Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol 9781575066431

Citation preview

Donkeys in the Biblical World

History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant Edited by

Jeffrey A. Blakely University of Wisconsin, Madison K. Lawson Younger Trinity Evangelical Divinity School  1. The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic Israel (Ninth–Eighth Centuries b.c.e.), by Deborah O’Daniel Cantrell  2. Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol, by Kenneth C. Way  3. The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah, by Angela R. Roskop

Donkeys in the Biblical World Ceremony and Symbol

Kenneth C. Way

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2011

© 2011 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Way, Kenneth C. Donkeys in the Biblical world : ceremony and symbol / Kenneth C. Way.    p.  cm. — (History, archaeology, and culture of the Levant ; 2) Includes bibliographical references (p.   ) and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-213-6 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Semites—Religion.  2. Donkeys—Religious aspects—History.  3.  Middle East—Religious life and customs.  I.  Title. BL1605.D66W39 2011 299′.2—dc23 2011025298

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê

for Lori

Contents Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1 1.1.  Focus and Contribution  2 1.2.  History of Scholarship  3 1.3.  Problems and Prospects  9 1.4.  Scope and Limitations  13 1.5.  Methodology    13 1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World  17 1.7. Summary  26 2.  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27 2.1.  Egyptian Sources  28 2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources  40 2.3.  Hittite Sources  70 2.4.  Akkadian Sources  75 2.5.  Sumerian Sources  92 2.6. Summary  97 3.  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3.1.  Egypt 106 3.2.  Israel-Palestine 116 3.3.  Syria 133 3.4.  Iraq 141 3.5.  Other 148 3.6.  Historical Summary  149 3.7. Interpretations  150 4.  The Donkey in Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 4.1. Terminology  162 4.2.  Review of Previous Observations  170 4.3.  Shechem Traditions (Gen 33:18–34:31, Josh 24:32, Judg 8:33–9:57)  173 4.4.  Redemption of the Firstborn (Exodus 13:13, 34:20)  176 4.5.  Balaam’s Jenny (Numbers 22:22–35)  184 vii

viii

Contents

4.6.  Man of God from Judah (1 Kings 13)  191 4.7.  Donkey Burial (Jeremiah 22:19)  194 4.8. Summary  196 5.  Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 5.1.  Symbolic Significance of Donkeys  199 5.2.  Ceremonial Significance of Donkeys  200 5.3. Conclusion  203 5.4.  Future Research  203 Appendix: Equid Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Index of Authors  260 Index of Scripture  267

Foreword Symbols and ceremonies associated with religion in the world of the ancient Near East have long intrigued modern scholars of religious studies. In the last few decades especially, numerous studies on various aspects of the religions of the peoples in the biblical world have come to light. Importantly, many employ multidisciplinary methods in their analyses and utilize textual evidence in concert with archaeological material. The latter approach, which was not always valued, recognizes that the words of a text, whether biblical or inscriptional, should, whenever possible, be balanced by an archaeological picture. In fact, it is often a discovery from the ground that helps to elucidate the written record. This is the case with the dry donkey bones from Tel Haror, which served to animate Kenneth Way’s doctoral dissertation, now expanded into the present volume. In 1992, while I was excavating at Tel Haror, an intact donkey burial was uncovered at the entrance of the site’s Middle Bronze Age temple complex. This in situ burial with clear connections to a temple raised considerable excitement in the archaeological world because of its unique characteristics compared to other equid burials from the Levant. At the time, Professor Eliezer Oren of Ben Gurion University, the senior excavator of Tel Haror, noted the need for a comprehensive inquiry into the roles of the donkey in the cults of the ancient Near East. He remarked that, though the archaeological significance of donkey burials was deliberated on briefly in a few site reports, and possible associations with the donkey treaty sacrifices in the Mari Letters were discussed, no study had been conducted that systematically analyzes the collective archaeological evidence in light of the greater corpus of biblical and Near Eastern texts on the subject. He suggested that a study such as this would be a significant contribution to the field. The present work now fills that void. In this study, Kenneth Way examines the large and diverse corpus of texts, comprised of Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Hebrew sources, that in some way deal with the ceremonial and symbolic significance of donkeys. Simultaneously, he scrutinizes the archaeological records of varied equid burials from dozens of sites in Egypt, Israel-Palestine, Syria, and Iraq, including the recently discovered monumental burial complex at Umm el-Marra. The author then synthesizes and explicates the integrated textual and archaeological material attesting to the special status of the donkey in the cultic spheres of the region. This is especially key in elucidating certain literary texts and rituals in the Bible that seem to contain vestigial forms of earlier practices, as the Shechem traditions recounting Jacob’s sons’ dealings ix

x

Foreword

with the clan of Hamor and the Exodus law stipulating the redemption of the first-born ass. Importantly, Kenneth Way does not feel compelled to arrive at monolithic conclusions in his study. Rather, his methods underscore the need to contextualize evidence so that even what appears to belong to a single category, in this case religious rites, may be variegated, requiring careful attention to distinguishing details rather than identifying general commonalities. It is my great pleasure and pride to introduce this book, Kenneth Way’s first substantive scholarly work, and I look forward to his future contributions to the field of religion in the world of the ancient Near East. Nili S. Fox Hebrew Union College Cincinnati, OH

Acknowledgments For approximately four years I have lived with the ass, and, as a result, I have certainly become a pain in the ass to more people than I know. These people deserve many thanks. The completion of this study, which began as my doctoral dissertation, is a credit to their hard work and support. Of course, I absolve all of them from any responsibility for the shortcomings in my research. First and foremost I want to thank my best friend and spouse, Lori, for her loving support and sacrifice during every stage of my doctoral program at Hebrew Union College (and previous programs!). She has given more than anyone else to the cause of the dissertation and degree. It is to Lori that I lovingly dedicate this work. Secondly, my advisor and first reader, Professor Nili S. Fox, suggested this research topic. I am indebted to her for the enormous investment she has made in me on both the personal and academic levels. Her guidance and encouragement were integral to every stage of this study. I must also thank my second reader, Professor Samuel Greengus. His wisdom and attention to detail are deeply appreciated especially for the initial and final stages of research. Many people within the HUC community have contributed to this project in various ways. Perhaps no one has worked harder than Marilyn Krider. Her faithful service in the Klau Library has expedited my research from the beginning. She always brought a calm competence to the daunting and tedious task of fulfilling my endless requests. Additionally, I have tapped the expertise of the faculty for specific portions of my research. In this regard I especially want to acknowledge Professors Adam Kamesar and Stephen Kaufman for their assistance with Hellenistic and Northwest Semitic sources, respectively. I have also had the privilege of conversing or corresponding with a number of scholars across the globe regarding various details of my research. These scholars include (in alphabetical order) Manfred Bietak, Daniel Fleming, Sally Freedman, Paula Wapnish Hesse, James Hoffmeier, David Ilan, Jill Katz, Baruch Levine, Justin Lev-Tov, Jesse Long, Dale Manor, Graham Philip, Anne Porter, John Walton, Jill Weber, and Lawson Younger. My acknowledgments would be woefully incomplete if I did not mention my children, Schuyler, Bradford, and Lila. Sky’s entry into the world in June 2004 coincided with the research stage of my dissertation proposal. From the time she was born until the present, I have learned to wear multiple hats, as a father, a student, and now as a professor. I have found that parenting and research mix best when we can visit donkeys at petting zoos, play with toy donkey figurines, and read library books about donkeys and other animals. xi

xii

Acknowledgments

Finally, I must thank Ugarit-Forshungen, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Journal of Biblical Literature, and Levant for permission to adapt portions of my articles for this study. Kenneth C. Way La Mirada, CA Spring 2011

Abbreviations General b.c.e. bp c.e. EB ED kjv LB LXX MB MK MT nasb niv njpsv nkjv nrsv NT OB OG SBL SIP

Before the Common Era (= b.c.) Before Present Common Era (= a.d.) Early Bronze Age (ca. 3000–2000 bce) Early Dynastic period (ca. 3000–2350 bce) King James Version Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 b.c.e.) The Septuagint Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1550 b.c.e.) Middle Kingdom Masoretic Text New American Standard Bible New International Version New Jewish Publication Society Version New King James Version New Revised Standard Version New Testament Old Babylonian period (ca. 2000–1600 b.c.e.) Old Greek (= LXX) Society of Biblical Literature Second Intermediate Period

Reference Works ABD ADAJ AfO AHw ANEP ANET AO ARM ASOR ÄW I Ä&L

Anchor Bible Dictionary (Freedman 1992) Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Archiv für Orientforschung Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (von Soden 1959–75) The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Pritchard 1969a) Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Pritchard 1969b) Aula Orientalis Archives royales de Mari American Schools of Oriental Research Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I; HL 4 (Hannig 2003) Ägypten und Levante

xiii

xiv BA BAR BASOR BBCOT

Abbreviations

Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Walton et al. 2000) BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society CAD Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago CAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal CAL Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project CANE Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Sasson 1995) CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly COS The Context of Scripture (Hallo and Younger 1997–2002) CTH Catalogue des textes hittites The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and CTU Other Places (Dietrich et al. 1995) DANE Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (Bienkowski and Millard 2000) DAPT Deir ʿAlla Plaster Text DBI Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Ryken et al. 1998) DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Clines 1993–) DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons (van der Toorn et al. 1999) DLE Dictionary of Late Egyptian, Vols. 1–5 (Lesko and Lesko 1982–1990) DNWSI Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995) DOTHB Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Arnold and Williamson 2005) DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Alexander and Baker 2003) DUL A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003) EAEHL The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Avi-Yonah 1975) EAAE Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (Bard 1999) EDB Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Freedman 2000) EDE I Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, 1: A Phonological Introduction (Takács 1999) EI Eretz-Israel EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica (Roth and Wigoder 1972) ETCSL The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (website) GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Gesenius et al. 1910) GLECS Groupe Linguistique d’Études Chamito-Sémitiques

Abbreviations HALOT HAE HUCA HUS HWBÄD HWBDÄ IBHS ICC IDB IDBS IEJ ISBE JANES JAOS JARCE JAS JBL JBQ JCS JEA J-M JNES JPR JQR JSOT JSS JSSEA KAI KBo KTU KUB LAE LCL LdÄ MARI MGWJ MSL NABU

xv

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Koehler and Baumgartner 1994–2000) Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik (Renz and Röllig 1995) Hebrew Union College Annual Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Watson and Wyatt 1999) Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch— Deutsch (2800–950 v.Chr.); HL 1 (Hannig 1995) Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch— Ägyptisch (2800–950 v.Chr.); HL 3 (Hannig 2000) An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Waltke and O’Connor 1990) International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Buttrick et al. 1962) The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Supplementary Volume (Crim et al. 1976) Israel Exploration Journal The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Bromiley 1979–88) Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Joüon and Muraoka 1993) Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Prehistoric Religion Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquity Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (Donner and Röllig 1968–2002) Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (Dietrich et al. 1976) Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi The Literature of Ancient Egypt (Simpson et al. 2003) Loeb Classical Library Lexikon der Ägyptologie (Helck et al. 1972–1992) Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires

xvi NAC NCBC NEA NEAEHL

Abbreviations

New American Commentary New Century Bible Commentary Near Eastern Archaeology The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Stern et al. 1993) NIDOTTE The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (VanGemeren 1997) OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OBTI Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity (Greengus 1979) OBTR The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell al Rimah (Dalley et al. 1976) OEAE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (D. B. Redford 2001) OEANE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (Meyers 1997) PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RB Revue biblique RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal SED Semitic Etymological Dictionary (Militarev and Kogan 2000; 2005) SEL Studi epigrafici e linguistici TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Botterweck et al. 1974-) UF Ugarit -Forschungen UT Ugaritic Textbook (Gordon 1965a) VT Vetus Testamentum Wb Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache (Erman and Grapow 1926–1950) WBC Word Biblical Commentary ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1.  Focus and Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.  History of Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.  Mari Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.  Equid Burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.  Problems and Prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1.  Ancient Near Eastern Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2.  Near Eastern Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3.  Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.  Scope and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.1.  Brief History of Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.2.  Sacrificial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.3.  Selected Animal Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.3.1. Camel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.3.2. Dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.3.3. Lion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.3.4. Serpent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.4.  Animals in Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  2   3   3   4   9   9 11 11 13 13 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26

In modern Western culture, the donkey is virtually obsolete as a pack or riding animal. The donkey may still enjoy some level of recognition at petting zoos or in animated films (such as Shrek’s Donkey or Winnie the Pooh’s Eeyore) or even as the symbol of the American Democratic party, but it is now thoroughly marginalized in daily life due to the effects of the industrial revolution and especially to the introduction of the gasoline engine. 1 By contrast, the donkey is still, to some extent, valued and employed in modern Middle Eastern culture. Although the donkey is rare in most urban contexts of the Middle East, it is much more prominent (as a pack or riding animal) in the rural and remote 1. For example, see the illustrations featuring equids in early Watertown, CT (Crowell 2002; note especially the mules on p. 105).

1

2

Chapter 1:  Introduction

regions where ancient traditions change very slowly. 2 Many of those ancient traditions in the Middle East go back to the Bronze and Iron Ages, which are generally what is regarded as the “biblical world” in the present study.

1.1.  Focus and Contribution The purpose of this study is to explicate the role of donkeys in the symbolism and ceremonies of the biblical world. This requires an analysis of the relevant archaeological and textual materials from the ancient Near East as well as a fresh look at the biblical passages that may (or may not) depict donkeys in a similar manner. It will be demonstrated that donkeys held a special status in the beliefs and rituals of the ancient Near East and especially Canaan-Israel. The focus on “ceremonial and symbolic significance” encompasses social and religious thoughts and practices that are reflected in ancient texts and material culture relating to the donkey. For example, ceremonial possibilities may include matters of sacrifice, treaty ratification, consumption, death, burial, “scapegoat” rituals, and foundation deposits. Symbolic possibilities may include matters of characterization, association, function, behavior, or iconographic depiction. However, it is not necessary to make a sharp distinction between the strictly ceremonial and the strictly symbolic. In many cases, these two categories are symbiotic. The need for a study such as this on donkeys is very apparent in the fields of biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies. There is not a single monograph or article that attempts to treat this subject comprehensively. As will be seen below, the “History of Scholarship” can only be traced with attention to very specific issues. That is, philologists have discussed the meaning of a particular Amorite phrase and archaeologists have discussed the phenomenon of equid burials. But up to the present, neither philologists nor archaeologists have attempted to pull together all the ceremonial and symbolic data on donkeys from burials, ancient Near Eastern texts and the Hebrew Bible. The present study is therefore an attempt to fill this void (for the specifics of my contribution, see §1.3). 2.  Note also that U.S. Marines recently employed a donkey caravan in the remote mountains of eastern Afganistan’s Kunar province. The donkeys could apparently transport food and water to troops more effectively than Humvees or even aircraft (see Cooney 2005: A20). Another example of the modern employment of donkeys in remote regions is the island of Hydra (off the coast of Athens). Since ancient times, the donkeys and mules of Hydra have remained the primary vehicles of transportation (there are no cars on the island!). For this reason, an international conference was devoted to “The Role of the Donkey (and the Mule) in the Culture of the Mediterranean” at the Free University of Hydra in October 2005.

1.2.  History of Scholarship

3

1.2.  History of Scholarship The history of scholarly discussion related to the subject of “the ceremonial and symbolic significance of donkeys” can only be traced with regard to specific issues. First, the discoveries from Mari include texts that refer to covenant-making in terms of “donkey slaying.” This observation gave rise to numerous studies related to treaty rituals in the ancient Near East and the Bible. Second, archaeologists have uncovered numerous equid burials from the Bronze Age in the Near East. These burials have generated many questions regarding the religious practices of the Hyksos and the Canaanites.

1.2.1.  Mari Texts The discoveries at Mari began with the excavations of André Parrot in 1933. In 1938, Georges Dossin published a discussion on the epistolary archives from the palace in which he referred to the significance of the expression ḫayaram qatālum (“to kill a jackass”). He explained that it “désigne le sacrifice qui accompagnait et consacrait les serments d’alliance.” 3 The first scholar to specifically apply this observation to biblical literature was, not surprisingly, William F. Albright. Albright suggested in 1939 (and following editions) and in 1942 that the practice attested at Mari can be used to explicate the background of the biblical Shechem traditions regarding the “sons of Ḥămôr” and the deity Baʿal-Bĕrît (Gen 33:18–34:31, Judg 8:33–9:57; cf. Josh 24:32; see §4.3). 4 Albright’s observations were fleshed out further by G. E. Mendenhall in 1948 (and again in 1954). 5 Following this, Albright updated his work when he translated some of the Mari texts for the first edition of ANET (1950; now in the third edition [1969]). 6 One of the texts that Albright translated in ANET was ARM 2.37 (see §2.4.1.1). This letter was written by the official Ibal-El to Zimri-Lim concerning a treaty that was arranged between the Haneans and the land of Idamaraṣׁ. Ibal-El referred to the act of treaty-making with the Amorite expression ḫa-ari-im qa-ṭá-li-im (“ass-slaying,” line 6) and he even claimed to have personally caused a jackass—the offspring of a jenny—to be killed ([ḫa]-a-ra-am dumu a-ta-ni-im [a]-na-ku ú-š [a]-aq-ṭì-il, lines 11–12). 7 While ARM 2.37 is only one of the texts that refer to the practice of ass slaying, it became the primary text that scholars have henceforth discussed (probably due to its presence in ANET  ). References to the connection between this 3.  Dossin 1938: 108. 4.  Albright 1939 (see 1957: 279); 1942: 113. 5.  Mendenhall 1948: 17–18; 1954: 26–30. 6.  Albright 1950: 482; 1969: 482. 7.  For the text of ARM 2.37 and the relevant bibliography, see §2.4.1.1.

4

Chapter 1:  Introduction

text and the biblical traditions abound in scholarly literature. These references are made by scholars such as H. L. Ginsberg (1950), F. Willesen (1954), M.  Noth (1955 and following editions), J. Bright (1959 and following editions), A. Malamat (1961 and following editions, 1995), G. E. Wright (1964), F. M. Cross (1973), and J. M. Sasson (1976a–b). 8 Albright also reiterated his original ideas in a number of later publications. 9 In this list of scholarly references, one that deserves special attention is the article written by Martin Noth. Initially published in German in 1955, the article was incorporated into his book Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (1957, 1960), which was translated into English and published in 1966 under the title The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. He brings the discussion to a new level in which he not only explains the treaty practices but also suggests that the donkey’s sacred role in the Canaanite cult may account for the “unclean” status of the donkey in Israelite religion (see Lev 11:2–7, Deut 14:4–8): In the Old Testament the ass was an animal which could not be sacrificed, for it was “unclean”; maybe the declaration that the ass as well as the camel were “unclean” is to be traced directly to some important role which ass and camel played in foreign cults in the countries bordering on Israel. 10

1.2.2.  Equid Burials In the early 1930s, shortly before the discoveries at Mari, W. M. F. Petrie unearthed the first equid remains in Middle Bronze contexts at Tell el-ʿAjjul (see §3.2.9). He identified the remains as either “horse” or “ass,” apparently on the basis of size. Most of the equid skeletons were incomplete and were associated with human burials. The sketchy data in his reports contain few measurements and are not verifiable by current osteological methods. His drawings and photographs are equally unhelpful. But the most pertinent information for the present survey is how Petrie interpreted the finds. He identified the burials as a distinctly Hyksos practice and he suggested that most of these animals were consumed as part of a sacrificial feast. 11 Meanwhile, it is surprising that 8.  Ginsberg 1950: 158; Willesen 1954: 216–17; Noth 1955: 433–44; 1957: 142– 54; 1966: 108–17; Bright 1959: 73; 1972: 80, 1981: 81; Malamat 1971 (Israel edition 1961): 149, 319 n. 55; 1995: 226–29 (= 1998: 168–71); Wright 1964: 131, 256 n. 17; Cross 1973: 265; Sasson 1976a: 73; 1976b: 199–207. 9. E.g., Albright 1961: 48; 1963: 12; 1968: 84, 91. 10.  Noth 1966: 109–10. 11.  On the Hyksos connection, see Petrie 1931: 3, 4; 1932: 2, 5, 14; 1952: 2; Mackay and Murray 1952: 33; note my critique of this position under §3.6. On the “sacrificial feast” interpretation, see Petrie 1931: 5; 1932: 2, 5, 14; Mackay and Murray 1952: 33; for further discussion, see §3.7.1.

1.2.  History of Scholarship

5

Albright never related the Amorite “ass-slaying” activity to the burials discovered by Petrie. 12 Petrie’s suggestion that the remains were indicative of sacrificial feasts seems to have prevailed for some time. It was reiterated by A. K. Dajani (1964) and again in W. H. Stiebing’s 1971 study on “Hyksos Burials in Palestine.” 13 Stiebing also brought together additional evidence for equid burials from Lachish and Jericho (sites that were published in the late 1950s and early 1960s respectively), and he integrated the Mari material as well as the biblical Shechem traditions into his analysis. 14 Stiebing also suggested that the equid burials should not be credited to the Hyksos. 15 Another step forward came with Edwin C. M. van den Brink’s monograph Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dabʿa (1982). In addition to the data from Tell el-ʿAjjul, Lachish, and Jericho, van den Brink considered new evidence from the same period in the eastern Nile Delta—from Tell el-Dabʿa, Tell el-Maskhuta, and Inshas. Though he acknowledged Petrie’s “sacrificial feast” interpretation, he did not give it full endorsement because some of the extant burials contained complete remains (indicating that the animal was buried whole and not consumed). 16 He then pointed out the possibility that the mythological texts from Ugarit may shed some light on the subject. Toward the end of the Baʿlu myth, Baʿlu is killed, and ʿAnatu finds and buries his remains. Then ʿAnatu performs a great sacrifice to the dead Baʿlu, which may have included 70 donkeys (CTU 1.6 I:28; see §2.2.1.1). While van den Brink failed to acknowledge that the reading “donkeys” is uncertain, he suggested that this text provides a “mythical precedent to which the evidenced practice of burying donkeys with the dead is in some way related.” 17 In 1989, Aren M. Maeir proposed a new interpretation for the burials (see §2.1.2.2). Citing studies on the Egyptian deity Seth (viz., Van Seters 1966; te Velde 1967; Ward 1978), Maeir suggested that, because Seth was associated with donkeys and was the principal deity of the Hyksos, it is “possible to interpret the donkey burials as a Seth-related ritual.” 18 In fact, the evidence for 12.  Note that Albright does demonstrate awareness of Petrie’s equid burials (see Albright and Dumont 1934: 113–14). 13.  Dajani 1964: 58; Stiebing 1971: 115, 116. Even as recent as 1990, I. Ziffer holds to this interpretation (1990: 64*, 67* n. 12). 14.  Stiebing 1971: 115–16. 15.  Stiebing 1971: 115–17. 16.  Van den Brink 1982: 75. 17. Van den Brink 1982: 77. The broken text reads [. . .]ḥmrm (CTU 1.6 I:28), which can be interpreted as “donkeys” (ḥmrm) or “roebucks” ([y]ḥmrm). For further discussion, see §2.2.1.1. 18.  Maeir 1989: 64. Because this theory apparently went unnoticed for some time, Maeir restated his interpretation in a brief response to Keel, which he published in Levant (see Maeir 1994: 231). See my critique of Maeir’s theory under §2.1.2.2.

6

Chapter 1:  Introduction

dismembered equid remains “may be related to the evidence of the sacrifice and dismemberment of Seth in the Egyptian ritual.” 19 It is also well-known that Seth is associated with Baal in Canaan, which can “explain the ease in which this ritual was incorporated into Canaanite culture.” 20 Maeir, however, admits that he knows of no “direct association between Baal and donkeys, save the possible sacrifice of donkeys by Anat.” 21 In the meantime, more evidence for the practice of donkey burials was emerging from (publications on) the excavations at Tell el-Dabʿa, Tel ʿAkko, Tell Jemmeh, and Tel Haror. Manfred Bietak, the director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo and professor of Egyptology at the University of Vienna, has led the excavations at Tell el-Dabʿa since 1966. Because the burials initially appeared in two different contexts at Tell el-Dabʿa (see §3.1.1), Bietak employed two different explanations. While he interpreted the burials before temples in the light of treaty negotiations (see above regarding ARM 2.37, p. 3), he said that the burials before human graves mark the deceased as probable leaders in the business of caravan expeditions. 22 This interpretation concerning human graves represents Bietak’s change of mind since 1979, when he suggested that the buried donkey pairs “seem to represent teams, perhaps used for pulling a carriage for the funeral.” 23 Excavations at Tel Haror commenced in 1982 under the direction of Eliezer D. Oren of Ben-Gurion University. At the end of the 1992 season, disarticulated donkey bones were discovered above a complete donkey skeleton in a collapsed domed structure (that is, Structure 8624). The following year, additional donkey remains were uncovered in the same structure, but the structure is not yet completely excavated. The publication of this discovery is still forthcoming. 24 For the time being, the most helpful sources for preliminary 19.  Maeir 1989: 65. 20.  Maeir 1989: 64–65. 21.  Maeir 1989: 67 n. 30 (note that Maeir does acknowledge the problematic nature of the reading in KTU 1.6 I:28). In chap. 2 (see §2.2.1.1) I show that donkey sacrifices do appear in additional Ugaritic texts, namely, the “Ritual for National Unity” (KTU 1.40:26, 34, 43) and the “Prayer for a City under Siege” (KTU 1.119:16). However, the donkey sacrifices in these two texts are never unambiguously directed to Baʿlu. 22.  Bietak 1996: 25, 40, 41; 1997: 103. Bietak’s explanation of the burials associated with humans is less than satisfactory because it fails to explain why the caravan animals needed to be slaughtered. That is, Bietak does not identify any particular custom, belief or ritual that can account for the activity. He merely expounds on a possible relationship between the animal(s) and the deceased. He repeats the same interpretation in his 1997 article (pp. 103, 109). For further discussion on the caravan interpretation, see §3.7.1. 23.  Bietak 1981: 245 (Bietak read his paper in 1979, but it was published in 1981). For further discussion on the “draft team” interpretation, see §3.7.1. 24.  For now, see Oren 1997a: 475; 1997b: 265–66. For further discussion on Tel Haror, see §§3.2.11, 3.7.5.

1.2.  History of Scholarship

7

information are the dissertations by Joel D. Klenck and Jill C. Katz. Klenck’s 1996 dissertation at Harvard University (published in 2002) entailed an analysis of Animals in the Canaanite Cultic Milieu with a specific focus on the faunal remains from Tel Haror. Unfortunately, the only remark Klenck made on the cultic significance of the burials is that those discovered in Structure 8624 “were probably placed in the domed chamber as part of a burial ritual.” 25 What he precisely meant by “burial ritual” is not altogether clear. Katz’s dissertation (The Archaeology of Cult in Middle Bronze Age Canaan: The Sacred Area at Tel Haror, Israel; completed in 2000 at the University of Pennsylvania), focused on Area K, which included the temple, courtyards, enclosed spaces, and donkey burial. She points out that Locus 8740 (= the interior of Klenck’s “Structure 8624”) is a monumental burial complex that features two donkey skeletons and the mandible of a third donkey. 26 The interpretation that Katz offers for the donkey burial is that it may represent treaty ritual such as that expressed in ARM 2.37. 27 The most significant advance in the study of the equid burials came when Oren organized an international seminar at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology during the spring of 1992. The seminar was focused on the study of the Hyksos and their world. The papers were published by Oren under the title The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (1997c). While all of the articles are worthy of note, only three of them deserve special attention here—namely, Holladay, Oren, and Wapnish. First, John S. Holladay Jr., who is the director of the excavations at Tell elMaskhuta and Wadi Tumilat, provided an interim report on the Middle Bronze discoveries, which include equid burials (see §3.1.3). He suggested that “rites highlighting the interdependence of man and donkey reflected a major economic basis to the social order.” 28 He asked: “why not have bulls buried before more exalted tombs, and sheep or goats sacrificed before those of lower status? The answer seems to be that the donkey was, somehow, qualitatively different. By virtue of its centrality to the economy, it attained the status of a worthy offering.” 29 Second, Eliezer D. Oren examined the “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos kingdom and reported on some of the discoveries from Tel Haror (see 25.  Klenck 2002: 55; cf. p. 76. His lack of embellishment on “burial ritual” is especially surprising in light of the aim of his study (his fifth and final chapter is devoted to the practice of the cult at Tel Haror). 26.  Note that the presence of two fully articulated and intact skeletons is assumed (based on what has been exposed to date) but not yet confirmed (see Katz 2000: 48, 49, 117, 118). The burial chamber is assigned to Stratum V (the beginning of MB IIB). 27.  Katz 2000: 237. 28.  Holladay 1997: 204. 29.  Holladay 1997: 204.

8

Chapter 1:  Introduction

§3.2.11). In his discussion on cult and funerary customs, he reviewed some of the interpretations that have been made in the past about equid burials, but he did not evaluate their respective merits. He merely stated that “the donkey played a prominent role in the cult at Tel Haror” 30 and that “the donkey was an important animal in Canaanite religion.” 31 But he was “uncertain whether [the animals] represent ceremonial burials or the remains of partly eaten funerary feasts.” 32 Third, Paula Wapnish provided the most thorough and substantive article on the burials to date. She surveyed what is known about equid burials from Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece. 33 Rather than taking a “one-sizefits-all” approach to the interpretation of the diverse data, Wapnish proposed a more sophisticated analysis wherein many possibilities exist. The equid remains could represent: 34 1.  “ritual burials in the temple complex of their protective deity” 2.  “ritual meals intended to propitiate the god(s)” (this is particularly the case where the remains are dismembered or incomplete) 3.  “foundation rather than funerary sacrifices” 4.  “funerary offerings for the afterlife of the deceased” (this is especially the case when the remains are complete and when they are accompanied by other “items of everyday importance”) or 5.  overlap of any of the above features (“In the southern Levant this complexity is especially pronounced.”) This degree of diversity of features demonstrates that “equids were animals of singular importance, mediating some special role that even the more symbolically potent bull did not fulfill in Amorite culture.” 35 Finally and most recently (1999), Lawrence E. Stager published a study of the “fortress temple” at Shechem in which he proposed a new dating for Temple 1 (MB II–Iron I) and a reinterpretation of Temple 2 (that is, it is not a temple at all but an administrative center). In his comparative analysis of temples that were contemporary with Temple 1, he surveyed those from Tell el-Dabʿa and Tel Haror (among others) and revisited Albright’s original suggestion that the biblical Shechem traditions may be read in the light of ARM 30.  Oren 1997b: 265. 31.  Oren 1997b: 266. 32.  Oren 1997b: 266. 33.  The only region that she omits is Anatolia. Horse and donkey burials are known from Boğazköy (Middle and Late Bronze); see §3.5. 34.  The following possibilities were derived from Wapnish’s conclusions (1997: 359–60). Though she did not list them in this format, I found it helpful to do so. The quotations are listed here in the order in which they occur on pp. 359–60. 35.  Wapnish 1997: 359.

1.3.  Problems and Prospects

9

2.37. 36 He then interpreted the equid burials from the temples at Tell el-Dabʿa and Tel Haror as reflecting treaty activity. 37 Stager’s suggestions later appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review (2003), in which he reiterated the same interpretation. 38 Interestingly, Stager does not address the meaning of the equid burials that accompany human graves.

1.3.  Problems and Prospects Under the following headings of ancient Near Eastern texts, Near Eastern archaeology, and biblical literature, I intend to survey my contribution to a further understanding of the ceremonial and symbolic significance of donkeys in the biblical world.

1.3.1.  Ancient Near Eastern Texts Surprisingly, few texts have been examined regarding the ceremonial and symbolic significance of donkeys. Even in discussions concerning ARM 2.37 (see §1.2.1), scholars give little or no attention to the other materials from Mari about ass slaying (see §2.4.1.1) or about the symbolic nature of the mule versus the horse (ARM 6.76; see §2.4.1.2). From Mari there is also an administrative text documenting the assignment of a donkey to a prophet (A.3796; see §2.4.1.3). Additional Akkadian texts that should not be overlooked are the omen texts (see §2.4.2) and animal fables (see §2.4.3), which feature equid activity. Other important texts from Mesopotamia include Sumerian literature. In the Gudea cylinders, the ruler of Lagash is symbolized by a donkey stallion who paws the ground in eagerness to get at the temple (see §2.5.1). Proverb collections supply useful data on the reputation and behavior of donkeys (see §2.5.2). The “Death of Ur-Namma A” is very important in the present study because it describes donkey burials in connection with a human grave (see §2.5.3). An elegy on the death of Nawirtum applies the Sumerian word for “jenny” (eme x) to a priestess (see §2.5.4). Finally, a foundation tablet of En-metena essentially designates a temple as a “donkey house” (see §2.5.5). Texts from the Levant are especially overlooked. The only Ugaritic text that scholars emphasize is a broken/questionable reference to the sacrifice of 70 donkeys for Baʿlu’s funeral (KTU 1.6 I:28; see §2.2.1.1). But there are other Ugaritic texts that clearly mention the donkey as a distinct sacrifice (namely, the “Ritual for National Unity” [KTU 1.40:26, 34, 43] and the rituals preceding the “Prayer for a City under Siege” [KTU 1.119:16]). 39 These texts have not 36.  Stager 1999: 238–39. 37.  Stager 1999: 238–39; cf. Bietak 1996: 40. 38.  Stager 2003: 66. 39.  For analyses of both of these texts, see §2.2.1.1. Notice that in both of these sacrificial texts the word used for donkey is ʿr (contrast this with [. . .]ḥmrm in KTU 1.6 I:28).

10

Chapter 1:  Introduction

been brought to the fore of the discussion until now. Additional Ugaritic materials that may prove to be helpful are: (1) contexts in which a donkey serves as a transport for deity or for people of high status (e.g., the Baʿlu Myth [KTU 1.4 IV:1–19]; the ʾAqhatu Legend [KTU 1.19 II:1–11]; and the Rāpiʾūma Texts [KTU 1.20 II:1b–4; 1.22 II:20b–24a]; see §2.2.1.2); (2) fragmentary dream omens that refer to the activities of horses and donkeys (KTU 1.86:6–13; see §2.2.1.3); and (3) a historiola in which a mare (pḥlt), who is the daughter of Šapšu, marries the deity Ḥôrānu (KTU 1.100; see §2.2.1.4). Aramaic texts, such as the plaster inscription from Deir ʿAlla and the proverbs of Ahiqar, must also be considered. The Deir ʿAlla text (KAI 5 312; see §2.2.2.1) contains numerous references to different kinds of animals—including the donkey. 40 The role of these animals in the inscription does not receive much attention in the secondary literature. Whereas the plaster texts are extremely enigmatic and fragmentary, they can provide some insight into the role of animals in the Balaam traditions; or even better, they can aid one’s understanding of the role of the ʾātôn in Num 22:22–35. The proverbs of Ahiqar include a number of interesting sayings that are based on the behavior of donkeys (see §2.2.2.2). It is necessary to survey sayings such as these in order to enrich the present study. Egyptian texts must also be examined for clues regarding the significance of donkeys. First, Aren Maeir’s theory that Hyksos donkey burials were an expression of Seth worship (cf. §1.2.2) needs to be evaluated. It is therefore necessary to explore the relationships between Seth and the donkey (see §2.1.2.1) and to reexamine the connection between Seth worship and the donkey burials (see §2.1.2.2). Second, there are numerous references to donkeys in Egyptian texts from the Middle Kingdom to the Hellenistic-Roman Period (i.e., from ca. 2106–30 b.c.e.). These references must be surveyed for their contribution to the present study (see §2.1.1). Some of the more noteworthy texts include a dream omen about eating donkey meat (see §2.1.1.1), a biographical text mentioning the consumption of donkeys during a famine (see §2.1.1.2), Spells 40 and 125 from the Book of the Dead (see §2.1.1.3), and maxims based on the donkey from the instructions of ʿOnchsheshonqy and Papyrus Insinger (see §2.1.1.4 and §2.1.1.5, respectively). Finally, Anatolian texts are completely ignored in previous studies on donkeys. In Hittite bestiality laws, sexual relations with a cow, sheep, pig, or dog constitutes a very serious offense (cf. §§187, 188, 199), whereas sexual relations with either a horse or a mule is permissible (cf. §200A; see §2.3.1). In Hittite “scapegoat” rituals, the donkey appears as the carrier of the burden of 40.  See Combination I, where the “donkey” (ḥmr, line 10) is mentioned along with various birds, cattle, ewes, hares, and hyenas.

1.3.  Problems and Prospects

11

impurity (see §2.3.2). In the epic Hittite text known as The Queen of Kanesh and the Tale of Zalpa, the queen is said to have borne 30 sons and 30 daughters, and the sons are said to be driving donkeys (see §2.3.3). Finally, the Hittite account known as the “Crossing of the Taurus” characterizes the donkey as an “opponent” (see §2.3.4).

1.3.2.  Near Eastern Archaeology Many questions remain unanswered (and unraised!) regarding the equid burials. With the single exception of Wapnish 1997 (see §1.2.2), no scholar attempts to bring together all of the burials for analysis. A new comprehensive study of the burials is therefore in order. It is necessary to expand, update, and clarify the groundbreaking work of Wapnish. It is also necessary to group the burials into helpful categories and to explore the various interpretive possibilities for each category (see §3.7). Chapter 3 therefore contains a survey of the extant equid burials from Egypt (§3.1), Israel-Palestine (§3.2), Syria (§3.3), and Iraq (§3.4). Throughout the survey, emphasis is placed on the following objectives: 41 • • • • • •

to identify the species of equid 42 to identify evidence for deliberate burial activity to describe the context of each equid burial to describe the nature of the equid remains to establish the date of each equid burial to consider the meaning of each equid burial

After the survey, the historical parameters of equid burials are summarized according to region and period (see §3.6). Finally, various interpretations are reviewed and proposed for each category of donkey burial (see §3.7).

1.3.3.  Biblical Literature At the outset, one must acknowledge the considerable chronological distance between the biblical literature and the ceremonial practices from Bronze Age Canaan. However, the biblical literature may indeed contain vestiges of earlier practices and beliefs. It will be shown that the Bible may in fact allude to (positively or negatively) similar beliefs or practices regarding donkeys that were present in Bronze Age Canaan. 41.  For an expanded explanation of each of these objectives, see the introduction to chap. 3 (pp. 105–106). 42.  While I am specifically interested in donkeys and donkey hybrids (as opposed to horses, onagers, etc.), it is necessary to survey the burials of all equids in the ancient Near East so as not to skew the data. One of the challenges in this study is that specialists often have difficulty distinguishing equid species due to the fragmentary nature of the remains, the condition of the remains, and the lack of specificity in the reports made by earlier archaeologists (such as Petrie; cf. §1.2.2).

12

Chapter 1:  Introduction

Some of the biblical passages pertaining to the symbolic and ceremonial role of donkeys have already been mentioned—namely, the Shechem traditions (Gen 33:18–34:31, Judg 8:33–9:57; cf. Josh 24:32; see §4.3). The interpretation of these passages may always be colored by Albright’s popular theory (see §1.2.1), especially because there is now evidence of an equid burial at Shechem (see §3.2.3). However, it is necessary to reevaluate the biblical Shechem traditions in light of other established nuances that the term Ḥămôr may carry (see §4.3.2). The redemption of the firstborn male donkey (Exod 13:13, 34:20; see §4.4) is perhaps the most intriguing biblical prescription that requires a fresh look in light of the present study. That the donkey was considered unclean is implied in the dietary laws of Lev 11:2–7 and Deut 14:4–8. But because many other animals were unclean, the first question regarding Exod 13:13 (and 34:20) is why the donkey is singled out from among the unclean animals (see §4.4.2). Second, why does this text prescribe a neck-breaking ritual in the event that the donkey is not redeemed (see §4.4.3)? With regard to the second question, biblical literature specifically links the neck-breaking ritual to the donkey foal (Exod 13:13, 34:20), the heifer calf (Deut 21:1–9), and the puppy (Isa 66:3). It is applicable at this juncture to note that puppies with broken necks have been discovered at Tel Haror (see §§1.6.3.2, 4.4.3; cf. §3.2.11) and a donkey with a broken neck has been discovered at Tel Beth-Shemesh (see §3.2.7, 4.4.3). The story of Balaam’s jenny (Num 22:22–35; see §4.5) is one that many scholars have explored over the years. However, there is a demonstrable need for further research. Not only should background information about the donkey (and Balaam’s preferred method of divination; see §2.2.2.1) be brought to bear on the dynamics of the narrative, but numerous literary features have yet to be observed and explicated. Like the story of Balaam’s jenny, the story about the man of God from Judah (1 Kgs 13; see §4.6) features the donkey as a minor literary character. In fact, the story of the man of God from Judah shares many striking similarities with the story of Balaam’s jenny (see §4.6.3). These similarities (many of which concern the donkey) are largely unnoticed until the present study. The prophet Jeremiah compares king Jehoiakim’s burial to “the burial of a donkey” (Jer 22:19; see §4.7). Because the details of Jehoiakim’s death are unknown, this phrase remains challenging to interpreters. Nevertheless, it is necessary to revisit this verse and to explore various interpretive possibilities. Finally, the Hebrew terms for donkeys and mules—ḥămôr, ʾātôn, ʿayir, and pered/pirdah—must be thoroughly analyzed and carefully defined (see §4.1). To my knowledge, there is no other publication to date that explores the similarities and differences among these four lexemes. There are many additional passages (such as Gen 49:11a; Judg 10:4, 15:15– 16; 2 Sam 18:9; 2 Kgs 6:25; Job 11:12; Ezek 23:20; Zech 9:9b) that are ex-

1.4.  Scope and Limitations

13

plored in chap. 4 but are not assigned their own headings. Most treatments of these passages are embedded in the sections devoted to terminology (§4.1) and observations (§4.2).

1.4.  Scope and Limitations It is important to maintain that the objective of this study is to understand only the ceremonial and symbolic significance of the donkey (cf. §1.1). Because of this focus, it seems prudent to delineate what this study does not entail. There are basically four clarifications in this regard. First, this study does not have a zoological (i.e., strictly scientific) focus. Of course, one must explore scientific matters wherever they come to bear on ceremonial or symbolic questions. In matters of species identification and osteological analysis, one must defer to the specialists in the field of paleozoology (or “zooarchaeology” or “archaeozoology”), such as J. Boessneck, J. Clutton-Brock, A. von den Driesch, B. Hesse, J. Klenck, J. Lev-Tov, P. Wapnish, J. Weber, and others. The identification of donkey remains (as opposed to horse, onager, or hybrid remains) is an important factor in the present analysis of equid burials. 43 Second, horses are, for the most part, excluded from this study. The primary interest is in donkeys (and, to some extent, donkey hybrids). Of course, wherever an understanding of the horse or onager comes to bear upon the significance of the donkey (or hybrid), one must consider the evidence. Third, this study does not examine the majority of references to donkeys (and hybrids) that occur in strictly agricultural, economic, or military contexts. Once again, this study is restricted to ceremonial and symbolic data. Fourth, this study does not focus on issues related to animal husbandry or domestication. Wherever these issues intersect with matters of ceremony or symbolism, they are indeed considered.

1.5.  Methodology   44 In the study of ancient religion (which includes ceremonial and symbolic dimensions), the goal should always be a balanced interpretation that is derived from the integration of all the relevant sources—archaeological, iconographic, textual, and biblical (in no particular order). Whenever any of these sources is 43.  Incidentally, the identification of hybrids in the paleozoological record is particularly challenging (see Hesse 1995: 216; Klingbeil 2003a: 405, 415 note d; 2003b: 268; 2005: 3; Michel 2004: 194; Vila 2006: 102–3). 44. For helpful discussions on method in general, see the following sources: Albertz 1994: 1–21; Dever 2002: 11–33; Fox 2000: 9–42; Hallo 1991: 17–34, 1997: xxiii–xxviii, 2000: xxi–xxvi; Hoffmeier 1996: 3–24; Walton 1989: 13–17, 2006: 15–40; Younger 2002b: xxxv–xlii; Zevit 2002: 35–42.

14

Chapter 1:  Introduction

studied in isolation, it is likely that the conclusions will be skewed. Though scholarly specialization is necessary, one must be cautious not to elevate his/ her field above others. One must ideally always keep an eye on what is happening in neighboring fields. Sadly, it is very apparent in the above survey of scholarship (see §1.2) that scholars working in the field of texts and philology seem to be unaware of what is happening in the field of archaeology—and the opposite is equally true. The present study is therefore aimed at achieving a balanced integration of the sources/fields (namely, archaeology, iconography, philology, and Bible), but this objective requires one to be extremely cautious because each field presents challenges in its own right. The field of archaeology includes the study of all material culture. On the one hand, one can rightly say that material culture represents raw, objective data. But on the other hand, the identification and significance of an artifact (or of an assemblage of artifacts) is a matter of subjective interpretation. One facet (or subfield) of archaeology is iconography—or the interpretation of images. This relatively new field is often criticized for its subjectivity. Thus, it is necessary to briefly discuss matters of iconographic method. 45 In the study of images, it is imperative to give attention to matters of provenance, function, medium, and material. When comparing a text with an image, one must consider both the geographical and the historical proximity between them. In Egypt, the iconographic evidence often works in tandem with texts (that is, an inscription often tells you what you are looking at); for this reason, Egyptian iconography can be a very helpful source. Unfortunately, this scenario is rarely if ever the case regarding iconographic remains from the Levant and Mesopotamia. In their book Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Keel and Uehlinger persuasively demonstrate that iconography is essential to the study of religion. 46 They point out that it is a rash judgment to “think that pictures are vague and ambiguous, whereas words are precise and clear.” 47 They also show that “The power of the image is in its ability to portray several aspects simultaneously.” 48 Finally, they remind their readers that “the visual world is more cross-cultural than the verbal world.” 49 45.  On iconographic method, see Keel 1978: 7–14; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 1–17, 393–409; Klingbeil 2003a: 408–11, 421–24; Sass 1993: 194–256; Uehlinger 1993a: xi–xxii, 1993b: 257–88. While this study does not include a separate treatment on the iconography of donkeys, it does incorporate iconographic data wherever relevant (mostly in chap. 2). 46.  The English translation by T. H. Trapp was published in 1998. The German original was published in 1992 under the title Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole (Fribourg: Herder). 47.  Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 393. 48.  Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 394. 49.  Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 395.

1.5.  Methodology  

15

Iconography is not the only archaeological issue that is being discussed at present. A paradigm shift seems to be taking place in archaeological theory. Lively discussions and debates have been recently devoted to the distinction between processual and postprocessual archaeology. 50 The processual approach (also called “New Archaeology”) of the 1970s is modeled on the natural sciences. This approach looks for a “covering law” or universal meaning (although not always explicitly stated) to make sense out of the material record. These approaches are processual because culture is viewed as existing in a closed ecosystem, where environmental fluctuations have a direct, causal impact on human response. There is little room in this attitude toward the past for human creativity and conscious choice. 51

The postprocessual approach (also called the “cognitive” approach) of the 1980s and beyond emphasizes the importance of context for interpretation. It also “maintains an interest in the human mind and especially the importance of intentional human actions (products of thinking rather than simply reacting individuals) in creating the past.” 52 Ian Hodder adds that “Archaeology no longer has to be ‘new’ and unidirectional, presenting a unified front. It has the maturity to allow diversity, controversy and uncertainty.” 53 The archaeological methodology employed in the present study reflects both the processual and postprocessual approaches. That is, one attempts to emphasize matters of context and consider cognitive factors without jettisoning the scientific approach. The present study is therefore interdisciplinary (incorporating zoology) and may offer multiple interpretations for a given phenomenon. Equid burials, for instance, are here interpreted in diverse ways, and it is recognized that multiple interpretations may be simultaneously valid or complementary. In the field of ancient Near Eastern texts, it is also necessary to review some matters of method. William W. Hallo, who pioneered what is now known as the “Contextual Approach,” proposes a trifold taxonomy for the organization of the sources—canonical compositions, monumental inscriptions, and archival documents. 54 Within this taxonomy, he suggests that there are two dimensions—horizontal and vertical. The horizontal dimension concerns the location of a text “in time and space.” 55 Hallo explains:

50. See Hodder 1991; Whitley 1998; cf. Long 2003: 308–18. 51.  Long 2003: 310–11. 52.  Whitley 1998: 6. 53.  Hodder 1991: x. 54. See COS (Hallo and Younger 1997, 2000, 2002) and Hallo 2000: xxi–xxii; Hallo and Simpson 1998: 154–57. 55.  Hallo 1997: xxvi.

16

Chapter 1:  Introduction The “context” of a given text may be regarded as its horizontal dimension— the geographical, historical, religious, political and literary setting in which it was created and disseminated. The contextual approach tries to reconstruct and evaluate this setting, whether for a biblical text or one from the rest of the ancient Near East. Given the frequently very different settings of biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts, however, it is useful to recognize such contrasts as well as comparisons or, if one prefers, to operate with negative as well as positive comparison. . . . But even where (positive) comparison is asserted, it is useful to raise questions of category and genre so that, as nearly as possible, like is compared with like. 56

On the other hand, the vertical dimension concerns placement “between the earlier texts that helped inspire it and the later texts that reacted to it. We can describe this feature of its interconnectedness as its vertical or, in line with current usage, its ‘intertextual’ dimension.” 57 Hallo also gives helpful suggestions regarding the relationship between history and literature. That is, we should not “divide our sources strictly into literary and historical ones.” 58 Rather, we should be “using literary and historical sources to illuminate each other—treating literary sources as precious aids in reconstructing history, and reconstructing history as the essential context for literature.” 59 According to Hallo, the concept of “literature as politics” implies “the rejection of any hard-and-fast dichotomy between ‘history’ and ‘literature’ in favor of a recognition that, often enough, history is literature, and vice versa.” 60 The study of the Hebrew Bible in conjunction with ancient Near Eastern texts is the final matter that must be addressed. For this topic, I think K. Lawson Younger’s model is most helpful. He suggests a four-pronged assessment process: I believe that balance in the evaluation of the evidence is achieved through the assessment of propinquity along four lines: linguistic, geographic, chronological, and cultural (not necessarily in this order). A parallel that is closer to the biblical material in language, in geographic proximity, in time, and culture is a stronger parallel than one that is removed from the biblical material along one or more of these lines. 61

Younger also proposes additional considerations to keep in mind regarding method: 56.  Hallo 1997: xxv–xxvi. 57.  Hallo 1997: xxvi. 58.  Hallo 1997: xxvii. 59.  Hallo 1997: xxvii. 60.  Hallo 1997: xxviii. 61.  Younger 2002b: xxxvii.

1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World

17

1.  The evaluation of parallels should generally be based on parallel types or genres. 2.  It is very important that the ancient text actually contains the reading that we think it contains. 3.  It is also very important that the interpretation of the ancient Near Eastern text is accurate. 4.  Be aware of the limits of the comparison or contrast. 5.  Be careful in positing directions and amounts of influence. 6.  It is important to stay cognizant of the fact that all literary works may manipulate the evidence, consciously or not, for specific political and artistic purposes. 7.  We need to recognize the degree of uncertainty in the interpretive process. 62 The point in this brief discussion on methodology is simply this: because a study on the ceremonial and symbolic significance of donkeys cuts through a vast amount of history and cuts across all the branches of biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies, it is essential to be cautious when making assertions. All conclusions need to be informed by an integrated and balanced approach to the data.

1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World It is important to situate the present study within the more general field of animals in the biblical world. 63 The following discussion on the history of scholarship, sacrificial animals, selected animal profiles, and biblical literature serves not only as a wider context for the present study but also as a reference 62.  Younger’s seven controls are quoted here minus his intervening explanations and examples. They are listed in the order in which they occur on pp. xxxix–xli (Younger 2002b). 63.  For general surveys of animals in the ancient Near East, see Bienkowski 2000a: 20–21; Bodenheimer 1960; Gilbert 1995: 163–74; 2002: 3–75, 493–536; Hesse 1995: 203–22; Keel and Staubli 2001, 2003; Mottahedeh 1997. For Anatolia, see Collins 2002a: 237–50, 2002b: 309–34; Gunter 2002: 79–96. For Mesopotamia, see Breniquet 2002: 145–68; van Buren 1939; Foster 2002: 271–88; Heimpel 1968; Landsberger 1960, 1962; Postgate and Powell 1993, 1995; Scurlock 2002a: 361–87, 2002b: 389– 403; Watanabe 2002. For the Levant, see Borowski 2002a: 289–306, 2002b: 405–24; Caubet 2002: 211–34; Ducos 1968; Hesse and Wapnish 2002: 457–91; Wapnish 1993: 426–42; Wapnish and Hesse 2003: 20–24. For Egypt, see Boessneck 1988; Brewer 2002: 427–56; Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994: 77–129; Gautier 1999: 300–306; Germond and Livet 2001; Houlihan 1996; 2002: 97–143; Osborn and Osbornová 1998; Smith 1969: 307–14; Teeter 2002a: 251–70; 2002b: 335–60. For surveys of animals in the Bible, see Borowski 1998; Cansdale 1970; Feliks 1962, 1981; Firmage 1992: 1109– 67; France 1986; Klingbeil 2005: 1–20; Lawrence 2003: 914–18; Maillot 1973; Tristram 1867; United Bible Societies 1980; Wolff 1988: 1204–10; Younker 2000: 64–65.

18

Chapter 1:  Introduction

point for comparison and contrast. It is evident that the donkey is in some ways the same as other animals and in other ways different from other animals.

1.6.1.  Brief History of Scholarship The study of animals in the biblical world is still a relatively new field. Although there are some significant early contributions (such as H. B. Tristram’s Natural History of the Bible [first edition, 1867] and E. D. van Buren’s Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia [1939]), the field seems to have come of age in the 1960s (see Bodenheimer 1960; Landsberger 1960; 1962; Feliks 1962; Zeuner 1963; Ducos 1968; Heimpel 1968; cf. Cansdale 1970). During the 60s and 70s (with some exceptions; e.g., Bate 1938), it appears that the routine collection of zoological remains took hold in excavation methods. In the 80s and 90s there was a surge of publications on animals in the biblical world (e.g., United Bible Societies 1980; Clutton-Brock 1981; Feliks 1981; Grayson 1984; Hesse and Wapnish 1985; Uerpmann 1987; Zeder 1991; Firmage 1992; Postgate and Powell 1993, 1995; Borowski 1998) and, more specifically, on the animal world of ancient Egypt (see Boessneck 1988; Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994; Houlihan 1996; Osborn and Osbornová 1998; cf. Germond and Livet 2001). The first decade of the 21st century also got off to a good start. Noteworthy contributions include Parayre (2000), Keel and Staubli (in German [2001] and in French [2003]), Watanabe (2002), and Riede (2002), but the most comprehensive reference work is undoubtedly A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, edited by Billie Jean Collins (2002c; 620 pp.). Collins’s book provides surveys by leading scholars in the fields of (paleo)zoology, iconography, texts, and religion. Her book covers Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia (including Iran). The stage is now set for much more specialized studies on animals in the biblical world. For example, the second volume of the Semitic Etymological Dictionary (SED; 2005) by A. Militarev and L. Kogan is devoted exclusively to animal names. 64 As for studies on specific animals, Brent A. Strawn’s monograph about the lion deserves special acknowledgement (What Is Stronger Than a Lion? [2005; 587 pp.]). The present study on donkeys is yet another attempt to focus on a specific animal of the biblical world.

1.6.2.  Sacrificial Animals The primary sacrificial animals in the Bible and the ancient Near East are the domestic ruminants known as large and small cattle—the bāqār and the ṣōʾn of biblical parlance. The small cattle, comprising sheep (ovids) and goats 64.  Note also the first volume of SED (2000), which is devoted to the anatomy of humans and animals.

1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World

19

(caprids), are the most common sacrificial victims. The large cattle, comprising bovids, are the next-most frequent sacrificial victims. Following the large and small cattle are animals such as various fowl, but fowl are not as frequent as the ruminants. 65 Interestingly, in Ugaritic texts, the same order of frequency is observed. Dennis Pardee observes (out of 92 different objects that are mentioned as offerings in the ritual texts) that “ovids/caprids make up 33% of the total, bovids 15%, birds 3%,” whereas donkeys make up “less than 1%.” 66 These statistics demonstrate the rarity and uniqueness of donkey sacrifice (for further analysis, see §2.2.1.1). The donkey, of course, does not appear as a sacrificial animal in the Hebrew Bible (but note the intriguing prescription regarding the firstborn male donkey in Exod 13:13, 34:20; see §4.4). Similarly, when the paleozoological remains are examined from a selection of sites in Canaan-Israel, the same basic pattern emerges. Gerald A. Klingbeil, who compiled animal bone data from Iron Age sites, observes that the average ratio between ovid/caprid remains and bovid remains is about 4.5:1. 67 He also observes that “the standard ratio of equids to total identifiable faunal remains generally is way below the 1 percent mark.” 68 According to Klingbeil, this low percentage of equid remains “probably indicates their costliness and may point to their status function.” 69

1.6.3.  Selected Animal Profiles The following four animals are selected based on their relationship with the donkey. The camel is included because of its functional similarity to the donkey as a desert beast of burden. The dog is included because it is juxtaposed to the donkey in both archaeological and textual contexts. The lion and the serpent are also juxtaposed to the donkey in ancient Near Eastern texts (and in biblical texts, in the case of the lion). The profiles below are mainly focused on symbolic and ceremonial aspects. 65.  For further discussion, see Borowski 1998: 214, 219; cf. Firmage 1992: 1120 (table 3). 66.  Pardee 2002: 225; cf. Pardee 2000a: 917, 918; 2000c: 325, 328. 67.  Klingbeil 2005: 11 (and see table 2, p. 12); cf. Borowski 1998: 221–26; Firmage 1992: 1121–23 (table 4); King and Stager 2001: 113. 68.  Klingbeil 2005: 14 (and see table 3, p. 14). Of course, Klingbeil’s paleozoological data should not all be interpreted as proper evidence of sacrificial activity (this is especially the case regarding the equid remains). The data represent all the bone fragments collected from all contexts of the given sites. For comparison, it is noteworthy that pig remains also represent less than 1 percent of the faunal remains at Iron Age sites (Klingbeil 2005: 16). 69.  Klingbeil 2005: 14.

20

Chapter 1:  Introduction

1.6.3.1. Camel There are two species of camels in the biblical world—the one-humped Dromedary and the two-humped Bactrian. 70 Like donkeys, camels are utilized as pack and riding animals. They are also treated as items of tribute or booty. In rare and desperate situations, they can apparently even serve as a source of sustenance (that is, as a source of water). 71 Both W. F. Albright and M. Noth cite the Bedouin practice of camel slaughter as a parallel to the (much earlier) Amorite practice of donkey slaughter. 72 But when the Bedouin rituals are examined more carefully, it is evident that they have functions different from those of the Amorites. Joel D. Klenck, who recently examined animal sacrifice rituals among modern Bedouin, points out that camel sacrifices were/are employed (1) in the annual “Feast of the Sacrifice” (ʾId al ʾAdha), (2) to ward off curses (by the Rwala Bedouin in Saudi Arabia), and (3) as a dedication to a saint. 73 This third ritual, which is still observed in southern Israel, is further explained by Klenck: In the spiritual realm, Bedouin saints act as mediators between God and man, and Bedouin sacrifice sheep, goat, camels, and cattle at their tombs to redeem vows, protect their families, safeguard health, make vows, incur healing, give thanks, and insure their wives’ fertility. 74

The connection between Bedouin camel sacrifice and Amorite donkey slaughter is not self-evident to the present author. Albright does not elaborate on the 70.  For general reference on the camel, see Albright 1970: 197–205; Boessneck 1988: 83; Borowski 1998: 112–21, 233; Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994: 102–5; van Buren 1939: 36–37; Cansdale 1970: 64–70; Davis 1986: 141–52; Day and Harrison 1979: 583–84; Ephʿal 1982: 36, 40, 46, 76–78, 85–86, 95, 106, 109, 123–24, 128, 138–41, 149, 151, 153, 162–63, 191, 200; Feliks 1962: 46; Firmage 1992: 1138–40; Hesse 1995: 217; Houlihan 1996: 38–39; King and Stager 2001: 117–18; Klenck 1995: 57–58; Macdonald 1995: 1357, 1363; Mottahedeh 1997: 149–52; Sauer 1995: 41–42, 46; Smith 1969: 310; Tristram 1898: 58–66; Wapnish and Hesse 2003: 22; Way 2000: 33–34 (on Judg 8:26); Zarins 1992: 824–26; Zeuner 1963: 338–66. 71.  Borowski explains: “for water storage, the animal has several sac-shaped extensions in its stomach where liquid can be retained for a long period. . . . That this resource can be used in cases of emergency was reported by Ashurbanipal (668–631 b.c.e.) after one of his campaigns, in which he forced his thirsty enemies to ‘slit open camels, their (only) means of transportation, drinking blood and filthy water against their thirst’” (1998: 113); cf. ANET 299. 72. See Albright 1950: 482 n. 4, 1957: 165 (first edition, 1939), 1961: 48 n. 60, 1969: 482 n. 4; and Noth 1966: 109 (first published in 1955). 73.  For further elaboration on each of these rituals, see Klenck 1995: 57–58. For additional reference on camel sacrifice, see Ryckmans 1993: 366; de Vaux 1961: 436f. 74.  Klenck 1995: 57. Klenck also points out that young sheep and goats were the most common sacrifice at saints’ tombs, whereas cattle and camels were rare (1995: 60, 61 [table 1], 65).

1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World

21

nature of this alleged similarity. Noth, however, mentions this similarity in a context that stresses the fact that the donkey was “a particularly valuable sacrificial animal, more valuable than any other animal of the flocks.” 75 Noth is correct to point out the parallel on this level. That the Bedouin sacrifice(d) their most valuable beast of burden is indeed comparable to the Amorites’ slaughter of their most valuable beast of burden. But the Bedouin rituals have nothing to do with treaty activity and are therefore of limited help in the interpretation of Amorite donkey ceremonies. 1.6.3.2. Dog That canids appear frequently in connection with equids is evident in every chapter of this study. 76 In chap. 2, a Hittite “scapegoat” ritual is examined in which a live puppy is employed and described as though it were donkey (see §2.3.2). In three of the treaty rituals from Mari (namely, ARM 2.37:8–10; A.1056:7–8; A.2226:11, 15), representatives bring “a puppy and a goat” to slaughter, but Ibal-El disallows these animals and requires a purebred donkey instead (see §2.4.1.1). In chap. 3, canid skeletons are noted in connection with equid skeletons in Bronze Age burials from Egypt (Helwan; see §3.1.6), IsraelPalestine (Tel Haror; see §§3.2.11, 3.7.5), Syria (Umm el-Marra and Tell Brak; see §§3.3.1, 3.3.5), Iraq (Tell Madhur; see §3.4.2), and the Aegean (see §3.5). Interestingly, the intact canid skeletons from Tel Haror’s sacred complex are identified as puppies with broken necks. 77 Biblical references to neck-breaking rituals are considered in chap. 4 (see §4.4.3). Isa 66:3 (ʿōrēp keleb) may directly relate to what is observed at Tel Haror, whereas Exod 13:13, 34:20 and Deut 21:1–9 are only indirectly related (because they apply the neck-breaking ritual to the donkey foal and the heifer calf, respectively). Additionally, it should be noted that the dog was probably the first animal to be domesticated (ca. 12,000 b.c.e.). 78 Therefore, unlike donkeys or camels, 75.  Noth 1966: 109. 76.  For general reference on the dog, see ANEP 846; Berge 2001: 166–70; Boessneck 1988: 83–85; Borowski 1998: 133–40; Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994: 110–18; van Buren 1939: 14–19; Cansdale 1970: 121–24; Collins 1990: 211–26; DBI 29, 213–14; Feliks 1962: 34; Firmage 1992: 1143–44; Fuhr 1977: 135–45; Germond and Livet 2001: 71–75, 159–63; Hesse 1995: 208, 218–19; Houlihan 1996: 75–80; King and Stager 2001: 83–84, 118–19; Klenck 2002: 84–87; Livingstone 1988: 54–60; Mottahedeh 1997: 83–89; Moyer 1983: 29–33; Sasson 1976b: 199–207; Stager 1991: 30–42; Taylor 2000: 352; Tristram 1898: 78–80; Watanabe 2002: 119–20; Zeuner 1963: 79–111. 77. See Katz 2000: 84–85, 101, 107–8, 112–18, 120–30, 132–33, 135–36, 138, 142, 146–48, 150–51, 153–57, 161–63, 222, 228, 233–35; Klenck 2002: 63, 70–73, 84–87, 211–14; Oren 1993: 581, 1997a: 474–75, 1997b: 264, 268 (fig. 8.15); Stager 1999: 238–39, 2003: 66. 78. See Borowski 1998: 133; Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994: 114; cf. Keel and Staubli 2001: 20–21, 22; 2003: 20–21, 22 (see fig. 2a, domesticated ca. 10,000 b.c.e.).

22

Chapter 1:  Introduction

dogs held a place of prominence in ancient Egypt. They were occasionally given special burial and were identified with various deities (Anubis being the most famous). 79 In Anatolia, puppies were extensively employed in Hittite rituals of purification and prevention (that is, apotropaism). 80 In Mesopotamia, the dog served as an emblem of the healing goddess, 81 and 33 dog burials (puppies and adults) were excavated at the Gula Temple at Isin (ca. 1000 b.c.e.). 82 On Cyprus (at Kition), it is documented that dogs roamed the premises of a temple as part of a Phoenician healing cult in the fifth century b.c.e. 83 In Israel (at Ashkelon), more than 1,500 dog burials (puppies and adults, partial and complete) are identified from a cemetery dating to the fifth century b.c.e. 84 P. J. King and L. E. Stager explain: “The Phoenicians responsible for the [Ashkelon] burials may have considered the dogs sacred because of their association with a healing cult.” 85 Smaller groupings of dog burials are identified at Ashdod and Gezer, and a single burial (in a jar) is attested at Tell Qasile. 86 1.6.3.3. Lion The lion is associated with the donkey in both ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts (cf. §§2.6.10, 4.2.5, 4.6.2). 87 Egyptian instructions contrast 79. See Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994: 118; Germond and Livet 2001: 75, 159, 161; Houlihan 1996: 77, 78. 80. See Collins 1990: 211–26; Gurney 1961: 151; 1977: 50, 53; Held 1970: 40; Klenck 2002: 85–86; Masson 1950: 5–25; Moyer 1983: 31, 32–33; Sasson 1976b: 204–6; cf. §2.3.2. 81. See Berge 2001: 166–70; CAD K 71; Collins 1990: 225; Fuhr 1977: 135–45; Hesse 1995: 208, 219; King and Stager 2001: 83, 119; Klenck 2002: 84; Livingstone 1988: 58–60; Stager 1991: 39, 42. 82. See Boessneck 1977: 97–109 (and pls. 14–17); cf. Berge 2001: 167; Collins 1990: 225; Hesse 1995: 208, 219; Livingstone 1988: 58; Stager 1991: 42. See also Boessneck and Kokabi 1981a: 144–46 (and pl. 16:1). In addition, Watanabe suggests that dog figurines that were concealed at doorways in Mesopotamia have an apotropaic function (2002: 119–20); cf. van Buren 1939: 18. 83. See King and Stager 2001: 83; cf. Stager 1991: 41, 42. King and Stager add that “Deuteronomy may also be condemning a cult similar to the one practiced at Kition . . . (Deut. 23:19 [E.T. 18]). This censure suggests that some sort of cult featured healing dogs that roamed about the premises of the Jerusalem Temple” (King and Stager 2001: 83–84); cf. Stager 1991: 42. 84. See King and Stager 2001: 83, 119; Stager 1991: 30–42. 85.  King and Stager 2001: 119; cf. Stager 1991: 39. King and Stager add, “The instinct of dogs to lick their wounds as a way of promoting the healing process suggests their association with curative powers” (2001: 83); cf. Stager 1991: 39. 86.  Stager 1991: 39; cf. Firmage 1992: 1143; Hesse 1995: 219. 87.  For general reference on the lion, see ANEP 626; Borowski 1998: 196–200, 226–27; van Buren 1939: 3–10; Cansdale 1970: 105–11; DBI 30, 514–15; Feliks 1962: 32; Fowler 2000b: 811; Harrison 1986a: 141–42; Hesse 1995: 203–4; Houlihan 1996: 91–95; Strawn 2005; Tristram 1898: 115–20; Watanabe 2002: 42–56, 76–82, 112–16.

1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World

23

the respective temperaments and speeds of the two animals (see §§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4). An Aramaic proverb/fable depicts the lion and donkey as conversing in a seemingly peaceful manner (see §2.2.2.2). The Hebrew Bible curiously depicts the two animals as peacefully cooperating in order to execute Yhwh’s judgment (1 Kgs 13:24, 28; see §4.6; cf. §§1.6.4, 4.2.5). Throughout the biblical world, the lion functions as a symbol for royalty and as a symbol for deity. Brent A. Strawn provides extensive evidence for each of these metaphors in both the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East. 88 Throughout the ancient Near East, the lion also functions as a guardian of the gate, temple, and palace. 89 Osteological evidence for lions is rare in Canaan-Israel. However, the traces that have been identified are intriguing for cultic reasons. A foot bone bearing cut marks was identified near the Israelite high place at Tel Dan (mid-ninth century b.c.e.). 90 A skull was identified in a Late Bronze context at Jaffa in a structure that may have been a temple. 91 Several lion bones were identified at Tel Miqne-Ekron (Field I, Iron Age) in an as-yet undetermined context. 92 It may also be significant that a bronze figurine of a lion was discovered near the altar of the Arad temple (Iron II). 93 1.6.3.4. Serpent There appears to be rivalry between the serpent and the equid in the biblical world (cf. §2.6.11). 94 In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, there is a spell (#40) that is designed to repel the serpent that threatens the donkey (see §2.1.1.3). 88.  On the lion as a royal symbol, see Strawn 2005: 54–58, 174–84, 268–70. On the lion as a divine symbol, see Strawn 2005: 58–65, 200–214, 250–73. 89. See Strawn 2005: 217–26. 90. See Borowski 1998: 199–200, 227; Strawn 2005: 94 n. 101, 106. In addition, the head of a bronze scepter (which may bear depictions of lion heads) was discovered near the lion bone (Borowski 1998: 227). Note also that the pre-Israelite name for Tel Dan was Layiš (meaning “lion”). Other biblical connections between Dan and lions are found in Deut 33:22 and Judges 14. 91. See Borowski 1998: 199, 226–27; Strawn 2005: 93–94. The find belongs to Level III (pre-Philistine) and possibly dates to Iron I (see Strawn 2005: 93–94). 92. See Borowski 1998: 200, 227. Note also that a pendant depicting a lion and a goddess (from Iron II [Stratum IB]) was also discovered at Tel Miqne-Ekron (Borowski 1998: 227; Strawn 2005: 99). 93.  Borowski 1998: 227 (and fig. 8.5, p. 126); Strawn 2005: 105. Many additional archaeological data on the lion are presented and evaluated by Strawn (see his extensive discussion in 2005: 77–128). 94.  For general reference on the serpent, see van Buren 1939: 97–101; Cansdale 1970: 202–10; Cantrell 2011: 39 n. 20; DBI 773–74; Feliks 1962: 102–8; Fuhr 1977: 135–45; Handy 1992: 1113–16; Houlihan 1996: 168–85; Joines 1974; Klenck 2002: 86–87; Savran 1994: 33–55; Shanks 2007: 58–63; Tristram 1898: 269–80; Walton 2003: 736–39; Ward 1978: 23–34.

24

Chapter 1:  Introduction

An Egyptian instruction contrasts the meaningless braying of the donkey with the “more important” hissing of the serpent (see §2.1.1.4). In an Ugaritic historiola, a female equid searches for and eventually finds a deity who can render the venomous serpent harmless (see §2.2.1.4). This tension between serpent and equid may also be reflected in the Bible (see Gen 49:17). It should also be noted that, in the ancient Near East, serpents are associated with both death and wisdom—two themes that also emerge in Genesis 3. 95 The serpent can be a symbol for primeval chaos and for sexual fertility. 96 It is representative of deity in both Mesopotamia (e.g., Ningishzida) and in Egypt (e.g., Wadjet, Apophis). 97 It is also related to healing rites and divination. 98 In biblical literature, the most famous reference to the serpent is, of course, in Genesis 3. In this story, the serpent is depicted with the capacity of speech. This feature is found elsewhere only in Num 22:22–35, where Balaam’s jenny also speaks (cf. §§2.2.2.1, 4.5.1, 4.5.2.2–3). In addition to animal speech, G. Savran observes that “both the garden story and the Balaam narrative focus on the themes of blessing and curse, vision and understanding, and obedience/ disobedience to God.” 99 The cultic importance of the serpent in biblical literature is most evident in the incident of Num 21:4–9, where Yhwh sent seraph serpents (hannĕḥāšim hassĕrāpîm) among the people and told Moses to mount a seraph on a standard so that those who were bitten may look at it and live. 100 In the list of Hezekiah’s religious reforms (2 Kgs 18:4), this bronze serpent reappears as Nĕḥuštan, to which the Israelites were offering sacrifices. 101

1.6.4.  Animals in Biblical Literature A motif that is prominent in the biblical text is the literary characterization of animals. 102 This motif mainly occurs in narrative passages—especially passages that include animals as the subjects of verbal forms (see §§4.5, 4.6). 95. See BBCOT 32; Walton 2003: 736; cf. Joines 1974: 21–26; Savran 1994: 40, 45–48. 96. See BBCOT 32; Walton 2003: 736; cf. Joines 1974: 26–30, 64–67, 110–14. 97. See Joines 1974: 114–19; Walton 2001: 203, 2003: 736. 98. On healing rites, see Fuhr 1977: 140–42; Klenck 2002: 86–87; cf. Num 21:4–9. On divination, see Savran 1994: 48–52. Note also that the Semitic term nḥš can mean “serpent” as well as “divination” (see §2.2.2.1). 99.  Savran 1994: 55. For further reference on Genesis 3, see BBCOT 31–33; Joines 1974: 16–41; Savran 1994: 33–55; Speiser 1964: 21–28; Walton 2001: 202–58. 100.  For further reference on Num 21:4–9, see BBCOT 157–58; Budd 1984: 232– 35; Joines 1974: 85–96; Levine 2000: 79–81, 85–90; Milgrom 1990: 173–75, 459–60; Wenham 1981: 156–58. 101. For further reference on 2 Kgs 18:4, see BBCOT 405; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 215, 217, 218; Joines 1974: 61–84; Long 2002: 464–65; Shanks 2007: 58–63; Wiseman 1993: 273. 102. See Way 2009: 57–59.

1.6.  Animals in the Biblical World

25

References of this sort seem to depict animals as participants or actors in the stories. In many passages, divine providence (or at least the destiny of the human characters) appears to be assumed or implied. In some cases, the animals even appear to be acting on Yhwh’s behalf—that is, as Yhwh’s agents. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery describes the phenomenon in this way: “Since all events are under God’s control, animals function as divine agents. Some fulfill God’s mission. Others are co-opted by evil and permitted to harm. Behavior considered abnormal for an animal suggests that it is fulfilling such a role.” 103 It is suggested in chap. 4 that this motif (that is, animals as divine agents) is evident with regard to donkeys and mules in passages such as Num 22:23–33 (ʾātôn; see §§4.5.2.2, 4.5.2.5, 4.6.3, 4.8.5; cf. §2.2.2.1), 104 2 Sam 18:9 (pered; see §§4.5.2.2, 4.8.5), and 1 Kgs 13:24, 28 (ḥămôr; see §§4.6.1, 4.6.3, 4.8.5). The same can also be said for 1 Sam 9:1–10:16, in which Saul searches for his father’s jennies (ʾătōnôt) and eventually finds kingship. 105 But this motif is not restricted to equids. It is also present in connection with other animals such as lions, bears, cows, and birds. The lion (ʾaryēh) acts as an instrument of Yhwh’s judgment on disobedient prophets in 1 Kgs 13:24–28, 20:35–36 (see §4.6.2). 106 Two she-bears (dubbîm) maul 42 youths in fulfillment of Elisha’s curse in the name of Yhwh (2 Kgs 2:23–24). 107 Two lowing cows (pārôt) act contrary to nature and guide the ark of Yhwh to Beth Shemesh (1 Sam 6:7–12). 108 In 1 Kgs 17:2–6, Yhwh commands ravens (ʿōrbîm) to bring bread and meat to Elijah while he was hiding by the Wadi Cherith. 109 More instances of this motif may be identified in the story of Jonah (who himself bears the name of an animal!), especially regarding the fish and the worm (Jonah 1:17, 2:10, 4:7). 110 103.  DBI 31. 104. Note Keel and Staubli’s observation that the jenny “perçoit immédiatement la volonté de la puissance divine” (2003: 11; cf. Keel and Staubli 2001: 11). See also Gamkrelidze 1998: 612 n. 3. 105.  For further reference on 1 Sam 9:1–10:16, see Gamkrelidze 1998: 612 n. 3; In der Smitten 1980: 469; McCarter 1980b: 185, 186; Moore and Brown 1997a: 576; Stadelmann 2006: 303. For additional passages that juxtapose donkeys with destiny, see Gen 36:24 (ḥămôr), 2 Sam 17:23 (ḥămôr). 106.  Cf. 2 Kgs 17:25–26; Isa 15:9; Jer 5:6; Hos 5:14, 13:7–8. Note also how seraph serpents in Num 21:6 act as agents of divine judgment (see §1.6.3.4). 107.  Cf. Hos 13:8. 108.  For helpful remarks on 1 Sam 6:7–12, see Alter 1999: 32–33; BBCOT 288–89; Gunkel 1987: 52; McCarter 1980b: 134–35. Note Keel and Staubli’s observation that the cows acted “comme si elles obéissaient à une voix divine, autre que la voix maternelle qui leur était innée” (2003: 11; cf. Keel and Staubli 2001: 11). 109.  Cf. Gen 8:6–12, Prov 30:17. 110.  For possible additional cases of this motif, see Daniel 6 (lions) and Matt 17:27 (fish).

26

Chapter 1:  Introduction

Examples such as these of animals in divine employment are quite prominent in biblical narrative, whereas ancient Near Eastern literary examples of this motif are relatively rare. 111 The examples in biblical narrative are mostly concentrated in the prophetic corpus of the Hebrew canon (with the notable exception of Numbers 22). They are especially found in the preexilic period in the so-called preclassical phase of biblical prophecy. The term preclassical prophecy identifies the biblical prophetic phenomena, extending from roughly the 11th through the 8th century b.c.e, in which the prophet primarily serves as an advisor to the king. 112 It may now also be said that the literary employment of animals as divine agents is yet another distinctive characteristic of the preclassical phase of biblical prophecy.

1.7. Summary This introduction primarily serves two purposes. First, it defines the subject matter of the study (see §§1.1, 1.3, 1.4) and the methods of research (see §1.5). Second, it situates the subject in relation to both specific scholarship on the donkey (see §1.2) and general scholarship on animals (see §1.6). This study stands alone in providing a comprehensive examination of the ceremonial and symbolic evidence on donkeys from ancient Near Eastern texts (chap. 2), the archaeological record (chap. 3), and the Hebrew Bible (chap. 4). In each of these three categories/chapters my observations are summarized. These summaries are then synthesized (in chap. 5) in order to elucidate the unique role of donkeys in the biblical world. 111.  E.g., the eagle and serpent seem to function as agents of Shamash in the Akkadian epic of Etana (cf. COS 1.31:453–57). The dog may also function as Gula’s messenger in a neo-Assyrian text (see Livingstone 1988: 69). 112. See BBCOT 582; cf. Schmitt 1992: 482, 486. The term is often used to distinguish between the earlier prophets who have no anthologies preserved in their names and the later prophets (often referred to, somewhat artificially, as “classical” or “writing” prophets) who have a literary/canonical trail extending from the 8th to the 5th century b.c.e.

Chapter 2

The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts 2.1.  Egyptian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.  Survey of Selected References to the Donkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.1.  Middle Kingdom (ca. 2106–1786 b.c.e.) . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.2.  Second Intermediate Period      (ca. 1786–1550/1539 b.c.e.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.3.  New Kingdom (ca. 1550/1539–1069 b.c.e.) . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.4.  Saite-Persian Period (ca 664–332 b.c.e.) . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1.5.  Hellenistic-Roman Period (ca. 332 b.c.e.-641 c.e.) . . 2.1.2.  Seth and the Donkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2.1. Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2.2.  Hyksos Ceremony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2.3.  Late Rumors of Donkey Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. Ugaritic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.1.  Sacrificial Contexts (KTU 1.6; 1.40; 1.119) . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.2.  Transportation Contexts      (KTU 1.4; 1.19; 1.20; 1.22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.3.  Divination Manual (KTU 1.86) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.4.  Historiola (KTU 1.100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.5.  Other (KTU 1.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Aramaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1. Deir ʿAlla Plaster Text (KAI 312) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2.  Proverbs of Ahiqar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.  Hittite Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.  Bestiality Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2.  “Scapegoat” Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.  The Queen of Kanesh and the Tale of Zalpa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4.  The Crossing of the Taurus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.  Akkadian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.  Mari Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.1.  Treaty Ceremony (ARM 2.37, and so on) . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.2.  Royal Transportation (ARM 6.76) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.3.  Assignment of a Donkey (A.3796) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.  Divinatory Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.  Animal Fable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

  28   28   29   30   31   36   37   37   37   38   40   40   40   41   49   55   57   59   60   60   67   70   70   72   73   74   75   75   75   82   86   88   91

28

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

2.5.  Sumerian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1.  The Gudea Cylinders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2. Proverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3.  “Death of Ur-Namma” A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.4.  Elegy on the Death of Nawirtum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.5.  En-metena’s Building of the E-muš Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  92   92   94   95   96   96   97

The objective in this chapter is to provide a comprehensive study of selected texts from the ancient Near East that highlight the symbolic and ceremonial significance of the donkey. Along the way, it is occasionally profitable to pursue the symbolic/ceremonial significance of other equids (e.g., the horse, onager, hybrid, and so on) or even other animals (e.g., puppies), especially if they occur together with the donkey or in a similar function. Also, biblical texts that have a direct bearing on the interpretation of the ancient Near Eastern texts are incorporated into the discussion below (although chap. 4 addresses the biblical texts more thoroughly and directly). Many themes are apparent in this survey of ancient Near Eastern texts (see §2.6). The texts demonstrate that the donkey is characterized as a beast of burden, having a large appetite, licentious, stubborn/lazy, noisy, stupid, slow, and having a foul odor. It is evident that the donkey is associated with divination, the dog, the lion, the serpent, value, sick/weak people, status, and death. The donkey also functions as a “scapegoat,” a divine symbol, and a literary character with speech capabilities. Finally, donkeys can serve as food, offerings/ sacrifices, and funerary furnishings. The organization of this chapter is according to language groups. It is arranged geographically from west to east (cf. the organizational approach in COS) 1―Egyptian, Northwest Semitic, Hittite, Akkadian, and Sumerian sources.

2.1.  Egyptian Sources 2.1.1.  Survey of Selected References to the Donkey Egyptian texts that refer to the donkey come from virtually all time periods and cover diverse genres. The texts that have bearing on ceremonial/symbolic 1.  The only difference here is that I have placed Northwest Semitic before Hittite. While Anatolia is technically northwest of the Levant (thus Hittite is placed prior to West Semitic in COS), I feel as though Hittite fits better with a discussion of the cuneiform sources (Akkadian and Sumerian). Furthermore, I am hesitant to separate Egypt from the Levant because of the close cultural ties between the regions.

2.1.  Egyptian Sources

29

matters are discussed below in chronological order (i.e., according to the date of composition, which is often a scholarly guess) and are categorized under the Middle Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period, New Kingdom, Saite-Persian period, and Hellenistic-Roman period. 2 2.1.1.1.  Middle Kingdom (ca. 2106–1786 b.c.e.) The first text from the Middle Kingdom is called the “Instruction of DuaKhety,” but it is better known as the “Satire of the Trades” (preserved entirely in Papyrus Sallier II and partially in Papyrus Anastasi VII). 3 This instruction is understood as satire because it is “a deliberately derisive characterization of all trades other than the scribal profession.” 4 A passing reference is made to the donkey when this text characterizes the trade of arrow-making: The arrow-maker suffers much As he goes out (5) to the desert; More is what he gives his donkey [ʿꜢ] Than the work it does for him. 5 This remark appears to be predicated on the observation that the donkey has a large appetite (cf. the modern expression “eats like a horse”). 6 More than that, this text relates the view that a donkey’s appetite is disproportionate to the amount of work it is able (or willing) to accomplish. Thus, perhaps this text also characterizes the donkey as lazy or stubborn. 7 The second text is also from the Middle Kingdom (perhaps from the 12th Dynasty). 8 Robert K. Ritner has dubbed it simply “Dream Oracles” (Papyrus Chester Beatty III/BM 10683), 9 but it is essentially a divination manual containing dream omens (cf. §§2.2.1.3, 2.4.2, 2.5.1). Each column of the manual is preceded by the heading “If a man see himself in a dream.” 10 Individual omens 2.  The chronology followed here is based on Kitchen 1992: 328–30. 3.  These papyri were written by the same scribe in the 19th Dynasty, but smaller portions of this composition are attested from the 18th Dynasty. Nevertheless, the instruction was likely composed during the Middle Kingdom (see Lichtheim 1973). 4.  Lichtheim in COS 1.48:122. 5.  COS 1.48:124; Lichtheim 1973: 188; cf. ANET 433; Erman 1927: 70; LAE 434. For the hieroglyphs, see Helck 1970: 89 (XVb). 6. For additional references to the large appetite of the donkey, see §§2.1.1.4, 2.2.1.5, 2.5.2, 2.6.2. 7.  For additional references to the stubbornness or laziness of the donkey, see §§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.3.4, 2.5.2, 2.6.4, 4.2.3. 8.  The only extant manuscript is from the 19th Dynasty. This text currently enjoys the distinction of being the “oldest surviving manual of dream interpretation” (COS 1.33:52); but note the reservations of Oppenheim (1956: 243, 245). 9.  COS 1.33:53; cf. ANET 495 (selections); Oppenheim 1956: 243–45; Ritner 2001: 410–11. 10.  COS 1.33:53. For biblical comparisons, see especially Gen 37:5–10, 40:5–41:40.

30

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

are comprised of three elements: the dream image (protasis), the word good or the word bad (in red ink) and the interpretation/prognosis (apodosis). Omen 2/21 reads: “Eating the flesh of a donkey. Good. It means his promotion.” 11 This omen, like many of the others in this text, is based on paronomasia: the term ʿ Ꜣ is rendered “donkey” in the protasis and “promotion” (s ʿ Ꜣ, “to make great/promote”) in the apodosis. 12 It is difficult to derive conclusions about the donkey based on this cryptic omen. Little to nothing else is known about the significance of consuming donkey meat in ancient Egypt. 13 One possibility is to understand the eating of a donkey as an allusion to the defeat of Seth, which recalls the well-known mythological contest between Horus and Seth. 14 Ritner explains: “the destruction of the donkey, a symbol for Seth, necessarily entails the advancement of a partisan of his opponent Horus.” 15 2.1.1.2.  Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1786–1550  /1539 b.c.e.) From the beginning of the 17th Dynasty (that is, from the period of the “Expulsion”) there is an interesting biographical text from the tomb of Babay at El-Kab. 16 Babay was the “officer of the Ruler’s table,” and he records the good deeds and qualities that characterized his life. In particular, he records that during a famine he generously provided a large quantity of food for the people of his city. Among these food provisions were “8 asses.” 17 This is a most unusual 11.  COS 1.33:53. 12.  COS 1.33:53 n.  6; Ritner 2001: 411. See an additional reference to this pun (donkey/greatness) in a different context below (under §2.1.2.1). For general reference on the term ʿꜢ (“donkey”), see Allen 2000: 428 (E7), 455; ÄW 1:259; DLE 1:70; EDE 1:92; Faulkner 1962: 38; HWBÄD 127; HWBDÄ 379, 1690 (E7); Janssen 2005: 69–70; LdÄ (= Brunner-Traut 1975) II/1:27–30; Wb 1:165. 13.  Note that the giving of donkey meat (as well as the meat of horse and onager) is also featured in Mesopotamian dream omens (see Oppenheim 1956: 278; cf. §2.4.2). For further discussion on the consumption of donkey meat, see §§2.1.1.2, 2.6.18, 4.2.10. 14. See ANET 14–17; LAE 91–103; Lichtheim 1976: 214–23; cf. van der Toorn 1999: 748; te Velde 1967: 27–80. For the relationship between Seth and the donkey, see below under §§2.1.2, 2.6.17; cf. §2.1.1.3. 15.  Ritner 2001: 411. 16.  For the hieroglyphs, see Brugsch 1968: 1527–28; for a translation, see Redford 1997: 11 (text 60). 17.  Redford 1997: 11 (text 60, line 2). The term used for the donkey in this text is šw (for the hieroglyphs, see Brugsch 1968: 1527 [line 8]). For further reference on the term šw, see HWBÄD 810; HWBDÄ 379; LdÄ II/1:27; Wb 4:433. It should be noted that W. F. Albright had a different interpretation of this text. He understood the list of foods in line 2 as a list of funerary offerings presented to Babay (see Albright 1968: 270 note q; 1970: 201). He also explains that the “8 šw donkeys (with clear determinative) . . . are unusual in such lists and presumably were connected with donkey caravans used in bringing supplies to the ruler’s court” (Albright 1968: 270 note q). The problem with

2.1.  Egyptian Sources

31

piece of information. Because the donkey was obviously valued for its usefulness in bearing loads, hauling, threshing, and so on, it is safe to assume that the donkey was only slaughtered for meat in extreme circumstances. This instance recalls the event recorded in 2 Kgs 6:25: “There was a great famine in Samaria; and look, they continued besieging it until a donkey’s head sold for eighty shekels of silver, and a fourth of a qab of doves’ dung for five shekels of silver” (see §4.2.10; cf. §2.6.18). Both 2 Kgs 6:25 and the El-Kab inscription indicate that the donkey is eaten only as a last resort when food supplies are depleted. 2.1.1.3.  New Kingdom (ca. 1550/1539–1069 b.c.e.) A number of texts dating from the New Kingdom are also worthy of mention. The “Instruction of Any” (Papyrus Boulaq 4) is from the 18th Dynasty. 18 The author is the scribe Any who dispenses advice to his son Khonshotep. In the epilogue of the document, the son objects that his father’s instructions are too difficult. Any responds by reprimanding his son and by making analogies from the animal world. Any suggests that if animals have the ability to learn, his son can also “do like all the beasts” by simply listening and learning. 19 One of these animal analogies is based on the lion―Any states: The savage lion abandons his wrath, And comes to resemble the timid donkey [ʿꜢ]. 20 From this text, one merely makes the observation that donkey behavior was regarded as the epitome of tameness and timidity (especially when contrasted with the wild and fierce lion). Additionally, it is of marginal interest that the lion and the donkey are also depicted as a peaceful pair in the prophetic story of 1 Kings 13 (see §4.6). 21 Numerous references to donkeys are made in school texts from the New Kingdom. The overriding theme of these texts is “Be a scribe.” The view of the donkey in these texts is unequivocally negative in all instances. The bulk of the references are in contexts that describe the hardships of the soldier’s life (over and against the benefits of the scribe’s life). Albright’s view is that it disregards the context that immediately precedes and follows the food list. Line 2 reads: “I provided pure(?) food(?) for the children, I gave food(?) to my city for 3(?) days. I treated the great like the small” (Redford 1997: 11); line 4 reads: “When hunger became rampant in (my) years, I gave . . .” (Redford 1997: 12). 18.  Though it was composed in the 18th Dynasty, the papyrus dates from the 21st or 22nd Dynasty (see COS 1.46:110; Lichtheim 1976: 135). 19.  COS 1.46:114; Lichtheim 1976: 144. 20.  COS 1.46:114; Lichtheim 1976: 144; cf. Erman 1927: 241. For the hieroglyphs, see Suys 1935: 101 (X,2; c,4). 21. For additional examples of the pairing of these two animals, see §§2.1.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.6.10, 4.2.5. For a similar comparison of the lion and the mule (parû) in Akkadian, see CAD P 207.

32

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

In Papyrus Anastasi IV, the soldier is described as follows: “His rations and his water are upon his shoulder like the load of an ass [ʿꜢt], while his neck has been made a backbone like that of an ass [ʿꜢ].” 22 The simile in this remark compares the soldier with the lowly donkey and is based on the donkey’s wellknown function as the primary beast of burden. The same description continues: “He is sick, prostration overtakes him. He is brought back upon an ass [ʿꜢ], his clothes taken away by theft, his henchman fled.” 23 This remark provides a rare example of an Egyptian employing the donkey for personal transportation. This was against normal protocol in ancient Egypt. This practice characterized the lowly Asiatics (and foreigners in general), and it was not becoming of an Egyptian. 24 However, the present case is unique because the Egyptian soldier is sick and weak. Apparently, it is the humble lot of the sick or weak person to depend on the donkey for personal transportation. 25 Another school text, known as Papyrus Lansing (BM 9994), asks the question “Do you not recall the (fate of) the unskilled man? His name is not known. He is ever burdened ⟨like an ass [ʿꜢ] carrying⟩ in front of the scribe who knows what he is about.” 26 Here again, the simile is based on the symbolism of the donkey as a beast of burden. Whereas the unskilled man must bear the humble burden of menial labor, the scribe enjoys notoriety and dignity. Papyrus Lansing goes on to describe the soldier: “He is awakened at any hour. One is after him as (after) a donkey [ʿꜢ  ].” 27 That is, the soldier is “on call” around the clock and is driven by a taskmaster; not so with the scribe. 22.  LAE 441; cf. Caminos 1954: 169; Erman 1927: 194. The hieroglyphs for “assload” and “ass” (ʿꜢt and ʿꜢ respectively) are identical (see Gardiner 1937: 44 [9,9]; cf. DLE 1:70; HWBÄD 127–28; HWBDÄ 379–80). 23.  LAE 441; cf. Caminos 1954: 169; Erman 1927: 194. For the hieroglyphs, see Gardiner 1937: 45 (9,12). 24. See Clutton-Brock 1992: 73; Houlihan 1996: 31–32; Janssen 2005: 69; Nibbi 1979: 154; Stadelmann 2006: 301, 302; Ziffer 1990: 64*; cf. Boessneck 1988: 78; Brewer et al. 1994: 100, 102; Firmage 1992: 1137; Gautier 1999: 301, 305; Germond and Livet 2001: 79; Houlihan 1996: 33, 34; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 135; S. Redford 2001: 479; Zeuner 1963: 320–21, 377–79. For depictions of Asiatics riding on donkeys in Middle Bronze Age Egypt, see ANEP 3; Bietak 1996: fig. 13; Keel and Staubli 2001: 38, 2003: 36; Ziffer 1990: 53*, 65*, 60, 79. 25.  This is also the case in the Bible. Donkeys are used to transport women and children as well as the sick or the injured (see §4.2.7). For depictions of children riding on the back of a donkey, see the Beni Hasan wall painting (ANEP 3) and Ashurbanipal’s relief from Nineveh (ANEP 10). 26.  Lichtheim 1976: 171; cf. Caminos 1954: 401; Erman 1927: 194. The omission of the phrase ⟨like an ass [ʿꜢ] carrying⟩ is due to homoeoteleuton (for this observation and for the hieroglyphs, see Gardiner 1937: 107a [16a]). 27.  Lichtheim 1976: 172; cf. Caminos 1954: 401; Erman 1927: 194. For the hieroglyphs, see Gardiner 1937: 108 (9,7).

2.1.  Egyptian Sources

33

Papyrus Sallier I also contains warnings against becoming a soldier. It employs the same image of driving a donkey, but it adds the detail that the donkey was viewed as lacking understanding: “Art thou an ass [ʿꜢ] that is led, (for) it hath no understanding in its body?” 28 This papyrus also urges the scribe to be diligent, unlike the stubborn donkey, which incurs beatings: “I shall give you 100 blows, and you will disregard them all. You are with me as a beaten ass [ʿꜢ] that recovers (8,1) in a day.” 29 This warning to the scribe about avoiding stubbornness and beatings occurs elsewhere in Papyrus Koller and Papyrus Anastasi IV: “thou art like an ass [ʿꜢ] when it getteth a beating.” 30 The Book of the Dead also contains a couple of obscure references to the donkey. Though it received its final form in the Saite Period (26th Dynasty), many of its spells were developed in the New Kingdom. 31 Spell #125, which is by far the most famous passage in the Book of the Dead, is attested from the 18th Dynasty onward. 32 It is variously known as “The Negative Confession” or “The Judgment of the Dead,” and it is illustrated on a number of vignettes that feature the weighing of the heart of the deceased against the feather of Maat. 33 After two declarations of innocence, the recitation in Spell #125 continues to address the gods. One of the claims in this address reads “I am pure of mouth, pure of hands, one to whom ‘Welcome!’ is said at seeing him, because I have heard that speech said by the Donkey [ʿꜢ] and the Cat in the house of the One of the Gaping Mouth, I being a witness before him when he gave a shriek.” 34 28.  Erman 1927: 195; cf. Caminos 1954: 304 (see also p. 235 [Papyrus Anastasi V]). For the hieroglyphs, see Gardiner 1937: 79 (3,9). On the stupidity of equids, see Ps 32:9 (regarding the sûs and pered); cf. §§2.5.2, 2.6.6. 29.  Caminos 1954: 320; cf. Erman 1927: 190. For the hieroglyphs, see Gardiner 1937: 85 (7,11). Note in the quotation that “(8,1)” refers to the column number and line number. 30.  Erman 1927: 192; cf. Caminos 1954: 131, 437; Iversen 1986: 183. For the hieroglyphs, see Gardiner 1937: 36 (2,6), 117 (2,4); Iversen 1986: 182 (no. 8). For other examples of stubbornness, see §§2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.3.4, 2.5.2. For a biblical passage that depicts stubbornness and beatings together, see Num 22:23, 25, 27 (see §§4.2.3, 4.5.1). For further reference on stubbornness and beatings, see §§2.6.4, 4.2.3, Boessneck 1988: 78 (and fig. 129 [5th Dynasty relief ]); Janssen 2005: 49 (VI 6), 72. The brutal treatment of the donkey is also depicted in an Egyptian wall painting from the First Intermediate Period (see Houlihan 1996: 30, 98 [pl. XIII]). 31. See Lichtheim 1976: 119. 32. See COS 2.12:60; cf. Allen 1974: 97 n. 213. 33.  For illustrations, see ANEP 639; Barguet 1967: 159; Davis 1901: pl. XVIII (Louvre Papyrus), L (Turin Papyrus); Faulkner 1985: 14, 30–31, 34–35; Naville 1886: pl. CXXXVI. 34.  COS 2.12:62; LAE 274; cf. Allen 1974: 99; ANET 36; Barguet 1967: 162; Brunner 1978: 67; Davis 1901: 137; Faulkner 1985: 32; Lichtheim 1976: 128. For the hieroglyphs, see Davis 1901: pl. XLVIII (line 40); Naville 1886: 317–18, pl. CXXXVII (lines 13–14).

34

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

The respective identities of the Donkey, the Cat and the One of the Gaping Mouth in this text are not clearly understood. The One of the Gaping Mouth is usually tentatively identified as the hippopotamus. 35 As for the speech of the Donkey and the Cat, some scholars conclude that it refers to an unknown myth. 36 P. Barguet suggests, “Le chat doit représenter le Soleil, comme au chap.  17, et l’âne est sans doute le symbole du mal, comme au chap. 40,” 37 but his explanation is dubious because Spell #17 refers to the cat in a different context, and Spell #40 does not depict the donkey in a negative manner. 38 In the most recent scholarship on this question, R. K. Ritner suggests that the text here contains a “reference to the punishment of Seth in donkey form by the cat goddess Mafdet.” 39 On a different note, it is interesting that this excerpt from Spell #125 provides an example of a talking donkey, which may be of some interest for comparison with the Balaam story (Num 22:28–30; see §4.5). 40 Another observation worth noting is that the donkey appears here in a funerary/mortuary context (this can also be said about the donkey in Spell #40). While the precise role of the donkey is tantalizingly obscure in the Book of the Dead, the funerary context may provide interesting background material for understanding the phenomenon of donkey burials (discussed in chap. 3, esp. §§3.7.1, 3.7.2) and for the observation that the donkey is occasionally associated with death in the Hebrew Bible (see §4.2.9). 41 The second passage in the Book of the Dead that merits attention is Spell #40. It is called a “Spell for repelling him who swallowed an ass [ʿꜢ],” 42 and it is illustrated in a number of vignettes with the deceased individual spearing the serpent that attempts to swallow a donkey. 43 Part of the spell reads: “Get back, 35. See ANET 36 n. 33; Barguet 1967: 162 n. 42; Brunner 1978: 67 n. l. 36. See ANET 36 n. 33; Brunner 1978: 67 n. l. 37.  Barguet 1967: 162 n. 41. 38.  On the latter point, see Ward 1978: 26 n.  19. Note that Spell #40 is briefly treated below. 39.  COS 2.12:62 n. 33; LAE 274 n. 33. For the background (and for further information on Mafdet), see Borghouts 1978: 38 (text 59), 105 (nn. 143–44); de Jong 2001: 513. 40.  For other examples of talking animals (including equids!) in ancient Near Eastern literature, see especially §2.2.2.1; cf. §§2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.4.3, 2.5.2, 4.5. 41. For further reference on the association between the donkey and death, see Gamkrelidze 1998: 612; cf. §2.6.15. 42.  Faulkner 1985: 61; cf. Allen 1974: 47; Barguet 1967: 82. For the hieroglyphs (Turin Papyrus), see Davis 1901: pl. XVIII (heading); for the Hieratic text (Louvre Papyrus), see Davis 1901: pl. IX. 43.  See illustrations in Barguet 1967: 82; Davis 1901: pls. IX (Louvre Papyrus), XVIII (Turin Papyrus); Faulkner 1985: 62; Naville 1886: pl. LIV. See also a similar depiction of a serpent above a horse in a Ramesside Theban tomb (Manniche 1987: 78, 79).

2.1.  Egyptian Sources

35

you swallower of an ass [ʿꜢ].” 44 Unfortunately, the significance of the role that the donkey plays in this spell is unknown. At the very least, it is another example of the donkey in a funerary/mortuary context. Interestingly, the rivalry between equids and serpents also appears in Egyptian proverbs (see §2.1.1.4 [20/9]), Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.100; see §2.2.1.4), and the Bible (Gen 49:17). 45 The final New Kingdom reference to donkeys is found in a curse that appears in the late New Kingdom (20th Dynasty) and beyond. The curse states: “May a donkey violate him, may a donkey violate his wife” (nk sw ʿꜢ nk ʿꜢ ḥmt⟨.f      ⟩). 46 This curse is built on a perception of the donkey as a particularly lustful/promiscuous animal, and it may also be connected to the sexuality of Seth. 47 P. F. Houlihan adds: “This vernacular curse may have inspired the 44.  Faulkner 1985: 61; cf. Allen 1974: 47; Barguet 1967: 83; Ward 1978: 26. For the hieroglyphs, see Naville 1886: pl. LIV (lines 5–6). In Naville’s edition, the 19th Dynasty text (Lb) is damaged, and the signs for “ass” are missing, although the determinative is present. 45.  For further reference on the serpent, see §§1.6.3.4, 2.6.11. Additionally, it may be noteworthy that Seth is credited with repelling the Apopis snake (see te Velde 1967: 99–108). Note also the interesting case in Spell #266 of the Coffin Texts, in which “Seth the ‘braying ass’ is at the same time conceived of as a serpent” (Ward 1978: 30–31). While W. A. Ward interprets Spell #266 as “an attempt to reconcile the two nuances of Hı͗w [=hjw/hrw]” (1978: 31), it seems more likely that it is a case of scribal word play. According to R. Hannig’s recent Egyptian lexicons, hjw/hrw designates a “Monster, (zischende) Schlange” in the Old Kingdom (see ÄW 1:747) and, in later periods, it also designates the “Esel” and “Eseluntier” (see HWBÄD 489, 497; HWBDÄ 379–80). Ward, however, suggests: “Hı͗w thus indicates a ‘braying ass’ in some contexts, a ‘hissing serpent’ in others, and we can dispense with the current translation of both words as ‘monster’” (Ward 1978: 27). 46. The translation is by A. I. Sadek (1988: 244) and the transliteration is by K. Nordh (1996: 90). The text is the Deir el-Bahri graffito no. 11 (20th Dynasty). For further reference on this and similar curses, see Černý, Groll, and Eyre 1984: 332; Gardiner 1940: 24, 25, pl. VIIa–b (line 6); Germond and Livet 2001: 62; Houlihan 1996: 32; Nordh 1996: 90; Sadek 1988: 242 n. 3, 243–44; te Velde 1967: 56 n. 2. 47.  The sexual activity of the donkey is also quite prominent in other ancient Near Eastern sources (see §§2.1.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.5.2; cf. §§2.6.3, 4.2.2); see also Gamkrelidze 1998: 611–12; Zeuner 1963: 381. For the classical sources, see Raepsaet 1998: 131, 135; 2004: 666, 669. On the sexuality of Seth, see Borghouts 1978: 38 (text 59), 105 n. 143; Houlihan 1996: 32–33; Nordh 1996: 90; te Velde 1967: 56 n. 2; Ward 1978: 24 n. 9. K. Nordh explains: “The sexual insults . . . contain enemy of the gods connotations as well, the ass being a Sethian animal. This obscene type of curse seems to make its first appearance at about the same time (i.e., at the very end of the New Kingdom) as the god Seth more and more turns into an enemy of the gods, losing his Maat-positive aspects . . . in the late New Kingdom [Seth] was given an enemy dimension. So if a man or a woman were violated by an ass, it meant that they became enemies of the gods themselves; they were perhaps, so to speak, ‘guilty by association’” (Nordh 1996: 90).

36

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

maker of an obscene faience figurine now in the Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin, showing a donkey copulating with a woman from behind.” 48 This licentious portrayal of the donkey in ancient Egypt is, not surprisingly, also apparent in proverbs (see §2.1.1.4 [24/10]) and in reliefs that occasionally accent donkey erections. 49 2.1.1.4.  Saite-Persian Period (ca. 664–332 b.c.e.) “The Instruction of ʿOnchsheshonqy” (BM 10508) contains a number of maxims based on the donkey. The Demotic script of the papyrus is late Ptolemaic, but the historical setting of the frame story is the Saite Period (26th Dynasty). 50 The composition date for the frame story is between the third and first century b.c.e, but the composition date for the maxims is difficult to determine because the collection probably draws from sources with different dates. 51 There are nine maxims pertaining to the donkey (all employing the term ʿꜢ). 52 Here the maxims are listed together (disregarding the surrounding context of each one) 53 from the translation by R. K. Ritner: 11/18: Do not let your donkey kick against the date palm, lest he       shake it. 54 20/9: More important are the hissings of the snake than the brayings of the donkey. 55 20/24: The waste of a donkey is in carrying bricks. 56 22/7: One does not load a beam on a donkey. 57 23/21: It is the oxen who bring about the barley and emmer. It is the donkeys who eat them. 58 24/7: If a donkey walks with a horse, it performs its motions. 59 48.  Houlihan 1996: 32. 49.  For example, see the 5th-Dynasty limestone relief from the tomb-chapel of the mastaba of Neferirtenef at Saqqara (Houlihan 1996: 30, 32, fig. 25). See also the drawing of a donkey (with an erection) on a Middle Kingdom pot from El-Allaqi (Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 136). 50. See LAE 498, 499; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 159. 51. See LAE 498. 52. See Thissen 1984: 56 (under ʿꜢ). 53.  Ritner points out that “many of these pithy remarks are part of larger groupings linked by topic, word choice, or grammar, with couplets being particularly common” (LAE 498). 54.  LAE 510; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 168; Thissen 1984: 24. 55.  LAE 520; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 175; Thissen 1984: 33. 56.  LAE 521; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 175; Thissen 1984: 33. 57.  LAE 522; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 176; Thissen 1984: 34. 58.  LAE 524; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 177; Thissen 1984: 36. 59.  LAE 524; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 177; Thissen 1984: 36.

2.1.  Egyptian Sources

37

24/8: If a crocodile loves a donkey, it puts on a wig. 60 24/9: A horse is found to go after a lion; a donkey is not found to       conduct it. 61 24/10: Man is better than a donkey at copulating; it is his purse that restrains him. 62 Not all of these proverbs are transparent in meaning. In fact, the “true meaning of proverbs are often culturally bound, with a significance not readily apparent from the literal wording . . . only the Egyptians may have understood fully the implications of a donkey shaking a palm tree (col. 11/18) or a crocodile putting on a wig (col. 24/8).” 63 Perhaps one can speculate that these proverbs express perceptions about the donkey as a stubborn/noisy animal (20/9), a beast of burden (20/24), a big eater (23/21), a slow animal (24/9) and a licentious animal (24/10). 2.1.1.5.  Hellenistic-Roman Period (ca. 332 b.c.e.–641 c.e.) The “Instruction of Papyrus Insinger” was probably composed in the late Ptolemaic period, although the demotic script of the extant papyrus dates from the first century c.e. 64 A single maxim (23/3) from this collection mentions the donkey. M. Lichtheim translates: “One does not praise a donkey [ʿꜢ] carrying a load because it brays.” 65 This maxim obviously draws on the image of the donkey as a beast of burden; but it also draws on the perception of the donkey as a complainer―making needless noise in its braying. 66

2.1.2.  Seth and the Donkey 2.1.2.1. Relationship Because the foregoing discussion on donkeys makes a number of allusions to the god Seth, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between Seth and the donkey. Seth was the “god of confusion . . . the god who brought death into the world by killing Osiris . . . [the] god of exuberant male sexuality . . . the divine foreigner . . . the lord of foreign countries . . . [and] an enemy of the gods.” 67 60.  LAE 524; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 177; Thissen 1984: 36. 61.  LAE 524; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 177; Thissen 1984: 36. 62.  LAE 524; cf. Lichtheim 1980: 178; Thissen 1984: 36. 63.  LAE 499. 64. See Lichtheim 1980: 184. 65.  Lichtheim 1980: 203. For the Demotic text and analysis of this maxim, see Lexa 1926: 73. 66.  On the noisiness/braying of the donkey, see §§2.1.1.4, 2.2.1.3 n. 167, 2.2.2.2, 2.4.2, 2.5.2; cf. §2.6.5. See also Ward’s etymological discussion on the Egyptian term for “braying ass” (hjw; Ward 1978: 24). It is interesting that the god Seth is also characterized by roaring and shouting (te Velde 1967: 20, 23 [nos. 16, 18–19], 149, pl. XII:2). 67. Te Velde 2001: 269–70; cf. te Velde 1967.

38

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

It is well known that Seth is represented by numerous animals (both real and mythological) and that the donkey is clearly counted among the Seth-animals from as early as the Middle Kingdom. 68 Some of the evidence for connecting the donkey with Seth is as follows: 69 (1) two of the Egyptian words for donkey―ʿꜢ and hjw/hrw—are used as epithets for Seth; (2) donkey determinatives are used with the divine name Seth, and terms for the donkey are also determined with the Seth animal; (3) donkey imagery is applied to Seth, and Seth imagery is also applied to the donkey. Additionally, there is a possibility that Seth’s common title “Great” (ʿꜢ) is also a play on the common word for “donkey” (ʿꜢ ). 70 But how did this connection between Seth and the donkey come about? W. A. Ward makes the following suggestion: It must have been in the south that the god Seth came to be associated with the ass; a possible reason for this lies in a very practical aspect of everyday Egyptian life. Te Velde emphasizes that Seth was the god of deserts and frontier towns, especially Ombos which lay near the entrance to the Wadi Hammamat and the gold mines of the eastern desert. One can readily see a connection between the chief god of this town and the donkey-caravans that went to and fro into the eastern desert. The raucous, obstreperous donkey would easily be associated with the boisterous, cantankerous god of Ombos. 71

2.1.2.2.  Hyksos Ceremony The close association between Seth and the donkey is the basis for a recent theory regarding Hyksos ceremony (namely, the burial of donkeys—treated in detail in chap. 3). 72 A. M. Maeir suggests that, because Seth was associated with donkeys and was also the principal deity of the Hyksos, it is “possible to interpret the donkey burials [from the Nile Delta and Israel-Palestine] as a 68.  See te Velde 1967: 7–9, 12–15, 26, 136 (no. 27), pls. III:2, VI:1, XII:2; Ward 1978: 23–26, 28–31; cf. Brunner-Traut 1975: 28–29; Maeir 1989: 64. 69.  For the following three pieces of evidence, see especially Ward’s detailed study (1978: 23–34); cf. Allen 2000: 428–29 (E20 [“often for E7”]); DLE 1:70 (note the Seth animal); HWBÄD 127, 489; HWBDÄ 379–80, 1690–91 (E20 [“ersetzt a. E 7”]); Leibowitch 1954: 134; Wb 1:165 (“als Tier des Seth”). 70.  This was suggested by Maeir 1989: 67 n. 26. The same pun occurs in the Chester Beatty “Dream Oracles” discussed above under §2.1.1.1 (see COS 1.33:53 n.  6). While the words for “great” and “donkey” sound (and are transliterated) the same, they are written with different hieroglyphs and different determinatives. For further reference on ʿꜢ, see van den Brink 1982: 76; Redford 1992a: 108; cf. Allen 2000: 455; DLE 1:68–70; Faulkner 1962: 37–38; HWBÄD 125–28; Ward 1978: 30 (Spell #266). 71.  Ward 1978: 29; cf. Nielsen 1953: 270 n. 24; te Velde 1967: 116. 72.  For further discussion of the relationship between the Hyksos and the practice of donkey burials, see §3.6.

2.1.  Egyptian Sources

39

Seth-related ritual,” and that the dismembered equid remains “may be related to the evidence of the sacrifice and dismemberment of Seth in the Egyptian ritual.” 73 This theory, however, seems to contain a major flaw. The evidence for the killing and dismemberment of Seth (in donkey form or in any other form) is a late development (Saite-Persian and Hellenistic-Roman periods) stemming from the cult of Osiris and also drawing on the mythological conflict between Horus and Seth. 74 It is based on a view of Seth as an enemy of the gods who should be cursed, banished, and eliminated. 75 If the Hyksos practice of slaughtering donkeys is interpreted as an early expression of this late Egyptian ritual/sentiment, then the Hyksos would be dishonoring their principal deity by slaughtering donkeys! The theory―at least as Maeir conceived of it―appears to be problematic. On the other hand, Maeir’s suggestion that the burials can be explained as a “Seth-related ritual” 76 may be helpful. Instead of positing a connection with the late Egyptian rituals, perhaps the Hyksos practice reflects a Semitic/Canaanite sacrificial rite in which Seth-Baal 77 is honored by means of a donkeyoffering. Specifically, the “temple pits” containing donkeys at Tell el-Dabʿa may be interpreted as containing the remains of offerings to Seth-Baal (see §3.7.2). 78 Thus, instead of looking to the Egyptian cult and mythology to explain a Hyksos practice, one would do better to posit Semitic influence. While this line of reasoning makes sense and offers a possible trajectory for the explanation of some of the donkey burials, it is only one conjecture based on the limited data that are currently available. 73.  On Seth as the principal deity of the Hyksos, see Bietak 1996: 29, 41; 2001: 138, 140; Redford 1992a: 117; 1997: 4 (nos. 6, 10), 7 (nos. 33, 35, 36), 17 (no. 73), 18 (no. 74), 18–19 (no. 75); Van Seters 1966: 171–73; te Velde 1967: 121, 127–28. On the interpretation of donkey burials, see Maeir 1989: 64. Because this theory apparently went unnoticed for some time, Maeir restated his interpretation in a brief response to O. Keel, which he published in Levant (see Maeir 1994: 231). On the dismembered equid remains, see Maeir 1989: 65. 74.  See te Velde’s helpful discussion (1967: 94–98, 109, 138–51); cf. BrunnerTraut 1975: 29; van Dijk 1995: 1702–6; Germond and Livet 2001: 62; Labrique 1993: 175–89; te Velde 2001: 270. 75.  See te Velde 1967: 150–51. 76.  Maeir 1989: 64. 77.  On the well-known identification of Seth with Baal (or with Ash or Teshub), see Bietak 1996: 26–29 (on fig. 25), 41; 2001: 138; van der Toorn 1999: 748; Redford 1992a: 117–18; Van Seters 1966: 173–77; te Velde 1967: 109, 114–15, 119–29; 2001: 269, 270. 78.  On the other hand, the temple pits at Tell el-Dabʿa may be interpreted as the remains of treaty ceremonies (cf. Amorite practices from the Mari texts; see §3.7.2).

40

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

2.1.2.3.  Late Rumors of Donkey Worship In the Hellenistic-Roman period, the Egyptian deity Seth was wholly identified with the Greek deity Typhon, who was viewed as the opponent of all the gods. 79 In this period, Greek writers were aware of the ancient connection between the Semites (that is, the Hyksos) and the worship of Seth(-Typhon). They were also aware of the association between Seth(-Typhon) and the donkey. This background served as the most likely basis for an anti-Semitic rumor, which a number of Greek and Latin writers circulated beginning in the early second century b.c.e. 80 They accused the Jews of worshiping a golden donkey head that was allegedly discovered in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. This rumor was subsequently applied to the early Christians. 81

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources 2.2.1. Ugaritic The mythological and ritual texts from Ugarit contain a number of references to donkeys that call for further examination. These references can be divided into five categories—sacrificial contexts, transportation contexts, divination manual, historiola, and “other.” In each of these categories, the texts are examined in the numeric order in which they occur in CTU (i.e., The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places by M. Die­ trich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Second edition, 1995). 82 79.  See van Henten 1999: 879–80; van der Toorn 1999: 748; te Velde 1967: 3, 11, 109 n. 1, 140 n. 1, 145, 149. 80.  The earliest reference is in Mnaseas of Patara (ca. 200 b.c.e.); cf. Apion and Damocritus (both in the first century c.e.). Similar rumors are also present in the works of Diodorus, Tacitus, and Plutarch (spanning from the first century b.c.e. to the early second century c.e.). For all of these references, see Stern 1974: 97–101, 182–84, 409–13, 530, 531; 1980: 18, 36–37; 1984: 108 (under “ass worship”). For additional bibliography on this rumor, see Bickermann 1927: 255–64; 1980: 225–55; Brin 1994: 206, 208; Dent 1972: 39–41; Domhardt 1998: 135; 2004: 670; Gafni 1972: 784; Leibo­ witch 1954: 129–34; Stern 1974: 98 (bibliography on Mnaseas and Jewish ass worship); Walker 1963; see also van Henten 1999: 880; In der Smitten 1980: 470; te Velde 1967: 109 n. 1. I must thank Adam Kamesar for his bibliographic assistance on this matter (private correspondence, January 2006). 81.  For the specific sources and for further discussion on the Christian application of the rumor, see Gafni 1972: 784; Stern 1974: 97; cf. Dent 1972: 40–41; In der Smitten 1980: 470; Zeuner 1963: 382. 82.  Note that KTU 1.162:20–23 is not considered here. Whereas G. del Olmo Lete has suggested that mlsm mrkbt in line 22 could mean “a team horse” and that the text may therefore contain a reference to the sacrifice of 22 horses (del Olmo Lete 1998: 171–73; 1999: 97, 103–5; cf. Holloway 1998: 353), Pardee has shown that mlsm mrkbt must mean “chariot-runners” (Pardee 2002: 85, 113 n. 121; cf. Pardee 2000a: 894–97).

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

41

2.2.1.1.  Sacrificial Contexts      (KTU 1.6 I:28; 1.40:26, 34, 43; 1.119:16) It is clear from at least two texts (and possibly three) that the donkey was sacrificed at Ugarit. 83 The first text to be examined here is KTU 1.6, which is the final tablet of the Baʿlu Myth. 84 It begins with ʿAnatu mourning over the death of Baʿlu. ʿAnatu then carries the dead Baʿlu to his burial place on the heights of Ṣapānu. After burying him, ʿAnatu offers the following sacrifices: (18b) . . . tṭbḫ . šbʿm (19) rumm . k gmn . aliyn (20) bʿl . tṭbḫ . šbʿm . alpm (21) [k] gmn . aliyn . bʿl (22) [tṭ]bḫ . šbʿm . ṣin (23) [k g]mn . aliyn . bʿl (24) [tṭ]bḫ . šbʿm . aylm (25) [k gmn .] aliyn . bʿl (26) [tṭbḫ . š]bʿm . yʿlm (27) [k gmn . al]iyn . bʿl (28) [tṭbḫ . šbʿm . y]ḥmrm (29) [k gm]n . aliyn [.] bʿl 85 (30–31)  . . . 86 (18b) She slaughters seventy (19) buffalo, as an offering(?) of Mighty (20) Baʿlu. 87 83.  On employing the term sacrificial for these texts, Pardee remarks: “le terme « sacrifice » est ici approprié en ce qu’il signifie le fait de tuer une bête dans un contexte rituel” (2000a: 132). 84.  For translations and commentary on KTU 1.6 I:28, see ANET 139; Bernhardt 1978: 216; Coogan 1978: 110; COS 1.86:268–69; Driver 1956: 109; Gibson 1977: 74–75; Margalit 1980: 140–42; de Moor 1971: 197–200; 1987: 83–84; Smith 1997: 152; Wyatt 1998: 130. 85.  Note de Moor’s suggestion: “Although Herdner makes the lines 28 and 29 to follow each other immediately, as if the fragments join completely, I would not exclude the possibility that two lines are missing between 28 and 29 . . . making the total number of offerings seven” (1971: 198). 86.  The two damaged lines (30–31) are extremely difficult, but they do not appear to continue the repetitious pattern that preceded. Line 30 may contain the verb tšt, which may refer to ʿAnatu drinking or placing (part of?) the sacrifice (see CTU 25 n. 1; Smith 1997: 152, 174 n. 180). The transliteration is from CTU 25. 87.  The meaning of the term (k)gmn is unknown. My translation of gmn as “offering(?)” follows that of Smith, who takes his cue from context (1997: 152, 174 n. 178). Pardee leaves the term untranslated (COS 1.86:268–69). Driver suggests “funeral offering(?)” (1956: 109); cf. DUL 300–301; UT 591 (glossary); Wyatt 1998: 130. Watson suggests “as mourning” (1989: 129–31).

42

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts She slaughters seventy oxen, (21) [as] an offering(?) of Mighty Baʿlu. (22) [She sla]ughters seventy sheep, (23 [as an off]ering(?) of Mighty Baʿlu. (24) [She sla]ughters seventy deer, (25) [as an offering(?)] of Mighty Baʿlu. (26) [She slaughters se]venty mountain-goats, (27) [as an offering(?) of Mi]ghty Baʿlu. (28) [She slaughters seventy] donkeys(?), (29) [as an offer]ing(?) of Mighty Baʿlu.

The sixth sacrifice in this list (of 70 donkeys) presents a textual problem—as was noted in §1.2.2. While the reading “donkeys” ([. . .]ḥmrm) is plausible, it is not the only possible interpretation. H. L. Ginsberg long ago suggested that the sacrificial animals named in this line are “roebucks” (thus reading [. . . y]ḥmrm). 88 Arguments that favor the reading yḥmrm are: (a) all the other animals that are mentioned in this passage are “horned ruminants”; (b) all the other animals that are mentioned in this passage are ritually clean (at least according to Israelite standards); (c) other Ugaritic texts refer to a sacrificial donkey with the term ʿr rather than ḥmr; and (d) that the term yaḥmūr was known at Ugarit is suggested by its use in local place names. 89 Arguments that favor the reading ḥmrm are: (a) the term yḥmr(m) does not occur anywhere in the extant Ugaritic corpus; (b) the sacrificial donkey may be referred to as ḥmr in the earlier mythological/poetic texts and as ʿr in the later ritual/prose texts; (c) the funerary context of donkey sacrifice is now well attested in the archaeology of the Levant in the second millennium b.c.e. (see §3.7.2). In the end, one must conclude that good arguments can be made for either reading and that a final solution is currently unattainable. For now, the correct reading of KTU 1.6 I:28 remains uncertain. If Ginsberg’s interpretation (“roebuck”) is correct, this text must be excluded from the purview of the present study. On the other hand, if the interpretation “donkeys” is correct, it is worthwhile to make the following obser88.  Ginsberg 1936: 194–95 (“roebucks”); 1950: 158 (“antelopes”); 1973: 131 (“fallow deer”); ANET 139 (“roebucks”). Ginsberg’s suggestion is adopted by CTU (1.6 I:28), DUL 960, and de Moor (1987: 84). The translations by Coogan, Gordon, de Moor, Pardee, and Smith read “asses” (Coogan 1978: 110; COS 1.86:269; de Moor 1971: 198–200; Smith 1997: 152; UT 879 [glossary]; cf. Pardee 2000a: 131). Smith notes that the roebuck (Capreolus capreolus) is attested at Levantine sites (1997: 174 n. 179). 89.  In favor of a: Ginsberg 1973: 131; cf. Ginsberg 1936: 194. In favor of b: Ginsberg 1936: 194; de Moor 1971: 200. In favor of c: Ginsberg 1950: 158; 1973: 131–32. See below (pp. 47–48) for further discussion of this matter. In favor of d: Ginsberg 1950: 158; 1973: 131.

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

43

vations: (1) the donkey is the object of sacrifice (using the verbal root ṭbḫ); (2) the donkey sacrifice has a funerary context; 90 (3) the sacrifice is associated with the deity Baʿlu; and, finally, (4) the sacrifice functions as a gmn of Baʿlu. It is unfortunate that the meaning of (k)gmn currently eludes scholars. This term could potentially provide a more precise understanding of the role that the animals played in a funerary context of this sort: were they slaughtered as food for consumption in the afterlife by the deceased Baʿlu? Or were they intended as a feast for consumption by the (presumed) attendees of the funeral? The key to answering questions such as these may reside in the meaning of (k)gmn. Perhaps future discoveries will provide an answer. The second sacrificial context that must be examined is KTU 1.40. Pardee has dubbed this text the “Ritual for National Unity.” 91 Pardee also points out that this text should not be interpreted as analogous to the Israelite Yom Kippur and that the rituals prescribed in this text have no stated time frame. 92 The text appears to have been divided into six literary units, and it demonstrates concern for three issues: communion (both between humans and between humanity and divinity), expiation of sin, and “rectitude/uprightness” in human and divine relationships. 93 The donkey appears in connection with the third issue (“rectitude”)―that is, the fifth and sixth literary units assure rectitude (for Ugarit’s male and female inhabitants, respectively) by the slaughter of a donkey. The fifth literary unit prescribes as follows: 94 90. On ṭbḫ, see Pardee 2002: 272 (under “slaughter”); COS 1.86:268–69 n. 242. Contrast this root with the one most commonly employed in the ritual texts—dbḥ. (See the discussion about the two ritual texts [KTU 1.40, 1.119], which immediately follows this paragraph.) On the funerary context of the sacrifice, see del Olmo Lete 1999: 39. Pardee speculates: “The use of ṭbḫ here may be linked with the funerary nature of these sacrifices, though that can only be an hypothesis based on this passage” (COS 1.86:269 n. 242). 91.  Pardee 2002: 77. For translations and commentary on KTU 1.40, see Levine 1963: 106; de Moor and Sanders 1991: 283–300; del Olmo Lete 1999: 144–60; Pardee 1991b: 1181–96; 2000a: 92–142, 1264; 2000b: 228–29; 2002: 77–83; de Tarragon 1980: 36–37, 92–97; 1998: 727–32; Weinfeld 1995: 212–14; Wyatt 1998: 342–47. 92.  Pardee 2002: 78, 79. Scholars who endorse the analogy between this text and Leviticus 16 include de Moor and Sanders 1991: 295–96, 300; del Olmo Lete 1999: 159; de Tarragon 1980: 97; Weinfeld 1995: 212–14; Wyatt 1998: 342. Pardee not only points out that this text contains no stated time-frame; he also notes that the term kpr never occurs in Ugaritic (2002: 78, 79, 237). Add to these omissions the fact that the place/location of these rituals is never stated (cf. del Olmo Lete 1999: 151). On the other hand, Pardee does view expiation of sin as one of three principal themes in the text, and the text does utilize the term ḥṭʾ in lines 19, 22, and 23 (Pardee 2002: 78). 93.  Pardee 2000a: 99–103; 2002: 78. 94.  The content of the fifth literary unit is virtually identical to that of the sixth with the exception that the fifth unit is concerned with the male inhabitants whereas the sixth unit is concerned with the female inhabitants (see de Moor and Sanders 1991: 283;

44

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts (26) w . šqrb .ʿr. mšr mšr . bn . ugrt . w np[y . ]ugr  ⟨t⟩ (27) w npy . yman . w npy . ʿrmt . w npy . x[ ] (28) w npy . nqmd . u šn . ypkm . ulp . q[ṭy . ulp . ddm]y (29) ulp . ḫry . ulp . ḫty . ulp . alty . ul[p . ġbr .] ulp ̄ (30) ḫbtkm . ulp . m[dl]lkm . ulp . qrzbl . u šn [.] ypkm (31) u b apkm . u b q[ṣ]rt . npškm . u b qṭt . tqṭṭ (32) u šn . ypkm . l d[b]ḥm . w l . ṯʿ . dbḥn . ndbḥ . hw . ṯʿ nṯʿy . (33) hw . nkt . nkt . y[t]ši . l ab . bn . il . ytši . l dr (34) bn il . ⟨l mpḫrt . bn . il⟩ 95 l ṯkmn [. w] šnm . hn . ʿr 96 (26) Bring near the donkey of rectitude: 97 rectitude of the son of Ugarit: and well-be[ing of the foreigner (within) the walls] of Ugar⟨it⟩, (27) and well-being of Yamʾanu, and well-being of ʿArumatu, and well-being of [. . .] (28) and well-being of Niqmaddu; whether your beauty be altered: 98

Pardee 2002: 78). My translation mostly follows Pardee’s extensive analysis (1991b: 1181–96; 2000a: 92–142; 2002: 77–83). 95.  For a defense of this correction, see Pardee 2002: 110–11 n. 109. 96.  CTU 76–77. 97.  The term mšr occurs here and in line 35. Pardee notes: “The link of mšr with the donkey sacrifice shows that this text is not simply ‘an adaptation of the Old Babylonian mīšarum edict’. . . . Quite to the contrary! This section much more plausibly reflects a properly old Amorite view of mêšaru” (2002: 110 n. 106; cf. Pardee 1991b: 1193; 2000a: 133–36). Note that the concept of mêšaru occurs in two Mari texts that refer “to one of the features associated with the donkey sacrifice as dabābum išariš ‘speaking uprightly’ . . . where išariš is an adverb cognate to mêšaru” (Pardee 1991b: 1193; cf. CAD I–J 223; Dossin 1938: 109 [= 1983a: 106]; Dossin 1939: 991 [= 1983b: 160]; Munn-Rankin 1956: 80, 85–86; Pardee 1991b: 1191 n. 10, 1193; 2000a: 132). For other discussion on mšr, see de Moor and Sanders 1991: 288–90; del Olmo Lete 1999: 154–55; de Tarragon 1980: 94–95; 1998: 731; Weinfeld 1995: 212; Wyatt 1998: 343 n. 5; cf. CAD M/2 116–19; Greengus 1992: 251; 1995: 471–72, 478. Note also that Pardee reconstructs ʿr mšr in KTU 1.84:38, which is another (fragmentary and slightly different) exemplar of this ritual (see Pardee 2000a: 454–55). See further discussion below, §§2.4.1.1, 2.6.20. 98.  Note that the parallel to this line (as well as to lines 30 and 32) is “whether you sin” in the fourth literary unit (lines 19, 22, 23). As for the translations “beauty” (yp; in this line) and “well-being” (npy; N-stem verbal noun; lines 26–28), both are from the root ypy (“to be beautiful”). These terms designate “the sum of political, social, and economic unity and prosperity” (Pardee 2002: 111 n. 112). On yp, Pardee expounds: “the reference appears to be to social and political well-being typified by the beauty of a well-fortified and prosperous city. Compare the uses of this root in Biblical Hebrew with reference to social and political entities: Isa 33:17; Ezek 27:3, 4, 11; 28:7, 12, 17;

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

45

be it according to the statement of the Qa[ṭian, be it according to the statement of the Dadm]ian, (29) be it according to the statement of the Ḫurrian, be it according to the statement of the Ḫittite, be it according to the statement of the ʾAlashian, be it according to the sta[tement of the Ġbr], be it according to the statement of(30)your oppressed ones, be it according to the statement of your im[pover]ished ones, be it according to the statement of the Qrzbl; whether your beauty be altered: (31)be it in your anger, be it in your im[pa]tience, be it in some offense that you should commit; (32)whether your beauty be altered: as concerns the sa[cr]ifices or as concerns the ṯʿ-sacrifice. The sacrifice, it is sacrificed, the ṯʿ-sacrifice, it is offered, (33)the slaughtering is done. 99 May it be b[or]ne to the father of the sons of ʾIlu, may it be borne to the Circle- (34) of-the-Sons-of-ʾIlu, ⟨to the Assembly-of-the-Sons-of-ʾIlu,⟩ to Ṯukamuna-[wa]-Šunama: here is the donkey.

31:8; Zech 9:17; Ps 50:2; Lam 2:15” (2002: 112 n. 117). On npy, Pardee expounds: “it declares the benefit to be produced for a series of persons from the offering of the animal named in the sections preserved” (2002: 111 n. 112; cf. de Moor and Sanders 1991: 290; del Olmo Lete 1999: 155; Pardee 1991b: 1191, 1193–94; de Tarragon 1980: 94–95; 1998: 728–31; Weinfeld 1995: 213 n. 89; Wyatt 1998: 342 n. 2; see also the use of the terms salīmum and damqatum in the Mari texts; cf. §§2.4.1.1, 2.6.20). 99.  In line 32 and at the beginning of line 33, three sacrificial terms are used. The terms dbḥ and ṯʿ are well known in the ritual literature, but nkt is not a standard term. Pardee suggests that these three terms correspond to the three themes of this text: dbḥ with communion, ṯʿ with expiation, and nkt with rectitude (2002: 78, 112 n. 115). Pardee also suggests that nkt “corresponds to the use of the West-Semitic verb qatālu and the Akkadian verb dâku, both meaning ‘to kill’ and both used in the Mari donkey-sacrifice texts” (2002: 112 n. 115; cf. §2.6.20). On nkt, see Pardee 1991b: 1192–93; 2000a: 132; 2002: 112 n. 115, 272 (under “slaughter”). On ṯʿ, see Pardee 1991b: 1192–93; 2000a: 132; 2002: 225, 272 (under “sacrifice [Ṯ ʿ-]”). On dbḥ, see del Olmo Lete 1999: 20; Pardee 1991b: 1192–93; 2000a: 132; 2002: 225, 233, 268 (under “dabḥu-sacrifice”), 271 (under “sacrifice”).

46

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

From this text, one can make the following observations: 100 (1) the donkey sacrifice assures mšr (“rectitude/uprightness”) and npy (“well-being”) for the people of Ugarit (cf. the use of salīmum and damqatum in §§2.4.1.1, 2.6.20); (2) the donkey sacrifice is identified as a nkt (cf. the uses of qatālum and dâkum in §§2.4.1.1, 2.6.20); and (3) the donkey sacrifice is directed to ʾIlu and his “sons.” 101 This text, however, fails to divulge some important pieces of information, such as when or where this ritual is to be carried out. The third sacrificial context that must be examined is KTU 1.119. This text is similar to KTU 1.40 in that it also prescribes sacrificial rituals. 102 It differs, however, by stating a time frame (the rituals prescribed are for the two months of ʾIbaʿlatu and Ḫiyyāru) 103 and appending a “prayer for a city under siege.” While the prayer is directed to Baʿlu, the rituals are mostly directed to Baʿlu and ʾIlu. The prescription of a donkey sacrifice occurs one time just before a lacuna of 8–12 lines. The prescription reads as follows: (11b) . . . b ṯmnt . ʿšrt . ib[ʿ]lt (12) alp . l mdgl bʿl . ugrt (13) u urm . u šnpt . l ydbḥ (14) mlk . bt il . npš . l iš[ḫry] (15) npš . l bʿl xx[ ] (16) w ʿr . l x[ ] (17) l xx[   ] 104 (11b) On the eighteenth of ʾIbaʿlatu, (12) a bull for the mdgl of Baʿlu of Ugarit. 105 (13) Both a flame-sacrifice and a presentation-offering 106 100. Cf. Pardee 2000a: 939, 1044–45. 101.  It is not clear to me whether or not Baʿlu would be included in this group of deities. Baʿlu is variously identified as both the son of Dagan and the son of ʾIlu (see DDD 133). For further discussion on the identity of the sons of ʾIlu, the Circle-ofthe-Sons-of-ʾIlu, the Assembly-of-the-Sons-of-ʾIlu, and Ṯukamuna-[wa]-Šunama, see DDD 776–77, 866–67; Pardee 2002: 273–85. 102.  For translations and commentary on KTU 1.119:11b–17, see COS 1.88:284; Miller 2000b: 84–100; de Moor 1987: 171–74; del Olmo Lete 1999: 292–306; Pardee 2000a: 661–85, 1285; 2002: 50–53, 149–50; Wyatt 1998: 416–22. 103. ʾIbaʿlatu = December–January; Ḫiyyāru = January–Febryary (see Pardee 2002: 25). The month name Ḫiyyāru does not actually occur in this text but the prescriptions of lines 20–25 seem to take place during the month following ʾIbaʿlatu (see COS 1.88:283 n. 2, 284 n. 17; Pardee 2002: 50). 104.  CTU 133. 105. On mdgl, see COS 1.88:284 n. 11; Miller 2000b: 91; Pardee 2000a: 663, 675; 2002: 104 n. 51. 106.  On the terms urm and šnpt, see COS 1.88:284 (nn. 12–13); Miller 2000b: 91; Pardee 2000a: 133, 669, 676; 2002: 269, 271.

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

47

   the king must sacrifice (14) at the temple of ʾIlu:    a neck for ʾI[. . .]; 107 (15) a neck for Baʿlu[. . .    ] (16) and a donkey for[. . .     ] (17) for[. . . ] Based on this text one can deduce the following: 108 (1) the donkey sacrifice is carried out annually―on the 18th day of ʾIbaʿlatu; (2) the word for sacrifice in this text is dbḥ (cf. KTU 1.40:32), and the donkey is implicitly the object of this verbal root; (3) the donkey sacrifice is carried out at the Temple of ʾIlu. Unfortunately, this text does not clearly reveal the deity to whom the donkey sacrifice is directed (although ʾIlu would be the best candidate). It is also interesting, especially in light of the neck-breaking ritual of Exod 13:13, 34:20, to note the close association in this text between donkey sacrifice and the presentation of a “neck” (npš). 109 These three texts provide the only sacrificial contexts related to the donkey in Ugaritic literature. It is noteworthy, however, that the texts are uneven in the terminology that they employ for the donkey. KTU 1.6 may use the term ḥmr, while KTU 1.40 and 1.119 use the term ʿr. 110 But this difference may not be as significant as it first appears. One must consider the fact that KTU 1.6 is a mythological and poetic text, whereas the others are ritual and prose (that is, prescriptive) texts. Furthermore, the mythological text most likely comes from 107.  For the reading at the end of this line, I cautiously follow Pardee’s transliteration, which has ʾi followed by one uncertain sign and a lacuna (see 2000a: 662–63; 2002: 51, line 14), rather than CTU, which reconstructs the divine name iš[ḫry] (CTU 133; cf. Miller 2000b: 85, 86; de Moor 1987: 172; del Olmo Lete 1999: 300; Wyatt 1998: 420). 108. Cf. Pardee 2000a: 953, 1045. 109.  On “neck,” see COS 1.88:284 n. 14; Miller 2000b: 91; Pardee 2002: 237, 270; de Tarragon 1980: 40–42. Note also the possible mention of consecrating a “firstborn” ([b]kr; line 31) of an unspecified animal in the prayer; on “firstborn,” see COS 1.88:285 n. 23; Miller 2000b: 87, 93, 97; Pardee 2000a: 664–65, 683; 2002: 233, 268. On the consecration of the firstborn in the Bible, see Exod 13:2, 12–13; 34:19–20; Lev 27:26; Num 18:17; Deut 15:19; §4.4.1. Thus, there are at least three common elements in KTU 1.119 and Exodus 13: (1) the donkey (KTU 1.119:16 [ʿr]; Exod 13:13 [ḥămôr]); (2) the neck (KTU 1.119:14–15 [npš]; Exod 13:13 [ʿrp]); and (3) the consecration of the firstborn (KTU 1.119:31 [(b)kr . . . nš(q)dš]; Exod 13:2, 12–13 [‫)]קדׁש־לי כל־בכֹור‬. The details for each of these three elements are tantalizingly obscure. For further reference on Exodus 13:13, 34:20; see §4.4. 110.  For discussion on this difference of terminology, see COS 1.86:268–69 n. 242. Note that, in the mythological and ritual texts, ḥmr (with the meaning “donkey”) occurs elsewhere only a few times—in the Baʿlu Myth (KTU 1.5 I:19[?]), the Kirta Epic (KTU 1.14 III:17, V:10) and in the “Dream Omen Manual” (KTU 1.86:9, 12). See further discussion in §§2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.5.

48

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

an earlier time period than the ritual texts. The former text was copied by the well-known scribe ʾIlīmilku and represents an older tradition, whereas the latter texts come from the final days of the city of Ugarit and represent the ritual practices at the time of the city’s destruction. 111 It is also instructive to put the practice of donkey sacrifice in perspective with regard to the other sacrifices that were practiced at Ugarit. Dennis Pardee, who recently analyzed the extant ritual literature, identifies 92 different objects that are mentioned as offerings. Donkeys comprise less than 1% of the total (ovids/caprids topped the list at 33%). 112 From this kind of statistical analysis it is fair to conclude that donkey sacrifice was not a particularly common practice at Ugarit―at least not according to the extant texts. As for the interpretation of Ugaritic donkey sacrifice, scholars frequently seems to reach for the Mari treaty ceremonies as their guide (see §§2.4.1.1, 2.6.20). Statements to this effect have been made by scholars since the 1950s (regarding what is now known as KTU 1.6) 113 and especially during the last two decades (regarding KTU 1.40 and 1.119). 114 A handful of scholars have also suggested analogies between Ugaritic donkey sacrifice and certain equid burials. 115 While questions regarding connections such as these between the various texts and between the texts and the burials will not be resolved at this point in our study, let it suffice simply to suggest that one should not assume that the Ugaritic texts are homogeneous. That is, due to matters of dating and genre, KTU 1.6 should be treated separately from KTU 1.40 and KTU 1.119 (and even these ritual texts each seem to represent distinct rituals). Furthermore, one should keep in mind that the Mari texts and the equid burials from Syria and Iraq are significantly earlier in date than the ritual texts from Ugarit.

111.  Ugarit was destroyed c. 1186 b.c.e. Traditionally, it was assumed that ʾIlīmilku lived a century or more prior to the destruction of the city, but recently this assumption has been called into question. Some scholars now suggest that ʾIlīmilku lived closer to 1200 b.c.e. (see discussion in COS 1.86:241 n. 3; Pardee 2002: 242 n. 10). Regardless of when he lived, much of the mythological literature (such as KTU 1.6) stems from an earlier time period than the ritual/prose texts (see Smith 1994: 29–36). 112.  Pardee 2000a: 917, 918; 2000c: 325, 328; 2002: 224–25; cf. del Olmo Lete 1999: 41; de Tarragon 1980: 34. See additional remarks in §1.6.2. 113. E.g., Driver 1956: 109 n. 14; Ginsberg 1950: 158; de Moor 1971: 200; Watson 1989: 129 n. 2; cf. Pardee 2000a: 131 n. 166. 114. Regarding KTU 1.40, see COS 1.88:284 n. 15; Lafont 1999: 75; Pardee 1991b: 1192–93; 2000a: 131–33; 2002: 78, 110 n. 106, 112 n. 115, 268; Wyatt 1998: 345 n. 17. Regarding KTU 1.119, see de Moor 1987: 173 n. 12; Pardee 2000a: 131, 133. 115. Regarding KTU 1.6, see Bernhardt 1978: 216 n. i; van den Brink 1982: 77; Maeir 1989: 67 n. 30; Watson 1989: 129 n. 2. Regarding KTU 1.40, see Pardee 2000a: 133 n. 172; Wyatt 1998: 345 n. 17 (citing a private communication with E. D. Oren).

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

49

2.2.1.2.  Transportation Contexts (KTU 1.4 IV:1–19, 1.19 II:1–11, 1.20 II:1b–4, 1.22 II:20b–24a) There are three Ugaritic texts that feature the donkey as a means of transport—the Baʿlu Myth, the ʾAqhatu Legend, and the Rapiʾūma Texts. These “transportation” texts are relevant to the present study because they share ceremonial and symbolic motifs such as the preparation of the donkey for travel and the association of the donkey with riders of high status. In the Baʿlu Myth (KTU 1.4 IV:1–19) 116 there is an extensive description of the donkey with all its accoutrements. The goddess ʾAṯiratu needed travel to ʾIlu (her husband) to speak with him about building a palace for Baʿlu. In preparation, she commands her servant, Qudšu-wa-ʾAmruru, to prepare her beast of burden. The servant then makes the preparations and places his master on the donkey, and they set out together toward the abode of ʾIlu:          .  .  . 117  (1) ṯr[ il . abn . w tʿn . rbt] 118  (2) aṯr[t . ym . šmʿ . l qdš]  (3) w amr[r . l dgy . rbt]  (4) aṯrt . ym[ . mdl . ʿr]  (5) ṣmd . pḥl . š[t . gpnm . dt]  (6) ksp . dt . yrq[ . nqbnm]  (7) ʿdb . gpn . atnt[y]  (8) ysmʿ . qd⟨š⟩ . w amr[r]  (9) mdl . ʿr . ṣmd . pḥl (10) št . gpnm . dt . ksp (11) dt . yrq . nqbnm (12) ʿdb . gpn . atnth (13) yḥbq . qdš . w amrr (14) yštn . aṯrt . l bmt . ʿr (15) l ysmsmt . bmt . pḥl (16) qdš . yuḫdm . šbʿr (17) amrr . k kbkb . l pnm (18) aṯr . btlt . ʿnt (19) w bʿl . tbʿ . mrym . ṣpn 119 116.  For translations and commentary on KTU 1.4 IV:1–1, see ANET 133; Bernhardt 1978: 207; Cassuto 1975: 178–87; Coogan 1978: 99; COS 1.86:258–59; Driver 1956: 94–95; Gibson 1977: 59; de Moor 1987: 52; Pardee 2000b: 230–31; Smith 1997: 126–27, 170–71 nn. 115–16; Wyatt 1998: 98. 117.  There is a gap of about 21 lines preceding this excerpt (about 12 lines are missing from the beginning of column IV, and 9 lines are missing from the end of column III). 118.  For the reconstructions, see CTU 18 nn. 1–3. 119.  CTU 18.

50

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts   (1) the Bull [ʾIlu our Father.    And Lady] (2) ʾAṯira[tu of the Sea responds:    Listen, O Qudšu]-(3)wa-ʾAmru[ru,    O fisherman of Lady] (4) ʾAṯiratu of the Sea:    [Tack up the donkey,]   (5) strap up the stallion, 120    pu[t on the reins 121 of] (6) silver,   [the loops] 122 of yellow (gold),   (7) prepare the reins of [my] 123 jenny. 124

120.  The parallel verbs mdl and ṣmd both refer to tack preparation, specifically with regard to the bridle and reins. Translations such as “saddle” or “harness” should be avoided because the saddle is virtually unattested in this early period (see especially Smith 1997: 126, 170–71 n. 115; see also Clutton-Brock 1992: 73; Firmage 1992: 1137; Good 1984: 80; Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 96–97; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 137; Watson 1986: 73–78). For discussion on mdl, see COS 1.86:258 n. 148; 1.93:294 n. 9; DUL 527; Good 1984: 80–81; Margalit 1989: 359–60 n. 11; Wyatt 1998: 98; cf. KTU 1.4 IV:4, 9; 1.19 II:3, 8; 1.86:13 (as a noun); for discussion on ṣmd, see DUL 784; Good 1984: 77–80; Margalit 1989: 359–60 n. 11, 466; Pardee 1987: 417; Wyatt 1998: 98; cf. KTU 1.4 IV:5, 9; 1.19 II:4, 9; 1.20 II:3; 1.22 II:22. The term pḥl designates a male equid but not a specific species (thus, “stallion”). In the present context pḥl is parallel with ʿr and therefore probably designates a donkey(-stallion)/jackass. It functions in this same capacity in the ʾAqhatu Legend (KTU 1.19 II:4, 9, 11) and in an administrative text (KTU 4.377:24–25, 30). It also occurs in the feminine form pḥlt in KTU 1.100 where it is translated “mare” (see §2.2.1.4). For further reference on pḥl(t), see COS 1.86:258 n. 148; 1.94:295 n. 1; Dietrich and Loretz 1986: 101–3; 2000: 313–15; 2003: 183; DUL 668; Pardee 2000b: 231–33; UT 2033 (glossary); Wortman 1978: 4–6; cf. AHw 875 (puḫālu, “Zuchthengst”); CAD P 481 (puḫālu, “stallion”); DNWSI 906. 121.  The term gpnm (literally, “vines”) is used metaphorically here to designate ropes or straps. For further reference on gpnm, see de Moor 1987: 52 n. 229; Smith 1997: 126, 170–71 n. 115; cf. Gen 49:11a. Pardee, on the other hand, renders gpnm as “trappings” (COS 1.86:258 n. 148). 122.  The root nqb designates something hollowed out (cf. HALOT 719). Perhaps nqbnm refers to bit rings; cf. the examples of bronze bits with loops on both sides— from Tel Haror (Oren 1997b: 269 fig. 8.17), from Tell el-ʿAjjul (Petrie 1934: 9, 11, pls. XXIII, XXXV [nos. 555, 558]; 1952: 15, pl. XVII [no. 210]; cf. ANEP 139; Potratz 1966: 111, fig. 46b; Ziffer 1990: 66*, fig. 92), and from Ugarit (Schaeffer 1938: 318–19, fig. 46; cf. Potratz 1966: 111, fig. 46a); see also Littauer and Crouwel 2002a: 487–518, pls. 210–12. Bernhardt translates nqbnm as “snaffle” (1978: 207). For a different interpretation of nqbnm, see DUL 639; cf. COS 1.86:258–59. 123.  Perhaps “[your] jenny” in this line and “his jenny” in line 12 (cf. ANET 133). 124.  The term atnt here is taken as a feminine singular, thus “jenny, she-ass” (see Sivan 2001: 76; cf. ‫ אתנֹות‬in Zech 9:9). Note that DUL (p. 122), Ginsberg (1973: 132; ANET 133), Cassuto (1975: 180), and SED (2:29) render atnt as a feminine plural. A feminine term makes an unusual parallel to the masculine terms ʿr and pḥl—especially when the term ḥmr was available (but not utilized), but the rules of parallelism are ap-

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

51

  (8) Qudšu-wa-ʾAmru[ru] listens:   (9) He tacks up the donkey,    straps up the stallion, (10) puts on the reins of silver, (11) the loops of yellow (gold), (12) prepares the reins of her jenny. (13) Qudšu-wa-ʾAmruru grasps (her), (14) he puts ʾAṯiratu on the back of the donkey, (15) on the most beautiful part 125 of the back of the stallion. (16) Qudšu begins (like) a torch, 126 (17) ʾAmruru is like a star in front, 127 (18) behind (follows) Adolescent 128 ʿAnatu. (19) As for Baʿlu, he departs for the heights of Ṣapānu. A very similar description of preparing a donkey for travel is found in the ʾAqhatu Legend (KTU 1.19 II:1–11). 129 The figure Dānīʾilu, who is known from both Ugaritic and biblical literature, is a legendary patriarch (and perhaps a parently not very rigid with regard to gender agreement. On the other hand, one could interpret the passage as referring to more than one donkey—i.e., the ʿr // pḥl as the donkey-stallion of ʾAṯiratu and the atnt as the she-ass(es) of Qudšu-wa-ʾAmruru, but this distinction is not made explicit in the text. 125.  The root ysm is used here to express the superlative. On ysm, see COS 1.86:259 n. 149; Margalit 1989: 223. De Moor translates “on the most comfortable part” (1987: 52, 252; cf. Wyatt 1998: 98, 298). One wonders why the donkey’s back would be described in this way. Pardee implies in his translation and note (COS 1.86:258–59 n. 149) that the silver gpnm and the gold nqbnm pertain to the back (saddle-area) of the donkey; if so, then the back of the donkey would understandably be described as “beautiful.” The problem with this interpretation is that gpnm and nqbnm have more to do with the reins and bit than with the saddle (see above, nn. 120–21). A more likely explanation is that the “most beautiful part of the back” refers to a caparison or brocade that was draped over the back of the donkey. For background, see Clutton-Brock 1992: 73, 75. 126.  Note the various translations: “Qudšu sets off, bright as fire” (COS 1.86:259 and n. 150); “Qudsh starts to burn” or “takes a torch” (Smith 1997: 126, 171 n. 116); “Qidshu took the lead” (de Moor 1987: 52); “Qadesh began to drive the animal on” (Bernhardt 1978: 207). 127.  The sense of lines 16–17 seems to be that Qudšu-wa-ʾAmruru is the navigator for the journey (cf. the role of Pūġatu in the ʾAqhatu Legend, pp. 52–53). 128.  The most precise translation of ʿAnatu’s epithet btlt is “Adolescent” or “Girl” (cf. COS 1.86:243 n. 11; Pardee 1987: 382; Parker 1997: 246; Smith 1997: 127, 165 n. 12; Walton 1997: 781–84). 129.  For translations and commentary on KTU 1.19 II:1–11, see ANET 153; Cassuto 1975: 180–87; Coogan 1978: 41–42; COS 1.103:352; Driver 1956: 61; Gibson 1977: 115; Margalit 1989: 133, 158–59, 223, 357–60; de Moor 1987: 251–52; Parker 1997: 69; Wyatt 1998: 297–98.

52

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

king) in this story. 130 After Dānīʾilu’s son ʾAqhatu is killed by ʿAnatu, a drought ravages the land. Dānīʾilu then sets out to inspect the effects of the drought and orders his daughter Pūġatu to make a donkey ready for his journey:  (1) šmʿ . pġt . ṯkmt [.] my  (2) ḥspt . l šʿr . ṭl . ydʿ[t]  (3) hlk . kbkbm . mdl . ʿr  (4) ṣmd . pḥl . št . gpny . dt ksp  (5) dt . yrq . nqbny . tš [mʿ]  (6) pġt . ṯkmt . my . ḥspt . l [šʿ]r . t ̣l  (7) ydʿt . hlk . kbkbm00   (8) bkm . tmdln . ʿr  (9) bkm . tṣmd . pḥl . bkm (10) tšu . abh . tštnn . l [b]mt ʿr (11) l ysmsm . bmt . pḥl 131   (1) Listen Pūġatu,    (you) who bear water on (your) shoulder,   (2) who gather dew for barley, 132    who kno[w] (3) the paths of the stars: 133    Tack up the donkey,   (4) strap up the stallion.    put on the reins of silver,   (5) the loops of yellow (gold).   P  ūġ́atu lis[tens],   (6) she who bears water on (her) shoulders,    who gathers dew for [barl]ey, 130. In Ugaritic literature, the figure Dānīʾilu is attested in the ʾAqhatu Legend (KTU 1.17–19) and the Rāpiʾūma Texts (KTU 1.20 II:7). In biblical literature, he is attested in Ezek 14:12–20, 28:3; cf. Jub 4:20. That Dānīʾilu was perhaps a king (or at least a nobleman) is deduced from his role at the city gate, where he “judged the widow’s case” and “made decisions regarding the orphan” (KTU 1.17 V:6–8, 1.19, I:19–25); it is also noteworthy that his home was a hkl (cf. KTU 1.17 II:25, 1.19 IV:9, 1.19 IV:21) with a ḥẓr (KTU 1.19 IV:22). For further reference on the figure Dānīʾilu, see DDD 219–20. 131.  CTU 57. 132.  I render šʿr as “barley” (cf. Coogan 1978: 41; COS 1.103:352; Driver 1956: 61; Gibson 1978: 115), but others render it “from the wool/fleece” (cf. Margalit 1989: 158; de Moor 1987: 251; Parker 1997: 69; Wyatt 1998: 297; see Judg 6:36–38). 133.  This line indicates that Pūġatu has navigational capabilities (cf. the role of Qudšu-wa-ʾAmruru in the Baʿlu Myth, see p. 51), and it is noteworthy that Pūġatu does in fact accompany Dānīʾilu on his journey (she appears again in line 27). For commentary on Pūġatu’s three epithets, see COS 1.103:352 n. 98; Gibson 1978: 115 nn. 7–9; Gray 1958: 125, 127 nn. 14–16; de Moor 1987: 251 nn. 180–82; Wyatt 1998: 297 nn. 208–9.

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

53

  (7) who knows the paths of the stars:   (8) Weeping she tacks up the donkey,   (9) weeping she straps up the stallion,    weeping (10) she lifts her father,    she places him on the [b]ack of the donkey, (11) on the most beautiful part of the back of the stallion. The well-known Rapiʾūma Texts, of which there are three tablets (KTU 1.20–22), also contain references to donkeys (in two places: KTU 1.20 II:1b–4, 1.22 II:20b–24a). 134 These texts are notoriously difficult to interpret and have thus spawned a massive bibliography. In the two excerpts that are translated below, the rapiʾūma—who are variously identified as spirits of the dead, deities, living persons, or a combination thereof 135―are invited to a banquet and proceed to travel by means of horse-drawn chariots and donkeys. Because the two excerpts share similar phraseology and are both badly damaged, it is helpful to view the texts side by side in order to facilitate reconstruction (see table, p. 54). 136 The “transportation contexts” (from the Baʿlu Myth, the ʾAqhatu Legend, and the Rapiʾūma Texts) have at least a couple features in common. First, they give descriptive emphasis to the preparation of the animal for travel. Emphasis on tacking up or tying beasts of burden is a motif that is also observed in the Hebrew Bible (see §4.2.8). 137 One scenario that has striking similarity between 134.  For translations and commentary on KTU 1.20 II:1b–4, and 1.22 II:20b–24a, see Coogan 1978: 48–51; Driver 1956: 66–71; Gibson 1977: 135–36; L’Heureux 1979: 111–59; Lewis 1996b: 115–49; 1997: 198, 202; Margalit 1989: 466–67; de Moor 1987: 268–69, 271; Pitard 1992: 33–77; 1999: 259–69; Pope 1977a: 163–82; Way 2000: 23– 32; Wyatt 1998: 316, 320. 135. See Pitard’s helpful summary (1999: 263–68). On the identity of the rapiʾūma, see also Lewis 1996b: 117–18, 142; Pardee 2002: 282; Parker 1997: 251; Way 2000: 22–32, 55–64. 136.  It must be kept in mind, however, that two different scribes are at work in these tablets. KTU 1.20 represents a different scribal hand than KTU 1.21–22 (Pitard 1992: 41, 51, 73, 75 nn. 8, 15; cf. Pitard 1999: 260). Therefore one must read the reconstructions with extreme caution because the parallel passages may not have shared the same exact phraseology. My translation of these excerpts follows the verbal sequencing suggested by Lewis (1996b: 132, 135, 143–44): that is, the preparation for travel is expressed by yaqtul and qatala forms (“hastened,” “prepared,” “strapped up,” “raised”), whereas the actual traveling is expressed by yaqtulu forms (“mount,” “come” [tityn]). 137.  With respect to the ʾātôn, see Num 22:21, 2 Kgs 4:24; with respect to the ḥămôr, see Gen 22:3; Judg 19:10; 2 Sam 16:1, 17:23, 19:26 (MT 19:27); 1 Kgs 2:40; 13:13, 23, 27; 2 Kgs 7:10; with respect to the ʿayir, see Gen 49:11; with respect to the sûs, see 2 Kgs 7:10, Jer 46:4; with respect to the pārāh, see 1 Sam 6:7, 10; and with respect to chariots, see Gen 46:29, Exod 14:6, 1 Kgs 18:44 (object implied), 2 Kgs 9:21. The Hebrew verbs used in these passages are ʾsr (Gen 46:29, 49:11; Exod 14:6; 1 Sam 6:7, 10; 1 Kgs 18:44; 2 Kgs 7:10, 9:21; Jer 46:4) and ḥbš (Gen 22:3; Num 22:21; Judg 19:10; 2 Sam 16:1, 17:23, 19:27; 1 Kgs 2:40; 13:13, 23, 27; 2 Kgs 4:24).

54

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts CTU 1.20 II:1b–4

CTU 1.22 II:20b–24a

(1b) . . . [aṯrh . rpum] (2) tdd . aṯr h . tdd . iln[ym . mrkbt] (3) asr . sswm . tṣmd . b gx[ ] (4) tʿln . l mrkbtm . ti[ty ]138

(20b) . . . [aṯrh . rpum . l] (21) tdd . aṯr h . l tdd . ilnym] (22) asr . mrk[bthm ] (23) tʿln . l mr[kbthm . tity . l(?)] (24a) ʿrhm . . .139

(1b) [To his shrine the rapiʾūma] (2) hastened, to his shrine hastened the spiri[ts].140 (3) They prepared [the chariots]. They strapped up the horses, [they raised the stan]dards(?).141 (4) They mount their chariots, they co[me on their donkeys].

(20b) [To his shrine the rapiʾūma] (21) hastened, to his shrine [hastened the spirits]. (22) They prepared [their cha]riots. [They strapped up the horses]. (23) They mount [their char]iots, [they come on] (24a) their donkeys.142

 138  139  140  141  142

the Ugaritic and biblical literature is that of a high-status individual commanding (a) lower status individual(s) to prepare his/her means of transport. 143 The second feature that such transportation contexts have in common is that they concern riders of high status (cf. §§2.6.14, 4.2.8). ʾAṯiratu (KTU 1.4) is not only a deity; she is also the wife of ʾIlu and the mother of the gods. Dānīʾilu (KTU 1.19) is possibly a king but is at the very least a reputable nobleman. The 138.  CTU 62–63. 139.  CTU 66. 140. Whereas CTU has iln[ym], Pitard has ilm[ ] (CTU 63; Pitard 1992: 42, 47, 65, 67, 68). While both terms designate divine beings, the translation “spirits” is more sensitive to the present context (see Lewis 1996b: 142). For further discussion regarding the interpretation of these terms, see Way 2000: 25 nn. 72–73. 141.  Here I am reconstructing the text as dg[lm.tšu.]—thus following the reading of KTU 64, which is endorsed by Lewis (1996b: 124, 135; 1997: 198) and de Moor (1987: 268). Another interesting possibility is Pitard’s reading and reconstruction (bg[pnm?]), which would yield “with the r[eins they . . .]” (1992: 42, 48, 65, 68–69; cf. CTU 63). 142.  Note that Wyatt understands ʿrhm not as “their donkeys” but imprecisely as “their mounts” (1998: 316 n. 16, 320). Margalit renders it “their ‘city’” (1989: 466), which is unlikely given the parallelism in the immediate context (sswm // ʿrhm; lines 22b // 24a). 143.  The following accounts contain scenarios in which a high-status individual commands (a) lower status individual(s) to prepare his/her means of transport: KTU 1.4 IV:1–19 KTU 1.19 II:1–11 1 Kgs 13:13, 27 2 Kgs 9:21

ʾAṯiratu commands her servant to prepare her donkey Dānīʾilu commands his daughter to prepare his donkey the northern prophet commands his sons to prepare his donkey King Joram commands his subordinates to prepare his chariot

A possible exception to this scenario is the interesting case in 1 Kgs 18:44, where Elijah(’s servant) commands Ahab to prepare his chariot.

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

55

rapiʾūma (KTU 1.20 and 1.22)—whether they are living persons, shades of the dead, or deities—are definitely beings of high status. Not surprisingly, many of the biblical references to donkeys in transportation contexts also concern riders of high status (such as royalty, judges, and prophets). 144 The fact that ʾAṯiratu and Dānīʾilu are both accompanied by their servants (Qudšu-wa-ʾAmruru and Pūġatu, respectively) also indicates that they are riders of high status. 145 2.2.1.3.  Divination Manual (KTU 1.86:6–13) Divination manuals from Ugarit cover matters such as malformed animal fetuses, malformed human fetuses, lunar omens, and dream omens. 146 The manual concerning dream omens (KTU 1.86) 147 mentions items such as bovids, equids (śśw and ḥmr), ovids/caprids, various tools, cups, sandals, people, and so on. The text bears the title “Dream Omen Manual” (line 1: s[p]r ḥlmm), but interpretation is difficult due to the very fragmentary condition of the text. 148 The use of the term rgm (lit., “word,” but here “interpretation”) in this text may have structural significance in that it may mark the apodosis of each omen. 149 144. Cf. Num 22:21–30; Judg 5:10; 10:4; 12:14; 1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Sam 16:1–2; 19:26 (MT 19:27); 1 Kgs 13:11–32; Zech 9:9–10. On the donkey as a status symbol (or at least as the mount for a person of high status) in ancient Near Eastern texts, see below, §§2.2.2.1, 2.3.3, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.5.1; cf. §2.6.14. For further reference on the donkey as a status symbol, see Beem 1991: 152, 158; Borowski 1998: 97; Clutton-Brock 1992: 94; DBI 28, 215; Klingbeil 2003 :413; McCullough 1962a: 260; Michel 2004: 196; Moore and Brown 1997b: 173; Nielsen 1953: 268; Sasson 1976a: 72–73; 1976b: 204; Wolfe 2000: 117. The donkey as a mount for deity (e.g., in KTU 1.4 IV:1–19) is likely based on the employment of the donkey as a mount for people of high status. The donkey as a divine mount may also find expression in the Christian tradition (see Matt 21:1–11, Mark 11:1–10, Luke 19:29–40, John 12:12–16; cf. Sasson 1976a: 73), which is based on the royal imagery of Zech 9:9 (quoted in Matt 21:5 and John 12:15). For further reference on the donkey as a divine mount, see In der Smitten 1980: 466; cf. ANEP 658, 857; Keel 2001: 52; 2003: 51, 52; Michel 2004: 194 (figs. 4–5), 196; Noblecourt 1997: 169–78. 145.  The presence of servants with donkey-riders is also common in the Hebrew Bible (see §4.2.8). For depictions of a donkey-rider with his servant, see the Serabit elKhadim stelae from the 12th Dynasty (Bietak 1996: 17 [fig. 13A–B]; 1997: 100; Keel and Staubli 2003: 36). 146. See Pardee 2002: 134–48. 147. For translations and commentary on KTU 1.86:6–13, see COS 1.93:294; Pardee 2000a: 457–68, 1297; 2002: 144–48. For other dream omens mentioning donkeys, see §§2.1.1.1, 2.4.2, 2.5.1; cf. §2.6.9. 148.  Pardee expounds: “Not only is the surface of the tablet as preserved in very bad condition, but the right side is broken away and the bottom of the tablet, where as many as fifteen to twenty lines may have existed, was never discovered” (2002: 148 n. 10). 149.  See lines 2 and 7, where the word rgm is preserved (the former occurrence is not present in CTU [p. 105] but it is in Pardee’s text [2000a: 458; 2002: 144]). See

56

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

There are only two omens in this text that refer to equids (lines 6–13):  (6) śśw . ʿṯtrt . w śśw . šn[t ]  (7) w hm . yhpk . śśw . rgm . [ ]  (8) d ymġy . bnš . x[ ]  (9) w ḥmr[xxx] . xx ḥmr . xx[ ] (10) w mṯn[ ]r/kxxx[ ] (11) w bn x[ ]d . w mt[ ] (12) l bnš . ḥm[r m]dl [.] nʿ[ ] (13) w d . l mdl . r[ ]xxš[ ] 150   (6) The horse of ʿAṯtartu and the horse of š  [ 151 ]   (7) And if the horse turns over—interpretation: [ 152 ]   (8) that arrives (where) the man (is) [ ]   (9) And the donkey [  ] donkey [ ] (10) and ditto [ 153 ] (11) And the offspring(?)[ 154 ] (12) to the man, the donk[ey ] (13) and that to the tack [ ] These fragmentary omens provide very little definitive information concerning the donkey, but a couple of observations can be made regarding the horse. First, it is apparent that horses are associated with various deities—here ʿAṯtartu and perhaps Šapšu. The connection between these goddesses and horses is well attested elsewhere. 155 Second, the only substantial detail that is preserved about Pardee’s remarks (COS 1.93:293 n. 4; cf. Pardee 2000a: 462, 464, 468; 2002: 144). 150.  CTU 105. 151.  CTU reads w śśw . šn[t (p. 105; “and a year-old horse”); Pardee reads w s̀s̀w [.] š-[ (2000a: 458, 459; 2002: 145), for which he suggests reconstructing a divine name such as Ša[pšu] (COS 1.93:294 n. 5). 152.  This line may be understood and rendered in a variety of ways. It is unfortunate that there is so little context to work with. Pardee renders yhpk as “falls over” (COS 1.93:294) and “turns over” (2002: 146; cf. Pardee 2000a: 465). For ominous uses of the verb hpk in the Hebrew Bible, see Judg 7:13; Jonah 3:4; see also the references cited in Moore 1990: 109 n. 55. 153. Ugaritic w mṯn means “repeat the previous apodosis” (see Pardee’s remarks in 2000a: 465; COS 1.90:288 n. 11; 1.93:294 n. 8). It is very unfortunate that the previous apodosis is mostly missing. 154.  Pardee leaves this line untranslated (2000a: 460; 2002: 146; COS 1.93:294), presumably because bn may only be part of a word rather than a complete word. Perhaps the text should be reconstructed as bn atnt (“offspring of a jenny” = a purebred male donkey; cf. §§2.4.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.3). 155.  On the association of ʿAṯtartu/Astarte with equids, see ANEP 314–16; ANET 244, 250; Cornelius 1994: 73–82; 2004: 42–45; COS 1.93:294 n.  5; Hoffmeier and Kitchen 2007: 127–36; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 66–68, 88, 141; Leclant 1960: 1–67;

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

57

the horse omen is of the animal being turned over (on its back?). A phenomenon such as this would presumably constitute a negative omen. 156 As for the donkey omen, it is first of all noteworthy that the word used for the donkey is ḥmr—rather than ʿr, which is the more common term used in the ritual and cultic texts. Ḥmr, with the meaning “donkey,” occurs elsewhere only in the Kirta Epic (KTU 1.14 III:17; 1.14 V:10) and in the questionable contexts of the Baʿlu Myth (KTU 1.5 I:19; 1.6 I:28). 157 The details of this omen are tantalizingly unclear. How the donkey (ḥmr), the offspring (bn), the man (bnš), and the tack (mdl) are related is anyone’s guess! 2.2.1.4.  Historiola (KTU 1.100) Texts classified as historiolae are those “in which mythological elements are mixed with more practical elements or in which mythological elements are juxtaposed for purposes apparently different from the creation of the mythological texts themselves.” 158 Or, simply put, a historiola is “a text that links myth with magic.” 159 There are numerous texts from Ugarit that seem to fit this description, and KTU 1.100 (“Ḥôrānu and the Mare”) 160 is the most wellpreserved example. The heroine of this text is a mare (pḥlt, a female equid), who is identified as both the daughter of Šapšu and the mother of the stallion (pḥl). Through means 1988b: 60, 66; Pardee 1989–90: 468–70; 2000a: 464, 465; 2000b: 227. The horses referred to in this text were most likely actual “flesh and blood” horses. Such a conclusion is bolstered by KTU 4.790:16–17—an administrative text recording rations that were distributed to the horses of Rašpu and Milku ʿAṯtarti (Bordreuil and Pardee 2001: 354–56 [text 39]; COS 1.93:294 n. 5; 1.94:297 n. 18; Pardee 1988b: 60, 65–68; 2000b: 227; 2002: 173, 186 n. 17). For general reference on ʿAṯtartu/Astarte, see ANEP 314– 16, 830; ANET 15, 244, 250, 470; DDD 109–14; Pardee 2002: 275; Parker 1997: 246. On the association of Šapšu with equids, see 2 Kgs 23:11; KTU 1.100:1–2 (“Ḥôrānu and the Mare,” see §2.2.1.4 for analysis); COS 1.93:294 n. 5; 1.94:295 n. 3; Dietrich and Loretz 2000: 314–15, 331–32, 389–90; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 158–60, 341– 49, 371; cf. ANEP 537 (Šamaš on a horse). For general reference on Šapšu, see DDD 764–68; Pardee 2002: 283–84; Parker 1997: 251. For an Akkadian ritual that involves putting two donkey images before Šamaš, see CAD S 316. 156. See Pardee’s remark (COS 1.93:294 n. 6). 157.  On Ugaritic ḥmr, see COS 1.86:265 n. 206, 268–69 n. 242; 1.93:294 n. 9; DUL 363–64; Pardee 2000a: 131 n. 166, 465; UT 879 (glossary). The two identical occurrences in the Kirta Epic refer to “the noise/sound of the braying of his donkeys” (ql . nhqt . ḥmrh [CTU 38, 39]). 158.  Pardee 2002: 167. 159.  Pardee 2002: 167; cf. Frankfurter 1995: 457–76. 160. For translations and commentary on KTU 1.100, see Brown 1973; COS 1.94:295–98; Dietrich and Loretz 2000: 263–402; Gibson 1977: 138–39; de Moor 1987: 146–56; del Olmo Lete 1999: 359–71; Pardee 1988a: 193–226; 2002: 172–79; Parker 1997: 219–23; Wortman 1978; Wyatt 1998: 378–87.

58

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

of her mother, the mare sends a message to 12 deities of the Ugaritic pantheon in order to find one who might rid the land of venomous serpents. 161 The bulk of the text (lines 2–60) is a monotonous account of how the first 11 deities are unsuccessful in fulfilling her request, and it is not until her message reaches the 12th deity that she finds a capable candidate. This 12th deity is Ḥôrānu, who proceeds to carry out a magical rite that would render serpents harmless. 162 After a description of Ḥôrānu’s impressive performance (lines 61–69), the text transitions immediately into a marriage scene (lines 70–76) in which Ḥôrānu proposes to the mare and brings to her a bride price of (devenomized) 163 serpents―per request of the mare. In the present study on donkeys, this text is noteworthy for a number of reasons. First, the species of the mare is ambiguous. The term pḥl(t) does not seem to designate a specific species but it often takes on greater specificity based on its immediate context (cf. KTU 1.4 IV:5, 9, 15; 1.19 II:4, 9, 11; 4.377:24–25, 30, etc., where pḥl clearly refers to a donkey). 164 Unfortunately there are no clues anywhere in KTU 1.100 that help to identify further the species of pḥlt. Because of this uncertainty, KTU 1.100 cannot be excluded from a study on donkeys in ancient Near Eastern literature. Second, the mare is employed as a central character in this composition. She is portrayed as having cosmological origins and she communicates with the principal deities of Ugarit. She also serves an ironic function in the story: her needs could not even be met by those deities who were known to have connections with equids (namely, Baʿlu, ʿAnatu-wa-ʿAṯtartu, Rašpu, ʿAṯtartu, and Milku). 165 Such reversal of roles is also a prominent feature in the Balaam 161.  The threat of snakebite to equids is also expressed in Gen 49:17 (with reference to the sûs; see Cantrell 2011: 39 n. 20). In Egyptian literature, the serpent is portrayed as a threat to the donkey (Book of the Dead, Spell #40; see §2.1.1.3). For further discussion on the serpent, see §1.6.3.4. 162.  Ḥôrānu is frequently associated with magic in Ugaritic literature (see KTU 1.16 VI:54–58; 1.107:38; 1.169:9–10; cf. 1.2 I:7–9 [reconstructed]). For further reference on Ḥôrānu, see Cornelius 1994: 64–65 (RR32); COS 1.94:297 n. 21; 1.96:302; 1.102:342 n. 100; DDD 425–26; Dietrich and Loretz 2000: 339–41; Pardee 1990: 450– 51; 2002: 160, 173; Wyatt 1998: 384 n. 25. 163. See COS 1.94:298 n. 29; Pardee 2002: 188 n. 38. 164.  For bibliography on pḥl(t), see §2.2.1.2 (n. 120). 165. See Pardee’s remarks concerning irony in this text (2002: 173). On the association of Baʿlu with equids, see Cornelius 1994: 209–12, 262; on the association of ʿAnatu-wa-ʿAṯtartu with equids, see ANET 250, 254 (ʿAnat only); cf. ANET 15; ANEP 328; Cornelius 2004: 42, 44; COS 2.4A:23; on the association of Rašpu and Milku with equids, see ANET 244, 250 (Rašpu only); Bordreuil and Pardee 2001: 354–56 (text 39); Cornelius 1994: 72–87 (Rašpu only); 2004: 42–44 (Rašpu only); COS 1.93:294 n. 5, 1.94:297 n.  18; Hoffmeier and Kitchen 2007: 127–36 (Reshep and Astarte); Pardee 1988b: 60, 66; 2002: 173, 186 n.  17; on the association of ʿAṯtartu with equids, see §2.2.1.3.

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

59

story (Num 22:21–35), where, incidentally, another female equid also exhibits the ability to communicate. 166 Another question related to the prominence of the mare in this composition is whether she represents a mythological entity in her own right (that is, whether she should be associated with a known goddess of Ugarit) or whether she should be viewed from a strictly literary viewpoint as representing concerns about the “flesh and blood” equids of Ugarit. 167 This question is, at present, difficult to answer. 2.2.1.5.  Other (KTU 1.5 I:18–19) A final Ugaritic reference to donkeys occurs in the Baʿlu Myth in a description of Môtu’s appetite (KTU 1.5 I:18–19). 168 After Baʿlu builds his palace, he sends a message to Môtu, which apparently reports his building achievement. Môtu responds by describing his enormous appetite (comparing his appetite to that of the lion, dolphin, buffalo, hind, and the ḥmr) and thus challenges Baʿlu to invite him and his kinsmen over for a meal. The clause that refers to the ḥmr in this context is, not surprisingly, rendered in a number of ways by scholars. Note the following treatments by D. Pardee and M. S. Smith: Text: npš . blt (19)ḥmr 169 Pardee: “my throat consumes heaps (of things)” 170 Smith: “does my appetite consume like an ass?” 171 In addition, other scholars translate ḥmr here with the sense “clay (or humankind),” which is philologically possible but contextually improbable. 172 On the other hand, the interpretations of Pardee and Smith are equally viable. In favor of the interpretation “ass”: the preceding lines utilize animal imagery to 166.  Up to the present, the Balaam pericope has not been considered for comparison with KTU 1.100. The primary biblical parallels that have been explored are 2 Kgs 23:11 and Genesis 2–3 (see, for example, Dietrich and Loretz 2000: 389–90). 167.  On the former view, see Dietrich and Loretz 2000: 329–32, 390–92; de Moor 1987: 146 n. 1; del Olmo Lete 1999: 360–61 n. 89, 370; Pope 1970: 61; 1977b: 340. On the latter view, see Pardee 2002: 172. 168.  For translations and commentary on KTU 1.5 I:18–19, see Coogan 1978: 107; COS 1.86:264–65; Driver 1956: 102–3; Gibson 1977: 68; Margalit 1980: 97, 102; de Moor 1987: 68, 70; Smith 1997: 140, 142; Wyatt 1998: 118. 169.  CTU 22 (√bly in D-stem). 170.  COS 1.86:265; cf. DUL 364; SED 2:137. Note Judg 15:16, where the root ḥmr also has the meaning “heaps” (see §4.1.2). 171.  Smith 1997: 140, 142; cf. Coogan 1978: 107. 172.  “Clay (or humankind”): e.g., Driver 1956: 103; Gibson 1977: 68; Margalit 1980: 97, 102; de Moor 1987: 68, 70; Wyatt 1998: 118. On the improbability of the rendering, note also that ḥmr with the meaning “clay” (which is attested in Hebrew) is never clearly attested in Ugaritic. Likewise, the DUL does not have any entry for ḥmr as “clay” (see pp. 363–64).

60

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

describe Môtu’s appetite. In favor of the interpretation “heap(s)”: the following lines repeatedly emphasize the massive portions that Môtu can consume. I would suggest that both interpretations may in fact be correct and that ḥmr is used here as a double entendre. Ḥmr serves as a pivot in the context between the preceding animal images and the following appetite images. This text can thus be used to enhance the present study on donkey symbolism: here the donkey is characterized as having a large appetite. 173

2.2.2. Aramaic 2.2.2.1.  Deir ʿAlla Plaster Text The Deir ʿAlla Plaster Text (henceforth the DAPT) 174 is important for our study on donkeys not only because it is related to the biblical story of Balaam (Numbers 22–24) but because it also contains references to various animals― one of which is the donkey (ḥmr). The DAPT was excavated in 1967 under the direction of H. J. Franken at the Transjordanian site of Deir ʿAlla (= biblical Succoth?). In the editio princeps, which was published in 1976, J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij organized the 119 fragments into a total of 12 so-called combinations (the first two of which are the most substantial). Since 1976, scholarly debates regarding the dating and especially the dialect of the inscription have generated a substantial bibliography. 175 In order to avoid “beating a dead horse” (or in this case, a donkey!)―suffice it to say that the execution of the inscription probably dates to about 800 b.c.e. and that the language of the inscription may be a dialect of Old Aramaic. 176 173.  On the appetite of the donkey, see §§2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.4, 2.5.2; cf. §2.6.2. 174.  Most of §2.2.2.1 was adapted for publication in Way 2005: 679–93. For transliterations of the DAPT—no two of which are the same!—see the following (in the order of publication): Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1976: 173–78; McCarter 1980a: 51 (Combination I only); Levine 1981: 196–97, 200–201; Hackett 1984: 25–26; Lemaire 1985: 318 (Combination I only); Puech 1985: 356 (Combination I only); Sasson 1986: 287–89 (Combination I only); Weippert 1991: 153–55 (Combination I only); Aˀhituv 1992: 266–68, 278; Dijkstra 1995: 47–51; Levine 2000: 244–45, 255–57; KAI 312 (2002; Combination I only); Seow 2003: 209–10. 175.  For translations and commentaries on the DAPT, see the following (in alphabetical order): Aḥituv 1992: 265–86; Caquot and Lemaire 1977: 189–208; Dijkstra 1995: 43–64; Greenfield 1991: 109–20; Hackett 1984; 1991: 73–84; Hallo 1991: 155; Halpern 1987: 119–39; Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1976, 1991; Kaufman 1980: 71–74; 1988: 41–57; 2002a: 44–45, 53; 2002b: 302–4; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 207–10; Lemaire 1985: 313–25, 1986: 79–93, 1991: 33–57; Levine 1981: 195–205; 1985: 326– 39; 1991: 58–72, 2000: 241–75; COS 2.27:140–45 (Levine); Margalit 1998: 516–19, 528–30; McCarter 1980a: 49–60; Moore 1990: 7–11, 66–96, 110–23; Pardee 1991a: 100–105; Puech 1985: 354–65; Sasson 1986: 283–309; Seow 2003: 207–12; Smelik 1991: 79–88; Weippert 1991: 151–84; Wolters 1988: 101–13. 176.  On the dating of the inscription, see Ibrahim and van der Kooij 1991: 27–28; Lemaire 1991: 34–36; cf. COS 2.27:141; Dijkstra 1995: 45–46; Levine 2000: 264. On

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

61

The importance of the DAPT for biblical studies is extensive. Not only does it obviously contribute to the study of Numbers 22–24 and to the study of prophetic activity in general; 177 it also presents an example of a Transjordanian dialect and literary tradition that was previously unknown. Stephen A. Kaufman has demonstrated on more than one occasion how knowledge of dialects and literary traditions such as these can enable Bible scholars to appreciate “the multivalent nature of biblical Hebrew” and the fact that “many of the biblical writers were sensitive linguistic stylists, using regional and social dialect variation when depicting characters with Northern Hebrew and Transjordanian origins.” 178 Dialect variation of this sort can be found in passages such as Numbers 22–24, 2 Sam 23:1–7, the dialogues of Job (especially Elihu), Proverbs 30–31, and Isa 21:11–14. 179 One convention that is common to both the DAPT and Numbers 22–24 is “role reversal.” In Combination I of the DAPT, many scholars point out the motif of “the world upside down” with specific reference to animal activity: 180 it is the weaker animal that threatens the stronger. For example, “the swallow reproaches the eagle” (lines 7–8). 181 The fact that role reversal is employed in the DAPT is noteworthy because the same convention is quite prominent in the biblical account. 182 For the classification of the inscription as a dialect of Old Aramaic, see especially Kaufman 1988: 41–57. See also: CAL (http://CAL1.cn.huc.edu); Donner and Röllig 2002: 76–77 (no. 312; classified under Aramäische Inschriften); Kaufman 1980: 73; 2002a: 44–45; 2002b: 302–3; Lemaire 1985: 321, 1991: 46–49; Levine 2000: 265–67; Pardee 1991a: 100–105; Weippert 1991: 159–63, 179. 177.  On the significance of the DAPT for prophetic activity in the biblical world, see Dijkstra 1995: 60–64; Margalit 1998: 516–19, 522–30; Nissinen 2002: 6–7; 2003: 3, 7, 8; Seow 2003: 208. 178.  Kaufman 2002a: 45; cf. earlier remarks by Levine 1985: 328, 335–38. 179. See Kaufman 1988: 54–56; cf. Kaufman 2002a: 45, 53; 2002b: 304. In addition, B. A. Levine points out other comparisons with biblical passages such as Isaiah 14, Ezek 32:3–8, and Zeph 1:14–17 (Levine 1981: 202–5; 1985: 336–37; 2000: 208–9, 230, 267–69). 180. E.g., Barré 1997: 258; Dijkstra 1991a: 211–13; 1995: 53–54; Hackett 1984: 46–47, 75; 1991: 75; Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1991: 132; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 208 n. 35; McCarter 1980a: 58–59; Milgrom 1990: 475; Sasson 1986: 285, 298–301, 303, 307–8; Seow 2003: 208; Smelik 1991: 87; Weippert 1991: 174. This motif is not unique to the Balaam traditions; it can be found throughout the biblical world (for example, cf. Isa 11:6–9, 65:25). Similar reversals are notably present in Mesopotamian omen texts; e.g., “If a falcon and a raven struggle with each other, and the raven kills the falcon, the enemy’s weapon will prevail over that of the king” (Moore 1990: 44 [Šumma ālu 79:36]; cf. p. 70); or “If a scorpion kills a snake in a man’s house, that man’s sons will kill him; he will die” (Saggs 1962: 322 [Šumma ālu]; cf. CAD D 39). 181.  The text reads: ssʿgr . ḥr  (8)pt . nšr (KAI 312). 182.  It is surprising that M. S. Moore, who explores “role theory” in the Balaam traditions, gives only cursory attention to role reversal (Moore 1990: 1, 70 n. 30, 102–3).

62

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

instance, role reversal is employed in the depiction of Balak―the Moabite king whose name means “destroyer/devastator!” 183 This “devastator-king” is ironically depicted as cowering frantically on account of the encroaching Israelite hoard (Num 22:2–6). Similarly, reversal is apparent in Balaam’s second oracle, where the prophet refers to his own occupation as a diviner and states that divination is not effective in Israel (Num 23:23a; cf. Num 22:7, 24:1; Josh 13:22). 184 But the most obvious example of role reversal (and the one that is most germane to our present study) pertains to the jenny in Numbers 22, where the assumed roles of Balaam and the beast of burden are reversed (see §4.5.1). In vv. 22–27, it is the jenny who can see the angel of Yhwh, while the seer cannot. 185 In vv. 28–30, it is the jenny who can speak the words of Yhwh, while the prophet cannot. But the story of the seeing/speaking jenny should not be viewed in isolation. It is one of many other examples of the convention of role reversal that is operative in the Balaam traditions. Another feature that is common to both the DAPT and Numbers 22–24 is the presence of the donkey. Now, one might be wondering at this point if the donkey is really mentioned in the DAPT. The term ḥmr does clearly occur in Combination I, line 10. 186 However, the translation of this word as “asses” is 183. Cf. HALOT 135; Levine 2000: 144. 184.  On Balaam as a diviner, see especially Moore 1990: 5–6, 66–109, 113, 120–21; cf. Albright 1944: 215 n. 49, 231 n. 141, 233; Allen 1981: 101; Ashley 1993: 436–37, 440; Barré 1997: 256–57; Chavalas 2003: 77–78; Daiches 1950: 110–19; Gaster 1969: 304–8 (§98); Greenfield 1991: 119; Kaiser 1996: 98–106; Largement 1964: 37–50; Levine 1991: 61–66; 2000: 150–51, 166, 185, 190–94, 215, 233–35; Milgrom 1990: 187, 189, 194, 200, 201, 207, 472–73; Savran 1994: 48–52; Weippert 1991: 175–76. See also Philo’s characterization of Balaam in Vita Mosis I:264 (Colson 1950: 412–13; Moore 1990: 66–67). 185. Cf. Fox 2004: 329; Hackett 1992: 570; Levine 2000: 139, 154; Milgrom 1990: 469; Moore 1990: 1, 102–3; Savran 1994: 35, 46. Incidentally, from what is known about equid physiology, a donkey makes a most effective seer: equids have “an enormous field of vision . . . only three degrees short of all round vision; their eyes are the largest of any land mammal” (McKay 2002: 139; cf. Cantrell 2011: 15; Pickeral 1999: 24). Note also that animals in general have a reputation for instinctive clairvoyance (see Gaster 1969: 309–10 [§99]; Gray 1912: 333–34; Keel and Staubli 2001: 11; 2003: 11; Keil 1869: 170 and n. 1; McKay 2002: 139). 186.  In the editio princeps, the reference for ḥmr is in Combination I, line 12. In the year following the editio princeps, Caquot and Lemaire readjusted the fragments of Combination I with the result that ḥmr is now positioned in Combination I, line 10 (see Caquot and Lemaire 1977: 200). This new delineation and configuration of Combination I is followed in virtually all treatments of the DAPT since 1977. The reading ḥmr can be confirmed in the editio princeps: see the photograph and drawing of Combination I, fragment d, line 12 (Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1976: pls. 3, 29). The resh is slightly damaged but its identification is certain. Additional paleographic evidence is now available through the West Semitic Research Project (http://

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

63

only found in the work of Baruch A. Levine, 187 who translates the full sentence: “Free[ly feed,] oh beasts [of the field]! And [freely] drink, asses and hyenas!” 188 J. Hoftijzer’s provisional translation of ḥmr in the editio princeps is “wrath,” but most scholars since Hoftijzer prefer to render the term “wine.” 189 Whereas the interpretation “wine” can make sense in light of the preceding verb (štyw, “Drink!”), there does not appear to be any compelling reason for the interpretation “wrath.” The interpretation “ass(es)” makes the best sense in light of the following animal word (wqbʿn, “and hyenas”) and in light of the context of lines 7–10, which describe the unnatural activity of various animals. A reference to the drinking of wine would be unexpected in the context, whereas the name of another animal is exactly what one would expect to find. The interpretation of ḥmr as “ass(es)” is especially inviting because the biblical account gives such prominence to the donkey (although the word used in Numbers 22 is ʾātôn, rather than ḥămôr). Based on the assumption that ḥmr refers to “ass(es)” in the DAPT, one can now proceed to tally all of the animal names. The 15 animal names that occur in the DAPT (Combination I) are as follows: 9 birds (ssʿgr, nšr, rḥm, nṣṣ, ṣdh, ʾnph, drr, ywn and ṣpr), ewe (rḥl), hare (ʾrnb), donkey (ḥmr), hyena (qbʿ  ), piglet (ḥnyṣ), and panther (nmr). 190 Many www.InscriptiFact.com) where both the original and new photographs of the DAPT are accessible (photographed in 1967 and 2001, respectively). 187.  Levine 1981: 197 (line 37); 2000: 246, 252 (line 28). 188.  COS 2.27:143. The text according to Levine is: ḥpš[y.—]m[.] ḥyt[. śd]h w[—] n. štyw. ḥmr . wqbʿn (2000: 245). The text according to KAI is: ḥpš[............(.)]n . štyw . ḥmr . wqbʿn (KAI 312). 189. “Wrath”: Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1976: 179, 207–9, 304; cf. DNWSI 382– 83. “Wine”: e.g., Caquot and Lemaire 1977: 200; Dijkstra 1995: 48; Hackett 1984: 29, 50, 129; McCarter 1980a: 51, 58 (but note his reservations on p. 55!); Puech 1985: 359; Sasson 1986: 288, 301; Seow 2003: 211; Smelik 1991: 84; Weippert 1991: 158. See also DNWSI 382–84. 190.  These terms for birds may be translated in order as follows: swallow, eagle, vulture, falcon, owl, heron, sparrow, pigeon, and bird. Of course, there is still much dispute over the interpretation of lines 7–10. For further discussion on the animal terminology in Combination I, see Caquot and Lemaire 1977: 198–200, 202; COS 2.27:143; Dijkstra 1995: 48–49, 53–54; DNWSI 84, 110, 262, 382–83, 388, 453, 733, 765–66, 795, 824, 960, 973, 983, 1068, 1070; Hackett 1984: 46–51; Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1976: 200–211, 219–20; Kaufman 1980: 73; Levine 1981: 197, 199; 2000: 251–52, 254; McCarter 1980a: 54–56; Sasson 1986: 288, 291, 299–301, 307–8. To this list of animals one might be justified in adding some of the following animal names that have been restored by various scholars: ḥsd(h) (“stork”; I:8); ʿp (“fowl”; I:9); bqr (“cattle”; I:9); ḥyt (“beast”; I:10); cf. Levine 2000: 244–45, 251–52. In addition, note that some scholars interpret the term ssh as “(his) horse/mare” in Combinations II and V (see Caquot and Lemaire 1977: 207; Dijkstra 1991b: 265; 1995: 50, 56; DNWSI 795; Hackett 1984: 72–73, 132; Hoftijzer and van der Kooij 1976: 181, 182, 243, 259, 306; Rouillard 1985: 117–18; Seow 2003: 212), but the interpretation “moth rot” seems preferable in the context (see Levine 1981: 200, 202; 2000: 258, 262; COS

64

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

additional animal names are presumably lost from the lacunae of lines 15–16. The six animal names that occur in the biblical account are as follows: the bird (‫)צפֹור‬, ox (‫)ׁשֹור‬, aurochs (‫)ראם‬, jenny (‫)אתֹון‬, lion(ess) (‫ )לביא‬and lion (‫)ארי‬. There are also four sacrificial victims mentioned in the narrative­—the cattle and sheep (Num 22:40) as well as the seven bulls and rams (Num 23:1–2, 4, 14, 29–30), but these animals are incidental for the present purposes. What is most interesting about the six animal names in the biblical account is that they are all in some way connected with Transjordanian people. Balak, king of Moab, is repeatedly identified as the “son of Ṣippôr/Bird” (Num 22:2, 4, 10, 16; 23:18), 191 which may simply be a patronymic. The jenny (Num 22:21–30) is obviously linked with the foreigner Balaam because she functions as the prophet’s personal transport. 192 And most importantly, the speeches of both the Moabites and Balaam employ animal imagery: the Moabites likened the Israelites to an ox (Num 22:4a); and Balaam, in his second and third oracles, likened the Israelites to the aurochs (Num 23:22, 24:8a), 193 the lion(ess) (Num 23:24, 24:9a), and the lion (Num 23:24, 24:9a). Animal imagery is thus one more feature that can be added to the list of regional/social sensitivities (such as representation of dialect) that are present in the Hebrew text. In this case, animal imagery is specifically associated with the Balaam traditions of the Transjordan. Another striking feature that can be observed in both texts is that a number of the animals are characterized with an element of personality. One immediately thinks of the talking jenny in Num 22:28–30, but it is also noteworthy that in the DAPT, the birds appear to speak to each other (note how the swallow reproaches the eagle and the vultures cry out in response). 194 Furthermore, 2.27:144). For comparison, note the use of both terms (ssyh [“mare”] and ss [“moth”]) in the Old Aramaic Sefire Treaty (KAI 222A:22, 31); cf. COS 2.82:214; DNWSI 795. 191.  This title is attributed to Balak by the narrator (Num 22:2, 4), by Balaam (Num 22:10, 23:18) and by the Moabite officials (Num 22:16). For further reference on the title, see Albright 1944: 232 (n. 143); Levine 2000: 143–44. While Ṣippôr may be a personal name, it is also possible that the title “son of a bird” signifies one who obtains omens from bird activity (see further discussion on divination, pp. 66–67 below). 192. The use of donkeys to transport individuals of high status is well attested throughout biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature (see §§2.2.1.2, 2.3.3, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.5.1; cf. §§2.6.14, 4.2.8). As for the specific connection between prophets and donkeys, see 1 Kgs 13:11–32 and the Mari text A.3796 (cf. §§2.4.1.3, 4.6). 193. According to Levine, it is not Israel that is likened to the aurochs but El (Levine 2000: 165,184, 189, 197). But J. Milgrom explains: “The metaphor can refer either to God or to Israel. However, since the subject of the entire oracle is the blessedness of Israel, it probably refers to Israel’s divinely endowed power” (Milgrom 1990: 200). Albright also interpreted the expression as referring to Israel (1944: 215 n. 47); see further discussion in Ashley (1993: 480). 194.  The text reads: ssʿgr . ḥr  (8)pt . nšr . wq[n] . rḥ[m]n . yʿnh (KAI 312:7–8).

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

65

the hares, ass(es), and hyenas are all addressed in the form of commands (ʾklw [“Eat!”] and štyw [“Drink!”]; Combination I, lines 9–10). The observation that the Balaam tradition features animals with speech capabilities should not be surprising in the light of other instances in ancient Near Eastern literature. 195 In fact, numerous texts are now known to contain references to talking animals. 196 Of particular interest are texts that feature equids or birds in speaking roles. 197 Texts featuring talking animals are found in Egyptian, Hittite, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Sumerian literature, and they are usually classified under the generic categories of fable, tale, proverb, 195. Additional examples of talking animals include cows, bulls, oxen, horses, mules, onagers, cats, lions, panthers, leopards, bears, goats, gazelles, lambs, ewes, dogs, wolves, foxes, elephants, pigs, monkeys, mice, mongooses, eagles, herons, wrens, swallows, geese, ravens, worms, turtles, crocodiles, serpents, fish, mosquitoes, and so on. For the relevant texts, see COS 1.39, 1.40, 1.57, 1.59, 1.131, 1.178, 1.180, 1.182, 2.12:62; ANET 40, 100–101, 427–30; Alster 1997: 58–59, 106, 121, 126, 128–31, 132–37, 139–40, 142–43, 166–68, 169–73, 220, 262, 288, 291, 299, 306–8, 314, 317, 330; Lambert 1960: 175–209, 216–21; Lichtheim 1976: 202, cf. p. 169; 1980: 156–59, 203; Kramer 1959: 127–35; Ritner 2003: 494–96; cf. Genesis 3. For further discussion on the topic of talking animals, see Ashley 1993: 457–58; BBCOT 161; Gordon 1967: 58–59; Gray 1912: 334; Savran 1994: 33–41 (esp.  n. 17), 54; Walton 2001: 45–46, 211–12; Williams 1956: 5, 12–23. 196. Egyptian literature has at least six texts (Book of the Dead Spell #125, “Doomed Prince,” “Two Brothers,” “Shipwrecked Sailor,” Demotic Papyrus I 384 17:9–18:33, “Swallow and the Sea”). Sumerian literature has at least four texts (“Heron and the Turtle,” “Disputation between Ewe and Wheat,” “Disputation between Bird and Fish,” “Enki and Ninhursanga”) as well as numerous fables and proverbs (cf. Alster 1997: 58–59, 106, 121, 126, 128–31, 132–37, 139–40, 142–43, 166–68, 169–73, 220, 262, 288, 291, 299, 306–8, 314, 317, 330; Kramer 1959: 127–35). Biblical, Hittite, and Aramaic literature all provide at least two texts each (Genesis 3, Numbers 22, “Sun God and the Cow,” “Wrath of Telipinu,” “Proverbs of Ahiqar,” DAPT). Ugaritic literature has at least one text (Ḥôrānu and the Mare [KTU 1.100]). Akkadian literature has at least six texts (“Incantation against Toothache,” “Etana,” “Ox and the Horse,” “Fable of the Fox,” “Fable of the Riding-Donkey,” “Popular Sayings [Animal Fables]”). For some passing references to talking animals in this chapter, see §§2.1.1.3, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.4.3, 2.5.2. 197.  Examples of talking equids are found in Egyptian (donkey), Ugaritic (mare), Aramaic (donkey and onager), Akkadian (donkey and horse), and Sumerian (donkey and horse); for the specific references, see Alster 1997: 125, 127; ANET 428–30; CAD A/1 141; COS 2.12:62; Kramer 1959: 132–34; Lambert 1960: 175–85, 210, 218–19; Lichtheim 1980: 157 (cf. p. 203 [23:3]); Pardee 2002: 172–79 (cf. COS 1.94). In addition, note that a talking horse is featured in Homer’s Iliad, XIX:404–24 (see Lattimore 1951: 403; Murray and Wyatt 1999: 362–65; Rouillard 1985: 118); cf. §4.5.2.3. Examples of talking birds are found in Egyptian (swallow), Old Aramaic/DAPT (swallow, eagle, vulture), Hittite (eagle), Akkadian (eagle) and Sumerian (wren, heron, bird, goose, raven); for the specific references, see COS 1.57, 1.131, 1.178, 1.182, 2.27:143; Alster 1997: 121, 173, 322; Kramer 1959: 132; Ritner 2003: 494–96.

66

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

disputation, myth, epic, historiola, funerary text, or some combination thereof. However, the talking animals in the Balaam traditions are unique because the Balaam traditions (namely, Num 22:28–30 and DAPT I:7–10) provide the only example of this phenomenon in the category of prophetic texts. Speaking was, of course, an unusual activity for animals. But the fact that this unusual animal activity (as well as role reversal) is featured in prophetic texts leads one to speculate about the rationale for the prominence of animals in the Balaam traditions. It is well known that diviners and cultic personnel in the ancient Near East would be steeped in zoological knowledge and that unusual animal behavior (in addition to the configuration of animal entrails!) could be understood to have ominous significance. For this reason, the activities of various animals—including equids and birds!—are commonly featured in ancient Near Eastern omen texts. 198 Because Balaam was presumably an expert in the interpretation of omens, it is not surprising that he was so preoccupied with the animal world. This line of reasoning can account for the prominence of animal activity and imagery in the Balaam traditions. It explains why the DAPT features such an extensive description of animal behavior in lines 7–10. The unusual animal activities in the DAPT—which include role reversals and speech capabilities—serve an ominous function in revealing Balaam’s oracle of doom to his “people.” 199 This omen-backdrop also explains Balaam’s (non-)reaction to the talking jenny: instead of marveling at the unusual animal behavior, he accepts it for what it is (an omen) 200 and proceeds to investigate by engaging the jenny 198.  See examples of ominous animal behavior in the Ugaritic “Dream Omen Manual” (KTU 1.86; COS 1.93; Pardee 2002: 144–48); Šumma ālu (Freedman 1998: tablets 2, 5, 6, 7, 21 [see also tablets 22–49, 63–80]; cf. Largement 1964: 40; Saggs 1962: 320–24); an Old Babylonian forerunner to Šumma ālu, BM 113915 (Weisberg 1969: 87–104); Šumma izbu (Leichty 1970: tablets XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXII, XXIII; Moren 1980: 60–68, 70); texts regarding the behavior of sacrificial sheep (Beal 2002: 64–65; COS 1.120:423; Leichty 1993: 238–41); and rituals to obtain a purussû (Butler 1998: 363–64, 370–71). On equid behavior in omen texts, see KTU 1.86:6–13; COS 1.93:294; Pardee 2002: 146; Freedman 1998: tablets 5, 6, 7, 19 (see also tablets 37–49); Largement 1964: 40; Moren 1980: 67–68, 70; Saggs 1962: 323; CAD A/2 483; D 39; K 491; M/2 229, 230; S 328, 329; cf. §§2.2.1.3, 2.4.2. On bird behavior in omen texts, see Beal 2002: 65–71; Freedman 1998: tablets 2, 21 (see also tablets 64–79); Moore 1990: 69–71; Saggs 1962: 324; Weisberg 1969: 87–104; CAD D 39. 199.  The idea that Combination I of the DAPT contains omens (particularly ornithomancy) is assumed in Moore’s monograph (cf. 1990: 70–71). 200.  The idea that the unusual behavior of the jenny may function as an omen in Numbers 22 was previously recognized by R. Largement (1964: 40–41; cf. Milgrom 1990: 190; Wenham 1981: 170), who proposed the hypothetical existence of omens such as: “Si une ânesse se détourne du chemin et va dans les champs (Nm., 22, 23); Si

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

67

in dialogue (Num 22:28–30) until the interpretation becomes clear. But when Balaam’s eyes are finally “uncovered” (Num 22:31a), it is noteworthy that the angel of Yhwh interprets the ominous behavior of the jenny (Num 22:32–33), while Balaam the diviner admits: “I have sinned because I did not know that you were stationed in the road to confront me” (Num 22:34a; contrast this with Num 24:16a). Through this exchange (Num 22:32–35), the angel of Yhwh reveals and reinforces Yhwh’s disposition toward the mission and the reality that Balaam may only speak Yhwh’s words. The fact that Balaam’s eyes were covered and the fact that the angel of Yhwh (rather than Balaam) interpreted the events seem to illustrate in narrative form what Balaam later proclaims in poetic form—that there is “no augury (naḥaš ) 201 in Jacob and no divination (qesem) in Israel” (Num 23:23a). Thus, it appears that the biblical version of the Balaam traditions acknowledges the phenomenon of animal omens but ultimately regards them as ineffective in Israel. In conclusion, it is necessary to summarize what may be known about the donkey from the DAPT. The most noteworthy suggestion pertains to divination. The behavior of the donkey may have an ominous function in the DAPT and in the Balaam traditions generally. Of course, this potential connection with divination is not unique to the donkey. It can be extended to all of the animals (especially birds) that are featured in the Balaam traditions. 2.2.2.2.  Proverbs of Ahiqar The “Proverbs of Ahiqar” includes a number of interesting sayings that are based on the behavior of donkeys. 202 A survey of these sayings may enhance the study of donkey symbolism in ancient Near Eastern texts. The earliest manuscripts of Ahiqar were discovered among the papyri from Elephantine (in Upper Egypt) and were dated to the fifth century b.c.e. Whereas the work was composed in either the seventh or the sixth century b.c.e, 203 the historical setting of Ahiqar was in the seventh century during the reigns of une ânesse serre contre le mur le pied de son cavalier (id., 25); Si une ânesse se couche sous son cavalier (id., 27). L’apodose commune pourraît être « danger de mort pour le cavalier. »” (Largement 1964: 41). 201.  Interestingly, the term nḥš, which can mean either “serpent” or “augury/divination,” aptly demonstrates a connection between the animal world and divination. For further reference on nḥš, see Savran 1994: 49–52; cf. HALOT 690–92. For general reference on the serpent, see §1.6.3.4. 202.  For translations and commentary on Ahiqar, see ANET 427–30 (Ginsberg); Goodman 1958: 270–75; Lindenberger 1983. Ahiqar is unique in that it was originally composed in Aramaic, set in Assyria, and preserved in Egypt. Lindenberger argues, based on both the dialect and the pantheon, that the proverbs of Ahiqar were composed in northern Syria (Lindenberger 1983: 20, 290, 296). 203. See Lindenberger 1983: 19–20.

68

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The official by the name of Ahiqar was also described in some detail in the book of Tobit (1:22, 2:10, 11:18, 14:10). Prior to the discovery of the Aramaic text from Elephantine, 204 the proverbs of Ahiqar were known from later recensions in Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Old Turkish, Georgian, Slavonic, Rumanian, Russian, and Serbian. 205 The first five columns of the work contain a first-person account about Ahiqar, and the remaining nine columns contain the wise sayings of Ahiqar. The very first saying in the collection seems to be a riddle based on the noise made by the donkey (VI:79): “Wh[at] is louder/noisier than a braying donkey?” (m[h] ḥsyn hw mn ḥmr nʿr b[  ]tʾ ). 206 Unfortunately, the word at the end of the line is uncertain, and it may be either the continuation of a rhetorical question or a one-word answer to the question. 207 The noisiness of the braying of the donkey is also described in §§2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5, 2.2.1.3 n. 157, 2.4.2, 2.5.2, and 2.6.5. 208 The 10th saying may refer to the stubbornness or laziness of the donkey (VI:89b–91a): “The donkey abandons [his load] and will not carry it. He will be shamed by his fellow [and will c]arry a bur[d]en which is not [his] own; he will be laden with a camel’s load” ([ ] | šbq ḥmr wlʾ ysblnhy ynś ʾ bwt mn knth [wyn]ś ʾ mw[b]lʾ zy / lʾ zyl[h] | wṭʿwn gmlʾ yṭʿnnhy). 209 James M. Lindenberger paraphrases this saying (based on analogous sayings in other later documents): “One who refuses to bear his own load will end up having to bear an even heavier burden.” 210 The “fellow” in this saying may refer either to the driver or to another animal companion. 211 The camel’s load is considered in the Mishnah to be twice that of the donkey. 212 The association of laziness or 204.  It is uncertain whether the dialect of the proverbs (Columns VI–XIV) should be classified as Old or as Imperial Aramaic: Lindenberger sides with Old Aramaic (1983: 19, 20, 288–96); the CAL classifies the entire text (I–XIV) as Imperial Aramaic (cf. DNWSI xii–xiii). Imperial/Official Aramaic represents the period from ca. 600 to ca. 200 b.c.e. (see Kaufman 1997: 115). 205.  For further reference, see Lindenberger 1983: 4–7. 206. The transliteration is by Lindenberger 1983: 43. My translations from the Aramaic (Elephantine) version are, for the most part, based on Lindenberger’s extensive analysis. For additional references to donkeys in the Syriac version, see Goodman 1958: 272 (xii), 274 (xxxv); Lindenberger 1983: 46. 207.  See discussion in Lindenberger 1983: 43–35. 208.  See also Job 6:5 (pertaining to the pereʾ). 209.  Lindenberger 1983: 62. 210.  Lindenberger 1983: 62. 211. See Lindenberger 1983: 63. 212. Cf. B. Mes. 6:5; see Lindenberger 1983: 63. For a comparison of the donkey and the camel—in terms of load, mileage, stamina, etc.—see Moorey 1994: 12–13; cf. Albright 1961: 38, 41; Borowski 1998: 115; Brewer et al. 1994: 100, 103, 104–5; Ephʿal 1982: 140; Firmage 1992: 1137; King and Stager 2001: 118; Nibbi 1979: 155, 167.

2.2.  Northwest Semitic Sources

69

stubbornness with the donkey may also be implied in certain biblical passages (Gen 49:14b; Exod 23:5; Num 22:23, 25, 27 [in Balaam’s perception]; Deut 22:4; Prov 26:3; cf. §4.2.3). The 11th saying is based on the observed promiscuity or lust of the donkey (VI:91b): “The jackass moun[ts] the [j]enny [out of lu]st for her, but the birds” (ḥmrʾ rk[b ] l[ʾ]tnʾ [mn rḥ]m[t]h wṣnpryʾ[  ]š[  ]). 213 The second half of the saying (regarding bird activity) is lost, but perhaps the saying is contrasting lust with procreation. 214 The sexual promiscuity of the donkey is also reflected in the Bible in Ezek 23:20 (see §4.2.2). 215 It is interesting to note that the 12th saying concerns the drinking of “wine” (VI:92–94a). The fact that the term ḥmr may signify either wine or donkey (ḥamar, “wine”; ḥamār, “donkey”) 216 is probably the best explanation for the juxtaposition of the 11th and 12th sayings. Wine is, however, mentioned in a number of other places in Ahiqar (e.g., sayings 91 and 111), but only the present example is juxtaposed to a saying about the donkey. The 28th saying features talking animals and thus probably preserves a fable (VII:110): “The lion approached to gr[eet the donkey]: ‘Peace be unto you!’ The donkey replied to the lion” (ʾryʾ ʾzl qrb lš [lmh lḥmrʾ] l [m] šlm yhwy lk ʿnh ḥmrʾ wʾmr lʾryʾ [. . .]). 217 Once again, the end of the saying is missing. The Syriac manuscripts preserve an expanded version of this story (and variations also occur in the Armenian and Slavic texts), but it is problematic to reconstruct the Elephantine text according to later recensions because the latter tend to expand and recast the details of the former. 218 It is interesting that the lion and the donkey are paired in this text because they are also curiously paired in Egyptian and biblical sources (see §§1.6.3.3, 2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 4.6; cf. §§2.6.10, 4.2.5). The fact that a donkey speaks in this text is also noteworthy in light of other biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts that have already been discussed (see §2.2.2.1). Finally, another occurrence of talking animals is in the 106th saying (XIII:204–5): “[A man said] one [da]y to the onager, [‘Let me ride] on you, and I will provide for you.’ 219 [The onager replied, ‘Keep] your care and your fodder; I want nothing to do with your riding!’” ([. . .]m ḥd lʿrdh [ʾrkb] ʿlyk 213.  Lindenberger 1983: 64. 214. See Lindenberger 1983: 64. 215.  See also the sexual references to equids in general: Jer 2:24; 5:8; 13:27; 50:11; Song 1:9. For the sexual activity of the donkey, see also §§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.3.2, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.5.2, and 2.6.3. 216. Cf. Bron and Lemaire 1980: 8, 14, 16; DNWSI 383–84; HALOT 330; Lindenberger 1983: 43, 65–66, 187, 210, 343; Lipiński 2003: 185–87. 217.  Lindenberger 1983: 96. 218. See Lindenberger 1983: 96. 219.  This verb could also be rendered “I will load you up” (√sbl; see Lindenberger 1983: 203). This is probably another example of double entendre (cf. §§2.2.1.5, 4.1.2).

70

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

wʾn[h] ʾsblnk | [ʿnh ʿrdʾ wʾmr lk yhw]y sbwlyk wkstk wʾnh rkbyk lʾ ʾḥzh). 220 Instead of ḥamār (the usual word for donkey in Ahiqar), this saying employs the term ʿărād, “onager, wild ass.” The same term is clearly attested in the Bible only in Job 39:5 (ʿārôd) and Dan 5:21 (ʿărād). 221 In both the Bible and in Ahiqar, the onager is described as independent, free, wild, and untamed. 222

2.3.  Hittite Sources 2.3.1.  Bestiality Laws Laws concerning bestiality are, surprisingly, not attested in either Akkadian or Sumerian legal collections. Bestiality laws are only extant in biblical and Hittite texts. 223 But only in a single Hittite law are equids specifically mentioned in this connection. Whereas sexual relations with a cow, sheep, pig, or dog constitute very serious offenses that are punishable by death (cf. §§187, 188, 199), 224 sexual relations with either a horse or a mule is permissible (cf. §200A). Harry A. Hoffner’s transliteration and translation of Hittite Law 200A is as follows: (23) ták-ku LÚ-aš ANŠE.KUR.RA-i na-aš-ma ANŠE.GÌR.NUN.NA   kat-ta (24) wa-aš-ta-i Ú-UL ḫa-ra-tar LUGAL-uš-aš Ú -UL ti-ez-zi (25) LÚSANGA-ša Ú-UL ki-i-ša . . . 225 If a man sins (sexually) with either a horse or a mule, it is not an offense, but he shall not approach the king, nor shall he become a priest. 226 220.  Lindenberger 1983: 203. 221.  In addition, cf. Jer 48:6 (reading with the OG); geographical name ʿărād (Num 21:1, 33:40; Josh 12:14; Judg 1:16); personal name ʿărād (1 Chr 8:15). For further reference on ʿārôd, see Borowski 1998: 90, 126 n. 14; Clutton-Brock 1992: 95; DNWSI 887; Feliks 1962: 30; Firmage 1992: 1152; Heimpel 2003b: 91; Lindenberger 1983: 203; Moore and Brown 1997d: 531–32; SED 2:56–58 (no. 37); Tristram 1898: 43. Note that Akk. a-ra-du (a West Semitic loan word [cf. ḫarādu]) is written for ANŠE.EDI[N. NA] (see CAD A/2 212; cf. CAD Ḫ 88; SED 2:57) which designates the onager/Equus hemionus (see Postgate 1986: 194). 222.  Note that the pereʾ (the Syrian onager) is also employed as a symbol of independence; cf. Gen 16:12, 49:22 (?); Job 11:12, 24:5, 39:5–8 (//  ʿārôd); Isa 32:14; Jer 2:24; Hos 8:9. The same can be said for the akkannu (“wild donkey”; see CAD A/1 274) and the sirrimu (“wild ass, onager”; see CAD S 318–19). 223. See Hoffner 1973: 81, 82, 90; Moyer 1983: 25–26; cf. Greengus 1992: 246. For the biblical laws, see Exod 22:19 [MT 22:18]; Lev 18:23, 20:15–16; Deut 27:21. For the Hittite laws, see §§187, 188, 199, 200A. 224. See COS 2.19:118; Hoffner 1997a: 236–37; 1997b: 4, 148–49, 157–58; cf. ANET 196. 225.  Hoffner 1997b: 157–58 (KBo 6.26 iv). 226.  Hoffner 1997b: 158; cf. COS 2.19:118–19; Hoffner 1997a: 237.

2.3.  Hittite Sources

71

Hoffner explains the meaning of this law by stating: “he has committed no punishable crime, but he has become so defiled by the incident that he may not enter the king’s presence or ever become a priest.” 227 The absence of the donkey in this law is puzzling, and it leads one to speculate about whether sexual relations with the donkey would be permissible or not. Hoffner suggests that the horse and mule may have been exceptional in the Hittite bestiality laws because they were domesticated or introduced at a later time than were the cow, sheep, pig, or dog. 228 He says: “Perhaps the late comers [i.e., the equids] were not introduced into the field of domesticated animals proscribed to humans for sexual pairing.” 229 Because the cow, sheep, pig, and dog were all domesticated by the end of the seventh millennium b.c.e, and the donkey and horse (and mule) were not domesticated until the fourth millennium b.c.e, 230 one can speculate that, if the donkey was to be included in these laws, it would have been listed alongside the horse and mule as a permissible 227.  COS 2.19:119 n. 73 (= Hoffner 1997a: 240 n. 67; 1997b: 158 n. 569). On the translation “nor shall he become a priest” (instead of Goetze’s “nor shall he become a case for the priest” [ANET 197]), see Hoffner 1973: 85 n. 22; 1997b: 5; Moyer 1983: 26 n. 20. 228.  Hoffner 1997b: 224; cf. COS 2.19:119 n.  72; Hoffner 1973: 82–82. C. H. Gordon suggests another possibility that can explain why the horse and mule are exceptional: “these laws are a manifestation of the ‘varying degrees of kinship with the different animal species’ felt by the ancients” (see Hoffner 1973: 82; cf. Moyer 1983: 26 n. 25). J. C. Moyer suggests two more possibilities: “Since the horse and the mule are the most valuable of the animals . . . it may have something to do with their value. Alternatively, the horse and the mule were the animals most often taken along on trips away from home; e.g., military campaigns, trade, etc. Since opportunities for normal sexual relations were impossible on such trips it might have been considered permissible to engage in sexual relations with the horse and mule” (Moyer 1983: 26 n. 25). 229.  Hoffner 1997b: 224; cf. COS 2.19:119 n. 72. 230.  For a helpful graphic showing the stages of animal domestication from the 14th millennium b.c.e. to the end of the 4th millennium b.c.e., see Keel and Staubli 2001: 20–21 (fig. IIa); 2003: 20–21 (fig. IIa). On the domestication of the cow, sheep, pig, and dog, see Keel and Staubli 2001: 20–21 (fig. IIa); 2003: 20–21 (fig. IIa); cf. Clutton-Brock 1992: 11, 53; Firmage 1992: 1114–15. On the domestication of equids in the ancient Near East, see Boessneck 1988: 78–79; Borowski 1998: 28, 87–89, 93, 100; Clutton-Brock 1981: 80, 91; 1992: 11–12, 53–66; Dajani 1964: 56; Dalley 1984: 159; Firmage 1992: 1115, 1136, 1137; Gautier 1999: 301, 305; Germond and Livet 2001: 30, 34, 62, 78; Hesse 1995: 204–7, 212, 216; Holland 1992–93; 1993–94: 283; Houlihan 1996: 29, 33; Keel and Staubli 2001: 21 (fig. IIa), 23, 37; 2003: 21 (fig. IIa), 23, 35; King and Stager 2001: 116; Klenck 2002: 48; Klingbeil 2003a: 411–13; 2003b: 261; Michel 2004: 192, 194; Moorey 1994: 12; Mottahedeh 1997: 119, 139, 140; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 134–35; Pickeral 1999: 135, 144, 172; Postgate 1986: 200–201; Potratz 1966: 1–14; Raepsaet 1998: 129; 2004: 665; S. Redford 2001: 479; Sauer 1995: 40, 46; Smith 1994: 29; Wapnish 1997: 336, 355; Wapnish and Hesse 1997: 255; 2003: 21; Zarins 1978: 4; 1986: 164, 179–80; Zeuner 1963: 313–22, 337, 375–76; cf. Anthony 1995: 559–61; Epstein 1985: 57–58 (figs. 9–11b), 59, 60 nn. 10–11.

72

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

animal. But, ultimately, all of this is speculation, and the status of the donkey in Hittite law will have to remain uncertain. At the very least, it is evident that special status is accorded to equids in the Hittite laws (cf. Exod 13:13, 34:20; §4.4.2).

2.3.2.  “Scapegoat” Rituals So-called scapegoat rituals (à la Leviticus 16) are well known in both Akkadian and Hittite texts. 231 In the Hittite exemplars of this ritual, there are some interesting references to the donkey. The donkey is, of course, regarded as the ultimate beast of burden in the ancient world. It is therefore not surprising that the donkey is employed in a symbolic ritual that requires an animal to bear the burden of impurity. There are two examples of this in Hittite. First, a ritual of the augur Dandanku (KUB 2.7 iii 11–18) clearly employs a donkey. The text is translated by O. R. Gurney as follows: They drive in a donkey—if it is a poor man, they make one of clay—and they turn its face to the enemy country and say: “Thou, Yarri, hast inflicted evil on this country and its army. Let this donkey lift it and carry it into the enemy country.” 232

Gurney also supplies some brief comments on this text: “Yarri . . . was a Luwian deity of pestilence. But this donkey is apparently nothing but a carrier and is not intended to propitiate him. Evidently, Dandanku thought it sufficient to head the animal in the right direction and pronounce the spell, if a clay donkey would do as well as a real one.” 233 The second text is a ritual of the augur Huwarlu (KBo 4.2 ii 5–14, 61–62) which employs a live puppy in order to purify the king and queen. The method of purification in this text is that of transfer by waving. 234 What is most interesting about this text for the present study is that the puppy is described as though it were a donkey. The text is transliterated and translated by B. J. Collins as follows: nu UR.TUR TI-an-ta-an da-an-zi [. . .] na-an-kán A-NA LUGAL SAL. LUGAL še-er ar-ha wa-a[h-nu-an-zi] A-NA É-TI-ya-an-kán an-da waah-nu-zi nu SA[LŠU.GI kiš-an] me-mi-iš-ki-iz-zi A-NA LUGAL SAL. LUGAL-wa-kán ku-it [kal-la-ar] ut-tar NÍ.TE-ši an-da I-NA É-TI-yawa nu ka-a[-aš UR.TUR] UZUÚR-za šal-li-iš ŠÀ-ŠU-wa šal-li nam-mawa-ra-aš ANŠE-aš kar-pi-ya[-du?] nu-wa-ra-at-za tar-ah-ha-an har-zi 231.  On Leviticus 16, see BBCOT 131–32; Hartley 1992: 216–46; Levine 1989: 99–110; Milgrom 1991: 1009–84; cf. Hoffner 2002: xxxii; 2004: 186–88. For the relevant Akkadian and Hittite texts, see Collins 1990: 213–18; Gurney 1961: 162; 1977: 47–52; Milgrom 1991: 1071–79; Moyer 1983: 33–35; Wright 1987: 31–74. 232.  Gurney 1977: 49. For an earlier translation of KUB 2.7 iii 11–18 (= CTH 425b iii 11–18), see Gurney 1961: 162. There is no published transliteration of this text. 233.  Gurney 1977: 50. 234. See Collins 1990: 214, 216–18; Milgrom 1991: 1072, 1076; Wright 1987: 59.

2.3.  Hittite Sources

73

nu-wa-kán i-da-a-lu k[al-la-ar ut-tar] pé-e-da-a-ú nu-wa-ra-at ku-wa-pí DINGIR.MEŠ lam-ni-ya-an har-kán-zi nu-wa-ra-at a-pí-ya ar-nu-ud-du nu-kán GIM-an UR.TUR TI-an-ta-an pa-ra-a pé-e-da-an-zi 235 They take the live puppy [. . .] and wa[ve] it over the king and queen. She waves it within the palace, and the [old wo]man says [as follows:] “For the king and queen what [evil] word (exists) in their ! body—and (it [the puppy] is) in the palace—th[is puppy] is large as to his penis, his heart is big, so [let] ‘the donkey’ carry them off. He has overcome it (the evil). Let it (‘the donkey’) carry the evil (and) [malign word]. Where the gods have assigned it, let him bring it there!” Then as they carry away the live puppy. 236 UR.TUR-kán [(A-NA LUGAL SAL.LUG)AL še-er ar-ha wa-ah-nu-waan-zi] nu a-pu-u-na [(ar-ha k)u-ra-an-zi] 237 [They wave] the puppy [over] the king and queen and [they] se[ver] that one. 238 In this text, the puppy is described as carrying the impurity in the same manner that a pack-ass would bear a burden. It is additionally interesting that the puppy’s sexual potency is accentuated in the same sentence—such a description may equally characterize the donkey (cf. §§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.5.2, 2.6.3, 4.2.2). David P. Wright, in his monograph The Disposal of Impurity, elaborates on this text: An incantation is recited, exorcising the evil (lines 8–13). In this speech, the dog is praised . . . the praise is not directed to an angry god and thus serves only as a means of magically increasing the dog’s capability as a bearer of evil. Note particularly the metaphor in line 10 where the dog is called an ass. Such aggrandizement enables the dog to more effectively remove the evil. 239

2.3.3.  The Queen of Kanesh and the Tale of Zalpa In the epic Queen of Kanesh and the Tale of Zalpa, a queen is said to have borne 30 sons and 30 daughters, and the sons are said to be driving donkeys. 240 It is noteworthy that the donkeys in this text function as mounts for royalty (or 235.  Collins 1990: 217 n. 29 (KBo 4.2 ii 5–14). The Hittite word for “donkey” is unknown (see Gamkrelidze 1998: 611, 612); it is simply written with the sign anše (cf. Hoffner 1967: 20). 236.  Collins 1990: 217; cf. Gurney 1977: 50. 237.  Collins 1990: 217 n. 30 (KBo 4.2 ii 61–62 with duplicate KBo 9.126:14–15). 238.  Collins 1990: 217. For earlier translations of KBo 4.2 ii 5–14, 61–62 (= CTH 398 ii 5–14, 61–62), see Gurney 1977: 50; Wright 1987: 58–59. 239.  Wright 1987: 59; cf. Milgrom 1991: 1076. 240. For Hoffner’s translations, see COS 1.71:181; Hoffner 1998: 81–82; cf. CTH 3.1; Tsevat 1983: 325.

74

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

at least as animals that are associated with royalty). 241 The story bears striking resemblance to the descriptions of so-called minor judges such as Jair (Judg 10:4), Ibzan (Judg 12:9), and Abdon (Judg 12:14), where the motif of 30 sons on 30 donkeys also occurs. 242 It is possible that this motif is a kind of type scene that signifies prestige, power, wealth, or kingship in the ancient Near Eastern world. 243

2.3.2.  The “Crossing of the Taurus” The final Hittite text that deserves consideration is the historiographic account known as the “Crossing of the Taurus” (KUB XXXI 4 + KBo III 41). 244 In the fourth stanza of this difficult text there is an entertaining characterization of the donkey’s obstinacy. 245 A transliteration and translation of §4 reads: [(URUA-r)]i-in-naKI ku-in pé-e-ḫu-te-et-te-en u-n˹i ˺ ḫu-ur-ta-li-˹i ˺m-maan n[a-at-ta-aš (ANŠE-i)]š-mi-iš nu-uš-še-eš-ša-an e-eš-ka-aḫ-ḫa nu am-mu-uk pé-e-ḫu-te-et-t [e-en] 246 Isn’t that opponent of mine whom you (plural) escorted to Arinna my donkey? I will sit upon him and you (plural) shall escort me there! 247 That the donkey is referred to as an “opponent” here recalls the unusual behavior of the jenny with respect to Balaam in Num 22:22–30 (cf. §4.5.1). 241.  The donkey can also function as a royal mount in the Hebrew Bible (cf. 1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Sam 16:1–2, 19:26 [MT 19:27]; Zech 9:9), but the mule seems to be preferred over the donkey (see §§2.4.1.2, 4.2.8). 242.  On this comparison, see Beem 1991: 151–52, 154–58; Tsevat 1983: 322–26. In his translations, H. A. Hoffner fails to mention this comparison with the minor judges. The comparison was first noted by M. Tsevat, who goes as far as saying that “Judges depends directly or indirectly on the story about Zalpa, or else both texts owe a debt to a common source. When the narrative expansions of the text of the minor judges II, IV, and VI were composed, the Hittite story or a descendant or cousin of it must have been fairly well intact and known in Israel” (Tsevat 1983: 326). 243.  On “type-scenes,” see Alter 1981: 47–62. The type-scene interpretation seems to be a better approach than to posit dependence or borrowing (cf. Tsevat’s approach, in the previous note). B. Beem also suggests that details such as 30 sons/30 donkeys/30 cities “point to a family of wealth and power . . . that is large and prosperous” (1991: 152). She also states that the donkeys symbolize “wealth and prestige” (1991: 152) as well as “power and prosperity” (1991: 158). For further reference on the donkey as a status symbol, see §§2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.5.1, 2.6.14, 4.2.8. 244.  For this text, see COS 1.73:184–85; CTH 16a; Soysal 1987: 174–75, 179, 186–87. 245.  On the obstinacy of the donkey, see §§2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.5.2, 2.6.4, 4.2.3. 246.  Soysal 1987: 174–75. The sign anše is restored from a duplicate (KBo XIII 78, v. 14). 247.  COS 1.73:184 (Hoffner; emphasis his). In a footnote on the first sentence of this quotation, Hoffner comments: “Or perhaps: ‘Whom did you bring to Arinna? That opponent of mine? Isn’t he my donkey?’” (COS 1.73:184 n. 5; cf. Soysal 1987: 179).

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

75

2.4.  Akkadian Sources 2.4.1.  Mari Texts 2.4.1.1.  Treaty Ceremony (ARM 2.37, and so on) Chapter 1 (see §1.2.1) provides a brief history of scholarship on the interpretation of the phrase ḫayaram qatālum (“to kill a jackass”) in the Mari texts. It is also noted in §1.2.1 that the most famous of these texts is ARM 2.37. This text contains many of the major elements of the treaty ceremony and it has spawned more scholarly discussion than any of the other texts related to the subject. For these reasons, it is necessary to provide a translation of the relevant portion of ARM 2.37 along with an exposition that will draw on related texts from Mari and its surroundings. There are now numerous texts that refer to killing a donkey in a treaty context (A.322, A.981, A.1056, A.2226, A.2692 + A.3288, ARM 2.37, 26.24, 26.39, 26.199, 26.404, 26.410, 26.428; Dossin 1938: 108–9; 1939: 984, 991; M.12803; OBTI 326; OBTR 1). 248 Unfortunately, these texts have not been published comprehensively in any one place; and with the publication of every 248.  Bibliography for each text is listed in order as follows: A.322 (Durand 1991: 53; Polak 2004: 126 n. 31); A.981 (Durand 1992: 117–18; Pardee 2000: 132 n. 169); A.1056 (Charpin 1993: 185–86; Durand 1997: 444–45; Malamat 1995: 226–27; 1998c: 168–69; Yuhong 1995: 14); A.2226 (Charpin 1993: 182–85; Durand 1997: 445–47; Fleming 2004: 193–195; Malamat 1995: 226–27; 1998c: 168–69; Yuhong 1995: 14); A.2692 + A.3288 (Durand 1994: 92; Malamat 1995: 227 n. 6; 1998c: 169 n. 6); ARM 2.37; ARM 26.24 (Albright 1961: 46 n. 51; 1968: 84, 91; Charpin 1990: 117 n. 35; Dossin 1939: 986 [= 1983b: 155]; Durand 1988: 139, 152–54; Finet 1993: 137; Heimpel 2003a: 189–90; Munn-Rankin 1956: 85, 89, 92; cf. CAD Ḫ 118, Q 162); ARM 26.39 (Durand 1988: 174–76; Heimpel 2003a: 196–97); ARM 26.199 (Durand 1988: 426–29; Heimpel 2003: 252–54; Nissinen 2003: 30–32; Sasson 1995c: 600–602; Schart 1995: 84–86); ARM 26.404 (Charpin 1990: 117 n.  35; Heimpel 2003a: 343–46; Joannès 1988: 258–63; Pardee 2000: 132 n. 169; Polak 2004: 131–32); ARM 26.410 (Charpin 1990: 117 n. 35; Heimpel 2003a: 351; Joannès 1988: 280–82); ARM 26.428 (Charpin 1990: 117 n. 35; Heimpel 2003a: 363; Joannès 1988: 324–26; Polak 2004: 126); Dossin 1938: 108 (Charpin 1990: 117 n. 35; Dossin 1938: 108 [= 1983a: 105]; 1939: 991 [= 1983b: 160]; Finet 1993: 136; Mendenhall 1948: 17–18; Munn-Rankin 1956: 90, 91, 93; Nielsen 1953: 271; Noth 1966: 115; cf. CAD Ḫ 118, Q 162); Dossin 1938: 109 (Charpin 1990: 116 n. 35; Dossin 1938: 109 [= 1983a: 106]; Finet 1993: 136–37; Munn-Rankin 1956: 80, 90; Nielsen 1953: 271; Noth 1966: 113; Pardee 1991b: 1191 n. 10; 2000: 132; cf. CAD Ḫ 118, I–J 223, S 101); Dossin 1939: 984 (Dossin 1939: 984 [= 1983b: 153]; cf. CAD Ḫ 118, Q 162); Dossin 1939: 991 (Dossin 1939: 991 [= 1983b: 160]; Munn-Rankin 1956: 85–86; cf. CAD I–J 223, Q 162); M.12803 (Birot 1980: 142–43; Pardee 2000: 131 nn. 168, 132); OBTI 326 (Greengus 1979: 74–77; 1988: 154; Kraus 1984: 91 n. 204; see also Dalley 1984: 155 n. 3; Malamat 1995: 227 n. 6; 1998c: 169 n. 6); OBTR 1 (Charpin 1990: 117 nn. 35, 37; Dalley 1984: 140–41; Dalley, Walker, and Hawkins 1976: 12–14, pl. 1; Finet 1993: 137; Malamat 1995: 228 n. 12; 1998c: 171 n. 12; cf. CAD Q 162).

76

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

new volume of Mari texts, it seems that there are always more examples of the ceremony. ARM 2.37 is a letter written by the official Ibal-El to the king of Mari (ZimriLim) in the second quarter of the 18th century b.c.e. It reports about the successful ratification of a treaty between the Haneans and the land of Idamaraṣ. Ibal-El represents the interests of Zimri-Lim and thus acts as the officiant for the ritual. The letter is transliterated and translated as follows: 249  (1) a-na be-lí-ia qí-bí-ma  (2) um-ma i-ba-al-an  (3) ìr-ka-a-ma  (4) ṭup-pí i-ba-al-dim iš-tu áš-la-ak-kaki  (5) ik-šu-da-am-ma a-na áš-la-ak-kaki  (6) al-li-ik-ma a-na ha-a-ri-im qa-ṭá-li-im  (7) bi-ri-it ha-na-meš ù i-da-ma-ra-aṣ  (8) me-ra-na-am ù ha-az-za-am iš-šu-ni-im-ma  (9) be-lí ap-la-ah ma-a me-ra-na-am (10) ù ha-az-za-am ú-ul ad-di-in (11) [ha]-a-ra-am dumu a-ta-ni-im (12) [a]-na-ku ú-ša-aq-ṭì-il (13) sa-li-ma-am bi-ri-it ha-na-meš (14) ù i-da-ma-ra-aṣ aš-ku-[u]n 250 In addition, note the following texts that refer to a donkey offering: ARM 23.55:6 and M.10527 (Bardet 1984: 47; Finet 1993: 139); ARM 26.11:41 (Durand 1988: 107–9; Finet 1993: 139; Heimpel 2003a: 181–82); ARM 26.20:7 (Durand 1988: 121, 131–33; Finet 1993: 139; Heimpel 2003a: 187). See also A.2094:9–10 which Villard translates “Si notre rituel -hâru concernant Ugarit, dans le temple d’Addu d’Alep” (Villard 1986: 411–12; cf. Durand 1988: 122 n. 9; Finet 1993: 137; Pardee 2000: 132 n. 171). In the Alalakh tablets (AT 346:1–2, 348:1–2), there are also references to “le jour du hiyârum d’Eštar” (Durand 1988: 121; cf. Finet 1993: 139; Pardee 2000: 132 n. 171; Wiseman 1953: 97, 98, pl. XXXV; 1954: 27). 249.  For the Akkadian text of ARM 2.37, see Charpin 1993: 185; Held 1970: 33; Jean 1941: 82; 1950: pl. 47; Noth 1966: 108. For translations, see ANET 482; Charpin 1993: 185; Dalley 1984: 140; Durand 1997: 443; Hallo 1991: 129–30; Held 1970: 33; Jean 1941: 83; Noth 1966: 108; Sasson 1976a: 73; 1976b: 202. For general discussion on ARM 2.37, see Albright 1963: 12, 1968: 90–91; Charpin 1990: 117 n. 35; Dalley 1984: 140; Durand 1997: 443–44; Finet 1993: 135; Held 1970: 32–40; Jean 1941: 6, 236; Malamat 1995: 226; 1998c: 168; McCarthy 1978: 91, 93; Mendenhall 1954: 26–30; Munn-Rankin 1956: 80, 85, 90–91, 96, 100 n. 1; Nielsen 1953: 271; Noth 1966: 108–11; Pardee 2000: 132 n. 169; Sasson 1976a: 73; 1976b: 202–4; von Soden 1953: 197; Yuhong 1995: 14. For citations of ARM 2.37 in the CAD, see A/2 482, Ḫ 118, 128; M/2 106, Q 162; S 101. Note that ARM 2.37 and A.1056 are virtually identical texts (see Charpin 1993: 185–86). 250.  Charpin 1993: 185.

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

77

  (1) To my lord speak:   (2) thus Ibal-El, 251   (3) your servant.   (4) The tablet of Ibal-Addu 252 from Ašlakka 253   (5) arrived; and to Ašlakka   (6) I went. In order to “kill a jackass”   (7) between the Haneans 254 and Idamaraṣ, 255   (8) a puppy and a goat they brought.   (9) But out of respect for my lord, a puppy (10) and a goat I would not allow. (11) A [ja]ckass—the offspring of a jenny— (12) I caused to be killed. (13) Peace between the Haneans (14) and Idamaraṣ I established. In line 6, the phrase “to ‘kill a jackass’” (ḫa-a-ri-im qa-ṭá-li-im) has the same sense as “to make a covenant/treaty.” 256 In Biblical Hebrew, the equivalent phrase is kārat bĕrît. 257 This ceremonial slaughter of (an) animal(s) symbolizes the fate that will befall the party who should break the terms of the treaty. 258 That the ceremony was enacted in the presence of deity is indicated by the occasional mention of temples and by the more frequent references to the “oath of 251.  Ibal-El was Zimri-Lim’s pasture-chief in Hana. For further background on this official, see Heimpel 2003a: 540. 252.  Ibal-Addu was the king of Ašlakka. For further background on this king, see Heimpel 2003a: 540 (under Ibal-Addu 1). 253.  Ašlakka was the royal city of Idamaraṣ, and Ibal-Addu was its king. For further background on this city, see Heimpel 2003a: 607. 254.  For background on the group designation “Hana,” see Heimpel 2003a: 582– 84. The Haneans are among the “Sons of Simʾal [Left/North]” (see Heimpel 2003a: 595). Charpin and Durand translate ḫa-na-meš as “les Bédouins” (Charpin 1993: 185; Durand 1997: 443); Fleming translates it as “tent-dwellers” (2004: 46, 47, 89, 148–50); cf. Hoffmeier 2005: 198. 255.  For background information on the land of Idamaraṣ, see Heimpel 2003a: 584, 613. 256. Cf. ANET 482 n. 4; Dossin 1938: 108 (= 1983a: 105); Heimpel 2003a: 345 n. 1; Held 1970: 33; McCarthy 1978: 91; Munn-Rankin 1956: 80, 85, 90; Noth 1966: 109–11; Sasson 1976b: 204. 257. Cf. Finet 1993: 138; Held 1970: 33; Hoffmeier 2005: 184; McCarthy 1978: 91; Noth 1966: 111; Speiser 1964: 112, 114. 258. Cf. Collins 1990: 224; Greengus 1995: 482; Hillers 1969: 40–41; MunnRankin 1956: 84, 88, 90, 108; Sasson 1976b: 204; Speiser 1964: 112; Weisberg 1991: 263; Yuhong 1995: 14; cf. Jer 34:18; COS 2.82:214. The same symbolism applies to the ritual gesture of “touching the throat” (see Charpin 1990: 109–18; Greengus 1995: 473, 482; Munn-Rankin 1956: 85, 88, 89–90, 108; Tadmor 1982: 134; Weisberg 1991: 261–62; Yuhong 1995: 15).

78

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

the god(s).” ARM 26.24:12 notes that they killed donkeys “in the temple of Sîn of Harrān,” and A.2094:10 refers to a donkey ceremony “in the temple of Addu of Alep.” 259 The “oath of the god(s)” (ni-iš dingir-lim or ni-iš dingir-meš) is a noted part of the ceremony in A.2226:5′; ARM 26.39:13; 26.404:39, 62; Dossin 1938: 108 (line 19); and OBTR 1:12, 39. 260 In ARM 26.404:63–64, there is also mention of sitting down to drink (and possibly to eat) and exchanging gifts in conjunction with the treaty ceremony. 261 F. H. Polak comments on this text: “the expressions ‘killing the donkey,’ and ‘eating and drinking’ indicate different parts of one ceremony. The common meal suggests the communion of the participants in the ceremony. . . . The exchange of presents seems to serve a similar goal.” 262 Both the words ḫayarum and qatālum are technically Amorite rather than Akkadian (the Akkadian synonyms would be imērum and dâkum, respectively). Ḫayarum is equivalent to Hebrew ʿayir and Ugaritic ʿêru (and, one might add, Egyptian ʿꜢ; see §§2.1.1.1, 2.1.2.1), and qatālum is known in West Semitic dialects. 263 In the treaty texts, the word for donkey can be expressed simply by the logogram anše 264 or by writing out the signs ḫa-a-ru-um (in various forms for number and case). But usually the term is expressed by the combination of the determinative anše and the appropriate form of ḫa-a-ru-um. 265 Whereas the usual verb for killing a donkey in the treaty texts is qatālum, the verbs dâkum and maḫāṣum are also attested. 266 259.  Temple of Sîn: See Durand 1988: 152; cf. Finet 1993: 137. Temple of Addu: See Villard 1986: 411; cf, Finet 1993: 137. Note also the “donkey of Addu” (ARM 26.20:7; see Durand 1988: 131, 132) and the “donkey of Ishtar” (AT 346:2, 348:2; see Durand 1988: 121). 260. See Munn-Rankin 1956: 84, 88, 89, 108; cf. Dalley 1984: 140; Finet 1993: 135, 138; Greengus 1995: 473, 482; Tadmor 1982: 132, 133. 261. See Heimpel 2003a: 190 n. 2, 345; Joannès 1988: 259, 260, 262, 263 note r; Polak 2004: 131–32. 262.  Polak 2004: 132. 263.  The verb qṭl actually only occurs a few times in Biblical Hebrew (despite its notoriety as a paradigm verb in many grammars!) and is more common in Aramaic. Strangely, qṭl is unattested in the Ugaritic corpus, but Pardee suggests that the verb nkt is used in its place (cf. KTU 1.40; see §2.2.1.1). On qatālum, see AHw 907a; CAD Q 162; Dossin 1938: 108 (= 1983a: 105); HALOT 1092; Held 1970: 34; Noth 1966: 109–11; Pardee 2000: 132, 1991b: 1193. On ḫayarum, see AHw 328; CAD Ḫ 118; Dossin 1938: 108 (= 1983a: 105); DUL 178; HALOT 822; Held 1970: 34–35; Moore and Brown 1997c: 399; Noth 1966: 109–11; Pardee 2000: 131–32; Wb 1:165. 264.  E.g., A.2226:16; ARM 26.20:7; ARM 26.410:11 (restored); M.12803 (II:10, 15 [restored]); OBTI 326:35. 265. Cf. AHw 328; CAD Ḫ 118; Dossin 1938: 108 (= 1983a: 105). G. Dossin also notes the variant form anše a-ia-ra-am, but I cannot identify the tablet to which he refers (1938: 108 [= 1983a: 105]). 266. For dâkum, see ARM 26.404:13; M.12803 (II:10, 15); cf. CAD D 35–43; Pardee 2000: 132; 1991b: 1193. For maḫāṣum, see OBTI 326:35.

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

79

In lines 8–10, the letter recounts that the representatives brought “a puppy and a goat” (me-ra-na-am ù ḫa-az-za-am) to slaughter in the treaty ceremony, but Ibal-El would not allow these animals. The same scenario is recounted in two other tablets from Ibal-El—A.2226 and A.1056. 267 In A.2226:11, 15, the pair of animal names is written ùz ù mé-ra-nam. The use of the logogram ùz in this text demonstrates that ḫazzum is in fact the Amorite word for “goat” (cf. Hebrew ʿēz) rather than for a “bird,” “lettuce,” or a “leafy bough.” 268 In A.1056:7–8, the pair of animal names is written with the same signs that were employed in ARM 2.37:8–10 except for the fact that the na sign is omitted from the word for puppy (the text thus reads me-ra-am in lines 7–8, which can mean “calf” [mîrum or mûrum] or “foal” [mûrum]). 269 Charpin and Malamat prefer to take this spelling at face value and translate the word as “calf,” 270 but Durand and Yuhong are more likely correct in positing a scribal error (accidental omission of the na sign) and translating the word as “puppy.” 271 Ceremonies involving puppies and goats are also known from other sources. As for the ancient Near East, the killing of puppies and goats is well-attested in Hittite ritual texts. 272 As for Syro-Palestinian archaeology, it is now known that puppies with broken necks were buried in the courtyard of the Middle Bronze Age temple at Tel Haror (cf. §§1.6.3.2, 3.2.11, 3.7.5). 273 As for biblical references, Gen 15:9–10 refers to cutting a goat in half (bātar ʿēz) as part of a covenant ceremony, 274 and Isa 66:3 refers to the abhorrent practice of “one who 267.  For a thorough analysis of all three texts, see Charpin 1993: 182–86; cf. Durand 1997: 443–47. 268. See Charpin 1993: 184 (“chèvre”); Held 1970: 39–40 (“she-goat”); von Soden 1953: 197 (“Ziege”); AHw 339 (“Ziege”); cf. Durand 1997: 443–44 note a; Malamat 1995: 226 n. 2; 1998c: 168 n. 2; Tadmor 1982: 135. For “bird,” see Jean 1941: 6, 83 (“oiseau”); for “lettuce,” see ANET 482; Mendenhall 1954: 26–30; Noth 1966: 108; for “leafy bough,” see CAD Ḫ 128. 269. See Charpin 1993: 186; cf. CAD M/2 229–30; Durand 1997: 445 note c; Malamat 1995: 227, 1998c: 169. 270.  “Calf”: Charpin 1993: 186 (“jeune bœuf   ”); Malamat 1995: 227; 1998c: 169. Note the Hebrew phrase kārat ʿēgel in Jer 34:18 (see Held 1970: 33; Hess 1994: 59, 61–65; Lafont 1999: 76; Malamat 1995: 228, 1998c: 170; McCarthy 1978: 92; Noth 1966: 109; Pardee 2000: 132 n. 170; Weisberg 1991: 265; cf. Gen 15:9). 271.  “Puppy”: Durand 1997: 444 (“jeune chiot”); Yuhong 1995: 14. For mērānum, see AHw 658a; CAD M/2 105–6; Held 1970: 38–39; Jean 1941: 236. 272. See Collins 1990: 211–26; Gurney 1961: 151; 1977: 50, 53; Held 1970: 40; Klenck 2002: 84–86; Moyer 1983: 31–33; Sasson 1976b: 204–6; cf. §§1.6.3.2, 2.3.2. 273. See Katz 2000: 84–85, 101, 107–8, 112–18, 120–30, 132–33, 135–36, 138, 142, 146–48, 150–51, 153–57, 161–63, 222, 228, 233–35; Klenck 2002: 63, 70–73, 84–87, 211–14; Oren 1993: 581; 1997a: 474–75; 1997b: 264, 268 (fig. 8.15); Stager 1999: 238–39, 2003: 66. 274.  For cutting a goat in half, see Held 1970: 40; Hess 1994: 55–65; Lafont 1999: 76; Malamat 1995: 227–28, 1998c: 169–70; McCarthy 1978: 92; Noth 1966: 109;

80

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

breaks a dog’s neck” (ʿōrēp keleb). 275 Instead of the puppy and the goat, Ibal-El requires a donkey to be killed, but not just any donkey. In line 11, Ibal-El identifies the animal as “a jackass—the offspring of a jenny” ([ḫa]-a-ra-am dumu a-ta-ni-im). This same phrase is repeated in the two other tablets of Ibal-El—A.2226:17 and A.1056:9–10. 276 In A.2226:16 Ibal-El claims to have personally bought this special donkey just for the occasion (a-na-ku anše a-na kù-babbar a-ša-[am]). 277 The Bible also employs this same phrase in Gen 49:11a and in Zech 9:9b (see §§4.1.1, 4.1.3). 278 Pardee 2000a: 132 n.  170; Polak 2004: 126; Sasson 1976b: 204; Speiser 1964: 114; Weisberg 1991: 264–65. 275.  For breaking a dog’s neck, see Held 1970: 33 n. 6; Moyer 1983: 30, 32–33; Sasson 1976b: 199–207. Sasson’s translation of the line reads: “He who . . . sacrificed a lamb (would now) break a dog’s neck” (1976b: 200). See a more detailed discussion under §4.4.3. If one looks beyond the biblical world, there are parallel practices in first-millennium b.c.e. China, where alliances and oath-taking ceremonies were also accompanied by the sacrifice of various animals, including—most notably—the horse, the dog, and the goat (see Yuhong 1995: 14–15). Based on these Chinese analogies, Wu Yuhong suggests that the choice of a sacrificial animal (in the texts from Mari and vicinity) was dependent on the relative sociopolitical status of the individual taking part in the ceremony. He explains: As was the case in ancient China, there may have been a hierarchy of sacrificial animals in ancient Mesopotamia. . . . Since Išme-Addu and the elders of the small cities and lands of Idamaraṣ were of a lower rank, the reason why they used a dog and a goat as their sacrifices is probably because they knew that a foal was the sacrifice of a great king in an alliance making ceremony but a dog and a goat were the right sacrifices for them and Ibal-El, the official of Zimri-Lim, whose rank was the same as theirs. However, Ibal-El considered himself the representative of the great king so that he insisted that he should kill a foal as befitted the rank of his lord in the ceremony. The same situation may have also occurred in Ašlakka there [sic] Ibal-El again refused the dog and goat of Ibal-Addu, the lower-ranking king of Ašlakka, but killed a foal for himself. Since the cases of killing foals, dogs and goats for alliance-making are only known in North Mesopotamia during this period and there is no direct evidence for the above explanation, the suggestion here is only hypothetical. (Yuhong 1995: 15)

Note that the Chinese word for goat (“yang”) could also mean sheep.  Interestingly, the horse (especially the white horse) and the bull were the sacrifices of the highestranking people, whereas the pig, the dog, and the sheep/goat were the sacrifices of lower-ranking people. Below the dog and sheep/goat was the cock. For further reference on horses in ancient China, see Azzaroli 1985: 97–109; Zeuner 1963: 333–37. 276.  For a thorough analysis of all three texts, see Charpin 1993: 182–86; cf. Durand 1997: 443–47. 277.  Charpin 1993: 182. Durand translates lines 16–17: “J’ai acheté moi-même un âne pour de l’argent et j’ai fait tuer un ânon petit d’une ânesse” (1997: 446). 278.  On Gen 49:11, see Durand 1997: 444 note b; Hamilton 1995: 655–56, 662; Held 1970: 35, 37; Speiser 1964: 362, 366; Wenham 1994: 454–55, 458, 478–79. On

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

81

But what exactly does the phrase ḫayaram mār atānim mean? First, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of ḫayarum and its cognates (cf. §4.1.3). The majority of French scholars render this term with ânon (“young donkey” or “donkey foal”), 279 but D. Pardee points out that “La traduction de ʿr par «âne» [i.e., “ass/donkey”] semble préférable à «ânon», car il ne s’agit pas du petit: d’après les textes mythologiques le ʿr sert de monture. . . . La traduction de ʿr en anglais par «foal» est hors de propos, car un «foal» ne sert pas de monture.” 280 Pardee’s argument bolsters M. Noth’s assertion that ḫayarum “means an adult male ass, not an ass-foal.” 281 This is an important clarification regarding the meaning of ḫayarum. Second, it follows that mār atānim (literally, “the son of a jenny”) does not refer to the youngness of the ḫayarum. Rather, mār atānim qualifies ḫayarum as a purebred donkey (cf. §4.1.1). 282 Noth explains: The words TUR atānim and ben-ʾăthōnôth must rather mean an ass of pure breed, as against a hybrid which was not born of a she-ass, but was a cross between a jackass and a mare—a mule. . . . The mule could presumably be called ḫayarum = ʿyr in the wider sense, so that where it was desired to specify beyond doubt a pure-blooded ass then the expression TUR atānim = bn ʾtnwt was added. It is obvious why no hybrid, but only an “irreproachable” animal should serve for such a sacral act as the making of a covenant. 283

Finally, in lines 13–14, Ibal-El claims to have established “peace” (salīmum) 284 between the Haneans and Idamaraṣ. Salīmum occurs elsewhere in the same Zech 9:9, see ANET 482 n. 6; Baldwin 1972: 165–66; Finet 1993: 136; HALOT 102; Held 1970: 35, 37; In der Smitten 1980: 468, 469; Meyers and Meyers 1993: 88, 127– 31, 169–73; Noth 1966: 111; see also Matt 21:5, John 12:15; cf. Sasson 1976a: 73. 279.  For the translation “ânon,” see Charpin 1990: 116–17 n. 35; 1993: 184–86; Dossin 1938: 108 (= 1983a: 105); Durand 1991: 53; 1994: 92; 1997: 443, 444, 446; Finet 1993: 135–41; Jean 1941: 6, 83; Lafont 1999: 73. For the same understanding of the term, see ANET 482 nn. 4, 6; Dalley 1984: 140; Dalley, Walker, and Hawkins 1976: 13; Held 1970: 33, 35–38; Malamat 1995: 226–29; 1998c: 168–71; Meyers and Meyers 1993: 88, 130; Sasson 1976a: 73; 1976b: 202, 204; Wapnish 1997: 364 n. 26; Yuhong 1995: 14, 15; cf. CAD A/2 482, Ḫ 118, Q 162. 280.  Pardee 2000a: 131 n. 165. 281.  Noth 1966: 110 (see also pp. 108, 111); cf. AHw 328; DUL 178; HALOT 822; Heimpel 2003a: 181, 187, 189, 190, 197, 344, 345, 351, 363; Moore and Brown 1997c: 399; Pardee 2000a: 131 n. 165; Pope 1973: 86; Speiser 1964: 253, 362, 366. 282. See Finet 1993: 136; HALOT 102; Noth 1966: 111; cf. Baldwin 1972: 166; Meyers and Meyers 1993: 131; Speiser 1964: 362; Wenham 1994: 455, 479. 283.  Noth 1966: 111. 284. On salīmum, see CAD S 100–103; Finet 1993: 141; Greengus 1995: 482; HALOT 1506–10; McCarthy 1978: 35–36, 289; 1979: 251–53; Munn-Rankin 1956: 85–86, 90, 96; Noth 1966: 113; Pardee 1991b: 1193, 1194; Tadmor 1982: 131; cf. Josh 9:15; Judg 4:17; 1 Sam 7:14; 1 Kgs 5:12 (MT 5:26); Isa 27:5; Ezek 34:25; 37:26.

82

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

context (i.e., in conjunction with killing donkeys) in A.1056:14; A.2226:11′; ARM 26.39:14, 22, 29, 34, 35; ARM 26.410:5′, 7′, 11′-12′, 19′, 34′; ARM 26.428:4′; Dossin 1938: 109, line 23. It is often paired with the term damqatum, “good relations” (A.2226:11′; ARM 26.410:11′–12′, 26.428:5′). 285 Most interesting for the present purposes is the phrase ḫayaram ša salīmim, “donkey of peace” (ARM 26.39:14; ARM 26.428:4′; Dossin 1938: 109, line 23). Could this “donkey of peace” be related to the Ugaritic text KTU 1.40:26–43 (see §2.2.1.1), which mentions the “donkey of rectitude” (ʿr mšr) along with the term “well-being” (npy)? While the Mari and Ugaritic texts are separated by some 600 years, it is difficult not to posit some kind of relationship between these two very similar phenomena from Bronze Age Syria. 286 At the same time, there is no reference to the concept of “treaty” in KTU 1.40. 2.4.1.2.  Royal Transportation (ARM 6.76) This letter is written by Baḫdi-Lim, who was the governor of Mari. 287 Baḫdi-Lim here gives advice to his king, Zimri-Lim, concerning the proper means of transportation in a public appearance or ceremony. The first half of this tablet is badly damaged, but the passage of interest comes from the second half. 288 Lines 19–25a are transliterated and translated as follows: French scholars render this term with “paix” (e.g., Charpin 1993: 184, 185, 186; Durand 1988: 175; Joannès 1988: 281; Pardee 2000a: 132), “alliance” (Dossin 1938: 109 [= 1983a: 106]; 1939: 991 [= 1983b: 160]; Finet 1993: 141; Joannès 1988: 325; Lafont 1999: 73; Pardee 2000a: 132 [“alliance de paix”]) and “concorde” (Jean 1941: 6, 83). Durand now prefers to translate it with “l’état de non-belligérance” (Durand 1997: 443, 444; cf. p. 446). Among English-speaking scholars “peace” is by far the most common gloss; however, other translations include “(re)conciliation” (CAD Ḫ 128; Held 1970: 33; Noth 1966: 113; Sasson 1976a: 73, 1976b: 202), “friendship” (Munn-Rankin 1956: 85–86, 90, 96), and “alliance” (Yuhong 1995: 14). 285.  D. J. McCarthy notes: “The phrase, peace and good relations, is normal treaty terminology for describing the state which the making of a treaty aims to achieve” (1978: 35–36). See also Tadmor 1982: 131. 286.  This connection was first suggested in 1991 by D. Pardee (1991b: 1192–93; see now COS 1.88:284 n. 15; Pardee 2000a: 131–33; 2002: 78, 110 n. 106, 112 n. 115, 268; cf. Wyatt 1998: 345 n. 17). Note also that the concept of mêšaru does seem to occur in two of the Mari texts (Dossin 1938: 109 [line 23] and Dossin 1939: 991) that refer “to one of the features associated with the donkey sacrifice as dabābum išariš ‘speaking uprightly’ . . . where išariš is an adverb cognate to mêšaru” (Pardee 1991b: 1193; cf. CAD I–J 223; Dossin 1938: 109 [= 1983a: 106], 1939: 991 [= 1983b: 160]; Munn-Rankin 1956: 80, 85–86; Pardee 1991b: 1191 n. 10, 1193; 2000a: 132). See further discussion, §§2.2.1.1, 2.6.20. 287.  For background information on Baḫdi-Lim, see Heimpel 2003a: 531 (under Baḫdi-Lim 1). 288.  For the text, see Kupper 1953: pls. 74–75; 1954: 106, 108. For translation and discussion, see CAD K 491, N/2 306, S 330; Dalley 1984: 164–65; Durand 1998:

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

83

(19) [be-lí q]a-qa-ad šar-ru-ti-š[u l]i-ka-bi-it (20) [šum-ma] šar Ḫa-na(meš) at-ta (21) [ù š]a-ni-iš šar Ak-ka-di-im at-ta (22) [be-lí] i-na sîsê(ḫá) 289 la i-ra-ka-ab (23) [i-na (i]ṣ)nu-ba-lim ù imêri(ḫá) 290 ku-da-ni-ma (24) [b]e-[lí] li-ir-ka-am-ma qa-qa-ad šar-ru-ti-šu (25a) li-ka-bi-it 291 (19) [My lord] should honor his kingship. (20) [Since] you are king of the Haneans, (21) [and se]condly, you are king of Akkad, (22) [my lord] should not ride on/with horses; (23) [on] palanquin-and-mules 292 (24) [my] lo[rd] should ride. His kingship (25a) he should honor. Baḫdi-Lim’s primary concern is stated twice—Zimri-Lim should honor his kingship! More specifically, Baḫdi-Lim seems to suggest that the king must present himself properly (i.e., as a king!) when he makes a public appearance. Apparently, the horse—which was obviously domesticated by this time (early 18th century b.c.e.) 293―was not yet associated with kingship in the Middle Bronze IIA period. In the Late Bronze Age and beyond, the horse was very frequently featured in ancient Near Eastern texts in connection with kingship and especially in military contexts. 294 But this was apparently not the case 484–88; Fleming 2004: 156–59; Heimpel 1990: 603; Kupper 1954: 8, 107, 109; Sasson 1995a: 1204; 1976a: 73. 289.  That is, anše.kur.ra.ḫi.a (see CAD S 330; Kupper 1953: pl. 74 [line 22]). 290.  That is, anše.ḫi.a (see CAD K 491, S 330; Kupper 1953: pl. 74 [line 23]). 291.  Kupper 1954: 108. 292.  The term nubālum has been translated “cart” (Dalley 1984: 165), “char” (Kupper 1954: 109), “chariot” (CAD K 491, N/2 306, S 330; Sasson 1976a: 73), “Wagen” (Heimpel 1990: 603), “chaise à porteurs” (i.e., sedan chair; Durand 1997: 236–37; 1998: 485, 486), “litter” (Fleming 2004: 156), and “palanquin” (Sasson 1995a: 1204). The term kūdanum designates a type of mule: “It is clear (and confirmed by etymology) that kūdanu denotes a mule, but the difference between kūdanu, parû and damdammu remains uncertain” (CAD K 492; cf. Heimpel 1990: 602; Michel 2004: 195; SED 2:169). For reliefs picturing wooden palanquins strapped onto the backs of pairs of donkeys, see the Egyptian examples from the 5th Dynasty (Boessneck 1988: fig. 130; Houlihan 1996: 31, 33, fig. 26; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 135). 293.  This is an understatement. There is now Syrian evidence (a clay figurine) for the domesticated horse in the period 2300–2100 b.c.e. (see Holland 1992–93; 1993–94: 283). For further reference on the domestication of equids in the ancient Near East, see §2.3.1. 294.  This is the case everywhere in the ancient Near East—in Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia. It is especially prominent in the Egyptian New Kingdom:

84

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

at the time and place of this letter. Rather, the mule was the proper transport for royalty; 295 thus, Baḫdi-Lim advised Zimri-Lim to ride on “palanquin-andmules.” S. Dalley explains: The horse became a potent symbol of royal power harnessed to the maintenance of the divine order. During the New Kingdom, heroic depictions featuring a victorious pharaoh drawn by spirited steeds amid scenes of indescribable chaos were a standard theme of royal propaganda: by crushing the enemies with whom the horses were associated, the king achieved an indisputable victory over the forces of evil. It was a continuation of the older theme of pharaoh scourging the enemies of Egypt. (Germond and Livet 2001: 82) On the horse as a royal and/or military symbol in the ancient Near East, see Borowski 1998: 100–103, 106, 233; Clutton-Brock 1992: 93, 94; Collins 1990: 220–21; DBI 28, 400; Fowler 2000a: 608; Germond and Livet 2001: 79, 82, 84; Hoffmeier 1999: 193; Houlihan 1996: 33–35; Klingbeil 2003a: 414; 2003b: 263–66; 2005: 12, 13; Meyers and Meyers 1993: 129; Michel 2004: 192, 196; Morgan 1982: 759–60; Nibbi 1979: 162; S. Redford 2001: 479. On the horse in royal and/or military contexts in the Bible, see Exod 14:9, 17, 18, 23, 26, 28; 15:1, 4, 19, 21; Deut 11:4; Josh 11:4, 6, 9; 24:6; Judg 5:22; 1 Sam 8:11; 13:5; 2 Sam 1:6; 8:4; 10:18; 15:1; 1 Kgs 1:5; 4:26, 28 [MT 5:6, 8]; 20:1, 20–21, 25; 22:4, 34; 2 Kgs 3:7; 6:14–15, 17; 7:6–7, 10, 13–14; 10:2; 13:7; 18:23–24; 1 Chr 18:4; 19:6; 2 Chr 1:14; 9:25; 12:3; Esth 6:6–11; Job 39:19–25; Ps 76:6 [MT 76:7]; Isa 5:28; 21:7, 9; 22:7; 36:8–9; 43:17; Jer 4:13; 6:23; 8:6, 16; 17:25; 22:4; 46:4, 9; 47:3; 50:37, 42; 51:21, 27; Ezek 17:15; 23:23; 26:7, 10–11; 38:4, 15; Hos 14:3 [MT 14:4]; Joel 2:4–5; Mic 1:13; Nah 3:2–3; Hab 1:8; 3:8, 15; Hag 2:22; Zech 9:10; 14:15, 20. See also the prominent biblical motif of trusting in horses vis-à-vis trusting in the Lord (Deut 17:16; 20:1; 2 Chr 16:8; Ezra 8:22; Ps 20:7 [MT 20:8]; 33:16–19; 147:10–11; Prov 21:31; Isa 31:1, 3; Hos 1:7; Amos 2:15; Mic 5:10 [MT 5:9]; Zech 9:10; 10:5). Note that the horse-drawn chariot first appears in Egyptian texts and iconography in the early 18th Dynasty—not in the late 17th Dynasty, as many scholars used to maintain (see Hoffmeier 1994: 228, 1999: 193; Oren 1997c: xxi; Schulman 1980: 109–13, 134–46; cf. COS 2.1:5; Harvey 1994: 4, 5). The assumption that the Hyksos introduced the horse-drawn chariot to Egypt is also unlikely (see Bourriau 2000: 213, 215; Hoffmeier 1994: 228, 1999: 193; Oren 1997c: xxi; Schulman 1980: 105–13; Wapnish 1997: 355; Younger 2000: 621). 295.  The mule is a royal symbol not only in the present text but also in biblical literature—note how king David’s sons each rode a pered (2 Sam 13:29), Absalom rode a pered (2 Sam 18:9), and Solomon rode on David’s pirdah (1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44); cf. 1 Kgs 18:5. It may be that the mule was the preferred choice for royalty because it was more expensive than a donkey or even a horse (see Borowski 1998: 109–10, 129 n. 52, 233; Dent 1972: 62; Klingbeil 2003a: 417–18, 2005: 13; Zarins 1978: 14; 1986: 164, 185–87; cf. COS 2.19:117 [§§178, 180]; Gurney 1961: 84; Hoffner 1997a: 235 [§§178, 180]; 1997b: 141–44 [§§178, 180]; Michel 2004: 192–93). Furthermore, because the mule was infertile, it would have epitomized luxury and prestige (cf. Klingbeil 2003a: 417; 2003b: 267; 2005: 13; Nibbi 1979: 167, 168). On the royal significance of the mule, see Borowski 1998: 110, 233; CAD P 395; Clutton-Brock 1992: 94; Cole 1996: 100 (text no. 59); DBI 28, 215; Durand 1998: 487; Harrison 1986b: 430; Klingbeil 2003a:

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

85

[This] letter suggests that it was more dignified for a king to travel by muledrawn cart rather than to use horses, perhaps because training was not yet perfected and there was more risk of an upset with horses. . . . Bahdi-Lim seems here to be trying to restrain an exuberant monarch who was keen to master the arts of horsemanship at the expense of his dignity and of convention. 296

The word pair “palanquin-and-mules” is used to designate only one vehicle (compare the use of the English word pair “horse and buggy”). This interpretation is similar to those of S. Dalley, D. Fleming, W. Heimpel, and some of the authors of the CAD, 297 but it is apparently not the only interpretation at large. J. M. Sasson translates lines 22–24a “my lord ought not to ride horses; rather, it is upon a palanquin or on mules that my lord ought to ride.” 298 Sasson’s translation expresses three options―“ride a horse, choose to be lifted in a palanquin, or ride a mule.” 299 A problem with his interpretation is that the Akkadian syntax only permits two options: the verb + ina occurs only two times (one of which is reconstructed!) in lines 22–24a, and ina is not repeated before “mules,” as Sasson’s translation might lead one to think! Thus, the interpretation “palanquin-and-mules” (or something similar) is preferred, and lines 22–24a present only two contrasting options, rather than three. 415, 416, 420 n.  92; 2003b: 263, 265 n.  29, 267; 2005: 13; Michel 2004: 195, 196; Moore and Brown 1997f: 675; Sasson 1976a: 73; Ziese 2000: 925; cf. Clutton-Brock 1992: 92; Feliks 1972b: 516–17; McCullough 1962b: 456. Interestingly, the mule (like the donkey) never attained royal status in ancient Egypt (for the donkey in Egypt, see §2.1.1.3). On the possible identification of the hinny/jennet—i.e., the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey (the mule, on the other hand, is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse)—in Egyptian iconography, see Brewer et al. 1994: 101–2; Clutton-Brock 1981: 95–96; 1992: 86; Houlihan 1996: 37–38; Klingbeil 2003a: 423–24 (fig. 6); but note the criticisms of Hansen (1997: 219–26) and Nibbi (1979: 164–67). On the possible identification of the mule in Egyptian vocabulary ( ptr), see Kitchen 1974: 17–20; Wente 1990: 119 (but, again, note the criticisms of Nibbi—1979: 166, 167). For further discussion on the mule, see §4.1.4. 296.  Dalley 1984: 164–65. 297.  Their translations read as follows: “my lord should ride in a cart with mules” (Dalley 1984: 165); “My lord must (rather) ride [on] a litter and mules” (Fleming 2004: 156); “Mein Herr soll auf Wagen mit Maultieren (kūdanu) steigen” (Heimpel 1990: 603); “my lord should ride in a chariot drawn by mules” (CAD K 491); “a nubalu chariot with (?) mules” (CAD S 330). 298.  Sasson 1995a: 1204; cf. Sasson’s earlier translation: “May my lord not ride horses; (instead) let him ride either a chariot or kūdanū-mules” (1976a: 73). Both of Sasson’s translations are similar to (and seem to follow) Kupper’s: “Que [mon seigneur] ne monte pas de chevaux, que ce soit dans un char ou sur des mules seulement que mon seigneur monte” (1954: 109). The same interpretation is followed by CAD N/2 306; Durand 1998: 485. 299.  Sasson 1995a: 1204.

86

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

The contrast between the horse and the mule in this royal context bears striking similarities to a passage in the Hebrew Bible. In Zech 9:9–10, the donkey (rather than the mule) is contrasted with the horse; and the donkey in Zech 9:9 clearly has royal significance (like the mule of ARM 6.76). 300 As for the horse in Zech 9:10, the association is clearly military in nature, but this is not demonstrably the case with the horse in ARM 6.76. 2.4.1.3.  Assignment of a Donkey (A.3796) The final text from Mari that requires consideration is A.3796. 301 While the text is essentially administrative in nature, it contains the interesting detail that a donkey was assigned to a prophet named Lupaḫum. The first ten lines of the text are transliterated and translated as follows:   (1) 1 [anše]   (2) zi-ga  (3) a-na lu-pa-hi-im   (4) [a-p]í-li-im   (5) [ša] dda-gan  (6) i-na anše-há  (7) ša ša-al-la-at  (8) i-da-ma-ra-aṣ   (9) ša ma-at šu-de (10) nì-šu ia-an-ṣí-ib-dda-gan 302   (1) 1 [donkey],   (2) outlay   (3) to Lupaḫum, 303   (4) [pr]ophet 304   (5) [of] Dagan,   (6) (taken) from the donkeys   (7) of the booty 300. This connection between donkey and royalty is somewhat exceptional. I would posit that the donkey is primarily the transport for the nobility or the aristocracy, whereas the mule is preferred as the transport for royalty (see §§2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.1, 2.3.3, 2.4.1.3, 4.2.8), but these distinctions are occasionally blurred (e.g., in Zech 9:9) and should not be forced. For other instances of the donkey as a royal transport, see also CAD I–J 113 and §§2.3.3, 4.2.8. 301.  For the text, see Durand 1988: 397. For translation and some discussion, see Durand 1988: 396–97; Nissinen 2003: 83. 302.  Durand 1988: 397. 303.  For background information on Lupaḫum, see Durand 1988: 396–97; Heimpel 2003a: 549. 304.  The term is âpilum, literally “answerer” (Fr. “répondant”); cf. Durand 1988: 397.

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

87

  (8) (from) Idamaraṣ 305   (9) of the land of Šudâ, 306 (10) (carried out) under the authority 307 of Yanṣib-Dagan. 308 The association of prophet with donkey is also known in biblical literature. The diviner Balaam travels on the back of his ʾātôn (Num 22:22–30), and each of the anonymous prophets from Israel and Judah travels on the back of a ḥămôr (1 Kgs 13:11–32). This association of the prophet with the donkey may be due to nothing more than the fact that prophets (and cult personnel in general) are people of high social status who ride vehicles appropriate to such status. 309 The donkey is, so to speak, the “Mercedes-Benz” of the biblical world. A second noteworthy detail in this text is that the donkey is acquired as an item of booty before it is assigned to the prophet. References to donkeys as booty are also prominent in the Hebrew Bible (see Gen 34:28; Num 31:28, 30, 34, 39, 45; Deut 28:31; 1 Sam 27:9; 2 Kgs 7:3–16; 1 Chr 5:21; cf. Judg 6:4; Job 1:14–15). 310 These references testify to the intrinsic value of the donkey in ancient society (note its value for load bearing, hauling, transporting, breeding, threshing, and so on). Donkeys were in fact a form of capital in the ancient Near Eastern world, and the mention of donkeys in various texts is often made to signify wealth. 311 305.  For background information on the land of Idamaraṣ, see Heimpel 2003a: 584, 613. 306.  For background information on Šudâ, see Heimpel 2003a: 625. 307.  The signs n ì - š u = ša qāt; cf. Durand 1988: 397; Nissinen 2003: 83. 308.  I.e., Yanṣib–Dagan 1 (see Heimpel 2003a: 564). 309.  Note, in addition, that the prophet Muhammad is said to have traveled on an equid named Buraq (see Sasson 1976a: 72; however, Buraq is further described as a composite creature), and certain rabbis are said to have ridden donkeys (see DBI 215). 310.  For references to donkeys as booty/tribute in ancient Near Eastern texts/iconography, see Boessneck 1988: 78, fig. 105; Borowski 1999: 98–99; CAD A/2 482, I–J 112; Dent 1972: 36; Ephʿal 1982: 40, 124, 149, 162–63; Houlihan 1996: 29; Nibbi 1979: 155; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 134–35; cf. §§2.5.1, 2.6.12. For mules as booty/tribute in Assyrian texts/iconography, see Borowski 1998: 111; CAD P 207; Dent 1972: 66; Ephʿal 1982: 40; Klingbeil 2003a: 420–23, fig. 4. For horses as booty/ tribute in Egyptian and Assyrian texts/iconography, see ANEP 352; Boessneck 1988: 80; Borowski 1999: 97, 107–8; Brewer et al. 1994: 102; CAD P 207, S 330, 332; COS 2.1:7; 2.2A:11–12; 2.2B:16; 2.7:46, 49, 50; Ephʿal 1982: 40, 109; Germond and Livet 2001: 79; Hoffmeier 1994: 228; Houlihan 1996: 36; Lichtheim 1976: 14, 32–33; 1980: 72, 73, 78, 79; Littauer 1971: 25, 27, 30; Nibbi 1979: 161–63; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 137; Owen 1991: 266 n. 7; Weszeli 2004: 472; cf. the bronze horse paraphernalia bearing the Hazael booty inscriptions (COS 2.40A:162). For the provision of šamaganequids to a temple courtyard, see Frayne 2008: 184–85. See also biblical references to the donkey as tribute (Gen 32:15 [MT 32:16], 45:23; cf. 1 Kgs 10:25 // 2 Chr 9:24); cf. §4.2.6. 311.  See Gen 12:16; 24:35; 30:43; 32:5, 15 [MT 32:6, 16]; 43:18; 47:17; Exod 20:17; Num 16:15; Deut 5:21; 22:3; Josh 7:24; 1 Sam 12:3; 1 Chr 27:30; Ezra 2:66–67;

88

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

2.4.2.  Divinatory Texts It is suggested above (see §2.2.2.1) that the behavior of the donkey (and that of other animals) in the Balaam traditions may have an ominous function. The basis for a conclusion of this sort rests on the probability that Balaam was well-versed in omen texts (and animals are, in fact, one of many media that are described in omen texts). The animals that are featured in these texts include sheep, goats, pigs, dogs, foxes, wildcats, otters, oxen, cattle, snakes, insects, birds, and even equids. The equid omens are, of course, the primary interest at present. As for dream omens (cf. the Egyptian and Ugaritic examples above, §§2.1.1.1 and 2.2.1.3), the magnum opus for ancient Near Eastern texts is the 1956 monograph by A. Leo Oppenheim (The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East). Under his discussion of “The Assyrian Dream-Book,” Oppenheim surveys “related omina” that happen to contain a few obscure references to equids. The first reference has to do with meeting horses or donkeys in a dream. 312 The second reference is about the giving of donkey, horse, or onager meat to the dreamer. 313 The third reference is about the giving of donkey, horse, mule, or onager fat/“oil” to the dreamer. 314 In the well-known series called Šumma izbu (which is primarily about birth anomalies), there are occasional references to animal behavior (other than giving birth). These references include animals such as sheep, pigs, dogs, oxen, Neh 7:68; Job 1:3; 24:3; 42:12; Tob 10:10. The donkey as a symbol of wealth can also be seen in Middle Kingdom Egypt (COS 1.43:99, 104; Lichtheim 1973: 89, 170–71, 182; for an example from the Old Kingdom, see Germond and Livet 2001: 53). In Sumerian sources, hybrids (onager × donkey [a n š e -bar.an]) are listed as an item of bridewealth (Greengus 1990: 41–42). In Eblaite, a horse and other hybrids are listed as bridewealth (Greengus 1990: 61–62). Horses are used to signify wealth in Egyptian texts from the New Kingdom and the Late Period (COS 2.7:49; Lichtheim 1976: 171; 1980: 78). See also the bilingual text from Karatepe (Hieroglyphic Luwian and Old Aramaic) in which Azatiwada acquires “horse upon horse” (COS 2.21:125 [§8], 2.31:149; KAI 26 A/1 6–7). 312.  Oppenheim 1956: 275. 313.  Oppenheim 1956: 278. On the consumption of donkey meat in Egyptian and biblical sources, see §§2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.6.18, 4.2.10. Note that dream omens concerning donkey meat are featured in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian divination manuals (cf. COS 1.33:53; see §§2.1.1.1, 2.6.18). 314.  Oppenheim 1956: 280; cf. CAD S 329. Note that a fourth reference to equids may appear on p. 294, where Oppenheim restores the word “horse” in a very fragmentary context. An additional reference to donkeys in Akkadian dream omens can be found in M. Tsevat’s article about a brief inscription found on a clay liver model from old Mari (Tsevat 1962: 10). For further discussion on this text—and on its relationship to the first dream of Gudea—see §3.5.1.

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

89

and donkeys. 315 The donkey omens were not known to be part of the series when Erle Leichty published his edition in 1970 (The Omen Series Šumma Izbu). But in 1980, S. M. Moren (a.k.a. S. M. Freedman) published her discovery that donkey omens were in fact included at the end of tablet XIX. 316 The donkey omens concern the following topics: moaning (lines 140, 144; Text i, rev. lines 11, 17), braying (lines 142, 143; cf. line 101; Text i, rev. lines 15, 16, 27), groaning (Text i, rev. line 12), wandering (line 145; Text i, rev. line 18), biting a horse’s tail (line 146; Text i, rev. line 20), mounting a person (line 148; Text i, rev. line 22), chewing its feet/penis (line 149; Text i, rev. lines 23, 24), twitching its tail (line 150; Text i, rev. lines 25, 26), dancing (Text i, rev. line 13), striking its owner (Text i, rev. line 19), and running (Text i, rev. line 21). 317 The series known as Šumma ālu is devoted to terrestrial (as opposed to celestial) omens. Freedman’s first volume on this series (If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma ālu ina Mēlê Šakin, 1998), which covers tablets 1–21, contains numerous references to animals in the protases. These include the behavior of birds, snakes, ants, foxes, wildcats, otters, dogs, pigs, oxen, animal-demons, and equids. 318 The equid omens are as follows: 5:52 diš zag.du kaṣ-ru-ma anše.kur.ra ana e2 na tu dam lu2 ug7 If, when the doorjambs are put together, a horse enters a man’s house, the man’s wife will die. 319 5:53 diš zag.du kaṣ-ru-ma anše ana e2 na tu dumu.nita lu2 ug7 If, when the doorjambs are put together, a donkey enters a man’s house, the man’s son will die. 320 315. See Leichty 1970: tablets XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXII, XXIII; Moren 1980: 60– 68, 70. 316.  The term for donkey in this tablet is consistently written with anše: “female donkey” (sal.anše), “male donkey” (anše.nitá) and “donkeys” (anše.meš). 317.  These topics are all taken from the protases of tablet XIX (see Moren 1980: 67–70). For moaning/braying/groaning, note the other texts from the ancient Near East that characterize the donkey as noisy or loud (see §§2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5, 2.2.1.3 n.  167, 2.2.2.2, 2.5.2, 2.6.5). For additional (unpublished) omens from Šumma ālu on the same theme, see tablet 43:16, 17, 34′, 43′, 50′–52′ (S. M. Freedman, private communication, June 2008). For mounting a person, cf. Šumma ālu tablet 43:35′: “If an ass mounts a man, that man will be sold for money, or (alternatively) hard times will seize him” (Saggs 1962: 323); see also tablet 43:6, 35′–38′ (S. M. Freedman, private communication, June 2008). For further references to the sexual activity of the donkey in Akkadian texts, see §2.4.3; cf. CAD A/2 483, I–J 112. 318. See Freedman 1998: tablets 2, 5–7, 19, 21 (see also tablets 22–49, 63–80; note that tablets 37–49 contain additional equid omens). See translations of some of these additional equid omens in Largement 1964: 40; Saggs 1962: 323; see also CAD A/2 483, D 39, K 491, M/2 229–30, S 328–29. 319.  Freedman 1998: 92–93. 320.  Freedman 1998: 92–93.

90

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts 6:80 diš ina e2 [na giš sal ḫu]b2 ina e2.sig4 sa-ni-ib ⟨ti⟩-bu kimin pu-uḫ-pu-uḫ-ḫu-u2 ana [e2] If [a mare?] is fastened to the wall of [a man’s] house—an uprising; alternatively, contention for [the house.] 321 6:81 diš ina e[2 na giš sal ḫu]b2 ina e2.sig4 e-ṣir š[u.bi.dil.am3] If [a mare?] is drawn on the wall of [a man’s] house—likewise. 322 7:15 diš ina e2 na giš sal ḫub2 [ina i-ga]-ri sa-ni-ib t[i-bu] u puuḫ-pu-uḫ-ḫu-u ina e2 n[a sad-ru] If a mare? is attached [to the wa]ll in a man’s house, re[bellion, strife] and contention [will be regular] in the man’s house. 323 19:39′ diš ina e2 na ki.uš anše.kur.ra igi e2 bi i-ḫar-ru-ub If the footprint of a horse is seen in a house, that house will be devastated. 324 19:40′ diš ina e2 na ki.uš anše igi e2 bi šu kur-su If the footprint of a donkey is seen in a house, the hand (of a god) will affect that house. 325 19:42′ diš ina e2 na ki.uš gu4 : anše igi e2 bi šu kur-su If the footprint of an ox / donkey is seen in a man’s house, the hand (of a god) will affect that house. 326 19:43′ diš ina e2 na ki.uš gu4 : anše.kur.ra igi e2 bi i-ḫar-ru-ub If the footprint of an ox / horse is seen in a man’s house, that house will be devastated. 327

The references to donkeys (and other equids) in divination texts—such as dream-books, Šumma izbu, and Šumma ālu—serve merely to illustrate one of the many ways that animals were perceived in the ominous world of the an321.  Freedman 1998: 116–17. “Mare”/“jenny” (Akkadian atānu) is based on the reconstruction [giš sal ḫ̮u]b2 (= Sumerian eme x). Freedman restores the text based on 7:15 and an unpublished text (VAT 9900). She says that the reading here is uncertain and that she cannot make sense of the giš (1998: 116 n.  80). S. Greengus recently suggested that giš sal ḫ̮ub2 in 6:80–81 and 7:15 may be interpreted as a construct phrase: “the stick of/for a mare.” He adds: “It would make more sense to see such an object fastened to a wall rather than the entire animal” (private communication, February 2006]). Because the jenny’s stick has ominous significance in these texts, one wonders if Balaam’s maqqēl (Num 22:27b) has similar significance (cf. Moore 1990: 72, 102–3, 111); note also the use of the terms mṭh and ḥṭr in DAPT I:9. 322.  Freedman 1998: 116–17. For the reading “mare?,” see previous note. 323.  Freedman 1998: 130–31. 324.  Freedman 1998: 278–79. 325.  Freedman 1998: 278–79. 326.  Freedman 1998: 278–79. 327.  Freedman 1998: 278–79.

2.4.  Akkadian Sources

91

cient Near East. While the behavior of a donkey is probably no more (or less) ominous than the behavior of any other animal, it is still helpful to be reminded that donkeys could be connected with divination. This connection may prove to be helpful as background information, particularly for the jenny in Num 22:22–35 and generally for the many animals in the Balaam traditions (see §2.2.2.1).

2.4.3.  Animal Fable A large Assyrian tablet from the late eighth century b.c.e. (VAT 8807) preserves a collection of popular sayings that includes short animal fables. 328 One of these fables (rev. IV, lines 15–18) features the act of mating between a male horse and a female mule. 329 The text is transliterated and translated as follows: (15) sīsû 330 ti-bu-ú ina m[u]ḫḫi a-ta-ni pa-re-e ki-i ˹e-lu-ú˺ (16) ki-i šá ra-ak-bu-ú-ma ina uz-ni-šá ú-làḫ-ḫa-áš (17) u[m-ma m]u-ú-ru šá ˹tu-ul-li˺-di ki ia-ti lu la-si-im (18) a-n[a i-me-r]u za-bíl tup-šik-ki la tu-maš-šá-li 331 (15) The rutting horse(-stallion), when he mounts the mule-mare, 332 (16) while mating he whispers in her ear: (17) “Let the foal which you bear be a swift runner like me; (18) do not make him like the [donke]y which carries the basket.” This text is interesting for a number of reasons: (1) it features a talking horse (for further discussion on animal speech, see §2.2.2.1); (2) it is humorous because the mule is a sterile hybrid that cannot bear a foal; (3) it provides another example of equids that are characterized by licentiousness (cf. §§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.2.2.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.2, 2.5.2, 2.6.3, 4.2.2); 333 and (4) it contrasts the 328.  On this text, see Lambert 1960: 213–20; cf. CAD A/2 482, M/2 229, P 206, S 328. 329.  The Akkadian word that I am translating as “mule” is parû. The term is cognate with Hebrew pereʾ but the meaning is not equivalent ( parû designates the mule or hinny, whereas pereʾ designates the Syrian onager). For further reference on parû, see CAD P 206–7; cf. AHw 837a; Heimpel 1990: 602, 605; Landsberger 1960: 50; Zarins 1978: 12–17. For further reference on pereʾ, see Borowski 1998: 90, 91, 126 n. 14; Clutton-Brock 1992: 35, 37, 95; Feliks 1962: 29; HALOT 961–62; In der Smitten 1980: 467; Moore and Brown 1997e: 672–73; SED 2:233–35 (no. 176); Tristram 1898: 41–43; Watson 2006: 446, 2007: 95; Zobel 2003: 72–76; cf. §2.2.2.2. 330.  That is, anše.kur.ra (see CAD S 328). 331.  Lambert 1960: 218. 332.  The terms atāni parê clearly designate the mare of a mule or hinny (cf. CAD P 206, S 328). The translations “jenny-ass” (Lambert 1960: 219) or “she-ass” (CAD A/2 482) are incorrect. 333.  On the sterility of hybrids, see Clutton-Brock 1981: 94–95; 1992: 20, 42, 45, 46; cf. Zarins 1978: 11. For other Akkadian texts that capitalize on the sexual activity

92

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

appealing speed of the horse with the burdensome labor of the donkey (cf. §2.1.1.4 [maxim 24/9]). Both the horse’s speed and the donkey’s burden are well-known c haracteristics that need no further elaboration. 334

2.5.  Sumerian Sources Sumerian sources are rich with ceremonial and symbolic information about donkeys. The texts that are selected for discussion below include the Gudea Cylinders, various proverbs, the “Death of Ur-Namma” A, an elegy on the death of Nawirtum, and En-metena’s building of the E-muš Temple.

2.5.1.  The Gudea Cylinders The Gudea Cylinders, from the end of the third millennium b.c.e., recount the building of the Eninnu temple by Gudea, who was the ruler (ensi2) of Lagash. 335 In Gudea’s first dream, he sees a donkey stallion at the king’s right side, pawing the ground for him (Cylinder A v.10). 336 After he relates his dream to Nanshe, she interprets this detail as follows (Cylinder A vi.12–13): of the donkey, see CAD A/2 483, I–J 112; Moren 1980: 68, 70; Saggs 1962: 323; cf. §2.4.2. 334.  I would venture to say that there is probably no reference anywhere in ancient Near Eastern texts that attributes speed to the donkey (although, see §2.5.1 [probably a hybrid]). The donkey is also characterized by slowness in Egyptian and Sumerian sources (see §§2.1.1.4, 2.5.2, 2.6.7). The horse, on the other hand, is as “swift as a leopard” (COS 3.2:12; cf. Hab 1:8). The Bible refers to the speed of the horse on numerous occasions (e.g., Esth 8:10, 14; Job 39:21, 24; Isa 5:28; 30:16; Jer 4:13; 12:5; Hab 1:8). 335.  For a full translation of both cylinders, see Jacobsen 1987: 386–444; Wilson 1996. For an abbreviated translation of both cylinders, see R. E. Averbeck (in COS 2.155:417–33). For smaller selections, see ANET 268; Suter 2000: 393–98; Oppenheim 1956: 211–12, 245–46. For a full transliteration of both cylinders, see Wilson 1996. 336.  Gudea’s first dream: The signs rendered “donkey stallion” in the Gudea cylinders are: a n š e - d u 24- ù r; anšed u 24- ù r; anšed u r 9; d ù r (transliterations are according to Wilson’s edition [1996: 202, 207, 209]); cf. Ellermeier 1979: 60–61; 1980: 441–42; Heimpel 1968: 264–69 (“Eselhengst”). The translation “donkey stallion” is used by Jacobsen (1987: 393, 395–97, 433, 437) and Averbeck (COS 2.155:421). For further discussion (and debate) on additional Sumerian terms for equids, see Heimpel 1968: 257–80; Postgate 1986: 194–201; Stepień 1996: 29–31; Zarins 1978: 3–17, 1986: 183– 88; cf. Clutton-Brock 1992: 89. I am doubtful about the identification of Gudea’s equid as a mere “donkey”; a hybrid makes better sense in the context. Because hybrids were more “highly esteemed” and “were preferred, although not exclusively, for the towing of war-chariots” (Postgate 1986: 200), they would seem to be more appropriate gifts (than would donkeys) from a ruler to a deity. Note also that Gudea’s donkeys are described as “panthers chosen for their speed”—a description that suits the hybrid much better than the purebred don-

2.5.  Sumerian Sources

93

dur 9 á-zid-da lugal-zag-ke 4 ki ma-ra-ḫur-ḫur-a-šè zé-me é-ninnu m[ur]?-ni-is-qú-gin 7 ki im-ši-ḫur-e 337

anše

With regard to the donkey stallion pawing the ground for you at the right side of your king, it is you pawing the ground like a choice donkey (eager to get) at the Eninnu. 338 The symbolism of the donkey here is noteworthy because (1) the donkey represents the ruler (Gudea), and (2) the donkey is depicted positively as a work animal that is ready and able to commence work on the temple. Thus, Gudea is here depicted as “chomping at the bit,” so to speak. Following her interpretation of the first dream, Nanshe advises Gudea to fashion a chariot harnessed to donkey stallions and to present it to Ningirsu so as to incubate a second dream (Cylinder A vi.17–18). 339 Gudea complies (Cylinder A vii.19–21; cf. Cylinder B ix.15–20, xvi.15–16) 340 and the second dream is given. After Ningirsu and Baba are inducted into the new Eninnu, Gudea presents housewarming gifts that include another chariot harnessed to donkey stallions (Cylinder B xiii.18–20). 341 Both of these donkey-drawn chariots were gifts to Ningirsu that were placed in the temple precincts. 342 They bore the emblem of Ningirsu and were designed to transport the deity on his ritual journeys. The donkeys were described key. See Clutton-Brock’s helpful discussion on the Sumerian hybrids (1992: 42–44, 45, 85, 89). See Jacobsen 1987: 393; Oppenheim 1956: 245; Wilson 1996: 29–30. Note that the presence of donkeys in dreams has become a theme in the present chapter (cf. §§2.1.1.1, 2.2.1.3, 2.4.2, 2.6.9). M. Tsevat suggests that Gudea (as a donkey stallion) is referred to in an inscription found on a clay liver model from old Mari. The brief inscription is transliterated and translated as follows: in šu-un-ti-šu anše.nitá a-mur, “In his dream a male donkey was seen” (Tsevat 1962: 10). Tsevat explains: the omen text chooses for reference that word which symbolizes Gudea most characteristically: the “donkey.” . . . When Gudea consulted omens prior to the construction of Eninnu, the shape of the livers of the ominous animals, or one of them, was that of this clay model. Whenever a future hepatoscopist observes a liver formed like this clay model, the fate inquired about will be like the fate of Gudea’s undertaking, which was “good,” ì-sig 5. (Tsevat 1962: 10)

337.  Wilson 1996: 33. 338.  COS 2.155:421 (Averbeck); cf. Jacobsen 1987: 395; Oppenheim 1956: 246; Wilson 1996: 33–34. 339. See COS 1.155:421; Jacobsen 1987: 395–96; Wilson 1996: 34–35. 340. See Jacobsen 1987: 397, 433, 439; Suter 2000: 393; Wilson 1996: 39–40, 156–57, 177. 341.  See Jacobsen 1987: 437; Suter 2000: 396; Wilson 1996: 168. 342.  This whole scenario is very reminiscent of 2 Kgs 23:11, which attests to the presence of chariots and horses in the precincts of the Jerusalem temple that were dedi-

94

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

as “panthers chosen for their speed” (Cylinder A vii.20 [pirig kas 4 -e pàda]) and as a “very well roaring storm” (Cylinder B xiii.19 [u 4 gù dùgdùg-ga]). 343 Additionally, these same donkey-drawn chariots were actually depicted on four fragments of a stela from Tello. 344

2.5.2. Proverbs Sumerian proverbs are based largely on matters of everyday life. It is therefore no surprise that many proverbs are based on the behavior of domesticated animals. 345 Whereas the “donkey” (anše) is extensively featured in the Sumerian collections, the other equids (horse, onager, and hybrid) are referenced in only a handful of instances. 346 A perusal of Bendt Alster’s Proverbs of Ancient Sumer (1997) reveals that the donkey is characterized as lazy/stubborn (SP 1.68; 2.74; 5.39, 45, 48, 51; 14.15′; 25.6), a pack animal (SP 1.68; 2.73; 5.39, 45; 14.15′; 21 §A 16; 25.6), slow (SP 2.74, 75), noisy/braying (SP 2.75, 76; 5.48; COS 1.176:569 [saying 14]), smelly (SP 2.76, 79, 80), farting (SP 2.80), having a large appetite (SP 2.77; N 3395 obv. 2; UET 6/2 235), stupid (SP 2.77), lustful (SP 2.78, 81; 5.44), a runaway (SP 2.82; 3.114; 9 §A 8; 10.9; 17 §B 3; UET 6/2 311), a draft animal (SP 3.1; 21 §A 16), valuable (SP 5.46), and a recipient of beatings (SP 5.48, 51). Additionally, the donkey is represented as a speaking character (SP 5.39, 50). cated to the sun (Shamash?) by the kings of Judah. For comparison, note that Ur-Namma presented a chariot and “donkeys” to Ningishzida in the netherworld (see §2.5.3). 343.  Cylinder A vii.20: Translation and transliteration by Suter (2000: 393). Jacobsen translates: “lion revealed by (its) running,” and he interprets the description as a proper name for the donkey (1987: 397). See further discussion in Wilson 1996: 39–40 n. 5. Cylinder B xiii.19: Translation and transliteration by Suter (2000: 396). Jacobsen translates: “storm of strident voice” (1987: 437). 344. See Suter 2000: fragments ST.14, 27, 61, and 62. Suter explains: “Although all four chariots are fragmentary, enough remains to construct a relatively complete composite image. The chariot had two wheels, and was drawn by two equids, as shown by the overlapping mane and pair of ears of a second equid on ST.14” (2000: 186). Suter further states: “the chariots on the stelae occurred most likely in a scene depicting their bestowal, together with other gifts, during the inauguration of the temple” (2000: 188; cf. p. 288). 345.  For collections of Sumerian proverbs, see Alster 1997; cf. COS 1.174–76:563– 70; Kramer 1959: 119–35. All of the Sumerian proverb (“SP,” etc.) citations in this paragraph are from Alster’s 1997 edition. 346.  For the donkey, see the following references in Alster’s edition: SP 1.68; 2.73– 82; 3.1, 114; 5.39, 41′, 42–52; 9 §A 8; 10.9; 14.15′; 17 §B 3; 21 §§A 16, 25.6; N 3395; N 4248, and UET 6/2 315; UET 6/2 235; UET 6/2 311. Note that Sumerian anše can designate a donkey (Equus asinus) or it can be the generic designation for “equid” (see Postgate 1986: 194). For the horse (s is i x [anše.kur]), see SP 5.37, 38 (note especially the early reference to riding in 5.38). For the onager (anše-eden-na), see SP 5.49; N 3395 rev. 4; cf. COS 1.176:569 (saying 48). For the hybrid (a nš e -kúnga [šú.an]), see SP 21 §A 16; UET 6/2 233; cf. Zarins 1978: 13.

2.5.  Sumerian Sources

95

2.5.3.  “Death of Ur-Namma” A Ur-Namma, who established the Third Dynasty of Ur, reigned from 2112 to 2095 b.c.e. He was known as a pious and peaceful king, but he apparently met his death in battle at a relatively early age. His premature death is the subject of a hymnic text that describes Ur-Namma’s elaborate burial in Ur as well as the offerings that he presented to the deities who inhabit the netherworld. Regarding his burial, the text states: (70)   l ugal x [anše]-ni ba-da-dur 2-ru anše ki mu-un-di-ni   ib–tum 2 (71)   u r- d /namma\ (x) anše-ni ba-⟨da-dur 2 -ru anše ki    mu-un-di-ni-ib–tum 2 ⟩ His donkeys were to be found with the king; they were buried with him. His donkeys were to be found with Ur-Namma; they were buried with him. 347 Donkeys (or hybrids) are mentioned again when the text enumerates UrNamma’s many extravagant gifts to the netherworld deities. It is stated that he offered a chariot with “donkeys” to Ningishzida. 348 This text is very important to the present study because it describes what is now visible in Near Eastern archaeology. Many human graves from the third millennium b.c.e. have been identified in Mesopotamia that contain intact equids along with draft implements (see §3.4). The equids in these burials (and in the above text) seem to function as grave goods (or “funerary furnishings”) which the deceased could employ in the afterlife (see §3.7.1). A new piece of information which this text reveals is that one of the ways to employ chariots/equids (or any other grave goods) in the afterlife was to present them as an offering to a netherworld deity. This raises an interesting question as to whether grave goods were primarily intended to meet the personal and material needs of the deceased in the afterlife or to secure a welcome for the deceased in the netherworld. 349 This question is difficult to answer, and the 347.  Both the transliteration and the translation are from the ETCSL web site http:// etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ (accessed 18 March 2011) text §2.4.1.1; cf. Kramer 1967: 118 (line 71); Zarins 1986: 181. For background on Ur-Namma, see Hallo and Simpson 1998: 72–75. 348.  See lines 115–16 on the ETCSL web site (see also the version from Susa, Segment C, line 47); cf. Kramer 1967: 119 (lines 114–15); Zarins 1986: 181. The word/ sign used for donkey(s) in this text is always a n š e. It should be reiterated here that anše can denote either donkeys or equids in general (see Postgate 1986: 194; cf. Zarins 1986: 181). I would suggest that the equids in this text were most likely hybrids (donkeyonager) because they are specifically associated with a chariot, and hybrids are superior draft animals (being stronger and faster than purebred donkeys). 349.  I must thank S. Greengus for raising this question and suggesting this new interpretation (private communication, February 2006).

96

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

two options need not be mutually exclusive.

2.5.4.  Elegy on the Death of Nawirtum An elegy about the death of the priestess Nawirtum is here transliterated and translated in part by Samuel Greengus. The text states that the god Ninurta was unhappy (137)    n in-dingir ki-ág-gá-a-ni gi 6 -pàr-šè la-ba-ni-in-ku 4     ra-ri Because (?) his beloved entu was not made to enter the gipāru, (138)    eme x(sal-ḫ̮̮úb) dam-šè mu-ni-pà-da níg-dé-a-šè šu     nu-mu-un-bu-dè [Akkadian gloss:] šu-mu-úḫ-ti a-na mu-ti ú-za-ki-ru The voluptuous woman named (i.e., selected) for a husband, unto (her) bridewealth did not stretch forth her hand (to receive it). 350 What makes this text interesting for the present study is the use of the term eme x (= Akkadian atānu, “mare, jenny”). 351 The Akkadian gloss for line 138, which is incorporated into the translation of Greengus, equates eme x with šummuḫtu/šamḫatu. This text is unique not only because it employs the term for jenny in a cultic context but also because the term is specifically applied to a human priestess.

2.5.5.  En-metena’s Building of the E-muš Temple En-metena was a ruler of Lagaš in the Pre-Sargonic period (2700–2350 b.c.e.). Foundation tablets recovered from Tell al-Madāʾin record En-metena’s building of the E-muš Temple in the city of Pa-tibira (located about 33 km SW of Girsu). Selections from the text read as follows: Col. i (1) d lugal-é-mùš-ra (2) en-te.me-na (3) énsi-

(i 1) For the god Lugalemuš, 352 (i 2–4) En-metena, ruler of Lagaš,

350.  Greengus 1990: 82. The text was initially published by S. n. Kramer (for the relevant lines, see Kramer 1960: 56, 63, 67–68, 70). I must thank S. Greengus for bringing this obscure text to my attention (private communication, February 2006). This text is also translated (and transliterated) on the ETCSL website: “because his beloved nin-diĝir priestess did not enter the ĝipar, the she-ass which had been chosen as a mate is not accepted as an offering” (text 5.5.3, lines 25–26). Unfortunately, the ETCSL translation does not acknowledge or incorporate the Akkadian gloss, which has been confirmed by M. Civil (see Greengus 1990: 82 n. 226). 351.  Heimpel renders e m e x as “Eselin” (1968: 264). 352.  Lugalemuš is “likely a form of the god Dumuzi” (Frayne 2008: 193).

2.6. Summary

97

(4) lagaš(nu10.bur.la).ki (5) šà-pà-da- (i 5–6) chosen in the heart by the   goddess Nanše, (6) d nanše (7) [é]nsi-gal- d nin-gír-sú-ka (i 7) chief [ex]ecutive for the god   Ningirsu Col. iii (1) é-[d]u 24-ùr-zi-le (iii 1–2) built the E-durzile   (“House—Princely (2) mu-na-dù    Male Donkeys”). 353 This unique text is the only extant instance of identifying a temple—or perhaps part of a temple—with donkey terminology. It is difficult to determine what a designation such as this might signify. It could imply that the deity was manifested in the form of a donkey 354 or that the temple was a breeding ground for highly valued equids. 355 But the designation may also imply that donkeys (or representations of donkeys) were presented as gifts to the resident deity (cf. §§2.5.1, 2.5.3). 356

2.6. Summary Many of the observations and suggestions in this chapter are scattered and piecemeal. It is therefore necessary to delineate the main ideas pertaining to the symbolic/ceremonial significance of the donkey in ancient Near Eastern (and some biblical) sources. Twenty-one conclusions are summarized below in no particular order. Many of the conclusions are interrelated, and none of them should be taken in isolation. 2.6.1.  The “beast of burden”: The donkey is widely characterized as the beast of burden par excellence. The symbolism of the pack-animal underlies instructions, proverbs, ritual, and fable. This image is perhaps the most basic and prevalent one found throughout ancient Near Eastern texts. In the above texts, it occurs in Egyptian (§§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5), Aramaic (§2.2.2.2), Hittite (§2.3.2), Akkadian (§2.4.3), and Sumerian (§2.5.2) sources. It is also amply illustrated in biblical literature (§4.2.1) and in ancient Near Eastern 353. Both the transliteration and the translation are by Douglas Frayne (2008: 203–4). 354.  Cf. the Isin “dog house” (é - u r - g i 7- r a), a temple dedicated to Ninisina in the 19th century b.c.e. (see Livingstone 1988: 54–60; cf. §1.6.3.2). 355.  It has been suggested that a temple precinct at Tell Brak functioned as an equid breeding ground (see §3.3.5). 356.  In fact, a statue fragment records that En-metena’s predecessor, En-anatum I, provisioned a temple courtyard with šamagan-equids (see Frayne 2008: 184–85; cf. pp. 259, 262, 267).

98

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

iconography. 357 Additionally, if personal transportation is included under the rubric of the “beast of burden,” the following examples also deserve mention: §§2.1.1.3, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.4.1.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.8, 4.5, 4.6. 2.6.2.  The donkey is characterized as having a large appetite. Statements and images to this effect are present in instructions and proverbs as well as in mythology. 358 Examples are noted for Egyptian (§§2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.4), Ugaritic (§2.2.1.5), and Sumerian (§2.5.2) sources. It is interesting that the English language uses a comparable image in the simile “eats like a horse.” 2.6.3.  The donkey is widely characterized as a lustful, promiscuous, or licentious animal. This is evident in curses, proverbs, rituals, omens and fables. Examples are cited in Egyptian (§§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4), Aramaic (§2.2.2.2), Hittite (§2.3.2), Akkadian (§§2.4.2, 2.4.3), and Sumerian (§2.5.2) sources. This characterization is also present in the Bible (especially in Ezek 23:20; see §4.2.2) and is implied in Egyptian iconography (see §2.1.1.3). 2.6.4.  The “lazy ass”: The donkey is characterized as stubborn and/or lazy in instructions, school texts, proverbs, and a historiographic account. Examples are found in Egyptian (§§2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4), Aramaic (§2.2.2.2), Hittite (§2.3.4), and Sumerian (§2.5.2) sources. The Bible also contains a number of references of this sort (see Gen 49:14b; Exod 23:5; Num 22:23, 25, 27; Deut 22:4; Prov 26:3). Stubbornness or laziness can often result in beatings (cf. §§2.1.1.3, 2.5.2; Num 22:23, 25, 27; Prov 26:3). The stubbornness and (resulting) brutal treatment of the donkey are depicted in Egyptian iconography. 359 2.6.5.  The donkey is characterized as noisy in its braying. This characterization is found in instructions, epics, omens, and proverbs. Examples are cited in Egyptian (§§2.1.1.4, 2.1.1.5), Northwest Semitic (§§2.2.1.3 n. 167, 2.2.2.2), Akkadian (§2.4.2), and Sumerian (§2.5.2) sources. The donkey’s braying is excessively loud (§2.2.2.2). It is often an act of complaining (§2.1.1.5; cf. Job 6:5 [onager]); therefore, it lacks substance and can be safely ignored (§2.1.1.4). 2.6.6.  The “dumb ass”: The donkey is characterized as stupid or as lacking in understanding. This characterization is expressed in an Egyptian school text (§2.1.1.3) and in a Sumerian proverb (§2.5.2). The Egyptian text resembles Ps 32:9 with the exception that the psalm mentions the horse and mule rather than the donkey. 2.6.7.  The donkey is characterized as a slow moving animal. Examples to this effect are found in Egyptian instructions (§2.1.1.4), Akkadian fable (§2.4.3), and Sumerian proverbs (§2.5.2). Both the Egyptian and the Akkadian sources contrast the slowness of the donkey with the speed of the horse. 357. E.g., ANEP 3; Houlihan 1996: 30, 31, pl. XIII; Keel and Staubli 2003: 35, 36. 358.  The large appetite of the donkey is also the basis for a number of (unpublished) equid omens from Šumma alu, viz., tablet 43:20–24, 66′–70′ (S. M. Freedman, private communication, June 2008). 359. See Boessneck 1988: 78, fig. 129; Houlihan 1996: 30, pl. XIII.

2.6. Summary

99

2.6.8.  The donkey is characterized as having a foul odor. This characterization is present only in Sumerian, which preserves a handful of proverbs on the subject (see §2.5.2). Some of these have to do with cleanliness and others with farting. 2.6.9.  The donkey is widely associated with divination. This association is observed in late-third-millennium Sumer (§2.5.1), early-second-millennium Egypt (§2.1.1.1), late-second-millennium Ugarit (§2.2.1.3), second–firstmillennium Mesopotamia (§2.4.2), and, I would suggest, at first-millennium Deir ʿAlla (§2.2.2.1; cf. Numbers 22–24). The donkey is particularly common in dream omens (§§2.1.1.1, 2.2.1.3, 2.4.2, 2.5.1). Interestingly, the consumption of donkey meat occurs in dream omens from both Egypt and Mesopotamia (§§2.1.1.1, 2.4.2). The behavior of the donkey is a means of divination in Ugaritic (§2.2.1.3), Akkadian (§2.4.2), and, I would suggest, in biblical and Old Aramaic sources (§§2.2.2.1, 4.2.4, 4.5.1, 4.6.2). While the behavior of a donkey is probably no more (or less) ominous than the behavior of any other animal, it is still helpful to be reminded that donkeys could be connected with divination. 2.6.10.  The donkey is associated with the lion in instructions and proverbs from Egyptian (§§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4) and Aramaic (§2.2.2.2) sources. In Egyptian, Aramaic, and even in biblical sources, the two animals are portrayed as a peaceful pair (§§2.1.1.3, 2.2.2.2, 4.2.5, 4.6): this is obviously ironic because the donkey could suffice as an easy meal for the lion! The respective temperaments and speeds of these animals are contrasted in the Egyptian sources (§§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4). 2.6.11.  The donkey is associated with the serpent in a funerary text, an instruction, and an historiola (where the species of the equid is unknown). This association is present in Egyptian (§§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4) and Ugaritic (§2.2.1.4) sources. All three of these sources—as well as Gen 49:17 (horse and serpent)— express the rivalry between equids and serpents (cf. §1.6.3.4). 2.6.12. “Equidy”: The donkey is associated with value. The value of the donkey is specifically discussed in connection with an Akkadian text from Mari (§2.4.1.3; cf. §2.5.2), but the intrinsic value of the donkey is assumed virtually everywhere in the ancient Near Eastern world (note its value for loadbearing, hauling, transporting, breeding, threshing, etc). Donkeys are actually a form of capital in the ancient Near Eastern world, and the mention of donkeys in various texts is often made to signify wealth (see §2.4.1.3). The donkey is also therefore common as an item of booty or tribute (§2.4.1.3; cf. §2.5.1). The same remarks can be made regarding donkeys in biblical literature: they comprise booty, tribute, and wealth in general (see §4.2.6). 2.6.13.  The donkey is associated with sick or weak people. That is, the donkey serves as the wheelchair of the ancient world. This function is evident in an Egyptian school text that describes the humble lot of the sick soldier

100

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

(§2.1.1.3). It is also noteworthy that the donkey is pictured as a transport for children. 360 In the Bible, donkeys are employed to transport women and children as well as the sick and injured (see §4.2.7). 2.6.14.  The donkey is associated with socio-economic status. That is, the donkey serves as a mount for people of high standing—nobility/aristocracy (§2.2.1.2), prophets (§§2.2.2.1, 2.4.1.3, 4.5, 4.6), royalty (§§2.2.1.2, 2.3.3, 2.4.1.2; 1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Sam 16:1–2; 19:26 [MT 19:27]; Zech 9:9), 361 deity (§2.2.1.2), and so on. There is extensive documentation for the donkey as a status symbol in biblical, Levantine, Anatolian, and Mesopotamian sources, but there is not a trace of textual evidence for this symbolism in ancient Egypt. In fact, the donkey is largely a negative symbol in ancient Egypt (see §2.1 passim): it is rarely ridden by Egyptians and is regarded as the travel-mount of lowly foreigners (see §2.1.1.3). Another indicator of status may be the descriptive emphasis that is often placed on the preparation of the donkey for travel. Repeated references to “tying/tacking up” the donkey are found in Ugaritic and biblical literature (see §§2.2.1.2, 4.2.8). The status-element in this scenario is occasionally made explicit when a high status individual is said to command (a) lower-status individual(s) to prepare his/her means of transport (see §§2.2.1.2, 4.2.8). In addition, the presence of servants with donkey-riders is attested in biblical and Ugaritic sources (see §§2.2.1.2, 4.2.8), and it is also depicted on stelae from the Sinai (see §2.2.1.2). 2.6.15.  The donkey is associated with death. This association first appears in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, where the precise role of the donkey is very obscure (Spells #40 and #125; see §2.1.1.3). It is also noteworthy that 70 donkeys (or roebucks?) were sacrificed with other animals at the funeral of Baʿlu (see §2.2.1.1). In the Bible, the donkey can function as a transport for a corpse and can also lead its rider directly or indirectly toward death (see §4.2.9). One must wonder whether the connection between death and donkeys is coincidental or whether there is something more to this. Could these observations be brought to bear on the interpretation of Bronze Age donkey burials in the Near East (see chap. 3, especially §§3.7.1, 3.7.2)? 2.6.16.  The donkey functions as the bearer of impurity in the so-called scapegoat ritual. The only clear text witnessing to the donkey in this connection is Hittite (§2.3.2). The selection of the donkey as the “scapegoat” seems most appropriate because the donkey is the ideal beast of burden. It is inter360. Cf. ANEP 3, 10. 361.  Note, however, that royalty seems to prefer the mule for transport. This is probably due to its higher price tag and to its superiority over the donkey in matters of speed and strength (see §2.4.1.2). While the donkey may be likened to a MercedesBenz, the mule may be likened to a Rolls-Royce.

2.6. Summary

101

esting that even when a different animal is employed for this ritual (e.g., the puppy), the animal is still described as though it were a donkey. 2.6.17.  The “divine equine”: The donkey functions as a divine symbol. The only clear case of a “donkey deity” is Seth (§2.1.2), the Egyptian god of confusion, who is also associated with a number of other animals. Interestingly, both Seth and the donkey are infamous for their licentious behavior and are viewed negatively as foreigners in ancient Egypt. Both of them are also associated with the desert. But whether the donkey or Seth was the first to bear these associations is probably as unknowable as the case of the chicken and the egg. A second—less clear—case of a “donkey deity” is that of the Mare (pḥlt) in the Ugaritic historiola (§2.2.1.4). Some scholars regard her to be a deity because of her pedigree (daughter of Šapšu), marital status (wife of Ḥôrānu), and ability to communicate with the principal deities of Ugarit. But the interpretation of KTU 1.100 is difficult, and pḥlt is unattested elsewhere as anything other than a flesh-and-blood female equid (species ambiguous). 2.6.18.  The donkey serves as food in extreme circumstances. In both Egyptian and biblical sources (§§2.1.1.2, 4.2.10), a famine forces people to eat donkey meat. Under normal circumstances, the donkey is not considered for eating because of its obvious pragmatic and monetary value. Of course, in ancient Israel, equids are considered unclean according to the dietary laws (cf. Lev 11:2–7, Deut 14:4–8). Interestingly, the rare practice of eating donkey meat is the subject of dream omens in both Egypt and Mesopotamia (§§2.1.1.1, 2.4.2). A different but related matter concerns the eating of donkey meat on solemn or ceremonial occasions. While eating and drinking may have been a part of the Mari treaty ceremonies (see §2.4.1.1), there is no direct textual evidence to suggest that the slain donkey served as an entrée. The archaeological aspect of this subject is addressed in chap. 3 with reference to donkey burials that exhibit cut marks on the bones or missing body parts (see especially §3.7.1; cf. §3.7.3). 2.6.19.  The donkey serves as a sacrificial offering associated with deity. The textual evidence for donkey offerings only exists in two or three texts from Ugarit (§2.2.1.1). In KTU 1.6, 70 donkeys (or roebucks?) are offered along with other animals at the funeral of Baʿlu. The offerings are said repeatedly to serve “as a gmn(?) of Mighty Baʿlu.” Are these animals slaughtered as food? If so, are they food for Baʿlu or for the attendees of the funeral? In KTU 1.40, a donkey is slaughtered in order to assure “rectitude” and “well-being” for the inhabitants of Ugarit. This offering is directed to ʾIlu and his “sons.” Finally, in KTU 1.119, there is a fragmentary reference to the offering of “a donkey for [. . .].” Because this sacrifice was carried out at the temple of ʾIlu, it may also have been directed to ʾIlu.

102

Chapter 2:  The Donkey in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Table 1.  Comparison of Mari Customs Ugaritic (KTU 1.40)

Amorite (Mari Texts)

Phrases

“donkey of rectitude” (ʿr mšr)

“donkey of peace” (ḫayaram ša salīmim)

Concepts

“rectitude” (mšr) and “well-being” (npy)

“peace” (salīmum) and “good relations” (damqatum)

Terminology “rectitude/uprightness” (mšr) “slaughter” (nkt)

“speaking uprightly” (dabābum išariš) “kill” (qatālum)

2.6.20.  The donkey serves as a ceremonial sacrifice. Donkey sacrifice is only attested in the Ugaritic and Mari texts (see §§2.2.1.1, 2.4.1.1). The two or three cases of donkey sacrifice in Ugaritic are mentioned above (§2.6.19). It should be noted, however, that these are not homogeneous. KTU 1.6 (if it refers to a donkey sacrifice!) must be distinguished from KTU 1.40 and 1.119 on the basis of vocabulary, dating, and genre. KTU 1.40 and 1.119 share similar vocabulary but must be distinguished from each other based on the fact that KTU 1.40 has no stated time frame or location, whereas KTU 1.119 is carried out annually in the Temple of ʾIlu. The numerous references to donkey sacrifice in the Mari texts are all related to Amorite treaty ceremonies. Similarities and differences between the Mari customs and KTU 1.40 are noted briefly in table 1. But one must keep in mind that there is no reference to the concept of “treaty” in KTU 1.40. Furthermore, the Ugaritic rituals in KTU 1.40 and 1.119 are from the early 12th century b.c.e, whereas the Mari texts are from the early 18th century b.c.e.—a gap of approximately 600 years! A possible relationship between some of the Bronze Age donkey burials and these sacrificial texts from Ugarit and Mari is addressed in chap. 3 (see §§3.7.2, 3.7.5; cf. §5.2.2). 2.6.21.  Finally, donkeys can serve as grave goods (or “funerary furnishings”) for use in the afterlife of the deceased. This is evident in Sumerian sources (see §2.5.3) that describe a royal burial that included donkeys. This practice is now also well attested in Near Eastern archaeology (see chap. 3). The Sumerian text therefore has direct bearing on the interpretation of donkey burials that are associated with human graves (see §3.7.1).

Chapter 3

The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology 3.1. Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1.  Tell el-Dabʿa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.  Tell Farasha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3.  Tell el-Maskhuta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4. Inshas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.5. Abusir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.6. Helwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.7. Tarkhan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.8. Abydos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Israel-Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1.  Tel ʿAkko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Shiqmona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. Shechem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4. Azor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5. Jericho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.6.  Tel Miqne-Ekron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.7.  Tel Beth-Shemesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.8. Lachish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.9.  Tell el-ʿAjjul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.10.  Tell Jemmeh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.11.  Tel Haror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1.  Umm el-Marra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.  Tell Halawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3.  Tell Banat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.  Tall Biʿa/Tuttul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5.  Tell Brak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. al-ʿUsiyah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2.  Tell Madhur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3.  Tell Razuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4.  Tell Abu Qasim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5.  Tell Ababra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.6. Kish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.7.  Abu Salabikh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

106 106 112 112 113 114 114 115 116 116 117 117 117 118 118 120 120 121 121 127 129 133 134 136 136 137 137 141 142 142 143 143 143 144 145

104

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

3.4.8. Lagash/al-Hiba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.9. Ur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.  Historical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7. Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1.  Donkey Burials Associated with Human Graves . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2.  Donkey Burials Unrelated to Human Graves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3.  Donkey Burials beneath Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.4.  Donkey Burials in a Fill above a Temple Complex . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.5.  Donkey Burials in a Special Tomb beside a Temple . . . . . . . . . 3.7.6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146 147 148 149 150 151 155 157 157 158 158

The present chapter examines the deliberate deposition of donkey remains. This means “burials” are the primary concern. Deliberate donkey burials can be associated with human graves or with architecture of any sort (e.g., a wall or a temple). They can also stand alone—apart from graves or buildings—as long as they appear to be deliberate. Deliberate burials can include disarticulated as well as articulated skeletal remains. The subject of deliberate donkey burials falls mainly under the purview of the “ceremonial significance” of the donkey (though there are many instances for which the evidence has implications for “symbolic significance”). Whereas this chapter is devoted to the archaeology of the donkey, it is not a general survey of donkey remains in the ancient Near East. Equid bones have been recovered from virtually every site where animal bones were conserved by excavators. Most of these animal bones are found disarticulated in midden contexts (i.e., garbage deposits). Bone evidence of this sort is not the focus of the present chapter. Likewise, intact equid skeletons that were buried and sealed in collapses due to warfare or accident are also not the focus of this study. Only one other attempt has been made by previous scholars to survey the extant evidence for deliberate equid burials in the ancient Near East, by Paula Wapnish in 1997. 1 Wapnish begins with a report on the contribution of Tell Jemmeh (in southern Israel) to the present discussion. Following her careful presentation on the Tell Jemmeh equids, she surveys (by way of comparison) all of the equid burials from the ancient Near East (including Egypt and Greece [Dendra only]). However, it should be noted that the present survey provides a significant update (because much has transpired since 1997) and, in many places, a significant clarification on the details of a given burial. The present 1.  Special attention must also be paid to the article by J. Zarins (1986) that surveys the extant equid burials from Mesopotamia. For a summary of Zarins’s contribution, see §3.4.

Introduction

105

survey also includes nine additional sites that were not discussed by Wapnish—Abusir and Abydos in Egypt, Umm el-Marra, Tell Banat, and Tall Biʿa/ Tuttul in Syria, and the sites of Shiqmona, Shechem, Tel Miqne-Ekron, and Tel Beth-Shemesh in Israel-Palestine. On the other hand, Wapnish includes one site that I omit (Tell Rubeideh in Iraq) because, in my view, the Uruk-period (i.e., fourth millennium b.c.e.) donkey remains bear no indication of a deliberate burial. 2 The strength of Wapnish’s contribution is, of course, her expertise in paleozoology (I thus defer to her on these matters). The strength of the present survey, however, is that it is part of a larger research agenda (regarding ceremonial and symbolic concerns) that incorporates extensive philological, literary, and historical data (see chaps. 2 and 4). The survey below focuses on sites in the so-called Fertile Crescent (which I take to include Egypt, Israel-Palestine, Syria, and Iraq). The four regions here examined follow the shape of the crescent from west to east. Within each geopolitical division, the sites are usually arranged from north to south. The earliest burials that are examined below are from the Archaic period in Egypt, and the latest are from the Iron Age I in Israel (thus spanning 2,000 years, ca. 3000–1000 b.c.e.). The majority of burials from Egypt and Israel-Palestine come from the Middle Bronze Age (second millennium b.c.e.), whereas the majority of burials from Syria and Iraq come from the Early Bronze Age (third millennium b.c.e.). The archaeological data in this chapter are selected with special attention to the following objectives: • To identify the species of equid.  Are the bones identified (by paleozoologists) as donkey, horse, onager, or hybrid? • To identify evidence for deliberate burial activity.  Why not interpret the equid remains as a trash deposit? • To describe the context of each equid burial.  Is the burial associated with any human or other animal remains? Is it associated with any artifacts or architecture? • To describe the nature of the equid remains.  How many equids are represented in a given burial? Are the skeletons articulated or disarticulated? Do the remains represent complete or incomplete equids? Are disarticulated bones in a unique configuration? Do the 2. See Payne 1988: 98–104; Wapnish 1997: 355, 362. Payne’s interpretive remark on the donkey remains from Tell Rubeideh is worth noting: “One possible explanation for these articulated limbs is that they may have been buried in pits as ritual offerings, as, presumably, is the case for the whole skeletons in the later graves; another more prosaic explanation is that they may simply have been buried as rubbish” (1988: 103). Payne’s second suggestion (“rubbish”) seems the most likely scenario to me given the fragmentary state of the remains and the lack of any association with a human grave (note that all the equid burials from Iraq in the third millennium b.c.e. are associated with human graves).

106

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

articulated skeletons display a noteworthy position or orientation? Do the bones exhibit evidence of burning or butchery? • To establish the date of each equid burial. • To consider the meaning of each equid burial.  Are any interpretations suggested in the published reports? Are there any additional interpretive possibilities?

3.1. Egypt Egyptian excavations provide a wide spectrum of data on donkey burials. The sites that are analyzed below are arranged from north to south. The first four sites (Tell el-Dabʿa, Tell Farasha, Tell el-Maskhuta, and Inshas) are located in the eastern Delta. All four of them exhibit donkey burials from the MKSIP (late 12th–15th Dynasties). The southern sites (Abusir, Helwan, Tarkhan, and Abydos) exhibit donkey burials that are much older—from the Archaic period (1st–2nd Dynasties). Groupings of three donkeys tend to occur at the older southern sites, whereas groupings of two donkeys are most frequent at the Delta sites (especially at Tell el-Dabʿa). All eight of the Egyptian sites seem to feature donkey burials in conjunction with elite human graves. So far, the only Egyptian site featuring donkey burials in pits that are unrelated to human graves is Tell el-Dabʿa. It is with Tell el-Dabʿa that our survey begins.

3.1.1.  Tell el-Dabʿa Tell el-Dabʿa is now identified by all scholars as Avaris—the capital of the Hyksos. 3 The site is located in the eastern Delta on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. Ongoing excavations (since 1966) have been carried out under Manfred Bietak, who is the director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo and professor of Egyptology at the University of Vienna. Tell el-Dabʿa is one of the most important sites for archaeological data pertaining to the ceremonial significance of the donkey. More donkey burials can be identified there than at any other site in the ancient Near East. The identifications of species from the osteological remains have been mostly made by the paleozoologist Joachim Boessneck. Boessneck finds some evidence for the presence of the horse at Tell el-Dabʿa, but the vast majority of the equid remains can be identified as the domestic donkey based on bone size and tooth enamel. 4 The donkey burials are attested from as early as stratum H (late 12th 3.  The Hyksos period is technically restricted to the 15th–16th Dynasties of the Second Intermediate period. The Second Intermediate period dates from ca. 1786/1759– 1550/1539 b.c.e. (see Kitchen 1992: 327, 329). For a helpful historical survey of the period, see Bourriau 2000: 185–217. 4.  Two horse teeth (most likely from the same animal) were identified among other faunal remains that were recovered from a fill (see Bietak 1981: 247; Boessneck 1976:

3.1. Egypt

107

Dynasty; = MB I [MB IIA]) to as late as stratum D/3 (middle of the 15th [Hyksos] Dynasty; = MB II [MB IIB])—that is from the late 19th century b.c.e. (Bietak; alternatively, see Dever: ca. 2000 b.c.e.) to the early 16th century b.c.e. (alternatively, see Dever: 1625–1575 b.c.e.). 5 The donkey burials can be grouped into two categories: graves and pits. In the first case (graves), donkeys are found buried beneath the entrance to human tombs. These tombs are usually vaulted, built of mud brick, and contain human remains along with various offerings, weapons, and other possessions. The donkeys connected with tombs are often buried in pairs and accompanied by additional animals (viz., goats and sheep). Occasionally, they are accompanied by pottery vessels. The graves that are published up to the present are listed here with short descriptions as follows:

25, pl. 1 [fig. 2a, b]; 1988: 79; Wapnish 1997: 354–55, 358; cf. Bietak 1991b: 41, 42; 1996: 31; 2001b: 142). They come from Strata E/2–E/1 (MB II [MB IIB]). General stratum E/2 is dated to either 1650–1620 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1700–1675 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95); general stratum E/1 is dated to either 1620–1590 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1675–1625 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). For additional horse remains from Tell el-Dabʿa, see Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992: 24–25. Early horse remains have also been identified at the following Egyptian and Nubian sites (ordered from north to south): Tell Hebua (Hoffmeier, private communication, November–December 2004; cf. Bourriau 2000: 215), Tell el-Borg (Hoffmeier 2006: 260–61, fig. 19; Hoffmeier and Kitchen 2007: 136), Tell el-Kebir (Germond and Livet 2001: 78; Houlihan 1996: 33), Tell el-Maskhuta (Holladay 1992: 589; 1997: 195; Wapnish 1997: 354–55, 358), Saqqara (Boessneck 1988: 80–81; Houlihan 1996: 36; Nibbi 1979: 160 n. 104), the Theban necropolis (in front of Senemut’s tomb-chapel, no. 71; see Clutton-Brock 1974: 93–99; 1992: 83; Houlihan 1996: 35; Littauer 1971: 25 n. 6; Nibbi 1979: 160–61; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 137), Buhen (Boessneck 1988: 79, 80; Burleigh 1986: 232, 234–35; Clutton-Brock 1974: 89–100, 1992: 80–83; Houlihan 1996: 33; Littauer 1971: 25 n. 6; Mallory-Greenough 2005: 105; Nibbi 1979: 160, 161; Schulman 1980: 109–13; Osborn and Osbornová 1998: 136–37; Wapnish 1997: 355, 358, 362), Soleb (Boessneck 1988: 80; Clutton-Brock 1974: 94–99, 1992: 83; Ducos 1971: 261–65; Giorgini 1971: 258–66; Mallory-Greenough 2005: 105; Nibbi 1979: 160, 163), and el-Kurru (Germond and Livet 2001: 84; Houlihan 1996: 35; MalloryGreenough 2005: 105–9). It should be reiterated here that the idea about the Hyksos introducing the horse and chariot to Egypt seems unlikely (see Bourriau 2000: 213, 215; Hoffmeier 1994: 228, 1999: 193; Oren 1997c: xxi; Schulman 1980: 105–13; Wapnish 1997: 354–55; Younger 2000: 621). Bone size and tooth enamel: see Wapnish 1997: 353. For the latest study on horse remains, see Raulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009: 1–106. 5.  For the ongoing debates regarding the chronology of the Middle Bronze Age (with specific attention to Tell el-Dabʿa), see Bietak 1991b: 27–72, 1997: 87–139, 2002a: 29–42; Dever 1991: 73–79, 1992: 1–25, 1997: 285–301; Weinstein 1992a: 344–46, 1992b: 27–46. For helpful charts on the stratigraphy of Tell el-Dabʿa, see Bietak 2002a: 31, 41; Dever 1992: 9, 1997: 295.

108

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

Stratum D/2 (General Stratum H): MB I (MB IIA) • Tomb F/I-o /19-no. 8: a donkey (adult, female), goat, and lamb in front of the tomb 6 • Tomb F/I-o /21-no. 6: donkeys in separate pits in front of the tomb 7 • Tomb F/I-p/19-no. 1: donkeys, possibly in separate pits, in front of the tomb 8 13th-Dynasty “Palace” Tombs: Stratum D/1 (General Stratum G/4): MB I (MB IIA) • Tomb F/I-l/19-no. 1: two (pairs of) donkeys and four goats within the dromos of the tomb 9 • Tomb F/I-m/18-no. 2: one pair of donkeys in front of the tomb 10 • Tomb F/I-m/18-no. 3: double-chambered tomb with separate pits before each entrance. Northern pit: two donkeys; southern pit: one donkey. A total of five goats/sheep in the two pits 11 • Tomb F/I-o /21-no. 11: two donkeys in separate pits in front of the tomb 12 • Tomb F/I-m/19-no. 22: one pair of donkeys with sheep and goats in front of the tomb 13 6. Stratum H is dated to either ca. 1800 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or ca. 2000/1950 b.c.e. (Dever 1992: 9; 1997: 294–95). Tomb F/I-o /19-no. 8: Schiestl 2002: 330, 332–33 (fig. 2); Schiestl 2009: 267–73. 7.  Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992: plan 6; Schiestl 2002: 330–31; Schiestl 2009: 308–12. 8.  Schiestl 2002: 330–31; Schiestl 2009: 287–97. 9. For general reference on these tombs, see Bietak 1991a: 47–75, 1991b: 34, 1996: 22–25, 1997: 103; Schiestl 2002: 341–52; Schiestl 2009: 333–54. Note that there is archaeological evidence that trees (palms?) were planted at approximately 25 cubits (about 9 meters) from the entrance of each of these tombs (see Bietak 1996: 22–25, 1997: 103). Stratum G/4 is dated to either the first half of the 18th century b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or sometime in the 19th century b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). Pairs of donkeys: The drawing in Bietak’s article (1991a: 63 [fig. 11]) clearly depicts four donkeys and four goats, but Bietak’s caption states that there are only “zwei Eseln und vier Ziegen.” See Bietak 1991a: 63 fig. 11, 1996: 24 fig. 20; Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992: plan 9. 10.  Bietak 1991a: 65 fig. 13; Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992: plan 3; Schiestl 2009: 389–97. 11.  Bietak 1991a: 66 fig. 14; 1996: 24 fig. 21, pl. 9B; Schiestl 2002: 343, 344 fig. 9; Schiestl 2009: 363–89. 12.  Bietak 1996: pl. 10A; Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992: plan 7; Schiestl 2009: 463–67. 13.  Bietak 1996: pl. 10B; Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992: plan 5; Schiestl 2009: 354–57.

3.1. Egypt

109

• Tomb F/I-o /17-no. 1: two donkeys (one adult male and one juvenile female) and four young sheep—along with a cup and a bowl—in front of the tomb 14 Eastern Town (Stratum F): MB I/II • Tomb A/II-l-no. 5 (the tomb of the deputy treasurer named ʿAamu, “the Asian”): five or six donkeys in front of the tomb 15 • Tomb A/II-p/14-18 (L 468): one donkey along with offerings (a cup and a jar) in front of the tomb. In addition, a young female servant was buried on the side of the tomb 16 Eastern Town (Strata E/3–1): MB II (MB IIB) • A/II-l/15, pl. 5 (stratum E/3): a pair of donkeys in front of tomb A/ II-k/14-3 17 • Tomb A/II-m/12-9 (stratum E/2): a pair of donkeys in front of the tomb 18 • A/II-l/12-2 (stratum E/1): a pair of donkeys in front of the tomb 19 The second category of donkey burials at Tell el-Dabʿa is pits that are not directly associated with human tombs. 20 The donkeys in these pits usually 14.  Schiestl 2002: 350, 351 (fig. 14); Schiestl 2009: 405–11. 15.  General stratum F is dated to either 1710–1680 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1775–1750 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). Tomb A/II-1-no. 5: Bietak 1981: 245–46, 287; 1991b: 39, 51; 1996: 41, 42 (fig. 35); 1997: 103 (fig. 4.16), 109; Boessneck 1976: 21–24, pls. 7–8; cf. van den Brink 1982: 47, 48; Klenck 2002: 76; Wapnish 1997: 353, 362. This is apparently “the largest number of donkeys ever found in connection with a Middle Bronze Age burial” (Bietak 1991b: 51; cf. 1996: 41)—but compare Deposit 590 at Tell el-ʿAjjul (see §3.2.9). Bietak dates the tomb to the Dynasty of Neḥesy (1991b: 51, 1996: 41, 1997: 109). It is located in one of the cemeteries surrounding Temple III (Bietak 1996: 41). The name and title of the deceased is preserved on a scarab (Bietak 1991b: 51; 1996: 41, 42 [fig. 35, 1]; 1997: 103 [fig. 4.16], 109). 16.  Forstner-Müller 1999; 2002: 172–75. 17.  General stratum E/3 is dated to either 1680–1650 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1750–1700 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95); general stratum E/2 is dated to either 1650–1620 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1700–1675 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95); general stratum E/1 is dated to either 1620–1590 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1675–1625 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). AII-1/15, pl. 5: Boessneck 1976: 21–24, pl. 6 (fig. 18). 18.  Boessneck 1976: 21–24, pls. 5 and 9 (figs. 16, 17, 24); cf. Wapnish 1997: 353, 362. 19.  Boessneck 1976: 21–24, pl. 6 (fig. 19); cf. Wapnish 1997: 354, 362. 20. Vera Müller analyzes 12 “offering pits” (in addition to the ones cited here) from Tell el-Dabʿa and suggests that “the depositions buried in the pits are the relics of cultic meals consumed by larger communities” (2002: 269; cf. Müller 1998: 796, 798).

110

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

come in pairs. The donkeys are occasionally accompanied by sheep/goats and pottery vessels. The circular/oval animal pits are found in both temple precincts and human cemeteries. Five animal pits are attested at Tell el-Dabʿa, but only four of these contained donkey remains. 21 An additional—though not yet published—donkey pit is also attested at ʿEzbet Rushdi, just north of Tell el-Dabʿa. The donkey pits are listed here with short descriptions as follows: • F/I-o /19-pit 3 (stratum D/2 or D/1 [= H or G4]; MB I [MB IIA]): 22 the pit contained two donkeys beside four sheep/goats; it was associated with the cemetery in area F/I. Robert Schiestl notes that the pit was “positioned in the midst and at approximately equal distance to a group of five tombs” and “seems to have served as a collective funerary pit.” 23 Vera Müller remarks: “these were general sacrifices to the whole necropolis.” 24 • A/II-l/14-pit 11 (stratum G or F; MB I [MB IIA] or MB I/II): 25 two donkeys along with a drinking cup. Depending on dating, the pit was either connected to Temple III or it was associated with a cemetery (Bietak seems to take the former view [Temple III; stratum F]; van den Brink takes the latter [cemetery; stratum G], but the area is not yet analyzed in detail). 26 • A/II-n/18-pit 1 (stratum E/1; MB II [MB IIB]): 27 The pit, which was filled with pure sand, contained a small donkey covered by a pair of adult donkeys. The pit is clearly associated with the temple— belonging to the period of the rebuilding of Temple V (i.e., the beginning of the Hyksos period). 28

21. The pit having no donkey remains (F/I-n/21-pit 7) contained a sheep/goat together with three dissected lambs (Müller 2002: 271). 22. Stratum H is dated to either ca. 1800 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or ca. 2000/1950 b.c.e. (Dever 1992: 9, 1997: 294–95); stratum G/4 is dated to the first half of the 18th century b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or sometime in the 19th century b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). 23.  Schiestl 2002: 331; cf. Schiestl 2009: 262–63. 24.  Müller 2002: 271. 25.  Stratum G/1-3 is dated to either the latter half of the 18th century b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or the first quarter of the 18th century b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95); stratum F is dated to either 1710–1680 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1775–1750 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). 26.  Bietak 1981: 246, 287, pl. XVa; 1996: 40, pl. 15A; van den Brink 1982: 47, fig. 14; Müller 2002: 271, 272 fig. 3; cf. Oren 1997b: 265; Wapnish 1997: 354, 362. 27.  Stratum E/1 is dated to either 1620–1590 b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1675– 1625 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). 28.  Bietak 1981: 287; 1991b: 43; van den Brink 1982: 47; Müller 2002: 271–75, esp. p. 272 fig. 3; cf. Oren 1997b: 265; Wapnish 1997: 354, 362.

3.1. Egypt

111

• F/I-i/22-pit 3 + 4 + 6 (stratum A/2 [general stratum D/3]; late MB II [MB IIB]): 29 two incomplete donkeys and numerous pottery vessels (five are visible in the photograph); they are associated with the temple (positioned in the forecourt). 30 • Temple at ʿEzbet Rushdi (Area R/I): two donkeys with sheep/goats and many pottery vessels. The offering pit was cut into the eastern pylon during the late Hyksos period (i.e., at least one hundred years after the temple had been torn down, which happened in the 13th Dynasty). 31 The above evidence from Tell el-Dabʿa may be divided into two general categories: graves (tomb entrances) and pits. However, the latter category (pits) should really be subdivided into two different contexts. Thus, Tell el-Dabʿa provides a total of three contexts for donkey burials: tomb entrances, cemetery pits, and temple pits. Over the course of 20 years, Bietak has put forward a number of interpretations for these burials. Initially, with reference to the general category of tomb entrances, Bietak suggested that the donkeys “seem to represent teams, perhaps used for pulling a carriage for the funeral.” 32 More recently, he comments that the donkey burials at tomb entrances derive “from a culture in which donkey caravaneering was an important element. Perhaps many of the palace tombs at Tell el-Dabʿa are of expedition leaders, who were charged with carrying out expeditions to Sinai and perhaps Southern Palestine.” 33 He further remarks that “the custom seems to derive from northern Syria and ultimately from Mesopotamia, in particular the Hamrin region.” 34 Though Bietak does not yet comment on the significance of donkeys in cemetery pits, 35 he does make a suggestion for the significance of donkeys in temple pits: “One should recall that within the Mari correspondence the expression ‘to butcher 29.  Stratum D/3 is in the middle of the Hyksos period (15th Dynasty). It is dated to either the early 16th century b.c.e. (Bietak 2002a: 31, 41) or 1625–1575 b.c.e. (Dever 1997: 294–95). 30.  Bietak 1991b: 43; 1996: 40, pl. 15B; Müller 2002: 273–74 figs. 4, 5, 275. 31.  This pit will be published by Vera Müller (see Müller 2002: 271, 275). 32.  Bietak 1981: 245; cf. van den Brink 1982: 47; Maeir 1989: 64. For further discussion on the “draft team” interpretation, see §3.7.1. 33.  Bietak 1997: 103; cf. Bietak 1996: 25, 41; 1997: 109; 2001b: 142. In a recent personal communication (via email on February 5, 2006), Bietak confirmed this interpretation: “We think that . . . the animals . . . were teams on which palanquins were mounted and that the tomb owners were involved in long distance caravaneering enterprises.” For further discussion on the “caravan” interpretation, see §3.7.1. 34.  Bietak 1997: 103; cf. Bietak 1991a: 54, 1996: 25; 2001a: 352; Forstner-Müller 2002: 172. 35.  For interpretation of the pits associated with cemeteries, see Müller 2002: 271; Schiestl 2002: 331; cf. §3.7.2.

112

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

a donkey’ was synonymous for making a treaty. Thus it is probable that treaty negotiations were concluded with the sacrifice of donkeys, which were interred within round pits in front of the temple.” 36

3.1.2.  Tell Farasha Tell Farasha is also located in the eastern Delta on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile (south of Tell el-Dabʿa). Edwin C. M. van den Brink lists Farasha among Egyptian sites where donkey burials have been identified. 37 Unfortunately, there is no other documentation that I am aware of that can corroborate this statement. 38 F. Yaqoub’s very brief report on the excavations confirms the discovery of vaulted mud brick tombs similar to those discovered at Tell el-Dabʿa. 39

3.1.3.  Tell el-Maskhuta Tell el-Maskhuta is the third site in the eastern Delta that exhibits donkey burials from the SIP (13th‑15th Dynasties). It is located on the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat. The excavation and publication of the site is by John S. Holladay Jr. of the Wadi Tumilat Project, sponsored by the University of Toronto and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. While the stratigraphy and dating of the SIP remains are not yet finalized, the preliminary analysis suggests a correspondence with MB IIB as an approximate date for the donkey burials. 40 Three donkey burials (associated with mud brick tombs) are noted in the publications to date: 41 • Tomb L2029/2118: one donkey in front of the tomb 42 • Tomb L12317: one donkey in front of the tomb (“warrior” burial of a 14-year-old male) 43 36.  Bietak 1996: 40; cf. Bietak 1981: 287 n. 2; Stager 1999: 238–39, 2003: 66. In a recent personal communication (via email on February 5, 2006), Bietak also confirmed this interpretation: “the offerings were part of a ritual which is still unknown to us. Probably sacrifices for forging a treaty according to an expression in the Mari texts.” For further discussion on the temple pits, see §3.7.2. 37.  Van den Brink 1982: 47. 38.  The same observation is made by Wapnish (1997: 354, 362). F. Yaqoub’s report contains no reference to donkey burials (1983: 175–76). 39.  Yaqoub 1983: 175–76, pls. 4–5; cf. van den Brink 1982: 55. 40. See Holladay 1982: 44, 46, 50, pl. XL (fig. 66a–b); 1997: 210 n. 13; cf. van den Brink 1982: 56; Hoffmeier 1996: 66; Wapnish 1997: 354, 362. 41.  In addition, Holladay notes that donkey dung has been identified “both in stables and in outdoor tethering areas” (1997: 195); cf. Paice et al. 1996: 170, 171. 42.  Holladay 1982: 44, pls. XL–XLI (figs. 66a–b, 67); 1997: 224 (table 7.1); cf. Wapnish 1997: 354, 362. 43.  Holladay 1997: 223 (table 7.1).

3.1. Egypt

113

• Tomb L12321: one donkey in front of the tomb (“warrior” burial of a 17-year-old male) 44 These three donkey burials are very similar in context to those from Tell elDabʿa, which were also positioned in front of tombs (i.e., the first category, cf. §3.1.1). It is no surprise, then, that Holladay invokes a similar interpretation of these burials to that of Bietak (both of them look to caravan activity). Holladay states: The great significance accorded the donkey in elite male burial rites, both in Southwestern Palestine and in the Eastern Delta, suggests an economy strongly dependent upon that otherwise lowly beast of burden. . . . In the world of the Middle Bronze Age, where long routes totally dependant upon donkey caravaneering snaked up to the Anatolian Plateau and along the route of the ancient Silk Road, it seems more likely that rites highlighting the interdependence of man and donkey reflected a major economic basis to the social order than some other, more obscure, causal agency. Else, why not have bulls buried before more exalted tombs and sheep or goats sacrificed before those of lower status? The answer seems to be that the donkey was, somehow, qualitatively different. By virtue of its centrality to the economy, it attained the status of a worthy offering. 45

3.1.4. Inshas The final site from the Delta is Inshas, which is located to the southwest of Tell el-Dabʿa, Farasha, and Tell el-Maskhuta, but to the northeast of Tell el-Yehudiyeh. The site was partially excavated in the 1940s, but only a brief, anonymous report is presently published. 46 Many vaulted mud brick tombs were excavated that share similarities with the tombs at Tell el-Dabʿa. 47 Donkey skeletons are said to be associated with at least ten of the tombs. 48 In some of the donkey burials, a brick was positioned under the donkey’s head. 49 44.  Holladay 1997: 188, 223 (table 7.1), 226, 248–49 (pls. 7.19B, 7.20B); Wapnish 1997: 354, 358, 364 n. 19. 45.  Holladay 1997: 204. For further discussion on the “caravan” interpretation, see §3.7.1. 46.  Anonymous 1949: 12–13. 47.  Anonymous 1949: 12. 48.  Anonymous 1949: 12. 49. Anonymous 1949: 12. The same can be said concerning one of the female servant burials at Tell el-Dabʿa (mentioned above—Tomb A/II-p/14-18 L 468; see Forstner-Müller 2002: 172–73 fig. 8a). See also the position of Donkey 4 from Tell Brak—its head on a threshold (cf. §3.3.5). Again, note the position of a horse burial from Dendra in the Argolid: E. Protonotariou-Deilaki states that “it appeared as if the head of one of the horses was resting on the rock itself” (1990: 101).

114

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

3.1.5. Abusir Whereas the first four sites from the Delta (Tell el-Dabʿa, Tell Farasha, Tell Maskhuta, and Inshas) exhibit donkey burials from the MK–SIP (late 12th– 15th Dynasties), the four southern sites (Abusir, Helwan, Tarkhan, and Abydos) exhibit donkey burials that are much older—from the Archaic period (1st–2nd Dynasties). The first of the Archaic sites, Abusir, is located north of Memphis in the First Lower Egyptian nome. A single burial containing three male donkeys is associated with Mastaba IV (as a subsidiary burial). 50 The Mastaba dates to the reign of Udimu/Den of the 1st Dynasty. 51 Interestingly, the three donkeys were buried standing upright in a row and facing east. This observation probably indicates that they were led into the burial pit alive. 52 The upright position could also indicate that the donkeys were in ready position (i.e., poised for use as work animals in the afterlife of the deceased). 53

3.1.6. Helwan Helwan is located east of Memphis (and east of the Nile). While more than ten thousand graves have been excavated in this cemetery, very few have actually been published. Of those that are published, the dates range from the reign of Ka (Dynasty 0) through the 2nd Dynasty. 54 As regards the relationship between the animal burials and the human graves, Diane V. Flores states: Although the assumption here is that the animal burials in this crowded cemetery were subsidiary to human tombs, in most cases the relationships are not obvious. Saad apparently believed the burials were associated with specific tombs (Saad 1969: 80), but he did not, in individual cases, indicate to which tomb(s) the burial(s) might have been subsidiary. 55

The three burials that are known to contain donkey remains are as follows: • Burial 719.H5: “more than one donkey” was buried in a trench. 56 This donkey burial was paired with a camel burial (720.H5) on the east of 50. See Boessneck, von den Driesch, and Eissa 1992: 1–10; Flores 2003: 60, 62, 99; cf. Houlihan 1996: 29. 51.  Flores 2003: 99. The 1st Dynasty dates to ca. 3000–2840 b.c.e. (Kitchen 1992: 328). 52.  Boessneck, von den Driesch, and Eissa 1992: 2; Flores 2003: 99. For indications that horses were buried alive in Iron Age graves on Cyprus, see Karageorghis 1965: 284. 53. For additional upright equid burials from the third millennium b.c.e., see §§3.1.7, 3.3.1. At a much later period (Napatan; 25th Dynasty; ca. 780–656 b.c.e.), horses were buried upright at el-Kurru in Nubia. Similarly, L. Mallory-Greenough interprets the upright horse burials at el-Kurru as a ready position for use with chariots in the afterlife of the deceased (Mallory-Greenough 2005: 105–7). 54.  Flores 2003: 94. That is, ca. 3000–2700 b.c.e. (Kitchen 1992: 328). 55.  Flores 2003: 94. 56.  Saad 1951: 37 (see also p. 38 and pl. XLVII); cf. Flores 2003: 94.

3.1. Egypt

115

tomb 680.H5, whereas a dog burial (667.H5) and a bird burial (668. H5) were paired on the west of the same tomb. 57 • Burial 615.H3: three donkeys (one below a pair). This burial may be associated with tomb 612.H3. 58 • Burial 53.H10: three donkeys. 59 Flores states: “In this case, the principal tomb to which this burial was subsidiary can be identified (an identification number was not provided for the principal tomb).” 60 Additional animal burials (identifications unknown) were associated with the same tomb. 61

3.1.7. Tarkhan Tarkhan is located in Middle Egypt near the Faiyum (between el-Lisht and Maidum). The site was excavated and published by W. M. F. Petrie in the second decade of the twentieth century. One particular grave (2052) contained— like Abusir and Helwan—three complete donkeys. 62 The grave was located to the side of Mastaba 2050, which can be dated to 2930 (± 120) b.c.e. (= the Archaic period [1st–2nd Dynasties]). 63 Petrie describes the donkey burial as follows: In the south corridor was the most remarkable grave (2052). A long low bench of brickwork projected from the fender wall. . . . It was divided across by two shallow grooves, in what had originally been three equal parts. . . . On digging into this grave we found, first, three heads of donkeys, placed one under each division of the bench, lengthwise, facing east. Removing these, a wedge-shaped 57.  Flores 2003: 61, 94, 96. On the other hand, the donkey and camel burials may be related to tomb 721.H5 (see Flores 2003: 94, 96). Note that the date of the camel burial is dubious (see Flores 2003: 94). For the camel burial, see Saad 1951: 38, pl. XLVIII; cf. Brewer et al. 1994: 104; Smith 1969: 310. For the dog burial, see Saad 1951: 37, pl. XLVIa (for additional dog burials at Helwan, see Flores 2003: 95; Saad 1947: 166–67, pl. LXXIII; 1969: 80, pl. 121). For the bird burial, see Saad 1951: 37, pl. XLVIb–c; 1969: pls. 64–65. 58.  Flores 2003: 94–95, 97; Saad 1947: 167, pl. LXXIV. 59.  Flores 2003: 95; Saad 1969: 80, pl. 120. 60.  Flores 2003: 95. 61.  Flores 2003: 95. 62.  Petrie 1914: 6, pls. XVIII, XIX; cf. Flores 2003: 60, 99; Wapnish 1997: 354, 358, 362. J. Clutton-Brock confirms that at least one of the equid skulls from Tarkhan is in fact a donkey (Clutton-Brock 1992: 65; Wapnish 1997: 354; Zarins 1986: 168; cf. Burleigh 1986: 232, 234). Note that a duck (grave 2054) and two humans (graves 2051, 2053) were also interred next to Mastaba 2050 (Petrie 1914: 6; cf. Flores 2003: 99). 63. See Zarins 1986: 168; cf. Burleigh 1986: 232, 234–35; Clutton-Brock 1992: 65; Wapnish 1997: 354. The carbon-14 dating was performed on linen from the tomb. A donkey mandible was also tested and dated to 4390 ± 130 bp (Burleigh, Clutton-Brock, and Gowlett 1991: 9–11).

116

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

trench was opened containing the bodies of the donkeys, back up, with the legs doubled up beneath them. 64

Petrie’s interpretation of the animal burials beside Mastaba 2050 is that “these were the favorite animals buried with the master, much as the household were buried with the kings of this age.” 65

3.1.8. Abydos Abydos is located in the eighth Upper Egyptian nome, on the west bank of the Nile. Recent excavations have yielded three Archaic-period burials (ca. 3000 b.c.e.) that contained a total of 10 intact donkey skeletons. The donkey burials were subsidiary graves to an early pharaonic tomb. The donkeys were placed on their left sides, and the bones show evidence of load bearing. 66

3.2. Israel-Palestine The equid burials from Israel and Palestine are organized below from north to south. They are concentrated in the south of the region and seem to display cultural continuity with the Egyptian Delta. Most of the burials are from the Middle Bronze Age, 67 and a few burials might be dated as late as Iron I (cf. Azor, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Tel Beth-Shemesh). The equid burials can be either of complete or partial skeletons (both types are attested at Tell el-ʿAjjul). Equid remains are attested inside as well as outside human tombs (both scenarios are attested at Jericho). They are also found in the central chamber of so-called loculi burials (cf. Lachish, Tell el-ʿAjjul). Sometimes the equid burials have no connection with human remains: the burials can be foundation deposits connected with architecture (cf. Tel ʿAkko, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tell Jemmeh) or they can stand by themselves with no apparent connection to anything (cf. Shechem, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Tel Beth-Shemesh, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tell Jemmeh). Tell el-ʿAjjul is the site with the highest number of equid burials in Israel-Palestine (the burials are apparently of both horses and donkeys). Tell el-ʿAjjul may also be the site with the most diverse kinds of equid burials in the Near East (Tell el-Dabʿa would be a close second for diversity). But perhaps the most unique equid burial in Israel-Palestine is found at Tel Haror, where a pair of donkeys is interred in an elaborate domed tomb in a temple courtyard.

64.  Petrie 1914: 6 (and see pl. XIX); cf. Flores 2003: 99. 65.  Petrie 1914: 6; cf. Petrie 1932: 5. 66. See Rossel et al. 2008. 67.  The earliest equid burial in Israel-Palestine may be from the Early Bronze Age. In the July 2008 season at Tell es-Safi/Gath, an equid burial was excavated from a pit (in Area E) dating to the late EB period. This equid was not analyzed/published in time to be included in this study.

3.2. Israel-Palestine

117

3.2.1. Tel ʿAkko Tel ʿAkko (Tell el-Fukhar), located on the northern bank of the Naʿaman River (near Haifa), was excavated under the direction of Moshe Dothan. In the ninth season of excavation (1983), an “almost complete skeleton of a donkey” 68 from the MB IIB period was discovered in the ramparts of Area AB. 69 While the details of this discovery are not yet published, the limited data indicate that the burial was a foundation deposit (beneath a wall). 70

3.2.2. Shiqmona Irit Ziffer mentions “a tomb at Shiqmona” in relation to Middle Bronze equid burials. 71 From Elgavish’s brief report on Shiqmona in the NEAEHL, it is apparent that there is only one tomb in the cemetery from the Middle Bronze Age (MB IIB), but there is no mention of equid remains. 72 Unfortunately, nothing more can be said about this burial until it is published in detail.

3.2.3. Shechem At Shechem (Tell Balâṭah), a small equid skeleton was discovered in the floor of the Field I Gate Tower. It dates to the Late Bronze Age IIA (stratum XIII; ca. 1400–1325 b.c.e.). 73 The equid was buried in “0.30 m of debris, including traces of burning just above the floor, of compact grey material marked by brick and plaster fragments.” 74 While the species identification is uncertain, it has been designated a “colt” by G. Ernest Wright, a “donkey” by Lawrence E. Toombs, and an “equine” by Edward F. Campbell. 75 The most interesting detail about this burial is that the skeleton is “fully articulated, but decapitated.” 76 Campbell provides the following interpretation: “Whether it is to be taken as a casualty of the destruction that ended Stratum 68.  Dothan 1993a: 20. Liora K. Horwitz recently reported that the skeleton appears to be complete (personal communication, April 2010). 69.  Dothan and Conrad 1984: 190; cf. Dothan 1993a: 20. Note that Wapnish (who does not seem to be aware of the preliminary reports) incorrectly states that this burial is “now dated to MB IIA” (1997: 352). 70. Cf. Oren 1997b: 266; Wapnish 1997: 352, 361. For further discussion on foundation deposits, see §3.7.3. 71.  Ziffer 1990: 67* n. 12. David Ilan relayed the same information to me in a private communication in December 2004. 72.  Elgavish 1993: 1373, 1378. 73. See Campbell 2002: 8, 169, 173. Note that Toombs discusses the equid deposit under LB IB/Stratum XIV/ca. 1450–1400 b.c.e. (1992: 1182). 74.  Campbell 2002: 174; cf. Wright 1964: 78. 75.  Wright 1964: 78, fig. 33; Toombs 1992: 1182; Campbell 2002: 173, 175. 76.  Campbell 2002: 173. Toombs explains: “The head was missing. It had been severed from the body prior to the burial. Near the neck was a clump of bones from a smaller animal” (1992: 1182).

118

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

XIII or represents some sort of sacrifice cannot be ascertained.” 77 Nevertheless, decapitation seems to be a stronger indication of ritual activity than of a military casualty. 78 It may even be illustrative of the treaty ratification rituals described in the Mari texts (cf. §§2.4.1.1, 4.3.2) 79 or of the ʿrp-ritual prescribed in Exod 13:13, 34:20 (cf. §4.4.3). Toombs suggests that this burial may be a “foundation sacrifice,” 80 but he fails to explain how the burial relates (if at all) to the architecture.

3.2.4. Azor Azor is located some 6 kilometers (3.5 miles) from Jaffa. Moshe Dothan excavated tombs from the Bronze and Iron Ages in 1958 and 1960. 81 One particular burial cave in Area B reportedly contained human and equid remains from the Late Bronze and Iron I periods. In the excavator’s own words: another burial cave was discovered, dug in the Middle Bronze Age II. In its floor was a burial pit containing pottery from this period. From the beginning of the Late Bronze Age down to the Iron Age I, the cave served for human and equine burials. Several layers of human and equine skeletons were found, men and horses buried side by side. Although there was little pottery in the tombs, twenty-one scarabs were found. 82

Commenting on Dothan’s report, Paula Wapnish opines: “although [Dothan] mentions horses, I think that the term must be taken advisedly to signify equids.” 83

3.2.5.  Jericho Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) has been excavated by numerous archaeologists since the later half of the 19th century. The latest and most prominent of these archaeologists is Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated from 1952 to 1958. The first two volumes that Kenyon published on Jericho include the tomb discoveries where equid remains have been identified. All of the tombs associated with equids are from the Middle Bronze period (MB IIB–C). 84 A total of (at 77.  Campbell 2002: 173–74. 78. Note that equid decapitation is also attested in Syrian burials (see §§3.3.1, 3.3.5). 79.  For the possibility of a connection between this equid deposit and treaty ritual, see the cautious discussion in Lewis 1996a: 413. 80.  Toombs 1992: 1182. 81.  For a chronicle of M. Dothan’s excavations at Azor, see Dothan and Dothan 1992: 107–17. Note that he also discovered “several tombs lined and covered with mudbrick in a manner unmistakably similar to the tombs of Tell el-Yahudiyeh in the Nile Delta” (Dothan and Dothan 1992: 114). 82.  Dothan 1993b: 127; cf. Dothan 1975: 146. 83.  Wapnish 1997: 353 (see also her remarks on p. 358). 84.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 696; Kenyon and Holland 1982: 638–42;

3.2. Israel-Palestine

119

least) 15 equids are identified for 9 tombs, 85 of which 7 have equid remains in the shaft-fills, whereas two of the tombs have equid remains inside the tomb chamber. 86 The only equid remains that are reported in detail are from the shaft-fill of tomb J3, where skulls and limbs were buried at varying depths. It is unknown whether any of the equid remains from Jericho were of complete animals. The tombs are listed here as follows: • • • • • •

Tomb B48: 2 equids from the shaft-fill 87 Tomb B50: 2 equids and sheep from the tomb chamber 88 Tomb B51: 1 equid from the shaft-fill 89 Tomb D9: 1 equid from the tomb chamber 90 Tomb D22: 1 equid from the shaft-fill 91 Tomb J3: 3 equids and 3 small ruminants from the shaft-fill. 92 Kenyon describes the discovery: “in the fill of the tomb shaft were portions of two [sic, there were three] equids, a skull and forelegs at a depth of 1.50m., and two skulls at 3m.” 93 While A. Grosvenor-Ellis provides an uncertain analysis of the equid species (as onager and/or ass), 94 J. Clutton-Brock identifies the remains as domestic donkey. 95 The tomb chamber contained a single young male of the “warrior” type.

cf. Bienkowski 1989: 169, 172–74; van den Brink 1982: 80–82; Stiebing 1971: 115; Wapnish 1997: 352. R. Burleigh adds: There are six dates for wood and human remains from Middle Bronze Age tombs at Jericho ranging from 3510 ± 110 to 3220 ± 60 bp, 1560 to 1270 bc, with one outlier (wood) at 4100 ± 150 bp, 2150 bc (GL-dates; Burleigh 1981: 504). Tomb J3 from which the ass metacarpal came is not directly dated by radiocarbon. . . . In summary . . . the ass metacarpal from Jericho [dates] to the early 2nd millennium bc (there is also a small number of remains of horse from Middle Bronze Age Jericho). (Burleigh 1986: 234–35)

85.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695–96. 86.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695–96. 87.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695; cf. Kenyon 1965: 173, 206–26, 743–44. 88.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695; cf. Kenyon 1965: 173–74, 303–12. 89.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695; cf. Kenyon 1965: 162, 175, 332–57. 90.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695; cf. Kenyon 1965: 173–74, 276–86. 91.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695; cf. Kenyon 1965: 164, 242–60. 92.  Grosvenor-Ellis 1960: 535–36; Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695; Kenyon 1960: 264, 268, 306–14, 555, 585; 1965: 173; cf. Clutton-Brock 1979: 145; van den Brink 1982: 82; Stiebing 1971: 115; Wapnish 1997: 352, 359. 93.  Kenyon 1960: 308. 94.  Grosvenor-Ellis 1960: 536. 95.  She states: “These animals were certainly Equus asinus as can be clearly seen from the enamel patterns of the cheek teeth and the proportions of the metacarpal bone” (Clutton-Brock 1979: 145; cf. Boessneck and Kokabi 1981b: 96 n. 1; Clutton-Brock

120

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

• Tomb J37: 2 equids from the shaft-fill 96 • Tomb M11: 2 equids and 4 sheep from the shaft-fill 97 • Tomb P21: 2 equids and a small ruminant from the shaft-fill 98

3.2.6.  Tel Miqne-Ekron A donkey burial (Locus 37041) at Tel Miqne-Ekron was identified in a pit that tentatively dates to Iron Age IB (stratum VIB; Phase 8B [fourth quarter of the 12th century b.c.e.]). The pit “was sealed by a fill of mudbrick detritus and covered with a layer of large stones.” 99 Though thoroughly disarticulated and poorly preserved, the bones showed no signs of butchery. 100 In his initial analysis, Justin Lev-Tov entertains the possibility that this burial was a sacrificial foundation deposit from the Early Iron Age. 101 In the final publication of this deposit, Lev-Tov appears to abandon his earlier interpretation and suggests that it is possibly a secondary burial that was “originally placed next to a human grave and was later disturbed and displaced.” 102 This latter interpretation is strengthened not only by the jumbled disposition of the skeleton but also by the observations that some of the bones are “weatherworn—cracked and flaking” and that no portions of the carcass appear to be missing. 103

3.2.7.  Tel Beth-Shemesh Recent excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh have yielded a circular pit containing the convoluted remains of a donkey. The pit is on the northern slope of the site and dates from the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition. 104 The pit was “lined with straw and ash” and a “layer of chalk.” 105 Interestingly, Dale Manor notes that “the donkey’s back was broken in two places—one near the head.” 106 Like 1983: 802–3). Note also that there is osteological evidence for the domestic horse (and possibly the mule) at Middle Bronze Age Jericho (see Clutton-Brock 1979: 145, 155; cf. Burleigh 1986: 234–35; Clutton-Brock 1983: 802–3; Wapnish 1997: 352, 358). 96.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 695; cf. Kenyon 1965: 162, 173–74, 269–73. 97.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 696; cf. Kenyon 1965: 162, 173–74, 176, 226–42, 745. 98.  Grosvenor-Ellis and Westley 1965: 696; cf. Kenyon 1965: 164, 175, 428–38, 750. 99.  Lev-Tov 2006: 208. 100. See Lev-Tov 2006: 208–9. 101.  Lev-Tov 2000: 157–59; cf. Hesse and Wapnish 2002: 473. 102.  Lev-Tov 2006: 208; cf. Lev-Tov 2000: 150–57. 103. See Lev-Tov 2006: 208. 104.  According to Manor (2007), the Beth-Shemesh deposit slightly predates the Tel Miqne-Ekron deposit. 105. Dale Manor (personal communication via email, July 2008). 106.  Manor 2007.

3.2. Israel-Palestine

121

the decapitated equid from Shechem (see §3.2.3), the Tel Beth-Shemesh donkey with a broken neck may be illustrative either of the treaty ratification rituals described in the Mari texts (cf. §§2.4.1.1, 4.3.2) or of the neck-breaking ritual prescribed in Exod 13:13, 34:20 (cf. §4.4.3). 107

3.2.8. Lachish The excavations at Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) provide meager and questionable evidence for Middle Bronze donkey burials. An equid mandible was recovered from Cave 4002–3 and was identified by D. M. A. Bate as that of a horse or a hybrid (but not of a purebred donkey). 108 Cave 4002–3 is a circular chamber with five loculi. According to O. Tufnell, only the mandible and two bowls may belong to the Middle Bronze Age, while the rest of the tomb contents belong to LB II–III (ca. 1400–1200 b.c.e.). In her own words, Cave 4002 “compare[s] in shape with the circular tombs surrounded by loculi which were a feature of the horse burials at Tell el Ajjul (e.g. AG I, Pl. LVII). . . . It is possible that the original adaptation of the cave for burials was made in the Middle Bronze Age. . . . An equine mandible and the bowls 532–533 may perhaps belong to this phase.” 109 P. Wapnish aptly remarks: “Given the disturbance to the tomb and the imprecise, circular argument used to determine the date, I do not consider this evidence of a deliberate equid burial.” 110

3.2.9. Tell el-ʿAjjul Tell el-ʿAjjul, which is located on the northern bank of the Besor River, is now identified by many scholars as the Hyksos city of Sharuhen. 111 The site was excavated and published in the early 1930s by W. M. Flinders Petrie. The excavations revealed diverse equid burials as well as a number of bronze bits and cheek-pieces. 112 The equid remains were identified by Petrie 107. Both of these interpretations are discussed by Manor (2007). It should be noted, however, that the age of the Tel Beth-Shemesh donkey (four years old at the time of burial) may preclude a connection with the Exodus legislation (see Manor 2007). 108.  On Cave 4002–3, see Tufnell 1953: 239–40, pls. 9:1, 128; 1958: 280; cf. van den Brink 1982: 83; Gonen 1992: 131–32; Stiebing 1971: 115; Wapnish 1997: 352. For this identification, see the very brief analysis in Bate 1953: 410–11. Note that this bone is not mentioned in Bate’s analysis of the animal bones from the Bronze Age (see Bate 1958: 322–23). 109.  Tufnell 1958: 280; cf. Tufnell 1953: 239. 110.  Wapnish 1997: 352. 111. See Kempinski 1974: 145–52; Stewart 1974: 63. 112.  On the bronze bits and cheek-pieces, see Petrie 1933: 10, pl. XXV:221; 1934: 9, 11, pls. XXIII, XXXV:555, 558; 1952: 15, 28, pl. XVII:209–10; cf. ANEP 139; Littauer and Crouwel 2002a: 487–514; Stewart 1974: 58; Ziffer 1990: 66*, fig. 92. Other bronze bits from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages are found at Tell el-Borg (Hoffmeier 2006: 261, fig. 22), Tel Haror (Katz 2000: 87; Klenck 2002: 32, 58, 205; Oren 1997b: 269, fig. 8.17; see §3.2.11), and Ugarit (Schaeffer 1938: 318–19, fig. 46). For a helpful

122

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

as either “ass” or “horse,” apparently on the basis of size. 113 Since few bone measurements are given in the reports and few bones were saved from the excavations, P. Wapnish notes that “the material cannot be checked or competently analyzed.” 114 She continues: “Except for the one bone from burial 1474 . . . I am familiar with no other equid material from the site available for study. It seems that the true mix of equids buried at Tell el-ʿAjjul will never be known.” 115 Wapnish further cautions that “No species identifications can be made from the photos published” 116 and that “the plans are too schematic for species identification.” 117 At the same time, Wapnish concludes: Because we can neither confirm nor deny most of the species identifications made by Petrie on the Tell el-ʿAjjul equids . . . they must be taken at face value. It is important to point out, however, that in the two cases where equid bones he excavated were recently studied by a qualified zoologist, his identifications of “horse” in Tomb 1474 at Ajjul, and “donkey” at Tarkhan, proved to be correct. On the basis of his identifications, then, both horses and donkeys were subject to special burial at Tell el-ʿAjjul. 118

The equid burials and deposits at Tell el-ʿAjjul are described as follows: • Tomb 1417 (late MB IIA [MB I]): 119 one fully intact “donkey” in front of a rock-cut tomb in the Courtyard Cemetery. 120 The bilobate chamber contained a single “warrior” burial. Petrie’s interpretation is that the donkey here is “similar to the favourite donkeys buried by the tomb of a noble in the Ist dynasty (Tarkhan II, xix).” 121 • Pit 1504 (late MB IIA [MB I]): A so-called expiatory deposit was discovered in a pit “on the plain west of the city.” 122 The pit contained a large amount of black ash with burnt (gold and silver) jewelry, burnt discussion on these and other bits, see Azzaroli 1985: 17–20, 37–38; Littauer and Crouwel 2002a: 487–518, pls. 210–12; Potratz 1966: 102–16. 113. See Wapnish 1997: 349. 114.  Wapnish 1997: 349. 115.  Wapnish 1997: 350. 116.  Wapnish 1997: 349. 117.  Wapnish 1997: 350. 118.  Wapnish 1997: 358; cf. Clutton-Brock 1992: 65, 83. 119.  The Courtyard Cemetery dates to late MB IIA (= Dever’s MB I [2000/1950 b.c.e.–1800/1750 b.c.e.]; see Dever 1997: 286. 120.  For Tomb 1417, see Petrie 1932: 5, 13, pls. XLVI, XLVII; Stewart 1974: 10; Tufnell 1962: 2, 4–8, 10, 17, 21; cf. van den Brink 1982: 78; Oren 1997b: 265–66; Wapnish 1997: 350, 359, 361. Note that this is the only instance of an intact donkey from Tell el-ʿAjjul. 121.  Petrie 1932: 5; cf. Petrie 1914: 6. 122.  Expiatory deposit: Petrie 1932: 6, pl. III. For further discussion on Pit 1504, see §3.7.2. Quotation: Petrie 1932: 7.

3.2. Israel-Palestine

123

pottery and “many teeth of horses and chips of burnt bones.” 123 Petrie dated this pit to “the xiith dynasty, or immediately after.” 124 • Burial 1474 (MB IIB–C [MB II–III]): 125 one incomplete “horse” in the central round pit of a loculi burial. 126 This large burial pit was identified as “TCH” in the excavation report. 127 It featured two loculi (1702 and 1467) that both contained human remains. The central round pit contained a deposit of jars and flasks (“burial 1476”) and six large jars beside horse remains (“burial 1474”).   H. E. Bird interprets the burial as follows: “we take the horseburial 1474 and the grave groups 1476 and 1702 as being sacrificial burials in honour of the subject of burial 1467.” 128 Van den Brink suggests that “the very few bones together with 6 amphoras in its immediate vicinity suggest more a kind of funerary repast.” 129 It is also noteworthy that J. Clutton-Brock, who analyzed a left metacarpal from this burial, confirms the identification of this equid as a horse. 130 • “Tomb” 101 (MB IIB–C [MB II–III]): 131 four incomplete “asses” in a pit next to a single human burial. 132 Petrie explains: “These four asses were sacrificed and placed at a rather higher level than [and to the side of] the human burial.” 133 123.  Petrie 1932: 7. “Here there was a complete destruction of property, with gold and silver, consigned to expiate a great crime, and purge the community from a curse— a very close parallel to the case of Achan” (Petrie 1932: 7). 124.  Petrie 1932: 7; cf. Petrie 1933: 7. This would be late MB IIA or early MB IIB (= Dever’s late MB I or early MB II [the transition is 1800/1750 b.c.e.]; see Dever 1997: 286). 125.  Petrie notes that TCH “was cut partly through a corner of an earlier tomb 1717 at a higher level, which belonged to the close of the xiith or beginning of the xvth dynasty” (1934: 15). 126.  For Tomb 1474, see Petrie 1934: 15, 16, pls. LVIII, LXII; cf. van den Brink 1982: 78–79; Burleigh 1986: 230–35; Tufnell 1993: 50; Wapnish 1997: 350, 358, 361. 127.  See the report by H. E. Bird in Petrie 1934: 15–18, pls. LVIII, LXII. 128.  Petrie 1934: 16. 129.  Van den Brink 1982: 79. For further discussion on this view, see §3.7.1. 130. See Clutton-Brock 1992: 83; cf. Burleigh 1986: 230–35; Raulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009: 8, 21, 47; Wapnish 1997: 350, 358. Burleigh reported that the radiocarbon age of this metacarpal came out as 6200 b.c.e. (an impossible date)! This age “is quite unexpected and must reflect contamination by residual paraffin wax despite very careful cleaning of the bone used for dating” (Burleigh 1986: 231). The bone was later resubmitted for testing and was dated to 3400 ± 120 bp (see Burleigh, Clutton-Brock, and Gowlett 1991: 9–11). 131.  MB IIB–C is Dever’s MB II–MB III; the transition between MB IIB/MB II and MB IIC/MB III is ca. 1650 b.c.e. (see Dever 1997: 286). 132.  For Tomb 101, see Petrie 1931: 4, pls. VIII:5–6, IX, LV, LX; cf. van den Brink 1982: 79; Oren 1997b: 266, 270; Wapnish 1997: 350, 361. 133.  Petrie 1931: 4.

124

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

• “Tomb” 210 (MB IIB–C [MB II–III]): one incomplete “horse” with two humans. 134 • “Tomb” 411 (MB IIB–C [MB II–III]): one incomplete “horse” in the central oval pit which is surrounded by four loculi (three of which contained human burials). 135 Petrie reports that the horse’s hind legs were removed by “chopping away the sides of the pelvis.” 136 Wapnish comments: “I would take this to mean that chopping marks were actually observed, but I do not see any remnants of sacrum or pelvis in the photographs.” 137 • “Tomb” 441 (MB IIB–C [MB II–III]): one (presumably incomplete) “horse” with two humans. 138 There is no plan or photo of this “tomb,” nor is it mentioned anywhere in the text of Petrie’s report; it is documented only in Petrie’s register of Bronze Age tombs. 139 • Deposit 590 (MB IIB–C [MB II–III]): This is the so-called bone deposit near tunnel mouth. 140 Petrie reports: “I observed a large horse skull, also ass, gazelle, ox, and human bones.” 141 According to the labels that are provided on the drawing of the deposit there are five ass skulls and one horse skull, and all the equid limbs are labeled as 134.  For Tomb 210, see Petrie 1931: 4, pls. VIII:1, IX, LV; cf. van den Brink 1982: 79; Wapnish 1997: 350–51, 361. 135.  For Tomb 411, see Petrie 1931: 4–5, pls. VIII:2–4, LV, LVII, LXI; 1933: pls. XLVIII, L; 1934: pl. LXIV; cf. van den Brink 1982: 80; Gonen 1992: 131; Tufnell 1993: 50; Oren 1997b: 266, 270; Wapnish 1997: 351, 361. 136.  Petrie 1931: 5. 137.  Wapnish 1997: 351. 138.  For Tomb 441, see Petrie 1931: pls. LV, LXI; cf. van den Brink 1982: 80; Stiebing 1971: 115; Wapnish 1997: 351, 361; Ziffer 1990: 67* n. 12. 139.  Petrie 1931: pl. LXI. The contents ascribed to Tomb 441 (which is virtually undocumented) are suspiciously similar to the contents of Tomb 210 (which is amply documented). I am skeptical about the accuracy of the data recorded for tomb 441. 140.  For Deposit 590, see Petrie 1931: 4, pl. VII:2, IX; 1932: 14, pl. L; cf. Mackay and Murray 1952: 34; Tufnell 1993: 50; Wapnish 1997: 351, 359, 361. While this deposit is labeled “590” in the written report (Petrie 1931: 4), it is labeled “290” on the plan (Petrie 1931: pl. IX). Note also that the publication of this deposit came in two phases: in 1931, Petrie described the deposit briefly (1931: 4), depicted it only partially (1931: pl. IX), and said that the bones were “left for an anatomist to separate” (1931: 4); in 1932, he described the deposit in a little more detail (1932: 14) and depicted it in full along with identifications for every bone (1932: pl. L). One is left to assume that Petrie consulted with an “anatomist” between his 1931 and 1932 publications, but the individual is not named. 141.  Petrie 1931: 4. Petrie continues: “the remarkable burial of severed limbs is unexplained. There is a whole human arm, but no scapula; a whole leg and a piece of hip, but no more; many skulls, but no vertebrae. Of animals there are various limbs and skulls of ass, gazelle, horse, and ox” (1932: 14).

3.2. Israel-Palestine

125

ass. 142 Wapnish comments: “the confusion of bone looks more like a trash deposit or secondary accumulation of disturbed bone than a primary burial site.” 143 M. A. Murray, in Ancient Gaza V, interprets the deposit as follows: “This bone-field has been hitherto unexplained, and I would suggest that it belongs to the same type of sacrifice as that in use among the Scythians in the time of Herodotus.” 144 • Foundation Deposit under Palace IV (LB IIB): 145 This “horse sacrifice in pit” 146 is apparently not assigned to any locus. Petrie describes this discovery no less than three times in Ancient Gaza II. 147 One of these descriptions reads: “The founding of the later Hyksos palace IV was signalised by digging a pit in the walls of palace III (xlviii). In this pit a horse was thrown after removal of the shoulders for eating, and the left thigh. On the new ground level, about 1060, there were the scattered bones of two other horses which had been eaten.” 148 It is evident from the drawings that not one of these “horses” was complete.  For Petrie, “horse sacrifice” can only signify Hyksos occupation; therefore, Petrie dates Palace IV to the Hyksos period (16th Dynasty). 149 Albright corrects Petrie’s analysis as follows: “Palace IV was simply a restoration of III (properly IIIB). The pit containing horse bones, which Petrie has suggestively connected with horse sacrifice, belongs to the same phase and must be dated with it to the end of the 14th or the early 13th century b.c.” 150 142. See Petrie 1932: pl. L. 143.  Wapnish 1997: 351 (see also p. 361). 144.  Mackay and Murray 1952: 34. For further discussion on the interpretation of Deposit 590, see §3.7.2. 145.  LB IIB is 1300–1200 b.c.e. (see Dever 1992: 15). 146. See Petrie 1932: pl. L. 147.  For the Foundation Deposit, see Petrie 1932: 2, 5, 14, pls. XLVIII, L; 1952: 2; cf. Albright 1974: 73; Klenck 2002: 75; Mackay and Murray 1952: 33; Oren 1997b: 266; Tufnell 1962: 2; 1993: 50, 51; Wapnish 1997: 351–52, 358–59, 361. For further discussion on foundation deposits, see §3.7.3. 148.  Petrie 1932: 14. 149.  Petrie states: “Palace IV was in the Hyksos age, as the horse sacrifice and horse feast were held at its foundation; it would, therefore, be the work of the Hyksos xvith dynasty” (1932: 2); again: “This will not accord with any position in the history except the xvith dynasty” (1932: 5); still again: “Such a sacrifice would be impossible to Egyptians, and stamps this as the Hyksos level” (1932: 14); cf. Petrie 1952: 2. 150.  Albright 1974: 73. That would be the 19th Dynasty, according to Albright’s chart (p. 75). Kempinski also concludes that “the earlier phase (IV) belongs to the fourteenth century b.c.e. and the latest (V) to the thirteenth and twelfth centuries b.c.e.” (Kempinski 1993: 53).

126

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

• Burial 2009: one incomplete “horse” was excavated in the lower town under the direction of J. H. Mackay and M. A. Murray (1938 season). 151 While very little description was provided in the reports, it appears that the horse burial was not associated with a human burial. 152 The equid burials and deposits from Tell el-ʿAjjul may now be summarized. First, all of them—with only one exception (the foundation deposit from LB IIB)—are from the Middle Bronze age. Second, all of them—again, with a single exception (Tomb 1417, which contained an intact donkey)—are of incomplete/partial equids. This is a dramatically different picture than the one painted at Tell el-Dabʿa, where the donkeys are seemingly all intact. Third, similar to Tell el-Dabʿa are the many burials at Tell el-ʿAjjul that are associated with human burials; the only examples that are not associated with humans are Pit 1504, the Foundation Deposit under Palace IV, and Burial 2009. Fourth, there is also no standard number of equids for the burials at Tell el-ʿAjjul: one equid is attested at Tomb 1417, Burial 1474, Tomb 210, Tomb 411, Tomb 441, and Burial 2009; three equids (actually one major equid burial plus the remains of two additional equids) are attested at the Foundation Deposit; four equids are attested at Tomb 101; and six equids are attested at Deposit 590. As for the general meaning of the equid remains at Tell el-ʿAjjul, the excavators (namely, Petrie and, later, Mackay and Murray) are in agreement that the evidence should be linked with the Hyksos. 153 Petrie asserts: “The burials with horses obviously belong to the Hyksos, who introduced the horse to the West.” 154 He also states: “the only really distinctive remains of [the Hyksos] are the burials with horses, and pit tombs with loculi.” 155 With regard to specific interpretations for the various kinds of equid burials and deposits at Tell el-ʿAjjul, Petrie identifies (1) a “favourite” animal, Tomb 1417, (2) an “expiatory deposit,” Pit 1504, (3) a foundation deposit with no locus number, and (4) a sacrificial feast. 156 The final category (sacrificial feast) 151.  Mackay and Murray 1952: 23, 33, pls. I, XXXII, XXXIX:32; cf. Wapnish 1997: 352, 361. 152. See Mackay and Murray 1952: pls. I, XXXII, XXXIX:32. For further discussion on Burial 2009, see §3.7.2. 153. See Petrie 1931: 3, 4; 1932: 2, 5, 14; 1952: 2; Mackay and Murray 1952: 33. See my critique of this position below (§3.6). 154.  Petrie 1931: 3. 155.  Petrie 1931: 4. 156.  “Favourite” animal: Petrie 1932: 5. It is not entirely clear what Petrie meant by “favourite” (for further discussion, see §3.7.1). Expiatory deposit: Petrie 1932: 6–7, pl. III. Foundation deposit: Petrie 1932: 2, 5, 14; cf. Mackay and Murray 1952: 33. For further discussion on foundation deposits, see §3.7.3.

3.2. Israel-Palestine

127

is especially evident in the bone remains from Tomb 411 which apparently displayed cut marks. 157 Petrie also applies this interpretation to the foundation deposit that was apparently eaten by the founders of Palace IV. 158 In Ancient Gaza V, Margaret A. Murray contributes some “Notes on Beliefs and Ritual,” in which she suggests that the partial equid remains are evidence of Hyksos sacrificial feasts that involved the dismemberment of the animals and the burning of some parts of the animals. She states: The animal was killed and wholly or partially dismembered, and there is evidence to show that part of the flesh was eaten. Had these been the burials of favourite animals the bodies would have been buried entire; had the horses been intended to accompany the master to the next world some part at least of the harness would have been buried with them; had they been killed for an ordinary feast the whole animal would have been eaten and only the bones left. But the evidence points to sacrifice. . . . A horse sacrifice can only belong to a people to whom the horse has been known from a very early period, and who probably lived in a country where the animal was indigenous. . . . The Hyksos, wherever they came from, brought the horse with them . . . and would probably have a horse sacrifice . . . [At Tell el-ʿAjjul] there is nothing to show how the animal was killed; the one thing that is certain about the sacrifice is that the dismemberment was very fully performed. . . . Even in the most perfunctory examples the head and legs were removed; they were not necessarily eaten, though it seems likely that a feast followed the sacrifice and that all the bones were not always buried . . . it is not too much to suppose that they, the Hyksos, also cooked the sacrificial meal with the bones of the victims. This would account for the absence of bones in the burials of the horse sacrifices at Tell Ajjūl. 159

3.2.10.  Tell Jemmeh Tell Jemmeh is located on southern bank of the Besor River, south of Tell el-ʿAjjul. The most recent excavations by the Smithsonian Institution (directed by Gus W. van Beek, beginning in 1970) have only revealed meager depositional evidence for donkeys and horses. 160 But more importantly, the 157.  Petrie 1931: 5. For further discussion, see §3.7.1. 158.  Petrie 1932: 2, 5, 14. 159.  Mackay and Murray 1952: 33. 160.  Wapnish comments: “Donkeys were relatively uncommon at Tell Jemmeh in all periods, contributing only 3 out of 2500 identifiable bones recovered from deposits dated between 1750 and 1550 b.c.e. . . . cut marks show that their skins were sometimes used. Cut marks on bones from fleshy parts of the carcass probably indicate that donkey meat was occasionally eaten at Tell Jemmeh. Most donkey bones are recovered as single bone finds mixed in with the usual food debris” (1997: 343). As for horse remains, Wapnish states: “At Tell Jemmeh, only a few horse bones are noted from a sample in excess of 20,000 identifiable specimens recovered from contexts spanning

128

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

excavations have also revealed the existence of two deliberate equid burials, which have been thoroughly analyzed by P. Wapnish. In 1978, a neonatal equid skeleton was discovered in a pit beneath a wall. 161 The circumstance of this burial seems to be that of a foundation deposit. The building and the pit are dated to MB IIB (based on the pottery associated with the building). The species of the equid cannot be determined at present due to the youngness of the specimen. Interestingly, the equid was “buried in a natural recumbent/sitting position. The feet and legs were drawn together toward the body, and the head was bowed with the nose resting near the mid-left forelimb.” 162 But the equid is not entirely complete: “Most of the skeleton is present. . . . Missing are the caudal vertebrae (tail), pelvis (bones of the innominate), one upper hind limb, both lower hind limbs (metatarsi), ankle joints (astragali, calcanei, tarsi), and toes of one front and both hind feet.” 163 A possible reason for this, according to Wapnish, is “that the missing pelvis and limb parts were offered in sacrifice at the time of interment.” 164 In 1982, a skull and hind leg of a donkey were discovered in a MB IIC context. 165 The remains were apparently not associated with any architecture. P. Wapnish recounted the discovery as follows: While working with Ron Gardiner in 1982, I helped excavate the second equid burial from a series of MB II layers on the east slope. Ron exposed a relatively intact skull with the top of the head placed down into the soil. It was flanked by an articulated hind leg . . . flexed at the ankle joint into a (more or less) right angle (Fig. 12.6). 166

Three details are worth noting about this burial. First, the configuration of the bones is unique. Wapnish explains: “a hind limb, even flexed as in this Jemmeh burial, was in no sense strange. What was out of the ordinary was the juxtaposition of the skull and the leg in so contrived a position.” 167 Second, cut marks appear on the leg bones but not on the skull: “This again raises the possibility of a sacrificial offering.” 168 Third, while all of the bones in this burial are from domestic donkeys, the analysis suggests that the leg bones came from a differMiddle Bronze II through the Hellenistic periods” (1997: 336). Also, “The very few MBA horse bones at Jemmeh were not found in a burial context” (1997: 358). 161. See Wapnish 1997: 337–43, 361; cf. van Beek 1993: 668; Oren 1997b: 266; Wapnish and Hesse 1988: 83. For further discussion on this burial, see §3.7.3. 162.  Wapnish 1997: 337. 163.  Wapnish 1997: 337. 164.  Wapnish 1997: 343. 165. See Wapnish 1997: 343–49, 361; cf. van Beek 1993: 668; Wapnish and Hesse 1988: 83. 166.  Wapnish 1997: 343. 167.  Wapnish 1997: 343. 168.  Wapnish 1997: 345.

3.2. Israel-Palestine

129

ent donkey than that of the skull. The leg comes from “an equid three years of age or older,” while the skull came from a male equid having “an age span of six to eleven years.” 169 This observation “increases the possibility that this was an intentional burial.” 170

3.2.11.  Tel Haror Tel Haror (Tell Abu Hureireh) is located to the east of Tell Jemmeh on the northern bank of Naḥal Gerar (tributary of the Naḥal Besor). Excavations at Tel Haror (the “Land of Gerar Expedition”) commenced in 1982 under the direction of Eliezer D. Oren of Ben-Gurion University. Donkey remains were recovered from two areas in the lower tell—the well and the sacred complex in Area K. While the discoveries from the well are much less interesting than the discoveries from Area K, it is instructive to compare the two very different sets of data from the same site. The well, which is located at the southern edge of the site (southeast of Area K), was excavated in 1990 and 1992. It measured 3 meters in diameter and was excavated to a depth of 11.5 meters. The contents represent “refuse from a wide range of taxa that was dropped into the well for waste removal purposes.” 171 The contents consisted of utilitarian pottery from the MB IIB (MB II) period along with a large amount of faunal remains including equids, pigs, birds, dogs, goats, sheep, cattle, and so on. 172 A total of 62 (of the 72) equid bones were identified by J. D. Klenck as domestic donkey, and these represent a minimum of three animals. 173 The remaining ten equid bones are classified as “horse/hemione” and come from a minimum of one animal. 174 What is most interesting about the donkey bones from the well is that there is evidence of both gnawing and butchery. 175 Neither of these features is present on the donkey bones excavated from Area K. 176 169.  Wapnish 1997: 345. 170.  Wapnish 1997: 345. Wapnish explains: “The disjunction between the small metatarsal and the large upper teeth is not definitive proof that the bones of the donkey burial were assembled from at least two animals, but it is strongly suggestive. If true, it reinforces the impression that the skull and leg were a deliberate burial” (Wapnish 1997: 349). For further discussion on this burial, see §3.7.2. 171.  Klenck 2002: 39 (see also pp. 44, 56–57). 172. See Klenck 2002: 34, 44, 54, 77. 173.  Domestic donkey: Klenck 2002: 48, 146. Three animals: Klenck 2002: 151. 174.  Klenck 2002: 48, 49, 146, 151. 175.  Klenck 2002: 56, 58, 77, 161, 163. Ten donkey bones exhibited gnawing and 12 exhibited cut marks (only one of the horse/hemione bones exhibited cut marks). It should also be noted that all the bones were inspected for evidence of burning and that no such evidence was found on any of the equid bones from the well or from Area K (Klenck 2002: 55, 153, 156). 176.  Klenck 2002: 56, 58, 76–77, 161, 163.

130

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

The sacred complex in Area K is located at the southwestern corner of the tell. The complex includes a migdal (“fortress”) temple, courtyards, enclosed spaces, and a unique donkey burial. The relevant strata in Area K are V–IVa (MB IIB–C [MB II–MB III]; 1800/1750–1550 b.c.e.). The stratigraphic history of the donkey burial is interpreted as follows. 177 In stratum V, which constitutes the initial phase of occupation in Area K, the temple (structure 8630) and the donkey burial (structure 8624) were erected. Pit 8253, which contained numerous puppy and bird burials, also dates to this period (and it continues in use through stratum IVb). The donkey burial was a domed mudbrick structure with an entrance (locus 8753) and a narrow passageway (locus 8752) leading down to a circular chamber (locus 8740) which had a diameter of 3.5 meters. The chamber was mostly quarried out of kurkar rock and partly out of loess soil. The chamber and dome were also lined with plaster. The entrance to the grave was blocked with mudbrick and sealed off. This blockage may have coincided with the collapse of the dome. Despite the blockage and collapse of stratum V, “subsequent construction during strata IVb and IVa manifests an awareness and appreciation of the tomb’s presence.” 178 In stratum IVb, the area was enlarged and the donkey burial was set apart from the rest of the sacred complex as walls were constructed around it. Construction of this sort appears to be aimed at preserving and/or protecting the burial. 179 This stratum also included a square mudbrick altar (1m2) in an enclosed courtyard. In stratum IVa, which is the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age in Area K, the floor level of the entire complex was raised. As for the donkey burial, it “was not seriously harmed, even though a large structure (locus 8157) was constructed on top of it and a pit (locus 8738) was dug into it.” 180 Now for a description of the burial itself: On the floor of the chamber lay two (presumably) 181 intact donkeys. Interestingly, the donkey closest to the entrance actually had a bronze bit still lodged it its mouth. 182 In the fill above 177. See Katz 2000: 43–61, 240–42, 273–75; Klenck 2002: 31–34, 117; cf. Oren 1997b: 263, 265. The publication of Area K is still forthcoming. For the time being, the most detailed information can be gleaned from the dissertations of Klenck and Katz. See now Katz 2009. 178.  Katz 2000: 49. 179. See Katz 2000: 55. 180.  Katz 2000: 58. 181.  That the two donkeys are complete and articulated is only “presumed” because they have not yet been fully excavated (see Katz 2000: 118 [see also pp. 48, 49, 117]; 2009: 34, 80–81; cf. Oren 1997b: 265). 182.  For a photograph of the bit in the donkey’s mouth, see Klenck 2002: 205; for a photo of the bit after cleaning, see Oren 1997b: 269. This bronze bit is very similar to those discovered at Tell el-ʿAjjul and Ugarit (see §3.2.9). Klenck also notes that “a cranium fragment and two mandible fragments” from the donkey burial “exhibit a

3.2. Israel-Palestine

131

the two donkeys, many disarticulated donkey bones were found along with the bones of other animals. Also in this fill were a donkey mandible (locus 8746) and an upside-down storage jar over another donkey mandible (locus 8737). 183 The fill did not contain any remains of birds, dogs, goats, deer, or small mammals—only fragments of gazelle, pig, and cattle, as well as many sheep bones and a total of 70 donkey bones. 184 J. D. Klenck explains that “the faunal remains above the burial . . . either represent equid remains placed on shelves in the tomb or comprise faunal material that was contained in the fill above the intact skeleton. Of import is that the fill above the burial was a mixture of remains from the tomb and from the collapse of the structure.” 185 What is the significance of this donkey burial? It is unlike any other burial that is surveyed in this chapter. While pits containing intact donkeys in temple courtyards are attested at Tell el-Dabʿa (see §3.1.1), this is the only instance of a tomb—and an elaborate one at that—containing intact donkeys in a temple courtyard. Also, the fact that the monumental donkey tomb was an object of some ongoing veneration (or at least respect) in successive periods is also unparalleled in Egypt and Israel-Palestine. 186 A number of tentative interpretations of this donkey burial have been suggested. E. D. Oren makes only a general statement about its religious significance: “The central location of the equid burial in the temple courtyard in its earlier phase, like the subsequent attempt to emphasize it as a distinctive monument in the precinct, clearly indicates that the donkey played a prominent role in the cult at Tel Haror.” 187 J. D. Klenck suggests that the scattered donkey remains in the fill above the intact donkeys were “not subjected to food preparation processes such as burning” and that they “probably came from animals that died naturally or that were killed but not butchered. These animals were probably placed in the domed chamber as part of a burial ritual.” 188 What precisely greenish tint over part of their surfaces. The greenish tint is from a bronze or copper bit” (2002: 58). 183. See Klenck 2002: 32, 118. 184.  Klenck 2002: 53, 146. The minimum number of donkeys in the fill was two (Klenck 2002: 151). In addition, it is noteworthy that the burial chamber apparently did not contain any human remains. 185.  Klenck 2002: 44. 186.  Additional examples of conspicuous/monumental burials containing donkey remains are attested in Syria at Umm el-Marra and Tel Banat (see §§3.3.1 and 3.3.3). 187.  Oren 1997b: 265. 188.  Klenck 2002: 55 (cf. pp. 39, 76). Klenck also states that these same donkey remains “probably associate with the donkey burial on the floor of the installation. A similar equid bone scatter above a complete donkey burial was also recorded at Tel elAjjul (Petrie 1931: Plate L)” (2002: 75). Klenck’s statement about Tell el-ʿAjjul needs some clarification. First one must correct Klenck’s citation of Petrie to 1932: pl. L. The burial to which Klenck refers is actually a foundation deposit that is now dated

132

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

Klenck meant by “burial ritual” is not altogether clear. J. C. Katz remarks: “The grave, once established, lies mainly dormant, yet remains an integral part of the landscape through its symbolism.” 189 Katz also states: “The burial represents a unique aspect of Tel Haror’s sacred area by its separation, protection, and species type. The donkeys here are clearly not treated in the same manner as the other animal species [from the enclosure area].” 190 All three of the above scholars (Oren, Klenck, and Katz) are also aware of the treaty ceremonies from Mari involving the killing of donkeys (cf. §2.4.1.1). While all three scholars entertain the idea of treaty ceremony for the Haror donkey burial, none of them is exclusively committed to this interpretation. 191 If the Mari treaty ceremonies can be applied to the interpretation of the Haror donkey burial, then one must also consider the same interpretation for the puppy burials in pits from the same stratum (V). 192 It is interesting that the puppies and donkeys are both buried as intact animals but that the donkeys are interred with much greater care and effort than are the puppies. Does this distinction in the archaeological evidence from Area K mirror the distinction in the textual evidence from Mari where the donkey is preferred over the puppy and goat? Could such preferential treatment of the donkey by Amorites account for the special manner of donkey burial that is observed at Tel Haror? Because both donkeys and puppies are buried intact in the courtyard of Haror’s Middle Bronze Age temple, and because the practice of killing donkeys as well as puppies (and goats) at temples is well documented in the Mari texts from the Middle Bronze Age, it would appear that the most viable interpretation currently available for these discoveries at Tel Haror (Area K) is that of treaty ceremony. The treaty interpretation can perhaps be augmented by considering the possibility of a covenant ceremony. 193 Because the Amorite treaty elements seem to be present and the donkey interment appears to be a one-time event at the founding of the temple (in stratum V), one may be justified in positing the ratito LB IIB. Furthermore, the equids of this burial are classified as horses by Petrie, and neither the “bone scatter” nor the horse was of “complete” equids—all of them had missing body parts (see §3.2.9). 189.  Katz 2000: 228. 190.  Katz 2000: 236. 191. See Katz 2000: 237–38; 2009: 168; Klenck 2002: 88; Oren 1997b: 266; cf. Lafont 1999: 75; 2000: 217; Stager 1999: 238–39; 2003: 66. 192. Again, Oren is aware of the Mari rituals regarding puppies, but he does not seem committed to this as the only possible interpretation (see 1997b: 264). For further reference on the puppy burials from Area K, see Katz 2000: 84–85, 101, 107–8, 112–18, 120–30, 132–33, 135–36, 138, 142, 146–48, 150–51, 153–57, 161–63, 222, 228, 233–35; 2009: 58, 165–66; Klenck 2002: 63, 70–73, 84–87, 211–14; Oren 1993: 581; 1997a: 474–75; 1997b: 264, 268 (fig. 8.15); Stager 1999: 238–39, 2003: 66. 193.  This interpretation was suggested by N. S. Fox (personal communication).

3.3. Syria

133

fication of a “covenant” between divine and human parties (rather than merely positing a “treaty” between human parties). A covenant interpretation may thus account for the unique nature of the discoveries at Tel Haror. Of course, other interpretations for the donkey burial at Tel Haror are also possible, but they do not benefit from textual corroboration to the degree that the treaty/covenant theory does. These possibilities include: 1.  The donkey pair that was buried with its trappings (or at least with one bronze bit) may have received special burial because of the role it played in cultic ceremonies. Perhaps these donkeys transported the deity’s image or emblem either on their backs or on a cart or chariot (compare an earlier example of this practice from the Sumerian cylinders of Gudea; see §2.5.1). Thus, the donkeys would have had sacred status and would have been buried accordingly. 2.  The donkey burial may be a foundation deposit for the migdal temple because both the temple and the burial chamber appear to have been constructed at the same time (or at least in the same stratum [V]). The donkey burial also appears to be a single event that was not repeated. The only difficulty with this view is that the deposit is not placed directly below the foundations of the temple. 3.  The donkeys may constitute a special offering/gift to either Baal or El because practices of this sort are attested in Ugaritic texts (see §2.2.1.1; cf. §2.6.19). This offering may even be connected with an inauguration ceremony for the temple—thus, as a kind of foundation deposit (see the previous possibility, above). Again, it is useful to compare the scenario in the Gudea Cylinders in which donkeys were bestowed to the deity for the inauguration of the temple (see §2.5.1; cf. §2.5.5).

3.3. Syria The equid burials from Syria and Iraq are consistently earlier in date than those known from the Nile Delta and Israel-Palestine (which are mostly from the Middle Bronze Age). The vast majority of equid burials in Syria and Iraq date to the Early Bronze Age (namely, Early Dynastic II–Dynasty of Akkad). 194 While the earliest equid burials in Syria and Iraq are probably represented by the “chariot burials” at Kish (ED II; ca. 2600 b.c.e.), the latest burials come from either Tell Ababra (OB; ca. 1700 b.c.e.) or Umm el-Marra (late MB II 194.  With the exception of the burials at Tell Ababra (dating to the First Dynasty of Babylon), all the Mesopotamian burials are from the third millennium b.c.e. The traditional dates for the ED II–Akkadian periods are 2700–2100 b.c.e. (cf. 2750–2150 b.c.e. in Postgate 1994: 2).

134

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

[ca. 1800–1600]). There are five Syrian sites with equid burials that merit attention, and they are arranged below from west to east. 195

3.3.1.  Umm el-Marra Umm el-Marra is located in the Jabbul plain about halfway between Aleppo and the Euphrates River. It is most likely the site of ancient Tuba, a city referenced in the Ebla archives (ca. 2400 b.c.e.). 196 Recent excavations at Umm elMarra have revealed numerous equid burials from at least two archaeological contexts—the monumental burial complex and the foundations of buildings. The monumental burial complex is prominently located on the acropolis and it is comprised of elite (royal?) human tombs along with “equid installations.” The human tombs contained between one and seven individuals who were accompanied by animal bones (sheep, goats, cattle, dogs, and birds) 197 and valuable possessions (pottery, furniture, precious metals, lapis lazuli, and so on). The tombs were used over several generations from ca. 2500–2200 b.c.e. 198 The equid installations are centrally located in the circular burial complex and are independent of (but adjacent to) the elite human tombs. These installations collectively contained more than 30 equids (26 of which were complete), 6 puppies, an adult dog, and at least 5 human infants. 199 All the equids have been identified by Jill Weber (the paleozoologist for Umm el-Marra) as male kúnga hybrids—that is, crosses between donkey and onager. 200 According to Weber, there are three types of equid installations in the monumental burial complex. Type 1 includes the three largest installations (the Stone Platform, Installation A, and Installation E) which each “contained four equids of young or prime working age. . . . The young age and seeming good health of these skel195.  Not included here is the Syrian site of Abu Hamad (currently unpublished and not treated below). It reportedly features an EB IV human grave (Tomb A5) containing three poorly preserved equids (see Vila 2006: 116). 196. See Schwartz 2007a: 40, 2007b: 44; Schwartz et al. 2006: 603. 197.  According to the report by Schwartz et al., but not mentioned in the articles by J. Weber, Tombs 3 and 4 also contained some equid remains (see Schwartz et al. 2006: 610, 623). These remains were likely intended for consumption by the deceased because there is some evidence for equid consumption at Umm el-Marra in the Bronze Age (see Schwartz et al. 2000: 437–38). 198.  For further discussion on the dating of the equid installations, see Schwartz et al. 2006: 628 n. 97; cf. Schwartz et al. 2003: 328. 199. See Weber 2007; cf. Weber 2008: 499–505. The archaeological juxtaposition of human infants and male equids is perhaps comparable to the juxtaposition of humans and donkeys in the Exodus legislation related to the male firstborns (see §4.4). 200. See Weber 2008: 499–500, 505, 514, 516; cf. Schwartz et al. 2006: 633–34; Weber 2007. For further discussion on k ú n g a equids, see §3.3.5.

3.3. Syria

135

etons indicates that they were killed and buried.” 201 Type 2 includes three installations (Installations B, C, and D) which consisted of two chambers, each of which contained “a single equid placed in standing position, facing west.” 202 These double-chambered installations each contained “a spouted ceramic vessel placed near the [decapitated] skulls of the equids, and at least one skeleton of a human infant.” 203 Most of the equids in the Type 2 installations were old (in excess of 20 years), and Weber suggests that they “were buried following their natural deaths.” 204 Finally, Type 3 includes “three, superimposed, greylined pits” that “have not been fully excavated.” 205 These pits contain equids laying on their left sides. There are a number of ways to interpret these equid burials from Umm el-Marra’s monumental burial complex. First, it is possible that the kúnga equids served as general offerings for the entire necropolis because they were interred in installations that were ostensibly independent from the human tombs. 206 Second, the burials of hybrid equids (and the expense of owning or sacrificing them) may indicate that the deceased were individuals of prestige/ status. 207 Third, the equid burials may have functioned as funerary furnishings for the employment of the deceased in the afterlife. 208 Fourth, the equid burials may represent draft teams that were employed in a funeral (or some other kind of) ceremony. 209 Finally, any combination of the preceding interpretations is also possible. The second archaeological context of equid burials at Umm el-Marra is that of building foundations. It is reported that “equid bones were interred in 201.  Weber 2007. Skulls were almost always separated from the equid skeletons and some were placed on shelves/benches (especially in Installations A and E); see Weber 2008: 501–2, 504. 202.  Weber 2007; cf. Schwartz 2006: 625–27. For donkeys buried in upright position in Archaic Egypt, see §§3.1.5, 3.1.7. 203.  Weber 2007. The equid skulls are, once again, separated from their skeletons (see Weber 2008: 502–4; cf. Schwartz 2007a: 41–42; 2007b: 44). Note that equid decapitation is also attested at Shechem and Tell Brak (see §§3.2.3 and 3.3.5, respectively). 204.  Weber 2007. 205.  Weber 2008: 505; cf. Weber 2007. 206.  Weber states: “this offering may have been for the royal domain as a whole” (2007). Compare this interpretation with those of V. Müller and R. Schiestl regarding the cemetery pits at Tell el-Dabʿa (see §§3.1.1, 3.7.2; Müller 2002: 271; Schiestl 2002: 331). 207. Cf. Schwartz 2007a: 52, 2007b: 46; Schwartz et al. 2006: 629, 631–34; Weber 2007; 2008: 500, 514, 516. 208. Cf. Schwartz 2007a: 52, 2007b: 46; Schwartz et al. 2006: 633; Weber 2007. 209. Cf. Schwartz 2007a: 51, 2007b: 46; Schwartz et al. 2006: 620 (n. 75), 633 (n. 134), 634. Note that the Umm el-Marra equids are always buried in multiples of two (i.e., the numbers needed for draft purposes).

136

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

the stone foundations of houses” in the later MB II period. 210 In addition to the foundation deposits, “a complete donkey skeleton was found within the blocked doorway of a contemporaneous [late MB II] building in the Acropolis East.” 211

3.3.2.  Tell Halawa Tell Halawa is located in Northern Syria on the Euphrates River (north of Emar). The site was excavated and published by W. Orthmann. In Grave H-70, three donkeys (two jennies and one jack) 212 were excavated along with a man who was accompanied by weapons and a young woman. The grave dates from 2200–2100 b.c.e. 213

3.3.3.  Tell Banat Tell Banat is located north of Halawa (and just north of the Tishreen Dam) on the east bank of the Euphrates River. Equid remains have been identified in two contexts at the site—in White Monument A and below Public Building B6. Both of these contexts are dated to Period III (ca. 2450 b.c.e.). The identification of the equid species represented in both of these contexts is undetermined at present due to the fragmentary nature of the remains. 214 Tell Banat North is comprised of the so-called White Monument, which is an “above-ground mortuary structure . . . located about 200 m northeast of the main urban center.” 215 It is an “artificial structure [a conical mound] that is 100 m in diameter and stands some 20 m high.” 216 Its construction phases are identified as C, B, and A (periods V, IV, and III, respectively). The latest phase, White Monument A, “contained a series of discrete burial deposits that had clearly been interred as the mound was compiled, and not cut in after completion, nor incorporated randomly with imported fill. . . . Human bones were mixed with animal remains and ceramics.” 217 All the skeletal remains are fragmentary and disarticulated and may therefore be secondary burial deposits. 218 Jill Weber’s preliminary analysis shows that “40 percent of the animal bones from White Monument A are of equid, with a secondary concentra210.  Schwartz et al. 2003: 345; cf. Nichols and Weber 2006: 48, 53; Schwartz et al. 2006: 634. The MB II period at Umm el-Marra is ca. 1800–1600 b.c.e. 211.  Nichols and Weber 2006: 48; cf. Schwartz et al. 2003: 345. Note that Donkey 4 at Tell Brak was also situated in a doorway (cf. §3.3.5). 212.  The identifications were made by J. Boessneck and M. Kokabi (1981b: 92–97). 213.  For further reference on this grave, see Boessneck and Kokabi 1981b: 92–97, 101; Carter and Parker 1995: 109; Orthmann 1981: 54, 71, pl. 39; Philip 1995: 151; Wapnish 1997: 357, 362; Zarins 1986: 175–76. 214.  Personal communication from Jill Weber (March 17, 2008). 215.  Porter 2002a: 11–13. 216.  Porter 2002a: 13; cf. Porter 2002b: 160. 217.  Porter 2002a: 16; cf. Porter 2002b: 160–61. 218.  Porter 2002a: 21.

3.3. Syria

137

tion of bovid remains,” whereas “the below-ground tombs thus far contain no equid, little cattle, and a very high proportion of sheep/goat.” 219 It is difficult to determine the function of the equid remains in White Monument A. Because they are associated with “corporate” human burials, 220 the equid remains may represent general sacrifices for all who were interred in the White Monument (see above, §3.3.1, for the possibility of a similar interpretation of the equid installations at Umm el-Marra). It is also possible that the equids were originally interred as grave goods for the deceased to employ in the afterlife and that those equids along with the human burials were reinterred (and therefore disarticulated) in White Monument A. Finally, it should be noted that these human-equid burials are associated with high (possibly the highest) socioeconomic status at Tell Banat. Anne Porter has noted that “the inclusion of equid bones in White Monument A . . . may be an indicator of the differential social position of the individuals interred there.” 221 Porter has also noted that “the single act of construction that is manifest in the enlargement of White Monument A and the transference there of a large number of interments, may itself be understood as the work of an elite that had sufficient resources to devote to the project.” 222 The second context for equid burial at Tell Banat is “in the foundations of building 6” located in Area C. 223 The equid remains beneath this building were accompanied by some pottery vessels. 224 The bones were very fragmentary and the burial may be interpreted as a foundation deposit.

3.3.4.  Tall Biʿa  /  Tuttul Tall Biʿa, which is located at the confluence of the Balikh and the Euphrates Rivers, features an intact donkey burial in a small shaft directly beneath a human grave (Burial U:22) from the third millennium (ca. 2500 b.c.e.). 225

3.3.5.  Tell Brak Tell Brak is located in northeastern Syria in the Khabur basin. The recent excavation reports identify this site with ancient Nagar of the third millennium b.c.e. 226 Equid remains have been identified in two contexts at Tell Brak—a human grave (Area TC) and a temple complex (Area FS). 219.  Porter 2002a: 21; cf. Porter 2002b: 165. Note that the earlier announcement of equid remains inside Tomb 7 (see Porter and McClellan 1996: 28) has, after additional analysis, been corrected to bovid remains (personal communication from Anne Porter, January 22, 2008; see also Porter 2002b: 171 n. 12). 220. See Porter 2002a: 22, 23, 27–28; 2002b: 166, 170. 221.  Porter 2002b: 170. 222.  Porter 2002b: 170. 223.  Porter 2002b: 171 n. 12; see also Porter 2002a: 16, fig. 6. 224.  Personal communication from Anne Porter (January 22, 2008). 225. See Strommenger and Kohlmeyer 1998: 93, pl. 17:6, appendix 3. 226. See Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 379–82; cf. Oates et al. 2008: 390.

138

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

The human grave was excavated in Area TC below the east courtyard of the so-called Oval Building, which dates to ED IIIb/Phase L (ca. 2400–2250 b.c.e.). 227 It was a mass burial containing the remains of seven humans (including “three babies, two adults and a juvenile”) 228 and at least two donkeys. The donkeys were situated on top of the human remains and were accompanied by broken pottery. 229 The donkeys were also incomplete (i.e., lacking hind legs) and were decapitated, judging by the position of their skulls in relation to their skeletons. 230 The incomplete nature of the donkey remains may indicate that they were intended/employed as food. Evidence for equid decapitation is also attested at Shechem and Umm el-Marra (cf. §§3.2.3 and 3.3.1, respectively). In Area FS, which is located in the northeast corner of the tell, a total of eight donkey skeletons were discovered in buildings dating to the period of Akkadian hegemony (Phase M: Levels 5-3; 2250–2150 b.c.e. [EB IVa]). 231 The buildings are described as “a monumental complex comprising a temple and its dependencies which we believe to have served as a way-station on Brak’s northern trade route.” 232 It is also maintained that the facility was “an institution connected with the use and stabling of equids.” 233 Two bullae mentioning hybrid equids (bar-an-anše [= Sum. kú nga]) were discovered in the temple courtyard ( just outside the antecella door): “These record deliveries of the famous kúnga equids to the FS complex, perhaps to the temple itself.” 234 The donkey remains (all from Level 5) are of complete skeletons that are positioned at different locations around the complex. They are all interpreted as ritual deposits that were buried along with the entire building complex in a “closure” event dated to “not long after 2250 bc.” 235 Clutton-Brock observes: 227. See Emberling and McDonald 2003: 1, 38, 48; cf. Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: xxx. 228.  Emberling and McDonald 2003: 48. For human infant burials associated with equid burials cf. §3.3.1. 229.  Emberling and McDonald 2003: 48. 230.  Emberling and McDonald 2003: 48 (see also the photograph on p. 49). 231. See Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: xxx. 232.  Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 41 (cf. pp. 279, 387). See also Oates and Oates 1993: 138. 233.  Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 387 (cf. pp. 279, 293). 234.  Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 47 (cf. p. 279). The bullae are numbers 77 and 78 in the final reports: number 77 reads “23 k ú nga equids, Rabi-il”; number 78 reads “13 k ú n g a equids foals(?), [Rabi-i]l” (Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 104, 118–19). For bar-an-a n š e (k ú n g a equids), see Postgate 1986: 194–200; Zarins 1986: 183–88; cf. Ellermeier 1979: 177; Greengus 1990: 42 n. 66; Heimpel 1990: 602, 1995: 89–91; Oates et al. 2008: 390, 391; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 286, 292–93; Zarins 1978: 11–15. 235.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 327. David and Joan Oates write: “The whole complex seems to have been abandoned and, after a relatively short interval, deliberately filled in. This operation clearly had a ritual character, for it was accompanied by deposits

3.3. Syria

139

“From the positions of the skeletons it looks as though all the carcasses had been deliberately placed where they were found.” 236 In 1987 a complete dog skeleton 237 and a complete donkey skeleton (Donkey 6) were recovered and subsequently published by Clutton-Brock (1989). In 1991, five more complete donkey skeletons (Donkeys 1–5) were recovered and subsequently published by Clutton-Brock (1993). It was concluded that all six of these donkeys were ritually buried at the time when the monumental building was filled in. 238 Finally, in 1992, two more complete donkeys were recovered from the temple complex that the excavators identify with the deity Šakkan/Sumugan (the god of steppe animals, including donkeys). 239 The remains from these additional donkeys were apparently not included in CluttonBrock’s 2001 report. One of the donkeys was located on the outer northern wall of the antecella of the shrine and was wrapped in reed matting. 240 The other donkey was located in a pit that was “cut into the west wall of the temple and the adjoining fill.” 241 The six donkeys that were analyzed by Clutton-Brock (1989, 1993, 2001) are described here as follows: • Donkey 1: an aged jenny (over 20 years old) from Room 10 242 • Donkey 2: a young jenny (3 to 4 years old) from Room 10 243 below, within and above the fill, including a number of donkeys as well as valuable objects and jewellery” (Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 41, see also pp. 50, 53, 389). See also Oates et al. 2008: 391, 398; Oates and Oates 1993: 137. For further discussion on the interpretation of the Tell Brak donkey burials, see §3.7.4. 236.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 335 (cf. p. 331); Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 210. 237.  Clutton-Brock 1989: 217–24; 2001: 327–28, 330–31; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 41. For another complete dog skeleton from a Syrian site, see Carter and Parker: “In a shaft of a tomb under court Q26 at Selenkahiye, the skeleton of a slaughtered ox and a dog buried intact were found” (1995: 109). 238.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 327. 239. See Clutton-Brock 2001: 327; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 209; Oates et al. 2008: 391; Oates and Oates 1993: 137; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 387–88 (see also p. 47). For further reference on Šakkan/Sumugan, the son of Utu, see ANET 585; Averbeck 2003: 760; CAD A/2 483, M/2 229; Frayne 2008: 184–85; Jacobsen 1984: 24; Lambert and Walcot 1965: 67; Owen 1991: 259; Wiggermann 1996: 213; Zarins 1978: 4. For further discussion and critique, see §3.7.4. 240.  For this donkey, see Clutton-Brock 2001: 335; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 42, 48. 241.  Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 48. For this donkey, see Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 42, 48. 242.  For Donkey 1, see Clutton-Brock 2001: 335; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 210–12; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 42, 44. 243.  For Donkey 2, see Clutton-Brock 2001: 335; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 212; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 42, 44.

140

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

• Donkey 3: a male donkey (5 years old) from Room 10. 244 The bone measurements of this equid lead von den Driesch to suggest that it was a kúnga hybrid (onager-donkey). 245 The teeth show evidence for the habit of crib-biting. 246 • Clutton-Brock comments on Donkeys 1–3: “Donkeys 1 and 2 were lying together as a pair with Donkey 3 behind them and facing in the opposite direction.” 247 She also states: “the bodies of the donkeys were deposited in the order 1, 2 and 3.” 248 • Donkey 4: an aged male donkey (over 20 years old) in the north doorway of Room 13. 249 There is evidence for both crib-biting and bit-wear. 250 Clutton-Brock also concludes that “the donkey had been used as a pack animal or ridden for long periods on hard ground.” 251 • Donkey 5: aged jenny from the central courtyard (north of the doorway of Room 2). 252 There is evidence for crib-biting and for the conclusion that “this donkey was frequently ridden.” 253 Next to this donkey in the courtyard there are also scattered human remains. 254 There is additional evidence in the courtyard of “herbivore dung” and stake holes. 255

244.  For Donkey 3, see Clutton-Brock 2001: 334–36; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 212; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 42, 44. 245.  See discussion of Clutton-Brock, who sides with the identification of donkey (2001: 334). 246.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 336; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 212. Crib-biting indicates that “these animals spent much of their time in stalls where they developed compulsive behaviour patterns in an attempt to relieve the monotony of their lives, just as stabled horses will do today when they are bored” (Clutton-Brock 2001: 338; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 215). 247.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 335; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 210. 248.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 336; cf. Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 212. 249.  For Donkey 4, see Clutton-Brock 2001: 335 fig. 343, 336; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 211 fig. 2, 214; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 41, 42, 43 fig. 45. Clutton-Brock comments: “It appears to have been carefully positioned in the centre of the doorway with the head on the threshold, facing out of the room (to the north)” (2001: 336; cf. Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 214). Note that Umm el-Marra also features a donkey situated in a doorway (cf. §3.3.1). 250.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 336; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 214. 251.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 336; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 214. 252.  For Donkey 5, see Clutton-Brock 2001: 335 fig. 344, 336; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 211 fig. 3, 214; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 42, 43. 253.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 336; Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 214. 254.  Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 43. For additional human remains from room 20, see Oates et al. 2008: 390–400. 255.  Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 44, 279.

3.4. Iraq

141

• Donkey 6: a small jenny (10 years old) from the southeast courtyard to the east of Room 1. 256 The skeleton was associated with the bones of pig, cattle, sheep/goat and crane. 257 Nearby was an installation that looks like a manger. 258 In conclusion, Clutton-Brock summarizes the evidence for Donkeys 1–6. She states: it can be deduced that the six donkeys were reasonably well cared for. They were housed in stalls but were frequently used as pack animals, were ridden or were harnessed to chariots or carts of which both two- and four-wheeled models occur frequently in the contemporary Akkadian levels at the site (Chapter 10). The donkeys were bridled with bits. They ended their lives at more or less the same time, as sacrifices to a demanding god. 259

3.4. Iraq The equid burials from Mesopotamia mostly date to the third millennium b.c.e. (see above, §3.3). The typical scenario is that of (an) intact equid(s) deposited inside of a human grave. Most sites exhibit equid pairs (note the exception of Lagash/al-Hiba with one equid), and many of the equids are associated with draft implements (such as rein-rings or the remains of wheeled vehicles). While some of the equids described below are confidently identified as domestic donkeys, 260 one must allow (and expect) that some others are actually hybrids (probably onager-donkey). By far the best source for information on these burials is the article by Juris Zarins (1986), “Equids Associated with Human Burials in Third Millennium b.c. Mesopotamia” from both a paleozoological and a textual perspective. He maintains that “The literary material from the third millennium b.c. suggests a possibility of confirming the paleo-zoological and archaeological data. Grave goods listed in the texts remarkably parallel the actual reported finds.” 261 Zarins surveys a number of interesting texts in this regard, but three of them are especially relevant: the death of Ur Namma (Ur III), a sale transaction from Adab (ED III), and a text from Girsu/Tello (ED IIIB). 262 These texts all attest 256.  For Donkey 6, see Clutton-Brock 1989: 217–24; 2001: 329–31; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 42, 48, 49. 257.  Clutton-Brock 1989: 217; 2001: 329. 258.  Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 48. 259.  Clutton-Brock 2001: 338; cf. Clutton-Brock and Davies 1993: 215. Oates et al. now also refer to these donkey deposits as “sacrifices” (2008: 398). 260.  Note the exception at Lagash/al-Hiba (identified as an onager). 261.  Zarins 1986: 164. 262. See Zarins 1986: 181–84 (and the literature cited there); cf. Foxvog 1980: 67–75. For further discussion on the Death of Ur-Namma, see §2.5.3.

142

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

to human burials that were accompanied by equids that were associated with draft vehicles (cf. §2.5.3). Zarins concludes: “Textually, it can be stated with some confidence that E.asinus was utilized in human-associated burials and that higher status graves also used hybrids.” 263 In light of the above, it seems that the equid burials from Mesopotamia function as a form of grave goods (or “funerary furnishings”) which could accompany the deceased in the afterlife (cf. §2.5.3). 264 This interpretation fits well with the nine sites in modern Iraq that are surveyed below. The sites are arranged from the northwest to the southeast.

3.4.1. al-ʿUsiyah The site of al-ʿUsiyah is located in the Haditha basin on the Euphrates River (25 km southeast of ʿAna). 265 It was excavated in 1979 by Amin Agha and Abdul-Wahab. A stone-built chamber tomb was discovered that probably dates to the ED III period. J. Zarins explains the discovery: The tomb had been disturbed in antiquity, and apparently at least three (possibly four) equids had been tossed outside the front of the tomb where the excavators found them in association with a copper rein-ring surmounted by a bird. The osteological material was in a poor state of preservation and no analysis has been carried out to date. 266

3.4.2.  Tell Madhur Tell Madhur is located in the northern Hamrin basin. 267 The excavations in 1978–79 revealed three tombs containing equid remains. • Tomb in Trench 7 D/E (ED II or III): This tomb was excavated in 1978. It was discovered in a disturbed state and the human remains were missing. It contained two articulated equid skeletons. 268 • Tomb in Trench 5 G (Middle Akkadian period; ca. 2200 b.c.e.): This tomb was also excavated in 1978. It contained an adult man along with two articulated equid skeletons. The equids, which were positioned “as if yoked together,” 269 have been tentatively identified 263.  Zarins 1986: 189. 264.  This seems to be the view of both Zarins (1986: 164, 183) and Postgate (1982: 56; 1986: 201–2). For further discussion on the “funerary furnishings” interpretation, see §3.7.1. 265.  For a helpful map of the Haditha basin, see Roaf and Postgate 1981: 193. 266.  Zarins 1986: 175; cf. Wapnish 1997: 356, 362. See also Roaf and Postgate 1981: 198. 267.  For a helpful map of the Hamrin basin, see Gibson 1981: pl. 2; Postgate and Watson 1979: 158. 268.  For this tomb, see Killick and Roaf 1979: 540; Postgate and Watson 1979: 176; Wapnish 1997: 356, 362; Zarins 1986: 172. 269.  Killick and Roaf 1979: 540; Zarins 1986: 173.

3.4. Iraq

143

as donkeys. 270 A puppy was also positioned between the equids. 271 • Tomb from the early Old Akkadian period: This tomb was excavated in 1979 by M. D. Roaf. It contained two equids. 272

3.4.3.  Tell Razuk Tell Razuk is located in the northern Hamrin basin (Uch Tepe). Excavations by the University of Chicago and the University of Copenhagen revealed a burial pit (locus 415, burial 12) that contained two articulated donkey skeletons (side by side, “as if led into the tomb yoked”) next to a human burial. The burial cuts into an ED I stratum and dates to “the early part of the Akkadian period.” 273 Zarins notes that “The grave goods were similar to those found at Tell Madhur.” 274

3.4.4.  Tell Abu Qasim Tell Abu Qasim is located in the Hamrin basin. It was excavated by Awad al-Kessar, who discovered an ED III/Old Akkadian period burial associated with equids. 275 Nothing more is known about this discovery at present.

3.4.5.  Tell Ababra Tell Ababra is located in the Hamrin basin. The site (Tell E [Tell III], located to the northeast of the central tell) was excavated by Helga Trenkwalder in 1978–79. Four graves with equid remains were discovered that dated to the Old Babylonian period (ca. 1700 b.c.e.). 276 Only the equid remains from Grave 29 have been examined—they were identified as donkey. 277 270.  For the identifications, see Burleigh 1986: 234, 235; Clutton-Brock 1986: 210; Zarins 1986: 173. J. Clutton-Brock further remarks: “One (5 G.258) was a young animal of approximately two and a half years when it died, while the second (5 G.259) was an aged animal, probably more than 20 years at death” (Clutton-Brock 1986: 210). 271.  For this tomb, see Burleigh 1986: 234, 235; Clutton-Brock 1986: 210; Killick and Roaf 1979: 537, 540; Philip 1995: 149; Postgate and Watson 1979: 176; Roaf 1982: 45–46; Wapnish 1997: 356, 362; Zarins 1986: 167, 172–74 fig. 5. 272.  For this tomb, see Roaf and Postgate 1981: 183; Wapnish 1997: 356, 362; Zarins 1986: 168, 173–74. 273.  Two skeletons: The species identifications (as Equus asinus) were made by Boessneck and von den Driesch (see Zarins 1986: 174). For further reference on this burial, see Gibson 1981: 73–75, 189–90, pls. 44–46, 93; Philip 1995: 149; Wapnish 1997: 356, 362; Zarins 1986: 167, 174, 175 fig. 6, 176 pl. 2. Side by side: Zarins 1986: 174. Early Akkadian period: Gibson 1981: 80 (cf. p. 73). 274.  Zarins 1986: 174 (cf. p. 167). 275.  For this burial, see Postgate and Watson 1979: 165; Wapnish 1997: 356, 362; Zarins 1986: 175. 276.  For these graves, see von den Driesch and Amberger 1981: 67–74; Postgate and Watson 1979: 163; Trenkwalder 1979: 480; Wapnish 1997: 357, 362; Zarins 1986: 176. 277.  See von den Driesch and Amberger 1981: 70.

144

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

3.4.6. Kish Kish is located in central Iraq, approximately 15 km east of Babylon. The famous “chariot burials” were excavated in the Y-trench (Tell Ingharra/East Kish) in 1927–28. Because the excavations were rather imprecise, a re­examination of the material was necessary and was eventually carried out by M. Gibson (1972) and P. R. S. Moorey (1966, 1978). According to their reconstructions, “the Kish tombs were formal structures with brick vaults, associated with vehicles, draft animals, perhaps human attendants, and rich burial goods.” 278 While equids were only identified in burials II and III, it is helpful to describe all four of the chariot burials because they can provide additional context. The four burials date to late ED II 279 and are described below. • Chariot Burial I: 280 This tomb contained human remains, a rein-ring topped by the figure of an equid, two chariot wheels, and the remains of at least three bovids. • Chariot Burial II:  281 This tomb contained four equids a half-meter above a bovid mandible and a four-wheeled vehicle. The equid teeth are said to belong to either onager or donkey. 282 Zarins provides a helpful summary of the interpretations regarding this tomb: The original published report by Watelin suggested that the animals and vehicle were directly associated, but Gibson felt that the height discrepancy ruled out a direct association (Figure 3). A bovid mandible was found below the equids and in front of the vehicle. Gibson concluded the equids were probably associated with an entirely different burial—completely undetected at the time (Gibson 1972: 85). Moorey, on the other hand, felt that the bovid only temporarily pulled the vehicle into the tomb and the original equid team was either thrown or led in on top of the burial (Moorey 1978: 107). 283 • Chariot Burial III: 284 This tomb was discovered in the extension of the Y-trench (Y 529). It contained three two-wheeled vehicles, a 278.  Zarins 1986: 169. 279. See Moorey 1966: 42–43; 1978: 105; cf. Gibson 1972: 85–86. 280.  For Chariot Burial I, see Gibson 1972: 85; Moorey 1978: 106–7; Zarins 1986: 169, 170. 281.  For Chariot Burial II, see Gibson 1972: 85, 310; Moorey 1978: 107–9; Wapnish 1997: 355–56, 362; Watelin 1934: 13, 30–34, and pl. XXIII:1; Zarins 1986: 168, 169 (and see fig. 3), 170. A copper rein-ring with the figure of a stag was also recovered from this tomb. 282. See Zarins 1986: 170. 283.  Zarins 1986: 169. 284. For Chariot Burial III, see Gibson 1972: 85; Moorey 1966: 41, 42; 1978: 109–10; Wapnish 1997: 356, 362; Watelin 1934: 30 and pl. XXIII:2; Zarins 1986: 167, 169–70.

3.4. Iraq

145

copper rein-ring with the figure of an equid and the remains of equids (and possibly bovids). Zarins remarks: “An unpublished sketch by Penniman . . . indicates the equids were laid on the right side of four wheels. The rein-ring was in place on the pole and just in front of it were the remains of bovids (?).” 285 • Chariot Burial IV: 286 This burial, which was discovered “in the southeast baulk of the Y-trench under the edge of the larger ziggurat,” only contained a set of wheels. 287 In conclusion, Zarins provides a helpful synthesis of the chariot burials at Kish. He states: In sum, it appears that the equids associated with the burials at Kish were quite small and fall within the E.asinus–E.hemionus hemippus range and most likely the former . . . hybridization cannot be ruled out. . . . The association of recovered osteological material with the excavation reports unfortunately is unclear, but it appears that the rulers of Kish were buried with chariots and equids whose team number could fluctuate from two to four individuals. 288

3.4.7.  Abu Salabikh Abu Salabikh is situated about 20 km northwest of Nippur. It was reopened for excavation in 1975 under the direction of J. N. Postgate. In the 1975 season, an articulated equid skeleton was discovered in an ash tip (in Area E, square 6G.66). The equid dates to “the end of the ED III period (say 2350 b.c.).” 289 This equid is probably not to be interpreted as a burial. Postgate suggests that the animal was trapped in a burning building where it was kept. 290 Based on contemporary texts, Postgate suggests that it is “most likely to be a donkey, then a hybrid, and least likely to be an onager.” 291 The remains were also examined by J. Clutton-Brock, who identifies it as “a donkey or a hybrid donkey/ hemione” (mare, 8–10 years old). 292 In 1981, additional equids were recovered from Abu Salabikh that can be interpreted as burials (although there does not seem to be a direct association 285.  Zarins 1986: 170; cf. Moorey 1978: 109. 286.  For Chariot Burial IV, see Gibson 1972: 85; Moorey 1978: 110; Zarins 1986: 170. 287.  Zarins 1986: 170. 288.  Zarins 1986: 171. 289.  Postgate 1986: 202. See also Burleigh 1986: 234, 235. 290.  Postgate 1986: 204. 291.  Postgate 1986: 204; cf. Postgate 1982: 52. 292.  Clutton-Brock 1986: 209. Previously, in a preliminary report, Clutton-Brock and Burleigh identified this equid as an onager (Clutton-Brock and Burleigh 1978: 91–92, 100); cf. Postgate and Moorey 1976: 156, pl. XXIVa; Uerpmann 1987: 144; Zarins 1986: 171 n. 4.

146

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

with human remains). 293 Two articulated equids were discovered in a chamber. A second pair was discovered behind the first two, and a fifth equid was identified to the south of the second pair. 294 These graves were situated below the floor of a courtyard (Area E, Court 58). The initial discovery of a pair of equids in the chamber (Grave 162) corresponds to Level IB, which dates to “the middle of the ED III period (say 2450 b.c.).” 295 Postgate describes the equids as “a neat pair” that “must have been yoked for traction.” 296 He further states that it is “possible that they were towing a small chariot.” 297 Postgate interprets the equids as a form of grave furnishings. He explains: it is certain that these animals constituted part of the grave furnishings in their own right and were not, for instance, intended as meat, because where meat is included in the graves, it is usually joints of sheep (or goat). By comparison with other grave goods, the equids are more likely to be fighting equipment than agricultural implements. 298 While the species of equid is not yet definitively identified, Postgate makes the following remark: As far as the species of equid is concerned, we have seen that a pair of hybrids would normally have been preferred in such a context, and we do know that there were hybrids receiving rations within the administrative sphere of our building. Nevertheless, donkeys were also used for traction and cannot be entirely ruled out. We can say however, that they are not likely to have been pure-bred onagers. 299

3.4.8. Lagash/al-Hiba The site of al-Hiba (ancient Lagash) is located southeast of Girsu/Tello. In 1970, the excavations in Area C uncovered a building dating to ED IIIB. A burial of a man with an equid (the equid was directly above the man) was discovered immediately south of an exterior wall of the building. 300 Only a 293. See Postgate and Moon 1982: 133–35; Zarins 1986: 172. 294. See Zarins 1986: 172. 295.  Postgate 1986: 201. 296.  Postgate 1986: 201; cf. Postgate and Moon 1982: 135; Zarins 1986: 171. 297.  Postgate 1986: 201; cf. Postgate 1982: 56; Postgate and Moon 1982: 133. 298.  Postgate 1986: 201–2; cf. Postgate 1982: 56, 1994: 246. 299.  Postgate 1986: 202. Zarins also refers to a preliminary evaluation by CluttonBrock and von den Driesch: “Photographs of selected material from two of the skeletons (including dental rows) suggest that E.asinus is the species present (Clutton-Brock and von den Driesch, personal communications)” (Zarins 1986: 172). 300.  For this burial, see Hansen 1973: 70 and fig. 26; Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 24; Wapnish 1997: 356, 362; Zarins 1986: 171, 172 pl. 1, 179.

3.4. Iraq

147

portion of the equid was later examined by P. Turnbull, who identified it as a male onager. 301

3.4.9. Ur The famous “royal” graves at Ur were discovered by Sir Leonard Wooley in 1927–28. Only 4 royal graves (out of 16) actually have chariot and possibly draft animal associations. 302 The draft animals appear to be bovids in at least three of these graves. Only one grave may have equid remains. Nevertheless, all four graves containing draft animals are described below. They date to ED IIIA, ca. 2500 b.c.e. 303 • Grave PG 580: 304 This grave contained traces of a possible vehicle, a copper rein-ring, and four bovids. • Grave PG 789 (“The King’s Grave”): 305 This grave contained two four-wheeled vehicles, a silver rein-ring with a bovid figure, and six bovids. • Grave PG 800 (tomb of Pu-abi/“Queen Shub-ad”): 306 This grave contained the well-known sledge and electrum rein-ring with an equid figure; 307 it also contained two “asses,” according to Wooley. 308 The teeth were later reexamined, and it was determined that they were also actually bovids. 309 • Grave PG 1232: 310 This grave contained many items including reinrings, two chariot wheels, and “two asses which had drawn the car.” 311 Unfortunately, no remains were saved due to the poor condition of the animals. 312 Because the bones can never be rechecked for species 301. See Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 24 n. 40; Zarins 1986: 171, 179. 302. See Zarins 1986: 166. 303. See Zarins 1986: 166. 304.  For Grave PG 580, see Wooley 1934: 46–53 and pls. 3, 13b; Zarins 1986: 166. 305.  For Grave PG 789, see Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 25 n. 50; Wooley 1934: 62–73, 409, and pls. 3, 29–35, 167a; Zarins 1986: 166; Zettler and Horne 1998: 32–39, 165. 306.  For Grave PG 800, see Dyson 1960: 102–4; Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 25 n. 50; Wooley 1934: 72–91 and pls. 36–43, 122–31, 166; Zarins 1986: 166; Zettler and Horne 1998: 32–39, 165. 307.  Clutton-Brock identifies the equid on the rein-ring as an onager (CluttonBrock 1981: 100–101, 1992: 88); cf. Wooley 1934: 272, pl. 166. 308.  Wooley 1934: 74, 78, 81, 272, and pl. 39. 309. See Dyson 1960: 102–4; Postgate 1994: 165; Zarins 1986: 166; Zettler and Horne 1998: 36. 310.  For Grave PG 1232, see Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 25 n. 50; Wooley 1934: 107–11, and pl. 62; Zarins 1986: 166–68. 311.  Wooley 1934: 109. 312. See Zarins 1986: 166; cf. Wooley 1934: 109.

148

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology identifications and because Wooley was incorrect in his identifications for Grave PG 800, the identification as “asses” for this grave appears very suspect. That is, Wooley’s “asses” may have actually been bovids.

It may be additionally noteworthy that the famous Standard of Ur contains depictions of chariots and draft equids (it also depicts bovids). 313 F. E. Zeuner identifies these equids as onagers based on their tails, but J. Clutton-Brock identifies them as donkeys based on their shoulder stripes. 314

3.5. Other Equid burials with human graves are also attested outside the Fertile Crescent (in both the Bronze and Iron Ages), but the vast majority of these burials are identified as horses rather than donkeys. 315 The equid burials are attested at sites in Anatolia (Boğazköy), mainland Greece (Aidonia, Argos, Athens, Dara, Dendra, Kokla, Lefkandi, Lerna, Marathon, Mycenae, Nauplion, and Nichoria), Crete (Archanes, Knossos, and Prinius), and Cyprus (Amathus, Cellarka, Episkopi, Hala Sultan Tekke, Kalavasos, Kalopsidha, Lapithos, Palaepaphos, Politico, Patriki, Salamis, and Tamassos). 316 313. See ANEP 202–4; Wooley 1934: 266–74, and pls. 90–93. See further discussion in Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 15, 32–33, fig. 3; Postgate 1994: 165. 314.  Clutton-Brock 1992: 88; Zeuner 1963: 369; cf. Noble 1969: 486 (onagers). 315.  Note that donkey burials are attested at Boğazköy in the Bronze Age (see Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 57; Macqueen 1986: 134). Macqueen comments: “The presence of eleven donkey-skulls and other bone-fragments suggests that some inhabitants of Hattusas could not afford a sacrificial horse and had to make do with a cheaper alternative” (1986: 134). In addition, note that a few of the Iron Age burials from Salamis are accompanied by a pair of donkeys (see Karageorghis 1969: 166 {and pls. 116, 117}; Kosmetatou 1993: 34, 39, 40; Reese 1995: 39–40). Donkey remains are also identified at Bronze Age tombs at Episkopi (see Reese 1995: 38) and Hala Sultan Tekke (Reese 1995: 38), as well as in an Iron Age cemetary at Knossos (see Reese 1995: 37). 316.  For the horse burials in Bronze Age Anatolia, see Bernhardt 1978: 216 note i; Klenck 2002: 48–49; Littauer 1971: 25; Littauer and Crouwel 1979: 56, 82; Macqueen 1986: 134; Nibbi 1979: 161. For the horse burials in Bronze Age Greece (mainland), see Gonen 1992: 131; Kosmetatou 1993: 31–41; Payne 1990: 103–6; ProtonotariouDeilaki 1990: 92–102; Reese 1995: 35–42; Sakellarakis 1967: 278–79; Wapnish 1997: 357–58, 362; Yamauchi 2004: 77–78, 2007: 33. For the horse burials in Bronze and Iron Age Crete, see Kosmetatou 1993: 31–41; Reese 1995: 35–42; Yamauchi 2004: 78, 2007: 33. For the horse burials in Bronze and Iron Age Cyprus, see Bright 1995: 71; Karageorghis 1965: 282–90, 1969: 151–68 (and pls. 113–19); Keswani 2004: 45, 68, 72, 80, 121, 128, 132, 139, 209, 226; Kosmetatou 1993: 31–41; Littauer 1971: 26 n. 14; Reese 1995: 35–42; Yamauchi 2004: 78; Zeuner 1963: 321. In addition, D. S. Reese (1995: 36–38) reports that dog burials occasionally accompany horse burials in Bronze Age Greece (Athens and Kokla) and Cyprus (Politico); they are also attested in Iron Age Crete (Prinius). It may also be significant that Homer’s

3.6.  Historical Summary

149

These burials were not included in my initial proposal for this study because they primarily consist of horses and are geographically beyond the “Fertile Crescent.” Nevertheless, it is profitable here to note some of the explanations that are suggested in the literature. The Aegean and Anatolian equid burials are usually interpreted as grave gifts that were intended for utilization in the afterlife. 317 Other interpretations include that of E. Protonotariou-Deilaki, who suggests that the horse burials at Dendra represent the “funerary escort, accompanying the dead into the afterlife.” 318 Another view is that of P. Keswani, who interprets the horse burials on Cyprus as symbolic markers that the deceased was a person of status or prestige. 319

3.6.  Historical Summary Donkey (or equid) burials span approximately 2,000 years of Near Eastern history. 320 In the third millennium b.c.e., the earliest donkey burials occur in Archaic-period Egypt, where they are always associated with elite human tombs (see §§3.1.5–3.1.8). The donkeys, along with other animals and even other humans, were interred adjacent to monumental human graves. The next place where donkey (or equid) burials appear in the Near East is in Iraq and Syria in the mid–late third millennium (see §§3.3, 3.4; cf. §2.5.3). Again, the burials are all associated with elite human graves, but here they may be found inside tombs and may be accompanied by draft equipment and other goods. This pattern of interring humans with equids is characteristic of virtually all the third-millennium burials here examined. An exception to this pattern is attested at Tell Brak in Syria during the Dynasty of Akkad (see §3.3.5; cf. §3.7.4). It is here that donkeys appear to be buried without any connection to human graves. Eight intact donkeys were discovered in a ritual deposit that apparently sealed off a sacred complex for unknown reasons. account of the funeral of Patroclus includes the burning of four horses and two dogs (along with sheep, cattle and twelve Trojans) on the pyre of the deceased (see the Iliad XXIII:161–83; Lattimore 1951: 454–55; Murray and Wyatt 1999: 504–7). 317. Cf. Karageorghis 1965: 284; Macqueen 1986: 134; Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990: 101 n. 76. 318.  Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990: 101. She adds the following remark: “their burials in pairs indicates their yoking to a chariot in life. This may have been, in each instance, the very chariot in which their deceased master was carried to the grave. Thus, following the human interment there occurred the sacrifice and burial of the chariot team, so that they could accompany their owner on his journey into the beyond” (ProtonotariouDeilaki 1990: 101); cf. Karageorghis 1965: 284, 1969: 152; Kosmetatou 1993: 32. 319. See Keswani 2004: 80, 126, 136, 157; cf. Karageorghis 1965: 282, 290; Kosmetatou 1993: 31. For further discussion on the “status” interpretation, see §3.7.1. 320.  This historical summary is adapted from Way 2010b: 211.

150

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

In the second millennium b.c.e., the types of donkey burials grow more diverse. The old tradition of including equids with human burials continues in Iraq (see §3.4.5), Egypt (§§3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4), and Israel-Palestine (§§3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.8, 3.2.9), but it continues the longest in Israel-Palestine (see §§3.2.4, 3.2.6). In Egypt, donkeys are buried outside (in front of or at the entrance of) human tombs (see especially §§3.1.1, 3.1.3). In Israel-Palestine, they are buried both outside and inside human tombs (note Jericho where both scenarios occur, §3.2.5). In Israel-Palestine, there is also the unique feature of burying horses (or equids) in the central chamber of so-called loculi burials (see §§3.2.8, 3.2.9). But there are also donkey burials in second-millennium Egypt and Israel-Palestine that demonstrate no direct connection with human burials. At Tell el-Dabʿa, there are numerous pit-burials of complete donkeys that are associated with either a temple complex or a cemetery (see §3.1.1). In Israel-Palestine, there are also a number of equid burials in pits, and these appear to stand alone (see §§3.2.3, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.9, 3.2.10). In both Syria and Israel-Palestine, equids are also attested numerous times in foundation deposits for walls and buildings (see §§3.2.1, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.3.1, 3.3.3; cf. §3.7.3). Finally, a unique type of donkey burial occurs in southern Israel at Tel Haror, where it appears that complete and incomplete donkeys were interred in an elaborate domed tomb in the courtyard of a temple (see §3.2.11; cf. §3.7.5). All of the above data on donkey burials are summarized in table 2 according to region and period. Table 2 provides only rough data in order to relay a general impression. The vast majority of donkey burials in the second millennium b.c.e. occurs during the Middle Bronze Age (= MK-SIP) in the Egyptian Delta and in southern Israel-Palestine. This illustrates one feature of cultural continuity that existed between these two regions in the Middle Bronze Age. 321 An earlier generation of archaeologists believed that the equid burials were a distinctly “Hyksos practice” (cf. §2.1.2.2). 322 But because it is now evident that donkey burials are attested over the course of 2,000 years in a wide variety of Near Eastern contexts, the Hyksos hypothesis may be safely abandoned. 323

3.7. Interpretations From the above survey of donkey burials in the ancient Near East, it is evident that donkeys held a very special status in the ceremonies of both life and 321.  See especially the remarks of E. D. Oren (1997b: 266, 279); cf. Keel 1993: 211; Maeir 1989: 64–65, 1994: 231. 322.  E.g., see Petrie 1931: 3, 4; 1932: 2, 5, 14; 1952: 2; Mackay and Murray 1952: 33. Technically speaking, the Hyksos were the rulers of the 15th and 16th Egyptian Dynasties (cf. Kitchen 1992: 327, 329). On the terminological problem, see Oren 1997c: xx–xxi. 323.  Compare similar conclusions reached by P. Wapnish (1997: 360) and G. Philip (2006: 235–36). .

151

3.7. Interpretations Table 2.  Data on Equid Burials 3000–2000 b.c.e. 100-year periods Egypt Archaic IsraelPalestine Syria Iraq

2000–1000 b.c.e.

MK-SIP Middle Bronze I–Iron I ED /EB III–Middle Bronze II Early Dynastic II–Old Babylonian

death. Indeed, it has been stated that “equids were animals of singular importance, mediating some special role that even the more symbolically potent bull did not fulfill.” 324 It is also evident from the above historical survey that the types of donkey burials are quite diverse and that a “one-size-fits-all” approach will not suffice as a viable interpretation. 325 P. Wapnish is undoubtedly correct in suggesting a multifaceted approach to interpretation. 326 An approach of this sort is in fact the only way to account for the diverse data. Throughout this chapter, various interpretive theories were cited in relation to specific burials. Some of these were critiqued and others were simply noted and left alone. It is the purpose of this final section to revisit some of those theories, critique them where necessary, enhance them where possible, and apply them to as many specific burials as can be identified. The equid burials can be classified in five general categories: (1) those associated with human graves; (2) those unrelated to human graves; (3) those situated beneath walls; (4) those situated in a fill covering a temple complex; and (5) those situated in a special tomb beside a temple. 327

3.7.1.  Donkey Burials Associated with Human Graves A number of scholars have suggested that an equid burial that accompanies a human grave may be interpreted as a symbolic marker of the prestige/status 324.  Wapnish 1997: 359. 325.  E. D. Oren likewise observes: “A survey of equine burials in Canaan shows, however, that they vary considerably in date, type of tomb, associated human burials, and grave goods, as well as in the actual skeletal remains” (Oren 1997b: 265). 326. See Wapnish 1997: 359–60 (especially the final paragraph on p. 360); cf. Wapnish and Hesse 2003: 23. It is also helpful to review more general anthropological models for mortuary practices (see Hallote’s brief survey [2001: 180–93]). 327.  The following sections (§§3.7.1–3.7.6) are adapted from Way 2010b: 212–16.

152

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

of the deceased individual. 328 This interpretation can be applied to many of the donkey burials that are associated with human graves throughout Egypt, Israel-Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. It was noted in chap. 2 that ancient Near Eastern texts demonstrate that the donkey is associated with value (see §2.6.12) and with socioeconomic status (see §2.6.14). It is an easy next step, then, to conclude that an individual who is buried with such symbols must himself be a person of prestige/status. This interpretation is an obvious conclusion in elaborate burials such as the monumental graves from Archaic Egypt (cf. §§3.1.5–3.1.8) or the tombs containing draft vehicles from Iraq (e.g., §3.4.6, §3.4.9; cf. §2.5.3). 329 But one suspects that the status-interpretation is equally applicable to any human burial that is accompanied by an equid (cf. §§3.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4–3.2.5, 3.2.8–3.2.9, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5). Another major consideration is that the donkeys functioned as funerary furnishings. That is, donkeys are included among the goods that the deceased could employ in the afterlife. 330 Since donkeys were so essential in the everyday life of the deceased, it is assumed that they would continue to meet the needs of the deceased in the hereafter. This interpretation is supported by the fact that many of the donkey burials are accompanied by other items of everyday importance—food, utensils, weapons, clothing, jewelry, vehicles, human servants, and so on. 331 It also makes sense that a donkey intended for postmortem use would have to be interred as an intact animal. The burials that may fit these criteria for funerary furnishings are described under §§3.1, 3.2.9 (Tomb 1417), 3.3.1–3.3.2, 3.3.4, 3.4. Additionally, the Sumerian text known as the “Death of Ur-Namma A” reveals that funerary furnishings (especially donkeys) may also function as offerings to netherworld deities (see §2.5.3). 328.  For the “prestige/status” interpretation, see Hallote 2001: 88; Ilan 1997: 433; Philip 2006: 229, 238–39; Porter 2002b: 170; Schwartz 2007a: 52, 2007b: 46; Schwartz et al. 2006: 631–34; Vila 2006: 117; Weber 2008: 500, 514, 516; cf. Archi 2002: 161, 179; Keswani 2004: 80, 126, 136, 157; Kosmetatou 1993: 31. 329.  On the symbolic quality of chariots, see Postgate’s remark: “One must suspect that their value was largely symbolic and that it was partly indeed their cost, and the mystique involved in the very expertise they demanded, that gave them a social role like that of the medieval charger or the late second-millennium chariotry of the Near East, both intimately bound with the noble class” (Postgate 1994: 246). In addition, Egyptian tombs often feature chariots as prestige items (see Schulman 1980: 127, 146–52), and Isa 22:18 associates chariots with the burial of a high status official (see Ikeda 1982: 224). 330. For the “funerary furnishings” interpretation, see Houlihan 1996: 29; Katz 2000: 236; Postgate 1982: 56; 1986: 201–2; Schwartz 2007a: 52, 2007b: 46; Schwartz et al. 2006: 633; Wapnish 1997: 359–60; Zarins 1986: 164, 183; cf. Bloch-Smith 2003: 105; Hallote 2001: 71, 87–88; Macqueen 1986: 134; Mallory-Greenough 2005: 105–7, 109; Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990: 101 n. 76. 331. Cf. Wapnish 1997: 359.

3.7. Interpretations

153

That is, the inclusion of funeral furnishings in a human grave may be intended to secure a welcome for the deceased in the afterlife (see §2.5.3). In some cases, it may be possible to interpret the donkey burials as food― either as evidence of a ceremonial feast held in honor of the deceased or as the remains of a meal intended for consumption by the deceased in the afterlife. 332 This interpretation is especially appealing in cases where the donkey remains are either incomplete or exhibit cut marks (from butchery). 333 For example, the so-called loculi burials from Lachish and Tell el-ʿAjjul (see §§3.2.8, 3.2.9), which all seem to contain “horse” remains in the central chamber of the burial, feature incomplete animals. The remains in loculi tomb 411 from Tell el-ʿAjjul apparently exhibit cut marks that may suggest butchery or ceremonial feasting. 334 Also, the fragmentary horse remains in loculi burial 1474 from Tell el-ʿAjjul are interpreted by Edwin van den Brink as a "funerary repast" (to be eaten by the deceased?) because they are in close proximity to other vessels. 335 Other tombs from Tell el-ʿAjjul that may fall under this "food" category are 101, 210, and 441. In addition to Tell el-ʿAjjul and Lachish, the sites of Jericho, Umm el-Marra (Tombs 3 and 4), and Tell Brak (Area TC) should also be considered for a similar interpretation (see §§3.2.5, 3.3.1, 3.3.5). With respect to the intact donkey burials just outside human tombs, a number of conjectural interpretations should be considered. First, W. M. Flinders Petrie was only aware of two sites where intact donkeys were interred beside human graves―Tarkhan in Middle Egypt and Tell el-ʿAjjul (Tomb 1417) in southern Israel-Palestine (see §§3.1.7, 3.2.9). He suggested that the donkeys in these cases were the “favourite animals” of the deceased. 336 It is unclear what Petrie meant by “favourite.” It could signify that the animals were considered property, pets, servants, or travel companions. Of course, the Archaic-period burial at Tarkhan is far removed—both geographically and historically—from the Middle Bronze burial at Tell el-ʿAjjul. A second conjectural interpretation is that of Manfred Bietak. He initially suggested that the donkeys in front of the Tell el-Dabʿa tombs represent draft teams that were employed in the funeral ceremony. 337 While little is known 332.  For possible elucidation from KTU 1.6, see §3.7.2 below. 333.  For the “food” interpretation, see Dajani 1964: 58; Katz 2000: 237; Mackay and Murray 1952: 33; Oren 1997b: 266; Stiebing 1971: 115, 116; Wapnish 1997: 359; Ziffer 1990: 64*. For general discussion on food offerings for the dead, see BlochSmith 1992: 105–8, 141; Horwitz 1987: 251–55. 334. See Petrie 1931: 5. 335.  Van den Brink 1982: 79. 336.  Petrie 1914: 6, 1932: 5. 337.  For the “draft team” interpretation, see Bietak 1981: 245; cf. Schwartz 2007a: 51, 2007b: 46; Schwartz et al. 2006: 620 n. 75, 633 n. 134, 634. Note that E. Protonotariou-Deilaki makes a similar suggestion with regard to Bronze Age horse burials at Dendra in Greece (1990: 101; cf. Kosmetatou 1993: 32).

154

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

about early second-millennium funeral ceremonies, Bietak’s suggestion must remain a possibility. It may be relevant at this juncture to note that the donkey is associated with death in a number of ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts (see §§2.6.15, 4.2.9). Texts from Ebla (third millennium b.c.e.) also record the donation of gold decorations for both equid tack and carriage wheels to be employed in funerals wherein “the body of the deceased would make her final journey” to the grave site. 338 Third, Bietak more recently suggests another interpretation for the intact burials in front of human tombs. He claims that the donkeys are beasts of burden that were interred with caravan leaders and that their presence at a tomb means that the deceased individual was involved in the business of caravan expeditions. 339 John S. Holladay offers a very similar interpretation of the SIP burials at Tell el-Maskhuta (although his explanation is slightly more nuanced because he invokes the “interdependence of man and donkey [which] reflected a major economic basis to the social order”). 340 It seems to me that this interpretation merely describes the socioeconomic milieu (that is, caravan activity) out of which these burials may emerge. This interpretation does not, however, explain why the donkeys were put to death. Donkeys were obviously vital to the society and economy of that time, but putting them to death every time a prominent man died seems to imply something more. It is important to note that the donkeys are not the only thing that is found outside of the MK-SIP tombs at Tell el-Dabʿa. The donkeys are often accompanied by whole sheep and goats and are occasionally accompanied by pottery vessels. In one instance, a young female servant is also interred outside the tomb. All of this suggests that caravan activity is insufficient as a stand-alone explanation for the donkey burials. Certainly, some of these deceased individuals could have been caravan leaders, but their burial along with donkeys, sheep, goats, vessels and occasionally servants (in addition to all of the items placed inside the tombs), suggests a more religious or ceremonial explanation. Perhaps the donkeys in front of the Tell el-Dabʿa tombs are another example of statusmarkers or even funerary furnishings for use in the afterlife. Another possibility is to view intact donkeys such as these as the vehicles that were thought to carry/haul (or guide?) the deceased to his destination in the netherworld. 338.  Archi 2002: 180. The relevant texts are the funeral of Tarib-Damu (TM.75. G.2334) and the funeral of Tište-Damu (TM.75.G.2276); see Archi 2002: 173–77. 339.  For the “caravan” interpretation, see Bietak 1996: 25, 41; 1997: 103, 109; 2001b: 142. 340.  Holladay 1997: 204. Note that the same interpretation is considered in Flores 2003: 62; Ilan 1997: 433; Katz 2000: 237; Oren 1997b: 279; Philip 2006: 238; cf. Nielsen 1953: 269ff. In a similar vein, W. F. Albright often placed great emphasis on the significance of donkey caravan activity (cf. Albright 1961: 46 n. 51; 1968: 270 note q; 1970: 197–205), although this was not in connection with donkey burials.

3.7. Interpretations

155

3.7.2.  Donkey Burials Unrelated to Human Graves The equid burials that have no direct relationship to human graves are quite diverse. These burials, which are usually identified as pits or deposits, are attested at Shechem, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Tel Beth-Shemesh, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tell Jemmeh and Tell el-Dabʿa. At Shechem, a small equid skeleton is attested from the Late Bronze Age. Edward F. Campbell is ambivalent about whether it is a casualty of war or some kind of sacrifice. 341 But the fact that the skeleton is decapitated indicates that the animal may have been deliberately dispatched and buried (see §3.2.3). It may also be more than coincidental that the biblical Shechem traditions are frequently interpreted as alluding to ceremonial practices that are similar to what is attested in some of the Mari texts (see §§2.4.1.1, 4.3). The donkey remains at Tel Miqne-Ekron were identified in a pit that tentatively dates to Iron Age I. Though disarticulated and poorly preserved, the bones showed no signs of butchery (see §3.2.6). It is most likely a secondary burial that was “originally placed next to a human grave and was later disturbed and displaced.” 342 Recent excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh have yielded a circular pit containing the convoluted remains of a donkey. The pit dates from the Late Bronze– Iron Age transition (see §3.2.7). Interestingly, the donkey’s back and neck were broken, which may illustrate the form of dispatch referenced in the Mari texts or in Exod 13:13, 34:20. 343 Tell el-ʿAjjul provides three examples of equid burials that were unassociated with human graves (see §3.2.9): two were identified by Petrie (Pit 1504 and Deposit 590) and the other was identified by Mackay and Murray (Burial 2009). Pit 1504 was interpreted as an “expiatory deposit” by Petrie. 344 It contained a mixture of ash, burned pottery and jewelry, and many bone fragments (including “horse” teeth). Perhaps a better label for this discovery might be “ritual deposit,” because “expiation” enters much farther into the realm of speculation than does the general term “ritual.” On the other hand, this deposit may simply be rubbish that was swept aside and buried after a destructive fire. Deposit 590 is interesting because it consisted of a mixture of animal (including “ass” and “horse”) and human bones, and no skeletons were completely represented. M. A. Murray’s suggestion that it represents Scythian sacrificial rites is far too speculative. 345 Wapnish suggests a more probable scenario: “the confusion of bone looks more like a trash deposit or secondary accumulation of 341. See Campbell 2002: 173–74. 342.  Lev-Tov 2006: 208. 343. See Manor 2007. 344. See Petrie 1932: 6–7 pl. III. 345. See Mackay and Murray 1952: 34.

156

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

disturbed bone than a primary burial site.” 346 It is possible that these bones were originally articulated in human-equid burials that were disturbed due to later building activity and that they were subsequently redeposited here in antiquity. Burial 2009 is difficult to interpret because it was insufficiently reported. 347 The “horse” was apparently incomplete and it was not associated with any human burial. While a solitary equid burial could be explained as a simple animal grave having no ceremonial significance, 348 the fact that it is an incomplete animal may be taken as evidence for ritual or sacrificial activity. A Middle Bronze donkey burial identified at Tell Jemmeh in 1982 consisted simply of an upside-down skull and an articulated hind leg (see §3.2.10). Wapnish observed that the bones had a unique configuration and that the leg bones (which exhibited cut marks) probably came from a different donkey than the skull. She therefore suggested that this must have been an intentional burial and that it may have been a offering. 349 While her interpretation is very probable, another possibility is to interpret this “burial” as a simple trash deposit. Finally, Tell el-Dabʿa provides perhaps the most interesting examples of donkey burials in pits from the MK-SIP (see §3.1.1). The donkeys, which are usually intact and in pairs, are often accompanied by sheep and goats and occasionally by pottery vessels. Two types are represented at Tell el-Dabʿa: cemetery pits and temple pits. The cemetery pits are not directly connected with human burials, although Robert Schiestl notes that one pit was located at “approximately equal distance to a group of five tombs,” and he thus interprets it as a “collective funerary pit.” 350 Similarly, Vera Müller interprets burials of this sort as “general sacrifices to the whole necropolis” 351 and as “the relics of cultic meals.” 352 Another option is to interpret these cemetery pits in light of the geographically distant Ugaritic texts that describe the grand sacrifices (possibly including 70 donkeys) offered at Baʿlu’s funeral (cf. KTU 1.6:18b–29; see §2.2.1.1; cf. §§2.6.15, 2.6.19). Of course, the sacrifices for Baal may also provide background for interpreting the incomplete equid remains that are associated with human graves—such as those at Tell Banat, Tell Brak, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Lachish and Jericho (see §3.7.1). The cemetery pits are very similar to the temple pits (or favissae). The main distinction seems to be only location. Müller thus interprets the temple pits in the same manner as the cemetery pits―that is, as “relics of cultic meals.” 353 346.  Wapnish 1997: 351 (see also pp. 359, 361). 347. See Mackay and Murray 1952: 23, 33, pls. I, XXXII, XXXIX:32. 348.  One may also question whether or not dead animals were routinely buried (as they often are in the modern world). For further discussion, see §4.7.2. 349. See Wapnish 1997: 343–49, 361. 350.  Schiestl 2002: 331. 351.  Müller 2002: 271. 352.  Müller 1998: 798, 2002: 269. 353.  Müller 1998: 796; 2002: 269, 271; see also Bergquist 1993: 37, 38.

3.7. Interpretations

157

Alternatively, Bietak interprets the temple pits as containing evidence for treaty ratification ceremonies that were conducted at the temple. 354 This is, of course, in keeping with the geographically distant Mari texts that were described at length in chap. 2 (see §2.4.1.1; cf. §2.6.20). Treaty ceremony is no doubt the strongest interpretation (textually and historically speaking) for the temple pits containing donkey remains. Another, albeit conjectural, possibility is to explain these donkey-pits as reflecting a Semitic/Canaanite sacrificial rite in which Seth-Baal is honored by means of a donkey-offering (see §2.1.2.2). A possibility such as this may find support in Ugaritic texts such as KTU 1.40 and 1.119, which feature the donkey as a sacrificial offering to deity (see §2.2.1.1).

3.7.3.  Donkey Burials beneath Walls Equid burials located beneath walls may be interpreted as foundation deposits. Interestingly, foundation deposits containing equids are thus far only identified in the Levant. The phenomenon is attested in the third and second millennia b.c.e. in Syria and Israel-Palestine at Tell Banat, Umm el-Marra, Tel ʿAkko, Tell el-ʿAjjul, and Tell Jemmeh. Tell Banat features an “equid burial in the foundations of Building 6,” 355 which dates to ca. 2450 b.c.e. (see §3.3.3). At Umm el-Marra, “equid bones were interred in the stone foundations of houses” 356 in the later MB II period (see §3.3.1). The Tel ʿAkko deposit may consist of an incomplete donkey in the ramparts of the MB IIB period (see §3.2.1). The Tell el-ʿAjjul deposit primarily consists of an incomplete “horse” in a pit beneath Palace IV, which dates to LB IIB (see §3.2.9). Finally, the Tell Jemmeh deposit consists of an incomplete neonatal equid in a pit beneath a wall that dates to MB IIB (see §3.2.10). The striking theme common to all of these deposits is that the equids always seem to be incomplete. This common feature may indicate the sacrificial nature of foundation rituals in the Levant. Therefore, one may conclude that Petrie’s interpretation of the Tell el-ʿAjjul deposit as a sacrificial feast and Wapnish's interpretation of the Tell Jemmeh deposit as the remains of a sacrificial offering are both plausible views that can be applied to all equid burials that are situated beneath walls in the Levant. 357

3.7.4.  Donkey Burials in a Fill above a Temple Complex This category refers to only one site―Tell Brak in northeastern Syria (see §3.3.5). A total of eight intact donkey skeletons were excavated from an ex354.  For the “treaty” interpretation, see Bietak 1996: 40; cf. Bietak 1981: 287 n. 2; Lafont 1999: 75; Stager 1999: 238–39, 2003: 66. 355.  Porter 2002b: 171 n. 12; cf. Porter 2002a: 16 fig. 6. 356.  Schwartz et al. 2003: 345; cf. Nichols and Weber 2006: 48, 53; Schwartz et al. 2006: 634. 357.  For the “feast” interpretation, see Petrie 1932: 2, 5, 14, pl. L; for the “offering” interpretation, see Wapnish 1997: 343 (cf. p. 359).

158

Chapter 3:  The Donkey in Near Eastern Archaeology

tensive fill that deliberately covered over and sealed off an abandoned temple complex that was apparently also used for stabling equids in the Akkadian period (2250–2150 b.c.e.). The donkeys were deposited along with an intact dog and the remains of humans, pigs, cattle, sheep/goats, and birds. Valuable objects and jewelry were also recovered from the fill. The excavators interpret the donkey burials as ritual deposits or sacrifices that were killed in honor of the resident deity. 358 They also identify the deity with Šakkan/Sumugan (the god of steppe animals, including donkeys), but the evidence for this identification is tenuous, 359 and the complex could just as well be connected with a different deity such as Baal/Hadad.

3.7.5.  Donkey Burials in a Special Tomb beside a Temple This final category also refers to only one site―Tel Haror in southern Israel-Palestine (see §3.2.11). Two intact donkeys apparently were interred in a monumental tomb structure that was located in a temple courtyard dating to MB IIB. The tomb also contained disarticulated animal remains (including at least two additional donkeys) in the fill above the intact donkeys. Because the tomb was located in a temple courtyard and because intact puppies were also identified in nearby pits (cf. Mari texts: see §2.4.1.1; cf. §2.6.20), this donkey burial may very well be an example of treaty (or perhaps covenant) ceremony. 360 On the other hand, there are some additional speculative interpretations that should not be ruled out. These include: (1) the donkey-pair may have originally played a role in cultic ceremony; (2) the donkey burial may have been a foundation deposit for the temple; and (3) the donkeys may have been a special offering/gift to the resident deity. Though these three interpretations are possible, they do not benefit from textual corroboration to the degree that the treaty/ covenant theory does.

3.7.6. Summary There is no question that the donkey held a special status in the ceremonial practices of the ancient Near East. Questions may only arise regarding the number and the types of ceremonial roles that were filled by the donkey. The above interpretations that are proposed for Bronze Age donkey burials are obviously diverse and complex. But it is also evident that the above inter358.  For the “ritual deposit” interpretation, see Oates and Oates 1993: 137; Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 41, 50, 53, 389; cf. Clutton-Brock 2001: 327; Oates et al. 2008: 398; Wapnish 1997: 359. 359. See Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2001: 387–88 (see also p. 47); cf. Oates and Oates 1993: 137. 360. For the “treaty” interpretation, see Katz 2000: 237–38; 2009: 168; Klenck 2002: 88; Oren 1997b: 266 (see also p. 264); Stager 1999: 238–39, 2003: 66. The “covenant” interpretation was suggested by N. S. Fox (personal communication).

3.7. Interpretations

159

pretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some of the categories can easily overlap. 361 For example, an intact donkey burial that is associated with a human grave can simultaneously be a prestige/status marker and a funerary furnishing for use in the afterlife. The extent to which one interpretation rises above the others is dependent on the cluster of evidence from a given burial. It is thus very important that each burial (and then each site, followed by each region) is examined on its own terms. 362 This study is an attempt to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the extant donkey burials from the Bronze Age in the Near East. The five interpretive categories that are proposed here are offered as a starting point for future research on this topic. Undoubtedly, many additional donkey burials will come to light in the future, and these discoveries can be inserted into this rubric. Of course, future discoveries may also lead to the addition of new interpretive categories or to the revision of the categories presented here. 361. Cf. Wapnish 1997: 360. 362.  For further discussion on archaeological method, see §1.5 (especially the paragraphs pertaining to processual/post-processual approaches).

Chapter 4

The Donkey in Biblical Literature 4.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1.  ʾĀtôn (female donkey; “Jenny”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.  Ḥămôr (“Ass/Donkey”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3.  ʿAyir (male equid, “Stallion/Jack”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4.  Pered (hybrid, probably “Mule”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.  Review of Previous Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.  The Donkey Is Characterized as a Beast of Burden . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.  The Donkey Is Characterized as a Licentious Animal . . . . . . . . 4.2.3.  The Donkey Is Characterized as a Stubborn or Lazy Animal . . . 4.2.4.  The Donkey Is Associated with Divination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5.  The Donkey Is Associated with the Lion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.6.  The Donkey Is Associated with Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.7.  The Donkey Is Associated with Sick or Weak People . . . . . . . . 4.2.8.  The Donkey Is Associated with Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . . 4.2.9.  The Donkey Is Associated with Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.10.  The Donkey Serves as Food in Extreme Circumstances . . . . . 4.3.  Shechem Traditions (Gen 33:18–34:31, Josh 24:32, Judg 8:33–9:57) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1.  Summary of Biblical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.  Redemption of the Firstborn (Exod 13:13, 34:20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1.  Biblical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.  The Uniqueness of the Donkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3.  The Neck-Breaking Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.  Balaam’s Jenny (Num 22:22–35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1.  Literary Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2.  Additional Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2.1.  Balaam in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2.2.  The Literary Characterization of Equids . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2.3.  Divinely Endowed Speech for Equids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2.4.  The Loyalty of the Donkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2.5.  The Jenny’s Immunity from Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

162 162 164 166 168 169 170 170 170 171 171 171 171 172 172 173 173 173 173 174 176 177 178 181 183 184 184 187 187 188 189 189 190

Introduction 4.6.  Man of God from Judah (1 Kgs 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1.  Literary Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2.  Lions and Donkeys in the Biblical World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.3.  Comparison with Numbers 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.  Donkey Burial (Jer 22:19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1.  Biblical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2. Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

161 191 191 192 193 194 194 195 196

The donkey is frequently featured in the Hebrew Bible. Many of the biblical references to donkeys even recall (positively or negatively) the beliefs or practices that are present in ancient Near Eastern texts and archaeology. The selected verses and passages that are analyzed in this chapter also make unique contributions to the study of the ceremonial and symbolic significance of the donkey. The first part of this chapter (§4.1) is devoted to lexical semantics. The semantic range of each term for donkey is described based on its use in the entire Hebrew Bible. The terms are also compared and contrasted in order to sharpen the semantic distinctions and to appreciate the degree of semantic overlap between them. The second part of this chapter (§4.2) revisits some of the propositions that were suggested in the summary of chap. 2 (see §2.6). Of the original 21 propositions that are based on the significance of the donkey in ancient Near Eastern texts, 10 of them are also derivable from biblical texts. These 10 are here reviewed and explored in greater detail. The third part of this chapter (§§4.3–4.7) is devoted to the analysis of specific passages in the Hebrew Bible. There are a total of five passages that are arranged below in canonical order: §4.3.  Shechem traditions (Gen 33:18–34:31, etc.) §4.4.  Redemption of the firstborn (Exod 13:13, 34:20) §4.5.  Balaam’s jenny (Num 22:22–35) §4.6.  Man of God from Judah (1 Kings 13), and §4.7.  Jeremiah’s reference to a donkey burial (Jer 22:19) In each analysis, attention is given to the historical-cultural, literary, and linguistic aspects of interpretation. There are also additional passages discussed in this chapter but not assigned their own headings. Instead, brief treatments of the relevant verses are supplied in passing under general discussions to which they relate (namely, Gen 32:15b [MT v. 16b; §4.1.3]; Gen 49:11a [§§4.1.1, 4.1.3]; Judg 10:4 [§4.1.3; cf. §2.3.3]; Judg 15:15–16 [§4.1.2]; 2 Sam 18:9 [§4.5.2.2]; 2 Sam 19:26 [MT

162

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

v.  27, §4.1.2]; 2 Kgs 6:25 [§4.2.10]; Job 11:12 [§4.1.3]; Isa 66:3a [§4.4.3]; Ezek 23:20 [§4.2.2]; Zech 9:9b [§§4.1.1, 4.1.3]).

4.1. Terminology Biblical Hebrew employs three terms for the domestic donkey/Equus asinus (ḥămôr, ʾātôn, and ʿayir) and only one term for the hybrid (pered/pirdah). The most frequent lexeme is ḥămôr (96×); after that follow ʾātôn (34×), pered/ pirdah (18×), and ʿayir (8×). 1 The semantic range of each term is here clarified (in alphabetical order), and the lexical field for donkeys is summarized below. 2

4.1.1.  ʾĀtôn (Female Donkey; “Jenny”) The term ʾātôn designates a female donkey and is best translated “jenny.” 3 The gender of ʾātôn is made explicit in Num 22:23–33, where ʾātôn is the subject of 13 verbs in the feminine singular form (e.g., ‫[ ותרא‬22:23, 25, 27, 33]; ‫[ותאמר‬22:28, 30]). The female gender of ʾātôn is also implied in contexts where it is distinguished from either ḥămôr (Gen 12:16; 45:23) or ʿayir (Gen 32:15 [MT 32:16]). In addition, the ʾātôn can serve as wealth/capital (Gen 12:16; 1 Chr 27:30; Job 1:3, 42:12), booty (Job 1:14–15), and tribute (Gen 32:15 [MT 32:16]). It can function as a beast of burden (Gen 45:23) and as a human transport (Num 22:21–33; Judg 5:10; 2 Kgs 4:22, 24). The ʾātôn may also be associated with royalty (see Gen 49:10–11, Zech 9:9; cf. Judg 5:10; 1 Sam 9:3, 5, 20; 10:2, 14, 16; 1 Chr 27:30). Finally, there is an interesting technical use of ʾātôn in the phrase “offspring of a jenny.” The phrase “offspring of a jenny” occurs two times in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 49:11a, Zech 9:9b) 4 and three times in the extant Mari texts from the 1.  The frequencies are reckoned by Even-Shoshan 1993: 142, 378, 862, 959. Note that the actual frequency for pered/pirdah is probably 17× (due to a text-critical problem with the occurrence in Neh 7:68). 2.  For other equid terms in the Bible, see the discussion and bibliography on ʿārôd (§2.2.2.2), pereʾ (§§2.2.2.2, 2.4.3) and on horses in general (§2.4.1.2). This section is adapted from Way 2010a: 105–14. 3.  For further discussion on ʾātôn, see Baldwin 1972: 165–66; DCH 1.459; HALOT 102; Hamilton 1995: 655 n. 18; Kogan 2006: 269; Meyers and Meyers 1993: 88, 131; Moore and Brown 1997a: 575–77 (NIDOTTE §912); Noth 1966: 108–11; Speiser 1964: 362, 366; Wenham 1994: 454–55, 478–79. See also AHw 86 (atānum, “Eselin”); CAD A/2 481–83; DNWSI 136; DUL 122; Finet 1993: 136; Landsberger 1960: 52; SED 2:29 (no. 19); cf. §2.4.1.1. Note that Akkadian atānu(m) seems to denote “female equid” because it is used for donkeys, horses, and hybrids (cf. CAD A/2 481–83; see §2.4.3); this is not the case in Amorite (i.e., in the Mari texts) or in Biblical Hebrew, where the word is used only for the female donkey. 4. M. Fishbane comments on the intertextual relationship between these two passages: “One may safely presume that Zechariah’s predilection for Gen. 49:10–11 stems in part from the manifestly prophetic character of the blessing. . . . Inspired by the old

4.1. Terminology

163

18th century b.c.e. (see §2.4.1.1). In all the examples from Mari and the Bible, the phrase is employed as a clarification of the term ʿayir/ḫayarum. Because ʿayir may be used of both a male donkey and a male hybrid (see §4.1.3), it is presumably necessary to qualify ʿayir as either the “offspring of an ʾātôn” (that is, a donkey) or the “offspring of a sûsah” (that is, a mule). 5 When ʿayir is qualified as the “offspring of an ʾātôn,” the ʿayir takes on the more narrow sense of a “purebred male donkey.” This observation was first made by Martin Noth when he said that the phrase “offspring of a jenny” must mean “an ass of pure breed, as against a hybrid which was not born of a she-ass, but was a cross between a jackass and a mare—a mule.” 6 In the biblical corpus, the first occurrence of the phrase “offspring of a jenny” is in Jacob’s blessing on Judah (Gen 49:8–12). Gen 49:11a states: 7 ‫[ ולׂשרקה בני אתנֹו‬Qere ‫אסרי לגפן עירה ]עירו‬ He tethers his jackass to the vine, his purebred to the choice vine. The second occurrence of the phrase is in Zechariah’s description of Zion’s king. Zech 9:9b states: 8 :‫עני ורכב על־חמֹור ועל־עיר בן־אתנֹות‬ humble and riding on a donkey, on a purebred jackass.  9

In this verse, the terminology moves from the general phrase “on a donkey” (‫ )על־חמֹור‬to the more specific phrase “on a purebred jackass” (‫ועל־עיר בן־‬ ‫)אתנות‬. The copulative wāw is therefore best interpreted as serving an explanatory function (“namely”). 10 prediction, then, Zechariah gave it a new exegetical twist for his contemporaries. The old clan blessing-promise became a positive national oracle for his time” (Fishbane 1985: 502). 5.  However, the phrase “offspring of a mare (sûsah)” is not actually found in any extant text to date. 6.  Noth 1966: 111 (initially published in German in 1955). 7.  For further discussion on Gen 49:11a, see Hamilton 1995: 655–56, 662; Speiser 1964: 362, 366; Wenham 1994: 454–55, 458, 478–79. On the unusual forms ‫ אסרי‬and ‫בני‬, see GKC §90 l–m; Hamilton 1995: 655–56 (nn. 14, 18); IBHS §8.2e; J-M §93m–n; Moran 1961: 67, 70. 8.  For further discussion on Zech 9:9, see Baldwin 1972: 163–66; Finet 1993: 136; HALOT 102; In der Smitten 1980: 468, 469; Meyers and Meyers 1993: 88, 127– 31, 169–73; Noth 1966: 111; cf. §§2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2. On the use of the plural form ‫אתנֹות‬, see GKC §124o; IBHS §7.4.3a; cf. Ugaritic atnt in KTU 1.4 IV:7, 12 (see §2.2.1.2). 9.  Note that “humble” is a royal quality that is also used to describe Moses and the Aramean king Zakkur (cf. Num 12:3; KAI 202:2). The word designates a person who has a subservient and receptive posture toward his deity (cf. Ps 22:26 [MT 22:27]; Zeph 2:3). For a helpful discussion, see Meyers and Meyers 1993: 127–28. 10.  See GKC §154a. Thus, there is only one animal mentioned in the Hebrew text (cf. LXX and Matt 21:2, 7). Instead of the very popular translations “donkey,” “colt,” and “foal of a donkey” (for ḥămôr, ʿayir and ben-ʾăônôt, respectively), it is suggested

164

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

4.1.2.  Ḥămôr (“Ass/Donkey”) Ḥămôr is the general term for donkey, but it does not seem to include hybrids. 11 Surprisingly, in the Anchor Bible commentary on Numbers, Baruch Levine translates ḥămôr consistently as “mule,” 12 but he provides no explanation as to why “mule” is preferred over “ass/donkey.” In fact, there are no cases in Biblical Hebrew (or even in the cognate languages) in which the term ḥămôr unambiguously designates/includes hybrids. It is possible that the general category ḥămōrîm includes hybrids when it is listed along side of sûsîm (without any mention of pĕrādîm; cf. Gen 47:17; Exod 9:3; 2 Kgs 7:7), but this does not constitute unambiguous evidence. It is also possible to argue that ḥămôr in Zech 9:9 could include hybrids, but again, this interpretation is not required by the context. Ḥămôr is employed when referring to large numbers of donkeys of mixed gender (see Gen 24:35, 30:43, 34:28, 36:24, 47:17; Exod 9:3; Num 31:28, 30, 34, 39, 45; Josh 7:24; Judg 6:4; 1 Sam 27:9; 2 Kgs 7:7, 10; 1 Chr 5:21; 12:40 [MT 12:41]; Ezra 2:67; Neh 7:68; Isa 32:20; Zech 14:15). Ḥămôr is generally not gender specific. For example, in Genesis 32, Jacob initially describes himself as having ḥămōrîm (Gen 32:5 [MT 32:6]) but later it is said that Jacob gives ʾătōnôt and ʿăyārîm to his brother (Gen 32:15 [MT 32:16]). Likewise, Abraham receives both male and female donkeys from Pharaoh (Gen 12:16); but later in the narrative, Abraham’s servant refers to Abraham’s donkeys only as ḥămōrîm (Gen 24:35).

that Zion’s king is riding on a donkey (ḥămôr), but not just any donkey. He is riding on a jackass (ʿayir), but not just any jackass. He is riding on a purebred (ben-ʾăônôt) jackass. The purity of the royal mount may in fact be the primary focus of the prophecy in Zech 9:9b. Just as the hybrid was inappropriate for Amorite treaty ratification rituals in the Mari texts, so the pered is inappropriate in this eschatological passage that employs covenant terminology (see Zech 9:11, “the blood of your covenant”). 11.  For further discussion on ḥămôr, see Block 1999: 445–46; Boling 1975: 237, 239; Borowski 1998: 90, 127 n. 22; DCH 3.252–53, 258–59; Feliks 1962: 27; 1972a: 756; Firmage 1992: 1137, 1152; HALOT 327, 330–31; Harrison 1979: 330; In der Smitten 1980: 465–70; Klingbeil 2003b: 261–64; Kogan 2006: 261, 269; Moore and Brown 1997b: 172–73 (NIDOTTE §2789); Nibbi 1979: 155; Ringgren 1986: 1–4; Wolfe 2000: 117; Younger 2002a: 308. See also AHw 375–76 (imērum, “Esel”); Bron and Lemaire 1980: 8, 14, 16; CAD I–J 110–15; COS 1.86:265 n. 206, 268–69 n. 242; 1.93:294 n. 9; 2.27:143; DNWSI 382–85; DUL 363–64; Landsberger 1960: 50; Levine 2000: 245, 246, 252 (line 28); Lindenberger 1983: 43, 65–66, 187, 210, 343; Lipiński 2003: 185–87; Pardee 2000: 131 n. 166, 465; SED 2:137–39 (no. 98); cf. §§2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.5, 2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.2. Note also an uncertain syllabic spelling of ḥmr in a Late Egyptian/Hieratic ostracon (DLE 2:97; HWBDÄ 379; Hoch 1994: 227 [no. 312]; Janssen 2005: 71; SED 2:137). 12. See Levine 1993: 408, 414; 2000: 449, 461; cf. Levine 1996: 107.

4.1. Terminology

165

Even though ḥămôr is generally not gender specific, there are some exceptions. In contexts in which ḥămôr is distinguished from ʾātôn (e.g., Gen 12:16, 45:23), ḥămôr is clearly a male donkey/jackass. The ḥămôr in Zech 9:9 is also qualified as a male (i.e., a “purebred jackass”; see §4.1.1), and the ḥămōrîm of Ezek 23:20 are explicitly described as male (see §4.2.2). But there are two contexts in which ḥămôr is clearly a female donkey/jenny. The first context refers to Mephibosheth’s ḥămôr, which is assigned a feminine singular pronominal suffix (2 Sam 19:26 [MT 19:27]): ‫אחבׁשח־לי החמֹור וארכב עליה‬ Let me tack up for myself the donkey so that I may ride on her. The second context indicates that a ḥămôr has the capacity to give birth (Exod 13:13a; cf. Exod 34:20a): 13 ‫וכל־פטר חמר תפדה בׂשה‬ But the first issue of every donkey you shall redeem with a sheep/goat. In other contexts in which ḥămôr refers to a single donkey (e.g., Gen 22:3, 5; Exod 4:20, 20:17, 23:12; Deut 5:14, 21; Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14; 15:15, 16; 19:28; 1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Sam 17:23; 1 Kgs 13:13, 23–24, 27–29), the gender is ambiguous. Finally, there is an interesting use of ḥămôr in Judg 15:16. 14 After Samson finds a “fresh jawbone of a donkey” (‫ ;לחי־חמֹור טריה‬Judg 15:15), he uses it as a weapon to strike down a Philistine contingent. Samson then spins a poem that makes a play on two different meanings of the root ḥmr—“ass/donkey” and “heap.” He states: ‫בלחי החמֹור חמֹור חמרתים‬ :‫בלחי החמֹור הכיתי אלף איׁש‬ With the jawbone of a donkey, heaps upon heaps (lit., “a heap, a double  heap”); With the jawbone of a donkey, I have killed a thousand-man  contingent. 13.  For further analysis of this passage, see §4.4. Note also that there seems to be a play between ḥmr and rḥm in this passage (v. 12 has ‫ ;כל־פטר־רחם‬v. 13 has ‫כל־פטר‬ ‫)חמר‬. 14.  For further discussion on Judg 15:16, see Block 1999: 445–46; Boling 1975: 237, 239; DCH 3.253, 259; HALOT 327, 330; Ringgren 1986: 1–2; Younger 2002a: 307–8; cf. Exod 8:14 (MT 8:10, ‫)חמרם חמרם‬. One wonders why a fresh donkey carcass was so readily available. Did the donkey just die on the road or in the field? Was the donkey slain by Samson? Or, does this reference imply that donkeys (or animals in general) did not receive proper burial in ancient Israel (see Jer 22:19; cf. §4.7)? The story is silent on this question.

166

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

Whereas “heaps” most likely refers to piles of Philistine corpses, it is probably double entendre wherein Samson also makes the Philistines into “donkeys.” That is, Samson claims that the Philistines are now his beasts of burden—they are his lowly subjects. Interestingly, the use of ḥmr with double entendre may also be attested in Ugaritic texts, in which there seems to be a play on the meanings “donkey” and “heaps” (see §2.2.1.5).

4.1.3.  ʿAyir (male equid, “Stallion/Jack”) There are two important observations that must be stated here regarding the term ʿayir, and both of these were initially suggested by Martin Noth. 15 First, ʿayir is used in the Bible to designate a male animal. 16 Note how the term ʿayir is contrasted with the term ʾātôn in a list enumerating Jacob’s tribute to Esau (Gen 32:15b [MT 32:16b]): :‫פרֹות ארבעים ופרים עׂשרה אתנת עׂשרים ועירם עׂשרה‬ forty cows and ten bulls, twenty jennies and ten jackasses. The male gender of ʿayir is also indicated by the use of bēn (rather than bat) in the phrase “offspring of a jenny” (Gen 49:11; Zech 9:9; see §4.1.1). Second, it is possible that the semantic range of ʿayir is broad enough to include hybrids. Martin Noth remarks: “The mule could presumably be called ḫayarum = ʿyr in the wider sense, so that where it was desired to specify beyond doubt a pure-blooded ass then the expression tur atānim = bn ʾtnwt was added.” 17 Because the ʿayir is occasionally qualified as a purebred donkey (that is, “the offspring of a jenny”; Gen 49:11, Zech 9:9; see §4.1.1) rather than as a hybrid (that is, the offspring of a sûsah [= a mule]; cf. pered; see §4.1.4), one deduces that the ʿayir may designate the purebred donkey as well as the hybrid (such as the pered). It may therefore be prudent to use the general category “equid” when defining the term ʿayir. 15.  For further discussion on ʿayir, see Beem 1991: 151–52; Block 1999: 340; Boling 1975: 188; Clines 1989: 253, 255–56, 266; Firmage 1992: 1137, 1152; HALOT 822; Hartley 1988: 196, 198–99; In der Smitten 1980: 467; Klingbeil 2003b: 261, 263; Kogan 2006: 259, 269; Moore and Brown 1997c: 399 (NIDOTTE §6555); Noth 1966: 109–11; Pope 1973: 83, 86; Speiser 1964: 253, 366; Tsevat 1983: 323–25; Younger 2002a: 239. See also AHw 328; CAD Ḫ 118; Dossin 1938: 108 (= 1983a: 105); DUL 178; Held 1970: 34–35; Pardee 2000: 131–32; SED 2:69–71 (no. 50); Wb 1:165; Wortman 1978: 6; cf. §2.4.1.1. 16. Cf. Noth 1966: 110, 111; see also AHw 328 (ḫârum, “Eselhengst”); DUL 178; HALOT 822; Klingbeil 2003b: 261, 263; 2005: 11; Moore and Brown 1997c: 399; Pardee 2000: 131 n. 165; Pope 1973: 86; Speiser 1964: 253, 366. It is interesting that no feminine form of this word is attested in Semitic languages; however, in Egyptian the cognate term can be masculine or feminine (ʿꜢ and ʿꜢt, respectively; see ÄW 1:259; HWBÄD 127–28; HWBDÄ 379; Wb 1:165). 17.  Noth 1966: 111.

4.1. Terminology

167

In light of the above observations, it is evident that the ʿayir is a male equid. In the vast majority of cases, however, an identification with the domestic donkey is highly likely. In biblical literature, the ʿayir is employed as a human transport (Judg 10:4, 12:14; Zech 9:9), a beast of burden (Isa 30:6), and a plough animal (Isa 30:24). It should be noted that the term ʿayir is never applied to a horse. It is possible that the term ʿayir is applied to the onager (pereʾ) in Job 11:12, but a more likely interpretation of this difficult passage contrasts the ʿayir and the pereʾ as follows: 18 :‫ואיׁש נבוב ילבב ועיר פרא אדם יולד‬ A stupid man gets understanding when an onager of the steppe is born a jackass. It is also important to emphasize that an ʿayir is not a foal or a colt. 19 There is no evidence from Biblical Hebrew or from comparative Semitics that suggests that ʿayir is a young animal. This erroneous interpretation is endorsed by most English Bible translations of Zech 9:9b (e.g., asv, esv, gnb, hcsb, kjv, nab, nasb, niv, njb, nkjv, nrsv, rsv, tniv), and it seems to stem from (1) a misunderstanding of the phrase “offspring of a jenny” in Gen 49:11 and Zech 9:9 (see §4.1.1) and (2) the Septuagint’s employment of the term πῶλος (“young animal”) for ʿayir in Gen 32:16, 49:11; Judg 10:4, 12:14; and Zech 9:9. 20 The same problem also persists in translations of ḫayarum—the Amorite cognate to ʿayir—in the Mari texts (see §2.4.1.1). Finally, ʿayir occurs in the short biography of the judge Jair. In Judg 10:4, there is an interesting word play between the words ʿayir and ʿîr (and perhaps the name yāʾîr), which look and sound very similar. 21 18.  For further discussion on Job 11:12, see Clines 1989: 253, 255–56, 266; Hartley 1988: 196, 198–99; Pope 1973: 83, 86. John Hartley remarks: “The proverb then says that as it is impossible for a donkey to be sired by a wild ass, so it is impossible for a stubborn person to become truly wise by his own efforts” (Hartley 1988: 199). On translating ‫“ פרא אדם‬onager of the steppe,” see Dahood 1963: 124; cf. Gen 16:12. Note that onager is written a n š e - e d e n - n a (lit., “ass of the steppe”) in cuneiform (see Zarins 1978: 16). 19.  For further discussion on this issue see especially Noth 1966: 110; see also Clines 1989: 266; Pardee 2000: 131 n. 165; Pope 1973: 86; Speiser 1964: 366; cf. §2.4.1.1. Interestingly, there is no word for equine “foal” in Biblical Hebrew (Kogan 2006: 271, 312). 20.  The LXX has ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον for Zech 9:9b. As a result of the LXX, all four Gospel writers employ πῶλος in the account of Jesus’ triumphal entry (Matt 21:2, 5, 7; Mark 11:2, 4, 5, 7; Luke 19:30, 33, 35; John 12:14–15). Only in Matthew and John, which explicitly quote Zech 9:9, is the term ὄνος (“ass/ donkey”) introduced. For further discussion on the meaning of πῶλος, see Bauer 1953: 220–29. 21.  I am reading ʿārîm for the second ʿăyārîm (cf. OG). For further discussion on Judg 10:4, see Beem 1991: 151–52; Block 1999: 340; Boling 1975: 188; Tsevat 1983:

168

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

‫ויהי־לֹו ׁשלׁשים בנים רכבים על־ׁשלׁשים עירים וׁשלׁשים עירים להם‬ :‫להם יקראו | חֹות יאיר עד היֹום הזה אׁשר בארץ הגלעד‬ He had thirty sons, who rode on thirty burros [i.e., jackasses] and owned thirty boroughs in the region of Gilead; these are called Havvoth-jair to this day. The translation is the njpsv because it cleverly represents the Hebrew word play with an English pun based on homonymy.

4.1.4.  Pered (hybrid, probably “Mule”) The term pered (fem. pirdah) designates a hybrid that is probably a mule (i.e., male donkey × female horse), but one cannot rule out the possibility that pered/pirdah could theoretically also designate the hinny/jennet (i.e., male horse × female donkey). 22 There is no basis for positing that pirdah designates the “hinny/jennet” and pered designates the “mule.” 23 Rather, the terms clearly designate the male and female of the same type of animal (cf. sûs and sûsah for the stallion and mare of a horse, respectively). The pered is most often paired with the horse (1 Kgs 10:25 // 2 Chr 9:24, 1 Kgs 18:5, Ezra 2:66 // Neh 7:68, Ps 32:9, Isa 66:20, Ezek 27:14, Zech 14:15) and is occasionally paired with the donkey (i.e., the ḥămôr: 1 Chr 12:40 [MT 12:41], Ezra 2:66–67 // Neh 7:68, Zech 14:15) 24 or even the camel (1 Chr 12:40 [MT 12:41]; Ezra 2:66–67 // Neh 7:68, Isa 66:20, Zech 14:15). Like the donkey, the pered is employed as both tribute (1 Kgs 10:25 // 2 Chr 9:24; cf. 323–25; Younger 2002a: 239. This passage is also treated briefly in §§2.3.3, 2.6.14, 4.2.8. 22.  For further discussion on pered, see Borowski 1998: 108–11; Clutton-Brock 1992: 42–51, 92, 94; DBI 28; Feliks 1962: 28; 1972b: 516–17; Firmage 1992: 1137–38, 1152; HALOT 963; Harrison 1986b: 430; Klingbeil 2003a: 405, 411–27; 2003b: 261, 263, 265, 267, 268–70, 277; Kogan 2006: 271; Mailberger 2003: 79–81; McCullough 1962b: 456; Michel 2004: 190–200; Moore and Brown 1997f: 675–76 (NIDOTTE §7234); Nibbi 1979: 155, 164–68; Tristram 1898: 124–25; Ziese 2000: 925. See also AHw 855 (perdum, “ein Equide”); CAD P 394–95 (pirdu, “an equid”); DUL 679 (prd); Durand 1998: 487; Kitchen 1974: 17–20 (ptr?); SED 2:235–36 (no. 177); cf. §2.4.1.2. For the distinction between the mule and the hinny/jennet see Borowski 1998: 108–9; Clutton-Brock 1992: 44–45. 23.  This incorrect distinction appears to be assumed by Gerald Klingbeil (2003a: 416; 2003b: 261, 263, 267; cf. Borowski 1998: 108, 110). A better question is why the gender of the animal is noteworthy in 1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44 (the only passage where the form pirdah occurs). Perhaps the mention of a female mount has something to do with Lady Wisdom because wisdom is so important in the Solomon narrative (e.g., 1 Kings 3; cf. §4.5.2.2; Fox 2008: 942). 24.  It is interesting that when pered is distinguished from the donkey, the term used for donkey is always ḥămôr and never ʿayir. This suggests that the semantic range of ʿayir may actually include the pered (see §4.1.3).

4.1. Terminology

169

ʾātôn     ḥămôr     ʿayir      pered

Figure 1.  Lexical field of “donkey” in Biblical Hebrew.

Isa 66:20; 1 Chr 12:40 [MT 12:41]) and a beast of burden (2 Kgs 5:17), and it is likewise characterized as lacking understanding (Ps 32:9; cf. §2.6.6). The pered is also the preferred mount for Israelite kings and princes during the tenth century b.c.e. (see 2 Sam 13:29, 18:9; 1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44; cf. 1 Kgs 18:5 [9th century]); note especially the collocation “the royal she-mule” (‫ פרדת המלך‬in 1 Kgs 1:38, 44. 25 The connection between mules and royalty is also attested for the kings of Mari in the 18th century b.c.e. (see §2.4.1.2). The prestigious appeal of the pered is presumably due to its rarity and resulting high price tag. 26 It is unknown how the Israelites acquired pĕrādîm. Crossbreeding is forbidden in pentateuchal law (see Lev 19:19). The presence of the pered in ancient Israel may indicate that (1) the Israelites did not follow this law, (2) the law derives from a later time period, or (3) the Israelites did follow this law and only acquired hybrids from their neighbors via trade or tribute (cf. 1 Kgs 10:25 // 2 Chr 9:24, Isa 66:20, Ezek 27:14).

4.1.5. Summary The lexical field of donkeys in Biblical Hebrew can now be summarized. Ḥămôr is the general term for donkey, which can be male, female, or an unspecified gender. ʾĀtôn always designates the female donkey/jenny. ʿAyir always designates a male equid; it is usually the donkey but it may also designate 25. See Klingbeil 2003a: 416–17, 425–26; 2003b: 266–67. 26. See Borowski 1998: 109–10, 129 n. 52, 233; Dent 1972: 62; Klingbeil 2003a: 417–18; 2005: 13; Zarins 1978: 14; 1986: 164, 185–87; cf. COS 2.19:117 (§§178, 180); Gurney 1961: 84; Hoffner 1997a: 235 (§§178, 180); 1997b: 141–44 (§§178, 180); Michel 2004: 192–93.

170

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

the mule. Pered always designates the hybrid (probably a mule as opposed to a hinny/jennet). The lexical field is diagrammed in fig. 1. The diagram is obviously not designed to show the percentages or proportions of semantic overlap (which would require an expanded lexical base). Rather, the diagram merely shows that the terms do overlap (where specified). It is likely that ʾātôn is completely subsumed under ḥămôr. 27 It is unlikely that ʿayir is completely subsumed under ḥămôr because ʿayir seems to include male hybrids. It appears that the basic sense of ʿayir has to do with “maleness” rather than with species. Likewise, the same may be said regarding ʾātôn—that it has to do more with “femaleness” than with species. Although not demonstrable from the corpus of Biblical Hebrew, it is possible that ʾātôn may be used for female hybrids; and if that is the case, then ʾātôn would overlap with the term pirdah.

4.2.  Review of Previous Observations At the end of chap. 2, 21 propositions are put forward about the significance of the donkey in ancient Near Eastern texts (see §2.6), 10 of which can be derived from biblical texts. Those 10 ideas are here restated and, in most cases, are expanded and explored in more detail. 28

4.2.1.  The Donkey Is Characterized as a Beast of Burden (cf. §2.6.1) Donkeys function as beasts of burden in numerous contexts. For the transport of commodities, see Gen 42:26–27; 44:3, 13; 45:23; 49:14–15; Exod 23:5; Josh 9:4; 1 Sam 16:20, 25:18; 2 Sam 16:1–2; 1 Chr 12:40 (MT 12:41); Neh 13:15; Isa 30:6; cf. Gen 22:3, 5; 49:11; Judg 19:10, 28; 1 Kgs 13:29; 2 Kgs 7:10. For the transport of humans, see Exod 4:20; Num 22:21–30; Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14, 5:10, 10:4, 12:14, 19:28; 1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Sam 16:1–2, 19:26 (MT 19:27); 1 Kgs 13:11–32; 2 Kgs 4:22, 24; 2 Chr 28:15; Zech 9:9; cf. 2 Sam 17:23; 1 Kgs 2:40.

4.2.2.  The Donkey Is Characterized as a Licentious Animal (cf. §2.6.3) This characterization occurs in Ezek 23:20, which explicitly states (regarding Oholibah/Jerusalem): 29 27.  Exceptions to this would be cases in which ḥămôr is used for male donkeys, as opposed to females (e.g., Gen 12:16, 45:23). 28.  An additional proposition based only on biblical literature (and thus not listed here) is that the donkey is characterized by loyalty (see §4.5.2.4). 29.  For further reference on Ezek 23:20, see Block 1997: 742–43, 746–47; Greenberg 1997: 471–72, 480; Zimmerli 1979: 474, 482.

4.2.  Review of Previous Observations

171

:‫ותעגבה על פלגׁשיהם אׁשר בׂשר־חמֹורים בׂשרם וזרמת סוסים זרמתם‬ She lusted after their lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emissions were like those of horses. The sexual behavior of equids is a motif that also occurs in Jeremiah and Song of Songs. 30

4.2.3.  The Donkey Is Characterized as a Stubborn or Lazy Animal (cf. §2.6.4) Such characterization may be assumed in passages such as Gen 49:14b; Exod 23:5; Num 22:23, 25, 27; Deut 22:4; Prov 26:3. Not surprisingly, stubborn behavior can result in beatings (cf. Num 22:23, 25, 27; Prov 26:3).

4.2.4.  The Donkey Is Associated with Divination (cf. §2.6.9) The behavior of the donkey seems to have divinatory significance in Num 22:22–35. This interpretation is defended in §2.2.2.1 (cf. §2.4.2). For further discussion on omens in Num 22:22–35, see §4.5.1 (cf. §4.6.3).

4.2.5.  The Donkey Is Associated with the Lion (cf. §2.6.10) The ḥămôr and the ʾaryēh are portrayed as a peaceful pair in 1 Kings 13 (see also Isa 65:25 [ʾaryēh]; cf. Isa 11:6–9). This peaceful association is obviously ironic because the donkey could easily serve as a meal for the lion! For further discussion on 1 Kings 13, see §4.6. In addition, the lion and the donkey both appear in the Balaam traditions (Num 22:21–33 [ʾātôn]; Num 23:24 and 24:9 [lābîʾ and ʾărî]), and they are both listed among the animals of the Negev (Isa 30:6 [lābîʾ, layiš, and ʿayir]). 31

4.2.6.  The Donkey Is Associated with Value (cf. §2.6.12) Donkeys may serve as booty (Gen 34:28; Num 31:28, 30, 34, 39, 45; Deut 28:31; 1 Sam 27:9; 2 Kgs 7:3–16; 1 Chr 5:21; cf. Judg 6:4; Job 1:14–15), tribute (Gen 32:15 [MT 32:16], 45:23; cf. 1 Kgs 10:25 // 2 Chr 9:24 [sûs and pered]), and wealth/capital (Gen 12:16; 24:35; 30:43; 32:5, 15 [MT 32:6, 16]; 43:18; 47:17; Exod 20:17; Num 16:15; Deut 5:21; 22:3; Josh 7:24; 1 Sam 12:3; 1 Chr 27:30; Ezra 2:66–67; Neh 7:68; Job 1:3; 24:3; 42:12; cf. Tob 10:10). 30. See Jer 2:24 (pereh [read pereʾ]), 5:8 (sûsîm), 50:11 (ʾabbîrîm); Song 1:9 (sûsah); cf. Jer 13:27. For further reference on Song 1:9, see Pope 1970: 56–61, 1977: 336–41. 31.  On all matters leonine, see now Strawn 2005. For the association of the lion with the donkey, see Strawn 2005: 45, 355, 361, 362; cf. §4.6.2.

172

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

4.2.7.  The Donkey Is Associated with Sick or Weak People (cf. §2.6.13) Donkeys are employed to transport both women and children (Exod 4:20; Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14; 1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Kgs 4:22, 24) as well as to transport the sick or the injured (2 Sam 19:26 [MT 19:27]; 2 Chr 28:15).

4.2.8.  The Donkey Is Associated with Socioeconomic Status (cf. §2.6.14) The donkey serves as a mount for people of high standing such as prophets (Num 22:21–30; 1 Kgs 13:11–32), judges (Judg 10:4, 12:14), and royalty (1 Sam 25:20, 23, 42; 2 Sam 16:1–2, 19:26 [MT 19:27]; Zech 9:9; cf. Gen 49:10–11, Judg 5:10, 1 Sam 9–10). 32 That certain donkey riders were people of status is evident by the presence of servants who lead the donkey and accompany the rider/master by foot (see Gen 22:3, 5, 19; Num 22:22; 33 1 Sam 25:19, 42; 2 Kgs 4:22, 24; cf. Judg 19:3, 19; 1 Kgs 13:11–13, 27). Another indicator of status may be the descriptive emphasis that is often placed on the preparation of the donkey for travel. References to “tying/tacking up” the donkey are found in Gen 22:3, 49:11; Num 22:21; Judg 19:10; 2 Sam 16:1, 17:23, 19:26 (MT 19:27); 1 Kgs 2:40; 13:13, 23, 27; 2 Kgs 4:24; 7:10. 34 The status element in this scenario is occasionally made explicit when a high status individual is said to command (a) lower status individual(s) to prepare his/her donkey for transport (see 1 Kgs 13:13, 27; cf. 2 Kgs 9:21 [rekeb]). 35

32.  Judg 10:4 and 12:14 are treated in §§2.3.3 and 4.1.3. In Zech 9:9–10, the symbolic character of the donkey seems to be compared/contrasted with the symbolic character of the horse. Whereas the former is associated with peace, the latter is associated with war. Both of these seem to function as royal symbols—perhaps one of humility and victory and the other of power and conquest. It is interesting to compare this juxtaposition to the one found in ARM 6.76, where the symbolic qualities of the horse and the mule are similarly contrasted (see §2.4.1.2). Regarding royalty, note, however, that these people seem to have preferred the mule for transport. King David’s sons each rode a pered (2 Sam 13:29), Absalom rode a pered (2 Sam 18:9), and Solomon rode on David’s pirdah (1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44); cf. 1 Kgs 18:5. This is probably due to its higher price tag and to its superiority over the donkey in matters of speed and strength. For further discussion on the mule, see §§2.4.1.2, 4.1.4. 33. See the remarks by M. Noth (1968: 179) and J. Milgrom (1990: 190); cf. §2.2.1.2. 34.  With respect to the ʾātôn, see Num 22:21, 2 Kgs 4:24; with respect to the ḥămôr, see Gen 22:3; Judg 19:10; 2 Sam 16:1, 17:23, 19:26 (MT 19:27); 1 Kgs 2:40; 13:13, 23, 27; 2 Kgs 7:10. With respect to the ʿayir, see Gen 49:11. The verbs used in these passages are ʾsr (Gen 49:11; 2 Kgs 7:10) and ḥbš (Gen 22:3; Num 22:21; Judg 19:10; 2 Sam 16:1, 17:23, 19:26 [MT 19:27]; 1 Kgs 2:40; 13:13, 23, 27; 2 Kgs 4:24). 35.  Of course, any animal used for human transport may be associated with socioeconomic status.

4.3.  Shechem Traditions

173

4.2.9.  The Donkey Is Associated with Death (cf. §2.6.15) The donkey seems to have a literary function in which it is portrayed as leading its rider directly or indirectly toward death (see Num 22:29, 33; 1 Sam 9:5, 10:2; 2 Sam 17:23; 1 Kgs 13:24, 28–29; cf. 2 Sam 18:9 [pered]; see §§4.5, 4.6). The donkey can also function as a transport for a corpse (Judg 19:28, 1 Kgs 13:29), although such examples may be simply based on the fact that the donkey was the primary beast of burden in the biblical world.

4.2.10.  The Donkey Serves as Food in Extreme Circumstances (cf. §2.6.18) The best example of donkey consumption is recorded in 2 Kgs 6:25 (see also §2.1.1.2): ‫ויהי רעב גדֹול בׁשמרֹון והנה צרים עליה עד היֹות ראׁש־חמֹור בׁשמנים כסף‬ :‫[ בחמׁשה־כסף‬Qere ‫ורבע הקב חרייונים ]דביונים‬ There was a great famine in Samaria; and look, they continued besieging it until a donkey’s head sold for eighty shekels of silver, and a fourth of a qab of doves’ dung for five shekels of silver. 36 Other instances that may indirectly refer to the eating of equids are Exod 21:33–34 (ḥămôr), Judg 6:4 (ḥămôr), and Ezek 39:20 (sûs and rekeb). Of course, equids are considered unclean according to the dietary laws because they neither chew the cud nor have cleft hooves (see Lev 11:2–7, Deut 14:4–8).

4.3.  Shechem Traditions (Gen 33:18–34:31, Josh 24:32, Judg 8:33–9:57) 4.3.1.  Summary of Biblical Data The biblical traditions regarding Shechem refer to an individual named Ḥămôr who is identified as a Ḥivite (Gen 34:2). 37 He is also called the “father of Shechem” (Gen 33:19, Josh 24:32, Judg 9:28), which appears to be a double entendre referring both to the geographical name and to the personal name of his most prominent son. Ḥămôr’s sons are called “the sons of Ḥămôr” (‫ ;בני־חמֹור‬Gen 33:19, Josh 24:32; cf. Gen 34:2; note also “the men of Ḥămôr” [‫ ]אנׁשי חמֹור‬in Judg 9:28), but the son named Shechem is described as “the chief of the land” (‫ ;נׂשיא הארץ‬Gen 34:2). 36. This verse implies that the donkeys had already been eaten and that what remained (donkey heads and dove droppings) was only refuse that was being sold at exorbitant prices. For helpful comments on this verse, see BBCOT 393; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 79. 37.  Or “Horite” according to the OG (ὁ Χορραῖος); see D. Baker’s helpful discussion on this problem (1992: 234).

174

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

Shechem was obviously an important location for ceremonial activities in the premonarchy era. Yhwh appeared there to Abram, who consequently built an altar (Gen 12:6–7). Jacob set up an altar there and named it “ʾEl, God of Israel” (:‫ ;אל אלהי יׂשראל‬Gen 33:20). Joshua built an altar there to “Yhwh, God of Israel” (‫ ;יהוה אלהי יׂשראל‬Josh 8:30), and he also officiated covenant renewal ceremonies (Josh 8:30–35, 24:1–27). Finally, the Israelites engaged in apostasy by worshiping at the Temple of “El, Lord of the Covenant” (see Judg 8:33; 9:4, 46). 38

4.3.2. Interpretations The traditions from Shechem—regarding the sons of Ḥămôr, the making/ breaking of alliances, the covenant/treaty (bĕrît), and the temple—are often interpreted as allusions to ceremonial practices that are similar to what is attested in the Mari texts (cf. §2.4.1.1). This interpretation originates with W. F. Albright. He explains: The Shechemites seem to have carried on the tradition of an early Amorite tribal confederacy, since their principal deity was called “Baal-Berith,” literally “Lord of the Treaty (Covenant),” and since they traced their origin back to Hamor, literally “Ass.” The Mari documents from the eighteenth century have proved that the expression “killing (the) ass” was anonymous [sic] with “making a treaty” among the Amorites. The designation “Sons of (the) Ass,” applied to the Shechemites several times in Hebrew tradition, would accordingly be tantamount to “Sons of the Confederacy.” 39

Albright’s creative interpretation is now widespread in all subsequent scholarship concerning the Shechem traditions. 40 A recent example is the endorsement 38.  I am taking some interpretive liberties here by stating that the deity was ʾEl (rather than Baʿal). The biblical texts read as follows: ‫יׂשימו להם בעל ברית לאלהים‬, “they set up Baʿal-Bĕrît as their God” (Judg 8:33) ‫מבית בעל ברית‬, “from the temple of Baʿal-Bĕrît” (Judg 9:4) ‫אל־צריח בית אל ברית‬, “into the ambulatory of the temple of ʾEl- Bĕrît” (Judg 9:46)

I agree with T. J. Lewis that “The phrase baʿal bĕrît, rather than denoting a separate deity, seems to be a title referring to El’s role as ‘lord of the covenant’” (Lewis 1996a: 416; see also pp. 408, 423); cf. Block 1999: 305; Campbell 1983: 265, 269; Cross 1973: 39, 49 n. 23; Hillers 1969: 59; Stager 1999: 232 n. 7; 2003: 66; Wright 1964: 136; Younger 2002a: 218. 39.  Albright 1942: 113. See also Albright 1957: 279, 1961: 48. 40. E.g., Anderson 1957: 268; Boling 1975: 178; Bright 1959: 73 n. 26; 1972: 80 n. 27; 1981: 81 n. 30; Campbell and Ross 1963: 281; Clements 1968: 29; DeMent and Harrison 1982: 608; Ginsberg 1950: 158; Hamilton 1995: 349; Hillers 1969: 59; Malamat 1971: 149; McCarthy 1972: 42; 1978: 222 n. 20, 279 n. 4; Mendenhall 1948: 18, 1954: 26 n. 2; Sarna 1989: 233; Stager 1999: 239, 2003: 66; Willesen 1954: 216–17; Wright 1964: 131, 133–34; Wright and Campbell 1988: 459; Wyatt 1990: 440, 457;

4.3.  Shechem Traditions

175

of L. E. Stager: “The preeminence of donkey sacrifice in ratifying treaties also explains why the Donkey Clan―the Hamorites―was the dominant clan living in Shechem and was associated with the temple of El, Lord of the Covenant.” 41 Despite its popularity, Albright’s view is ultimately not provable. Scholars such as D. Kidner and C. Westermann have expressed skepticism, 42 and most recently, T. J. Lewis stated: “There may indeed be treaty nuances behind bĕnê ḥămôr. . . . We just don’t have the empirical data to say this with any certainty.” 43 I would suggest that Albright’s theory must remain on the table as a strong possibility, especially in light of the fact that a headless equid skeleton has been excavated from a Late Bronze Age pit at Shechem (see §3.2.3). But Albright’s theory is still only one possibility among a number of other speculative suggestions. Additional viable interpretations of the term “(the sons of) Ḥămôr” may include the following. 1.  Ḥămôr may simply be a personal name. The employment of animal names for people is well attested in both biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts. 44 2.  Ḥămôr may designate the occupation of an individual—that is, a “donkey-driver.” 45 3.  Ḥămôr may designate an individual as a man of wealth, prestige/ status, or royalty (see §§4.2.6, 4.2.8). 46 1998: 345 n. 17; cf. Hostetter 1992a: 43; Oren 1997b: 266; Sasson 1976a: 73; Stiebing 1971: 116; Ziffer 1990: 65*. 41.  Stager 2003: 66. 42. See Kidner 1967: 173; Westermann 1995: 529. 43.  Lewis 1996a: 412; cf. p. 413. 44.  In the Bible, note especially Arad (“onager”) and Piram (“onager”); cf. Caleb (“dog”), Deborah (“bee”), Eglon (“calf”), Huldah (“mole”), Jael (“ibex”), Jonah (“dove”), Laish (“lion”), Nahash (“snake”), Nun (“fish”), Oreb (“raven”), Rachel (“ewe”), Shaphan (“hyrax”), Shual (“fox”), Sippor (“bird”), Zeeb (“wolf”), etc. For further discussion on animal names in Hebrew, see Miller 2000a: 101–14; Stern 2001: 185. In the ancient Near East, note especially A-ga-la and A-ga-lum (an equid; CAD A/1 141), I-ma-ru-um and E-ma-ru-um (“donkey”; CAD I–J 112; Zarins 1978: 4), and Kuda-núm (“mule”; CAD K 491); cf. Ka-al-bu-[um], Ka-al-ba-tum, mKal-bi (“dog”; CAD K 72), etc. For additional animal names from the Mari texts (including Ayarum, Harâdum, Himârum, Kudunnu and Susu), see Millet Albà 2000: 477–87. For animal names in Ugaritic (including kdn and pru), see Watson 2007: 108–10. For donkey names in South Arabian, see Willesen 1954: 217. For further discussion on animal names in general, see Dent 1972: 65. 45. Compare Albright’s statement: “I strongly suspect that here again . . . we have a North-Israelite pronunciation ḥammôr for Hebrew ḥammâr ‘donkey-driver’” (Albright 1968: 271 note r; see also p. 266 note c). 46.  Note that kingship is a theme in both Genesis 34 (subtly) and Judges 9 (explicitly). As for the possible connection between Ḥămôr and wealth, note that Genesis 34:28 lists ḥămōrîm as part of the booty seized by Simeon and Levi. If ḥămôr is interpreted

176

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

The first interpretation (that is, personal name) constitutes a “literal” reading of the biblical text, whereas the second and third interpretations (as well as Al­ bright’s initial interpretation) constitute more “figurative” readings. None of the above interpretations can be ruled out given the sketchy data in the biblical accounts. One must leave open a number of interpretive possibilities because the term ḥămôr exhibits a variety of associations and functions in the biblical world. It is also possible that the term ḥămôr has more than one function in the Shechem traditions. Just as the term Shechem seems to function as both a personal and place name in these passages, 47 so also ḥămôr may have more than one nuance. For example, ḥămôr may simultaneously function as a personal name and as an allusion to treaty/covenant activity.

4.4.  Redemption of the Firstborn (Exodus 13:13, 34:20) The redemption of the firstborn male donkey (Exod 13:12–13, 34:19–20) 48 is perhaps the most intriguing biblical prescription that requires a fresh look in light of the present study. Exod 13:12–13 reads as follows: ‫והעברת כל־פטר־רחם ליהֹוה וכל־פטר | ׁשגר בהמה אשר יהיה לך הזכרים‬ ‫ וכל־פטר חמר תפדה בׂשה ואם־לא תפדה וערפתֹו וכל בכֹור אדם בבניך‬:‫ליהוה‬ :‫תפדה‬ Then you shall set apart to Yhwh the first issue of every womb; every first issue of your livestock—the males belong to Yhwh. But the first issue of every donkey 49 you shall redeem with a sheep/goat; if you do as a designation for wealth, prestige/status or loyalty, then perhaps it should be added to P. D. Miller’s catalogue of animal names that are used metaphorically (see Miller 2000a: 101–14). 47.  It should also be noted that the term škm may mean “donkey” in an Ugaritic economic text (KTU 4.14:6, 12, 18; see Watson 2006: 446, 2007: 107); cf. Akkadian šāgimu (“roaring, braying, thundering”); Egyptian sk/skꜢ (“donkey foal”; see HWBDÄ 379; Wb 4:315). 48.  For further reference on Exod 13:12–13, 34:19–20, see Alter 2004: 387; Brin 1994: 196–208; Childs 1974: 184, 194–95, 203–4, 207, 604, 613, 620; Clements 1972: 78–79, 223; Cole 1973: 114–15; Durham 1987: 174–76, 179, 455–57, 461; Hertz 1960: 262, 367; Houtman 1996: 140, 159–66, 210, 214–17; 2000: 264–65; Hyatt 1971: 142– 43, 325; Nielsen 1953: 263–74; Noth 1966: 110 n. 6; Propp 1999: 358, 370–72, 421, 425–27, 454–56; Sarna 1991: 66–67, 218–19; Sasson 1976a: 73; Zevit 1976: 383. For some potential connections between Exod 13:13, 34:20 and KTU 1.119, see §2.2.1.1. 49.  Note that the Syriac Peshitta has rḥm instead of ḥmr—this appears to be a scribal error based on the wording of the previous verse (v. 12 has ‫ ;כל־פטר־רחם‬v. 13 has ‫)כל־פטר חמר‬. For additional reference on this problem, see Brin 1994: 196 n. 2; Propp 1999: 371–72; cf. §4.1.2.

4.4.  Redemption of the Firstborn

177

not redeem, you shall break its neck. 50 And the firstborn of every human among your sons you shall redeem. That the donkey was considered unclean is implied in the dietary laws of Lev 11:2–7 and Deut 14:4–8. But because many other animals were unclean, the first question regarding Exod 13:13 (and 34:20) is why the donkey is singled out from among the unclean animals. That is, why does this text contain a unique prescription about the donkey’s redemption? 51 Second, why does this text prescribe a neck-breaking ritual in the event that the donkey is not redeemed?

4.4.1.  Biblical Context This prescription is unique to the book of Exodus. It both is based on and immediately follows the events leading up to the exodus (cf. Exod 12:51–13:3, 8–9, 14–16; 34:18). More specifically, it is based on the 10th and final plague in which Yhwh killed every male firstborn in Egypt—both human and animal (cf. Exod 13:15a). It is also important to note that the consecration of the firstborn (or of its substitute) is regarded as an act of sacrifice to Yhwh (note the use of the verb ‫ ;זבח‬cf. Exod 13:15b, Deut 15:21). 52 Elsewhere in the book of Exodus, the Israelites are instructed to give their firstborn males to Yhwh at eight days old (Exod 22:29–30 [MT 22:28–29]). 53 In the other legal books of the Pentateuch, the prescriptions regarding the redemption of firstborn males (human and animal) make no specific reference to the donkey, the sheep/goat (as substitute), or the neck-breaking ritual. 54 In 50.  Note that there is no reference to neck-breaking in the LXX. It simply reads, “if you do not exchange it, you must redeem it” (ἐάν δὲ μὴ ἀλλάξῃς λυτρώσῃ αὐτό). G. Brin remarks: “it does not seem to me that the Septuagint here reflects any original text. Perhaps its reading had some polemical point related to the reality of life in Egypt, where the Jews were accused by Gentiles of sacrificing to asses” (1994: 208); cf. §2.1.2.3. 51. Similarly, J. M. Sasson comments: “Still to be assessed is the unusual law of Exod. 13:13. . . . The ass is the only unclean animal about whom a procedure for redemption is specifically outlined” (1976a: 73). 52.  With regard to the sacrifice of firstborn humans, see 2 Kgs 3:27, Ezek 20:26, Mic 6:7; cf. Gen 22:12–13. See discussion in Alter 2004: 388; Childs 1974: 195; Clements 1972: 79; Cole 1973: 116; Houtman 1996: 159, 163, 164–66, 215; Hyatt 1971: 142; King and Stager 2001: 359–62; Lewis and Harrison 1982: 308; Milgrom 2001: 2417; Niehr 2001: 531, 532; Propp 1999: 454, 456; Tigay 1996: 464–65; de Vaux 1961: 441–46; Zevit 2001: 542, 552 n. 133, 579. Note that human sacrifice is also mentioned in Isa 66:3a (see §4.4.3; cf. Sasson 1976b: 200–201). 53.  Note the LXX on Exod 22:29 (οὕτως ποιήσεις τὸν μόσχον σου καὶ τὸ πρόβατόν σου καὶ τὸ ὑποζύγιόν σου): “So shall you do with your calf and your sheep and your donkey.” On the secondary nature of the LXX here, see Brin 1994: 196–19 n. 3. 54.  On the pentateuchal teachings regarding the firstborn, see Brin 1994: 200–205; Childs 1974: 194–95; Gray 1971: 24, 33–36; Hildenbrand 2000: 462; Houtman 1996:

178

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

Lev 27:27, the option of redemption is extended to the male firstborn of all unclean animals: one could redeem the unclean animal at its assessed value plus 20%, or one could opt out of redemption and sell the animal at its assessed value. In the book of Numbers, the redemption of firstborn males is required for both humans and unclean animals: they are to be redeemed for five shekels at/after one month of age (Num 18:15–19). Furthermore, the Levites and their livestock are taken for sanctuary service in place of the firstborn males of Israelite humans and their livestock (Num 3:11–13, 39–51). The book of Deuteronomy does not address matters of redemption; rather, it emphasizes the importance of the place where the firstborn males of the livestock are to be sacrificed annually (Deut 12:6, 17; 14:23; 15:19–23).

4.4.2.  The Uniqueness of the Donkey The first important question that must be addressed is why the donkey is singled out from among the unclean animals. William H. C. Propp observes: “It is unclear whether 13:13; 34:20 mention the ass as a paradigm for all unclean domestic animals (Luzzatto), or whether the ass is singled out as the only unclean animal requiring special treatment (Mek. Pisḥāʾ 18; b. Bek. 5b).” 55 The first interpretation―that the donkey represents all unclean animals―seems to be based on a harmonization of Exod 13:13, 34:20 with Lev 27:27 and Num 18:15–16, which prescribe redemption for the male firstborn of all unclean animals. 56 However, it should be noted that Leviticus and Numbers (both of which are dated by many scholars as later than Exodus) prescribe redemption by means of money, whereas Exodus prescribes redemption by means of a sheep/goat. The second interpretation—that the donkey is the only unclean animal that must be redeemed—seems to be based on the assumption that the donkey is somehow unique. The way in which the donkey is unique is, of course, unstated in Exod 13:13, 34:20. This assumption can be defined in at least four ways. 57 1. The donkey may be exceptional due to its economic value. 58 It is well known that the donkey serves as wealth/capital (cf. §4.2.6), as a status-indicator (cf. §4.2.8), and as a beast of burden (cf. §4.2.1) in ancient Israelite culture. 163–64, 216–17; Lewis and Harrison 1982: 308; Milgrom 1990: 152, 431–32; 2001: 2388–91, 2415–17; Niehr 2001: 530–32; Propp 1999: 455; Tigay 1996: 150–51, 453; Tsevat 1977: 122–23. 55.  Propp 1999: 426 (emphasis is his). 56.  The first interpretation is endorsed by Davis 1971: 154; Gray 1971: 24 n. 1; cf. Alter 2004: 387; Brin 1994: 198 n. 9; Clements 1972: 79; Cole 1973: 115; In der Smitten 1980: 468. 57.  Some of these explanations may be complementary; e.g., 1, 2, and 4 could be upheld simultaneously. 58.  This view is endorsed by BBCOT 89; Hyatt 1971: 143.

4.4.  Redemption of the Firstborn

179

Qualities such as these may be used to account for the donkey’s exceptional status in Exod 13:13, 34:20. 2. The donkey may be exceptional due to its special relationship with humanity (cf. §5.3). The pastoral/nomadic lifestyle that characterizes the early history of Israel (note especially the many references to donkeys in the patriarchal period) demonstrates the existence of a symbiotic partnership between humans and donkeys. Partnership of this sort was expressed in caravaneering, riding, and agricultural work. Because this partnership is not observed in connection with other domesticated animals (such as the sheep, goat, ox, or camel), it may serve as the basis for the unique treatment of the donkey in Exod 13:13, 34:20. 59 3. The donkey may be exceptional because of its association with foreign religious practices. 60 Chapter 2 has already explored the extant cases of donkey sacrifice in both the Ugaritic (§2.2.1.1) and the Mari texts (§2.4.1.1). 61 59. E. Nielsen’s study provides helpful background for this view. He comments on Exod 13:13, 34:20: “Strange is the juxtaposition of ass and man, but even so remarkable that the ass, just as familiar with human beings as the ox, is nevertheless regarded in a different way than the ox” (1953: 269). He further states: “Israel’s nomadic ancestors had been closely connected with the ass, which can hardly in this way have come ‘too late’ into the Israelitish world to be sanctified” (1953: 269); and finally: “the ass as domestic animal was quite indispensable for the Israelite” (1953: 274). John S. Holladay’s remarks (pertaining to equid burials) are also helpful for comparison. He suggests that “rites highlighting the interdependence of man and donkey reflected a major economic basis to the social order” (1997: 204). He also asks: “why not have bulls buried before more exalted tombs, and sheep or goats sacrificed before those of lower status? The answer seems to be that the donkey was, somehow, qualitatively different. By virtue of its centrality to the economy, it attained the status of a worthy offering” (1997: 204); cf. Bietak 1996: 25, 41; 1997: 103, 109; 2001b: 142; Flores 2003: 62; Katz 2000: 237; Oren 1997b: 279. 60.  This view is endorsed by Lewis and Harrison 1982: 308; Noth 1966: 109–10 and n. 6; cf. BBCOT 89; Cole 1973: 115; Held 1970: 33 n. 6; Nielsen 1953: 268; Oren 1997b: 266; Sasson 1976a: 73; Zevit 1976: 383; Ziffer 1990: 64*. T. J. Lewis and R. K. Harrison note that “heathen practices” (specifically, with regard to child sacrifice) provide the backdrop for Exod 13:1–16 (1982: 308). M. Noth suggests that the donkey played “some important role . . . in foreign cults” (1966: 110). M. Held remarks: “the killing of a donkey foal [in ARM 2.37] . . . may be the underlying rationale for the prescription attested in Exod 13:13; 34:20” (1970: 33 n. 6). 61.  The only scholar, to my knowledge, who has previously noted/published the potential connection between the Ugaritic donkey sacrifices and Exod 13:13, 34:20 is I. Ziffer (1990: 64*). Scholars who have previously noted the potential connection between the Mari treaty rituals and Exod 13:13, 34:20 include Held 1970: 33 n. 6; Malamat 1995: 229; 1998c: 171; Nielsen 1953: 268–71; Noth 1966: 110 n. 6; Sasson 1976a: 73; Zevit 1976: 383; Ziffer 1990: 64*–65*; cf. BBCOT 89; Cole 1973: 115; Sasson 1976b: 201, 202. W. H. C. Propp also demonstrates awareness of this connection (see 1999: 426). Both M. Held and A. Malamat interpreted the Mari texts as referring

180

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

Chapter 3 has explored the extant cases of donkey burials attested in the Near East from ca. 3000–1000 b.c.e. 62 It is therefore possible that the prescription in Exod 13:13, 34:20 requires the male firstborn of the donkey to be redeemed, not only because it is an unclean animal but also because it is associated with pagan (i.e., non-Israelite) sacrificial rituals. 63 The same line of thinking can also account for the redemption of the male firstborn of humans (note the juxtaposition of humans and donkeys in Exod 13:13, 34:20). 64 Human sacrifice, which was apparently practiced by Israel’s neighbors (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:27), is not tolerated by Yhwh. In the same way, donkey sacrifice, which was also practiced by Israel’s neighbors, is not tolerated by Yhwh; redemption is therefore required. Or stated differently: if the Israelites were to “set apart to Yhwh the first issue” of the donkey (and thus not observe redemption), they would look no different from their Canaanite neighbors/predecessors. That pagan practices provide a backdrop to Exod 13:13, 34:20 may also be indicated in the immediate contexts: Exodus 13 repeatedly emphasizes “the land of the Canaanites” (vv. 5a, 11a), and Exodus 34 demands that Israelites remain distinct from their neighbors with regard to treaties and sacrificial rituals (see vv. 11–16). The specific mention of treaty-making (Exod 34:12, 15) in the context of donkey redemption is especially interesting in light of the evidence from the Mari texts. 65 4. The donkey may be exceptional because of its sacrificial status in early Israel. That is, the legislation of Exod 13:13, 34:20 may be viewed as the vestigial remnant of an earlier sacrificial rite connected with the donkey. Because donkey sacrifice is clearly attested among the Amorites (in the MB [see §2.4.1.1]) and among the Ugaritians (in the LB [see §2.2.1.1]), it would not be surprising to find similar rites among early Israelites. 66 Here it is relevant to to donkey foals; this erroneous supposition (see §§2.4.1.1; 4.1.3) is what seemingly led them to posit a connection with Exod 13:13, 34:20 (which does refer to donkey foals). 62.  To my knowledge, the only scholars who have previously noted the potential connection between Bronze Age donkey burials and Exod 13:13, 34:20 are E. D. Oren (1997b: 266) and I. Ziffer (1990: 64*). 63. M. Noth takes this idea further by suggesting that pagan practices of this sort are the basis for the unclean status of the donkey in Israelite religion (see Noth 1966: 109–10 [see also pp. 55–59]). Noth’s theory is, of course, only one of many theories that are used to explain the laws of clean/unclean. For a convenient summary of the current viewpoints on clean/unclean, see Houston 2003: 328–30; cf. Firmage 1992: 1124–25. Houston describes Noth’s view under “Cult-polemic theories” (p. 328). 64.  Human and equid remains are also juxtaposed in sacrificial burial contexts at Umm el-Marra and Tell Brak in Syria (see §§3.3.1, 3.3.5). 65.  Note also the mention of Amorites in both passages (Exod 13:5, 34:11). 66.  Perhaps the alliances with/at Shechem (see Gen 33:18–34:31; Judg 8:33–9:57; cf. §4.3) also indicate that early Israel was engaged in treaty rites involving donkey sac-

4.4.  Redemption of the Firstborn

181

reiterate that the Bible regards the consecration of the firstborn (or of its substitute) as a sacrificial act (cf. §4.4.1). The view that Exod 13:13, 34:20 may be a clouded reference to donkey sacrifice in early Israel is noted by both M. Noth and Z. Zevit. Noth remarks: “This statement [i.e., Exod 13:13a] may preserve an old custom in which the firstborn of the ass was sacrificed as one of the important animals in the possession of man.” 67 Zevit also states: “at one time the ass―under certain conditions and perhaps only among certain elements of the [Israelite] population―was considered a proper sacrificial animal.” 68 There may also be a third interpretation which is a middle ground between the first two approaches. This view posits that the donkey was the only unclean domestic animal that the Israelites were breeding at the time when this law originated. 69 This interpretation allows Exod 13:13, 34:20 to harmonize with the teachings of Leviticus and Numbers, and it also allows for the possibility that there was something unique about the donkey. The problem with this interpretation is the unlikelihood that the donkey stood alone. Rather, it seems likely that the Israelites were also breeding other unclean domesticates such as camels. 70

4.4.3.  The Neck-Breaking Ritual The second question that must be addressed is why Exodus prescribes a neck-breaking ritual in the event that the donkey is not redeemed. The neckbreaking ritual in Exod 13:13, 34:20 appears to be an extreme alternative that was probably never actually practiced. 71 The prescription may therefore serve to reinforce the importance of redemption. After all, a donkey is worth far more than a sheep/goat, and the alternative (killing the donkey by breaking its neck) is of no benefit to any party involved. W. H. C. Propp explains: However wasteful 13:13 may seem, we may be sure it was almost never applied­—which is probably why it follows, rather than precedes, the mandate rifice. Furthermore, the Genesis Shechem tradition, which involves the clan of Ḥămôr, may be viewed as a literary justification for the Exodus legislation (N. S. Fox, private communication). 67.  Noth 1966: 110 n. 6. 68.  Zevit 1976: 383. 69.  The third interpretation is proposed by Ibn Ezra (on Exod 13:13). See also Brin 1994: 198; Milgrom 1990: 432, 2001: 2416; Sarna 1991: 67; cf. Cole 1973: 115. Milgrom states: “in JE’s time, the ass may have been the only domestically impure animal” (2001: 2416). 70.  Note the list of unclean animals in Lev 11:4–7 and Deut 14:7–8 (camel, hare, hyrax, and pig); cf. Isa 66:3, 17 (dog, pig, and rodent). Note also the patriarchs’ employment of camels (e.g., Gen 12:16; 24:10–63; 30:43; 31:17, 34; 32:8, 16). 71. Cf. Alter 2004: 387; Hertz 1960: 262; Propp 1999: 426.

182

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

of redemption . . . an ass is worth far more than a sheep or goat. . . . One would therefore always choose redemption over slaughter. 72

Similarly, N. M. Sarna notes: “Because the owner deprives the priest of a sheep by refusing to redeem the ass, he himself is denied the use of that animal.” 73 The neck-breaking ritual in the Bible is expressed by the denominative verb ʿrp (all six occurrences are in the Qal stem). 74 The ritual is not only applied to the donkey foal (Exod 13:13, 34:20; cf. Exod 22:30 [MT 22:29]); it is also applied to the heifer calf (ʿeglâ; Deut 21:3–6) and to the puppy (keleb; Isa 66:3). 75 In all three of these contexts, the victim appears to be a young animal. In Isa 66:3a, the neck-breaking ritual seems to appear as a “quasi-sacrifice.” Note how the verb ʿrp is juxtaposed to the verb zbḥ: ‫ׁשֹוחט הׁשֹור מכה־איׁש זֹובח הׂשה ערף כלב‬ He who slaughtered the ox (would now) slay a man; he who sacrificed the sheep/goat (would now) break the neck of a puppy. 76 This juxtaposition may indicate “that ʿrp connotes the opposite of proper sacrifice.” 77 That is, the verb ʿrp may imply neck-breaking without the shedding of blood (the latter is assumed in the verb zbḥ). 78 If blood remains in the 72.  Propp 1999: 426. 73.  Sarna 1991: 67 (citing Rashi). 74.  For further reference on the verb ʿrp, see Alter 2004: 387; HALOT 887; Houtman 1996: 216; Propp 1999: 426; Sasson 1976b: 201; Tigay 1996: 192, 381 n. 18; Zipor 2001: 369–70. Note that the direct object of this verb is always an animal except for one instance in which the object is an altar (‫ ;מזבח‬Hos 10:2). 75.  Heifer calf: For further discussion on Deut 21:1–9, see Tigay 1996: 191–93, 455, 472–76; Zevit 1976: 377–90. Note that the commentators Naḥmanides and Ḥizquni categorize the neck-breaking ritual of Deut 21:4 among other sacrifices such as the “scapegoat” (Leviticus 16) and the “red heifer” (Numbers 19) that are performed away from the altar—or away from any temple/shrine. I must thank S. Greengus for pointing this out (private communication, Feb 2006). For Naḥmanides, see Chavel 1976: 246. Puppy: For further discussion on Isa 66:3, see Blenkinsopp 2003: 291–92, 297–98; Moyer 1983: 30, 32–33; Oswalt 1998: 663, 668; Sasson 1976b: 199–207. The suggestion that keleb in this verse refers to a puppy is based on the following data: (1) Biblical Hebrew does not have a distinct word for puppy (cf. Sasson 1976b: 207); (2) puppies with broken necks were buried in the courtyard of a Canaanite temple at Tel Haror (cf. §§1.6.3.2, 3.2.11, 3.7.5; Oren 1993: 581; 1997a: 474–75; 1997b: 264, 268 [fig. 8.15]); (3) puppy sacrifice is attested in treaty rituals from the Mari texts (cf. §2.4.1.1); and (4) puppy sacrifice is attested in Hittite ritual texts (cf. §§2.3.2, 2.4.1.1; Collins 1990: 211–26; Moyer 1983: 30–33; Sasson 1976b: 204–6). 76.  My translation basically follows that of J. M. Sasson (1976b: 200). 77.  Propp 1999: 426. 78.  It is difficult to conclusively prove whether or not the ʿrp-ritual involves the shedding of blood. Sasson and Zipor are noncommittal on this issue (Sasson 1976b: 201; Zipor 2001: 369). In my opinion, the contextual data (viz., the contrast with zbḥ)

4.4.  Redemption of the Firstborn

183

animal, the animal is rendered uneatable. 79 This scenario underscores the idea that the neck-breaking prescription in Exod 13:13, 34:20 would make the donkey virtually useless for all parties. 80 If the verb ʿrp does in fact refer to neck breaking, there are some fine archaeological examples of the practice with regard to the Middle Bronze puppy burials at Tel Haror (see §1.6.3.2) and the Late Bronze/Iron I donkey burial at Tel Beth-Shemesh (see §3.2.7). In addition, an intact horse skeleton with a “twisted neck” was discovered in association with an elite tomb at Salamis (Cyprus; Tomb 47) dating to the late 8th century b.c.e. 81 On the other hand, if ʿrp is understood as decapitation (rather than neck breaking), there are other relevant examples from Bronze Age archaeology. Decapitated equid skeletons are attested in the burial at Shechem (see §3.2.3) as well as in burials that accompany human graves such as those at Umm elMarra (see §3.3.1) and Tell Brak (see §3.3.5). A unique interment of a donkey skull (lacking its skeleton) is also attested at Tell Jemmeh (see §3.2.10).

4.4.4. Summary The prescriptions regarding the donkey in Exod 13:13, 34:20 are interpreted as follows. (1) Every male firstborn donkey must be redeemed with a sheep/ goat. This may be due to the donkey’s unclean status, economic value, relationship with humanity, association with foreign religious practices, former sacrificial status, or some combination of these factors. (2) The only option other than redemption is actually not a viable option at all. The caretaker must kill the donkey either by breaking its neck or, possibly, by decapitation. favors the view that the ʿrp-ritual left the blood in the victim (see especially Hyatt 1971: 143; Propp 1999: 426; cf. Houston 2003: 331; Houtman 1996: 216; Sarna 1991: 67; Tigay 1996: 192, 473, 475; Zevit 1976: 381–84, 390). It may be noteworthy, however, that rabbinic tradition explains the ʿrp-ritual as “performed by a blow from behind with a hatchet” (Sarna 1991: 67; cf. Propp 1999: 426). 79. See Houtman 1996: 216; cf. Houston 2003: 330–31. 80.  Of course, the use of the dead donkey for meat is not an impossible scenario. Exodus 13 does not specifically mention consumption. Furthermore, Isaiah 66 indicates that the ritual laws were not followed by everyone. For further discussion on donkey consumption, see §§2.6.18, 4.2.10. 81. See Karageorghis 1965: 287–88; cf. Karageorghis 1969: 151–52. This burial consisted of two horses (labeled G and H) on the floor of the dromos. Karageorghis explains: One of the horses [G] was found flat on the floor with the legs and neck in a normal position. The second horse [H], however, had its neck twisted round the yoke (Figure 10) and its body stretched opposite that of the other horse, not parallel to it. This suggests that the second horse may have been killed while struggling. . . . It is not easy to determine the method of killing, though the twisted neck of the second horse may suggest that its throat was cut. In any case the slaughter of the first horse is likely to have terrified the second. (1965: 288)

184

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

4.5.  Balaam’s Jenny (Numbers 22:22–35) 4.5.1.  Literary Observations The story of Balaam’s jenny exhibits a sophisticated literary structure. 82 It is divided into three paragraphs (the first of which can be subdivided into three separate “encounters”). The first and second paragraphs employ role reversal as the primary literary convention. 83 The third paragraph restores proper roles and reveals the purpose of the entire episode―to reinforce that Balaam may only speak Yhwh’s words. Num 22:22–35 is outlined here as follows:      I. Reversal A: The Jenny as Seer (vv. 22–27)     First Encounter (vv. 22–23)     Second Encounter (vv. 24–25)     Third Encounter (vv. 26–27)    II. Reversal B: The Jenny as Yhwh’s Mouthpiece (vv. 28–30) III. Resolution: Balaam as Seer and Mouthpiece (vv. 31–35) The first paragraph (vv. 22–27) reverses the roles of the seer and the donkey. The role of the donkey (which is infamous for its stubbornness; see §§2.6.4, 4.2.3) is assigned to Balaam. The role of Balaam “whose eyes are opened” (Num 24:4b, 16b) is assigned to the donkey. At the outset of this paragraph, the reader is informed that God “became enraged” (‫ ;ויחר־אף‬Num 22:22a) that Balaam was going with the Moabite officials. Thus, the angel of Yhwh enters the scene to act as an adversary against Balaam, and three encounters are described. Each encounter contains three elements: (1) the angel obstructs Balaam’s path (vv. 22a, 24, 26); (2) the jenny sees the angel and avoids his presence (vv. 23a, 25a, 27a); 84 and (3) Balaam reacts by striking the jenny 82.  For further discussion on Num 22:22–35, see Alter 1981: 104–7, 2004: 795– 816; Ashley 1993: 432–36, 451–60; Barré 1997: 254–66; BBCOT 159–61; Budd 1984: 250, 254, 256–60, 263–66; Clark 1982: 137–44; Fox 2004: 328–29, 2008: 937–53; Gray 1912: 332–37; Gross 1974: 121–23, 160–68, 348–54, 438–39; Keil 1869: 168– 74; Levine 2000: 139, 142–43, 154–59; McKay 2002: 138–40; Milgrom 1990: xx, 189–92, 319–20, 467–69, 518; Moore 1990: 1–7, 9–11, 97–123; Moore and Brown 1997a: 576; Noth 1968: 167–68, 171–72, 175, 178–80; Rouillard 1980: 5–37, 1985: 115–21; Savran 1994: 33–55; Way 2005: 679– 93; Wenham 1981: 164–71. This section (§4.5) is adpated from Way 2009: 47–54. 83.  On role reversal in the Balaam traditions, see especially §2.2.2.1 (and the references cited there); see also Alter 1981: 106; 2004: 804, 813; Ashley 1993: 460; Barré 1997: 261; Clark 1982: 140; Fox 2004: 329; 2008: 937, 942; McKay 2002: 138–40; Milgrom 1990: 191–92, 469; Moore and Brown 1997a: 576; Savran 1994: 35–36, 44–45, 53; Wenham 1981: 167–68. 84.  Alter suggests that “the verb to see . . . becomes, with some synonyms, the main Leitwort in this tale about the nature of prophecy or vision” (Alter 1981: 105; cf. Alter

4.5.  Balaam’s Jenny

185

(vv. 23b, 25b, 27b). There is also a progression from partial to total obstruction in the adversarial actions of the angel. In the first encounter, the angel is positioned in the road (v. 22a), and the jenny simply swerves from the road to avoid him. In the second encounter, the angel is positioned in the lane of the vineyards with a fence on either side (v. 24), and the jenny manages to squeeze between the angel and the wall. In the third encounter, the angel is positioned at a narrow place where there was no way to swerve right or left (v. 26b), and the jenny resorts to laying down under Balaam. A similar progression is also evident in Balaam’s brutish reactions to the jenny. First, he strikes the jenny (v. 23b); then he continues to strike the jenny (v. 25b); and finally, he strikes the jenny with his rod (v. 27b). 85 These progressions bring the three characters to a bottleneck, at which point Balaam “became enraged” (‫ ;ויחר־אף‬Num 22:27b)—thus forming an inclusio for the first paragraph (cf. v. 22a). 86 The second paragraph (vv. 28–30) reverses the roles of Yhwh’s mouthpiece and the donkey. The role of the donkey (which is infamous for its stupidity; see §2.6.6) is assigned to Balaam. The role of Balaam, who hears the words of God (see Num 24:4a, 16a) is assigned to the donkey. At the outset of this paragraph, the reader is informed that Yhwh opened the jenny’s mouth (v. 28a). Note that there is no parallel statement in the first paragraph to the effect that Yhwh opened the jenny’s eyes. 87 Apparently, the jenny’s ability to see what is in front of her is only natural, 88 whereas the jenny’s ability to speak is an act of Yhwh. The dialogue in this paragraph is striking for at least two reasons: first, the jenny does not say what the reader expects her to say―that she is trying to avoid the angel who is about to slay them. 89 Rather, she assumes that Balaam 2004: 795, 801, 806, 811, 814). For further discussion on sight in the Balaam pericope, see Savran 1994: 46–48, 2005: 85–86. 85. For further discussion on the possibly ominous significance of the “rod” (maqqēl) in this passage see §2.4.2. 86.  Note later how Balak also “became enraged” (‫ )ויחר־אף‬after Balaam pronounces his third oracle (see Num 24:10a). It appears that both Balaam and Balak employ the policy of “three strikes and you’re out” (see Num 22:22–27, 23:1–24:11). On the patterns of three that permeate the Balaam pericope, see Alter 1981: 106; 2004: 799, 804, 809, 810, 813; Ashley 1993: 456, 460; Barré 1997: 261; Clark 1982: 140, 142–44; Milgrom 1990: 190, 468, 469; Savran 1994: 35; 2005: 85–86, 139, 165, 206–7; Wenham 1981: 165, 71. 87.  For this observation, see Moore and Brown 1997a: 576. 88.  Based on what is known about equid physiology, it is interesting that the donkey is depicted here in the role of seer: equids have “an enormous field of vision . . . only three degrees short of all round vision; their eyes are the largest of any land mammal” (McKay 2002: 139; cf. Cantrell 2011: 15; Pickeral 1999: 24). Note also that instinctive clairvoyance is an attribute that has been ascribed to various animals (see Gaster 1969: 309–10 [§99]; Gray 1912: 333–34; Gunkel 1987: 51–52; Keel and Staubli 2001: 11, 2003: 11; Keil 1869: 170 and n. 1; McKay 2002: 139; Way 2005: 683 n. 18). 89. Cf. Ashley 1993: 458; Levine 2000: 157.

186

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

knows this obvious piece of information; and instead, her words seem to reflect the introspective thoughts of one who is about to die. She says (Num 22:28b, 30a [emphasis mine]): 90 :‫מה־עׂשיתי לך כי הכיתני זה ׁשלׁש רגלים‬ ‫הלֹוא אנכי אתנך אׁשר־רכבת עלי מעֹודך עד־היֹום הזה‬ ‫ההסכן הסכנתי לעׂשֹות לך כה‬ What have I done to you that you should strike me these three times? Am I not your own jenny whom you have always ridden to this day? Have I really taken advantage by doing thus to you? The second striking feature of this paragraph is that Balaam is not surprised by the jenny’s unnatural ability to speak. 91 Why is this so? It is suggested in chap.  2 that a characteristic of the Balaam traditions is that they employ omens by means of animal activity (see §2.2.2.1). It is also noted that donkeys are associated with divination throughout ancient Near Eastern literature (see §2.6.9). Therefore, instead of marveling at the jenny’s unusual behavior, it appears that Balaam immediately accepts it as an omen 92 and proceeds to investigate by engaging the jenny in dialogue, but he cannot determine the meaning of the omen―at least not by his own ability. The third paragraph (vv. 31–35) restores Balaam to his proper role as both seer and mouthpiece. It begins by stating another divine act: Yhwh uncovered Balaam’s eyes (v. 31a). This act is just as miraculous as opening the jenny’s mouth (cf. v. 28a). 93 When Balaam sees the angel of Yhwh, he bows and assumes a prostrate position (v. 31b). The angel then explains the meaning of the jenny’s behavior (vv. 32–33), while Balaam the diviner admits to sinning based on his own ignorance (v. 34a; contrast this with Num 24:16a). Finally, the angel commissions Balaam to go with Balak’s officials and to speak only the word of Yhwh. He states emphatically (v. 35a): 90. For helpful remarks on Num 22:28, 30, see Ashley 1993: 452–53, 457–58; Levine 2000: 142, 157–58; Milgrom 1990: 191. 91.  Balaam’s lack of surprise at the talking jenny is noted by many commentators; e.g., Alter 2004: 800; Ashley 1993: 457; Clark 1982: 140; Gray 1912: 335; Gunkel 1987: 51; Keil 1869: 171; Moore and Brown 1997a: 576; Savran 1994: 38, 2005: 139. 92.  The idea that the unusual behavior of the jenny may function as an omen in Numbers 22 was previously recognized by R. Largement (1964: 40–41; cf. Milgrom 1990: 190; Wenham 1981: 170), who proposed the hypothetical existence of omens such as “Si une ânesse se détourne du chemin et va dans les champs (Nm., 22, 23); Si une ânesse serre contre le mur le pied de son cavalier (id., 25); Si une ânesse se couche sous son cavalier (id., 27). L’apodose commune pourraît être « danger de mort pour le cavalier” (Largement 1964: 41). 93.  Note also that the ability to speak, to hear or to see is given by Yhwh (Exod 4:11; cf. Ezek 3:27, 33:22).

4.5.  Balaam’s Jenny

187

‫לך עם־האנׁשים ואפס את־הדבר אׁשר־אדבר אליך אתֹו תדבר‬ Go with the men. But only the word that I speak to you, such you shall speak. This verse is the whole reason for the story of Balaam’s encounter with the angel. The jenny merely serves as the vehicle (both literally and figuratively) that reinforces this message to Balaam. Balaam’s mission is not about himself, nor is it about pleasing the king of Moab. His mission is to speak Yhwh’s words only. The fact that the word of Yhwh is such an essential element in the story of Balaam’s jenny suggests that the story is situated perfectly within chap. 22 and within the entire Balaam pericope (chaps. 22–24). 94 In chap. 22, the passage preceding the story of the jenny concludes with emphasis on speaking only the word of Yhwh/God (cf. 22:18, 20). Likewise, the passage following the story of the jenny reiterates the same theme (cf. 22:38). Following chap. 22, the restrictiveness of the word of Yhwh is repeatedly emphasized after the first, second, and third oracles (see Num 23:12, 26; 24:13), and it appears to be assumed in the remainder of Balaam’s oracles.

4.5.2.  Additional Observations 4.5.2.1.  Balaam in the Hebrew Bible The Balaam pericope generally presents the person of Balaam in a positive manner even though he is a Gentile diviner who was hired by the Moabites to 94.  The view expressed here—that the jenny story demonstrates continuity with the rest of the Balaam pericope—is not shared by all scholars. For example, B. A. Levine states: It has already been noted that Numbers 22:22 . . . directly contradicts Numbers 22:20. . . . Beyond these contradictions, the tale ridicules Balaam most effectively. . . . There is, therefore, considerable logic to the often voiced contention that the author of the Tale of the Jenny has endorsed the later negative casting of Balaam to be inferred from several biblical references to him, and from some postbiblical traditions, as well. (Levine 2000: 154)

On the other hand, God’s apparent change of mind in the jenny story may be viewed as one instance of a recurring literary motif in the Pentateuch. With regard to the motif of “God opposing after sending” (cf. Gen 31–32; Exod 4), Walton, Matthews and Chavalas suggest: “In each instance God did indeed want the individual to make the journey but had an issue to settle first” (BBCOT 160). J. H. Walton elsewhere explains: “In each of these three cases, the antagonism that the man experiences from God does not reflect a contradiction in God (telling them to go, then stopping them from going), but a contradiction that needs to be resolved in the man” (2001: 610). As for Balaam’s issue, Walton continues: “God wanted Balaam to go and pronounce blessing on Israel. But Balaam also had some baggage that was not conducive to a proper understanding of what role he was going to play.” (2001: 610)

188

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

curse Israel. This positive portrayal of Balaam in Numbers 22–24 is echoed again only in Mic 6:5. In every other passage of the Hebrew Bible where Balaam is mentioned, he is clearly presented in a negative manner (see Num 31:8, 16; Deut 23:3–5 [MT 23:4–6]; Josh 13:22, 24:9–10; Neh 13:1–2). 95 Interestingly, many scholars place the story of the jenny in the “negative” column based on source-critical assumptions, 96 but literarily speaking (see the preceding paragraph), the story is closely linked with the larger pericope (chaps. 22– 24), which is regarded as “positive” by most scholars. 4.5.2.2.  The Literary Characterization of Equids In Num 22:22–35, the jenny is employed as the subject of a verb no less than 13 times (see vv. 23, 25, 27–28, 30, 33). Most notably, she has the capacity of speech (see vv. 28, 30 [‫)]ותאמר‬. This kind of personification of the donkey occurs only one time in the Hebrew Bible (the only other instance of animal speech is that of the serpent in Genesis 3), 97 but there are two additional passages that feature equids as the subjects of verbal forms. The first one is 2 Sam 18:9, which recounts the actions of Absalom and his mule: 98 ‫ואבׁשלֹום רכב על־הפרד ויבא הפרד תחת ׂשֹובך האלה הגדֹולה ויחזק ראׁשֹו‬ :‫באלה ויתן בין הׁשמים ובין הארץ והפרד אׁשר־תחתיו עבר‬ Now Absalom was riding on the mule, and as the mule passed under the tangled branches of the great terebinth, his head got caught in the terebinth; he was left hanging between heaven and earth as the mule under him kept going. 95.  For further reference on the disparate assessments of Balaam in biblical literature, see Ashley 1993: 435–36; Barré 1997: 255; Budd 1984: 272–73; Chavalas 2003: 76; Clark 1982: 139; Fox 2004: 328; 2008: 940; Kaiser 1996: 95–106; Levine 2000: 154, 238–40, 453–54; Milgrom 1990: 469–71; Moore 1990: 1, 9–11; Noth 1968: 172–73, 231; Savran 1994: 54–55; Wenham 1981: 166–68. For the negative portrayal of Balaam in the NT, see 2 Pet 2:15–16; Jude 11; Rev 2:14; cf. 2 Tim 3:8. 96. E.g., Levine 2000: 154. 97.  For a stimulating study on the intertextual relationship between Genesis 3 and Numbers 22, see Savran 1994: 33–55; cf. §§1.6.3.4, 2.2.2.1. The published abstract of Savran’s article is worth noting: The anomalous feature of animal speech in Gen. 3 and in Num. 22 is only the most obvious point in common between the two texts. The serpent and the she-ass play complementary roles in relation to the human actors in the stories, and a comparison of their functions reveals further similarities. Both the garden story and the Balaam narrative focus on the themes of blessing and curse, vision and understanding, and obedience/disobedience to God. The intertextual relationship between the stories uncovered in this analysis sheds light on larger patterns of inner-biblical interpretation within the Pentateuch. (Savran 1994: 55)

98. For helpful remarks on 2  Sam 18:9, see Alter 1999: 304–5; BBCOT 347; McCarter 1984: 396, 401, 406; Stadelmann 2006: 303.

4.5.  Balaam’s Jenny

189

The second passage is 1 Kings 13, where a donkey and a lion are said to be standing beside the corpse of a prophet (‫[ וחמֹור והאריה עמדים אצל הנבלה‬v. 28; cf. v. 24]; see §4.6). While 2 Sam 18:9 and 1 Kgs 13:24, 28 seem to feature the equid as a minor literary character, they do not employ the same level of characterization as Numbers 22, where the jenny is totally personified, displaying the faculty of speech. 99 4.5.2.3.  Divinely Endowed Speech for Equids The story of Balaam’s talking jenny is not the only text from the ancient Mediterranean world that attests to divinely endowed equid speech. An additional example of this scenario is attested in Homer’s Iliad (XIX:404–24), where Achilles converses with his horse named Xanthus. 100 H. Rouillard points out three “convergences” between the biblical and Homeric episodes: 101 (1) deity grants the faculty of speech to the equid (Hera in XIX:406; Yhwh in Num 22:28); (2) the equid’s speech coincides with the rider’s blindness; and (3) the rider reacts with anger (Achilles in XIX:419–20; Balaam in Num 22:27b, 29). One could also add a fourth element that is common to both stories: death is a major theme in the dialogue (the death of Achilles in XIX:409–10, 420–22; the death of the jenny in Num 22:29; the death of Balaam in Num 22:33). Out of these four observations, the first “convergence”―that of divinely endowed speech for equids―is the most striking and compelling. The three other observations serve to bolster the case for literary comparison. Perhaps this Homeric parallel to Numbers 22 can be regarded as evidence for the existence of a type-scene that was employed in the literature of the ancient Mediterranean world. 102 4.5.2.4.  The Loyalty of the Donkey For the first time in the present study, the donkey is characterized as a loyal and reliable animal. Surprisingly, the donkey’s loyalty is not observed in any 99.  For further discussion on animals (especially equids) with speech capabilities in ancient Near Eastern texts, see §2.2.2.1; cf. Gunkel 1987: 52. N. S. Fox adds that the gender of this speaking animal may be significant: “Her role as the insightful one of the pair is reminiscent of the biblical notion of Lady Wisdom (especially in Proverbs 8–9). Perhaps, however, the story is merely suggesting that even a female donkey, the lowliest of the low animals, is more perceptive than Balaam” (Fox 2008: 942). For other biblical references to female equids, see Exod 13:13a, 34:20a (ḥămôr), 2 Sam 19:26 (MT 19:27; ḥămôr), 1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44 (pirdah), and the passages that employ the term ʾātôn (see §4.1.1). 100.  Greek literature is technically beyond the purview of this study, but the parallel in the Iliad is simply too interesting to ignore! 101. See Rouillard 1985: 118; cf. Lattimore 1951: 403; Murray and Wyatt 1999: 362–65. 102.  For further discussion on type-scenes see Alter 1981: 47–62. Note also C. H. Gordon’s remark: “The speech of Xanthus . . . is of a piece with the talking of Balaam’s ass” (1965b: 110; cf. Gordon 1967: 58–59).

190

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

of the texts that are examined in chap. 2. This characterization is made explicit in the story of the jenny when she engages in an argumentative dialogue with Balaam. In v. 30, she reminds Balaam about her faithful track record: 103 ‫הלֹוא אנכי אתנך אׁשר־רכבת עלי מעֹודך עד־היֹום הזה‬ ‫ההסכן הסכנתי לעׂשֹות לך כה‬ Am I not your own jenny whom you have always ridden to this day? Have I really taken advantage by doing thus to you? The loyalty of the donkey toward its rider/caretaker is a theme that is also expressed in 1 Kgs 13:24, 28, and Isa 1:3. 104 This characteristic can now be added to the list of propositions regarding the significance of the donkey in the Bible (compiled under §4.2). 4.5.2.5.  The Jenny’s Immunity from Death If one examines Num 22:22–35 from the perspectives of either the jenny or the angel, it becomes immediately evident that the jenny is afforded exceptional treatment by the angel of Yhwh. The angel makes a loaded statement regarding the jenny’s immunity from death. The angel explains to Balaam (Num 22:33b): 105 :‫אולי נטתה מפני כי עתה גם־אתכה הרגתי ואֹותה החייתי‬ Had she not avoided my presence, it is you I would have killed and her I would have let live. Why is the jenny exceptional? Baruch Levine opines that “she would not have been slain in such an encounter, as she was only an animal.” 106 But the fact that she is “only an animal” may just as well be a reason to slay her along with her rider! In Num 22:22–30, I would suggest that the jenny has a special function as Yhwh’s agent (cf. §1.6.4). Yhwh not only employs her natural behavior for his purposes (vv. 22–27), he also endows her with supernatural ability for his purposes (vv. 28–30). The jenny is the vehicle that Yhwh uses in this story to remind Balaam that he may only speak the words of Yhwh. The jenny is there103.  For helpful remarks on Num 22:30, see Alter 2004: 800; Ashley 1993: 453, 458; Levine 2000: 142, 158; Milgrom 1990: 191. 104.  On the donkey’s loyalty to its master, note Nibbi’s remark: “Félix Fabri . . . also noted that the ass becomes very dependent on his master. Remarkably, these facts set down in 1483 are confirmed by the British Army manual of today which sets out the requirements for the care of asses and mules, including the assignment of one driver to each animal, a duty which should preferably not be shared” (Nibbi 1979: 153). 105.  For helpful remarks on Num 22:33, see Angel 2005: 34; Ashley 1993: 453, 458–59; Levine 2000: 159; Milgrom 1990: 192. 106.  Levine 2000: 159.

4.6.  Man of God from Judah

191

fore quite exceptional and shares a status akin to that of the angel of Yhwh. The reason why the angel feels differently about this jenny is that they are both employees of Yhwh.

4.6.  Man of God from Judah (1 Kings 13) 4.6.1.  Literary Observations The story of the man of God from Judah also exhibits a high level of literary sophistication. 107 The central theme of the story is clearly “the word of Yhwh” (‫—)דבר־יהוה‬a phrase that occurs a total of nine times in the passage (cf. 1 Kgs 13:1, 2, 5, 9, 17, 18, 20, 26, 32). Additionally, a couple of key words are employed in the account: “to return/bring back” (‫ ;ׁשוב‬16×) and “road/way” (‫;דרך‬ 12×). 108 The literary structure of the story is now apparent thanks to the keen observations of James Mead (1999) and Jesse Long (2005). They suggest that the pericope properly begins at 1 Kgs 12:25/26 and continues through 13:34. Both Mead and Long detect a chiastic arrangement in which the central pivot is v. 19, 109 which reads: Then he went back with him house.

 110

:‫ויׁשב אתֹו ויאכל לחם בביתֹו ויׁשת מים‬ and ate bread and drank water in his

This verse divides between the positive and negative portrayals of the man of God from Judah (i.e., between vv. 1–18 and vv. 20–32). 111 The verse that is most interesting for the present study on animals is found in the second half of the chiasm—v. 24. This verse describes the immediate result of Yhwh’s judgment on the disobedient prophet from Judah. Interestingly, 107.  For further discussion on 1 Kings 13, see Angel 2005: 31–39; BBCOT 369–70; Brueggemann 2000: 167–76; Cogan 2001: 365–75; Long 2002: 169–77, 2005: 1–17; Mead 1999: 191–205; Strawn 2005: 45, 64, 143, 144, 149, 234, 250, 345, 361. This section (§4.6) is adapted from Way 2009: 54–57. 108.  On ‫ ׁשוב‬see Cogan 2001: 373; Long 2002: 170, 175–76; 2005: 8, 10, 11; Mead 1999: 194 n. 11; Simon 1976: 109. On ‫דרך‬, see Long 2002: 170, 175; 2005: 8, 10. 109. See Long 2005: 13; Mead 1999: 194, 196. It should be noted that Long and Mead are in agreement regarding the external frame (12:25/26–33, 13:33–34) and the center (13:19) of the chiasm, but they are not in agreement regarding the relationship(s) between 13:1–18 and 13:20–32. I must thank Jesse Long for discussing this passage with me (private communication, November 2005) and for sending me a copy of his unpublished paper. 110.  The OG interprets the same consonants differently (i.e., as a Hiphil rather than Qal [MT]): “And he [the northern prophet] brought him back” (καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν αὐτόν); cf. Cogan 2001: 370. J. Long suggests: “The ambiguity is intentional, highlighting the two sides of the story” (private communication, November 2005). 111. See Mead 1999: 194–95.

192

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

Yhwh employs the services of both a donkey and a lion. Verse 24 reads as follows: ‫וילך וימצאהו אריה בדרך וימיתהו‬ ‫שתהי נבלתֹו מׁשלכת בדרך‬ :‫והחמֹור עמד אצלה והאריה עמד אצל הנבלה‬ Then he set out, and a lion met him on the road and killed him. 112 His corpse was thrown on the road, with the donkey standing beside it, and the lion also standing beside the corpse. 113 After the northern prophet arrives and sees this bizarre scene, the narrator adds the following remark (v. 28): ‫לא־אכל האריה את־הנבלה ולא ׁשבר את־החמֹור‬ The lion had not eaten the corpse nor had it mauled the donkey. This comment highlights the unnatural behavior of the lion in order to underscore the divine employment of the animal world. Mordecai Cogan aptly remarks: “To make the point that the lion was fulfilling a divine order, the carnivore did not devour the dead man or the donkey, in departure from its natural behavior. Indeed, the donkey watched over its rider; the lion stood guard over both of them.” 114 The text here seems to portray the lion and the donkey as collaborative partners who carry out Yhwh’s mission.

4.6.2.  Lions and Donkeys in the Biblical World The juxtaposition of the lion and the donkey is unusual but not unique to 1  Kings 13. These two animals are also present in the Balaam traditions (see Num 22:21–33, 23:24, 24:9) which feature numerous animals behaving 112.  Another instance of a lion “finding” and killing a prophet is in 1 Kgs 20:36. Note that the key issue in both 1 Kgs 13 and 1 Kgs 20 is “the word of Yhwh” (1 Kgs 20:35; see Cogan 2001: 469; Long 2002: 236–37, 2005: 12). 113.  Mead opines that the donkey is subtly identified with king Jeroboam: “The donkey’s action of ‘standing beside’ (ʾēṣel) the corpse (v.  24) recalls Jeroboam’s ‘standing beside’ (ʿal) the altar (v. 1). Moreover . . . the ‘thrown’ body of the man of God echoes the ‘torn down’ altar. These parallels lead to a subtle identification between the king and the donkey. In other words, the narrator is calling Jeroboam an ass. Helpless and dumb to stop the judgment of Yahweh’s word, the king can only stand idly by and await his fate. At present, the lion does not consume the donkey, and Yahweh leaves Jeroboam on his rebellious throne” (Mead 1999: 202). I do not accept Mead’s interpretation. He fails to present any clear evidence for the literary equation of the donkey with Jeroboam. Instead, a much stronger case can be made for the literary equation of Jeroboam with the man of God from Judah (see Mead 1999: 196–98, 201, 205; cf. Angel 2005: 35; Long 2002: 176–77; 2005: 12, 14). 114.  Cogan 2001: 371; cf. Angel 2005: 34; Brueggemann 2000: 171; Gunkel 1987: 53; Long 2002: 172; Strawn 2005: 45, 345.

4.6.  Man of God from Judah

193

in an ominous manner (see §2.2.2.1). In Egyptian instructions, the respective temperaments and speeds of the two animals are contrasted (see §§2.1.1.3, 2.1.1.4). There is also an Aramaic fable that depicts the lion and donkey as conversing in a seemingly peaceful manner (see §2.2.2.2). Similarly, in 1 Kgs 13:24, 28, the story depicts the two animals peacefully cooperating in order to execute Yhwh’s judgment. It is curious that the lion and donkey are portrayed as a peaceful pair in both the biblical and ancient Near Eastern sources. This is obviously intended to be ironic because the donkey could suffice as an easy meal for the lion! Additionally, it is relevant to note that the lion is attested as an instrument of divine judgment not only in the Hebrew Bible (1 Kgs 13:24–26, 20:36; 2 Kgs 17:25–26; Isa 15:9; Jer 5:6; cf. Hos 5:14, 13:7–8) but also in texts such as a curse from the treaty of Esarhaddon and Baal of Tyre: “[May] Bethel and Anath-Bethel [deliv]er you to a man-eating lion.” 115 Notably, there is also textual evidence that the lion’s behavior in 1 Kgs 13:28 might be understood as ominous. For example, a fragmentary Akkadian omen from Šumma Alu reads: “If a lion kills [. . .] and does not eat (it), there will be plague in that city” (Tablet 44:25′). 116

4.6.3.  Comparison with Numbers 22 The story of the man of God from Judah shares many similarities with the story of Balaam’s jenny in Numbers 22. The two stories have at least 11 features in common. 117 First, both stories place emphasis on the word of Yhwh (cf. Num 22:18, 20, 28–30, 35, 38; 1 Kgs 13:1, 2, 5, 9, 17, 18, 20, 26, 32; see §4.5.1). Second, both stories employ the same idiomatic response to a king’s offer/invitation (cf. Num 22:18, 1 Kgs 13:8). 118 Third, both stories utilize key words such as “road/way” and “return” (‫ דרך‬appears 8× in Numbers 22; ‫ׁשוב‬ occurs only 1× [Num 22:34]). Fourth, both stories feature the literary convention of role reversal (see §§2.2.2.1 and 4.5.1 [for Numbers 22]). 119 Fifth, both stories contain references to death (see Num 22:29–33, 1 Kgs 13:22–31; cf. 115.  For further discussion on divine judgment in the Hebrew Bible, see Brueggemann 2000: 172; Strawn 2005: 64, 234, 250 (and cf. p. 143). For the treaty of Essarhaddon and Baal of Tyre, see Strawn 2005: 143, 234; cf. CAD N/2:194; Cogan 2001: 371. For other examples, see BBCOT 404; Strawn 2005: 143–44, 234. 116.  Translation by S. M. Freedman (private communication, June 2008); cf. CAD N/2 194; Strawn 2005: 149 n. 92. 117.  At least two of these common features are discussed in a recent article by H. Angel, who even suggests that 1 Kings 13 is “modeled after the Balaam narrative” (2005: 31). It should be noted, however, that the 11 similarities listed in this paragraph I observed independently and prior to reading Angel’s article. 118.  This observation is made by M. Cogan (2001: 369); cf. Angel 2005: 32, 36. 119.  For the many reversals in 1 Kings 13, see Angel 2005: 34–35; Cogan 2001: 372; Long 2000: 169, 173; 2005: 10; Mead 1999: 194 n. 11, 197, 201, 204, 205; Simon 1976: 93, 96; see also n. 128 in §4.7.1.

194

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

§§2.6.15, 4.2.9). Sixth, both stories depict the donkey as having immunity to death―or at least as being spared from death (cf. Num 22:33, 1 Kgs 13:28; see §4.5.2.5). 120 Seventh, both stories display the donkey as a mount for a prophet―that is, a person of status (see Num 22:21–34, 1 Kgs 13:13–29; cf. §§2.6.14, 4.2.8). Eighth, both stories assume the loyalty of the donkey (cf. Num 22:30; 1 Kgs 13:24, 28; see §4.5.2.4). Ninth, both stories present the donkey as a literary character―or at least as the subject of verbal forms (cf. Num 22:23–33; 1 Kgs 13:24, 28; see §§1.6.4, 4.5.2.2). Tenth, the donkey seems to function as Yhwh’s agent in both stories (cf. Num 22:23–33; 1 Kgs 13:24, 28; see §§1.6.4, 4.5.2.5). Eleventh, and finally, the unusual animal behavior can be interpreted as ominous in both stories (see §§2.2.2.1, 2.6.9, 4.2.4, 4.5.1, 4.6.2).

4.7.  Donkey Burial (Jeremiah 22:19) 4.7.1.  Biblical Context In Jer 22:13–19, there is a scathing denunciation of King Jehoiakim of Judah (who reigned 608–598 b.c.e.). Because of Jehoiakim’s unrighteous and unjust behavior, Jeremiah declares that no one will mourn for him at his death (v. 18; contrast this with Jer 34:5). Furthermore, Jeremiah continues (v. 19): ‫קבורת חמֹור יקבר‬ :‫סחֹוב והׁשלך מהלאה לׁשערי ירוׁשלם‬ (Like) 121 the burial of a donkey he shall be buried― dragged off and thrown 122 outside the gates of Jerusalem. 120.  W. T. In der Smitten also observes that Numbers 22 “has certain similarities with the ride of the man of God in 1 K. 13:11–29. In both stories, permeated with death, the mount is never in danger” (1980: 469). E. Nielsen also comments that in both stories “death is threatening” and that “In none of the traditions is the ass menaced with any harm” (1953: 268 n. 17). 121.  Because the Hebrew text does not provide a preposition here, the translator must make an interpretive choice. One might be tempted to translate v. 19a “With the burial of a donkey,” and this choice would fit nicely with the earlier (Bronze Age) practice of human interment along with equids. However, it is suggested in chap. 3 that human burials with equids may indicate the prestige and/or wealth of the deceased (cf. §3.7.1), and this is certainly not the kind of burial that Jeremiah has in mind here (see v. 19b and Jer 36:30). Therefore, I opt to supply the preposition “like” in my translation of 19a. Jeremiah is not saying that Jehoiakim is to be interred along with a donkey, but that he is to be treated as/like a dead donkey. The sense of v. 19a is captured nicely by the niv (“He will have the burial of a donkey”), the njpsv (“He shall have the burial of an ass”) and J. Bright’s translation: “They’ll give him a donkey’s funeral!” (Bright 1965: 138). 122.  On the use of the verb “thrown” (‫ׁשלך‬, Hiphil), S. M. Olyan explains that it is “clearly a ritual act of disrespect and disregard; it is an act specifically associated with animal burials in Jer 22:19. This is to be contrasted with use of the verb ‫ נוח‬in the hiphil

4.7.  Donkey Burial

195

This obscure reference to Jehoiakim’s death is echoed in Jer 36:30, where the prophet declares that Jehoiakim’s corpse will be left exposed (‫ )מׁשלכת‬123 to the elements because he burned Baruch’s scroll. In 2 Kgs 24:6, it is noted that Jehoiakim “rested with his fathers,” but no additional information is provided concerning his death or burial. In 2 Chr 36:6 it is noted that Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim in fetters in order to take him to Babylon. 124

4.7.2. Interpretation Due to the vagueness and disparity of the biblical data, the precise historical details of Jehoiakim’s death are ultimately unknown. 125 The point of Jeremiah’s references to Jehoiakim’s demise is that he was not to receive proper burial (cf. Jer 22:18–19, 36:30). Such ignominious treatment is likened to “the burial of a donkey” (‫)קבורת חמֹור‬. This is an interesting simile that can be explained in at least two different ways. First, the statement in Jer 22:19a (taken together with Jer 36:30) may reveal that the Judahites at that time did not bury their dead donkeys at all but rather left them to decompose outside the city. 126 Furthermore, it is possible that no animals received proper burial in ancient Israel and Judah (in fact, there is not a single biblical reference to the burial of any animal). 127 A potential problem with this interpretation is the obvious health hazards that a rotting animal carcass would pose. If this interpretation is correct, it would mean that Jehoiakim was to have no burial whatsoever. 128 (‘to set at rest’), an idiom used several times in one narrative of honorable interment for the treatment of the corpse (1 Kgs 13:30)” (2005: 606–7). 123.  Note the use of ‫ מׁשלכת‬with regard to the fate of the man of God from Judah— 1 Kgs 13:24, 25, 28; cf. Jer 22:19b (‫)סחֹוב והׁשלך‬. It is ironic that the southern prophet in 1 Kings 13 is treated like a dead donkey, whereas the donkey is spared and unscathed. 124.  The OG of 2 Chr 36:8 adds that Jehoiakim “was buried in the garden of Uzza with his fathers” (καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν Γανοζα μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ); cf. the Lucianic version of 2 Kgs 24:6. For further discussion, see Berridge 1992: 665; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 307; Dillard 1987: 296 n. 8b; Lundbom 2004: 144; Wiseman 1993: 308. 125.  Some scholars suggest that Jehoiakim died of natural causes (e.g., Berridge 1992: 665; Fritz 2003: 415), and others suggest that he was assassinated (e.g., Bright 1972: 326; Dillard 1987: 300; Thomson 1980: 480) or was killed on the battlefield (e.g., Schultz 1982: 977). For further discussion, see Berridge 1992: 665; Bright 1972: 326; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 307–8; Dillard 1987: 299–300; Lundbom 2004: 144–45; Schultz 1982: 977; Thomson 1980: 480. 126.  This scenario may account for the origin and availability of Samson’s “fresh jawbone of a donkey” (Judg 15:15). On the other hand, Samson’s jawbone may have come from a donkey that simply died of natural causes. For further discussion on Judg 15:15, see §4.1.2. 127.  I must thank N. S. Fox for this observation (private communication). 128.  This interpretation is endorsed by J. R. Lundbom in the Anchor Bible commentary (2004: 144–46). He explains: “Such a burial will be no burial” (2004: 146);

196

Chapter 4:  The Donkey in Biblical Literature

Second, the statement in Jer 22:19a—instead of indicating nonburial—may simply indicate that Jehoiakim was to receive a dishonorable form of interment. An interpretation such as this is suggested by S. M. Olyan in his recent JBL article “Israelite Interment Ideology.” Olyan compares the Jehoiakim reference to other examples of dishonorable burial (such as Josh 8:29, 10:26–27; 2 Sam 18:17; Jer 26:23, 41:9), which employ the verb ‫( ׁשלך‬in the Hiphil). 129 He also comments: “An ass’s grave―whatever this might have been―is presumably more dishonoring than a nonelite tomb, a forest pit, or a cistern. All must have been viewed as inferior to the family tomb and its honorable substitutes.” 130

4.8. Summary This chapter contains a number of contributions to the study of the ceremonial and symbolic significance of the donkey in biblical literature. The most salient conclusions are summarized here. 4.8.1.  Donkey Domain: The semantic analysis of the lexical field of donkeys is a new contribution (see §4.1.5). To my knowledge, there is no other prior publication that explores the similarities and differences between these four lexemes. The analysis presented here can especially inform the interpretation and translation of Zech 9:9b, which contains an unusual clustering of donkey terms. 4.8.2.  With regard to the designation “(the sons of) Ḥămôr” in the Shechem traditions (Gen 33:18–34:31; Josh 24:32; Judg 8:33–9:57), the above analysis provides three potential alternatives to Albright’s popular view (see §4.3.2). Of course, all four interpretations are speculative, and one must exhibit caution and restraint when interpreting the designation. It is also possible that the term ḥămôr has more than one nuance in the Shechem traditions. For example, ḥămôr may simultaneously function as a personal name and as an allusion to treaty/covenant activity. 4.8.3.  Donkey Dispatch: The significance of the donkey in the legislation of Exod 13:13, 34:20 is a topic that has not been explored by biblical scholars until now. It is suggested above (see §4.4.2) that the donkey is singled out for redemption from among unclean animals because either (1) the donkey represents all unclean animals; or (2) the donkey is somehow unique (either due to its economic value, relationship with humanity, association with foreign religious practices, former sacrificial status, or some combination thereof) and is therefore the only unclean animal that must be redeemed. I am inclined to embrace the second option. and “The expression here is oxymoronic . . . for as the verse goes on to state, dead asses receive no burial; they are dragged off and left on a dungheap” (2004: 144). 129. See Olyan 2005: 606. 130.  Olyan 2005: 607.

4.8. Summary

197

It is also suggested above (see §4.4.3) that the ʿrp-ritual was probably never actually practiced on the donkey foal in ancient Israel. The ritual may be described as neck-breaking or decapitation because both means of dispatch are reflected in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. 4.8.4. The story of Balaam’s jenny (Num 22:22–35) is one that many scholars have explored over the years. Nevertheless, the literary analysis presented above is for the most part original (see §4.5.1). Perhaps this is due to the application of background knowledge about the donkey (that is, its natural abilities, reputation, and qualities) in conjunction with a literary sensitivity to the prominence of role reversals in the story. 4.8.5.  The story about the unnamed prophet from Judah (1 Kings 13) shares many similarities with the story of Balaam’s jenny (see §4.6.3). Many of these similarities have gone unnoticed until now. Some of the more intriguing features that are common to both accounts are (a) both stories present the donkey as a literary character—or at least as the subject of verbal forms; (b) both stories contain references to death and depict the donkey as being spared from death; and (c) in both stories the donkey seems to function as Yhwh’s agent. 131 4.8.6.  The significance of “the burial of a donkey” in Jer 22:19 is difficult to explain, especially because the precise historical details of Jehoiakim’s death are unknown. Two interpretations are proposed here for this simile (see §4.7.2): (1) it may reveal that the Judahites did not bury their dead donkeys (or any other animals?) but left them to decompose outside of the city; or (2) it may simply indicate that Jehoiakim was to receive a dishonorable form of interment. 131.  It is arguable that all three of these features are also present in 2  Sam 18:9 (Absalom’s mule).

Chapter 5

Synthesis 5.1.  Symbolic Significance of Donkeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1. Characterizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2. Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3. Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.  Ceremonial Significance of Donkeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1. Scapegoat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.  Offerings and Sacrifices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.1. Ancient Near Eastern Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.2. Near Eastern Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.3. Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3. Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4. Burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.  Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 202 202 203 203

This monograph explicates the significance of donkeys in the symbolism and ceremonies of the biblical world. This study stands alone in providing a comprehensive examination of donkeys in ancient Near Eastern texts (chap. 2), the archaeological record (chap. 3), and the Hebrew Bible (chap. 4). It is demonstrated in the preceding pages that donkeys held a special status in the beliefs and rituals of the ancient Near East and especially Canaan-Israel. The present synthesis incorporates much from the chapter summaries (see especially §2.6, 3.6–7, 4.8), but it is not an exhaustive review. Many additional observations can be found in chaps. 1–4 that are not reviewed in this synthesis. The purpose of this final chapter is to reiterate the main ideas of chaps. 1–4 and also to consolidate them under the categories of “ceremonial and symbolic significance,” rather than according to the categories of ancient Near Eastern texts, Near Eastern archaeology, and biblical literature. As I stated in the introduction (see §1.1), “ceremonial and symbolic significance” refers to social and religious thoughts and practices that are reflected in ancient texts and material culture relating to the donkey. The symbolic treatment of the donkey is mainly found in chaps. 2 and 4. The ceremonial treatment of the donkey is found in all three chapters (chaps. 2–4), but chap. 3 is 198

5.1.  Symbolic Significance of Donkeys

199

devoted almost exclusively to the ceremonial significance of donkeys in burial contexts. In this synthesis, the distinction between what is “ceremonial” and what is “symbolic” is not intended to be strict. In fact, some topics—such as death or even divination—could fall under either category, and in many cases it is evident that these two categories are symbiotic.

5.1.  Symbolic Significance of Donkeys The observations that pertain to the symbolic significance of the donkey can be organized under a trifold rubric: characterizations, associations, and functions. It is evident that donkey symbolism consists of both positive and negative aspects, although positive aspects are seemingly absent in the Egyptian sources.

5.1.1. Characterizations Ancient Near Eastern texts characterize the donkey as a beast of burden, having a large appetite, licentious, stubborn/lazy, noisy, stupid, slow, and having a foul odor. The characterizations as a beast of burden, licentious, stubborn/lazy, and stupid are also found in biblical literature. The characterizations that are absent in biblical literature are having a large appetite, noisy, slow, and having a foul odor. The one characterization that is present in the Bible but absent in ancient Near Eastern texts is loyalty (see §4.5.2.4; cf. Num 22:30; 1 Kgs 13:24, 28; Isa 1:3). The characterizations that are the most ubiquitous throughout ancient Near Eastern and biblical literature are the beast of burden (see §§2.6.1, 4.2.1) and licentiousness (see §§2.6.3, 4.2.2).

5.1.2. Associations Ancient Near Eastern texts associate the donkey with divination, value, sick/weak people, socioeconomic status, death, and other animals such as the dog, lion, and serpent. The same associations—with the exceptions of the dog and serpent 1―are found in biblical literature. The association that is the most ubiquitous in ancient Near Eastern and biblical literature is divination (see §§2.2.2.1, 2.6.9, 4.2.4), even though it is apparently unattested in Hittite sources. 2 Interestingly, the donkey is associated with socioeconomic status in biblical, Levantine, Anatolian, and Mesopotamian sources but not in Egyptian sources (see §§2.6.14, 4.2.8). In fact, the donkey is predominantly a negative symbol in ancient Egypt (probably due to its function as a Sethian animal). 1.  However, note that the serpent is associated with the horse (as a rival) in Gen 49:17. Also, one could argue that the serpent is associated with the donkey in biblical literature because both animals speak (Genesis 3; see §§1.6.3.4, 4.5.2.2). 2. Hittite sources do, however, attest to divination by means of animal behavior—especially sheep, birds, snakes and insects (see Beal 2002: 64–71, 74–76; Collins 2002a: 238–39, 2002b: 319–20).

200

Chapter 5:  Synthesis

It is rarely ridden by Egyptians and is regarded as the travel mount of lowly foreigners.

5.1.3. Functions The donkey can function as a divine symbol, a literary character, and as Yhwh’s agent. The donkey clearly functions as a divine symbol in ancient Egypt (for the deity Seth, who is also associated with other animals; see §2.6.17), but it is uncertain whether the donkey has a divine function in Ugaritic (see §2.2.1.4). The donkey also functions as a literary character that has the capacity to speak in biblical, Egyptian, Levantine, and Mesopotamian— but not in Anatolian—literature (see §§2.2.2.1, 4.5). Finally, the donkey (and other animals such as lions, bears, cows, and birds) can function as Yhwh’s agent in biblical narratives (see §§1.6.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8.5). This motif is prominent in biblical narrative and may be regarded as a distinctive feature of the so-called preclassical phase of biblical prophecy (see §1.6.4).

5.2.  Ceremonial Significance of Donkeys There is no question that the donkey held a special status in the ceremonial practices of the biblical world. The primary ceremonial roles of the donkey that are identified in the present study are here summarized under the following rubric: scapegoat, offerings/sacrifices, food, and burials. The offerings/sacrifices can be further subdivided into treaty rituals and offerings to deities.

5.2.1. Scapegoat The donkey functions as the bearer of impurity in the so-called “scapegoat” ritual. The only text witnessing to the donkey in this capacity is Hittite (see §2.3.2, 2.6.16). The selection of the donkey as a “scapegoat” seems most appropriate since the donkey is the ideal beast of burden in the ancient Near Eastern world.

5.2.2.  Offerings and Sacrifices

5.2.2.1.  Ancient Near Eastern Texts The donkey serves as a ceremonial sacrifice in both the Mari texts and the Ugaritic texts. The Mari texts contain numerous examples of the Amorite practice of donkey slaughter for the purpose of treaty ratification (see §§2.4.1.1, 2.6.20). The Ugaritic texts contain only two or three examples of donkey slaughter that serve as sacrificial offerings to deities such as Baʿlu and ʾIlu (see §§2.2.1.1, 2.6.19, 2.6.20). 5.2.2.2.  Near Eastern Archaeology In one of the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.6), 70 donkeys (or roebucks?) are offered along with other animals at the funeral of Baʿlu. It is unclear in this text

5.2.  Ceremonial Significance of Donkeys

201

whether the sacrifices were consumed as food and, if so, whether the sacrifices comprised food for Baʿlu or for the attendees of the funeral. This Ugaritic text may provide comparative evidence for the interpretation of certain equid burials. For example, the incomplete burials that are associated with human tombs (such as those from Tell Banat, Tell Brak, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Lachish, and Jericho) may represent food that was for consumption either in honor of the deceased or by the deceased in the afterlife (see §3.7.1). Other examples that may be similar to the Ugaritic text are the “cemetery pits” at Tell el-Dabʿa, which may be interpreted as the relics of sacrificial meals (see §3.7.2). The Amorite treaty ceremonies attested at Mari may also provide helpful background for the interpretation of other donkey burials. Because the Mari ceremonies typically took place at temples, it is possible to interpret Tell elDabʿa’s “temple pits” as evidence for treaty activity (see §3.7.2). 3 The same can be said regarding the donkey burials beside the temple at Tel Haror (see §3.7.5). 4 In the case of Tel Haror, it may also be possible to augment the treaty interpretation to a “covenant” interpretation because the donkeys were interred in a special tomb at the time of the temple’s founding (see §3.2.11). Finally, the equid pits at Shechem and Tell Beth-Shemesh may likewise reflect treaty ceremonies (see §§3.2.3, 3.2.7). Many additional equid burials can be interpreted as offerings or sacrifices. A deposit comprised of a donkey skull and leg from Tell Jemmeh may be the remnants of a sacrificial offering (see §3.7.2). 5 The foundation deposits consisting of incomplete equids at Tell Banat, Umm el-Marra, Tel ʿAkko, Tell elʿAjjul, and Tell Jemmeh may also be interpreted as sacrificial feasts/offerings (see §3.7.3). Likewise, the intact donkey burials at Tell Brak’s temple complex may represent offerings to the resident deity (see §3.7.4). 5.2.2.3.  Biblical Literature The textual and archaeological evidence for donkey offerings/sacrifices in the biblical world (see §§5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.2) may provide the key to interpreting a number of difficult biblical passages. First, the designation “(the sons of) Ḥămôr” in the Shechem traditions may reflect treaty (or covenant) activity similar to what is known from the Mari texts (see §4.3.2). 6 This interpretation 3.  Alternatively, it is possible that these pits contain donkeys that were offered to Seth-Baal (see §§2.1.2.2, 3.7.2). 4.  Alternatively, these donkeys can be interpreted as (1) originally playing a role in cultic ceremony, (2) a foundation deposit for the temple, or (3) special offerings/gifts to either Baal or El (see §§3.2.11, 3.7.5). 5.  Alternatively, these bones may be interpreted as a trash deposit (see §3.7.2). 6.  Alternatively, Ḥămôr may be (1) simply a personal name; (2) a designation of occupation—i.e., “donkey driver”; or (3) a designation of wealth, prestige/status, or royalty. It is also possible that the term ḥămôr has more than one nuance in the Shechem traditions. For further discussion, see §§4.3.2, 4.8.2.

202

Chapter 5:  Synthesis

is in keeping with the themes of alliance and temple in Gen 33:18–34:31 and Judg 8:33–9:57. It is also strengthened by the discovery of a Late Bronze equid burial at Shechem (see §3.2.3). Second, the redemption of the firstborn male donkey (Exod 13:13, 34:20) seems to be based on the assumption that the donkey was somehow unique in ancient Israel (see §4.4.2). The donkey may have been exceptional due to its economic value, relationship with humanity, association with foreign religious practices, former sacrificial status, or some combination of these factors. 7 If the donkey had a former sacrificial status in early Israel (like it had among the Amorites and the Ugaritians) and the Exodus legislation is viewed as the vestigial remnant of this earlier sacrificial rite, 8 one wonders if there might be some connection between the Exodus legislation and the literary accounts involving the making/breaking of alliances at Shechem. Perhaps the Shechem traditions (involving the clan of Ḥămôr) can be interpreted as a literary justification for the Exodus legislation. It is also noteworthy that the neck-breaking ritual may be illustrated in the donkey burial that was recently recovered at Tel BethShemesh (see §3.2.7).

5.2.3. Food The donkey is not normally consumed as food in the biblical world. Exceptional occasions may include (1) ceremonial feasts that are related to donkey sacrifice and/or burial—like the cases mentioned above (see §5.2.2.2; cf. §2.6.18); and (2) extreme or desperate circumstances such as those described in Egyptian and biblical sources (see §§2.1.1.2, 4.2.10; cf. §2.6.18). 9 Interestingly, the consumption of donkey meat is the subject of dream omens in both Egypt and Mesopotamia (see §§2.1.1.1, 2.4.2; cf. §2.6.18). Of course, in the biblical dietary laws, equids are considered unclean because they neither chew the cud nor have cleft hooves (cf. Lev 11:2–7, Deut 14:4–8).

5.2.4. Burials Donkey burials are thoroughly examined in chap. 3. The phenomenon spans approximately 2,000 years of Near Eastern history (ca. 3000–1000 b.c.e.). The burials that can be interpreted as containing the remains of offerings or sacrifices are reviewed above (see §5.2.2.2). But additional—and at times overlapping—interpretations are also possible. Donkey burials that are associated with human graves (see §3.7.1) can be interpreted as (1) indicators of prestige or

7.  For additional discussion and for some additional interpretations, see §§4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.8.3. 8. Note also that the neck-breaking ritual seems to be a “quasi-sacrifice” (see §4.4.3). 9.  Compare a similar act of desperation with regard to the camel (see §1.6.3.1).

5.3. Conclusion

203

status, (2) funerary furnishings for use in the afterlife, 10 (3) favorite animals of the deceased, and (4) draft teams that were employed in the funeral ceremony. Donkey burials that are unrelated to human graves (see §3.7.2) can be interpreted as (1) ritual deposits, (2) garbage deposits, (3) secondary depositions of disturbed burials, and (4) simple animal graves. The donkey burial that is referenced by the prophet Jeremiah is difficult to understand (see §4.7.2; Jer 22:19). It either indicates that donkeys (and animals in general?) did not receive proper burial in Judah or that the form of donkey interment was simply dishonorable for a human being (and especially for a king!).

5.3. Conclusion What is it about the donkey that makes it so significant? I suspect that the donkey had a special relationship with humanity that sets it apart from the other domesticated animals. The donkey served not only in ceremonial rites (like ovids, caprids, and bovids) and in agricultural work (like bovids), but it also served as a pack and riding animal (like camelids). These broad and variegated functions of the donkey in the pastoral/nomadic environment of early Israel were, no doubt, significant factors in establishing the symbiotic partnership between humans and donkeys. This relationship may have been a significant impetus for the unique status of the donkey in the biblical world (cf. §§3.7.1, 4.4.2 [explanation B]). The donkey is not merely a work animal that is significant to ancient economy, agriculture, and transportation. It is demonstrated in the preceding pages that there is much more to the donkey than these mundane matters. This study fills a void in scholarship by focusing on the donkey’s unique status in the socioreligious thoughts and practices that are expressed in ancient texts, material culture, and the Bible.

5.4.  Future Research This study on donkeys in the biblical world could be enhanced from a number of directions. First, there are always new discoveries to incorporate into the present study. “New discoveries” include additional ancient Near Eastern texts, pictures, and artifacts, as well as additional equid burials in the Near East. New texts, pictures, and artifacts would enhance the ceremonial and symbolic study of donkeys, and new equid burials would especially enhance the ceremonial study of donkeys. 10.  Note that funerary furnishings may also function as offerings/gifts to netherworld deities. That is, the inclusion of funeral furnishings in a human grave may be intended to secure a welcome for the deceased in the afterlife (see §§2.5.3, 3.7.1).

204

Chapter 5:  Synthesis

Second, it would be informative to do a more detailed survey of the numerous equid (mostly horse) burials from the Aegean (see §3.5). In conjunction with a survey such as this, it would be helpful to examine the ceremonial and symbolic significance of the donkey in Classical sources. 11 Third, additional studies are needed on specific animals. An example of this is Brent Strawn’s recent monograph on the lion (2005). But, as chap. 1 indicates (see §1.6.3), it would also be profitable to do similar book-length studies on other animals that are in some way related to the donkey (such as the camel, the dog, and the serpent). A study on the dog is especially needed. The connections between canids and equids are noted in every chapter of this volume (and they are summarized under §1.6.3.2). 11.  I suspect that an analysis of the Classical sources would yield support for many of the observations made in the present study. A perusal of the entry on “Esel” in Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike (see Raepsaet 1998: 129–35, 2004: 664–70) shows that many of the same motifs (such as slowness, stubbornness/laziness, stupidity, licentiousness, divination, food, offerings/sacrifices, etc.) emerge from the Classical sources.

Appendix: Equid Terminology This table (next 2 pages) serves as a reference glossary for the study. It is not intended as a comprehensive reference list of equid terminology in the biblical world.

205

206

Appendix: Equid Terminology

English Glosses Ass/Donkey

Ass/Donkey

Species Equus asinus

Jack-ass

Hybrid (donkey × horse)

Jenny-ass Mule

Hinny/Jennet Horse

Onager/Half ass/ Wild ass

Horse Stallion Mare Persian Onager Syrian Onager

Hybrid (donkey × onager) Equid

Equus asinus ♂ × Equus caballus ♀

Hebrew ḥămôr

ḥmr

ʿayir

ʿr, pḥl

ʾātôn pered/pirdah

atnt, pḥlt? prd, kdn

Equus caballus ♂ × Equus asinus ♀ Equus caballus sûs

śśw

sûsah Equus hemionus onager Equus hemionus hemippus Equus asinus × Equus hemionus Nonspecific species (Family Equidae) Unknown species

Ugaritic

śśwt ʿārôd

pereʾ

pḥl

207

Appendix: Equid Terminology

Aramaic

Akkadian

ḥmr

imēru

ʾtn

ḫayarum/ḫârum (Amorite) atānu damdammu kūdanu, parû pirdu

ʿrd

sīsû puḫālu atānu sirrimu, ḫarādu /araddu (West Semitic loanword)

Sumerian a n š e , a n š e -dun.gi a n š e -libir dùr e m e x (sal.ḫub2) a n š e -bar × an, a n š e šú.an?, a n š e -šú.mul

anše-zi-zi anše-kur-ra anše-eden-na

a n š e -bar × an (k ú n g a) anše

Hittite

Egyptian

anše

ʿ Ꜣ, hjw/hrw, šw

anše.gìr.nun.na

ʿ Ꜣt ptr?

anše.kur.ra

ssmt

Bibliography Aḥituv, S. 1992 Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik. [Hebrew] Albertz, Rainer 1994 A History of the Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy, trans. J.  Bowden. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Albright, William Foxwell 1939 From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. New York: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1942 Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1943 “A Tablet of the Amarna Age from Gezer.” BASOR 92: 28–30. 1944 “The Oracles of Balaam.” JBL 63: 207–33. 1950 “Akkadian Letters: The Mari Letters.” Pp. 482–83 in ANET. 1957 From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1st ed., 1939). 1961 “Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation.” BASOR 163: 36–54. 1963 The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper & Row. 1968 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. London: School of Oriental and African Studies–University of London. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. 1969 “Akkadian Letters: The Mari Letters.” Pp. 482–83 in ANET. 1970 “Midianite Donkey Caravans” in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May, ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed, 197–205. Nashville: Abingdon. 1974 “Appendix 1: The Chronology of a South Palestinian City, Tell El-ʿAjjūl” in Tell El ʿAjjūl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains, ed. H. E. Kassis, 64–75. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 38. Göteborg. (Original, AJSL 55 [1938] 337–59) Albright, W. F., and P. E. Dumont 1934 “A Parallel between Indic and Babylonian Sacrificial Ritual” JAOS 54: 107–28. Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. 2003 Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Alfi, Mostafa el1992 “Means of Transport in Neolithic Egypt.” Pp. 339–44 in The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium b.c., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink. Tel Aviv: Edwin C. M. van den Brink. Allen, James P. 2000 Middle Egyptian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

208

Bibliography

209

Allen, Ronald B. 1981 “The Theology of the Balaam Oracles.” Pp. 79–119 in Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Less Feinberg, ed. J. S. Feinberg and P. D. Feinberg. Chicago: Moody. Allen, Thomas George 1974 The Book of the Dead or Going Forth by Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter as Expressed in Their Own Terms. Prepared for publication by E. B. Hauser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alster, Bendt 1980 Death in Mesopotamia: XXVI e Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 1997 Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections. Two Volumes. Bethesda: CDL Press. Alter, Robert 1981 The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books. 1999 The David Story. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 2004 The Five Books of Moses. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Anderson, Bernhard W. 1957 “The Place of Shechem in the Bible.” Pp. in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol. II, eds. E. F. Campbell, Jr. and D. N. Freedman, 265–275. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1964 (reprinted from BA 20/1 [Feb. 1957]: 10–19). Angel, Hayyim 2005 “When God’s Will Can and Cannot be Altered: The Relationship Between the Balaam Narrative and 1 Kings 13,” JBQ 33/1:31–39. Anonymous 1949 “Compte rendu de la séance du lundi 7 Mars 1949” Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie 1:11–22. Anthony, David W. 1995 “Horse, Wagon & Chariot: Indo-European Languages and Archaeology” Antiquity 69:554–565. Ap-Thomas, D. R. 1983 “All the King’s Horses? A Study of the Term ‫( פרׁש‬I Kings 5.6 [EVV., 4.26] etc.).” Pp. 135–51 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honor of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Archi, Alfonso 2002 “Jewels for the Ladies of Ebla” ZA 92: 161–99. Arnold, Bill T., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. 2005 Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Ashley, Timothy R. 1993 The Book of Numbers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Averbeck, Richard E. 2003 “Myth, Ritual, and Order in ‘Enki and the World Order.’” JAOS 123:757–71. Avi-Yonah, M. 1975 The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

210

Bibliography

Azzaroli, A. 1985 An Early History of Horsemanship. Leiden: Brill. Baines, John, and Jaromír Málek 1982 Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File. Baker, David W. 1992 “Hivites.” Pp. 234 in vol. 3 of ABD. Baldwin, Joyce G. 1972 Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Bard, K. A. 1999 Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge. Bardet, Guillaume 1984 “Chapitre 1: Textes n°1 à 90.” Pp. 1–82 in Archives administratives de Mari I (Archives royales de Mari 23), ed., G. Bardet, F. Joannès, B. Lafont, D. Soubeyran, P. Villard. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Barguet, Paul 1967 Le livre des morts des anciens Égyptiens. Paris: du Cerf. Barré, Michael L. 1997 “The Portrait of Balaam in Numbers 22–24.” Interpretation 51: 254–66. Bate, Dorothea M. A. 1938 “Animal Remains.” Pp. 209–13 in Megiddo Tombs, ed. P. L. O. Guy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1953 “Appendix A: The Animal Bones.” Pp. 410–11 in Lachish III: The Iron Age, ed. O. Tufnell. London: Oxford University Press. 1958 “Appendix B: Animal Bones.” Pp. 322–23 in Lachish IV: The Bronze Age, ed., O. Tufnell. London: Oxford University Press. Bauer, Walter 1953 “The ‘Colt’ of Palm Sunday (der Palmesel)” JBL 72: 220–29. Baur, William 1960 “Balaam.” Pp. 378–79 in ISBE. Beal, Richard H. 1995 “Hittite Military Rituals.” Pp. 63–76 in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. M. Meyer and P. Mirecki. Leiden: Brill. 2002 “Hittite Oracles.” Pp. 57–81 in Magic and Divination in the Ancient World, ed. L. Ciraolo and J. Seidel. Leiden: Brill and Styx. Beck, P. 1982 “The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud).” Tel Aviv 9: 3–68. 1994 “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine.” Pp. 352–81 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Naʾaman. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi / Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society. Becking, Bob 1999 "Thukamuna." Pp. 866–67 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill. Beek, Gus W. van 1993 “Jemmeh, Tell.” Pp. 667–74 in vol. 2 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed., E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Bibliography

211

Beem, Beverly 1991 “The Minor Judges: A Literary Reading of Some Very Short Stories.” Pp. 147–72 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV, ed. K. L. Younger Jr., W. W. Hallo, and B. Batto. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. Ben-Tor, A., ed. 1992 The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Berge, David Roy 2001 The Mesopotamian Goddess of Healing and Her Syncretistic Development. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College. Bergquist, Birgitta 1993 “Bronze Age Sacrificial koine in the Eastern Mediterranean? A Study of Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 11–43 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Bernhardt, Karl-Heinz 1978 “Ugaritic Texts.” Pp. 185–226 in Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. W. Beyerlin. Philadelphia: Westminster. Berridge, John M. 1992 “Jehoiakim” Pp. 664–66 in vol. 3 of ABD. Bickermann, Elias 1927 “Ritualmord und Eselskult: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte antiker Publizistik.” Pp. 255–64 Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. Berlin. 1980 “Ritualmord und Eselskult: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte antiker Publizistik.” Pp. 225–55 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Part 2. Leiden: Brill. Bienkowski, Piotr 1989 “The Division of Middle Bronze IIB–C in Palestine.” Levant 21:169–79. 2000a “Animals.” Pp. 20–21 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2000b “Deir Alla, (Tell).” P. 91 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bien­ kowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2000c “Horse.” P. 147 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2000d “Hyksos.” Pp. 150–51 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bienkowski, Piotr, and Alan Millard, eds. 2000 Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bietak, Manfred 1981 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. London: British Academy and Oxford University Press. 1991a “Der Friedhof in einem Palastgarten aus der Zeit des späten mittleren Reiches und andere Forschungsergebnisse aus dem östlichen Nildelta (Tell el-Dabʿa 1984–1987)” Ä&L 2: 47–75. 1991b “Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age.” BASOR 281: 27–72. 1996 Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabʿa. London: British Museum Press.

212 1997

Bibliography

“The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell el-Dabʿa).” Pp. 87–139 in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren. Philadelphia: University Museum Press. 2001a “Dabʿa, Tell ed-." Pp. 351–54 in vol. 1 of OEAE. 2001b “Hyksos.” Pp. 136–43 in vol. 2 of OEAE. 2002a “Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present State of Research.” Pp. 29–42 in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bietak, Manfred, ed. 2002b The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Biran, Avraham, David Ilan, and Raphael Greenberg (with contributions by others) 1996 Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology and Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. Birot, Maurice 1980 “Fragment de ritual de Mari relative au kispum.” Pp. 139–50 in Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. B. Aster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Blenkinsopp, Joseph 2003 Isaiah 56–66. New York: Doubleday. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth 1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2003 “Bronze and Iron Age Burials and Funerary Customs in the Southern Levant.” Pp. 105–15 in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, ed. Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Block, Daniel I. 1997 The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999 Judges, Ruth. NAC 6. Nashville: Broadman & Holman. Bodenheimer, F. S. 1960 Animal and Man in Bible Lands. Leiden: Brill. 1964 “Fauna.” Pp. 58–64 in The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 1: At the Dawn of Civilization: A Background of Biblical History, ed. E. A. Speiser. Rutgers University Press. Boessneck, Joachim 1976 Tell el-Dabʿa III: Die Tierknochenfunde 1966–1969. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1977 “Die Hundeskelette von Išān Baḥrīyāt (Isin) aus der Zeit um 1000 v. Chr.” ̄ Pp. 97–109 in Isin—Išān Baḥrīyāt I: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1973–1974, ed. B. Hrouda. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1988 Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten. Munich: Beck.

Bibliography

213

Boessneck, Joachim, and Mostefa Kokabi 1981a “Tierbestimmungen: Tierknochenfunde II. Serie.” Pp. 131–55 in Isin—Išān Baḥrīyāt II: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978, ed. B. Hrouda. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1981b “Tierknochenfunde.” Pp. 89–104 in Halawa 1977 bis 1979, ed. W. Orthmann. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 31. Bonn: Habelt. Boessneck, Joachim, and Angela von den Driesch 1992 Tell el-Dabʿa VII: Tiere und historische Umwelt im Nordost-Delta im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. anhand der Knochenfunde der Ausgrabungen 1975– 1986. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Boessneck, Joachim, Angela von den Driesch, and Ahmed Eissa 1992 “Eine Eselsbestattung der 1. Dynastie in Abusir.” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 48: 1–10. Boling, Robert G. 1975 Judges. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee 2001 “Textes Alphabétiques: Bordereaux et listes.” Pp. 349–70 in Études Ougaritiques I: Travaux 1985–1995 (RSO XIV), ed. M. Yon and D. Arnaud. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilizations. Borghouts, J. F. 1978 Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. Leiden: Brill. Borowski, Oded 1998 Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek: Altamira. 2002a “Animals in the Literatures of Syria-Palestine.” Pp. 289–306 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. 2002b “Animals in the Religions of Syria-Palestine.” Pp. 405–24 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed., B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz Josef Fabry 1974– Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bourriau, Janine 2000 “The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1650–1550 bc).” Pp. 184–217 in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Breniquet, Catherine 2002 “Animals in Mesopotamian Art.” Pp. 145–68 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Brewer, Douglas 2002 “Hunting, Animal Husbandry and Diet in Ancient Egypt.” Pp. in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins, 427–56. Leiden: Brill. Brewer, Douglas J., Donald B. Redford, Susan Redford 1994 Domestic Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Bright, John 1965 Jeremiah. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1981 A History of Israel. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster.

214

Bibliography

Bright, Lynn 1995 “Approaches to the Archaelogical Study of Death with Particular Reference to Ancient Cyprus.” Pp. 62–74 in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green. Oxford: Oxbow. Brin, Gershon 1994 Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. J. Chipman. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Brink, Edwin C. M. van den 1982 Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dabʿa and Their Cultural Relationship to Syria-Palestine during the Second Intermediate Period. Wien: Beiträge zur Ägyptologie, Band 4. 2000 “A Middle Bronze Age IIA Burial Pit at Kefar Shemaryahu.” ʿAtiqot 39: 43–47. Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. 1979–88 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bron, François, and André Lemaire 1980 “Notes de lexicographie ouest-sémitique” GLECS 24–28 (1979–84): 7–30. Brown, Michael L. 1995 Israel’s Divine Healer. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Brown, Stephen Glendon 1973 The Serpent Charms of Ugarit. Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University. Brueggemann, Walter 2000 1 & 2 Kings. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys. Brugsch, Karl Heinrich 1968 Thesaurus Inscriptionum Aegyptiacarum. Altägyptische Inschriften. 3 vols. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. verlagsanstalt. Brunner, Hellmut 1978 “Egyptian Texts.” Pp. 1–67 in Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. W. Beyerlin. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Brunner-Traut, Emma 1975 “Esel.” Pp. 27–30 in vol. 2 of LdÄ. Budd, Philip J. 1984 Numbers. WBC. Waco, TX: Word. Buren, Elizabeth Douglas van 1939 The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia as Represented in Art. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Burleigh, Richard 1986 “Chronology of Some Early Domestic Equids in Egypt and Western Asia.” Pp. 230–36 in Equids in the Ancient World, ed. R. H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Burleigh, Richard, Juliet Clutton-Brock, and John Gowlett 1991 “Early Domestic Equids in Egypt and Western Asia: An Additional Note.” Pp. 9–11 in vol. 2 of Equids in the Ancient World. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Butler, S. A. L. 1998 Dreams and Dream Rituals. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Buttrick, George Arthur, et al. 1962 The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon.

Bibliography

215

Çambel, Halet 1999 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 2: Karatepe-Aslantaş, The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition. Berlin: de Gruyter. Caminos, Ricardo A. 1954 Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. London: Oxford University Press. Campbell, Edward F., Jr. 1983 “Judges 9 and Biblical Archaeology.” Pp. 263–71 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2002 Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâṭah, vol. 1: Text. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Campbell, Edward F., Jr., and James F. Ross 1963 “The Excavation of Shechem and the Biblical Tradition.” BA 26: 1–27. Repr., Pp. 275–300 in vol. 2 of The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, ed. E. F. Campbell Jr. and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1964. Campbell, Stuart, and Anthony Green, eds. 1995 The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxbow. Cansdale, George 1970 All the Animals of the Bible Lands. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Cantrell, Deborah 2011 The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic Israel. History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Caquot, André, and André Lemaire 1977 “Les textes araméens de Deir ʿAlla.” Syria 54: 189–208. Carter, Elizabeth, and Andrea Parker 1995 “Pots, People and the Archaeology of Death in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia in the latter half of the Third Millennium bc.” Pp. 96–115 in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green. Oxford: Oxbow. Cassuto, Umberto 1975 “Asherah’s Journey in the Ugaritic Texts (II AB iv 1–18).” Pp. 178–87 in vol. 2 of Biblical and Oriental Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes. Castel, Corinne 1992 “Explorations dans la ville basse de Mohammed Diyab.” Pp. 39–54 in Recherches en Haute Mésopotamie: Tell Mohammed Diyab. Campagnes 1990 et 1991, ed. J. M. Durand. Memoires de N.A.B.U. 2. Paris: SEPOA. Caubet, Annie 2002 “Animals in Syro-Palestinian Art.” Pp. 211–34 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Černý, J., S. I. Groll, and C. Eyre 1984 A Late Egyptian Grammar. 3rd edition. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Charpin, Dominique 1988 “Première partie: Chapitre 3: Les Représentants de Mari à Babylone (I).” Pp. 139–205 in Archives épistolaires de Mari I/2 (Archives royales de Mari 26), ed. D. Charpin, F. Joannès, S. Lackenbacher, and B. Lafont. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

216 1990

Bibliography

“Une alliance contre l’Elam et le rituel du lipit napištim.” Pp. 109–18 in Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran: Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, ed. F. Vallat. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1993 “Un Souverain éphémère en Ida-Maraṣ: Išme-Addu d'Ašnakkum.” Pp. 165– 91 in Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 7. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Charpin, D., F. Joannès, S. Lackenbacher, and B. Lafont, eds. 1988 Archives épistolaires de Mari I/2 (Archives royales de Mari 26). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Chavalas, Mark W. 2003 “Balaam.” Pp. 75–78 in The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Chavel, Charles B. 1976 Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah. Deuteronomy. New York: Shilo. Childs, Brevard S. 1974 The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster. Clark, Ira 1982 “Balaam’s Ass: Suture or Structure?” Pp. 137–44 in vol. 2 of Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, eds. K. R. R. Gros Louis and J. S. Ackerman. Nashville: Abingdon. Clements, Ronald E. 1968 “Baal-Berith of Shechem.” Journal of Semitic Studies 13: 21–32. 1972 Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clines, David J. A. 1989 Job 1–20. WBC. Dallas: Word. 1993– The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1974 “The Buhen Horse.” Journal of Archaeological Science 1: 89–100. 1979 “The Mammalian Remains from the Jericho Tell” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45: 135–57. 1981 Domesticated Animals from Early Times. Austin: University of Texas Press / London: British Museum Press. 1983 “The Animal Remains: A Summary.” Pp. 802–3 in Excavations at Jericho, vol. 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1986 “Osteology of the Equids from Sumer.” Pp. 207–29 in Equids in the Ancient World, ed. R. H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1989 “A Dog and a Donkey Excavated at Tell Brak.” Iraq 51: 217–24. 1992 Horse Power: A History of the Horse and the Donkey in Human Societies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2001 “Ritual Burials of a Dog and Six Domestic Donkeys.” Pp. 327–38 in Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium bc, ed. D. Oates, J. Oates, and H. McDonald. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Clutton-Brock, Juliet, and Richard Burleigh 1978 “The Animal Remains from Abu Salabikh: Preliminary Report.” Iraq 40: 89–100.

Bibliography

217

Clutton-Brock, Juliet, and Sophie Davies 1993 “More Donkeys from Tell Brak.” Iraq 55: 209–21. Cogan, Mordechai 2001 1 Kings. New York: Doubleday. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor 1988 2 Kings. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Cohon, Samuel 1960 “Ass.” Pp. 287–88 in ISBE. Cole, R. Alan 1973 Exodus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Cole, Steven W. 1996 Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612 bc. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Collins, Billie Jean 1990 “The Puppy in Hittite Ritual.” JCS 42: 211–26. 2002a “Animals in Hittite Literature.” Pp. 237–50 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. 2002b “Animals in the Religions of Ancient Anatolia.” Pp. 309–34 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. 2002c A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill. Colson, F. H. 1950 Philo (LCL). Vol. 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press / London: Heinemann. Coogan, Michael David 1978 Stories from Ancient Canaan. Louisville: Westminster. Cooney, Daniel 2005 “Marines Deploy Donkey Draftees.” P. A20 in The Cincinnati Enquirer, World. Sunday, August 14. Cornelius, Izak 1994 The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Baʿal: Late Bronze and Iron I Periods (c 1500–1000 bce). Fribourg: Fribourg University Press. 2004 The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500–1000 bce. Academic Press Fribourg / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Crawford, Timothy G. 1992 Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age. New York: Peter Lang. Crim, Keith, et al. 1976 The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon. Cross, Frank Moore 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Crowell, Florence T. 2002 Images of America: Watertown. Charleston: Arcadia. Dahood, Mitchell 1963 “Zacharia 9,1, ʿên ʾādām.” CBQ 25: 123–24.

218

Bibliography

Daiches, Samuel 1950 “Balaam—A Babylonian bārū: The Episode of Numbers XXII, 2-XXIV, 24, and Some Babylonian Parallels.” Pp. 110–19 in Bible Studies. London: Goldston. Dajani, Awni Kh. 1964 “Transportation in Middle Bronze Periods.” ADAJ 8/9: 56–67 Dalley, Stephanie 1984 Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Longman. Dalley, Stephanie, C. B. F. Walker, and J. D. Hawkins 1976 The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell al Rimah. Hertford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Dalman, Gustaf H. 1932 Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 2: Der Ackerbau. Gütersloh: Druck and Bertelsmann. David, Rosalie 1998 Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File. Davis, John J. 1971 Moses and the Gods of Egypt: Studies in the Book of Exodus. Winona Lake, IN: Brethren Missionary Herald. 1986 “The Camel in Biblical Narratives.” Pp. 141–52 in A Tribute to Gleason Archer: Essays on the Old Testament, ed. W. C. Kaiser and R. F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody. Day, Alfred Ely 1960 “Mule.” Pp. 2093–94 in ISBE. Day, Alfred Ely, and Roland K. Harrison 1979 “Camel.” Pp. 583–84 in ISBE. DeMent, Byron H., and Roland K. Harrison 1982 “Hamor.” P. 608 in ISBE. Dent, Anthony 1972 Donkey: The Story of the Ass from East to West. London: Harrap. Dever, William G. 1985 “Relations between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the ‘Hyksos’ Period.” Pp. 69–87 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honor of Olga Tufnell, ed. J. N. Tubb. London: Institute of Archaeology. 1987 “The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era (Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine).” BA 50/3: 149–77. 1991 “Tell el-Dabʿa and Levantine Middle Bronze Age Chronology: A Rejoinder to Manfred Bietak.” BASOR 281: 73–79. 1992 “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium b.c.e.: A Review of Current Issues” BASOR 288: 1–25. 1994 “The Silence of the Text: An Archaeological Commentary on 2 Kings 23.” Pp. 143–68 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 1997 “Settlement Patterns and Chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age.” Pp. 285–301 in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren. Philadelphia: University Museum Press.

Bibliography 2002

219

“Theology, Philology, and Archaeology: In the Pursuit of Ancient Israelite Religion.” Pp. 11–36 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed., B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dietrich, Manfried, and Oswald Loretz 1986 “Die akkadischen Tierbezeichnungen immeru, puḫādu und puḫālu im Ugaritischen und Hebräischen.” UF 17: 99–103. 1996 Word-List of the Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2000 Studien zu den ugaritischen Texten. I: Mythos und Ritual in KTU 1.12, 1.24, 1.96, 1.100 und 1.114. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2003 “Mariyannū, Pferde und Esel in der Sammelliste KTU 4.377.” UF 35: 181–89. Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaqín Sanmartín 1976 Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1995 The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Dijk, Jacobus van 1995 “Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt.” Pp. 1697–1709 in CANE. Dijkstra, Meindert 1991a “Response to H.-P. Müller and M. Weippert.” Pp. 206–17 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, eds. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. 1991b “Response to Lectures of Prof. E. Puech and Dr. G. van der Kooij.” Pp. 263– 70 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. 1995 “Is Balaam Also among the Prophets?” JBL 114: 43–64. Dillard, Raymond B. 1987 2 Chronicles. WBC. Waco, TX: Word. Domhardt, Yvonne 1998 “Eselskult.” P. 135 in vol. 4 of Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart: Metzler. 2004 “Donkey Cult.” P. 670 in vol. 4 of Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Leiden: Brill. Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig 1968 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, vol. 2: Kommentar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1969 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, vol. 3: Glossare und Indizes, Tafeln. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2002 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, vol. 1: Texte. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dossin, Georges 1938 “Les Archives épistolaires du Palais de Mari.” Syria 19: 105–26. 1939 “Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari.” Pp. 981–96 in vol. 2 of Mélanges syriens offerts à monsieur René Dussaud. Paris: Geuthner.

220

Bibliography

1983a “Les Archives épistolaires du Palais de Mari.” Pp. 102–32 in Recueil Georges Dossin: Mélanges d’Assyriologie (1934–1959), ed. A. Finet. Leuven: Peeters. 1983b “Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari” in Recueil Georges Dossin: Mélanges d’Assyriologie (1934–1959), ed. A. Finet, 150–65. Leuven: Peeters. Dothan, M. 1975 “Azor: The Bronze and Iron Age Tombs.” Pp. 146–47 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1993a “Tel Acco.” Pp. 17–24 in vol. 1 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. 1993b “Azor: The Bronze and Iron Age Tombs.” Pp. 127–29 in vol. 1 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed., E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Dothan, M., and D. Conrad 1984 “ʿAkko, 1983” IEJ 34: 189–90. Dothan, Trude, and Moshe Dothan 1992 People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan. Driesch, Angela von den, and Gisela Amberger 1981 “Ein altbabylonisches Eselskelett vom Tell Ababra/Iraq.” Bonner zoologische Beiträge 32/1–2: 67–74. Driesch, A. von den, and P. Raulwing 2004 “Pferd (Esel*, Halbesel, Maulesel, Maultier*). D. Archäozoologisch” RLA 10:493–503. Driver, G. R. 1956 Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Drower, M. S. 1969 “The Domestication of the Horse.” Pp. 471–78 in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed. P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago: Atherton. Ducos, Pierre 1968 L’origine des animaux domestiques en Palestine. Bordeaux: Delmas. 1971 “Le cheval de Soleb.” Pp. 261–65 in Soleb II: Les Necropoles, ed. M. S. Giorgini. Sansoni: Firenze. Durand, Jean-Marie 1988 Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1 (Archives royales de Mari 26). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1991 “Précurseurs syriens aux protocoles néo-assyriens: considérations sur la vie politique aux Bords-de-l’Euphrate.” Pp. 13–72 in Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, ed. D. Charpin et F. Joannès. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1992 “Unité et diversités au Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite.” Pp. 97–128 in La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8–10 juillet 1991), ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Bibliography

221

1994 “Administrateurs de Qaṭṭunân.” Pp. 83–113 in Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 3: Florilegium marianum II. Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot, D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. Paris: Société pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien. 1997 Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. Vol. 1. Paris: du Cerf. 1998 Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. Vol. 2. Paris: du Cerf. 2000 Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. Vol. 3. Paris: du Cerf. Durham, John I. 1987 Exodus. WBC. Waco, TX: Word. Du Ry, Carel J. 1969 Art of the Ancient Near and Middle East. New York: Abrams. Dyson, R. H., Jr. 1960 “A Note on Queen Shub-ad’s ‘Onagers.’” Iraq 22: 102–4. Ebeling, Erich 1931 Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier, vol. 1: Texte. Berlin: de Gruyter. Elgavish, Joseph 1993 “Shiqmona.” Pp. 1373–78 in vol. 4 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Ellermeier, Friedrich 1979 Sumerisches Glossar, vol. 1/1: Die Sumerischen Lautwerte. Lieferung 1. Selbstverlag Dr. Friedrich Ellermeier. Göttingen: Nörten-Hardenberg. 1980 Sumerisches Glossar, vol. 1/2: Die Sumerischen Lautwerte. Lieferung 2. Selbstverlag Dr. Friedrich Ellermeier. Göttingen: Nörten-Hardenberg. Emberling, Geoff, and Helen McDonald 2003 “Excavations at Tell Brak 2001–2002: Preliminary Report.” Iraq 65: 1–75. Ephʿal, Israel 1982 The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries b.c. Leiden: Brill. Epstein, Claire 1985 “Laden Animal Figurines from the Chalcolithic Period in Palestine.” BASOR 258: 53–62. Erman, Adolf 1927 The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook for Their Writings, trans. A. M. Blackman. New York: Harper & Row. Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow 1926–50  Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag / Leipzig: Hinrichs. Even-Shoshan, Abraham 1993 A New Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker / Jerusalem: Kiryat. Faulkner, Raymond O. 1962 A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. 1985 The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, ed. Carol Andrews. Austin: University of Texas Press. Feigin, Samuel I. 1946 “ḤAMÔR GĀRÎM, ‘Castrated Ass.’” JNES 5: 230–33.

222

Bibliography

Feliks, Yehuda 1962 The Animal World of the Bible. Tel Aviv: Sinai. 1972a “Ass.” Pp. 756 in EncJud. 1972b “Mule.” Pp. 516–17 in EncJud. 1981 Nature and Man in the Bible: Chapters in Biblical Ecology. London: Soncino. Finet, A. 1993 “Le sacrifice de l’âne en Mésopotamie.” Pp. 135–42 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Firmage, Edwin 1992 “Zoology.” Pp. 1109–67 in vol. 6 of ABD. Fishbane, M. 1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1967 The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. Biblica et orientalia 19. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1995 The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. Biblica et orientalia 19A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Fleming, Daniel E. 2004 Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flores, Diane Victoria 2003 Funerary Sacrifice of Animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period. BAR International Series 1153. Oxford: Archaeopress. Forstner-Müller, Irene 1999 “Recent Find of a Warrior Tomb with a Servant Burial in Area A/II at Tell el-Dabʿa in the Eastern Nile Delta.” Forum Archaeologiae: Zeitschrift für klassische Archäologie 12/IX/1999. Online: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ elisabeth.trinkl/forum/forum0999/12tell.htm [accessed 16 March 2011]. 2002 “Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dabʿa in Area A/II at the End of the MB IIA Period (Stratum F).” Pp. 163–84 in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material. Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Foster, Benjamin R. 2002 “Animals in Mesopotamian Literature.” Pp. 271–88 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed., B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Fowler, Donald 2000a “Horse.” P. 608 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2000b “Lion.” Pp. 811 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed., D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fox, Nili S. 1995 “The Striped Goddess from Gilat: Implications for the Chalcolithic Cult.” IEJ 45: 212–25. 2000 In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. 2004 “Numbers.” Pp. 281–355 (introduction and annotations) in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. A. Berlin and M. Z. Brettler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography 2008

223

“Balak (Num 22:2–25:9).” Pp. 937–53 in The Torah: A Women’s Commentary, ed. T. C. Eskenazi and A. L. Weiss. New York: Women of Reform Judaism and URJ Press. Foxvog, Daniel A. 1980 “Funerary Furnishings in an Early Sumerian Text from Adab.” Pp. 67–75 in Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. B. Aster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. France, Peter 1986 An Encyclopedia of Bible Animals. Tel Aviv: Steimatzky. Franken, Henk J., and Moawiyah M. Ibrahim 1978 “Two Seasons of Excavations at Tell Deir ʿAlla, 1976–1978.” ADAJ 22: 57–79. Frankfurter, David 1995 “Narrating Power: The Theory and Practice of the Magical Historiola in Ritual Spells.” Pp. 457–76 in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. M. Meyer and P. Mirecki. Leiden: Brill. Frayne, Douglas R. 2008 Presargonic Period (2700–2350 bc). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods, Vol. 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Freedman, David Noel, ed. 1992 The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. 2000 Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Freedman, Sally M. (also see S. M. Moren) 1998 If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akadian Omen Series Šumma Alu ina Mēlê Šakin, vol. 1: Tablets 1–21. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. Fritz, Volkmar 2003 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, trans. A. Hagedorn. Minneapolis: Fortress. Fuhr, Ilse 1977 “Der Hund als Begleittier der Göttin Gula und anderer Heilgottheiten.” Pp. 135–145 in Isin—Išān Baḥrīyāt I: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1973–1974, ed. B. Hrouda. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gafni, Isaiah 1972 “Ass Worship.” P. 784 in EncJud. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. 1998 “The Indo-European Term for ‘Donkey’ and Its Near Eastern Origins.” Pp. 611–12 in Man and the Animal World: Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi, ed. P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem, and W. Meid. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Gardiner, Alan H. 1937 Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. Bruxelles. 1940 “Adoption Extraordinary.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 26: 23–29. Gaster, Theodor H. 1969 Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row. Gautier, Achilles 1999 “Fauna, domesticated.” Pp. 300–306 in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. K. A. Bard. London: Routledge.

224

Bibliography

Germond, Philippe, and Jacques Livet 2001 An Egyptian Bestiary: Animals in Life and Religion in the Land of the Pharaohs, trans. Barbara Mellor. London: Thames & Hudson. Gesenius, W., E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley 1910 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. Gibson, John C. L. 1975 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol.2: Aramaic Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli. Oxford: Clarendon. 1977 Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Gibson, McGuire 1972 The City and Area of Kish. Miami: Field Research Projects. 1979 “Chicago-Copenhagen Excavations at Uch Tepe, Hamrin.” Sumer 35: 461–67. 1981 Uch Tepe I: Tell Razuk, Tell Ahmed al Mughir, Tell Ajamat. University of Chicago: Oriental Institute / Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen–Institute of Assyriology and the Institute of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology. Gilbert, Allan S. 1995 “The Flora and Fauna of the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 153–74 in vol. 1 of CANE. 2002 “The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 3–75, 493–536 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Ginsberg, H. L. 1936 “The Rebellion and Death of Baʿlu.” Orientalia 5: 161–98. 1950 “Interpreting Ugaritic Texts.” JAOS 70: 156–60. 1969 “Ugaritic Myths, Epics, and Legends.” Pp. 129–55 in ANET. 1973 “Ugaritico-Phoenicia.” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5: 131–47. Giorgini, Michela Schiff 1971 Soleb II: Les Necropoles. Sansoni. Firenze. Gonen, Rivka 1992 Burial Paterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Good, Robert M. 1984 “Some Ugaritic Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals.” UF 16: 77–81. Goodman, A. E. 1958 “The Words of Ahikar” in Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas, 270–75. New York: Harper & Row. Gordon, Cyrus H. 1965a Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1965b The Ancient Near East. 3rd ed. New York: Norton. 1967 Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature. Ventnor, NJ: Ventnor. Gottwald, Norman K. 1979 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250– 1050 b.c.e. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Bibliography

225

Gray, George Buchanan 1912 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1971 Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice. New York: Ktav. Gray, J. 1958 “Texts from Ras Shamra.” Pp. 118–33 in Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas. New York: Harper & Row. Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Orlando: Academic Press. Greenberg, Moshe 1997 Ezekiel 21–37. New York: Doubleday. Greenfield, Jonas C. 1991 “Philological Observations on the Deir ʿAlla Inscription.” Pp. 109–20 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. Greengus, Samuel 1979 Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 1988 “Review of F. R. Kraus, Königliche Verfügungen in Altbabylonischer Zeit (Leiden: Brill, 1984).” JAOS 108: 153–57. 1990 “Bridewealth in Sumerian Sources.” HUCA 61: 25–88. 1992 “Law: Biblical and ANE Law.” Pp. 242–52 in vol. 4 of ABD. 1995 “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pp. 469–84 in CANE. 2003 “Biblical and Mesopotamian Law: An Amorite Connection?” Pp. 63–81 in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. E. Averbeck, M. W. Chavalas, D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Grimal, Nicolas-Christophe 1999 A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. Ian Shaw. Oxford: Blackwell. Gross, Walter 1974 Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22–24. Munich: Kösel. Grosvenor Ellis, Ann 1960 “Appendix C: The Equid in the Shaft of Tomb J 3.” Pp. 535–36 in Excavations at Jericho, vol.1: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4, ed. K. M. Kenyon. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Grosvenor Ellis, Ann, and Betty Westley 1965 “Appendix J: Preliminary Report on the Animal Remains in the Jericho Tombs.” Pp. 694–96 in Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8, ed. K. M. Kenyon. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Gunkel, Hermann 1987 The Folktale in the Old Testament, trans. M. D. Rutter. Sheffield: Almond. Gunter, Ann C. 2002 “Animals in Anatolian Art.” Pp. 79–96 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill.

226

Bibliography

Gurney, O. R. 1961 The Hittites. Baltimore: Penguin. 1977 Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. Oxford: Oxford University for the British Academy. Guy, P. L. O. (with contributions by Robert M. Engberg) 1938 Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hackett, Jo Ann 1984 The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1991 “A Response to Baruch Levine and André Lemaire.” Pp. 73–84 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. 1992 “Balaam.” Pp. 569–72 in vol. 1 of ABD. Hahlen, Mark Allen 2000 “The Background and Use of Equine Imagery in Zechariah.” Stone-Campbell Journal 3: 243–60. Hall, Emma Swan 1986 The Pharaoh Smites His Enemies: A Comprehensive Study. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag. Hallo, William W. 1991 The Book of the People. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997 “Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis.” Pp. xxiii–xxviii in vol. 1 of COS. 2000 “Introduction: The Bible and the Monuments.” Pp. xxi–xxvi in vol. 2 of COS. Hallo, William W. and William Kelly Simpson 1998 The Ancient Near East: A History. 2nd ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr. 1997 The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill. 2000 The Context of Scripture, vol. 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill. 2002 The Context of Scripture, vol. 3: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill. Hallote, Rachel S. 2001 Death, Burial, and Afterlife in the Biblical World: How the Israelites and Their Neighbors Treated the Dead. Chicago: Dee. Halpern, Baruch 1987 “Dialect Distribution in Canaan and the Deir Alla Inscriptions.” Pp. 119–39 in “Working with No Data”: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. D. M. Golomb and S. T. Hollis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1988 The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Hamilton, Victor P. 1995 The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

227

Hančar, Franz 1956 Das Pferd in prähistorischer und früher historischer Zeit. Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik 11. Munich: Herold. Handford, S. A. 1954 Fables of Aesop. Melbourne: Penguin. Handy, Lowell K. 1992 “Serpent (Religious Symbol).” Pp. 1113–16 in vol. 5 of ABD. Hannig, Rainer 1995 Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch—Deutsch (2800–950 v.Chr.). Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. 2000 Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch—Ägyptisch (2800–950 v.Chr.). Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. 2003 Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I: Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Hansen, Donald P. 1973 “Al-Hiba, 1970–71: A Preliminary Report.” Artibus Asiae 35:62–70. Hansen, Kathryn M. 1992 “Collection in Ancient Egyptian Chariot Horses.” JARCE 29: 173–79. 1997 “‘Mules’ of the 18th Dynasty.” Pp. 219–26 in vol. 1 of Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell, ed. J. Phillips et al. Van Siclen. Harrison, Roland K. 1979 “Ass.” P. 330 in vol. 1 of ISBE. 1986a “Lion.” Pp. 141–42 in vol. 3 of ISBE. 1986b “Mule.” Pp. 430–31 in vol. 3 of ISBE. Hartley, John E. 1988 The Book of Job. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1992 Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word. Harvey, Stephen 1994 “Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos.” Egyptian Archaeology 4: 3–5. Haupt, Paul 1915 “Die ‘Eselstadt’ Damaskus.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 69: 168–72. Healey, John F. 1995 “Death in West Semitic Texts: Ugarit and Nabataea.” Pp. 188–91 in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green. Oxford: Oxbow. Heimpel, Wolfgang 1968 Tierbilder in der Sumerischen Literatur. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1990 “Maultier.” RLA 7: 602–5. 1995 “Plow Animal Inspection Records from Ur III Girsu and Umma.” Pp. 71–171 in vol. 3 of Domestic Animals of Mesopotamia, Part 2, ed. J. N. Postgate and M A. Powell. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture. Cambridge: Sumerian Agriculture Group / Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 2003a Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation with Historical Introduction, Notes and Commentary. Mesopotamian Civilizations 12. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2003b “Onager.” Pp. 91–92 in vol. 10 of RLA.

228

Bibliography

Helck, Wolfgang 1970 Die Lehre des DwꜢ-ḫtjj. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Helck, W., E. Otto, and W. Westendorf 1972–92  Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Held, Moshe 1970 “Philological Notes on the Mari Covenant Rituals.” BASOR 200: 32–40. Henten, J. W. van 1999 “Typhon.” Pp. 879–81 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill. Hertz, J. H., ed. 1960 The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. 2nd ed. London: Socino. Herzog, Zeʾev 1997 Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press. Hess, Richard S. 1994 “The Slaughter of the Animals in Genesis 15: Genesis 15:8–21 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Pp. 55–65 in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50, ed. R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, and P. E. Satterthwaite. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hesse, Brian 1995 “Animal Husbandry and Human Diet in the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 203–22 in CANE. Hesse, Brian, and Paula Wapnish 1985 Animal Bone Archaeology: From Objectives to Analysis. Washington: Taraxacum. 2002 “An Archaeozoological Perspective on the Cultural Use of Mammals in the Levant.” Pp. 457–91 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Hestrin, Ruth 1987 “The Cult Stand from Taʿanach and Its Religious Background.” Pp. 61–77 in Studia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium b.c., ed. E. Lipiński. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22. Leuven: Peeters. Hildenbrand, Michael D. 2000 “Firstborn” in P. 462 of EDB. Hillers, Delbert R. 1969 Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hilzheimer, Max 1938 “Esel.” Pp. 476–77 in vol. 2 of RLA. Hoch, James E. 1994 Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hodder, Ian 1991 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

229

Hoffmeier, James K. 1976 “Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty.” JARCE 13: 43–45. 1988 “The Chariot Scenes.” Pp. 35–45 in The Akhenaten Temple Project, vol. 2: Rwd-mnw, Foreigners and Inscriptions, ed. D. Redford. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1994 “Review of Les chevaux du Nouvel Empire égyptien: Origines, races, harnachement by Catherine Rommelaere (Bruxelles: Connaissance de l’Égypte ancienne, 1991).” JARCE 31: 228–29. 1996 Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999 “Chariots.” Pp. 193–95 in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. K. A. Bard. London: Routledge. 2005 Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. 2006 “Recent Excavations on the ‘Ways of Horus’: The 2005 and 2006 Seasons at Tell el-Borg.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 80: 257–79. Hoffmeier, James K., and Kenneth A. Kitchen 2007 “Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg.” Ä&L 17: 127–36. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 1967 An English-Hittite Glossary. Paris: Klincksieck. 1973 “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 81–90 in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed., H. A. Hoffner Jr. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. 1994 “Hittites.” Pp. 127–55 in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. J. Hoerth, G. L. Mattingly, and E. M. Yamauchi. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1997a “Hittite Laws.” Pp. 213–47 in Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, ed. M. T. Roth. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997b The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition. Leiden: Brill. 1998 Hittite Myths. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2002 “Hittite-Israelite Cultural Parallels.” Pp. xxix–xxxiv in COS. 2004 “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data.” Pp. 176–92 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling 1995 Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. Hoftijzer, J., and G. van der Kooij, eds. 1976 Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAlla. Leiden: Brill. 1991 The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989. Leiden: Brill. Holladay, John S., Jr. 1982 Cities of the Delta, part 3: Tell el-Maskhuta. Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978–1979. Malibu, CA: Undena. 1992 “Maskhuta, Tell el-.” Pp. 588–92 in vol. 4 of ABD.

230 1997

Bibliography

“The Eastern Nile Delta during the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Towards a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding.” Pp. 183–252 in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren. Philadelphia: University Museum. Holland, Thomas A. 1992–93  Annual Report: The Tell es-Sweyhat Expedition. Online: http://oi.uchicago​ .edu/research/pubs/ar/92–93/Sweyhat.html [accessed 16 March 2011]. 1993–94 “Tall as-Swēhat.” AfO 40–41: 275–85. Holloway, Steven W. 1998 “KTU 1.162 and the Offering of a Shield.” UF 30: 353–61. Hornung, Erik 1995 “Ancient Egyptian Religious Iconography.” Pp. 1711–30 in CANE. Horwitz, Liora Kolska 1987 “Animal Offerings from Two Middle Bronze Age Tombs.” Israel Exploration Journal 37: 251–55. 1989 “Sedentism in the Early Bronze IV: A Faunal Perspective.” BASOR 275: 15–25. Hostetter, Edwin C. 1992a “Hamor.” Pp. 42–43 in vol. 3 of ABD. 1992b “Shechem (person).” P. 1174 in vol. 5 of ABD. Houlihan, Patrick F. 1996 The Animal World of the Pharaohs. London: Thames & Hudson. 2002 “Animals in Egyptian Art and Hieroglyphs.” Pp. 97–143 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed., B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Houston, Walter J. 2003 “Foods, Clean and Unclean.” Pp. 326–36 in The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Hout, T. van den 2004 “Pferd (und weitere Equiden). A. II. In Anatolien.” Pp. 482–90 in vol. 10 of RLA. Houtman, Cornelis 1993 Exodus, vol. 1: (Introduction, 1:1–7:13). Kampen: Kok. 1996 Exodus, vol. 2: (7:14–19:25). Kampen: Kok. 2000 Exodus, vol. 3: (20–40). Leuven: Peeters. 2002 Exodus, vol., 4: (Supplement). Leuven: Peeters. Hyatt, J. Philip 1971 Exodus. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans /London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. Ibrahim, Moawiyah M., and Gerrit van der Kooij 1991 “The Archaeology of Deir ʿAlla Phase IX." Pp. 16–29 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. Ikeda, Yutaka 1982 “Solomon’s Trade in Horses and Chariots in Its International Setting.” Pp. 215–38 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays:

Bibliography

231

Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo 5–7 December, 1979, ed. T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Ilan, David 1995a “The Dawn of Internationalism—The Middle Bronze Age.” Pp. 298–319 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File. 1995b “Mortuary Practices at Tel Dan in the Middle Bronze Age: A Reflection of Canaanite Society and Ideology.” Pp. 117–39 in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green. Oxford: Oxbow. 1996 “The Middle Bronze Age Tombs.” Pp. 161–328 in Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, ed. A. Biran, D. Ilan and R. Greenberg. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology / Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion. 1997 “Grave Goods.” Pp. 433–34 in vol. 2 of OEANE. 2003 “The Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 b.c.e.).” Pp. 331–42 in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, ed. Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. In der Smitten, W. T. 1980 “‫חֲמֹור‬.” Pp. 465–70 in vol. 4 of TDOT. InscriptiFact http://www.InscriptiFact.com. University of Southern California: West Semitic Research Project. Iversen, Erik 1986 “Anastasi IV, 2.4–2.9 = Koller, 2.2–2.3 = Anastasi V, 5.1.” Pp. 181–87 in Crossroad: Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm, ed. G. Englund and P. J. Frandsen. Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near East Studies. Jacobsen, Thorkild 1984 The Harab Myth. Sources from the Ancient Near East 2/3. Malibu: Undena. 1987 The Harps That Once . . .  Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 1989 “The Mesopotamian Temple Plan and the Kititum Temple” Eretz Israel 20 (Yadin Volume): 79–91. Janssen, Jac J. 2005 Donkeys at Deir el-Medîna. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Jean, Charles-F. 1941 Archives royales de Mari II: Lettres diverses (transcriptions and translations). Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1950 Archives royales de Mari II: Lettres (cuneiform texts). Paris: Geuthner. Joannès, Francis 1988 “Deuxième partie” (n°401 à 442) in Archives épistolaires de Mari I/2 (Archives royales de Mari 26), D. Charpin, F. Joannès, S. Lackenbacher, and B. Lafont, 258–63. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Johns, Catherine 2006 Horses: History, Myth, Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

232

Bibliography

Joines, Karen Randolph 1974 Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament. Haddonfield: Haddonfield House. Jong, Aleid de 2001 “Feline Deities.” Pp. 512–13 in vol. 1 of OEAE. Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka 1993 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia Biblica 14/1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. 1996 “Balaam Son of Beor in Light of Deir ʿAllā and Scripture: Saint or Soothsayer?” Pp. 95–106 in “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Karageorghis, Vassos 1965 “Horse Burials on the Island of Cyprus” Archaeology 18: 282–90. 1967 Salamis, vol. 3: Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I (Text and Plates). Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. 1969 The Ancient Civilization of Cyprus. Geneva: Nagel Publishers. Katz, Jill Citron 2000 The Archaeology of Cult in Middle Bronze Age Canaan: The Sacred Area at Tel Haror, Israel. Ph.D. diss.,University of Pennsylvania. 2009 The Archaeology of Cult in Middle Bronze Age Canaan: The Sacred Area at Tel Haror, Israel. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias. Kaufman, Stephen A. 1980 “Review Article: The Aramaic Texts from Deir ʿAllā.” BASOR 239: 71–74. 1982 “Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh” Maarav 3:137–75. 1986 “The Pitfalls of Typology: On the Early History of the Alphabet.” HUCA 57: 1–14. 1988 “The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some Implications Thereof.” Pp. 41–57 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem 4–12, August 1985: Division D. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1997 “Aramaic.” Pp. 114–30 in Semitic Languages, ed. R. Hetzron. New York: Routledge. 2002a “Recent Contributions of Aramaic Studies to Biblical Hebrew Philology and the Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 43–54 in Congress Volume, Basel 2001, ed. A. Lemaire. Leiden: Brill. 2002b “Languages in Contact: The Ancient Near East.” Pp. 297–306 in Israel Oriental Studies XX, Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century, ed. S. Izre′el. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Keel, Othmar 1978 The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. New York: Seabury. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. 1992 “Iconography and the Bible.” Pp. 358–74 in vol. 3 of ABD. 1993 “Hyksos Horses or Hippopotamus Deities?” Levant 25: 208–12.

Bibliography

233

Keel, Othmar, and Thomas Staubli 2001 “Im Schatten Deiner Flügel” Tiere in der Bibel und im Alten Orient. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. 2003 Les animaux du 6ème jour: Les animaux dans la Bible et dans l’Orient ancien. Musée de zoologie Lausanne / Editions universitaires Fribourg Suisse. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger 1998 Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. T. H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress. Keil, C. F. 1869 The Book of Numbers., trans. J. Martin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark (Repr., Commentary on the Old Testament by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Vol. 3. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989]). Kempinski, Aharon 1974 “Tell el-ʿAjjûl—Beth-Aglayim or Sharuḥen?" IEJ 24: 145–52. 1992 “The Middle Bronze Age.” Pp. 159–210 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor, trans. R. Greenberg. Ra’anana: Open University of Israel. 1993 “ʿAjjul, Tell el-" Pp. 52–53 in vol. 1 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1960 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 1: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1965 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kenyon, K. M., and T. A. Holland 1982 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1983 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Keswani, Priscilla 2004 Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus. London: Equinox. Kidner, Derek 1967 Genesis. Leicester: Inter-Varsity. Killick, Robert, and Michael Roaf 1979 “Excavations at Tell Madhur” Sumer 35/1–2: 534–42. King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager 2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Kitchen, K. A. 1974 “Prd > Ptr = ‘Mule’ in New Kingdom Egypt?” Göttinger Miszellen 13: 17–20. 1992 “Egypt, History of (Chronology).” Pp. 322–31 in vol. 2 of ABD. 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Klenck, Joel D. 1995 “Bedouin Animal Sacrifice Practices: Case Study in Israel.” Pp. 57–72 in The Symbolic Role of Animals in Archaeology, ed. K. Ryan and P. J. Crabtree. Philadelphia: MASCA, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

234 2002

Bibliography

The Canaanite Cultic Milieu: The Zooarchaeological Evidence from Tel Haror, Israel. BAR International Series 1029. Oxford: Archaeopress. Kletter, Raz, and Zeʾev Herzog 2003 “An Iron Age Hermaphrodite Centaur from Tel Beer Sheba, Israel.” BASOR 331: 27–38. Klingbeil, Gerald A. 1998 A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. 2003a “Methods and Daily Life: Understanding the Use of Animals in Daily Life in a Multi-disciplinary Framework.” Pp. 401–33 in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. E. Averbeck, M. W. Chavalas, D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2003b “‘Man’s Other Best Friend’: The Interaction of Equids and Man in Daily Life in Iron Age II Palestine as Seen in Texts, Artifacts, and Images.” UgaritForschungen 35: 259–89. 2005 “Agriculture and Animal Husbandry.” Pp. 1–20 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. B. T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner 1994–2000  The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill. Kogan, Leonid 2006 “Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew: An Etymological Survey.” Pp. 257–320 in Babel und Bibel 3, ed. L. Kogan et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kosmetatou, Elizabeth 1993 “Horse Sacrifices in Greece and Cyprus” JPR 7: 31–41. Kramer, Samuel Noah 1959 History Begins at Sumer. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1960 Two Elegies on a Pushkin Museum Tablet. Moscow: Oriental Literature. 1967 “The Death of Ur-Nammu and His Descent to the Netherworld” JCS 21: 104–22. Kraus, F. R. 1984 Königliche Verfügungen in Altbabylonischer Zeit. Leiden: Brill. Kuhrt, Amélie 1995 The Ancient Near East. 2 vols. London: Routledge. Kupper, J.-R. 1953 Archives royales de Mari VI: Lettres (cuneiform copies). Paris: Geuthner. 1954 Archives royales de Mari VI: Correspondance de Baḫdi-Lim (transcriptions and translations). Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Labrique, F. 1993 “‘Transpercer l’âne’ à Edfou.” Pp. 175–89 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Læssøe, Jørgen 1955 Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bît rimki. Ejnar Munksgaard. Lafont, Bertrand 1999 “Sacrifices et rituals à Mari et dans la Bible” RA 93: 57–77. 2000 “Cheval, âne, onagre et mule dans la haute histoire Mésopotamienne: Quelques données nouvelles” in Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde

Bibliography

235

syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques. Topoi Supplement 2, ed. D. Parayre, 207–21. Lyon: Lyon Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen. 2001 “Relations internationales, alliances et diplomatie au temps des royaumes amorrites: Essai de synthèse.” Pp. 213–328 in Amurru 2: Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites dix ans de travaux. Deuxième partie. Actes du colloque international (Paris, mai 1993), ed. J.-M. Durand et D. Charpin. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Lambert, W. G. 1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. 1993 “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pp. 191–201 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Lambert, W. G., and P. Walcot 1965 “A New Babylonian Theogony and Hesiod” Kadmos 4: 64–72. Landsberger, Benno 1934 Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie Ḫar-ra = ḫubullu. Leipzig: Hirzel Verlag. 1960 The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia, part 1: Tablet XIII (MSL VIII/1). In cooperation with A. D. Kilmer and E. I. Gordon. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1962 The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia, part 2: Ḫar-ra = ḫubullu Tablets XIV and XVIII (MSL VIII/2). In cooperation with A. D. Kilmer. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Largement, René 1964 “Les oracles de Bileʿam et la mantique Suméro-Akkadienne.” Pp. 37–50 in Mémorial du Cinquantenaire, 1914–1964. Paris: Bloud & Gay. Laroche, Emmanuel 1971 Catalogue des Textes Hittites. Paris: Klincksieck. Lattimore, Richmond 1951 The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lawrence, Paul J. N. 2003 “Zoology.” Pp. 914–18 in The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Lebrun, R. 1993 “Aspects particuliers du sacrifice dans le monde hittite.” Pp. 225–33 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Leclant, Jean 1960 “Astarté a cheval d’après les représentations Égyptiennes.” Syria 37: 1–67. Leibowitch, J. 1954 “The Cult of the Ass in Antiquity” (in Hebrew) BIES 18: 129–34. Leichty, Erle 1970 The Omen Series Šumma Izbu. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. 1993 “Ritual, ‘Sacrifice’, and Divination in Mesopotamia.” Pp. 237–42 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Lemaire, André 1985 “L’inscription de Balaam trouvée à Deir ʿAlla: épigraphie.” Pp. 313–25 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on

236

Bibliography

Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. A. Biran et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1986 “La diposition originelle des inscriptions sur plâtre de Deir ʿAlla.” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 3: 79–93. 1991 “Les inscriptions sur plâtre de Deir ʿAlla et leur signification historique et culturelle.” Pp. 33–57 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. Lemaire, A., and J.-M. Durand 1984 Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu. Geneva: Librairie Droz. Lemche, Niels Peter 1995 “The History of Ancient Syria and Palestine: An Overview.” Pp. 1195–1218 in CANE. Lesko, Leonard H., and Barbara S. Lesko 1982–90  A Dictionary of Late Egyptian. 5 vols. Berkeley,CA: Scribe. Lev-Tov, Justin 2000 Pigs, Philistines, and the Ancient Animal Economy of Ekron from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age II. Ph.D. diss., University of Tennessee–Department of Anthropology. 2006 “The Faunal Remains: Animal Economy in the Iron Age I.” Pp. 207–25 in Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996: Field INE East Slope, Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), ed. M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan, and S. Gitin. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Institute of Archaeology–Hebrew University. Levine, Baruch A. 1963 “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals” JCS 17:105–11. 1981 “Review Article: The Deir ʿAlla Plaster Inscriptions.” JAOS 101: 195–205. 1985 “The Balaam Inscription from Deir ʿAlla: Historical Aspects.” Pp. 326–39 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, eds. A. Biran, et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1989 The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1991 “The Plaster Inscriptions from Deir ʿAlla: General Interpretation.” Pp. 58–72 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. 1993 Numbers 1–20. New York: Doubleday. 1996 “Offerings Rejected by God: Numbers 16:15 in Comparative Perspective.” Pp. 107–16 in “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2000 Numbers 21–36. New York: Doubleday. Lewis, Theodore J. 1996a “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith” JBL 115: 401–23. 1996b “Toward a Literary Translation of the Rapiuma Texts” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Reli-

Bibliography

237

gion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays Presented in Honor of John C. L. Gibson, eds. N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd, 115–149. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 1997 “The Rapiuma.” Pp. 196–205 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Lewis, T. J., and R. K. Harrison 1982 “First-born; Firstling.” P. 308 in vol. 2 of ISBE. Lewy, Julius 1961 “Amurritica.” HUCA 32: 31–74. Lexa, François 1926 Papyrus Insinger: Les enseignements moraux d’un scribe Égyptien du premier siècle après J.-C. Tome Ier (Texte, transcription, traduction et commentaire). Paris: Geuthner. L’Heureux, Conrad E. 1979 Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baʿal, and the Rephaʾim. HSM 21. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Lichtheim, Miriam 1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings, vol. 1: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings, vol. 2: The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1980 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings, vol. 3: The Late Period. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lindenberger, James M. 1983 The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lipiński, Edward 2003 “Ḥaddiy's Wine or Donkeys?" Pp. 185–90 in Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, ed. R. Deutsch. Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications. Littauer, Mary Aiken 1971 “The Figured Evidence for a Small Pony in the Ancient Near East.” Iraq 33: 24–30. 2002 “Bits and Pieces.” Pp. 487–504 in Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, ed. P. Raulwing. Leiden: Brill. Littauer, Mary Aiken, and Joost H. Crouwel 1979 Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill. 1985 Chariots and Related Equipment from the Tomb of Tutʿankhanūn. Tutʿankhanūn's Tomb Series 8. Oxford: Griffith Institute. 2002a Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, ed. P. Raulwing. Leiden: Brill. 2002b “A Near Eastern Bridle Bit of the Second Millennium b.c. in New York.” Pp. 505–14 in Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, ed. P. Raulwing. Leiden: Brill. 2002c “A Pair of Horse Bits of the Second Millennium b.c. from Iraq.” Pp. 515–18 in Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, ed. P. Raulwing. Leiden: Brill.

238

Bibliography

2002d “Ceremonial Threshing in the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 329–35 in Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, ed. P. Raulwing. Leiden: Brill. Livingstone, A. 1988 “The Isin ‘Dog House’ Revised.” JCS 40: 54–60. Lloyd, Seton 1995 “Excavating the Land between the Two Rivers.” Pp. 2729–41 in CANE. Long, Jesse C., Jr. 2002 1 & 2 Kings. Joplin: College Press. 2003 “Theory in Archaeology: Culture Change at the End of the Early Bronze Age.” Pp. 308–18 in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, ed. S. Richard. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2005 “A Story of Divine Justice—or Grace? A Literary Reading of 1 Kings 13.” Unpublished paper presented at the Stone-Campbell Journal Conference at Cincinnati Bible Seminary, April 15, 2005. Lundbom, Jack R. 2004 Jeremiah 21–36. New York: Doubleday. Macdonald, M. C. A. 1995 “North Arabia in the First Millennium bce.” Pp. 1355–69 in CANE. MacGinnis, J. D. A. 1989 “Some Inscribed Horse Troughs of Sennacherib.” Iraq 51: 187–92. Mackay, Ernest J. H., and Margaret A. Murray 1952 Ancient Gaza V. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Macqueen, J. G. 1986 The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Revised and enlarged edition. London: Thames & Hudson. Maeir, Aren M. 1989 “Hyksos Miscellanea.” Discussions in Egyptology 14: 61–68. 1994 “Hyksos, Horses and Hippopotami: A Note.” Levant 26: 231. Mailberger, P. 2003 “‫ ֶפּרֶד‬pereḏ” in TDOT 12: 79–81. Maillot, Alain 1973 Les animaux dans la religion de l’ancien Israel et dans les religions voisines (Préliminaries d’une Ecologie biblique). Ph.D. diss., Université Claude Bernard de Lyon. Malamat, Abraham 1971 “The Period of the Judges.” Pp. 129–63 in The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 3: Judges, ed. B. Mazar. Rutgers University Press. 1989 Mari and the Early Israelite Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 1995 “A Note on the Ritual of Treaty Making in Mari and the Bible.” IEJ 45: 226–29. 1998a Mari and the Bible. Leiden: Brill. 1998b “Episodes Involving Samuel and Saul and the Prophetic Texts from Mari.” Pp. 102–5 in Mari and the Bible. Leiden: Brill. 1998c “A Note on the Ritual of Treaty Making in Mari and the Bible.” Pp. in Mari and the Bible by A. Malamat, 168–71. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

239

1998d “ʿAMM LeḆĀḎĀḎ YIŠKŌN: A Diplomatic Report from Mari and an Oracle of Balaam.” Pp. 216–18 in Mari and the Bible. Leiden: Brill. Mallory-Greenough, Leanne 2005 “The Horse Burials of Nubia.” JSSEA 32 (Nicholas Millet Memorial Volume): 105–11. Mallowan, M. E. L. 1965 Early Mesopotamia and Iran. New York: McGraw-Hill. Manniche, Lise 1987 City of the Dead: Thebes in Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Manor, Dale W. 2007 “The Late Bronze–Iron Age Transition at Tel Beth-Shemesh: New Finds from the Northern Slope.” Unpublished paper presented at the 2007 ASOR Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. Margalit, Baruch 1980 A Matter of “Life”and “Death”: A Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4–5-6). Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1989 The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1998 “Ninth-Century Israelite Prophecy in the Light of Contemporary NWSemitic Epigraphs.” Pp. 515–32 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf” Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz, ed. M. Dietrich und Ingo Kottsieper. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Masson, Olivier 1950 “A propos d’un ritual Hittite pour la lustration d’une armée: Le rite de purification par le passage entre les deux parties d’une victime.” RHR 137:5–25. Mazar, Amihai 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 b.c.e. New York: Doubleday. 1992 “Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age.” Pp. 161–87 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1980a “The Balaam Texts from Deir ʿAllā: The First Combination.” BASOR 239: 49–60. 1980b I Samuel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1984 II Samuel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. McCarthy, Dennis J. 1972 Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Richmond: John Knox. 1978 Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Analecta Biblica 21A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1979 “Animadversiones: Ebla, ὅρκια τέμνειν, ṭb, šlm: Addenda to Treaty and Covenant.” Biblica 60: 247–53. McCullough, W. S. 1962a “Ass.” Pp. 260–61 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Abingdon. 1962b “Mule.” Pp. 456 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Abingdon.

240

Bibliography

McKay, Heather A. 2002 “Through the Eyes of Horses: Representation of the Horse Family in the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 127–41 in Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll, ed A. G. Hunter and P. R. Davies. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Mead, James K. 1999 “Kings and Prophets, Donkeys and Lions: Dramatic Shape and Deuteronomistic Rhetoric in 1 Kings XIII.” VT 49: 191–205. Meadow, Richard H., and Hans-Peter Uerpmann, eds. 1986 Equids in the Ancient World. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1991 Equids in the Ancient World. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Mendenhall, George E. 1948 “Mari.” BA 9: 1–19. Repr., pp. 3–20 in vol. 2 of The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, ed. E. F. Campbell Jr. and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1954 “Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Covenant Making.” BASOR 133: 26–30. Meshel, Zeʾev 1978 Kuntillet ʿAjrud: A Religious Center from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai. Jerusalem. Meyers, Eric M. 1997 The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. New York: Oxford University Press. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers 1993 Zechariah 9–14. New York: Doubleday. Michel, Cécile 2004 “The Perdum-Mule, a Mount for Distinguished Persons in Mesopotamia during the First Half of the Second Millennium bc.” Pp. 190–200 in PECUS: Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9–12, 2002, ed. B. S. Frizell. Rome: Swedish Institute. Milgrom, Jacob 1990 The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1991 Leviticus 1–16. New York: Doubleday. 2000 Leviticus 17–22. New York: Doubleday. 2001 Leviticus 23–27. New York: Doubleday. Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan 2000 Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2005 Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 2: Animal Names. Münster: Ugarit-​ Verlag. Miller, Patrick D. 2000a “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew.” Pp. 101–14 in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays by P. D. Miller. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Bibliography

241

2000b “Prayer and Sacrifice in Ugarit and Israel.” Pp. 84–100 in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Millet Albà, Adelina 2000 “Les noms d’animaux dans l’onomastique des archives de Mari.” Pp. 477– 87 in Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques. Topoi Supplement 2, ed. D. Parayre. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloux. Moor, Johannes C. de 1971 The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Baʿlu according to the Version of Ilimilku. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1987 An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Leiden: Brill. 1998 “Seventy!” Pp. 199-203 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf” Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Moor, Johannes C. de, and Paul Sanders 1991 “An Ugaritic Expiation Ritual and Its Old Testament Parallels.” UF 23: 283–300. Moore, Michael S. 1990 The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Moore, Michael S., and Michael L. Brown 1997a “‫אָתֹון‬.” Pp. 575–77 in vol. 1 of NIDOTTE. 1997b “‫חֳמֹור‬.” Pp. 172–73 in vol. 2 of NIDOTTE. 1997c “‫ ַעיִר‬.” Pp. 399 in vol. 3 of NIDOTTE. 1997d “‫עָרֹוד‬.” Pp. 531–32 in vol. 3 of NIDOTTE. 1997e “‫ ֶפּרֶא‬.” Pp. 672–73 in vol. 3 of NIDOTTE. 1997f “‫ ֶפּרֶד‬.” Pp. 675–76 in vol. 3 of NIDOTTE. Moorey, R. R. S. 1966 “A Reconsideration of the Excavations on Tell Ingharra (East Kish), 1923– 33.” Iraq 28: 18–51. 1978 Kish Excavations 1923–1933. Oxford: Clarendon. Moran, William L. 1961 “The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background.” Pp. 59–84 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright. New York: Doubleday. Moren, S. M. [= Sally M. Freedman] 1980 “Šumma Izbu XIX: New Light on the Animal Omens.” AfO 27: 53–70. Morgan, Donn F. 1982 “Horse.” Pp. 759–60 in vol. 2 of ISBE. Mottahedeh, Patricia Erhart 1997 Out of Noah’s Ark: Animals in Ancient Art from the Leo Mildenberg Collection, trans. Gisela Zahlhaas. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum. Moyer, James C. 1983 “Hittite and Israelite Cultic Practices: A Selected Comparison.” Pp. 19–38 in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

242

Bibliography

Müller, Vera 1998 “Offering Deposits at Tell el-Dabʿa.” Pp. 793–803 in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995, ed. C. J. Eyre. Leuven: Peeters. 2002 “Offering Practices in the Temple Courts of Tell el-Dabʿa and the Levant.” Pp. 269–95 in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material. Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Munn-Rankin, J. M. 1956 “Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium b.c.” Iraq 18: 68–110. Murray, A. T., and William F. Wyatt 1999 Homer: Iliad. Vol. 2: Books 13–24. LCL 171. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Murray, John 1988 “Redeemer; Redemption.” Pp. 61–63 in vol. 4 of ISBE. Nakhi, Beth Alert 2003 “Canaanite Religion.” Pp. 343–48 in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, ed. Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Naville, Edouard 1886 Das Aegyptische Todtenbuch der XVIII. bis XX. Dynastie. 2 vols. Berlin: Asher. Nibbi, Alessandra 1979 “Some Remarks on Ass and Horse in Ancient Egypt and the Absence of the Mule.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 106: 148–68. Nichols, John J., and Jill A. Weber 2006 “Amorites, Onagers, and Social Reorganization in Middle Bronze Age Syria.” Pp. 38–57 in After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and J. J. Nichols. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Niehr, H. 2001 “‫ פָּתַ ר‬pāṭar.” Pp. 529–33 in vol. 11 of TDOT. Nielsen, Eduard 1953 “Ass and Ox in the Old Testament.” Pp. 263–74 in Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen. Einar Munksgaard. Nissinen, Martti 2002 “Prophets and the Divine Council.” Pp. 4–19 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. U. Hubner und E. A. Knauf. Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen. 2003 Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Noble, Duncan 1969 “The Mesopotamian Onager as a Draught Animal.” Pp. 485–88 in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed. P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago: Aldine Atherton, Inc.

Bibliography

243

Noblecourt, Christiane Desroches 1997 “La Monture de l’Enfant Divin.” Pp. 169–78 in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in honour of Martha Rhoads Bell, vol. 1, ed. J. Phillips et al. Van Siclen Books. Nordh, Katarina 1996 Aspects of Ancient Egyptian Curses and Blessings: Conceptual Background and Transmission. Uppsala. Noth, Martin 1955 “Das alttestamentliche Bundschliessen im Lichte eines Mari-textes.” Pp. 433–44 in Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves (1953): Mélanges Isidore Lévy. Brussels. 1957 Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag. 1966 “Old Testament Covenant-Making in the Light of a Text from Mari.” Pp. 108– 17 in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1968 Numbers: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster. Oates, David, and Joan Oates 1993 “Excavations at Tell Brak, NE Syria, 1992.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3: 137–40. Oates, David, Joan Oates, and Helen McDonald 2001 Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium bc. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Oates, Joan, Theya Molleson, and Arkadiusz Soltysiak 2008 “Equids and an Acrobat: Closure Rituals at Tell Brak.” Antiquity 82: 390–400. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del 1998 “A Ritual for the Country’s Salvation, KTU 1.162: A Reappraisal.” Pp. 164– 73 in Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus Gordon, ed. M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb and S. Keller. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1999 Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Joaqín Sanmartín 2003 A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, trans. W. G. E. Watson. 2nd. ed. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Leiden: Brill. Olyan, Saul M. 2005 “Some Neglected Aspects of Israelite Interment Ideology” JBL 124: 601–16. Oppenheim, A. Leo 1956 The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Oren, Eliezer D. 1993 “Haror, Tel.” Pp. 580–84 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. 1997a “Haror, Tel.” Pp. 474–76 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997b “The ‘Kingdom of Sharuhen’ and the Hyksos Kingdom.” Pp. 253–83 in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren. Philadelphia: University Museum.

244

Bibliography

1997c The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia: University Museum Press. Orthmann, Winfried, ed. 1981 Halawa 1977 bis 1979. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 31. Bonn: Habelt. Osborn, Dale J., and Jana Osbornová 1998 The Mammals of Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Oswalt, John N. 1998 The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Owen, David I. 1991 “The ‘First’ Equestrian: An Ur III Glyptic Scene.” Acta Sumerologica 13: 259–73. Paice, Patricia, John S. Holladay Jr., and Edwin C. Brock 1996 “The Middle Bronze Age/Second Intermediate Period Houses at Tell ElMaskhuta” in House and Palace in Ancient Egypt (International Symposium in Cairo, April 8. to 11. 1992), ed. M. Bietak, 159–73. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Parayre, Dominique 2000 Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques. Topoi Supplement 2. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient MéditerranéenJean Pouilloux. Pardee, Dennis 1987 “Ugaritic Bibliography” 34: 366–471. 1988a Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961). RSO IV. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1988b “A New Datum for the Meaning of the Divine Name Milkashtart.” Pp. 55–68 in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1989–90 “Ugaritic Proper Nouns” AfO 36/37: 390–513. 1991a “The Linguistic Classification of the Deir ʿAlla Text Written on Plaster.” Pp. 100–105 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. 1991b “The Structure of RS 1.002.” Pp. 1181–96 in vol. 2 of Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday November 14th, 1991, ed. A. S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2000a Les textes rituals. RSO XII. Fascicles 1–2. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 2000b “Les équidés à Ougarit au bronze récent: La perspective des textes.” Pp. 223–34 in Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques. Topoi Supplement 2, ed. D. Parayre. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloux. 2000c “Animal Sacrifice at Ugarit” Pp. 321–31 in Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques. Topoi Supplement 2, ed. D. Parayre. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloux. 2002 Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Parker, Simon B., ed. 1997 Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Bibliography

245

Payne, Sebastian 1988 “Animal Bones from Tell Rubeideh.” Pp. 98–135 in Tell Rubeideh: An Uruk Village in the Jebel Hamrin, ed. R. G. Killick. British School of Archaeology in Iraq. 1990 “Appendix: Field Report on the Dendra Horses.” Pp. 103–6 in Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, eds. R. Hägg and G. C. Nordquist. Stockholm. Petrie, W. M. Flinders 1914 Tarkhan II. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1931 Ancient Gaza I: Tell el Ajjūl. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1932 Ancient Gaza II: Tell el Ajjūl. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1933 Ancient Gaza III: Tell el Ajjūl. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1934 Ancient Gaza IV: Tell el Ajjūl. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1952 City of Shepherd Kings. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Philip, Graham 1995 “Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near-Eastern Bronze Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iran and Syria-Palestine.” Pp. 140–54 in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green. Oxford: Oxbow. 2006 Tell el-Dabʿa XV: Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Pickeral, Tamsin 1999 The Encyclopedia of Horses and Ponies. New York: Parragon. Pitard, Wayne T. 1987 Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 b.c.e. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1992 “A New Edition of the Rāpiʾūma Texts: KTU 1.20–22.” BASOR 285: 33–77. 1998 “Before Israel: Syria-Palestine in the Bronze Age.” Pp. 33–77 in M. D. Coogan, The Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999 “The Rpum Texts.” Pp. 259–69 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, ed. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt. Leiden: Brill. Pittman, Holly 1984 Art of the Bronze Age: Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Polak, Frank H. 2004 “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari.” Pp. 119–34 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, ed. C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz and S. M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Pope, Marvin H. 1970 “A Mare in Pharaoh’s Chariotry.” BASOR 200: 56–61. 1973 Job. New York: Doubleday.

246

Bibliography

1977a “Notes on the Rephaim Texts From Ugarit.” Pp. 163–82 in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. Maria de Jong Ellis. Hamden: Archon. 1977b Song of Songs. New York: Doubleday. Porter, Anne 2002a “The Dynamics of Death: Ancestors, Pastoralism, and the Origins of a ThirdMillennium City in Syria.” BASOR 325 (2002): 1–36. 2002b “Communities in Conflict: Death and the Contest for Social Order in the Euphrates River Valley.” NEA 65: 156–73. Porter, Anne, and Thomas McClellan 1996 “‘Royal Grave’ at Tell Banat.” ASOR Newsletter 46/3: 28. Postgate, J. Nicholas 1979 “The Historical Geography of the Hamrin Basin” Sumer 35: 461–67. 1982 “Abu Salabikh.” Pp. 48–61 in Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery: The Work of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1932–1982, ed. J. Curtis. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. 1986 “The Equids of Sumer, Again.” Pp. 194–206 in Equids in the Ancient World, ed. R. H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1994 Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Postgate, J. N., and J. A. Moon 1982 “Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1981” Iraq 44:103–36. Postgate, J. N., and P. R. S. Moorey 1976 “Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1975.” Iraq 38: 133–70. Postgate, J. N., and M. A. Powell, eds. 1993 Domestic Animals of Mesopotamia. Part 1. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7. Cambridge: Sumerian Agriculture Group / Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 1995 Domestic Animals of Mesopotamia. Part 2. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 8. Cambridge: Sumerian Agriculture Group / Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Postgate, J. N., and P. J. Watson 1979 “Excavations in Iraq, 1977–78.” Iraq 41: 141–81. Potratz, Johannes A. H. 1938 Das Pferd in der Frühzeit. Rostock. 1966 Die Pferdetrensen des alten Orient. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Pritchard, James B. 1969a The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1969b Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Propp, William H. C. 1999 Exodus 1–18. New York: Doubleday. Protonotariou-Deilaki, Evangelia 1990 “The Tumuli of Mycenae and Dendra.” Pp. 85–102 in Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, ed. R. Hägg and G. C. Nordquist. Stockholm. Puech, Émile 1985 Untitled response to papers on the Deir ʿAlla plaster texts. Pp. 354–65 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on

Bibliography

247

Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. A. Biran et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Quaegebeur, J. 1993 Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Leuven: Peeters. Raepsaet, Georges 1998 “Esel.” Pp. 129–35 in vol. 4 of Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart: Metzler. 2004 “Donkey.” Pp. 664–70 in vol. 4 of Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Leiden: Brill. Raulwing, P., and J. Clutton-Brock 2009 “The Buhen Horse: Fifty Years after Its Discovery (1958–2008).” Journal of Egyptian History 2: 1–106. Redford, Donald B. 1992a Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1992b “Hyksos: History.” Pp. 341–44 in vol. 3 of ABD. 1997 “Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period.” Pp. 1–44 in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren. Philadelphia: University Museum Press. 2001 The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Redford, S. 2001 “Equines.” Pp. 478–79 in vol. 1 of OEAE. Reese, David S. 1995 “Equid Sacrifices/Burials in Greece and Cyprus: An Addendum.” JPR 9: 35–42. Renz, Johannes, and Wolfgang Röllig 1995a Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, vol. 1: Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 1: Text und Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1995b Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, vol. 2/1: Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 2: Zusammenfassende Erörterungen, Paläographie und Glossar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1995c Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, vol. 3: Texte und Tafeln. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Richard, Suzanne, ed. 2003 Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Riede, Peter 2002 Im Spiegel der Tiere: Studien zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Tier im alten Israel. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ringgren, Helmer 1986 “‫חמר‬.” Pp. 1–4 in vol. 5 of TDOT. Ritner, Robert Kriech 1993 The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2001 “Dream Books.” Pp. in OEAE I:410–411. 2003 “The Fable of the Swallow and the Sea.” Pp. 494–96 in The Literature of Ancient Egypt, ed. W. K. Simpson, et al. 3rd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

248

Bibliography

Roaf, Michael D. 1982 “The Hamrin Sites.” Pp. 40–47 in Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery: The Work of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1932–1982, ed. J. Curtis. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Roaf, M. D., and J. N. Postgate 1981 “Excavations in Iraq, 1979–1980.” Iraq 43: 167–98. Robertson, John F. 1995 “The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Mesopotamian Temples.” Pp. 443–54 in CANE. Rollston, Chris A. 2000 “Balaam.” Pp. 144–45 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Rommelaere, Catherine 1991 Les chevaux du Nouvel Empire égyptien: Origines, races, harnachement. Bruxelles: Connaissance de l’Égypte ancienne. Root, Margaret Cool 2002 “Animals in the Art of Ancient Iran.” Pp. 169–209 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Rossel, Stine, Fiona Marshall, Joris Peters, Tom Pilgram, M. Adams, and D. O’Connor 2008 “Domestication of the Donkey: Timing, Processes, and Indicators.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 3715–20. Roth, Cecil, and Geoffrey Wigoder 1972 Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House / New York: Macmillan. Rouillard, Hedwige 1980 “L’ânesse de Balaam: analyse littéraire de Nomb. XXII, 21–35.” RB 87: 5–37. 1985 La péricope de Balaam (Nombres 22–24): La prose et les “oracles.” Paris: Gabalda. Ryckmans, J. 1993 “Sacrifices, offrandes et rites connexes en Arabie du Sud pré-islamique” Pp. 355–80 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. 1998 Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Saad, Zaki Youssef 1947 Royal Excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941–1945). Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. 1951 Royal Excavations at Helwan (1945–1947). Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. 1969 The Excavations at Helwan: Art and Civilization in the First and Second Egyptian Dynasties. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sadek, Ashraf Iskander 1998 Popular Religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. Saggs, H. W. F. 1962 The Greatness That Was Babylon: A Survey of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. New York: Hawthorn.

Bibliography

249

Sakellarakis, John A. 1967 “Minoan Cemeteries at Arkhanes.” Archaeology 20: 276–81. Sams, G. Kenneth 1995 “Midas of Gordion and the Anatolian Kingdom of Phrygia.” Pp. 1147–59 in CANE. Sarna, Nahum M. 1989 The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1991 The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Sass, Benjamin 1993 “The Pre-exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism v. Aniconism.” Pp. 194–256 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg on April 17–20, 1991, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sasson, Jack M. 1976a “Ass.” Pp. 72–73 in IDBS. 1976b “Isaiah LXVI 3–4a.” VT 26: 199–207. 1995a “Official Correspondence from the Mari Archives” in “The History of Ancient Syria and Palestine: An Overview,” by N. P. Lemche. P. 1204 in CANE. 1995b Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York: Scribners / Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 1995c “Water beneath Straw: Adventures of a Prophetic Phrase in the Mari Archives.” Pp. 599–608 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Sasson, Victor 1986 “The Book of Oracular Visions of Balaam from Deir ʿAlla.” UF 17: 283–309. Sauer, James A. 1995 “Artistic and Faunal Evidence for the Influence of the Domestication of Donkeys and Camels on the Archaeological History of Jordan and Arabia.” Pp. 39–48 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 5: Art and Technology Throughout the Ages, ed. K. ʿAmr, F. Zayadine, and M. Zaghloul. Amman: Department of Antiquities / Jordan Press Foundation. Savran, G. W. 1994 “Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam's Ass and the Garden of Eden.” JSOT 64: 33–55. 2005 Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. London: T. & T. Clark. Schaeffer, Claude F.-A. 1938 “Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit: Neuvième campagne (printemps 1937). Rapport sommaire.” Syria 19: 193–255, 313–27. Schart, Aaron 1995 “Combining Prophetic Oracles in Mari Letters and Jeremiah 36.” JANES 23: 75–93. Schiestl, Robert 2002 “Some Links between a Late Middle Kingdom Cemetery at Tell el Dabʿa and Syria-Palestine: The Necropolis of F/I, Strata d/2 and d/1 (=H and G/4).”

250

Bibliography

Pp. 329–52 in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material. Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 2009 Tell el-Dabʿa XVIII: Die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dabʿa: Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schmitt, John J. 1992 “Prophecy (Preexilic Hebrew).” Pp. 482–89 in vol. 5 of ABD. Schoors, A. 1993 “Synthesis.” Pp. 501–7 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters. Schulman, Alan R. 1980 “Chariots, Chariotry, and the Hyksos.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10: 105–53. Schultz, Samuel J. 1982 “Jehoiakim.” Pp. 976–977 in vol. 2 of ISBE. Schwartz, Glenn M. 2007a “Status, Ideology, and Memory in Third-Millennium Syria: ‘Royal’ Tombs at Umm el-Marra.” Pp. 39–68 in Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, ed. N. Laneri. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2007b “Hidden Tombs of Ancient Syria.” Natural History 116: 42–47. Schwartz, G. M., H. H. Curvers, S. S. Dunham, and B. Stuart 2003 “A Third Millennium b.c. Elite Tomb and Other New Evidence from Tell Umm el-Marra, Syria.” American Journal of Archaeology 107: 325–61. Schwartz, G. M., H. H. Curvers, S. S. Dunham, B. Stuart, and J. A. Weber 2006 “A Third Millennium b.c. Elite Mortuary Complex at Umm el-Marra, Syria: 2002 and 2004 Excavations.” American Journal of Archaeology 110: 603–41. Schwartz, G. M., H. H. Curvers, F. A. Gerritsen, J. MacCormack, N. Miller, and J. Weber 2000 “Excavation and Survey in the Jabbul Plain, Western Syria: The Umm elMarra Project 1996–1997.” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 419–62. Scurlock, JoAnn 2002a “Animals in Ancient Mesopotamia Religion.” Pp. 361–87 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. 2002b “Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” Pp. 389–403 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Seidl, U. 2004 “Pferd. C. Darstellungen.” Pp. 490–92 in vol. 10 of RLA. Seow, C. L. 2003 “West Semitic Sources: 138. Deir ʿAllā Plaster Texts.” Pp. 207–12 in Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Nissinen. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Shanks, Hershel 2007 “The Mystery of the Nechushtan.” BAR 33/2: 58–63.

Bibliography

251

Simon, Uriel 1976 “I Kings 13: A Prophetic Sign—Denial and Persistence.” HUCA 47: 81–117. Simpson, William Kelly, ed. (with R. K. Ritner, V. A. Tobin, and E. F. Wente Jr.) 2003 The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. 3rd ed. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press. Sivan, Daniel 2001 A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Second Impression with Corrections. Leiden: Brill. Smelik, Klaas A. D. 1991 Writings from Ancient Israel: A Handbook of Historical and Religious Documents. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Smith, H. S. 1969 “Animal Domestication and Animal Cult in Dynastic Egypt.” Pp. 307–14 in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, eds. P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago: Atherton. Smith, Mark S. 1994 The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill. 1997 “The Baal Cycle.” Pp. 81–180 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2001 The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press. 2002 The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Soden, Wolfram von 1953 “Neue Bände der Archives Royales de Mâri.” Orientalia 22: 193-209. 1959–75 Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1994 The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East, trans. D. G. Schley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Soysal, Oğuz 1987 “KUB XXXI 4 + KBo III 41 und 40 (Die Puḫanu-Chronik). Zum Thronstreit Ḫattušilis I.” Hethitca 7: 173–253. Speiser, E. A. 1956 “Nuzi Marginalia.” Orientalia 25: 1–23. 1964 Genesis. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Stadelmann, Rainer 2006 “Riding the Donkey: A Means of Transportation for Foreign Rulers.” Pp. 301–4 in vol. 2 of Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, ed. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab. Leuven: Peeters. Stager, Lawrence E. 1991 “Why Were Hundreds of Dogs Buried at Ashkelon?” BAR 17/3: 26–42. 1999 “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant.’” Pp. 228–49 in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, ed. P. H. Williams Jr. and T. Hiebert. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2003 “The Shechem Temple: Where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand.” BAR 29/4: 26–35, 66, 68–69.

252

Bibliography

Stepień, Marek 1996 Animal Husbandry in the Ancient Near East: A Prosopographc Study of Third Millennium Umma. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Stern, Ephraim 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–332 bce. New York: Doubleday. Stern, Ephraim, Ayelet Lewinson-Gilboa, and Joseph Aviram, eds. 1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / New York: Simon & Schuster. Stern, Menahem 1974 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 1: From Herodotus to Plutarch. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1980 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1984 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 3: Appendixes and Indexes. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Stewart, James R. 1974 Tell El ʿAjjūl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains, ed. H. E. Kassis. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 38. Göteborg: Åström. Stiebing, William H., Jr. 1971 “Hyksos Burials in Palestine: A Review of the Evidence.” JNES 30:110–17. Störk, Lothar 1982 “Pferd.” LdÄ 4: 1009–13. Strawn, Brent A. 2005 What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Strommenger, Eva, and Kay Kohlmeyer 1998 Tall Biʿa/Tuttul I: Die Altorientalischen Bestattungen. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Suter, Claudia E. 2000 Gudea’s Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and Image. Groningen: Styx. Suys, Émile 1935 La sagesse d’Ani: Texte, traduction et commentaire. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Tadmor, Hayim 1982 “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: A Historian’s Approach.” Pp. 127–52 in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980, eds. G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Takács, Gábor 1999 Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, vol. 1: A Phonological Introduction. Leiden: Brill. Tappy, Ron E. 2000 “Shechem.” Pp. 1200–1203 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

253

Tarragon, Jean-Michel de 1980 Le culte à Ugarit: D’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques. Paris: Gabalda. 1995 “Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Canaan and Ancient Israel.” Pp. 2071– 81 in CANE. 1998 “Le rituel ugaritique KTU 1.40: quelques réflexions.” Pp. 727–32 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf” Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz, ed. M. Dietrich und Ingo Kottsieper. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Taylor, Michelle Ellis 2000 “Dog.” P. 352 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Teeter, Emily 2002a “Animals in Egyptian Literature.” Pp. 251–70 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed., B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. 2002b “Animals in Egyptian Religion.” Pp. 335–60 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins. Leiden: Brill. Thissen, Heinz Josef 1984 Die Lehre des Anchscheschonqi (P. BM 10508). Bonn: Habelt. Thomson, J. A. 1980 The Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996 The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Toews, Wesley I. 1993 Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel under Jeroboam I. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Toombs, Lawrence E. 1992 “Shechem (place).” Pp. 1174–86 in vol. 5 of ABD. Toorn, Karel van der 1995 “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel.” Pp. 2043–58 in CANE. 1999 “Seth.” Pp. 748–49 in DDD. Toorn, Karel van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. 1999 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Trenkwalder, Helga 1979 “Tell Ababra: Preliminary Report.” Sumer 35: 480–81. Trigger, B. G., B. J. Kemp, D. O’Connor 1983 Ancient Egypt: A Social History. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tristram, H. B. 1898 The Natural History of the Bible. 9th ed. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Tsevat, Matitiahu 1962 “A Reference to Gudea of Lagash in an Old Mari Text.” Oriens Antiquus 1: 9–10. 1977 “‫ ְּבכּור‬bekhôr.” Pp. 121–27 in vol. 2 of TDOT. 1983 “Two Old Testament Stories and Their Hittite Analogues.” JAOS 103: 321–26.

254

Bibliography

Tufnell, Olga 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. Two volumes (text and plates). London: Oxford University Press. 1958 Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. Two volumes (text and plates). London: Oxford University Press. 1962 “The Courtyard Cemetery at Tell El-ʿAjjul, Palestine, Excavations of 1931– 32: A Type Site Reconsidered.” Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology of the University of London 3: 1–37. 1993 “ʿAjjul, Tell el-.” Pp. 49–52 in vol. 1 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Hold Land, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Uehlinger, Christoph 1993a “Introduction: The Status of Iconography in the Study of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals.” Pp. xi–xxii in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg on April 17–20, 1991, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1993b “Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconography and Syro-Palestinian Religions of Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclusions.” Pp. 257–88 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg on April 17–20, 1991, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Uerpmann, Hans-Peter 1987 The Ancient Distribution of Ungulate Mammals in the Middl East. Wiesbaden: Reichert. United Bible Societies 1980 Fauna and Flora of the Bible. Helps for Translators Series. 2nd ed. London: United Bible Societies. VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. 1997 New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Van Seters, J. 1966 The Hyksos: A New Investigation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Vaux, Roland de 1961 Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. J. McHugh. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1978 The Early History of Israel, trans. D. Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster. Velde, Herman te 1967 Seth, God of Confusion. Leiden: Brill. 1995 “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Egypt.” Pp. 1731–49 in CANE. 2001 “Seth.” Pp. 269–71 in vol. 3 of OEAE. Velde, Herman te, and Jacobus van Dijk 1995 “The Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt.” Pp. 1736–40 in CANE. Vila, Emmanuelle 2006 “Data on Equids from Late Fourth and Third Millennium Sites in Northern Syria.” Pp. in Equids in Time and Space: Papers in Honour of Vera Eisenmann, ed. M. Mashkour, 101–23. Oxford: Oxbow.

Bibliography

255

Villard, P. 1986 “Un roi de Mari a Ugarit.” UF 18: 387–412. Waite, J. C. J. 1979 “Balaam.” Pp. 404–5 in vol. 1 of ISBE. Walker, Norman 1963 “The Riddle of the Ass’s Head, and the Questin of a Trigram.” ZAW 75: 225–26. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor 1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Walton, John H. 1989 Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1997 “‫ּבתּולָה‬.” ְ Pp. 781–84 in vol. 1 of NIDOTTE. 2001 The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2003 “Serpent.” Pp. 736–39 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 2006 Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas 2000 The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Wapnish, Paula 1993 “Archaeozoology: The Integration of Faunal Data with Biblical Archaeology.” Pp. 426–42 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1997 “Middle Bronze Equid Burials at Tell Jemmeh and a Reexamination of a Purportedly ‘Hyksos’ Practice.” Pp. 335–67 in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren. Philadelphia: University Museum. Wapnish, Paula, and Brian Hesse 1988 “Urbanization and the Organization of Animal Production at Tell Jemmeh in the Middle Bronze Age Levant.” JNES 47/2: 81–94. 1997 “Equids.” Pp. 255–56 in vol. 2 of OEANE. 2003 “Archaeozoology.” Pp. 17–26 in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, ed. Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Ward, William A. 1978 “The H͗ıw-Ass, the H͗ıw-Serpent, and the God Seth.” Pp. JNES 37/1:23–34. Watanabe, Chikako E. 2002 Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia: A Contextual Approach. Institute für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Watelin, M. Louis Charles 1934 Excavations at Kish, vol. 4: 1925–1930. Paris: Geuthner. Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1986 “Unraveling Ugaritic MDL.” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 3: 73–78. 1989 “What Does Ugaritic gmn Mean?” Aula Orientalis 7: 129–31. 2006 “Names for Animals in the Ugaritic Texts.” Pp. 445–58 in Šapal tibnim mû illakū: Studies Presented to Joaqín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th

256

Bibliography

Birthday, ed. G. del Olmo Lete, L Feliu, and A. M. Albà. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. 2007 “Additional Animal Names for Animals in the Ugaritic Texts.” Historiae 4: 93–116. Watson, Wilfred G. E., and Nicolas Wyatt, eds. 1999 Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden: Brill. Way, Kenneth C. 2000 Giants in the Land: A Textual and Semantic Study of Giants in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. M.A. thesis, Trinity International University. 2005 “Balaam’s Hobby Horse: The Animal Motif in the Balaam Traditions.” UF 37 (Stanislav Segert memorial volume): 679–93. 2009 “Animals in the Prophetic World: Literary Reflections on Numbers 22 and 1 Kings 13.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34: 47-62. 2010a “Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics.” JBL 129: 105–14. 2010b “Assessing Sacred Asses: Bronze Age Donkey Burials in the Near East.” Levant 42: 213–28. Weber, Jill A. 2007 “Restoring Order: Death, Display and Authority.” Paper presented at the ASOR Annual Meeting in San Diego, 2007. 2008 “Elite Equids: Redefining Equid Burials of the Mid- to Late 3rd Millennium bc from Umm el-Marra, Syria.” Pp. 499–519 in Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas, Tome II. Actes du 8e colloque international de l’A.S.W.A. tenu à Lyon du 28 juin au 1er juillet 2006, ed. E. Vila, L. Gourichon, A. M. Choyke, and H. Buitenhuis. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient, no. 49. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Weinfeld, Moshe 1995 Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Weinstein, James M. 1992a “Hyksos: Archaeology.” Pp. 344–346 in vol. 3 of ABD. 1992b “The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Second Millennium b.c.e.” BASOR 288: 27–46. Weippert, Manfred 1991 “The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā and the Study of the Old Testament.” Pp. 151–84 in The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill. Weisberg, David B. 1969 “An Old Babylonian Forerunner to šumma ālu.” HUCA 40: 87–104. 1991 “Loyalty and Death: Some Ancient Near Eastern Metaphors.” Maarav 7: 253–67. Wenham, Gordon J. 1981 Numbers. Leicester: Inter-Varsity. 1994 Genesis 16–50. Dallas: Word. Wente, Edward F. 1990 Letters from Ancient Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Bibliography

257

Westermann, Claus 1995 Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress. Weszeli, M. 2004 “Pferd. A. I. In Mesopotamien.” RLA 10: 469–81. Whitley, David S., ed. 1998 Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-Processual and Cognitive Approaches. London: Routledge. Wiggermann, Frans 1996 “Scenes from the Shadow Side.” Pp. 207–30 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Groningen: Styx. Willesen, Folker 1954 “Die Eselsöhne von Sichem als Bundesgenossen.” VT 4: 216–17. Williams, Ronald J. 1956 “The Fable in the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 3–26 in A Stubborn Faith: Papers on Old Testament and Related Subjects Presented to Honor William Andrew Irwin, ed. E. C. Hobbs. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Wilson, E. Jan 1996 The Cylinders of Gudea: Transliteration, Translation and Index. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Wiseman, D. J. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. 1954 “Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets.” JCS 8:1–30. 1993 1 and 2 Kings. Leicester: Inter-Varsity. Wolfe, Lisa Michelle 2000 “Ass.” P. 117 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wolff, Robert J. 1988 “Zoology.” Pp. 1204–10 in vol. 4 of ISBE. Wolters, A. 1988 “The Balaamites of Deir ʿAlla as Aramean Deportees.” HUCA 59: 101–13. Woolley, C. Leonard 1934 Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery. London: British Museum / Philadelphia: Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. 1960 Digging Up the Past. Baltimore: Penguin. 1961 The Art of the Middle East. New York: Crown. Wortman, David A. 1978 “The Bite of the Snake: A Progress Report.” Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Wright, David P. 1987 The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wright, G. Ernest 1964 Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wright, G. Ernest, and Edward F. Campbell 1988 “Shechem.” Pp. 458–62 in vol. 4 of ISBE.

258

Bibliography

Wyatt, N. 1990 “The Story of Dinah and Shechem” UF 22: 433–58. 1998 Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Xella, Paolo 1995 “Death and the Afterlife in Canaanite and Hebrew Thought.” Pp. 2059–70 in CANE. Yadin, Yigael 1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. New York: McGraw-Hill. Yamauchi, Edwin M. 2004 “Homer and Archaeology: Minimalist and Maximalists in Classical Context.” Pp. 69–90 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2007 “Historic Homer: Did It Happen?” BAR 33/2: 28–37, 76. Yaqoub, Fouad 1983 “Excavations at Tell Farasha.” Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 65: 175–76. Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. 1998 “The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading” JSS 43: 11–47. 2000 “Hyksos.” Pp. 620–21 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2002a The NIV Application Commentary: Judges and Ruth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2002b “The ‘Contextual Method’: Some West Semitic Reflections.” Pp. xxxv–xlii in The Context of Scripture, vol. 3: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, ed. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger Jr. Leiden: Brill. Younker, Randall W. 2000 “Animals.” Pp. 64–65 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed., D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Yuhong, Wu 1995 “Kill a Donkey or a Dog for Making an Alliance: An Explanation according to the Practices in Ancient China.” NABU 17: 14–16. Zarins, Juris 1978 “The Domesticated Equidae of Third Millennium b.c. Mesopotamia” JCS 30: 3–17. 1986 “Equids Associated with Human Burials in Third Millennium b.c. Mesopotamia: Two Complimentary Facets.” Pp. 164–93 in Equids in the Ancient World, ed. R. H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1992 “Camel.” Pp. 824–26 in vol. 1 of ABD. Zeder, Melinda A. 1991 Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Zemánek, Petr 1995 Ugaritischer Wortformenindex. Hamburg: Buske. Zertal, Adam 1992 “Shechem, Tower of.” Pp. 1186–87 in vol. 5 of ABD.

Bibliography

259

Zettler, Richard L., and Lee Horne, eds. 1998 Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University Museum. Zeuner, Frederick E. 1963 A History of Domesticated Animals. New York: Harper & Row. Zevit, Ziony 1976 “The ʿEglâ Ritual of Deuteronomy 21:1–9.” JBL 95: 377–90. 2001 The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. New York: Continuum. 2002 “Philology and Archaeology: Imagining New Questions, Begetting New Ideas.” Pp. 35–42 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed., B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Ziese, Mark 2000 “Mule.” P. 925 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ziffer, Irit 1990 At That Time the Canaanites Were in the Land: Daily Life in Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age 2, 2000–1550 b.c.e. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. Zimmerli, Walther 1979 Ezekiel 1 (Chapters 1–24), trans. R. E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress. Zipor, M. 2001 “‫ ע ֹרֶף‬ʿōrep.” Pp. 366–71 in vol. 11 of TDOT. Zobel, H.-J. 2003 “‫ ֶפּרֶא‬pereʾ.” Pp. 72–76 in vol. 12 of TDOT. Zuckerman, Bruce 1995 “On Being ‘Damned Certain’: The Story of a Curse in the Sefire Inscription and Its Interpretation.” Pp. 422–35 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. B. Beck, A. H. Bartelt, P. R. Raabe, and C. A. Frank. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Index of Authors Agha, A.  142 Aḥituv, S.  60 Albertz, R.  13 Albright, W. F.  3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 20, 30, 62, 64, 68, 75, 76, 125, 154, 174, 175, 176, 196 Allen, J. P.  30, 38 Allen, R. B.  62 Allen, T. G.  33, 34, 35 Alster, B.  65, 94 Alter, R.  25, 74, 176, 177, 178, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190 Amberger, G.  143 Anderson, B. W.  174 Angel, H.  190, 191, 192, 193 Anthony, D. W.  71 Archi, A.  152, 154 Ashley, T. R.  62, 64, 65, 184, 185, 186, 188, 190 Averbeck, R. E.  92, 93, 139 Azzaroli, A.  80, 122 Baker, D. W.  173 Baldwin, J. G.  81, 162, 163 Bardet, G.  76 Barguet, P.  33, 34, 35 Barré, M. L.  61, 62, 184, 185, 188 Bate, D. M. A.  18, 121 Bauer, W.  167 Beal, R. H.  66, 199 Beek, G. W. van  127, 128 Beem, B.  55, 74, 166, 167 Berge, D. R.  21, 22 Bergquist, B.  156 Bernhardt, K.-H.  41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 148 Berridge, J. M.  195 Bickermann, E.  40 Bienkowski, P.  17, 119 Bietak, M.  6, 9, 32, 39, 55, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 153, 154, 157, 179

Bird, H. E.  123 Birot, M.  75 Blenkinsopp, J.  182 Bloch-Smith, E.  152, 153 Block, D. I.  164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 174 Bodenheimer, F. S.  17, 18 Boessneck, J.  13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 71, 83, 87, 98, 106, 107, 108, 109, 114, 119, 136, 143 Boling, R G.  164, 165, 166, 167, 174 Bordreuil, P.  57, 58 Borghouts, J. F.  34, 35 Borowski, O.  17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 55, 68, 70, 71, 84, 87, 91, 164, 168, 169 Bourriau, J.  84, 106, 107, 108 Breniquet, C.  17 Brewer, D. J.  17, 18, 21, 22, 32, 68, 85, 87, 115 Bright, J.  4, 174, 194, 195 Bright, L.  148 Brin, G.  40, 176, 177, 178, 181 Brink, E. C. M. van den  5, 38, 48, 109, 110, 111, 112, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 153 Bron, F.  69, 164 Brown, M. L.  25, 55, 70, 78, 81, 85, 91, 162, 164, 166, 168, 184, 185, 186 Brown, S. G.  57 Brueggemann, W.  191, 192, 193 Brugsch, K. H.  30 Brunner, H.  33, 34 Brunner-Traut, E.  30, 38, 39 Budd, P. J.  24, 184, 188 Buren, E. D.  17, 18, 21, 22, 23 Burleigh, R.  107, 115, 119, 120, 123, 143, 145 Butler, S. A. L.  66 Caminos, R. A.  32, 33

260

Index of Authors Campbell, E. F., Jr.  117, 118, 155, 174 Cansdale, G.  17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 Cantrell, D.  23, 58, 62, 185 Caquot, A.  60, 62, 63 Carter, E.  136, 139 Cassuto, U.  49, 50, 51 Caubet, A.  17 Černý, J.  35 Charpin, D.  75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82 Chavalas, M. W.  62, 187, 188 Chavel, C. B.  182 Childs, B. S.  176, 177 Civil, M.  96 Clark, I.  184, 185, 186, 188 Clements, R. E.  174, 176, 177, 178 Clines, D. J. A.  166, 167 Clutton-Brock, J.  13, 18, 32, 50, 51, 55, 70, 71, 84, 85, 91, 92, 93, 107, 115, 119, 120, 122, 123, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 158, 168, 123 Cogan, M.  24, 173, 191, 192, 193, 195 Cole, R. A.  176, 177, 178, 179, 181 Cole, S. W.  84 Collins, B. J.  17, 18, 22, 72, 73, 77, 79, 84, 182, 199 Colson, F. H.  62 Conrad, D.  117 Coogan, M. D.  41, 42, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59 Cooney, D.  2 Cornelius, I.  56, 58 Cross, F. M.  4, 174 Crouwel, J. H.  50, 121, 122, 146, 147, 148 Crowell, F. T.  1 Daiches, S.  62 Dajani, A. K.  5, 71, 153 Dalley, S.  71, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 Davies, S.  139, 140, 141 Davis, J. J.  20, 33, 34, 178 Day, A. E.  20 DeMent, B. H.  174 Dent, A.  40, 84, 87, 169, 175 Dever, W. G.  13, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 122, 123, 125

261

Dietrich, M.  40, 50, 57, 58, 59 Dijk, J. van  39 Dijkstra, M.  60, 61, 63, 64 Dillard, R. B.  195 Domhardt, Y.  40 Donner, H.  61 Dossin, G.  3, 44, 75, 77, 78, 82, 83, 166 Dothan, M.  117, 118 Dothan, T.  118 Driesch, A. von den  13, 107, 108, 114, 140, 143, 146 Driver, G. R.  41, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59 Ducos, P.  17, 18, 107 Dumont, P. E.  5 Durand, J.-M.  75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 168 Durham, J. I.  176 Dyson, R. H., Jr.  147 Eissa, A.  114 Elgavish, J.  117 Ellermeier, F.  92, 138 Emberling, G.  138 Ephʿal, I.  20, 68, 87 Epstein, C.  71 Erman, A.  29, 31, 32, 33 Even-Shoshan, A.  162 Eyre, C. E.  35 Faulkner, R. O.  30, 33, 34, 35, 38 Feliks, Y.  17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 70, 85, 91, 164, 168 Finet, A.  75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 162, 163 Firmage, E.  17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 50, 68, 70, 71, 164, 166, 168, 180 Fishbane, M.  162, 163 Fleming, D. E.  75, 77, 83, 85 Flores, D. V.  114, 115, 116, 154, 179 Forstner-Müller, I.  109, 111, 113 Foster, B. R.  17 Fowler, D.  22, 84 Fox, N. S.  13, 62, 132, 158, 168, 181, 184, 188, 189, 195 Foxvog, D. A.  141 France, P.  17 Frankfurter, D.  57 Frayne, D. R.  87, 96, 97, 139

262

Index of Authors

Freedman, S. M.  66, 89, 90, 98, 193 Fritz, V.  195 Fuhr, I.  21, 22, 23, 24 Gafni, I.  40 Gamkrelidze, T. V.  25, 34, 35, 73 Gardiner, A. H.  32, 33, 35 Gaster, T. H.  62, 185 Gautier, A.  17, 32, 71 Germond, P.  17, 18, 21, 22, 32, 35, 39, 71, 84, 87, 88, 107, 108 Gibson, J. C. L.  41, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 59, 60 Gibson, M.  142, 143, 144, 145 Gilbert, A. S.  17 Ginsberg, H. L.  4, 42, 48, 50, 67, 174 Giorgini, M. S.  107 Goetze, A.  71 Gonen, R.  121, 124, 148 Goodman, A. E.  67, 68 Good, R. M.  50 Gordon, C. H.  42, 65, 71, 189 Gowlett, J.  115, 123 Gray, G. B.  62, 65, 177, 178, 184, 185, 186 Gray, J.  52 Grayson, D. K.  18 Greenberg, M.  170 Greenfield, J. C.  60, 62 Greengus, S.  44, 70, 75, 77, 78, 81, 88, 90, 95, 96, 138, 182 Groll, S. I.  35 Gross, W.  184 Grosvenor Ellis, A.  118, 119, 120 Gunkel, H.  25, 185, 186, 189, 192 Gunter, A. C.  17 Gurney, O. R.  22, 72, 73, 79, 81, 84, 169 Hackett, J.  60, 61, 62, 63 Hallote, R. S.  151, 152 Hallo, W. W.  13, 15, 16, 60, 76, 95 Halpern, B.  60 Hamilton, V. P.  80, 162, 163, 174 Handy, L. K.  23 Hansen, D. P.  146

Hansen, K. M.  85 Harrison, R. K.  20, 22, 84, 164, 168, 174, 177, 178, 179 Hartley, J. E.  72, 166, 167 Harvey, S.  84 Hawkins, J. D.  75, 81 Heimpel, W.  17, 18, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 96, 138 Helck, W.  29 Held, M.  22, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 166, 179 Henten, J. W. van  40 Hertz, J. H.  176, 181 Hesse, B.  13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 71, 120, 128, 151 Hess, R. S.  79 Hildenbrand, M. D.  177 Hillers, D. R.  77, 174 Hoch, J. E.  164 Hodder, I.  15 Hoffmeier, J. K.  13, 56, 58, 77, 84, 87, 107, 112, 121 Hoffner, H. A., Jr.  70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 84, 169 Hoftijzer, J.  60, 61, 62, 63, 64 Holladay, J. S., Jr.  7, 107, 112, 113, 154, 179 Holland, T. A.  71, 83, 118 Holloway, S. W.  40 Horne, L.  147 Horwitz, L. K.  117, 153 Hostetter, E. C.  175 Houlihan, P. F.  17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 35, 36, 71, 72, 83, 84, 85, 87, 98, 107, 114, 152 Houston, W. J.  180, 183 Houtman, C.  176, 177, 182, 183 Hyatt, J. P.  176, 177, 178, 183 Ibrahim, M. M.  60 Ilan, D.  117, 152, 154 Iversen, E.  33 Jacobsen, T.  92, 93, 94, 139 Janssen, J. J.  30, 32, 33, 164 Jean, C.-F.  76, 79, 81, 82

Index of Authors Joannès, F.  75, 78, 82 Joines, K. R.  23, 24 Jong, A. de  34 Kaiser, W. C., Jr.  62, 188 Kamesar, A.  40 Karageorghis, V.  114, 148, 149, 183 Katz, J. C.  7, 21, 79, 121, 130, 132, 152, 153, 154, 158, 130 Kaufman, S. A.  60, 61, 63, 64 Keel, O.  5, 14, 17, 18, 21, 25, 32, 39, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 71, 98, 150, 185 Keil, C. F.  62, 184, 185, 186 Kempinski, A.  121, 125 Kenyon, K. M.  118, 119, 120 Keswani, P.  148, 149, 152 Kidner, D.  175 Killick, R.  142, 143 King, P. J.  19, 20, 21, 22, 68, 71, 177 Kitchen, K. A.  29, 56, 58, 85, 106, 107, 114, 150, 168 Klenck, J. D.  7, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 71, 79, 109, 121, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 148, 158 Klingbeil, G. A.  13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 55, 71, 84, 85, 87, 164, 166, 168, 169 Kogan, L.  18, 162, 164, 166, 167, 168 Kohlmeyer, K.  137 Kokabi, M.  22, 119, 136 Kooij, G. van der  60, 61, 62, 63, 64 Kosmetatou, E.  148, 149, 152, 153 Kramer, S. N.  65, 66, 94, 95, 96 Kraus, F. R.  75 Kupper, J.-R.  82, 83, 85 Labrique, F.  39 Lafont, B.  48, 79, 81, 82, 132, 157 Lambert, W. G.  65, 91, 139 Landsberger, B.  17, 18, 91, 162, 164 Largement, R.  62, 66, 67, 89, 186 Lattimore, R.  65, 149, 189 Lawrence, P. J. N.  17 Leclant, J.  56 Leibowitch, J.  38, 40 Leichty, E.  66, 89 Lemaire, A.  60, 61, 62, 63, 69, 164

263

Levine, B. A.  24, 43, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 164, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 63 Lev-Tov, J.  13, 120, 155 Lewis, T. J.  118, 53, 117, 174, 175, 177, 178, 54 Lexa, F.  37 L’Heureux, C. E.  53 Lichtheim, M.  29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 65, 87, 88 Lindenberger, J. M.  67, 68, 69, 70, 164 Lipiński, E.  69, 164 Littauer, M. A.  50, 87, 107, 121, 122, 146, 147, 148 Livet, J.  17, 18, 22, 32, 35, 39, 71, 84, 87, 88, 107, 108 Livingstone, A.  21, 22, 26, 97 Long, J. C., Jr.  15, 24, 191, 192, 193 Loretz, O.  40, 50, 57, 58, 59 Lundbom, J. R.  195 Macdonald, M. C. A.  20 Mackay, E. J. H.  4, 124, 125, 126, 127, 150, 153, 155, 156 Macqueen, J. G.  148, 149, 152 Maeir, A. M.  5, 6, 10, 38, 39, 111, 150 Mailberger, P.  168 Maillot, A.  17 Malamat, A.  4, 75, 76, 79, 81, 174, 179 Mallory-Greenough, L.  107, 114, 152 Manor, D.  120, 121, 155 Margalit, B.  41, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61 Masson, O.  22 Matthews, V. H.  187 McCarter, P. K., Jr.  25, 60, 61, 63, 188 McCarthy, D. J.  76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 174 McClellan, T.  137 McCullough, W. S.  55, 85, 168 McDonald, H.  137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 158 McKay, H. A.  62, 184, 185 Mead, J.  191, 192, 193 Mendenhall, G. E.  3, 75, 76, 79, 174 Meyers, C. L.  81, 84, 162, 163 Meyers, E. M.  81, 84, 162, 163 Michel, C.  13, 55, 71, 83, 84, 168, 169

264

Index of Authors

Milgrom, J.  24, 61, 62, 64, 66, 72, 73, 172, 177, 178, 181, 184, 185, 186, 188, 190 Militarev, A.  18 Miller, P. D.  46, 47, 175, 176 Millet Albà, A.  175 Moon, J. A.  146 Moore, M. S.  25, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 66, 70, 78, 81, 85, 90, 91, 162, 164, 166, 168, 184, 185, 186, 188 Moorey, P. R. S.  68, 71, 144, 145 Moor, J. C. de  41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59 Moran, W. L.  163 Moren, S. M.  66, 89, 92 Morgan, D. F.  84 Mottahedeh, P. E.  17, 20, 21, 71 Moyer, J. C.  21, 22, 70, 71, 72, 79, 80, 182 Müller, V.  109, 110, 111, 135, 156 Munn-Rankin, J. M.  44, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82 Murray, A. T.  65, 149 Murray, M. A.  4, 124, 125, 126, 127, 150, 151, 155, 156, 189 Naville, E.  33, 34, 35 Nibbi, A.  32, 68, 84, 85, 87, 107, 148, 164, 168, 190 Nichols, J. J.  136, 157 Niehr, H.  177, 178 Nielsen, E.  38, 55, 75, 76, 154, 176, 179, 194 Nissinen, M.  61, 75, 86, 87 Noblecourt, C. D.  55 Noble, D.  148 Nordh, K.  35 Noth, M.  4, 20, 21, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 162, 163, 166, 167, 172, 176, 179, 180, 181, 184, 188 Oates, D.  137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 158 Oates, J.  137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 158 Olmo Lete, G. del  40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 57, 59 Olyan, S. M.  194, 196 Oppenheim, A. L.  29, 30, 88, 92, 93

Oren, E. D.  6, 7, 8, 21, 48, 50, 79, 84, 107, 110, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 150, 151, 153, 154, 158, 175, 179, 180, 182 Orthmann, W.  136 Osborn, D. J.  17, 18, 32, 36, 50, 71, 83, 87, 107, 108 Osbornová, J.  17, 18, 32, 36, 50, 71, 83, 87, 107, 108 Oswalt, J. N.  182 Owen, D. I.  87, 139 Paice, P.  112 Parayre, D.  18 Pardee, D.  19, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 164, 166, 167 Parker, A.  136, 139 Parker, S. B.  51, 52, 53, 57, 58 Parrot, A.  3 Payne, S.  105, 148 Petrie, W. M. F.  4, 5, 11, 50, 115, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 150, 153, 155, 157 Philip, G.  136, 143, 150, 152, 154 Pickeral, T.  62, 71, 185 Pitard, W. T.  53, 54 Polak, F. H.  75, 78, 80 Pope, M. H.  53, 59, 81, 166, 167, 171 Porter, A.  136, 137, 152, 157 Postgate, J. N.  17, 18, 70, 71, 92, 94, 95, 133, 138, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 152 Potratz, J. A. H.  50, 71, 122 Powell, M. A.  17, 18 Propp, W. H. C.  176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183 Protonotariou-Deilaki, E.  113, 148, 149, 152, 153 Puech, É.  60, 63 Raepsaet, G.  35, 71, 204 Rashi 182 Raulwing, P.  107, 123 Redford, D. B.  17, 18, 21, 22, 30, 31, 38, 39, 71

Index of Authors Redford, S.  17, 18, 21, 22, 32, 84 Reese, D. S.  148 Riede, P.  18 Ringgren, H.  164, 165 Ritner, R. K.  29, 30, 34, 36, 65, 66 Roaf, M. D.  142, 143 Röllig, W.  61 Rossel, S.  116 Ross, J. F.  174 Rouillard, H.  63, 65, 184, 189 Ryckmans, J.  20 Saad, Z. Y.  114, 115 Sadek, A. I.  35 Saggs, H. W. F.  61, 66, 89, 92 Sakellarakis, J. A.  148 Sanders, P.  43, 44, 45 Sanmartín, J.  40 Sarna, N. M.  174, 176, 182, 183 Sass, B.  14 Sasson, J. M.  4, 21, 22, 55, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 175, 176, 177, 179, 182 Sasson, V.  60, 61, 63 Sauer, J. A.  20, 71 Savran, G.  23, 24, 62, 65, 67, 184, 185, 186, 188 Schaeffer, C. F.-A.  50, 121 Schart, A.  75 Schiestl, R.  108, 109, 110, 111, 135, 156 Schmitt, J. J.  26 Schulman, A. R.  84, 107, 152 Schultz, S. J.  195 Schwartz, G. M.  134, 135, 136, 152, 153, 157 Scurlock, J.  17 Seow, C. L.  60, 61, 63 Shanks, H.  23, 24 Simon, U.  191, 193 Simpson, W. K.  15, 95 Sivan, D.  50 Smelik, K. A. D.  60, 61, 63 Smith, H. S.  17, 20, 115 Smith, M. S.  41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 51, 59, 71 Smitten, W. T. in der  25, 40, 55, 81, 91, 94, 163, 164, 166, 178, 194

265

Soden, W. von  76, 79 Soysal, O.  74 Speiser, E. A.  24, 77, 80, 81, 162, 163, 166, 167 Stadelmann, R.  25, 32, 188 Stager, L. E.  8, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 68, 71, 79, 112, 132, 157, 158, 174, 175, 177 Staubli, T.  17, 18, 21, 25, 32, 55, 62, 71, 72, 98, 185 Stepień, M.  92 Stern, E.  40, 175 Stewart, J. R.  121, 122 Stiebing, W. H.  5, 118, 119, 121, 124, 153, 175 Strawn, B. A.  18, 22, 23, 171, 191, 192, 193, 204 Strommenger, E.  137 Suter, C. E.  92, 93, 94 Suys, É.  31 Tadmor, H.  24, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 173, 195 Tarragon, J.-M. de  43, 44, 45, 47, 48 Taylor, M. E.  21 Teeter, E.  17 Thissen, H. J.  36, 37 Thomson, J. A.  195 Tigay, J. H.  177, 178, 182, 183 Toombs, L. E.  117, 118 Toorn, K. van der  30, 39, 40 Trenkwalder, H.  143 Tristram, H. B.  17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 70, 91, 168 Tsevat, M.  73, 74, 88, 92, 93, 166, 167, 178 Tufnell, O.  121, 122, 123, 124, 125 Uehlinger, C.  14, 56, 57, 60, 61 Uerpmann, H.-P.  18, 145 Van Seters, J.  5, 39 Vaux, R. de  20, 177 Velde, H. te  5, 30, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 Vila, E.  13, 134, 152 Villard, P.  76, 78 Walcot, P.  139

266

Index of Authors

Walker, C. B. F.  75, 81 Walker, N.  40 Walton, J. H.  13, 23, 24, 51, 65, 187 Wapnish, P.  7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, 71, 81, 84, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 136, 142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 Ward, W. A.  5, 23, 34, 35, 37, 38 Watanabe, C. E.  17, 18, 21, 22 Watelin, M. L. C.  144 Watson, P. J.  142, 143 Watson, W. G. E.  41, 48, 50, 91, 92, 175, 176 Way, K. C.  20, 24, 53, 60, 162, 184, 185, 54 Weber, J.  13, 134, 135, 136, 152, 157 Weinfeld, M.  43, 44, 45 Weinstein, J. M.  107 Weippert, M.  60, 61, 62, 63 Weisberg, D. B.  66, 77, 79, 80 Wenham, G. J.  24, 66, 80, 81, 162, 163, 184, 185, 186, 188 Wente, E. F.  85 Westermann, C.  175 Westley, B.  118, 119, 120 Weszeli, M.  87 Whitley, D. S.  15 Wiggermann, F.  139 Willesen, F.  4, 174, 175 Williams, R. J.  65 Wilson, E. J.  92, 93, 94 Wiseman, D. J.  24, 76, 195

Wolfe, L. M.  55, 164 Wolff, R. J.  17 Wolters, A.  60 Wooley, L.  147, 148 Wortman, D. A.  50, 57, 166 Wright, D. P.  72, 73, 74 Wright, G. E.  4, 117, 174 Wyatt, N.  41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 82, 54 Wyatt, W. F.  65, 149, 189 Yamauchi, E. M.  148 Yaqoub, F.  112 Younger, K. L., Jr.  13, 15, 16, 17, 84, 107, 164, 165, 166, 168, 174 Younker, R. W.  17 Yuhong, W.  75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82 Zarins, J.  20, 71, 84, 91, 92, 94, 95, 104, 115, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 152, 167, 169, 175 Zeder, M. A.  18 Zettler, R. L.  147 Zeuner, F. E.  18, 20, 21, 32, 35, 40, 71, 80, 148 Zevit, Z.  13, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 183 Ziese, M.  85, 168 Ziffer, I.  5, 32, 50, 117, 121, 124, 153, 175, 179, 180 Zimmerli, W.  170 Zipor, M.  182 Zobel, H.-J.  91

Index of Scripture

Genesis 2–3 59 3  24, 65, 188, 199 8:6–12 25 12:6–7 174 12:16  87, 162, 164, 165, 170, 171, 181 15:9 79 15:9–10 79 16:12  70, 167 22:3  53, 165, 170, 172, 53 22:5  165, 172 22:12–13 177 22:19 172 24:10–63 181 24:35  87, 164, 171 30:43  87, 164, 171, 181 31–32 187 31:17 181 31:34 181 32 164 32:5  87, 164, 171 32:8 181 32:15  87, 161, 162, 164, 166, 171 32:16  167, 181 33:18–34:31  3, 12, 161, 173, 180, 196, 202 33:19 173 33:20 174 34 175 34:2 173 34:28  87, 164, 171, 175 36:24  25, 164 37:5–10 29 40:5–41:40 29 42:26–27 170

Genesis (cont.) 43:18  87, 171 44:3 170 44:13 170 45:23  87, 162, 165, 170, 171 46:29 53 47:17  87, 164, 171 49:8–12 163 49:10–11  162, 172 49:11  12, 50, 80, 161, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 53 49:14  69, 98, 171 49:14–15 170 49:17  24, 35, 58, 99, 199 49:22 70 Exodus 4 187 4:11 186 4:20  165, 170, 172 8:14 165 9:3 164 12:51–13:3 177 13  180, 183 13:1–16 179 13:2 47 13:5 180 13:8–9 177 13:12–13  47, 176 13:13  12, 19, 21, 47, 72, 118, 121, 155, 161, 165, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 189, 196, 202 13:14–16 177 13:15 177

267

Exodus (cont.) 14:6 53 14:9 84 14:17–18 84 14:23 84 14:26 84 14:28 84 15:1 84 15:4 84 15:19 84 15:21 84 20:17  87, 165, 171 21:33–34 173 22:19 70 22:29 177 22:29–30 177 22:30 182 23:5  69, 98, 170, 171 23:12 165 34 180 34:11 180 34:12 180 34:15 180 34:18 177 34:19–20  47, 176 34:20  12, 19, 21, 47, 72, 118, 121, 155, 161, 165, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 189, 196, 202 Leviticus 11:2–7  4, 12, 101, 173, 177, 202 11:4–7 181 16  43, 72, 182 18:23 70 19:19 169 20:15–16 70 27:26 47

268 Leviticus (cont.) 27:27 178 Numbers 3:11–13 178 3:39–51 178 12:3 163 16:15  87, 171 18:15–16 178 18:15–19 178 18:17 47 19 182 21:1 70 21:4–9 24 21:6 25 22  26, 62, 63, 65, 66, 186, 188, 189, 193, 194 22–24  60, 61, 62, 99, 188 22:2 64 22:2–6 62 22:4 64 22:7 62 22:10 64 22:16 64 22:18  187, 193 22:20  187, 193 22:21  53, 172 22:21–30  55, 64, 170, 172 22:21–33  162, 171, 192 22:21–34 194 22:21–35 59 22:22  172, 184, 187 22:22–27 185 22:22–30  74, 87, 190 22:22–35  10, 12, 24, 91, 161, 171, 184, 188, 190, 197 22:23  33, 69, 98, 162, 171 22:23–33  25, 162, 194 22:25  33, 69, 98, 162, 171 22:27  33, 69, 98, 162, 171, 185, 189

Index of Scripture Numbers (cont.) 22:28  162, 186, 189 22:28–30  34, 64, 66, 67, 193 22:29  173, 189 22:29–33 193 22:30  162, 185, 186, 190, 199 22:31 67 22:32–33 67 22:32–35 67 22:33  189, 190, 193, 194 22:34  67, 193 22:35 193 22:38  187, 193 22:40 64 23:1–2 64 23:1–24:11 185 23:4 64 23:12 187 23:14 64 23:18 64 23:22 64 23:23  62, 67 23:24  64, 171, 192 23:26 187 23:29–30 64 24:1 62 24:4  184, 185 24:8 64 24:9  64, 171, 192 24:10 185 24:13 187 24:16  67, 184, 185, 186 31:8 188 31:16 188 31:28  87, 164, 171 31:30  87, 164, 171 31:34  87, 164, 171 31:39  87, 164, 171 31:45  87, 164, 171 33:40 70 Deuteronomy 5:14 165 5:21  87, 165, 171

Deuteronomy (cont.) 11:4 84 12:6 178 12:17 178 14:4–8  4, 12, 101, 173, 177, 202 14:7–8 181 14:23 178 15:19 47 15:19–23 178 15:21 177 17:16 84 20:1 84 21:1–9  12, 21, 182 21:3–6 182 21:4 182 22:3  87, 171 22:4  69, 98, 171 23:3–5 188 23:19 22 27:21 70 28:31  87, 171 33:22 23 Joshua 7:24  87, 164, 171 8:29 196 8:30 174 8:30–35 174 9:4 170 9:15 81 10:26–27 196 11:4 84 11:6 84 11:9 84 12:14 70 13:22  62, 188 15:18  165, 170, 172 24:1–27 174 24:6 84 24:9–10 188 24:32  3, 12, 173, 196 Judges 1:14  165, 170, 172 1:16 70 4:17 81 5:10  55, 162, 170, 172

Index of Scripture Judges (cont.) 5:22 84 6:4  87, 164, 171, 173 6:36–38 52 7:13 56 8:26 20 8:33 174 8:33–9:57  3, 12, 173, 180, 196, 202 9 175 9:4 174 9:28 173 9:46 174 10:4  12, 55, 74, 161, 167, 170, 172 12:9 74 12:14  55, 74, 167, 170, 172 14 23 15:15  165, 195 15:15–16  12, 161, 165 15:16  59, 165 19:3 172 19:10  53, 170, 172 19:19 172 19:28  165, 170, 173 1 Samuel 6:7 53 6:7–12 25 6:10 53 7:14 81 8:11 84 9–10 172 9:1–10:16 25 9:3 162 9:5  172, 173 9:20 162 10:2  162, 173 10:14 162 10:16 162 12:3  87, 171 13:5 84 16:20 170 25:18 170 25:19 172 25:20  55, 74, 100, 165, 170, 172

1 Samuel (cont.) 25:23  55, 74, 100, 165, 170, 172 25:42  55, 74, 100, 165, 170, 172 27:9  87, 164, 171 2 Samuel 1:6 84 8:4 84 10:18 84 13:29  84, 169, 172 15:1 84 16:1  172, 53 16:1–2  55, 74, 100, 170, 172 17:23  25, 170, 172, 173, 53 18:9  12, 25, 84, 161, 169, 172, 173, 188, 189, 197 18:17 196 19:26  55, 74, 100, 161, 165, 171, 172, 53 19:27 53 23:1–7 61 1 Kings 1:5 84 1:33  84, 168, 169, 172, 189 1:38  84, 168, 169, 172, 189 1:44  84, 168, 169, 172, 189 2:40  170, 172, 53 3 168 4:26 84 4:28 84 5:12 81 10:25  87, 168, 169, 171 12:25 191 12:25–33 191 13  12, 31, 161, 171, 189, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197

269 1 Kings (cont.) 13:1–2  191, 193 13:1–18 191 13:5  191, 193 13:8 193 13:9  191, 193 13:11–13 172 13:11–32  55, 64, 87, 170, 172 13:13  165, 53, 54 13:13–29 194 13:17–18  191, 193 13:19 191 13:20  191, 193 13:20–32 191 13:22–31 193 13:23  53, 172 13:23–24 165 13:24  23, 25, 173, 189, 190, 193, 194, 199 13:24–25 195 13:24–26 193 13:24–28 25 13:26  191, 193 13:27  53, 54, 172 13:27–29 165 13:28  23, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 199 13:28–29 173 13:29  170, 173 13:30 195 13:32  191, 193 13:33–34 191 13:34 191 17:2–6 25 18:5  84, 168, 169, 172 18:44  53, 54 20 192 20:1 84 20:20–21 84 20:25 84 20:35 192 20:35–36 25 20:36  192, 193 22:4 84 22:34 84

270 2 Kings 2:23–24 25 3:7 84 3:27  177, 180 4:22  162, 170, 172 4:24  170, 171, 172, 53 5:17 169 6:14–15 84 6:17 84 6:25  12, 31, 162, 173 7:3–16  87, 171 7:6–7 84 7:7 164 7:10  84, 164, 170, 53 7:13–14 84 9:21  53, 54 10:2 84 13:7 84 17:25–26  25, 193 18:4 24 18:23–24 84 23:11  57, 59, 93 24:6 195 1 Chronicles 5:21  87, 164, 171 8:15 70 12:40  164, 168, 169, 170 18:4 84 19:6 84 27:30  87, 162, 171 2 Chronicles 1:14 84 9:24  87, 168, 169, 171 9:25 84 12:3 84 16:8 84 28:15  170, 172 36:6 195 36:8 195 Ezra 2:66 168 2:66–67  87, 168, 171 2:67 164 8:22 84

Index of Scripture Nehemiah 7:68  88, 162, 164, 168, 171 13:1–2 188 13:15 170 Esther 6:6–11 84 8:10 92 8:14 92 Job 1:3  88, 162, 171 1:14–15  87, 162, 171 6:5  68, 98 11:12  12, 70, 162, 167 24:3  88, 171 24:5 70 39:5 70 39:5–8 70 39:19–25 84 39:21 92 39:24 92 42:12  88, 162, 171 Psalms 20:7 84 22:26 163 32:9  33, 98, 168, 169 33:16–19 84 50:2 45 76:6 84 147:10–11 84 Proverbs 8–9 189 21:31 84 26:3  69, 98, 171 30–31 61 30:17 25 Song of Songs 1:9  69, 171 Isaiah 1:3  190, 199 5:28  84, 92 11:6–9  61, 171

Isaiah (cont.) 14 61 15:9  25, 193 21:7 84 21:9 84 21:11–14 61 22:7 84 22:18 152 27:5 81 30:6  167, 170, 171 30:16 92 30:24 167 31:1 84 32:14 70 32:20 164 33:17 44 36:8–9 84 43:17 84 65:25  61, 171 66 183 66:3  12, 21, 79, 162, 177, 181, 182 66:17 181 66:20  168, 169 Jeremiah 2:24  69, 70, 171 4:13  84, 92 5:6  25, 193 5:8  69, 171 6:23 84 8:6 84 8:16 84 12:5 92 13:27  69, 171 17:25 84 22:4 84 22:13–19 194 22:18–19 195 22:19  12, 161, 165, 194, 195, 196, 197, 203 26:23 196 34:5 194 34:18  77, 79 36:30  194, 195 41:9 196 46:4  53, 84

271

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 46:9 84 47:3 84 48:6 70 50:11  69, 171 50:37 84 50:42 84 51:21 84 51:27 84 Lamentations 2:15 45 Ezekiel 3:27 186 14:12–20 52 17:15 84 20:26 177 23:20  12, 69, 98, 162, 165, 170 23:23 84 26:7 84 26:10–11 84 27:3 44 27:4 44 27:11 44 27:14  168, 169 28:3 52 28:7 44 28:12 44 28:17 44 31:8 45 32:3–8 61

Ezekiel (cont.) 33:22 186 34:25 81 37:26 81 38:4 84 38:15 84 39:20 173 Daniel 5:21 70 6 25 Hosea 1:7 84 5:14  25, 193 8:9 70 10:2 182 13:7–8  25, 193 13:8 25 14:3 84 Joel 2:4–5 84 Amos 2:15 84 Jonah 1:17 26 2:10 26 3:4 56 4:7 26

Micah 1:13 84 5:10 84 6:5 188 6:7 177 Nahum 3:2–3 84 Habakkuk 1:8  84, 92 3:8 84 Zephaniah 1:14–17 61 2:3 163 Haggai 2:22 84 Zechariah 9:9  12, 50, 55, 74, 80, 81, 86, 100, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 172, 196 9:9–10  55, 86, 172 9:10  84, 86 9:11 164 9:17 45 10:5 84 14:15  84, 164, 168 14:20 84

New Testament Matthew 17:27 25 21:1–11 55 21:2  163, 167 21:5  55, 81, 167 21:7 167 Mark 11:1–10 55 11:2 167 11:4–5 167 11:7 167

Luke 19:29–40 55 19:30 167 19:33 167 19:35 167

2 Timothy 3:8 188

John 12:12–16 55 12:14–15 167 12:15  55, 81

Jude 11 188

2 Peter 2:15–16 188

Revelation 2:14 188

272

Index of Scripture

Deuterocanonical Literature Tobit 1:22 68 2:10 68

Tobit (cont.) 10:10  88, 171 11:18 68

Tobit (cont.) 14:10 68