The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal And a New Interpretation (Journal for the Study of the Old Testment Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 360 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive ...

Author: George Athas

40 downloads 631 Views 19MB 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

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

360 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor Andrew Mein Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

12 General Editors Thomas L. Thompson Niels Peter Lemche Associate Editors Mogens Millier Hakan Ulfgard

Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint

This page intentionally left blank

The Tel Dan Inscription A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation

George Athas

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 360 Copenhagen International Seminar 12

Copyright © 2003 Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 370 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10017-6550 www.continuumbooks.com+ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd, Midsomer Norton, Bath

ISBN 0-8264-6056-9

CONTENTS

List of Figures Preface Abbreviations Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Introductory Remarks Methodology Chapter 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE FRAGMENTS Introductory Remarks Fragment A Fragment Bl Fragment B2 Synthesis of the Archaeological Data Chapter 3 EPIGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS Introductory Remarks Fragment A: Physical Characteristics and the State of Preservation Fragment A: Epigraphical Analysis Fragment A: Assessment Fragment B: Physical Characteristics and the State of Preservation Fragment B: Epigraphical Analysis Fragment B: Assessment

vii ix xi

1 1 1

5 5 6 13 14 15

18 18 18 23 72 73 78 92

vi

The Tel Dan Inscription

Chapter 4 PALAEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS Introductory Remarks Fragment A FragmentB Synthesis of the Script of Fragment A and the Script of Fragment B Summary of Script Analysis

94 94 96 137 164 165

Chapter 5 ARRANGEMENT OF THE FRAGMENTS Evaluation of the Original Arrangement by Biran and Naveh A New Arrangement

175 175 189

Chapter 6 TEXTUAL ANALYSIS Introductory Remarks The Text Commentary on Fragment A Commentary on Fragment B Language of the Inscription

192 192 193 194 230 245

Grammatical Survey

246

Glossary of the Inscription

252

Chapter 7 HISTORICAL COMMENTARY Introductory Remarks Historical Considerations Bayt-Dawid and the Quest for King David Cultic Implications

255 255 255 298 309

Chapter 8 CONCLUDING REMARKS

316

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

320 327 329

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1.

Fragment A

7

Figure 2.2.

Plan of Structure A at the Tel Dan gate complex

7

Figure 2.3.

Fragment Bl

14

Figure 2.4.

Fragment B2

15

Figure 2.5.

Fragment B, comprised of Fragment B1 (top) and Fragment B2 (bottom) joined together

16

Facsimile of Fragment A highlighting area of erosion on the right side of the written surface

20

Figure 3.2.

Paradigmatic cross section of the written surface

22

Figure 3.3.

Deep and shallow points on the incisions

24

Figure 3.4.

Direction of individual letter strokes

24

Figure 3.5.

Scribal posture

32

Figure 3.6.

Position of the engraver

33

Figure 3.7.

Gap preceding Fragment A, Line 1

36

Figure 3.8.

Three chips below Line 1

38

Figure 3.9.

The abraded edge of Fragment A

40

Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.10. Beginning of Line 2 (left) and possible restoration

44

Figure 3.11. The deep scar (left) and its restoration

46

Figure 3.12. The remains of a stem belonging to a damaged letter at the beginning of Line 2

46

Figure 3.13. Detail of the lacuna on Fragment A, Line 4

56

Figure 3.14. Electronically altered image (left) and a facsimile (right) of a suggested restoration

57

viii


Figure 3.15. Detail of the facsimile showing damaged letter in Line 6, Fragment A, and electronically altered image of the same area (right)

62

Figure 3.16. Facsimile of Fragments B1 and B2 joined together

74

Figure 3.17. Comparison of slope trends between Fragment A and Fragment B.

77

Figure 3.18. Diagram of the angle between the written surface and the newly exposed surface at the remnant of a stem on Line B1

79

Figure 3.19. Location of possible remnants along the edge of Fragment B2

89

Figure 4.1.

Facsimile of Fragment A

97

Figure 4.2.

Facsimile of Fragment B

137

Figure 5.1.

The arrangement of the fragments proposed by Biran and Naveh with Fragment B to the left of Fragment A

176

Figure 5.2. Figure 5.3. Figure 5.4.

The incongruence of line trends between Fragment A (right) and Fragment B (left)

179

Facsimile of the fragments integrating the arrangement proposed by Biran and Naveh

183

Reconstruction of the probable position of the fragments in relation to the whole original stele

191

PREFACE

This work is essentially a reproduction of my doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Sydney in 1999. The main difference to the original dissertation is a reworking of the Historical Commentary as my thoughts gelled a little more since submitting the work to the university. This research originally began as an investigation into the scholarly movements current in Biblical Studies at the end of the twentieth century. The Tel Dan Inscription was chosen as a case study highlighting the spectrum of views and approaches amongst scholars. However, in the course of the research it became clear to me that there were many unanswered questions about the three Tel Dan fragments. There was more than enough material to sift through to warrant a specialized study of the fragments alone. This was confirmed in a major way when I had the opportunity to study the fragments closely in Jerusalem. This close examination brought new epigraphical evidence to light. The sheer volume of data gleaned from looking at the fragments themselves was so great that, upon return to Sydney, it took a full year simply to record and process the data. It then took another year to frame the data and conclusions in a meaningful presentation. There are numerous credits I must make for the compiling of this research. I am indebted to Avraham Biran and his staff at the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem, especially for permission to use photographic images within this work. Similarly, my gratitude goes to Ada Yardeni of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, for her facsimiles of the fragments and her willingness to discuss certain issues pertaining to the fragments. Thanks also go to the staff of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, for their cooperation in aiding my research. I must also express my gratitude to other scholars whose comments, insights and driving encouragement were invaluable. In addition to Avraham Biran and Ada Yardeni, I must mention the late Frederick Cryer (formerly of Copenhagen), Niels Peter Lemche (Copenhagen), Thomas L. Thompson (Copenhagen), C.H.J. de Geus (Grôningen), Takamitsu

x


Muraoka (Leiden), Reinhard Lehmann (Johannes Gutenberg Universitàt, Mainz) and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield). I am particularly indebted to Ian Young (Sydney) for his constant and insightful feedback. His experience and steady scholarly hand, particularly in the area of grammar and philology, enabled me to produce this comprehensive study. It was also he who first instilled in me a love for North West Semitic languages and inscriptions. The preparation of the manuscript was carried out during a very busy few years, and his persistent encouragement are much appreciated. I also extend my gratitude to Sarah Norman of Sheffield Academic Press for her painstaking copy-editing. Extra-special thanks go to my wife, Koula, and my family, who have given me tremendous support throughout the many years it took to complete this research and the manuscript. Without their patience, encouragement and generosity, this work would never have reached completion. This work is dedicated to Koula who, in 1996, became wedded to a studentscholar, as well as his library, and his inscription. George Athas Sydney, March 2002

ABBREVIATIONS AcOr AfO+ ANET

ArOr BARev BASOR BH BN CAD

CBQ El IEJ+ IstMitt+ JANES+ JBL JNES+ JSOT JSOTSup JSS+ NedTT NorTT Numen OTS PEFQS PEQ RA RB SJOT UF VT ZAH ZA W ZDPV

Acta orientalia +++++++++++++++++++ James B. Pritchard (éd.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) Archiv orientâlni Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Buried History Biblische Notizen Ignace I. Gelb et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1964-) Catholic Biblical Quarterly Eretz Israel ++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Journal of Biblical Literature ++++++++++++++++++++++ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series ++++++++++++++++++ Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift Numen: International Review for the History of Religions Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale Revue biblique Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift fur Althebrâistik Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palâstina-Vereins

xii


Grammatical Abbreviations 1+ 2. 3. abs. adj. coll. com. conj. cstr. del. fem. gent. impft. inf. juss. loc. masc. n. nota ace. pers. pft. pfa+ pi. pr. prep. pron. sfx sg. vb.

+++++++++++ second person third person absolute state adjective collective common (gender) conjunction construct state deity feminine gentilic, of a people imperfect infinitive jussive location masculine noun nota accusativa, object marker personal perfect +++++++ plural proper preposition pronoun suffix singular verb

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Introductory Remarks The Tel Dan fragments are three broken pieces of basalt rock with carvings of ancient Semitic writing on them. The first fragment was discovered in 1993 during excavations at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel. The second and third fragments were discovered separately in the following year. In the few years since their discovery, these fragments have spawned a veritable library of literature from scholars all over the world writing in many different languages. The interest that these fragments have generated demonstrates their value in the eyes of the scholarly community. However, they have not gone without controversy. Indeed, such wide and varying interpretations exist regarding the fragments that one can easily get lost in the complexity of the issues. Most of the literature has tended to concentrate on one or two principal issues regarding the fragments. To date, no one has attempted a thorough and definitive analysis of the fragments. I hope that this study will fulfil that need. For the purposes of this study, I have chosen to follow the original labels for the fragments, which the publishers, Biran and Naveh, first used. This has been done in order to achieve a connection and easy reference with the literature produced thus far. Therefore, the first and largest fragment discovered is labelled Fragment A, the second is labelled Fragment Bl, and the third is labelled Fragment B2. Methodology+ The controversy that has ensued since the publication of the Tel Dan fragments has highlighted the need to streamline a methodical approach to studying the fragments. In 1995, Demsky proposed a five-step model in

2


special reference to the Tel Dan fragments.1 Demsky's article was mostly written before the publication of Fragments B1 and B2 with only an addendum making reference to these further discoveries. As such, his model was produced with only Fragment A in mind. Nevertheless, Demsky aimed at presenting a systematic model for studying all ancient Northwest Semitic inscriptions. The five steps of his approach are: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

To establish the archaeological context in which the inscription was found. To determine the type of inscription which is indicated by the writing surface. This then allows the researcher to compare the inscription with other known Northwest Semitic inscriptions of the same genre. A palaeographical analysis. A linguistic analysis. An historical synthesis.

While I agree with the general outline of Demsky's approach, I believe there is room for improvement. Since the Tel Dan fragments have idiosyncratic issues, such as what relationship each of the three fragments have to each other, these have to be dealt with in an unbiased and systematic way prior to final interpretation. The following is an outline of the approach that this study will take: 1.

2.

To establish the archaeological context of each of the three fragments discovered at Tel Dan. The purpose of this will be to indicate whether the fragments were found in primary, secondary or even tertiary usage. This involves examining the precise location in which each fragment was found and determining a date for the immediate context through the witness of pottery assemblages and structural remains. The ultimate aim of this first step will be to provide a chronological bracket in which we may place each fragment, if that is at all possible. To conduct an epigraphical analysis in which the characters and text on each fragment are itemized and clarified. An epigraphical analysis will also serve to highlight how the text on each fragment was produced. By comparing the results from each fragment, I shall come to a preliminary conclusion on the relationship

1. See A. Demsky, 'On Reading Ancient Inscriptions: The Monumental Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', JANES23 (1995), pp. 29-35 (29-31).

1. Introduction

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

3

between the three fragments with regards to their epigraphical characteristics. To conduct a palaeographical analysis of the script on each fragment. This will involve noting the shapes of each grapheme on each fragment and comparing them to those of other relevant Northwest Semitic inscriptions, as well as to each other. The purpose of this will be to determine what influences were exerted over the script of each fragment, to try to assign a chronological bracket for the script of each fragment, and to determine whether there is any relationship between the three fragments. To produce a synthesis of the epigraphical and palaeographical information gleaned from each fragment. The purpose of this will ultimately be to determine whether there is any relationship between any of the three fragments. In turn, this will also provide a model by which to critique the arrangement of the fragments currently proposed by the publishers, Biran and Naveh, and in which the fragments are currently displayed at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. If any relationship is determined to exist between any of the fragments, it will be possible to test to see if an arrangement of those fragments can be proposed on the available information. This will provide a framework with which to understand the text(s) properly. To undertake a textual analysis of the text(s). This will consider grammatical, syntactical, philological and contextual considerations of the text(s) in the arrangement(s) determined by the previous steps. To provide a historical synthesis of the information gleaned from all previous steps. This will involve interpreting the text(s) and attempting to reconstruct the history behind the content, production and destruction of the text(s). In the course of this reconstruction, the date(s) and author(s) of the text(s) will be determined as precisely as the data allows. Inherent in this process will be the incorporation of external data, namely, artifactual and textual sources. It is important that this synthesis with external data is reserved for the final step so as not to prejudice preliminary conclusions. To provide a comment on key issues highlighted by the overall synthesis of the available information.

4


It will become evident that Steps 6 and 7 will overlap significantly since these two steps are effectively the goal of my research. Thus, the conclusions from one of these steps will often be interspersed with those of the other. It cannot be stressed enough that this type of research demands an upclose analysis of the actual fragments. Reliance on photographic images of the fragments simply does not afford the researcher the necessary depth for a comprehensive epigraphical analysis. Crucial aspects of a fragment can be hopelessly confused, misportrayed or altogether missed by a twodimensional image in which only one configuration of light can be maintained. The same comments must be reserved for hand-drawn facsimiles of the fragments, too. It is, therefore, vitally necessary that a close analysis of the physical fragments themselves informs the researcher. Unfortunately, the majority of scholarship on the Tel Dan fragments has proceeded on the basis of the published photographs alone, and not on first-hand observation of the fragments themselves.2 For this purpose, the epigraphical analysis of the three fragments was conducted at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem where the fragments are currently housed. Many hours were spent poring over the many physical features of the actual fragments in great detail. As will be seen in the presentation of this study, the results of this close and careful analysis proved pivotal to a sound appreciation of the fragments and their meaning. Indeed, many important aspects of the fragments have hitherto gone undetected by many scholars for lack of such a careful analysis. I am confident that this study will provide a coherent reappraisal and reinterpretation of the Tel Dan fragments.

2. See, e.g., V. Sasson, 'The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological, Literary, and Historical Aspects', JSS4Q.I (1995), pp. 11-30 (13 n. 8).

Chapter 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE FRAGMENTS

Introductory Remarks

For any inscriptional fragment it is important to first establish its archaeological context. That is, we must determine where and in what state or usage the fragment was found. This information will prove invaluable for determining the date of the fragment and then assessing its value in terms of reconstructing a whole inscription and reconstructing the historical background that gave rise to the inscription. For the purposes of dating our three fragments from Tel Dan, we must rely on the stratigraphy of the structural ruins at Tel Dan, as well as the pottery assemblages found in the strata. The pottery remains will allow us to date the strata and the various construction phases within these individual strata. The composition of structural walls will also aid us in discerning phases. This will provide us with a chronological bracket in which to place the fragments. All three fragments were discovered in Area A of Tel Dan, located on the southern slope of the mound. When the fragments were published, the exact nature of the archaeological context for each was only partially known. It is unfortunate that the conclusions of many regarding the dating of the fragments were based on this partial knowledge. Indeed, Chapman builds on the date for Fragment A proposed by Biran and Naveh and determines dates for Tel Dan's stratigraphy, rather than working the other way around in a far safer and more methodical way. Chapman's reversed approach even leads him to reformulate the chronology of Iron II pottery.1 The dangers of pursuing such radical conclusions, or even more mundane theories, before the archaeological context of an inscription is thoroughly investigated is to 'jump the gun', so to speak. This can easily lead to dis1. R.L. Chapman, 'The Dan Stele and the Chronology of Levantine Iron Age Stratigraphy', Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 13 (1993-94), pp. 23-29.

6


qualification of one's arguments. In this regard, the comments of Lemche and Thompson regarding the 'premature' appraisal of Fragment A by Biran and Naveh and its subsequent distorting effect find some relevance.2 In fairness to Biran and Naveh, they did certainly try to present a comprehensive analysis of the archaeological context for all three fragments. However, in the euphoria which surrounded the find of the fragments, it was not realized that the archaeological context of a fragment can only really be fully understood once the entire area of the find site has been excavated and the stratigraphy, pottery and structural remains thoroughly examined. Thus, much of the scholarship surrounding the Tel Dan fragments went ahead on shaky foundations. Halpern was the first to notice that the context in which Fragment A was found might not be as simple as had been first reported.3 Many of his observations are pertinent to the present study. His keen observations also set the tone for examining the context of Fragments B1 and B2 also, though his study predated the publication of those fragments and so could not deal with them. Although all three fragments were found in the same general area of Tel Dan, analysis must proceed by examining the context in which each individual fragment was found. Fragment A

Fragment A (Fig. 2.1) was discovered on 21 July 1993, during the course of regular seasonal excavations at the site of Tel Dan. The fragment was located in the base of a wall (W.5073) that formed the western perimeter of a complex of rooms (the location is marked 'A' in Fig. 2.2). Thus, the fragment was found in secondary usage. This wall also marked the eastern perimeter of a large paved piazza, approximately 400 m2 in area. These constructions were all part of a massive gate complex at the southern ramparts of Tel Dan, dated to Iron Age II. Along the southern perimeter of the piazza, at the eastern extremity, stood a gate. This is the outermost gate so far uncovered in this elaborate complex. The find site of Fragment A was a little over 5 m north of this

2. N.P. Lemche and T.L. Thompson, 'Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology', JSOT64 (1994), pp. 3-22 (5). 3. B. Halpern, 'The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations', BASOR 296 (1994), pp. 63-80.

2. Archaeological Context of the Fragments

1

Figure 2.1. Fragment A (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan).

Figure 2.2. Plan of Structure A at the Tel Dan gate complex, indicating the locations at which the Tel Dan fragments were uncovered (TelDan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem).

8


threshold at the base of the perimeter wall.4 At the northwest corner of the piazza, in the fortifications at the western perimeter, stood another gate. Inside this gate was an enclosed courtyard with a canopied platform, as well as a shrine to five massebot (sacred stones; sg. massebah). Legal proceedings undoubtedly took place in this enclosed area with the presiding administrator seated on the canopied platform. Along the western wall of this courtyard stood the main gate of Dan. A processional pavement led from this gate to the west before turning north and reaching the city at the top of the tel. Quite carelessly, Biran and Naveh contradicted their information about the exact location of the fragment when it was first published at the end of 1993. After carefully locating the fragment at the base of a wall (W.5073), the publishers surmised at the end of their article that Ahab was likely to have been the one who destroyed the original inscription and whose 'builders reused a piece of it in the paving of the piazza'.5 This confusion over whether the fragment was found at the base of a wall or as part of the paving of the piazza attracted much criticism from leading scholars.6 Any doubt was dispelled with the publication of Fragments B1 and B2 in which Biran and Naveh unequivocally stated that Fragment A was found 'in a wall built on the flagstone pavement of the square'.7 The location of Fragment A, however, was not the only point that attracted controversy. Biran and Naveh's dating of the fragment also unleashed criticism. According to Biran and Naveh, the layer of debris covering the wall in which Fragment A was found was datable to TiglathPileser Ill's conquest of northern Israel in 733 BCE.8 This provided a sound terminus ad quern for Fragment A. This point went undisputed and was borne out by both the stratigraphy and pottery. The terminus a quo given by Biran and Naveh was based on the pottery collected from the level beneath the wall and piazza, which was dated to the first half of the ninth

4. That is, Area A, sector P-3. 5. A. Biran and J. Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', IEJ43 (1993), pp. 81-98(98). 6. E.g. F.H. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', SJOT& (1994), pp. 3-19 (5); T.L. Thompson, 'Dissonance and Disconnections: Notes on the BYTDWD and HMLK.HDD Fragments from Tel Dan', SJOT 9 (1995), pp. 236-40 (237). 7. A. Biran and J. Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment', IEJ 45 (1995), pp. 1-18(2). 8. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 85.


9

century BCE.9 Biran and Naveh suggested that the original inscription had been broken in the mid-ninth century BCE in accordance with the latest pottery found in the lower level, thereby placing the terminus a quo in the first half of the ninth century. This, however, does not equate well with the stratigraphy of the area, a point noticed by Cryer10 and confirmed by later reports of the complex east of the piazza.11 Cryer's objection was based on the fact that the wall in which Fragment A was recycled must be younger than the paved piazza beneath it. Thus, the original Tel Dan Inscription, while in its primary display position, was contemporary with the piazza rather than the pottery found beneath it. The original inscription, then, cannot have been destroyed at the same time as the piazza was built. Rather, it was produced after the piazza was built because it was not used as a flagstone in the paving, but as a part of the younger wall. These observations by Cryer do indeed call into question the dating of the fragment's destruction proposed by Biran and Naveh. On the ceramic evidence of the piazza alone, the mid-ninth century BCE is certainly too early a date for the destruction and recycling of the Tel Dan fragments. However, the stratigraphy of the building to the piazza's east is slightly more complex than the equation drawn by Cryer. A further factor to take into consideration here is the fact that much Iron Age II pottery is not distinctive and, therefore, is only of limited value for determining chronologies.12 Although this point was noted by Lemche and Thompson, they do not hesitate to assign a date to the relevant stratum of Tel Dan in the late eighth century BCE.13 Although the relative ambiguity of some Iron II pottery is well known, in the case of Tel Dan there is significantly less ambiguity. The reason for this stems from the well-documented invasion of the Galilee by Tiglath-Pileser III in 733 BCE, which seems to have informed Lemche and Thompson's conclusion. Three sources attest to this invasion—namely, the destruction layers in Upper Galilean sites (such as Hazor and Tel Dan) and Transjordanian sites (such

9. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 86. 10. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', p. 5. 11. A. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques and the Hussot of Dan', IEJ49 (1999), pp. 43-54. 12. H. Weippert, Palastina in vorhellenistischer Zeit (Handbuch der Archâologie, Vorderasien, 2.1; Munich: Beck, 1992), pp. 510-17. 13. Lemche and Thompson, 'Did Biran Kill David?', p. 7.

10


as Ramoth-Gilead), the Assyrian texts of Tiglath-Pileser III14 and the biblical text of 2 Kgs 15.29. This invasion, evidenced at Tel Dan by a layer of debris over the gate complex, provides an anchor point for the pottery at Tel Dan.15 In addition, Halpern's initial observations (see below) and Biran's later excavations (see below also) highlight a number of phases in the strata beneath this layer of debris. The nature of these phases allows us to gain a cumulative picture of the structural development at Dan's gate. The pottery associated with these phases, therefore, can be accurately placed in a chronological order according to the order in which their associated structures were built. This order, in turn, can be confirmed by the geopolitical climate of their respective eras, known from textual sources. This chronological progression of construction phases is augmented by Finkelstein's recent redating of the Iron I-II pottery assemblages to a 'low chronology'.16 The construction phases in question at Tel Dan date to the very end of the period which Finkelstein wishes to readjust and are, therefore, relatively unaffected by his chronological shift. Only some slight readjustment of the dates downward is necessary with regards to these particular construction phases at Dan's gates. Thus, there is very little, if any, ambiguity about the pottery assemblage from Area A of Tel Dan.17 Noll also realized this important factor of Finkelstein's chronological adjustment.18 However, his treatment of the archaeological context for the Tel Dan fragments preceded Biran's more detailed report of the construction phases evident in the structure to the piazza's immediate east. As such, Noll's dating for the archaeological context of the fragments remained statically dependent on Biran and Naveh's report of the archaeological

14. Most notable among the texts are Layard 29b and III R 10,2 from Nimrud. For further discussion, see J.K. J. Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and SyriaPalestine (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 1995), pp. 167-82. 15. That this destruction layer is not attributable to the earthquake of the mid-eighth century BCE (see Amos 1.1) is demonstrated by the fact that only the gate complex at Dan appears to have been damaged. This is consistent with military attack rather than natural disaster. 16. I. Finkelstein, 'The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View', Levant 28 (1996), pp. 177-87. 17. Biran has published some of the pottery found from these phases in 'Two Bronze Plaques', Figs. 4, 7 and 11. 18. K.L. Noll, 'The God Who is Among the Danites', JSOT80 (1998), pp. 3-23 (46, 19-20).


11

context as described in the initial publications of the fragments. The thrust of his argument, however, was certainly in the right direction. Halpern drew attention to the differing natures of the various walls abutting the paved piazza, noting that there was 'no direct stratigraphie connection between the wall into which the fragment [Fragment A] was integrated and the inner gate structure itself,19 As Halpern observed, the wall in which Fragment A was used (W.5073) appears to have been constructed differently from those nearby. This wall measured c. 2.5 m in thickness and was mostly composed of large stones. In contrast, the more northerly portions of this same wall are considerably thinner, measuring c. 1 m in thickness, and are composed of much smaller stones. The same observations may be made for an adjoining wall that lies perpendicular to the northern extremity of this first wall. This perpendicular wall lies c. 4 m south of the main city wall. Thus, Halpern was correct in his assertion that these thinner portions of the building on the piazza's eastern edge were certainly not meant to be fortifications. They are far too weak to have served such a purpose. As such, they cannot have been on the edge of the gate complex. Indeed, unless the gap between the main city wall and the building complex on the piazza's perimeter was blocked off somehow, the entire gate complex would have been rendered useless for both defense and control of traffic. Also, the wall with Fragment A in it differed from most nearby walls in its essential composition. By virtue of these facts, Halpern correctly concluded that there were 'at least two, and possibly several, stages in the construction of the structure as a whole'.20 Following publication of all the Tel Dan fragments, further excavation of the building complex to the piazza's east was undertaken and a brief report was published in Israel Exploration Journal by Biran.21 The excavations revealed that this building complex had undergone three distinct building phases. The earliest phase consisted of a large rectangular room (5 x 10.5 m) with a smaller room on the east ( 3 > < 5 m).22 The pottery found on the floor of this structure dated to the first quarter of the ninth 19. Halpern, 'The Stela from Dan', pp. 68-69. In his article, Halpern has mistakenly labelled the outermost gate as the 'inner gate'. This confusion undoubtedly stems from the fact that the 'main gate' was further inside the complex, closer to the city. Halpern seems to have understood the 'main gate' as being the outermost gate. This, however, is not the case. 20. Halpern, 'The Stela from Dan', p. 69. 21. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques'. 22. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', pp. 43-45, esp. Fig. 3.

12


century BCE, while the pottery beneath the floor was dated to the end of the tenth century BCE.23 If we take Finkelstein's redating of Iron I strata, we may bring these dates down slightly, so that the pottery on the floor of the structure can be dated to the mid-ninth century BCE. This structure, termed 'Structure C', is therefore datable to approximately the second quarter of the ninth century BCE, contemporary with the Omride Dynasty.24 On the ceramic evidence, then, this structure is clearly earlier than the paved piazza to the west. Biran suggested that the simple building in this phase may have been used as a defensive outpost,25 a likely scenario since this structure predates most of the gate complex in Area A. The second phase of building saw the complex renovated and enlarged. The western wall of the complex (W.5073) was extended 7 m northwards during this phase. This extension was the thinner wall noticed by Halpern. The complex itself consisted of three distinct chambers, at least one of which had a paved floor. The pottery gleaned from this level dated to the second half of the ninth century BCE,26 making it contemporary with the paved piazza to the west. A scaraboid seal dated to the ninth century was also found in one of the rooms,27 augmenting the date for this second phase, termed 'Structure B'. Finkelstein's low chronology has virtually no bearing on this date. We may assume, therefore, that Structure B, and the paved piazza west of it belong to the same construction phase, begun in the mid-ninth century BCE at the earliest. Thus, this phase may date to the end of the Omride era or the beginning of Hazael's reign. The portion of the western wall in which Fragment A was located was not built until the third and final phase of building. In this phase, the western wall was extended southwards and it was in this southward extension of the wall that Fragment A was used as building material. This phase is termed 'Structure A'. Cryer's observation that the stone's solid composition and flat configuration led to its usage as a building material is quite pertinent,28 particularly as the fragment was used as one of the base stones of the wall. His statement that the wall in which Fragment A was 23. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', p. 46, Fig. 4. 24. Whether or not the construction can actually be attributed to the Omride Dynasty is another question altogether. It is, in fact, quite doubtful that it can. This question, however, will be left for Chapter 7. 25. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', p. 45. 26. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', pp. 45-48, esp. Fig. 7. 27. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', pp. 47, 49, esp. Fig. 8. 28. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', p. 5.


13

found is younger than the piazza adjacent to it, is correct only for this extended portion of the wall built in the third phase of construction. The pottery from this level dates to the first half of the eighth century BCE,29 a date unaffected by Finkelstein's low chronology. This means that the original inscription of which Fragment A was a part was broken just prior to this phase of construction, some time at the end of the ninth century BCE or, more probably, the beginning of the eighth century BCE. We may surmise, therefore, that the original inscription was produced sometime after the construction of Structure B and the paved piazza, which occurred early in the second half of the ninth century BCE, but before the third construction phase, represented by Structure A, in the early eighth century BCE. The good condition in which Fragment A was found suggests that the original inscription was destroyed before much time had passed and before the stone had weathered any great deal. Thus, from the archaeological context and the state of preservation of Fragment A, we may surmise that the original inscription was produced towards the end of this chronological bracket, and broken down not long after its manufacture. Fragment Bl Fragment Bl (Fig. 2.3) was found on 20 June 1994, during excavations along the base of Dan's Iron Age wall. After a Roman clay pipe from a later stratum had been removed from this area, a small paved platform was found, 4.5 x 2.5 m in dimension. This platform had served as a shrine to three massebot found on the northern edge of the platform. The three massebot were arranged along this edge from left to right, largest to smallest. Directly in front of the largest massebot which stood 117 cm tall, was a flat base on which a decorated capital stood. A basalt bowl with traces of fire inside it was found on this capital. Traces of ash around the stones confirmed the platform's use as a cultic shrine at which offerings were made. This small shrine was built over debris dated to Tiglath-Pileser Ill's conquest of northern Israel in 733 BCE. This debris also covered Structure A, which represented the third phase of construction of the complex on the eastern side of the paved piazza. In the course of clearing this debris, Fragment B1 was discovered approximately 2 m south of the shrine's platform (location 'Bl' in Fig. 2.2). The fact that Fragment Bl was found in this debris suggests that it came from a later context than that of Fragment A, 29. Biran, 'Two Bronze Plaques', pp. 50-51, esp. Fig. 11.

14


which had been covered by this debris some 13m to the southwest. However, this view had to be altered with the discovery of Fragment B2 just ten days later.

Figure 2.3. Fragment Bl (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan).

Fragment B2 As excavations along the base of the Iron Age city wall continued eastward, five massebot were uncovered at the base of the wall. A probe beneath the two easternmost massebot revealed that they had been laid prior to the paving of the area with flagstones. The base of the massebot was approximately 40 cm below the level of this pavement. The pottery gleaned from beneath the flagstones dated to the end of the ninth century BCE and the beginning of the eighth century BCE. Thus, this pavement at the base of the wall, to the north and east of Structure A, was constructed in the early eighth century BCE, probably during the Israelite revival under Jehoash and his son, Jeroboam II. We may reasonably surmise, therefore, that this area was paved at the same time that Structure A was built. Therefore, this area to the north and east of Structure A is to be dated slightly later than the paved piazza west of Structure A. The piazza was contemporary with Structure B (early second half of the ninth century BCE), while the pavement along the city wall was contemporary with Structure A (early eighth century BCE). On 30 June 1994, Fragment B2 (Fig. 2.4) was discovered as a constituent part of this pavement, contemporary with Structure A. The builders of


15

this pavement had used Fragment B2 as a flagstone where the pavement met the city wall—approximately 8 m north of where Fragment B1 had been found, and just east of the shrine platform dated to after 733 BC (location'B2' in Fig. 2.2). The fact that Fragment B2 was found in this paved area makes it contemporary with Fragment A, as both these fragments were recycled as building material during the same phase of construction in the early eighth century BCE. Thus, both fragments had been on monumental display just prior to this construction phase.

Figure 2.4. Fragment B2 (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan).

Synthesis of the Archaeological Data Although Fragment Bl was found in a later context than the other two fragments, we have no choice but to see it as a contemporary of these two other fragments. The reason for this is the unequivocal join between Fragment B1 and Fragment B2. These two fragments fit together so closely and the text on their surfaces match so well that there is absolutely no doubt that they form an integral unit (Fig. 2.5). Since Fragment B2 has the earlier provenance, we must amend our dating for Fragment B1 to match that of Fragment B2. Therefore, the archaeological context in which Fragment B1 was found must be considered tertiary, whereas Fragment A and Fragment B2 were found in secondary contexts. We do not, therefore, know how Fragment B1 was used in its secondary situation. It most probably was recycled as part of a structure that was destroyed in TiglathPileser Ill's invasion.

16


Figure 2.5. Fragment B, comprised of Fragment Bl (top) and Fragment B 2 (bottom) joined together (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan).

On the basis of this synchronism, we can date the fracturing of all three fragments to the early eighth century BCE. This suggests that there is some relation between all three fragments, even if it is only chronological in nature. In other words, on the basis of the archaeological evidence, we can say with some degree of certainty that all three fragments were broken at the same time. The subsequent recycling of Fragment A and Fragment B2 as building matter should be dated to the revival experienced in Israel during the reigns of Jehoash (c. 798-782 BCE) and Jeroboam II (c. 782753 BCE).30 The pottery assemblage found in the levels of this construction phase spanning the first half of the eighth century BCE means we should assign this construction phase to the reign of Jehoash (c. 798-782 BCE). We can also surmise that Fragment B1 was also recycled in some way during this construction phase, though the structure in which it was used has not been preserved. This synchronic parallel between all the fragments strengthens the connection between them. Only Fragments B1 and B2 (collectively 'Fragment B') are clearly from the same inscription by virtue of

30. As calculated by Thiele, Jeroboam II shared an 11-year co-regency with his father, Jehoash, from c. 793 BCE until his coronation as sole ruler in c. 782 BCE. See E.R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rev. edn, 1983), pp. 113, 116.


17

the join along a common fracture line. The archaeological context does not, however, inform us as to whether Fragment A was also part of that same inscription. What is clear, though, is that all three fragments are from the same era.

Chapter 3 EPIGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS

Introductory Remarks

In the case of the Tel Dan fragments, epigraphical analysis is of paramount importance. The issue of whether we have parts of one or two inscriptions must be clarified if we are to have any hope of a sound historical appraisal. A comprehensive epigraphic analysis of what we actually have will do much to further our chances of assigning at least a modicum of meaning to the fragments. In this part of my analysis, I will make close and careful observations regarding the physical fragments themselves, and the nature of the individual incised strokes, and so decipher each individual grapheme. Since there is no doubt that Fragments B1 and B2 make up an integral unit, they will be dealt with collectively as 'Fragment B'. Fragment A: Physical Characteristics and the State of Preservation

Fragment A is made of basalt stone local to the area of Tel Dan. This was confirmed by a mineral analysis conducted by Ariel Heimann very soon after its discovery.1 Tel Dan itself lies barely a kilometre from the edge of a belt of Neocene-Quaternary basalt, a volcanic rock that makes up most of the regions of the Golan and the eastern Galilee.2 The actual mound of Tel Dan is located beside the springs of 'En Leshem and 'En Dan on the eastern bank of Nahal Dan, the main source of the Jordan River. The basalt, being at such close proximity and possessing good durability, was a natural choice for use in an inscription. The right-hand edge of Fragment A is the only original edge of the inscription still preserved. The other edges represent breakages of the 1. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 84. 2. For a geophysical map of the area, see J.B. Pritchard (éd.), The Times Concise Atlas of the Bible (London: Times Books, 1991), p. 36.

3. Epigraphical Analysis

19

stone. This original edge, however, has undergone some slight erosion so that it has dulled and become somewhat rounded. There are also clear signs of scarification along the edge. The random nature of these lacerations suggests that they were sustained during either breakage of the original inscription, transportation, or simply as a result of wear and tear while on display or in secondary usage. A portion of the original side of the inscription has survived along this particular edge of Fragment A. Here, the stone has been obviously wrought smooth, though the surface is punctuated by abrasions and numerous pock marks. The surface on which the writing is displayed is also smooth. A very slight convex curvature of the written face is detectable when the fragment is viewed from the side. It is difficult to say whether this curvature along the face of the inscription was intentional since it is of such subtlety. The smoothness of both the written surface and the right-hand side prompts the logical conclusion that the original inscription was professionally fashioned and smoothed. Of itself, this implies the inscription was of quite some significance. The fashioned smoothness of the fragment's right-hand side is also critical for reconstructing the original appearance of the inscription and how it was displayed. There are two possible reasons for why the side was smoothed: 1.

2.

Structural—the inscription was intended to be displayed in a wall. Thus, the stone on which the inscription appeared had to be uniformly shaped to sit evenly as an ashlar block within the structure of a wall; or Aesthetic—the inscription was intended to be a free-standing stele, much like that of the Mesha Stele from Dhlbân in Moab. As such, the stone had to be groomed in order to be aesthetically pleasing from all angles.3 To this end, not just the written face and right-hand side would have been smoothed, but all sides, including the bottom.4

In order to assess which of these two possibilities is the more probable, we must consider the stone's state of wear, as well as the wider archae3. Unlike the Mesha Stele, however, Fragment A does not have a rim bordering the written surface. 4. The bottom face would have rested on the ground or on a plinth of some sort. Despite not being visible, it would presumably have been smoothed for both structural and aesthetic reasons. Compare the structure of the Mesha Stele.

20


ological context in which it was found. Differing patterns of erosion on the extant faces may betray different levels of exposure to weather and thus hint at how the stone was originally displayed. However, since the fragment was not found in its original display position, we must factor in the effects of breakage, movement and repositioning to the base of the eastern piazza wall where it was uncovered. First, the entire vertical length along the right-hand side of Fragment A displays clear signs of gradual and smooth erosion. This belt of erosion extends from the right-hand edge through to the approximate position of the fourth letter of each line, but grows wider towards the bottom of the inscription (see Fig. 3.1). Since there is a consistency to the deteriorated area, it must be concluded that it is the result of natural weathering due to consistent exposure to the elements.

Figure 3.1. Facsimile of Fragment A highlighting area of erosion on the right side of the written surface(drawn by Ada Yardeni).

The oddity of this belt of erosion is that it is the only sign of consistent natural weathering on the written surface of Fragment A. Similar areas of erosion appear in other places across the written surface of Fragment A, but they are so much smaller in size that we can only call them patches. Also, the depth of erosion in most of these patches is far less than that of


21

the large eroded belt on the right-hand side of the fragment. The belt of erosion is also more regular than the other smaller patches of erosion. This means that this narrow area along the edge of the fragment was the only part of the written surface exposed to the elements. Schniedewind observes that this edge appears to narrow at the top of the fragment, suggesting that the original whole inscription was rounded at the top in a similar way to the Mesha Stele.5 However, a closer examination of the stone at this point merely shows that there has been slightly more erosion of the edge in this upper portion than in the lower portions. There is, in fact, no sign that the edge was deliberately rounded. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that the original inscription was rounded at the top. It is just that the portion of the inscription represented by Fragment A shows no signs of this. The incisions making the letters were quite stylistically done. A very close analysis of them reveals that the actual channels of incision are, for the vast majority, quite smooth and usually rounded (see Fig. 3.2). For Biran, this prompted the response that the engraving instrument, which we will label a 'chisel', had a round edge,6 presumably like the end of a matchstick. However, such an instrument would be most curious since chisels and other such engraving tools are made with sharp edges to promote cutting. A round-edged chisel or 'stylus', as Biran terms it, is not an effective cutting tool, and the expert finish of the inscription suggests that fine quality tools were used. As such, the nib of the chisel was likely to have had a sharp edge, much like a flat-bladed screwdriver. Indeed, in experiments conducted by the author, such a tool inevitably produced incisions on stone that were comparable to those on Fragment A. Biran also deduces that the engraving tool was probably made of iron.7 Certainly the material could not have been flint or stone since such materials are not given to being shaped into long, thin tools which are strong enough to withstand hammering and carving into stone.8 Tel Dan definitely

5. W.M. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt', BASOR 302 (1996), pp. 75-90 (78); W.M. Schniedewind and B. Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction of the Name of Haza'el's Father in the Tel Dan Inscription', IEJ 51.1(2001), pp. 88-91(88-89). 6. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 85. 7. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 85. 8. Knives made of flint, although fitting the description of being a long, thin tool, were not used to carve or chisel stylistic incisions into stone.

22


Figure 3.2. Paradigmatic cross section of the written surface showing the general roundness of incisions.

had a thriving metal industry, as is evidenced by the discovery of numerous crucibles and tuyeres in Stratum IV of Area B, datable to the middle or late tenth century.9 However, no iron slag was found in these metalworking installations.10 Yet, many iron implements, such as sickles, knives and nails were found throughout Strata III, II and I, dating from the ninth to the sixth centuries BCE,1' making Biran's suggestion quite plausible indeed. The depth of the incisions never really exceeds 2-3 mm, but it varies according to the relative positioning of the incision on the stone. Those incisions made along the belt of erosion on the right-hand side of the written surface are shallower than elsewhere. Thus, they have the appearance of being flatter and having softer edges. In addition to determining the exact nature of the original inscription and how it was displayed, we must address the claims of forgery labelled

9. A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), pp. 14757. Biran dates these fixtures to the early tenth century BCE. I have adjusted this date downwards in light of the arguments proposed for a low chronology by Finkelstein in The Archaeology of the United Monarchy'. 10. Thanks go to Sariel Shalev of the Weizmann Institute of Science, who conducted mineral analyses of the metal slags found at these installations, and who provided this information. 11. Thanks go to David Ilan of Tel Aviv University for this information.


23

against the fragments by Cryer.12 Since the argument for this claim rests on evidence from the surfaces exposed in breakage, we will need to examine these surfaces as closely as the written surface. Fragment A: Epigraphical Analysis Mode and Method of Engraving Every inscribed stroke provides vital information on how the inscription was engraved onto the stone. A shallow point at the extremity of an incision is characteristic of the point at which the engraver started to chisel that stroke. Similarly, a deep point at the other extremity of an incision is characteristic of the point at which the engraver finished incising that stroke. This theory has been borne out by numerous experiments conducted by the author.13 In Line 1 all the inscribed strokes display clear shallow points at the lowest extremities of the stems,14 and significantly deeper points at the topmost extremities of the letters (see Fig. 3.3). Evidently, then, the engraver of the inscription incised the letter strokes in an upward direction (see Fig. 3.4). Due to the regularity of this directional information, we can surmise that the engraver was restricted to this upward direction for reasons of comfort and control during engraving.

12. The first charges of forgery were made against Fragment A by G. Garbini in 'L'iscrizione aramaica di Tel Dan\Atti della Accademia nazionale deiLincei, Scienze morali, storiche efolologiche, rendiconti 9.5.3 (1994), pp. 461-71. Cryer then raised questions as to the authenticity of Fragment A in his article, 'On the Recently Discovered "House of David" Inscription', though he stated that he did not believe the fragment was a forgery. However, at some stage after the publication of Fragment B, Cryer changed his opinion and regarded all three fragments as forgeries. Cryer privately communicated to me the nature of the evidence that led him to this conclusion. This evidence will be dealt with below. I am indebted to Cryer for supplying this information. 13. The author conducted trials in which strokes of various shapes were chiselled onto stone surfaces of varying types from rough, unhewn sandstone to smooth slabs of concrete. The chisel was also held with many different grips. Invariably, the starting point of each incision made was notably shallow, while the end point was characterized by a deep indentation. 14. This is true even after factoring in the patch of erosion in this area of the inscribed surface.

24


Figure 3.3. Deep and shallow points on the incisions indicating the starting point and direction of engravingfor the individual letter strokes (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan [detail]).

Figure 3.4. Illustration showing the direction in which individual letter strokes were inscribed (detail from facsimile drawn by Ada Yardeni).

The direction of carving is very important if we are to calculate where the engraver was positioned in relation to the stone when he carved the inscription. Knowing this piece of information will allow us to compare the mode and method of engraving on the fragments and so aid us in determining whether a relationship exists between Fragment A and Fragment B. The natural posture for a craftsman is to grip the hammer with his dominant hand. Thus, a right-handed craftsman would hold the hammer with his right hand and the chisel with his left; a left-handed craftsman would have the opposite grip. The grip does not pose any restrictions for carving vertical strokes because the engraver can just as easily carve upwards as downwards. All that is needed is a change in the angle at which the chisel is held. For downward strokes, the chisel is angled towards the body, while for upward strokes, the chisel is angled away from the body. Both postures are equally comfortable and afford the same amount of con-


25

trol during engraving because neither posture requires one arm to be stretched across the other. However, for horizontal strokes, the engraver is very much restricted in the direction in which he carves. An engraver will not naturally carve a stroke with a grip that requires his arms to be crossed while he swings the hammer and positions the chisel. Thus, a right-handed craftsman will naturally carve horizontal strokes from right to left, while a left-handed craftsman will naturally carve from left to right. We expect, then, to find strokes viewed by the engraver as horizontal to be carved in essentially one direction, while vertical strokes to be carved in either of two directions (up or down). Assuming the engraver was righthanded,15 the directional regularity of the letters in Line 1 allows us to postulate that the engraver was positioned to the left of the inscription. This means that the strokes which we view as vertical when reading the text would have been seen as horizontal by the engraver positioned at the left edge of the inscription. When we examine the horizontal stroke on the head of the res h in Line 1, we find a deepening at the extreme right. The tell-tale sign of an actual deep finishing point, however, has been carved over by the stem of the resh, but the evidence nevertheless points to the stroke having been carved from left to right. Again, assuming the engraver was right-handed, it would be extremely difficult to have carved these letters while positioned at the bottom edge of the inscription, which is the most natural position for reading the inscription. Indeed, this would require the engraver's arms to have been crossed, greatly diminishing both precision of chiselling and control of the hammer. As such, we would not expect the letters to have been carved as neatly as they have been. Furthermore, since the stem of the resh was evidently the final stroke of the letter chiselled, we have further support for advocating the engraver's position at the left edge of the inscription. The 'nose' of the figure resh (the leftmost apex) appears to have been the starting point for carving the letter. Thus, both strokes forming the 'head' of the letter emanate from this point out towards their respective deep finishing points along the stem, which was evidently the last stroke of the letter engraved. Thus, we observe the tendency to start engraving letters from the leftmost strokes and

15. This assumption has been made purely on the basis of probability. In our day, the great majority of people are right-handed. In the text of Judg. 3, Ehud is noted as a left-handed man in a way that suggests that left-handedness was uncommon. Therefore, we can assume that in antiquity, just as many, if not more, people were right-handed.

26


move towards the right. This would, indeed, be the most natural order of carving the letters if the engraver was situated along the left edge of the inscription. This particular position of the engraver in relation to the stone also tells us that the inscription was certainly written and engraved prior to being placed in its final display position, not afterwards. Indeed, it overwhelmingly points to a scenario in which the stone of the inscription was laid flat with the written surface facing upwards as the craftsman engraved the letters. It is fair to presume that the inscription was eventually displayed with the written surface perpendicular to the ground.16 If the inscription had actually been in this display position when the letters were being carved, we would expect different data in regards to the direction of carving and the order of strokes carved.17 A further implication of knowing the position of the engraver is that the text of the inscription must have been chalked or marked out before any chisel was put to the stone. It is an implausible suggestion that the engraver carved the inscription straight onto the stone without some sort of guide or stencil. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the engraver composing the inscription while carving it from the stone's left edge—a position that would not afford him readability. Rather, the fact that the engraver seems to have worked from a flanking edge of the inscriptions means that he need not have been literate at all. Since literacy was very limited in antiquity,18 it is plausible that a scribe, specially commissioned with the composition of the inscription, chalked the text onto the stone. The engraver would then have traced out with a chisel what to him were not necessarily legible letters, but simply strokes and curves marked on a stone. 16. No other monumental lapidary inscriptions seem to have been displayed in any other way. 17. E.g., we would probably expect the vertical strokes to have been generally carved in a downward direction as opposed to upwards. We would also expect horizontal strokes to have been carved from right to left, as opposed to left to right. 18. Harris estimates that only 10 per cent of the Athenian population in the fifthfourth centuries BCE were literate and that this was an exceptionally high rate because of the nature of Athenian society. See W.V. Harris, A ncient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 114. We expect that the rate in other earlier societies was much less. See also D.W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach (JSOTSup, 155; The Social World of Biblical Antiquity, 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991); I.M. Young, 'Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part I', PT48 (1998), pp. 239-53; idem, 'Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part IF, FT 48 (1998), pp. 408-22.


27

Significance of the Slope of Each Textual Line An analysis of the slope of each textual line in Fragment A bears this theory out. One of the peculiarities of Fragment A is that the first few lines of text appear to slope considerably down towards the left-hand side. However, one notices the lines becoming gradually flatter and more level with the horizontal towards the end of the inscription. Table 3.1 lists the average slope of each line in comparison to the horizontal. The axis is the imaginary line from which each letter is hung, starting at the visible beginning of each line as we have it and taking the right edge of the fragment as being vertical. Since the beginning of Line 1 and Line 2 are no longer extant, the slope of these two lines may appear to be statistically misleading. However, comparison with the same portion of more complete lines beneath these two lines indicates that this portion of each line actually represents the average slope of the line, thus validating their figures. This does, however, mean that the slopes of the last two lines may be statistically misleading since the portion of the slope representing the average is no longer extant on them. Hence, they are shaded in Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Slope of each line in Fragment A 19 Fragment A

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Line 6 Line 7 Line 8 Line 9 Line 10 Line 1 1 Line 12 Line 13

Degrees: + above the horizontal — below the horizontal -11+° -10°+ -8° -5° -4° -3° -2° 0° 0° 0° 0° +2° +4°

19. These figures are the average angles of the lines between their extant starting and finishing points. It should be noted that there are variations of angles within each line. For example, Line 3 starts seemingly straight but then slants down after the first word, IO2H. Also, in Line 5, the slope of the word "Tin is straighter than every other word in that line.

28


These figures demonstrate the very real trend of the lines coming closer to the horizontal further down the inscription, with the possibility that they begin to slope upwards in the last two lines of the fragment.20 When this information is combined with that of the angles of each incision of each letter, a picture emerges of the letters being gradually rotated clockwise throughout the inscription. That is, after factoring in the slope of each line of text, the letters which appear in the top portions of Fragment A have a slight leftward slant, but in the bottom portions, they have straightened up. Since the data point to the engraver being positioned at the left edge of the inscription during carving, it is unlikely that the slanted lines and letters in the top part of Fragment A are attributable to the process of engraving. First, we have established that it is highly unlikely the engraver wrote the original text as he engraved it since his stance did not afford readability and comprehension of the text. Second, even if the engraver could have produced the original inscription from this position, no posture could have made him slant the lines as they have been. As such, if the slanted lines and letters are attributable to the craftsman during engraving, then it was a purely random force that exerted itself on him which caused this result. However, the figures of the line slants indicate that it was not a random factor at work here—there is a certifiable trend for the lines to become more horizontal, and as such, there must have been a consistent factor behind it. As has been suggested, it is likely that the text of the inscription was originally chalked onto the writing surface and subsequently etched out by an engraver. With this suggestion, we can posit a consistent factor as a cause of the slanted lines and letters. Writing is logically carried out in one posture, namely, one that not only allows the scribe to write text, but also to be able to read what he is writing. We have confirmed that the stone of the inscription was originally laid flat with the reverse side on the ground. Therefore, the scribe must have been positioned at the bottom edge of the inscription when he wrote it, and would have been limited to this spot in order to be able to write and read the text. Since the extant Line 1 is almost certainly not the first line of the original inscription (see discussion of Line 1 below), the scribe must have written at least one or two lines of text above the extant Line 1. Also, the extant Line 13 is almost certainly not

20. Since the slopes of Line 12 and Line 13 are statistically ambiguous, this remains only a possibility that cannot be confirmed.


29

the final line of the original inscription.21 Thus, the original inscription would have stood taller, and with more lines of text, than the current sample from Fragment A. With these considerations, we can then note that the lines slope away to the left in a way that is consistent with writing from right to left with an outstretched arm and without the aid of ruled lines. In other words, it appears that the scribe who first chalked the inscription onto the stone had to stretch his arm forward in order to write the upper portions of the original text, thus limiting his freedom and ease of movement. With this posture and the lack of marked lines to keep the text level, the text naturally sloped downwards to the left. This is also evidenced by the somewhat cramped nature of the letters in these upper portions of Fragment A, and the gradual improvement of general neatness towards the bottom of the fragment. This is consistent with a gradual freeing of movement and improved precision in writing as the arm is stretched less and brought closer towards the body further down the inscription. In short, the steadiness of the hand increases and less volatility is likely in the script. We should ask whether any other factors could have caused the improvement in the inscription's neatness. However, when we do, we find no theory offering a consistent explanation for the trend visible on Fragment A. It is unlikely that the disparities in both line slopes and letter neatness are the result of multiple hands; that is, that more than one scribe chalked the text onto the stone. If this had been the case, we would expect a more abrupt change in the appearance of the letters since there would be one, or possibly more, definite transition points. However, as the appearance of the letters changes gradually throughout the inscription, oscillating at times between steep and flat but generally becoming flatter towards the end, the theory of posture is a more likely explanation. It could perhaps be argued that the difference in multiple hands was essentially eradicated by the conventions of one engraver. However, the consistent improvement in line slopes still indicates that one hand is behind the writing of the text, and that one consistent, enduring and natural force resulted in the steady improvement of scribal quality. Similarly, this last 21. The clean breakage at the bottom of Fragment A suggests that the piece of stone which was broken here (and which is no longer extant), was heavy in weight. As such, we can expect this piece to have had numerous lines of text. The content of Line 13 also suggests that there was considerably more text after it. This will be discussed at a later point.

30


factor undermines any suggestion that the scribe was initially careless with the straightness of his lines but was more careful in the lower lines of the text. In fact, all things being equal, a scribe is more likely to become more careless rather than more cautious throughout the writing of a text. Having gleaned such information about the writing and carving of the inscription, we must also mention the limitations of our evidence, though these are of minor consequence. Though we can calculate where the engraver stood, the direction and order of the strokes in which he carved, and in what position the stone was during carving, we have no way of telling whether the engraver started carving the top lines of the inscription first, or the bottom lines. As has been noted, to an engraver, the order in which the figures and lines of text are carved is not dependent upon how the text is read; it is not the written text that matters, but the incising of individual strokes. Thus, there would have been no restriction as to which lines of text were to be carved first and which last. Since close examination of the carved strokes has revealed that the engraver worked individual letters from left to right, it is only reasonable to assume that entire rows of text were worked from left to right also (or, from the engraver's point of view, from bottom to top). However, we have no way of knowing whether the lines of text were carved in their rows, or whether individual letters on successive lines were carved. Neither do we know whether the engraver worked from Line 1 down to Line 13, or in the opposite direction, or in a completely random order. Dimensions of the Original Inscription We can now tie together all the discernible data in an attempt to calculate the dimensions of the original inscription. Bearing in mind that the stone lay flat during the writing and engraving processes, it must be noted that the decided slant in the first few extant lines tapers off at approximately Line 8. In accord with the theory of the scribe's posture offered above, it can be deduced that at Line 8 of Fragment A, the scribe's arm was not overstretched, hence the noted improvement in the fragment's general neatness. However, for the lines above Line 8, the scribe's arm appears to have been extended, quite probably with the scribe himself leaning forward over the stone. Assuming that the scribe's arm was between 60-70 cm long,22 we can surmise that Line 8 of Fragment A was at least 60-70 cm 22. This is the average length of a modern man's arm. Ancient people were slightly smaller in size than the average person today, so the calculation is probably closer to 60 cm than 70 cm. Skeletal remains found at various sites in the Mediterranean basin


31

above the original bottom edge of the whole inscription.23 We can average this out to 65 cm. Furthermore, there is a length of 15 cm of the written surface above Line 8 that can be added to this approximate length. However, the newly exposed parts of the stone indicate that Line 1 of Fragment A was not the uppermost line of the original inscription. Thus, we may confidently add the extra 5 cm of the fragment's height above Line 1 to our estimations. These extra 20 cm yield us a minimum approximate height of 85 cm. Yet, we must also factor in the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that the scribe did not only stretch his hand out over the stone, but that he also leaned part of his body over the stone as he wrote. It would be peculiar if the scribe could have rectified the line slopes and neatness of his letters by just leaning forward a little and yet failed to do so. As such, he almost certainly leaned part of his body forward over the stone as he wrote (see Fig. 3.5). This would add a considerable amount to the length of stone. I propose adding a further 25 cm to the height of Line 8 in addition to the 65 cm already calculated above. These extra 25 cm are in accordance with the results of simple experimentation with this posture.24 Thus, I posit Line 8 being approximately 90 cm above the bottom edge of the inscription. This gives us 110 cm as the approximate minimum height of the original inscription stone when it stood in tact. Since neither Fragment A nor Fragment B1 show any trace of the inscription's original top edge, there is no way of suggesting a maximum height for the inscription.

attest that the average adult male was approximately 165 cm tall, factoring in shrinkage. See, e.g., U. Gaus, V. Von Grave and M. Kerschner, 'Milet 1990: Vorbericht iiber die Arbeiten des Jahres 1990', IstMitt+++++++++++++++++++++ 23. This, of course, reasonably assumes that the bottom edge was very close to, or touching, the scribe's body. 24. The author conducted a very simple experiment in which the arm was extended fully forward (with a pencil in hand) and the body leaned forward over a writing surface, with the writing surface being at the level of the waist. The distance was then measured between the edge of the writing surface at the waist and the point on the writing surface over which the shoulder of the extended arm was situated. This yielded a result of 28 cm. This was then rounded down to the nearest significant integer on the basis that human remains from the Iron Age indicate that adult males were of smaller and shorter build than adult males today.

32


Figure 3.5. Illustrations demonstrating the scribe's outstretched arm and forwardleaning posture during plotting of the upper portions of the text (left) and the more comfortable posture attained during plotting of the lower portions of text onto the inscription surface (right).

It must be noted, however, that this estimation is for the height of the stone itself—not the area of actual written text. We must consider the possibility that text did not cover the full length of the stone. The Mesha Stele, which measures a comparable 115 cm in height, originally had a base or plinth carved into the stone as a relief.25 A similar convention may have been employed for the Tel Dan Inscription. Similarly, we must also mention the possibility of pictorial reliefs carved into the stone either above, below, or to the side of the text. Though nothing of the sort has survived among the fragments, we have neither the uppermost, lowermost, or leftmost portions of the original inscription. This fact, coupled with the relatively small sample of the whole inscription that has survived means we must not discount this possibility. The plausibility of such pictorial reliefs is demonstrated by other inscriptions, such as the stele of Kilamuwa and the Nerab Stelae. As we turn to the task of deriving an approximate width for the inscription we find that none of the three fragments discovered thus far preserves the original left edge of the inscription. However, we can make certain observations about the individual engraved strokes and the posture of the engraver to arrive at an estimate.

25. This relief base was destroyed when the Mesha Stele was sabotaged in the nineteenth century. For an account of the drama, see A. Lemaire, ' "House of David" Restored in Moabite Inscription', BARev20.3 (1994), pp. 30-37 (31-34). The base has, however, been reconstructed for display purposes. The inscription is currently kept at the Louvre Museum in Paris.


33

First, as was noted previously, the individual letter strokes point towards the engraver having been situated along the++++++++++++++++++++++ will see that this position is further confirmed by the evidence of all the other letters on Fragment A, including those on the rightmost edge of the fragment. Thus, taking the most likely view that the engraver was righthanded, the strokes demonstrate that the engraver's position allowed him to carve the letters on the far side of the inscription (along the right edge) with relative ease and precision. As such, the inscription's width at the latitudes represented by Fragment A was no more than 105 cm across, in keeping with the results of a posture extended fully forward, as was seen in discussion of the scribe's posture. However, it was noted that the scribe demonstrated some difficulty in writing the text of the inscription due to this posture. Whereas a scribe is limited to one position in relation to the stone, namely, a position that affords readability, an engraver is free to move about the stone. He is not limited to a position that affords readability of the inscription—just a position that affords visibility of individual strokes composing the letters, and comfort in engraving these strokes with a chisel and mallet. Such positions exist all around the perimeter of the writing surface. Thus, it is telling that the engraver inscribed all the letters of Fragment A from only one edge of the perimeter, namely the left edge (see Fig. 3.6). It tells us that from this one edge there was no discomfort or lack of precision during carving, especially considering the fine quality of the carving (as opposed to the handwriting of the scribe).

Figure 3.6. Illustration showing the position of the engraver in relation to Fragment A and the inscription as a -whole (not to scale).

34


Grip and control of a chisel with the simultaneous swinging of a mallet, whether swung from a high or low position, is best carried out with the elbows slightly bent. If the arms are kept straight, precision of the chisel is lost and the accuracy of aiming at and hitting the chisel with a mallet decreases significantly. It is also natural to lean the forearm or elbow of the arm controlling the chisel on the writing surface, reducing fatigue and improving wrist leverage for guiding the chisel. With such a posture and the considerations that it allowed easy control of carving on the far right edge, the width of the inscription is likely to have been no more than the approximate length between the elbow and fingers of the engraver.26 This is almost identical to a classic unit of measurement, the cubit, which measured approximately 45 cm. If the width had been greater than this, we would expect the engraver to have carved at least some of the letters, especially those along the right edge, from another edge around the stone's original perimeter for greater ease. Of this, we have no evidence. There is one more clue which permits us to refine this approximation even further, and that is the large semi-circular recess along the left edge of Fragment A, between the latitudes of Line 6 and Line 10. Part of this recess is filled with a small wedge-shaped fragment of stone that was found with the entire fragment. I will call this fragment the 'micro-fragment'. Oddly enough, the micro-fragment is missing from its place in a photograph which Biran and Naveh published in their first article announcing the find of Fragment A (up to that time, the only fragment discovered).27 This oddity drew sharp criticism from Cryer at Copenhagen University, who then questioned Biran and Naveh's reporting of Fragment A's place within the archaeological context of Tel Dan.28 What is even more peculiar is that neither Biran nor Naveh, nor indeed any other scholar connected with the debate over the Tel Dan fragments, tendered an explanation for this recess and its significance. Despite this gap in critical evaluation, the nature of the recess and the micro-fragment within it tells us what caused it. First, the recess is semicircular in shape and we may reasonably deduce that the entire recess was roughly circular. Thus, the recess has been artificially made. It is not the result of a natural fissure in the rock or of weathering. Nor indeed could it have resulted from the transference of the fragment to its secondary place 26. The fist is clenched so as to grip the chisel. 27. The photograph is Figure 6 of Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 86, Fig. 6. 28. Cryer, 'On the Recently-Discovered "House of David" Inscription', p. 5.


35

of usage as building material for a wall. The shape of the recess is far too regular for this to have been the case. It is clearly the result of deliberate human activity. Second, crucial to our analysis of this recess is the micro-fragment inside it, which contains portions of letters belonging to Line 8 and Line 9. The micro-fragment fits neatly along the line of breakage that runs down the left side of Fragment A from Line 5 to the bottom of the fragment. This tells us that the micro-fragment was fractured at the same time this large break was sustained. Furthermore, since the micro-fragment is also an inherent part of the recess, of which only half is on Fragment A, the recess and line of breakage must also have been sustained simultaneously. The best explanation accounting for these facts is that some kind of instrument was used on the inscription to destroy it, perhaps a hammer, mallet or other such piece of equipment. The blow of this hammer caused this area of the stone to fracture and in the subsequent fall of the inscription, some of the fractures were widened to complete breakages. Presumably, the hammer was struck against a central position of the inscription. This is only to be expected for an act of deliberate maximum damage. This being the case, the recess would represent the approximate centre in the width of the total inscription. In keeping with the action of swinging a hammer, the recess also probably represents the approximate height of a man's elbow or waist: about 85-90 cm. This matches perfectly with the calculated height of Line 8, which intersects the recess. Thus, measuring from the estimated centre of this blow to the right edge of the inscription, a figure of 17 cm is returned, and hence a total approximate width of 35 cm. Such a figure is within the suggested maximum width of about 45 cm (a cubit). This correspondence between the figures suggests that the proposed theory on the cause of the recess is indeed correct. Therefore, the calculated dimensions for the written surface are approximately 110x35 cm. We must remember, however, that 110 cm is a minimum height. The true height of the original inscription is unlikely to have been much more than that. References to the author's father are likely to have been made at the beginning of the inscription rather than later. As a result, the first few lines of Fragment A are probably within the first few lines of the original inscription. Line 1 The first line extant on Fragment A preserves only four letters. By comparison with better preserved lines (e.g. Line 5), it is calculated that there

36


is room for eight, or possibly nine, letters before the first extant letter on Line 1. The breakage of the inscription, however, has lost these letters to us. It is doubtful whether Line 1 is the original first line of the whole inscription because the stone is large enough to have had at least one or two lines of text before Line 1. This is evident after considering the height of the newly exposed29 face at the upper left portion of the fragment since it is the exact same space required for two lines of text (see Fig. 3.7).

Figure 3.7. Illustration showing enough roomfor at least two lines of text before Line 1 of Fragment A (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan [detail]).

Biran and Naveh understood the first visible strokes at the extant beginning of Line 1 as forming the figure of a mem.30 As such, the long vertical stroke was understood as the stem of the mem, joining the rest of the figure at a point above the line of breakage. At a cursory glance, this seems plausible, even probable. However, we must find strong objection to it. Tropper was first to note the possibility that the jagged construction understood by Biran and Naveh as the head of the mem, may actually be a sin.31 As such, Tropper understood the preceding vertical stroke as the remains of a probable taw. This possibility was noted by Schniedewind, who rejected it on the basis that the taw and sin would be too close together.32 However, such is not the case. At the end of Line 8, we see the remains of a taw and lamed occurring much closer together than the vertical stroke and jagged construction here in Line 1. Indeed, there is far less space between the letters in Line 8 than there is here in Line 1. Thus, there is ample evidence to allow the reconstruction of a taw and sin here.

29. That is, newly exposed when the original whole inscription was broken. 30. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', pp. 87, 90. 31. J. Tropper, 'Bine altaramaische Steleninschrift aus Dan', UF'25 (1993), pp. 395-406 (401-402). 32. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', p. 79.

3. Epigraphical Analysi+

++

Yet, despite the room for this reconstruction, we must test to see if it actually is the case. Schniedewind's initial observations are invaluable here, though I am surprised that he rejected their import. Schniedewind noted the difference in slant between the strokes of a sin and the strokes on the head of a mem. The key stroke to consider is the leftmost stroke of the figure. On all the attestations of mem in Fragment A, the leftmost stroke leans to the right. On the other hand, all the attestations of sin invariably show the leftmost stroke leaning decidedly to the left. When we examine the leftmost stroke of the figure here in Line 1, we see that it too leans markedly to the left. Since the evidence is unanimous that such a trend indicates a sin, we must inevitably conclude the same for this figure. This is also confirmed by closely comparing the long vertical stroke which Biran and Naveh understood as the stem of a mem with the next stroke which Biran and Naveh thought joined it. These strokes are seen to be parallel and show no signs whatsoever of converging above the line of breakage. Thus, we must understand the jagged construction as a sin. This leaves us with the vertical stroke preceding this sin. Tropper's suggestion of taw is the most probable because of the space involved. The only other letters that show a comparably angled stem are kaph, mem, nun anâpeh. A mem is automatically ruled out for lack of space. Similarly, all instances ofkaph, nun andpeh in Fragment A (and Fragment B) are too large to fit in this narrow space. We have no such problems with accommodating a taw. Therefore, Tropper's suggestion of a taw followed by sin at the beginning of Line 1 is to be retained. The incisions of both the taw and sin are clearly not as deep as those of most other letters. This can be attributed to two factors. First, it appears that the engraver did not chisel these letters very deeply,33 and second, there is a slight patch of erosion that covers most of these letters. A slight chip is also visible along the shallow stem of the taw. This chip is quite anomalous to the formation of the letter since it has obliterated part of the incised stem. As such, it cannot have been on the stone's prepared surface before the inscription was engraved. Neither can it be the result of an accidental slip of the engraver's chisel. Rather, it must have been sustained after the engraving. However, this chip has also suffered some erosion. Thus, the chip was made before the erosion in this area of the stone occurred. 33. We can only speculate as to why this was the case. Of course, it is impossible without modern machinery to keep the depth of incisions exactly the same. As such, the shallowness of this letter might be partly attributable to chance.

38


The question we must then ask is when exactly the chip was made. Was it inflicted on the stone when it was in its original display position, or during the breakage of the stone and subsequent recycling as building material? Two similar chips further to the left provide a clue that will help us answer this question. Figure 3.8 shows the position of these two chips in relation to the first chip on the stem of the letter taw.34 They are on the approximate same latitude as this first chip and have also undergone similar erosion. All three chips are of a similar nature, being wide and flat in shape. Their proximity to each other and similar characteristics suggest they have a similar or even common cause.

Figure 3.8. Three chips below Line 1 with the area of abrasion caused by breakage of the stone (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan [detail]).

The leftmost chip ('Chip 3' in Fig. 3.8) provides the vital clue. At the leftmost extremity of this chip, we observe an abrasion that is clearly associated with the breakage of the stone; it continues over the broken edge onto the newly exposed face, as well as further down to intrude upon a partly destroyed letter in Line 2 (see Fig. 3.8). The leftmost point of Chip 34. Curiously, the facsimile of Fragment A drawn by Ada Yardeni and published by Biran and Naveh on p. 89 of 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', does not detail these three chips. Neither were they shown when the facsimile of Fragment A was coupled with a facsimile of the two joined B fragments in Biran and Naveh, 'The Tel Dan Inscription', p. 12.


39

3 appears to have been scored into this abrasion, and must therefore have been sustained after the inscription was broken. Since Chip 1 and Chip 2 bear the same characteristics as Chip 3, we can reasonably deduce that these too were made after the stone was broken. As a result, we can conclude that the patch of erosion which covers the first two letters, taw and sin, and a small area around it was not sustained while the inscription was in its original display position, but after the inscription was broken. Subsequently, the three chips were sustained during the transfer and reuse of the fragment as building material. After the taw and sin we see a fully preserved resh. In contrast to the preceding two letters, the incisions of this resh are quite deep. In fact, so notably deep are they that a small part of the stone within the area of the triangular head has been chipped off during the chiselling of the lines. This chip runs along the length of the left vertical incision such that it appears to be part of the incision, though not quite in harmony with it. It is not anomalous to the incised stroke, unlike the chip along the stem of the taw two letters before. However, like the taw, the stem of the resh is quite shallow in depth due to the small patch of erosion in this area of the stone. Following the resh on Line 1 is a word divider. It is in the shape of a simple dot and has been carved extremely well. Indeed, it presents to the reader a very neat circle and the indentation into the stone itself is almost perfectly hemispherical. This suggests that the engraver first chiselled a rough mark, which he then ground out, probably without the use of a hammer, giving the neat circular effect. The final letter extant on Line 1 is an 'ayin. The letter is almost fully preserved with only the very left side of the figure damaged in the inscription's breakage. No other incised strokes give any indication that this is possibly a qoph, and the possibility of a lamed is dispelled by the fact that the letter appears to be a closed circle. We may decipher the inscribed characters on Line 1, therefore, as:

[...]u«noi[...]. Line 2 The beginning of Line 2 is very difficult to decipher. The broken edge where the written surface meets one of the newly exposed faces (the uppermost) has been significantly abraded such that there is no clear distinction between where the written face ends and the newly exposed face begins (see Fig. 3.9). This poses significant problems for deciphering the first few letters of Line 2 as the abraded edge cuts through them. Consequently, the

40


first legible letters of Line 2 are quite a way along the line. The first clearly legible character in Line 2 is a word divider. Like the word divider in Line 1, it is a very round figure that appears to have been hollowed out after it was initially chipped into the stone.

Written face

Newly exposed face

Figure 3.9. The abraded edge between the -writtenface and the uppermost exposed face (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan [detail]).

However, there are still some traces of the damaged letter immediately preceding this word divider. We must consider whether this letter, and indeed any letter preceding it on Line 2, can be reconstructed. In neither of their two publications do Biran and Naveh offer any suggestion for these letters. Yardeni's facsimile of Fragment A offers no reconstruction either, though she shows that some unclear markings are present on the face of the stone.35 A careful examination of the actual fragment shows what appears to be the bottom left portion of a letter etched into the stone. The visible remnant of this damaged letter is fairly rounded. It does not appear to have a low stem or tail as the written surface is clearly legible where we would expect it to be. This being the case, we cannot consider beth, heh, kaph, mem, nun, samekh,peh, sadhe, qoph, resh or taw as possibilities for restoring the letter. Therefore, in order to reconstruct the letter, we must look for letter shapes that display roundness in the bottom left portion and which have no low stem. As such, we may suggest teth, yodh, lamed and 'ayin, each of which must be dealt with on their own merits. The difficulty in proposing a teth here is that neither Fragment A nor Fragment B contain any examples ofteths.Thus, we have to turn to the 35. Biran and Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment', p. 89, Fig. 8.


41

evidence from other similar monumental lapidary inscriptions that do attest the letter teth. The Amman Citadel Inscription36 has one instance of teth as a right-leaning elipse with a score across its width at the centre. This would indeed be a suitable match for the relevant etched marks on Fragment A. The Sefire Treaties37 attest a similar left-leaning teth. The Mesha Stele38 attests the letter teth as a circle with two interior radii forming a sector inside the circle.39 The inscription from Tell Fakhariyah40 attests a similar teth as a circle with two intersecting diameters, as do Azitawadda's inscription from Karatepe41 and Panammu I.42 Indeed, from the Ahiram Inscription43 to the Eshmun'azar Sarcophagus,44 the letter teth is attested as round and therefore a candidate for consideration as the damaged letter here in Line 2. There are two problems, however, with identifying this letter as a teth. First, from the remnant of the damaged letter, there appears to be no 36. For the text of the Amman Citadel Inscription and an analysis, see S.H. Horn, 'The Amman Citadel Inscription', BASOR 193 (1969), pp. 2-19. 37. The definitive edition of the Sefire Treaties is J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 38. For the text and facsimile of the Mesha Stele as well as a treatment of numerous issues arising from it, see A. Dearman (ed.), Studies in the Mesha Inscription andMoab (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). 39. These radii appear at vastly different angles inside the circle among the attestations on the Mesha Stele. 40. For a treatment of this inscription, see A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil and A.R. Millard,La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-arameenne (Recherche sur les civilisations, 7; Paris: ADPF, 1982); S.A. Kaufman, 'Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh', Maarav 3 (1982), pp. 137-75; J.C. Greenfield and A. Shaffer, 'Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from Tell Fekherye', Iraq 65 (1983), pp. 109-16; A. Spycket, 'La statue bilingue de Tell Fekherye', RA 79 (1985), pp. 67-68. 41. For the text of Azitwadda, see H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), §26. A facsimile of Text A can be found in J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to the West Semitic Epigraphy andPalaeography (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), p. 56. 42. The Panammu I inscription is also known as the Hadad Inscription. For treatment of this inscription, see J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), II, §13, PL 13. 43. See Donner and Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften, I, § 1; J.B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954), pp. 456-59. 44. M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch derNordsemitischen EpigraphiknebstAusgewdhlten Inschriften++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

42


evidence of any strokes inside the rounded portions (i.e. the letter's interior). This means that if we are to understand this letter as a teth, the interior stroke characteristic of a teth must be similar to the teth in Line 10 of the Mesha Stele (in the word mfrtf). This sees the interior stroke as resembling two radii extending from the centre point out to the letter's circumference on the top right quarter of the letter (similar to the hands of a clock reading the time 2.15). This is indeed a very peculiar teth and one that is rare and not consistent even within the Mesha Stele. The other possibility is to consider a shape similar to the teth in the Amman Citadel inscription. However, the second problem has to do with the placement of the damaged letter on Line 2. If we follow the slant of the letters in Line 2 and consider the damaged letter to be a teth, we find that it is placed well below the normal writing base line for Line 2. Even if we allow for a change or curvature of slant as we see in Line 3 directly below, we still find that a teth would be very oddly placed. For this reason, and the one stated above, we must have serious reservations about suggesting teth as the damaged letter here. We find similar problems with the suggestion of an 'ay in being the damaged letter. Since both teth and 'ayin are of comparable height and shape in other monumental lapidary inscriptions, the placement of the letter is troublesome. Since we do have other attestations of 'ayin in Fragment A, we do not need to appeal to other inscriptions for clarification of the letter shape. It is quite clear that the 'ayin in Fragment A closely resembles a simple closed circle. Although this accords well with the shape of the remnant of the damaged letter, our main trouble is its placement well below the writing base line. However, it is more plausible than a teth. Another candidate for the damaged letter is lamed. We have numerous examples within Fragment A with which to work. They present curvature at the bottom left portion of the letter that fits well with the letter remnant here in Line 2. In particular, the lameds of Lines 6-8 provide us with good templates. The advantage of suggesting a lamed is that we have no problem with the letter's placement. Since lamed is a tall letter, the added height fills the displacement with the writing base line (see Fig. 3.10). As such, lamed must be considered a logical choice for reconstruction of this damaged letter. Schniedewind also reconstructs this letter as a lamed, but he does so on the basis of'computer enhancement and imaging' and the assumption that the letters reconstruct a name (as opposed to common noun, verb, and so


43

on).45 In fact, in his initial transcription of the fragments as he arranges them, Schniedewind deals with this letter as though the letter was not in doubt but only slightly damaged. Furthermore, he reconstructs an 'aleph before this lamed, though with slightly less certainty. A perusal of the published photographs and facsimiles of the fragments may seem to give Schniedewind some backing. However, as with all inscriptions, facsimiles and, in particular, photographs can be and often are misleading. Nothing may substitute for an at-hand examination of the fragments. Schniedewind's proposal to read ^^[...] before the word divider is fraught with difficulties. First, he understands these letters to form a theophoric element of a personal name, specifically the name of the author's father. Schniedewind proposes Hazael as the author. The problem, which goes unaddressed in Schniedewind's article, is that we do not know who Hazael's father was. He is known in the Bible as a usurper. As such, his royal predecessor, Hadad-idri,46 was not his father. If Hadad-idri had been Hazael's father, then either Schniedewind has misread the damaged strokes at the beginning of Line 2, or the letters ^K are not part of the name of Hazael's father. The other possibility is that the name of Hazael's actual father ended with the theophoric element ^K-. In his later article with Zuckerman, Schniedewind goes for this option, reconstructing the name as ^Kp"l!l (Baraq'el)++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ cerns with these letters that preclude Schniedewind's suggestion—not to mention historical concerns48 and the fact that Schniedewind and Zuckerman assume that these initial letters on Line 2 form a name. There is no reason to assume that the letters form a name, and to do so unnecessarily jeopardizes our objectivity with regard to these letters. In Schniedewind and Zuckerman's study, this is precisely the case as the identification of a lamed immediately before the first word divider on Line 2 leads them to construct the theophoric element bfc-. Furthermore, Schniedewind and Zuckerman's study uses only computer imaging; it does not examine the actual physical fragments themselves. Had such an examination taken

45. Schniedewind, 'Tel Dan Stela', p. 77; Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction', p. 89. 46. The biblical text portrays a certain Ben-Hadad (i.e. Bar Hadad) as Hazael's predecessor. However, there is considerable doubt as to the reliability of this information. This issue of the succession of Damascene kings will be dealt with in Chapter 7. 47. Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction', pp. 90-91. 48. These issues will be discussed further in Chapter 7.


44

place, Schniedewind and Zuckerman would have realized that lamed is not 'the only letter that fits the spacing, orientation and line height'.49

Figure 3.10. Beginning of Line 2 (left) and possible restoration oflamedfor damaged letter (right). The restored lamed is modelled on the lamed in Line 11 (detail of facsimile drawn by Ada Yardeni).

Epigraphically, the suggestion of restoring a lamed before the word divider has immense problems. Figure 3.10 illustrates how the restoration of lamed in the position of the damaged letter leaves a considerable gap to the word divider that follows. This is quite uncharacteristic of Fragment A, and even Fragment B. This problem must cast further doubts on our previous suggestions of teth and 'ayin, also. Furthermore, a careful analysis of this area of the stone, from many different angles, reveals that there is scarification on the surface of the stone between the damaged letter and the word divider. This was presumably caused by breakage of the original inscription. Yet, one particular scar is deeper than the rest, prompting the likelihood that this scar is in fact the remnant of a deliberately chiselled stroke belonging to a letter. We may now posit three different possibilities regarding this area of the stone in light of the data: 1.

2.

All the scarification was wholly sustained during breakage of the inscription. Thus, there is a large gap between the damaged letter we have been trying to restore and the word divider that follows. The scarification represents a thin individual letter originally between the damaged letter we have been trying to restore to the right and the word divider to the left.

49. Schniedewind and Zuckerman, 'A Possible Reconstruction', p. 89.

3. Epigraphical Analysis 3.

45

The scarification represents a deliberately chiselled stroke that belongs to the damaged letter we have been trying to restore.

As we noted, the first possibility would be quite uncharacteristic within Fragment A. As such, it has little support. The second possibility is also difficult because of the nature of the deep scar in question. The scar is relatively short and protrudes down to the left from the rough line of breakage. If we are to consider this an individual letter, then we can find no letter that matches. The only possible candidate would be a taw. However, the other attestations of taw that we have in Fragment A make this a very remote possibility. From these other attestations, we see that the taw was written as a relatively long letter with its diagonal stem extending well below the writing base line.50 The deep scar in Line 2, however, finishes well above the writing base line. It is also on a considerably flatter angle than the stem of a taw. Furthermore, the size of a taw would impinge on the preceding damaged letter, which we have been investigating. A taw would be too wide to accommodate. The only possibility is of a very thin letter. However, the nature and placement of the deep scar in question makes the possibility of it being an individual letter very tenuous. This leaves us with the third alternative, that the deep scar forms part of the damaged letter. This means we must search for a letter that displays some curvature towards the bottom as well as an arm that extends diagonally to the left. The only letter that could fit this description is yodh. Figure 3.11 illustrates how we may indeed restore the deep scar and the damaged letter together as a yodh. Such a yodh would display slightly more curvature than most other yodhs in Fragment A. However, such a form is certainly not beyond the scope of Fragment A. Indeed, numerous yodhs attested in Fragment A do display curvature. A very comparable form may be found at the beginning of Line 10. We may make further observations about the damaged beginning of Line 2. To the right of our restored yodh, we find the definite remains of the stem of a letter (see Fig. 3.12). The rest of this letter has been obliterated in the breakage of the inscription, apart from one small engraved point which has survived to the left of it (see Fig. 3.12 for its position). The angle at which this stem lies and the small point near it means that we can narrow down the possibilities for restoring the letter. The plausible options are 'aleph, heh, waw, samekh, sadhe, qoph and resh. We must consider the merits of each of these letters. 50. Compare examples of taw in Lines 8, 9 and 10.

46


Figure 3.11. The position of the deep scar (left) and its restoration together with the damaged letter as a yodh (right) (detail of facsimile drawn by Ada Yardeni).

Figure 3.12. The remains of a stem belonging to a damaged letter at the beginning of Line 2 (Tel Dan Excavations, Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem; photograph: Z. Radovan [detail]).

Restoring this stem to an 'aleph is probably the least likely option. It would require the 'aleph to possess an inordinately long stem, far longer than any other 'aleph attested in Fragment A or Fragment B. It would also require us to view the engraved point as part of the horizontal stroke on the head of the 'aleph. However, as the point of intersection between this stroke and the stem is not extant, it must be placed at quite a high point. This means that the stem of the 'aleph would have to be even longer than is currently visible. Neither the 'alephs of Fragment A, nor those of Fragment B, have scope enough to incorporate the usage of such an irregularly shaped 'aleph. Thus, we may safely dismiss it as an option. The letter heh, however, fits better. It would require us to see the engraved point to the left as part of the lowest horizontal stroke of the letter.


47

This, however, would see the stem as longer than the usual form attested in Fragment A. The letter waw has similar problems in that we would need to posit a longer stem than is usual. The size of the waw in Fragment A is far from regular. A comparison of the waw at the beginning of Line 3 with the waw in Line 5 demonstrated this. However, if we are to restore this particular letter here in Line 2 as a waw, it would need to have the longest stem of all waws attested in Fragment A. A more plausible suggestion is the letter samekh. As in the case ofheh, we would need to see the engraved point as part of the lowest horizontal stroke. However, unlike the heh, the other attestation of samekh in Fragment A indicates just how high on the stem this horizontal stroke actually appears. As such, the samekh is a very suitable candidate for restoration. Less can be said for the letter qoph. Although the engraved point that is still visible to the left of the stem remnant is just one point, it would have to be part of the round head of the letter qoph. If this was the case, we might expect to find more of the head of this letter still extant on the written surface because of the fact that it is round.51 However, the nature of breakage and erosion along this portion of the stone means we cannot maintain this expectation without doubt. Thus, it must not preclude us from considering a qoph as an option for restoring the letter, especially considering that the stem would be the right height. We may also suggest the letter resh. Like the qoph and samekh, the stem is of appropriate height. The main problem with resh, however, is seeing the engraved point as the horizontal stroke of the letter's head. Examination of the other reshs on Fragment A reveals that this horizontal stroke tends to weigh down on the right. As such, we would expect to be able to see more of this stroke on the extant surface. Yet, as was the case with the letter qoph, the damage inflicted on the stone at this point leaves enough room for doubt, making resh another possible option. In order to restore this figure as a sadhe, we would have to consider the small engraved point to the left of the stem as irrelevant to the figure. Since this engraved point is a deliberately carved stroke, we cannot regard it simply as a scarification mark. Rather, it would need to be accounted for in another way—namely, as part of another letter. At this point, it must be noted that these two damaged letters before the first word divider on Line 2, whatever the first of them is, appear to be wider spaced than most other letters we observe on Fragment A. Through51. My previous suggestions have regarded the engraved point as part of a straight line.

48


out the fragment we do find the tendency for two letters to be wider spaced if the second letter is ayodh. For example, the first full word of Line 2, "OK, has significantly more distance between the beth and yodh than between the 'aleph and beth. The reason for this idiosyncracy is the tail of the yodh which occupies a low part of the letter and which extends out to the right. We find a similar phenomenon in the first word of Line 3, DZDCTl. The first two letters of this word, waw and yodh, are more widely spaced than the other letters because of the yodh's tail. This is certainly not a universal peculiarity which shows itself in every instance of the letter yodh on Fragment A. However, we may note that it does occur and why it occurs. This would indeed lend more impetus to the suggestion that the damaged letter immediately before the first word divider on Line 2 is in fact ayodh. However, we would still need to maintain an abnormally large space between the restored yodh and the long-stemmed figure preceding it. To whichever letter we restore the long-stemmed figure before the yodh, the gap is still very large. We cannot propose a word divider in this gap because we cannot supply an adequate meaning to a singular yodh as an independent lexeme. Therefore, it is not a viable option to have such a large gap between these letters. Our only other alternative is to place another letter between the longstemmed figure and the yodh preceding the word divider. This means that the engraved point can be accounted for if the long-stemmed figure is a sadhe. This extra letter would by physical necessity have to be thin. It must also have no long stem since no such stem is visible on the stone. The only candidates for this letter are daleth, heth and 'ayin. The thinnest letter in Fragment A, waw, is ruled out as a possibility because we can see no traces of the stem. The very bottom part of the stem would still be visible on the stone. Therefore, we cannot consider it here. One way of discovering what letter should be placed here is to test the various possible combinations of letters. In doing this, we are testing two particular points. First, the letters must fit physically beside each other without any overlap. Second, the letters must make lexical and contextual sense. The only combinations of letters which fit into this space and align with the carved strokes are "HD, HU, TID, TTH, *VD and TiJ. This means that the long-stemmed letter can only be a samekh or a sadhe. Physically, the letter following can be either of our three candidates (daleth, heth or 'ayin). From these six combinations, three make lexical and contextual sense.


49

These are: 1. '[l]D[n]: 'pious acts of or 'my piety'. 2.

The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal And a New Interpretation (Journal for the Study of the Old Testment Supplement)

The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement 14)

Jeremiah, Zedekiah, And The Fall Of Jerusalem (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament)

The Inscription

James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series)

Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (Journal for the Study of the Old Testatment Supplement Series 290 Copenhagen International Seminar 6)

The Inscription

Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, No 41)

The Old Testament and Folklore Study (JSOT supplement)

Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 20)

Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' (JSOT Supplement)

The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series)

A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOT Supplement)

The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Aron Nimzowitsch - A Reappraisal

Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement)

The Rich: A New Study of the Species

Brain Death: A Reappraisal

A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature

Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal

The Bible and the Enlightenment: A Case Study - Alexander Geddes (1737-1802) (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 377)

The New Old World

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Lectures on the Religion of the Semites.: Second and Third Series ((Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Ser.; Vol. 183))

The Ethics of G. E. Moore: A New Interpretation

Latin America: A New Interpretation (Studies of the Americas)

The Golden Bough - A Study in Magic and Religion - Aftermath - a supplement to The Golden Bough

The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal And a New Interpretation (Journal for the Study of the Old Testment Supplement)

The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement 14)

Jeremiah, Zedekiah, And The Fall Of Jerusalem (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament)

The Inscription

James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series)

Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (Journal for the Study of the Old Testatment Supplement Series 290 Copenhagen International Seminar 6)

The Inscription

Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, No 41)

The Old Testament and Folklore Study (JSOT supplement)

Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 20)

Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' (JSOT Supplement)

The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series)

A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOT Supplement)

The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Aron Nimzowitsch - A Reappraisal

Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement)

The Rich: A New Study of the Species

Brain Death: A Reappraisal

A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature

Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal

The Bible and the Enlightenment: A Case Study - Alexander Geddes (1737-1802) (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 377)

The New Old World

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Lectures on the Religion of the Semites.: Second and Third Series ((Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Ser.; Vol. 183))

The Ethics of G. E. Moore: A New Interpretation

Latin America: A New Interpretation (Studies of the Americas)

The Golden Bough - A Study in Magic and Religion - Aftermath - a supplement to The Golden Bough

Recommend Documents