Dating the Iron Age Iib Archaeological Horizon in Israel and Judah: A Reinvestigation of 'Neo-Assyrian (Period)' Sigillographic and Ceramic ... Centuries B.C. (Agypten Und Altes Testament) 3963270861, 9783963270864

Citation preview

Ägypten und altes TestamenT 98 ÄAT 98 van der Veen • Dating the Iron Age IIB Archaeological Horizon in Israel and Judah

www.zaphon.de

Dating the Iron Age IIB Archaeological Horizon in Israel and Judah A Reinvestigation of ‘Neo-Assyrian (Period)’ Sigillographic and Ceramic Chronological Markers from the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C. Pieter Gert van der Veen Zaphon

ÄAT-98-van-der-Veen-Cover.indd 1

18.10.2019 11:11:15

Dating the Iron Age IIB Archaeological Horizon in Israel and Judah A Reinvestigation of ‘Neo-Assyrian (Period)’ Sigillographic and Ceramic Chronological Markers from the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.

Pieter Gert van der Veen

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

ÄGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments

Band 98

Gegründet von Manfred Görg Herausgegeben von Stefan Jakob Wimmer und Wolfgang Zwickel

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Dating the Iron Age IIB Archaeological Horizon in Israel and Judah A Reinvestigation of ‘Neo-Assyrian (Period)’ Sigillographic and Ceramic Chronological Markers from the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.

Pieter Gert van der Veen

Zaphon Münster 2020 © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Cover illustration: Shema seal, line-drawing by the author.

Ägypten und Altes Testament, Band 98 Dating the Iron Age IIB Archaeological Horizon in Israel and Judah. A Reinvestigation of ‘Neo-Assyrian (Period)’ Sigillographic and Ceramic Chronological Markers from the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C. Pieter Gert van der Veen

© 2020 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 ISSN 0720-9061 Printed on acid-free paper

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

This volume is dedicated to my dear wife Friedrun and my sons Stefan and Manuel

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Foreword The present volume (submitted to the Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz as Habilitation treatise [‘Habilitationsschrift’] during the winter semester of 2016/2017) deals with a number of chronological markers which contribute to the fine-tuning of Iron Age IIA–B chronology of both ancient Israel and Judah. The selected markers derive primarily from a corpus of late ‘Neo-Assyrian-style’ objects indicative of the cultural impact of the Neo-Assyrian Empire on the Southern Levant during the late 8th and 7th centuries B.C. The author is most grateful to Prof. Dr Wolfgang Zwickel of the Faculty of Protestant Theology of the University of Mainz (holding the chair of Old Testament and Biblical Archaeology) for having gladly accepted the current subject as the theme of this postdoctoral treatise. Professor Zwickel’s ongoing interest in the subject matter has been a welcome source of inspiration over all these years. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr Alexander Fantalkin (Tel Aviv University), Prof. Dr Alexander Pruß (University of Mainz) and Prof. Dr Wolfgang Zwickel (University of Mainz) for acting as academic referees for this postdoctoral treatise. A great thank you is also due to Friedrun van der Veen (SG Wort und Wissen e.V.) und Dr Kai Metzler (Zaphon) for giving this book its final shape. Moreover, the present work would not have seen the light of day, if many other colleagues had not helped out with crucial references to written publications, their academic advice and by providing appropriate pictures of objects relevant to the subject of this postdoctoral treatise, as well as by helping with the English translation and with typesetting the final draft. A great thank you to all of you. Naturally none of you are to be held responsible for the views expressed within this volume, which truly remain the sole responsibility of this author. The following colleagues and friends are mentioned by name: Dr Stefano Anastasio, Henry Aubin, Prof. Dr Gabriel Barkay, Ja’el Barschak, Debbi Ben-Ami, Dr Doron Ben-Ami, Dr Piotr Bienkowski, Dr John Bimson, Prof. Dr Daniele Morandi Bonacossi, Dr Rupert Chapman, Felic Cobbing, Andrij Cholij, Dr Robert Deutsch, Dr Jacob Eisler, Dr David Ellis, Prof. Dr Alexander Fantalkin, Erica Gitt, PD Dr Arnulf Hausleiter, Peter James, Dr David Ilan, Prof. Dr Othmar Keel, Dr Reinhard Lehmann, Prof. Dr Zvi Lederman, Dr Daniel Master, Dr Eilat Mazar, Riccardo Menis, Prof. Alan Millard, Dr Robert Morkot, Prof. Dr Lawrence Mykytiuk, Prof. Dr Eliezer Oren, Prof. Dr Mirko Nowák, Prof. Dr Ellen Rehm, Prof. Dr Ronny Reich, Prof. Dr Benjamin Sass, Dr Juan M. Tebes, Lily Singer-Avitz, Prof. Dr David Ussishkin, Dr Yifat Thareani, Prof. Dr Craig Tyson, Friedrun van der Veen, Richard Wiskin, Prof. Dr Uwe Zerbst, Levana Zias, and Prof. Dr Wolfgang Zwickel. Pieter Gert van der Veen Schorndorf, Oktober 2019

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Contents Foreword Contents Introduction 1 The Ultimate Aim of this Study: Establishing Absolute Dates 1.1 Iron Age IIB Chronology in the Light of Selected Markers 1.2 Iron Age IIA–C: Tightening the Loose Ends 2 The Material Studied in this Volume 3 Methodological Considerations 3.1 The Scope of the Present Study 3.2 Some More Practical Considerations 3.2.1 The Dates of the ‘Hebrew Kings’ 3.2.2 The Bible Translation Used 4 Consequences That are beyond the Scope of the Present Volume

7 9 13 13

1 Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence and the terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIA in Israel and Judah 1.1 Anepigraphic Bullae from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ Fill and the Iron Age IIA–B Transition in Jerusalem 1.1.1 Introduction 1.1.1.1 The Pottery and Its Context 1.1.1.2 The Glyptic Repertory: A General Overview 1.1.1.2.1 Neo-Assyrian Tendencies 1.1.1.2.2 Winged Sun Disks 1.1.1.2.3 Neo-Assyrian Tendencies and Chronological Repercussions 1.1.1.2.4 Yet Another ‘Assyrianising’ Bulla from the Gihon Pool ‘Area’ 1.1.2 Conclusions: Chronological Parameters 1.2 The Shema Seal and the End of Iron Age IIA Megiddo 1.2.1 The Shema Seal 1.2.1.1 Introduction: Why it Matters 1.2.1.2 The Seal in Particular 1.2.1.2.1 The Inscription 1.2.1.2.2 Iconographic Details 1.2.1.2.2.1 The Roaring Lion and Its Neo-Assyrian Connections 1.2.1.2.2.2 The Roaring Lion: Its Associated Motifs 1.2.1.2.2.3 The Roaring Lion: Provenanced Parallels 1.2.1.2.2.4 The Roaring Lion: Mainly Unprovenanced Parallels 1.2.2 The Stratigraphic Context 1.2.2.1 The Findspot: A General Introduction 1.2.2.2 The Findspot: Is It Really Ambiguous? 1.2.2.3 The Findspot: Stratum VA–IVB Pottery from the Gatehouse 1.2.2.4 Conclusions: A Later Date for the terminus ante quem of Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB? Excursus 1: Does Amos’ Earthquake Provide a Plausible Archaeological Context? Excursus 2: The Duration of Iron Age IIA and Its terminus post quem in Israel

19

2 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Judah during Iron Age IIB (early) 2.1 General Introduction 2.2 The Late ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery-Conundrum: General Considerations 2.2.1 Cis- and Transjordanian Imitations and Their Late Assyrian Prototypes 2.2.2 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Imitations: Predating Assyrian Prototypes? © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

13 13 14 15 15 16 16 16 16

19 19 19 21 21 21 25 26 27 28 28 28 30 33 37 37 41 42 45 51 51 52 56 59 61 65

69 69 70 70 71

10

Contents

2.2.3 Are Lower Dates Indeed Constrained by Historical Correlations? 2.2.4 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Impact on Chronology 2.2.5 Genuine ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery from Assyria 2.2.5.1 Essential Characteristics of Genuine Late ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery 2.2.5.1.1 Genuine APW 2.2.5.1.2 ‘APW-Style’ Pottery from Dur Katlimmu and Tell Guzana 2.2.5.1.3 Glazed Ware 2.2.5.1.4 Additional ‘Assyrian-Style’ Forms 2.2.6 A terminus post quem within Assyria Proper 2.2.7 Imitated ‘Assyrian-Style’ and Associated ‘Edomite-Style’ Pottery: Mainly from Cisjordan 2.2.7.1 Introduction: Chronology and Distribution 2.2.7.2 Imitated ‘APW-Style’ and Domestic ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery 2.2.8 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery from Iron Age IIB Strata in Israel and Judah 2.2.8.1 A Fragmentary Tall Dimpled Beaker from Megiddo Stratum IVA 2.2.8.2 Samaria Pottery Period 6 and ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery 2.2.8.3 ‘Assyrian-Style’ and ‘Edomite-Style’ Pottery at Arad and Beersheba (Y. Aharoni and Z. Herzog Excavations, Tel Aviv University) 2.2.8.3.1 Tel Arad Strata X–VIII 2.2.8.3.2 Tel Beersheba Strata III–II 2.2.8.4 Tel cAroer (A. Biran Excavations, Nelson Glueck Institute) 2.2.9 The Arad-Beersheba-Valley Sites: post 701 B.C. = post-Lachish III? 2.2.10 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery Even at Lachish Level III? 2.2.10.1 A Fragment of a Gadrooned Pottery Bowl 2.2.10.2 A Rim-Fragment of a Carinated Bowl 2.2.10.3 A Glazed Juglet 2.2.11 Anachronistic ‘Bathtub Coffins’ 2.2.12 Conclusions Excursus 1: The Earliest Late Iron Age II ‘Edomite Pottery’ and Its Assumed Judaean Chronological Linchpin: One Step out with Evidence? Addendum 1: Problems with 14C Dates from Edom Excursus 2: Some Enigmatic ‘Assyrian-Style’ Objects from Kfar Veradim and Tel Dan 1 A Gadrooned Bronze Bowl from Kfar Veradim 2 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Plaques and a Bronze Bowl from Tel Dan a) ‘Assyrian-style’ or ‘North-Syrian-style’ bronze plaques from Area A (of the so-called ḥussot area)? Plaque 1 (‘banquet scene’) Plaque 2 (adoration scene with female deity standing on a bull) b) Carinated ‘Assyrian-style’ bronze bowl with rosette motif and omphalos from Stratum II 3 Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions 3.1 General Introduction 3.2 The Chronology of the lmlk Storage Jars: An Overview 3.2.1 701 B.C. or Later? A Summary of Some Recent Discussions 3.2.1.1 Recent lmlk-Studies and the 701 B.C. terminus ante quem 3.2.1.2 Some Further Considerations 3.2.1.3 The lmlk Jars: Evidence of Continued Use and Production 3.2.1.4 The 701 B.C. Theory is ‘Not Set in Stone’ 3.2.1.4.1 The lmlk Jar Handle Chronology according to Grena (2004) 3.2.1.4.2 The lmlk Jar Handle Chronology according to Lipschits et al. (2010b) 3.2.1.4.3 The lmlk Jar Handle Chronology as Proposed in the Current Model

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

72 74 75 75 75 80 80 81 81 83 83 88 89 91 93 94 94 96 98 100 102 102 103 104 104 104 106 112 115 115 117 118 118 121 123 125 125 125 125 125 129 130 138 138 139 141

Contents

3.3 A Fresh Look at the Royal Stamp Imagery 3.3.1 The Use of Religious and Political Symbols during the Pax Assyriaca in the Southern Levant 3.3.2 The Stamped Jar Handle Emblems and Their Possible Connotations 3.3.2.1 The Four-Winged Scarab Beetle Emblem 3.3.2.1.1 Its Place in Levantine Art 3.3.2.1.2 Its Place in Kushite Art 3.3.2.1.3 Evidence of Hezekiah’s Political Sympathies with Kushite Egypt? 3.3.2.2 The Two-Winged Sun Disk Emblem 3.3.2.2.1 A Southern Connection? 3.3.2.2.2 A Northern Connection? 3.3.2.2.3 A Southern Levantine Adaptation Reflecting the Styles of the Pax Assyriaca Period? 3.3.2.2.4 The Connotation of the Assyrianising Two-Winged Sun Disk on Judahite Royal Jar Handles: A Suggestion 3.3.2.2.5 The Prancing Horse Seal Impressions: A Suggestion 3.4 Conclusions Excursus 1: The Use of the Royal Jars: A Tentative Proposal Excursus 2: Official Names-Seal Impressions on Type 484 Storage Jars: Lack of Positive Markers, Some Speculations

11

141 141 144 144 146 148 149 153 153 155 156 156 158 162 163 165

4 Conclusions and Prospects for Future Study 4.1 Conclusions: The termini post and ante quem of Iron Age IIB 4.2 Iron Age IIB and the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh: Prospects for Future Research 4.2.1 The Destruction of Lachish Level III: When did it Happen? 4.2.1.1 648 versus 701 B.C.? 4.2.1.2 Does the Earlier Date fit the Data better? a) Lachish Level III does not represent the end of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon b) ‘Winged scarab’ versus ‘winged sun disk impressions’ c) A narrow chronological margin 4.2.2 Manasseh’s Building Projects: The ‘Second Wall’ and the Siloam-Tunnel 4.2.3 The Topography and Prosperity of Manasseh’s Kingdom

169 169 171 171 171 172

Abbreviations Bibliography Tables and Figures

179 183 221

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

172 174 175 176 177

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Introduction 1 The Ultimate Aim of this Study: Establishing Absolute Dates 1.1 Iron Age IIB Chronology in the Light of Selected Markers The present treatise deals with a number of chronological markers which contribute to the fine-tuning of Iron Age IIB-chronology of ancient Israel and Judah. The selected markers derive primarily from a corpus of late ‘Assyrian-style’ and/or Assyrianising objects, indicative of the international impact of the Neo-Assyrian Empire on the Southern Levant during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. 1.2 Iron Age IIA–C: Tightening the Loose Ends At the beginning of this study the question may be asked why we need to (re)examine the ‘absolute’ dates of an archaeological period, whose chronology is generally considered to be more or less certain. Would it not be more indispensable to concentrate on lesser well-known periods, whose ‘floating’ chronologies are often solely based on radiocarbon dates (and/or astronomical dating), such as those of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages of the 3rd and early 2nd millennia B.C.? This question must be answered with a decisive ‘no’! Although some scholars uncritically presume that the last words on late Iron Age chronology of the Southern Levant have been spoken, other scholars are more cautious and emphasise that more fine-tuning work needs to be done (Forsberg 1995; esp. James 2006 and 2008; 2007; Kelle 2014: 364; Fantalkin and Tal 2015b: 194). The former view is well represented by the following quotation from Detlef Jericke’s book review of the present author’s recent publication on terminal Iron Age IIC chronology (van der Veen 2014a): ‘Während die übersichtlich strukturierte Präsentation der Funde vielfach überzeugt, wirkt die der Arbeit zu grunde gelegte Fragestellung aufgesetzt. ... Im Grunde gibt es zu der aufgeworfenen Frage auch keinen aktuellen Diskussionsbedarf, da in der einschlägigen Forschung weitgehender Konsens zum absoluten chronologischen Rahmen am Ende der Eisenzeit II herrscht.’ (Jericke 2016: 356) Although his statement appears reasonable at first glance, Jericke underplays some important conclusions reached by this author in his monograph. While on the one hand we were able to establish with relative certainty that Iron Age IIC did not begin as late as 597 B.C. (a view previously held by leading lights in the field such as William F. Albright and Kathleen M. Kenyon1) or even after the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. (as argued by Peter James et al. 1991: esp. 168–180) but rather during the 7th century (as is commonly held), a precise date for its terminus ante quem in the region once argued could not as yet be established. Contrary to the traditional assumption that the end of this archaeological period coincided with the Neo-Babylonian Conquest (recently Gitin 2015: 345), the actual situation is far more complex. While a late phase of Iron Age IIC has been detected at a number of Benjaminite and Judahite sites not destroyed by the Babylonians (where the Iron Age pottery tradition seems to have survived until c. 530 B.C.; Barkay 1993: 106–109; see also Lipschits 2005: 246, 251, 258, and van der Veen 2014b: 389–396), at Edomite Busayra (Area A) late Iron Age pottery (‘Busayra ware’) was found alongside 4th century Attic imports, so that it has been assumed that the Iron Age tradition there could have survived even into the 4th century B.C. Similar evidence was found at the late Iron Age Edomite site of Tawilan, where a cuneiform tablet from the reign of Darius I or II has been unearthed (Dalley 1995, 67–68). It must, however, be emphasised that the present author did not discuss the question when exactly Iron Age IIC began (which was not the focus of that monograph), for if he had done so, this would have undoubtedly opened ‘Pandora’s box’. It is this box that we wish to open in the current volume. For the question when Iron Age IIC began is insolubly linked to the question of when the preceding archaeological period, that of Iron Age IIB, ended, an issue which according to this author has not been satisfactorily solved. Many scholars believe that the end of Iron Age IIB cannot or at least should not be disconnected from Sennacherib’s Judaean invasion in 701 B.C., when one of the most representative Judaean sites—Lachish

1

On this older view, see esp. infra chapter 3, 3.2.1 and chapter 4, 4.2.1. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

14

Introduction

Level III—was destroyed by the Neo-Assyrians (for a full discussion, see esp. infra chapter 2, Excursus 1, chapter 3, 3.2.1., and chapter 4, 4.2.1.). Its siege was lavishly depicted by king Sennacherib on his palace reliefs from Nineveh, currently housed at the British Museum in London. Several scholars assume that the end of Lachish Level III also represents the end of a whole period in Judah, namely that of the so-called ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, i.e. the period of Iron Age IIB in Judah (see e.g. Finkelstein 1994: 170; Lehmann 2012: 2902; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2015: 214; Gitin 2015: 345). This means that 701 B.C. also implies a clear cultural break for those sites that were not destroyed by the Assyrians (including Judah’s capital Jerusalem) and where life continued undisrupted by the political turbulence of the time (see e.g. Shiloh 1989: 102–104 with fig. 5.5; Mazar 2015a: 173). We believe that this interpretation is untenable. For why should the population at these sites—including refugees from Iron Age IIB sites in the Shephelah and Northern Israel—have stopped producing their Iron Age IIB vessels, if there had been no practical reason to do so?4 Moreover, as we shall discuss in chapter 3, it is even possible that some of the sites that were destroyed, did not meet their demise in 701 B.C. but later, sometime during the first half of the 7th century (already Faust 2002: 191–192). Indeed, multiple representative ‘Neo-Assyrian (Period)’ sigillographic and ceramic chronological markers at these sites seem to imply this. The impact of this material would not only affect the terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIB (which in turn has important repercussions for Iron Age IIC) but equally as well its terminus post quem, both in Israel and Judah (see esp. chapters 1 and 2). While this author accepts that Lachish Level III is the city taken by the Assyrians in 701 B.C. (but see chapter 4 for an alternative candidate), it seems likely that its demise would have belonged to the early stages of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon rather than to its final phase as many scholars believe. If justified, this would also have implications for the terminal dates of the preceding period, that of Iron Age IIA. In the light of these considerations it is safe to suggest that late Iron Age chronology needs further fine-tuning and that its dates have not as yet been satisfactorily established beyond any reasonable doubt.

2 The Material Studied in this Volume While the manufacture of ‘Assyrian-style’ objects in the Southern Levant reached its cultural zenith during the heyday of the Assyrian empire (the so-called Pax Assyriaca), this volume lists several items which in the traditional framework largely predate the Assyrian hegemony over the region, sometimes by several decades. These include: seals and bullae, pottery imports and imitations, bronze vessels and Judaean storage jars partly stamped with Assyrian-period royal insignia. The evidence presented in this volume is only a selection of representative material. The list no doubt could be expanded to a much larger degree. As the nature of the chosen data and the reason why this evidence has been selected will be more fully explored in extended introductions to each individual chapter, it will suffice to briefly summarise the material here. In chapter 1 we shall discuss seals and bullae, whose iconographic details reveal strong Assyrianising elements. These items are especially relevant to our research as they belong to the earliest of their kind and some predate the period of the Neo-Assyrian hegemony over the Southern Levant by up to one century. These objects occur in levels that are generally assigned to the final phase of Iron Age IIA and to the transitional period between Iron Age IIA–IIB. Several scholars today date the end of Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel to c. 850–800 B.C. (esp. Finkelstein 2014: 144–147; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006: 163–195)5 while

2

While Lehmann accepts that Lachish Level III ‘provides today one of the most comprehensive and precisely dated ceramic assemblages for southern Israel in the late 8th century BCE’ he also admits that ‘Ceramics of the time of Hezekiah (e.g. Lachish stratum III) were most probably identical as well with the pottery styles in use during most of the time of Manasseh’ (2012: 290). 3 Both Yigal Shiloh and Eilat Mazar date the end of City of David Stratum 12 to c. 700 B.C., in spite of the fact that the city was spared from destruction. See also Tatum 2003: 298. 4 For similar considerations, see already Knauf (2002: 182–190). 5 As rightly stated by Amnon Ben-Tor and Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg, however, ‘No secure historical “anchors” that could provide absolute dates for Iron Age IIA archaeological contexts are available at present’ (2015: 135). While currently many scholars date the end of the period to c. 850–800 B.C. (by assigning several destruction layers of this period to the military campaigns conducted by Hazael of Damascus), the traditional ‘High’ chronology has dated it to c. 925 B.C. by assigning its destructions to Pharaoh Shoshenq I (c. 944–924 B.C., after Dodson 2012), whose Palestinian campaign is perpetuated on the walls of the king’s Bubastite Portal at Karnak. On this campaign, see e.g. Zwickel (2013: 144–145). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Introduction

15

in Judah this same period is believed to have ended some fifty years later (esp. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 209–244). Even so, the sigillographic material presented in chapter 1 suggests an even lower date for this period both in Israel and Judah. The first three items concern bullae found in the so-called ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ fill in Jerusalem (Silwan / City of David), whose latest contents are believed by the excavators to belong to the very final phase of Iron Age IIA. These seal impressions bear images of two-winged solar disks, whose features reflect clear Neo-Assyrian tendencies. While the excavators believe that the latest material in the fill dates to c. 800–780 B.C., the closest parallels in the Assyrian homeland date from the end of the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. Indeed, such items would be more at home in Jerusalem around 700 B.C., when Judah became a vassal-state of Assyria. In the second part of chapter 1 we deal with the famous Shema seal from Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB, which depicts an Assyrianising roaring lion in association with two additional symbols (an Egyptian cankh and what appears to be the ‘tree of life’), which have hitherto attracted little attention. Similar representations of lions with associated symbols can be found on multiple Assyrianising seals mostly from the second half of the 8th and from the 7th centuries B.C. In chapter 2 we concentrate on Assyrian-type pottery, including genuinely imported Assyrian vessels and locally manufactured ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery, found both in Cis- and Transjordan. Strikingly, some of the types discussed here are generally believed to have been introduced in Assyria proper only from the late 8th century onwards. However, the earliest vessels of this kind are found in Levantine strata from Iron Age IIB, which at least in part predate the period of direct Neo-Assyrian control over the region by several decades. Additional vessels (including bronze bowls and so-called ‘bathtub coffins’), as well as further small pieces of glyptic art reflecting Neo-Assyrian tendencies, will be discussed in a separate excursus at the end of the chapter. In chapter 3 we deal with the famous lmlk storage jars by concentrating on their distribution in pre- and post-701 B.C. Judah and on the glyptic features found on the stamped handles themselves. Evidence will be presented which corroborates the idea that their imagery best fits the cultural influences of the Pax Assyriaca period. Especially the depiction of the two-winged sun disk seems to have been modelled after solar imagery created by Southeastern Anatolian and North-Syrian workshops, but which in turn was locally adapted by Southern Levantine artisans as can be clearly found on items dated to the 7th century B.C. Although this material may not be as meaningful as the data presented in chapters 1 and 2, it is generally supportive of the overall thesis presented in this study. Besides summing up the evidence presented in chapters 1–3, in chapter 4 we discuss the pros and cons of the traditional equation of Lachish Level III with the town conquered by king Sennacherib. A number of other points not discussed in chapters 1–3 are also briefly explored in this final chapter. They mainly concern prospects for future study in relation to Manasseh’s reign.

3 Methodological Considerations 3.1 The Scope of the Present Study Wherever possible only provenanced material has been selected from stratified archaeological contexts (or alternatively from semi-stratified fill-deposits).6 By synchronising this evidence with comparative material from other sites in the Southern Levant dating to the same archaeological horizons, as well as from areas further afield including the ‘Central Polity’7 of Assyria and its immediate environs, we were able to establish chronological parameters for when these items appeared to have been generally in use. Wherever possible we have sought to identify inscribed evidence from related contexts—especially at Assyrian sites—to refine these date-ranges, especially when precise dates (sometimes even tied to a specific regnal year) are available.8 For an alternative date of this campaign, see James and van der Veen (2015a: 127–136). For an overview of the different dates for Iron Age IIA, see also Zwickel (2013: 331). 6 The same approach was employed by the present author elsewhere in a number of publications dealing with chronologically significant questions. See e.g. van der Veen (2005: 49–51, 56; 2007: 3–11; 2014a: 28–29; 2015a: 190–198). 7 This term is widely employed by Alice Hunt in her recent monograph on ‘Assyrian Palace Ware’ (2015) for the central Assyrian homeland. 8 In specific instances we were able to locate bullae with virtually identical iconographic features, whose cuneiform inscriptions dated the object precisely to a specific year in Assyrian history based on the so-called limmu list (see infra chapter 1, 1.1.1.2.2). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

16

Introduction

When objects were found to be rare or even unique (lacking specific parallels) but still contained clear Assyrianising tendencies, these items too were incorporated into our study. Even so, their information must remain tentative until (better) parallels are found that shed further light on their relevancy to the current subject matter.9 Wherever necessary, the author has added separate excursi to expand on specific points only dealt with marginally in the relevant chapters. These discussions were not included in the chapters themselves in order not to interrupt the general flow of the argument. Although the present study has taken so long to complete due to various other academic obligations, this author feels confident that the time spent was necessary to grasp the full scope of the subject matter. Only in recent years have several more final excavation reports on relevant sites (including the City of David, Beth Shemesh, Tel Beersheba, Tel cAroer, Tel Jemmeh) appeared in print which have greatly enhanced the level of the material presented here. Likewise, several in-depth studies on Neo-Assyrian pottery have recently appeared in print without which it would have been impossible to complete this daunting task.

3.2 Some More Practical Considerations 3.2.1 The Dates of the ‘Hebrew Kings’ For the chronology of the Israelite and Judaean kings this author generally employs the dates worked out by Gershon Galil (1996), unless it is otherwise stated. This decision has mainly been made for practical reasons to avoid unnecessary complications. In reality the situation is often more complex, and it seems that additional work needs to be done to solve a number of issues within the internal chronology of the ‘Hebrew Kings’. This is especially the case with the dates for the reign of Hezekiah, on which apparently no consensus has been reached to date. While Gershon Galil dates Hezekiah to 726–696 B.C., Edwin Thiele prefers the dates 716/715–687/686 B.C. (1984: 217; Becking 2003: 52–53; see Na’aman 1994: 236–239). The main problem at stake concerns the conflicting data within the biblical text itself. While the first year of Hezekiah is dated (2 Kgs 18:1, 9–10) to the fourth year of king Hoshea of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (i.e. c. 727/726 B.C.), his 14th reign year is equated with the year when Sennacherib invaded Judah (2 Kgs 18:13), believed by most scholars to be 701 B.C. (Becking 2003: 29–30; Na’aman 2016: 118). No imminent solution seems to be at hand.10 Hence, in order not to be sidetracked by these nitty-gritty details of internal ‘Hebrew chronology’, the author has decided to consistently follow Galil without wishing to oversimplify the matter. In a similar vein the date 587 B.C. for the Fall of Jerusalem (a date more regularly found in the German literature) rather than 586 B.C. has been used throughout, again for practical reasons only. 3.2.2 The Bible Translation Used Once again for convenience, the author has used the New International Version of the Holy Bible (New York International Bible Society 1978) as the standard Bible translation throughout, whenever it proved necessary to quote specific Bible passages—unless stated otherwise.

4 Consequences That are beyond the Scope of the Present Volume Naturally if the assertions within this volume are to be accepted, a new ‘Sitz im Leben’, especially for the reign of king Manasseh, would present itself. This of course would be an intriguing by-product of our current study, noting that it places Manasseh’s reign during the latter half or rather the main part of the so-called ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, which would otherwise have ended in c. 701 B.C. Manasseh’s Judah is usually considered to have been something of a cultural backwater (so e.g. Finkelstein 1994: 181; Tatum 2003: 298– 299). Based mainly on the end of Lachish Level III at 701 B.C., it has been traditionally assumed that the See e.g. the third bulla from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ in chapter 1, whose iconography combines a number of foreign (Egyptianising and Aramaising) elements. The mix of such features is totally in keeping with the culture of the Pax Assyriaca period. A mirror-like bronze object excavated at the site of ancient Tel Dan is discussed in Excursus 2 of chapter 2. While no provenanced parallels could be found, its iconographic elements undoubtedly are well-represented in contemporary Neo-Assyrian glyptic art. 10 For a different approach, dating the invasion of year 14 to either 715 or 712 B.C., i.e. during the reign of Sargon II, see Becking (2003: esp. 59–60) and Greenberg (1999: esp. 369–372). For a similar view, see also the chronology of Gerard Gertoux on: https://www.academia.edu/2926387/Dating_the_Sennacheribs_Campaign_to_Judah. 9

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Introduction

17

kingdom of Judah experienced an economic recession during most of Manasseh’s reign (Kelle 2014: 365). However, such a decline does not generally fit in well with what is otherwise known from 7th century Cisand Transjordan (including sites within ‘Philistia’ [such as Tel Miqne / Ekron] and areas in Transjordan [such as Ammon and Edom] which appear to have benefitted from the economic networks that originated during the Pax Assyriaca period. Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 73, 75; Faust and Weiss 2011: 189–204; Knauf 2005: 164–188). Moreover, the consensus view seems to have been strongly influenced by the negative press Manasseh has received from the biblical redactors of Kings and Chronicles. Yet these biblical books almost exclusively focus on Manasseh’s ‘detestable practices of the nations’ but say little about the economic circumstances of his kingdom. This clearly contrasts with the detailed descriptions they give of the years when his devout predecessor (Josiah) was on the throne of Judah, whose reign apparently witnessed important building activities and military accomplishments (2 Kgs 18:5–8, 20:20–21; 2 Chr 32:27–30). Strikingly, the Chronicler does refer to some construction work under Manasseh, but only so after the latter had converted from his ‘wicked’ ways (2 Chr 33:14). As Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman (2004: 71) have rightly argued, it is difficult to accept why Judah should not also have experienced economic welfare during Manasseh’s reign, when the latter served as a vassal of Assyria and would have naturally benefitted from the reflating markets as did his neighbours. Surprisingly, Assyria is not mentioned at all in 2 Kgs 21:1–17, despite references to Manasseh as a vassal in the Assyrian sources (ANET 291 and 294). Assyria is however mentioned in 2 Chr 33:10, but only within the context of a military campaign conducted against Manasseh as Yahweh’s punishment for Judah’s disobedience (Schoors 1998: 16–17, 44). In the light of the lower archaeological dates suggested in this volume, Manasseh’s reign would now be placed squarely within the culturally advanced ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon and hence this new archaeological ‘Sitz im Leben’ would shed fresh light on the history of Judah of the time. In other words, Manasseh’s Judah would not have been a cultural backwater but an economically advanced state. Consequently, chronological fine-tuning allows us to better interpret ‘the history of the time’, which we otherwise would only know through biased contemporary and later written sources (similarly Schoors 1998: 32). As Bieke Mahieu has rightly argued, the ultimate aim of all chronological research should always be to arrive at a better grasp of the historical periods we seek to investigate: ‘Of course, chronology cannot be the goal per se, indispensable though it is for any historical research: its ultimate value consists in the fact that a changed time setting may situate an event in a new context and illuminate its cause, significance, and relation to other events and movements.’ (Mahieu 2012: 3) We could not agree more. Even so, this author has decided to restrict himself merely to a thorough discussion of the data themselves and their immediate consequences for Iron Age II chronology of the Southern Levant. Only sporadically has he also briefly dealt with other related issues pertaining to the history of ancient Israel and Judah, issues which are otherwise beyond the scope of the present volume. To this end, some prospects for future research in terms of the history of Manasseh’s reign are discussed in chapter 4. Additional consequences for the preceding period of Iron Age IIA are briefly discussed in Excursus 2 of chapter 1. The consequences for the preceding phases within Levantine archaeology cannot as yet be fully anticipated and its elaboration would likely have filled additional volumes. It is also difficult to say for certain how the results of this treatise will finally fit in with the rest of chronology. Will it be possible to accommodate these results with the overall network of the chronology of the Western Asiatic realm as a whole, or will they gouge holes in its overall meshwork that would finally prove to be impossible to repair?11 Related to the period under question Bärbel Morstadt skillfully summarises the complexity of this procedure: ‘Um Klarheiten über die absoluten Daten zu erhalten, wird dieses Netz mit Ankerpunkten versehen, wofür Schriftquellen herangezogen werden. Dabei kann es sich um assyrische Zerstörungen handeln wie durch die Kampagne Tiglat-Pilesers III. im Jahr 733/32 v. Chr. in Hazor (2 Kön 15,29: Hazor V) oder Gründungen von Städten wie etwa Samaria durch König Omri 870 v. Chr. (1 Kön 16,23–24), die in ihrer Gültigkeit jedoch ihrerseits hinterfragt werden müssen. Seit einigen Jahren treten außerdem 11

These and other related questions are being studied by the ‘Bronze to Iron Age Chronology of the Ancient Near East’ (BICANE) discussion forum, of which the present author is a founding member. For some recent work conducted by this informal group, see esp. James and van der Veen (2008; 2015). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

18

Introduction

Radiocarbon-Analysen (»C14-Method«) hinzu, die nun eine dritte Kategorie von Daten liefern, aber ebenfalls mit möglichen Fehlerquellen und Unsicherheiten behaftet sind (Núñez 2008). Und so mutet dies wie eine Decke an, die so regelmäßig und dicht gewebt ist, dass sie, je mehr sie an der einen Seite passend gemacht wird, an der anderen Seite eine umso größere Lücke aufreißt, da keine einzelnen größeren Maschen in ihrem Gewebe eine Dehnung ermöglichen.’ (Morstadt 2015: 51, emphasis added) Many scholars would therefore not even consider any revision of the approved models, if also only for the sake of practicality in order to avoid unnecessary chaos. This however cannot be our ultimate goal within objective chronological research. If new evidence forces us to rethink our existing models and do away with some of the ‘dustier’ anchor points, then we must be prepared for the task. If the present study serves to put a few more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle into place, I hope an important contribution will have been made.12

12

While 14C may yield helpful results, it is often assumed that for the relevant time period of Iron Age IIB–C the existing calibration curve is hampered by irregularities providing broader date ranges (e.g. Smith et al. 2014: 262; Porter 2015: 231). Whether or not this is the case will need to be further explored, while a fresh approach to solving these issues may prove necessary (Zerbst and van der Veen 2015: esp. 220). For an example of impossibly high dates arrived at through 14 C at Edomite sites, as well as broad date ranges, see infra chapter 2, Addendum 1. There can be little doubt, however, that we must examine all available data and study them independently to guarantee the best possible results. Hence, while 14C should receive its proper place within chronological studies, it should be tested by other independent tools, including the analysis of stratified inscribed material and other related datable finds. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

1 Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence and the terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIA in Israel and Judah In this chapter some five seals and bullae will be closely examined. All of these bear Neo-Assyrian and Assyrianising motifs. The appearance of these motifs should not come as a surprise, as the Southern Levant indeed came under the direct control of the Neo-Assyrian empire during the second half of the 8th century B.C. Yet the specimens discussed here stem from late Iron Age IIA–early IIB archaeological contexts whose terminus ante quem has been dated no later than c. 800 B.C. for the Kingdom of Israel and c. 750 B.C. for Judah. Close comparison between solar imagery depicted on four bullae from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ area in the City of David with Neo-Assyrian parallels from the Neo-Assyrian homeland seem to suggest dates no earlier than the late 8th–early 7th century B.C. for this material. In the second part of the chapter, we shall restudy the famous Shema seal from Megiddo. While its palaeographic traits and the depiction of the roaring lion have led most scholars to date the seal to the reign of Jeroboam II, its stratigraphical context has caused others to date it some 150–180 years earlier to the reign of Jeroboam I. While our current study seeks to establish clarity on the conflicting data, it will likewise reveal that the end of Iron Age IIA may need further lowering also in Northern Israel.

1.1 Anepigraphic Bullae from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ Fill and the Iron Age IIA–B Transition in Jerusalem 1.1.1 Introduction During the excavations conducted by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron in the so-called ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ of the City of David (Silwan Village), many small finds were uncovered, including seals and bullae, ivory items and fish-bones, let alone a hugh quantity of sherds, weighing some 6.5 tons (Reich 2011: 206–219; Reich et al. 2007: 153–169; de Groot and Fadida 2011: 159). Through the process of ‘wet-sifting’ some 180+ bullae and bullae fragments have come to light (Reich 2011: 214).13 The seals and bullae (some of which will be discussed infra in more detail) depict a variety of motifs. Outside the Pool (i.e. on its southern and eastern sides) more bullae and seals were uncovered (for a bulla found within this assemblage, see infra), this time in a mixed deposit containing ‘late eighth century BCE’ sherds, presumably securely dated to the Iron Age IIB period (Reich 2011: 219). Some also bear Palaeo-Hebrew writing.14 According to the excavators the Pool was blocked when a new tunneling system, the one including the famous Hezekiah-Tunnel (the entrance to Tunnel 4 is situated at the bottom of the Pool), was constructed (Reich and Shukron 2011: 147–157). 1.1.1.1 The Pottery and Its Context The latest pottery in the fill (covering the entrance to Tunnel 415) is believed by the excavators and their pottery experts to date to the final stages of Iron Age IIA (contemporary with Shiloh Stratum 13 [Area E116],

13

The material has been studied by O. Keel in preparation for his Volume 5 of the Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. This author wishes to thank Professor Othmar Keel for allowing him to study some of the bullae. 14 For a short discussion of these, see infra 1.1.1.2.4, n. 46. 15 At the bottom of the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ Reich and Shukron excavated what is described by them as the ‘Round Chamber’. It is here where they found the entrance of Tunnel 4 accompanied by a rock-cut niche which may have originally contained an inscription. 16 The question has been raised by Singer-Avitz if Stratum 13 is a veritable stratum in its own right (Singer-Avitz 2012: 11). Shiloh only refers to a single room and some sherds (Shiloh 1984: 12, 27). But De Groot and Fadida argue that the Stratum 13 assemblage was clearly related to a room ‘preserved under a retaining wall and pavements of the “Paved Floor Building”, which had been constructed in an early phase of Stratum 12, cutting into remains of Strata 15 and 14’ and that a detailed publication on this is in preparation. According to them therefore, the assemblage predates early Stratum 12 (Iron Age IIB), whose assemblage in turn is contemporary with Lachish Level III. Singer-Avitz’ query if Stratum 13 really existed, is therefore premature and must await the published results. The pottery from Shiloh Stratum 13 has been discussed more fully by De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg (2012: 199, 210–215, 244–247, Plates 5.21–22). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

20

Chapter 1

see De Groot and Fadida 2011: 165), whereas the pottery17 found in the newly constructed house above the fill dates squarely to Iron Age IIB (Reich 2011: 217).18 Several complete or nearly complete vessels could be restored (De Groot and Fadida 2011: 159). As the attribution of the house is securely dated to Iron Age IIB, the construction of the ‘Hezekiah-tunneling system’ (with Tunnel 4 at the bottom of the Pool) must predate it. Indeed, the excavators concluded that it too must have been built towards the end of Iron Age IIA, sometime during the second half of the 9th or at the beginning of the 8th century B.C., possibly by king Jehoash of Judah (841–c. 801 B.C. after Galil 1996: 71–74), approximately one century prior to Hezekiah’s reign. Their radical view has, however, been seriously questioned by Lily Singer-Avitz, who rightly criticises that: ‘a fill is not a stratigraphic context’ and ‘the debris for the fill ... was brought hither from the surrounding area of the City of David ... most probably from more than one stratum.’ (Singer-Avitz 2012: 12) Moreover, besides clear Iron Age IIA pottery specimens, also ‘flat open bowls, folded rim bowls and kraters, and wheel-burnished bowls.’ (Singer-Avitz 2012: 13) were discovered, which postdate Iron Age IIA. While according to De Groot and Fadida certain type fossils of the ‘Lachish Level IV and III’ horizons are missing in the fill material (such as closed Judahite cooking pots, molded rim cooking pots and for that matter also unstamped 484 store jars, see De Groot and Fadida 2011: 161), Singer-Avitz is undoubtedly right that the later pottery types she lists are also representative of Lachish Level III, City of David Stratum 12, Tel Beersheba Strata 3 and 2 etc. (Singer-Avitz 2012: 13; pers. comm., July 22, 2015). With due reservation, until the pottery has been more fully studied and published, it appears to this author that the latest repertory likely represents the traditional phase between Iron Age IIA and B and perhaps the earliest stage of Iron Age IIB, depending on how much true Iron Age IIB-material is contained within the fill.19 This has important repercussions, not only for the fill material, but especially so for dating the ‘Siloam tunneling system’. For the ‘stratigraphic’ position of the entrance to Tunnel 4 (located in the ‘Round Chamber’ area at the bottom of the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’) as part of the ‘Siloam tunneling system’, must now predate most of the Iron Age IIB horizon, which most scholars believe terminated during the late 8th or early 7th century B.C.20 Indeed the entrance must have been cut before the Pool was filled in and when its entry was

17

While typical Iron Age IIB closed and molded rim cooking pots (characteristic of Lachish Level IV) were lacking, e.g. open types with thick rims and hand-burnished bowls were found. According to De Groot and Fadida other types, such as thick bowls, resemble Lachish IV pottery, while folded-rim bowls and kraters are also represented (De Groot and Fadida 2011: 161–165 with fig. 3). 18 The pottery both in the quarter as well as in the house is described as contemporary with Lachish Level III (De Groot and Fadida 2011: 159–161 with fig. 2). The quarter was apparently abandoned before the onset of Iron Age IIC (De Groot and Fadida 2011: 159–160). De Groot and Fadida’s suggestion that the abandonment must be assigned to Sennacherib’s siege in 701 B.C. is groundless as no such evidence has ever been found. The simple deduction that Stratum 12, like Lachish Level III, must have ended during the siege, is not substantiated by hard evidence. Quite to the contrary, the city was not taken and continued to exist right down to its Fall in 587 B.C. Why the quarter was abandoned—before Iron Age IIC started—and when, can only be conjectured. As the larger quarter on the ‘Western Hill’ rapidly expanded during the 7th century and was also fortified, many people may have decided to seek shelter there. 19 This possibility has also been considered as a first option by Finkelstein (2013: 282). As a second option, Finkelstein— along with Singer-Avitz (2012)—suggests that the fill would have contained material ‘not simply shoveled into the pool from its immediate surroundings’ (as Reich and Shukron had suggested), but that it could have come from an older city dump or ‘the slope of the old mound of Jerusalem’. Be this as it may, the excavators’ opinion (and they claim to have excavated the fill very carefully) should not be so readily discarded. What is more, even if we were to opt for Finkelstein’s second suggestion, the seal material discussed below (especially that of the schematized winged sun disk bulla, i.e. type 2) could suggest a date even slightly lower than Finkelstein’s early 7th century B.C. for ‘the laying of the fill’ (Finkelstein 2013: 283). 20 This is namely in keeping with the pottery analysis. De Groot and Fadida argue that—even if it needs further examination—‘the lower part of the debris contained the earlier pottery’ (De Groot and Fadida 2011: 161, emphasis added). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

21

blocked (Reich and Shukron 2011: 154).21 It was apparently from the ‘Round Chamber’s’ entrance to Tunnel 4 that the stonecutters worked their way forward towards the actual ‘Siloam Tunnel’, whose construction Reich and Shukron date to about a century prior to Hezekiah’s reign. But can such an early date really be substantiated by archaeological and historical evidence? While in relative terms the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ was filled in no later than early Iron Age IIB (but possibly somewhat earlier, i.e. during the transitional phase between Iron Age IIA and B), in absolute terms this can hardly have been much before the onset of Hezekiah’s reign during the final decades of the 8th century B.C., as especially the following seal evidence seems to indicate.22

1.1.1.2 The Glyptic Repertory: A General Overview The corpus of seals and bullae found in the fill includes a wide array of glyptic elements. These had been in use for a long time.23 The oldest seal impressions (or the seals that originally impressed the bullae) date to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (including simple geometric design, typical Second Intermediate Period glyphics and common New Kingdom scarab impressions, some which contain cartouches of Menkheperre Thutmosis III). The younger Iron Age material also seems to suggest an extended use, the oldest material being from the early Iron Age IIA (some depicting variations of the ‘Master of Animals’ theme). Some seals and bullae bear Egyptianising symbols (such as worshippers in front of pseudo-cartouches, striding rams, uraei and vultures with outstretched wings) and Levantine symbols (including multiple dancers).24 Other seals and seal impressions depict boats, fish, proto-aeolic capitals, astral imagery (including winged sun disks) and geometric patterning. Many of these sealings find close parallels at other Iron Age II Judaean sites. 1.1.1.2.1 Neo-Assyrian Tendencies More relevant to the subject matter of this book is what we consider to be Neo-Assyrian or Assyrianising imagery, especially that of the two-winged sun disks. If this identification is correct, this would have important repercussions for the dating of the final deposition of the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ fill repository, which according to the excavators and their pottery experts contained no pottery later than Iron Age IIA (late). These bullae have been described by Othmar Keel (Keel 2012: 317–342; 2017: 406–407, nos. 283, 285– 286).25 1.1.1.2.2 Winged Sun Disks Winged sun disks are found on at least three specimens from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ hoard.26 21

Although the fill above the ‘Round Chamber’ was emptied by M. Parker, the adjacent area was carefully excavated by Reich and Shukron, who encountered ‘in six of these squares ... occupation layers and fills in their original, undisturbed form’ (Reich and Shukron 2011: 152). No evidence existed that the area of the ‘Round Chamber’ with the entrance to Tunnel 4 was still accessible when the house was constructed (Reich and Shukron 2011: 151–154). The pottery repertoire encountered here seemed likely to be contemporaneous with Shiloh’s Stratum 13 (late Iron Age IIA according to De Groot and Fadida 2011) as stated earlier. 22 Reich and Shukron’s new date for the Siloam-Tunnel (c. 800 B.C.) would also necessitate an earlier date for the socalled Siloam Tunnel inscription (Reich and Shukron 2011: 156; Reich 2011: esp. 193–225). This, however, is contradicted by palaeographic evidence, while a date c. 700 B.C. or later (possibly as late as the middle of the 7th century) is supported by diagnostic palaeographic traits found in the inscription (see also Vaughn 1999: 58–61). On the dating of the different tunnels, see also Grossberg (2014: 205–221). 23 Either these scarabs/scaraboids are heirlooms and became mixed with the rest of the deposit or they could have been re-used later by Iron Age officials. Either way appears to be possible. Naturally they could simply have derived from the old city dump, as was suggested by Finkelstein (2013). 24 However, the suggested time frame as implied by the seal repertory, may be contradicted by the preliminary analysis of the pottery. For the assemblage only contained ‘two types of open cooking-pots, probably because it represents a relatively short period of time’ (De Groot and Fadida 2011: 160, emphasis added). 25 See already Keel on some of the seals and seal impressions (2007: 302–305). 26 These are numbered No. 26 (Keel 2012: fig. 93*), No. 283 (Keel 2012: fig. 94*) and No. 285 (Keel 2012: fig. 95*), respectively. They contain the reg. nos. 16764, 20552 and 22047 according to the same sequence as above. See also Keel (2007: 304). A fourth bulla also depicting a two-winged sun disk was found in the soil on the edge of the ‘RockCut Pool’, containing material from the end of the Iron Age. It contains the reg. no. 31775 and is given the number 284 in Keel 2017. For this bulla see infra 1.1.1.2.4). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

22

Chapter 1

Othmar Keel argues that the motif of the winged sun disk as a sole emblem is rare on seals and bullae from ancient Israel, but that it is otherwise well attested on the royal two-winged lmlk stamps (Keel 2012: 330).27 Based on the 9th century date preferred by Reich and Shukron for the terminus ante quem of the deposit, Keel argues: ‘TALLAY ORNAN has convincingly demonstrated that during the first centuries of the first millennium the winged sun disc could, without losing its solar connotations, represent different deities, among others YHWH (ORNAN 2005, 207–235).’ Indeed, Keel has argued in favour of an early equation of Yahweh with a solar deity at Jerusalem on several occasions (Keel 1994: 86–88; 2007: 302; 2012: 333–334), and if the early date for these finds were to be maintained, this iconographic evidence would certainly yield further support for his view. But the most striking evidence of Yahweh as a solar deity is actually found during the late Iron Age. Biblical books relating to Judah’s history of the late 8th through 6th centuries B.C. appear to confirm this (e.g. 2 Kgs 23: 10–11; Ez 1:5–7; see also infra chapter 3). Moreover, close scrutiny of the depictions on the bullae reveals strong Assyrianising tendencies. Regardless of the fact if solar symbolism is found on Levantine seals and in Ancient Near Eastern glyptic art during the Bronze and early Iron Ages, the question as to how two-winged sun disks in particular are being represented at one given time, is the one at stake here. While, as Dominique Parayre has rightly stated, the Aramaising style of the two-winged lmlk jar handle emblems (with upper and lower rays) finds good parallels (among others and especially so) within ‘Aramaising’ glyptics (e.g. Parayre 1993: 27–528 and infra, chapter 3) and on a number of provenanced and unprovenanced Israelite and Judahite seals (Parayre 1993: Figs. 27?, 28; for further parallels see infra, chapter 3), the types found on the bullae from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ are firmly rooted within Neo-Assyrian art.

Figs. 1a–b. Left: photo of the Type 1 bulla with a rectangular sun disk with ‘barred’ wings and tail. Right: line-drawing of the same bulla (photo and line-drawing, courtesy of O. Keel).

Type 1 (Keel 2017: 406–407, no. 283; reg. no. 20552) This bulla (which measures 16.9 x 15.6 x 6.5 mm) depicts a sun disk (this is presumably the sole element depicted on the seal) with schematic rectangular wings divided by horizontal and vertical bars. A bulla with a sun disk containing slightly similar ‘barred’ (or ‘bundled’—Collon 2000: 81–82) wings was recently found in the City of David above Yigal Shiloh’s Area G in Stratum 10-2 of the late 7th–early 6th century B.C.

27

But see also the bulla of Hezekiah that was found during the Ophel excavations of Eilat Mazar in 2009 and was recently published (Mazar 2015b). Other bullae stamped by the same seal were previously known from the antiquities market and were published by Robert Deutsch (2002; 2003a–b; 2011). 28 See also infra chapter 3. Parayre argues that the two-winged sun disk type found on the lmlk jar handles found its origin in the Southeastern Anatolian realm during the Late Bronze Age. Whether or not this is the case, a direct link, closer in time, can be found in Syria and Palestine, see infra chapter 3. See also Parayre (1993: figs. 35) from Til Barsip / Tell Ahmar, 36? (Aramaean cylinder seal of PN srgd, BM 102966) and possibly also fig. d and more likely so (but in a more elaborated form) fig. 32 on a bulla from Zincirli (Sam’al) belonging to Barrakib. On an Ammonite seal, see likewise Parayre (1993: fig. 17). This type is also found on a cuneiform tablet from Gezer, dated to the year 651 B.C. (= ‘Gezer 1’). See Becking (1983: 80–86) and Herbordt (1992: Table 14:11). The same type can also be seen on a silver medallion from Ekron (Tel Miqne) from the 7th century B.C. See Ornan (2001: 238) and Gitin (1996: 102, fig. 21). The medallion was studied by the author in 2005 at the Albright Institute in Jerusalem. Moreover, see also the 7th–6th century B.C. sun disk from Til Barsip in Parayre (1993: 46, fig. 5). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

23

(Winderbaum 2015: 388, no. 9).29 Due to the fragmentary state of the bulla, the central disk cannot be made out, but it may have been depicted in the centre. The tail, which contains five vertical strokes, apparently ‘flares out’ (Collon 2000: 81). Moreover, close inspection of the tail end reveals that the lower outer ‘rays’ are bent upwards at the bottom, so as to probably represent ‘bird claws’ or streamers (Collon 2000: 82), a feature well attested with winged suns in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian glyptic.30 Indeed, this type of sun disk finds close parallels in Neo-Assyrian art. The top of the bulla is missing, so that it is impossible to tell if the sun-emblem originally also contained upper rays or an appendage terminating in loops. Datable parallels of similar suns with ‘barred’ wings clearly suggest a date no earlier than the 8th–7th century B.C.31

Figs. 2a–b: Photo (left) and line-drawing (right) of the Type 2 bulla (courtesy of O. Keel).

Type 2 (Keel 2017: 406–407, no. 285; reg. no. 22047) Although this bulla (which measures 21.8 x 15.3 x 6 mm) is only partly preserved, it appears to be rather clear that a very schematic winged sun disk is represented here, a type which also finds good parallels on late Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian seals. Both wings and tail are engraved as simple horizontal bars. A diagonal line starting in the centre of the emblem rises above the sun disk and may be identified as part of upper rays, a feature also seen on other seals.32 Indeed, this type is well attested in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian seal corpus.33 Datable parallels suggest a date squarely within the 7th century B.C.34 This 29

Winderbaum’s conclusion, that the winged sun disk is reminiscent of the lmlk sun’s wings and that therefore the bulla must have been sealed by a high Judahite official is not accurate. Even though the bulla may have been stamped by a Judahite official, the style of the sun disk has little in common with the lmlk emblems. The latter do not contain the barred wings nor do they lack the upper rays, as seems to be the case here. While the central disk apparently is free standing, the tail and wings are very wide. The style of the City of David bulla therefore also contains strong NeoAssyrian tendencies (cf. Collon 2000: 81–82, esp. 209 and 321). 30 For winged sun disks on these seals, see Delaporte (1923: 170, Plate 90, figs. 4 [A. 721] and 12 [A. 722]; Plate 91, fig. 10 [A. 638]); Ornan (1993: 66, fig. 53); Moortgat (1988: Table 88, fig. 750 [VA 618]). For a glazed orthostate from Assur, see Ornan (2005: 249, fig. 93). For an almost identical specimen from the Neo-Babylonian period (but without ‘claws’), see Ornan (2005: 218, fig. 13a). This feature can also be seen on a seal found at Tel Gezer (IAA J. 875): Ornan et al. (2013: 17, fig. 21). 31 For these emblems, see Collon (2000: 81–82) and Jakob-Rost (1997: 66–67, fig. 190 from Babylon, Merkes, VA 6949; 72–73, fig. 231, VA 2567). See also the sun disk on a seal from Gezer dated to the 8th–7th century in Ornan (2005: 281, fig. 211). On this same seal, see also Ornan (2013: 53–60) and Ornan et al. (2013: Fig. 26). For the sun disk’s wings, see Keel and Uehlinger (1996: 45, figs. 50–51 dated to c. 700 and 650 B.C.; 152, fig. 182). 32 For a very similar seal depiction, see Jakob-Rost (1997: 95, fig. 406) from Assur (cD9II) found in a tomb of a house. For a series of similar schematised seals, see also Jakob-Rost (1997: 401–402, 404–405, 407–408) with different astral elements placed above the wings. See also Collon (2000: 82, no. 135). 33 For a very stylistic Neo-Babylonian sun disk from Tel Goren, see Ornan (2005: 217, fig. 12). In the same article see also fig. 14a on p. 219. 34 For relevant seals, see Herbordt (1992: Table 4, fig. 13 from Nimrud, dated to 661 B.C.; 10, fig. 3 from Nineveh dated to 669 B.C.; 10, figs. 9 and 10 both from Nineveh, while fig. 9 is probably post-canonical from the late reign of Assurbanipal, fig. 10 is dated to 687 B.C.). Another very schematic and somewhat similar type is listed in Table 2, fig. 4 (from Nineveh, dated to 668 B.C.). See also Delaporte (1923: Table 91:10), and Jakob-Rost (1997: 94–95, fig. 406 from Assur). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

24

Chapter 1

bulla bears one Hebrew letter, which may be tentatively identified as a mem, as suggested by Keel, but its poor state of preservation does not exclude other possibilities as well (including ṣadeh or šin, depending on the stance of the letter). Consequently, the most likely timeframe for direct Neo-Assyrian influence on Judah as reflected by bullae Types 1 and 2 from the City of David would seem to be the Sargonid period, possibly not earlier than the reign of king Hezekiah (726–697 B.C.).

Figs. 3a–b: Photo (left) and line-drawing (right) of the Type 3 bulla (courtesy of O. Keel).

Type 3 (Keel 2017: 408–409, no. 286; reg. no. 16764) This bulla (which measures 14.6 x 13.4 x 6.6 mm) contains a rather complex constellation of details, which is not easy to interpret, mostly due to the damaged state of the impression. While some two-thirds of the bulla survive, its surface is rather worn. The following interpretation must therefore remain tentative. It is best to discuss the individual elements first and subsequently interpret the entire composition. i) The winged sun disk: In the centre of the composition a winged sun disk with three (?) ‘horizontal feathers’ (Collon 2000: 82) and a long tai, set on what appears to be a pole and a platform to which it is attached, can be figured out. As this element is preserved almost in its entirety (except for the right side of the wings and the platform), its interpretation is more or less straightforward. Its wings are straight, while its disk is indicated by a tiny dot (compare Collon 2000: 82, nos. 143, 271, 189). Although this type of sun disk is more frequently found with a broad tail, it finds close datable parallels from the late 8th–7th century B.C.35 ii) The ‘throne’: To the left of the sun disk a high element, which may be interpreted as a chair or throne, can be seen. Although its lower part shows multiple horizontal bars, which may be interpreted as part of the actual seat, this interpretation (as favoured by Keel) must remain tentative due to the fragmentary state of the bulla.36 In principal, it cannot be excluded, that these horizontal bars belong to the platform of the sun disk

An almost identical sun disk (albeit with a lunar crescent above its wings) is no. 407 in the same volume. It also depicts four horizontal strokes for the wings and horizontal bars for the ladder-like tail. A very similar sun disk can also be found on a seal in the Bibel+Orient collection, see Keel-Leu (1991: no. 161). See also Parayre (1993: 43, fig. 14, Moabite = WSS 1032; WSS 1046, Moabite). 35 Moortgat (1988: Table 72, figs. 602–603; 75, figs. 628 [?], 636; 87, fig. 748); Herbordt (1992: esp. Table 10, fig. 6 [with lunar crescent above], from Nineveh [of postcanonical date]; possibly also Table 4, fig. 1 from Nineveh [dated to 667 B.C.]). For a similarly designed sun disk on an inscribed seal from Moab (= WSS 1007), see Ornan (1993: 67, fig. 53). See also the sun disk (with longer wings and held by two bull-men) in Jakob-Rost (1997: 72–73, fig. 232, VA751). For a presumed late type of this sun disk, see Parayre (1993: Fig. 11, from Amrit). 36 Some considerations, however, cast doubt on the ‘throne’ interpretation, even if to date Keel’s interpretation still seems to make better sense of what can be seen. Note e.g., that if the ‘throne’ is seen in upright position, the ‘solar disk standard’ tends to tip towards the left. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

25

standard, but if so, it is difficult to make out how they relate.37 Be this as it may, the image still resembles most closely a ‘throne’ as suggested by Keel, even if its precise association with the sun disk standard and platform will need further study. Indeed, the two elements are strangely ‘interwoven’ and it seems most likely that we have here a composite element, whose precise meaning still escapes us. iii) A solar boat? Near the bottom of the scene a curved element with a final loop can be seen. This element is interpreted by Keel as part of ‘a solar boat’.38 Due to the overall solar imagery depicted on the bulla, the solar interpretation of the boat seems justified, while the interpretation of the curved element as a boat finds good parallels in similar complex scenes of astral images and solar and lunar boats on Aramaising Levantine seals known from the Neo-Assyrian period (e.g. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 308, figs. 306a–c). On these seals ‘throne’ images—albeit with anthropomorphic representations of seated deities—are commonplace, and as such, this evidence tips the balance in favour of the ‘throne’ interpretation (see infra 1.1.1.2.3). iv) An additional sun disk? At the top of the constellation an element, which Keel suggests could be a ‘wing’ or ‘tail’ of yet another sun disk, can be seen (Keel 2017: 408). Unfortunately, too little of it remains, so that this deduction remains conjectural, also if it seems to be a logical one.39 Alternatively, but perhaps less likely so, the ‘wing’ or ‘tail’ may be that of some kind of fowl.40 1.1.1.2.3 Neo-Assyrian Tendencies and Chronological Repercussions What to make of the overall composition? Although Keel suggests a link with ‘empty throne’ imagery found for instance on a Middle-Assyrian cylinder seal (Keel 2007: 302–305; 2012: 332), close inspection casts doubt on this interpretation. For the sun disk actually ‘sits’ on what seems to be a ‘throne’ (as suggested above), or better is placed on a pole attached to a solid platform, which again is somehow ‘interwoven’ with the seat of the ‘throne’. Consequently, the ‘throne’ is not empty. Sun disks and (more commonly so) lunar crescents are frequently depicted as hovering over41 or placed on a pole and/or platform42 in Neo-Assyrian and Assyrianising Levantine art, including stamp seals.43

37

If these were part of the platform, the apparent ‘backrest’ of the ‘throne’ could perhaps be interpreted as an Egyptian Macat-feather or preferably some kind of tree, even if this does not seem very likely. Similar symbols can be found on 8th–7th century B.C. seals. See e.g. Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 305a–308). 38 Accepting the late 9th century context of the deposit (as suggested by Reich and Shukron), Keel opts for the Egyptian solar bark (Keel 2017: 408). 39 This ‘sun disk’ could perhaps be compared with a sun disk on a late Aramaic seal in Bordreuil (1993: 93, fig. 30). 40 For a falcon on a seal from Tell Kunedj in Syria, see Keel (2012: 331, fig. 87). Crudely carved falcons are attested on bone seals from Palestine, see in the same article on p. 321, figs. 22* (from Jerusalem), 23 (from Tell en-Nasbeh) and 24 (from Lachish). 41 Herbordt (1992: Table 2, figs. 2. 4; Table 13, fig. 18 [a winged sun disk above a table or altar]); Moortgat (1988: Table 75, fig. 636; Table 87, fig. 748?); Delaporte (1923: Table 98, fig. 5c). 42 See Herbordt (1992: Table 4, figs. 13–14), both from Nineveh, with a winged sun above a pole dedicated to Marduk. Also Jakob-Rost (1997: 84–85, fig. 333 [with a sun disk hovering over a pole with a lamp?]). See also Collon (2000: Plate XI, 141). A winged sun disk, set on a pole and attached to the throne of the sun god Shamash, can be seen on an unprovenanced Neo-Assyrian mirror-like object from Dresden, Germany (Rehm 2018: 279–288). For a brief description of the object, see infra chapter 2, Excursus 2. 43 Ornan (2005: 67, fig. 57); WSS 1007 (Moabite); WSS 1148 (Aramaic or Ammonite). As for a possible winged sun disk placed on a pole, see Collon (2001: Plate XI, 137). Although Collon is undoubtedly right in suggesting that the pole depicted underneath the winged sun disk on this cylinder seal at the British Museum is the spade of Marduk, the pole seems to be directly tied to the sun’s tail. Whether or not this was consciously intended by the engraver or is due to limited space, is difficult to say. See also Keel-Leu and Teixidor (2003: Table 445, fig. 216). The authors interpret the pole as a cross-shaped structure. But to this author it seems as if the bottom of the broad shaped solar tail is attached to an albeit short pole. Although this is less clear, a winged sun placed on a pole may also be seen on a rock-relief of Sennacherib at Bavian (Khinnis). Here the ‘pole’ may, however, be more apparent than real. See Black and Green (1992: 17, fig. 10). The depiction of a winged sun disk placed above a platform is also attested at 9th century B.C. Tel Halaf. There it is held by two genii, who in turn are assisted by Humbaba. Tel Halaf (Gozan) became a vassal state of Assyria during the 9th century. However, the Anatolian influence on the style of the orthostate should not be underestimated. See Keel (2007: 302, fig. 188). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

26

Chapter 1

As Ornan has argued (2005: 152), the placement of the sun symbol on a pole (representing a schematic tree ‘adorned with floral elements’) had a long history stretching back at least to the mid–late second millennium B.C. within the North-Mesopotamian realm (cf. at Alalah VII and in Mitanni art). Yet none of the earlier depictions closely resemble the one on the bulla from Jerusalem and it may therefore be surmised that its representation is perhaps most closely rooted in first millennium B.C. Neo-Assyrian art, and more specifically so that of the 8th–7th centuries B.C. Rather than looking for parallels during the more distant Middle Assyrian and Neo-Hittite periods (as Keel has suggested), we prefer to associate the composition with ‘complex’ astral-related Aramaising representations on seals from the (late) 8th–7th centuries B.C. On these Aramaising seals, multiple elements including deities sitting on thrones or daises, flanking trees, astral standards and cankh-symbols can be found.44 It is also here that the curved element depicted in the lower half of the bulla comes into play. Frequently the throne of the deity is placed on a boat to underline the deity’s role as ‘captain of the heavenly abodes’. In our case the central (nonanthropomorphic) deity would be represented by the sun disk standard only. Hence, the constellation on the Jerusalem bulla as such remains unique. Yet, its overall scheme of combining multiple elements (the ‘throne’, the ‘Assyrianising’ winged sun disk on a pole attached to a platform, the ‘boat’ in which the whole composition is ‘floating’ and perhaps an additional sun disk above it), all combined into one overall theme, apparently suits a late 8th–7th century date best, without wishing to oversimplify its complexity. 1.1.1.2.4 Yet Another ‘Assyrianising’ Bulla from the Gihon Pool ‘Area’ Outside the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’, in a fill excavated on its southern edges (Locus 2328) and near the eastern side of the Spring Tower (Reich 2011: 217), another bulla with a winged sun disk was discovered (Keel 2017: no. 284; reg. no. 31775). The soil from which it was retrieved contained among other things several more bullae and seals (also inscribed ones) and pottery sherds including Iron Age IIB–C material.45 The bulla (which measures 16.4 x 15 x 4.3 mm) depicts a sun disk type, which is closely reminiscent of the one shown on an official seal impression found in Stratum V at Tel Goren / En-Gedi (van der Veen and Bron 2014: 215–217; Stern 2007: 161–162). This stratum has been dated to the second half of the 7th century B.C. Half of the sun’s disk rises above the ceiling line of the wings. The flaring wings have upcurved tips and their ‘feathers’ are represented by diagonal bars. The tail is triangularly shaped (compare Collon 2000: 82, no. 171). A line terminating in what appear to be loops is depicted above the solar emblem, an element which can be regularly found on sun disks in Aramaean and Aramaising Levantine glyptic art (including seals) dating to the Neo-Assyrian period (Collon 2000: 81–82, esp. nos. 145, 184, 206, 208). Although this loop element is often shorter, it can for instance be seen on representations of the sun deity at Zincirli/Sam’al from the late 9th–late 8th centuries B.C.46 It is sometimes also represented by two ‘antenna-like’ strokes, terminating in dots, on Aramaean and Aramaising seals.47

44

Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 308, figs. 305a-307; 315, fig. 308; 330, fig. 325); Keel (2007: 489, fig. 351–355). Two seals and five (fragmentary) bullae with names are referred to by Reich. The limestone seal of Rapiyahu, the son of Shalem depicts a cock (?) with a star and a twig on its back (Reich 2011: 218, fig. 150). This seal finds good Iron Age IIB–C parallels at Tel Hadid near the coastal plain (Keel 2013: 510–511) and at Busayra in southern Jordan (Buchanan and Moorey 1988: Plate 1:37). These bullae were presented by Reich at the ABA conference in Schwäbisch Gmünd / Wetzgau in 2010. One depicts a grazing deer in the upper register, while its first line reads: ‘lyrḥ ...’, possibly containing the name Jeraḥme’el. Another bulla reads: ‘...ryhw // ... nḥm ...’ While Reich argues that only Iron Age IIB material was found on the edges of the Pool (in line with the date of the house and the adjacent quarter; Reich 2011: 217), De Groot and Fadida state that Iron Age IIC material post-dating the quarter’s occupation was also found (De Groot and Fadida 2011: 159). On the date of the bulla, see also Keel (2017: 406–407, no. 284). 46 See e.g. the orthostate of Kilamuwa and the bulla(e) of Barrakib, Parayre (1993: 46, fig. 32; 51, fig. a). It is probably also depicted on an Assyrian seal impression from Nineveh, whose style is somewhat different as the elements are indicated by multiple dots (presumably created by a drill). The impression from Nineveh stems from the postcanonical period, i.e. after 649 B.C. See Herbordt (1992: 219 and Plate 10, fig. 30). 47 E.g. Parayre (1993: 46, fig. 33, the seal of Sasar’el; 43, fig. 18, an anepigrapic seal from the 8th–7th century B.C.). See also the cylinder seal in Bordreuil (1993: 81, fig. 7). 45

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

27

Fig. 4: Bulla found outside the Rock-Cut Pool in Locus 2328 (photo courtesy of O. Keel).

1.1.2 Conclusions: Chronological Parameters In the light of the seal material listed above, the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ was likely not filled in much before the early 7th century B.C.48 While Neo-Assyrian parallels for bullae types 1 and 2 suggest dates roughly during the Sargonid period (i.e. from c. 720 onwards), datable seal impressions from the Assyrian Central Polity, however, suggest a narrower margin squarely within the 7th century B.C. This would imply that the occupation of the house built on top of the fill must have been short-lived, as the onset of Iron Age IIC (when the residential quarter was abandoned) should be dated no later than the 640’s/630’s B.C. (see infra, chapter 4). The approximate date provided by the seal evidence is further supported by 14C evidence based on probes taken from wood and plant remains found in the thick plaster on the floors, walls and the ceiling of the Siloam Tunnel49 as published by Amos Frumkin et al. (2003: 169–171). The results confirm that the Siloam tunneling system (built at the end of Iron Age IIA or early during IIB as suggested above) was built any time between ±790–540 B.C. (as per the short-lived plant sample SR 61, OxA-8523), due to the relative flatness of the calibration curve at this time. A (long-lived wood) sample (SR 53) yielded the dates ±822–796 B.C. which implies, that the tunnel must have been constructed up to 100 years after the tree had been hewn. Frumkin et al. therefore believe that the traditional attribution of the tunnel to Hezekiah is sound. Naturally, we cannot exclude a slightly earlier or later date, pre- or postdating Hezekiah’s reign, due to the wider margins of the 14C results (Frumkin et al. 2003: 170–171 with Table 1).50

48

Finkelstein has likewise criticised the early date advocated by the excavators (2013: 279–284). However, his argument, that the construction of the ‘new’ tunneling system could not have begun before Iron Age IIB, when Jerusalem experienced its major break through on the Western Hill, is not compulsory. As Avraham Faust has rightly stressed, the expansion there already commenced during the latter half of Iron Age IIA as the oldest pottery from various excavations (including recent excavations at Hurva) is contemporary with Lachish Level IV rather than III (2014: 270–271). Even so, Finkelstein is right that the city was more heavily fortified during Iron Age IIB. 49 Three layers of plaster were identified, the oldest of which is described as ‘hydraulic lime plaster’. No evidence of early sedimentation was found in between this layer and bed-rock, so that the plaster must have been affixed soon after the tunnel had been built. 50 The short-lived plant sample yielded dates varying between ±790–760 and ±690–540 B.C. (Frumkin et al. 2003: 171). A possible post-700 B.C. date for the Siloam Tunnel system is briefly considered elsewhere in this volume, see infra chapter 4, 4.2.2. A somewhat later date is not only supported by the palaeography of the Siloam Tunnel Inscription (Vaughn 1999: 58–61) but has also been considered by Faust and more recently by A. Sneh et al. (Faust 2001: 281–287; Sneh et al. 2010: 57–65). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

28

Chapter 1

1.2 The Shema Seal and the End of Iron Age IIA Megiddo 1.2.1 The Shema Seal 1.2.1.1 Introduction: Why it Matters Additional evidence substantiating the view that Iron Age IIA may have terminated later than is normally believed, comes from Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB, from the area of the southern Gatehouse. It is here that a very well-known stamp seal with the depiction of a roaring lion and the accompanying inscription of a high official named Šemca cbd Jerobocam comes into play. The seal was found on March 22, 1904 (Kautzsch 1904: 1) during the excavations of the German architect-historian Gottlieb Schumacher (1902–1905).

Figs. 5 a–b: Left: the original red jasper seal of Shema as published by Gottlieb Schumacher in 1908. Right: a photograph taken of a gypsum seal impression made of the original seal taken by Dr Baroody of Beirut in 1904. The photograph was published on May 15 in the Beirut newspaper Al-Mashrih when the seal was on its way from Megiddo to Constantinople, where it was to be handed over to the Museum’s authorities (after Cook 1904: 288, fig. 3). Interestingly, in both photographs (especially the one made for the Beirut newspaper) the end of the tail comes down further in a bow than is visible on other photographs of the seal.

Unfortunately, the seal disappeared soon after its discovery. During the Ottoman period, important archaeological discoveries made in Palestine, were to be sent to the Museum of Antiquities in Istanbul/Constantinople. According to Gottlieb Schumacher, the Shema seal, however, ended up in the private collection of ‘Seiner Majestät des Sultans’ (Schumacher 1908: 100) after which it apparently disappeared. What happened to it afterwards remained a mystery. Indeed, several rumours have spread about its whereabouts.51 Fortunately, gypsum impressions were made of the original seal by the German excavation team (Schumacher 1908: 99). Moreover, a separate photo was made by Baroody for the Beirut newspaper Al-Mashrih, who produced his own impression of the seal, when it was on its way to Constantinople (fig. 5b). This interesting information has been recorded by Stanley Cook in the ‘Notes and Queries’ section of the PEF Quarterly Statement of 1904 (Cook 1904: 287–288).

51

This situation may now have changed: based on a conversation between Robert Deutsch and Ariel Berman (and the latter’s communication with Nellie Martzinovsky, the daughter of Gottlieb Schumacher, back in 1966), the seal had been kept in the private collection of Sultan Abdul Hamid II until his death in 1909. Subsequently it was apparently placed by the Turks in the Sultan’s tomb ‘along with other items as representatives of various districts of the Turkish Empire’ (Deutsch, pers. comm., July 2016). Mr. Berman is to be thanked for this useful information. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

29

Figs. 6 a–b: Left: gypsum impression of the original Shema seal as published by G. Schumacher in 1908 (after Schumacher 1908: 99; see also Watzinger 1929: 65, fig. 62); right: bronze cast as currently kept at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem (IAA 1947-5396; © photo C. Amit).

Subsequently, more durable bronze casts were produced, but as this author was able to establish—by carefully comparing the available photographs taken of the original gypsum impressions—several of these do not correspond exactly with the details found on the earlier copies. The most trustworthy bronze replica is currently found in the collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA 1947-5396). It indeed corresponds to what can be seen on the photographs of the original gypsum impressions. But as it is likely based on a copy made within a mould made in turn of one of the original gypsum impressions, this ‘copy of a copy’ has likely suffered some loss and may therefore not be taken as an exact replica of the original seal. This became especially obvious when this author compared the individual letters of the seal with those on the bronze cast. The letters on the bronze cast in the first register are indeed thinner than on the original and sometimes lack miniscule details that can turn out to be essential for palaeographic study. Another striking feature may well be the angular endpiece of the tail as seen on the bronze cast in comparison with the tail end as seen on the photograph of the original gypsum impressions. Naturally, it must also be taken into account, that any such differences may be due to distortions caused by photography from different angles using different lighting. Any thorough investigation must therefore take all the available witnesses into account as none of them, taken in isolation, can be blindly trusted.52 Hence, every scholarly assessment must commence with the oldest available photographs. This may sound overly nitpicking, but as we shall see below, when examining both iconographic and palaeographic subtleties, only this procedure can help to reconstruct with some degree of plausibility what the original seal may have looked like. Even so, each interpretation—as long as the original seal remains absent—is conjectural. Its otherwise unattested official seal-owner, Shema, has been dated to the reign of the Israelite monarch Jeroboam II (790–750/749 B.C.) by the majority of scholars. Indeed, this date is strongly supported by both palaeographic and iconographic parallels from the 8th–7th centuries B.C. (see below). On the other hand, its archaeological context—as will be discussed later—is described by the original excavator, as being from the area near the southern Gatehouse (Schumacher’s ‘Palastwohnung’), which is currently assigned by most scholars to Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB (as based on work subsequently carried out by other excavators at the site). This stratum was dated to the 10th century B.C. by the archaeologists of the Chicago Institute (1925– 1939), by William F. Albright and his student George E. Wright, as well as by the Israeli scholar Yigal Yadin, who excavated the site in 1960, 1966–67 and 1971. Currently, however, adherents of the so-called ‘Low Chronology’ (of Tel Aviv University) date the start of Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB to the end of the 10th century, while its terminus ante quem is dated to the second half of the 9th century B.C.53 Be this as it may, the traditional date of Iron Age IIA (contemporary with the ‘Solomonic era’) has led some specialists to

52

On the bronze cast from the Rockefeller Museum, see Hestrin et al. (1973: 91; Lawrence Mykytiuk, pers. comm., November 2015). 53 See e.g. Finkelstein and Sass (2013: 152). Also Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006: 24). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

30

Chapter 1

assign the Shema seal to the 10th century B.C. (Yeivin 1960: 205–21254; Ussishkin 1994: 410–427; Ahlström 1993: 208–21555). Taking the stratigraphical evidence at face value, these scholars prefer to equate the Jeroboam referred to on the seal with king Jeroboam I (930–910 B.C.)—Solomon’s successor in the Northern Kingdom of Israel.56 In other words, the archaeological context from which it had been retrieved, is considered by this group of scholars to be more important than the palaeographic and iconographic evidence which would otherwise suggest a later date (Ussishkin 1994: 423). The stratigraphical repercussions of this alternative view were well-understood by David Ussishkin when he concluded: ‘The date of the seals [i.e. the Shema and Asaph seals] has far-reaching archaeological and historical implications.’ (Ussishkin 1994: 410, emphasis added) But despite the logic of Ussishkin’s conclusion, this author will show that if all evidence is taken into consideration, the 8th century B.C. date must be preferred. And as we shall see, this conclusion is based on all strands of evidence, i.e. stratigraphy, palaeography and iconography. Moreover, the seal may well belong to the final stages of Stratum VA–IVB, which is not only supported by its precise location within its destruction debris (which can be dated by pottery evidence retrieved from it, see below), but possibly also by additional features depicted on the seal itself, which have widely escaped notice by modern scholarship (see below).57 If correct, the original find context could not have terminated during the later half of the 10th century (as is maintained by a minority of scholars) nor could it have ended at the end of the 9th century B.C. (as many scholars believe today). For king Jeroboam II’s reign did not commence before c. 790 B.C. (in agreement with both Galil and Thiele). Hence, the Gatehouse could not have been destroyed before 790 B.C. and a date some decades later seems preferable (see infra chapter 1, 1.2.2.4 and Excursus 1). The date of the seal therefore may well have important repercussions for our overall understanding of the terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIA in Israel and Judah. Let us examine the evidence in detail.

1.2.1.2 The Seal in Particular The seal is rather large (it measures 37 x 27 x 17.5 mm) and was made of spotted red jasper. It does not contain a drilled hole for attachment to a finger ring or necklace. Hence it may be assumed that it had originally been placed in a bezel ring.

54

Yeivin considered various aspects, including palaeography (which according to him supported a date before the mid9th century B.C.), glyptic and technical devices (which lead him to date it to the 10th century), and stratigraphy (he attributed it to Stratum IV, which he squarely dated to the 10th century). 55 Ahlström too suggested a date during the reign of Jeroboam I, but for different reasons. He dated the beginning of Stratum IVA to the late 10th century B.C. and attributed the seal to that stratum. Such an early date for Stratum IVA is no longer accepted by most scholars today nor by those who date its beginning to the early 10th century. A date nearer 800 B.C. for the beginning of the stratum is currently favoured. 56 Due to the more likely attribution of the seal to the reign of Jeroboam II, David Ussishkin currently prefers to believe that Schumacher’s team was mistaken about its stratigraphical position (Ussishkin, pers. comm., September 2013). Although it is possible that Schumacher got the location wrong, the decision to reject his interpretation simply because his data seem in conflict with our modern understanding of the evidence (i.e. the date of the seal and its apparent ‘stratigraphical context’) is a wholly different matter, as it would be dictated by theory rather than by fact. For although current scholarship dates Stratum VA–IVB to the 10th and 9th centuries B.C., a date as low as the first half of the 8th century is not generally considered for the end of the period. A somewhat different position is taken by Norma Franklin of Tel Aviv University, who like Ahlström assigns the seal to Stratum IVA. The same is true for Halpern (2000: 584). But as we shall see later, this proposal does not stand on firm ground, as it clashes with the pottery evidence retrieved from the Gatehouse’s debris which predates that of Stratum IVA. For a brief discussion of Franklin’s reattribution of the Gatehouse to Stratum IV and its related problems, see infra 1.2.2.4, n. 166. 57 For a recent exception to the rule, see Mykytiuk (2003: 133). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

31

Fig. 7: Line-drawing of the Shema seal based directly on the mirror image of the gypsum cast by employing it as its background. Highlighted are the individual palaeo-Hebrew characters (after Schumacher 1908, line-drawing by the author).

Although its large size is rare, well-sized seals are attested.58 For instance a somewhat similar albeit unprovenanced lion seal—bearing the private name Aḥa’abu—measures some 27 x 21 x 12 mm (Deutsch and Lemaire 2000: 117, no. 110). Another well-sized unprovenanced specimen cast in bronze—containing the personal name Ṣury—measures some 35 x 22.5 x 18 mm (albeit including the outer edges of the bezel ring; Deutsch and Lemaire 2000: 142, no. 135). Both the Aḥa’abu and Ṣury seals are presently kept in the private collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff. Both are believed to be of Aramaean provenance. Another wellsized lion seal is kept at the British Museum in London and bears the private name cAšna’el. It is believed by some scholars to be of Northern Israelite origin.59 It measures some 26 x 18 x 10 mm. A discussion of the iconographic details and its parallels can be found under infra 1.2.1.2.2. As for the Shema seal itself, it is divided into three registers. In the top register we find the name of the courtier, while in the third register we encounter the title cebed (an honorific title employed for high court officials60) and the name of the king he served, i.e. Jeroboam (for a discussion of the palaeography, see infra, 1.2.1.2.1).61 In the central register the fierce representation of a roaring lion with an upraised tail is depicted (for details, see 1.2.1.2.2.1). The central and third registers are divided by a single field divider, while the whole composition is embraced by a single border-line. Two more elements have been detected by Gottlieb Schumacher, that are not recognised on the available photographs of the original seal and on the gypsum impressions. As Schumacher argued in his final report: ‘Auf dem Siegel war beim Rachen des Löwen ein roh mit ungemein feinen Strichen eingeritzter oder eingeätzter palmenartiger Baum und rechts unter dem Schweife eine der Hieroglyphen canch ☥ ähnliche Darstellung angebracht, jedoch nie ausgeführt worden.’ (Schumacher 1908: 100)

58

Large seals seem to have been more common in the Phoenician-Aramaean realm during the Iron Age II period (e.g. WSS 715, 726, 730, 733, 738, 740–741, 754, 769, 772, 781, 785, 840, 844, 1115), even though they are found in the Hebrew corpus as well, e.g. : WSS 11, 59, 172, 220, 226, 391. A well-sized black Urartian seal from the Neo-Assyrian period (depicting a battle between a winged deity and a griffin), formerly kept in the private collection of the Arbeitsgruppe für Biblische Archäologie (ABA), measures 29 x 25 x 12 mm. Like the Shema seal it too is unperforated. 59 WSS 1169. Although a North Israelite origin has been tentatively proposed by André Lemaire, no certainty can be reached. See also van der Veen (2015: 191) and Lemaire (1990: 13). 60 For a discussion on the title, see e.g. Fox (2000: 53–63) and van der Veen (2014a: 50–54, 181–182, 250–257). 61 During the 8th century B.C., Israelite and Judahite kings are referred to by their private names. Contrary to the kingdom of Ammon, during the 7th and 6th centuries the kings of Judah are simply referred to on official seals as ‘melek’. See e.g. van der Veen (2014a, same pages as above). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

32

Chapter 1

Hence, according to Schumacher, these two additional motifs had been very thinly scratched on or etched into the hard surface of the jasper seal, one symbol being in front of the lion, the other one behind it.62 The sign depicted in front of the lion’s frontlegs (or according to Schumacher in front of the lion’s ‘jaw’) was interpreted by him as a floral symbol (resembling a palmtree), while the other element, shown behind the animal (or according to Schumacher underneath the lion’s upcurved tail), was identified with the Egyptian life symbol cankh. Although these signs were very thin and therefore only faintly visible (so that they cannot be seen in most of the photographs), there can be little doubt that Schumacher indeed identified them correctly. As a matter of fact, these details are still visible in the photograph of the gypsum seal impression published on the inner front page of Schumacher’s 1908 final report. It is difficult to tell for certain if that what can be seen here, are indeed the remains of the actual scratched signs or if it is rather the work of an artist, who sought to indicate more clearly, what Schumacher had seen. That the latter suggestion may be correct, may be surmised from what Schumacher wrote about it himself: ‘Auf den Abdrücken und Photographien kam diese kaum merkliche Einritzung nicht zum Ausdruck.’ (Schumacher 1908: 100, emphasis added) In other words, the scratches could not be seen, neither on any of the gypsum impressions nor in the photographs. Either way, we must trust the reliability of the excavator’s and hence the artist’s eye. As we shall see below, there is good reason to trust this information, as several parallels can be listed, where such symbols (including the cankh-like symbol) are indeed attested on seals. Schumacher went on to suggest that these signs could have been added by a subsequent engraver or at least at a later time: ‘Jedenfalls scheint diese kunstlose Zutat späteren Datums zu sein.’ (Schumacher 1908: 100) There can be little doubt that Schumacher’s suggestion is feasible. Yet, alternatively, it is also possible, that the seal was never finished and as such it would have ended up in the spoil heap of the Gatehouse, a suggestion also made by Emil Kautzsch.63 As Shema would have hardly used an unfinished seal, this suggestion indeed has much to commend itself. Other possibilities cannot of course be excluded, such as that the seal could have been a simple reject. For it is possible that it had been damaged during the production process, as some chips on its surface might suggest. Yet as the seal is of such high-class workmanship, it seems preferable to think that it had remained unfinished when the Gatehouse was finally destroyed at the end of Stratum VA–IVB. In other words, Shema never came to use it. This suggestion must remain tentative as we cannot check the original seal to verify if its surface shows signs of wear due to use by the sealer.64 As we shall see later on—when we discuss the stratigraphical evidence—its findspot in the datable destruction debris of the Gatehouse adds further weight to the intriguing possibility that the seal may never have been 62

In his article on the seal, Emil Kautzsch also confirmed that signs could be seen (he interpreted the sign twice as an ankh-symbol, which is not in accordance with what can be seen on the available photograph), but that they had been applied not with scratches but with a faint colour paint. See Kautzsch (1904: 3). This view is accepted by Mykytiuk (2004: 133), who cites Diringer (1934: 225–26, no. 68), but it seems doubtful why Diringer’s opinion should be trusted more than that of the original excavator. Indeed as late as 1908, Schumacher maintained that the signs had been faintly scratched rather than painted. 63 However, Kautzsch argued that the seal-owner disagreed with the incision of the additional symbol (he only mentions the cankh-like feature) and therefore the additional sign was not engraved. This, however, seems unlikely. If according to him, the sign had only been faintly drawn, it would surely have been erased by the time of its discovery. For similar conclusions see also Strawn (2005: 102, n. 165). His suggestion (originally made by Schumacher) that the additional motifs would have been added by a later owner, is rendered untenable if the stratigraphic position of the seal is taken into consideration, see infra 1.2.2. If the sign(s) had been scratched (contra Kautzsch), they would have been completed before the owner finally used the seal. But would a high official like Shema have been satisfied to use an unfinished seal for bureaucratic purposes? Hardly so. 64 As the seal was so superbly carved and was no doubt a true piece of art even at the time when it was made (i.e. its extraordinary quality can be surmised by comparing it with other similar lion seals, see below), it would be hard to accept that the seal had been a mere reject. Certainly, the small chips could have been easily caused by the destruction of the Gatehouse also or by any other damages the seal may have suffered during the subsequent occupation of the Tell. The suggestion that it had never been used as it had never been finished, and therefore belongs to the very last stage of occupation of the Gatehouse, deserves serious consideration. c

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

33

used when the building in which it was kept was destroyed. Be this as it may, while these ‘scratched’ motifs were originally seen on the seal, none of the modern bronze casts or reconstruction-drawings contain them. 1.2.1.2.1 The Inscription As stated earlier, any reliable analysis of the seal must start with the most trustworthy evidence available. Although the original seal no longer exists, we do possess moderately acceptable original photographs in the available publications, especially of the original gypsum impressions. By looking at different photographs, and digitally highlighting the letter forms, the author was able to find some valuable indications in terms of their palaeographic traits. Naturally these must remain tentative as long as the original seal remains unavailable:

Figs. 8 a–b: Writing of the name Shema in the top register. Left: the mirror inscription as found on the original seal (based on the gypsum impressions made by the Schumacher team; after Schumacher 1908). Right: line-drawing by the author as based on the same seal impression. Here the writing of mem is especially visible which allows it to be identified as an intermediate type between the earlier zigzag form and the later standardised form as found in inscriptions of the late 8th through 6th centuries B.C. cayin at the end of the line appears to be slightly oval-shaped.

While lamed (with a sharp angle) and the fairly regular shin, in the first register, cannot be dated more specifically (as their forms had a long life and are attested rather widely), mem and cayin (found in the top and bottom registers), as well as dalet and yod (both in the bottom register) call for special attention:

Fig. 9: mem as found in the upper register.

mem: this letter is found twice on the seal, once in the first register and once at the end of the bottom register. What combines both of them is the virtually straight or rather oblique tail (with a miniscule slant at the end of the tail).65 While the head of mem in the upper register is reminiscent of somewhat older or more conservative forms (deriving from the early ‘zigzag’ type as can for instance ‘still’ be seen on the Mesha Stela), the head of mem in the bottom register appears slightly more ‘developed’.66

Fig. 10: mem as found at the end of the upper register.

65

This is most clearly seen with mem in the first register. It seemed at first glance that the tail end of the letter in the lower register curved more strongly upwards to the left (as seemed likely, based on modern bronze casts of the seal), but the older pictures revealed that this is not actually the case. For what seemed like a sharp angle is apparently only either a pock in the stone or part of the border line, which intersects with the tail at this point. 66 A very similar intermediate form is ‘already’ found in the Tel Zayit abecedary (top line), whose archaeological context has been assigned to Iron Age IIA and—as we shall see below—would therefore belong to the same archaeological horizon as the Shema seal. For a brief discussion of its archaeological date see Tappy (2008: 1–4). For a full description of the abecedary, see McCarter (2008: 45–59). For somewhat similar mems from Tel Rehov, see Mazar (2003: figs. 1, 3–4). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

34

Chapter 1

The latter form resembles that of mem in inscriptions from the Iron Age IIB–C archaeological horizon (which frequently has two vertical parallel—sometimes also interconnected—strokes placed side-by-side to the left of the oblique upcurving tail).67 Nonetheless, this form is already attested during the Iron Age IIA period, as confirmed for example by a stratified inscribed body sherd found at Tel Rehov.68 Not too much weight should therefore be placed on this alternate form. Mems as on the Shema seal can be found on datable seals from the 8th century B.C. The form of mem (upper register) is attested on seal impressions from Tel Dan (c. mid–late 8th century). 69 The same is true for the inscribed scaraboid of Shemaryo, an alleged chance find from Samaria (WSS 377).70 A somewhat similar mem is found on an unprovenanced but datable Aramaean seal of a minister of king cAtarsumki of Bit Agushi (who is otherwise attested on stelae found at Pazarcik near Antioch) from the early 8th century B.C. (WSS 753).71 The oblique tail of mem resembles similar forms of mem found on the Samaria ostraca.72 These—as has been proposed— may date from the reign of Jeroboam II (e.g. Niemann 2008: 249–266), but could also be slightly later, depending on the interpretation of their content rather than on stratigraphy (which remains dubious73). While the recorded year dates on these ostraca could be those of an unnamed Israelite king, their highest recorded number is a year 15.74 A similarly ‘tailed’ mem is also attested at Kuntillet cAjrud75, whose main occupational horizon has been frequently dated to the late 9th or early 8th century. Based on a reanalysis of the pottery, however, Lily SingerAvitz has suggested a date nearer the mid–to late 8th century B.C.76 Also the head of mem in the first register—with the vertical tail starting well below its ceiling line—fits an 8th century date, while earlier and later

67

E.g. see provenanced seal WSS 8 found at Tell en-Nasbeh, or the unprovenanced seal of Elishama, WSS 11. It can also be seen, albeit with a slightly more curved tail, on the seal of Haman, found at Megiddo during the Chicago excavations, see Staples (1931: 67–68). 68 The more ‘developed’ mem (bottom register) can be seen on a body sherd from Tel Rehov, see Mazar (2003: figs. 5– 6). See also Mazar and Aḥituv (2011: 300–316, with English summary on p. 154) and Mazar (2003: 171, 178–181). 69 See WSS 692A–C. One of them apparently belongs to either Stratum 3 or 2. Note, however, that this type is still found (at least in some instances) in the Royal Steward Inscription from Silwan Village (now kept at the British Museum in London), so that this intermediary form certainly stayed in use over an extended period of time, while it continued alongside the more developed form. 70 While the head of mem on this seal is identical, it has a small tick at the end of the oblique tail. 71 Note also that similar mems are found in lapidary Phoenician inscriptions from the 8th century B.C., like e.g. on the Bacal-Lebanon inscription (KAI 31) and on a gold pendant from Carthage (KAI 73). See fig. 4 in McCarter (2008: 55). The same may be said of late 9th to early 8th century B.C. Aramaean inscriptions, such as the Hazael ivory plaque from Arslan Tash (see James and van der Veen 2015: 131, fig. 2) or the famous Zakkur inscription. On this issue, see also Rollston (2008: 85). A similar mem is found on the bullae of Barrakib from Sam’al (c. 733–727 B.C.), WSS 750. 72 Many of the mems on the ‘ostraca’ contain a straight leg, but sometimes its tail end is slightly bent upwards, see e.g. Renz (1995: vol. 3, Tables VI–VIII). For a complete discussion of the ostraca at Samaria, see recently Tappy (2016). 73 For a description of the dating problems of their archaeological context in Samaria Strata IV and V, see Tappy (2001: 166–182, 497–503). See also Forsberg (19952: 49–50); Renz (1995: 85–86). Like Forsberg, Tappy suggests that Stratum V may have continued until or even after the Neo-Assyrian conquest in 722/721 B.C., so that a rough date for the ostraca between c. 770–700 B.C. would seem in order. While this general timespan encompasses the later reign of Jeroboam II and his successors (this is especially true for the ostraca from Building Period IV), it may also include the early years of Samaria’s annexation by Assyria. 74 If this is the case, Jeroboam II may indeed be meant and this indeed could be relevant for the dating of the seal. But as the dating of Strata IV and V at Samaria (to which these ostraca are usually attributed) is less than clear (see Tappy 2001 and Forsberg 1995), the alternative suggestion, that the reign years may be those of a foreign king (perhaps Tiglathpileser III [744–727 B.C.], or Sargon II [721–705 B.C.]) cannot be excluded. 75 See esp. Aḥituv et al. (2012: all of chapter 5). Cf. inscriptions 1.1, 3.1 (also with a slightly upcurved tail, or as the authors call it ‘slanted slightly to the left at the bottom’), 3.6 (again alongside mems with more pronounced upcurved tails), 4.1.1 (here the tail ends are more oblique and therefore more reminiscent of those on the Shema seal); 4.2 with Tables 5.1, 5.3 (once more alongside mems with pronounced upcurved tails; the same is of course true of nun); 5.4. 76 See Singer-Avitz (2006: 196–228, esp. 211–213; 2009: 110–119). While Liora Freud still maintains an earlier 8th century date, Singer-Avitz dates the site as late as the last decades of the 8th century. Singer-Avitz’ suggestion is firmly based on pottery evidence in comparison to the assemblages from other sites (Lachish, Beersheba, Arad) and has much to commend itself. For Freud’s criticisms, see Freud (2008: 169–174). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

35

parallels can be found.77 While this does not seem to be true for the mem found in the lower register, the latter’s ceiling line might well have been constrained by the field divider right above it, so that this observation must not be overstrained.78 Similar mems can also be seen on the backs of ivory furniture plaques from Fort Shalmaneser (which originally had been ransacked at the Aramaean, Phoenician and Israelite capitals).79 On the whole it can be said that, while the intermediary mem found in the top register is well attested during the 8th century B.C. (although it is also found in datable late 9th century inscriptions), the slightly more developed mem in the bottom register suggests a date more squarely within the 8th century B.C. cayin:

this letter is found three times in the inscription, once at the end of the upper register and twice in the bottom register, i.e. at the beginning and near the end of the line. While the first cayin seems to be opening slightly towards the top (a diagnostic trait somewhat similar to that of Ammonite and Edomite inscriptions of the late 7th–6th centuries B.C., see van der Veen 2014a: 168, 253–255), this may be more apparent than real.

Fig. 11: cayin as found at the end of the upper register.

As it seems, the engraver—while starting at the right top end of the letter and ending it at its top left—simply did not bring the two ‘ends’ together in order to complete the full ‘circle’.80 That this view must be preferred seems to be confirmed by the way the engraver incised the two other cayins in the bottom register. Here the letters are virtually ‘closed’ at the top, and it is reasonable to suggest that the engraver just stopped short of where he had begun the letter.81 cayin tends to be slightly oval-shaped in two instances (at the end of the upper and at the beginning of the bottom register). Again this may be more apparent than real (for the execution of such small letters into the hard surface of the jasper seal must have been less than easy).82 Be this as it may, oval-shaped cayins are well-attested on other ‘Israelite’ inscriptions from the 8th century, for instance at Kuntillet cAjrud, on a body sherd from Tel Rehov, as well as on the aforementioned Samaria ostraca.83 If indeed the engraver consciously crafted his cayins in a slightly more oval-shaped way, this may perhaps be evidence of an early 8th century date, when the shape of the circular 9th century precursor (as can

77

It is e.g. found on the Tel Dan Stela, which is generally dated to the second half of the 9th century B.C. by most scholars. A slightly later date—c. 800–790 B.C.—has been suggested by George Athas in his detailed study of the stela. See Athas (2003). 78 See also Tables 3, 6–8 in Renz (1995: vol. 3). 79 See e.g. Herrmann, Coffey and Laidlaw (2004: 161, S2224 and 2225). For similar mems on an ivory-button bearing the feathered cartouche of a Levantine ruler named Milkiram (king of Tyre?) found at Nimrud (S292 U) and plundered as booty during the reign of Sargon II, see Barnett (1957: 47–48). The same is true for an inscribed rim of a bronze bowl, naming a minister of apparently the same local ruler (BM 102976), as well as for a rim of an inscribed pottery bowl found in 1910 at Samaria (no. 2854), possibly also naming this same king. Also a number of other pieces have been ascribed to the same ruler by André Lemaire (1976: 83–93), who also discusses their 8th century palaeography. See also Tammuz (2011: 181–182) and Uberti (1988: 460). 80 A similar cayin is found on the Aramaic (?) albeit unprovenanced lion seal of a scly housed at the British Museum (BM 48495), WSS 829. It surfaced during the mid-19th century. 81 If the ‘Aramaising’ interpretation were to be preferred, it should be stressed that the first cayin in the bottom register is also not fully closed. However, the execution of the third cayin, the penultimate letter in this line, may stand in the way of such an interpretation, as it is fully closed. 82 As a general warning to all palaeographers, one must avoid radical conclusions based on limited (insufficiently understood) evidence, especially when different materials (harder and softer stone, metal etc.) were used, on or into which the inscription has been written. This certainly will have influenced the form and fluency of the original scribe’s hand. On this see the helpful article by Lehmann (2013: 221–229). 83 See e.g. Renz (1995: vol. 3, Tables 3 and 6), Finkelstein and Sass (2013: no. 24), Mazar (2003: 174–176, inscription 2), and Mazar and Aḥituv (2011: Fig. 8, Rehov no. 8). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

36

Chapter 1

still be seen e.g. on the Gezer Calendar, the Mesha and Tel Dan stelae) began to develop into the more ovalshaped form.84 More cannot be said.85

Figs. 12 a–b: The second register with the inscription cebed Jeroboam. Left: the mirror inscription as found on the original seal (based on the gypsum impressions made by Schumacher’s team: after Schumacher 1908). Right: line-drawing by the author as based on the same seal impression.

Two more letters—both found in the bottom register—stand out diagnostically and therefore deserve a brief discussion here: dalet: this letter does not yet contain a long leg, as would become common practice during the later 8th century and onwards. Even so, its almost triangular form does seem to have a tiny ‘tail’ or ‘leg’ (hardly more than a small extension).

Fig. 13: dalet as found in the bottom register.

If correctly observed, this would distinguish it from its perfect triangular precursor (as e.g. found on the Gezer Calendar and the Mesha Stela) and its ‘long-legged’ successor.86 Short-legged dalets can be found on the Aramaic Tel Dan stela and the Ammonite Amman Citadel Inscription, while it is also well attested at Kuntillet cAjrud. On the Samaria ostraca this type has become more or less the standardised form.87 There can be little doubt, therefore, that this trait is evidence of an 8th century date. A similar short legged dalet is also found on Aramaic seals, datable to c. 800 B.C.88 yod: this letter too may be viewed as diagnostic, containing a small detail which is typical of yod during the 8th century B.C., but not so already during the preceding centuries.

Fig. 14: Long-tailed yod as found in the bottom register.

84

As scribal traditions often varied regionally and as their pace of development over time can have differed considerably (even within the same cultural environment), one should avoid dogmatism (Lehmann 2013: 221–229). As a matter of fact, the circular cayin continued to be employed after the 9th century, as can be seen on the unprovenanced seal of Shebanyo, the official of a certain cUzziyo, believed to be the same as king Uzziah of Judah (WSS 3) a contemporary of king Jeroboam II of Israel. This seal surfaced during the 19th century when the intricacies of palaeography were not yet well-known—so the seal may be accepted as authentic with a high degree of probability. At the same time an oval (almost triangular) cayin can be found on another seal naming king Uzziah (WSS 4), also known since the middle of the 19th century. On datable Aramaic seals the circular (closed) form continued in use for an extended period of time and seems sometimes to have been executed with a drill (see WSS 752–753). 85 For moderately oval shaped cayins found on a Phoenician seal from Khorsabad (from the reign of Sargon II, 721–705 B.C.), see WSS 743. 86 At this time it was introduced alongside the short-legged form. The short-legged form can still be seen on the Dedicatory Inscription from Tel Miqne-Ekron, from the middle of the 7th century B.C. Its date is firmly established by its stratigraphical position at Ekron (at Temple Complex 650) and chronologically so by the name of its dedicator, king Ikayuš (Achish) also known from the annals of the Neo-Assyrian rulers Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (cf. ANET 291, 294; Weippert 2010 [HTAT]: 340, 345–346). See also Dothan and Gitin (2008: 1957). 87 E.g. Jaroš (2014: e.g. 115–116, nos. 052–053; 120–121, nos. 058, 060). 88 E.g. WSS 752–753. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

37

For yod as engraved on the seal has an extraordinarily long horizontal ‘tail’. Its end appears to bend slightly downwards. It runs virtually parallel to the lower left side and the short leg of the preceding dalet. Long-tailed yods (sometimes with a small vertical tick at the end of the tail) are attested at Kuntillet c Ajrud.89 A particularly long-tailed yod (albeit with a small vertical tick at the end of the tail) is found on the scaraboid of Shemaryo from Samaria (WSS 377). A long-tailed yod (albeit upcurved) can also probably be seen on the unprovenanced seal of Uzziah’s royal minister Shebanyo (WSS 3).90 Yod with a long and wavy tail, infrequently written with a vertical tick, is also well attested on the Samaria ostraca (Renz 1995: vol. 3, Tables 6 and 9). A strikingly similar long(er)-tailed yod is seen on the unprovenanced (Hebrew or Phoenician) lion seal of Neri currently kept in the Reuben Hecht Museum collection of the University of Haifa.91 1.2.1.2.2 Iconographic Details A brief description of the Shema seal was given above. Let us recapitulate these main points here: the seal has a single border line and a single field divider. It is divided into three registers, the upper register with the name Shema, the central register with the roaring lion and the additional features observed by Schumacher and Kautzsch (described as cankh- and tree-like motifs), and the bottom register with the inscription cbd yrbcm. It is the central register which concerns us here. 1.2.1.2.2.1 The Roaring Lion and Its Neo-Assyrian Connections The lion is placed over a single field-divider. The animal is flanked by two motifs, an cankh- and a tree-like figure, both which will be discussed infra under 1.2.1.2.2.2, i and ii. The following characteristics of the feline creature (in striding or assaulting posture) will be highlighted here92: • its overall fierceness: indicated by its jaw with sharp teeth and a muscular bare shoulder93, • its male features: its mane, its hairy belly, its testicles, and • its upcurved tail (with or without a hairy tail end94). Although these features are frequently represented in ancient Near Eastern ‘feline art’ in one way or another, it is the combination of all these aspects, that makes a close association with Assyria probable. Lions depicted in Egyptian or Egyptianising/Phoenician art, generally lack the fierceness of the Neo-Assyrian lion depictions (for the lion in Egyptian/Egyptianising art is often more static and less realistic).95 In Canaanite,

89

Ahituv et al. (2012: 90, inscriptions 3.4–3.5 [fig. 5.34]; 98, inscriptions 3.7 [fig. 5.40] and 3.9 [fig. 5.41]; 100–101, inscription 3.0 [figs. 5.43–5.44]; 102, inscriptions 3.11–3.14 [fig. 5.45]; etc.). 90 See Renz (1995: vol. 3, Table 3 = WSS 3, Face A). 91 Avigad, Heltzer and Lemaire (2000: 74, no. 57). It is likewise depicted on the front cover of the book. 92 For a detailed description of Neo-Assyrian lion glyptic, see Albenda (1974: 2), who not only deals with the lions’ fierceness but also with ‘the power emanating from within the wild beast’. Its fierceness ‘is expressed through the careful rendering of the many facial details. Its gaping mouth invariably exposes upper and lower canine teeth, fangs, and a curled tongue protruding beyond the lower jaw.’ 93 Albenda (1974: 2) states: ‘The shoulder of the lion appears high on the body and in several instances it possesses the addition of a crudely incised torsional hair whorl.’ 94 It is not easy to know for certain if the ‘Shema lion’ tail indeed contained a bushy tail end. Some photographs do suggest that it had been indicated, others do not, depending on the angle from which the photograph was taken and with whatever lighting. Without the original seal it will be difficult to be certain of this characteristic. 95 On scarabs, from the Middle Bronze Age, see Hornung and Staehelin (1976: nos. 779–782); from the Iron Age I, see Hornung and Staehelin (1976: nos. 783, B 83, MV 27); from the Saitic period, see Hornung and Staehelin (1976: no. B 31). For a rather friendly looking striding lion on a faience plaque from Late Bronze Age Tel Gezer (contemporary with the 18th and 19th dynasties), see Keel (2013: 338–339, Plate fig. 395). In front of the lion a papyrus stalk is depicted. For a steatite scarab from the Iron Age IIB period, found in the topsoil of Area B, square 2, locus 1 at Khirbat al-Haǧshǧar (some 10 km SW of Amman), see Eggler and Keel (2005: 116–117, fig. 1). It depicts two lions standing on their hindlegs flanking a croaching gazelle. Over their backs two lunar-crescents are depicted. For a series of small Egyptianising conoid shaped stamp seals from Phoenician Sarepta, Amathus and Tyre made of blue frit, see Reyes (2001: 22–23, figs. 17a–e). In each case the striding lion is placed over the outstretched body of a defeated person. See also the lion orthostate from Late Bronze Age IIA Beth Shean at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem (Frankfort 1956: 147). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

38

Chapter 1

Syro-Hittite and Cypriot art96, lions—though often more fiercefully represented than in Egyptian art—also deviate from standard Neo-Assyrian glyptic art.97 Their tails are usually bent downwards rather than upwards.98 While their posture is generally clumsier99, their manes are frequently represented merely by simple straight or curly lines and/or zigzag surface patterning.100 Hence, as other scholars have suggested too101, the resemblance between the ‘Shema lion’ (and lions on similar seals, see Table 1) and those depicted in Neo-Assyrian art (and to some extent Neo-Babylonian102 and Achaemenid art103, which follow the same tradition) is so striking, that its style must have been copied by the seal-cutter of the Shema seal. This resemblance becomes especially clear if we look at Neo-Assyrian palace-panels depicting royal hunting scenes (see also fig. 15)104, as well as other Neo-Assyrian smaller objects of art, including royal bullae from Khorsabad, Nimrud, Nineveh and Samaria (Herbordt 1992: 34–36; Radner 2008: 482), bronze plates105, glass and alabaster bowls (e.g. Muscarella 1965: 41–46) 106, bronze weights (e.g. Albenda 1974: 3 and 15, fig. 6; Frankfort 1956: 115).107 A close look at the details in Neo-Assyrian glyptic art reveals all the characteristics that were noted above: the furry mane and belly, the fierce appearance with sharp teeth, the muscular upper leg and shoulder, the male genitals and depending on the depicted posture of the lion, the upcurved tail with its bushy end. This resemblance is astounding. For it confirms that the Shema-lion figure (and that found on similar seals) must have been influenced by Assyria one way or another. The earliest well attested lion-hunting scenes are those from the palace of Assurnasirpal II at Calah (883–859 B.C.), now housed at the British Museum in London.108 The most well developed lion scenes, however, belong to the

96

For lion orthostates from Malatya at the Ankara Museum, see Frankfort (1956: 133, no. A). For lion orthostates found by the Chicago Institute at Tell Tayanat, housed at the Antioch Museum, see also Frankfort (1956: 156). A striding lion is also depicted on a cubical stamp seal with handle from Larnaka on Cyprus from the subgeometric phase (traditionally dated to the late 8th–7th century B.C.). On the five faces of the seal, a lion, a gazelle, a tree, a griffin and a geometric emblem, can be seen. On the stamp side with the lion, seven dots (Pleiades?) are found in the field. See Reyes (2001: 60 and 62, fig. 84). 97 But see the ivory carving from Tel Masos (Strawn 2005: 399, fig. 3.80). 98 On seals from Late Bronze Cyprus, see Kenna (1971: Plate XXVI: 100, a stamp seal from Enkomi from Tomb 100; Plate XV: 65, a scarab from Enkomi Tomb 79 found together with Late Cypriote IIA2–IIC pottery). The scarab from Tomb 79 dates to the 19th Dynasty in Egypt. The same is true for the lions depicted on an Iron Age IIA cult-stand from Taanach (see Strawn 2005: 398, fig. 3.77), and on a Late Bronze Age II ivory box from Megiddo (Busch 2002: 62). 99 E.g. a lion depicted on an orthostate from 9th century B.C. Tell Halaf: see Strawn (2005: 455, fig. 4.143). See also the lion found on an early Iron Age ivory from Lachish (Strawn 2005: 392, fig. 3.53). For monumental lion representations from Late Bronze Age Canaan, see likewise Strawn (2005: 384–386, figs. 3.17–323). 100 See also the lion orthostate from Tell Halaf (Strawn 2005: as above). In the same publication see the ivory carving from Samaria (Strawn 2005: 402, fig. 3.92). On the lion on a pithos from Kuntillet Ajrud, see Strawn (2005: 400, fig. 3.82) and Ornan (2015: 62, fig. 92–93). 101 This striking resemblance was already noted by Kautzsch in 1904, who sensitively observed: ‘Jeder Beschauer wird durch ihn augenblicklich an die Löwengestalten der babylonisch-assyrischen Kunst erinnert. Die Art, wie er den Rachen aufsperrt und den Schwanz krümmt, die Wiedergabe der Nacken- und Bauchmähne samt der Formung der Füße tritt uns genau so an babylonischen Bildwerken entgegen’ (Kautzsch 1904: 13). For refences of early proponents, see Watzinger (1929: 64). Watzinger himself, however, preferred a Hittite background. 102 See e.g. the glazed lion reliefs from the Ishtar Gate and Nebuchadrezzar’s throne-room at Babylon, at the Metropolitan Museum of Arts in New York and at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 179). 103 See e.g. the glazed lion panels from the palace of Darius I at Persepolis, currently housed at the Louvre Museum in Paris. 104 For a good summary of the Neo-Assyrian lion reliefs, see Albenda (1974) and also Barnett (1970). 105 For Phoenician bronze plates from Nimrud with Assyrianising lions being attacked by Egyptian and Syro-Phoenician heroes, see Frankfort (1956: 172, no. B; 173, no. B). 106 The glass and alabaster bowls contain the inscription ‘Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria’. Another alabaster bowl from Assur refers to the Palace of Esarhaddon, see Curtis and Reade (1995: nos. 115 and 117), Sass and Marzahn (2010: 179, fig. 1019). 107 For some additional Assyrian lion images on small art in the British Museum (including a Urartian rhyton in the form of a crouching lion and an alabaster lion finial), see https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search. aspx. 108 For a list of Neo-Assyrian lion images, see Albenda (1974; 1972: 167–178). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

39

reign of Assurbanipal (668–627 B.C.), on whose palace wall panels at Nineveh, the ‘naturalistic tendency prevails among the numerous renderings of these creatures’ (Albenda 1974: 3). Chronology-wise, Neo-Assyrian culture could hardly have influenced local artistry of Northern Israel and Syria much before the middle of the 9th century B.C. The westward expansion by the Neo-Assyrian army into Syria took place during the reign of Shalmaneser III (858–824 B.C.), who met king Ahab of Israel and his allies in battle at Qarqar in 853 B.C. Some twelve years later, Shalmaneser received tribute from king Jehu of Israel (841–820 B.C.109). Booty was sent to Adad-nirari III (810–783 B.C.) by king Joash of Israel (806–790 B.C.) either in 803/802 or 796 B.C. (Galil 1996: 56; Millard 1973: 162–163; Millard and Tadmor 1973: 62–64) when also Aram-Damascus paid tribute and when its capital was taken.110 During these earlier years of westward expansion, some Neo-Assyrian glyptic influence must have occurred, at least to some extent and especially so in the northern parts of Syria.111 But even there cultural influence must have remained superficial. At Guzana (Tell Halaf) on the banks of the Khabur river, whose rulers are listed as Assyrian eponym holders (from 866 B.C. onwards112), monumental art within the bīt ḫilāni residence still maintained many distinct autochthonous elements.113 The same is true for Sam’al (Zinjirli), whose oldest Building E was constructed by king Kilamuwa of Ya’udi during the final decades of the 9th century B.C. It was adorned with guardian lions in local Aramaean style (Frankfort 1956: 171, 181–182, fig. 87).114 Jeroboam’s reign overlapped with that of Adad-nirari III (810–783 B.C.) and his ephemeral successors Shalmaneser IV (782–773 B.C.), Assur-dan III (772–755 B.C.) and Assur-nirari V (754–745 B.C.). Yet even during this period of relative instability in Assyria, military expansion to the west is attested, when in 773 the powerful Assyrian turtānu Shamshi-Ilu campaigned against Damascus (Millard 1998: 58; Weippert 2010: 272). It has been argued that the strong political pressure on Aram would have allowed Jeroboam II to regain territory in the Galilee and in the East-Jordan Valley that had previously fallen to Aram-Damascus (Kuan 1995: 123).115 Nevertheless, it would not be until the more widespread Neo-Assyrian infiltration of the Southern Levant during the reigns of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 B.C.) and his successors (especially so during the Sargonid era) that Assyrian art finally began to make a more lasting impact on local Levantine workshops (Bagg 2011: 292).116

109

By which time Assyrian influence must have reached the Southern Levant. On the same period see also Kuan (1995: 93–106), Na’aman (2005: 22), Bagg (2011: 421 Table 4.B), and Siddall (2013: 16–17). 111 E.g. the statue of Hadyisci, ruler of Guzana, is clearly influenced by Neo-Assyrian sculpture (Sass 2005: 63). Its dedicatory inscription was engraved in cuneiform and Aramaic. 112 The first known eponym holder from Guzana is Šamašnuri in year 17 of Assurnasirpal II (= 866 B.C.). He is also attested on the Tell Fekheriyeh statue of his son Hadyisci. Rulers of Guzana held this office in year 17 of multiple Assyrian monarchs (at least down to the reign of Tiglath-pileser III). See Millard (1998: 58) and van der Veen (2015: 194–195). 113 The situation clearly changed when—after a revolt in 808 B.C.—Guzana became the seat of a Neo-Assyrian governor (Frankfort 1956: 174; Sass 2005: 95). The original palace was constructed by king Kapara, whose precise dates remain unknown. Most scholars date Kapara to sometime during the first half of the 9th century B.C. (Sass 2005: 93–95; Lipiński 2000: 132). 114 The same is of course true for Omride masonry at Samaria, whose palaces broadly reflect Syrian-style bīt ḫilāni architecture, up to the Assyrian annexation in 721 B.C. (e.g. Chapman 2015: 139–141). 115 Kuan theorises that Jeroboam II may have propagated pro-Assyrian politics. If justified, this could explain why sigillographic art during his reign would have been influenced by Assyria. 116 While Ariel Bagg is right that cultural influence went both ways from Assyria to the West and vice versa (and that cultural plurality is characteristic of the period in question), the local Levantine rulers sought ‘sich nach assyrischem Vorbild darzustellen, um sich mit der Größe des Reiches zu schmücken’ (Bagg 2011: 292). Bagg refers to the stelae of Barrakib of Sam’al, who in the posture of the enthroned monarch receives his officials like a Neo-Assyrian king. Some Assyrian cultural influence is also attested in the Southern Levant at this time. See e.g. the lion-shaped bowl from Stratum 1 at Tell el- cOreimeh (Tel Kinrot), in Strawn (2005: 105, 406 and fig. 3.106). Volkmar Fritz noted its specific NeoAssyrian characteristics, see Fritz (1993: 208, fig. 11). It is therefore not surprising that lion imagery in the Assyrian peripheries was strongly influenced by Neo-Assyrian art, as can be seen e.g. on ivory plaques from Ziwiye in Iran, which also display most of the noted characteristics of Neo-Assyrian lion glyptic, see Strawn (2005: 455, figs. 4.144–46). The same is true for Urartian bronze artistry during the late 8th–7th centuries B.C., see fig. 19d in Strawn (2005). The same is also true for the Phoenician, Aramaic and Israelite ivory carvings found at Nimrud / Fort Shalmaneser, which can be 110

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

40

Chapter 1

Figs. 15 a–d: Top left and right and bottom left: hunted Neo-Assyrian lions from the palace of Assurbanipal in Nineveh on display at the British Museum in London (photo by the author; courtesy of the British Museums Trustees, London). Bottom right: an assaulting lion on an Assyrianising Urartian armour bearing images of rosettes, horses and lions. The lion displays all the Neo-Assyrian characteristics as discussed in this chapter (photo B. Lipkin, courtesy of the ABA collection, Schönblick exhibition, Schwäbisch Gmünd, Wetzgau).

Hence, the attribution of the Shema seal to the reign of Jeroboam I during the second half of the 10th century B.C. (as some have proposed) can be safely put aside on the basis of art-historical considerations. Even if, as some scholars have argued, the Assyrian influence had been indirect, i.e. these characteristics would have reached Israel primarily via Syria (Bordreuil 1993: 87)117, this does not affect our interpretation. For no matter what, the ‘Megiddo seal cutter’ could only have done so at a time when Neo-Assyrian lion imagery became more widely known in the Southern Levant, which would have hardly been the case before the westward expansion of the Neo-Assyrian empire during the 9th century B.C. squarely dated to the 8th century B.C., see e.g. Herrmann et al. (2004: 80–81, esp. S1015, S1017–19, S1021 and 1022?). For the introduction of Neo-Assyrian tableware in Cis- and Transjordan, see infra chapter 2. The same is true for Sargonid solar imagery as found on bullae from the City of David, infra 1.1.1.2.2. 117 Keel and Uehlinger suggest an Egyptian connection concerning the lion as a royal emblem (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 188; Schmitt 2001: 122). However, this author does not find this very convincing, as the lion also held royal connotations in Assyria proper. See e.g. a statement by Adad-nirari II (911–891 B.C.): ‘I am king, ... I am a warrior, I am a virile lion’ (Grayson 1991:147), or the description of Sargon II’s heroic deeds: ‘ ... proudly like a raging terror laden lion’ (CAD L, 24), etc. In a same vein the sign PIRIG3 = nēšu ‘lion’ is believed to represent a synonym for šarru, ‘king’ (see Sass and Marzahn 2010: 180, with references). Also in the Old Testament, Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs are repeatedly compared with lions: Isa 5:29; Nah 2:11–3; Jer 50:17. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

41

1.2.1.2.2.2 The Roaring Lion: Its Associated Motifs As briefly noted above, Schumacher and Kautzsch have argued that the two additional motifs, that had been added in front and behind the lion, must be identified as an Egyptian life symbol cankh and as a floral motif. According to Schumacher these additional motifs had been scratched into the surface of the jasper seal. As stated earlier, these symbols were not only described by Schumacher and Kautzsch, they can actually still be seen on the photograph on the inside-cover of the original excavation report. i) The cankh-like symbol

Figs. 16 a–b: Left, line-drawing of the cankh-like symbol on the Shema seal (after Schumacher 1908); right: an 8th–7th century B.C. Aramaean seal of a royal scribe named Hoduh (photo R. Deutsch, courtesy of the British Museum Trustees, London). The cankh symbol is engraved between the seated goddess Ishtar and a worshipper.

This ‘globe-topped dagger shape’ motif is indeed best understood as an Egyptian cankh.118 cankh-symbols are well attested in genuine Egyptian and Egyptianising, as well as local Southern Levantine glyptic art (including Syro-Phoenician, Cis- and Transjordanian seals), stretching from the Middle Bronze Age down to the Iron Age and Persian/Achaemenid period. More relevant to the current timeframe, however, cankhs are frequently depicted on 8th–7th century Levantine seals (e.g. on the scaraboid of Asaph also found in Gatehouse 1567, WSS 85, as well as on several bullae belonging to king Hezekiah119), often alongside a somewhat ‘wild array’ of Egyptianising, Mesopotamian, Aramaean and Phoenician motifs (e.g. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 253, fig. 247a; 248–250b; 255, fig. 253; 255; 297, fig. 293b; 303, fig. 302b–302d; 308, figs. 305a–c; WSS 836, etc.).120 They can likewise be found on genuine Neo-Assyrian and Assyrianising seals from the 8th–7th centuries B.C. (fig. 16b; Trokay 1995: 104, fig. 7; Ornan 1993: 61, fig. 29; 66, fig. 51; 70, fig. 82; Bordreuil 1993: 85, fig. 11; 97, fig.37; Collon 2001: Plate XII, 158; WSS 816 etc.).121 For cankhs on lion seals, see the Israelite (?) seal WSS 391, and another seal, WSS 1129, whose origin has not yet been established with certainty. ii) The tree-like symbol Two possible suggestions are offered here: a) Tree-symbol This interpretation was first suggested by Gottlieb Schumacher, who identified it as a tree. A Late Bronze Age haematite stamp seal from Cyprus depicts an almost identical type of tree held by what appears to be the Egyptian cat-goddess Bastet (Kenna 1971: Table XXII, 85 from Enkomi, Tomb 86). A tree, whose stem is composed of drilled holes with somewhat similar branches, can also be seen on an Iron Age IIB seal from a late Iron Age tomb at Abu Nuseir in Jordan in the vicinity of Amman (Eggler and 118

For this description, see Collon (2001: 113, no. 211). For a provenanced specimen recently found by Eilat Mazar at the Ophel, see Mazar (2015b: 629–640). 120 See also WSS 734, 753; Jakob-Rost (1997: 59, nos. 170, 174–75). 121 For further examples see Herbordt (1992: Tables 12, fig. 21; 14, fig. 17; 17, fig. 13) and Trokay (1995: 104, fig. 7). Sometimes the head of this symbol is triangular, but most likely this is only a variation of the original Egyptian type. See also Jacob-Rost (1997: 67, no. 195 from Babylon). 119

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

42

Chapter 1

Keel 2005: 2–3 and fig. 1).122 Moreover, similar tree representations are found on Cypro-Phoenician seals.123 Additional parallels could be listed.124 Last but not least, a virtually identical tree motif (placed underneath a winged sun disk) can be seen on an albeit unprovenanced Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal from the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore (see their online Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative catalogue, seal no. S001330, CDLI no. P272840).

Figs. 17 a–b: Line-drawing of the tree-like figure on the original photograph from Schumacher 1908; right: Late Bronze Age seal from Enkomi (Cyprus) with a cat goddess holding a similar floral motif (after Kenna 1971).

b) Lampstand Alternatively, yet less likely so, the depicted motif may be compared with lamp-stands or fire altars found on Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid seals.125 For a seal depicting a sphinx flanked by both motifs, see the Phoenician seal WSS 713 of a royal minister of cAzarbacal, dated to the 8th century B.C. 1.2.1.2.2.3 The Roaring Lion: Provenanced Parallels

Fig. 18: Khorsabad seal of Rapati (courtesy of B. Sass, WSS 843).

A similar provenanced stratified reddish-brown agate stamp seal (with a roaring lion and a winged scarab placed above its back) and inscribed with the personal name Rapati in between the paws of the lion, is kept 122

The seal is dated by the authors to the 8th century B.C. For a somewhat similar albeit more detailed palm-tree on a cubical stamp seal with five sides (one which bears the image of a striding lion with seven dots [Pleiades?] in the field), see Reyes (2001: 60 and 62, fig. 84). 124 See e.g. the Ammonite seal WSS 979 and the Aramaic or Ammonite seal WSS 1116. A somewhat similar lotus-like motif on an unprovenanced 8th century Israelite stamp seal from the British Museum, may also be considered, see WSS 316. See also more developed proto-aeolic pillars depicted on 8th century ivories from Syria, Phoenicia and Samaria discovered at Fort Shalmaneser / Nimrud (Herrmann et al. 2004: 127 nos. S1720–22; 128 nos. S1736–37). 125 See e.g. an octagonal Neo-Babylonian stamp seal from Petra in Jordan dated to the 6th century B.C. (Eggler and Keel 2005: 248–249, fig. 4). The object is identified by the authors as an altar, which is placed on a podium. The stand contains three drilled holes. 123

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

43

at the Louvre Museum. It was unearthed at the Neo-Assyrian site of Khorsabad (Assyrian Dur Šarrukin) during the middle of the 19th century.126 This city was founded by King Sargon II of Assyria, who chose it as his main capital. The terminus post quem of the site is firmly fixed to 706 B.C., when it—near the end of Sargon’s reign—was finally dedicated (Frankfort 1956: 73). In general, a date squarely within the 8th century B.C. for this seal is also supported by the palaeographic traits of the inscription and especially so by the form of the letter taw.127 Although we cannot know for sure, how and when precisely the seal arrived at Khorsabad, and if it had been brought there by its owner or was taken there as part of foreign tribute or military plunder, the fine Neo-Assyrian characteristics displayed by the roaring lion (as described above) render a date for the seal squarely within the 8th century probable. This seal is significantly smaller than the Shema seal. It merely measures 15 x 11 x 6 mm (WSS 843). It contains a single border line, while the name of its owner is written above the single dividing line rather than underneath it as on the Shema seal. Above the back of the lion, an Egyptianising winged scarab is depicted. The combination of Assyrian(ising) glyptic (the lion) and an Egyptianising scarab match the association of the diverse motifs found on the Shema seal. The chronological attribution of the Shema and Rapati seals to the 8th century also finds independent support from similar depictions of lions on Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian stamp impressions from Babylon, Tel Dan, and Nineveh, ranging from the late 8th through 6th centuries B.C.128 On these sealings striding fierce lions, with gaping jaws, upcurved tails, and partly furry manes, accompanied by human heads (of defeated persons?) and sometimes Aramaic names are depicted. The NeoAssyrian specimens from 7th century B.C. Nineveh are amongst the clearest examples and clearly recall the well-developed lion-panels at Assurbanipal’s palace (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 180, fig. 1023). There also exists a number of additional provenanced lion seals.129 These are however regularly less sophisticated and date mostly from the 7th–6th centuries B.C. (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 386–387; Strawn 2005: 112). Some of these are listed here130: i) A non-inscribed limestone (?) lion seal (from Tell en-Nasbeh) This seal contains a depiction of a roaring lion (with an upcurved tail), which was excavated at Tell enNasbeh (Mizpah) during the Badè Institute excavations (McCown 1947: 149–150, 296 and Plate 55, no. 74).131 Although the overall composition and execution of the seal is rather rudimentary, it too contains an Egyptian cankh (placed behind the feline creature) while an unidentified zigzag motif (a floral image?) is depicted in front of the animal. Over the back of the lion an additional element has been carved, which is perhaps best understood as a very schematic representation of a scarab beetle (cf. fig. 19 infra). ii) An inscribed limestone lion seal (from Jerusalem) This badly eroded seal depicts a roaring lion (with upcurved tail) standing over a single dividing line. It was recently unearthed during the Western Wall Plaza Excavations and was retrieved from a Roman Period fill. 126

AO 5828, WSS 843. For a description of this find, see also Bordreuil (1986: no. 89). However, none of the letters contain specific traits that allow for a narrower time-frame. Based solely on the palaeography, a late 9th century date cannot be excluded either. 128 The stamp impressions from Tel Dan are found on a pottery stand that has been variously dated to the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. See e.g. Sass and Marzahn (2010: 180). 129 We have only incorporated those seals whose overall composition closely resembles that of the Shema seal. Not included are those specimens, whose date is clearly later than Iron Age II (see the rudimentary ‘lion seal jar handle impressions’ from Judah, dated to the Neo-Babylonian or Achaemenid period; see also Keel and Uehlinger [1998: 386], Stern [2001: 541; 2007: 253–255], Lipschits [2012: 11], van der Veen [2014b: 394] and D. Ussishkin [pers. comm., June 2015]). Their bearing on the subject matter is considered to be minimal. A stamped jar handle from Tell Deir ‘Alla in Jordan, cited by Ornan et al. (2012: 11*) and published by Eggler and Keel (2006: 401, no. 20) belongs stylistically to Iron Age IIB. Its find-context, however, is from the Achaemenid period. For a similar grooved jar handle, see van der Veen (2011: 83, fig. 5.10). 130 For a scaraboid set in a bronze bezel allegedly found at Amman (acquired on the Amman antiquities market in 1952), see Eggler and Keel (2005: 48–49, fig. 68). A fierce (albeit less detailed) striding lion with upcurved tail is depicted. In front of the feline’s frontlegs, a schematic depiction of an Ammonite bird is found. In the field the inscription lcms’l has been engraved. The seal is dated by the authors to the late 8th–7th century B.C. 131 This seal was found in Square AJ22 in Silo 170 and seemingly originates from either Stratum 4 or possibly 3 (Jeffrey Zorn, pers. comm., November 2015). The lion seal (IAA I.5954) was wrongly identified as an Egyptian scaraboid in the original publication, but its Iron Age date was rightly surmised by Tallay Ornan et al. (2012: 7*). 127

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

44

Chapter 1

There can be little doubt, however, that it had originally derived from one of the nearby late Iron Age structures (Ornan et al. 2012: 5*–6*), dated squarely to the 7th century B.C. The name of the seal owner is inscribed in the lower register and has been tentatively read as Nawa (?). iii) Another lion seal (from Megiddo) Another albeit even more rudimentary lion seal was discovered in the so-called ‘Babylonian grave’ at Megiddo during the current excavations. As it is made of glass, a material which became popular towards the end of the Iron Age, a date no earlier than the late 7th century B.C. has been preferred (Deutsch 2000: 426– 427). This date is further substantiated by other finds from the same tomb, including a glazed bottle and an ivory box, whose Mesopotamian origin has been suggested (Deutsch 2000: 424–428). A separate ‘zigzag’ element is found behind the lion which has been tentatively identified with the Hebrew letter nun (Deutsch 2000: 426). This identification is, however, doubtful as the motif more closely resembles the symbol depicted in front of the lion on the Tell en-Nasbeh seal (see above), which we have tentatively interpreted as a floral image. iv) Jar handles impressed by a lion seal (from Hazor) These oval shaped seal impressions were excavated at Hazor in Stratum VA (see Keel 2013: 592–593, fig. 25). This level is usually identified as the last occupational stratum prior to the destruction of Hazor by the Assyrians in 733 B.C. A slightly later date for this stratum has been proposed by Peter James (2008: 137– 183) and is also considered in this volume (see chapter 2).132 v) Jar handle impressed by a lion seal (from Ramat Rahel) This seal impression depicts a lion assaulting a gazelle. It was excavated by Yohanan Aharoni in Stratum VA of the 7th–6th century B.C. The jar handle has been identified as a royal type 484 jar handle and can therefore be squarely dated to the late 8th–mid-7th century (on the dating of the royal jar handles, see infra chapter 3). The representation of a lion assaulting a gazelle is also attested in the third register on a scaraboid from Megiddo found during the Schumacher excavations (Watzinger 1929: 65; also Strawn 2005: 405, fig. 3.104).133 This theme became especially popular on seals at the end of the Iron Age and into the early Persian period, as can likewise be seen on seals from Gibeon, Tell Abu Hawam, Akko and Ashkelon (see Strawn 2005: 412, fig. 3.135; 413, figs. 3.136–3.138).

Figs. 19 a–c: Left: the uninscribed lion seal from Tell en-Nasbeh (after McCown 1942: Plate 55, fig. 74; courtesy of the Badè Institute/A. Brody); centre: the inscribed lion seal of Nawa (?) found during the Western Wall Plaza Excavations (courtesy of S. Weksler-Bdolah and Y. Barschak, IAA); right: the uninscribed lion seal from the ‘Neo-Babylonian’ grave at Megiddo (after Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern 2000: vol. II, fig. 14.4.1; courtesy of R. Deutsch).

132

A similar downdating for the coastal site of Tell Qudadi (Tel es-Shuna) has been proposed by Fantalkin and Oren Tal (2015: 192). Also Fantalkin, pers. comm., November 2015. Both scholars agree that a similar situation exists at Phoenician Tyre. Like James, they suggest a lower date for the terminus ante quem of Tyre Stratum III to the mid-7th century. This suggestion is supported by an inscribed urn from the late 25th–early 26th dynasty (James 2008: 147). 133 Multiple similar albeit unprovenanced inscribed seals support the overall attribution of this type to the 8th century B.C. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

45

Another local group of lion seals—mainly made of bone, ivory and sometimes limestone—has been mistakenly compared with the lion seal corpus by some (see e.g. Ornan et al. 2012: 11*, n. 9). This group must be strictly separated from the specimens listed here. It should rather be associated with the so-called ‘Judahite bone’-seal corpus and is rather Egyptianising in nature. Within this group, the Egyptianising lion (with Sshaped tail sometimes in the form of an uraeus, sometimes also seen striding over a person with an upraised arm or over an Egyptian neb-basket) is identified as a royal symbol and could possibly represent the local monarch. As it seems, the representation of the lion (not unlike that of the striding ram) appears to be a local adaptation of Egyptian prototypes (see e.g. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: § 157, 265–272 with figs. 268a–c).134 Specimens were found, for instance at Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Plates 67), Shechem (Toombs et al. 1963: 41, fig. 18:7), Lachish (Tufnell 1953: Plates 43A–44) and Jerusalem (City of David object no. 1986405; Brandl, pers. comm., October 2015).135 1.2.1.2.2.4 The Roaring Lion: Mainly Unprovenanced Parallels Several unprovenanced glyptic parallels of this type exist. Some of these are reproduced here (for a virtually complete list of lion-seals see Table 1, infra). All of these include the elements listed above: the fierceful appearance (including the gaping jaw with sharp teeth), the furry mane and belly, the upcurved tail (sometimes with a bushy end), the muscular upper frontleg and/or shoulder. None of them depict the genitals, which are only found on very detailed depictions of lions, such as on the Shema seal and on Neo-Assyrian reliefs as discussed above. Nine different categories are represented here, all of which contain details also attested on the Shema seal. It must be emphasised, however, that these categories by no means represent all the existing variations found on lion seals. i) Lion seals with a roaring lion placed over a single field divider The inscription is found underneath the dividing line in the bottom register.

Fig. 20: Seal of Bar’em made of bronze and placed in a bezel ring. Like on the Shema seal an inscription is found in the third register. Unlike the Shema seal, the tail of the lion is down-curved, while the depiction of the lion is less detailed (courtesy of the late S. Moussaieff and R. Deutsch; photo R. Deutsch and A. Lemaire 2000: 118).

134

Keel and Uehlinger rightly conclude: ‘The lion is represented here in an entirely different way than it was on the Israelite lion seals, ... and like the other motifs of the group, must be understood as having come from Egypt.’ Close Egyptian prototypes are well attested, see e.g. Strawn (2005: 394–395, figs. 3.59–3.65). On the ‘Judahite bone seal’ group, see also James and van der Veen (2015: 133–134). 135 This author wishes to thank Baruch Brandl for informing him about the beautifully carved bone seal (with bezel ring made out of one piece) from the Ophel excavations and for providing parallels. An Egyptian aegis is depicted behind the feline creature. See also Keel (2015: 497, no. 41). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

46

Chapter 1

ii) Lion seals with a roaring lion placed over a single field divider and one Egyptianising motif added The inscription is engraved above the animal’s back or between its legs. A separate element is placed in the bottom register or above the lion’s back. The element added here is an Egyptian or Egyptianising two-winged scarab beetle sometimes holding a solar disk. Whether or not an additional element was originally engraved on the seal of cAshna’el can no longer be said, due to the broken edge on the left.

Figs. 21 a–b: Left: unprovenanced Hebrew (?) seal of cAshna’el made of reddish-brown banded agate (WSS 1169, courtesy of B. Sass). The lion is placed over a single field divider. While the name of the owner is engraved above the back of the feline creature, a two-winged scarab beetle is depicted in the bottom register (photo courtesy of the British Museum Trustees, London; see also B. Sass, WSS 1169). Right: the rpty seal from Khorsabad as discussed above. Here the inscription is engraved between the animal’s legs, while the two-winged scarab (without solar disk) is placed over the lion’s back (WSS 843, courtesy of B. Sass).

iii) Lion seals with a roaring lion placed over a single field divider and motifs added in front and behind the lion This time, like on the Shema seal, an additional schematised element (a bovine head or floral motif) is placed in front of the animal (fig. 22a), or in front (bovine head) and behind the feline creature (a falcon, fig. 22b).

Figs. 22 a–b: Left: Aramaean unprovenanced seal of She’adoni made of white carnelian. While the lion is placed over a single field divider, the name of the owner is engraved over the animal’s back. An unidentified motif (schematic animal’s head or floral design?) is placed in front of its legs (photo courtesy of the late S. Moussaieff and R. Deutsch; after Deutsch and Lemaire 2000: 141). Right: unprovenanced Hebrew or Aramaean (?) seal of cElah made of Agate (WSS 1168, courtesy of B. Sass). The inscription is engraved over the back of the lion, while the lion is placed over a single field divider. A bull’s head is depicted in front of the animal, while a bird of prey is depicted behind its upcurved tail.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

47

iv) Lion seals with a roaring lion placed over a single field divider and an cankh-like motif added As on the Shema seal an cankh-line motif has been added, and unlike the Shema seal it has been placed in front of the lion.

Figs. 23 a–b: Unprovenanced Aramaean bronze seal of Suri?. While on the Shema seal the cankh-like element is depicted behind the hindlegs of the lion, here the motif is placed in front of the animal’s legs. The lion is depicted here with downcurved tail (photo and line-drawing, courtesy of the late S. Moussaieff, and by R. Deutsch; Deutsch and Lemaire 2000: no. 135).

v) Lion seals with a roaring lion without a single field divider and the inscription added in the field This group usually lacks a field divider. The inscription is placed in the field as a space filler, and as such replaces the additional motifs found on similar seals. In one instance (fig. 24a) a lunar crescent has been inserted as separate motif above the animal’s back.

Figs. 24 a–b: Left: unprovenanced Aramaean (?) seal of cAgbay made of amethyst. It is set in a golden bezel ring. The inscription is engraved in the field. A lunar crescent is added as a separate motif above the lion’s back (photo courtesy of the late S. Moussaieff Collection and R. Deutsch; after Deutsch and Lemaire 2000: 130). Right: a plasticine impression of an unprovenanced Aramaean seal of Marcam? made of greyish chalcedony-agate. The inscription is engraved over the back of the lion (photo Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 1890.117; after WSS 1111).

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

48

Chapter 1

vi) Lion seals with a roaring lion, with and without a single field divider, and with additional motifs placed in the field Sometimes the inscription is found in the bottom register, sometimes also in the field. Various motifs, including cankh-like features (as on the Shema seal) and other Egyptianising and non-Egyptianising elements fill the empty spaces above, around and in between the feline creature’s paws.

Figs. 25 a–b: Left: plasticine impression of a greyish limestone seal bearing the name ‘Usha engraved in the bottom register. Egyptianising symbols are placed above the lion’s back (two cankhs flanking a scarab beetle facing downwards) and in front of the animal (a sphinx; courtesy of B. Sass, WSS 1129). Right: plasticine impression of an unprovenanced Hebrew (?) seal of Tan’el made of reddish limestone. While the impressive lion fills most of the space, other motifs (head of a gazelle in front of the feline creature, a gazelle in between his legs and an cankh-element behind the animals hind-legs) and the name of the seal bearer are placed in the field (courtesy of B. Sass, WSS 391).

vii) Lion depicted in association with a deity standing over its back Although this seal type is not a precise parallel of the Shema seal, the depiction of the lion itself does recall its overall stature. These seals are more generally attributed to the 8th–6th centuries B.C. Another similar seal can be found at the Bible Lands Museum (albeit with an apparently male deity; see WSS 1098.

Figs. 26 a–b: Left: seal of Shakyah made of white chalcedony. On this seal the lion serves as pedestal for the deity (Ishtar?). Deutsch translates the name of the seal-bearer as ‘Yahweh looks out’ or ‘Yahweh protected’, and if so, it suggests an Israelite or Judahite provenance (courtesy of Deutsch 2003: 20). Right: this seal, made of chalky limestone contains a similar layout and imagery (albeit without an inscription). It was found at Khirbet Qeiyafa. It depicts a deity holding a spear standing over a croaching lion. The hairy mane, fierce jaw, upcurved tail, and perhaps muscular upper leg or shoulder suggest a Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian or somewhat later origin (see Schroer 2012).

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

49

viii) Lion depicted in one register as part of a complex seal layout This is not a direct parallel either. Yet, often the depiction of the lion matches that of the Shema seal so closely, that one is tempted to associate its style with the lion seals above. These seals are generally attributed to the 8th century B.C.

Figs. 27 a–b: Left: seal of Menaḥem with a complex ‘lion seal’ layout at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The lion scene (accompanied by a gazelle and falcon) is depicted in the third register, while the inscription is found in the fourth (courtesy of B. Sass, WSS 1149); right: impression of a ‘complex lion seal’ from Megiddo with a lion hunting a gazelle in the third register (after Watzinger 1929: 65).

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

50

Chapter 1

Table 1: This table shows the most prominent proper lion seals in the so-called ‘Assyrian style’. Most of these are unprovenanced. Only two were found in controlled excavations (Megiddo and Khorsabad). Other lion seals (not included here)—with simpler design (which apparently derived from these) and listed in this chapter—were also found in legal excavations and substantiate their overall date. Adoniram = Deutsch and Lemaire 2003; BPE = Deutsch 2011; BPPS = Deutsch and Lemaire 2000.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

51

1.2.2 The Stratigraphic Context 1.2.2.1 The Findspot: A General Introduction The Shema seal (as well as another large seal, that of Asaph), was found during Gottlieb Schumacher’s excavation at Megiddo in close proximity of the four-chambered gatehouse (termed Gatehouse no. 1567 by the Chicago expedition) of the southern palace (Chicago Palace no. 1723) which is located on the southern edge of the tell (Schumacher 1908; van der Veen 2015: 190–191). According to Schumacher, the Shema seal was unearthed inside the courtyard (Chicago Courtyard no. 1693), at a four metre distance from the southwestern corner of what he called the ‘palace apartment’ (‘Palastwohnung’), i.e. according to today’s interpretation of that structure, the central corridor and the two eastern chambers of Gatehouse 1567.136 It was apparently found at a depth of 1 m below the surface of the Tell (i.e. 186.50 m above sea level according to Schumacher’s estimates) in close proximity to the northern wall (no. 1610) of the Palace Courtyard (Schumacher 1908: Table XXIX A, no. ‘n’; see also p. 99).137 At this time the gatehouse was not yet fully excavated and Schumacher did not understand its layout. While he identified it as a ‘palace apartment’, the Chicago excavators, who uncovered the western rooms of the structure, identified it correctly as a four-chambered gatehouse (Lamon and Shipton 1929: 12–17). As both of the ashlars at the highest point of the northern wall of the courtyard west of the gatehouse and the bricks found above the stone foundation wall of the gatehouse had been preserved to a maximum height of 186.90 m and 187 m above sea level respectively, Schumacher claimed: ‘the stone seal undoubtedly belonged to the fifth level, i.e. to the building phase of the palace’ (Schumacher 1908: 99, emphasis added). The first remains of this structure were uncovered at a depth of only 50 cm below the surface at the time of Schumacher’s excavation. But as the Shema seal was actually found at a higher level than the floor of the courtyard and the gatehouse, i.e. some 1.5+ m above the actual floor level according to Ussishkin’s estimates (who based his calculations on multiple measurements above sea level as reported by Schumacher), the seal was apparently found in the destruction debris above these structures.138 Most scholars have therefore taken this information to imply that the findspot of the seal actually postdates the occupation level of this structure and of the associated enclosure walls and palace.139 Even Ussishkin, who still believed that the seal (along with that of Asaph, which he believed was found in situ and which contained strikingly similar features in that it was also

136

Ussishkin refers to ‘1 meter distance’ from the southwestern wall of the Gatehouse. This measurement is based on the Chicago reconstruction of the gatehouse (Ussishkin 1994: 421, cf. his fig. 24-1, pers. comm., July 2015). Actually, the seal may have been found closer to the wall, if Schumacher’s plan is reliable. On this see below. Schumacher considered the whole structure including the enclosure walls of courtyard no. 1693 to be a ‘palace’. 137 ‘... hart neben der Nordmauer des Hofes bei n (Tafel XXIXA) gefunden’ (Schumacher 1908: 99). 138 David Ussishkin’s detective work on the reconstruction of the various heights of the different walls as based on Schumacher’s reports and photographs is both excellent and revealing. Without it, it would be virtually impossible to make sense of the available data. Ussishkin argues that Schumacher made a mistake in measuring the top of a stepping stone of a threshhold near the gateway as being that of the floor level. Unlike Schumacher, Ussishkin determined the actual floor level of the Gatehouse as being c. 184.90 m (using Schumacher’s measurements) and compared it with the height of two threshold stones, one which is found at the outer entrance and sits on a sleeper wall (it ‘projects above floor level’ and is 185.10 m above sea level) and one which is located outside the northern entrance (184.84 m), which was located just below the floor level (Ussishkin 1994: 415–417, 419 with figs. 24-1, 2, 3). Adjusting the lime floor level given by Loud and Shipton (Loud and Shipton 1939: Fig. 35 section P – Q) as being three meters above their ‘datum line’ of 165 m above sea level to Schumacher’s estimates (which are some 18 m higher than theirs), Ussishkin calculated a height of 186 m (i.e. 168 + 18 m = 186 m). By using Schumacher’s estimates, we will be able to locate the height at which the Shema seal was found in relation to the walls of Gate 1567. The upper ashlars of the foundation walls projected at some points somewhat above the floor reaching a height above 185 m. The mud-brick walls above the ashlar foundation had been preserved to a height of some 0.70 m reaching 186 m above sea level (the debris of the wooden roofs [and of the first floor of the building] even reached c. 187 m). Hence the height of the floor level as based on Schumacher’s estimates is 1.10 m lower than Lamon and Shipton’s estimate (if the above 18 m are added). Consequently, the seal must have been found at 1.5 m above the floor level, but only 0.50 m if the Chicago estimates are preferred. 139 So e.g. C. Watzinger, who concluded that as both the Shema seal and the Asaph scaraboid were evidently found in layers of debris, they did not belong to the associated structures, but rather postdated their destruction level (Watzinger 1929: 64). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

52

Chapter 1

‘unpierced’ and revealed similar palaeographic traits) belonged to Stratum VA–IVB, found its ‘stratigraphic position’ to be ‘ambiguous’ (Ussishkin 1994: 421).

1.2.2.2 The Findspot: Is It Really Ambiguous? But is its findspot really ambiguous? This author admits that Schumacher’s descriptions are at times rather confusing and may sometimes be misleading. Yet while carefully rereading Schumacher’s reports and comparing his statements with information retrieved by other scholars (including the reports of C. Watzinger and those of the Chicago excavators), the situation does not appear as hopeless as it may appear at first glance. Even so, the following reconstruction must remain tentative. Ussishkin is certainly right, that on Schumacher’s plan no high wall reaching the height of 186.90 m above sea level was found (see Schumacher 1908: Plate XXIX-A; Ussishkin 1994: Fig. 24-1). To the contrary, on the plan the ashlar cornerstone drawn on the southwestern side of Schumacher’s ‘Palastwohnung’ (i.e. the south-eastern corner of the western half of the two-chambered gate) is marked as being 184.36 m above sea level. The wall situated immediately to the west evidently was very poorly preserved, and there is no reason to believe that it rose to such a considerable height at the time of Schumacher’s excavation. Also the wall of what would later be identified as the foundation wall of the western wing of the gatehouse could not have reached this height (unless it had contained stone piers at its southern corners, on this see below) as its avarage upper courses rose to c. 185+ m above sea level (using Schumacher’s own numbers). The actual floor level is estimated by Ussishkin as being 184.90 m above sea level, while the upper courses of the ashlar foundations would only have been barely exposed above the surface. As can be surmised from Schumacher’s descriptions, the Shema seal was found some 4 m to the west of the southeastern inner corner of the ‘Palastwohnung’ (i.e. the eastern wing and central corridor of the Gatehouse) and therefore we can infer that it must have been found in close proximity of either the southwestern outer corner of the left wing of the Gatehouse or immediately next to it, i.e. alongside the adjoining enclosure wall (marked as ‘n’ on Schumacher’s plan).140

Fig. 28: Plan with findspot ‘n’ of the Shema seal (after Schumacher 1908: Plate XXIXA).

140

Ussishkin estimates that it was found c. 1 m away from the wall (Ussishkin 1994: 421). But this is not actually what Schumacher was saying. While he wrote ‘hart neben der Nordmauer’ (emphasis added), i.e. virtually touching it, the indicated ‘x’ of findspot ‘n’ on the plan (if anywhere near reality) suggests that it was at least less than half a meter away from the wall. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

53

Findspot ‘n’ may not necessarily have been exactly at the same location, but it should have been relatively near, as this seems to be meant by ‘hier’ in the German (Schumacher 1908: 99), where the wall rose to a height of 186.90 m. If Schumacher’s claim is to be taken seriously, he can only be referring to the enclosure wall to the west of the gatehouse or to an ashlar pier linking the southwestern corner of the gatehouse with the adjoining enclosure wall.141 However, what remains difficult to accept is the height of this wall segment as indicated by Schumacher. For neither the foundation walls of the Gatehouse nor those of the adjoining enclosure wall as depicted by him in fig. 139 (1908: 95) seem to have risen to this height. Quite to the contrary, based on what can be seen in the photograph of this particular wall segment, the highest preserved point still standing at the time when the image was taken appears to be nowhere near the indicated findspot of the seal. What should we make of this? Naturally we cannot exclude the possibility (as suggested by Ussishkin) that Schumacher simply got his numbers wrong. Alternatively, he may have encountered a wall segment that was later in date (perhaps from Strata III or II) and which postdated even the reign of Jeroboam II (Ussishkin 1994: 421). In this case, the seal’s findspot would be ambiguous, as the seal would then have arrived here through later intrusion. Even so, this does not seem to be the most likely solution. While on the plan this ‘later’ wall segment is absent (it could have been removed by Schumacher’s team) Schumacher still considered it to have been part of the ‘Palace’ itself (i.e. the enclosure wall and the Gatehouse) and therefore to have belonged to the same stratum. He continued to hold to this interpretation in his final report. It could be argued of course that Schumacher had this wall-segment initially removed, thinking that it was later in date, while subsequently, when he had a better grasp of the architecture, he would have considered it to have been part of the original northern wall.142 Hence, it was not shown on the plan, because—at the time when the plan was drawn—it simply was no longer there.143 Moreover, this suggestion does not appear likely, as Schumacher states in his final publication, that ‘die oberen Steine ... hinaufragen’ (literally [still] ‘tower up’) and not ‘hinaufragten’ (i.e. formerly ‘towered up’, emphasis added). He therefore describes the situation as it still existed at the time of writing, even if the high wall segment is absent both on the plan and in the photograph. Was the discrepancy caused by the field notes (which Schumacher used when he wrote the text for his volume)—in which the wall segment was still extant—while, when the maps were drawn, they had been removed? Alternatively, Schumacher could be referring to loose boulders, which he had encountered in the debris above the remaining wall segment, some of which he had removed while digging deeper and some which were still protruding from the debris of the fill sections of his trench at the time of writing? It is not difficult to imagine that this may indeed have been the case. For by looking carefully at the photograph referred to above showing the northern enclosure wall segment, such bolders were indeed protruding from the debris.

141

Schumacher argues that at this point: ‘Die Steinschichten erreichen eine Höhe von 2,36 m über den Bodenfliesen an der Südwestecke und annähernd auch an der Südostecke’ (Schumacher 1908: 96). These are indicated as ‘a’ and ‘b’ in his fig. 143 on p. 97. See volume 1 ‘Tafeln’—Table XXIX B f and i. This is certainly misleading as he dug well beneath the actual floor, noting that only the upper courses of the ashlar foundation wall lie above the floor of the courtyard and inside the gate’s entrance. See also the reconstruction of the gatehouse in Ussishkin (1994: 416, fig. 24-3). 142 Its right side could however only have started near or at the findspot of the seal (some 4 m due west of the southwestern corner of the western wing of the Gatehouse) as at this point—in the eastern direction—the ashlar foundation wall would have started, which never reached this height, as—unlike the more or less solid enclosure wall (constructed of stabilising ashlars and rougher field stones)—it was mounted by the mud brick construction of the actual Gatehouse. Any higher sections of wall in this area could only possibly have belonged to piers in the wall to stabilise the mud-brick structures. 143 Strikingly, as Lamon and Shipton argue, wall segments of both the Gatehouse (1567) and the enclosure wall (Wall 1610) that had still existed during Schumacher’s excavation (and which are described by him), were no longer extant during the Chicago excavations: ‘From the plans and photographs by him [Schumacher] it appears that the structure [the Gate] was then in a far better state of preservation than it was when recleared during recent excavations’ (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 12–13). Earlier they related concerning the enclosure wall: ‘The wall (1610) of the enclosure was destroyed for the most part down to or even below the level of the floor. The east side was uncovered during Schumacher’s campaign, and except for its southern extremity it was then almost complete over its entire length’ (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 11, emphasis added). It remains unclear which sections had already been removed by Schumacher or his workmen and which by locals subsequent to Schumacher’s excavations. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

54

Chapter 1

In a similar vein, Schumacher also refers to bricks belonging to the upper structure of the ‘Palast’ (i.e. ‘Palastwohnung’, Gatehouse 1567), which he had encountered above the ashlar foundations and where: ‘… der Ziegelbau über den Mauern des Palastes 187,00 m MH erreichte, ...’144 (Schumacher 1908: 99) This material had been part of the excavated debris, as he stated earlier: ‘An diesen Stellen betrug der Oberbau, aus der Mächtigkeit der Schuttmassen zu schließen, nicht über 0,60 bis 0,70 m, sodaß die innere Höhe der Palastwohnräume etwa 3 m betragen haben mag.’ (Schumacher 1908: 96) Moreover, the stones which he encountered appear to have belonged to the very pier that connected the southwestern wall of the Gatehouse with the northern continuation of the enclosure wall. While most of the enclosure wall between the stabilising piers was made of fieldstones, rubble, and loose bolders (see also Shipton and Lamon 1939: 20) and while the upper structure of the Gatehouse was constructed of mud bricks, any such upper courses of ashlars would have naturally belonged to piers, which fortified the walls at various points along the fortification line and which have indeed been found in various excavation trenches. Such bolders can be seen in the photographs and in the plates of both the enclosure wall and the Gatehouse structure excavated during Schumacher’s excavation (see Schumacher 1908: Fig. 139 and Plate XXIX). As a matter of fact, this was also clearly stated by Lamon and Shipton when they published their findings of the western rooms of the Gatehouse in 1939 (see Lamon and Shipton 1939: 12–14, 20). That such stabilising piers were used in enclosure walls and in any adjoining superstructures was also confirmed during subsequent excavations at the site of contemporary structures, as well as at other sites where buildings from the same period have been unearthed such as at Hazor, Gezer, Beth Saida and Lachish, see also infra, fig. 31.145 It therefore does not come as a surprise that Schumacher himself drew the same conclusion, when he wrote: ‘Mit Ausnahme der südlichen Mauer der Palastwohnung [i.e. the eastern part and central corridor of the Four-Chambered Gatehouse] (Tafel XXIX B), welche einen Teil der nördlichen Umfassungsmauer des Palasthofes bildet und durchweg aus behauenen Quadern aufgeführt worden ist, sind nur die Ecken der drei Räume (a) mit besonderer Sorgfalt, und zwar zunächst als freistehende Pfeiler aus gut behauenen Quadern gemauert worden, während die dazwischen liegenden Bauteile (b), meist ohne Verband mit den Eckpfeilern und weniger solid gemauert, erst nachher eingefügt worden sind (vgl. Abb. 144 und 145).’ (Schumacher 1908: 96–97, emphasis added) Although Schumacher did not understand that the upper mud brick structure of the gate had originally been considerably higher than he understood it (its original roof being well above the tell’s surface at the time of the excavation), his description is still most telling in terms of the findspot of the seal. The debris from which the seal had been retrieved, came mainly from the upper structure (which included a great quantity of mud brick, wood and straw), as well as from the adjoining enclosure wall and its interspersed piers. The debris above the ashlar bolders contained several finds, including diagnostic pottery from what we today understand to be Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB (see infra 1.2.2.3).

144

Watzinger describes the layer of debris as follows: ‘... eine Schuttmasse von Ziegelmehl und Ziegelstücken, die mit verbrannten Holzstücken untermischt war und die nach oben in eine Schicht von verbranntem Holze überging’ (Watzinger 1929: 59). 145 For a recent and detailed discussion of Iron Age gatehouses, see Frese (2012). A resume on Iron Age II gatehouse is found in Frese (2015: 75–92). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

55

Fig. 29: Drawing by the Schumacher-team of the Northern Wall (to the right) associated with the southeastern chamber of Gatehouse 1567, looking north. As can be seen in the drawing, stone bolders at the corners of the Gate rose well above the standing person. The area to the east of the eastern pier of the Gatehouse is filled in with field stones (courtesy of Dr. J. Eisler, G. Schumacher Archive, Stuttgart, Germany).

Hence, it seems likely to assume that the seal could have either derived from the lower half of the upper mud brick structure (i.e. from the ground level) or perhaps more likely so, from the upper floor of the gatehouse, where additional rooms would have been located. According to Frese in his recent in-depth study of Levantine city gates: ‘The existence of at least one upper floor in a gatehouse is almost universally accepted, based on a large body of indirect evidence’ (Frese 2012: 100).146 He not only refers to the thick layer of debris found above the ground floor of Gatehouse 1567 at Megiddo (containing carbonised wood and straw and burned brick as Schumacher describes), but also points at similar circumstances at the Iron Age II gate of Beth Saida: ‘… chunks of the second-story floor were found at various angles with the same chamber’s debris, about 1m above the floor, and above these pieces of floor were broken pottery jars from the upper story.’ (Frese 2012: 103–104) This situation closely resembles that at Gatehouse 1567, which according to Schumacher contained masses of charred wood, straw and brick (Schumacher 1908: 95–96; see also Watzinger 1929: 59). As we shall discuss below, above the gate’s foundations, Iron Age IIA pottery vessels were also retrieved from its thick layer of debris.

Fig. 30: Reconstruction-drawing of Gatehouse 1567 (with windows of the upper floor), enclosure wall (1610) and the palace structure (1723) inside the courtyard (Palace 1693; after Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 29) (Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).

146

In his excellent discussion of upper floors in Levantine gatehouses (including those from the Iron Age, see chapter 5, 100–127), Frese has assembled conclusive evidence from various sources, including Neo-Assyrian reliefs depicting besieged city walls and gates with rows of windows (e.g. at Gaza (?), during the reign of Sargon II), biblical texts (e.g. 2Sam 18:33, and likely Neh 3:31–32), archaeological finds (including evidence of staircases, as e.g.at Tel Arad, Tel Dan, Ekron, Tal al-Khlayfe), and timber work from the upper floor (as e.g. at the Iron Age II gate of Beth Saida, where carbonised beams and other portions had formed a sealed debris of some 1 m above the gate’s surface floor. A similar situation had been found at Khirbet al-Mudayna in Jordan. As for the layout of the upper floor, Frese presumes, that ‘it was built with the same floor plan as the ground floor—i.e., with piers and chambers—so that the weight of the second floor’s walls and ceiling could be transferred onto the thick walls of the ground floor’ (p. 119). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

56

Chapter 1

In closing, while this reconstruction must remain tentative due to the overall complexity of the data, it does seem to make veritable sense of what Schumacher actually believed to be the state of affairs at the time of his excavations and of the findspot of the seal in particular. As the seal was discovered in the debris of Stratum VA–IVB (Schumacher’s ‘level five’), it most likely belonged to its final stages, when the seal was actually still used (or still awaited to be finished, as suggested above) in one of the rooms of the Gatehouse.

1.2.2.3 The Findspot: Stratum VA–IVB Pottery from the Gatehouse By looking more closely at which pottery was retrieved from the debris above the ashlar foundations of Gatehouse 1567 (Schumacher’s ‘Palastwohnung’) during the Schumacher excavations—approximately on the same level with the Shema seal (i.e. c. 186.50 m above sea level)—we discover that this debris indeed contained clear diagnostic Iron Age IIA and/or early Iron Age IIB, or better transitional IIA–B type fossils. Moreover, some rather well-preserved vessels were discovered, which help to underline this. According to Schumacher the following vessels were found at a height of c. 186.50 m above sea level:

Figs. 31 a–c: Left (a): everted rim jar. Centre (b): ovoid store jar. Right (c): store jar or beer jug (after Schumacher 1908: 101).

The following diagnostic pottery types were retrieved from the debris above the gatehouse and find good parallels from other contemporary Iron Age IIA and IIB (early) sites: i) ‘Clock-shaped’ vessel with everted rim and flat base147 This type was also subsequently uncovered by the Chicago team and has been assigned by Lamon and Shipton to Chicago Stratum IV, i.e. including IVB, to which they also assigned Gatehouse 1567 (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 11–12, 27 and figs. 34–35, 229; Plate 54, 94148).149 ii) Cylindrical two-handled storage jar with bulbous knob base150 This type of storage jar has a pronounced carinated shoulder and ‘elongated’ body, terminating in a bulbous base (as described by Watzinger, but not seen in the photograph, as the base of the jar was sunk into a perforated stone as its stand). Its narrow straight neck contains a simple rim.151 According to Steven Ortiz (2006: 606–609 with fig. 9:3) a very similar type of store jar is attested at Tel Qasile (SJ 3, Mazar 1985: Plate 48:1; Ortiz 2006: 605–607 with fig. 9:3). Although this type has its precursors already during the Late Bronze Age (likewise at Megiddo), the Iron Age form is well represented at Megiddo Strata VIB–A, VB and VA–IVB 147

See Schumacher (1908: 101–102 and fig. 151). See also Watzinger (1929: 59, no. 3). Lamon and Shipton (1939: 162–166 and § 37. See also Plate 10,42). Lamon and Shipton suggested that Gatehouse 1567 was blocked up and turned into a tower during the main phase of Chicago Stratum IV (= IVA), see Lamon and Shipton (1939: 13). They argued that the gatehouse had never been really finished as a gate (pp. 11, 15, 26), but this seems unlikely as its position as main entrance to the palace courtyard and evidence of domestic use of the structure (including a variety of finds) clearly suggests otherwise. 149 Although by no means identical with this vessel, a somewhat similarly shaped narrow footed krater—albeit with two handles and a different rim—is attested at Hazor Stratum VII, cf. Ben-Tor and Zarzecki-Peleg (2015: 160–161, no. 5). Stratum VII is assigned by the authors to the 9th century B.C. 150 See Schumacher (1908: 101–102 with fig. 152); Watzinger (1929: 59, no. 1). 151 For a similar type at Tell Michal, see Singer-Avitz (1989: 86 with fig. 7.5, 19–20). Singer-Avitz argues that this type has a long life and that its successor types survived into the Persian period. 148

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

57

(e.g. Loud 1948: Plate 71, 13; 83, 3).152 This has been substantiated by Gilboa and Sharon, who list specimens of the same type (also with the typical knob shaped bulbous base) at Tel Dor in horizons Ir 1a (Phase 9) and Ir 1b (Phase 7), belonging to Iron Age IB and early IIA (Gilboa and Sharon 2000: Figs. 4:1–3 and 8:11–13). iii) Storage jar without handles As the photograph in Schumacher’s report of 1908 is somewhat blurred, it is difficult to make out its precise form. Moreover, as with storage jar ii) above, its base is hidden in the perforated stone, which served as a stand for the photograph.153 The following two types appear likely, even if preference should be given to no. b) as it is far more common, also at Megiddo: a) Handleless jar with narrowing sides and round base This type is attested at Tell Jemmeh in the southern coastal plain (Ben Shlomo 2014: 390, fig. 7.78:e). Its occurrence in Phase KB1 dates this type squarely to the period of Iron Age IIA–B, more specifically so to Iron Age IIA (late).154 Another specimen of this type was found by Schumacher’s team in their level 6 (i.e. Stratum VB), excavated above the ‘Nord- und Mittelburg’ (Schumacher 1908: Plate XLIV: l). b) Handleless holemouth jar with straight sides and round base This type is well attested at Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB and may be the more likely parallel (cf. Finkelstein et al. 2000: 273, fig. 11.22, 8; 283, fig. 11.29, 1; 290, fig. 11.34, 3). It is also attested at Iron Age IIA Tel Farcah North Stratum VIIb (Tappy 2015: 202–203, no. 8), Tel Jezreel (Zimhona 1997: 43, 4) and at late Iron Age IIA Tel Rehov, Stratum IV (Mazar et al. 2005: Fig. 13.37; Mazar 1999: 22, fig. 11; 39, fig. 24). But as can be deduced from evidence found at Hazor Stratum VII, this type continued into Iron Age IIB (Amiran 1969: 239, Plate 79:12; Ben-Tor and Zarzecki-Peleg 2015: 175–176, nos. 4–8).155

Figs. 32 a–b: Left: Incense burner. Right: Cooking pot (both after Schumacher 1908: 101).

iv) Incense burner with everted rim and carinated base156 This type is well attested at Megiddo Stratum VB (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 278, fig. 11. 25, 4 and 7; see also Lamon and Shipton 1939: Plate 33: 18 and 20 [Stratum V]). Further it is attested at Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang and Garfinkel 2009: 128–129, figs. 6.8, 1–5.6; 6.9–10), Tel Rehov Strata V and IV (Mazar 1999: 25, fig. 14; Mazar et al. 2005: Figs. 13.23, 7; 13.24, 4; 13.35, 9), and at Tel cAmal III, late Iron Age IIA (Feig 2013: 18, figs. 14:1–3157). 152

A somewhat similar store jar from Ros Zayit Stratum IIa (including the bulbous base) is dated to Iron Age IIA late and IIB early according to Ben-Tor and Zarzecki-Peleg (2015: 170–173, no. 11). For somewhat similar early Iron Age IIA specimens at Khirbet Qeiyafa, see Garfinkel and Ganor (2009: 132–144, e.g. figs. 6.23, 1–5; 6.26–6.27). Yet there are distinct differences: the carination at the shoulder is less pronounced and the elongated body does not contain the knob-shaped base as at Megiddo and Tel Dor. 153 For this jar see Schumacher (1908: 101–102, fig. 153). See also Watzinger (1929: 59, no. 5). 154 This jar should not be confused with a somewhat similar Egyptian store jar, which lacks the collared rim as found on the relevant store jar discussed here. See also Wodzinska (2010: vol. 3, 206, no. 32). 155 For a more general discussion see Finkelstein (1999). For the attribution of even Hazor VIII to Iron Age IIB, see Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2006: 180). 156 Schumacher (1908: 101–102, fig. 154); Watzinger (1929: 59, no. 4). 157 With an English summary on pp. 31–41. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

58

Chapter 1

v) Squat cooking pot with two handles158 This type is attested at Megiddo, e.g. in Stratum VB, while its precursor already occurs in Stratum VIA (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 278, fig. 11.25,14; 11.13,5; see also Lamon and Shipton 1939: Plate 20, 115 [Stratum V]). Similar cooking pots were also unearthed at contemporary Tel Jezreel (Zimhoni 1997: 46, fig. 2.9. 2) and at Tel Dor (Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 13, fig. 8.16). At the height of c. 185–186 m above sea level, Schumacher’s team also encountered sherds from earlier strata, for instance of Cypriote milk bowls and pilgrim flasks (Schumacher 1908: 102 and Watzinger 1929: 58, nos. 7 and 8).159 But as Carl Watzinger probably correctly concluded: ‘Bei diesen kann ich den Verdacht nicht unterdrücken, daß sie vielleicht doch aus älteren Schichten herrühren, da der Palast mit seinen Fundamenten tief in ältere Schichten hineingesenkt ist.’ (Watzinger 1929: 59) From the debris above the western chamber of Gatehouse 1567 (Locus 489, in 500), Lamon and Shipton list the following restorable pottery specimens. It is not clear from their description in which ‘level’ they found these, as they also excavated in the overlying younger Strata IVA (including the ‘Stables’ located slightly further to the Northwest) and III (of the Assyrian City). Hence, we can only guess to which extent the following types are relevant for our discussion here: a) Storage jar 160 This type is well known from different sites and is variably termed ‘sausage-shaped’ (Amiran 1969: 244– 245) or ‘torpedo storage jar’.

Fig. 33: Storage jar from Locus 489 (after Lamon and Shipton 1939: Plate 14, 72) (Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).

Despite slight variations in shape, these store jars belong squarely to Iron Age IIB. They are found, e.g. at Megiddo in Level H3 (= Stratum IVA) and in main Stratum IVA (of the ‘Stables’; Finkelstein et al. 2000: 307, 315, 321 and figs. 11.47.4, 11.53.13, 11.58. 1). Be this as it may, at Hazor they are found in Strata VII–VA (Amiran 1969: 244–245, fig. 81.4–7; Finkelstein 1999: 64, fig. 3.7; Ben-Tor and Zarzecki-Peleg 2015: 170–173, esp. nos. 16 and 19), and therefore this type apparently commenced no earlier than Iron Age IIA (late) and continued well into IIB. b) Incense cup or bowl with three legs161 Although it was depicted without the three legs in the final report, Lamon and Shipton describe that the specimen originally had three legs. The round cup has a globular base.

158

Schumacher (1908: 101–102, fig. 155); Watzinger (1929: 59, no. 2). Ivory carvings of a turtle and a lion paw were also found in the eastern rooms of the Gatehouse at a level of c. 186 m. See Schumacher (1908: 104 and Table XXXIe and n). 160 Their type 72 (P1564), Lamon and Shipton (1939: 124 and Plate 14.72). 161 Lamon and Shipton (1939: 185, Plate 23.24). 159

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

59

Fig. 34: Incense cup from Locus 489 (after Lamon and Shipton 1939: Plate 23, 24) (Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).

It has one handle and two rows of pinched holes. A similar type was found during the current excavations at Megiddo in Stratum VA–IVB (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 285, fig. 11. 30.23).162 In Transjordan, however, a similar type is also attested at Tell es-Sacidiyye Stratum VII, which has been assigned to early Iron Age IIB (Herr 2015: 287 and 289).

1.2.2.4 Conclusions: A Later Date for the terminus ante quem of Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB? Summing up the above evidence, it appears reasonable to assume that the Shema seal was indeed found in sealed debris and that its findspot is not ambiguous as some scholars have argued. The seal indeed appears to have been found in debris which predominantly contained Iron Age IIA (and early IIB) pottery mixed with bricks and soot from the wooden floor of the upper storey and burned wood from the beams that formed the roof of the Gatehouse. This debris was clearly located above the ashlar foundations excavated by Schumacher’s team. If this conclusion is justified, the seal indeed must have belonged to the very final stages of Gatehouse 1567 within Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB (Schumacher’s Level 5). Moreover, the pottery listed by the Chicago team as having been found in the area of the two western chambers of the Gatehouse (which they excavated and identified as such), also appears to substantiate this view, regardless of the fact that we cannot be absolutely certain about the precise provenance of the pottery which they had retrieved from the building (due to lack of more specific information).163 Although theoretically it could be argued that the socalled ‘torpedo storage jar’ had belonged to subsequent Stratum IVA (as this type of vessel is indeed more commonly represented during Iron Age IIB), parallels from for instance Hazor Stratum VII underline that this type apparently commenced late during Iron Age IIA and/or early IIB. In other words, its appearance within the Gatehouse is still compatible with the evidence presented here, suggesting a date at the end of Iron Age IIA for its destruction, or at least fairly soon after. As we have argued, the Shema seal itself must have been retrieved from the sealed debris above the northern enclosure wall and the associated Gatehouse (i.e. the indicated height of the stone wall, by which the seal was found, suggests that the pier which linked both structures, must have been meant). As it was found c. 1,5m above the actual surface of the Gatehouse and the palace courtyard, it seems most likely that it would have fallen from the upper storey of the southwestern chamber of the building. This theory is supported by parallel evidence from the Iron Age II gatehouse at Beth Saida as we have mentioned earlier. This conclusion therefore has important repercussions for dating the end of Iron Age IIA at Megiddo (naturally it remains to be seen to what extent this also applies to other sites within the Northern Kingdom of Israel). Based on palaeographic and iconographic considerations, most scholars today would seem to suggest that the seal must have originally belonged to Stratum IVA, in some way or another. This, however, is either due to an unfortunate disinterest in recondite chronological questions or simply to an uncritical acceptance of the conviction that the seal’s findspot is ‘ambiguous’. Other scholars (recently Norma Franklin) have sought to grapple these questions critically and reattribute the context of Gatehouse 1567 to Stratum IVA (Franklin’s Stratum IV).164 Yet, as we believe, this suggestion is rendered untenable by the evidence, last but not least by the pottery evidence of the destruction debris above the Gatehouse as discussed above. 165 162

It is also attested at Hazor Stratum VII, currently dated according to the high chronology to the 9th century B.C., BenTor and Zarzecki-Peleg (2015: 152–153, no. 10). 163 Differently put, we cannot know if it had come also from the debris above the ashlar foundations or if it had been found on the floors of the excavated chambers. 164 See esp. Franklin (2005 and 2006). Ahlström 1993 too assigned the Gatehouse to Stratum IVA (early), but at the same time assigned the seal and its stratum to the reign of Jeroboam I during the late 10th century B.C. This early date is clearly excluded by iconographic and stratigraphical evidence. 165 Franklin’s reattribution of Gatehouse 1567 to Stratum IV, by disconnecting it from the unfinished or defunct bīt ḫilāni Palace 1723 of Stratum V, is based mainly on architectural and topographical considerations (and hence on a © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

60

Chapter 1

Be this as it may, this author would suggest that the seal belongs to Stratum VA–IVB (and not to a subsequent Stratum postdating the Iron Age IIA levels) and that it can be more precisely dated to the very end of that period or perhaps to the transitional phase between IIA and IIB at the latest, i.e. sometime during the reign of Jeroboam II.166 Gatehouse 1567 therefore cannot have been destroyed before Jeroboam’s rise to the throne in c. 790 B.C., or likely some years later during his reign. Massive destruction throughout the site is attested near the end of Stratum VA–IVB and as we shall discuss in more detail below (Excursus 1) plausible evidence of earthquake has been identified in different areas of the site by Marco et al. (2006). This does not mean, however, that all of the site’s destruction must be assigned to one natural cataclysm. As Jeroboam II succeeded his father Joash without any known political turmoil within the Northern Kingdom (let alone during military unrest caused by foreign infiltration; Aram-Damascus had been pacified by Assyria no later than 796 B.C.) and as no earthquake activity has as yet been accounted for during the second decade of the 8th century B.C., a date nearer the middle of that century appears likely. Indeed—as will be argued below—a dramatic earthquake occurred at the time of the biblical prophet Amos (Amos 1:1), which has been variously dated to 759 and 750 B.C. Political turmoil broke out soon after (no later than 750/749), when Jeroboam’s son and successor Zechariah was murdered by the mob and anarchy divided the political parties under the usurpers Shallum and Menahem, which put an end to the Jehuite dynasty.167 A date for the end of Stratum VA–IVB around the middle of the 8th century has not so far been considered for the Northern Kingdom of Israel, even if it has been proposed for Judah. Indeed, Ze’ev Herzog and Lily Singer-Avitz have suggested similar dates for the end of Iron Age IIA in Judah (i.e. sometime between 780– 760 B.C.; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 209–244; 2006, 163–195). On the other hand, they suggest an earlier date for the end of Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel, sometime during the final decades of the 9th century (Herzog and Singer Avitz 2006: 184). This also holds true for Israel Finkelstein and Benjamin Sass, who suggest a date sometime during the later half of the 9th century and seek to associate its demise with the military exploits of King Hazael of Aram-Damascus, c. 830 B.C.: reconstructed occupational history of the site), some of which relate to its off-centre position within the northern enclosure Wall 1610 and its proximity to nearby grain Silo 1414. The latter has been reassigned by Franklin to Stratum V. As according to Franklin the silo remained in use, the builders of the Gatehouse were forced to construct it further to the east (Franklin 2006: 106–107, with Table 2). Moreover, Franklin argues that (‘her’) Stratum IV (i.e. a combination of ‘IVB’ and ‘IVA’ into one single stratum) was contemporaneous with Samaria Building Period 2, which she unlike Building Period 1 (and by implication) squarely dates to the 8th century (Franklin 2005: 319–320). But this proposal has been criticised by Rupert Chapman (pers. comm., 2009, 2011, and recently—but indirectly so—in Chapman 2015). Despite Franklin’s assertion that: ‘The pottery from both sites cannot be used’ (Franklin 2005: 314), Chapman, who is convinced that we can, has listed the pottery of Samaria Building Periods I, II, and III. He has established with conviction that Building Periods I and II are not only indissolubly linked, but can also be dated by the Iron Age IIA pottery which was found on its floors and not beneath them, as some scholars had previously suggested (Chapman 2015: esp. 139– 141, figs. 1–3). In turn, this pottery is chronologically contemporaneous with Megiddo VA–IVB, including that of Palace 1723, Enclosure Wall 1610 and Gatehouse 1567 (Chapman 2015: 141). Hence, the artificial separation of Samaria Building Periods 1 (9th century) and 2 (8th century) and Megiddo Strata V and IV (notwithstanding the complex history of its late Iron Age IIA structures) is rendered untenable by ceramic evidence. It is also compatible with our understanding of the destruction debris above the Gatehouse, which virtually only contains Iron Age IIA pottery. For a detailed discussion on the architectural history of these structures, see Franklin (2005: 98–102). On bīt ḫilāni Palace 1723 at Megiddo, see Chapman (2015: 141–142 and figs. 6 and 7). Also Ussishkin has criticised Franklin’s reattribution of Gatehouse 1567 to Stratum IV (A), but on purely architectural grounds, and concludes: ‘It thus appears most obvious that the enclosure and the palace inside were built at the same time and according to a single architectural scheme, and this indeed was the conviction of the excavators ….’ As Ussishkin assigns Silo 1414 to Stratum IVA (unlike the Chicago excavators who had assigned it to Stratum III), the builders of the gatehouse were not constrained by it. Moreover, its off-centre position finds good parallels at Jezreel and Tell Halaf (Ussishkin 2006: 49–54, esp. 50–51 and 53). 166 Naturally this chronological conclusion does not radically differ much from Franklin’s, except that we date the findspot to the end of Iron Age IIA rather than to the beginning of Iron Age IIB as implied by her ‘new’ Stratum IV (= IVB and IVA). 167 Alternatively, the end of Stratum VA-IVB could be dated as late as 733/732 B.C., when Magiddu is referred to as a province in the Assyrian annals of Tiglath-pileser III. Megiddo Strata IVA and III would then both be considered as Assyrian cities, postdating the year 733. While this option cannot be categorically ruled out (and hence deserves further consideration), a somewhat earlier date for the end of Stratum VA–IVB appears preferable to this author. This is not to say that Stratum IVA itself could not be squarely a post-733 city, as it is separated from the previous stratum by some decades, as is suggested by the pottery evidence. On this, see also chapter 3. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

61

‘The Iron IIA1 is identified mainly in the north—Megiddo VA–IVB and its contemporaries, and the Iron IIA2 mainly in the south—e.g., Lachish IV, Beer-sheba V and Arad XI. ... In the south, with no Hazael destructions in Judah, the late Iron IIA1 may be represented by the latter part of chiefly early Iron IIA layers, and the early days of late Iron IIA2 to early Iron IIB layers.’ (Finkelstein and Sass 2013: 152) These dates are believed to be supported by calibrated 14C dates (based on Bayesian statistics). As we have discussed elsewhere problems with 14C measurements imply that these dates cannot be necessarily trusted (see Zerbst and van der Veen 2015: 199–224, esp. 213–215).168 While this author accepts that the end of Iron Age IIA (i.e. Iron Age IIA2) in Judah would have overlapped with early Iron Age IIB levels during the final years of the Northern Kingdom and the early years of Neo-Assyrian annexation (this indeed is also suggested by the seal evidence from Jerusalem presented above in this chapter), based on the evidence presented here, the demise of Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB would need to be lowered at least by some decades.

EXCURSUS 1: Does Amos’ Earthquake Provide a Plausible Archaeological Context? The earthquake referred to in the Old Testament Book of Amos, chapter 1:1, has provoked ferocious debate within Biblical Archaeology over the last sixty years or so, since Yigal Yadin’s excavations at Tel Hazor. Yadin encountered supposed evidence of seismic activity at the end of Hazor Stratum VI in his Area A (i.e. Iron Age IIB). 169 His identification of the cataclysm with the so-called Amos event has been generally followed by many scholars within the fields of archaeology and biblical studies.170 Both conclusive171 and less conclusive (even including rather doubtful) seismic evidence172 at a number of sites in Israel and Judah has been related to Amos’ cataclysm of the year 759 (Galil 1996) or 750 B.C. (according to Thiele 1983).173 This topic has received great attention in recent years. Consequently, a more nuanced picture has emerged (Austin et al. 2000; Ambrayses 2005 and 2014; Kagan et al. 2011; Danzig 2011; Roberts 2012; Marco et al. 2014; Garfunkel et al. 2014, etc.). While Austin et al. (2000) have assembled useful historical information from the Old Testament (e.g. mainly from the prophetic books174) and have suggested that the epicentre must be sought in the Dead Sea Transform Fault somewhere to the north of Hazor in modern Lebanon, they also rather uncritically list Iron Age IIB sites whose seismic evidence has not been proven (Austin et al. 2000: 666). Their extensive list has been recently criticised by Roberts, who has argued that only those sites that lie nearer the epicentre in Lebanon (e.g. Tel Dan and Hazor) could have suffered severe seismic damage (Roberts 2012: 193). 168

E.g. Finkelstein and Piasetzki (2006, 2009a and b, 2010). See also Gilboa and Sharon (2001); Gilboa et al. (2009), etc. 169 See esp. Yadin (1960, 1972 and 1975). For a helpful summary of all the affected structures at Hazor (only attested in Area A), see Danzig (2011: 18–20). For an important critique of Yadin’s interpretation altogether in the light of the current excavations at the site, see likewise Danzig (2011: 17–25). Despite the problems of the theory highlighted by Danzig he also points out that in the new excavations Stratum VI Area A must be reckoned to Stratum VII (late Iron Age IIA or early IIB), i.e. modern Stratum 4. Roberts, who also recognises the same problems, including that of the very restricted Area A in which seismic evidence has been found, prefers to leave the issue open and concludes: ‘In sum, earthquake evidence at Hazor is expected but it is not as clear or widespread as we would like’ (Roberts 2012: 164). In the light of the renewed excavations (if of course earthquake is attested for), seismic evidence would belong to the end of Stratum VII (current Stratum 4) and as such would possibly correlate with the end of Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB. The issue at Hazor no doubt deserves further study. 170 For a summary see esp. Roberts (2012: 16). Yadin’s earthquake theory has apparently also been accepted by BenTor, Hazor’s current excavator (1993: 604), despite absence of evidence in the current excavations (Ben-Tor 2005: 1775). But see also Dever (1992) and Zwickel (2015). 171 E.g. at Tell Deir cAlla IX (‘Balaam Stratum’), Tel Rehov VI, Tel Dan Stratum 2. 172 Supposed evidence of earthquake has also been argued for at En-Gev II, Samaria Building Period IV, and at Tell esSafi Stratum A2, Gezer VI, Lachish IV, En Hazeva 5. 173 The 759-date is preferred by most scholars (including Galil) and goes back to the initial studies on Amos’ earthquake by Ari Ben-Menahem (1979 and 1991). Roberts is more critical of a specific date of the event, and prefers a timeframe between 780–745 B.C., while he prefers a date towards the end of the period. See Roberts (2012: 18). 174 For a succinct list, see also Austin et al. (2000: 661–664). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

62

Chapter 1

Based on their ‘integrated chronology of spatially distributed palaeoearthquakes (seismites) in the late Holocene Dead Sea basin’, Kagan et al. have assembled evidence of major earthquake activity during the 8th century B.C. (Kagan et al. 2011: 19, 23–25). While Austin et al. had argued that ‘the recurrence interval of earthquakes during historical times was around a century’ to show that all the assembled seismic evidence dated to Iron Age IIB referred to only a single event, Kagan and his colleagues argue that this assumption is not supported by the many attested examples of earthquake activity in the region (Kagan et al. 2011: 23). For while intervals could amount up to one century in B.C. times (as is e.g. indicated by seismic evidence at Megiddo Strata IVA and III175, as well as at Tel Rehov [fault scarp]176), recorded evidence in A.D. times confirms that much shorter intervals of only one decade (e.g. in 1202 and 1212 A.D.) or of a timespan ranging between 53–73 years (during the entire period of 1000–1800 A.D.) is accounted for (Kagan et al. 2011: 24– 25; see also Migowski et al. 2004: 306, Table 2). More relevant to the subject matter of our discussion here, Kagan et al. show that actually two seismic events struck the so-called ‘Dead Sea transform region’ sometime near the middle of the 8th century B.C.177: ‘Our results, in addition to those of other palaeoseismological and archaeological studies, support two earthquakes during the mid-8th century B.C.’ (Kagan et al. 2011: 25; see also pp. 13 and 15, figs. 5 and 7, emphasis added) While the significance of Megiddo (on the Carmel-Farah Fault, a branch of the so-called Dead Sea Fault) was singled out by Nur and Ron (1997)178 for being especially liable to earthquake activity (possibly having inspired Armageddian scenes of doom in the Book of Revelation), Marco et al. have found likely archaeological evidence of seismic activity at Megiddo itself (especially relating to the current excavations there), spanning from the Early Bronze to the late Iron Ages (2006: 568–575, esp. Tables 31.1 and 2). Their list includes areas all over the tell from Strata VA–IVB (traditionally late 9th century), IVA (traditionally 8th century) and III (mainly 7th century), see Marco et al. (2006: 573, fig. 31.2). While they consider earthquake activity to be possible for Stratum IVA, they state with clear conviction that besides an earthquake at the end of the fourth millennium B.C., another one ‘in the 9th century BCE (which caused the damage in Stratum VA–IVB)’ is ‘beyond doubt’ (Marco et al. 2006: 572). It is interesting to note that Lamon and Shipton also found evidence of earthquake activity inside Gatehouse 1567, but suggested that it could have occurred at any given time prior to Schumacher’s excavation.179 Marco et al. date the event to the very end of Stratum VA–IVB or possibly to the period immediately after its demise, but prior to the construction of the northern Stables of Stratum IVA (Marco et al. 2006: 572, Table 31.2).

175

See esp. Marco et al. (2006). Tel Rehov was presumably struck by earthquake during the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. 177 It should be emphasised, however, that their dates are partly based on calibrated radiocarbon dates (fine-tuned with the help of Bayesian statistics). In the light of the queries raised by Zerbst and van der Veen (2015), these should not be uncritically accepted. Roberts deviates from Kagan et al. by saying that the earthquakes referred to by Kagan et al. as registered in the Dead Sea basin (i.e. at En-Feshka, Ze’elim and En-Gedi) took place at the very beginning and at the far end of the 8th century. See Roberts (2012: 232). But his dates too must be carefully scrutinised. For while his earlier date is completely dependent on the conventional date of Iron Age IIA at Megiddo (see Marco et al. 2006), his later date is derived from Migowski et al. (2004), who are rather imprecise about the exact time around ‘700 B.C.’ (see Migowski et al., 2004: 307, Table 2). In sum, two earthquakes rather than one are accounted for in close proximity to one another. In the light of the devastating earthquake of Amos 1:1, it appears likely that at least one of them is identical with the Amos cataclysm. Alternatively, James has suggested a later date for the end of Hazor V, equating the destruction of Stratum VII with that of the Assyrian conquest in 733 B.C. The earthquake of Stratum VI (now believed to be part of Stratum VII by the excavators) may perhaps be the same as the one alluded to in Isa 5:25, if this earthquake in 736 B.C. is accepted as historical reality. On this second earthquake, see below. 178 See also Nur and Burgess (2008: 97, fig. 4.4). For a useful summary of clues to earthquakes in the archaeological record, see their chapter 4, 88–140. 179 Lamon and Shipton (1939: 16). Be this as it may, based on modern studies, Marco et al. rightly state that earthquake evidence often can be very localised and evidence must not be found throughout the tell. The localised evidence would be mainly due to the ‘heterogeneous nature of the underlying ground’. See also Marco et al. (2006: 572). 176

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

63

Be this as it may, the archaeological evidence of seismic activity at the end of Iron Age IIA Megiddo renders Stratum VA–IVB to be a better candidate for Amos’ dramatic earthquake of 759 or 750 B.C. than the supposed earthquake of Stratum IVA. This, however, does not mean, as Kagan et al. (2011: 25) have rightly noted, that the Stratum IVA seismic evidence can be simply ignored. It is feasible that this activity (along with that of Hazor Stratum VI180 and Tell Deir cAlla Stratum IX) is related to a less dramatic event, which may have occurred some decades later. As a matter of fact, such an event may perhaps be alluded to in the Book of Isaiah. While according to Isa 6:1 the seer started his prophetic career ‘in the year that Uzziah died’ (i.e. 736 B.C. according to Galil 1996), Isaiah possibly alludes to seismic activity in chapter 5:25: ‘Therefore Yahweh’s anger burns against his people; his hand is raised and he strikes them down. The mountains shake, and the dead bodies are like refuse in the streets.’ (NIV, emphasis added) Rather than taking this language of doom to be merely rhetoric (see also Isa 2:19,21; 6:4), seismic activity may be at the heart of the prophetic language and may have accompanied and endorsed the seer’s oracles of doom.181 Naturally it is impossible to prove this and it cannot be excluded that the second cataclysm identified by Kagan et al. refers to yet another earthquake, so far unknown to us. Be this as it may, if confirmed, Amos’ earthquake and the subsequent riots and overthrow of the Jehuite dynasty produce a neat fit for the Megiddo evidence, which is compatible with the overall picture presented in this chapter. Whether or not this late date for the end of Iron Age IIA at Megiddo can be accommodated with a proper understanding of other Iron Age IIA and early IIB sites in Israel, will need to be seen. Their occupation history may be related either to the dramatic Neo-Assyrian military upheavals of the second half of the 8th century or to the downfall of the Jehuites, followed by innerpolitical turmoil.182 An overview of the consequences of the above conclusions may be found in Table 2.

180

As noted above, Roberts has argued that the current excavators at Hazor reassign Stratum VI to VII (current Stratum 4), which represents the final phase of Iron Age IIA or early IIB (the exact attribution to which archaeological horizon Stratum VII must be assigned is currently disputed). If so (see also Table 1 in this chapter), it may be feasible to also realign this possible (but unproven) earthquake to the Amos cataclysm. 181 A similar suggestion has been previously made by Milgrom (1964: 180). Austin et al. also refer to Milgrom’s suggestion, but prefer to relate these references a posteriori to the dramatic cataclysm of Amos. See Austin et al. (2000: 663). While a helpful summary of rhetoric ‘earthquake’ language in the oracles of doom can be found in Danzig (2011), he too suggests that these literary expressions could be rooted in veritable historical events (Danzig 2011: 4–16). 182 But also see chapter 2 on the complexities involved with interpreting the literary evidence as represented by the Assyrian annals and the relevant historical texts of the Old Testament. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

64

Chapter 1

Duration very uncertain Earthquake activity at the time of Amos Further possible causes of destruction by seismic activity and political turmoil, prior to Neo-Assyrian interventions in the Southern Levant Table 2: Late Iron Age IIA Sites in Israel and Judah in the light of the lower dates suggested for Jerusalem and Megiddo in this chapter.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

65

EXCURSUS 2: The Duration of Iron Age IIA and Its terminus post quem in Israel Although it is largely beyond the scope of the present work to deal with the terminus post quem of Iron Age IIA in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (and more precisely so at Megiddo), the question has an important bearing on our overall understanding of the archaeology and history of monarchic Israel. For if the traditional higher dates advocated by the adherents of the ‘High Chronology’ are maintained (with dates no later than c. 980 B.C. for the beginning of the period), Iron Age IIA would have lasted a full 230 years, i.e. if our above conclusions were to be accepted. The timespan would, however, be reduced by some 50 years to c. 180 years, if the terminus post quem of c. 930 B.C.—as postulated by the adherents of the Tel Aviv ‘Low Chronology’— is to be preferred. Nonetheless, traditionally the period under question is believed to have merely lasted some 75–150 years instead, and if this timespan comes anywhere near reality, a date closer to c. 900–850 B.C. for the start of Iron Age IIA would be more in keeping with the evidence. Such a date may at first glance seem entirely unacceptable to most scholars in the field. Yet, dates as low as 880 and 870/850 B.C. have been proposed, both by the excavators of Tel Dor (Gilboa et al. 2004: 32–59183) and by a group of scholars whose papers have recently been published in a conference proceedings dealing with the archaeology and history of kings Solomon and Shishak (see esp. James and van der Veen 2015: 127–136; Chapman 2015: 139–147; van der Veen 2015: 190–198; Wallenfels 2019: 487–500). According to the latter authors, the onset of Iron Age IIA (both at Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB and at Samaria Building Periods I and II, whose pottery appears to be strikingly similar, see esp. Chapman 2015: 139–141), would largely coincide with the ascent of the Omride dynasty in Northern Israel.184 As for the earliest Iron Age pottery at Samaria in particular, Ron Tappy mentions a relatively high percentage of straightforward Iron Age I (mainly IB) pottery from beneath and some also from above the first building floor of the Omride citadel (i.e. Building Period I).185 While Kathleen Kenyon, who worked at Samaria/Sebaste between 1931–1935, dated the Iron Age IIA pottery to the time of Omri and Ahab (long before George J. Wightman, Israel Finkelstein et al. brought the subject up again186), her position was heavily opposed by other scholars including William F. Albright, George E. Wright, Yohanan Aharoni and Ruth Amiran, who held firmly to 10th century dates for all ‘Iron Age IIA’ material.187 The traditional view is also maintained by Ron Tappy, who has carefully restudied the Samaria pottery from Kenyon’s field journals188 and postulates on the basis of the oldest Iron Age pottery at the site (including Iron Age IB and early IIA sherds189) that—contrary to biblical tradition190—the site may have been more densely settled for an extended period of time long before construction at the Omride capital began in c. 880 B.C. (Tappy 2001: 67, 95).

183

Based primarily on 14C dates—albeit with the support of post-Ramesside scarabs retrieved from Tel Dor Stratum G/7 (two of which possibly contain the pharaonic name Siamun)—the excavators postulate a date for their transitional phase ‘Ir 1/2’ (i.e. contemporary with the late 21st and early 22nd dynasties in Egypt) sometime around 880 B.C. This date is clearly incompatible with ‘High Chronology’ dates for the transition from Iron Age IB–IIA (conventionally dated to c. 1000 B.C.) and likewise with the current dates for Pharaoh Siamun, i.e. 978–959 or 968–948 B.C. Lower dates for Siamun and his successors (including Shoshenq I and Osorkon I) have been proposed by James and Morkot (2015: 20– 41), Thijs (2015: 42–60), and van der Veen (2015: esp. 191–193). 184 Although Chapman merely refers to Iron Age IIA pottery found both beneath and above the floors of Samaria Building Periods I and II, earlier pottery was also found (see also Stager 1990: 93–107, esp. 104, Table 6). 185 See also Tappy (2001: 96). According to Tappy ‘At several points, early sherds were found mixed with later ones inside the original Omride floor level.’ 186 E.g. Wightman (1985: 117–129; 1990: 5–22). For a good summary of the Tel Aviv ‘Low Chronology’ position on Omride archaeology and architecture, see Finkelstein (2014: chapter 4, 98–137) with relevant literature. 187 For an excellent summary on the subject, see Bimson (2002: 272). See also Avigad (1993: 1303). 188 Some 55.4% of the pottery, which Tappy believes belongs to the Iron Age I period, came ‘from the area North of 161 [and] derived mainly from the Summit Strip Qn with a single jar rim coming from Strip Qk’. See Tappy (1992: 25). 189 See Tappy (1992: 28–94) for this pottery which includes bowls, cooking pots, jars, juglets, kraters, and flasks. Although a few sherds can be dated to Iron Age IA (including a fragment of a collar rim jar and a painted lentoid shaped pilgrim flask; Tappy 1992: 86 and 92–93), it seems safe to suggest that these must have derived from a local farmstead or farmer installations predating the Omride structures. For the early Iron Age pottery, see also Stager (1999: 93–107). 190 According to biblical tradition, Omri acquired a hill from a certain Shemer (who lent his name to the site) for two talents of silver. Many scholars understand the hill to have been a vastly barren plot of land, perhaps sparsely occupied by scattered farmsteads and/or installations of vine dressers (e.g. Alt 1953: 123; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 180– © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

66

Chapter 1

Yet, this author finds Tappy’s conclusions difficult to accept. Not only was Kenyon herself convinced that the earlier ‘Pottery Period 1’ was closely interwoven with the first Omride structures (Tappy 1992: 96), Rupert Chapman has recently argued that so-called ‘Pottery Period 1’ material (which, as we discussed before, included quantities of Iron Age IB and IIA pottery) was also found above the floor of Samaria Building Period I, while Pottery Period 2 material was found above the floor of Samaria Building Period 2. In other words, Building Period 1 was contemporary with the final stages of Iron Age IB and the earliest phase of Iron Age IIA (Chapman 2015: 140, fig. 1191). John Bimson has likewise argued in favour of this alternative date and proposed that the Iron Age IB/IIA transition must have overlapped with the time of Samaria Building Period 1 (Bimson 2002: 59–60; for similar views, see also James et al. 1991: 183–188). Hence, rather than suggesting that the Iron Age IB/early IIA occupation was separated from the time of Omri and Ahab by more than a century, as Tappy has argued, this phase would in reality represent the latest pre-Omride and the earliest Building Period at the site. Bimson refers to a similar situation at Iron Age Jericho (which according to biblical tradition was rebuilt during the reign of King Ahab).192 A situation reminiscent of Samaria may also be found at Omride Jezreel (see esp. Zimhoni 1997: 13–56; see also James and van der Veen 2015b: 37). Despite the absence of a pre-enclosure settlement, Iron Age IA–B material (albeit mixed with Middle and Late Bronze sherds193) was retrieved from construction fills at the site, while the first Iron Age enclosure buildings are represented by Iron Age IIA material (once again contemporary with Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB; e.g. Zimhoni 1997: 38–39). Naturally, this scenario must remain tentative as long as other scenarios seem possible. Nevertheless, some supportive epigraphic evidence in favour of lower dates for Iron Age IB/IIA material has been presented elsewhere by this author (van der Veen 2015: 190–198).194 We referred among other things to inscribed body sherds dated by their archaeological contexts and more generally by their palaeographic style to Iron Age I and IIA (first proposed by Lemaire 2012: 302–303). All of these apparently contain the same—albeit rare—name Nimsh[i]. Specimens were retrieved during survey work at Khirbet Tannim (some 7km to the southwest of Jenin), during excavations at Tel cAmal / Nir David (near Beth Shean), and at Tel Rehov (Stratum VI).195 Also some readings remain uncertain, Lemaire considers it likely that all 181). If so, the earliest Iron Age settlement at the site (preceded by a long period of abandonment since the Early Bronze Age), can be assigned with relative certainty to the time of Omri during the first quarter of the 9th century B.C. 191 While Chapman maintains that the pottery ‘belonged taxonomically to Iron Age IIA’ by accepting Albright’s and Wright’s earlier attribution, Ron Tappy has convincingly identified a large percentage as Iron Age I material. See also Tappy (1992: 258, Appendix F and 261, fig. 1:1–24). 192 John Bimson correlates Iron Age IB remains at Tell es-Sultan with the biblical tradition concerning Hiel of Bethel and his sons, who after a long period of abandonment at the site, rebuilt Jericho during the reign of King Ahab (1 Kgs 16:34; Bimson 1999: 59–60). On the early Iron Age remains at Tell es-Sultan, see Weippert and Weippert (1976: 105– 148) and van der Veen (2008). 193 A pre-Iron Age settlement at Jezreel may also be implied by biblical tradition, see Josh 19:18 and 1 Kgs 4:12. See Zimhoni (1997: 30). 194 Among others, the article includes discussions on possible 9th century B.C. archaeological contexts for the Shoshenq I stele fragment at Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB (as suggested by Chapman 2009: 4–17) and the Shoshenq I and Osorkon I statue inscriptions at Byblos (KAI 5 and 6). These are believed to link Šepiṭ-Bacal, the son of Eli-Bacal of Byblos (who dedicated Osorkon’s statue to the divine Lady of Byblos) to a Šepiṭ-Bacal of Byblos (IŠipiṭba’ilu / IŠibittibi’ili) mentioned in the royal annals of Tiglath-pileser III in c. 740 B.C. (see e.g. ITP Ann. 13,10–14,5, Stele III A 1–23). The suggestion had previously been made by Ronald Wallenfels (1983: 88–89; see also James et al. 1991: 249–251). Likewise, the Aramaic Tell Fekheriyeh Inscription (which had previously been dated to the 11th century B.C. by Joseph Naveh on the basis of its archaic late Iron Age I alphabetic script; Naveh 1987 [2009]: 101–113 [92–104]; Naveh 1997 [19872]: 215– 216) is shown to be firmly fixed to the mid-9th century through the statue’s owner, king Had-yisci, whose father ŠamašNuri/Sasnuri of Guzana served as limmu in the year 866 B.C. (first proposed by Abu Assaf 1981, Millard and Bordreuil 1982). Reference is also made to the inscribed Kefar Veradim fluted bronze bowl found in a grave (Cave 3) some 17 km to the northeast of Acco. The tomb’s late Iron Age IIA (and IIB) repository has been dated by its excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, to the 10th century B.C. (Alexandre 2002a and b; 2006). While similar dedicatory bowl inscriptions are attested on metal bowls from Tekke (Knossos), Cyprus and Greece, the fluted form of the bowl most closely resembles Neo-Assyrian specimens (even if gadrooned bowls were known e.g. also during the Ramesside period), which hardly reached the southern Levant much before the middle of the 8th century B.C. (see Koller 2012: esp. 289; Sass 2005: 38; see also chapter 3). A similar bowl is e.g. held by the 8th century king Kuttamuwa of Sam’al on his stele at Zincirli (Struble and Herrmann 2009). 195 For a more detailed discussion of these sherds, see Lemaire (2012: 302–303). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence

67

these inscriptions bear versions of the same name Nimshi. He compares the name with that of King Jehu’s grandfather (1 Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 9:2,14; Lemaire 2012: 303). Within the context of the ‘High Chronology’, it would need to be assumed that the sherds referred to different people bearing the same name at different times, within the lower scheme, however, it could be suggested that one and the same person is referred to. As the name Nimshi is mentioned in addition to Jehu’s father Jehoshaphat in his line of descent, it has been proposed that Jehu’s grandfather had been a key figure in the aristocracy of the Northern Kingdom at the time, who was perhaps indirectly related to the royal family (see esp. Schneider 1995: 26–33). If so, his career would have spanned the later years of Iron Age IB and the earlier years of Iron Age IIA, during the first half of the 9th century B.C. Similarly, we also referred to inscribed arrowheads from Lebanon and Phoenicia (and possibly from northern Israel and Gilead) which are generally dated (albeit mainly on the basis of palaeographic style) to the late 11th and early 10th centuries B.C. While later dates have been proposed by Benjamin Sass (2005: 34; Finkelstein and Sass 2013: 163, 210–212), this author has tentatively suggested that some of the elite and royal characters referred to on these arrowheads may possibly be equated with historical characters known from the late 10th and 9th centuries B.C. While for instance the hypocoristicon cAbdy (i.e. cAbd-[DN]), referred to several times by his sons and subordinates (Deutsch and Heltzer 1999: 13–19, nos. XXVII, XXXII, XXXIV, XL–XLI, XLVI), may possibly relate to Abdastartos of Tyre (906/905–898/897 B.C.), the name c Astart (no. XLIII) could refer to his immediate successor Astartos of Tyre (898/897–887/886 B.C.). Both kings are listed in the Tyrian annals of Menander (see e.g. Green 1983: 392; Kokkinos 2013: 56–66).196 Although the above equations may not be more than good guesses, and while they undoubtedly need to be substantiated by further straightforward archaeological and preferably epigraphic evidence, an early 9th century date for the start of Iron Age IIA no longer seems to be an insurmountable obstacle, at least not in the light of the evidence as has been presented above.

196

Astartos is also called Methuastartos and as such Astartos would likely be a hypocoristocon. If the above equations are accepted (yet without any patronyms and a clearer provenance for these items, this will be hard to ascertain), one might perhaps also consider the—albeit very worn—arrowhead of cAnal, the man (or retainer) of a certain ‘Y[..]Bacal.’ As the missing letter could be a ṭ, the name Iṭ- or Iṭṭo-Bacal/Ethbaal (king of Tyre and Sidon, 887–856 B.C.) might possibly also be considered. See Deutsch and Lemaire (2003: 9–10). While Iṭṭo-Bacal was the father of queen Jezebel, King Ahab’s wife (1 Kgs 16:31), he also paid tribute to King Assurnasirpal II of Assyria (883–859 B.C.). A more indepth study of the arrowheads might therefore prove to be a rather rewarding task. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

2 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Judah during Iron Age IIB (early) 2.1 General Introduction Archaeological horizons (and more specifically so destruction levels) are frequently dated by what are supposed to be matching contemporary historical events. However, only rarely are these attributions confirmed by well defined evidence, such as inscriptions and foreign ceramic imports and/or imitations, whose dates can be fixed by independent dating criteria.197 In this chapter we shall deal predominantly with what is called ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery. This will also contain discussions on a subgroup termed ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ pottery by contemporary pottery specialists, found predominantly in Southern Judah and the Northern Negev, as well as in the Edomite heartland, in the Arabah district (e.g. at Busayra, Tawilan and Umm al-Biyara). Like at the end of chapter 1, we shall add excurses on related subjects that demand further clarification. These concern: the chronological impact of ‘Edomite’ ceramics on ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in the Northern Negev (with an Addendum on recently published 14C dates), as well as apparent ‘Assyrian-style’ objects found in Iron Age IIA–B strata at Kfar Veradim and Tel Dan, whose ‘anachronistic’ Late Assyrianising characteristics demand special pleading within the currently accepted schemes. The main area of study in this chapter, however, concerns ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in Iron Age IIB strata in Cisjordan, whose chronological significance has not always been fully appreciated. Most scholars believe that these diagnostic vessels do not normally occur prior to ‘Iron Age IIC’ in Cis- and Transjordan, or more specifically so in historical terms to before c. 733/701–587/586 B.C. Its late Neo-Assyrian prototypes likewise occur in late 8th and 7th century strata at the main political centres in the Assyrian homeland (e.g. at Fort Shalmaneser, Nimrud, Nineveh and Assur). Moreover, the most striking specimens belong to the final phase of the late Neo-Assyrian period, i.e. the so-called Sargonid period (which lasted from c. 721–612 B.C.). Furthermore, specimens of the same pottery group are also found in post-Assyrian strata (both in the Assyrian homeland and in its peripheries). As a matter of fact, it has been proposed that the most elegant pottery styles (better known as ‘Assyrian Palace Ware’, henceforth: APW) experienced their artistic zenith during the 7th century. On the whole, this pottery style has important chronological repercussions for the production of local derivatives or imitations by regional pottery workshops in the empire’s peripheries, especially so in the remote parts of the Southern Levant. For it seems unlikely that those types that were introduced in Assyria proper during the 8th century (or more specifically so from the late 8th century onwards) would have been imitated by local Levantine potters much before the first half of the 7th century B.C., when this region was more fully controlled by Assyria. As would be expected, the production of local imitations therefore squarely overlaps with the heyday of the so-called Pax Assyriaca in the Southern Levant, when its local elite adapted more widely to the cultural fashions of their Neo-Assyrian overlords by acquiring foreign products (especially luxury items) henceforth more widely available on the international market.198 Striking evidence of this acculturation through late ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery styles, stamp and cylinder seals, as well as cosmetic implements, has been detected especially in Transjordan, for instance in tombs at and near modern Amman, some of whose owners can be identified with known dignitaries of attested 7th century Ammonite monarchs (see infra, Table 3). A similar situation is found in Edom (e.g. at Busayra, Tawilan, Umm al-Biyara), whose archaeological strata can be dated to the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. (for these dates, see esp. Addendum 1 of Excursus 1 at the end of this

197

Naturally radiometric dating is frequently applied also, but hardly ever do calibrated samples yield sufficiently accurate dates. Its results are often uncritically accepted by a leap of faith. See esp. Zerbst and van der Veen (2015). Hence, according to this author, also other clearly defined methods, including stratified inscribed evidence, datable pottery imports and imitations of datable foreign pottery styles, etc., must be taken into account in our analyses as independent tools. 198 This holds especially true for the period following the wars of Sargon II and Sennacherib in the Shephelah and in the southern coastal region of Palestine, when the trade routes could be more freely used for the exchange of international commodities (Knauf 2002: 183). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

70

Chapter 2

chapter). Its local potters likewise produced late ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels, whose characteristics often reflect striking local characteristics (including painted decoration) not always found elsewhere. As noted above, even though late ‘Assyrian-style’ (imitated but to a small degree also imported) pottery is predominantly restricted to Iron Age IIC levels in the Southern Levant, there also exist exceptions to the rule. Both ‘finer quality’ vessels and coarser domestic styles, begin to appear in Iron Age IIB strata (e.g. at Megiddo Stratum IVA, Tel Beersheba Strata III–II, Tel Arad Strata X–VIII, Tel cAroer IV–III), somewhat predating the heyday of the Pax Assyriaca period. It is these specimens that will especially draw our interest in this chapter, as in the light of the above, they would qualify as ‘chronological markers’, that deserve to be more closely examined within the wider chronological context presented in this volume. Before we turn to these specific ‘early’ examples, however, we shall first deal with more general areas of study relating to ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in the Southern Levant and in the Neo-Assyrian homeland. These areas include: a) Chronology (i.e. its occurrence in the Southern Levant and in Assyria proper), b) Morphology and fabric (i.e. of delicate and coarser vessels), c) Specific places where greater quantities of ‘Assyrian-style’ imitations have been found in Cis- and Transjordan, and d) Ethnic and socio-political groups, who would have adopted and utilised this particular style of pottery.

2.2 The Late ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery-Conundrum: General Considerations 2.2.1 Cis- and Transjordanian Imitations and Their Late Assyrian Prototypes The discrepancy between historical theory and archaeological evidence for the period under discussion is well-illustrated by the late ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery-conundrum. As Ephraim Stern has recently concluded: ‘Ceramic vessels with Assyrian characteristics—referred to as Assyrian-type pottery—are a common feature of 7th century BCE strata at most Palestinian sites.’ (Stern 2015: 533, emphasis added) Stern confidentially attributes this class of pottery to the Iron Age IIC period, i.e. predominantly to the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C.199 As stated earlier, most Levantine archaeologists today believe that late ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery types found in the Southern Levant derive their ultimate source from late Neo-Assyrian prototypes found at the main Assyrian centres of the 8th and 7th centuries. Moreover, Assyriologists working in this particular field of study argue that these characteristic styles are indeed closely confined to the Sargonid period. However, frequently we cannot be more precise, due to the ambiguity of architectural phasing within Late Assyrian strata, many of which were excavated during the earlier days of archaeology in the Near East, when excavation methods were not yet up to today’s standards.

199

These terms are, however, often loosely employed. In Judah the terminus post quem of Iron Age IIC has mostly been associated with the end of the Iron Age IIB Level III at Lachish (whose destruction is dated to 701 B.C. by most modern scholars). Most scholars also presume that like at Lachish, the beginning of the succeeding Iron Age IIC strata must have been preceded by an indefinable period of time, lasting several decades. The date of 701 B.C. therefore is believed to be an insoluble anchor point by which other sites can be dated, even if these were not destroyed by Sennacherib, including the Judaean capital Jerusalem (with occupational strata at e.g. the City of David and on the Western Hill). Also the dates of sites located further to the south (including the Northern Negev) are directed by this chronological linchpin. For more details on the 701 B.C. date used for sites in the northern Negev, see Excursus 1 at the end of this chapter. For the date of the destruction of Level III at Lachish, see esp. chapter 4, 2.1). A somewhat earlier date for the beginning of Iron Age IIC is usually suggested for Northern Israel, i.e. around 730/720 B.C., i.e. immediately postdating the main Assyrian wave of destructions there (Ben-Tor and Zarzecki-Peleg 2015: 135–137). This should not distract us from the fact, that also lower dates for the end of Iron Age IIB, e.g. at Tel Qudadi Strata IIIB and IIIA (Fantalkin and Tal 2015: 191, Table 18) and at Hazor Stratum VA (James 2008: 165, Table 2) have been suggested. Also Alexander Fantalkin, pers. comm., June 2015 and February 2016. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

71

2.2.2 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Imitations: Predating Assyrian Prototypes? While mainly dealing with ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in the Beersheba-Arad-Valley, Nadav Na’aman and Yifat Thareani(-Sussely) have pointed at a striking discrepancy (Na’aman and Thareani-Sussely 2006: 61–82). While they do leave the issue open for the Northern Kingdom of Israel (where according to them acculturation began before the 7th century), they stress that the occurrence of this type of pottery for instance at Tel Beersheba Stratum II, Tel Arad Strata X–VIII and at other contemporary sites in the Beersheba-Arad-Valley (currently dated to between c. 750–701 B.C.), poses a genuine chronological problem. According to them, the problem is actually even more aggravating than has hitherto been realised. They stress that these dates are clearly too high, if one considers the time it normally takes before regions become finally accultured to the fashions of new overlords (on the relevant pottery from Tel Beersheba and Tel Arad, see infra 2.2.8.3). Not only would the production of local imitations have taken a considerably longer period of time until these were finally adopted by the local elite (who no doubt were more adaptable to accepting foreign styles than were local peasants), its overall occurrence in Iron Age IIC (as noted by Stern 2015: 233)—during which it seems to have experienced its breakthrough in the region—is confirmed by its discovery in late Iron Age strata, for instance at Tel Dor, Tell Jemmeh, Megiddo and Samaria, places where the Neo-Assyrian bureaucracy played a more decisive role (for these sites, see also infra 2.2.7.2). Hence Na’aman and Thareani(Sussely) are probably right when they state: ‘... that vessels imitating Assyrian types were first produced at sites in Palestine in the 7th century BCE, decades after the Assyrian rule was established, and to a much lesser extent than has been commonly held by scholars to date.’ (Na’aman and Thareani[-Sussely] 2006: 73, emphasis added) Indeed, chronologically speaking, Na’aman and Thareani(-Sussely)’s point is well taken. However, the solutions they offer for solving the enigma at Tel Beersheba and Tel Arad leave much to be desired. As a matter of fact, they do not challenge the accuracy of the current dates for these strata, and ask if so-called ‘Assyrian-style’ or rather ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’200 pottery specimens at these sites have indeed been derived from ‘Assyrian-style’ prototypes. For according to them, these vessels are not in any way related to Assyria, other than that some forms only artificially resemble some styles also found in Northern Mesopotamia. Rather than looking towards Assyria as a prime source for the ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ subgroup201, they suggest that the ‘anachronistic’ vessels at Tel Beersheba and Tel Arad (including globular, carinated and tripod-style bowls; Na’aman and Thareani[-Sussely] 2006: esp. 67–69) find their ultimate source in Southern Transjordan.202 200

A subgroup almost exclusively found in Southern Judah, the Northern Negev and Southern Transjordan. For examples of this subgroup, see later on in this chapter. 201 They write: ‘The assumed similarity between most of the Assyrian vessels and vessel forms found in Transjordan and Southern Palestine might be accidental, or even misleading—a seeming resemblance of forms drawn on paper (the drawings are, in many cases, the only source of comparison) which, upon close examination of the originals, might prove to be misleading’ (Na’aman and Thareani[-Sussely] 2006: 68). While this author agrees that line-drawings can be frustrating, their added footnote (68, n. 4) suggests that petrographic analyses of these wares might eventually solve the problem, indicating that ‘the similarity between Assyrian and Transjordanian vessels is the result of one imitating the other, or is merely typological.’ Like this author, Lily Singer-Avitz believes that the question at stake does not primarily concern the fabric of this material (which in most instances is indeed local), but rather the style of the vessels. We therefore only deal with stylistic questions here and only in very few cases (when imports are found) with clays or fabric. Singer-Avitz is right when she argues: ‘Typological comparison is the fundamental tool of ceramic research’ and ‘typological ceramic comparison (a process which defines similarity or difference between artefacts) is the first and foremost tool enabling us to compare different sites and regions and reach chronological, functional, cultural and other conclusions’ (Singer-Avitz 2007: 191). Nothing more and nothing less can be our aim. On the local production of these vessels, see: Singer-Avitz (2007: 191), Stern (2015: 534), and Hunt (2015: 163). As will also be argued below, these vessels are often fired at much lower temperatures than in Assyria proper (Hunt 2015: 170). 202 It is somewhat surprising why Thareani, in her final report on Tel cAroer, continues to employ the traditional terminus ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ for several globular, carinated and tripod bowl types, which she previously called into question (Na’aman and Thareani[-Sussely] 2006: 120–130). While most of these stem from the Iron Age IIC Stratum IIb, specimens from earlier strata, including those dated by Thareani to before 701 B.C., are also listed (esp. BL20, BL22 and 23, BL27 and 28, BL34). Only occasionally does she state that its ‘origins are in Jordan rather than in distant Assyria’ (Thareani 2011: 124, BL15). Nevertheless, almost all parallels cited are from Cis- and Transjordan (Tel Batash II, Tel © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

72

Chapter 2

Their explanation, however, appears odd. They argue that the apparent ‘imitations’ of the Edomite subgroup are almost exclusively found in Transjordan and in the Negev and argue that if Assyria had indeed been the ultimate source, this subgroup should have been more widespread, and specimens would have been found throughout the Southern Levant.203 Lily Singer-Avitz, who has closely studied the Tel Beersheba and Tel Arad pottery repertoires, points out, that Na’aman and Thareani(-Sussely)’s arguments contain serious flaws. While she does agree that globular open-style bowls in the local repertory do find their ultimate source in Edom rather than in Assyria, the overall style of these vessels in general (particularly their morphology) indisputably reflects Neo-Assyrian ‘tendencies’. This holds especially true for carinated bowls. While she lists multiple parallels in her study, she also adds that these are not restricted to Jordan and the Negev, but that in fact they can also be found at other sites in the Southern Levant, including areas well to the north of the Negev region, such as the Galilee (Singer-Avitz 2007: 182–203, esp. 183–185; 2015: 223–24, 250–51, Plate 2.4.21). In all fairness, it must be noted however that one specific feature, almost exclusively found in Transjordan and in the Negev, concerns painted decoration found on many of these vessels. As in the Edomite heartland, some vessels contain painted red, white and black stripes, a feature often not attested in other parts of the region (except for Northern and Central Transjordan), where ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery is found.204 Whether or not some of the vessels found at sites in the Beersheba-Arad-Valley were more directly influenced by Edom than by Assyria proper (or presumably by both as this author prefers to think) does not actually matter much for our discussion here. As ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels are indeed found throughout Cisand Transjordan (as rightly emphasised by Singer-Avitz), there can be little doubt that this pottery must have had a common source one way or another, especially if some more ‘exotic’ variations only indirectly reflect Assyrian tendencies, while others were produced more deliberately as ‘copies’, seeking to imitate true NeoAssyrian styles.205 What matters most for our discussion in this chapter is, however, the issue relating to chronology. And it is here that we appreciate the overall point raised by Na’aman and Thareani(-Sussely), that in general late ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery is not to be expected much before the 7th century B.C. in the Southern Levant. Rather than questioning the Assyrian source of inspiration for this pottery style, the need to challenge the accuracy of current Iron Age IIB dates remains the most crucial issue at stake. Even so, many scholars will find it difficult to call into question ‘conventional’ timeframes, not least due to apparently insurmountable chronological problems determined by what are at least believed to be historical and/or archaeological correlations.

2.2.3 Are Lower Dates Indeed Constrained by Historical Correlations? There can be little doubt that most scholars feel chronologically constrained by the conviction that multiple destruction layers towards the end of Iron Age IIB must be linked to one or several Neo-Assyrian military incursions into the Southern Levant during the second half of the 8th century B.C. Later options during the 7th century are mostly discarded as being simply too late. The relevant 8th century campaigns include expeditions conducted by Tiglath-pileser III into the Galilee (733–732 B.C.), by Shalmaneser V and Sargon II Beersheba II, Tel Ira VII and VI, Horvat Qitmit, Busayra, Tawilan, Umm al-Biyara), while only in one instance (the gadrooned bowl BL31) parallels (of metal prototypes) from Nimrud are also referred to. For a discussion of some of these specimens, see infra 2.2.8.3. 203 At least in one point their criticism deserves scrutiny, i.e. in terms of the painted decoration, which indeed seems to have been a true hallmark of Edomite (and to some extent also Ammonite and Moabite) pottery. This decoration is found on some vessels in the Northern Negev (see e.g. the beautifully painted ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ carinated bowl with high everted rim from Tel cAroer in Thareani 2011: 127, BL29). Many vessels found at the main Edomite sites (Busayra, Tawilan and to a lesser extent also Umm al-Biyara) contain this same decoration (several painted sherds from the C.-M. Bennett excavations at Busayra were studied by this author in 2004 at the Liverpool Museum warehouse, thanks to the kind permission of Piotr Bienkowski). 204 Reasons as to why these regional variations are less widespread, may be multifacetted, including the limited accessibility to less hospitable desert regions. Also ethnic or tribal (often age-old) affiliations and/or socio-political frictions (which would have united or divided certain fractions or [distantly] related clans) need to be taken into account. Such barriers can indeed hinder more widespread exchange of commodities and cultural interaction. 205 As we shall see below, there exists a veritable number of specimens, whose ‘Assyrian’ stylistic features are beyond any reasonable doubt. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

73

into areas south of the Jezreel Valley, including the Samaria highlands (723–720 B.C.), and by Sargon II (711 B.C.) and his son Sennacherib (701 B.C.) into the coastal, Shephelah-, Central Judaean and Northern Negev territories.206 Yet, although the inhabitants of Southern Palestine did suffer serious havoc at this time (not merely due to heavy tribute imposed on them), Ariel Bagg has recently argued with some conviction that despite intensive campaigning, the Neo-Assyrians remained unable to prevent their subordinates from repeatedly rebelling against them, as evidently military resources were lacking for establishing a more durable sovereignty over the region.207 In other words, the Assyrians remained unable to fully control the region. There can be little doubt that some Iron Age destruction levels (including evidence of local conflagration) must be attributed to one or more Assyrian military campaigns.208 Yet while most scholars have been quick to assign particular destruction levels to historical events assumed to have taken place during the latter half of the 8th century B.C. 209, they have been more reluctant to consider lower dates for these strata during the 206

For a critical discussion of these events see Bagg (2011: 213–252). For translations of relevant Neo-Assyrian sources for this period, see e.g. Forsberg (1995: 37–40), Weippert (2010: 284–337), Fuchs (1994), Frahm (1997; 2013: 42–54), and Kuan (1995: 133–207). Note that the Assyrian conquest of important towns in the Beersheba-Arad-Valley region is often simply taken for granted. It must be emphasised that their destruction by the Neo-Assyrian army is nowhere attested in the Assyrian annals. Ariel Bagg, pers. comm., 2009. We shall return to this crucial issue later on in this chapter, esp. so in Excursus 1. 207 Despite several incursions into the region, Bagg argues that Gilead did not become an Assyrian province at the time. Although some scholars previously adhered to its annexation, this position is found to be based on a false emendation of the topographical list, which has not been confirmed by modern collation (Bagg 2011: 222). Moreover, despite multiple raids into the Southern Levant, no widespread annexation is accounted for in the areas south of Damascus during Tiglath-pileser’s entire reign. Although provinces were established in Syria, and while Israel did suffer ‘beachtliche territoriale Verluste ... konnte die Region nicht vollständig bezwungen werden’. Likewise ‘Die Gefahr von Aufständen und der Bildung einer anti-assyrischen Koalition war noch nicht gebannt’ (Bagg 2011: 226). While his successor, Shalmaneser V, laid siege to Samaria for no less than three years (2 Kgs 17:1–6; 18:9–11; Babylonian Chronicle 1, column I, line 28), no annexations are reported during his reign, and despite the Fall of Samaria in 722/721 B.C., his successor, Sargon II, again was forced to subdue a revolt at Samaria in 720 B.C. when its inhabitants joined forces with Hamath, Arpad, Simirra and Damascus (Bagg 2011: 227–232). See also Forsberg (1995: 41–42) and Frahm (2013: 42–54). The situation hardly improved during the succeeding years, when repeated rebellions broke out while Sargon’s governors were ‘nicht in der Lage ..., weder Rebellionen in den eigenen Provinzen zu verhindern noch einen Aufstand von Vasallen in Nachbargebieten zu unterdrücken. Wahrscheinlich standen ihnen die notwendigen Ressourcen nicht zur Verfügung’ (Bagg 2011: 236). Nor would this situation improve much during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (Bagg 2011: 244). 208 Yet the situation is far from evident which cities were actually destroyed by the Assyrians according to their annals. For a brief discussion on the verb ḫatāpu(m), see n. 212 and Stig Forsberg’s interpretation thereof. Forsberg even questions if Samaria was at all subjected to large scale destruction. While local evidence of conflagration in Stratum VII at Samaria (this stratum contained the famous elaborately carved ivories) is unlikely to have been caused by the NeoAssyrians as was previously believed (e.g. the Assyrians would normally have carried away all precious booty, as is confirmed by the ivory hoards excavated at Nimrud / Fort Shalmaneser), Forsberg suggests a 7th century date for this stratum, especially on the basis of pottery including late ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels (Forsberg 1995: 24–27). This has been generally accepted by Ron Tappy (2001: 178–179). If so (and there is much to commend it in terms of the pottery evidence from Strata VI and VII, see also infra 2.2.8.2), then no evidence of destruction datable to Samaria’s conquest in c. 722/721 B.C. has hitherto been identified (Forsberg 1995: 50; Tappy 2015: 327, Table 3.2.1). In a similar vein, Peter James abandons the ‘Alleged “Anchor Point” of 732 BC for the destruction of Hazor V’ and prefers a mid-7th century date for similar reasons. James alternatively attributes the destruction of Hazor Stratum VII to the time of Tiglath-pileser III (James 2008: 173–183). 209 According to this author, a striking example can be found at Tel Rehob. The destruction of Stratum III has been assigned by its excavator Amihai Mazar to 732 B.C. The speculative nature of such an attribution is reflected by the excavator’s own description: ‘All [dwellings] came to an end with the Assyrian conquest, yet there is no evidence of destruction by fire and the finds were rather scarce, with only random complete pottery vessels on the floor. The most telling evidence for the conquest was two human skeletons found among the tumble above the floors of rooms in Area A’ (Mazar 2011: 266, emphasis added). While one of the females seems to have been beheaded, remains of another skeleton were found in the corner of the house, as if discarded in a disrespectful manner. Mazar takes this evidence to represent systematic massacre. But although the two individuals likely were killed brutally, we have no evidence of who the murderers were, and why and when this stratum finally came to an end. It is apparently only by comparison of the apparent ‘contemporaneity’ of the material evidence with that of other sites, that the date 732 B.C. has been assumed. As Mazar frankly admits ‘the houses did not collapse immediately at the time of conquest, but rather were abandoned © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

74

Chapter 2

7th century, when campaigns were likewise conducted by the Assyrians and when individual strikeforces were sent out to more remote regions during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Moreover other local incumbents, taking temporary advantage of regional power struggles and wreaking havoc in particular places, have all too often been neglected as alternative options.210 One must be cautious therefore, not to lose sight of the overall complexity of the political circumstances at the time, let alone of occasional exaggerations on behalf of the oppressors and (!) the oppressed (van de Mieroop 1999: 39–85).211 Nor should pragmatic considerations dictate our agendas, by preferring easy answers over overtly more complex scenarios (even chronological reductions), if these impose themselves.

2.2.4 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Impact on Chronology According to the present author the significance of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery for late Iron Age chronology in Cis- and Transjordan has not always received its rightful due. Here questions, such as when Assyrian prototypes were first introduced in Assyria proper, and when these styles spread to regions within the Levant and when they were finally adopted by local potters in the more distant parts of the peripheries, certainly come to the fore. In the following sections we shall provide both a more general overview of genuine ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery (both in Assyria proper and in the Southern Levant), and, more specifically so, of so-called ‘anachronistic’ material found in Iron Age IIB strata, to verify what impact these finds may have on the overall chronology of the period. For questions relating to stylistic developments within the relevant region, we shall rely on the available standard works on Neo-Assyrian pottery.212

and deteriorated slowly over time’ (Mazar 2011: 267). He assumes that the population had either fled or had been taken into exile, while others had been massacred. Although there can be little doubt that the story becomes more colourful this way, it remains questionable that the meagre evidence that has actually been found, confirms Mazar’s interpretation. Other possible scenarios of how and when the city may have come to an end may be considered, some clearly less dramatic. 210 Similar criticisms have been raised by other scholars also, including Stig Forsberg and Axel Knauf, who have sought to find alternative candidates during the 7th century B.C. for some of these destructions (Forsberg 1995: 35; Knauf 2002: 183). On this issue, see also van der Veen (2014: 262–263). 211 Van de Mieroop’s warning should be heeded: ‘We know that an image of events was portrayed that perpetuated the Assyrian idea that the campaigns were always successful, so we always take the declaration of a victory with a grain of salt. In other respects as well these texts were not truthful as we should like them to be ...’ (van de Mieroop 1999: 55). In turn, Stig Forsberg discusses the Akkadian verb used in the Assyrian annals, iḫtepi, which is according to him often falsely translated with ‘ravaged’, ‘laid waste’. By studying its connotation within the context of the annals and by comparing it with what is actually said about the activities of the Assyrian army when it defeated towns, he concludes that the verb in such instances should be translated more broadly in the sense of ‘to break’, i.e. its independence, its power, by receiving tribute, by killing some soldiers, by reorganising its political orientation, and only infrequently by actual destruction, when an example was made (Forsberg 1995: 48). See also Black et al., who translate ḫatāpu(m) with ‘to slaughter’, ‘to sacrifice (an enemy)’ (Black et al. 2000: 112). A similar proposal has been made by Ariel Bagg, who notes that the Assyrians were not primarily concerned with destroying cities, but if possible they sought to maintain their infrastructure (Ariel Bagg, pers. comm., 2009). For a recent discussion of military vocabulary used in the Neo-Assyrian war annals, see Matty (2016). 212 Special mention should be made of the following standard works, most of which have appeared in print during the last twenty years or so. On late Neo-Assyrian pottery found in Assyria proper, see esp. Arnulf Hausleiter (2010). On late Assyrian pottery found in Assyria and the surrounding peripheries, see Jamieson (1999 and 2012) and Anastasio (2007 and 2010). On APW, see esp. Hunt (2015). See also the proceedings of two conferences held in Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborów (1997), published by Hausleiter and Reiche (1999). Other studies (including essays on pottery traditions in Assyria from the Late Bronze Age to the early Neo-Assyrian period) also deserve careful attention (Lehmann 1996; Ohtsu 1991; Hausleiter 2008; Kreppner 2008; Anastasio 2011; Singer-Avitz 1999 and 2002), notwithstanding the many helpful excavation reports on relevant sites in Southern Judah, the Shephelah, and the Northern Negev which also contain discussions on relevant pottery styles (e.g. Ussishkin 2004; Thareani 2011; Beit-Arieh 1999 and 2007; Ben-Shlomo and van Beek 2014; Fantalkin and Oren 2009 and 2015; Singer-Avitz 2016). The same is true for the Edomite heartland (see esp. Bienkowski 1995, 2002, 2011). In addition to the classical magnum opus of Palestine pottery by Ruth Amiran (1969), we refer to the new reference tool on ‘Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbours’ edited by Seymour Gitin (2015a). This list is by no means exhaustive. References to further studies can be found in the bibliography at the end of this volume. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

75

2.2.5 Genuine ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery from Assyria Before we attempt to answer the above questions, we must delineate the most essential characteristics of genuine late ‘Neo-Assyrian-style’ pottery. This is important, because there has been some discussion about which styles within the Southern Levant were indeed influenced by Assyria proper and which ones could have derived their forms from regional workshops within the Southern Levant. The latter has been noted in particular in terms of pottery styles manufactured in Southern Transjordan and the Negev (also Stefano Anastasio, pers. comm., February 2016).213 Consequently, we must assess why leading pottery experts assume that the creation of a number of Late Assyrian pottery styles did not occur earlier than the second half of the 8th century B.C. rather than during the preceding centuries of Neo-Assyrian rule. 2.2.5.1 Essential Characteristics of Genuine Late ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery A great deal of research has been undertaken in recent years by an increasing number of Assyrian pottery specialists, who have sought to classify Late Assyrian types from Assyria proper and its adjacent environment (wherever this proved possible) according to a more viable chronological framework (Hausleiter 2010: 13). Moreover, Alice Hunt has recently produced an in-depth study of APW pottery, the ancient dinner service of the Neo-Assyrian elite.214 We shall predominantly deal with APW styles, whose characteristics have been especially well-defined by pottery specialists. Other non-APW styles—including bottles and carinated bowls—will also be referred to, but more specifically so in our discussions on ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels from the Southern Levant in the relevant sections below. 2.2.5.1.1 Genuine APW Genuine APW pottery is especially well-known from the Neo-Assyrian homeland and to a lesser degree from the empire’s surrounding peripheries. The earliest occurrence of this pottery has been dated by some to the late 9th century while other specialists date the group more specifically to the 8th–7th centuries, based on cuneiform inscriptions and other helpful dating criteria found in the same archaeological levels (e.g. at Nimrud / Fort Shalmaneser, Nineveh and Assur; Ohtsu [1991: 131–154] and Oates [1959: 130–146 and Plates XXXV–XXXIX]).215 As APW vessels contain ‘egg-shell’-thin walls, exquisite forms and decoration, and have been fired at very high temperatures, this class of pottery is generally held to have been utilised by a small group of elites within Neo-Assyrian society.216 If compared with foreign imitations from the peripheries, true APW contains the following characteristics that are almost exclusively found within the Assyrian heartland. The most striking characteristics of APW were originally highlighted by Philip Rawson (1954: 168–172), who argued that this pottery is indeed easily recognisable by its very fine ‘egg-shell’ walls. Its fabric is ‘finely grained and highly levigated’ and contains a low degree of iron. These vessels were manufactured on the potter’s wheel and were literally ‘thrown to its current thinness’, which demanded a high degree of specialisation on behalf of the potter. Moreover, Rawson postulated that dimples found on goblets and jars allowed the potter to handle these delicate vessels more easily when the clay was still wet (1954: 168). The pottery was fired at a very high temperature in an ‘oxidising kiln’ (1954: 170; see also Hunt 2015: 2).

213

This is why some scholars (including Na’aman and Thareani[-Sussely] 2006) rather prefer a Transjordanian origin for some of these vessels. We shall come back to this question later, where we shall see that in the remoter parts of Transjordan potters ultimately sought to imitate ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery characteristics, even if they modified these styles more liberally. 214 Other scholars such as Anacleto d’Agostino, Uwe Sievertsen and Simone Mühl also deserve further mention, who have played an important part in current research on the subject. Articles and books by these scholars can be found in the bibliography of this work. And by no means do we wish to ignore the ground-breaking early studies by Philip Rawson (1954) and Joan Oates (1959), without whose original research late Assyrian pottery studies would likely still have been in their infancy. 215 While Oates published the pottery from the private domicile TW 53 and Fort Shalmaneser (Nimrud), Rawson treated the material from the ‘palace’. See also Oates and Oates (2001: 250–253). For an excellent summary of the related material from excavations at Nimrud/Kalhu, see Hausleiter (2010: 144–173; see also 2008: 215–224). 216 The most recent and detailed study of APW was conducted by Alice Hunt at University College London. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

76

Chapter 2

Fig. 35: Eloquent APW cup with knobbed base from the Governor’s Residence (Room Y) at Nimrud, 7th cent. BC. (Reproduction by permission of University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology [D1953.12]; photo: R. Wiskin).

While Alice Hunt agrees with many of Rawson’s conclusions, she has recently reexamined APW pottery from different sites in Assyria and the peripheries and draws accurate conclusions that will be listed below (see also Hunt 2014). Although a number of forms within the APW corpus may not have ultimately found their origins in Assyria proper (Hunt 2015: 38), it appears likely that their style originated in ‘broader’ Mesopotamia, possibly in the southern part of that region. What seems certain therefore, is that they did not originate in the Levant, let alone in Cis- and Transjordan (Alice Hunt, pers. comm., May 20, 2016). According to Hunt, it is far more the combination of form and the production of thin walls and pasty clays that can be described as a typical Late Assyrian innovation (Hunt 2015: 4). No ‘sharp edged marks of knife trimming’ were identified, so that it seems apparent that these vessels were shaped on the potter’s wheel and that bone tools could have been used to create its smooth appearance (Hunt 2015: 67). Hunt classifies APW vessels into three main categories: Form A: This subgroup consists exclusively of horizontally shaped 217 low218 (‘unequal biconical’ carinated, noncarinated and/or S-shaped) bowls with flat and disk-based bases (Hunt 2015: 48–50, figs. 3.10 and 3.11 with ‘pinched’ decoration, i.e. ‘a’ = Type AS). The specimens found at Nimrud, Nineveh and Assur (all specimens used for study by Hunt were selected from the British Museum and Berlin Museum collections) contained wide ‘out-curving, horizontal and everted rims with a rounded lip’.219 The thickness of its walls measured some 0.3 cm. Their capacity lay between 200–800 cm3 (for a summary, see Hunt 2015: 95–96). Form A makes out some 32% of all APW-vessels from the Late Assyrian period. For some forms within this group, see infra fig. 36. Form B: This group, with some twenty-four vessels studied from the above Neo-Assyrian assemblages, embraced the largest APW-subgroup (i.e. some 74% of all APW vessels and 100% of all APW specimens excavated at Nimrud in both public and private contexts). They contain an unequal biconical ‘vertical’ shape with ‘incurving necks, out-curving horizontal everted rims, and thinned and rounded lips’ (Hunt 2105: 49– 50). The form of these vessels is described as ‘jars’, but due to their relatively small size they would be better described as cups or goblets. Their bases may be flat, knobbed or ring-shaped. Hence, most of these vessels cannot stand on their own. While some specimens are undecorated (albeit some contain ‘stepped’ design), 217

Being 9–14 cm wide (Hunt 2015: 41). These are only 2.5–4.0 cm in height (Hunt 2015: 41). 219 With 0.2–1.2 cm long (Hunt 2015: 41). 218

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

77

some 83% contains two or three rows of dented impressions or dimples between their bases and shoulders.220 Their ‘unrestricted-vertical’ shapes measure between 7.6–14.8 cm in height. Their everted rims hold a diameter of between 4.0–9.7 cm, while their necks are found to be between 2.5–5.5 cm long. The very thin fabric of the walls merely measures some 0.15–0.3 cm. Their capacities ranged from 300–900 cm3 (for a summary, see Hunt 2015: 95–96). Form B is represented by between 74–100% of all APW vessels at the various loci in Nimrud and Nineveh (i.e. in public and private domains of which some 79% can be positively assigned to public and/or official contexts, Hunt 2015: 93–94). For some forms within this group, see infra fig. 36.221 Form C: The forms of this subgroup are highly reminiscent of the forms of Form B, but are generally found to have held considerably larger capacities, varying between 1200–3000 cm3 (Hunt 2015: 45, 53–57). While some vessels contained rows of dimples, more than half were found to be undecorated, i.e. 55% of the examined vessels. While according to Hunt they measured between 10.0–20.5 cm in height and contained a diameter ranging between 8.8–11.5 cm, their necks also proved to be slightly higher, i.e. between 2.5–7.2 cm. The fabric was found to be between 0.20–0.30 cm thick (for a summary see Hunt 2015: 95–96). For some forms within this group, see likewise fig. 36. On an average, some 65% of the forms within subgroups B and C were found to contain dimples (Hunt 2015: 70). According to Hunt dimples are clearly restricted to these two groups only: ‘No other Neo-Assyrian or Middle Assyrian ceramic ware is decorated with dimples, making them unique to the Palace Ware corpus.’ (Hunt 2015: 70, emphasis added) Moreover (albeit not explicitly stated by Hunt), according to Arnulf Hausleiter, dimples are not only not found on any Middle Assyrian vessels, they are considered to be a vertible Late Assyrian innovation (Hausleiter 2010: 308). As for the dimples themselves, Hunt argues that they are oval in shape while their lengthy axes are vertically oriented towards the bases of the vessels (Hunt 2015: 70). Hunt disagrees with Rawson (1954) that they fulfilled a utilitarian purpose, as the dimples are placed in upright position rather than horizontally, which should have been the case if one were to accept Rawson’s suggestion (Hunt 2015: 70). As for APW pottery in general, Hunt argues that the ‘calcareous ceramic’ of this ware tends to turn ‘olive green’ when these vessels were literally ‘vitrified’ at high temperatures reaching some 1000–1100 °C. On the whole very few colours, ranging from ‘pale yellow to pale olive’, may be found (Hunt 2015: 74). It has been suggested by some scholars that APW bowls and beakers were actually ‘cheaper’ imitations of metal prototypes (e.g. Tappy 2001: 405222; Hausleiter 2010: 290; Curtis and Reade 1995: 142, fig. 105; 143, fig. 107). Yet Hunt concludes that it is far from clear that this is actually the case (Hunt 2015: 3; already Curtis 1988: 89). While of course it cannot be ruled out that some ceramic bowl forms could have been ultimately inspired by metal prototypes (it remains however difficult to prove this), APW styles were also produced in bronze, silver and gold (e.g. Damerji 1999: 38–39, figs. 32–33; 46–47, figs. 23–24; Oates and Oates 2001: 244, fig. 155), as well as in clear quartz or even glass (Damerji 1999: 46, fig. 24). In other words, it is equally possible that these forms were reproduced in different kinds of material, simply because of their elegant styles and as such they represented ‘the fashions’ of the upper class. Indeed, there can be little doubt that APW belongs predominantly to the higher levels of Neo-Assyrian society, as we have already noted. At Nimrud specimens were found both in public and official domains, such as in the reception room, in the northwestern palace and ‘Governor’s Palace’, as well as in private structures, including houses and burials found in the residential quarters near the northwestern palace (Hunt 2015: 93; Hausleiter 2010: 173). While the situation is less clear at Nineveh, at Assur we also encounter these vessels in both the public and official domains for instance at the shrines of Anu and Adad. However, at Assur the largest group of APW vessels was found in secondary private burials (esp. Hausleiter 2010: 17–144; Hunt 2015: 93).

220

Some vessels, e.g. Hunt’s types B1, no. ND, B2, nos. KH and KP (51–52, figs. 3.12–13), also contained incised lines. Hunt distinguishes between three main shapes of cups or goblets: i.e. types B1–3 (see also Hunt 2015: figs. 3.12–14). 222 For a beaker or goblet made of silver, reminiscent of the APW beakers, see e.g. Oates and Oates (2001: 244, fig. 155). 221

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

78

Chapter 2

Fig. 36: APW forms A–C according to the categories described by A. Hunt (after Hunt 2015: 57, fig. 3.20; reproduction with kind permission by Dr Hunt and Brill Publishers, Leiden).

In terms of chronology, Hunt argues that the earliest true APW vessels started to occur in Assyria proper (or in the ‘Central Polity’ as she prefers to call it) towards the end of the 9th century (Hunt 2015: 4), despite the fact that in general several forms (except for carinated bowls with higher and lower everted rims, Hunt type A) can be traced back to the Middle Assyrian period, when carinated bowls and (albeit undimpled) goblets are already attested (Hunt 2015: 38; Hausleiter 2010: 303). ‘However, it is important to remember that the chronological component of traditional ceramic typologies is not possible for Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware. Palace Ware is a relatively short-lived phenomenon, approximately 150–200 years, and relative stratigraphic dating for these vessels is not sufficiently fine-grained to refine their date to less than half a century.’ (Hunt 2015: 48, emphasis added) For a discussion of the chronology of these vessels, see infra 2.2.6.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

79

Fig. 37: Late carinated APW bowl from Nimrud with a high-everted rim and globular base (Hunt Form A; courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Arts in New York, accession no. 52.23.16).

Figs. 38a–b: Late APW goblets or beakers (Hunt Form B). Left: two buff thin-walled beakers (undimpled and dimpled) from Nineveh and Nimrud (BM 1932-12-12,37 and BM 1992-3-2,143; courtesy of the British Museum Trustees, London). Right: dimpled beaker with a high raised everted rim from Nimrud (AN1951.20 beaker, image reproduced with kind permission of the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford; photos taken by the author).

Fig. 39: Various Late Assyrian and APW vessels: light buff thin walled bottle (ME 1992-3-2, 114), globular jar and beakers from Nimrud (ME 1992-3-2, 106, 183, 185; courtesy of the British Museum Trustees, London; photo taken by the author).

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

80

Chapter 2

Hunt also describes ‘APW-style’ vessels (all found to have been locally manufactured) from localities further to the west and northwest of the Assyrian homeland, especially from Dur Katlimmu (Tell Shech Hamad) and Guzana (Tell Halaf). The same is true of ‘Assyrian-styled’ vessels found further to the south at Tell Jemmeh, in the southern coastal region of Israel/Palestine, but we shall come back to the Tell Jemmeh pottery later, when we shall deal more specifically with its archaeological remains from the Late Assyrian period. 2.2.5.1.2 ‘APW-Style’ Pottery from Dur Katlimmu and Tell Guzana Dur Katlimmu: The ‘APW-style’ vessels assessed by Hunt derive from the post-Assyrian squatter occupation unearthed at the so-called ‘Red House’ at the site (Hunt 2015: 98–131). Hunt has been able to detect only minor differences between Form A bowls at the site and those from the ‘Central Polity’, so that the relevant vessels could still be described as true APW (Hunt 2015: 107–108). While Form B cups (dimpled and undimpled) contain the same shapes as in Central Assyria, Form C jars (dimpled and undimpled) are found to be generally very similar, even if they mostly contained larger capacities (Hunt 2015: 108–113). On the whole it appears therefore that the potters at or near Dur Katlimmu sought to carefully reproduce true ‘APW- style’ pottery. Guzana: Hunt has also examined vessels from Tell Halaf of which only a small assemblage was available to her (Hunt 2015: 131–142). Only some seven vessels actually belonged to Form B, most of which proved to be undecorated. Typologically, its styles bear a great similarity to those from both the Assyrian homeland and from Dur Katlimmu (Hunt 2015: 132–134). As for Form C, most of these were dimpled (Hunt 2015: 134–136). 223 2.2.5.1.3 Glazed Ware Another important category of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery vessels that must be listed here is so-called Late Assyrian glazed ware. While this group appears to have been in fashion for a longer period of time than some of the more characteristic ‘egg-shell’ thin APW-vessels (including dimpled goblets), this category of vessels is also relevant to our discussion, as several specimens have been excavated in the Southern Levant. Unlike most other ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels several of these seem to have been imported from the Assyrian homeland or at least from its neighbouring regions in northern Mesopotamia. Precisely such a glazed juglet surfaced at Lachish (see infra 2.2.10.3). Sherds of several glazed juglets have also recently been found at Transjordanian Khirbat al-Mudayna (Daviau and Klassen 2014).

Fig. 40: Unprovenanced glazed late Neo-Assyrian juglet with floral decoration in blueish-green and yellow colours. Similar vessels have been found at Assur (Hausleiter 2010: Table 123; courtesy of the Arbeitsgruppe für Biblische Archäologie; photo by the author).

For similar finds from other sites in the Southern Levant, see also infra 2.2.10.3. Detailed discussions on late ‘Assyrian-style’ glazed vessels can be found in Peltenburg (1969: 73–96), Hausleiter (2010: 404–411, Plates 123–126), and Magrill (1989–90: 41–45). According to Hausleiter several specimens were found at

223

Similarly, for dimpled beakers from Sector A at Tel Halaf (structure A1), dating to the Late Assyrian and NeoBabylonian periods, see Sievertsen (2012b: 175: 145, nos. 1–2; from Sectors B and C of the same period, 182, 152: 3). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

81

Assur.224 There can be little doubt that this vessel had an especially longue durée as some precursors are known already since the Middle Assyrian period (Hausleiter 2010: ‘Tafel 2’, ‘Tafel 6’). 2.2.5.1.4 Additional ‘Assyrian-Style’ Forms Another group—not referred to above and not necessarily part of the APW corpus but typically Late Assyrian in style—are finely made painted handleless (including funnel-necked) bottles (infrequently small handles are attached, but very rarely so, e.g. Hausleiter [2010, ‘Tafel 21’: Ass. 17955 A; ‘Tafel 50’: Ass. 19746, all from Assur; but see also ‘Tafel 93’]; Anastasio [2010, 138–139 Plate 31:7, from Khirbet Khatuniyah, 164– 165 Plate 44: 7, from Khirbet Qasrij, Plate 47: 30–31, from Nimrud]).225 Additional ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels (most frequently carinated bowls with raised flaring rims) both from the Assyrian homeland and its peripheries will be referred to as parallels of local Cis- and Transjordanian derivatives (see the relevant sections infra 2.2.7.2).

2.2.6 A terminus post quem within Assyria Proper Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware (APW) and related forms of Late Assyrian tableware have been mainly unearthed in 7th century B.C. datable contexts in the Assyrian homeland (e.g. at Nimrud, Fort Shalmaneser, Assur, Khorsabad and Nineveh, e.g. Hausleiter 2010: 146, 149–52). While there exists evidence that the typical styles continued in use at least to some extent after the end of the 7th century, i.e. at sites where Neo-Assyrian officials remained in office and/or where local inhabitants continued to manufacture derivatives of earlier late ‘Assyrian style’ vessels (as e.g. at Dur-Katlimmu / Tell Shech Hamad and Khirbet Qasrij; Hausleiter 2010: 13–6; Anastasio 2010: 61; Kreppner 2008), there has been some discussion over from what point in time these forms could have been in use. Consequently, some scholars have suggested dates for its innovation as early as the 9th century B.C., even if the evidence for this remains equivocal. At Nimrud (e.g. at the ‘Governor’s Palace’ as well as at the ‘Northwestern Palace’), where great quantities of relevant material surfaced during the excavations of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, vessels were unearthed in several structures (e.g. in ‘Room S’ of the ‘Governor’s Palace’, the so-called ‘Private House’ and at ‘Fort Shalmaneser’), whose dates have been confirmed by the discovery of cuneiform inscriptions from the reigns of Assurnasirpal II (883–859 B.C.), Shalmaneser III (858–824 B.C.) and Adad-nirari III (810–783 B.C.; Ohtsu 1991: 134, 136; Mallowan 1966: 38–50). Even so, the stratigraphical relationship between these ‘earlier’ buildings and the pottery is difficult to ascertain as many of the structures continued in use until the demise of the Assyrian empire (Oates and Oates 2001: 251). For example, a cuneiform tablet from the year 728 B.C. (ND 433), found in ‘Room S’ at the ‘Governor’s Palace’, proves that one must be careful not to assign these vessels too quickly to the time of the original construction of the buildings in which they are found. While the Northwestern Palace at Nimrud was built during the reign of Assurnasirpal II, multiple cuneiform tablets were found in Rooms 11 and 17 of the same complex spanning the reigns of Sennacherib (704–681 B.C.) to Sin-shar-ishkun (622–612 B.C.; Ohtsu 1991: 136). As a matter of fact (and this is solid archaeological reasoning) the pottery found in a given stratum predominantly belongs to its latest rather than its earliest phase of occupation (also Oates and Oates 2001: 250–251). Despite recent efforts to overcome the remaining difficulties, the situation at the main political centres Assur, Nimrud and Khorsabad still continues to point towards late rather than earlier dates for most of the relevant material (Hausleiter 2010: 13, 146). This is corroborated by straightforward inscribed evidence: ‘Der Grossteil des hier untersuchten Materials ist in die spätneuassyrische Zeit zu datieren (nA II) und erstreckt sich damit auf den Zeitraum “8.–7. Jh. v. Chr.” (maximal 89%). Es war dabei aufgrund der Informationen zur Stratigrafie nur in wenigen Fällen möglich, eine Datierung in das 8. Jh. v. Chr. zu erzielen (nA IIa, 1%); die chronologische Eingrenzung auf das 7. Jh. v. Chr. bzw. die zweite Hälfte des 7. Jh. v. Chr. ist durch stratigrafische Anhaltspunkte und durch vergesellschaftete datierte Textfunde gegeben.’ (Hausleiter 2010: 497, emphasis added)

224

For a fine specimen found in a Neo-Assyrian tomb at Arbil, see also van Ess et al. (2012: 134, fig. 27, 136). For a helpful summary of the Neo-Assyrian artefacts (including Southern Levantine specimens), see also Ramafuthula (1992). Likewise see van Ess et al. (2012: 136). 225

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

82

Chapter 2

Notwithstanding, due to renewed research at Assur / Qalat Shirqat (including excavations conducted by the Free University of Berlin in 1988–1989 and the Universities of Munich and Halle under the auspices of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft [1990: 2000–2001]), as well as at other relevant sites by other expeditions, some early Neo-Assyrian evidence has surfaced (also Hausleiter 2008: 2, fig. 1; 5, fig. 3). Consequently, some vessels from the early stages of the Late Assyrian period have come to light (Hausleiter 2008: 1–12; 2010: e.g. 139–144, 497; Anastasio 2011: 343–355, Plates XVIII–XX).226 These include shallow and deep heavy bowls, footed and unfooted cups, store jar vessels, straightsided and S-shaped juglets, goblets/beakers (without dimples), and double saucer lamps (Hausleiter 2010: 496–503).227 While most of these early styles reveal little development since the Middle Assyrian period (mostly dated stratigraphically to the 13th century B.C., i.e. postdating the so-called Mitanni-phase; D’Agostino 2009: esp. 25–29; 2014a), some types appear to have continued in use virtually unmodified throughout the Late Assyrian period (Anastasio 2011: 348).228 However, what seems clear is that if these are compared with the wide scope of vessels known from the final phase of the Late Assyrian period, the ‘early assemblages’ encompass only a relatively small number of forms.229 Having assembled all available evidence from some 58 sites in the Upper Tigris, Upper- and Central Euphrates and Khabur regions, Hausleiter concludes that only some 17% of all attested pottery forms can be assigned to the early days of the Neo-Assyrian empire.230 Moreover, as can be deduced from Hausleiter’s exhaustive catalogue of vessel types, several forms prove to have had a particularly longue durée, lasting not only until the final days of Assyrian rule, but also beyond that time. Except for one particular flask and a double saucer lamp, also attested in the central and upper Euphrates regions (Hausleiter 2010: 489–495), all the noted forms come from Assyria proper. As for our discussion here, rather than looking for possible styles which may or may not have had their ultimate origins in the centuries prior to 8th century, we must concentrate on which forms are absent from the earlier contexts. Although it is impossible to rule out that earlier specimens may one day be found for some of the accepted ‘late forms’ (on this see also Hausleiter 2010: 502), the following picture has emerged. One form that appears to be completely absent from the earlier assemblages is the dimpled cup or beaker (Hausleiter 2010: 502, fig. 67).231 While beakers are known from Middle and early Late Assyrian strata, none of these contain dimples (Hausleiter 2010: 303, 308, and ‘Tafel 1’ and ‘Tafel 9’ for comparison; Anastasio 2007: Fig. 16, no. 16.5 (listing various sites), fig. 23: 14 and 15; Bartl 2011: 2, 7: Fig. 4).232 There can be little doubt 226

More recent work has also been conducted at Nimrud by Polish, Italian and British teams (1975–76, 1987–89). The same is true for excavations conducted by the Iraqi Antiquities Authorities (1978–2001). For detailed discussions on these different expeditions, see Curtis et al. (2008; e.g. chapters 3 and 8 [British School of Archaeology in Iraq and British Museum], 5 [Iraqi Department of Antiquities at Nimrud], 7 [Italian Excavations]). The discovery of four rich tombs of Assyrian queens at Kalhu/Nimrud excavated by the Iraqis between 1988–1990 also deserves separate mention (e.g. Damerji 1999). 227 The precise date of the tripod bowl remains uncertain as it has not been possible yet to assign it to either the Middle Assyrian or the Neo-Assyrian period. 228 For a further discussion of Middle Assyrian pottery, see also Anastasio (2007: 118–124). For a similar situation at Tell Fekheriyeh, see also Bartl (2010: including fig. 4). 229 The potters of the early Late Assyrian period therefore seem to have made no particular effort to introduce stylistic innovations and this seems to be true for the entire period spanning the late 10th to early 8th centuries B.C. 230 The early assemblages include bowls, cylindrical cups, cups placed on foot, funnel-necked cups and bottles, wholemouth bottles, small and middle-sized bottles, double saucer lamps (Hausleiter 2010: 498–502). In the Central Polity the available early Late Assyrian vessels apparently only amount up to some 5% (Hausleiter 2010: 497). 231 As a matter of fact, at Nimrud a series of cuneiform tablets (datable to the year by canonical and post-canonical eponyms) from a number of buildings, including the ‘Governors’ Palace’ and ‘Private House III’, suggest a likely timeframe for the use of dimpled goblets between the late 8th century B.C. (reign of Sargon II) and the end of the Assyrian empire (Lehmann 1996: 422; Hausleiter 2010: 144–151). Similar dates are substantiated by the assemblages found at the North-Western Palace (Hausleiter 2010: 158–161) and the ‘Governor’s Palace’ (2010: 161–164). While earlier dates were previously suggested for the pottery from the ‘Central Building’, a closer comparison with the assemblages found at Fort Shalmaneser suggests that this group too belongs squarely to the 7th century (2010: 167). 232 Ohtsu especially has sought to establish earlier dates for these vessels, postulating a link between the Late Assyrian dimpled goblets and Middle Assyrian dimpled beakers from the so-called Nuzi corpus (Ohtsu 1991: 142, with fig. 17). But the resemblance between these vessels is more apparent than real. Not only are relevant beakers missing to bridge the gap between the Middle and Late Assyrian periods (a gap of some 500–600 years according to traditional chronology), as has been established more recently by Hausleiter and others, the true dimpled design is clearly restricted to the © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

83

therefore that the dimpled decoration (according to Alice Hunt these appear predominantly on Form B cups and Form C jars) was indeed an innovation of the late Neo-Assyrian pottery workshops (also Anastasio 2007: Fig. 16, no. 16.6). Even if we cannot be more precise, its datable contexts largely suggest a date hardly before the Sargonid period, i.e. the late 8th and 7th centuries B.C. Indeed, according to Hausleiter dimpled beakers ‘setzen ab dem Ende des 8. Jh. v. Chr. im Kernland ein’ (2010: 308). This observation has important repercussions for Southern Levantine strata as well, where local potters likewise sought to imitate the dimpled design on their ‘Assyrian-style’ imitated beakers and jars.233 It seems self-evident therefore that the southern Levantine derivatives cannot predate the earliest true Late Assyrian prototypes, a point which was raised long ago by Jack Holladay (Holladay 1976: 282 and n. 59).234 As for ‘APW-style’ pottery in general, as stated earlier in this chapter, Alice Hunt has also noted that the combination of form and the production of thin walls and pasty clays is typical of the Late Assyrian period only (Hunt 2015: 4). Hence, any endeavor to copy ‘APW-styles’ (even if in the peripheries both the thinness and firing temperatures deviate from those of true APW in the Central Polity, at least to some extent), therefore must also be later in date. The same observation may be extended to a large variety of predominantly smaller sized thin walled carinated bowls with everted rims (Hausleiter 2010: 503, fig. 69). Not only are these typical of the late 8th and 7th centuries in the Assyrian homeland, but it also seems relatively clear that their ‘morphology’ and ‘manufacturing technique’ cannot have been adopted by local potters in the peripheries before the 8th century, when these areas were finally subjugated and consequently came under the direct influence of the Neo-Assyrian bureaucracy. This is especially evident from their occurrence at sites nearer the Central Polity, for instance in the Upper Khabur region, e.g. at Tell Barri (Jamiesen 2009: 27, fig. 10; 1999: esp. 304, fig. 6; 2012). This conclusion is further substantiated by the pottery assemblages of several newly founded smaller settlements located in the western parts of the Assyrian hinterland and in the province of Rassapa, which were established mainly during the 8th century B.C. (Hausleiter 2010: 13; Radner 2007). This overall observation may be extended to most of the funnel-necked bottles and store jar forms as well (Hausleiter 2010: 503, fig. 68, and Tables 88–89), which were likewise found in the Southern Levant. Another category of ceramic vessels that may be listed are so-called ‘bathtub-coffins’ (though not all of these were used in burial contexts, see Mazow 2014), which generally do not occur in the Southern Levant before the second half of the 8th century B.C. (Zorn 1993: 219; Mazow 2014).235 These types are represented by imitations in Cis- and Transjordan (for parallels, see infra in this chapter). That these pottery styles would only have reached the remoter parts of the Southern Levant when these areas finally came under the direct jurisdiction of the Neo-Assyrian empire—i.e. hardly before 730/720 B.C. (but still later when these forms were imitated by the local pottery workshops)—seems therefore to be a logical conclusion.

2.2.7 Imitated ‘Assyrian-Style’ and Associated ‘Edomite-Style’ Pottery: Mainly from Cisjordan 2.2.7.1 Introduction: Chronology and Distribution Similar pottery styles (albeit sometimes mere reflections of their genuine ‘Late Assyrian’ prototypes) including forms belonging to the APW corpus (largely restricted to carinated globular and open bowls, dimpled and Late Neo-Assyrian period only. In terms of the APW-vessels in general, as Hunt has correctly stressed, it is the combination of form, thinness and pasty clays that allows APW vessels to be singled out as a ‘Late Assyrian’ phenomenon (Hunt 2015: 4). For a discussion on particular forms and decoration in the Nuzi-ware repertory, see e.g. Soldi (2008). 233 One such specimen from Megiddo Stratum H-3/IVA shall be discussed below. Other dimpled beakers were found e.g. at Tell Jemmeh (Ben-Shlomo 2014a: 493, fig. 8.118; Ben-Shlomo 2014b: 739, fig. 13.7) and Amman (Tufnell in Harding 1953: 66, 72, fig. 21, and Plate VII). 234 Based on evidence from Assyria, at the time of his writing Holladay dated ‘APW-style’ vessels in the Southern Levant to the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. This late date is also adhered to by Peter James (2004: 49; 2008: 158–159). Yet, somewhat earlier dates must now be preferred based on extensive work done in this field of research in recent years. 235 In Assyria proper the earliest specimens seem to date from the late second millennium B.C. (Wicks 2015: 35–36). None of the coffins found outside the Central Polity, however, seem to predate the time of the main westward expansion of the late Assyrian empire under Tiglath-pileser III and his successors. As Jeffrey Zorn has argued, these ‘coffins’ continued to be manufactured both in Mesopotamia and its vicinity, as well as in the Southern Levant, as late as the NeoBabylonian and early Achaemenid periods (Zorn 1993). Specimens made of bronze are also attested. Their time of production appears to be fairly restricted to between 750–550 B.C. (Wicks 2015: 36). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

84

Chapter 2

undimpled beakers), have been excavated in the Southern Levant, both in Cis- and Transjordan (Lehmann 1996: 422–423, Table 54). Frequently these vessels are made of coarser fabrics than in Assyria itself, and based on petrographic and ‘Neutron Activation-Analyses’ (e.g. Engstrom 2004: esp. 71–79; Anastasio 2010: 25) it has been confirmed (with very few exceptions) that virtually all these vessels were local productions (Stern 2015: 534).236 ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery is believed to occur earlier in the northern parts of Cis- and Transjordan than in Judah and the Northern Negev. This holds true for those regions that lie nearer the major trade routes both near the coast and in the Jordan Valley (i.e. near the Via Maris and the King’s Highway) including Southern Phoenicia, Philistea, the Galilee, as well as the Jordan rift (Ben-Shlomo 2014b: 748). How much earlier these vessels were introduced into these regions remains a moot point worthy of further discussion. It is generally assumed that these new products were introduced relatively soon after the annexation of Megiddo in 733/732 and of Samaria in 722/721 B.C., when these areas became official Assyrian territory. The introduction of the relevant styles in the south is, however, believed to be more closely associated with subsequent campaigns by Sargon II and Sennacherib conducted in the areas of the southern coastal plain, the Shephelah, and in the Southern Judah-Northern Negev border zone (if indeed this most-southern campaign took place 237). Its distribution in Southern Judah (contrary to the southern plain) is found to have been much less widespread. This may be explained by the fact that Judah never became an Assyrian province. Although there are some early exceptions to the rule (and this holds true for Northern and Southern Israel), this author doubts that ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery was introduced much earlier in the north than in the south, due to the late appearance of certain forms during the Sargonid period in Assyria proper, as discussed above, and the time it takes for imitations to be adopted in the remoter parts of the empire’s peripheries. Even if this class of pottery is more frequently found at northern sites (such as at Megiddo, Samaria, Tel el-Farcah North, Tel Dor as well as at other sites in that region238), it does not come as a surprise that here too most specimens by far have been found in late strata, some which even postdate the time of the Neo-Assyrian withdrawal from the Southern Levant (e.g. in Megiddo Strata III–I, Samaria Strata VI–VIII, Tel el-Farcah North Stratum VIIe).239 The same holds true for Tell Jemmeh, Field IV phase 5, in which the earliest and only ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery vessels at the site have been found (Stern 2015: 463, 472 with fig. 8.91, 490 and fig. 8.115, 492 and fig. 8.117, 493 with fig. 8.118, 543–44.), i.e. mainly in the vaulted mud brick Building I especially so in Room A (Ben-Shlomo 2014b: 498, 500).240 Nearby structures excavated by Flinders-Petrie in 1927 (also containing a rich repertory of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery) seem to have remained occupied until at least the Achaemenid period. This is suggested by the discovery of Attic sherds (Petrie 1928: Plate 146; Ben-Shlomo 2014c: 500; Fantalkin and Tal 2012: 159 with relevant literature). Although the style of Building I does not recall genuine ‘Assyrian-period’ palace architecture (Ben-Shlomo 2014: 513), its ‘mud brick vaulted, or arch building’ style is ‘confined to Mesopotamia, Iran, and central Asia, where it appears at a number of sites, notably in structures at Nush-i Jan, in central western Iran, which dates to the 8th and 7th

236

Often erroneously called APW, as true imports in general are very rare in the southern peripheries, except for some forms, including glazed ware. 237 For a further discussion of this doubtful campaign, see Excursus 1. Note that Ariel Bagg does not depict this campaign on his map no. 4.31 (Bagg 2011). Also according to the Book of Micah, Sennacherib penetrated hardly any further south than Mareshah, a site situated to the northeast of Lachish. The first Assyrian monarch to traverse the Northern Negev was Esarhaddon, followed by his son Assurbanipal. Other candidates, including Arabian hordes, may have also been responsible for the destruction of sites in the Northern Negev (van der Veen 2013: 176). 238 Ephraim Stern lists the following sites where this pottery has been found: sites in and near the provinces of Megiddo, Samaria and Dor (it remains disputed, however, if indeed Dor ever became an Assyrian province, Bagg 2011: 222) and at e.g. Tel Dan, Hazor, Tel Kinnereth, En Gev, Beth-Shean, Tel el-Qitaf, Tel Amal, Tel Rehov, Jezreel, Tel Qiri, Yoqneam, Tel Dothan, Shechem, Tel el-Farcah North, Gezer. Other sites in the northern coastal region include Tel Kabri, Tel Acco, Tel Keisan and Shiqmona (Stern 2015: 533). 239 See esp. Stern (2015: 453, Plate 4.4.2:4–5, 8 [Samaria VIII–VII, VI] and Plates 4.4.2: 9, 15; 4.4.5:3; 4.46:22; 4.4.7:4– 9; 4.4.9: 4 [Megiddo ‘IV’ III–I, ‘Babylonian’ grave]). 240 It is important to note that ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery is absent from the earlier phases of Tell Jemmeh (including Field IV phase 6, see Ben-Shlomo 2014a: 463), even if according to most scholars the site became an Assyrian trading post or the seat of a district governor no later than 712 B.C. The beginning of phase 5 is frequently dated to this time, but positive evidence for this is lacking. Ben-Shlomo argues that a similar vaulted brick structure was found in phase 8, which may or may not be Assyrian in nature. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

85

centuries BCE’ (Ben-Shlomo 2014c: 519).241 Be this as it may, there can be little doubt from the association of the large quantity of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery (some five beakers and 176 bowls could be reconstructed from 2.157 sherds, Ben-Shlomo 2014b: 734) found in these structures (with striking parallels within the true APW corpus) that these buildings can be assigned to the Late Neo-Assyrian and post-Assyrian periods. Consequently, it has been suggested that Tell Jemmeh (possibly to be equated with ancient Arza [and Yurza?242]) had possibly served as the seat of a Neo-Assyrian military governor (for this suggestion, see Na’aman 2005: 232; Davis et al. 2015: 154, n. 26), especially so during the first half of the 7th century B.C. 243 Whether or not this is the case remains an intriguing point for further study (Aster 2007: 36; Bagg 2011: 160, n. 736; Ben-Shlomo 2014: 84–85; Hunt 2015: 147). As for the date when exactly ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery at Tell Jemmeh was in use, Ben-Shlomo argues that on the basis of comparisons between the ceramic repertory of Tell Jemmeh and Lachish, the pottery specialists were able to conclude that the Field IV phase 5 corpus was largely contemporary with Lachish Level II and Tel Batash Stratum II.244 Based on this ceramic proximity and by taking into account that the Tel Batash Stratum II corpus also includes stamped two-winged lmlk store jars (see also chapter 3), it seems safe to suggest that the beginning of phase 5 at Tell Jemmeh cannot be dated much later than the second quarter or the middle of the 7th century B.C.245 A similar date range is suggested by finds at ‘Philistine’ Tel Miqne / Ekron (Stratum 1C–B246) and Ashdod Stratum VI (Gitin 2015: 400, Plate 3.5.1:23). The same holds true for sites further to the north, such as Tel Rehov (burials B-2: 3226 and A-2: 1135) and Tel cAmal (‘tomb III’; esp. Mazar and Aḥituv 2011: 271; Levy and Edelstein 1972: 367, fig. 18.7; Stern 2015: 544, Plate 4.4.3: 4, 6). There, alongside ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery, local diagnostic Iron Age IIC vessels (including typical ‘Lachish Level II’ water decanters247) were excavated, suggesting that ‘Assyrian-style’ imitations continued 241

Other features of the building, including the so-called ‘pitched-brick vaulting method’, are attested in Assyria (and how ‘the arch can be seen springing from within the outer wall of the room ... and not from the floor’, Ben-Shlomo 2014: 523). See Van Beek (1987: 96–113). 242 Mazar in Ahituv and Levine (1986: 149, this article was first published by Mazar in Vetus Testamentum, 1957). 243 Arza was taken by Esarhaddon in 679 B.C. or slightly later (Bagg 2011: 252–253). It is disputed if Arza is to be equated with Tell Jemmeh or with Tel Haror. But if the latter is to be identified with ancient Gerar, as this author believes, Tell Jemmeh does seem to be the best candidate for Arza (van der Veen 2013: 176; Zwickel 2013: 391; Na’aman 1993: 108). Alternatively, it may be equated with el-Arish. For doubts on the equation of Arza and Yurza, see Lipiński (2006: 154); see also Hooker (1993: 208). Although the Assyrian annals refer to the conquest of Arza in 679 B.C., no destruction level has been identified (although some buildings in the previous stratum were found to have been destroyed). The Babylonian Chronicles merely state that the city was captured and sacked/plundered (ABC 14, line 10; see also BenShlomo 2014b). As we have argued earlier, it is often far from clear how such annals must be interpreted when they employ the verb iḫtepi (cf. Forsberg 1995: 48). 244 At Tel Batash ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery had increased from only 1% (in Stratum III) to some 6% (in Stratum II). See Ben-Shlomo (2014b: 79). 245 This dating of Field IV phase 5 is also substantiated by the discovery of a Saite period scarab, which Ben-Shlomo assigns to between 664–600 B.C. See Ben-Shlomo (2014: 526, and fig. 8.135q, chapter 27). The occupation of phase 5 is therefore likely to be associated with the conquest of the town by Esarhaddon in 679 B.C. or later (cf. Bagg 2011: 253). 246 For discussions, see Gitin (1989: 44–48; 1997: 92 and fig. 12:10–15, 18; 13:9, 13; 2015: 415, Plates 3.5.13:4–6, 3.5.14:9, 3.5.15:3–6; cf. Stern 2015: Plate 4.4.1:6 and 15). Worthy of note is also the discovery of a silver pendant depicting the goddess Ishtar standing on a lion (see also infra chapter 3). While the beginning of this stratum is usually dated to c. 700 B.C., Peter James has suggested a somewhat later date during the second quarter of the 7th century (2005: 90–93). At any rate, this stratum is historically fixed to the 7th century by two inscriptions: an inscribed pottery shard (from Room P; Gitin and Cogan 1999: 193–202) and a royal dedicatory inscription (from the Cella) found in Temple Complex 605 of the upper city (Area IV; Gitin et al. 1997: 1–16). The shard (belonging to a typical Tel Miqne Type 3 ovoid jar) refers to Bacal and the Ekronite king Padi (van der Veen 2008: 110–18). The latter is attested under Sennacherib as enemy of king Hezekiah (see ANET 287–88; Na’aman 2003: esp. 81–84) and on a docket of the year 699 B.C. dated by the limmu of Bel-šarrani (GÚ ina QÀL-si ša MAN mpi-di-[i] KUR.an-qar-u-na-a-a ITI.APIN DU-23 lim-me m EN-MAN-a-ni [= 699 B.C.]; Fales and Postgate 1995: 42, no. 50; Baker 2002: 978; Millard 1998: 91). Stratum 1C–B is believed to have been destroyed in 604 B.C. by the Neo-Babylonians. A somewhat later date for the end of this stratum has, however, been suggested by James (2006: 85–97). 247 It is however possible that this type originated towards the end of Iron Age IIB (c. 650/640 B.C., for this date see infra chapter 4, 4.2. concerning the date of City of David Strata 12 and 11 (also De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 72–73, fig. 4.4:7–9). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

86

Chapter 2

to be manufactured throughout the second half of the 7th century.248 Likewise in Judah ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery is found in levels dating to the final phase of Iron Age IIC, for example at Ramat Rahel Stratum VA (including dimpled beakers, Stern 2001: 37; 2015: Plate 4.4.5: 4–5; Aharoni 1964: Table 18:21–23;) and Jerusalem Stratum 10 (including jars, van der Veen 2014: 148; de Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 77, 81–82, 104–105, fig. 4.5:6–7; fig. 4.43:15). The same holds true for the Northern Negev (e.g. at Tel Arad Stratum VII–VI, Tel cAroer Stratum II, Tel cIra Stratum VI, Tel Malhata Stratum III, En Hazeva Stratum IV, Horvat cUza Stratum III, Horvat Qitmit, Kadesh Barnea [upper Fortress]).249 Hardly ever do we find finer imitation ‘APW-style’ pottery at these southern sites. The most common ‘Assyrian-style’ forms include carinated globular and open bowls (usually either of the ‘Assyrian-style’ or of the ‘Edomite-style’), and bottles /jars (but these are solely found in late strata, see Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2015: 223–224). Based on the generally late occurrence of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery at these sites, some scholars have even gone so far as to suggest that ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery was mainly a phenomenon of the Neo-Babylonian period.250 These scholars based their arguments mainly on the occurrence of ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels in the Assyrian destruction layers at Mesopotamian sites, e.g. at Nimrud, Assur and Nineveh, as well as at postAssyrian squatter occupations. It has likewise been noted that these pottery styles continued to occur at NeoBabylonian Warka and Babylon, suggesting that these vessels were manufactured throughout the Neo-Babylonian era. While there can be little doubt that these pottery styles had a longue durée, research on Assyrian pottery has confirmed that their origin must be sought earlier during the Sargonid period (also Hausleiter 2010: 497; Weippert 1988: 648; van Ess et al. 2012: 133, 139). Also in the Southern Levant, ‘Assyrian-style’ imports and imitations are found in strata that can be dated positively to the time prior to the Assyrian withdrawal. As we shall see below, it is especially the ‘anachronistic’ specimens found in Iron Age IIB strata that suggest that this material is firmly dated to the Late Assyrian period, i.e. prior to the Neo-Babylonian period. The same picture is confirmed by the discovery of ‘Assyrian-style’ seals and pottery, as well as inscribed seals of datable local 7th century Ammonite and Edomite dignitaries in the same late Iron Age tombs and strata in Transjordan.251 Indeed, it appears highly likely therefore that the introduction of ‘Assyrian-style’ derivatives is closely associated with the period of the Pax Assyriaca, mainly during the 7th century B.C. 248

The question (if of course Sargon II indeed established a military base at Arza) whether also earlier Neo-Assyrian evidence has been found, may find some indirect answer. Ben-Shlomo has identified similar vaulted architecture in Field IV phase 8, whose pottery repertory is largely contemporary with late Lachish Level IV and early Lachish Level III (Ben-Shlomo 2014: 425–426, 433–436). Ben-Shlomo dates this stratum to c. 800–750 B.C. (Ben-Shlomo 2014: 544), but in the light of the somewhat lower dates suggested in chapter 1, a date during the second half of the 8th century seems plausible. However, no typical ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery has been found in this phase. 249 On these sites, see Beit-Arieh and Freud (2015: 370–373, 378, Plates 3.4.1:4–5, 3.4.2:1, 3.4.6:7; Stern 2015: 541, Plate 4.4.1:12, 19 [i.e. bowls from Horvat Qitmit Complex A, Horvat cUza Stratum III, Malhata Stratum III; bottles from Tel cIra, Kadesh Barnea Upper Fortress, Tel cAroer Phase A1]). For some parallels from these sites for the bowl types from Umm al-Biyara, see also van der Veen (2014: 229–237). 250 This view is e.g. held by Holladay (1976: 272), Routledge (1997: 33–41), James et al. (1991: 181–182). For a late date of some of these styles, see also Dornemann (1983: 63, Table 4). Dornemann rightly refers to pointed, painted and unpainted, store jars (with and without handles) and with a long everted neck (1983: 55–56, 233, fig. 40). While this group undoubtedly finds good parallels in the Neo-Assyrian corpus (at e.g. Nineveh and Assur), it is also attested during the Neo-Babylonian period, both in Mesopotamia and in the Southern Levant (e.g. at Amman [Adoni-Nur tomb], Meqabelein, Samaria Stratum VII, City of David Stratum 10, etc. [van der Veen 2014: 148, 179–180]). The same can be said of painted carrot-shape bottles of the very long type which are still found in the latest Iron Age tomb at Amman (N) and at Meqabelein. This type again has a parallel at Babylon (Dornemann 1983: 55). These bottles are however to be distinguished from the unpainted Persian period ‘degenerated’ partly knife-shaved carrot-bottles (van der Veen 2014: 179). 251 Dornemann refers to deep bowls with good parallels at Tell Jemmeh (1983: 51) and dimpled and undimpled goblets (1988: 51, figs. 33:9 and 10). A dimpled specimen was found in the tomb of Adoni-Nur (van der Veen 2014: 176). Nevertheless, inscribed fixpoints remain rare. Undoubtedly one of the most significant seals (besides the famous bulla of king Qosgabr of Edom from Umm al-Biyara) is that of Adoni-Nur cbd Amminadab (Amman Archaeological Museum J. 1191 = WSS 859) discovered by G.L. Harding in Amman during the late 1940’s (i.e. in rock-cut shaft ‘tomb AN’ on the southern slopes of the Jabal Qalcah). The seal can be dated to approximately the first half of the 7th century (but hardly later) based on palaeographic considerations (it completely lacks the open letter forms, that become characteristic of Ammonite palaeography of the late 7th and early 6th centuries, as can e.g. be found on the Tel Siran bottle [from the reign of Amminadab II] and the bulla of Milkom’ur cbd Bacalyishca found at Tall al-Umayri). The palaeographic traits are the same as those found on the unprovenanced seal of a minister of king Pado’el (Amminadab’s immediate © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

87

Do we possess any evidence of who might have been the prime agents of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in the Southern Levant? It has been suggested by some scholars that ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery may have been primarily introduced by displaced foreigners, who according to the Assyrian annals (ANET 284; Na’aman 1993: 108–112) and biblical tradition (2 Kgs 17:24; Ezra 4:1–10) were settled there by Sargon II, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (see also Courtois and Doray 1983: 125–136). Indeed, evidence of Neo-Babylonians living at Tel Hadid and Gezer (as well as at other sites252) has been confirmed by cuneiform tablets datable to the years 698, 664, 651 and 649 B.C. respectively (Na’aman 1993: 116–117; Na’aman and Zadok 2000: 159– 188; Becking 1981: 76–89).253 A cuneiform tablet from Tell Keisan written by what appears to have been a scribe of Neo-Babylonian descent, may refer to the rationing for foreigners sometime during the 7th century, but the identity of the people concerned is flawed by severe lacunae in the text (Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 98–99; Na’aman 1993: 117).254 While one may appreciate that these people would have been more adept to using ‘Assyrian-style’ forms than perhaps suspicious conservative local peasants, and that they would have likely helped promote these styles in the region, it remains questionable that Assyrianising forms (let alone genuine Neo-Assyrian vessels) could have been solely distributed by these specific groups only (Ben-Shlomo 2014b: 79). ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery would have likely spread to the remoter areas within the Negev and Edomite highlands primarily through trade. Moreover, the local elite also felt especially attracted by these styles, as is confirmed by the discovery of this pottery in rich tomb repositories in Transjordan, especially so in Amman and in its wider vicinity, including Sahab and Meqabelein (van der Veen 2014: 172–181). There can be little doubt therefore that several agents must have been responsible for its wider distribution (see Hausleiter 2008: 223). However, based on the overall rarity of this pottery group, it seems safe to suggest that supply and demand must have remained low throughout, even if ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery reached its climax in the region towards the end of the Neo-Assyrian period and lasting into the period after the Assyrian withdrawal (Na’aman and Thareani[-Sussely] 2006: 68).

predecessor under Sennacherib and Esarhaddon), see WSS 857. There can be little doubt that the king Amminadab referred to on the seal from Amman is one and the same as the Amminadab referred to in the annals of Assurbanipal of the year 667 B.C. (Prism C). None of his Ammonite predecessors, back to c. 734 B.C., bear the same name (van der Veen 2014: 187, Table 21). Late ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery (including a dimpled goblet and a carinated bowl [both ‘APWstyle’ imitations] and painted carrot-shaped bottles and store jars, and the remains of a bathtub coffin), as well as typical ‘Assyrian-style’ seals were found in the tomb’s repository: one seal depicts a winged genius and is incised with the name Shub’el (WSS 973). An anepigraphic seal depicts, among others, the seated female Assyrian deity Gula. Other grave goods suggest that these burials remained in use throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. For a detailed discussion, see van der Veen (2014: 163–187; Harding 1953: esp. Plates VI and VII). 252 Foreign names are also found on ostraca from Tell Jemmeh (Naveh 1985: 11–15; Ariel 2011: 157, n. 112). The relevance of these foreign names is, however, disputed, despite Naveh’s suggestion (with due reservation) that these men could have been ‘employed by the Assyrians or by the king of Gaza’ (Naveh 1985: 20–21; Davis et al. 2015: 153). 253 This suggestion was e.g. made by James et al. (1991: 186). Holladay has also suggested that this pottery was introduced in the Southern Levant mainly at the time of the demise of the Assyrian empire and at the time when the NeoAssyrians had already withdrawn from the Southern Levant (Holladay 1976: 272). There can be little doubt that this pottery continued to be produced as late as the 6th century (as is also the case at e.g. Dur-Katlimmu and Khirbet Qasrij). Yet based on current evidence, its introduction in the Southern Levant can now undoubtedly be dated to at least fifty years prior to the Assyrian withdrawal from the Southern Levant. 254 Two ostraca from Tell Jemmeh with lists of names, some ending with šin, have also been associated with deported foreigners, but this suggestion remains highly equivocal (Naveh 1985: 11–15; 20–21; Na’aman 1993: 108–109). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

88

Chapter 2

2.2.7.2 Imitated ‘APW-Style’ and Domestic ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery A concentration of vessels similar to genuine ‘APW-pottery’ has been found in 7th century strata in the southern coastal plain and adjacent foothills of the Shephelah region. At Tell Jemmeh, both during Petrie’s excavations in 1926–1927 (Petrie 1928; Drower 1985: Appendix B) and those conducted by the Smithsonian Institute between 1970–1990 (Blakely 1981: 208; Van Beek 1993: 668; Ben-Shlomo and Van Beek 2014), many fine vessels, whose fabric and shapes resemble prototypes from Assyria proper, have been unearthed. Imitated ‘APW-style’ vessels (globular carinated and open bowls, as well as dimpled and undimpled beakers) were excavated in Field IV, phase 5 (Ben-Shlomo 2014: 735–738; 2014b: 74–79). Even so, Alice Hunt argues that the local potters, whose wares were found at Tell Jemmeh, never sought to reproduce ‘exact’ copies of genuine APW vessels. Reflection of a number of characteristics seemed to suffice to please their wealthy customers: ‘The complete lack of conformity between these vessels, in terms of size and decoration, and Palace Ware bowls in either the Central Polity or Annexed Provinces suggests that faithful reproduction or emulation of Palace Ware was not socially meaningful to their local consumers at Tel Jemmeh. ... Its population was more familiar with and/or interested in the changing fads and fashions in the Near East in general then [sic.] other small cities. ... The consumers of Palace Ware-style vessels at Tel Jemmeh were likely the wealthy and privileged, interested in status and prestige and the conspicuous consumption of material culture associated with wealth and privilege. Assyrian-style vessels were valued for their foreignness and identified the consumer as cosmopolitan part of the internationally savvy at Jemmeh.’ (Hunt 2015: 204; emphasis added) Some eighteen vessels reflect Form A bowls known from the Assyrian homeland (Hunt 2015: 148). A small number of dimpled cups (Form B) were also identified at Tell Jemmeh, one of them containing an elegant knob-base rather similar to those found on ‘B3’ cups in Assyria proper. Form C vessels were also identified which find close parallels in Assyria (Hunt 2015: 150–151). In general, it may be concluded that while Tell Jemmeh specimens contain several characteristics reflecting genuine APW from Assyria proper, none of them precisely met ‘the definitional criteria for Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware’ in the Central Polity (Hunt 2105: 152). The fabric was found to be slightly thicker than in Assyria, an observation that applies in particular to Form A vessels which on an average were found to be c. 0.1 cm thicker than true Assyrian specimens (Hunt 2015: 153). The thickness of Forms B and C vessels, however, more closely conforms to those in the Assyrian homeland. Bowls belonging to Form A were found to be twice as high as those known from Assyria, and they proved to be between 2–7 cm wider than their Assyrian prototypes. Their neck lengths exceeded their Assyrian counterparts by 1.1–2.3 cm. Several shapes at Tell Jemmeh found no exact counterpart in the Assyrian homeland. This appears to indicate that South-Palestinian potters on the one hand were keen to imitate Late ‘Assyrian-styles’, but on the other hand felt free to modify certain elements and mix them with local styles (Hunt 2015: 154). Nevertheless, as Hunt admits: ‘They do, however, exhibit stylistic and formal similarities to vessels in the greater Neo-Assyrian ceramic assemblage, particularly tableware.’ (Hunt 2015: 156) In terms of decoration, some of the vessels from Tell Jemmeh were red-slipped and burnished to make their overall appearance look shinier: ‘The existence of burnished and red-slipped burnished Palace Ware-style vessels at Jemmeh is significant; indicating that the manufacturers and consumers of these vessels were blending local and “foreign” or Assyrian ceramic styles and, perhaps, the semiotic function and social value of the vessels as well.’ (Hunt 2015: 168) Examination of the fabric of the Tell Jemmeh vessels showed that fine clays had been selected for their production (i.e. finer than the ordinary clays found in the Wadi Besor, see Melson and van Beek 1992; Engstrom 2004; Ben-Shlomo 2014d: 78). Even so, the potters had derived their clay from a local source generally consistent with Negev sediments (Hunt 2015: 176). These vessels had been fired at lower temperatures than in the Assyrian homeland (i.e. not exceeding 700–900 °C, Hunt 2015: 170). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

89

As for other sites in the region, some fifty sherds of ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels (mainly beakers and carinated bowls) were uncovered in Field I (in Stratum VII and later) at Tel el-Hesi (some 20 miles northeast of Tell Jemmeh) that have been likened to APW (Engstrom 2004: 70, fig. 3 and Table 1). These strata are generally dated to the 7th–5th centuries B.C. A large quantity of ‘APW-style’ pottery was also found at Tel Sera Stratum V (Oren 1982: 159; 1993: 1333–1334; Stern 2015: 541, Plate 4.4.1:3).255 A similar situation was encountered at Tel Haror and Khirbet Hoga (Dubovský 2006: 211–212; Oren 1995; Varga 1999; Stern 2001: 109). Remains of dimpled beakers were found further to the north at Megiddo, in Strata H-3 (see infra 2.2.8.1) and III (Stern 2015: 547, Plate 4.4.5:3). Fine carinated bowls with high everted rims were excavated at Tel Farcah North (Stratum VIIe) and in Samaria Tomb 103 (Stern 2015: 541, Plate 4.4.1, 1, 4). Gadrooned bowls were found at Tel cAroer (Stratum IIb) and at Kadesh Barnea (Upper Fortress) in the Northern Negev (Thareani 2011: 128 = BL31; Stern 2015: 541, Plate 4.4.1:12), as well as on top of the ‘Assyrian’ siege ramp at Lachish (see infra 2.2.10.1). ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels were also found at Tel Miqne / Ekron (e.g. Stern 2015: 541, Plate 4.4.1:6 and 15). Further to the north at Megiddo, ‘Assyrian-style’ tripod bowls were found in Strata IV–III and east of the Jordan at Tell es-Saidiyye (Stern 2015: 543, Plate 4.4.2: 15–16). In Central Transjordan, a fragment of a thin dimpled beaker was uncovered in the so-called Tomb of Adoni-Nur which historically dates to the mid-7th– early 6th centuries B.C. (Harding 1953: 73, fig. 21:88 and Plate VII: 88; van der Veen 2014: 176). Globular and open bowls (including deep bowls) were found in tomb repositories in and near Amman (e.g. Tomb A256 on the Jebel Joffeh in Amman [Harding 1944: 69], in Tomb AN [Tomb of Adoni-Nur] on the Jebel al-Qala [Harding 1953: 73, fig. 21] and in the Udhaina area [Hadidi 1987: 103–04, figs. 2–3]). Fine carinated bowls were uncovered in tombs on Mount Nebo (Stern 2015: 541, Plates 4.4.1:7 and 16). Moreover, an undimpled beaker, carinated bowls and bottles were excavated at Tall Mazar Cemetery A (Yassine 1984: Figs. 3:1–8; 5:1–6). In general, it can be said that a greater variety of ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels has been found in Transjordan than in Cisjordan. Small globular juglets have been found both in Trans- and Cisjordan (e.g. at Udhainah [Hadid 1987: 103, fig. 2], and Tel Dan Stratum I [Pakman 1992: 236, fig. 5:11, etc.]). Although rarely found in Cisjordan, painted bottles are attested in Samaria Strata II–I, Megiddo Stratum II, Tell Farcah North Stratum VIIe, Tell Qiri Stratum VI/V and Tell Keisan Stratum 5 (Stern 2015: 548, Plate 4.4.6:2–6; 551, Plate 4.47:1–2).

2.2.8 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery from Iron Age IIB Strata in Israel and Judah On the following pages examples of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery will be presented, whose problems have not been satisfactorily solved within the traditional dating framework. Our list will be representative rather than exhaustive.257

255

Stratum V also contained a lunar shaped bronze standard with rings for attachment of tassels, see Oren (1993: 1333). Despite Harding’s original 8th century date for this burial group, a date squarely within the 7th B.C. appears more in keeping with the evidence from the tomb. Certain specimens seem to suggest that the tomb was in use for a long time (as accepted by Dornemann 1983: 49). For a late 7th century vessel, see Dornemann’s water-decanter no. 29. This range is further substantiated by the painted carrot-shaped bottles (e.g. no. 56) and the incised limestone palette (no. 69). For an even longer lifespan for yet another tomb in Amman (spanning the period from the late 8th–4th century B.C.) with the occurrence of Attic vessels, see Hadidi (1987: 101). 257 Another example that could have been listed here is a bottle from Hazor VA (Stern 2015: 547, Plate 4.4.5, 17) with an almost exact parallel at Nimrud (Stern 2015: Plate 4.4.5, 16). 256

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

90

Round Dates B.C. c. 730 c. 720 c. 710

Chapter 2

Assyria/Babylon Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 B.C.) Sargon II (721–705 B.C.) Sargon II (same)

c. 700

Sennacherib – Esarhaddon (704–669 B.C.)

c. 675–650

Esarhaddon – Assurbanipal (680–627 B.C.)

c. 650

Assurbanipal (668–627 B.C.) Assurbanipal – Assur-etel-ilani (668–623 B.C.) Nabopolassar – Nebuchadrezzar (625–562 B.C.) Nebuchadrezzar (604–562 B.C.)

c. 640–620 c. 620–600 c. 600–580

J. 1565 TP SB *

Judah (after Galil 1996) Ahaz (742–726 B.C.) Hezekiah (726–697 B.C.) Hezekiah (726–697 B.C.) Hezekiah (same) Manasseh (697–642 B.C.) Manasseh (same)

Manasseh – Amon (697–641 B.C.) Josiah (641–609 B.C.) Josiah – Jehoiakim (641–598 B.C.) Jehoiakim – Zedekiah (609/8–587 B.C.)

Ammon

Edom

Ṣanipu/Šanipu (ANET 282 / J. 1565) Zakkur (?) (J. 1565)* Yarḥcazar (J. 1565)* Pado’el (TP + Prism B)

Qaušmalaku (ANET 282) ?

Amminadab I (Prism C; SB)

Qaušgabri/ Qosgabr (Prism B and C) Same?

Barak’el? (bulla) Ḥissal’el (SB) Amminadab II (SB) Bacalyišac (bulla)

? Ayaramu (TP)

Mlkbc? (bulla) ? ?

= Statue inscription from Amman = Taylor Prism = Siran Bottle = these rulers are not attested in the Assyrian annals

Table 3: Kings of Assyria and Babylon listed alongside rulers of Judah, Ammon and Edom, as based on contemporary sources (after van der Veen 2014: 182–187; 247–257). For a detailed list, see also Reinhold (2003: 101–118).

Figs. 41a–b: ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery allegedly from Israel. Left: undimpled beaker with lower-everted rim. For a similar specimen from Tel Keisan, see Stern (2015: 547, fig. 13). Right: goblet with red decoration. For similar beakers from Assur, see Hausleiter (2010: Tables 77–78; courtesy of the ABA, Schorndorf; photos by the author).

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

91

Fig. 42: ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery allegedly from Israel. Carinated bowl with raised everted rim. For a similar specimen from Tel el-Farcah North, see Amiran (1969: 291, photo 298; courtesy of the ABA, Schorndorf; photo by the author).

2.2.8.1 A Fragmentary Tall Dimpled Beaker from Megiddo Stratum IVA A locally imitated burnished Neo-Assyrian dimpled beaker (reg. no. 96/H/32/VS6) was discovered during the renewed excavations under the supervision of Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern ‘in a safe stratigraphic context of Level H-3’ (unit 94/H/8). Its sherds were retrieved from three separate loci (see Finkelstein et al. 2000: 313).258 The specimen in question is described by the excavators as a ‘bottle’ likely due to its raised everted rim and sharply carinated shoulder.

Fig. 43: Dimpled goblet from Megiddo Stratum H-3/IVA (line-drawing after Finkelstein et al. 2000: 306, fig. 11.46.7).

There can be little doubt, however, that we are dealing here with a late Neo-Assyrian dimpled beaker (i.e. the so-called ‘Trichterhalsbecher mit Dellenverzierung’, Hausleiter type BD; Hausleiter 2010: 308). According to Alice Hunt’s form-system it would qualify as a Form ‘B3’ cup (Hunt 2015: 52, fig. 3.14). Moreover, according to Hausleiter this specimen is ‘mit der spätneuassyrischen Keramik schlechthin verbunden’ and its prototypes are firmly attested from the late 8th century B.C. onwards in Assyria proper (2010: 308). For virtually identical Late Assyrian beakers with sharply carinated shoulders, see Hausleiter (2010: Table 87: types BD 2.2 and 2.3 [both from Nimrud], as well as types BD 3.1 and 3.2 [from Assur]).259 The sherds of this specimen were retrieved from loci within Stratum H-3, which is not only closely associated with, but also—as the current excavators argue—identical with Megiddo Stratum IVA (Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000: 597).260 Originally the end of this stratum was dated by the Chicago archaeologists to the late 9th century B.C. Consequently, they assigned Stratum III to the reign of Jeroboam II and to the final years of Israel prior to its annexation by Assyria. If the Chicago dates were maintained, a gap of no less than 70 or 80 years would ‘yawn’ between the end of Stratum IVA and the military advances of Tiglath-pileser III and the conquest of Samaria by Shalmaneser V and Sargon II during the second half of the 8th century B.C. Currently Stratum H-3/Stratum IVA is dated by Finkelstein et al. to c. 800–732 B.C., i.e. one century later than the dates originally suggested by the Chicago excavators (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 322; Finkelstein and 258

The clay of the vessel was petrographically analysed by Yuval Goren, who confirmed that the beaker had been locally produced (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 313). 259 See also Anastasio (2010: Plates 27:14 and 28:11, from Tell Sheikh Hamad). 260 This stratum was sealed by Stratum III, while its pottery repertory is clearly distinguishable from that of the preceding Stratum VA-IVB (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 300–301). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

92

Chapter 2

Ussishkin 2000: 597–598). Even so, as the current excavators concede, the new terminus ante quem of Stratum IVA still does not completely resolve the conundrum, as these dates still seem slightly too high for the above ‘Assyrian-style’ beaker. Indeed, as was stated above, this vessel must be identified stylistically as a ‘Late Assyrian-style’ beaker with dimples (a so-called Form ‘B3 cup’) of the late APW corpus dating to the Sargonid period. We have also noted that the dimpled decoration not only is believed to be an innovation of the Late Assyrian pottery workshops, but that a date no earlier than the final decades of the 8th century B.C. must be preferred for these vessels (Hausleiter 2010: 308; Anastasio 2010: 7–8, 25). While a date c. 720 B.C. for this vessel cannot be categorically ruled out, a slightly later date may seem preferable, if we take into account that the Megiddo specimen is not an imported ‘genuine’ APW vessel but merely a local derivative. Although Finkelstein et al. seek to push the end of Stratum IVA as late as possible in order to accommodate it with the general appearance of ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in the Southern Levant, their suggested dates still remain wanting (as a matter of fact, the following quote contains too many ‘ifs’): ‘The most significant vessel for dating the last days of the assemblage of Level H-3 (Stratum IVA) is the locally made Assyrian bottle [our dimpled beaker] .... If Assyrian forms were imitated in the workshops of the Northern Kingdom already before Tiglath-Pileser III’s conquest of the north, there would have been no difficulty in dating the destruction of Stratum IVA to 732 B.C.E. Alternatively, if Assyrian forms were imitated only after the annexation of the Galilee and the northern valleys by TiglathPileser III, the destruction of Megiddo IVA must be placed after that event. If the latter opinion is preferred, the site would have ... been destroyed somewhat later, perhaps when the province was reorganized under Sargon II [c. 720–715 B.C.].’ (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 322, emphasis added) As Na’aman and Thareani(-Sussely) have rightly stressed, the timespan between the production of Late Assyrian prototypes and the time when the local elite in the Southern Levant adapted to the ‘new fashions’, let alone the time it took for the local potters to reproduce their own local imitations, must be taken into account. Hence, a date before 715–700 B.C. (at the earliest) for the production and use of the relevant local vessel at Megiddo still appears somewhat strained, especially so if the following chronological points pertaining to the date of Megiddo Stratum IVA are considered. In line with the evidence for the end of Stratum VA–IVB at Megiddo as presented in chapter 1, it seems unlikely that the onset of Stratum IVA can be dated much before 740/735 B.C. While Megiddo itself became the centre of an Assyrian province in 732 B.C., Hoshea, the final Israelite monarch at Samaria, continued to serve as vassal ruler of the Neo-Assyrian empire.261 The overall layout of Megiddo Stratum IVA as a largely military citadel (including horse stables, solid offset-inset city-walls and palaces, whose constructors employed the Assyrian cubit rather than the Egyptian cubit, as seems to be the case in Stratum VA–IVB, see Franklin 2005: 320262) may well suggest that the NeoAssyrians (likely only after 732 B.C.) used the site for their own army and for their local Israelite contingents stationed in or near the Jezreel valley.263 But for how long would this stratum have remained occupied before it was finally destroyed or given up? It is generally assumed that Stratum IVA was occupied for some 60–70 years. If, as Finkelstein and Ussishkin have suggested Stratum IVA met its final demise in 732, or no later than c. 720–715 B.C., the site would have been occupied for only 20–30 years at the utmost. This of course is rather unlikely. What then can we say? It is often assumed that the Assyrians destroyed Megiddo, but none of the available Assyrian sources actually refer to the destruction of the site. We are merely told that Megiddo became the centre of the Assyrian province Magiddu in 732 (e.g. Bagg 2011: 226, 232 with map 4.24; 261

It is possible that the beaker had been brought to the site by a displaced Babylonian and/or other foreign citizen, as some scholars would suggest. Indeed displaced foreigners are referred to in biblical tradition and in cuneiform sources, as has been argued above (see also Na’aman and Zadok 2000: 159; Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 61–64; Becking 1981– 2: 80–86). On the issue of non-Israelite occupants at Megiddo, see also Halpern (2000: 568). Foreign citizens may also be accounted for at other sites, as e.g. a skull of the Armenoid type in a 7th century tomb at Tel Rehov may suggest. Whether or not the person involved had been settled there by the Assyrians or had simply come from Northern Syria or Eastern Anatolia as a simple traveller remains in dispute (Mazar 2011: 269). 262 This cubit measures 0.495 m and is described by Norma Franklin as an Assyrian cubit (Franklin 2005). 263 A date as late as c. 732 B.C. for the destruction of Megiddo VA–IVB may also be taken into consideration, to account for a military take-over by the Assyrians. If so, both Strata IVA and III would date to the time after 732 B.C. when Magiddu was the capital of a full fledged Neo-Assyrian province. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

93

Holladay 2009: 87). We are likewise informed that an Assyrian official resided there in 679 B.C. (Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000: 598; Millard 1998: 61).264 None of these references necessitate actual destruction of any kind. In theory therefore, this date may either mark the end or the beginning of Stratum IVA. Consequently, Baruch Halpern, erstwhile co-director of the renewed excavations at Megiddo, has offered an alternative explanation to that of Finkelstein and Ussishkin (Halpern 2000: 561–569). He postulates that even if the builders of Stratum IVA had followed the overall town plan of the previous Iron Age city and even if its citizens might have been predominantly local kinsmen, the end of Stratum IVA could well have overlapped with the early stages of what is believed to be the true ‘Assyrian’ Stratum III.265 He further suggests, that its developmental history may have been smooth rather than violent (Halpern 2000: 565–566).266 He also postulates that Stratum III may not have been built before 679 B.C. (similarly Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000: 602), when the Neo-Assyrian governor of Magiddu, Issi-Adad-Anenu, is mentioned as limmu in the Assyrian annals of that year. Halpern further suggests that the transformed town plan of Stratum III may perhaps be related to king Esarhaddon’s military advances against the Kushite Pharaoh Taharqa in the years 674–669 B.C. This suggestion has much to commend itself, even if we possess no clear evidence to prove it. As Finkelstein and Ussishkin rightly conclude, ‘if anything [the connection of Megiddo with the Assyrian offical in 679 B.C.], would suggest a later floruit for Stratum III, rather than earlier’ (2000: 602). How much later, we simply cannot tell. If, however, Halpern’s suggestion that Stratum IVA could have remained occupied until c. 680 B.C. is accepted, Stratum III could have been built at any time, either during the reign of Esarhaddon or that of his son Assurbanipal, but at any rate before the withdrawal of the Assyrians from the Southern Levant. Be this as it may, we have no way of knowing of which stratum Issi-Adad-Anenu was a contemporary, of late Stratum IVA or early III. Consequently, the Stratum IVA dimpled beaker could have been produced at any time during the first half of the 7th century B.C.

2.2.8.2 Samaria Pottery Period 6 and ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery A similar situation is probably found at Samaria, but due to uncertainties concerning the precise context of the relevant finds, we shall refrain from a detailed discussion here.267 The following summary must suffice. While Kathleen Kenyon assigns the end of Pottery Periods 5–6 (as well as Building Period V–VI) to the period immediately just prior to the destruction of the city by the Assyrians in 722/721 B.C., she also points at striking similarities between the ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels of Pottery Periods VI (and VII) and the ‘Assyrianstyle’ vessels from Megiddo Stratum III (i.e. of the ‘Assyrian city’ of the 7th century B.C.). Ron Tappy has carefully restudied the relevant pottery assemblages from Samaria and distinguishes between an early and a late group. He assigns the closing date of Pottery Period VI to the period between 700–650 B.C. for similar reasons as those relating to the dimpled beaker at Megiddo Stratum H-3/IVA (see also Hardin 2003: 83). Moreover, most ‘Assyrian-style’ bowls were believed by Kenyon to have come from the area surrounding a certain ‘Pit i’, which she assigns to a Building Period V house (Tappy 2001: 311–315, with figs. 10: 8–10; 344, 349–350). Be this as it may, Ron Tappy has shown that its stratigraphic evidence remains unclear. Nonetheless, allowing for the possibility that Kenyon’s overall stratigraphical attribution is still generally warranted (at least to some extent), Tappy concludes that the relevant house did not suffer havoc in 722/721 B.C., but rather later ‘sometime well into the latter of these occupations [the period of Neo-Assyrian occupation at the site, i.e. after c. 720 B.C.]’ (Tappy 2001: 350; see also 342, emphasis added).

264

While Finkelstein and Ussishkin maintain the view that it would have been destroyed by the Assyrians in 732 B.C., they too admit that ‘it is not mentioned in texts relating the military campaigns of the Assyrian monarchs to Palestine.’ 265 The urban layout of Stratum III does not clearly reflect strong Assyrian tendencies. Ariel Bagg rightly stresses that the city was thoroughly rebuilt and that some Assyrian influence has been noted in the northern residential quarter (at Palace 1369, see Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000: 602). On the other hand, the Assyrian influence is limited, as ‘im Wohngebiet, das etwa 75% der Stadtfläche einnimmt, kein assyrischer Einfluss erkennbar [ist]’ (Bagg 2011: 285). 266 Some destruction by fire was found in Level H-3 by the Chicago excavators, but this evidence seems to have been local. Such evidence is lacking in other areas, where Stratum IVA material has been excavated (Finkelstein et al. 2000: 301 and 310). Moreover, Bagg has rightly argued that despite the annexation of Megiddo, its citizens would not have noticed a great difference within the adjacent urban landscape (2011: 286, 301). 267 As Ron Tappy rightly states, far too often sweeping conclusions have been drawn based on a questionable stratification. It is therefore crucial not to repeat the same mistake here (Tappy 2001: 342). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

94

Chapter 2

2.2.8.3 ‘Assyrian-Style’ and ‘Edomite-Style’ Pottery at Arad and Beersheba (Y. Aharoni and Z. Herzog Excavations, Tel Aviv University) We shall now look more specifically at ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery from Tel Arad and Tel Beersheba. Both sites were excavated by archaeological teams from the University of Tel Aviv. 2.2.8.3.1 Tel Arad Strata X–VIII In her study of the pottery of Tel Arad, Singer-Avitz lists several ‘Assyrian-style’ and ‘Edomite-Assyrianstyle’ vessels, which mostly belong to the Iron Age IIC Strata VII–VI. But there also exist exceptions to the rule (Singer-Avitz 2002: 125–127). The oldest specimens already occur in Tel Arad Strata X–VIII. Although no petrographic analyses have been made of the clay, it is presumed by analogy with comparative material from Tel Beersheba (see infra 2.2.8.3.2), that it too has been locally derived (2002: 160). Contrary to previous suggestions made by Yohanan Aharoni (1981: 5 and 8; 1993: Table on p. 82), who dated Stratum X to the mid-9th century, Ze’ev Herzog and Lily Singer-Avitz currently assign the same stratum to the mid-8th century (Herzog 2002: 14, Table 1; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2015: 213–214, 223–224 with Table 2.4.1). Consequently and ‘en bloc’, Strata X–VIII are dated to the second half of the 8th century B.C. Aharoni suggested that Stratum VIII was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (Aharoni 1981: 9; 1993: Table on p. 82; Herzog 2002: Table on p. 14).268 Singer-Avitz accepts this date and points at the close resemblance of the relevant pottery assemblages to those of Lachish Level III (Singer-Avitz 2000: 159; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2015: 218). But how well do these dates comply with the ‘Assyrian-evidence’ found in these strata?

Fig. 44: ‘Assyrian-style’ bowl type B13 from Tel Arad (after Singer-Avitz: 2002: 134; courtesy of L. Singer-Avitz).

a) A ribbed ‘Assyrian-style’ bowl (B13) Several ‘Assyrian-style’ bowls of ‘Tel Arad Type B13’ have been uncovered at the site, the earliest of which have been found in Stratum IX. They continue to appear as late as Stratum VI, the final Iron Age stratum at the site. This type contains thick sides and like its Neo-Assyrian counterpart contains stepped or ribbed decoration. Sometimes also a ‘pronounced ridge ... surrounds the carinated wall’ (Singer-Avitz 2002: 130, see no. B13). Its colour ranges from buff to grey and red. Some specimens are wheel-burnished on their in- and outside walls. This type is found to be similar to bowls of the late and post-Assyrian periods, dated to the 7th–6th centuries B.C. (Hausleiter 2010: 334, 337).269 Several so-called ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ vessels have also been found at the site. These are specifically described as ‘Edomite’, presumably because their closest parallels (based on fabric and design) are known from Edom rather than Assyria. Nevertheless, these vessels still reflect unmistakable ‘Assyrian’ characteristics (Singer-Avitz 2014b: 267; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2015: 218). Other more specific Edomite vessels were also found, but a discussion of these is beyond the scope of this chapter.

268

The evidence of conflagration at the end of Tel Arad Stratum VIII, however, is ambiguous and its association with Sennacherib’s campaign is tenuous to say the least (see also Thareani-Sussely 2007: 72). Moreover, as we suggest elsewhere in this volume (see also infra Addendum I), an association with this otherwise unattested campaign of Sennacherib in the Northern Negev should likely be rejected. 269 Similar (albeit not precisely identical) bowls from Assyria are listed by Hausleiter (2010: Tables 52: no. SF 3.3, Ass. 22142o VA Ass. 1502, D. 9,9; 54: no. SF 10.7, from post-Assyrian occupations). Moreover, Singer-Avitz compares the Tel Arad Type B13 bowls with specimens found at Tel Dor, as well as at Tell Batash / Timnah (see Gilboa 1995: 4–5; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 52). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

95

Fig. 45: ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ bowl Type B12 from Tel Arad (after Singer-Avitz 2002: 134, no. B12; courtesy of L. Singer-Avitz).

b) ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ bowl (B12) Only sherds of Tel Arad bowl Type B12 were retrieved from Strata IX and VII. Singer-Avitz refers to a parallel bowl from the late Iron Age Edomite site of Tawilan (Tawilan Bowl Type D, TS 518) whose Iron Age occupation spans the late 7th–6th, or even 5th centuries B.C. (see also infra Excursus 1). She further refers to ‘Assyrian-style’ parallels, whose traits resemble those of bowls at late Neo-Assyrian Khirbet Qasrij on the east bank of the Tigris river, near modern Eski Mosul (e.g. Curtis 1989: Fig. 27, no. 69; likewise, fig. 7, no. 6).270 These cited parallels date to the 7th century B.C. and later. Singer-Avitz also refers to a parallel vessel from Tel Batash Stratum II which likewise has been dated to the 7th century B.C. (Singer-Avitz 2002: 130). Other ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ bowls from Tel Arad that may be listed here are bowl Types B29 (found in Strata IX and VIII) and B30 (the earliest evidence of which was found in Stratum X), some of which are decorated with black and red lines (Singer Avitz 2002: 132, 135). Bowl Type B30 finds parallels at Tel Beersheba Stratum II, as well as at other sites in Southern Transjordan (Singer-Avitz 2002: 133; 2016: e.g. 837, fig. 12.121:8; van der Veen 2014: 230). A somewhat more remote ‘Assyrian-style’ bowl (but rather common in Southern Jordan towards the end of the Iron Age, see van der Veen 2014: 232–233) is the Sshaped Type B31 bowl (only attested in Tel Arad Stratum X) with an attached handle (Singer-Avitz 2002: 133, 135). This type is believed to have been inspired by handleless ‘Assyrian-style’ carinated bowls (for plausible parallels, see Sievertsen (2012b: 164, fig. 134:2). In addition to the ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery at Tel Arad, some additional Neo-Assyrian small finds also deserve close mention. Some of these items may have been imported while others were locally produced (Singer-Avitz 2002: 161; Herzog 2001: 80–83). They include a bronze lion weight (found in Stratum IX near the altar of the local sanctuary, Herzog 2002: Fig. 35:2). It has excellent parallels in Assyria proper (see e.g. Curtis and Reade 1995: 193, nos. 202–205; Fales 1995: 33–55; Schwiderski 2004: 310–311; Lipiński 2000: 346–348). Further, a limestone cylinder seal was found in Stratum IX in the southeast corner of the citadel (Herzog 2002: Fig. 35:1). Although its imagery is crude (including a seated deity accompanied by a variety of symbols, such as a tall bird, seven dots [the Pleiades271], a rhomboid and a lunar crescent), it finds good parallels within the so-called ‘Aramaising’ seal corpus, which derived its motifs from Neo-Assyrian art.272 Several ‘Assyrian-style’ fibulae of the ‘triangular bow type’ were also found, the earliest two being from Stratum X.273 These objects underline the role played by Tel Arad as a ‘Gateway’ town associated with long distance trade (Singer-Avitz 1999; Herzog 2002: 83). While some of the items (e.g. the bow fibulae and the bronze weight) had a longue durée, its ‘Assyrian-style’ features imply a timeframe when the region witnessed tradeenterprise overseen ‘by the watchful eye’ of the Assyrian bureaucracy. Such a situation would indeed have been more at home in Southern Palestine during the 7th century B.C., prior to the Assyrian withdrawal. 270

The Qasrij Cliff specimen however lacks the more pronounced indented rim. For somewhat similar bowls from Tell Abu Hafur ‘East’ (with a ribbed design on the outside), see Anastasio (2010: 101, fig. 11). For similar bowls from Assur, see also Hausleiter (2010: Table 55:SF 12 R3 and SF 12 R5). 271 On the motif of the seven dots (Pleiades) on Neo-Assyrian-period Levantine seals, see van der Veen (2004: 11–22, esp. 15–19). 272 As for seals belonging to this category, see esp. Keel and Uehlinger (1998: § 187, figs. 315a–b and 316 [with combined motifs of lunar crescents, multiple dots, rhomboids], § 178, figs. 305a–c, 306a–c, 307, for seated deities with upraised arms on thrones with backrests and associated astral imagery, see § 174, fig. 299e; the latter seal depicts a very similar type of bird in association with a lunar crescent). These seals have been squarely dated to the late 8th–early 6th centuries B.C. 273 For this type of fibulae, see Stronach (1959: 181–206, esp. 193–201). See also Muscarella (2013: chapter 27, 803– 816), and Pedde (2000). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

96

Chapter 2

2.2.8.3.2 Tel Beersheba Strata III–II ‘Assyrian-style’ and ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ vessels have been found in both Strata III and II at Tel Beersheba (Singer-Avitz 2016a: 657). These two strata are dated by the excavators to the second half of the 8th century B.C., while the end of Stratum II is believed to correlate exactly with Sennacherib’s so-called ‘southern campaign’, whose historicity is challenged in this volume (see esp. infra Addendum 1).274 Conclusions concerning the late Iron Age archaeology of Tel Beersheba had been drawn long before the final publication of the site (Singer-Avitz 1999; 2014: 269–277). In general, it can be said that the quantity of ‘Assyrian-style’ and ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ vessels (mainly ‘bowls, jugs and bottles’) at Tel Beersheba remains limited (Singer-Avitz 2016: 659). As a matter of fact, they comprise only a very small percentage of forms found at the site, even if compared with other ‘foreign’ vessels such as those from the coastal region: ‘889 complete vessels excavated solely on floors may be regarded as a representative assemblage. Some 84% of the vessels display Judean characteristics, 12.5% possess coastal characteristics, and the rest have Northern, Edomite, Assyrian or Egyptian characteristics.’ (Singer-Avitz 1999: 12; for slightly divergent numbers, see Singer-Avitz 2016: 659) While the majority of vessels at the site can be described as Judaean, the broad range of other foreign styles underlines Beersheba’s role as a ‘Gateway town’ in the Beersheba-Arad-Valley (Singer-Avitz 1999: 12 with Table). The following ‘Assyrian-style’ and ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ locally manufactured bowls, goblets and bottles were found in Tel Beersheba Strata III and II (Singer-Avitz 2016: 658, n. 24) and are currently dated to the second half of the 8th century by the excavators: Type B-6: This is a bowl with a ‘pronounced carination at mid-wall, splayed rim and a low ring base’. This vessel contains strong Assyrian characteristics and is also attested at Edomite sites. At Tel Beersheba specimens were found both in Strata III and II (Singer-Avitz 2016: 586, with Plate 12.1, fig. 12.65: no. 3; with parallels listed in Singer-Avitz 2007: 183–185).275 Type B-23: This is a ‘closed globular bowl’. It is the only vessel of this type found at Tel Beersheba. It was excavated in Stratum II. It is ring-based and contains a ridged neck (Singer-Avitz 2016: 592, with Plate 12.2, fig. 12.189: no. 4). This vessel finds parallels in Assyria (see e.g. the 8th–7th century B.C. vessel at Sharqat in Anastasio 2010: 116–117, Plates 20: 4 and 53: 11276), as well as in Southern Palestine, such as at Tel Batash / Timnah (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Fig. no. KR 11c). Type JD-12: This is an ‘istikan’ type drinking cup (Singer-Avitz 2016: 637 with Plate 12.17, figs. 12.161: no. 14; the second specimen is depicted on p. 978, fig. 12.223: no. 32). This form is only infrequently found

274

The same view is adhered to by Yulia Gottlieb, who analysed the arrowheads found at the site (2016: 1192–1228). But her conclusions are based on a circular argument. While she accepts the 701-date at face value, she interprets the material evidence in accordance with it. Yet her conclusions are hardly convincing. As a matter of fact only three of the 158 arrowheads found in Stratum II were found in the City Gate area (Gate-room 311). Accordingly Gottlieb concludes that not even these specimens would have belonged to the ‘Assyrian army’ and suggests that they could have been part of the arsenal of the local guards: ‘None came from open areas near the gate, and not a single missile was found on the way leading to the city gate’ (2016: 1223). The lack of arrowheads (except for one) and slingstones, as well as the absence of a siege ramp, suggests to her a very different tactic pursued by the attackers if compared with Lachish. While Gottlieb suggests that it was the Assyrians, who took the city by surprise (‘most probably under cover of night’) and who had burned the town to the ground, no evidence of ‘the fate of the inhabitants’ has been found (2016: 1224). Yet, Gottlieb provides no proof at all that ‘opposed to Lachish, where the Assyrians made enormous efforts to conquer the city’, that the enemy indeed were the Assyrians, let alone belonged to the time of Sennacherib. Although the attackers could theoretically have been Assyrians (we simply do not know), it must be asked if the spontaneous strike-technique does not rather match that of a local band of marauders from the desert, who could have plundered and destroyed the city at any given time, possibly as late as the middle of the 7th century B.C. For a similar date for the destruction of Beersheba Stratum II, see infra 2.2.9, n. 285. 275 For similar bowls from Assyria, see Hausleiter (2010: Table 59, SF 20.8 from Assur, dating to the 8th–7th centuries B.C.), Anastasio (2010: 160–161, Plate 42:14; with a lower splayed rim, from Khirbet Qasrij, from the post-Assyrian 6th century B.C. settlement). 276 For similarly shaped glazed vessel from Assur, see Anastasio (2010: 196–197, Plate 69: 2 and 4). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

97

in the Southern Levant277, but is a common type in Assyria proper during the late Neo-Assyrian period (see Hausleiter 2010: ‘Tafel 6’, ‘Tafel 77–79’: esp. BZ 1.6–8, from Assur and Nimrud, 9th–6th centuries B.C., see also p. 240278; Anastasio 2007: Fig. 16, no. 16.7; 2010: 130–131, Plate 27: 1–9 and 170–171, Plate 47: 3–20, from Fort Shalmaneser and Nimrud respectively, dating to the 8th–6th centuries B.C.). Both ‘istikans’ from Tel Beersheba were found in Stratum II (for photographs of both specimens, see infra figs. 46a–b).

Figs. 46a–b: ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery from Tel Beersheba Stratum II. Left: an ‘istikan’ shaped vessel, reg. nr. 16994/1. Right: an ‘istikan’ shaped vessel, reg. nr. 15839/1 (courtesy of L. Singer-Avitz; photography by Johannes Schweinsberg and Dr David Ellis).

Type JD-11: These are ‘bottles’ with a globular body and round and flat bases (Singer-Avitz 2016: 637 with Plate 12.17, fig. 12.77:21). These were found in Strata III and II. While Singer-Avitz considers these to be local derivatives of ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels, she draws parallels from Tel Batash / Timnah Stratum II (SingerAvitz 2016: 637; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 130–131). One specimen from Stratum II is decorated with impressions and red and white lines (Singer-Avitz 2016: 637 and fig. 12.77: no. 21) as if the local potter had creatively merged elements from Assyria and Edom. For similar vessels from Assyria, see Hausleiter (2010: Table 92, FL 1.1, 1.3–5, from Nimrud and Assur, dating to the 7th–6th centuries B.C.) and Anastasio (2010: 142–143, Plate 33, 7, from Tell Ahmar, from the 7th century B.C.). Other ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels that could be included here are a ‘folded ridged-rim bowl’ from Stratum II with parallels at Tel Dor (Singer-Avitz 2016: 594; Gilboa 1995: 6, type BL39a, fig. 1.3.16 with parallels) and a ‘stepped base bowl’ from Strata III and II (Singer-Avitz 2016: 595). For the latter, Singer-Avitz offers parallels inter alia from Tell Ahmar (Jamieson 2012: Figs. 3.26.1–2) and Tell Halaf (Oppenheim 1939: Plate 55: 10), as well as from the Southern Levant, from Tel Batash / Timnah (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Fig. BL21) and Busayra (Bienkowski 2002: Fig. 9.5.8). For a typical ‘Edomite-style’ vessel (attested in the Edomite homeland during the 7th–6th centuries), see the ridged globular bowl (Type B-26) infra (fig. 48b), whose walls are decorated with painted red and white stripes (reminiscent of the so-called painted ‘Busayra-Ware’). It was found in a fill of Stratum II. The clay used to produce this local vessel was apparently derived from the ‘upper Shephelah’ region (Singer-Avitz 2016: 592–593, Plate 12.2, fig. 12.187: no. 10).

277

Such vessels have, however, been found among others at Megiddo (Stratum III) and by Petrie at Tell Jemmeh (SingerAvitz 2016: 637). 278 Hausleiter argues that this style is not attested outside the Assyrian homeland (except for Tell Halaf). The two locally produced specimens from Tel Beersheba apparently escaped his notice. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

98

Chapter 2

Figs. 47a–b: ‘Assyrian-Edomite-style’ pottery from Tel Beersheba Stratum II. Left: a denticulated bowl, reg. no. 12264/1. Right: a Transjordanian ‘Edomite’ globular cup, reg. no. 6273/2 (courtesy of L. Singer-Avitz; photography by J. Schweinsberg and Dr D. Ellis).

Figs. 48a–b: ‘Edomite-style’ bowls from Tel Beersheba Stratum II. Left: a cup, reg. no. bowl 8835/6. Right: a carinated ridged bowl, reg. no. 14625/3, from a Stratum II fill (Locus 1847; courtesy of L. Singer-Avitz; photography by J. Schweinsberg and Dr D. Ellis).

2.2.8.4 Tel cAroer (A. Biran Excavations, Nelson Glueck Institute) As at other sites in the Northern Negev, the majority of ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ vessels at Tel cAroer come from the Iron Age IIC level at the site, i.e. Stratum IIb (e.g. Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 122: BL8–10). Tel cAroer is the most southern site in the Arad-Beersheba region, located to the south of Tel cIra and Tel Masos. Also at Tel cAroer earlier specimens are attested, for instance from Strata IV, III and IIa. While Stratum III is dated to the final decades of the 8th century, Stratum IV is dated slightly earlier by Thareani, i.e. sometime during the 8th century (Thareani 2011: vol 1, 2 with Table 1.1, 306–307; 2011: vol. 2, v–vi). Any ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels belonging to both strata (esp. to IV) must therefore be considered anachronistic according to the criteria expressed in this chapter. Yifat Thareani has also identified vessels which she ascribes to a hitherto unidentified stratum, her ‘Stratum IIa’ (also Ilan 2011: xxii). She believes that this stratum dates from the years after 701 B.C. but before the end of the 7th century, when the site was again resettled, i.e. Stratum ‘IIb’.279 She identified the remains of Stratum IIa as those of an extramural caravanserai (Thareani 2014: 227–265; see also 2011: vol. 1, 161–173; 301–311). Thareani has published the entire pottery corpus of Iron Age Tel cAroer in her final publication on the Avraham Biran and Rudolph Cohen excavations at Tel cAroer (2011: vol. 1, chapter 3, 115–187 with plates in volume 2). As has been discussed earlier in this chapter, Thareani(-Sussely) and Na’aman have suggested that some of the so-called early ‘Assyrian-Edomite-style’ vessels do not reflect Assyrian tendencies, but must be rather understood as local styles (2006; see also Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 124–126). There can be little doubt that this observation is justified to some extent, as certain forms lack sufficient diagnostic traits (compare Tel cAroer BL15, Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 124280). If this reduces the quantity of relevant specimens at the site, a sufficient number still remains (but see the

279

She assigns the tripod saucer-bowl fragment BL16 to this stratum, which has many good parallels in Assyria proper (e.g. at Nimrud, Anastasio 2010: 110–111, with further parallels) and at other sites in Cis- and Transjordan. For parallels, see Thareani (2011: vol. 1, 124). 280 This author agrees that this is not a striking parallel of the ridged bowl B13 at Tel Arad (Singer-Avitz 2002: 130 and fig. 6.55:12), and the one at Tel cIra (Freud 1999: 229), which both contain late Assyrian characteristics. BL15 is completely plain and its form only remotely resembles the forms discussed by Singer-Avitz and Freud. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

99

criticisms by Singer-Avitz, above). Hence, we shall only discuss the most relevant specimens here (BL = Bowl) 281: BL22 (Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 125–126). This ‘Edomite-Assyrian-styled’ globular closed vessel with a straight rim was found in Strata IV and IIb. The parallels listed by Thareani are from Tel cIra Stratum VII (which is dated by Liorah Freud to the first half of the 7th century B.C.; Freud 1999: 264–265, fig. 6.86:8) and Tel Arad Strata IX–VIII (Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 126). Note however that similar shapes are also attested in the Assyrian homeland: see Hausleiter (2010: Table 115: TE 7.1, from Tell Rimah; Table 116: TM 1.1, from Khirbet Qasrij; TM 2.1, from Nimrud). BL23 (Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 126). This ‘Edomite-Assyrian-styled’ deep globular vessel was found in Stratum III. It contains ridges (resembling similar patterning on ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery; cf. the carinated bowl, fig. 48b) and ‘Edomite-style’ black stripes. Thareani refers to parallels from Tel Beersheba Stratum II and late 7th–6th century Tawilan. BL28 (Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 127). This is a typical carinated bowl with an everted rim placed on a small disk-base (see also 2011: vol. 2, Plate 162:4). Some specimens are red-burnished.282 While parallels are found at various sites in the Shephelah and in the Judaean heartland (e.g. Singer-Avitz 1999: 34:1–4), painted ‘Edomite’ parallels are attested at Busayra and Tawilan (Bienkowski, Oakehott and Berlin 2002: 282 and fig. 9.26: types K1–3; esp. K1 no. 15 with a flat base; Hart 1995: 214–215, fig. 6.10: 6–7). These were described as late ‘Assyrian-style’ imitations by Piotr Bienkowski and Stephen Hart. Several ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels from 7th century Nimrud, Nineveh, as well as from Tel Sera and Tell Jemmeh in Southern Palestine are listed by Thareani as parallels. In addition to the pottery vessels discussed by Thareani, Dan Barag has published a small 3–4 cm sized fragment of a Late Assyrian glass ‘hemispherical’ bowl with ‘diagonally-cut, concave grooves’ found at Tel c Aroer in the destruction layer of Stratum III, near W1006 in Area A, Locus 40 (2011: 259–260, Plates VIII and 48:2). It was retrieved from an ash layer together with—among other things—a royal jar handle with a two-winged sun disk stamp impression containing the toponym Ziph. While to date no glass vessels earlier than the reign of Sargon II are attested in the Neo-Assyrian homeland283, several specimens have been excavated, for instance at Nimrud, which mostly date to the final days of the Neo-Assyria empire, prior to 612 B.C.284 Remains of a vessel with similar decoration were unearthed at Fort Shalmaneser, again dating to the late 7th century (Barag 2011: 259). On the other hand, as Barag has rightly argued, glass production may not have been primarily at home in Assyria itself and hence the bowl could have been imported from elsewhere, possibly from Phoenicia. It has also been argued that cuneiform inscriptions found on some glass vessels found in Assyria, could have been added later when these vessels had arrived there (Curtis and Reade 1995: 146). It is therefore primarily the form rather than the material of the vessel that requires our attention, especially so as its artisan had sought to reproduce ‘Palace-Ware-style’ (Barag 2011: 259). Indeed, as has been noted above, APW-styles have been reproduced in pottery, metal, semi-precious stone and glass (Curtis 2008: 245). There can be little doubt that such glass vessels were exquisite luxury items, especially at remote Negev-sites such as Tel cAroer. Barag therefore rightly asks how such valued commodities could have reached Tel cAroer. While trading Assyrian or related goods would still represent a relatively rare venture during the 8th century, international long-distance trade rapidly increased during the 7th century, during the 281

Other vessels in the ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ from the earlier strata at Tel cAroer are bowls BL16 (Stratum IIa), BL19 (Stratum III), BL20 (Strata IV and III), BL23 (Stratum III) and BL27 (Strata IV and III); cups BL32 (Strata IV– III), BL33 (Strata IV and II, not further specified), BL34 (Stratum III), BL35 (Stratum IIa); chalices (only fragments), partly found in Stratum III; the spouted krater (fragment) KR8 (Stratum III). Type BL15 is probably only a local Edomite vessel and was found in Strata IV–IIb. Two sherds from Stratum IV—found in the ‘industrial-commercial zone’ of Area D—contain Edomite painted decoration (Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 158). 282 For a similarly shaped painted vessel—albeit with a higher everted rim—see BL29 (surface find), Thareani (2011: vol. 1, 127). 283 See e.g. the inscribed glass alabastron of Sargon II found by Austen H. Layard at the Northwestern Palace at Nimrud (WA 90952, British Museum, London): Curtis and Reade (1995: 146). For a summary on glass production, see esp. Moorey (1999: esp. 198 with detailed literature on glass in ancient Mesopotamia). See also Barag (1985), von Saldern (1966: 623–634), and recently Herb and Willburger (2016: 36–37). 284 Barag also refers to exquisite vessels from the tombs of Yabaya (queen of Tiglath-pileser III), Banītu (queen of Shalmaneser V), and Ataliya (queen of Sargon II), found in Vault 2 at the Northwestern Palace in Nimrud (Barag 2011: 259). But these were in reality made of rock-crystal (Damerji 1999: esp. fig. 24; Collon [ed.] 2008: 118). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

100

Chapter 2

heyday of the so-called Pax Assyriaca. A somewhat later date for Stratum III therefore deserves close scrutiny.

2.2.9 The Arad-Beerscheba-Valley Sites: post 701 B.C. = post-Lachish III? What chronological conclusions can we draw from the early occurrence of ‘Assyrian-style/Edomite-Assyrian-style’ pottery at Tel Arad, Tel Beersheba and Tel cAroer? As for the pottery at Tel Arad, Lily SingerAvitz correctly notes: ‘The inevitable conclusion is that Stratum X (or, at least, its final phase, represented by the finds we present) must have existed when Judah was already one of the vassal states of the Assyrian empire, incorporated into its economic system and exposed to certain Assyrian/Edomite influences. Hence the end of Stratum X cannot be earlier than the reign of Tiglat Pileser III and a date ca. 725 BCE seems possible.’ (Singer-Avitz 2002: 162, emphasis added) Although this author agrees that Stratum X (as well as Strata IX–VIII) is contemporary with the time of the Neo-Assyrian subjugation of the Southern Levant, we possess no evidence that the Assyrians also exerted direct influence over the Arad-Beersheba-Valley, let alone before the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, when these later monarchs were more actively involved in the region and subdued and employed local Arab kinsmen (possibly including Edomite nomads and traders: van der Veen 2013: 177), while preparing for war with Kushite Egypt (see also the chapter Conclusions at the end of this volume [chapter 4, 4.2.3]).285 Even so, it is not difficult to understand why Singer-Avitz feels constrained to date Strata X–VIII at Tel Arad and Strata III and II at Tel Beersheba to the second half of the 8th century. For as she argues, the pottery assemblages closely resemble those of Lachish Level III. Yet, while we tend to accept the conventional equation of Lachish Level III with the city conquered by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (for further details, see chapter 4, 4.2.1286), other sites belonging to the same contemporary archaeological horizon would have survived into the 7th century, as Fantalkin and Tal have recently suggested (Fantalkin and Tal 2015: 194–195). This is especially true for towns and villages which were not destroyed by the Assyrians in 701 B.C. Fantalkin and Tal not only suggest lower dates for several sites in Judah, but also for Tell Qudadi (near Tel Aviv), which they studied in detail, and for sites further to the north, including Phoenician Tyre: ‘It is more than possible that quite a number of so-called 701 BC destruction assemblages could be dated, in fact, a few decades later. In this regard, a slight down-dating of Bikai’s dates for Strata III–I in Tyre (Bikai 1978a), already implied by the discovery of an inscribed Egyptian urn of the late 25th or 26th Dynasty from Stratum III, is more than warranted (James 2008: 147).’ (Fantalkin and Tal 2015: 194)

285

On the employment of herdsmen and traders, see also Tebes (2006: 45–62). Alternatively, some destruction levels might be related to the Arab-Assyrian struggles during the later years of Assurbanipal (ANET 292: 297–301). Thareani considers the influence of Assyria in the region to have been indirect, i.e. through ‘the subordinate client kingdom of Judah’ (Thareani 2014: 189). 286 A different view is taken by James et al. (1991: 176–180), who suggest that Level IV rather than III represents the city taken by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. This view is also adhered to by Lipiński (2006: 80, 85, 374). James et al. (1991) also dated Level III to 587 B.C. and Level II to the time of Nehemiah (see pp. 171–175). Only recently Lipiński still advocated the outdated view of Albright and Kenyon, that Lachish Level III was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar in 598/597 B.C., while Level II fell only 10 years later in 587 B.C. (Lipiński 2006: 86, 416). More recently, James has come to accept that Level II was destroyed in 587 B.C. and that a somewhat earlier date for the destruction of Level III (during the mid-7th century B.C.) must now be preferred (James, pers. comm.). This author agrees with Peter James that the date of Iron Age IIB must be considerably lowered and that a mid-7th century date for Lachish Level III cannot be categorically ruled out. While in theory Lachish Level III could have been destroyed after 701, several considerations render this option unlikely. For if Lachish Level II was destroyed in 587 B.C. (confirmed by inscribed material, including seals and bullae: van der Veen 2014a: esp. 28, 271), the pottery assemblages of Levels IV–II needed to be squeezed into a rather narrow time margin of only one century or so (Zimhoni 2004: 1701–1707, 1805–1806). For a detailed discussion, see the Conclusions at the end of this volume (chapter 4, 4.2.1). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

101

As for Judah, this issue especially concerns those Judaean towns that lie further inland, both to the east and south of the ransacked Shephelah region (cf. Mic 1:8–16). These include Jerusalem and other Judaean hill-country sites, as well as sites located further to the south in the Northern Negev. Contrary to a wide consensus among scholars that Tel Arad and other towns such as Tel Beersheba, Tel cIra and Tel cAroer in the Arad-Beersheba-Valley were destroyed by the Assyrians in 701 B.C., Ariel Bagg has argued conclusively that the Assyrian (and biblical) sources nowhere refer to an Assyrian campaign this far south. According to Bagg this is even true for the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (pers. comm.; Bagg 2011: 244–251 and map 4.31; but see infra chapter 4, 4.2.3).287 Indeed from a political point of view, it would be quite incomprehensible why the Assyrians would have destroyed the existing infrastructure of these strategically significant trading centres on the main trade routes through the Northern Negev leading from the Arabah to Gaza and through the Sinai desert to the Kushite, Libyan and Saite residences of the Egyptian Delta.288 ‘The southern towns [of the Arad-Beersheba-Valley region] ... are not attested in the Neo-Assyrian sources. Evidence indicating that Sennacherib or Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal ever penetrated this far south into Judah is lacking in the cuneiform sources. It seems that the devastated towns referred to by Sennacherib must rather be sought in the northern part of Judah, somewhere between Jerusalem and Lachish, and possibly some nearer Lachish.’ (translated email from Bagg: 2007289 , emphasis added) A similar position is taken by Axel Knauf in his much neglected article ‘Who Destroyed Beersheba II?’: ‘According to this reconstruction of the 701 campaign, Sennacherib had his hands too full to even think of a tiny outpost in the Negev. No Assyrian soldier, in all probability, ventured south of Debir (Ḫirbet Rabūd).’ (Knauf 2002: 190, emphasis added) Knauf’s point is well taken. In a similar vein, Assyriologist Andreas Fuchs has pointed out that Sennacherib’s campaign against Lachish and the Shephelah (which occurred in one of the remotest parts of the empire’s peripheries, a fact too often neglected) swallowed up enormous sums of the state’s revenues.290 An interminable siege of Jerusalem and an arduous guerilla war within the Central Judaean highlands, let alone against towns and villages in the Northern Negev zone, would have come close to a financial disaster even for Assyria. Based mainly on the pottery evidence from the ‘Lachish III-archaeological horizon’, Itzhaq Beit-Arieh and Liorah Freud date Tel cIra Stratum VII to the first half of the 7th century (i.e. after the destruction of Lachish Level III; Beit-Arieh 1999: 174 and 176; Freud 1999: 195). If Bagg and Knauf are correct that Sennacherib did not penetrate further south than Lachish or Khirbet Rabud, there existed no reason for the inhabitants of Tel cIra, or for that matter also of other similar sites within the region, to abandon their

287

While Sargon II founded the province of Asdudu in 711 B.C., Sennacherib did not restore Ashdod as a province after 701 B.C. (Bagg 2011: 250). Although Sennacherib claims to have conquered and plundered some 46 fortified towns in the Shephelah, none of these are actually named in his annals. One of them was undoubtedly Lachish (whose conquest was lavishly pictured on the walls of Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh). A second town taken at this time could possibly have been Azekah, if of course K 6205 + 82–23, 131 refers to this same campaign. A number of sites mentioned in Mic 1:8–16 also seem to have been involved one way or another: these include Gath, Beth Ophrah, Shaphir, Zaanan, Beth Ezel, Maroth, Moreshet Gath, Akzib, Mareshah and Adullam (Bagg 2011: 248–249; van der Veen 2013: 172–173). While Sennacherib’s annals remain mysteriously silent about which towns were taken, a campaign south of Mareshah is at any rate absent from the available sources. On this see also Knauf (2002: 188), who rightly concludes: ‘Of the “46 cities” he [Sennacherib] took from Hezekiah (III 19), only two are mentioned by name: Lachish and Azekah, and in the “annals”, neither.’ Knauf considers the number of captives taken to be grossly exaggerated (2002: 188–189). 288 On the Neo-Assyrian policy of keeping the infrastructure in conquered areas as much as possible intact in order to avoid unnecessary high economic investments, see Bagg (2011: 305). 289 Ariel Bagg has repeated his view on the subject to this author in a separate email on May 23, 2016. 290 Interview with Professor Fuchs in the Terra X television documentary ‘Sturm auf Jerusalem’ (ZDF 2011). The present author served as primary academic consultant. Based on personal communication of Prof. Fuchs with film director Renate Beyer (pers. comm. 2011). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

102

Chapter 2

‘Lachish-III-material culture’. It is difficult to appreciate Thareani’s critique of Beit-Arieh’s and Freud’s lower date for Tel cIra Stratum VII, when she writes: ‘The assemblage of Stratum VI is dated correctly to the 7th century, given that it parallels Lachish II ... According to this view, the beginning of Stratum VII at Tell cIra should be raised to the 8th century and its destruction to 701 BCE.’ (Thareani-Sussely 2007: 72, emphasis added) For only a few pages earlier she wrote: ‘Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that the material culture of 701 changed so dramatically and immediately with the transition into the 7th century. In other words, we still lack the ability to identify the pottery of the first half of the 7th century in the ceramic assemblage.’ (Thareani 2007: 70) If the 701-date is given up for South-Judah and the Northern Negev, the ‘terminus ante quem-Lachish Level III dogma’ loosens its grip on those early 7th century sites which were not destroyed by Sennacherib. In a similar vain, Knauf suggests somewhat lower dates for Tel Beersheba Stratum II, dating its demise to c. 675 B.C. (Knauf 2002: 181–195). Despite Singer-Avitz’ conclusion that both the Tel Arad and Tel Beersheba pottery assemblages closely resemble those at Lachish Level III, Knauf also lists some differences.291 While Tel Beersheba Stratum II contains so-called Edomite ware, Knauf argues that none of these vessels were uncovered at Lachish. Moreover, while some 12.5% of the pottery at Tel Beersheba resembles pottery found in the ‘coastal’ region (over and against a mere 2.9% at Lachish Level III), storage jars attested in Lachish Level II share a common ancestor with those at Tel Beersheba, suggesting that the end of Tel Beersheba Stratum II must be dated to the period between Lachish Level III and II. Perhaps more importantly so, these vessels are virtually absent at Lachish Level III. Although Knauf’s criticisms could alternatively be explained as regional rather than chronological differences, in the light of the evidence presented here, Knauf’s theory has much to commend itself. For while Knauf dates the end of Tel Beersheba Stratum II to c. 675 B.C., he assigns a longer range for Tel Arad X– VIII, stretching from c. 750–650 B.C. Although we might prefer lower dates for the beginning of Stratum X (perhaps as late as c. 700/690 B.C.292), in the light of the ‘Assyrian pottery evidence’ presented in this chapter, his lower dates are indeed compelling.

2.2.10 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery Even at Lachish Level III? Although ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery is virtually absent at Lachish, two sherds and one complete vessel have been listed by Ussishkin in his final report on the renewed excavations. If Lachish Level III was indeed destroyed by king Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (on this see also chapters 3 and 4), how then does this pottery comply with what has been said so far? While the beginning of Stratum III is currently dated to c. 800 B.C. by most scholars, dates as low as c. 780–760 B.C. have been suggested by Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2006). If the conclusions reached in this chapter stand, the appearance of late ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery at Lachish could hardly be expected to have arrived at the site much before 700 B.C. But as we shall see, the ‘Assyrianstyle’ pottery uncovered at Lachish is indeed compatible with this evidence. 2.2.10.1 A Fragment of a Gadrooned Pottery Bowl This large sherd, which has a diameter of c. 14 cm, was found in Area R atop the Assyrian siege ramp (Ussishkin 2004: 1904–1905). It contains two bulbous gadroons, suggesting that this design originally continued all around the bowl. The colour of the vessel is grey-buff while beneath the rim, its outer and inner walls are burnished. The vessel has been locally produced of alluvial loess from the coastal region of Southern Palestine. As stated above, the sherd was found atop the siege ramp near the southwestern corner of the city wall. Its stratigraphic position, however, is slightly dubious as according to Ussishkin its original find context had been disturbed by the ‘straightening of the baulks’ at the time of the excavation (2004: 1905). In other words, it cannot be excluded that the vessel had derived from secondary ‘overlying debris’, which Ussishkin assigns 291 292

For a more detailed discussion, see also van der Veen (2014: 259–264). On this, see also van der Veen (2014a: 263 and n. 1226). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

103

to a ‘second stage’ of the ramp and which he attributes to the final phase of the Assyrian siege.293 An alternative interpretation has been proposed by John Bimson (1999: 62) and Robert Porter (1999: 73). Both scholars point at the following anachronisms. Parts of the entryway and associated retaining walls, especially so wall ‘b’ apparently belonging to Level II (see Ussishkin 2004: vol. 2, 717), were found to be overlain by boulders of the ‘Assyrian’ siege ramp. While Ussishkin does not rule out the possibility that wall ‘b’ could belong to Level IV instead, it may likewise be theorised that Level III boulders could have loosened and covered the roadway at any given time after the abandonment of Level II (similarly Ussishkin 2004: 718). Yet Bimson and Porter pose still another question, which deserves further consideration. According to them it seems odd that the citizens of Lachish Level II would have left the siege ramp intact so as to allow future enemies a most facile approach to the city. While they maintain that the ramp belongs to Level III, they date its destruction to the time of the Babylonian conquest in 587 B.C. By accepting the theory of James et al. (1991), that Lachish Level II was not rebuilt until the 5th century, Bimson argues that Assyrian and Babylonian ‘siege tactics were eclipsed by a reliance on fielding huge armies’ during the Achaemenid period (Bimson 1999: 62). Consequently, the citizens of Level II no longer felt the need to dismantle the ramp. The present author, however, disagrees with Bimson that Level II was destroyed during the Persian period. According to him Level II must undoubtedly be assigned to the period prior to the Neo-Babylonian conquest of 587 B.C. as he has discussed in detail elsewhere (van der Veen 2014a294). Nevertheless, the question as to why the Level II citizens would have left the siege ramp intact, remains to be answered. Could it be that the Level II occupants had only demolished part of the siege ramp to render it unusable (while they may have completely dismantled the siege ramp located nearer the city-gate as depicted on the Lachish reliefs)? Consequently, the Neo-Babylonians would have only restored the upper courses of the still remaining siege ramp during their own siege of Lachish Level II.295 In any case, the archaeological evidence of the gadrooned bowl at Lachish leaves several options open, all which seem to be compatible with the dates suggested in this chapter for the ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in the Southern Levant. Either the bowl arrived at Lachish in c. 701 B.C. (when the city was besieged by Sennacherib’s army), or soon after (when, as some scholars have argued, a military contingent dwelt at the site, presumably above the Level III outer Gatehouse296), or alternatively more than a century later (when the Neo-Babylonians conquered the city). Be this as it may, none of the alternatives will raise an eyebrow.

2.2.10.2 A Rim-Fragment of a Carinated Bowl This rim belongs to a reddish-brown carinated ridged bowl with burnished inner and outer walls (Ussishkin 2004: 1905 with parallels from other sites). While the bowl-fragment was indeed found in Level III (Area GW, Locus 4263), Ussishkin argues that it could have been an intrusion from Level II, when the Level IIgateway was built during the late 7th century B.C. Hence once again, this specimen does not necessarily pose any problems chronologically. Even if it had originally belonged to Stratum III (yet this remains uncertain),

293

For a detailed description of the various stages of the Assyrian siege ramp, see Ussishkin (2004: vol. 2, chapter 13: esp. 719–723). 294 Nor does Peter James accept this view any longer, because of evidence assembled by the present author (see van der Veen 2014a). 295 See e.g. Ussishkin (2004: 711, fig. 13.16) mentioning the remains of Level II being mixed with stones of the second stage of the siege ramp. As has been pointed out by Ussishkin, a similar view had been held previously by Olga Tufnell, who interpreted the overlying debris as evidence of destruction by the Babylonians (Usshishkin 2004: 718). Ussishkin however does not accept this view (2004: 723). 296 Despite the accepted view of a long period of abandonment (lasting several decades between the demise of Level III and the beginning of II), some evidence exists of a squatter occupation at the site between these two levels. In his unpublished Ph.D. thesis (submitted to University of Tel Aviv in 1987), Itzhaq Eshel argues in favour of an intermediate stage Level II/c–b (also Ussishkin 1983). Eshel identifies Level II/c as a squatter occupation, presumably inhabited by soldiers (Eshel 1995: 63). While multiple skulls (possibly belonging to Kushite soldiers) were excavated by Starkey (see also chapter 4, 4.2.1.2, n. 527), evidence of yet another foreign contingent of Philistine soldiers (in the service of the Assyrian army) may be referred to in a cuneiform letter from the time of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal (ABL 218; Waterman 1930–1936: vol. 3, 89; de Liagre Böhl 1953: 391). The letter refers to an otherwise unknown toponym lu-qa-še (also Elat 1975: 62, n. 10). However, the rendering of the name is unusual as a possible variant for Lachish and cannot therefore be confirmed. The tablet was studied by this author at the British Museum back in 2004. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

104

Chapter 2

it could have belonged to the very last stages of occupation when the city was conquered by the Assyrian army, in which case this specimen too would have been brought here by the Assyrian army in 701.

2.2.10.3 A Glazed Juglet During her registration work of the finds from the British Excavations by James Starkey during the 1930’s, Pamela Magrill spotted a fine glazed Assyrian juglet (Magrill 1989–1990: 41–45; Ussishkin 2004: 1905).297 The juglet, which measures some 12.8 cm in height, is ovally shaped and contains a pointed base. It has a thick rim. The colour of the glaze is light-blue and the design contains triangles (in an orange pale colour) placed on a whitish surface. This type of vessel finds good parallels in both 8th and 7th century levels in Assyria proper, as well as in the peripheries.298 Its manufacture, however, also continued during the NeoBabylonian period, as has been confirmed by excavation work at Khirbet Qasrij (Curtis 1989: 50–52). In all probability this juglet is a genuine Neo-Assyrian import. The glazed pottery vessel was found in ‘pit D558’ in the area of Squares AA/25–26, apparently some 100 m to the southwest of the Tell near the area, where the Assyrian army could have pitched its camp (as depicted on the Lachish relief at Nineveh). If correctly interpreted, this juglet could have been brought here by the Assyrian army in c. 701 B.C. In closing, therefore, none of the vessels contradict the scenario presented in this chapter. All relevant vessels appear to either belong to the period immediately prior to 701 B.C. or to the period postdating the destruction of Lachish Level III. 2.2.11 Anachronistic ‘Bathtub Coffins’ Although strictly speaking ‘bathtub coffins’ fall outside the category of the pottery vessels discussed in this chapter, we have decided to add the following details also supporting the lower dates for ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels presented above. So-called ceramic late ‘Assyrian-style’ bathtub coffins do not normally occur in the Southern Levant much before 7th century B.C. (Zorn 1993; Singer-Avitz 2014a: 127). Complete bathtub vessels have been excavated at Megiddo in Strata III (Locus 1426) and II (Locus 850; Singer-Avitz 2014a). Two complete vessels were also unearthed at Tel Farcah North. Their find context has been attributed by the excavators to Stratum VIId (Chambon 1984: Plate 47, 27–29; Singer-Avitz 2014a: 137). This attribution has been called into question by Singer-Avitz, who reassigns the vessel to Stratum VIIe, a stratum from which most ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery at the site was retrieved. It must be noted, however, that the pottery corpus of Stratum VIId is largely contemporary with that of Megiddo Strata IVA and III. If, as we have argued above, Megiddo Stratum IVA commenced no earlier than 732 B.C., the dates of Tel Farcah North Stratum VIId would need to be lowered as well. While agreeing with Singer-Avitz that the main appearance of bathtub coffins is closely associated with the archaeological horizons of Megiddo Stratum III (contemporary with the final phase of the Assyrian period in the Southern Levant) and II (mainly contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian period), Stratum VIId would no longer be far out of step with the main period of use for these vessels in the Southern Levant. The same is true for a specimen found at Hazor Stratum VA, which in line with the dates proposed in this volume, would also need lowering, a suggestion also made by Peter James (2008). Further coffins were found at Jezreel (Grave 2000), Dothan (Free 1959: 156), Amman (Stern 2015: 553, Plate 4.4.9:3) and Tell Qitaf near Beth Shean (Mazow 2014, with further parallels). 2.2.12 Conclusions In this chapter we have examined the question of when one may expect ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery (both genuine imports and local imitations) to have been introduced in the Southern Levant. Although many scholars accept the view that local imitations are predominantly found in strata of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.—i.e. contemporary with Megiddo Strata III and II, Ramat Rahel VA, Tel Batash Stratum II, etc. (all Iron Age IIC)— there also exist important exceptions to this rule, both in Northern and Southern Israel. In line with criticisms 297

As Magrill argues, the vessel had already been identified as of Assyrian provenance by Peltenburg (1969) and subsequently by Mitchell some ten years later (Magrill 1989–90: 44–45, n. 1). 298 For a discussion of this type of pottery, see also above. For an almost complete glazed bottle and additional glazed fragments found at Khirbat al-Mudayna ath-Thmad in Jordan, see Daviau and Klassen (2014: 99–122). This article also contains an excellent discussion on glazed imports with parallels from Assyria and abroad, as well as on their manufacture. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

105

raised by Nadav Na’aman and Yifat Thareani(-Sussely) that local imitations are hardly to be expected much before the heyday of the Pax Assyriaca (i.e. during the 7th century B.C.), its occurrence at various sites in Southern Palestine (e.g. in the Arad-Beersheba-Valley) has led many scholars to assign these strata to the period between 750–701 B.C. But even these dates still seem too high, if all chronological evidence is taken into account. While some scholars are prepared to lower the terminus ante quem for some of these sites by another few decades here and there, others continue to feel constrained by an assumed campaign of Sennacherib, believed to have taken place in 701 B.C. But as we have argued (see infra also Excursus 1 and Addendum 1), this campaign is probably nothing more than a phantom created by modern scholarship. The apparent 701-linchpin has in turn had its impact on the dating of so-called ‘Assyrian-Edomite-style’ pottery previously known primarily from sites in the central Edomite highlands. For in accordance with the 701-date, its terminus post quem has been raised from the early 7th to the late 8th century B.C. based primarily on Judah rather than on inscribed evidence found at the Edomite sites themselves.

Suggested duration of individual strata

Table 4: Chronological reconstruction of main sites with lower terminus ante quem dates, where ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery has been uncovered as discussed within this chapter.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

106

Chapter 2

Yet, based on recent studies on late ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery from the Assyrian homeland and its peripheries, we have suggested that not only the dates for the relevant sites in Judah and the Negev, but those also for contemporary sites in Northern Israel (including Megiddo and Hazor where likewise local imitations occur in Iron Age IIB strata) and adjacent regions must be lowered. A tentative scenario is drawn up in Table 4.

EXCURSUS 1: The Earliest Late Iron Age II ‘Edomite Pottery’299 and Its Assumed Judaean Chronological Linchpin: One Step out with Evidence? Some scholars believe that, whenever ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ pottery is found in Judah (especially so in the Negev border-zone), Judaean late 8th century B.C. dates (sometimes based on presumed datable destruction levels) must be preferred (e.g. Tebes 2011a: 67). Pottery vessels, rather than hard (inscribed) evidence, are employed as a chronological yardstick for ‘absolute’ dating. Consequently, Edomite pottery dates are raised because of Judaean dates: ‘Our ability to define the typological-archaeological changes in Edomite culture during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E. is extremely limited. Therefore we must rely on dating from sites in Palestine.’ (Singer-Avitz 1999: 10, emphasis added) Here exactly lies the heart of the intricate problem discussed in this chapter. It must be stated, however, that based on recent 14C results from the Edomite heartland (Smith and Levy 2008: 47–48, fig. 5; Levy et al. 2014: 257–287) somewhat higher dates for the beginning of some Edomite sites have been proposed. Yet such dates have so far been treated with much scepticism. For a summary and evaluation of these data, see infra Addendum 1. Regardless of these 14C dates, why should ‘pottery’ dates be used as an absolute anchor point for dating merely similar ceramic evidence in Edom, if other more important independent dating criteria, such as historically significant inscriptions, are lacking in Judah? Is such a procedure truly warranted? This author does not believe so. Instead of using pottery, we must rely on hard evidence rather than on relative chronology provided by pottery. As argued above, ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery in Assyria proper can often be more precisely dated because it has been unearthed in association with datable cuneiform evidence found within the same stratum or context. Contrary and unlike to Judah, inscribed material has been uncovered at prominent sites in Edom. These inscriptions suggest that most Edomite towns flourished predominantly during the 7th and 6th centuries (i.e. until their annexation by Babylon in 553/552 or possibly in 551/550 B.C.300) and later during Achaemenid rule, as seems to be the case at Busayra and Tawilan. Even if the inscribed evidence remains sparse in Edom, in Southern Judah and the Northern Negev it is altogether nonexistent. Hence, we prefer to base our arguments on the available inscribed evidence from Edom.301 299

Juan M. Tebes has suggested a new name for this type of pottery namely ‘Southern Transjordan-Negev Pottery’ or simply STNP (Tebes 2011a: 61). Until this nomenclature is more widely adopted, we maintain the better known term ‘Edomite Pottery’ to avoid unnecessary confusion. See also Tebes (2013) and Bienkowski (2013: esp. 29). Other terms have also been employed to describe this pottery, including ‘Busayra Painted Ware’ (Bienkowski 2001). 300 The date 551/550 B.C. is preferred by Tebes (2014: 19), who derives it from Crowell (2007: 75–88). Crowell bases this date in turn on a reconstruction of line 21 on the as-Silac rock relief (at Tafileh), reading mu.5.k[á ...] (p. 83). See also Weippert (2010: 434, n. 24). Edom’s annexation by Babylon is indeed based on evidence found in the Nabonidus Chronicle (which refers to a Babylonian campaign against Udumu) and on the rock relief dedicated to Nabonidus found at as-Silac/Tafileh, some 3 km north of Busayra (e.g. Dalley and Goguel 1997: 169–176). On the Nabonidus Chronicle, see esp. Beaulieu (1989: 149–185), and Weippert (2010: 431–453). For a translation of the relevant texts, see ANET 562, and Weippert (2010: 440–453). 301 Although the so-called Qosgabr bulla from Umm al-Biyara and the cuneiform tablet from Tawilan are among the best known inscribed objects from late Iron Age Edom, these are not the only ones that deserve careful attention for chronological purposes. As this author has argued elsewhere (van der Veen 2014: 240–243; 250–259), other historically significant inscriptions—even if their owners remain unknown—have a bearing on the dating of late Iron Age Edom. E.g., we possess a bulla impressed by an official seal of Mlklbc cbd hmlk from Busayra (albeit probably found in a secondary context, i.e. in the post-553/552 B.C. ‘Integrated Phase 3’). Its palaeographic traits suggest a date squarely within the 7th century B.C. due to its closed letters bet and cayin. In other words, Mlklbc would have served an Edomite king, possibly a successor of Qosgabr. The jar handles from Tall al-Khalayfi stamped with the seal of an Edomite official © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

107

This should be a logical deduction adhered to by all critical scholars. Yet this is not the case. So why do most pottery specialists prefer ‘higher’ dates for Iron Age IIB Judaean and Northern Negev strata? The answer is rather simple: many destruction levels in Judah and the Northern Negev (e.g. Tel Beersheba Stratum II, Arad Stratum VIII) are uniformly dated to the year 701 B.C., not because inscribed evidence mentioning king Sennacherib, Hezekiah or one of his officials has been found at these sites, but because (and merely so!) its pottery assemblages are closely reminiscent of pottery found in Lachish Level III and because its destruction layer has been associated with the Assyrian invasion of ‘701 B.C.’ (on the destruction of Lachish Level III, see also chapters 3 and 4). The following statement represents a paramount example of the overall conviction shared by most scholars: ‘The excavators of Beersheba correctly dated the destruction of Stratum II to 701 B.C.E. during Sennacherib’s campaign. The dating is based mainly on the resemblance of the pottery assemblages to Lachish III or II. Most scholars agree on the considerable similarity between the Beerscheba Stratum II and Lachish Level III pottery.’ (Singer-Avitz 1999: 11, emphasis added) On the whole, it is astounding to see the overwhelming impact the destruction of Lachish Level III by Sennacherib has had on Judaean archaeology (similarly Tebes 2011: 67): ‘Surprising as it sounds, the entire pottery chronology of Judah in the late Iron II is based on a single site, Lachish.’ (Finkelstein 1994: 170, emphasis added) ‘The discovery of Sennacherib’s destruction at Lachish ... supplied a firm and reliable chronological anchor, which is usually borrowed for almost any detected destruction in the course of Iron Age IIB in many Judean sites ...’ (Fantalkin and Tal 2015: 194, emphasis added) As a result, several towns and villages in Southern Judah and the Northern Negev desert zone, which were previously dated to the early 7th century by Levantine archaeologists, have been redated to the late 8th century in accordance with Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 B.C. (Ilan 2011: xxii; Avigad and Sass 2011: 227; Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 306; Tebes 2011: 67–69). Yet this southern campaign is nowhere attested in the Assyrian annals as we have shown above. As such, this linchpin may be no more than a mere phantom created by modern scholarship. As it seems, the 701 B.C. date for Southern Judah and the Northern Negev has unnecessarily inflated late Iron Age chronology by several decades. Yifat Thareani’s effort to find a post-701 occupation at Tel cAroer (Thareani 2014a: 227–265), may appear at first glance to be a neat solution, but taken at face value with no 701 B.C. linchpin left for the Negev, the dates of Stratum IIa too will need to be lowered, perhaps by some decades.302 The same is true for those parts of the Judaean highlands (not only in the far south), which were evidently not destroyed by Sennacherib. For its inhabitants too continued to live ‘in the Iron Age IIB period’ (if ever such thing existed) and did not stop producing ‘Lachish Level III-horizon pottery’ out of sheer sympathy with their exiled kinsmen from Lachish and other sites in the Shephelah region. Certainly, they would have continued to manufacture the same style of pottery, likely for several more decades (Thareani[-Sussely] 2007: 70). In like manner:

named Qoscanal cbd hmlk portray open letter forms (qof and cayin), and due to the style of the vessels on which these stamps were impressed (by comparison with similar late Iron Age II vessels at among others Edomite Umm al-Biyara, Ghrareh and Bajac III), a date during the 6th century seems most likely. Moreover, a Neo-Babylonian official bulla (stamped twice) from Umm al-Biyara, rediscovered by this author, confirms that the site remained occupied during the 6th century (at least until 553/552 B.C.) contrary to previous suggestions (van der Veen 2011: 81–83). 302 Note that some ceramic indicators suggest slightly lower dates for this stratum. The high-footed lamp (LP 4), a common diagnostic type found in Judah during the Iron Age IIC period (probably even as late as the late 6th century B.C.), is attested in this stratum (Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 146). For this type of lamp, see also van der Veen (2014a: 90–91) and Tebes (2011b: 303). Evidence of tridacna shell from this stratum also suggests lower dates, based on a careful study conducted by Brandl (2001: 49–62), suggesting that trade with this material squarely belongs to the period between 630– 580 B.C., primarily based on stratified specimens. For a detailed bibliography on the study of tridacna squamosa shell objects, see van der Veen 2014a: 239, n. 1097. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

108

Chapter 2

‘Needless to say, at the beginning of the reoccupation process in the early 7th century, the pottery in Judah was identical to the Lachish III repertoire.’ (Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 72) ‘However, the fact that Lachish Level III was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 BC does not necessarily imply that other assemblages, should be dated to 701 BC as well. ... It is more than possible that quite a number of the so-called 701 BC destruction assemblages could be dated, in fact, a few decades later.’ (Fantalkin and Tal 2015: 194) As for the destruction layers at sites not conquered by the Assyrians at the time of Sennacherib, this indeed appears to be a logical conclusion. As long as we do not know for sure who destroyed them (Assyrians, Kushites, Saites, Edomite and/or Arab raiders, Scythians, or whoever may be considered as likely candidates), we must refrain from any factitious reconstructions thwarting an admissible approach.303 To cut things short, as for ‘Edomite-style’ and ‘Edomite-Assyrian-style’ pottery discovered within Southern Judaean strata, we must start with the known and not with what we think we know. As long as independent inscribed historically significant evidence is lacking in Southern Judah and the Northern Negev, we must commence with the evidence obtained from Edom, how scarce it may be. Although late 8th century dates for the earliest known late Iron Age II pottery at Busayra (based primarily on historical considerations) were proposed by Marion Oakeshott in her unpublished 1978 Ph.D. thesis (Oakeshott 1978304), more recent evidence has not confirmed her early dates.305 This new evidence includes material published in the final reports of the Crystal-M. Bennett excavations at Tawilan, Busayra and Umm al-Biyara and of the Nelson Glueck excavations at Tall al-Khalayfi. Moreover, additional information has also been retrieved from more recent excavations at smaller sites such as Bacja III, Ghrareh, and es-Sadeh. While positive evidence for 8th century B.C. occupation remains lacking, the idea of occupation during the 7th–5th centuries has gained increasing support. While Oakeshott recognised close similarities between the assemblages at Busayra and Tawilan, she detected less conformity when comparing this pottery with that of Edomite Umm al-Biyara (Oakeshott 1983: 60–61). Consequently, she suggested that the mainly one-period Iron Age site of Umm al-Biyara had to be assigned to the final years of occupation at Busayra and Tawilan. Yet this view has been problematic all along and should be abandoned on the basis of our more mature and current understanding of the available 303

For similar views, see Knauf (2002: 191–192), and Fantalkin and Tal (2015: 194). On the Scythians as a possible cause for destruction, see Forsberg (1995: 35–36). Yifat Thareani suggests that around 600 B.C. the multi-coloured Negev society (made up of Judaeans, Arabs, ‘Edomites’, soldiers et al.), imploded from within, and that destructions could be related to any of these various groups (Thareani 2014b). A similar situation may have existed as early as the first half of the 7th century, when competitive local groups strove for more influence over the trade routes at the expense of other incumbents. 304 For her early dates, see also: Oakeshott (1983: 55, 61–62). Her historical considerations were mainly based on a) references to Ammonite and Edomite vassal-rulers in the Assyrian annals of the late 8th century B.C., and b) on a somewhat circular argument relating to the presence of similar pottery styles found in Ammonite tombs in Jordan, which she likewise assigned to the late 8th century B.C. See van der Veen (2014: 260, n. 1211). Similarly, Oakeshott was also influenced by the appearance of Transjordanian pottery types in Judah such as the flaring rim beaker at Tel Arad (see above), and at other Judaean sites prior to 701 B.C. (Oakeshott 1983: 62; van der Veen 2014: 233). According to this author, the existence of ‘Assyrian-style’ vessels in the Ammonite tombs (especially at Amman) suggests dates not earlier than the 7th century (van der Veen 2014: 175–180). For a detailed study of Ammonite pottery in association with other datable evidence, see also Dornemann (1983: esp. 56 and 58 on the ‘Adoni-Nur tomb group’). 305 This is not to say that no earlier pottery has been found at Edomite sites, including ‘Qurayyah Ware’ (formerly called ‘Midianite Ware’), see Tebes in Bimson and Tebes (2008: 90–92). Qurayyah Ware evidently spanned a long period from the Ramesside Period at Timna down to Iron Age IIB, sometimes overlapping with ‘late Iron Age Edomite Pottery’. As Qurayyah Ware remained in use for such a long time, its precise date is often more difficult to determine, when other datable finds are lacking. On the dating of painted Qurayyah ware, see Singer-Avitz (2014c). For an excellent study on the painted motifs on Qurayyah pottery, see Tebes (2014c). Marion Oakeshott’s higher dates for late Iron Age Edomite pottery, continue to loom widely in Iron Age Edomite studies. They are primarily based on biblical references to Edomites at Bozrah/Busayra (e.g. in Amos 1:12), and on references to tribute paying rulers (or sheiks?) in the Assyrian annals of Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, and Sennacherib. We possess no evidence on how influential these rulers really were. The reference in Amos may well be referring to earlier Iron Age evidence from Edom (Iron Age IIA), which according to our proposal here must be downdated. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

109

evidence (e.g. Hart 1995b: 259–260; Smith and Levy 2014 [chapter 4]: 300). Umm al-Biyara, which was inhabited by a local pastoralist clan (who practised horticulture and trade, see Bienkowski 2011: chapter 12, 140), lies on an almost inaccessible spur above Nabataean Petra (van der Veen 2014: 227; Bienkowski 2011b: 1–4). As this author has argued elsewhere (van der Veen 2011: 79–82), bullae at this site help date its Iron Age remains within a rather narrow chronological margin. Based on these seal impressions its termini post and ad quem dates can be assigned to c. 670 (with the help of the bulla of the Edomite king Qosgabr, referred to in the annals of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal; see ANET 290 and 291306) and 553/552 B.C. (based on a Neo-Babylonian official seal impression, and by the inference of Edom’s annexation by Babylon).307 On the other hand, and in the light of the available evidence currently at our disposal through the final reports on these sites, Busayra and Tawilan continued to prosper well after 553/552 B.C. Moreover, in these later levels ‘Assyrian-style Edomite’ pottery continues to appear alongside local late Iron Age pottery styles. The survival of these sites during and perhaps throughout the Achaemenid period is implied by a cuneiform tablet mentioning the accession year of a king Darius (probably Darius I or II308) at Tawilan (Hart 1995: 259; Dalley 1995: 67–68) and by imported Attic ware found in the Iron Age II/ Persian period ‘Integrated Stage 3’ at Busayra (Bienkowski 2002: 476–477 and Table 14.1309). Similar dates have been proposed for Tall alKhalayfi ‘IV’, but due to lack of conclusive information from renewed excavation work by the late MarieLouise Mussell, this suggestion must remain tentative (Bienkowski 2001: 210; van der Veen 2014a: 256).310 In the light of the above therefore, despite Oakeshott’s tendency to date late Iron Age Edomite pottery earlier (or at least partly so), comprehensive study of all these sites together have probably brought us back full circle. Even though it cannot be categorically ruled out that some Iron Age pottery could possibly be as early as the late 8th century, with the absence of independent inscribed evidence to prove this, this suggestion must remain tentative at best and should not be used for chronological purposes. As a matter of fact, based on what we can positively say from archaeology, Edom’s cultural remains—as we know them today—did not materialise before the early 7th century B.C. (Bienkowski 1992: 104, 110; 1997: 389; 2001: 266). This being so, late eighth century pottery dates for the earliest Edomite archaeological material remain solely based on Judah:

306

Also other small finds from the same site suggest that Umm al-Biyara was mainly inhabited during the second half of the 7th and the first half of the 6th centuries B.C., e.g. a limestone cosmetic palette carved in the form of a presumably North-Phoenician goddess with feathered headdress and necklace. Her depiction resembles similar representations of this female deity on palettes made of tridacna squamosa shell found in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and Syro-Palestine. These have been dated squarely to the 7th century B.C. and more specifically so on the basis of stratified specimens, to between 630–580 B.C. (Brandl 2001: 49–62). For a detailed bibliography on the study of tridacna squamosa shell objects, see van der Veen 2014a: 239, n. 1097. 307 Singer-Avitz has recently queried the significance of the Qosgabr bulla in relation to the Assyrian annals (SingerAvitz 2014: 268). But she missed the evidence presented by this author (pers. comm. 2015; see van der Veen 2011: 78– 81; 2014a: 213–250; Eggler and Keel 2006: 460–61, no. 1). Her arguments do not stand up to close scrutiny: while admittedly it cannot be categorically ruled out that a later king of that name could have ruled over Edom between c. 650–553/552 B.C., no evidence exists to support such an assumption. She also suggests that the bulla could refer to an earlier king. But this is even less likely. For the Assyrian annals refer to the Edomite kings Qaušmalaku (c. 732 B.C.) and Ayaramu (c. 700 B.C.; see van der Veen 2014a: 247; Bienkowski 2000: 48, Table 1). Palaeographically, the bulla of Qosgabr is dated squarely to the mid-7th century B.C., based on the closed form of qop and the inverted stance of dalet (van der Veen 2014a: 217–220, Tables 25 and 26). Moreover, the name Qosgabr is extremely rare within the Edomite onomasticon (Zadok 1988: 781–828; van der Veen 2014: 248, n. 1146). Suggestions previously made by David Vanderhooft (1995: 151) and Benjamin Sass (Singer-Avitz, pers. comm.), that the inscription is so poorly impressed that other readings are equally possible, no longer stand up to close scrutiny (van der Veen 2014a: 214–217). For the remains of a bet have been identified at the end of the first line (qsgb[r]), while an inverted Edomite dalet (and just possibly a final mem) can be found at the end of the bottom register, rendering the reconstruction mlk ’d[m] now virtually certain. 308 While Ran Zadok prefers Darius I (based on the absence of sealings on the tablet), Israel Eph’al stresses that the title ‘King of the Lands’ is unusual for the early years of Darius I (Zadok 1998: 788; Ephal 1988: esp. 151, n. 30). Darius III has generally not been considered as a possibility for chronological reasons. 309 For a slightly more cautious view on the date of late Iron Age Busayra, see Bienkowski (2013: 29). 310 The present author is unaware of more recent work done at the site (Mussell 2000: 577–578), due to the untimely death of Mussell in 2005 (van der Steen et al. 2015: 206). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

110

Chapter 2

‘The “standard” dating of Edomite sites has been to the seventh and sixth centuries (e.g. Bienkowski 1995). However, the presence of (locally made) painted “Edomite” pottery in Beersheba Stratum II, now generally accepted to have been destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (e.g. Singer-Avitz 1999: 11–12, 30–38), suggests that similar pottery at Edomite sites such as Busayra and Tawilan should be dated to the late eighth century B.C.’ (Bienkowski and van der Steen 2001: 23, n. 4, emphasis added). Once Edom’s archaeological evidence is no longer directed by that of Southern Judah and the Northern Negev311, the following picture emerges: as it seems, Edom did not become a pivotal political entity much before the second quarter of the 7th century B.C.312 It is at this time that we encounter it as a most influential trading kingdom that seems to have highly benefited from its strategic location by the shore of the Red Sea and by the economic welfare of the so-called Pax Assyriaca. With the help of Assyria, Edom became one of the thriving forces within the prosperous trade networks between the Hejaz and further south on the Arabian Peninsula (from where incense and balsam resin were imported; van der Veen and Bron 2014: 203–226, esp. 217; Tebes 2006: 46; 2011: 86–87; 2014: 14–15) and coastal Syria in the north, from where luxury goods, such as decorated cosmetic palettes, were merchandised. Edom itself also appears to have provided important resources from the Red Sea region, including tridacna squamosa shell, used among other things for elaborately decorated cosmetic palettes that have been found throughout the ancient Near East. This long-distance trade between Arabia, Gaza, Judah, and Phoenicia (as well as areas further afield such as the Aegean and the Iberian peninsula) is supported by Arabian and Arabising epigraphic finds (van der Veen and Bron 2014: 203–226), a Sabean stele fragment from c. 600 B.C. (Bron and Lemaire 2009: 11–29), as well as by allusions in the Book of Ezekiel (e.g. Ezek 27:17, 21–22). Other Transjordanian kingdoms appear to have flourished under the peaceful sovereignty of the NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian governments at that time. Likewise, the economic welfare of the Ammonites increased during the 7th century. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman have suggested that a similar economic upturn was also experienced by Judah during the reign of king Manasseh (697–642 B.C.): ‘However the Pax Assyriaca and the new economic opportunities created by the Assyrian empire brought about economic prosperity to its vassal states, and in the light of Manasseh’s long and peaceful reign it is only logical to assume that he took advantage of the new conditions to restore his kingdom and expand its settlement and economic activity.’ (Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 71, emphasis added)

311

Independent dates for the Southern Negev and the Edomite heartland are now available through 14C results, see Levy et al. (2014: 735; see infra ‘Addendum I’). For the discrepancy of 14C dates from Khirbet en-Nahas, suggesting 10th/9th century dates, and the suggestion by Smith and Levy (2008) to raise Edomite pottery dates in accordance, see Bienkowski (2011: 77). This is especially contradicted by the discovery of imitated ‘Assyrian-style’ carinated bowls (type BL 22), which can hardly predate 700 B.C. 312 Frankly, it is not difficult to recognise why dating Edomite pottery is faced with so many difficulties and why scholars have felt the need to look elsewhere for independent dating criteria (Singer-Avitz 2014: 268–69). First of all, field notes and registration cards left by the members of the original excavation team led by Chrystal-M. Bennett are found to be in a lamentable state, so that it has been very difficult to reconstruct the history of these sites (Katharine Baxter, pers. comm., 2004; Bienkowski 1995: 16–17; 2002: 44–45; 2011: 9–10; Singer-Avitz 1999: 31). Lack of clearly identifiable destruction levels in Edom—which could have helped differentiate assemblages more thoroughly—has complicated matters considerably. Moreover, poor comprehension of different styles—painted and unpainted—as chronological indicators rather than mere regional variations has led to different chronological scenarios over many years, especially since Stephen Hart preferred to date the painted pottery (‘Painted Busayra Ware’) later than unpainted ware (Hart 1989; 1995: 269; van der Veen 2014: 234–238). Yet painted ware is already found in small quantities e.g. in Tel Beersheba Stratum II, Tel Arad Strata X–VIII and Tel cIra Stratum VII, which may indicate that painted and unpainted wares—at least to some extent—existed simultaneously as local variations (for discussion and references see van der Veen 2014a: 260–261). It may also be relevant to note that at the smaller remote Edomite sites Umm al-Biyara, Bacja III and es-Sadeh painted wares remain rare (see also Bienkowski 1995: 52, 56; Bienert 2002: 169–171, etc.). However lamentable these circumstances may be, the situation must not befool us by placing more weight on dates based on Judaean sites, where pottery assemblages are better understood. Pottery undoubtedly plays an important role in our overall understanding of these sites, but it can never yield absolute dates.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

111

Although Finkelstein and Na’aman arrive at this conclusion by raising the dates of early Iron Age IIC to c. 670 B.C. rather than by lowering the end of Iron Age IIB to c. 650/640 B.C. (as suggested by this author, see the Conclusions at the end of this volume), we could not agree more that Judah too would have experienced a cultural zenith at this time. In closing, the following question remains to be asked. What if Edom’s late Iron Age culture as found at main Edomite sites such as Busayra, Tawilan and Umm al-Biyara indeed lacks tangible evidence from before the 7th century? Who then could the Edomites of the 9th and 8th centuries B.C. have been? There can be little doubt that Edomites dwelt in the Southern Negev/Arabah-region during the preceding centuries, i.e. in biblical Seir. Indeed, the Assyrian annals refer to tribute paid by Edomites as early as the reign of Adad-Nirari III (c. 803 B.C.; ANET 281–282). The Edomite rulers Qaušmalaku and Ayaramu are reported to have paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib respectively (ANET 282 and 287).313 According to biblical tradition the Judahite monarchs Amaziah and Azariah/Uzziah curbed Edomite influence by conquering Sela in the Valley of Salt (Arabah), as well as the sea port of Elath, in the Gulf of Aqabah (2 Kgs 14:7, 22 and 2 Chr 25:11–12; 26:2; van der Veen 2013: 168). Although it is beyond the scope of our present study to delve into this complex subject here, one suggestion readily presents itself and deserves a brief comment. In the light of the scenario presented in chapter 1314, Iron Age IIA sites in Israel and Judah, as well as sites in the Negev and the Arabah (where the copper smelting sites of the Faynan district, e.g. Khirbet en-Nahas and Barqa elHetiye, are also located), would have survived well into the 8th century (see also Bimson in Bimson and Tebes 2009: 102315).316 In other words, settlements characterised by an antecedent culture at early Iron Age sites in the Faynan region (whose pottery in more general terms resembles that of the later styles, including painted wares) exist, even if a direct link to late Iron Age Busayra and Tawilan remains lacking (Tebes 2011: 82–83). Moreover, while the chronological problems of the late Iron Age pottery especially at Busayra and Tawilan remain unaltered, lower dates for Iron Age IIA—as suggested in chapter 1—do provide a possible solution for the 9th–8th century Edomites known from the Assyrian annals and the biblical sources. Be that as it may, the flourishing mining industry of the Faynan region would have provided Edom with a durable source of revenues during the earlier centuries of the first millennium and it is not difficult to see why the aforementioned Judahite rulers would have sought to control Edom’s main sources of income (including its seafaring activities near the Red Sea shore) by bringing the region into their own sphere of influence. The ephemeral remains of Period IC at Tall al-Khalayfi (enclosed by a casemate wall) may date from this time (van der Veen 2013: 169; Pratico 1993; Finkelstein 2013: 23–25).317 Judah’s autonomous plans were however thwarted by an Assyrian expansionist policy which turned Judah into a tributary state. 313

Moreover, tribute was paid to Sargon II by an unnamed Edomite ruler (ANET 287). Several frontier sites in the Sinai-Northern Negev zone belonging to the transitional phase of Iron Age IIA–B could also have been built at this time, including Tell Qudeirat (Kadesh Barnea) and Kuntillet Ajrud. While Tel Arad Stratum XII would date to the 9th century (within the scenario presented here), Stratum XI could have been constructed towards the middle of the 8th century at the time of King Uzziah (van der Veen 2013: 169). 315 Yet, while the pottery found in the Faynan region ‘can reasonably be interpreted as the early antecedents of the STNP [i.e. Southern Transjordan-Negev Pottery] (Smith and Levy 2008)’, it ‘lacks identical parallels at Buseirah’ (Tebes 2011a: 82). 316 According to Amos 1:12 the Edomite rulers of the mid-8th century B.C. apparently resided at the ‘fortresses’ of Bozrah. While it could be argued that early 8th century remains at Busayra have not yet been found (Tebes 2011a: 82), the parallelism mentioning both Teman and Bozrah could imply that the toponym ‘Bozrah’ is employed here as a loose description of the Bozrah district (equalling Teman as a synonym for the Edomite heartland), rather than for the town of Busayra itself, which only flourished later. Moreover, Amaziah of Judah conquered Sela (also named Jokteel) and Azariah/Uzziah captured Elath, as well as other towns (some which remain unexcavated), which were considered to be important Edomite fortresses. For the suggestion that it was the Faynan chiefdom that paid tribute to Adad-nirari III in c. 803 B.C., see Tebes (2014b: esp. 16–19). For distances between sites in the Faynan region and Busayra, see BenYosef et al. (2014: 521). 317 Its successor Stratum II—enclosed by an inset-offset wall—is compared by Pratico with Tel Arad Stratum X–VIII and if justified it would date mainly to the first half of the 7th century according to the scenario presented here (Pratico 1993: 32, 34). Although it has been suggested by a number of scholars (including Nelson Glueck), that Tall al-Khalayfi may be one and the same as biblical Elath and/or Ezion-Geber (mainly due to an erroneous equation of its earliest remains with the time of Solomon), its identification remains unknown (see Bimson in Bimson and Tebes 2009: 101, who suggests an identification of Ezion Geber with Jeziret al-Farun). For a different preliminary interpretation of the fortification walls at Tall al-Khalayfi, see Mussell (2000: 577–578). 314

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

112

Chapter 2

Meanwhile Edom (with the help of Aram?) once more took control of the Red Sea ports at the time of king Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:6).318 Only later on, after Hezekiah had managed to shake off the Assyrian shackles, would Tel Arad Stratum X and Tel Beersheba Stratum III be refortified by Judah, when the Judaean king pursued his own expansionist policy towards the Negev and into the Shephelah and neighbouring territories of Philistea. Even so, Hezekiah’s self-made autonomy proved to be ephemeral as his plans were finally quelled. With Assyria holding the reins of power, its loyal vassal Edom was put in charge of the trade activities in the Arabah. For further suggestions for future research on this subject, see chapter 4, 4.2.3 at the end of this volume.319

ADDENDUM 1: Problems with 14C Dates from Edom In recent years 14C dates have been published for the Edomite heartland. While some samples did yield dates squarely in accordance with the expected timeframe of the 7th–5th centuries B.C. as favoured above (cf. Levy et al. 2008: 16464–16465; Smith et al. 2014: 735 and Table 10.1), subsequent results have also yielded dates considerably higher (cf. Bienkowski 2011: 77–78).320 Neil Smith and Thomas Levy have argued that late Iron Age IIB–C pottery is attested also at the earlier site of Khirbet en-Nahas in the Faynan region, which they have excavated. According to them, this site was abandoned after the 9th century. These dates not only take us back to the early first millennium B.C for occupation in Edom (encompassing the 10th–9th centuries), but according to the excavators, some pottery types (believed by other scholars to be from the late Iron Age) would need to be reattributed to the early 1st millennium. These results not only have been met with great suspicion, but several points indeed seem to contradict their own theory.321

318

On this point see also Finkelstein (2013b: 25), who considers major involvement by Aram-Damascus. Similarly Bienkowski (2015: 419). 319 It has been argued that 14C results support dates as early as the 10th century, see Levy et al. (esp. 2008: 16460–16465). Regarding radiocarbon results, see Addendum 1. 14C results for Iron Age IIA sites do not present a uniform picture and therefore should not be blindly trusted (see Zerbst and van der Veen 2015: 213–215; Bimson and Tebes 2009: 92, 103– 105). On the other hand, dates as late as c. 880–870 B.C. for the transition period from Iron Age IB–IIA are supported by pottery evidence at Samaria, Tell es-Sultan and Jezreel as suggested earlier in this volume (see chapter 1, Excursus 2). While a recently discovered scarab of (presumably) Hedj-kheper-Re Shoshenq I at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan is understood to support a late 10th century date for the end of the mining activity at the site (Levy et al. 2014; Münger and Levy 2014: 748–749), alternative dates (around the middle of the 9th century or some decades later) for this Pharaoh have been proposed, based on chronological evidence from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period (recently, e.g. James and Morkot 2015; Thijs 2010 and 2015; James and van der Veen 2015a). For similar views, see Tebes (2004). Alternatively, the conventional late 10th century dates for Shoshenq I do not necessarily contradict the evidence at Khirbet en-Nahas either, as Iron Age I–IIA (early) material (including earlier Qurayyah painted ware) has been excavated there (Smith and Levy 2008: 86). 320 14 C dates also exist for Khirbet Hamra Ifdan (in the Wadi Fidan) where a scarab of Shoshenq I has been found (see the previous footnote). Other pharaohs, bearing the same prenomen, may however also be considered: Takeloth I, II, and Shoshenq IV (identified by the author in 1984, Rohl 1986: 22 and on wikipedia: ‘Shoshenq IV’). For the scarab, see Münger and Levy (2014: 748–749). Although Münger and Levy call the scarab ‘the most important Egyptian discovery made to date in southern Jordan’ (2014: 759, see also 748), it actually lacks an archaeological context as it was merely picked up by a visitor to the site. So far no architectural remains have been found, except for an ‘Iron Age slag mound’ (Münger and Levy 2014: 759). Even so, a 14C date for Area L does exist (ranging from 1192–1021 with 68.2% and 1261–995 B.C. with 95.1% probability factors; 2014: 749), which undoubtedly conflicts with proposed dates for Shoshenq I (i.e. in the 10th and 9th centuries B.C., see James and van der Veen [eds.] 2015), let alone for one of his successors. It has been suggested that the Libyan Pharaoh would have disrupted mining activity in the region (esp. at Khirbet enNahas, Levy et al. 2008: 16461, 16465; Münger and Levy 2014: 759 with further references). While it is difficult to see why the Egyptians (at a time when they so badly needed economic revival) would have done so, multiple post-Ramesside scarabs and amulets found in the vicinity (also at Khirbet en-Nahas) suggest that Shoshenq would rather have sponsored mining work in the region, or even sent his own work gangs to oversee the work (Münger and Levy 2014: 759). We hope to return to this issue elsewhere (van der Veen et al.: in prep.). 321 Their early dates have e.g. been criticised by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009), mainly on the basis of pottery. While Smith and Levy have argued that no occupation after the 9th century is attested at Khirbet en-Nahas, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz argue that the published pottery from Areas A (mainly from the gatehouse) and S (industrial unit for copper procession) excavated in 2002, raises several problems. Most of the evidence concerns small sherds which were retrieved from ‘fills and industrial waste’ (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009: 208). While Iron Age I and IIA material © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

113

Most pertinent of all is the occurrence of carinated ‘Assyrian-style’ bowls (BL22), evidence of which was found at Khirbet en-Nahas Strata A2b, A2a and S2a (Smith and Levy 2008: Figs. 12:4–6; 13: 8–11; 16: 6; Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009: 210). While this type is dated by Smith and Levy to the 9th century B.C., its closest parallels from Cis- and Transjordan are dated to the late 8th and especially 7th centuries B.C. (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009: 210). The 14C dates therefore produce a yawning gap of over a century between the 9th century (14C-based) and the late 8th–7th centuries (based on ceramic evidence from Assyria). While Smith and Levy abandon the link between carinated BL22 (Ware A) and Assyrian prototypes (by separating between subgroups within the BL22 repertory; Smith and Levy 2014: 312–314), they revert to ad hoc arguments by suggesting that BL22 Ware A (non-Assyrian-style) is to be clearly distinguished from BL22 Ware B (‘Assyrian-style’).322 However, the characteristics listed for both groups appear rather artificial when carefully scrutinised (also Singer-Avitz, pers. comm., March 22, 2016). Their chronological separation within the BL22 group has been criticised by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2008), as well as by Bienkowski (2011). The latter concludes: ‘Smith and Levy ... clearly aware that the reliance on Assyrian originals not pre-dating the 8th century BCE renders the 9th-century BCE date for Khirbat an-Nahas examples problematic, therefore attempt to dissociate their BL22 bowls from the “finer” imitation Assyrian style bowls, claiming that they are very different. Nevertheless, close examination of the Transjordanian parallels demonstrates that there is no appreciable difference ... The Khirbat an-Nahas BL22 bowls to all intents and purposes seem to be identical to other imitation Assyrian bowls dating to the 8th and 7th centuries BCE ... there is a distinct problem with accepting the 9th century BCE date for the Khirbat an-Nahas bowls.’ (Bienkowski 2011: 77–78, emphasis added) Accepting the 14C dates, Bienkowski on the other hand suggests that the site must have been occupied both during the early Iron Age and the late Iron Age and hence the ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery relates to the later stage. Similar conclusions have been reached by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2008: 215). Recently further 14C results have become available. Neil Smith, Mohammad Najjar and Thomas Levy have produced a series of radiocarbon dates, whose samples have been retrieved from various smaller sites in the Edomite steppe and highlands, where they conducted survey and sounding work (Smith et al. 2014:

is represented by diagnostic types, Iron Age IIC material was also found, including painted ware, also attested at other late Iron Age sites on the Edomite plateau. 322 See esp. Smith and Levy (2014: 313–314, 358–359, Table 4.12: 13–19). In their reply to their critics they distinguish between what they consider to be variants of bowl BL22. They differentiate between ‘Wares A’ (early) and ‘B’ (late, i.e. the ‘Assyrian-style’ carinated bowl). The following traits are highlighted: while BL22 (Ware A) is represented by a low and less protrusive carination, the carination on BL22 (Ware B) is apparently more pronounced and is either found in the middle or nearer the bottom of the vessel. While BL22 (Ware A) contains a straight to lightly flaring rim, the everted rim of BL22 (Ware B) flares out in a more pronounced way. The treatment on the outside wall of BL22 (Ware B) is more elaborate (2014: 313). This distinction can be seen in the line-drawings: BL22 (Ware A1) in Tables 4.12:13 (from Khirbet en-Nahas, Area A, Phase II) and 4.21:5 (same, Area S, Phase II) over and against BL22d (Ware B1) in Table 4.33:8, and BL22d (Ware 1) in Table 4.36:10. But a close look at fig. 4.40 (p. 409) listing BL22 types from Khirbet en-Nahas in the left column, makes these differences seem largely artificial. While the carinations on most of the depicted specimens of BL22 (Ware A) appear less pronounced (while the carination is found towards the middle of the vessel on e.g. nos. 1, 6, 9) than on some parallels from Busayra (right column), this does not hold true for all specimens, see fig. 4.40:2, 3, 5, 9. Also the rim of fig. 4.40:9 appears to flare out more broadly than on other BL22 (Ware A) bowls. The latter resemble bowls from Busayra: cf. nos. 18 and 20 (and perhaps also 15), whose rims seem to flare out less than on e.g. nos. 14 and 19. Based on what can be seen (in the line-drawings!), the differences between Wares A and B are less distinctive than described by Smith and Levy in the main text, other than that they lack painted decoration as found on many specimens from Busayra and Tawilan, but less so at Umm al-Biyara. It is doubtful that painted decoration may be considered as an Assyrian-period phenomenon (regardless of whether or not Edom had been the ultimate source for this decoration), as this decoration is mostly missing in Cisjordan and in Assyria proper, except for on painted bottles. On the whole, it remains hard to appreciate why Ware A should not be associated with the ‘Assyrian-Edomite-style’ vessel BL22 (B), other than the early date based on 14C. It is disturbing that the apparent ‘subtypes’ (for which clear stratigraphical considerations are lacking) are largely absent in Tables 4.42 and 4.45, where BL22 bowls are again grouped together (Singer-Avitz, pers. comm., March 2016). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

114

Chapter 2

257–287).323 These include radiocarbon samples of olive pits from Khirbat al-Malayqtah (above the Wadi Faydh), Areas A and B. Late Iron Age sherds were found on the floor of Area A (L3032). The radiocarbon results yielded dates between 810–578 B.C. (OxA-18322), and 820–612 B.C. (OxA-18323), both with a probability factor of 95.4%. As they believe, the long stretch is produced by the flat section in the calibration curve during the relevant centuries B.C. (Smith et al. 2014: 262; but see Zerbst and van der Veen 2015: 217–221). Another sample taken from Area B (L3035) yielded a similar date between 776–511 B.C. (OxA-18344). They accept the long stretch and take the evidence to indicate that the site was occupied between the 8th and 6th centuries B.C. A lentil from another site, Khirbat al-Kur (room 2, L4006), yielded similar results ranging between 799– 545 B.C. (OxA-18345), once again with a probability factor of 95.4% (Smith et al. 2014: 268). Other results, produced by a sample taken from Khirbat al-Iraq Shmaliya, proved to be too low for usage and were therefore rejected. No data have been supplied to substantiate this decision. Their own conclusion, that this site was probably occupied at about the same time as the aforementioned settlements, appears nevertheless conclusive in line with the finds from that site. Besides late Iron Age pottery, the surveyors found several small finds, including a disk-shaped limestone palette (with geometric ‘hedged’ zigzag patterning324) and a limestone palette, whose shape resembles that of similar palettes containing the head and feathered headdress of a North-Phoenician goddess (Smith et al. 2014: 274–275, figs. 4.24: A-I, and 3.25: B and G). These objects are indeed attested at other 7th–6th century sites in Cis- and Transjordan.325 Samples were also taken from two new soundings conducted at Tawilan. These testpits measured 5 x 5 m (L2HE; Smith et al. 2014: 277). One sounding was excavated immediately to the north of Crystal-M. Bennett’s domestic ‘Area III East’ (new ‘Area J’). A second sounding was made some 35 m to the north of Bennett’s Area III (new ‘Area K’). While one radiocarbon sample from ‘Area K’ (of charred seeds) failed to yield reasonable results, possibly due to contamination (Smith et al. 2014: 264, Table 3.2, 284), another one (OxA-18346) from the lower floor in ‘Area J’ (L6017, L6021–6022) yielded a date range between 890 and 785 B.C. with a probability factor of 95.4% (Smith et al. 2014: 284–285). The authors take this to mean that the ‘basal occupation floor ... spans the ninth to early eighth centuries’ and that therefore ‘this portion of the Tawilan site was occupied between the end of the Early Iron Age II and Late Iron Age II phase’ (Smith et al. 2014: 283). While they argue that not too much weight should be placed on one single sample as this can be misleading, and that further radiocarbon dates (from Tawilan and other sites in the vicinity) will be needed to substantiate these results, they nevertheless take the date to indicate as positive proof that the site was indeed settled from the 9th century onwards, i.e. up to two centuries earlier than has previously been thought. It is of course theoretically possible that Tawilan could have been occupied during the 9th century B.C. But this evidence cannot be substantiated by material evidence found at the site, neither by that from CrystalM. Bennett’s excavations between 1968–1970 (and in 1982) nor by that from the most recent soundings conducted by Smith et al. While Bennett aimed to test out a suggestion previously made by Nelson Glueck (who had proposed considerably earlier dates for the origins of Tawilan, which he equated with biblical Teman), close examination of the pottery and small finds did not confirm Glueck’s view (Bienkowski 1995: 16). Although three phases (i–iii) in ‘Area III East’ and ‘West’ were identified, the pottery (which belongs to ‘Iron Age II / Persian period’) was found to be ‘homogenous throughout’ (Bienkowski 1995: 48). The pottery corpus not only contains a high percentage of painted vessels (termed ‘Busayra painted ware’ by 323

The author wishes to give special thanks to Juan Tebes for pointing out this publication to him and making the relevant chapter available. For a book review of this massive and well-illustrated volume by Smith et al. (2014), see Tebes (2015: 61–64). 324 Similar palettes were e.g. found at Edomite Tawilan (Bienkowski 1995: 85–86, fig. 9.15) and Busayra (Sedman 2002: 394–399). For a similar limestone cosmetic bowl with patterning from the recent excavations, see Smith et al. (2014: 386, fig. 3.36: H). 325 For a description of a similar crudely carved specimen from Edomite Umm el-Biyara, see also van der Veen (2014: 239–240) with references. Other specimens were found in Cis- and Transjordan, e.g. at Ghrareh and Tawilan, and sites further to the north including the Amman Citadel area and Kerak, and at Jezreel. The head and headdress of the female deity closely resemble those depicted on palettes made of tridacna squamosa shell found further afield in Mesopotamia and Egypt, at e.g. Nimrud, Sippar, Daphne and Naukratis. These finds have been dated by Brandl (based on stratified specimens) to c. 630–580 B.C. (Brandl 2001: 49–62). For a detailed bibliography on the study of tridacna squamosa shell objects, see van der Veen 2014a: 239, n. 1097. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

115

Bienkowski and accepted by Hart326), the overall evidence indeed suggests that Tawilan was mainly a oneperiod site and that its occupation was largely contemporaneous with that of Busayra (Hart 1995a: 53, 56). As stated earlier in this chapter, a cuneiform tablet from the first reign year of a king Darius (presumably Darius I or II) suggests that the site must have remained occupied at least until the end of the 6th century and possibly as late as the late 5th century B.C. (Hart 1995b: 259; Bienkowski 1995). There can be little doubt that many of the pottery styles reflect Late Assyrian tendencies.327 Also a number of ‘water decanters’ found at the site closely resemble Iron Age IIC Judahite specimens known from the late 7th and early 6th centuries B.C. (see Hart 1995a: 253, Table 6.29 esp. 3–5).328 Similar vessels are, however, also attested at sites in Transjordan.329 Moreover, several small finds (including jewelry and seals) are indicative of the same occupational timespan.330 Of particular interest is a seal with Assyrianising imagery characteristic of the 7th century B.C. (Bienkowski 1995: 79, 290, fig. 9.1:1; 334, fig. 9.46; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 299–298).331 It depicts a lunar crescent standard with tassels (i.e. Sin of Harran) placed on a podium, above which a multiple pointed star is shown. Taking all the evidence into account, it becomes apparent that the early 14C date referred to above finds little support from the material evidence at the site. Moreover, the sounding done by Smith et al. near Bennett’s ‘Area III East’ (i.e. new Area ‘J’) largely confirms previous conclusions that ‘Tawilan Area III was a single-period occupation with minor phasing during the Late Iron Age II period’ (Smith et al. 2014: 280). As the authors admit, this is also confirmed by the pottery excavated during their recent excavations there (Smith et al. 2014: chapter 4). Hence, for the time being the early 14C date at Tawilan stands in isolation and is in conflict with other evidence from the site which supports only a late Iron Age II occupation. Yet, as we have discussed above, the 9th century 14C date retrieved from Khirbet en-Nahas also is found to be in conflict with the Assyrianising pottery evidence there and therefore reveals a similar chronological offset.

EXCURSUS 2: Some Enigmatic ‘Assyrian-Style’ Objects from Kfar Veradim and Tel Dan 1 A Gadrooned Bronze Bowl from Kfar Veradim Although made of bronze, the inscribed Kfar Veradim bronze bowl (fig. 49) matches the category of ‘Assyrian-style’ objects discussed in this chapter (see also van der Veen 2015: 193–194). This inscribed vessel was discovered in a tomb (Cave 3) in the Galilee, c. 17 km northeast of Acco. The pottery repository of this tomb has been dated by the excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, to late Iron Age IIA–early Iron Age IIB. According to her, the burial assemblage is squarely contemporary with the pottery of Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB and Hazor Stratum XA–IX (Alexandre 2002a: *60–61). While Alexandre dates the inscribed bowl to the 10th century B.C. by following the traditional high chronology 326

Painted Busayra ware was e.g. found in all three phases of Areas II and III (Hart 1995a: 56). See e.g. Hart (1995a: 211, fig. 6.8, esp. the gadrooned bowls: nos. 9–10; the carinated bowls with raised everted rims: nos. 18–22; the painted ‘Assyrian-style’ bottle on p. 257, fig. 6.31: 13). 328 For similar water decanters from Judah and the Northern Negev, see van der Veen (2014: 66–67, 111). For such decanters found at the recent excavations by Eilat Mazar near Area G of the City of David, see Yezerski and Mazar (2015: 242, 284–285 [J-1]). Amihai Mazar wrongly attributes this type to the ‘Lachish III and II’ horizons, by basing his evidence on Aharoni (Mazar 2011: 271, and fig. 5; see Aharoni 1975: Plate 44, 17–18). As Orna Zimhoni (1997: 218) has clearly shown, part of Locus 63 has been falsely dated to Lachish Stratum III by Aharoni, which also included other diagnostic late Iron Age IIC material, such as a rosette type store jar. 329 E.g. from the kingdom of Ammon (van der Veen 2014: 67, 207, 231–232). 330 These also include e.g. incised spindle whorls with zigzag patterning found at many late Iron Age Edomite sites, e.g. at Umm el-Biyara (Bienkowski 2011: 102–103), and Busayra (Sedman 2002: 409). This type was also found at Tawilan by Bennett (Bienkowski 1995: 318, fig. 9.29) and by Smith et al. (2014: 286, fig. 3.36: A). Equally interesting is the discovery of so-called trilobe or ‘Scythian-style’ arrow-heads (with hollow tangs), which do not predate the 7th century B.C. and are especially associated with Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid warfare. See van der Veen (2014: 243–244) with references. Some specimens were unearthed at Tawilan by Bennett (Bienkowski 1995: 296, fig. 9.7: 1–2, 5). 331 For similar specimens, see Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 298–305, figs. 298b–304), including finds from Tell Jemmeh and Tell Keisan. For some similar iconography on seals, see Eggler and Keel (2006: 192–193:1; 370–371: 8; 406–407: 28). 327

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

116

Chapter 2

(Alexandre 2002b: *68), in light of the evidence presented in chapter 1 an early to mid-8th century date for the transitional phase between Iron Age IIA–B should likewise be considered. An 8th century date indeed appears to be compatible with the following evidence.

Fig. 49: Kfar Veradim bronze bowl (courtesy of Y. Alexandre, Y. Barschak, IAA; photo by the author).

An incised inscription is found on the inner flat base of the bowl. It reads: cks . psḥ . bn šmc, i.e. ‘cup of Pasiaḥ, son of Shamac’ (see Lemaire 2012: 295–296).332 Comparable inscriptions can be found on metal drinking vessels for instance from Early Iron Age Tekke in the northern cemetery (Tomb J) at Knossos of the Late Proto-Geometric period (Sass 2005: 34–36), as well as on another specimen found on Cyprus (Hoffman 1997; James et al. 1991: 83 and 356-357). Several inscriptions referring to the vessel and its owners are also known from Greece (Koller 2012). Some scholars, including both the excavator and epigrapher Christopher Rollston, have compared the palaeographic traits on the bowl with ‘10th century’ inscriptions from Byblos (e.g. Rollston 2010: 27–28), apparently supporting the ‘early’ date suggested by the excavator. While a date as early as the ‘10th century’ has been questioned by other scholars (including Benjamin Sass and the present author: Sass 2005: 14–34; van der Veen 2015a: 191–192), a Byblite origin for the Kfar Veradim inscription has been questioned by Reinhard Lehmann, who has argued that the form of the small letters was more likely influenced by the hard surface into which these were incised in clock-wise stance (Lehmann 2013: 4–5; pers. comm., 2012). As for the shape of the vessel, the most striking parallels of its gadrooned or fluted style can be found in Assyria proper. While these bowls are not attested in the Assyrian heartland much before the middle of the 9th century (when it can e.g. be seen on a palace relief in the hand of king Assurnasirpal II, see Curtis and Reade 1995: 54–55, no. 7), it is not generally found in the empire’s distant peripheries much before the time of Tiglath-pileser III (cf. Kohler 2012: esp. 289).333 Very finely inscribed gold bowls were found in Tomb II of the Neo-Assyrian queens Yaba’, Banītu and Ataliya from the reigns of Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II (Curtis 2008: 244–245, fig. 29– e; Damerji 1999: Figs. 31–32).

332

For a picture of the inscription inside the bowl, see van der Veen (2015a: 194, fig. 7). While gadrooned bowls are found as early as the Ramesside period in Egypt, as some have pointed out, its style was later adopted by Phoenician craftsmen, probably not before the 9th–8th century B.C.). Very fine Egyptian golden gadrooned vessels have e.g. been found in the tomb of Pharaoh Psusennes I of the 21st dynasty (esp. Coutts [ed.] 1988: 53, 55).

333

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

117

A fragment of a similarly shaped pottery bowl was found at Tel es-Safi / Gath in Stratum A3, dated by Aren Maeir and Itzhaq Shai to the late 9th century (Maeir and Shai 2007).334 Another fragment of an almost identically shaped gadrooned pottery bowl was found at Lachish atop the Neo-Assyrian siege ramp dated to 701 B.C. or later (see above). A similar bowl can be seen in the hands of a dignitary of Zincirli/Sama’l named Kuttamuwa, the servant of the 8th century king Panamuwa (Struble and Herrmann 2009). It can also be seen in the hands of a ruler depicted on a North-Syrian styled ivory pixis from the so-called ‘flame and frond’ school (IM 79513), found by Iraqi archaeologists in 1975 at Nimrud (Herrmann 1996; 2008: 226, 230, fig. 27–i335; Herrmann and Laidlaw 2009: 43–46 with fig. 9, 92–93, 184–186, Plates 44–47 and J; 2013: 95–100). While the ivory pyxis itself probably dates from the 9th century B.C., in general the ivories found in Well ‘AJ’ and similar contexts in Nimrud (including North-Syrian and Phoenician styles) have been more variously dated to the 11th–8th centuries B.C. (Mallowan 1966: 122–147; Winter 1976: 17–19, 22; James et al. 1991: Plates 14–15; Sass 2005: 75–76; Herrmann and Laidlaw 2009: 45, 92–93, 116).336 The bowl depicted in the hands of king Aḥirōm of Byblos on the king’s sarcophagus (dated widely to the early 10th century B.C.) has also been compared with the Kfar Veradim bowl, but close inspection of the scene proves that this conclusion is unwarranted (Herrmann and Laidlaw 2009: 57, fig. 13). Neither does this bowl have gadroons nor does it have a high rim or ‘carination’ as found on Assyrian parallels of this vessel.337 It seems therefore that, even though this type of bowl was in use during the 9th century in Assyria proper (evidence that it was already in use during the 10th century is however lacking), its occurrence at distant Kfar Veradim, would suggest a date hardly before the end of the 9th to the mid-8th century B.C. If justified, the stratified Kfar Veradim bowl too would support the overall conclusions reached within this volume. 2 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Plaques and a Bronze Bowl from Tel Dan Other objects from Tel Dan deserve closer attention here. They include two engraved bronze plaques with Assyrianising or related motifs, and an Assyrianising carinated bronze bowl with an inner omphalos embraced by symbols, likewise attested on ‘Assyrian-style’ objects. While the plaques were uncovered in the later building phase of Stratum III (dated by the excavators Avraham Biran and David Ilan to the 9th century B.C.), the bowl was found in Stratum II, dated to the reign of Jeroboam II through the destruction of Tel Dan by the Assyrians in 733/732 B.C. The dates for these strata, however, have been questioned by Eran Arie, who bases his analysis on multiple aspects related to the archaeology of the site338, by closely comparing this evidence with material from 334

A somewhat later date—in line with the lower dates for the end of Iron Age II proposed within this volume—has been noted by van der Veen in James and van der Veen (2015a: 132, n. 19), relating it (with due reservation) to the siege of Gath by King Uzziah (2 Chr 26:6). 335 Well AJ was built by Assurnasirpal II and restored by his son and successor Shalmaneser III during the first half and mid-years of the 9th century B.C. While in general a somewhat broader chronological range for the ivories from Nimrud / Fort Shalmaneser must be allowed for, lower rather than earlier dates are generally substantiated by inscribed evidence. Though Max Mallowan was unable to assign a date to the following ivory fragment of a pyxid vessel from the same or related assemblage, its cuneiform inscription has now been fully deciphered. The dedicatory inscription refers to the turtan Shamshi-ilu, who held office between c. 800–746 B.C. (Herrmann and Laidlaw 2009: 45, 178–179, item *213, ND 1089, from Room AI [alternatively Court AJ, Herrmann and Laidlaw 2009: 45], see also Plate 33). 336 Georgina Herrmann’s very high dates for some of the ivories of the ‘flame and frond’ group (with Tel Halaf as a possible production centre) have been criticised by other scholars, including Irene Winter (2010: 381–403; see also Sass 2005: 76, esp. n. 120). For it is much less the theoretical terminus post quem of Tel Halaf than the well established terminus ad quem of 808 B.C. (when it became an Assyrian province) that should be heeded. A late 9th century date for the Tel Halaf-style ivories must no doubt be considered as a realistic possibility (Sass 2005: 76, 93–95). 337 For a discussion of the so-called ‘banquet’ theme, see infra point 2 (Tel Dan Plaque 1). Herrmann appears to accept a 10th century date for the Byblite sarcophagus as this is the date adhered to by most scholars. However, a 9th or even 8th century date for the Aḥirōm sarcophagus cannot be excluded and has been considered by this author and others. See van der Veen (2015a: 194 and n. 3). For a more detailed discussion of these arguments, see Sass (2005: 75–82). See already Wallenfels (1983: 83–84) and James et al. (1991: 250). For a much earlier date, see Rehm (2004) and a short reply to Rehm by this author (2015a: n. 3). 338 Note, however, as no pottery from Stratum III was published, Arie based his conclusions solely on pottery from Strata IVA and II (2008: 15, 31). According to Arie, pottery bowls BL1 (Tel Dan Stratum II), 2 (Tel Dan Stratum IVA), and 4–5 (Tel Dan Stratum IVA) are also attested in Megiddo Stratum IV and Hazor Stratum VA. Also bowl BL8 (Tel Dan © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

118

Chapter 2

contemporary sites in ancient Israel (2008: 6–64). He lowers the dates for Stratum IVA (which he considers to be within Iron Age IIB rather than IIA) to after the conquest of king Hazael of Damascus in c. 840/830 B.C.339 Stratum III is reassigned by Arie mainly to the reign of Jeroboam II during the first half of the 8th century B.C. Consequently, he reassigns Stratum II to the final years of the Northern Kingdom, immediately prior to the Assyrian conquest in 733/732 B.C. Arie’s new dates have much to commend themselves and while in general they fit the overall pattern of evidence presented in this volume, slightly lower dates may seem preferable in the light of the ‘Assyrianising’ objects discussed below. Unfortunately, although the dates for these individual objects would have substantiated his overall arguments, Arie only briefly touched on them in his otherwise important article.340 Our conclusions below must remain tentative, however, as the final report on the excavations at Tel Dan has not yet been published (similarly Ornan 2006: 297).341 a) ‘Assyrian-style’ or ‘North-Syrian-style’ bronze plaques from Area A (of the so-called ḥussot area)? Plaque 1 (‘banquet scene’) Description and parallels This plaque was found in 1997 ‘at the base of the southern wall of Structure B (W.5092)’ of the late building phase of Stratum III (Biran 1999: 52). While its shape is circular, it contains three holes and the remains of a metal attachment at the base. Its original function, however, escapes us. As the holes are not found at the top, and as there is no hook for suspension (as frequently found on medallions or pendants), the object must have served another purpose, likely as a kind of mirror used for cultic practises (for mirrors held by female deities in Southeast Anatolian and North Syrian art, see also Plaque 2 infra).342 Plaque 1 has a diameter of 8.7 cm (Biran 1999: 52). Despite its fragmentary state of preservation, several motifs can be recognised. An ‘Assyrian-style’ two-winged sun disk—with upper and lower rays—is engraved above the central scene. On the right hand of the main composition, a standing bearded figure (without a headdress) and clothed in a long (tasseled) robe, is depicted. While his left arm is raised, as pointing towards the seated figure on the left in a salutatory way or in adoration, his right hand appears to be leaning on the folded or cross-legged table.343 A tablecloth covers the table, which in turn would have carried food, as may be indicated by an object, whose

Stratum IVA) occurs as late as Hazor Stratum VA. Several other types (kraters KR1 and 2 [Tel Dan Stratum II] and store jars SJ1–4 [Tel Dan Strata IVA and II]) also supposedly find parallels as late as Hazor Stratum VA and Megiddo Stratum IV. Several more examples were listed (Arie 2008: 17–27). Arie argues that Strata IVA and II predominantly contain Iron Age IIB pottery (2008: 29–30, with Table 1). In accordance with his overall conclusions, he then suggests that the Stratum III pottery repertory (not published) should likely be contemporary with Hazor Stratum VI (2008: 31–32). 339 Stratum IVA was previously dated by Avraham Biran to the late 10th and early 9th century (Biran 1994: 147, 165– 183). 340 Eran Arie deals with different aspects of the site, including stratigraphy and architecture (2008: 7–15), pottery (15– 27), other finds (2008: 27–29), relative chronology (2008: 29–31), absolute chronology (2008: 32–34), and historical implications (2008: 34–38). 341 Another object that had originally been considered for discussion here, is a ceramic ‘bathtub’ style basin found in Stratum IVA of Area T at Tel Dan (Biran 1994: 174–177, with fig. 136 [bottom]). While Eran Arie states that its cultic function in Area T near the ‘bamah’ rules out any direct identification of this object with an ‘Assyrian-style’ coffin (i.e. by comparing it with similarly styled coffins from the Neo-Assyrian period; but see Mazow 2014: 31–39, who argues that these objects often do occur in nonburial zones), closer inspection of the object rather suggests an Aegean origin for this type. So-called ‘larnax’ or ‘bath-shaped basins’ (with and without handles) are attested in Minoan culture (c. 1600– 1100 B.C.) and on Late Bronze to early Iron Age Cyprus, including specimens also found in cultic and industrial contexts (Mazow 2006–2007: 292–294; see also the following objects on the MFAH Museum website: accession number 2007.9 and of the Carlos Collection of Ancient Art of Emory University, Late Minoan IIIA, no. 2002.34.1). Laura Mazow rightly compares the Tel Dan specimen with Aegean bathtubs (2006–2007: 294). For similar conclusions, see also Karageorgis (2000: 266–274). Mazow discusses objects from the Southern Levant at ‘Philistine-related’ and other early Iron Age sites, including objects from Tel Qasile, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tel Miqne and Megiddo (2008: 294–298). There is therefore no need to link the Tel Dan specimen to Mesopotamian ‘bathtub’ coffins (on Neo-Assyrian ‘bathtub coffins’, see also above). 342 The suggestion, that this object could have served as a mirror, was made to this author by Rehm (pers. comm., June 21, 2016). 343 Interpretations of this type of table can e.g. be found in Collon (2001: 65). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

119

upper extension can still be seen on the lower edge of the large right fragment.344 A seated figure—wearing what appears to be an ‘Assyrian-style’ fluted or feathered headdress—apparently holds an object in his upraised hand, as is indicated by the remains of another extension seen on the edge of the right fragment. Specifically concerning the headdress, enough of it has been preserved to ascertain that it indeed represents a typical Late Assyrian ‘fluted’ or ‘feathered’ headdress, a type of crown frequently worn by Neo-Assyrian monarchs and deities (for parallels, see below). The throne on which the monarch or deity is seated, contains an elevated backrest.

Figs. 50a–b: Bronze plaque 1 with ‘Assyrian-style’ motifs from Stratum III (late), Area A (ḥussot area). Left: the bronze plaque. Right: a line-drawing of the same object (both courtesy of the Nelson Glueck Institute of Biblical Archaeology / Skirball Museum, Jerusalem, Dr D. Ilan).

The current composition finds many parallels and is usually described as a ‘banquet scene’ (Herrmann and Laidlaw 2013: 95–100). Such ‘banquet scenes’ indeed have a long tradition within Western Asiatic art (with closer parallels from the Levant, Mesopotamia, Urartu, Elam, etc. during the Late Bronze to Iron Ages: Caubet 2013: 456–457; Collon 2001: 64; Herrmann and Laidlaw 2009: 57–58; 2013: 95–100345; Muscarella 1970: 120, fig. 11; 1980: 174). The closest parallels by far, however, are attested in ‘Neo-Assyrian’ art of the 9th–7th centuries B.C. As on Plaque 1, these may include several or all of the following elements: a) a winged sun disk, hovering over a banquet scene, b) an attendant dressed in a long-tasseled robe, c) a royal or divine seated figure, with d) an upraised arm, holding a drinking vessel or some divine attribute, and 344

For representations of similar tables stuffed with food for dinner or with votive offerings on seals and stelae, see e.g. Collon (2001: Plates X–XI). 345 See e.g. the 7th century B.C. Aramaean Nerab orthostate at the Louvre Museum (AO 3027). More specifically so, see the 8th century B.C. North-Syrian-styled ivory pyxis, found in Well ‘AJ’ of the ‘North West Palace’ at Nimrud (depicting a ruler seated on a throne flanked by sphinxes, and accompanied by a dignitary swinging his flagellum in front of a table stuffed with food: Herrmann 1996, and Sass 2005: 75–82; Wicke 2013: 554). See also the similarly carved pyxis from the ‘Burned Palace’ at Nimrud (with a seated individual and inscribed with the toponym ‘Bît-Gusi’, i.e. Arpad; Caubet 2013: 456, 463, fig. 4). An almost identical scene can be found on the famous Aḥirōm sarcophagus from Byblos (Rehm 2004; Herrmann and Laidlow 2009: 57–58, with fig. 13). Similar scenes can also be found on 9th–8th century stelae from Zinjirli/Sam’al, presumably depicting funeral banquets. As on Plaque 1 from Tel Dan, two-winged sun disks can be seen hovering over the central scene, however stylistically they do not reflect the strong ‘Assyrian-style’ traits as does Plaque 1 (Hays 2015: 128–129; Struble and Herrmann 2009; Dodd 2012: esp. 226). A similar albeit much cruder representation is also found on an Urartian plaque, allegedly from Giymli, East of Lake Van (Tașyürek 1977: 16–17, fig. 8). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

120

Chapter 2

d) wearing a fluted or feathered headdress, and e) sitting on a throne with an elevated backrest, f) in front of a table stuffed with food. Similar scenes may be found on cylinder seals from the 9th–8th centuries B.C., depicting uncrowned seated monarchs or seated deities (male and female) with attendants, sometimes swinging fan-shaped objects.346 In both cases food-stuffed tables are placed between the seated king or deity and the attendant. The same composition is also found as a central scene on an ivory panel from Fort Shalmaneser (SE 9 Nimrud), currently kept at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (see fig. 51). It is stylistically dated to the mid-8th century B.C.

Fig. 51: Carved ivory panel from Fort Shalmaneser with central scene resembling that on Plaque 1 (© Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 59.107.22).

The king on this ivory panel wears a similar headdress and sits on a throne with an elevated backrest. As the ivory carving is very crowded with additional motifs flanking the central scene, the attendant (waving a fan-shaped object) stands next to rather than behind the table as is usually the case. It is uncertain if the original panel continued above the heads of the depicted figures and if a winged sun disk was also shown. Notably and foremost on cylinder seals, two-winged sun disks can be found ‘hovering over food-stuffed tables’, if the seated figure is a female deity (frequently Ishtar), who wears a fluted or feathered (sometimes horned) headdress, partly adorned with further divine attributes (Collon 2001: Plates X: 126, 129 [with p. 71]; XI: 135–136, 138, 143 [with pp. 73–74] nos. 136 [?], 138–139, 142–143; Moortgat 1988: Plate 78, no. 654 [with discussion on p. 144]). Sometimes a two-winged sun disk also appears when the seated figure is a human monarch (Keel-Leu and Teissier 2004: 195).347 A very similar composition can also be found on an albeit unprovenanced bronze mirror-like object currently kept in a private collection in Dresden, Germany. While its use as a mirror seems to be implied by its lower extension (not unlike the broken attachment found towards the bottom of Plaque 1), its Neo-Assyrianstyle is unambiguous. The following elements clearly recall features found on Plaque 1: a worshipper or dignitary standing at a foldable table adorned with food and a seated male deity (clearly identified as the sun god by several winged sun disks [placed behind his back, on his crown, and on a pole attached to the throne]). Ellen Rehm has published this object, which is currently located in the German Hygiene Museum Collection in Dresden (Collection Schwarzkopf, SK 1929). She dates it squarely to the 8th–7th centuries B.C. (Rehm 2018: 279–288). Nonetheless, as so much of the seated figure on Plaque 1 is missing, it will be difficult to establish with any degree of certainty if the figure was supposed to represent a male or a female, let alone a mortal rather than a divine being. If the object held by the seated figure is indeed a drinking vessel, the seated figure most likely was meant to be an earthly king. If it represents something else (a ring or astral attribute), we may be dealing with a deity and just possibly with the goddess Ishtar (see Collon 2001: Table XI, esp. nos. 135–136, 143). But as the Dresden ‘mirror’ shows, a male deity can not be excluded.

346

Collon is probably correct that in many cases late Assyrian cylinder seals are difficult to date more precisely. Hence, a wider timespan, ranging from the 9th–8th and into the 7th centuries (based on finds from Khorsabad and seal impressions found on datable cuneiform tablets), is usually preferred (Collon 2001: 2). 347 But here the king wears a conical headdress of a type not common in late Assyrian art (Keel-Leu and Teissier 2004: 186). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

121

What can be said with certainty is that Plaque 1 reflects strong Late Assyrian tendencies. It is more difficult to say how the object may have reached Tel Dan and at what particular time. If this plaque and Plaque 2 (infra) did not reach the site merely through trade but was used as an integral part of cultic life at Tel Dan, a date for Stratum III after 733/732 B.C. should not be categorically ruled out. At any rate, although Biran dated these objects to the 9th century B.C. in line with his traditional date for this stratum (1999: 53), the ‘Assyrian-style’ elements of Plaque 1 seem to challenge the traditional date. Plaque 2 (adoration scene with female deity standing on a bull)

Figs. 52a–b: Bronze plaque with an ‘Assyrian-style’ deity (?) from Stratum III (late), Area A (ḥussot area). Left: bronze pendant. Right: line-drawing of the same object (both courtesy of the Nelson Glueck Institute of Biblical Archaeology / Skirball Museum, Jerusalem, Dr D. Ilan).

Description and parallels As for the second plaque—found near Wall 5092 of Structure B of the later phase of Stratum III in 1998 (Biran 1999: 53)—we are on weaker ground in terms of its ‘Assyrian- or related style’. The plaque (which measures 9 x 7.6 cm; see Biran 1999: 53) has been crudely engraved and several missing details preclude us from establishing a precise interpretation.348 Consequently, suggestions made so far by scholars have varied. Most art historians, however, have interpreted the stocky almost rectangularly shaped deity in the centre as a goddess rather than a male deity, while the animal on which she stands (as her pedestal) is believed to be a bull (Ornan 2006: 298; Biran 1999: 54). That the animal cannot be interpreted as a feline creature, is proved by the two schematic horns placed on its head and by its down-sloping (incurving) long tail. Moreover, as Tallay Ornan has correctly interpreted, the lines on the neck, the belly and above the hindlegs of the animal, likely represent skinfolds to augment the ‘mature’ bovine’s muscular appearance (Ornan 2006: 298–299).349 As for the deity herself, she appears to hold a round object in her right hand, which may likely be interpreted as a mirror, an object frequently held by female deities on Southeast Anatolian and North-Syrian small objects of art and on orthostates (Ornan 2006: 298, 302). The goddess is depicted with what appear to be two down-curving ‘wings’ (Ornan 2006: 298; Biran 1999: 54). The zigzag lines on her body, and especially the sharply pointed triangles placed on her back and shoulders, recall in some way the ‘encircled’ starry appearance of the Neo-Assyrian goddess Ishtar (Biran 1999: 54).350

348

The object is also too fragmentary to ascertain to what sort of implement it could have been attached. For a bronze protome with the frontparts of two mature bulls in the round, and likely of first millennium B.C. NorthAramaean origin, also containing skinfolds to ‘stress the muscularity of the animal’, see van der Veen (2015b: 234, 243– 245). 350 For multiple examples, see Ornan (2001: 236, fig. 9.1; 237, figs. 9.2–6; 240, fig. 9.9; 245, figs. 9.13–15; 248, fig. 9.16; 250, fig. 9.18; 302–303); Collon (2001: Plate XXII 269–275); Keel (2008: 48–49). 349

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

122

Chapter 2

While Ishtar is not normally depicted with wings351, her Hurrian counterpart, Shaushka, likewise a goddess of love and war, is (Ornan 2006: 302–303; Hutter 1999: 758).352 Ornan notes, that the depiction of the deity on the plaque incorporates aspects of both Shaushka (her wings) and Ishtar (her starry appearance and her body being clothed). Alternatively, the lines protruding from her body may perhaps be interpreted as flashes of lightning, which again would bring the deity into the sphere of the goddess Ishtar (Black and Green 1992: 47–48). The left hand of the deity on the plaque is raised, so as to represent blessing bestowed on the smaller figure (worshipper) shown to her left. The whole composition is embraced by a band of dots, possibly representing the starry host. This feature is also known from North Syria and Mesopotamia (as early as the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: e.g. on gold pendants from the Old Babylonian period and from Late Bronze Age Minet el-Beida, Aruz et al. 2008: 24; Louvre reg. no. A017363), first millennium Urartian plaques (e.g. Tașyürek 1977: 14–17), as well as on other metal work, e.g. from Luristan (Muscarella 1988: 122–123, fig. 193). A garland of dotted circles is also found on a carved gadrooned stone bowl from Urartian Karmir Blur (van Loon 1966: 78, and Plate VIIb). Although Mark Smith has recently queried the equation of the deity on the plaque with a goddess, mainly because of the association of the deity with a bull (Smith 2016: 65), Tallay Ornan and Irit Ziffer list parallels for goddesses associated with bulls, mainly from Southeastern Anatolia, North Syria and Northern Mesopotamia (Ornan 2006: 303–305; Ziffer 2010: 72–73). Ziffer refers to a naked goddess standing on bull heads, depicted on North Syrian ivory carvings from Gordion, and to a bronze statuette of a naked goddess, likewise standing on the head of a bull from the ‘Kameiros Well’ on Rhodes.353 Strikingly, the goddess Kubaba, depicted on an inscribed orthostate from Neo-Hittite Malatya, not only is associated with what is mostly likely a bull, but also holds a mirror in her right hand (Ornan 2006: 304, fig. 5). Moreover, especially during the 2nd millennium B.C., nude fertility goddesses are frequently associated with bovine creatures (Keel-Leu and Teissier 2004: 460, nos. 344–45; Ornan 2006: 309–310). It is also attested that Anu, the god of heaven, sent his daughter, Inanna/Ishtar, the bull of heaven to assist her in fighting Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the Gilgamesh epic (Tablet VI). Even so, the composition is fragmentary, and it would be premature to press the interpretation too far. Not even the head of the female deity has been preserved, so that a more definite identification is excluded. Nevertheless, a northern origin for the composition and the plaque seems likely (Ornan 2006: 299–300354; Ziffer 2010: 72–73). With due reservation, its close stratigraphic association with the above ‘Assyrian-style’ plaque 1 (late Stratum III355) and the popularity of these type of objects during the 8th–7th centuries B.C. would suggest a 351

Yet during earlier times Inanna/Ishtar was frequently depicted with wings, see an Akkadian cylinder seal at the Oriental Institute in Chicago (OIM A27903), or an Old Babylonian tablet with Venus as the ‘queen of the night’ at the British Museum in London (BM 2003,0718.1). See also the cylinder seals in Mitanni-style (Keel-Leu and Teissier 2004: Table 463: 376), and from Late Bronze Age Emar/Meskene (Keel-Leu and Teissier 2004: Table 464: 377). See also Ornan (2006: 309, fig. 11). 352 The syllabic rendering Shaushka (dša-(u)-uš-ga) is paralleled by the ideogram dIŠTAR(-ka) e.g. at Hittite Boghazköy (Hutter 1999: 758). Hutter also suggests that Shaushka may have been represented in first millennium Israel by the ‘Queen of Heaven’, and in the guise of Astarte (1999:759). For a winged goddess alongside a winged maled deity (combining ‘stylistic characteristics of Assyrian, Urartian, and Phoenician glyptic art’) on an inscribed albeit unprovenanced Hebrew seal, see Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 340, with fig. 331b on p. 337). 353 See Ziffer (2010: 72–73). 354 Tallay Ornan also stresses that the depiction of ‘larger and smaller figures ... standing on two different planes’— especially known from stelae and other reliefs e.g. from Marash, Till Barsip, Karatepe, Malatya and Ivriz—suggest a Syrian or Anatolian origin. She also refers to bronze plaques allegedly from Giymli, southeast of Lake Van (2006: 300, with n. 2). 355 In the light of the present study, the following considerations must be taken into account. If Arie’s interpretation of Stratum IVA at Tel Dan—being mainly within Iron Age IIB (early)—is justified, could the destruction of Stratum IVA be as late as 733/732 B.C. and be related to the Assyrian take-over (in line with our dates for Megiddo VA–IVB and IVA respectively)? If so, both Strata III and II would belong to the post-733/732 occupation of the site. In like manner, if justified, Stratum V and IVB (Iron Age IB, Table on http://ngsba.org/excavations/tel-dan/; see also Yellin and Gunneweg 1989: 140) would represent the 9th century (i.e. prior to the Aramaean invasions; Bruins et al. 2005: 330; Ilan 2008: 87–88). Stratum IVA would then relate mainly to Jeroboam II (possibly including the period down to the Fall of Dan in 733/732 B.C., if of course Stratum III belongs to the period post-733/732). Note also the lower dates suggested © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Juda

123

date hardly earlier than the late 9th century B.C.356 A date as late as the 7th century is however possible, as a silver medallion with a similar crudely carved composition (this time depicting Ishtar standing on a lion accompanied by a worshipper and an altar) from Tel Miqne / Ekron Stratum IB–C, shows (see fig. 62b in chapter 3).357 In spite of her preference to date Plaque 2 to the earliest phase of Aramaic influence on Northern Israel, i.e. during the late 10th and 9th centuries—in line with the traditional date of Stratum III at Tel Dan (2006: 297, 300, 305; but see Arie 2008: 28)— Ornan admits that such objects indeed more widely flooded the region during the 8th–7th centuries, i.e. during the heyday of Neo-Assyrian occupation (2006: 301). Due to its stratigraphical association with ‘Assyrian-style’ Plaque 1 above (and in line with the more general chronological considerations presented by Arie), a date within the 8th century for this object may seem a more likely suggestion. No more can be said until other and perhaps better parallels are found that can be more closely dated. b) Carinated ‘Assyrian-style’ bronze bowl with rosette motif and omphalos from Stratum II

Figs. 53a–c: ‘Assyrian-style’ bronze bowl with a rosette motif and an omphalos from Tel Dan Level II (courtesy of the Nelson Glueck Institute, Jerusalem, L. Zias; line-drawings after A. Biran 1994: 196, fig. 154).

Description and parallels This carinated bronze bowl was found in Room 2844 of Stratum II (Area T) within the so-called sacred precinct or ‘bamah’ (Biran 1994: 196). While Avraham Biran refers to similar bowls presumably held by Neo-Assyrian and Byblite monarchs from the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. (Biran 1994: 196 and 198), Stratum II was dated by him to the reign of Jeroboam II, at least one century earlier. In the light of the finds discussed by Finkelstein (1999) and Fantalkin et al. (2011: 179–80) for Stratum V, being contemporary with Megiddo Stratum VIA. But see Bruins et al. (2011: 199–220). As the stratigraphy of these strata is all but clear (Ilan 1999: 27–28), any scenario must await the publication of the final excavation report. The author has been told that its publication is now imminent. Pers. comm. W. Zwickel. Until then any further assumptions remain premature at best. 356 Predominantly from Southeastern Anatolia and Urartu, see Tașyürek (1977: 14, figs. 2 [from Giymli] and 3 [at the Museum of Gaziantepe], both likely dated to the 7th century [Muscarella 1988: 433]). See also the silver pendant from Zinjirli/Sam’al in Ornan (2001: 245, fig. 9.14), and a golden medallion from Urartu (Jakubiak 2004:92 and 98, fig. 11; Wartke 1993: Plate 68). 357 For a line-drawing of this medallion, see Ornan (2001: 238, fig. 9.7). For a discussion of this silver pendant, see likewise Ornan (2001: 246–249). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

124

Chapter 2

above, and the more general chronological considerations in this volume, Stratum II may actually date to the late 8th and/or early 7th century B.C. Jonathan Greer, who has studied the bowl in some detail, has suggested that it may have served as a mizrāq or cultic vessel (2010: 31–33 with figs. 3–5[e], and 6; 2013: 78 with fig. 24, 106–108). Indeed, this is supported by its discovery within the cultic zone at Tel Dan. Be that as it may, Greer lists parallels for this type of bronze bowl mainly from Assyria, to back his theory, the closest of which (containing an omphalos) dates to the 7th century B.C. (Greer 2010: 35, fig. 5 d).358 On the inner base around the omphalos, Greer detects a ‘ring of stylized pomegranates’ and compares this with a small garland placed above Phoenician-style sphinxes on a Cypriot bowl from Nimrud (2010: 34). Note, however, that it is also found on late 8th–7th century B.C. ‘Assyrian-style’ medallions from Tel Miqne / Ekron and Zinjirli/Sam’al, as well as on a chariot pole on a wall-relief in the North Palace of Assurbanipal, each time depicting the goddess Ishtar (Ornan 2001: 298, fig. 9.7; 240, fig. 9.9; 245, fig. 9.14; see also Collon 2001: 131; van Loon 1966: Plate XXXII). Indeed, in these instances, the motif is part of the so-called ‘starry host’ ring embracing the female deity. Whether or not the garland surrounding the omphalos on the Tel Dan bowl is also related to Ishtar, must remain a point for further study. Finally, if Stratum II is lowered to the period after the Assyrian annexation of Northern Israel in 733/732 B.C., in line with the lower dates suggested in this volume (and to some degree by Eran Arie), the bronze vessel would belong to the period when the Northern Kingdom of Israel had already been annexed by Assyria.

358

For two bronze bowls with floral decoration on the inner base found by Austen H. Layard at Nimrud, see also Curtis (2008: 246, figs. 29-f and g). For a straight-sided bronze bowl with a similar inner decoration, see Curtis (2008: 247, fig. 29-j). As Curtis rightly argues: ‘It has long been recognized that the carinated bowl is a typical Assyrian form (Luschey 1939), and there are numerous examples in pottery and glass as well as in metal’ (2008: 245). For a similar bowl with a small omphalos embraced by a pedal design from Assyria, see Muscarella (1988: 381–382) with several more parallels. Many, however, do not contain an omphalos. Multiple metal bowls with flaring rims, with and without a fluted design and pronounced omphaloi have, however, been excavated at Phrygian Gordion from the late 8th century B.C. (Muscarella 1998; McGovern 2000: esp. 22, fig. 5). Although the destruction of Iron Age Gordion has recently been redated to c. 800 B.C. on the basis of 14C results, this date is contradicted by the many Late ‘Assyrian-style’ items found at the site and Muscarella has presented cogent arguments in favour of its destruction c. 700 B.C. (recently 2013b). See also Porter (2015: 231). For the 14C based date see Rose and Darbyshire (2011). For an excellent critical reply, see Muscarella (2012: 377–390). 358 As Greer rightly suggests, some bowls from Nimrud, containing distinctive Syro-Phoenician motifs, may have been manufactured outside the Central Polity. This seems especially likely for those vessels containing Westsemitic inscriptions (one may even contain a Lydian inscription). Some scholars have even suggested a Syrian, Phoenician or Hebrew origin for these bowls (2010: 34, n. 38; see also Curtis and Reade 1995: 135–36). However, similar (albeit gadrooned) bowls from the tombs of the queens in Nimrud contain cuneiform inscriptions naming queens Yaba’, Banīti and Ataliya from the reigns of Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II. These seem to have originated in Assyria proper (Curtis 2008: 252–53). As Curtis concludes, ‘there is no reason to believe that any of the carinated bowls found in the Nimrud tombs are of foreign manufacture’ (Curtis 2008: 245). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

3 Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions 3.1 General Introduction In this chapter we will look at corroborative evidence supporting the overall thesis of a lower terminus ante quem for Iron Age IIB in Judah. While in the previous chapter we presented evidence relating to Neo-Assyrian cultural influence exerted over the Southern Levant by concentrating mainly on locally produced ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery (whose ultimate source of inspiration was believed to be Sargonid Assyria) as well as some other Assyrian and Assyrianised items, in this chapter we shall concentrate on only one specific Judaean type fossil from the so-called ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, namely stamped lmlk jars. Firstly, stratigraphic evidence will be presented which appears to substantiate the view that their use and production did not end in 701 B.C. but continued for several decades into the 7th century. Moreover, it will be argued why—despite recent endeavours to date some lmlk stamps later within the traditional framework—a lower date for the end of Iron Age IIB explains better their continued use and manufacture until the onset of Iron Age IIC. For if the end of Iron Age IIB is to be dated to around the middle of the 7th century, stamped lmlk jar handles found in Iron Age IIC contexts in Judah and the Northern Negev can no longer be simply ignored as late ‘strays’ or old jars still ‘in use’. Secondly, we shall have a close look at the iconography of the royal stamps by comparing the emblems of the four-winged and two-winged motifs with those of Judah’s neighbours, allies and sovereigns during the period of Sargonid rule. Also an additional symbol will be discussed, namely that of the prancing horse. In a separate excursus we shall briefly deal with the possible use of the jars without going into further detail pertaining to Judah’s economy and politics during the 7th century. As stated in the introduction to this volume, these questions concern the chronological outcome rather than the chronological markers themselves and must therefore be considered as being beyond the scope of the present book. This author is well aware of the overall complexity of the study of the lmlk jars (for many scholars have sought to come to grips with the subject and have dealt with it in considerably more detail359) and that seeking to find definite answers is a task too daunting for the scope of the present volume. As the lmlk jars have been extensively discussed in recent years, this author has decided to concentrate on the main assertions of the relevant debate of the last twenty-five years or so and its consequences for the proposal presented here in terms of a lower terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIB in Judah.

3.2 The Chronology of the lmlk Storage Jars: An Overview360 3.2.1 701 B.C. or Later? A Summary of Some Recent Discussions 3.2.1.1 Recent lmlk-Studies and the 701 B.C. terminus ante quem Most scholars today take the view, that the lmlk jars belong almost exclusively to the reign of Hezekiah. Indeed, this position has virtually reached a consensus since the renewed excavations at Tel Lachish under the supervision of David Ussishkin between 1973–1994 (Ussishkin 2004).361 359

Despite in depth study of the stamped jars and their classification (for a brief history of recent research, see infra) many issues remain unsolved, so that Nahman Avigad’s conclusion of 1986 remains largely unaltered: ‘Nevertheless the sealed jars still remain in the main a “sealed book” ... We still do not know the exact purpose of the stamped jars; and the role of the four cities Hebron, Ziph, Sokho and mmšt ... is still obscure’ (Avigad 1986: 13). Similarly Vaughn (2016: 494). 360 We employ Olga Tufnell’s term type ‘484 storage jars’ for the stamped lmlk jars, whenever this seemed appropriate, for the sake of practicality. The same storage jar type has enjoyed a varied nomenclature, e.g. ‘SJ 180’ (by Yohanan Aharoni), ‘Group III: SJ-1’ (by Orna Zimhoni), and ‘SJO 3–5’ (by Seymore Gitin). For a detailed discussion with relevant literature, see esp. George Grena’s website on the lmlk jars (for a link see n. 363). For a discussion of the ‘oval shaped’ type 484 store jars and their predecessors, see Gitin (2006) and Sergi et al. (2012). 361 Only a minority of scholars previously dated the end of Lachish Level III to 701 B.C. (including Olga Tufnell, Yohanan Aharoni and Ruth Amiran; e.g. Aharoni and Aharoni 1976: esp. 83). Most scholars however (due to conclusions by James Starkey, the excavator of the British Excavations at Lachish, Kathleen Kenyon and William F. Albright [the latter associated the official jar handles of Yaukin at Tell Beit Mirsim A2 with king Jehoiachin of Judah in 597; esp. Albright 1932; see also Ussishkin 2014: 77, 357–367]) argued that Lachish Level III had been destroyed by © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

126

Chapter 3

Based on the results of these excavations, considerable work on the jar handles and on their chronological distribution has been undertaken. First of all, and especially in line with the date of the destruction of Lachish Level III in 701 B.C., Andrew Vaughn and Gabriel Barkay have conducted thorough research among other things into the distribution and chronology of the lmlk jars by examining specimens from various excavations.362 In the same vein—albeit more directly related to his own work at Tel Lachish—David Ussishkin has also studied the jars in great detail.363 A virtually unabridged overview (at least up to 2004) of all ‘lmlkstudies’, i.e. since its meagre beginnings during the 19th century, has been produced by George Grena, who has painstakingly recatalogued, remeasured and redrawn all attested provenanced and unprovenanced stamped lmlk emblems, while even producing a new classification system (Grena 2004; 2010: ‘Clarification of Point #2’).364 Recently, a thorough study of the lmlk jars as well as of later stamped handles (i.e. including rosette-, mwsḥ-, lion seal- and Yehud-impressions) has been undertaken by scholars from Tel Aviv University (Lipschits et al. 2010a and b; 2011; Lipschits 2012; Sergi et al. 2012; Koch and Lipschits 2013). While they constructed an alternative chronology for the jars, they detected what may be ‘a continuous administrative system’ in Judah that seems to have existed ‘for about 600 years, disappearing only after the Hasmonean revolt’ (esp. Lipschits 2012: 11). Furthermore, if some of their ideas are not completely new365 and find earlier proponents366, their chronological conclusions deserve closer scrutiny, as they corroborate points independently developed by the present author. The essence of their theory will therefore be discussed as a separate point below.367 First, we return to the standard view and its advocates. Having documented some ‘1,700 lmlk impressions and more than 270 official seal impressions’, Andrew Vaughn assigned the stamped jars solely to the reign of Hezekiah (accepting however that the so-called 484 storage jars did possess apparent precursors, Vaughn 2016: 494; see also Gitin 2006). Contrary to an older view advocated by some scholars arguing that only jar handles bearing the four-winged scarab beetle emblem belonged to Hezekiah’s reign (see e.g. Tushingham 1992: esp. 63–64 and n. 2), based on the presence of both the four-winged and two-winged handles in the destruction level of Lachish Level III (likewise at Beth Shemesh Level 2), Vaughn strongly adheres to the view that all the jars must have belonged to Hezekiah’s reign and that their production terminated when Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 B.C. (1999: 165; 2016: 497).368 Other scholars, including Nadav Na’aman

Nebuchadrezzar in 597 B.C. Only two years before David Ussishkin’s renewed excavations at Tel Lachish, Darrell Lance still strongly advocated a seventh century date for the jars. While basing his more general conclusions on archaeological research conducted by Olga Tufnell (that both four- and two-winged icons were represented at Lachish Level III), the discovery of stamped lmlk jar handles in particular at Ramat Rahel, Gezer and Jerusalem cemented his opinion that the jars and with them Lachish Level III had to be later: ‘Anyone who wishes to date Level III to 701 B.C. must push the entire lmlk series before that date, an alternative which is clearly unacceptable. The traditional seventh-century date for the two-winged stamps remains the most probable hypothesis’ (Lance 1971: 329). 362 The following list is by no means exhaustive. See e.g. Barkay and Vaughn (1996a and b, 2004), Barkay (1992, 1995), and Vaughn (1999a and b, 2016). For an exhaustive list, see Grena (2004). See also: http://www.lmlk.com/ research/lmlk_up.htm. 363 E.g. Ussishkin (1976; 1977; 2004b; 2011; 2012; 2014). 364 This classification replaces older systems. For a comparison between the classification systems of Grena (falsely cited as Garena in some publications, e.g. Lipschits et al. 2010b: 11, n. 15), Welten (1969) and Lemaire (1981), see infra 3.3.2.1–3.3.2.2. See esp. (with updates until c. 2013): http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_up.htm. 365 As David Ussishkin has correctly argued, their drawings were based on those by Grena, without proper citation, at least initially so. The same seems to apply to a number of other issues (presented by Grena and this author), but as these points were dealt with elsewhere, there is no need to repeat them here (for a summary with bibliography, see esp. Ussishkin 2012). For a similar suggestion, see already Ji (2001) where the latter develops a system not unlike that of Lipschits et al. (see also Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2014: 1). 366 This is also clearly implied by the following citation from David Ussishkin’s most recent book on Lachish: ‘Scholars Ephraim Stern, George Grena and Peter van der Veen, and scholars following them, suggested that the manufacture of lmlk jars stamped with certain types of two-winged stamps continued even after 701 BCE’ (2014: 360). 367 A separate study dealing with ‘computing abilities in Antiquity’, using the lmlk jars ‘as a case-study’, was also conducted at Tel Aviv University. See Zapassky et al. (2009). 368 While at Lachish the percentage of four-winged icons is considerably higher than that of the two-winged sun disk (contrary to the general ratio attested in the Judaean hinterland including Jerusalem, where the sun disk icon clearly predominates)—while at Beth Shemesh the number of four-winged icons still outnumber the two-winged emblems, but less drastically so than at Lachish—Vaughn assumes that the use of different icons in different regions is related to © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

127

(1979: 61–86; 1986: 17), prefer an even narrower timeframe, assuming that all the jars were produced within the three years immediately prior to the 701-invasion (by arguing that they had served the provisioning of Hezekiah’s military troops).369 Vaughn, however, prefers to take the view, that both the lmlk-jars and those bearing the names of Judaean state officials belong to a large scale economic wine and possibly olive oil industry controlled by the crown, that seems to have operated throughout Hezekiah’s reign (see also Ussishkin 2014: 367). This does not mean, however, that the jars could not have been used temporarily for other purposes as well (Vaughn 1999: 165; 2016: 495).370 Vaughn assigns the names of the private individuals named on some 270+ related jar handles to state-officials in the capacity of Judah’s bureaucratic system of the time (2016: 495). All these scholars suggest that the production of the lmlk jars came to a sudden end in 701 B.C. (Na’aman 1986: 6) with the possible exception of some reuse of the jars at some 7th century sites including Tel Batash / Timnah Stratum II (e.g. Kelm and Mazar 1995: 168; Ussishkin 2014: 359). Naturally such a scenario seems plausible if indeed it can be proved that the Assyrians ravaged virtually all of Judah and brought its Iron Age IIB-culture literally to its knees. More specifically so and related to the lmlk jar handles themselves, the destruction of Lachish Level III has become the very cornerstone for dating the final phase of all the jars, simply as so many of them (including both the four-winged and two-winged emblems, as well as ‘official seal impressions’) are represented at Lachish and are neatly sealed by the destruction layer of Lachish Level III (Garfinkel 1990: 77). But why must Lachish Level III be considered as the chronological yardstick by which all the jars at all ‘contemporary’ sites in Judah must be measured? Certainly, two additional considerations have played a prominent role in the debate. Firstly, petrographic studies conducted on the lmlk jars, most prominently so by Mommsen et al. (1984) and recently so by Goren (2016), have shown that their chemical composition points clearly towards the Shephelah as a locality where they were produced. By comparing the chemical composition with reference material especially from Tel Lachish, Mommsen et al. were able to establish that the central pottery workshop responsible for their production must be sought in close proximity to Lachish itself, and based on a suggestion made by Aron Demsky (1966: 215), they conjectured that it could have been situated at the site of ancient Akzib (Mommsen et al. 1984: 111; Na’aman 1986: 16–17; cf. Mic 1:14 and 1 Chr 4: 21–23).371 Goren, however, suggests that the ‘clay matrix of the vessels’ of the lmlk and official seal jar handles he studied from Beth Shemesh were ‘identified as terra rossa soil’ and that therefore the jars were likely produced near Beth Shemesh, possibly at Khirbet cAbbad (Socho?) in the Elah Valley (Goren 2016: 502–503; Sergi et al. 2012: 67 with further bibliography). Although Goren suggests that the jars examined by Mommsen et al. may have come from that site, for the time being the present author prefers to believe that more than one workshop in the region was involved as a production centre (Na’aman 1979; Mazar et al. 1996: 208). Moreover, Mommsen et al. established that also the so-called ‘rosette jars’ (which represent a diagnostic hallmark of the final decades of the Judaean monarchy period, see e.g. van der Veen 2014a: 91, 111–112, 143–144) were produced in the same region, presumably at the same centre(s), when the region became resettled after a longer period of abandonment. While there can be little doubt that the clay used for manufacturing the jars came from the

regional preferences rather than chronology. He therefore concludes that ‘Beth-Shemesh is a helfpul site in showing that the two-winged emblems have nothing to do with chronological features of the royal seal impressions. Rather, the closer the site was to Jerusalem, the more two-winged stamped jars can be expected to predominate’ (Vaughn 2016: 497, emphasis added). While the present author tentatively accepts the excavators’ suggestion that Beth Shemesh Level 2 was destroyed in 701 B.C., this by no means justifies Vaughn’s conviction that the icons reveal evidence of regional preference only. 369 Hence, they assign the jars mainly to Hezekiah’s military preparations during the years preceding the confrontation with Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (Lipschits 2012: 3–4). Na’aman has recently changed his mind about the short period of use of the lmlk jar handles, as he now accepts the chronology proposed by Lipschits et al. (2010), at least in part, with most two-winged sun disk emblems and all circle incised jar handles belonging to the first half of the 7th century B.C. (Na’aman 2016: 113, 121). 370 While Vaughn accepts that though the lmlk jars are related to a large scale system, ‘the distribution of the goods ... probably took place from a few storage centers throughout the Judahite Kingdom’ only (2016: 495). 371 Two pithoi (not of the 484-type) with lmlk stamps were made of clay from the Moza formation and are said to have come from Jerusalem (Mommsen et al. 1984: 106–107, 113; see also Sergi et al. 2012: 67). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

128

Chapter 3

Shephelah region (regardless of the fact whether or not all the jars were actually made there372), the suggestion that production discontinued because these sites had been destroyed by the Assyrians and that work finally was resumed only after ‘half a century’ (so e.g. Halpern 2009: 368), remains speculation (similarly Grena 2012: 4; Gitin 2006). Moreover, if we presume that some jars (as will be discussed later, see Excursus 1) were produced with the consent of Assyria (see also Lipschits et al. 2010b: 3, 7), it even becomes likely that the Assyrians sought to maintain the infrastructure of these centre(s).373 Secondly, based on Sennacherib’s bold claim to have ‘laid siege to 46 of [Hezekiah’s] strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity’ (apparently situated in the Shephelah, see Knauf 2002; Halpern 2009: 368) by driving out no less than ‘200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting’ (ANET 288), it has often been uncritically assumed that Sennacherib basically extinguished life in the region. Even so, most scholars doubt that the Assyrians literally ‘bulldozed’ the kingdom of Judah. Baruch Halpern, who is prepared to largely accept the aforementioned almost astronomical number of homeless Judaeans (similarly Röllig 2007: 42), puts these historical circumstances into a healthier perspective, when he writes: ‘It is not realistic to expect that Assyria leveled every town. Yet, neither will excavation determine which towns fell and which did not: some will have surrendered to threat and blandishments, other to shortages; still others (Batashi III), suffered local breaches, not general destructions. Sennacherib takes care not to say that he fired the remains—his reticence dovetails with the claim that he redistributed much of Hezekiah’s domain to Ashdod, Ekron, Gaza, and, in one text, Ashkelon. Hoping to cement these vassals’ loyalty, he will have spared the local architecture, where appropriate. Under the circumstances, a regional enumeration of “walled towns” is indicated.’ (Halpern 2009: 365) Considering the tremendous apparatus involved in siege warfare (let alone the financial burden it implied)374, Andreas Fuchs argues that the Assyrians would have first sought to intimidate the local aristocracy and its subordinates by threatening them with serious consequences or with pleas to simply surrender. He rightly adds, that this was indeed what Sennacherib’s officials did at Jerusalem, the very headquarters of Hezekiah (Fuchs 2008: 52, n. 26). ‘Einschüchterungspolitik’ no doubt was a cheaper and often less timeconsuming affair. Fuchs argues that while the effectiveness of siege-warfare technology had hardly improved in Assyria since the mid-9th century B.C., towards the end of the 8th century one town after the other fell to the Assyrians. Discussing the conquering ‘mania’ of Sargon II, Fuchs argues: ‘Als Feldzüge mag man diese Unternehmungen kaum mehr bezeichnen, denn es ist dabei zu keinerlei Kampfhandlungen, oder gar Belagerungen gekommen. ... Er hat diese fünf Städte [Karkemish, Melidu, Til-Garimmu, Marqasi and Kummihu] eher kassiert als erobert, denn sie fielen ihm wie überreife Früchte in den Schoß.’ (Fuchs 2008: 66) It is also completely reasonable to suggest that Sennacherib, Sargon’s son and successor, who no doubt set an example at Lachish and who may have sought to eliminate other key sites (such as Libnah, see 2 Kgs 19:8, and Beth Shemesh) generally may have destroyed less sites than is usually assumed. The impressive 372

Gabriel Barkay has suggested that some jars could have been made elsewhere and that the appropriate clays from the Shephelah might have been brought to Judah’s hinterland or Jerusalem to continue production of the lmlk jars (pers. comm., July 2016). Grena similarly argues: ‘Since we do not know exactly where the jars were manufactured, it seems possible, even likely to me, that Judeans living in the east could have continued using Shephelah clay, even if their core manufacturing facilities were no longer located there. Bear in mind that we do not know where they were located prior to the Assyrian invasion. Clay mining, clay processing, and pottery manufacturing were (and still are) distinct operations that do not need to be performed at the same location’ (2012: 4). 373 Even if we were to accept that the central potteries in the Shephelah were destroyed by Sennacherib, or that work there was at least interrupted for a given period of time (even so this remains theory, as we have not actually found the potteries), it still seems reasonable to suggest that Hezekiah (late) or Manasseh would have sought to resume work there not long after 701 B.C. Naturally as the Assyrians did not return to Southern Palestine until the later 670’s, nothing seems to contradict this view. 374 On the question of Assyrian siege warfare at the time of Hezekiah and how Sennacherib’s army may have sought to block the entry ways to Jerusalem, see Fales (2014: 246–247). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

129

size of the Assyrian army, its superior military technology including siege-work, the warning from cities such as Lachish and intimidating discourses addressed to local monarchs and their subordinates, may have been sufficient to force many citizens to surrender without having to strike a blow. The archaeological scenario presented within this volume, suggests that several more sites in the Upper Shephelah and Judah’s hinterland (perhaps even including the lmlk-pottery workshops) could have survived the 701-event than is usually assumed. While mainly the elite was led into exile and while some of the locals would have fled (presumably to the hinterland of Judah, including Jerusalem), others would have returned to their original habitats, when political circumstances had calmed down. Also, other considerations must be taken into account, that are all too often simply ignored.

3.2.1.2 Some Further Considerations The following considerations shed further doubt on the consensus theory on dating the end of Iron Age IIB to 701 B.C. and with it the relevant lmlk jar handles. While Lachish no doubt was conquered and its inhabitants led away into exile (as is lavishly depicted on the walls of Sennacherib’s throne room; cf. also 2 Kgs 19:8), only one military contingent (under the lead of prominent military commanders; see 2 Kgs 18:17) was dispatched to Jerusalem to apparently negotiate with Hezekiah about a possible peace treaty (2 Kgs 18: 31– 32), or else to warn his subordinates of imminent siege warfare (see also Fuchs 2008: 52, n. 26). Sennacherib himself remained at Lachish, before setting off to fight against Libnah (2 Kgs 19:8). It remains questionable how successful his exploits in the Judaean hinterland and south of Lachish really were. None of the Assyrian annals report a campaign to the south of Lachish, let alone as far south as the Arad-Beersheba Valley (supra chapter 2, Excursus 1). While the book of Micah refers to several Judaean towns that seem to have been involved in one way or another, it remains unclear how many of them were actually taken or abandoned (Mic 1:8–16). Despite Micah’s oracle predicting an imminent attack on Jerusalem (V. 9, 12), according to the redactors of 2 Kgs 19: 29–34 the Assyrians were unable to take Judah’s capital (see also 2 Chr 32:22; Isa 37: 33–37). The siege was apparently lifted when soldiers were said to have died in a mysterious massacre (2 Kgs 19: 7, 35), causing the final decampment of the Neo-Assyrian forces (V. 36). It is difficult to know what had actually happened (Schoors 1998: 97; Young 2012: 87). Some scholars have argued that pestilence may have struck the army. Others have suggested that parts of the Assyrian forces could have been attacked in the rear by an approaching Kushite/Egyptian army at Elteqeh (near modern Tel Aviv).375 Some scholars prefer to think that the Assyrians finally gave up because a prolonged war in an almost inaccessible terrain would have costed them incalculable fortunes which they could not possibly have afforded to spend on this remote part of the empire so far away from home.376 After an example had been set at Lachish and possibly at some other towns, and after an agreement had been reached with Hezekiah, who no doubt paid the Assyrians heavy tribute, Sennacherib and his army finally returned home. A complete destruction of Judah is neither confirmed by the written sources nor does it seem likely that the Assyrians would have wasted more time and effort beyond the counterblows the army had already endured. And what is more, would the Assyrians really have risked another confrontation with the Kushite/Egyptian chariot corps and cavalry, whose number according to Sennacherib had been ‘beyond counting’ (ANET 287)? The fact is, the Assyrians did not return to the region during the next thirty years. Everything else remains theory. It is in this light that this author finds the ‘consensus theory’ unconvincing. Even so, what about those Judaean sites whose destruction has been confirmed by archaeology? As discussed in chapter 2, before we can be absolutely certain about who destroyed which town and when, we must be careful not to confuse theory with fact. For even if in all likelihood evidence of destruction is confirmed at contemporary sites, without straightforward written confirmation of who the enemy was and when exactly these sites were destroyed, caution must prevail. For how certain can we be that the same enemy rather than different enemies were involved or whether or not these destructions really occurred simultaneously or were separated in time by some years or even decades? In such a case, other scenarios must be considered (similarly also Na’aman 1986: 13–14). For could it be that in the wake—or during the aftermath of the said political turbulences—other culprits (including local conflicting parties) had taken advantage of the endemic 375

For a discussion of these positions, see infra 3.3.2.1.3. This suggestion was made by Andreas Fuchs in his television interview for ‘Sturm auf Jerusalem’, a German television documentary produced by ZDF, for which the present author worked as academic consultant (film director Renate Beyer, pers. comm., 2011). 376

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

130

Chapter 3

political instability? What about the Kushites of the 25th dynasty? May we simply exclude the possibility that some of the destructions could have been caused by the army of Pharaoh Shebitqu (707/706–691 B.C.) or by that of his successor Taharqa (692/691–664 B.C.)? The inscriptions of both pharaohs suggest that Egypt may have pursued an expansionist policy beyond the Isthmus (Kitchen 19863: 383–387 § 345–346*, 391–393 § 352–353*).377 And what about other Assyrian invasions during the 7th century? According to the Chronicler, Manasseh witnessed an Assyrian invasion during which he was apparently taken captive (2 Chr 33:10–13; for a discussion see esp. chapter 4). If this late tradition is accepted (as several scholars are prepared to do; predominantly so Rainey 1992: 147–164 378), one would expect some archaeological evidence of this later invasion as well. Naturally with a lower terminus ante quem for the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, it is well within the bounds of probability that some of the destructions previously assigned to Sennacherib in 701 may have to be reattributed to this later period. Hence, while accepting that Lachish Level III was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (along with some other key sites in the region)379, other sites could have been destroyed (or abandoned) later during the 7th century, i.e. during local conflicts and/or Kushite and Assyrian military interventions. As a concluding remark, the following quotation correctly reflects the key issue at stake in which Lachish is often considered to be the very chronological yardstick by which all of Judah must be measured. But it also expresses how ‘reality’ should be more sensibly perceived: ‘[Ussishkin] observes the history and archaeology of Judah through the narrow keyhole of Lachish, which was destroyed in 701 and then virtually abandoned for a long period. However, large areas of Judah, especially in the hill country, did not suffer destruction in 701 B.C.E. and continued to develop while Lachish lay in ruins, demonstrating a more gradual change in the region’s material culture ...’ (Lipschits 2012: 5)

3.2.1.3 The lmlk Jars: Evidence of Continued Use and Production Based on what the available sources actually tell us (or what they do not tell us) an increasing number of scholars have recently become more sensitive towards the complexity of the above questions (Knauf 2002: 188–189; Bagg 2011: 248–250). More scholars indeed have begun to realise that the so-called ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon likely did not end in 701 B.C., but that its material culture would have continued for several more years (or decades) into the 7th century (Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 72; Fantalkin and Tal 2015: 194). For these scholars, the issue has shifted from ‘pre- or post-701’ to how many years into the 7th century the relevant archaeological horizon may have continued, and when it was finally superceded by the subsequent ‘Lachish Level II’ horizon (see Eshel 1995). While studying the relevant material presented in this volume (since c. 2003380) the present author began to realise that something must be seriously amiss with the terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIB in Judah (and Israel) and that its current dates may be much too high. More precisely so, concerning the date of the lmlk jar handles, it appeared that they too did not end in 701 B.C. as is commonly held. Although many scholars silently acceded that the occurrence of both four- and two-winged handles at Lachish Level III sufficed to finally settle the matter, other more disturbing evidence—not necessarily compatible with the consensus theory—was either made to fit the standard view (by using circular arguments) or was simply being ignored. For although some scholars had repeatedly referred to ‘late type’ lmlk jar handles (with two-winged solar emblems) found at apparently late Iron Age one period-sites in the Buqecah Valley (Tushingham 1992: 64, n. 2; Mazar 1996: 208–209), scholars including Andrew Vaughn regularly employ(ed) the same ‘lmlk evidence’ to bolster their own views or to brush off their critics (Vaughn 1999: 71–78; 2016: 500; Ussishkin

377

For some evidence on a successful Kushite campaign at this time, see infra 3.3.2.1.3. For other authors accepting the tradition as historical, see also chapter 4. 379 Note however that although the present author tends to accept the Lachish Level III-Sennacherib synchronism, the equation has not been proven beyond doubt. Although archaeological evidence of an Assyrian assault on the city has been found on site, no inscription establishing final proof that the siege ramp was indeed constructed by Sennacherib rather than by another Assyrian king during the 7th century B.C. has been found. For a discussion on Sennacherib’s Lachish (Lachish III or IV), see chapter 4. 380 See van der Veen (2004b; 2005: 51; 2008: esp. 46; 2009 [2011]: 33–34 with n. 68; 2014a: 121). 378

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

131

2011: 229).381 Once the pre-701 B.C. chronological margin had been ‘cemented’ in their own minds, all the other evidence had to simply follow. However, the evidence from the Buqecah valley sites does not stand in isolation. As scholars including George Grena and Lipschits et al. (2004; 2010a; 2012) have stated, a later date for some of the jar handles is also supported by corroborative evidence from additional sites, some which seem to have been resettled not long after 701 B.C., as well as by towns which like the Buqecah valley sites were only resettled during Iron Age IIC, as is confirmed by pottery evidence. This author does not wish to oversimplify the matter. The situation is frequently less conclusive at settlements with an ongoing occupation (regardless of sporadic evidence of destruction and/or conflagration), such as at relevant sites in the Arad-Beersheba Valley.382 Lmlk jar handles found there are altogether sparse, and their stratigraphical information is often ambiguous (Singer-Avitz 2002: 144; pers. comm., August 2016; Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 18, 225).383 It is not our aim to settle the matter here and now, other than to show that in the light of a tighter late Iron Age chronology late productions become more readily explicable. i) Sites in the Wadi Qelt and in the Buqecah Valley Several one-period sites or fortified farmsteads, located to the northeast of Jerusalem in the arable terrains of the Wadi Qelt (e.g. Vered Jericho384, Horvat Shilhah385) and southeast of Jerusalem along the western shore of the Dead Sea (e.g. Khirbet Abu-Tabaq, Khirbet es-Samrah, Khirbet el-Maqari, Khirbet Qumran386), seem to have been mainly settled during the seventh to early sixth centuries B.C. (see van der Veen 2014e: map on p. 181387; Stager 1976: 145). At some of these sites, lmlk jar handles have been found which have sometimes aroused a heated debate. A number of sites merely contain diagnostic Iron Age IIC pottery and their attribution to the final days of the Judaean monarchy is beyond any reasonable doubt (Cross 1993: 267–268; Tushingham 1992: 287, n. 2; Faust 2012: 158). Other sites, however, contain type fossils of both the ‘Lachish Level III’ and ‘Lachish Level II’ horizons, suggesting that they would have originated somewhat earlier, perhaps as early as the reign of Hezekiah (Cross 1993: 269). Regularly fervent proponents of the consensus theory, among others Vaughn and Ussishkin, cite diagnostic Iron Age IIB vessels in support of their earlier dates for these sites (such as closed cooking pots with multiple ridges on the rims and type 484 vessels, including stamped lmlk jar handles; Vaughn 1999: 76–78; Ussishkin 2011: 230). Scholars preferring later dates (including Tushingham, Finkelstein, Lipschits et al.) mainly refer to the latest pottery at these sites to bolster their views (Tushingham 1992: 64; Finkelstein 1994: 175–176; Stern 2001: 136; Lipschits et al. 2010: 8; 2011: 25–26).

381

Vaughn regularly jumps to his conclusions by using circular arguments. While on the one hand he seeks to establish that all lmlk jar handles indeed belong to the late 8th century B.C., at other times the sole evidence he uses to ‘prove early dates’ are lmlk jar handles (such as at the Buqecah Valley sites, Tel Goren Stratum V and Beth-Zur Stratum III). Similarly, he dates all diagnostic ‘Lachish Level III’ pottery to before 701 B.C., taking simply for granted that this cultural phase would have been completely blotted out at all Judaean sites at that particular time. This author considers Vaughn’s methodology to be problematic. See Vaughn (1999: 43, 72–74, 75–78; 2016: 500). For similar criticisms of Vaughn’s work, see Lipschits et al. (2011: 25). 382 Two almost complete type 484 store jars were excavated in ‘post-Lachish III’ strata at Tel cAroer (Strata IIa—Area D, and IIb—Area A). The specimen found in Stratum IIb was literally ‘sunken in the ground while its upper part had deliberately been cut away’ (Thareani 2011: vol. 1, 136). While this vessel may well have been in ‘secondary use’, this is less clear with another vessel from Stratum IIa which Thareani dates to the first half of the 7th century. 383 While it is undoubtedly wrong to base too much weight on specimens whose stratigraphical evidence has been called into question, such evidence should not be completely discarded, as sometimes it may actually hold the key to an alternative interpretation. E.g., Thareani lists a lmlk jar handle from Tel cAroer Stratum IV with a four-winged emblem (2011: 18, 225). The early date of the relevant stratum is considered to be in conflict with the lmlk evidence at other sites. Yet seen in the light of the proposed model presented in this volume, this evidence could well be supportive of a lower terminus post quem for the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon. 384 On this site, see esp. Eitan (2008: 2067–2068), Faust (2012: 184, with fig. 36). 385 On this site, see esp. Ilan et al. (1993), Mazar et al. (1996). 386 On these sites, see esp. Cross and Milik (1967), Cross (1993: 267–269), Stager (1976), and Vaughn (1999: 71–78). The pottery of these sites has been discussed by Stager in his unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to Harvard University in 1975. Unfortunately, this work was unavailable to the present author, so that references to pottery vessels cited there are solely based on Vaughn (1999). 387 For a detailed catalogue including these sites, see also Hofeditz (forthcoming). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

132

Chapter 3

In the light of the lower terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIB suggested here, however, some criticisms raised by proponents of the standard view ‘evaporate’, as the extended ‘chronological gap’, separating both horizons in the traditional chronology, is removed. Moreover, during the ‘intermediate’ phase between the two archaeological horizons (dated to about the middle of the 7th century in the revised model), ‘Lachish Level III’ type fossils were still being produced alongside ‘intermediate forms’388, which finds independent support from an in-depth pottery study of the assemblages found in Caves 1 and 2 by Kathleen Kenyon in the City of David between 1961–1967. In this respect, Itzhaq Eshel’s study has all too often been simply ignored (1995: esp. 55–64 with Table 9).389 a) Horvat Shilhah This site, located in the Wadi Qelt in the ‘semi-arid landscape’ near Mukhmas (Michmash), was excavated in 1981 by archaeologists from the Hebrew University (Ilan et al. 1993: 1364; Mazar et al. 1996: 193–194, with fig. 1; Faust 2012: 151–152, with fig. 31). The remains of a larger dwelling with a central courtyard girdled by individual rooms (one resembling a four-room house) were uncovered (Mazar et al. 1996: 195– 196, figs. 2a–b). The width of the structure measures 27.6 m. The diagnostic pottery at Horvat Shilhah undoubtedly belongs to the final years of the Judaean monarchy period. Most strikingly, it includes ‘open cooking pots with flaring ridged rims’, ‘closed cooking pots with single ridged necks’, and ‘high disk based oil lamps’, all clearly representative of the so-called ‘Lachish Level II’ horizon.390 But the pottery assemblage also includes a lmlk jar handle (Ilan et al. 1993: 1364; Mazar et al. 1996: 208–209; Stern 2001: 138), whose impression was stamped by a seal purportedly containing a ‘late type’ two-winged solar disk in association with the toponym ‘Ziph’ (i.e. Grena’s type Z2D; Grena 2004: 337, Table 30). The excavators tentatively suggested that the relevant lmlk jar handle was likely produced during the late 8th century and that such jars could have been ‘stored for decades if they were not often moved from one place to another’ (Mazar et al. 1996: 209). Their suggestion, however, was based solely on the conviction that all lmlk jars ‘were in use in Judah just before the war against Sennacherib’ (1996: 208). At the same time, they admitted that the ‘Buqecah sites were not established before’ the 7th century, while Horvat Shilhah ‘was not occupied during the eighth century B.C.’ and that ‘the handle could not have survived from an earlier occupation level’ (1996: 209). According to Grena ‘the vast majority of x2D handles [this includes the ‘Z(yph)2D’-type] are found in 7th century strata’ (2004: 336).391 Likewise Vaughn accepts that the lack of 8th century pottery at Horvat Shilhah 388

Eshel also mentions several type 484 storage jars (albeit unstamped) found in Cave 1 (Trench A.XXVI), see Eshel (1995: 61). A jar handle with a two-winged solar disk impression was however found in Area A. XXII (layer 150.21) ‘adjacent to’ the caves (Eshel 1995: 156–157: 3). As for an intermediate ‘closed cooking pot’ with multiple ridges at the rim (of which the lowest ridge protrudes more strongly) from Tel Arad, see Singer-Avitz (2002: 141, 143, fig. 15). This type (CP 9) bridges the ‘gap’ between CP 8 (representative of Strata X–VIII) to CP 10 (representative of Strata VII–VI). It ‘introduces’ the regular Iron Age IIC form. Its angular ridge, located near the lower half of the rim, is the most protruding one. At the City of David itself, the intermediary phase is represented by Strata 12A and 11. The pottery assemblages from these archaeological layers contain the same intermediate cooking pot forms as at Tel Arad (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 98–100). Strikingly, the high disk-based oil lamp (a well-known type fossil of the ‘Lachish Level II’ horizon) also begins to appear at City of David Stratum 12A (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 92–94, L3 with fig. 4.9.4 and photos 4.81 and 4.83). Many more examples can be listed. 389 Vaughn correctly points out that sometimes the late dates given to some of the material found at a given site (e.g. at Khirbet es-Samrah) are spurious, as these dates are based on the older chronological model (of Albright and Kenyon), still widely in use before the excavations at Lachish were renewed. See Vaughn (1999:76). 390 Mazar et al. (1996: 203, fig. 6b: 9–10, 15; 205, fig. 7b: 18–19; 206–207). This author consciously chose the same descriptions for the vessels as those used by him elsewhere for easy comparison. See e.g. van der Veen (2014a: 90, 145– 146). 391 According to Grena, an exception to the rule would be a ‘M[amshit]2D’-jar handle found in Stratum 12 (Area D2) of the City of David (2004: 335, Table 29). Grena’s suspicion about the exact context of this handle is however unwarranted, as in the light of a lower terminus ante quem for the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, Stratum 12 (which was not destroyed by Sennacherib) remained occupied for several more years after 701. Another M2D handle was found in Stratum 11 (Area E2), a stratum that clearly belongs to the 7th century (Grena 2004: 337, Table 30). This view is further corroborated by two ‘H[ebron]2D’ handles found on the Western Hill / Jewish Quarter Stratum 7, which postdates the construction of the Broad Wall (Grena 2004: 336, Table 30; Avigad and Barkay 2000: 245, 261: figs. 20–21). These two jar handles also contain ‘circles’ (incised after firing), which are assigned by Lipschits et al. to the final phase of the lmlk jar handle system, presumably ‘replacing the original lmlk system’ (2011: 7–8). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

133

‘mitigated against an interpretation of settlement ... during the earlier period’ (1999: 78).392 b) Khirbet es-Samrah Two testpits were excavated at Khirbet es-Samrah by Cross and Milik during their survey of the Buqecah Valley in 1954 (Cross and Milik 1956: 11). Scant evidence of a small one-period Iron Age II rectangular fortress with casemate walls was uncovered (Cross 1993: 268). Many sherds (including two royal jar handles, both with two-winged sun disk emblems and concentric circles) were found, apparently all belonging to the same period of occupation (Cross and Milik 1956: 11).393 Some of the pottery has been presented by Lawrence Stager in his albeit unpublished Ph.D. thesis (1975). Proponents of the standard view have repeatedly referred to ‘groove rimmed cooking pots’ (1975: Plates 3–4) as evidence of a ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon occupation at the site (Vaughn 1999: 77; Ussishkin 2011: 227). While Ussishkin takes the combined evidence to indicate that the site was occupied during both the 8th and 7th centuries (2011: 227), Daniel Master adds that ‘[t]he chronologically distinctive forms such as LMLK jar handles and eighth century cooking pots (Figs. 2:12, 17) were found together with seventh-century cooking pots (Figs. 2: 6–7, 11, 14, 15). Most of the other forms could fit in equally well in either the eighth or the seventh century’ (Master 2009: 306–308). ‘[G]roove rimmed cooking pots’ are also found in ‘post-Lachish Level III’ assemblages, such as those from Caves I and II at the City of David.394 Based on Master’s assessment of the pottery it seems safe to assume that a date squarely within the 7th century for Khirbet es-Samrah is not far off the mark. c) Khirbet Qumran As a final site in the Buqecah Valley group, brief mention should be made of a small late Iron Age settlement at Khirbet Qumran of which scarce remains have surfaced during two separate excavations (de Vaux 1973: 2–3; Cross and Milik 1956: 16; Eshel 2012: esp. 390–391395; Lipschits et al. 2011: 25). Based on the most recent excavations at the site, Magen and Peleg conjecture that the Iron Age site must indeed have been small and that its inhabitants may have lived here in simple huts made of wood and clay ‘built partly on fieldstone foundations’ (2007: 28). It is further assumed that the site may only have been inhabited during winter and spring. Evidence of conflagration was found in many areas and it is believed that the site was finally abandoned after the Babylonian invasion during the early 6th century. In sum two lmlk jar handles—each with a two-winged solar disk emblem—have come to light (2007: 26–28). To the best of our knowledge none of the pottery vessels except for the lmlk jar handle from the recent excavations (with a rather blurred impression) has been published (Lipschits et al. 2011: 25; Magen and Peleg 2007: 27, fig. 31). ii) Tel Goren / En Gedi (Stratum V) A similar picture has emerged at Tel Goren, whose earliest known stratum (Stratum V) is built directly on bedrock. The pottery of this late Iron Age settlement, excavated by Benjamin Mazar between 1961 and 1962, is clearly indicated by diagnostic Iron Age IIC pottery. The pottery assemblage includes ‘folded rim bowls, open and closed cooking pots, water decanters, high footed oil lamps, bag shaped store jars as well as rosette stamped jar handles’ (van der Veen 2014a: 155), and other small finds from the same period (such as an inscribed seal, whose palaeographic traits match the late 7th century date of the stratum), and inscribed Judaean stone weights.396 Despite an otherwise complete absence of ‘Lachish Level III’ pottery, four type 484 stamped jar handles were uncovered in situ: 392

While Ussishkin also accepts that the pottery evidence ‘can be paralleled to Lachish Level II’, his suggestion that the stamped jar handle could have been dropped there as an ancient souvenir in ancient times (comparing it to what he believes is a similar situation at a nearby cave at Nahal cArugot, where also stray pottery has been found) is undoubtedly wanting (2011: 229). Taken in isolation anything is just about possible. But taken at face value the evidence at Horvat Shilhah is pretty straightforward. 393 For one of these, see Cross and Milik (1956: 8, fig. 2). 394 Eshel (1995: figs. 5: 4–10, 12–13 and 7: 1–3 [Cave II], fig. 19: 2, 5 10, 12–13 [Cave I]). Eshel dates these assemblages to the first half of the 7th century (c. 698–650 B.C.). 395 While the first excavation was conducted by Roland de Vaux in 1951, the second one was directed by Amir Driori, Yitzhaq Magen and Yuval Peleg between 1993–2004 (Magen and Peleg 2007: 24–28). 396 For a full discussion of all the pottery from Stratum V, see Stern (2007). For the Iron Age IIC Judaean pottery in particular, see Yezerski (2007: 86–129). For ‘Assyrian-style’ Palace Ware imitations from Stratum V, see Stern (2007: © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

134

Chapter 3

a) A lmlk jar handle with a two-winged sun disk emblem and the toponym ‘Ziph’ was found in Locus 241 (Stern 2007: 140–142; Grena 2004: 391). Unfortunately, the stamp impression has been poorly executed. The same handle also contains ‘incised concentric circles’ with a central dot, an emblem which some scholars believe belongs to the final production phase of lmlk jar handles (Grena 2004: 95; Stern 2007: 141; Lipschits et al. 2010a: 8–9; 2011: 7–8, 17–18, with fig. 3). Whether or not this is the case, remains a moot point.397 b) Another jar handle—also with ‘incised concentric circles’ and a dot in the centre (albeit without a royal emblem)—was likewise found in situ in Stratum V (Stern 2007: 149–150). Although Stern is tempted to associate the jar handle with the rosette jar handles found in its close proximity, other scholars clearly identify this type as a 484 storage jar handle, as other handles of this type regularly also contain royal seal impressions (e.g. Avigad and Barkay 2000: 246–247; Lipschits 2012: 9–10). c) A type 484 jar handle with a unique ‘official seal impression’, depicting a two-winged solar disk (without upper rays) and the name of a state official, was found in Locus A31 of Stratum V (see also Barkay 1995: 41, 43). The letters of the inscription are not fully impressed but may either be emended to read as a title ‘lmr’’ (‘belonging to the Lord’, as per Mazar et al. 1966: 34–35), or more likely so as a personal name ‘lnr’’ (‘belonging to Nera’, as per Barkay 1995: 44–45, albeit only based on an available photograph), or ‘Nrt’ as preferred by the present author (‘belonging to Nurat’, as per van der Veen 2014a: 153–161, van der Veen and Bron 2014: 215–217, based on a direct study of the jar handle in 2001).398 Palaeographically the inscription reveals no indicative late traits and hence a date ranging from the late 8th to the middle of the 7th century seems adequate (van der Veen 2014a: 158). Iconographically the two-winged sun disk (with a wide tail and flaring wings with upcurved tips) contains Assyrianising features which find sigillographic parallels from the late 8th to early 6th centuries B.C. (see van der Veen 2014a: 160). d) A type 484 jar handle with the emblem of a ‘prancing horse’ was found in Locus 212 underneath a Persianperiod building, and hence its attribution to Stratum V is undoubtedly justified (Stern 2001: 148; 2007: 163– 165). Gabriel Barkay, who refers to a parallel jar handle from the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem (i.e. from an Iron Age fill of Area F, Locus 906), also refers to additional specimens stamped by the same seal. These were found at Tell el-Judeideh and at Tell en-Nasbeh (1992: 124–129; Avigad and Barkay 2000: 250–251; Stern 2001: 148). Some additional ‘prancing horse’ seal impressions also surfaced on the antiquities market (for a discussion of the ‘prancing horse’ emblem, see infra 3.3.2.2.5). Despite the obvious Iron Age IIC context of Stratum V and the absence of an earlier stratum at the site, Barkay prefers an earlier date, suggesting that the site had been occupied before 701 B.C. But this assumption is primarily based on the discovery of the aforementioned type 484 jar handles. He does, however, refer to other ‘Lachish Level III’ pottery from the Clark Collection in Jerusalem, excavated by G.D. Sandel in a nearby cemetery in 1908 (1995: 46). The relevant pottery has been published by Benjamin Mazar et al. (1966: 53–58).399 Indeed this evidence is frequently cited by proponents of the consensus theory in support of an

130–132; the pieces concerned are an ‘Assyrian-style’ dimpled beaker and a ribbed bowl). For the square seal, see Stern (2007: 157). For another coarsely inscribed seal in the same volume, see 158–160. For six socketed ‘Irano-Scythian’ arrowheads, see 179–180. 397 As rightly noted by Stern, one stamped lmlk impression from the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem contains a four-winged scarab emblem (which is believed by Lipschits et al. to belong to the earliest stage of lmlk production) and a ‘circle incised’ emblem. See Avigad and Barkay (2000: 258, fig. 5). 398 An additional reading ‘lkrt’ (‘belonging to Keret’) has been proposed by David Vanderhooft (1999: 103–104). While this suggestion was solely based on the examination of photographs (pers. comm., May 2001), the present author studied the actual jar handle at the Hebrew University back in May 2001 and was able to produce plasticine impressions in order to establish beyond any reasonable doubt what could be read at the upper edge of the seal impression. 399 The collection comprises of some ‘85 pottery vessels, one glass aryballos and four bracelets’ (Mazar et al. 1966: 53, see figs. 29–33:4). Some eighty vessels were believed by Mazar et al. to be contemporary with Stratum V at Tel Goren, while only five are later, contemporary with the Persian period Stratum IV. As most of the pottery is complete, it is probably right to assume that the material must have derived from a tomb. The representative ‘Lachish Level III’ pottery from the Clark Collection includes ‘cooking pots, decanters, jugs and ampheriskos’ (Ussishkin 2011: 229). For the publication of the pottery, see Mazar et al. (1966). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

135

earlier date for the beginning of Stratum V (Vaughn 1999: 73; Ussishkin 2011: 228–229).400 But close examination of the pottery charts in Mazar et al. (1966) shows that much of the material (also including ‘Lachish Level II’ pottery) includes vessels, whose lifespan is generally considered to have outlasted ‘Lachish Level III’ by several decades and of which parallels can be found in Caves I and II at the City of David.401 Several fragments of locally imitated ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery were also found in Stratum V, two of which are discussed by Stern, that of a dimpled beaker with painted stripes (a common feature of ‘Edomite’ vessels) and of a ridged carinated bowl with a flaring rim (Stern 2007: 130–131). While the dimpled beaker can be compared among others with similar vessels from Strata IVA and III at Megiddo and the Adoni-Nur tomb in Amman (supra chapter 2 and Stern 2015: [545], 547), the carinated bowl has good parallels at Tel Farcah North and Samaria (Stern 2015: 540–541, figs. 1 and 4). Multiple ridges are also found on ‘Assyrian-style’ bowls from Tel Jemmeh as well as on bowls from the Assyrian Central Polity (Stern 2015: 541, fig. 2; Anastasi 2010: 169, fig. 20; 181, fig. 5). However, as argued in chapter 2, this material can also be found in strata postdating the Assyrian withdrawal from the Southern Levant so that not too much weight must be placed on the chronological significance of these finds. Also, it should not be excluded that the pottery from the Clark collection could actually have belonged to inhabitants of another nearby settlement, whose remains have not yet been found.402 Be this as it may, both Ephraim Stern (member of the original excavation team; pers. comm., 2004; Stern 2001: 136; 2007: 77) and Irit Yezerski (the pottery expert who published the Iron Age pottery from the site) are deeply convinced that Stratum V was not inhabited before the second half of the 7th century: ‘The parallels from the other Judean sites confirm a chronological framework for Stratum V at EnGedi in the second half of the seventh to the early sixth century BCE.’ (Yezerski 2007: 105, emphasis added) iii) Tel Batash / Timnah (Stratum II) A similar picture has emerged at Tel Batash / Timnah (Stratum II), whose 7th century remains revealed important lmlk-material. As the site was apparently resettled soon after the destruction of Stratum III (presumably destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C.), the question has been raised if the type 484 material (including stamped jar handles) stems from vessels that could have been produced prior to 701 B.C. (during the time span of Stratum III) or after that date. George Kelm and Amihai Mazar refer to two lmlk jar handles found at Tel Batash (Stratum II), a site which was excavated by them between 1977–1989 (1995: 164, 168–169). Many type 484 fragments were found in Stratum III, which—after careful reconstruction—yielded no less than ‘fourteen complete jars’403, six virtually complete jars and additional fragments of no less than twenty more jars, all from the same

400

While Ussishkin is also referring to the ‘Lachish Level III’ pottery found at the cemetery, he also points to different occupational stages within Stratum V. This point is well taken and has also been considered by Stern and Matskevich (2007: 77, with photos 4.1.9–10). Yet occupational stages are not separate strata. For sure, no evidence of a separate earlier stratum has been found on bedrock (Efraim Stern, pers. comm., August 2004). 401 E.g. the following ‘Lachish III’ types are found in Caves I and II in Jerusalem: closed cooking pots with multiple ridges at the rim (Mazar et al. 1966, fig. 29:21; Eshel 1995: figs. 5:7–8 and 19:2), spouted storage jars (Mazar et al. 1966: Fig. 30: 19; Eshel 1995: figs. 5:2 and 26:4), and black juglets (Mazar et al. 1966: Fig. 30:1–6; Eshel 1995: Figs. 7:15 and 24:1 and 3, and 33:14 [found adjacent to Cave II]). Note also the jugs made of red-brown clay (Mazar et al. 1966: Fig. 31:11–12 and Eshel 1995: Figs. 22: 1–16 and 23:1–22 from Cave I). Some of the jugs from Cave I contained inscriptions incised before firing, including the names Eliyahu and Shaphan or Zaphan (fig. 22:1–2). These were closely studied by the present author at the Israel Antiquities Authority in Beth Shemesh in summer 2007. If the name Shaphan is preferred (which this author considers to be likely), the question may be asked if perhaps an association may be established with a high minister under king Josiah, who would have resided nearby. Eshel dates the Cave I and II assemblages to the first half of the 7th century, between c. 698–650 B.C. On the lower margin, this date comes relatively close to the terminus post quem of Stratum V of Tel Goren. 402 Mazar et al. point out that though there exist some resemblances between the two pottery repertories, there are also important differences. While the pottery assemblage from the tell also includes store jars and kraters, these are lacking in the Clark Collection (1966: 53). Naturally so, if the pottery from the collection stems from tombs, it is only understandable why larger vessels were missing from the assemblage. 403 Two of these contained stamped handles with a four-winged scarab beetle emblem (Kelm and Mazar 1995: 131). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

136

Chapter 3

building (1995: 131).404 As at Tel Lachish, both four- and two-winged emblems were found. Evidence of conflagration in different parts of the site (Areas A, H and D [including the ‘lmlk jar building’405]) suggests that Stratum III was likely destroyed in 701 B.C. (1995: 138; Mazar and Kelm 1993: 155). According to the excavators, Tel Batash Stratum II was soon rebuilt and Timnah’s industry ‘thrived under the economic and political stability imposed by Assyrian domination’ (1995: 141). There can be little doubt that during the second half of the 7th century Tel Batash was once more a thriving town under the direct sphere of influence of the Judaean Kingdom, as is evident from the discovery of Judaean stone weights, rosette jar handles but also lmlk jar handles of the so-called ‘two-winged type’: ‘Most Stratum II houses contained examples of lmlk jars (Type 484, according to Tufnell’s typology at Lachish), as well as jars considered to be later developments of the lmlk jars though differing in details of shape and clay color (Type 483, usually light gray sometimes with rosette seal impressions).’ (Kelm and Mazar 1995: 164; see also Mazar and Kelm 1993: 166) While Kelm and Mazar consider the possibility that the lmlk jar handles from Stratum II may have belonged to reused jars originally manufactured before 701 B.C. (1995: 168–169), Grena stresses that these two stamped jar handles were clearly ‘late sets’ (i.e. his S2DW type), stamped with two-winged emblems (together with the toponym Socho) belonging to the period ‘A.S.’ (i.e. ‘After Sennacherib’), types not attested in pre-701 B.C. strata (2004: 337, Table 30; 2012: 6, with n. 24; see also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 194–195, Photos 123 [Plate 51:16], 124 [Plate 61:13]).406 iv) Khirbet es-Salah / Ramat Rahel (Strata VB and VA) A similar situation exists at Ramat Rahel, where quantities of type 484 material (including stamped handles) have been found in Stratum VB (dated by some to before 701 B.C.) and in the subsequent Iron Age IIC Stratum VA. The site has been excavated by Yohanan Aharoni on behalf of the Hebrew University and the University of Rome in 1959–1962 (Aharoni 1962; 1964; Lipschits et al. 2016), by Gabriel Barkay in 1984 for the University of Tel Aviv and the Israel Exploration Society (2006: 38407) and recently so by scholars from the Universities of Tel Aviv and Heidelberg between 2004–2010 (Lipschits et al. 2011b: 9).408 A large number of lmlk and official seal stamped jar handles (many of them contain the two-winged emblem) have surfaced at the site. ‘Stratum VB’ pottery (of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon), including lmlk and official stamped seals (of some 200 lmlk jar handles some 70 lmlk and some five official stamp seals ‘come from clear stratigraphic contexts beneath the inner courtyard floor and floors of additional buildings attributed to the second building phase’ of Stratum VA (Lipschits et al. 2011b: 15). 409

404

Six handles of the last category of jars contained emblems, two of which were of the four-winged type and four were impressed with the two-winged solar disk. Three of them contained the toponyms Ziph and Mamshit. Another jar handle contained an official seal impression of ‘Zaphan (son of) Abimaaz’ (Kelm and Mazar 1995: 131). 405 The remains of this building, ‘located south of the city wall’, were evidently not in use during the lifetime of Stratum II (Kelm and Mazar 1995: 131). 406 On this type, see Grena (2012: 6, with n. 24). Although this evidence is also referred to by Lipschits et al. (2010: 8), the jar handles from Mazar and Panitz-Cohen have been falsely cited. For a similar explanation, see also Gitin (2006: 521). 407 Barkay quite reasonably identifies Ramat Rahel with the otherwise unknown site of Mamshit attested on many lmlk jar handles (Barkay 2006: 42–43). 408 See also Lipschits et al. (2005 and 2006), Lipschits and Oeming (2009). 409 This author served as square supervisor at Ramat Rahel in 2005 and 2006 and confirms this same stratigraphical situation in Area D3 of the Palace courtyard. Many different types of stamped jar handles were found at the site (including rosette and lion stamps). Three enigmatic stamped handles, probably from the Achaemenid period, were closely studied by the author and a chapter on these for the final report on Ramat Rahel VI has been submitted (van der Veen: in prep.). For one of the official seal impressions found during the renewed excavations, see Lipschits (2008: 491–498). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

137

While the beginning of Stratum VB (also called ‘Building Phase 1’ of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon) is currently dated by the excavators to the late 8th and/or early 7th century410, the onset of Stratum VA (‘Lachish Level II’ horizon) is dated to the late 7th century B.C. (Lipschits et al. 2011b: 9, 19). Aharoni’s ‘Western Tower’ in the western part of the site (which he believed to be part of the Stratum VA palace) is now understood to be the ‘tower fortress’ of Stratum VB. The excavators note that it ‘differs greatly in style and building method’ and that remains of it have been preserved in several areas on the tell (Lipschits et al. 2011: 10–12, with figs. 8 and 10; Weber 2014: 222; Bremer 2016: 217).411 With the ‘Lachish Level III’ stratum dated to the first half of the 7th century (i.e. overlapping with the late reign of Hezekiah and the reign of Manasseh), the archaeology of Ramat Rahel proves to be widely compatible with the thesis presented in the current volume, in which a substantial part of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon is dated to the first half of the early 7th century. According to the excavators, the Stratum VB fortress and the Stratum VA palace may have served as important administrative centres guarding many small sites in the Refaim Valley to the southwest of Jerusalem (including agricultural sites at Manahat, Khirbet er-Ras, Rogem Gannim), whose wine presses and installations for wine production date mainly to the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. (see Greenberg and Cinamon 2006; Oeming and Lipschits 2010: 6–7; Lipschits et al. 2011a: 13; 2011b: 3, 5, 9; Lipschits: 2012; Gadot 2015; Ein-Mor and Ron 2016). As a final example we turn to Khirbet et-Tubeiqeh (Stratum 3), whose culture is widely represented by diagnostic Iron Age IIC material: v) Khirbet et-Tubeiqeh / Beth-Zur (Stratum 3) As argued elsewhere, Stratum 3 at Beth-Zur was almost certainly correctly attributed by the excavators to the 7th–early 6th centuries B.C. (van der Veen 2014a: 87–88, 90–95). This is clearly indicated by multiple diagnostic vessels and small finds (including ‘bag shaped’ water-decanters, high footed oil-lamps, rosette jar handles, wedge- and circle impressed sherds, a limestone cosmetic bowl, inscribed stone weights and an inscribed bulla of ‘Gaalyahu, son of the King’ clearly from the final days of the Judaean monarchy, see van der Veen 2014a: 85–103412). Even so, contrary to the conclusions reached by the excavators, the beginning of Stratum 3 has been raised by Na’aman (1986: 6), Ussishkin (2011: 226), Vaughn (1999: 43) and others, based on eleven lmlk jar handles found at the site (some in situ413), as well as on some pottery forms from the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon (see Lapp in Sellers et al. 1968: 26–29). Even so Ussishkin honestly admits that ‘Nothing is known of what happened here in 701 BCE. ... None of them provides any data regarding their date of manufacture’ (2011: 226). Without any evidence of destruction in 701 B.C., the ‘earlier vessels’414 may all conveniently be assigned to the first half of the 7th century, especially so in the light of the model proposed here.

410

The attribution of the lmlk jar handles (along with Stratum VB at Ramat Rahel) to the first half of the 7th century was not originally shared by the excavators (cf. Oeming and Lipschits 2010: 2–3, 6–7). The present author (who was in charge of the academic program at the site in 2006, officially accredited by the University of Tel Aviv), however, presented his views during the excavation seasons of 2005 and 2006. 411 Based on the traditional assumption that all ‘Lachish Level III’ material must predate 701 B.C., Barkay assumed that Ramat Rahel had been inhabited ‘during the late 8th century’ (Vaughn 1999: 40; Barkay 2006: 37). No evidence of destruction has been found, let alone that Ramat Rahel was besieged by Sennacherib during his approach on Jerusalem. 412 The bulla has been fully published (van der Veen 2014a: 85–87, 95–103). Although the seal impression originally belonged to the lifetime of Stratum 3, based on both the title borne by the seal owner and by the clear late 7th century palaeographic traits of the inscription, it was found in a cistern that likely dates from the Persian or Hellenistic period (van der Veen 2014a: 90, n. 353). 413 Although Ussishkin writes that all were found ‘out of stratigraphical context’ (2011: 226), this is actually not what the original excavators claimed: ‘In stratified deposits of the EI II, as well as in débris, we discovered eleven stamped jar handles of the royal type, two from Hebron, one each from Ziph and Mamshat, and seven illegible. All are of the “winged scroll” (the name is only provisional, since we do not know what was intended by the elongated object between the wings) class’ (Sellers and Albright 1931: 8; see also Sellers 1968: 28; Lapp in Sellers et al. 1968: 55). 414 E.g., including holemouth jars and oil lamps with low bases (Lapp in Sellers et al. 1968: 57–58, 67–68). These ‘Lachish Level III’ types however remained in use with minor modifications until the end of Iron Age IIC in Judah, see also Aharoni and Aharoni (1976: 83), Gitin (2015b: 349, 351). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

138

Chapter 3

Yet, the fact that all legible jar handles contain two-winged solar emblems (see Sellers 1933: 52–53 with fig. 44) and that most pottery vessels clearly portray Iron Age IIC shapes, a 7th–6th century date for the stratum seems self-evident. Moreover, George Grena tentatively classifies the relevant jar handles as ‘x2D’ types, and states that ‘since the vast majority of x2D handles are found in 7th-century strata, it is likely that Na’aman is wrong & the excavators were right’ (2004: 336). Once again, in the light of the lower terminus ante quem of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon as suggested in this volume, there can be little doubt that Grena is right.

3.2.1.4 The 701 B.C. Theory is ‘Not Set in Stone’ In closing, three theories are briefly presented, which suggest a revision of the lmlk jar handle chronology. The first two squarely accept the traditional dates of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon (with minor adjustments), while the third one (based on the evidence presented in chapters 1–3) suggests lower dates for the Iron Age IIB-period altogether. 3.2.1.4.1 The lmlk Jar Handle Chronology according to Grena (2004) Grena carefully classifies lmlk jar handles according to their stratigraphical contexts. He confirms that the largest group indeed belongs to the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon.415 Even so, some specimens are found in ‘post-Lachish III’ strata (2004: 334–335, Table 29; 337, Table 30416). In the light of the traditional chronology Grena divides all specimens into ‘B.S’ and ‘A.S.’ handles (i.e. ‘Before’ and ‘After’ Sennacherib’s invasion of 701 B.C.). Despite this division, it is important to state clearly that Grena believes that none of the handles actually date later than the reign of Hezekiah. Moreover, he believes that the lmlk jar system was introduced by Hezekiah ‘for collecting vegetable/liquid tithes/offerings for Levites/priests by authorizing the stamping of their handles with symbols of God and votive inscriptions. It remained in place throughout his 29-year reign’ (2004: 347). Like most scholars, Grena too believes that handles found at the lowest margin (i.e. those that surfaced in the upper range of the so-called ‘Lachish Level II’ horizon, e.g. at Tel Arad Stratum VII417) must be considered as ‘strays’ (pers. comm., December 2016), while ‘late’ specimens found for instance at Tel Batash / Timnah (Stratum II418) probably belong to the early years of the 7th century.419 By comparing his classification system with Lemaire’s (also used by Lipschits et al. 2010b), Grena envisages the following chronological division as shown in Table 5.

415

Grena published a clear division between the types he considered to be from the late 8th and the early 7th century on the back cover of his 2004 book (see also Grena 2012, fig. 2). 416 For a detailed list, see: http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_strat.htm. 417 Some nine stamped jar handles were found at Tel Arad (ten according to Vaughn 1999: 192, but see Grena’s discussion: http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_arad.htm). According to Herzog and Singer-Avitz only one was found ‘in context’ (2002: no. 15437/2). Moreover, Singer-Avitz states that Mirjam Aharoni’s Table of 1981: 126 is now out-dated (2002: 144). For a more up-to-date list with reconstructions based on recent evidence (marked in red), see Grena’s website. According to Singer-Avitz Tel Arad type SJ1 (type 484) only appears ‘in Strata X–VIII’ at the site (SingerAvitz 2002: 144). In addition to the aforementioned jar handle from Stratum VIII, one specimen was apparently also found in Stratum IX. All others were derived from later secondary contexts. 418 As is also believed by the excavators, see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (2001: 93–97), George Kelm and Amihai Mazar (1995: 164, 168–169). 419 Note also that according to George Grena two lmlk-jar handles were uncovered in earlier strata, albeit falsely assigned by him to the ‘9th century’ (Grena 2004: 347–348). While according to Grena Ze’ev Herzog allegedly reattributed this two-winged sun disk jar handle (i.e. Grena type H2D) to ‘a ninth century stratum’, Singer-Avitz has explained to this author that this jar handle was instead found in Stratum IX (Grena adds that jar handle Tel Arad # 1 was found in Locus 71, and that previously it had been wrongly assigned to ‘locus 56, Stratum 8’ (Level 74.60, Square K15): http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_arad-287-1.htm). Stratum IX is currently dated to the second half of the 8th century (Herzog 2002: 14). This relevant jar handle is kept at the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv (reg. no. MHP 40.03). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

139

Late 8th century B.C. (= B.S.)? H2U/M2U/S2U/Z2U = Lemaire IIa (two-winged icon, undivided inscriptions) H4L/M4L/S4L/Z4L = Lemaire Ib (four-winged icon, lapidarist/elegant design) H4C/M4C/Z4CY = Lemaire Ia (four-winged icon, cursory/crude design) ----- 701 B.C. ---Early 7th century B.C. (= A.S.)? H2T/M2T/(S2T)/Z2T = Lemaire IIc (two-winged icon, usually no bottom inscription) H2D/M2D/S2DR/S2DW/Z2D = Lemaire IIb (two-winged icon, divided bottom-register inscription)* * At least one other type is added to the 7th century group: G2T = Lemaire X II Table 5: George Grena’s division of lmlk jar handle emblems into a late 8th (‘Before Sennacherib’) and an early 7th century group.

Grena concludes: ‘The bottom line on Point #2 [as part of a reply addressed to Lipschits et al. 2010b] is that this chronological division is currently a scientific fact that complements the Bible’s record. It can only be falsified by a new excavation at any Shephelah site destroyed by Sennacherib that produces large quantities of specimens from all the seal sets in a clear archeological context. Since so many sites have already been excavated, I believe this chronological division is a safe interpretation.’ (Grena 2010, online publication) 3.2.1.4.2 The lmlk Jar Handle Chronology according to Lipschits et al. (2010b) The division proposed by Lipschits et al. (and recently so, also at least in part, by Na’aman 2016) is somewhat reminiscent of that of Grena (2004: 70; 2010, online publication), as well as that of Ji (2001: 11–24; Na’aman 2016: 113). Like Grena, Lipschits et al. suggest a division into late 8th and early 7th century jar handles (2010b; 2011a), but clearly believe that the late types extend well into the reign of Hezekiah’s son and successor.420 All lmlk jars are explained by Lipschits et al. as belonging to a tax-payment system of agricultural produce of wine and oil under the Neo-Assyrian regime. According to them the earliest lmlk jars (with four-winged emblems) were introduced during the final years of Ahaz or early years of Hezekiah (Lipschits 2010b: 7; Na’aman 2016: 117). Na’aman alternatively dates the introduction of the earliest type, that of the four-winged emblem, to c. 714 B.C. and that of the (earliest) two-winged emblems to the final years immediately prior to 701 B.C. (Na’aman 2016: 118). The overall weakness of both the divisions of Lipschits et al. and Grena is the general dependency on the consensus interpretation, that most if not all of the Shephelah was conquered and depopulated in 701 B.C. Due to this general acceptance of the standard interpretation, the burden of proof lies on them to confirm that indeed none of the alleged ‘late types’ actually appear in levels, whose destruction has been assigned to 701 B.C. by scholars advocating the consensus theory (Lipschits et al. 2010b: 10).

420

Early and late types, as well as handles with concentric circles (the latest in the series), are depicted on maps according to their find-spots in Lipschits et al. (2011a: figs. 1–3: 12, 16 and 18). A very useful chart marking the different systems is found on p. 10 of the same article. For the most recent discussion see also Lipschits (2018). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

140

Chapter 3

Lemaire’s Types Ia and Ib four-winged icons: c. 730/725–705 B.C.* Official seal stamps and Lemaire’s Type IIa ‘two-winged sun disk’ icons: 705–701 B.C.** ----- 701 B.C. ---Lemaire’s Type IIb ‘two-winged sun disk’ icons: 701–? B.C. # Lemaire’s Types IIc and XII: 701– ? B.C. ## Jar handles incised with concentric circles: c. 650 B.C. ### * Lipschits et al. 2010b: 11, with fig. 1 top register, 22–27 ** 2010b: 11, with fig. 1 bottom register # 2010b: 11–12, with fig. 2 top register ## 2010b: 15–17, with fig. 2 central and bottom registers ### 2011a: 7–8 Table 6: The division of lmlk jar handle emblems into late 8th and early 7th century groups according to Lipschits et al.

Grena is well aware of this problem and refers to Gezer as one possible gadfly, where some 37 jar handles have been found (2010, online publication; Vaughn 1999: 191 with n. 31). According to him this site ‘contained all classes [of lmlk emblems], and definitely suffered from an Assyrian destruction around the same time as the Shephelah sites’ (2010, online publication). Even so, although Gezer fell to the Assyrians, this was actually some decades earlier during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (in 734 B.C.). Evidence that the site was also taken by Sennacherib is absent (Tadmor 1994: 84; Gitin 2006: 507; van der Veen 2006; Lance 1967: 43–44, fig. 5).421 So far Gezer has not provided positive evidence to invalidate the new divisions.422 There exists, however, a methodological problem with these divisions as has been correctly argued by Gunnar Lehmann: ‘Lipschits’ project is hampered by the severe limitations of distinguishing between 8th and 7th century BCE loci and find contexts. ... In fact, Lipschits et al. may have isolated regional 8th century BCE lmlk-stamp groups from the Judean highland and not 7th century BCE types.’ (Lehmann 2012: 300– 301) Naturally Lehmann’s point is well taken, even if its validity should not be over-emphasised. In all fairness Lehmann’s criticism applies to all existing ‘theories’ (including the consensus theory), as all these interpretations are hampered by limitations that have been discussed earlier in this chapter (see discussion supra 3.2.1.1). Very often the attribution of certain archaeological sites to 701 B.C. is speculative at best, even if some scholars believe otherwise. Even so, there can be little doubt that some ‘late’ jars according to the divisions of Grena and Lipschits et al. may eventually prove to be earlier in date, if of course better dating

421

The capture of Gezer (URUga-az-ru) is depicted on an inscribed slab found at the Southwest Palace at Nimrud (Tadmor 1994: 84; Ehrlich 1996: 192–193; Aster and Faust 2015: 298). For the relevant inscription, see also the online catalogue: Tiglath-pileser III 57 [via RINAP/RINAP1] on http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/corpus/. While the equation with Gezer is generally accepted, the conquest of Gezer is not mentioned in the royal annals. Be that as it may, while sherds belonging to ‘lmlk-type’ vessels were found in Stratum VI, none of these appear to have been stamped (Dever 1993: 505; Gitin 2006: 506). In the model proposed here, the date of Stratum VI may be considerably lower, in which case an earlier stratum will have to be assigned to Tiglath-pileser III (Stratum VIII?). Gezer remained under Neo-Assyrian jurisdiction during most of the seventh century as is indicated by cuneiform tablets from the years 651 and 649 B.C. (Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 55–59). 422 Some thirty-seven or more lmlk jar handles have been found at Gezer, about half of them during the excavations of R.A.S. Macalister (Grena 2004: 390; Lance 1967: 45, with fig. 6; Tushingham 1971: 24–25). The emblems comprise both the four-winged and two-winged icons. Royal Judaean jar handles were found in Stratum V of the Neo-Assyrian period, when citizens of varied ethnic origins populated the town, see Dever (1993: 505), van der Veen (2006). According to Grena, it is to be hoped that the situation will be further clarified by the current excavators at the site, but so far no more information has been forthcoming (pers. comm., December 2016). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

141

criteria are found to settle the date of some hill country sites belonging to the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon.423 Until then it will be difficult to prove Lehmann’s observation one way or another. The current model proposed in this volume, however, generally fares better, as it is not bound by the standard interpretation and allows for lower dates for all of Iron Age IIB. Moreover, these later dates may find further support from the iconographical assessment presented below. 3.2.1.4.3 The lmlk Jar Handle Chronology as Proposed in the Current Model While according to the current proposal the onset of Lachish Level III does not predate the early reign years of Hezekiah (sometime during the 720’s), the earliest stamped lmlk jars likely date from the middle years of his reign, i.e. c. 715–710 B.C. Be this as it may, there exist good reasons to assume that the four-winged emblems indeed belong to the earliest phase of lmlk jar production. For the ratio of four-winged emblems is higher at Lachish Level III (and Beth Shemesh Level 2424), while the ratio of two-winged stamp impressions is higher at sites further to the east and south of the Shephelah region (including Jerusalem). Although speculative, the historical and religious interpretations suggested below may well support this view. In the light of the current proposal, the following chronological division of lmlk jars may be suggested: • Early ‘Lachish Level III’ (c. 715–c. 700 B.C.)425, • Late ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon (c. 700–c. 650/640 B.C.)426, • ‘Post-Lachish Level III’ horizon and into early ‘Lachish Level II’ horizon (c. 650/640–c. 630/620).427 An outline of the ‘working hypothesis’ is presented in Table 7 (right column), comparing it with the ‘consensus view’ (left column) and the ‘modified traditional view’ according to Lipschits et al. (2010b, 2011a; central column).

3.3 A Fresh Look at the Royal Stamp Imagery 3.3.1 The Use of Religious and Political Symbols during the Pax Assyriaca in the Southern Levant The presence of the Neo-Assyrian administration is clearly represented in the Southern Levant by the increase of Mesopotamian and ‘Mesopotamian-style’ cylinder and stamp seals found in late Iron Age strata in Cisand Transjordan.428 Their iconographic details provide evidence of a marked cultural and political change. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger rightly stress this crucial development:

423

In all fairness, this is also recognised by the authors (Lipschits et al. 2010b: 8, 10). See Vaughn (2016a: 480–488). Vaughn lists ten four-winged emblems over and against some eight with two-winged icons, all from the renewed excavations. Moreover, four official seal impressions were found. Many stem from Level 2, while some also come from the blockage of the underground water reservoir. Beth Shemesh lacks both jar handles with concentric circles, as well as ‘late’ lmlk emblems (Lipschits et al. 2011: 17). 425 Contemporary with the final phase of the early ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, including the final occupation and destruction at Lachish Level III, City of David Stratum 12, Western Hill / Jewish Quarter Strata 9?, Beth Shemesh 2, Tel Batash / Timnah III, etc. 426 Contemporary with the late ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, postdating the destruction of Lachish III, including any postdestruction squatters at Lachish itself, Tell Arad IX (if Locus 71 was not of course disturbed), City of David Stratum 12 and 11, Western Hill / Jewish Quarter Stratum 8?, City of David Stratum 11, etc. 427 Contemporary with Tel Goren Stratum V, Horvat Shilhah, Khirbet es-Samra, Khirbet Qumran, City of David Strata 11 and 10c, Jerusalem / Western Hill Strata 7–6, Tel Arad Stratum VII–VI, Tel Batash / Timnah Stratum II. 428 E.g. at Tell Keisan, Tel Beitin, Tel Goren / En-Gedi, Tell es Safi / Gath, Tell Jemmeh and as has become increasingly clear from the recent discovery of large numbers of seals and bullae in Jerusalem. The occurrence of foreign (both NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian) seal material is especially dominant in Transjordan, e.g. at the late Iron tomb of Adoninur in Amman, but also in other tomb repositories, such as at Meqabelein, Nebo, Tall al-cUmayri, Tall al-Mazar, Tall asSacidiya, Tall Safut, Tawilan, Umm al-Biyara, etc. On these seals, see esp. Eggler and Keel (2006: 10–11, no. 3–6; 38– 39, no. 49; 190–191, no. 1; 192–193, no. 1; 296–301, no. 1, 4, 5, 14; 336–337, no. 44; 340–341, no. 51; 370–371, no. 8; 376–377, no. 20; 436–437, no. 5; 446–447, no. 2; 460–461, no. 3). See also van der Veen (2011: 81–83). 424

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

142

Chapter 3

Table 7: The chronological distribution of the main lmlk jar symbols (four- and two-winged) within the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon according to the different scenarios presented above.

‘It is obvious that such a profound political upheaval must have produced cultural-historical and religiohistorical consequences as well. The local religious symbol system that dates to Iron Age IIC was pushed into the background by the symbol system of a foreign conqueror in a way that had not happened since the Late Bronze Age.’ (1998: 286, emphasis added) Although the present author disagrees with their attribution of these finds solely to Iron Age IIC (whose terminus post quem is dated by Keel and Uehlinger to 722/700 B.C.429), there can be little doubt that Mesopotamian influence penetrated various strands of society during the period of the Pax Assyriaca which is indeed well reflected in sigillographic art of the period under question. Several seals are also found to be true imports while the majority of these objects depict recognisable Neo-Assyrian imagery.

429

See Keel and Uehlinger (1995: 17). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

143

Fig. 54: Plasticine impression of a glass cylinder seal recently excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) near the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem. The cylinder seal depicts a schematic Assyrianising representation of a worshipper with a lunar crescent with dangling tassels placed on a stand. The lunar stand is flanked by a primitive depiction of a star (?) and an Egyptianising cankh-symbol (© courtesy of the IAA / H. Gitler, photo and plasticine impression by the author).

Some seals bear the image of the Neo-Assyrian monarch at the centre of the scene worshipping the NeoAssyrian state gods. Common elements for instance involve the eight-pointed star (symbol of the goddess Ishtar), the lunar crescent placed on a pole with dangling tassels (the emblem of the lunar deity Sin of Harran), the rhomboid, and the pleiades.430 Likewise local artists commenced reproducing ‘foreign’ elements. Frequently Assyrianising motifs were intermingled with local Levantine and Egyptianising symbols. This same tendency was encountered in chapter 1 with one of the bullae from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ at the City of David (which depicts an Assyrianising/Aramaising winged sun disk placed on a pole above an Egyptianising solar boat) and the Shema seal from Megiddo (whose engraver incised an ‘Egyptian-style’ cankhsymbol alongside an ‘Assyrian-style’ roaring lion). Although anthropomorphic representations of Mesopotamian state deities are less frequently represented (especially so on locally manufactured seals), the depiction of the female deities Ishtar (the Neo-Assyrian goddess of love and war) and Gula (the goddess of healing) seem to have played a more prominent role.431 Be this as it may, nonanthropomorphic representations of astral elements, for instance of winged sun disks (sometimes placed above floral elements), lunar cultic stands, six and eight-pointed stars and seven dots (Pleiades432) clearly outnumber anthropomorphic representations. A striking example was uncovered during excavation work under the supervision of Yehiel Zellinger near the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem. On what appears to be a locally produced glass cylinder seal, a schematised representation of a worshipper, a lunar standard, a star and a solar icon can be seen (see fig. 54). Also some seals and bullae recently found in the City of David (above Area G) and on the Ophel bear foreign imagery. Here too nonanthropomorphic elements clearly dominate.433

430

E.g. Ornan (1993: 52). A localised form of Ishtar (possible representing the ‘Queen of Heaven’ or belet šame worshiped by the Judaeans and possibly referred to in the Book of Jeremiah (7:16–20; 44:15–19, 25) is depicted on several local seals and pendants: Ornan (2001: 235–256). See also van der Veen (2003: 473–474). 432 For a detailed discussion of the seven dots as a representation of the Pleiades on seals, see van der Veen (2008: 11– 22, esp. 15–19). See also the unprovenanced Judahite bronze seal of a certain Yeqamyahu, son of Aḥimelek, in the collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff, which contains seven dots depicted in the centre embraced in turn by nine dots. These are encircled by a garland of pomegranates. For the suggestion that inscribed Judahite pomegranate seals may have been produced at a royal workshop in Jerusalem around the time of Hezekiah and Manasseh, see van der Veen and Deutsch (2014: 121–132, esp. 129). 433 For nonanthropomorphic ‘foreign’ motifs found on late Iron Age seals and bullae from the City of David and the Ophel, see Winterbaum (2015: nos. 2 [a seal with worshippers flanking a lunar shaped altar beneath a lunar crescent], 431

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

144

Chapter 3

Although the combination of various foreign glyptic elements is indeed a striking characteristic of Levantine art during the 8th–7th centuries (coinciding in part with the so-called Pax Assyriaca), during the previous centuries its local artistry had been primarily influenced by Egyptian art. While this influence can be readily explained by the Pharaonic ‘colonialism’ of the New Kingdom Pharaohs (Schroer 2011: 32), who had held sway over the Northern Lands during the second half of the second millennium B.C. and by the short-lived Egyptian revival under Shoshenq I during the early first millennium B.C. (Ben-Dor Evian 2015: 17–19; Keel 2007: vol. 2, 192), Egyptianising symbolism remained an important element even throughout the 8th century B.C. (e.g. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 248–265). This is especially apparent from the study of seals, ivories and other small pieces of art (see also Herrmann 2012: 5). Although Phoenician workshops will have played a more crucial role during this later period (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 252), the ‘art of the Pharaohs’ (if only indirectly) undoubtedly continued to shoulder its way through Levantine glyptic. Consequently ‘Egypt’ not only inspired local artisans, but also loomed widely—albeit as an illusionary source of military strength—in the minds of Levantine aristocrats. For as the biblical redactors frequently attest (e.g. Isa 19: 1– 25; 20:5; 30: 1–5), Israelite and Judaean kings continued to seek military assistance from their southern neighbours (e.g. 2 Kgs 17:4; 19:9; van der Veen 2015c: 92–93). Yet as the biblical prophets rightly criticised, the feeble pharaohs of the late 22nd–24th dynasties proved to be of little help in Israel’s confrontation with Aram and later with Assyria. Surely, they were no more than a blade of grass or in the words of the Assyrian Rabshake a mere ‘splintered reed of a staff’ (Isa 36:6). Yet political help from Egypt could once more be hoped for with the ascent of the Kushite Pharaohs of the 25th Dynasty, whose military prowess is also highlighted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 18:1). It should not therefore surprise us, when Hezekiah looked towards the Nile Valley for help and employed Egyptianising motifs even on his own royal seals, including the lmlk jar handles. It is in this light that we shall consider the four-winged scarab beetle on the lmlk jar handles, before we finally turn towards the two-winged solar emblem, whose source of inspiration we believe lies further afield. Even so, it will be hard to attain definite answers to most of these intriguing questions.

3.3.2 The Stamped Jar Handle Emblems and Their Possible Connotations 3.3.2.1 The Four-Winged Scarab Beetle Emblem This image as found on many lmlk jar stamps is a rather crude representation of a four-winged scarab beetle (e.g. Welten 1969: 35–46; Röllig 2003: 102–106; Grena 2004: 63–70).434 Its schematic representation with four wings (rather than two) recalls Egyptianising motifs attested throughout the ancient Levant and to a lesser degree also Egypt itself. While the contours of the relevant lmlk emblem are clearly delineated (such as the head, pronotum, elytra with division or suture, and wings), other details lack sufficient elaboration or are even completely lacking (such as the clypeus as part of the beetle’s head, its plates and eyes, fore-, mid- and hindlegs, see Keel 1995: 20, fig. 1). Similarly, the dung ball or representative solar disk, held between the front- and sometimes also hindlegs (an element of considerable symbolic connotation in Egyptian/Egyptianising art) is completely lacking. There can be little doubt, however, that these elements were known in Judah as they were represented by Judaean seal engravers, as can be seen on seals and bullae from that time (see Winterbaum 2015: no. 10 from the City of David), while they are also found on unprovenanced (almost certainly genuine435) bullae of King 7–8 [bullae with a lunar standard of Sin of Harran placed on a high podium flanked by rhomboids], 9 [bulla with a winged sun disk], 16–19 [bullae with stars and rosettes]). 434 Perhaps the crudeness of both the four-winged scarab and two-winged sun disk emblems on the lmlk jar handles may be due to soft and hence perishable materials that could have been used to make the original seals that impressed them, such as wood or bone. This may also be the reason why (at least so far) none of the original seals have come to light (Deutsch and Heltzer 1995: 45–46 with fig. 52; see also Vaughn 1999: 117; Grena 2004: 73; Knüppel Gray 2015: 1–2). As Deutsch and Heltzer have argued, wooden seals are known from a number of cultures, including Late Period and Roman Egypt. Indeed, such specimens can e.g. be found in the Petrie Museum online catalogue nos. UC61638, UC59451, UC59452. Such seals were, however, also produced in Egypt during earlier periods, including those of the Middle and New Kingdoms (see Petrie Museum online catalogue, nos. UC2441, UC11311, UC7702). 435 Not only was a bulla of Hezekiah with the two-winged sun disk symbol recently found in a legal excavation on the Ophel in Jerusalem, bearing precisely the same image as on previously known identical specimens from the antiquity market, Hezekiah’s bullae with the two-winged scarab were examined by Professor Yuval Goren at his Tel Aviv laboratory and found to be genuine (Goren, pers. comm. at Ramat Rahel, August 2005). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

145

Hezekiah which contain a very impressive representation of a two-winged (!) beetle with elaborately carved outflaring wings in fine ‘Egyptian style’ (see fig. 56).436

Fig. 55: An unprovenanced example of a four-winged lmlk jar handle (type H4L after George Grena 2004) from the collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff in London (courtesy of S. Moussaieff; photo R. Wiskin).

Fig. 56: An unprovenanced bulla of ‘Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, king of Judah’ in the collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff. The two-winged scarab clearly holds a small disk (representing the solar disk) between its frontlegs. Likewise, the extremities are more clearly emphasised than on the lmlk jar handles (courtesy of the late S. Moussaieff; photo R. Wiskin)

George Grena classifies eight different types of four-winged lmlk emblems (2004: 70, fig. 39 437). Contrary to two-winged emblems found on handles in the heartland of Judah and Benjamin as well as in the Arad-Beersheba-Valley, this emblem is predominantly found (yet not exclusively so) at sites in the Shephelah, including Lachish and Beth Shemesh (see above).438

436

For further parallels, see also Deutsch (2003: nos. 2, 3a–b). Grena differentiates between H4L and H4C (with the toponym Hebron), M4L and M4C (with the toponym Mamshit), S4L (with the toponym Socho), Z4L, Z4CI and Z4CY (with the toponym Ziph; Grena 2004: 70). These correspond closely to Lemaire’s types H Ia, H Ib, Z Ia, Z Ib, S Ia, S Ib, M Ia, M Ib (1981: 57*) and Welten’s (albeit partly erroneous) division H IA 1–2, H IB 1–2, Z IA 1–2, Z IB 1, S IB 1, M IA 1, M IB 1 (1969: 36–42). These classifications clearly supercede those by Diringer (1941: 89–106). 438 Although it could be argued that the predominant occurrence of the winged-scarab in the Shephelah is simply due to regional ‘preferences’ (as Vaughn and Barkay suggest), Lipschits et al. suggest that the four-winged emblem predominantly belongs to the early phase of stamped lmlk jars, and that its disappearance is mainly due to the demise of the relevant sites in the region at the end of the 8th century (for a more detailed discussion, see above). 437

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

146

Chapter 3

As for its symbolic connotation, the scarab beetle (Egyptian ḫprr) or better dung beetle (scarabaeus sacer) was believed to represent the resurgence of the sun at sunrise, when the Sun-god Re was ‘reborn’ on the Western horizon every single day (Ben-Tor 1993: 10; Shaw and Nicholson 2010: 417; Herrmann and Staubli 2010: 120; Hannig 20103: 594–595).439 As such, its divine form khepri (or kheperu)—the very ‘nature’ or ‘manifestation’, and/or ‘transformation’ of the deity (Taylor 1993: 53)—is best understood as ‘the god of the rising sun’ (Ben-Tor 1993: 9; Zerbst and van der Veen 2005: 150–152). The scarab is often depicted with a dung ball (from which its youngs were believed to have emerged ‘out of nowhere’), symbolising the solar disk (Keel 1995: 21–22). Its outspoken solar connotation is likewise emphasised by the flaring wings of the beetle, in which case the scarab itself represents the solar disk as a ‘Metapher für den Sonnenlauf’ (Herrmann 2012: 142), an element also attested in the myth of the warrior deity Horus of Edfu (Taylor 1993: 53; Lubetski 2001: 46). Amulets made in the form of scarabs were manufactured throughout Egypt and as ‘amulet-seals’ (mostly made of faience, steatite/enstatite and semi-precious stone) throughout the entire Mediterranean world. These items seem to have been greatly esteemed due to their deemed ‘regenerative powers’ (Ben-Tor 1993: 10; Keel 1995: 21). Unlike two-winged specimens, four-winged beetles are extremely rare in Pharaonic art (especially so during the pre-Kushite period) and may therefore have been a veritable Levantine or Phoenician invention, although it has been argued that its form may have ultimately derived from 2nd millennium Hurrian glyptic art (Faegertsen 2005: 281, n. 73). 3.3.2.1.1 Its Place in Levantine Art Four-winged scarab beetles are a common element on provenanced and unprovenanced 8th–7th century B.C. Egyptianising ‘Phoenician and Aramaean-style’ scarabs (e.g. WSS 731, 294, 811, 832, 837 [= infra fig. 57b], 839, 1082, 1085, 1094, 1136, 1150; Buchanan and Moorey 1988: Plates IX–X: 275–277, 280, 294). A twowinged variant is found above the back of the roaring lion seal of Rapati uncovered at Khorsabad (WSS 843, see supra chapter 1, under 1.2.1.2.2.3, fig. 19). Several provenanced and unprovenanced seals with fourwinged scarab motifs on Cis- and Transjordanian seals also come to mind. On anepigraphic bullae from Samaria a four-winged scarab holding disks between its front and hindlegs can be found (Sass 1993: 214 with fig. 86).440 As on Phoenician and Aramaean seals, the scarab beetle frequently appears in association with a mix of foreign symbols. Sometimes, however, it is difficult to establish with certainty if the item in question is of Phoenician or Israelite origin (e.g. WSS 1171; see also Sass 2003: 215, fig. 88).441 An unstratified inscribed seal (with the name ‘Ahimelek, son of Samak’ written in the exergue) and excavated by the British expedition to Lachish in 1935 (WSS 59) also deserves mention.442 Its palaeographic traits suggest a date during the late 8th–early 7th century B.C. The elaborate execution of the four wings of the beetle and its front- and hindlegs (each holding a small circle) flanked (at least on one side) by an Egyptian c ankh-symbol, in some way recalls the elaborate representation of the two-winged scarab on the bullae of Hezekiah (see fig. 56). Its combination with the cankh-symbol indeed underlines the Egyptianising tendencies of the icon.

439

The Egyptian verb ḫpr literally means ‘to appear’ or ‘to come into existence’ (Hannig 20013: 594; also Ben-Tor 1993: 9 and Herrmann and Staubli 2010: 120). 440 For a discussion of two- and four-winged scarab beetles on Israelite and Judahite seals and bullae, see Sass (2003: 214–217). 441 A two-winged scarab beetle can be seen in the lower register beneath a roaring lion on the unprovenanced—albeit early attested—seal of Ashna’el (WSS 1169). See also Sass, for a four-winged scarab beetle possibly with a human head, holding disks between its front- and hindlegs (2003: 215, fig. 88). 442 Despite its relevance to the subject matter, the authenticity of an unprovenanced seal of a ‘king’s son’ named Manasseh (WSS 16) must be questioned, as the style of the letters is suspect. Even so, Röllig had no doubts about its authenticity (2003: 286, no. 13.60). Be this as it may, the beetle only contains two wings and is therefore not a precise parallel to the scarab beetle on the lmlk jar handles. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

147

Figs. 57 a–b: Two examples of Levantine Egyptianising seals with a four-winged scarab beetle. Left: a scaraboid (‘of Marsamak’) made of white rock crystal allegedly from Egypt (E48506 = WSS 1094; courtesy of the British Museum Trustees, London). Right: bulla (‘of cAtarcazar’) found at Nineveh (BM 84541 = WSS 837 B, courtesy of the British Museum Trustees, London; photo R. Wiskin).

Even so—as we have discussed in chapter 1—complex combinations of a variety of cultural motifs, especially so during the period of Assyrian rule in the Levant, are common-place. Rather similarly a fourwinged scarab with finely incised legs and wings can be seen on the unprovenanced bulla of Domla’ above what appears to be an Egyptianised ‘nub-hieroglyph’ (WSS 475; Lubetski 2012: 78, fig. 2).443 A four-winged scarab beetle (albeit less elaborately represented) is also found on a recently excavated bulla from the City of David (Mazar 2015: 390, No. 10). It holds a disk-shaped object between both its front- and hindlegs. Its solar connotation is further enhanced by additional disks flanking the beetle and a starry object placed above the insect. Another object is placed beneath the beetle, but it is difficult to determine what it represents, due to the damaged state of the bulla.444 This motif is also well-attested in Transjordan (especially so during the decades prior to and after the Assyrian withdrawal from the Southern Levant) and can be found on several official seals, including the provenanced early 6th century B.C. bulla (or stopper) of Milkom-‘ur cbd Bacalyisha (Baalis) from Tall al-Umayri on which the four-winged beetle is flanked by what are most likely Egyptianising floral staffs (WSS 860; Eggler and Keel 2004: 312–313 with fig. 4; van der Veen 2014: 188–211, esp. 193–198).445 A rather worn seal of probably another royal official (named Menahem, son of Yenahem) was found in the tomb of Adoni-Nur in Amman, which contained a mixed 7th–6th centuries B.C. deposit (WSS 944; Eggler and Keel 2004: 14–15 with fig. 7; van der Veen 2014: 195 with fig. 49 c), including ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery and Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian seals (van der Veen 2014: 171–182). Another (albeit unprovenanced) official Ammonite seal belongs to ‘Shoher the standard-bearer’. It too depicts a four-winged scarab beetle (holding a disk between its frontlegs) flanked by Egyptianising floral staffs (WSS 865; van der Veen 2014: 195, fig. 49 a).446 Although the winged beetle has been associated with Yahweh and Milkom by some (e.g. Keel 2014: 73, fig. 47, 1–2; Younker 1989: 375–380; see also Eggler and Keel 2006: 312–313, no. 4; but see Hübner 1993: 140; van der Veen 2012: 2–3; 2014: 193–202), there can be little doubt 443

A winged scarab may also be depicted on an unprovenanced type 484 storage jar handle (WSS 662), but its damaged contours do not allow a precise interpretation. Worse, it is even uncertain if the animal in question is a winged beetle or a winged uraeus. 444 For further albeit unprovenanced two- and four-winged beetles on epigraphic and anepigraphic seals and bullae, see e.g. Deutsch (2003: Nos. 148, 166, 264, 420; 2011: No. 658). For a most unusual motif found in the same volume, see the epigraphic bulla no. 633 with four wingless scarab beetles encompassing a wingless uraeus shown in the centre (Deutsch 2011: No. 633). See also Lemaire (2007: Nos. 2–3); Deutsch (2015: 61, no. 2, 63, no. 3). 445 A provenanced Ammonite seal with a four-winged scarab beetle flanked by Ammonite-type birds was found at Byblos (WSS 990). It seems to hold disks between its front- and hindlegs. For a discussion of the four-winged scarab beetle and associated motifs on Ammonite seals, see van der Veen (2014: 193–198, with figs. 49a–c). See also WSS 1127 (Ammonite?) found before 1939, and possibly WSS 1180 (with a two-winged beetle in the lower register). 446 For another unprovenanced epigraphic seal from Ammon, see WSS 981 (of Tamka, son of Elcazar). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

148

Chapter 3

that solar imagery played a crucial part in the religious paraphernalia of the period (see also infra 3.3.2.2.4). A direct equation with any of these deities remains however conjectural. As will be discussed later on, other (albeit tentative) scenarios also deserve consideration. 3.3.2.1.2 Its Place in Kushite Art Despite the scant evidence of four-winged scarab images throughout most of Pharaonic history, multiple parallels can be found in the contemporary royal Kushite art of the 25th Dynasty, as was pointed out long ago by Peter Welten (1969: 15; see also Taylor 1993: 51). Predominantly so, multiple faience amulets and pectorals made in the form of the four-winged scarab beetle were excavated by George Reisner, the director of the Harvard University-Boston Museum of Fine Arts expedition to the royal Napatan necropolis of el-Kurru in 1919 (Reisner 1920).447 Despite the complex history and chronology of the Kushite royal cemetery (see Kendall 1999: 421; Morkot 2000: 129–144; Emberling and Dann 2013: 42; Bard 20152: 299, fig. 9.5) several burials (including those of queens Tabiry and Nefrukekashta) can be firmly dated to the reigns of Piye (or Piankhy) and presumably to that of his son Shebitqo (c. 740–690 B.C.; Morkot 2000: 174; Török 1997: 88–92; Kendall 1999: 423; Lohwasser 2001a: 66). The finely crafted faience amulets and pectorals were uncovered in Pyramids 51–55 of which one is shown in fig. 58 (Dunham 1950: Plates XLIX, LI–LIII, LV; Lohwasser 2001b: 60–66).448

Fig. 58: Faience pectoral with a four-winged scarab beetle from Pyramid 52 (reg. no. 24.672; kind permission from Harvard University—Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition).

These items reveal elements which in some way are reminiscent of the emblems on the lmlk and subsequent ‘rosette’-type jar handles, so that they do deserve closer scrutiny: compare for instance the four-winged scarab itself (although there exist some subtle differences also449), its pronounced solar connotation (i.e. at el-Kurru by the association with the Egyptian two-winged sun disk and other solar disks (mostly represented by Egyptian ‘rosettes’450) held between the front- and hindlegs of the beetle, and sporadically also by ‘double circles’ (O’Connor 1994: 144: cat. no. 82; Markowitz and Doxey 2014: Plate 20, 117–118; Taylor 1993: 51).

447

The scarab pectorals generally contain a width between c. 6–9 cm. Several of these can be viewed online on the website of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts: e.g. http://www.mfa.org/ collections/object/winged-scarab-pectoral-513870. 449 E.g. unlike Levantine four-winged scarabs, the lower wings of the Kushite scarabs are less curved, while their pin and primaries are turned inwards rather than outwards. 450 Note that the Egyptian origin for the rosette emblem found on Judaean rosette stamped jar handles may be supported by the discovery of what appear to be rosette seals at Tel Goren (Stern 2007: 156) and in Tomb 106 at Tel Lachish (with nfr and mct hieroglyphs, Cahill 2003: 93, n. 3). 448

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

149

Note also that a variety of scarab forms451 , including the traditional two-winged ‘Egyptian-styled’ variant452—as well as other more elaborately styled specimens—are attested within Napatan art.453

Fig. 59: An unprovenanced 6th–4th century B.C. Egyptian bronze situla or sacred vessel, depicting Min (god of reproduction) in the central register, flanked by a solar boat of AmunRe (top) and a four-winged scarab beetle above a lotus flower as symbol of rebirth (bottom; © private collection in Spain; courtesy and photo H. Zurqieh, Dubai).

The four-winged scarab also continued to feature throughout the Saite 26th Dynasty and several parallels have been listed by Peter Welten (1969: 15). There can be little doubt that both in Egypt and the Levant the four-winged scarab continued to play an important role in sigillographic art, even throughout the Achaemenid period.454 The same is true within a wider Mediterranean context, e.g. in Etruscan, Punic and Cypriot art of the 7th–4th centuries B.C.455 3.3.2.1.3 Evidence of Hezekiah’s Political Sympathies with Kushite Egypt? It will be more difficult to prove whether or not the Judahite symbol (at least around 700 B.C.) was related in any way to Nubian art or—as most scholars prefer—more generally to its wider use within Levantine glyptic.456 Even so, a Kushite connection is clearly possible. For there can be little doubt that Hezekiah and

451

See e.g. the Meroëtic 7th century B.C. pectoral with a Pataikos and an unusually shaped winged scarab: http://www. mfa.org/collections/object/pectoral-with-pataikos-as-a-cippus-145537. Moreover, see also the ram-headed scarab pectoral of Piye’s royal consort Tabiry: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/pectoral-of-winged-ram-headed-deity145614 found in Pyramid 53 at el-Kurru. 452 A traditional solar beetle with wide flaring wings can be seen on the sandals of a recently uncovered royal statue of Pharaoh Taharqa (690–664 B.C.; Bonnet and Valbelle 2006: 92–93). 453 See also the scarab found on a sheeted electrum collar from Pyramid 72 at el-Kurru, dated to the reign of Pharaoh Shebitqo (Dunham 1950: see Plate LXIII:A). Online: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/collar-143573. 454 Also the occurrence of the four-winged scarab beetle on the bulla ‘of Milkom’ur cbd Bacalyishac’ (i.e. biblical Baalis) would belong to this category of late examples. Whether or not an alliance between Baalis and Egypt existed at this time and if the scarab beetle on the bulla of his official is in any way related to such an event, is difficult to establish with certainty. Baalis ruled Ammon during the early 6th century B.C. shortly before his kingdom was annexed by Babylon in c. 582 B.C. (see van der Veen 2014: 182–187) or somewhat later, as has been argued by Tyson (2013: 1–16; 2016: 119). 455 See e.g. Reyes (2001: 118, figs. 279 = cat. 269 (from Amathus), 280 = cat. 270 (from Paphos); Buchanan and Moorey (1988: Plate XVIII: 560, 569). For a very fine red carnelian Punic scarab with a four-winged scarab beetle holding a solar disk between its frontlegs and a dung ball between its hindlegs in the private collection of Rolf Kiaer, Bath – UK, see van der Veen (2014b: Fig. on 255). 456 It cannot be ruled out if the Kushite variant itself perhaps was a local adaptation from an original Levantine prototype. For a variety of views, see Welten (1969: 16, 30), Keel and Uehlinger (1989: 276), Ornan (2005: 233). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

150

Chapter 3

Pharaohs Shabaqo and Shebitqo (including Shebitqo’s relative Taharqa457) were important military allies458 (together with a host of Libyan Delta kinglets serving as 25th Dynasty vassals459, whose ‘elaborate archaistic’ glyptic art seems to have been directly influenced by Kushite iconography; Leahy 1992: 223–240; see also Morkot and James 2009: 13–55; 2015: 30–33).460 Moreover, this view receives additional support from the following translation of the Hebrew expression crṣ ṣlṣl knpym in Isa 18:1461, where the prophet describes the military strength of the Kushite army. Suitably, the expression has been translated as ‘the Land of the flying beetle’ or ‘land of the beetle with wings’ by Meir Lubetski and Claire Gottlieb (1998: 369–371; Lubetski 1998: 512–520; Lubetski 2001: 46–47; Maier 2016: E-Book).462 The description is employed within the 457

While Taharqa is usually viewed as the younger brother of Shebitqo, Robert Morkot has argued that this relationship is far from certain (2000: 223–224). Despite previous arguments to the contrary (i.e. contra Macadam 1949 and Morkot 2000: 211–210; both scholars take Kawa V, l. 17 to mean that Taharqa could not have been present on the battlefield in 701), Dan’el Kahn has argued in favour of Taharqa’s involvement in 701 B.C. and accepts the view that there was only one single campaign conducted by Sennacherib as described in the biblical narrative (2004; 2014a; for the relevant events, see also 2 Kgs 19:9; Isa 37:9; 2014: 35). According to Kahn Taharqa would have been in his early twenties in 701 B.C. and around thirty when he ascended the throne in 690 B.C. This author agrees with Kahn’s conclusion despite the vagueness of Taharqa’s mission of having been ‘summoned to the north (T3 Mḥw; Kawa IV, l. 10; Kawa V, l. 17) not specifying if he was engaged in the Delta or operated in the Levant ...’ For ‘[w]hat reason could there be to transfer a massive army all the way from Kush to the north over thousands of km other than to wage a great war? A war against Assyria in 701 BCE is certainly the most serious reason to mobilize a vast army and sent it to the Levant’ (2014a: 35– 36). As for Kawa V, see also Gozzoli (2009: 238, line 17). As some scholars have argued, the reference to Tirhaka as ‘king of Kush’ could be a later gloss (Kitchen 19863: 386, n. 823; Young 2012: 76, 86; Kahn 2014a: 33), or else a term bestowed on him as ‘viceroy of Kush’ and/or as commander of the Kushite army (Hoffmeier 2003: 222, 231). Kahn refers to yet another term employed for Taharqa as a favoured prince, referring to his status as ḥwn nfr (‘handsome/good youth’) before he became Pharaoh in 690 B.C. (2014a: 35). In Kushite sources (especially in those of the later monarch Irikeamanote) the term was employed to describe valiant princes (even as adults) ‘fit to be ... king’ (Kahn 2014a: 35). Based on his low date for the accession of Shebitqo, Morkot dates the events described in Kawa V to after 701 B.C., i.e. c. 695/694 B.C. He argues that the mention of Tirhaka in the biblical text must be a scribal mistake, or else one would need to envisage a hitherto unrecorded second campaign by Sennacherib after 701 B.C. (2000: 210–211, 226). This author finds Morkot’s late date difficult to accept, especially in the light of the Tangi-Var inscription, which has Shebitqo on the throne (at least in Nubia) no later than 706 B.C. On the complexity of the internal chronology of the 25th Dynasty and the relevance of the Tangi-Var inscription for the reigns of Shabaqo and Shebitqo, see Kahn (2001: 1–18), Banyai (2015: 115–180), Payraudeau (2014a: 115–127). 458 Henry Aubin (2002) has argued in favour of a more aggressive involvement of Taharqa’s Kushite army (including the rescue of Jerusalem). While some scholars have called Aubin’s views into question—primarily on the basis of the ambiguity of the sources (Pope 2014b: 107, 120–122; Evans 2012: 1–25; for a reply to Evans, see Aubin 2015)—others simply see the Kushite involvement as a mere blameful regional skirmish (e.g. Kitchen 1983: 251; 19863: 385–386). Yet as this author believes, several points raised by Aubin deserve closer scrutiny. The book is very well written as acknowledged by Jean Leclant of the Collège de France on the book cover. Among other things Aubin refers to Isaiah’s description of the Kushite army (esp. in chapters 18 and 31) as being especially fearless, swift and aggressive over and above the ‘bad press’ it receives in Rabshakeh’s derogatory speech (2 Kgs 18: 21, 24). Moreover, the Greek Strabo portrays Taharqa as one of the great warrior kings of the past along with Sesostris and Cyrus the Great (Strabo I.3.21 and XV.1.6). Kahn also accepts Taharqa’s involvement (2004; 2014a; also accepted by Pope 2014: 118, and Zamazalová 2011: 323– 324) and likewise points to Pharaoh Shebitqo’s ‘expansionist imperial titles ...’ indicating ‘that the Kushite propaganda also claimed victory’ (2004: 109; see also Kitchen 19863: 383). In a similar vein, as this author and James have shown elsewhere, the anonymous saviour in 2 Kgs 13:4–5 may also have been an Egyptian Pharaoh coming to rescue Israel from foreign oppression (2015c: 127–136). 459 For the involvement of the Delta princes in the war against Sennacherib in 701 B.C. at Elteqeh, see ANET (287; Matty 2016: chapter 3, 4–5). 460 This is especially clear from the inscribed blocks from the lac sacré at Tanis belonging to a Delta monarch named Usermare Osorkon, likely Osorkon III (Porter 2011: 111–112), whose daughter Shepenupet I (God’s Wife of Amun) adopted Amenirdis I (daughter of Kashta) as God’s Wife at Thebes. On the adoption of the late ‘archaic style’ (under Kushite influence) by the late Libyan monarchs Yuput, Peftiauwibastet and Ini, see esp. Leahy (1992: 223–240). 461 For this term see also Deut 28:42. While the term is frequently associated with Hebrew ṣrṣr (translated as ‘crickets’, ‘locusts’), it is sometimes also understood as a doubling of ṣl translating ‘shade’ or ‘protection.’ With reference to Theodotion and the Targum, the term has also been translated as ‘sailing ships’ (Lubetski and Gottlieb 1998: 370, with footnotes). For a discussion of this term, see also Stallmann (1997: 494, # 746). 462 For an etymological discussion of the word, see esp. Lubetski and Gottlieb (1998: 370–371). According to them, © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

151

context of an oracle of doom concerning Kush/Nubia (V. 1–6). The prophet apparently alludes to military achievements under the Nubian Pharaohs of his time. Could Isaiah have been referring to the events of 701 B.C.? 463 Regardless of whatever event he had in mind, what really matters is that he compares the swiftness of the Kushite army with that of the scarabaeus sacer, the very symbol at stake here. Moreover, in his recent monograph on Isaiah’s prophecies against Kush and Egypt, Csaba Balogh directly links the same motif in Isa 18:1 to that of the lmlk jar handles and the royal bullae of King Hezekiah: ‘For the present case the most intriguing archaeological find is the seal impression of King Hezekiah with his autograph and a two winged beetle symbol, as well as numerous scarab-seal impressions on the so-called lmlk-jars from Judah, from the end of the 8th century.’ (Balogh 2011: 161–162, 476; already 2009: 227–228) By referring to Daniel Luckenbill (1927) and Donald Redford (1985) among others as previous proponents of a more aggressive Kushite involvement in the Levant, Henry Aubin believes that the Kushite forces not only were a powerful enemy in general, but also practically pushed Sennacherib out of Judah by rescuing Jerusalem from final destruction (Aubin 2002: E-Book, chapters 9 and 12). Whether or not Kushite involvement lies behind the biblical story of ‘the angel of Yahweh’ or if as other scholars have suggested an epidemic (possibly a bubonic plague) struck the Assyrian army (e.g. Frahm 1997: 47–61; Schoors 1998: 97; Gallagher 1999: 242 with further references464, possibly also referred to in Herodotus Book 2.141465, see Horn 1966: 26), or a combination of both (e.g. Yurco 1980: 233; Lloyd 1988: 103; Gallagher 1999: 241–247; Wiseman 1989: 52) 466, will ultimately be difficult to ascertain due to the overall ambiguity of the available sources (Pope 2014a: 261; 2014b: 105–160).467 Be this as it may, the 25th Dynasty could well have been more successfully involved in the event than many scholars have hitherto been willing to accept (for a more positive view, see also Grabbe 2003b: 139; Ogden Bellis 2010: 255–256; Peake 2010: 472). 468 Other intriguing

among others, in the 6th century A.D. ‘medical manuscript of Asaf Harofe’s Book of Medicine’ ṣlṣl is identified as an insect ‘of the dung beetle family ... (a scarab)’, where it is used in pulverised form as medicine. In the medical Papyrus Ebers of the Ramesside period the dung beetle ḫprr also fulfils a similar purpose. As medicine the beetle was referred to in hieroglyphs as cpš3y which as Lubetski and Gottlieb argue, was an Egyptian ‘cognate’ of the Hebrew word ḥypwšyt, which in turn is a synonym for ṣlṣl. 463 For a possible date for the oracle, see Aubin (2002: E-Book, chapter 13, position 3226 and n. 33). Despite Aubin’s intriguing suggestion to date the oracle to the eve of 701 B.C., other scholars date the oracle about a decade earlier, i.e. near the beginning of Shabaqo’s reign (Ridderbos 1952: 133–134; Oswalt 1986: 360; Walton et al. 2000: 607). 464 See also Ben Sirach 19:35. 465 For a useful summary and bibliography on the epidemic and combined campaign and epidemic theories, see Aubin (2002: E-Book, chapter 9, positions 2036, n. 8 and 2409–2426 with footnotes). For an alternative construction of the event described in Herodotus, see Kahn (2014b). 466 For a cogent discussion on the references to divine intervention in biblical and Neo-Assyrian sources, especially so in relation to the 701 B.C. event, see Millard (1994: 37–64). 467 Aubin rightly queries the view that denies any kernel of truth behind the biblical story of a miraculous intervention at this time (be it by plague or by military defeat), as if Jerusalem had been simply saved due to Hezekiah’s payment of tribute. For as he argues, ‘[i]t is inexplicable why the biblical writers should be reluctant to be similarly explicit about the role that disease played in 701, if that indeed was the angel’s weapon’ (2002: E-Book, chapter 9, position 2310). Aubin rightly rejects the ‘surrender theory’ (increasingly favoured in modern scholarship). It not only stands in clear contrast to the biblical tradition in which Hezekiah trusts Yahweh to deliver him from the Assyrian threat, but it would be hard to accept that the biblical writers deceitfully ‘turned an abject submission to Assyria into a miraculous intervention in which Yahweh demonstrates his love for his people’ (2002: chapter 9, position 2371). For ‘[t]he theory also implies that Yahweh has an extremely questionable sense of justice. The Assyrians show extraordinary mercy to the Jerusalemites, and Yahweh rewards them with mass death and defeat?’ (2002: chapter 9, position 2371). For similar queries, see also Millard (1994). 468 In his fifteenth regnal year Taharqa prayed to Amun stating that tribute of Khor had hitherto been withheld (Aubin 2002: E-Book esp. chapter 12, position 2895; Vernus 1975a: 31, line 16). It is disputed what this statement represents and to what extent Taharqa had held sway over the Levant. There can be little doubt, however, that the Assyrians were faced with a most durable enemy, whose Kushite forces were especially well trained. According to the Babylonian Chronicle (1. IV: 30–31) Esarhaddon’s army was defeated in Egypt in 674 while after the invasion of Egypt in 671 Taharqa was able to rebel once again. The Kushite monarch was only successfully defeated in 664 B.C. by Assurbanipal © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

152

Chapter 3

evidence, such as the discovery of hundreds of skulls of decapitated Upper Egyptian/Kushite men and women at Lachish, could in some way be related to this involvement (as some scholars have indeed argued).469 Regardless of whether or not the emblem of the four-winged scarab beetle played a crucial role within royal Napatan art, based on the above it seems likely that Isaiah indeed employed it to describe the swiftness of the anti-Assyrian Napatan forces. It is therefore legitimate to ask the question if perhaps this vivid description of the Kushite army is based on an attested Judahite motif familiar to both Isaiah’s audience and to the Judahite king himself. Although at first glance this suggestion may seem tenuous, the contemporaneity of Isaiah’s description and the use of the four-winged scarab on the lmlk jars and the use of the two-winged scarab on several of Hezekiah’s own seal impressions make this proposal an intriguing possibility. Nevertheless, it will be more difficult to establish whether or not the scarab emblem on the royal jars was restricted to Hezekiah’s later reign (i.e. as being related to events on the eve of the 701-event, as per Lipschits et al. 2010), or if in the context of a lower terminus ante quem for the end of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon his son and successor also continued to employ it. Surely it cannot be ruled out that Manasseh too maintained contacts with Egypt, either only on a commercial level or also (at least temporarily) as an ally (or even as a vassal?). At any rate, during the relatively ‘quiet’ years after 701 B.C. (the available sources do not mention another Palestinian campaign by Sennacherib) Taharqa likely would have sought to fasten his grip on the southern Levant as much as he could in order to keep access to the main trade routes leading through Sinai and Palestine, perhaps even to the point of seeking Assyria’s vassals to rebel.470 Some kind of rebellion against Assyria with the involvement of Taharqa by Ba’lu the king of Tyre is referred to in the Assyrian annals which would have occurred prior to 671 B.C. (ANET 291–291; Stiebing 20162: 282). 471 In turn, Taharqa (though its precise meaning remains ambiguous) refers to captives taken from ‘the northern hillcountries, southern hill-countries, Phoenicians ...’ (Pope 2014b: 122).472 In a similar vein Taharqa prays to Amun on ‘dismantled blocks from the south wall of the north peristyle court (Sixth Pylon) at Karnak’: ‘O Amun, that which I did in the land of Nehesy [Nubia], allow ... Allow that I might make for you your tribute from the land of Khor [Syria-Palestine] which is turned away from you ... .’ (Pope 2014b: 127, emphasis added) While other scholars date this appeal to Amun to between 676 and 673 B.C. (see e.g. Vernus 1975a: 45– 46), Kahn (2004: 115–117; 2014: 33) and Pope (2014b: 127–128) prefer a date after the painful crisis caused by Esarhaddon’s invasion in 671 B.C. Whatever date is preferred, there can be little doubt that Taharqa’s reference to tribute from Khor ‘which is turned away from you’ at least implies that some kind of tribute had been paid by some subordinate Western Asiatics, even if the precise nature of the event escapes us. It is not difficult to see why the local rulers of the area under discussion would have continued to view Egypt as a potential ally in their conflict with Assyria, at least until 671 B.C. (Peake 2010: 469; Stiebing 20162: 282).473 Naturally we may never be able to ascertain whether or not the use of the four-winged scarab beetle on the

when the latter conquered Thebes. Much later by the time of Strabo Taharqa (Tearko) was remembered as one of the great warriors of the past (Strabo I.3.21 and XV.1.6; Aubin 2002: E-book esp. chapter 12, positions 3044, 3062). 469 For a brief discussion of these finds at Lachish and the anthropological studies of the skulls, see also chapter 4. On the cruelty of decapitating the enemies and heaping up heads on piles or cutting off extremities, see De Backer (2013: 444 and 447). Of course, such cruelties were not restricted to the Assyrians. 470 It has been argued by some scholars that Manasseh’s apparent rebellion, referred to by the Chronicler (2 Chr 33:11), could have taken place at this time when the Assyrians are said to have invaded Judah again. While this is not impossible, a later date for the rebellion (presumably in 648 B.C.) is to be preferred. For more details, see also chapter 4, 4.2.1.1. 471 King Ba’lu of Tyre is depicted alongside Taharqa’s son Ns-’nḫrt as a prisoner on victory stelae of Esarhaddon found at Zincirli (currently housed at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin) and Til Barsip. See Holloway (2002: Fig. 14), Kahn (2014: 33), Ornan (2005: 253–254, figs. 103 and 104a). 472 However, as Pope has rightly noted, it is surprising why the Kushite sources lack more specific details about any such event, let alone of Taharqa’s defeat of Esarhaddon in 674 B.C., a battle referred to in Babylonian Chronicle 1 (2014b: 123). Yet, Montuemhat, the Kushite mayor of Thebes, who survived the Assyrian occupation of Egypt beyond 664/663 B.C., does briefly refer to ‘repulsing the raging of the hill-countries’ (Pope 2014b: 128). 473 According to Lewis Peake ‘25th Dynasty Kush-Kemet’—at least in terms of size—could have controlled an empire greater ‘than Assyria’, even if ‘Kush-Kemet’s borders are much more difficult to pin down than those of Assyria’ (2010: 469, with figs. 1–2 on 470–471). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

153

lmlk jar handles is in any way related to Judah’s alliance with Kushite Egypt, but as shown above, this possibility at least deserves to be taken seriously.

3.3.2.2 The Two-Winged Sun Disk Emblem474 The style and provenance of the two-winged sun disk emblem on the lmlk jars has been a matter of dispute among art historians. While some scholars suggest that the emblem is basically a Judahite motif (with Egyptianising features), others assume that its source must be sought further afield, either in Egypt, in Phoenicia, or in Northern Syria and/or Southeastern Anatolia. 3.3.2.2.1 A Southern Connection? Some scholars have argued that the two-winged sun disk depicted on the lmlk jar handles finds its ultimate source in Egypt, regardless of its apparent Levantine overtones, presumably influenced by Phoenician art (e.g. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 272, 276). This conviction is mainly based on the following considerations: a) the second emblem also found on the jars—that of the four-winged scarab beetle—is an Egyptianising icon (even if the ‘four-winged’ scarab beetle itself is not a common symbol in Pharaonic Egypt), b) while the winged solar disk originally derived from Egypt (when it was first adopted by Levantine workshops during the Bronze Age; Keel 2007: 419–420; Lauber 2008: 89–90, 97), Egyptianising solar imagery continued to have a clear impact on Northern Israelite and Judahite art, and c) both the winged beetle (albeit with ‘two-wings’) and the winged sun disk (albeit in Egyptianising style) are also found on king Hezekiah’s royal bullae (Mazar 2015: 636–638). The weakness of the ‘southern connection’, however, is that if closely scrutinised, none of the emblems found on the lmlk handles clearly contain straightforward ‘Egyptian-style’ traits. The four-winged scarab beetle is ultimately an Egyptianising symbol (but with Levantine overtones, which became more popular in Egypt during the 25th and 26th dynasties). However, the representation of the two-winged sun disk on the jars deviates significantly from Egyptianising two-winged sun disks. For Egyptianising—or better ‘Phoenicianstyle’—winged sun disks are attested in Israelite and Judahite art of the 8th century B.C. and differ from the type found on the lmlk jar handles (Parayre 1990: 273, with Plate III; 1993: 44–45, figs. 22–27). 475 As Dominique Parayre has rightly noted in her in-depth study of winged solar disks, the ‘Phoenician-style’ sun disk contains wings ‘orientées vers le bas’, as well as upper and lower rays (or ‘appendages’) rather than upcurved wings and upper and lower rays (1990: 273–275; Buchanan and Moorey, Plate XVI: 470–471).476 This type is also found on the official (albeit unprovenanced) seal of ‘Shebanyo cbd cUzziyo’ (i.e. a minister of king Uzziah of Judah), where the relevant winged sun disk is represented in the upper register of the seal (fig. 61b)477, and on the bullae of king Hezekiah of Judah, including the provenanced specimen recently uncovered by Eilat Mazar during her excavations on the Ophel in Jerusalem (fig. 61a; Mazar 2015b: 628– 474

As for the various types according to Grena (2004: 70, fig. 39) and Lemaire (1981: 57*–58*) vs. Welten (1969: 37– 44): Grena H2T, H2D, H2U (with the toponym Hebron); Grena M2T, M2D, M2U (with the toponym Mamshit); Grena S2DR, S2DW, S2U (with the toponym Socho); Grena Z2T, Z2D, Z2U (with the toponym Zyp); Grena G2T (without a toponym). Lemaire chooses the following classification: H IIa (= Welten’s H IIB 1), H IIb (Welten’s H IIA 1 and H IIB 2), and H IIc (not identified by Welten); Z IIa (Welten’s Z IIB 2), Z IIb (Welten’s Z IIA 1 and Z IIB 1), Z IIc (not identified by Welten); S IIa (Welten’s S IIA 1), S IIb (Welten’s S IIA 2 and S IIB 1), and S IIc (not identified by Welten); M IIa (Welten’s M IIA 1 and M IIB 4), M IIb (Welten’s M IIA 2, M IIA 3, M IIA 5, M II B1 and M IIB 2), M IIc (Welten’s M IIB 3); X II (Welten’s M IIB 4); O II (not identified by Welten). 475 As with a number of other striking Egyptianising symbols Egyptianising/‘Phoenician-style’ winged sun disks are well represented in Israelite art of the early first millennium B.C. See Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 258, 258a and c, 267: 266b), Keel (2007: 418), Parayre (1990: 289), Deutsch (2011: 44–45, no. 469, 96–97, no. 532, 188–189, no. 661). See also WSS 349. According to Othmar Keel Egyptianising solar imagery would have been closely associated with the Jerusalem cult (2007: 419). 476 For a further parallel, see WSS 773 (albeit without upper rays) from Khorsabad. 477 This author has little doubt about the genuineness of the Shebanyo seal currently kept at the Louvre Museum in Paris. It was originally published in 1863 (WSS 3 with references; Bordreuil 1985: 22). Both its palaeographic and iconographic traits fit the period under discussion so that there can be little doubt that the seal is genuine. Note that another— more classical ‘Egyptian-style’ sun disk—is represented in the lower register of the Shebanyo (WSS 3, Face B, supra fig. 61b). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

154

Chapter 3

640).478 Hence, while the two-winged sun disks of the lmlk jar handles share the upper and lower rays with the Egyptianising ‘Phoenician-style’ sun disk, their wings contain upcurved rather than downcurved tips, a feature rather at home in North-Syria, Southeastern Anatolia and partly also in Northern Mesopotamia (i.e. in the North-Aramaean cultural sphere of influence).

Figs. 60 a–b: Left: two-winged sun disk lmlk jar handle with the toponym Mamshit from Tell en-Nasbeh (AN M2339, courtesy of the Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion; photo G.M. Grena). Right: two-winged sun disk jar lmlk handle with the toponym Socho from Tel Lachish (British Excavations; courtesy of the British Museum Trustees; photo R. Wiskin). While the Tell Lachish specimen is very schematic, the one from Tell en-Nasbeh is more detailed and shows Assyrianising/Aramaising traits.

Figs. 61 a–b: Left: royal bulla of Hezekiah from Jerusalem with an Egyptianising two-winged sun disk with down-curved wings (cf. fig. 61b). The sun disk is flanked by two Egyptian cankh-symbols as has been confirmed by comparison with identical unprovenanced Hezekian bullae (courtesy of E. Mazar; photo O. Tadmor). Right: unprovenanced limestone seal of Šbnyw cbd czyw kept at the Musée du Louvre in Paris. This seal from the reign of king Uzziah of Judah contains the ‘traditional’ Egyptianised sun disk (top register) and an ‘Egyptian-style’ winged sun disk with straight horizontal wings, bottom register (WSS 3, courtesy of B. Sass).

478

This type of sun disk can also be found on several provenanced and unprovenanced seals and bullae from Israel and Judah, e.g. Sass (1993: 211, fig. 72; 241, fig. 150), Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 258, figs. 258a and c), Keel (2007: 418, fig. 291), Deutsch (2003b: 107–108 no. 79; 278–279, no. 293; 2011: 13–14, no. 429). See also WSS 267 (found at Cadiz), 284 (bottom register), 298 (albeit without upper rays). As for the Egyptianising style of Hezekiah’s bulla found on the Ophel, George Athas writes on his webblog (‘with meager powers’) of December 3 (2015): ‘First, it might be depicting the sun god, showing Egyptian influence. To that end, we note that on the right side of the bulla we see the ankh, the Egyptian symbol for life. ... Hezekiah is known to have appealed to Egypt for military assistance against Sennacherib ... Thus, in his anti-Assyrian stance, Hezekiah may well have absorbed Egyptian influence. Some of his other seals display a scarab beetle, which is clearly influenced by Egyptian iconography’ (emphasis added). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

155

3.3.2.2.2 A Northern Connection? Neo-Assyrian depictions of winged sun disks frequently contain straight wings. Sometimes, however, sun disks with minimally upcurved tips can also be found (Ornan 2005: 249, fig. 92; 252, fig. 99; 262, fig. 129; Herbordt 1992: Plate 3: 2; Plate 10: 24–25, 31–32; Plate 13: 7; Collon 2001: Plate XI: 136; Plate XII: 154 (?), 155; Plate XIII: 171–172; Plate XV: 184; Plate XVI: 206, 208; Moortgat 1983: Plate 75: 634; Plate 80: 678, etc.).479 Upper rays are generally scarce480, but artful appendages placed above the central sun disk sometimes seek to represent this feature (see e.g. a seal from Nimrud in Parker 1961: Plate IX:1, ND 5262 = Ornan 2013: 103, fig. 4; Jakob-Rost 1997: 85, fig. 333 from Babylon, Merkez). Even so, hardly ever do they closely resemble the upper rays found on the lmlk jars (Collon 2001: Plate XI: 136, 138, 141; XII: 154–155, 158; XIII: 170; XVI: 200, 208). 481 Appendages of all sorts including representations of heads of anthropomorphic deities are abundant (Ornan 2005: 252, fig. 99; 255–257, figs. 107, 108a–b, 109–111; 263–264, figs. 133–134, 137, 139; 265, fig. 147; 269, fig. 162; 271, fig. 173, etc.; Berlejung 2007: 51, fig. 2; 55, figs. 12, 14; Collon 2001: Plate XIV: 173–174; XVI: 207, 211). Appendages can also be found on Assyrianising seals from Southeastern Anatolia, North-Syria and Palestine.482 These are for instance found on bullae bearing the Assyrianising seal impressions of king Barrakib of Sam’al (Zincirli), as well as on one, possibly two, bullae recently uncovered at the City of David (Ornan 2005: 263, fig. 135; supra chapter 1, fig. 4; Winterbaum 2015: perhaps 388, no. 9).483 Moreover, a winged sun disk (albeit with straight wings) with an appendage with short vertical strokes representing rays, is depicted on an ‘Assyrian-style’ stamp seal from Tell Gezer, where it appears above a worshipper and a griffin (Ornan 2005: 281, fig. 211). In terms of the general layout of the wings ‘en ligne en double courbure’, Parayre has cogently argued that the closest parallels by far are found in Northwestern Syria and Southeastern Anatolia, for instance on Assyrianising bullae and orthostates from Sam’al/Zincirli (Parayre 1993: 36). Similar forms (albeit with ‘ailés à double empennage asymétrique’) are also found in Syria and Transjordan (i.e. in Ammon and Moab, ‘terres araméennes’ 484), where trapezoid-shaped upper and lower rays (like on the lmlk jar handles) are abundant, as can for instance be seen on Iron Age II period seals from that region: ‘Dans l’ensemble le royaume de Juda donne l’impression d’être beaucoup plus tourné vers le Nord Syrien et l’Est que vers le cote.’ (Parayre 1990: 291, similarly on p. 282) Indeed these traits are a popular characteristic on Aramaising seals, often in combination with additional Assyrianising elements (Parayre 1990: 282, 300, nos. 106 and esp. 111 with Plates IX: 106 and X: 111; Collon 2001: 161, Plate XIII).485 Even if it may be more difficult to prove which workshop originally copied from which, there can be little doubt that the lmlk type sun disk was inspired by a Northern rather than a

479

Note that a bullae with a clearly Assyrianising winged sun disk was recently found at the City of David in Stratum 10-2. Although its details are not sufficiently clear, its wings are upcurved, while lower and perhaps also upper rays are depicted (Winderbaum 2015: 388–390). As Winderbaum concludes, ‘The closest and only Judahite parallels for bulla no. 9 are the lmlk impressions ...’ (2015: 390). 480 See e.g. Parker (1961: Plate XVIII: 3, ND 7835). A somewhat similar two-winged sun disk is also depicted on the Neo-Babylonian relief of king Nabonidus at Tafileh near Petra (Ornan 2009: 110, fig. 12). A very schematic almost cross-like two-winged sun disk with straight wings and upper and lower rays is depicted on a limestone stele from the temple of Karaindash in Uruk, where it appears in front of a female deity (Ornan 2009: 145, 147, fig. 42). 481 For additional specimens, see Collon (2001: 165, 169–171, 184, 206, 208, 215, 218, 225, 233–234), Moortgat (19883: 632, 634, 675–677, 748–750), Buchanan and Moorey (1988: Plate II: 52). 482 Late variations of this type are found at 5th–4th century sites in the entire Mediterranean zone, as can e.g. be seen on seals from Tharras (Parayre 1990: Plate IV: 48 no. 2) and Paphos (Parayre 1990: VI, 80). 483 Appendages resembling upper rays can e.g. be found on an orthostate of Bar-rakib at Zinjirli (Ornan 2005: 275, fig. 182). Parayre especially highlights the close link between the wings of the lmlk sun disk and the wings ‘en ligne supérieure en double courbure’ from Southeastern Anatolia. See Parayre (1990: 290–292; 1993: 31 with fig. 10, 36 with fig. 32 and 51, fig. d). 484 For a number of closer parallels from Transjordan, see Parayre (1990: Plates X: 112–117, 118–121 and 102). 485 See also Buchanan and Moorey (1988: 45, Plate X no. 295). The same style of winged sun disk is also found on an unprovenanced Judaean seal, WSS 373. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

156

Chapter 3

Southern glyptic tradition (Parayre 1990: 282486). 3.3.2.2.3 A Southern Levantine Adaptation Reflecting the Styles of the Pax Assyriaca Period? Although the overall layout of the wings’ curvature finds its closest parallels in North-Syrian and Southeastern Anatolian artistic traditions, close parallels in terms of the overall form of the two-winged sun disk with trapezoid-shaped upper and lower appendages, can be found on Assyrianising ‘Aramaean-style’ seals from the late Iron Age Southern Levant (see WSS 867, 915, 1007, 1028, 1032, 1046).487 Moreover, some seals, also containing other Assyrianising elements, provide an even better cultural context. This is for instance the case with the unprovenanced Moabite seal of ‘Amos the scribe’, acquired on the Cairo market in 1886 (WSS 1007). The winged sun hovers over two worshippers or priests flanking a central altar, a constellation that is undoubtedly Assyrianising in nature. A similar situation exists with an Assyrianising or Aramaising cylinder seal found at Tall al-Mazar which shows two winged griffins flanking an cankh-shaped tree of life (Ornan et al. 2013: 11; Keel and Eggler 2006: 306–307, fig. 24). The sun is placed above the winged creatures. The following two representations are likewise firmly embedded in an Assyrianising glyptic context. A cuneiform tablet from Tell Gezer, found during the excavations of R.A.S. Macalister (1904: 208, fig. 8; Johns et al. 1904: 229–337; Herbordt 1992: Table 12:7), contains among others two seal impressions depicting a two-winged sun disk similar to that of the lmlk jar handles. Once again two worshippers in ‘Assyrian-style’ flanking an Egyptianising cankh-symbol are depicted. The tablet has been dated to the year 651 B.C. by means of the eponym of Aššur-dûru-uṣur, the governor of Barhalzi (Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 57; see also Reich and Brandl 1985: 41–42, with fig. 2). The cuneiform tablet refers to a land-sale in which people bearing Babylonian names were involved as witnesses (Becking 1983: 80–86; Horowitz and Oshima 2006: 55–58). Unfortunately the photograph of the stamp impressions published originally by Pinch (1904: 230, fig. 1; our fig. 62a) is not sufficiently clear, but the accompanying line-drawing provided by the original editor suggests that indeed a two-winged sun disk similar to that of the lmlk jar handles is depicted.488 Another example, where the same type of sun disk is shown, is found on a silver medallion from 7th century B.C. Tel Miqne / Ekron (Stratum IC; Gitin and Cogan 1999). The medallion bears a crude depiction of the goddess Ishtar standing on her lion in front of a devotee and an altar. The ‘heavenly hosts’ above Ishtar are represented by seven dots (the Pleiades), the two-winged sun disk (Shamash) and a lunar crescent (Sin of Harran). Its ‘Assyrian-style’ is self-evident. The left wing of the sun disk tips down slightly, but this is merely due to lack of space because of the seven dots carved next to it. The right wing is more or less straight (with a slight curvature) and its tip (like the tip of the left wing) is clearly upcurved. Moreover, the sun disk contains both the upper and lower rays just like on the lmlk jar handles. It is to be hoped that further evidence from Southern Palestine will be found to corroborate the local Assyrianising/Aramaising interpretation of the lmlk jar handle emblem as suggested here. 3.3.2.2.4 The Connotation of the Assyrianising Two-Winged Sun Disk on Judahite Royal Jar Handles: A Suggestion What could the two-winged emblem have represented in terms of the royal jar handles? Differently put, what might the Assyrianising/Aramaising emblems have portrayed in Judahite cult and/or royal ideology? Rüdiger Schmitt has suggested that the two-winged solar disk icon and its association with the inscription lmlk implies a direct link between the ‘sun god’ (in this case Yahweh with solar attributes) and the local king. By doing so, Schmitt highlights a special relationship between the heavenly potentate and his earthly Davidic representative (2001: 175–176).489 486

‘Ils associent un empennage supérieure divers de facture levantine à une queue d`oiseau emprunté à la Mésopotamie et plus ou moins schématisé’ (Parayre 1990: 282). 487 Although all these are unprovenanced, they surfaced over a century ago. Other seals which have surfaced more recently also fit the overall pattern (WSS 899, 915, 945, 989, 1021, 1045). On the strong Aramaean influences on ‘Assyrian-style’ objects in particular in 7th century Judah, see Keel (2007: 478). 488 See also Parayre (1990: 300, no. 100 with Plate IX: 100). A new line-drawing has been provided by Othmar Keel which slightly deviates from the original one (Keel 2013: 166–167). However, as Keel explained to this author, this linedrawing was not based on a fresh close-up study of the seal impression (pers. comm., January 2016). Keel agrees that therefore the original line-drawing by Pinches must be trusted more. 489 On several occasions Keel has advocated the significance of a solar cult at Jerusalem since the Bronze Age and has argued that it melded with the cult of Yahweh no later than the early first millennium (e.g. 2007: 302–305; 417–420, © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

157

By choosing an Assyrianising/Aramaising symbol, the pro-Assyrian Judahite rulers consciously drew on the Neo-Assyrian conviction that the mortal monarch represented his divine overlord on earth by adopting his very attributes (similarly Gitin and Cogan 1999: 198).490 Schmitt argues that the Neo-Assyrian kings regarded themselves as protectorates of divine justice which is supported by the royal epithet dšamšu kiššat nišemeš, i.e. ‘Sungod of all mankind’ (2001: 176). To corroborate his solar interpretation of Judaean royal ideology, Schmitt refers to Ps 72:5,17, where the timelessness of the sun is compared with the promise that David’s kingship will never end.491 Although this author remains unconvinced that Judahite monarchs would have accepted full-blown Assyrian royal ideology (which seems foreign to the theology of Deut 17:14–20 even in the pre-Josianic era492), it is at least within the bounds of possibility that Hezekiah and especially Manasseh accepted certain aspects of Assyrian royal ideology by adopting Assyrianising icons and perhaps also some religious concepts.493 Evidence of Neo-Assyrian ideological tendencies does exist in contemporary Southern Levantine and biblical sources.494 There can be little doubt that astral worship in Jerusalem at the time of king Manasseh 447; Keel and Uehlinger 1994: 269–299). There can be little doubt that solar imagery played a significant role in Judahite royal and religious iconography no later than the 8th–7th centuries B.C. Indeed, its use by Hezekiah (portrayed as a conservative Yahwist by the biblical redactors) and Manassah (who was remembered by the biblical redactors as a worshipper of astral bodies) is confirmed by archaeological evidence. E.g., names of private persons on seals and bullae from this period also point in a similar direction, see among others Keel (2014: 73). While discussing the recently found provenanced Hezekian bulla, George Athas on his webblog (‘with meager powers’) of December 3 (2015) notes in terms of the reformative Hezekiah: ‘This particular understanding of the iconography has explanatory power, though it is at odds with the biblical depictions of Hezekiah as an avowed exclusive Yahwist. ... The alternative option is to understand the sun disk as a compatible cipher for Yahweh, the national deity of Israel and Judah, and patron deity of the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem. ... The iconography on this bulla may well be doing the same thing: using common Egyptian symbols in the service of Yahwism.’ 490 The duality of deity and king is also embodied in the Assyrian phrase palaḫ ili u šarri (‘fear god and king’) found under Sargon II (e.g. Lemaire 2012b: 397; Fuchs 1993: 43–44, lines 72–74; see also Mathews 2012: 64, n. 55). While discussing anthropomorphic representations of deities—e.g. on the rock reliefs of Maltai and Khinis in modern Kurdistan (from the reign of Sennacherib)—Tallay Ornan similarly argues that ‘it can be argued that the incentive for the adoption of anthropomorphic rendering of deities was to bring together divine and royal images in order to increase the status of the king by demonstrating his physical proximity to the gods ... god and king not only looked the same but also shared similar characteristics’ (2007: 165, emphasis added; Ornan, pers. comm., 2009). 491 See also Ps 89:6. For similar ideas, see also Podella (1992: 192, n. 133) who also associates the divine solar potentate with the earthly Davidic monarch. 492 Deut 17:14–20 clearly presents an ideal situation and criticises the bad behaviour of the king when he defies to abide by the standards of the ‘Book of the Law’ by amassing riches, trusting in the strength of horses and by ‘considering himself better than his brothers’. In like manner already the prophet Samuel warned the Israelites at his time of misbehaving monarchs (1 Sam 8:10–18). 493 To what extent this may have been, is more difficult to say. Some of the messianic overtones found in the passages in Isa 7: 8–9 and 11, as relating to the coming of a messianic royal figure (11:1) evidently bringing light and expelling darkness (Isa 9:2), may have encouraged an increased use of solar imagery. Whether or not Hezekiah himself was the ‘messianic’ child that Isaiah had in mind (in which case Hezekiah would have been a child at his accession in 726 B.C.) remains an intriguing point for further study. 494 A striking example can be found on a broken sherd (obj. no. 9510) from Stratum IC at Temple complex 650, Locus 76005 at Tel Miqne / Ekron (but see Na’aman 2003: 85, n. 9). The one phrase inscription (originally incised before firing on an Iron Age IIB type 3 ovoid store jar) has been translated as follows: lbcl. wlpdy (‘to Bacal and to Padi’; Gitin and Cogan 1999). Contrary to the alternative reading by Niesiołowski-Spanò (2008: 97–109), we have been able to confirm the original reading after a close-up study of the original sherd at the Albright Institute in 2005 (van der Veen 2008b: 110–118; see also Schmitz 2008: 3). As Gitin and Cogan have cogently argued, the close association between the local deity Bacal and the Ekronite ruler Padi is in line with the aforementioned Neo-Assyrian royal association between the heavenly potentate and the earthly monarch (1999: 198; see also Keel 2007: 456–457 with fig. 324). Padi is also referred to in several Neo-Assyrian sources (ANET 287; Th 1905-4-9,54 = BM 98548, see Postgate 1974: 21, no. 7.2.6; Fales and Postgate 1995: 42, no. 50), as well as in the royal dedicatory inscription of his son and successor Achish, also found at Temple complex 650 (Gitin et al. 1997: 1–16; Weippert 2010: 346–347; recently Maeir et al. 2016: 325, 329). In a similar vein, some scholars have interpreted the reference in Zephaniah 1:5 to astral worship in Jerusalem in like manner. While according to some manuscripts (mainly Massoretic and Septuagint versions), the citizens of Jerusalem swore ‘by Yahweh and by their king’, other versions have ‘by Yahweh and by Milkom’ (e.g. LXX Lucian recension, Vulgate). If the first rendering is accepted, we have yet another example where (at least in the minds of the ancient Judaeans) the © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

158

Chapter 3

played a significant role and that a number of aspects within cultic life were influenced by Assyria (2 Kgs 23: 5, 11; 2 Chr 33: 4–5). Despite the religious reforms under king Josiah, solar worship seems to have continued at the Temple in Jerusalem even until the time of the prophet Ezekiel, when adorants are said to have bowed down towards the rising sun at the entrance to the inner court of the Temple (Ezek 8:16). Although for the time being it will hardly be possible to fully appreciate the full scope of the solar imagery found on the lmlk jar handles, two things appear certain: Firstly, solar worship is attested in Jerusalem prior to Josiah’s cultic reform, and secondly solar imagery was adopted by other Levantine client rulers too. Despite some previous suggestions to the contrary, Holloway has argued that although the Neo-Assyrian overlords did not normally force their vassal-rulers to officially accept Neo-Assyrian cult practices, in every day affairs Assyrian royal and religious imagery did play a significant role: ‘Excepting the provincial dues for the cult of Aššur, the theory that the Assyrians made a hard and fast distinction between the religio-political treatment of client state and province is untenable ... While it is true that the “symbol of Aššur” or other divine images were more commonly “installed” in the urban centers of newly-organized provinces, there are instances of the practice in client-state territories (Philistia ...) and in other areas never incorporated into the provincial system ….’ (Holloway 2002: 198)

Figs. 62 a–b: Representations of two-winged sun disks in Aramaising Southern Levantine style, associated with clear Assyrianising motifs. Left and centre: line-drawing and photograph of two identical seal impressions depicted on a Neo-Assyrian cuneiform tablet from Gezer of the year 651 B.C. (after Pinches 1904: 230 and fig. 1). They depict a sun disk with straight wings (with slight curvature) and upcurved tips and seemingly trapezoid-shaped upper and lower rays. Right: a sun disk with straight wings (with slight curvature) and upcurved tips as depicted on the Assyrianising silver medallion from Tel Miqne / Ekron Stratum IC. Beneath the astral symbols a worshipper with an altar in front of the starry figure of Ishtar (standing on her lion) is depicted (courtesy of Professor Seymour Gitin; photo Dr. David Ellis, Cambridge Science and Archaeology Forum, Cambridge).

3.3.2.2.5 The Prancing Horse Seal Impressions: A Suggestion The suggestion that the Judaean kings may have adopted Assyrianising cultic icons as evidence of their obeisance to Assyria, may perhaps be further corroborated by yet another emblem found on about ten type 484 jar handles, that of the so-called ‘prancing horse’. The very fine execution of the horse and its overall muscular appearance (see esp. Barkay 1992: 127, fig. 3) recalls representations of horses in Neo-Assyrian art, especially on seals (Schmitt 2001: 128; Herbordt 1992: Table 33: 9–12; infra figs. 64a–b). All prancing horse seal impressions stem from central Judah. So far some five jar handles have been uncovered during heavenly potentate and his earthly representative were implored together. Another instance (albeit rendered in a negative sense) can be found in Isa 8:21. See also Cogan (1974: 94–95), Baker (1988: 93), and Roberts (1991: 168). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

159

legal excavations, i.e. on the Western Hill in Jerusalem (Iron Age fill, Area F, Locus 906; Avigad and Barkay: 2000: 250–251, 266 no. 56), at Tel Goren (Stratum V; Stern 2007: 163–165), Tel Azekah (Bliss and Macalister 1902: 122, Plate 56, no. 33), Tell el-Judeideh (stray find by Z. Kallai and B. Brandl), and at Tell enNasbeh (McCown 1947: 154, fig. 35, no. 6). Five additional handles have surfaced on the antiquities market (Barkay 1992: 124–127; Schmitt 2001: 127–128; R. Deutsch, pers. comm.).495

Figs. 63 a–b: Left: a type 484 jar handle with a prancing horse impression from the private collection of the Arbeitsgruppe für Biblische Archäologie (© courtesy by the ABA). Right: an Assyrianising horse statuette found during the recent excavations at the Western Wall Plaza in Jerusalem. The horse figurine is adorned with trappings (© courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Beth Shemesh, photographic archive, Y. Barschak).

Figs. 64 a–b: Shamash standing on his horse on a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal (VR 1981.110) and a Neo-Assyrian stamp seal, both from the Bibel + Orient Museum at Fribourg University (© courtesy of Prof. O. Keel, photos by the author).

495

At least two were sold at the Archaeological Center auctions in Tel Aviv, while one is currently kept in the private collection of the Arbeitsgruppe für Biblische Archäologie (fig. 63a). Yet another specimen was seen by the present author at an antiquities shop in the Old City of Jerusalem in June 2015. An additional unprovenanced specimen was referred to by Gabriel Barkay and is currently kept at the Reuben Hecht Museum in Haifa (1992: 127). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

160

Chapter 3

Figs. 65 a–c: The god Shamash as shown on the rock-reliefs at Maltai. Top left: Shamash as shown in the company of other Neo-Assyrian state-deities. Top right: Shamash wearing a fluted crown with a two-winged sun disk symbol. Bottom: the horse of Shamash shown as a pedestal for the feet of the anthropomorphic deity. His horse is adorned with trappings (courtesy and photography Prof. Daniele M. Bonacossi and Mr. Ricardo Menis, University of Udine (Italy)).

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

161

Although various interpretations have been offered496, one stands out as being relevant to the Assyrianising solar interpretation proposed here. Although tentative, it is interesting to find the image of the Assyrian sun god Shamash ‘standing on his horse’ in Assyria proper at the very same time when the emblem of the prancing horse is found in Judah. For the depiction of the solar horse of Shamash in Assyrian art appears to have been a true Sargonid invention (Seidl 2003–2005: 492). On the Neo-Assyrian monumental rock reliefs of Maltai in the Iraqi Kurdistan hinterland of Nineveh and Mosul—believed by most scholars to have been carved during the reign of Sennacherib—Shamash is depicted as standing on his horse alongside other Neo-Assyrian state deities (Thureau-Dangin 1924; Bachmann 1927: Tables 26 and 31 [relief I], 28 [relief III], 27 and 30 [relief II]; see also Borger-Klähn 1973; Ornan 2007: 163–166, 176, fig. 1). 497 Likewise also other deities are represented as standing on their animals (Ishtar on her lion, Adad on his bull, etc.). Although these reliefs have been known for many years (i.e. since their very discovery in 1845 by Simon Rouet, the French consul at Mosul; see Bonacossi and Iamoni 2016: 10 with a detailed bibliography), they are currently being restudied by a team under the auspices of the University of Udine (Italy) and supervised by Daniele Morandi Bonacossi as part of their survey ‘of the Landscape and Settlement in the Eastern Upper Iraqi Tigris and Navkur Plains’ (Bonacossi and Iamoni 2016). Other similar rock reliefs are being restudied, while new friezes have been found, for instance at Fainah (Bonacossi, pers. comm., January 2016). With the kind permission of Professor Bonacossi, the present author has included images taken at Maltai in summer 2015 depicting the figure of Shamash standing on his horse (figs. 65 a–c). On one of Shamash’s horse representations, the solar deity wears a fluted crown mounted by a twowinged sun disk (albeit without upper rays), whose wings have upcurved tips. Representations of Shamash ‘standing on his horse’ can also be found on contemporary Neo-Assyrian seals (figs. 64 a–b498; Keel 2007: 537–538), and just possibly also on some bullae found at Nimrud (Herbordt 1992: Table 32: 1–2, 4?499). Moreover, the image is also represented on a royal stele from the reign of king Esarhaddon found at Til Barsip (Ornan 2005: 253, fig. 103). During this same era, horses also played a prominent role in Neo-Assyrian royal ideology, as can be seen on a number of bullae found at Nineveh and Nimrud (Herbordt 1992: Table 33: 9–12).500 According to 2 Kgs 23:21 horses ‘dedicated to the sun’ were found at the entrance to the Temple in Jerusalem prior to king Josiah’s religious reform (Keel 2007: 535–537), presumably and predominantly so during the reign of Manasseh, whose worship of astral bodies is highlighted by the biblical redactors (2 Kgs 21:5; 2 Chr 33:5).501 Numerous horse statuettes from the 7th centuries B.C. have been unearthed in Jerusalem 496

While Barkay prefers to take the prancing horse emblem as a pictographic representation of a personal name of a high Judahite official (1992: 128; Avigad and Barkay 2000: 250–251), Keel prefers an Egyptian connection (2007: 443– 444). An Egyptian connection is certainly possible in view of Judah’s liaison with Egypt at the time of Sennacherib and possible during the ‘quiet’ years following the 701 B.C. event. The Egyptian-Kushite cavalry ‘beyond counting’ is referred to by Sennacherib (ANET 287), while Judah hoped to depend on its strength (Isa 30:16, 31:1). 497 Although most scholars accept a date for the Maltai and Khinis reliefs during the reign of Sennacherib, D. Morandi Bonacossi prefers a date slightly earlier for the Maltai reliefs, i.e. during the reign of Sargon II (pers. comm., January 2016). 498 See Keel-Leu and Teissier (2004: 213–214, no. 236, presumably from the time of Assurbanipal) and Keel and Uehlinger (1996: 156, fig. 182, late 8th–7th centuries B.C.). 499 The present author doubts Herbordt’s interpretation of the animals as bulls and the accompanying deity as the weather god Adad. But only a close examination of the actual bullae can shed further light on the issue (see also Tallay Ornan, pers. comm., 2009). 500 On the horse as symbol of Shamash, see also Keel (2014: 80, figs. 51, 1–2, and 89, fig. 57, 1). 501 For the association of the ‘horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun’ as well as the ‘chariots dedicated to the sun’ in 2 Kgs 23:11 with Neo-Assyrian (Aramaising) religion, see esp. Cogan (1974: 87–88), Spieckermann (1982: esp. 245–251), Albertz (1992: 296), Uehlinger (2003: 221–305; 2007: 279–316), Collon (2007: 65), Koch (2012: 211– 219 with references), and Keel (2014: 79–80, 89). While discussing 2 Kgs 23:11, Ido Koch doubts an Assyrian connection altogether and prefers to link the ‘chariots of the sun’ (and ‘the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun’) to a predeuteronomistic stormgod-religion in Jerusalem. He further theorises that the Deuteronomist ‘processed, adapted and presented in a negative way the cultic reality of the predeuteronomic revolution, according to its own needs and agenda’ as it was the stormgod rather than the sun god in Westsemitic cult who fought against the chaos monsters in his heavenly chariot (2012: 213–215). While this author agrees with Koch, that chariots are indeed closely related to storm deities, it is difficult to see why Manasseh could not have mixed ‘Canaanite’ (partly Aramaising) and Assyrian cultic aspects at Jerusalem (see also Cogan 1974: 86–88). For this is precisely what 2 Kgs 21: 3–15 tells us. While © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

162

Chapter 3

(and elsewhere in Cis- and Transjordan), including a fine statuette of a horse adorned with trappings recently found during the Western Wall Plaza excavations (fig. 63 b).502 Could the emblem found on these type 484 jar handles be in any way related to the pre-Josianic solar cult at Jerusalem in which evidently ‘horses dedicated to the sun’ played a significant role? Naturally without any inscriptions supporting this suggestion, this theory must remain tentative. The question why an anthropomorphic representation of Shamash shown above the horse’s back is lacking on the Judaean handles, while it is depicted in Assyrian art, must be answered. But could its absence be possibly related to Judah’s image ban, prohibiting Yahweh (with whom the deity would have been identified) to be visualised in the guise of a ‘mortal being?’503 Future study of this subject may shed further light on this intriguing issue.

3.4 Conclusions In this chapter we have investigated the lmlk jar handles in terms of their distribution, chronology and iconography. While in the light of the traditional framework the evidence pertaining to lower dates for the impressed type 484 storage jar handles may remain somewhat ambiguous (as per Lehmann 2012 and Vaughn 2016, contra Lipschits et al. 2010), in the light of the lower terminus ante quem presented here, its significance may be classified as generally supportive of a lower Iron Age IIB chronology. For while the earliest lmlk jars were apparently produced during the reign of Hezekiah (while the later ones belong to Manasseh, whose entire reign squarely overlaps with ‘Lachish Level III’ sites such as City of David Stratum 12 (B–A), Western Hill Strata 7–6, Tel Arad Strata IX–VIII, Tel Ira Stratum VII), it must be assumed that those jar handles that were hitherto ‘dumped’ as ‘late’ or even ‘out of context’, could well have belonged to their original period of use and production, mainly during the first half of the 7th century. This timeframe includes the ‘intermediate’ Iron Age IIB–C period and probably the earliest stages of Iron Age IIC, for instance at the City of David Strata 11–10, Tel Batash Stratum II, Beth-Zur Stratum III, Tel Arad Strata VII–VI. This is especially true of sites that originated around the middle of the 7th century or even slightly later, including Manasseh set up altars for Baal and erected the Asherah-pole (V. 3, 7)—precisely as ‘Ahab king of Israel had done’— he also ‘bowed down to all the starry host’ (V. 3). This passage clearly implies a complex merging of different religious elements, which no doubt was a characteristic of Pax Assyriaca culture (see also Keel 2014: 78). Koch’s critique that ‘the rituals are not mentioned outside of the Assyrian heartland, and [that] there is no mention of them in the biblical text’ (2012: 214) is misleading. While multiple aspects of Assyrianising religion have been found in Southern Palestine (as several examples presented in this volume indicate), the lack of references to Assyria in 2 Kgs 23 comes as no surprise. Contrary to 2 Chr 33, Assyria is not mentioned in the entire section of 2 Kgs 21–23 until Josiah’s lethal confrontation with Necho II at Megiddo. Whatever the reason for this absence may have been, the fact that Manasseh did serve Assyria as a vassal is evident from the Assyrian annals (Prism B and Cylinder C). As for several seals and small objects of art from Southern Palestine bearing astral images and reflecting Assyrianising tendencies, see Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 287–323). 502 Numerous horse figurines (including so-called ‘horse-rider’ figurines) have been unearthed in Jerusalem during various excavations (e.g. Holland 1995: 175–177, figs. 7–9; Ben-Shlomo 2015: 462–467). Few specimens also bear a circular object between the horses’ ears – somewhat resembling a solar disk (e.g. Holland 1995: 175, fig. 7, no. 21; Keel 2007: 537–538). No consensus has as yet been reached on the identification of these enigmatic objects (Keel 2007: 537– 538, who compares the object on the horse’s head with a floral stalk). Be this as it may, the association between the solar horses of the reign of Manasseh and the figurines remains an attractive possibility (see e.g. the disk on the head of the horse statuette in Holland 1995: 176, fig. 8, no. 2). The remains of a painted ‘rider-horse’ figurine were also uncovered in the survey conducted by the present author in East Jerusalem to the east of the Nablus Road, north of the Damascus Gate (IAA license no. S-203/2010; S-238/2011). A publication of these finds is in preparation (van der Veen et al.: in prep.). For collective research on Judaean horse figurines, horse trappings and seals depicting horses, see Im (2006: 10– 11). 503 Needless to say, other scenarios are possible. While Gabriel Barkay prefers to take the prancing horse emblem as an iconographic representation of a personal name (1992: 128), the simplest speculation perhaps by far is that of Schmitt, who related the emblem to the Judaean cavalry or a chariot corps (2001: 127–128). Keel prefers to think of an Egyptian connection (2007: 443–445). Indeed, horses were greatly valued by the Napatan rulers of the 25th dynasty, whose adorned war horses were buried with the kings at the pyramids of el-Kurru, Markowitz and Doxes (2014: 119–120). For Egyptianising prancing horses on seals from Iron Age Cyprus, see Reyes (2001: 133–135). Sennacherib refers to the Kushite and Egyptian thriving cavalry ‘without number’ (ANET 287; Keel 2007: 457). Whatever the interpretation of the prancing horse emblem may be, based on the relevant jar handle from Tel Goren Stratum V a date near the middle of the 7th century B.C. for this group may be in order (Stern 2007: 164). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

163

Tel Goren Stratum V and some one-period sites such as Horvat Shilhah. As a crucial ‘derivate’ of these considerations, one needs to reconsider if indeed the term ‘Lachish Level III horizon’ is well-chosen. For it gives Lachish the most prominent place within Iron Age IIB chronology of Judah, which has led to multiple problems. Lipschits (2012: 5) describes this issue as ‘the narrow key-hole of Lachish’, assuming that all the rest of Judah must be observed through it. As a matter of fact, this assumption is misleading, for the material culture of Judah’s hinterland (including Jerusalem) is a ‘different story’. Here we find many sites that were not destroyed by the Assyrians in 701 B.C. and which preserved more or less in an unbroken line the same cultural horizon for several more years (or even decades) well into the 7th century B.C. Moreover, the apparent chronological linchpins ‘Lachish Levels III and II’ were intertwined in the middle by an undetermined intermediary phase represented by both ‘Lachish III’ and ‘Lachish II’ diagnostic type vessels, as well as by types bridging both horizons. Evidence of this has among others been found by Itzhaq Eshel in excavated assemblages from Kathleen Kenyon’s Caves I and II in the City of David, which the latter assigns to the first half of the 7th century.504 In terms of the iconography of the jar handles, the following conclusions were reached. Although the Egyptianising four-winged scarab beetle is well represented within the Iron Age Levantine seal repertoire (its four wings being perhaps a Levantine invention), this emblem certainly also became popular in Egypt under the Napatan rulers, who joined forces with Hezekiah at the battle of Elteqeh. The prophet Isaiah seems to have used the image of the scarabaeus sacer as a figure of speech in Isa 18:1 to describe the swiftness and military strength of the Kushite army. Although this cannot be proven with certainty, there exists the possibility that Hezekiah chose this very symbol on the jars (along with that of the two-winged scarab on his private seals) to underline his sympathy for his southern neighbours. The two-winged sun disk, however, firmly belongs to the ‘Northern Tradition’, combining both North Syrian/Aramaising and Southern Levantine characteristics. This same combination is also found in other Assyrianising/Aramaising glyptic art in association with additional Assyrianising emblems, sometimes also intertwined with Egyptianising symbols, suggesting its proper place within Pax Assyriaca culture. Although this must remain speculation, the emblem of the so-called ‘prancing horse’ may be understood in the same light. The question was asked, if perhaps Hezekiah (late reign) and Manasseh (virtually all of his reign) chose these Assyrianising symbols as a token of their obeisance towards Assyria. If no final answer to these intriguing questions can be reached, these suggestions indeed make good sense within the scheme presented here. Unfortunately, so far none of the personal names of the officials mentioned on the official seal impressions could be used as an independent chronological tool to prove the lower chronology of the royal jars. Even so, two jar handles may be tentatively related to characters from the reigns of Hezekiah and his successors. For a brief discussion, see Excursus 2.

EXCURSUS 1: The Use of the Royal Jars: A Tentative Proposal The following brief comments may be used as a basis for further study in the light of the overall conclusions reached in this volume. Could the vessels be possibly related to tax-payments (as per Lipschits et al.) or are they rather related to a sweeping wine and oil industry organised by the Judaean crown (as per Vaughn)? As will be suggested below, both views are not necessarily contradictory. If so, to whom were the taxes paid, otherwise, who oversaw the industry? Why were some jars stamped with the emblem of the Egyptianising four-winged scarab beetle and others with that of the Southern Levantine Assyrianising/Aramaising two-winged sun disk, let alone with that of the supposed Assyrianising prancing horse? Payment of taxes to Assyria by Hezekiah is referred to in 2 Kgs 18:13–16. Moreover, tribute paid to Assyria is likely alluded to by the prophet Micah (Mic 1:11). As noted by Nadav Na’aman the description of the so-called ‘House-of-No-Shade’ (byt h’(y)-ṣl) could refer to the Neo-Assyrian sovereignty over Judah as established after Sennacherib’s invasion of 701 B.C. (Na’aman 1995: 520). As Na’aman has cogently argued, the mocking description ‘House-of-No-Shade’ may be a direct play on words on the Neo-Assyrian royal phrase ina ṣilli šarri (‘under the shadow of the king’) found regularly in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions referring to the apparent peaceful circumstances in the peripheries under Neo-Assyrian rule (1995: 520–521). Be this

504

In a much neglected study Jack Holladay has also pointed at similarities rather than the usual differences between the ‘Lachish III and II’ pottery assemblages, by suggesting a narrower chronological timespan between the two (1976). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

164

Chapter 3

as it may, tribute paid by Judah (under Hezekiah and Manasseh) is confirmed by both the Neo-Assyrian royal annals and other related Assyrian sources (ANET 288, 294; Weippert 2010: 348–350). As for the use of the lmlk jar handles, Gabriel Barkay has argued that taxes in the form of wine were paid to the Judaean crown at the time of Hezekiah505 and that a similar system would have operated under Manasseh, to whom he attributes an ever increasing number of unprovenanced and provenanced fiscal bullae506, whose inscriptions indicate payment to the king by both Judahite towns and villages, as well as by private persons (Barkay 2015: esp. 44–46). While Barkay assigns the lmlk jars solely to the reign of Hezekiah (when taxes administered according to a simpler ‘four-district system’ as ‘expressed in the stamped lmlk jar handles’ by the four toponyms Hebron, Zyp, Socho and Mamshit were in place, 2015: 46507), the bullae (which name no less than twenty different villages and towns) are attributed by him to the reign of his son and successor Manasseh. Indeed, as the highest regnal year attested so far on the bullae is that of Year 34 of an unnamed king, quite understandably no other king with such a long reign seems plausible. In the light of the current study, however, this author suggests that though some lmlk jars were manufactured before the reign of Manasseh (as seems evident from those sites that were most likely destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C., including Lachish Level III and probably Beth Shemesh Level 2), both systems would have largely overlapped and would have belonged to basically one and the same tax- and industrial system (Barkay 2015: 38, 40 arguing in favour of Manasseh’s continuation of the previous system), i.e. mainly so after 701 B.C. The apparent increase of tribute levied by Assyria during the 7th century undoubtedly necessitated the Judaean state to develop an elaborate industrial system to bolster the royal revenues, which no doubt were greatly strained by regular tribute paid to Assyria (Barkay 2015: 40). So far no lmlk jars have been found outside Palestine (Grena 2004: 386) and it seems safe to suggest therefore that the jars were only used for transport within Cis-Jordan, mainly so for transport within the Shephelah and the central highland regions of Benjamin and Judah, where most of the jars and jar handles have been found (Kletter 2002: 143–144). Tax-payments would have been due to the king directly and would have been paid in wine and oil (as part of the overall industry run by the crown, no doubt under the watchful eye of Assyria).508 The king in turn would have paid off Judah’s annual taxes to Assyria mainly in gold and silver, as well as in the form of other luxury items (ANET 288; Zwickel 1999: 364–365). Any further profit would have come from far-distance trade in, for instance, Arabian frankincense through cooperation with Edom (Lipińksi 2013: 64–85), while balsam resin may also have been processed at the newly founded site of Tel Goren near En-Gedi (Stratum V) from the middle of the 7th century onwards (van der Veen and Bron 2014: 215–217). If this scenario comes anywhere near reality, such a procedure would have likely included both statedependent industries as well as private entrepreneurs, who in turn would have paid off their taxes to the crown. Olive oil was exported to Egypt and Mesopotamia (Zwickel 1999: 359), in which case it would seem likely that the content of the lmlk jars must have been refilled into separate jars for international transport sent from central vineries (perhaps including those found in the Rephaim Valley; e.g. 2014: 394–395; EinMor and Ron 2016: 144–145) and oil refineries (such as at Ekron, Tel Batash / Timnah and Beth Shemesh: Gitin 1989: 28–36; 1997: 87; Na’aman 2003: 85–88; Kelm and Mazar 1995: 161–162; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016b: 419–469). At el-Jib (Gibeon) stamped lmlk jar handles have been found in great quantities in 505

A similar suggestion has been made by George Grena, who relates the payment of taxes to Hekekiah’s religious reforms (2004: 376–378). See also Na’aman (1986: 17). 506 Until recently fiscal bullae were only known from the antiquities market. Now (thanks to the careful wet-sifting project conducted by Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira) two (or even three) fiscal bullae from Jerusalem—naming the towns of Bethlehem and Gibeon—have come to light in legal excavations. See esp. Barkay (2015: 18, 42–43). 507 According to Wolfgang Zwickel the attested toponyms rather refer to sites overseeing the crop areas of agricultural produce working for the crown (1994: 582). 508 An Assyrian governor charged with this task could have been based near Jerusalem, e.g. at Ramat Rahel (Na’aman 2001: 260–280). Despite some views to the contrary, Younger has recently stressed the interest of Assyria in the industries of remote client states, as seems clear from a careful study of day-to-day accounts (2015: 179–204). For a further brief discussion on this topic, see the conclusions in chapter 4. The view presented here, that payment in wine and oil was due to the Judaean king and not directly to Assyria, takes into account a critique addressed by Grena to Lipschits et al. (2010b), that no direct evidence of foreign tax-payment is indicated by the jars themselves (2010, ‘Rejection of Point #1a’). However, if the interpretation of the two-winged sun disk as suggested by this author is justified, this assertion may need some qualification. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

165

close association with the so-called Gibeonite inscribed jars (Pritchard 1959; Amiran 1975: 132), which in turn have also been assigned to a thriving local wine (and/or oil?) industry (Kletter 2002: 145; van der Veen 2010: 121 with n. 41). As this author has argued elsewhere, stratigraphical evidence suggests that the use of the inscribed Gibeonite jars (and related jar handles found among others at Ras al-Amud on the Mount of Olives and in the City of David Strata 12 and 11) is closely restricted to the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon (and not to the 6th century B.C., as was previously believed; Lipschits 2005: 244–245; Stern 2001: 336–338). This date squarely overlaps with the reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh. Whether or not the industry was controlled (or semi-independently run) by the local kingdoms of the area (Zwickel 1994: 576–577; Schoors 1998: 79) or if—especially when these kingdoms served as vassal-states of Assyria—it was tightly controlled by Assyria (Zwickel 1994: 586–588; van der Veen 2013: 177), remains a moot point worthy of further investigation. For contrary to Avraham Faust and Ehud Weiss (2011: 189–204; Faust 2011: 62–86), Lawson Younger has recently argued that the local industries of the peripheries were dependent on and largely controlled by Assyria, as seems evident from a closer study of administrative texts relating to day-by-day affairs (Younger 2015: 179–204). In a similar vein, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., the local people of Palestine, who ‘had stayed behind in the land’, continued to serve the Babylonians by working the fields and statecontrolled vineyards and balsam plantations (2 Kgs 25:12; Jer 40:6–12; 52:16; Graham 1984: 55–58). A similar situation may have existed within the client kingdoms of Cis- and Transjordan, especially so after the late 8th century B.C. (for a similar interpretation of the lmlk jars, see Zwickel 1999: 358, Greenberg and Cinamon 2011: 101–102, Lipschits et al. 2010c: 7, Gadot 2011: 57–58, van der Veen 2014b: 394–396, and Ein-Mor and Ron 2016: 144–145). If so, could the four-winged scarab emblem be related mainly to Hezekiah’s kingship prior to 701 B.C. (who nurtured sympathies for his Napatan allies in Egypt), while Hezekiah (late reign) and Manasseh preferred less provocative Assyrianising/Aramaising symbols, including the two-winged solar disk and the prancing horse, when political circumstances had worsened? Little more can be said. Further study of this subject—especially in the light of the production and use of the lmlk jars during the reign of king Manasseh as argued in this volume—might shed further light on this intriguing issue.

EXCURSUS 2: Official Names-Seal Impressions on Type 484 Storage Jars: Lack of Positive Markers, Some Speculations Regardless of the suggestion made by William F. Albright (1932: 77–106; James et al. 1991: 178–180; van der Veen 2014a: 26–28), that ‘Yokin/Yokan’ (WSS 243–244, no. 663, fig. 66a) was one and the same as king Jehoiachin in 598/597 B.C., no alternative name equations have been forthcoming which unequivocally clinch the earlier dates for the lmlk jar handle corpus, now almost universally accepted by modern scholarship. Even so, the following tentative suggestions deserve closer scrutiny: Yokan or ‘Conaniah’ (WSS 663 A–D, fig. 66a): Nil Sacher Fox has tentatively suggested an equation of this individual with a high Levite official named Conaniah in 2 Chr 31:12, a contemporary of king Hezekiah (2000: 188, with n. 51). As the names on the ‘official seal impressions’ are believed to belong to civil servants within the ‘administrative capacity’ of Judah (Fox 2000: 187), Yokan and his ncr (‘estate steward’) Elyakim must also have served within the Judahite bureaucracy, regardless of their precise rank.509 She further theorises that Yokan may be a hypocoristicon of ‘Conaniah’, as both names derive from the associated verbal roots kwn and *knn, ‘to be stable’ / ‘to stand firm’, from which also the biblical name Jehoiachin has been derived.510 No doubt the equation remains ‘conjectural, especially since the patronymic is lacking’ even though ‘the time-frame and circumstances’ coincide (2000: 188). In the light of the lower terminus ante quem for the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon as proposed here, a second candidate for Yokan may also seem feasible, namely a like-named Levite official dated to the reign of Josiah during the final decades of the 7th century (2 Chr 35:9). Even so, palaeographically, the inscription on the jar 509

On the Hebrew term ncr, see Avigad (1976: 294–300, with figure 12), and Fox (2000: 182–191). This term is also found on a number of other seals, see e.g. Deutsch and Heltzer (1994: 51–53; with bibliography). For a rather conjectural view, that Elyaqim could later have been elevated to the ranks of a courtier (cbd) and more specifically so to that of major domo (’šr clhbyt), see Bordreuil and Israel (1991–1992: 81–87). 510 On this verb, see e.g. Koehler and Baumgartner (1958: 428), Martens (1997: 615–617, no. 3922). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

166

Chapter 3

handle seems to tip the balance in favour of the earlier Conaniah (for this date see already Avigad 1976: 297).511 Shebanyahu bn hmlk (WSS 662, fig. 66b): The name of this prince is found on a poorly preserved unprovenanced stamped jar handle with the image of a four-winged scarab beetle or a four-winged uraeus. A four-winged uraeus as central icon is also depicted on four official-seal type 484 jar handles belonging to ‘Samk[i] (son of) Zephanyahu’, whose stratigraphical circumstances are however ambiguous (WSS 689 A–D).512 The Shebanyahu jar handle was dated by Nahman Avigad to the early 6th century B.C. (Avigad et al. 2000: 102, no. 80), but Andrew Vaughn and Gabriel Barkay have safely identified it as a genuine type 484 jar handle and hence they assign the specimen accordingly to the late 8th century B.C. (Barkay 1993: 111, n. 4; Vaughn 1999: 126–127, 212). By comparing the jar handle with two others (WSS 702–703) naming a certain ‘Shebanyahu, (son of) c Azaryah[u]’, Vaughn further theorises that the named royal son could have been a son of king Azariah/Uzziah (792–740 B.C. as per Thiele, see Vaughn 1999: 128–129). However, the equation is hard to swallow. Most importantly so, the relevant stamped jar handles of Shebanyahu nowhere specifically state that Shebanyahu’s father was a king.513 All other stamped type 484 storage jar handles refer to officials only (see above). Although it is impossible to rule out a date as early as the reign of Azariah/Uzziah, especially so within the traditional time frame of the jars, in line with what has been said above, a lower date is clearly preferable, i.e. not preceding Hezekiah’s reign. If a winged scarab beetle is depicted, a date within the latter’s reign fits particularly well, especially since this emblem (as prominent central icon) is depicted on both the king’s royal seal impressions and the lmlk jar handles, most of which seem to belong to the period prior to 701 B.C. (as discussed above).514 If a four-winged uraeus is depicted, however, a date comprising of the reigns of both Hezekiah and Manasseh (or even Josiah?) may be considered.515 A similar date for the Shebanyahu jar handle is suggested by Renz and Röllig, who tentatively identify the icon as that of the four-winged uraeus (2003: 384, no. 21.15). Indeed some (albeit unprovenanced) seals and bullae support this time frame (WSS 385; Deutsch 2003: nos. 22, 34, 87, 220). For a seal impression with a four-winged uraeus, likely from the reign of Manasseh, see the unprovenanced (albeit undated) fiscal bulla from the town of Pheka, located in the Hebron-district (Barkay 2015: 23, fig. 21). A 7th century date is also likely to be corroborated by the following considerations. The owner of an unprovenanced seal also bearing the four-winged uraeus as a central icon (published in 1892 by the notable critic of modern forgeries Charles Clermont-Ganneau [1892: 275–278]) is a certain ‘Elishama bnhmlk’ (WSS 11). This individual has been equated by some scholars with the father of ‘Nethaniah’, a scion of the House of David referred to in 2 Kgs 25:25 (see also Jer 40:18 and 41:1), whose son Ishmael was elected king after the Fall of Jerusalem during a coup attempt instigated by the murderers of Gedalyahu, the governor at Mizpah (van der Veen 2004: 253–255).516

511

See e.g. the writing of waw in the lower register, which rather suggests a late 8th century date (compare Vaughn 1999a: 53). 512 For another official seal impression (without the central icon) likely of the same official and stamped on an unprovenanced type 484 jar handle from the S. Moussaieff collection, see Deutsch and Heltzer (1995: 45–46, no. 52). 513 Sometimes, however, the royal title is missing on seals, as is e.g. the case on the royal bullae of king Barrakib of Sam’al/Zincirli (WSS 750). The same may be true for ‘Elyashib bn cAshyahu’—whose seals were found at Tel Arad, Stratum VII, Locus 779—who has been tentatively identified by this author with a son of king Josiah (2014a: 62–64, 70–73). Even so, it seems strange why Azaryahu should not be more clearly identified as a king on the jar handle, especially since all other officials mentioned on the jar handles were non-royals. 514 Similar imagery is also found on the provenance—albeit unstratified—seal WSS 59 from Lachish, as well as on the unprovenanced bulla WSS 478. 515 Note, however, that two unprovenanced bullae with this icon, kept in the Chaim Kaufman collection, date to the reign of king Ahaz (Deutsch 2003c: 29–32). 516 Two unprovenanced bullae (impressed by two different seals) of a certain ‘Netanyahu bnhmlk’ are also attested, whose owner has been identified as Ishmael’s like-named father by some (Barkay 1993: 109–114; Deutsch 2003c: 56– 57, no. 32). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Iron Age IIB in Judah: The ‘Lachish Level III’ Horizon and the lmlk Stamp Impressions

167

As Elishama was Ishmael’s grandfather, the former could have been born sometime during the mid-years of Manasseh’s reign (perhaps c. 660 B.C., using a 25-year generation count). Similarly, Shebanyahu, who like Elishama is described as king’s son and who used the same icon on his private seal which stamped the jar handle, could have served the Judaean state during the final years of Manasseh or during the reign of one of his immediate successors. His office would therefore have overlapped with the final years when lmlk jars were still in use. Unfortunately, no prince by that name is known from the relevant period.517 With so many uncertainties involved, the above possibilities can be no more than suggestions and should not therefore be used as independent markers for fine-tuning the chronology of the lmlk jar handle corpus.

Figs. 66a–b: Left: stamp impression of ‘Elyaqim ncr Yokan’ from Tell Beit Mirsim (IAA I.4936, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem; photo by R. Wiskin). Right: stamped jar handle of ‘Shebanyahu bnhmlk’ at the Reuben Hecht Museum in Haifa (courtesy of the Hecht Museum of the University of Haifa, O. Rimmon).

517

The present author has made the following suggestion elsewhere, which he now considers to be less plausible in the light of the chronology of the lmlk jars (van der Veen 2014a: 70–73). It was argued that Shebanyahu could have been a son of Josiah and perhaps a brother of Elyashib, the governor of Tel Arad (Strata VII–VI). This suggestion was based on an equation proposed by William F. Albright (1969: 569, n. 17) and Fox (2000: 52, 246, with ns. 42 and 204). By comparing the style of the letters on an unprovenanced seal of a certain ‘Shebanyahu ben Ashyahu’ with that of ‘Elyashib the son of Ashyahu’ from Tel Arad Stratum VII (van der Veen 2014a: 123, fig. 21 [left]), it was conjectured that Ashyahu could have been the same as king [Y]oshiyahu and that both Shebanyahu and Elyashib were his sons (1969: 569, n. 17). According to this theory ‘Ashyahu’ would have been an alternate name form of ‘Josiah’, deriving both names from the verb’šy, ‘to heal’ (van der Veen 2014a: 71). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

4 Conclusions and Prospects for Future Study 4.1 Conclusions: The termini post and ante quem of Iron Age IIB In chapter 1 we studied Neo-Assyrian related seals and bullae. The first specimens discussed in this chapter were discovered through wet-sieving fill material from the so-called ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ in the City of David. While this large fill contained seal material stretching from the Middle Bronze to Iron Age II, it was the Iron Age pottery and three relevant bullae that required our attention. While the excavators dated the terminus ante quem of the fill to between 800–780 B.C., arguing that its latest remains are from the end of Iron Age IIA (contemporary with Shiloh’s Stratum 13), it was especially Lily Singer-Avitz who reasoned that the fill also contained representative material belonging to Iron Age IIB (i.e. of the so-called ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon). However, as the pottery has not yet been officially published, we decided to leave the issue open. If the excavators were right, then—in the light of the views presented in this volume—the filling of the Pool would have occurred before the reign of Hezekiah. If the fill also contained Iron Age IIB material (as per Singer-Avitz), this operation must be attributed either to the reign of Hezekiah or to that of his son Manasseh. This later date was indeed corroborated by the glyptic material we presented, especially by the two-winged sun disks as depicted on all three bullae found by Reich and Shukron (our ‘Types 1–3’). Close parallels were found in Neo-Assyrian art, some from Nimrud and Nineveh suggesting dates as late as the 7th century. Moreover, the overall composition of the third bulla (our ‘Type 3’)—with a variety of elements including a ‘throne’, a winged sun disk placed on what appears to be a pole and a platform, and a ‘solar boat’—was felt to be reminiscent of compositions attested within the so-called Aramaising seal corpus of the late 8th–7th centuries B.C. The dates provided by the sealings from the fill and by the abandonment of the house built on top of it to no later than the onset of Iron Age IIC, clearly provides us with a narrow chronological margin. Hence, the date for the filling in of the Pool sometime near the end of the 8th or during the first decades of the 7th century B.C. appears to be the most likely solution. It is still difficult to estimate what this evidence implies for dating the so-called ‘Siloam-Tunnel’. But based on 14C results and on the sigillographic evidence presented here, it appears that Hezekiah may still be considered as the original builder of the system. Whether or not he also completed the project and/or if the entrance to Tunnel 4 at the bottom of the ‘Round Chamber’ was the work of his son and successor, will need to remain a subject for future study (see infra, under 4.2.2). In the second part of chapter 1 we scrutinised the evidence of the famous Shema seal found at Megiddo during the excavations of Gottlieb Schumacher. By studying multiple aspects pertaining to the seal—including the original photographs, palaeography and iconography, as well as the stratigraphic evidence presented in the original excavation reports—we were able to better appreciate why Schumacher dated the seal to what we now know to be Stratum VA–IVB. The style of the letters indeed suggests a general date for the seal during the first half of the 8th century. As for the iconographic details of the roaring lion, the closest provenanced parallels date from the 8th–7th centuries (including the lion seal from Khorsabad and the ‘degenerated lion seals’ from Jerusalem, Tell en-Nasbeh, and Megiddo). Also other—albeit unprovenanced—material supports this overall date. Two additional motifs flanking the lion and observed by the original excavators (that of an Egyptian cankh-symbol and what is probably a floral motif), were rediscovered on one of the original photographs (but which has probably been enhanced by an artist working with Schumacher) and good parallels were adduced from similar seal finds, all from the 8th–7th centuries B.C. As for the stratigraphical context of the seal—believed by some to be ‘ambiguous’ at best—we felt that both the original descriptions of the debris and the pottery vessels found on the same level with the seal above Gatehouse 1567 (Schumacher’s ‘Palastwohnung’), seemed at least to provide reliable information on the original find context. While the circumstances of the debris are paralleled by a similar situation at for instance the Iron Age Gatehouse at Beth Saida, we concluded that the debris could have derived from the upper part of the Gatehouse, including its upper floor. Most of the pottery vessels could be squarely dated to the very end of Iron Age IIA or shortly thereafter. If this evidence can be trusted (the author did not find any serious flaws with it), Stratum VA–IVB would have ended later than is currently accepted (at least at Megiddo), overlapping this stratum with the reign of Jeroboam II, clearly matching the information found on the seal. Two causes for the destruction of the relevant stratum at Megiddo and its southern Gatehouse were tentatively suggested: seismic

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

170

Chapter 4

activity (at the time of the prophet Amos, c. 760 B.C.) and political turmoil (which ended the dynasty of Jehu in c. 749/748 B.C.). In chapter 2 we studied in particular the question of the earliest date when locally produced ‘Assyrianstyle’ pottery might be expected to have appeared in the Southern Levant. Although the majority of vessels seemed to have reached a cultural peak during Iron Age IIC of the later 7th–6th centuries, the earliest relevant pottery has been found in strata of the Iron Age IIB period. These are normally believed to date to the second half of the 8th century. But as we have shown, types closely resembling ‘Assyrian Palace Ware’ vessels (including dimpled beakers and carinated flaring rim bowls) are clearly restricted in the Assyrian homeland to the late 8th and 7th centuries. Hence, their imitation by the local pottery workshops in Cis- and Transjordan would hardly be expected to have occurred before the 7th century, the very heyday of the Pax Assyriaca. On the whole, it seems unlikely that ‘Assyrian-style’ and ‘Assyrian-Edomite-style’ vessels would have reached Palestine (through trade and local production) much before that time—especially as those wares reflecting stronger ‘Edomite’ tendencies probably ‘reached’ the Arad-Beersheba-Valley not before 700 B.C. We also presented arguments as to why we believe that the dates of ‘Edomite-style’ pottery, when it occurs in strata within Cisjordan, must be based on the chronology of central Edom rather than vice versa. Other evidence, including bronze vessels and mirror-like objects from Kfar Veradim and Tel Dan respectively, was presented and also appeared to corroborate the overall conclusion that current Iron Age IIB dates may be amiss by at least half a century. In chapter 3 some supplementary evidence was presented which seemed to confirm the overall thesis of an inflated Iron Age chronology. Through lowering the date of the so-called ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon (by overlapping its end with the late reign of Manasseh), we were able to make better sense of the overall picture concerning the distribution of the stamped lmlk jars. For they have not only been found in ‘Lachish III’ strata, but a continued production even into the ‘Lachish Level II horizon’ appears to be clearly supported by a considerable amount of accumulating evidence, for instance at one-period sites such as Horvat Shilhah, as well as at newly founded sites, such as Tel Goren Stratum V. With four-winged scarab icons probably dated to the early phase of the period under discussion (possibly reflecting Hezekiah’s anti-Assyrian political tendencies) and most of the ‘Assyrianising’ two-winged sun disk stamps to the reign of Manasseh (whose astral worship and subordination to Assyria are well-attested), we created a working model that makes reasonable sense of all available information pertaining to the jars. Although this evidence may not be considered as of the same level as that presented in chapters 1 and 2, it seems to support its overall drift. The arguments that have been presented in this volume may therefore indicate where chronological studies of late Iron Age Israel and Jordan may lead us in the years ahead, if these chronologies are no longer dictated by ‘tentative’ historical fix-points. The overall procedure should be to let evidence speak for itself before we get too much entangled by the chronological nets, that we ourselves spun, when this evidence was not yet available. If the ‘chronological markers’ presented in this monograph help to identify those areas of study that need further fine-tuning, an important contribution will have been made. Likewise, the arguments presented here will need to be carefully scrutinised in the light of other and hopefully new evidence. Reminding ourselves of what Professor Ze’ev Herzog used to teach his students, that ‘archaeology is about 10 percent data and 90 percent interpretation’ (Herzog in Mahoney 2015: 59–60)—we all would do well to consider any attempt at establishing chronological networks (like ‘carpets’ made of many—partly artificially—interwoven threads) as largely provisional. In the following section we shall briefly deal with the date of the destruction of Lachish Level III, a point we have so far consciously left out of the discussion, in order not to be side-tracked by subtleties whose repercussions do not directly influence the general outcome of the evidence presented in this volume. Nevertheless as ‘Lachish Level III’ has been used as a model for a whole archaeological horizon (i.e. ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon), and as such it represents a whole repertory of particular pottery styles dated to the appropriate time period, we will discuss it here. We shall therefore list the following subjects as prospects for future research.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Conclusions and Prospects for Future Study

171

4.2 Iron Age IIB and the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh: Prospects for Future Research 4.2.1 The Destruction of Lachish Level III: When did it Happen? Already during an early stage of research on the present subject, the present author was confronted with the crucial question as to when Lachish Level III could have come to an end, if the concept of a lower terminus ante quem for Iron Age IIB in Judah was to be further corroborated. Two main options presented themselves. Either Lachish Level III had been destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (as most scholars agree518), or several decades later (presumably in 648 B.C.), when according to 2 Chr 33:11–13 Judah had apparently been invaded once more by a Neo-Assyrian army during the reign of king Manasseh (Rainey 1993: 159–162).519 In the following section this author will discuss both views. While currently preferring a modification of the traditional ‘high’ date (in the light of the chronological evidence presented in this volume), this author does not seek to present the case as ‘closed’, as more research will be necessary to tip the balance one way or the other. 4.2.1.1 648 versus 701 B.C.? In terms of a lower Iron Age IIB chronology, the 648 date initially appeared to be the most likely candidate. It was presumed that most sites belonging to the Lachish III horizon were all more or less contemporary with the lifespan of Lachish Level III itself. After all, the pottery assemblages at Lachish had become the very benchmark by which all other sites had been dated (Zimhoni 2004: 1805; Finkelstein 1994: 170; Lehmann 2012: 290). When evidence supporting lower dates in accordance with the ‘Assyrian-style’ material as presented in chapter 2 started to accumulate, the present author felt that the lower date had much to commend itself. On the other hand, the historical synchronism between Lachish Level III and Sennacherib’s siege of the city in 701 B.C. could not be simply brushed aside, unless it could be proven that the Neo-Assyrian monarch had been responsible for the destruction of an earlier city at Lachish, that of Level IV. But even so, if Level IV (believed to represent the final phase of Iron Age IIA) had met its demise in 701 B.C., this would create new problems, as it would shift the beginning of Iron Age IIB in Judah to even after 701 B.C. Yet, despite the sheer improbability of such a drastic proposal, this theory too had had and still has its proponents (both William F. Albright and Kathleen Kenyon et al. had equated Sennacherib’s city with that of ‘Lachish Level IV’; e.g. Albright 1943; Aharoni and Amiran 1958: 171–184; Holladay 1976: 259). These earlier scholars, however, had dated the end of Lachish Level III to the early 6th century, just one decade prior to the fall of Jerusalem. This theory, however, is no longer accepted, as evidence against it has surfaced during the renewed excavations at Lachish between 1973–1994. Indeed, David Ussishkin has shown conclusively, that a 6th century date is untenable (as had previously been argued e.g. by Olga Tufnell and Yohanan Aharoni; 518

Or some years later, if Sennacherib had conducted a second campaign against Judah, as some scholars have suggested (esp. Shea 1997; 1999). This theory has been met with much criticism for understandable reasons, as straightforward evidence is lacking. The theory is widely based on a) an artificial procedure of harmonising biblical tradition with Assyrian sources (due to discordant views on the outcome of the battle), and b) a poor understanding of mostly ambiguous sources from the reign of Pharaoh Taharqa (recently Kahn 2014a; 2014b; Pope 2014: 117–130). See also Kitchen 19863: 383–386; Cogan 2001: 40–45, 69; Morkot 2000: esp. 207–217; Hoffmeier 2003: 219–234). For a more general discussion of the political parties involved, see Younger Jr. (2003). 519 It is not unlikely that the Chronicler had access to ancient sources referring to battles and building operations conducted by the kings of Judah, as also argued by Martin Noth (1997: 58–60). A date as early as the 670’s B.C. (most likely around 674–671 when Esarhaddon was defeated in Egypt according to the Babylonian Chronicler) has been suggested for this rebellion, while other scholars leave the issue open (Elat 1975: 67; Gane 1997: 25; Aubin 2002, chapter 12, E-book, positions 3005 and 3025; for a list of different views, see Millar and Hayes 1986: 374, 376). During the 670’s several Levantine vassal-rulers seem to have ceased paying tribute to Assyria (Vernus 1975a: 31; Rainey 1993: 153–154). This rebellion has been variously dated to the years 679 and 677 B.C. Yet the rebellion was quickly quenched. In 676 B.C. Esarhaddon forced his vassals (including Manasseh) to escort a corvée for the construction of his new palace at Nineveh (ANET 291). However, it seems unlikely that the biblical Chronicler had this event in mind when he wrote about the Assyrian invasion during the reign of Manasseh. His reference to Manasseh’s exile to Babylon best fits the 648 B.C. rebellion, when Assurbanipal indeed stayed in Babylon while dealing ‘with the seditious factions that had supported [his brother] Shamash-shum-ukin’ (Rainey 1993:160). For an in-depth study of the rebellious Shamash-shumukin and his allies, see Frame (20072: 131–190 [chapter 8]). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

172

Chapter 4

Tufnell 1953; Aharoni and Aharoni 1976, 73–74). As could be shown, Levels III and II had been separated by an indefinite period of abandonment, while both levels were represented by different pottery horizons which have become the very cornerstone for dating late Iron Age stratigraphy in Judah (Aharoni and Aharoni 1978: 73–90; Shiloh 1989: 97–105; Zimhoni 1997: 257). In other words, the ‘Albright/Kenyon version’ could be put aside, and in accordance with it Ussishkin has assigned the end of Lachish Level III to 701 B.C.520 Even so, while important conclusions were to be drawn from the renewed excavations, other scholars maintained that the 701-date for Level III was still not set in stone and that no positive evidence has been uncovered to clinch the equation (James 2007: 214–215). There is no doubt that overwhelming evidence of conflagration and siege artillery has been uncovered at the site (above all the famous siege ramp). But despite Ussishkin’s own conviction that this evidence clearly matches the available sources, some evidence has been presented by the critics which has often been ignored. According to them, Assyrian inscriptions nowhere refer to the burning and systematic demolition of Lachish as they normally do for other enemy-cities outside Judah, a point which even Ussishkin admits (Ussishkin 1977: 30; 2014a: 76–89; James et al. 1991: 177; cf. James 2007: 214–215; but see also Matty 2016: 4.1). While ‘Sennacherib states that the Judaean cities he captured were granted to the loyal kings of Philistia’ (assuming that the infrastructure at Lachish could have been left fairly intact) it was also argued that Sennacherib would have been too preoccupied with warding off ‘an incursion from Egypt’ that very same year (1991: 177–178). James et al. further theorised that the ‘deeper Level IV, which also seems to have met a violent end, actually provides a perfect match with the city besieged and captured by Sennacherib’ (James et al. 1991: 138). Hence, while most scholars accept Ussishkin’s equation, some doubters remain (see also Lipiński 2006: 416; Holladay 1976). As a consequence, it would not be methodologically objective to cast their arguments simply to the wind and hence the mid-7th century B.C. option must be left open until better evidence can be presented to finally refute it. Having said this, based on the following considerations the present author opts for the 701 B.C. date, albeit with some crucial adjustments to be incorporated, based on the evidence presented in this volume (for a comparison between both versions see Table 8 infra).

4.2.1.2 Does the Earlier Date fit the Data better? Taking all the available evidence together, this author considers the earlier date of 701 B.C. (albeit with some modifications) to be the more likely candidate for the following reasons: a) Lachish Level III does not represent the end of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon In recent years an increasing number of scholars have suggested a slight modification of the traditional view by arguing that not all sites represented by the same pottery horizon must have met their demise in 701 B.C. (contra Rainey 1993: 151).521 As a matter of fact some strata could have terminated several decades later. It is further argued that the traditional view is actually contradicted by the available sources. Some scholars doubt the very impact of Sennacherib’s military operations in areas further inland and to the south of the Shephelah in line with the ambiguous nature of the Assyrian sources (as per Knauf 2002 and Bagg 2011; but

520

A modified version, that Lachish III ended in 587 B.C. and Lachish II only during the 5th century B.C., was originally suggested by James et al. (1991: 171–175). However, this is clearly discredited by inscribed evidence (including seals and bullae) as this author has shown in detail elsewhere (2014a) as James has more recently accepted. There seems to be no point of escape but to accept that Lachish Level II (contemporary with City of David Stratum 10, Tel Arad Strata VII–VI, etc.), ended in 588/587 B.C. during the course of Nebuchadrezzar’s campaign against Judah. For if Lachish Level II were to be redated to the 5th century, so would City of David Stratum 10, which contains multiple bullae referring to historical personalities from the time of the prophet Jeremiah, including Gemaryahu the son of Shaphan, Azaryahu the son of Hilqiahu, Gedalyahu the son of Pashhur, etc. Moreover, no alternative Iron Age level of destruction has been detected in Jerusalem prior to the one at the end of Iron Age IIC that could be alternatively assigned to the time of Nebuchadrezzar (see van der Veen 2014b: 391–392; Shiloh 1989: 102; A. Faust, pers. comm., May 2001). 521 The late Anson Rainey was a fierce defender of the traditional ‘701 B.C.’ position. Attempting to bring one of his Tel Aviv University colleagues into line, he wrote: ‘There is absolutely nothing to support Beit-Arye’s assertion that his earlier Tel cIra pottery is later than the end of the eighth century B.C.E. The myth of Manasseh’s early revival of Judaean settlements in the biblical Negeb is purely the figment of archaeological imagination’ (1993: 151–152, n. 5; emphasis added). For a similar negative view on the archaeology of the reign of Manasseh, see Tatum (2003: 298). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Conclusions and Prospects for Future Study

173

see also Finkelstein 2008: 513522), while both the Assyrian annals and biblical tradition make it relatively clear that especially Jerusalem (City of David Stratum 12, Jewish Quarter Strata 9–8, etc.) did not cease to exist at this time, as the capital was not captured (Shiloh 1989: 102). An abrupt break with ‘Lachish Level III’ culture at this point would demand a rather awkward explanation., Jerusalem’s inhabitants (and those of other villages and towns not destroyed at this time) did not cease to produce ‘Lachish III-style’ pottery overnight and enter a new cultural horizon so casually: ‘Needless to say, at the beginning of this reoccupation process in the early 7th century, the pottery of Judah was still identical to the Lachish III repertoire.’ (Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 72; see also Finkelstein 2008: 501) For similar reasons Axel Knauf has dated the destruction of several sites in the Northern Negev to after 701 B.C., arguing that these places contain pottery styles that bridge the gap between Lachish Levels III and II.523 A similar position is taken by Fantalkin and Oren in their final report on Tel Qudadi: ‘It is more than possible that quite a number of the so-called 701 BC destruction assemblages could be dated, in fact, a few decades later.’ (2015: 194) Gunnar Lehmann reinforces this claim when he writes: ‘Ceramics of the time of Hezekiah (e.g. Lachish stratum III) were most probably identical as well with pottery styles in use during most of the time of Manasseh.’ (2012: 290, emphasis added) In his unpublished Ph.D. thesis from the late 1980’s Itzhaq Eshel already sought to build chronological bridges between Lachish Levels III and II, arguing in favour of a late cultural phase which we would describe today as the later half of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon (Eshel 1987; 1995: 18–157). Unfortunately, his work has largely suffered from a somewhat artificial endeavor seeking to classify pottery styles according to archaeological sub-phases of only 20–30 years, which eventually proved to be a venture too bold to accomplish (criticised by Kletter 1996: 8–9; for similar views see Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 72–73; Lehmann 2012: 290). With Lachish Level III representing the early phase of the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon, other sites (not destroyed in 701 B.C.) would seem to belong to the second half of that period. While many scholars today date the beginning of Lachish Level III to around 760 B.C. (Finkelstein 2008: 502), this author prefers a date no earlier than c. 735 B.C. in line with the lower dates envisaged in this volume.524 In line with these dates, it is tempting to correlate the demise of the preceding stratum (Level IV) with Philistine incursions into the Shephelah during the reign of king Ahaz (2 Chr 28:16–18).525

522

Note that Finkelstein doubts ‘that Sennacherib attacked the southern hill country’, because of evidence lacking ‘in the Bible or in the Assyrian records’ (2008: 513). It is surprising why on the other hand he accepts the demise of several towns in the Northern Negev in 701 B.C. for which evidence is likewise lacking in the sources. 523 While he suggests a date for the destruction of Tel Beersheba Stratum II during the first quarter of the 7th century, he considers a terminal date for Tel Arad Stratum VIII as late as c. 650 B.C. to be feasible (Knauf 2002: esp. 182–184). The excavators of Tel cIra, Beit-Arieh and Freud, similarly date the destruction of Stratum VII to the first half of the 7th century (Beit-Arieh 1993: 642; Freud 1999: 195; L. Freud, pers. comm., 2006). For a discussion on these sites, see also supra chapter 2; van der Veen 2014a: 262; see also Ussishkin 1985: 142–144). 524 Moreover, a date coinciding with the start of Hezekiah’s reign (c. 726 B.C.), would present itself. This author considers it likely that this king’s early reign witnessed extensive building activities, more so than later during his reign, when this monarch became too preoccupied with fighting his western neighbours and when the royal treasury would have been largely eaten up by the reorganisation of his army to confront Assyria and later by heavy tribute to be paid to Assyria. 525 Alternatively, the demise of Level IV could perhaps be related to an alleged southern campaign conducted by Tiglathpileser III (2 Chr 28:20; van Bekkum 2011: 435; Noth 1997: 60), or to some seismic activity, see also chapter 1, Excursus 1. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

174

Chapter 4

Date Lachish Level IIIB.C. Destruction: 701 B.C. 770 750

Lachish Level IV Lachish Level IV

730 710 690

Lachish Level III

‘Squatter‘

‘Lachish Level IIIHorizon’

670 650

Early Level II?

630 610

Lachish Level IIIDestruction c. 648 B.C.

Lachish Level II

Lachish Level III

‘Lachish Level IIIHorizon‘

‘Squatter‘

‘Lachish Level IIHorizon’

Early Level II? Lachish Level II

‘Lachish Level IIHorizon'

590 570

Period of uncertain duration ‘Squatter’

‘Squatter occupation’ Table 8: The table compares the early and late versions of the revised Lachish Level III destruction in relation to the entire ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon shown next to it.

b) ‘Winged scarab’ versus ‘winged sun disk impressions’ As has been argued in chapter 3, some 85% of the lmlk stamp jar handles from Lachish Level III bear the socalled four-winged scarab emblem, whereas at other sites, more than 80% of all handles bear the two-winged symbol (Avigad and Barkay 2000: [251]). At those sites which appear to bridge the gap between late Iron Age IIB and early Iron Age IIC (Beth-Zur Stratum 3; Tel Batash Stratum 2, City of David Stratum 11) and those that were resettled during the early Iron Age IIC period after an indefinite time of abandonment (Lachish Level II, Tel Arad Stratum VII–VI, City of David Stratum 10) two-winged sun disk handles clearly dominate. This appears to be especially true of one-period sites dated to early Iron Age IIC (e.g. Horvat Shilhah), as well as sites that were originally constructed at this time (e.g. Tel Goren Stratum V). Be this as it may, in view of the in-depth study of the jars and their archaeological find contexts, this situation cannot be simply brushed aside as mere coincidence. Although this may ultimately be difficult to prove, the predominance of four-winged stamps at Lachish may well fit the political focus of Hezekiah’s reign better. As noted in chapter 3 Hezekiah’s coalition with the Napatan kings may have given rise to its very use on the royal jars, a point substantiated by Isaiah’s own comparison of the swift Kushite forces with the scarabaeus sacer (Isa 18:1). On the other hand, Manasseh’s reign witnessed an increase of astral worship (as reported by the biblical redactor and confirmed by sigillographic evidence, see chapter 3) and in the light of his vassalage to Assyria the predominance of the two-winged sun disk during the latter half of the ‘Lachish Level © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Conclusions and Prospects for Future Study

175

III’ horizon makes good sense. If, however, Lachish Level III terminated in c. 648 B.C. the chronological distribution of the handles would be more difficult to explain. c) A narrow chronological margin In terms of pottery styles, the late date creates a very narrow chronological margin which perhaps leaves too little time between Lachish Levels IV, III and II, while the last two were separated by an indefinite period of abandonment (according to the excavator) with possible squatter occupations in between (Eshel 1995: 63).526 As can be seen in Table 8, the lower version leaves little more than one century for both the ‘Lachish Level III- and II horizons’, where the higher version has at least some 150 years. Unless it can be positively shown that Lachish Level II was resettled considerably later than is usually advocated (leaving perhaps only one to two decades for the entire ‘Level II horizon’ prior to its demise between c. 590–587 B.C), the archaeological record will be hard to reconcile with a c. 648 B.C. destruction of Lachish Level III. Undoubtedly the situation has become considerably more complex in recent years, as scholars have started to detect morphological variations between the pottery assemblages at the different contemporary sites, for instance between Lachish Level III and Tel Beersheba Stratum II, Tel cIra Stratum VII and Tel Arad Stratum VIII, assuming that some of these strata could have postdated Lachish Level III by several decades. Consequently, they should be identified either as late ‘Lachish-III’ or even as ‘post-Lachish-III-intermediate’ periods, bridging the gap between Lachish Levels III and II.527 A similar situation is encountered at Tel cAroer, where recently a ‘new’ post-Lachish Level III stratum (Stratum IIa) has been identified.528 Many of these sites were finally resettled during what we consider to be classical Iron Age IIC. Multiple new sites originated at this particular time in the Judaean highlands and eastern desert regions (Finkelstein 2008: 513; Hofeditz forthcoming). As stated above, despite the personal preference of this author for the earlier date, the questions pertaining to the study of Lachish Level III and its cultural horizon can hardly be satisfactorily solved within any of the timeframes currently at our disposal. It is also unlikely that these questions will be solved by pottery studies alone, as chronological and regional variations within contemporary pottery assemblages will be very difficult to settle without supplementary hard evidence (Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 72–73; Lehmann 2012: 290–291). It is therefore hoped that more diagnostic material (including imported pottery styles and small items) and more importantly historically datable epigraphic finds, will surface, that will allow more precise chronological conclusions to be made. The present situation in archaeology is however greatly encouraging. 526

This suggestion is based on multiple strands of evidence. As was briefly mentioned in chapter 2 (supra 2.2.10.2) evidence of squatter occupation has been noted by Eshel (1995: 63). Eshel has sought to identify two phases of occupation between the demise of Levels III and II. He assigned his first post-701 B.C. squatter occupation (Eshel’s ‘Level 2/c’, i.e. Ussishkin’s ‘intermediate phase’ [L. 4021], 1978: 66; 1983: 133–134; Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 72) to a military contingent whose remains were uncovered above the ruins of the main Level III Gatehouse. The second stage of occupation (Eshel’s Level 2/b) is represented by an unfortified settlement that is supposed to predate the onset of the final fortified Iron Age city at the site, traditional Lachish Level II. For a more reserved interpretation of the squatter evidence at the site, see Ussishkin (1983: 133–134). Also a number of scholars have referred to mass burials of disarticulated bones and skulls of approximately 700 individuals (originally believed to have exceeded some 1500 people) that were excavated at Lachish during the British Excavations (Tufnell 1953: 193–194). Their date remains unclear, but it has been suggested that these people (some 360 males, 274 females and 61 children) had either been killed during the siege of Lachish Level III or sometime later (Ussishkin 2014b: 318–322). Based on independent anthropological studies of the decapitated skulls these individuals are believed to be of Hamitic origin, possibly of Upper-Egyptian or Kushite descent (esp. Keita 1988: 388; Risdon 1939; Aubin 2002: E-Book, position 2080 with ns. 28–29). While a mid-7th century date for the demise of Lachish Level III would possibly associate these individuals with the reign of Psamtik I (664– 610 B.C.), the earlier date would assign them to the reign of Pharaoh Taharqa (690–664 B.C.). Both rulers are believed to have campaigned in Palestine. 527 Large quantities of pottery vessels, excavated by Kathleen Kenyon in Caves 1 and 2 (Kenyon Trenches A. XXII and A. XXVI) at the City of David, were morphologically correlated to those of other archaeological sites outside Jerusalem, whose strata are dated squarely to the intermediate phase between Lachish Levels III and II. Amongst the many cult figurines found in Cave 1, multiple horse statuettes have also been found, some which wear solar disks on their heads (Holland 1995: 175, fig. 7: 21 and 176, fig. 8: 2, and pp. 183–185). Suggestions were initially made to associate these with the cultic reform under King Josiah in c. 620 B.C., but Kenyon herself (substantiated by Eshel’s analysis of the pottery) suggested a slightly earlier date for the ceramic repertory (Kenyon 1974: 143; Holland 1995: 182). 528 According to Thareani, a recently identified post-Lachish Level III caravansarai (her Stratum IIa) must be dated prior to the onset of the final Iron Age Stratum IIb at the site (Thareani 2014: 233–238). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

176

Chapter 4

For if excavations continue to yield inscribed bullae and seals through the process of wet-sieving—as they have in recent years (especially so in Jerusalem)—more crucial finds may be shortly anticipated. One such find is without doubt the royal bulla of king Hezekiah that was recently unearthed during the Ophel excavations. Unfortunately, its find context, in an unstratified fill from the late Iron Age, has not yielded the expected information (Mazar 2015b: 629–640; Späth and van der Veen 2016: 23–28; for similar crucial finds, see esp. van der Veen 2014a; 2015a: 190–198).

4.2.2 Manasseh’s Building Projects: The ‘Second Wall’ and the Siloam-Tunnel The lower date suggested in this monograph will undoubtedly have important repercussions for a number of issues that will need to be separately studied in more depth, as their study is beyond the scope of the present work. The following comments will therefore serve as mere guidelines for further study. King Manasseh has been accredited with the building of a second or outer wall ‘around the City of David’, that according to the Chronicler was located ‘west of the Gihon spring in the valley’, leading all the way around the city to the Fish Gate by ‘encircling the hill of Ophel’ (2 Chr 33:14). There has been some discussion about the whereabouts of this fortification (see Bieberstein and Bloedhorn 1994: 73–74; Bahat 1981: 235–236), but since the discovery of exactly such an Iron Age IIB wall on the lower slopes of the City of David near the bottom of the Kidron Valley (Reich 2011: 177–184), there is every reason to believe that this is the wall that the Chronicler was referring to. Nadav Na’aman accepts the equation but, constrained by the traditional date of Iron Age IIB to before 700 B.C., he assigns it to the reign of Hezekiah instead, assuming that the Chronicler was mistaken about its date: ‘Thus, the Chronicler’s description corresponds well to the wall unearthed by Reich and Shukron at the lowermost end of the city’s eastern slope, which was also an “outer wall” and passed “in the wadi.” The Chronicler was acquainted with the vestiges of the eastern wall, which were still standing in his day and were only covered with rubbish in the first century C.E. … Not knowing who built it, he attributed its construction to Manasseh, as a reward for his penitence … .’ (Nadav Na’aman 2007: 45; see also Himbaza 2007: 283–294; 2006: 47) In a similar vein, Donald Ariel and Alon de Groot reject the equation with Manasseh’s wall due to current Iron Age IIB chronology. For them there is no point of escaping that the outer wall must have been built before Manasseh’s late reign. In the light of traditional chronology their decision is indeed consistent. For the area between the walls (known as ‘the intermural quarter’, see Reich 2011: 179) was abandoned before the onset of Iron Age IIC and hence no longer existed during the late reign of Manasseh (2000: 163; Na’aman 2007: 45, n. 27; De Groot and Fadida 2011: 159–160). This author agrees with Na’aman that the wall described in Chronicles may well be the one excavated by Reich and Shukron. Yet, in the light of a lower terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIB as envisaged here, it is likely that Manasseh rather than Hezekiah was its builder (unless this wall was started under Hezekiah and later finished by Manasseh, with a possible reference in 2 Chr 32: 5; see also Hom 2016: 501). It would certainly be worthwhile to investigate in more detail the stratigraphic evidence of the wall (when these details become more readily available) and the possible extent of the wall to see if it really fits the data presented in Chronicles. Another interesting subject for further study (granted that the relevant information from the current excavations at the Gihon Spring and near the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ will be published in due course) is the date when the so-called ‘Siloam-Tunnel’ was built and completed and when other nearby apertures were blocked, see Hom (2016: 500). Did Hezekiah both build and complete it or, as has also been argued, could the task have been too enormous to be completed within one single reign? Indeed, some scholars accredit the project to Manasseh rather than Hezekiah, assuming that many more years would have been needed to complete this bold enterprise (Knauf 2001: esp. 283–285; Gutman 2001: 49–66; Gaß 2015: 276; Lippke 2016: 23–25). It has been further suggested that the Judahite king could have relied on foreign (possibly Assyrian) experts more accustomed to such major achievements (for a similar suggestion in terms of building activity at Ayyelet ha-Shahar, see Kletter and Zwickel 2006). Perhaps the data assembled from the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ in chapter 1 can help determine when the project was started (prior or during the early phase of Iron Age IIB?), if the system was altered (when and why was the entrance to Tunnel 4 blocked?), and when it was finally completed (see also Finkelstein 2013: 282–283). Interestingly—albeit only based on palaeographic evidence—a 7th century date for the ‘near-cursive letters’ in the lapidary Siloam-Tunnel inscription has also © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Conclusions and Prospects for Future Study

177

been considered (Vaughn 1999: 58–59; for the most up-to-date facsimile of the Siloam-Tunnel inscription, see van der Kooij 2016: esp. 116, fig. 6). Indeed, the date when the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ was filled in deserves close scrutinity as it provides important information for the chronology envisaged in this volume. In 2 Chr 33:4 the biblical redactor tells us that Hezekiah’s workforce in Jerusalem ‘blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land’ on the very eve of Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 B.C. (V. 1). Could this action be in any way related to the filling in of the Pool? If so, we would have a very precise date for the given operation. Based both on the pottery analysis of De Groot and Fadida and the preliminary assessment made by Singer-Avitz (see chapter 1, supra 1.1.1.1), this author considers it reasonable to assume that the Pool was filled in during the first half of the ‘Lachish Level-III’ horizon, i.e. contemporary with early Stratum 12 at the City of David. Naturally no precise conclusions can be reached before the final publication of the finds has appeared in print. Nonetheless, if justified, this could suggest that Lachish Level III indeed dates from before 701 B.C. (if of course the predominance of four-winged emblems at Lachish over and against that of two-winged icons at sites in the Judaean highlands can be understood chronologically) rather than to the first half of the 7th century B.C. (as per James et al. 1991). The houses built on top of the fill could then be assigned to an extra-mural quarter that originated after 701 B.C. The second wall would then have been subsequently built (presumably after Manasseh’s return from exile in c. 648 B.C. and late during the ‘Lachish Level III’ horizon) to refortify this part of the city (see 2 Chr 33:14).

4.2.3 The Topography and Prosperity of Manasseh’s Kingdom The lower dates envisaged here would undoubtedly shed new light on the history and archaeology of Manasseh’s reign. As was shown in chapter 3 and in the discussion on the date of the Lachish Level III destruction under 2.1 above, Manasseh’s reign would have witnessed the occupation of several important ‘Lachish Level III’ sites, both within the Judaean highlands and in the Northern Negev, whose demise has hitherto been dated (almost exclusively so) to 701 B.C. If, however, these sites continued to flourish for most if not all of Manasseh’s reign, this would shed new light on the economic welfare of Judah at this particular time. While according to the traditional framework, the 701 B.C. event would have blotted out virtually all of Iron Age II culture in the Shephelah and partly in central Judah (bringing the kingdom of Judah virtually to its knees), according to the views presented here, a very different picture emerges. Despite the destruction of some prominent sites in the Shephelah (including Lachish), Manasseh—albeit under the watchful eye of Assyria— would have benefited greatly from the economic welfare of the Pax Assyriaca as did his neighbours in Philistia, Ammon and Edom (similarly Himbaza 2006: 46–47).529 If justified, intriguing questions such as the 529

In his book review of Zwickel et al. (2013), Erasmus Gaß questions direct political involvement of Assyria in the Southern Levant during the reign of Manasseh: ‘Das assyrische Engagement in der südlichen Levante während der Herrschaft Manasses wird nämlich völlig überbewertet (S. 177). Assyrien hat nämlich in wirtschaftlichen Dingen im Rahmen des sogenannten Pax Assyriaca weder in die wirtschaftliche Produktion eingegriffen, noch diese kontrolliert’ (Gaß 2015: 276). Although Gaß’ position has been discussed by some scholars in recent years (e.g. by Faust and Weiss, see infra), as Lawson Younger has recently argued, there can be little doubt that the Pax Assyriaca ‘was concerned with obtaining maximal profit in these lands from the appropriation of primary production (agriculture and animal breeding), secondary production (commodities and luxury items) and human resources (generalized work force and specialized craftsmen’ and that ‘there was a need for good management that encouraged šulmu “état de paix” ...’ (2015: 182). While one may at first glance sympathise with Gaß that Assyria would have been less concerned about the economic affairs in the remotest peripheries of the empire (as also argued by Faust and Weiss 2011; Faust 2011), there is good reason to doubt this, when all the written sources including ‘every day epistolary documents’ are closely scrutinised, as has been discussed in detail by Younger (2015: 180–181, 188–189). There can therefore be little doubt that the South-Palestinian oil industry referred to on the relevant pages in Zwickel et al. (2013, albeit written by the present author) was run at least ‘semi-independently’ (for the concept of semi-independency in terms of the economic affairs in the Southern Levant during the time of the Pax Assyriaca, see also Gane 1997: 24; similarly Younger 2015: 182, 192–193, 197). It too must have been operated with the clear consent of Assyria (Finkelstein 1994: 180; similarly Bagg 2011: 290–291). Moreover, as a bufferstate Palestine lies on the very doorstep of Egypt. The Assyrian vassal population at Tell Jemmeh and the military contingents at the multiple outposts in Sinai and the Northern Negev (see the map in Zwickel et al. 2013: 176; Oren 1995: 102–105) would have nervously observed any local manoeuvres to prevent uncontrolled interaction with expansionist Kushite Egypt (wine and oil were exported to Egypt, see McDonald 2008: 23–24; Faust and Weiss 2011: 195; Zwickel 1994: 586–589), reviving old Judaean sympathies for Egypt as a nearby ally, especially since 701 B.C. (when indeed the Kushites had been a direct ally of Judah, see chapter 3) and subsequently after the uprisings between © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

178

Chapter 4

‘international’ role of Manesseh and how key to this were his prominent sites in the Northern Negev, would certainly deserve closer scrutiny. For did these sites mainly serve as trading-stations overlooking the trade routes between the Arabian Peninsula, Gaza and Egypt, or could they have also served as military outposts and warehouses for stationing troops and storing food and equipment during Esarhaddon’s and Assurbanipal’s wars with Egypt (cf. Gane 1991: 26)? The Assyrian annals indeed suggest that Manasseh played a role during these wars along with the other Assyrian vassals by sending his troops to accompany the Assyrian monarch in his campaign against Egypt, leading eventually to the sack of Thebes and the final overthrow of the Kushite 25th Dynasty in 664 B.C. (ANET 294).530 As was briefly discussed in chapter 3, the lmlk jars (especially those bearing the Assyrianising symbol of the two-winged sun disk) also would be seen in a new light, closely associated with Manasseh’s political and religious orientations. Another area for further study no doubt is the question whether the jars primarily served a fiscal purpose (to pay tribute to Assyria or to finance Manasseh’s building activities, albeit with Assyria’s consent), or if they should rather be viewed as a part of Manasseh’s extensive oil or wine production (including the so-called ‘Gibeon jars’), of which evidence has also been found in Jerusalem (see chapter 3), as well as on the summit of the Mount of Olives, at nearby Ras al-cAmud (van der Veen 2010: 110, 113).

677–671 B.C. While Assyria may have allowed the local population some degree of autonomy, daily life continued to be partly ‘controlled’ by Assyria, no doubt especially so in Southern Palestine, a region so adept to rebellion (Gane 1991: 31; Bagg 2011: 305–306; Zamazalová 2011: 323–324). As for Kushite Egypt, Judah’s southern neighbour, its selfinterest in securing its own borders with Palestine and maintaining some degree of influence over the main trade routes (Pope 2014) would have stirred new hopes for independence. 530 By closely examining the scenes on an unprovenanced gilded silver cup (currently kept at the Miho Museum at Shigaraki near Kyoto, Japan) and by comparing these with the palace reliefs at Nineveh from the time of Assurbanipal, Erika Bleibtreu has identified foreign soldiers—possibly Judaean archers—with turban-like headdresses and quiver-caps (closely reminiscent of the Judaeans on the Lachish panels of Sennacherib), in the depicted army of the Assyrian monarch (Bleibtreu 1999: 16, 36 with Table 15, and 43, with Table 22). She dates the silver cup to after 646 B.C., contemporary with the final years of Manasseh’s reign. If her interpretation is correct, this would suggest that later during Manasseh’s reign (postdating the time of the rebellion described in 2 Chr 33:11–13) the Judahite king continued to send military contingents, this time to augment Assyria’s war-machine in its battles with Elam. For a similar depiction of an Assyrian or Judahite archer on a recently found 7th century inscribed seal with the name ḥgb (‘grasshopper’) from the Western Wall Plaza excavations in Jerusalem, see Weksler-Bdolah et al. (2009: 23/9/2009); Ornan et al. (2008: esp. 118, 120 with figs. 7: a–d, 121–126). © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Abbreviations AASOR ASOR ÄAT ABS ACSS ADAJ ADOG ADPV AERA AF AfO AIAR AJA AJPA ANES ANESSup ANET AO AOAT AoF ARAM ARAMAZD Arch AUSS AVO BA BAIAS BaF BAMA BAR BARIS BASOR BAT BCSMS BEAM Bib BibOr BIFAO BGTA BH BK BVB C&CW CdE CEHAO CHANE CRAIBL DVHL EABS EI EPRO EPSL ESI Evang. Theol. FAT FRLANT GAT GM HA HBAI HBM HSAO

The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research American Schools of Oriental Research Ägypten und Altes Testament Archaeology and Biblical Studies Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Ancient Egypt Research Associates Acts & Facts Archiv für Orientforschung Albright Institute of Archaeological Research American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Physical Anthropology Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament Antiguo Oriente Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Forschungen Aram, Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies Archaeology Andrews University Seminary Studies Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Baghdader Forschungen British Academy Monographs in Archaeology Biblical Archaeology Review BAR (British Archaeological Reports) International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblical Archaeology Today Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Beiträge zur Erforschung der antiken Moabitis (Arḍ el-Kerak) Biblica Biblica et Orientalia Bulletin de l’Institut Française d’Archéologie orientale Bollittino Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata Buried History Bibel und Kirche Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel Chronology & Catastrophism Workshop Chronique d’Égypte Center of Studies of Ancient Near Eastern History Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres Deutscher Verein vom Heiligen Lande European Seminar in Historical Methodology Eretz Israel Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l`empire romain Earth and Planetary Science Letters Excavations and Surveys in Israel Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Grundrisse zum Alten Testament Göttinger Miszellen Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Hebrew Bible Monographs Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

180

HSM HSS HTR HUCA IAA IEJ IGR IPIAO JAA JACF JAEI JAMT JANES JAOS JARCE JBL JCS JCSMS JEA JEH JEMAHS JEOL JESHO JGR JHS JNES JS JSAS JSOT JSOTSup JSSEA KUSATU MedASup MDOG MMAB MMJ MNDPV MSAW MSIA NABU NEA NEAEHL NeHet NIDOTTE OBO OBOSA OIMP OJA OLA OLZ Or (NS) PBA PEFA PEFQSt PEQ PIATA PNAS PSAS RA RAO RB RIMA RlA RO RSF

Abbreviations

Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Antiquities Authority Israel Exploration Journal International Geology Review Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Egyptian History Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Geophysical Research Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Seismology Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin Metropolitan Museum Journal Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins Münchner Studien zur Alten Welt Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires Near Eastern Archaeology The New Encylopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Revue numérique d’Égyptologie New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica Oriental Institute Museum Publications Oxford Journal of Archaeology Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (Nova Series) Proceedings of the British Academy Palestine Exploration Fund Annual Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Publications of the Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Recueil d’Archéologie Orientale Revue Biblique Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Period Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Rocznik Orientalistyczny Rivista di Studi Fenici

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Abbreviations

SA SAA SAAB SAAS SARSB SEC SCAn SCI SciAm SEL Sem SIJ SISRev SJOT SM SymS TA Trans UCL UF UMM VFMvOS VT VTSup WAW WO WSS WuWB WVDOG WZKM YNER ZA ZAR ZÄS ZDPV ZOA

Studia Antiqua State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyrian Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Studies Sudan & Nubia—The Sudan Archaeological Research Society Bulletin Semitica et Classica Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Scripta Classica Israelitica Scientific American Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici Semitica Studium Integrale Journal Society of Interdisciplinary Studies Review Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scripta Mediterranea Symposium Series Tel Aviv Transeuphratène University College of London Ugarit-Forschungen University Museum Monograph Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Writings from the Ancient World Die Welt des Orients Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals Welt und Umwelt der Bibel Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

181

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography Abu-Assaf, A. 1981 Die Statue des HDYS’Y, König von Guzana, MDOG 113, 2–21. Adams, R.B. (ed.) 2008 Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, London/Oakville: Equinox. Aharoni, M. 1981 Inscribed Weights and Royal Seals, in: Y. Aharoni (ed.), Arad Inscriptions: Judean Desert Studies, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 126–127. 1993 Arad, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 1, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 75–87 (with introduction by Y. Aharoni). Aharoni, M. / Aharoni, Y. 1976 The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.E., BASOR 224, 73–90. Aharoni, Y. 1962 Excavations at Ramat Raḥel: Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome: Università degli studi / Centro di Studi Semitici. 1964 Excavations at Ramat Raḥel: Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome: Università degli studi / Centro di Studi Semitici. 1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V), PIATA 4, Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers Inc. 1981 Arad Inscriptions: Judean Desert Studies, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1993 Ramat Raḥel, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 4, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1261– 1267. Aharoni, Y. / Amiran, R. 1958 A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the Iron Age in Palestine, IEJ 8:3, 171–184. Ahituv, S. et al. 2012 The Inscriptions (chapter 5), in: Z. Meshel (ed.), Kuntillet cAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 73–142. Ahlström, G.W. 1993 The Seal of Shema, SJOT 7:2, 208–215. Albenda, P. 1972 Ashurnasirpal II Lion Hunt Relief BM 124534, JNES 31, 167–178. 1974 Lions on Assyrian Wall Reliefs, JNES 6, 1–27. Albertz, R. 1996 Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, Teil 1: Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende der Königszeit, GAT 8:1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Albright, W.F. 1932 The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preëxilic History of Judah, with Some Observations on Ezekiel, JBL 51, 77–106. 1943 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine, Volume 3, AASOR 21–22, New Haven: Yale University Press. Alexandre, Y. 2002a The Iron Age Assemblage from Cave 3 at Kefar Veradim, in: Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, *55–*63. 2002b A Fluted Bowl with a Canaanite-Early Phoenician Inscription from Kefar Veradim, in: Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, *65–*74. 2006 A Canaanite-Early Phoenician Inscribed Bronze Bowl in an Iron Age IIA–B Burial Cave at Kefar Veradim, Maarav 13, 7–41. Alt, A. 1953 Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda, in: A. Alt (ed.), Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Volume 2, Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 116–134. Ambrayses, N.N. 2005 Historical Earthquakes in Jerusalem: A Methodological Discussion, JS 9, 329–340. 2009 Earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amiran, R. 1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, Jerusalem: Biyalik Institute / The Israel Exploration Society. 1975 A Note on the ‘Gibeon Jar’, PEQ 107, 129–132.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

184

Bibliography

Anastasio, S. 2007 Das Obere Ḫabur-Tal in der Jazira zwischen dem 13. und 5. Jh. v. Chr.: die Keramik des Projektes ‘Prospection archéologique du Haut-Khabur Occidential (Syrie du N.E.)’, Florence, unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Centro Editoriale Toscana sas. 2010 Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age, Subartu XXIV, Turnhout: Brepols. 2011 Assyrian Pottery between the Middle and Neo-Assyrian Periods: The Case of Qasr Shamamuk—Kilizu, in: P. Miglus / S. Mühl (eds.), Between the Cultures: The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC, HSAO 14, Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 343–355. Arie, E. 2008 Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications, TA 35, 6–64. Arnaud, D. 2007 Assurbanipal: Roi d’Assyrie, Paris: Fayard. Arneth, M. 2006 Die Hiskiareform in 2 Reg 18,3–8, ZAR 12, 169–215. Arnold, B.T. / Hess, R.S. (eds.) 2014 Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Aster, S.Z. 2007 Transmission of Neo-Assyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E., HUCA 78, 1–44. Aster, S.Z. / Faust, A. 2015 Administrative Texts, Royal Inscriptions and Neo-Assyrian Administration in the Southern Levant: The View from the Aphek-Gezer Region, Or 84, 292–308. Ataç, M.-A. 2010 The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Athas, G. 2003 The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation, London / New York: T&T Clark. Aubin, H.T. 2002 The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance between Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C., New York: Soho Press. 2015 Has Racism Skewed Scholar’s View of Kush? A Response to a Critique of The Rescue of Jerusalem, on: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278244532_Has_Racism_Skewed_Scholars%27_View_of_Kush _A_ Response_to_a_Critique_of_The_Rescue_of_Jerusalem Austin, S. 2010 The Scientific and Scriptural Impact of Amos’ Earthquake, AF 39:2, 8–9. Austin, S. et al. 2000 Amos’ Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C., IGR 42:7, 657–671. Avigad, N. 1972 Two Hebrew Inscriptions on Wine-Jars, IEJ 22:1, 1–9. 1976 New Light on the Na’ar Seals, in: F.M. Cross et al. (eds.), Magnalia Dei: The Might Acts of God—Essays in the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, New York: Double Day, 294–300. 1986 Hebrew Seals and Sealing and Their Significance for Biblical Research, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986, Leiden: Brill, 7–16. 1993 Samaria (City), in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 4, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta / Simon & Schuster, 1300–1310. Avigad, N. / Barkay, B. 2000 The lmlk and Related Seal Impressions (chapter 5), in: H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Volume I: Architecture and Stratigraphy—Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 243–266. Avigad, N. / Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities / The Israel Exploration Society / The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Avigad, N. et al. 2000 West Semitic Seals: Eighth–Sixth Century BCE, Haifa: University of Haifa. Babbi, A. et al. 2015 The Mediterranean Mirror: An Introduction, in: A. Babbi et al. (eds.), The Mediterranean Mirror: Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B.C.—International Post-Doc and Young Researcher Conference Heidelberg, 6th–8th October 2012, Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum / Leibnitz-Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie, 1–20. Bachmann, W. 1969 Felsreliefs in Assyrien: Bawian, Maltai und Gundük, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

185

Backer, De, F. 2013 L’art du siège néo-assyrien, CHANE 61, Leiden: Brill. Bagg, A.M. 2010 Interaktionsformen zwischen Nomaden und Sesshaften in Palästina anhand neuassyrischer Quellen, WO 40, 190–215. 2011 Die Assyrer und das Westland: Studien zur historischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der Levante im 1. Jt. v. u. Z., OLA 216, Leuven: Peeters. Bahat, D. 1981, The Wall of Manasseh in Jerusalem, IEJ 31, 235–236. Baker, D.W. 1988 Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah: An Introduction & Commentary, Leicester: InterVarsity Press. Baker, H. (ed.) 2002 The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 3, Part I: P–Ṣ—Using the Electronic Data Base of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project and with the Collaboration of Numerous Colleagues, The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Balogh, C. 2009 The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 Concerning Egypt and Kush, unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Theologische Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland Kampen. 2011 The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 Concerning Egypt and Kush, Leiden: Brill. Banyai, M. 2013 Ein Vorschlag zur Chronologie der 25. Dynastie in Ägypten, JEH 6, 46–129. 2015 Die Reihenfolge der kuschitischen Könige, JEH 8:2, 115–180. Barag, D. 1985 Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the British Museum, London/Jerusalem: The British Museum. 2011 A Neo-Assyrian Glass Bowl Fragment, in: Y. Thareani (ed.), Tel cAroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic–Early Roman Settlement—The Avraham Biran (1975–1982) and Rudolph Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology / Hebrew Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion, 259–260. Bard, K.A. 2 2015 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Barkay, G. 1992 ‘The Prancing Horse’: An Official Seal Impression from Judah of the 8th Century B.C.E.’, TA 19, 14–129. 1993 The Redefining of Archaeological Periods: Does the Date 588/586 B.C.E. Indeed Mark the End of Iron Age Culture?, in: A. Biran / J. Aviram (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 106–109. 1995 The King of Babylonia or a Judean Official?, IEJ 45, 41–47. 2015 Evidence of the Taxation System of the Judean Kingdom: A Fiscal Bulla from the Slopes of the Temple Mount and the Phenomenon of Fiscal Bullae, in: M. / E. Lubetski (eds.), Recording New Epigraphic Evidence: Essays in Honor of Robert Deutsch, Jerusalem: Leshon Limudim Ltd., 17–49. Barkay, G. / Vaughn, A.G. 1996a New Readings of Hezekian Official Seal Impressions, BASOR 304, 29–54. 1996b Lmlk and Official Seal Impressions from Tel Lachish, TA 23, 61–74. 2004 The Royal and Official Seal Impressions from Lachish, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Volume IV, MSIA 22, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2148–2173. Barkay, G. et al. 2002 A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem, BASOR 328, 49–71. Barnett, R.D. 1956 The Treasure of Ziwiye, Iraq 18:2, 111–116. 1957 A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories with Other Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum, London: British Museum Publications. 1970 Assyrian Palace Reliefs in the British Museum, London: British Museum Publications. Bartl, P.V. 2011 A Late Bronze Age – Iron Age Graveyard and Other Burials at Tell Fekheriye: Excavation Report of Sounding C (all squares), 2010 (available on http://www.fecheriye.de/pdf/2010_C_Burials_report.pdf) Beaulieu, P.A. 1989 The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556–539 B.C., YNER 10, New Haven / London: Yale University Press. Beckerath, J. von 1997 Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

186

Bibliography

Becking, B. 1981–1982 The Two Neo-Assyrian Documents from Gezer in Their Historical Context, JEOL 27, 76–89. 2003 Chronology: A Skeleton without Flesh? Sennacherib’s Campaign As a Case-Study, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOTSup 363, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 46–72. Beek, G.W. van 1987 Arches and Vaults in the Ancient Near East, SciAm July, 96–113. 1993 Jemmeh, Tell, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 2, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 667–674. Beit-Arieh, I. c Ira, Tell, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 2, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 642–646. 1993 1999 (ed.) Tel cIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, MSIA 15, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. 2007 Ḥorvat cUza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev, MSIA 25, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University / Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology. 2008 Ḥadid, Tel, in: E. Stern et al. (eds.), NEAEHL, Volume 5, Jerusalem / Washington D.C.: Israel Exploration Society / Biblical Archaeology Society, 1757–1758. Bekkum, K. van 2011 From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan, CHANE 45, Leiden: Brill. Ben-Menahem, A. 1979 Earthquake Catalogue for the Middle East (92 B.C.-1980 A.D.), BGTA 21, 245–310. 1991 Four Thousand Years of Seismicity along the Dead Sea Rift, JGR 96, 195–216. Bennett, C.-M. 1982 Neo-Assyrian Influence in Trans-Jordan, in: A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Volume I, Amman: Department of Antiquities, 181–187. Bennett, C.-M. / Bienkowski, P. (eds.) 1995 Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan, BAMA 8, Oxford: The British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History / Oxford University Press. Ben-Dor Evian, S. 2015 Shoshenq I and the Levant: Synchronising Chronologies, in: P. James / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 17–19. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2014a Results from Field IV; The Iron II and Later Periods (chapter 8), in: D. Ben-Shlomo / G.W. van Beek (eds.), The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990, SCAn 50, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 403–641. 2014b Assyrian-Style Pottery (Palace Ware; chapter 13), in: D. Ben-Shlomo / G.W. van Beek (eds.), The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990, SCAn 50, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 732–748. 2014c Synthesis and Conclusions: The Significance of Tell Jemmeh (chapter 34), in: D. Ben-Shlomo / G.W. van Beek (eds.), The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990, SCAn 50, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 1054–1065. 2014d Tell Jemmeh, Philistia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Late Iron Age, Levant 46:1, 58–88. 2014e Field I Furnace (the Kiln), Square KB, and FUR 2-FUR (chapter 7), in: D. Ben-Shlomo / G.W. van Beek (eds.), The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990, SCAn 50, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 337–402. 2015 Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Figurines and Other Artifacts, in: E. Mazar (ed.), The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008: Final Reports Volume I, Area G, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 453–467. Ben-Shlomo, D. / Van Beek, G.W. (eds.) 2014 The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970-1990, SCAn 50, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. Ben-Tor, A. 2005 Hazor, in: E. Stern et al. (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 5, Jerusalem / Washington D.C.: Israel Exploration Society / Biblical Archaeology Society, 1769-1776. 2016 Hazor: Canaanite Metropolis, Israelite City, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / Biblical Archaeology Society. Ben-Tor, A. / Zarzecki-Peleg, A. 2015 Iron Age IIA–B: Northern Valleys and Upper Galilee (chapter 2.2), in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbours: From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

187

Society / W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Israel Antiquities Authority / American Schools of Oriental Research, 135–188. Ben-Tor, D. 1993 The Scarab: A Reflection of Ancient Egypt, Jerusalem: The Israel Museum Jerusalem. Ben-Yosef, E. et al. 2014 Local Iron Age Trade Routes in Northern Edom, in: E. Levy et al. (eds.), New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Volume 2, Monumenta Archaeologica 35, Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 492–575. Berlejung, A. 2007 Die Reduktion von Komplexität: Das theologische Profil einer Gottheit und seine Umsetzung in der Ikonographie am Beispiel des Gottes Aššur in Assyrien des 1. Jt. v. Chr., in: B. Groneberg / H. Spieckermann (eds.), Die Welt der Götterbilder, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 9–56. Bieberstein, K. / Bloedhorn, H. 1994 Jerusalem: Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osminischen Herrschaft, Volume 1, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Bienkowski, P. 1992 The Date of Sedentary Occupation in Edom: Evidence from Umm e-Biyara, Tawilan and Buseirah, in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7, Sheffield: J.R. Collins Publications, 99–112. 2000 Transjordan and Assyria, in: L.E. Stager et al. (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 44–58. 2002b The Site and Its Exploration (chapter 1), in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Busayra: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett 1971-1980, BAMA 13, Oxford: The Council for British Research in the Levant / Oxford University Press, 37– 46. 2002c Conclusions (chapter 14), in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Busayra: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett 1971–1980, BAMA 13, Oxford: The Council for British Research in the Levant / Oxford University Press, 475–482. 2011b The Site and its Exploration (chapter 1), in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Umm al-Biyara: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett in Petra 1960–1965, Levant Supplementary Series 10, Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow Books, 1–10. 2011c The Pottery: With Contributions by Marion Oakeshott (chapter 4), in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), 2011, Umm alBiyara: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett in Petra 1960–1965, Levant Supplementary Series 10, Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow Books, 55–78. 2013 The Iron Age in Petra and the Issue of Continuity with Nabataean Occupation, in: M. Mouton / S.G. Schmid (eds.), Men on the Rocks: The Formation of Nabataean Petra, Proceedings of a Conference Held in Berlin 2– 4 December 2011, Berlin: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft / Agence Nationale de la Recherche / Logos, 23– 34. 2015 Iron Age IIC: Transjordan, in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Israel Antiquities Authority / American Schools of Oriental Research, 419–434. Bienkowski, P. (ed.) 2002a Busayra: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett 1971–1980, BAMA 13, Oxford: The Council for British Research in the Levant / Oxford University Press. 2011a Umm al-Biyara: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett in Petra 1960-1965, Levant Supplementary Series 10, Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow Books. Bimson, J.J. 1982 Can There Be a Revised Chronology without a Revised Stratigraphy?, SISRev VI:1–3, 16–26. 1999 Iron Age Palestine: The Need for Chronological Revision, JACF 8, 57–65. 20032 Die Eisenzeit in Palästina—II: Die Notwendigkeit einer Revision der konventionellen Chronologie, in: P. van der Veen / U. Zerbst (eds.), Biblische Archäologie am Scheideweg? Für und Wider einer Neudatierung archäologischer Epochen im alttestamentlichen Palästina, Holzgerlingen: Hänssler, 269–284. Bimson, J.J. / Tebes, J.M. 2009 Timna Revisited: Egyptian Chronology and the Copper Mines of the Southern Arabah, AO 7, 75–118. Biran, A. 1994 Biblical Dan, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Hebrew Union College / Jewish Institute of Religion. 1999 Two Bronze Plaques and the Ḥuṣṣot of Dan, IEJ 49:1–2, 43–54. Black, J. / Green, A. 1992 Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

188

Bibliography

Black, J. et al. 2000 A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde 5, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Blakely, J.A. 1981 Judahite Refortification of the Lachish Frontier, unpublished master’s thesis, Wilfred Laurier University. Blakely, J.A. et al. 2014 The Southwestern Border of Judah in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C.E., in: J.R. Spencer et al. (eds.), Material Culture Matters: Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of Seymour Gitin, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 33–51. Bleibtreu, E. 1999 Ein vergoldeter Silberbecher der Zeit Assurbanipals im Miho Museum: Historische Darstellungen des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Vienna: Selbstverlag des Instituts für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Bloch-Smith, E.M. 1992 The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains, JBL 111:2, 213–224. Bodine, J.J. 2010 Gates, Dates, and Debates: A Review of Megiddo’s Monumental Gate and the Debates over Archaeology and Chronology in Iron Age Palestine, SA 8:1, 1–19. Boehmer, R.M. 1975 Die neuassyrischen Felsreliefs von Maltai, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 90, 42–84. Bonacossi, D.M. / Iamoni, M. 2015 Landscape and Settlement in the Eastern Upper Iraqi Tigris and Navkur Plains: The Land of Nineveh Archaeological Project, Seasons 2012–2013, Iraq 77, 9–40. Bordreuil, P. 1985 Inscriptions sigillaires ouest-sémitiques III: Sceaux de dignitaires et de rois syro-palestiniens du VIIIe et du VIIe siècle avant J.-C., Syria 62:1–2, 29–29. 1993 Le répertoire iconographique des sceaux araméens inscrits et son évolution, in: B. Sass / C. Uehlinger (eds.), Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, OBO 125, Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 74–100. Bordreuil, P. / Israel, F. 1991–1992 À propos de la carrière d’Elyaqim: du page au majordomo, Sem 41/42, 81–87. Borger-Klähn, J. 1982 Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs, BaF 4, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. Brand, E. 1996 ḥpyrt bdyqh bšwly tl ḥdyd: dyn wḥšbwn r’šwny, Report of the University of Tel Aviv, 3–4. 1998, ḥpyrt hṣlh bšwly tl ḥdyd: dyn wḥšbwn r’šwny, Report of the University of Tel Aviv, 27–31. 1999 El-Ḥaditha, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19 (= Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 107), *44–*45. Bremer, J. 2016 Wo Gott sich auf die Armen einlässt: Der sozio-ökonomische Hintergrund der achämenidischen Provinz Yəhūd und seine Implikationen für die Armentheologie des Psalters, Göttingen: V&R Unipress GmbH / Bonn University Press. Broshi, M. The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh, IEJ 24, 21–26. 1974 Bruins, H.J. et al. 2005 Iron Age 14C Dates from Tel Dan: A High Chronology, in: T.E. Levy / T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London / New York: Routledge, 323–336. 2011 Iron Age Mediterranean Chronology: A Reply, Radiocarbon 53:1, 199–220. Budge, E.A. 1880 The History of Esarhaddon King of Assyria, B.C. 681–668, Translated from the Cuneiform Inscriptions upon Cylinders and Tablets in the British Museum Collection, London: Trübner and Co., Ludgate Hill / Samuel Bagster and Sons / Paternoster Row. Bunimowitz, S. / Lederman, Z. 2003 The Final Destruction of Beth-Shemesh and the Pax Assyriaca in the Judean Shephelah, TA 30:1, 3–26. Bunimowitz, S. / Lederman, Z. (eds.) 2016 Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border-Community in Judah—Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age, MSIA 34, Volumes 1 and 2, Winona Lake, IN: Institute of Archaeology / Tel Aviv University / Eisenbrauns. Busch, R. 2002 Der Elfenbein-Schatzfund, in: R. Busch (ed.), Megiddo—Tell el-Mutesselim—Armageddon: Biblische Stadt zwischen Krieg und Frieden, Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag, 61–63. Byrne, R. 2003 Early Assyrian Contacts with Arabs and the Impact of Levantine Vassal Tribute, BASOR 331, 11–25. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

189

Cahill, J. 2000 Rosette-Stamped Jar Handles (chapter seven), in: D.T. Ariel (ed.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume VI: Inscriptions, Qedem 41, Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 2003 Rosette Stamp Impressions, in: H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, Volume 2, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 85–98. Caubet, A. 2013 Working Ivory in Syria and Anatolia during the Late Bronze–Iron Age (chapter 19), in: K.A. Yener (ed.), Across the Border: Late Bronze–Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia—Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1, 2010, ANES 42, Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA: Peeters, 449–463. Chapman, R.L. 2009 Putting Sheshonq I in His Place, PEQ 141, 4–17. 2015 Samaria and Megiddo: Shishak and Solomon, in: P. James / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology—Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26–27 March, 2011, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 139–147. Clermont-Ganneau, C.S. 1892 Nouvelles intailles à légendes sémitiques provenant de la Palestine, CRAIBL 20, 274–282. 1905 Quatre cachets israélites archaiques, RAO 6, 114–117. Cogan, M. 1974 Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., Misoula, MT: Scholars. 1993 Judah under Assyrian Hegemony: A Reexamination of Imperialism and Religion, JBL 112:3, 403–414. 2001 Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem: Once or Twice?, BAR 27:1, 40–45, 69. Collon, D. 2000 Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals V—Neo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian Period, London: The British Museum Press. 2007 Iconographic Evidence for Some Mesopotamian Cult Statues, in: B. Groneberg / H. Spieckermann (eds.), Die Welt der Götterbilder, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 57–84. Collon, D. (ed.) 2008 Nimrud Treasures: Panel Discussion, in: J.E. Curtis et al. (eds.), New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq in Association with the British Museum, 105–118. Cook, S. / A. 1904 A Newly-Discovered Hebrew Seal, Notes and Queries, PEFQSt 36, 287–291. Courtois, L.C. / Doray, A.M. 1983 Technologie des céramiques levantines au temps de la domination assyrienne (IX–VII siècle av. J.C.), in: Comptes rendus du 108e Congrès Nationale des Sociétés savantes, Paris: Ministère de l’Education Nationale Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, 125–136. Cross, F.M. / Milik, J.T. 1956 Explorations in the Judaean Buqêcah, BASOR 142, 5–17. Crowell, B.L. 2007 Nabonidus, as-Silac, and the Beginning of the End of Edom, BASOR 348, 75–88. Curtis, J.E. 1988 Assyria as a Bronzeworking Centre in the Late Assyrian Period, in: J.E. Curtis (ed.), Bronze-Working Centres of Western Asia c. 1000–539 B.C., London / New York: Kagan Paul International, 83–96. 1989 Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij, British Museum Western Asiatic Excavations 1, London: Trustees of the British Museum / British Museum Publications. 2008a The Bronze Coffins from Nimrud, in: J.E. Curtis et al. (eds.), New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq in Association with the British Museum, 163–169. 2008b Observations on Selected Metal Objects from the Nimrud Tombs, in: J.E. Curtis et al. (eds.), New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq in Association with the British Museum, 243–254. Curtis, J.E. / Reade, J.E. (eds.) 1995 Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum, London: British Museum.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

190

Bibliography

Curtis, J.E. et al. (eds.) 2008 New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq in Association with the British Museum. Dagan, A. / Cassuto, D.R. 2016 Ḥorvat Shim‘on: An Eighth-Century BCE Textile Workshop in the Southern Coastal Plain, IEJ 66, 34–54. D’Agostino, A. 2009 The Assyrian-Aramaean Interaction in the Upper Khabur: The Archaeological Evidence from Tell Barri Iron Age Layers, Syria 86, 17–41. 2011 The Upper Khabur and Upper Tigris Valleys between the End of the Late Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Iron Age: An Assessment of the Archaeological Evidence (settlement patterns and pottery assemblages), in: K. Strobel (ed.), Empires after the Empire: Anatolia, Syria and Assyria after Suppiluliuma II (ca. 1200– 800/700 B.C.), Florence: LoGisma Editore, 87–136. 2014a The Upper Khabur and the Upper Tigris Valley during the Late Bronze Age: Settlements and Ceramic Horizons, in: D. Bonatz (ed.), The Archaeology of Political Spaces: The Upper Mesopotamian Piedmont in the Second Millennium BCE, Berliner Studien der Alten Welt 12, Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 169–199. 2014b The Tell Barri Sequence of Late Bronze Age Levels: Evolution Trends within Late 2nd Millennium Ceramic Culture, in: M. Luciani / A. Hausleiter (eds.), Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in SyroMesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Berlin, 2–5 November 2006, Rahden (Westfalen): Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, 235–261. Dalley, S. 1995 The Cuneiform Tablet, in: C.-M. Bennett / P. Bienkowski (eds.), Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan, BAMA 8, The British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67– 68. 2008 The Identity of Princesses in Tomb II and A: New Analysis of Events in 701 BC, in: J.E. Curtis et al. (eds.), New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq in Association with the British Museum, 171–175. Dalley, S. / Goguel, A. 1997 The Selac Sculpture: A Neo-Babylonian Rock Relief in Southern Jordan, ADAJ 41, 169–176. Dallibor, K. 2004 Taharqo: Der kuschitische Pharao und seine Zeit. Dissertation. Philosophische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Damerji, M.S.B. (ed.) 1999 Gräber Assyrischer Königinnen aus Nimrud, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 45, Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Damqātum 2015 Solomon, Shishak and Controversies of Ancient Chronology: An Interview with Peter James, Damqātum— The CEHAO Newsletter 11, 3–6. Danzig, D. 2011 A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported Mid-8th Century BCE Levantine Earthquake, University of New York, 1–35 (unpublished essay on the Book of Amos). Supervisor: Dr. S. Holtz. Darby, E. 2014 Interpreting Judean Pillar Figurines: Gender and Empire in Judean Apotropaic Ritual, FAT 2, Reihe 69, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Daviau, P.M.M. / Klassen, S. 2014 Conspicuous Consumption and Tribute: Assyrian Glazed Ceramic Bottles at Khirbat al-Mudayna ath-Thamad, BASOR 372, 99–122. Davis, B. et al. 2015 Disentangling Entangled Objects: Iron Age Inscriptions from Philistia As a Reflection of Cultural Processes, IEJ 65:2, 140–166. Delaporte, L. 1923 Catalogue des cylindres: Cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental, Volume 2, Musée du Louvre, Paris: Librairie Hachette. Deutsch, R. 2002 Lasting Impressions: New Bullae Reveal Egyptian-Style Emblems on Judah’s Royal Seals, BAR 28:4, 42–46, 49–51, 60–62. 2003a A Hoard of Fifty Hebrew Clay Bullae from the Time of Hezekiah, in: R. Deutsch (ed.), Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publication, 45–98.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

2003b

191

Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection, Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications. 2003c New Bulla: The Name of YHWH on Menashe, Haivrit Weahyoteha 2–3, 181–184 (Hebrew). 2011 Biblical Period Epigraphy: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection: Seals, Bullae, Handles, Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications. 2015 Six New, Unrecorded Israelite Hebrew Seals, in: C. Gottlieb et al. (eds.), Visions of Life in Biblical Times: Essays in Honor of Meir Lubetski, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 58–69. Deutsch, R. / Heltzer, M. 1994 Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions, Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications. 1995 New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period, Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications. 1999 West Semitic Epigraphic News of the 1st Millennium BCE, Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications. Deutsch, R. / Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection, Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications. 2003 The Adoniram Collection of West Semitic Inscriptions, Geneva: Archaeological Center Publications. Dever, W.G. 1992 A Case Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, EI 23, *27–*35. 1993 Gezer, in: E. Stern, NEAEHL, Volume 2, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 496–506. Diringer, D. 1934 Le inscrizioni antico-ebraiche Palestinesi, Florence: Felice le Monnier. Dodd, L.S. 2012 Squeezing Blood from a Stone: The Archaeological Context of the Incirli Inscription, in: M.J. Lundberg et al. (eds.), Puzzling Out the Past: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Bruce Zuckerman, Leiden: Brill, 213–231. Dodson, A. 2012 Afterglow of Empire: Egypt from the Fall of the New Kingdom to the Saite Renaissance, Cairo / New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Dothan, T. / Gitin, S. 2008 Miqne, Tel (Ekron), in: E. Stern et al. (eds.), NEAEHL, Volume 5, Jerusalem / Washington, DC: The Israel Exploration Society / Biblical Archaeology Society, 1952–58. Drower, M.S. 1985 Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology, London: Victor Golancz Ltd. Dubovský, P. 2006 Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19, BibOr 49, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Dunham, D. 1950 The Royal Cemeteries of Kush: El Kurru, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ehrlich, C.S. 1996 The Philistines in Transition: A History from ca. 1000–730 B.C.E., Leiden: Brill. Ein-Mor, D. / Ron, Z. c Ain Joweizeh: An Iron Age Royal Rock-Cut Spring System in the Naḥal Refa’im, near Jerusalem, TA 43:2, 2016 127–146. Eggler, J. / Keel, O. 2005 Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien: Vom Neolithikum zur Perserzeit, OBOSA 25, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Elat, M. 1975 The Political Status of the Kingdom of Judah within the Assyrian Empire in the 7th Century B.C.E., in: Y. Aharoni (ed.), Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V), Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers Inc., 61–70. Emberling, G. 2011 Nubia: Ancient Kingdom of Africa, New York: The Institute for the Study of the Ancient World / New York University. Emberling, G. / Dann, R.J. 2013 New Excavations at El-Kurru: Beyond the Napatan Royal Cemetery, SARSB 17, 42–60. Engstrom, C.M.A. 2004 The Neo-Assyrians at Tell el-Hesi: A Petrographic Study of Imitation Assyrian Palace Ware, BASOR 333, 69– 81. Ephal, I. 1988 Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid Rule, in: The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.), Volume 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–164. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

192

Bibliography

Eshel, H. 2012 Excavations in the Judean Desert and at Qumran under Israeli Jurisdiction, in: D. Dimant (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research, Leiden: Brill, 381–399. Eshel, I. 1987 The Chronology of Selected Late Iron Age Pottery Groups from Judah. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis submitted to the University of Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1995 The Functional Character of the Two Jerusalem Groups from Caves I and II, in: I. Eshel / K. Prag (eds.), Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the SouthEast Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere, Oxford / New York: The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem / Oxford University Press, 18–157. Eshel, I. / Prag, K. 1995 Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the SouthEast Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere, Oxford / New York: The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem / Oxford University Press. Ess, M. van et al. 2012 Excavations in the City of Arbil, 2009–2011: The Neo-Assyrian Tomb, ZOA 5, 104–165. Evans, P.S. 2009 The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19, VTSup 125, Leiden/Boston: Brill. 2012 History in the Eye of the Beholder? Social Location and Allegations of Racial / Colonial Biases in Reconstructions of Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah, JHS 12 (article 5), 1–25. Faegertsen, F. 2005 Ivory, Wood, and Stone: Some Suggestions Regarding the Egyptianizing Votive Sculpture from Cyprus, in: C.E. Suter / C. Uehlinger (eds.), Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE, OBO 210, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 265–289. Fales, F.M. 1991 West Semitic Names in the Assyrian Empire Diffusion and Social Relevance, SEL 8, 99–117. 2014 The Road to Judah: 701 B.C.E. in the Context of Sennacherib’s Political-Military Strategy, in: I. Kalimi / S. Richardson (eds.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography, CHANE 71, Leiden: Brill, 223–248. Fales, F.M. / Postgate, J.N. 1995 Imperial Administrative Records, Part III: Provincial and Military Administration, SAA XI, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Fantalkin, A. 2014 Ashdod-Yam on the Israeli Mediterranean Coast: A First Season of Excavations, SKYLLIS 14:1, 45–57. Fantalkin, A. / Finkelstein, I. 2006 The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century-BCE Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History of the South in Iron I-IIA, TA 33:1, 18–42. Fantalkin, A. / Tal, O. 2009 Re-Discovering the Iron Age Fortress at Tell Qudadi in the Context of Neo-Assyrian Imperialistic Policies, PEQ 141:3, 188–206. 2012 Judah and Its Neighbors in the Fourth Century BCE: A Time of Major Transformations, in: J. Unsok Ro (ed.), From Judah to Judaea: Socio-Economic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 133–196. 2015a When the River Meets the Sea: A Neo-Assyrian Logistical Network in Operation, SKYLLIS 15:1, 21–27. 2015b Tel Qudadi: An Iron Age IIB Fortress on the Central Mediterranean Coast of Israel (with references to earlier and later periods)—Final Report on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Excavations Directed by E.L. Sukenik and S. Yeivin, with the Participation of N. Avigad, Colloquia Antiqua 15, Leuven: Peeters. Fantalkin, A. et al. 2011 Iron Age Mediterranean Chronology: A Rejoinder, Radiocarbon 53:1, 179–198. Fargo, V.M. 1993 Ḥesi, Tell el-, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 2, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 630– 34. Faust, A. 2011 The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a Test-Case, JESHO 54, 62–86. 2012 The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2014 On Jerusalem’s Expansion during the Iron Age II, in: E. van der Steen et al. (eds.), Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages, London: Bloomsbury, 256–285.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

193

Faust, A. / Weiss, E. 2011 Between Assyria and the Mediterranean World: The Prosperity of Judah and Philistia in the Seventh Century BCE in Context (chapter 15), in: T.C. Wilkinson et al. (eds.), Interweaving Worlds: Systematic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennia BC—Papers from a Conference in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 189–204. Feig, N. 2013 Tel cAmal: An Iron Age IIA Settlement and Remains from the Bronze Age and the Ottoman Period, HA 125, 1–41. Finkelstein, I. 1994 The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh, in: M. Coogan et al., Scripture and Other Artefacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Westminster: John Knox Press, 169–187. 1999 Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective, BASOR 314, 55–70. 2008 The Settlement History of Jerusalem in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC, RB 115:4, 499–515. 2012 Comments on the Date of Late-Monarchic Judahite Seal Impressions, TA 39, 75–83. 2013a The Finds from the Rock-Cut Pool in Jerusalem and the Date of the Siloam Tunnel: An Alternative Interpretation, SEC 6, 279–284. 2013b Notes on the Historical Setting of Kuntillet cAjrud, Maarav 20:1, 13–25. 2014 Das vergessene Königreich: Israel und die verborgenen Ursprünge der Bibel, Munich: C.H. Beck. Finkelstein, I. / Na’aman, N. 2004 The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE, TA 31, 60–79. Finkelstein, I. / Piasetzki, E. 14 C and the Iron Age Chronology Debate: Rehov, Khirbet En-Nahas, Dan, and Megiddo, Radiocarbon 48, 373– 2006 386. 2009a Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers: A Skeleton from Iron Age Chronology in the Levant, OJA 28, 255– 274. 2009b Radiocarbon Dating the Iron Age in the Levant: A Bayesian Model for Six Ceramic Phases and Six Transitions, Antiquity 84, 37–385. 2010 The Iron Age I/IIA Transition in the Levant: A Reply to Mazar and Bronk Ramsey and a New Perspective, Radiocarbon 52, 1667–1680. Finkelstein, I. / Sass, B. 2013 The West Semitic Alphabet Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archaeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, HBAI 2:2, 149–220. Finkelstein, I. / Silberman, N.A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York: Touchstone / Simon & Schuster. Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D. 2000 Archaeological and Historical Conclusions, in: I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern, Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, MSIA 18, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 576–605. Finkelstein, I. et al. 2000 The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages from Areas S, K and H and Their Stratigraphic and Chronological Implications, in: I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, MSIA 18, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 244–324. Finkelstein, I. et al. (eds.) 2002 Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, Volume 1, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Flinders Petrie, W.M. 1928 Gerar, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Forsberg, S. 2 1995 Near Eastern Destruction Datings as Sources for Greek and Near Eastern Iron Age Chronology: Archaeological and Historical Studies—The Case of Samaria (722 B.C.) and Tarsus (696 B.C.), Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 19, Uppsala: Uppsala University. Fox, N.S. 2000 In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. Frahm, E. 1997 Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, AfO Beiheft 26, Vienna: University of Vienna. 2008 The Great City: Nineveh in the Age of Sennacherib, JCSMS 3, 13–20. 2009 Sanherib, in: M.P. Streck et al. (eds.), RlA, Volume 12:1./2. Lieferung Šamuḫa–Schild, Berlin / New York: W. de Gruyter, 12–22. 2013 A Sculpted Slab with an Inscription of Sargon II Mentioning the Rebellion of Yau-bi’di of Hamath, AoF 40, 42–54. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

194

Bibliography

2016

Revolts in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: A Preliminary Discourse Analysis (chapter 5), in: J.J. Collins / J.G. Manning (eds.), Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 76–89. Frame, G. 2 1992 (1997) Babylonia 689–626 B.C.: A Political History, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul LXIX, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2 2007 Babylonia 689–627: A Political History, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Franken, H.J. 2005 A History of Potters and Pottery in Ancient Jerusalem: Excavations by K.M. Kenyon 1961-1967, London/Oakville: Equinox. Frankfort, H. 1956 The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books. Franklin, N. 2005 Correlation and Chronology: Samaria and Megiddo Redux, in: T.E. Levy / T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London: Equinox, 310–322. 2006 Revealing Stratum V at Megiddo, BASOR 342, 95–111. 2007 Response to David Ussishkin, BASOR 348, 71–73. Free, J.P. 1959 The Sixth Season at Dothan, BASOR 156, 22–29. Frese, D.A. 2012 The Civic Forum in Ancient Israel: The Form, Function, and Symbolism of City Gates, Ph. D. thesis submitted to the University of California, San Diego. 2015 Chambered Gatehouses in the Iron II Southern Levant: Architecture and Function, Levant 47, 75–92. Freud, L. 1999 Pottery (§ 2., chapter 6), in: I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel cIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, MSIA 15, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 189–289. 2008 The Date of Kuntillet cAjrud: A Reply to Singer-Avitz (2006), TA 35, 169–174. 2014 Local Production of Edomite Cooking Pots in the Beersheba Valley: Petrographic Analyses from Tel Malhata, Ḥorvat cUza and Ḥorvat Qitmit, in: J.M. Tebes (ed.), Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ANESSup 45, Leuven: Peeters, 283–306. Frevel, C. 2015 Geschichte Israels, Studienbücher Theologie, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. Fritz, V. 1993 Kinneret: Excavations at Tell cOreimeh (Tel Kinrot) 1982–1985 Seasons, TA 20, 187–215. Frumkin, A. et al. 2013 Radiometric Dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem, Nature 425, 169–171. Fuchs, A. 1993 Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen: Cuvillier. 2008 Über den Wert der Befestigungsanlagen, ZA 98, 45–99. 2009 Waren die Assyrer grausam?, in: M. Zimmermann (ed.), Extreme Formen von Gewalt in Bild und Text des Altertums, MSAW 5, Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 65–119. Gadot, Y. 2015 In the Valley of the King: Jerusalem’s Rural Hinterland in the 8th–4th Centuries BCE, TA 42:1, 3–26. Galil, G. 1996 The Chronology of the Kings of Israel & Judah, Leiden: Brill. Gallagher, W.R. 1999 Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies, Leiden: Brill. Galling, K. 1941 Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. vornehmlich aus Syrien und Palästina, ZDPV 64, 121– 202. Gane, R. 1997 The Role of Assyria in the Ancient Near East during the Reign of Manasseh, AUSS 35:1, 21–32. Garfinkel, Y. 1988, 2 Chr 11:5–10 Fortified Cities List and the lmlk Stamps: Reply to Nadav Na’aman, BASOR 271, 69–73. 1990 The Eliakim Nacar Yokan Seal Impressions, BA (June issue), 74–79. Garfunkel, Z. et al. (eds) 2014 Dead Sea Transform Fault System: Reviews—Modern Approaches in Solid Earth Sciences, Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

195

Gaß, E. 2015 (Book Review) Wolfgang Zwickel / Renate Egger-Wenzel / Michael Ernst (Hg.), Herders Neuer Bibelatlas, WO 45:2, 273–276. Geva, H. 2000 Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Volume I: Conducted by Nachman Avigad, 19621982, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology / Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 2003 Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Volume II: Conducted by Nachman Avigad, 19621982—The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2: Final Report, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Institute of Archaeology / Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Gilboa, A. 1995 The Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age Pottery and the Chronology of Iron Age Assemblages, in: E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor: Final Report Volume IB—Areas A and C: The Finds, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1–49. 2012 (Book Review) S. Anastasio, Atlas of Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age, BASOR 365, 94–97. Gilboa, A. / Sharon, I. 2000 An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece, BASOR 322, 1–75. 2001 Early Iron Age Radiometric Dates from Tel Dor: Preliminary Implications for Phoenicia and Beyond, Radiocarbon 43, 1343–1351. Gilboa, A. et al. 2004 Dor and Iron Age Chronology: Scarabs, Ceramic Sequence and 14C, TA 31:132–159. 2009 Tel Dor and the Chronology of Phoenician ‘Pre-Colonization’ Stages, in: C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ANESSup 28, Leuven: Peeters, 113–204. Gitin, S. 1989 Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period, BASOR 49, 23–58. 1997 The Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Western Periphery: The Levant, with a Focus on Philistine Ekron, in: S. Parpola / R.M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995, Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 77– 103. 2006 The lmlk Jar-Form Redefined: A New Class of Iron Age II Oval-Shaped Storage Jar, in: A.M. Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.), ‘I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Volume II, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 505–524. 2015b Iron Age IIC: Judah, in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Volume 1, Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Society / W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Israel Antiquities Authority / American Schools of Oriental Research, 345–363. Gitin, S. (ed.) 2015a The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Volumes 1 and 2, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Israel Antiquities Authority / American Schools of Oriental Research. Gitin, S. / Cogan, M. 1999 A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron, IEJ 49, 193–202. Gitin, S. et al. 1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron, IEJ 47:1–2, 1–16. Goldberg, J. 1999 Two Assyrian Campaigns Against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology, Bib 80, 360–390. Goren, Y. 2016 Excursus: Petrographic Analysis of lmlk and Official Sealed Jar Handles from the Renewed Excavations (chapter 14), in: S. Bunimovitz / Z. Lederman (eds.), Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in Judah—Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age, Volume II, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 502–504. Gottlieb, Y. 2016 Beer-Sheba under Attack: A Study of Arrowheads and the Story of the Destruction of the Iron Age Settlement, in: Z. Herzog / L. Singer-Avitz (eds.), Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–IIB Cities, Volume III, MSIA 33, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University / Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, 1192–1228. Gozzoli, R. / B. 2009 Kawa V and Taharqo’s By3wt: Some Aspects of Nubian Royal Ideology, JEA 95, 235–248.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

196

Bibliography

Grabbe, L.L. 2003b Of Mice and Dead Men: Herodotus 2.141 and Sennacherib’s Campaign in 701 BCE, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOTSup 363 / EABS 4, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 119–140. Grabbe, L.L. (ed.) 2003a ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOTSup 363 / EABS 4, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2005 Good and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century B.C., London: T&T Carke. Graham, J.N. 1984 (March) Winedressers and Plowmen: 2 Kings 25:12 and Jeremiah 52:16, BA, 55–58. Grayson, A.K. 1991 RIMA 2, Toronto: University of Toronto. Green, A.R. 1983 David’s Relations with Hiram: Biblical and Josephan Evidence for Tyrian Chronology, in: C.L. Meyers / M. O’Connor (eds.), The Word Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, Philadelphia, PA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 373–397. Greenberg, R. / Cinamon, G. 2006 Stamped and Incised Jar Handles from Rogem Gannim and Their Implications for the Political Economy of Jerusalem, Late 8th–Early 4th Centuries BCE, TA 33, 229–243. Greer, J.S. 2010 An Israelite Mizrāq at Tel Dan? BASOR 358, 27–45. 2013 Dinner at Dan: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sacred Feasts at Iron Age II Tel Dan and Their Significance, CHANE 66, Leiden: Brill. Grekyan, Y. / Kashani, P. 2015 Urartian Inscribed Bronze Artifacts from the Reza Abbasi Museum, Iran, ARAMAZD IX/1, 154–158. Grena, G.M. website: http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_jars.htm. 2004 Lmlk: A Mystery Belonging to the King, Volume 1, Redondo Beach, CA: Instant Publisher. 2010 Considering the Reconsidering of lmlk Chronology, Bible Interpretation: www.bibleinterp.com/articles/grena2357915.shtml. 2012 Considering the Rejoinder of lmlk Chronology, The Bible and Interpretation: http://bibleinterp.com/articles/gre368006.shtml. Groot, A. de / Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012 The Pottery of Strata 15–13 (Iron Age IIA; chapter 5), in: A. de Groot / H. Bernick-Greenberg (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Y. Shiloh, Volume VIIB: Area E—The Finds, Qedem 54, Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 199–247. Groot, A. de / Fadida, A. 2011 The Pottery Assemblage from the Rock-Cut Pool near the Gihon Spring, TA 38, 148–166. Grossberg, A. 2006 How Did Hezekiah Prepare for Sennacherib’s Siege?, in: E. Baruch et al. (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem, Volume II, Ramat Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies / University of Bar-Ilan, 35*–37*. 2014 New Observations on the Siloam Water System: Tunnels VI and VIII, TA 41:2, 205–221. Gutman, Y. 2001 Manasseh, Judah’s Worst King?, in: Z. Talshir et al. (eds.), Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible, Jerusalem: Bialik, 49–66 (Hebrew). Halpern, B. 2000 Centre and Sentry: Megiddo’s Role in Transit, Administration and Trade (chapter 23), in: I. Finkelstein et al. (eds.), Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, Volume 2, MSIA 18, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 535–575. 2009 From Gods to God: The Dynamics of Iron Age Cosmologies, FAT 63, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hannig, R. 3 2001 Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch—Deutsch: Die Sprache der Pharaonen, Hannig-Lexica 1, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. Harden, D. 1962 The Phoenicians, New York: Harrison. Hardin, J.W. 2003 (Review article) The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, Volume 2, BASOR 329, 82–84. Harding, G.L. 1953 The Tomb of Adoni Nur in Amman, PEFA VI, 48–65.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

197

Hart, S. 1995a The Pottery (chapter 6), in: C.-M. Bennett / P. Bienkowski (eds.), Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan, BAMA 8, Oxford: The British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History, Oxford University Press, 53– 66. 1995b Area D at Buseirah and Edomite Chronology, in: S. Bourke / J.P. Descoeudres (eds.), Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy, MedASup 3, Sydney: Meditarch, 241–264. Hausleiter, A. 2008 Nimrud in the Context of Neo-Assyrian Pottery Studies, in: J.E. Curtis et al. (eds.), New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq in association with the British Museum, 215–224. 2010 Neuassyrische Keramik im Kerngebiet Assyriens: Chronologie und Formen, ADOG 27, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2011 Ashur in the 2nd and 1st Millennia BC: Archaeological Challenges, Mesopotamia XLVI, 59–70. Hausleiter, A. / Reiche, A. (eds.) 1999 Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the International ‘table ronde’ at Heidelberg (1959) and Nieborów (1997) and Other Contributions, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Hays, C.B. 2015 Death in the Iron Age II and Its Rhetorical Uses in Proto Isaiah, Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Co. Herb, C. / Willburger, N. 2016 Glas: Von den Anfängen bis ins frühe Mittelalter, Stuttgart: Theiss Verlag. Herbordt, S. 1992 Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8.–7. Jh. v. Chr., SAAS I, Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Herrmann, C. 2012 Amulettführer durch die Welt der ägyptischen Amulette aus Israel/Palästina, Gachnang: Evangelisches Pfarramt Gachnang. Herrmann, C. / Staubli, T. 2010 1001 Amulett: Altägyptischer Zauber, monotheisierte Talismane, säkulare Magie, Fribourg: Bibel + Orient Museum / Katholisches Bibelwerk Stuttgart. Herrmann, G. 1996 Ivory Furniture Pieces from Nimrud: North Syrian Evidence for Regional Traditions, in: G. Herrmann (ed.), The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional—Papers of the Conference of 1993, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag, 153–165. Herrmann, G. / Laidlaw, S. 2009 Ivories from the North West Palace (1845–1992): Ivories from Nimrud VI, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq. 2013 Ivories from Room SW11/12 and T10 Fort Shalmaneser: Commentary and Catalogue—Ivories from Nimrud (1949–1963), Fascicule VII:1, London: The British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Herrmann, G. et al. 2004 The Published Ivories from Fort Shalmaneser, Nimrud: A Scanned Archive of Photographs, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq / Institute of Archaeology / University of College London / British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Herrmann, V.R. / Schloen, J. (eds.) 2014 In Remembrance of Me: Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East, OIMP 37, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Herzog, Z. 2002 The Fortress at Tel Arad: An Interim Report, TA 29:1, 3-103. Herzog, Z. / Singer-Avitz, L. 2004 Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah, TA 31, 209–244. 2006 Sub-Dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate, TA 33, 63–195. 2015 Iron Age IIA–B: Judah and the Negev, in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Volume 1, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Israel Antiquities Authority / American Schools of Oriental Research, 213–255. Hestrin, R. et al. 2 1973 Inscriptions Reveal: Documents from the Time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud (in Hebrew and English), Israel Museum Catalogue 100, Jerusalem: Israel Museum. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

198

Bibliography

Himbaza, I. 2006 Le roi Manasse: Héritage et conflit du pardon, Geneva: Labor et Fides. 2007 Le mur de Manassé (2 Ch xxxiii 14) entre archéologues et théologiens, VT 57, 283–294. Hofeditz, U. Forthcoming Juda in der Achämenidenzeit, Ph. D. thesis, University of Mainz. Hoffman, G.L. 1997 Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Contacts with Iron Age Crete, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hoffmeier, J.K. 2003 Egypt’s Role in the Events of 701 B.C. in Jerusalem, in: A.G. Vaughn / A.E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 219–234. Höhn, S. 2015 Natural Resources and Human Response as Limits of Landscape History in a Border Area of Edom, ARAM 27: 1–2, 207–216. Holladay, J.S. 1976 Of Sherds and Strata, in: F.M. Cross et al. (eds.), Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God—Essays on Bible and Archaeology in Honor of G.E. Wright, Garden City / New York: Doubleday, 253–293. Holladay, J.S. / Holladay, J.S., Jr. 2009 Home Economics 1407 and the Israelite Family and Their Neighbors: An Anthropological / Archaeological Exploration, in: P. Dutcher-Walls, (ed.), The Family in Life and in Death: The Family in Ancient Israel— Sociological and Archaeological Perspectives, London / New York: T&T Clark, 61–88. Holland, T.A. 1995 A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines, with Special Reference to Jerusalem: Cave 1, in: I. Eshel / K. Prag (eds.), Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere, Oxford / New York: The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem / Oxford University Press, 159–189. Holloway, S.W. 2002 Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, CHANE 10, Leiden: Brill. Hom, M.K.Y.H. 2016 Where Art Thou, O Hezekiah’s Tunnel? A Biblical Scholar Considers the Archaeological and Biblical Evidence Concerning the Waterworks in 2 Chronicles 32: 3–4, 30 and 2 Kings 20:20, JBL 135:3, 493–503. Hooker, P.L. 1993 The Location of the Brook of Egypt, in: M.P. Graham et al. (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 203–214. Horn, S.H. 1966 Did Sennacherib Campaign Once or Twice Against Hezekiah?, AUSS 4, 1–28. Hornung, E. / Staehelin, E. 1976 Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen, Ägyptische Denkmäler in der Schweiz 1, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. Horowitz, W. / Oshima, T. 2000 Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Hübner, U. 1993 Das ikonographische Repertoire der Ammonitischen Siegel und seine Entwicklung, in: B. Sass / C. Uehlinger (eds.), Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, OBO 125, Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 130–160. Hulster, de I.J. / LeMon, J.M. (eds.) 2014 Image, Text, Exegesis: Iconographic Interpretation and the Hebrew Bible, Bloomsbury: T&T Clark. Hunt, A.M.W. 2014 Assyrian Palace Ware Definition and Chaȋne opératoire: Preliminary Results from Nineveh, Nimrud and Aššur, in: M. Martinón-Torres (ed.), Craft and Science: International Perspectives on Archaeological Ceramics, UCL Qatar Series in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 1, Doha, Qatar: Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation, 135–142. 2015 Palace Ware Across the Neo-Assyrian Imperial Landscape: Social Value and Semiotic Meaning, Leiden: Brill. Hussein, H. / Abdel Alim, E. 2014 The Way(s) of Horus in the Saite Period: Tell El-Kedwa and Its Key Location Guarding Egypt’s Northeastern Frontier, JAEI 7:1, 39–51.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

199

Hutter, M. 1999 Shaushka, in: K. van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden / Grand Rapids, MI: Brill/Eerdmans, 758–759. Hütteroth, W.-D. / Abdulfattah, K. 1977 Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century, Erlangen: Selbstverlag der Fränkischen Geographischen Gesellschaft. Ilan, D. 1999 Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives, Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (not available to this author). 2008 The Socioeconomic Implications of Grain Storage in Early Iron Age Canaan: The Case of Tel Dan, in: A. Fantalkin / A. Yasur-Landau (eds.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein, CHANE 31, Leiden: Brill, 87–104. 2011 General Introduction, in: Y. Thareani (ed.), Tel cAroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the HellenisticEarly Roman Settlement—The Avraham Biran (1975–1982) and Rudolph Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology / Hebrew Union College / Jewish Institute of Religion, xxi–xxiv. Ilan, Z. et al. 1993 Shilḥa, Ḥorvat, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 4, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1364. Im, M.-Y. 2006 Archaeological Evidence of Horses and Chariotry in the Land of Israel during Iron Age II, AIAR / Albright News 11, 10–11. Jacob-Rost, L. 1997 Die Stempelsiegel im Vorderasiatischen Museum Berlin, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. Jacobson, T. / Lloyd, S. 1935 Sennacherib’s Aqueduct at Jerwan, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Jakubiak, K. 2004 New Aspects of God Teisheba’s Iconography, AoF 31, 87–100. James, P. 2004 (Review Article) The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods in Palestine, BAIAS 22, 47–58. 2005 The Date of the Ekron Inscription, IEJ 55, 90–3. 2006 Dating Late Iron Age Ekron (Tel Miqne), PEQ 138:2, 85–97. 2007 (Review article) Ussishkin, David: The Renewed Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), PEQ 139:3, 213–230. 2008 The Alleged ‘Anchor Point’ of 732 BC for the Destruction of Hazor V, AO 6, 137–183. 2015 Meẓad Ḥashavyahu Reconsidered: Saite Strategy and Archaic Greek Chronology, in: T.P. Harrison et al. (eds.), Walls of the Prince: Egyptian Interactions with Southwest Asia in Antiquity: Essays in Honour of John S. Holladay, Jr., CHANE 77, Leiden: Brill, 333–370. James, P. / Veen, P.G. van der 2015a When Did Shoshenq I Campaign in Palestine?, in: P. James / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 127–139. 2015b Hat die Bibel doch Recht?, Spektrum der Wissenschaft Spezial (Archäologie-Geschichte-Kultur) 4, 34–39. James, P. et al. 1991 Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology, London: Jonathan Cape. Jamieson, A. 1990 Area A Pottery, in: G. Bunnens (ed.), Tell Ahmar: 1988 Season, Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 2, Publications of the Melbourne University Expedition to Tell Ahmar Volume 1, Leuven: Peeters, 25–105. 1999 Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Tell Ahmar, in: A. Hausleiter / A. Reiche (eds.), Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South Eastern Anatolia: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the International ‘table ronde’ at Heidelberg (1995) and Bieborów (1997), AVO 10, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 287–308. 2012 Tell Ahmar III: Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C, ANESSup 35, Leuven: Peeters. Jaroš, K. 2016 (Book Review) van der Veen, Pieter Gert: The Final Phase of Iron Age II in Judah, Ammon, and Edom, WZKM 106, 324–326. Jericke, D. 1997 Die Landnahme im Negev: Protoisraelitische Gruppen im Süden Palästinas—Eine archäologische und exegetische Studie, ADPV 20, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2016 (Book review) van der Veen, Pieter Gert: The Final Phase of Iron Age II in Judah, Ammon, and Edom, OLZ 111:4–5, 355–356.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

200

Bibliography

Kagan, E. et al. 2011 Intrabasin Paleoearthquake and Quiescence Correlation of the Late Holocene Dead Sea, JGR 116, 1–27. Kahn, D. 2001 The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25, Or (NS), 70:1, 1–18. 2004 Taharqa, King of Kush and the Assyrian, JSSEA 31, 109–128. 2014a Tirhaka, King of Kush and Sennacherib, JAEI 6:1, 29–41. 2014b The War of Sennacherib against Egypt as Described in Herodotus II 141, JAEI 6:2, 23–33. Kalimi, I. / Richardson, S. (eds.) 2014 Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography, Leiden: Brill. Kang, H-G. / Garfinkel, Y. 2009 The Early Iron Age IIA Pottery (chapter 6), in: Y. Garfinkel / S. Ganor (eds.), Khirbet Qeiyafa Volume 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology / the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 119–149. Karageorghis, V. 2000 Cultural Innovations in Cyprus Relating to the Sea Peoples, in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, Philadelphia: The University Museum / University of Pennsylvania, 255–279. Karasik, A. 2014 Computerized Documentation and Analysis of Pottery Vessels (chapter 16), in: D. Ben-Shlomo / G.W. van Beek (eds.), The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 795–803. Kautzsch, E. 1904a Ein althebräisches Siegel vom Tell el-Mutesselim, MNDPV, 1–14. 1904b Zur Deutung des Löwensiegels, MNDPV, 81–83. Keel, O. 1994 Sturmgott—Sonnengott—Einziger, BK 49:2, 82–92. 2007 Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus, Volumes 1–2, Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. 2008 Gott weiblich: Eine verborgene Seite des biblischen Gottes, Fribourg: Bibel+Orient Museum. 2012 Paraphernalia of Jerusalem Sanctuaries and Their Relation to Deities Worshipped Therein during the Iron Age IIA-C, in: J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and the Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 317–342. 2013 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina / Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, OBOSA 33, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2014 Jerusalem und der eine Gott: Eine Religionsgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2015 Glyptic Finds from the Ophel Excavations 2009–2013, in: E. Mazar (ed.), The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009-2013: Final Report Volume 1, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 475–529. 2017 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, Volume 5, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Keel, O. / Uehlinger, C. 1994 Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem, in: W. Dietrich / M.A. Klopfenstein (eds.), Ein Gott Allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, OBO 139, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Freiburg Schweiz / Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 269– 299. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels auf1995 grund bislang unerschlossener Quellen, Quaestiones Disputatae 134, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder Verlag. 1996 Altorientalische Miniaturkunst, die ältesten visuellen Massenkommunikationsmittel: Ein Einblick in die Sammlungen des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg, Schweiz, Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz / Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. 1998 Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Keel-Leu, H. 1991 Vorderasiatische Stempelsiegel: Die Sammlung des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz, OBO 110, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz. Keel-Leu, H. / Teissier, B. 2004 Die vorderasiatischen Rollsiegel der Sammlungen “Bibel+Orient” der Universität Freiburg Schweiz, OBO 200, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg. Keita, S.O.Y. 1988 An Analysis of Crania from Tell-Duweir Using Multiple Discriminant Functions, AJPA 74, 375–390.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

201

Kelle, B.E. 2014 Judah in the Seventh Century: From the Aftermath of Sennacherib’s Invasion to the Beginning of Jehoiakim’s Rebellion (chapter 11), in: B.T. Arnold / R.S. Hess (eds.), Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 350–382. Kellner, H.-J. 1991 Gürtelbleche aus Urartu, Prähistorische Bronzefunde XII:3, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Kelm, G.L. / Mazar, A. 1995 Timnah: A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kendall, T. 1999 el-Kurru, in: K.A. Bard (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, London / New York: Routledge, 421–423. Kenna, V.E.G. 1971 Catalogue of Cypriote Seals of the Bronze Age in the British Museum, Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities 3, Gothenburg: Paul Aström Förlag. Kenyon, K.M. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem, London/Tonbridge: Ernest Benn Limited. Kitchen, K.A. 1983 Egypt, the Levant and Assyria in 701 BC, in: M. Görg (ed.), Fontes atque pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner, ÄAT 5, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 243–253. 3 1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), Warminster: Aris & Philips Ltd. Kletter, R. 1999 Pots and Polities: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders, BASOR 314, 19–54. 1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah, BARIS 636, Oxford: Archaeopress. 2002 Temptation to Identify: Jerusalem, mmšt, and the lmlk Jar Stamps, ZDPV 118, 136–149. 2009 Comment: Computational Intelligence, lmlk Storage Jars and the Bath Unit in Iron Age Judah, JAMT 17, 357– 365. 2015 Iron Age Figurines (chapter 9), in: I. Beit-Arieh / L. Freud (eds.), Tel Malhata: A Central City in the Biblical Negev, Volume 2, MSIA 32, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 545–579. Kletter, R. / Zwickel, W. 2006 The Assyrian Building of cAyyelet ha-Šaḥar, ZDPV 122:2, 151–186. Knauf, E.A. 2 1989 Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., ADPV 7, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2001 Hezekiah or Manasseh? A Reconsideration of the Siloam Tunnel and Inscription, TA 28, 281–287. 2002 Who Destroyed Beersheba II?’, in: U. Hübner / E.A. Knauf (eds.), Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnari für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag, OBO 186, Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 181–195. 2005 The Glorious Days of Manasseh, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Good and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century B.C., London: T&T Carke, 164–188. Knüppel Gray, I. 2015 What Were the lmlk Seals? Unpublished essay submitted to Townson University under the supervision of Dr. Barry Gitlin. Koch, I. 2012 The ‘Chariots of the Sun’ (2 Kings 23:11), Sem 54, 212–219. Koch, I. / Lipschits, O. 2013 The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period, ZDPV 129, 55–78. Kokkinos, N. 2013 The Tyrian Annals and Ancient Greek Chronography, SCI XXXII, 21–66. Koliński, R. / Mickiewicz, A. 2015 Making Mittani Assyrian, in: B.S. Düring (ed.), Understanding Hegemonic Practices of the Early Assyrian Empire: Essays Dedicated to Frans Wiggermann, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 20– 21. Koller, A. 2012 The KOS in the Levant: Thought on Its Distribution, Function, and Spread from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age II, in: G. Galil et al. (eds.), The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Century BCE: Culture and History, AOAT 392, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 269–290.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

202

Bibliography

Kooij, G. van der 2016 Julius Euting as a Background for Modern Analysis of Ancient Moabite, Hebrew and Aramaic Writing: The Case of the Silwan-Tunnel Inscription, KUSATU 20, 93–118. Koponias, K. et al. (eds.) 2015 Archaeological Projects in the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, pdf. (online) from January 2015 on: https://dash. harvard.edu/handle/1/14022526. Kreppner, F.J. 2008 The Collapse of the Assyrian Empire and the Continuity of Ceramic Culture: The Case of the Red House at Tall Sheikh Hamad, ANES XLV, 147–165. Kuan, Kah-jin, J. 1995 Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, Jian Dao Dissertation Series 1, Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminar. Kuhrt, A. 2002 Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem, PBA 114, 13–33. Lance, H.D. 1967 Gezer in the Land and in History, BA 30:2, 33–47. 1971 The Royal Stamps and the Kingdom of Josiah, HTR 64, 315–332. Lapp, P.W. 1960 Late Royal Seals from Judah, BASOR 158, 11–22. Lauber, S. 2008 Zur Ikonographie der Flügelsonne, ZDPV 124, 89–106. Leahy, A. 1992 Royal Iconography and Dynastic Change, 750–525 BC: The Blue and Cap Crowns, JEA 78, 223–240. Leclère, F. / Spencer, J. (eds.) 2014 Tell Dafana Reconsidered: The Archaeology of an Egyptian Frontier Town, London: The British Museum. Lehmann, G. 1996 Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr., AVO 5, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2002 (Book Reviews) Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia, ed. Arnulf Hausleiter and Andrzej Reiche, BASOR 325, 81–83. 2012 Survival and Reconstruction of Judah in the Time of Manasseh, in: A. Berlejung (ed.), Disaster and Relief Management: Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung, FAT 81, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 289–309. Lehmann, R.G. 2013 Ist das Nötigste gesagt? Zu einem neuen Trend in der althebräischen Epigraphik, OLZ 108:4–5, 221–229. Lemaire, A. 1976 Milkiram, nouveau roi phénicien de Tyr?, Iraq 53, 83–93. 1979 Nouvau sceau nord-ouest sémitique avec un lion rugissant, Sem 29, 67–69. 1981 Classification des estampilles royales judéennes, EI 15, *54–*60. 1990 Trois sceaux inscrits inédits avec lion rugissant, Sem 39, 13–21. 2007 New Inscribed Hebrew Seals and Seal Impressions, in: M. Lubetski (ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 9–22. 2012a West Semitic Epigraphy and the History of the Levant during the 12th–10th Centuries BCE, in: G. Galil et al (eds.), The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Century BCE: Culture and History, AOAT 392, Münster: UgaritVerlag, 291–307. 2012b A Reference to the Covenant Code in 2 Kings 17: 24–41, in: I. Provan / M.J. Boda (eds.), Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of G.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Leiden: Brill, 395– 405. Lemaire, A. / Sass, B. 2013 The Mortuary Stele with Sam’alian Inscription from Ördekburnu near Zincirli, BASOR 369, 57–136. Levy, S. / Edelstein, G. 1972 Cinq années de fouilles à Tel cAmal (Nir David), RB 79, 325–67. Levy, T.E. et al. 2008 High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating and Historical Biblical Archaeology in Southern Jordan, PNAS 105, 16460–16465. 2014a A Newly Discovered Scarab of Shoshenq I: Recent Iron Age Explorations in Southern Jordan, Antiquity (online journal). Levy, T.E. et al. (eds.) 2014b New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Monumenta Archaeologica 35, Volumes 1–2, Los Angelos, CA: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

203

Liagre Böhl, F.M.Th. de 1953 Das Zeitalter der Sargoniden nach Briefen aus dem königlichen Archiv zu Ninive, in: F.M.Th. de Liagre Böhl (ed.), Opera Minora, Groningen: J.-B. Wolters, 384–422. Lipiński, E. 2000 The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, OLA 100, Leuven: Peeters. 2006 On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches, OLA 153, Leuven: Peeters. 2013 Edom at the Crossroads of ‘Incense Routes’ in the 8th–7th Centuries B.C, RO LXVI:2, 64–85. Lippke, F. 2016 Zur Archäologie des Wassers: Eine (un)typische Perspektive auf das ‘kühlende Nass’, Das Heilige Land 2, 23– 25. Lipschits, O. 1990 The Date of the ‘Assyrian Residence’ at Ayyelet ha-Shaḥar, TA 17:1, 96–99. 2005 The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2008 Ein Privatsiegelabdruck aus Ramat Raḥel, in: I. Kottsieper et al. (ed.), Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozialund Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, AOAT 350, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 491–498. 2012 Archaeological Facts, Historical Speculations and the Date of the lmlk Storage Jars: A Rejoinder to David Ussishkin, JHS 12:4, 1–16 (online journal). 2018 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles, in: J. Wright / Z. Farber, Eighth Century Judah: An Introduction (Borowski Volume), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 337–355. Lipschits, O. / Vanderhooft, D.S. 2014 Continuity and Change in the Persian Period Judahite Stamped Jar Administration, in: C. Frevel et al. (eds.), A ‘Religous Revolution’ in Yehûd? The Material Culture of the Persian Period as a Test Case, OBO 267, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 43–66. Lipschits, O. et al. 2005 Ramat Raḥel, 2005 (Notes and News), IEJ 56:2, 227–235. 2009 The 2006 and 2007 Excavation Seasons at Ramat Raḥel: Preliminary Report, IEJ 59:1, 1–20. 2010a The Enigma of the Biblical Bath and the System of Liquid Volume Measurement during the First Temple Period, UF 42, 453–478. 2010b Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions, TA 37, 3–32. 2010c Die Geheimnisse von Ramat Rahel, WuWB 2, 1–9. 2011a Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for Studying the History of Late Monarchic Judah, TA 38, 5–41. 2011b Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel, NEA 74:1, 2–49. 2012 The Riddle of Ramat Raḥel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian Period Edifice, Trans 41, 57–79. 2015 Interdisciplinary Research of Assyrian Siege Ramps: The Case of Azekah, HBAI 14, 135–143. 2016 Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), Volume 1–2, Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 35, Tel Aviv / Winona Lake, IN: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaelology, Tel Aviv University / Eisenbrauns. Lloyd, A.B. 1988 Herodotus, Book II: Commentary 99–182, EPRO 43, Leiden: Brill. Lohfink, N. 2009 The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22–23 as a Source for the History of Israelite Religion, in: P.D. Miller et al. (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 459–475. Lohwasser, A. 2001a Queenship in Kush: Status, Role and Ideology of Royal Women, JARCE 38, 61–78. 2001b Die königlichen Frauen im antiken Reich von Kusch: 25. Dynastie bis zur Zeit des Nastasen, Meroitica 19, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Loon, M.N. van 1966 Urartian Art: Its Distinctive Traits in the Light of New Excavations, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Lubetski, M. 1998 Isaiah 18:1: Egyptian Beetlemania, in: V. Haxen et al. (eds.), Jewish Studies in a New Europe: Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of Jewish Studies in Copenhagen 1994 under the Auspices of the European Association for Jewish Studies, Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel Publishers / The Royal Library, 512–520. 2001 King Hezekiah’s Seal Revisited, BAR 27:4, 44–51, 59. 2012 ‘DML’: A Seal from the Moussaieff Collection, in: M. Lubetski / E. Lubetski (eds.), New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 69–82.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

204

Bibliography

Lubetski, M. / Gottlieb, C. 1998 Isaiah 18: The Egyptian Nexus, in: M. Lubetski et al (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, JSOTSup 273, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 364–384. Luckenbill, D.B. 1926 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, Volume I: Historical Records of Assyria from the Earliest Times to Sargon, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. Macadam, M.F.L. 1949 The Temples of Kawa, Volume I, London: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, N. 2008 What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? Diet in Biblical Times, Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. MacKenzie, D. et al. (eds.) 2016 The Excavations of Beth Shemesh, November–December 1912, PEFA XIII, Oxford: Routledge. Maeir, A.M. / Shai, I. 2007 An Iron Age IIA Phoenician-Style (?) Fluted Bowl from Tell es-Safi / Gath: A Ceramic Imitation of a Metal Prototype, JSAS 23, 219–226. Maeir, A.M. et al. 2016 Philistine Names and Terms Once Again: A Recent Perspective, JEMAHS 4:4, 321–340. Maier, M.P. 2015 Völkerwallfahrt im Jesajabuch, Berlin/Boston: W. de Gruyter. Magen, Y. / Peleg, Y. 2007 The Qumran Excavations 1993–2004: Preliminary Report, Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority. Magrill, P. 1989-1990 An Assyrian Glazed Pottery Vase from Lachish, BAIAS 9, 41–45. Mahoney, T.P. (with S. Law) 2015 Patterns of Evidence: Exodus—A Filmmaker’s Journey, St. Louis Park, MN: Thinking Man Media. Mallowan, M.E.L. 1966 Nimrud and Its Remains, Volume 1, London: Collins. Marco, S. et al. 2006 Chapter 31: Megiddo Earthquakes, in: I. Finkelstein et al. (eds.), Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons, MSIA 24, Tel Aviv: The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 568–575. Markoe, G. 1982 Barsom or Staff? An Inscribed Urartian Plaque, MMJ 17, 5–8. Martens, E.A. 1997 kwn, in: W.A VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE, Volume 2, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 615– 617, no. 3922. Master, D.M. 2009 From the Buqê’ah to Ashkelon, in: J.D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 305–317. Mathews, D. 2012 Royal Motifs in the Pentateuchal Portrayal of Moses, New York: T&T Clark. Matty, N.K. 2016 Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 B.C.: A Historical Reconstruction, Berlin: De Gruyter. Mayer, W. 2003 Sennacherib’s Campaign of 701 BCE: The Assyrian View, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOTSup 363 / EABS 4, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 168–200. Mazar, A. Excavations at Tell Qasile: Part 2, The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appen1985 dixes, Qedem 20, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1996 Hurvat Shilḥah: An Iron Age Site in the Judean Desert, in: J.D. Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of G. Van Beek, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 193– 212. 1999 The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Reḥov: Preliminary Report, IEJ 49:1–2, 1–42. 2003 Three 10th–9th Century B.C.E. Inscriptions from Tel Reḥov, in: C.G. den Hertog et al. (eds.), Saxa Loquentur, Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels, Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 302, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 171–183. 2008 From 1200 to 850 B.C.E.: Remarks on Some Selected Archaeological Issues, in: L. Grabbe (ed.), Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.), Volume 1: The Archaeology, New York / London: T&T Clark, 86–120. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

2011

205

Tel Reḥov in the Assyrian Period: Squatters, Burials, and a Hebrew Seal, in: I. Finkelstein / N. Na’aman (eds.), Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 265–280. Mazar, A. / Ahituv, S. 2011 Inscriptions from Tel Reḥov and Their Contribution to the Study of Writing and Literacy during the Iron Age IIA, EI 30, 300–316, *154. Mazar, A. / Kelm, G.L. 1993 Batash, Tel, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 1, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 152– 157. Mazar, A. / Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, Qedem 42, Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology / Hebrew University. Mazar, A. et al. 2005 Ladder of Time at Tel Reḥov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates (chapter 13), in: T.E. Levy / T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon: Archaeology, Text and Science, London/Oakville: Equinox Publishing, 193–255. Mazar, B. 1986 Pharaoh Shishak’s Campaign to the Land of Israel, in: S. Aḥituv / B.A Levine (eds.), The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 139–150. Mazar, E. 2015a City of David Excavations I: Final Report, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2015b The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013: Final Reports Volume I, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication. 2015c A Seal Impression of King Hezekiah from the Ophel Excavations (chapter 13), in: E. Mazar (ed.), The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013: Final Reports Volume I, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 629–640. Mazow, L.B. 2006–2007 The Industrious Sea Peoples: The Evidence of Aegean-Style Textile Production in Cyprus and the Southern Levant, SM XXVII–XXVIII, 291–321. 2014 The ‘Bathtub Coffin’ from Tel Qitaf: A Re-Examination of Its Context and Function, PEQ 146:1, 31–39. McCarter, P.K. 2008 Palaeographic Notes on the Tel Zayit Abecedary, in: R.A. Tappy / P.K. McCarter (eds.), Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Cana99an: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 45–59. McCown, C.C. 1947 Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Fredric Badè, Volume1: Archaeological and Historical Results, Berkeley / New Haven: The Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion / The American Schools of Oriental Research. McGovern, P.E. 2000 The Funerary Banquet of ‘King Midas’, Expedition 42:1, 21–29. McKinny, C.C. 2016 A Historical Geography of the Administrative Division of Judah: The Town Lists of Judah and Benjamin in Joshua 15:21–62 and 18:21–28, unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, under the supervision of Prof. Dr. A.M. Maeir. Melson, W.G. / Beek, G.W. van 1992 Geology and the Loessial Soils, Tell Jemmeh, Israel, Geoarchaeology 7, 121–147. Meshel, Z. 2012 (ed.) Kuntillet cAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Meyer, J.-W. 2008 Die eisenzeitlichen Stempelsiegel aus dem ‘Amuq-Gebiet, OBOSA 28, Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Mieroop, M. van de 1999 Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History, London / New York: Routledge. Migowski, C. et al. 2004 Recurrence Pattern of Holocene Earthquakes along the Dead Sea Transform by Varve-Counting and Radiocarbon Dating of Lacustrine Sediments, EPSL 222, 301–314. Milgrom, J. 1964 Did Isaiah Prophesy during the Reign of Uzziah?, VT 36, 164–182.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

206

Bibliography

Millard, A.R. 1973 Adad-nirari III, Aram, and Arpad, PEQ 105, 161–162. 1994 Story, History, and Theology, in: A.R. Millard et al. (eds.), Faith, Tradition & History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 37–64. 1998 The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC, State Archives of Assyria Studies II, Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 2015 Aramaic in Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon: Stamps on Bricks from Babylon and Stamps on Jar Handles from Judah, in: M. Lubetski / E. Lubetski (eds.), Recording New Epigraphic Evidence: Essays in Honor of Robert Deutsch, Jerusalem: Leshon Limudim Ltd., 113–121. Millard, A.R. / Bordreuil, P. 1982 A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscriptions, BA 45:2, 135–141. Millard, A.R. / Tadmor, H. 1973 Adad-nirari III in Syria: Another Stele Fragment and the Dates of his Campaign, Iraq 35, 57–64. Miller, J.M. / Hayes, J.H. 1986 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Miller, P.D. et al. (eds.) 2009 Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Mitchell, T. / Searight, A. 2008 Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Stamp Seals III—Impressions of Stamp Seals on Cuneiform Tablets, Clay Bullae, and Jar Handles, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Mommsen, H. et al. 1984 The Provenience of the lmlk Jars, IEJ 34, 89–113. Moorey, P.R.S. 1999 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Moortgat, A. 3 1988 Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Morkot, R.G. 2000 The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers, London: The Rubicon Press. Morkot, R. / James, P. 2015 Dead-Reckoning the Start of the 22nd Dynasty: From Shoshenq V back to Shoshenq I, in: P. James / P. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 20–41. Morstadt, B. 2015 Die Phönizier, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. Münger, S. / Levy, T.E. 2014 The Iron Age Egyptian Amulet Assemblage (chapter 11), in: E. Levy et al. (eds.), New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Volume 2, Monumenta Archaeologica 35, Los Angelos, CA: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 740–765. Muscarella, O.W. 1965 Lion Bowls from Hasanlu, Arch 18, 41–46. 1970 Near Eastern Bronzes in the West: The Question of Origin, in: S. Doehringer et al. (eds.), Art and Technology: A Symposium on Classical Bronzes, Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 109–128. 1980 The Catalogue of Ivories from Hasanlu, Iran: Hasanlu Special Studies, UMM 40, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology. 1988 Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2012 (Review Article) Deconstructing the Destruction of King Midas’ Gordion, ACSS 18, 377–390. 2013a Archaeology, Artifacts and Antiquities of the Ancient Near East, Leiden/Boston: Brill. 2013b Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 ± BC, in: O.W. Muscarella (ed.), Archaeology, Artifacts and Antiquities of the Ancient Near East, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 601–619. Mussel, M.-L. 2000 Tell el-Kheleifeh, in: V. Egan et al., Archaeology in Jordan, AJA 104, 577–578. Na’aman, N. 1979 Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps, VT 29:1, 61–86. 1986 Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the lmlk Stamps, BASOR 261, 5–21. 1991 The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah, TA 18, 3–71. 1993 Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportation, TA 20, 104–24. 1994 Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria, TA 21, 253–254. 1995 ‘The House-of-No-Shade Shall Take Away Its Tax from You’ (Micah I 11), VT 45:4, 516–527. 2001 An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Raḥel?, TA 28, 260–280. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

2003 2004 2005

207

Ekron under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires, BASOR 332, 81–91. The Boundary System and Political Status of Gaza under the Assyrian Empire, ZDPV 120, 55–72. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction: Collected Issues, Volume 1, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2007 When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth–Seventh Centuries B.C.E., BASOR 34, 21–56. 2009 The Growth and Development of Judah and Jerusalem in the Eighth Century BCE: A Rejoinder, RB 116, 321– 335. 2016 The lmlk Seal Impressions Reconsidered, TA 43:1, 111–125. Na’aman, N. / Thareani-Sussely, Y. 2006 Dating the Appearance of Imitations of Assyrian Ware in Southern Palestine, TA 33, 61–82. Na’aman, N. / Zadok, R. 2000 Assyrian Deportations to the Province of Samerina in the Light of Two Cuneiform Tablets from Tel Ḥadid, TA 27, 159–188. Nadelman, Y. 1989 Hebrew Inscriptions, Seal Impressions and Markings of the Iron Age II, in: E. Mazar / B. Mazar (eds.), Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem, Qedem 29, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 123–141. Naveh, J. 1985 Writing and Scripts in Seventh-Century B.C.E. Philistia: The New Evidence from Tell Jemmeh, IEJ 35, 8–21. 1987a Proto-Canaaite, Archaic Greek and the Script of the Aramaic Text on the Tell Fakhariyah Statue, in: P. Millar et al. (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 101–113. 1987b (1997 reprint) Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West-Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, Jerusalem: The Magness Press / The Hebrew University. 2009 Studies in West-Semitic Epigraphy: Selected Papers, Jerusalem: Magness Press. Nelson, R. 1983 Realpolitik in Judah (687–609 B.C.E.), in: W. Hallo et al. (eds), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 177–189. Niederreiter, Z. 2008 Le rȏle de symboles figurés aux membres de la Cour de Sargon II: Des emblèmes créés par les lettrés du palais au service de l’idéologie royale, Iraq 70, 51–86. Niemann, H.M. 2012 A New Look at the Samaria Ostraca: The King-Clan Relationship, TA 35, 249–266. Niemann, H.M. / Lehmann, G. 2006 One Hundred Years After: Gottlieb Schumacher, Carl Watzinger and Excavations at Megiddo—With an Extract from Emil Kautzsch’s Diary about his Visit to Megiddo in 1904, in: I. Finkelstein et al. (eds), Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Excavations, MSIA 24, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 688–704. Niesiołowski-Spanò, Ł. 2008 The New Type of Inscription from Ekron: Revisited, KUSATU 8.9, 97–109. Núñez Calvo, F.J. 2008 Western Challenges to East Mediterranean Chronological Frameworks, in: D. Brandherm / M. Trachsel (eds.), A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology: Proceedings of the XV World Congress, Lisbon 4–9 September 2006, BARIS 1871, Oxford: Archaeopress, 3–27. Nur, A. / Burgess, D. 2008 Apocalypse: Earthquakes, Archaeology, and the Wrath of God, Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press. Nur, A. / Ron, H. 1997 Earthquake! Inspiration for Armageddon, BAR 39, 532–541. Oakeshott, M.F. 1983 The Edomite Pottery, in: J.F. Sawyer / D.J. Clines (eds.), Midian, Moab and Edom, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 53–63. 1978 A Study of the Iron Age II Pottery from East Jordan with Special Reference to Unpublished Material from Edom, Volumes 1–2, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London. Oates, J. 1959 Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser, Iraq 21, 130–146. 1983 Babylon: Stadt und Reich im Brennpunkt des Alten Orients, Herrsching: Manfred Pawlak Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Oates, J. / Oates, D. 2001 Nimrud: An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

208

Bibliography

O’Connor, D.B. 1994 Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ogden Bellis, A. 2010 The Rescue of Jerusalem from the Assyrians in 701 BCE by the Cushites, in: K.L. Noll / B. Schramm (eds.), Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 246– 260. Ohtsu, T. 1991 Late Assyrian ‘Palace Ware’: Concerning Dimpled Goblet, in: H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 131–154. Oppenheim, M. 1939 Tell Halaf, une civilisation retrouvée en Mésopotamie, Paris: Edition française complétée par l’auteur. Oren, E.D. 1982 Ziklag: A Biblical City on the Edge of the Negev, BA 45:3, 155–166. 1990 (1993) Ethnicity and Regional Archaeology: The Western Negev under Assyrian Rule, BAT II, 102–105. 1993 Serac, Tel, in: E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Volume 4, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1329– 1335. 1995 Tel Ḥaror, in: Excavations and Surveys in Israel (= HA 13). Ornan, T. 1993 Mesopotamian Influence on West Semitic Inscribed Seals, in: B. Sass / C. Uehlinger (eds.), Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, OBO 125, Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 52–73. 2001 Ištar as Depicted on Finds from Israel, in: A. Mazar (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, JSOTSup 331, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 235–256. 2005a A Complex System of Religious Symbols: The Case of the Winged Disc in Near Eastern Imagery of the First Millennium BCE, in: C.E. Suter / C. Uehlinger (eds.), Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE, OBO 210, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 207–241. 2005b The Triumph of the Symbol: Pictorial Representations of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban, OBO 213, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2006 The Lady and the Bull: Remarks on the Bronze Plaque from Tel Dan, in: Y. Amit et al. (eds), Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 297–312. 2007 The Godlike Semblance of a King: The Case of Sennacherib’s Rock Reliefs, in: J. Cheng / M.H. Feldman (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, CHANE 26, Leiden: Brill, 161–178. 2009 In the Likeness of Man, Reflections on the Anthropocentric Perception of the Divine in Mesopotamian Art, in: B. Nevling Porter (ed.), What is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia, The Casco Bay Assyriological Institute Transactions 2, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 93–151. 2013a A Newly Discovered Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context, IEJ 63:1, 6–25. 2013b A Rediscovered Lost Seal from Gezer, PEQ 145, 53–60. 2015 hṣywrym mkntylt cg'rwd, in: S. Ahituv et al. (eds.), To Yahweh Teiman and His Asherah: The Inscriptions and Drawings from Kuntillet cAjrud (‘Ḥorvat Teman’) in Sinai, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi / Israel Exploration Society, 43–68. Ornan, T. et al. 2008 Four Hebrew Seals, One Depicting an Assyrian-Like Archer from the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, Jerusalem, cAtiqot 60, 115–129. 2012 ‘The Lord Will Roar from Zion’ (Amos 1:2): The Lion As a Divine Attribute on a Jerusalem Seal and Other Hebrew Glyptic Finds from the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, cAtiqot 72, *1–*13. Ortiz, S. 2006 Does the ‘Low Chronology’ Work? A Case Study of Tell Qasile X, Tel Gezer X, and Lachish V, in: A.M. Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.), ‘I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Volume 2, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 587–611. Osborne, J.F. 2013 Sovereignty and Territoriality in the City-State: A Case Study from the Amuq Valley, Turkey, JAA 32, 774– 790. Oswalt, J.N. 1986 The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, Grand Rapids, MI: Willam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

209

Pakman, D. 1992 Late Iron Age Pottery at Tel Dan, Eretz Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies (Abraham Biran Volume), Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 230–240. Parayre, D. 1990 Les cachets ouest-sémitiques à travers l’image du disque solaire ailé (perspective iconographique), Syria 67:2, 269–314. 1993 À propos des sceaux ouest-sémitiques: Le rȏle de l’iconographie dans l’attribution d’un sceau à une aire culturelle et à un atelier, in: B. Sass / C. Uehlinger (eds.), Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, OBO 125, Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 27–51. Parker, B. 1962 Seals and Seal Impressions from the Nimrud Excavations, 1955–58, Iraq 24:1, 26–40. Parpola, S. / Porter, M. (eds.) 2001 The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period, Helsinki: The Casco Bay Assyriological Institute / The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Payraudeau, F. 2014a Retour sur la succession Shabaqo–Shabataqo, NeHeT 1, 115–127. 2014b Administration, société et pouvoir à Thèbes sous la XXIIe dynastie bubastite, Volumes 1–2, Cairo: Institut Française d’archéologie orientale. Peake, L. 2010 The Invisible Superpower: Review of the Geopolitical Status of Kushite (Twenty-Fifth Dynasty) Egypt at the Height of Its Power and a Historiographic Analysis of the Regime’s Legacy, in: W. Godlewski / A. Łatjar (eds.), Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August–2 September 2006, Volume 2, fasc. 2, Warsaw: Warsaw University, 465–476. Pedde, F. 2000 Vorderasiatische Fibeln: Von der Levante bis Iran, ADOG 24, Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Peltenburg, E.J. 1969 Al Mina Glazed Pottery and Its Relations, Levant 1, 73–96. Petrovich, D.N. 2016 Tayinat’s Building XVI: The Religious Dimensions and Significance of the Tripartite Temple at Neo-Assyrian Kunulua, unpublished doctoral thesis submitted to the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto. Pinches, T.G. 1904 The Fragment of an Assyrian Tablet Found at Gezer, PEFQSt, 1–18. Podella, T. 1996 Das Lichtkleid Jahwes: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt, FAT 15, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Pope, J. 2014a The Double Kingdom under Taharqo: Studies in the History of Kush and Egypt, c. 690–664 BC, Brill: Leiden. 2014b Beyond the Broken Reed: Kushite Intervention and the Limits of l’histoire événementielle, in: I. Kalami / S. Richardson (eds.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 105–160. Porada, E. 1973 Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram, JANES 5, 355–372. Porter, R.M. 1999 The Iron Age and the New Chronology, JACF 8, 66–77. 2011 Osorkon III of Tanis: The Contemporary of Piye? GM 230, 111–112. 2015 Recent Problems with Dendrochronology, in: P. James / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology—Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26–27 March 2011, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 225–233. Postgate, J.N. 1972 Texts and Fragments, JCS 24, 175–176. 1974 Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Pratico, G.D. 1993 Nelson Glueck’s 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal, Archaeological Reports 03, Atlanta: American Schools of Oriental Research / Scholars Press. Pritchard, J.B. 1959a The Wine Industry at Gibeon: 1959 Discoveries, Expedition (Fall), 17–25.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

210

Bibliography

1959b

Hebrew Inscriptions and Stamps from Gibeon, Museum Monographs, Philadelphia: The University Museum / University of Pennsylvania. 1964 Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon, Museum Monographs, Philadelphia: The University Museum / University of Pennsylvania. 1969 ANET, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Radner, K. 2006 Provinz: C. Assyrien, in: M.P. Streck (ed.), RlA 11:1–2, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 42–68. 2007 Hired Labor in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, SAAB XVI, 185–226. 2008a The Delegation of Power: Neo-Assyrian Bureau Seals, in: P. Briant et al. (eds.), L’archive de fortifications de Persépolis: État des questions et perspectives, Persika 12, Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 481–515. 2008b Esarhaddon’s Expedition from Palestine to Egypt in 671 BCE: A Trek through Negev and Sinai, in: D. Bonatz et al. (eds.), Fundstellen: Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 305–314. 2016 Revolts in the Assyrian Empire: Succession Wars, Rebellions against a False King and Independence Movements (chapter 3), in: J.J. Collins / J.G. Manning (eds.), Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 41–54. Rainey, A.F. 1993 Manasseh, King of Judah, in the Whirlpool of the Seventh Century B.C.E., in: A.F. Rainey (ed.), Kinattutu ša Darâti: Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume, Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 147–164. Ramafuthula, L.J. 1992 Assyrian Influence upon Palestinian and Jordanian Religion and Culture during the Neo-Assyrian Period in view of Archaeological Evidence, unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Tübingen. Redford, D.B. 1985 Sais and the Kushite Invasions of the Eighth Century B.C., JARCE 22, 5–15. 1993 Taharqa in Western Asia and Libya, EI 24, 188*–191*. Rehm, E. 2004 Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern: Teil 1.1—Der Ahiram-Sarkophag, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. 2018 Die glänzende Sonne: Spiegel als Weihgaben für Schamasch?, in: K. Kaniuth / D. Lau / D. Wicke (eds.), Übergangszeiten: Altorientalische Studien für Reinhard Dittmann anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags, marru 1, Münster: Zaphon, 279–288. Rehm, E. / Eder, C. 2016 Speisetischszenen im Alten Orient und im Alten Ägypten: Bankett und Grab, Volume 1, AVO 17, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Reich, R. 2011 Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / Biblical Archaeology Society. Reich, R. / Brandl, B. 1985 Gezer Under Assyrian Rule, PEQ 117, 41–54. Reich, R. / Shukron, E. 2011 The Date of the Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered, TA 38, 147–157. Reich, R. et al. 2007 Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem, IEJ 57, 153–169. Reinhold, G.G.G. 2016 The Rise and Fall of the Aramaeans in the Ancient Near East, from Their First Appearance until 732 BCE: New Studies on Aram and Israel, PL Academic Research, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Reisner, G.A. 1920 Note on the Harvard-Boston Excavations at El-Kurruw and Barkal in 1918–1919, JEA 6:1, 61–64. Reisner, G.A. et al. 1924 Harvard Excavations at Samaria, Volumes 1–2, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rensburg, G.A. / Schniedewind, W.M. 2010 The Siloam Tunnel Inscription: Historical and Linguistic Perspectives, IEJ 60:2, 188–203. Reyes, A.T. 2001 The Stamp Seals of Ancient Cyprus, Monograph 52, Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Richter, S. 2014 Eighth-Century Issues: The World of Jeroboam II, The Fall of Samaria, and the Reign of Hezekiah (chapter 10), in: B.T. Arnold / R.S. Hess (eds.), Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 319–349.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

211

Ridderbos, J. 1952 Jesaja: deel 1 hoofdstuk 1–39, Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok. Risdon, D.L. 1939 A Study of the Cranial and Other Human Remains from Palestine Excavated at Tell Duweir (Lachish) by the Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition, Biometrika XXXI, Parts 1 and 2, 99–166. Ritner, R.K. 2009 The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period, WAW 21, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Roberts, J.J.M. 1991 Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephanian: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library, Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox Press. Roberts, R.N. 2012 Terra Terror: An Interdisciplinary Study of Earthquakes in Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Hebrew Bible, unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of California, Los Angeles. Rohl, D.M. 1986 Questions and Answers on the Chronology of Rohl and James, C&CW 1986:1, 22. Röllig, W. 2003 Althebräische Schriftsiegel und Gewichte, in: J. Renz / W. Röllig (eds.), Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, Volume II:2, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 81–439. 2007 Jerusalem in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in: Z. Kafafi / R. Schick (eds.), Jerusalem before Islam, BARIS 1699, Oxford: Archaeopress, 40–44. Rollston, C.A. 2008 The Phoenician Script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary and Putative Evidence for Israelite Literacy, in: R.E. Tappy / P.K. McCarter (eds.), Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 61–96. 2010 Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Rose, C.B. / Darbshire, G. (eds.) 2011 The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Routledge, B. 1997 Mesopotamian ‘Influence’ in Iron Age Jordan: Issues of Power, Identity and Value, BCSMS 32, 33–41. Ryholt, K. 2004 The Assyrian Invasion of Egypt in Egyptian Literary Tradition, in: J.G. Dercksen (ed.), Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 483–510. Saldern, A. von 1966 Glass from Nimrud, in: M. Mallowan (ed.), Nimrud and Its Remains, Volume 2, London: Collins, 623–634. Sandhaus, D. 2013 Hazor in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C.E., NEA 76:2, 110–117. Sass, B. 2005 The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150–850 BCE—The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets, Occasional Publications 4, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Sass, B. / Marzahn, J. 2010 Aramaic and Figural Impressions on Bricks of the Sixth Century B.C. from Babylon, WVDOG 127, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Sass, B. / Uehlinger, C. (eds.) 1993 Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, OBO 125, Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg / Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Schipper, B.U. 1999 Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems, OBO 170, Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schmitt, R. 2001 Bildhafte Herrschaftsrepräsentationen im eisenzeitlichen Israel, AOAT 283, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Schmitz, P.C. 2008 Deity and Royalty in Dedicatory Formulae: The Ekron Store-Jar Inscription Viewed in the Light of Judges 7:18, 20 and the Inscribed Gold Medallion from the Douimès Necropolis at Carthage (KAI 73), MAARAV 15:2, 165–173. Schneider, T. 1995 Did King Jehu Kill His Own Family?, BAR 21:1, 26–33. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

212

Bibliography

Schneider, Th. 1994 Lexikon der Pharaonen: Die altägyptischen Könige von der Frühzeit bis zur Römerherrschaft, Zürich: Artemis & Winkler. Schoors, A. 1998 Die Königreiche Israel und Juda im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Die assyrische Krise, Biblische Enzyklopädie 5, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schroer, S. 2011 Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern—Die Spätbronzezeit, IPIAO 3, Fribourg: Bibel + Orient Museum / Academic Press Fribourg. Schumacher, G. 1908 Tell el-mutesellim, Volume 1: A. Text, Leipzig: Rudolph Haupt. Sedman, L. 2002 The Small Finds (chapter 10), in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Busayra: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett 1971– 1980, BAMA 13, Oxford: The Council for British Research in the Levant / Oxford University Press, 353–428. Seidl, U. 2003–2005 Pferd. C, in: E. Ebeling et al. (ed.), RlA 10, Berlin: de Gruyter, 490–492. Sélincourt, A. de / Burn, A.R. (eds.) 1972 Herodotus: The Histories, Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics. Sellers, O.R. 1933 The Citadel of Beth-Zur, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. Sellers, O.R. / Albright, W.F. 1931 The First Campaign of Excavation at Beth-zur, BASOR 43, 2–13. Sellers, O.R. et al. 1968 The 1957 Excavations at Beth-Zur, Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Sergi, O. et al. 2012 The Royal Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer-Generated Typology and Its Archaeological and Historical Implications, TA 39, 64–92. Shanks, H. 2007 Assyrian Palace Discovered in Ashdod, BAR 33:1, 56–60. 2013 Will King Hezekiah Be Dislodged from His Tunnel?, BAR 39:5, 52–61, 73. Shaw, I. / Nicholson, P. 2010 Lexikon des alten Ägypten, Stuttgart: Ph. Reclam jun. Shea, W.H. 1985 Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign, JBL 401–418. 1997 The New Tirhaka Text and Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign, AUSS 35:2, 181–187. 1999 Jerusalem under Siege: Did Sennacherib Attack Twice?, BAR 26:6, 36–44. Shiloh, Y. 1984 Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons, Qedem 19, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1989 Judah and Jerusalem in the Eighth–Sixth Centuries B.C.E., in: S. Gitin et al. (eds.), Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology, AASOR 49, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 97–105. Shoham, Y. 2000 Lmlk Seal Impressions and Concentric Circles (chapter 5), in: D.T. Ariel et al. (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume VI: Inscriptions, Qedem 41, Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 75–80. Siddall, L.R. 2013 The Reign of Adad-nīrarī III: An Historical and Ideological Analysis of an Assyrian King and His Times, Leiden: Brill. Sievertsen, U. Die eisenzeitliche Keramik, in: H. Baghdo Abdel-Masih et al. (eds.), Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell Halaf 2006 2007 und 2007: Vorbericht über die 1. und 2. syrisch-deutsche Grabungskampagne, VFMvOS 4, 69–128. 2012 Keramik der Eisenzeit, in: H. Baghdo Abdel-Masih et al. (eds.), Vorberichte über die dritte bis fünfte syrischdeutsche Grabungskampagne auf dem Tell Halaf, Part 3: II, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 138–182. Singer-Avitz, L. 1989 Iron Age Pottery (Strata XIV–XII), in: Z. Herzog et al. (eds.), The Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, Minneapolis / Tel Aviv: The University of Minnesota Press / Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 76–87. 1999 Beersheba: A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E., TA 26, 1–74. 2002 Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages, TA 29:2, 110–214. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

213

The Date of Kuntillet cAjrud, TA 33, 196–228. On Pottery in Assyrian Style: A Rejoinder, TA 34:2, 182–103. The Date of Kuntillet cAjrud: A Rejoinder, TA 36, 110–119. The Date of the Pottery from the Rock-Cut Pool Near the Gihon Spring in the City of David, Jerusalem, ZDPV 128, 10–14. 2014a The Pottery of Megiddo Strata III–II and a Proposed Subdivision of the Iron IIC Period in Northern Israel, BASOR 372, 123–145. 2014b Edomite Pottery in Judah in the Eighth Century BCE, in: J.M. Tebes (ed.), Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ANESSup 45, Leuven: Peeters, 267– 281. 2014c The Date of the Qurayyah Painted Ware in the Southern Levant, AO 12, 123–148. 2016a The Iron IIA and IIB Pottery: An Introduction (chapter 10), in: Z. Herzog / L. Singer-Avitz (eds.), Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–IIB Cities, Volume II, MSIA 33, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University / Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, 477–481. 2016b Pottery from Strata III–II: The Iron IIB Period (chapter 12), in: Z. Herzog / L. Singer-Avitz (eds.), Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–IIB Cities, Volume II, MSIA 33, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University / Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, 583–991. Smith, M.S. 2016 Where the Gods Are: Spatial Dimension of Anthropomorphism in the Biblical World, The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, Yale: Yale Books. Smith, N.G. 2009 Social Boundaries and State Formation in Ancient Edom: A Comparitive Ceramic Approach, Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of California, San Diego. Smith, N.G. / Levy, T.E. 2008 The Iron Age Pottery from Khirbat en-Nahas, Jordan: A Preliminary Study, BASOR 352, 41–91. Smith, N.G. et al. 2014 From Lowlands to Highlands: Iron Age Excavations and Surveys on the Edom Plateau near Shawbak (chapter 3), in: T.E. Levy et al. (eds.), New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Volume 1, Monumenta Archaeologica 35, Los Angelos, CA: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 257–288. Smoláriková, K. 2008 Saite Forts in Egypt: Political-Military History of the Saite Dynasty, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology / Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. Sneh, A. et al. 2010 The Why, How and When of the Siloam Tunnel Reevaluated, BASOR 359, 57–65. Spalinger, A. 1974 Esarhaddon and Egypt: An Analysis of the First Invasion of Egypt, Or (NS) 43, 295–326. 1978 The Foreign Policy of Egypt Preceding the Assyrian Conquest, CdE 53, 22–47. Späth, A. / van der Veen, P.G. 2016 Neuer Fund aus König Hiskias Palastarchiv in Jerusalem, SIJ 23:1, 23–28. Spieckermann, H. 1982 Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, FRLANT 129, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Soldi, S. 2008 Recent Considerations about the Origin of ‘Nuzi Ware’ in the Light of Its Archaeological Contexts, in: H. Kühne et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, Volume 2: Social and Cultural Transformation—The Archaeology of Transitional Periods and Dark Ages Excavation Reports, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 245– 258. 2009 Aramaeans and Assyrians in North-Western Asia: Material Evidence from Tell Afis, Syria 86, 97–118. Stager, L.E. 1975 Ancient Agriculture in the Judaean Desert: A Case Study of the Buqeicah Valley, unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to Harvard University (not available to the present author). 1976 Farming in the Judean Desert during the Iron Age, BASOR 221, 145–158. 1990 Shemer’s Estate, BASOR 277/278, 93–107. Stahlmann, R.C. 1997 ’rbh, in: W.A. VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE, Volume 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 491–495. Staples, W.E. 1931 An Inscribed Scaraboid from Megiddo (chapter 3), in: P.L.O. Guy (ed.), New Light from Armageddon, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 67–88. 2006 2007 2009 2012

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

214

Bibliography

Steen, E. van der et al. 2015 Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages, London: Bloomsbury / T&T Clark. Steiner, M.L. 2001 Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages, London / New York: Sheffield Academic Press. Stern, E. 1975 Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey, BA 38:2, 26–54. 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.), New York: Doubleday. 2015 Iron Age IIC Assyrian-Type Pottery (chapter 4.4), in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Volume 2, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Israel Antiquities Authority / American Schools of Oriental Research, 533–553. Stern, E. (ed.) 2007 En-Gedi Excavations I: Conducted by B. Mazar and I. Dunayevski—Final Report (1961–1965), Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology / Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Stiebing, W.H., Jr. 2 2016 Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture, London / New York: Routledge. Stohlmann, S. 1983 The Judean Exile after 701 B.C.E., in: W. Hallo et al. (eds), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 147–175. Stordalen, T. 2015 Horse Statues in Seventh Century Jerusalem: Ancient Social Formations and the Evaluation of Religious Diversity, HBAI 1:4, 106–132. Stravrakopoulou, F. 2006 Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship, Bib 87, 1–21. Strawn, B.A. 2005 What is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, OBO 212, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stronach, D. 1959 The Development of the Fibula in the Near East, Iraq 21:2, 181–206. Struble, E.J. / Herrmann, V.R. 2009 An Eternal Feast at Sam’al: The New Iron Age Mortuary Stele from Zincirli in Context, BASOR 356, 15–49. Suter, C.E. / Uehlinger, C. (eds.) 2005 Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE, OBO 210, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tadmor, H. 1994 The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary, Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Tammuz, O. 2011 Disintegration from Above: A Case Study of the History of Southern Phoenicia and Philistia, RSF 39:2, 177– 209. Tappy, R.E. 1992 The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, Volume I: Early Iron Age through the Ninth Century BCE, Harvard Semitic Studies 44, Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2001 The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, Volume II: The Eighth Century BCE, HSS 50, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2008 Tel Zayit and the Tel Zayit Abecedary in Their Regional Context, in: R.A. Tappy / P.K. McCarter (eds.), Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1–44. 2015 Iron Age IIA–B Samaria (chapter 2.3), in: S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors: From the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Volume 1, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research / Israel Antiquities Authority / American Schools of Oriental Research, 189–211. 2016 The Archaeology of the Ostraca House at Samaria: Epigraphic Discoveries in Complicated Contexts, AASOR 70, Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Taşyürek, O.A. 1977 The Urartian Bronze Hoard from Giyimli, Expedition 19:4, 12–20.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

215

Tatum, L. 2003 Jerusalem in Conflict: The Evidence for the Seventh-Century B.C.E. Religious Struggle over Jerusalem, in: A.G. Vaughn / A.E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 291–306. Taylor, J.G. 1993 Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 111, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Tebes, J.M. 2004 The Influence of Egyptian Chronology in the Archaeology of the Iron Age Negev: A Reassessment, GM 198, 91–104. 2006 Trade and Nomads: The Commercial Relations between the Negev, Edom, and the Mediterranean in the Late Iron Age, JSAS 22, 45–62. 2011a The Potter’s Will: Spheres of Production, Distribution and Consumption of the Late Iron Age Southern Transjordan-Negev Pottery, BAIAS 29, 61–101. 2011b The Pottery Assemblage of Jerusalem’s Neo-Babylonian Destruction Level: A Review and Discussion, AO 9, 277–342. 2013 Investigating the Painted Pottery Traditions of First-Millennium BC North-Western Arabia and Southern Levant: Chronological Data and Geographical Distribution, PSAS 43, 317–336. 2014b Socio-Economic Fluctuations and Chiefdom Formation in Edom, the Negev and the Hejaz during the First Millennium BCE, in: J.M. Tebes (ed.), Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ANESSup 45, Leuven: Peeters, 1–29. 2014c The Symbolic and Social World of the Qurayyah Pottery Iconography, in: J.M. Tebes (ed.), Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ANESSup 45, Leuven: Peeters, 163–201. 2015a (Reviews) T.E. Levy et al. (eds.), 2014: New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, BH 51, 61–64. 2015b Investigating the Painted Pottery Traditions of the First Millennium BC Northwestern Arabia and Southern Levant: Contexts of Discovery and Painted Decorative Motives, ARAM 27:1–2, 255–282. 2015c (Reseñas Bibliogràficas / Book Reviews) P. James / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology, AO 13, 227–234. 2016 Quelques suggestions sur les toponymes ‘édomites’ du Cylindre Rassam (Prisme A) d’Assurbanipal, NABU 2016:3, 127–130. 2016 The Kingdom of Edom? A Critical Reappraisal of the Edomite State Model, in: I. Milevski / T.E. Levy (eds.), Framing Archaeology in the Near East: The Application of Social Theory to Fieldwork, New Directions in Anthropological Archaeology, London: Equinox, 113–122. Tebes, J.M. (ed.) 2014a Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ANESSup 45, Leuven: Peeters. Thareani, Y. 2014a The Judean Desert Frontier in the Seventh Century BCE: A View From cAroer, in: J.M. Tebes (ed.), Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ANESSup 45, Leuven: Peeters, 227–265. 2014b ‘The Self-Destruction of Diversity’: A Tale of the Last Days in Judah’s Negev Towns, AO12, 185–224. Thareani, Y. (ed.) 2011 Tel cAroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic-Early Roman Settlement: The Avraham Biran (1975–1982) and Rudolph Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations, Volumes 1–2, Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology / Hebrew Union College / Jewish Institute of Religion. Thareani-Sussely, Y. 2007 The ‘Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh’ Reconsidered in the Light of Evidence from the Beersheba Valley, PEQ 139:2, 69–77. Thiele, E.R. 1983 The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: New Revised Edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. Thijs, A. 2010 The Lunar Eclipse of Takelot II and the Chronology of the Libyan Period, ZÄS 134, 50–63. 2015 From the Lunar Eclipse of Takeloth II Back to Shoshenq I and Shishak, in: P. James / P. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 42–60. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1924 Les sculptures rupestres de Maltaï, RA 21:4, 185–197.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

216

Bibliography

Tilly, M. / Zwickel, W. 2011 Religionsgeschichte Israels: Von der Vorzeit bis zu den Anfängen des Christentums, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Toombs L.E. et al. 1963 The Fourth Campaign at Balâṭah (Shechem), BASOR 169, 1–60. Török, L. 1997 The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan–Meroitic Civilization, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden: Brill. Trokay, M. 1995 Interconnections in Glyptic during the Neo-Assyrian Period, Abr-Nahrain 33, 96–112. Tufnell, O. 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age, London / New York: Oxford University Press. Tushingham, A.D. 1971 A Royal Israelite Seal (?) and the Royal Jar Handle Stamps (Part Two), BASOR 201, 23–35. 1992 New Evidence Bearing on the Two-Winged lmlk Stamp, BASOR 287, 61–65. Tyson, C.W. 2011 Israel’s Kin Across the Jordan: A Social History of the Ammonites in the Iron Age II (1000–500 BCE), unpublished Ph.D. dissertation submitted to The University of Michigan. 2013 Josephus, Antiquities 10.180–82, Jeremiah, and Nebuchadnezzar, JHS 13:7, 1–16 (online journal). 2014 The Ammonites: Elites, Empires, and Sociopolitical Change (1000–500 BCE), London / New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. 2016 (Book review) The Final Phase of Iron Age II in Judah, Ammon, and Edom by Pieter Gert van der Veen, NEA 79:2, 188–119. Uberti, M.L. 1988 Ivory and Bone Carving, in: S. Moscati (ed.), The Phoenicians, London / New York: I.B. Taurus Publisher, 456–471. Uehlinger, C. 2003 Clio in a World of Pictures: Another Look at the Lachish Reliefs from Sennacherib’s Southwest Palace at Nineveh, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOTSup 363 / EABS 4, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 221–305. Ussishkin, D. 1976 Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions, BASOR 223, 1–13. 1977 The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars, TA 4, 28–60. 1978 Excavations at Tel Lachish 1973–1977: Preliminary Report, TA 5, 1–97. 1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University / Institute of Archaeology. 1983 Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978–1983: Second Preliminary Report, TA 10, 97–175. 1985 Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and Chronology of Archaeological Sites in Judah in the Light of Lachish III, in: Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeology Society, 142–144. 1990 Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries B.C., BASOR 277/278, 71– 90. 1994 Gate 1567 at Megiddo and the Seal of Shema, Servant of Jeroboam, in: M.G. Coogan et al. (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 410–428. 2004b Appendix: Asymmetrical Bowls and Bowls in Assyrian Style (chapter 26), in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, Volume IV, The Tel Aviv University Sonja and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, MSIA 22, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 1900–1906. 2004c The Royal Judean Storage Jars and Seal Impressions from the Renewed Excavations (section B), in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Volume IV, MSIA 22, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2133–2147. 2004d A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical, Chronological and Historical Isssues, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Volume I, MSIA 22, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 50–119. 2004e Area GW: The Outer City-Gate, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Volume II, MSIA 22, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 535–623. 2007 Megiddo and Samaria: A Rejoinder to Norma Franklin, BASOR 348, 49–70. 2011 On Biblical Jerusalem, Megiddo, Jezreel and Lachish, Chuen King Lecture Series 8, Hong Kong: Divinity School of Chung Chi College / Chinese University of Hong Kong. 2012 Lmlk Seal Impressions Once Again: A Second Rejoinder to Oded Lipschits, AO 10, 13–23.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

2014a

217

Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Archaeological Perspective with an Emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem, in: I. Kalimi / S. Richardson (eds.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography, Leiden / Boston: Brill, 75–103. 2014b Biblical Lachish: A Tale of Construction, Destruction, Excavations and Restoration, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Biblical Archaeology Society. 2015 Gath, Lachish and Jerusalem in the 9th Cent. B.C.E.: An Archaeological Reassessment, ZDPV 131:2, 129–149. Ussishkin, D. (ed.) 2004a The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, The Tel Aviv University Sonja and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, MSIA 22, Volume IV, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Uziel, J. / Szanton, N. 2015 Recent Excavations Near the Gihon Spring and Their Reflection of the Character of Iron II Jerusalem, TA 42:2, 233–250. Uziel, J. et al. 2015 A Late Iron Age Inscribed Sherd from the City of David, IEJ 65:2, 167–178. Vanderhooft, D.S. 1995 The Edomite Dialect and Script: A Review of the Evidence, in: D. Edelman (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor the Edomite for He is Your Brother, ABS 3, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 137–157. 1999 The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets, HSM 59, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Varga, D. 1999 Ḥorbat Ḥoga, ESI/HA 110, *69–*69. Vaughn, A.G. 1999a Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals and Its Significance for Biblical Research, BASOR 313, 43–64. 1999b Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah, ABS 4, Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2016a Lmlk and Official Seal Impressions (chapter14), in: S. Bunimowitz / Z. Lederman (eds.), Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border-Community in Judah—Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age, MSIA 34, Winona Lake, IN: Institute of Archaeology / Tel Aviv University / Eisenbrauns, 480–497. 2016b Addendum: Lmlk Seal Impressions in Light of Current Debate, in: S. Bunimowitz / Z. Lederman (eds.), Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border-Community in Judah—Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age, MSIA 34, Winona Lake, IN: Institute of Archaeology / Tel Aviv University / Eisenbrauns, 498–501. Vaughn, A.G. / Killebrew, A.E. 2003 Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, SymS 18, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Vaux, R. de 1973 Archaeology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Veen, P.G. van der 2003 Göttin, in: O. Betz et al. (eds.), Calwer Bibellexikon, Volume 1, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 473–474. 2004a Beschriftete Siegel als Beweis für das biblische Israel? Gedalja und seine Mörder par exemple (Eine Antwort an Bob Becking), in: F. Ninow (ed.), Wort und Stein: Studien zur Theologie und Archäologie—Festschrift für Udo Worschech, BEAM 4, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 238–259. 2004b (Book review) G.M. Grena, Lmlk: A Mystery of the King on: www.amazon.com/LMLK-Mystery-BelongingKing-vol/dp/097487860X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481628696&sr=8-1&keywords=LMLK. 2005 A Revised Chronology and Iron Age Archaeology: An Update, JACF 10, 49–51. 56. 2006 Geser on: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/19448/ 2007 Inschriften datieren die Eisenzeit, SIJ 14, 3–11. 2008a ‘The Seven Dots’ on Mesopotamian and Southern Levantine Seals: An Overview, in: G.G.G. Reinhold (ed.), Die Zahl Sieben im Alten Orient, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 11–22. 2008b ‘To Bacal and to Paraz?’: A Palaeographic Rejoinder, KUSATU 8.9, 110–18. 2009 Jericho (Altes Testament) on: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/22344/ 2011 The Seal Material (chapter 5), in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Umm el-Biyara: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett in Petra 1960–1965, Oxford / Oakville: Oxbow Books, 79–84. 2012 Milkom, in: J. Eggler and C. Uehlinger (eds.), The Iconography of Dieties and Demons in the Ancient Near East, digital version, May 2012, 1–5. 2014a The Final Phase of Iron Age II in Judah, Ammon, and Edom: A Study of Provenanced Official Seals and Bullae as Chronological Markers, AOAT 415, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2014b Sixth Century Issues: The Fall of Jerusalem, the Exile, and the Return (chapter 12), in: B.T. Arnold / R.S. Hess (eds.), Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 383–405. 2014c Red and Black Seals and Amulets from Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Levant, in: J. Toussaint (ed.), Rouges et noirs: Rubis, grenat, onyx, obsidienne et autres minéraux rouges et noirs dans l’art et l’archéologie, Namur, Trema / Société archéologique de Namur, 254–263. © 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

218

Bibliography

2015a

Early Iron Age Epigraphy and Chronological Revision: A Summary Article, in: P. James / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 190–198. 2015b A Double-Headed Bull Protome: Does It Represent the Aramaean Moon God?, in: C. Gottlieb et al. (eds.), Visions of Life in Biblical Times: Essays in Honor of Meir Lubetski, HBM 76, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 235–248. 2015c The Name Shishaq: Šošenq or Šyšu/q? Responding to the Critics and Assessing the Evidence, in: P. James / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Solomon and Shishak, BARIS 2732, Oxford: Archaeopress, 82–97. in prep. Three Enigmatic Stamp Impressions from Ramat Rahel. Veen, P.G. van der / Bron, F. 2014 Arabian and Arabizing Epigraphic Finds from the Iron Age Southern Levant, in: J.M. Tebes (ed.), Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ANESSup 45, Leuven: Peeters, 203–226. Veen, P.G. van der / Deutsch, R. 2014, The Bulla of ’Amaryahu Son of the King, the Ancestor of the Prophet Zechariah?, in: J. Elayi / J.-M. Durand (eds.), Bible et Proche-Orient: Mélanges André Lemaire, Volume 3, Trans 46, 121–132. Veen, P.G. van der (with W. Zwickel) 2013 Zeit der getrennten Reiche: Juda, in: W. Zwickel et al. (eds.), Herders Neuer Bibelatlas, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 164–194. Veen, P.G. van der et al. in prep. Edom and Israel during the First Millennium B.C.: Historical Dates and 14C Results Based on Bayesian Statistics. (provisional title) 2016 Reconsidering the Authenticity of the Berekhyahu Bullae: A Rejoinder, AO 14, 99–136. Vella, N. 2008 ‘Phoenician’ Metal Bowls: Boundary Objects in the Archaic Period, Bollettino di archeologia online (volume speciale), 22–37. Vernus, P. 1975a Inscriptions de la troisième période intermédiaire, BIFAO 75, 1–66. 1975b Inscriptions de la troisième période intermédiaire (II), BIFAO 75, 67–72. Verreth, H. 2006 The Northern Sinai from the 7th Century BC till the 7th Century AD. A Guide to the Sources, Volumes 1 and 2, Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Louvain. Vincent, L.H. 1948 Les épigraphes judéo-araméennes postexiliques, RB 56, 274–294. Wallenfels, R. 1983 Redating the Byblian Inscriptions, JANES 15, 79–118. 2019 Solomon and Shishak: A Disambiguation, JAOS 139, 487–500. Walton, J.H. et al. 2000 The IVP Biblical Background Commentary: Old Testament, Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Ward, W.A. 1967 Three Phoenician Seals of the Early First Millennium B.C., JEA 53, 67–74. Wartke, R.-B. 1993 Urartu: Das Reich am Ararat, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern Verlag. Watermann, L. 1930/1936 Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Watzinger, C. 1929 Tell el-Mutesellim, Volume 2: Die Funde, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Weber, K. 2014 In Eden und darüber hinaus: Exegetische, archäologische und ikonographische Studien zum Garten im Alten Testament, BVB 24, Berlin: LIT Verlag Dr. W. Hopf. Weippert, H. 1988 Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Munich: C.H. Beck. Weippert, M. 1989 Manasse, in: E. Ebeling et al. (ed.), RlA 7, Berlin: de Gruyter, 332–333. 2010 Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament: Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weippert, M. / Weippert H. 1976 Jericho in der Eisenzeit, ZDPV 92, 129–145.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Bibliography

219

Weksler-Bdolah, S. et al. 2009 (23/9) Jerusalem: The Western Wall Plaza Excavations, 2005–2009, Preliminary Report, Ḥadashot-ESI 121 (online). Welten, P. 1969 Die Königs-Stempel: Ein Beitrag zur Militärpolitik Judas unter Hiskia und Josia, ADPV, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Wicke, D. 2013 Elfenbeinschnitzereien in der Eisenzeit, in: W. Orthmann et al. (eds.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie I: La Syrie de l’èpoque néolithique à l’âge du fer, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 549–570. Wicks, Y. 2012 Bronze ‘Bathtub’ Coffins: In the Context of 8th–6th Century BC Babylonian, Assyrian and Elamite Practices, unpublished honours thesis (pdf. online). 2015 Bronze ‘Bathtub’ Coffins: In the Context of 8th–6th Century BC Babylonian, Assyrian and Elamite Practices, Oxford: Archaeopress. Wightman, G.J. 1985 Megiddo VIA–III: Associated Structures and Chronology, Levant 17, 117–129. 1990 The Myth of Solomon, BASOR 277/278, 5–22. Wilkinson, C.K. 1955 Assyrian and Persian Art, MMAB 13:7, 213–224. Winderbaum, A. 2015 The Iconic Seals and Bullae of the Iron Age (chapter seven), in: E. Mazar (ed.), The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008: Final Reports Volume I, Area G, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 363–419. Winter, I.J. 1976 Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: Questions of Style and Distribution, Iraq 38, 1–22. 2010 North Syrian Ivories and Tell Halaf Reliefs: The Impact of Luxury Goods Upon ‘Major’ Arts, in: I.J. Winter (ed.), On Art in the Ancient Near East, Volume 1: Of the First Millennium BCE, CHANE 34:1, Leiden: Brill, 381–403 (reprint). Wodzinska, A. 2010 A Manual of Egyptian Pottery, Volume 3: Second Intermediate Period–Late Period, AERA Field Manual Series 1, Boston, MA: Ancient Egypt Research Associates. Yadin, Y. 1960 Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956, Jerusalem: Magnes Press. 1970 Hazor: The Schweich Lectures 1970, London: British Academy / Oxford University Press. 1976 Hazor: Die Wiederentdeckung der Zitadelle König Salomos, Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe. 1993 Hazor, in: E. Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 2, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 594–603. Yassin, K. 1984 Tell el-Mazar I: Cemetery A, Amman: The University of Jordan. Yeivin, S. 1960 The Date of the Seal ‘Belonging to Shema (the) Servant (of) Jeroboam’, JNES 19, 205–212. Yellin, J. / Gunneweg, J. 1989 The Origin of Collared-Rim Jars and Pithoi from Tel Dan, in: S. Gitin / W.G. Dever (eds.), Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology, Winona Lake, IN: American Schools of Oriental Research / Eisenbrauns, 133–142. Yezerski, I. 2007 Pottery of Stratum V (chapter 4 [2]), in: E. Stern (ed.), En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965), Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society / Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 86–129. Yezerski, I. / Mazar, E. 2015 Iron Age III Pottery, in: Mazar, E. (ed.), The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008, Final Reports Volume I, Area G, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 242–298. Young, R.A. 2012 Hezekiah in History and Tradition, VTSup 156, Leiden: Brill. Younger, K.L., Jr. 2003 Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century B.C.E., in: A.G. Vaughn / A.E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 235–263. 2015 The Assyrian Economic Impact on the Southern Levant in the Light of Recent Study, IEJ 65:2, 179–204.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

220

Bibliography

Younker, R. 1989 Historical Background and Motifs of a Royal Seal Impression, in: L.T. Geraty et al. (eds.), The 1984 Season at Tell el-cUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies, Madaba Plains Project 1, Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 375–380. Yurco, F. 1980 Sennacherib’s Third Campaign and the Coregency of Shabaka and Shebitku, Serapis 6, 221–240. Zadok, R. 1998 A Prosopography of Samaria and Edom/Idumea, UF 30, 781–828. 2015 Israelites and Judaeans in the Neo-Assyrian Documentation (732–602 B.C.E.): An Overview of the Sources and a Socio-Historical Assessment, BASOR 374, 159–189. Zamazalová, S. 2011 Before the Assyrian Conquest in 671 B.C.E.: Relations between Egypt, Kush and Assyria, in: J. Mynářová (ed.), Egypt and the Near East: The Crossroads—Proceedings of an International Conference on Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1–3, Prague: Charles University, 297–328. Zapassky, E. et al. 2009 Computing Abilities in Antiquity: Storage Jars as a Case-study, JAMT 51–67. Zerbst, U. / Veen, P.G. van der 2005 Das Gericht an den Göttern Ägyptens: Die zehn Plagen in 2. Mose 7–12 aus der religiösen Perspektive des alten Ägypten, in: U. Zerbst / P.G. van der Veen (eds.), Keine Posaunen vor Jericho? Beiträge zur Archäologie der Landnahme, Holzgerlingen: Hänssler-Verlag, 137–153. Ziffer, I. 2010 The Iconography of Cult Stands (chapter 5), in: Z. Kletter et al. (eds.), Yavneh I: The Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands, OBOSA 30, Fribourg/Göttingen, Academic Press Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 61–104. Zimhoni, O. 1997 Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological Archaeological and Chronological Aspects, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications 2, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University / Institute of Archaeology. 2004 The Pottery of Levels III and II, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, Volume IV, The Tel Aviv University Sonja and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, MSIA 22, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 1789–1899. Zorn, J. 1993 Mesopotamian-Style Ceramic ‘Bathtub’ Coffins from Tell en-Nasbeh, TA 20, 216–224. Zorn, J. et al. 1994 The m(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions and the Neo-Babylonian Period, IEJ 44, 161–183. Zwickel, W. 1990 Eisenzeitliche Ortslagen im Ostjordanland, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients—Reihe B 81, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. 1994 Wirtschaftliche Grundlagen in Zentraljuda gegen Ende des 8. Jh.s aus archäologischer Sicht: Mit einem Ausblick auf die wirtschaftliche Situation im 7. Jh., UF 26, 557–592. 1999 Die Wirtschaftsreform des Hiskia und die Sozialkritik der Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts, Evang. Theol. 59:5, 356–377. 2015 Amos 1,1 und die Stratigraphie der eisenzeitlichen Ortslagen in Galiläa, in: V.K. Nagy / L.S. Egeresi, Propheten der Epochen—Prophets during the Epochs. Festschrift für István Karasszon zum 60. Geburtstag—Studies in Honour of István Karasszon for his 60th Birthday, AOAT 426, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 31–49. Zwickel, W. et al. (eds.) 2013 Herders Neuer Bibelatlas, Freiburg im Breisgau / Basel / Vienna: Herder Verlag.

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

Tables and Figures 1 Neo-Assyrian Related Sigillographic Evidence and the terminus ante quem of Iron Age IIA in Israel and Judah Figs. 1a–b: Photo and line-drawing of Type 1 bulla (‘Rock-Cut Pool’) Figs. 2a–b: Photo and line-drawing of Type 2 bulla (‘Rock-Cut Pool’) Figs. 3a–b: Photo and line-drawing of Type 3 bulla (‘Rock-Cut Pool’) Fig. 4: Bulla found outside the ‘Rock-Cut Pool’ Figs. 5a–b: Original Shema seal and gypsum impression Figs. 6a–b: Original gypsum impression and bronze cast Fig. 7: Line-drawing of the Shema seal based on original photograph Figs. 8a–b: Line-drawing and reconstruction of the first register Fig. 9: Reconstruction of mem in the upper register Fig. 10: Reconstruction of mem in the bottom register Fig. 11: Reconstruction of cayin in the upper register Figs. 12a–b: Line-drawing and reconstruction of the bottom register Fig. 13: Reconstruction of dalet in the bottom register Fig. 14: Reconstruction of yod in the bottom register Figs. 15a–d: Lion-hunt reliefs and an Urartian armor Figs. 16a–b: Reconstruction of the cankh and photo of similar seal Figs. 17a–b: Reconstruction of tree and line-drawing of Cypriot seal Fig. 18: The Rapati seal from Khorsabad Figs. 19a–c: The degenerated lion seals Fig. 20: The Bar’em seal Figs. 21a–b: The cAshna’el and Rapati seals Figs. 22a–b: The She’adoni and Elah seals Figs. 23a–b: Photo and line-drawing of the Suri seal Figs. 24a–b: The cAgbay and Marcam seals Figs. 25a–b: The cUsha and Tan’el seals Figs. 26a–b: The Shakyah and Khirbet Qeiyafah seals Figs. 27a–b: The Menahem and Megiddo seals Table 1: Provenanced and unprovenanced ‘Assyrian-style’ lion seals Fig. 28: Plan of the findspot of the Shema seal Fig. 29: Line-drawing of the northern wall and southeastern chamber of gatehouse 1567 Fig. 30: Reconstruction of Gatehouse 1567 Figs. 31a–c: An everted rim jar, ovid jar and beer jug from the Gatehouse Figs. 32a–b: An incense burner and cooking pot from the Gatehouse Fig. 33: Line-drawing of a storage jar from Locus 489 Fig. 34: Line-drawing of an incense bowl from Locus 489 Table 2: Lower dates for late Iron Age IIA sites in Israel and Judah

22 23 24 27 28 29 31 33 33 33 35 36 36 36 40 41 42 42 44 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 50 52 55 55 56 57 58 59 64

2 ‘Assyrian-Style’ Pottery and Its Implications for Israel and Judah During Iron Age IIB (early) Fig. 35: An APW cup with knobbed base Fig. 36: APW forms A–C after Hunt 2015 Fig. 37: A late carinated APW bowl from Nimrud Figs. 38a–b: Late APW goblets and beakers from Nineveh and Nimrud Fig. 39: Late Assyrian and APW vessels from Nimrud Fig. 40: An unprovenanced glazed Late Assyrian juglet Table 3: Kings of Assyria and Babylon listed alongside rulers of Judah, Ammon and Edom Figs. 41a–b: An unprovenanced ‘Assyrian-style’ undimpled beaker and a goblet allegedly from Israel Fig. 42: Unprovenanced ‘Assyrian-style’ carinated bowl allegedly from Israel Fig. 43: Line-drawing of a goblet from Megiddo Str. H-3 Fig. 44: Line-drawing of bowl type B13 from Tel Arad Fig. 45: Line-drawing of bowl type B12 from Tel Arad Figs. 46a–b: ‘Assyrian-style’ ‘istikans’ from Tel Beersheba Str. II Figs. 47a–b: ‘Assyrian-Edomite-style’ bowls from Tel Beersheba Str. II Figs. 48a–b: ‘Edomite-style’ bowls from Tel Beersheba Str. II

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

76 78 79 79 79 80 90 90 91 91 94 95 97 98 98

222

Tables and Figures

Table 4: Chronological reconstruction of sites with ‘Assyrian-style’ pottery Fig. 49: A bronze bowl from Kfar Veradim Figs. 50a–b: Photo and line-drawing of plaque I from Tel Dan Str. III Fig. 51: A carved ivory panel from Fort Shalmaneser Figs. 52a–b: Photo and line-drawing of plaque 2 from Tel Dan Str. III Figs. 53a–c: Photo and line-drawings of a bronze bowl from Tel Dan Str. II

105 116 119 120 121 123

3 Iron Age IIB Judah (c. 726/715–642 B.C.) and LMLK-Stamp Impressions Table 5: Chronology of the jar handles according to Grena Table 6: Chronology of the jar handles according to Lipschits et al. Table 7: The chronological distribution of the main symbols Fig. 54: A plasticine impression of a cylinder seal from Jerusalem Fig. 55: An unprovenanced four-winged lmlk handle (type H4L) Fig. 56: An unprovenanced bulla of king Hezekiah Figs. 57a–b: Two Levantine Egyptianising seals with a four-winged scarab beetle Fig. 58: Faience pectoral with a four-winged scarab beetle from Pyramid 52 Fig. 59: An unprovenanced late Egyptian bronze situla with a four-winged scarab beetle Figs. 60a–b: Two two-winged sun disk lmlk jar handles from Tell en-Nasbeh and Tel Lachish Figs. 61a–b: Judahite bulla and seal with Egyptianising two-winged sun disks Figs. 62a–b: Assyrianising Southern Levantine depictions with ‘lmlk type’ two-winged sun disks Figs. 63a–b: An unprovenanced prancing horse stamp impression and a horse figurine from Jerusalem Figs. 64a–b: Two unprovenanced Neo-Assyrian seal impressions with Shamash standing on his horse Figs. 65a–c: Shamash standing on his horse at Maltai in Kurdistan Figs. 66a–b: The official seal impressions of Elyaqim ncr Yokan and Shebanyahu bnhmlk

139 140 142 143 145 145 147 148 149 154 154 158 159 159 160 167

4 Conclusions and Prospects for Future Study Table 8: The early and late candidates of the revised Lachish Level III destruction model

© 2020, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-086-4 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-087-1 (E-Book)

174