The Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah 9781575066530

Citation preview

The Yehud Stamp Impressions

The Yehud Stamp Impressions A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah

Oded Lipschits and David S. Vanderhooft

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2011

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

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lipschitz, Oded. The Yehud stamp impressions : a corpus of inscribed impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic periods in Judah / Oded Lipschits and David S. Vanderhooft.     p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57506-183-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Seals (Numismatics)—Palestine—Catalogs.  2. Jews—History—586 b.c.– 70 a.d.—Sources.  3. Judaea (Region)—Antiquities.  4. Palestine—Antiquities. 5.  Palestine—History—To 70 a.d.  I.  Vanderhooft, David Stephen.  II.  Title. CD5354.L57 2011 929.9—dc23 2011034549 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xi Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1 1.  History of Research   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 a.  The Early Phase of Research: First Discoveries and First Hypotheses  1 b.  The Middle Phase of Research: The Main Corpus and the Main Points of Agreement  4 c.  The Late Phase of Research: Expanded Corpus, Refined Conclusions, Improved Typology  7

2.  The Need for New Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 3.  Persian and Hellenistic Stamp Impressions Not Included in the Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23 1.  Geopolitical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 a. The yehud Stamp Impressions and the Borders of Judah in the Persian Period  23

2.  Archaeological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 a.  Main Administrative Centers Associated with the yehud Stamp Impressions  31 b.  Secondary Administrative Centers Associated with the yehud Stamp Impressions  41 c.  Central Production Centers: Rogem Gannim and the Rephaim Basin  49 d.  Small Agricultural Sites around Jerusalem  51 e.  Sites in the Shephelah Where yehud Stamp Impressions Were Discovered  55 f.  A Note on Sites in Benjamin Where No yehud Stamp Impressions Were Discovered  57 g.  Sites Outside the Borders of Judah Where yehud Stamp Impressions Were Discovered  57

3.  Petrography of the yehud Jar Stamp Impressions   . . . . . . . . . . 59 a.  Method and Materials  60 b. Results  60

v

vi

Contents

C. The Paleographical Framework for the yehud Stamp Impressions . . . . 62 1.  Chronological Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.  Arrival of Aramaic Script in Yehud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.  Outline of the Development of the Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.  The Development of the Lapidary Script and the Place of yehud Stamp Impressions in the Sequence . . . . . . . 5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 63 65 66 72

D. The Toponym Yehūd and the Title pḥwʾ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 1.  The Toponym Yehūd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 a.  Historical-Linguistic Hypotheses for the Origin of the Toponym Yehūd 74 b.  Orthographic and Paleographic Variations in the Corpus 76 c.  Comparative Evidence for Use of the Toponym Yehūd 76 d.  General Significance of the Toponym Yehūd for Understanding the Corpus  77

2. The Title pḥwʾ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

E.  The Early Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 1.  Introduction to the Early Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.  Type 1: ‫“ לאחיב פחוא‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” . . . . . . 83 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  83 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  84 c.  The Name ‫ אחיב‬ʾAḥîāb: Reading and Discussion  85 d. Paleography  86 e.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions  87 f.  Summary and Further Considerations  87 g.  Stamp Impressions 1-1 – 1-18  88

3.  Type 2: ‫“ יהוד ׀ אוריו‬Yĕhûd ʾÛrīyaw” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  107 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  107 c.  Linguistic and Prosopographic Discussion   108 d. Paleography  109 e.  Stamp Impressions 2-1 – 2-2  109

4.  Type 3: ‫“ יהוד ׀ מלכיו‬Yĕhûd Malkīyaw” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  112 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impression  112 c.  Linguistic and Prosopographic Discussion  112 d. Paleography  113 e.  Stamp Impressions 3-1 – 3-4  113

5.  Type 4: ‫“ יהוד ׀ חננה‬Yĕhūd Ḥananāh” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  118 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  118 c.  Prosopographic Discussion  119 d. Paleography  119 e.  Summary and Further Considerations  120 f.  Stamp Impressions 4-1 – 4-5  120

Contents 6.  Types 2–4: Summary Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 7.  Type 5: ‫“ יה ׀ וד‬Yĕhûd” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  128 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  128 c. Paleography  128 d.  Further Considerations  129 e.  Stamp Impressions 5-1 – 5-2  129

8.  Type 6: ‫“ יהוד‬Yĕhûd” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  132 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  133 c. Paleography  135 d.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions  135 e.  Summary and Further Considerations   135 f.  Stamp Impressions 6-1 – 6-55  136

9.  Type 7: ‫“ יהוד יהועזר פחוא‬Yĕhûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor” . . . . 192 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  192 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  192 c.  Prosopographic Discussion  192 d. Paleography  193 e.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions  193 f.  Summary and Further Considerations  193 g.  Stamp Impressions 7-1 – 7-7  194

10.  Type 8: ‫“ לחנונה ׀ יהוד‬Belonging to Ḥănûnāh, Yĕhûd” . . . . . . 202 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  202 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  202 c.  Prosopographic Discussion  202 d. Paleography  203 e.  Further Considerations  203 f.  Stamp Impressions 8-1 – 8-2  203

11.  Type 9: ‫“ יאזנ בר ישב ׀ יהוד‬Yaʾăzan, son of Yašūb, Yĕhûd” . . . . 206 a.  History of Discovery  206 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  206 c.  Prosopographic Discussion  206 d. Paleography  206 e.  Stamp Impression 9-1  207

12.  Type 10: ‫“ ליהעזר‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  209 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  209 c. Paleography  210 d.  Orientation of the Stamp Impressions  210 e.  Further Considerations  211 f.  A Note on the Inclusion of Type 10 in the Corpus  211 g.  Stamp Impressions 10-1 – 10-17  211

13.  Type 11: ‫“ גדליה‬Gĕdalyāh” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  229 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  229 c.  The Name ‫“ גדליה‬Gĕdalyāh”: Reading and Discussion  230 d.  Prosopographic Discussion  230

vii

viii

Contents e.  A Note on the Distribution and Inclusion of Type 11 in the Corpus  231 f.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions  231 g.  Summary and Additional Considerations  231 h.  Stamp Impressions 11-1 – 11-3  231

14.  Type 12: ‫“ יהוד פחוא‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  235 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions and Reading 236 c.   Paleography  237 d.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions  237 e.  Summary and Additional Considerations  238 f.    Stamp Impressions 12-1 – 12-12  238

15.  Summary of the Early Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

F.  The Middle Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 1.  Introduction to the Middle Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 2.  Type 13: ‫“ יהד‬Yĕhūd” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  256 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  258 c.  History of Research  259 d.  The Yehūd Subtypes  260 e.  Summary Discussion of Subtypes 13a-j  267 f.  Stamp Impressions 13-1 – 13-105  268

3.  Type 14: ‫“ יה‬Yeh(ūd)” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  374 b. The Yh Subtypes  375   1. Subtype 14a 376   2. Subtype 14b 378   3. Subtype 14c 379   4. Subtype 14d 379   5. Subtype 14e 380 c.  Summary and Discussion  380 d.  Stamp Impressions 14-1 – 14-192  381

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יה‬overlapping” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .574 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  574 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions and Reading 574 c.   Paleographic Discussion  574 d.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions  575 e.  Summary and Further Considerations  575 f.    Stamp Impressions 15-1 – 15-15  575

5. Summary Discussion of the Middle Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

G. The Late Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 1.  Introduction to the Late Types: Dating the Late Types on Archaeological Grounds . . . . . . . . . 593

ix

Contents 2.  Type 16: ‫יה‬-ligature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  595 b.  History of Reading and Interpreting the yh-ligature Monogram 597 c.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions  598 d. The yh-ligature Subtypes  599 e.  Summary and Discussion  601 f.  Stamp Impressions 16-1 – 16-55  601

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יהד ט‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .657 a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution  657 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions and Reading 659 c.    The ṭet symbol  660 d. The ‫“ יהד ט‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Subtypes  662   Group 1 663   Group 2 665   Unique Subtypes 666 e.  Summary and Discussion  667 f.  Stamp Impressions 17-1 – 17-87  668

4.  Summary of the Late Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756

H. Summary and Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 Distribution of the Early Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the Middle Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the Late Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

760 761 762 762

Abbreviations of Periodicals and Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Toponyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793

790

Acknowledgments We would like to thank first and foremost our respective institutions, Tel Aviv University and Boston College, who supported this project in myriad ways, not least of all financially. At Tel Aviv University, we thank the Faculty of Humanities, Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, and the Institute of Archaeology for financial support, assistance in drawing stamp impressions, drawing the maps, and producing a majority of the professional photographs in the book. Special thanks to Prof. Yuval Goren for analyzing the provenance of many of the stamped handles; Prof. Benjamin Sass, editor of Tel-Aviv, and Myrna Pollak, manuscript and production editor, for their assistance in publishing many of the stamp impressions that appear in Tel-Aviv 34/1 (2007). Thanks also to Prof. Nadav Naʾaman and Prof. Israel Finkelstein for their support and to Prof. Ran Zadok and Prof. Oren Tal for their generous assistance. Pavel Shrago photographed many of the handles stored at Tel Aviv University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv. Rodica Penchas made numerous drawings; Yulia Gottlib prepared plates for several preliminary articles. Ido Koch helped throughout the process of research and produced the maps. Veronica Zlatkovsky produced the GIS plans and maps of the various types of stamp impressions, and Boaz Gross provided invaluable assistance in the final stages of the research and in processing the photos for publishing. At Boston College, special thanks go to Kenneth Himes O.F.M., then Chairman of the Theology Department, for facilitating travel to Israel. Joseph Quinn, then Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and Patricia de Leeuw, Vice Provost for Faculties, were instrumental in coordinating a sabbatical year of research in 2006–7. Boston College Advanced Study Grants financed photography by the Israel Antiquities Authority and assisted with part of the layout and editing costs at Eisenbrauns. Thanks also to Cathleen Chopra-McGowan for assistance with proofreading. Special thanks go to Prof. Frank Moore Cross, who consulted with us on our readings and paleographical analyses. Prof. André Lemaire also kindly provided advice in numerous instances. Thanks to the numerous scholars and institutions who allowed us to study unpublished stamp impressions and for their permission to publish many of them in Tel-Aviv 34/1 (2007): Prof. Ephraim Stern of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Hillel Geva of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Exploration xi

xii

Acknowledgments

Society; Dr. Yitzhak Magen and Benny Har-Even from the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Prof. Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa; Eli Shukron of the Israel Antiquities Authority; Yoav Farhi of the Hebrew University; Gerald Finkielsztejn of the Israel Antiquities Authority; and Dr. Shimon Gibson from the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. We wish to express our gratitude to the various institutions and museums who granted permission to study their collections: many thanks to the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who graciously permitted us to spend time in the storehouses and exhibitions where a majority of the yehud stamp impressions are kept. Several individuals shared pertinent information with us and supplied answers to our many questions: Dr. Hava Katz, Chief Curator, National Treasures; Ms. Pnina Shor, Head of the Department of Artifacts Treatment and Conservation; Dr. Orit Shamir, Head of the Department of Museums and Exhibits; Mr. Michael Sebanne, National Treasures Storerooms Director; Ms. Debora Ben-Ami, Curator of Iron Age and Persian period materials; and Alegre Sabriano and Fauzi Ibrahim, the curators of the Rockefeller museum. The IAA photographer, Mariana Salzberger, photographed all the stamp impressions stored in the Beth Shemesh facility. We also received assistance from Yael Barshak from the photography archive. Special thanks to Donald Zvi Ariel, head of the coin division at the Israel Antiquities Authority; and Alon de Groot. We also received support from Dr. Uzi Dahari, Deputy Director, Israel Antiquities Authority; and Baruch Brandl, the Director of the Israel Antiquities Authority library. At the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, we would like to thank Prof. Anna Belfer-Cohen, the former Head of the Institute; Mr. Benjamin Sekay, the Administrative director; and Ms. Daphna Tsoran, Curator of the Institute. Thanks also to Benjamin Arubas, who greatly assisted us in locating materials in the institute collection. We would like to thank Y. Lehman and G. Laron, who photographed the handles from En Gedi. Thanks also to Prof. Ephraim Stern and to Prof. Amihai Mazar for their assistance and cooperation. At the Israel Museum, we received help and cooperation from Ms. Michal Dayagi-Mendels, the Tamar and Teddy Kollek Chief Curator of Archaeology; Frieder Burda, Senior Curator of Israelite and Persian Periods; and Eran Arie, Associate Curator of Israelite and Persian Periods. Thanks also to Haim Gitler, Curator of Numismatics in the Israel Museum. All images from the Israel Museum are courtesy of the Collection of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, and were photographed by Peter Lanyi. Thanks to Bella Gershovich, the Image Resources & Copyright Management Department at the museum, for granting us permission. At the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv, we benefitted from the cooperation of Ms. Cecilia Meir and Ms. Ziva Simon. At the Badè Institute of Biblical Archaeology, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, we received generous assistance from Dr. Aaron Brody as well as Catherine Painter’s technical help in processing images of stamp impressions from Tell en-Naṣbeh.

Acknowledgments

xiii

At the Sapienza – Università di Roma, we would like to thank Prof. Giovanni Garbini and Prof. Maria Giulia Amadasi, of the Studi Oriente and the manager of the Museo del Vicino Oriente, for their hospitality, cooperation, and assistance. Omer Sergi of Tel Aviv University collated the stamp impressions in Rome. In the Hecht Museum, Haifa we would like to thank Ms. Ornit Babani-Shanks, the museum registrar, and we would like to thank the museum for permission to publish the photos of the stamp impressions housed there; all images are courtesy of the Collection of the Hecht Museum, University of Haifa. Thanks to Dr. Yitzhak Magen of the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria for permission to study the stamp impressions recovered at Nebi Samwil; to Benny Har-Even, for his assistance; to Anna Tsyplin, for the drawings; and to Shlomi Ammami and Assaf Peretz, for the photographs. Last, but not least, we would like to thank Prof. Manfred Oeming, the former Dean of the Faculty of Theology in Heidelberg University, for his hospitality during the period the authors resided in Heidelberg as his guests and completed the bulk of the work on the book. Jim Eisenbraun and his team at Eisenbrauns accepted the challenge of publishing the volume, for which we are grateful. Yael and Shannon tolerated both our presence and our absences during the course of research, a fact that continues to elicit wonderment and gratitude in both the authors.

Preface The study of the yehud stamp impressions, which appear on handles or the bodies of store-jars, has persisted for more than a century, beginning with the discovery of the first such impression at Gezer in 1904. Nevertheless, until the pioneering work of Stern (1973; English edition 1982), which catalogued, classified, and discussed the stamp impressions known up until 1970, research was characterized by scattered discovery and publication of new stamp impressions accompanied by relatively cursory analyses of them. An obvious gap in research thus persisted until the present: no complete catalogue of the yehud stamp impressions has ever been published. The updated English edition of Stern’s work (1982) 1 is now out of date. He naturally was not able to include the many additional stamp impressions discovered in excavations at the City of David, in the Jewish Quarter and elsewhere in Jerusalem, at Nebi Samwil, at Ramat Raḥel, as well as at many other small sites that have been excavated and surveyed in the intervening years. These data justify revising the classification of the stamp impressions proposed by Stern (1982: 202–3; see also 2001: 548). This work thus offers, in the first place, a full catalogue of all published and unpublished yhwd stamp impressions, together with photographs and complete archaeological and publication data for each stamp impression. The catalogue is comprehensive in its scope (through the winter of 2008–9) and thus represents a useful tool for future research. It offers a secure basis for more general reflection on the corpus as a whole, which represents one of the largest groups of inscribed materials from licit excavations in Persian-period yehud. Among the subjects illuminated by the stamp impressions are stratigraphy, paleography, administration, historical geography, and economic development within Yehud during the period under investigation. Specific topics receive clarification that would be difficult to achieve without the complete corpus: distribution; petrographic analysis of the clay; new readings of the seal legends; use of the toponym yehūd, and the significance of the title pḥwʾ. In addition to the primary task of publishing all of the impressions in catalogue form, this study also proposes a revised typology that organizes the yehud stamp impressions. This typology rests on careful assessment of the form, content, script, and exact dimensions of each individual stamp impression. Stratigraphical information and comparative evidence occasionally also inform development of the 1.  The English edition includes slightly more data than the original Hebrew edition (1973), including some bullae and stamps published by Avigad (1976).

xv

xvi

Preface

typology. We structure this new typology according to a relative chronological scheme. This typology and our relative chronology, we hope, will be tested and refined by for future excavators of Judean sites that produce stamp impressions. The full catalogue and revised typology of the stamp impressions form the foundation for discussing the function and role they played in the provincial administration and economy. More than 80% of the stamp impressions were discovered at Ramat Raḥel and in the greater Jerusalem region, with another 12% originating at four other key centers in Yehud. These six sites thus produced about 92% of the total exemplars and, therefore, we may reconstruct a system of two primary collection centers and perhaps four satellite centers where the commodities contained in the jars circulated. Another consequence of this theory is that the yhwd stamp impressions cannot be used to fix the boundaries of the province. Apart from the main centers, 35 additional stamped handles come from 18 different sites, while the origin of 13 other stamp impressions remains unknown. Apart from Gezer (8 total stamp impressions, 5 of which are Hellenistic) and Rogem Gannim (6 stamp impressions), no other site produced more than 3 stamp impressions. An additional goal of this study involves historical reconstruction of the possible role and function of the yehud stamp impressions in connection with Persian rule in Judah. We see this phenomenon as part of a broader phenomenon that began already at the end of the 8th century b.c.e. with the lmlk stamp impressions and continued throughout the 7th century (the rosette stamp impressions), the 6th century (the Gibeon, mwṣh, Lion, and early yehud impressions) and throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Stamping jar handles was clearly part of the local Judahite administrative system for collecting and distributing wine and oil over the course of a long period. In the summary, we discuss whether and how this system was connected to the collection of taxes during the period when Judah was a client kingdom first of the Assyrians and then of the Babylonians, as well as later on when Judah was a province within the Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid regimes. Stamping jar handles perdured into the Hasmonean period, when this system went out of use. We believe that this volume will fill gaps in modern research on the province of Judah in the Persian period in general and of the yhwd stamp impressions in particular. We also hope that it serves as a useful tool for future research on these stamp impressions and the periods to which they belong.

A. Introduction 1.  History of Research   Scholars have studied the yehud stamp impressions, which appear on jar handles or the bodies of jars, for more than 100 years, beginning with the discovery of the first stamp impression at the Western Hill of Jerusalem (Bliss and Dickie 1898: pl. 27:47). 1 This chapter provides a survey of modern research on the yehud stamp impressions in three main chronological phases, emphasizing the main publications and developments in each phase. The three phases may be divided as follows: from about 1900 to the early 1950s, from the mid-1950s until the 1980s, and, finally, from the 1980s to the present. The survey will help define the corpus of stamp impressions we propose to study as well as the several stamp impression types that fall outside our analysis. The survey also highlights the need for a new synthetic research project (see §A-2). Here we will not treat two topics that properly belong in other chapters: • The detailed history of discovery for each stamp impression along with scholarly efforts at decipherment. These topics are discussed here only when necessary to provide a general overview of the corpus. • The history of research on the administrative functions of the stamp impressions receives attention below (see §H-3). Only occasional comments appear here in the general overview.

1-a.  The Early Phase of Research: First Discoveries and First Hypotheses The first phase of research extended from about 1900 until the 1950s. During this period, excavators recovered 88 stamp impressions (about 15% of those now known), although not all of them received publication. Half of the stamp impressions discovered in this period (44) came from excavations in the City of David (43 from the Ophel excavations, and one more in the excavations from the Tyropeon). 1.  This survey describes the main developments in research on the yehud stamp impressions. For the history of discovery of each of the stamp impressions, see the introductions to the several types below (an earlier survey appears in Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007). We do not include in this study the 65 bullae and 2 seals published by Avigad (1976). The origin of the bullae and stamps is not known, and their authenticity cannot be verified. Moreover, these bullae and seals have no identical matches in the entire corpus of yehud stamp impressions, which hardly bolsters the argument for their authenticity.

1

2

A. Introduction

The rest came from three other sites: Gezer (8 stamp impressions), Jericho (17), and Tell en-Naṣbeh (18). One more stamp impression has no provenance. 2 Almost half of the stamp impressions known to scholars before the 1950s read simply ‫‘ יה‬yh’ (40 exemplars); 24 more are of the ‫‘ ט יהד‬ṭ-yhd’ type; 15 of the ‫' יהד‬yhd' type; and 5 of the ‘yh-ligature’ type. 3 Scholars knew three other types of stamp impressions from one exemplar each: ‫“ יהוד ׀ אוריו‬Yehûd ʾÛrīyaw” (Gezer); ‫‘ יהוד‬Yehûd’ (Gezer); and ‫‘ ליהעזר‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer’ (Jericho). In this phase of research, scholars published the new stamp impressions, attempted to decipher their legends, and tried to identify the personal names in them with people mentioned in the Bible, especially in Ezra and Nehemiah. 4 Most of the analyses appeared in publication reports of different excavations and were necessarily disparate and limited in scope. Numerous suggestions for reading the stamp impressions illustrate the tenuousness of the paleographical framework into which scholars fitted them. 5 The first suggestions about the administrative functions of the stamp impressions derived from early efforts to decipher them. Macalister, for example, described the first stamp impression discovered at Gezer as a potter’s mark (1903: 206). Sellin, who read the stamped impressions on jars from Jericho as yhw, interpreted them as tithes in connection with temple worship (citing Zech 14:21; see Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 189). Cook also read yhw and undertsood the vessels to contain wine dedicated to Yhw(h) (1924: 181). Later, he suggested that the jars represented provincial taxes in kind (see Duncan 1925: 136; and cf. Albright 1925). Albright addressed the problem in several papers published in the 1920s and the 1930s. He discussed the broader problems of the function of the yehud stamp impressions and thought that they reflected the autonomous provincial tax system linked to the temple treasury (1925, 1926, 1934, and cf. also to Albright 1957). 6 Sukenik, after he established that the three-letter stamp impressions actually read ‫‘ יהד‬yhd,’ linked the jars to tax collection on behalf of the Persian authorities (1934). A broad range of suggestions concerning the dating of the stamp impressions also characterized this early stage of the research. Stratigraphic indications for dating were either rudimentary or nonexistent, so most scholars relied on paleography. 7 The Hebrew characters of stamp impressions reading ṭ-yhd (type 17 below), now dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. (see §G-1, pp. 593–595), led scholars to assign them a very early date. Lidzbarski, who read them ʿzryh, argued for 2.  This stamp impression was published by Diringer (1934: 128, 132; pl. XIV, no. 14). 3.  Of the 40 ‫ יה‬examples, 13 came from Jericho, 16 from the City of David, 10 from Tell enNaṣbeh and one, unpublished, from Gezer. Of the 24 ‫ ט יהד‬examples, 3 came from Gezer (one was not published) and 21 from the City of David. Of the 15 ‫ יהד‬examples, 3 were discovered at Jericho, 4 at the City of David, and 8 at Tell en-Naṣbeh; one of them was unpublished. Of the 5 yh-ligature examples, 2 appeared at Gezer, 3 at the City of David, and one has no provenance (see above, n. 2). 4.  See the summary of these subjects in Albright 1934. 5.  See the detailed discussions in the introduction to each of the types. 6.  The implications and effects of Albright’s views extended beyond the early phase of research. On this subject, see the discussion in §A-1-b, pp. 4–7. 7.  See the summary table of different types in Stern 1982: 205.

1.  History of Research  

3

an eighth century b.c.e. date (1909: 154). Cook suggested dating them to “the late rather than the early monarchy” (in Macalister 1904: 212 n. 1). Albright dated this type, which he read ʿdyh, to the end of the 6th century b.c.e. (1926: 94). Duncan, who followed Albright on the reading, dated this group of stamp impressions to the beginning of the 6th century (1931: 140–42). Some years later, however, Albright changed his opinion and dated this type of stamp impression to the 5th century b.c.e. on the basis of comparison with Elephantine ostraca. He suggested that this type “may belong to the period of Nehemiah, before the high-priests obtained control of the Jewish state, since they bear a monogram which stands in relation to the royal fiscus in Egypt” (1934: 22–21). Watzinger concurred (1935: 7). McCown then dated all of the different stamp impressions to the Persian Period but no later than the 5th century b.c.e. (1947), a date that also gained the support of Vincent (1949: 278) and Saller (1952–53). The other stamp impression types all possess Aramaic legends, and scholars usually dated them to the Persian Period, especially to the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.e. (Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 158–59; Albright 1926: 95, 101; Duncan 1931: 140–42). Albright later dated the Aramaic stamp impressions from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the 2nd century b.c.e., assuming that they reflect Ptolemaic rule and administration (1934: 22). Vincent supported this date (1949: 287). Sukenik decisively altered early research on the yehud stamp impressions in two papers (1933, 1934). 8 He established the correct reading of several main yehud stamp impression types, as well as the reading of the pentagram yršlm stamp impressions (1933: 227–28, 230–31). His proposal built on his interpretation of a silver coin bearing the Aramaic name of the province of Judah, yhd, which had previously been read yhw. All of the known coins preserved the reading yhd/ yhwd, not a form of the divine name yhwh. This prompted him to offer the same reading for the yhd and yh stamp impressions (followed by Albright 1934: 20). Then, Sukenik returned to his own reading of the four-letter stamp impression known to us now as ṭ-yhd, and corrected his first reading, hʿyr ‘the city’, which he had suggested the previous year (1933: 229–30; rejected by Albright 1934: 20). Instead, he read the three letters as yhd with another sign, which he took as a degenerate solar disk or a mark of measurement (1934: 183–84). Immediately, Albright accepted Sukenik’s proposals (1934: 21). 9 The implications of the new readings for questions of date and function were far reaching and affected all subsequent scholars.

8.  Albright (1934: 22) congratulated him, “We congratulate Dr. Sukenik on these discoveries of his, which are none the less important for having been made in the study and the museum instead of in the excavator’s field,” and emphasized that “these discoveries confirm the view (first maintained by the writer) that the royal stamps on jar-handles of the preexilic age belong to the fiscal organization of Judah.” 9.  Albright claimed that this observation was made simultaneously but independently by Su­ ke­nik and himself, comparing this monogram to that already known on the fifth-century ostraca from Elephantine.

4

A. Introduction

1-b.  The Middle Phase of Research: The Main Corpus and the Main Points of Agreement The 1950s and 1960s comprised the second phase of research on the yehud stamp impressions and was the period when the majority of them was discovered. During this period, Aharoni excavated more than 200 stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel and published representative examples of the different types (1956b, 1959b, 1962, 1964a). 10 This was the most dramatic contribution to the corpus in modern research in several respects: 1.  The total number of known and published stamp impressions increased fourfold. 2.  Aharoni identified five new types: ‫‘ לאחיב פחוא‬Belonging to ʾAḥîāb, the Governor’; 11 ‫‘ יהוד ׀ חננה‬Yehûd Ḥananāh’; ‫‘ יה ׀ וד‬Yh/wd’; ‫יהוד יהועזר פחוא‬ ‘Yehûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor’; and ‫‘ יהוד פחוא‬Yehûd Paḥwāʾ ’. 3.  Aharoni added many more exemplars to previously known types, although three types emerged as dominant in the corpus. 12

During the 1950s and the 1960s, scholars published a few more stamp impressions from some other sites, such as Bethany (Saller 1952–53; 1957), Jericho (Hammond 1957a, 1957b), and En Gedi (Mazar and Dunayevsky 1964; Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007). 13 The new discoveries produced a basic corpus of about 300 stamp impressions. It became possible to compare the different types and their distribution, to identify the main types, and to theorize about the respective roles of Ramat Raḥel, Jerusalem, and other centers in the administrative system represented by the corpus. Still, relatively little attention was paid in the wake of the finds from Ramat Raḥel between 1954 and 1962 to distribution of the stamp impressions. Apart from Aharoni’s few comments in The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (1967: 416), this aspect received some analysis in Stern’s work (1971, 1973). Much later, the distribution of the yehud stamp impressions became a central argument in discussions of the borders of the province of Yehud (see, e.g., Carter 1999; Stern 2001). In this second phase of research, the new discoveries led scholars to correct the readings of scholars from the first stage of the research. Several noteworthy points received decisive clarification. First, Avigad provided the correct reading ‫ יהוד אוריו‬for the Jericho stamp impression (1957: 146–47) that Hammond had previously read as ‫אוריו‬/‫( צנגד‬1957a) or ‫אוריו‬/‫( להגר‬1957b: 39). This enabled 10.  Aharoni defined these publications as preliminary, which explains the partial publication. 11.  This is a new reading proposed by us; see below, §E-2, p. 85. Aharoni read ‫לאחיו‬. 12.  Twenty-nine stamp impressions of the type ‫‘ יהוד‬Yhwd’ were published in addition to the one discovered at Gezer; 11 stamp impressions of the type ‫‘ ליהעזר‬Belonging to Yhʿzr  ’ were published in addition to the one discovered at Jericho. The dominant types include 49 more ‫‘ יהד‬yhd’ stamp impressions; 61 more ‫‘ יה‬yh’ stamp impressions; and 22 more ‫‘ ט יהד‬ṭ-yhd’. 13. The absence of yehud stamp impressions from Gibeon and Bethel also drew attention (Pritchard 1959; Kelso 1968).

1.  History of Research  

5

Aharoni (1959b: 55–56) to identify another stamp impression of the same type, published by Macalister as ‫( [?ל]בנר [?ק]רין‬and see the discussion in §E-3, p. 107). Second, the debate about the correct reading of the ṭ-yhd type (  yhd or hʿyr?) was resolved in favor of yhd, although Aharoni was ambivalent (1956c: 150 n. 36). Avigad, building on Sukenik’s work, proved the reading (1960: 23–27), and it has been generally accepted since then. 14 Some debate persisted in this period about the meaning of the title pḥwʾ (and see the detailed discussion in §D-2, pp. 77–80), and the ṭet symbol in the ṭ-yhd stamp impressions (and see §G-3-c, pp. 660–661). 15 The foregoing discoveries prompted Cross’s influential paper on the Judean stamps (1969a). 16 He argued that stamp impressions bearing Hebrew script dated to the early Hellenistic period (3rd century b.c.e.), when the revival of the paleo-Hebrew script began (see also Lapp 1963; for a different view, see Naveh 1971: 29; Stern 1981: 18; below, chap. C, pp. 62–65). By contrast, he dated the stamp impressions bearing Aramaic script to the Persian Period. Some scholars attempted still to arrive at a more accurate date by identifying persons named in the stamp impressions, especially ʾUriyaw (Albright 1957: 28–30; Avigad 1958: 6–7; and cf. Yadin 1958). Cross endorsed Albright’s idea that the stamp impressions were a continuation of the phenomenon seen already with the Iron Age lmlk stamp impressions. This progress in research enabled Stern to write his Hebrew study (1973), with the English version, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332, appearing later (1982). He gathered, classified and catalogued the stamp impressions known up to about 1970, and set them in the wider context of stamp impressions of the 6th to 2nd centuries b.c.e.: Babylonian, Achaemenid, and Egyptian, and local anepigraphic and epigraphic stamp impressions. He compared the phenomenon in Judah with that in Samaria, and discussed all types of stamp impressions from the 6th to the 2nd centuries b.c.e., including the mwṣh, lion, and yršlm pentagram stamp impressions. Stern developed a typology including five basic types (1982: 202) and several subtypes (table A, p. 203), which was the first attempt to provide a comprehensive typology for the corpus. 17 • Type A included nine subtypes (with 26 stamp impressions, including Avigad’s bullae [1976]). These have a personal name, or a personal name with 14.  Vincent (1949: 291–93) and Saller (1952–53: 10–11; 1957: 194–95) supported Sukenik’s earlier suggestion (1933) and read the four-letter stamp impressions as hʿyr. Vincent also argued for for the reading yhw for the three-letter stamps. 15.  Three main opinions regarding meaning of the title pḥwʾ appeared during this period: Cross (1969a: 24) originally read it as pḥrʾ ‘the potter’; Grintz (1960: 41) understood it as the designation for the polity, ‘the Province’. Aharoni (1962: 110–11), Kutscher (1961: 112–19), Avigad (1967: 4–5; 1976), and Kochman (1982: 7 n. 17), interpreted it as ‘the Governor’. Regarding the ṭet symbol, Lapp summarized the main opinions up to the 1960s (1963: 27–28); see also Naveh and Goldwasser 1976: 15–19; Zorn 1995; Delavault and Lemaire 1975: 34–39; and the discussion below. 16.  Cross already expressed these ideas in 1961; and cf. Lapp 1963: 26 n. 20. 17.  Here we merely mention Stern’s typology without comment. Detailed discussion with corrections and notes appears in the introductions to the different types; and also see chaps. E–G.

6

A. Introduction

• •

•

• •

the title pḥwʾ, ‘the governor’, or the name and title together with the toponym Yehud, or the toponym with the title pḥwʾ, or a private name. Type B included three subtypes (with 41 stamp impressions). This type read simply yhwd or yhd. Type C also included three subtypes (with 58 stamp impressions). The first subtype had the legend yhwd in Aramaic script enclosed in a circle plus a ṭet symbol. The second and third subtypes preserved the legend yhwd in Hebrew enclosed in a circle with a ṭet symbol in Aramaic script (subtype 2) or with a ṭet symbol in Hebrew (subtype 3). Type D had two subtypes (with 107 stamp impressions, including Avigad’s bullae and seal). The first subtype has the letters yhd in a single line plus what Stern thought was a “monogram.” The second reads yhd in a single line, without the so-called monogram. Stern did not assign subtypes to his type E, which reads yh. He knew 105 exemplars of this type. Type F included 5 exemplars, and it was read by Stern as the Hebrew letter ‘he  ’.

Stern’s typology served as the foundation for study of the corpus for the next generation, until the publication of the stamp impressions from Shiloh’s excavations at the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000). Stern did not provide a detailed analysis of the numerous types and subtypes. He also noted (bottom of table A, 1982: 203) that he did not update the English version of the presentation with new finds from Tell el-Fûl (published by Lapp 1981: 112–13), Battir (Fulco 1978), and Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho between 1952 and 1959 (Bartlett 1982). The absence of some published and many more unpublished stamp impressions discovered in the Jerusalem region during the 1970s and early 1980s prevented Stern’s catalogue from being complete. These included exemplars from Avigad’s Jewish Quarter excavations (1969–82), Shiloh’s excavations at the City of David (1978–85), several from the Citadel of Jerusalem (Amiran and Eitan 1970: 13), the Armenian Quarter (Tushingham 1985), and Mount Zion (Broshi 1976; Geva 1983). 18 Stern cited the many discoveries from Ramat Raḥel and the hoard published by Avigad (1976) as important expansions of the data. He endorsed Avigad’s assessment of the hoard of 65 unprovenanced bullae and two seals, which afforded them a certain legitimacy. Avigad argued for a date in the early Persian Period, which encouraged some scholars to see the origin of the yehud stamp impressions extending to the Babylonian period. 19 Avigad’s hoard, in any case, strongly 18.  Stern was familiar with some of the finds from the Jewish Quarter excavations (and cf. Avigad 1974: 53–57), but they were properly published only many years later by Reich (2003) and Eshel (2006). Stern was also familiar with some of the finds from the City of David excavations, but they were published by Ariel and Shoham only in 2000. 19. Thus Kochman, who accepted Avigad’s paleographical dating to the 6th century and moved the terminus post quem of the corpus to the Babylonian period. Kochman’s theory was that the bullae belonged to the Babylonian period, when the script in Judah was Hebrew with Aramaic influence; he thus assumed that some of names in the stamp impressions belonged to officials of the Babylonian period (1981: 91–110; 1982: 11–23).

1.  History of Research  

7

influenced subseqent scholars. Stern drew conclusions about the function of the stamp impressions from Avigad’s hoard (1982: 206). Other scholars used the paleography of the hoard to analyze the yehud stamp impressions (Kochman 1981, 1982). Stern’s catalogue and basic summary of research (1982: 203–4) served as a starting point for all publications in the next generation of scholarship. With respect to the date of the corpus, Stern moved away from the criteria for dating characteristic of the the early phase research. Instead, his analysis rested on three main criteria. 1.  Stern accepted the paleographical assessment of Cross and others and recognized that the Paleo-Hebrew script emerged at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. 2.  Stern endorsed Naveh’s conclusion that the earliest stamp impressions appear on the bodies of jars and that later ones appear on jar handles. Also, the toponym appeared early on in plene spelling, yhwd, and later in shorter or abbreviated forms, yhd and yh. 3.  Stern drew on Avigad’s stratigraphical conclusions from excavations in the Jewish Quarter (1974: 52–57), where the ṭ-yhd stamp impressions emerged in clear second-century b.c.e. contexts (so also Lapp 1963). Thus, Stern supported the work of epigraphers such as Garbini (1962), Cross (1969a), Naveh (1971), and Avigad, against the outdated opinions of Duncan, Sukenik, Albright, McCown, and Saller, as expressed above.

Stern agreed with the late date for the ṭ-yhd types (third–second centuries b.c.e.), although he was reticent about pushing the earliest types in Aramaic back into the 6th century, stating instead that they should be dated to the end of the fifth and the fourth centuries b.c.e. The middle phase of research, capped by Stern’s presentation, was in many regards the most important period of the research. A much larger corpus now existed; decipherment of the impressions had improved; the paleographical framework had become sharper; researchers agreed on dating the latest types to the Hellenistic period; and there was basic agreement on dating the early types to the beginning or middle of the Persian Period. 1-c.  The Late Phase of Research: Expanded Corpus, Refined Conclusions, Improved Typology New yehud stamp impressions appeared rarely in the decade after 1982. Millard published one from Belmont Castle (Harper 1988: 48–49; Millard 1989: 61). At the end of this period, Christoph’s unpublished Ph.D. thesis appeared (1993), which represented an effort to bring advanced statistical analysis into study of the entire corpus. He provided a review of research up to the beginning of the 1990s and correctly saw the need for a comprehensive catalogue of all the yehud stamp impressions. Still, Christoph’s work was dependent on Stern’s 1982 catalogue (which was effectively compiled in 1973). The most serious difficulty was with Christoph’s methodology, because he incorporated all stamp impressions from

8

A. Introduction

the Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic periods, inluding the mwṣh stamps, the numerous yehud types, the “cross and circle” stamps, stamps with lions, and the very late yršlm stamp impressions. Without a coherent corpus or typology, his statistical analysis was insufficiently grounded. A few new stamp impressions appeared in five new publications during 1995–96: one discovered at Ḥorvat HaMoza (Billig 1995); several from Tel Ḥara­ sim (Givʿon 1995, 1996, Naveh 1995b), one from Tell Nimrin in Jordan (Dempsey 1996); and the publication of a stamp impression from Babylon discovered in the Vorderasiatisches Muesum in Berlin (Naveh 1996). News of more stamp impressions from Nebi Samwil emerged at the same time (Magen and Dadon 1995, and cf. 2000, 2007). The most significant contribution to the third phase of research on the yehud stamp impressions, however, were 79 exemplars discovered during Shiloh’s excavations (1978–85) at the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000). This excellent publication includes nearly all known types (13 out of the 17 types presented in this book). However, 73 of the 79 stamp impressions belonged to only 5 types: 22 stamp impressions of the ‫‘ יה‬yh’ type; 20 of the yh-ligatured type; 12 from the ‫ט‬ ‫‘ יהד‬ṭ-yhd’ type; 10 of the ‫‘ יהד‬yehud’ type; and 9 reading ‫‘ לאחיב פחוא‬Belonging to ʾAḥîāb, the Governor’. The other 6 stamp impressions discovered at the City of David belong to 5 different types: one of the type ‫‘ יהוד ׀ מלכיו‬Yehûd Malkīyaw’; 20 two reading ‫‘ יהוד ׀ חננה‬Yehûd Ḥananāh’; one reading ‫‘ יהוד‬Yehûd’; one of the type ‫‘ יהוד יהועזר פחוא‬Yehûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor’; and one of the type ‫גדליה‬ ‘Gedalyāh’. 21 The typology and detailed discussions of Ariel and Shoham, especially of the late types that had received cursory treatment, set a new standard. As they noted, “the main contribution of this assemblage is to present new types and add weight to types that were previously less well represented in the classical repertoire of yehud stamps: yh, yh ligature (?), ‘wheel’, cross, ṭet-symbol” (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 139). Ariel and Shoham also offered a crucial analysis of the stratigraphic context of the stamp impressions, securely placing them in their relative chronological contexts. Their publication of the data from the City of David is exemplary, but even while they cited parallels for the new finds, the focus of the discussion was not on the broader corpus. Thus, for example, they had no need to discuss types not represented at the City of David. The most recent contributions to the last phase of the research include the publication of 164 more stamp impressions, which brings publication of known exemplars virtually up to date. The newly published stamp impressions include 12 from Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Reich 2003; Eshel 2006). Some of these come from a clear 2nd-century stratigraphic context, 20.  This is the first stamp impression of this type ever discovered and the third to be published. Ariel and Shoham (2000: 146) identify it with the others; the correct reading was suggested by Barkay (2005). 21.  For the reading, see discussion in §E-13, p. 230.

2.  The Need for New Research

9

as Avigad recognized (1974: 52–57) and Geva confirmed (2007a). Reich and Shukron discovered and published nine new stamp impressions from their 1995–2005 excavations at the City of David (2007), bringing the total from different areas of the City of David to 136 (about 25% of the total corpus). Four miscellaneous stamp impressions were published from excavations around Jerusalem (most of them in the area of the modern city): one from Kikkar Safra (Ariel 2004); two from the Jerusalem International Convention Center, Binyanei Haʾuma (Barkay 2005); one from Ramot Forest (Davidovich et al. 2006; Farhi 2007); and another excavated at Ṣuba (Finkielsztejn and Gibson 2007). Excavators recovered seven more at Rogem Gannim, just west of the Rephaim Valley, in the southwestern part of modern Jerusalem (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006). Seven more stamp impressions from En Gedi received publication (Hadas 2005; Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007), bringing the total from this site to 10. The publication of 16 stamp impressions from Nebi Samwil (Magen and HarEven 2007) established the site as one of four “secondary” centers producing yehud stamp impressions, together with Tell en-Naṣbeh (19 stamp impressions), Jericho (18), and En Gedi (10). Finally, 17 new stamp impressions appeared at Ramat Raḥel during the 2005 and 2006 excavation seasons (Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007), and excavators recovered 24 more in the 2007 season (Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2008), and 27 more in the 2008 season (Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2009). Meanwhile, some 40 unpublished stamp impressions from Aharoni’s excavations emerged among his excavation records (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009), bringing the total number of stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel to 307 (about 53% of the total corpus presented here). More than 50 new yehud stamped handles were discovered in the 2009 and 2010 excavation seasons at Ramat Raḥel, too late to be included in the present volume.

2.  The Need for New Research The appearance of 243 new stamp impressions since 2000 (more than 40% of the total known today), together with more precise knowledge of their stratigraphy, offers important new opportunities for a better understanding of the entire corpus. No scholar has ever analyzed the entire corpus of stamp impressions, now numbering 582. Even the groups studied in the 1970s and 1980s (Stern 1982; Christoph 1993) were scarcely comprehensive. Analysis of the entire corpus will provide clearer information about the distribution, date, and function of the yehud stamp impressions, which remain one of the most important sources of data for reconstructing the economy, administration, and society in Persian‑ and early-Hellenistic-era Yehud. It remains a desideratum to provide a full, new typology for the yehud stamp impression corpus based on refined paleographical, stratigraphical, and comparative data (for a preliminary effort, see Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007). This work is abetted by full access to the complete corpus, new metrological

10

A. Introduction

techniques, digital imaging and processing software, and improved software for handling complex databases.

3.  Persian and Hellenistic Stamp Impressions Not Included in the Corpus Three different types of stamp impressions widely dated to the Persian and Hellenistic periods do not appear in this volume: anepigraphic stamps bearing images of lions; yršlm pentagram stamps; and stamp impressions bearing a single, large ṭet-like character. The lion stamp impressions, like the yehud stamp impressions, appear primarily at two main sites: Ramat Raḥel and the City of David. Nebi Samwil and Tell en-Naṣbeh appear to have been secondary centers. 22 This pattern of distribution resembles that of the yehud stamp impressions and led to suggestions that these sites were tax-collecting centers. Although scholars hypothesize that the lion stamp impressions are part of the official system of the province administration, perhaps related to taxation, we hypothesize that they did not serve the same functions as the yehud stamp impressions. The lion stamp impressions are different from the corpus of inscribed stamp impressions that represents the focus of this monograph. Most important, the lion stamp impressions bear no inscriptions and evidently represent a short-lived phenomenon, unlike the incised seals that produced stamp impressions on jars from the Iron Age II until the Hasmonean period (late 8th to late 2nd century b.c.e.). Stern demonstrated that the three main types of lion stamp impressions belong to a brief period at the beginning of the Persian Period, between the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. (1973: 208–9, 1982: 209–10, 2001: 541; Ariel and Shoham 2000: 141; but see Williamson 1988: 60–64). The uniqueness of the type and its brevity of use suggest that the lion stamp impressions do not belong to the same administrative system as the yehud stamp impressions, nor to the same period. Moreover, from the technical point of view, this type is completely distinct in terms of iconography, where all other yehud stamps preserve epigraphic legends without any glyptic elements. The iconographic stamps require different methods for analysis. The yršlm stamp impressions, with a five-pointed star and Paleo-Hebrew script, appear in clear Hellenistic stratigraphic contexts in both the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161–62) and the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1974: 57–58, 1976: 27; Geva 2007a). This type of stamp impression marks a fundamental change in the history of Judean stamped jars of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods: from the name of the province to the name of the capital city—Jerusalem. Geva argued that these stamp impressions “are the latest in the series of impressions dating to the Second Temple period. In effect, they replaced the latest yehud impressions, 22.  A few stamp impressions come from En Gedi, Jericho, and Gibeon; single stamp impressions discovered at Shechem and Tel Dan are the only exemplars of this type found outside the province of Judah. See the recent summaries in Ariel and Shoham 2000: 140–41; Magen and Har-Even 2007.

4.  The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites

11

a carry-over from the previous administration, at the beginning of Hasmonean rule” (2007a: 100). The stamp impressions bearing only a ‘ṭet’-like symbol represent a heterogeneous group, probably stamped during different periods for different purposes. Of course, the ṭet sign appears in the later ṭ-yhd-type stamp impressions (and see below, §G-3), but there is no obvious chronological or functional connection between this type and the ṭet stamp impressions (type 17 below). The pottery of many of the stamped handles appears heterogeneous and looks different from and possibly later than the Iron Age and Persian stamped handles. As for stratigraphical and chronological information, Albright (1932: 80 and fig. 15:7, 11) published two stamp impressions of a variant type and thought they dated to the end of the Iron Age II; Aharoni assigned them to the late 8th century b.c.e. (Aharoni and Aharoni 1977: 73). Duncan also supported an Iron Age date (1931: II, 146), and one stamp impression from Tell en-Naṣbeh was found in Cistern 127, which contained a ceramic assemblage belonging to the late seventh and sixth centuries b.c.e. (Zorn 1995: 104). Aharoni dated the ṭet stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel to the Persian Period (1956c: 148), but none has appeared in Stratum 9 of the Persian Period at the City of David. Five of the stamp impressions excavated at the City of David were discovered in the Hellenistic Strata 8–7, and others were discovered in later, mixed fills. We conclude that there is no single date and possibly no single function for this type of stamp impression. Given its lack of connection to the toponym, title, or personal names associated with other yehud types, we exclude this type from consideration among the yehud stamp impressions.

4. The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites This section provides a brief summary of the basic data concerning yehud stamp impressions, an overview before offering concrete discussions of the geopolitical, archaeological, and paleographical aspects and before presenting each group and each type in sequence. This overview, together with the detailed discussions in chaps. B–G, provides the basis for concluding observations in chap. H. This volume presents 582 yehud stamp impressions of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Of these stamp impressions, 307 come from Ramat Raḥel, 136 from the City of David, 27 from on or near the Western Hill of Jerusalem, 19 from Tell en-Naṣbeh, 18 from Jericho, 16 from Nebi Samwil, 10 from En Gedi, 8 from Gezer, 7 from Rogem Gannim, 3 from Khirbet Nisya, 2 each from Bethany, Binyanei Haʾuma and Tel Ḥarasim, and one each from 12 other sites. The remaining 13 stamp impressions have no provenance (see Graph 1 and associated table). In chaps. E, F, and G below, we organize the 17 main types of stamp impressions according to three main chronological periods: early (late sixth through fifth centuries b.c.e.); middle (fourth and third centuries b.c.e.); and late (2nd century b.c.e.). There are 128 stamp impressions assigned to the early types, 312 to the middle types, and 142 to the late types.

12

A. Introduction

Graph 1.  Site Distribution of the yehud Stamp Impressions.

Ramat Raḥel

307

Jerusalem—City of David

136

Jerusalem—Western Hill and vicinity

27

Tell en-Naṣbeh

19

Jericho

18

Nebi Samwil

16

En Gedi

10

Gezer

8

Rogem Gannim

7

Other Sites and Unknown Origin

34

Ramat Raḥel produced the largest number of stamp impressions, 307 (just over 53% of the total). Of these, 29.5% (90 stamp impressions) belong to the early types, which we date to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. Fully 60% (186) belong to the middle types, which we date to the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e. Meanwhile, 10% (31) derive from the latest types, which we date to the 2nd century b.c.e. (see graph 2). The 91 stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel belonging to the early types represent 71% of 128 total stamp impressions of this type. The 186 stamp impressions belonging to the middle types represent 60% of 312 total stamp impressions. Meanwhile, the 30 stamp impressions belonging to the late types represent 22% of 142 total stamp impressions (see graph 3). Current statistics do not favor viewing Jerusalem as the main administrative center represented in the corpus of the yehud stamp impressions, especially among the early and middle types. The various excavated areas throughout the city produced 163 yehud stamp impressions, about 28% of the total corpus. Of these, 83.5% were discovered at the City of David and 16.5% of the finds elsewhere in Jerusalem (17 stamp impressions). Seventeen stamp impressions belong

4.  The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites

Graph 2.  yehud Stamp Impressions at Ramat Raḥel according to Early, Middle, and Late Types.

90 186 31

Early Types Middle Types Late Types

Graph 3.  Early, Middle, and Late Types: The Total Finds and the Finds at Ramat Raḥel.

Ramat Raḥel

Total Finds

91

128

Early Types

186

312

Middle Types

31

142

Late Types

13

14

A. Introduction

Graph 4.  yehud Stamp Impressions at Jerusalem according to Early, Middle, and Late Types.

17

Early Types

59

Middle Types

87

Late Types

Graph 5.  Early, Middle, and Late Types: The Total Finds and the Finds at Jerusalem.

Jerusalem

Total Finds

17

128

Early Types

59

312

Middle Types

86

142

Late Types

4.  The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites

15

to the early types, dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. Of impressions discovered at Jerusalem, 59 belong to the middle types, dated to the 4th– 3rd centuries b.c.e. Meanwhile, 53% (87) belong to the late types, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. Among the late types, stamp impressions appear for the first time in other areas of the city (e.g., the Western Hill and its surroundings) (see graph 4). The 17 stamp impressions from Jerusalem belonging to the early types represent 14.5% of 117 total stamp impressions. The 59 stamp impressions belonging to the middle types discovered at the City of David represent 19% of 312 total stamp impressions. The 87 stamp impressions discovered at the both the City of David and the Western Hill represent 61% of 142 total stamp impressions (see graph 5). Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem together produced 470 stamp impressions, or 81% of the total. No provenance is known for 13 stamp impressions. This means that 17% (99) of all stamp impressions derive from other sites. In most sites where excavators recovered a significant number of stamp impressions, they belong to the early and middle types, not the late types. To summarize: • 19 stamp impressions come from Tell en-Naṣbeh (about 3% of the total). One stamp impression from this site belongs to the early types, and 18 belong to the middle types (about 6% of the total finds). No late types come from the site. • 18 stamp impressions originate from Jericho (about 3% of the total). Two stamp impressions belong to the early types, 16 to the middle types (5% of the total finds). Jericho has yielded no late types. • 16 stamp impressions appeared at Nebi Samwil (about 3% of the total finds). Three belong to the early types and 13 to the middle types (4.4% of the total finds). No late types come from this site. • 10 stamp impressions were discovered at En Gedi (about 1.7% of the total finds). Three of the stamp impressions belong to the early types and 7 to the middle types (2% of the total finds). No late types have been found at this site either. • 7 stamp impressions come from Rogem Gannim (about 1% of the total finds). Two belong to the early types and 5 to the middle types (1.5% of the total finds). No late types have appeared.

Among the sites where more than a few stamp impressions were discovered, Gezer has a slightly different distribution. The site produced 8 stamp impressions. Two of these belong to the early types, one to the middle types, and 5 to the late types (3.5% of the total finds). We may summarize the data for the early types as follows. Apart from the 107 stamp impressions discovered at Ramat Raḥel and the City of David, 21 were discovered at 12 other sites: 3 at each of Nebi Samwil and En Gedi; 2 each at Tell en-Naṣbeh, Jericho, Gezer, Rogem Gannim, and Tel Ḥarasim; and one at 4 other sites. The origin of one stamp impression is unknown. (See graph 6.) For the middle types, besides the 245 stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel and the City of David, 67 stamp impressions were discovered at 9 sites: 18 at Tell

16

A. Introduction

Graph 6.  Site Distribution of Early Types.

90

Ramat Raḥel

17

Jerusalem: City of David

21

Other Sites and Unkown Origin

Graph 7.  Site Distribution of Middle Types.

186

Ramat Raḥel

59

Jerusalem: City of David

18

Tell en-Naṣbeh

16

Jericho

13

Nebi Samwil

7

En Gedi

5

Rogem Gannim

8

Other Sites and Unknown Origin

4.  The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites

17

Graph 8.  Site Distribution of Late Types.

31

Ramat Raḥel

60

Jerusalem: City of David

27

Jerusalem: Western Hill and vicinity

5 19

Gezer Other Sites and Unknown Origin

en-Naṣbeh; 16 at Jericho; 13 at Nebi Samwil; 7 at En Gedi; and 5 at Rogem Gannim. One stamp impression was discovered at each of 4 different sites, while the origin of 3 stamp impressions is unknown. (See Graph 7.) For the late types, in addition to the 118 stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem (including the City of David and the Western Hill and immediate vicinity), 16 stamp impressions were discovered at 11 sites. Of these, 5 come from Gezer, 2 from Bethany, and 9 sites produced one each. Nine other stamp impressions have no provenance.

18

A. Introduction

4.  The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites

19

1

2

1

Summary

2

15

Type XII

5

Type XI

48

Type X

1

Type IX

3

Type VIII

Type III 1

Type VII

9

Type VI

City of David

Type V

7

Type IV

Ramat Raḥel

Type II

Type I

Summary Table: Early Types

11

90

1

17

1

1

J: Western Hill Tell en-Naṣbeh Nebi Samwil

2

Gezer

1 1

En Gedi Jericho

2

3

3

1

Rogem Gannim

3

1

1

1

2

1

2

Khirbet Nisya

1

1

Bethany J: Binyanei Haʾuma

1

1

Ḥusan Tel Harasim

1

1

2

Tell el-Fûl Ramot Forest H. HaMoza Belmont Castle

1

1

Battir H. Alamit T. Nimrin

1

1

K. Barnea Tell Jemmeh Babylon

1

1

Ṣuba Unknown Total

1 18

2

4

1 5

2

55

7

2

1

17

3

12

128

20

A. Introduction

4.  The yehud Stamp Impressions: Basic Facts on Numbers and Sites

Type XV

Total

Ramat Raḥel

66 105

15

196

J: City of David

19

40

59

Tell en-Naṣbeh

8

10

18

Nebi Samwil

2

11

13

Type XIII

Type XIV

Summary Table: Middle Types

J: Western Hill

Gezer

1

1

En Gedi

3

4

7

Jericho

3

13

16

Rogem Gannim

1

4

5

Ḥ. Nisya

1

1

Bethany J B. Haumah Ḥusan Tel Harashim Tell el-Fûl Ramot Forest H. HaMoza Belmont Castle Battir Ḥ. Alamit Tel Nimrin K. Barnea

1

1

Tell Jemmeh

1

1

2

3

Babylon Ṣuba Unknown Total

2

105 192

15

312

21

22

A. Introduction

Type XVI

Type XVII

Total

Summary Table: Late Types

3

28

31

J: City of David

23

36

59

J: Western Hill

18

9

27

2

3

5

1

1

2

2

Ramat Raḥel

Tell en-Naṣbeh Nebi Samwil Gezer En Gedi Jericho Rogem Gannim Ḥ. Nisya Bethany J B. Haumah

1

1

Ḥusan

1

1

Tel Harashim Tell el-Fûl Ramot Forest

1 1

Ḥ. HaMoza

1 1

1

1

Battir

1

1

Ḥ. Alamit

1

1

Belmont Castle

T. Nimrin K. Barnea Tell Jemmeh Babylon Ṣuba

1

Unknown

5

4

9

55

87

142

Total

1

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

1.  Geopolitical Considerations a. The yehud Stamp Impressions and the Borders of Judah in the Persian Period The 582 yehud stamp impressions discussed in this monograph come from 24 different sites: Ramat Raḥel, Jerusalem (the City of David and various locations in the Western Hill and immediate vicinity), Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tell el-Fûl, Nebi Samwil, Ḥorvat ʿAlamit, Khirbet Nisya, Bethany, Ramot Forest, Binyanei Haʾumah, Rogem Gannim, Battir, Ḥusan, Ṣuba, Belmont Castle, Ḥorvat HaMoza, Gezer, Tel Ḥarasim, En Gedi, Jericho, Tel Nimrin, Kadesh Barnea, Tell Jemmeh, and Babylon. Scholars have used this distribution of the stamp impressions to delineate the borders of the province of Judah in the Persian Period, as well as its inner administrative divisions. 1 The use of these data for this purpose results especially from the scarcity of historical sources on the geographical and geopolitical conditions in the province, not to mention the complexity of biblical evidence, but it results also from the imprecise nature of the archaeological data. Stern could thus appeal to the distribution of the yehud stamp impressions as a starting point for analysis of the geographical lists in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah (1982: 245–49). However, a cautionary methodological note should be articulated as a point of departure in this chapter. 2 Fully 80% of all the yehud stamp impressions (470 stamped handles) were discovered in two sites: Ramat Raḥel (307 stamp impressions) and Jerusalem (163). An additional 35 stamp impressions were discovered in two sites not far from Jerusalem: Tell en-Naṣbeh, to the north, with 19 stamp impressions, and, to the west, Nebi Samwil with 16. Seven stamp impressions were discovered at Rogem Gannim, immediately southwest of Jerusalem in the Rephaim Valley, and 15 more stamp impressions come from 11 sites within a relatively small radius around Jerusalem, bringing the total number of stamp impressions discovered in the nucleus of the province (15 km from north to south and 5 km from east to west; see map 1) to 527 (90% of the total corpus). 1.  See, e.g., McCown 1947: 171–72; Kochman 1980: xvi–xvii, 127–57; Stern 1977: 22–23, 1982: 245– 49; Cohen 1986: 40–45 2.  On this subject, see Lipschits 2005: 174–79 and Carter 1999: 89.

23

24

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

Map 1.  Distribution of 582 yehud stamped handles.

By contrast, 18 stamp impressions were discovered at Jericho and 10 at En Gedi, bringing the total number discovered in the eastern zone of Judah to 28 (about 5% of the total corpus). In the west, 8 stamp impressions were discovered at Gezer (about 1.5%), and even if we include along with these 2 stamp impressions discovered at Tel Ḥarasim, the total number of stamp impressions from the western zone is only 10 (less than 2% of the corpus), and 5 of the stamp impressions from Gezer belong to types dated to the Hellenistic period. From the 12 sites where a single stamp impression was discovered, only 4 sites are located beyond the immediate radius around Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem: Tell Nimrin (16 km east of Jericho), Kadesh Barnea, Tell Jemmeh, and the city of Babylon. From the geopolitical point of view, the appearance of a single stamp impression at a far-flung site indicates some kind of contact with Yehud, but the possibilities for explaining this kind of contact are very wide. Certainly, such scattered finds

1.  Geopolitical Considerations

25

cannot be used to delineate the borders of Judah and probably not its administrative subdivisions either. 3 The above data clearly indicate that distribution of Yehud stamp impressions cannot delineate the full extent of the borders of the province. The borders must be established by other means, and only then can the distribution of the stamp impressions offer possible clarification for this or that problem. In this regard, we pose several questions: 4 1.  Does the distribution of yehud stamp impressions at sites north of Jerusalem have anything to do with the line of the northern border of Judah? What is the significance of the absence of the yehud stamp impressions north of the traditional tribal area of Benjamin, for example, at Bethel? 5 2.  Does the distribution of yehud stamp impressions at sites south of Jerusalem have anything to do with the line of the southern border of Judah? What is the significance of the absence of stamp impressions south of the area of the Rephaim Valley? 6 3.  Does the recovery of 18 stamp impressions at Jericho and En Gedi serve as proof that these cities belonged to Judah in the Persian Period? What is the significance of these finds for inner divisions of the province and the status of this eastern region in the Persian Period? 4.  As for the western zone of the province, does the discovery of 8 stamp impressions at Gezer and two at Tel Ḥarasim serve as evidence that they belonged to Judah in the Persian Period? Other sites in the same region have produced no stamp impressions.

These questions should perhaps be placed in a much wider perspective, combined with other sources of information and a longer chronological frame of reference. The borders of Judah in the Persian Period were, presumably, the outcome of lengthy processes, and must have resulted in part from circumstances of the late Iron Age, when the Assyrians and then Babylonians exerted influence in the region. Although we lack concrete information on the Persian Period, the geopolitical situation in the Hellenistic period illuminates the picture. This wider chronological frame of reference, from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic era, serves as the background for understanding the yehud stamp impressions and their role in research on the borders of Judah. A lengthy discussion of this process can be found in Lipschits (2005: 134–84), the main points of which are summarized here. 3.  To use the distribution map of the yehud stamp impressions to determine the province’s borders is faulty, because in many maps there is no distinction between sites where many stamp impressions have been found and sites where only one stamp impression was discovered. See, for example, a map in Stern 1982: 247; Kochman 1982: 17. On this subject, see also Carter 1991: 63–64. 4.  We cannot offer here possible explanations for the presence of one stamp impression at any particular site. We will deal with this subject as part of the summary discussion of the function of the stamp impressions; see below, pp. 762–764. 5.  McCown (1947: 171–72) argued, for example, that the absence of yehud stamp impressions at Bethel proves the site was not part of the province of Judah. 6.  Cohen (1986: 40–45) stated that the single stamp impression discovered at Kadesh Barnea provides evidence that the southern border of the province ran through the line of fortresses unearthed in the Negev.

26

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

Map 2.  The Borders of Judah during the Reign of King Josiah at the end of Iron Age II.

1.  In the late 7th century, under Josiah’s rule, the northern border of Judah ran along the Geba-Mizpah line or, maximally, reached the Bethel-Ophrah line (Lipschits 2004, with further literature). In the south, the valleys of Beer-Sheba and Arad were included within Judah in this period (Lipschits 2005: 140–44, with further literature). In the east, the border of Judah ran along the Jordan River and the western littoral of the Dead Sea, between Jericho and En Gedi (Stern 1993; Lipschits 2000).

1.  Geopolitical Considerations

27

2.  During the period of Babylonian rule in the region, significant demographic and geopolitical changes took place in Judah. These processes affected the boundaries of Judah and the population in the southern part of Palestine for centuries to come. Judah shrank especially in the south and southwest, and a different populace, one with Arabian and Edomite characteristics, began to establish itself in the Negev, the southern Judean highlands, and the southern Shephelah. This population ultimately formed the core of the province known in the early Hellenistic period as Idumea (Lipschits 2005: 149–54, with further literature). 3. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the political affiliation of the southern hills of Judah and the southern Shephelah is difficult to discern, and these areas remained sparsely populated and relatively desolate. During the 6th century, a growing distinction may be drawn between the area south of Hebron and Maresha, which remained stricken and relatively desolate, and the area to the north of these cities, which was less affected and where a large share of the settlements continued as before (Lipschits 2003). The area north of Hebron, according to the archaeological record, was less affected by the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the main cities of Judah. 4. According to the descriptions in 2 Kings and Jeremiah 40–41, the area between Bethlehem and Mizpah was also the arena of activity of “those who remained” during the rule of Gedaliah (Lipschits 1999a: 467–87; 1999b: 115–23; 2005: 102–18). This is also the area of distribution of the 42 mwṣh stamped handles, usually dated to the Babylonian period (Avigad 1972b: 8–9; Stern 1982: 205–9, 213; Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994: 166–69). 7 This is the same area where 90% of the yehud stamp impressions were discovered. This region therefore had at least minimal occupation and economic activity through the 6th century, either because it was possible to continue to live there safeguarded and protected, or because of Babylonian or early Achaemenid patronage. 5. The archaeological data also indicate that the region between Bethlehem and Tell en-Naṣbeh constituted the core of the province of Judah throughout the Persian Period. Outside this narrow region around Jerusalem, the data show only sparse indications of settlement. In the west, only a few small, perhaps industrial sites are known; in the east, only Jericho and En Gedi; and probably no more than some hamlets or small villages existed to the south, between Tekoa and Beth-Zur. 6. There is no direct information in biblical and nonbiblical sources dated to the Persian Period on the boundaries of the Achaemenid province of Yehud. 8 The biblical sources are problematic, limited, and include a certain confusion between the places where Judaeans lived and the assumed borders of the province. 9 7. Thirty mwṣh stamp impressions were found at Mizpah, 4 at Jerusalem, 4 at Gibeon, 2 at Jericho, 1 at Ramat Raḥel, and 1 at Belmont (Ṣuba). See the map provided by Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes (1994: 166). 8.  In the Greek and Persian sources, there is no reference to the internal geopolitical division of the area of eber nāri (“Beyond the River”), except for some accounts of what was happening in the coastal region. For a discussion of these sources, see Rainey 1969, and compare the sources discussed by Briant (2002: 487–93) and Grabbe’s survey (2004: 134–40). 9.  There are explicit accounts of the presence of Judahites outside the borders of Yehud in the Persian Period. Biblical references include, e.g., the designation of Ezra as teaching the Torah “to all

28

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

The main geographical and geopolitical sources for the Persian Period cited by scholars are the five lists embedded in Ezra and Nehemiah. 10 Based on the information derived from the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah (and especially the list of the builders of the wall in Nehemiah 3), together with reconstructions of Judah’s geopolitical conditions at the end of the monarchic era and during Babylonian hegemony, one can reconstruct the several districts of the province (Lipschits 2005: 173–74). The Mizpah District is largely congruent with the traditionally defined territory of the tribe of Benjamin. It reflects the continuity of the region’s boundaries between the seventh and the fifth centuries b.c.e. The populations of Jericho and Senaʾah may have belonged to this district as well, 11 but the attempt to include the Ono–Lod region or parts of Samaria in this area has been effectively disproved (Schwartz 1988: 11–12; Lipschits 1997b). 12 The Jerusalem District lies south of the Mizpah District and probably included the city limits and its immediate environs as far as the area of the Rephaim Valley. The Beth-Hakkerem District lay south of Jerusalem and apparently included the western slopes of the Judean hills west of Jerusalem. The men of Tekoa should be included in this district, which, like the two districts north of it, also reached the edge of the mountainous region on the west and was bordered by the Keilah District in the south. The Beth-Zur District is the southernmost in the mountain area. On the east is En Gedi, and the district is bounded on the west by the Keilah District. It is reasonable to assume that the boundary between the districts ran along the rim of the mountain, east of the Adullam-Zanoah line. The southern boundary probably ran in the narrow strip between Beth-Zur and Hebron, and did so until the days of the Hasmoneans. The Keilah District was the only stronghold that the Province of Judah had in the Shephelah. It was bordered on the southwest by Maresha and on the west by Ekron, both outside the borders of Judah. On the north, this district was bordered by Gezer, which lies outside the limits of the province (Meyer 1896: 105–8, 166–68 and Map 2; Naʾaman 1995: 16–24). It might be included within the limits of the the people that are beyond the river” (Ezra 7:25); the reference to “the Jews who dwelt by them” in Neh 4:6; and the descriptions in 2 Chr 30:11, 35:18, which are attributed to the period before the destruction of Jerusalem. 10.  In Ezra and Nehemiah, there are five lists, two of which are almost identical (the list of the “returnees to Zion” in Ezra 2:1–67, Neh 7:6–68). The third list is the list of districts (Neh 3:1–32) brought within the list of “builders of the wall”; the fourth is the list of the settlements, defined as ‫( חצרים‬Neh 11:25–35), and the last is the list of the places of the sons of the singers in Neh 12:28–29. For a discussion of these lists from a geographical perspective and on their importance for the borders of Judah in the Persian Period, see Lipschits 2005:154–73 with further literature. 11.  This premise is opposed to the attempt by Klein (1939: 3–4), Avi-Yonah (1949: 21), and Blenkinsopp (1988: 232–33) to add the Jericho district as the sixth district in the province of Yehud, as well as Stern’s attempt (1982: 247–48) to add Gezer as another district in addition to Jericho. 12.  See, e.g., Kallai’s proposal (1960: 87–94) and, in contrast, see Naʾaman (1995c: 20–24, with further literature).

1.  Geopolitical Considerations

29

Map 3.  The Borders of Judah during the Persian Period. Province of Ashdod (1 Macc 14:34), 13 before it was conquered by Simon (1 Macc 13:43–48; 14:7, 34). 14 13.  Here one must emphasize that 1 Maccabees refers to two similarly named toponyms, the one spelled Γαζαρα Gazara, which is documented in a series of events (e.g., 9:52; 13:54; 14:7, 34), and the other Γαζηρα, Gazera (e.g., 4:15; 7:45). The one that was included within the limits of the province of Ashdod (1 Macc 14:34) and that was conquered by Simeon (e.g., 13:43–48) is spelled Gazara. It was recently identified with Tell Ghazza (Tell Yaʿoz) on the north bank of Naḥal Soreq, where impressive remains from the Hellenistic period were found (Tal, Fischer, and Roll 2005: 290–96). 14. Josephus, Antiquities XIII: 9, 2 (261) on the approval of the Roman Senate to recognize Judah’s rights over Jaffa and Gazara, may clarify the borders of Judah in the days of Simeon; this however has no bearing on Judah’s borders prior to the Hasmonean revolt.

30

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

Using the framework presented above, we can return to the main questions presented at the beginning of this chapter and review the connection between the distribution of the yehud stamp impressions and the borders of Judah, as well as the contribution of these finds to our understanding of the administration and borders of Judah during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. In the north, no yehud stamp impressions appear in the territory of Samaria. The main centers of the Mizpah District are Mizpah/Tell en-Naṣbeh (19 stamp impressions) and Nebi Samwil (16 stamp impressions). Most of the stamp impressions discovered in this region belong to the middle types, which we date to the 4th–3rd centuries (see the discussion below, §H-2). Except for Khirbet Nisya (between Beitin/Bethel and Tell en-Naṣbeh/Mizpah), no stamp impressions come from the region north of Tell en-Naṣbeh, extending as far as the presumed border with the province of Samaria. In this area, therefore, we can infer nothing about the border of the province from the distribution of yehud stamp impressions. As for the eastern border of Judah, the physical-geographical facts remained more decisive for establishing the border: the Jordan River and Dead Sea evidently constituted the main barriers. It is a question whether we can define the border on the basis of the existence of two industrial/administrative centers in the Persian Period: Jericho and En Gedi (at least until the middle of the 4th century, when both sites evidently declined). The two sites are well represented in the corpus of yehud stamp impressions from the early and middle types, and they may represent the eastern extremities of the Mizpah District (Jericho) and the Beth-Zur District (En Gedi). The best-represented district in the corpus is the Beth-Hakkerem district with its center near the Rephaim Valley. Ramat Raḥel, to the east of the valley, was its main administrative center, which prompted Aharoni’s convincing identification of the site with Beth-Hakkerem (1956c: 152–55; 1962: 50; 1964a: 122–24). Rogem Gannim, at the western end of the Rephaim Valley, was an important production center in the catchment of Ramat Raḥel (Greenberg and Cinamon 2007), and there were two other small agricultural sites in the region, Ḥusan and Battir. The hill country south of Ramat Raḥel is not represented in the corpus of the yehud stamp impressions. The western border clearly evinces the most changeability, or at least porousness. There is a large gap between the western catchment of Jerusalem and the next zone producing Yehud stamp impressions, namely, Gezer. The appearance of 5 Hasmonean-era yehud stamp impressions at Gezer shows that the site was conquered by the Hasmoneans. The excavations at Gezer also yielded two early stamp impressions, similar to Tel Ḥarasim, which is also in the Shephelah. Gezer also produced a single stamp impression belonging to the middle types, which is analogous to the lone stamp impression discovered in Kadesh Barnea and another from Tell Jemmeh. The rarity of stamp impressions in the west and southwest make it difficult to place them with the administrative system. Occasionally during the Persian Period, jars were transported to the west, but this seems not to have been a consistent phenomenon, and we are left to guess why jars sometimes appear beyond the western border of the province.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

31

2.  Archaeological Considerations Of the 24 sites where excavators recovered yehud stamp impressions, 18 are certainly inside the Persian-Period borders of Judah, while 6 lie outside the borders. These 6 sites include Gezer and Tel Ḥarasim in the west; Tell Nimrin in the east; Tell Jemmeh in the southwest; Kadesh Barnea in the south; and of course the stamp impression discovered by the Deutsche Orientgesellschaft in Qaṣr SW, in the city of Babylon (see §B-1). Apart from Gezer (with 8 stamp impressions, 5 of them late types dated to the 2nd century b.c.e.) and Tel Ḥarasim (2 stamp impressions), only one stamp impression was discovered at each of the other four sites, marking them as statistical outliers with respect to the distribution of the overall corpus. Of the 18 sites inside the borders of Judah, 2 sites were the principal administrative centers represented in the corpus; 4 other sites can be described as secondary administrative centers; one site characterized by multiple agricultural installations was evidently a production center; and 13 sites can be described as very small agricultural settlements (perhaps hamlets or farm houses). This chapter first discusses the archaeological and stratigraphic contexts of the yehud stamp impressions found at the 2 main sites: Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem. As noted above, 470 stamped handles, about 80% of the corpus, come from these two sites (§B-2-a). The pertinent archaeological data from the 4 secondary administrative centers appear in the second part of this chapter (§B-2-b): the 4 sites are Tell en-Naṣbeh (19 stamp impressions); Jericho (18); Nebi Samwil (16); and En Gedi (10). Rogem Gannim represents a unique phenomenon, not only because 7 yehud stamp impressions were discovered at this tiny agricultural site but because the finds from the Iron Age and Persian Periods indicate that the site served as a production center both in the late Iron Age II and in the Persian Period. Rogem Gannim will be discussed in the third section (§B-2-c). The other small agricultural sites where one or two stamped handles were discovered will be the subject of the fourth section (§B-2-d). Finally, we will discuss the two sites in the Shephelah where yehud stamp impressions were discovered (§B-2-e): Gezer (8 stamp impressions) and Tel Ḥarasim (2 stamp impressions), and will comment on several important Persian Period sites in Judah where no stamps have appeared (§B-2-f) and other sites outside the borders of Judah where yehud stamp impressions were discovered (§B-2-g). a.  Main Administrative Centers Associated with the yehud Stamp Impressions 1.  Ramat Raḥel

The site was first settled in the late 8th or early 7th century b.c.e. (The earliest building level of the renewed excavation project corresponds with Aharoni’s Stratum VB.) 15 Few architectural remains belong to Stratum VB, but a large quantity 15.  Aharoni (1964a: 119; NEAEHL 4:1263; Aharoni and Aharoni 1976: 73–90) dated this stratum to the late 8th and early 7th centuries b.c.e. The renewed excavations at the site (2005-10) confirmed this date and demonstrated that, against the assumptions of other scholars (Vaughn 1999: 39–40; Naʾaman 2001: 270–71, 273; Stern 2001: 69, 165; Barkay 2006: 37–38), this early building phase

32

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

Plan 2.  The plan of the Ramat Raḥel edifice in building phases 1–3. Illustration by Benjamin Arubas.

of pottery and about 225 lmlk stamped jar handles originate in fills under Stratum VA (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011; Aharoni 1964a: 61–63, 119–20). In the second building phase (Aharoni’s Stratum VA), dated to the last third of the 7th century b.c.e., an imposing edifice stood atop the mound (Lipschits et al. 2010: 64–70; 2011: 20–34). 16 This is one of the most impressive structures discovcontinued to exist without any break through the 7th century b.c.e., perhaps beginning after the 701 b.c.e. Assyrian campaign to Judah (Lipschits et al. 2010: 61–64; 2011; Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011). 16.  Aharoni (1962: 51–53; 1964a: 119–20) dated this palace to the time of Jehoiakim (609–598 b.c.e.), but the renewed excavations have proved that the date of this phase extends from the last third of the 7th century into the 6th century, without any indication of destruction at the beginning of the 6th century b.c.e.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

33

ered in Judah and likely served as a Judahite administrative center, built near Jerusalem to collect goods in kind, mainly jars of wine and oil, when Judah was a client kingdom under Assyrian and, later, Babylonian auspices (Lipschits and Gadot 2008; Lipschits et al. 2010: 64–70; 2011: 20–34). It is no wonder that excavators from early on described it either as a palace for Judean kings (Aharoni 1964a: 119–20; Stern 2001: 69, 162; Barkay 2006: 39–42) or as an Assyrian or Judahite administrative center (Naʾaman 2001: 271–73; Lipschits 2005: 213–16; Lipschits and Gadot 2008). Its walls were built of ashlar blocks, unique in Judean architecture, and it was decorated with volute (proto-Aeolic) capitals, 17 magnificent window balustrades, small limestone stepped-pyramid-shaped stones (probably part of the crenellation that topped the edifice wall), and other stone ornaments. Aharoni (1964a: 119) assumed that the palace was surrounded by a wide, fortified courtyard extending over an area of about 20 dunams (5 acres). However, the renewed excavation project has revealed that the edifice was surrounded on the south, west, and north by a magnificent garden, well built on artificially flattened bedrock. The garden was created throughout this area by quarrying and removing the hard nari rock and depositing a homogeneous layer of about 50 cm of brown soil from the surrounding valleys to cover the entire 20 dunams of this garden. In and around this area, large pools were built, with high quality stones and plaster, surrounded by tunnels, channels, and other water installations. This garden, as well as the edifice to its east, continued to exist until the Persian period, when the edifice was expanded on its northwestern corner (see the decription below). Of about 235 rosette stamp impressions known today, which date to the last decades of the Judean monarchy (Naʾaman 1991: 31–33, 42–43, 57; 2001: 291–93; Koch and Lipschits 2010, with further literature), 43 were excavated at Ramat Raḥel. Meanwhile, 81 rosette stamp impressions were discovered in Jerusalem 18 and 24 more in Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 1:344; 2: pls. 53:1–4; Aharoni 1975: 107; Ussishkin 1983: 163; 2004b: 107; Ussishkin 1983: 163; 2004b: 2138, no. 92–93), which remained an important city in the kingdom. The large number of rosette stamp impressions discovered at Ramat Raḥel indicates that the site functioned as an important administrative center in Judah during the period when the large building and gardens were built. Contrary to Aharoni’s interpretation (1964a: 120), there is no unequivocal evidence for the destruction of Ramat Raḥel’s edifice at the beginning of the 6th century b.c.e. or for a long occupational gap at the site. The renewed excavations have clearly demonstrated that the site continued to exist during the 6th century b.c.e., when Jerusalem was in ruins and Mizpah/Tell en-Naṣbeh was the capital 17.  The 10 volute (proto-Aeolic) capitals discovered by Aharoni at Ramat Raḥel (together with some fragments discovered in the renewed excavation seasons), along with another one excavated by Kenyon at the City of David (dated by her, for uncertain reasons, to the 10th–9th centuries), are the only examples found in Judah. On this phenomenon, see Lipschits 2009. 18.  Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–90, figs. 202:6–7, 204, 205; Lux 1972: 191; Barkay 1985: 438; Tushingham 1985: 2, 297–98, fig. 9:23, 40–42, 46; Nedelman 1989: 21, 132–34, 140, pls. 170–72; Cahill 2000; 2003.

34

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

of Judah (Lipschits 1998: 473–76; Lipschits et al. 2010: 70; 2011: 33–34; Naʾaman 2001: 274). Only one mwṣh stamp impression—which probably dates to the mid6th century b.c.e. (Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994)—came from Ramat Raḥel, whereas 30 mwṣh stamp impressions were excavated at Tell en-Naṣbeh (Lipschits 2005: 179–81). By contrast, 75 lion stamp impressions were excavated at Ramat Raḥel, out of about 110. New studies on these lion stamp impressions (Lipschits and Ornan forthcoming) indicate that they date to the 6th century b.c.e. They argue in favor of administrative continuity in Judah, perhaps as part of the Babylonian administration that lasted until the beginning of the Persian period, at which time the yehud stamp impression system appeared. The prominence of the lion stamp impressions is another indication that Ramat Raḥel continued to have a significant administrative role during the 6th century b.c.e. Throughout this period, the second building phase at the site persisted without marked change. The next Stratum, IVB, was dated by Aharoni (1964a: 120–21; cf. Stern 2001: 324, 436–37) to the long period covering the Persian and Hasmonean eras. 19 Numerous small finds from these periods have been found, but only fragmented architectural remains. The renewed excavations at the site (2005-10) have uncovered valuable new evidence that illuminates Persian period Ramat Raḥel. The remains of a new building, both sturdy and large, were exposed. Rectangular in shape, it was built on the northwestern side of the second phase edifice complex, covers an area of about 600 sq m, and comprised a new wing added to the existing complex. It surrounds the biggest and largest pool of the second building phase. In the southeastern corner of the site, a huge pit was excavated with hundreds of pottery vessels, among them more than 25 restorable jars, some of them bearing stamp impressions from the early types. These finds, together with hundreds of stamp impressions on jar handles dated to the Persian and Hellenistic occupation periods at the site, are the best indication that Ramat Raḥel was the main center of the system in which the jars circulated. This evidence points to a noteworthy development in the settlement history of Ramat Raḥel. The administrative center that was founded at the site by the central government of the Kingdom of Judah, likely while still an Assyrian client kingdom, was not destroyed when the kingdom fell but continued to serve as an administrative center under the rule of the Persian kings. Furthermore, it appears that, during the interim, Ramat Raḥel remained one of the most important―if not the most important—administrative tax collection center. This seems to be the best explanation for the unusual concentration of yhwd stamp impressions on jar handles found at the site. The possible involvement of the central Achaemenid government may be indicated by the intensive construction at the site and in the unusual creation of the additional wing on the northwestern side of the existing edifice, the style and strength of which are unparalleled by any finds in the area in the same period (Lipschits et al. 2010: 70–72; 2011: 34–37). 19.  On the main wall assigned by Aharoni to the Persian Period, its date, and the finds connected to it, see Aharoni 1964a: 17–18 and fig. 2.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

35

Plan 3.  Plan of distribution of early types at Ramat Raḥel.

The findspots of a few stamp impressions belonging to type 7 are of special importance for clarifying stratigraphical and chronological issues. Stamp impression no. 7-5 was excavated in the fill under one of the rooms (no. 457) assigned to Stratum IVB of the Persian–Hellenistic period (Locus 457, Square 21 P, Level 5.15); the handle, however, was above the Iron Age stratum. Two other stamp impressions of type 7 were discovered in a similar stratigraphical situation, in strata later than the Iron Age but earlier than the Hellenistic period. Perhaps even more significant is the discovery of stamp impression no. 13-78, which was unearthed in the foundation trench of the eastern wall from Stratum IVB of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (Aharoni 1964a: 21). These findspots suggest that fills of the late Persian or early Hellenistic period were deposited above the Iron Age strata and that the handles themselves, which were already part of the fills, may date relatively earlier in the Persian Period. Aharoni excavated an additional 60 yehud stamp impressions belonging to the early and middle types (dated to the late 6th to early 3rd centuries b.c.e.) in fills above the floors of the Iron Age edifice, some in rooms along the citadel’s casemate wall and others in pits adjacent to the Iron Age structure. Thus, most stamp impressions of the early and middle types, although they do not come from clear stratigraphic contexts, were discovered in the vicinity or just above the surface of the central courtyard of the Iron Age citadel (380). These include

36

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

Plan 4.  Plan of distribution of middle types at Ramat Raḥel.

4 stamp impressions of type 1 (stamp impression nos. 1-13 – 1-16); 20 4 stamp impressions of type 6 (nos. 6-20 – 6-23); 1 stamp impression of type 7 (stamp impression no. 7-4, discovered in Locus 387, Square 19 V); 4 stamp impressions of type 10 (stamp impression nos. 10-8 – 10-11); 1 stamp impression of type 12 (stamp impression no. 12-4, discovered in Square 20 X, Locus 324, 50 cm above the floor of the courtyard of Stratum V); and 11 stamp impressions of type 13 (nos. 13-66 – 13-75, 13-84). Other stamp impressions were discovered in the same fill above the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel but in different parts of the structure: 3 stamp impressions (nos. 1-15, 13-77, and 13-78) were discovered inside the Iron Age northern building (468); 1 stamp impression (no. 4-4) was discovered in the southwestern corner of the Iron Age citadel (Locus 847, Square 9 Q, level 6.35) together with other material from the Persian Period (stamp impression no. 4-4); 4 stamp impressions (nos. 12-6, 13-85, 13-86, and 13-87) were discovered in the vicinity of the northwestern section of the defense wall (Square 10 Y, Locus 807, level 4.75), which indicates a Persian-period context; 1 stamp impression (no. 12-07) was discovered near the southwestern corner of the Iron Age citadel (Square 9 R, Locus 20.  Stamp Impression no. 1-15 was found above the surface of the Iron Age courtyard; no. 1‑13 was found in the same area, about 20 cm above the floor of Stratum V; no. 1-16 was found in the fill above the Iron Age courtyard, in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall; no. 1-14 was found in the rubble covering the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

37

Plan 5.  Plan of distribution of late types at Ramat Raḥel.

830, level 6.10); 1 stamp impression (no. 13-76) was discovered in the area of the outer courtyard (470); 1 stamp impression (no. 13-88) was unearthed in the area to the south of the Iron Age casemate wall, in the vicinity of what Aharoni called “the Persian building.” In the same archaeological context, 6 stamp impressions of type 6 were discovered in various areas above the Iron Age structure: 1 in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall; 1 in the area of the Iron Age western building; 1 in the area of the Iron Age northern building; 1 more north of the casemate wall; and 2 south of the casemate wall, near Aharoni’s “Persian building” (1964: 21, 44). One stamp impression of type 7 (no. 7-6) was unearthed in a similar location, in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall (Locus 812, Square 9 Y). The appearance of so many jar handles with stamp impressions in a circumscribed area indicates that they were embedded in deliberate fills that consisted of debris and soil from adjacent areas, perhaps including refuse pits. The best example of a refuse pit such as this was discovered to the east of the city wall (484): in this pit, 1 stamp impression of type 6 (no. 6-24) was discovered, together with 2ndcentury stamp impressions; and nearby another stamp impression of type 12 was discovered (no. 12-5). 21 21.  See, however, Aharoni’s note on the uncertain chronological and stratigraphic situation in this pit (1964a: 22).

38

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

These finds, together with those from the fill under one of the rooms assigned to Stratum IVB (room no. 457) and the finds in the foundation trench of the eastern wall from Stratum IVB of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, point to leveling and rebuilding efforts in the late Persian (pre-Hellenistic) period. The leveling materials derive in part from earlier in the Persian Period. This hypothesis fits Aharoni’s view of the date of the main wall he excavated to the east of the Iron Age citadel (1964a: 17–18). Another clear conclusion arises from the finds at Ramat Raḥel: a clear stratigraphic separation exists between the early and middle types and the late types (dated to the 2nd century b.c.e.). No stamp impressions from the late types (16 and 17) were discovered in the fills lying just above the surface of the Iron Age citadel of Stratum V. The early and late types only occur together in much later Roman and Byzantine fills and in one refuse pit (above pit 484). Otherwise, the two groups of stamp impressions were discovered in separate areas and levels, a confirmation of the chronological gap between them. At Ramat Raḥel, many of the ṭ-yhd stamp impressions (type 17) were discovered together with yršlm stamp impressions, evidently in a pit at the southeastern section of the Iron Age citadel (Aharoni 1956c: 149–50). Thus, in 1959, when Aharoni did not excavate in this area, no stamp impressions of type 17 were discovered (Lapp already noticed this—1963: 31). In 1960, when Aharoni came back to the same pit, he discovered 3 more ṭ-yhd stamp impressions along with a yršlm stamp impression (in the same pit 389, as well as in Square 19 V, Locus 387, and in water cistern 381) (Aharoni 1962: 30). Most of the other ṭ-yhd stamp impressions discovered in the 1961–62 seasons were excavated in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where other stamped handles of type 17 and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered with Hellenistic pottery (Aharoni 1964a: 20, 43). 22 A similar situation may be reconstructed for the excavations of the water system, southwest of the Iron Age structure. In the fills above the water system, stamp impressions of the latest type were discovered together with yršlm stamp impressions and 2nd-century pottery. In the water system of the late Iron Age and Persian periods, pottery was discovered together with stamp impressions from the early and middle types. 2.  Jerusalem

At the City of David, Shiloh excavated a clear Persian-Period stratum (Stratum 9), as well as an Early Hellenistic stratum (Stratum 8) and a 2nd-century b.c.e. (Hasmonean) stratum (Stratum 7). Stratum 9, however, does not appear in all the excavated areas (Shiloh 1984a: 4, table 2). Finds attributed to Stratum 9 appeared 22.  We can summarize the stratigraphic data for 14 out of 27 stamp impressions of the ṭ-yhd type at Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression no. 17-58 was discovered together with a yršlm stamp impression in Square 19 V, Locus 387; no. 17-59 was discovered together with 2 yršlm stamp impressions in the same pit (389); stamp impression no. 17-60 was discovered together with a yršlm stamp impression in water cistern 381 (Aharoni 1962a: 30, pl. 31:2), while stamp impression nos. 17-61 – 17-69, 17-74, and 17-75 were unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery (Aharoni 1964a: 20, 43).

2.  Archaeological Considerations

39

in Area D1 (Ariel, Hirschfeld, and Savir 2000: 59–62; De Groot 2001: 77), Area D2 (Shiloh 1984a: 8–9), 23 and Area G (Shiloh 1984a: 20). 24 Between 1923 and 1925, Macalister and Duncan excavated just above and to the west of what would be area G of Shiloh’s excavations and above the area Eilat Mazar would later excavate, where important finds including quantities of pottery from the Persian Period and yehud and lion stamp impressions emerged. Thus, area G—including Macalister and Duncan’s excavations—produced the largest number of Persian-Period stamp impressions at the City of David. This area lies at the center of the ridge, in the northern area of the City of David just below the Ophel, and may have been of administrative importance in the Persian Period. Shiloh’s finds from the Persian Period originated partially in Area E1 (Shiloh 1984a: 14; De Groot 2001: 77; De Groot and Ariel 2004: 15) and included some chalk vessels (Cahill 1992: 191–98, fig. 14). Sherds dated to the Persian Period were also discovered in the fills in Area H, to the east of the Siloam Pool, on the eastern slopes of Mount Zion (De Groot and Michaeli 1992: 50–51; De Groot 2001: 78). 25 Reich and Shukron discovered Persian-Period sherds and seal impressions in Areas A and B, above the Kidron Valley, and some 200–250 m south of the Gihon Spring (Reich and Shukron 1998, 2007). The finds from these areas probably eroded from the settlement on the ridge above. According to De Groot (2001: 77, 2004: 15; cf. Cahill 1992: 191–98, fig. 14), the most significant finds from the Persian Period were excavated in Area E, especially in 4 squares (N–M \ 1–20) where the excavators identified 3 different subphases of the Persian-Period Stratum 9. In the earliest subphase (9c), a large building was reused that had been destroyed earlier, probably when the entire city was destroyed (likely in 586 b.c.e.; De Groot 2001: 77–78). A sloping level of quarrying waste (composed of limestone chips with very little interspersed earth or pottery) was ascribed to the second subphase (9b), which covered the large building from the previous phase (9c). The same level of quarrying refuse appeared also in Area D1, also dated to Stratum 9 (Ariel, Hirschfeld, and Savir 2000: 59; cf. Shiloh 1984a: 7; De Groot 2001: 78). In a few cases, the levels of chips were interspersed with thin layers of earth without any coherent pattern. The quarrying activities above the eastern slope were documented in the excavations by Bliss and Dickie (1898) and Weill (1920) and in Area K of the City of David excavations by Ariel and Magness (1992). It should be emphasized that the existence of this kind of quarrying refuse in phase 9b suggests that the areas where it was discovered were outside the limits of the city, or at least not characterized 23.  The finds assigned to Stratum 9 of Area D2 include a Lycian coin dated to 500–440 b.c.e. (Ariel 1990: C1) and an ostracon (Naveh 2000: IN 16). 24.  In this area, Kenyon also recovered Persian-Period material (dated by her to the 5th–3rd centuries b.c.e.) in the fill adjacent to the northern tower, which led her to assign this wall to Nehemiah’s fortifications (Kenyon 1974: 183, 191). See, however, the criticisms of De Groot (2001: 78), Finkelstein (2007), and Mazar (2007: 64). 25.  De Groot reasoned that the finds from the Persian Period prove that the Siloam pool was fortified during that time.

40

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

by domestic residences (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59). Only a few terrace walls and some floors with ovens were attributed to the third stage (9a). De Groot and Ariel have suggested dating the earlier stage, 9c, to the end of the 6th and first half of the 5th centuries b.c.e.; the second phase, 9b, to the middle of the 5th century b.c.e.—with the speculation that the quarrying was part of the building of Nehemiah’s walls; and the last stage, 9a, to various activities on the margins of the city, outside the limits of the fortified walls (De Groot 2001: 78; De Groot and Ariel 2004: 15). It seems, however, that the use of the quarries on the upper part of the ridge of the City of David persisted for a long time, and one of the limestone chip layers belongs to Stratum 7 of the Hellenistic period (Ariel, Hirschfeld, and Savir 2000: 59). According to Shiloh (1984a: 4, table 2; De Groot 2004: 67–69), Stratum 8 is fully represented only in Area E2 (1984: 10). This Stratum is also partially represented in Areas E1 (1984: 14–15) and E3 (1984: 10–11), 26 but scarcely at all in Areas D1 (1984: 7–8) and D2 (1984: 8–9). In this stratum, too, securely attributed finds are meager but do include three columbaria (De Groot 2004: 67–68) and a structure (in Area E1) that yielded a rich assemblage of pottery dating to the 3rd century b.c.e., the only assemblage of pre-Hasmonean date at the City of David (Shiloh 1984: 15). It is worth noting that most of the late types of the yehud stamp impressions, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e., were discovered not in Stratum 8 but in Stratum 7 (Ariel and Shoham 2000: table 1; and see also Reich 2003: 258–59 and tables 7.1–7.2). The Western Hill of Jerusalem was probably abandoned entirely until the 2nd century b.c.e. 27 Excavations throughout the Western Hill produced no finds from the Persian Period except scanty remains, mainly disbursed in fills from the late Hellenistic, Roman, and later periods. 28 This conforms with the distribution of yehud stamp impressions in Jerusalem, because no stamp impressions belonging to the early (late 6th and 5th century b.c.e.) or middle (4th and 3rd centuries b.c.e.) types were discovered outside the limits of the eastern hill (the so called City of David) (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007c). All the stamp impressions discovered in the Western Hill belong to the two latest types, 16 and 17, from the 2nd century b.c.e. They derive from clear Hasmonean archaeological contexts that also produced yršlm stamp impressions and other material dated to this period (Geva 2007a, with further literature; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007c). Of the 10 stamp impressions discovered in the Jewish Quarter excavations conducted between 1969 amd 1982 under the direction of Avigad, 5 were excavated in a well-stratified context dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. (Reich 2003; Eshel 2006: 404). One stamp impression was excavated in Area W and four more 26.  See also the finds of some chalk vessels in this area (Cahill 1992: 191–98, fig. 14). 27. See Geva 1983, 1994, 2003a: 524–26, 2007b; Broshi and Gibson 1994; Chen, Margalit, and Pixner 1994; Sivan and Solar 1994; Lipschits 2005: 212–13; 2009b; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007c. 28.  This is the conclusion from the excavations in the Citadel (Amiran and Eitan 1970); Mt. Zion (Broshi 1976: 82–83); the Armenian Garden (Gibson 1987; Geva 2003a: 524–25); and the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1983: 61–63; Geva 2000: 24, 2003a: 524, 2003b: 208). See the summary of the various finds in Lipschits 2005: 212 n. 108; 2009b; with further literature.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

41

in Area C, all of them in loci consisting of homogenous earth fill of the 2nd century b.c.e. directly above 8th–6th century b.c.e. remains but under remains of the 1st century b.c.e.–1st century c.e. (Geva 2007a). Other stamp impressions discovered in the Western Hill of Jerusalem came from post-Hellenistic stratigraphic contexts: some were found in fills under buildings from the Herodian period; others in fills from still later periods. Thus, the six stamp impressions discovered in the Kenyon-Tushingham excavations in the Armenian Garden 29 were recovered in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace, which includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods. Amiran and Eitan also excavated a stamp impression at the Tower of David in a fill of the podium of Herod’s palace. 30 Numerous other stamp impressions discovered in the Western Hill possess no stratigraphic information. These include the stamp impression that Bliss and Dickie excavated (1898: pl. 27:47, database no. 16-4 in this corpus); the 2 stamp impressions Broshi excavated on the summit of Mt. Zion (1976: 82–83; database nos. 16‑11 – 16‑12 in this corpus); 2 more recovered by Broshi on the western slope of the Western Hill, south of David’s Citadel; and the stamp impression discovered in Geva’s excavations in the Tower of David (Geva 1983 concerning the excavation, database no. 16‑20). 31 b.  Secondary Administrative Centers Associated with the yehud Stamp Impressions In this section, we will discuss four sites where a total of 63 yehud stamp impressions were discovered: Tell en-Naṣbeh (19 stamp impressions); Jericho (18); Nebi Samwil (16); and En Gedi (10). According to the hypothesis developed here, these sites were secondary administrative centers in the system that produced the yehud stamp impressions. The official contents of the stamped jars indicate that the recipients of the jars at these sites were connected to the administration of Yehud. Two of the sites, Jericho and En Gedi, were agricultural and industrial centers on the eastern border of the province. Tell en-Naṣbeh was a local administrative center in the northern area of the province (‫ ? ֵּפל ְֵך ה ִַּמ ְצּפָה‬cf. Neh 3:15), close to its border with Samaria and on the main road north from Jerusalem. Nebi Samwil was probably a military post or a local administrative center on the main road from the Coastal Plain and Western Samaria to Jerusalem. The commodities distributed in the yehud stamped jars may well have been supplies or payments to local or Persian administrators stationed in those places.

29. See Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17:18–23; database nos. 16-5–16-10 in this corpus. 30. See Amiran and Eitan 1970: 13, database no. 17-50. A picture of the stamp impression was kindly shown to us by Eitan, who has our thanks. 31.  One of the two stamp impressions from the summit of Mt. Zion was lost and it has not proved possible to locate it. For the Western Hill impressions, see Broshi and Gibson 2000 (on the excavations in general; and Geva 2007a); database nos. 16-21 – 17-55 in this corpus. The stamp impressions from Broshi’s excavations were kindly shown to Oded Lipschits by S. Gibson, and we would like to thank him. Hillel Geva kindly showed us a photo of the stamp impression from the Tower of David, for which we thank him.

42

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations 1.  Tell en-Naṣbeh

At Tell en-Naṣbeh, which is usually identified with biblical Mizpah, 32 the excavators recovered 19 yehud stamp impressions (3.25% of the total corpus). This is the largest number of stamp impressions discovered in any site other than Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem. It is important to note, however, that 18 out of the 19 stamp impressions belong to the middle types that date to the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e., while only one stamp impression belongs to the early group dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. No stamp impressions of the late types were discovered at the site. According to the description in 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 40–41, this site was the center of the rump Judean polity after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the days of Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam (586 b.c.e.). The precise geopolitical organization of Judah in the Neo-Babylonian period remains difficult to ascertain (the range of possibilities can be seen by comparing Vanderhooft 1999: 104–12 and Lipschits 2001; 2005: 97–122). Mizpah may have retained its administrative status through the end of the Neo-Babylonian period (Zorn 2003: 417; Lemaire 2003: 292) and perhaps until the days of Nehemiah and the establishment of Jerusalem as a Bîrāh, although this is less clear (445 b.c.e., Blenkinsopp 1998: 42 n. 48; cf. Lemaire 1990: 39–40, 2003: 292; Lipschits 2006: 34–37). The middle stamp types suggest that it was still thriving as late as the 3rd century. Badé conducted five excavation seasons at the site between 1926 and 1935. 33 McCown and Wampler, who published the summary reports of the excavations, could not clearly reconstruct the stratigraphy of the site (McCown 1947: 70; Albright 1948: 202; McClellan 1984: 53–54), in part because of the excavators’ methodological problems (Zorn 1993: 73; 2003: 413–17) but also because of Badé’s unexpected death during the last season. In the final report, McCown dated Stratum II to the period between the 11th and the 7th centuries b.c.e., with several subphases (1947: 181–83, 186). More recently, Zorn reevaluated the site and demonstrated that the general architectural plan of Tell en-Naṣbeh II (Zorn’s Stratum 3) remained intact through most of the Iron Age (NEAEHL 1099–1101; Zorn 2003: 418–19). The 68 lmlk stamp impressions and the private seals and stamp impressions may indicate that the site was a principal northern administrative and military center in Judah, relatively close to its border with the Kingdom of Israel, and, later, with the province of Samaria (Stern 2001: 139). McCown divided the later Stratum I into two stages. He dated the first, “early I,” to the 7th and early 6th century b.c.e. and included a building with large undressed stones (Wampler in McCown 1947: 183, and pl. 62:4–5). McCown characterized the second stage of stratum I, “late I,” as a scattered and sparse 32.  We cannot accept the recent attempt (Magen and Dadon 1999: 62; Magen and Har-Even 2007) to return to Albright’s proposal (1923: 110–12) to identify Nebi Samwil as Mizpah. For a review of the geographical and historical issues related to this site, including the controversies regarding identification of the site, see the summary in Lipschits (1997: 203). 33.  For a summary of the excavations see McCown (1947) in the archaeological and historical volume and Wampler (1947) in the volume on the ceramic finds.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

43

settlement, with low-quality building. On the basis of historical considerations, he dated this stage to the period after the Babylonian destruction. He also dated remains of walls found above the western and northern sections of the Iron Age wall to the Persian Period (1947: 202–3). Zorn, however, divided McCown’s “late I” into two phases. He relabeled the earlier part Stratum 2 and dated it to the Babylonian and Persian Periods. Zorn detected no clear changes or modifications during this long period of about 300 years. He renamed the later phase of McCown’s “late I” Stratum 1 and dated it to the Hellenistic period (1993: 163–85). In Zorn’s view, McCown’s opinion of the poor building quality was correct only for what Zorn labeled Stratum 1, of the Hellenistic period, when there was an agricultural estate at the site (1993: 186–99, 2003: 444). In this last period, no late yehud stamped handles appear. Zorn argues that the quality of construction in Stratum 2 was better than that of the various stages of the Iron Age settlement (Zorn 2003: 428–29). 34 He also argues that the main change in the city plan and the system of fortifications occurred at the beginning of the 6th century b.c.e. (2003: 419). 35 Despite the sharp change, Zorn argues that the transition from Stratum 3 to Stratum 2 did not result from the capture and destruction of the city (1993: 161–63). 36 He claims that only after the city was deserted was the area within the walls leveled and the buildings of Stratum 2 erected (1993: 151, 161–63, 175–76; 2003: 418–28). As McCown had already noticed, several buildings belonging to this stratum were constructed on the remains of the gate and on the remains of the west wall (1947: 198, 202; see also Zorn 1993: 154, 2003: 419–21). The general plan of the Stratum 2 city is different in orientation from that which characterized the city’s building from the start of the Iron Age (Zorn 1993: 155, 167, 172; 1997: 29–38, 66; 2003: 419–26), even though the Stratum 2 city continued to use the earlier city walls and the outer gate constructed in the late Iron Age (Zorn 1993: 336–37). Some of the structures in Stratum 2 were founded on the walls of Stratum 3 buildings, and Zorn argues for continuity of pottery forms between the two periods (Zorn 1993: 163–64; 2003: 428–33). The Stratum 2 city possesses no overall “master plan,” which is evinced above all in the lack of connection between the layout of the buildings in relationship to the wall and 34.  According to Zorn, the quality of Stratum 2 is indicated by the manner in which the walls were built (1993: 167–69, 183), the stone flooring, which was more extensive in this stratum (1993: 169, 183), the exclusive use of monoliths as building columns, and the larger area of the “four-room houses” in this stratum (1993: 173–74). This quality may point to the elite status of those who lived in these houses. At the same time, the uniformity in size of buildings in this stratum could signify the similar status of the residents. The predominance in the excavated residential structures of the “three-room house” and the “four-room house” design, ubiquitous in Iron Age Judah, suggests that at least some of those who lived in this place were Judeans who retained the local building traditions (1993: 181–82). 35.  The inner gate and the west wall that connected the two gates fell completely into disuse, so that the circumvallated, planned settlement of the Iron Age disappeared (Zorn 1993: 151, 175–76). 36.  Zorn rests this conclusion on the absence of a destruction layer, the absence of pottery finds on the building floors, the height to which the walls are preserved, and the discovery of many columns in situ. He sees these as indications for abandonment rather than destruction.

44

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

the natural topography of the site (Zorn 1993: 176, 179, 183; 2003: 419–28). This presumably stems from the filling and leveling of large parts of Stratum 3, which obliterated the natural contours on which the early strata were based (2003: 427–28). Stratum 2 is characterized by a dearth of dwellings, which had occupied the major part of the plan of stratum 3. Instead, several large and central structures were built in Stratum 2, indicating that Tell en-Naṣbeh ceased to be a place of crowded domestic settlement and became an administrative center, in which storehouses and a few relatively large residences predominate (Zorn 1993: 182–83). Of the 19 yehud stamped jars, 18 should be assigned to this period. Reconstruction of the plan of Stratum 2 at Tell en-Naṣbeh points to a settlement with well-appointed buildings and storehouses. There is little evidence of domestic habitation. The site possessed an administrative character, according to Zorn, throughout the Persian Period. According to him, it underwent no radical change in the latter half of the 6th century, when Judah came under Persian rule, or when Jerusalem clearly became the Bîrāh of the province. Some refinement of Zorn’s reconstruction may be possible in view of the evidence provided by the jar stamp impressions. Scholars have identified 42 mwṣh stamp impressions, with the toponym either written plene (mwṣh) or defectively (mṣh). They were stamped with at least six seals (Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994: 171–74). Thirty stamp impressions (more than 70% of the total number) were discovered at Tell en-Naṣbeh (28 stamp impressions with defective orthography; 2 with plene spelling). Four more stamp impressions were discovered at Jerusalem; 4 at Gibeon; 2 at Jericho; and 1 each at Ramat-Raḥel and Belmont (Ṣuba). 37 Numerous scholars have discussed the date and significance of the stamp impressions, with special attention given to their archaeological, paleographical, and historical aspects (summary in Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994: 162–63, 174). Most scholars agree that the stamp impressions should be dated to the 6th century b.c.e., probably to the pre-Achaemenid era, 38 a date supported by the 4 stamp impressions from Gibeon, where there is an occupational gap from the beginning of the 5th century b.c.e. to the Hellenistic period (Stern 1982: 207–9, 2001: 336–38; Lipschits 1999: 172–76) and where no Persian era yehud stamp impressions were found (see below, §B-2-f, p. 57). Lipschits has suggested that the mwṣh stamp impressions were meant to indicate the place of origin of oil or wine—perhaps from an official estate—which was supplied to one or more administrators who resided in Mizpah (Lipschits 2005: 149–52). 39 If this is correct, it explains why most of the stamp impressions were found at Tell en-Naṣbeh, which served as the administrative center in Judah after the collapse of the kingdom. The mwṣh stamp impressions together with the biblical and archaeological data underscore the role of the city after 586 b.c.e. (Lipschits 2005: 84–122). 37.  See the map in Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994: 166; and see Christoph 1993: 129–30. 38.  McCown 1947:6, 202; Avigad 1972b: 8–9; Stern 1982: 205–9, 213; Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994: 166–69; Stern 2001: 335–36. 39.  On the place of Gibeon and Moza in this system, see below, §B-2-f, p. 57.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

45

It remains difficult to demonstrate how things changed at the site at the beginning of the Persian Period, as Zorn recognized. Yet only one yehud stamp impression of the early types comes from Tell en-Naṣbeh (out of 128 stamp impressions that belong to the early types). This stamp impression belongs to type 11, which paleographic typology locates approximately in the late 5th century (see §E-13, pp. 229–234). The other 2 stamp impressions of type 11 come from Nebi Samwil and the City of David. Was there a change in the administrative system at the beginning of the Persian Period? Few finds from Tell en-Naṣbeh provide clarity on its status in the early Persian Period, and it may have gradually lost its centrality during the 5th century or perhaps later (McCown 1947: 63, 202). 40 The yehud stamp impressions of the early types, in any case, do not clearly indicate that the site retained its administrative centrality. From the administrative point of view, circumstances changed again at the end of the 5th or beginning of the 4th century b.c.e. (and see Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007e). Eighteen yehud stamp impressions of middle types, dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries, come from Tell en-Naṣbeh (about 6% of the 312 stamp impressions of these types). In addition, Nebi Samwil produced 13 stamp impressions of the middle types, Jericho 16, and En Gedi 7. Thus, Tell en-Naṣbeh may be understood as one of the local administrative centers during the late Persian and Ptolemaic periods (contra Zorn 2003: 444). The evidence of the distribution of yehud stamp impressions as compared with the mwṣh stamp impressions indirectly illuminates the history of Tell en-Naṣbeh in conjunction with the other finds from Bade’s excavations. Tell en-Naṣbeh enjoyed a revival in the late Persian Period as part of a new administrative system, probably as the central settlement of the district of Mizpah (cf. Neh 3:7, 15, 19). This revival may have begun during the second half of the 5th century or during the 4th century, but the stamp impressions point to a contrast between this new and renewed status of the site and its evidently less significant status during the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. 2.  Nebi Samwil

Excavators recovered 16 yehud stamp impressions at Nebi Samwil: 3 of them belong to the early types, dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e., and 13 are of the middle types, dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries b.c.e. No stamp impressions were discovered from the late types, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. The site is located 7 km northwest of Jerusalem at an elevation of 908 m, controlling the main road from the Coastal Plain and Western Samaria to Jerusalem. Y. Magen excavated the site between 1992 and 2003. 41 Only preliminary summaries of the excavations have appeared so far (Magen and Dadon 1999, 2003; Magen and HarEven 2007). The excavators prefer to identify the site with biblical Mizpah. 42 40.  Albright and Wright attributed some of the finds to the 4th century. On this subject, see McCown 1947: 185–86, 225–27. 41.  The excavations were conducted by Magen, with the participation of B. Har-Even and M. Dadon, on behalf of the Archaeology Staff Officer of the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. 42.  Magen and Dadon 1999: 62; Magen and Har-Even 2007, after Albright 1923: 110–12, but against this idea see Lipschits 1997a: 203.

46

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

The finds from the Iron Age and the Persian Period come from fills under a Hellenistic phase in the southern part of the site. No architectural structures could be assigned to these earlier periods, and according to the excavators the site was cleared to bedrock during the Hellenistic period, and again during the Byzantine and Crusader periods (Magen and Har-Even 2007: 38–41). In addition to pottery from the late 8th and 7th centuries b.c.e., lmlk and rosette stamp impressions were discovered at the site (Magen and Har-Even 2007; Stern 2001: 140). Persian Period finds include pottery, yhwd and lion stamp impressions, and silver coins. The Hellenistic residential quarter, which covers nearly one acre on the southern slopes of the site, dates to the 2nd century b.c.e. No late yehud stamp impression types were discovered at the site, which would support the conclusion that it was destroyed and abandoned before the middle of the 2nd century b.c.e. 3.  Jericho

At Tell es-Sultan (ancient Jericho), excavators recovered 18 yehud stamp impressions (3.1% of the total corpus). Two of the stamp impressions are of the early types, dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e., while 16 are of the middle types, dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries b.c.e. No stamp impressions were discovered from the late types, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. The history, stratigraphy, and architecture of the site at the end of the 8th and at the beginning of the 7th century b.c.e. remain difficult to reconstruct, although it seems that the site was occupied during this period. 43 At the end of the Iron Age, an unprecedented floruit took place in the eastern region of the Kingdom of Judah. 44 Jericho and En Gedi, to the south, functioned as agricultural and industrial centers that supported an array of small settlements, particularly along the routes that connected these sites with the economic and political centers on the mountain ridge to the west. 45 The settlement at Tell es-Sultan expanded in the second half of the 7th century b.c.e., and extensive agricultural activity developed in the site’s immediate environs, thanks to the establishment of irrigation systems, agricultural farms, and fortresses. 46 On the basis of the rich finds excavated on the slopes of the tell, including a four-room house unearthed on the eastern slope, excavators hypothesize that settlement extended over the entire area of the tell (approximately 40 dunams). It is also possible that the buildings in this period extended beyond the limits of the tell itself to the site built nearby, on the southern side of Wadi Qelt (Stern 2001: 134). 43.  See the finds described in Kenyon and Holland 1981: 111–13, 1982: 527–39, 1983: 58–84; and see the discussion of Vaughn 1999b: 74 and Stern 2001: 134. 44.  On this subject, see Stern (1993: 192–97; 2001: 134–38; 2007: 23–38); and Lipschits (2000a: 31–42). 45.  On the importance and significance of this region, see Lipschits 2000a: 31–42, with a reconstruction of the trade routes in this area. 46.  On this subject, see Magen (1983: 57); Stern (1993: 192; 2001: 134; 2007: 23–28); NEAEHL 2:738.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

47

The entire array of settlements in the eastern hinterland of the kingdom of Judah was destroyed at the end of the Iron Age (Lipschits 2005: 232–37), 47 apparently as a result of the collapse of the military and economic system after Jerusalem was destroyed. After a period without settlement activity in the entire region, Jericho revived during the 5th century b.c.e. Sellin and Watzinger excavated the remains of this period at the tell, correctly dating it to the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.e. (Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 79–82, 147–48; fig. 186; pls. 1, 3, 42). The pottery finds included 5th-century imported Attic vessels, fragments of vessels decorated with wedge-shaped and reed impressions, and additional finds including 10 yhwd stamp impressions and one stamp impression of a lion. 48 Garstang (1930–36) and, later, Kenyon (1952–58) excavated only scant material from the Persian Period (Kenyon 1964: 201; cf. NEAEHL 2:680–81). 49 The pottery reveals that it was a small settlement that did not cover the entire tell but perhaps only a few dunams. 50 Stern (1982: 38) concluded that a settlement existed at the site in the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.e., but from the limited pottery assemblage it is hard to garner much information about the characteristics of the pottery vessels of this era in Judah. Several scholars conclude that the site was abandoned during the last phase of the Persian Period, when the settlement moved to the nearby Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, where it continued through the Hellenistic period. 51 The fact that 16 out of 18 stamp impressions discovered at Jericho come from the middle types, dated to the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e., and only two stamp impressions are of the early types (dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e.), supports the settlement reconstruction above. No stamp impressions of the late types come from Tell es-Sultan, which conforms with the view that settlement at the site did not continue beyond the 4th century. The data are not precise enough to connect the demise of the site with Solinus’s description of Jericho’s destruction during the time of Artaxerxes III Ochus (359/8–338/7) during his return from Egypt (Briant 2002: 685, 1004–5, with discussion and literature). During the Persian Period, Jericho was a local agricultural and industrial center that produced products unique to the region (probably especially products connected to the date palm). It is quite likely that a few provincial administrators were stationed at the site and received shipments of wine or oil from the 47.  There is no data to connect the destruction of the sites in the Jordan Valley and along the western littoral of the Dead Sea with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem (as against the view of Stern 2001: 137–38; 324). On the date of the settlement that existed in Jericho at the end of the Iron Age, see Stern (1993: 192, and n. 9, p. 196, with further literature). See also Stern’s description in NEAEHL II: 738. 48. See Stern’s (1982: 38) assessment regarding the correct dating by Sellin and Watzinger of pottery vessels of this period. 49.  These included the yhwd/ʾwryw stamp impression; see Hammond 1957a: 37–39. 50.  On the settlement of the Persian Period, see Stern 1982: 38; Bartlett 1982: 101–2; and see also Hengel 1974: 20, 22. 51. See: Kenyon in NEAEHL 2:681; Netzer in NEAEHL 2:681; Carter 1999: 162.

48

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

local governor, especially during the late 5th century and until the collapse of the settlement in the 4th century b.c.e. 52 4.  En Gedi

Tel Goren (Tell el-Jurn), identified as ancient En Gedi, is situated 40 km southeast of Jerusalem, about one km west of the coast of the Dead Sea, between Nahal ʿArugot to the south and Nahal David to the north. Ten yehud stamp impressions were discovered at the site (Mazar and Dunayevsky 1964; Hadas 2005; Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007). Three of the stamp impressions belong to the early types, dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e., and 7 are of the middle types, dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries b.c.e. No stamp impressions of the late types, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e., were discovered. Five excavation seasons were held at Tel Goren between 1961 and 1965. 53 The beginning of settlement at the tell (Stratum V) should be fixed in the second half of the 7th century b.c.e. (Stern 2007: 361–62). 54 An industrial-type settlement was located over an area of roughly 2.5 dunams, and a lower city of indeterminate size may have existed at the foot of tell. 55 This settlement possessed unique finds—buildings with a uniform plan (a wide courtyard on one side with two small rooms attached), industrial installations (particularly ovens and large clay containers), and pottery vessels—that attest to a special industry, which the excavators associate with the manufacture of perfumes. 56 As mentioned above, the entire array of settlements in the eastern hinterland of the Kingdom of Judah, including En Gedi, was destroyed and abandoned at the end of the Iron Age (Lipschits 2005: 232–37). 57 After a settlement vacuum in the region, En Gedi was revived at the end of the 6th or during the first half of the 5th century b.c.e. (Stratum IV), probably at the same time that Jericho was renewed. 58 The industrial site established at Tel Goren again spread over the entire tell (which is only 2 dunams in size). The buildings spread down the slope as well, so that the settlement’s total size may be placed at approximately 4 dunams or 52.  For further discussion of the place of Jericho in the administration represented in the yehud stamp impressions, see below. 53.  For a review of the history of the excavations at Tel Goren, see NEAEHL 3:1189; Stern 2001: 136–38, 438–39; Mazar, Barag, Hadas, and Stern 2007: 11–18. 54.  For a summary of the opinions about the date of the establishment of Stratum V together with a discussion of the finds from this stratum and their significance, see Lipschits 2000a: 31–33 and Stern 2001: 136–37, 2007: 361–62. 55.  See on this subject comments by Stern (1993: 194–95; 2001: 136–37; 2007: 361–62). 56.  On the finds at this stratum, see Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1963: 24–58; NEAEHL 3:1191–92. On En Gedi’s unique products and their importance for the Judean economy at the end of the 7th and beginning of the 6th centuries b.c.e., see Lipschits 2000a: 31–42, with further literature; Mazar 2007: 19–21; Stern 2007: 361–62. 57. See: Stern 2001: 310–11; 2007: 23–28, 361–62; Stern and Matskevich 2007a: 73–75; 2007b: 77. On the date of the destruction of the settlement, see Stern 2007: 361–62, and see also Lipschits 2000a: 32, with further literature. 58.  On the date this site was built, see Mazar 1987: 86, and in contrast, see Stern 1982: 38–39; 2001: 438–39; 2007: 362–63.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

49

slightly more. 59 The main building assigned to Stratum IV is a large structure (234) built of rough stones and divided into three wings on three terraces, following the terrain of the site, which extended beyond the built-up area of the Iron Age stratum. A thick plaster covered the walls and the floors, and trunks of palm trees were used for the construction of the roofs and the steps. Some 23 rooms belonged to this structure. A workshop evidently existed in one of them (room 231). This room included a plastered pool, loom weights, bottles, and other industrial installations and tools. To the south of building 234 stood a large building, probably public, and other houses lay to the west, south, and east (Stern 2001: 439; Stern and Matskevich 2007: 193–97). The site of En Gedi was destroyed at the end of the 5th or at the beginning of the 4th century b.c.e. The majority of the Attic pottery discovered at the site dates to the last three quarters of the 5th century and to the early 4th century b.c.e. Only a small amount of pottery discovered on the floors of the western wing of building 234 could be dated to the later 4th century b.c.e. Accordingly, the excavators concluded that there were two main chronological phases in the Persian Period: the first and main phase at the site dated to the 5th and the beginning of the 4th century b.c.e.; while a second phase, after the destruction of the site, occupied only the western part of the main building until the middle of the 4th century b.c.e. 60 c.  Central Production Centers: Rogem Gannim and the Rephaim Basin The site of Rogem Gannim (Rujm eṭ-Ṭârūd) 61 assumes a significant place in the discussion. It is located 9 km west-southwest of the City of David, at the western edge of the upper part of the Rephaim catchment, about 7 km west of Ramat Raḥel. Clear visual contact exists between the two sites. In addition to a large tumulus (9 m high and 40 m across), excavators uncovered a site of agricultural industry and storage, which contained winepresses, storage caves, and plastered cisterns, but no architecture. The pottery discovered at the site mostly included jars, and most of the repertoire dates to the late Iron Age and to the Persian Period. One of the winepresses was sealed by a fill containing pottery from these two periods only (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 229, and fig. 2). The Iron Age jars include the lmlk type with 4 stamped handles from the late 8th and 7th centuries b.c.e. Excavators recovered 4 other handles stamped with concentric circles, and 3 rosette stamp impressions from the late 7th and early 6th century b.c.e. Many Persian-Period storage jars come from the site. Stamped handles of this period include: 3 lion stamp impressions from the 6th century b.c.e., 2 yehud stamp-impressions from the early types dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e., and 5 yehud stamp impressions from the middle types dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries b.c.e. (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 231–33, fig. 3 on p. 234, p. 240). 59.  On the structures assigned to the Persian Period and their design, and on the characteristics of the settlement of this period, see Stern and Matskevich 2007: 362–63. 60. See: Mazar and Dunayevski 1967: 138; Stern 2001: 439, 2007: 363; Stern and Matskevich 2007: 230–42. 61.  On the history of research of this site, see Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 229.

50

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

No Hellenistic remains come from the site, which dovetails with the absence of yehud stamp impressions of the late types. Rogem Gannim produced the largest collection of yehud stamp impressions from an agricultural site. This is especially noteworthy given the absence of architectural finds at the site. Rogem Gannim was an economic-agricultural site in the Rephaim basin that functioned in tandem with the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel (Greenberg and Cinamon 2000; 2002; 2006: 229, 233–35; Lipschits and Godot 2008). These two sites may also have functioned together with other small hamlets, farms, and agricultural installations in this area, all of them with late Iron Age and Persian-Period pottery and probably attached to winepresses. These include a farm at Khirbet er-Ras (Feig 1996; Edelstein 2000); a possible farm and winepresses at Beit Safafa (Feig 2003); a cave site excavated near the Holyland Hotel (Ben-Arieh 2000); and probably also the sites at Manaḥat, Givʿat Massuah, and some other small sites, most of them connected to the processing of grapes (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 233–35). Greenberg and Cinamon tabulated 35 winepresses at these sites, together with numerous other installations connected to wine production such as plastered tanks and storage caves (2006: 234–36 and table 2). 62 The absence of silos like those discovered at the nearby site of Moza (De Groot and Greenhut 2002: 8–11; Greenhut 2006: 195–281), and of animal pens or corrals so common in other areas of the hill country, also point to wine production as the raison d’etre for these sites. 63 Greenberg and Cinamon connect the settlement in the region around Rogem Gannim to “a highly specialized agricultural economy, designed to produce large surpluses of the central hills’ only cash-crop: wine-grapes” (2006: 235). In agreement with Walsh (2000: 96–99), they emphasize that the south-facing slopes of the Rephaim Valley are particularly well suited for viticulture. The sites on the ridges overlooking this wine country were designed to administer this economic sector, to gather and protect the produce (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 235). Although no continuous stratigraphic sequence exists at such small sites, Greenberg and Cinamon hypothesize on the basis of the chronological distribution of the jar stamps that the area served as Jerusalem’s southwestern wine country from the 8th to the 5th centuries b.c.e. (2006: 236–38). Following other scholars, Greenberg and Cinamon connected the development of the Rephaim basin in the latter part of the 8th century b.c.e. with the development of Jerusalem during the same period (compare, however, the view of Naʾaman [2006] that Jerusalem developed more gradually throughout the 8th century b.c.e., a view that may suggest an earlier and slower development of the Rephaim Basin). Like Faust (2003), they explain the regional development in connection with a process of specialization, when land was allotted to producers with the understanding that they would specialize in the production of wine, perhaps accompanied by a subsidy. Following Naʾaman’s suggestion (2006) and based on the detailed discussion by Lipschits and Gadot (2008), we hypothesize that the development of the Rephaim 62.  Excavators discovered 8 winepresses at Rogem Gannim, 16 at the nearby site of Manaḥat, and others at Givʿat Massuah (5), Beit Safafa (4), and Khirbet er-Ras (2). 63.  On this subject, see Faust 2003.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

51

basin was connected to the emergence of Ramat Raḥel as an administrative center in the region under Assyrian rule, and not as part of the development in Jerusalem. It follows logically that the development in the Rephim basin in the hinterland of Jerusalem was connected with the organization of royal estates in the kingdom of Judah during the late 8th and 7th centuries b.c.e. (cf. Finkelstein 1994: 174, 177–78; Fox 2000: 216–40), probably after the period when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom. The main difference between private lands (even if their produce was subsidized by the authorities) and royal estates is the degree of centralized authority of the government and the degree of freedom producers had to dispose of the products in whatever way they chose. Taxation would be instituted for private lands, while more complete control over produce would characterize royal estates. The Rephaim basin appears to have been developed as a royal estate or series of estates to supply local administrators, probably with wine. This explanation fits the centralized processing demonstrated by the concentration of winepresses unassociated with village infrastructure, the process of organized decanting and shipping of the wine, and the function of Ramat Raḥel in all of the periods in question as an administrative center in the region. We will develop this idea and our analysis of the system of royal estates in Judah in §H (pp. 762–764), but we may hypothesize that Rogem Gannim was one center of production in a system of royal estates of the Rephaim basin and that final oversight of the estates may have been centered in Ramat Raḥel immediately to the west. No yehud stamp impressions from the Persian Period come from the Rephaim Valley except for the production center of Rogem Gannim on the west and the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel on the east. One lion stamped handle was discovered at Khirbet er-Ras (not yet published), and it may be that this site will also produce Persian-Period stamp impressions in the future. Two stamp impressions from the 2nd century b.c.e. were discovered to the south of the western edge of the Rephaim basin. One was discovered in 1951 at the village of Battir (database no. 17‑7, and see Fulco 1978: 265). Another stamp impression was discovered near the village of Ḥusan, on the eastern and southern slopes of the hill where the village is situated (database no. 16-3, and see Kochavi 1972: 39). Both sites should be interpreted as small agricultural sites, situated in the same region and enjoying the same geographical conditions as Rogem Gannim, which apparently no longer functioned in this period, like Ramat Raḥel. In conjunction with the decline of Ramat Raḥel in the 2nd century b.c.e. and the disappearance of Rogem Gannim, we can hypothesize that the administrative system governing the official estates in the Rephaim Valley underwent a drastic change after the Hasmonean revolt; official estates may not have functioned any longer. d.  Small Agricultural Sites around Jerusalem 1.  Khirbet Nisya

Three stamp impressions were discovered at Khirbet Nisya: one belongs to the early types, dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. (database no. 12‑1), one

52

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

Map 4.  Location of Khirbet Nisya.

to the middle types, dated to the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e. (database no. 13‑37), and one to the late types, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. (database no. 17‑53). The site is located in the tribal territory of Benjamin, about 19 km north of Jerusalem, 2 km southeast of el-Bireh and 3 km northeast of Tell en-Naṣbeh. Excavations between 1979 and 2002 yielded finds from the Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age I and II, and the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and early Byzantine periods (Livingston 2003). Livingston (2003: 79–86) assigned only one plastered wall to the Persian Period, attached to which was a pit with Persian-Period finds. Pottery from the Middle Bronze Age as well as from the Iron Age and the Persian Period came from the fill of a terrace (terrace 100), but no other architectural remains belong to the Persian Period. We may hypothesize that a small agricultural site existed in part of the area during the Persian Period; it probably included agricultural installations for wine or oil where the storage jars were filled. It is interesting to note also that one lmlk stamp impression was excvated at the site (Livingston 2003: 174, fig. 13‑20). 2.  Ḥorvat ʿAlamit

One stamp impression of type 17, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e., was discovered at the site (database no. 17‑51). The site is spread across two hills, with the bulk of the building remains on the southwestern one. It is about 2 km northeast of ʿAnate (ʿAnathoth) and controls one of the roads leading from the area north of Jerusalem down to Jericho. It was surveyed already in 1968 (Kallai, in Kochavi 1972: 187) and again as part of the survey of Benjamin (Dinur and Feig, in Broshi and Finkelstein 1993: 380–81). Many agricultural installations were discovered and recorded in the surveys, to-

2.  Archaeological Considerations

53

gether with pits, various signs of quarrying, and terraces. Most of the pottery sherds collected at the site were assigned to the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but pottery from the Iron Age, Persian, Byzantine, Middle Ages, and Ottoman periods were also discovered (Dinur and Feig, in Broshi and Finkelstein 1993: 380–81; Feig 2000: 396). On the western slope of the southwestern hill, a burial cave was excavated in 1981 and was dated to the Persian Period, mainly to the 5th century b.c.e. A few finds were dated to the Iron Age and the Roman and Byzantine periods (Dinur 1986: 18–19). These finds are in addition to 5 other burial caves excavated already in 1973. Excavators recovered pottery of the Persian Period in one of the caves, including the yehud stamp impression, a yršlm stamp impression, and a cross ( ṭet) stamp impression. 3.  Tell el-Fûl

Tell el-Fûl, identified by many scholars as Gibeah, 64 is 5 km north of the City of David, on the main road leading from Jerusalem to the north. One yehud stamp impression from the late types was discovered at the site but without any archaeological context (database no. 17‑4), together with a yršlm stamp impression. N. Lapp (1981: 113) dated it to the 2nd century b.c.e. (Stage IVb: 135–100 b.c.e.). The excavations at the site were conducted under the direction of Albright (1922–23; 1933) and P. Lapp (“emergency excavations” in 1964). Albright (1924: 20; 1933: 10) dated fortress IIIa to the beginning of the 7th century; he dated fortress IIIb to the second half of the 7th century and its destruction to the beginning of the 6th century (cf. Sinclair 1960: 33; Lapp 1981: 39, 59). Albright (1924: 25–27), followed by Sinclair (1960: 34), did not ascribe a specific stratum to the Persian Period, although many finds dating to this period had been unearthed. He believed that settlement at the site was renewed only in the 4th century (Stratum IV). Sinclair (1960: 34–35) argued that at the beginning of the Hellenistic period houses were built on the east side of the site, and a new fortress was erected on the remains of the Israelite fortress. The inner space was filled with stones, and only three small rooms remained at the center as a base of a watchtower (Albright 1924: 25–27, 54, and pls. 23, 24a:C). These conclusions were greeted with fierce criticism (Franken 1961: 471–72; Amiran 1962: 263–64; Finkelstein 1988: 56–60). Sinclair suggested dividing Stratum IV into two stages and shortened the interval during which the site was deserted (1964: 60). He suggested that the site was resettled as early as the end of the 6th century (Stratum IVa). 65 P. Lapp (1965: 6–10) was of the opinion that this settlement was abandoned around 450 b.c.e. and that it was resettled again only in the Hellenistic period. In her summary report on the last season at the site (1964), N. Lapp argued that the Babylonian destruction at the site was selective, and despite the razing of the fortress and one of the buildings, settlement on the northeast of the site 64.  For a thorough discussion of this subject, see Arnold 1990: 39–60. 65.  N. Lapp (1981) gave this stratum a different number (IIIb) because, in her opinion, it is the direct continuation of the stratum of the end of the Iron Age (III).

54

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

continued to exist throughout the 6th century (Lapp 1981: 40–46). According to N. Lapp (1981: 39, 59), the site was abandoned at the end of the 6th century, or even at the beginning of the fifth, until the beginning of the Hellenistic period. In any event, the site was deserted until it was resettled in the 3rd century b.c.e. Many finds were assigned to the 2nd century b.c.e., and it seems that the settlement from this period was spread all over the tell, even beyond the Iron Age city wall. Many agricultural installations were assigned to this stratum, and it seems that an unwalled village was situated in the site. The yehud stamp impression as well as the yršlm stamp impression belong to this phase of the settlement. 4.  Bethany Two stamp impressions were unearthed at Bethany, both of them belong to the late types and are dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. (database nos. 17‑5, 17‑6). Saller excavated the site between 1949 and 1953 (Saller 1957). It is situated inside the village of El-ʿEzariyeh, east of Jerusalem. The excavations focused on the ancient churches and the monastery, although excavators recovered finds from the Middle Bronze Age and Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods (Saller 1957: 3–8). None of the finds unearthed came from secure stratigraphic contexts, but instead they originated in pits, cisterns, caves, and tombs. Most of the PersianPeriod finds were excavated in the dump that was probably thrown into a columbarium (locus 65) when a cistern was excavated during the medieval period (Saller 1957: 192–96). Two yršlm stamp impressions, also dated to the 2nd century b.c.e., appeared together with the yehud stamp impressions discovered in locus 65 (Saller 1957: 192–93, fig. 37, and pl. 111:a), while Saller dated one geometric stamp impression to the Persian Period (1957: 195–96, pl. 111:d). 5.  Ḥorvat HaMoza (Khirbet Bet-Mizah)

One stamp impression belonging to the late types, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e., comes from Ḥorvat HaMoza (database no. 17‑52). The site is situated on the northern end of Mevasseret Zion, about 9 km westnorthwest of the City of David and about 1 km north of the modern road connecting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Excavators conducted salvage seasons at the site in 1991 and 1993, before construction began in the area, during which they discovered a 20-dunam site with numerous agricultural installations (including 7 winepresses), building remains (mainly on the eastern slope of the hill), pits, caves, quarrying remains, one columbarium, and 3 Jewish ritual baths (Billig 1995: 71–72). Some pottery sherds from the Iron Age and the Persian Period were discovered, but most of the pottery dates to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The discovery of a single stamp impression at the site matches the other finds, and we can conclude that a small agricultural site existed here during the 2nd century b.c.e. 6.  Belmont Castle

A single, unique stamp impression, judged to belong among the early types and dating to the late 6th or 5th centuries b.c.e. was excavated at Belmont Castle. The site is located near Ṣuba, about 11 km west of Jerusalem. There are no clear

2.  Archaeological Considerations

55

stratigraphic data or other evidence from this site in the Persian Period. The stamp impression was discovered in a fill in the Byzantine fort. It was discovered together with finds from the Byzantine, Roman, Hellenistic, Persian, and Iron II periods, together with Roman and Hellenistic coins and a single mwṣh stamp impression. 7.  Ṣuba

One stamp impression belonging to the late types, dated to the 2nd century b.c.e., originated at the site (database no. 16‑45). Excavators recovered the stamp impression in a fill of a plastered reservoir that belonged to a monumental Iron Age II water system, located on the land of Ṣuba (Kibbutz Tzuba), not far from Ein Kerem in the Judean Hills west of Jerusalem (Gibson 2004; Finkielsztejn and Gibson 2007). The water system went out of use during the late Iron Age, but the reservoir continued to be used for the collection of rainwater until the 2nd century b.c.e. The stamped handle came from the uppermost part of the fill in the reservoir (Locus 166), together with pottery vessels dated to the second half of the 2nd century b.c.e. (Finkielsztejn and Gibson 2007: 104–7). 8.  Ḥusan

The village of Ḥusan was investigated as part of an emergency survey (Kochavi 1972: 39). The ancient site was probably located under the northern part of the modern village, and pottery sherds from the Iron Age and Persian Period were located on the eastern and southern slopes of the hill where the village is situated. The single stamp impression from the site belongs to the late types (database no. 16‑3), dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. e.  Sites in the Shephelah Where yehud Stamp Impressions Were Discovered 1.  Gezer

Eight stamp impressions were discovered at Gezer; 5 of them belong to the late types, 2 belong to the early types, and 1 to the middle types. The site was excavated between 1902 and 1909 by Macalister (Macalister 1912). Rowe excavated a small area in 1934, and then, between 1964 and 1984, excavators led 10 excavation seasons at the site (Wright 1964–65; Dever 1966–71, 1984; and Seger 1973–72). 66 The site was destroyed, probably by the Assyrians, at the beginning of the last third of the 8th century b.c.e. (Stratum VIa), 67 and only scanty remains were located at the site from Stratum Vb (late 8th to early 7th centuries b.c.e.; Assyrian era) and Stratum Va (late 7th to early 6th centuries b.c.e.; possibly Judahite occupation) (Gitin 1990: 16–18; 1996: 81, table 1; Dever 1998: 188–89; Vaughn 1999a: 66.  For the main reports, see Dever, Lance, and Wright 1970; Dever et.al. 1974: 70, 73; Dever 1986: 19, 20–25, 29; Seger 1988; Gitin 1990: 16, 30. Cf. Finkelstein 2002: 286. 67. See: Dever, Lance, and Wright 1970: 6; Dever et.al. 1974: 69–73; Dever 1998: 184–85; Gitin 1990: 17; 1996: 81, table 1; Finkelstein 1994: 280–81; Stern 2001: 50. See, however, the claims of Mazar (1994: 259–60) regarding Gezer’s destruction during Sennacherib’s campaign and the reply of Vaughn (1999a: 147–50) to Mazar’s claims, using the historical material, especially the Assyrian relief depicting Gezer’s conquest by Tiglath Pileser III.

56

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

149–50). However, Reich and Brandl argue that in this period Gezer was an unfortified Assyrian administrative center (1985: 41–54), basing their conclusion on the typical Assyrian architecture and two Assyrian cuneiform tablets discovered by Macalister (1912: frontispiece and 1:22–30) near Area VI, dated to 651 and 649 b.c.e. (Reich and Brandl 1985: 41, with further literature; Stern 2001: 51). An Assyrian citadel may have stood on the summit of the tell. Gezer was integrated into the kingdom of Judah at the end of the Iron Age, after the collapse of Assyrian control in the region, and was destroyed again as part of the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Judah (Gitin 1990: 17; 1996: 81, table 1; Dever 1998: 192; Stern 2001: 140, 320). There was a settlement gap at the site during the 6th century, lasting perhaps until the early 5th century b.c.e. (Gitin 1996: 81, table 1; Dever 1998: 192). Pottery sherds, largely from backfills, pits, and tombs, were generally dated to Stratum IV of the Persian Period (5th–4th centuries b.c.e.) (Gitin 1990: 18–19; 1996: 89; Dever 1998: 192–95). Finds from the Persian Period were also discovered in Macalister’s excavations, 68 and according to Dever (1998: 192), Stern assigned most of them to the 4th century b.c.e. Finds from Areas II and VII of the modern excavations at the site included some floors, walls, pits, quantities of pottery, an ostracon, and other Persian-Period finds. In Area VII, excavators differentiated between two different levels (IVb and IVa) (Dever 1998: 192). After a gap during most of the 3rd century b.c.e., there is a late-3rd-century (early Hellenistic and Ptolemaic) settlement (Stratum III), followed by a Seleucidera occupation from the early and middle 2nd century b.c.e. (Stratum IIc). Stratum IIb and IIa from the late Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods were followed by the Maccabean destruction of Stratum IIc, probably the destruction described in 1 Macc 13:43–48, dated to 142 b.c.e. (Reich 1981: 48, with further literature; cf. Seger 1976: 142–44). The 5 late yehud stamp impressions discovered at the site belong to the period before the destruction (Gitin 1990: 25–26, 238–61; 1996: 81, table 1, 90–91; as against Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: 67–68; and see also Dever 1998: 195–200). 2.  Tel Ḥarasim

Excavators recovered two stamp impressions belonging to the early types (late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e.) at Tel Ḥarasim (database nos. 7‑1; 8‑1). The site is situated about 3 km east of Nahal Barkai in the northern Shephelah, 3 km north-northwest of Tel Safi near the entrance to Kefar Menachem. It is a 35-dunam site that Givʿon excavated between 1989 and 2000 (Givʿon 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2004). He recovered finds from the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Iron Age II on the slopes around the tell and remains from the Iron Age II and the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods on the tell itself. The Persian Period (Stratum III) yielded scant architectural remains, but excavators found a few installations, including 3 ovens, a kiln, a floor, and a granary. 68. See: Macalister 1912: 1:xxi; 2:213, fig. 364; 220, fig. 372; 224–25; 3: pls. 44:13; 170:1; 179:29; 182:6; 185–87.

2.  Archaeological Considerations

57

The excavated area might well have belonged to an industrial complex. Quantities of pottery and a figurine were excavated, together with the 2 stamp impressions (Givʿon 1994: 73; 1998: 10–11; 2004). f.  A Note on Sites in Benjamin Where No yehud Stamp Impressions Were Discovered Pritchard (1964: 27) argued that Gibeon (el-Jib) was destroyed at the beginning of the 6th century b.c.e. and that a settlement interval followed at the site until the 1st century b.c.e. Lipschits (1999: 172–76), on the contrary, claimed that Gibeon was not destroyed at the beginning of the 6th century but instead increased in importance. The site was settled until at least the beginning of the Persian Period, probably until the beginning of the 5th century b.c.e. Stern argued that the gap at el-Jib extended from the beginning of the 5th century b.c.e. to the Hellenistic period (1982: 207–9; 2001: 336–38). Epigraphic finds, including the Gibeon jar handles incised in Hebrew, support this reconstruction (see Vanderhooft forthcoming). The discovery of 4 mwṣh stamp impressions and the absence of yhwd stamp impressions at the site is also significant. Gibeon persisted through the period when the mwṣh stamped jars proliferated, in the middle of the 6th century, but was apparently abandoned soon after. This supports the view that the mwṣh stamp impressions preceded the yehud stamp impressions, which then predominate in the late 6th century and following. If we adopt the explanation that the mwṣh stamp impressions show the place of manufacture of oil or wine from an official estate that supplied produce to local officials who resided in Mizpah (Zorn 1997: 37; Lipschits 2005: 149–52), we can understand why most of the mwṣh stamp impressions were found at Tell en-Naṣbeh. This also explains the difference in distribution between the mwṣh stamp impressions and the gbʿn gdr incised handles. The total absence of yehud stamp impressions from Gibeon supports the conclusion that there was a gap in the settlement of the site between the 5th and the 2nd centuries b.c.e. Bethel likewise did not produce yehud stamp impressions, while only a single late stamp impression comes from Tell el-Fûl. This points to the marginal importance of the area of Benjamin in the administration of Judah throughout the Persian Period with the exception of two sites: Tell en-Naṣbeh and Nebi Samwil (on which see above, pp. 42–46). g.  Sites Outside the Borders of Judah Where yehud Stamp Impressions Were Discovered 1.  Two sites on the caravan route leading south and east from the southern coastal plain

One stamp impression assigned to the middle types, dated to the 5th and 4th centuries b.c.e. (database no. 14‑66), was discovered at the fortress near the oasis of Kadesh Barnea. The site is located on the caravan route leading from the Coastal Plain to the Gulf of Eilat and Arabia. It was excavated in 1956 by Dothan and between 1976 and in 1982 by Cohen (1983a, 1983b; and see the summary in

58

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

NEAEHL; Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007). Excavators reconstruct 5 main stages of settlement at the site: the “pre-fortress” and “Oval Fortress” of Stratum 4 (C-A) settlement from Iron Age IIA (10th century b.c.e.); the rectangular fortress of Stratum 3 (C-A) settlement from Iron Age IIB (second half of the 8th century b.c.e.); the rectangular fortress with casemate wall of Stratum 2 from Iron Age IIC (late 7th–early 6th centuries b.c.e.); and the unfortified settlement of Stratum 1 from the Babylonian(?) and Persian periods, dated to the 6th (?) to the 4th centuries b.c.e. (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 4–18). Cohen thought that the Judean kings built the Iron Age fort to defend the road crossing through the desert from Judah to Egypt, first in the United Monarchy (Stratum 4), continuing with King Uzziah or another Judean king of that time (Stratum 3) and Josiah (Stratum 2) (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007: 9, 13, 16–17, with further literature; see also Stern 2001: 156–58). Naʾaman, focusing on Strata 3 and 2, interpreted the site as one of three Assyrian fortresses built in the peripheral desert areas of southern Palestine along the trade routes that connected Arabia with Transjordan, Judah, and the southern Coastal Plain (the other two fortresses were ʿEn-Haṣeva and Tell el-Kheleifeh; Naʾaman 2001: 267–268). The Persian-Period remains include an unwalled settlement on the remains of the last Iron Age fort. The inner space of the fort became a dwelling, and some new structures were built (Dothan 1965: 134–51; cf. Stern 2001: 453). In some cases, the excavators detected the reuse of some of the rooms of the Iron Age fort, but most of the finds from the Persian Period were discovered in pits, which included local and imported pottery sherds, an ostracon, and the single yehud stamp impression. One stamp impression of type 14a (database no. 14‑1), dated to the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e., was discovered at Tell Jemmeh. The site is located on the southern bank of Nahal Besor, 10 km south of Gaza, on the important trade route from the Arabian peninsula through the Beersheba-Arad Valley (or through Kadesh Barnea) in the direction of Gaza. Sellin discovered the stamp impression on the tell in 1912 (Sellin 1935: 78), even before the site was first excavated (1922 by Phythian-Adams; 1926–27 by Petrie, and after 1970 by Van Beek; see the summary in NEAEHL 2:667–74, with previous literature). The site was an important administrative and economic center, the seat of Assyrian officials in the Nahal Besor area during the 7th century. Van Beek dated the remarkable “bee-hive” mud-brick building and the adjacent structures, as well as the casemate wall, to the time when Esarhaddon conducted three military campaigns in the area (674, 671, 669 b.c.e.; see NEAEHL 2:672). Naʾaman and Zadok (1988; see also Naʾaman 2001: 263–64, with further literature), however, proposed that the Assyrian presence began under Sargon II (ca. 715 b.c.e.) after he brought deportees from the Iranian plateau. The site’s status during the Persian Period remains unclear. Most scholars no longer accept Petrie’s date for Stratum A-B—which includes a large structure (BAA-BY) and an impressive fort—at the end of the 5th and 4th centuries. Stern (2001: 413) instead reconstructed three different phases at the site during the

3.  Petrography of the yehud Jar Stamp Impressions

59

Persian Period. The first structure at the site was the fortress, with a central open court and double lines of rooms to the south and north and one line of rooms to the west and probably also to the the east. This is the largest structure excavated at the site, measuring 29 × 38 m, perhaps representing an important administrative center in the Nahal Besor region, which may have had an analogous role to that of the Assyrian period. After the destruction of the fortress, another building was built (Petrie’s building B—the Palace) that had two separate units, each with a central courtyard enclosed by rooms. Near this building, a large storehouse was built on the south side of the excavated area. After the destruction of this phase, round granaries were built throughout the site, which apparently served as a supply depot. In Van Beek’s excavations, he discovered ostraca within the granaries indicating that grain was collected and stored there as part of a taxation system. There was another small storage facility on the east slope of the mound for storing wine (Van Beek 1983: 18–19; Stern 2001: 412). The important role of the site continued into the 3rd century b.c.e., when it was a central site for storing grain (Van Beek 1983: 18–19; but see the reservations of Tal 2007: 90–91). 2.  Tell Nimrin

Tell Nimrin is situated about 16 km east of Jericho and 12 km north of the Dead Sea. From the Persian and Hellenistic period there is no clear stratum but only pottery sherds and a single yehud stamp impression (Flanagan, McCreery, and Yassine 1996).

3.  Petrography of the yehud Jar Stamp Impressions   69 In the process of conducting our research on the corpus of yehud stamp impressions, petrographic samples were taken for about 50% of the entire corpus, including examples from all of the major types. Several specific research questions guided the petrographic study, which Goren conducted. Analysis of the earlier lmlk store jar corpus proved that the raw materials for lmlk jar manufacture originated within a single region in the upper Shephelah (Mommsen et al. 1984; Gunneweg et al. 1985: 272–78; Yellin 2003; Yellin and Cahill 2004). Petrographic data moved this conclusion a step further, suggesting that the raw materials, namely terra rossa soil and mixed quartz and limestone–chalk–nari sand, must have originated from the higher Shephelah, most likely in the Elah Valley vicinity (Goren and Halperin 2004). These conclusions for the lmlk jars prompted us to ask whether the clay for the yehud stamp impressions originated in one or more areas of Yehud. Distribution patterns for Yehud jars changed over time, but did the system for manufacturing the jars change with it? Was there a central production site for the jars? If the clay for the jars originated in a specific area, how can we reconstruct the system by which they were transported throughout the province and by which they reached the sites at which excavators have recovered them? 69.  This section presents a condensed version of a fuller anlysis, conducted with Yuval Goren, of the petrographic origins of the clay for yehud stamp impression types (Goren, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft forthcoming).

60

B. Geopolitical and Archaeological Considerations

a.  Method and Materials Exemplars numbering 269 (46%) were sampled for petrographic analysis. The sampled population is divided as follows: • of the 128 stamp impressions belonging to the early types (late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e.), 58 handles (45%) were sampled • of the 312 stamp impressions belonging to the middle types (4th–3rd centuries b.c.e.), 157 (50%) were sampled • of the 142 stamp impressions belonging to late types (2nd century b.c.e.), 54 (38%) were sampled

The geographical distribution of the sampled vessels—that is, the place of their excavation—was also recorded. Of the total of 308 stamp impressions discovered at Ramat Raḥel, 160 (52%) were sampled. Examples also come from the other main sites: Jerusalem (including both the City of David and, for the latest types, the Western Hill; 90 out of 163, or 55.5%); Tell en-Naṣbeh (6 out of 19, or 31.5%); En Gedi (6 of 10, or 60%); and Gezer (2 of 9, or 22%). In addition, 5 samples were taken from 12 stamp impressions of unknown origin. To determine the provenance of individual samples, they were submitted for petrographic analysis. The reference material for comparative analysis included the petrographic database of the Laboratory for Comparative Microarchaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. The petrographic analysis follows standard procedures. In previous studies, based on a comprehensive sample of thin sections of ceramic vessels from sites in Israel, a number of petrographic groups were defined and correlated with specific lithological environments. The groups described in the current study bear typical attributes, which provide the basis for the assessment of their geographical origin and thus are appropriate for provenance studies. b. Results The petrographic examination of the entire population of samples revealed that, apart from a tiny number, all of the yehud-stamped vessels were uniform in their raw materials and technology and hence also their presumed provenance. Based on the extensive body of reference material, this petrographic group is identified as originating from clay of the upper member of the Moza formation, mixed with dolomitic sand that was quarried from the capping ʿAmminadav formation. The ʿAmminadav-Moza petrographic group dominates large areas of the central hill country, especially around Jerusalem. We can conclude that the clay of the stamped jars originated in the region around Jerusalem. This did not vary during the 4 centuries when the jars were being stamped. Therefore, even when excavations yield jars from sites relatively farther from Jerusalem, such as Gezer and Tel Ḥarasim in the west and Jericho and En Gedi in the east, we should conclude that the clay originated near Jerusalem and that the jars were manufactured in the central hill country, probably near Jerusalem. The process for filling the jars requires explanation, but we may conclude that potters manufactured

3.  Petrography of the yehud Jar Stamp Impressions

61

the jars in the vicinity of Jerusalem. The seals were impressed on the jars before firing, so we may conclude that this happened in the region where the clay originated and the jars were manufactured.

C. The Paleographical Framework for the yehud Stamp Impressions

1.  Chronological Framework Sufficient Aramaic epigraphs date between the 7th and 3rd centuries b.c.e. to establish a fairly accurate typological sequence for the Aramaic lapidary script, as Naveh showed in his seminal study (1970; cf. Rosenbaum 1978). 1 During these centuries, however, the more widely used, more rapidly developing Aramaic cursive script influenced the development of the lapidary. The pressure on the lapidary from the cursive script, and to a lesser extent from inscriptions on clay tablets—that is, the argillary script—resulted in what Naveh termed “a struggle between the cursive and the older forms” (Naveh 1970: 18, 52–54). Naveh thus concluded that the lapidary script only stabilized during the Persian era, specifically in the 5th and 4th centuries (1970: 19). This script, in turn, finally fell into disuse in the early Hellenistic era, by about the end of the 3rd century (Cross 1969b; Naveh 1995a: 2–3; Magen, Misgav, and Tsafania 2004: 36–37). The seals used to produce the yehud stamp impressions were engraved in lapidary Aramaic on hard material, with a very few exceptions where cursive letter forms appear. Some of the latest types include Paleo-Hebrew letter forms. None of the actual seals has ever been recovered in an excavation, but the presumption must be that they were of stone or other hard materials. 2 Debate persists concerning the relative date of the seals within the lapidary sequence. Naveh (1970) and Avigad (1976) made the most thorough studies of the question (see, earlier, Garbini 1962). They concluded, as Cross had earlier in a brief study (1969a​[2003]), 1.  It is unnecessary for present purposes to discuss the emergence of the Aramaic script from its Phoenician parent in the early 9th century as attested, e.g., in the Gozan pedestal inscription (Müller and Dankwarth 1988; Cross 1995), the Bir-Hadad inscription, and in the 9th-century Aramaic stele fragments from Tel Dan (Naveh and Biran 1993; 1995). 2.  Avigad did publish a modern impression (but no photograph) from what he described as an unprovenanced conoid seal of reddish limestone, with a 15 × 21 mm face, and a height of 36 mm, which reads yhd (1976: 10 and pl. 15, seal 13). The impression resembles but is not identical to those of our type 13g. As Avigad noted, none of the known jar stamp impressions was produced by the seal he published. The whereabouts of the seal are unknown, and we exclude it from our catalogue because its authenticity cannot be verified. The same holds for the seal of Shelomith, a black scaraboid of polished stone, also published by Avigad (1976: 11 and pl. 15, seal 14). Cross published a large soapstone seal of the Persian era reading šlmy / hʿd ‘Shelomay the witness’ (1969: 26–27, pl. V: 3–4), which does not formally belong to the Yehud corpus.

62

2.  Arrival of Aramaic Script in Yehud

63

that the Aramaic seals belonged to the Persian Period. The broad categorization suggested by Cross (1969a) and Avigad (1974; 1976) lumped the yehud stamp impressions into two distinct groups of stamp impressions, those in Aramaic and those in Paleo-Hebrew (also Garbini 1964: 63). Cross offered a general chronological framework for the yehud stamp impressions as follows: “(1) stamps of Persian date inscribed in lapidary Aramaic and (2) stamps of Hellenistic date inscribed mostly in Paleo-Hebrew” (Cross 1969a: 22 [2003: 140]). Following Cross, Avigad stated similarly that “the legends of the yhd/yhwd jar handles may be divided into two major groups: those in the Aramaic script dating from the Persian Period (4th century b.c.); and those in the palaeo-Hebrew script dating from the Hellenistic period (3rd–2nd centuries b.c.)” (1974: 52). Although previous scholars assumed that these two categories may have overlapped—and it is likely that the lapidary Aramaic and early Jewish scripts did overlap (see Magen, Misgav, and Tsafania 2004: 30–41)—our analysis shows that the purely Paleo-Hebrew seals were produced substantially later than those that used Aramaic. Nevertheless, the framework offered by the scholars just mentioned remains valid. Reexamination of the script of all the yehud stamp impressions together with historical, comparative and stratigraphic data, however, permits a more precise calibration of the relative chronology for individual yehud stamp impression types within this framework. Form and content of the yehud stamp impressions provides the terminus a quo for the seals (see Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007b), while stratigraphic context is decisive for the terminus ante quem in the 2nd century (Geva 2007; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a). The chronological framework for the corpus thus extends from the second half of the 6th century to the late 2nd century. The latest stamp types, 16 and 17, are in Paleo-Hebrew script and belong to the Hasmonean period (see §G-1, pp. 593–594); they will not be treated here together with analysis of the lapidary Aramaic script. The early and middle types, 1–15, range from the 6th to the 3rd centuries. Paleographic and other considerations show that types 1–12 belong to the 6th and 5th centuries. The seals of types 1–12 were incised in lapidary Aramaic, with a few cursive forms appearing among the latest types. Types 13–15 belong to the late Persian and the early Hellenistic periods; they were also incised using the Aramaic script, although at least one non-Aramaic letter form, he, appears occasionally in subtypes of 13 and 14.

2.  Arrival of Aramaic Script in Yehud The use of the lapidary Aramaic script in the yehud stamp impressions —and also in the mwṣh stamp impressions of the 6th century (Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994)—represents an innovation over against the exclusive use of the Hebrew script on seals of the late Judean Kingdom. Official seals and seal impressions from Judah that date to the last decades of the kingdom are well attested (provenanced examples appear, e.g., in Avigad and Sass 1997; Vaughn 1999a; Shoham 2000). The appearance of official seals with Aramaic script and language thus represents a dramatic and evidently quite sudden change (Avigad 1976; cf., for

C. The Paleographical Framework

Fig. 1.  Aramaic scripts.

64

3.  Outline of the Development of the Script

65

Transjordan, Lemaire 1994b). 3 This change can hardly have happened before the collapse of the Judean Kingdom and must have occurred during either the Babylonian or, more likely, Achaemenid domination in the region. 4 The paleographic indications discussed below strongly indicate that a formal version of the Aramaic script was introduced into Judah during the mid-6th century b.c.e. Numerous conservative, if not archaic, forms appear in the script of the yehud stamp impressions that we judge to be among the earliest (especially types 1–6). Some letters in these stamps only appear in conservative forms characteristic of the 7th and 6th centuries: e.g., ʾalep, mem, and perhaps reš. Other letters are known in their conservative 7th–6th-century forms in one yehud stamp impression type but appear in more developed, “classic” forms of the Persian-Period lapidary in others: e.g., dalet, waw, and yod. This phenomenon of the coexistence of conservative and advanced forms is apparent too in Aramaic texts from elsewhere in the ancient Near East during the 6th century (Naveh 1970: 15; Avigad 1976; and especially Sass and Marzahn 2010: 156, fig. 1011, and p. 161). During the 5th century, however, the “classic” forms replace the more archaic ones and become completely dominant. Thus, the script that appears in the earliest seals must have been adopted before the 5th century (Vanderhooft 2011). The present survey aims to provide a paleographic framework within which to situate the Aramaic script of the yehud stamp impressions that date between the 6th and 3rd centuries: that is, the yehud stamp impressions of types 1–15. The paleography of individual seals and their subtypes along with the relative chronological placement of the individual types will then be treated in the particular chapters devoted to each type. Attention in the present discussion (and associated script chart, see fig. 1) is devoted mainly to lapidary and sometimes argillary inscriptions, not to the evolution of the Aramaic cursive, because the script on seals (and coins) resembles the lapidary, not the cursive. Certain aspects of the development of the cursive, however, can illuminate developments in the lapidary and argillary scripts and will be mentioned where appropriate.

3.  Outline of the Development of the Script We follow Naveh (1970) in dividing the development of the Aramaic lapidary into several chronological periods. 5 1.  The first phase includes the earliest Aramaic inscriptions in the ninth century and the emergence of the characteristic features of the script through the 8th 3.  The present discussion does not treat the problem of the continued use of Hebrew as a vernacular in Judah during the Persian Period, on which, see Schniedewind 2006; Kottsieper 2007; differently, Polak 2006. 4.  Several groups of Hebrew epigraphs may indicate that Hebrew persisted for a time after the collapse of the kingdom and before Aramaic became dominant. These include the Gibeon jar handles, the Ketef Hinnom silver amulets, and a seal published by Peilstöcker and Sass (2001: 199–210). 5.  A comprehensive bibliography for each inscription cited in the present discussion may be had in Kaufman and Fitzmyer (1992). We have generally not included other Aramaic seals in the present paleographic discussion because these are very rarely from secure stratigraphic contexts or dated with any precision.

66

C. The Paleographical Framework

century. 6 This period of development falls outside the chronological framework for the yehud stamp impressions and will only be considered by way of general comparison. 2.  The second major phase is represented by inscriptions of the 7th and 6th centuries (Naveh 1970: 15–21; Sass and Marzahn 2010: 151–62). During this phase, the Aramaic language and script achieved an important administrative status in the Neo-Assyrian empire, a phenomenon that continued into the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras (Greenfield 1985: 698–700; Tadmor 1991). The frequency of its use increased during these centuries, including in dockets on cuneiform tablets (e.g., Lidzbarski 1921; Lieberman 1968; Fales 1986; Röllig 1999) and in other nonmonumental and cursive texts. This increased use and the emergence of the cursive resulted in some development of the lapidary script too. 3.  The third phase corresponds with the emergence of what Naveh called the “classic” lapidary script in the Persian Period (1970: 52–58), broadly in the 5th and 4th centuries (see also Degen, Müller, and Röllig 1974: 2:98; Cross 1986). 4.  The fourth phase corresponds with the last major period of use for the lapidary script in the late Persian and early Hellenistic era, when the script was increasingly replaced by local variants of the Aramaic (Cross 1966; Naveh 1995; Yardeni 2000: 151–61). A large new corpus of monumental inscriptions of this period in lapidary Aramaic and its successor scripts comes from Mt. Gerizim, in Samaria (Magen, Misgav, and Tsafania 2004). In addition, coin legends on 4th‑ and 3rd-century issues from Yehud and Samaria often bear Aramaic text. 7 5. In the fifth and final phase, in the Hasmonean period, only the PaleoHebrew script was used in Yehud for seals, coins, and display inscriptions, while the lapidary Aramaic disappeared completely for these purposes. By this time, distinctive scripts had consolidated in the local communities where Northwest Semitic languages continued in use. 8 The Aramaic Yehud stamp impressions belong mainly to phases 2 and 3, with one or perhaps two types orginating in the fourth phase.

4.  The Development of the Lapidary Script and the Place of yehud Stamp Impressions in the Sequence ʾAlep appears in types 1 (twice), 2, 7, 9, and 12. In all of these except type 12, which is too crudely incised to be of paleographic value, ʾalep preserves the form characteristic of the 7th and 6th centuries b.c.e. Early in the 7th century, lapidary ʾalep was formed by an exactly vertical or slightly left-leaning downstroke with two oblique crossbars that formed a horizontal “v” and joined to the left of the downstroke. The oblique crossbars, initially slightly rounded at their juncture, eventually meet in a sharp point. The left-leaning stance is typical of the cursive 6. See Naveh 1970: 7–15; 1982; 1992; Amadasi Guzzo 1985; Kaufman 1986; Müller and Dankwarth 1988: 73–78; Fitzmyer 1995; Naveh and Biran 1993; 1995; Lemaire 1998. 7. See Meshorer and Qedar 1991, 1999; Meshorer 2001; for Philistine coins that sometimes use Aramaic legends, see Gitler and Tal 2006. 8.  For the seminal analysis of the development of the Jewish scripts, see Cross 1961.

4.  The Development of the Lapidary Script

67

from the early 7th century on, whereas in the argillary the forms alternate (as in the Assur clay tablets, fig. 1; Fales 1986: pls. 13–14). After the mid-7th century, the tendency was for the lower crossbar to become almost parallel to an ideal baseline, while the upper remains oblique. The older type, however, still appears on a mid-6th-century Babylonian brick (CIS II 64), on another brick from the reign of Nabonidus with the king’s name, nb˹w˺nʾd (Legrain 1925: no. 1095; for definitive analysis of the bricks, see Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153), and in the Neirab clay tablets of the mid-6th century (though less pronounced: fig. 1). 9 This form appears in the 5th century rarely, e.g., in the archaizing Sayce copy of CIS II 114 (Degen, Müller, and Röllig 1974: 2.81 and pl. 7:25). In epigraphs of the 5th and 4th century, when the classic lapidary of the Persian era crystalized, the oblique upper crossbar of ʾalep first meets the lower horizontal at the vertical and then gradually moves well to the right of the downstroke (fig. 1, Saqqarah stele; Naveh 1970: figs. 10, 11; Cross 1986: 388–89: lines 5, 7). The Aramaic script of the early yehud stamp impressions thus preserves the more conservative form and would fit well in the 6th or 5th century. The script used for the yehud stamp impressions was evidently borrowed before the more conservative form of ʾalep disappeared in the 5th century. Bet appears in yehud stamp impression types 1 and 9. The examples are formed similarly, with a single downstroke that curves to the left to form a “foot” and a head formed by a single stroke that meets the downstroke about one-third of the way down. Although the head of bet in early 7th-century lapidary inscriptions was closed, its cursive counterpart was open already by the end of the 8th century (Naveh 1970: 19 and his fig. 2:3). In the clay tablets from Nineveh and Assur dating to the second half of the 7th century, the head of bet is open (fig. 1:3, 1:4). However, as Sass has shown, bet appears often and always with a closed head in Aramaic inscriptions on building bricks from Babylon dating to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 b.c.e.): e.g., in the name zbnʾ (Koldewey 1990: 92, fig. 53; Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153). The lapidary Beirut decree published by Caquot possesses open and virtually closed bets (fig. 1). 10 In lapidary inscriptions of the 5th and 4th centuries, however, bet is uniformly open. Because the open form appeared already by the end of the 7th century, the open form in the yehud stamp impressions cannot be dated with precision, but it was already well known in the lapidary of the 6th century. Gimel appears only once in the yehud stamp impressions, in type 11 (the seal of which was incised in reverse; see §E-1, pp. 229–230). From the late 7th century 9. The Neirab tablets cover a period of about 40 years, from the reign of Neriglissar (560–556 b.c.e.) to the early part of the reign of Darius I, which began in 521 b.c.e. Toponymic and prosopographical analysis of the corpus suggest Babylon rather than Syria as the place of composition, though ultimately the tablets were transported to Neirab, perhaps by a repatriated community, where they were discovered (Ephʿal 1978: 84–87). The Aramaic dockets on the Neirab tablets would then represent a small corpus of argillary letter forms from the Mesopotamian heartland in the second half of the 6th century. 10.  Herr seems to take the second exemplar of line 2 in the inscription as though it were fully closed (1978: fig. 2), but this is incorrect. There is no bet in the inscription with an entirely closed head.

68

C. The Paleographical Framework

onward, gimel tends to resemble an inverted uppercase V with legs of roughly equal length (fig. 1; Avigad 1976: 15), and it retains this form until the end of the lapidary sequence (e.g., in the Mt. Gerizim ex voto texts; Magen, Misgav, and Tsafania 2004). This is the form in our stamp impressions, and thus it is not chronologically significant. Dalet appears in all of the yehud stamp impressions except types 1 and 10 (and 14 and 15 of the middle types). It appears in two basic forms, with closed head and with open head. We judge the forms with closed head to be typologically earlier than those without. In the first half of the 7th century, dalet is closed in Neirab II (fig. 1:2) and likely in the Beirut inscription of the early 6th (fig. 1:5). In the argillary Starcky tablet of 571/570 b.c.e., one dalet verges on closure (fig. 1:6). During this period, however, the open form of dalet began to appear under cursive influence (Naveh 1970: 19 and figs. 2, 3). It is now drawn in lapidary texts with a head formed with a short vertical stroke and a horizontal that joins the main downstroke one-third of the way down. The open dalet was predominant by the late 6th century. The closed form disappeared in the classic 5th and 4th century Persian-Period lapidary script. The dalet with a closed triangular head in yehud stamp impression type 2 is thus an archaic feature (also Avigad 1976: 22; Kochman 1982: 14). Dalet is nearly closed and also patterned on the model of the triangular-headed form in yehud stamp impression types 3–5. In type 8, dalet is also closed, but here the head is rounded. A very similar form of dalet with a semicircular closed head is the norm in the Babylonian bricks of the sixth century (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153). Thus, here too, an archaic form appears in the yehud stamp impressions. 11 In the other yehud stamp impressions (types 6, 7, 9, 12, 13), we find the dalet with a squared open head, which is characteristic of the 5th‑ and 4th-century lapidary. In a few cases, the dalet appears incised in reverse (11, 12, 13f, 13i). The letter he appears in all of the Aramaic yehud stamp impressions except type 1. He in the Aramaic lapidary sequence exhibits two forms: the old, “three-bar” form has a left-leaning, slightly curved downstroke that is “flagged” beginning at the top by three shorter oblique strokes on the left; these point downward (Naveh 1970: fig. 1). A second form developed by the late 8th century and became common in the 7th century: it preserves the longer downstroke but has only one oblique stroke that meets it at the top and slopes downward to the left. From the middle of this upper oblique line, a short stroke comes down curving slightly to the left, approximately parallel to the right downstroke (Naveh 1970: 11, 19; fig. 1). 12 After the Neirab II burial inscription, the old form rarely appears. It is attested in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II on brick inscriptions from Babylon (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153 and no. 24). The Beirut decree and Starcky tablet dating to 11.  Rosenbaum exaggerates the ubiquity of the closed dalets in the early Persian Period (1978: 85–86). 12.  Note one example in the Assur clay tablets where this short downstroke joins the upper oblique at its left end rather than at its midpoint (fig. 1:4).

4.  The Development of the Lapidary Script

69

the early 6th century, however, have the more developed form, which completely replaced the old form by the end of the 6th century (Avigad 1976: 15; Rosenbaum 1978: 89; Kochman 1982: 14). In the yehud stamp impressions, types 1–12 have the classic form of the Persian Period. This more developed form tolerates minor deviation in the length of the upper oblique as well as how nearly parallel it is to the baseline. 13 A new form of he appears in several subtypes of yehud stamp impression types 13 and 14. This form resembles the archaic “three-bar” type. It can hardly represent the preservation of the old type in the Aramaic lapidary script, however, because that type disappears after the mid-6th century. Rather, on the basis of extremely close parallels to 4th-century Yehud coins (Meshorer 2001), it appears that this form of he is modeled on the Yehud coin legends that use Paleo-Hebrew script. The late Iron Age II Hebrew script, from which Paleo-Hebrew derived, never lost the “three-bar” he (Peilstöcker and Sass 2001: 200, fig. 1; 202). One particular Yehud coin-type known from a few exemplars (Meshorer 2001: pl. 1:9; Gitler 2006b: 321, no. 2) has a legend that, although in mirror image, is nearly identical to our yehud stamp impression type 13f: the yod is normal lapidary; the he is of the “three-bar” type; and the dalet is the Aramaic lapidary type incised in reverse. We therefore conclude that the yehud stamp impression types 13 and 14 with the “three-bar” he should date not earlier than the late 4th century, when the Paleo-Hebrew script emerges. Craftsmen who knew the Aramaic lapidary script began to introduce the Paleo-Hebrew he, perhaps in imitation of increasingly widespread coin legends. Waw appears in types 1–9 and 12 and is an important paleographic indicator. Early in the Aramaic lapidary sequence, waw is characterized by a vertical shaft that bends slightly to the right at the bottom and occasionally, as in the Nineveh clay tablets, to the left. This slight bend to the right persists into the early 6th century alongside straighter downstrokes. The head of waw is more diagnostically significant. In the earliest texts, the head is formed by a single stroke or by two separate strokes that give the letter the appearance of an upside-down h. Slightly later, a concave head joined the vertical slightly below the top, still forming a distinct right shoulder; other examples of this head are found in the Assur clay tablets (fig. 1) and the Starcky tablet (fig. 1), that is, in the late 7th and early 6th centuries. Gradually, the head lost much of its concave aspect, retaining only a slight bend. The flattened stroke comes to meet the downstroke at the top, and the right shoulder remains barely detectable (as fig. 1). A form with slightly concave head appears in the mid-6th century Babylonian brick inscriptions (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153). In the classic lapidary of the Persian Period, the letter resembles a 7 and can occasionally have a short “tick” on the upper left of the head, a feature that recalls the old lapidary form (  yehud stamp impression types 3a, 4, 5, and 6b; Cross 1986: 388–89). 13.  Naveh argued that the form with the oblique upper stroke is older than the form with a horizontal stroke (1970: 59). The two types, however, seem to be in free variation from about the mid-6th century on.

70

C. The Paleographical Framework

The archaic form of waw with the two-stroke head and pronounced right “shoulder” appears in types 1 and 7. Cross formerly disputed the reading pḥwʾ in these Judean stamps precisely because the pronounced shoulder of waw seemed much too archaic for its presumed Persian-Period provenance (Cross 1969b: 24). Cross later retracted this view (private communication) but he was correct, never­theless, that by the early 5th century the pronounced right shoulder of waw disappeared from the Aramaic lapidary (1969: 24). Avigad also correctly argued for a date in the second half of the 6th century or the early 5th for this form (1976: 15; Rosenbaum 1978: 94; followed by Kochman 1982: 14–15). The more usual waw of the Persian Period Aramaic lapidary, shaped like an upright 7, predominates in the other yehud stamp impression types, often with a “tick” on the upper left of the horizontal. This form is typologically later than the previously described types. Zayin appears in three yehud stamp impression types, 7, 9, and 10. The earliest lapidary forms have an oblique middle stroke, while slightly later forms have a more vertical stance. The first form is preserved in type 7, the second in type 9. The zayin of type 10 has a curved head seen also in the 4th-century boundary inscription from Bahadirli (cf. Naveh 1970: fig. 11:4). The 6th-century Babylonian bricks preserve the complete range of types (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153). The cursive form, a small tick descending to the right, appears seldom in the lapidary, and not at all in the yehud stamp impressions corpus. Ḥet appears in yehud stamp impression types 1, 4, 7, 8, and 12. Within the lapidary sequence, ḥet remains relatively static. Its basic form from early on is that of an uppercase H. The left and right verticals either are perpendicular to the baseline or lean slightly to the left; they are ideally of equal length. Variation occurred in the horizontal stroke over time. It may be almost exactly horizontal, bisecting the downstrokes about one-third of the way from the top, or, perhaps under influence of the cursive, it may run from the upper tip of the right vertical diagonally to the left vertical. The second form is typologically later and came to dominate by the 5th century, as in the stele from Taymāʾ (Cross 1986: 388–89), though the Saqqara burial stele of 482 b.c.e. preserves vestiges of the H form (fig. 1). Around the beginning of the 5th century, the older form evidently disappears and gives way to the classic Persian lapidary form that resembles an h and is formed from a single vertical stroke on the left and a curving stroke on the right. The more conservative H form appears in the yehud stamp impressions. Yod appears in all of the yehud stamp impressions. Yod in the Aramaic lapidary script is relatively conservative. Three essential features may vary. The head or upper horizontal stroke may either be rounded and join the downstroke in an arc, or it may be an ascending or horizontal straight line joining the downstroke to form a sharp angle. The downstroke may either lean to the left or to the right. The downstroke tends to become more nearly vertical in the latest Aramaic epigraphs (Naveh 1970: figs 10–11; Magen, Misgav, and Tsafania 2004: fig. 17). Finally, the foot may either ascend or descend from the downstroke. In the yehud stamp impressions, yod typically has an upright stance, although it is slanted to the left in type 6. In type 1, the form is more squat than usual,

4.  The Development of the Lapidary Script

71

which led some scholars to read the letter as a zayin (for the correct reading, see §E-2-c, p.  85). In types 8, 9, and 10, the cursive form of yod appears alongside the otherwise normal lapidary forms of the other letters in the stamps. This happens already occasionally in the Aramaic dockets from Assur (see fig. 1), but the appearance of the cursive yod alongside the lapidary is fairly rare in the Persian Period and does not appear in the coins of the 4th century or the ex voto inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim. We tentatively date the appearance of the cursive yod to the end of the 5th century. Kap appears among the yehud stamp impressions only in type 3. In the lapidary of the mid-7th century through the 6th, kap appears in reversed k form with an elongated vertical and two strokes on the left that form a v joining the vertical at a single point; Taymāʾ I, Naveh 1970: fig. 10:1; the Taymāʾ stele published by Cross 1986: 388–89; Sass and Marzahn 2010: 156). The stance of the vertical occasionally is left leaning, but the greatest variation occurs in the upper v strokes, which may or may not be curved. In the classic lapidary of the Persian era, the upper of these two strokes tends to move farther to the left, similar to the development of the oblique strokes of ʾalep (see Saqqara stele). In the 4th–3rd-century Aramaic ex voto inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim, kap has a downstroke that curves to the left and only a single curved stroke forming the head and joining the downstroke near the top (e.g., Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 51 no. 3:4). Lamed appears in yehud stamp impression types 1, 3, 8, 10, and 11. In the lapidary Aramaic, lamed changes little over time: it usually projects above the ceiling line and may have either a curved (types 1 and 3) or sharply angled base (types 8, 10, 11). It is not, however, chronologically diagnostic. Mem appears only in type 3. Mem undergoes several stages of development in the lapidary script. Avigad distinguished three types (1976: 16). The earliest typologically is the type with zig-zag head. Other than an example from Neirab II, this form is extremely rare after the mid-7th century. The intermediate form of mem is one with a head resembling a squared w. In this form, the vertical downstroke breaks above the horizontal of the head and produces a distinct right shoulder. The middle vertical of the head does not break below this horizontal. Except for the failure of the short vertical of the head to break through, this form is typical of the lapidary sequence of the 6th century (fig. 1:5) (Avigad 1976: 14; followed by Kochman 1982: 15). The latest form typologically possesses no right shoulder and the middle vertical of the head does break through the horizontal. The 6th-century Babylonian brick inscriptions have already lost this right shoulder (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 156). This is the form that becomes dominant in the classic lapidary of the 5th and 4th centuries (fig. 1). The form of mem in yehud stamp impression type 3, with its right shoulder, is thus characteristic of the phase before the crystalization of the classical lapidary in the 5th century. Nun appears in yehud stamp impression type 4 (and probably in type 9). Nun is not diagnostically significant, however, and it remains quite stable down through the latest phase of the lapidary. ʿAyin appears in types 7 and 10. Early in the Aramaic lapidary tradition, the letter was formed as a closed circle, but it began to open on top (like bet, dalet,

72

C. The Paleographical Framework

and reš ) by the late 8th century. A few brick inscriptions from Babylon dating to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar preserve examples of almost closed ʿayins (Sass and Marzahn 2010: nos. 45 and 49). 14 The Beirut decree from the early 6th century also possesses a fully closed ʿayin. This form of ʿayin does not appear in the classic lapidary of the Persian era. The ʿayin in the yehud stamp impressions is the open form characteristic of the Persian era (see also the 6th-century jar stamp impressions from Tell el ʿUmayri, Ammon; Herr et al. 2004). Pe appears in the term pḥwʾ, in yehud stamp impression types 1, 7, and 12 (the last is too crudely incised to be of use paleographically). The evolution of pe, however, is not significant from a chronolgical perspective. Reš appears in yehud stamp impression types 2, 7, 9, and 10. In the oldest Aramaic inscriptions, reš has a closed, triangular head, which still appeared in early 6th-century epigraphs: in the Beirut inscription and in the Neirab clay tablets (fig. 1:7). A more developed form, with an open head, began to emerge as early as the 7th century and became the dominant form by the end of the 6th century. In fact, the Beirut inscription and the Neirab Clay tablets each possess both forms. The 6th-century Babylonian bricks, by contrast, appear consistently closed, with rounded heads (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 156). The open form, however, becomes the normal type in the classic lapidary of the Persian Period. The yehud stamp impression type 2 has a reš with a head that is almost closed and that is clearly still formed on the triangular model. This is the old form of the letter. The other yehud stamp impression types containing reš have the usual form with an open top and are typologically slightly later. Šin appears only once in the yehud stamp impressions, in type 9. The earliest Aramaic lapidary texts had the old W-shaped šin, which still appeared around the beginning of the 6th century. The typologically later form, which is characteristic of the classic lapidary in the Persian Period, is shaped like an uppercase V, with a short oblique stroke joining the left arm. It is this form that evidently appears in the yehud stamp impression type 9, although the letter was apparently incised onto the seal backwards, yielding a reverse form in the impression.

5. Summary When the yehud stamp impressions began to appear in Yehud, the craftsmen who produced them exclusively used the Aramaic lapidary script, even where the model for the layout of a given seal is clearly in continuity with the tradition of seal engraving known from Iron Age Judah (see type 1, pp. 83–85 below). As the discussion above shows, however, in some cases conservative letter forms characteristic of the 7th and 6th centuries appear in the seals, sometimes alongside other letters exhibiting their classic Persian Period shapes. Exactly the same phenomenon occurs in the 6th-century brick inscriptions from Babylon (Sass and 14.  Sass and Marzahn read two other brick legends as having completely closed examples of ʿayin, but the first (2010: no. 44, p. 85, figs. 501–5) is not completely closed, while the second (2010: no. 50, p. 89, fig. 529) actually appears to be a ṭet.

5. Summary

73

Marzahn 2010: 151–52). The mixture of conservative and developed forms in yehud stamp impression types 1–12 proves that the script of the seals used to produce them was introduced into the Yehud chancery already in the 6th century, before the crystallization of the “classic” lapidary of the Persian Period in the 5th century (Vanderhooft 2011). The earliest yehud stamp impression types, 1–5, could, from a paleographic view, fit easily in the 6th or early 5th centuries.

D. The Toponym Yehūd and the Title pḥwʾ

1.  The Toponym Yehūd The toponym Yehūd occurs with several orthographic and paleographic variations in the corpus of jar stamp impressions. The present discussion reviews: (a) historical-linguistic hypotheses for the origin of the toponym, (b) its orthographic and paleographic variations in the corpus, (c) comparative epigraphic evidence for use of the term, and (d) general significance for understanding the corpus. a.  Historical-Linguistic Hypotheses for the Origin of the Toponym Yehūd Scholars have long recognized that ‫ יהוד‬was commonly used as the name of the province of Judah in the period after the collapse of the kingdom, gaining in frequency during the Persian Period (see Dan 2:25; 5:13; Ezra 5:1, 8; 7:14; TAD A4.7). Albright, with characteristic flair, discussed the etymological origin of the names ‫ יהודה‬and ‫ יהוד‬already in 1927, when he reviewed hypotheses then known. He proposed that y ehûd is the regular uncontracted hofʿal jussive of hôdâh. [Thus] the uncontracted imperfect of the hofʿal would be y ehûdeh, and its Massoretic form in composition with the theophoric element ʾēl would be *‫ְהוּדאֵל‬ ְ ‫ י‬. . . . When hypocoristica were formed from composite names of this type, the clipped imperfects retained the a coloring, which was lengthened to qāmeṣ under the tone. . . . This is the natural explanation of the final long a in Yehûdâh, and the definitive proof as well that Yehûdâh is a hypocoristicon of *Yehûdeʾēl, which means either ‘God is praised,’ or more probably ‘Let God be praised’. (1927: 173–74)

Millard subsequently endorsed Albright’s view that Yehûdâh reflects a hypocoristicon of a form ‫ יהודאל‬or, perhaps, of ‫( יהודיהו‬1974: 216–18). 1 1.  Lipiński suggested an alternative etymological derivation from the root whd, attested in Arabic, which means “gorge, ravine,” with the initial w > y according to normal phonological rules in Northwest Semitic. The form yahūd, in Lipiński’s view, corresponds to a participle or adjective of the form qatūl, while the longer form yĕhūdā is merely feminine (1973: 381). He does not explain why the masculine biform becomes the prefered form in Aramaic. Lipiński’s view has not won support, and the absence of a verbal root *whd in Hebrew does nothing to make it more likely.

74

1.  The Toponym 

75

Albright also argued that Y ehûd could not be explained as an Aramaizing of but that both forms were already in use before the demise of the Judean kingdom. He found proof for this in cuneiform transcriptions of the toponym such as Ya-u-du, which he argued “reflects a Hebrew Y ehûd or, rather, *Y ahûd, where the coloring of the šewâ is due to the influence of the weak laryngeal” (Albright 1927: 175). More recently, M.  Weippert concurred, although he still claimed that the cuneiform references reflect “die Namensform Jehūd” (RLA 5: 200). Neo-Babylonian cuneiform transcriptions of āl-Yaḫūdu (uruia-a-ḫu-du), “the City of Judah,” invariably end in ‑u (Bab chron 5, rev. 12; Weidner 1939: 925–26; Joannes and Lemaire 1999: text 1:23; for the orthographic variants, see Pearce 2006: 401 n. 7). These Neo-Babylonian transcriptions are anticipated by NeoAssyrian ones, namely, KUR ia-u/ú-di/du and URU ia-u/ú-di (from the reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh; see Parpola 1970: 182 with refs.; Weippert, RLA 5: 200), which likewise transcribe yhwd. Because, as Albright already knew, final vowels are not morphologically significant in Neo-Babylonian and were in any case not pronounced, these transcriptions all indicate that the Babylonian scribes knew the toponym in the form yĕhūd (< *yahūd), not, evidently, yĕhūdāh. Because the Neo-Assyrian transcriptions are from the 8th and 7th centuries and the Babylonian ones appear already during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (see Joannes and Lemaire 1999; Zadok 2002; Pearce 2006), Albright was correct to argue that yĕhūd was already used in Hebrew during the time of the Judean monarchy. The short form, ‫יהוד‬, according to Albright, was “evidently the form employed commonly by the pre-exilic Jews in everyday language, and was still used by the Aramaic speaking Jews after the exile” (1927: 175; a view he repeated three decades later, 1957: 28 n. 3). The use of “the jussive Yehûd in place of the literary Yehûdâh,” Albright further argued, found an exact parallel in the use of the “jussive Yáhû instead of the literary Hebrew Yahwêh” (1927: 175). 2 Albright’s parsimonious reconstruction has an inherent attraction. It may be noted, however, that the longer form ‫יה(ו)דה‬, attested often in the Hebrew Bible, has not yet appeared in archaeologically recovered epigraphic sources from the time of the monarchy. In fact, in a Hebrew ostracon from Arad, the toponym appears at the end of a line in the collocation [‫ ;מלך יהוד‬no final hê is visible on the ostracon, even though there is sufficient space on the edge of the sherd for traces of a letter there, had one existed (Aharoni 1975: 70, inscription 40*, line 13). 3 The Arad text thus does not definitely attest to the longer form of the toponym. Therefore, the epigraphic distribution of the two forms of the toponym cannot be compared for late Iron Age II Hebrew, and Albright’s assumption that ‫ יהודה‬was the “literary” form remains plausible. Y ehûdâh

2.  Alt suggested instead that yhdh is “eine Ortsnamenbildung wie Jogbeha usw” (KS I: 5 n. 1; Weippert, RLA 5: 200; HALOT, s.v.). 3.  Several clay bullae allegedly belonging to the Judean kings Ahaz and Hezekiah and now in private collections have received publication in the past decade. Several of these possess the toponym spelled ‫יהדה‬, without waw as a mater lectionis (for a list of the bullae and publication data, see Deutsch 2006: 18–19). The authenticity of these bullae remains in question.

76

D. The Toponym Yehūd and the Title pḥwʾ

Albright cites another, earlier proposal of Jastrow about the origins of the two forms. The longer yĕhûdâh and the shorter yĕhûd form their gentilics identically, that is, yĕhûdî; thus, yĕhûd might be considered a back-formation from the gentilic (Albright 1927: 170, 175 n. 30). Naveh endorsed a form of this view that the Aramaic toponym originated secondarily from the gentilic (1996). He argued that the word ‫“ יהוד‬was probably created by the chancellors of the Achaeminid empire, who met people called Yehudaye. Not being aware of the name of their land of origin, these chancellors might have assumed that Yehudaye came from Yehud, just as Bablaye (the Babylonians) came from Babel and ʾElemaye (the Elamites) from ʾElam” (1996: 45). Naveh’s judgment about the relationship between the gentilic and the toponym is correct, but it does not prove that yĕhûd was a back formation or a Persian Period innovation. Albright rightly argued that ‫ יהוד‬was already in use and recognized as the Hebrew name of the kingdom before the collapse of the monarchy, as the cuneiform transcriptions show (and possibly also the ostracon from Arad). It need not have been specifically the Aramaic version of the name, even if it came to predominate in Aramaic. The point is that the eastern scribes may have correctly determined that the singular and plural gentilics yĕhūdî and yĕhūdāyēʾ derive from Hebrew yĕhūd. We cannot argue, therefore, for a simple chronological development from Hebrew yĕhūdāh of the late Judean monarchic era to Aramaic yĕhūd of the late Babylonian and Achaemenid periods. Both forms were evidently known in the late Iron Age, but the short form became the prefered name in Aramaic usage of the Achaemenid era. The form in the stamp impressions, therefore, cannot serve as a chronological marker for their origin. b.  Orthographic and Paleographic Variations in the Corpus The orthographic and paleographic variations of the toponym in the jar stamp impressions include the following: 1.  ‫( יהוד‬types 2–9); in Aramaic script 2.  ‫( יהד‬type 13); Aramaic with paleo-Hebrew he in 5 subtypes 3.  ‫ יהד‬+ ‫( ט‬type 17); paleo-Hebrew script 4.  ‫( יה‬types 14–15); one subtype with Aramaic he, one with Paleo-Hebrew 5.  possibly a ligatured writing of ‫( יה‬type 16); paleography indeterminate

No jar stamp impressions have appeared with the spellings ‫ יהדה‬or ‫יהודה‬. c.  Comparative Evidence for Use of the Toponym Yehūd By comparison, Jewish coins of the 4th century and later attest a wider range of orthographic variants than the jar stamp impressions (see Meshorer 1982: 17– 18; 2001: nos. 1–35; pls. 1–4; Gitler and Lorber 2006). Among pre-Hasmonean coins, the following occur: 1.  ‫ יהד‬in Aramaic 2.  ‫ יהד‬in Paleo-Hebrew 3.  ‫ יהוד‬in Paleo-Hebrew 4.  ‫ יהדה‬in Paleo-Hebrew

2.  The Title pḥwʾ

77

5.  ‫ יהודה‬in Paleo-Hebrew. 6.  ‫ יהד‬reading uncertain; perhaps with ligatured yh in Aramaic? (Meshorer 1982: 160, Supplement I,1; Stern 1982: 221 right).

The long spellings ‫ יהדה‬and ‫ יהודה‬are thus attested in the coins of the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods (‫ יהדה‬in Meshorer 2001: no. 31; ‫ יהודה‬in nos. 21, 27). These forms do not appear in the yehud stamp impressions. Aramaic biblical texts report the province name in the form ‫( יהוד‬Dan 2:25, 5:13, 6:14, Ezra 5:1, 7:14), which could be qualified as a ‫“ מדינתא‬province” (Ezra 5:8). d.  General Significance of the Toponym Yehūd for Understanding the Corpus Prior to the Achaeminid era, the toponym ‫ יהוד‬does not appear on seals, stamp impressions, or bullae, even if it must have been characteristic of Hebrew usage, as Albright showed. It may appear in Arad ostracon 40:13. On the other hand, the longer form, ‫יה(ו)דה‬, which is characteristic of biblical usage, does not appear in epigraphic sources either. 4 Throughout the Persian Period, however, the form ‫ יהוד‬predominates in the jar stamp impressions, in the Aramaic correspondence from Elephantine, in Jewish coinage, and in Aramaic biblical texts. This evidently follows as a consequence from the Achaemenid recognition of the integrity of the province as a political entity. The province is, in this respect, similar to others in the vicinity, most notably, Samaria.

2.  The Title pḥwʾ Scholars have debated the precise meaning and form of the Aramaic official title ‫פחוא‬, “governor.” The most satisfactory explanation of the form comes from Kutscher, who argued that Aramaic ‫ פחוא‬is a back formation from the plural paḥāwātāʾ (1960: 112–19; Aharoni 1962: 56–57). Biblical Aramaic plural paḥăwātāʾ (Dan 3:2, 3, 27; 6:8), the plural form pḥwtʾ in the Padua papyrus (Bresciani 1960: pl. 1, I:4; Fitzmyer 1979: 219), and the Hebrew plural biform paḥăwôt (Ezra 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9) all point to an original plural *paḥḥawôt. The Aramaic and Hebrew singular forms—peḥā, bound form paḥat—point to earlier *paḥḥat. On Kutscher’s theory, the determined Aramaic singular form found in the jar stamp impressions, pḥwʾ, was back-formed from the plural stem *paḥḥaw-. It is curious that this happened, however, because of the attested reading p˹ḥ˺tʾ in the Aramaic version of the Behistun inscription of Darius I (Greenfield and Porten 1982: 34; pls. 4, 14–16). 5 The ḥet in this inscription is admittedly slightly damaged, but the reading, given the Akkadian parallel lú.nam, piḥātu, is not in question, and pḥtʾ would be the “historically correct” singular emphatic form of the word. 6 Two 4.  The exceptions are unprovenanced bullae in private collections. 5.  The Aramaic is reconstructed by Greenfield and Porten as follows: [ddrš] ˹šm˺ [h ʿlymy prsy] p˹ḥ˺tʾ ˹z˺[ y bḥtr]y (1982: 34). The reconstruction is made on the basis of the parallel Akkadian version, which reads mda-da-ar-šú šu-[um-šú] lú qal-la-a lú par-sa-a-a lú.nam.kur ba-aḫ-tar (von Voigtlander 1978: 31). 6.  We are grateful to Professor John Huehnergard for discussing this question with us.

78

D. The Toponym Yehūd and the Title pḥwʾ

solutions are possible: first, pḥwʾ could indeed be the singular form of pḥwtʾ, but this office, as Bresciani argued, refers to lower-order government officials, not to the governor, who would rather have been called pḥh / pḥtʾ (so also Naveh 1996: 44–45). Against this is the usage of the Hebrew plural in Ezra and Nehemiah in reference to provincial officers of the highest or second-highest rank, not junior officials (Kochman 1982: 7, no. 17). The second possible solution is that there may simply have been local biforms of the word (Avigad 1976: 6–7). 7 Alt was correct to note that Hebrew ‫ פחה‬is applied to officials of obviously different ranks (1959: 333 n. 2). In fact, ‫ פחה‬could refer to at least three principal levels. The highest level refers to the imperial administrator of the entire geographical unit “Babylon and Across-the-River.” Stolper published a NeoBabylonian economic tablet from about 486 b.c.e. that proves “Babylon and Across-the-River” was governed as a single unit by one pāḫatu until the reign of Xerxes. 8 Biblical texts refer to a second level to which the title could apply. The author of Ezra refers to ‫תתני פחת עבר־נהרה‬, “Tattenai, governor of Across-the-River” (5:3, 6; 6:6, 13). 9 In Nehemiah, the text discusses ‫פחת עבר הנהר‬, “the governor of Across-the-River” (3:7). The returnees under Ezra are also said to have delivered Persian “decrees” ‫לאחשׁדרפני המלך ופחוות עבר הנהר‬, “to the king’s satraps and the governors of Across-the-River” (Ezra 8:36; also Neh 2:7). In these instances, ‫פחה‬ refers to one or more imperial officers of the geographical sub-unit “Across-theRiver,” without Babylon. At a third level, several biblical texts specifically mention governors of Yehud, a sub-province of the unit Across-the-River. Sheshbazzar was installed as ‫פחה‬ by Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). 10 Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, who was of Davidic descent 7.  An entirely different, and very unlikely, etymology and interpretation of the form is given by Lipiński (1989), who suggests a derivation from the Akkadian participle of peḥû II, “to close or stop up.” He proposes that the Aramaic form was not the title of a governor, “mais des fonctionnaires responsables non seulement pour la capacité des jarres, mais aussi pour les provisions de blé, d’huile, de vin, qu’elles contenaient” (p. 109). He calls a functionary such as this a “cellérier.” It strains credulity to assume that the Hebrew and Aramaic plural and singular bound and unbound forms of the word, which obviously derive from administrative terminology, are unrelated to the epigraphically attested noun pḥwʾ. Why should one posit an unattested Akkadian derivation for an unattested functionary when a perfectly good administrative term is at hand, the Hebrew equivalent of which is used in Yehud coins to refer to Hezekiah the governor? 8.  The text names mḪu-ta-x-x- . . . lú pa-ḫa-tu4 e.ki ù E-bi-ri íd, “Huta[xx] , . . the governor of Babylon and Across-the-River” (Stolper 1989: 284:1–3). 9.  The same individual is presumably referred to in VAS 4 152: 25 as mTa-at-t[an?-nu], and was thus in office in 502 b.c.e. (Stolper 1989: 290, Table 1 note n). As governor of “Across-the-River,” however, Tattenai was subservient to the governor of the larger administrative unit “Babylon and Across-the-River”; a certain Uštānu is known to have held this position between 21 March 521 and June/July 516 (Stolper 1989: 290, Table 1 d; and Ephʾal 1988: 154), but it is not possible based on the colophons in the Akkadian texts to say certainly whether Tattenai’s rule overlapped with Uštānu’s, although this is probable. 10.  Note, however, that his title in Ezra 1:8 is ‫נשׂיא‬. Halpern has argued that this is fitting for the historian who cobbled the initial verses of Ezra from the Aramaic sources in 5:13–15 and 6:3–5 (1990: 92). The word ‫ נשׂיא‬refers to an officer in the traditional kinship organization of Israel, whereas ‫ פחה‬is an officer of the crown, and these titles were, according to Halpern, selected in view of the functions

2.  The Title pḥwʾ

79

(1 Chr 3:19), 11 is referred to in Haggai as ‫( פחת יהודה‬1:1, 14; 2:2, 21), and in a more troublesome text he is seemingly the referent of the phrase ‫פחת יהודיא‬, “governor of the Jews” (Ezra 6:7). 12 Nehemiah refers to his administrative predecessors as ‫הפחות הראשׁנים‬, “the former governors” (Neh 5:15), states that he was appointed ‫פחם בארץ יהודה‬, “their governor in the land of Judah” (5:14) and claims never to have consumed ‫לחם הפחה‬, “the governor’s food” (5:14). These texts clearly refer to the local district or provincial leader, and it is presumably this administrative level to which the governors attested in the jar stamp impressions also belonged. Thus, the ‫ פחה‬could be the highest authority in the satrapy Babylon and Across-the-River (as in the Stolper tablet); he could be the senior authority below this figure in the sub-unit Across-the-River (Tattenai); or he could be a regional provincial governor of a geographical unit such as Yehud, like the individuals mentioned in biblical and epigraphic texts. As yet, no definitive evidence points to the existence of multiple governors at one time. Though philology cannot establish a solitary meaning for the term, there is no question that it is used in the Achaemenid era in reference to individuals who governed with imperial sanction. It is therefore a methodological error, as Hoglund has emphasized, to seek to define the term in this period apart from its use within the imperial administrative structures (1992: 78). In view of this, and in conjunction with the epigraphic materials that indicate the governors had jurisdiction over certain commodities, there is no reason to dispute that the individuals named as ‫ פחה‬before Nehemiah were independent governors of Yehūd (contra Alt 1959; see also Machinist 1992). The term ‫ פחוא‬appears in three different types of Yehud stamp impressions: types 1 (‫ ;)לאחיב פחוא‬7 (‫ ;)יהוד יהועזר פחוא‬and 12 (‫)יה[ו]ד פחוא‬. It is important to note that the distribution of these three yehud stamp impression types with the term ‫פחוא‬, “governor,” tends to overlap but that all three are especially well represented at Ramat Raḥel. Exemplars of type 1, which name Ahiab, appear at Ramat Raḥel, Jerusalem, and Nebi Samwil (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007: 14). Exemplars of yehud stamp impression type 7, reading ‫יהוד יהועזר פחוא‬, “Yehud, Yehoʿezer, the governor” have been excavated at Ramat Raḥel, Jerusalem, and Tel Ḥarasim (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007: 20). Meanwhile, exemplars of YSI of the two texts. Further, avoidance of the official titles of both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel seems to characterize Ezra 1–6, except in quotation of source materials used by the writer (Japhet 1982: 82). 11.  Here Zerubbabel is apparently the son of Pedaiah; the discrepancy is not easily overcome (Japhet 1982: 71–72; Meyers and Meyers 1987: 9–10; Knoppers 2003: 321, 328). The Old Greek preserves salathiel in 1 Chr 3:19, but it is uncertain whether this is an effort to harmonize the traditions. Japhet has noted that Ezra–Nehemiah systematically ignores the Davidic origins of Zerubbabel as a result of an idiosyncratic political perspective (1982: 72; 1983: 219), but this observation provides no aid in understanding Haggai 1:1, which does not share this political view and yet similarly gives Shealtiel as Zerubbabel’s father. 12.  Alt refers to this latter reference as “offensichtlich sekundär” (1959: 333 n. 2). There is textual support for this view, because GB does not reflect the phrase, and the reference to Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel in Ezra 5:2 does not ascribe to him the title ‫פחה‬. That the reference is to Zerubbabel, however, seems certain (Williamson 1985: 81–82). Japhet’s remark that the author of Ezra 1–6 was hesitant to name Zerubbabel by title may be salient (1982: 82).

80

D. The Toponym Yehūd and the Title pḥwʾ

type 12, ‫יה[ו]ד פחוא‬, “Yehud, the governor” come from Ramat Raḥel, with the exception of one from Khirbet Nisya near Tell en-Naṣbeh (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007: 24). Can these facts clarify the meaning of the term pḥwʾ in Yehud? Given that the distribution of the stamp impressions of these three types so strongly overlaps and, with the exception of one from Tel Ḥarasim, covers the core of the province of Yehud—from Ramat Raḥel in the south to Khirbet Nis­ya just north of Jerusalem—it seems likely that the seals used to stamp the jar handles belonged to the single, highest-ranking authority in Yehud. If there were multiple, lesser officials with the title, the system of distribution would be quite cumbersome. Moreover, the existence of a stamp type with the reading ‫יה[ו]ד‬ ‫ פחוא‬but no personal name strongly suggests that there was one, lone governor of Yehud and that the office was widely recognized. If there were numerous such officers, how would a seal reading ‫ יה[ו]ד פחוא‬be useful in administrative terms? The commodities under the jurisdiction of any particular “governor” could not be distinguished from those of any other. We conclude, therefore, that the office of ‫ פחוא‬belonged to the single highest-ranking official in the Persian province of Yehud. 13 Although Ramat Raḥel is the only site where stamp impressions of all three ‫ פחוא‬types have appeared, it would be hazardous to conclude that Ramat Raḥel, and not Jerusalem, was the seat of the governor of Yehud during the period when these seals were used. Nevertheless, it is clear that the site played a key role in the distribution of the commodities associated with the jars under the jurisdiction of the governors. 13.  The present discussion is anticipated in Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2008: 4–6.

E.  The Early Types

1.  Introduction to the Early Types No absolute dates attach to the early group of yehud stamp impressions. None of the personal names in the stamp impressions can be identified with known individuals. The relative dating of the stamp impressions therefore rests on other criteria: paleography, form, content, stratigraphy, and comparative data. We have listed 128 yehud stamp impressions as part of this early group, which consists of 12 types (22% of the total corpus). Type 6 is the most common among the early types, with 55 stamp impressions (43% of the early group). This type is also the fourth most common among all types of yehud stamp impressions (together with type 16, with the same number of stamp impressions). Type 1 is the next most common among the early types, with 18 stamp impressions; type 10 includes 17 stamp impressions; type 12 includes 12; and type 7 includes 7 stamp impressions. The other seven early types include 5 stamp impressions or less: type 4 includes 5 stamp impressions; type 3 includes 4 stamp impressions; type 11 includes 3 stamp impressions; types 2, 5, and 8 all include 2 stamp impressions each; and type 9 is the only type that includes a single stamp impression.

Table E1.  Early Types: Number of Stamp Impressions by Types and Main Sites Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8 Type 9 Type 10 Type 11 Type 12 Grand total

Ramat Raḥel 7 0 0 3 1 48 5 0 0 15 0 11 90

City of David 9 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 17

81

Other Sites 2 2 3 0 0 5 1 2 1 2 2 1 21

Total 18 2 4 5 2 55 7 2 1 17 3 12 128

82

E.  The Early Types

Graph 9.  Distribution of Early Types.

Fully 70% of the stamp impressions belonging to the early types come from Ramat Raḥel (90 stamp impressions). Half of the stamp impressions that belong to the early types and were discovered at Ramat Raḥel are of one type (type 6, 48 stamp impressions). Only 2 stamp impressions of this type were discovered at the City of David. Three more types are “Ramat Raḥel types”: Type 7 (5 of the 7 stamp impressions were discovered at Ramat Raḥel), type 10 (15 out of 17 were discovered at Ramat Raḥel) and type 12 (11 out of 12 were discovered at Ramat Raḥel). Only one stamp impression of these three types was discovered at the City of David (one of Type 7). Of these early types, 13% came from the City of David (17 stamp impressions), and 9 of the 17 belong to type 1. Type 4 produced 2 stamp impressions discovered at the City of David. Four types yielded one stamp impression each at the City of David, and 5 types yielded none. Nebi Samwil and En Gedi produced 3 stamp impressions belonging to the Early Types; Jericho, Rogem Gannim and Tel Ḥarasim yielded 2 each. The distribution pattern presented above shows that, in the period represented by the early types (late 6th through 5th centuries b.c.e.), there was as yet no single administrative center within yehud. Thus, for some of these early types, no single center can be discerned. This continues the broad pattern of multiple destinations for the produce seen already in the 7th-century Judean jar handles (see summary, pp. 758–764). Apart from the City of David, other Judean sites are sporadically represented.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor”

83

We should preface our remarks on the relative chronology of types 6-12: none of these types should be considered according to an absolute chronological scheme. The typology would tolerate minor variations upward or downward for any given type.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ לאחיב פחוא‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Of this type, 18 stamp impressions are known. The first one was found in the first season of excavations at Ramat Raḥel (1954). 1 One more exemplar of this type was found in each of the four successive seasons at the site: the second (1959), third (1960), fourth (1961), and fifth (1962). 2 The two most recent stamp impressions of this type come from the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel (the 2007 season). 3 In addition to the 7 discovered at Ramat Raḥel, 9 more were discovered at the City of David excavations, directed by Yigal Shiloh between 1978 and 1985. 4 In addition, Magen excavated two more exemplars at Nebi Samwil between 1992–2003. 5

Graph 10.  Distribution of Type 1 Exemplars.

9

Jerusalem

7

Ramat Raḥel

2

Nebi Samwil

1.  Aharoni 1956c: 145, fig. 11; pl. 25:4; see stamp impression no. 1-12. 2.  Second season: Aharoni 1962: 8–9, fig. 9:4; pl. 9:4; see stamp impression no. 1-v13; third season: Aharoni 1962: 33–34, fig. 22:10; pl. 30:12; see stamp impression no. 1-14; fourth season: Aharoni 1964a: 22, pl. 20:5; see stamp impression no. 1-15; fifth season: Aharoni 1964a: 45, pl. 20:4; see stamp impression no. 1-16. 3.  Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 9–10, and pl. I:1–2; see stamp impression nos. 1-17, 1-18. 4.  Ariel and Shoham 2000: 146–47 (L35–L43); see stamp impression nos. 1-1–1-9. 5.  Magen and Har-Even 2007: 42–43, nos. 2 and 3, and pl. 1:2–3; see stamp impression nos. 1-10, 1-11.

84

E.  The Early Types

The strong representation at the City of David is noteworthy: only 17 stamp impressions of the 12 early types were found in Jerusalem, and 9 of them belong to this type. These numbers demonstrate that, on the basis of current statistics, ‫ לאחיב פחוא‬stamp impressions are most characteristic in Jerusalem among the early types. In all other cases, only one or two stamped handles were discovered in the City of David, and in 5 cases (nearly half of the subtypes) not even a single stamped handle was discovered at the site.

Graph 11.  Number of stamp impressions from Jerusalem—Early types.

b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions All 18 stamp impressions were impressed on jar handles before firing. The two lines of script are separated by a doubleline field divider. Precise measurements prove that all of the stamp impressions of this type originate from a single seal. 6 The layout of the letters, their dimensions, and their relative positions in relation to the dividing lines are identical in all stamp impressions, so that it is possible to identify even partially preserved stamp impressions of this type. 7 The specific disposition of the dividing lines is likewise identical in all stamp impressions. A composite reconstruction of the impression indicates that the slightly convex seal was nearly round, with a diameter of approximately 25 mm. Type 1 is the only stamp impression in the corpus that uses the genitive ‫ ל‬with a personal name (PN) followed by a title. 8 The same formula, however, is com6.  Aharoni already suggested that the two stamp impressions he discovered at Ramat Raḥel were stamped by the same seal (1962: 33). Ariel and Shoham (2000: 146) were unable to determine this for the stamp impressions from the City of David but noted that all the impressions were similar. 7.  The dimensions are: 20 mm from the lower right side of lamed to the left side of bet in the first line; 18 mm from the right edge of pe to the left edge of ʾalep in the word ‫ ;פחוא‬and from the lower right side of ḥet in the upper line to the top right side of waw in the lower line is 9 mm. 8.  Avigad published a single bulla reading ‫( לאלנתן פחוא‬1976: pl. 6:5), which has the identical formula (and very similar script in the second line). We have left this unprovenanced bulla out of

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor”

85

mon in late Iron Age Northwest Semitic seals. 9 Perhaps the best Judean parallel comes from the late Iron Age II Hebrew jar stamp impressions reading ‫לאליקם‬ ‫נער יוכן‬, “belonging to ʾElīyāqīm, steward of Yôkīn,” which possess the genitive lamed before the personal name, a double-line field divider, and the title in the second register. 10 The distribution of the four handles impressed with this Iron Age Hebrew seal is also instructive: two come from Tell Beit Mirsim stratum A, one from Beth-Shemesh stratum II, and the fourth from Ramat Raḥel (Avigad and Sass 1997: 243–44; Aharoni 1962: pl. 40:4). ʾElīyāqīm had a fairly wide geographical scope of operation. Another comparative example from the Iron Age II comes from a series of Edomite jar stamp impressions reading ‫לקוסענל עבד המלך‬, “belonging to Qawsʿānal, servant of the king” (Avigad and Sass 1997: 389–90, no. 1051). Here again, multiple jar stamp impressions (between 22 and 25) were excavated, all at Tell el-Kheleifeh, and the model for the seal includes the genetive lamed before the personal name, a double-line field divider, and the title in the second register. These stamp impressions date to the late seventh or early 6th century and show the distinctive characteristics of the Edomite script (DiVito 1993; Vanderhooft 1995: 137–57). It seems certain that Aḥîab’s seal was designed quite self-consciously on the same model represented by those of ʾElīyāqīm and Qawsʿānal. This suggests that the administrators of Yehud in the early Persian Period, notwithstanding the change to Aramaic script and language, continued to draw on a well-known older regional model. This model does not, however, continue to be used, which is another indication that Aḥîab’s seal dates to the early Persian Period (see also Peilstöcker and Sass 2001). c.  The Name ‫ אחיב‬ʾAḥîāb: Reading and Discussion The reading of the name ‫ אחיב‬is new. Aharoni initially read the name as ‫אחיו‬ (1956b: 145–46; 1962: 8–9, 33–34; 1964a: 22, 45) but acknowledged that the final two letters might also be read as ‫( זן‬1964a: 45). Cross proposed the reading ‫אחזי‬ (2003 [1969]: 143; Cross’s reading was first mentioned by Aharoni 1964a: 45 n. 17); Cross was followed by Naveh (1970: 60) and Avigad (1976: 22). Ariel and Shoham, evidently also following Cross, likewise read ‫( אחזי‬2000: 152–55). This reading, however, is disqualified because the final letter is absolutely not yod, as Aharoni noted (1964a: 45 n. 17). Inspection of all exemplars preserving the final letter of the first line shows that it is certainly a bet, not a waw, yod, or nun. Close inspection of newly published examples from the City of David, Nebi Samwil, and Ramat Raḥel also proves that Aharoni was right to read the third letter in the name as yod: a vestige of a horizontal stroke at the lower left of the downstroke appears in several stamps; it is particularly clear in one from Nebi Samwil (Magen and Har-Even 2007: 42–43, no. 2) and another from Ramat Raḥel. 11 The reading ‫אחיב‬ is therefore certain. our corpus. Type 8 also has the genitive ‫ ל‬before the personal name, followed not by a title but by the toponym ‫יהוד‬. 9.  See, e.g., Avigad and Sass 1997: nos. 2–10, 20 (face B), 21–22, 28–30, 754, 755, 1008–11, 1049–52. 10.  Avigad and Sass 1997: no. 663. 11.  Nebi Samwil: stamp impression no. 1-10; Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression no. 1-18.

86

E.  The Early Types

‫ אחיב‬is a variant spelling of original ‫אחאב‬, ʾăḥīʾāb, or, in its full spelling, ‫אחיאב‬, ʾăḥîʾāb. 12 The full form, ‫אחיאב‬, appears, for example, on a Hebrew bulla of the late Iron Age II excavated at the City of David (Shoham 2000: 47, B 37), and in a Persian era Aramaic document from Elephantine (Porten and Yardeni 1989: 110: 4, 18). In our stamp impression, the name is spelled with elision of the second ʾalep. Cross reminds us that in Jer 29:21 we find the name ‫ אחאב‬but that it appears in MT with a variant spelling, ‫אחב‬, in v. 22, that is, with elision of the second ʾalep, and without the yod marking the first-person possessive pronoun. The Old Greek, however, vocalizes both instances in Jeremiah as Αχιαβ. The form in our stamps, with the yod but without the second ʾalep, is a graphic variant of the same name. The same phenomenon occurs in the name ‫( אחימה‬Shoham 2000: 44, B28), which is a graphic variant of the fuller form ‫( אחיאמה‬ibid., 44; Avigad and Sass 1997: nos. 58, 618, and p. 479; cf. ‫ אחיאם‬in 2 Sam 23:33). The form ‫אחאב‬, incidentally, appears in Aramaic cursive script on numerous 4th-century ostraca from Tell Nimrin (Dempsey 1996: 73–75). d. Paleography The script of the ‫ לאחיב פחוא‬seal is noteworthy for its several archaic features. Both examples of ʾalep are characteristic of the pre-5th century Aramaic lapidary sequence, with two short oblique crossbars that form a v and meet at a point to the left of the vertical downstroke (this is even more pronounced in the second ʾalep). This type of ʾalep is more characteristic of the 6th century and earlier than of the classic Aramaic lapidary of the 5th century and later. The tendency in epigraphs of the 5th century and later is for the oblique upper crossbar to meet the lower, now horizontal one well to the right of the downstroke (Naveh 1970: figs.10, 11; Cross 1986: 388–89: lines 5, 7). Thus, the ʾaleps in our seal could fit in the late 6th century or first half of the fifth. In the bet, the downstroke curves distinctly to the left and precludes reading the graph as a waw or yod. Bet here has an open head formed by a single curved line meeting the downstroke about a third of the way down. In the 6th century, the head of bet in the Aramaic lapidary script could appear in the older closed form, or the typologically more advanced, open form. Examples of closed bet appear in Aramaic inscriptions on building bricks from Babylon dating to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 b.c.e.): e.g., in the name zbnʾ (Koldewey 1990: 92, fig. 53; see also CIS II 54, 55, 57; Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153–54). Closed bet also appears in a stamp from the reign of Nabonidus (559–39 b.c.e.) that bears the king’s name: nb˹w˺nʾd (Legrain 1925: no. 1095). Thus, in the mid-6th century open and closed forms could alternate. By the 5th century, however, bet is consistently open. The form in our stamp would therefore fit anytime after the emergence of the open form in the lapidary, from about the mid-6th century. Also important diagnostically is the head of waw. In the 8th and 7th centuries, a cup-shaped concave head joins the vertical at the right slightly below the top 12.  We are grateful to Professor F. M. Cross for his willingness to discuss these stamp impressions and our proposal.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor”

87

and forms a distinct right shoulder (Neirab II); other examples of this head are found in the Assur clay tablets and the Starcky tablet, that is, in the late 7th and early 6th centuries. Gradually, the head of waw loses its concave aspect, retaining only a slight bend. It comes to meet the downstroke at the top, and the right shoulder remains barely detectable (as fig. 1:5, 7). This is the form of the mid-6thcentury Babylonian brick inscriptions (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153–54). The form of waw with a sharply squared two-stroke head is archaic. Cross initially disputed the reading ‫ פחוא‬in the Judean stamps where this type of waw appears precisely because the pronounced shoulder seemed too archaic for its apparent Persian-Period provenance. Cross subsequently abandoned this view but was correct to argue that “waw loses its right shoulder beginning in the 7th century, an evolution complete by about 500 b.c. in the Aramaic lapidary script” (2003: 143 n. 43). It was replaced by a simple horizontal stroke, sometimes with an upward tick at its left edge (Cross 1986: 388–89); the horizontal joined the vertical at the top. Avigad also concluded that the type of waw in the present stamp should date to about the second half of the 6th century or first half of the 5th (1976: 15), and this seems correct. The curving head and downstroke of pe in the second line is also a relatively archaic form, which gives way to a more sharply angled figure-7 form in the lapidary of the 5th century. e.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions No coherent pattern is discernible in the orientation of the stamp impressions on the handles. In 13 out of 18 cases in which it is clear, the top of the seal faced the rim 5 times and 2 were impressed with the top of the seal facing the base. Eight stamp impressions were horizontally impressed: 5 with the top of the seal facing to the left of the handle; 3 with the top of the stamp facing to the right of the handle. This indicates that no specific attention was given to the orientation of the seals when they were impressed. f.  Summary and Further Considerations The present stamp impression type, as mentioned, preserves several archaic lapidary forms. It could fit in the second half of the 6th century or the early 5th. To judge from the several archaic letter forms, type 1 is among the earliest stamp impressions in the corpus. This paleographical conclusion is supported by other considerations. The appearance of the double-line field divider and the use of genitive lamed before the personal name with a title in the second line, features so characteristic of late Iron Age seals in Judah and elsewhere, but very rare after that, suggest a date relatively early in the Persian Period. Furthermore, stratigraphical considerations from several loci in Area E of the City of David excavations, where nine exemplars were recovered, support a date early in the Persian Period (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 138 and table 2). One stamp impression of this type was found in the second level of Stratum 9, above yhwd ḥnnh and mwṣh stamp impressions but lower than many of the later types

88

E.  The Early Types

(De  Groot and Ariel 2005: 15), while 6 of the 9 stamp impressions come from Stratum 9 in Areas E1 and G (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 146). At Ramat Raḥel, 4 out of the 7 stamp impressions belonging to this type were excavated in fills just above the surface of the Iron Age citadel, mainly in the courtyard. 13 Together with paleographical and formal considerations, this represents strong circumstantial evidence for a date early in the Persian Period. The genitive lamed before ‫ אחיב‬evidently indicates, as it does in seals of the Iron Age II, that the commodity contained in the jars was at the disposition of ʾAḥîāb, who was evidently the ranking provincial authority. This is one of the key issues for discussing the function of the yhwd jars. See more in the summary, §H, pp. 762–764. 13.  Stamp impression no. 1-15 was found on the surface of the courtyard of the citadel, dated by Aharoni to the Iron Age, inside the northern building (468); no. 1-13 was found about 20 cm above the floor of Stratum V; no. 1-16 was found in the fill above the Iron Age courtyard, in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall; no. 1-14 was found in the rubble covering the courtyard from the Iron Age citadel. We have no information concerning the stratigraphy of stamp impression 1-12, found during the 1954 season (Aharoni 1956c: 145, fig. 11, pl. 25:4).

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number Type

1-1

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬

Site

Jerusalem, City of David

Excavation number

G 2452/1

IAA Museum number

95-2262

Stored at

IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh

First publication

Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 35

Stratigraphic information

Area G, Locus 742, Stratum 9

Original reading

‫ [פחו]א‬//‫]ל]אחזי‬

New reading

‫[פחו]א‬//]‫]ל]אחי[ב‬

Petrographic analysis

Sampled Dec. 2004

Dimensions of impression

21 mm wide; 26 mm high

Dimensions of indicative letters

Left vertical stroke of upper ḥet is 2.9 mm

Other distinctive dimensions

From top side of upper dividing line beneath ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.9 mm.

Shape of stamp

round

Direction of stamp

↑

Pottery description

light pink to white, gray core with white inclusions

Notes

The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, right of its main ridge. The slightly convex seal was not fully impressed on either side. The yod is quite clear.

89

90 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-2

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David G 4605 95-2263 IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 36 Area G, L 778, Stratum 9 ‫ [פ]חוא‬/ ]‫]ל]אח[זי‬ ‫ [פ]חוא‬//]‫]ל]אחי[ב‬ Sampled Dec. 2004 17 mm diam. Left vertical of ḥet in the first line is 2.7 mm; height of waw is 4.3 mm; vertical of lower ʾalep is 3.5 mm. From lower right side of ḥet in the upper line to top right side of waw in the lower line is 8 mm; from top side of upper dividing line beneath ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.7–3.9 mm; round, but not fully preserved → light pink to white, gray core with white and gray inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, but imperfectly. Pace Ariel and Shoham (2000: 47), the reading of the ʾalep in the second line is certain.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

1-3

91

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/17079 95-2264 IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 37 Area E1, L. 2092, Stratum 9 ‫[פ]חוא‬/‫]ל]אחזי‬ ‫[פ]חוא‬//‫]ל]אחיב‬ Sampled: Dec. 2004 not fully preserved; approximately 25 mm diam. Left vertical of upper ḥet is 2.6 mm; downstroke of bet is 3.5 mm From lower right side of ḥet in upper line to top right side of waw in the lower line is 8 mm; from top side of upper dividing line beneath the ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.8 mm. round ↑ pinkish orange with gray core and white inclusions The right part of the seal was not fully impressed. This stamp preserves a certain bet at the end of first line.

92 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-4

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/17163 95-2265 IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 38 Area E1, L. 2104, Stratum 9 ‫ [פח]וא‬/ ]‫]לאחזי‬ ‫ [פח]וא‬/ /]‫]ל]אח[יב‬ Sampled Dec. 2004 not fully preserved round ↓ pinkish orange with gray core; white and gray inclusions. Very badly impressed stamp impression. Its identification is certain only because of its layout, dimensions, double line dividers, and similarities to others of this type.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

1-5

93

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/17143 95-2266 IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 39. Area E1, L. 2113, Stratum 9. ‫ פחוא‬/ ]‫לאחז[י‬ ‫פחוא‬//]‫לאחי[ב‬ Sampled 6.1.2005 20–22 mm diam Left vertical of upper ḥet is 2.6 mm; right vertical of lower ḥet is 2.8 mm; height of waw is 3.9 mm; vertical line of lower ʾalep is 3.6 mm. From the lower right side of lamed to left side of ʾalep is 20 mm; the word ‫ פחוא‬is 18mm wide; from lower right side of ḥet in first line to top right side of waw in the lower line is 8 mm; from the top side of upper dividing line beneath the ḥet to the lower side of lower line is 3.7 mm. round ← buff pink with gray core and many white inclusions. The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, on the main ridge. Pace Ariel and Shoham, the pe is certain (2000: 147).

94 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-6

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/17178 86–1820. IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 40 Area E1, L. 2113, Stratum 9 ‫ פחוא‬/ ]‫לאחז[י‬ ‫ פ̊חוא‬//̊‫לאחיב‬ Sampled 6.1.2005 about 22 mm wide Left vertical line of upper ḥet is 2.8 mm; right vertical line of lower ḥet is 3 mm; height of waw is 4.2 mm; vertical line of lower ʾalep is 3.6 mm. From the lower right side of lamed to the left side of ʾalep is 20 mm. The word ‫ פחוא‬is 18 mm wide; from the lower right side of ḥet in first line to the top right side of waw in the lower line is 9 mm; from the top of the upper dividing line beneath the ḥet to lower side of the lower line is 3.7 mm. round ← (11 pm) Light pink with gray core, white inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle. Pace Ariel and Shoham (2000: 147), the reading of the pe is clear.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

1-7

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David E2/1570 HU 11130 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 41 Area E2, L. 501, Stratum 5. ‫ פחוא‬/ ]‫לאח[זי‬ ‫ פחוא‬/ ]‫לאח[יב‬ -

round ? light pink with gray core, white and black inclusions Item was not located for photographing. According to Ariel and Shoham (2000: 147) the reading of the lamed is uncertain.

Image scanned from Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 41.

95

96 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-8

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David G-4706 HU 11133 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 42 Area G, Surface. The stamped handle fell out of a baulk. ‫ [פ]חוא‬/ ]‫]ל]אחזי[ב‬ -

round ? light pink with gray core, white and black inclusions Item was not located for photographing.

Image scanned from: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 42.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

1-9

97

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/3226 95-2268 IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147, L 43 Area E1, W. 201, Stratum 5 [‫ פח[וא‬/ --- --[‫פחו̊[א‬/]‫]לאחיב‬ Sampled 6.1.2005 17–18 mm in diam. Right vertical line of lower ḥet is 3 mm From top side of upper divided line under the ḥet to lower side of lower line is 2.8 mm. round ← beige wash over pink fabric with dark gray and fine white inclusions. The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, on the central ridge. The seal was badly impressed, with evidence for double stamping evident in a second set of parallel dividing lines, as Ariel and Shoham also noted (2000: 147).

98 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at

First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-10

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Nebi Samwil 34599 Archaeology Staff Office in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Magen and Har-Even 2007: 42–43, no. 2, and pl. 1:2 L. 78314 ‫ [פ]חוא‬//‫לאח[?]ב‬ ‫ [פ]חוא‬//‫לאחיב‬ 20 mm diam.

round ← pink ware, gray core, white inclusions. The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, on the central ridge. The upper line of the impression was almost perfectly preserved and shows a clear yod.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at

First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

99

1-11

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Nebi Samwil 21094 Archaeology Staff Office in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 42–43, no. 3, and pl. 1:3 [‫[פח]ו[א‬/]‫]לא]ח[יב‬ ‫פחוא‬/]‫]לא]ח[יב‬ 15 mm in diameter

rounded impression ↓ pink ware, gray core, white and gray inclusions The seal was faintly impressed on the top side of the handle, on the central ridge. The upper line is largely absent, but the lower line is clear except for ʾalep.

100 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-12

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Ramat Raḥel 6049 64–1794 P. 6 6049 (159) Israel Museum Aharoni 1956c: 145, fig. 11, pl. 25:4; 1962: 33, pl. 30:13 ‫לאחיו‬ [‫[פחוא‬//‫לאחיב‬ Sampled 11.1.2005 not fully preserved; about 22 mm wide Vertical line of lamed is 2.1 mm; left vertical of upper ḥet is 2.8 mm. From top side of upper dividing line beneath the ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.7 mm; ‫ לאחיב‬is 19 mm wide. round; only partially preserved ← beige to pink exterior with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, on the central ridge. The upper line was well preserved, but only scant remains of the lower line can be observed.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

1-13

101

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Ramat Raḥel 972/1 1962–60 P. 6 (8) 972/1; P. 7 (9) 972/1 IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1960a: 108–9; 1962: 8–9, fig 9: 4; pl. 9:4 Locus 329 (square 18 X), about 20 cm above the floor of Stratum V ‫ פחוא‬//. . . ‫ פחוא‬//‫ל[אח]יב‬ Sampled 6.1.2005 20 mm diam Right vertical of lower ḥet is 2.7 mm; height of waw is 3.9 mm; vertical of lower ʾalep is 3.6 mm. ‫ פחוא‬is 19 mm wide round ↑ light beige to pink with dark gray core and white and black inclusions The seal was impressed on the top of the handle, on the central ridge. The upper line is poorly preserved, but the four letters in the second line are clear. Aharoni (1962: 8–9) originally read only ‫ פחוא‬but but recognized the type with the discovery of database nos. 1-12 and 1-14.

102 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-14

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Ramat Raḥel 2021/1 8549 P. 6, 2021/1 (149) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 33–34; Fig. 22: 10, pl. 30:12. Locus 391 (square 17 V), in the rubble covering the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel ‫ פחוא‬//]‫]ל]אח[יו‬ ‫ פחוא‬//]‫]ל]א̊ח̊ [יב‬ 18 mm × 20 mm Right vertical of lower ḥet is 2.9 mm; height of waw is 4.2 mm; vertical of lower ʾalep is 3.5 mm ‫ פחוא‬is 19 mm wide; from top of upper dividing line beneath the ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.7 mm. round, stamp only partially preserved ← light beige wash over pink fabric, with a few large white inclusions Aharoni recognized that this stamp impression was stamped by the same seal as the one first one he found (number 1-12 in this database). The seal was incompletely impressed on the top side of the handle, on the central ridge. The four letters in the second line are clear.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

1-15

103

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Ramat Raḥel 4360/1 1964–1788 P. 8, 4360/1 (514) IAA storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 22, pl. 20:5 found above the surface of the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel, inside the northern building (468) ‫ פחוא‬//‫לאחיו‬ ‫פח̊וא‬/ ]‫לאחי[ב‬ Sampled 6.1.2005 18 mm × 20 mm left vertical of upper ḥet is 2.8 mm; height of waw is 3.9 mm; vertical of lower ʾalep is 3.4 mm ‫ פחוא‬is 19 mm wide; from top side of upper dividing line beneath the ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.7 mm round, stamp only partially preserved ↑ light beige wash over pink fabric, with a few large white inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, on the main ridge along the handle.

104 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-16

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Ramat Raḥel 5406/1 HU-8547 P. 8 5406/1 (734) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 45, pl. 20:4. found in the fill above the Iron Age courtyard, in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall ‫ פחוא‬//‫לאחיו‬ ̊‫ [פ]חוא‬//̊‫לאחיב‬ 18 mm × 20 mm Right vertical line of lower ḥet is 3 mm ‫ פחוא‬is 19 mm wide; from top side of upper dividing line beneath ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.7 mm. round, stamp only partially preserved ← light beige wash over pink ware, with a few large white inclusions and more black small inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, on the main ridge of handle.

2.  Type 1: ‫“ אוחפ ביחאל‬Belonging to ʾĂḥîāb, the Governor” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication

Stratigraphic information New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

1-17

105

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007, 8543. Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot, 2008: 9–10, and pl. I:1. Area C1 North, Sq. B, Locus 003, B. 8543. [‫ [פ]חו[א‬//]‫לא[חיב‬ 18 mm × 20 mm (approximately, right side was not preserved) Vertical of lamed is 2.1 mm; vertical of ḥet in lower line is 3.1 mm From lower side of dividing line beneath ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.7 mm round ← light pink ware, with a few large white inclusions and more black and white small inclusions; lvight gray core. The seal was impressed on the top side of a handle, 45 degrees diagonally to the horizontal line of the rim. The outer edge of the seal does not appear.

106 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication

Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 1-18

‫פחוא‬/‫לאחיב‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007, 8505. Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot, 2008: 10, and pl. I: 2. Area C1 North, Sq. B, Locus 003, B. 8505. ‫ פחוא‬//‫ל̊אחיב‬ 18.5 mm × 20 mm Left vertical of upper ḥet is 2.8 mm; right vertical of lower ḥet is 3 mm; height of waw is 4.2 mm; vertical of lower ʾalep is 3.6 mm. From the right upper edge of pe to the left edge of ʾalep in the word ‫ פחוא‬is approximately 17mm; From lower side of dividing line beneath the ḥet to lower side of lower line is 3.7 mm. round ↑ pink to beige ware, with a few large white and black inclusions and light gray core The seal was impressed on the top side of a handle.

3.  Type 2: ‫“ וירוא ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhûd ʾÛrīyaw”

107

3.  Type 2: ‫“ יהוד׀ אוריו‬Yĕhûd ʾÛrīyaw” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Excavators have recovered only two stamp impressions of this type. Macalister found the first one at Gezer, where he excavated between 1902–5 and 1907–9. 14 Kenyon excavated the second at Jericho in 1955. 15 The current location of these two impressions is unknown. Both sites—Gezer, west of the Judean Hills in the northern Shephelah and possibly outside the borders of the Persian province of Yehud (see §B-1, pp. 23–30; cf. Lipschits 2005: 147–48, 172–74), 16 and Jericho, in the eastern part of the province—are well represented in the Yehud stamp corpus. Together with En Gedi, these are the only sites outside a small radius around Jerusalem that have a significant number of stamped handles: 18 at Jericho (2 belonging to early types, the others middle types); and 8 at Gezer (2 of early types, 1 middle type, and 5 late types). 17 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions Both stamp impressions were made on the bodies of jars before firing, not on handles. The inscription, in two lines, has a single-line field divider. Hammond gives precise measurements for the Jericho stamp, 22.5 × 16 mm (1957a, 1957b). The two impressions appear, however, to be identical and were almost certainly produced by the same, slightly oval, convex seal. This type is one of three that have ‫ יהוד‬in the first line plus a personal name (PN) in the second, with a single-line field divider between the lines of script (also types 3a and 4, and see below the summary discussion of types 2–4, §E.6, pp. 126–127). Stamp impressions of the three types that share the form yhwd + PN all appear on the bodies of jars, not on handles. The formula, GN plus PN, is apparently unique to yhwd stamp impressions in this period. This formulation is unknown from the late Iron Age. Preeminent position is now given to the geographical name, and the PN does not possess the genitive lamed. No obvious parallel or model for such a formulation is known, and the role of the individuals named cannot be directly compared, for example, to that of ʾAḥîab in type 1. We have no information about the stratigraphic situation of the Gezer stamp impression. The Jericho stamped handle, on the other hand, was excavated in the northwest trench at the far north-northwest end of the tell (Reg. Number JPO 14.  Macalister 1912: 224, and fig. 374 on p. 225; see stamp impression no. 2‑2. 15.  The stamp impression was first published by Hammond (1957a, 1957b); see stamp impression no. 2–1. 16.  The presence of a yehud stamp impression of this sort is not sufficient to prove that Gezer was part of the province, any more than the presence of a single stamp impression at Tell Nimrin or in Babylon proves that they were part of the province. For the question of whether Gezer was part of the province of Yehud throughout the Persian Period, see above, §B-1, p. 30. 17.  For a summary discussion of the sites represented in the corpus, see below, §H, p. 760.

108

E.  The Early Types

5.1; #1291; Hammond 1957a: 68; 1957b: 37). Hammond (1957a: 68–69) claimed at first that the archaeological context of this sherd is “clearly Iron Age II,” but later acknowledged that “the archaeological context of the shard was disturbed” and that “dating must follow the evidence of epigraphic indications” (1957b: 39; and cf. Bartlett 1982: 540). On the basis of those epigraphic indications, he accepted a postexilic date, probably influenced by Albright (see below, n. 20). c.  Linguistic and Prosopographic Discussion  18 The Jericho stamp impression was first read by Hammond as ‫אוריו‬/‫( צנגד‬1957a). Later, Hammond altered his own reading and suggested the reading ‫אוריו‬/‫להגר‬ (1957b: 39). 19 Avigad provided the correct reading, ‫יהוד אוריו‬, for the Jericho stamp impression (1957: 146–47); he was followed by Albright (1957: 28–30), Aharoni (1959b: 55–56), Cross (1969a: 24), Naveh (1970: 59), and Bartlett (1982: 540). Macalister originally read the Gezer stamp impression as [?  ‫( ל]בנר [?ק]רין‬1912: 224, and fig. 374 on p. 225). Avigad already suspected, however, that it was actually another ʾÛrīyaw stamp (1957: 150 n. 14). Aharoni then suggested that the Gezer stamp impression was possibly a second exemplar from the same seal as the Jericho stamp impression (1959b: 55–56; 1962: 31 n. 22; followed by Naveh 1970: 59), which seems indisputable. The name ‫אוריו‬, “Y(h)w(h) is my light,” is well attested in the Judean onomasticon in the forms ‫ אוריה‬and ‫( אוריהו‬and cf. 2 Samuel 11; 23:39 [= 1 Chr 11:41]; 2 Kgs 16:10–17; Isa 8:2; Jer 26:20–23). A priest of the name ‫ אוריה‬is known from references in Ezra 8:33 and Neh 3:4, 21, where a certain Meremoth the son of Uriah (the son of Koz), the priest, was mentioned as the one who weighed the silver and the gold and the vessels “in the house of our God.” Avigad was originally tempted to identify the two (1957: 149–51) 20 but later conceded that there was no way to confirm the identification (1976: 22; cf. Bartlett 1982: 541). Among the Elephantine papyri, the name appears in the forms ‫ אוריא‬,‫אריה‬, and ‫אוריה‬. 21 The appearance of the theophoric element spelled ‑yw deserves comment (see already Avigad 1957: 150 and n. 14; Hammond 1957b: 38). The form -yw is unusual for Judah in the seventh and sixth centuries b.c.e. The element ‑yw was common, however, for Northern Israelite names of the eighth century b.c.e. 22 Even so, exemplars of 6th‑ and 5th-century seals or stamp impressions with names ending in ‑yw are known. These include ‫ נחם בר חלקיו‬,‫ לנחמיו בן אחאב‬,‫( מלכיו‬see type 3 be18.  On the name Yehud as the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Yehudah (Judah), the official name of the province of Judah under Persian rule, see above, §D-1, pp. 74–77. 19.  Hammond’s new reading was influenced by Albright, who suggested the reading of the second letter as a postexilic he and confirmed the name Hagar as part of “the archaising revival of the early Hellenistic period, when early biblical names came back into favor” (Hammond 1957b: 38–39 and n. 5). 20.  See, however, the reservations raised already by Albright (1957: 29–30), who preferred to identify this Uriah as a descendant of Uriah, father of Meremoth, probably because of Albright’s attempt to date this seal to the second half of the 4th century b.c.e. 21.  For references, see Zadok 1988: 287. 22. See Cross’s discussion (1983: 53–63).

3.  Type 2: ‫“ וירוא ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhûd ʾÛrīyaw”

109

low), and possibly ‫לזבדיו‬. 23 Avigad and Sass, noting the existence of names of this sort from the Persian Period, suggested the possibility that -yw is thus a postexilic feature (1997: 504; for further discussion, see Avigad 1965: 231; Vanderhooft 2003: 247). It is also possible, as Noth already suggested, that names encountered in Israel’s earlier traditions, including royal names, enjoyed a revival in the Persian era (1928: 60). The same phenomenon is attested in Samaria by the appearance of the name ‫ירבעם‬, “Jeroboam,” on a Samaritan coin of the 4th century (Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 24–25). d. Paleography Cross (2003 [1969]: 143), Naveh (1970: 60), and Avigad (1976: 22) all considered this to be among the earliest yhwd stamp-impression types because of its paleography. The script is elegant and well executed in a formal style. Like type 1, it preserves archaic forms. ʾAlep is again characteristic of the pre-5th-century b.c.e. Aramaic lapidary sequence. Dalet is decidedly archaic, with a completely closed, triangular head. To find a dalet such as this in the Aramaic lapidary script, one must go back to the 7th century b.c.e. He is the usual classical form with the top stroke angled downward and a single oblique stroke descending from it. Of the three examples of waw on the seal, the two examples in the name ‫ אוריו‬preserve the more archaic form with a cupped head and slight right shoulder. The head of reš is slightly opened, but the triangular shape again preserves the ideal of the old lapidary form, which possessed a closed trinagular head. The diagnostic letters in this stamp-type antedate the emergence of the characteristic 5th–4th-century b.c.e. lapidary forms. On paleographical grounds, this stamp would fit well in the late 6th or the first half of the 5th century b.c.e., roughly contemporary with type 1 (thus also Avigad 1976; Cross [1969c: 24] and Naveh [1970: 59] preferred a 5th-century date). 23. For ‫נחם בר חלקיו‬, see Avigad and Sass 1997, no. 818; an Aramaic seal with portmanteau of evolved and conservative letter forms, which Avigad and Sass date to the sixth or early 5th century. For ‫לנחמיו בן אחאב‬, see Avigad and Sass 1997, no. 1074; unprovenanced stamp impression known only from a photo; Aramaic script but Hebrew language, 5th century. For ‫לזבדיו‬, see Cross 1969a: 25–26.

110 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading

New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 2-1

‫אוריו‬/‫יהוד‬ Jericho JPO 5.1; #1291 ? Hammond 1957a: 68–69, pl. XVI; 1957b: 37–39, pl. 33:A; Bartlett 1982: 540, and fig. 4, p. 539 North–South Trench II, at the far NNW end of the tell; unstratified (see note) ‫אוריו‬/‫( צנגד‬Hammond 1957a); ‫אוריו‬/‫להגר‬ (Hammond 1957b). ‫( יהוד אוריו‬after Avigad 1957: 146–47) 22.5 × 16 mm. slightly oval Body sherd. The impression has a slightly concave face. Hammond (1957a: 68–69) claimed that the archaeological context of this sherd is “clearly Iron Age II” (and cf. Kenyon 1953: 81–95); see, however, Bartlett 1982: 540.

Scanned from Hammond 1957a: pl. XVI.

3.  Type 2: ‫“ וירוא ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhûd ʾÛrīyaw” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Pottery description

2-2

‫אוריו‬/‫יהוד‬ Gezer ? Macalister 1912: 224, and fig. 374 p. 225. [?‫( ל]בנר [?ק]רין‬Macalister 1912: 224). ‫( יהוד אוריו‬after Aharoni 1959: 55–56; 1962: 31 n. 22, and cf. Avigad 1957: 150 n. 14). slightly oval body sherd

Scanned from: Macalister 1912: 225, fig. 374.

111

112

E.  The Early Types

4.  Type 3: ‫“ יהוד ׀ מלכיו‬Yĕhûd Malkīyaw” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution This is the most recently discovered of all the yhwd stamp impression types. Four of them are now known. The first one published was discovered during the 1993 excavation season at Tell Nimrin, Jordan. 24 Four years later, an unprovenanced stamp impression with the same reading (but not from the same seal) was published by Deutsch and Heltzer. 25 Another stamp impression of this type was discovered during Shiloh’s excavations at the City of David (1978–85, published in 2000), but its correct reading was recognized by Barkay (2004: 9; 2005: 25–28). 26 Barkay also published a fourth example that was discovered in the excavations at Binyanei Haʾuma. 27 In contrast to type 2, where both stamp impressions were discovered in the west (Gezer) and in the east (Jericho), in the case of type 3, 2 of the 4 stamp impressions were discovered in the heart of the province: in the City of David and in the nearby site of Binyanei Haʾuma, 3 km to the west. It is most unusual that one of these stamp impressions was recovered at Tell Nimrin, which is approximately 12 km north of the Dead Sea, 8 km from the Jordan River, and 16 km east of Jericho (Dempsey 1996: 77 n. 1). b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impression As with types 2 and 4, the 4 stamp impressions of type 3 appear on the bodies of jars, not handles. The impressions are slightly oval and were impressed before firing. The 3 excavated exemplars of this type have two lines of script separated by a double-line field divider. This feature is also known from type 1. The stamp impression from Tell Nimrin measures 20 mm × 18 mm. The exemplar from the City of David has a diameter of approximately 19 mm (not fully preserved), and the one from Binyanei Haʾuma is 21 × 16 mm. The single unprovenanced exemplar was impressed by a different seal. It also has two lines of script, but it was separated by a single‑ rather than double-line field divider and measures 21.3 × 18.7 mm (Deutsch and Heltzer 1997: 76, fig. 116). c.  Linguistic and Prosopographic Discussion Dempsey proposed the reading ‫ מלכיו‬/ ‫ יהוד‬for the Tell Nimrin stamp impression, although she was more certain about the second line than the first, which 24.  Dempsey 1996: 76–77; see stamp impression 3-2. 25.  Deutsch and Heltzer 1997: 76 fig. 116; see stamp impression 3-4. This unprovenanced example was impressed on the body of a jar before firing. However, we duly note that this item was not recovered in legal excavations. 26.  For the publication, see Ariel and Shoham 2000: 145, L32; and see stamp impression 3-1. Ariel and Shoham (2000: 145) knew of the Tell Nimrin stamp impression and even cited it in connection with the impression from the City of David, but they did not notice that the two exemplars are identical. 27.  Barkay 2004: 9; 2005: 25–28; and see stamp impression 3-3.

4.  Type 3: ‫“ ויכלמ ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Malkīyaw”

113

was faintly impressed (1996: 76–77). In the unprovenanced seal impression published by Deutsch and Heltzer, only the first letter of the second line is effaced, but they had no difficulty restoring the full reading. G. Barkay was then able, by comparing these two impressions with a third one from Binyanei Haʾuma, to correctly decipher the reading of the stamp impression from the City of David (Barkay 2004: 9; 2005: 25–27). The City of David stamp was read [  yhw]d / . . wyw by Ariel and Shoham (2000: 145, L32, with the reading credited to J. Naveh and A. Yardeni). Close examination and new photos confirm Barkay’s suggestion, that the City of David stamp impression should be read [  yhw]d // [m]lkyw. The name Malkīyaw, “Yaw is my king,” is well known from biblical and epigraphic texts. The name ‫ מלכיהו‬appears in its full form in Jer 38:6, on an Iron Age Hebrew seal (Avigad and Sass 1997: 236), and on an unpublished Hebrew seal reading ‫שבניהו‬/‫מלכיהו‬, and some bullae (Deutsch 2003: 409–10). Eight different individuals of the postexilic period bear the name ‫( מלכיה‬Jer 21:1, 38:1; Ezra 10:31; Neh 3:11, 14, 31; 10:14; 11:12; 1 Chr 6:25; 9:12). It is worth mentioning that one of them, Malkiyah the son of Recab (Neh 3:14), was the ruler of the district of BethHakkerem (= Ramat Raḥel), while another Malkiyah was “one of the goldsmiths” who settled in Jerusalem (3:31). The name is also known from Elephantine. d. Paleography One of the published exemplars of this type is fragmentary (from the City of David; Ariel and Shoham 2000: 145, L32) and another is very difficult to read from photos (from Tell Nimrin; Dempsey 1996: 76–77). The example from Binyanei Haʾuma, published by Barkay, is clearer. 28 The dalet does not appear to be completely closed, as it is in the unprovenanced exemplar, while letters visible in the second line conform to 5th-century b.c.e. lapidary types. Mem is characteristic of the 6th century b.c.e. and later. The paleography and the two-line field separator of these exemplars suggest a date close to types 1 and 2. In the unprovenanced exemplar, the lapidary Aramaic letters of ‫ יהוד‬are very similar in shape, stance, and spacing to those in type 2, ‫יהוד אוריו‬, and type 4, ‫יהוד‬ ‫( חננה‬Naveh 1970: 59). They also closely resemble the shape of the letters of type 5. Like type 2, this impression also possesses a closed dalet, which is an archaic feature. Waw has a horizontal top bar with an upward tick on the left, but no right shoulder. Kap is not diagnostic. We would date this stamp to about the same period as type 2. 28.  We are very grateful to Gabriel Barkay for showing us a photograph of this stamp impression before it was published.

114 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 3-1

‫ מלכיו‬/‫יהוד‬ Jerusalem, City of David D1/12580 95-2259 IAA storages at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 146, L 32 Area D1, L. 422, St. 8 ‫…ויו‬/‫]יהו]ד‬ ‫[מ]לכיו‬/‫]יהו]ד‬ Sampled 6.1.2005 approx. 19 mm diam. (not fully preserved) downstroke of kap 5.5 mm round to oval can be checked only in relationship to interior wheel marks light pink with brown core and white inclusions body sherd (5 mm thick)

4.  Type 3: ‫“ ויכלמ ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Malkīyaw” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

3-2

‫מלכיו‬/‫יהוד‬ 03 Tell Nimrin 60 ? Dempsey 1996: 76–77, and fig. 9 Locus 158, Area N40/w25. ‫ מלכיו‬/ ‫יהוד‬ ‫ מלכיו‬/ ‫יהוד‬ 18 × 20 mm

N/A

Scanned from Dempsey 1996: 76–77, fig. 9.

115

116 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 3-3

‫יהוד מלכיו‬ Binyanei Haʾuma, Jerusalem B. 61478 IAA storages Barkay 2005: 25–27, and fig. 2. Area B4, Locus 6103, Basket Number 61460 ‫ מלכיו‬/ ‫יהוד‬

21 mm × 16 mm

Slightly oval ? Body sherd (4.2 × 3.5 cm, width ca. 0.6 cm), brown-pink, brown core, with white grits of different size double-line field divider

Scanned from Barkay 2005: 25–27, fig. 2.

4.  Type 3: ‫“ ויכלמ ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Malkīyaw” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

117

3-4

‫יהוד מלכיו‬ unknown unknown. unknown. Deutsch and Heltzer 1997: 76 fig. 116 ‫יהוד מלכיו‬

21.3 × 18.7 mm

N/A body sherd; single-line field divider, not the same impression as the other three of this type

Scanned from Deutsch and Heltzer 1997: fig. 76.

118

E.  The Early Types

5.  Type 4: ‫“ יהוד ׀ חננה‬Yĕhūd Ḥananāh” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Five stamp impressions from the same seal are known. The first stamp impression of this type was excavated at Ramat Raḥel in Aharoni’s first season (1954). 29 Another was discovered in Aharoni’s last season (1962). 30 The third stamp impression of this type from Ramat Raḥel emerged in 2006 during renewed excavations at the site directed by Lipschits, Oeming, and Gadot. 31 In addition, two more stamp impressions were recovered at the City of David excavations conducted by Y. Shiloh between 1978 and 1985. 32 Thus far, therefore, this is one of the types known only from the two main centers of the yhwd stamp impressions, Ramat Raḥel and the City of David. It should be noted that Avigad published 3 unprovenanced bullae with similar impressions (1976: 4–5; pl. 5:a–c). The dimensions of the bullae (22 × 19 mm) are very close to one of the complete stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel published by Aharoni (1964a: 46; fig. 37:10; pl. 20:7; see stamp impression no. 4-4). The bullae, however, show a distinct linear border that is not evident in the jar stamps, and the waw in the bullae is different from the jar impressions. As Avigad recognized (1976: 5), therefore, the bullae were not impressed by the same seal as the jar stamps, and because the authenticity of these bullae cannot be confirmed, we have excluded them from our database. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions Like types 2 and 3, all five stamp impressions of type 4 appear on body sherds, not handles, and were stamped before firing. They were all impressed with the same slightly oval seal. The single complete impression measures 23 × 19 mm, but all of the impressions are from one seal. Thus, the downstroke of the yod is 4 mm, the top stroke of the final he is 6 mm, and the height of each nun is 5.9 mm. The disposition of the letters in relation to the dividing line is also identical in all examples. The inscription, in two lines, has a single-line field divider. Clearly this type is formally identical to types 2 and 3, with the toponym in the first line and a personal name in the second. The quality of the seals is worth mentioning; Yadin already suggested that seals of types 2 and 4 were manufactured by the same school of engravers (noted in Avigad 1957: 153) as did Naveh (1970: 59). Given the very formal character of the script, it is reasonable to assume that the scribe who produced the seal of type 4 was connected to the provincial chancellery. 29.  Aharoni 1956c: 146, pl. 26:4; see stamp impression no. 4-3. 30.  Aharoni 1964a: 46, fig. 37:10, pl. 20:7; see stamp impression no. 4-4. 31.  Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 75–76 and fig. 11; see stamp impression no. 4-5. 32.  Ariel and Shoham 2000: 145, L30 and L31; see stamp impression nos. 4-1 and 4-2.

5.  Type 4: ‫“ הננח ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhūd Ḥananāh”

119

c.  Prosopographic Discussion The first stamp impression found at Ramat Raḥel was broken and only the final two letters of each line were preserved. Aharoni read it as     ‫ נה‬. ./‫ נר‬. . (. . . nr/. . . nh) (1956c: 146). After the discovery of the stamp impression ‫ אוריו‬/ ‫ יהוד‬at Jericho (type 2; see discussion above, §E-3, pp. 107–111), Yadin, followed by Avigad, recognized the similarities between the two types and suggested that the letters in the upper line should be reconstructed as ‫  [( ]יה]וד‬yh]wd. (Yadin, note in Avigad 1957: 153 and cf. pp. 151–52). Both Avigad and Yadin reconstructed the name in the lower line as ‫[( ]בע]נה‬bʿ ]nh), and Albright supported this suggestion (1957: 28–29). Yadin sought to identify this Baʿanah with the father of Zadok who is mentioned in the same verse with Meremoth the son of Uriah (Neh 3:4; cf. the name in type 2) or possibly with the person mentioned in Neh 10:27 (Yadin in Avigad 1957: 153; and cf. Albright 1957: 30). When the second and complete stamp impression of this type was discovered at Ramat Raḥel (1962), Aharoni recognized the name in the second line as ‫חננה‬ (ḥnnh) (1964a: 46) and correctly read ‫“ יהוד ׀ חננה‬Yehûd Ḥananāh.” Various names from the root ‫ חנן‬appear in the Judean and Israelite onomastica, in both biblical and epigraphic sources. The forms ‫( חנניה‬22 times) and ‫חנניהו‬ (2 times), “Yhwh has been gracious,” are especially common in biblical texts describing the period of the late Judean Kingdom and the Persian era. Nehemiah is said to have appointed a certain ‫ חנניה‬as ‫שׂר הבירה‬, “captain of the fortress” (Neh 7:2). A governor of Samaria in the 4th century was called ‫חנניה‬, while another Samarian official was called ‫( חנן‬Meshorer and Qedar 1999; H. Eshel 2007: 231–32). Aharoni was at a loss to explain the form of the name in the stamp impression and speculated that it might be “a Palestinian form of the name ‫”)חנינה =( חנינא‬ (1964a: 46). Avigad, by constrast, understood ‫ חננה‬to be a hypocoristicon of ‫חנניה‬ (1976: 5). Naveh compared the name to the form ‫( חנונה‬see type 8, §E-10, pp. 202–205 below) and concluded that both were Qal passive participles, one spelled defectively and the other plene, belonging to a single female official, Ḥanûnāh (1996: 45–46). Given the preference for the form ‫ חנניה‬in Yehud and in 4th century Samaria, we are inclined to accept the Avigad’s opinion that it is a hypocoristicon, although a form of this sort is otherwise unknown. d. Paleography The paleography of the toponym is virtually identical to the previous two types, except that, whereas dalet still possesses a triangular head, it is not fully closed. As in the toponym, the lapidary Aramaic letters of ‫ חננה‬are elegantly made in a formal hand. The ḥet is the usual lapidary form; nun, with its very vertical stance, is not chronologically diagnostic; the he leans to the left with an oblique upper stroke that is characteristic of the classic lapidary (Naveh 1970: 54). Typological indications would place the script anytime in the late 6th or early 5th centuries. The very similar paleography of the seals of types 2-4 clearly is of a formal, chancellery character and, since the seal also mentions the province name, should probably be linked to the Judean provincial administration, which must

120

E.  The Early Types

therefore have adopted the Aramaic script for official use before its older features disappeared in the fifth century. Paleography, form, and content suggests a close date range, probably in the late 6th or early 5th centuries, for all three seals. e.  Summary and Further Considerations Three of the 5 stamp impressions assigned to this type were discovered in clear Persian-Period archaeological contexts. The stamp impressions from the City of David (nos. 4-1 and 4-2, Ariel and Shoham 2000: 145, L30, L31) were discovered in the same basket, in a fill belonging to Stratum 9 (Locus 1364), a clear PersianPeriod context. The pottery and fabric of both sherds are the same. However, Ariel and Shoham concluded that the two stamp impressions were not produced by the same seal, and they doubted that they belong to the same vessel. We disagree with the first conclusion. As mentioned, close examination reveals that all stamp impressions of this type are from one seal. Given the proximity of the discovery of the two impressions, it is possible, but not certain, that a single seal was used to impress a single jar twice. It is equally possible that two different jars were stored or discarded in the same location. The second stamp impression from Ramat Raḥel published by Aharoni (no. 4-4) was excavated in the fill in the southwestern corner of the Iron Age citadel (locus 847, square 9Q, level 6.35), together with other material from the Persian Period (Aharoni 1964: 46), confirming the ascription of this type to the Persian Period.

5.  Type 4: ‫“ הננח ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhūd Ḥananāh” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

4-1

121

‫חננה‬/‫יהוד‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/9228 86-1832 IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 145, L30 found in a fill in Area E1, Stratum 9, L. 1364, in the same pottery basket as 4-2 ‫יהוד חננה‬ ‫]יהוד] | חננה‬ only bottom right part was preserved height of right nun: 5.8 mm; height of left nun: 5.9 mm oval N/A light pink fabric, very well levigated with small white inclusions

122 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 4-2

‫חננה‬/‫יהוד‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/9229 86-1833 IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 144, L31 found in a fill in Stratum 9, Area E, L. 1364, in the same pottery basket as L30 ‫יהוד חננה‬ [‫יהוד | חננ[ה‬ sampled 6.1.2006 height is 18 mm; width was not preserved. downstroke of yod: 4 mm; downstroke of he: 4.4 mm; height of right nun: 5.6 mm oval N/A body sherd (5 mm); pink with brown core; well levigated with white inclusions.

5.  Type 4: ‫“ הננח ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhūd Ḥananāh” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

123

4-3

‫חננה‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel 3383 64-1795 not in the album Israel Museum Aharoni 1956c: 146, pl. 26:4; ‫ נה‬. . | ‫ נר‬. . ‫]יה]וד | [חנ]נה‬ only left part of stamp impression was preserved top stroke of he: 6 mm; height of nun: 5.9 mm. 12.5 mm from top left of dalet in upper line to bottom of he in lower line oval N/A body sherd (7 mm); light pink fabric with white inclusions

124 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 4-4

‫חננה‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel 6587/1 64-1796 p. 22, 6587/1 (negative 6194) Israel Museum Aharoni 1964: 46, fg. 37:10, pl. 20:7; Hestrin et al. 1973: 67, no. 149 the fill in the southwestern corner of the Iron Age citadel (locus 847, square 9Q, level 6.35), together with other material from the Persian Period ‫יהוד | חננה‬ ‫יהוד | חננה‬ not sampled 23 mm × 19 mm downstroke of yod 4 mm, top stroke of final he: 6 mm; downstroke of he : 4.2 mm; height of both nuns: 5.9 mm sherd: 7 mm thick; 12.5 mm from top left of dalet in upper line to bottom of he in lower line oval N/A body sherd (7 mm); light pink fabric with gray core and white and black inclusions There is a hole to the left of the yod in the first line. The impression is much shallower in the upper part, and the letters of the first line are slightly blurred.

5.  Type 4: ‫“ הננח ׀ דוהי‬Yĕhūd Ḥananāh” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication

Stratigraphic information Original reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

4-5

125

‫חננה‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-49/2006 3094 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 75–76, and fig. 1:1 Area C1, Locus 317, Basket 3094 ‫]י]הוד | [ח]ננה‬ 18.3 mm high downstroke of he: 4.2 mm; top stroke of final he: 4 mm; 12.5 mm from top left of dalet in upper line to bottom of he in lower line. Height of both nuns: 5.9 mm oval N/A body sherd (4 mm thick); light pink-orange fabric, well levigated, with white inclusions

126

E.  The Early Types

6.  Types 2–4: Summary Discussion Avigad (1957: 146–53), followed by Albright (1957: 28–30), who knew only one exemplar of type 2 and one of type 4, 33 already had identified the similarities between them and assigned them to the same group of stamp impressions from the Persian Period. Albright (1957: 28) summarized the main characteristics of this group: they appear on the bodies of jars, not handles, as usual; yhwd appears in the first line and a personal name in the second. He dated this group as close to the silver coin from Beth-Zur as possible (p. 29): the second half of the 4th century. Yadin, at this stage of the research, had already noted the quality of the seal (a note in Avigad 1957: 153) and supplemented Avigad’s identification by suggesting that both seals that produced the stamp impressions were manufactured by the same school of engravers. When two more stamp impressions joined this group, the ʾÛrīyaw stamp from Gezer and the second and complete Yehūd Ḥananāh stamp from Ramat Raḥel, 34 the connection between the two types became obvious. Two more Yehūd Ḥananāh stamps then appeared in Shiloh’s excavations at the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 144–45, L30, L31), and the connection with the 2 known exemplars became clear. Dempsey did not connect the first-published Yehūd Malkīyaw impression to the other similar types. Barkay (2005: 25–27), when he suggested the correct reading of the City of David exemplar together with the publication of the new one from Binyanei Haʾuma, noted the connection of this type of stamp impression (our type 3) with the other two types (our types 2 and 4). It is appropriate here to discuss the 11 stamp impressions of types 2, 3, and 4. The basic reasons for the connection among the 3 types have not changed since they were listed by Albright (1957: 28–30), and we can add to those the similar layout, paleography, and similar quality of the seals, which are distinctive among the early types. The paleography of the toponym is virtually identical in all the three types, except that, while dalet still possesses a triangular head, it is not fully closed. Otherwise, one could conclude that ‫ יהוד‬in types 2–4 was engraved by a single craftsman (so Naveh 1970: 59 with respect to types 2 and 4). As in the toponym, the lapidary Aramaic letters of ‫ חננה‬are elegantly made in a formal hand. The seals of types 2–4 clearly were engraved by an expert craftsman. If we map the 11 closely-related impressions of types 2–4, the following picture emerges: 3 exemplars were discovered at the City of David and 3 were discov33.  The type 2 exemplar from Jericho was discovered in Kenyon’s excavations in 1955 and published by Hammond in 1957, the same year that Avigad published his paper and Albright reacted with his paper. The type 4 exemplar from Ramat Raḥel was discovered in Aharoni’s first season (1954) and was published by him in 1956c. 34.  The ʾUriyaw stamp impression from Gezer was published already by Macalister (1912: 224) but identified by Aharoni (1959: 55–56; 1962: 31 n. 22), even if Avigad (1957: 150 n. 14) had already anticipated Aharoni’s identification. The Yehūd Ḥananāh stamp impression was discovered at Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962); Aharoni easily identified the reading and assigned it to the group of stamp impressions discussed here.

6.  Types 2–4: Summary Discussion “Yĕhūd Ḥananāh”

127

Graph 12.  Distribution of types 2–4.

ered at Ramat Raḥel. In addition to these two sites, one exemplar was discovered at each of the following sites: Binyanei Haʾumah, Jericho, Gezer, and Tell Nimrin. The origin of one more exemplar is not known. Thus, 7 of the 12 stamp impressions from these related types cluster in the Jerusalem/Ramat Raḥel region, with lone stamp impressions appearing at sites farther afield, including beyond the borders of Yehūd. However, type 4 has a totally different distribution than that of types 2 and 3. All 5 of the exemplars were discovered at the two main sites. Types 2 and 3, by contrast, were discovered in distinct sites: 1 of them in Jerusalem and 3 of them in the far regions of the province or even beyond it. The fact that these stamp impressions also all contain the toponym suggests that the individuals named in them filled an official role, although whether that role was as governor is uncertain (and see Avigad 1976). The formal script and official nature of the seals suggest that they originated in the provincial administration. Of course, we cannot automatically connect two of the names to officials at the time of Nehemiah (Malkiyah the son of Recab, the ruler of the district of Beth-Hakkerem according to Neh. 3: 14, and Hananyah, the captain of the fortress according to 7:2).

128

E.  The Early Types

7.  Type 5: ‫“ יה׀ וד‬Yĕhûd” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Only two stamp impressions of this type are known. The first was discovered in the third excavation season at Ramat Raḥel (1960). 35 The second was a chance find from the area of the Ophel (Jerusalem) and has not been previously published. 36 The distribution of the two stamp impressions matches that of type 4: the City of David and Ramat Raḥel. This is different from the distribution of types 2 and 3, some of which were discovered beyond the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. This fact is worth mentioning because types 4 and 5 also have a very similar paleography. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions The seal is laid out with two characters in each of two registers with a single-line field divider. The round stamp impressions appear on body sherds, not handles, and were impressed before firing. The exemplar from the City of David is elegant and clear, with a diameter of 18 mm, whereas the Ramat Raḥel exemplar has a diameter of 17.4 mm. The overall layout and precise measurements prove that the stamp impressions come from the same seal: thus, for example, the yod is 5.2 mm high, and the downstroke of dalet is 6.5 mm. The layout of two letters in each of two registers is similar to the two-line mwṣh stamp type known from Tell en-Naṣbeh (McCown 1947: pl. 57:15, 16; type B in Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994: 173, fig. 6) and Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1964a: 44, pl. 19:9; IAA reg. no. 64-1793). 37 c. Paleography Type 5 shows very close similarities to the paleography of the toponym in types 2–4. The triangular head of dalet is only very slightly open and is particularly striking (Aharoni 1962:32); it is very close to that of type 4. All of the stamp 35.  Aharoni 1962: 32, fig. 22:6, pl. 27:4; see stamp impression no. 5-2. 36.  According to Israel Antiquity Authority records, the stamp impression was found by Mr. Gefen from Kibbutz Dorot, who brought it to the IAA on April 23, 1971 (IAA no. 1971-344; see stamp impression no. 5-1). We would like to thank to Mrs. Deborah Ben-Ami from the IAA for assisting us in retrieving this information. 37.  Aharoni (1964a: 44, pl. 19:9) originally thought this stamp impression (also on a body sherd) was another yhwd stamp, although he noticed that it was different from the first. According to our analysis, it is a mwṣh stamp impression and, in any case, has different dimensions from the present type (slightly oval, 15 mm × 17 mm high). The first letter on the right of the first line is certainly not a yod and is best read as a mem. The second is unclear but could be yod, as Aharoni read it, or, preferably, a waw. The first letter of the second line is not clear but could be ṣade. The second could be a he or, possibly, a waw. It might not be a particularly clear mwṣh stamp impression, but it is certainly not a yehud stamp impression.

7.  Type 5: ‫“ דו ׀ הי‬Yĕhûd”

129

impressions of types 2–5 were impressed on the bodies of jars, not handles. These facts suggest a date for type 5 close to types 2–4 (cf. Naveh 1970: 59). A date for type 5 relatively early in the Persian Period may also be supported by the formal parallel to the two-line mwṣh stamps, which are best dated to the 6th century b.c.e. (Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994). Stamp impressions of type 5 are no doubt functionally equivalent to those of type 6, which from their paleographical typology appear to be slightly later. d.  Further Considerations Interestingly, none of the early yehud stamp impression types (1–5), including type 5 with its formal parallels to the mwṣh impressions, appears at Tell enNaṣbeh. Tell en-Naṣbeh, however, yielded the largest number of mwṣh stamp impressions. Of course, biblical narratives also indicate that Mizpah, which most scholars identify with Tell en-Naṣbeh, became the seat of Judean government after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586. The yhwd stamp impressions of types 1–5 have admittedly not been excavated in large numbers, but it is worth noting that our proposed earliest types do not appear at Tell en-Naṣbeh. This is also the first stamp impression type considered so far that preserves only the toponym yhwd. Other geographical names appear in earlier seals and stamp impressions from Judah. These include Hebron, Ziph, Socoh, Mmšt, Gibeon, and so on. These are invariably city names. In no earlier instance, however, does the name of the kingdom/province of Judah appear alone. This practice becomes common, however, in subsequent yehud stamp impressions and coins and may be characterized as an innovation of the Achaemenid era.

130 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 5-1

‫וד‬/‫יה‬ Jerusalem–City of David 2922/0 71-344 IAA storages, Beth-Shemesh unpublished ‫וד‬/‫יה‬ 18 mm diam downstroke of yod: 4 mm; downstroke of waw: 6 mm round N/A body sherd: 7 mm; pink with brown core; well levigated with white inclusions The letters are of the classical shapes. Waw is shaped like a 7 with no flourishes; head of dalet is nearly closed and differs from stamp impression 5-2 only because of the manner of impression.

7.  Type 5: ‫“ דו ׀ הי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

5-2

131

‫וד‬/‫יה‬ Ramat Raḥel 2372/1 (3143) 62-54 p. 26, 2372/1 (151) IAA storages, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 32, fig. 22:6, pl. 27:4 Locus 398 (level 7.60), Square U-18 ‫וד‬/‫יה‬ ‫וד‬/‫יה‬ 17.4 mm round downstroke of dalet: 8.1 mm body sherd 7 mm thick round completely closed triangular head of dalet light pink with gray core, small white inclusions There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records. Also drawn in Aharoni’s card of 2372/2 (impression no. 6-15 in this corpus).

132

E.  The Early Types

8.  Type 6: ‫“ יהוד‬Yĕhûd” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution This type is the fourth most common among the corpus of the yhwd stamp impressions (together with type 16) and the most common among the early types, with 55 stamp impressions—about 43% of the 128 stamp impressions belonging to the 12 early types. The first stamp impression of this type was discovered at Gezer. 38 Macalister read it ‫]ר‬-[‫ ( יפ‬yp_r). Sukenik already recognized that this reading was erroneous and proposed reading it ‫( יהד‬1934: 183). After Aharoni discovered a second stamp impression of this type at Ramat Raḥel 39 during small-scale excavations in 1956, he determined that the stamp impression from Gezer belonged to the same type (Aharoni 1959b: 56 and n. 6). Three more were excavated at Ramat Raḥel in the second season (1959). 40 This permitted Aharoni to decipher yet another (the first ever discovered at Ramat Raḥel [1954]) as belonging to this type, although he first read it as ‫( לדשץ‬1956c: 146, fig. 12, pl. 25:6). 41 Of this type, 7 more stamp impressions were discovered at Ramat Raḥel in 1960, 5 more in 1961, and 12 more in 1962. 42 Aharoni thus reported 28 of these stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel (1964a: 44). However, we have discovered 3 more stamp impressions of this type in Aharoni’s excavation records. 43 Aharoni thus excavated 31 of these stamps at Ramat Raḥel. Another exemplar was discovered at Ramat Raḥel at the end of the 1990s during salvage excavations conducted by G. Suleimany on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. 44 The 16 most recently recovered stamp impressions of this type were also excavated at Ramat Raḥel: 2 exemplars during the 2005 season of the renewed project, 5 during the 2007 season, and 9 during the 2008 season. 45 This brings the total for this type at Ramat Raḥel to 48 (about 87% of the stamp impressions belonging to this type). In addition to the stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel and the single example from Gezer, 3 were found at En Gedi in the 1960s by B. Mazar and I. Dunayevsky. 46 Two more were recovered at the City of David: one during Shiloh’s 38.  Macalister 1909b: 97, fig. 2; 1912: 224–25, fig. 377; see stamp impression no. 6-1. 39.  Aharoni 1959b: 56 and n. 6, fig. 2:a; pl. 4:D; see stamp impression no. 6-9. 40.  Aharoni 1962: 6-7, fig. 8:10–12, pl. 8:1; see stamp impression nos. 6-10 – 6-12. 41.  Aharoni 1956c: 146, fig. 12, pl. 25:6; see stamp impression no. 6-8. 42. In 1960: Aharoni 1962: 31–32, fig. 22:5; pl. 31:10–12; see stamp impression nos. 6-13 – 6-19; in 1961: Aharoni 1964a: 21, pl. 19:7–8; see stamp impression nos. 6-20 – 6-24; in 1962: Aharoni 1964: 44; see stamp impression nos. 6-25 – 6-36 for further details. 43.  Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009; see stamp impression nos. 6-37 – 6-39. 44.  The stamp impression was given to G. Barkay for publication, and we wish to thank him for showing us a photograph of this as-yet-unpublished stamp impression. See stamp impression no. 6-40. 45. In 2005: Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 76–77 and fig. 1:2-3; see stamp impression nos. 6-41 – 6-42; in 2007: Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 12–14 and pls. I:3–6, II:7; see stamp impression nos. 6-43 – 6-47; in 2008: Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 3–9, nos. 1–8; see stamp impression nos. 6‑48 – 6-55. 46.  Mazar and Dunayevsky 1964a: 126–27; pl. 27:c; Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 6667 and fig. 1:1–2. See stamp impression nos. 6-2 – 6-4.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd”

133

Graph 13.  Distribution of type 6.

excavations between 1978 and 1985, and the other in Reich and Shukron’s excavations between 1995 and 2005. 47 One more stamp impression of this type was excavated at Rogem Gannim and published as a yhd type. 48 A close examination of the photograph shows a wide gap between the yod and the dalet, while the faint remains of the waw and a precise measurement of the diameter and layout of the visible signs show that this stamp impression should be read yhwd. 49 As noted, this type of stamp impression is heavily represented at Ramat Raḥel, where 48 out of 55 were discovered. As early as 1962, Aharoni (1962: 31) had identified this type as unique to Ramat Raḥel, something he repeated in 1964, when he added that all the stamp impressions “were apparently made by a single seal” (1964a: 44). The appearance of 3 stamp impressions of this type at En Gedi (not from the same seal) may indicate that the site was important in the economic and administrative system of Judah. The appearance of these 3 examples in the east has its complement in the single example from Gezer in the west. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions The stamp impressions belonging to this type appear exclusively on jar handles, not on the bodies of jars. The seals are unadorned and contain only the toponym ‫יהוד‬, always spelled plene in a single line. The seals’ craftsmen did not fill the considerable empty space above and below the letters of the toponym. The impressions are flat and nearly round. 47. In Shiloh’s excavations: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147 (L44); see stamp impression no. 6-5; in Reich and Shukron’s excavations: Reich and Shukron 2006; see stamp impression no. 6-6. 48.  Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 232, No. F-2, and Fig. 3: F2. 49.  See stamp impression number 6-7.

134

E.  The Early Types

Graph 14.  Distribution of types 6a and 6b.

Although Aharoni thought that only one seal was used to impress stamp impressions of this type (1964a: 21, 44), at least two main seals were used (cf. Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147). The seal of subtype 6a produced impressions with a diameter between 18 and 21 mm, in which the yod measures 5 mm in height. The seal of subtype 6b (see below) produced impressions of almost the same size as 6a, between 18 and 20 mm. In formal terms, we can compare seal impressions of type 6 to the type A mwṣh stamp impressions, which also have only a toponym in a single line, with no other decoration. Except for type 5, we have no earlier seal type in Hebrew or Aramaic that preserves only the name of the province (or kingdom). Of course, later Yehud coins frequently were engraved with only the legend yhwd or yhd (or another variation), but other decorative motifs always accompany the legend in the coins. Comparison of the distribution of subtypes 6a and 6b does not yield meaningful differences between them. In addition to the two exemplars that cannot be assigned to a specific subtype, 50 there are 21 assigned to subtype 6a (2 from En Gedi, 1 each from the City of David and from Rogem Gannim, and 17 from Ramat Raḥel), and 32 assigned to subtype 6b (1 from Gezer, 1 from the City of David, and 30 from Ramat Raḥel). 50.  See stamp impression no. 6-2 from En Gedi and no. 6-27 from Ramat Raḥel.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd”

135

c.  Paleography Subtype 6a

The seal is inscribed in Aramaic. The downstroke of yod slants to the left, and its bottom stroke angles sharply upward to the right. The downstroke of he also slants to the left. Waw is noteworthy because the top stroke is not horizontal: it is oblique and joins the vertical downstroke near its middle. The very thick downstroke of waw, together with the oblique upper stroke, produces a distinctive Y shape for the letter and makes it easy to identify stamps from this seal. 51 The top of the dalet is very near the left edge of the seal. It is rarely fully impressed but is open. The spacing and positioning of the letters in relationship to a theoretical “ceiling” line, from which the letters “hang,” suggest an expert engraver. We identified 21 stamp impressions as clearly belonging to subtype 6a. Subtype 6b

This seal is conceived on precisely the same model as type 6a, but the paleography is not identical. Paleographical analysis of this type is fairly straightforward. Yod angles slightly to the left, whereas its foot angles sharply up to the right, as in subtype 6a. Each of the other three graphs has an upright stance, with almost vertical downstrokes and perpendicular horizontals. The craftsman rigorously observed the ceiling line. Waw is noteworthy for its fairly long, horizontal top stroke that has a slight upward tick on its left end. Dalet is nearly vertical; it has an open, cup-shaped head formed by one curved stroke. Subtype 6b may be slightly later typologically, if not chronologically, than 6a. Waw in type 6b has no right “shoulder,” whereas he is completely vertical, not leaning to the left. These features are characteristic of the standard Aramaic lapidary script of the 5th century b.c.e. We identified 32 stamp impressions as clearly belong to subtype 6b. d.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions Stamp impressions of type 6a were apparently not stamped with any consistent orientation. Where it can be determined, the top of the seal faced the rim in 4 cases, the base in 6 cases, and to the left of the handle twice. For type 6b, the seal faced the rim in 10 cases, the base in 13, to the left of the handle twice, and to the right 8 times. e.  Summary and Further Considerations Ariel and Shoham recovered one of the City of David stamp impressions in a clear Persian context in Stratum 9 (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147). At Ramat Raḥel, 51.  It is possible that the seal was damaged during engraving or later, because this type of waw is uncharacteristic of the Aramaic lapidary and appears ill-formed.

136

E.  The Early Types

according to Aharoni, 4 of the stamped handles found in the 1961 excavation season “were found on the surface of the ancient central courtyard (380), and one was found in the eastern refuse pit (484)” (Aharoni 1964a: 21). Six of the stamped handles found in the 1962 season were found in fills in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall, 1 was found in the area of the Iron Age western building, 1 in the area of the Iron Age northern building; another north of the casemate wall; and 2 south of the casemate wall, near what Aharoni called the “Persian building” (Aharoni 1964a: 21, 44). Most of the stamp impressions, thus, were recovered in the fills just above the Iron Age building and its surfaces, in a variety of areas throughout the site (and see above, §B-2, pp. 31–38). The later stamp impression types from Ramat Raḥel were not in the same stratigraphic relationship to the Iron Age building but came from later deposits.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-1

137

‫יהוד‬ 6b Gezer ? ? Macalister 1912: 224–25, fig. 377; earlier PEFQSt 1909: 97, fig. 2 (and cf. Diringer 1934: 137–38); Aharoni 1959: 56. ‫]ר‬-[‫יפ‬ ‫יה[ו]ד‬ ? ? round to oval ? ? This is the first stamp impression of this type ever found.

Scanned from Macalister 1909: 97, fig. 2.

138 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-2

‫יהוד‬ 6(?) En Gedi ? ? Mazar and Dunayevski 1964: 126–27, pl. 27:c ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ ? ? round ? Only photographs are available.

Scanned from Mazar and Dunayevski 1964: pl. 27:c.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-3

139

‫יהוד‬ 6a En Gedi 1036/1 67-535 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 67, fig. 1:2. ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 28.2.2006 16 mm maximum diameter. ? ? nearly round ↑ Reddish-brown with many white inclusions There may be an inner impression produced by the ring in which the seal was set; this ring has a diameter between 10.5 and 12 mm.

From Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig. 1:2.

140 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-4

‫יהוד‬ 6a En Gedi 67-524 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 66, fig. 1:1. Locus 230 [‫]י]ה[וד‬ Sampled: 28.2.2006 19 mm in diameter round to oval, angular on one side ← light beige wash over pinkish-brown fabric with a few white inclusions Only the he is clearly visible. However, the dimensions of the stamp and the placement and shape of the he—its downstroke slants to the left; its top bar forms a right angle with the downstroke and thus points down to the left; a single short oblique stroke descends from the top bar near its end, parallel to the downstroke— match type 6a.

From Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig. 1:1.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

6-5

‫יהוד‬ 6a Jerusalem, City of David 16774 95-2269 IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147 (L44). Stratum E1, L. 2066, Stratum 9 ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled by Prof. Goren 20 mm diam yod: 5 mm high round ↓ light beige wash over pink fabric; small white inclusions

141

142 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-6

‫יהוד‬ 6b Jerusalem, City of David 2842 IAA storage Reich and Shukron 2007: 61, no. 7, and fig. 1:7 Area B, eastern slope of the southeastern hill ‫י[ה] וד‬ Sampled 7.1.2005 19.4 mm diam Downstroke of yod: 5 mm found ← light pink with brown core with white inclusions All the letters were slightly affected by a deep depression along the central ridge of the handle. The waw is of the usual Aramaic type.

Drawing scanned from Reich and Shukron 2007: fig. 1:7.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-7

143

‫יהוד‬ 6a Rogem Gannim 44/30 Tel Aviv University Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 232, no. F-2, and fig. 3:F2 Came from a bell-shaped pit (L.5) containing quantities of pottery of the late Iron Age and the Persian Period, but the latest material indicates that it went out of use in the early Roman period. ‫יהד‬ ‫יה[ו]ד‬ 20 × 15 mm slightly oval. ↓ pinkish clay, with gray core and large white grits Close examination shows a wide gap between the yod and the dalet, while the diameter and layout of the visible signs suggests that this stamp impression should be read yhwd. Traces of the downstroke of waw suggest subtype 6a.

Scanned from Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: fig. 3:F2.

144

E.  The Early Types

Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

From Aharoni 1956c: fig. 12; pl. 25:6.

6-8

‫יהוד‬ 6b (?) Ramat Raḥel 6110/1 p. 4, 6110/1 (760) ? Aharoni 1956c: 146, fig. 12; pl. 25:6; 1962: 6–7. ‫לדשצ‬ ‫יהוד‬ round to oval ? Some doubt about the match between the photo in Aharoni’s excavations records and the published drawing exists.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

From Aharoni 1959b: fig. 2:a; pl. 4D.

145

6-9

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 3066/1 p. 2 3066/1 (303) ? Aharoni 1959: 56 and n. 6; fig. 2:a; pl. 4 D Loc. 410, Level: 7.50, Sq. S19 ‫יהוד‬ round ↓ gray clay, with white and black grits The stamp impression was found in a small cut made in 1956 for the foundations of the visitor’s pavilion (Aharoni 1959b: 56 n. 6). There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records.

146 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-10

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 2489/1 54-391 Among the unrecognized: 2489/1 (531) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6-7; fig. 8:10 not recognized by Aharoni as a YSI ‫יהוד‬ 19.2 mm diam downstroke yod: 6.1 mm round ↓ beige-pink wash over pink ware; white inclusions The stamp impression is very faintly impressed and could be indentified on the basis of the yod. Faint traces of the he, waw (in the classic form of the 6b type)  and dalet can be detected; it is clear that it belongs to type 6b.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

From: Aharoni 1962, fig. 8: 11.

147

6-11

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 0500/1 not in the album ? Aharoni 1962: 6–7; fig. 8:11. Loc. 278, Level: 7.80, Sq. U16, Stratum: IVa ‫יהוד‬ round to slightly oval According to Aharoni’s registration: “Handle sherd of a store jar. Brown-red clay with white grits.” Duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, but there is no photo of this stamp impression— only the published drawing.

148 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-12

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 530/4 62-58 P. 3, 530/4 (13) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6–7; fig. 8:12; pl. 8:1. Loc. 278, Level: 7.55, Sq. U16, Stratum:IVa ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 18.3 mm diam downstroke of yod is 2.9 mm; downstroke of he is 3.2 mm; height of dalet is 3.6 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 11.8 mm round ↓ light pink ware with red and gray core; white inclusions Good example of type 6b. There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, including a photo.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-13

149

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 5711/1 54-404 p. 5 5711/1 (532) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31–32 ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 19 mm diam downstroke of yod is 2.8 mm round ↑ beige wash over light pink fabric; gray-brown core with small white inclusions The outlines of the impression are clear, but all the lower edges of the graphs were damaged, perhaps when the clay was still wet. The yod and dalet are clear, while traces of the upper part of the he and the waw can be seen. It belongs to subtype 6b.

150 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-14

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 871/1 54-400 P. 5 - 871/1 (526) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31–32 ‫]י[הוד‬ ]‫י[הוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 21 mm diam yod is 3.8 mm high round; not completely preserved → pink-orange fabric with gray-brown core; fine white inclusions The seal was faintly impressed. Only the yod appears clearly, together with part of the downstroke of the he and the downstroke of the dalet.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-15

151

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel 2372/2 64-1830 P. 2 2372/2 (148) Israel Museum Aharoni 1962: 31–32, pl. 31:10; Hestrin et al. 1973: 67, no. 151. Locus 398, Level 7.60, Square U-18 ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 20 mm diam yod: 5 mm high; the tail of yod is 1.8 mm from bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 12.6 mm slightly oval ↓ reddish-pink fabric with brown core and white inclusions There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, with a drawing, description, and a picture. The drawing, however, belongs to stamp impression no. 2372/1 (our database number 5-2). The picture matches the stamped handle with the original number checked by us in the Israel Museum.

152 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-16

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel d3-1259/1 8545/10 P. 3 1259/1 (43); P. 28 1259/1 (519) Hebrew University Aharoni 1962: 31–32, pl. 31:12 ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 Approximately 22 × 12 mm yod 4.7 mm high; the tail of yod is 1.8 mm oval ↑ reddish-pink fabric with gray core and white inclusions The yod, he, and waw are clear, the dalet less so. Aharoni suggested that the vertical stroke of the he divides the whole seal into two (1962: 32; pl. 31:12). In our opinion, the seal has a vertical crack through the he. This stamp impression may have been produced by the 6a seal after it was damaged. Was it discarded in favor of a new seal (subtype 6b?) after this damage?

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-17

153

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 2482/1 (145) 62-57 P. 2 2482/1 (145) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31–32; fig. 22:5; pl. 31:11. ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 18.7 mm diam downstroke of yod is 2.9 mm; downstroke of he is 3.2 mm; height of dalet is 3.6 mm from bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 14.4 mm round ↓ light pink fabric with gray core; white inclusions A very good example of type 6b.

154 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-18

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel 6228/1 54-379 Among the unrecognized 6228/1 (528) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31–32 ‫יהוד‬ ‫י[ה]וד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 21.3 mm diam yod is 5 mm high round ↑ beige-yellow wash over gray-beige fabric with small white inclusions Only the yod and parts of the waw and dalet are preserved. It appears to be a clear type 6a.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-19

155

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel 6168/1 54-373 among the unidentified, 6168/1 (534) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31–32 ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 20.7 mm diam 5 mm high yod round ↑ thin beige wash over pink fabric with fine white inclusions The letters are faintly impressed, especially the he. The yod and dalet are quite clear, along with the typical type 6a waw.

156 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-20

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 3065/1 64-1828 P. 2 3065/1 (295) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 21, pl. 19:7. Found on the surface of the Iron Age courtyard (380). ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 18.5 mm diam downstroke of he is 3.2 mm; downstroke of waw is 3.3 mm; dalet is 3.6 mm from bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 14.4 mm round ↑ light pink ware with pink and gray core; white inclusions Sign for smoothing the connecting point of the handle and the jar blurred the left part of the impression.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-21

157

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 4246/3 Rome 4246/3 (56) P. 4 4246/3 (437) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1964: 21, pl. 19:8. Found on the surface of the Iron Age Courtyard. ‫יהוד‬ 20 mm round ↓ beige-pink fabric with gray core; fine white inclusions. It was very well impressed, and the frame of the seal, as well as the letters, are clear. Only the yod was not well preserved, but it is a good example of type 6b.

With the kind permission of La Sapienza - Università di Roma.

158 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-22

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 5227/1 Hebrew U. no. 8545/14 P. 3 5227/1 (754) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 21. Found on the surface of the Iron Age courtyard (380). ‫יהוד‬ [‫יה[וד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 19 mm yod 5 mm high round ↑ bright pink fabric with distinct gray core and fine white inclusions It was very well impressed but was damaged on the left when the clay was still wet. A scratch defaced the dalet, as well as the waw. The yod and he are clear and belong to type 6b.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-23

159

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 8552/4 and 1448/1 Hebrew University 8552/4 P. 3, 1448/1 (30) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 21 Found on the surface of the Iron Age courtyard (380). ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 19 mm Yod is 5 mm high; downstroke of he is 3.2 mm; downstroke of waw is 3.3 mm from bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 14.5 mm round ↑ pinkish-beige fabric with gray core and fine white inclusions The sherd was very well impressed, but it is broken and the impression is partial, with a damaged dalet; it belongs to the 6b type.

160 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-24

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel d2 500/1 Hebrew U. no. 8552/3 p. 3 500/1 (214) (photo is negative) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 21 Found in the eastern refuse pit (484) ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 20 mm Yod is 4.7 mm high round ↓ unifrom pink fabric and core and fine white inclusions A fingerprint and signs of smoothing the handle in the upper part of the impression (down the handle and to its right side.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-25

161

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel 26/1 64-1829 P. 5 26/1 (650) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 44 (no pl. and no fig.) Found in the area of the ancient western building (?) (Aharoni 1964a: 44). ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 20 mm diam From upper left side of waw to bottom is 3.6 mm. Foot of yod is 1.8 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 17.6 mm round but not quite fully impressed, leaving an oval stamp ↓ reddish-pink exterior with pink and gray core; many small white inclusions The impression is clear, but its texture indicates that it was impressed when the clay was still wet.

162 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-26

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 4375/2 64-1827 P. 5 4375/2 (508) Israel Museum Aharoni 1964a: 44 (no pl. and no fig.). Found north of the Iron Age casemate wall (Aharoni 1964a: 44). ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 20 mm diam Downstroke of yod is 5 mm. Height of dalet is 3.6 mm from bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 17.8 mm round to oval ↑ light brown exterior with dark gray core and white inclusions The impression was stamped in the upper part of the handle.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-27

163

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 5432/1 (two excavation numbers exist: 5994/1). 64-1831 P. 3 5432 (759); P. 4 5994/1 (756) Israel Museum Aharoni 1964a: 44 (no pl. and no fig.). Found south of the Iron Age casemate wall, near what Aharoni referred to as the Persian building (Aharoni 1964a: 44). ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 19 mm diam Downstroke of yod is 5 mm; height of dalet is 3.7 mm from bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 17.6 mm round ↑ light pink with dark gray core and many large white inclusions The upper part of the yod and the dalet are not well preserved, but the other letters are clear. There are clear signs of smoothing the handle around the stamp impression and a scratch along its upper part.

164 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-28

‫יהוד‬ 6 Ramat Raḥel 5695/1 p. 4, 5695/1 (755) ? Aharoni 1964a: 44 (no pl. and no fig.) Found south of the Iron Age casemate wall, near what Aharoni referred to as the Persian building (Aharoni 1964a: 44). ‫יהוד‬ ? round N/A Known only from an excavation-record photo; Aharoni assigned this faint stamp impression to our type 6, which seems correct. Its layout on the handle is not clear.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-29

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel 14741/1 Hebrew University no. 8545/14 P. 24,. 1474/2 (20) Hebrew University Aharoni 1964a: 44 Found in the fills in the vicinity of the northwestern defense-wall. ‫יהוד‬ [‫יהו[ד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 20 mm diam 5 mm high yod round → light pink with dark gray core and white inclusions The angle of the he and the bottom of the waw indicate that it belongs to subtype 6a.

165

166 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-30

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 6254/2 Hebrew U. 8552/1 P. 29, 6254/2 (816) Hebrew University Aharoni 1964a: 44 Found in the fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall. ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled 10.1.2005 20 mm diam downstroke of yod is 2.9 mm.; height of dalet is 3.6 mm.; downstroke of waw is 3.9 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 16.9 mm round ↑ reddish-pink with gray core, white inclusions The letters are faint, especially the waw, but the impression is a clear 6b type.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

167

6-31

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel Hebrew U. 8545/21 Not in Aharoni’s album Hebrew University Aharoni 1964a: 44 Found in the fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defense-wall (Aharoni 1964: 44). ‫יהוד‬ Sampled 10.1.2005 20 mm diam round ↑ well-fired reddish-pink ware with many white inclusions The letters are very faint, but the shape of the dalet and the absence of the typical Y-shaped waw strongly favor ascription to type 6b.

168 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-32

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 6161/1 64-1825 P. 4, 6161/1 (757) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 44 Found in the fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defense-wall (Aharoni 1964: 44). ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 19.1 mm diam Downstroke of yod 2.9 mm; downstroke of he 3.1 mm; downstroke of dalet is 3.6 mm from bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 16.8 mm round ↑ pink ware with gray core; white inclusions The yod is clear, but the other letters are rather faint.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-33

169

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 5754/1 Hebrew U. 8552/2 p. 5, 5754/1 (758) Hebrew University Aharoni 1964a: 44 Found in the fills in the vicinity of the northwestern defense-wall (Aharoni 1964a: 44). ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 20 mm Yod 5 mm high; downstroke of he is 3.6 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 17.1 mm round to oval → pink fabric with gray core and white inclusions The letters are clear, and it is a classic 6b type.

170 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-34

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel 758/1 64-1826 p. 4, 758/1 (213) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 44 Found in the fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defense-wall (Aharoni 1964a: 44). ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 20 mm diam From upper left side of waw to bottom is 3.5 mm. Downstroke of yod is 1.9 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 17.6 mm round ↓ light brown fabric with many white inclusions The letters are faintly impressed; the yod is clearest, but the he, waw, and dalet are discernible; this is a 6a type.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-35

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 1336/1 Rome: 1336/1; ivo 122 P. 2, 1336/1 (42); P. 4 La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1964a: 44 Found in the area of the ancient northern building (Aharoni 1964a: 44). Surface level. ‫יהוד‬ 20 mm diam round ↓ red-pink fabric with brown core and white inclusions The letters are very clear, and this is one of the best examples of type 6b.

171

172 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-36

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel 3049/1 p. 2, 3049/1 (302) ? Aharoni 1964a: 44. ‫יהוד‬ round ↓ The yod and waw are clearest, in the classic form of type 6a. There is only a picture of this stamp impression in Aharoni’s excavation records, with no other details.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-37

173

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 3049/2 p. 2, 3049/2 (298) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 249, 260, no. 1 Locus 407, Level: 7.04 ‫יהוד‬ round ? pink clay with white grits The 4 letters, even if well preserved, are very faint. The yod is clearest, along with the upper parts of the he, the waw, and the dalet. It is a 6b type. There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, including a description of the clay and stratigraphic information.

174 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-38

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 1810/2 p. 3, 1810/2 (36) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 249, 260, no. 2 Square T-18, locus 380, level: 7.90 ‫יהוד‬ round ↓ pink clay with brown grits The letters are clear enough, and this is a good example of the 6b type. There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records. According to the card, the stamp impression was discovered on August 30th, 1960. There is also a picture, stratigraphic information, and pottery description as cited above.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-39

175

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel 5674/1 p. 5, 5674/1 (753) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 249–50, 260, no. 3 ‫יהוד‬ round ? Aharoni’s excavation documents preserve only a close-up photo of this stamp impression, together with the excavation number. There is no information concerning the location of the stamp impression on the jar handle. Only the upper part of the he is clear, along with traces of the upper part of the waw. The dalet was evidently preserved, even if it was damaged.

176 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-40

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel G. Suleimany’s excavations ? ‫יהוד‬ round ? Shown to us on Jan. 4, 2006. A clear 6a type.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-41

177

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR-G-49 / 2005 4141/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 76, and fig. 1: 2 Area D, Locus 420, Basket 4141. Earth fill sealed below a pavement dating to the Byzantine period. ‫יהוד‬ + 21.6 mm diam Downstroke of yod 5 mm; the waw is 5 mm high round ← light pinkish-red fabric with thin gray core; small white inclusions This impression is flat and almost round. Although faint, the four letters are discernible; it belongs to the 6a subtype.

From Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig. 1:2.

178 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-42

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR-G-49 / 2005 3038/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot and Vanderhooft 2007: 76-77, and Fig. 1: 3. Surface. Cleaning the northern side of area C1 (Locus 310, Basket 3038). [‫]יהוד‬ + 18.4 mm diam Round Orange-pink fabric with brown-gray core and white inclusions. The 4 letters are very faint and difficult to recognize. It presumably belongs to type 6a, given the traces of the waw and the size of the impression.

From: Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig. 1:3.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-43

179

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 8673 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 12, and pl. I:3 Area C1 North, Locus 031, Basket 8673 ‫יהוד‬ + 16 × 19 mm From upper left side of waw to bottom is 3.8 mm. Downstroke of yod is 1.8 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 12.6 mm oval ← brownish-gray with many small and some big inclusions, gray core The four letters of the impression are reasonably clear, apart from the middle of the he and the left upper side of the dalet. This is a very good exemplar of type 6a.

180 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-44

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 8709 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 12-13, and pl. I:4. Area C1 North, Locus 031, Basket 8709 ‫יהוד‬ 17 × 19 mm From upper left side of waw to bottom is 3.8 mm. Downstroke of yod is 1.8 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet : 12.6 mm oval ↓ brownish-pink with many small and some large inclusions; gray core The yod is partially broken but restorable, while the he is faint. The waw and dalet are quite clear. The waw has the “Y” shape characteristic of subtype 6a.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

6-45

181

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 6399 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 13, and pl. I:5. Area C3, Locus 659, Basket 6399 ‫יהוד‬ Diameter: 16.8 mm Downstroke of yod is 2.9 mm. Downstroke of dalet is 3.6 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 11.8 mm round → pinkish-brown ware, with a few large white inclusions and brownish-gray core The right side of the yod is clearly visible, as is the dalet. The round shape of the stamp impression as well as the faint remnant of the Y-shaped waw may prove that this stamp impression is of type 6a.

182 Database number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-46

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 2110 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 12–14, and pl. I:6 Area B2, Locus 222, Basket 2110 ‫יהוד‬ Diameter: 16.6 mm Downstroke of dalet is 3.5 mm From bottom of yod to bottom of dalet: 11.9 mm Round ↓ brownish-gray fabric above pinkish-orange pottery and gray core; large white inclusions The letters are faint, especially the he and waw. The yod is fairly clear, as is the dalet. The shape and dimensions, as well as the faint remnant of the waw may indicate that this stamp impression belongs to YSI subtype 6b.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression

Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

183

6-47

‫יהוד‬ 6b (?) Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 6393 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 14, and pl. I:7 Area C3, Locus 655, Basket 6393: Stone and earth debris north of the collapsed cave ‫יהוד‬ 17 mm in diameter (both impressions in the double stamping of this impression) round (the double stamping created a kind of “heart-shape” at the top of  the impression) → pinkish-brown, with gray core; some tiny white inclusions and many bigger white inclusions double stamping This is a doubly-stamped handle. Although the traces of letters are faint, the four characters should be read yhwd. The faint trace of the top stroke of the waw indicates that it is not of the “Y”-shape and that the stamp impression belongs to type 6b.

184 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-48

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9174/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 3–4, no. 1, and pl. I:1 Area D1, Locus 13044: a pit filled with light colored soil, small fieldstones and many pottery sherds ‫יהוד‬ 18–19 mm in diameter round → light reddish-brown clay, with a few dark grits and homogenous colored core. None of the four letters is clear, but traces of three of the four letters are visible. The dalet to the left, extending to the left end of the impression, and the Y-shaped waw are discernible. The he is too faint to identify clearly, and the clay is not uniform in this portion of the impression. The small angular yod on the right is visible as well.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

185

6-49

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9378/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 4 no. 2, and pl. I:2 Area D1, Locus 13045: a floor material with some charcoal pieces and fieldstones ‫יהוד‬ 17 × 19 mm in diameter oval → fine yellow-light brown clay, with white grits and a very thin light gray core All letters are either eroded or covered by a conglomerate. Only the low tail of the yod and the left part of dalet can be observed. Several indications suggest the impression belongs to subtype 6a: its size, slightly oval shape, and lack of a border.

186 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-50

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 7264/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 4–5 no. 3, and pl. I:3 Area D6, Locus 14040: a topsoil layer in one of the southern chambers in the citadel’s casement wall ‫יהוד‬ 18–19 mm in diameter round (the double stamping created a kind of “heart-shape” at the top of  the impression) ˄ grayish-brown, with a few large white grits and a thick gray core All four letters are visible, of which the yod is least well preserved. The thickened head of the waw indicates that the stamp belongs to subtype 6a. The characteristic Y shape of the waw is hard to identify, but this could be a result of a large grit particle right on the left part of the Y. The oblique top stroke of the he is in keeping with its form in other stamps of type 6a.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

187

6-51

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9356/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 5, no. 4, and pl. I:4 Area D1, Locus 13086: a fill of dark gray-brown soil, rich with pottery sherds and what appears to be floor debris and small field-stones ‫יהוד‬ 16–18 mm in diameter round ˅ light brown, with a few small white grits and a thick dark gray core The impression is significantly eroded, and there is a burst air bubble just below the normal position of the yod and the he. Only the upper part of the yod and the upper left part of the he are visible. The dalet is the clearest visible letter, and it reaches the left edge of the impression. The waw is mostly eroded, but it is possible to see the thick left diagonal stroke of the typical Y-shaped letter.

188 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-52

‫יהוד‬ 6a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9371/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 5–6, no. 5, and pl. I:5 Area D1, Locus 13045: a floor material with some charcoal pieces and field-stones ‫יהוד‬ 19–21 mm in diameter round ˅ reddish-brown, with white and brown grits and a thick gray core All the letters are faintly impressed or effaced, especially on their upper part, but some of the bottoms are discernible. Only the lower part of the small angular yod on the right is clearly visible, the he is very faint, and the upper part of the waw is also not too clear, except for traces of a thick wedge-like head. The dalet is discernible as well, in a straight line with the rest of the letters.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

189

6-53

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 3826/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 6, no. 6, and pl. II:6 Area C4, Locus 11063: a dark soil fill above the limestone bedrock, on the flank of a robber’s trench ‫יהוד‬ 19 mm in diameter round ˄ light brown with many white and brown grits and gray core The impression is not deep, its surface is effaced, and the traces of the four letters are barely visible. The shape of the yod, he, and the dalet are barely discernible, while the waw is less clear. The shape of the yod, as well as the fact that the head of the waw seems not to exhibit any thickening, indicate that this stamp impression belongs to subtype 6b.

190 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 6-54

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9166/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 6–7, no.7, and pl. II:7 Area C3, Locus 655, Basket 6393: Stone and earth debris north of the collapsed cave ‫יהוד‬ 16 mm in diameter (both impressions in the double stamping of this impression) round ˅ grayish-brown, with large white grits and a homogenously-colored core A very shallow stamp impression, completely flat on the right, where there are clear signs of smoothing the handle. The yod is completely effaced, but the other three letters are visible: the dalet in a slightly elevated position; the waw with the long horizontal line; and the he with the relatively vertical downstroke.

8.  Type 6: ‫“ דוהי‬Yĕhûd” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

191

6-55

‫יהוד‬ 6b Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 2514/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 7, no. 8, and pl. II: 8 Area B2, Locus 10067, which is a late fill of soft brown soil with pottery and finds from the Persian to the Ottoman periods, just under a layer of topsoil ‫יהוד‬ 17 mm in diameter (both impressions in the double stamping of this impression) round → pinkish-brown with large white grits and light gray core Of the four letters, only the yod and the he are clearly visible. The shape of the waw (even if its upper part was damaged), the nearly vertical down-stroke of the yod, and the vertical stance and the 90-degree angle between the horizontal and vertical lines of the he indicate that this stamp impression is of the 6b type.

E.  The Early Types

192

9.  Type 7: ‫“ יהוד יהועזר פחוא‬Yĕhûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Seven stamp impressions of this type have been discovered, five of them at Ramat Raḥel. Aharoni exposed the first during his second season at the site (1959). 52 The second stamp impression was discovered in the third season (1960); 53 the third came in the fourth season (1961); 54 and the fourth came from Aharoni’s fifth season (1962). 55 The final stamp impression of this type from Ramat Raḥel appeared during the renewed excavations at the site (2007). 56 One more stamp impression of this type was discovered at the City of David during Shiloh’s excavations (1978–85). 57 Another stamp impression of this type was discovered at Tel Ḥarasim, about 3 km east of Nahal Barkai in the northern Shephelah, 58 beyond the western border of Yehūd. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions The single oval seal that produced all seven stamp impressions possessed three lines of text and no other adornment. The word ‫ יהוד‬measures 16 mm from the upper right edge of the yod to the left edge of dalet; the downstroke of waw in the upper line is 4 mm. The impressions measure about 26 × 17 mm and were all made on jar handles before firing. This is the only stamp impression type that preserves the toponym, a personal name, and a title. It is thus identical to types 2–4 but with the addition of the title in the final line. c.  Prosopographic Discussion The form of the name, ‫יהועזר‬, is not known from the Hebrew Bible. The name appears spelled defectively in Yehud stamp impression type 10 (see below). Furthermore, a certain ‫ יהועזר בר שוה‬is attested in the Ketef Jericho papyrus of the 4th century b.c.e., where Yehôʿezer is among others listed in the document as having delivered or received certain sums of silver (Eshel and Misgav 1988: 164, Side A:9; Side B:II, 5). The plene form of the name also appears in the Wadi Daliyeh papyri (WDSP 2:11). The name ‫עזריהו‬, and other theophoric names with ‫ עזר‬in first position, are quite common in the Hebrew Bible: at least 12 different individuals carry this name. 52.  Aharoni 1962: 7–8, and fig. 9:1; pl. 9:2. Probably by mistake, the same stamp impression was also published in pl. 30:11; see stamp impression no. 7-3. 53.  Aharoni 1962: 33, and fig. 22:8; pl. 30:10; see stamp impression no. 7-4. 54.  Aharoni 1964a: 21–22, and pl. 20:6; see stamp impression no. 7-5. 55.  Aharoni 1964a: 44–45, and fig. 37:9; pl. 20:9; see stamp impression no. 7-6. 56.  Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 14–15, and pl. II:7; see stamp impression no. 7-7. 57.  Ariel and Shoham 2000: 146, L34; see stamp impression no. 7-2. 58.  Givʿon 2004: 73, fig. 108; see stamp impression no. 7-1.

9.  Type 7: ‫“ אוחפ רזעוהי דוהי‬Yĕhûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor”

193

d. Paleography The seal was incised by a skilled craftsman in an elegant, chancellery hand. The forms of the letters in these impressions, however, appear to be typologically later than those of types 1–5 (compare Naveh 1970: 60). The letters in the word ‫ יהוד‬differ from those in types 2–5. Yod has a slight upward slant of the foot, unlike the horizontal foot of yod in types 2–5. He has the classic 5th-century-b.c.e. lapidary form, with a nearly horizontal top stroke and very short oblique descending from it (Naveh 1970: 54). Waw in ‫ יהוד‬has a tick upward on the left of the horizontal stroke, as in type 6b. The Z-shaped zayin also exhibits this tick, which may be seen on exemplars 7-2 and 7-4. Dalet and reš have heads that are open and formed by two strokes; they are not modeled on the more archaic triangular ideal seen in types 2–5. Pe is less rounded and more angular than in type 1. Except perhaps for ʾalep, these forms are typologically later than those seen in types 2–5 and are in keeping with the development of the Aramaic lapidary in the 5th century b.c.e. and later. These data suggest that type 7 is paleographically later than types 1–5. How much later it is in actual chronological terms is unclear. The toponym ‫ יהוד‬is still written plene, a spelling that appears, as Naveh thought (Naveh 1970: 59–60), to characterize the earlier stamp types. The use of the Aramaic form of the title, ‫פחוא‬, links these stamp impressions to the earlier type 1, where the title also appears, and to the later type 12. Naveh’s suggestion of a 4th century b.c.e. date (1970: 60), however, seems too late. e.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions These oval stamps were always impressed with the top of the seal facing either to the left (4 times) or the right (2 times) of the handle. None of them is impressed with the top of the seal facing up or down. f.  Summary and Further Considerations At Tel Ḥarasim, the stamp impression was discovered in Stratum III from the Persian Period, together with quantities of pottery and a figurine dated by the excavator to the Persian Period (Givʿon 2004: 73, fig. 108). The City of David stamp impression was also discovered in a homogeneous Persian Period level (L. 1835, Stratum 9; see Ariel and Shoham 2000: 146, L34). At Ramat Raḥel, several of the stamp impressions were discovered in a Persian Period context, just above the Iron Age structure, like many other stamp impressions from the early group. The location of stamp impression no. 7-5 is particularly important in this connection, since it was excavated in the fill of one of the rooms from Stratum IVb (room No. 457) of the Persian–Hellenistic period (Square 21 P, Locus 457, Level 5.15). Thus, the handle must have been stamped for use, discarded, and then incorporated into the fill beneath this late Persian–early Hellenistic layer. This indicates that the handle cannot be of late Persian provenance. Two other stamp impressions were discovered in a similar stratigraphical situation, which is later than the Iron Age and earlier than the late Hellenistic

194

E.  The Early Types

and Roman periods. Stamp impression no. 7-4 was discovered in the rubble scattered over the courtyard of the Iron Age Citadel (Locus 387, sq. 19V); while stamp impression no. 7-6 was unearthed in a fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defense-wall (Locus 812, Sq. 9Y). Yet another stamp impression (no. 7-3) was discovered without a clear stratigraphical connection, among piles of rubble underneath a Byzantine floor (Locus 256, Sq. 14T). Six of the seven stamp impressions were excavated at Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem, two locations that are at the heart of the province, while one originates outside of Yehud at Tel Ḥarasim. The legend on the seal indicates that Yehôʿezer was the governor, so we may perhaps conclude that the governor’s oversight responsibility for the commodity collected in the jars also included the option to transfer it beyond the border of Yehud. Of course, it is also possible that the jar discovered at Tel Ḥarasim was in secondary use.

9.  Type 7: ‫“ אוחפ רזעוהי דוהי‬Yĕhûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

From: Givʿon 2004: 73, fig. 108.

7-1

195

‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Tel Ḥarasim ? Givʿon 2004: 73, fig. 108 Stratum III, Persian Period ‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ 26 or 27 × 17 mm oval → The stamp impression was impressed on the upper part of the handle, with the top of the seal facing right. The handle was broken near the upper and right side of the stamp impression, and the two yods on the right side of the impression were damaged. According to the drawing, the ʾalep in the left side of the third line was also not preserved.

196 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 7-2

‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Jerusalem, City of David D2/14112 86–2036 IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 146, L34 Locus 1835, Stratum 9, a homogeneous Persian Period level ‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Sampled December 2004 26 × 17 mm Downstroke of waw in upper line is 4 mm; downstroke of he in the second line is 3.6 mm; downstroke of reš in the second line: 3.6 mm In the first line: from the upper right edge of yod to the left edge of dalet: 16 mm. In the second line: from the upper right edge of yod to the left edge of reš: 24 mm. oval ← light pink with gray core and white inclusions

9.  Type 7: ‫“ אוחפ רזעוהי דוהי‬Yĕhûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

7-3

197

‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel 161/3 Università di Roma: 161/3 IVO 323 P. 7, 161/3 (5) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1962: 7–8; fig. 9:1; pls. 9:2, 30:11 (the same impression in both plates) Square 14-T; Locus 256; Level: 7.90. Stratum: II. Found among the piles of rubble underneath the Byzantine floor. ‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ 27 × 19 mm (according to Aharoni) oval ← beige-pink, gray core, white and gray inclusions In the last line, the last letter is only partially preserved. There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, including a picture, pottery description, stratigraphic information and description. The stamp impression was found August 11, 1959.

198 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 7-4

‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel 2433/2 HU 8548 P. 6 2433/2 (150) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 33, fig. 22:8; pl. 30:10 Locus 387 (sq. 19 V), in the rubble scattered over the courtyard of the Iron Age Citadel ‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ ‫[פח]וא‬/‫יהוע]זר‬/‫]יהוד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 17 mm high in its preserved left side Downstroke of reš in the second line: 3.4 mm oval ← light pink with gray core and gray and white inclusions The stamp impression appears near the upper end of a handle with a flat central ridge. Aharoni (1962: 33) reconstructed the reading in accordance with the impression found in 1959 at Ramat Raḥel. This impression confirmed his reconstruction of the final alep in the third line. There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, including a picture, pottery description, stratigraphic information, and description.

9.  Type 7: ‫“ אוחפ רזעוהי דוהי‬Yĕhûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

7-5

199

‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel 3907/2 64-1792 P. 7, 3907 (311) Ramat Raḥel Hotel No. 7/4 3907/2 Aharoni 1964a: 21–22, fig. 37:9; pl. 20:6 Locus 457, Sq. 21 P, Level 5.15. Found in the fill of one of the rooms from Stratum IVb (room No. 457). ‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ [‫פח[וא‬/‫יהו[עז]ר‬/‫יהוד‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 27 mm × 17.5 mm (according to Aharoni: 26 × 17mm) Downstroke of waw in upper line is 4 mm; downstroke of he in the second line is 3.7 mm From upper right edge of yod to left edge of dalet, 16 mm oval → light pink to beige fabric; low-fired gray interior, with many white inclusions Aharoni confirmed the reading of pe in the final line of this impression (1964a: 21–22).

200 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 7-6

‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel 6013/1 64–1790 P. 7, 6013/1 (735) Israel Museum, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 44–45; pl. 20:9; Hestrin et al. 1973: 67, No. 150 Locus 812, Square 9-Y, Level 6.10. Unearthed in the fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defense-wall. ‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ 26 × 17 mm Downstroke of waw in upper line is 3.8 mm; downstroke of he in the second line is 3.6 mm; downstroke of pe in the third line: 5.1 mm. The word ‫ יהוד‬measures 16 mm from the upper right edge of the yod to the left edge of dalet; the word ‫ יהועזר‬measures 27 mm from the upper right edge of the yod to the left edge of reš. oval ← pinkish-red with gray core; fine white inclusions

9.  Type 7: ‫“ אוחפ רזעוהי דוהי‬Yĕhûd, Yehôʿezer, the governor” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

7-7

201

‫פחוא‬/‫יהועזר‬/‫יהוד‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 8745 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 14–15, and pl. II:7 Area C1 North, Locus 032, which is part of the fill overlying the “garden soil” in square C194 and dated tentatively to the Hellenistic period. [‫[פ]חוא‬/‫יהו]עזר‬/‫יהוד‬ + 26 × 18 mm oval → pinkish-red with gray core; fine white inclusions The letters are faint. The first line is not preserved. In the second, only the remains of ʿayin, zayin, and reš appear. Traces of the het, waw, and ʾalep of the third line can be observed. The oval shape of the stamp impression, its dimensions, and the remains of the few letters prove that this stamp impression was stamped with the same seal as the other six impressions of this type.

E.  The Early Types

202

10.  Type 8: ‫“ לחנונה׀ יהוד‬Belonging to Ḥănûnāh, Yĕhûd” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Two stamp impressions of this type were published by Naveh (1996). One was recovered early in the twentieth century in Babylon (Qaṣr SW) by the Deutsche Orientgesellschaft but was not published. 59 A second stamp impression with the same reading was excavated at Tel Ḥarasim, about 3 km east of Nahal Barkai in the northern Shephelah, outside the Persian province of Yehud. 60 The appearance of a jar in Babylon is noteworthy (see below), and along with the other example from Tel Ḥarasim, makes this the only stamp type that has no examples excavated inside the province of Yehud. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions Both stamp impressions are on jar handles. They are slightly oval, and the Tel Ḥarasim impression measures 22  ×  15 mm. The inscription is in two lines, with a single-line field-divider. The stamp impressions may be from the same seal (Naveh 1996: 44). This is the only stamp impression type with the gentive ‫ל‬ prefixed to a personal name and followed only by the toponym. c.  Prosopographic Discussion Naveh argued that ‫ חנונה‬is simply the full spelling of ‫ חננה‬and that the individual named in type 8 is identical with the person whose name appears on type 4. Moreover, he takes both forms to be feminine Qal passives, ḥānūnāh. 61 Naveh concludes that the name in both cases belonged to a “female official in the administration of the province of Yehud” (1996: 46). The formal characteristics of the seals of types 4 and 8 prove that they were not produced by the same craftsman. The script is completely different; the orthography of the PN differs; the use of the genitive l- in type 8 is absent in type 4; while type 8 has the GN as the second element. These observations do not prove that the individuals named in types 4 and 8 were different, but they do not support their identification, either. Moreover, the popularity of names derived from forms of ‫ חנן‬in the Persian Period suggests that caution is in order in trying to identify the two. 62 Regardless of whether the names in types 4 and 8 belong to the same individual, if Naveh’s analysis is correct, then the type 8 stamp impressions contain the only clearly feminine name among the corpus of Yehud jar stamp impressions. 59.  Naveh 1996: 43–46; see stamp impression no. 8-2. The information on this stamp was delivered to Naveh by Prof. Benjamin Sass. A thorough investigation in the storage rooms of the Vorderasiatisches Muesum in Berlin by Prof. Joachim Marzahn did not yield the actual stamp but only the museum photograph, which had already been published by Naveh in 1996. We would like to thank Prof. Marzahn for his attempts to find the seal impression and for the copy of the photograph he sent to us. 60.  Givʿon 1996: 144, and cf. Naveh 1996: 45–47; see stamp impression no. 8-1. Compare this stamp impression to type 7, which also is represented by a stamp impression from Tel Ḥarasim. 61.  For a discussion of names having this form, see Zadok 1988: 110–11. 62.  For examples, see Zadok 1988: 418.

10.  Type 8: ‫“ דוהי ׀ הנונחל‬Belonging to Ḥănûnāh, Yĕhûd”

203

d. Paleography The script of type 8 is noteworthy for several reasons but poses one difficulty in decipherment. The second letter in the first line is effaced in the Tel Ḥarasim stamp but is preserved more fully in the photograph of the stamp from Babylon. Naveh read it as ḥet, giving the current reading ‫לחנונה‬. We note, however, that the graph could perhaps be read as a pe or, less likely, gimel, although these options yield unknown names. We have not been able to consult the original impressions, and we therefore follow Naveh’s reading. Waw has the usual lapidary form with a horizontal top stroke that possesses a slight upward tick on its left edge. He is the typical form, with sloping upper stroke. The script in the word ‫ יהוד‬shows an unusual mixture of developed and archaic forms. The yod is the Aramaic cursive form, which appears in this type and in types 9 and 10 (Naveh 1996: 45 n. 12). This form begins to appear in cursive Aramaic epigraphs already in the late 7th century b.c.e. but occurs quite rarely in lapidary inscriptions or seals. 63 Meanwhile, dalet possesses a rounded, closed head , as in the Babylonian bricks (Sass and Marzahn 2010: 153). This form disappears from the lapidary sequence after the 6th century b.c.e., although we have seen the closed (or nearly closed), triangular head in types 2–5. This seal clearly was not produced by the same craftsman who made type 4. The presence of the cursive yod suggests that it is typologically later than types 2–6, but this remains a tentative conclusion, especially since it also possesses the archaic dalet. It would probably not be far wrong to place this type near types 2–7 chronologically, sometime in the early 5th century b.c.e. e.  Further Considerations We have no stratigraphic or other information that enables us to date the two stamp impressions belonging to this type, apart from the paleographical indications. One historical consideration may, however, support the tentative paleographic date assigned above. As Stolper has proved, the Persian satrapy of “Babylon and Ebir Nāri” was officially split into two units after 486 b.c.e. (Stolper 1989). Thus, prior to 486, tributary subprovinces in Ebir Nāri, including Yehud, would probably have sent gifts or taxes to Babylon, the satrapal center. Dandamayev showed that the governor of Byblos sent gifts to the temple in Sippar during the reign of Darius I (CT 55:435; see Dandamayev 1995). Given that one of the stamps of type 8 was found in Babylon, it might be reasonable to conclude that it was sent there before 486 b.c.e., when Babylon was the satrapal center. Of course, this hypothesis is necessarily speculative, since the jar need not have arrived in Babylon as a gift or as tax.

63.  For Aramaic seals with cursive yod, see, e.g., Avigad and Sass 1997: nos. 776, 799, 800 (Tell en-Naṣbeh, Persian Period), 813, and 834.

204 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

From Naveh 1996: 45–47; 62–63.

E.  The Early Types 8-1

‫יהוד‬/‫לחנונה‬ Tel Ḥarasim ? Givʿon 1996: 144; Naveh 1996: 45–47; 62–63 Area D, Surface, Locus 552 ‫יהוד‬/‫לחנונה‬ 22 × 15 mm oval ← -

10.  Type 8: ‫“ דוהי ׀ הנונחל‬Belonging to Ḥănûnāh, Yĕhûd” Database number

Type Site Excavation number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

8-2

‫יהוד‬/‫לחנונה‬ Babylon (Qasr, SW) 31310 Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin Naveh 1996: 44–51 Surface find ‫יהוד‬/‫לחנונה‬ ? oval ← -

Reproduced with kind permission of the Vorderasiatisches Muesum, Berlin

205

E.  The Early Types

206

11.  Type 9: ‫“ יאזנ בר ישב ׀ יהוד‬Yaʾăzan, son of Yašūb, Yĕhûd” a.  History of Discovery The single stamp impression of this type was excavated at Belmont Castle, 64 in a fill in the Byzantine fort. It was discovered in the context of finds from the Byzantine, Roman, Hellenistic, Persian, and Iron II periods, together with Roman and Hellenistic coins, and a single ‫ מוצה‬stamp impression. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions We have not been able to examine the actual stamp impression, and no dimensions are provided in the publication. According to Millard, the stamp seal was impressed on a body sherd (1989: 61). The seal was inscribed in three lines, with a single-line field-divider between the second and third lines, between the patronym and the toponym. c.  Prosopographic Discussion The present reading is new. Harper (1988) and Millard (1989) read ‫יאל בר ישע ׀ יהוד‬. Naveh then proposed a reading almost identical to the one adopted here: ‫( יאז בר ישב ׀ יהוד‬1996: 45), while Cross read the names ‫( יאזנ בר ידע‬1998: 188 n. 54). The present reading agrees with Cross’s analysis of the first name; in the photo, there is a trace of the downstroke of nun at the end of the first line, after the zayin, which Cross rightly read. Naveh’s reading of ‫ ישב‬for the patronym, however, seems correct: the šin is inscribed in reverse, but the right stroke is broken; the downstroke of the bet is clear and argues against the ʿayin proposed by Millard and Cross. Our reading is, therefore, ‫“ יאזן בר ישב ׀ יהוד‬Yaʾăzan, son of Yašūb, Yĕhûd.” The name ‫ יאזן‬is a hypocoristicon of the fuller ‫יאזניהו‬, well known from the Hebrew Bible. 65 The name is attested in epigraphic sources, notably in the famous seal from Tell en-Naṣbeh of ‫( יאזניהו עבד המלך‬Avigad and Sass 1997: 52, no. 8). The name ‫ ישב‬is also known from the Bible (spelled plene in Num 26:24; 1 Chr 7:1 [Qere]; and Ezra 10:29), and spelled without waw in epigraphic sources (e.g., Avigad and Sass 1997: 135 no. 290). The same name (spelled both plene and defectively or in the form yšyb) appears also in Aramaic documents from Egypt (Kornfeld 1978: 54–55; TAD C). d. Paleography All three yods in the stamp impression are cursive, like those in types 8 and 10 (see type 8, n. 3). ʾAlep again shows a tendency in the direction of the archaic 64.  Harper 1988: 48–49; Millard 1989: 61; see stamp impression 9-1. 65.  See, for example: a member of the Judean elite in 2 Kgs 25:33; Jer 40:8; a son of Shaphan in Ezek 8:11; a son of Jeremiah in Jer 35:3; another Judean, son of Azur, in Ezek 11:1; and a ranking Judean in Jer 42:1.

11.  Type 9: ‫“ דוהי ׀ בשי רב נזאי‬Yaʾăzan, son of Yašūb, Yĕhûd”

207

type with the oblique strokes forming a V and crossing the downstroke. Bet, reš, and dalet all have upright stances with open heads characteristic of the 5th–4th century Aramaic lapidary. He has a horizontal upper stroke, unlike that of type 8, which is angled. The šin, the right side of which is not preserved, is inscribed in reverse, as Millard noted (1989: 61). The presence of the cursive yods and the placement of the toponym in final position suggest that this stamp is probably close in date to type 8, roughly in the later 5th century, as Millard suggested (1989: 61). The use of the formula “PN son of PN” is unique among the Yehud stamp impressions (Millard 1989: 61). As in types 2–4, which have the shorter formula PN + GN, we have no way of proving whether Yaʾăzan was the governor of Yehud or had another function in the administration of the province.

208 Database number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

From Millard 1989: 61.

E.  The Early Types 9–1

‫יאזנ בר ישב ׀ יהוד‬ Belmont Castle British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem Harper 1988: 48–49; Millard 1989: 61; Naveh 1996: 45 Found in the fills of the Byzantine fort, together with finds from the Byzantine, Roman, Hellenistic, Pesian, and Iron II periods, as well as with Roman and Hellenistic coins and a ‫מוצה‬ stamp impression. ‫יהוד‬/ ‫בר ישב‬/ ‫יאל‬ ‫יאזנ בר ישב ׀ יהוד‬ → body sherd; light reddish-brown seen only in the photo published by Millard

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer”

209

12.  Type 10: ‫“ ליהעזר‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Seventeen stamp impressions of this type are known. The first one was excavated at Jericho on the “Quellhügel,” just beneath the surface. 66 Another stamp impression of this type was excavated by R.  Greenberg at Rogem Gannim. 67 The remaining 15 stamp impressions are from Ramat Raḥel. Two of them were discovered at the site in the first season of Aharoni’s excavations (1954); one in the second season (1959); two in the third (1960), and three in the fourth season (1961). 68 Another unpublished stamp impression of this type was recognized by us in Aharoni’s excavation records. 69 Six more stamp impressions of this type were discovered in the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel: one in the 2005 season; one in 2006; two in the 2007 season, and two in the 2008 excavation season. 70

Graph 15.  Distribution of Type 10 examplars.

b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions The round stamp impressions have a diameter between 18.7 and 19.2 mm. Four letters appear in the upper line, two in the lower line—all in a mirror image—with no other decoration. From the upper left of the lamed to the upper right edge of reš is 66.  Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 158, and pl. 42:I; see stamp impression no. 10-1. 67.  Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 240. See stamp impression no. 10-2. 68.  First season: Aharoni 1956: 145–46, figs. 13–14, and pl. 25:5; see stamp impression nos. 10-3, 10-4; second season: Aharoni 1962c: 7; see stamp impression no. 10-5; third season: Aharoni 1962: 32; see stamp impression nos. 10-6, 10-7; fourth season:Aharoni 1964a: 21, pl. 19:10; see stamp impression nos. 10–8 – 10-10. 69.  Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 250, 260, no. 4. See stamp impression no. 10-11. 70.  Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 77–78; Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 15–16, and pl. II:9–10; Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 9-10, no. 9-10, and pl. 2:9–10.; see stamp impression nos. 10-12 – 10-17.

210

E.  The Early Types

10 mm. Comparison of these dimensions and the layout of all the stamp impressions prove that they come from a single seal. The correct reading was already made by Lidzbarski in 1915 from the first Jericho seal. He recognized that the letters were engraved on the seal in positive, yielding a mirror-image impression (1909–15: 2.45; also Naveh 1970: 60). Sellin and Watzinger accepted Lidzbarski’s reading but transcribed the name as Azaryah (1913: 158). Aharoni originally accepted Lidzbarski’s explanation that the impressions were in mirror image. He claimed, however, that the second letter is not a yod and read it as an open dalet. He also did not accept the reading of the two letters in the lower line as zayin and reš and read them as yod and waw. He proposed, therefore, reading these stamp impressions as ldhʿyw (‫)לדהעיו‬ (1956: 145–46). Later, after his discovery of the third stamp impression of this type (1959c), Aharoni argued that the first letter was written in fact between the two lines and can be interpreted as an inverted pe, this being an abbreviation for ‫( פחוא‬1962: 7). He also suggested interpreting the four letters dh/yw as a way of writing the name yhwd and interpreted the ʿayin as a kind of emblem or “monogram.” Aharoni admitted that his interpretation of this type of stamp impression as another type of yhwd stamp plus a “monogram” was not satisfactory (1962: 7), but he was unable to improve his reading when more exemplars of this type were discovered in subsequent seasons (1962: 32; 1964a: 21). 71 Close inspection reveals that Lidzbarski’s initial proposal is correct. The appearance in other yhwd stamp types of individual letters inscribed in reverse (šin in type 9) or of entire seals inscribed in reverse (type 11) supports Lidzbarski’s original suggestion. Furthermore, the first two letters in the upper left cannot be anything other than a reversed lamed and cursive yod. The ʿayin is also certain. Aharoni’s attempt to understand the stamp impression as a yhwd type is perfectly understandable, especially given the large number of such stamp impressions discovered at Ramat Raḥel. Lidzbarski’s reading, however, should be considered certain. c. Paleography The first line possesses four letters, the second only two. The yod is cursive, like types 8 and 9 (see above, pp. 203, 206–207). The he is somewhat badly en­ graved, with thick strokes and the oblique stroke is exaggerated, but it is clear enough. The ʿayin, the letter farthest to the right on the first line, is open. Zayin, in the second line, is rounded on the top. Reš has an open head formed by a single angular stroke. The script is, on the whole, typologically more advanced than that of the types discussed so far. It perhaps fits in the second half of the 5th century. d.  Orientation of the Stamp Impressions The stamp impressions were not impressed on the jars according to any preferred orientation. Of the 15 stamp impressions on which the orientation is clear, 71.  After the discovery of two more exemplars during the third excavation season at Ramat Raḥel, Aharoni confirmed his interpretation of the right-hand character in the upper row as an emblem or “monogram.”

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer”

211

the top of the seal points to the base in 5 cases; to the rim in 5 cases; horizontally to the right in 3; and to the left in 2. e.  Further Considerations Most stamp impressions of this type discovered at Ramat Raḥel came from fills above the surface of the central courtyard of the Iron Age citadel. Although the impressions do not come from clear stratigraphic contexts, they do come from a distinctive area, together with many more yhwd stamp impressions of the early types (dated to the 6th–5th centuries b.c.e.), as well as the yh and yhd stamp impressions from the middle types (dated to the 4th–3rd centuries). One of the newly discovered stamp impressions of this type (number 10-15) was discovered in the fill above the “garden soil” attached to the citadel, a fill dated tentatively to the Hellenistic period. This situation is not in conflict with the conclusion we reached on the basis of paleographic typology, namely, that these impressions date in the second half of the 5th century. f.  A Note on the Inclusion of Type 10 in the Corpus The appearance of 13 stamp impressions of this type at Ramat Raḥel and one each at Jericho and Rogem Gannim, where other yhwd stamp impressions have been recovered, argues in favor of the inclusion of this type in the corpus, even though it contains neither the toponym Yehūd nor the title “governor.” Of course, it is possible that the individual named in this type may be identical with the ‫ יהועזר‬of type 7, as Naveh suggested (1970: 60). Thirteen exemplars of type 10 come from Ramat Raḥel (87%), while five of the seven exemplars of type 7, ‫( יהוד יהועזר פחוא‬71%), were recovered at the site. On the other hand, neither the orthography nor paleography of types 7 and 10 match. We may compare the phenomenon in the later yhwd coins, in which we have exemplars reading ‫יחזקיה‬ ‫ הפחה‬and others, no doubt referring to the same person, reading simply ‫יחזקיה‬ (Meshorer 2001: 16). The identification must therefore remain tentative, but the circumstantial evidence still weighs in favor of including the stamp in the corpus of yhwd stamp impressions.

212 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 10-1

‫ליהעזר‬ Jericho RES 1811 Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 158, and pl. 42:I; Lidzbarski 1915: 45 ‫ליהעזר‬ round -

From Sellin and Watzinger 1913: pl. 42:I.

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

10-2

‫ליהעזר‬ Rogem Gannim Tel Aviv University Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 240 ‫ליהעזר‬ round ? -

From Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 240

213

214 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 10-3

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 2415/1 Rome 2415/1 (IVO: 325) P. 13 2415/1 (52) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1956c: 145–46, fig. 13, pl. 25:5 Square U-21; Locus 375; Level: 6.60 ‫לדהעיו‬ ‫ליהעזר‬ round → light beige wash over pink ware, with gray core; large white inclusions

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

10-4

Unique features of pottery Notes

This is one of the best exemplars of this type.

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

215

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 3870/1 Rome: 3870/1 (51) P. 12 3870/1 (402) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1956c: 145–46, fig. 14 ‫לדהעיו‬ ‫ליהעזר‬ round ↑ light beige wash over pink ware, with gray core; large white inclusions

216 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 10-5

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel ? P. 3 (197) ? Aharoni 1962: 7 dh/yw + monogram ‫ליהעזר‬ round →

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

217

10-6

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 3807/1 64–1721 P. 12 3807/1 (405) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 32 Square V25; Locus 455; Level: 5.20 dh/yw + monogram ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 18.8 mm diameter Downstroke of lamed: 2.8 mm; downstroke of reš: 3 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 9.8 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.3 mm nearly round ↓ reddish-pink ware, with dark gray core; white inclusions Yod partially damaged by inclusions There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, including pottery description, stratigraphic information and a picture. According to Aharoni, this impression (as well as no. 10-7) is identical to the stamp impressions exposed at Ramat Raḥel in the two previous seasons, as well as the one from Jericho (no. 10-1).

218 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 10-7

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 2372/3 62-45 P. 12 2372/3 (144) IAA storages, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 32, fig. 22: 7; pl. 31:8 Square U-18; Locus 398; Level: 7.60 dh/yw + monogram ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 19.2 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 2.8 mm; downstroke of reš: 3.1 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 9.9 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.5 mm round ← light beige wash over pink ware, with gray core; white inclusions There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, including pottery description, stratigraphic information, and a photo.

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

10-8

219

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 2337/1 54-396 P. 13 2337/1 (536) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 21, pl. 19:10 On the surface of the central courtyard (380), in the same area where many stamps of this type were discovered, together with many yh, yhd, and yhwd stamp impressions. dh/yw + monogram ‫ליהעזר‬ + 19.2 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 2.9 mm; distance between two sides of open ʿayin: 1.3 mm; downstroke of reš: 3.4 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 9.9 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.7 mm round to ellipse ← light beige wash over pink fabric; white inclusions

220 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 10-9

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 2339/1 54-399 P. 13 2339/1 (538) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 21 On the surface of the central courtyard (380), in the same area when most of this group of stamp impressions was discovered, together with many yh, yhd, and yhwd stamp impressions. dh/yw + monogram ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 19.2 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 2.8 mm; distance between two sides of open ʿayin: 1.4 mm; downstroke of reš: 3.2 mm. From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 9.9 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.7 mm round → light beige wash over pink fabric; white inclusions

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

10-10

221

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 5457/1 Beth-Shemesh 1954-395 Among the unrecognized 5457/1 (535) IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 21 Above the surface of the central courtyard (380), in the same area when most of this group of stamp impressions was discovered, together with many yh, yhd, and yhwd stamp impressions. dh/yw + monogram ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 19.2 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 2.6 mm; distance between two sides of open ʿayin: 1.2 mm From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.6 mm round ↓ beige with gray core; black and white inclusions

222 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 10-11

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel 3117/1 P. 12 3117/1 (372) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 250, 260, no. 4 Square S19; Locus 410; Level: 7.30. ‫ליהעזר‬ 19.2 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 2.8 mm; downstroke of reš: 3.2 mm round ↓ gray ware, black core, and white inclusions There is a duplicate card in Aharoni’s excavation records, including pottery description, stratigraphic information, and a photo.

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

10-12

223

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-17/2005 4165 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 77, and fig. 1:4 Area D, Locus 405, Basket 4165. This is a large pit containing pottery dated to various periods. ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 17 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 3 mm. Upper side of zayin: 2.0 mm. Downstroke of reš: 3 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 9.8 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.3 mm round ↓ brownish-pink ware; gray core; white inclusions, some large

224 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 10-13

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-49/2006 3235 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot and Vanderhooft 2007: 77–78, and fig. 1:5. Area C1, Locus 342, Basket 3235. Top-soil ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 18.7 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 3.1 mm. Downstroke of yod: 2.8 mm. Downstroke of he: 2.2 mm. Upper side of zayin: 2.0 mm. Downstroke of reš: 2.7 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 10.0 mm round ↑ brownish-pink, with thick gray core; many small white inclusions, some large

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

225

10-14

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 3559 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 15–16, and pl. II:9 Area C1 South, Locus 840, Basket 3559 ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 18.4 mm diam Downstroke of lamed: 3 mm. Upper side of zayin: 2.0 mm. Downstroke of reš: 3 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 9.8 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.3 mm round ↓ brownish-pink, with thick gray core; many small white inclusions, some large black and white inclusions

226 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 10-15

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 8743 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 16, and pl. II:10 Area C1 North, Locus 037, Basket 8743 ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 17.8 mm diam (outer frame was not completely preserved) Downstroke of lamed: 3.1 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 10 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.8 mm round (not fully preserved) ↑ brownish-pink, with gray core and some small and big white inclusions

12.  Type 10: ‫“ רזעהיל‬Belonging to Yehōʿezer” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

227

10-16

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9350/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 9, no. 9, and πl. 2:9 Area D1, Locus 13086: a fill of dark gray-brown soil, rich with pottery sherds and what appears to be floor debris and small field-stones ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 18–19 mm. in diameter Downstroke of lamed: 3 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 10 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ʿayin: 13.5 mm round ↑ brown with many small white grits and a gray core

228 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

E.  The Early Types 10-17

‫ליהעזר‬ Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 5888/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 9–10, no.10, and pl. 2:10 Area D4, Locus 15019: a top-soil layer of a pit excavated during Barkay’s excavation in the southern part of the church. This locus is not clean and contains modern debris as well. ‫זר‬/‫ליהע‬ + 19 mm. in diameter Downstroke of lamed: 3 mm From upper left part of lamed to upper right side of reš: 10.5 mm. From upper side of lamed to upper right side of ‘ayin: 13.6 mm round (not fully preserved) ↑ (rotate a bit to the left) grayish-brown, with many small white grits and a gray core

13.  Type 11: ‫“ הילדג‬Gĕdalyāh”

229

13.  Type 11: ‫“ גדליה‬Gĕdalyāh” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Three stamp impressions of this newly deciphered type are known; all are identical. The first was excavated at Tell en-Naṣbeh and published by Cross (1969). 72 The second stamp impression of this type was excavated at the City of David, and the last one at Nebi Samwil. 73 It is worth noting that the single stamp impression from Tell en-Naṣbeh is the first example from the early types recovered at the site, even though it produced the large majority of mwṣh stamp impressions dating to the 6th century (Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994), as well as 18 more stamp impressions from the middle types (a total of 19 stamp impressions, more than any other place except Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem). The small group of 3 stamp impressions of type 11 is not represented at Ramat Raḥel, where the majority of the stamp impressions from the early types was discovered. Its distribution thus far has a northern orientation. This distribution is more like the mwṣh stamp impressions than the typical distribution of yhwd stamp impressions. Cross first published the stamp impression from Tell en-Naṣbeh, reading it yhwd-ṭet (1969a: 23 [= 2003: 142]; cf. 1969b: 19–20). 74 Ariel and Shoham followed Cross’s reading when they published a stamp impression from the City of David identical to the one published by Cross (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147–48, L45). Magen and Har-Even (2007: 43) followed our new reading when they published the last stamp impression of this type. 75 The recovery of the City of David stamp impression in Stratum 5 (Early Roman), out of context, provides no clue to a more precise dating. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions The City of David stamp is round, with a diameter of 19.2 mm, and the one from Nebi Samwil has a diameter of 20 mm. Thus far, the stamp impression from Tell en-Naṣbeh has not been located, although it was originally reported among the collections of the Badé Museum, Pacific School of Religion. 76 The stamp impressions were clearly made by the same seal, which was laid out with three 72.  On the stamp impression from Tell en-Naṣbeh, see Cross 1969a: 23 and pl. V, 1–2 (= 2003: 142 and fig. 17.2)]; see stamp impression no. 11-1. 73.  On the stamp impression from the city of David, see Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147–48, L45; see stamp impression no. 11-2; on the impression from Nebi Samwil, see Magen and Har-Even 2007: 43 and fig. 1:18; see stamp impression no. 11-3. 74.  The stamp impression published by Cross in 1969b is not an identical exemplar, but we have not been able to locate the object. 75.  We are grateful to Magen and Har-Even for showing us the stamp impression and allowing us to study it before its publication. 76.  We are grateful to Aaron Brody and Catherine Painter for their assistance in trying to locate this stamp impression and for providing photos of others in the collection.

E.  The Early Types

230

letters in the first line and two in the second without other decoration. The letters were incised in positive and thus produce a mirror image impression, exactly like type 10. c.  The Name ‫“ גדליה‬Gĕdalyāh”: Reading and Discussion The newly discovered stamp impression from Nebi Samwil, together with the stamp impression from the City of David, permits a new reading. The graph on the upper right of the stamp, read by Cross as a partial ṭet, is a reversed lamed. The middle graph in the upper line is a reversed dalet. The letter on the upper left of the stamp is a gimel. The graph on the lower right is clearly a he, as Cross read it, and is similar to the he in type 10. The Tell en-Naṣbeh stamp impression also preserves most of the yod in the lower left. The seal, as mentioned, was incised in the positive, like type 10, yielding a mirror-image reading. The correct reading, therefore, is ‫גדליה‬. Drawing of the stamp impression.

Negative drawing of the stamp impression.

None of the letter forms in the stamp preserves definitely archaic features. Lamed, gimel, and yod are not diagnostic and could fit anywhere in the 6th to 4th centuries. The dalet is like that in type 6b, and he is somewhat like that of type 10. These features, and the fact that the seal was incised in mirror image, like type 10, suggest a date in the same range, roughly the second half of the 5th century. d.  Prosopographic Discussion Both ‫ גדליה‬and ‫ גדליהו‬are attested in the Hebrew Bible and in epigraphic sources. The name is mentioned in the Bible 32 times and was favored particularly between the end of the 7th and the 4th centuries b.c.e. Aside from the 27 instances in which Gedaliah son of Ahikam, grandson of Shaphan, is mentioned, additional individuals with this name are recorded. These include the grand­ father of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph 1:1), one of the officials of king Zedekiah (Jer 38:1), the son of Jeduthun (1 Chr 25: 3, 9), and a priest in the days of Ezra (Ezra 10: 18). An individual with the name gdlyh appears in Arad Inscription 110, 2 (Aharoni 1976) and another with the reading gdlyhw in 21, 1. The name appears also in an ostracon from Ḥorvat ʾUza (Beit-Arieh 1999: 32). 77 77.  See also Zadok 1988: 410; cuneiform Iga-da-la-a-ma, son of Banna-Ea (Stolper 1989).

13.  Type 11: ‫“ הילדג‬Gĕdalyāh”

231

e.  A Note on the Distribution and Inclusion of Type 11 in the Corpus The seal bears only a personal name, not a title or toponym and not even the preposition lamed. Its inclusion in the corpus is predicated in part on the same logic behind the inclusion of type 10. It was discovered at the same sites that produced significant numbers of yhwd stamp impressions, in similar archaeological strata, and shares formal features of size and script (including reverse incision) with other contemporary yhwd stamps. Admittedly, no other yhwd stamp impressions bear this name. It might be tempting to link the stamp impression to the figure of ‫( גדליהו בן אחיקם‬2 Kgs 25:22), the Babylonian appointee in Judah after 586 b.c.e., especially because Gedaliah is reported to have functioned at Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh), where one of the impressions was recovered. Caution is warranted, however, given that other individuals with this name are known from the Late Iron II and Persian periods (Lipschits 2005: 84, with further literature) and because a 5th-century b.c.e. date seems preferable on the basis of stratigraphy, paleography, and the formal characteristics of the stamp. f.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions Where it can be discerned, the orientation of the seal is either with the top of the seal facing the base of the jar (twice) or the rim of the jar (once). g.  Summary and Additional Considerations Circumstantial evidence from the entire Yehud stamp impression corpus suggests that Gedalyah would have been an official of some type within Yehud. It is possible, of course, that the seal actually belonged to a private individual. The poor craftsmansip cannot be used as an argument against the possible official role of Gedalyah, because we have considerable evidence for seals with single reversed letters (type 9) or whole words in reverse that clearly mention the governor (type 12). Furthermore, Yehud coins of the 4th century and later very frequently possess legends engraved in reverse, yet they were obviously official issues (Meshorer 2001).

232 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at

First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 11–1

‫גדליה‬ Tell en-Naṣbeh 2507 Palestine Institute Pacific School of Religion (Badé Institute) Cross 1969a: 23 and pl. V: 1–2 [2003: 142 and fig. 17.2] ‫יהוד ט‬ ‫גדליה‬ Round ↓ The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, to the right side of the central ridge. Part of the gimel is missing, but all the other four letters are clear.

From Cross 1969a: 23, pl. V: 1–2 [2003: 142, fig. 17.2]

13.  Type 11: ‫“ הילדג‬Gĕdalyāh” Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

11–2

233

‫גדליה‬ Jerusalem, City of David E1/3749 95-2255 IAA storage, Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 147–48, L45 Area E1, Locus 625, Stratum 5 ‫יהוד ט‬ ‫גדליה‬ 2.1.2006 19.2 mm diameter Downstroke of gimel: 3.3 mm; downstroke of dalet: 4 mm; downstroke of yod: 4.5 mm from upper corner of gimel to top of lamed: 11 mm round to oval ↓ pink wash over reddish-pink ware with gray core; fine white inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, on the central ridge. The 2 letters in the lower line are faint but visible. The texture of the impression may indicate that the handle was stamped when the clay was still wet.

234 Database Number

Type Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 11–3

‫גדליה‬ Nebi Samwil 35574 Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 43, fig. 1:18 Locus 78359 ‫גדליה‬ ‫גדליה‬ 20 mm diameter round ↑ pink ware, gray core, white inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, to the left side of the central ridge. The frame is clear all around, beside the left side (to the left of the handle). The letters are a bit faint, but the upper line is clear, and so is the he in the lower line.

From: Magen and Har-Even 2007: fig. 1:18.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ”

235

14.  Type 12: ‫“ יהוד פחוא‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Twelve stamp impressions of this type are known. The first came from the first season of excavations at Ramat Raḥel but was not published in the first report, because the reading was uncertain. 78 Two more exemplars were excavated in the second season (1959), 79 which permitted Aharoni to identify two subtypes and to confirm that the stamp impression discovered in the first season belonged to one of the subtypes. In the fourth season (1961), Aharoni excavated one more exemplar, and in the fifth season (1962) he recovered two more. 80 Thus, Aharoni published 6 stamp impressions of this type. The present authors, however, located 2 more stamp impressions of this type among Aharoni’s excavated material stored at the Hebrew University; he had excavated them at Ramat Raḥel but did not publish them. 81 In addition to the 8 stamp impressions of this type just discussed, 2 more stamp impressions belonging to this type appeared in the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel, during the 2006 season, 82 and one more was unearthed in the 2008 excavation season. 83 This brings the total number of stamp impressions of this type at Ramat Raḥel to 11.

Map 4.  The Location of Khirbet Nisya (based on Livingston 2003). 78.  Aharoni 1962: 9, fig. 9:5; pl. 9:5; see stamp impression no. 12-2. 79.  Aharoni 1962: 8–9, fig. 9:2–3, 6; pl. 9:3, 1, 6; see stamp impression nos. 12-3, 12-4. 80.  Fourth season: Aharoni 1964a: 22, pl. 20:3; see stamp impression no. 12-5; fifth season: Aharoni 1964a: 45, pl. 20:1–2; see stamp impression nos. 12-6, 12-7. 81.  Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 250, 260–61, no. 5 and 6. See stamp impression nos. 12-8, 12-9. 82.  Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 78–79 and fig. 1: 6–7; see stamp impression nos. 12-10, 12-11. 83.  Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 11–12, no. 11, and pl. III:11.

236

E.  The Early Types

One more stamp impression was discovered in the 1993 excavation season at Khirbet Nisya, 2 km southeast of el-Bireh and 3 km northeast of Tell en-Naṣbeh. 84 It was deciphered by Cross (in Livingston 2003: 86). His reading and description are cited by Livingston, but there are no further details on this stamp impression in the excavation report. b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions and Reading Two different seals with slightly different legends belong to the type. The seal used to produce stamp impressions of subtype 12a (9 exemplars) was slightly oval, and the impressions measure approximately 24 mm wide by 20 mm high. Stamp impressions of subtype 12b (three exemplars) are about 24 mm by 18 mm. After the discovery of the second and third exemplars (1959), Aharoni described the main characteristics of this type. He interpreted the stamp impressions belonging to our subtype 12b as follows: The stamp contains two lines of writing with four signs in each. The lettering is reversed and the two rows face each other, i.e., first the upper row has to be read from left to right, and then the whole stamp has to be turned round for the reading of the second row, which is as well to be read as a top line and in the negative. The writing was thus intended to be stamped in a circle as on modern post-office frankings (1962: 9).

His interpretation that there are two lines of text was correct, even if the details were not. Aharoni recognized differences between the two subtypes and thought that both of them contained “emblems.” He claimed that on our subtype 12a there is an additional sign between the two lines in the shape of a semicircle open on the right side (1962: 8). Close inspection of the handle, as well as others of subtype 12a that were stamped by the same seal, together with new, high-quality digital photographs, reveal no trace of an additional sign between the two lines. On another stamp impression, this one of subtype 12b (database no. 12-4), Aharoni described an emblem in the form of two open circles on the left side of the first line (1962: 9). Again, close inspection of this stamp impression together with others of this subtype has demonstrated that the supposed emblem is part of the left side of a reversed yod. 85 Cross deciphered this type accurately and distinguished between the two subtypes: the engraver . . . has copied a positive impression of yhd or yhwd on his master stamp with the result that it gave a reversed (negative) impression. The second line of each [type] is even more confused; the engraver has tried to make a 84.  Livingston 2003: 86 and fig. 6: 6; see stamp impression no. 12-1. 85.  Some scholars developed the idea that this emblem was a symbol of kingship and connected it to the monarchic-era lmlk stamp impressions and the Judean weights (Kochman 1982: 28–29). We now know that Aharoni’s identification of the “symbol” on the basis of just a few stamp impressions from a few types (so also with the yhd types [our type 13]) was erroneous, but it was never challenged.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ”

237

negative reading on the stamp in order to give a proper positive impression. He carved the pe in the proper place . . . and in a proper stance; ḥet and waw were copied in the right stances for a negative stamp, but the engraver forgot to reverse the order, so that ḥet and waw have been matathesized on the impression. Finally, ʾalep is engraved correctly . . . on [one type], in reversed stance on [the other] (Cross 2003[1969a]: 144 and fig. 17.1, 5).

Close analysis of all the exemplars shows that Cross was correct in identifying the characteristics of the two subtypes. Subtype 12a preserves the word ‫  ( יהוד‬yhwd ) in the first line, engraved in the positive, as Aharoni and Cross noted, thus producing a negative impression. Subtype 12b has yhd (with three letters) in the first line. Yhd is engraved in the positive, except for he, 86 again producing a reversed impression. Yod is rotated 90 degrees on its side. Pḥwʾ in the second line has the graphs in the same order as subtype a. c. Paleography Badly executed seal impressions have limited value for paleographic typology, and it would be hazardous to attempt to date the seals on this basis. Nevertheless, we tentatively include this type as the last among our “early” types, for the following reasons. First, the Aramaic title ‫ פחוא‬is characteristic of the early group and does not appear in the jar stamp types that are definitely to be dated to the 4th century and later. 87 Second, seals that are incised to produce a negative impression also include types 10 and 11, which we likewise assign to the end of the early types. There seems to be a marked deterioration in the care given to inscribing these seals as we move later in time, a phenomenon we may compare to the often retrograde engraving on Yehud and other regional coins of the late Persian and Hellenistic periods (Meshorer 2001). Third, the specific association between the geographic name yh(w)d and the title pḥwʾ is discontinued among demonstrably late stamp-impression types, which suggests that type 12 should be dated earlier rather than later. Fourth, this type has the toponym spelled both with waw in subtype a and without waw in subtype b. In the middle and late stamp types, the toponym is no longer spelled with waw. This type may therefore be transitional between the early types and the middle types, and we are inclined to date it to approximately to the late 5th or early 4th century. d.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions Where it can be determined, the stamp impressions were impressed so that the top of the seal faced either to the right (7 times) or the left (3 times). This seems to be the rule for oval seals: they tend to run vertically along the handle. Round seals, by their nature, were less easy to orient consistently when impressed.

86.  Aharoni (1962: 8, 9) described this he as hardly distinguishable from a ḥet. 87.  It should be noted, however, that the Hebrew title pḥh does appear on Yehud coins in the 4th century b.c.e.

238

E.  The Early Types

e.  Summary and Additional Considerations Some of the stamp impressions excavated at Ramat Raḥel can be assigned to relatively specific archaeological and stratigraphic contexts. Three were discovered in a clear Persian Period stratum (stamp impressions 12-4, 12-6, and 12-7). 88 Two others were discovered in a late Persian–early Hellenistic context (stamp impressions 12-5 and 12-11). 89 Two of the seven stamp impressions were discovered in an unclear stratigraphic context (stamp impressions number 12-3 and 12-10). 90 It is worth noting that subtypes 12a and 12b are the only ones in the YSI corpus that include the toponym and a title, pḥwʾ, but with no specification of who held the office. The fact that this stamp impression type is typical of Ramat Raḥel will be discussed in the summary discussion of the early types. 88.  Stamp impression no. 12-4 (Square 20 X, Locus 324) was discovered in the fill 50 cm above the floor of the courtyard of Stratum V. Stamp impression no. 12-6 (Square 10 Y, locus 807, level 4.75) was discovered in a fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defence wall. Stamp impression 12-7 (Square 9 R, Locus 830, level 6.10) was discovered in a fill near the southwestern corner of the Iron Age citadel. 89.  Stamp impression no. 12-5 was discovered in the refuse pit east of the city wall (484), together with 2nd-century stamp impressions. However, Aharoni notes (1964: 22) the unclear chronological and stratigraphic situation in this pit. Stamp impression no. 12-11 (Area C1, Locus 316, sq. 157) was discovered in an intentional earth fill that covered installations related to a water system dating to the Iron Age and the Persian Period. 90.  Stamp impression no. 12-3 (Locus 274b, square 14 V) was discovered among the heap of fallen stones underneath the Byzantine floor. Stamp impression no. 12-10 (Area D1, Locus 900) was discovered in the earth fill inside a partly built and partly rock-cut trench of undetermined date.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

From Livingston 2003: 86, fig. 6.6.

239

12-1

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Khirbet Nisya ? Khirbet Nisya ? Livingston 2003: 86 and fig. 6.6. ‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ round ? Discovered in the 1993 excavation season. Read by Cross on behalf of Livingston. Not yet seen by us, and there are no further details in the excavation report.

240 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 12-2

‫פחוא‬/‫יהד‬ 12b Ramat Raḥel 3382 (3) 64-1791 P. 6, 3382 (3) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 9, fig. 9:5; pl. 9:5 ‫פחוא‬/‫יהד‬ ‫פוחא‬/]‫דה[י‬ sampled: 6.1.2005 25 mm × 17 mm Downstroke of he in first line: 4.8 mm; downstroke of ḥet in second line: 6 mm; downstroke of ʾalep 6.1 mm from right upper part of pe to left upper part of ʾalep is 18 mm oval → handle; light pink with completely gray core; white inclusions The four letters in the second line are clear, and so are the two letters on the right of the first line.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

241

12-3

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel RR 557/3 62-59 P. 6, 557/3 (9) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 8, fig. 9:2–3, pl. 9:3 Locus 274b (square 14 V) among a heap of fallen stones underneath a Byzantine floor ‫פוחא‬/‫דוהי‬ sampled: 6.1.2005 22.9 mm × 19.9 mm from top side of yod to top side of dalet in the first line: 16 mm; from top side of pe to top side of ʾalep in second line: 18 mm oval → light pink; gray core; white and black inclusions Aharoni claimed that this stamp impression contains two reversed lines of lettering, with an additional sign between them, in the shape of a semicircle open on the right. A large inclusion also appears at this location. We see no evidence of this symbol.

242 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 12-4

‫פחוא‬/‫יהד‬ 12b Ramat Raḥel 1131/1 62-47 P. 6, 1131/1 (249), two photos on both sides of the page IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 9, fig. 9:6, pl. 9:1, 6 Square 20 X, Locus 324, 50 cm above the floor of the courtyard of Stratum V ‫פוחא‬/‫דהי‬ sampled: 6.1.2005 24 mm × 18 mm downstroke of he in first line: 4.8 mm; downstroke of ḥet in second line: 6 mm from top side of yod to top side of dalet in the first line: 16.5 mm; from upper right of pe to upper left of ʾalep in the second line: 19 mm oval ← brownish-pink ware, with brown and gray inclusions The four reversed letters in the second line are faint but recognizable. The three letters in the upper line are clear, and this is one of the best exemplars of this subtype.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

12-5

243

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel 6146/1 64-1787 P. 8 6146/1 (593); and P. 7 (same number). IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 22, pl. 20:3 Found in the refuse pit east of the city wall (484), together with 2nd-century stamp impression. However, Aharoni noted the unclear chronological and stratigraphical situation in this pit (1964: 22). ‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ ‫[פוח]א‬/‫ד[וה]י‬ sampled: 6.1.2005 23.3 mm wide; height not preserved slightly oval ← light beige wash over pink fabric with dark gray core and white inclusions The letters are faint, and only the yod and dalet are clear in the first line; the four letters in the second line are even more faint.

244 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 12-6

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel 6186/1 64-1789 P. 8 6186/1 (730) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 45, pl. 20:1 Discovered in the fill in the vicinity of the northwestern defense wall, Square 10 Y, locus 807, level 4.75 ‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ ‫[פו]חא‬/‫דוהי‬ sampled 6.1.2005 24 mm × 20 mm downstroke of yod: 6 mm yhwd is 15.5 mm oval ↑ beige-pink wash over pink ware, with fine white inclusions The letters in the first line are very clear, but a fingerprint obscures the lower right side of the impression; only ḥet and ʾalep are clear.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

From Aharoni 1964a: pl. 20:2

12-7

245

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel 6492/1 54-394 6492/1 (849) (among the unrecognized) ? Aharoni 1964a: 45, pl. 20:2 found in a fill near the southwestern corner of the ancient citadel, Square 9 R, Locus 830, level 6.10 ‫פחוא‬/‫? יהוד‬ ‫פוחא‬/‫דוהי‬ round to oval → -

246 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

E.  The Early Types 12-8

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel 4158/2 8546 4158/2 (449) (unrecognized) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 250, 260, no. 5 ‫[פ]וחא‬/‫דוהי‬ sampled: 10.1.2005 25 × 17 oval → reddish-pink ware with fine white inclusions This stamp impression was not recognized by Aharoni and classified by him among a group of unrecognized impressions. Most of the letters are recognizable, especially the reversed yod and dalet in the upper line; the he and waw are blurred. Parts of the waw, ḥet, and ʾalep in the lower line are also recognizable.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

12-9

247

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel 6518/1 8553 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 250, 261, no. 6 ‫פוחא‬/‫ד[וה]י‬ sampled 10.1.2005 23 × 20 downstroke of yod: 5.6 mm from top side of yod to top side of dalet in the first line: 15 mm; from top side of pe to top side of ʾalep in second line: 17.5 mm oval ← reddish-pink ware with fine white inclusions This stamp impression was not recognized by Aharoni and classified by him among a group of unrecognized impressions. It was badly preserved, but all eight letters in both lines are recognizable.

248 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 12-10

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel RR G-49/2006 4483/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 78, and fig. 1:6 Area D1, Locus 900: an earth fill inside a partly built and partly rock-cut trench whose date was not determined ‫פוחא‬/‫דוהי‬ + 15.5 mm high downstroke of ḥet: 1.9 mm; from top right corner of yod to top right corner of het: 7.5 mm from top side of yod to top side of dalet in the first line: 15.5 mm oval → brownish-gray, with gray core; many tiny white inclusions and some bigger white inclusions The sherd is broken on its right edge, but the letters in the first line are clear. The lower line is much more faint, but only the pe is effaced.

14.  Type 12: ‫“ אוחפ דוהי‬Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ” Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

249

12-11

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel RR G-49/2006 3247 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 78–79, and fig. 1:7 Area C1 (square 157), Locus 316: an intentional earth fill covering installations related to a water system dating to the Iron and Persian periods ‫פוחא‬/‫דוהי‬ + 15.9 mm high; 19.8 mm wide downstroke of ḥet is 2.0 mm oval ← pinkish-orange, with gray core, many tiny white inclusions and some bigger white inclusions The sherd is damaged on its left side, and the dalet is not visible.

250 Database Number

Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

E.  The Early Types 12-12

‫פחוא‬/‫יהוד‬ 12a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 2275/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft, 2009: 11–12, and pl. III:11 Area B2, Locus 10019: a pottery-rich rubble fill of the foundation/robber’s trench going north–south. ‫פוחא‬/‫דוהי‬ + 16 mm high; 20 mm wide oval → pinkish-brown, with small white grits and a light-gray core The impression is broken close to the right end. The letters are badly effaced. The top line is the most damaged, and only fragments of letters are visible: the left line of the mirror yod, the right line of the he, and parts of the dalet. In the lower line, only the left side of the pe can be recognized, some remains of the waw, and clear remains of the ʾalep.

15.  Summary of the Early Types “Yĕhûd Paḥwāʾ”

251

15.  Summary of the Early Types The main characteristic of the early group is the diversity among the various types. Many of the stamp types belonging to the early group are known from only a few impressions each. It is interesting to note that, of the six early types from which we have only a few exemplars each (types 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 have yielded 14 yehud stamp impressions in total), only three were found in the City of David and one at Ramat Raḥel. These types may have been used in an ad hoc manner in very local contexts, perhaps for occasional purposes. Of the six types that produced slightly more exemplars (types 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 12 have yielded 103 yehud stamp impressions in total), 76 were found at Ramat Raḥel, 14 in the City of David (9 of them are of one type), and only 12 at other sites. These types may represent formal provincial seals, and their use on different types of jars could mean that the seals were in use over a longer period of time. Several overlapping criteria place these stamp impressions among the early group: All of the seals were incised in lapidary Aramaic script; only a few examples of cursive Aramaic letter forms appear and no paleo-Hebrew letter forms appear. Paleo-Hebrew letter forms begin to appear in coins and epigraphs of the 4th century. The absence of paleo-Hebrew forms from the early types is, therefore, an important chronological criterion. Furthermore, 9 of the 12 early types contain the geographic name ‫יהוד‬, always spelled fully with the waw as a mater lectionis, never as ‫יהד‬, which is more common in later stamp impressions and in yehud coins. The spelling ‫ יהוד‬does appear occasionally in later stamps (as it does in coins), but in these stamps, the script is paleo-Hebrew. The full spelling ‫ יהוד‬in Aramaic script appears to be an early characteristic, as Naveh noted (1970: 54). Three of the early types also contain the title ‫פחוא‬, “governor.” Only two of the governors are named, and in both cases the anthroponyms are characteristically Hebrew: ‫אחיב‬, Aḥîab, and ‫יהועזר‬, Yehoʿezer. In fact, 9 of the 12 early stamp types contain personal names (in one case also a patronym). This phenomenon resembles the “private” seal impressions from the end of the Iron Age, but it disappears in the later groups of the yehud stamp impressions. The other personal names appearing in the early types are likewise Hebrew. No personal names appear in the middle or late groups of yehud stamp impressions, which are either partly or totally in paleo-Hebrew script and have the defective form of the province name, ‫יהד‬, or its abbreviated form, ‫יה‬. Among the early stamp impressions, seven possess line dividers between the fields of text, most commonly a single line but occasionally two. This feature, especially the double line-divider, is also in continuity with late Iron Age sealing practices and is also attested among the so-called mwṣh stamp impressions of the 6th century. The mwṣh impressions are likewise incised in lapidary Aramaic, and one mwṣh type has a single line fielddivider between two rows of letters. All of these characteristics argue in favor of assigning the stamp impressions of the early group to the 6th–5th centuries b.c.e. Secure stratigraphic information for yehud stamp impressions in this early group

252

E.  The Early Types

remains elusive. Although almost all known stamp impressions come from licit excavations, few sites possess Persian Period stratigraphy sufficiently precise to do more than assign the stamp impressions to the general era (Stern 2001: 549). The best data come from the City of David exemplars, where excavators have securely dated numerous stamp impressions to stratum 9 from the Persian Period. Some of the early types were found in an early phase of stratum 9: a ‫יהוד‬ ‫ חננה‬stamp impression was discovered in an early subphase together with a mwṣh stamp impression; an ‫ אחיב פחוא‬stamp impression was in a later subphase. The early types, in any case, were found under the yehud stamp impressions of the later types, which were excavated in the second or the third phases of stratum 9 (de Groot and Ariel 2004). More important is the total absence of the early and middle groups from the 2nd-century stratum in the Western Hill of Jerusalem, where only yehud stamp impressions of the late types were found, together with well known pottery from this period and 10 yršlm seal impressions (Geva 2004; 2007). An identical 2nd-century date for the late types is now supported by the excavations at Ṣuba (Finkielsztejn and Gibson 2007). We can therefore conclude that the early and late groups do not overlap, and we can date the late group fairly securely to the 2nd century. Thus, considerable time elapsed between the first and third groups, and it is to the interval between them, roughly the 4th and 3rd centuries, that we must assign the middle group. In sum, the early stamp types show considerable uniformity in their Aramaic lapidary script, significant diversity in content, and relatively restricted distribution. They most often specify the toponym Yehud and either the personal name or the official title, “governor,” of the seals’ owners.

F.  The Middle Types

1.  Introduction to the Middle Types Three types, with at least 16 subtypes (that is, different seals with the same readings), belong to the middle group, dated to the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e. In total, 312 yehud stamp impressions belong to this “middle group,” nearly 54% of the total number of the stamp impressions in the corpus. All these stamp impressions were produced from seals reading simply ‫( יהד‬three letters, type 13) or from seals with the abbreviated writing ‫( יה‬two letters, types 14-15). The profusion of types and subtypes, characteristic of the early types, dis­ appears in the middle types. Among the 312 stamp impressions belonging to the middle types, personal names no longer appear. The toponym is now uniformly spelled ‫ יהד‬or it is abbreviated ‫יה‬. No official titles appear in any stamp impressions from the middle group (nor among later stamp impressions). Furthermore, new shapes appear among the stamp types: many of the ‫ יהד‬stamp impressions come from rectangular seals with rounded corners or from square seals, and the ‫ יה‬stamp impressions come from round seals set in a ring. The early types were uniformly round or oval stamp seals. Three main types of stamp impressions now occur (types 13-15). Type 13 produced 105 stamp impressions (18% of the corpus and 34% of the middle types, the second largest type in the corpus). Type 14 yielded 192 stamp impressions (33% of the corpus and 61.5% of the middle types, the most common type). From type 15 we have 15 stamp impressions (2.6% of the corpus and 4.8% of the middle types). Ramat Raḥel yielded 186 stamp impressions out of 312 belonging to the middle types (60%). This includes all the 15 stamp impressions from type 15, 66 from type 13, and 105 of type 14. This is a noticeable reduction at Ramat Raḥel in comparison with the early types (91 out of 128, or 71%). At the City of David, 59 stamp impressions were excavated (10% of the corpus, and 18.9% of the 312 stamp impressions belonging to the middle type). This represents an increase in comparison with the early types (17 stamp impressions out of 128, which is 13.3%). However, three other important centers yielded yehud stamp impressions belonging to the middle types: Tell en-Naṣbeh (18 stamp impressions, 5.8% of the middle types); Jericho (16 stamp impressions, 4.9% of the middle types, 13 of which belong to type 14); and Nebi Samwil (13 stamp impressions, 4.2% of the middle types, 11 of which belong to type 14). At En Gedi, 7 more stamp impressions (2.25% of the middle types) were discovered, 5 were discovered at Rogem Gannim, and one stamp impression each was discovered 253

F.  The Middle Types

254

Graph 16.  Distribution of Middle Types.

Table F1.  Distribution of Middle Types Ramat Raḥel

Type 13

Type 14

Type 15

66

105

15

City of David

19

40

Other sites and unknown

20

47

at Gezer, Khirbet Nisya, Kadesh Barnea, and Tell Jemmeh. The origin of 4 more stamp impressions is not known. Our relative chronology for these middle types is not precise enough to associate the changes in form and content between the early and middle types with a single historical catalyst. How, then, can we be sure that our proposed middle types really do belong to the fourth and third centuries, as we suggested above? Paleography of the middle types is helpful in this respect and shows several important changes, even though the number of letters relevant for paleographic analysis is small. The letter he in particular deviates substantially from the lapidary Aramaic model that prevailed in the early types. Now, he often appears with three bars joining the main stroke, and its orientation varies widely. Occasionally, the he is inscribed in reverse and sometimes upside down. This three-bar he, in any case, is not Aramaic and appears to reflect paleo-Hebrew influence (Vander-

1.  Introduction to the Middle Types

255

hooft and Lipschits 2007: 25–27). This type of he also appears on pre-Macedonian ‫ יהד‬coins that have paleo-Hebrew legends (Meshorer 2001: nos. 2, 3 [retrograde], 4 [retrograde], 5 [retrograde], 6, 9, 10 [retrograde], 13, 15, 16, 17 [retrograde], and 18 [retrograde]). These 4th-century coins with paleo-Hebrew script may have provided the model for this style of he in the ‫ יהד‬stamps. The same may be true for the yod in several of the ‫ יהד‬stamp subtypes. This evidence supports a 4th-century date for our middle ‫ יהד‬stamp types. Other comparative material for our middle stamp types includes coins from Yehud and Samaria and the so-called Philisto-Arabian coins. The famous large denomination drachma with a male figure seated above a winged wheel possesses the legend ‫יהד‬. 1 Paleography, as Cross argued (1969a[2003]: 142), indicates that the lapidary Aramaic script of the coin is characteristic of the 5th century b.c.e. and later. According to Mildenberg (1979), stylistic indications date the coin more precisely to the period between about 380 and 360 b.c.e. Its date in the late Persian Period is, in any case, well established (Barag 1986–87: 6; Naveh 1996: 92). The orthography, without waw, is the same as the YSIs of our proposed middle group. In the corpus of ‫ יהד‬coins, Meshorer dates the coins in which the toponym is spelled without the mater lectionis, whether in Aramaic or paleo-Hebrew script, to the pre-Macedonian era. Coins with the toponym spelled ‫ יהוד‬or ‫ יהודה‬in paleo-Hebrew characters are later. Thus, the ‫ יהד‬stamp impressions of our middle group find a good parallel in this coin. A second important comparative example is another 4th-century Yehud coin, a silver obol (Meshorer 2001: p. 198 no. 12 and pl. 2:12; cf. Meshorer 1990–91: 105– 32, pl. 17:2), which preserves a legend that is very close to that of our ‫ יהד‬subtype 13a (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007e: 81–83). The coin legend reads ‫ יהד‬in retrograde Aramaic script. The yod on the coin could be Aramaic or paleo-Hebrew. The letter he is, however, close to that of the ‫ יהד‬subtype a. Meanwhile, the dalet of the coin is the usual, open Aramaic lapidary form. Another Yehud silver obol from the 4th century bears an inscription that also deserves mention as an excellent parallel to our ‫ יהד‬subtype 13d (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007e: 81–83). Meshorer (2001: no. 9, pl. 1:9) suggested that this coin was inscribed in paleo-Hebrew, but close analysis reveals that although the he is paleo-Hebrew, the dalet is a reverse Aramaic exemplar with an open head formed with two lines, while the yod is not determinative. The form and stance of the letters on this coin parallel almost exactly the script of our ‫ יהד‬stamp subtype 13d (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007e: 83). Both have an upright yod (with an admittedly uncharacteristic breakthrough of the foot in the stamp); he is the three-bar paleo-Hebrew type, while the dalet is a reverse-Aramaic type with open head. The fact that both the coin and stamp have the paleo-Hebrew he and the reverseAramaic dalet leads to the suspicion that the seal and coin engravers shared a very similar model. 1.  The most recent full catalogue of the yehud coins was published by Meshorer (2001); the coin in question is no. 1 (pp. 2–6).

256

F.  The Middle Types

These 4th-century Yehud coins in particular provide, therefore, close orthographic and paleographical parallels for our ‫ יהד‬subtypes. These parallels support the proposed 4th–3rd-century date for the YSIs of our middle type. The second type of impression in our middle group has only the abbreviated ‫יה‬. The phenomenon of abbreviated spellings of geographical names, such as ‫יה‬, proliferated in the regional mints of the southern Levant beginning in the 4th century. Several different coin issues from Judah and nearby regions have abbreviated spellings of toponyms. Examples include: ‫ יד‬from Judah (Meshorer 1982: pl. 56:1); ‫שמר‬, ‫שם‬, ‫שן‬, and ‫ ש‬from Samaria (Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 17); ‫ אן‬from Ashkelon; and ‫ עז‬from Gaza (Meshorer 1982: pl. 56:1; Meshorer and Qedar 1991: 14; Gitler and Tal 2006). Abbreviated writings of the toponym in the stamps thus has a parallel development in the 4th-century coins, giving additional evidence to support a 4th‑ and perhaps 3rd-century date for the middle YSI types. We have newly deciphered one of the ‫ יה‬stamp types, type 15, based on the finds from Ramat Raḥel. Type 15 possesses an overlapping yod and he. The letters of the seal were not incised in the correct orientation or stance. In the impressions, the yod appears on the left and the he to its right. The yod is also retrograde, which means that the engraver inscribed the yod in positive, instead of negative. Stamps of this type may represent a transitional type between yh stamps and the later, so-called yh-ligature stamps (type 16). Reliable stratigraphical information is lacking for this type, but if we are correct to see it as transitional between the ‫ יה‬stamps of the middle group and type 16 (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007e: 83), then a 4th‑ or 3rd-century date seems suitable. The proposed date for the middle group in the 4th-3rd centuries b.c.e. argues for administrative continuity between the Persian and the Macedonian-Ptolemaic periods. 2 Similar continuity can be seen in the use of local coinage in Judah, as well as in Samaria (Meshorer 2001: 11, 22). It may also be noted that the prominence of Jerusalem increases somewhat among stamp impressions of the middle group. Jerusalem yielded 18% of the early group and 25% of the middle types, all of them from the City of David and none from the Western Hill. Meanwhile, the number of stamped handles excavated at Ramat Raḥel decreases from 63% in the early group to 55% of the middle types, although Ramat Raḥel remains the best represented administrative center. Tell en-Naṣbeh and Nebi Samwil possibly served as secondary centers, although we have little independent information about the sites in this period. 3

2.  Type 13: ‫“ יהד‬Yĕhūd” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution This stamp impression type has yielded 105 examples, the second largest number for any type among the yehud stamp corpus. It also possesses the largest number of subtypes, 10. 2.  See on this matter Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d with further literature. 3.  These finds indicate that Tell en-Naṣbeh did continue to function as an administrative center throughout the Persian Period, even if it was eclipsed in importance by Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd”

257

Two stamp impressions of this type were discovered at Jericho already in 1908 and another some time later (although all three were reported in 1913). 4 Between 1923 and 1925, Macalister and Duncan discovered four stamp impressions of this type in the Ophel excavations (above what would be Shiloh’s Area G, in the City of David). 5 Ten more were excavated at the City of David by Yigal Shiloh between 1978 and 1985. 6 Reich and Shukron recovered five more stamp impressions of this type in their excavations at the City of David (1995–2005), 7 bringing the total number of stamp impressions of this type from the City of David to 19. Two stamp impressions of this type were excavated during the two first seasons at Tell en-Naṣbeh, 1926–27 (Badè 1930: 14), and five more were published in the final report (McCown 1947: 164–66). An additional stamp impression of this type was discovered in the collection of the Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion, bringing the total number of this type from Tell en-Naṣbeh to eight. 8 Among stamp impressions of this type from other sites, we may note that Mazar and Dunayevsky discovered three at En Gedi in the 1960s. 9 Magen found two at Nebi Samwil between 1992 and 2003. 10 Greenberg and Cinamon excavated one at the et-Târŭd Tumulus (Rogem Gannim) in the modern Ir-Gannim neighborhood of Jerusalem. 11 Another one appeared in Livingston’s excavations at Khirbet Nisya. 12 The origin of two more stamp impressions is not known to us. 13 Aharoni recovered 55 stamp impressions of this type during five seasons of excavations at Ramat Raḥel. He published 49 of these: 10 in the publication of his first season of excavations (1954); 7 more from the second season (1959); 8 from the third season (1960); 18 from the fourth season (1961); and 6 from the final season (1962). 14 Aharoni retrieved 6 more stamp impressions that he did not publish. One was originally in the collection of M. Dayan (now in the Israel Museum). 15 Another was discovered among the unpublished and unregistered material from Ramat Raḥel, stored in the warehouse of the Israel Antiquities Authority; it was first 4.  On the first two, see: Sellin 1908: 39 abb. 18, and see stamp impression nos. 13-1 and 13-2. On all three, see Sellin and Watzinger 1913[1973]: 159; pl. 42 m1; and see also stamp impression no. 13-3. 5.  Cook 1924: 182, no. 2, pl. V:ib; 1925: pl. 4:23, 24, 25, 26; .Duncan 1925: pl. 4:16, 17, 18; 1931: 141; see stamp impression nos. 13-12 – 13-15. 6.  Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L46–L55; see stamp impression nos. 13-16 – 13-25. 7.  Reich and Shukron2007: 59–63, no. 1-3, 8-9; see stamp impression nos. 13-26 – 13-30. 8.  Badè 1930: 14; McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:1, 2, 3, 19; see stamp impression nos. 13-4–13-11. 9.  Mazar and Dunayevsky 1964: 126–127, pl. 27:b; Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 67, no. 3–4, and fig. 1: 3–4; see stamp impression nos. 13-31 – 13-33. 10.  Magen and Har-Even 2007: 43–44 and pl. 1: 4, 5; see stamp impression nos. 13-34, 13-35. 11.  Greenberg and Cinamon 2002: 97; 2006: 232, no. F-1, fig. 3:F1. See stamp impression no. 13-36. 12.  Livingston 2003: 86; see stamp impression no. 13-37. 13.  One stamp impression is in the Haaretz Museum (see stamp impression no. 13-38) and the other in Hecht Museum (see stamp impression no. 13-39). 14.  From 1954: Aharoni 1956c: 148, fig. 15, pl. 26:2, 9; see stamp impression nos. 13-40–13-49; from 1959: Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8: 6–9, pl. 8:2, 3; see stamp impression nos. 13-50–13-56; from 1960: Aharoni 1962: 31, fig. 22:2–4; pl. 31:4–5, 7; see stamp impression nos. 13-57–13-64; from 1961: Aharoni 1964a: 21, pl. 19:4–6; see stamp impression nos. 13-65–13-82; from 1962: Aharoni 1964a: 44; see stamp impression nos. 13-83 – 13-88. 15.  Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: no. 8; see stamp impression no. 13-89.

258

F.  The Middle Types

Graph 17.  Distribution of Type 13.

Table F2.  Site Distribution of Type 13 Ramat Raḥel

66

Jerusalem: City of David

19

Tell en-Naṣbeh

8

Nebi Samwil

2

En Gedi

3

Jericho

3

Rogem Gannim

1

Khirbet Nisya

1

Unknown

2

cataloged in 1996. 16 We discovered 4 more stamp impressions in Aharoni’s excavation records. 17 Finally, excavators recovered 2 in the second season of the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel (2006), 5 in the third season (2007), and 4 more in the fourth season (2008). 18 This brings the total number of stamp impressions of this type discovered at Ramat Raḥel to 66 (out of 105). b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions Beginning with type 13, neither personal names nor official titles appear any longer. Now the toponym ‫ יהד‬appears alone, spelled defectively on a single line, with no other adornment. A new development is the appearance of rectangularshaped seals alongside round or oval forms, which were used exclusively for the 16.  Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: no. 9; see stamp impression no. 13-90. 17.  Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: nos. 7, 10–12; see stamp impression nos. 13-91–13-94. 18.  From 2006: Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 79–80 and fig. 1: 8–9; see stamp impression nos. 13-95, 13-96; from 2007: Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 17–19; see stamp impression nos. 13-97–13-101; from 2008: Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 18–21, nos. 12–15, and pl. III:12–15.; see stamp impression nos. 13-102 – 13-105.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd”

259

early types. We judge these phenomena to have chronological implications (see Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007c). All stamp impressions belonging to type 13, with a single exception, appear on handles. c.  History of Research In the early history of research on stamp impressions of this type, scholars read the three letters as ‫יהו‬, the divine name, and usually did not differentiate among subtypes. A few attempts were made to understand the three characters as representing numerals linked to the capacity of the jars (Duncan [1924] argues against this view). Mr. Abinoam Yellin even suggested understanding these three letters as representing a spelling of the name Jehu, which in the Hebrew Bible is written with a final ʾalep (quoted in Cook 1925: 94). Duncan assumed that ‫ יהו‬was an abbreviated form of the divine name (1924; and cf. Cook 1924: 181; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 189–90). Stamp impressions of this kind were therefore understood as marking jars containing donations or tithes payable to the Jerusalem Temple in the Persian Period (and see also Sellin and Watzinger 1913[1973]: 159). Sellin adduced the reference in Zech 14:21 to justify this interpretation: ‫ְו ָהיָה ָכּל־‬ ‫יהּודה ק ֶֹדׁש לַיהוָה ְצבָאֹות‬ ָ ‫ּוב‬ ִ ‫ּירּושל ִַם‬ ָׁ ‫‘ ִסיר ִב‬at that time, every jar in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to Yhwh of Hosts’ (1913: 188–89). Duncan speculated that stamp impressions bearing the abbreviated divine name, yhw or yh, may have replaced the earlier lmlk stamp impressions. He made this suggestion after Albright argued that the yhw or yh stamp impressions date to the period after Ezra’s reform, when the names of the treasurers of the temple (his hypothesis about the early stamp impressions) were replaced by the divine name (1926: 93–102). Duncan wondered, however, why such a sacred word would have been impressed upon ordinary pottery, and preferred, finally, some other hypothesis, such as a potter’s name (Macalister and Duncan 1926: 189–90). The correct reading, ‫יהד‬, was first established by Sukenik (1934: 180–84; and cf. Albright, 1934: 20–21). He doubted Sellin’s interpretation of the jar legends from Jericho and endorsed Lidzbarski’s argument that if the contents of the jars were to be registered to the temple (i.e., to Yahw[eh]), then the prefixed genitive ‫ ל‬would be required before the divine name (1934: 182). Sukenik also was able to prove that the coins from Judah known at that time should also be read ‫יהד‬, not ‫יהו‬. From that time on, almost all scholars correctly abandoned the old reading of these stamp impressions (and the coins) in favor of the provincial name, Yehūd, written without the waw (cf. Aharoni 1956c: 148, and see discussion in §D‑1, pp. 76–77). Aharoni, however, concluded that several ‫ יהד‬stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel actually possessed what he called a “monogram” (1956b: 169–70; 1962: 31; 1964a: 21 and pl. V:1–4). Kochman developed this even further and argued that a “figure-eight monogram,” which Aharoni thought he recognized on 3 of 26 yhd stamp impressions, was a royal emblem (1982: 27–28). Inspection of all the stamp impressions in question has decisively proved that Aharoni’s “monogram” is a phantom and that there was no such symbol in any of the stamp impressions. Several stamp impressions merely possessed some surface imperfections.

260

F.  The Middle Types

d.  The Yehūd Subtypes (1) Subtype 13a

Distribution.  There are 18 stamp impressions of this type. Excavators recovered the first two at Jericho (Sellin and Watzinger 1913[1973]: 159); 2 came from Tell en-Naṣbeh (Badè 1930: 14; McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:1, 3); 6 from Ramat Raḥel; 6 from the City of David; one was recovered at Nebi Samwil (Magen and Har-Even, 2007: pl. 1:4); while the provenance of the stamped handle in the Hecht Museum is unknown. 19 Characteristics of the Stamp Impression.  It is clear that the 18 stamp impressions were produced by a single oval seal. The fully preserved impressions range from 22 to 24 mm across and 14 to 16 mm high, and the form, size, and layout of the letters are identical in all of them. All of the stamp impressions appear on jar handles that were impressed before firing. Paleography. Yod and dalet have classic Aramaic forms, although the yod angles somewhat sharply to the left and has a slightly rounded head. The he is of the Aramaic two-bar type, as Cook already noted (1924: 181), but with a very long, sharply angled top stroke and a comparatively short downstroke on the right. The proportions of the downstroke and top stroke are thus slightly unusual within the Aramaic lapidary sequence. A single oblique stroke descends from the top stroke. Dalet is open on top and formed by three strokes. An excellent parallel for ‫ יהד‬subtype 13a is presented by a Yehud silver obol, which preserves a legend that is paleographically very similar (Meshorer 2001: p. 198 no. 12 and pl. 2:12; cf. Meshorer 1990–91: 105–32, pl. 17:2). The coin legend is actually inscribed in reverse but when viewed in mirror image is very similar to this stamp subtype 13a. This parallel has chronological significance, as noted above, since the coin may be dated to the 4th century (Meshorer 2001: 10–11). Stratigraphy.  In most cases, the stratigraphic data pertaining to the stamp impressions are not especially helpful with regard to chronology. We may note, however, that the appearance of two (or three) stamp impressions of this kind at Jericho may have chronological implications (see §B-2). No clear Hellenistic strata appear at the site, although there is literary evidence indicating that the site existed in the 3rd century and a single Rhodian jar stamp dating to the very late third or early 2nd century was found (Bartlett 1982: 542). Even so, no late stamp types have been recovered at Jericho, and it is unlikely that subtype 13a stamps should be dated later than the 4th century. One of the 6 stamp impressions from the City of David (no. 13-17) was discovered in a clear Persian Period stratum (Area E, Locus 2092, Stratum 9), but all the 19.  Jericho: See stamp impression nos. 13-1, 13-2; Tell en-Naṣbeh: stamp impression nos. 13-5, 136; Ramat Raḥel: Aharoni 1956c: 148 (= Hestrin et al. 1973: 68, no. 152); 1962: 31, pl. 31:7; 1964: 21; Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 79, and fig.1: 9; stamp impression nos. 13-46, 1348, 13-58, 13-76, 13-93, 13-96; City of David: Cook 1924: 182, No. 2, pl. V: ib; 1925, pl. 4:23; Duncan 1925a: pl. 4:16; 1931: 141; Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L46-L50, stamp impression nos. 13-12, 1316–13-20; Nebi Samwil: stamp impression no. 13-34; Hecht Museum: stamp impression no. 13-39.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd”

261

others were discovered in late stratigraphic contexts. One of the 6 stamp impressions from Ramat Raḥel (no. 13-77) was unearthed in the fill above the courtyard of the Iron Age northern building (468), but again no clear information exists for the stratigraphic contexts of the other 5 stamp impressions. Orientation.  When the seal was impressed on the jar handles during manufacture, whoever stamped them evidently took care to have the legend read vertically along the handle. Sometimes (9 cases), the top of the seal was oriented to the right, while in all the others where it can be discerned, the top of the stamp faced to the left of the handle. None of the seals was impressed horizontally. This seems to have been the norm with seals having an oval shape. (2) Subtype 13b

Distribution.  Of the 45 stamp impressions from the single seal of this type, 41 come from Ramat Raḥel (91%). Out of the 307 stamp impressions discovered at this site, subtype 13b accounts for more than 14.5%, indicating that this is one of the most characteristic stamp impressions from this site. 20 Two come from En Gedi (Mazar and Dunayevsky 1964: 126–27, pl. 27:b; Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 67 and fig. 1:3), and a single stamp impression each comes from the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L52) and Rogem Ganim (Greenberg and Cinamon: 2002: 97; 2006: 232 and fig. 3:F1). 21 Characteristics of the Stamp Impression.  Subtype 13b is a rectangular stamp with rounded corners; it is the most numerous subtype of type 13. Stamp impressions from this seal range between from 21 to 23 mm wide by 18 to 19 mm high, but they were all impressed on jar handles by the same seal. Paleography. Yod and dalet again have classic Aramaic forms and vertical stances. The he, however, is of the three-bar type, with the upper horizontal stroke longer than the lower two. This form is characteristic of the paleo-Hebrew style of the 4th century and later and appears commonly on Yehūd coins of that time. The he is also slightly raised in relationship to the yod and dalet, which makes it relatively easy to identify stamp impressions from this specific seal. Stratigraphy.  If we have correctly identified one of the two stamp impressions from En Gedi as belonging to this type (and see also the exemplar of subtype 13e below, pp. 263–264), this identification has chronological significance, because Mazar concluded that the main structure at Tel Goren was destroyed at the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 4th century b.c.e. and that the site was deserted by the middle of the 4th century (Mazar and Dunayevski 1966: 188–89; Mazar 1987: 86, and see above, §B-2, pp. 48–49). Stern’s final excavation report on En Gedi supports this conclusion (Stern 2001: 439; 2007: 363; Stern 2007: 230–42). 20.  See stamp impression nos. 13-43, 13-44, 13-45, 13-50, 13-51, 13-52, 13-54, 13-55, 13-56, 13-57, 13-62, 13-64-13-75, 13-78, 13-80, 13-82, 13-83, 13-84, 13-86, 13-87, 13-89–13-92, 13-97–13-102. 21.  En Gedi: stamp impression no. 13-31, 13-32; City of David: stamp impression no. 13-22; Rogem Gannim: stamp impression no. 13-36.

262

F.  The Middle Types

Several other stamp impressions of this type support a date for this subtype in the middle of the 4th century or, in other words, prior to the Hellenistic Period. The stamp impression of subtype 13b from Rogem Gannim came from a clear chronological (even if not stratigraphic) context: from the collecting vat of a winepress (L109), which contained pottery of the late Iron Age and Persian Periods only (see §B-2, pp. 49–51). The vast majority of stamp impressions of this subtype (38 out of 43) come, however, from Ramat Raḥel, and more than half of these stamp impressions (18) come from uncertain stratigraphic and chronological contexts. One stamp impression (no. 13-79), however, was unearthed in the foundation trench of the eastern wall of Stratum IVb of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. This gives us a clear pre-Hellenistic stratigraphic context for this stamp impression, and taken into consideration along with the stamp impressions from Rogem Gannim and En Gedi, we can conclude that the terminus ad quem of subtype 13b is the middle of the 4th century b.c.e. At Ramat Raḥel, 18 additional stamp impressions came from the fill above and very close to the Iron Age citadel, a situation that may also support a date in the Persian Period: 11 stamp impressions from this site (nos. 13-66–13-75, 13-84) were discovered in the fill above the Iron Age central courtyard (380). One stamp impression (no. 13-76) was discovered in a similar context, in the area of the outer courtyard (470); another (no. 13-78) was unearthed in the courtyard of the Iron Age northern building (468); and one more (no. 13-88) emerged in the area to the south of the Iron Age casemate wall, in the vicinity of what Aharoni called “the Persian building.” Two other stamp impressions (nos. 13-85, 13-87) were discovered in the fill of the northwestern section of the Iron Age defense wall. The only exemplar discovered at the city of David (no. 13-22) was excavated in a late stratigraphic context (Area E, Locus 646, Stratum 7). Orientation.  There appears to have been a preference for the stamp to read vertically along the handle: 21 had the seal impressed with the top facing right; 12 had the top facing left. Five stamp impressions had the top of the seal facing the base, and three facing the rim. (3) Subtype 13c

Distribution.  Six stamp impressions of this type were excavated, four at Tell en-Naṣbeh (Badè 1930: 14; McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:2.), one at the City of David (Cook 1925: pl. 4:26; Duncan 1931: 141), and one at Nebi Samwil (Magen and HarEven 2007: 43–44 and pl. 1:5). 22 Characteristics of the Stamp Impression.  Subtype 13c is a mostly rectangular stamp with rounded edges. The smallish stamp impressions measure 16 to 18 mm wide and 13 to 14 mm high. The word yhd measures 11.5 mm across. The precise equivalences among these dimensions and the shape of the letters prove that the impressions come from the same seal. 22.  Tell en-Naṣbeh: stamp impression nos. 13-4; 13-7; 13-9, 13-11; City of David: stamp impression no. 13-15; Nebi Samwil: stamp impression no. 13-35.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd”

263

Paleography. Yod is completely upright with the top, bottom, and middle strokes forming right angles with the downstroke. Dalet has the classic Aramaic lapidary form with an open head. He is unusual: it has two short, vertical obliques descending from the top, horizontal stroke instead of the normal single stroke of the Aramaic lapidary (Naveh 1970: 60). Perhaps the emergence of this form of he, which is not characteristic of Aramaic, was influenced by the three-bar he of the paleo-Hebrew script. Stratigraphy.  We have no stratigraphic or other details on the stamp impressions of type 13c. Orientation.  Three of the handles have stamp impressions with the top of the seal facing the rim of the jar; two have the seal facing the base. (4) Subtype 13d

Distribution.  Subtype 13d is known from four stamp impressions, three of them from Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: 31) and one from the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L51). 23 Characteristics of the Stamp Impression.  Subtype 13d measures about 17 mm by 13 mm, similar to subtype 13c. The seal was slightly rectangular with rounded edges. It is thus also similar in form and layout to subtype 13c. There is some question whether all of the stamp impressions of subtype 13d are actually identical, because only one of them (13-21) is well preserved. Paleography. Yod is slightly rounded on the top, and its bottom stroke breaks through to the left of the downstroke. The he is similar to the he of subtype 13c, with two oblique strokes descending from the vertical, but they are not of equal length as in subtype 13c. Once again, however, it appears possible that this type of he is influenced by paleo-Hebrew. The dalet is still clearly Aramaic, with a long downstroke and open head. The paleography of subtype 13d, like its dimensions, is very similar but not quite identical to subtype 13c, and we may say that both seals share a similar model. Stratigraphy.  We have no stratigraphic or other details on the stamp impressions of type 13d. Orientation.  Three of the four impressions have the top of the seal facing the rim of the jars, while one had the top of the seal facing the base. (5) Subtype 13e

Distribution.  Type 13e is known from five stamp impressions, three from the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149 L54; Reich and Shukron 2007: 60 and fig. 1:2–3), and one each from Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: 31) and En Gedi (Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 67 and fig. 1:4). 24

23.  Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression nos. 13-60, 13-61, 13-63; City of David: stamp impression no. 13-21. 24.  City of David: stamp impression nos. 13-24, 13-26, 13-27; Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression no. 13-59; En Gedi: stamp impression no. 13-33.

264

F.  The Middle Types

Characteristics of the Stamp Impression.  Subtype 13e resembles 13c and 13d in its layout and dimensions. The rectangular seal measures between 15 and 17 mm wide by 13 to 16 mm high. The impressions were impressed on jar handles. Paleography.  The seal producing these stamps may be differentiated from the one that produced subtype 13d by the shape of the yod. In type 13e, the bottom stroke of yod does not break through the vertical downstroke. In type 13d, it clearly does so. The he of subtype 13e clearly has two short vertical strokes descending from the upper stroke, like subtypes 13c and 13d. The dalet is the usual open Aramaic type. Stratigraphy.  One stamp impression from the City of David (no. 13-24) was discovered in stratum 9 from the Persian Period (Area G, Locus 760). We have no additional helpful details on the other exemplars of subtype 13e. Orientation.  There appears to be no pattern to the direction of the stamp impressions on the handles. (6) Subtype 13f

Distribution.  Eleven stamp impressions of this type are known. Seven come from Ramat Raḥel, two from the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L53; Reich and Shukron 2007: 61, and fig 1: 9), one from Tell en-Naṣbeh (McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:19), and one is of unknown provenance. 25 Characteristics of the Stamp Impression.  Subtype 13f is a comparatively large, rectangular seal. The impressions from this seal measure between 26 and 28 mm wide by 20 mm high. The downstroke of the yod measures between 10 and 11 mm, that of the he between 11.7 and 13 mm. The stamp impressions of this type are very distinctive and easily recognized. Paleography.  All of the letters are unusual. Yod is upright, with an unusually long, horizontal bottom stroke that breaks through the vertical downstroke on the left. The he is again of the three-bar type, with a rounded top and a downstroke that leans to the right. This type of he is characteristic of the paleo-Hebrew style. The dalet is Aramaic, with an open head formed by a single, curved stroke. However, the dalet is inscribed in reverse. A very good parallel to the script of this stamp impression subtype appears on a yhd silver obol from the 4th century, published by Meshorer, who suggested that it was inscribed in paleo-Hebrew (2001: no. 9, pl. 1:9). Analysis of the photographs reveals that, although the he is paleo-Hebrew, the dalet is a reverse Aramaic exemplar with an open head formed by two lines; the yod is not determinative. The form and stance of the letters on this coin parallels the script of our ‫ יהד‬stamp subtype 13f quite closely: both have an upright yod (with an admittedly uncharacteristic breakthrough of the foot in the stamp impressions); he is the three-bar paleo-Hebrew type; and the dalet is reversed and of Aramaic form, 25.  Ramat Raḥel: Aharoni 1956: 148; 1962: 6, fig. 8:8; 1964: 21; 44; Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 79, and fig. 1: 8; see stamp impression nos. 13-41, 13-42, 13-53, 13-79, 13-81, 13-85, 13-95; City of David: stamp impression nos. 13-23, 13-30; Tell en-Naṣbeh: stamp impression no. 13-8; unknown provenance: stamp impression no. 13-38.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd”

265

with an open head. The fact that both the coin and stamp have the paleo-Hebrew he and the reversed Aramaic dalet suggests the likelihood that the seal and coin engravers shared a very similar model. This 4th-century Yehud coin, in particular, therefore, provides a close orthographic and paleographical parallel for ‫ יהד‬subtype 13f. These parallels support the proposed 4th-century date for the YSIs of our middle type. Stratigraphy.  We have no stratigraphic or any other information on most of the stamp impressions. Some of them were discovered in late contexts. Only one stamp impression from Ramat Raḥel (no. 13-85) was unearthed in the fill of the northwestern section of the Iron Age defense wall, and this may indicate a Persian Period context. Orientation.  Subtype 13f, unlike almost all other stamp types, is completely consistent in the orientation of the stamp impressions on the handles. In 10 of the 11 exemplars for which the orientation could be established, the seal faces the rim of the jar. (7) Subtype 13g

Distribution.  We assign 5 stamp impressions to this newly recognized subtype. Three were recovered at Ramat Raḥel and two at the City of David. The first published example of this subtype, which is not particularly clear, was mentioned by Aharoni, but he provided no analysis or photo (1964a: 44). Aharoni recovered another exemplar at Ramat Raḥel but did not publish it; we discovered it in the excavation records (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 252, 262, no. 12.). One more was excavated in 2008. The two from the City of David were published by Reich and Shukron (Reich and Shukron 2007: 60–61 and fig 1:1, 8). 26 Characteristics of the Stamp Impression.  Unlike most other stamps of type 13 that are rectangular or oval, subtype 13g is round, with a diameter between 18 and 20 mm The downstrokes of each of the three letters are nearly 6 mm high. All of the stamp impressions appear on jar handles. Paleography.  The yod is classical and formed with a slightly rounded head, as in exemplar 13-28. The he is likewise classical, with an oblique upper stroke and a single stroke descending from it. The dalet also has the usual Aramaic form, with an open head formed from one angular stroke. The paleography of this subtype is thus entirely in keeping with the usual classical Aramaic lapidary. Stratigraphy.  Aharoni’s analysis of the stratigraphy of the single stamp impression he cited is unhelpful. Reich and Shukron recovered two stamp impressions on the eastern slope of the City of David from levels that they generally date to the Persian era. Orientation.  Two of the stamp impressions have the top facing the rim of the jar; three face the base. 26.  Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression 13-88 (Aharoni 1964: 44), stamp impression 13-94 (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 252, 262, no. 12); stamp impression 13-104 (Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 19-20, no. 14; pl. III:14); City of David: stamp impression 13-28 and 13-29.

266

F.  The Middle Types

(8) Subtype 13h

Distribution.  The two stamp impressions assigned to this type come from Ramat Raḥel. Aharoni published them in 1956 with little discussion. One is known only from Aharoni’s excavations records. 27 Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions.  The two stamp impressions are round, but the dimension of only one of them is known: it has a diameter of 20 mm. This stamp impression appears on a body sherd (13-49), not a handle. This may also be true of the second exemplar, but we know it only from a close-up photoraph. The stamp otherwise resembles type 13g quite closely. Paleography.  The form of the letters in type 13h resembles those of type 13g. The yod is mostly upright, as is the he. The dalet has an open, cupped head formed by a single curved stroke. All three letters, therefore, have usual Aramaic lapidary forms. Stratigraphy.  No specific data remain from Aharoni’s excavations. (9) Subtype 13i

Distribution.  A single stamp impression of this type is known from Shiloh’s excavations in area E of the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L55). 28 Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions.  Ariel and Shoham already recognized this as a unique stamp-impression type (2000: 149–50). It is round and relatively large, with a diameter of 26 mm. Paleography.  The foot of the yod breaks through the horizontal; the three horizontal bars of the he face upward. Dalet is reversed, like type 13f.

(10) Subtype 13j

Distribution.  Two stamp impressions of this type were discovered at Ramat Raḥel, one in the 2007 excavation season (Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2008: 18–19, no. 15, and pl. III:15) and the other in the 2008 excavation season (Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 20, no. 15, and pl. III:15). 29 Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions.  The stamp impression is relatively small and rectangular, with rounded corners, producing an almost oval impression. 27.  Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression nos. 13-47 and 13-49 (published); for the example only found in Aharoni’s records, see Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 252, 262, no. 12.. 28.  See stamp impression no. 13-25. 29.  Ramat Raḥel 2007: stamp impression no. 13-101; 2008: stamp impression no. 13-105.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd”

267

Paleography.  The yod has a slightly elongated downstroke, while its foot is long and slopes down to the right. The he is slightly raised and is of the paleoHebrew type with three horizontal bars (as in type 13b). In both exemplars, the dalet has a unique “U” shaped head and very short downstroke. Stratigraphy.  Neither stamp was recovered in a stratigraphical context that provides useful chronological information. e.  Summary Discussion of Subtypes 13a-j Paleographic execution is much poorer for most subtypes than in the yhwd stamp impressions of types 6a and 6b. The model for all subtypes of type 13, how-

Table F3.  Summary Table of the Distribution of Subtypes 13a–i

(excluding stamp impressions of unknown origin and those unassigned to a subtype)

13a 13b

13c 13d 13e

13f

3

1

7

3

1

3

2

2

Ramat Raḥel

6

41

Jerusalem: City of David

6

1

Tell en-Naṣbeh

2

4

Nebi Samwil

1

1

En Gedi Jericho Rogem Gannim

2

1

13g 13h

1 1

2 1

Graph 18.  Site Distribution of Subtypes 13a–j.

13i

2

13j 2

1

268

F.  The Middle Types

ever, is clear: whether the yod is Aramaic or Hebrew is indistinguishable, and it can appear with or without an elongated bottom stroke; the he can be Aramaic, but, more often, it is the three-bar type characteristic of paleo-Hebrew; the dalet is Aramaic, but sometimes in reverse. The appearance of paleo-Hebrew forms of he suggests that the type should be dated no earlier than the 4th century b.c.e., when the paleo-Hebrew script began to emerge (Cross 2003[1961]: 3 n. 4; Naveh 1998: 91). This is also the period when three-letter versions of the province name in Aramaic appear on Yehud coins (Meshorer 2001), supporting the attribution to this period. It is worth noting that all of the stamp impressions of this type were excavated at the six sites that have produced the largest number of stamp impressions of all types. The lone exception, Rogem Gannim, is notable because this site seems to be closely related to Ramat Raḥel as early as the beginning of Iron Age II, probably as a site for processing wine (Greenberg and Cinamon 2007; Lipschits forthcoming, and see the discussion on pp. 49–51). In addition to subtype 13a, which is represented at five different sites, with no concentration at a specific site, the other subtypes predominate at a single site: Subtype 13b is strongly correlated with Ramat Raḥel (more than 90%); and so are subtypes 13d (3 out of 4 exemplars) and subtype 13f (7 out of 10 exemplars). Subtype 13c is best represented at Tell en-Naṣbeh (4 out of the 6 exemplars), and subtypes 13g–13i appear too sporadically to make any correlations. This distribution is significant for the discussion of the administrative system represented in the Yehud stamp impressions (see below, pp. 761–762).

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

269

13-1 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jericho ? Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42:m; Sellin 1908: 39 ‫יהו‬ ‫יהד‬ oval ←

Excavated in 1908 (according to Sellin 1908: 39). Complete handle depicted in Sellin and Watzinger 1913.

Scanned from Sellin and Watzinger 1913[1973]: 159, pl. 42:m.

270

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

13-2 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jericho ? Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42:m1; Sellin 1908: 39 abb. 18 ‫יהו‬ ‫יהד‬ ? ? oval ←

Excavated in 1908 (according to Sellin 1908: 39); and see there a photograph of the complete handle.

Scanned from Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42:m1.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

13-3 ‫יהד‬ 13? Jericho Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159 ‫יהו‬ ‫יהד‬ ? ? ? ?

No photo. The other two from Jericho are subtype 13a. Sellin and Watzinger read yhw, like the other impressions from Jericho. Probably discovered after 1908 (published 1913).

No photo available of this stamp impression

271

272

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-4 ‫יהד‬ 13c Tell en-Naṣbeh M 1433 Rockefeller Museum 34.95 (Badè Museum no. 1433) Rockefeller Museum Badè 1930: 14; McCown 1947: 164–65 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 1.4.2005 17 mm × 13.5 mm downstroke of yod: 4.5 mm; downstroke of he: 6.5 mm 11.5 mm top right of yod to top left of dalet oval with flattened impression on top ↑ reddish to pink with slightly gray core and some white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

273

13-5 ‫יהד‬ 13a Tell en-Naṣbeh M 876 Rockefeller Museum 1931–335 (Badè Mus. no. 876) Rockefeller Museum Badè 1930: 14; McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:3 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled 4.1.2005 23.5 mm × 16 mm downstroke of he: 9 mm; downstroke of dalet: 7.5 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet: 15 mm oval ← Pinkish-white wash on light pink fabric; brown core with brown and white inclusions

274

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-6 ‫יהד‬ 13a Tell en-Naṣbeh M 2856 Rockefeller Museum 1935–3223 (Badè Mus. no. 2856) Rockefeller Museum McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:1 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 23 mm × 18 mm downstroke of he: 9 mm; downstroke of dalet: 7.5 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet: 15 mm oval ← light pink fabric; brown core with brown and white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

13-7 ‫יהד‬ 13c Tell en-Naṣbeh M 2847 Badè Museum 2847 Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:2

‫יהד‬ 18 × 13 mm

rounded corners on a slightly rectangular stamp ↑

275

276

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-8 ‫יהד‬ 13f Tell en-Naṣbeh M 2420 Badè Museum 2420 Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–65, pl. 57:19 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 30 × 15 mm rectangular ↑ -

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-9 ‫יהד‬ 13c Tell en-Naṣbeh AF 20 I x39 Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–65 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 12 × 14 mm slightly oval ↓ -

277

278

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-10 ‫יהד‬ 13? Tell en-Naṣbeh AG 29, × 5 Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–65 ‫יהד‬ [‫]יהד‬ 12 × 14 mm rectangular ? The impression is too faint to decipher or determine orientation, but McCown included it in this group of yhd stamp impressions.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-11 ‫יהד‬ 13d? Tell en-Naṣbeh C193N x8 Badè Museum no. C193N x8 Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion Not published. ? ‫יהד‬ 13 × 16 mm rectangular ↑ The letters are very faint but visible. It was discovered among the photos in the Badè Institute.

279

280

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-12 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jerusalem, City of David (Ophel excavations) 582 PEF London 248 (other no. 582) PEF Cook 1924: 182, no. 2, pl. V:ib; 1925, pl. 4:23; Duncan 1925: pl. 4:16; 1931: 141 ‫יהו‬ ‫יהד‬ ? oval ← yellowish-red, with quartz inclusions The frame of the seal is very faint, but the letters are clear, except for the lower part of the dalet, which is just above the break of the handle.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Scanned from: Duncan 1925: pl. 4:17.

281

13-13 ‫יהד‬ 13a? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? Cook 1925, pl. 4:24; Duncan 1925: pl. 4:17; 1931: 141 ‫יהו‬ ‫יהד‬ May belong to type 13a.

282

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Scanned from: Duncan 1925: pl. 4:18.

13-14 ‫יהד‬ 13a? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? Cook 1925: pl. 4:25; Duncan 1925: pl. 4:18; 1931: 141 ‫יהו‬ ‫יהד‬ May belong to type 13a.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

283

13-15 ‫יהד‬ 13c Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) 23 Rockefeller Museum P. 3637 RM Cook 1925: pl. 4:26; Duncan 1931:141 ‫יהו‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 16 mm × 14 mm downstroke of yod: 4 mm; downstroke of he: 6.5 mm 11.5 mm from upper right of downstroke on yod to upper left of dalet slightly oval (nearly circular) ↓ light pink fabric; low-fired gray core with white inclusions The seal was impressed on the top side of the handle, along the central ridge. Excavation location noted on sherd: “Cut 1, N. of Face of N. Bast., Field 5, No. 1”. The stamp impression now has on its front, in modern ink, “N. of N.B.F.” and “No. 23.”

284

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-16 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jerusalem, City of David E2/1724 95-2299 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L46 Area E, Locus 536, Stratum 7A-6 [‫יה[ד‬ ‫יהד‬ approx. 24 mm × 16 mm Downstroke of he: 10 mm; downstroke of dalet: 8 mm 15 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet oval → light beige-pink wash; pink-brown core; white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

285

13-17 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jerusalem: City of David E1/1733 86-2034 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L47 Area E, Locus 2092, Stratum 9 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 24 mm × 15 mm downstroke of yod: 8 mm; downstroke of he: 11 mm; downstroke of dalet: 9 mm 13 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet oval ← light pink with brown core and white inclusions

286

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-18 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jerusalem: City of David E1/3534 86–1812 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L48 Area E, Locus 592, Stratum 5 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 16.12.2004 24 mm × 14 mm downstroke of yod: 8.5 mm; downstroke of he: 10 mm; downstroke of dalet: 9 mm 14 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet oval → beige-pink wash over pink ware; gray-brown core; white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

287

13-19 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jerusalem: City of David G 11431 Hebrew U 11142 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L49 Area G, Surface ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm × 14 mm downstroke of yod: 8.5 mm; downstroke of he : 10.5 mm; downstroke of dalet: 9.5 mm 14 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet oval ← beige wash over pink ware; gray brown core; white inclusions

288

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-20 ‫יהד‬ 13a Jerusalem: City of David E1/8675 95-2291 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L50 Area E, Locus 1280, Stratum 6. [‫י[הד‬ [‫י[הד‬ not preserved yod 7.5 mm high oval → pink ware with brown core; white inclusions Only the right third of the impression was preserved. The yod is clear, and so is the lower part of the he.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

289

13-21 ‫יהד‬ 13d Jerusalem: City of David D2/20436 86-1808 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L51 Area D, Surface ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 17 mm × 14 mm downstroke of yod: 4 mm; of he: 5 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet is 12 mm partly preserved ↓ light pink to beige wash over pink/red fabric with brownish gray core and tiny inclusions

290

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-22 ‫יהד‬ 13b Jerusalem: City of David E1/3873 95-2294 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L52 Area E, Locus 646, Stratum 7 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 21 mm wide × 15 mm high downstroke yod 6.5 mm rectangular → orange-pink ware with pink and brown core; white inclusions Ariel and Shoham (2000: 149), probably following Aharoni, reconstructed an emblem above the he, but no emblem exists.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

291

13-23 ‫יהד‬ 13f Jerusalem: City of David E2/3019 95-2296 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L53 Area E, Locus 1462, Stratum 5 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 28 mm w × 20 mm h downstroke of yod: 11 mm; downstroke of he: 12.5 mm rectangular ↑ pink ware with pink and brown core; white inclusions

292

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-24 ‫יהד‬ 13e Jerusalem: City of David G 4456 95-2298 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149, L54 Area G, Locus 760, Stratum 9 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 17 mm × 15 mm yod: 5 mm high rectangular ↓ pink ware with gray core; white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

293

13-25 ‫יהד‬ 13i Jerusalem: City of David E1/9971 95-2290 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 149–50, L55 Area E, Locus 1393, Stratum 7 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 26 mm diam downstroke of dalet: 9.3 mm slightly oval → pink ware with with fine white inclusions This is a unique stamp type; so also Ariel and Shoham (2000: 149–50). The dalet is backward, with upside-down he and yod with breakthrough of the foot.

294

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-26 ‫יהד‬ 13e Jerusalem: City of David 2236 A 970 IAA Reich and Shukron 2007: 60 and fig. 1: 2 [‫יה]ד‬ [‫יה]ד‬ Sampled: 7.1.2005 17 mm × 13 mm word is 15 mm wide; downstroke of yod is 6 mm rectangular stamp ↓ light pink with gray core and white inclusions The impression is very deep, but the letters are faint. The yod is crystal clear and classical. Parallels show that the next letter is he. The final graph is badly pressed.

Scanned from: Reich and Shukron 2007: 62, fig. 1:2.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

295

13-27 ‫יהד‬ 13e Jerusalem: City of David A 2236 A 369. IAA Reich and Shukron 2007: 60 and fig. 1:3 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 7.1.2005 height: 15 mm downstroke of yod: 6 mm The inside of the frame is 13.5 mm high. The word is 16 mm wide from the extremity of the tail of yod to the left-most edge of dalet. squared but not fully impressed on the edges ← light pink with gray core and white inclusions Classical letter shapes, all in the correct orientation.

Scanned from: Reich and Shukron 2007: 62, fig. 1:3.

296

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-28 ‫יהד‬ 13g Jerusalem: City of David 3590 C 11297 IAA Reich and Shukron 2007: 61 and fig. 1:8 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 7.1.2005 diameter approx 20 mm downstroke of yod 6 mm not fully preserved, but evidently round ↓ brown with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions Only the upper part of the impression was preserved, and the he and dalet are thus slightly effaced.

Scanned from Reich and Shukron 2007: 63, fig. 1: 8.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-29 ‫יהד‬ 13g Jerusalem: City of David 2236 A 1063. IAA Reich and Shukron 2007: 60 and fig. 1:1 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 7.1.2005 17.7 mm diameter yod is 6.3 mm; downstroke of he is 6 mm; downstroke of dalet: 6 mm round ↑ light pink with dark gray core and white inclusions

Scanned from Reich and Shukron 2007: 62, fig. 1:1.

297

298

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-30 ‫יהד‬ 13f Jerusalem: City of David 3835, Locus 590M, Basket 4254 IAA Reich and Shukron 2007: 61 and fig 1:9 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 7.1.2005 28 mm × 16 mm downstroke of yod: 12 mm; he: 13 mm rectangular ↑ light pink with gray core and few inclusions The lower left corner of the impression was broken, and the the bottom of the dalet is missing.

Scanned from Reich and Shukron 2007: 63, fig. 1:9.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

299

13-31 ‫יהד‬ 13b En Gedi Hebrew University, Jerusalem Mazar and Dunayevsky 1964: 126–27, pl. 27:b; 1964 (Archaeological News 9): 15 Stratum IV ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ rectangular ↓ The stamp impression was assigned by Mazar to Stratum IV, and he claimed that it is well dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. Avigad accepted this date (1976: 26–27).

With the permission of E. Stern, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

300

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-32 ‫יהד‬ 13b En Gedi G938/2 67–539 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 67 and fig. 1:3 [‫י[הד‬ [‫י[הד‬ Sampled: 28.2.2006 15 mm high slightly rectangular impression with rounded edges → pinkish-brown with a beige wash and many black inclusions The impression was poorly impressed and only partially preserved, but the yod is visible, with a faint he and dalet .

From Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 71, fig. 1:3.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

301

13-33 ‫יהד‬ 13e En Gedi 1487 67-545 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 67 and fig. 1:4 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 28.2.2006 17 × 13 mm rectangular impression ← pinkish-brown with bright pink-yellow slip or wash The letters, however, are very faint, possibly because the clay was still wet when the impression was made.

From Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 71, fig. 1:4.

302

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-34 ‫יהד‬ 13a Nebi Samwil 20453 Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Hareven 2007: 43–44 and fig. 1:4 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 21 × 15 mm oval → reddish-yellow ware, gray core, white inclusions

From Magen and Hareven 2007: 47, fig. 1:4.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

303

13-35 ‫יהד‬ 13c Nebi Samwil 25403 Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 43–44 and pl. 1:5 L. 225 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 27 × 13 mm oval impression ← light brown ware, gray core, white inclusions. Note that in the line drawing of this stamp impression (Magen and Har-Even 2007: 48 pl. 1:5), the he, although not completely preserved, is not accurately drawn on the basis of parallels of this type.

From Magen and Hareven 2007: 48, fig. 1:5.

304

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-36 ‫יהד‬ 13b Rogem Gannim 538 Tel Aviv University Greenberg and Cinamon: 2002: 97; 2006: 232, No. F-1 and fig. 3:F1 Discovered in the collecting vat of a winepress (L109), which contained pottery of the late Iron Age and Persian Periods only. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ width: 15 mm and height: 20 mm oval ? pale gray clay, well fired

From Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 234, fig. 3:F1.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

From Livingston 2003: 86, fig. 6.7.

305

13-37 ‫יהד‬ 13? Khirbet Nisya ? ? Livingston 2003: 86 and fig. 6.7 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ round ? Uniquely, on a body sherd. The nearly round stamp impression was read by Cross (cited by Livingston 2003: 86). According to Cross “the yod and the dalet are in lapidary Aramaic and the he in cursive Aramaic." The dalet was damaged.

306

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-38 ‫יהד‬ 13f Unknown Haaretz Museum 50 (MHA 50). Old no.: 24, 595, 35, 30. Haʾaretz Museum Registration card of the museum ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 5.1.2005 height only preserved, 20 mm downstroke of yod: 11.5 mm; downstroke of he : 12 mm rectangular ↑ light beige wash on pinkish fabric with brown core and many inclusions, some large

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-39 ‫יהד‬ 13a Unknown Hecht Museum. H. 1558 Hecht Museum ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 23 mm wide; 15 mm high oval → -

With permission of the Hecht Museum.

307

308

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

Scanned from: Aharoni 1956: pl. 26:9.

13-40 ‫יהד‬ 13 ? Ramat Raḥel ? ? Aharoni 1956: 148, pl. 26:9 NA ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ -

This stamp impression is not like the other 9 found in the 1954 excavation season. Aharoni (1956: 148 and pl. 26: 9) saw it correctly as an irregular stamp impression, in which ‫ י‬and ‫ד‬ are reversed and the arrangement of the letters is apparently ‫דיה‬.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

309

13-41 ‫יהד‬ 13f Ramat Raḥel 6226/1 8545/11 P. 26, 6226/1 (764) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1956: 148 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 28 mm wide × 20 mm high downstroke yod: 11 mm; downstroke of he: 12.5 mm rectangle ↑ very light pink with pink-red core, well-fired, and fine white inclusions The right part of the yod and the left part of the dalet were erased, but the he and the rest of the yod and dalet are clearly visible.

310

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-42 ‫יהד‬ 13f Ramat Raḥel 3895/1 8545.12 P. 24, 3895/1 (400) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1956: 148 ‫יהד‬ ]‫יה[ד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 not preserved downstroke of yod: 11 mm; downstroke of he: 12.5 mm rectangle ↑ light pink wash with pink-red core, well fired; fine white inclusions The bottom of the he and the entire dalet were erased.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

311

13-43 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 6657/2 64-2283 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956: 148. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 18.5 mm wide × 13.2 mm high downstroke of yod: 7 mm; downstropke of he: 6.5 mm; of dalet : 6.5 mm rectangular ↑ beige-pink with pink interior; white inclusions

312

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-44 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel ? 64-2297 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956: 148 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 19.1 × 13 mm, but not perfectly impressed downstroke of he is 7 mm rectangular with rounded edges ← beige wash over red-pink ware; white inclusions The lower parts of the letters are effaced, but the upper parts of the yod and the he are clear enough. The dalet was damaged.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

313

13-45 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel ? 64-2426 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956: 148. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 21.4 mm wide × 18 mm high too faint to be measured rectangular, with rounded edges → red-pink with pink and brown core; white inclusions The impression is deep but the letters are faint. The yod and he are visible, but the dalet is only partial recognizable.

314

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-46 ‫יהד‬ 13a Ramat Raḥel 4351/1 64-1817 p. 27 (562) Israel Museum Aharoni 1956: 148; Hestrin et al. 1973: 68, no. 152. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 23 mm × 16 mm downstroke of yod: 8.5 mm; downstroke of he: 11 mm; downstroke of dalet: 10 mm top right of yod to top left of dalet is 15 mm oval → (4 p.m.) beige with pink fabric and brown interior; fine white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-47 ‫יהד‬ 13h Ramat Raḥel 5735/1 P. 26, 5735/1 (747) ? Aharoni 1956: 148 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ round to oval ? Discoverd among the photos in Aharoni’s album. The letters are very faint but clearly recognizable.

315

316

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-48 ‫יהד‬ 13a Ramat Raḥel 3696/1 P. 24 3696 (310) Unknown Aharoni 1956: 148 Loc. 456, Level: 7.20, Sq. U18 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ oval ← pink ware, sandy core, white inclusions The location of the stamped handle is unknown to us, but there is a card and a photo among Aharoni’s excavation records.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

317

13-49 ‫יהד‬ 13h Ramat Raḥel 5839/1 (746) 64-1820 p. 26 5839/1 (746) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956: 148 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 diameter: 21 mm downstroke of yod: 6.5 mm; downstroke of he: 8 mm; downstroke of dalet: 8 mm sherd is 7 mm thick; from right side of yod to left side of dalet: 13 mm round ? buff pink fabric with gray core; white inclusions Body sherd. The yod is partly effaced.

318

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-50 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 61101/1 64-1816 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6 [‫י[הד‬ [‫י[הד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 21 mm wide; 16 mm high downstroke of he: 7.6 mm oval → reddish-pink: well fired, with red core; many white inclusions The frame is clear, but the he and dalet, even if impressed very deeply, were barely preserved. The yod is totally missing.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

319

13-51 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 270/1 62–56 p. 24 270/1 (258) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8: 7; pl. 8:3 Loc. 251=265, Level: 7.70, Sq. T15, Stratum: III ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 17 mm × 20 mm downstrokes of yod: 5 mm; downstroke of he: 6 mm; downstroke of dalet: 7mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet: 13.5 mm slightly rectangular stamp, higher than wide ↑ light pink with brown core and white inclusions

320

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-52 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 893/1 62–51 p. 25 893/1 (260) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8:6; pl. 8:2 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 18 mm × 20 mm downstrokes of yod: 5 mm; downstroke of dalet: 6.5 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet 13 mm squared with round corners ↑ pink-buff ware with gray core; many white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

Scanned from Aharoni 1962: fig. 8:8.

321

13-53 ‫יהד‬ 13f Ramat Raḥel ? ? ? Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8: 8 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ squared (with round corners?) ? Appears only in a drawing published by Aharoni. The stamp impression itself has not been located.

322

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-54 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 9040 64-2276 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 22 × 19 mm downstroke of yod: 6.6 mm; downstroke of he: 7 mm; downstroke of dalet: 7 mm from right side of yod to left side of dalet: 16.5 mm rounded edges, rectangular ← beige wash over pink fabric; white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-55 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel ? 54-353 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 21.5 mm wide; height not preserved downstroke of yod is 6.9 mm; downstroke of dalet is 14 mm high from right side of yod to left side of dalet: 16.5 mm square → red-pink fabric with gray core; some white inclusions

323

324

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-56 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 2404/2 62-52 p. 25 2404/2 (143) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6 Loc. 398, Level: 7.40, Sq. U18 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 20.8 mm × 20 mm downstroke of yod: 6.5 mm from right side of yod to left side of dalet is 17 mm slightly rectangular stamp, higher than wide → reddish-pink fabric; white inclusions The letters are very faint and the texture of the impression may indicate that it was impressed when the clay was still wet. There is a card for this stamped handle in Aharoni’s excavation record.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

325

13-57 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 2235/1 64-1819 p. 28 2235/1 (20) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31, pl. 31:4 Loc.388, Level: 7.30, Sq. U19 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 14.8 mm high downstroke of yod: 7.1 mm; downstroke of he: 8 mm rectangular ← light pink with red core; white inclusions A fresh break in the handle effaced the dalet. There is a card for this stamped handle in Aharoni’s excavation record.

326

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-58 ‫יהד‬ 13a Ramat Raḥel 9199 64-2294 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31, pl. 31:7 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 23.3 mm wide downstroke of yod: 8.3 mm; downstroke of he: 9 mm; downstroke of dalet: 7.5 mm from right side of yod to left side of dalet is 14.5 mm oval → beige-pink fabric; white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

327

13-59 ‫יהד‬ 13e Ramat Raḥel 2404/3 8545/9 P. 28, 2404/3 (50) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 31. Loc. 398, Level: 7.40, Sq. U18 ‫יהד‬ [‫י[הד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 15 mm w × h 16 mm downstroke of yod: 5 mm squared ↑ light pink with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions Only the yod is clear. The he is faint and the dalet is missing. There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record.

328

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-60 ‫יהד‬ 13d Ramat Raḥel 816/2 8545/16 P. 17, 816/2 (198) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 31 [‫יה[ד‬ [‫יה[ד‬ Sampled 10.1.2005 not preserved downstroke of yod: 5 mm squared with rounded edges ↓ light pink with pink fabric; white inclusions The dalet is missing.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

329

13-61 ‫יהד‬ 13d Ramat Raḥel 8545/18 ? Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 31 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled 10.1.2005 not preserved downstroke of yod: 5 mm squared ↓ Light pink with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions There is a break in the lower part of the impression; only the upper part was preserved.

330

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-62 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 481/1 64-1824 p. 25 481/1 (113?) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31 Loc. 259b, Level: 7.15, Sq. S14, Stratum: V ‫]י]הד‬ ‫]י]הד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 downstroke of dalet: 7.5 mm rectangular stamp → beige pink wash; pink fabric; white inclusions The right and upper part of the frame is missing, as well as the yod. There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

331

13-63 ‫יהד‬ 13d Ramat Raḥel 4971/1 54–407 p. 26 4971/1 (11261) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31 [‫י[הד‬ [‫י[הד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 Not fully preserved; 18.4 mm max. preserved height. yod is 4 mm high slightly squared ↓ light pink fabric: gray-brown core; small white inclusions There are signs of smoothing that erased the lower left part, including most of the dalet. The rest of the frame, as well as the letters yod and he are clear, but not sharp.

332

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-64 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 2338/1 54-382 P. 27, 2338/1 (533) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 31 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 22 mm wide × 21 mm high downstroke of yod: 6.5 mm; downstroke of he: 7.1 mm; downstroke of dalet: 8 mm. from the right side of the yod to the left side of the dalet: 16.5 mm squared → reddish-pink fabric; large white inclusions The letters are preserved but not sharp; the clay may have still been wet when the handle was impressed.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

333

13-65 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 1254/2 8545/19; 1254/2 p. 25 1254/2 (39) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 Unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380). Aharoni’s records indicate Loc. 340, Level: 6.65, Sq. X19. ‫יהוד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm wide × 18 mm high vertical line of he is 7 mm; downstroke of he: 8 mm; downstroke of dalet: 7 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet is 16 mm rectangular → beige exterior with light brown fabric; white inclusions. It was doubly stamped, with the first stamp on the right preserving the yod and he but effaced by the more dominant stamp. It was originally identified by Aharoni as having four letters: YHWD, but it actually has three letters: YHD. There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record.

334

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-66 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 6254/1 8545/6 p. 19 6254/1 (765) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380) [‫יה[ד‬ [‫יה[ד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm wide × 18 mm high vertical of he is 7 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet is 16 mm rectangular ← red fabric and core; white inclusions The letters are faint and the dalet is hardly visible.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-67 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 4457/1 8545/5 p. 27 4457/1 (571) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380) ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 19 mm high vertical line of he is 7 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet is 16 mm rectangular → handle; pinkish-red with red core; white inclusions.

335

336

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-68 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 4083/1 8545/8 ? Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 Unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s Registration card: Loc. 457, Level: 5.20, Sq. P21 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm wide × 18 mm high vertical line of he is 7 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet is 15 mm rectangular ← beige exterior pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions The letters are faint, but they are recognizable. There is a card for this stamp impression in Aharoni’s excavation record.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

337

13-69 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 1487/1 8545/3 ? Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380) [‫]יהד‬ [‫]יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm wide × 18 mm high rectangular ? beige-pink fabric and red core; white inclusions The letters are very faint, and the impression can be identified on the basis of size and shape.

338

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-70 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 3047/1 P 25, 3047/1 (296) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 Unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s registration card: Loc. 407, Level: 7.40. [‫יה[ד‬ [‫יה[ד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 not preserved vertical of he is 7 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet is 15 mm rectangular ← red exterior and fabric; light brown core; white inclusions The handle was broken in the middle of the impression, and its left half is missing, including the dalet. The yod and the he are clear and match precisely type 13b. There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

339

13-71 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 836/1 8545/2 p. 17 836/1 (195) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 Unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s registration card: Loc. 254, Level: 7.10, Sq. V15, Stratum: IV. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 not preserved vertical line of he is 7 mm from top right of yod to top left of dalet is 15 mm rectangular ↓ beige exterior pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions The yod and he are mostly preserved, while the dalet is faint but definitely present. There is a card for this stamp impression in Aharoni’s excavation record.

340

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-72 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 35/1 8545/27 p. 24 35/1 (48) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380) ‫]י]הד‬ ‫]י]הד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 18 mm high vertical of he is 7 mm rectangular → beige exterior pink fabric; white inclusions. The right side of the seal was not stamped and is totally missing, including the right side of the yod. The he and dalet are crystal clear.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

341

13-73 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 5471/3 8545/15 p. 26 5471/3 (763) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380) ‫]י]הד‬ ‫]י]הד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 18 mm high vertical line of he is 7 mm; downstroke of dalet is 8.5 mm rectangular → beige exterior pink fabric; white inclusions. The right side of the seal was not stamped. The yod is mostly effaced.

342

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-74 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 2372/4 8545/20 p. 28 2372/4 (24) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 Unearthed in the area of the ancient central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s registration card: Loc. 398, Level: 7.60, Sq. U18. [‫י[הד‬ [‫י[הד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 20 mm wide × 20 mm high vertical line of he is 7 mm; downstroke of dalet is 7 mm rectangular → beige exterior pink fabric and core; white inclusions There is a card for this stamp impression in Aharoni’s excavation record.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

343

13-75 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 5754/2 8545/1 p. 28 5754/2 (761) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the region of the outer courtyard (470) ‫]י]הד‬ ‫]י]הד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm wide × 18 mm high vertical line of he is 7 mm rectangular → beige exterior pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions The upper right side of the impression was broken, and yod is effaced. The he and dalet are clear.

344

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

13-76 ‫יהד‬ 13a Ramat Raḥel 2406/1 8545/13 p. 28, 2406/1 (154) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 Unearthed in the courtyard of the ancient northern building (468). According to Aharoni’s registration card: Loc. 398, Level: 7.40, Sq. U18. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled 10.1.2005 22 mm × 14 mm downstroke of yod: 8.5 mm; downstroke of he: 10 mm; downstroke of dalet: 9 mm 14 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet oval → gray ware with dark brown/gray core and gray grits A fresh break in the middle of the impression was repaired. There is a card for this stamp impression in Aharoni’s excavation record.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-77 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel ? 8545/17 ? Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21. unearthed in the courtyard of the ancient northern building (468) ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm wide × 18 mm high ovoid → beige exterior pink fabric and brown core; white inclusions The three letters are poorly preserved but recognizable.

345

346

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-78 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 8545/7 ? Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the foundation trench of the eastern wall from Stratum IVb ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm wide × 18 mm high downstroke of yod: 6 mm rectangular ← beige exterior pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions The impression is shallow, but the letters can be recognized.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

347

13-79 ‫יהד‬ 13f Ramat Raḥel 292/1 62–48 P. 19, 292/1 (229) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964: 21 unearthed in the fill of the rooms from Stratum IVb (457) ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 26.6 mm wide; height not preserved height of yod: 11.4 mm; height of he: 11.7 mm from the right side of the yod to the left side of the dalet 21.5 mm square ↑ beige wash; pink-gray core; white inclusions The picture in Aharoni’s excavation records is in the negative.

348

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-80 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 3984/1 Haaretz Museum (K 60109) P. 24, 3984/1 (397) Haaretz Museum Aharoni 1964: 21 The stratigraphical classification of this stamp impression is unclear. According to Aharoni’s registration card, this impression was discovered in Loc. 315, Level: 6.80, Sq. V18. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled 5.1.2005 23 mm × 18 mm downstroke of yod: 6 mm; downstroke of he: 7 mm 14 mm from top right of yod to upper left of dalet oval ← light pink on the outer half with gray brown inner half There is a card for this stamp impression in Aharoni’s excavation record. According to the registration card of Haaretz Museum, the stamp impression from Ramat Raḥel was given to the museum by Aharoni.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

349

13-81 ‫יהד‬ 13f Ramat Raḥel ? 64-1822 ? Israel Museum Aharoni 1964: 21 The stratigraphicl classification of this stamp impression is unclear. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled 11.1.2005 26 mm × 20 mm downstroke of yod: 11 mm; downstroke of he: 12 mm; downstroke of dalet: 10.5 mm 19 mm from top right of yod to upper left of dalet rectangular ↑ beige with light pink and red core; white inclusions

350

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-82 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 4200/2 P. 27, 4200/2 (441) ? Aharoni 1964: 21. The stratigraphical classification of this stamp impression is unclear. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ damaged and unclear ↓ The photo of this stamp impression, simply mentioned by Aharoni in the final publication of Ramat Raḥel excavations, was discovered among the excavation registration files.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

351

13-83 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel ? 64-1823 ? Israel Museum Aharoni 1964: 44. unearthed in the area of the courtyard of the ancient citadel (380) ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 15.5 mm high; the width was not preserved downstroke of he is 8 mm; downstroke of dalet is 7 mm oval → light pink with consistent pink core and white inclusions The seal was not fully impressed, and most of the yod is missing.

352

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-84 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 64: 418 ? Israel Museum Aharoni 1964: 44 unearthed in the fills of the northwestern section of the defense wall ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 22 mm × 19 mm downstroke of yod is 7.5 mm; downstroke of he is 8 mm. from right side of yod to left side of dalet is 17 mm rectangular with rounded corners ← light pink to beige exterior with consistent pink core and white inclusions The lower left and upper left sides preserve clear fingerprints.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

353

13-85 ‫יהד‬ 13f Ramat Raḥel P. 24 3047/2 (294) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1964: 44 Unearthed in the fill of the northwestern section of the defense wall. According to Aharoni’s registration card, this stamp impression was discovered in: Loc. 407, Level: 7.40. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ rectangular ↑ brown-ware handle sherd with white grits There is a card for this stamp impression in Aharoni’s excavation record.

354

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-86 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 4350/2 IVO 260 P. 27 4350/2 (511) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1964: 44 unearthed in the fill of the northwestern section of the defense wall ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ rectangular with rounded corners → The upper part of the yod is a bit faint, but the letters are clear.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

Scanned from Aharoni’s album.

355

13-87 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 6355/1 P. 29, 6355/1 58 (822) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1964: 44 unearthed in the area to the south of the ancient casemate wall, in the vicinity of the Persian building ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ oval ← The dalet and the lower part of the he are a bit faint.

356

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-88 ‫יהד‬ 13g Ramat Raḥel 37882/2 64-1821 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964: 44 unearthed in the area to the south of the ancient casemate wall, in the vicinity of the Persian building ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 20.3 mm diam downstroke of yod: 8 mm; downstroke of he: 6 mm; downstroke of dalet: 6 mm. round ↓ pink with gray core; white inclusions The dalet on the left of the impression is the only clear letter.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

357

13-89 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel Israel Museum 1982.2.1022 ? Israel Museum Dayan’s Collection. Unpublished. See Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 251, 261, no. 8. ‫יהד‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 20 × 16 mm downstroke of he is 8 mm rectangular with rounded edges. → light beige-pink exterior with pink core and white grits The frame of the right side, as well as most of the yod, are missing. The he is clear, and the dalet is a bit faint, with a scratch-like line in its middle.

358

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-90 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 3742/1 96-2246 P. 24, 3742/1 (30) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 252, 261, no. 9 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 21.3 mm wide; 16 mm high downstroke of yod: 8 mm; downstroke of he: 8.5 mm from right side of yod to left side of dalet: 17 mm rectangular, with rounded edges → pink-reddish ware with thin gray core; white inclusions This stamp impression was found among the unpublished and unregistered material from Ramat Raḥel in the storage of the IAA and cataloged in 1996. The dalet is a bit faint, especially its upper part. * The IAA photo number should be corrected to 96-2246.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

359

13-91 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 3163/1 P. 25, 3163/1 (304) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009 : 252, 261, no. 10 Loc. 408, Level: 7.45, Sq. T17 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ rectangular, with rounded edges ↓ pink ware with white grits This stamp impression was discovered in Aharoni’s excavation records, including stratigraphic details, photo, and pottery description. It was not published by Aharoni. The handle was broken just above the impression, and there is a hole between the he and the dalet, probably the outcome of an inclusion. The letters are faint but clearly visible.

360

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication

Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-92 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel 3555/1 P. 27, 3555/1 (525) ? Not officially published. A photo appears in a Hebrew guide for the excavations, published by the Department of Antiquities, 1956 (pl. D:3). Another picture was discovered in Aharoni’s excavation records. See Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009 : 252, 262, no. 11. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ rectangular, with rounded edges. ↓ The letters are a bit damaged but clear enough.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

361

13-93 ‫יהד‬ 13a Ramat Raḥel 7020/1 P. 26, 7020/1 (752) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 251, 261, no. 7 ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ oval ? The stamp impression was discovered in Aharoni’s excavation records. The orientation of the stamp impression is unknown because the photo does not include the entire object. The reading is slightly uncertain because of a defect in the middle of the stamp impression. However, the yod and the dalet are of the same shape as subtype 13a.

362

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-94 ‫יהד‬ 13g Ramat Raḥel 3817/1 P. 25, 3817/1 (381) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 252, 262, no. 12 Loc. 464, Level: 6.25, Sq. S24, stratum: II ‫)?(יהוד‬ ‫יהד‬ round ↑ gray ware with gray core and white grits The stamp impression was discovered in Aharoni’s excavation records, including stratigraphic details, pottery description, and a photo. The frame is clear, but the yod and he are faint. The dalet, however, is clear.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

363

13-95 ‫יהד‬ 13f Ramat Raḥel RR-G-42/2006 5080. Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 79 and fig. 1:8 Area C, Locus 560. Discovered in an earth dump created by Aharoni in his 1954; 1959– 1962 excavations, northwest of area C ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ height on the right side is 17 mm downstroke of the yod is 9.7 mm square ↑ The fabric is pinkish-brown, well and homogeneously fired. There is a break to the left of the yod, and the entire left side of the impression is missing. The yod is clear.

364

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-96 ‫יהד‬ 13a Ramat Raḥel RR G-49/2006 3089 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 200 : 79–80, no. 9, and fig. 1:9 Area C1, Locus 317 (sq. 219). This is an intentional earth fill covering architectural remains dating to the Iron Age II and Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 22 × 11.5 mm downstroke of yod: 6.8 mm; downstroke of he: 7.1 mm; downstroke of dalet: 6.1 mm 15 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet oval, with straight lines in the upper and lower parts, and round lines with round corners in both left and right sides → brownish-pink; gray brown core; white and black small inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

365

13-97 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 3568 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 17 and pl. II:11 Area C1 North, Locus 832, Basket 3558. This is a fill inside a circular plastered pit, probably a cistern. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 21 × 15.5 mm downstroke of yod: 4.9 mm; downstroke of he: 4.8 mm; downstroke of dalet: 5.2 mm. 14 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet rectangular, with rounded edges ← brownish-pink wash over reddish pottery, with a few big white inclusions

366

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-98 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 3570 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 17, and pl. II:12 Area C1 south, Locus 840, Basket 3570. This is a layer of white, chalk-like soil just above bedrock in the western part of the area. The fill contained mixed material and cannot yet be securely dated. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 20 × 18 mm (upper left side was broken) downstroke of yod: 5.2 mm; downstroke of he: 5.4 mm; downstroke of dalet: 4.3 mm 14 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet rectangular, with rounded edges → brownish-pink wash over reddish pottery, with few big white inclusions

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

367

13-99 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 8652 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 18, and Pl. III: 13. Area C1 south, Locus 020, Basket 8652. This is part of a fill above the “garden soil” in square C194, dated tentatively to the Hellenistic period. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 14 mm high (right side was not impressed and partially broken) downstroke of dalet: 4.1 mm rectangular, with rounded edges → brownish-pink with gray core and few big white inclusions Only part of the upper part of the he was preserved and most parts of the dalet. It is, however, very difficult to decipher.

368

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

13-100 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 8711 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 18 and pl. III:14 Area C1 North, Locus 026, Basket 8711. This is part of the fill overlying the “garden soil,” dated tentatively to the Hellenistic period. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 18.5 × 18 mm downstroke of yod: 5.1 mm; downstroke of he: 5.9 mm; downstroke of dalet: 5 mm 12.6 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet rectangular, with rounded edges ← brownish-pink with gray core and few big white inclusions signs for double stamping of the same stamp, a little bit lower and to the left of the second stamping

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

369

13-101 ‫יהד‬ 13 (?) Ramat Raḥel RR G-51/2007 8509 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 18–19 and pl. III:15 Area C1 North, Locus 001, Basket 8509. This is part of a fill above the “garden soil” in squares C176 and C177 and dated tentatively to the Hellenistic period. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 14.5 × 12 mm downstroke of yod: 6.6 mm; downstroke of he: 5.9 mm; downstroke of dalet: 5.0 mm 10.8 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet rectangular, with rounded edges ← pinkish-orange with thin gray core and big and small white inclusions; some are very large The letters are clear, but no other parallels to this very small stamp impression exist. The yod was engraved with an upper crescent and a diagonal downstroke descending 45 degrees to the right. The he has three horizontal bars (as in type 13b), but the top line is rounded and the downstroke does not continue below the lower horizontal line. The open dalet has the appearance of an uppercase “U.”

370

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-102 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 3811/1 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 18, no. 12, and pl. 3:12 Area C4, Locus 11057, which is a soft brown soil fill inside an apparent robber’s trench. This layer lies under a massive, pottery-rich rubble fill inside the robber/foundation trench. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 14 × 21 mm downstroke of yod: 6.5 mm 10.8 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet oval? ← pinkish-brown, with large brown and white grits and a thick gray core The oval shape was probably created by smoothing the handle, especially in its upper part. It is badly eroded, but traces of three letters are visible. The dalet is almost completely effaced except for what might be the left stroke of the head. The yod is rather small and thick, upright, with the foot touching the edge of the seal. The he is clear, with two short horizontal lines projecting left from the vertical line. The shape of the he, characteristic of the palaeo-Hebrew style, suggests sub-type 13b.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

371

13-103 ‫יהד‬ 13b Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 3818/1 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 19, no. 13, and pl. 3:13 Area C1 North, Locus 001, Basket 8509. This is part of a fill above the “garden soil” in squares C176 and C177 and dated tentatively to the Hellenistic period. ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 15 × 20 mm downstroke of he: 5.7 mm; downstroke of dalet: 5.0 mm 10.5 mm from upper right of yod to upper left of dalet rectangular ˅ reddish, with large white grits and a homogenous colored core; the inside of the jar itself is yellowish-gray The he and the dalet are clearly visible. The he is slightly raised above the other two letters. The dalet corresponds to the classic Aramaic style with open head.

372

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

13-104 ‫יהד‬ 13g Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9377/1 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2009: 19–20, no. 14, and pl. III:14 Area D1, Locus 13045, which is a floor material with some charcoal pieces and fieldstones ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 18–20 mm diameter

nearly round (slightly to the left) reddish-brown, with large white grits and a homogenously colored core Only the dalet is relatively well preserved. The upper part of the yod was damaged, and the he was probably already faint when the potter was smoothing the handle. The lower right side of the he, together with the shape of the other two letters, indicate that it belongs to subtype 13g.

2.  Type 13: ‫“ ידהי‬Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

373

13-105 ‫יהד‬ 13j Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 8811/1 Tel-Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 20, no. 15, and pl. III:15 Area C4, Locus 11002: a gray soil fill with many pottery sherds ‫יהד‬ ‫יהד‬ 11 × 17 mm

almost rectangular, with rounded edges ← reddish, with small grainy white grits, and a homogenously colored core The right side of the impression is broken, just to the right side of the yod, which is missing the bottom right stroke.

374

F.  The Middle Types

3.  Type 14: ‫“ יה‬Yeh(ūd)” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution This is the most numerous stamp type in the entire yehud stamp impression corpus, 30 with 192 stamp impressions discovered thus far, of which 27 cannot be assigned to specific subtypes because they are too fragmentary. The first stamp impression of this type was found at Jericho in 1907. Excavators retrieved 9 more at the site in 1908. Later, Kenyon recovered 3 more in her excavations, bringing the total found at Jericho to 13. 31 The Jerusalem area produced an even larger number of stamp impressions of this type. Macalister and Duncan discovered 16 in the Ophel excavations conducted between 1923 and 1925 (above Area G of Shiloh’s subsequent excavations at the City of David). Crowfoot and Fitzgerald excavated one at the Tyropoeon Valley (1927). An additional 22 stamp impressions of this type came from the City of David excavations directed by Yigal Shiloh between 1978 and 1985. The most recent exemplar from the City of David was discovered in the excavations conducted by Reich and Shukron (1995–2005), bringing the total number of stamp impressions of this type discovered in the City of David to 40. 32 Smaller numbers of stamp impressions come from a variety of other sites. Petrie found one in excavations at Tell Jemmeh (1926–27), 33 a site that was definitely outside of the province of Yehud (see §B-1, pp. 23–30). Badè retrieved 10 more in excavations at Tell en-Naṣbeh during the 1930s. 34 Four stamp impressions of this type came from Greenberg and Cinamon’s excavations at the etTârŭd Tumulus (Rogem Gannim). 35 Mazar and Dunayevsky excavated three at En Gedi in the 1960s; 36 and one was discovered on the surface of the excavations at the village of En Gedi, near Tel Goren. 37 R.  Cohen excavated one at Kadesh Barnea (1976–82). 38 30.  Even without precise data, this fact was noticed by several scholars; see, e.g., Aharoni 1964: 20; Stern 1982: 203; Ariel and Shoham 2000: 150. 31.  1907: Sellin 1908: 38–39; and cf. Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42, L3; Sellin 1935: 77–78, fig. 1; see stamp impression no. 14-3. From 1908: Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159; Sellin 1935: 77–78, fig. 1; Bartlett 1982: 537; see stamp impression nos. 14-4 – 14-12. Kenyon’s excavations: Bartlett 1982: 537, no. 2, fig. 220.2, pl. IIIb middle; no. 3, pl. IIIb right; no. 4, fig. 220.3; see stamp impression nos. 14-13 – 14-15. 32.  Macalister and Duncan’s excavations: Cook 1925: pl. IV (opp. p. 91): 4, 8, 9, 14, and p. 93; p. 185 drawing no. 1; Duncan 1931: 141; Diringer 1934: 128; see stamp impression nos. 14-26 – 1441. Tyropoeon Valley: Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 67; see stamp impression no. 14-64. Shiloh’s excavations: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 150–52, L56–L77; see stamp impression no. 14-42 – 14-63. Reich and Shukron’s excavations: Reich and Shukron 2007: 58, and fig. 1: 5; see stamp impression 14-65. 33.  As reported by Sellin 1935: 77, and cf. Bartlett 1982: 538. See stamp impression no. 14-1. 34.  McCown 1947: 164–66; Badè 1930: 14. See stamp impression nos. 14-16 – 14-25. 35.  Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 233, no. G1–G4 and fig. 3: G1–G4. See stamp impression nos. 14-82 – 14-85. 36.  Mazar and Dunayevsky 1964a: 126–27, pl. 27:a; 1964b: 15; Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 68, and fig. 1:5–7. See stamp impression nos. 14-67 – 14-69. 37.  Hadas 2005: 49, fig. 11:1. See stamp impression no. 14-70. 38.  Cohen 1983: 12–13, and photo on p. 13; cf. stamp impression 14-66.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)”

375

Y. Magen excavated 11 more at Nebi Samwil between 1992 and 2003. 39 This marks Nebi Samwil as one of the important secondary centers for recovery of this type of stamp impression, together with Jericho (13 stamp impressions) and Tell en-Naṣbeh (10 stamp impressions). An additional stamp impression of this type, originally found at Gezer, is stored in the Rockefeller museum but apparently has never been published. 40 One more unpublished stamp impression of unknown origin is housed in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. 41 In addition to the 87 stamp impressions mentioned above, 105 stamp impressions were discovered at Ramat Raḥel. Aharoni excavated 84 of them, although we could locate publication data for only 61: 4 stamp impressions were already discovered in the first season of Aharoni’s excavations (1954); 16 in the second season (1959); 15 in the third season (1960); 17 in the fourth season (1961); and 9 in the fifth season of excavations (1962). 42 In Aharoni’s excavation records (some of them stored in Rome), we found 17 more unpublished stamp impressions. 43 Finally, we discovered 6 more unpublished stamp impressions of this type from Ramat Raḥel in various locations: three in the IAA warehouse at Beth-Shemesh; 44 one in the Israel Museum (from the Moshe Dayan collection); 45 and two others at the Hebrew University. 46 An additional 23 stamp impressions were discovered at Ramat Raḥel after Aharoni’s excavations. Barkay excavated one in 1984, 47 and 22 more were discovered in the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel (2005–7). 48 b.  The Yh Subtypes Two main subtypes and three sparsely attested subtypes may be assigned to type 14. Ariel and Shoham had already concluded that as many as five different 39.  Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, and fig. 1:6–16. See stamp impression nos. 14-71 – 14-81. 40.  See stamp impression no. 14-2. 41.  See stamp impression no. 14-83. 42.  1954 season: Aharoni 1956: 148–49, fig 16; pl. 26:1, 5; see stamp impression nos. 14-87 – 14-90. 1959 season: Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8:1–4; pl. 8:4; see stamp impression nos. 14-91 – 14-106. Aharoni did not distinguish between our types 14 and 15 and mentioned 18 yh stamp impressions discovered during this season. 1960 season: Aharoni 1962: 30–31, pl. 31:3, 6; see stamp impression nos. 14‑107 – 14-121. Again, Aharoni did not distinguish between our types 14 and 15 and mentioned 17 yh stamp impressions discovered in this season. 1961 season: Aharoni 1964: 20, pl. 19:1–2; see stamp impression nos. 14-122 – 14-138. He mentioned 21 yh stamp impressions discovered in this season, without distinguishing them by type. 1962 season: Aharoni 1964: 44; see stamp impression nos. 14139 – 14-147. 43.  See stamp impression nos. 14-153 – 14-168; 14-181. 44.  See stamp impression nos. 14-148 (probably from the 1954 excavation season), 14-149, 14-150. 45.  See stamp impression no. 14-151. 46.  See stamp impression no. 14-152; 14-174. 47.  This stamp impression has not previously been published, and we would like to thank Dr. Barkay for kindly show us the stamp impression. See stamp impression no. 14-168. 48.  Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 80–82 and fig 1:10–14; Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 20–23; 2009: 22–27. See stamp impression no. 14-169 – 14-173; 14175 – 14-192.

F.  The Middle Types

376

seals belong to the type (2000: 150). Not all of the stamp impressions belonging to type 14, however, can be assigned with confidence to a subtype.

Graph 19.  Site Distribution of Type 14.

Table F4.  Site Distribution of Type 14 Ramat Raḥel

105

Jerusalem

40

Jericho

13

Tell en-Naṣbeh

10

Nabi-Samuel

11

En Gedi

4

Rogem Gannim

4

Other sites and Unknown

5

1.  Subtype 14a Distribution

113 stamp impressions were assigned to this subtype, which is therefore the largest subtype among all YSIs. One was recovered at Gezer (discovered by us in the collection of the Rockefeller Museum); another at Tell Jemmeh; 2 come from En Gedi; 3 from Rogem Gannim; and 5 each at Jericho and Tell en-Naṣbeh. The City of David excavations produced 17 stamp impressions of this subtype: 4 at the Ophel excavations, 12 in Shiloh’s excavations, and one in the excavation of Reich and Shukron. Most of the known impressions of this subtype—79—were discovered at Ramat Raḥel. 49 49.  Gezer: see stamp impression no. 14-2. Tell Jemmeh: Sellin 1935: 78; see stamp impression no. 14-1. En Gedi: Mazar and Dunayevski 1964: 126–27, pl. 27:A; Hadas 2005: 49, fig. 11:1; see stamp

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)”

377

Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions

Stamp impressions of subtype 14a were produced by a round seal. The seal was set in a ring with a bezel. Thus, stamp impressions of subtype 14a have a characteristic inner ring impression that appears only very rarely in types 1–13. The impression created by the inner ring is never as deep as the impression of the two letters of the seal, which seems to confirm the bezel hypothesis. The average diameter of the entire impression is about 24–26 mm, while the inner bezel impression has an average diameter between approximately 18 and 20 mm. The impressions were stamped exclusively on the handles of jars. The dimensions of the letters, their shape, and orientation prove that a single seal produced the many stamp impressions of this type. Thus, the downstroke of yod is very close to 11 mm in all exemplars; while both the downstroke of he and its top bar measure 8 mm on average. Paleography

Yod has its classical Aramaic lapidary shape, with a slightly rounded top. He, which is slightly smaller than yod, also has the classic Aramaic shape: the vertical stroke slants to the left and the upper stroke is sharply oblique, with a single stroke descending from it, roughly parallel to the downstroke. Paleography can confirm only that a seal of this type fits somewhere in the 5th to early 3rd century. Stratigraphy

Stratigraphical considerations favor a date in the 4th century b.c.e., as excavations in the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 138) and the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2004) indicate. According to Aharoni (1962: 31), stamp impressions of this type from Ramat Raḥel were found together with pottery from the transition between the Persian and Hellenistic periods, and he therefore regarded them as no earlier than the 4th century b.c.e. No Yehud coins with the abbreviation yh have been found, although the phenomenon of abbreviated spellings of geographical names proliferated in the regional mints of the southern Levant beginning in the second half of the 5th and continuing into the 4th century (Gitler and Tal 2006; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a). Yehud coins that have Greek legends alongside the single Hebrew/Aramaic letter yod do exist.

impression nos. 14-67, 14-70. Rogem Gannim: Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 233, No. G-1, G-2, G-3, and fig. 3: G1, G2, G3; see stamp impression nos. 14-82 – 14-84. Jericho: Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42, L1, L3; Sellin 1935: 77–78, fig. 1; Bartlett 1982: 537, no. 2, fig. 220.2, pl. IIIb middle; no. 4, fig. 220.3; see stamp impression nos. 14-3, 14-5, 14-6, 14-13, 14-15. Tell en-Naṣbeh: McCown 1947: 164–66 and n. 38, pl. 57:18; Badè 1930: 14; see stamp impression nos. 14-16, 14-17, 14-18, 14-22, 14-24. City of David—Ophel: Duncan 1931: 141; Cook 1925: pl. IV: 4, 9, 8, 14, and p. 93; Diringer 1934: 128; see stamp impression nos. 14-26, 14-27, 14-28, 14-30. City of David—Shiloh’s excavations: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L57–L65, L67–L69; see stamp impression nos. 14-43 – 14-51, 14-53 – 14-55. City of David—Reich and Shukron: Reich and Shukron 2007: 60 and fig. 1:5; see stamp impression no. 14-65. Ramat Raḥel: see stamp impression nos. 14-87 – 14-92, 14-95, 14-98 – 14-101, 14-103 – 14-107, 14-109 – 14-113; 14-116 – 14-118; 14-120 – 14-138; 14-147, 14-149 – 14-154, 14-156 – 14-162; 14-164 – 14-167; 14-170 – 14-174; 14-182 – 14-191.

F.  The Middle Types

378 Orientation

The stamp impressions are normally impressed very near the top of the handle where it meets the jar, which is common with other stamps. However, in the case of these round stamp impressions, the craftsmen did not take special care with regard to the orientation of the seal when it was impressed. Where the direction of stamping can be confirmed, 32 cases have the top of the seal facing the rim; in 24 cases, the top of the seal is facing right; it faces the base in 20 cases; and left in 12 others. 2.  Subtype 14b Distribution

Thirty-seven stamp impressions of subtype 14b are known; of these, 16 come from Ramat Raḥel; 11 from Nebi Samwil; 6 from the City of David; and one each from En Gedi, Jericho, Tell en-Naṣbeh, and Kadesh Barnea. 50 Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions

Stamp impressions of subtype 14b are round and their dimensions are similar to those of 14a. The impressions have an average diameter of about 25–27 mm, with an inner impression left by a bezel or ring that averages 20–22 mm. The seal used for these impressions was not incised to an even depth, and the letters therefore have irregular surfaces. They were always impressed where the handle joined the body of the jar. Paleography

The forms of the two letters in this seal differ from those of subtype 14a. The yod has sharp angles, not a rounded top like 14a, but it is otherwise unremarkable. The he, however, more closely resembles the paleo-Hebrew three-bar type encountered often among seals of type 13. It is poorly formed, but the main stroke clearly has three oblique strokes attached to it. Stratigraphy

Like type 14a, the stratigraphical evidence for this subtype is meager. We may mention again that, according to Aharoni (1962: 31), stamp impressions of this type from Ramat Raḥel were found together with pottery from the transition 50.  Ramat Raḥel: Aharoni 1962: 6, 30–31; fig. 8:2; pl. 8:4; 1964: 44; Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 20–23; forthcoming; Lipschits and Vanderhooft, 2007a: XX; see stamp impression nos. 14-96; 14-115; 14-119; 14-139 – 14-146; 14-148; 14-155; 14-167; 14-168; 14-169; 14-176. Nebi Samwil: Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44 and fig. 1:6–16; see stamp impression nos. 14-71 – 14-81. City of David: two stamp impressions were discovered in the Ophel excavations (one was published by Duncan 1931: 139–43, pl. IV: 7; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39, and one was not published and is on display in the Haʾaretz Museum; see stamp impression nos. 14-29, 14-41). Four stamp impressions were discovered in Shiloh’s excavations (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L66, L70, L71, L72, and see stamp impression nos. 14-52, 14-56, 14-57, 1458). En Gedi: Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 68 and fig. 1:5; see stamp impression no. 14-68. Jericho: Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42, L2; see stamp impression no. 14-4. Tell en-Naṣbeh: McCown 1947: 164–66, pl. 57:17; Badè 1930: 14; see stamp impression no. 14-21. Kadesh Barnea: Cohen 1983a: photo 22; 1983b: 12–13, and picture p. 13; see stamp impression no. 14-66.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)”

379

between the Persian and Hellenistic periods, and he thought that the impressions could not be earlier than the 4th century b.c.e. Orientation

No obvious pattern governs the direction of the stamps on the jars. Where it can be determined, the top of the stamp faces the rim in 4 cases; the base in 12 others; to the right of the handle 7 times; and to the left of the handle on 6 occasions. 3.  Subtype 14c Distribution

Only 2 stamp impressions of this type are known: one was discovered at Jericho and the other at the City of David. 51 Both stamp impressions were identified and grouped together by Ariel and Shoham (2000: 151). Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions

The two stamp impressions of this type are oval and quite large, measuring about 31–32 mm across and about 14-15 mm high, making this the largest of the Yehud stamp impression types. The impressions are both located exactly where the handle joins the jar. Bartlett (1982: 537) speculated that the rather poor craftsmanship suggests that the seal was made of clay rather than stone, but this idea remains speculative. Paleography

The rather large letters of this subtype are formed somewhat similarly to type 14a. The yod has a rounded top, while the he is of the classic Aramaic shape. The forms offer no specific chronological insights. Stratigraphy

The stamp from the City of David was found in area D in a locus dated to the Persian Period stratum 9. The Jericho exemplar came from a mixed, post-Roman context. Orientation

Both examples were stamped with the top of the seal facing the rim of the jar, like subtype 13f, which is also oval. 4.  Subtype 14d Distribution

Two stamp impressions may be tentatively assigned to this subtype, one each from Ramat Raḥel and En Gedi. 52 Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions

The Ramat Raḥel stamp impression is legible, if poorly preserved, and measures 16 × 12 mm. The stamp impression has close affinities to subtype 14e but is 51.  Jericho: Bartlett 1982: 537, no. 3, pl. IIIb right; see stamp impression no. 14-14. City of David: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L56; see stamp impression no. 14-42. 52.  Ramat Raḥel: Aharoni 1962: 6; see stamp impression no. 14-94. En Gedi: Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 68 and fig. 1: 6; see stamp impression no. 14-69.

380

F.  The Middle Types

substantially smaller. The En Gedi stamp is broken and barely legible but may fit this type or 14e. Paleography

The yod is of the usual type, although it is formed rather crudely. The he, however, was carved upside-down and in positive, with the result that the orientation of this letter is completely incorrect. 5.  Subtype 14e Six identical stamp impressions of this type are known: 2 from the City of David, 2 from Ramat Raḥel, and 1 each from Tell en-Naṣbeh and Rogem Gannim. 53 Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions

The slightly oval stamp impressions measure about 22 × 20 mm. The yod has a downstroke measuring about 9 mm This subtype may be transitional between types 14 and 15. The seal was not set in a bezel. Paleography

The yod is typical of the lapidary Aramaic sequence, although its top and bottom strokes are rather short. The he, while Aramaic, is incised upside-down and in reverse, something that also occurred in subtype 13i. Stratigraphy

One of the stamp impressions from the City of David came from locus 2114 in area E, the other from area D1 locus 361; both belong to stratum 9 of the Persian Period (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152). c.  Summary and Discussion Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel yielded 145, or 75%, of the stamp impressions. Four other sites are well represented: Jericho (13); Nebi Samwil (11), Tell enNaṣbeh (10), and En Gedi (4). These four sites, which together yielded 22% of the stamp impressions of this type, may have been secondary centers in the distribution system. This is the last type for which we find any stamp impressions in the eastern part of the province. We may note that two stamp impressions of type 14 appear outside Yehud, at Tell Jemmeh and Kadesh Barnea, sites that produced no other stamp impressions. One handle also came from Gezer. Four stamped handles came from a site that may be identified with some confidence as a production center, namely, Rogem Gannim. This site also yielded two stamp impressions of type 13 and one of type 10. A total of 34 stamp impressions of this type were not assigned to subtypes. The other 148 can be summarized as follows: 53.  City of David: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152, L73 and L74; see stamp impression no. 14-59, 14‑60. Ramat Raḥel: Aharoni 1962: 6; Lipschits and Vanderhooft forthcoming; see stamp impression no. 1493. Tell en-Naṣbeh: McCown 1947: 164–66, pl. 57:13; Badè 1930: 14; see stamp impression no. 14‑19. Rogem Gannim: Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 233, no. G-4 and fig. 3: G4; see stamp impression no. 14-85.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)”

381

Table F5.  Site Distribution of Subtypes 14a–14e. 14a

14b

Ramat Raḥel

79

16

Jerusalem

17

6

Tell en-Naṣbeh

5

Nabi-Samuel Gezer

14d

14e

1

2

1

2

1

1

11 1

En Gedi

1

Jericho

5

Rogem Gannim

3

K.Barnea Tell Jemmeh

14c

1

1 1 1

1 1

Graph 20.  Site Distribution of Subtypes 14a–14e.

382

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading Petrographic analysis New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No figure available.

14-1 ‫יה‬ 14a Tell Jemmeh ? Sellin 1935: 78; Sellin compared it to a stamp impression from Jericho; see his fig. 1 p. 77; Christoph 1993: 235. surface ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? round ? Found by Sellin in 1912 on the tell.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-2 ‫יה‬ 14a Gezer Rockefeller Museum P.935 Rockefeller Museum ‫יה‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 diameter 28 mm downstroke of yod approx. 15 mm nearly round → brown fabric with brown and gray core and some white inclusions The letters are faint but decipherable.

383

384

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-3 ‫יה‬ 14a Jericho 103 ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42: L3 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? Round → Discovered in 1907 (the first one ever found in Jericho with 2 letters).

Scanned from Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: pl. 42: L3.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-4 ‫יה‬ 14b Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39, 77; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42: L2 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ round ? one of nine found in 1908

Scanned from Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: pl. 42: L2.

385

386

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-5 ‫יה‬ 14a Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159, pl. 42:L1 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ round ? one of nine found in 1908

Scanned from Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: pl. 42: L1.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph is available.

14-6 ‫יה‬ 14a Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? round ? One of nine found in 1908. No photo is available and no other detail.

387

388

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo is available.

14-7 ‫יה‬ 14 (unknown if a or b) Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? Round ? One of nine found in 1908. No photo is available and no other details are available.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo is available.

14-8 ‫יה‬ 14 (unknown if a or b) Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159 ? ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? round ? One of nine found in 1908. No photo is available and no other details are available.

389

390

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo is available.

14-9 ‫יה‬ 14 (unknown if a or b) Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159. ? ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? Round ? One of nine found in 1908. No photo is available and no other details are available.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes No photo is available.

14-10 ‫יה‬ 14 (unknown if a or b) Jericho

Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159

-

One of nine found in 1908. No photo is available and no other details are available.

391

392

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo is available.

14-11 ‫יה‬ 14 (unknown if a or b) Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? round ? One of nine found in 1908. No photo is available and no other details are available.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo is available.

14-12 ‫יה‬ 14 (unknown if a or b) Jericho ? ? Sellin 1908: 38–39; Sellin and Watzinger 1913 [1973]: 159 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? round ? One of nine found in 1908. No photo is available and no other details are available.

393

394

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-13 ‫יה‬ 14a Jericho 103 ? Bartlett 1982: 537, no. 2, fig. 220.2, pl. IIIb, middle unstratified Square 3. EIII ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 31 x 15 mm ? round ↓ -

Scanned from: Bartlett 1982: 537, fig. 220.2, pl. IIIb, middle.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-14 ‫יה‬ 14c Jericho 121 ? Bartlett 1982: 537, no. 3, pl. IIIb, right Tr. I, Phase lxxv. Dated to the post-Roman Period ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 31 × 15 mm ? ? oval

Scanned from: Bartlett 1982: pl. IIIb, middle.

395

396

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-15 ‫יה‬ 14a Jericho 307 ? Bartlett 1982: 537, no. 4, fig. 220.3 Tr. I, Phase lxxiv ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 25 × 21 mm ? ? round ↑ According to Bartlett, the handle is missing.

Scanned from: Bartlett 1982: 539, fig. 220:3.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

397

14-16 ‫יה‬ 14a Tell en-Naṣbeh ? 31-333 Rockefeller Museum McCown 1947: 164–66; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 24 mm × 17 mm downstroke of yod: 10 mm top right of yod to top left of he: 17 mm; bezel is 20 mm × 16 mm oval ← pink with gray core and some white and dark inclusions No photo of this stamp impression was ever published.

398

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-17 ‫יה‬ 14a Tell en-Naṣbeh Exc. 1935 I 435 no. 2533. 1935–3102 (Badè Museum no. 2533) Rockefeller Museum McCown 1947: 164–66; pl. 57:18; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 29 mm × 26 mm downstroke of yod: 9 mm top right of yod to top left of he: 16 mm oval → light pink with gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

399

14-18 ‫יה‬ 14a(?) Tell en-Naṣbeh I dump, No. 2717 1935–3166 (Badè Museum no. 2717?) Rockefeller Museum McCown 1947: 164 and n. 38; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 diam 24 mm downstroke of yod: 12 mm; downstroke of he: 10 mm top right of yod to top left of he: 18 mm round → buff pink to light brown with brown to gray core with white inclusions

400

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-19 ‫יה‬ 14e Tell en-Naṣbeh 2504 2504(?) Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–66, pl. 57:13; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 22 × 20 mm ? ? round to oval ↑ The texture of the impression indicates that it was impressed when the clay was still wet.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

401

14-20 ‫יה‬ 14? (not one of the usual known types) Tell en-Naṣbeh 2335 2335(?) Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–66, pl. 57:14; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 17 mm diameter ? round to oval body sherd Unusual YSI; on body sherd. Is it ‫?יה‬

402

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-21 ‫יה‬ 14b Tell en-Naṣbeh 2494 2494(?) Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–66, pl 57:17; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 25 mm diam ? oval → The frame and bezel are clear but the letters are faint.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-22 ‫יה‬ 14a Tell en-Naṣbeh 2468 2468(?) Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–66; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 22 mm diam round ↑ The impression was stamped when the clay was very wet, and the frame and letters are hardly visible. Some uncertainty attends the reading of this stamp impression, but the upper part of the yod and the he can be discerned.

403

404

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-23 ‫יה‬ 14? Tell en-Naṣbeh 2712 2712(?) Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–66; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 26 mm diam round to oval → The frame and bezel are clear. The letters are visible but faint.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

405

14-24 ‫יה‬ 14a Tell en-Naṣbeh 878 878(?) Badè Museum, Pacific School of Religion McCown 1947: 164–66; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 25 mm diam ? round to oval ↑ The impression is faint, but the traces of the yod and he, the bezel, and the typical dimensions make the identification quite certain.

406

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

14-25 ‫יה‬ 14? Tell en-Naṣbeh 799 799(?) Kansas City? McCown 1947: 164–66; Badè 1930: 14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? A record exists for this stamp impression in the Badè Museum, but it could not be located. Possibly in the Kansas City Museum. No picture available.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

407

14-26 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) No. 12 262 PEF London Duncan 1931: 141; Cook 1925: pl. IV: 4 and p. 93 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ round → The frame and bezel are clear; the letters are partly effaced.

408

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-27 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) No. 20 202 PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV (opp. p. 91):14; Duncan 1931: 139–43 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ round ↓ Part of the frame and bezel is visible; the letters are faint and effaced.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

409

14-28 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) No. 10 P.3633 Rockefeller Museum Cook 1925: pl. IV (opp. p. 91):no. 9 and p. 93; p. 185 drawing no. 1; Diringer 1934: 128 ? ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 22 mm diam. downstroke of yod: 9 mm inner ring of bezel: 16 mm round → buff pink with a partial gray core; few inclusions The frame and bezel are clear, the letters well preserved.

410

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-29 ‫יה‬ 14b Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? P. 1938-2030 Rockefeller Museum Duncan 1931: 139–43, pl. IV:7; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 27 mm diam. downstroke of yod: 9 mm inner ring of bezel: 21 mm × 19 mm round ↓ light beige to yellow wash on a buff fabric with gray core and white inclusions There is a note on the back side: “Location 4402420107.”

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

411

14-30 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) No. 9 AO no. 197 (other no. 565) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV (opp. p. 91):8 and p. 93 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ round ↓ The upper left side of the impression is smudged.

412

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

14-31 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

413

14-32 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

414

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

14-33 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

415

14-34 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

416

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

14-35 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

417

14-36 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

418

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

14-37 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

419

14-38 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

420

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

14-39 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

421

14-40 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–43; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1925a: 8–25; Duncan 1925b: 134–39 ‫יה‬ ? ? No picture available. Known only from the number of parallels mentioned in the above publications.

422

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-41 ‫יה‬ 14b Jerusalem: City of David (Ophel excavations) MHA51 Haʾaretz Museum, 51 (Old No. 8 569) Haʾaretz Museum mentioned in the catalogue of the Haʾaretz Museum, Tel-Aviv. see note below ? ‫יה‬ Sampled: 5.1.2005 26 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 9 mm diameter of bezel: 20 mm round ↓ light pink-to-orange wash on pink fabric with gray-brown core and small white inclusions Handle was purchased, but ink notes on back say: “Pebble upper Layer, N. corner of N. Bast. face. 14 Aug.” The stamp therefore comes from the Ophel excavations, above Area G of Shiloh’s excavations at the City of David.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-42 ‫יה‬ 14c Jerusalem: City of David D2/14147 86-1811 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L56 Area D, Locus 1836, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled by Prof. Y. Goren 32 mm wide; height approx 14.5 mm yod is 12.5 mm high almost cartouche shaped rounded corners ↑ light pink with brown-gray core and many white inclusions There is a break in the upper part of the impression.

423

424

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-43 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David E2/12224 95-2297 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L57. Area E, Locus 1703, Stratum 7b ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled by Prof. Y. Goren 24 mm diameter yod is 9 mm high bezel: 17 mm round ← reddish-pink ware with gray core; white inclusions There are signs of smudging by the potter. The the letters are faint but visible.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

425

14-44 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David B 429 95-2292 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L58 unstratified; close to disturbances of the Weill excavations (L. 107) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm downstroke of yod: 10.5 mm; top bar of he: 8 mm round ↑ beige-pink with gray core; many white inclusions

426

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-45 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David E2/1514 95-2293 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L59 Area E, Locus 510, Stratum 5 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 26 mm diam yod is 11 mm high round → beige-pink wash over red ware with gray core; many white inclusions Only the right side of the impression was undamaged. The yod is, however, clear, as is the right side of the he.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

427

14-46 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David D1/12622 95-2287 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L60 Area D, Locus 422, Stratum 8 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 25 mm diam yod: 11 mm high bezel: 21 mm round ← light pink wash over red ware with gray core; white inclusions Double impression can be noticed in this stamp impression.

428

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-47 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David D2/20702 95-2289 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L61 Area D, Locus 2722, Stratum 7 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 28 mm downstroke of he: 8.5 mm; upper line of he: 12 mm round ↑ pink-orange ware with thick gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

429

14-48 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David E2/1690 95-2295 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L62 Area E, Locus 537, Stratum 5 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 24 mm diam downstroke of yod: 10.5 mm; upper line of he: 10 mm bezel: 21 mm round → pink ware with gray core; white inclusions The upper part of the stamp impression is missing.

430

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-49 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David E1/6345 95-2286 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L63 Area E, Locus 1285, Stratum 7 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 24 mm round → light pink exterior with red and gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-50 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David G 4734 11129 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L64 Area G, surface ‫יה‬ round ? The handle was not located; data is based on Ariel and Shoham’s publication. Yod almost certainly identical with type 14a.

Scanned from: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L64.

431

432

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-51 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David E1/7856 95-2288 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L65 Area E, Locus 1284, Stratum 7 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 24.1 mm diam Downstroke of yod: 10 mm; downstroke of he: 8 mm 19.8 mm bezel round ↑ beige wash over dark red core; white inclusions The right side of the seal was not impressed.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

433

14-52 ‫יה‬ 14b Jerusalem: City of David G11489 95-2300 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L66 Area G, Locus 950, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 29 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 10 mm; upper line of he: 8.5 mm. from right side of yod to left side of he: 22 mm round ↑ beige wash over pink ware with gray core; white inclusions The bezel is clear; the letters are faint, but the type is certain.

434

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-53 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David G11381 95-2301 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L67 Area G, Locus 950, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 25 mm diameter oval ↑ light pink with dark gray core; white inclusions The letters are very faint, but the reading seems certain.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

435

14-54 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David G 11416 95-2302 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L68 Area G, Locus 950, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 21 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 9 mm; downstroke he: 8 mm; upper line of he: 8 mm from right side of yod to upper left side of he: 13 mm round ↓ light pink orange ware with gray core; white inclusions The upper part of the impression is broken.

436

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-55 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David E1/19536 95-2303 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L69 Area E, Locus 2128, Stratum 7 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 22 mm diam downstroke of yod: 7 mm round ↓ pink with gray core; white inclusions The stamp impression is exceptionally deep. The yod is quite clear, the he very faint.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

437

14-56 ‫יה‬ 14b Jerusalem: City of David G 11363 86-1810 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L70. Area G, Locus 950, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 27 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 9 mm; downstroke of he: 9 mm; upper line of he: 12 mm bezel diameter: 21 mm; from right side of yod to left side of he: 19.5 mm round ↓ light pink to white wash over pink fabric, with gray core and tiny white inclusions Slight slippage when the seal was impressed produced signs of a double impression.

438

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-57 ‫יה‬ 14b Jerusalem: City of David E1/17183 11127 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L71 Area E, surface ‫יה‬ round ? The handle has not been located; data is according to Ariel and Shoham’s description.

Scanned from: Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L71.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

439

14-58 ‫יה‬ 14b Jerusalem: City of David E1/17194 95–2304 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 151, L72 Area E, Locus 2114, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 24 mm diameter diameter of bezel approx 17 mm round ↓ light pink with brown and gray core; white inclusions Only the lower part of the yod appears, but it corresponds to the yod of type 14b.

440

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-59 ‫יה‬ 14e Jerusalem: City of David E1/17201 95-2305 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152, L73 Area E, Locus 2114, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 17 mm diameter downstroke yod: 9.1 mm round, not fully preserved ← exterior color: light pink; fabric: pinkish red; inclusions: white He is evidently upside-down. Perhaps this is a transition type between types 14 and 15. The seal was not set in a bezel.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

441

14-60 ‫יה‬ 14e Jerusalem: City of David D1/6616 86–1828 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152, L74 Area D, Locus 361, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 6.1.2005 width: 21 mm downstroke of yod: 9 mm; horizontal line of he: 7 mm from lower right side of yod to lower left side of he: 17 mm. oval ← handle; pink-reddish fabric with gray core and many white inclusions He is upside-down. There is no bezel ring. Crossed lines in the form of an × are incised below stamp before firing.

442

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

14-61 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David E1/8437 11134 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152, L75 Area E, surface ‫יה‬ round ? The handle was not located. The description is based on Ariel and Shoham’s publication. Neither letter is legible.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

443

14-62 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David E1/3895 95-2306 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152, L76 Area E, Locus 646, Stratum 7 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 27 mm ? round ? exterior color: light pink to beige; fabric: light brown; inclusions: white Letters are illegible. Cannot assign to a specific type. Probably yh (as also identified by Ariel and Shoham).

444

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-63 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David D1/6603 75–2307 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152, L77 Area D, Locus 358, Stratum 9 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 5.1.2005 28 mm diameter round ? pink-beige ware with gray core; white inclusions The surface of the impression was damaged and the letters not preserved. Shape and diameter strongly indicate yh (so also Ariel and Shoham).

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

445

14-64 ‫יה‬ 14? Jerusalem: City of David ? ? ? Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 67, no. 2 ‫יה‬ round? ? According to Crowfoot and Fitzgerald: “Gray brown with small white grits; brown interior covered on the exterior with a white slip.” He is partly effaced. No photo or drawing is available..

446

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-65 ‫יה‬ 14a Jerusalem: City of David 2236 A 1062 IAA storage, Har Hotzvim Reich and Shukron 2007: 60 and fig. 1: 5 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 4.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm height of yod: 11 mm; downstroke of he: 9 mm bezel diameter: 18.5 mm inner; 20.5 mm outer round ↑ light pink fabric with dark gray core; white and black inclusions Letters are not deep but are very wide and clear.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

Scanned from Cohen 1983b: 13.

447

14-66 ‫יה‬ 14b Kadesh Barnea ? ? ? Cohen 1983a: photo 22; 1983b: 12–13 and photo on p. 13. discovered in a small settlement with finds (mainly from pits) from the 5th-4th centuries b.c.e., including an ostracon see note ‫יה‬ Round ? Cohen presents the impression as a yhd in his publication; the photo proves it is subtype 14b.

448

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-67 ‫יה‬ 14a En Gedi ? ? ? Mazar and Dunayevski 1964: 126–27, pl. 27:A; 1964 (Archaeological News 9): 15 Stratum IV: According to Mazar, this stratum is well dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries b.c.e. Avigad (1976: 26–27) accepts this date. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ round ↑ -

Scanned from Mazar and Dunayevski 1964: pl. 27:A

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

449

14-68 ‫יה‬ 14b En Gedi 1080/1 67-528 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 68 and fig. 1:5 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 28.2.2006 24 mm diameter Downstroke of yod: 8 mm; downstroke of he: 7 mm The seal was set in a ring that produced an inner diameter of 19 mm round ↓ light pink wash over pink fabric with tiny white and black inclusions and a gray core

Scanned from: Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig. 1:.5

450

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-69 ‫יה‬ 14d (?) En Gedi 2261 67-532 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: 68 and fig. 1:6. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 28.2.2006 height: 17 mm. elliptical impression → pink with a gray core and bright pink-yellow slip or wash Only part of the yod is visible and a small part of the he.

Scanned from: Stern, Lipschits, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig. 1:6

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from: Hadas 2005: fig. 11:1

451

14-70 ‫יה‬ 14a En Gedi 35 ? Hadas 2005: 49 and fig. 11:1 Surface. En Gedi village, Locus 507, Basket 35 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ↑ brownish-gray, with many white inclusions

452

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-71 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-34527 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:6 L. 78258 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 27 × 23 mm almost round ← light brown ware, gray core, white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:6

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-72 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-34526 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:7 L. 7841 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 27 × 21 mm slightly oval → pink ware, gray core, large white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:7

453

454

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-73 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-35612 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:8 L. 7945 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ about 25 mm in diameter rounded impression ← pink ware, gray core, black and white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:8.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-74 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-35614 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:9 L. 78309 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 27 × 22 mm (not fully preserved) round impression → reddish-yellow ware, gray core, white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:9

455

456

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-75 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-35610 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:10 L. 78249 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ about 26 mm in diameter rounded impression ↑ light red ware, gray core, white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:10.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

457

14-76 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-35609 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:11 L. 78275 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 26 mm in diameter rounded impression → light brown ware, gray core, white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:11.

458

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-77 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-21095 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:12 L. 483 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 24 mm in diameter rounded impression ← light brown ware, gray core, black and white inclusions some smudging of the impression

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:12.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

459

14-78 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-35611 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:13 L. 6298 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 25 mm in diameter rounded impression ↓ light brown ware, gray core, white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:13.

460

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-79 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-25399 Nebi Samwil Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:14 L. 883 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 26 mm in diameter rounded impression ↓ reddish-yellow ware, gray core, black and white inclusions

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:14

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-80 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-21097 Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:15 L 207 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ round ↓ light brown ware, gray core, white grits

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:15

461

462

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-81 ‫יה‬ 14b Nebi Samwil K-25389 Archaeology Staff Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Magen and Har-Even 2007: 44, pl. 1:16 L. 493 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ about 24 mm diam round → reddish-yellow ware, gray core, white grits

Scanned from: Magen and Har-Even 2007: pl. 1:16.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

463

14-82 ‫יה‬ 14a Rogem Gannim 844 Rogem Gannim project in Community Archaeology Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: No. G-2 and fig. 3:G2. L. 100 (see note) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 21 mm in diameter round impression → pinkish clay, with gray core and large white grits The handle came from a bell-shaped pit (L.100) containing pottery of the late Iron Age and the Persian Period; it went out of use in the early Roman period.

Scanned from: Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: fig. 3: G2.

464

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-83 ‫יה‬ 14a Rogem Gannim 614 Rogem Gannim project in Community Archaeology Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: no. G-1 and fig. 3:G1. L. 100 (see note) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 21 mm in diameter round impression → The handle came from the same bell-shaped pit as no. 14-82.

Scanned from: Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: fig. 3:G1.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-84 ‫יה‬ 14a Rogem Gannim 845 Rogem Gannim project in Community Archaeology Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: no. G-3 and fig. 3:G3. L. 100 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 21 mm in diameter. round impression → -

Scanned from: Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: fig. 3:G3.

465

466

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-85 ‫יה‬ 14e Rogem Gannim 745 Rogem Gannim project in Community Archaeology Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: no. G-4 and fig. 3:G4. L. 129 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 15 mm in diameter round impression -

Scanned from: Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: fig. 3:G4.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

467

14-86 ‫יה‬ 14 ? Unknown P935 64-1799 Israel Museum, Jerusalem Catalogue of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ 24 mm in diameter Downstroke of yod: 12 mm; downstroke of he: 7.5 mm diameter of inner bezel: 21 mm round ← According to the reg. number, this stamp impression might come from Gezer (compare data base no. 14-2).

468

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-87 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 320/1 54–377 P. 20, 320/1 (529) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956: 148–49 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 diameter inside of bezel: 18.8 mm; outside of bezel diam 21 mm downstroke of he: 8.8 mm; upper line of he: 9.5 mm from right side of yod to left side of he: 18.5 mm round ↓ light pink to beige; gray interior ; small white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-88 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 780/1 8544/11 P. 17, 780/1 (199) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1956: 148–49, fig. 16 Loc. 277d, Level: 7.10, Sq. V16, Stratum: V ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm top bar of he: 8.5 mm; yod: 11 mm high 20 mm bezel round ↑ brick orange with thin gray core; fine white grits

469

470

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-89 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 75/1 54–362 P. 20, 75/1 (523) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956: 148–49, pl. 26:1 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 inside bezel: 17.2 mm; outside bezel: 20 mm; outside of stamp: 24.6 mm diam yod: 12.9 mm high; downstroke he: 7 mm round to oval ↑ pink ware with large white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

471

14-90 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 11259 (6037) 64-2425 P. 21, 11259 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956: 148–149, pl. 26:5. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25.4 mm diam downstroke of yod: 10.4 mm; he: 8.1 mm inside bezel: 19.3 mm; outside: 21.7 mm round ← beige to pink with gray core; white inclusions The seal was not fully impressed.

472

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-91 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 1547/1 64-1799 P. 16, 1642/1 (37) & P. 21, 1642/1 (515) Israel Museum, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6, fig, 8:1; Hestrin et al. 1973: 68, no. 154. Loc. 353, Sq. R22 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 diameter 24 mm downstroke of yod: 11 mm; top bar of he: 8 mm 21 mm bezel; from right side of yod to left side of he: 17 mm round ← light brown with brown and gray core; white inclusions, some very large There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, with two photos, both times with an erroneous excavation number (1647/1).

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

473

14-92 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4370/3 8544/27 P. 21, 4370/3 (577) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 discovered in the area of the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm downstroke of yod: 11 mm; top bar of he: 8 mm 21 mm bezel round ← brown-beige exterior with brownish-gray core and white inclusions

474

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

14-93 ‫יה‬ 14e Ramat Raḥel 1818/2 8544/26 P. 16, 1818/2 (34) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 Loc. 365, Level: 6.60, Sq. U20 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 22 mm

round ← light pink with consistent pink-red interior with fine white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

475

14-94 ‫יה‬ 14d Ramat Raḥel 1658 (?) 1982.2.1021; other no. 1658 Not in Aharoni’s excavation records Israel Museum, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 ‫יה‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 16 wide × 12 high Downstroke of yod: 6 mm. rectangular ↓ handle; light pink to beige with pink and gray interior with white inclusions From Ramat Raḥel, formerly in the collection of M. Dayan. The letters are apparently reversed.

476

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-95 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4014/3 8544/1 Not in Aharoni’s excavation records Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm Top bar of he: 8 mm round ↓ light pink fabric with thin gray core and fine white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

477

14-96 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 234/4 62–55 P. 14, 234/4 (256) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8:2; pl. 8:4 Loc. 252, Level: 7.40, Sq. U15, Stratum: IVb ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 24.4 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 11.5 mm; upper line of he: 12 mm bezel inside: 20 mm; outside: 21 mm; from right side of yod to left side of he: 18 mm round ↑ light pink and red with gray core; many white inclusions

478

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-97 ‫יה‬ 14? Ramat Raḥel 535/7 62–53 P. 17, 535/7 (222) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6 Loc. 277a, Level: 7.95, Sq. V16, stratum: II ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 16 mm diameter diameter inside of bezel: 11.9 mm round ? exterior color: light pink; fabric: red with gray; inclusions: white small There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description and a photo (photo is reversed). Reading uncertain. Apparent traces of two letters, the he is more clear.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

479

14-98 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 1985/2 8544/17 P. 20, 1985/2 (604) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6. Locus 391, Level: 6.80, Sq. W17 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 23 mm diam downstroke of yod: 8.5 mm; upper line of yod: 7.5 mm; downstroke of he: 8 mm round → reddish exterior with brick-red fabric and dark gray core; white inclusions

480

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-99 ‫יה‬ 14a? Ramat Raḥel 5510/1 8544/37 Not in Aharoni’s excavation records Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 not preserved neither letter fully preserved. round → beige fabric with brown interior; large white inclusions; deep groove in handle Probably remnants of yod preserved.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

481

14-100 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4370/1 8544/14 P. 21, 4370/1 (564) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter round ↓ pink to beige with consistent light pink fabric and fine white inclusions only upper part of letters preserved

482

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-101 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 890/1 8544/24 P. 17, 890/1 (189) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 11 mm; top bar of he: 8 mm diameter of bezel: 20 mm; from top right of yod to top left of he: 17 mm round ↑ pink to beige with pink interior and gray core; fine white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-102 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 8985/1 8544/36 Not in Aharoni’s excavation records Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter letters are too faint round ↑ pink fabric over thick dark gray core; few inclusions Slightly rounded yod indicates subtype 14a.

483

484

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-103 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 988/1 8544/16 P. 12 988/1 (28) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter top bar of he: 8 mm; yod: 11 mm from right side of yod to left side of he: 17 mm round → pink to beige with consistent pink fabric and gray-brown core; fine white inclusions Frame and bezel are very faint but letters protrude clearly.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

485

14-104 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6370/1 8544/29 P. 22, 6370/1 (887) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 Loc. 823, Level: 7.40 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 not preserved top bar of he: 8 mm round → pink to beige with consistent light pink fabric and fine white inclusions

486

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-105 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 629/1 8544/33 Among the unrecognized, 629/1 (643) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 Loc. 278, Level: 7.10, Sq. U16, Stratum: IVb ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm not preserved round ? light pink with brown-gray core and white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

487

14-106 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 410/1 8544/10 P. 16, 410/1 (188) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 Loc. 264, Level: 5.25, Sq. AA15. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diam 24 mm downstroke of yod: 11 mm; top bar of he: 8 mm 21 mm bezel round ↓ reddish-pink fabric with brick-red interior and gray core; white inclusions

488

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-107 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 3473 8544/38 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Locus 391 (square 17V) underneath the Herodean industrial installations (together with lion stamp impressions and one ‫)אחיב פחוא‬ ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 not preserved downstroke of yod: 11 mm round ↓ red-pink with red core and fine white inclusions Only the upper right part of the impression was preserved.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

489

14-108 ‫יה‬ 14? Ramat Raḥel 6359/1 8544/40 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Locus 391 (square 17V) underneath the Herodean industrial installations (together with lion stamp impressions and one ‫)אחיב פחוא‬ ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diam downstroke of yod: 11 mm round ? handle; red-pink fabric, dark gray core and white inclusions The lower left part of the impression is missing.

490

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-109 ‫יה‬ 14b? Ramat Raḥel 4801/1 8544/23 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Locus 391 (square 17V) underneath the Herodean industrial installations (together with lion stamp impressions and one ‫)אחיב פחוא‬ ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 25 mm diam Letters are too faint. round ? handle; red-pink fabric with thin gray core and white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-110 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 3025/1 8544/18 P. 14, 3025/1 (293) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Locus 407, Level: 7.70 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 26 mm diam upper bar of he: 8 mm round ↓ red-pink fabric with gray core and white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

491

492

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-111 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel ? 8544/5 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in Locus 398 (square 19U) together with yhd and yhwd stamp impressions ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 11 mm; upper stroke of he: 8 mm bezel ring is 21 mm; from upper right side of yod to upper left side of he: 12.5 mm. round ↑ red-pink fabric, dark gray core, and white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

493

14-112 ‫יה‬ 14a? Ramat Raḥel ? 8544/43 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in Locus 398 (square 19U) together with yhd and yhwd stamp impressions ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 25 mm diameter letters are too faint round ? red-pink fabric, gray core, and fine white inclusions

494

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-113 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 5294/1 8544/25 P. 19, 5294/1 (770) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in Locus 398 (square 19U) together with yhd and yhwd stamp impressions ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diam downstroke of yod: 11 mm; top stroke of he: 8 mm bezel: 21 mm round ↑ red-pink fabric, dark gray core, and white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

495

14-114 ‫יה‬ 14? Ramat Raḥel 4047/1 8544/39 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in Locus 398 (square 19U) together with yhd and yhwd stamp impressions ‫יה‬ ‫?יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 22 mm diameter letters are too faint round ? handle; red-pink fabric, dark gray core, and white inclusions very faintly preserved; ascription to type 14 tentative

496

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-115 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 518/2 8544/21 P. 17, 518/2 (192) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Locus 278, Level: 7.60, Sq. U16, Stratum: IVa ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 25 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 11 mm 21 mm bezel round ↓ handle; pink fabric, brown core, and white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

497

14-116 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 917/1 8544/32 P. 20, 917/1 (619) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in the rubble covering the floors of the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 11 mm bezel: 11 mm round ↑ light brown fabric with gray-brown core and white inclusions Only yod, with horizontal foot, is preserved

498

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-117 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 2128/1 8544/42 P. 19, 2128 (622) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in the rubble covering the floors of the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel; Loc. 380E, Level: 7.50 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter Downstroke of yod: 11 mm; downstroke of he: 6.5 mm bezel 21 round → red fabric with dark gray core and white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

499

14-118 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4759/1 8544/31 P. 19, 4759/1 (766) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31. Discovered in the rubble covering the floors of the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diam downstroke of yod: 11 mm; upper bar of he : 8 mm round ↑ red-pink fabric, dark gray core, and white inclusions lower half of the impression broken

500

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-119 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 3782/1 8544/2 No Photo in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in the rubble covering the floors of the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel. According to Aharoni’s card: Loc. 456, Level: 6.80, Sq. U18 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 11 mm; upper bar of he : 8 mm from upper right side of yod to upper left side of he: 12 mm round ↓ red-pink fabric, dark gray core, and white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information and description.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

501

14-120 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel ? 8544/44 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 discovered in the rubble covering the floors of the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm. letters are too faint round ↑ red-pink fabric, dark gray core, and white inclusions ascription to subtype tentative

502

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-121 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4405/1 8544/6 P. 20, 4405/1 (569) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 30–31 Discovered in the rubble covering the floors of the courtyard of the Iron Age citadel ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 mm letters are too faint round ↑ light pink with red and gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

503

14-122 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 1985/4 64-1802 p. 16 1985/4 (33) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20. Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s card: Loc. 391, Level: 6.80, Sq. W17 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm diameter downstroke yod 10.6; downstroke he: 8 mm inside bezel: 18.4 mm; outside: 20.3 mm round ↓ beige-pink ware with gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

504

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-123 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 152/1 64-1803 P. 17, 152/1 (191) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s card: Loc. 250a, Level: 7.20, Sq. T15 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm diameter Downstroke yod: 10.5 mm; downstroke of he: 8.1 mm bezel: about 20 mm; from top right of yod to top left of he: 12.5 mm oval ← light pink ware with pink-red and gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

505

14-124 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 2135/1 64-1804 P. 18, 2135/1 (19) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20. Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s card: Loc. 385N ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm downstroke yod 10.5 mm; he: 8.1 mm 21 mm round ↑ pink ware with gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

506

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-125 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 64-1800 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 10.6 mm; downstroke of he: 7.8 mm inside bezel: 19 mm; outside: 21 mm; from right side of yod to right side of he: 14.5 mm round ↓ pink ware with gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

507

14-126 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 602/1 62–46 P. 18, 602/1 (199) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s card: Loc. 278N, Level:7.30, Sq. U16, Stratum: IVb ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 inside bezel: 17 mm; outside bezel: 19.5 mm; outside stamp: 25.5 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 10.5 mm; downstroke of he: 7.1 mm from upper right side of yod to upper left side of he: 14 mm round to oval → reddish-pink with gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

508

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-127 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4388/1 4388/1 (568) P. 21, 4388/1 (568) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ oval → -

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

509

14-128 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 996/5 64-1797 P. 18, 996/5 (11) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm diameter downstroke of he: 8.1 mm; downstroke of yod: 10.7 mm bezel inside: 18.4 mm; outside: 21 mm; from right side of yod to left side of he: 13 mm round ↓ reddish-pink with many white inclusions

510

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-129 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel ? 64-2279 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 24.3 mm diameter downstroke of he: 8 mm round ← beige to pink with gray core; white inclusions Impression is very faint.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

511

14-130 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 9043 64-2275 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 10.5 mm; downstroke of he: 8.1 mm diameter of bezel: 21 mm; from right side of yod to left side of he: 13.5 mm round ↑ beige-pink wash; pink ware with white inclusions

512

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-131 ‫יה‬ 14a? Ramat Raḥel 3301/1 8545/25 No photo in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380). Locus 433, Level:4.80, Sq. U26 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter Letters are too faint. round; bezel slightly preserved ? light pink wash over pink fabric with dark gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information and description.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

513

14-132 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6400/1 8544/15 P. 22, 6400/1 (823) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the outer courtyard (470) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm downstroke of yod: 11 mm; top bar of he: 8 mm 21 mm bezel round → light pink to beige with consistent pink interior with large white grits probably depicted in Aharoni 1964a: pl. 19:1

514

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-133 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6385/1 8544/8 P. 22. 6385/1 (817) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the outer courtyard (470) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 23 mm Top bar of he: 8.5 mm 19 mm bezel round ← light pink to beige with consistent pink interior with large white grits

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

515

14-134 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 5651/1 8544/35 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the outer courtyard (470) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 23 mm ? round ← light pink to beige with consistent pink interior with large white grits

516

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-135 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 3776/3 8544/20 P. 15, 3776/3 (308) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the courtyard inside the northern building (468). According to Aharoni’s card: Loc. 467, Level: 6.80, Sq. U23 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm Letters are not clear enough 20 mm round ↑ light pink to beige with consistent pink interior with large white grits There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

517

14-136 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6227/1 8544/3 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 discovered in locus of a later date ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 25 mm downstroke of yod: 11 mm 21 mm round ← light pink to beige with consistent pink interior with large white grits

518

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-137 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 2482/3 8544/9 Among the unrecognized 2482/3 (623) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380). According to Aharoni’s card: Loc. 398, Level: 6.90, Sq. U18 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 21 mm 11 mm high yod round ? pink fabric with pink-gray core and white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

519

14-138 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6204/1 8544/7 P. 19, 6204/1 (768) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 discovered in the piles of rubble covering the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 22 mm Top bar of he: 8 mm; downstroke: 7.5 mm round ← pink with gray core with large white grits

520

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-139 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 819/1 64-1806 P. 16, 819/1 (190) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 44 discovered in the area of the central courtyard (380) ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 26 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 10 mm; upper line of he: 9.5 mm diameter of bezel: 20.5; from top right of yod to top left of he: 18.5 mm round ← Light beige pink with red and gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

521

14-140 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 2056/1 64-1805 P. 16, 2056/1 (31) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 44 Discovered in the area of the central courtyard (380). Locus 391, Level: 6.80, Sq. W17 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 12 mm; downstroke of he: 9 mm diameter of bezel: 21 mm round to oval ↓ beige wash over pink ware with gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

522

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-141 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 3737/1 64-1798 P. 14, 3737/1 (399) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 44 Discovered in the eastern pit (484). Locus 456, Level: 7.00, Sq. U18 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25.4 mm downstroke of yod: 7.7 mm inside bezel: 20.4 mm; outside: 22.5 mm round ← sandy ware, gray core and white grits Impression is only partially preserved. There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-142 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 816/4 8544/13 P. 17, 816/4 (196) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 44 discovered in the fill in the vicinity of the western defense wall ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 25 mm diameter downstrike of yod: 9 mm; upper line of he: 10 mm 21 mm bezel; from upper right side of yod to upper left side of he: 11 mm round → light pink with gray core; white inclusions

523

524

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-143 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel ? 8544/4 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 44 discovered in the fills in the vicinity of the western defense wall ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 25 mm diameter Downstroke of yod: 8.5 mm; downstroke of he: 7.5 mm 21 mm bezel; from upper right side of yod to upper left side of he: 14.5 mm round to oval ← light pink with dark gray core and interior; white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

525

14-144 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 703/1 8544/28 among the unrecognized, 703/1 (610) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 44 Discovered in the fills in the vicinity of the western defense wall. Locus 277, Level: 7.55, Sq. V15, Stratum: I ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 25 mm diameter upper line of he: 10.5 mm; the rest of the letters are too faint 21 mm bezel round → light pink with dark gray core; white inclusions Frame and bezel are clear, but letters are very faint. There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

526

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-145 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 1024/1 8544/12 P. 19, 1024/1 (628) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 44 discovered in the fills in the vicinity of the western defense wall ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 25 mm diameter letters are too faint round ↑ light pink with gray core; white inclusions Only the lower part of the yod and part of the he are visible.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

527

14-146 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel ? 8545/28 No photo in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 44 Discovered in the fills in the vicinity of the western defense wall. Locus 278a, Level: 7.20, Sq. U16, Stratum: IVb. ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 7 mm; upper bar of he: 8 mm round ↓ beige to pink fabric with dark gray core There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information and description.

528

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-147 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6337/1 93-1395 Not in Aharoni’s excavation record IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 42, 44 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 diameter 25–26 mm diameter of bezel: 19–20 mm; downstroke of yod: 12 mm; downstroke of he : 8 mm; top bar of he: 9 mm round ↑ reddish-pink with dark gray core; white inclusions This stamp impression is on a partially restored jar on the storage shelves at Beth-Shemesh.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

529

14-148 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 5563/1 54-405 (Basket no. 5563) P. 20, 5563/1 (524) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 256, 265, no. 30 ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 inside bezel: 17.8 mm; outside bezel: 22 mm; outside stamp: 27 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 9 mm; downstroke of he: 8 mm; top bar of he: 8.5 mm bezel 21 diam round to oval → light pink with gray interior; large white inclusions

530

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-149 ‫יה‬ 14a? Ramat Raḥel 9130 64-2306 not in Aharoni’s excavation record IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 253, 262, no. 13 ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm letters not visible bezel: 21.6 mm round ? beige wash over pink fabric, gray core; white inclusions Dimensions of stamp impression and the bezel indicate that it belongs to type 14.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-150 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6610 (?) 64-2295 not in Aharoni’s excavation record IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 253, 262, no.  14 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ Sampled: 2.1.2006 25 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 10.2 mm; he: 7.9 mm round ↑ beige to pink fabric: dark gray core; many white inclusions The main ridge of the handle damaged the right side of the impression.

531

532

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-151 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel ? Israel Museum 1982.1.1023; other no. 1658 not in Aharoni’s excavation record Israel Museum, Jerusalem Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 253, 262, no. 15 ‫יה‬ Sampled: 11.1.2005 diameter: 24 mm downstroke of yod: 11 mm; top bar of he: 8 mm 21 mm bezel round ↑ light beige to pink with gray core; white inclusions, some very large from collection of M. Dayan

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

533

14-152 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel ? 8544/30 not in Aharoni’s excavation record Hebrew University, Jerusalem Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 253–54, 263, no. 16 ‫יה‬ Sampled: 10.1.2005 24 mm diameter top bar of he: and downstroke of he: 7.5 mm bezel diameter: 21 mm round ↑ (11) light beige to pink with gray core and white inclusions

534

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-153 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6394/1 not in Aharoni’s excavation record La Sapienza - Università di Roma Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 254, 263, no. 17 ‫יה‬ round to oval ↓ -

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

535

14-154 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 2108/1 2108/1 (157) P. 14, 2108/1 (157) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 254, 263, no. 18 Loc. 380E, Level: 7.80 ‫יה‬ round ↑ reddish-pink ware with gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

536

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-155 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 3087/1 3087/1 (297) P. 14, 3087/1 (297) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 256, 266, no. 31 ‫יה‬ round to oval ↑ beige wash on pink ware; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including description and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

537

14-156 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 6356/1 6356/1 (841) P. 22, 6356/1 (841) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 254, 263, no. 19 ‫יה‬ round to oval ← beige wash on pink fabric; gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including description and a picture.

538

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-157 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 996/4 P. 14, 996/4 (250) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 254, 263, no. 20 ‫יה‬ oval → Discovered among the photos in Aharoni’s excavation record.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

539

14-158 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 2394/1 P. 14, 2394/1 (46) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 254, 264, no. 21 Locus 360, Level: 5.90, Sq. S23 ‫יה‬ round to oval → sandy clay, white and gray grits There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

540

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-159 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 3468/1 P. 15, 3468/1 (332) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 254–55, 264, no. 22 Loc. 444, Level: 5.90, Sq. S25 ‫יה‬ round ? brown clay, gray core and gray grits There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

541

14-160 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 3525/1 P. 15, 3525/1 (299) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 255, 264, no. 23 Loc. 409, Level: 7.15, Sq. S17 ‫יה‬ round ? gray ware, pink core, and gray grits There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

542

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-161 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 5593/1 P. 19, 5593/1 (767) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 255, 264, no. 24 ‫יה‬ round to oval ? Discovered among the photos in Aharoni’s excavation record.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

543

14-162 ‫יה‬ 14a ? Ramat Raḥel 6164/1 P. 19, 6164/1 (751) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 255, 264, no. 25 ‫יה‬ round ? Discovered among the photos in Aharoni’s excavation record.

544

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-163 ‫יה‬ 14? Ramat Raḥel 529/1 P. 20, 529/1 (647) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 255, 265, no. 26 ‫יה‬ round ? Discovered among the photos in Aharoni’s excavation record.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

545

14-164 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 1146/1 P. 20,1146/1 (631) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 255, 265, no. 27 ‫יה‬ round to oval ? Discovered among the photos in Aharoni’s excavation record.

546

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-165 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4424/1 P. 21, 4424/1 (567/1) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 255, 265, no. 28 ‫יה‬ round ? Discovered among the photos in Aharoni’s excavation record.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

547

14-166 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel 4196/1 P. 23, 4196/1 (439) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 255–56, 265, no. 29 ‫יה‬ round to oval ? Discovered among the photos in Aharoni’s excavation record.

548

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-167 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel 3472/1 P. 15, 3472/1 (300) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 256, 266, no. 32 Loc. 444, Level: 5.90, Sq. S25-S26, Stratum: II ‫יה‬ round ↓ pink clay, gray core There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

549

14-168 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel excavations of Gabriel Barkay Ramat Raḥel ? not published ‫יה‬ round Type b with ill-formed three-bar he. Shown to the authors by the excavator.

550

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-169 ‫יה‬ 14a? Ramat Raḥel RR 2005, 3006/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 80, and fig 1:10 Locus 301, described as topsoil in Area C ‫יה‬ 23 mm diameter letters are too faint round ? buff pink fabric: dark gray core; many white inclusions letters very faintly impressed and poorly preserved

Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig 1:10.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

551

14-170 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR 2006, 5010 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 80, and fig. 1:11 Area D2, Locus 510, defined as topsoil ‫יה‬ 24 mm × 22 mm downstroke of yod: 10 mm; downstroke of he: 6.5 mm Clear signs of bezel, 19–20 mm in diameter. Top right of yod to top left of he: 16 mm round ↑ light orange, gray core, many white inclusions and some black inclusions

Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig 1:11.

552

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-171 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR 2006, 3130 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 81, and fig. 1:12 Area C1, Locus 316, defined as fill ‫יה‬ 17.5 × 18.2 mm length of yod: 10.5 mm; downstroke of yod: 8.5 mm; downstroke of he: 6.5 mm clear signs of bezel, 15.2–15.6 mm in diameter; top right of yod to top left of he: 16 mm round → pinkish-orange, gray core, many white inclusions and some black inclusions, and signs of pink-brown slip

Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig 1:12.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

553

14-172 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR 2006, 3281 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 81, and fig. 1:13 Locus 353 (area C1, sq. 198), an intentional fill covering a lime kiln dated to the early Helanistic period ‫יה‬ 19.5 × 20.0 mm downstroke of yod: 8.6 mm; bottom line of yod is 4.5 mm; he is only partly visible clear signs of bezel, 15.6–16.0 mm in diameter; top right of yod to top left of he: 16 mm round ↓ brownish-pink, gray core, and more orange in the inner side; some white inclusions

Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig 1:13.

554

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters

Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-173 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR 2006, 3325 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 81 and fig. 1:14 Locus 358 (area C1, sq. 158-7), a fill covering installations related to a water system dating to the Iron and Persian periods ‫יה‬ 20.0 mm × 20.5 mm The upper line of the yod is 5.1 mm and the bottom line is 6 mm long. The downstroke is broken. The upper line of he is 6.7 mm long and the downstroke is 5.9 mm top right of yod to top left of he: 12 mm round → brownish-pink, gray core that continued to the inner side; many white inclusions, some of them large .

Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: fig 1:14.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

555

14-174 ‫יה‬ 14e Ramat Raḥel 4111/4 (?) not registered Hebrew University, Jerusalem Lipschits and Vanderhooft forthcoming ‫יה‬ Sampled: 15.4.2007 diameter: 22 mm downstroke of yod: 9 mm; upper line of yod: 6 mm; he is too faint round ↓ pinkish-orange with gray core and many small white inclusions

556

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters

Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-175 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel G-51 / 2007 6388 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 20 and pl. III:16 Area C3, Locus 658, Basket 6388 ‫יה‬ 21.8 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 6.9 mm; Upper line of yod: 5.9 mm; lower line of yod: 7.6 mm; upper line of he: 5.2 mm; downstroke of he: 4.8 mm; lower downstroke of he: 3.8 mm from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 10.8 mm; from bottom right of yod to lower left of he: 14.5 mm round → pinkish-orange with gray core and small black and big white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

557

14-176 ‫יה‬ 14b Ramat Raḥel G-51 / 2007 8545 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 20 and pl. III:17 Area C1 North, Locus 003, Basket 8545 ‫יה‬ 22.8 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 8.2 mm; upper line of yod: 6.1 mm; lower line of yod: 6.9 mm; upper line of he: 8.6 mm; downstroke of he: 5.9 mm from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 9.1 mm; from bottom right of yod to lower left of he: 16.1 mm round ↑ brownish-pink with gray core and few small and large white inclusions The yod is clear, in the classic shape of subtype 14b; he is of the three-bar type

558

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-177 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel G-51 / 2007 6435 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 21 and pl. III:18 Area C3, Locus 654, Basket 6435 ‫יה‬ 24–24.3 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 7.8 mm; upper line of yod: 6.7 mm; upper line of he: 6.7 mm; downstroke of he: 3.5 mm; lower downstroke of he: 3.3 mm Bezel is 17 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 10 mm; from bottom right of yod to lower left of he: 15.9 mm. round ↑ brownish-red with gray core and some large white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

559

14-178 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel G-51 / 2007 3422 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 21 and Pl. IV:19 Area C1 South, Locus 813, Basket 3422 ‫יה‬ 23.1 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.8 mm; upper line of he: 7.9 mm; downstroke of he: 7.4 mm; lower downstroke of he: 5.0 mm Bezel is 19.5 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 11 mm round ↑ brownish-pink with gray core and large white inclusions Only the upper part of the yod and most of the he can be observed. The rounded head of yod is clear.

560

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-179 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel G-51 / 2007 cut 3–1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 21–22 and Pl. IV:20 Cut 3 in the courtyard ‫יה‬ 25.8 mm diameter (because of double stamping) downstroke of yod: 6.5 mm; upper line of yod: 3.8 mm; upper line of he: 8.1 mm; downstroke of he: 7.8 mm Bezel is 20.2 mm in diameter. From upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 10.2 mm; from bottom right of yod to lower left of he: 15.3 mm round ↑ brownish-orange with gray core and some white inclusions

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

561

14-180 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel G-51 / 2007 8577 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 22 and Pl. IV:21 Area C1 North, Locus 016, Basket 8577 ‫יה‬ 22.9 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.8 mm; upper line of he: 6.3 mm Bezel is 18.2 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 12 mm round ↓ beige wash above pinkish-brown pottery, with some large white inclusions The upper part of the yod is clear but only the upper line of the he.

562

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-181 ‫יה‬ 14 (possibly type 13?) Ramat Raḥel 5294/1 not registered unknown Not yet published Locus 729, from the outfall of the ditch(?). Height: 7.40 ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ? ? round ? pinkish-brown with dark core and gray and black inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

563

14-182 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 2384/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 22, no. 16; pl. IV:16 Area B2, Locus 10051: a rubble fill rich with pottery sherds inside an apparent robber’s trench ‫יה‬ 20 mm diameter upper line of he: 6.1 mm round ↑ light brown and gray on the inner part of the jar, with small white grits and a homogenously colored core The stamp impression is partially broken. The upper part of the yod is broken and the he is complete. On the bottom of the impression, traces exist of the inner bezel ring in which the seal was set.

564

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-183 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 3835/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 22, no. 17; pl. IV:17 Area C4, Locus 11061: a light brown rubble fill ‫יה‬ 21 mm in diameter upper line of yod: 5.6 mm; upper line of he: 6.2 mm Bezel is 18 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 11.8 mm round ↑ (slightly to the right) reddish-brown, with large white grits and a light gray core

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

565

14-184 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 8982/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 22–23, no. 18; pl. IV:18 Area C4, Locus 11051: a pottery rich rubble fill, in a supposed robber’s trench. ‫יה‬ 23–24 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.8 mm; upper line of he: 6.2 mm Bezel is 18.2 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 11 mm round ↓ reddish-brown with large white grits; the core is unclear due to lime conglomerate on the handle

566

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-185 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 8966/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 23, no. 19; pl. IV:19 Area C4, Locus 11049, which is a back-fill of a robber’s trench ‫יה‬ 22 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.9 mm; upper line of he: 6.2 mm bezel is 18.3 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 12 mm round ↑ (slightly to the right) reddish with red-brown grits and a gray core

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

567

14-186 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 3840/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 23-24, no. 20; pl. V:20 Area C4, Locus 11062: a layer of fill not yet completely excavated; the fill is beneath another rubble fill, inside a supposed robber’s trench. ‫יה‬ 22–24 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.8 mm; upper line of he: 6.4 mm bezel is 18.1 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 12.1 mm oval ↓ grayish-brown clay, with large white and black grits and a gray core

568

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-187 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 7154/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 24, no. 21; pl. V:21 Area D6, Locus 14021: a layer of top-soil and material dumped from Barkay’s excavation ‫יה‬ 21–23 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.8 mm; upper line of he: 6 mm Bezel is 18.1 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 12.1 mm round ↑ (slightly to the right) gray with large brown-black grits and a dark gray core

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

569

14-188 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 1394/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 24–25, no. 22; pl. V:22 Area D5, Locus 12051: a fill of Aharoni’s excavation debris ‫יה‬ 22.9 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.6 mm; upper line of he: 6.2 mm Bezel is 18.1 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 12.1 mm round ↓ reddish, with small white grits and a gray core; the clay of the impression is more yellow and fine

570

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-189 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 2435/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 25, no. 23; pl. V:23 Area B2, Locus 10049: the top part of the fill in a robber trench ‫יה‬ 22–22.5 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.8 mm; upper line of he: 6.3 mm Bezel is 18.2 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 12 mm round ↑ reddish-brown with white and brown grits and a light-brown core

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

571

14-190 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 8816/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 25-26, no. 24; pl. VI:24 Area C4, Locus 11002: a pottery rich, gray soil fill ‫יה‬ 21–22 mm diameter upper line of yod: 5.5 mm; upper line of he: 6 mm Bezel is 18.2 mm in diameter; from upper angle of yod to upper angle of he: 10.7 mm round ↑ pinkish-brown with many white and brown grits and a homogenously colored core

572

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

14-191 ‫יה‬ 14a Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 5582/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 26, no. 25; pl. VI:25 Area D4, Locus 15005: an accumulation of modern debris deposited since the time of Aharoni’s excavation ‫יה‬ ? upper line of yod: 5.7 mm round → dark grayish-brown, with many large white and brown grits and a homogenously colored core

3.  Type 14: ‫“ הי‬Yeh(ūd)” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

573

14-192 ‫יה‬ 14? Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 1304/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 26–27, no. 26; pl. VI:26 Area D5, Locus 12030: a layer of topsoil that accumulated next to the monastery wall ‫יה‬ -

round ? reddish, with small white grits, some big white inclusions, and a gray core The stamp impression is mostly broken. Only the bottom part of the frame of the stamp impression is visible, together with a fragment of the inner circle.

574

F.  The Middle Types

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יה‬overlapping” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution This type, so far only excavated at Ramat Raḥel, has been interpreted in various ways. The present proposal—to see it as a type transitional between yh stamp impressions (type 14) and the later yh-ligature stamp impressions (type 16)—is new. We have identified 15 examplars as belonging to type 15. Eight were already published by Aharoni among the group of 69 yh stamp impressions (our type 14). Aharoni excavated 2 in the second season (1959), 2 in the third (1960), and 4 in the fourth season (1961). 54 We discovered another exemplar, evidently unpublished, among the excavation materials from Ramat Raḥel housed at the University of Rome, 55 and two more unpublished stamp impressions of this type among Aharoni’s excavation records; the latter are in storage at the Hebrew University. 56 The most recent examples of this type come from the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel in 2006 and 2007. 57 b. Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions and Reading Close analysis of all stamp impressions indicates that they derive from a single seal. The slightly oval impressions average 22 mm in diameter at their widest. The letters of the seal were not incised in the correct orientation or stance. The top stroke of the he measures about 11 mm, the foot of the yod about 8 mm. In his excavation records, Aharoni included photos of this stamp impression type alongside photos of other yh stamp impressions (our type 14), which suggests that he classified the two types together. Aharoni never offered a clear analysis or reading of stamp impressions of type 15. c.  Paleographic Discussion We propose the following reading. The yod appears on the left and the he to its right. The engraver inscribed the yod in positive, instead of negative. If viewed in reverse, the yod has a very long top stroke. The downstroke is relatively short and curved. The foot, extending to the edge of the seal, is horizontal and long. The 54.  From 1959: Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8: 5; pl. 8:5; and see stamp impression nos. 15-1 and 15-2. Aharoni did not distinguish between our types 14 and 15 and mentioned 18 yh stamp impressions discovered in this season. Of them, 16 belong to our type 14 and 2 to type 15. From 1960: Aharoni 1962: 30, pl. 31:9; and see stamp impression nos. 15-3, 15-4. Aharoni mentioned 17 yh stamp impressions discovered in this season, 15 of them belong to our type 14 and two to type 15. From 1961: Aharoni 1964: 20, pl. 19:3; and see stamp impression nos. 15-5 – 15-8. Aharoni noted 21 yh stamp impressions discovered in this season. 55. See stamp impression no. 15-9. 56. See stamp impression nos. 15-10 and 15-11. 57.  Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 82, and fig. 1:15; see stamp impression no. 15-12. Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot and Oeming 2008: 23–24, nos. 22–24; pl. IV:22–24; see stamp impression nos. 15-13 – 15-15.

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping”

575

he was also incised onto the seal in reverse, but it is also inscribed upside down. The two graphs, moreover, overlap each other, with the upper stroke of the yod intersecting the oblique strokes of the he. If this interpretation is correct, stamp impressions of this type may represent a transitional type between yh stamp impressions (type 14) and the later yhligature (type 16) stamps. d.  Orientation of Stamp Impressions If we assume that the top of the stamp should be congruent with the top of the yod, then it is worth noting that, where it can be determined, the top of the seal was invariably impressed facing either to the right (8 times) or the left (6 times). e.  Summary and Further Considerations Reliable stratigraphical information is lacking for this type, but if we are correct to see it as transitional between the ‫ יה‬stamp impressions (type 14) of the middle group and the yh-ligature stamp impressions of the late group (type 16), then a 4th, or perhaps even better—3rd century b.c.e. date seems suitable. This type is only known from Ramat Raḥel. This single seal is typologically more closely related to the type 14 yh seals than to the later yh-ligature (type 16) and yhd-ṭet (type 17) paleo-Hebrew seals. It is difficult to draw any conclusions about the system in which this seal type functioned, except that Ramat Raḥel, as with all the Middle Types, clearly remained the central node in this administrative system.

576

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-1 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 410/2 62-50 P. 18, 410/2 (252). IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 6, fig. 8:5; pl. 8:5 Locus 264, Level: 5.25, Sq. AA15 ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 2.1.2006 24.1 × 19.2 mm diameter top stroke of reversed yod: 11 mm; downstroke of yod: 7.5 mm; top stroke of upside-down he: 13.5 mm; left downstroke of he: 9.5 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 22.5 mm round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod ) pink with gray core and white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

577

15-2 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 518/1 8544/34 P. 16, 518/1 (206) (negative) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1962: 6 Loc. 278, Level: 7.60, Sq. U16, Stratum: IVa ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 21 mm top stroke of upside-down he: 10 mm; downstroke of yod: 8 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 20.5 mm round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod) light pink wash with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

578

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-3 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 2002/2 64-1786 P. 18, 2002/2 (28); P. 23, 20002/2 (520) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 30, pl. 31:9 ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 2.1.2006 22.8 diameter top stroke of reversed yod: 10 mm; downstroke of yod: 7.5 mm; left downstroke of he: 9.5 mm round ← (oriented to top of yod ) light pink exterior with pink and gray core; white inclusions

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters

Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

579

15-4 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 3667/1 64-1785 P. 15, 3667/1 (322) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1962: 30. Loc. 456, Level: 7.30, Sq. U18 ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 2.1.2006 23.1 mm × 19.1 mm top stroke of reversed yod: 10.5 mm; downstroke of yod: 7.5 mm; top stroke of upside down he: 12.5 mm; left downstroke of he: 9.5 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 22 mm round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod ) beige wash with pink and gray core; white inclusions There is a series of incisions beneath the impression made before firing. There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

580

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-5 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 4419/1 8544/41 P. 21, 4419/1 (576) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 22 mm top stroke he: 11 mm; foot of yod: 8 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 21 mm round to slightly oval ← (oriented to top of yod ) light pink wash with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions Letters are very faint, especially the upper right side (up the handle).

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

581

15-6 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 4507/1 Ramat Raḥel 8545/24 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 22 mm top stroke of he: 10.5 mm; foot of yod: 7 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 20.5 mm round → (oriented to top of yod) light pink wash with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions

582

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-7 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 36/1 8544/19 P. 20 & P. 23, 36/1 (652) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 10.1.2005 diameter: 21 mm top stroke of he: 10 mm round to slightly oval ← (oriented to top of yod ) light pink wash with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions The impression is poorly preserved.

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

583

15-8 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 3930/1 64-1784 P. 16, 3930/1 (403) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 20, pl. 19:3 ‫יה‬ ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 2.1.2006 22 mm diameter top stroke of reversed yod: 10 mm; downstroke of yod: 8 mm; top stroke of upside-down he: 10 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 20.5 mm round to slightly oval ← (oriented to top of yod ) gray-brown fabric; brown core; small white inclusions The impression is very shallow and may have been smudged by the potter spreading the wash.

584

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-9 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 2404/1 4388/1 (Wrong number in the museum record), IVO 226 P. 15, 2404/1 (60) La Sapienza - Università di Roma Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 257, 266, no. 34 Locus 398, Level: 7.40, Square U18 ‫ יה‬overlapping round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod ) pink clay, gray core, white grits There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

585

15-10 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 3742/2 8545/26 P. 15, 3742/2 (379) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 257, 266, no. 35 Locus 463, Level: 7.25 ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 10.1.2005 21 × 19.4 mm diameter top stroke of reversed yod: 10 mm; top stroke of he: 10.5 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 20 mm round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod ) light pink wash with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, including stratigraphic information, description, and a picture.

586

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic Analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-11 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel 4504/1 8544/22 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 257, 267, no. 36 ‫ יה‬overlapping Sampled: 10.1.2005 22 × 19.4 mm diameter top stroke he: 10.5 mm round to slightly oval ← (oriented to top of yod ) light pink wash with pink fabric and gray core; white inclusions Handle is broken and damaged, but the partially preserved impression corresponds to type 15.

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

587

15-12 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel RR 2006, 3187 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 82 and fig. I:15 Locus 326 (Sq. 177), identified as an intentional earth fill ‫ יה‬overlapping 20.2 mm diameter top stroke of reversed yod: 9.5 mm; downstroke of yod: 7 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 20 mm round → (oriented to top of yod ) light orange-pink, with gray core and white inclusions

588

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-13 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 3477 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 22 and pl. IV:22 Area C1 South, Locus 825, Basket 3477 ‫ יה‬overlapping 22.9 × 18.6 mm diameter top stroke of reversed yod: 9 mm; downstroke of yod: 7 mm; left downstroke of he: 7.1 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 19.5 mm round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod ) pinkish-brown, with gray core and some small and big white inclusions very well preserved impression

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

589

15-14 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 3472 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 23 and pl. IV:23 Area C1 South, Locus 825, Basket 3472 ‫ יה‬overlapping 21.1 × 18.8 mm diameter top stroke of reversed yod: 9 mm; downstroke of yod: 7.5 mm; left downstroke of he: 8 mm from right side of he to left side of yod: 18.9 mm round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod ) brownish-gray slip over brownish-pink pottery, with gray core and some big white inclusions very well preserved impression

590

F.  The Middle Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Petrographic analysis Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

15-15 ‫יה‬ 15 Ramat Raḥel RR G-51 / 2007 3364 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Oeming, and Gadot 2008: 24 and pl. IV:24 Area C1 North, Locus 001, Basket 3364 ‫ יה‬overlapping height: 19.2 mm (left side is broken) letters are too faint to read round to slightly oval → (oriented to top of yod ) pinkish-brown, with gray core and some small and large white inclusions The letters are barely visible, and it looks like the handle was stamped when the clay was still wet. The tail of the yod and traces of the he appear. It seems, therefore, that it belongs to type 15.

4.  Type 15: ‫“ יהי‬overlapping”

591

5. Summary Discussion of the Middle Types In the introduction to the Middle types (above, §F-1), we demonstrated that there was a trend in these types toward consolidation and standardization of the seal legends. 58 In types 13–15, the profusion of seals with completely different legends decreases in favor of a larger number of distinct seals with identical readings. Thus, at least ten subtypes exist for type 13, all reading yhd. Types 13–15 also yield the largest number of impressions, with an increase from 128 exemplars among the early yehud stamp impressions to 312 middle exemplars. Part of this increase may be a result of a lengthier period of use for these stamps, even if an absolute chronological framework cannot yet be established. The relative chronology for these types can scarcely be pushed back into the 5th century, as the discussion of the individual types shows. Stratigraphic, paleographic, and comparative data instead indicate that the type 13 seals derive from the 4th century at the earliest. Given that type 14 represents an abbreviation of the writing of type 13 and also includes late paleographical features, such as the paleo-Hebrew he, it should be dated later than type 13. The same reasoning locates type 15, with its overlapping yod and he, latest among the middle types. The pattern of distribution among the middle types also shows a shift in comparison with the early types, particularly at the two main centers in the system (Ramat Raḥel and the City of David), but also at the four lesser administrative centers (Tell en-Naṣbeh, Nabi-Samuel, En Gedi, and Jericho), the single agricultral production center (Rogem Gannim), and even the other sites. In comparison with 70% of the early types, Ramat Raḥel yielded 63% of all the yehud stamp impressions belonging to type 13 and less than 55% of all the stamp impressions belonging to type 14. The City of David produced 13% of the early types, about 18% of all the yehud stamp impressions belonging to type 13, and around 21% of those belonging to type 14. In contrast to the 7% of early types at the secondary administrative centers, the four secondary administrative sites (Tell en-Naṣbeh, Nabi-Samuel, En Gedi, and Jericho) yielded 15% of all the yehud stamp impressions belonging to type 13 and 20% of all the stamp impressions belonging to type 14. Slightly more than 10% of the early types come from several other sites, some of them outside the province, usually with only one or two at each site. These sites yielded less than 4% of all the yehud stamp impressions belonging to type 13 and 4.7% of all the stamp impressions belonging to type 14. This distribution survey illustrates the emergence and evolution of a fairly durable but not immutable administrative system. The centrality of Ramat-Raḥel in the early phase of the Persian Period decreases slightly among the middle types, whereas the City of David and the other secondary administrative centers are somewhat more prominent in the system. 58.  On this subject, see Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d.

F.  The Middle Types

592

Graph 21.  Relative Percentage Comparison of Middle Types.

Table F5.  Relative Percentage Comparison of Middle Types Other Sites Early Types

Secondary Administrative Centers City of David

Ramat Raḥel

12

9

17

90

Type 13

4

16

19

66

Type 14

9

38

40

105

On the other hand all 15 exemplars of type 15 come from Ramat Raḥel. Among several of the early types—6, 10, and 12—a large majority of the stamp impressions were discovered at this site.

G. The Late Types 1. Introduction to the Late Types: Dating the Late Types on Archaeological Grounds A total of 142 stamp impressions belong to the late group, which consists of two types, type 16 and type 17. Type 16 comprises 55 stamp impressions ( yh “ligatured”), and 87 stamp impressions belong to type 17 (  ṭ-yhd). Stratigraphic data confirm a late date for these two types. 1 Lapp noted the ceramic distinction between the ṭ-yhd stamp impressions (as well as the yršlm stamp impressions) and the other (earlier) types of Persian era stamp impressions (1963: 30). He also noted that many stamp impressions belonging to the ṭ-yhd type were discovered with pottery from the 2nd century b.c.e. and with Hellenistic yršlm stamp impressions or Rhodian jar handles. At Gezer, one of two stamp impressions excavated by Macalister (1907: 264) was discovered together with Rhodian jar handles (see Lapp 1963: 25). At Ramat Raḥel, the ṭ-yhd types excavated in the 1954 season were discovered together with yršlm stamp impressions in the same pit in the southeastern section of the Iron Age citadel (Aharoni 1956c: 149–50). 2 Most of the other ṭ-yhd stamp impressions that were discovered in the 1961–62 season at Ramat Raḥel were once again excavated in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery (Aharoni 1964a: 20, 43). 3 At Tell el-Fûl, N. Lapp (1981: 113) dated the single stamp impression discovered to the 2nd Century b.c.e. At Ḥorvat ʿAlamit, the stamp impression was discovered with pottery described as belonging to the Persian Period but with two additional stamped handles: a yršlm impression and a cross (Dinur 1986: 19). At 1.  See, e.g., Garbini 1962: 67–68; Lapp 1963: 23–25, 30; Avigad 1974: 52–54; Ariel and Shoham 2000: 153–54; Stern 1982: 205; 2002: 550; Geva 2007a; Finkielsztejn and Gibson 2007: 109–10; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d: 111–12. 2.  It is interesting to note that in 1959, when Aharoni did not excavate in this area, no stamp impressions of this type were discovered (Lapp [1963: 31] had already noticed this detail), and only in the 1960 season, when Aharoni came back to the same pit, did he discovered three more ṭ-yhd stamp impressions, again together with yršlm stamp impressions (in the same pit 389, as well as in Square 19 V, Locus 387, and in water cistern 381) (Aharoni 1962: 30). 3.  Thus, at Ramat Raḥel, stamp impression no. 17-58 was discovered together with a yršlm stamp impression in Square 19 V, Locus 387; stamp impression no. 17-59 was discovered together with two yršlm stamp impressions in the same pit (389); stamp impression no. 17-60 was discovered together with a yršlm stamp impression in water cistern 381 (Aharoni 1962: 30, pl. 31:2), and stamp impression nos. 17-61 – 17-69, 17-74, 17-75 were unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), along with numerous yršlm stamp impressions and other Hellenistic pottery (Aharoni 1964a: 20, 43).

593

594

G. The Late Types

Khirbet bit-Mizah (Ḥorvat Ha-Mozah), the stamp impression was discovered together with a lot of Second Temple period pottery in an area of two Jewish ritual baths (Bilig 1995: 71). The stratigraphic situation of the Ophel excavations in Jerusalem is less clear. The 22 stamp impressions of type 17 and the 3 of type 16 were discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period, together with 23 yršlm stamp impressions but also with 6 yhd, 13 yh, 6 lion stamp impressions, and even 8 lmlk stamped handles. The location and stratigraphy of most of the 12 stamp impressions of type 17 and the 20 of type 16 from Shiloh’s excavation at the city of David are much more certain (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152–53; 159–60; see also Reich 2003: 258–59 and Tables 7.1–7.2). All stamp impressions belonging to these two types appear in contexts later than Stratum 9 of the Persian Period (De Groot and Ariel 2004: 15). Of the 12 Type 17 stamp impressions, 7 come from a clear Hellenistic context, Stratum 7. 4 Two ṭ-yhd stamp impressions were discovered together with yršlm stamp impressions. 5 Of the 20 type 16 stamp impressions, 9 come from a clear Hellenistic context,  6 but the case here is not as strong as in the case of the Type 17 impressions, and no stamp impressions of this type were discovered with yršlm stamp impressions. The best case for the late date of type 16 is found in Avigad’s excavations on the Western Hill of Jerusalem (summarized in Geva 2000; 2003b; 2006, and especially in Geva 2007a). The fact that the Western Hill, which was part of the fortified city in the late Iron II and late Hellenistic periods, 7 was not occupied during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (6th–3rd centuries b.c.e.; see Geva 2003b: 524–26), 8 fits very well with the total absence of early and middle types from this area. The fact that some of the stamp impressions of types 16 and 17 were discovered in clear 2nd-century contexts, and in some cases together with yršlm stamp impressions, is the main reason why Avigad (1970: 137; 1976: 25) suggested dating these types to the Hellenistic period and later proposed a more precise date— the second half of the 2nd century (1974: 57–58). 9 This date has been confirmed by Geva (2003b: 524–26; 2007a:92–103). Although only 5 of the stamp impressions 4.  See stamp impression nos. 17-29, 17-34, and 17-38 from Area D; 17-32, 17-33, 17-35, 17-36 from Area E. 5.  See stamp impression nos. 17-29 and 17-34. 6.  See stamp impression nos. 16-24, 16-25, 16-33, 16-42, 16-26 from Area D, and 16-27, 16-34, 16-35, and 16-39 from Area E. 7.  On the Western Hill during the late Iron Age, see: Geva 1979; 2003a: 505–18; 2003b; Avigad 1983: 31–60; Reich and Shukron 2003. On this area during the late Hellenistic period, see: Geva 1983; 1994; 2003a: 526–34; Broshi and Gibson 1994; Chen, Margalit, and Pixner 1994; Sivan and Solar 1994; Wightman 1993: 111–57. 8.  This situation is affirmed in all of the excavations conducted in the various areas of the Western Hill: The Citadel (Amiran and Eitan 1970); Mt. Zion (Broshi 1976: 82–83); the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1983: 61–63; Geva 2000: 24; 2003a: 524; 2003b: 208); and the Armenian Garden (Gibson 1987; Geva 2003a: 524–25). Geva (2003a: 525) mentions a few isolated finds discovered in this area of the city, but there is no evidence of any activity in any part of the Western Hill between the early 6th century and the 2nd century b.c.e. 9.  Avigad did not rule out the possibility that their earliest appearance was in the 3rd century b.c.e. (1974: 58).

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature

595

from Avigad’s excavations were discovered in well-stratified archaeological contexts of the Hellenistic period (Areas C and W; 2nd century b.c.e.), they clearly came from homogenous 2nd-century-b.c.e. fills or debris accumulations. The newly published stamp impression of type 16 from Ṣuba can be added to the stamp impressions of this type from the Western Hill of Jerusalem, solidifying the date of the late group (Finkielstijn and Gibson 2007). This stamp impression was discovered in an Iron Age reservoir that went out of use during the late Iron Age but continued collecting rainwater until the 2nd century b.c.e., filling up with mud and silt deposits. The stamped handle came from the uppermost part of these deposits (Locus 166), together with pottery dated to the second half of the 2nd century b.c.e. (no later than the very beginning of the 1st century b.c.e.). Geva concluded that the late types were in use for a relatively short time. Types 16 and 17 may have been used contemporaneously, since they have been found together and in roughly equal numbers in the same archaeological contexts (Geva 2007a). However, we may surmise that the ṭ-yhd type (Type 17) preceded the use of the yh-ligature type (Type 16) if we compare the general development of the stamp impressions with Aramaic script from the fully-written form of the toponym to its abbreviated forms. The appearance of 27 ṭ-yhd stamp impressions and only 3 yh-ligature impressions at Ramat Raḥel may be an indication of the decreasing importance of this site during the 2nd century b.c.e. The opposite pattern of distribution appears on the Western Hill of Jerusalem, where yh-ligature impressions are double (16) those of the ṭ-yhd impressions (8). We can also agree with Avigad’s conclusion (1974: 57–58), based on the finds from the Jewish quarter, that the yršlm stamp impressions should be dated to the beginning of Hasmonean rule. This was the basis for Geva’s conclusion (2007a) that the yršlm stamp impressions are the latest in the series of impressions dating to the Second Temple period and that they replaced the latest yehud stamp impressions, which were a carry-over from the previous administration at the beginning of Hasmonean rule.

2.  Type 16: ‫יה‬-ligature a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution There are 55 stamp impressions of Type 16: 41 of them (about 75%) were discovered in the city of Jerusalem and should be dated to the 2nd century b.c.e. (see above) . The finds from Jerusalem include 23 stamp impressions from the City of David. Macalister and Duncan already had discovered three of them between 1923 and 1925 in the Ophel excavations (above area G of Shiloh’s excavations). 10 Shiloh recovered 20 more stamp impressions of this type between 1978 and 1985. 11 Additional yehud stamp impressions of this type appeared in various areas of the 10.  Cook 1925: 91–92, pl. 4:1–2; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 189, fig. 202:8, and see stamp impression nos. 16-22 – 16-24 11.  Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152–154, L78—L97, and see stamp impression nos. 16-25 - 16-44

596

G. The Late Types

Western Hill of Jerusalem (which was part of the city in the Hasmonean period). 12 A total of 18 stamp impressions of Type 16 were discovered in the Western Hill. Bliss and Dickie already published the first one in 1898 (1898: 266, pl. 27:47); it probably came from their excavations on the southern slope of Mt. Zion. 13 Broshi mentioned 2 stamp impressions of this type in his report on excavations at the western slope of the Southwestern Hill, south of David’s Citadel. 14 Six stamp impressions were discovered in the Kenyon-Tushingham excavations in the Armenian garden. 15 Reich published 6 more stamp impressions of this type from excavations at the Old City of Jerusalem conducted by Nahman Avigad (1969–82); 16 Eshel published another from Avigad’s excavations. 17 Geva exacavated one stamp impression at David’s tower, which remains unpublished, 18 while one other was reported by Broshi in his excavations on Mount Zion. 19 Only 3 stamp impressions of this type were discovered at Ramat Raḥel: one is from Aharoni’s first season (1954); while another is the only stamp impression on a nearly complete jar published by Aharoni. The third stamp impression of this type from Ramat Raḥel came to light in the second season of the renewed excavations (2006). 20 Macalister excavated 3 of these impressions during work at Gezer between 1902–5 and 1907–9 (the first ones of this type ever discovered). 21 Four more stamp impressions of this type appeared at four different sites in areas north, west, and south of Jerusalem: the first comes from Ḥusan; another was discovered in the 2001 excavation season at Ṣuba; a third originated at excavations at Binyanei Haʾuma; and a lone example comes from salvage excavations at a farmhouse along Road Number 9 in Ramot Forest (north Jerusalem). 22 We located 5 additional stamp impressions of unknown provenance: two in the Bible Lands Mu12.  On this subject see Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d: 106–15. 13. Cf. Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152; Geva 2007a: 97 and n. 8. See stamp impression no. 16-4. 14. See Broshi and Gibson 2000 (only on the excavations; the stamp impressions are not mentioned), and cf. Geva 2007a: 97; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007: 107. See stamp impression nos. 1611 and 16-12. The stamp impressions were kindly shown to us by Prof. S. Gibson, who is preparing the results of Broshi’s excavations for publication. 15.  Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17:18–23, and cf. Geva 2007a: 96; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007: 107. See stamp impression nos. 16-5 – 16-10. 16.  Reich 2003: 257, pl. 7.2:7, 11, 13; 7.3:18, 20, 21; see stamp impression nos. 16-13 – 16-18. 17.  Eshel 2006: 404, and see stamp impression no. 16-19. 18.  Geva 2007a: 97. On the excavations, see Geva 1983: 55–71, and see stamp impression no. 16‑20. We would like to thank Hillel Geva for providing details regarding this stamp impression and for his permission to mention it. 19.  Broshi 1976: 82–83; cf. Geva 2007a: 97. The stamp impression itself was lost, and it is not possible to locate it. See stamp impression no. 16-21. 20.  1954 season: Aharoni 1956c: 149, pl. 26:8, and see stamp impression no. 16-53. Complete jar: Aharoni 1964a: fig. 11:14, and see stamp impression no. 16-54. The location of the jar is unknown. 2006 season: Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 82 and fig. 1:16. See stamp impression no. 16‑55. 21.  Macalister 1912: 223 and pl. 200:38. See stamp impression nos. 16-1 – 16-2. 22.  Ḥusan: Kochavi 1972: 39, and see stamp impression no. 16-3. Ṣuba: Gibson and Finkielstijn 2007: 107–8, and see stamp impression no. 16-45. Binyanei Haʾuma: Barkay 2005: 27–28, and see

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature

597

Graph 21.  Site Distribution of Type 16.

Table G1.  Site Distribution of Type 16 41

Jerusalem

3

Ramat Raḥel

2

Gezer

9

Other Sites and Unknown

seum, one in Haʾaretz Museum, one in the IAA warehouse in the Rockefeller museum, and one in the Hecht Museum. 23 b.  History of Reading and Interpreting the yh-ligature Monogram Duncan interpreted the symbol on the stamp impressions from the Ophel as a yod, while Cook (1925: 92) thought it could also be read as a waw or an alep. Diringer supported Duncan’s suggestion and connected this type of stamp impression with the yhd and yh types. Diringer consider it to be another kind of abbreviation of the toponym (1934: 128). Garbini left this type out of his discussion on the yehud stamp impressions, no doubt in part because they are uncommon at Ramat Raḥel. He assumed that they were not official stamp impressions and should be regarded as “simple makers’ marks.” His main argument was that, unlike all the other types, this type is “unframed.” He compared the sign, however, to the ʾalep attested on the coins of

stamp impression no. 16-46. Ramot Forest: Davidovich et al 2006: 75–76; Farhi 2007: 90–91, and see stamp impression no. 16-47. 23.  Bible Lands Museum: see stamp impression nos. 16-50 – 16-51. Haʾaretz Museum: See stamp impression no. 16-49. Rockefeller Museum: See stamp impression no. 16-48. Hecht Museum: See stamp impression no. 16-52.

598

G. The Late Types

Mattathias Antigonus and Bar Kosiba and suggested reading it here also as an ʾalep (1962: 68 n. 43). 24 Aharoni interpreted the two stamp impressions he knew from Ramat Raḥel as the representation of a yod and he combined or “a shortened ligature of [yh]” (1956c: 149). Aharoni, however, did not explain this interpretation and did not discuss the matter any further. Stern classified this type of stamp impression as type F of the official seals of the province of Judah and suggested that it bears a single letter h, in Aramaic (1982: 202). Ariel and Shoham (2000: 152), as well as Reich (2003), have accepted the interpretation “yh ligature(?)” and “yod he.” Ariel and Shoham, however, as noted, included a question mark in their reading, indicating thus that their interprertation remains tentative. As mentioned, Garbini did not accept the interpretation of this sign as a yh ligature (1962: 68 n. 43) and claimed that “we have no other evidence for the existence of anything of the sort.” However, Finkielsztejn has now demonstrated clearly that monograms in Northwest Semitic (Phoenician) script do indeed exist on weights from ArwadArados and Amrit-Marathos (see also Finkielsztejn and Gibson 2007: 110–11). Finkielstejn and Gibson (ibid.) have argued that the ligature interpretation is the best one, and we concur. Cross, Naveh, and Avigad (in addition to Garbini) did not include this type of stamp impression in their discussions of the yehud jar stamps. If it is correct to read the graph as a yh-ligature, however, it is best to include this type among the yehud stamp impressions. Certainly, the number and distribution of this type of stamp impression and their stratigraphic distribution also support the idea that it is another type belonging to the corpus of yehud stamp impressions. Additional support for this view comes from the decipherment of Type 15 above—overlapping yod and he—which shows that writing the two letters of the toponym together as a kind of abbreviation occurred in another stamp type. Although we have retained the designation ‫יה‬-“ligature” for the moment, technically, the single character of Type 16 does not represent a ligature but a digraph: two characters combined into one. Given the quite large number of distinct seals (and also incised examples) belonging to Type 16—at least 7—we should conclude that this symbol was widely recognized in Yehud. It does not, however, occur on Yehud coins. c.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions Many stamp impressions of this type are square, and most of the seals were carved in relief, not incised into the seal, so that the single figure is impressed into the clay of the handle. All previous stamp-impression types, on the other hand, had the characters incised into the seal, and thus the letters stand in relief. All of the stamp impressions of Type 16 have what looks like an upper case “F,” usually with the horizontal bars facing left, often with the top stroke extending beyond the vertical. The size of these stamp impressions varies according 24.  Ariel and Shoham (2000: 152) rightly mentioned that this sign is in fact a precise retrograde of the ʾalep on those coins.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature

599

to subtype. In addition to stamp impressions, several examples exist where this particular character was incised onto a handle after firing. d. The yh-ligature Subtypes The most thorough discussion of this type thus far is that of Ariel and Shoham, based on an array of 22 stamp impressions of this type from the City of David (2000: 152–55). They identified five subtypes (2000: 153), although our research indicates that 6 individual seals and several incised examples belong to this type. Nevertheless, our analysis builds on the discussion of Ariel and Shoham, and our subytpes 16a–e correspond to their types 1–5. For subtypes 16a–e, therefore, we accept the descriptions of Ariel and Shoham and merely provide here updated statistics from all sites. We have added, however, subtypes 16f and 16g. 25 (1) Subtype 16a Distribution.  Eighteen such stamp impressions are known. Thirteen come from the City of David, and one from the Armenian Garden. In addition, there is one each from Binyanei Haʾuma, Ramot Forest and Ṣuba; while the provenance of one seal is unknown. 26 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The seal was square or slightly rectangular, with external dimensions averaging about 13 × 15 mm; the relatively small single graph measures between 9 and 10 mm high (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 163). (2) Subtype 16b Distribution.  Seven such stamp impressions are known: three come from the City of David; two from Ramat Raḥel; one from Ḥusan; and one is of unknown provenance. 27 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  These stamp impressions are very similar to those of Type 16a, but the graph is slightly larger, about 12 mm high (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 163). The frame is usually only partly preserved. (3) Subtype 16c Distribution.  Three stamp impressions of this type are known: two from the City of David; and one from the Armenian Garden. 28

25.  Our subtypes 16a-16e correspond to types 1 to 5 in the typology of Ariel and Shoham (2000: 153). Our subtype 16f is similar to type 16a, but the sign is in reverse. 26.  City of David: see stamp impression nos.: 16-25; 16-26; 16-27; 16-28; 16-29; 16-30; 16-31; 16-32; 16-33; 16-34; 16-35; 16-36; 13–38. Armenian Garden: stamp impression no. 16-09. Binyanei Haʾuma: stamp impression no. 16-46. Ramot Forest: stamp impression no. 16-47. Ṣuba: stamp impression no. v16-45. Unknown: stamp impression no. 16-48. 27.  City of David: stamp impression nos. 16-37; 16-39; 16-40. Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression nos. 16-53; 16-54. Ḥusan: stamp impression no. 16-03. Unknown: stamp impression no.: 16-49. 28.  City of David: stamp impression nos. 16-22; 16-41. Armenian Garden: stamp impression no. 16-08.

600

G. The Late Types

Character of the Stamp Impressions.  As Ariel and Shoham note, these impressions are unframed, with a much larger graph than subtypes 16a or 16b (2000: 163). The character is 19–20 mm high, and no trace of a rectangular frame is visible. (4) Subtype 16d

Distribution.  Ariel and Shoham knew one such stamp impression from the City of David, to which may now be added another from Ramat Raḥel. 29 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The trace of a frame is visible, and the lone graph has different proportions from those of the other subtypes: it is about 8.6 mm high and 8.1 mm wide.

(5) Subtype 16e

Distribution. Ariel and Shoham identified a single stamp impression belonging to this subtype (2000: 163). 30 Character of the Stamp Impression.  The entire impression is square, 12 × 12 mm. The individual graph is smaller, only about 7 × 9 mm. The lower horizontal stroke does not merge with the downstroke.

(6) Subtype 16f

Distribution.  Two stamp impressions of this type come from the City of David. 31 Character of the Stamp Impression.  It is almost the exact reverse of subtype 16a. The square frame is 16  ×  14 mm, while the graph itself is 11 × 11 mm. Interestingly, the graph faces in the opposite direction from all other subtypes. In addition, the lower left portion of the symbol appears to preserve the vestiges of a “foot” or lower horizontal stroke. Might this have been understood by the engraver as the foot of a yod? (7) Subtype 16g

Distribution.  Three incised handles are known, one from the City of David (Ariel and Shoham 2000: 163), the other two from the Jewish Quarter. 32 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The graph was incised before firing, not impressed by a seal. It is relatively large, measuring 15 × 17 mm. One of the two exemplars from the Jewish Quarter is incised with the bars on the right side of the downstroke. 33

29.  City of David: stamp impression no. 16-42. Ramat Raḥel: stamp impression no. 16-55. 30.  See stamp impression no. 16-43. 31.  See stamp impression nos. 16-23 and 16-24. 32.  City of David: stamp impression no. 16-44. Jewish Quarter: stamp impression nos. 16-17 and 16-18. 33.  See stamp impression no. 16-18.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature

601

e.  Summary and Discussion Although we have grouped types 16 and 17 together among the late types, it is possible that Type 16 is actually slightly later than Type 17. At Ramat Raḥel, Type 16 virtually disappears (3 stamp impressions), while the Western Hill of Jerusalem has more of this type than all other types. This may be compared with the heavy representation in the Western Hill of the non-Yehud stamp impressions reading yršlm around a five-pointed star. Apart from the massive representation of these types in Hasmonean Jerusalem, including the Western Hill (75%), a few jars appear at Ramat Raḥel (3) and Gezer (2). Ramat Raḥel is thus far less well represented than for the early and middle types. Gezer, meanwhile, is known to have been a Hasmonean fort (see §B-e, pp. 55–56), so we may perhaps assume that small shipments of oil or wine were delivered to this western outpost. The other sites yielding handles were tiny locales in the vicinity of Jerusalem, most likely settlements that were basically agricultural. It is possible that these small sites were production centers for wine or oil that was then shipped the few kilometers to the Hasmonean capital. Ramat Raḥel, unlike earlier periods, seems to play no role in the administration and distribution of the commodity contained in the jars.

602 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-1 ‫ יה‬ligature 16? Gezer ? Macalister 1912: 223, pl. 200:38 “Reversed F” ‫ יה‬ligature square ? -

Scanned from Macalister 1912: 223, pl. 200:38.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo or drawing is available.

603

16-2 ‫ יה‬ligature 16? Gezer ? Macalister 1912: 223, like pl. 200:38. “Reversed F” ‫ יה‬ligature square ? Macalister (1912: 223) described “several” stamp impressions of two different types. We cannot confirm more than two.

604 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Kochavi 1972: 39.

G. The Late Types 16-3 ‫ יה‬ligature 16b Ḥusan ? Kochavi 1972: 39 Discovered on the eastern and southern slopes of the hill near the village. ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature no frame ↓ -

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-4 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem Western Hill ? Bliss and Dickie 1898: pl. 27:47; cf. Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152 ? ‫ יה‬ligature -

-

Scanned from Bliss and Dickie 1898, pl. 27:47

605

606 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-5 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem Armenian Garden 6632 Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17:18 Locus 855.15. Discovered in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace; includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature square ? light red ware; very many fine white grits; buff slip reference in Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152

Scanned from Tushingham 1985: fig. 17:18.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

607

16-6 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem Armenian Garden 5391 ? Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17: 19 Locus 713.12 Discovered in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace; includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods. ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature square ? buff ware, some fine white grits, gray core; self slip reference in Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152

Scanned from Tushingham 1985: fig. 17:19.

608 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-7 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem Armenian Garden 5290 ? Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17:20 Locus 713.10(?). Discovered in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace; includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods. ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature square ? buff ware, some fine white grits, gray core; self slip reference in Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152

Scanned from Tushingham 1985: fig. 17:20.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

609

16-8 ‫ יה‬ligature 16c Jerusalem Armenian Garden 7101 68-1232 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17:21 Area AA, Locus 331.3, Basket 7101. Discovered in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace, includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods. ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 14 mm wide × 19 mm high only the figure is impressed; there is no frame ← buff ware, very many fine white grits, gray core reference in Ariel and Shoham 2000: 152

610 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-9 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem Armenian Garden 7102 68-1219 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17:22 Area L, Locus 331.8, Basket 7102. Discovered in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace, includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 15 mm × 16 mm symbol is 11 mm wide, 12 mm high square with frame ↑ light orange-buff ware, very many white grits, buff core; cream slip The drawing in Tushingham 1985: fig. 17:22 is inaccurate.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photo available.

611

16-10 ‫ יה‬ligature 16? Jerusalem Armenian Garden 5894 ? Tushingham 1985: 37, fig. 17:23 Locus 327.14. Discovered in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace; includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods. ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature square ← gray-buff ware, many medium gray and white grits; traces of self slip

612 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo available

G. The Late Types 16-11 ‫ יה‬ligature 16? Jerusalem: the western slope of the Southwestern Hill, south of David’s Citadel Prof. S. Gibson’s office. Broshi 1976: 82–83 ‫ יה‬ligature square Checked in Prof. Shimon Gibson’s Office (12.7.2006)

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photo available

16-12 ‫ יה‬ligature 16? Jerusalem: the western slope of the Southwestern Hill, south of David’s Citadel Prof. S. Gibson’s office Broshi 1976: 82–83 ‫ יה‬ligature square Checked in Prof. Shimon Gibson’s Office (12.7.2006)

613

614 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-13 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 6683/1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 7, pl. 7.2:7 Area C, L. 324 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature monogram is 9.5 mm high rectangular ? light brown (dark brown-gray)

Scanned from Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 7, pl. 7.2:7.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-14 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 12405 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 11, pl. 7.2:11 Area F-4, L. 2612 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 17 × 11 mm rectangular ? light brown

Scanned from Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 11, pl. 7.2:11.

615

616 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-15 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 06459/1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 13, pl. 7.2:13 Area F-6, L. 2679 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature Impression is 14mm wide; monogram is 11 mm high rectangular ↑ greenish-light brown (brown)

Scanned from Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 13, pl. 7.2:13.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-16 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 395/1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 18, pl. 7.3:18 Area W, L. 3021, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 8 mm high rectangular ← light brown (brown)

Scanned from Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 18, pl. 7.3:18.

617

618 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-17 ‫ יה‬ligature 16g Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 381/1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 20, pl. 7.3:20 Area W, L. 3016b, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature no frame ↑ light brown (gray) not impressed but incised on handle before firing

Scanned from Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 20, pl. 7.3: 20.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-18 ‫ יה‬ligature 16g Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 145/1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 21, pl. 7.3:21 Area W, L. 3016b, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature no frame ↑ light brown (gray) not impressed but incised on handle before firing

Scanned from Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 21, pl. 7.3:21.

619

620

G. The Late Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Eshel 2006: 404, SI 23.

16-19 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem-Western Hill 12210/1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Eshel 2006: 404, SI 23 Area N, L. 1137 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 12.5 mm high, 10.5 mm wide in upper side rectangular on a body fragment of a jar or large jug

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-20 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 David’s tower Israel Exploration Society Geva 1983 (concerning the excavation) discovered in a late context not published ‫ יה‬ligature square → with kind permission of Hillel Geva

Reproduced courtesy of the kind permission of Hillel Geva.

621

622 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph available.

G. The Late Types 16-21 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 Jerusalem, Mt. Zion ? Broshi 1976: 82–83; Geva 2007a: 97. discovered in a late context ‫ יה‬ligature -

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-22 ‫ יה‬ligature 16c Jerusalem city of David (Shiloh’s Area G). ? Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188, fig. 202:8; Cook 1925: 91–92, pl. 4:1 ? ‫ יה‬ligature It is not clear that there is a frame. ? -

Scanned from Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188, fig. 202:8.

623

624 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-23 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem city of David (Shiloh’s Area G) I.2166 Rockefeller Museum Cook 1925: 91–92, pl. 4:2; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 189 ‫ יה‬ligature 18 mm × 17 mm top horizontal: 11 mm; top to bottom: 11 mm nearly square ↑ slim handle of holemouth jar; light beige wash on buff-pink fabric with gray core; few large white inclusions possibly identical with Cook PEQFSt. 1925 pl. IV (opp. p. 91), no. 2 (though the drawing is reversed and inaccurate)

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

625

16-24 ‫ יה‬ligature 16f Jerusalem city of David (Shiloh’s Area G). P.3631 Rockefeller Museum Cook 1925: 91–92, pl. 4:1; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 189 ‫ יה‬ligature 16 mm high, 14 mm wide 11 mm top of symbol; 11 mm vertical nearly square ← light beige to yellow wash on pink fabric with gray core and small white inclusions

626 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-25 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E1/16034 95-2270 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L78 Area E1, L. W642, 618, Basket 16034 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 10 mm wide; 12 mm high downstroke: 6 mm; upper horizontal line: 7.5 mm ↑ beige wash on pink ware with gray core; white inclusions

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

627

16-26 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David D1/12449 95 -2271 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L79 Area D1, L. 408, Basket 12449, Stratum 7A ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 10 mm wide; 8 mm high downstroke: 9 mm; upper horizontal line: 10.5 mm square ↓ buff-pink with gray core; white inclusions

628 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-27 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David D2/13967 86–1815 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L80 Area D, Locus 1820, Stratum 7 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 12 mm wide, 14 mm high downstroke: 7.5 mm; upper horizontal line: 7 mm nearly square ↑ red fabric throughout, evenly fired, with fine white inclusions

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

629

16-28 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E1/6141 95-2272 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L81 Area E1, L. 1248, Basket 6141, Stratum 7 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 13 mm wide, 12.5 high mm ligatured yh is too faint square → beige wash over pink fabric; gray core with white inclusions The texture of the impression and the leftovers of clay around it indicate that the clay was still wet when the handle was impressed.

630 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-29 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E1/7987 95-2273 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L82 Area E1, L. 1283, Basket 7987, Stratum 7 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature downstroke: 10 mm; upper horizontal line: 11 mm ↓ buff-pink ware with thin gray core; white inclusions A very shallow frame is just visible.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-30 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David D2/20788 95-2274 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L83 Area D2, L. 2702, Basket 20788, Surface ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 14 mm wide; 20 mm high downstroke: 10 mm; upper horizontal line: 11 mm square ↑ buff-pink ware with thin gray core; white inclusions

631

632 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-31 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E2/3006 95-2275 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L84 Area E2, L. 1468, Basket 3006, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 13 mm wide, 20 mm high downstroke: 12 mm; upper horizontal line: 11 mm rectangle → beige-pink ware with thin gray core; white inclusions

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-32 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E3/7698 95-2276 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L85 Area E3, L. 1538, Basket 7698, Stratum 6 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 12 mm wide, 16 mm high downstroke: 7 mm; upper horizontal line: 9 mm. rectangular → buff-pink ware with gray core; white inclusions

633

634 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-33 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E1/6129 11141 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L86 Area E, Surface ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature square Stamp impression was not located.

Scanned from Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L86.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-34 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E2/1244 95-2277 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L87 Area E2, L. 505, Basket 1244/1, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 15 mm wide; 18 mm high downstroke: 10 mm; upper horizontal line: 8 mm rectangle → beige wash over pink ware; gray core; many white inclusions

635

636 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-35 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David D2/20070 95-2278 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L88 Area D2, L. 2306, Basket 20070, Stratum 7 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 13 mm wide, 19 mm high downstroke: 13 mm; upper horizontal line: 12 mm rectangle ↑ beige wash over pink fabric; many white inclusions

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

637

16-36 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E3/7744 95-2279 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L89 Area E3, L. 1541, Basket 7744, Stratum 7 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 14 × 14 mm Stamp impression is too faint. See note. square ↑ buff-pink ware; gray core with white inclusions. Impression is very deep but faint, probably because the clay was still wet when the handle was stamped.

638 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-37 ‫ יה‬ligature 16b Jerusalem: City of David E3/7670 95-2280 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L90 Area E, Locus 1538, Stratum 6 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature Frame only partly visible. See note. downstroke: 13 mm; upper horizontal line: 11 mm square (?) ↑ buff-pink ware; gray core with white inclusions. Frame only partly visible, probably due to double stamping.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

639

16-38 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Jerusalem: City of David E2/1618 95-2281 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L91 Area E3, L. 510, Basket 1618, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 12 mm wide, 11 mm high downstroke: 7.5 mm; upper horizontal line: 8.5 mm rectangular ← pink ware with many white grits Assigned to type 2 by Ariel and Shoham, but dimensions and shape suggest that it belongs to type 16a.

640 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-39 ‫ יה‬ligature 16b Jerusalem: City of David E1/3265 95-2282 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L92 Area E1, L. 595, Basket 3265, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 16 mm high 12 mm wide; 12 mm high rectangular ← beige wash over red-pink ware with many white inclusions There is no frame.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

641

16-40 ‫ יה‬ligature 16b Jerusalem: City of David D1/6905 95-2283 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L93 Area D1, L. 401, Basket 6905 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 12.3 mm wide, 11.7 mm high square ← pink with many very fine white inclusions Frame not complete and ligatured yh is partly effaced.

642 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-41 ‫ יה‬ligature 16c Jerusalem: City of David E1/17266 95-2284 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L94 Area E1, L. 2120A, Basket 17266, Stratum 7A ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature approx. 20 mm high no border ↓ beige wash over pink ware with light gray core and many white inclusions Upper part of ligatured yh was broken.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-42 ‫ יה‬ligature 16d Jerusalem: City of David E1/16018 HU 11139 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L95 Area E, Surface ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature square ? Handle was not located in the Hebrew University storage.

Scanned from Ariel and Shoham 2000: 154, L95.

643

644 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-43 ‫ יה‬ligature 16e Jerusalem: City of David E1/3533 86–1819 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 155, L96 Arae E, Locus 592, Stratum 5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature frame: 12 × 12 mm downstroke: 7 mm, upper horizontal line: 10.5 mm square → buff-pink with white inclusions The lower horizontal does not meet the vertical stroke.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Unique features of pottery Notes

645

16-44 ‫ יה‬ligature 16g Jerusalem: City of David D2/13929 95-2285 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 155, L97 Area D, L. 1803, Basket 13929, Stratum 6–5 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 15 mm × 17 mm ← light pink ware with white inclusions incised before firing, not stamped; symbol only not a stamp impression; incised before firing

646 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description

Notes

G. The Late Types 16-45 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Ṣuba 405/1 Prof. S. Gibson’s office Finkielstijn and Gibson 2007: 107–8 and fig. 4 Discovered in an Iron Age reservoir that went out of use but collected debris until the 2nd century b.c.e. The stamped handle came from the uppermost part of these deposits (Locus 166), together with pottery dated to the second half of the 2nd century b.c.e. ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 15 × 13 mm 11 × 9 mm rectangular impression ↑ light red with a lighter exterior self-slip with numerous small to large white grits, a few small black grits, and a few large red grog inclusions

Scanned from Finkielstijn and Gibson 2007: 108, fig. 4.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

Scanned from Barkay 2005: 26, fig. 3.

647

16-46 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Binyanei Haʾuma B41633 IAA storage in Har-Hotzvim Barkay 2004: 9; 2005: 27–28, and fig. 3, p. 26 Area B2, Locus 4067; out of context. Pottery analysis proves that a significant settlement of the Second Temple period was first established here in the 2nd century b.c.e. (Berlin 2005: 29). ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 13.5 × 15 mm rectangular → light buff color Barkay follows the typology of Ariel and Shoham and assigns it to their subtype 1, our subtype 16a.

648 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Farhi 2007: 91.

G. The Late Types 16-47 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Ramot Forest 50/14 ? Davidovich et al. 2006, pl. 3:13; Farhi 2007: 90–91. Discovered on the surface, not in a clear archaeological context ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature 12 × 13 mm square impression ← pinkish orange

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

16-48 ‫ יה‬ligature 16a Unknown (Purchased in Silwan) 40-416 Rockefeller Museum not published ‫ יה‬ligature 16 mm high, 12 mm wide downstroke: 7 mm, upper horizontal line: 9 mm rectangle ↓ pink fabric with gray-brown core and white inclusions

649

650 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-49 ‫ יה‬ligature 16b check Unknown (Purchased in Jerusalem) Haaretz Museum K 348 Haaretz Museum Diringer 1934: 128, 132; pl. XIV, no. 14 ‫ יה‬ligature downstroke: 12 mm, upper horizontal line: 12 mm only the letter, no frame ↓ light beige to yellow wash over bright pink fabric with gray core; fine white inclusions

Reproduced with the kind permission of the Haaretz Museum.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available

651

16-50 ‫ יה‬ligature 16? Unknown: Bible Lands Museum BMLJ 833 Bible Lands Museum not published ‫ יה‬ligature no frame yh ligature without a frame; the lines are very thin and the impression is of good quality

652 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph is available

G. The Late Types 16-51 ‫ יה‬ligature 16? Unknown: Bible Lands Museum BMLJ 823 Bible Lands Museum ‫ יה‬ligature square The lines of the yh ligature are crude and thin.

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

653

16-52 ‫ יה‬ligature? 16? Unknown: Hecht Museum H-2268 Hecht Museum ‫ יה‬ligature square ← The handle has a square yh-ligature impression near its end as well as a potter’s mark on the middle of the handle.

654 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-53 ‫ יה‬ligature 16b Ramat Raḥel ? 54-354 not in Aharoni’s excavation records IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1956c: 149, pl. 26:8 ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature downstroke: 11 mm; upper horizontal line: 12 mm no frame ← light pink with red core; many white inclusions

2.  Type 16: ‫ הי‬-ligature Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

655

16-54 ‫ יה‬ligature 16b Ramat Raḥel 3323/3 No photo in Aharoni’s excavation records. ? Aharoni 1964a: 18, fig. 11: 14, pl. 21:7. Stratum IVb, Locus 426, Square 26P, Level 4.70. Discovered inside a foundation trench of a wall together with pottery assigned by Aharoni to the transition phase between the Persian and hellenistic periods. ‫ יה‬ligature ‫ יה‬ligature downstroke: 13 mm, upper horizontal line: 12 mm no frame ← light pink with red core; many white inclusions There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record, with stratigraphic records and description. The jar has not been located.

Scanned Scanned from Aharoni 1964a: 18, fig. 11:14, pl. 21:7.

656 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions

Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 16-55 ‫ יה‬ligature 16d? Ramat Raḥel RR 2005, 3172 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 82, and fig. 1: 16 Locus 311 of area C1: topsoil above pool 2, dating to the Iron and Persian Period ‫ יה‬ligature 11.8 mm in its upper clear line. The impression was broken in its lower part. The proportions are different from the usual type, with shorter downstroke (8.6 mm) and two parallel horizontal lines (the lower one is 8.1 mm long and the upper one is 8.7 mm long).. square ← brownish-pink slip with orange-pink pottery, gray core and white inclusions The ligatured graph faces down the handle. Compare Ariel and Shoaham L 95 (database 16-41).

Scanned from Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 82, and fig. 1:16.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd”

657

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יהד ט‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” a.  History of Discovery and Site Distribution Type 17 boasts 87 stamp impressions; 46 of them were discovered in or near Jerusalem and may be dated to the Hasmonean period (see above, the archaeological discussion, §G-1, pp. 593–594). Macalister and Duncan already discovered 22 in the Ophel excavations conducted between 1923 and 1925. Crowfoot and Fitzgerald recovered 3 more in the excavations in the Tyropeon. And Shiloh excavated 12 more in the City of David excavations between 1978 and 1985. Nine more stamp impressions of this type were discovered in various sections of the Western Hill of Jerusalem and areas adjacent to it. 34 By contrast, only 28 stamp impressions of this type were discovered at Ramat Raḥel (31% of the total). Aharoni published 21 of them: 3 from the first season (1954), 3 from the third season (1960), 13 from the fourth season (1961), and 2 more from the last season (1962). 35 Three more stamp impressions from Aharoni’s excavations were not published; these turned up among the records from Aharoni’s excavations; one of these was also located in the IAA warehouse at BethShemesh. Two more stamp impressions of this type were discovered in Barkay’s excavations (1984), and another 2 in the renewed excavations at the site (2006). 36 34.  Ophel excavations: Cook 1925: 94–95; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96; Duncan 1931: 139– 40, and see stamp impression nos. 17-8 – 17-28, and probably also 17-56. The final summary of the finds from the Ophel excavations mentions 22 stamp impressions, but we could find information only for 21; this may be reflected in Duncan’s problematic summary (p. 140): “Altogether twentytwo of these four-letter stamps were found, seventeen of them quite clear and four partly legible.” Tyropeon: Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 68, and see stamp impression nos. 17-29 – 17-31. City of David (Shiloh): Ariel and Shoham 2000: 160–61, L11–L22, and see stamp impression nos. 17‑32 – 17-43 Western Hill: Reich 2003: 256, nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, pl. 7.1:3, 4, 8, 9; pl. 7.2:15; Mazar 1969b: 170, and pl. 46:3; Amiran and Eitan 1970: 13 (we would like to thank Mr. Eitan for letting us check a photograph of the stamp impression); Ariel 2004: 183 and fig. 1. See stamp impression nos. 17-44 – 17-50, 17-54, and 17-55. One stamp impression from Tushingham’s excavations in the Armenian Garden (1985: 37, fig. 17: 17) was considered by some to be another yhd+ṭ stamp impression. It might be, but the indistinct and small drawing that was published is insufficiently clear to decide the question. Concerning Tushingham’s problematic dating of the small amount of pottery from the Armenian Garden to the Persian Period, see Geva 2003b: 524–25. Tushingham had proposed that the Persian pottery came from another source, for, in his view, the hill was not settled during the Persian period. He believes that the pottery comes from tombs in the Hinnom Valley and was transported to the Southwestern Hill in the 1st century b.c.e. to serve as fill for the construction of the podium of Herod’s palace (1985: 38). We doubt that this was the case, however; even if Tushingham is correct about the origin of the pottery, the source of the seal impressions must have been the Southwestern Hill, because the tombs were utilized by the population living on this hill. 35.  1954 season: Aharoni 1956c: 149, and fig. 17; pl. 26:6; stamp impression nos. 17-60 – 17-62. 1960 season: Aharoni 1962: 30, and pl. 31:2; stamp impression nos. 17-63 – 17-65. 1961 season: Aharoni 1964a: 20; stamp impression nos. 17-66 – 17-78. 1961 season: Aharoni 1964a: 20; stamp impression nos. 17-66 – 17-78. 1962 season: Aharoni 1964a: 43; stamp impression nos. 17-79 – 17-80. 36.  IAA warehouse: Lipschits and Vanderhooft (2009: 258, 267, no. 38–40); stamp impression nos. 17-81 – 17-83. Barkay’s excavations: Barkay 2004: 9; see stamp impression nos. 17-84 – 17-85.

658

G. The Late Types

Graph 22.  Site Distribution of Type 17.

Table G2.  Site Distribution of Type 17 28

Ramat Raḥel

46

Jerusalem

3

Gezer

2

Bithany

8

Other Sites and Unknown

In addition to the 74 stamp impressions from Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel, 10 more were discovered at other sites. Noteworthy among these are 3 from Gezer: two published by Macalister; and one from the American Excavations at Gezer (unpublished). Two stamp impressions were discovered at Bethany. 37 A single stamp impression was discovered at each of five different sites: Tell el-Fûl, Battir, Ḥorvat ʿAlamit, Khirbet bit-Mizah (Ḥorvat Ha-Mozah), and Khirbet Nisya. 38 It should be noted that 4 of these 5 sites did not produce stamp impressions of earlier types. New excavations: Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 82–83, and fig. 1:17; Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming 2009: 21–22, pl. VI:27; stamp impression no. 17-86, 17-87. 37.  Gezer (Macalister): Macalister 1907: 264; 1908: 76; 1909a: 22 and fig. 5; 1909b: 97 and n. 1; 1912: 224–25 and figs. 375, 376; stamp impression nos. 17-1, 17-2. Gezer (American excavations): this stamp impression is located in IAA storage in Beth-Shemesh; see stamp impression no. 17-3. Compare also to Ariel and Shoham 2000: 159. Bethany: Saller 1957: 193–97; see stamp impression nos. 17-5 – 17-6. 38.  Tell el-Fûl: Lapp 1981: 112–13; stamp impression no. 17-4. Battir: Fulco, 1978: 265; stamp impression no. 17-7. Khirbet ʿAlamit: Dinur 1986: 19; stamp impression no. 17-51. Khirbet bit-Mizah: Billig 1995: 71; stamp impression no. 17-52. Khirbet Nisya: Livingston 2003: 86; stamp impression no. 17-53.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd”

659

Three more stamp impressions come from unknown locations: one is in the Hecht Museum (Haifa); another in Haaretz Museum (Tel Aviv); while Diringer published a third unprovenanced stamp impression (1934: 129), which was “purchased from a dealer, possibly from near the tomb of Simon the Just” (and see also Lapp 1963: 24). 39 b.  Characteristics of the Stamp Impressions and Reading The seals that produced stamp impressions of the numerous subtypes were round, although stamps of group 2 appear to be hexagonal. The round seals of this type produced stamp impressions with an average diameter of about 19 mm. The script of the seals is invariably paleo-Hebrew and has close affinities to Yehud coins of the late Persian and Ptolemaic eras. Some seals were incised quite carefully, while others show less care or skill in their workmanship. The reading of stamp impressions of this type was contested after the first few were discovered. Macalister suggested that the impressions from Gezer should be read ‫הירט‬. 40 Lidzbarski thought that the round character with a line through it should be taken as a ligature of ʿayin and zayin and read ‫עזריה‬, which he then linked to type 10, which he read ‫( ליהעזר‬1909a: 154; 1909b: 44–45). A number of suggestions have been made since then, and Albright provided an early overview of the discussions (1926: 93; see also Avigad 1960: 23). Albright noted that Clermont-Ganneau suggested two possible readings: ‫ עדיה‬and ‫ ;טביה‬he came independently to the conclusion that ‫“ עדיה‬ʿAdâyah” must be correct and identified this individual as a temple treasurer of the Persian Period (1926: 91, 93–96). However, he also concluded that the round character, which he agreed did not appear to be a classical ṭet, must be read ʿayin, since many of the stamp impressions he knew had no clear lines inside the circlular figure. Albright noted at that early stage that the character he “resembles the Maccabaean Hebrew hê closely” (1926: 94). Sukenik, who took the round symbol as an ʿayin, first thought to read these stamps ‫“ העיר‬the city,” a probable reference to Jerusalem (1933: 226–31). Albright (and Klein) initially rejected this reading but without offering an alternative (Albright 1934: 20). Sukenik very soon afterward correctly deciphered the three letter yhd stamp impressions and Yehud coins (Type 13; see discussion above, p. 259), which led him to abandon the reading ‫ העיר‬for the four-letter stamp impressions in favor of ‫ יהד‬plus a symbol, which he thought might be a degenerate solar disk (taking a cue from an early suggestion of Lidzbarski) or a mark signifying the capacity of the jar (1934: 183–84). Albright then also concluded that “the four-letter stamp contained a monogram already known on fifth-century ostraca from Elephantine, followed by the three letters Yhd (Yehûd)” (1934: 21). Avigad 39.  Hecht Museum: stamp impression no. 17-58. Haaretz Museum: stamp impression nos. 17-56, 17-57. Stamp impression 17-57 actually came from the excavations of Macalister and Duncan. Diringer: stamp impression no. 17-59. 40.  Macalister 1907: 264; 1908: 76; 1909a: 22 and fig. 5; 1909b: 97 and n. 1; 1912: 224–25, and figs. 375, 376

660

G. The Late Types

thoroughly reviewed the scholarship on these stamp impressions and argued for the reading ‫( יהד ט‬1960). The only significantly divergent reading offered since Avigad’s was suggested by Mittmann. He objected that the symbol in question cannot be read as a ṭet and is, instead, a schematized rendering of the liquid measurement bt “bath” (1991: 67–68). The fact that all of the round characters in question are closed and mostly contain only a single horizontal stroke inside the circle makes Mittmann’s proposal impossible to accept. Early efforts to date these stamp impressions did not rest on stratigraphic or comparative data, so most scholars based their proposals on paleographic grounds. 41 The Hebrew characters on the stamp impressions were assigned an early date in the first phases of research. Lidzbarski, for example, proposed a date in the 8th century b.c.e. (1909a: 154). Cook thought that they probably date to “the late rather than the early monarchy” (in Macalister 1904: 212 n. 1). Albright (1926: 94) dated this type, when he still read it ʿdyh, to the end of the 6th century b.c.e., but Duncan (1931: 140–42), who read it the same way as Albright, dated them to the beginning of the 6th century. Some years later, however, Albright changed his opinion and dated this type of stamp impression to the 5th century b.c.e. on the basis of comparison with the Elephantine ostraca. He reasoned that this type “may be belong to the period of Nehemiah, before the high-priests obtained control of the Jewish state, since they bear a monogram which stands in relation to the royal fiscus in Egypt” (1934: 22–21). Albright’s suggestion was supported by Watzinger (1935: 7). McCown (1947) dated all of the different types of Yehud stamp impressions to the Persian Period but no later than the 5th century b.c.e., a date that also had the support of Vincent (1949: 278) and Saller (1952–53). Aharoni and then Avigad later discerned on stratigraphical grounds that such stamp impressions appeared in conjunction with yršlm pentagram stamp impressions and that both types could be dated to the Hellenistic period, or the third and second centuries. Geva summarized and conclusively proved this view (2007). c.  The ṭet symbol The meaning of the enigmatic circular character has preoccupied scholars. As mentioned above, Sukenik thought that the symbol might be a degenerate solar disk or a mark of volume (1934: 183–84). Albright recalled that a similar symbol appeared in ostraca from Elephantine and understood it as a monogram connected with the official administrative system of the province (1934: 21). When Lidzbarski published the Elephantine ostraca and Phoenician jar-handle impressions with a similar symbol (1912; 1915), he at first interpreted it as as a winged solar-disc in a cartouche of Egyptian origin. Later, he changed his view, when cursive Aramaic examples included Aramaic forms of the letter ṭet. Avigad therefore also concluded that the the letter ṭet was intended (1960: 23–27; 1974: 54). Avigad did note that two scholars, Y. Yadin and R. Grafman, independently 41.  See a summary table of the different types in Stern 1982: 205.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd”

661

suggested to him the possibility of reading the ṭet symbol as an abbreviation of ‫טבל‬, already known as a Mishnaic designation applied to foodstuffs from which tithes had not yet been taken (1976: 25 n. 81). However, this proposal cannot explain the appearance of the symbol elsewhere in the Levant, in Phoenican and Aramaic, in association with the noun mlk. Naveh and Goldwasser (1976: 15–19) proposed that the symbol originated with the demotic Egyptian term sp, which originally was connected with measuring regnal years. In their view, it was later adopted by the Phoenicians as a kind of royal determinative, and since its shape approximated the lapidary ṭet, it was finally simply identified with that letter. This, according to these scholars, is its origin in Aramaic and Hebrew as well. Cross basically agreed with this view but noted that its appearance in connection with a personal name in a jar inscription from Shiqmona complicates this interpretation by dissociating the symbol from mention of a king (2003: 288–89). Delavault and Lemaire preferred to think of the letter as an abbreviation of the word ‫טוב‬, used in reference to the quality of the commodity, which they assume was wine (Delavault and Lemaire 1975: 31–41). They pointed out that marking “good” wine has a very old pedigree in West Semitic and cited the occurrence yn.ṭb “good wine” in contrast to yn.d.l.ṭb “wine that is not good” in a Ugaritic list of wine shipments (RS 16.127); they also noted the simile kyyn hṭwb “like good wine” in the Hebrew Bible (Song 7:10; Delavault and Lemaire 1975: 34–39). Mittmann (1991: 67–68) rejected these interpretations because he did not agree that the symbol in question was actually a ṭet. He argued instead that it should be understood as a kind of schematized rendering of the letters bt “bath,” a liquid measurement. This would in fact be a parsimonious solution if it were remotely possible from the paleographic point of view. Bordreuil and Gubel have argued instead that, when the symbol appears on Iron Age Phoenician weights, it is indeed a ṭet but that it is an abbreviation for ṭbʿ “stamped” and corresponds to an official weight standard (Bordreuil and Gubel 1990: 489). However, it seems unlikely that this observation has any relevance for the Judean jar-stamp impressions. We have determined that, contrary to assertions in the older literature, no other types of Yehud jar stamp impressions contain the ṭet together with the toponym yhd. Thus, this phenomenon in Judean jars is presently known only from the Type 17 stamp impressions of the Hasmonean period. 42 It is also not known from any coins and thus appears to be linked specifically to agricultural commodities, probably wine and its storage and distribution, as Delavault and Lemaire suggest. The alternative would be to assume that the symbol was originally derived from Egyptian and was meant to signal royal ownership or royal disposition of the commodities in jars stamped with this impression. The Egyptian symbol was later reinterpreted as an actual letter ṭet in Phoenician, Aramaic, and finally 42.  See a note on jars with only the ṭet symbol above, p. 11.

662

G. The Late Types

paleo-Hebrew, but it retained its valence as a marker of “royal” origin. In that case, the Hasmoneans used the symbol in full recognition of its royal associations and that they were portraying themselves as the new kings of the region by drawing on older models of royal behavior? d. The ‫“ יהד ט‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Subtypes Albright recognized six different subtypes among the stamp impressions known from the Ophel and Gezer (1926: 93). Many more may now be added. However, the relatively large number of seals used to produce stamp impressions of Type 17 and their very close similarities make it difficult to assign the individual impressions to specific subtypes. Approximately 55 of the 86 stamps can be assigned with reasonable certainty to one of 14 subtypes. For some impressions that are partially preserved or poorly impressed, it is sometimes hazardous or impossible to assign them to a particular subtype. In other cases, no subtype can be assigned because we have only a line drawing or no image at all and the location of the originals is not known. This probably explains why previous scholars were not able to provide an accurate assessment of the subtypes. The high ratio of distinct seals in relationship to the actual number of stamp impressions in conjunction with their fairly narrow date range indicates that these seals were used intensively. Moreover, their restricted geographical range—in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem (and Gezer)—in comparison with most other types suggests that different seals were probably used concurrently. The different seals belonging to Type 17 all have 4 characters. Their disposition varies quite widely, but a number of patterns are discernible. Two quite common models are represented each by multiple similar seals: these are labeled below as group 1 (which has five seals) and group 2 (which has three). There are six additional subtypes that are idiosyncratic and cannot be placed in either group 1 or 2. All indications are that the seals were normally inscribed in the following way: first the ṭet was inscribed at the top of the seal; next the seal was rotated counterclockwise 45 degrees and the yod was incised in its normal orientation; then the seal was rotated 90 degrees clockwise and the he was incised, followed immediately by dalet, which was fitted into the remaining space at the bottom. The occasional “squashed” shape of dalet and its varied orientation are the best indications that it was the final character incised. If this is accurate, then it would be more correct to speak of stamp impressions of this type as reading ‫“ יהד ט‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” than as ‫“ ט יהד‬Yĕhūd + ṭet.” Parallels for this nonlinear mode of inscribing the three letters of the toponym may be found in Judean coins. At least one issue, possibly from the Ptolemaic era, has the name yhwdh (or yhdh?) inscribed in paleo-Hebrew around the figure of an eagle (Meshorer 2001: no. 27; see also no. 28). In other Yehud coins, the toponym appears in linear form, although it can be located on the sides, bottom, or even top of the coin.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd”

663

Group 1 Five seals, 17a–17e, may be assigned to this group with some confidence, although stamp impressions from subtypes 17a and 17b are sometimes difficult to distinguish. The disposition of the letters is similar in all of them: ṭet is opposite dalet. Ṭet has either a single crossbar or, if the impression is shallow, none at all. The downstroke of the dalet faces the bottom right part of the stamp impression. Dalet has a closed triangular head and relatively long downstroke. Yod is on the left side of the seal, with he opposite it; the three horizontal strokes of the he face the middle of the seal. All of the stamp impressions of group 1 come from either Jerusalem or Ramat Raḥel. (1) Subtype 17a

Distribution.  We can identify 15 stamp impressions from the same seal with reasonable certainty. Of these, 7 come from Ramat Raḥel; 7 from the City of David; and one from Jewish Quarter. 43 This is the most numerous subtype belonging to Type 17. Character of the Stamp Impressions.  Stamp impressions of subtype 17a come from a round seal having a diameter between

17 and 19 mm. Paleography.  The characters are paleo-Hebrew. The ṭet has a single stroke through it, although in a few cases the stroke is not visible, particularly in shallow impressions. The top stroke of the yod is parallel to the horizontal bar of the ṭet; the downstroke of yod measures about 7 mm. The downstroke of the he is perpendicular to the main stroke of the yod. The horizontal strokes of the he begin below the top of the downstroke, so that the character has a protrusion or shoulder. The dalet has a closed triangular head; its downstroke is parallel to that of the he and extends to the bottom of the seal. Orientation.  No preference was shown in the orientation of the seal when it was impressed on the jar handles: where the direction of stamping can be determined, 3 stamps have the ṭet facing the rim of the jar; 2 face the base; 2 face right; and 3 left. Stratigraphy.  One stamp impression from the City of David, no. 17-32, appeared in the same locus together with yršlm stamp impressions (Ariel and Sho­ ham 2000: 160), providing a secure Hellenistic date. Additional indications are that these stamp impressions may be dated even more narrowly, to the Hasmonean period. Christoph has shown that the geographical distribution of the ṭ-yhd and yršlm stamp impressions is identical (1993: 166–68, 178).

43.  Ramat Raḥel: database nos. 17-61; 17-62; 17-63?; 17-66; 17-69?; 17-72; 17-74. City of David: database nos. 17-11; 17-12; 17-13; 17-24; 17-28; 17-32; 17-57. Jewish Quarter: database no. 17-46.

664

G. The Late Types

(2) Subtype 17b

Distribution.  This subtype boasts 10 stamp impressions: 8 come from Ramat Raḥel, and 2 from the City of David. 44 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The seal that produced these stamp impressions is very similar to subtype 17a, but not identical (see paleography, below). The stamp impressions have a diameter averaging between 17 and 18.5 mm. Paleography.  Stamp impressions of subtype 17b may be differentiated from those of 17a by the following two characteristics: the horizontal line in the ṭet is not parallel to the top stroke of the yod, as in subtype 17a, but to that of the he; while the dalet has a more sharply angular head and is positioned beneath the yod rather than alongside the he. Otherwise, the form of the letters in the two seals is very similar. Orientation.  Again, no preference was shown in the orientation of the seal when it was impressed on the handles. (3) Subtype 17c

Distribution.  Only two stamp impressions come from this seal; one from the City of David and one from Gezer. 45 Character of the Stamp Impression.  See above, subtype 17b. Paleography.  This subtype is virtually identical to subtype 17b, and there is a possibility that they are from the same seal. The size and thickness of the dalet and the angle of the yod, however, are not quite identical to 17b when the images are superimposed. This could be the result of shrinkage of the clay of the handle during firing, but our tentative conlusion is that it shows that this stamp impression derives from a seal different from those of 17b. (4) Subtype 17d

Distribution.  Three stamp impressions can be assigned to this subtype. The most clear example is from Ramat Raḥel. Two others likely belong to this subtype, one from Bethany, the other from an unknown location. 46 Character of the Stamp Impression.  See subtype 17b. Paleography.  These stamp impressions are similar to subtypes 17b and 17c, but when they are superimposed, subtype 17d appears distinct. Several characteristics permit the identification of a distinct seal: the stroke inside the ṭet is clearly vertical, unlike the other seals of this type; the bottom horizontal of the yod is long and nearly touches the he; and the apex of the dalet touches the foot of the yod and is level with the second cross-bar of the he.

44.  Ramat Raḥel: database nos. 17-65; 17-67; 17-76; 17-77; 17-78; 17-79; 17-82; 17-83. City of David: database nos. 17-19; 17-25. 45.  City of David: database no. 17-33. Gezer: database no. 17-2(?). 46.  Ramat Raḥel: database no. 17-75. Bethany: database no. 17-6. Unknown location: database no. 17-58.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd”

665

(5) Subtype 17e

Distribution.  Two stamp impressions from the City of David are assigned to this subtype. 47 Paleography.  In this seal, the dalet is longer and leans more sharply to the left; its apex touches the middle of the bottom stroke on the yod. The he is also somewhat lower in relation to the dalet. Again, this stamp impression cannot be identified with any of subtypes 17a-d when the images are superimposed. Group 2 Three distinct seals, 17f–17h, produced the 8 stamp impressions belonging to group 2. The seals share a similar model: none of them is completely round, and subtypes 17f and 17g appear to be hexagonal. More importantly, although the dispostion of the ṭet, yod, and he in these three seals is similar to that of group 1, the orientation of dalet is completely different: the downstroke of dalet is horizontal and the letter lies on its side beneath the yod and he. (6) Subtype 17f

Distribution.  Three stamp impressions belong to this subtype: one from Gezer; one from the City of David; and one from Ramat Raḥel. 48 Character of the Stamp Impression.  The two stamp impressions from this seal show that it was not quite round and about 18 mm across. Paleography. The ṭet has a single horizontal bar through it. The yod has a very long bottom stroke, which interfered with the space available for the he and forced the craftsman to make the bottom horizontal of the he very short (which also proves that the yod was incised before the he). The downstroke of the dalet runs parallel to the bottom of the yod and the lowest horizontal of the he, giving it a different appearance than stamps of group 1. (7) Subtype 17g

Distribution.  Four stamp impressions of this subtype exist: three from Ramat Raḥel, and one from the City of David. 49 Character of the Stamp Impressions The stamp is hexagonal in shape (although no. 17-79 from Ramat Raḥel appears more round) and about 17 mm across. Paleography.  The character and orientation of the letters is very similar to subtype 17f, with a few differences. The bottom horizontal of the yod is not as long as in 17f; the he angles much more sharply to the left; and the dalet is larger.

47.  Database nos. 17-14, 17-37. 48.  Gezer: database no. 17-3. City of David: database no. 17-15. Ramat Raḥel: database no. 17-64. 49.  Ramat Raḥel: database nos. 17-71; 17-80; 17-81. City of David: database no. 17-34.

666

G. The Late Types

(8) Subtype 17h

Distribution.  Perhaps as many as three stamp impressions from this seal are known, all from the City of David. 50 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The two stamp impressions are not quite round, and the seal that produced them may have been slightly hexagonal and about 16 mm across. Paleography.  The seal was very similar to subtype 17f, with a few distinct features: the ṭet is oval, and the stroke inside it is vertical; the he is very upright; the dalet is thin, and the main stroke extends slightly beyond the triangular head. Unique Subtypes (9) Subtype 17i

Distribution.  Eight stamp impressions belong to this subtype: three from the City of David; two from the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem; two from Ramat Raḥel; and another from Bethany. 51 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  Stamp impressions of this subtype are round and average about 20 mm in diameter. Paleography.  The form and disposition of the letters of this seal make it easy to recognize stamp impressions of this subtype. The ṭet has a distinctive rhomboid shape, with the horizontal stroke bisecting it into two triangles. The yod is large and has classic proportions. The he is inscribed in reverse, so that the horizontal strokes face toward the edge of the seal. The dalet, which is directly below the yod, is also backward, but it has the proportions of the classical Hebrew script of the Iron Age, with a short, thick downstroke and thinner strokes comprising the triangular head. (10) Subtype 17j

Distribution.  Five stamp impressions of this type are known: three from the City of David; one in the Haʾaretz Museum of unknown origin that was purchased in Jerusalem; and probably one from Gezer. 52 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The nearly round impressions have a diameter of about 19 mm. As Ariel and Shoham (2000: 161) noted on the basis of the examples from the City of David, the letters are retrograde and intaglio. This last characteristic is known from stamp impressions belonging to Type 16 but not from others. 50.  Database nos. 17-8; 17-20; 17-35. 51.  City of David: database nos. 17-10; 17-22; 17-36. Jewish Quarter: database nos. 17-47; 17-48. Ramat Raḥel: database nos. 17-73; 17-86. Bethany: database no. 17-5. 52.  City of David: database nos. 17-41; 17-42; 17-43. Haʾaretz Museum: database no. 17-56. Gezer (?): database no. 17-1. This stamp impression is known only from a drawing. The drawing is a reversed version of subtype 17j and otherwise unattested, which leads us to suspect that it may well belong to this subtype.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd”

667

Paleography.  All of the letters were incised in reverse, so the seal produces mirror-image impressions. The other noteworthy feature is the curved stroke of the yod and its long bottom horizontal. If the stamp is viewed in mirror image, with the ṭet at the bottom, the proper orientation for all letters appears. The layout of the letters in this seal, however, is different from subtypes 17a–i: the ṭet, at the bottom, is opposite the he and the yod is opposite the dalet. It appears that the seal was incribed clockwise, beginning with the ṭet on the bottom and proceeding in order to the yod, he, and finally dalet. (11) Subtype 17k

Distribution.  The lone stamp impression of this subtype comes from the City of David. 53 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The single impression is round, with a diameter of about 19 mm. Paleography.  This seal may differentiated from others on the basis of one characteristic: the downstroke of the dalet faces upward toward the ṭet. The he is badly effaced. (12) Subtype 17l

Distribution.  Two stamp impressions of this subtype come from the City of David. 54 Character of the Stamp Impressions.  The impressions are relatively large in comparison with others of Type 17, with a diameter of 22.6 mm. A defect in the seal appears to mar both impressions in similar ways. The layout of the characters is different from all of the seals of groups 1 and 2, and the he and ṭet are opposite one another. Paleography.  Like Type 17i, the he of Type 17l has its horizontal bars facing the edge of the seal. The ṭet is not remarkable, while the dalet and yod are only partially preserved. (13 and 14) Subtypes 17m and 17n

Two stamp impressions cannot be assigned with confidence to any of the foregoing subtypes but are not well enough preserved to make a clear description. We thus assign them to distinct subtypes: 17m is from the City of David and 17n is from the Jewish Quarter. 55 e.  Summary and Discussion For Type 17, two main centers are clearly in evidence: Jerusalem (especially the City of David) and Ramat Raḥel yielded slightly more than 85% of the handles. The distribution of small numbers of stamped handles in tiny agricultural sites in the vicinity of Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel may suggest a model. Unfortunately, most of the stamp impressions from these sites were not adequately published 53.  Database no. 17-18. 54.  Database no. 17-26; 17-38. 55.  City of David, Type 17m: database no. 17-39; Ariel and Shoham noted its unique character (2000: 161, L118). Jewish Quarter, Type 17n: database no. 17-45.

668

G. The Late Types

and cannot any longer be located, so assigning them to subtypes is impossible. Evidently, however, wine and perhaps oil were processed and collected in small production centers in the immediate hinterland of the Hasmonean capital, Jerusalem. Agricultural sites within a few kilometers of the capital probably yielded the wine and oil that was shipped to the center of the kingdom. The exception to this model is Gezer, where three handles have been discovered. Gezer is known to have been a Hasmonean fort (see §B-e, pp. 55–56). Interestingly, the three stamp impressions from Gezer all belong to different subtypes, so we may perhaps assume that small shipments of wine were periodically delivered to this western outpost of the kingdom. Even allowing for these occasional shipments, evidently the distribution of commodities was part of a regional, closed system that had Jerusalem as its central node. H.  Geva (2007a: 98–101) has suggested that the pentagram yršlm stamp impressions may have replaced the latest ṭ-yhd stamp, perhaps near the beginning of Hasmonean rule. Perhaps the provincial name gave way to the city name in the stamp impressions as a result of the new status of Jerusalem, reflecting its growing significance connected to its political elevation. In any case, Ramat Raḥel had by that time become distinctly secondary to the capital. Meanwhile, no stamp impressions of Type 17 have yet appeared from the eastern region of Yehud.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

669

17-1 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17j? Gezer ? Macalister 1907: 264; 1908: 76; 1909a: 22; 1909b: 97 and n. 1; 1912: 224–25 and fig. 375 Discovered in the late rubbish-heap east of the great central reservoir, together with Rhodian jar handles ‫הירט‬ ‫יהד ט‬ round ? The Gezer publication drawing is a mirror image of subtype j. It may have been published in reverse.

Scanned from Macalister 1912: 225, fig. 375.

670 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-2 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17c? Gezer ? Macalister 1909a: 22 and fig. 5; 1909b: 97 and n. 1; 1912: 224–25 and fig. 376 ‫הירט‬ ‫יהד ט‬ round ? The top of the seal was damaged (Macalister 1912: 224).

Scanned from Macalister 1912: 225, fig. 376.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

671

17-3 ‫יהד ט‬ 17f Gezer 1974-126. (Sherd is marked: “G69 III.5.289 5016”) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh unpublished; see note ‫יהד ט‬ diameter 18 mm downstroke of dalet: 8 mm round → ( ṭet) light pink with dark gray core and large white inclusions discovered in the American Excavations at Gezer and unpublished (cf. Ariel and Shoham 2000: 159)

672 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

G. The Late Types 17-4 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Tell el-Fûl ? Lapp 1981: 112–13 discovered on the surface ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round(?) ? light brown with dark brown core and many white inclusions Discovered together with a yršlm stamp impression. The impression is on a handle of a jug, not a jar, and is very similar to the handle with yršlm stamp impression published by Avigad (1974: 56, fig. 1). Lapp dated it to the 2nd century b.c.e. (Stage IVb: 135–100 b.c.e.).

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

673

17-5 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Bethany 4766

Saller 1957: 193–94, fig. 37a–b; pl. IIIb on the upper part of the fill in the colombarium (65), near the center of the eastern side of the grove ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬

grayish clay, with small white inclusions and brownish slip

Scanned from Saller 1957: 194, fig. 37a–b; pl. IIIb. There are positive (a) and negative (b) drawings of this impression in Saller’s publication.

674 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-6 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17d? Bethany 4658

Saller 1957: 194–95, fig. 37, right; pl. IIIc close to the surface, in pit 70, in the southeastern part of the grove ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 16-17 mm in diameter

brownish-red clay, few small white inclusions, and brownish-yellow slip Impression is stamped on the upper part of the handle; subtype identification is tentative.

Scanned from Saller 1957: 194, fig. 37, right; pl. IIIc.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

Scanned from Fulco 1978: 265.

675

17-7 ‫יהד ט‬ 17? Battir ? Museum of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Jerusalem Fulco 1978: 265 ‫? יהד ט‬ ‫יהד ט‬ square ? well-levigated clay, pinkish-buff on the outside, gray to black within, with tiny white grits Accuracy of drawing is highly suspect. Subtype ascription not possible on the basis of the drawing.

676 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-8 ‫ט‬-‫יהוד‬ 17h? Jerusalem: City of David No. 29, 9A P.3632 Rockefeller Museum Cook 1925: pl. 4:20; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96, fig. 202:10; Duncan 1931: 139–40 Ophel Excavations, 1923–25, Field 9. Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫יהד ט‬ diameter: 21 mm diameter of ṭet: 6.5 mm; downstroke of dalet 8.5 mm ṭet is closest to the bottom of handle round ↓ ( ṭet) light brown; brownish core with very fine and very numerous white inclusions There is a very faint “x” inside the ṭet (noticed also by Duncan). Avigad (1960: 27) read yhwd+t (his drawing is reproduced here) as did Lapp (1963: 23). Close inspection of the impression proves that it is actually a ṭet + yhd belonging to group 2, probably subtype 17h. What Avigad took for a waw is merely a defect in the stamp.

Drawing scanned from Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188, fig. 202:10.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No drawing or photograph is available

17-9 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David ? ? ? Duncan 1931: 139–40 ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 20 mm diameter round ? -

677

678 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-10 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Jerusalem: City of David No. 38. 9A 20 P. 3634 Rockefeller Museum Cook 1925: pl. IV:29; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96, fig. 203:6; Duncan 1931: 139–40; Sukenik 1933: 229; pl. XVII, fig. 3 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫יהד ט‬ diameter 20 mm downstroke of he: 9 mm; downstroke of yod: 7 mm; diameter of ṭet, 6.5 mm round ← ( ṭet) handle: light brownish-to-pink wash; pink fabric; many small white inclusions Back of handle is noted: “9A Cave Entrance.”

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

679

17-11 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: City of David ? Duncan 1931: 139–40; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96, fig. 203:5 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↓ ( ṭet) -

Scanned from Macalister and Duncan 1926: 189, fig. 203:5.

680 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-12 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: City of David No. 32 209 (other no. 469) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV:30; Duncan 1931: 139–40; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96, fig. 203:4 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

681

17-13 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: City of David 50 213 (Old no. 478) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV:31; Macalister and Duncan 1926: 188–96, fig. 202(?); Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

682 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-14 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17e Jerusalem: City of David No. 50 215 (Other no. 480) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV (?); Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-15 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17f Jerusalem: City of David No. 43, 9A 20 224 (other no. 497) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV:21; Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ← ( ṭet) -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

683

684 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-16 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David No. 35 225 (Other no. 499) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV:26; Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫]י]הד ט‬ round ? -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-17 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David No. 42 226 (Other no. 500) PEF London Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) Group 1; subtype uncertain

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

685

686 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-18 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17k Jerusalem: City of David No. 53, 9A Dump 231 (507) PEF London Duncan 1931: 139–140. Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-19 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Jerusalem: City of David No. 40, NBF. 60–33 238 (566) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV:28; Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ← ( ṭet) -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

687

688 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-20 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17h Jerusalem: City of David No. 36, NBF. 30 240 (Other no. 568) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV:27; Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↓ ( ṭet) -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-21 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David No. 64 252 (Other no. 592) PEF London Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫? יהד‬ round ? worn but clearly yhd ṭet

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

689

690 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-22 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Jerusalem: City of David No. 52 256 (Other no. 597) PEF London Duncan 1931: 139–140. Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↓ -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph or drawing available.

17-23 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David ? Duncan 1931: 139–140. Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫? יהד‬ round No photo or drawing available.

691

692 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-24 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: City of David No. 27, 9A 257 (Other 599) PEF London Cook 1925: pl. IV:22; Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ← Group 1; probably subtype 17a

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-25 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Jerusalem: City of David No. 30, 9BP 258 (602) PEF London Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ← -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

693

694 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-26 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17l Jerusalem: City of David No. 22, NBF 30–33 260 (Other no. 604) PEF London Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↑ partially damaged; uncertain analysis

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph or drawing is available.

17-27 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David ? Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? No photograph or drawing is available.

695

696 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-28 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: City of David N0. 31 9BP 208 (other no. 460). PEF London Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ יהבע‬or ‫יהבט‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? -

Photograph published with the kind permission of the PEF.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph or drawing is available.

17-29 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David, Tyropeon Valley ? Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 68 round ? gray ware with small whaite inclusions and greenish white slip No photograph or drawing is available.

697

698

G. The Late Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph or drawing is available.

17-30 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David, Tyropeon Valley ? Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 68 round ? gray ware with small white inclusions and greenish buff slip No photograph or drawing available.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph or drawing is available.

17-31 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David, Tyropeon Valley ? Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 68 round ? gray ware with small white inclusions and light red slip No photograph or drawing available.

699

700 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-32 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: City of David D2/13920 95-2235 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 160, L111 D, Locus 1804, Stratum 7 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18 mm diameter letters are too faint round ↓ ( ṭet) beige wash over pink ware; gray core; white inclusions According to Ariel and Shoham, this stamp impression was found together with a yršlm stamp impression.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

701

17-33 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17c Jerusalem: City of David D2/20588 95-2236 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 160, L112 D, Locus 2707, surface ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 20 mm diameter Diameter of ṭet: 4 mm; height of yod: 7 mm from upper right side of he to upper left side of yod: 13.5 mm round ↑ ( ṭet) beige wash over pink ware; gray core; white inclusions

702 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-34 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17g Jerusalem: City of David E2/1466 86–1813 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 160, L113 Area E, Locus 525, Stratum 5 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter downstroke of he: 9 mm; downstroke of dalet: 11 mm; height of yod: 6 mm; diameter of ṭet: 4–6 mm from upper right side of he to upper part of dalet: 13.5 mm hexagonal ← beige wash over pink handle with brown core and many fine white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

703

17-35 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17h Jerusalem: City of David E1/6368 95-2237 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 160, L114 Area E, Locus 1258, Stratum 7 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 16 mm diameter downstroke of he: 8 mm; height of yod: 6 mm; diameter of ṭet: 4–6 mm from upper right side of yod to upper left side of he: 13 mm polygonal ↓ ( ṭet) beige wash over pink handle with brown core and many fine white inclusions

704 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-36 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Jerusalem: City of David E1/10448 95-2238 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 160–61, L115 Area E, Locus 1619, Stratum 7A-6 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 20 mm diameter downstroke of he: 9 mm; diameter of ṭet: 4.5–6.5 mm round ↑ ( ṭet) gray-brown fabric with gray core; many white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

705

17-37 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17e Jerusalem: City of David D1/6974 95-2239 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161, L116 Area D, Locus 408, Stratum 7A ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18 mm diameter downstroke of dalet: 8 mm round ↑ ( ṭet) gray-brown fabric with gray core; many white inclusions According to Ariel and Shoham (2000: 160), this stamp impression was found together with a yršlm stamp impression. The upper left part of the impression was damaged and is faint.

706 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-38 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17l Jerusalem: City of David E1/3807 95-2240 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161, L117 Area E, Locus 646, Stratum 7 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 22.6 mm diameter downstroke of he: 12 mm round ↓ ( ṭet) thick beige-pink wash over pink ware; white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-39 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17m? Jerusalem: City of David E1/3808 95-2241 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161, L118 Area E, Locus 646, Stratum 7 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 23 mm diameter Length of yod: 6.5 mm round ↓ ( ṭet) beige-pink ware with gray core; many white inclusions Difficult to read; different from all others, as Ariel and Shoham note; subtype m.

707

708 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-40 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: City of David E1/1278/2 95-2242 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161, L119 Area E, Locus 516, Stratum 5 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 14 mm diameter letters are too faint round → ( ṭet) gray-brown ware with pink and gray core; white inclusions partially damaged; group 2?

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-41 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17j Jerusalem: City of David D1/6940 95-2243 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161, L120 Area D, Locus 408, Stratum 7A ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18 mm diameter round → ( ṭet) beige-pink ware with gray core; many white inclusions According to Ariel and Shoham, this stamp impression was found together with a yršlm stamp impression.

709

710 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-42 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17j Jerusalem: City of David E2/1530 95-2244 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161, L121 Area E, Locus 501, Stratum 5 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 19 mm diameter downstroke of dalet: 9 mm; downstroke of he: 7 mm; diameter of ṭet: 6–6.5 mm from right side of yod to left side of dalet: 15 mm round ↑ ( ṭet) beige-pink ware with gray core; many white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-43 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17j Jerusalem: City of David E2/2935 95-2245 IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Ariel and Shoham 2000: 161, L122 Area E, Locus 1463, Stratum 5 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 19 mm diameter downstroke of dalet: 11 mm round ↓ ( ṭet) beige-pink ware with gray core; many white inclusions

711

712 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Reich 2003: pl. 7.1:3.

G. The Late Types 17-44 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 6267/2 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 256, no. SI 3, pl. 7.1:3 Area C, L. 312 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter (approximately) circular → ( ṭet) orange Group 1; subtype unclear

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Reich 2003: pl. 7.1:4.

17-45 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17n Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 6346/1 82-1831 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 256, Number SI 4, pl. 7.1:4 Area C, L. 312 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 19 mm. diameter circular ← ( ṭet) light brown (gray) unique subtype?

713

714 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Reich 2003: pl. 7.1:8.

G. The Late Types 17-46 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 6697/1 82-1829 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 256, Number SI 8, pl. 7.1:8. Area C, L. 324 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm. diameter circular ? brown-orange (gray)

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Reich 2003: pl. 7.1:9.

17-47 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 7334/1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, Number SI 9, pl. 7.1:9 Area E, L. 710 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18 mm. diameter circular ? brown (gray)

715

716 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Reich 2003: pl. 7.2:15.

G. The Late Types 17-48 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter 2563 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Reich 2003: 257, no. SI 15, pl. 7.2:15 Area T-3, L. 266 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18 mm. diameter circular ? brown (gray)

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Mazar 1969b, pl. 46:3.

17-49 ‫יהד ט‬ 17 Jerusalem: Jewish Quarter ? Mazar 1969b: 170, and pl. 46:3 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? -

717

718 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph is available.

G. The Late Types 17-50 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Jerusalem: David’s tower ? Amiran and Eitan 1970: 13; personal communication Discovered in the fill of the podium of Herod’s palace. ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 12 × 11 mm round ? Mentioned also by Avigad 1976: 27 and n. 77 on p. 25. No photograph or drawing available.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

719

17-51 ‫יהד ט‬ 17? Khirbet Alamit ? ? Dinur 1986: 19 One of 5 caves that was in use during the Persian Period. The stamp impression was discovered with two more stamp impressions: yršlm and a cross. “yhd type” ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? -

Scanned from Dinur 1986: 18, fig. B, upper left.

720

G. The Late Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No drawing or photograph is available

17-52 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Khirbet bit-Mizah (Ḥorvat Ha-Mozah) ? Bilig 1995: 71 Discovered together with much Second Temple material in an area of 2 Jewish ritual baths ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round (?) ? No drawing or picture is available.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

721

17-53 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Khirbet Nisya ? Livingston 2003: 86 and fig. 6.5 Paleo-Hebrew ‫( יהוד‬drawn by Cross on June 19, 1994). ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ? ? round to oval ? described as “7th century b.c. jar handle” (Livingston 2003: 86) discovered in the 1979 excavation season

Scanned from Livingston 2003: 86, fig. 6.5.

722 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-54 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Jerusalem: Safra square 290 IAA storage, Har-Hotzvim Ariel 2004: 183 and fig. 1 Locus 52. ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? surface is buff, core is gray with white inclusions, well fired Only the yod is clear, but traces of the other letters remain.

Scanned from Ariel 2004: 183, and fig. 1.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph or drawing is available

723

17-55 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Jerusalem: Mt. Zion

? Broshi 1976: 82–83; Geva 2007: 97 round ? No photograph or drawing has been published.

724 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-56 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17j Jerusalem: Private purchase K-347 Haaretz Museum Not published. Details on the catalogue card of Haartez Museum. ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 21 mm × 17 mm downstroke of dalet: 9.5 mm; diameter of ṭet: 5.5–6.6 mm oval ↑ ( ṭet) light beige to orange fabric with brown core and fine white grits Purchased in Jerusalem, origin unknown. Letters are all incised in reverse.

Published with the kind permission of Haʾaretz Museum.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

725

17-57 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Jerusalem: City of David (?) 52 (Old No. 37, 506, 2) MHA 52 Haartez Museum Details on the catalogue card of Haartez Museum. Probably Duncan 1931: 139–40 Discovered in the space between the walls, probably from the Hasmonean period. ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter downstroke of dalet: 6 mm; downstroke of he: 7.5 mm; diameter of ṭet: 4.5–5 mm from upper right he to left part of yod: 12 mm round ↑ ( ṭet) light beige wash over pink fabric with graybrown core and white inclusions According to the numbers on the handle, it was excavated by Macalister and Duncan on the Ophel.

Published with the kind permission of Haʾaretz Museum.

726 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-58 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17d Unknown: Hecht Museum H-1382 Hecht Museum not published ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) -

Published with the kind permission of Hecht Museum.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph or drawing is available.

727

17-59 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 unknown ? Diringer 1934: 129; Lapp 1963: 24 and n. 12 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? No photograph or drawing is available. Details were taken from the publications. According to the publications, it was purchased from a dealer and possibly is from near the tomb of Simon the Just.

728

G. The Late Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

No photograph or drawing is available.

17-60 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Ramat Raḥel not in Aharoni’s excavation records ? Aharoni 1956c: 149 ‫ יהד‬+ symbol (after Sukenik 1934) ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round (?) ? No photograph or drawing is available. Aharoni mentioned three similar stamp impressions, the same as our database nos. 17‑61 and 17-62. See notes below.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-61 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Ramat Raḥel not in Aharoni’s excavation records ? Aharoni 1956c: 149, fig. 17 ‫ יהד‬+ symbol (after Sukenik 1934) ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? -

Scanned from Aharoni 1956c: 149, fig. 17.

729

730

G. The Late Types

Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes Scanned from Aharoni 1956c: pl. 26:6.

17-62 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Ramat Raḥel not in Aharoni’s excavation records ? Aharoni 1956c: 149, pl. 26:6 ‫ יהד‬+ symbol (after Sukenik 1934) ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↑ ( ṭet) -

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

731

17-63 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a? Ramat Raḥel 2293/3 p. 18, 2293/1 (18) ? Aharoni 1962: 30, pl. 31:2 Discovered together with a yršlm stamp impression in Square 19 V, Locus 387. According to Aharoni’s card: Locus 389, Level: 6.30, Sq. U22 ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↓ ( ṭet) gray ware, white grits. There is a card for this stamped handle in Aharoni’s excavation record, with stratigraphic information, description, and a photo.

732 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-64 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17f Ramat Raḥel 4273/1 p. 9, 4273/1 (422) ? Aharoni 1962: 30 discovered together with two yršlm stamp impressions in the same pit (389) ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) -

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-65 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 3384 p. 11, 3384 (317) ? Aharoni 1962: 30 discovered together with yršlm stamp impression in water cistern 381 ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↑ ( ṭet) -

733

734 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-66 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Ramat Raḥel 3524/1 Hebrew U. 7447 p. 11, 3524/1 (319) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic Pottery. According to Aharoni’s card: Locus 409, Level: 7.15, Sq. S17 ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter length of yod: 7 mm; downstroke of he: 7 mm from upper right side of he to upper left side of yod: 13 mm round ← ( ṭet) pink fabric with brown and gray core; white inclusions There is a card for this stamped handle in Aharoni’s excavation record, with stratigraphic information, description, and a photograph.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

735

17-67 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 4090/1 Hebrew U. 7452 P. 11, 4096/1 (411) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter length of yod: 7 mm; downstroke of he: 10 mm from upper right side of he to upper left side of yod: 13 mm round ↑ ( ṭet) pink fabric with alternating bright pink and gray striations in the core; white inclusions

736 Database Number Type Subtype Site IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-68 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Ramat Raḥel Hebrew U. 7443 Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter Letters are too faint, and left part was broken. round ← pink fabric with alternating bright pink and gray striations in the core; white inclusions damaged stamp impression, left part broken

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

737

17-69 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a? Ramat Raḥel 2354/1 Hebrew U. no. 7445; 2354/1 p. 12, 2354/1 (510) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. According to Aharoni’s card: Locus 381, Level: 4.45, Sq. S20 ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 7mm Letters are too faint. See note. round ↑ ( ṭet) handle; light pink exterior with gray-brown core; white inclusions There is a card for this stamped handle in Aharoni’s excavation record, with stratigraphic information, description, and a photograph. There is a different number on the photo (2345/1, 51). Only ṭet and part of the yod can be observed.

738 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-70 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17? Ramat Raḥel 3252/1 Hebrew U. no. 7451 3252/1 (325) among unrecognized Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. According to Aharoni’s card: Locus 429, Level: 4.90, Sq. V26 ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter Stamp impression was damaged. See note. round → ( ṭet) light pink fabric with thin gray core; white inclusions There is a card for this stamped handle in Aharoni’s excavation record, with stratigraphic information, description, and a photograph. Stamp impression was damaged in antiquity with a long, deep scratch, signs of smudging, and fingerprints. Subtype is uncertain.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

739

17-71 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17g Ramat Raḥel exc. no. 4246/30 Hebrew U. no. 7441 p. 9, 4246/30 (442) Hebrew University, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter downstroke of dalet: 19 mm; height of yod: 5 mm round → ( ṭet) light pink fabric with gray-brown core; white inclusions

740 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-72 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Ramat Raḥel 6219 62–417 not in album Israel Museum, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 7 mm; diameter of ṭet: 4.5 mm from upper part of ṭet to lower part of yod: 11 mm round ← ( ṭet) pink fabric with brown and gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

741

17-73 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Ramat Raḥel 4246/2 64–1812 p. 9, 4246/2 (428) Israel Museum, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20; Hestrin et al. 1973: 68, no. 153. Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 7 mm; downstroke of he: 9.5 mm from upper left side of yod to upper right side of he: 14 mm round ↑ very large complete handle with shoulder; pink fabric with brown and gray interior; white inclusions

742 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-74 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17a Ramat Raḥel 4077/4 64–1815 p. 11, 4077/4 (415) Israel Museum, Jerusalem Aharoni 1964a: 20 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 19 mm diameter downstroke of yod: 7 mm; downstroke of he: 10 mm; diameter of ṭet: 4.5–5 mm from upper right side of he to upper left side of yod: 11 mm round ← pink fabric with gray core; white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

743

17-75 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17d Ramat Raḥel 4182/1 p. 9, 4182/1 (455) ? Aharoni 1964a: 20 discovered in the fill of the rooms from Stratum IVb (439) ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round → ( ṭet) The uninscribed face of the seal seems to have contained some incised striations that are visible in the impression.

744 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-76 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 4279/4 p. 10, 4279/4 (504) ? Aharoni 1964a: 20 discovered in the area of the Iron Age courtyard of the citadel ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↓ ( ṭet) -

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

17-77 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 4279/5 p. 10, 4279/5 (503) Aharoni 1964a: 20 discovered in the area of the Iron Age courtyard of the citadel ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↓ ( ṭet) -

745

746 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-78 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 7570/2 p. 11, 7570/2 (728) Aharoni 1964a: 20 unearthed on the upper level of Locus 477 (Square 18/x) ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? -

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

747

17-79 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 4158/1 64–1814 p. 11, 4158/1 (418) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 43 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18.4 mm diameter height of yod: 7 mm Letters are too faint. See note. round ← ( ṭet) beige wash on pink fabric with gray core; white inclusions

748 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information

Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-80 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17g Ramat Raḥel 64-2302 ? IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Aharoni 1964a: 43 Unearthed in a pit to the east of the city wall (484), where many other stamped handles of this type and many yršlm stamp impressions were discovered, together with Hellenistic pottery. ‫העיר‬ ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 18 mm diameter downstroke of dalet: 13 mm letters are too faint round ? brown-pink fabric with many white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

749

17-81 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17g Ramat Raḥel 4182/2 p. 10, 4182/2 (429) Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 258, 267, no. 40 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ← ( ṭet) Impression is somewhat faint, but its subtype can easily be confirmed.

750 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-82 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 6224/1 p. 10, 6224/1 (527) ? Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 258, 267, no. 39 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ↑ ( ṭet) -

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Aharoni photo number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

751

17-83 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17b Ramat Raḥel 3333/1 64–1813 p. 11, 3333/1 (318) IAA Storage at Beth-Shemesh Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2009: 258, 267, no. 38 Loc. 408, Level: 7.00, Sq. T17 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 20–22 mm downstroke of he: 10 mm; downstroke of dalet: 7 mm; diameter of ṭet: 5.5 mm round → yellow clay, gray core, and gray grits There is a card in Aharoni’s excavation record.

752 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph is available.

G. The Late Types 17-84 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Ramat Raḥel Barkay 2004: 9 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round ? -

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes No photograph is available.

17-85 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 Ramat Raḥel Barkay 2004: 9 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ round -

753

754 Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

G. The Late Types 17-86 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17i Ramat Raḥel RR 2006, 3292 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Vanderhooft 2007: 82–83 and fig. 1: 17 Locus 352, in area C1, described as lime kiln refuse and consisting of many small pieces of chalk ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 16.7 mm in diameter downstroke of yod: 4.8 mm; downstroke of dalet: 4.9 mm; downstroke of he: 7.5 mm from upper right side of he: to upper left side of yod: 13 mm round ↓ ( ṭet) pinkish-orange color, very well fired, with no visible core, and many small white inclusions

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd” Database Number Type Subtype Site Excavation number IAA Museum number Stored at First publication Stratigraphic information Original reading New reading Dimensions of impression Dimensions of indicative letters Other distinctive dimensions Shape of stamp Direction of stamp Pottery description Notes

755

17-87 ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 17 ? Ramat Raḥel RR G-40/2008 9185/1 Tel Aviv University Lipschits, Vanderhooft, Gadot, and Oeming, 2009: 21–22, pl. VI:27 Area D1, Locus 13050: a fill of grayish-brown soil with some pottery sherds and fieldstones ‫ט‬-‫יהד‬ 16-18 mm in diameter downstroke of yod: 4.8 mm; downstroke of dalet: 4.9 mm; downstroke of he: 7.5 mm from upper right side of he to upper left side of yod: 13 mm round ↓ ( ṭet, and to the right) reddish-brown with large white grits and small gray core The letters on the impression are eroded and only remains of them are discernible.

756

G. The Late Types

4.  Summary of the Late Types The site distribution of the Late Types indicates that Jerusalem emerged as the dominant administrative center in Judah in this period: 87 stamp impressions were discovered in Jerusalem (61% of the Late Types), and only 31 were discovered in Ramat Raḥel (22% of the Late Types, most of these are of Type 17; only 3 belong to Type 16). This concentration of finds in Jerusalem represents an intensification of the trend we detected already in the 4th–3rd centuries b.c.e., when the Middle Types were in use. Already during that phase, Jerusalem seems to have become more prominent as an administrative center (from 14.5% of the Early Types to 19.9% of the Middle Types and, as stated above, 61% of the Late Types). Simultaneously, Ramat Raḥel declined somewhat in terms of the raw percentage of stamp impressions found at the site (from 67.5% of the Early Types to 57.9% of the Middle Types and, as stated, 22% of the Late Types). Neither of the two late types is unique to or predominantly known from Ramat Raḥel. On the contrary, Type 16 represents the first instance when a well-known stamp type hardly appears at Ramat Raḥel (only 3 of the 55 stamp impressions, less than 5.5%).

Graph 23.  Relative percentages of seal impressions by site.

3.  Type 17: ‫“ יט דהי‬ṭet + Yĕhūd”

757

Another phenomenon evident from the site distribution data of the Late Types is the lack of stamp impressions from secondary administrative centers. No stamp impressions belonging to the late types come from the 4 known administrative centers that existed in the earlier periods, and they may well have ceased to exist (Tell en-Naṣbeh, Nebi Samwil, En Gedi, and Jericho). The archaeological data for settlement at these sites after the 4th century are sparse, as the survey above indicates (§B-2-b, pp. 41–48). Moreover, no other secondary administrative centers seem to have appeared to fill the void. Apart from Gezer, which evidently served as a Hasmonean fortress in the Northern Shephelah and where 5 stamp impressions of the Late Types were discovered, all of the other sites represented by the late types were tiny agricultural sites where only one or two stamp impressions were discovered. This represents a dramatic change from the trend we discerned in the Middle period, when these four secondary administrative centers became increasingly important in the system of jar distribution (from 7.7% of the Early Types to 18.1% of the Middle types).

Table G.3.  Relative Percentage Comparison Other Sites and Unknown

Secondary Administrative Centers

Jerusalem

Ramat Raḥel

12

9

17

90

Type 13

4

16

19

66

Type 14

11

38

40

105

Late Types

24

0

87

31

Early Types

This dramatic change no doubt results from the Hasmonean system of administration in the middle of the 2nd century b.c.e. and the end of the old system that was part of the administration of the Persian Empire in the region (and afterward, the Macedonian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid Empires) (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d).

H. Summary and Synthesis The process of stamping jar handles with administrative seals and the system of distribution by which these jars circulated both had a long history within Judah (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011; Lipschits and Ornan, forthcoming; Koch and Lipschits 2010). Indeed, there is no parallel for this practice and the distribution system to which it testifies in the ancient world (Lipschits, forthcoming). Occasional examples of jars stamped with seals have turned up, 1 so the Judean practice of stamping jar handles had precedents in the ancient world. But it was adapted and uniquely developed by the Judeans for use within a wider geographical context as part of an extensive regional administration. The yehud stamp impressions are attested within a chronological framework that extends from the end of the 8th century b.c.e., with the first appearance of the lmlk jars, to the Hasmonean era in the 2nd century, after which the practice disappears and the system is no longer visible. Changes do certainly occur in the form and content of the Judean seals in the course of five hundred years. In the late Iron Age II, a combination of figural and graphic elements routinely appear in Judean seals impressed on jar handles, as is the case in the lmlk stamp impressions (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011). During the 7th century, figural elements took precedence over graphic components on Judean jar handles (Koch and Lipschits 2010), although inscribed seals and bullae remain prevalent in other contexts. In the 6th century, this practice of using figural elements continued, as can be seen from the group of seals that use leonine imagery (and see Lipschits and Ornan, forthcoming, in contrast to Stern 1973: 208–9; 1982: 209–10; 2001: 541), and only later, during the late 6th century, probably as part of the changes in Judah under the Persian rule, did inscribed seals become the dominant form used to mark jar handles. The script on the inscribed seals stamped on jar handles changed in the 6th century from Hebrew to Aramaic (see above and Vanderhooft 2011). Notwithstanding many changes over the longue durée, 1.  The phenomenon of stamping jar handles first appears in the 6th millennium b.c.e. (Buchanan 1967) but is attested in relatively larger numbers in the 2nd and 1st millennia. In most instances, however, this phenomenon is attested only in sporadic or isolated impressions produced by a single seal or by a few seals of a single type used in a single area for a very short time. These occasional examples, therefore, derive from very localized circumstances, occur in small numbers, and exhibit no continuity from one case to the next. Scholars have struggled to interpret these cases, often settling on the explanation that these impressions represent “potter’s marks.” However, it is more likely that the practice of stamping handles should be linked to local administrative arrangements for distinguishing the contents of stamped jars from those of identical unstamped jars, since the stamped examples are usually the marked versions of a much larger number of jars belonging to the same type (Lipschits, forthcoming). See, e.g., Muilenburg 1954; Tufnell 1958: 118; Yadin et al. 1961: 229; Edelstein, Milevski, and Aurant 1998: 45, 52; Sass 2000: 409–10; Keel 2004: 1539, 1542; Brandl 2006: 436; Cross and Stager 2006.

758

H. Summary and Synthesis

759

a functional conservatism seems to have characterized the practice of sealing jars in Judah. Official seals were impressed on jars throughout this period—normally on their handles—to signal royal or provincial imprimatur and thereby claim ownership of the commodities contained in the jars. The evidence afforded by the full corpus of yehud stamp impressions of the Persian and Hellenistic periods permits us to reconstruct with some accuracy how the jars were produced and how they moved throughout the province during this period. To begin, only relatively few seals were used within the system—about 40 specific seals belonging to 17 types were used in the course of some 450 years. Thus, any single official seal must have been physically present at the central pottery production site when the jars were produced. An individual seal needed to be impressed on all jars requisitioned within a very circumscribed period of time after the jars were made but before the clay had become leather hard. 2 Petrography indicates that throughout the entire period the clay for the jars originated in the Jerusalem region, specifically from the Mozah formation. Thus, we may conclude that, as in the case of the late Iron Age jars, the yehud jars were fabricated in a single workshop in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem or Ramat Raḥel, relatively near the production centers that collected and processed the liquid commodities that were eventually decanted into the jars. 3 Empty stamped jars (as well as empty unstamped jars) then reached the agricultural production sites—the best example of which is Rogem Gannim—where the commodities were harvested, processed, and the jars filled. Of course, jars could be reused, so during any given harvest both recycled and new jars— stamped and unstamped—were delivered in numbers appropriate to the estimated volume of the harvest. Once filled, the jars then were shipped the relatively short distance to a central storage site, where most stamped handles of any given type (usually between 75% and 100%) were discovered. Very few handles have been excavated at the small agricultural production centers, and those that were found may well exist as a result of breakage during filling or processing. From the central site, a few jars were probably sent to secondary administrative centers, where a few handles of many types were discovered. We can assume that most of the commodity collected in each season was warehoused and then shipped from the central storage site. Empty jars that remained at the central storage site could be reused at the next harvest. The stamped handles discovered at Ramat Raḥel or at Jerusalem come from jars that were broken or damaged between the time they arrived after one harvest and the time they were shipped for use in the next agricultural season. The distribution system governing the shipment of the commodities evidently varied in the several periods. 2.  If insufficient jars were stamped in a timely way, a solution for this difficulty needed to be found. In one instance (14-188), it appears that a small amount of additional wet clay was added to the handle so that the seal could be impressed. 3.  For a useful analysis of the diminishing returns attendant on shipping agricultural produce over long distances, see the studies of Jack Holladay 2006; 2009.

760

H. Summary and Synthesis

Distribution of the Early Types Relatively small numbers of stamped jars occur for most of these early types, with the exception of type 6. For some of these early types, especially types 2, 3, 8, 9, and 11, for which there are between one and four stamped handles per type, no single center of collection can be discerned. The full jars may well have been shipped on an ad hoc basis to their final destinations. This continues the broad pattern of multiple destinations for the produce that is evident already in the 7th-century Judean jar handles. 4 Four other yehud types—namely, 6, 7, 10, and 12—are particularly characteristic of Ramat Raḥel. Their heavy or exclusive representation at Ramat Raḥel allows us to hypothesize the existence of a model of warehousing and transshipment in these cases. Of these types, a total of 79 of 90 recovered handles (88%) originate at the site, which implies that the jars and commodities were warehoused at and occasionally transshipped from Ramat Raḥel in these cases. Among the early group, for example, type 6 seems to have been warehoused at Ramat Raḥel. Of 55 type 6 handles recovered thus far, 48 come from Ramat Raḥel. Transshipment throughout the rest of the province evidently occurred for a very small percentage of official jars during the period when type 6 was in use. Thus, three jars of type 6 come from En Gedi in the east, two jars appeared at the City of David, and one was shipped as far west as Gezer. Meanwhile, a single jar was discovered at Rogem Gannim, probably the production center where part of the commodity originated. A similar statistical distribution is attested for type 10. Fifteen of 17 handles come from Ramat Raḥel, and one was shipped to Jericho. Meanwhile, a single handle was excavated at the source of production, Rogem Gannim. Thus, types 6, 7, 10, and 12 suggest that, during the period when these seals were in use, Ramat Raḥel served as the main warehousing site from which jars were transshipped as needed. The nature of the occupation at Ramat Raḥel during this period fits well with the warehousing and transshipment model. In the Persian Period, at least beginning in the middle of the 5th century b.c.e., Jerusalem was the capital of the province, probably walled, with a population of perhaps hundreds. 5 Ramat Raḥel was, throughout the period, a small site dominated by a single administrative structure; it occupies a strategic location, possesses magnificent architecture, and is otherwise not characteristic of Iron Age or Persian Period Judah. 6 Whatever the precise size and function of the large structure at Ramat Raḥel, it seems unlikely that the large volume of commodities stored there were intended for the consumption of the small permanent population at the site. On the contrary, it is easier to interpret the site and its main official structure as an administrative center and perhaps even warehouse. Surplus commodities could be stored in this 4.  For example, of the rosette jar handles of the 7th century, 36% come from Jerusalem, 23% come from Ramat Raḥel, and 12% come from Lachish (Koch and Lipschits 2010: 11–15). 5.  Cf. the various opinions of various scholars: Carter 1999: 148, 288; Lipschits 2005: 212; 2006: 32; Geva 2007b: 56–57; Zwickel 2008: 216–17; Finkelstein 2008: 501–7; 2009. 6. See Lipschits 2009; Lipschits and Gadot 2008; Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Arubas 2009.

H. Summary and Synthesis

761

secure complex. The location of the site at the eastern end of the Rephaim Valley, on the main junction of roads leading to Jerusalem from south and west, likewise suggests the possibility that it was the natural terminus for commodities originating in the production zones to the West and South of Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel. All of these factors support our distribution model for types 6, 7, 10, and 12: valuable liquid commodities were warehoused at Ramat Raḥel and transshipped elsewhere, perhaps sometimes in more portable jars or skins. Collection and transshipment of the commodities occurred under the auspices of the provincial authorities. In the early Persian Period, this authority was either the governor or his agents, who all have Judean names where these are preserved.

Distribution of the Middle Types A fundamental change in the form, style, paleography, and orthography of the yedud stamp impressions occurred at the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 4th century b.c.e. This change resulted in the consolidation of stamping practices connected with the yehud jars. The proliferation of seals with personal names and titles characteristic of the early period disappears in seals belonging to the middle period. It is possible that historical circumstances in the Persian Empire during the same period precipitated this change (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d). When the Persians lost control over Egypt at the end of the 5th century b.c.e., it increased the significance of the southern Levantine coast as a border zone. This, in turn, may account for greater Persian involvement and influence in the southernmost reaches of the Eastern Mediterranean littoral. In any event, the changes that occurred in the yehud stamp impressions of the middle period point to a simplification or consolidation of previous practices. This could have resulted from tighter control—possibly tighter Persian control— in the administration of the distribution system. The province name, or its abbreviated form, became the only necessary piece of information in the stamps. This suggests that the names of local administrators, whether they were governors or not, were no longer relevant for the system. Only the source of the product was significant. Given that the jars were not intended for export and were found almost exclusively within a small radius in the heart of Yehud, we may conclude that the system functioned on the basis of a simple binary opposition: there were jars stamped with the name of the province and jars that were not stamped. The warehousing and transshipment model with its center at Ramat Raḥel also seems to fit the evidence gathered for the middle types. The site yields 63% of type 13, of which 39% belong to the single seal of subtype 13b; 55% of type 14, of which 36% belong to the single seal of subtype 14a; and 100% of type 15. The fact that a single seal predominates within each of the three types suggests that there was a primary group of jars in use within the system, most of which were intended for delivery and warehousing at Ramat Raḥel. Jerusalem, in comparison, is represented only by 18% of type 13 and 21% of type 14. Meanwhile, we see among the middle types a slightly higher representation of jars at the other

762

H. Summary and Synthesis

regional centers of Yehud, including Tell en-Naṣbeh, Nebi Samwil, En Gedi, and Jericho. Given the continued intensive representation of Ramat Raḥel, however, the evidence points to a system in which a significant percentage of the region’s commodities were warehoused at the site. Some of the produce might have been sent from production sites directly to the other provincial centers, but even if this is the case, it appears that a surplus was collected at Ramat Raḥel from which it could be transshipped as necessary.

Distribution of the Late Types The circumstances of distribution of the late yehud types is somewhat simpler to reconstruct. Types 16 and 17 originated in the Hasmonean period, when Jerusalem clearly emerged as the dominant political and administrative center in Judah, eclipsing Ramat Raḥel in the latter role. Jerusalem yielded 61% of the late types, Ramat Raḥel only 22% (and only 5% of type 16). Moreover, no stamp impressions belonging to the late types come from the 4 administrative centers known from earlier periods, namely, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Nebi Samwil, En Gedi, and Jericho. In all likelihood, these cites were no longer occupied. No secondary administrative centers emerged to replace them. Apart from Gezer, which evidently served as a Hasmonean fortress in the Northern Shephelah and where 5 stamp impressions of the late types were discovered, all of the other sites producing late types were tiny agricultural sites yielding one or two stamp impressions. This represents a dramatic change in the distribution of the commodities in comparison with the foregoing periods and must no doubt be connected with the emergence of Hasmonean rule (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d).

Function What, then, explains the movement of the liquid commodities as described above? One obvious option, offered already in the early history of research on the yehud stamp impressions, is that they contained goods delivered as taxes to the regional authorities. Earlier scholars tended to think of this regional authority as centering in Jerusalem around the temple (see the history of research described above). The dominant place of Ramat Raḥel throughout the Persian era, however, undermines the idea that the produce was intended primarily for the Temple or its personnel. Given the dominant representation of regional governors on the seals of the early types, and then the use of only the toponym yhd/yh on the middle types, we may conclude that during the early and middle phases, roughly from the late 6th century to the early 4th, the produce was collected by provincial authorities. Among the early types, certain specific impressions are characteristic of Ramat Raḥel while others are distributed more broadly throughout Judah. Among the middle types, the representation at Ramat Raḥel increases, especially for certain specific seals that produced the largest quantities of handles (types 13b, 14a, and 15). Other seals of the middle types are again distributed more broadly through-

H. Summary and Synthesis

763

out the province. All of these data lead us to propose a broad hypothesis that can account for the movement of the commodities. The yehud stamp impressions belong within a much wider temporal frame of reference. According to our hypothesis, which still sees the commodities as deliveries from provincial estates or as taxes paid in kind, the recipients—of at least a substantial percentage of the commodities shipped in the marked jars—were the contemporary provincial authorities. Large surpluses of the commodities marked by certain specific seals among the early types and for all middle types tended to concentrate at Ramat Raḥel. Why did the provincial authorities, in such proximity to Jerusalem, require access to these surpluses? If we appeal to the temporal framework within which the entire Judean phenomenon of stamping jar handles fits, from the 8th to the 2nd century, we may argue that local Judean authorities required such surpluses to meet two complementary demands: first, regional authorities and other clients in key centers could count on receiving produce from royal or provincial estates; and, second, the provincial authorities were required to meet the demands imposed upon them regularly or occasionally by imperial administrators responsible for integration of Judah into wider political structures. 7 On this view, the Judean authorities were required to supply a quota—whether in an ad hoc manner or on a standing basis—to meet the needs of regional representatives of the Persian authorities. Thus, Judean provincial authorities needed to have on hand a certain amount of resources not only for their own consumption and regional distribution but also to meet the needs of regional imperial administrators and especially military contingents (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d). An array of archaeological and historical considerations supports this reconstruction. Even if Jerusalem was a relatively small city in the Persian Period, it was likely the main population center in Judah (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007d) and received a certain percentage of the commodities. However, during the early and middle periods, the proportion of commodities that arrived in the city remains quite low (13% of the early types and 18% of the middle types). Only in the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods do we find Jerusalem as the dominant site in the system (with 61% of the jars). Rather, the administrative complex at the small site of Ramat Raḥel dominates the system in the early and middle periods. These distribution realities coincide with a dramatic leveling and reconstruction of the main structure at the site in the early Persian Period, together with the 7.  Here we may compare the reconstruction of the earlier lmlk system offered by Nili Fox: Concentrations of lmlk jars at administrative centers that were seats of royalty and high officials indicate that at least a portion of the commodities was allocated for the bureaucrats of the kingdom. Simultaneously, those important centers would have housed a contingency of military personnel who required provisioning even in peacetime . . . The distribution of the jars may also reflect trade. . . . [i]t need not be assumed that the lmlk project was initiated by the crown expressly for an emergency situation. When war did become imminent, the operation switched gears and functioned toward that end. This type of system, which reflectes the workings of a highly centralized government organization, probably was employed to distribute other supplies as well (2000: 233–34; compare the perspective of Vaughn 1999a).

764

H. Summary and Synthesis

installation of an extensive garden complex and irrigation system. 8 The site was thus the focus of enormous capital expenditures in the early Persian Period and yet housed only a small permanent population. No domestic structures have been excavated at the site. Evidently, it was an administrative site, Beth-Hakkerem, that filled a very different function from Jerusalem. We must conclude from the evidence of the jar stamp impressions that warehousing surplus commodities from regional estates was a key component of the site’s function. The distribution system, if not its function, then underwent a substantial overhaul in the Hellenistic and especially Hasmonean period, as mentioned above. Now, Jerusalem predominated and Ramat Raḥel faded dramatically in terms of the volume of jars delivered. For type 16, for example, 75% of the jars were excavated in Jerusalem, as opposed to only 5% at Ramat Raḥel. Historical circumstances explain this shift. Jerusalem began to experience increased autonomy under the Ptolemies and finally flourished independent of external control in the Hasmonean period. As this political process unfolded, the commodities collected in the jars were still requisitioned and placed at the disposition of the local authorities, but now there was no supraregional authority to impose additional demands for ad hoc or regular deliveries of produce. Thus, while some of the produce no doubt continued to flow into Ramat Raḥel because it remained the natural geographical outlet of the Rephaim Valley, its function as the warehouse for storing surplus commodities was replaced by Jerusalem (see Geva 2007a). Moreover, the type 17 yhd-ṭ jars now reverted completely to the use of paleoHebrew, just like the Hasmonean coin issues, perhaps as a way to emphasize Jerusalem’s administrative and sacral centrality. The rise of Jerusalem described above also explains the latest phenomenon in the system of stamping jars within Judah, even if its detailed analysis has not been part of the present work: in the Hasmonean period, an entirely new class of jar stamp impressions emerges, the yršlm-pentagram type. This development decisively signals the emergence of Jerusalem as the unfettered regional administrative center. Paradoxically, Jerusalem’s rise to independence from foreign influence also coincides with the last phase in a six-century-long Judean administrative system used by local authorities to exploit the produce of the region. 8. See Lipschits 2009; Lipschits and Gadot 2008; Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot, and Arubas 2009.

Abbreviations of Periodicals and Series AASOR ABR ADAJ AION AJA AJBA AJBI AJN AJSL ANET AUSS BA BAR BASOR BDB Beit-Mikra BJRL BN CAD CAH Cathedra CBQ CdÉ CIS ErIsr GAG HA HTR HSM HUCA IDB IEJ INJ JANES JAOS JARCE JBL JCS JEA

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Australian Biblical Review Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Annali dell’Instituto orientali di Napoli American Journal of Archaeology The Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute American Journal of Numismatics The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Ancient Near Eastern Texts Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Brown F., Driver S. R., Briggs C. A., Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1907. Beit-Mikra – Bulletin of the Israel Society for Biblical Research and of the World Jewish Bible Society (Hebrew) Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblische Notizen Chicago Assyrian Dictionary The Cambridge Ancient History Cathedra – For the History of Eretz Israel and its Yishuv (Hebrew) Catholic Biblical Quarterly Chronique d’Égypte Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Paris. Eretz Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies W. von-Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. Rome (1969). Archaeological News (Hebrew) Harvard Theological Review Harvard Semitic Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the Archaeological Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

765

766 JEThS JHS JJS JNES JNSL JPOS JQR JSOT JSS JTS KAI

Abbreviations of Periodicals and Series

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures The Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Literature Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Donner, H. and Röllig, W. 1971. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires NEAEHL Stern, E. (ed.). 1993. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem. OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica OTS Old Testament Studies PEF(QS) Palestine Exploration Fund (Quarterly Statement) PEFA Palestine Exploration Fund, Annual of PEFQS Palestine Exploration Quartery PJB Palästinajahrbuch Qadmoniot Qadmoniot – A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz Israel and Bible Lands (Hebrew) QDAP The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine RA Revue d’Assyriologie RB Revue Biblique SBT Studies in Biblical Theology ST Studia theologica SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum TA Tel Aviv Tarbiz Tarbiz – A Quarterly for Jewish Studies (Hebrew) Trans Transeuphratène UF Ugarit Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum Yediʿot Yediʿot Bahaqirat Eretz Israel Weatiqoteha (New Series) (Hebrew and English) ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAS Zeitschrift für Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins Zion Zion – A Quarterly for Research in Jewish History (Hebrew) ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Bibliography Aharoni, Y. 1956a Additional Notes on Ramath Raḥel Excavations. Yediʿot 20: 44–47. [Hebrew] 1956b Excavations at Ramat Raḥel. Yediʿot 19: 147–74. [Hebrew] 1956c Excavations at Ramat Raḥel, 1954: Preliminary Report. IEJ 6: 137–55. 1959a The Province-List of Judah. VT 9: 225–46. 1959b Some More YHWD Stamps. IEJ 9: 55–56. 1960a Excavations at Ramat Raḥel (Second Season 1959). Yediʿot 24: 73–119. [Hebrew] 1960b Hebrew Jar-Stamps from Ramat Raḥel. ErIsr 6: 56–60. [Hebrew] 1961 Excavations at Ramat-Raḥel. BA 24: 98–118. 1962 Excavations at Ramat-Raḥel, Seasons 1959 and 1960. Rome: Universita degli studi La Sapienza. 1963 End of Excavation Season at Ramat Raḥel. HA 5: 4. [Hebrew] 1964a Excavations at Ramat Raḥel, Seasons 1961 and 1962. Rome: Universita degli studi La Sapienza. 1964b Ḥorbat Dorban. HA 9: 15. [Hebrew] 1967 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, trans. A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: Fortress. Aharoni, Y., and Aharoni, M. 1977 The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8th and 7th Centuries b.c.e. BASOR 224: 73–90. Albright, W. F. 1925 The Administrative Division of Israel and Judah. JPOS 5: 17–54. 1926 Notes on Early Hebrew and Aramaic Epigraphy. JPOS 6: 75–102. 1930–31 Excavations at Jerusalem. JQR 21: 163–68. 1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 1: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1933 A New Campaign of Excavations at Gibeah of Saul. BASOR 52: 6–12. 1934 Light on the Jewish State in Persian Times. BASOR 53: 20–22. 1957 The Seal Impression from Jericho and the Treasurers of the Second Temple. BASOR 148: 28–30. Alt, A. 1928 Das Taltor von Jerusalem. Palästinajahrbuch 24: 74–98. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1985 La scritture della Siria antica. Pp. 62–67 in Da Ebla a Damasco: Diecimila anni di archeologia in Siria, ed. G. Garroni and E. Parcu. Milan: Electa. Amiran, R. 1962 Review of AASOR 34–35. Bibliotheca Orientalis 19/6: 263–64. Amiran, R., and Eitan, A. 1970 Excavations in the Courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968–1969 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 20: 9–17. 1975 Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel. Pp. 52–54 in Jerusalem Revealed: Archeology in the Holy City 1968–1974, ed. Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

767

768

Bibliography

Ariel, D. T. 1990 Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, vol. 2: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory and Glass. Qedem 30. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. 2004 Stamped Handles (Excursus to Maeir, A. M., and Bahat, D., Excavations at Kikkar Safra (City Hall), Jerusalem 1989). ʿAtiqot 47: 183–84. Ariel, D. T.; Hirschfeld, H.; and Savir, N. 2000 Area D1: Stratigraphic Report. Pp. 33–89 in Excavations at the City of David 1978– 1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, vol. 5: Extramural Areas, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Ariel, D. T., and Magness, J. 1992 Area K. Pp. 63–97 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, vol. 3: Stratigraphic, Environmental, and Other Reports, eds. A. De Groot, and D. T. Ariel; Qedem 33; Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Ariel, D. T.; Sharon, I.; and Gunneweg, J. 1985 A Group of Stamped Hellenistic Storage-Jar Handles from Dor. IEJ 35: 132–52. Ariel, D. T., and Shoham, Y. 2000 Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Fragments of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Pp. 137–71 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, vol. 6: Inscriptions, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Arnold, P. M. 1990 Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City (JSOT supplement 79). Sheffield: JSOT Press. Avigad, N. 1953 The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village. IEJ 3: 137–52. 1957 A New Class of Yehud Stamps. IEJ 7: 146–53. 1958 A New Class of Yehud Stamps. Yediʿot 20: 44–47. [Hebrew] 1960 YEHUD or HAʿIR? BASOR 158: 23–27. 1965 Seals of Exiles. IEJ 15: 222–32. 1966 A Hebrew Seal with a Family Emblem. IEJ 16: 50–63. 1970 Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1970 (Second Preliminary Report). IEJ 20: 129–40. 1972a Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1971. IEJ 22:193–200 1972b Two Hebrew Inscriptions on Wine Jars. IEJ 22: 1–9. 1974 More Evidence on the Judean Post-exilic Stamps. IEJ 24: 50–58. 1976 Bullae and Seals from a Post-exilic Judean Archive. Qedem 4. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 1993 Jerusalem: The Second Temple Period. Pp. 717–25 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Avi-Yonah, M. 1954 The Walls of Nehemiah: A Minimalist View. IEJ 4: 239–248. Badè, W. F. 1930 The Tell En-Naṣbeh Excavations of 1929: Preiliminary Report. PEFQS 1930: 8–19. Barkay, G. 1985 Northern and Western Jerusalem in the End of the Iron Age. Ph.D. dissertation. Tel Aviv University 1992 “The Prancing Horse”: An Official Seal Impression from Judah of the 8th Century b.c.e. TA 19: 124–29. 1995 The King of Babylon or a Judean Official? IEJ 45: 41–47.

Bibliography 2005

769

An Iron Age Stone Weight and Persian and Hellenistic Seal Impressions. Pp. 25– 28 in Excavations at the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyani Haªuma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex. The Pottery and Other Small Finds, ed. B. Arubas and H. Goldfus. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplements 60. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. 2006 Royal Palace, Royal Portrait? The Tantalizing Possibilities of Ramat Raḥel. BAR 32/5: 34–44. Bartlett, K. R. 1982 Iron Age and Hellenistic Stamped Jar Handels from Tell es-Sultan. Pp. 537–45 in Excavations at Jericho 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds, eds. K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Bergren, T. A. 1997 Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:10–2:18. Journal for the Study of Judaism 28: 249–70. Berlin, A. M. 2005 Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period. Pp. 29–60 in Excavations at the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyani Haªuma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex. The Pottery and Other Small Finds, ed. B. Arubas and H. Goldfus. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplements 60. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Betlyon, J. W. 1982 The Coinage and Mints of Phoenicia, The Pre-Alexandrine Period. Harvard Semitic Monographs 26. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1986 The Provincial Government of Persian Period Judea and the Yehud Coins. JBL 105: 633–42. 1992 Coinage. Pp. 1076–89 in vol. 1 of ABD. Bianchi, F. 1989 Bolli e monete ellenistici in Guidea. Oriens Antiquus 28: 25–40. 1993 “I superstiti della deportzione sono la nella provincia” (Neemia 1, 3): Ricerche epigrafiche sulla storia della Giudea in eta neobabilonese e achemenide (586 a.c.–442 a.c.). Supplemento agli Annali 53/3. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Billig, Y. 1995 Ḥ. Ha-Moza. HA 103: 71. [Hebrew] Blenkinsopp, J. 1988 Ezra/Nehemiah: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster. Bliss, F. J., and Dickie, A. C. 1898 Excavations at Jerusalem 1894–1897. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Bliss, F. J., and Macalister, R. A. S. 1902 Excavations in Palestine. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Bordreuil, P. 1986 Catalogue de sceux Ouest-Sémitique inscrits de la Bibiothéque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothéque Nationale. Bordreuil, P., and Gubel, E. 1990 Bulletin d’antiquites archeologiques du Levant inedits ou meconnus. Syria 67: 483–520. Brandl, B. 2006 Two Stamped Jar Handles. Pp. 426–29 in Megiddo IV, ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Bresciani, E. 1960 Papiri aramaici egiziani di epoca persiana presso il Musio Civico di Padova. Revista Degli Studi Orientali 35: 11–24.

770 1985

Bibliography

The Persian Occupation of Egypt. Pp. 502–28 in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, ed. I. Gershevitch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Briant, P., and Herrenschmidt, C., eds. 1989 Le Tribut dans L’Empire Perse. Travaux de l’Institut d’Etudes Iraniennes de l’Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle 13. Paris: Peeters. Broshi, M. 1976 Excavations on Mount Zion, 1971–1972 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 26: 81–88. Broshi, M., and Finkelstein, I. 1992 The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. BASOR 287: 47–60. Broshi, M., and Gibson, S. 2000 Excavations along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Pp. 147–55 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Expanded Edition 2000, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Buchanan, B. 1967 The Prehistoric Stamp Seal: A Reconsideration of Some Old Excavations. JAOS 87: 265–79, 525–40. Cahill, J. M. 1992 The Chalk Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. Pp. 190–274 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, vol. 3: Stratigraphic, Environmental, and Other Reports, ed. A. De Groot, and D. T. Ariel. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Cahill, J. M., and Tarler, D. 1994 Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978–1985. Pp. 31–45 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Calvet, Y. 1978 Timbres amphoriques de Salamine (1971–1974). Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 222–34. Caquot, A. 1971 Une inscription araméenne d’époque assyrienne. Pp. 9–16 in Hommages a André Dupont-Sommer, ed. E. Bresciani. Paris: Maisonneuve. Carter, C. E. 1991 A Social and Demographic Study of Post-exilic Judah. Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University. 1994 The Province of Yehud in the Post-exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distribution and Demography. Pp. 45–106 in Second Temples Studies, vol. 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period, ed. T. C. Eshkenazy, and K. H. Richards. JSOT Supplement Series 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1999 The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study. JSOT Supplement Series 294. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Chen, D.; Margalit, S.; and Pixner, B. 1994 Mount Zion: Discovery of Iron Age Fortifications below the Gate of the Essenes. Pp. 76–81 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Christoph, J. R. 1993 The Yehud Stamped Jar Handles Corpus: Implications for the History of Postexilic Palestine. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC. Cohen, R. 1983a Excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, 1976–1982. Qadmoniot 61: 2–14. [Hebrew] 1983b Kadesh-Barnea: A Fortress from the Time of the Judaean Kingdom. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. [Hebrew] 1986 Solomon’s Negev Defense Line Contained Three Fewer Fortresses. BAR 12/4: 40–45.

Bibliography

771

Cohen, R., and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007 Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982. 2 vols. IAA Reports 34. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. Cook, S. A. 1907 Inscribed Objects from Gezer. PEFQS: 319–20. 1908 Inscribed Objects from Gezer. PEFQS: 76–77. 1924 Inscribed Hebrew Objects from the Ophel. PEFQS 56: 180–86. 1925 Inscribed Jar Handels. PEFQS 57: 91–95. Cooke, G. A. 1903 Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon. Cowley, A. 1967 Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century b.c. Rev. ed. Osnabrück: Zeller. Cross, F. M. 1961 The Development of Jewish Scripts. Pp. 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. G. Ernest. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1968 Jar Inscriptions from Shiqmona. IEJ 18: 226–33. 1969a Judean Stamps. ErIsr 9 (Albright Volume): 20*–27*. 1969b Two Notes on Palestinian Inscriptions of the Persian Age. BASOR 193: 19–24. 1974 The Papyri and Their Historical Implications. Pp. 17–29 in Discoveries in the Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh, ed. P. W. Lapp, and N. L. Lapp. AASOR 41. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1975 A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration. JBL 94: 4–18. 1981 An Aramic Ostracon of the 3rd Century b.c.e. from Excavations in Jerusalem. ErIsr 15 (Aharoni Volume): 67–69. 1983 The Seal of Miqneyaw, Servant of the King. Pp. 53–63 in Ancient Seals and the Bible, ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte. Malibu: Udena. 1986 A New Aramaic Stele from Taymaʾ. CBQ 45: 387–94. Cross, F. M., and Ernest, G. 1975 The Boundary and Provinces Lists of the Kingdom of Judah. JBL 75: 202–26. Cross, F. M. and Stager, L. 2006 Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions found in Ashkelon. IEJ 56: 129–59. Crowfoot, J. W., and Fitzgerald, G. M. 1927 Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem. PEFA 5. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. 1929 Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927. PEFA 7. London: Palestine Exploration Fund Cussini, E. 1995 A Re-examination of the Berlin Aramaic Dockets. Pp. 19–30 in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches, ed. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daniels, P. T. 1984 A Calligraphic Approach to Aramaic Paleography. JNES 43: 55–68. Davidovich, U.; Farhi, Y.; Kol-Yaʿakov, S.; Har-Peled, M.; Weinblatt-Krauz, D.; and Alon, Y. 2006 Salvage Excavations at Ramot Forest and Ramat Bet-Hakerem: New Data Regarding Jerusalem’s Periphery during the First and Second Temple Periods. New Studies on Jerusalem 11: 35–111. [Hebrew] Degen, R.; Müller, W. W.; and Röllig, W. 1972–78 Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. De Groot, A. 2001 Jerusalem during the Persian Period. New Studies on Jerusalem 7: 77–82. [Hebrew] 2004 Jerusalem in the Early Hellenistic Period. New Studies on Jerusalem 10: 67–70. [Hebrew]

772

Bibliography

De Groot, A.; Cohen, D.; and Caspi, A. 1992 Area A1. Pp. 1–29 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, vol. 3: Stratigraphic, Environmental, and Other Reports, ed. A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. De Groot, A., and Greenhut, Z. 2002 Moza: A Judahite Administrative Center Near Jerusalem. New Studies on Jerusalem 8: 7–14. [Hebrew] De Groot, A., and Michaeli, D. 1992 Area H: Stratigraphic Report. Pp. 35–53 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, vol. 3: Stratigraphic, Environmental, and Other Reports, ed. A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Delavault, B. and Lemaire, A. 1975 La tablette ougaritique RS 16 127 et l’abréviation “T” en nord-ouest sémitique. Semitica 25: 31–41. Dempsey, D. 1993 An Ostracon from Tell Nimrin. BASOR 289: 55–58. 1996 Ostraca and a Seal Impression from Tel-Nimrin, Jordan. BASOR 303: 73–78. Demsky, A. 1983 Pelekh in Nehemiah 3. IEJ 33: 242–44. 1990 Recent Archaelogical Discoveries and Biblical Research. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Deutsch, R. 2006 Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Joseph Chaim Kaufman Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication. Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M. 1997 Windows on the Past. Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publication. Dever, W. G. 1986 Gezer IV: The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis”, Texts and Plates and Plans Annual of the Hebrew Union College / Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 4. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. 1998 Gezer: A Cross Road in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Antiquities Authority. [Hebrew] Dever, W. G. et.al. 1974 Gezer II: Reports of the 1967–1970 Seasons in Fields I and II Annual of the Hebrew Union College / Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 2. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Dever, W. G.; Lance, H. D.; and Wright, G. E. 1970 Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–1966 Seasons. Annual of the Hebrew Union College / Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Dhorme, P. 1928 Les tablettes babylonienne de Neirab. RA 25: 54–81. Dinur, A. 1986 Ḥorbat Alamit. HA 88: 18–19. [Hebrew] Diringer, D. 1934 Le iscrizioni antico ebraiche Palestinesi. Florence: Le Monnier. 1941 On Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. PEFQS 73: 100–101. DiVito, R. A. 1993 The Tell el-Kheleifeh Inscriptions. Pp. 51–63 in Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal, ed. Gary D. Pratico. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Bibliography

773

Dothan, M. 1965 The Fortress at Kadesh Barnea. IEJ 15: 134–51. Dunand, M. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos, tome I, 1926–1932. Paris: Librairie di Amerique et d’Orient. 1954 Fouilles de Byblos, tome II, 1933–1938. Paris: Librairie di Amerique et d’Orient. Duncan J. G. 1925a Fifth Quarterly Report on the Eastern Hill of Jerusalem. PEFQS: 8–24. 1925b Sixth Quarterly Report on the Eastern Hill of Jerusalem. PEFQS: 134–39. 1931 Digging Up Biblical History I–II. London: Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1956 Une stèle araméene d’un prêtre de Ba’al trouvée en Égypte. Syria 33: 79–87. Edelman, D. 2005 The Origins of the “Second” Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem. London: Equinox. Edelstein, G. 2000 A Terraced Farm at Er-Ras. ʿAtiqot 40: 39–63. Edelstein, G.; Milevski, I.; and Aurant, S. 1998 Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989. IAA Reports 3. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authorities. Elgavish, J. 1968 Archeological Excavations at Shikmona, Field Report No. 1: The Levels of the Persian Period. Seasons 1963–1965. Haifa: City Museum of Ancient Art. Ephʿal, I. 1978 The Western Minorities in Baylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries b.c.: Maintenance and Cohesion. Orientalia 47: 74–90. 1988 Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid Rule. Pp. 139–64 in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 4: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 b.c., ed. J. Boardman et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998 Changes in Palestine during the Persian Period in Light of Epigraphic Sources. IEJ 48: 106–19. Eshel, E. 2003 Aramaic Ostraca from Areas W and X-2. Pp. 401–3 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Conducted by Nahaman Avigad, vol. 2: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology, Israel Exploration Society. 2006 Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions from the Jewish Quarter. Appendix: YHD-Type Seal Impression. Pp. 389–407 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Conducted by Nahaman Avigad, vol. 3: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology, Israel Exploration Society. Eshel, H. 2000 Jerusalem under Persian Rule: The City’s Layout and the Historical Background. Pp. 327–44 in The History of Jerusalem, The Biblical Period, ed. S. Ahituv, and A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi. [Hebrew] 2007 The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries b.c.e. Pp. 223–34 in Judah and the Judeans in the 4th Century bce, ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Eshel, H., and Misgav, H. 1988 A Fourth Century bce Document from Ketef Yeriho. IEJ 38: 158–76. Fales, F. M. 1986 Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Studi Semitici, Nuova Serie 2. Rome: Università Degli Studi La Sapienza.

774 Farhi, Y. 2007 Faust, A. 2003 Feig, N. 1996 2000

Bibliography

A Yehud Stamp Impression from North Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 34: 90–91. Judah in the Sixth Century b.c.e.: A Rural Perspective. PEQ 135: 37–53.

New Discoveries in the Rephaim Valley, Jerusalem. PEQ 128: 3–7. The Environs of Jerusalem in the Iron Age II. Pp. 387–409 in The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period, ed. S. Aḥituv and B. Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi. [Hebrew] 2003 Excavations at Beit Safafa: Iron Age II and Byzantine Agricultural Installations South of Jerusalem. ʿAtiqot 44: 191–238. Ferron, J., and Pinard, M. 1963 Les fouilles de Byrsa (suite). Cahiers de Byrsa 9: 77–170. Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi. 1992 A Few Notes on Demographic Data from Recent Generations and Ethnoarchaeology. PEFQS 122: 47–52. 1994 Penelope’s Shroud Unraveled: Iron II Date of Gezer’s Outer Wall Established. Tel Aviv 21: 276–82. 2002 Gezer Revisited and Revised. Tel Aviv 29: 262–96. 2008 Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah. JSOT 32: 501–20. Finkielsztejn, G., and Gibson, S. 2007 The Retrograde-F-Shaped yh(d) Monogram: Epigraphy and Dating. Tel Aviv 34: 104–13. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1962 The Padua Aramaic Papyrus Letters. JNES 21 (1962): 15–24. Repr., pp. 219–30 in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1967 The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rev. ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Flanagan, J. W.; McCreery, D. W.; and Yassine, K. N. 1996 Tall Nimrin: Preliminary Report on the 1995 Excavation and Geological Survey. ADAJ 40: 271–92. Fox, N. S. 2000 In the Service of the Kings: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. Franken, H. J. 1961 Review of AASOR 34–35. VT 11: 471–74. Franken, H. J., and Steiner, M. L. (eds.) 1990 The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South West Hill. Vol. 2 of Jerusalem II: Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Oxford: Oxford Academic Press. Frankfort, H. 1939 Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: Macmillan. Frick, F. S. 1987 Israelite State Formation in Iron I. Pp. 245–58 in Archaeological and Biblical Interpretation, ed. G. P. Leo, E. T. Lawrence, and L. J. Gary. Atlanta: John Knox. Fulco, W. J. 1978 A YHD Stamp from Battir. Orientalia 47: 265. Funk, R.W. 1968 The History of Beth-zur with Reference to Its Defenses. Pp. 4–17 in The 1957 Excavation at Beth-zur, ed. O. R. Sellers. AASOR 38. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Bibliography 1993

775

Beth-zur. Pp. 259–61 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Tel Aviv: Carta.

Garbini, G. 1962 The Dating of Post-exilic Stamps. Pp. 61–68 in Excavations at Ramat-Raḥel, Seasons 1959 and 1960, ed. Y. Aharoni. Rome: Universita degli studi La Sapienza. Gera, D. 1998 Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 b.c.e. Leiden: Brill. Geva, H. 1979 The Western Boundary of Jerusalem at the End of the Monarchy. IEJ 29: 84–91. 1983 Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1979–1980: Preliminary Report. IEJ 33: 55–71. 1985 The “First Wall” of Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period: An ArchitecturalChronological Note. ErIsr 18 (Avigad Volume): 21–39. [Hebrew] 1994 Excavations at the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1976–1980. Pp. 156–67 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2000 General Introduction to the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter. Pp. 1–30 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem I, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2003a Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. Pp. 113–75 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem II, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. 2003b Summary and Discussion of Findings from Areas A, W and X-2. Pp. 501–52 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem II, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. 2003c Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter. Pp. 183–208 in Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2006 The Settlement on the Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem at the End of the Iron Age: A Reconstruction Based on the Archaeological Evidence. ZDPV 122: 140–50. 2007a A Chronological Reevaluation of Yehud Stamp Impressions in Palaeo-Hebrew Script, based on Finds from Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 34: 92–103. 2007b Estimating Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View. ErIsr 28 (Kollek Volume): 50–65. [Hebrew] Geva, H., and Avigad, N. 2000 Area W: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Pp. 131–98 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem I, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Gibson, S. 1987 The 1961–67 Excavations in the Armenian Garden, Jerusalem. PEFQS 119: 81–96. 2004 The Cave of John the Baptist. London: Doubleday. Gitin, S. 1990 Gezer III: Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer Annual of the Hebrew Union College / Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 3. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. 1996 Formulating a Ceramic Corpus: A Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Pottery at Tell Gezer. Pp. 75–101 in Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. van Beek, ed. J. Seger. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gitler, H. 2006a A Hacksilber and Cut Athenian Tetradrachm Hoard from the Environs of Samaria: Late Fourth Century bce. INJ 1: 5–14.

776

Bibliography

2006b A Hoard of Persian Coins from the Environs of Ramallah. Numisma 250: 319–24. Gitler, H., and Lorber, C. 2006 A New Chronology for the Ptolemaic Coins of Judah. AJN 18: 1–41. Gitler, H., and Tal, O. 2006 The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries b.c. Collezioni Numismatiche 6. Milan: Edizioni Ennerre / New York: Amphora. Givʿon, S. 1995 Area D. Pp. 19–24 in The Fifth Season of Excavation at Tel Harassim (Nahal Barkai) 1994. Preliminary Report *5, ed. S. Givʿon. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. [Hebrew] 1996 Naḥal Barqai: 1994. HA 106 : 144. [Hebrew] 2004 Naḥal Barqai: 1998–2000. HA 116: 55. [Hebrew] Goldwasser, O., and Naveh, J. 1976 The Origin of the Ṭet-Symbol. IEJ 26: 15–19. Goren, Y. and Halperin, N. 2004 Selected Petrographic Analyses. Pp. 2553-68 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish, Vol. V, ed. D. Ussishkin. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University. Goren, Y.; Lipschits, O.; and Vanderhooft, D. S. forthcoming Provenance Study of the Yehud Stamped Jars. TA. Grabbe, L.L. 1998 Ezra–Nehemiah. London: Routledge. Grace, V. R. 1934 Stamped Amphora Handles Found in 1931–1932. Hesperia 3: 197–310. Greenberg, R., and Cinamon, G. 2000 The Rogem Ganim Excavations: A Community Project for the Rehabilitation of an Ancient Site in West Jerusalem. New Studies on Jerusalem 6: 44–51. [Hebrew] 2002 Jerusalem, Ir Gannim. HA 114: 80. [Hebrew] 2006 Stamped and Incised Jars Handles from Rogem Gannim and Their Implications for the Political Economy of Jerusalem, Late 8th–Early 4th Centuries bce. TA 33: 229–43. Greenfield, J. C., and Porten, B. 1982 The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Aramaic Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/5. London: Lund Humphries. Greenhut, Z. 2006 Production, Storage and Distribution of Grain during the Iron Age and Their Linkage to the Socio-Economic Organization of the Settlement in Israel. Ph.D. dissertation. Tel Aviv University. Greenhut, Z., and de Groot, A. 2009 Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations. IAA Reports 39. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Grintz, J. M. 1960 Jehoezer-Unknown High Priest? JQR 50: 38–45. Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I. and Meshel, Z. 1985 The origin of the pottery of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. IEJ 35: 268–83. Hadas, G. 2005 Excavations at Ein Gedy Village. ʿAtiqot 49: 41–72. [Hebrew] Hallo, W. W. 1985 As the Seal upon Thy Heart. Bible Review 1: 20–27. Hammond, P. C. 1957a A Note on a Seal Impression from Tell Es-Sultan. BASOR 147: 37–39. 1957b A Note on Two Seal Impressions from Tell Es-Sultan. PEFQS 89: 68–69. pl. XVI.

Bibliography

777

Harper, R. P., and Pringel, R. D. 1988 Belmont Castle (Zuba):1987. HA 91: 48. [Hebrew] Hartal, M. 1991 Bab el-Hawa. HA 97: 6–7. [Hebrew] Heltzer, M. 1992 The Provincial Taxation in the Achaemenian Empire and “Forty Shekels of Silver” (Neh. 5,15). Michmanim 6: 15–25. Hengel, M. 1974 Judaism and Hellenism. London: SCM. Herr, L. 1978 The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals. Harvard Semitic Monographs 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Hestrin, R., Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1979 Inscribed Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Hestrin, R.; Israeli, Y.; Meshorer, Y.; and Eitan, A. 1973 Inscriptions Reveal: Documents from the Time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud. Exhibition and Catalogue No. 100. Jerusalem: Israel Museum Hoglund, K. G. 1990 Achaemenid imperial administration in Syria-Palestine and the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Holladay, J. S., Jr. 2006 Hezekiah’s Tribute, Long-Distance Trade, and the Wealth of Nations ca. 1,000–600 bc: A New Perspective. Pp. 309–32 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2009 How Much Is That in . . . ? Monetization, Money, Royal States, and Empires. Pp. 207–22 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Joannès, F., and Lemaire, A. 1999 Trois tablettes cunéiformes à l’onomastique ouest-sémitique. Trans 17: 17–33. Kallai, Z. 1960 The Northern Boundaries of Judah. Jerusalem: Magnes. [Hebrew] Kallai-Kleinmann, Z. 1968 The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan. VT 8:134–60. Kaufman, S. A. 1974 The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Studies 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kaufman, S. A., and Fitzmyer, J. A. 1992 An Aramaic Bibliography, vol. 1: Old, Official and Biblical Aramaic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Keel, O. 2004 Scarabs, Stamp Seal-Amulets and Impressions. Pp. 1537–71 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin. Vol. 3. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology Publications. Kellermann, U. 1967 Nehemia: Quellen Überlieferung und Geschichte. BZAW 102. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann. Kelso, J. L. 1968 Excavations of Bethel (1934–60). AASOR 39. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Kenyon, K. M. 1964 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1963. PEFQS 96: 7–18. 1965 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1964. PEFQS 97: 9–20.

778

Bibliography

1966 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1965. PEFQS 98: 73–88. 1967 Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History. London: Thames & Hudson. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. New York: Praeger. Kenyon, K. M., Holland, T. A., eds. 1981 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1982 Excavations at Jericho, vol 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1983 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 5: The Pottery of Phases at the Tell and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Klein, S. 1939 The Land of Judah from the Days of the Return from Babylon to the Sealing of the Talmud. Tel-Aviv. [Hebrew] Kloner, A. 2001 Jerusalem’s Environs in the Persian Period. New Studies on Jerusalem 7: 91–96. [Hebrew] 2003 Archaeological Survey of Israel, Survey of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Sector, Introduction and Indices. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Knoppers, G. N. 2004 1 Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday. Koch, I. 2008 Rosette Stamp Impressions. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Koch, I., and Lipschits, O. 2010 The Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Rosette Stamped Jar Handles. Cathedra 137: 7-26. [Hebrew] Kochavi, M., ed. 1972 Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. The Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Carta. [Hebrew] Kochman, M. 1980 Status and Extent of Judah in the Persian Period. Ph.D. dissertation. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. [Hebrew] 1982 “Yehud Medinta” in Light of the Seal Impressions YHWD-PHW. Cathedra 24: 3–30. [Hebrew] Kohut, A. 1926 Aruch Completum. Vienna: Hebräischer Verlag Menorah. Koldewey, R. 1990 Das wieder erstehende Babylon. 5th ed. Ed. B. Hrouda. Munich: Beck. Kottsieper, I. 2007 “And They Did Not Care to Speak Yehudit”: On Linguistic Change in Judah during the Late Persian Era. Pp. 95–124 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century b.c.e., ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kutscher, E. Y. 1961 ˙ ḥwʾ and Its Cognates. Tarbiz 30: 112–19. [Hebrew] P Lankaster-Harding, G. 1950 An Iron-Age Tomb at Meqabelein. QDAP 14: 44–48. Lapp, N. L. 1981 The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964. AASOR 45. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lapp, P. W. 1960 Late Royal Seals from Judah. BASOR 158: 11–22. 1965 Tell el-Fûl. BA 28: 2–10.

Bibliography 1963 1968

779

Ptolemaic Stamped Handels from Judah. BASOR 172: 22–35. The Excavation of Field II. Pp. 26–34 in Excavation at Beth-zur, ed. O. R. Sellers. AASOR 38. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lapp, P., and Lapp, N. 1968 Iron II: Hellenistic Pottery Groups. Pp. 54–79 in Excavation at Beth-zur: 1957, ed. O. R. Sellers. AASOR 38. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Legrain, L. 1925 The Culture of the Babylonians from their Seals in the Collection of the Museum. PBS 14. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsyvlania. Leith, M. J. W. 1997 The Wadi Daliyeh Seal Impressions. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 24. Oxford: Clarendon. Lemaire, A. 1985 Note sur deux tessons inscrits. Pp. 251 in Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, ed. A. D. Tushingham. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1989 Les inscriptions palestiniennes d’époque perse: Un bilan provisoire. Transeuphraténe: Etudes sur la Syrie-Palastine et Chypre a l’Epoque Perse 1: 87–105. 1991 Le royaume de Tyre dans le second moitie du IV av. J.C. Pp. 132–49 in Atti del II Congresso Internationale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Vol. 1. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. 1993 Les critère non-iconographiques de la classification des sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques inscrits. Pp. 1–26 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1994a Deux nouvelles stèles funéraires araméennes de Cilicie orientale. Epigraphica Anatolica 23: 91–98. 1994b Épigraphie et Numismatique Palestiniennes. Pp. 261–87 in La Palestine a l’Époque Perse, ed. E. M. Laperrousaz. Paris: du Cerf. 1994c Les transformations politiques et culturelles de la Transjordanie au VIe siècle av. J.-C. Trans 8: 9–27. 1998 Une inscription araméene du VIIIe s. av. J.-C. trouvée à Bukân. Studia Iranica 27: 15–30. Levin, Y. 1995 Changes in the Borders of Judah during the Persian Period. Pp. 81–96 in Judah and Samaria Studies: The Fifth Conference, ed. H. Eshel. Kedumim-Ariel: College of Judea and Samaria. Levine, L. I. 2002 Jerusalem, Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 b.c.e.–70 c.e.). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Lidzbarski, M. 1898 Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik. 2 vols. Weimar: Felber. 1909a The Old Hebrew Jar Seals from Gezer. PEFQS: 154. 1909b Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. Bd. 3.A. Giessen: Töpelmann. 1921 Altaramäische Urkunden aus Assur. Wissentschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 38. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Lieberman, S. J. 1968 The Aramaic Argillary Script in the Seventh Century. BASOR 192: 25–31. Lipiński, E. 1973 L’étymologie de “Juda.” VT 23: 380–81. 1975 Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 1989 “Cellériers” de la province de Juda. Transeuphraténe: Etudes sur la Syrie-Palastine et Chypre a l’Epoque Perse 1: 107–9.

780

Bibliography

Lipschits, O. 1997a The “Yehud” Province under Babylonian Rule (586–539 b.c.e.): Historic Reality and Historiographic Conceptions. Ph.D dissertation. Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew] 1997b The Origins of the Jewish Population of Modiʿin and Its Vicinity. Cathedra 85: 7–32. [Hebrew] 2000 Was There a Royal Estate in En-Gedi by the End of the Iron Age and during the Persian Period? Pp. 31–41 in Jerusalem and Eretz Israel: Arie Kindler Volume, ed. J. Schwartz, Z. Amar, and I. Ziffer. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. [Hebrew] 2003 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries b.c.e. Pp. 323–76 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2005 The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2006 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine, and the Status of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Century b.c.e. Pp. 19–52 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2009a The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon. Cathedra 131: 5–24. [Hebrew] 2009b Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9: 2–30 (Article 20). http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_122​ .pdf. 2011 Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of Jerusalem in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. Pp. 163–75 in Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 bce), ed. L. L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits. London: T. & T. Clark. Lipschits, O., and Gadot, Y. 2008 Ramat Raḥel and the Emeq Rephaim sites: Links and interpretations. Pp. 88–96 in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Religion, Collected Papers, ed. D. Amit and G. D. Stiebel. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. [Hebrew] Lipschits, O., and Naʾaman, N. 2011 From “Baal Perazim” to “Beth-Haccherem”: On the Ancient Name of Ramat-Raḥel. Beth-Miqra 66/2: 65–86. [Hebrew] Lipschits, O.; Oeming, M.; Gadot, Y.; and Arubas, B. 2006 Ramat Raḥel 2005. IEJ 56: 227–35. 2009 The 2006 and 2007 Excavation Seasons at Ramat Raḥel. IEJ 59: 1–20. Lipschits, O.; Oeming, M.; Gadot, Y.; and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2007 Seventeen Newly Excavated Yehud Stamp Impressions from Ramat Raḥel. Tel Aviv 34: 74–89. Lipschits, O., and Ornan, T. forthcoming—Corpus of the Lion Stamp Impressions from the Persian Period: Typology, Chronology, Distribution and Function. Lipschits, O., and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2007a Jerusalem in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Light of the Yehud Stamp Impressions. ErIsr 28 (Kollek Volume): 106–15. [Hebrew] 2007b A New Typology of the Yehud Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 34: 12–37. 2007c Summary Data of Yehud Stamp Impressions, Arranged by Type. Tel Aviv 34: 114–20. 2007d Yehud Stamp Impressions: History of Discovery and Newly Published Impressions. Tel Aviv 34: 3–11. 2007e Yehud Stamp Impressions of the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: A Time of Administrative Consolidation? Pp. 75–94 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century b.c.e., ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bibliography 2009

781

40 Unpublished yehud Stamp Impressions from Aharoni’s Excavations at Ramat Raḥel. ErIsr 29 (Stern Volume): 248–69. [Hebrew] Lipschits, O.; Gadot, Y.; Arubas, B.; and Oeming, M. 2009 Ramat Raḥel and its Secrets. Qadmoniot 138: 58–77. [Hebrew] 2011 Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel. NEA 74/1: 2–49. Lipschits, O.; Sergi, O.; and Koch, I. 2010 The Date of the lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions: A Fresh Look. TA 37: 3–32. 2011 Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for the Study of the History of Late Monarchic Judah. TA 38: 5–41. Lipschits, O.; Vanderhooft, D.; Gadot, Y.; and Oeming, M. 2009 Twenty-Four New YEHUD Stamp Impressions from the 2007 Excavation Season at Ramat-Raḥel. Maarav 15: 7–25 and pls. on pp. 97–103. 2010 Twenty-Seven New YEHUD Stamp Impressions from the 2008 Excavation Season at Ramat Raḥel. Maarav 16.1: 7–28. forthcoming  30 New Yehud Stamp Impressions from the 2009 Excavation Season at RamatRaḥel. Maarav. Livingston, D. 2003 Khirbet Nisya: A Search for Biblical ʿAi, 1979–2002: Excavation of the Site with Related Studies in Biblical Archaeology. Manheim, PA: published by author. Lux, U. 1972 Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgraben unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan in der Altstadt von Jerusalem in Jahren 1970 und 1971. ZDPV 88: 185–203. Macalister, R. A. S. 1903 4th Quarterly Report on the Excavation at Gezer. PEFQS: 195–231. 1904 8th Quarterly Report on the Excavation at Gezer. PEFQS: 194–228. 1907 15th Quarterly Report on the Excavation at Gezer. PEFQS: 254–68. 1909a 20th Quarterly Report on the Excavation at Gezer. PEFQS: 13–25. 1909b 21st Quarterly Report on the Excavation at Gezer. PEFQS: 87–105. 1912 The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Macalister, R. A. S., and Duncan, J. G. 1926 Excavation on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, 1923–1925. PEFA 4. Manchester: Palestine Exploration Fund. Machinist, P. 1992 Palestine, Administration of (Assyro-Babylonian). Pp. 69–81 in vol. 5 of ABD. 1994 The First Coins of Judah and Samaria: Numismatics and History in the Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic Periods. Pp. 365–79 in Achaemenid History, vol. 7: Continuity and Change, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, and M. Cool-Root. Leiden: Brill. Magen, B. 1973 Jerusalem: House of Caiaphas, Mt. Zion. HA 45: 22. [Hebrew] Magen, Y., and Dadon, M. 1995 Excavation Project at Nebi Samuel. Pp. 16–17 in The Twenty-First Archaeological Congress in Israel. Jerusalem: n.p. 1999 Nebi Samwil (Samuel Hanavi—Har Hasimha). Qadmoniot 118: 62–77. [Hebrew] 2003 Nebi Samwil (Montjoie). Pp. 123–38 in One Land—Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda, ed. G. Claudio Bottini, Leah di Segni, and L. Daniel Chrupcala. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Magen, Y., and Har-Even, B. 2007 Persian Period Seal Impressions from Nebi Samwil. Tel Aviv 34: 38–58.

782

Bibliography

Magen, Y.; Misgav, H.; and Tsfania, L. 2004 Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. Malamat, A. 1983 The Age of The Monarchies: Culture and Society. World History of the Jewish People: Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Am Oved. [Hebrew] Mazar, B. 1962 Second Season of Excavations at Ein Gedi. HA 3: 6–7. [Hebrew] 1969a Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. ErIsr (Albright Volume) 9: 161–74. 1969b The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Preliminary Report of the First Season 1968. ErIsr 9 (Albright Volume): 161–74, and pls. 39–50. 1971 The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount: Second Preliminary Report, 1969–1970 Seasons. ErIsr 10 (Shazar Volume): 1–34. [Hebrew] 1986 Excavations and Discoveries. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Exploration Fund. [Hebrew] Mazar, B.; Dothan, T.; and Dunayevski, E. 1963 Ein Gedi: Archaeological Excavations 1961–1962. Yediʿot 27: 1–133. [Hebrew] 1966 En-Gedi: The 1st and 2nd Seasons of Excavations, 1961–1962. Atiqot 5. Mazar, B., and Dunayewsky, I. 1964a Ein-Gedi, Third Season of Excavations (Preliminary Report). IEJ 14: 121–30. 1964b Third Season at Ein Gedi. HA 10: 6. [Hebrew] 1965 Forth Season at Ein Gedi. HA 13: 1–2. [Hebrew] Mazar, B., and Eshel, H. 1998 Who Built the First Wall of Jerusalem? IEJ 48: 265–68. Mazar, E. 2000 The Royal Quarter of Biblical Jerusalem: The Ophel. Pp. 64–73 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Exp. ed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2003 The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978, Directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports, vol. 2: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. 2006 Did I Find King David’s Palace? BAR 32/1: 16–27, 70. Mazar, E., and Mazar, B. 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount, the Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. McClellan, T. L. 1984 Town Planning at Tell en-Naṣbeh. ZDPV 100: 53–69. McCown, C. C. 1947 Tell en-Naṣbeh I, Archaeological and Historical Results. Berkley: Palestinian Institute Pacific School of Religion / New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. McEvenue, S. E. 1981 The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah. CBQ 43: 353–64. Mendelsohn, I. 1940 Guides in Ancient Palestine. BASOR 80: 17–21. Meshorer, Y. 1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage, vol. 1: Persian Period through Hasmoneans. New York: Amphora. 2001 A Treasury of Jewish Coins. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi / New York: Amphora. Meshorer, Y., and Qedar, S. 1991 The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century bce. Jerusalem: Numismatic Fine Arts International. 1999 Samarian Coinage. Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society.

Bibliography

783

Meyer, E. 1896 Die Entstehung des Judentums. Halle: Niemeyer. Meyers, E. M. 1985 The Shelomith Seal and the Restoration: Some Additional Judean Considerations. ErIsr 18 (Avigad Volume): 33–38. 1987 The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerubbabel to Nehemiah. Pp. 509–21 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Hanson, P. D. Miller, and D. S. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. Meyers, E. M., and Meyers, C. 1987 Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. AB 25B. New York: Doubleday. Michaeli, F. 1967 Les livres des Chroniques, d’Esdras et de Néhémie. Paris: Delachaux. Mildenberg, L. 1979 Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judaea. Pp. 183–96 in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed. O.  Mørkholm and N. M. Waggoner. Belgium: Wetteren. 1988 Yehud-Münzen. Pp. 721–28 in Palästina in Vorhellenistischer Zeit, by Helga Weippert. Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien 2/1. Munich: Beck. Millard, A. R. 1971 Some Aramaic Epigraphs. Iraq 27: 131–38. 1974 The Meaning of the Name Judah. ZAW 86: 216–18. 1989 Note on Two Seal Impressions on Pottery (Appendix to R. P. Harper and D. Pringle, Belmont Castle 1987: Second Preliminary Report of Excavations). Levant 21: 60–61. Mittmann, S. 1991 Königliches bat und ṭēt-Symbol, mit einem Beitrag zu Micha 1,14b und 1 Chronik 4,21–23. ZDPV 107 57–66. Mommsen, H.; Perlman, I.; and Yellin, J. 1984 The Provenience of the lmlk Jars. IEJ 34: 89–113. Mowinckel, S. 1964 Studien zu dem Buche Ezra–Nehemia. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Muilenburg, J. 1954 A Hiksos Scarab Jar Handle from Bethel. BASOR 136: 20–21. Müller, C., and Dankwarth, G. 1988 Zur altaramäischen “Altar”-Inschrift vom Tell H.alaf. Archiv für Orientforschung 35 (1988) 73–78. Naʾaman, N. 1979 The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. TA 6: 68–90. 1986 Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4. Jerusalem: Simor. 1995 The Historical Background of the Philistine Attack on Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:18. Pp. 11-26 in Kasher, A., and Oppenheimer, A. (eds.). Dor le-Dor: Studies in Honor of Joshua Efron. Jerusalem: Bialik. [Hebrew] 2001 An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Raḥel? TA 28: 260–80. Naʾaman, N. and Zadok, R. 1988 Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716–708 bc). JCS 40: 36–46. Naveh, J. 1970 The Development of the Aramaic Script. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 5. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities. 1971 Hebrew Texts in Aramic Script in the Persian Period. BASOR 203: 27–32. 1992 Aramaic Script. Pp. 342–45 in vol. 1 of ABD. 1995a The Inscriptions from Failaka and the Lapidary Aramaic Script. BASOR 297: 1–4.

784 1995b

Bibliography

A New Type of “Yehud” Seal Impression. Pp. 62–63 in The Fifth Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Naḥal Barkai) 1994, ed. S. Givʿon. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew] 1996 Gleanings of Some Pottery Inscriptions. IEJ 46: 44–51. 1998 Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria. IEJ 48: 91–100. Naveh, J., and Biran, A. 1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. 1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Naveh, J., and Goldwasser, O. 1976 The Origin of the Ṭet-Symbol. IEJ 26: 15–19. Naveh, J., and Greenfield, J. C. 1984 Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period. Pp. 115–129 in vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nedelman, Y. 1989 Hebrew Inscriptions, Seal Impressions and Marking of the Iron Age II. Pp. 128–41 in Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology / Qedem 29, ed. E. Mazar and B. Mazar. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 1993 Jerusalem: Pisgat Zeʾev 4. HA 99: 49. [Hebrew] Negbi, O. 1969 Jerusalem: The French Hill. HA 31–32: 18. [Hebrew] Netzer, E. 2001 Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Oeming, M. and Lipschits, O. 2010 Die Geheimnisse von Ramat Raḥel. Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 2: 2–9. Ofer, A. 1993 The Highland of Judah during the Biblical Period. Ph.D. dissertation. Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew] Pearce, L. E. 2006 New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia. Pp. 399–411 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Peilstöcker, M., and Sass, B. 2001 A Hebrew Seal from Jaffa and the Hebrew Script in the Post-First Temple Period. ʿAtiqot 42: 199–210. Petit, T. 1988 L’évolution sémantique des termes hébreux et araméenes pḥh et sgn et accadiens piḫatu et šaknu. JBL 107: 53–67. Polak, F. H. 2006 Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire. Pp. 589–628 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Pritchard, J. B. 1959 Hebrew Inscriptions and Stamps from Gibeon. Philadelphia: University Museum Press. 1964 Winery, Defences and Soundings at Gibeon. Philadelphia. Rabinowitz, I. 1956 Aramaic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century b.c.e. from a North-Arab Shrine in Egypt. JNES 15: 1–9. Rahmani, L. Y. 1971 Silver Coins of the Fourth Century b.c. from Tel Gamma. IEJ 21: 158–60.

Bibliography

785

Rainey, A. F. 1969 The Satrapy “Beyond the River.” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1/2: 51–78. 1980 The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Tel Aviv 7: 194–202. 1982 Wine from the Royal Vineyards. BASOR 245: 57–62. Rappaport, U. 1971 The Emergence of Hasmonean Coinage. Association for Jewish Studies Review. 1: 171–86. 2004 The First Book of Maccabees. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi. [Hebrew] Reich, R. 1981 Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonian Gezer. IEJ 31: 48–52. 1992 The Beth-zur Citadel II: A Persian Residency? Tel Aviv 19: 113–23. 2003 Local Seal Impressions of the Hellenistic Period. Pp. 256–62 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahaman Avigad, vol. 2: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Reich, R., and Brandl, B. 1985 Gezer under Assyrian Rule. PEFQS 117: 41–54. Reich, R., and Shukron, E. 1998 Jerusalem, the City of David. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18: 91–92. 2003 The Urban Development of Jeusalem in the Late 8th Century bce. Pp. 209–18 in Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2004 The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem. Levant 36: 211–23. 2007 The Yehud Seal Impressions from the 1995–2005 Excavations in the City of David. Tel Aviv 34 : 59–65. Richardson, H. N. 1968 A Stamped Handle fom Khirbet-Yarmuk. BASOR 192: 12–16. Röllig, W. 1999 Aramaica Haburensia III: Beobachtungen an neuen Dokumenten in “Aramaic Argillary Script.” ErIsr (Cross Volume) 26: *163-*68. Rosenbaum, J. 1978 A Typology of Aramaic Lapidary Script From the Seventh to Fourth Centuries b.c.e. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University. Saller, S. J. 1952–53 Stamped Impression on the Pottery of Bethany. Liber Annuus 3: 5–36. 1957 Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953). Jerusalem: Franciscan Print Press. Sass, B. 2000 The Small Finds. Pp. 349–423 in Megiddo III, ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology Publications. Sass, B. and Marzahn, J. 2010 Aramaic and Figural Stamp Impressions on Bricks of the Sixth Century b.c. from Babylon. WVDOG 127. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sayce, A. H. 1927 The Jerusalem Seallings on Jar Handles. PEFQS: 216–17. Schniedewind, W. M. 2006 Aramaic, the Death of Written Hebrew, and Language Shift in the Persian Period. Pp. 137–47 in Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, ed. S. L. Sanders. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Schürer, E. 1973 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

786

Bibliography

Schwartz, J. 1988 The History of Lod during the Persian Period. Cathedra 49: 3–12. [Hebrew] Seger, J. D. 1976 The Search for Maccabean Gezer. BA 39: 142–44. 1988 Gezer V: The Field I Caves. Annual of the Hebrew Union College / Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 5. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Press. Sellers, O. R. 1933 The Citadel of Beth-Zur. Philadelphia: Westminster. Sellers, O. R.; Funk, R. W.; McKenzie, J. L.; Lapp, P.; and Lapp, N. 1968 The 1957 Excavation at Beth-zur. AASOR 38. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Sellin, E. 1935 Mitteilungen. 1. Zu den Krughenkelstempeln von Jericho. ZDPV 35: 77–78. Sellin, E., and Watzinger, C. 1913 Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig: Zeller. Shiloh, Y. 1979a City of David. BA 42: 165–71. 1979b Jerusalem: City of David. HA 67–68: 43–45. [Hebrew] 1979c New Excavations in the City of David. Qadmoniot 45: 12–19. [Hebrew] 1980 Jerusalem: City of David. HA 73: 28. [Hebrew] 1984a Excavations at the City of David I. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. 1984b Notes and News: Jerusalem, City of David, 1983. IEJ 34: 57–58. Shiloh, Y., and Kaplan, M. 1979 Digging in the City of David. BAR 4 (4): 36–49. Shoham, Y. 2000 Hebrew Bullae. Pp. 29–57 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, vol. 6: Inscriptions, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Hebrew University–Institute of Archaeology. Sinclair, L. A. 1960 An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl). BASOR 202: 6–16. 1964 An Archaeological Study of Gibea (Tell el-Fûl). BA 27: 52–64. Sivan, R., and Solar, G. 1994 Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980–1988. Pp. 168–76 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Smelik, K. A. D. 1991 Writings from Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Starcky, J. 1960 Une tablette araméenne de l’an 34 de Nabuchodonosor (AO,21.063). Syria 37: 99–115. Stern, E. 1971 Seal Impressions in the Achaemenid Style in the Province of Judah. BASOR 202: 6–16. 1977 “Yehud” in Vision and Reality. Cathedra 4: 13–25. [Hebrew] 1981 The Province of Yehud: The Vision and the Reality. Pp. 9–21 in The Jerusalem Cathedra, ed. L. I. Lee. Jerusalem: Wayne State University Press. 1982 Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 b.c. Warminster: Aris & Phillips / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. [First published in Hebrew, 1973] 1984 The Archeology of Persian Palestine. Pp. 88–114 in Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography 2001

787

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods 73–332 bce. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 2007 En-Gedi Excavations I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University. Stern, E.; Lipschits, O.; and Vanderhooft, D. 2007 New Yehud Stamp Impressions from En Gedi. Tel Aviv 34: 66–73. Stern, E., and Matskevich, S. 2007a Stratigraphy of the Excavated Areas. Pp. 69–75 in E. Stern, En-Gedi Excavations I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University. 2007b Stratigraphy of Stratum V. Pp. 77–85 in E. Stern, En-Gedi Excavations I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University. 2007c Stratigraphy of Stratum IV. Pp. 193–97 in E. Stern, En-Gedi Excavations I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University. Stolper, M. W. 1989 The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River in 486 b.c. JNES 48: 283–305. Sukenik, E. L. 1933 The “Jerusalem” and “The City” Stamps on Jar Handles. JPOS 13: 226–31. 1934 Paralipomena Palestina. JPOS 14: 178–84. Tadmor, H. 1991 On the Role of Aramaic in the Assyrian Empire. Pp. 419–26 in Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. Mori et al. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. Tal, O. 2007 Coin Denominations and Weight Standards in Fourth-Century bce Palestine. Israel Numismatic Research 2: 17−28. Tal, O., Fischer, M., and Roll, I. 2005 Persian and Hellenistic Remains at Tel Yaʿoz: Towards the Identification of Hellenistic Gazara. Pp. 259−302 in Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and Their Neighborhood: Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal Plain, ed. M. Fischer. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew, English abstract p. xx] Tcherikover, V. 1972 The Political Situation from 332 b.c.e. to 175 b.c.e. Pp. 54–86 in The World History of the Jewish People: The Hellenistic Age, ed. A. Schalit. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Throntveit, M. A. 1992 Ezra–Nehemiah. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Torrey, C. C. 1896 The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah. Giessen: Ricker. 1910 Ezra Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tufnell, O. 1958 Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir): The Bronze Age. Text and Plates. London: Oxford University Press. Tuplin, C. 1987 The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire. Pp. 109–66 in Coinage and Administration in The Athenian and Persian Empires, ed. I. Carradice. British Archaeological Reports International Series 343. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Tushingham, A. D. 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem. Vol. 1. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Tzafrir, Y. 1977 The Walls of Jerusalem in the Period of Nehemiah. Cathedra 4: 31–42. [Hebrew]

788

Bibliography

Ussishkin, D. 2006 The Borders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem in the Persian Period. Pp. 147–66 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Van Beek, G. 1983 Digging up Tell Jemmeh. Archaeology 36/1: 12–19. Vanderhooft, D. S. 1999 The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. HSM 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2003 Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric. Pp. 235–62 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2011 ʾel-mĕdînâ ûmĕdînâ kiktābāh: Scribes and Scripts in Yehud and in Achaemenid Transeuphratene. Pp. 529–44 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. forthcoming  Iron Age Hebrew, Moabite, and Edomite Monumental Scripts. In An Eye for Form: Epigraphic Studies in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. J. Hackett and W. Aufrecht. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Vanderhooft, D. S., and Lipschits, O. 2007 A New Typology of the Yehud Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv 34: 12–37. 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. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Vincent, L. H. 1949 Les épigraphes judéo-araméennes postexiliques. Revue Biblique 56: 274–94. Voigtlander, E. N. von 1978 The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Babylonian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1/2. London: Lund. Walsh, C. W. 2000 The Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs, 60. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Wampler, J. C. 1941 Three Cistern Groups from Tell En-Naṣbeh. BASOR 82: 25–43. Watzinger, C. 1935 Denkmäler Palästinas: Eine einführung in die archäologie des heiligen landes. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Weill, R. 1920 La Cité de David. Paris: Geuthner. Weinberg, J. 1992 The Citizen-Temple Community. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2000 Jerusalem in the Persian Period. Pp. 307–26 in The History of Jerusalem, the Biblical ˙ Period, ed. S. Aituv and A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi. [Hebrew] Weinberg, S. S. 1970 Eretz Israel after the Destruction of the First Temple: Archeological Report. Pp. 202–16 in vol. 4 of Proceedings of the Israeli National Academy of Sciences. Jerusalem. [Hebrew]

Bibliography

789

Weinfeld, M. 2000 Pelekh in Nehemiah 3. Pp. 249–50 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography, ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 81. Leiden: Brill. Weippert, H. 1988 Palästina in Vorhellenistischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien 2/1. Munich: Beck. Widengren, G. 1977 The Persian Period. Pp. 489–538 in Israelite and Judean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller. Philadelphia: Westminster. Wightman, G. J. 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluks. Sydney: Meditarch. Williamson, H. G. M. 1984 Nehemiah’s Walls Revisited. PEFQS 116: 81–88. 1985 Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, TX: Word. 1988 The Governors of Judah under the Persians. Tyndale Bulletin 39: 59–82. 1992 Palestine, Administration of (Persian). Pp. 81–86 in vol. 5 of ABD. Yadin, Y. 1961 The Fourfold Division of Judah. BASOR 163: 6–12. Yadin, Y. et al. 1961 Hazor 3/4: Plates. The Third and Fourth Seasons 1957–1958. Jerusalem: Magnes. Yellin, J. 2003 Provenance of lmlk stamp seal impressions. Pp. 107–12 in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II, ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yellin, J. and Cahill, J. M. 2004 Rosette-stamped handles: instrumental neutron activation analysis. IEJ 54: 191–213. Zadok, R. 1998 The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. OLA 28. Leuven: Peeters. Zissu, B., and and Ganor, A. 2001 Ḥorbat ʿEtri. HA 113: 101. [Hebrew] Zorn, J. R. 1993 Tell en-Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley. 1994 Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions, and a Case Study. BASOR 295: 31–48. 1995 Three Cross-Shaped “ṭet” Stamp Impressions from Tell en-Naṣbeh. Tel Aviv 22: 98–106. 2003 Tell en-Naṣbeh and the Problem of the Material Culture of the Sixth Century. Pp. 413–47 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Zorn, J. R.; Yellin, J.; and Hayes, J. 1994 The M(W)ṢH Stamp Impressions and the Neo-Babylonian Period. IEJ 44: 161–83. Zwickel, W. 2008 Jerusalem und Samaria zur Zeit Nehemias: Ein Vergleich. Biblische Zeitschrift 52: 201–22.

Index of Toponyms Adullam 28 ʿAlamit, Ḥorvat  23, 52, 593, 658 Amrit-Marathos 598 ʿAnate (ʿAnathoth)  52 Arad  26, 58, 75–77, 230 Arwad-Arados 598 ʿArugot, Nahal  48 Ashdod 29 Assur  67–69, 71, 87

Elah Valley  59 el-Bireh  52, 236 Elephantine  3, 77, 86, 108, 113, 659, 660 En Gedi (Tell el-Jurn, Tel Goren)  4, 9–12, 15–17, 19, 21–28, 30–31, 41, 45–46, 48–49, 60, 82, 107, 132–34, 138–40, 253, 257–58, 261–63, 267, 299–301, 374, 376, 378–81, 448–51, 591, 757, 760, 762 ʿEn-Haṣeva 58

Babylon  8, 19, 21–24, 31, 67–68, 72, 78–79, 86, 107, 202–3, 205 Bahadirli 70 Barkai, Nahal  56, 192, 202 Battir  6, 19, 21–23, 30, 51, 658, 675 Beer-Sheba 26 Beersheba-Arad Valley  58 Behistun 77 Beirut  67–68, 72 Beit Safafa  50 Belmont (Castle)  7, 19, 2–23, 27, 44, 54, 206, 208 Besor, Nahal  58–59 Bethany  4, 11, 17, 21–23, 54, 658, 664, 666, 673–74 Bethel (Beitin)  4, 25–26, 30, 57 Beth-Hakkerem (District)  28, 30, 113, 127 Bethlehem 27 Beth-Shemesh  85, 89–94, 97, 101, 103, 114, 121–22, 130–31, 141, 146, 148–50, 153–56, 161, 168, 170, 196, 217–21, 233, 375, 528, 657 Beth-Zur  27–28, 30, 126 bit-Mizah, Khirbet  594, 658, 720

Gaza  58, 256 Gazara 29 Geba 26 Gerizim, Mt.  66, 68, 71 Gezer  2, 4, 11–12, 15, 17, 19, 21–25, 28, 30–31, 55–56, 60, 107–8, 111–12, 126–27, 132–34, 137, 254, 375–76, 380–81, 383, 467, 593, 596–97, 601–3, 658–59, 662, 664–66, 668–71, 757, 760, 762 Ghazza, Tell  29 Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl)  6, 19, 21–23, 53, 57, 593, 658, 672 Gibeon (el-Jib)  4, 10, 27, 44, 57, 65, 129 Givʿat Massuah  50 Gulf of Eilat  57

Coastal Plain  41, 45, 57–58 Daliyeh, Wadi  192 Dan, Tel  10, 62 Ein-Kerem 55 Ekron 28

HaMoza, Ḥorvat  8, 23, 54, 658 Ḥarasim, Tel  8, 11, 15, 23–25, 30–31, 56, 60, 79–80, 82, 192–95, 202–4 Hebron  27–28, 129 Ḥusan  19, 21–23, 30, 51, 55, 596, 599, 604 Idumea 27 Jaffa 29 Jemmeh, Tell  19, 21–24, 30–31, 58, 254, 374, 376, 380–82 Jericho (Tell es-Sultan)  2, 4, 6, 9–12, 15–17, 19, 21–28, 30–31, 41, 44–48, 52, 59–60, 82, 107–8, 110, 112, 119, 126–27, 192, 209–12, 217, 253, 257–60, 267, 269–71, 374–82, 384–96, 591, 757, 760, 762

790

Index of Toponyms Jerusalem  1, 4, 6, 8–12, 14–17, 23–25, 27–28, 30–31, 33, 38, 40–42, 44–45, 47–48, 50–55, 60–61, 79–80, 83–84, 89–97, 107, 113–14, 116, 121–22, 127–30, 141–42, 194, 196, 200, 229, 233, 252, 256–59, 267, 280–98, 300, 374–76, 380–81, 407–46, 467, 472, 475, 532, 594–97, 601, 605–20, 622–45, 650, 657–59, 662–63, 666–68, 676–718, 722–25, 740–42, 756–57, 759–64 Armenian Garden  40–41, 594, 599, 606–11, 657 Armenian Quarter  6 Binyanei Haʾuma  9, 11, 19, 23, 112–13, 116, 126, 596, 599, 647 Citadel of Jerusalem  6 City of David  1–2, 6, 8–12, 15–17, 19, 21–23, 33, 38–40, 45, 49, 53–54, 60, 81–87, 89–97, 112–14, 118, 120–22, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134–35, 141–42, 192–93, 196, 229–30, 233, 251–54, 256–58, 260–67, 280–98, 374, 376–80, 407–46, 591–92, 595, 599–600, 626–45, 657, 663–67, 676–711, 725, 760 El-ʿEzariyeh 54 Gihon Spring  39 Hinnom Valley  657 Jewish Quarter  6–8, 10, 40, 377, 594, 600, 614–19, 663, 666–67, 712–17 Ketef Hinnom  65 Kidron Valley  39 Kikkar Safra  9 Mount Zion  6, 39–41, 594, 596, 622, 723 Ophel  1, 39, 128, 257, 280–83, 374, 376–78, 407–22, 594–95, 597, 657, 662, 676, 725 Southwestern Hill  596, 612–13, 657 Western Hill  1, 11–12, 15, 17, 19, 21–23, 40–41, 60, 252, 256, 594–96, 601, 605, 620, 657 Tower of David  41 Tyropeon  1, 657, 697–99 Kadesh Barnea  23–25, 30–31, 57–58, 254, 374, 378, 380, 447 Kefar Menachem  56 Keilah District  28 Ketef Jericho  192 Kheleifeh, Tell el-  58, 85 Lachish  33, 760 Lod 28 Manaḥat 50

791

Maresha 27–28 Mevasseret Zion  54 Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh)  2, 9–12, 15–16, 19, 21–23, 26–28, 30, 31, 33–34, 41–42, 44–45, 47, 52, 57, 60, 80, 128–29, 203, 206, 229–30, 231–32, 236, 253, 256–58, 260, 262, 264, 267–68, 272–79, 374–78, 380–81, 397–406, 591, 757, 762 Mmšt 129 Moza  44, 50, 60 Nebi Samwil  8–12, 15–17, 19, 21–23, 30–31, 41–42, 45, 57, 79, 82–83, 85, 98–99, 229–30, 234, 253, 256–58, 260, 262, 267, 302–3, 375, 378, 380, 452–62, 757, 762 Negev  25, 27 Neirab  67–68, 71–72, 87 Nimrin, Tell  8, 24, 31, 59, 86, 107, 112–13, 115, 127 Nineveh  67, 69 Nisya, Khirbet  11, 23, 30, 51–52, 80, 235–36, 239, 254, 257–58, 305, 658, 721 Ono 28 Ophrah 26 Qelt, Wadi  46 Ramat Raḥel  4, 6, 9–13, 15–17, 19, 21–24, 27, 30–38, 42, 49–51, 60, 79–85, 88, 100–106, 113, 118–20, 123–28, 131–36, 144–94, 197–201, 209–11, 214–29, 235–36, 238, 240–51, 253–68, 308–73, 375–81, 468–593, 595–601, 654–58, 663–68, 728–57, 759–64 Ramot Forest  9, 19, 21–23, 596–97, 599, 648 er-Ras, Khirbet  50, 51 Rephaim Basin  49–50 Rephaim Valley  9, 23, 25, 28, 30, 50, 51, 761, 764 Rogem Gannim (Rujm eṭ-Ṭârūd)  9, 11–12, 15–17, 19, 21–23, 30–31, 49–51, 82, 133–34, 143, 209, 211, 213, 253, 257–58, 261–62, 267–68, 304, 374, 376–77, 380–81, 463–66, 591, 759–60 Samaria  5, 28, 30, 41–42, 45, 66, 77, 109, 119, 255, 256 Saqqarah 67 Senaʾah 28 Shechem 10 Shephelah  27–28, 30–31, 55–56, 59, 107, 192, 202, 757, 762

792

Index of Toponyms

Socoh 129 Soreq, Naḥal  29 Ṣuba  9, 19, 21–23, 27, 44, 54–55, 252, 595–96, 599, 646

ʿUmayri, Tell el  72 ʾUza, Ḥorvat  230

Taymāʾ  70, 71 Tekoa 27–28

Zanoah 28 Ziph 129

Yaʿoz, Tell  29

Index of Authors Aharoni, M.  31 Aharoni, Y.  4, 5, 9, 11, 30–35, 37–38, 75, 77, 83–85, 88, 98–106, 108, 111, 118–20, 123– 24, 126, 128, 131–34, 136–37, 144, 145–75, 178–82, 192, 197–201, 209–10, 213–22, 231, 235–38, 240–47, 251, 257–60, 262–66, 290, 308–63, 374–75, 377–80, 468–590, 593, 596, 598, 654–57, 660, 728–51 Albright, W. F.  2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 42, 45, 53, 74–77, 108, 119, 126, 259, 659–60, 662 Alt, A.  75, 79 Amadasi Guzzo, M. G.  66 Amiran, R.  6, 40–41, 53, 594, 657, 718 Ariel, D. T.  6, 8–10, 39, 40, 83–85, 87–97, 112–14, 118, 120–22, 126, 133–35, 141, 192–93, 196, 229, 233, 252, 257, 260–61, 263–64, 266, 284–93, 374–75, 377–80, 423–44, 593–96, 598–600, 605–9, 626–45, 647, 656–58, 663, 666–67, 671, 700–711, 722–23 Arubas, B.  xii, 32, 760, 764 Aurant, S.  758 Avigad, N.  1, 4–10, 27, 40, 44, 62–63, 65, 68–71, 78, 84–87, 108–111, 113, 118–19, 126–27, 203, 206, 299, 448, 593–96, 598, 659–60, 672, 676, 718 Avi-Yonah, M.  28 Badè, W. F.  257, 260, 262, 272, 273, 374, 377–78, 380, 397–406 Barag, D.  48, 255 Barkay, G.  8, 9, 31, 33, 112–13, 116, 126, 132, 228, 375, 549, 568, 596, 647, 657, 752–53 Bartlett, K. R.  6, 47, 108, 110, 260, 374, 377, 379, 394–96 Beit-Arieh, I.  230 Bernick-Greenberg, H.  58 Billig, Y.  8, 54, 658 Biran, A.  62, 66 Blenkinsopp, J.  28, 42 Bliss, F. J.  1, 39, 41, 596, 605 Brandl, B.  56, 758 Bresciani, E.  77–78

Briant, P.  27, 47 Brody, A.  229 Broshi, M.  6, 40, 41, 52–53, 594, 596, 612–13, 622, 723 Cahill, J. M.  33, 39–40, 59 Caquot, A.  67 Carter, C. E.  4, 23, 25, 47, 760 Chen, D.  40, 594 Christoph, J. R.  7, 9, 44, 382, 663 Cinamon, G.  9, 30, 49–50, 133, 143, 209, 213, 257, 261, 268, 304, 374, 377, 380, 463–66 Clermont-Ganneau, C.  659 Cohen, R.  23, 25, 57–58, 374, 378, 447 Cook, S. A.  2, 3, 257, 259–60, 262, 280–83, 374, 377, 407–9, 411, 595, 597, 623–25, 657, 660, 676, 678, 680–84, 687–88, 692 Cross, F. M.  5, 7, 62–63, 66–67, 69–71, 85–87, 108–9, 206, 229–30, 232, 236–37, 239, 255, 268, 305, 598, 661, 721, 758 Crowfoot, J. W.  374, 445, 657, 697–99 Dadon, M.  8, 42, 45 Dankwarth, G.  62, 66 Davidovich, U.  9, 597, 648 Degen, R.  66, 67 De Groot, A.  39, 40, 50, 88, 252, 594 Delavault, B.  5, 661 Dempsey, D.  8, 86, 112–15, 126 Deutsch, R.  75, 112–13, 117 Dever, W. G.  55–56 Dickie, A. C.  1, 39, 41, 596, 605 Dinur, A.  52–53, 593, 658, 719 Diringer, D.  2, 137, 374, 377, 409, 597, 650, 659, 727 DiVito, R. A.  85 Dothan, T.  48, 57–58 Dunayevsky, I.  4, 48–49, 132, 138, 257, 261, 299, 374, 376, 448 Duncan, J. G.  2–3, 7, 11, 33, 39, 257, 259–60, 262, 280–83, 374, 377–78, 407–8, 410, 412–21, 595, 597, 623–25, 657, 659–60, 676–696, 725

793

794

Index of Authors

Edelstein, G.  50, 758 Eitan, A.  6, 40–41, 594, 657, 718 Ephʿal, I.  67 Eshel, E.  6, 8, 620 Eshel, H.  40, 119, 192 Fales, F. M.  66, 67 Farhi, Y.  9, 597, 648 Faust, A.  50 Feig, N.  50, 52–53 Finkelstein, I.  39, 51–53, 55, 760 Finkielsztejn, G.  9, 55, 252, 593, 598 Fischer, M.  29 Fitzgerald, G. M.  374, 445, 657, 697–99 Fitzmyer, J. A.  65, 66, 77 Flanagan, J. W.  59 Fox, N. S.  51 Franken, H. J.  53 Fulco, W. J.  6, 51, 658, 675 Gadot, Y.  9, 33, 50, 80, 83, 105–6, 118, 125, 132, 177–92, 201, 209, 223–28, 235, 248–50, 258, 260, 264–66, 363–73, 375, 378, 550–61, 563–74, 587–90, 596, 656, 658, 754–55, 760, 764 Garbini, G.  7, 62–63, 593, 597–98 Geva, H.  6, 9–10, 40–41, 63, 252, 377, 593– 96, 621–22, 657, 660, 668, 723, 760, 764 Gibson, S.  9, 40–41, 55, 252, 593–96, 598, 612–13, 646 Gitin, S.  55–56 Gitler, H.  66, 69, 76, 256, 377 Givʿon, S.  8, 56–57, 192–93, 195, 202, 204 Goldwasser, O.  5, 661 Goren, Y.  48, 59, 141, 261, 374, 423–24 Grabbe, L. L.  27 Grafman, R.  660 Greenberg, R.  9, 30, 49–50, 133, 143, 209, 213, 257, 261, 268, 304, 374, 377, 380, 463–66 Greenfield, J. W.  66, 77 Greenhut, Z.  50 Grintz, J. M.  5 Gunneweg, J.  59 Hadas, G.  9, 48, 374, 376, 451 Halperin, N.  59 Halpern, B.  78 Hammond, P. C.  4, 47, 107–8, 110, 126 Har-Even, B.  9–10, 42, 45–46, 83, 85, 98–99, 229, 234, 257, 260, 262, 303, 375, 378, 452–62

Harper, R. P.  7, 206, 208 Hayes, J.  27, 34, 44, 63, 128–29, 229 Heltzer, M.  112, 113, 117 Hengel, M.  47 Herr, L. G.  67, 72 Hestrin, R.  124, 151, 200, 260, 314, 472, 741 Hirschfeld, H.  39, 40 Holladay Jr., J. S.  759 Huehnergard, J.  77 Japhet, S.  79 Joannès, F.  75 Kallai, Z.  28, 52 Kaufman, S. A.  65, 66 Keel, O.  758 Kelso, J. L.  4 Kenyon, K. M.  6, 33, 39, 41, 46–47, 107, 110, 126, 374, 596 Klein, S.  28, 659 Knoppers, G. N.  79 Kochavi, M.  51–52, 55, 596, 604 Koch, I.  32–33, 758, 760 Kochman, M.  5–7, 23, 25, 68–71, 78, 236, 259 Koldewey, R.  67, 86 Kottsieper, I.  65 Kutscher, E. Y.  5, 77 Lance, H. D.  55, 56 Lapp, N.  53, 54, 593 Lapp, P. W.  5, 6, 7, 38, 53–54, 593, 658–59, 672, 676, 727 Legrain, L.  67, 86 Lemaire, A.  5, 42, 65–66, 75, 661 Lidzbarski, M.  2, 66, 210, 212, 259, 659–60 Lieberman, S. J.  66 Lipiński, E.  74, 78 Lipschits, O.  1, 4, 9, 23, 25–28, 32–34, 40–42, 44–48, 50, 57, 59, 63, 79–80, 83, 105–7, 118, 125, 132, 139–40, 173–75, 177–92, 201, 209, 222–28, 231, 235, 246–50, 255–61, 263–66, 268, 300–301, 357–75, 377–80, 449–51, 529–48, 550–61, 563–91, 593, 596, 656–58, 749–51, 754–55, 757–58, 760–64 Livingston, D.  52, 235–36, 239, 257, 305, 658, 721 Lorber, C.  76 Lux, U.  33

Index of Authors Macalister, R. A. S.  2–3, 5, 33, 39, 55–56, 107–8, 111, 126, 132, 137, 257, 259, 374, 378, 410, 412–21, 593, 595–96, 602–3, 623–25, 657–60, 669–70, 676, 678–81, 725 Magen, Y.  8–10, 42, 45–46, 62–63, 66, 68, 70, 71, 83, 85, 98–99, 229, 234, 257, 260, 262, 302–3, 375, 378, 452, 453–62 Magness, J.  39 Margalit, S.  40, 594 Marzahn, J.  65–73, 86–87, 202–3 Matskevich, S.  48–49 Mazar, B.  4, 39, 48–49, 55, 132, 138, 257, 261, 299, 374, 376, 448, 657, 717 Mazar, E.  39 McClellan, T. L.  42 McCown, C. C.  3, 7, 23, 25, 42–45, 128, 257, 260, 262, 264, 272–78, 374, 377–78, 380, 397–406, 660 McCreery, D. W.  59 Meshorer, Y.  66, 69, 76–77, 109, 119, 211, 231, 237, 255–56, 260, 264, 268, 662 Meyer, E.  28 Meyers, C.  79 Meyers, E. W.  79 Michaeli, D.  39 Mildenberg, L.  255 Milevski, I.  758 Millard, A. R.  7, 74, 206–8 Misgav, H.  62–63, 66, 68, 70–71, 192 Mittmann, S.  660–61 Mommsen, H.  59 Muilenburg, J.  758 Müller, C.  62, 66 Müller, W. W.  66–67 Naveh, J.  5, 7–8, 39, 62, 65–71, 76, 78, 85–86, 108–9, 113, 118–19, 126, 129, 193, 202–6, 208, 210–11, 251, 255, 263, 268, 598, 661 Naʾaman, N.  28, 31, 33, 34, 50, 58 Nedelman, Y.  33 Oeming, M.  9, 80, 83, 105–6, 118, 125, 132, 177–92, 201, 209, 223–28, 235, 248–50, 258, 260, 264–66, 363–73, 375, 378, 550–61, 563–74, 587–90, 596, 656, 658, 754–55, 760, 764 Ornan, T.  34, 758 Painter, C.  229 Parpola, S.  75 Pearce, L. J.  75 Peilstöcker, M.  65, 69, 85

795

Petrie, W. M. F.  58–59, 374 Phythian-Adams, C.  58 Pixner, B.  40, 594 Polak, F. H.  65 Porten, B.  77, 86 Pritchard, J. B.  4, 57 Qedar, S.  66, 109, 119, 256 Rainey, A. F.  27 Reich, R.  6, 8–9, 39–40, 56, 133, 142, 257, 263–65, 294–98, 374, 376–77, 446, 594, 596, 598, 614–19, 657, 712–16 Roll, I.  29 Röllig, W.  66–67 Rosenbaum, J.  62, 68–70 Saller, S. J.  3–5, 7, 54, 658, 660, 673–74 Sass, B.  63, 65–72, 85–87, 109, 113, 202–3, 206, 758 Savir, N.  39–40 Sayce, A. H.  67 Schniedewind, W. M.  65 Schwartz, J.  28 Seger, J. D.  55–56 Sellin, E.  2–3, 47, 58, 209–10, 212, 257, 259–60, 269–71, 374, 376–78, 382, 384–93 Sergi, O.  32, 758 Shiloh, Y.  6, 8, 38–40, 83, 112, 118, 126, 132–33, 192, 257, 266, 374, 376–78, 422, 594–95, 623–25, 657 Shoham, Y.  6, 8, 10, 40, 63, 83–97, 112–14, 118, 120–22, 126, 133–35, 141, 192–93, 196, 229, 233, 257, 260–61, 263–64, 266, 284–93, 374–75, 377–80, 423–44, 593–96, 598–600, 605–9, 626–45, 647, 657–58, 663, 666–67, 671, 700–711 Shukron, E.  9, 39, 133, 142, 257, 263–65, 294, 295–98, 374, 376–77, 446, 594 Sinclair, L. A.  53 Sivan, R.  40, 594 Solar, G.  40, 594 Stager, L. E.  758 Starcky, J. W.  68–69, 87 Stern, E.  2, 4–7, 9–10, 23, 25–28, 31, 33–34, 42, 44, 46–49, 55–59, 77, 132, 139–40, 252, 257, 261, 263, 299–301, 374, 378–79, 449–50, 593, 598, 660, 758 Stolper, M. W.  78–79, 203, 230 Sukenik, E. L.  2–3, 5, 7, 132, 259, 659–60, 678, 728–30 Suleimany, G.  132, 176

796

Index of Authors

Tadmor, H.  66 Tal, O.  29, 59, 66, 256, 377 Tsafania, L.  62–63, 66, 68, 70 Tufnell, O.  33, 758 Tushingham, A. D.  6, 33, 41, 596, 606–11, 657 Van Beek, G. W.  58–59 Vanderhooft, D. S.  1, 4, 9, 40, 42, 45, 48, 57, 59, 63, 65, 73, 79–80, 83, 85, 105–6, 109, 118, 125, 132, 139–40, 173–75, 177–92, 201, 209, 222–28, 235, 246–50, 254–66, 300–301, 357–75, 377–80, 449–51, 529–48, 550–61, 563–74, 584–91, 593, 596, 656–58, 749–51, 754–55, 757–58, 761–63 Vaughn, A.  31, 46, 55, 63, 763 Vincent, L. H.  3, 5, 660 Voigtlander, E. N. von  77

Walsh, C. W.  50 Wampler, J. C.  42 Watzinger, C.  2–3, 47, 209–10, 212, 257, 259–60, 269–71, 374, 377–78, 384–93, 660 Weill, R.  39, 425 Weippert, M.  75 Williamson, H. G. M.  10, 79 Wright, G. E.  45, 55–56 Yadin, Y.  5, 118–19, 126, 660, 758 Yardeni, A.  66, 86, 113 Yassine, K. N.  59 Yellin, J.  27, 34, 44, 59, 63, 128–29, 229, 259 Zadok, R.  58, 75, 108, 119, 202, 230 Zorn, J. L.  5, 11, 27, 34, 42–45, 57, 63, 128–29, 229 Zwickel, W.  760