the Good, who was then captured by the Black Prince. Geoffrey's granddaughter gave the shroud in 1453 to the Dukes of Savoy. It was placed in the church at Chambery, where on 4 December 1532, fire nearly destroyed it. As flames rose in the church sacristy, the shroud's silver casket began to melt. Two laymen and two Franciscans risked their lives to rescue the treasure. Although drops of molten silver had fallen on the linen and burned it, the image was almost entirely missed. The Order of Poor Clares repaired the scorched areas with triangular patches of altar linen which are visible today. In 1578, the shroud was taken from Chambbry and ceremoniously brought to Turin, to accommodate the saintly Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, who had made a vow to cross the Alps on foot to venerate it. To spare the Archbishop such an arduous trip, the shroud was moved to the capital city of Savoy. When at last he beheld the shroud in Turin, Borromeo wept. Officials are resistant to requests for public exhibitions of the relic. During the past 150 years, it has been on display no more than a handful of times. Permission to view it must be obtained from the Archbishop of Turin and Italy's ex-king Umberto II of Savoy-technically still the cloth's owner. Summary of the 1978 Findings Members of the Shroud of Turin Research Project expect to publish their findings prior to the fall of 1980. Meantime, using the great volume of material collected during their fiveday testing period at Turin, each scientist is approaching the shroud and its mysterious image, utilizing his own special area of knowledge. Speculation continues about the elusive "bloodstains." Upon first examination, researchers at Turin could see that while the body image was apparent only on the very surface of the linen, the stains had soaked through. Thus, stains and body image were formed by different processes. How could blood have soaked the cloth? After death, it does not continue to circulate and flow from


Courtesyof Don Bosco Films.New Rochelle.NY. All rightsreserved.

To the left can be seen the Shroudfigure and the locationof a very large"bloodstain"on the figure'srightside. To the right,a blowupof the stain. If this is a spearwound, physicianscalculatethat the spearenteredbetweenthe fifth and sixth ribs.Obscuringpartof the stain is a patch used to repairthe shroudafter the 16th-centuryfire.

wounds. Researchers postulate the stains could have been formed from the ooze of open wounds and damp blood remaining on the skin. Perhaps a clot may have been dislodged when the body was moved, allowing a pool of collected blood to spill onto the cloth. Chemist Ray Rogers of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory had long wondered why the stains did not turn dark brown with age as normally occurs with human blood. He told the author that he then read Pliny's comment about soapweed being a method of washing commercial cloth at the time of Jesus (Naturalis Historia 28.51). Rogers knows that soapweed can maintain the cells of blood, thus keeping it permanently red in color. However, he has not yet identified soapweed as a chemical component of the shroud. The soapweed theory also has figured in another aspect of the experimentation. When exposed to bursts of radiant energy, it releases a sugar which caramelizes, producing exactly the color of the shroud's body image. Rogers regrets that during the testing no real sampling or observation, other than conventional photography, was done on the cloth's back side. It is obvious that stains were produced by something flowing through the fabric as a liquid. Was it blood?

116

The scientists have determined that the image itself was not painted, no viscous liquid laid on with a brush created the body lines, for the likeness penetrates the threads only superficially. Any chemical, even if rubbed in by the fingers or brushed on, will show up between the fibers of a piece of fabric. Here it does not. Further, the idea of some sort of block print or dye process is also largely nrgated by the figure's lack of distortion and three-dimensionality. It is thus highly unlikely that this is the work of some 14th-century artist. Ray Rogers has been using flourescence to analyze elements that make up drops of candlewax on the shroud. All but one droplet fits the known composition of medieval candlewax. This droplet flouresces differently than the others, and Rogers is hoping a candlewax expert will assist him in pinpointing the time and place in which such a candle might have been made. Rogers also has accumulated enough information about the fabric's fibers that he can replicate them. He thus has established conclusively that this linen bears no similarity to the medieval linen patches sewn onto the cloth by the Poor Clares after the 16th-century fire at Chambery. That fire provided helpful clues, by offering what the researchers term a "perfect thermal experiment." Because the melting point of silver is


known, and silver from the shroud's container did melt, they postulate that the temperature within the reliquary reached 200-300* C before the shroud was doused with water (Culliton 1978: 236). If the image had been painted with an organic pigment, says Rogers, the paint would have suffered a change according to its closeness to the heated area. But no variation of color because of position is apparent. Shading is accomplished only by density, not by color. Several water stains indicate that considerable water was poured on the shroud. However, dousing with water caused no movement of color as would have occurred if soluble paints or dyes had been used. There was also no movement of the "bloodstains" as a result of water soaking. Many of the scientists now believe the shroud image may have been created by radiation, perhaps emanating from the body itself, rather than from outside, since there are both back and front likenesses. This may have been a burst of radiation, of duration and energy short enough to produce only superficial marking on the surface of the threads. The radiation theory is further buttressed by the figure's lack of distortion, appearance as a "good photograph," and three-dimensional quality. It is tempting to recall that the Gospels relate Jesus was aware of a power within his body, a power mentioned in Mark 5:25-34 and Luke 8:43-48 as being drawn out of him when the hemorrhaging woman touched his cloak and was cured. Luke records Jesus as telling his disciples: "Somebody touched me. I felt that power had gone out from me" (Luke 8:46). Thus far, members of the research group report that they are unable to find anything about the shroud to indicate it is a forgery. Eventually, however, they will have to

arrive at an explanation that satisfies all the qualities of the image, which cannot now be duplicated by any known process. Many theories have been evolved. Did the 1532 fire destroy the real shroud, after which a replica was substituted? Was the image somehow produced by a body shape beneath the cloth that was not a real body? Thus far no possibility has been excluded, except that it appears unlikely the shroud likeness is a painting. Also unlikely is the idea of a contact print, since no figure distortion is apparent. Says Ray Rogers: "Our job is to come up with all the ways in which this image could have been faked and then compare them with known facts about the shroud." Carbon dating is still to come and will contribute significantly to theories about the cloth's origin. In the meantime, says Donald Lynn, Much researchis still needed into the historicaland archeologicalaspects of the shroud. How does what we see comparewithotherevidencefromPalestine duringChrist'stime?The scientific team welcomes any information that mightassist in relatingthe cloth and its imageto crucifixionand burialcustoms of the Ist century A.D. and to known

evidenceof possiblejourneysof thecloth.

Eventually the researchers may prove the shroud image to be a forgery. If so, it will continue to be of interest as one of the cleverest hoaxes ever devised. On the other hand, they may reliably establish the cloth as dating to the first century, while providing a logical scientific explanation of how its image was created. Then other circumstantial evidencesuch as body markings which exactly correspond to Gospel accounts of the Passion-will offer the overwhelming probability that this is indeed the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, revealing in photographic detail his likeness. Meanwhile, Church officials have rewrapped the shroud in its red silk covering and deposited it once more into the silver casket at Turin, to rest undisturbed, possibly for decades to come. What is their position? Because any attempt to confirm the life, death, or resurrection of Jesus contravenes a faith that neither asks

The man of the shroudas seen in an artist'srendering. for nor needs such proof, they remain unperturbed by the scientists and their tests, recalling it was the Savior himself who reminded Thomas (John 20:29): "You believe because you can see me. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Courtesyof Don Bosco Films.New Rochelle,NY. All rightsreserved.

Bibliography Barbet, P. 1963 A Doctor at Calvary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image Book. Culliton, B. J. The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin 1978 Challenges 20th Century Science. Science 201: 235-39. Haas, N. 1970 Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Givcat haMivtar. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 38-59. Hachlili, R. 1979 Ancient Burial Customs Preserved in Jericho Hills. Biblical Archaeology Review 5.4: 28-35. Holy Shroud Guild 1977 Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin. Bronx, NY: The Holy Shroud Guild. Humber, T. 1974 The Sacred Shroud. New York: Pocket Books. Lewis, R. 1979 Pathologist at Calvary: Examination of Turin Shroud Provides Crucifixion Details. American Medical News, 13 April 1979, p. 21. Rinaldi, P. M. 1973 It is the Lord. New York: Warner Books. Sox, H. D. 1978a Authenticity of the Turin Shroud. Clergy Review 43: 250-56. 1978b File on the Shroud. Great Britain: Coronet Books. Tzaferis, V. 1970 Jewish Tombs at and near Givcat ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 18-32. Wilson, I. 1978 The Shroud of Turin. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Wilcox, R. K. 1977 Shroud. New York: MacMillan.


Notes News

&

Ramadhan and Archeological Fieldwork in Jordan The month called "Ramadhan"in the Islamic calendar is a special month devoted to daytime fasting (no eating, drinking, smoking, etc., daily from sunrise to sunset). More or less strictly observed by Muslims in Jordan, it is a period when public restaurantsare closed, official office hours shortened, and general workloads reduced. Following the month of fasting is one of Islam's main feasts, "cld al-Fitr," which is a several-day holiday. Because the Islamic calendar is lunar (29.53 days equals one lunar month; 354.36 days equals one lunar year) rather than solar (365.25 days equals one Julian year), the month of Ramadhan moves forward approximately 11 days each year in relation to the "normal" calendar. During the coming decade, Ramadhan is moving squarely into and through the hot summer months when most archeological fieldwork is carried out in Jordan. Calculating the future dates of Ramadhan is extremely complicated, but below are approximate dates for the next nine years:

space has been designated for laboratory, storage, darkroom, and library. CAARI is envisioned as an important center for archeological activity on Cyprus and a resource for archeological information of all kinds. Plans soon will be underway to acquire library materials and to set up Fellowships, Visiting Professorships, etc., on the model of the other ASOR institutes. Begun with the cooperation of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, CAARI is unique in its mission as a non-Cypriote institute serving the burgeoning archeological activity on an island which has many biblical connections and has been called the "crossroads of ancient culture" and the "land of superimposed pasts." A sample of current American archeological activity on Cyprus includes: Neolithic round houses at Tenta brought to light by Ian Todd, who is also directing Brandeis University rescue teams at the Chalcolithic site of Ayious and Bronze Age Ayios Demetrius; the Bronze Age sites of Alambra and Phaneromeni, being dug respectively by John Coleman of Cornell and James 1980 ca. 13 July-11 August Carpenter of Kent State; a survey of Akhera led by 1981 ca. 3-31 July Paul Wallace of SUNY Albany; Iron Age Idalion under 1982 ca. 22 June-21 July the direction of Lawrence Stager, University of Chicago, 1983 ca. 11 June-9 July and Anita Walker, University of Connecticut; and the 1984 ca. 31 May-29 June Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion excavated by 1985 ca. 20 May-17 June David Soren, University of Missouri at Columbia, and 1986 ca. 9 May-7 June Diana Buitron, Walters Art Gallery. 1987 ca. 29 April-27 May Under the Directorship of Ian Todd, CAARI is 1988 ca. 17 April-16 May located at 41 King Paul Street, Nicosia, just a few blocks While Ramadhan may not affect some smaller projects, from the Cyprus Museum; telephone (621) 51832. such as surveys, it will definitely have to be taken into President is Norma Kershaw at the U. S. offices, 505 account by larger excavations which utilize Muslim Northern Boulevard, Great Neck, N.Y. 11021;telephone (516) 487-8225 or 487-4992. Other officers and trustees workmen. are: Secretary, Anita Walker of the University of James A. Sauer Connecticut; Treasurer, David Gordon Mitten of Director, ACOR Harvard University; Trustees, Edward F. Campbell, Jr. of McCormick Theological Seminary, Lawrence Stager of the University of Chicago, Pamela Gaber of the Fogg Museum, and Frank Koucky of the College of Wooster. CAARI Introducing The American Schools of Oriental Research is pleased to Norma Kershaw announce the incorporation of its newest school, the President, CAARI Cyprus American Archaeological Research Instituteknown as CAARI. Established to provide support services for the rapidly increasing numbers of excavation teams in the field, CAARI welcomes all visitors-from the scholar, who is engaged in long term research,and the archeologist, who resides on Cyprus for varying periods of time, to the traveler, who may stop by only for a few hours. Hostel facilities for eight people are available at reasonable rates. There is a cozy Common Room, and

118


Book. Reviews S.I.S. Review; Journal of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 2, no. 3; Special Issue, 1977/78, From Exodus to Akhenaton, ed. by Peter James. Malcolm Lowery: "Dating the Admonitions"' John Bimson: "A Chart for the Conquest of Canaan '" and "The Hvksos and the Archaeology of Palestine ' Eva Danelius: "Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?";Peter James: "The Dating of the El-Amarna Letters"; Immanuel Velikovsky: "The ?ulman Temple in Jerusalem " Martin Sieff "The Two Jehorams"' Geoffrey Gammon: "A Chronology for the Eighteenth Dynastyl' Euan MacKie: "Radiocarbon Dates for the Eighteenth Dynasty ". 96 pp. The works of Immanuel Velikovsky and his followers pose a thorny problem for scholars of the ancient Near East in their relations with the public at large. In very large part, this problem is due to the appearance of their writings; Velikovskyans copiously footnote their works with references that often include books and articles by main-line scholars. Regardless of its superficial appearance, Velikovskyism is not so much a school of thought as a fundamental attitude. The writers in the journal being reviewed, for example, appear to have already decided that certain positions were correct before they began to work. Any fact or opinion that might tend to disagree with these positions is ignored or dealt with by arguments that cannot be confirmed or refuted such as "cosmic events and forces." Thus it is highly unlikely that a real dialogue can take place between Velikovskyans and main-line scholarship. A review is for the record and for the public. As this writer understands it, the basic tenet of historical Velikovskyism generally is that the Egyptian chronology of the New Kingdom is some 550 years or so too early, that the 18th Dynasty began about 1018 B.C. (Gammon, p. 94). This dating places the events surrounding the end of the Hyksos age in directjuxtaposition with the events of the reigns of David, Solomon, Rehoboam, etc. Events and persons mentioned in the New Kingdom. are identified with those in the Bible and some in Classical literature (Hatshepsut equals the Queen of Sheba, Oedipus equals Akhenaten, Tiy equals Jocasta, Thutmose III equals Shishak, and Tutankhamun equals Eteocles). United Israel is transformed into the liberator and teacher of Egypt, who treacherously betrayed her benefactors. In approach, Velikovskyism seeks to knock out the supports of ancient Near Eastern chronology by saying that the astronomical regularities upon which these chronologies have been based were disrupted by changes

in the Earth's rotation and/or that heavenly bodies mentioned in ancient texts have been misidentified. Astronomical evidence thus "safely" ignored, the events and persons could then be compared and dated according to any similarities the writer might wish to see. The disagreements among scholars on (comparatively) minor points are exaggerated to the assumption that almost anything goes in history, chronology, archeology, and philology. Potential readers should be advised of some problems that are not faced adequately or at all in the run of Velikovskyan publications. Egyptian history in the first half of the Ist millennium B.C. is not a chronological vacuum as one could conceivably infer from the term "Third Intermediate Period." On the contrary, it is a period crowded with kings, officials, priests, private persons, and events which have been woven into a rich genealogical and historical tapestry, most recently by Kitchen. The period has its own artistic and archeological character. Even if we were deprived of the astronomical evidence, we would still know the basic outline of history and chronology, which cannot be substantially shortened, although it would be less precise. This chronological entity of over three and one-half centuries must be added onto the 25th and 26th Dynasties, whose kings are well known from Assyrian, biblical, and Classical sources and fixed by these relations. Beyond the Third Intermediate Period (Dynasties XXI-XXIII), the New Kingdom (Dynasties XVIII-XX) has its own historical, chronological, and genealogical character. Each of the pharaohs had the full fivefold titulary, each had officials, such as viziers and King's sons of Kush, for which we have almost complete lists. They each had families about whom we have a considerable body of information. To make the adjustment the Velikovskyans require, these kings of the New Kingdom would have somehow to be identified with those of the Third Intermediate Period despite their different names and titles, different reigns, different families, different officials, utterly different art styles and material remains. Alternatively, it could be assumed that they lived side-byside without acknowledging each others' presence, maintaining these different art styles and burial practices which somehow remaineddistinct though practiced in the same places. Such events are hardlyconceivable without a time warp, or better, a mind warp. On the contrary, we know that the dynasties were successive, for there is specific historical evidence for the passing from one to the other in both the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period-and between the periods. This continuum could not be simply forced downward, for the succeeding "Ethiopian," Saite,


/

SPRING 1980 119

Persian, and Ptolemaic periods are not only clearly connected to the Classical and Assyrian sources, but they are likewise packed with people and events too well known to be displaced. Although chronology would be much less precise without the astronomical evidence, by reckoning we still would be able to place the 18th Dynasty about where it is now, in the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C.

Evidence from Mesopotamian history and chronology is still morecompact. This sequence is connected to events dealt with in the Bible by repeated reports of Assyrian campaigns against Israeland Judah, and by later events in Neo-Babylonian and Persian times to the Classical world. Although there are a few years of flexibility, the Assyrian and Babylonian kingand eponym (Assyrian officials who held office for a year) lists make a mutually complementary and reasonably consistent body of evidence which extends backward in time well into the 14th century B.C. In that century, a number of Kassite kings of Babylon, whose chronological positions are well established in the lists, are mentioned in the Amarna letters as contemporaries of Amenhotep III and the Amarna pharaohs. The Amarna period would be thus fixed and would fix with it the entire New Kingdom, in the "conventional" position. At this point, the two systems would become "synergistic,"that is, since each was derived independently of the other, yet they agree on the same approximate solution, the agreement of the two is a further argument for the reliabilityof both: The sum is greaterthan the parts. The fact that the astronomical arguments, especially the sothic dates, also agree should weigh very heavily with those who would lightly toss them away. Having related a few of the chronological problems and the related points in history and archeology, we can turn to philology. This is not my major field, but since it is not one mastered by the Velikovskyans, I can comment fairly. The down-warping of Egyptian chronology that they have proposed has required them to identify several West Semitic princes mentioned in the Amarna letters with biblical personages in the 9th century B.C.Thus we have Abdi-Hepat of Jerusalem from the Amarna letters identified with Jehoshaphat or Jehoram from the Bible, a man with a name that includes the northerngoddess Hepat identified with one or the other person whose names include Yahweh. Rib-Addi of Byblos is identified as Ahab (Velikovsky, p. 94) or Jehoram (James, p. 83) involving a change not only of the deity included in the name, but of the place of his activities, from Byblos to Israel. And so it goes. All of the identifications were made despite the fact that the scribes who wrote the Amarna letters knew West Semitic names very well and Egypt had a long tradition of dealing with such names. The equations made in the Velikovskyan papers are so arbitrary one might as well claim that Ramesses II was Pericles. I find I have come to the end ofa long review without reviewing the individual articles, although it is a movement ratherthan any individual work that should be reviewed, since they share many of the same underlying assumptions. These articles have much the same structure.

120


They tend to compare situations that existed (or one might think existed) in the 18thDynasty or the Hyksos age on the one hand, and the Bible narratives of the United Monarchy, early Israel,and Judah on the other. Wherethe raw narratives are acceptable presentations of common opinion in either Egyptology or biblical history, the facts can be found better presentedand documented elsewhere. In fact, the articles generally show little control over source material. There are some amusing flights of ignorance, such as Bimson's failure to deal with the fundamental work of Helck and von Beckerathon Second Intermediate period history and chronology in a discussion of Second Intermediate period history and chronology (pp. 58-64). Yet the narratives of separate periods, inadequate as they are, are dwarfed by the astonishing nature of the connections. These are made by tendentious readings of texts, mostly in languages the Velikovskyans do not seem to understand very well (Velikovsky, pp. 85-86); identifications of persons, none of whom have names or careersthat resembleone another; incredible failure to deal with appropriate alternatives (Sheshonk I actually resemblesShishak); totally arbitrary changes in the locations of persons (Rib-addi of Israel?!); and breathtaking omissions, such as the loss of officials, priests, and families. Ordinarilyone would not review materialof this type. It is not scholarship, it is fantasy, a footnoted dreamworld where anything is possible and obstacles are easily swept away. The kind of work necessary for such a review is generally unrewarding;the points raised above on history and chronology are simply reminders of gross errors of omission, made to point out to the general reader some of the pitfalls in this kind of material. These errors could easily be correctedby a somewhat broaderfamiliaritywith such widely read literature as the Cambridge Ancient History and the Fischer Weltgeschichte, requiring no specialized knowledge or skill. Yet the continued wide distribution of Velikovsky's new works and the reprinting of old ones in a massive attempt to saturate the mass market make some effort at "truthin labeling"necessary. I have visited fairly large bookstores where works of this type are almost the only books available on the preClassical world. Clearly a gulf between scholarship and the public is widened by such material. The question of what need is filled by this kind of thing cannot be discussed here, but it is fitting to point out the need to fill it with works by better scholars. Refutation is pointless-one cannot refute fantasy. Perhaps in the end we can best note that the epitaph of these modern-day verae historiae will simply be the title of Velikovsky's second work, Ages in Chaos. Bruce Williams The Oriental Institute University of Chicago

Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel:An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, by Menahem Haran. xviii+ 394 pp. Oxford; Clarendon, 1978; $48.00. Professor Menahem Haran of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has produced a work of major proportions, which sums up the intensive labors of a quarter-century in a central area of biblical research. In the classic tradition of critical Old Testament scholarship, the volume evokes the names and theses of the pioneering giants of the 19th century. Citations and arguments drawn from such figures as Julius Wellhausen (who remains a symbol of the most successful synthesis of the literary data, philosophical principles, analytical methodology, and historical reconstruction so far achieved, however questionable so much of it appears to us a century later) dominate the book and give it a curiously archaic coloration and tone. This quality is reflected in the courtly style of the book and in the language, which is involuted and heavily qualified in traditional scholarly fashion. Haran is indebted to his teachers, especially Yehezkel Kaufmann, and others whose names are scattered throughout the extensive, detailed footnotes. Regrettably there is no author index, although there are the usual scriptural and subject indices and a very useful glossary of biblical terms (in Hebrew). At the same time, the work is no mere compendium of scholarly opinions judiciously summarized and evaluated. Haran is an independent, if not idiosyncratic thinker, and over the years he has forged a thesis concerning the literature of Israel and its historical development which challenges most of the traditional views and many of the newer positions as well. Now that a comprehensive, integrated presentation is available in a single volume, a serious consideration of and response to the many specific contentions as well as the central themes are in order. Briefly put, Haran has reopened the debate about basic assumptions and affirmations concerning the formation of the core narrative of the Hebrew Bible and its essential components: Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and finally the Primary History itself (Genesis through Kings). At the same time, he has revived discussion of the philosophical premises and historical reconstruction of the dominant Wellhausenist school, as these relate especially to the Temple (and Tabernacle) and the cult described in detail in the various sources of the Hexateuch (and Primary History, since Haran extends the analysis to the so-called Deuteronomic History). While Haran appeals occasionally to archeological evidence to support his views, and attempts a reconstruction of certain aspects of Israelite history, his main concern is literary and critical in his analysis of the biblical materials. In many respects he follows the main line of literary criticism, accepting the familiar source division of traditional scholarship: e.g., he maintains the view that P continues into Joshua (and even beyond, since he finds traces of P in the description of Solomon's

Temple in I Kings) and explicitly rejects the views of Martin Noth (and implicitly of Ivan Engnell and the Scandinavian School) limiting P to the Tetrateuch. His major argument concerns the chronological relationship between D and P. He contends, against the standard opinion, that P is not only pre-Exilic but also preDeuteronomic. With regard to Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, his position is the common one: the Code found in the Temple in the 18th year of Josiah (622/21 B.c.) was the Book of Deuteronomy, or the bulk of it, and this discovery triggered the famous reform of Josiah; D was composed not long before its discovery, presumably some time in the 7th century, although its roots are much older. Haran dates P much earlier, and associates the reform of Hezekiah (late 8th century) with that work. Whether this radical rearrangement of the sources will win many adherents remains to be seen, but a reconsideration of the standard critical views is long overdue. From the recent discussion of the subject, and especially Haran's forceful presentation of relevant data and arguments, a new consensus along more conservative lines may emerge. Without resolving the debate as to the priority of D or P in relation to each other, what is becoming clearerall the time is that these works are independent of each other (and therefore more likely to be roughly contemporary) and are both of pre-Exilic date. Furthermore, the conflicting views over the status and role of Priests and Levites reflect circumstances and tensions in the pre-Exilic period, especially the last 135 years (from 722 to 587 B.c.) between the Fall of Samaria and the Fall of Jerusalem. Both works existed in pre-Exilic times in a substantially complete form (the P-work incorporating JE and a pre- or non-Deuteronomic form of Joshua, and the D-work-Dt or Dtr-reflecting and incorporating older traditions and extending through 2 Kings, including a pre- or non-Priestly form of Joshua) but circulated independently of each other. Haran theorizes that P was a private document available only to the Priestly party, while D was intended for a broader public. The collapse of the southern kingdom and the accompanying Exile produced an entirely new situation which not only made the earlierstrugglebetween the D and P camps moot, if not irrelevant, but imposed urgent responsibilities of a new sort on the survivors of the debacle. The resolution was in the classic manner: editors and compilers of the Exile combined the two great works into a single saga of the people of God from the very beginning until the Exile, and in the process, with appropriate authorization, produced the earliest Bible. The era of consolidation and unity was initiated by national tragedy and external constraint, but it was carried forward by post-Exilic authors including especially the Chronicler, who built his work on the basis of the earlier synthesis. Haran also argues vigorously for the priority of P in relation to Ezekiel, and his points are telling. It is not easy to establish literary dependence, but in this case it is not entirely necessary. It would be sufficient to show that P is not derived from Ezekiel, and that seems clear enough. The affinities between P and Ezekiel, which are


numerous, can be explained on the basis of Ezekiel's status as a (Jerusalem) priest and his knowledge of Priestly traditions; he was also a prophet acting under the compulsion and authority of God and not bound by Priestly rules or writings. After all, there are fundamental differences between an historical account of ancient persons and practices (which P purports to be), and a prophetic and visionary description of the way in which such matters will, or should, be handled in the future. Ezekiel reacts and responds to current conditions and proposes extensive changes in the future, thereby implicitly criticizing the patterns previously operative and established as normative by P. When it comes to the absolute dating of D and P, reference must be made to the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which bear family resemblances to the two Pentateuchal sources respectively. The following comments may be in order: There are obvious affinities in vocabulary and general style, along with notable differences in attitude and content between Jeremiah and D (and Dt and Dtr) on the one hand, and between Ezekiel and P on the other. In both cases we may posit the priority of the Pentateuchal source, and propose that the prophetic work is a contemporary response to the earlier material.In both cases the intervalwould be a short one: D(mid-7thcentury) Jeremiah(late7thto early6th) P(mid-to late7thcentury) 6thcentury) Ezekiel(early There are many other points with which Haran deals in this rewarding volume, and striking conclusions to which he comes. All are worth considering and discussing, and some at least are likely to displace present views in scholarly circles. Some will remain unsettled chiefly because there is insufficient outside evidence to establish the case. Some others will fail to persuade because the argumentation is not convincing, or because an alternate hypothesis seems more attractive. In the end, however, interested readers, scholarly and otherwise, can only profit from this new study of old questions concerning the basic literature of the Bible. David Noel Freedman The University of Michigan Biblical Archaeology in Focus, by Keith N. Schoville. 511 pp. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978; $15.95. Professor Schoville's Biblical Archaeology in Focus is an up-to-date, comprehensive survey of Near Eastern archeology, with emphasis on Syria-Palestine. Much of what is written is based on the author's experience as a teacher of archeology and excavator in the field. This text is bound to be helpful in introducing students to biblical archeology and stimulating their interest. The book is arranged in three major parts. The first section offers background information on the nature and history of archeology in biblical lands. It also contains a practical chapter on how to set up a dig. Another chapter

122


is devoted to the development of writing. The final chapter of this section deals with the relationship between the Bible and archeology, a much discussed and moot subject these days. Part two is a survey of major sites outside of Palestine (Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt). The last section is an overview of the major sites "within the Holy Land." The clear style of the author in the development of his subject is enhanced by serviceable maps and charts. Unfortunately, the copious photographs have been reproduced poorly, and this becomes a distraction. They need sharpening if they are to serve a useful purpose. Special attention should be called to the selected bibliography systematically arranged throughout the book. This will be an excellent tool for those who wish to pursue subjects in greater detail. To accompany the positive comments, there are the inevitable negative ones. The first problem concerns the arrangement of the material. It is quite repetitious. It would almost appear that the author simply collated independent class lectures. In addition, the use of sexist language is insensitive and unfair in view of the large number of women engaged in field archeology. Also, I think that footnotes are in order for those who want to read citations in context. It is perhaps inevitable that in a book with much factual information some errors have crept in. They are not serious, but they could mislead. Examples: Baly not "Baley" (p. 78); Frederick not "Frank" Bliss (p. 88); Caesarea not "Caesrea"(p. 345); Callaway not "Calloway" (p. 480); Mrs. Bennett not "Miss"(p. 486); American not "Amman"Center (p. 490). There is a reference (p. 439) to Reisner digging at Megiddo in 1908-10. I am sure Schoville means Samaria, as correctly stated on p. 465. The author makes a statement about prospective digging on the occupied West Bank (p. 100) which is incomplete and a bit harsh. Not to politicize archeology in the Near East requires highly developed diplomatic skills! Some professionals will criticize this book for lacking in originality. While there would be some justification, that is not Schoville's main purpose. There is certainly a place for derivative work, and I would gladly recommend this book as a practical tool to those for whom it is intended. Philip J. King Boston College

The Ancient Near East, hb Charles Burney. 224 pp. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1977; $15.00. One of the most informative of recent archeological publications, bountifully illustrated in vivid shades and colors, is The Ancient Near East, a quarto volume by Charles Burney of Manchester University. Described on the jacket as an "introduction to Near Eastern archaeology and civilization," it contains 163 excellent black-and-white photographs and drawings, as well as

32 plates in amazingly realistic color. Along with The Egyptians, by John Ruffle, this is one of the first two volumes in a series called Archaeology and Civilization, edited by James Forde-Johnston (himself the author of History from the Earth, an outstanding introduction to world archeology published in 1974). The Ancient Near East, originally published in Britain by Phaidon Press under the title From Village to Empire, concentrates geographically on Anatolia, the Eastern Mediterranean Littoral, the Tigris-Euphrates Plain, and the Iranian Plateau. Chronologically, it begins with the earliest evidences of the Agricultural Revolution and ends essentially with the first part of the Iron Age, though there is brief reference to material cultures down to the end of the Achemenid period. In keeping with the author's own extensive field work, the most detailed treatment is given to earlier periods. Chapter divisions are partly chronological and partly geographic. Chapter 1 (pp. 9-49) is "The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East." Familiar names like Jericho, Byblos, Chatal Hiiytik, Hacilar, and Belbashi occur frequently, along with those of other significant sites farther east. There is information on Neolithic sites to the east of the Caspian Sea as early as about 7000 B.C. and mention of new evidence which strongly suggests that the important cultures of Early Halaf, Hassuna, and Samarra were for the most part contemporary. The second and third chapters describe representative archeological data belonging to the Bronze Age on the Tigris-Euphrates Plain ("Mesopotamia"). Chapter 4 (pp. 101-17) treats the Syro-Palestinian Littoral ("the Levant") during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Anatolia, Iran, and "Trans-Caucasia"are the subject of Chapter 5 (pp. 118-54). Chapter 6 (pp. 115-90) attends to the period of the Assyrian Empire; it includes sections on "The Syro-Hittite Cities," "Phoenicia and Palestine until the Death of Solomon," "Assyria," "Urartu,""The Phrygians," and "North-Western Iran." The brief final chapter (pp. 191-204) summarizes the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. A scholarly bibliography for each chapter is at the end of the volume, and a detailed and extremely useful chronological chart, presented in ten columns according to geographical area, covers three full pages. The text of The Ancient Near East treats archeology in a restricted sense: the description and primary interpretation of material remains from humanity's past. Burney does not present an interpretation of civilizations or cultures as the historian would but rather the types of artifacts found at carefully selected sites, along with terse interpretative comment. The organization of the material implies the broad outlines of change in technology, economy, society, and politics, but in the main these matters are not explicitly discussed. A number of laconic statements require more explanation. For example, the author states (p. 107) that

the appearance of the Khirbet Kerak ware in northern Palestine during EB III "provides clear-cut evidence of newcomers." Does he mean a few potters or a mass folk migration? Under what conditions does new pottery indicate new people? He also declares (p. 15) that the round houses of the first Proto-Neolithic phase at Jericho suggest "nomadic origins in flimsier tent-like structures." It is not immediately clear why a "tent-like structure"would more likely be round than rectangular, trapezoidal, or irregularly shaped. Then he asserts (p. 50) that in early Sumer "irrigation followed, rather than preceded, urban growth." No basis for this conclusion is mentioned, nor is any explanation offered for how an urban center could have survived, even for a brief time, on an almost rainless plain without irrigation. The great virtue of this volume lies in the enormous amount of carefully selected information, much of it from very recent excavations, which the author has packed into only 200 pages, many of which are taken up with illustrations. The book is of outstanding value for the person already acquainted with the archeology of the region covered. Such a person can expand his knowledge and bring it up to date, but the concentration of data may frustrate many of the general readers for whom the jacket declares the book is intended. One wishes that the final sentence of the text had been omitted: "When Persepolis went up in 204) (p. flames at the feast of the Macedonian conqueror, a world lasting several millennia finally expired." This is a louder echo from Mortimer Wheeler's Flames Over Persepolis, in which it is asserted that the first visit of Alexander to the Persian royal capital marked the end of one era and the beginning of another. The idea that ancient Near Eastern civilization ended with the Achemenid Empire must be renounced. The standard approach to the study of Western Civilization altogether underestimates those characteristics of pre-Hellenistic cultures which persisted into later ages and which played important roles in the formation of modern world civilization. Ray L. Cleveland University of Regina

Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades, by John Wilkinson. viii + 225 pp. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1977; $24.12. "Theprincipalmotive which drawspeopleto Jerusalem," said St. Paulinusof Nola, "isthe desireto see and touchthe placeswhereChristwas presentin the body . . ." (p. 40). Butwhenthe timehadfullycome, Godsenthis son, bornof woman,born underthe law ... (Gal 4:4). In many ways modern urban Christians are closer in their understanding of the Gospel to the second quote


than to the first. When St. Paul epitomized the Gospel, he did so as an urban man. For Paul, as for urban people in many ages, time rather than space was the leading category of thought. Urban people turn measurements of distance and space into time (i.e., "I live five minutes from the downtown area"). Thus, as an urban Jew born and raised outside the Holy Land, Paul saw the Gospel as an event in time with wide significance for humankind to be reflected upon theologically rather than an event which transpired in a particular country. Biblical topography for St. Paul was an allegorical rather than a geographical concern (cf. Gal 4:24-26). It was the heavenly rather than the earthly Jerusalem which drew Paul's eyes. Yet the concern which the Evangelists showed for topography and place-setting of the ministry of Jesus indicates there were other streams of earliest Christianity more willing to give a theological importance to "place" in telling the story of Jesus. Recent research in Mark has highlighted the importance of the region of Galilee to St. Mark (cf. Mark 16:7; 14:70) though debates continue as to the exact reasons for the Galilean emphasis in this Gospel. One thing that can be asserted is that the places where Jesus performed his works are an important organizing principle for the Evangelists in addition to the Pauline concern for "event" categories: here in this land and in special places connected with it, events have happened which have far-reaching importance for humanity (cf. John 1:46; 4:21, etc.). The amount of effort St. Luke had to put into moving the Gospel physically out of Palestine and into the wider Greco-Roman world in his Gospel and his Book of Acts shows how deeply entrenched was the Palestinian setting of the Gospel, even as the Old Covenant was tied to the land. Yet we may not be so far from the pilgrimage tradition of early Christianity as a first reading of the Wilkinson quote above might indicate to us. Our contemporary love for, and preference for, the Gospel events over the more abstract and interior Gospel of the New Testament Epistles and our continued love of touring the Holy Land should give us a natural interest in, and a certain sympathy for, Christian pilgrims through the ages. On this basis I want to commend Wilkinson's book to a much wider audience than he may have envisioned for it. The book is a superlative scholarly translation and edition of some important Christian pilgrimages to Jerusalem undertaken between A.D. 385 and 1099 (p. viii). In Jerusalem Pilgrims Wilkinson has created a model for such books: this is the way it should be done. And, as such, it is mandatory reading for anyone even remotely interested in the places and monuments of the Holy Land. Wilkinson is an archeological historian, and his interest in the pilgrims' accounts is primarily historical-i.e., what place is mentioned, where is it located, when did an event mentioned happen, how accurate is

124


the account? To help his readers along, he supplies an excellent historical source introduction (pp. 1-14), copious notes and appendixes, helpful maps of the various travelers' routes, indexes, and a gazetteer (list of places and some monuments; pp. 148-78) which is a useful supplement for English readers to Michael AviYonah's Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem 5. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976). Wilkinson's discussion of the theological and religious significance of pilgrimage in the 4th and following centuries is excellent (pp. 33-43) but considerably less important to his volume than the topographical and historical information which the itineraries contain. The theological importance of pilgrimage to Christians of late antiquity requires some additional comment to put the more general reader into the picture. Before the beginning of the 4th century, Christians generally regarded the Gospel, a la St. Paul, as an event which occurred in saving history rather than a venture in special geography. In the 2nd century, we know that Melito of Sardis went to Palestine to get a correct list of the OT scriptures; in the 3rd century, Origen went to conclude his teaching career and was much interested in correct nomenclature for biblical place names. But Origen's intellectual disciple, Eusebius of Caesarea, marks a new era of Christian interest in Palestine as a Christian Holy Land (cf. pp. 19, 34-36). Eusebius' pivotal importance is not simply in producing a list of biblical places with their contemporary locations and identifications which served as models for later pilgrim itineraries (p. 15), but also in his insistence upon Palestine's importance because Jesus appeared first there (i.e., Opening, Martyrs of Palestine) and in his subtle suggestion that Palestinian Christianity is what made Western Christianity both gentile and "orthodox" (cf. the famous "Peter" incidents in his Ecclesiastical History 2.3.3; 2.14.4; 2.14.6). Eusebius thus marks the beginning of a line of Christian writers for whom the earthly Palestine has now become a Christian "Promised Land," as, e.g., Jerome quoted by Eucherius in the 5th century says: "This land, which has now through Christ's passion and resurrection become our promised land . . ." (p. 54). There is a seamy side to

this Christian "triumphalism"(as Wilkinson terms these kinds of statements, cf. pp. 34, 36), for they frequently herald Christian anti-Semitism as well as the victory over paganism. But at base there also seems to be some sense (at least in the less magical and folk traditions) that the contemplation of the earthly holy places leads one up to contemplation of the heavenly, so that the real places of Palestine and the "Jerusalem which is above" have come together in this stream of Christian experience (cf. pp. 38, 41,47, to p. 14). Surely this is the stream to which the appearance of the Madaba mosaic map on the floor of a church should be attributed, and Wilkinson is to be commended for including both a

Greek facsimile of the map and an English translation of it for non-Greek readers on the insides of the front and back covers. Wilkinson's book then is an important reminder of Christian Palestine's new international importance in the 4th through the 7th centuries (p. 35). The general reader needs to be reminded, in addition, that these same centuries represent one of the most prosperous periods in all of Palestinian history as measured by building, rebuilding, and site occupation indexes. And this is as true for the more purely Jewish areas of the country as for the Gentile cities. The 1976 Dulse/ Garrett survey of the Galilee (BASOR 230: 1-24), whose results have been exactly paralleled by recent survey work on military sites east of the Jordan (ASOR Newsletter, No. 5, Feb. 1978, p. 9), indicates that the 4th and 5th centuries particularly illustrate such a phenomenal prosperity. New places of worship from this period are being discovered--places which Wilkinson's lists (pp. 179-81) could not indicate (e.g., a Christian Byzantine monastery with mosaic inscriptions at Carmiel in the Upper Galilee). All of this is a reminder that it is our faith-both Jewish and Christian-which has made the Ist century C.E.loomso large in our thinking. Historically, it was the 4th and later centuries in which Palestine and its residents achieved its greatest impact on both Judaism (the Jerusalem Talmud belongs to this time) and Christianity. And in one superbly edited and translated volume, Wilkinson has allowed us to see the phenomenon of Christian pilgrimage from its height in late antiquity through the pre-Crusader Moslem conquest, to trace the changing motives for pilgrimage (pp. 42-43), and to hear from the ground level the continuing impact of Jerusalem's holy places on seekers after perfection, tourists and penitents alike. Something of that hidden side of us moderns comes through in words like those of the 7th-century patriarch Sophronius (p. 91), the side that drives us back generation after generation as visitors to the Holy Land: Holy City of God, Jerusalem,how I long to stand even now at your gates, and go in, rejoicing! Dennis E. Groh Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary A History of the Crusades: Vol. 4, The Art and W. Architecture of the Crusader States, ed. by Harr'y 65 pls.). Hazard. xxvii + 424 pp. (including 10 maps and Madison, WI and London: The University of Wisconsin Press and the University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd. 1977; $25.00. The Jews and the Crusaders: The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades, trans. and ed. by Shlomo Eidelberg. xii + 186 pp. Madison, WI and London: The

University of Wisconsin Press and the University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd. 1977; $15.00. The volume edited by Hazard should be purchased and savored both by specialists in the field and those who have a more general interest in Holy Land studies of this period. The serious student will be delighted to see appear here (pp. 69-164) the work of the late T. S. R. Boase on ecclesiastical and military art and architecture in Palestine and Syria, so long in press, updated by Jaroslav Folda (e.g., pp. 74-75). Boase's work should be read in the light of Folda's superlative treatment of "Painting and Sculpture in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099-1291" (pp. 251-88), which places this volume on the growing edge of Crusader monumental research (cf. pp. 251, 279, 287-88) and provides a needed guide to the plates. Wisconsin Press is to be congratulated for its perseverance in bringing out this expanded volume, although there is need to improve photographic reproduction. Chapters on Cyprus by Boase and A. H. S. Megaw and Greece and Rhodes by David J. Wallace and Boase give us a fine picture of Frankish art and architecture. Urban Tignor Holmes' section (pp. 3-35) detailing daily life in CrusaderSyria/ Palestine, although drawn from an impressive array of sources, is so well written as to delight anyone interested in Holy Land studies; and Henry L. Savage's detailed picture of pilgrimage life (pp. 36-68) will enchant anyone who has been to the Holy Land or plans such a trip. The knights who left such awesome monuments behind were not always themselves edified by the accomplishment. Holmes reports a king's quip (p. 5, quoting Roman de Renart) about a knight's desire to be a pilgrim: "When he gets back, he will be worse, for all of them have that custom: those good men who go returnas evil men." Our second book reminds us that some Crusaders started out as evil men. Eidelberg has given English readers a very useful translation and edition of three 12th-century Hebrew accounts of persecutions perpetrated by soldiers of the First Crusade on German Jewish communities in 1096 C.E. and an account of Second Crusade atrocities committed against German Jews in 1146 C.E. The longest and most detailed of these chronicles, that of Soloman bar Simson, in detailing persecution of the Rhenish communities in 1096 (pp. 21-72) draws the classic profile of the Jewish persecution experience: warnings of imminent persecution (p. 49), forced (and hence, "feigned") conversions (pp. 39-40), looting and destruction of Jewish property (p. 50), bribes given by the Jews for protection taken but not honored (pp. 28-29), episcopal protection (with one happy exception, p. 72) withdrawn, small forays into armed resistance (p. 30), slaughter and ritual suicide (p. 31), mass pit-burials of victims (pp. 43-44), and the exacting attempt to list the names and deeds of the fallen, so painful and yet so lyric in community lamentation (pp. 34ff; cf. p. 91). English readers have a salutary and solemn opportunity to read these two books together. One sees that Godfrey of Bouillon, whose tomb in Jerusalem influ-


enced the form of one on Cyprus (Hazard, p. 185), is remembered in quite another way in the Jewish communities of Germany (Eidelberg, pp. 24-25). One observes that the price of the great Crusaderart we enjoy today came quite high for some peoples, not the least of which were the German Jews.

The area of movement for the nomadic tribes lay in the semiarid zone on the edge of the cultivated land, receiving an average annual rainfall of 100-250 mm. The social organization was "dimorphic," that is, one where there must be constant interaction both between the nomads and the sedentary people and also between the nomadic tribes and the state. In both relationships each group is dependent upon the other. Thus, the animals of the nomads graze on the fields after reaping and, at the same time, fertilize them by their droppings. The nomads need products from the villages and supply in returnboth animal and human labor. The government provides seasonal tools for the tribes and often employment, especially in the form of military service. Yet the restraints imposed by the government were an annoyance to the nomads, for whom freedom of movement was an absolute necessity. This led at times to acts of defiance or to "withdrawal" and "retribalization." This complex relationship, only briefly sketched here, is illustrated effectively from the Mari texts themselves, though the present reviewer is incompetent to judge the translations. There are perhaps two weaknesses. The maps are rather sketchy, and when a dissertation is prepared for publication it really ought to be supplied with a subject index. What is worth publishing is worth consulting for reference.

Dennis E. Groh Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom (ca. 1830-1760 B.C.), hby Victor Harolk

xiii + 213 pp.

Matthews.

Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978; $9.00 (cloth), $6.00 (paper). The third in the ASOR Dissertation Series, this is a helpful addition to the literature on pastoral nomadism. Dr. Matthews' main argument is (a) that pastoral nomadism is a great deal more complex than is normally assumed, and is "only one option among many available to nomadic and/or pastoral people" (p. 18), and (b) that the pastoral nomads within the Mari kingdom were forced by circumstances to integrate their culture with that of the city, despite inevitable conflict of interests. The friction was reduced through the role of intervening mediators, with the result that although tribal affairs were settled in the traditional manner by discussion among the elders, relations with the state were conducted through a trusted representative.

Denis Balv Kenyon College

' ARCHAEOLOGICALA~j

HISTOR

OFTH ANCIENMIDDE

EAS

r$ "Finworgan' manyyeasasoneof

inoraio

Midl

126

egrdn Est"-


is

ne

estned

te

o

stnd

or

athortatve

surcs

f

tearhaoog IBICLILUSRAO

SPRING 1980

heacin

agoo o

Gerald Lanlkester

Harding 1901-1979 Fred V. Winnet For twenty years (1936-56) Jordanian archeology was dominated by the tall, lanky figure of Gerald Lankester Harding. Born in Tientsin, North China, in 1901, he was brought up in Singapore. In 1913 his family moved to England where he lived until 1926. Becoming interested in Egyptian hieroglyphs, he enrolled in a class conducted by Dr. Margaret Murray. It was she who directed his steps into archeology and who probably secured for him a place on the staff of Flinders Petrie, under whom she herself had worked. Hardingassisted in the excavation of three sites near Gaza: Tell Jemma (1926), Tell Farah (1927-28), and Tell el-Ajjul (1929-32). From 1932 to 1936 he worked with J. L. Starkey and Olga Tufnell in the excavation of Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish). Although he knew no Hebrew, his copies of the Lachish Letters, published in Lachish 1 (1938), are renowned for their accuracy. He also made important contributions to Lachish II (1940). When in 1936 the British mandatory authorities in Transjordandecided to appoint a Director of Antiquities, Harding was the natural choice for the post. He had ten years of experience in fieldwork behind him, and, in addition, through living among the bedouin of the Gaza area, he had acquired a fluent command of colloquial Arabic. The political unrest which plagued Palestine for some time after his appointment, and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, made any attempt at archeological work impossible, but Harding used the period to make himself well acquainted with his "academic kingdom." Following the events of 1948 his sphere of responsibility was enlarged to embrace the "West Bank." and this brought with it the administration of the Palestine Archaeological Museum. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at this time confronted him with many new and complex problems, problems which he handled with great tact and firmness. His reports on the finds

avoided sensationalism and were recognized to be authoritative and trustworthy. It was largely at his insistence that an international team of scholars was assembled to work on the scrolls. He himself, in conjunction with Pere de Vaux, began the excavation of Khirbet Qumran. Harding was also involved in building the Archaeological Museum in Amman and in founding and editing the Annual of the Department of Antiquities qofJordan (1951). In 1953 he published a collection of 200 Safaitic inscriptions which he had found in the H5 area (see "The Cairn of Hani'," Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 2: 8-56). I had the privilege of being associated with him in five expeditions into the Jordanian desert in search of inscriptions (see especially Winnett and Harding Inscriptions from Fiftjy Safaitic Cairns, Toronto, 1978). These expeditions netted a harvest of some 5,600 Safaitic inscriptions as well as a number of others of miscellaneous character. To Harding alone goes the major credit for this achievement. It was his knowledge of the desert, his familiarity with Arab ways, and his command of the language which made the expeditions possible. Many of the published plates of the inscriptions are his work, and to the interpretation of both texts and rock-drawings he made an invaluable contribution. A tide of nationalism which swept Jordan in 1956 led to his dismissal from office. He retired to Lebanon where he wrote The Antiquities of Jordan (1959, rev. ed. 1967) and Baalhek, A New Guide (1963). His work on inscriptions had made him realize that the tools available for the beginner in ancient Arabian epigraphy were incomplete and out-of-date, and he set himself to remedy this deficiency. The result was An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Toronto, 1971), a truly monumental work. He carried out an archeological survey of the Aden Protectorates almost singlehandedly and at considerable personal risk in July-December 1959 and AprilSeptember 1960. For his report, see Archaeology and the Aden Protectorates (H. M. Stationery Office, London, 1964). In 1968 he turned his attention to Sacudi Arabia and joined J. E. Dayton and P. J. Parr in an archeological survey of northwest Arabia. He contributed the epigraphical section of the report (see Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, vol. 10 (1971: 23-61). Some years later he returnedto Jordan where he met with a most cordial welcome. On 11 February 1979, he died in London whither he had gone for medical treatment. The Jordanian Government paid him the signal honor of having his ashes returned to Jordan for burial. His grave lies high up in the southwest corner of Jerash overlooking the entire site. Harding's death marks the end of an era, the first era, in Jordanian archeology. As one who was closely associated with him in recent years has said, "He will be remembered not only for his very great and varied achievements but for the constant help and encouragement he gave to others."

BIBILICAl.ARCHEOLOGIST

SPRING 1980 127

GENESIS Against the burlyair I strode, Where the tight ocean heaves its load, Cryingthe miracles of God. And first I broughtthe sea to bear Upon the dead weight of this land; And waves flourishedat my prayer, The riversspawned their sand. And where the streams were salt and full The tough pig-headed salmon strove, Curbingthe ebb and the tide's pull, To reach the steady hills above. On the sixth day, as I rode In haste about the works of God, Withspurs I plucked the horse's blood. By blood we live, the hot, the cold, To ravage and redeem the world: There is no bloodless mythwill hold. And by Christ'sblood are men made free Though in close shrouds their bodies lie Under the rough pelt of the sea; Though Earthhas rolled beneath her weight The bones that cannot bear the light. Fromthe bookSomewhere is Such a Kingdomby Geoffrey Hill, published by Houghton MifflinCompany, Boston. Copyright @1959, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1975 by Geoffrey Hill.

by

geoffrey hil

ij~lb . i.

~?_ :

t ~Llfi~RI\.-?

hYci

-i )

(~(

* 4i:

..

-??

,I? r

P

'i:

i \?

C?k

v

* -?

1

-.?.?.-,ri:c

y~

h '4~ "

~ 4C

$

?rq

)d t,

~' ~t "?'r:~

"~~

t

"' d \3aSt

~I

i-.I.

,

1 Ir* a:

..~i *:''C t~~~"

Ik-r~?

-7.

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

Recommend Documents