Encyclopedia of Material Culture in the Biblical World: A New Biblisches Reallexikon 9783161489662, 9783161614316, 3161489667

Citation preview

Encyclopedia of Material Culture in the Biblical World A New Biblisches Reallexikon

Encyclopedia of Material Culture in the Biblical World A New Biblisches Reallexikon Edited by

Angelika Berlejung (Main Editor) with

P.M. Michèle Daviau, Jens Kamlah, and Gunnar Lehmann (Area Editors)

Mohr Siebeck

Angelika Berlejung is Professor for “History and Religion of Israel and its Environment” at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Leipzig, an Extraordinary Professor for Ancient Studies at the University of Stellenbosch/South Africa, a Visiting Full Professor for Biblical Archaeology at Bar Ilan University/Israel, and a Full Member of the Saxon Academy of Sciences. P. M. Michèle  Daviau, born 1943; studied Classics, theology, Biblical Studies and Archaeology as well as Near Eastern Archaeology; 1990 PhD; Professor Emerita of Near Eastern Archaeology at Wilfrid Laurier University and Director of the Wadi ath-Thamad Project in Jordan. Jens  Kamlah, born 1962; studied Protestant Theology, Biblical Archeology and Ancient Near Eastern Archeology; 1999 PhD; 2005 habilitation; since 2008 director of the Biblical Archaeological Institute at the University of Tübingen. Gunnar  Lehmann, born 1955; studied Near Eastern Archaeology; 1993 PhD; currently Full Professor for Archaeology at the Ben-Gurion University, Israel.

ISBN 978-3-16-148966-2 / eISBN 978-3-16-161431-6 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161431-6 The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by epline in Böblingen using Charis typeface, printed on non-aging paper by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen and bound by Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents

V

Table of Contents

Foreword (A. Berlejung)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  VII Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  IX List of Maps and Figures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII Introduction to the History and Concept of the EBW  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  XVII I. Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the Encyclopedia of Material Culture of the Biblical World (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  XIX II. Archaeology and Cultural History (A. M. Maeir)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  XXIX III. Epigraphy (K. Beyer)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  LIV IV. Iconography (A. Berlejung)  . . . . . . . . . .  LXIII Agriculture and Agricultural Tools (O. Borowski)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Altar/s (J. Bretschneider)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18 Amulet/s (A. Berlejung)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29 Animal Burial/s (J. Kamlah)  . . . . . . . . . . .  37 Animal Horn/s (E. F. Maher)  . . . . . . . . . . .  41 Animal Husbandry (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . . .  46 Apiculture – Bees, Honey, Wax (U. Hübner)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54 Archive/s and Library/Libraries (K. Beyer)   57 Asphalt (J. Klemm)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64 Baking (J. R. Ebeling)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  66 Basket and Basketry (O. Shamir)  . . . . . . . .  70 Bath/s and Bathing (F. Hagemeyer)  . . . . . .  73 Beer (J. F. Quack)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79 Bridge/s (A. M. Bagg)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  83 Building Material/s (N. Franklin)  . . . . . . . .  85 Building Ornaments (J. Dietrich)  . . . . . . . .  93 Calendar/s and Calculation of Time (J. C. VanderKam)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  107 Canopy/Canopies and Curtain/s (W. Zwickel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  115 Chariot/s and Chariotry (J. L. Wright)  . . . .  117 City/Cities (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  129 Clothes/Clothing and Nudity (A. Berlejung)   164 Colors and Dyes (E. Völling)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  181 Construction Technique/s (N. Franklin)  . . .  187 Cosmetic/s (A. E. Killebrew)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  195 Courtyard/s (U. Zwingenberger)  . . . . . . . . .  198 Cultic Equipment (J. Bretschneider)  . . . . . .  204 Dairy Products and Milk (T. Staubli)  . . . . .  224 Demon/s (N. P. Heeßel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  233 Divination, Media of (R. Schmitt)  . . . . . . . .  238 Door/s (M. Novák)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  245

Drugs and Poisons (U. Hübner)  . . . . . . . . . . Enforcement, Torture, and Execution (W. Zwickel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fabric and Textiles (J. H. Boertien)  . . . . . . . Fibula/ae (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finance (U. Hübner)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishing (J. K. Zangenberg)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Preparation, Cooking (P. M. M. Daviau)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forest/s and Forestry (N. Liphschitz)  . . . . . Fortifications/Fortresses (K. H. Keimer)  . . . Furniture (E. Fischer/D. Wicke)  . . . . . . . . . . Garden/s and Garden Culture (L.‑A. Bedal)  Gate/s (R. Chadwick)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gem/s (A. Nunn)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glass (M. O’Hea)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glaze/s and Faience/s (A. Nunn)  . . . . . . . . Glue/s (J. Klemm)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairstyle/s (S. Schroer/P. Wyssmann)  . . . . . Horse/s and Horse Care (D. Cantrell)  . . . . . House/s (A. Faust)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hunt/Hunting (P. Riede)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hybrid Creature/s (O. Keel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . Iconography of Animals (Mammals) (J. Eggler)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iconography of Animals (Non-mammalian Animals) (J. Eggler)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iconography of Divine Beings → Idol Iconography of Human Beings (I. Cornelius)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iconography of Plant/s (J. Dietrich)  . . . . . . Idol/s: Male – Female – Zoomorphic (A. Berlejung)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insignia (A. Berlejung)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivory Carving/s (C. E. Suter)  . . . . . . . . . . . . Jewelry (A. Golani)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lamp/s (H. Srzednicki)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leather and Tanning (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . Litter – Garbage – Waste; Recycling (U. Hübner)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lock/s and Bar/s (M. Gerhards/ H. M. Niemann)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magic (R. Schmitt)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mask/s (J. Bretschneider)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medical Instruments (P. M. M. Daviau)  . . . . Medicine (H.‑H. Krause/C. Manzke)  . . . . . . Metal/s, Precious (P. M. M. Daviau)  . . . . . . Metal Working and Casting (C. J. Gohm)  . . Midwifery and Contraceptive/s (C. Manzke)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 248     

251 253 258 260 269

              

279 283 297 306 317 323 333 344 358 373 374 389 395 408 417

 431  443  459  475      

489 530 539 556 571 578

 581       

584 588 596 604 609 617 623

 641

Table of Contents

VI

Millstone/s and Mortar/s (J. R. Ebeling)  . . . Mining and Metallurgy (A. Hauptmann)  . . . Mirror/s (A. E. Killebrew)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moon/Crescent (I. Cornelius)  . . . . . . . . . . . Mural Painting/s and Frescoes (I. Cornelius)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Music, Musical Instruments (T. W. Burgh)  . Nutrition/Food (H. J. Bruins)  . . . . . . . . . . . Oil and Olive/s (R. Frankel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . Ointment/s and Anointing Vessels (H. Genz)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oven/s and Hearth/s (P. M. M. Daviau/N. M. Heymans)  . . . . . . Palace/s (M. Novák)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raising and Leavening Agents (J. R. Ebeling)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resin/s (S. Riehl/L. Wörner)  . . . . . . . . . . . . Roof/s (R. Chadwick)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rope/s and Rope Making (Cordage) (O. Shamir)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salt (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sanctuary/Sanctuaries (J. Kamlah)  . . . . . . Scale/s, Measure/s, and Weight/s (R. Kletter)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sculpture/s and Relief/s (I. Cornelius/R. Wenning)  . . . . . . . . . . . . Seal/s and Sealing/s (J. Eggler/C. Uehlinger)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shell/s and Egg Shells (P. M. M. Daviau)  . . . Ship/s (S. Wachsmann)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Siege/s (K. H. Keimer)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spice/s (S. Riehl/L. Wörner)  . . . . . . . . . . . . Spinning (J. H. Boertien)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stair/s and Staircase/s (H. M. Niemann)  . . . Standard/s (C. S. Ehrlich)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standing Stone/s (P. M. M. Daviau)  . . . . . .

   

648 651 660 662

   

669 676 686 700

 709  717  721  733  767  770  774  779  782  785  806  819         

832 861 864 869 879 884 889 893 898

Stars and Planets (M. Albani)  . . . . . . . . . . . Stock and Storage (T. Staubli)  . . . . . . . . . . Sulfur (J. Klemm)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun and Solar Symbolism (D. Bonatz)  . . . . Synagogue/s (E. M. Meyers)  . . . . . . . . . . . . Tavern/Guesthouse/Hostel/Inn (C. S. Ehrlich)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temple → Sanctuary Tent/s (W. Zwickel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Throne/s (A. Berlejung)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timber and Woodworking (H. Genz)  . . . . . Toilet/s (U. Hübner)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tomb/s (J. Kamlah)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tools/Ground Stone (Y. M. Rowan)  . . . . . . Tool/s, Metal (C. J. Gohm)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tower/s (H. M. Niemann/M. Gerhards)  . . . . Toy/s and Game/s (A. Nunn)  . . . . . . . . . . . Trade and Transport (G. Lehmann)  . . . . . . . Vehicle/s (H. Genz)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Village/s and Rural Settlements (A. Faust)  . Viticulture (R. Frankel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Votive/s (A. R. Lisella)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Management (A. M. Bagg)  . . . . . . . . Water Works, Urban Underground Water System/s, and Aqueduct/s (A. M. Bagg)  . Weapon/s and Armament (K. H. Keimer)  . . Weaving (J. H. Boertien)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Writing Material/s, Ink, and Writing Tools (J. F. Quack)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indices 1. Personal Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Divine Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Place Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Index of Subjects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    

905 918 936 937 947

 957  960  965  975  981  983 1005 1011 1028 1032 1040 1051 1055 1064 1075 1094 1112 1122 1139 1146 1163 1171 1175 1209

List of Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1231

Foreword

This volume is the result of an ambitious project and an effort to keep pace with the constant growth of archaeological material and the advancing results of research. In fact, the greatest challenge for the editors and the authors was to select the most important from the abundance of existing and constantly newly discovered material and to formulate meaningful syntheses. In a way, then, this book is a companion to the ongoing “work in progress” on realia, and by no means a final word. During our work on this encyclopedia, we became aware of the great achievement Kurt Galling and his team in Tübingen had accomplished in 1977 when they revised the first edition of the Biblisches Reallexikon (1937) and had no recourse to modern technology, the internet, or image editing programs. All this was a great help to us. However, this encyclopedia has been made possible primarily through international collegial cooperation with many senior and promising young scholars who never lost their confidence that this longlasting project would finally succeed, as well as through the assistance of many students. There were a lot of helping hands who supported us in preparing the manuscript, assisting during the redactional processes, collecting literature and images, producing the drawings and captions, and preparing the indices. We would like to mention the research assistants Laura Gonnermann and Felix Hagemeyer as well as the students Birgit Starke, Carlo Simon Christiansen, Ole Depenbrock, and Helena Lindner in Leipzig; and the student Carolin Manzke (b. Meier) and the research

assistant Jakob Kempendorf in Tübingen. Special mention should be made of Günter Müller, whose high-quality drawings provide the EBW with a lasting value and special character, and ClausJürgen Thornton, who copy-edited this highly complicated manuscript with expertise, precision, and patience. Last but not least, we want to express our thanks to all the authors who contributed to this book. We are aware of the fact that it took a very long time until this ambitious project was finished; this forced some of the contributors to accept a long time span between the submission of their articles and publication. We thank all of them for their patience and hope that the final result compensates for the delay. At the end of a long road, I would like to sincerely thank the area editors for their work and patience. Apart from the cooperation in word and deed during the many challenges that such a project entails, the production of the maps and their contents was the sole responsibility of Gunnar Lehmann. The main editor and the area editors have jointly decided on their selection of and assignment to the individual articles. The same is true for the illustrations, which were produced under the supervision of Jens Kamlah. My special thanks go to them as well as to P. M. Michèle ­Daviau, from whose expertise on Jordan the book could benefit. Angelika Berlejung (Main Editor) Leipzig, Februar 2022

Abbreviations

I.  Ancient Sources 1.  Biblical Literature 1.1.  Hebrew Bible and Septuagint Gen Genesis Ex Exodus Lev Leviticus Num Numbers Dt Deuteronomy Josh Joshua Judg Judges Ruth Ruth 1 Sam 1 Samuel 2 Sam 2 Samuel 1 Kgs 1 Kings 2 Kgs 2 Kings 1 Chr 1 Chronicle 2 Chr 2 Chronicle Ezra Ezra Neh Nehemiah Tob Tobit Jdt Judith Esth Esther 1 Macc 1 Maccabees 2 Macc 2 Maccabees Ps(s) Psalms Job Job Prov Proverbs Qoh Qoheleth or Ecclesiastes Cant Canticles (Song of Songs) Wis Wisdom of Solomon Sir Wisdom of Jesus Ben-Sira Isa Isaiah Jer Jeremiah Lam Lamentations Bar Baruch Ez Ezekiel Dan Daniel Hos Hosea Joel Joel Am Amos Ob Obadiah Jonah Jonah Mic Micah Nah Nahum Hab Habakkuk Zeph Zephaniah Hag Haggai

Zech Zechariah Mal Malachi 1.2.  New Testament Mt Matthew Mk Mark Lk Luke John John Acts Acts Rom Romans 1 Cor 1 Corinthians 2 Cor 2 Corinthians Gal Galatians Eph Ephesians Phil Philippians Col Colossians 1 Thess 1 Thessalonians 2 Thess 2 Thessalonic 1 Tim 1 Timothy 2 Tim 2 Timothy Tit Titus Phlm Philemon Heb Epistle to the Hebrews Jas James 1 Pet 1 Peter 2 Pet 2 Peter 1 John 1 John 2 John 2 John 3 John 3 John Jude Jude Rev Revelation 2.  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Let. Aris.

Letter of Aristeas

3.  Rabbinic Literature Mishnah m. ʿAbod. Zar. m. ʿEd. m. Kelim m. Meg. m. Menaḥ. m. Pesaḥ.

ʿAbodah Zarah ʿEduyyot Kelim Megillah Menaḥot Pesaḥim

Jerusalem (Palestinian) Talmud y. Roš Haš. Roš Haš-Šanah y. Sanh. Sanhedrin

Abbreviations

X

Babylonian Talmud b. ʿAbod. Zar. b. B. Meṣiʿa b. Ber. b. Pesaḥ. b. Sanh. b. Šabb.

ʿAbodah Zarah Baba Meṣiʿa Berakot Pesaḥim Sanhedrin Šabbat

4.  Ancient Authors Aelian nat. an. Apic. coq. Aristot. hist. an. Aristot. pol. Athen. deipn. Aug. serm. Cass. var. ep. Cic. Att. Cic. sen.

Aelian, De natura animalium Apicius, De re coquinaria Aristotle, Historia animalium Aristotle, Politica Athenaios, Deipnosophistae Augustine, Sermones Cassiodorus, Variae epistolae Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum Cicero, Cato maior de senectute Clem. Alex. protr. Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus Colum. rust. Columella, De re rustica Curtius hist. Alex. Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historia Alexandri Magni Diodorus Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica Euseb. hist. eccl. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica Euseb. praep. ev. Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica Galenus simpl. Galenus, De simplicium medi­ camentorum facultatibus Hdt. Herodotus, Historiae Hes. op. Hesiod, Opera et dies Hom. Il. Homer, Illiad Hom. Od. Homer, Odyssee Jos. ant.Iud. Josephus, Antiquitates Jos. bel.Iud. Josephus, Bellum Iudaicum Jos. c.Ap. Josephus, Contra Apionem Mart. epigr. Martial, Epigrammata Oppian hal. Oppian, Halieutica Philo Flacc. Philo, In Flaccum Plat. soph. Plato, Sophista Plin. nat. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis ­historia Plut. Dem. Plutarch, Demetrios Tac. hist. P. Cornelius Tacitus, Historiae Theocr. id. Theocritus, Idyllea Theod. eran. Theodoret Cyrrhus, Eranistes Varro rust. M. Terentius Varro, De re ­rustica Virgil georg. P. Vergilius Maro, Georgica Vitruvius Vitruvius, De architectura Xen. anab. Xenophon, Anabasis Xen. oec. Xenophon, Oeconomicus

II.  Frequently Cited Works Major reference works which are not listed below, and journals, periodicals, and series are abbreviated according to Siegfried Schwertner, Interna­ tio­nales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenz­gebiete = International Glossary of Abbrevia‑ tions for Theology and Related Subjects (Berlin: De Gruyter, 32014) and/or The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). ANEP Pritchard, J. B. (ed.), 21969 (1954), The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton ANET Pritchard, J. B. (ed.), 31969, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton ARM Archives Royales de Mari ATTM Beyer, K., 1984, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen ATTME Beyer, K., 1994, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Ergänzungsband, Göttingen ATTM2 Beyer, K., 2004, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Band 2, Göttingen CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago CAT Dietrich, M./Loretz, O./Sanmartín, J. (eds.), 1976, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, AOAT 24.1, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2nd enlarged edition: Dietrich, M./Loretz, O./ Sanmartín, J. (eds.), The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places, Münster, 1995. 3rd enlarged edition: Münster 2013 CSAJ Eggler, J./Keel, O., 2006, Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien, OBO. SA 25, Fribourg/Göttingen CSAPI/I Keel, O., 1995, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Einleitung [Introduction], OBO.SA 10, Fribourg/Göttingen CSAPI/1 Keel, O., 1997, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Katalog Band 1, OBO.SA 13, Fribourg/ Göttingen CSAPI/2 Keel, O., 2009, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band 2: Von Bahan bis Tell el-Fir, OBO.SA 29, Fribourg/Göttingen GGG Keel, O./Uehlinger, C., 52001 (1992), Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole, QD 134, Freiburg/Basel/ Vienna

IV.  General and Technical Abbreviations

GGIG

Keel, O./Uehlinger, C., 1998, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, transl. T. H. Trapp, Minneapolis HAE 1–3 Renz, J./Röllig, W. (eds.), Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, 3 vols., Darmstadt; Band 1: Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 1: Text und Kommentar (HAE 1), 1995; Band 2.1: Die althebräischen Inschriften, Teil 2: Zusammenfassende Erörterungen, Paläographie und Glossar (HAE 2.1), 1995; Band 2.2: Materialien zur althebräischen Morphologie. Siegel und Gewichte, 2003; Band 3: Texte und Tafeln, 1995 IPIAO 1–4 Schroer, S./Keel, O,. 2005–2018, Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religions­geschichte in Bildern, 4 vols., Fribourg/Basel KAI Donner, H./Röllig, W., 31971, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Wiesbaden KTU see CAT NEAEHL 1–5 Stern, E./Lewinson-Gilboa, A./ Aviram, J. (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, 5 vols. OEANE 1–5 Meyers, E. M. (ed.), 1997, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York/Oxford, 5 vols. TADAE 1–4 Porten, B./Yardeni, A., 1986– 1999, Textbook of the Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, Jerusalem, 4 vols. TUAT Kaiser, O. (ed.), 1982ff, Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Gütersloh TUAT NF Janowski, B./Wilhelm, G. (eds.), 2004ff, Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Gütersloh Wibilex.de Das Wissenschaftliche Bibel­ lexikon im Internet; https://www. bibelwissenschaft.de/wibilex/ III.  Archaeological Periods Paleolithic Paleolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Natufian Natufian

XI

PPNA/PPNB/  PPNC PN/PNA/PNB

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A–C

Pottery Neolithic/Pottery ­Neolithic A–B Chalc. Chalcolithic EBA Early Bronze Age EB I Early Bronze I EB II Early Bronze II EB III Early Bronze III EB IV = MB I Early Bronze IV = Middle Bronze I IBA Intermediate Bronze Age MBA Middle Bronze Age MB IIA Middle Bronze IIA MB IIB Middle Bronze IIB LBA Late Bronze Age LB I Late Bronze I LB IIA Late Bronze IIA LB IIB Late Bronze IIB Iron Age I Iron Age I Iron Age IIA Iron Age IIA Iron Age IIB Iron Age IIB Iron Age IIC Iron Age IIC Bab. period Babylonian period Pers. period Persian period Hell. period Hellenistic period Rom. period Roman period Byz. period Byzantine period IV.  General and Technical Abbreviations Akkad. Akkadian Anat. Anatolian ANE Ancient Near East anthropom. anthropomorphic Arab. Arabic Aram. Aramaic arch. archaeological Asiat. Asiatic Ass. Assyrian Bab. Babylonian b. c.e. Before the Common Era bibl. biblical Byz. Byzantine ca. circa CAL calibrated years CAL BP calibrated years before present Canaan. Canaanite cat. catalogue c. e. Common Era cent. century/centuries cf. confer, compare chap(s). chapter(s) Christ. Christian cm centimeter

XII

col. column d. died Dem. Demotic dtn. deuteronomic(al) dtr. deuteronomistic(al) Dyn. Dynasty E East ed(s). editor(s) e. g. for example (Lat. “exempli gratia”) Eg. Egyptian Engl. English epigr. epigraphical esp. especially et al. and others (Lat. “et alii”) etc. et cetera exil. exilic f(f) following page(s) fem. feminine fig(s). figure frgm. fragment FS Festschrift G Greek gr gram h height ha hectare/s Hasm. Hasmonean HB Hebrew Bible Hebr. Hebrew Hell. Hellenistic Herod. Herodian Hiph. Hiphil hist. historical Hitt. Hittite Hoph. Hophal Hurr. Hurrian ibid. ibidem iconogr. iconographical i. e. that is (Lat. “id est”) Isr. Israelite Jew. Jewish kg Kilogram km Kilometer L. Linné l liter(s) Lat. Latin lit. literature Luw. Luwian LXX Septuaginta m meter masc. masculine Medit. Mediterranean

Abbreviations

Mesop. Mesopotamian mg milligram mill. millennium/millennia ml milliliter MT Masoretic Text N North NF Neue Folge Ni. Niphal no(s). number(s) Nab. Nabatean nm nanometer NT New Testament OT Old Testament P Priestly Source p(p). page(s) Palest. Palestinian Palm. Palmyrene par. and parallel(s) pcs. pieces Pers. Persian Philist. Philistine Phoen. Phoenician Pi. Piel pl(s). plate(s) plur. plural polit. political poss. possibly rabb. rabbinical rel. religious Rom. Roman S South scient. scientific Seleuc. Seleucid Sem. Semitic sing. singular spp. species (plur.) ssp. subspecies Sum. Sumerian suppl. supplement symb. symbolic Syr. Syrian syst. systematic tab. table tav. tavola theol. theological theriom. theriomorphic transl. translated by Ug. Ugaritic v(v). verse(s) vol(s). volume(s) W West

List of Maps and Figures

List of Maps Map Introduction #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  XXX Map Introduction #2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  XXXI Map Introduction #3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  LV Map Agriculture #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 3–4 Map Agriculture #2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 5–6 Map Agriculture #3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 7–8 Map City #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 133–134 Map City #2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 135–136 Map City #3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 139–140 Map City #4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 143–144 Map City #5  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 145–146 Map City #6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 149–150 Map City #7  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 151–152 Map City #8  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 153–154 Map City #9  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 157–158 Map City #10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 159–160 Map Forest #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 285–286 Map House #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 397–398 Map Metal Working #1  . . . . . . . . .  col. 625–626 Map Pottery #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 753–754 Map Pottery #2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 761–762 Map Sanctuary #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 793–794 Map Sanctuary #2  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 797–798 Map Scales #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 809–810 Map Synagogue #1  . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 953–954 Map Trade #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1045–1046 Map Water Management #1  . . .  col. 1097–1098 List of Figures Fig. Agriculture #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 11–12 Fig. Altar #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 23–24 Fig. Altar #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 25–26 Fig. Amulet #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 31 Fig. Animal Burial #1 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 39–40 Fig. Building Material #1 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 87 Fig. Building Ornaments #1 . . . . . .  col. 99–100 Fig. Clothes #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 169–170 Fig. Cultic Equipment #1 . . . . . . .  col. 207–208 Fig. Cultic equipment #2 . . . . . . . .  col. 209–210 Fig. Cultic Equipment #3 . . . . . . .  col. 219–220 Fig. Dairy Products #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 226 Fig. Dairy Products #2 . . . . . . . . .  col. 229–230 Fig. Fibula #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 259 Fig. Finance #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 263 Fig. Forest #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 284 Fig. Gate #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 325–326

Fig. Gate #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 327–328 Fig. Gate #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 329–330 Fig. Glaze #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 363–364 Fig. Glaze #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 368 Fig. Hairstyle #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 379–380 Fig. Hairstyle #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 383–384 Fig. Hairstyle #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 386 Fig. House #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 401–402 Fig. Hunt #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 413–414 Fig. Hybrid Creatures #1 . . . . . . . .  col. 421–422 Fig. Hybrid Creatures #2 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 425 Fig. Hybrid Creatures #3 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 426 Fig. Iconography of Humans #1 . .  col. 463–464 Fig. Iconography of Humans #2 . .  col. 469–470 Fig. Idol #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 493 Fig. Idol #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 494 Fig. Idol #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 495 Fig. Idol #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 496 Fig. Idol #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 497 Fig. Idol #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 501–502 Fig. Idol #7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 507–508 Fig. Idol #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 515–516 Fig. Idol #9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 521–522 Fig. Ivory #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 547–548 Fig. Ivory #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 551–552 Fig. Lamps #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 573 Fig. Lock #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 586 Fig. Mask #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 599–600 Fig. Moon #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 665–666 Fig. Mural Painting #1 . . . . . . . . .  col. 673–674 Fig. Music #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 679 Fig. Oil #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . col. 704 Fig. Oil #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 705–706 Fig. Ointment #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 713–714 Fig. Ointment #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 715–716 Fig. Place #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 723–724 Fig. Place #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 725–726 Fig. Place #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 729–730 Fig. Pottery #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 737–738 Fig. Pottery #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 741–742 Fig. Pottery #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 745–746 Fig. Pottery #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 749–750 Fig. Pottery #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 757–758 Fig. Pottery #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 763–764 Fig. Sanctuary #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 789–790 Fig. Sculpture #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 821–822 Fig. Sculpture #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 825–826 Fig. Seals #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 841–842 Fig. Seals #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 845–846 Fig. Siege #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 871–872

XIV

Fig. Siege #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 875–876 Fig. Standard #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 895–896 Fig. Standing Stone #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 899 Fig. Standing Stone #2 . . . . . . . . .  col. 901–902 Fig. Standing Stone #3 . . . . . . . . .  col. 901–902 Fig. Stock #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 923 Fig. Stock #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 925–926 Fig. Stock #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 927–928 Fig. Sun #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 941–942 Fig. Synagogue #1 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 949–950 Fig. Synagogue #2 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 951–952 Fig. Throne #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 969–970 Fig. Throne #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 971–972 Fig. Tomb #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 989–990 Fig. Tomb #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 993–994 Fig. Tomb #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 995 Fig. Tomb #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 999 Fig. Tomb #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1001–1002 Fig. Toys #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1037–1038 Fig. Vehicle #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1053 Fig. Viticulture #1 . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1067–1068 Fig. Viticulture #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1069 Fig. Water Management #1 . . . .  col. 1103–1104 Fig. Water Works #1 . . . . . . . . .  col. 1115–1116 Fig. Weapons #1 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1125–1126 Fig. Weapons #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1128 Fig. Weapons #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1128 Fig. Weapons #4 . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1129–1130 Fig. Weapons #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  col. 1132 Sources of the Figures Fig. Agriculture #1:​1: 2BRL:​fig. 66:​2 Fig. Agriculture #1:​2: 2BRL:​fig. 66:​1 Fig. Agriculture #1:​3: 2BRL:​fig. 18 Fig. Altar #1: Gitin 2012:​fig. 4 Fig. Altar #2: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Amulet #1: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Animal Burial #1: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Building Material #1: 2BRL:​fig. 50:​1–7 Fig. Building Ornaments #1: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Clothes #1: 2BRL:​fig. 44:​1–7 Fig. Cultic Equipment #1: 2BRL:​fig. 45:​1–2, 4–6 Fig. Cultic equipment #2: 2BRL:​fig. 45:​3, 7–8 Fig. Cultic Equipment #3: 2BRL:​fig. 45:​9–11 Fig. Dairy Products #1: Drawing provided by Thomas Staubli Fig. Dairy Products #2: Drawings provided by Thomas Staubli Fig. Fibula #1: 2BRL:​fig. 25:​1–9 Fig. Finance #1: 2BRL:​fig. 56:​1–3 Fig. Forest #1: 2BRL:​fig. 90 Fig. Gate #1: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Gate #2: Drawings by Günter Müller

List of Maps and Figures

Fig. Gate #3: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Glaze #1:​1–10: Weippert 1988:​fig. 3.35:​ 1–10 Fig. Glaze #1:​11–13: Courtesy of the Penn Museum, images from James/McGovern 1993:​ fig.68:​10, 67:​10, 71:​4 Fig. Glaze #2: Weippert 1988:​fig. 4.71:​1–2 Fig. Hairstyle #1:​1: Keel 1984:​fig. 88 Fig. Hairstyle #1:​2: Staubli 1991:​fig. 48 Fig. Hairstyle #1:​3: Weippert 1988:​fig. 4.3:​2 Fig. Hairstyle #1:​4: Weippert 1988:​fig. 4.31:​1 Fig. Hairstyle #1:​5: Schumacher 1908:​pl. 24. Fig. Hairstyle #2:​1: GGG:​fig. 321a Fig. Hairstyle #2:​2: 2BRL:​fig. 31:​15 Fig. Hairstyle #2:​3: Drawing provided by Silvia Schroer Fig. Hairstyle #2:​4: GGG:​fig. 215 Fig. Hairstyle #3: Ben-Shlomo/Dothan 2006:​ fig. 14:​1.3. Fig. House #1: Drawings provided by Avraham Faust Fig. Hunt #1: 2BRL:​fig. 40:​1 Fig. Hybrid Creatures #1: Drawings provided by Othmar Keel Fig. Hybrid Creatures #2: 2BRL:​fig. 54:​1 Fig. Hybrid Creatures #3: Drawing provided by Othmar Keel Fig. Iconography of Humans #1:​1: IPIAO 3:​ fig. 964 Fig. Iconography of Humans #1:​2: Weippert 1988:​fig. 4.76:​5 Fig. Iconography of Humans #1:​3: Burnett 2016:​fig. 2a Fig. Iconography of Humans #2:​1: IPIAO 4:​ fig. 1551 Fig. Iconography of Humans #2:​2: IPIAO 4:​ fig. 1823 Fig. Iconography of Humans #2:​3: 2BRL:​fig. 10:​2 Fig. Idol #1: 2BRL:​fig. 30:​1 Fig. Idol #2: 2BRL:​fig. 30:​2 Fig. Idol #3: 2BRL:​fig. 30:​11 Fig. Idol #4: 2BRL:​fig. 30:​4 Fig. Idol #5: 2BRL:​fig. 30:​5 Fig. Idol #6:​1: 2BRL:​fig. 30:​10 Fig. Idol #6:​2: IPIAO 3:​fig. 934 Fig. Idol #7: 2BRL:​fig. 31:​1–5 Fig. Idol #8: 2BRL:​fig. 31:​11–12, 14, 16 Fig. Idol #9:​1: Weippert 1988:​fig. 4.15:​1 Fig. Idol #9:​2: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1617 Fig. Ivory #1: Drawings by Marina Tasca Fig. Ivory #2: Crowfoot/Crowfoot 1938:​ fig. 2b, pl. XIV:1, pl. XIV:5, pl. IV:3a, pl. V:3a, pl. X:8a, pl. XVI:7, fig. 5, fig. 12b Fig. Lamps #1: 2BRL:​fig. 46:​1–10 Fig. Lock #1: Knauf 2016:​fig. 4 Fig. Mask #1:​1: Drawing by Susanne Kohlhaas in Berlejung 2018:​no. 16

Abbreviations

Fig. Mask #1:​2–3: Cornelius 2018:​fig. 7–8 Fig. Mask #1:​4a-b: Drawing by Susanne Kohlhaas in Berlejung 2018:​no. 39 Fig. Mask #1:​5–10: Drawings by Alessandra Guari in Orsingher 2018:​fig. 15, 10, 7, 6, 9, 5 Fig. Moon #1:​1: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1895 Fig. Moon #1:​2: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1619 Fig. Moon #1:​3: 2BRL:​fig. 76:​2 Fig. Mural Painting #1:​1: Drawing by Luciano Gi­ li­berto in Kamlah/Sader (eds.) 2019:​Plan 17 Fig. Mural Painting #1:​2: Weippert 1988:​ fig. 4.76:​4 Fig. Mural Painting #1:​3: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1405 Fig. Music #1:​1–2: 2BRL:​fig. 57:​1–2 Fig. Music #1:​3: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1585 Fig. Oil #1: Drawings provided by Rafael Frankel Fig. Oil #2: Drawings provided by Rafael Frankel Fig. Ointment #1: 2BRL:​fig. 69:​4, 5, 3, 9 Fig. Ointment #2: Drawings by Henrike Srzednicki (b. Michelau) Fig. Place #1: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Place #2: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Place #3: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Pottery #1: Drawings provided by Peter Fischer Fig. Pottery #2: Drawings provided by Peter Fischer Fig. Pottery #3: Drawings provided by Gunnar Lehmann Fig. Pottery #4: Drawings provided by Gunnar Lehmann Fig. Pottery #5: Drawings provided by Avraham Faust Fig. Pottery #6: Drawings provided by P. M. Michèle Daviau Fig. Sanctuary #1: Drawings by Günter Müller in Kamlah 2012:​fig. 3 Fig. Sculpture #1:​1: 2BRL:​fig. 83:​4 Fig. Sculpture #1:​2: 2BRL:​fig. 32:​5 Fig. Sculpture #2:​1: 2BRL:​fig. 83:​5 Fig. Sculpture #2:​2: 2BRL:​fig. 83:​3 Fig. Seals #1: Drawings provided by Jürg Eggler and Christoph Uehlinger Fig. Seals #2: Drawings provided by Jürg Eggler and Christoph Uehlinger Fig. Siege #1: 2BRL:​fig. 14:​1 Fig. Siege #2: 2BRL:​fig. 14:​2 Fig. Standard #1: 2BRL:​fig. 22:​1–2 Fig. Standing Stone #1: 2BRL:​fig. 49:​1 Fig. Standing Stone #2: 2BRL:​fig. 49:​2 Fig. Standing Stone #3: 2BRL:​fig. 49:​4 Fig. Stock #1: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Stock #2: Drawings by Günter Müller Fig. Stock #3: 2BRL:​fig. 78:​27–31 Fig. Sun #1:​1: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1363

XV

Fig. Sun #1:​2–4: Drawings by Günter Müller for EBW Fig. Sun #1:​5: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1588 Fig. Sun #1:​6–7: Drawings by Günter Müller for EBW Fig. Synagogue #1:​1–4: 2BRL:​fig. 84:​6, 7, 5, 9 Fig. Synagogue #1:​5–6: Drawings by Günter Müller for EBW Fig. Synagogue #1:​7–8: 2BRL:​fig. 84:​8, 10 Fig. Synagogue #2: 2BRL:​fig. 84:​2–3 Fig. Throne #1:​1: 2BRL:​fig. 19:​3 Fig. Throne #1:​2: IPIAO 4:​fig. 1712 Fig. Throne #2:​1: Drawing by Dirk Wicke in Fischer 2011:​pl. 1 Fig. Throne #2:​2: Drawing by Henrike Srzednicki (b. Michelau) Fig. Tomb #1: Drawings by Günter Müller in Kamlah 2009:​fig. 11, 1, 3–4 Fig. Tomb #2: Drawings by Günter Müller in Kamlah 2009:​fig. 5, 7, 6 Fig. Tomb #3: Drawings by Günter Müller in Kamlah 2009:​fig. 8–10 Fig. Tomb #4: 2BRL:​fig. 71:​4–5 Fig. Tomb #5: 2BRL:​fig. 71:​6–9 Fig. Toys #1:​1: Hübner 1992:​fig. 1 Fig. Toys #1:​2: Leith 1997:​pl. X fig. WD 44 Fig. Toys #1:​3: Weippert 1988:​fig. 3.61. Fig. Vehicle #1: 2BRL:​fig. 89 Fig. Viticulture #1: Drawing by Oliver Bruderer Fig. Viticulture #2: Drawings provided by Rafael Frankel Fig. Water Management #1: Drawing by Günter Müller Fig. Water Works #1: Drawing by Günter Müller Fig. Weapons #1: 2BRL:​fig. 17:​1–22 Fig. Weapons #2: 2BRL:​fig. 47:​1–8 Fig. Weapons #3: 2BRL:​fig. 64:​1–10 Fig. Weapons #4: 2BRL:​fig. 7:​1–13 Fig. Weapons #5: 2BRL:​fig. 63:​1–4 Abbreviations 2BRL

Galling, K. (ed.), 21977 (1937), Biblisches Reallexikon, HAT 1,1, Tübingen GGG Keel, O./Uehlinger, C., 52001 (1992), Göttinnen, Götter und Gottess­ymbole, QD 134, Freiburg/ Basel/Vien­na IPIAO 1–4 Schroer, S./Keel, O., 2005–2018, Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern, 4 vols., Fribourg/Basel

XVI

List of Maps and Figures

Hübner, U., 1992, Spiele und Spielzeug im antiken Palästina, OBO 121, Fribourg/Göttingen Ben-Shlomo, D./Dothan, T., 2006, Ivories from James, F. W./McGovern, P. E., 1993, The Late Philistia, IEJ 56:​1–38 Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study Berlejung, A., 2018a, Katalog der anthropoof Levels VII and VIII, Philadelphia morphen Masken der südlichen Levante vom Kamlah, J., 2009, Grab und Begräbnis in Israel/ präkeramischen Neolithikum B bis zum Beginn Juda, in: A. Berlejung/B. Janowski (eds.), der hellenistischen Zeit (9. Jt.–4. Jh. v. Chr.), Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner in: A. Berlejung/J. Filitz (eds.), The PhysiUmwelt, FAT 64, Tübingen: 257–297 cality of the Other/Die Leibhaftigkeit des An- Kamlah, J., 2012a, Temples of the Levant, in: deren, ORA 27, Tübingen:397–550 J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Burnett, J. S., 2016, Egyptianizing Elements in Cult, ADPV 41, Wiesbaden:507–534 Ammonite Stone Statuary, in: R. A. Stucky/​ Kamlah, J./ Sader, H. (eds.), 2019, Tell el-Burak O. Kaelin/H.‑P. Mathys (eds.), Proceedings of 1, ADPV 45.1, Wiesbaden the 9th International Congress on the Archae- Keel, O., 1984, Deine Blicke sind Tauben, SBS ology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1, Wies114/115, Stuttgart baden:57–69 Knauf, E. A., 2016, Richter, ZBK AT 7, Zürich Cornelius, I., 2018, The “Face of Death” and Leith, M. J. W., 1997, Wadi Daliyeh 1, DJD 24, the “The Face of Baal”? Masks from the Stone Oxford Age and Bronze Age, in: A. Berlejung/J. Fi­ Orsingher, A., 2018, Ritualized Faces, in: A. Berlitz (eds.), The Physicality of the Other/Die lejung/J. Filitz (eds.), The Physicality of the Leibhaftigkeit des Anderen, ORA 27, Tübingen: Other/Die Leibhaftigkeit des Anderen, ORA 27, 115–131 Tübingen: 265–305 Crowfoot, J. W./Crowfoot,G. M., 1938, Sama­ Staubli, T., 1991, Das Image der Nomaden im ria-Sebaste 2, London Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sessFischer, E., 2011, Tell el-Farʿah (Süd), OBO 247, haften Nachbarn, OBO 107, Fribourg/Göttingen Fribourg/ Göttingen Schumacher, G., 1908, Tell el-Mutesellim 1, Gitin, S., 2012, Temple Complex 650 at Ekron, Leip­zig in: J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Tem- Weippert, H., 1988, Palästina in vorhellenistiple Cult, ADPV 41, Wiesbaden:223–256 scher Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien 2, Band 1, Munich Bibliography

Introduction to the History and Concept of the EBW Encyclopedia of Material Culture of the Biblical World

1.  Profile and Outline The Encyclopaedia of Material Culture in the Biblical World (EBW) is a completely revised and updated English version of the former German “Standardwerk” Biblisches Reallexikon (BRL). First published in 1937 by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Kurt Galling (Tübingen) prepared a second edition (2BRL) which appeared in 1977. The BRL focussed on the material culture from the Neolithic Age to the Roman period, giving attention primarily to the material from the Bronze and Iron Ages. The geographic region covered in the BRL included the modern states of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria. While the temporal span commences long before the cultures directly associated with the Bible – beginning in the late prehistoric periods, more or less at the time of the appearance of permanent settlements and domesticated agriculture  – this provides a comprehensive background and starting point for the study of the cultures from this region. Thus, its aim was not to be a Bible dictionary but rather to document and present systematically the archaeological material from the Southern Levant. Its goal was to enlighten the everyday-culture by using the available lexical, epigraphical, iconographical, and archaeological evidence. In past decades, the BRL has been a reference work for biblical scholars and archaeologists. Since its first publication, the material finds for the entries have increased and many methods have changed. Therefore a new edition became a necessary task. In the year 2007, the publishing house Mohr Siebeck entrusted Angelika Berlejung (University of Leipzig, Germany) as main editor, and P. M. Michèle Daviau (Wilfried Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada), Jens Kamlah (University of Tübingen, Germany), and Gunnar Lehmann (University of Beersheva, Israel) as area editors with this English edition titled “Encyclopedia of Material Culture in the Biblical World.” In order to stress the continuity to the previous work, this is accompanied by the subtitle “A new Biblisches Reallexikon”. Following the trails of the former BRL, the EBW maintains the geographical and chronological framework as well as the main objectives:

First, the EBW presents primarily the records of Palestine (= the Southern Levant) limited by (excluding) the southern fringe of Lebanon and Hermon (north), the Wadi al-Ariš, the Sinai peninsula, and North-Arabia (south), the Mediterranean Sea (west), and the Transjordanian desert (east). If necessary and fitting to the entry, the neighboring evidence from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Mesopotamia is included. Second, the EBW presents the material from the very first attestation onwards (it therefore differs depending on each entry), yet its focus is the Bronze and Iron Ages including the Persian period. If necessary and fitting to the entry, the Hellenistic and Roman periods are included. Third, the EBW entries do not only list or mention the material data but try to synthesize and interpret it within the horizon of a history of the Southern Levantine culture, economy, technical development, art, and religion. Fourth, the EBW presents and documents the material culture based on the archaeological, epigraphical, and iconographical data in historical order. Fifth, the EBW presents and documents the state of actual research. Compared to the first and second editions of the BRL, there are some basic changes:

A. The EBW has a main section with about 120 articles a=nd an introductory part pertaining to I. Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the Encyclopedia of Material Culture of the Biblical World, II. Archaeology and Cultural History, III. Epigraphy, and IV. Iconography. B. Compared to the 2BRL, the EBW is not so much a biblical handbook. Therefore the biblical evidence is not its main concern. It is a new lexicon on the material culture in the biblical world. Accordingly, it is a reference book for biblical scholars as well as for archaeologists. C. The EBW has no entries on persons or place names, animals or plants as living beings. D. The EBW is an international project. Its articles were written by a team of specialists from 15 different countries.

XVIII

2.  Structure of the Articles The articles are arranged according to the following structure:

1. General introduction. This first paragraph outlines problems, gives definitions, defines criteria of identification, sketches functions, and/or mentions the Hebrew term(s). 2. Basic types, major and typical elements, phenomenology. This paragraph also includes information about the geographical distribution, and/or local products/imports. 3. Material (with place of origin) 4. Diachronical description of the finds. At the beginning the very first and the very last attestation are mentioned.

Introduction to the History and Concept of the EBW

4.1. Detailed description, starting in the Late Bronze Age 4.2. Iron Ages 4.3. Babylonian-Persian periods 4.4. Hellenistic period (short outline) 5. Short synthesis. Origin (of the type, motif, etc.), outline of the history of the development, major changes, and main geographical (distribution) area. 6. Biblical correlation/attestation (if available) 7. Literature It is clear, however, that this structure does not fit all articles. In these cases, subheadings or italics of the key word in the first sentence indicate what the numbering and paragraph refer to.

I.  Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the Encyclopedia of Material Culture of the ­Biblical World

1. Introduction Any thorough analysis of the human past or its explanation requires in the first place a temporal sequence of the data. In this sense chronology is not just the study of time as the notion suggests, but rather the dating of the data and, thus, the question “When did it happen?” Chronology, thus, addresses the temporal sequence of events, of human activity and interaction, and eventually the question of when the material evidence of human activity, the archaeological artifacts, were produced and deposited. In a strict sense all chronologies are relative, but for practical reasons in historiography and archaeology there is a distinction of relative and absolute chronology. A chronology of the human past obviously starts with the early beginnings of human beings. Since the EBW is mainly concerned with the biblical world, it focuses on the LBA through the Hellenistic period ending with Pompey and his campaign in the Levant in 63 b.c.e. The earliest times of human development before the invention of writing are called prehistory and almost all evidence of human activity in prehistory is archaeological. Thus, archaeological chronologies reach further back in time than historical ones. Written texts did not appear before the end of the 4th mill. b.c.e. in Mesopotamia during the Uruk culture, soon followed by the first Egyptian writing. Historical periods and historical chronologies begin with these early texts at the end of the 4th mill. 2.  Relative Chronology Relative chronology distinguishes a chronological sequence of relevant artifacts, that is, objects of human creation, independent of its age expressed in years. In principle, a relative chronological sequence can be created by sorting units of relevant data in relation to each other into earlier units and later ones. Such units may include historical events and individuals or archaeological artifacts. A sequence established may reflect the deposition of archaeological finds in the stratigraphy of an archaeological site. Stratigraphy is a basic concept in archaeology and follows the Law of Superposition. This law determines that in the case

of archaeological sites with several layers of soil and debris sedimentation the lower layers and their context were deposited earlier than the layers and their context deposited directly on top of them. This simple law creates chronological sequences of archaeological contexts, layers with architecture and artifacts for example. Thus, a relative chronology is established with archaeological data that is in a relative chronological sequence. Relative chronology can also reflect the sequence of artifacts as established with the help of a typological analysis, such as a seriation statistic. A basic assumption in typological analysis is that similar artifacts are considered as being contemporary. These operations result in chronological sequences of assemblages of material culture that are the main elements in the construction of periodizations. The terminology of periodization often seems to reflect technological or historical change. There are “Bronze Ages” and “Iron Ages,” a “Persian period” and a “Byzantine period.” Such a terminology blurs the fact that the names of these periods do not reflect the reality of technological change (Weippert 1991). There was, for example, no true bronze (copper and tin alloy) during the “EBA” and iron appeared first during the “MBA.” Political change is also not necessarily reflected in the material culture. Alexander’s conquest of the Levant in 333/332 b.c.e. did not cause an immediate change in the material culture in the conquered territories. Despite this, archaeologists labeled the time after Alexander’s conquest the Hellenistic period. Generally, there are artifacts more sensitive to chronological change than others. Seals and coins are an excellent dating tool reflecting political change (Münger 2005), especially seals and coins with inscriptions which provide a link between relative and absolute historical chronology. The dates of the production of objects such as seals and coins provide a datum post quem for the archaeological context in which they were found. Seals and coins are relatively rare finds, however, and often remained in use for generations as heirlooms. Thus, they are often found in contexts which date long after the time of their original production. Ancient ceramics, in contrast, provide excellent data for ancient relative chronologies in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Pottery was first in-

XX

I.  Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the EBW

vented during the Late Neolithic periods and became a ubiquitous set of artifacts appearing in large numbers and being sensitive to chronological change. Since pottery breaks easily, ceramic assemblages had to be replaced swiftly and can often – as a general rule – be dated within one or two human generations. An additional problem arises from the nature of the sources, ancient texts, and material culture. While ancient texts such as royal inscriptions often relate to extraordinary events that were worthy of being recorded, material culture reflects in most cases mundane everyday actions. Except for economic texts such as delivery lists or receipts, ancient texts and their events are thus barely reflected in material culture. Archaeology usually does not provide direct information on human individuals or events that we know from an ancient text, but reflects processes that took place in a day-today routine. 3.  Absolute Chronology (Table 1) Absolute dating of historical and archaeological data in calendar dates is certainly the goal of any chronological analysis. Linking relative archaeological sequences with absolute historical calendar dates requires a dialogue between archaeology and historiographic sciences. Creating an interface for these different approaches proved to be difficult. The distinction of varying temporal dimensions of change in the human past established by the French historian Fernand Braudel provides a methodological foundation for this dialogue. He distinguished between long, medium, and short-term changes in the human interaction with her/his world. Long-term changes are so slow that humans as a rule do not even realize this kind of change. Long-term changes, often called la longue durée (Braudel), include geomorphological processes, or genetic developments of the human body that occur over centuries or millennia. Braudel’s “histoire conjoncturelle” studies the medium term developments which include processes of change in social and economic history; economic, agrarian, and demographic systems; the structural history of eras, regions, and societies. These developments take decades or centuries to develop in a slow but somewhat perceptible rhythm for contemporary societies. In antiquity, the settlement of ancient Israel in the central highlands of Palestine or the development of Mediterranean maritime trade relations of Greeks and Phoenicians would have been medium-term processes. In modern times, examples could be the development of capitalism or western democracy.

Short-term processes of the “histoire événe‑ mentielle” are changes measured in days, weeks, months or a few years. Such events occupy the mind of contemporary humans and they often appear to them to be the most important changes that occurred. Thus, ancient texts are preoccupied with the history of events concentrating on single individuals and events such as a war or a shortterm economic crisis. As a result, historiographic research often focusses on histories of events, while archaeology concentrates on long- and medium-term developments. This difference is to a large extent inherent to the nature of the sources that these sciences analyze, texts and material culture respectively. Texts were created by contemporary humans preoccupied with the events of their lives. The material record studied by archaeologists was created unconsciously over long- and medium-term periods of development. Attempts at cooperation between historiographic sciences and archaeology are often failed dialogues in which each side misses the essential interests and chronological scope of the other. Methods for absolute dating include historical studies evaluating textual sources and scientific techniques analyzing material culture or objects as main sources. Until the development of scientific techniques such as Willard Libby’s radiocarbon dating in 1949, dating in archaeology depended almost entirely on historical methods. Archaeologists relied on the correlation of archaeological evidence with chronologies and calendars that people in ancient times had established themselves. These chronologies and calendars were passed on in historical documents. The two ancient chronologies that are of most importance for the biblical world are the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian historical tradition that go back in time as far as the 3rd mill. b.c.e. (Table 1). Historical events mentioned in texts of ancient Syria and Palestine during the 3rd through 1st mill. b.c.e. must be connected to either of these traditions and any attempt at absolute dating in ancient Syria-Palestine requires synchronization with Mesopotamia or Egypt, where more secure chronologies have been established. Unfortunately, there is still no secure synchronization between the Mesopotamian calendar and the Egyptian. 3.1.  Absolute Historical Dates: The Egyptian Chronology The Egyptian chronology for the years between 945–330 b.c.e. is reliably dated on the basis of astronomical observations, synchronisms, and the

3.  Absolute Chronology

historically well dated reigns of certain pharaohs. After 664 b.c.e., Greek historiography provides increasingly safe dates. Before 945 there is no coherent framework of secure dates and no fixed points to relate the well known relatively dated sequence. Most relevant original records of this period are lost or are badly damaged such as the papyrus in Turin at the Museo Egizio. This fragmentary list of Egyptian priests of the Ramesside period (ca. 1300 b.c.e.) copied the names and reigns of the first kings from Menes down to the present from the annals. Another important source is Manetho’s history of Egypt and king’s list in Greek originally written for Ptolemy II Philadelphos that survived only in fragments with many changes and copy errors. For the years between ca. 1550–1050 b.c.e. the chronology of the Egyptian texts depends on observed astronomical events such as the eclipses of the sun and the moon, the rise of Sothis (Sirius), and the “moon-days” that are based on certain days identified in Egyptian sources as “exactly new moon.” In ancient Egypt two different calendars were in use. The civil one was based on 365 days and a number of extra days to correct the difference the civil calendar gained on the solar year. The Sothic calendar was based on the heliacal rising of the Sothis (Greek for “Dog Star” or Sirius, Egyptian Sopdet). Because of differences between the civil calendar and the rise of the Sirius, the Egyptian New Year’s Day and the rising of Sothis coincided only every 1,460 years, the so-called Sothis cycle. Although it is possible to calculate the time of the rise of the Sirius, it is important to take into account the position of the observer who reports his observations. Scientists do not agree on where the Sothis-rise was observed and at least three different observation points are discussed with different dates of the Sirius’s rise. Thus, there are three chronologies, a “high” one depending on Heliopolis as point of observation, a “short” one which depends on Thebes, and an “ultra short” one relying on observations at Elephantine. Among the documented Sothis rises is one during the 7th year of a pharaoh who was either Sesostris II or III and another one recorded during the 9th year of Amenhotep I. The different dates for Amenhotep I would be: High Chronology = 1544–1523 b.c.e. Short Chronology = 1525–1504 b.c.e. Ultra Short Chronology = 1515–1494 b.c.e.

The margin of error is thus a matter of 10­ –30 years. The chronology recommended in this encyclopedia is the one based on the research of

XXI

Hornung/Krauss/Warburton (2006; see also Kitchen 1992) (Table 2). 3.2.  Historical Dates: The Mesopotamian Chronology and Calendar In Babylonia, lists of the kings and year names, called “year lists” or “date lists,” constitute the foundation of the chronology. The Assyrian chronology is based on eponym lists (list of state officials). Lists of rulers and other officials as well as dated astronomical texts provide a safe chronology up to the year 910 b.c.e. Due to the lack of historical sources from the beginning of the 1st mill. and the transition from the 2nd mill. b.c.e. the absolute chronology for this period is uncertain. There is a relatively dated sequence for the approximately 800 years between the end of the 1st dynasty of Babylon and the Akkadian dynasty of Sargon I. The absolute chronology of this sequence depends on very few baseline observations that provide several options for possible absolute dates. The absolute dates of the 3rd and 2nd mill. are essentially contingent on one Old Babylonian text. This text mentions the rise and the setting of Venus observed during the 8th year of the Babylonian king Ammiṣaduqa. This text is preserved only in a garbled Neo-Assyrian tradition of the 7th cent. b.c.e. and provides four or five possible dates for the astronomical event and thus for the 8th year of Ammiṣaduqa. For chronological and historical reasons only three possible options are relevant for the Mesopotamian chronology. These options provide the following dates for the most prominent Old Babylonian king, Hammurabi, with a margin of error as high as 120 years: Long Chronology Middle Chronology Short Chronology

= 1848–1806 b.c.e. = 1792–1750 b.c.e. = 1728–1686 b.c.e.

Today the Middle Chronology is probably most widely accepted and supported by dendrochronological studies (Manning et al. 2016). There is also an alternative and controversial ultra-low chronology (Gasche et al. 1998) dating Hammurabi to 1696–1654 b.c.e. In general, there is considerable unease among the experts concerning the reliability of the Venus dates observed during the 8th year of the king Ammiṣaduqa. A comprehensive international research project called “Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C.” concluded that the Short Mesopotamian Chronology provides a better fit with the currently available dates in the Levant and ancient Egypt (Bietak/Czerny 2007).

1530–1400

1600–1530

1700–1600

1900–1700

2200–1900

2400–2200

New Kingdom

15th–16th Dyn. (Hyksos) 17th Dyn.

13th–14th Dyn.

2nd Intermediate Period

12th Dyn.

Middle Kingdom 11th Dyn.

1st Intermediate Period 9th–10th Dyn.

7th–8th Dyn.

Old Kingdom 3rd–6th Dyn.

Late Bronze Age I 1530–1400

Middle Bronze Age III 1590–1530

Middle Bronze Age III 1590–1500 (= Middle Bronze Age IIC) Late Bronze Age I 1500–1400

Middle Bronze Age II 1700–1590

Middle Bronze Age I 1900–1700

Early Bronze Age IV 2250–1900

Middle Bronze Age II 1700–1590 (= Middle Bronze Age IIB)

Middle Bronze Age I 2000–1700 (= Middle Bronze Age IIA)

Intermediate Bronze Age 2500/2400–2000 (= Early Bronze Age IV or Middle Bronze Age I)

Early Bronze Age III 2400–2250

Early Bronze Age III 2850–2500/2400

Naqada II–III

3600–3000

Early Bronze Age II 2900–2400

Early Bronze Age I 3700–2900

Early Bronze Age I 3800/3700–3050

Badarian Culture Naqada I

5000–3700

Early Bronze Age II 3050–2850

Ubaid 4 Late Chalcolithic

Chalcolithic 5000–3800/3700

Neolithic

10,200–5000

3000–2400

Neolithic

Neolithic 10,200–5000 Natufian (12,500–9500) Pre-Pottery Neolithic (9500–6500) Pottery Neolithic (6500–5000)

Archaic period 1st–2nd Dyn.

Syria/Lebanon

Southern Levant/Jordan

Egypt

Dates

Kassites 1530–1155 Middle-Assyrian period 1365–911

Old Babylonian period 1728–1530

Isin-Larsa period 1939–1728

Ur III period 2047–1939

Akkadian period 2276–2095

Early Dynastic I–III

Middle-Late Uruk Jemdet Nasr

Ubaid 4 Early Uruk

Neolithic (Late Zarzian-Ubaid 3)

Mesopotamia

XXII

I.  Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the EBW

332–63

538–332

605–538

720–605

800–720

850–800

950–850

1150–950

1200–1150

1300–1200

1400–1300

Iron Age IA 1190–1150/1125

Iron Age IB 1150/1125–950 Iron Age IC 950–850 Iron Age IIA 850–800 Iron Age IIB 800–740/720

Late Bronze Age III (= Iron Age IA or Late Bronze– Iron Age I Transition) 1190–1130 Iron Age I 1130–975/925 Iron Age IIA Early 975/925–900/880 Iron Age IIA Late 900/880–830/800 Iron Age IIB 830/800–700/650

Hellenistic period Ptolemaic Empire 323–30 Seleucid Empire 312–63

Persian period 538–332

Babylonian period (= Iron Age IID) 600–538

Hellenistic period Seleucid Empire 312–63

Persian period 538–332

Iron Age III 740/20–538 Babylonian period

Late Bronze Age II 1300–1200

Late Bronze Age IIB 1300–1190 (= Late Bronze Age III)

Iron Age IIC 700/650–600

Late Bronze Age II 1400–1300

Late Bronze Age IIA 1400–1300 (Late Bronze Age II)

Hellenistic period Seleucid Empire 320–129 Parthian Empire after 129

Persian period 538–332

Babylonian Empire 612–538

Neo-Assyrian Empire 911–612

Table 1: General Chronology of the Biblical World Egyptian chronology after Hornung/Krauss/Warburton 2006; Syria and Lebanon after Lehmann 1996; Mazzoni 2000; Faust/Katz 2019–2020. In parentheses are alternative notions.

Hellenistic period Ptolemaic Empire 323–30

27th Dyn. 28th Dyn. 29th Dyn. 30th Dyn. 31st Dyn.

Saite-Persian period 26th Dyn.

24th Dyn. 25th Dyn.

22nd Dyn. 23rd Dyn.

3rd Intermediate Period 21st Dyn.

20th Dyn.

19th Dyn.

18th Dyn. 3.  Absolute Chronology XXIII

I.  Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the EBW

XXIV

Archaic Period 1st Dyn. (2900–2730 b.c.e.) 2nd Dyn. (ca. 2730–2590 b.c.e.) Old Kingdom 3rd Dyn. (ca. 2592–2544 b.c.e.) 4th Dyn. (ca. 2543–2436 b.c.e.) 5th Dyn. (ca. 2435–2306 b.c.e.) 6th Dyn. (ca. 2305–2118 b.c.e.) 8th Dyn. (ca. 2150–2118 b.c.e.) 1st Intermediate Period 9th–10th Dyn. (ca. 2118–1980 b.c.e.) Middle Kingdom 11th Dyn. (ca. 2080–1940 b.c.e.) 2nd Intermediate Period 12th Dyn. (ca. 1939–1760 b.c.e.) 13th Dyn. (ca. 1759–1630 b.c.e.) 14th Dyn. (?) 15th Dyn. (Hyksos) (ca. ?–1530 b.c.e.) 16th–17th Dyn. (ca. ?–1540 b.c.e.) New Kingdom 18th Dyn. (ca. 1539–1292 b.c.e.) 19th Dyn. (ca. 1292–1191 b.c.e.) 20th Dyn. (ca. 1190–1077 b.c.e.) 3rd Intermediate Period 21st Dyn. (ca. 1076–944 b.c.e.) 22nd Dyn. (ca. 943–746 b.c.e.) 23rd Dyn. (ca. 845–730 b.c.e.) 24th Dyn. (ca. 736–723 b.c.e.) 25th Dyn. (ca. 722–655 b.c.e.) Saite-Persian Period 26th Dyn. (ca. 664–525 b.c.e.) 27th Dyn. (ca. 525–404 b.c.e.) 28th Dyn. (ca. 404–399 b.c.e.) 29th Dyn. (ca. 399–380 b.c.e.) 30th Dyn. (ca. 380–343 b.c.e.) 31st Dyn. (ca. 343–332 b.c.e.) Hellenistic Period (332–30) Table 2: Egyptian Dynasties based on Hornung/Krauss/Warburton 2006

3.3.  Historical Dates: The Biblical Chronology (Table 3) The biblical texts provide a relatively dated sequence for persons and events that occur in the different books of the canon. Due to the heterogeneous nature of these texts some of these dates are completely fictitious (e. g., the sequence and relative chronology between creation, the genealogies of the primeval narrative or the patriarchs, Exodus, and Solomon’s Temple building or the arrangement of some selected local rulers in the Book of Judges), while others  – starting with the state formation – are generally believed to be based on ancient royal chronicles and considered reliable historical data (Books of Kings). Starting with Saul, David, and Solomon, the bib-

lical tradition provides problematic dates. The 40 years of David and Solomon appear to be standard numbers (one generation) and there were apparently no reliable dates available for the earlier traditions. There is a relatively dated sequence of rulers of Israel and Judah that provides reasonable dates back in history until King Rehoboam. Several problems of the relative chronology in the Books of Kings remain. Was the accessionyear counted as the first regnal year of a king or not? The accession-year is the period from the king’s taking the throne until the start of the New Year. Were rulers with the same name confused? How was coregency of two individuals – usually the king and the crown-prince – dealt with? Were there special calendar practices for regnal years? Although these and other questions cause some discussion about the relatively dated sequence of rulers of Israel and Judah, the various reconstructions of the biblical chronology between the 10th and the 6th cent. b.c.e. differ only within a margin of error of a few years. The absolute dates for this sequence are contingent on the Assyrian and the Egyptian chronologies. Absolute dates provided by events recorded in Mesopotamia or Egypt include, for example, Ahab’s participation in the Battle of Qarqar against Shalmaneser III in 853, Jehu’s tribute to the same Assyrian king in 841, the fall of Samaria in the fifth year of Shalmaneser V (722), or Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah in 701 (Gertz et al. 2010:​608). 3.4.  Methods of Exact Sciences The technical aspects of the various scientific methods to establish absolute dates for archaeological contexts are outlined in the handbook of Renfrew and Bahn (2004) and do not have to be repeated here. The most important methods for the biblical periods are the radiocarbon method and dendrochronology (tree-ring chronology). For certain research designs it might be useful to employ also thermoluminiscence or archaeo-magnetism. Calibrated radiocarbon dates have played a key-role in recent chronology debates concerning the ANE. These dates do not provide a single undisputed calendar date for samples taken from archaeological contexts. Radiocarbon dates are accompanied by an estimate of the probable error and thus given with the range of a plus/minus term of up to several decades. This range of uncertainty depends on archaeological sampling procedures, counting errors, background cosmic radiation, calibration curves, and other factors involved. Obviously, this uncertainty allows a vivid debate on the matter. To reduce such uncertain-

3.  Absolute Chronology Archaeological Periods Iron Age IB

Iron Age IIA Early

Iron Age IIA Late

XXV Kings of Israel Saul 10th cent. Ish-Bosheth 10th cent. David 10th cent. Solomon 10th cent. Jeroboam I (?)–907 Nadab 907–906 Baasha 906–883 Elah 883–882 Zimri 882/878 Omri 882/878–871/870 Ahab 871/870–852/851 Ahaziah 852/851–851/850 Joram 851/850–843/842 Jehu 843/842–816

Iron Age IIB

Kings of Judah

Shishak/Sheshonq Rehoboam (?)–910 Abijam 910–908(?)

Asa 908–868 (?)

Jehoshaphat 868–852/847* Jehoram 852/847–843/842* Ahaziah 843/842 Athaliah 843/842–838/837 Joash 838/837–799

Jehoahaz 816–800 Jehoash 800–785 Jeroboam II 785–745 Zechariah 745 Shallum 745 Menahem 745–738/737 Pekahiah 738/737–736 Pekah 735–732 Hoshea 731–724/723

Ancient Near East

Shalmaneser III 858–824

Hazael Bar-Hadad Adad-narari III 810–783

Amaziah 799–771 Azariah (Uzziah) 785/771–734* Jotham 757–742*

Ahaz 742/734–723*

Hezekiah 723–695 Manasseh 694–640 Amon 640/639–638 Josiah 638–609/608 Jehoahaz 609/608 Jehoiakim 609/608–598/597 Jehoiachin 598/597 Zedekiah 598/597–587/586

Iron Age IIC

* Includes years as coregent (dates: Gertz et al. 2010:​608)

Table 3: Kings of Israel and Judah

Tiglath-pilesar III 744–727 Sargon II 721–705 Sennacherib 704–681 Esarhaddon 680–669 Ashurbanipal 668–612 Nabopolassar 626–605 Nebuchadnezzar 605–562

XXVI

I.  Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the EBW

ties radiocarbon dates should be based on short lived samples such as grain that was carbonized within a short period after its harvest. Using samples from wooden beams that were continuously re-used and recycled over a long period will provide a date for the cutting of the beam, but not for the construction of the layer in which such a beam was re-used. This is a potential source of error that has been labeled the “old wood effect.” Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating is an increasingly important dating technique for the ANE. It is dependent on a master sequence of wood species that provide continuous chronological data for a particular region. Such sequences are available, for example, in Anatolia, whereas there is a certain lack of adequate samples for the Southern Levant (Manning et al. 2016). 4.  Chronology Debates and the Chronology of the EBW The chronology of the ANE and of the Southern Levant in particular is under constant debate. In recent years the chronology of the Chalc., the Bronze Ages, and the Iron Age were modified in accordance with new scientific dates and correlations with the historical record. Comparing the current chronology of the Southern Levant with the chronologies published before 1996 reveals major changes that have not yet been fully published in standard handbooks. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava‑ tions in the Holy Land (NEAEHL) provides a list of historical and archaeological periods which is largely obsolete today (1993/NEAEHL 4:​ 1529). Recently, a new handbook available only in Hebrew offers an updated comprehensive summary of the chronology of the Southern Levant (Faust/ Katz 2019–2020). Many of the dates presented here are now modified since the 1993 edition of the NEAEHL: the end of the Chalc. and the beginning of EB I  are now dated around ca. 3,800 b.c.e. The multi-disciplinary “Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean” and the “Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd Millennium B. C.” suggested a revision of the chronologies of the Bronze Ages. As for the end of the LBA there is increasing evidence that this period lasted into the early 12th cent. b.c.e., the traditional date of 1200 b.c.e. as provided, for example, by the NEAEHL should be revised. LB III (or Iron Age IA) of the 12th cent. b.c.e. is characterized by innovations and continuations. Local LBA material culture such as ce-

ramics continues in Iron Age IA, while Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery imports ceased. Among the innovations are the Philistine material culture that appeared in the southern coastal plain and the intensive new settlement in the Central Hill Country. At the same time small Bronze Age citystates continued to exist in the Jezreel valley and the Shephelah that resemble in almost all aspects the material culture of the LBA. Another continuation is the Egyptian domination of at least the southwestern part of the Southern Levant during most of the 12th cent. b.c.e. Unfortunately, there are a number of alternative names for the ancient periods in the Southern Levant. The Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA) is also called “Early Bronze Age IV” (EB IV) or “Middle Bronze Age I” (MB I). The Middle Bronze Ages I– III can be labeled “Middle Bronze Age IIA, IIB, and IIC.” The “Late Bronze Age III” (LBA III) in the terminology of Tel Aviv University is known as “Iron Age IA” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. There has been an especially vigorous debate on the Iron Age chronology of the Southern Levant. Before 1996, the traditional chronology of the 11th through 9th cent. b.c.e. was constructed mainly by correlating archaeological phenomena with biblical narratives and with a Bible-derived chronology. In 1996 Israel Finkelstein proposed to lower the traditional dates of the Iron Age (Finkelstein 1996; 2005). One of Finkelstein’s key points was the date of Megiddo Stratum VA/ IVB and the construction of the Iron Age palace in Jezreel. Both sites were excavated during the early 1990s and it soon became clear that the pottery in Megiddo Stratum VA/IVB that was considered to be from the Solomonic period was identical with that of the palace construction at Jezreel that was dated to the times of Ahab. Could it be that the assumed time difference of some 80 years did not find any expression in the development of pottery? Finkelstein concluded that Megiddo Stratum VA/IVB should be dated to the time of King Ahab. Thus, the architecture and artifacts dated previously to the period of King Solomon were now assigned to the Omride period by Finkelstein. This triggered an intensive discussion on the chronology of this period (Ben-Tor 2001; Kletter 2004; Mazar 2005; 1997). The debate shifted soon into an archaeological stalemate that archaeologists have tried to resolve with radiocarbon dating. A  comprehensive radiocarbon program was initiated by Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon, and Elisabetta Boaretto that involved several hundreds of measurements from 21 sites in Israel. This project created the extensive databases necessary for the resolution of the tight chronological problems typical of histori-

4.  Chronology Debates and the Chronology of the EBW 

cal periods involved in this debate. The results of the first phase of this comprehensive dating analysis favored a new, lower chronology (Sharon et al. 2007). After initial refusal, Amihai Mazar also modified the traditional chronology (Mazar 2005). Although emphasizing their differences, the leading protagonists thus find themselves now within a margin of difference so small that one can talk now about one chronological system. Finkelstein and Mazar still disagree about some 50 years for the transition from Iron Age IB to Iron Age IIA. Mazar dates this transition into the first half of the 10th cent. b.c.e., while Finkelstein dates it to the second half of that century. Given the lack of precise resolution in ceramic chronology, the difference of 50 years between Mazar and Finkelstein can be integrated into one new scheme. In other regions and periods archaeologists would probably not argue so fiercely about 50 years and one may assume that they do in this case only because these 50 years are considered to be the time of David and Solomon, a topic loaded with ideologies, religious beliefs, and politics. The controversy is essentially over a transitional phase around 950 b.c.e. This transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIA may have occurred at some sites somewhat earlier and at others a few years later. Thus, the transition may have been a process of several decades before and after ca. 950 b.c.e. and it is impossible to achieve a more precise resolution with the techniques available today such as pottery chronology and radiocarbon dating (Sharon et al. 2007). Most archaeologists agree today on a new subdivision of Iron Age IIA into two phases during the 10th and 9th cent. b.c.e. into the sub-phases Iron Age IIA Early and Late (Herzog/Singer-Avitz 2004; 2006). The radiocarbon dates oust somewhat the Shishak (Sheshonq I) campaign of its prominent role in past chronology debates. Although the list found in Karnak, Egypt, which names at least 154 towns that Shishak claimed to have dominated is mentioned in the Bible for the fifth year of king Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:​25–28; 2 Chr 12:​2–12) there are a number of problems using this campaign as a chronological anchor. Shishak’s rule was dated to ca. 945–924 b.c.e., his campaign to the Southern Levant is assumed to have taken place in 926/925 b.c.e. (Kitchen 1973:​72–76). It is often overlooked, however, that these dates cannot help dating the chronology of ancient Israel, because Kitchen dated Shishak primarily by references to biblical dates. In the past, archaeologists assumed that destructions found at various sites can be associated with Shishak’s campaign. It is now debat-

XXVII

ed whether the sites in Shishak’s list were indeed destroyed by this pharaoh. Yet, there seems to be a correlation between the list of Shishak and the archaeological record of the Southern Levant. In his records the pharaoh made reference to sites in the Negev that were only founded in Early Iron Age IIA. This means that Iron Age IIA had already begun by the time Shishak arrived in the Southern Levant. Moreover, the pharaoh mentioned a flourishing settlement in the Negev, which must have already existed for some time. Thus, the beginning of Early Iron Age IIA must have been before ca. 940–920 b.c.e. Since we are still lacking sufficient radiocarbon dates for Iron Age IIA Late, the current discussions correlate this phase mainly with the historical biblical narratives. Thus, Iron Age IIA Late could begin with the developments of Iron Age in the Southern Levant under the Omrides after 880 b.c.e. The phase also includes the later Aramean supremacy installed by Hazael and may have ended with the rise of a new powerful Israelite government under Jehoash and Jeroboam II between 800 and 780 b.c.e. While the beginning of Iron Age IIA is now dated by radiocarbon dates (Sharon et al. 2007), the transition from Iron Age IIA Early to Late and the end of Iron Age IIA Late are still uncertain. At present it is only an assumption to identify the rise of the Omride Dynasty in 882 b.c.e. as one of the major factors in the transition from Iron Age IIA Early to Late. We also do not know precisely the historical impact of Hazael regarding the end of this period. Archaeologists presently only begin to differentiate the developments in the north and the south of the Southern Levant during this period (Herzog/Singer-Avitz 2004; 2006). Another major question is the end of Iron Age IIB. It is increasingly realized that the material culture of the 8th cent. b.c.e. was not entirely replaced with the Assyrian conquest by assemblages of Iron Age IIC. In fact, most ceramic types of Iron Age IIB continued at sites dated after 700 b.c.e. and the major pottery types of Iron Age IIC were introduced only around 650 b.c.e. This debate is expressed in our chronological table below with dating the transition from Iron Age IIB to Iron Age IIC at “700/650 b.c.e.” Later phases of the Iron Age, the Persian period, and the Hellenistic-Roman chronology are currently not under debate and the relationship between material culture and its archaeological phases with the historical calendar dates remain as outlined in the current standard literature. The relative chronologies of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon are based on local pottery styles and regional developments in the material culture

XXVIII

I.  Chronological Problems and the Chronology of the EBW

which are to some extent interconnected. Relative correlations between these regions are established with the help of imported artifacts. During the LBA these imports are mainly Cypriot and Mycenaean ceramics. During the Iron Age correlations are established especially with the help of Cypriot ceramics. Absolute dates are difficult to establish for the LBA, during the Iron Age the Assyrian and Babylonian records provide chronological bench marks (Lehmann 1996; Mazzoni 2000). For Syria and Lebanon, a distinct chronological terminology was developed that closely follows the internal developments in the region (Akkermans/Schwartz 2003; Heinz 2002; Mazzoni 2000). The Jordanian chronology relates closely to the one established for the Southern Levant. Although Jordan developed a distinct material culture during the Bronze and Iron Ages, the social and economic processes in the country run similar to the ones in the Southern Levant and the absolute chronology of Jordan is currently still dependent on the one developed for the Southern Levant (MacDonald/Adams/Bienkowski 2001; Stager 2000; Homès-Frédéricq/Hennessy 1986–1989). 5. Bibliography Akkermans, P. M. M. G./Schwartz, G. M., 2003, The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16000–300 B. C.), Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Ben-Tor, A., 2001, Responding to Finkelstein’s Addendum (on the Dating of Hazor X–VII), TA 28.2:​301–304 ♦ Bietak, M./Czerny, E. (eds.), 2007, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C., vol. 3: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna 28th of May–1st June 2003, DÖAW 37/Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna ♦ Faust, A./Katz, H. (eds.), 2019–2020, Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Neolithic to Alexander the Great 1–2, Raanana (Hebrew)  ♦ Finkelstein, I., 1996, The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View, Levant 28:​177–187 ♦ 2005, High or Low: Megiddo and Tel Rehov, in: T. E. Levy/T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London/Oakville:​302–309 ♦ Gasche, H., et al., 1998, Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology, Mesopotamian History and Environment Se-

ries 2, Memoirs 4, Ghent/Chicago ♦ Gertz, J. C., et al. (eds.), 42010, Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments, UTB 2745, Göttingen  ♦ Heinz, M., 2002, Altsyrien und Libanon: Geschichte, Wirtschaft, Kultur vom Neolithikum bis Nebukadnezar, Darmstadt ♦ Herzog, Z./Singer-Avitz, L., 2004, Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah, TA 31:​209– 244 ♦ 2006, Sub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A  Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate, TA 33.2:​163–195 ♦ Homès-Frédéricq, D./Hennessy, J. B. (eds.), 1986–1989, Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 1: Bibliography and Gazetteer of Surveys and Sites, vol. 2: Field Reports: Surveys and Sites, Akkadica Suppl. 3, 7, Leuven ♦ Hornung, E./Krauss, R./Warburton, D. A. (eds.), 2006, Ancient Egyptian Chronology, HO 83, 1. Abt.: Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten = Handbook of Oriental Studies, Sect. 1: The Near and Middle East, Leiden et al. ♦ Kitchen, K. A., 1973, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B. C.), Warminster ♦ 1992, Egypt, History of (Chronology), ABD 2:​322–331 ♦ Kletter, R., 2004, Chronology and United Monarchy: A Methodological Review, ZDPV 120:​13–54 ♦ Lehmann, G., 1996, Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr., AVO 5, Münster ♦ MacDonald, B./Adams, R. B./Bienkowski, P. (eds.), 2001, The Archaeology of Jordan, Levantine Archaeology 1, Sheffield ♦ Manning, S. W., et al., 2016, Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology, PLoS ONE 11.7:doi:​ 10.1371/journal.pone.0157144 ♦ Mazar, A., 1997, Iron Age Chronology: A  Reply to I. Finkelstein, Levant 29:​157–167 ♦ 2005, The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, in: T. E. Levy/T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London/Oakville:​15–30  ♦ Mazzoni, S., 2000, Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, in: G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ANES Suppl. 7, Louvain:​ 31–60  ♦ Münger, S., 2005, Stamp Seal Amulets and Early Iron Age Chronology, in: T. E. Levy/T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London/Oakville:​381–404 ♦ Renfrew, C./Bahn, P., 2004, Archaeology: Theory, Methods, and Practice, London ♦ Sharon, I., et al., 2007, Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology, Radiocarbon 49.1:​ 1–46 ♦ Stager, L. E. (ed.), 2000, The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond (FS James A. Sauer), Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 1, Winona Lake ♦ Weippert, H., 1991, Metallzeitalter und Kulturepochen, ZDPV 107:​1–23. Gunnar Lehmann

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

1.  Objectives and Methods Archaeology can be defined as the study of the human past, based on the discovery, analysis, and interpretation of various kinds of physical evidence. Broadly speaking, archaeology aims to understand the evolution of the human species, and the development and change in culture, society, and daily life of ancient humans from all periods. The evidence on which archaeology is based is the material remains of, and related to, human activity. This can include: objects created by the humans themselves (such as stone → tools, → pottery, coins [→ finance], architecture, etc.); biological remains of humans (such as skeletons, feces, etc.); ecofacts – evidence on the ecological and biological surroundings of ancient humans; and environmental information – on the physical environment and surroundings of ancient humans. Archaeological evidence is attained in various ways. This can be done through excavations of archaeological sites (on land or underwater), through surface survey (collecting archaeological finds from the surface of sites without excavation), from various types of remote sensing (such as aerial photography, ground penetrating radar, magnetometry, LiDAR scanning, etc.), as well as various ecofacts and geofacts which can be collected from the archaeological sites and their surroundings. It is important to remember that the preservation of the human past is very partial, at best. Some materials (particularly organic) most often do not survive, and added to that, the long time since the periods of use, and various destructive activities and processes (such as corrosion, erosion, later building activities, etc.) can destroy the remains as well. Due to this, archaeologists attempt to recover evidence of the past from a wide range of types of evidence, utilizing a broad range of scientific disciplines and perspectives  – whether from the human and social sciences, and to the biological and exact sciences. In fact, archaeology is one of the most inter- and multi-disciplinary fields of research that exists, due to its utilization of such a broad range of scientific perspectives for the study of the very diverse archaeological remains. Archaeology is a relatively young field of enquiry. While the interest in the past and its physical

remains existed even in the ANE and classical antiquity, the beginning of modern archaeology, and its development out of “antiquarianism,” is seen only in the late 18th and early 19th cent. c. e. At this time, the techniques of archaeological excavation and the understanding of archaeological sites went through important developments, and in particular, the understanding of the principles of stratigraphy and object typology. In the last few decades, archaeology has developed substantially as well, with the incorporation of a broad range of analytic perspectives regularly used in the archaeologist’s “toolkit.” 2.  History of Research The archaeology of Palestine has often been embroiled in ideological and political issues. For many years, the study of the periods from the late Prehistoric periods (ca. 10,000 b.c.e.) and up to and including the Roman and Byzantine periods (ca. 1st cent. b.c.e.–4th cent. c. e.) was subsumed under the title of “Biblical Archaeology.” There are those who claim that the term  – “Biblical Archaeology”  – should not be used, as it shows preference to a specific written source, which carried a lot of religious and ideological baggage. Accordingly, some would prefer the terms, “Archaeology of Palestine” (as used in the present review), “the Archaeology of the Southern Levant,” or “the Archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean.” A second issue around which there is much controversy in and relating to “Biblical Archaeology” is whether or not this field is used – and misused – in the context of modern political and religious ideologies. In the past, and in some cases, even today, discoveries, or in some cases, lack of discoveries, have been used to buttress ideological views  – claims that this or that find proves that the Land of Israel ‘belongs’ to the Jews, or that it doesn’t; or claims that this or that find corroborates and disproves a specific biblical story – and thus strengthening, or weakening, religious beliefs. The scientific discipline of the archaeology of Palestine – and “Biblical Archaeology” – began in the mid-19th cent. c. e., when scholars from various western (mainly colonial) countries (Edward

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

XXX

Introduction map #1: Ancient Near East

Robinson [USA]; Charles Warren/Charles Wilson [UK], Charles Clermont-Ganneau [France]) commenced the study of the history, cultures, and archaeological remains of the “Biblical Lands” – the ANE (→ map Introduction #1). The impetus behind these early researchers was both to clarify the cultural background of the Bible in the context of Judeo-Christian traditions and culture, but also, to enable the various western powers to stake political claims in the region. The British Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) was the leading institution in the first few decades, but French, German, American, and even Russian societies were involved in early archaeological exploration of the region. Towards the end of the 19th and the early 20th cent., excavations commenced in the region, both in Israel/Palestine, but also in adjacent regions. Prominent archaeologists of this stage were figures such as William M. F. Petrie, Frederick Jones Bliss, R. A. Stewart Macalister, Gottlieb Schumacher, and Louis-Hugues Vincent, with early excavations conducted at urban sites such as Jerusalem, Gezer, Gath (Tell es-Safi), Tell el-Farah (S), Jericho, and Megiddo. At the same time, exploration and excavations in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and the decipherment of ancient Egyptian and Akkadian, added substantial sources. That

said, most of these early excavations were conducted in a rather haphazard manner, both in the excavations themselves and in their subsequent publications. After the First World War, during the time of the British Mandate in Palestine  (1922–1948), archaeological research in Israel/Palestine and neighboring lands increased considerably, and large-scale excavations were conducted at many sites. After World War II, the archaeology of the region in general and of Palestine in particular, went through a substantial development. Western scholars and institutions continued to work in the region, and archaeology in Israel, conducted extensively by Israeli scholars, developed, with excavations and surveys conducted at many sites and regions in Israel. While excavation methods substantially improved during this period, a major stumbling block was the lack of comprehensive publications of many of these excavations. More recently, in the last two decades or so, extensive excavations, with extensive remains, continued to be carried out in Israel and surrounding countries (→ map Introduction #2). Of particular importance are the substantial methodological and theoretical developments that have occurred in the archaeology of Palestine in the last few dec-

2.  History of Research

Introduction map #2: Archaeological and historical sites in the Southern Levant.

XXXI

XXXII

ades, which previously was not always a strong point of archaeological research in this region. In addition, the early focus on urban sites has been complemented by a closer view on rural sites and landscape archaeology. At most sites, meticulous excavation methods are employed, along with an expanding utilization of inter- and multi-disciplinary research designs, and a heightened awareness of theoretical perspectives in the planning, carrying out, and interpretation of archaeological excavations and research. Similarly, a substantial improvement in the amount of excavations that are published (including online) is seen in recent years, while the relationship between direct, and ‘naïve’ connections between the finds and the Hebrew Bible are much less common among contemporary practitioners in the field. By and large, modern archaeology in this region has become a highly sophisticated branch of archaeology, many times being at the very forefront of archaeological research in the world. 3.  Diachronic Cultural History For the chronological scheme used, see above, section I on chronology; for the settlement history please consult (→ map City#1–10, col. 134–159). 3.1.  Neolithic Period (ca. 10,200–5000 b.c.e.) The Neolithic period in Palestine, and in the ANE in general, is a period of cardinal importance in human global history. During this period the processes of “Neolithization” (also known as the “Neolithic Revolution”) took place, in which a gradual process of the appearance of domesticated → agriculture and sedentary, village-based lifestyles appeared. These processes began towards the end of the previous Epipaleolithic period (and in particular in the Natufian culture), developed in a non-linear manner during the Neolithic, and some aspects even continued to develop later, but overall, major components of this major change in human subsistence and culture can be placed within the Neolithic period. During this period, many important ‘firsts’ and developments occurred, including the appearance of various technologies (such as the management of fire, water, plastic materials such as → pottery), social hierarchy, extensive amplification of ritual (particularly communal), and long-range connectivity. All these processes were part of the shift from the multi-millennial traditions of hunter-gather subsistence patterns, to a growing emphasis on cultivation, domesticated agriculture, agropastoralism, side by side with population growth, and the

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

concomitant development of related socio-economic structures. The rise of the Neolithic cultures is often connected to environmental conditions, in particular the end of the “Younger Dryas”  – the final cold and dry spell of the last glacial period, ca. 10,000 b.c.e., along with the intensification of practices that began to occur in the late Epipaleolithic period, such as incipient sedentism, gathering of wild grains, and the first evidence of plant domestication. All these set the stage for the process of Neolithization, even if this was a very nonlinear process. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) The PPNA, while showing some continuity with the Natufian culture, displays a major change in settlement patterns and types. A  concentration of settlements of varying sizes emerges, many of which are situated in the Jordan Valley. The large site of Jericho stands out with its spectacular and unique wall and → tower, most likely of ceremonial nature. Most of the architecture, particularly domestic, was oval in plan, with the beginning of use of sundried mudbrick. PPNA subsistence integrated cultivation, foraging, and → hunting, with limited domesticated species such as fig, lentils, and broad bean. Hunting of small and medium size animals is seen, even if less than in previous periods. The only domesticated animal in this period is the dog, which was present in the Natufian as well. Chipped and → ground stone objects display changes in this period, among which the appearance of specific types of arrowheads, sickle blades, and axes, along with shallow lower grinding stones, seemingly related to the proliferation of cereal consumption. While poorly preserved, there is evidence of a sophisticated → basketry production tradition. Burial is usually within settlements, at times within → houses, including post-mortem skull removal, a practice originating in the Natufian culture. Ritual objects, including anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines are found. Evidence of long-range connectivity is seen as well, exemplified by the distribution of marine mollusks (Mediterranean and Red Sea), and stones of distant origins (obsidian and greenstone), with certain sites perhaps serving as hubs for this → trade. The reasons for the demise of the PPNA are not clear, perhaps related to climatic changes. Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) The PPNB represents the floruit of the Neolithic. While in the early PPNB there are relatively few sites, during later phases of this period there was extensive settlement in sites of varying sizes –

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

from small to “mega-sites,” in various parts of the region. The ongoing improvement in climate conditions enabled the expansion and development of settlement and → agriculture. Domestic architecture in the PPNB shifted to large roomed rectangular structures, most probably the abodes of nuclear families. Houses were built of mudbrick with extensive use of lime plaster on the floors and walls (→ construction technique). Throughout the PPNB there is a lot of evidence of cultic and ritual activities. This includes defined ritual areas, at times with → standing stones. Some sites have cultic buildings (e. g., ʿAin Ghazal), while at others (e. g., Kfar Hahoresh) there is a combination of ritual and burial activities. Similarly, the cave of Nahal Hemar in the Judean Desert was a repository for → cultic equipment, related to an as yet unknown ritual site. Ritual paraphernalia includes baked clay and stone figurines (mainly in the north), stone → masks (in the Cisjordanian central hills), and lime plaster → sculptures (Jericho, ʿAin Ghazal). Burials were usually located within settlements, but at times at separate sites, with burial customs continuing older customs such as post-mortem removal of skulls, which at times were even modeled with plaster or tar. At the same time, other types of → tombs were known, such as in pits, cists, and hearths. Subsistence became more diverse, combining farming, foraging, hunting, herding, and → fishing. Non-fired pottery vessels (“white ware”) appear as harbingers of the pottery in the next period. Finds from the Nahal Hemar cave provide evidence of → basketry, matting, and → weaving (the latter using flax), as well as long-range exchange of exotic items from a broad range of regions, covering the entire ANE. The floruit of the PPNB came to an end quite suddenly, perhaps relating to the rapid climate deterioration that occurred ca. 6,200 b.c.e. (the “8,200 yr. B. P. event”). Pottery Neolithic A (PNA) While the new appearance of → pottery is indicated in this period’s name, in fact the early parts of this period show much continuity with the PPNB. Two main cultures are known in the Mediterranean regions in this period, the Yarmoukian and the Lodian/Jericho IX. It is debated whether they are regional or chronological differentiations, perhaps in fact a bit of both. At various sites in the Jordan Valley and the coastal plain, as well as in the Transjordanian highlands, there is evidence of full-scale domesticated agriculture, with farming of wheat, barley, and legumes, along with sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs. Shaʿar ha-Golan, the largest of the Yarmoukian sites, has indications of site

XXXIII

planning, and perhaps even hints to later urban concepts as well. A  hallmark of the Yarmoukian culture are the various stone and clay human figurines, with the unique pointed heads, coffee bean eyes, and accentuated female thighs (→ idol). Very few burials have been found, most likely indicating that the dead were disposed in a manner which did not survive in the archaeological record. Pottery Neolithic B (PNB) The final stage of the Neolithic period, PNB, or the Wadi Rabah Culture, is a much debated period, with some suggesting (because there is no evidence of a break) that it should be characterized as the “Early Chalcolithic.” Some aspects show continuity with the PNA, while others are harbingers of Chalc. cultural traits. This period is characterized by small settlements in the Mediterranean zone and small-scale seasonal sites in the arid zones. The shift to full-scale agropastoral subsistence occurred in this period, with a broad spectrum of domestic plants and animals, with hunting representing a small component. The handmade ceramic repertoire have several distinctive features, such as “bow rims” and black and red burnished wares. In the lithic repertoire, sickle blades are common, and stone and clay sling shots, and → weaving implements are known as well. 3.2.  Chalcolithic Period (Chalc., ca. 5,000–3,800/3,700 b.c.e.) The Chalc. represents the next stage of socio-political complexity and technological development, bridging the appearance of → village life in the Neolithic period, and the appearance of urbanism and related aspects in the EBA. While there is continuity between the PNB and the Chalc., crucial differences in settlement types and patterns, technology, burial, and subsistence occurred during the Chalc. This period was first identified at Tuleilat el-Ghassul in the Jordan Valley (therefore also the “Ghassulian” period). While in earlier research it was thought that the appearance of the Chalc. culture represents the influx of immigrants into the region, this is less accepted today. A  dominant aspect in the Chalc. is regionalism. Subsistence patterns in the Chalc. indicate an intensification in comparison to the previous period. The majority of the population was sedentary, with widespread cereal and legume cultivation, at times with rudimentary irrigation (→ water management). The use of a broad range of domesticated animals (sheep, goat; → animal husbandry) appears to have been intensified in this period, with the appearance of specialized pastoralism, focused on milk and/or wool production. Excava-

XXXIV

tions and surveys indicate a complex matrix of settlements from this period, from small to very large sites, possibly indicating incipient polities (perhaps “chiefdoms”). The typical dwelling, of varying sizes, is a broad room structure often with a → courtyard. At sites in the Northern Negev, the above ground construction is supplemented with extensive subterranean complexes. A dramatic change seen in the Chalc. is in technology and craft production. Common types include the “V”-shaped bowl, chalices (often with fenestrated stands), large bowls and basins, various types of jars and cooking pots, and large storage pithoi, and the well-known ceramic “churn” – one of the hallmarks of this period, perhaps connected to the production of milk-related products (→ dairy products). Specialized metal production and → metal working was an innovation of this period (see the finds from the Nahal Mishmar and Nahal Qanah caves). Copper-based objects of two types are known: utilitarian objects, made in open molds usually from oxide rich copper ores; and ritual/prestige items made usually of arsenical (or antimony or nickel rich) copper using the complex “lost-wax” technique. The ores used were both from nearby sources, as well as distant ones, and long range trade is also seen in other materials. The complex metallurgical technology corresponds to the rise in socio-political complexity at the time. Burial practices in the Chalc. represent continuity of Neolithic traditions, and with new practices. Along with intra site burials, a range of new traditions are seen. This includes burial in clay and stone “ossuaries” of various types, often elaborately decorated with faces, noses, horns, breasts, etc. These are seen in cave or other types of burials (→ tombs). The “Cave of the Warrior” from the Judean Desert is a burial of a single male, with exceptionally well-preserved organic objects, including a shroud, a bow and arrows, sandals, and a wooden bowl. The lack of blatant socio-economic differentiations in burials, may perhaps indicate that despite the complexities noted above, Chalc. society was not overly hierarchical. Cult and religion during the Chalc. are extensive. The → sanctuaries (ʿEin Gedi, Gilat) include several structures of various sizes and shapes along with a wide range of installations. Of particular note are the symbolically laden → mural paintings from Tuleilat el-Ghassul and at Abu Hamid in Transjordan. 3.3.  Early Bronze Age (EBA, ca. 3,800/3,700–2,500/2,400 b.c.e.) The EBA is a period of immense importance in the cultural history of Palestine, the first period

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

in which “urban” entities appeared. The process, definition, and the appearance of urban sites and related structures is a complex, drawn out, and highly debated issue. For the first several centuries of the EBA, rural life was the norm, and only in the transition between the late EB I  and EB II substantial evidence appears of urban entities. Urbanism continues during EB II and EB III, to disappear in the next period, the Intermediate Bronze Age. During the EBA, we witness the appearance of new and previously unseen types of settlements, social hierarchy, public construction/projects, technologies and connectivity, setting the stage for much of the social and political structures seen in Palestine in pre-classical times. Early Bronze Age I (EB I) In previous research a break was seen between the Chalc. and EB I, but recent research demonstrates an extended cultural continuity between the periods. That said, regions that had been previously extensively settled were abandoned, and the village culture that developed had quite different socio-economic structures. The basis for these changes was a focus on the production of agricultural staple goods. Many of the central aspects of the Chalc. world order disappear, such as the importance of agro-pastoralism, the production of copper and → ivory objects, and the complex ritual. The villages of EB IA were dispersed throughout all the Mediterranean zones of Palestine. The typical house of this period was an oval, broad room structure, with perhaps the earliest appearance of very simplified → fortifications. EB I metallurgy seems to have focused on utilitarian copper objects, with evidence of small-scale production at sites. Copper ores were from the Arabah Valley, from Feinan and Timna. Burials during the EB IA reflect the changes in society and ideology during this period. The enormous cemeteries found on the southeastern side of the Dead Sea Plain are comprised of shaft burials with several chambers, used by families over an extended time. Minimal evidence of social, economic, and gender differentiation, indicate the relatively noncomplex social structure, seemingly family oriented with little larger communal social structures. The dispersed and socially non-complex nature of the EB IA villages, with limited resources, community cohesion, and economic connections came to an end in a gradual manner. These patterns changed in the EB IB. While village life continued to be at the center of the socioeconomic structures in Palestine, one sees an impressive growth in numbers, size, and complexity. Thus, during the later EB IB there is extensive evidence of sprawling mega-villages and various

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

signs of socio-economic centralization. The size of some of these sites is quite impressive, at times reaching ca. 20 ha. While at some sites the houses are multi-roomed rectilinear structures, other sites have structures of mixed plans, including ovoid and rectilinear side by side. In most villages there appear to be house compounds with multi-rooms and various domestic installations. The most impressive architecture of this period was found at Megiddo. In the lowest levels of the area with cultic precinct throughout the entire Bronze Age, three → sanctuaries dating to the EB IB were revealed. The two earliest are courtyard temples with broad rooms at the back. Noteworthy are the incised decorations of ritual nature that were found on the courtyard paving. There is extensive evidence of regional burial customs from this period: In the Mediterranean regions, the common burial is in a communal cave tomb, in Lebanon the tradition of pithos burials from the previous period continues, while in Transjordan, dolmens and other megalithic burials are common. Connectivity between Egypt and Canaan is paramount in the EB IB. Although some contact existed in the early EB IB, in the later phase of the EB IB, parallel to the unification of Egypt (traditionally ascribed to King Narmer), the character of the contacts with Egypt changed. Throughout Southwestern Canaan, sites with evidence of Egyptian and Egyptianizing material culture are found. At first understood as evidence of an Egyptian conquest and colonization, this could be the result of a system of trade emporia/diasporas, collecting Canaanite agricultural produce, whether peacefully or forcefully, for transshipment to Egypt. The large fortified site of Tell es-Sakan, near Gaza, served as the apparent royal center of the Egyptian activity in the region, with various sites serving different functions in this network. A glyptic tradition is evident as well, displaying influence, though very distant, of Mesopotamian motifs. This is seen in some jars that are decorated with cylinder seal impressions (most often using the tête-bêche motif), as well as a few stamp seals with animal motifs. Late in the 4th mill. b.c.e., the EB IB “world order” comes to an end. Throughout the entire region most of the village sites are abandoned, and in the following period, new and different sites are occupied. In the south, the Egyptian presence ends. It appears that weaknesses in the socioeconomic structure of the EB IB village society brought about its collapse. Early Bronze Age II (EB II) The flourit of urbanism in Palestine occurs during the EB II. This includes a mosaic of fortified settlements, various signs of societal integration, supra-

XXXV

regional production and distribution, reflecting a common cultural ethos, and the disappearance of cemeteries. Recent radiometric dating of the EBA has shown that this period is quite brief (100–150 years), as opposed to several centuries in earlier literature. The shift in the settlement pattern during the EB II is dramatic. Not only were many settlements abandoned, or destroyed and later resettled, many new sites in different regions were settled. A dense mosaic of fortified sites are found in all the Mediterranean regions. The fortified sites of the EB II are of various sizes. Urban planning was closely integrated with the fortifications, with houses and neighborhoods built in relation to them. At times, internal divisions can be seen in the settlements, whether through actual walls dividing different neighborhoods, or clusters of buildings in specific parts of the site. At several sites there is evidence of a gradual development of urbanism. The expansive excavations at several sites enable glimpses of the general urban fabric of these cities. There are several types of houses in the EB II cities. At Arad and other related southern sites, the iconic “Arad house” with a broad room structure set in a courtyard is common. In central Palestine, variations on this house are seen, while in northern regions there are courtyard compounds. Larger scale architecture has been identified at several sites. An outstanding characteristic of the EB II is the standardization of → pottery production. In Northern Palestine, a unique metallic ware (South Levantine Metallic ware; SLMW) is found at scores of sites, most likely produced at sites in the Northern Jordan Valley and the Beqaʾa. This ware is not only used extensively in the northern regions, but it is exported to the south, as well as to Egypt, where it is found in the royal tombs at Abydos (and known as “Abydos Ware”). Similarly, pottery produced at Arad has been identified at sites in the Negev and Sinai. Very few cemeteries of this period have been identified, and in fact not many tombs are known. This appears to mirror the changes in kinship relations during this period, from a clan-based structure, to larger, site-oriented socio-political structures. The economic structure and trade patterns of the EB II stand out in comparison to the periods before and after it. The character of the → trade between Canaan and Egypt changed to that of trading partners, probably centered, from the Palestinian side, at a small number of nodal centers, such as Tel Arad and Tel Beth-Yerah. As opposed to the Egyptians who were present in Palestine and procured agricultural produce and natural resources from the locals in the EB I, these EB II centers collected the traded products and transshipped them,

XXXVI

overland, in specific types of locally produced ceramic vessels, to Egypt. More so, the procurement of specific resources in areas far from these centers, such as copper and turquoise from Sinai, and bitumen and copper from the Dead Sea and the Arabah, were conducted under the auspices of these trading centers. Perhaps, the best example of this are the EB II settlements in Southern Sinai, near the ore locations, which have clear connections with Arad. Evidence of this trade is seen in contemporaneous Egypt, particularly in high status tombs. The reciprocal trade from Egypt is reflected in Egyptian pottery, stone palettes, and other objects, found at various sites in Palestine. Towards the end of the EB II – perhaps because of internal social processes within the urban elites or due to external reasons – many sites were abandoned, others were destroyed and subsequently rebuilt, and regions that were in the EB II settlement system were almost completely abandoned. Early Bronze Age III (EB III) While the urban character of the settlement in Palestine continues, significant changes occur in relation to the preceding period: there is a change in the character and dispersal of settlements. Almost all excavated sites from this period are on mounds, many of which are reoccupied during this period. Trade connections between Egypt and most of Palestine declined because the Egyptian trade with the Levant shifted north, centering on Byblos and other regions to the north. Quite a few sites in Palestine provide a continuous, and dense, stratigraphic sequence for this period. Massive, well planned and well built → fortifications at numerous sites are of a completely different character from the previous period. Large-scale public buildings, whether → palaces, temples, or for other functions, are found. These public projects, and the communal efforts required for them, indicate a change in the socio-political structure in the EB III, and the appearance of social differentiation, between elites and “commoners” in the urban entities during this period. The very fact that such impressive fortifications were needed is evidence of tension between  – and perhaps even within  – these EB III polities. Interestingly, the mortuary landscape did not substantially change between the EB II and EB III, despite the many changes seen in other facets of life. Few new cemeteries are seen, and few show continuity between the two periods. An interesting mortuary tradition developed at Bab edh-Dhra, where above ground burial structures (so-called “charnel houses”) were built, in which multiple burials were placed, perhaps each structure representing the dead of a certain family line-

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

age. Despite the social differentiation seen in the EB III settlements, there is no evidence of exceptional tombs of local elites. Production technology, crafts, pottery, and trade during the EB III reflect both continuity and change. While often EB III pottery is coarser and less finely produced then in the EB II, large serving and storage vessels are typical of the EB III, perhaps reflecting the social needs of the EB III elites, such as for feasting events. A  noteworthy development during this period is the appearance of the “Khirbet Kerak Ware” (KKW) pottery. This pottery (first found at Tel Beth-Yerah), reflecting pottery production and use of the Kura-Araxes cultures (originating in Northwestern Iran and Eastern Turkey, but spreading from there to the Levant), display production methods, forms, and decorations completely foreign to Palestine. The KKW pottery assemblage, along with other unique facets appearing with it, clearly reflect the arrival in Palestine, during the early EB III, of populations from regions northeast of Palestine. These newcomers settled at sites mainly in Northern Palestine, and at least in beginning, remained in well-defined “communities of practice.” With time, in later phases of the EB III, these migrant communities were integrated into the local populations. The end of EB III was a long, drawn out affair. Some of the urban sites were abandoned at an early stage, others around 2500 b.c.e., while a few continued until ca. 2400. This indicates that the demise of the EB III urban culture was not the result of monolithic causes (whether external or internal), but rather due to a complex set of processes, occurring over an extended period. Aspects of societal tensions between various elite groups on the one hand, and between elites and non-elite elements might be one set of causes. Another influential aspect might have been the rise in political and economic complexity in contemporaneous central and Northern Syria. There is evidence of Egyptian military expeditions to Palestine during the Old Kingdom (during the 5th–6th Dyn.), and they may have been one of the factors behind the collapse of the urban EBA culture. That said, seeing these military actions as having a primary role in the demise of the urban EBA is unlikely, as many urban sites were abandoned prior to these campaigns. No less important is the process of transition from the urban to the non-urban lifestyles characteristic of the next period, the IBA. 3.4.  Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA, 2,500/2,400–2,000 b.c.e.) The IBA presents a very different set of lifestyles and subsistence patterns, combining a mainly

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

rural, along with semi-nomadic/nomadic lifestyles, the former primarily, but not only, in the Mediterranean zones, the latter particularly, but not only, in the arid zones. Current research indicates that grosso modo, the IBA can be divided into two phases, which seem to be reflected both in aspects of the material culture (as discussed below), but also in a transition to a drier climate (the so-called “4.2K event”) in the late 3rd mill. b.c.e. As opposed to earlier research narratives, which suggested that the majority of the IBA population was of semi-nomadic/nomadic character, excavations in the last few decades have demonstrated that, by and large, sedentary rural life was the norm, in most parts of Palestine, both Mediterranean and arid. While many of the mounds that were settled during the EB III were abandoned, some continued with smaller-scale settlements. Very few settlements continued into this period as urban sites, save for a few on the Lebanese coast, perhaps to be explained in light of their connections with Syria and trade with Egypt and Mesopotamia. The extensive settlement in the Negev Highlands has been dated by radiocarbon almost exclusively to the early phase of the IBA, in fact overlapping with the end of the EB III in northern areas of Palestine. These settlements served as way stations for the trade of copper between the Arabah and Egypt, commencing yet at the end of the EB III, and continuing into the first part of the IBA. While in the past these settlements were seen as reflecting semi-nomadic populations, the architectural, botanical, and faunal data does not support this. Most importantly, the dating of this settlement phenomenon to the early IBA, before the drier period following the “4.2K event,” explains how such a dense settlement pattern developed in this arid region. On the other hand, settlement sites in the northern Jordan Valley and Transjordan have been dated to the second half of the IBA, both based on radiometric dates and pottery parallels from Syrian sites. This perhaps can be seen as evidence of connections (possibly trade in pastoral products) with the highly developed urban culture that existed in central and Northern Syria at this time. In fact, the vibrant continuation of developed urban life and complex socio-political structures in Syria (and in particular, at Ebla), enables us to see IBA Palestine as a peripheral zone of the Syrian urban core. Hints to this are seen in imports and imitations of Syrian-style pottery, the first appearance of small amounts of tin-bronze objects, limited luxury items of possible northern origins (such as the silver goblet from ʿEin Samiye), and the apparent appropriation of Syrian drinking vessels and habits during this period.

XXXVII

In IBA village sites in the north, rectilinear architecture is the norm, with groups of loosely planned courtyard complexes with multiple rooms. On the other hand, in the arid zones, the common architectural plan is of irregular clusters of rounded, simply built stone structures, often with a pillar supporting the → roof (which in some cases was made of stone as well). At times, these structures are grouped together, perhaps reflecting the abode of an extended family. Some of these sites have hundreds of such structures, probably indicative of extended occupation of the site. During the IBA there is extensive evidence of cemeteries in most regions in Palestine, often associated with nearby settlements. A  broad range of → tombs are known, which can be broadly divided into shaft cave tombs and built tombs, dolmens and other megalithic structures in basaltic regions, and tumuli in the arid zones. The cemeteries most probably reflect the clan and territorial ideology of IBA rural society, strikingly different from the urban landscape of the preceding EB II–III. Craft and production demonstrate the villageoriented economic base of the period, and some ceramic connections with Syria. Agricultural practice, as seen through the archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological evidence in the Mediterranean regions, indicates small-scale → animal husbandry (caprines, cattle, pigs). In arid zone sites there is some evidence of caprine herding practices, and less evidence of agricultural practices, strengthening the case for a copper → trade-related function of many of the Negev Highland sites. Similarly, while some imported objects are known, they are quite limited, particularly if one takes into account the long duration of the IBA. It is clear that this period is more than just a brief interlude between the urban EBA and the urban MBA. Rather, it represents a long period in which rural lifestyle was the norm, socio-economic complexity was minimal, and Palestine was on the periphery of the vibrant urban cultures of central and Northern Syria. 3.5. Middle Bronze Age (MBA, 2000–1500 b.c.e.) During the 20th cent. b.c.e., the ANE seems to have gone through what might be seen as an awakening of connectivity, perhaps related to climate improvement at this time, and to socio-political developments in various regions. In Egypt we see the rise of the Middle Kingdom with the 12th Dyn., in Anatolia the period of the Old Assyrian caravan karums (trading centers), and in Mes-

XXXVIII

opotamia, the 1st Babylonian Dyn. (in the early 19th cent.), preceded by the Isin-Larsa period (late 21st/20th cent.). Due to these supra-regional socio-economic developments, some gradual, some more abrupt, changes are seen in Palestine, from the beginning of the MBA and onward. This includes new patterns of settlement, particularly the appearance, development, and spread of urbanism, changes in social structure and economy, evidence of connectivity with other regions in the ANE, new technologies, and most importantly, the first evidence of writing systems used in Palestine, as well as several written references to the region, in Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources. These processes begin in Palestine in the mid/ late 20th cent., and continue for an extended period. In fact, in the interior of Palestine, the full effects of this are seen only in the 18th cent. By and large, this period can be seen as the second urban period in Palestine, and the first time that this region plays a full-scale role in long-range and international webs of connectivity. While some new populations (e. g., “Amorites”) may have arrived in Palestine at the beginning of and throughout the MBA, much evidence of population and cultural continuity with the preceding IBA can be seen. In the MB I, with the rise of urbanism in Palestine and the regeneration of intense international trade in the ANE, polities, mostly small → city states, begin to form, at first along the international routes (→ map Trade #1, col. 1045) and later, in MB II, in inland regions as well. It is clear that a major engine behind this process of regeneration was the beginning of participation in supra-regional trade. Towards the end of the Middle Kingdom, in Egypt there is evidence of a significant Western Asiatic presence, particularly in the eastern Nile Delta, which, during the subsequent 2nd Intermediate Period in Egypt (14th– 17th Dyn., ca. parallel to MB II) leads to the formation of the “Hyksos” Dynasty in Upper Egypt, with strong connections with the Levant, and in particular, the meteoric rise of Avaris (Tell edDabʿa), the Hyksos capital. Evidence of connectivity between Egypt and Palestine, and Palestine and regions to the north are seen at the time. With the rise of the Old Babylonian period in the latter part of MB I, the Syro-Mesopotamian sphere is a mosaic of large city states/kingdoms. Northern Palestine becomes part of this system, with Hazor serving as the southernmost link in the chain of these kingdoms. Evidence of this is clearly seen in the Akkadian letters found in Mari, with reference to trade and diplomatic relations, and with corresponding Akkadian documents found at Hazor as well.

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

Middle Bronze Age I (MB I) Finds in the coastal plain, from Lebanon southwards, nicely illustrate the early stage of the MBA. Perhaps the most important site of the MB I  is Tel Aphek, where a dense stratigraphy commencing from very early in the period was found. A  sequence of palaces at the site, spanning the MBA, give a glimpse of the emerging political order – that of small polities situated on mounds, with a surrounding web of villages. A similar picture seems to emerge from the northern valleys, and further east in the Beth-Shean Valley, such as at Tell el-Hayyat and Tel Kitan. Both are village sites with a long MBA sequence, with → sanctuaries that are first built in the early MB I. Middle Bronze Age II (MB II) During this period, the settlement in Palestine, in just about all the Mediterranean ecological zones, and some marginal zones as well, reaches a peak rarely seen in other periods. A closely woven matrix of settlements dots the land, covering the full range of settlement types. It has been estimated that more than 700 urban and rural sites existed in Palestine during MB II, and the overall population assessed at ca. 140,000 people. All these sites in the various ecozones were closely connected in a socio-political settlement hierarchy. Most likely, the dominant polities were micro-regional, small-sized city states, each ruled by a charismatic local leader and family. It can be assumed that in some cases, several of these were integrated or dependent on a large polity, forming a larger and more powerful polity. In the northeast, Hazor at ca. 100 ha in size, with massive → fortifications, temples, and at least one if not two → palaces, and with its strong connection with the Syro-Mesopotamian world (seen in the correspondence with Mari and in material culture) represents a kingdom which controlled major parts of Northeastern Palestine (and probably portions of Southern Syria as well). Its influence may have been felt as south as the Jezreel Valley, where other polities take over. Fortified sites probably controlled small kingdoms in these fertile areas, representing a much smaller scale type of polity, which was common in other parts of Palestine to the south. Regional differences in material culture indicate that from the Jezreel Valley and to the south, a southern oriented influence, towards Egypt (and during MB II, probably connected to the Hyksos in Egypt), was more common. On the north coast, Kabri is of note. The palace at Kabri, with its outstanding Aegean floor and → mural painting is particularly important. Whoever ruled from this palace managed, at a relatively early stage of MB II, to bring Aegean craftsmen to Kabri to produce ar-

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

chitectural decorations typical of Crete and the Aegean. Most probably, the ruler(s) of Kabri controlled Northwestern Palestine, extending their rule to the west, to the Mediterranean Sea, and to the east to somewhere in the Upper Galilee, perhaps bordering with the Kingdom of Hazor. In the southern coastal plain and the Northwestern Negev, the sites of Ashkelon (on the coast) and Tel Haror (more inland), represent two important polities. A very different picture is seen in the central hills. While a chain of fortified sites are found in MB II, the scale of these cities, the polities they represent, and the regional settlement patterns around them, are much smaller. A  case in point is Jerusalem. While fortified with massive stone walls (particularly surrounding the water source), over all, the MBA remains are somewhat limited (probably both due to size but also to preservation due to later activities). Around Jerusalem there is a network of villages, mainly to the west and southwest, but much less dense than in many other parts of the country. Middle Bronze Age Material Culture While first appearing sporadically in the MB I, large scale → fortifications are one of the most characteristic aspects of MB II Palestine. In lowland areas the main feature of these fortifications are impressive earthen ramparts, comprised of well-planned layers of sediments, often with a built core (of brick or stone) and rarely with evidence of a wall on top. → Gates, and occasionally → towers are built into the ramparts. In hilly regions, there are more stone-built fortifications, often constructed with large so-called “Cyclopean” masonry. Both these types of fortifications at times also have a built glaçis (revetment), and at times a moat. Based on analyses of settlement in some of the sites, only a portion of the area enclosed by these fortifications was in fact occupied. Thus, perhaps these fortifications may have served as an attempt by the ruling elites to force “domestication” – to an urban oriented ideology – and compliance – on the population of Palestine. Domestic structures, both in cities and in smaller settlements are usually courtyard → houses, of differing sizes. A variety of → sanctuary types (the most common being the Syrian inspired “Migdol” temple) are known from MBA sites. In the cities, larger examples are found, while in the rural sites, smaller versions of these temples exist. Technology during the MBA goes through several impressive developments, reflecting the socio-economic complexity and connectivity of MBA Palestine: Large scale and quite impressive → water management systems are seen at several sites, including Gezer and Jerusalem, indicat-

XXXIX

ing an understanding of water tables and related issues, and demonstrating both impressive engineering abilities and comprehension of the strategic need for protecting and accessing water in times of insecurity. Extensive use of the potter’s wheel, well-levigated and very well-fired wares, finely-made and decorated vessels, and massive production, demonstrate the impressive leap in the potter’s craft during this period. A broad range of → pottery types are known during the period, many demonstrating highly skilled potters’ craft, with a wide dispersal of types both in Palestine and beyond. Certain pottery families of Palestinian origin are traded far and wide, and in some cases imitated in other regions (e. g., the “Tell elYahudiyeh Ware”); they are evidence of the role that Palestine played in the international trade of this period. Similar developments can be seen in other technologies as well. Bronze (tin alloyed copper) becomes common in Palestine. New types of weapons along with various tools appear, produced using sophisticated bronze casting techniques. Of note is the use of sophisticated production techniques in → jewelry production, including fine examples of granulation and cloisonné decorations. These methods, along with the production of metal objects and the finely fired ceramics, indicate a significant rise in the pyro-technological abilities during this period. Literacy, and writing technology, appear in Palestine during the MBA (see section III on Epigraphy). The earliest alphabetic writing during the MBA is the so-called “Proto-Sinaitic writing.” Attested in Egypt and in particular at the copper and turquoise mines at Serabit el-Khadim in Sinai, it was probably formed by speakers of Canaanite who interacted with Egyptians, as the early alphabetic signs clearly show influence from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Mortuary customs are an important part of MBA society. In the earlier phases of the MBA, single burials, often so-called “warrior burials,” were common, perhaps hinting both to connections with the IBA traditions, and also to the slow transition to an urban culture. As the MBA develops, more and more multiple interment, multigenerational “family” → tombs are found that were used for extended periods. These are often in the form of shaft tombs, a clear continuation of IBA mortuary architecture, but also in other types, such as built tombs made of stone or mudbrick. Tombs of upper echelon parts of society are known as well. At Hazor (and similarily in Megiddo), empty cavities under the apparent → palace in the lower city have been interpreted as a royal hypogeum (burial), similar to royal burials found in Syria.

XL

The processes leading to the end of the MBA can be connected to the end of the “Hyksos” rule in upper Egypt. It is now clear that the transition between the MBA and the LBA was not due to a monolithic event (such as the destruction of Avaris and the “expulsion” of the Hyksos from Egypt), but rather was a drawn-out multipronged and multi-causal process. Internal competition between the various MBA polities, along with growing external pressure from early New Kingdom Egypt, and perhaps the arrival of new ethnic elements (Hurrians?), may have contributed to this. 3.6.  Late Bronze Age (LBA, 1500–1130 b.c.e.) The LBA represents the first period in which Palestine fully enters the historical stage. Due to the written sources it is clear that the region of Palestine, during the LBA, can be referred to as Canaan and the overarching culture as Canaanite. The historical framework for the LBA is based, first and foremost on Egyptian history, from the end of the 2nd Intermediate Period and the rise of the New Kingdom with the beginning of the 18th Dyn., while the 20th Dyn., dating to the 12th cent., is seen by some as being parallel to the last phase of the LBA. Throughout the early 18th Dyn., various Egyptian kings record military campaigns and the retrieval of taxes from Palestine, indicating that Canaan was under Egyptian control. During the reign of Thutmose III, there are extensive campaigns to Palestine, including the well-known battle of Megiddo, against a coalition of Canaanite cities. Subsequently, the Egyptian control of Canaan was solidified. The Battle of Kadesh in central Syria (1274 b.c.e.), between the Egyptians and the Hittites and their allies reinsured the Egyptian presence in Canaan, at least until the late 13th cent. In the late 19th and early 20th Dyn. there is extensive evidence of Egyptian activities in Palestine, particularly in the region of the Northwestern Negev and Gaza. During the reign of Ramses III incursions of the so-called Sea Peoples into this region are seen, and attempts by the Egyptians to counter this. While some see the early 12th cent. as the final stages of the LBA, others relate to this as the early phases of Iron Age I. Some caveats are required: While it is tempting to connect the many historically attested Egyptian military campaigns to specific destruction levels at various sites of Palestine, there were other events during this period, which might have contributed to some of these destruction levels. The character of the Egyptian empire in Canaan needs to be carefully assessed. While it is agreed that

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

throughout the LBA there was a continuous, if fluctuating, Egyptian rule, a matrix of ca. 20–30 mostly small scale polities existed throughout Palestine. It is clear that the Egyptian involvement, control, and even imperial rule in Canaan changed throughout the LBA and attempts to see this as a simplistic imperial, colonial framework is inaccurate. Egyptian control seems to have been manifested at various central sites, with minimal intervention beyond. There were Egyptians at some sites, most likely representatives of the Egyptian rule in Canaan. And, there clearly was an entanglement of Egyptian and local customs in the interaction between Egyptians and local Canaanites, most probably creating hybrid cultural manifestations, “third spaces” and “contact zones,” with transcultural material assemblages that might challenge simplistic identifications of this or that group. It is only during the very end of the LBA and the beginning of Iron Age I  that a more intensive Egyptian presence is felt in Canaan, primarily in the southwest, where there is evidence of Egyptian activity, including “Governors’ Residences,” substantial amount of Egyptian pottery and other material culture, and hieratic inscriptions often relating to taxation. It has been suggested that this represents a last Egyptian attempt to hold on to territories in Canaan, as a response to the changes  – and new identity groups  – appearing in the LBA/Iron Age transition. Late Bronze Age Material Culture A fascinating and oft-noted aspect of the LBA in Palestine is the dialectic between the material characteristics of this period  – that of a period with evidence of connectivity and prosperity, but at the same time decline and abandonment. On the one hand, the LBA is an international period with extensive evidence of international → trade (including in exotica) and diplomatic relations, urban → sanctuaries, → palaces, and → tombs with rich remains. Opposing this is the evidence such as the lack of → fortifications (perhaps due to Egyptian pressure), public architecture, substantial shifts in settlement patterns and a decline of population, a technological decline in → pottery production, and the overall trend in the settlement pattern to fewer sites. A major reason for these dichotomies could be the over-exploitation of Palestine by the Egyptian New Kingdom Empire, which nevertheless enabled a small elite to have access to the international connectivity of this period. Perhaps the elites, at a limited amount of sites, practiced a conspicuous consumption of elite and exotic goods to legitimize their social standing – particularly in light of the Egyptian domination existing throughout this

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

period. The social need to do this – and the burden this placed on the non-elite parts of society –, may have caused the decline in other aspects of material life – and perhaps – a trend towards nomadization of settled populations. Society in Palestine was comprised of elites, sub-elites, and nonelites in urban and rural sites, along with various marginal groups, often of nomadic nature, in peripheral regions. Thus, a complex socio-economic structure, with various urban, rural, and nomadic elements, contributed to the decline. Pottery goes through a major change in the LBA, in what appears to be a substantial technological decline. As opposed to the high quality wheel made wares of the MBA, in the LBA, there is much less use of the wheel and more handmade vessel types. In addition, in the local pottery there is a rather limited set of vessel types. Provenience studies of LBA pottery shows that much of the daily, plain pottery was produced in small-scale local workshops, quite different from the centralized pottery production of the MBA. Interestingly, despite the localized production, there is a surprising homogeneity in the shapes and decoration in the local LBA pottery, perhaps indicating shared values and symbolism in LBA Canaan. Imported pottery (from Egypt, Crete, Cyprus) embodied an important facet of LBA material culture, the international connectivity of this period, as well as the social dichotomies noted above. While representing only a small overall percentage of the pottery from this period, examples are found in just about any site (settlements or tombs) throughout LBA Palestine. Various crafts and technologies are known in the LBA. Bronze remains the most common metal in use, with Cyprus being the major source of copper throughout most of the period. The local Palestinian copper sources in the Arabah were not utilized during most of the LBA, save for the 13th cent., when the Egyptians mined copper there (→ mining). Tin, the other major component of bronze, was imported from far away, with isotope analyses indicating possible sources as far as Cornwall in the west and Afghanistan in the east. Well-made metal and → ivory prestige objects found in temple and elite contexts were part of the “international style” of this period and the lifestyle of the elites. → Seals include Egyptian made and locally produced scarabs of various types, along with cylinder seals of either local or imported types. Among the latter, Mitannian style cylinder seals from Mesopotamia are quite common. Egyptian hieroglyphic writing (both formal and hieratic) is seen at various sites. For the most part, they represent writing of Egyptian scribes stationed in Palestine, but most probably, there

XLI

were also local scribes with knowledge of Egyptian writing. In addition, there is extensive evidence of scribes writing in Akkadian, particularly as reflected in the mid-14th cent. Akkadian Tell el-Amarna letters, in which kings/mayors of sites in Canaan, wrote to the king of Egypt (cf. the Tell el-Amarna → archive). Two types of Levantine alphabetic writing systems are known: The archaic Canaanite alphabetic writing (from the MBA) continues to be used, and three examples of the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet (see below, section III on epigraphy) have been found at sites in LBA Palestine. The few domestic → houses and → palaces in LBA Palestine are usually the “courtyard type” (e. g., Hazor). LBA temples can be divided into several types: 1) So-called “Syrian” temples, monumental symmetrical structures, that continue traditions seen already in the MBA. 2) Temples with a raised cella (“holy of holies”), perhaps reflecting Egyptian influences. 3) Irregular temples which have indirect entrances and a symmetric plans. → Cultic equipment is diverse, among which maṣṣebot, ceramic stands and chalices, metal and ceramic → idols of gods and goddesses, and → votives, objects of various materials, often imported from afar, are very common. A diverse set of burial customs are known in the LBA, with both temporal and regional differentiations in types and popularity, perhaps reflecting various cultural and identity influences. Extra-mural cave burials of various types, with multiple interments, are quite frequent in the LBA, but mostly in the hill regions, seen by some to reflect the customs of the regions further away from Egyptian control and presence. Some of these burials show continuity between the MBA and LBA or between the LBA and early Iron Age. Pit burials, most often with a single interment, but usually grouped together in formal cemeteries, are also common in the LBA. These burials appear primarily in the coastal and inland valley areas, areas with a more emphatic Egyptian presence, reflecting the appropriation of Egyptian mortuary worldviews by local populations. Several other types of burials can be noted, such as: intra-mural, stone built burials placed under structures in contemporaneous use, at times found in association with palaces; pithos burials, burials in clay coffins. Hazor remains the largest and most impressive site in Palestine, continuing its role in the MBA and its commonality with Syro-Mesopotamian culture. The lofty political status of Hazor is evidenced in the Tell el-Amarna texts, where only the king of Hazor is referred to using the Akkadian term for king – šarru – while other rulers in Palestine are

XLII

termed mayors. The archaeological remains at Hazor reflect a similar picture. Several temples in the upper and lower city can be noted. Many of these temples are built with unique, monumental architectural elements, noteworthy among them being the basalt “orthostats” that line the temple walls, at time in the forms of lions, an architectural embellishment with Syrian and Hittite connections. Large remains of an apparent palace in the upper city, several → gates, and other public and private constructions can be added to this. In addition, evidence of cuneiform and Egyptian texts and objects, all indicate the close and intense involvement that Hazor had in LBA international connectivity. Finally, an interesting and highly debated aspect is the final destruction of Hazor. The destruction occurs in the mid-13th cent., much earlier than other destructions and abandonments at the end of the LBA (see below). Various suggestions have been raised to identify the agents of this destruction, whether local (an internal revolt), or external (Egyptians? Israelites? Sea Peoples?), and this appears to still be an open question. Other important sites of the LBA are Beth-Shean (turning during the 13th and early 12th cent. into a regional Egyptian center), Megiddo (continuing as a Canaanite city state until the Iron Age I, sometime in the late 11th cent.), and Lachish (during the LBA/ Iron Age I transition, in the early 20th Dyn., under direct Egyptian control). Late Bronze/Iron Age Transition Starting from the mid/late 13th cent. b.c.e., and well into the mid/late 12th cent., the eastern Mediterranean in general, and the Levant in particular, witnessed major changes in the social, political, and economic makeup, with many of the basic building blocks of the LBA world order disappearing. The Hittite Empire collapses, the Egyptian Empire loses its control in Canaan by the midto-late 12th cent., the Mycenaean palace polities break down, the volume of international trade is significantly reduced, many of the Canaanite cities are abandoned or destroyed, and new cultural and ethnic groups appear throughout the region. This includes the so-called Sea Peoples, the Israelites, the Arameans, and various other groups. While during the LBA there are diverse written sources from throughout the ANE, from the early 12th cent. onwards, until well into the late 11th and early 10th cent., there are few contemporaneous written sources relating to the historical situation in the Southern Levant. Due to this, this period is very much a “Dark Age.” The Hebrew Bible, while seemingly relating to this period, is really of tangential utility as a historical source when dealing with this period, as the various

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

narratives regarding the formation of Israel and related issues appear to be based on later understandings, and constructed memories. As opposed to earlier views that claimed that the cities of LBA Canaan were destroyed or abandoned around 1200 b.c.e., they in fact go through a much more extended and complex process. While some LBA cities are destroyed during the 13th cent., others are destroyed sometime in the 12th cent., or at the very end of the 11th cent. Also the Egyptian presence varies regionally. No less importantly, there are distinct cultural continuities between the LBA and Iron Age, along with hints to the societal changes that are often connected to the appearance of the various cultural groups of the early Iron Age (e. g., Israelites, Philistines), which seem to begin already in the late 13th cent. Thus, this transition period cannot be seen through the lens of monocausal processes, but rather a matrix of varied processes and influences, environmental (climate changes) and cultural, that brought about slow, but very substantial changes in the next period, the Iron Age. 3.7.  Iron Age I (1130–975/925 b.c.e.) The Iron Age brought about a drastic turn from the LBA world order, with regional territorial and/or ethnic kingdoms in the Levant in general and Palestine in particular, with identity groups that were partly new to the region, and until later phases of the Iron Age, were not under the domination of larger imperial powers. The fragmented identity groups of the Iron Age begin to appear in Iron Age I. One must be aware that these various identity groups (Israelites, Judeans, Philistines, etc.) may represent, more than anything else, later ideological fabrications, only partially, if at all, representing the actual identity groups, and their shifting character, that existed during Iron Age I. The Israelites and the Central Hills/Upper Galilee For many years, research on the appearance of the Israelites was divided into several distinct schools of thought: 1) that archaeological evidence of the Israelite conquest could be found (e. g., Albright and Yadin); 2) a process of gradual settlement by peoples coming from outside of Canaan (e. g., Alt and Aharoni); and 3) those who believed that the appearance of the early Israelites should be explained primarily as an internal phenomenon, mostly made up of peoples originating in Canaan, who during the early Iron Age realigned their identity (e. g., Mendenhall and Gottwald). Recent research has negated the “conquest view” because there is no evidence of large scale

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

destructions at sites that are mentioned in the biblical texts regarding the supposed conquest, and for the most part, there is a lot of similarity between the material culture of the new rural settlements in the central hills and the previous Canaanite culture. And beyond this, there is virtually no evidence of substantial related changes – and the appearance of cultural markers that could be identified as “Israelite” in other regions of Palestine, particularly on the coast and in the valley regions. The dominant view nowadays is that the early Israelites who gradually appeared in peripheral regions in the central hills and Upper Galilee from the late 13th cent. and onwards, were comprised of a substantial amount of local Canaanite elements (most of whom were rural and nomadic elements who previously were in the central hills region), some people deriving from the lowlands Canaanite urban matrix, along with some groups who may have entered the region in a gradual manner, perhaps from areas to the east and northeast of Canaan (seen in the early Iron Age sites in Eastern Samaria). In other words, it appears that all three processes mentioned above, and others, occurred at varying degrees (even if “conquest” was minimal), in this time of change. During the early Iron Age (perhaps even starting in the late 13th cent.), there is substantial archaeological evidence of the appearance of many new sites in the central hills region (several hundred according to surveys), in particular in the region between Jerusalem in the south and the Jezreel Valley in the north. Additional sites are known on the western foothills of Samaria, in the hills in the eastern fringes of Samaria, and in the Northern Galilee. Very few of these sites are found in the region of Judah, from around Jerusalem and southwards. Further south, in the Northeastern Negev, in the Beer-Sheba and Arad valleys, several sites were founded in Iron Age I. Most of these “Israelite settlement” sites are built at new locations, previously unsettled, but in some cases they are built on sites that were occupied in earlier periods. Most of these sites can be characterized as small, enclosed → villages with very simple, mainly domestic, architecture, in some cases with structures seeming to be early appearances of the common “four-room house” (→ house 2.3.). The finds at these sites are primarily utilitarian pottery (storage jars [such as the well-known “Collared-Rim Jars”, → pottery 4.2.] and cooking vessels), with few prestige and/ or imported items. Several small sized cultic sites from this period have been identified. At Shiloh, a site which appears to have a cultic function in the MBA and LBA

XLIII

as well, evidence of apparent mid/late Iron Age I cultic activity was found, but its character is not clear. On the northeastern side of Mt. Ebal, just to the north of Shechem/Nablus, there is an early Iron Age cultic enclosure with a large structure (possibly an altar) within (as well as other smaller structures) dating to the late 13th and early 12th cent. A small-scale cultic site was found in northeastern Samaria, at the so-called “Bull Site.” These three sites are most likely representative of the fragmented social groups in central hills during Iron Age I, with localized cultic centers and most probably complex kinship interrelations. Even if there is much continuity and similarity with cultures in LBA Canaan (pottery types, ritual objects, subsistence patterns), the overall material culture assemblage seen in these “settlement sites” in the hill country indicates the formation of new cultural identities in rather defined geographic zones. No less significant is that many aspects in the early Iron Age “Israelite” sites do continue into Iron Ages II–III Israelite and Judean cultures. This includes: the so-called “four-room house”  – which becomes very common in Iron Age II Israel and Judah; and an apparent lack of consumption of pig  – at least in Judah, but not necessarily in Israel (but it should be stressed that both aspects cannot be used, per se, as a sine qua non identification of an Israelite/Judean site). Very few burials dating to Iron Age I have been found in the regions associated with the Israelite culture in the central hills and the Galilee. Perhaps there was a change in burial customs – to methods which leave less archaeological remains – reflecting ideological changes between the LBA and Iron Age, in the populations in these regions, including, perhaps, changes in kinship relations and structures. The processes that occurred in the central hills and Galilee regions during the Iron Age point to a complex interplay of local and non-local groups resulting in the formation of new identity groups during the Iron Age I period. Nevertheless, during the transition between Iron Ages I and II (somewhere in the 10th cent.), many of the peoples in the various regions noted above, coalesced into larger groups that served the basis for the peoples, ideologies, and group identities of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (see below). Philistines and Sea Peoples and the Southern Coastal Plain During the LBA/Iron Age transition, there is substantial evidence of movements of peoples, originating from diverse regions in the Eastern, Central, and Northern Mediterranean, who reach the Southern Levant. Some of these are termed as the

XLIV

“Sea Peoples.” The Philistines, a sub-group of the Sea Peoples, were one of the dominant cultural groups in Palestine during Iron Age I and were located in the southern coastal plain of modern day Israel/Palestine, more or less between the Yarkon River in the north and Gaza in the south, and from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Shephelah (Judean Foothills) in the east. The archaeological evidence of the early Iron Age Philistine culture is extensive (see, e. g., Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tel Miqne/Ekron, Tell es-Safi/Gath, Tel Qasile). The Philistine material culture includes an impressive pottery tradition, including unique decorated vessels, cultic and other objects, a very unique diet (eating pigs and dogs), and differences in → food preparation (appearance of → ovens and hearths), new agronomic traditions, specific cult practices, and many other aspects. Current research suggests that the Philistine culture of the early Iron Age does not derive from one non-local region, but rather consists of various groups of diverse non-local origins. These groups were of varied socio-economic character, and may have included groups who were originally of pirate-like nature. These non-locals settled side-by-side with Canaanites who continued living in these sites. Together, they formed what has been termed a “transcultural” or “entangled” culture. The Iron Age I  socio-economic and political structure of the Philistines appears much more developed than that of the Iron Age I  highland settlements. The Philistine culture was an urbanoriented, relatively complex culture; the contemporaneous cultures in the highlands to the east were much less hierarchical, complex, and technologically advanced. Based on the archaeological remains it seems very likely that the Philistines were socially, economically, and perhaps militarily, dominant throughout the Iron Age I  (and perhaps well into Iron Age IIA as well). During the late Iron Age I  and the transition to Iron Age II, the Philistine culture becomes more and more similar to the surrounding cultures, but still retains – in fact until the end of the Iron Age – unique identifying material traits. The settlement pattern in early Iron Age Philistia is quite different from that of the previous period. The urban sites in Iron Age I  Philistia, built on previously settled LBA sites, show fortifications, temples, and other public buildings, as well as domestic structures exhibiting combinations between foreign and local building traditions, daily life, and other aspects. The pottery of Iron Age I  Philistia is considered among the most characteristic aspects of the Philistine culture. During the early Iron Age I, with the appearance of various facets of the early Philistine culture, a distinct pottery

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

group appears, which has been classified as a locally made version of the Late Helladic IIIC pottery. This well-made, monochrome decorated pottery, in shapes deriving from the Aegean cultures, which is called Myc IIIC, Monochrome or Philistine 1, represents the initial stage of the Philistine culture. During the late 12th and 11th cent., the Philistine pottery goes through further development, changing to bichrome or Philistine 2, and later the poorly executed monochrome Philistine 3. In the late Iron Age I/early Iron Age IIA, a new group of decorated pottery appears, the Late Philistine Decorated Ware, with white and black decorations on red burnished vessels, seemingly a combination of the original Philistine decorative traditions, mixed in with Phoenician inspired shapes and finish, common in this period and also seen in other regions in Palestine. In addition, genetic studies have shown that pigs of Southeastern European origin were brought to the region in the early Iron Age, most probably by foreign groups who were part of the Philistines. A few formal cemeteries have been located at sites in Philistia (Tell es-Safi/Gath, Ashkelon, Azor, Tel ʿErani). The burial types include multigenerational cave burials, in natural or manmade cavities, burial in pithoi, cremation, and pit burials with or without built structures. While in the past it was assumed that the “anthropoid” burial coffins found at various sites in Palestine are associated with the Philistines, this appears to be related to the Egyptian presence in Palestine in the LBA/Iron Age I transition. Recent bioarchaeological study of human remains from these Iron Age I  cemeteries supports views that see a complex makeup of the Philistine population. Phoenicians and Canaanites in the Northern Coast and Valleys The Phoenicians are the continuation of the LBA Canaanite culture and population along the coastal regions of the central and Northern Levant, from the Carmel coast in Israel until the southern part of the Syrian coast. While many sites were abandoned or destroyed at the end of the LBA or the beginning of Iron Age I, some sites show continuity between the LBA and Iron Age I, with the “Canaanite” traditions continuing (Megiddo, Beth-Shean, and Tel Rehov). In the second stage of the Iron Age I, sites on the northern coast show intense commercial connections with Cyprus and Egypt, and some connections with even further locations, such as silver from the west and ceramics from the Aegean. This indicates some continuity of LBA trade patterns, but more so points to the beginning of the Phoenician → trade networks, well-known in Iron Age II.

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

Arameans Early evidence of the Arameans in Northern Syria are documented in the Assyrian texts from the 11th cent. and onwards. Archaeological finds from several sites in the area of present-day northeastern Israel, southeastern Lebanon, and Southern Syria indicate that already in Iron Age I, groups that may have later identified with the various Aramean groups in this region during Iron Ages II–III (such as the Geshurites), were likely forming in this region. Several of these sites show well-organized → villages, while at late Iron Age I Tel Hadar, a well-built → fortification, and a large grain storage facility were found, perhaps indicating this site served as a center of an early Aramean polity in this region. Whether one can identify the occupants of these sites specifically as “Arameans” at this stage is questionable and one should take into account the possibility that they represent other local groups in various stages of societal development during this formative stage in Canaan. Transjordanian Cultures The Iron Age I  finds from Transjordan represent the early stages of the formation of the cultures and polities known in the region during Iron Ages II–III  – for instance, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. The early Iron Age is evidenced throughout Transjordan, but it appears to be quite different from the areas to the west of the Jordan (e. g., less Philistine but more Aramean influences; more evidence of → tombs, little evidence of literacy). During the early Iron Age, sites in the Eastern Jordan Valley seem to be more connected to the west. In central Jordan, there is evidence of several fortified sites during the early Iron Age. In semi-arid regions of central Jordan, in Moab, small to medium sized village sites, some with rudimentary fortifications, appear during this period. In Southern Jordan, in the area later defined as Edom, there is evidence of nomadic groups (e. g., the cemetery near Feinan), most likely evidence of the Shasu nomads mentioned in Egyptian sources, who were probably involved in the → mining activities during Iron Age I (Feinan and Timna), and in asserting control over the trade routes (→ map Trade#1) that traverse the Arabah Valley. In fact, these may be central reasons for the Edomite ethnogenesis at this time. 3.8.  Iron Age II (ca. 975/925–600/586 b.c.e.) Four sources of information can be used for reconstructing the history of Palestine in Iron Age II: the archaeological finds, the Hebrew Bible, various Ancient Near Eastern texts (Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Aramaic, etc.), and inscriptions

XLV

found in Palestine. The archaeological finds make up the primary source for the cultural and historical reconstruction of this period due to the relative lack of inscriptions and the debated historicity of the relevant biblical texts. The latter went through a long and multifaceted process of formation, redaction, and editing, and thus, must be used extremely judiciously when attempting to correlate with the archaeological remains. The Iron Age II in Palestine, while representing complex and diverse processes, can be generally summarized as a period in which at first, local, regional polities (of various types and scale) are formed, based on real or constructed group identities, which develop within the context of the broader socio-economic processes occurring in the Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean region. Later in the Iron Age, the influence and presence of the Assyrian Empire becomes dominant, with the various local polities slowly swallowed by, or under the shadow of, the Assyrian conquests and domination. This imperial domination continues until the end of the Iron Age, even if replaced briefly by the Egyptians and then finally by the Babylonians. The rich archaeological remains from Iron Age II Palestine, in conjunction with various written sources (including the Hebrew Bible) that relate to this period, enable a robust, if at times highly debated understanding of this period. Early extrabiblical texts relating to this region – such as Pharaoh Shishak/Sheshonq’s list, the Tel Dan Inscription, and the Mesha Stela  – indicate the existence of the Judean and Israelite Kingdoms in the 10th–9th cent. In addition, from the late 9th cent. onward, Assyrian texts (e. g., Shalmaneser III’s Black Obelisk) provide a good comparative background for the chronology and historical framework of these kingdoms and other polities in Palestine. Iron Age IIA (Early 10th Cent.–830 b.c.e.) Iron Age IIA is both a continuation of patterns and processes that commenced in Iron Age I, as well as various new characteristics, though the stages in these developments are not similar in all regions. Along the Lebanese coast, from the early 10th cent. onward, the Phoenician culture develops impressively. Along the northern coast of Israel, similar developments can be seen, clearly a southern extension of the Phoenician core region. In the mid-9th cent., the port at Dor seems to have gone out of use, possibly as the site was taken over by the Israelite Kingdom, during the reign of King Ahab of the Omride Dynasty, reflecting a change in the political influences. The Northern Jordan Valley sees important developments in settlement during the 10th and 9th

XLVI

cent. The cultic precinct and → fortifications at Tel Dan are built and expanded during Iron Age IIA, most probably already in the 10th cent. and continuing to develop in the 9th cent. While the affiliation of this site during the 10th cent. is debated, it is clear that in the 9th cent. the site was controlled by the Israelite Kingdom until its destruction, apparently by Hazael of Aram (Tel Dan inscription). Likewise, the Iron Age IIA levels at Hazor are debated, although it appears that already in the 10th cent. there was substantial activity, con­tinuing into the 9th cent. The fortifications at Hazor are of particular importance, with a six chamber → gate and a casemate wall in the first stage, both of which were cancelled out in later when the fortifications expanded to include the entire upper tell, most likely during the Omride Dyn., in the mid-9th cent. On the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee, evidence of large fortified sites with Aramean material culture indicates that this region was under Aramean control during Iron Age IIA, perhaps at first the Aramean Kingdom of Geshur, and later under Aram Damascus. Further south in the Jordan and Jezreel Valleys, Iron Age IIA is well represented. During the mid-9th cent., many sites in the region and beyond show impressive development, indication of the Kingdom of Israel during the reign of Ahab, reflected as well in the biblical narratives and Ahab’s role in the battle of Qarqar (853 b.c.e.) as depicted in the Kurkh stela of Shalmaneser III of Assyria. Excavations at Tel Rehov revealed a thriving, though unfortified, 25 ha → city, with a dense Iron Age IIA sequence, with three destruction layers dating between ca. 980 and 830 b.c.e., among which might be the Shishak (ca. 925 b.c.e.) and Hazael (ca. 830 b.c.e.) destructions. Noteworthy as well are the → houses at Tel Rehov whose plans are different from the typical “four-room houses” at other sites in the region (and built with wood foundations, also an unusual characteristic for this period), a unique apiary, a small → sanctuary, and the largest collection of inscriptions from any site in Iron Age IIA Palestine. It has been suggested that this site had a central role in the transportation of copper (→ mining) from the Arabah, to Phoenicia and beyond. In the Northern Central Hills, being the core region of the Kingdom of Israel, which appears in this period (most probably not earlier than the late 10th cent.), various sites are newly founded in this period. Some are built on earlier occupations such as Samaria, that was founded in the early 9th cent., as the royal capital, until its final destruction in 722 b.c.e. Gezer, located on the south-

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

western edge of the Samaria hills is extensively settled and fortified during the Iron Age IIA. The clear 10th cent. dating of the Gezer fortifications, perhaps reflects activities of the Judean Kingdom (Solomon?) or of the early Israelite Kingdom. During the 9th cent. Gezer was destroyed in the campaign of Hazael of Aram, ca. 830 b.c.e., as seen at Gath, Tell Zayit, and other sites. In the southern central hills (Judah) there are fewer Iron Age IIA sites than in Samaria, continuing trends seen in Iron Age I. There is evidence of settlement activity in late Iron Age I and early Iron Age IIA Jerusalem. While a possible Iron Age IIA palace (on the summit of the “City of David”) and fortifications (in the “Ophel”) have been suggested, this is highly debated. Ceramic and stratigraphic remains from the “City of David” indicate that there was a settlement during early Iron Age IIA. During late Iron Age IIA, in the 9th cent., there is more evidence of the urban development of Jerusalem. This includes (re)building fortifications (including reuse of MBA fortifications) and expansion of the access to the Gihon spring. Among the finds are imported pottery from Philistia (and local imitations) and Mediterranean fish (→ fishing), and hundreds of Phoenician-style an-epigraphic bullae, all of which indicate that Jerusalem was involved in inter-regional trade at the time. This appears to indicate that during Iron Age IIA, Jerusalem was the center of a small polity, but not the capital of a large kingdom during the reign of Solomon, as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. That there was some cultic diversity in Judah is indicated by the temple (in “Syrian temple” plan) excavated to the west of Jerusalem, at Mozah. Various locally made → cultic equipment and → votives or → idols were found, and objects deriving from Philistia as well. Further to the south a small number of Iron Age IIA sites are known in the region (e. g., Hebron). The Iron Age IIA settlement pattern in the Judean Shephelah is of much interest. During Iron Age I, there were a few sites in this region, which some have suggested to identify as Canaanite This pattern goes through a gradual change during Iron Age IIA. Early in the period (and perhaps even in late Iron Age I, ca. 1000 b.c.e.), the fortified sites of Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet er-Rai are constructed, the latter on the remains of an earlier Iron Age I  site. The cultural affiliation of these sites, Judean, Canaanite, Philistine, or Israelite, has been discussed. While their affiliation with the early Kingdom of Judah should be seen as a possibility, it should be noted that the Iron Age IIA phases at both sites are short lived, probably destroyed by the neighboring Kingdom of

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

Gath, by far the largest polity in the region in late Iron Age I  and early Iron Age IIA. Slightly later, during Iron Age IIA, other sites are newly settled. The dating and significance of sites in the Shephelah have been debated. Is there evidence of the expansion of Judah into the Shephelah at this time, or did this occur only in late Iron Age IIA and early Iron Age IIB (late 9th/early 8th cent.), after the destruction of Gath by Hazael (ca. 830 b.c.e.)? Further south, in the Northern Negev, changes are seen as well. While the Iron Age I sites in the Beer-Sheba and Arad Valleys are abandoned, several new sites appear. This includes the founding of the small village site at Tel Sheba, which towards the end of Iron Age IIA is apparently fortified. Similarly, early in Iron Age IIA a small village is founded at Arad, and later in the period the first of a series of fortresses (continuing into Iron Age II; see below) is founded. In the Negev Highlands more than 30 fortresses (of varying size and shape) were constructed, along with small rural sites of various kinds. A  popular explanation of these sites are that they are evidence, during the mid-10th cent., of the United Monarchy’s expansion into, and control of, this region. More so, the many sites in the region noted in the Shishak/Sheshonq’s list, depicting a military campaign ca. 925 b.c.e., is to be seen as evidence of an attempt by the Egyptians to take over this region – and the control of the trade routes – just after the division of the United Monarchy into two separate kingdoms. Radiometric dating of several of the fortress sites indicates that at least some of them date to after the Shishak raid. Furthermore, analyses of the ceramics from some of these sites (and in particular the handmade “Negebite ware”), indicate a close connection between these sites and the copper producing sites in the Arabah Valley, which were active at this time. Accordingly, the Negev Highland sites might reflect not the Judean, but the Edomite control of both the copper mining and related desert routes for its transportation, throughout the Iron Age IIA, part and parcel of the process of development, and amplification of Edomite socio-economic complexity and connectivity, during this period. The settlement pattern of the central and southern coastal plain (Philistia) during Iron Age IIA develops as well. The city of Tell es-Safi/Gath reaches its maximum size (ca. 50 ha), most probably the largest and most powerful city state in Palestine in general. At the time, the site includes a fortified upper and lower city, with extensive remains of public and private architecture. Evidence of trade connections with various regions (including Phoenicia, Greece, and Cyprus) and copper from the Arabah, appear to indicate its supra-re-

XLVII

gional role, both politically and economically. At the same time, Tel Miqne-Ekron, the Philistine city just to the north of Gath becomes much smaller, perhaps under the influence of Gath. Along the coast, Ashdod is large and fortified in Iron Age IIA, and it appears that Ashkelon, while fortified, is less intensively settled during this period. In addition to the large cities, the Iron Age IIA rural sector in Philistia is active as well. While some of the rural sites of late Iron Age I  are abandoned, quite a few rural sites are known from this period. Of particular interest is the cultic repository found at Yavneh, evidence of a yet undiscovered sanctuary dating to early Iron Age IIA and a similarly dated rural temple at Nahal Patish in the northeastern Negev. Iron Age IIA develops differently in the various regions in Transjordan. In the northernmost region, the Gilead, an independent polity did not form during the Iron Age. Rather, throughout Iron Age II, starting from the mid/late Iron Age IIA, the region seems to have changed hands several times, between the Israelites and the Arameans. Further south, in the region of the Ammonite Kingdom, more extensive evidence exists, both in the Northern Jordan Valley and the highlands. The citadel of Amman may have been fortified already in the 10th cent., as well as minimal evidence from Tall Jawa and Tell el-ʿUmeiri, primarily dating to the 9th cent. Tombs and the Amman Citadel Inscription (Iron Age IIA or early Iron Age IIB), in which Milkom is mentioned, may be seen as additional evidence of the rise of the Ammonite polity. The adjacent region of Moab also witnesses in Iron Age IIA the emergence of the Moabite polity. Several sites in this region are founded or continued during Iron Age IIA, particularly in its second half (9th cent.). At Khirbet ʿAtarus, biblical Ataroth, evidence of a late Iron Age I/early Iron Age IIA site, with a temple, was discovered. This level was destroyed in the mid/late 9th cent., and the site and temple were rebuilt. These two phases may possibly reflect events mentioned in the Mesha Inscription in which the king of Moab claims to have captured and destroyed the Israelite city of Ataroth and its temple (ca. 850–830 b.c.e.), a supposition strengthened by the recently published inscribed altar from the ʿAtarus temple. Evidence of the second half of Iron Age IIA was found as well at Dhiban, capital of the Moabite Kingdom, where the monumental Mesha Inscription was discovered. This inscription along with other finds from Iron Age IIA sites in the region, as well as a few tombs dated to this stage, are indicative of the early stages of the development of the Moabite Kingdom.

XLVIII

Recent exploration in Edom has transformed our understanding of the role of this region during Iron Age IIA. Excavations at Feinan and at Timna in the Arabah Valley, along with radiometric dating of the finds, have conclusively demonstrated that both sites were extensively used for copper extraction. A massive fortress at Khirbet en-Nahas in Feinan, next to copper processing areas, and a camp (“Slaves Hill”) with evidence of imported objects, (even purple dyed) textiles (→ clothes; → fabric and textiles) and foodstuffs at Timna, indicate that those involved in this copper production  – most probably non-sedentary elements of the early Edomite polity – played a major role in Iron Age IIA trade and economy. Not only did they control the copper production, but the → trade routes in the region and long-distance trade as well. Metal objects from Greece and Egypt, made from Arabah copper, are indicative of this. It appears that one of the objectives of Shishak’s campaign ca. 925 b.c.e., and likewise of Hazael of Aram ca. 830 b.c.e., may have been to take control of the copper production and trade. We must conclude that the Edom polity seems to have commenced in the Arabah, and only later, in Iron Age IIB/C, settled at sites in the southern Transjordanian highlands. Iron Age IIB (830–700/650 b.c.e.) Aram Damascus retains its dominance in the region, up until the early 8th cent., but this soon changed with Adad-narari III’s campaigns to Syria in 796 b.c.e. and the tribute received from various kings in the region, including Bar-Hadad, the son of Hazael, and Joash of Israel. But it is not until the military campaigns (from 734 b.c.e. onwards) of Tiglath-pilesar III, that the Assyrian involvement returns, and changes the region successively from north to south with a peak in the reign of Sargon II (722 b.c.e. destruction of Samaria) and Sennacherib (campaign to the Levant 701 b.c.e.). However, during this interim of ca. 60 years, the various kingdoms in Palestine thrived, including the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel and Amaziah of Judah. In the 9th/8th cent., the success of the Aramaic language and its alphabet script can be observed. This seems to be indebted to the political expansion of the Kingdom of Damascus and to the rise, administration, and finally the mass deportations by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Aramaic subsequently became the lingua franca of the NeoAssyrian, the Neo-Babylonian, and the Persian Empires (then as Achaemenid Official Aramaic). Iron Age IIB is a well-known phase due to several issues. To start with, it is a period of relative prosperity, intensive settlement, and development of socio-economic complexity, which are reflected

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

in the archaeological remains. From ca. 733 b.c.e. onward, there are many destructions at sites throughout the region that left well-preserved archaeological assemblages, which enable scholars to define the material culture of this period. For example, the destruction level of Lachish, Level III, representing Sennacherib’s conquest of the site, serves as the fossile directeur of late 8th cent. material culture of Southern Palestine. The Phoenician coast, while often mentioned in written sources, is insufficiently known archaeologically. Despite this, evidence of the 8th cent. is known at various sites, foremost at Tyros which was the dominant Phoenician city in this period as well. Further south, on the coast of the Western Galilee, sites as Akhziv, Tell Keisan, and Tell Abu Hawam, probably represent the regional dominance of Tyros during this period. The Galilee, and the Northern and Central Jordan Valley are extensively settled during Iron Age IIB, undoubtedly reflecting the floruit of the Kingdom of Israel in the first half of the period. At Dan, apparently the northernmost city of the Kingdom of Israel, extensive fortifications and the expansion of the cultic precinct are seen. At Hazor, which probably served as the regional administrative city of the Israelite Kingdom, the upper city continues to be occupied and its fortifications, water system (→ water management/ works), and other elements bolstered and expanded. All of these sites witness major destructions, and often subsequent abandonment, in the campaign of Tiglath-pilesar III in 733 b.c.e. In the Jezreel Valley, a similar pattern is seen. Megiddo is a major center of the Israelite Kingdom, heavily fortified, with public buildings, a complex water system, and other elements. According to some views, it is during the reign of Jeroboam II that Megiddo reaches its zenith in the Iron Age, manifested inter alia in two complexes of → horse stables. The core region of the Israelite Kingdom, the Northern Central Hills, represents a full spectrum of settlement hierarchy, from urban sites of various sizes and hundreds of rural sites of varying scales. The capital, Samaria, stands out as the primary city with an estimated size of ca. 50– 60 ha, making it one of the largest sites in Iron Age Palestine. The acropolis was comprised of a fortified enclosure with various elaborate structures, poorly preserved due to later construction. Three large, well-built structures in the citadel are worth noting: 1) a poorly preserved but impressively built structure on the southern side of the citadel, most likely remains of the → palace of the Israelite kings. 2) The “House of Ivories,” on the northern side of the citadel, where a large collec-

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

tion (> 500 items) of well-made → ivory inlays was found (though mainly in later contexts). 3) The “Ostraca House” on the southwestern side of the citadel, in which 100 sherds inscribed with ink inscriptions (“ostraca”) were found. These ostraca, most probably dating to the reign of Jeroboam II, record shipments of fine wine (→ viticulture) and → oil, sent from various locations that can be identified in the region around Samaria, to the palace. They reflect the political structure of the kingdom, and may very well be seen as evidence of the complex client–patron relationships between the king and various local elites living in surrounding regions. Recent reanalysis of the finds from the site appear to indicate that the city continued to exist after the Assyrian conquest in 722 b.c.e., serving as the capital of the Assyrian province Samaria. The southern central hills, the core region of the Kingdom of Judah, was likewise intensively settled during Iron Age IIB. As opposed to the settlement pattern in the north, in the Kingdom of Judah, the distribution of various types of settlements was less even. At the top of settlement hierarchy was Jerusalem, which grew in the second half of the 8th cent. to around 50–60 ha, similar to the size of Samaria. But, there were fewer sites of medium to large size, both in Judah and in other regions under Judean control. By far, a much higher percentage of sites in Judah was of smaller scale, most of which were rural sites. Jerusalem during the 8th cent. expands way beyond earlier periods, to include, in addition to the Temple Mount and the City of David, extensive settlement on the “Western Hill,” as well as extra-mural settlement to the north. The city was surrounded on all sides by cemeteries. In the latter part of the 8th cent., most likely in preparation for the Assyrian campaign in 701 b.c.e., the city’s fortifications are substantially expanded northwards, and the city’s water system substantially expanded with the carving out of “Hezekiah’s Tunnel” (with an inscription hewn into the tunnel walls), which moved the waters of the Gihon Spring (on the eastern slopes of the City of David), underground, to within the fortifications of the city, to the west of the City of David (to the “Pool of Siloam,” → water works 4.2.–4.3.). The preparations for the Assyrian campaign, prior to 701 b.c.e., are manifested in other aspects throughout Judah (e. g., fortifications). The lmlk jars (→ seal  4.5.) represent royal sanctioned provisions for the kingdom. The circumstances leading to the expansion of Jerusalem during the Iron Age IIB are explained by some as reflecting a slow and steady rise in the socio-economic complexity of Judah during this century, by others as a result of the fall of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 b.c.e. Just to the south of Jerusalem

XLIX

the palace at Ramat Rahel may have been founded in the late 8th cent. (or in the early 7th cent.). Whether this palace was a Judean palace, or an Assyrian administrative center for tax collection is debated. Various other sites can be noted in the Judean Mountains. At Mozah, the sanctuary that was founded in Iron Age IIA continues to function throughout Iron Age IIB. In addition, the site becomes a redistribution site for agricultural products, with grain storage facilities and an apparent public building. The change in the function of the site, and its apparent transition into a royal administrative site associated with Jerusalem, may reflect a pattern of centralization. An assortment of rural sites is known in the Judean Hills, many of them located around Jerusalem. The latter represent the beginning of an agricultural settlement pattern that will intensify during Iron Age IIC. → Tombs from this period, found throughout the Southern Judean Hills, are additional evidence of the settlement activities in this region. During Iron Age IIB, most likely due to the destruction of Philistine Gath in late Iron Age IIA, the Judean Kingdom expands into the entire Shephelah, resulting in an increase of settlements. This includes enlargement of sites that were already Judean, sites that had not been settled previously, and numerous other sites in the region, of various sizes and classes – some of them fortified. Lachish III, the southern fossile directeur, is of particular importance for the study of the region. It is the second most important site in Iron Age IIB Judah, the administrative center of the southwest of the kingdom. It was heavily fortified, with fortifications and a massive city gate. In its center there was a large administrative fortress/palace surrounded by a fortified enclosure with storage rooms, possible stables, and the fortress/palace itself placed on a raised podium. The impressive archaeological remains of the battle over the city and its destruction in 701 b.c.e., along with Assyrian texts and the monumental carved reliefs (→ sculpture) depicting the → siege found in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh, provide the general background for the end of the extensive settlement of this region by the Kingdom of Judah. The Northern Negev sees a rise in settlement intensity during Iron Age IIB, representing the southern portion of the Judean Kingdom. The site of Tel Sheba most probably served as the administrative center of the Kingdom of Judah in this region. Several phases of late Iron Ages IIA and IIB were discovered at the site (Strata V–II), but it is Stratum II, the final Iron Age IIB phase of the city, destroyed in 701 b.c.e., that is of particular note, often referred to as the type site for understanding urban planning in Iron Age Judah. The site (ca. 1.2

L

ha) was enclosed by a casemate wall, with a massive → gate with an external and internal gate. A  peripheral road ran parallel to the city wall, with domestic structures of the “four-room house” type (→ house 2.3.) built in between (with the broad room at the back of the houses incorporated into the casemate wall). Various public buildings and constructions were incorporated into the Stratum II site. This includes an elaborately hewn water system (which collected water from flashfloods in the nearby wadi; → water management; → water works), storage buildings, and a large administrative structure (“governor’s palace”). The possible evidence of a temple includes the scant remains of a dismantled building with deep foundations, and a dismantled stone horned → altar, parts of which were reused in Stratum  II structures. It has been suggested that these cultic remains may serve as evidence of the cultic reform of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:​4; 2 Chr 31:​1; 32:​12), and the temple was dismantled, right before the final destruction of the site in 701 b.c.e. The finds from Tel Sheba (from Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt) indicate that the site participated in international trade during this period. Of similar importance is the fortress at Arad. Built already during Iron Age IIA, it was thoroughly rebuilt in the 8th cent. The massive, solid fortification wall replaced the earlier casemate wall, a large water system was hewn in the bedrock in the center of the fortress. A temple was built in the northwestern corner of the fortress which consisted of a → courtyard with a large altar, leading to the main broad room, with a small cella (holy of holies) accessed by three steps at the back wall of the main room. In the first stage of the temple, the cella has a → standing stone at its back and two incense altars on the steps leading up to it (recent analyses show that cannabis was included in the incense → drugs). The temple was used in two stages of Iron Age IIB. It was dismantled, perhaps also related to the cultic reform of Hezekiah. This level was destroyed in the late 8th cent., apparently during Sennacherib’s campaign. Further south, in the Negev Highlands and beyond, there was less activity than in Iron Age IIA (above) and in Iron Age IIC (below). A  small number of desert fortresses were occupied, most probably guarding the trade routes in the region. In the Arabah, two large fortresses from Iron Age IIB can be noted, at ʿEin Hazeva, and at Tell el-Kheleifeh. An additional noteworthy site in this region is Kuntillet ʿAjrud, situated in the Eastern Sinai, ca. 50 km south of Kadesh-Barnea. Here, on a small hill a fortified structure was found. In the entrance and adjacent rooms of the building,

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

→ mural paintings and decorated vessels where

found, which in addition to rich iconographic depictions, included texts, written mostly in Northern Israelite Hebrew and Phoenician. These inscriptions mention “YHWH of Teman,” “YHWH of Samaria,” and “Asherah.” The building also contained storage vessels, a communal cooking area, and due to the arid conditions, a broad range of well-preserved organic remains (→ clothes, → basketry, plants, → spices). The pottery from the site is predominantly Israelite (very little Judean) and no local “Negebite” pottery was reported. Based on the finds and the radiometric dating, most date the site to the early 8th cent., connected to the Israelite Kingdom, serving as a caravanserai on the trade route traversing Eastern Sinai from north to south. Following the destruction of Gath in late Iron Age IIA, the geopolitical situation in Philistia shifted. Tel Miqne-Ekron replaces Gath as the main inland Philistine city, while it appears that Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza continue to flourish. The incorporation of Philistia within the Assyrian Empire, and the continuing pressure of the Assyrians in the direction of Egypt, play a major role in Philistia during Iron Age IIB. Iron Age IIB is a period of uneven growth and settlement in Transjordan; some regions prospered and developed, others less. In Gilead, there are relatively few sites from this period, and apparently, after the Assyrian conquest in 732 b.c.e., the region is quite abandoned. In Ammon, numerous sites are known (the capital Amman, Tall Jawa, and Jalul). Tell Deir ʿAlla is of particular interest in light of the so-called “Balaam Text,” an ink inscription written on the wall plaster of an apparent cultic structure (found in fragments on the floor of the building). The fragmentary inscription (first half of the 8th cent.) is written in a dialect whose identity is debated (Aramaic? Ammonite? Gileadite?) and mentions Balaam, son of Beor, who is reminiscent of the prophet of the same name in Num 22–24. Another unique aspect of Ammonite material culture is a group of stone statues with an Egyptian-style “Atef” crown (→ insignia), perhaps symbolizing Ammonite kings or deities (→ idol). The remains from Ammon and Moab (capital Dhiban) seem to indicate that the settlement in this region developed throughout the 8th cent. While the region was conquered by the Assyrians in 732 b.c.e., and these two kingdoms became Assyrian vassals who had to pay tribute, by and large, the socio-economic picture did not change much. In Edom, Iron Age IIB brings changes in settlement pattern, with the highlands of Edom settled

3.  Diachronic Cultural History

substantially for the first time during the Iron Age. The capital at Buseira is settled and fortified at this time. While in the past, Iron Age IIB settlement in Edom was connected to a supposed Assyrian interest in the Feinan copper mines, recent excavations at Feinan have demonstrated that the mines were not active in the 8th cent. It would appear that other factors were behind this new settlement pattern, perhaps related to trade routes from Arabia. Iron Age IIC (ca. 700/650–600/586 b.c.e.) In this period the Assyrian imperial rule in the region was strongly felt. In regions that the Assyrians had annexed (e. g., Samaria, Phoenicia, and Philistia), various sites with Assyrian palaces and fortresses are found, with clear evidence of the presence of Assyrian officials and soldiers. In other regions, where local vassal kingdoms continued to exist (e. g., Judah, Ammon, Moab, and Edom), a strong Assyrian influence is seen, manifested in various aspects of the material culture (such as Assyrian and Assyrian-style pottery, dress codes [→ clothes])  – and reflected in the textual sources as well. In the 7th cent., the Judean Kingdom flourished, even if its expansion to the west had been curtailed by the Assyrians at the end of the 8th cent. Both in the heartland of Judah, in and around Jerusalem, in the eastern part of the Shephelah, and in the Northern Negev and the Judean Desert, extensive settlement activities can be seen. Largescale building in and around Jerusalem (including the palace at Ramat Rahel), along with that at many rural sites, are indicative of this prosperity, mirroring the Assyrian evidence that the Judean Kingdom and its king Manasseh were loyal Assyrian vassals. This evidence of a flourishing 7th  cent. Judah fits in well with the commonly held view of this period, and in particular, the second half of this century, as a period of cultural “renaissance” – a time to which some scholars would date various biblical texts (in particular, the “Deuteronomistic texts”). Only towards the end of the 7th cent., when the Assyrian control of the Levant waned, and the Babylonians and Egyptians vied for control of this region, this period of growth and flourishing ended. What followed, was a time of political instability in the Judean Kingdom, up until the final destruction of Jerusalem, and the Judean Kingdom, in 586 b.c.e. There is rather extensive evidence of writing and literacy in the Judean Kingdom in Iron Age IIC, with well-known examples such as the Arad letters (found in the fortress), the Lachish letters (found in the city gate, dated to right before the Babylonian destruction in 586 b.c.e.),

LI

and numerous inscribed bullae (→ seal). Most importantly, according to most scholars, the Hebrew language used in these texts is virtually identical to the “classical Biblical Hebrew” seen in those biblical texts that are dated to the late Iron Age – providing circumstantial evidence for their dating. Burial in Iron Age IIC is known from various regions. In Judah, the common burial, continuing from Iron Age IIB, is the cave burial with benches, multi-generational → tombs that seem to imitate the form of the common “four-room house.” The region of Philistia played an important role during this period. On the one hand, it was jumping board for the repeated attempts by the Assyrians to invade Egypt, and numerous sites with evidence of the Assyrian army are seen, particularly in Southern Philistia and the Northwestern Negev. In addition, the Philistine cities, including Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, flourished at the time. Ashkelon became a large international port, while Ekron became one of the largest producers of olive → oil in the Eastern Mediterranean. At Ekron, of particular note is the large temple with its → votives – and the building inscription of king Ikausu/Achish with a list of his ancestors, and a deity – read by most as “Patgaia” – perhaps evidence that an Aegean originating goddess continued to be worshipped in Philistia until the end of the Iron Age. The fate of the Philistine cities was sealed in 604 b.c.e., and there is ample archaeological evidence of the campaign of Nebu­chadnezzar of Babylon which destroyed the remaining Philistine cities (Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza), and exiled the surviving population to Babylonia. 3.9.  Babylonian and Persian Periods (600/586–332 b.c.e.) Babylonian Period The Babylonian period is a poorly known and highly debated period, due to both a lack of certainty in the archaeological definition of the material culture of this short time span, and in light of few written sources. In Northern and Central Palestine, the Babylonians may have continued Assyrian imperial control, with possible evidence of this at Hazor and Samaria. In Judah, the picture is somewhat different. While most of the region of the former Kingdom was devastated in the Babylonian conquests at the end of Iron Age IIC, and most of the inhabitants were killed or exiled, in the area north of Jerusalem (Benjamin) there is evidence of continuity of settlement. In particular, Tell en-Nasbeh becomes the major site in the region. In addition, the palace at Ramat Rahel continues to serve as a center for imperial control. In Transjordan there is a serious lowering in the in-

LII

tensity of settlement in almost all regions, with few sites with a clear sequence from this period. The Babylonian policy in Palestine was quite different from that of the preceding Assyrian Empire. Save for minimal interest as a source of plunder, the scorched earth policy, particularly after rebellions, left Palestine in a state of degradation, and accordingly, with relatively few archaeological remains from this phase. Persian Period The beginning of the Persian period is marked by the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great in 539 b.c.e. From this point, the Achaemenid Empire rules the Levant – as part of their much larger empire – which ends with the conquests of Alexander in 332 b.c.e. The effects on the material culture of Palestine did not appear at the beginning of the period, rather, they become more obvious after a few decades. In general, in the Persian period there is a rise in the intensity of the settlement in many regions, which is particularly dominant in light of the situation in the previous Babylonian period. While differentiation between the early and later Persian period is not always easy, it appears that more activity occurred in the region in the latter half, particularly in the 4th cent., when the Persians lost control of Egypt (in 399 b.c.e.), and Palestine became the southwestern border of the Persian Empire. Palestine, which was within the Persian Satrapy of Eber Nari, was divided in regional provinces (Pahwa), ruled by a governor, including Yehud (Judah), Samarina (Samaria), Idumea (Southern Judah), and several others. These subdivisions, may not only have been bureaucratic, but might reflect the ethnic identity of the majority of the population in each area. Many regions of Palestine are densely settled during the period, although most of those that are archaeologically known are of non-urban character, even at sites which in previous periods had urban settlements. While Jerusalem itself is quite minimal in size, at nearby Ramat Rahel, an impressive palace, continuing the palaces of earlier periods was found, most likely the seat of the local governor for the Persian Empire. To the north of Judah, in Samaria, early evidence of the Samaritans is seen, including the early phase of the temple at Mt. Gerizim, and as seen in the cache of papyri from Wadi ed-Daliyeh in Southern Samaria. Throughout Palestine there are many small sites connected to the Persian control, including numerous forts and administrative structures. Farmsteads are known as well, perhaps reflecting elites controlling rural agricultural zones. Along the Phoenician and Philistine coast, various cities (Akko, Dor, Ashkelon,

II.  Archaeology and Cultural History

and Gaza) were settled and go through a revival during the Persian period. In Transjordan, there appears to be some continuity between the Babylonian and Persian periods, and evidence of settlement in several regions. Overall, the material culture of the Persian period is quite uniform in character. The local pottery is quite similar all over Palestine, and in the 5th and 4th cent. there is a lot of imported Cypriot and Greek pottery of various types. While few cities of the period have been excavated, evidence of well-built fortifications, city plans (some with grid [Hippodamian] plans), and impressive ashlar masonry is known. The typical house of this period is a courtyard structure, and the ubiquitous “fourroom house” of the Iron Age disappears. Sanctuaries and favissae are known at several sites, both within cities and on isolated mountain tops (Mizpe Yamim). Large, well-built structures that are found at various sites and at strategic locations are interpreted as fortresses or administrative structures. Coinage (→ finance) begins to substantially appear during this period, both imported coins from various Mediterranean regions, as well as local mints, such as in Yehud, Samaria, and the Gaza region. Clay and bronze figurines of various types (also of Egyptian deities) are quite common during this period (→ idol) – save for in Yehud, the latter perhaps for religious reasons. In figurines, iconographic motifs (→ seal), and clothing (→ clothes), the Greek cultural influence is felt, something that will become more pronounced in the Hellenistic period. The tombs in the period are varied, whether in large cemeteries with single pit or cist burials and family cave burials. The archaeological evidence from Persian period Palestine shows a region on the periphery of the extensive Persian Empire, with intensive contacts with other regions in the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, and the west. The regional subdivision of Palestine during the period seemingly reflects ethnic and religious divisions, some of which continue in later periods as well. 3.10.  Hellenistic Period (332–63 b.c.e.) The Hellenistic period is divided by several historical events, which are not always easy to discern in the archaeological evidence. The period commences with the conquest of the ANE, including Palestine, by Alexander the Great (332 b.c.e.) and ends with the Roman conquest in 63 b.c.e. Following Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e., and two decades of conflict by his successors (the Diadochi wars), most of his empire was divided between Seleucus I  and the Seleucid Empire that followed (based in Turkey and Syria), and Ptole-

4. Bibliography

my I  and the Ptolemaic Empire that followed (based in Egypt). These two kingdoms vied for control of Palestine, with the Ptolemies ruling Palestine during the 3rd cent., and the Seleucids during the 2nd cent. Towards the end of the 2nd cent. and the first half of the 1st cent., large parts of Palestine came under the rule of the local (nonDavidic) Hasmonean Dynasty. To a large extent, the early Greek rule in Palestine continued that of the Persian Empire, and at most sites in Palestine continuity can be seen in the archaeological levels. During the 3rd cent., under Ptolemaic rule, Idumea and the coastal regions appear to have prospered. Most of the internal regions, including Judea, Samaria, and Transjordan, while settled, had few urban sites. Jerusalem was a small city, as was Samaria and Shechem, and though a Samaritan temple existed in Mount Gerizim, it was of small-scale. While in many aspects there is much continuity during the Seleucid rule (2nd cent.), various sites seem to have gone through a process of development (Straton’s Tower [later Caesarea]; Ashdod [Azotus], Mareshah). Jerusalem’s fortifications are extended during this period, the temple of Mt. Gerizim becomes a religious center. Larger quantities of imported pottery (wine amphoras from Rhodes, imported Eastern Terra Sigillata fine ware) found in the region in the 3rd cent. point to international → trade. In 164 b.c.e., the Hasmoneans revolt against the Seleucids, starting a confrontation lasting some six decades, until the Hasmonean rule was fully established under Alexander Jannaeus in 103 b.c.e., who founded the impressive palaces at Jericho, and built, and in some cases expanded, a series of fortresses and fortifications, mainly along the eastern borders of Judea. Evidence of the development of Jerusalem at this time can be seen in the archaeological remains, both within the city and various impressive tombs surrounding the city (in the Kidron Valley next to Jerusalem, and the Tomb of Jason further to the west). During these decades, repeated military campaigns, as well as evidence

LIII

of various military related construction can be seen in the region. In general, this is a period in which an ongoing tension between local traditional lifestyles and the influence of Hellenistic civilization and the slow weakening of Seleucid rule is seen, under the shadow of growing Roman power in the Eastern Mediterranean. A case in point can be seen in various facets of Hasmonean culture. Hasmonean coinage, symbolizing their political independence (as with other Hellenistic polities), was unique in that it didn’t depict human figures, adhering to Jewish religious norms. And while the Hasmoneans, particularly the elites, were very much connected to the opulence of the Hellenistic world and lifestyle, the symbolic ties to their past could be seen in their adoption (along with the Samaritans) of an archaic style script, reminiscent of the scripts of Iron Age Hebrew. 4. Bibliography Faust, A./Katz, H., 2019, Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Neolithic to Alexander the Great (Hebr.), Raanana ♦ Greenberg, R., 2019, The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant: From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge, U. K.  ♦ MacDonald, B./Adams, R./Bienkowski, P. (eds.), 2001, The Archaeology of Jordan, Levantine Archaeology 1, Sheffield ♦ Magness, J., 2012, The Archaeology of the Holy Land: From the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Mazar, A., 1990, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B. C. E., ABRL, New York  ♦ Steiner, M. L./Killebrew, A. E. (eds.), 2014, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE, Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology, Oxford ♦ Stern, E., 2001, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B. C. E.), ABRL, New York ♦ Tal, O., 2006, The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine: Between Tradition and Renewal (Hebr.), Jerusalem  ♦ Yasur-Landau, A./Cline, E. H./Rowan, E. (eds.), 2018, The Social Archaeology of the Levant: From Prehistory to the Present, Cambridge. Aren M. Maeir

III. Epigraphy

1. Introduction Epigraphy is the study of ancient inscriptions and usually refers to words, symbols, or designs made, carved, engraved, or otherwise inscribed on some (usually non-porous) object, such as wood, metal, stone, or bone. In recent times, however, clay, papyrus, parchment, and other writing media have also been included among inscriptional materials. Paleography is a sub-field of epigraphy which intends to augment, refine, and revise script typologies. Its premise is that scripts develop through time and that this development can be discerned in an empirical fashion, described, and used as the basis for script typologies and dating. This chapter focuses upon the study of the inscriptions of ancient Israel and its environs and the scripts that appear in such inscriptions (cf. for LBA–Iron Age IIA inscriptions from the Southern Levant → map Introduction #3, p. LV). The utilized scripts’ principle (system of signifying; see below) and form, the → writing materials, the languages, the typology of the texts, the determination of absolute chronology, the archaeological context, all play a role in epigraphy (on the epigraphic and paleographic methods see Rollston 2010:​4–7). The picture of the history of ancient Israel, drawn retrospectively by the Hebrew Bible, does not agree with the current results of the archaeology and epigraphy of Palestine. Thus, only the combination of biblical exegesis with the archaeology and epigraphy of Palestine may yield a more coherent and complete picture of the political and religious history of ancient Israel. 2.  The Origins of Writing Many early scripts began as pictography. Apart from the highly archaic hieroglyphs (used on monuments until the 3rd cent. b.c.e.), most early scripts simplified quickly to abstract sign forms of a linear script. Meanwhile, they branched out geographically and often diverged into a conservative lapidary “print”-script with unconnected letters and a more progressive cursive script. The letter form ranges from little works of art (archaic hieroglyphs), symmetrical constructions (Old South Arabic, classic Greek), more complicated cuneiform constructions (Sumerian, Ak-

kadian, etc.; Ugaritic), simple compositions of round and straight lines (most scripts), to primitive scribbling. Originally all four possible directions of writing were used, but later on the scripts’ directions were mostly right-left (in many Asian scripts and in Etruscian) or left-right (in Greek and Latin). Throughout much of the 2nd mill. b.c.e. there was a Northwest Semitic script tradition (“early alphabetic”) but it was not standardized. Until the 12th cent. b.c.e., the letters could rotate around their center or their axis, when writing directions changed. During the 2nd mill., several developments occurred: (1) The stance of the letters became more standardized; (2) the direction of writing was consistently sinistrograde; and, (3) the number of consonants was reduced to twentytwo. Because of these developments, the convention is to refer to this stage of the script as Phoenician rather than early alphabetic. However, these changes did not occur simultaneously, but all were completed by about the mid-11th cent. b.c.e. There are a number of Phoenician inscriptions from the Phoenician homeland that provide substantial data about the Phoenician script of the late 11th, 10th, and early 9th cent. (Rollston 2010:​ 19–35). In addition, there are a number of important Phoenician inscriptions that were produced outside of the borders of Phoenicia, for instance, in Syria or Israel (Kefar Veradim bowl, Gezer Calendar, Tell Zayit abecedary), during this early period as well. There is data to state that the Old Hebrew (or Moabite Hebrew) script became a distinct script during the 9th cent. b.c.e. (Mesha inscription). Among the most important of the distinctive features of the fledgling Old Hebrew script is the curvature of the terminal portions of the downstrokes of several letters (Kap, Mem, Nun; Rollston 2010:​42). In the 8th cent., the Aramaic script started to separate from the Phoenician script. There are several major features of the Aramaic script that distinguish it from the Phoenician script. For example, the heads of Bet, Dalet, and Resh had opened in the Aramaic script and these open-headed forms are regnant from the late 8th cent. onward. Despite all those changes certain majuscules of the Latin script exist that reflect the remnants of the original picture 4,000 years later. These would include, for instance: A – a bull’s head with

2.  The Origins of Writing

Introduction map #3: Distribution of early West Semitic alphabetic inscriptions.

LV

III. Epigraphy

LVI

horns (rotated 180°), C – a stick, H – a fence (rotated 90°), K  – a hand with spread fingers, M  – the water surface, N – a snake, O – an eye, Q – a loop, R – a head, T – a cross. Initially texts were written in a scriptio continua even disrespecting the ends of lines. Since the 10th cent. b.c.e., however, words could be separated by vertical lines or dots; since the 7th cent. b.c.e., they could be separated by spaces. From the 4th cent. b.c.e. on, certain Aramaic letters developed a special word internal form, which created final letters from the old letter forms. D and R also merged. Like other Aramaic alphabets (except the Samaritan Old Hebrew script), the “Hebrew square script” evolved from the imperial Aramaic script, in the 3rd cent. b.c.e. (about 100 years after the demise of Hebrew as a spoken language; ATTM:​55–58; ATTME:​ 34–36, 67–70), into which the Hebrew Bible was transcribed from Old Hebrew script into the Hebrew square script. The cursive form of the Hebrew square script was used until ca. 135 c. e. (Yardeni 2000). The Nabatean cursive continues in the Arabic script (Gruendler 1993), the Arsacid cursive in the middle Persian Pahlavi and Avesta scripts, the Syriac cursive in the Jacobite Serṭo (Healey 2000). Numbers are mostly written out in literary texts; exceptions to this rule are the imperial Aramaic translations of the Ancient Persian, Elamite, Babylonian Behistun-inscription of Darius I (TADAE 3:​fig. C.2; 5th cent. b.c.e.) and 4Q554 a new/ heavenly Jerusalem from Qumran (about Christ’s birth). In contrast, numbers (in combination with → scales, measures, or weights) had been in use in economical texts for a long time. In Ugaritic texts, a vertical wedge is used for “1” and “60,” a “Win‑ kelhaken” for “10,” which are combined in various arrangements to create numbers. In Hebrew and Aramaic texts, Egyptian hieratic signs are used (HAE 2.2:​48–51; Rosenthal 1964:pl. 5): A vertical stroke = “1,”four vertical strokes = “4,” exceptionally, nine vertical strokes = “9,” individual signs for “5,” “10,” “20” to “9,000” also exist. In Phoenician, horizontal dashes on top of or next to each other could be used for “10”; in the Samaria-ostraca a “t-like” sign was apparently used for “4.” The so-called Arabic numerals are actually Indian. Measures and weights are often written in abbreviated form. In the 2nd cent. b.c.e., one began to use the letters in the order of the alphabet as numerals following the Greek archetype (still like this in Old Arabic; KAI 52– 53; ATTM:​329–330). Looking at this phenomenon from the other side, this suggests the calculation of a word’s or name’s code. The only biblical examples for this so-called “Gematria” are Gen 15:​ 2 Abraham’s servant “Eliezer” = Gen 14:​14 his

“318” people and Rev 13:​18 “Emperor Nero(n)” (=  ]‫ קסר נרו[ן‬616/666). 3. Scripts An appreciation of the original documents of the biblical environment first presupposes knowledge of the scripts used within those documents. If the common sense is indicated by pictures or signs alone, without being tied to a certain wording (e. g., traffic signs), it is not yet considered as script. Script only exists where non-spoken instruments (i. e., signs that do not equal, clearly on their face, whole concepts) mark units of speech sound and, therefore, texts can be rendered graphically with such instruments. For each specific country, the creation of script is the step from prehistory to history. Basically, paleography (the study of ancient writing systems and the deciphering and dating of ancient manuscripts) distinguishes between four different types of scripts. A) Word scripts, that is, independent, original creations with many one-consonant words of their own language, as necessary basic units that are agglutinative (have morphological affixes that may be attached to a base word). These include: Sumerian cuneiform script since ca. 3200 b.c.e. and, apparently, not fully independent from it; Egyptian hieroglyphs since ca. 2700 b.c.e., which contains hundreds of word signs, syllable signs, and word class signs; and the Cretan picture and Linear A scripts with at least 100 signs. B) Syllabic scripts, that is, dependent, later creations with many one-consonant words of a foreign donor language as basic syllables. These include the Akkadian cuneiform script, which is still more complete than any nonpointed Semitic alphabet (meaning a Semitic language alphabet with only consonants and no vowels; see C below). Without the Akkadian cuneiform script many important facts about the Canaanite and Aramaic of the 3rd and 2nd mill. b.c.e. would still remain unknown. The syllabic scripts also include Luwian picture script and Cretan Linear B script. C) Consonantal scripts, that is, syllables consisting of the first consonant and a following short or long vowel (basically any syllables sounding roughly alike) are built acrophonically (which is the use of a symbol to represent phonetically the initial sound of the sound object) using the 29 multi-consonant Canaanite letter names. This was a new concept because no acronyms existed in the inflected Semitic languages for objects easily representable by other systems. Consonant scripts include the various Semitic alphabets. D) Sound scripts, that is, all consonants and vowels are recognized as basic elements of the language and,

3. Scripts

therefore, each is written with a single letter or sign: the Greek alphabet and, under its influence since the 5th cent. c. e., the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic sacred texts, which were subsequently vocalized by pointing. Actually, this category includes any script dependent on or arising from the Greek script, particularly the Latin script. Isolated word scripts that are without syllable scripts derived from them, or that lack comprehensible parallel texts, cannot be deciphered (e. g., Proto-Elamite, Proto-Byblic, and other scripts of the 3rd to 2nd mill. b.c.e.). A script, therefore, is significantly improved, only if it is taken over and adapted by a different speech community, which is not biased by tradition and familiarization with the original script and, consequently does not dread radical interventions. For someone phonetically untrained, it is impossible to dissect a syllable into individual sounds, as modern experiments have shown (Schmitt 1951; 1952). The Akkadian cuneiform script, whose sign inventory had been significantly reduced to a smaller number of signs of the types Consonant-Vowel and Vowel-Consonant by about 1900 b.c.e. through the Amorite (Canaanite) Hammurabi (some consonants, thereby, were not distinguished as in non-pointed Aramaic or Arabic) and was the most complete of all scripts until 850 b.c.e., when Greek unintentionally discovered the vowels as individual sounds while trying to read Phoenician guttural letters like ʾAlp or He (which the Greek language lacked), reading them, therefore, as /a/ or /e/. The same thing had already happened about 1400 b.c.e. involving the Hurrians of Ugarit and the Ugaritic letter /ʾ/, ʾalpu = ʾa/i/u. They dissected the Ugaritic letter into the three syllables/signs a, I, u (Ugaritic: ʾa, ʾi, ʾu). It seems, however, that the Hurrians did not notice that they had therewith isolated the vowels and had created freely usable vowel letters from syllables. Similar processes can also be observed at the transfer of the alphabet from the Phoenicians to the Arameans in the 11th cent. b.c.e., when similarly written forms with Waw were pronounced /w/ in Phoenician and /u/ in Aramaic, and forms with Yod were pronounced /y/ in Phoenician and /i/ in Aramaic (e. g., ‫ אבי‬Phoenician ʾabiya, Aramaic ʾabi “my father’s”). This resulted for the Arameans (and through them also for their Canaanite and Arab followers) in a dual function of the socalled vowel letters Waw and Yod (and since the 9th cent. b.c.e. also He and ʾAleph) as (1) either short or long consonants (like it always had been for any consonant) or (2) as irregular writings for long medial and final vowels (in classic Syriac, classic Arabic, and Mandaic, where those writings were regular expressions). Therefore, those

LVII

letters are frequently written twice in early Jewish Aramaic when used as consonants. Since the 3rd cent. b.c.e., they could also represent short vowels. Before Greek or Latin influence, the writing of Bet and Waw was understood as a syllable; for instance, a Bet would indicate that the syllable ba/e/i/o/u had to be read as bo/u. Later (with Greek or Latin influence), it was understood as a phonetic transcription of equitable consonant and vowel letters. Only Phoenician, Old South Arabic, and Early North Arabic withstood the Aramaic influence and retained their consonant script. The number of ambivalent letters was even larger for the Arameans and their Canaanite (including Hebrew) and Arab heirs, because the Phoenicians had discarded seven of the original 29 Canaanite letters, which they did not need anymore through consonant assimilation. This ambivalence increased after the 1st cent. b.c.e. because of the dual pronunciation of the letters b, g, d, k, p, and t. Unfortunately, most Canaaneans and the Arabs still had need of those letters because of their unreduced inventory of consonant sounds. However, because only Non-Semites invented additional letters (usually attached to the end of the alphabet after the letter Taw – for instance, the Hurrians in Ugarit, or the Greeks), the Semites assigned multiple readings to individual letters, for instance, for Šin: /š/, /ś/, or /ṯ/ (following the Phoenician Canaanite sound shift). Due to those limitations in any Semitic alphabet, other texts are necessary to determine the pronunciation of the Semitic languages. Such texts would include cuneiform (e. g., the incantations from Uruk; 2nd cent. b.c.e.), Demotic (e. g., Papyrus Amherst 63; 4th cent. b.c.e.), Greek (e. g., the Secunda of Origen; 3rd cent. c. e.), or Latin writings of Semitic texts. Because the inventor of the Semitic alphabet script (about 2000 b.c.e.) had only denoted consonants and did not perceive this as a limitation, he most likely did not know cuneiform script but, rather, was under the influence of a vowel-less script, which only expressed consonants (probably the Egyptian hieroglyphs which some of his letters seem to resemble). The sites where the earliest exemplars of alphabetic script have been discovered (Luxor, Sinai, Gezer; since the 19th cent.) and some of the letter names (Dag, Waw) suggest a Canaanite from the Palestinian-Egyptian border region as inventor. Due to its (at first) completely missing or (later) incomplete rendering of vowels, the alphabet was generally usable only within the same speech community, although it prevailed within the Egyptian sphere of influence, probably because of the straightforwardness of script and writing materials. In the 14th cent., this

LVIII

script reached Ugarit and, therefore, the Babylonian sphere of influence. Later Aramaic advanced in the direction opposite to Southern Palestinian, after it had been used for international correspondence from the 8th cent. b.c.e. on (ATTM:​ 28; ATTM2:​16; Gzella 2015). It is uncertain, which of the two traditional letter orders (attested in cuneiform alphabet script since the 14th–13th cent.) is the original one: our Phoenician, Greek, Old Arabic order or the Egyptian South Arabic Ethiopian order, beginning with hlḥm. The modern Arabic alphabet was subsequently arranged by a similar appearance of letters.

III. Epigraphy

only carved primitively. Those texts were either written or rather engraved on natural rocks, which were at most smoothed out beforehand. These include, for instance, the only monumental Hebrew rock inscription (KAI 189) in the Siloam canal of Jerusalem (about 700 b.c.e.; → water works 4.2.– 4.3.); the inscription from a → tomb in Khirbet elKom including the formula of “blessing through YHWH and his Asherah” which is important for the study of religious history (Jaroš 1982:​32; Dietrich/Loretz 1992; 8th cent.; three similar inscriptions can be found in Kuntillet ʿAjrud/Northeastern Sinai; Aḥituv/Eshel/Meshel 2012; HAE 1:​47–64); the oldest known alphabetical graffiti from Egypt (from 1900 b.c.e. on; ATTM2:​44); and thousands of early North Arabic (Müller 1982:​ 4.  Writing Materials and Text Genres 17–29) and Nabatean graffiti (6th cent. b.c.e.– Besides its storage (→ stock and storage) place 3rd cent. c. e.), along the routes of the caravans) (e. g., stable parts of buildings, caves, desert sand), or ready-made stone pillars, boundary stones, statthe lifespan of documents depends primarily on ues, tablets, → altars, coffins, ossuaries and comthe durability of the → writing materials in use. The modities of basalt, granite, marble, limestone, or main writing materials were usually the cheapest bricks. Inscriptions on basalt stelae are well known ones available. The oldest transportable writing from the Moabite 34-line inscription of the king material that was widely used were tablets made Mesha (about 830 b.c.e.) from Dibon, east of the of soft clay inscribed with texts in cuneiform script Dead Sea (KAI 181); the much-discussed frag(4th mill. b.c.e. until the beginning of the 1st mill. mentary Aramaic inscription from Dan/Hermon, c. e.) and the cuneiform alphabet (14th–10th cent. which includes the house of “David” and does not b.c.e.; a Ugaritic-Hurrite reproduction of the al- record the short imperfect consecutivum (Athas phabet letters). Cuneiform documents were often 2003; 2006; ATTM2:​15; ca. 800 b.c.e.); and the additionally sealed and enclosed in an equally in- Aramaic royal inscriptions from Northern Syria scribed clay “envelope.” The clay was hardened (KAI 201–202, 216–221; 9th–8th cent. b.c.e.), inby drying or (even harder) by burning (either in cluding the treaties from Sefire (KAI 222–224; a special → oven or accidentally in a fire). Many earlier than 740 b.c.e.). Stelae, however, were such tablets, therefore, have been preserved until known prior to this: Sumerian royal inscriptions today. The clay bullae of the 1st mill. b.c.e. often (3rd mill. b.c.e.); Phoenicia (KAI 1.4–7; Byblos, only contained a → seal impression and mostly out- 10th cent. b.c.e.; about the same age as the limelived the documents made of wood, → leather, or stone tablet of the Phoenician[!] Gezer → Calendar papyrus to which they were attached (Pedersén [KAI 182; HAE 1:​30–37, cf. an → amulet from the 1998:​248). Various other materials were inscribed 7th cent. b.c.e., KAI 27]); Northern Syria (in Arain alphabet script with ink: the large Aramaic maic and Yaʾudic/Samʾalian language; 9th and 8th square ostraca like the Assur-letter (Hug 1993:​ cent. b.c.e.; KAI 201–202, 214–221; Aramaic As19–21; ca. 650 b.c.e.); smaller triangular or square syrian: Abou-Assaf et al. 1982). Since ca. 300 ostraca – partly copies of attached leather or pa- c. e., floor mosaics in → synagogues could contain pyrus documents; glosses on Assyrian and Baby- texts with as many as 29 long lines (ATTM:​378– lonian clay tablets (Oelsner 2006; 7th–4th cent. 382), which concerned mostly building history. b.c.e.); inscribed pot sherds like the Hebrew peti- Inscribed bronze objects are attested from 2000 tion of Yavneh-Yam (westnorthwest of Gezer; KAI b.c.e. (Proto-Byblic), such as Phoenician arrow200; about 625 b.c.e.); the spirally inscribed East and spearheads with their owners’ names (KAI 20– Aramaic magic bowls (Müller-Kessler 2005; 22; 12th–11th cent. b.c.e.), bowls (Kefar Veradim, Naveh/Shaked 1993; 4th–7th cent. c. e.); some- 10th cent. b.c.e.; Rollston 2010:​27–28; KAI 31; times even interior walls like those South Canaan- 8th cent. b.c.e.), and an Ammonite bottle (Auite Aramaic inscriptions on plaster in Sukkoth/ frecht 1989:​203–211; 7th cent. b.c.e.). Gold and Tell Deir ʿAlla (ATTM:​14; ca. 800 b.c.e.; cf. the silver as writing materials were first attested in As→ mural painting of a sphinx above the inscription, syria. Besides the Phoenician gold medallion of the → fig.  Mural Painting#1:​3, col. 673). Texts meant 8th cent. b.c.e. (KAI 73) and the two Hebrew silver for public display and eternity were engraved in amulets of the 5th cent. b.c.e. from Ketef Hinnom stone; matters of a more private nature were often (Berlejung 2008; 2011; cf. Num 6:​23–26), many

5.  Semitic Languages

Aramaic amulets of the 4th–7th cent. c. e. also exist (Berlejung 2015). They are made primarily of silver, but also of copper, bronze, lead, or gold and generally found coiled up in a casing (ATTM:​ 336; ATTM2:​311; ATTME:​235ff; Naveh/Shaked 1993; Mandaic lead: ATTM:​61, n. 1; ATTM2:​38; like Neo-Assyrian, Pedersén 1998:​248). A unique artifact is the Hebrew account of hidden treasure, found on a 240×30 cm copper scroll from Qumran (ATTM2:​290–299; Brooke/Davies 2002; shortly before 70 c. e.). An Aramaic → ivory tablet was found which was originally from Damascus (KAI 232; 9th cent. b.c.e.). A letter from Simon ben Kosiba to his lower-rank leaders was written on a wooden tablet (ATTM2:​284; 134/135 c. e.). Folding writing tablets made of wood or ivory and covered with wax were used in Assyria and Samʾal in the 2nd to 1st mill. b.c.e. (Pedersén 1998:​248, 250), and are similar to the hinged writing boards found in the Ulu Burun shipwreck (Payton 1991). While leather (“parchment” if specially treated) and papyrus had been known as writing materials in Egypt since the 3rd or 2nd mill. b.c.e., both materials became prevalent from the middle of the 1st mill. b.c.e. For example, the Imperial Aramaic correspondence of the Persian Satrap Arsames (TADAE 1:fig. A6.3–16; end of the 5th cent. b.c.e.) was written on leather, as well as most Hebrew and Aramaic biblical or apocryphal manuscripts from Qumran (ranging from the 7.34 m long Isaiah scroll made of 17 leather scraps to the phylacteries [tefillin; small leather scrolls inscribed with biblical quotations; 1st–2nd cent. c. e.]). Papyrus, on the other hand, was the material of choice for almost any letter (ever since a Hebrew letter from the Dead Sea [ATTM:​283–285; 1st half of the 7th cent. b.c.e.], the Aramaic Adon letter [TADAE 1:fig.  A1.1; 604/603 b.c.e.], and a Phoenician letter [KAI 50, 6th cent. b.c.e.]) or private contract (since the 7th cent. b.c.e.; the oldest dated Aramaic papyrus is a leasing contract from 515 b.c.e. [TADAE 2:fig. B1.1]), but especially the many Imperial Aramaic letters and contracts from the Jewish syncretistic military colony of Elephantine at the southern border of Egypt (Porten 1968; TADAE 1–4; 5th–4th cent. b.c.e.). A few Hebrew and Aramaic, biblical or apocryphal manuscripts from Caves 6 and 7 of Qumran were also written on papyrus. Outside of Egypt wood, leather, and papyrus were threatened by rapid decay. Eventually, the Christians replaced scrolls with codices. 5.  Semitic Languages The Semitic languages are about as similar to each other as are the Romance or Slavic languages. Sur-

LIX

rounded by the East Semitic Akkadian (attested since 2600 b.c.e.), the North Semitic Eblaite (since 2500 b.c.e.; its Old Semitic variations from Akkadian [ʾana “I,” suwa “he,” et al.] have to be taken into consideration), including the substrate of Ugaritic and Yaʾudic/Samʾalian, the Early Ancient Aramaic (but note that no distinct consecutive short imperfect exists at Tell Afis; 9th cent. b.c.e.; Degen 1969:​114–116), the South Semitic Arabic – including Ethiopian (since 853 b.c.e.), and the Hamitic Egyptian Demotic Coptic (since 2700 b.c.e.), the West Semitic Canaanite (since 2200 b.c.e.) and Aramaic (since 1100 b.c.e.; already a distinct language group: ṣ́ > ḡ̣, ‫ ק‬instead of > ṣ/ḍ like in rḡ̣i/rṣi/rḍi “to have pleasure”) are found in Syria-Palestine. Often, it is advisable to merge the West Semitic branch of the Semitic languages with North Arabic into a central Semitic branch. Canaanite is broken down into North Canaanite (Ugaritic names and Ugaritic literary language with North Semitic influences [14th–12th cent. b.c.e.]), East Canaanite (Amorite, the oldest known Canaanite language; with very few exceptions, it is only attested in personal names and was spoken by people, who had – by their own reference – migrated from the area north of Palmyra to the Jazira and Babylonia [22nd–15th cent. b.c.e.]), West Canaanite (Phoenician-Punic including cuneiform, Greek and Latin transcriptions [14th cent. b.c.e.–5th cent. c. e.], and the related Canaanisms in Egyptian texts [since the 20th cent. b.c.e.] and Akkadian letters from Phoenicia in the Amarna → archives [14th cent. b.c.e.]), Central Canaanite (Canaanisms in Akkadian letters from Palestine including Jerusalem [14th cent. b.c.e.] and Emar [13th cent. b.c.e.] in the Amarna archives, Northern Hebrew – the official language of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which perished in 721/720 b.c.e. [only attested in about 100 short ostraca from Samaria in the middle of the 8th cent. b.c.e. concerning deliveries (HAE 1:​79– 110); and the original words of Hosea], its rabbinic New Hebrew successor from Northern Judea after the time of the kings [since Qoh and Cant], Gileadite [according to Judg 12:​6 already with s > š], and Ammonite [9th–5th cent. b.c.e.]), and South Canaanite (the oldest known alphabet inscriptions from Egypt [early 2nd mill. b.c.e.], Southern Hebrew  – from the 10th–7th cent. b.c.e., the official language of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, including Jerusalem [2 Kgs 18:​26, etc., “Judean”; Finkelstein 2020], the dependent biblical Hebrew, Moabite [9th cent. b.c.e.], and Edomite [7th–6th cent. b.c.e.]). Except for Arabic and Ethiopian, any Semitic language that had survived until the 1st mill. b.c.e. was replaced by Aramaic between the 4th–1st cent. b.c.e. (Akka-

III. Epigraphy

LX

dian, Hebrew, Phoenician). Thus, Aramaic was a universal language for about 1,000 years (like Akkadian had been before) until it was pushed to remote areas by Arabic between the 7th–10th cent. c. e. Rabbinic Hebrew was, however, revived in the 19th cent. c. e. By the 9th cent. (at the latest; ATTM:​97–98; ATTM2:​50), Aramaic breaks down into the progressive East Aramaic (plur. emphatic masc. -ē) and the more conservative West Aramaic (plur. emphatic masc. -ayyā), the borderline between those two running from Aleppo to Palmyra. East Aramaic is additionally divided into Northeast Aramaic (the Jazira) and Southeast Aramaic (Babylonia) because of its dimension and inconsistency. Initially those dialects of Aramaic were overshadowed by the early (still relatively uniform; Degen 1969; Tropper 1993; Abou-Assaf et al. 1982; 10th–8th cent. b.c.e.) and late (already quite polymorphic; Hug 1993; 7th–6th cent. b.c.e.) Old Aramaic literary languages (Early/ Late Ancient Aramaic). It was dominated most, though, by the very distinct and different uniform Achaemenid Imperial Aramaic (5th–3rd cent. b.c.e.), which was prevalent throughout the entire ANE and was the official language of the western half of the Persian Empire (Darius I). Meanwhile, the Post-Achaemenid Imperial Aramaic (ignoring the advancement of Greek and Iranian for now) branched out into various languages. These include: Nabatean, Palmyrenic, Arsacid (as long as it was not ideographic Persian), biblical Aramaic, Hasmonean, Targum, and Babylonian literary Aramaic. Those dialects were then superseded by the New East and West Aramaic literary languages: in the northeast by Syriac and East Mesopotamian, in the southeast by Jewish Babylonian and Mandaic, in the west by Jewish-Palestinian (Jesus and his followers spoke Old Galilean, the early Christian community in Jerusalem spoke Old Judean; Mt 26:​73) including the synagogue of Dura-Europos/Euphrates, Samaritan, and Christian-Palestinian. Knowledge of the extensive vocabulary of those dialects is indispensable in understanding the antecedent and incomplete language phases that were passed down. The transition from Old Aramaic (including Early and Late Ancient Aramaic, Achaemenid and Post-Achaemenid Imperial Aramaic, Old East and Old West Aramaic [e. g., Old Syriac]), to East and West Middle Aramaic (e. g., Middle Syriac) coincides with the most radical Aramaic sound law: the loss of the unstressed short vowels in open syllables (ATTM:​ 128–136; ATTM2:​57–60), which has made the Aramaic (and Tiberian Hebrew) morphologically much more complicated. The Chaldeans from Southern Babylonia probably were Amorites by origin (thus, Canaanites). Later, they spoke Ara-

maic, but the expression “Chaldean” for “Jewish Aramaic” (Dan 2) should not be used anymore. All Middle Aramaic languages (except ChristianPalestinian) remained as literary languages in their respective areas but were replaced by Arabic (or at least pushed away to remote areas) as the common language. The still spoken New Aramaic dialects (e. g., Modern Syriac) are essential for the understanding of the earlier Aramaic dialects. Literary languages can be highly standardized, if protected by a political or religious authority. 6.  Dating Ancient Texts The oldest written texts appear in cuneiform script (Pedersén 1998:​ 270–271) or cuneiform alphabet (Watson/Wyatt 1999:​140–439). The alphabetical tradition, in contrast, is rather fragmentary, because of its perishable writing materials: wood, leather, and papyrus. Best preserved were texts engraved in stone, or carved or embossed in → metal: royal inscriptions, treaties, laws, tariffs, records, dedications, consecrations, redemption of vows, prayers, wishes, warnings, threats, memorial inscriptions, signs of life, building inscriptions denoting client and executor, nominations of the owner, the pictured or the deceased, calendars, amulets, → jewelry, rings, and coins. Cheap and easy to use writing materials, such as ostraca, sherds, wood, leather, and papyrus, made a universal literate culture possible within the range of alphabetical script. One can see this in originals and duplicates of political or private correspondence, administrative issues, private documents of all kinds, religious, profane, magic, and political propaganda literature. The oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (mostly fragments) come from Qumran on the Dead Sea (3rd cent. b.c.e.–1st cent. c. e.). The next great discovery is from the Cairo Genizah (9th cent. c. e.) and is composed solely of fragments. In between, there are Bible quotes in synagogue inscriptions and in Jewish amulets and magic bowls (4th–7th cent. c. e.). The canonical form of the Hebrew Bible’s consonantal text (1st cent. c. e.; surely connected with an updated pronunciation, following the development of Aramaic) is known. Therefore, we also know of the Jewish view on Israel’s history in the 1st cent. c. e. However, a definitive answer on what precisely happened, and when, is only possible through the connection of biblical accounts with datable inscriptions. This is done most easily with documents that contain a specific date, like, for instance, the oldest Aramaic papyrus from Egypt, which is a leasing contract dated to the 3rd of June in 515 b.c.e. (the

7. Bibliography

6th of Meḫir in the 7th year of Darius I; TADAE 2:fig. B1.1). Many other Aramaic papyri from Elephantine (5th cent. b.c.e.; TADAE 1–4), as well as many ostraca from Idumea (4th cent. b.c.e.; new material published since 1996) are also dated via the Persian kings, while the archive of Babata from the Dead Sea is dated via the Nabatean kings or Emperor Hadrian (93–122 c. e.; ATTM2:​ 204–225). In Assyria, documents were dated to a certain month by year-eponyms already in the 2nd mill. b.c.e. Another possibility for a reliable dating is an accurate description of the political circumstances, as in the Aramaic Adon letter (604/603 b.c.e.; TADAE 1:fig. A1.1) or the Hebrew ostraca from Arad (about 600 b.c.e., before the advancement of Nebuchadnezzar; HAE 3:​347– 403) and Lachish (589/588 b.c.e., shortly before the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar; HAE 3:​405– 440). A third possibility are coins (since the 5th cent. b.c.e.; ATTM:​329–330; ATTM2:​266). Dated and localized documents show the development and branching of signs (Naveh 1987; Yardeni 2000) and, thus, make a dating of otherwise undated documents possible via paleography (Zuckerman 2003). It has to be taken into consideration though – after elimination of forgeries (Rollston 2003) – that some types of texts could be written in a considerably older script (e. g., the Aramaic royal inscriptions from Tell Halaf on the upper Habur [Abou-Assaf et al. 1982; about 850 b.c.e.; script: 11th cent. b.c.e.] or the two Hebrew amulets from Ketef Hinnom [HAE 3:​447– 456; suffix ‫” ין‬his”; since 3rd cent. b.c.e.: ATTM:​ 89, note 1; Old Hebrew script: 6th cent. b.c.e., see also Berlejung 2008]). Aramaic sound shifts can be identified from the spellings, but with a delay of up to 200 years: 9th cent. b.c.e. ttd > ttd (‫)דטת < זצש‬, about 600 b.c.e. ḡ̣ > g (‫ )ﬠ < ק‬and in the 2nd cent. b.c.e. ś > s (‫( )ס < ש‬ATTM:​100–103; ATTM2:​51–52). Since the 6th cent. b.c.e. short medial vowels and open ō are more and more expressed with ‫( י ו א‬ATTM:​410–411, 414, 417; ATTM2:​316, 318), while about 200 b.c.e. ḫ > ḥ (‫ )ח‬and g > ʿ (‫ )ﬠ‬remain invisible. The Canaanite sound shifts occurred in the 13th cent. b.c.e., at the latest, because, from this time on, the shortened 22 letter alphabet was used (starting with the cuneiform alphabet). Additional factors, including writing materials, C14 analysis, the archaeological stratum (if known), and forensic examinations are helpful in dating (FaigenbaumGolovin et al. 2021).

LXI

7. Bibliography Abou-Assaf, A., et al., 1982, La statue de Tell Fekherye, Paris  ♦ Aḥituv, S., 22005 (1992), Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library 21, Jerusalem ♦ Aḥituv, S./Eshel, E./ Meshel, Z., 2012, The Inscriptions, in: Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman), Jerusalem:​73–142  ♦ Athas, G., 2003, The Tel Dan Inscription, JSOT.S 360, London ♦ 2006, What are we Making of the Tel Dan Inscription?, JSS 51:​241–255  ♦ Aufrecht, W. E., 1989, A  Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions, ANETS 4, Lewiston, N. Y. ♦ Berlejung, A., 22000, Quellen und Methoden: Geschichte und Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel, in: J. C. Gertz (ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament, UTB 2745, Göttingen:​19–185, 532–540 ♦ 2008, Ein Programm fürs Leben: Theologisches Wort und anthropologischer Ort der Silberamulette von Ketef Hinnom, ZAW 120:​204–230 ♦ 2011, Amulettinschriften aus Syrien und Palästina, in: TUAT NF 6:​305–314 ♦ 2015, Kleine Schriften mit großer Wirkung: Zum Gebrauch von Textamuletten in der Antike, in: A. Kehnel/D. Panagiotopoulos (eds.), Schriftträger  – Textträger, Materiale Textkulturen 6, Berlin et al.:​103–126  ♦ Beyer, K., 1984 = ATTM ♦ 1986, The Aramaic Language, Göttingen ♦ 1994 = ATTME ♦ 2004 = ATTM2 ♦ 2006, Das biblische Hebräisch im Wandel, in: R. Reichman (ed.), “Der Odem des Menschen ist eine Leuchte des Herrn”: A. Agus zum Gedenken, Heidelberg:​159–180 ♦ Brooke, G. J./Davies, P. R. (eds.), 2002, Copper Scroll Studies, London  ♦ Degen, R., 1969, Altaramäische Grammatik, AKM 38.3, Wiesbaden ♦ Dietrich, M./Loretz, O., 1992, Jahwe und seine Aschera, UBL 9, Münster ♦ Dion, P.‑E., 1974, La langue de Ya’udi: Description et classement de l’ancien parler de Zencirli dans le cadre des langues sémitiques du nord-ouest, Waterloo, Ont. ♦ Faigenbaum-Golovin, S., et al., 2021, Literacy in Judah and Israel: Algorithmic and Forensic Examination of the Arad and Samaria Ostraca, Near Eastern Archaeology 84:​148–158 ♦ Finkelstein, I., 2020, The Emergence and Dissemination of Writing in Judah, Semitica et Classica 13:​269–282 ♦ Friedrich, J., 1966, Geschichte der Schrift, Heidelberg  ♦ García Martínez, F./Tigchelaar, E. J. C., 22000, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition 1–2, Leiden ♦ Gibson, J. C. L., 1982, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions 1–3, Oxford ♦ Gordon, C. H., 1965, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, AnOr 38, Rome ♦ Gruendler, B., 1993, The Development of the Arabic Scripts, Atlanta ♦ Gzella, H., 2015, A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings until the Advent of the Islam, HO Section 1: The Near and Middle East 111, Boston/ Leiden ♦ Hallo, W. W. (ed.), 2002, The Context of Scripture 1–3, Leiden ♦ Healey, J. F., 2000, The Early History of the Syriac Script, JSS 45:​55–67 ♦ Hess, R. S., 2006, Abecedaries and Evidence for Literacy in Ancient Israel, VT 56:​342–346 ♦ Höflmayer, F., et al., 2021, Early Alphabetic Writing in the Ancient Near East: The ‘Missing Link’ from Tel Lachish, Antiquity:​1–15, doi:​10.15184/ aqy.2020.157 ♦ Horowitz, W., et al., 2002, A  Bibliographical List of Cuneiform Inscriptions from Canaan, Palestine/Philistia, and the Land of Israel, JAOS 122:​ 753–766 ♦ Huehnergard, J., 2005, Features of Central Semitic, in: A. Gianto (ed.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of W. L. Moran, BibOr 48, Rome:​155–203 ♦ Hug, V., 1993, Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des

LXII 7. und 6. Jh.s v. Chr., Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 4, Heidelberg ♦ Jaroš, K., 1982, Hundert Inschriften aus Kanaan und Israel, Fribourg ♦ Kerr, R. M., 2010, Latino-Punic Epigraphy: A Descriptive Study of the Inscriptions, FAT 2.42, Tübingen  ♦ Lemaire, A., 2002, Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israël 1–2, Paris ♦ Müller, W. W., 1982, Das Frühnordarabische, in: W. Fischer (ed.), Grundriß der arabischen Philologie, Wiesbaden:​17–29 ♦ Müller-Kessler, C., 2005, Die Zauberschalentexte in der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena, Wiesbaden ♦ Naveh, J., 21987, Early History of the Alphabet, Jerusalem/Leiden ♦ Naveh, J./Shaked, S., 1993, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity 1–2, Jerusalem ♦ Oelsner, J., 2006, Aramäische Beischriften auf neu- und spätbabylonischen Tontafeln, WO 36:​27–71 ♦ Parry, D. W./Tov, E., 2004, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 1–6, Leiden  ♦ Payton, R., 1991, The Ulu Burun Writing-Board Set, AnSt 41:​99–106  ♦ Pedersén, O., 1998, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B. C., Bethesda ♦ Porten, B., 1968, Archives from Elephantine, Berkeley ♦ Porten, B./Yardeni, A., 1986–1999, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt 1–4, Jerusalem (TADAE)  ♦ Reif, S. C., 2000, A  Jewish Archive from Old Cairo, Richmond, Va. ♦ Renz, J./Röllig, W., 1995–2003, HAE 1–3, Darmstadt ♦ Rollston, C. A., 2003, Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, Maarav 10:​135–

III. Epigraphy 193 ♦ 2004, Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic, Maarav 11:​57–79 ♦ 2010, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age, SBLABS 11, Atlanta ♦ Rosenthal, F., 1964, Die aramaistische Forschung, Leiden ♦ Schmitt, A., 1951, Die Alaska-Schrift, Münstersche Forschungen 4, Marburg ♦ 1952, Der Buchstabe H im Griechischen, Orbis antiquus 6, Münster ♦ Schwiderski, D. (ed.), 2004, Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften, 2 vols., Konkordanz, Texte und Bibliographie, Berlin/New York ♦ van der Toorn, K., 2000, Cuneiform Documents from Syria-Palestine: Texts, Scribes and Schools, ZDPV 116:​97–113 ♦ Tov, E., 2004, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54, Leiden ♦ 2006, The Writing of Early Scrolls and the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture, DSD 13:​339–347 ♦ Tropper, J., 1993, Die Inschriften von Zincirli, Münster ♦ Watson, W. G. E./Wyatt, N. (eds.), 1999, Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Leiden ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 2002, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, Jerusalem ♦ Yardeni, A., 2000, Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabatean Documentary Texts from the Judean Desert and Related Material, 2 vols., Jerusalem ♦ Zuckerman, B. E., 2003, Pots and Alphabets: Refractions of Reflections on Typological Method, Maarav 10:​89–133. Klaus Beyer†

IV. Iconography

1. Sources Like all archaeological realia, iconographic sources are accidental finds. For studies on the “Biblical World,” they are of extreme importance because, among other reasons, they are often attested in epochs without written sources and because they are quite often made from materials less perishable than the → writing materials – ostraca, papyrus, or leather – used in Palestine. Contrary to the opinion that, because of the OT’s ban against images, there were no pictorial representations in ancient “Israel,” – a once common view still held in some circles – there is an abundance of iconographic source material in the region going back to the earliest periods and extending without a break (even in the monarchic period) up into the Islamic period, and this abundance of material is growing steadily thanks to ongoing excavations. For quite some time now, the iconographic material from Palestine (the coastland and west and east of the Jordan river) and its neighboring regions (Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran, etc.) has been collected and studied within the framework of individual scientific disciplines like Pre-historical Studies, Art History, Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, Egyptology, etc. (e. g., Brunner-Traut 1992; Assmann 1990; Bachmann 1996) and has been analyzed and interpreted more with respect to individual aspects and facets, than in terms of an overall view. This material provides valuable information about the life and ideas of a specific region, epoch, and culture, as well as about prominent inter-cultural contacts, styles, techniques, and sometimes even fashion trends in a given period. Such inter-cultural contacts are reflected, for instance, in the inclusion of Egyptian hieroglyphics in Syrian and Southern Levantine seal-iconography. It is only since the works of Othmar Keel and his school that biblical iconography has come to be established as a distinctive discipline. It is dedicated predominantly to the study of pictorial material from or about Israel/Palestine (e. g., the Assyrian reliefs of Lachish). Initially, it was mainly devoted to Assyrian and Egyptian reliefs and paintings, then to seals, scarabs and figurative amulets (Keel 1977; 1992; 1997a; 1997b; Keel/ Schroer 2004; Keel/Staubli 2001; GGG; Eggler/Keel 2006; Winter 1983; Schroer 1987;

Herrmann 1994; 2002; 2006; Uehlinger 1997; 2001), whereas now ivories, bone work, cult stands and terracottas, and other pictorial media from Israel/Palestine are increasingly coming into focus. The most important material objects on which pictures have been preserved are: rock reliefs and murals, orthostate reliefs, stelae, wall paintings, graffiti, stamp or cylinder seals (rather less often in Israel/Palestine) and stamps or seal imprints, scarabs, full- or half-round statues or figurines of different materials (mostly metal, clay, stone, rarely wood) and sizes, decorations on furniture (ivory), tools, weapons, inventory (of temples, palaces, or graves), jewelry and decorations (rings, pendants, breastplates, etc.) and, from the Persian period on, coins. 2.  The Research Subject “Biblical Iconography,” “Iconography of Palestine,” or “Iconography of the Biblical World” is dedicated to its subject of research, the pictorial material from or about Palestine as its main sources to be evaluated in all tangible time periods. In spite of the term biblical iconography, the analysis is not at all limited in scope to the short time span related in the Hebrew Bible (mid-2nd mill. until 2nd cent. b.c.e.) but extends deep into the other periods as well (see IPIAO). This is particularly promising because it allows structures and themes of a longue durée to be traced back even to pre-scriptural periods. The material provides valuable information about the life and ideas of a specific region, epoch, and culture, as well as about prominent inter-cultural contacts and sometimes even fashion trends in a given period. For a specific biblical iconography the point is made that it has to be understood as part of the methodological study of the religion of ancient Israel and Judah in connection with historical and religious-historical work on and with the OT and NT. Biblical iconography, or rather the iconography of the biblical world, has the task of researching the visual sign system of the ancient Israelite/ Judean religion and its historical development. Its task is by no means to prove, embellish, or illustrate OT or NT texts by iconographic material. To the same degree that biblical iconography deals with images as part of the world of the OT (and

LXIV

NT), it also enters into a constructive dialogue with text-oriented biblical studies and exegesis. It can contribute substantially to the understanding of biblical texts and needs to be viewed as an additional and corrective tool to traditional textoriented historical-critical biblical studies (see below). In short (on the method see below), biblical iconography is a matter of collecting, documenting, describing (picture carrier, picture theme, picture organization, individual motifs), analyzing, contextualizing, and synthetically exploiting the existing pictorial material in terms of style, motif, culture, event, and religious history, which can be chronologically classified either by the archaeological context of finds, accompanying writings, or datable comparative pieces (rarely C14 method). It goes without saying that only objects from regular excavation contexts are of scholarly value, whereas objects from the antiquities trade contribute little. In order to avoid misunderstandings, the character of the iconographic material must be taken into account: – Palestine, Israel and Judah were part of the ANE: Thus the ANE is the horizon of understanding of the textual and of the pictorial sources (Berlejung 2017a). This is evidenced in the MT among other things, by numerous loanwords from languages related to Hebrew (e. g., Aramaic, Akkadian, Arabic), and in the iconography inter alia by the integration and reception of pictorial motifs from the neighboring cultures. – What is true for images in general, is true for the ANE (including the Southern Levantine) images: they present complex contents to the viewer simultaneously (more correctly in terms of perception psychology: in a very short time; Scholz 2004:​109): the relationship of several single elements to each other and to the whole is fixed in the picture and recognizable at one glance. Therefore proportions of the human body, complex social connections, hierarchies or spatial relationships are easier and faster to comprehend through a pictorial representation than through a textual description. – The pictorial representation can have a ‘natural’ similarity to the thing to be depicted (Eggler et al. 2006), which seems to allow recognition on the basis of assigning similarities between image and depicted object without the need for prior training or instruction. Nevertheless, the competence to recognize and understand images and to produce comprehensible images had to be acquired by ancient people as well (on pictorial competence see below).

IV. Iconography

– Much of the art was commissioned by the elite upper class. Especially, depictions that were made for displaying prestige, or the rulership of the depicted king or deity needed to conform with the political or theological programs (Berlejung 2017b). – Nature, landscapes, plants, animals, realia, and objects of daily use (such as bowls, altars, or weapons) or even non-elitist people in practical activities (such as hunting, praying, or singing) are usually depicted (even if sometimes schematic) in naturalistic proportions (IPIAO 4:fig.  1684, Kuntillet ʿAjrud, Iron Age IIB). However, these pictures are not to be understood as verisimilar depictions or copies of a reality (Bahrani 2003:​87–93), but rather as its interpretation. They are not intended to mimic but to change the world and the view of the onlooker. This means that depictions of beasts, nature, landscapes, or persons are idealized/ stylized and do not correspond to the natural setting, actual geographical features, or the actual age or physical condition of the human beings. Any indications of deviations from the ideal, destruction, or decay are always attributed to the “other,” enemy or foreign country. – Representations of humans, especially members of the elites and kings, and deities were idealized/stylized. They were not conceived as portraits; instead, persons and gods are shown as representatives of a certain role or function (on the gods see Berlejung 1998). Thus, for example, the Israelite King Jehu on the Black Obelisk of the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.) is depicted in the same manner and attitude of humility as the subdued King Sua of Gilzanu (an area in modern Azerbaijan) on the same side of the stela. Little or no attention was paid to individual features, either of human beings or of deities. Hierarchic scaling can play a role for indicating hierarchies and high rank, however more significant seems to be the clothing (→ clothes), decoration, headdresses, gesture, the objects held in the hands, and the arrangement of accompanying pictorial elements. Perhaps the coloring has to be added which is lost in most cases. – Particularly typical is the form of depiction of anthropomorphically designed figures (humans and gods) in flat reliefs or in paintings. Here (as in Egypt) the head is depicted in profile from the side, an eye, shoulders and chest from the front, the hips and legs from the side (IPIAO 4:fig.  1440, Beth-Zur, Iron Age IIB). This striking stylistic element is called “aspective” (after Emma Brunner-Traut; e. g., IPIAO

3.  Pictures and Images

4:fig. 1669, Kuntillet ʿAjrud painting, Iron Age IIB). Frontality is possible (“woman at the window,” e. g., IPIAO 4:fig.  1556, Samaria, Iron Age IIB; for some pictorial groups even characteristic as, e. g., plaques, cult stands, or masks, cf. Berlejung/Kohlhaas/Stein 2018) but uncommon especially for paintings, bas-reliefs, ivories (with the aforementioned exception), and on seals. – The depth of the space is usually not depicted. Homogeneous groups (e. g., breads, animals, people) are geometrically precisely ordered upwards or backwards so that the number can be counted from the top view (IPIAO 4:fig. 1671, cylinder seal, Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Iron Age IIB [breads]). – Events that followed one after the other in time, are displayed right beside each other (cf. relief of Lachish, southwestern Palace at Nineveh, reign of Sennacherib). – Horror vacui. Empty spaces are usually filled in. It is not always clear how the filling relates to the main motif. – No distinction was made between craftsman and artist, signatures by name are uncommon. – The aforementioned characteristics are partly also true for Egyptian, Syrian, and Mesopotamian art. Artifacts found or made in the Southern Levant are characterized by a certain mixed or hybrid style that mirrors the internationalization of society and the setting of Palestine within the multicultural sphere influenced by Egypt (see the iconography of the ruler in Kuntillet ʿAjrud, IPIAO 4:fig.  1669, Iron Age IIB), Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia (see the iconography of the ruler on the sherd from Ramat Rahel, cf. IPIAO 4:fig. 1943, Iron Age IIC), Asia Minor, Persia, Cyprus, and (with increasing influence in the Achaemenid period) Greece. 3.  Pictures and Images Although “biblical iconography” is concerned with the analytical study and synthetic historical interpretation of Ancient Near Eastern pictorial sources, the terms “image” and “picture” and the processes of their cognition are mostly underdetermined (see now Bonfiglio 2016:​171–194 referring to Thomas W. J. Mitchell, David Freedberg, and Alfred Gell) or adopted from neighboring sciences. This is not very surprising considering the heterogeneous discussions of “image science” in the last 30 years (see the topic “pictorial/visual turn”). A terminological problem has to be mentioned as well: Untranslatable into German is the English differentiation between a pic-

LXV

ture and an image, with the picture being the material object (including a mental picture bound to a living human body) while the image is what appears in a picture and can be transferred from one medium to another (Mitchell 2015:​16–17). Thus terms as image science, picture theory, theory of pictorial concepts, theory of visual culture, and theories of visual/pictorial representations converge in the German term Bildwissenschaft. In the following we deal with pictures, or material images as part of the visual culture of the ANE (and its imagery). Christoph Uehlinger (2001:​ 39) suggests a pragmatic approach that focuses on picture production. According to him, (material) images are artifacts that were produced on certain objects with certain instruments according to certain procedures, which followed a system of conventions and rules that can be (re)constructed empirically on the basis of preserved pictorial evidence. But this does not really answer the central questions “what is a picture?,” “how and what do people perceive?,” “how does meaning come to the picture?,” and “what factors determine picture history, picture use, or picture competence?” Oliver R. Scholz (2009:​13) correctly formulated that the question “Was ist ein Bild?” (Engl.: “What is an image/picture”) belongs to the oldest, but also to the least clarified questions of the entire history of ideas (German original: “zu den ältesten, aber auch den am wenigsten geklärten Fragen der gesamten Geistesgeschichte”). He also stressed that the question of “picture competence” is also largely under-researched (Scholz 2004:​ 105). Klaus Sachs-Hombach repeatedly stated (2013:​16–31), that there is no general image theory (“Bildtheorie”) and no clearly defined image science that could systematically investigate and clearly answer the basic questions of image concept, image perception, image recognition, image production, image history, image competence, or image use. Different disciplines start from different theoretical premises, apply different methods, and emphasize different aspects of the image and the picture, so that the concept of the image/picture oscillates strongly. Among these are the approaches of art history (e. g., Freedberg 1989; Gombrich 2004; Mitchell 1994; 2015), anthropology (e. g., Jonas 1961 [2010a; 2010b, on the publication history see also 2010c:​606]; SachsHombach/Schirra 2013b; Belting 2011; Gell 1998), psychology (e. g., Schuster 2007), media and communication science (e. g., Knieper/ Müller 2001; Müller 2003; Sachs-Hombach 2010; Lobinger 2012), sociology (Bourdieu 1996), semiotics (Peirce 1983; 1991; Eco 1976;

LXVI

Nöth 2005; 2009; 2014; Sonesson 1989; 1993; Scholz 2009), various schools within philosophy (e. g., Husserl 1980; Wiesing 2000; 2005), and constructivism (von den Hoff/Schmidt 2001a; 2001b; von Glasersfeld 1987; 2013; Weibel 2001; Weber 1999), whereby combinations are possible (e. g., semiotics with constructivism, cf. Händler 2015, semiotics with analytic philosophy, cf. Blanke 2003). Semiotic approaches proved to be very influential when material images were considered as signs (including Charles Sanders Peirce’s three categories of signs: icon, index, and symbol) and carriers of meaning. Less established is the phenomenological-perceptual-theoretical approach (Wiesing 2000; 2005; 2016), which considers pictures as “artificial presences,” whose necessary key-characteristic is the “mere visibility” for visual perception, which (in contrast to the anthropological theory of images) can also arise without any human intervention. Currently, the most discussed forms of image theory are phenomenology or perception theory, semiotics and anthropology, with phenomenological and anthropological viewpoints being quite close in terms of argumentation when it comes to rejecting the theory of “signs” and describing the inner structures of images. There is fundamental agreement that images are media that can be divided into three parts:

1. what the picture refers to (the depicted object or denotation; in semiotics: extension), 2. the picture-bearing object (material expression; in semiotics: carrier of signs), and 3. the pictorial object’s characteristics (content, meaning, significance, connotation, iconic type or depiction; in semiotics: attributes referenced by the sign/intension). A picture is the unity of this three-part difference and is involved in various processes of perception, memory, communication, and distribution. Images are always responsible for two basic types of relations, the intersubjective between sender and receiver and the interobjective one, establishing a representational bond among objects, the image, and the object they represent as virtual presence. The sign status as a conceptual criterion of a pictorial theory is especially controversial: Either every picture is regarded as a sign, carrier of meanings, and involved in a triadic mode (sign  – object – interpretant) of determination (so in semiotics cf. Sonesson 1993; Lobinger 2012) or not (so in phenomenological, perceiption-based, and anthropological picture theory, cf. Wiesing 2005; Belting 2005). The positioning in this question results from the epistemological premises and the

IV. Iconography

semiotic school from which one derives the rather narrower or broader concept of sign (Händler 2015:​536). It is indisputable that picture carriers affect the viewer, whereby the processes of perception and recognition – depending on the cognition model  – are evaluated differently. Models of passive perception are increasingly replaced under semiotic-constructivist insights by active processes that link the viewer’s picture cognition with processes of abstraction, memory, and reasoning that motivate behavior and possibilities for action. Constructivism in combination with neuroscience is dedicated to the investigation of the perception and memory processes of the individual, and argues on an individual psychological level. Then it is repeatedly pointed out that perceiving images is always a self-referential process linked to memories and experiences. Perception is interpretation and the assignment of meaning with the aim of appropriating what is seen/heard/read and adapting it to prior experiences, which are thereby expanded and stabilized (Roth 1987:​ 240–249). The mentioned factors “experience” or “memory,” which determine the self-referential process and which are hardly conceivable without social partners, indicate that the investigation of the cognitive construction achievements of the individual must be supplemented by an understanding of their sociality. This is the point where models of constructivism and brain research need to be complemented by a theory of social systems, so that the embedding of cognitive construction processes in social and cultural processes that influence and condition them has to be included. Thus, perception is a cognitive construct (Schelske 1997:​84–104), while the aspect of social and cultural construction has to be taken into account (Weibel 2001:​194–199, 204–205). In constructivist picture theory in combination with social studies, pictures are considered as cultural constructs (Hölscher 2000:​149– 150; Weissenrieder/Wendt 2005:​ 38–48): The past sponsors, producers, and audiences as well as the present viewers and interpreters are all influenced by their respective social and historical contexts. Here, Pierre Bourdieu correctly speaks of the “social genesis of the eye” (Bourdieu 1996:​295–306, 309–315). The complex totality of habits of seeing, concepts of perception, cultural values, inner attitudes, memories, imaginations, institutions, pictorial techniques and conventions of one’s own culture is taken for granted by the ancient artist, client, and viewer and applied by them quasi “automatically” in the production and reception of their contemporary visual media.

3.  Pictures and Images

Consequently, pictures are media whose specific characteristic is to stimulate the self-referential multiple categorization with the components of perception, abstraction, memory, and conclusion. The object’s characteristics (or the content of a sign) are actively constructed by the onlooker, whereby the similarity between the pictorial object’s characteristics and the depicted object is less central than the memory-based mental reference of the viewer to his own or inculturated concepts. Picture reception is the unconscious establishment of a relation of similarity between the material qualities of the image carrier (i. e., the expression side) to an experience- and memorybased iconic type (i. e., the content side), and thus a highly individual but also culture-bound matter. Especially the latter introduces the aspect of collective memory and conventionality shared by all members of a culture, which play a major role both in the reception of an image but also in its production. In this process, a more or less conventional production technology is used to produce the image carrier, which has the characteristics of “materiality,” “spatially limited,” “artificial,” “relatively permanent,” and is provided with corresponding configurations (outlines, colors, etc.) so that the pictorial object’s characteristics can be categorized, that is, recognized, by the viewer with certain contents. Thus, the image becomes a functional unit in the form of an iconic, that is, perceptual sign. In any case, it has to be learned what a picture is, and this is necessarily related to a sign process, which cannot be determined only via the communicative, but already via the cognitive level (Händler 2015). Apart from the investigation of cognitive processes, further research approaches focus on the fact that images are media and means of communication (Sachs-Hombach 2013; Uehlinger 2000; Frevel 2005), whose targeted production, use, distribution, effect, and function are to be investigated. They are a special form of social communication and as such must also be embedded in a theory of social systems. Thus, they are also co-determined by “image-external” determinants such as the environment, application, use, and function. Within their cultural system, images are always part of the socially active and interactive construction of the social actors, and their social practice. They therefore have very active roles to play: they perform, establish, reproduce, and “convey existing ideas and concepts within a cultural system but also participate in constructing such concepts, … they are at the same time the reception and production of culturally and temporally determined complexes of ideas and col-

LXVII

lective mentalities” (Berlejung 2021a:​270), of collective memories and experiences. They contribute to the construction and stabilization of hierarchies, social networks, they pass on “existing cultural codes and cues, and construct individual, group, and social identity. Images thus play a major role in the formation and transmission of knowledge, in propaganda, and in establishing, maintaining and controlling social norms” (Berlejung 2021b:​364–365). Pictures make visible the reciprocity of memory and new identity construction of a cultural system in the course of history and make it traceable for the historical researcher. They archive the knowledge of a culture, and stand for the memory of this culture, which relies on this knowledge, reproduces it, and passes it on. In these contexts, the permanent changes and flexibilizations of individual as well as social memory processes have to be considered (Schmidt 1992). Remembering has a dynamic aspect and meanings can be transformed at any time (on the sociality of the memory of visual culture see Schelske 2004:​66–67). In a successful cognitive process, a construction of common perspectives of meaning is carried out between the pictorial object’s characteristics and the viewer, and (in the viewer) recognition, understanding (for a systematics of levels of understanding see Scholz 2004:​108–116), and behavior are generated. Here the capital theory of Pierre Bourdieu can be applied (Bourdieu 1977:​178–182; 1990:​ 112–134; 1995:​31–34). Economic capital must be invested for the production of images, which is then transformed into symbolic capital through the picture medium, material, and its motifs. The images serve the representational-demonstrative level and make the desired messages visible to the addressees, for instance, prestige, tradition-connectedness, or trust potential. Furthermore, images are always part of the objectified cultural capital. This is true to the extent that they include cultural capital, for instance, elements of collective memory, traditions, “image canon,” or even professional skills and techniques. As part of material culture, images, artworks, or buildings belong to cultural capitals, which, moreover, have been converted again from economic capitals (and which express symbolic capitals). Images are thus firmly involved in the social transfer of capital. Bourdieu’s approach contributes to further differentiation with regard to the historical interpretation of images. In fact, one can conclude that material images store economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital on certain topics and communicate them to their viewers continuously and in the long term without any time limit (or as long

LXVIII

as they exist). In historical research, however, it must be taken into account that images can be transmitted visually unchanged over generations, but that the attributions of meaning change. They always look the same, but mean different things. It is often pointed out that pictures overcome educational barriers, since it is not necessary to be able to read in order to understand the basic message. However, this has to be put into perspective insofar as one needs culture-bound social knowledge for image production, cognition, and reception, since without a basic equipment of pictorial competence the participation in social practice is impossible (Scholz 2004:​106). Admittedly, the educational effort required for pictures seems to be lower than for literacy, whereby the spontaneous emotionalizing power of pictures should also be mentioned as a surplus. Last but not least the anthropological theory has to be mentioned. With the search for an essentialist definition, an anthropology can aim at the production or identification of an unambiguous distinction – a differentia specifica – which is to guarantee the identity of being human. Hans Jonas gave a clear answer to this with his essay “Homo pictor und die Differentia des Menschen,” first published in 1961. With “man as image creator” Jonas (2010a) describes the differentia spe‑ cifica of humans compared to animals, because only homo sapiens has the ability to create a picture which represents the presence of absence. The pictorial competence of the human being  – who is therefore described as homo pictor – is decisive for him or her and justifies to speak of a picture-anthropology. This anthropology wants to formulate an anthropological constant and to examine the making and recognizing of pictures as an exclusively human ability. While in the course of the heterogeneous research in image science or picture theory (German: “Bildwissenschaft”) of the last 30 years (keyword: “visual/pictorial turn”) a consensus on what is to be understood by an image and picture can hardly be found anymore, Jonas was still sure that one could quickly agree on a definition of picture/image. He himself got by with the minimal condition that similarity is a constitutive characteristic of pictoriality, and that a picture (and the similarity) must have been produced intentionally. What makes homo pictor human, is therefore the ability of intentional image production, and above all the condition underlying this ability: freedom. Each making of a picture presupposes a decision process, which concerns material, scale, style, color, motif choice, and much more. Because for Jonas this making of a picture always implies the making of a reference to reality,

IV. Iconography

in the choice of the way of this reference already lie degrees of freedom. For Jonas, the degrees of freedom increase from the image-immanent compulsion of incomplete similarity, to the possibility of one’s own artistic style, up to the creation of never seen, thus freely invented forms. Thus, the freedom of homo pictor consists above all in the possibility of appropriating the world and reality (which serve as a template for the pictorial realization) in a picture. This freedom of forming corresponds to the freedom of seeing (Jonas 2010b). Since Jonas’s (1961) essentialist definition of being human (in contrast to being animal) as homo pictor (“man as creator of pictures”) and his understanding of pictures as a form of appropriation of reality (with incomplete similarity), the anthropological picture theory has developed further (understood as anthropology in the sense of historical and cultural anthropology); it rightly refers to the fact that pictures are produced as a cultural process, as a specific cultural strategy by people for people. Pictures are perceived by people and, in the case of a successful cognition and communication process, recognized and understood, disseminated and passed on (or destroyed) by people. They motivate people to positioning (agreement or disagreement) or actions. Alfred Gell is worth mentioning here. He sketched an anthropological theory of visual arts that focused (less on art production as the differ‑ entia specifia of humankind as Jonas did, but) on the social context of art production, circulation, and reception. As a theory of the nexus of social relations involving works of art, Gell suggests that art objects should not be seen as signs, bearers of meaning or aesthetic values, but as forms mediating social action. Thus in certain contexts, “art objects are the equivalent of persons, or more precisely, social agents” (Gell 1998:​7), whose immediate interactive fields of action in social processes are central. Hans Belting (2011) has devoted himself to the origins of pictorial art and claimed a “close and fundamental interrelation (and interaction) of image, body and medium as components in every attempt at picture-making” (Belting 2011:​3). In terms of image anthropology, he considers the living human body as the locus of images, since it is the body that perceives, identifies/recognizes, and generates images – materially and mentally. Images, especially mental ones, that is, imagination and fantasy, cannot be separated from the body (Belting 2011:​ 37–61). Anthropological image theory emphasizes the coordinates of body, time, and space, the performativity of images, involves memory (individual as well as collective)

4. Methods

and imagination, and interprets image seeing as action (Schuhmacher-Chilla 2018). If one tries to bundle these mentioned aspects, it can be cautiously formulated that the research object “image and picture” is only possible in the combination of the moments materiality, sign, perception, reception, memory, identity construction, performativity, medium/mediality, cultural strategy, social practices (including the transfer of capitals), social agency, and anthropological (including neurosciencific) parameters. This undoubtedly requires an interdisciplinary approach (Mitchell 2015) tying together empirical and historical issues with meta-reflexive systematic considerations (Sachs-Hombach/Schirra 2013a). Picturehood is a way of being in relation and to change the world, not a way of being in itself. 4. Methods When examining ancient pictorial sources, it is not only a matter of analyzing the image “per se,” but also of the necessary classification in the historical context, whereby it must be taken into account that the time of origin of a picture and the time depicted (e. g., in the case of battle depictions and the like) cannot be identical. Just as in the interpretation of texts and archaeological findings, it is the interpreter who makes the material speak, so that the clarification of one’s own premises stands in the first place of every interpretation. “Biblical Iconography,” or the “Iconography of Palestine,” or the “Iconography of the Biblical World,” founded by Othmar Keel in the 1970s emerged from biblical scholarship and currently proceeds mostly in such a way that image-bearing objects, techniques, choices of material, peculiarities in style, and motifs are all arranged into meaningful groups distinguishing what is primary and constant from secondary details that vary; their variations and innovations are sorted either synchronically to trace regional developments or diachronically to show chronological developments. By considering the respective genres of the image-bearing objects (as, e. g., → seals, reliefs, → sculptures, → ivory inlays, etc.), the researcher investigates the iconographic evidence, the motifs, the underlying “constellations” of meaning (complexes of ideas and stories reduced to the icon; cf. GGG:§ 6), and their diachronic development in connection and correlation with processes of society, religion (with focus on the biblical texts), and history (Keel 1997a). In this context, the scientific literature often speaks of iconology, a term which was coined and introduced by the art his-

LXIX

torian Erwin Panofsky (1932; 1939; 1994a; 1994b) and accepted and used by Othmar Keel (1992) and his followers. In a combination of Panofsky and standard archaeological methods, the archaeological methods for dating and contextualising the material image-bearing objects are used (as, e. g., stratigraphy, the use of datable parallels, less often C14), and a three-step method is applied, beginning with the phenomenological description of the pictorial elements, followed by the iconographic-analytical allocation of pictorial representations to specific themes, and ending in iconological interpretation of the actual meaning of a representation in its intellectual-historical context. The basic assumption is that pictorial repertoires and their associated meanings are not arbitrary, but have been standardized by a system of norms, models, tradition, conventions, and technical competence. Because there is a high degree of system conformity of the artifacts, the pictures can be interpreted (in the third step) as an indicator of their period, culture, and society. Christoph Uehlinger (2001) has further pointed out that aspects of “conscious communication pragmatics” also play an important role with many artifacts. For this reason, the pragmatic context of the images, that is, the living and communication situation in which they appear, are used and distributed, needs to be considered for their interpretation. Other or complementary methods of the interpretation of pictures depart from other picture theories. Thus, the semiotic approach to the interpretation of images considers them as signs and bearers of meaning and operates on the levels of visual syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in order to work out the sign relations (Höl­scher 1987; 1992; 2000:​160–164; Schelske 1997). Other or complementary methods of image interpretation are proposed, for instance, by Marlies Heinz (2002) and Dominik Bonatz (2002a; 2002b), whose communication-theoretical orientation is related to overarching cultural-anthropological studies, so that they emphasize in their work the aspects of communication, performance, and action relevance of Ancient Near Eastern material images, or by Alfred Gell who claimed that works of art, images, pictures, icons, “and the like have to be treated … as person-like; that is, sources of, and targets for, social agency” (Gell 1998:​96). Since images are treated as living persons in the context of worship and cult (on this in the ANE Berlejung 1998), he offered a general theory of (mainly Greek) idolatry and artifacts as interaction partners. This fits into his definition of “art as a system of action, intended to change the world rather than encode sym-

LXX

bolic propositions about it” (Gell 1998:​6). With his action-centered approach and his focus on social agency he is not that far from the prospective aspects of images which have been observed in constructivistic theories, or from media- and communication-theoretical approaches which match with cultural anthropological issues as, for instance, the role of images in non-verbal communication, as archives and transfer-modes of collective memory, and as active agents within social interaction processes. In addition, representatives of constructivist image analysis such as Ralf von den Hoff and Stefan Schmidt (2001b), Stefan Weber (1999), or Peter Weibel (2001) are increasingly gaining attention (for an overview see Weissenrieder/Wendt 2005), which, however, with few exceptions, have hardly been received in biblical iconography so far (Berlejung 2017b; 2021a; 2021b). The starting point for the constructivist analysis is the assumption that images are sources for ancient constructions of reality and part of discourses (in the Foucaultian sense, Foucault 2002 [1969]) that defined patterns of thought, perception, and memory. They should be understood as constructs of their observers, clients, and creators that express meaning through their particular form. Historically oriented scholars of images have the task of tracing concepts of perception, ideas, and cognitive tools “… back to the social conditions of their production and use, that is, to the historical structure of the field where they are generated and where they operate” (Bourdieu 1996:​298). This framework also includes the clarification of style and stylistic devices, iconic conventions, technical possibilities and limits. “The historical and constructivist analysis of images (which is itself a construction) seeks to understand images in relation to the typical cultural and contemporary specifications, value systems, patterns of behavior and mentalities of the societies that produced and maintained them as well as in relation to the structures and conflicts in the social groups and the society to which they belong (in other words, the implicit basis of the production and reception of images is at stake)” (Berlejung 2021a:​273). Thus, a historically-oriented interpretation of images can only be achieved by incorporating other contemporary visual and textual sources that can provide information on the social, regional, and religio-historical contexts of their clients, artists, and observers. The knowledge of these cognitive and evaluative dispositions (reconstructed on the basis of all of the available textual and visual sources) is necessary if one wishes to under-

IV. Iconography

stand a visual artifact in its socio-historical context and as a witness to the historical habits of seeing, concepts of perception, cultural values, inner attitudes, memories, imaginations, and institutions. Thus, on the one hand, the aim is to explain to what extent and in what way images are historical and social constructions of their contexts of production and part of existing discourses (“retrospective”), which they reflect. On the other hand, the aim is to work out to what extent and in what way images participated in the construction of ancient reality and discourses and led to changes in this reality and these discourses (“prospective”), thereby focusing on the effects that images have in cultural processes and strategies (von den Hoff/Schmidt 2001a:​18–19). Images can be an expression of discourses, experience or memory, but also shape discourses, experiences, and memories themselves. Thus retrospective and prospective aspects are intertwined. It is also a growing insight that the materiality of the pictorial culture is to be related to the content of the picture. Thus, the selection of certain materials as image carriers can support the picture content in its function and performance. It is no coincidence, for example, that stone as a durable and solid material is the preferred material for royal self-representations. Stone materializes, visualizes, and performs the performative function of the images as a symbolic enactment of the eternal stable order. The use of certain colors or color stones can also reinforce the function, message, and performance of the images (e. g., red as color indicating vitality). Beyond the study of pictures and pictorial programs, “Biblical Iconography” is also dealing with the correlation of the images with the literary (epigraphic as well as biblical) and other archaeological sources of the Southern Levant, as and when they are available (on the relation between images and the Bible see Bonfiglio 2016:​37–63, more general on images and texts see Bonfiglio 2016:​64–116; see also Bonfiglio/de Hulster/ Strawn 2015). The constructive dialogue between biblical iconography and exegesis plays a key role. The material images can then be used to (re)construct the cultural, mental, and religioushistorical background of the world of the OT and NT. The relationship between biblical and extrabiblical texts and pictures from the Southern Levant (or the ANE and the Mediterranean) must be clarified in each individual case in a differentiated and argumentatively responsible manner. Rash or sweeping connections can be more detrimental than beneficial to the understanding of the pictures as well as of the texts. Therefore it seems to be wise to work on each medium sep-

5. Bibliography

arately in order to correlate them only in a later synthetic step. In doing so, it may turn out that OT texts process motifs of contemporary iconography. Then it is often possible for “Biblical Iconography” to relate these or religious ideas of the OT with motifs of contemporary Ancient Near Eastern art, to compare them, and to illuminate the biblical texts against this background. At the beginning this was the main objective of Othmar Keel (1977:​11–13), but in the meantime the interest of the studies has shifted more to the (re) construction of historical, religious-historical, or cultural-historical contexts. However, images and texts can also take up and process the same themes independently, or images and texts do not share the same themes and each show a different repertoire. From time to time it can lead to interesting insights to pursue the question how a certain subject (e. g., sun/moon/stars as creatures of YHWH) is treated in the OT, while it is taken up differently (sun/moon/stars as deities) or not at all in the pictorial art. The same is also true in the opposite direction for pictorial themes which are iconographically well attested (e. g., the different goddesses), while they are hardly or no longer a theme in the OT. Last but not least a final caveat has to be mentioned: images are “not a royal path into the past” (Jäger 2005:​ 189–190), since pictorial sources are to be analyzed just as critically as textual sources. Material images were always produced with certain intentions, showing a section from a certain perspective, whereby questions of ancient conventions of representation, image practice, and the context of the picture must be considered, as well as the difference in the viewpoint of the ancient viewer in contrast to the onlooker today. The paradox of the historical interpretation of a work of art from the past, which could be understood directly without major intellectual education, comments, or “translation” by its contemporary ancient observers, because artifact and observer shared the same time and cultural system, is that the modern researcher, in theorizing how the work of art was perceived, must assume that the ancients’ initial perception lacked such theory and concept, so that his or her work on the construction of a framework of interpretation, on a model that explains the practices and works, can at best provide a proxy for the ancient original comprehension (Bourdieu 1996:​314– 315). Yet a modern researcher cannot “mimic or reproduce in practice … the practical experience of comprehension – even if an explicit mastery of the schemas which are in practice involved in the production, and the comprehension, may lead to the possibility of feeling the practical experience

LXXI

of the native contemporary – but in a somewhat vi‑ carious mode” (Bourdieu 1996:​315). Nobody can jump back into the singularity of the original comprehension. 5. Bibliography Assmann, J., 1990, Die Macht der Bilder: Rahmenbedingungen ikonischen Handelns im Alten Ägypten, in: Genres in Visual Representations, Leiden:​1–20 ♦ Bachmann, M., 1996, Die strukturalistische Artefakt- und Kunstanalyse: Exposition der Grundlagen anhand der vorderorientalischen, ägyptischen und griechischen Kunst, OBO 148, Fribourg/Göttingen  ♦ Bahrani, Z., 2003, The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria, Philadelphia ♦ Belting, H., 2005, Nieder mit den Bildern: Alle Macht den Zeichen. Aus der Vorgeschichte der Semiotik, in: S. Majetschak (ed.), BildZeichen, Munich:​31–48 ♦ (ed.), 2007, Bilderfragen: Die Bildwissenschaften im Aufbruch, Munich ♦ 2011, An Anthropology of Images: Picture, Medium, Body, Princeton/Oxford ♦ Berlejung, A., 1998, Die Theologie der Bilder: Das Kultbild in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Herstellung und Einweihung der Statuen, OBO 162, Fribourg/Göttingen  ♦ 2017a, Bibel und Orient, in: W. Dietrich (ed.), Die Welt der hebräischen Bibel, Stuttgart:​17–30 ♦ 2017b, Dimensionen der Herrschaftslegitimität: Ikonographische Aspekte königlicher Selbstdarstellung in den Kulturen der südlichen Levante der Eisenzeit anhand der Bildwerke von Baluʿa, Yarihʿezer und Askalon, in: C. Levin/R. Müller (eds.), Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit, ORA 21, Tübingen:​147–188 ♦ 2021a, The Reduction of Complexity: The Theological Profile of a Deity and its Iconographic Expression – The God Aššur in First-Millennium B. C. E. Assyria as a Case Study, in: A. Berlejung, Divine Secrets and Human Imaginations, ORA 42, Tübingen:​ 245–284  ♦ 2021b, Images of the Dead – Images for the Living: Life and Death in the Iconography of Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and Palestine, in: A. Berlejung, Divine Secrets and Human Imaginations, ORA 42, Tübingen:​ 363–407  ♦ Berlejung, A./ Kohlhaas, S./Stein, J., 2018, Katalog der anthropomorphen Masken der südlichen Levante vom präkeramischen Neolithikum B bis zum Beginn der hellenistischen Zeit (9. Jt.–4. Jh. v. Chr.), in: A. Berle­jung/​ J. Filitz (eds.), The Physicality of the Other/Die Leibhaftigkeit des Anderen, ORA 27, Tübingen:​397–550  ♦ Blanke, B., 2003, Vom Bild zum Sinn: Das ikonische Zeichen zwischen Semiotik und analytischer Philosophie, Wiesbaden  ♦ Bonatz, D., 2002a, Sprache ohne Worte: Aspekte der nonverbalen Kommunikation durch Bilder im Alten Orient, in: D. Bonatz/M. Heinz (eds.), Bild  – Macht  – Geschichte, Berlin:​137–162  ♦ 2002b, Agens Bild: Handlungs­zusammenhänge altorientalischer Bildwerke, in: D. Bonatz/M. Heinz (eds.), Bild  – Macht  – Geschichte, Berlin:​53–70  ♦ Bonfiglio, R. P., 2016, Reading Images, Seeing Texts: Towards a Visual Hermeneutics for Biblical Studies, OBO 280, Fribourg/ Göttingen  ♦ Bonfiglio, R. P./De Hulster, I. J./ Strawn, B. A., 2015, Introduction: Iconographic Exegesis: Method and Practice, in: R. P. Bonfiglio/I. J. de

LXXII Hulster/B. A. Strawn (eds.), Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Göttingen:​ 19–42  ♦ Bourdieu, P., 1977 (1972), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, U. K. (172003) ♦ 1990 (1980), The Logic of Practice, Stanford et al. (reprint 2006) ♦ 1995 (1984), Sociology in Question, London et al. ♦ 1996 (1992), The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, Stanford  ♦ Brunner-Traut, E., 21992 (1990), Frühformen des Erkennens: Am Beispiel Altägyptens, Darmstadt ♦ Eco, U., 1976, A Theory of Semiotics, London  ♦ Eggler, J./Keel, O., 2006, Corpus der SiegelAmulette aus Jordanien: Vom Neolithikum bis zur Perserseit, OBO.SA 25, Fribourg/Göttingen  ♦ Eggler, J., et al., 2006, Ikonographie, WiBiLex, www. bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/21778/  ♦ Foucault, M., 2002 (1969), The Archaeology of Knowledge, London/New York ♦ Freedberg, D., 1989, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Visual Response, Chicago ♦ Frevel, C. (ed.), 2005, Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie,  FAT 2.10, Tübingen ♦ Gell, A., 1998, Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Oxford ♦ Glasersfeld, E. von, 1987, Preliminaries to Any Theory of Representation, in: C. Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Hillsdale, N. J.:​ 215–225, http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/ EvG/papers/105.pdf ♦ 22013 (1997), Wege des Wissens: Konstruktivistische Erkundungen durch unser Denken, Heidelberg ♦ Gombrich, E. H., 62004 (1960), Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, BollS 35.5, Hong Kong  ♦ Händler, M., 2015, Was ist ein Bild? Eine Antwort aus semiotisch-konstruktivistischer Perspektive, Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 63.4:​535–556  ♦ Heinz, M., 2002, Bild und Macht in drei Kulturen, in: D. Bonatz/M. Heinz (eds.), Bild – Macht – Geschichte, Berlin:​71–94 ♦ Herrmann, C., 1994, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, OBO 138, Fribourg/Göttingen ♦ 2002, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel 2, OBO 184, Fribourg/Göttingen ♦ 2006, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel 3, OBO. SA 24, Fribourg/Göttingen  ♦ von den Hoff, R./ Schmidt, S., 2001a, Bilder und Konstruktion: Ein interdisziplinäres Konzept für die Altertumswissenschaften, in: R. von den Hoff/S. Schmidt (eds.), Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart:​11–26 ♦ (eds.), 2001b, Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit: Bilder im Griechenland des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart ♦ Hölscher, T., 1987, Römische Bildsprache als semantisches System, Heidelberg ♦ 1992, Bilderwelt, Formensystem, Lebenskultur: Zur Methode archäologischer Kulturanalyse, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 10:​ 460–484  ♦ 2000, Bildwerke: Darstellungen, Funktionen, Botschaften, in: A. H. Borbein/T. Hölscher/P. Zanker (eds.), Klassische Archäologie, Berlin:​147–165 ♦ Husserl, E., 1980, Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung: Zur Phänomenologie der anschaulichen Vergegenwärtigungen. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1898–1925), Husserliana XXIII, Den Haag et al. ♦ Jäger, J., 2005, Geschichtswissenschaft, in: K. Sachs-Hombach (ed.), Bildwissenschaft, stw 1751, Frankfurt/Main:​185–195 ♦ Jonas, H., 1961, Homo pictor und die Differentia des Menschen, ZPhF 15.2:​161–176 ♦ 2010a, Homo pictor: Von der Freiheit des Bildens/Die Freiheit des Bildens: Homo pictor und die Differentia des Menschen (1961), in: D. Böhler et al. (eds.), Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Werke von

IV. Iconography Hans Jonas, vol. 1.1: Organismus und Freiheit: Philosophie des Lebens und Ethik der Lebenswissenschaften, Freiburg:​277–303 ♦ 2010b, Der Adel des Sehens: Eine Untersuchung zur Phänomenologie der Sinne (1953), in: D. Böhler et al. (eds.), Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Hans Jonas, vol. 1.1: Organismus und Freiheit: Philosophie des Lebens und Ethik der Lebenswissenschaften, Freiburg:​243–267  ♦ 2010c, Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Hans Jonas, vol. 1.1: Organismus und Freiheit: Philosophie des Lebens und Ethik der Lebenswissenschaften, eds. D. Böhler et al., Freiburg ♦ Keel, O., 1977, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4, SBS 84/85, Stuttgart ♦ 1992, Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden, OBO 122, Fribourg/Göttingen ♦ 1997a, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, Winona Lake ♦ 1997b, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Faraǧ bis ʿAtlit. With Three Contributions by Baruch Brandl, OBO.SA 13, Fribourg/Göttingen  ♦ Keel, O./Schroer, S., 2004, Eva – Mutter alles Lebendigen: Frauen- und Göttinnenidole aus dem Alten Orient, Fribourg ♦ Keel, O./Staubli, T., 2001, “Im Schatten Deiner Flügel,” Fribourg ♦ Keel, O./Uehlinger, C., 52001 (1992), GGG ♦ Knieper, T./Müller, M. G. (eds.), 2001, Kommunikation visuell: Das Bild als Forschungsgegenstand  – Grundlagen und Perspektiven, Cologne ♦ Lobinger, K., 2012, Visuelle Kommunikationsforschung: Medienbilder als Herausforderung für die Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft, Wiesbaden ♦ Mitchell, W. J. T., 1994, Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation, Chicago/London ♦ 2015, Image Science: Iconology, Visual Culture and Media Aesthetics, Chicago/London  ♦ Müller, M. G., 2003, Grundlagen der visuellen Kommunikation: Theorieansätze und Methoden, Konstanz ♦ Nöth, W., 2005, Zeichentheoretische Grundlagen der Bildwissenschaft, in: K. SachsHombach (ed.), Bildwissenschaft zwischen Reflexion und Anwendung, Cologne:​33–44 ♦ 2009, Bildsemiotik, in: K. Sachs-Hombach (ed.), Bildtheorien, Frankfurt/ Main:​235–254 ♦ 2014, The Growth of Signs, Sign System Studies 42.2/3:​ 172–192, http://www.sss.ut.ee/index. php/sss/article/view/SSS.2014.42.2-3.02/58 ♦ Panofsky, E., 1932, Aufsätze zu Grundfragen der bildenden Kunst, Logos 21:​103–119 = E. Panofsky, Aufsätze zu Grundfragen der Kunstwissenschaft, eds. H. Obe­rer/E. Verheyen, Berlin 1964:​ 85–97  ♦ 1939, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance, Oxford ♦ 61994a, Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutung von Werken der bildenden Kunst, in: E. Kaemmerling (ed.), Bildende Kunst als Zeichensystem 1, Cologne:​185–206 ♦ 61994b, Ikonographie und Ikonologie, in: E. Kaemmerling (ed.), Bildende Kunst als Zeichensystem 1, Cologne:​207–225  ♦ Peirce, C. S., 1983, Phänomen und Logik der Zeichen, stw 425, Frankfurt/Main ♦ 1991, Naturordnung und Zeichenprozeß, stw 912, Frankfurt/Main ♦ Roth, G., 1987, Erkenntnis und Realität: Das reale Gehirn und seine Wirklichkeit, in: S. J. Schmidt (ed.), Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus, stw 636, Frankfurt/Main:​ 229–255 ♦ Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.), 2005, Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen, Themen, Methoden, stw 1751, Frankfurt/Main  ♦ 2009 (2005), Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen, Themen, Methoden, Frankfurt/Main ♦ 22010,

5. Bibliography Bildtheorien: Anthropologische und kulturelle Grundlagen des Visualistic Turn, stw 1888, Frankfurt/Main ♦ 32013, Das Bild als kommunikatives Medium: Elemente einer allgemeinen Bildwissenschaft, Cologne  ♦ SachsHombach, K./Schirra, J. R. J., 2013a, Introduction, in: K. Sachs-Hombach/J. R. J. Schirra (eds.), Origins of Pictures, Cologne:​9–16  ♦ Sachs-Hombach, K./Schirra, J. R. J. (eds.), 2013b, Origins of Pictures: Anthropological Discourses in Image Science, Cologne ♦ Schelske, A., 1997, Die kulturelle Bedeutung von Bildern: Soziologische und semiotische Überlegungen zur visuellen Kommunikation, Wiesbaden  ♦ 22004 (1998), Zeichen einer Bildkultur als Gedächtnis, in: K. SachsHombach/K. Rehkämper (eds.), Bild  – Bildwahrnehmung – Bildverarbeitung, Bildwissenschaft 15, Wiesbaden:​59–68 ♦ Schmidt, S. J. (ed.), 1992, Gedächtnis: Probleme und Perspektiven der interdiszplinären Gedächtnisforschung, stw 900, Frankfurt/Main ♦ Scholz, O. E., 22004 (1998), Was heißt es, ein Bild zu verstehen?, in: K. Sachs-Hombach/K. Rehkämper (eds.), Bild  – Bildwahrnehmung  – Bildverarbeitung, Bildwissenschaft 15, Wiesbaden:​105–117 ♦ 32009 (1991), Bild, Darstellung, Zeichen: Philosophische Theorien bildlicher Darstellung, Frankfurt/Main ♦ Schroer, S., 1987, In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament, OBO 74, Fribourg/Göttingen ♦ Schroer, S./Keel, O., 2005–2018, IPIAO 1–4 ♦ Schuhmacher-Chilla, D., 2018, Anthropologische Kunsttheorie, Kunstpädagogische Positionen 42, Hamburg  ♦ Schuster, M., 52007 (1992), Wodurch Bilder wirken: Psychologie der Kunst, Cologne ♦ Sonesson, G., 1989, Pictorial Concepts: Inquiries into the Semiotic Heritage and its Relevance to the Interpretation of the Visual World, Malmö ♦ 1993, Die Semiotik des Bildes: Zum Forschungsstand am Anfang der 90er Jahre,

LXXIII Zeitschrift für Semiotik 15:​127–160 ♦ Uehlinger, C., 1997, Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images, in: K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book, CBET 21, Leuven:​97–155 ♦ (ed.), 2000, Images as Media – Sources for the Cultural History of the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE): Proceedings of an International Symposium Held in Fribourg on November 25–29, 1997, OBO 175, Fribourg/Göttingen ♦ 2001, Bildquellen und “Geschichte Israels”: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen und Fallbeispiele, in: C. Hardmeier (ed.), Steine  – Bilder  – Texte, Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 5, Leipzig:​ 25–77  ♦ Weber, S. (ed.), 1999, Was konstruiert Kunst? Kunst an der Schnittstelle von Konstruktivismus, Systemtheorie und Distinktionstheorie, Vienna ♦ Weibel, P., 22001 (1997), Kunst als soziale Konstruktion, in: A. Müller/​K. H. Mül­­ler/​ F. Stadler (eds.), Konstruktivismus und Kognitionswissenschaft, New York/Vienna:​193–208  ♦ Weissenrieder, A./Wendt, F., 2005, Images as Communication: The Methods of Iconography, in: A. Weissen­rieder/​ F. Wendt/P. von Gemünden (eds.), Picturing the New Testament, WUNT 2.193, Tübingen:​3–49 ♦ Wiesing, L., 2000, Phänomene im Bild, Munich ♦ 2005, Artifizielle Präsenz: Studien zur Philosophie des Bildes, stw 1737, Frankfurt/Main ♦ 2016, The Visibility of the Image: History and Perspectives of Formal Aesthetics, New York (= Engl. translation of: Die Sichtbarkeit des Bildes: Geschichte und Perspektiven der formalen Ästhetik, Frankfurt/Main/New York 2008) ♦ Winter, U., 1983, Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt, OBO 53, Fribourg/Göttingen. Angelika Berlejung

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

1

2

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools 1. Ag. denotes the production of food (→ nutrition) and goods through farming. It was the main economic foundation of all societies in the ANE, and most of the population was involved fulltime in ag. While other societies, such as the Phoen., developed other economic branches, including crafts manufacture and → trade, the Isr. economy was almost exclusively agricultural (Hopkins 1985). 2.  Palestine is characterized by diverse landscapes with distinct microenvironments (→ map Agriculture #1–3, col. 3–8). Among these are the coastal plains, wide interior valleys, like the Jezreel and the Jordan Valley, the hill-countries such as the Shephelah and lower Galilee, the highlands of the Upper Galilee, and the central mountains of Judah and Samaria, as well as the deserts of the Negev and the Judean Desert. Jordan is of a similar diversity with the Jordan Valley and a Medit. arable highland plateau in the W and arid regions in the E and S. All these geographical units provide different conditions for food production. Climatic changes in the region are of lesser order beginning in the 3rd. mill. b.c.e., and the climate has not been significantly different since that time. Factors such as geology, topography, and climate forced ancient ag. in the region to take a variety of particular shapes. Developing the technology of ag. enabled the population to settle in inhospitable regions, such as the hill-country and the arid Negev. These areas witnessed repeated settlement and abandonment until the Iron Age. The ecological variance of the land contributed to the variety in cultigens and cultivars that can be divided into general categories such as field crops, fruit trees, vegetables, herbs, and → animal husbandry. Food production essentially depended on the terrain, season of the year, and amount of precipitation and the end product was a result of the tools used for cultivation, harvesting, and processing. 3.  Through all of the periods relevant in this discussion, the crops produced included mainly grain, such as wheat and barley. Vegetables and fruits were grown, as well as grapes (→ viticulture) and olives (→ oil). Livestock consisted mainly of sheep and goats and, to a lesser extent, cattle (King/​Stager 2001:​85–107). 4.  After the major developments of food production during the Neolithic period and through the EBA, there were few innovations in ag. and animal husbandry between the LBA and the Hell. period. The major changes in food production in these periods concern mainly the social and economic organization, the agricultural development of certain areas, and the technical improvements of → tools. Arch. evidence for ancient ag. is dis-

cussed in terms of land-use, climatic conditions, water and soil conservation (→ water management), as well as agricultural technology and strategies. Although there is little direct arch. evidence for ancient land-use, countrywide insight is provided by ethno-arch. studies and the investigation of hist. sources, such as Ottoman tax registers of the 16th cent. c.e. and → village surveys during the British mandate period; these provide material for comparisons with earlier periods. Regional evidence is provided by the construction of agricultural installations. Terraces, cisterns, field walls, storage pits (→ stock), rock-cut installations, such as wine or olive presses and other structural remains, mark ancient agricultural activity areas in the landscape. Studying such remains in the landscape is part of a particular arch. approach called landscape archaeology (Gibson 2001). Land-use around settlements seems to follow a traditional pattern still in use during the Ottoman period. → Gardens and labor intensive horticulture with some form of irrigation (Hopkins 1985:​186) was practiced directly around the village, while unirrigated grain fields were located in a radius of approximately 2–3 km around the village. The village livestock grazed in a radius of 3–5 km around the settlement, if natural feed was available on the slopes of nearby hills and mountains (Portugali 1987). The physical remains of ancient cultivated plants or animal bones and the remains of ancient agricultural tools provide arch. evidence for agricultural strategies. Among the tools were iron tools, such as plows, sickles, and hoes (Hopkins 1985:​217–223; McNutt 1990; Waldbaum 1978). 4.1.  The basic means of production is on arable land. Land tenure is, thus, of outstanding importance. For the reconstruction of land tenure during the LBA, we are dependent mainly on the texts from Ugarit and Alalakh. Land tenure, here, was described as a state sector with royal estates and as a rural sector of free landholding by rural communities (Heltzer 1976). Recently, this view has been refuted and denounced as a “Two-Sector Model” (Schloen 2001:​221–254). Schloen argues for a hierarchy of households with the royal household of the → palace being the ultimate household, which dominated the economy of states such as Ugarit or Alalakh. Schloen’s patrimonial household model, which is not widely accepted, acknowledges a strong and self-sufficient village community, but postulates that the king had supreme rights over all the land in his kingdom (McGeough 2007:​83). 4.2.  During the Iron Age, the central hillcountry was (re-)settled. As portrayed in the OT (Josh 17:18) and indicated by arch. remains

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

3 

Agriculture map #1: Topography of Palestine.

4

5

6

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

Agriculture map #2: Mean annual rainfall between 1931 and 1960.

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

7 

Agriculture map #3: Non mechanical land use during the British Mandate ca. 1931.

8

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

9

10

(Dever 2003), the Isr. settlement saw its beginning in an environment that is rocky, has steep slopes, and, at the time, was thickly forested. By adapting their strategies to this environment and introducing new agricultural methods, the new settlers were able to eke out a living to sustain themselves (Bo­row­ski 1987:​15–18). Although terracing of hill slopes was not a new method, the settlers of the Palest. hill country utilized it as a strategy to gain a foothold in this region. Terracing provides small, levelled plots that enable planting not only of fruit trees but also of field crops and vegetables. The process involves construction of relatively low wall and filling the area behind with soil imported from elsewhere (Bo­row­ski 1987:​​fig. 1; Ron 1966; Stager 1975). The construction and maintenance of terraces is a group effort and cannot be accomplished by individuals. The popularization of terracing in the Palest. hillcountry secured it for the Israelites, who flourished there until the demise of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Remains of these terraces can be still observed in many parts of the country. During Iron Age I, numerous storage pits characterize the small villages of the hill-country. Such grain storage would have been made in the open without any attempt to hide the grain from tax collectors. This type of storage and the remote location of Proto-Isr. villages in the highlands may suggest that landholding was, in these rural communities, free of royal supreme domination. There was also Iron Age settlement in inhospitable regions, specifically the Negev, where a specific technique of runoff irrigation ag. was developed (Bo­row­ ski 1987:​18–20). This method, which was introduced in Palestine during Iron Age II, involves the development of → water management systems, which collect runoff rainwater and direct it by small dams, channels, and low walls to pools, cisterns, and agricultural plots. This water was used for human and animal consumption and for irrigating, by flooding fields and orchards (including vineyards). Having runoff water directed to the fields provided them with a new layer of topsoil, thus, also fertilizing them. Estates, maybe maqôm in Hebr., became increasingly a typical phenomenon in ancient Israel, and there is arch. evidence for estates during the Achaemenid and Hell. periods (Tal 2006:​116–137). Agricultural work is seasonal and involves ground preparation, planting, maintenance, harvesting, and processing. Bibl. references allude to the different agricultural activities, but they are not presented in order; thus, one cannot tell which activity was performed at what time. Archaeology has provided us, however, with an inscribed object, referred to as the “Gezer Calendar” (Albright 1943b; Cross/​Freedman

1952:​​45), which can clarify, when interpreted correctly, the order of most of the agricultural activities. The document is an inscription dated to ca. 925 b.c.e. and contains seven lines: 1) two months of ingathering/two months 2) of sowing/two months of late planting; 3) a month of harvesting flax (or weeding); 4) a month of barley harvesting; 5) a month of harvesting and (measuring?); 6) two months of grape harvesting; 7) a month of ingathering summer fruit. Four periods last two months each; four periods last one month each; a total of 12 months (for details, see Bo­row­ski 1987:​31–44). During Iron Age I, plow-points were made of bronze or iron, but, as time went on, iron plowpoints became the norm (Bo­row­ski 1987:​48–51; McNutt 1990; Waldbaum 1978) (→ fig. Agriculture #1:2, col. 11). All parts of the plow, except for the plow-point, were made of wood. In places too small for the use of a plow, a hoe was used for tilling. Arch. evidence for bronze plows was found in Beth-Shean (James 1966:​fig. 103:3), Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1943a:​​32–33, pl. 62:1, 4) (both Iron Age I), and at Beth-Shemesh in Iron Age IIA levels (Grant/​Wright 1938:​pl. 13:74; 1939:​153). Iron plows increasingly replaced bronze ones during Iron Ages I  and IIA (Waldbaum 1978:​27). Examples from these periods were found in Tell el-Ful (Albright 1924:​17; Sinclair 1960:​47, pl. 19A), Khirbet Raddana (Hopkins 1985:​220; cf. Waldbaum 1978:​25), Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928:​​pls. 26:3, 46:5), Beth-Zur (Sellers 1933:​​67, fig. 64), and Taanach (TT91, TT132, TT820; Frick 2000:​​156–158). Other iron tools that were used in ag. include a steel pick found at Har Adir (Davis et al. 1985). During Iron Age IIB, the iron plow was dominant (Tell Beit Mirsim: Albright 1943a:​​32–33, 78, pl. 61:1–4, 14–15; Tel Beer-Sheba: Beit-Arieh 1973; Lupu 1973; Bethel: Kelso 1968:​88; Megiddo: Lamon/​ Shipton 1939:​130, fig. 193; Loud 1948:​pl. 81:2; Gezer: Macalister 1912c:​​pl. 128:1–3; Tell enNasbeh: McCown 1947:​255, pl. 96:1–5; Lachish: Tufnell 1953:​388–389, pl. 61:1, 3, 4). The well preserved iron plow from Tel Beer-Sheba weighs 2.8 kg and is 35 cm long (Lupu 1973). A  plow dating to Iron Age IIC was found at Ekron (Tell Miqne) Stratum  IB dated to 604 b.c.e. (King/​ Stager 2001:​93, fig. 3:36). A painting in a grave at Beni Hasan shows a plow dragged by oxen (→ fig. Agriculture #1:1, col. 11) (for plows in Mesopotamia, see ANEP:84–88, 91). There are, however, no images of plows from ancient Palestine. Botanical remains of grain found in excavations consist mainly of wheat and barley. They were harvested in the spring: barley in April (Gezer

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

11 

12

1

0

5

10 cm

2

3

Figure Agriculture #1: 1) Plowing scene, Beni Hasan (12th Dyn.); 2) Plow share, Tell es-Sebaʿ (Iron Age II); 3) Traditional threshing sledge.

Calendar: yrḥ qṣr śʿrm), and wheat in May (yrḥ qṣr [wkl?]). Harvesting was done with sickles (for ethnographic evidence, see Dalman 1933:​19– 44). Sickles with flint blades were used throughout the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age until the 11th/9th cent. b.c.e. (Rosen 1997:​111–112). There is little arch. evidence for bronze sickles (Loud 1948:​pl. 179:29); iron sickles were apparently more common (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​​ pl. 84:1–12; Macalister 1912c:​pls. 94:17, 96:6, 7, 128:13; Petrie 1928:​pl. 27; Yadin et al. 1960:​​ pl. 65:3–6). Separation of the grain from the stalk was done by threshing and winnowing, both of which were complex activities. Threshing of cereals could be accomplished in more than one way. Since such sledges were made of wood, we do not have any arch. evidence for them. Modern threshing sledges are constructed of two or three wooden planks furnished with pcs. of sharp flint, basalt, or metal blades embedded in the underside (→ fig. Agriculture #1:3). There is no arch. evidence for such flint blades during the LBA or the Iron Age. The flint blades that were found from these periods are exclusively sickle blades (→ tools/ ground stone). Iron blades in threshing sledges,

however, are mentioned in the HB (Am 1:3). Another way of separating the grain from the stalk was by having a group of animals tread over the flat-lying stalks (for details, see Bo­row­ski 1987:​ 63–64). Winnowing, which is the activity of separating the grain from the straw and chaff, was done with the help of the wind. Thus, the threshing floor was located at a spot where wind currents were available for this chore. There is, however, no clear arch. evidence for threshing floors. Storage facilities for grain were varied and can be sorted according to purpose and ownership, which can be defined as private or public. The most common private storage facility was the stone-lined pit or simple earth pits that are ubiquitous during Iron Ages I–II and can be found in every village and town in close proximity to domestic structures where grain was stored in bulk (Currid/​Gregg 1988). Another common private facility was the storeroom located in each → house where grain was stored in jars. This facility was used also for storage of other commodities, such as wine and oil, in jars (see below). A second autumn planting season (yrḥw lqš), from mid-December to mid-February, was devoted to sever-

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

13

14

al kinds of legumes; at this time, flax (pišta) and some vegetables were also planted. When it comes to the cultivation of vegetables in bibl. times, very little is known archaeologically. Because of their nature, they are hardly represented in the arch. record. The period for planting vegetables ran into the spring planting of field crops, which included sesame and millet (doḥan). → Spices were among other cultigens cultivated by the Israelites, and these included black cumin (Nigella sativa; qeṣaḥ), cumin (Cuminum cyminum; kammon), and coriander (Coriandrum sativum; gad) (Bo­row­ ski 1987:​97–98). Large centers of olive oil production were excavated at Beth-Shemesh, Tel Batash (Timna), Tel Miqne (Ekron), and elsewhere (Bo­row­ski 1987:​figs. 19–22). Public storage facilities were owned by the central government and probably also cult centers and were used for the collection of taxes and distribution of payments. These facilities included large stone-lined silos (as the one in Megiddo), tri-partite pillared store-houses (in Tel Beer-Sheba and Hazor), and domed granaries (in Tell Jemmeh). The collection and distribution of agricultural produce are documented on ostraca from Samaria and Arad. 4.3.  Ag. during the Bab.-Pers. period was practiced, in principle, just as in the preceding Iron Age. One of the major differences could have been the form of land tenure with an increasing number of private and royal estates (Pastor 1997:​12–13). A Pers. period plowshare and plowrings all made of iron are reported from Nahal Tot Site VIII (Alexandre 2006:​fig. 54:1–4). Large brick-lined grain storage pits were constructed at Tell el-Hesi in the late Pers. period and probably served as a military depot (Fargo 1993:​634). 4.4.  Most of the arch. evidence for rural settlement during the Hell. period comes from estates and not from village communities (Tal 2006:​116– 137). The establishment of Hell. empires in the Levant caused further expropriation and redistribution of arable land to people loyal to the Seleuc. government, whose land confiscation may have been one of the reasons for the Maccabean Revolt (Pastor 1997; Tcherikover 1961:​194–195). Four iron plowshares were found in a Hell. storage cache at Shaʿar ha-ʿAmaqim (Segal/​Naor 1989:​431, 433–434). 5.  Beginning in the 3rd mill. b.c.e. and continuing through the 1st mill. b.c.e., ag. in ancient Palestine changed very little. Food production resembled greatly the agricultural practice throughout the Eastern Medit., with its focus on wheat, barley, olives, grapes, and an animal husbandry based mainly on sheep and goats. Changes concerned primarily the social organization of food production and technological improvements,

which are noticeable mainly in the transition from the Pers. to the Hell. period. 6.  The ancient Isr. rural community, free of supreme royal domination, is well reflected in 1 Sam 8:11–18. The actual landholder was, according to the HB, the bet-ʾab, the extended family. The mišpaḥa, the “clan” or lineage of the ancient Isr. society, was a protective association of the extended families and, among other things, responsible for redeeming land that kinsmen had lost because they had become poor and needed to sell it (Hopkins 1985:​257–258). Expropriation or selling of land was considered inappropriate (1 Kgs 21). Since the late 8th cent. b.c.e., evidence exists for larger estates in the hands of wealthy families, which were buying land from small landholders (Isa 5:8–10; Mic 2:2) (Premnath 1988). According to the Bible, sowing field crops involved plowing (ḥariš) and was done in the autumn, from about mid-October to mid-December (Gezer Calendar: yrḥw zrʿ). During this period, cereals, such as wheat (ḥitta, Triticum) and barley (śeʿora, Hordeum), were sown by broadcasting (hpṣ, zrq) and covered by plowing over with a scratch plow (maḥareša, 1 Sam 13:20), which was drawn by one or two animals (ṣemed = pair), either donkeys or, more likely, oxen (→ fig. Agriculture #1:1, col. 11) (for ethnographic evidence, see Schumacher 1889). The Bible has a strict prohibition against the use of an ox and a donkey in the same team (Dt 22:10). This prohibition follows the one that does not permit sowing or planting different kinds of seeds in the same plot (Dt 22:9). In places too small for the use of a plow, a hoe (maʿder) was used for tilling (Isa 7:25). Reaping could be done by hand without tools just by pulling the whole stalk, or with a sickle (maggal, Joel 4:13; ḥermeš, Dt 16:9). During the seventh year, the land was supposed to lie fallow, unplowed and unused, during which the fruits of the fields were left for the poor and wild animals. This practice of soil conservation included also vineyards and olive groves (Ex 23:10– 11). Any sheaf that was forgotten overnight in the field was left for the poor (Dt 24:19). According to Lev 19:9; 23:22, “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field,” thus providing the poor with another source of livelihood. The threshing floor (goren) was an even, sometimes artificially flattened, area (Jer 51:33) that was outside of the settlement (2 Sam 24:16) or near the city → gates (2 Kgs 22:10; Jer 15:7) (Smith 1946). The threshing floor was sometimes the property of a family (2 Sam 6:6; 24:16), but, in most cases, it was probably owned by the village community (Dalman 1933:​fig. 12). The most

Agriculture (ag.) and Agricultural Tools

15 

common way to thresh was apparently to use a threshing sledge (morag, 2 Sam 24:22; Isa 41:15; or ḥaruṣ, Isa 28:27; 41:15) (Salonen 1968:​170– 177), some of which were equipped with iron blades (Am 1:3). Winnowing had to be done when the right wind (strength; direction) was available, which might have been at night (Ruth 3:2). Using a wooden pitchfork (mizreh, Jer 15:7), the winnower would throw in the air the threshed mixture of straw and grain (ANEP:122). The grain, being the heavier, would fall first followed by straw and finally chaff. One more time, the grain would be thrown in the air with a wooden shovel (raḥat, Isa 30:24) for a second cleaning by the wind. This was followed by a final cleaning by sieves with different hole-sizes (kebara, Am 9:9; napa, Isa 30:28). The final product, the clean grain (bar), was stored in different storage facilities depending on its purpose. The same was true for the by-products (straw, chaff, etc.). Bibl. references and arch. finds indicate that other field crops cultivated in ancient Palestine included legumes such as the broad bean (Vicia fava; pol), lentils (Lens culinaris; ʿadašim), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia), chickpea (Cicer arientum; ḥamiṣ?), pea (Pisum sativum), and fenugreek (Trigonela graecum). In addition, flax (Linum usitatissimum; pišta) and sesame (Sesamum indicum; nisman?) were grown; the former for production of textiles, belts, and wicks, and the latter for consumption as seeds or for making oil. The two most intensively cultivated fruit-bearing trees were grapevines and olive trees. The grapevine (Vitis vinifera; gepen) was well suited to the hill-country and the Shephelah of both Judah and Israel. The importance of this branch of ag. to the economy of ancient Israel is well attested in its inclusion in the list of major agricultural resources in Dt 8:8. Grapevines were planted in vineyards, in mixed groves (Cant 6:11), or as individual plants close to the house (Ps 128:3) (→ viticulture). There were different varieties of vines (śoreq, boqeq, Hos 10:1; śibma, Isa 16:8– 9) that yielded either white or red grapes, and they could be either trained to climb on a trellis or other trees, or to spread on the ground. Vines trained to climb on a trellis are well illustrated in Eg. → tomb paintings (Bo­row­ski 1987:​ fig. 18); vines spreading on the ground appear in Sennacherib’s reliefs depicting the → siege of Lachish (Ussishkin 1982). To protect the vineyard, the owner surrounded it with a fence that no doubt utilized the stones that were cleared from the plot of land. A  → tower was also built to protect the vineyard and to house the workers during work seasons. Because of the nature of grapes that did not allow their transport over long distances (→ trade), a winepress (yeqeb) was

16

hewn in the rock at close proximity to the vineyard. In the hill-country, the terraced slopes provided the needed areas for planting vineyards (and other orchards and groves). Harvesting the grapes (zamir), that is, cutting the bunches off the vine, was done with a knife (mazmera) that was used for pruning as well. Besides eating fresh grapes, the main product of the vine was wine; however, grapes were used to make other products such as raisins that could be pressed into cakes, and could be boiled down to make syrup (Arab. dibs). Making wine was a happy occasion accompanied with singing and music playing (Isa 6:10) (for a detailed study of wine making see Walsh 2000). Eg. tomb paintings illustrate the process very well (ANEP:fig. 90); the grapes were gathered and crushed in a press, which ideally was close to the vineyard. The basic structure of the press included a treading floor and a collection vat. Olives (Olea europaea; zayit) were grown for their oil (Dt 8:8; Judg 9:8–9) and were a very important crop (see → oil). Olive oil was used in cooking, lighting, → medicine, → cosmetics, etc.; and was used to pay taxes. It was an important commodity that played an important role in short and long distance trade. Large quantities of oil could be produced only by applying weight either on the cracked olives, which were collected in → baskets and placed on a collection vat, or on a flat stone with a groove around it to direct the oil into a collection vessel. During Iron Age II, an improvement of this method was introduced that allowed producing much greater quantities of oil. This innovation is known as the “Beam Press.” Instead of applying weight directly on the baskets holding the cracked olives, a heavy beam was placed on top of the baskets with one of its ends placed in a niche in a wall and heavy stone weights (→ scales) attached to the other end. The leftovers from this process were used as animal feed, kindling, and fertilizer. In addition to grapes and olives, other native fruit trees were cultivated in Palestine, as is known from bibl. references but not well identified (→ forest). Because no sugar was available, honey and dates were used to sweeten food. Dates were also processed into a thick syrup referred to in the Bible as debaš (“honey,” Ex 3:8; Dt 8:8; → apiculture). Several factors contributed to high or low crop yields. Low yields were caused by pests (e. g., locusts, mice, and worms), diseases, and other natural causes (e. g., drought and hail). On the other hand, crop yields could be improved by keeping proper agricultural practices such as pruning and fertilizing. Other methods included fallowing; however, there is no record indicating how closely this practice was observed. One can assume that

Altar/s (al./als.)

17

18

the bibl. farmers practiced crop rotation in which they incorporated fallowing, fertilizing with manure, and green fertilizing that utilized the cultivation of nitrogen-bearing legumes as part of the rotation (for details see Bo­row­ski 1987:​143– 151, 153–162). Bibl. references to vegetables are very few. Only once, are they enumerated and, even then, the reference is to the situation in Egypt rather than in Palestine. In the desert, the Israelites bemoan: “We remember … the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic” which they had in Egypt (Num 11:5; see also Dt 12:10–11). The possible reason for this verbal scarcity might be the Isr. low regard for vegetables as exemplified in the proverb “Better is a dinner of vegetables where love is than a fatted ox and hatred with it” (Prov 15:17). Nevertheless, according to Isa 1:8, cucumbers were grown in a special field (miqša). Furthermore, many kings had gardens and the well-known Naboth incident was caused by King Ahab’s desire to have “a vegetable garden” near his house (1 Kgs 21:2).

[I], OIP 42, Chicago  ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago  ♦ Lupu, A., 1973, Metallurgical Analysis and Manufacture of the Iron Plough-Share, in: Y. Aharoni (ed.), Beer-Sheba 1, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 2, Tel Aviv:​ 45–46 ♦ Macalister, R. A. S., 1912a–c, The Excavation of Gezer, 1902–1905 and 1907–1909, 3 vols., London ♦ McCown, C. C., 1947, Tell en-Naṣbeh  1, Berkeley  ♦ McGeough, K., 2007, Exchange Relationships at Ugarit, ANES Suppl. 26, Louvain  ♦ McNutt, P. A., 1990, The Forging of Israel, SWBAS 8/​JSOT.S 108, Sheffield ♦ Pastor, J., 1997, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, London  ♦ Petrie, W. M. F., 1928, Gerar, BSAE 43, London  ♦ Portugali, Y., 1987, Construction Methods, Architectural Features and Environment, in: A. BenTor/​Y. Portugali (eds.), Tell Qiri, Qedem 24, Jerusalem:​132–138  ♦ Premnath, D. N., 1988, Latifundialization and Isaiah 5.8–10, JSOT 40:49–60 ♦ Ron, Z., 1966, Agricultural Terraces in the Judean Mountains, IEJ 16:33–49, 111–122  ♦ Rosen, S. A., 1997, Lithics after the Stone Age, Walnut Creek  ♦ Salonen, A., 1968, Agricultura Mesopotamica nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen, Helsinki ♦ Schloen, J. D., 2001, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol, SAHL 2, Winona Lake  ♦ Schumacher, G., 1889, Der arabische Pflug, ZDPV 12:157–166  ♦ Segal, A./​Naor, Y., 1989, Four Seasons of Excavations at a Hellenistic Site in the Area of Kibbutz Shaʾar Ha-Amakim, in: D. H. French/​C. S. Lightfoot (eds.), The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire, BAR IS 553, London:​421–435  ♦ Sellers, O. R., 1933, The Citadel of Beth-Zur, Philadelphia  ♦ Sinclair, L. A., 1960, An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), AASOR 34/35, New Haven:​1–52 ♦ Smith, S., 1946, The Threshing Floor at the City Gate, PEQ 78:5–14  ♦ Sta­ ger, L. E., 1975, Ancient Agriculture in the Judean Desert: A  Case Study of the Buqêʿah Valley in the Iron Age, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.  ♦ Tal, O., 2006, The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine, Jerusalem (Hebr.)  ♦ Tcherikover, V., 1961, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia  ♦ Tufnell, O., 1953, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, London  ♦ Ussishkin, D., 1982, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 6, Tel Aviv  ♦ Waldbaum, J. C., 1978, From Bronze to Iron, SIMA 54, Göteborg  ♦ Walsh, C. E., 2000, The Fruit of the Vine, HSM 60, Winona Lake  ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1960, Hazor II, Jerusalem. Oded Bo­row­ski

7.  Albright, W. F., 1924, Excavations and Results at Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah of Saul), AASOR 4, New Haven  ♦ 1943a, The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 3: The Iron Age, AASOR 21, New Haven  ♦ 1943b, The Gezer Calendar, BASOR 92:16–26  ♦ Alexandre, Y., 2006, Nahal Tut (Site VIII), ʿAtiqot 52:131–189 ♦ Beit-Arieh, I., 1973, An Iron Plough-Share, in: Y. Aharoni (ed.), Beer-Sheba 1, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 2, Tel Aviv:​43–44  ♦ Bo­ row­ski, O., 1987, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona Lake  ♦ Cross, F. M., Jr./​Freedman, D. N., 1952, Early Hebrew Orthography, New Haven  ♦ Currid, J. D./​Gregg, J. L., 1988, Why Did the Early Israelites Dig All Those Pits?, BAR 14.5:54–57  ♦ Dalman, G., 1933, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 3: Von der Ernte zum Mehl, SDPI 6, Gütersloh  ♦ Davis, D., et al., 1985, A Steel Pick from Mount Adir in Palestine, JNES 44:41–51 ♦ Dever, W. G., 2003, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, Grand Rapids/​Cambridge, U. K.  ♦ Fargo, V., 1993, Hesi, Tell el-, NEAEHL 2:630–634  ♦ Frick, F. S., 2000, Tell Taannek 1963–1968, vol. 4.2: The Iron Age Cultic Structure, Publications of the Palestinian Institute of Archaeology, Birzeit  ♦ Gibson, S., 2001, Agricultural Terraces and Settlement Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age Palestine, in: A. Mazar (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, JSOT.S 331, Sheffield:​113–146  ♦ Grant, E./​Wright, G. E., 1938, Ain Shems Excavations, vol. 4: Pottery, BKS 7, Haverford  ♦ 1939, Ain Shems Excavations, vol. 5: Text, BKS 8, Haverford ♦ Heltzer, M., 1976, The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit, Wiesbaden  ♦ Hopkins, D. C., 1985, The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age, Decatur  ♦ James, F., 1966, The Iron Age at Beth Shan, Museum Monograph, Philadelphia  ♦ Kelso, J. L., 1968, The Excavation of Bethel (1934– 1960), AASOR 39, Cambridge, Mass.  ♦ King, P. J./​ Stager, L. E., 2001, Life in Biblical Israel, LAI, Louisville  ♦ Lamon, R. S./​Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo

Altar/s (al./als.) 1.  An al. is a common feature in a temple (→  sanctuary); it is the place of cultic encounter with the deity, even where there is no temple (Galling 1937:​13). The origin of the term al. can be traced back to the Lat. word altare, derived from adolere, meaning “to burn,” as well as to the broader term ara from areo also meaning “to burn.” Consequently, the Rom. al. was defined as an area of fire or sacrificial hearth. In Hebr., the word mizbeaḥ, denoting al., is a formation from the root zbḥ meaning “to slaughter.” The connection between the als. mentioned in Ancient Near

Altar/s (al./als.)

19 

Eastern texts (e. g., textual sources from Ugarit or the OT) and excavated al.-like installations, is widely discussed (Zwickel 1990; Zevit 2001:​ 276–298), but difficult to prove (Daviau 2007:​ 125). The arch. evidence for als. in the strict sense, used for sacrificial burning and/or ritual slaughter, is quite limited. In arch. lit., a generally accepted definition for ‘altar’ does not exist and the term is used for a very heterogeneous group of mostly block-formed structures and objects (Galling 1925; Reichert 1977; Gadegaard 1978; Bergquist 1993:​29). The term includes transportable objects like the small, several  centimeters high als., such as those from Tell Jemmeh (Zwickel 1990:​62–109; Hassell 2005), Babylon (Cholidis 2008), as well as the nearly 2.20 m wide al. at Arad (Herzog/​Aharoni/​ Rainey 1987:​33; Herzog 2002:​53) or the almost 3 m high stepped stone al. topped by horns of consecration in Myrtou-Pigades on Cyprus (Du Plat Taylor 1957; Webb 1977:​114; Hitchcock 2008). Along with als. for sacrificial slaughtering and burning of animals, installations for burning incense, offering food or liquids are labelled as als. in the lit. (Albertz/​Schmitt 2012:​70). Als. were used as fixed ritual installations and as portable objects in public and private settings, as well as in funerary contexts. Since the Chalc., block- and tower-shaped installations as well as depictions in fine art, often in glyptic → iconography, are frequently interpreted or named as als., such as horned objects on the → seals of Tepe Gawra Levels XII–XIA (Diamant/​ Rutter 1969:​171, fig. 35). Built als. can be related to → cultic equipment in the form of terracotta stands intended for libations, incense burning, etc. and used during offering rituals for and before the gods. Deposits within built als. are well attested in the 3rd mill. in Mesopotamia (Bjorkman 2008). Dedicatory inscriptions indicate that an al. could also be a → votive. In a MBA → mural painting from Mari two libation stands are placed before the al. The king is sacrificing a liquid on a stand as well as on an al. to the moon god Sin (Parrot 1958:​pl. 17). LBA reliefs at the sphinx gate of Alaca Höyük depict a large al. between a bull image of the god and the worshiping king (IPIAO 3:no. 888). A  LBA basalt stone al. from Alalakh seems to be related to the nearby excavated ancestor statue of the enthroned king Idrimi (IPIAO 3:no. 965). 2.–3.  In the Mesop. world the al. built of stone, brick, or earth belongs to the architectural features of rel. spaces, mostly found inside or in front of temple areas and sanctuaries. Their exact func-

20

tions are largely unknown; in a few cases they can be associated with incense and libation rituals (Ławecka 2018). In Bab. temples, prepared food was presented to the deity on portable tables and stands (Seidl 2003–2005); therefore, there were no permanently built sacrificial als. for burnt-animal sacrifices and ritual slaughter (Sallaberger 2013:​40). Als. made of mudbrick were reconstructed in the streets and in front of the temples of Babylon (Unger 1928). Neo-Ass. reliefs depict al.-like structures in a natural environment, on top of a hill or near a spring (Barnett 1976:​ 41, pl. 23). An al. is shown on a relief of the time of Ashurbanipal (668–631 b.c.e.). It seems to have been built in what is poss. a processional street in front of a figurative stela beside a small temple (Orth­ mann 1985:​324, pl. 240). A Neo-Ass. four-horned limestone al. from the Nabû-Tempel in Nineveh used for burning incense shows similarities with Iron Age II single block/shaft, horned als. from Palestine (Thompson/​Hutchinson 1929:​ pl. 56:335; Gitin 2002:​110). Most of the al.-like structures in the Ass.-Bab. sanctuaries have to be interpreted as a base to carry a divine symbol (or idol), like the one of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244–1208 b.c.e.) found in the Ishtar-Temple at Assur (Orthmann 1985:​309, pl. 195; Frankfort 1996:​132, fig. 149) and not as a platform for offerings. A unique large bronze plate dated to the 13th/ 12th cent. b.c.e. from the acropolis of Susa was interpreted as an al.-table. The 1.58 m long and 0.71 m wide plate was originally fixed to a wall, with five partly preserved human figures, probably goddesses, supporting the freestanding sides. In their hands they hold water-gushing vases, their backs leaning against snakes (Amiet 1966:​ 383; Porada 1985:​pl. 292a). A three dimensional bronze object (0.6×0.4×0.1 m), probably illustrating a sunrise ritual, with an inscription of Shilhak-Inshushinak (12th cent. b.c.e.) is also known from Susa (Harper/​Aruz/​Tallon 1992:​ 137–141). The ceremony, depicting two kneeling naked priests, takes place between stepped rectangular buildings or installations, perhaps two facing als., and conical objects reminding of the al.like constructions before the temple entrance of Choga Zambil (Parrot 1957:​79–83; Amiet 1966:​ 392; Porada 1985:​pl. 292b). 4.  Archaeologically, two types of als. were distinguished in Syro-Palestine: (4.1.) the large sized constructed al. and (4.2.) the small, monolithic moveable al. The latter can occur with decorated and undecorated cult stands, stepped houseshaped als. and cultic furniture often interpreted as incense- or libation-als. in the Syro-Mesop. world (→ cultic equipment).

Altar/s (al./als.)

21

22

4.1.  Stone and mudbrick built installations inside Bronze Age temple areas and sanctuaries were interpreted as als. for burnt sacrifices, incense burning, liquid-libations, and food offerings to feed the gods (Burkert 1976:​179–181; Janowski 1980:​251–253). Als. used for slaughtering and burning were also reconstructed in open areas (temple → courtyards) in front of the temples; they were interpreted as ground level hearths or fireplaces (e. g., Alalakh, Kamid el-Loz, Kition, Enkomi) intended for the ceremonial preparation of holy food. Pedestals or tables and low bases (e. g., Shechem, Hazor Area H, Ugarit, Alalakh) were used to position cultic equipment, divine idols and symbols, votive offerings, or trays with foods for the god (Bergquist 1993:​34–35). A 1.0×1.5 m large stone block with a depression is known from the mid-3rd mill. Bronze Age (phase B1) temple at Tell Mozan. The installation is located in the middle of the cella and interpreted as an al. (Buccellati/​Kelly-Buccellati 1993–1997:​390, fig. 3). A  mudbrick al. dated to the first half of the 2nd mill. was placed in a small temple at Tell Mohammed Diyab before a stepped podium. The combination of al. and throne seat for a god is known from the → mural paintings at Mari (Nicolle 2005:​185, figs. 4, 6). Traces of heavy burning are preserved on a 0.57 m high mudbrick al. with a box-like depression in the top surface from Alalakh (Level V) dated to the 2nd mill. b.c.e. (Woolley 1955:​67, pl. 10b). In Alalakh Levels III and II a mud-plastered brick al. was located in the temple courtyard in front of the entrance but evidence of burning on the als. themselves is lacking (Woolley 1955:​73–82, fig. 32). A side room of the LBA Level I temple of Alalakh (Woolley 1955:​82, 85, pls. 11b, 52a) contained a basalt stone al. in the form of a table with rich relief decoration. For the typical old Syr. temple in antis divided into entrance hall, ante cella, and cella, a white plastered stone al. of 0.85×1.40 m is attested in the cella of the LBA “Temple 2” in Tell Munbaqat (Orthmann 1985:​475, fig. 153; Werner 1994:​ 104, pl. 22). Similar installations interpreted as stepped als. and podiums are frequently attested in the LBA temple in antis at Emar (Temple Nord; Temple Sud; Temple M2), Tall Fray (Margueron 1993–1997:​89–90, figs. 6–7; Werner 1994:​ 106–109, 174), and Tall Bazi (Otto 2013:​372, tab. 1). A LB I al. is identified ca. 4 m in front of the temple of Hazor in Area H, Stratum  2. The structure (2534) is made from earth and stone with dimensions of 3.5×2.0 m and only 0.3 m in height (Yadin et al. 1961:​pl. 111:1) (for a basalt al. from the temple in Area H cf. → fig. Cultic Equipment #1:5, col. 207). A  similar installation

was found in the LBA temple courtyard of Shechem (Wright 1965:​83–99). In Ugarit a large al. with a foundation of 2.2×2.0 m is reconstructed in the courtyard 2 m in front of the entrance of the LBA Baal temple (Yon 1984:​37–50). The wellpreserved inventory of two temple courtyards of LBA Kamid el-Loz displayed several installations used for cultic burning, described by the excavator as als. (Metzger 1983; 1993). A large stone built al. in the courtyard of the 9th cent. b.c.e. temple-palace of Guzana (Tell Halaf) faces three monumental statues of gods placed as caryatids in the portico of the building (Schirmer 1985:​ 415, fig. 131; Langenegger et al. 1950:​23). In the 8th cent. b.c.e. temple in antis of Tell Tayinat an al. was found in front of the stepped podium of the adyton/cella (Haines 1971:​37; → fig. Sanctuary #1:3–4, col. 789). For Palestine a large sized al. measuring 2.40×2.49×1.30 m  – its outer face built of fieldstones with a core made of earth, clay, and stones – is known from the 8th cent. b.c.e. temple courtyard of Stratum  X of Tel Arad (Aharoni 1968:​21). The upper surface was partially plastered, with a large flint stone on top, and surrounded by a channel made of clay. Because no traces of fire have been found on top of the al. and the flint was undamaged by heat, Zevit (2001:​ 169, 300) suggests that its function was limited to ritual display of the offering which was prepared elsewhere. This al. had a badly preserved forerunner in Stratum XI (10th cent. b.c.e.) built of dressed limestone. The four-horned Beer-Sheba al. (Zevit 2001:​ 171–174, 301–302) was partially reconstructed from recovered cut stones found in Stratum II. It originally belonged to a destroyed temple area of Stratum  III (9th cent. b.c.e.). Its original size is unknown and the reconstruction shows a hypothetical block shape with dimensions of ca. 1.6×1.56×1.12 m. 4.2.  Monolithic stone als. with different functions and originally placed inside the temple are attested since the LBA (Zwickel 1994:​201; 2007b:​​ 270; 2010). The al. of Beth-Shean was probably used for food-offerings, while on the Tell Abu Hawam al. animals may have been slaughtered. Traces of fire can be seen on the Hazor al. Iron Age, fourhorned limestone als. – developed from the monolithic al. type – were also influenced by LBA horned portable terracotta stands from Syria (Gitin 2002:​ 96; Zwickel 2010:​107). The standardized types in Palestine and Transjordan (Daviau 2007) have a square or round appearance with a depression on the upper surface often flanked by four stylized horns (Zwickel 1990:​116–124; 2010:​106; Gitin 2002; 2009; Zevit 2001:​306–314; Fritz 2007:​

Altar/s (al./als.)

23 

24

1

2

3

5

4

6 0

7 5

10

15

20 cm

Figure Altar #1: 1–7) Stone altars from Ekron (Iron Age II).

163). 47 stone als. of similar shape date to Iron Age II. They were found in cultic and domestic contexts. One of the largest groups of als., containing 18 limestone items, is known from an Iron Age con-

text at the Philist. site of Ekron (Gitin 1989; 2002:​ 107, 112–113) (→ fig. Altar #1). Three other examples originate from Ashkelon. A  unique, nearly complete four-horned clay al. of ca. 24 cm h and

25

Altar/s (al./als.)

26

3

1

2

0

20 cm

4 0

10 cm

Figure Altar #2: 1–4) Stone altars from Khirbet al-Mudayna (Iron Age II).

size at base 12.5×13 cm with a square base divided by a band into a lower and an upper part was found in a repository pit in Philist. Yavneh. The nearly square platform is decorated with a second band of ca. 18 cm on each side. Signs of burning, perhaps incense, are visible on the 16.0×17.3 cm wide platform (Zwickel 2007a:​​27; 2010). A portable cylindrical al. has been found in situ in a sanctuary that was erected on the acropolis of Khirbet ʿAtarus. Inscribed with seven lines of text in Moabite script and language in two separate inscriptions, the 50 cm high and 18.5 cm in diameter al. can be dated to the 9th–8th cent.; it may have been used for burning incense (Ji 2018). Three limestone als. are known from an 8th cent.

b.c.e. Moabite sanctuary at Khirbet al-Mudayna (→ fig. Altar #2). They are each of a different type, probably due to their specific function in the temple (Daviau/​Steiner 2000:​1, 8–14; Daviau 2007:​125–136). Two of them have a quadrangular shaft, while the third al. has a conical base and a cylindrical stem (→ fig. Altar #2:2). The latter 0.96 m high al. (MT-4/15), with a bowl-shaped depression on top, displays a painted stylized palm tree on its shaft. An exceptional dedicatory inscription adjacent to the tree identifies it as an incense al. and mentions the name of the artisan as well as the owner. The text reads “the incense altar that Elishama made for ysp, the daughter of ʾwt” (Dion/​ Daviau 2000:​4–5). Traces of black and red paint,

Altar/s (al./als.)

27 

forming a row of rhombs are preserved on the exterior face of the upper rim of square al. MT-4/11 (preserved h 0.72–0.80 m, shaft 30.5×34.0 cm [→ fig. Altar #2:1, col. 26]). The top has a circular depression of ca. 10 cm in diameter and a depth of 10 cm as well as a hole with a diameter of ca. 1.5 cm that opened into the depression and was probably used for liquid libations. 25 additional als. were recovered from domestic and industrial contexts (Daviau 2007; 2012). 5.–6.  The noun mizbeaḥ occurs 401 times in the HB. It covers the semantic scope of “place of slaughter,” “sacrificial site,” “altar of burnt offering,” “incense altar,” “temple table,” etc., a fact that is paralleled by the multiplicity of archaeologically attested types and forms of als. There was no definitive al. type in ancient Israel, and very different sizes were possible (compare 1 Kgs 8:54, 64 to 1 Kgs 12:32–33). In the Primeval Narrative (Gen 8:20) and in the narratives of the Patriarchal period, the patriarchs usually built an al. to YHWH (Gen 12:7–8; 13:18; 22:9; 26:25) without mentioning further details. The Priestly Code includes the accounts of transportable als.: the wooden table for the Bread of the Presence (Ex 25:23–30), the wooden incense al. (Ex 30:1– 10), and the al. of burnt offering which is described as a wooden horned al. with a metal firepan with the measurements of 5 by 5 by 3 cubits (Ex 27:1–8). Despite the central position of als. in any sanctuary, the account of the temple construction in 1 Kgs 6:22 mentions only the incense al. before the Holy of Holies, but not the al. of burnt offerings in the outer courtyard. The al. legislation of Ex 20:24–26 (Vorlage of Dt 27:4–7) restricts the construction material of als. of burnt offerings to unhewn stones. Any access on the al. by steps is forbidden. This basic construction is attested in the al. of burnt offerings in the courtyard of the sanctuary at Arad (Iron Age II).

7.  Aharoni, Y., 1968, Arad, BA 31:2–32  ♦ Albertz, R./​Schmitt, R., 2012, Family and Household Religion in the Ancient Near East and the Levant, Winona Lake  ♦ Amiet, P., 1966, Elam, Auvers-sur-Oise  ♦ Barnett, R. D., 1976, Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, Oxford ♦ Bergquist, B., 1993, Bronze Age Sacrificial Koine in the Eastern Mediterranean? A Study of Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, in: J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, OLA 55, Leuven:​11–43 ♦ Bjorkman, J., 2008, Mesopotamian Altar Deposits, in: R. D. Biggs et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005, SAOC 62, Chicago:​361–369 ♦ Botta, P. E./​Flandin, E., 1849– 1850, Monuments de Ninive, 5 vols., Paris ♦ Buccellati, G./​Kelly-Buccellati, M., 1993–1997, Mozan, Tall, RlA 8:386–392 ♦ Burkert, W., 1976, Opfertypen und antike Gesellschaftsstruktur, in: G. Stephenson (ed.),

28 Der Religionswandel unserer Zeit im Spiegel der Religionswissenschaft, Darmstadt:​168–187  ♦ Cholidis, N., 2008, Altar, no. 131–132, in: J. Marzahn et al. (eds.), Babylon, Wahrheit (Ausstellungskatalog), Berlin:​204– 206 ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2007, Stone Altars Large and Small: The Iron Age Altars from Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan), in: S. Bickel et al. (eds.), Bilder als Quellen – Images as Sources (FS Othmar Keel), OBO Special Vol., Fribourg/​Göttingen:​125–149  ♦ 2012, Diversity in the Cultic Setting: Temples and Shrines in Central Jordan and the Negev, in: J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult, ADPV 41, Wiesbaden:​435–458 ♦ Daviau, P. M. M./​Steiner, M., 2000, A Moabite Sanctuary at Khibat al-Mudayna, BASOR 320:1–21 ♦ Diamant, S./​ Rutter, J., 1969, Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and Possible Connections with the Minoan Horns of Consecration, AnSt 19:147–177 ♦ Dion, P. E./​ Daviau, P. M. M., 2000, An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan), ZDPV 116:1– 13 ♦ Du Plat Taylor, J., 1957, Myrtou-Pigadhes, Oxford  ♦ Frankfort, H., 51996, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Pelican History of Art, New Haven ♦ Fritz, V., 2007, Altar. II. Israel, in: H. D. Betz et al. (eds.), Religion Past & Present 1, Leiden/​Boston:​ 162–163 ♦ Gadegaard, N. H., 1978, On the So-called Burnt Offering Altar in the Old Testament, PEQ 110:35– 45 ♦ Galling, K., 1925, Der Altar in den Kulturen des alten Orients, Berlin ♦ 1937, Altar, BRL:13–16 ♦ Gitin, S., 1989, Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Context and Typology, EI 20:52–57 ♦ 2002, The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective, in: B. M. Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place, Winona Lake:​95–123 ♦ 2009, The Late Iron Age II Incense Altars from Ashkelon, in: J. D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée (FS Lawrence E. Stager), Winona Lake:​ 127–136 ♦ Haines, R. C., 1971, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch 1, OIP 95, Chicago ♦ Harper, P. O./​Aruz, J./​ Tallon, F., 1992, The Royal City of Susa, New York ♦ Hassell, J., 2005, A Re-examination of the Cuboid Incense-Burning Altars from Flinders Petrie’s Palestinian Excavations at Tell Jemmeh, Levant 37:133–163 ♦ Herzog, Z., 2002, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report, TA 29:3–109 ♦ Herzog, Z./​Aharoni, M./​ Rainey, A. F., 1987, Arad: An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple to YHWH, BAR 13.2:16–35 ♦ Hitchcock, L., 2008, Architectures of Feasting, in: L. A. Hitchcock et al. (eds.), Dais, Aegaeum 29, Chicago:​317–326 ♦ Janowski, B., 1980, Erwägungen zur Vorgeschichte des israelitischen šelamîm-Opfers, UF 12:231–259  ♦ Ji, C., 2018, A  Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat Ataruz, Jordan: Stratigraphy, Findings, and Archaeological Implications, Levant 50.2:1–38 ♦ Langenegger, F., et al., 1950, Tell Halaf, vol. 2: Die Bauwerke, Berlin ♦ Ławecka, D., 2018, Libation for the Gods in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia, in: B. Horeijs et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th ICAANE 1, Wiesbaden:​289–300  ♦ Margueron, J.‑C., 1993–1997, Meskene (Imar/​Emar), RlA 8:84–93 ♦ Metzger, M., 1983, Über die spätbronzezeitlichen Tempel, in: R. Hachmann (ed.), Frühe Phöniker im Libanon, Mainz:​66–78 ♦ 1993, Kamid el-Loz, vol. 8: Die spätbronzezeitlichen Tempelanlagen, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 40, Bonn  ♦ Müller-Karpe, H., 1974, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Kupferzeit, III.3, Munich ♦ 1980, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Bronzezeit, IV.3, Munich ♦ Nicolle, C., 2005, L’identification des vestiges archéologiques de l’aniconisme à l’époque Amorrite, in:

Amulet/s (am./ams.)

29

30

J.‑M. Durand/​C. Nicolle/​L. Marti (eds.), Le culte des pierres et les monuments commémoratifs en Syrie Amorrite, Mémoires de Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 9, Paris:​177–189  ♦ Orthmann, W., 1985, Der Alte Orient, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14, Berlin ♦ Otto, A., 2013, Gotteshaus und Allerheiligstes in Syrien und Nordmesopotamien während des 2. Jts. v. Chr., in: K. Kaniuth et al. (eds.), Tempel im Alten Orient, ICDOG 7, Wiesbaden:​355–383 ♦ Parrot, A., 1957, Le Musée du Louvre et la Bible, Paris ♦ 1958, Mission archéologique de Mari, vol. 2: Le Palais, 2: Peintures murales, BAH 69, Paris ♦ Porada, E., 1985, Iranische Kunst, Altartisch, in: W. Orthmann, Der Alte Orient, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14, Berlin:​385  ♦ Reichert, A., 21977, Altar, 2BRL:5–10 ♦ Sallaberger, W., 2013, “Altar” und parakku – Zur Außenansicht der Tempel von Babylon, ZA 103.1:38–42 ♦ Schirmer, W., 1985, Hethitische Architektur, Guzana, in: W. Orthmann, Der Alte Orient, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14, Berlin:​399–419 ♦ Seidl, U., 2003–2005, Opfer. B. I. In der Bildkunst. Mesopotamien, RlA 10:102–106 ♦ Sfameni Gasparro, G., 2007, Altar. I. Religious Studies, in: H. D. Betz et al. (eds.), Religion Past & Present 1, Leiden/​Boston:​161–162 ♦ Thompson, R. C./​Hutchinson, R. W., 1929, The Excavations on the Temple of Nabu at Nineveh, Archaeologia 79:104–108 ♦ Unger, E., 1928, Altar, RlA 1:73–75 ♦ Webb, J., 1977, Late Cypriote Altars and Offering Structures, RDAC 114.3:113–130  ♦ Werner, P., 1994, Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordsyrien und Südostkleinasien vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jt. v. Chr., Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 15, Munich/​Vienna ♦ Woolley, L., 1955, Alalakh, London ♦ Wright, G. E., 1965, Sechem, New York/​Toronto  ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1961, Hazor III–IV, Jerusalem  ♦ Yon, M., 1984, Sanctuaires d’Ougarit, in: G. Roux (ed.), Temples et Sanctuaires, Paris:​37–50 ♦ Zevit, Z., 2001, The Religions of Ancient Israel, London ♦ Zwickel, W., 1990, Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte, OBO 97, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 1994, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel, FAT 10, Tübingen ♦ 2007a, Clay Altar, in: I. Ziffer/​R. Kletter (eds.), In the Field of the Philistines, Tel Aviv:​27*, 86–87 ♦ 2007b, Der Hörneraltar auf Siegeln aus Palestina/​Israel, in: S. Bickel et al. (eds.), Bilder als Quellen  – Images as Sources (FS Othmar Keel), OBO Special Vol., Fribourg/​Göttingen:​269–291 ♦ 2010, Clay and Stone Altars and a Piece of Mortar, in: I. Ziffer/​R. Kletter/​W. Zwickel (eds.), Yavneh 1, OBO.SA 30, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​105–109. Joachim Bretschneider

symbol, a souvenir, sign of loyalty and affiliation, and as a sign of personal and intimate rel. relationship to a special deity. The accumulation of ams. was a usual practice to enforce their power (Berlejung 2010). Ams. were worn on strings bound around the neck or wrist. As part of personal property, they were buried together with the former owner. Some ams. were esp. produced for the grave (e. g., heart-scarabs; attested since the 13th Dyn.). Ams. were usually sold and bought in → sanctuaries and temples, where the visitor could acquire a devotional object as portable divine presence (Berlejung 2013) and protective medium. 2. The shape of ams. can vary considerably: natural objects, for instance, precious and semi-precious stones, → shells, plants, small animals or parts of them, but also artifacts such as → gems/beads, → seals, scarabs, scaraboids, conoids and cowroids (= scaraboids with an elongated base and a back that resembles a stylized cowrie shell), teardropshaped, bull-shaped or geometrically shaped pendants with pendant eye/drilling (including coins) could be used. The main focus here is on text-ams. and figurative object- and image-ams. which have not been used for sealing. The latter are depicting an item, a human body or parts of it, plants, animals, astral, solar, lunar or symbols referring to special divinities or to any superhuman power. Combinations of anthropom. and theriom. elements as well as isolated hieroglyphs come from Egypt. Images of → demons can be used as am. (e. g., Pazuzu in Edom; CSAPI/1:782–783). The iconography of ams. in Palestine (and Phoenicia) is influenced primarily by Egypt, but Mesop., Syr., or local elements can also be distinguished. The objects themselves can be imported or locally produced. Ams. in the shape of a stick of bone (decorated with circles) which can be interpreted as a club (against demons?) are a local Palest. product of the Iron Ages IA–IIC (→ fig. Amulet #1:1, col. 31). A later de­velopment are text-ams. consisting of a powerful text or charm (curse or benediction). The external shape of ancient text amulets can be differentiated into three main types: 1) gems/pearls, roll-seal-like and clay bulla-like or geometrically shaped objects that have a device so that they can be threaded. 2) Rolls of thin metal sheet, linen, or papyrus, kept in capsules with a hanging device (probably originating in Egypt). Papyrus and linen can also be folded if necessary. In Phoenicia they are only attested from the 7th/6th cent. b.c.e. and later, in Palestine only in later periods (see below). 3) Small writing tablets made of clay, stone, or metal with hanging device (probably originating from Mesopotamia). Between object- and text-ams. exists the large group of object-ams. with short Eg. rel. inscriptions,

Amulet/s (am./ams.) 1.  Ams. are small objects to be worn on the body (or placed on → gates or → houses), they are instruments of → magic with positive superhuman powers and two functions: they fight against negative powers and attract the positive ones. Since ams. are regarded as power-shields, they are often worn by people who are in dangerous situations (men in war, people on journeys or in court, kings and women in labor), or by people who are unable to protect themselves (women, children, dead persons in the → tomb). Ams. are used as protective and apotropaic media and as remediary means (e. g., against infertility, impotence), as a status

Amulet/s (am./ams.)

31 

2

3 1

0

1

2 cm

Figure Amulet #1: 1) Club shaped pendant from Gezer (Iron Age II); 2) Cat amulet from Lachish (Iron Age II); 3) Scaraboid with Isis feeding the child Horus from ʿAtlit (Bab.-Pers. period).

known from the LBA until the Hell. period (Herrmann 2006:​40, 48). 3.  The materials of object- and image-ams. differ considerably. Local bone, clay, imported → ivory, precious → metals, lead, or bronze can be used. While (imported) precious and semi-precious stones are only rarely attested, the most frequent materials are faience and frit (→ glaze). Moulds seem to indicate local workshops. Under Phoen. influence → glass came into use. Text-ams. are made of silver, bronze, copper, gold, lead, parchment, linen, or papyrus (→ writing materials). Maybe the choice of the material had aesthetical and magical properties. The use of precious materials was a symbol of status of the owner but also expression of his/her aesthetical preferences and of the culturally determined belief that some materials have magical powers (blue lapis lazuli had some affinity to the heavens, the gold to the sun, etc.). Silver and gold are rarely used in Iron Age Palestine as material for ams. or seals. They are mostly limited to the Eg. New Kingdom and the Pers. period (CSAPI/​I:140). Silver and gold settings for scarabs are often attested in the MBA and LBA. After a gap they have a revival in the Iron Age IIC and Pers. periods. A specific am.type are metal capsules with loop and contents. It probably originates from Egypt, but is also attested in the Phoen.-Punic economic and cultural area

32

from the 7th cent. b.c.e. onwards; one such item has been found in recent Ashdod-yam excavations (Berlejung/​Fantalkin 2017). 4A.  Object- and image-ams. The very first attestations of this type of am. (depicting objects or anthropom./theriom. images) can be dated to the Neolithic Age, while they are still in use at some places to the present day. 4.1.  In Egypt (Quack 2022) scarabs were worn as mere object-am., but from the 1st Intermediate Period on the beetle was combined with a base which could be decorated on the bottom. The scarab could now also be used as a seal. Starting in the Middle Kingdom, the scarab became the most important am. and seal in Egypt. Their import to Palestine started in the 12th Dyn. while the local production seems to have been initiated at the beginning of the 13th Dyn. Local products copied the Eg. style and scarabs were decorated with crosses, circles, or other geometrical elements, pseudo-hieroglyphs, Eg. deities, local gods, → hybrid creatures, cartouches with names of famous pharaohs, images of animals or plants (→ iconography of animals; → iconography of plants), sometimes combining Eg. and Asiat. iconography. In the LBA, scarabs usually were Eg. imports as were the widespread anthropom. and theriom. image- and the object-ams. (Herrmann 2006:​5; see the assemblage of Eg. ams. in Azekah, Koch et al. 2017; Lipschits et al. 2019). Udjat-eyes, Pataikos- and Bes-shaped ams. are the most prominent am.-types in Palestine from the LBA to the Hell. period. But also Isis-Hathor-Mut with the Horus-child (mostly Iron Age II), felineheaded figures (Bastet/​Sekhmet; imports starting in LB II with a zenith in the 10th–8th cent. and only a few pcs. in later periods), cats (mostly Iron Age IIB), lions (mostly Bab.-Pers. periods) and baboon-shaped ams. (mostly LB II and Iron Age I) are already attested, even though their frequency increases only in later periods. New in the LBA are animal-shaped scaraboids (fish, frog, duck, cat, monkey); in Palestine also scaraboids with a human face, udjat-eye, ram’s-head, or items with the name and/or image of Amun-Re, Hathor, or Ptah occur. The Amarna period created new am.types in the shape of plants and moon-ams. which found their way into the Eg. provinces. From LB IIA on ams. of Syr. provenience can be found. Some local trends can be sketched: Cat-ams. are mainly attested in the S of Palestine (→ fig. Amulet #1:2), in the N they are only known from the Eg. centers Megiddo and Beth-Shean. The cat, sometimes lying on its side (first attestation LB II Beth-Shean), is more often depicted in an upright sitting position (mostly Iron Age II; Herrmann 1994:​525–526). The Eg. ams. of LB IIB–Iron Age

Amulet/s (am./ams.)

33

34

I were usually made in a mould, the reverse was not modelled. Their style is quite simple, neglecting details: Bes is depicted without his feathered crown, Pataikos is only roughly made, and the udjat-eyes are smaller than in later periods. 4.2.  New in Iron Age Palestine is the conoid with depictions of animals, which could also be used as ams. Eg. imports continue in the Iron Age as well as the local production of Egyptianizing objects. Now, the iconography of scarabs, conoids, seals, image- and object-ams. shows a certain preference for sun-imagery (sun-disk, Horus, falcon, winged sun-disk; → sun and solar symbolism). The Eg. image- and object-ams. continue, even if they change their style: In Iron Age II the details are carefully elaborated and the reverse is additionally modelled. The result is a three-dimensional object. Characteristic for Iron Age IIA is a small vertical brace on the reverse of the objects which can be inscribed. In Iron Age Palestine and Transjordan the following Eg. am.-types are mostly attested: udjat-eye (now richly decorated and often with bicolor glaze), Pataikos (now wearing Ptah’s cap), Bes (now with feathered crown), and (mainly in the S) feline-headed beings, lions and cats (Herrmann 2006:​24). New is the am. with a tom-cat sitting on a lotus-pillar which can be linked with the rising young sun god (Iron Age IIB: Gezer and Tell el-Farah [S]) and a naked women as object-am. (Iron Age IIB), both typical for Southern Palestine. In the Iron Age IIC local products adopt Ass. and Aram. motifs with lunar-astral features (→ stars; → moon/crescent) maybe referring to the moon god from Harran and the Ass. Ishtar or local gods with the same profile. Ams. of Eg. style or origin are still in use. From Iron Age IIC on some new Eg. am.-types are attested in Palestine: Anubis, Heh, or Shu en face, papyrus-stalk, Thoeris (three-dimensional), Thoth and the white crown, Astarte and her horse. In Iron Age IIC till the Hell. period the Eg. ams. are mainly attested in the coastal cities which were under Phoen. influence, while the number of Eg. ams. declines in the hinterland. 4.3.  The tradition of Eg. or Egyptianizing ams. also continued in the Bab.-Pers. periods: udjateyes, Pataikos, Bes, Nefertem, feline- or lion-headed beings are attested. Some ams. are roughly hand-made neglecting iconogr. details (Herrmann 1994:​29, 34), while lead figurines seem to be more delicate (lead am. of Nefertem from Tel Michal, cf. Gorzalczany 2006). New are rabbitams., while Shu (en face; Sidi 2011), three-dimensional Thoeris, Thoth, lion-shaped and papyrusstalk ams. even increase in the Bab.-Pers. periods. Their frequency is centered mainly around the coastal cities. The same is true for the small signs

of the Phoen.-Punic goddess Tanit (Ashkelon, Tel Michal; Shalev/​Sari 2006:​99; however, see Arie 2017 with a Tanit-sign shaped am. from 11th cent. Megiddo). The scarabs of this period are mainly Phoen. products depicting Isis lactans (→ fig. Amulet #1:3), Bes, Heracles, or heroes fighting against lions. Local scaraboids and conoids show the winged sphinx, heroes against hybrid creatures, or wild beasts. Many glass ams. in the shape of human heads (male and female) have been found in tombs in Cyprus, Spain, Carthage, Sardinia, Egypt, and the Syro-Palest. coast suggesting their Phoen. origin and distribution. A  very singular find is a bronze capsule of 2.11 gr from Ashdodyam from the Hell. period (Berlejung/​Fantalkin 2017); it contained various materia magica inside: linen cords with knots beads, a piece of clay, and small pcs. of wood that come from the strawberry tree. 4B.  Text-ams. Text-ams. (Berlejung 2015) are attested in Mesopotamia (since the archaic period, increasing from the end of the 3rd mill.), Egypt (from the 12th Dyn., with a climax in the 22nd/23rd Dyn.), Syria (9th cent.), and Phoenicia (from the 7th/6th cent. b.c.e.). From Arslan Tash two limestone text-ams. with iconic elements (7th/6th cent. b.c.e.) are known (Garbini 1981; Pardee 1998; Berlejung 2010); a singular bronze pendant from Tyros (3rd cent. b.c.e.?) with Phoen. inscription and Egyptianizing iconography (Sader 1990; Schmitz 2002) shows a formula which is well known from numerous Phoen.Punic text-am. scrolls. These are  – following an Eg. tradition – written on papyrus, silver or gold sheets, then rolled and put into a capsule. These capsules, made of gold, silver, lead, or bronze are attested from the end of the 7th cent. b.c.e. in the Phoen.-Punic sphere of influence and contained text-scrolls and sometimes even small object-ams. (Quillard 1987; 2013). In Palestine, the dating is still debated of the ams. of Ketef Hinnom (am. 1: 2.75×1.1 cm/unrolled 9.7×2.7 cm; am. 2: 1.15×0.55/unrolled 3.9×1.1 cm), both locally produced rolled silver sheets. Following Renz/​Röllig (HAE 1:450) and Beyer (→ Introduction III: Epigraphy) the paleography and orthography support a date in the Bab.-Pers. (see also Berlejung 2008a; 2008b) or even the Hell. period, others (Barkay 1992; Barkay/​Lundberg et al. 2003; 2004) favor the 7th/6th cent. b.c.e. The text of am. 1 consists of parts of Dt 7:9 and Num 6:24– 26. Am. 2 also parallels Num 6:24–26 in a shorter version (without vv. 25b–26a). They can probably be considered as the forerunners of the later Tefillin (Torah verses worn at the hand and forehead, see Ex 13:9; Dt 6:8; Prov 1:9; 6:21). 20 silver Tefillin are mentioned on an Aram. papyrus from

Amulet/s (am./ams.)

35 

Edfu/​Egypt (ca. 300 b.c.e.; TADAE 3:C 3.28 col. 9:106). After a considerable gap only, small metal pendants with Pentateuch quotations in Samaritan script appear from the late Rom. period (Pummer 1987:​260–263; Gaster 1971). Also since the Rom. period, and increasing in Byz. times, rolled papyrus or metal sheets made out of lead, gold, silver, copper, or bronze (lamellae) are well-known. They are inscribed with magical charms or magical names (ATTM; ATTME; ATTM2; Naveh/​Shaked 1987:​40–110, 237–238; Schäfer/​Shaked 1994– 1999; Müller-Kessler/​Mitchell/​Hockey 2007; Bo­hak 2008; 2015), often in Aram., sometimes partly in Hebr. citing OT verses. 5.  Ams. are part of the personal belief and property of their owner from the Neolithic Age to modern times. Natural objects, seals, scarabs, conoids, iconic and symb. items of various materials could be used as ams. Palest. object- and image-ams. mostly depict motifs of the Eg. rel. symb. system. Text-ams. occur only rarely in Palestine (Ketef Hinnom), and never displace the iconic ones. The latter are mainly imported but some may also be locally produced following the local tradition or copying Eg. style. The decline of Eg. polit. influence and pre-dominance over Palestine did not touch on the attractiveness of Eg. ams. 6.  The OT refers to ams. usually without polemics and does not forbid them (Cant 4:9; Lam 4:1; Ex 28:17 ff; Num 15:38–39; Dt 22:12). Ams. in the shape of sun- or moon-disks are mentioned as part of the → jewelry of Jerusalemite women (Isa 3:18). Moon crescents as ams. of Midianite camels are known from Judg 8:21. Maybe Isa 3:20, 1 Sam 25:29, and Cant 8:6 refer to ams. Some parts of the clothing (→ clothes) of the high priest can also be considered as ams. (bells, pomegranates, Ex 28:33–34; 39:24–26). Only later texts attack ams. in the context of the bibl. ban against images: Ex 32:3, Hos 2:4, and Gen 35:4 connect ams. with the veneration of foreign gods. In 2 Macc 12:40 the use of ams. is related to the veneration of foreign gods and falls under the verdict of the monotheistic anti-iconic program of the Maccabees. 7.  Andrews, C., 1994, Amulets of Ancient Egypt, Austin ♦ Arie, E., 2017, The Earliest Known “Sign of Tanit” Revealed in 11th Century BCE Building at Megiddo, TA 44:61–71 ♦ Barkay, G., 1992, The Priestly Benediction of the Ketef Hinnom Plaques, TA 19:139–192  ♦ Barkay, G./​Lundberg, M. J., et al., 2003, The Challenges of Ketef Hinnom, Near Eastern Archaeology 66:162–171 ♦ 2004, The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom, BASOR 334:41– 71 ♦ Berlejung, A., 2008a, Der gesegnete Mensch: Text und Kontext von Num 6,22–27 und den Silberamuletten von Ketef Hinnom, in: A. Berlejung/​R. Heckl (eds.), Mensch und König, HBS 53, Freiburg et al.:37–62  ♦ 2008b, Ein Programm fürs Leben: Theologisches Wort und anthropologischer Ort der Silberamulette von Ketef

36 Hinnom, ZAW 120:204–230 ♦ 2010, There Is Nothing Better Than More! Texts and Images on Amulet 1 from Arslan Tash, JNSL 36:1–42 ♦ 2011, Amulettinschriften aus Syrien und Palästina, in: TUAT NF 6:305–314 ♦ 2012, Zeichen der Verbundenheit und Medien der Erinnerung: Zur Religionsgeschichte und Theologie von Dtn 6,6– 9 und verwandten Texten, in: A. Berlejung/​R. Heckl (eds.), Ex Oriente Lux (FS Rüdiger Lux), ABG 39, Leipzig:​ 131–165 ♦ 2013, Divine Presence for Everybody: Presence Theology in Everyday Life, in: N. MacDonald/​I. J. de Hulster (eds.), Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, FAT 2.61, Tübingen:​67–94 ♦ 2015, Kleine Schriften mit großer Wirkung: Zum Gebrauch von Textamuletten in der Antike, in: A. Kehnel/​ D. Panagiotopoulos (eds.), Schriftträger – Textträger, Materiale Textkulturen 6, Berlin et al.:103–126 ♦ Berlejung, A./​Fantalkin, A., 2017, Ein magischer Moment: Zu einem neuen Amulettfund aus Aschdod-yam, in: J. Kamlah/​R. Schäfer/​M. Witte (eds.), Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt, ADPV 46, Wiesbaden:​285–308 ♦ Bohak, G., 2008, Ancient Jewish Magic, Cambridge, U. K.  ♦ 2015, Amulets, in: R. Raja/​J. Rüpke (eds.), A  Companion to the Archaeology of Religion in the Ancient World, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, Chichester:​83– 95 ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2015, In the Shadow of a Giant: Egyptian Influence in Transjordan during the Iron Age, in: T. P. Harrison et al. (eds.), Walls of the Prince (FS John S. Holladay Jr.), Leiden/​Boston:​234–273 ♦ Garbini, G., 1981, Gli incantesimi fenici di Arslan Tas, OrAnt 20:277–294 ♦ Gaster, M., 1971, Samaritan Phylacteries and Amulets, in: M. Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Mediaeval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology, 3 vols., New York:​1:387– 461, and 3:109–130 ♦ Gorzalczany, A., 2006, A Lead Amulet of Nefertem from Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal), ʿAtiqot 52:109–111  ♦ Herrmann, C., 1994, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel, OBO 138, Fribourg/​Göttingen  ♦ 2002, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel 2, OBO 184, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2006, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel 3, OBO.SA 24, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ Koch, I., et al., 2017, Amulets in Context: A  View from Late Bronze Age Tel Azekah, JEAI 16:9– 24 ♦ Lehmann, G., et al., 2009, Ausgrabungen in Qubūr el-Walēyide, Israel, 2007–2008:​ Vorbericht, ZDPV 125:1–32 ♦ Lipschits, O., et al., 2019, The Last Days of Canaanite Azekah, BAR 45.1:32–38, 70 ♦ Müller-Kessler, C./​Mitchell, T. C./​Hockey, M. I., 2007, An Inscribed Silver Amulet from Samaria, PEQ 139:5–19  ♦ Müller-Winkler, C., 1987, Die ägyptischen ObjektAmulette, OBO.SA 5, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Naveh, J./​ Shaked, S., 21987, Amulets and Magic Bowls, Jerusalem ♦ Pardee, D., 1998, Les documents d’Arslan Tash: Authentique ou faux?, Syria 75:15–54 ♦ Pummer, R., 1987, Samaritan Amulets from the Roman-Byzantine Period and their Wearers, RB 94:251–263 ♦ Quack, J. F., 2022, Altägyptische Amulette und ihre Handhabung, ORA 31, Tübingen ♦ Quillard, B., 1987, Bijoux carthaginois 2, Louvain-la-Neuve ♦ Sader, H., 1990, Deux épigraphes phéniciennes inédites, Syria 67:315–322 ♦ 2013, Bijoux carthaginois 3: Les colliers: L'apport de trois décennies, Orient et Méditerranée 13, Paris ♦ Schäfer, P./​ Shaked, S. (eds.), 1994–1999, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza 1–3, Tübingen ♦ Schmitz, P. C., 2002, Reconsidering a Phoenician Inscribed Amulet from the Vicinity of Tyre, JAOS 122:817–823 ♦ Shalev, S./​Sari,

37 K., 2006, Persian-Period Metal Finds from Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal), ʿAtiqot 52:93–107 ♦ Sidi, N., 2011, A Faience Amulet from Rosh Ha-ʿAyin, Mizpe Afeq, ʿAtiqot 65:25–26. Angelika Berlejung

38

Animal Burial/s (an. b./bs.)

with human burials and, therefore, reflect funerary offerings (i. e., a ceremonial burial or remains of a partly eaten funerary feast; Oren 1997:​266; ­Wapnish 1997:​358–362; → fig. Animal Burial #1:1– 2, col. 39). The horses, which were buried within the human tombs at the necropolis of Salamis (CyAnimal Burial/s (an. b./bs.) prus; 8th–7th cent. b.c.e.), are a demonstration 1.  An. bs. are underground burials of complete of wealth and high social status (Karageorghis or mostly complete animal bodies. They can occur 1975:​29 ff). Equid burials occurred in some cases independently or be associated with human bur- as a temple or foundation sacrifice. ials (→ tomb). Archaeozoological finds of animal More than 30 dog burials from the 10th cent. skeletons that were not intentionally buried by b.c.e. were found near the temple of the healing humans do not belong to an. bs. (Ramos Solda- goddess Gula at Isin (cf. Fuhr 1977; and see gendo 2016). erally for the relationship between dogs and heal2.  Three groups of an. bs. can be distinguished ing cults, Lorenz 2004). The custom to bury dogs in ancient Palestine: an. bs. accompanying human in single pits or in proper dog cemeteries develburials, an.  bs. in cultic contexts, and burials of oped into a characteristic feature of the Levantine single animals (sometimes in animal cemeteries). coast during the Pers. period. Sites with dog bur3.  Mainly equids and dogs were buried, but also ials from the Pers.-Hell. period include Ashdod cats, birds, and other animals were buried as re- (5), Ashkelon (more than 1,250), and Dor (24 dog vealed by arch. evidence. burials; cf. the references for these sites by Dixon 4.  The oldest an.  bs. in Palestine are the dog 2018:​22–23). Arch. finds from the Lebanese coast skeletons that were found in association with Na- (i. e., dog burials at Beirut [Finkbeiner/​Sader tufian male burials (Wapnish/​Hesse 1993:​69; cf. 1997:​130–132] and Tell el-Burak [Çakirlar et al. further other early dog burials listed by Morey 2013]) strengthen the conclusion that this custom 2006:​160). A  similar find comes from C4yprus, developed under Phoen. influence. The dog buriwhere the skeleton of a cat was uncovered in a als from the Levantine coast show that these aniNeolithic human grave (ca. 9,000–8,000 b.c.e.). mals received a special reverence from the inhabIn Palestine, two dog burials are reported from the itants of the coastal plains during the Pers. period. Chalc. cemetery at Gilat (Wapnish/​Hesse 1993:​ 5.  Usually animals were not buried in the ANE, 69; Grigson 2006:​237–239, 242–244). Several and an. bs. occurred only rarely. The mental backdonkeys have been buried as foundation deposits ground behind ancient an. bs. differs sharply from in an EBA domestic quarter at Tell es-Safi (Green- what is behind modern pet cemeteries, which refield et al. 2018). A special case is ancient Egypt, flect a humanizing emotional connection between where an. bs. played a major role. Here, the oldest people and their animals. In the ANE and in the known animal cemetery dates to the late pre-dy- Eastern Medit., animals were buried either as statnastic time. In Egypt, an. bs. were closely linked us symbols of elitist groups (e. g., the horse burto animal cults, which were common throughout ials at Salamis), as sacrificed animals in temple the whole period of ancient Eg. religion (Fitzen- or funerary context (e. g., the MBA favissae at Tel reiter 2005). An. bs. from Mesopotamia include Haror and the equid burials from Southern Palesthe cattle buried inside the royal cemetery in Ur tine and the Nile delta), or as animals with a spe(26th cent. b.c.e.). cial relation to a certain cult or god/goddess (e. g., For the MBA in Palestine, arch. evidence comes the Levantine/​Phoen. dog burials). from the excavations of the temple area at Tel 6.  Many bibl. texts refer to a close relationHaror. Several favissae (pits for burying obso- ship between human and animal (cf. the metalete cultic material) were uncovered with sacrifi- phor of the Good Shepherd; e. g., Ez 34:11 ff). cial remains belonging to the temple (Oren 1997:​ Both humans and animals were created from 264–266). Among the finds, complete skeletons of earth (Gen 2:19) and were affected by the Flood birds and dogs were present, as well as the re- (Gen 6:5–9:17), as well as by the following new mains of two buried donkeys. These lead us to Covenant (Gen 9:9–11). This awareness of a spethe group of equid burials (donkeys or → horses), cial relationship between humans and animals which are a diagnostic type of an. b. in the area includes two aspects: 1) that both have to die of Southern Palestine and the Nile delta during (Ps 49:13, 21); and 2) that both loose the breath the MBA (Hyksos period; main sites: Tell el-ʿAjjul, of life with their death (Ps 104:29). In spite of Tell Jemmeh, Tel Haror, Tell ed-Dabʿa, Tell el- this, an. bs. are not mentioned in bibl. texts. This Mashuta; Wygnańska 2017:​150–153; Sapir- corresponds to the fact that an. bs. were not comHen 2020:​85–87). They were mainly associated mon in Iron Age Israel. Moreover, the Isr. disdain

Animal Burial/s (an. b./bs.)

39 

40

1

0

1m

2 Figure Animal Burial #1: 1–2) Equid burials from Tell el-ʿAjjul (MB II).

for wild and domestic dogs (they were considered as impure animals; cf. Ex 22:30) may be partly explained as an intentional separation from the es-

teem for dogs and dog burials that was dominant along the Medit. coast under Phoen. influence during the Pers. period.

Animal Horn/s (h./hs.)

41

42

7.  Çakırlar, C., et al., 2013, Persian Period Dog Burials in the Levant: New Evidence from Tell el-Burak (Lebanon) and a Reconsideration of the Phenomenon, in: B. D. Cupere et al. (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East 10, Leuven et al.:243–264 ♦ Dixon, H., 2018, Late 1st-Millennium B. C. E. Levantine Dog Burials as Extension of Human Mortuary Behavior, BASOR 379:19–41 ♦ Finkbeiner, U./​Sader, H., 1997, Bey 020: Preliminary Report of the Excavations 1995, BAAL 2:114–166 ♦ Fitzenreiter, M. (ed.), 2005, Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich, IBAES 4, London ♦ Fuhr, I., 1977, Der Hund als Begleiter der Göttin Gula und anderer Heilgottheiten, in: B. Hrouda (ed.), IsinIšan Bahriyat 1, Munich:​135–145 ♦ Greenfield, H. J., et al., 2018, Household Rituals and Sacrificial Donkeys: Why Are There So Many Domestic Donkeys Buried in an Early Bronze Age Neighborhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/​Gath?, Near Eastern Archaeology 81.3:202–211 ♦ Grigson, C., 2006, Farming? Feasting? Herding?, in: T. E. Levy (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult, London:​215– 319  ♦ Karageorghis, V., 21975, Salamis, BergischGladbach ♦ Lorenz, G., 2004, Asklepios, der Heiler mit dem Hund, und der Orient, in: R. Rollinger/​C. Ulf (eds.), Griechische Archaik, Berlin:​335–366  ♦ Morey, D. R., 2006, Burying Key Evidence: The Social Bond between Dogs and People, Journal of Archaeological Science 33:58–175 ♦ Oren, E., 1997, The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos Kingdom, in: E. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, Philadelphia:​253–283 ♦ Ramos Soldado, J. L., 2016, Structured Deposition of Animal Remains in the Fertile Crescent during the Bronze Age, Oxford ♦ SapirHen, L., 2020, Human-Animal Relationship with Work Animals: Symbolic and Economic Roles of Donkeys and Camels during the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant, ZDPV 136:83–94  ♦ Stager, L. E., 1991, Why Were Hundreds of Dogs Buried at Ashkelon?, BAR 17.3:26–42  ♦ Stager, L. E./​Schloen, J. D./​Master, D. M. (eds.), 2008, Ashkelon 1, Winona Lake ♦ Wapnish, P., 1997, Middle Bronze Equid Burials at Tell Jemmeh and a Reexamination of a Purportedly “Hyksos” Practice, in: E. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, Philadelphia:​335– 367 ♦ Wapnish, P./​Hesse, B., 1993, Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs?, BA 56:55–80 ♦ Wygnańska, Z., 2017, Equid and Dog Burials in the Ritual Landscape of Bronze Age Syria and Mesopotamia, ARAM 29:141–160. Jens Kamlah

ful for identifying cattle, sheep, goat, gazelle, and ibex (Schmid 1972). This method works best for mature specimens as the same approach applied to juveniles may render less reliable results. H. core preservation demonstrates interspecies and intraspecies variability. H. cores from males tend to be more resistant to taphonomic loss than those from females (Klein/​Cruz-Uribe 1984) and provide the basis for approximate age at death estimates (Armitage/​Clutton-Brock 1976). Sheep h. cores are softer and do not survive as often as those of goats (Grigson 1995). The h. core data can also indicate the presence of different breeds of domestic stock such as the longhorned cattle from Arad in EB II (Lernau 1978:​ 85), the possible four-horned sheep from EBA Jericho (Clutton-Brock 1971:​53), and the shortand long-horned cattle raised at Iron Age Lachish (Bate 1953:​410). Species recognition is of critical importance as it not only allows the faunal analyst the opportunity to consider the nature of an ancient community’s economy and their management of animal-based resources, but can also hold potential for reconstructing the local environment based on the animal’s known physiological requirements. 2.  Human interaction with animals (→ animal husbandry) can impact h. growth and development. The process of domestication has resulted in a general change in h. morphology that features a twisted or helically shaped h. in the domestic goat (Capra hircus). However, such morphological alterations cannot be considered a diagnostic signature of the initial stages of domestication as this change was delayed by several hundred years (Zeder 2005). The wild bezoar goat (Capra ­aegagrus) represents the most likely ancestor of domestic goats; cross sections of their h. core bases are the closest match to those of domestic goats (Davis 1987). Thumbprint sized depressions on the external surface of domestic sheep h. cores likely result from malnutrition or dairy exploitation (Albarella 1995; Hatting 1975). Depressions in cattle h. cores are caused by mechanical stress relating to yoking (Müller 1992). 3.  Animal hs. are a valuable raw material. Ethnographic data demonstrate the use of h. or bone tools in separating threads woven in a loom (Ayalon 1999). Superficial cut marks on h. cores may suggest removal of the layer of keratin for use as a container or strainer. Layers of h. keratin were used in the manufacture of composite bows because h. has compressive strength and effectively facilitates the transfer of energy about to be released from a drawn bow. Any kind of h. would do, but gazelle would have been preferred (Miller/​McEwen/​Bergman 1986:​184).

Animal Horn/s (h./hs.) 1.  Animal hs. consist of a h. core, a bony cranial extension which grows from the frontal bone and is sheathed in a casing of keratin. Hs. differ from antlers in that they are not branched, they are not shed seasonally, and continue to grow throughout the animal’s life. Hs. are mainly found on male animals but also appear on female specimens. On hornless females, the location on the frontal bone from which the h. core would normally develop may be marked by a subtle indentation that is on occasion accompanied by adjacent surface roughening (Hillson 1999:​10). H. core shapes vary and can be straight, curved, or twisted. These attributes, along with its exterior surface, cross-section, and internal density are species-specific and use-

Animal Horn/s (h./hs.)

43 

Well preserved composite bows are known from Egypt (McLeod 1958; 1962; 1970). The šofar, frequently mentioned in the HB and rabbinic sources, is a → musical instrument fashioned from a ram’s h. whose manufacture would have required separating the keratin of the h. from the bony structure of the h. core. Cut and chop marks near a h. core’s base has ethnographic parallels that demonstrate defleshing and skinning (Binford 1981:​ 104). It should also be considered that the purposeful removal of the h. from the skull, which can be accomplished without killing the animal, would have been a commonly employed strategy facilitating easier and safer animal handling. The practice of polling animals (removing their hs.) has been documented on sheep from Neolithic Ali Kosh, Iran (Armitage 1986). An early textual reference to polling oxen as a protective measure can be found in the Bab. Code of Eshnunna from the early 2nd mill. b.c.e. (Baker/​Brothwell 1980:​ 4). The first images of polled cattle occur in Eg. tombs dating to the middle of the 4th mill. b.c.e. (Reitz/​Wing 1999:​296); some breeds of livestock do not possess hs. 4.  Animal h. cores have been found in a wide variety of arch. contexts as they are known from urban centers and rural settlements, residencies and industrial areas, and → tombs and → sanctuaries. Some noteworthy examples of the occurrence of animal h. cores and their context bears mention. At Neolithic Çatal Höyük, Turkey, excavators found several cattle skulls with attached h. cores incorporated into the plastered building architecture (Mellaart 1967). The perimeter of the mastaba of the 1st Dyn. pharaoh Djet was lined with some 300 cattle heads modeled in clay with actual cattle h. inserts (Emery 1954:​7; Isler 2001:​77). The complete head of a 12th Dyn. sacrificial bull with attached hs. (and keratin) was discovered in a foundation pit near the pyramid at Illahun, Egypt (Burleigh/​Clutton-Brock 1980). Cattle skulls with attached h. cores are known from mortuary contexts from LBA Tel Dothan (Lev-Tov/​Maher 2001) and early Iron Age Lachish (Bate 1953:​410). A  ceramic bowl containing two ibex (Capra ibex) h. cores was recovered in the Chalcolithic shrine at ʿEin Gedi (Ussishkin 1980:​28). Most of the sheep and goat h. cores found in the 7th cent. b.c.e. Philist. temple at Ekron (Temple Complex 650) were spatially restricted to the eastern wing of the precinct (Maher 2004). The only bone recovered from the Iron Age II altar enclosure at Horvat Qitmit was a h. core of a sheep (Horwitz/​Raphael 1995:​ 290). 12 gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) h. cores dating to the 3rd mill. b.c.e. from a temple at Tell Asmar, Iraq, may have been related to offering

44

rituals since this species was almost exclusively represented by h. cores (Hilzheimer 1941:​23). It would come as no surprise if this interpretation of the importance of hs. is accurate, esp. considering the ancient Mesop. artistic tradition that depicted their gods with caps ringed with multiple rows of hs., likely done to underscore enviable qualities of the bull (e. g., power, strength, intimidation). 4.1.–4.2.  Cut marked h. cores are known from several sites which include the LBA → palace at Tel Aphek (Horwitz 2002:​546), Tomb 1 at Tel Dothan (Lev-Tov/​Maher 2001:​96), from Iron Age II at Horvat Rosh Zayit (Horwitz 2000:​224), and a Moabite fortress (→ fortifications) at Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ, Jordan. H. was also used to manufacture a wide variety of artifacts; most notable is its use as a component to strengthen the curves of the composite bow (→ weapons), first developed in Mesopotamia and introduced into Egypt in the LBA (McLeod 1958:​397). Depictions of the composite bow on reliefs found at the Aramean sites of Tell Halaf and Zincirli reveal that it was also used by other small polities in the Levant (Dion 1997:​303–304) during the Iron Age. 5.  Animal hs. and their associated cores are useful biological markers for identifying taxa, defining the nature of the animal’s interaction with humans as wild game or domestic stock, determining approximate age at death, as well as recognizing occupational and pathological histories.  In addition, the cultural importance of hs. is illustrated by their utility as a raw material for the manufacture of musical instruments, → tools, weapons, or decorations; hs. can serve as a trophy, offering, → votive, or vessel, and can – because of their symb. meaning – be incorporated into divine and royal → iconography. 6.  Blowing the ram’s h., or šofar, served as a signal to focus attention on an important event or ritual, in battle, in rel. ceremonies, for holidays, and at polit. events, such as the anointing of a new king (1 Kgs 1:34; 2 Kgs 9:13). This h. was carried by priests in procession when following the ark (Josh 6:4) and the trumpet was sounded to summon the tribes to battle (Judg 3:27; 6:34). Certain days in the rel. → calendar (Ps 81:4) and the beginning of the jubilee year (Lev 25:9) were to be announced by sounding the šofar. This sound tool was associated with ritual and became in the Hell. period “a distinct symbol of Jewish faith and of ethnic identity” (Waner 2014:​286). 7.  Albarella, U., 1995, Depressions on Sheep Horncores, Journal of Archaeological Science 22:699–704 ♦ Armitage, P. L., 1986, Domestication of animals, in: D. J. A. Cole/​G. C. Brander (eds.), Bioindustrial Ecosystems, Amsterdam:​5–30  ♦ Armitage, P. L./​Clut-

Animal (an./ans.) Husbandry (hu.)

45

46

ton-Brock, J., 1976, A  System for Classification and Description of the Horn Cores of Cattle from Archaeological Sites, Journal of Archaeological Science 3:329– 348 ♦ Ayalon, E., 1999, Corpus of Bone Artifacts, in: E. Ayalon/​C. Sorek (eds.), Bare Bones: Ancient Artifacts from Animal Bones, Tel Aviv:​18–72 ♦ Baker, J./​ Brothwell, D., 1980, Animal Diseases in Archaeology, London ♦ Bate, D. M. A., 1953, The Animal Bones, in: O. Tufnell, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, Oxford:​410– 411  ♦ Binford, L. R., 1981, Bones, New York  ♦ Burleigh, R./​Clutton-Brock, J., 1980, A Sacrificial Bull’s Head from Illahun, JEA 66:151–53 ♦ Clutton-Brock, J., 1971, The Primary Food Animals of the Jericho Tell from the Proto-Neolithic to the Byzantine Period, Levant 3:41–58 ♦ Corrington, J. D., 1955, In Search of Keratin, Bios 26:23–34 ♦ Davis, S. J. M., 1987, The Archaeology of Animals, New Haven ♦ Dion, P.‑E., 1997, Les Araméens à l’âge du fer, EtB NS 34, Paris ♦ Driesch, A. von den, 1976, A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Peabody Museum Bulletin 1, Cambridge, Mass. ♦ Emery, W. B., 1954, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty 2, London ♦ Grigson, C., 1995, Cattle Keepers of the Northern Negev: Animal Remains from the Chalcolithic Site of Grar, in: I. Gilead (ed.), Grar, Beer-Sheva:​377–452 ♦ Hatting, T., 1975, The Influence of Castration on Sheep Horn Cores, in: A. T. Clason (ed.), Archaeozoological Studies, Amsterdam:​345–351 ♦ Hillson, S., 1999, Mammal Bones and Teeth, London  ♦ Hilzheimer, M., 1941, Animal Remains from Tell Asmar (transl. A. A. Brux), SAOC 20, Chicago ♦ Horwitz, L. K., 2000, Animal Exploitation: Archaeozoological Analysis, in: Z. Gal/​Y. Alexandre (eds.), Horbat Rosh Zayit, Jerusalem:​221–232 ♦ 2002, Terrestrial Fauna, in: Y. Gadot/​E. Yadin (eds.), AphekAntipatris 2, Tel Aviv University Monograph Series 27, Tel Aviv:​526–561 ♦ Horwitz, L./​Raphael, O., 1995, Faunal Remains, in: I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Ḥorvat Qitmit, Tel Aviv:​287–302 ♦ Isler, M., 2001, Sticks, Stones, and Shadows: Building the Egyptian Pyramids, Norman ♦ Klein, R. G./​Cruz-Uribe, K., 1984, The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Chicago  ♦ Lernau, H., 1978, Faunal Remains, Strata  III–I, in: R. Amiran (ed.), Early Arad, Jerusalem:​83–113  ♦ Lev-Tov, J. S./​Maher, E. F., 2001, Food in Late Bronze Age Funerary Offerings: Faunal Evidence from Tomb 1 at Tell Dothan, PEQ 133:91–110  ♦ Maher, E. F., 2004, Food for the Gods: The Identification of Philistine Rites of Animal Sacrifice, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago ♦ McLeod, W. E., 1958, An Unpublished Egyptian Composite Bow in the Brooklyn Museum, AJA 62:397–401 ♦ 1962, Egyptian Composite Bows in New York, AJA 66:13–19 ♦ 1970, Composite Bows from the Tomb of Tutankhamen, Tutankhamen Tomb Series, Oxford ♦ Mellaart, J., 1967, Catal Hüyük: A  Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London/​ New York  ♦ Miller, R./​McEwen, E./​Bergman, C., 1986, Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery, World Archaeology 18:178–195 ♦ Müller, H. H., 1992, Archaeozoological Research on Vertebrates in Central Europe with Special Reference to the Medieval Period, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 2:311–324 ♦ Reed, C./​Schaffer, W. M., 1972, How to Tell the Sheep from the Goats, Bulletin – Field Museum of Natural History 43:2–7  ♦ Reitz, E. J./​Wing, E. S., 1999, Zooarchaeology, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Schmid, E., 1972, Atlas of Animal Bones, Amsterdam ♦ Ussishkin,

D., 1980, The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi, Levant 7:1– 44 ♦ Waner, M., 2014, Aspects of Music Culture in the Land of Israel during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods: Sepphoris as a Case Study, in: J. G. Westenholz et al. (eds.), Music in Antiquity, Yuval 8, Berlin et al.:273–297 ♦ Zeder, M., 2005, New Perspectives on Livestock Domestication in the Fertile Crescent as Viewed from the Zagros Mountains, in: J.‑D. Vigne/​ J. Peters/​D. Helmer (eds.), The First Steps of Animal Domestication, Oxford:​125–146. Edward F. Maher

Animal (an./ans.) Husbandry (hu.) 1.  An. hu. is the agricultural practice of breeding and raising livestock. The Hebr. word behemah designates mostly domestic animals (in contrast to wild ans. or birds, cf., e. g., Gen 2:20). Another word used for livestock is Hebr. miqneh. 2.  Stockbreeding occupied an important role in Ancient Palestine. Next to → agriculture, an. keeping was an important subsistence activity for settled farmers. In the human use of ans., one can distinguish between → hunting, an. management, and domestication. Hunting was practiced throughout the bibl. period, as was an. management, which included raising fish in ponds, keeping bees, or protecting and taming game. Domestication is characterized by human involvement in and influence on shaping ans. in both body and behavior. Domestication includes breeding and genetic manipulation of domesticated ans. and means that humans control an an.’s breeding, territory, and food supply (Clutton-Brock 1987:​ 11, 21). An. hu. is studied by paleozoology (or archaeozoology), a discipline that investigates the fauna of the past by analyzing arch. and hist. evidence (cf. Bo­row­ski 1998:​29 ff; Hesse 1995; Hesse/​ Wapnish 2002). These ancient sources of past human societies are complemented with ethnoarchaeological observations of modern societies (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​458–459). 3.  The earliest domestication of livestock occurred apparently in the Zagros Mountains, running from Southern Iran/​Iraq to Southern Turkey in the natural range of the mouflon (Ovis orientalis), a wild sheep. Only the mouflon appears to have contributed to the earliest domestic stock after 8,000 b.c.e. (Hesse 1995:​208). This process, thus, took place first in the mountain areas of the “fertile crescent” where these ans. naturally occurred and later spread to the Southern Levant. The use of livestock provided humans with meat, skins (→ leather), fibers, feathers, bones, → horn, → dairy products, and labor. 4.  According to Hesse, three systems of an. hu. existed by the time complex urban societies emerged in the ANE in the 4th mill. b.c.e., no-

Animal (an./ans.) Husbandry (hu.)

47 

madism, agro-pastoralism, and state-run enterprises (Hesse 1995:​210–212). According to Rosen (2017), the earliest evidence for goats and sheep in the deserts of the Southern Levant dates to the 7th mill. b.c.e. The animals were adopted into hunter-gatherer systems that ultimately developed into pastoral nomad tribal societies from the 6th to the 3rd mill. b.c.e. Nomadism is dependent on the economy of settled agricultural societies. In their permanent contacts with these settled societies, nomads trade some beasts from their herds and their products, such as milk, cheese (→ dairy products), horn, skins, etc., for food that farmers have grown (→ trade). The second system, a combination of farming and an. hu. at the village level, appeared in many parts of the ANE during the Neolithic. In the first developing states of the late 6th mill. in Iran and Mesopotamia, rural villages produced surplus livestock for the use of people living in the first cities. Soon the early states began to control the production and distribution of meat, milk, wool, and other an. products, giving rise to the third system, the state-run enterprise. This system came into existence first in Mesopotamia, where irrigated fields surrounded large cities and livestock was raised in remote pastures. With increasing complex social and economic organization during the Late Chalc. and EBA, a process called “secondary products revolution” occurred (Sherratt 1981; 1983). This process is characterized by an increasing use of an. labor. The use of the scratch-plow drawn by oxen first appears in the pictographic records about 4,000 b.c.e. at Uruk. Also from the 4th mill. comes the first evidence of the use of equids as pack animals (Sapir-Hen/​Ben-Yosef 2020:​85–87). Excavations in a → tomb at Givatayim, Israel, uncovered a donkey figurine with containers on its back. The figurine dates to the Ghassulian (Late Chalc.) period (Kaplan 1969:​31, and pl. 7). Another pack donkey figure  was found in an EB I tomb at Tel Azor (Druks/​Tsaferis 1970). The use of an. labor gave people the freedom to invest more human labor in other sectors of social and economic production, advancing the further development of complex social structures during the Bronze Age. 4.1.  The very first domesticated an. in the Neolithic was apparently not livestock, such as goat, but was the dog. As early as ca. 10,000 b.c.e. there is arch. evidence of dogs that helped humans hunt. Human settlement led to the unintentional commensal domestication of the house mouse (Mus musculus), the black rat (Rattus rattus), the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), the sparrow (Passer domesticus), and the pigeon (Columbidae). The result of recent DNA analyses on cats indicate

48

that all domesticated domestic cats are descended from only one wild cat subspecies – the African wild cat Felis silvestris lybica, which occurs in N Africa and the Middle E. The domestication of the cat coincides with human settlement and human interest to reduce mice, rats, and snakes. During the 8th mill. b.c.e., sheep, goats, and perhaps already cattle were domesticated for their meat, milk (→ fig. Dairy Products #2, col. 230), and body parts (Marom/​Bar-Oz 2013). Sheep and goats were usually herded together and constitute the category “small cattle” (Hebr. ṣon). They were well suited for the climate in the Middle E. Genetic research suggests an African (Eg.) origin for the donkey (Rossel et al. 2008). In the Southern Levant, donkeys and, perhaps, → horses begin to appear in the arch. record only at the end of the Chalc. (Greenfield/​Shai/​Maeir 2012). Their rareness and their role in figurative arts seem to indicate that donkeys were a very valuable asset. Horses appear first during the late 4th and early 3rd mill. b.c.e. in Anatolia. A horse bone was found in the EBA city of Arad. Horses seem to be even more prized than donkeys and received veterinary care as is documented in Ug. texts. By the EBA a rural and urban sector had emerged in Palestine and, in the case of Megiddo, there is evidence of a largescale urban an. “sacrificial system.” Thousands of bone fragments from sheep and goats were deposited in wide channels between the walls of monumental EBA temples (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​ 468, tab. 17:4; Wapnish/​Hesse 2000). The MBA economy continued the differentiation into a rural and urban sector with livestock, including sheep, goats, cattle, and equids (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​ 468, tab. 17:5). An innovation is the evidence of domesticated pigs in MBA contexts in Palestine; pig bones before that time are exclusively from wild boar. Information on an. hu. during the LBA is scant, but the available records do not suggest significant changes. Sheep and goat bones constitute 60–80 % of the available arch. evidence, while cattle accounts for 15–37 %. Pigs are rather rare with 1–3 %, and equids are represented usually by 1–2 % (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​460, tab. 17:6). Recent DNA research demonstrated that pigs were imported from Europe to the Southern Levant at the end of the 2nd millennium b.c.e. (Meiri et al. 2013). It is assumed that these imports are related to migrations of the so-called “Sea Peoples.” The domesticated camel (dromedary, Camelus dromedarius) appears in the Southern Levant for the first time in contexts of the 10th century b.c.e. and not in LBA levels at Tell Jemmeh as was previously assumed (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​471– 472; Sapir-Hen 2020; Sapir-Hen/​Ben-Yosef 2013).

Animal (an./ans.) Husbandry (hu.)

49

50

4.2.  During Iron Age I  an.  hu. was still based mainly on sheep and goats, representing 50–80 % of the recorded an. bones. Cattle usually accounts for 20–30 %, pigs for 2–4 %, equids for 2–3 %, and camels for about 1 % (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​ tab. 17:7). During this period, evidence exists of the exchange of ans. between rural producers and urban centers (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​468). The sheep to goat ratio and the age curve for the sheep/goat flock at Ai and Khirbet Raddana suggest that ans. were exported out of those rural communities (Hesse 1991). At the receiving end were probably urban sites where the abundance of ‘market age’ ans. in the contemporary sample could indicate the import of stock into that market (e. g., at Tel Miqne/​Ekron). During Iron Age II, few changes are recorded in the bone assemblages. Sheep and goats appear with 50–80 % among the recorded an. bones. Cattle accounts usually for 20–40 %, pigs for 1–2 %, equids for 1–2 %, and camels for about 1 % (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​tab. 17:8). In this period, there is evidence of export of livestock from urban sites to imperial centers. Wapnish has demonstrated that a strong distortion in the sheep/goat mortality patterns exists at Tell Jemmeh and Tel Miqne during the Ass. period and might best be explained by the export of ans. to distant markets in the imperial system or the feeding of resident troops (Wapnish 1993; 1996). Only a small number of chicken (Gallus domesticus) bones have been recorded in pre-Hell. arch. contexts. According to Hesse/​Wapnish (2002:​ 462), the dating of these associations is dubious, since, in many cases, contamination from later deposits cannot be ruled out. Usually, quite sudden and large concentrations of chicken bone finds occur when these birds arrive in a Levantine an. economy (Thesing 1977). Such quantities do not appear in Iron Age contexts. That these ans. were familiar during the 1st mill. in Israel is indicated by → seals with a rooster (e. g., Tell en-Nasbeh, 7th cent. b.c.e.). Other seal motifs which include fighting roosters also come from Palestine/​Israel (Keel/​Staubli 2001:​figs. 42–43; for other objects with depictions, see figs. 44–45). An etching on a Middle Ass. vessel shows cocks sitting in the trees (Benecke 1994:​fig. 226) Ancient Eg. chickens are also represented in works of art (Benecke 1994:​ fig. 227). Doves were perhaps bred already as early as Iron Age IIC in Palestine. Because of the dove’s enhanced homing instinct, they were used as message bearers (Benecke 1994:​387; Keel 1977:​ 103 ff; for dove motifs in Palestine, cf. Keel 1992:​ 139 ff). Doves were important as a cheap an. fit for sacrifice. Recent finds of straw and lime bee hives at Tel Rehov in the Jordan Valley demon-

strate that bee-keeping was practiced in Israel already ca. 900 b.c.e. There is early textual evidence of bee-keeping in other regions (in Egypt since the 3rd mill.; among the Hittites since the 14th cent. b.c.e. 4.3.  Information on an.  hu. during the Pers. period is scant (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​460; tab. 17:9). Sheep and goats account for 50–85 % of the recorded an. bones, cattle for 15–43 %, pigs for 1–3 %, and equids for 1–4 % in the available records. In the Pers. and Hell. periods, the distribution of chickens spread. In Ashkelon, for instance, a large number of bones of different chicken species were found (Hesse 1995:​220). 4.4.  During the Hell. period, sheep and goats were still the most popular domesticated ans. with 40–90 %, cattle with 30–54 %, pigs appear with only 1 % in many sites, but were recorded with 12 % at Tel Anafa and 16 % at Yoqneam. Equids account for 1–2 % in the arch. record and camels usually for 1 % (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​tab. 17:10). Many dovecots and underground columbaria were found in Judea and Idumea, for instance, at Mareshah (Kloner 2003:​figs. 4:1–3), and in Jerusalem dating to the Hell. period (Dalman 1942:​270–272). Mareshah also provided evidence of chicken bones. This species constitutes 40 % of the livestock species, a high ratio that has yet been observed in the Southern Levant. The preponderance of hens (females to males 2:1) is ascribed to their value in egg production (Perry Gal 2019:​205–206; Perry Gal et al. 2015). 5.  The ans. most frequently exploited in the bibl. world were domesticated during the Neolithic with few changes until the 1st mill. b.c.e., as far as species are involved. Changes did occur in an. management and the organization of an. hu. with the development of complex societies in the ANE during the Bronze Age. During the 1st mill., an. hu. was well established and practiced by agricultural and pastoral societies in ancient Palestine. 6.  Ancient Israel and Judah were a rural society closely acquainted in daily life with their live­stock (Janowski/​Neumann-Gorsolke/​Glessmer 1993). As a result, an. imagery left an important mark on Isr. consciousness expressed in proverbial sayings (Forti 2007). The ownership of ans. was a sign for wealth, as indicated by the Hebr. miqneh (cf. Gen 47:16–17; Ex 9:3, 19; Job 1:3, etc.), which means “acquisition, possession” in general, as well as the owning of livestock, in particular. The wealth of Job is manifested esp. in the (exaggerated) number of ans. he possessed (Job 1:3; 42:12; cf. Gen 4:20; 13:2; 26:13–14; 36:7; Zech 2:8). Ans. were kept in the farmhouse and in structures around it, such as stables (Hebr. ʾurwah, 2 Chr 32:28). Outside of

Animal (an./ans.) Husbandry (hu.)

51 

the settlement, ans. were kept in enclosures (gederah, 1 Sam 24:4; miklah, Hab 3:17, or ḥaṣer) or caves. Sheep and goats always appear in bibl. texts before cattle. The collective Hebr. word for sheep and goats is ṣon (Aram. in OT ʾmr). Among the sheep and goats are rams (Hebr. ʾayil), ewes (raḥel), as well as the male (kebes) and the female lambs (kibsah). Sheep were bred for their wool and their meat (1 Kgs 5:3; Neh 5:18). For sheep shearing in spring (2 Sam 13:23), the ans. were washed in a watering place (Cant 4:2, cf. 6:6). The meat of sheep was cooked or roasted (1 Sam 2:11– 17). The fat, esp. of fat-tailed sheep, was fit for sacrifice (Ex 29:22). Goats, esp. young ans., were eaten (Gen 27:9– 17; 1 Sam 15:22), and the goat hair used for → tents and textiles (→ clothes, → fabric and textiles). The skin was used as a water-skin (Gen 21:14). Ex 23:19 prohibits boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (cf. Ex 34:26; Dt 14:21; cf. Keel 1980). Cattle (Hebr. baqar or ʾelep) was used for its meat, horn, milk (→ fig. Dairy Products #2, col. 230), and labor, such as plowing (1 Kgs 19:19–21) (cf. → fig. Agriculture #1:1, col. 11). The OT Hebr. distinguished between bull (šor or par), cow (parah), and calf (masc. ʿegel or fem. ʿeglah). A harnessed team (yoke) of cattle is called a ṣemed. Cattle was kept in an enclosure (Hab 3:17; repet) and fed in a manger (ʾebus, Isa 1:3). Cattle labor was used on the threshing floor (Dt 25:4; 2 Sam 24:22) and to pull the plow or carts (1 Sam 6:7; 2 Sam 6:6). Fatted cattle were considered extremely valuable (Am 6:4; Ezra 39:18), and butchering a fatted calf was a special honor (Gen 18:7). Cattle ownership was a sign of wealth. Job’s possession of 500 ans. appears to be exaggerated (Job 1:3; cf. 42:12); 12 yoke of oxen are probably a realistic number for a very wealthy farmer (1 Kgs 19:19–21). Equids were a precious possession, esp. horses (Hebr. sus). There are almost no horse bones in the arch. record, and the few ans. in Iron Age Israel were probably mainly used in the military with → chariots (2 Kgs 13:7). In a number of bibl. texts, there is a polemic against horses and chariots (Dt 17:16; Mic 5:9). In 2 Kgs 23:11 the horse is related to the cult of the sun god (Shamash). Tripartite pillar structures in Megiddo Stratum IV were interpreted as horse stables, but the debate about these buildings continues. Although the donkey was a precious an. (Gen 32:15; Job 1:3), it was also a typical farm an., used for labor. The Hebr. word ḥamor designates the donkey in general, the female donkey was called ʾaton, and a pureblooded stallion was an ʿyr (Zech 9:9; cf. Gen 49:11). As precious ans., donkeys were used by wealthy and noble persons for riding (Judg 10:4; 12:14; cf. valuable white

52

donkeys in Judg 5:10). There are references to women riding donkeys (Judg 1:14; 2 Kgs 4:24). Donkeys were not fit for sacrifice (Ex 34:20). Mules (Hebr. pered/pirdah) are mentioned as a beast of burden (2 Kgs 5:17) and also suitable for riding (1 Kgs 1:33). The chicken is probably mentioned as śekwi in Job 38:36; they are not mentioned in earlier texts and apparently appear only in the 6th–5th cent. b.c.e. at the earliest. Fatted barburim birds (1 Kgs 5:3) are difficult to identify, and it is not clear what the “clean birds” in Dt 14:11 are. The pigeon (Hebr. yonah) (Jer 28:28; Ezra 7:16; Cant 2:14) was the sacrifice of simple people (Lev 5:7). Isa 60:8 mentions a pigeon loft. The pig (Hebr. ḥazir) was considered impure, and its consumption was prohibited (Lev 11:7; Dt 14:8). The prohibition of pigs has been repeatedly discussed in archaeozoology (cf. Hesse 1991). Although pigs were considered impure and unclean in many cultures of the ANE, there are abundant pig remains in the arch. records of Anatolia and Mesopotamia. In Egypt, pig meat was one of the basic foods of the working class in sites such as LBA Tell el-Amarna. In Iron Age Palestine, pig bones were relatively numerous in sites identified with Philist. settlements (SapirHen et al. 2013). Small amounts of pig remains (usually about 1 % of the bone finds) appear in the arch. record of Isr. sites during the Iron Age (Hesse/​Wapnish 2002:​Tables 17:7, 17:8). With the 5th cent. b.c.e., pig remains disappear almost completely in Judean sites. Thus, although pork was consumed in Iron Age Israel (cf. Prov 11:22), it was a rare food choice and the absolute prohibition may have been a relatively late, post-exil. phenomenon appearing in the bibl. tradition not earlier than Trito-Isaiah (Isa 65:4; 66:3) (Hesse/​ Wapnish 1997; Hübner 1989). The camel, more precisely the dromedary (Hebr. gamal), was a beast of burden (Gen 37:25; 1 Kgs 10:2; 2 Kgs 8:9) and also used for riding (Isa 60:6). It appears in Palestine beginning in the 10th cent. b.c.e. and was used mainly in the deserts by Arabs (Isa 21:13), Midianites (Judg 6–8), and Amalekites (1 Sam 15:3; 27:9; 30:17). The meat of camels was prohibited (Lev 11:4). The dog (Hebr. keleb) is considered impure (Qoh 9:4; Prov 26:11). It eats carcasses in the street (1 Kgs 14:11; Jer 15:3), is always hungry (Isa 56:11), and howls in the night (Ps 59:7). Dogs were used for hunting, as watch (Isa 56:11) and as shepherd dogs (Job 30:1); the cat is not mentioned in the HB. 7.  Benecke, N., 1994, Der Mensch und seine Haustiere, Stuttgart  ♦ Bo­row­ski, O., 1998, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel, Walnut Creek ♦

Apiculture (ac.)

53

54

Clutton-Brock, J., 1987, A  Natural History of Domesticated Mammals, Austin ♦ Dalman, G., 1942, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 7: Das Haus, Hühnerzucht, Taubenzucht, Bienenzucht, SDPI 10, Gütersloh ♦ Druks, A./​Tsaferis, V., 1970, Tel Azor, RB 77:578 ♦ Forti, T., 2007, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VT.S 118, Leiden ♦ Greenfield, H. J./​Shai, I./​ Maeir, A. M., 2012, Being an ‘Ass’: An Early Bronze Age Burial of a Donkey from Tell es-Safi/​Gath, Israel, Bioarchaeology in the Near East 6:21–52 ♦ Hesse, B., 1991, Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production, Journal of Ethnobiology 10:195–225 ♦ 1995, Animal Husbandry and Human Diet in the Ancient Near East, in: J. M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 1, New York:​203–224 ♦ Hesse, B./​ Wapnish, P., 1997, Can Pig Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?, in: N. A. Silberman/​D. B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel, JSOT.S 237, Sheffield:​238–270  ♦ 2002, An Archaeozoological Perspective on the Cultural Use of Mammals in the Levant, in: B. J. Collins (ed.), A  History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, Handbook of Oriental Studies: Section 1: The Near and Middle East 64, Leiden:​457–491  ♦ Hübner, U., 1989, Schweine, Schweineknochen und ein Speiseverbot im alten Israel, VT 39:225–236 ♦ Janowski, B./​Neumann-Gorsolke, U./​Glessmer, U. (eds.), 1993, Gefährten und Feinde des Menschen, Neukirchen-Vluyn ♦ Kaplan, J., 1969, ʿEin el Jarba: Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon, BASOR 194:2–39 ♦ Keel, O., 1977, Vögel als Boten, OBO 14, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 1980, Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes, OBO 33, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ 1992, Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden, OBO 122, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Keel, O./​Staubli, T., 2001, “Im Schatten deiner Flügel”: Tiere in der Bibel und im Alten Orient, Fribourg ♦ Kloner, A., 2003, Maresha Excavations Final Report, vol. 1: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, IAA Reports 17, Jerusalem ♦ Marom, N./​Bar-Oz, G., 2013, The Prey Pathway: A Regional History of Cattle (Bos taurus) and Pig (Sus scrofa) Domestication in the Northern Jordan Valley, Israel, PLoS ONE 8:2: e55958 ♦ doi: org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055958 ♦ Meiri, M., et al., 2013, Ancient DNA and Population Turnover in Southern Levantine Pigs: Signature of the Sea Peoples Migration?, Scientific Reports 3, article no.: 3035  ♦ doi: 10.1038/​Srep03035  ♦ Osten-Sacken, E. von der, 2015, Untersuchungen zur Geflügelwirtschaft im Alten Orient, OBO 272, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Perry Gal, L., 2019, Faunal Remains, in: I. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Maresha Subterranean Complex 169, Jerusalem:​197–212 ♦ Perry Gal, L., et al., 2015, Earliest Economic Exploitation of Chicken outside East Asia: Evidence from the Hellenistic Southern Levant, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America 112(32):9849–9854  ♦ Rosen, S. A., 2017, Revolutions in the Desert: The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Negev and the Arid Zones of the Southern Levant, London ♦ Rossel, S., et al., 2008, Domestication of the Donkey: Timing, Processes, and Indicators, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105.10:3715–3720  ♦ SapirHen, L., 2020, Human–Animal Relationship with Work Animals: Symbolic and Economic Roles of Donkeys and Camels during the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant, ZDPV 136:83–94  ♦ Sapir-Hen, L./​Ben-Yosef, E., 2013, The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the

Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley, TA 40:277–285 ♦ Sapir-Hen, L., et al., 2013, Pig Husbandry in Iron Age Israel and Judah: New Insights Regarding the Origin of the ‘Taboo,’ ZDPV 129.1:1–20 ♦ Sasson, A., 2010, Animal Husbandry in Ancient Israel. A  Zooarchaeological Perspective on Livestock Exploitation, Herd Management and Economic Strategies, Sheffield ♦ Sherratt, A., 1981, Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution, in: I. Hodder/​ G. Isaac/​N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past (FS David Clarke), Cambridge, U. K.:261–305 ♦ 1983, The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World, World Archaeology 15:90–104 ♦ The­sing, R., 1977, Die Größenentwicklung des Haushuhns in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit, Inaugural-Dissertation, University of Munich ♦ Wapnish, P., 1993, Archaeozoology: The Integration of Faunal Data with Biblical Archaeology, in: A. Biran/​J. Aviram (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Jerusalem:​426–442 ♦ 1996, Is ṣēnī ana lā māni an Accurate Description or a Royal Boast?, in: J. Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past (FS Gus W. Van Beek), Winona Lake:​285–296 ♦ Wapnish, P./​Hesse, B., 2000, Mammal Remains from Area J, in: I. Finkelstein/​D. Ussishkin/​ B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo III, Tel Aviv:​429–462. Gunnar Lehmann

Apiculture (ac.) – Bees (bs.), Honey (ho.), Wax (w.) 1.  Before sugar cane (Saccharum offinicarum L.) was introduced in the Levant, ho., fruit syrup (from grapes, dates, or figs), the pods of the locust tree (Ceratonia siliquia L.), and manna were the only known sweeteners. Ho. made by bs. from blossoms with nectar and from honeydew excelled as nourishment, and was also regarded as the quintessence of sweetness (Judg 14:18; Sir 11:3). Since the Neolithic period at the latest, people in the Levant have used ho. from wild bs., and since the first half of the 2nd mill., they have kept Apis mellifera L., while still using wild bees (Kelhoffer 2005). The honeybee was, additionally, the most important pollinator, esp. of useful plants, and, thus, was one of the most important domestic animals (Benecke 1994:​414–424; Weiss 1997). While documentation for Egypt is relatively good since the time of the 1st Dyn. (Boessneck 1988:​152–167; Kritsky 2007; Sagrillo 2001), the use of the honeybee in Mesopotamia allegedly became common only in the 8th cent. b.c.e. (Cavigneaux/​Ismail 1990:​403; cf. Lambert 1975), as reported in the inscription of governor Shamash-resha-usur who claimed that he brought bs. that produce ho. and w. to the gardens of the land of Suhu (Frame 1995:​ 281). 2.–5.  Documentation for Palestine  – esp. archaeologically  – is poor (Asen 1997; Forti 2006; Maiberger 1995; Neufeld 1978; Nigro/​ Rinaldi 2020). Palestine was famous for its ho. (e. g., Sinuhe B 80; Letter of Aristeas § 112) and was called the “land of milk and honey”

Apiculture (ac.)

55 

(e. g., Ex 3:8, 17; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; Dt 6:3; Josh 5:6; Jer 11:5; Ez 20:6, 15). In the LBA at the latest, ac. was an important branch of the economy in the public as well as the private sector (Naʾaman/​Goren 2009). Ho. was exported to Egypt and Tyros among other locations (e. g., P.CairoZenon 59251; Knapp 1991). It was used as food (e. g., Sir 39:26; → nutrition), → spice (i. e., Cotton/​Geiger1989:​163; no. 821), → medicine (e. g., Prov 6:8a–c LXX), and means of payment (e. g., 1 Kgs 14:3). In Judah, a tax was levied on it (Lev 2:12; 2 Chr 31:5), but in the cult it was a taboo (Lev 2:11). It could also be used to embalm people in the undertaking process (Merkelbach/​ Stauber 2002:​12; Jos. ant.Iud. 14.124). On Tel Rehov, in the northwestern lower city, in Stratum  V from the late 10th–early 9th cent. b.c.e., an apiary for Apis mellifera anatoliaca (Bloch et al. 2020) in the size of an industrial plant was partly excavated. On three oblong, low, parallel platforms stood beehives in three rows stacked on top of each other. A  single beehive consists of a cylinder made from unburned clay with a great deal of chaff. It is about 80 cm long with an outward diameter of about 40 cm. On one side was the entrance, 3–4 cm in size; the other side could be closed with a removable lid. The apiary may have had up to 180 beehives (Mazar/​PanitzCohen 2007; 2020). Scient. surveys have found evidence of beeswax and, thus, confirmed the interpretation as an apiary (Namdar 2008). In their traditional form, beehives like those of Tel Rehov, are still in use today (Dalman 1939:​106–109; 1942:​291–296; Taxel 2006; Mazar 2020). It is very likely that apart from these, beehives made from woven material were in use (AndersonStojanovi/​Jones 2002; Crane/​Graham 1985; Lüdorf 1998–1999; Page-Gasser/​Wiese 1997:​ 123–124, no. 74; Piccirillo 1993:​54–55). Next to ho., w. was the second most important apicultural product. W. was used as material to write on slates (Gaitzsch 1984; Buchholz 2004:​ 110–111), in metal workshops (→ metal working) for hollow casting and w. smelting (Bol 1985:​ 77–78), to impregnate → ropes, etc., for lighting (Büll/​Moser 1974), for encaustic painting techniques (Büll/​Moser 1974), and, in Egypt, for mummification (Germer 1997:​22–23). 6.  Domestication and the use of wild ho. are mentioned in Dt 32:13; Judg 14:7–8; 1 Sam 14:26– 30; Mk 1:6; and Mt 3:4, and the trade in ho. is noted in Gen 43:11 and Ez 27:17. 7.  Anderson-Stojanovi, V. R./​Jones, J. E., 2002, Ancient Beehives from Isthmia, Hesperia 71:345–376  ♦ Asen, B. A., 1997, Deborah, Barak and Bees: Apis mellifera, Agriculture and Judges 4 and 5, ZAW 109:514– 533 ♦ Benecke, N., 1994, Der Mensch und seine Haus­

56 tiere, Stuttgart ♦ Bloch, G., et al., 2020, Identification of the Bees, in: A. Mazar/​N. Panitz-Cohen, Tel Reḥov 2, Qedem 60, Jerusalem:​621–629  ♦ Boessneck, J., 1988, Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten untersucht anhand kulturgeschichtlicher und zoologischer Quellen, Munich ♦ Bol, P. C., 1985, Antike Bronzetechnik, Munich  ♦ Buchholz, H.‑G., 2004, Der Werkstoff Holz und seine Nutzung im ostmediterranen Altertum, Weilheim/​Oberbayern ♦ Büll, R./​Moser, E., 1974, Wachs und Kerze, PRE.S 13:1347–1416 ♦ Cavigneaux, A./​Ismail, B. K., 1990, Die Statthalter von Sutu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr., BaM 21:322–456 ♦ Cotton H./​Geiger, J., 1989, Masada, vol. 2: The Latin and Greek Documents, Jerusalem ♦ Crane, E./​Graham, A. J., 1985, Bee Hives of the Ancient World, Bee World 66:23–41, 148–170 ♦ Dalman, G., 21939, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 6: Zeltleben, Vieh- und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang, Gütersloh ♦ 1942, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 7: Das Haus, Hühnerzucht, Taubenzucht, Bienenzucht, Gütersloh ♦ Forti, T., 2006, Bee’s Honey – from Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature, VT 56:327– 341 ♦ Frame, G., 1995, Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612), RIMB 2, Toronto et al. ♦ Gaitzsch, W., 1984, Der Wachsauftrag antiker Schreibtafeln, BJB 184:189–207  ♦ Germer, R. (ed.), 1997, Das Geheimnis der Mumien, Munich/​New York ♦ Harissis, H. V./​ Harissis, A. V., 2009, Apiculture in the Prehistoric Aegean, BAR IS 1948, Oxford ♦ Kelhoffer, J. A., 2005, The Diet of John the Baptist, WUNT 176, Tübingen ♦ Knapp, A. B., 1991, Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age Mediterranean Trade, in: N. N. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Jonsered:​21–68  ♦ Kritsky, G., 2007, The Pharaoh’s Apiaries, KMT 18:63–69 ♦ Lambert, W. G., 1975, Honig, RlA 4:469 ♦ Lüdorf, G., 1998–1999, Leitformen der attischen Gebrauchskeramik: Der Bienenkorb, Boreas 21–22:41–169  ♦ Maiberger, P., 1995, Honig, NBL 2:193–194  ♦ Mazar, A., 2020, Socioeconomic, Historical and Ethnographic Aspects of the Apiary, in: A. Mazar/​N. Panitz-Cohen, Tel Reḥov 2, Qedem 60, Jerusalem:​639–658  ♦ Mazar, A./​Panitz-Cohen, N., 2007, It Is the Land of Honey: Beekeeping at Tel Rehov, Near Eastern Archaeology 70:202–219  ♦ 2020, The Apiary at Tel Reḥov, in: A. Mazar/​N. Panitz-Cohen, Tel Reḥov 2, Qedem 60, Jerusalem:​597–617 ♦ Merkelbach, R./​Stauber, J. (eds.), 2002, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten 4, Leipzig ♦ Naʾaman, N./​ Goren, Y., 2009, The Inscriptions from the Egyptian Residence: A  Reassessment, in: Y. Gadot/​E. Yadin (eds.), Aphek-Antipatris 2, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 27, Tel Aviv:​ 460–471 ♦ Namdar, D., 2008, Appendix: Residue Analysis of Ancient Heated Beeswax, Qadmoniot 41:91–92 (Hebr.) ♦ Neufeld, E., 1978, Apiculture in Ancient Palestine (Early and Middle Iron Age) within the Framework of the Ancient Near East, UF 10:219–247 ♦ Nigro, L./​Rinaldi, T., 2020, The Divine Spirit of Bees: A Note on Honey and the Origins of Yeast-driven Fermentation, Vicino Oriente 24:185–196 ♦ Page-Gasser, M./​Wiese, A. B. (eds.), 1997, Ägypten, Augenblicke der Ewigkeit, Basel/​Mainz  ♦ Piccirillo, M., 1993, Mosaics of Jordan, Amman ♦ Sagrillo, T. L., 2001, Bees and Honey, in: D. B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 1, Oxford:​172–174 ♦ Taxel, I., 2006, Ceramic Evidence for Beekeeping in Palestine in the Mamluk

Archive/s (ar./ars.) and Library/Libraries (li./lis.)

57

58

and Ottoman Periods, Levant 38:203–212 ♦ Weiss, K., 1997, Bienen und Bienenvölker, Munich. Ulrich Hübner

forthcoming); the Murashu family ar. describing the situation in the years 455–403 b.c.e. (ca. 730  tablets; Stolper 1985); and the hieroglyphic Eg. state ars. and lis. of the same period filled with papyri, ceramic sherds, and lime tablets. The alphabetic ars. and lis. are not as large, because in terms of durability only ostraca (ceramic sherds) with ink writing can compare with burned clay tablets. → Leather, wood, or papyrus definitely cannot survive (except in desert conditions). Therefore only the more than 2,000 (almost identical) ostraca of Iranian economical texts from the royal Parthian wine cellars in Nisa/​Turkmenistan from the 1st cent. b.c.e. can additionally be mentioned here (Diakonoff/​Lifshits 1976). 3.  → Writing materials, ink, and writing tools. 4.1.  At the seaport of Ugarit (including Ras Ibn Hani) in Northern Syria at least 14 ars. from the 14th and 13th cent. b.c.e. (the time right before the conquest by the Sea Peoples) have been excavated to date. They contained far more than 1,000 Canaan. and Hurr. clay tablets with cuneiform alphabet script accompanied by cuneiform tablets in Akkad., Sum., Hurr., and Hitt. languages. Within the five ars. of the royal palace (occupying 16 rooms and several offices), international treaties, decrees, international and national correspondence, and economical texts of several types (concerning foreign → trade as well as national economy) were kept. Within the private ars. of upper-class, rich people (esp. those of scribes or secretaries), international correspondence and administrative or economic documents were found as well, but in addition (esp. in the high priest’s ar.) there were also lis. containing myths (Baal, Anath), profane epics (Keret, Aqhat), cultic texts, omens, invocations, mathematical and medical texts (concerning humans as well as → horses). Other documents, including multi-language dictionaries and school texts, which suggest at least six different schools within Ugarit managed by the owners of those ars., were found (Watson/​Wyatt 1999). Unlike in any other W Sem. city, the use of cheap, yet durable clay as writing material in Ugarit made an extensive and almost indestructible documentation of all texts from politics, administration, and lit. possible. Additionally the Ug. cuneiform alphabet established a close connection to W Sem. writing culture. Ugarit therefore offers unique insights on the whole spectrum of culture in a Syro-Palest. city of the 2nd mill. b.c.e. (Watson/​Wyatt 1999). The remains of the city of Alalakh (about 100 km northeast of Ugarit) have to be dated to roughly the same time. Its royal palace contained three ars., and another ar. (belonging to a “royal administrator”) was found outside of the pal-

Archive/s (ar./ars.) and Library/​Libraries (li./lis.) 1.  Because public and private contracts and decisions have been documented in written form in antiquity, and messages and instructions have been sent in written form, or (if they had been told orally) have been recorded, people set up ars. Within those ars., documents were temporarily deposited either by public administration or private persons. Letters and records, even drafts, were stored there. Public (→ palace’s, fortress’s [→ fortification], → temple’s) and private (priest’s, scribe’s, or merchant’s) ars. are important evidence for the polit. and social relations of their time, esp. if they haven’t been robbed and therefore have been preserved untouched. Actual lis., esp. universal lis. like Ashurbanipal’s in the Nabû-temple and palace in Nineveh in the 7th cent. b.c.e. (Pedersén 1998:​158–165), are rare. Lis. are often part of ars. They particularly provide insights into religion, lit., and science. Only those collections, which evidently have been thoughtfully constructed of comparable texts, are considered ars. or lis. For their placement in an ar., Aram. documents from Egypt (TADAE 2:fig. B1.1,19, et al.) and the Dead Sea (Papyrus Yadin 10:19) often had labels written on their sides, which in most cases mention the type of document, the scribe, and the individual involved. A li. can be made accessible via catalogues or colophones (concluding remarks). Clay bullae, → seals of decayed wooden or papyrus documents, which are found situated together, can of course be relicts of an ar. (Bogazköy, Pedersén 1998:​49–50; Jerusalem, Lachish, etc., HAE 2.2:91–433). Like old accumulations of discarded documents (or fragments) or pcs., which are found individually or derive from modern illegal excavations, they cannot be assigned to an individual ar. 2.  The huge dimensions of the cuneiform state ars. and lis. of the 3rd–1st mill. b.c.e. from Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria, Ebla, Mitanni, Elam, Hatti, and Egypt are not matched by the concurrent ars. and lis. of the ANE containing texts in alphabet script (→ Introduction III: Epigraphy). The cuneiform ars. and lis. could contain tens of thousands of clay tablets (up to a size of 0.5 m). Prominent examples would be: the Amarna ar. – containing more than 300 letters (with many Canaanisms) sent by Canaan. → city rulers from Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine to Pharaoh Amenhotep IV in the 14th cent. b.c.e. (Pedersén 1998:​38–42); the Bab. private ars. of al-Yahudu dated between 572 and 477 b.c.e. (Pearce/​Wunsch 2014; Wunsch

Archive/s (ar./ars.) and Library/Libraries (li./lis.)

59 

ace. Within these ars., lists, administrative documents, correspondences, and legal documents were stored, partly concerning the royal family. A  basket containing fragments of seven large clay tablets with incantations, omens, and hymns seems to be the remains of a li. which someone had tried to save from a fire. Everything in Alalakh reminds us of Ugarit, but the language of the texts is (if Sem. at all) the Bab. Akkad. written in cuneiform script. The alphabet and a Canaan. or Aram. language had not reached Alalakh (Pedersén 1998:​33–37). Taanach (8 km southeast of Megiddo) was populated with some interruptions since the 3rd mill. b.c.e. There an ar. consisting of seven Bab. Akkad. letters with W Sem. influence and five lists of personal names from the 15th cent. b.c.e. were recovered (Pedersén 1998:​37– 38; Berlejung 2006). Within other Palest. cities from this period, such as Hazor and Megiddo (Gilgamesh Epic fragment), there were individual rel. or literary cuneiform texts (Pedersén 1998:​15), as well as texts in Eg. hieroglyphs. Temples, palaces, schools, or private lis. could have been the context of those texts. 4.2.  Only a few old Hebr. ars. have been fragmentarily preserved (and those were quite small). The royal ar. of Samaria (8th cent. b.c.e.; cf. → fig. Palace #3:1, col. 724) contained 102 ostraca (partially undecipherable) inscribed with short, not precisely dated receipts for shipments of wine (→ viticulture) and → oil from the surrounding area (Num 26:29–34; Josh 17:1–3) to royal magistrates (HAE 2.2:79–109; Aḥituv 2005:​ 246–298) in Northern Hebr. There are very small ars. in Southern Hebr. from Arad in the Negev and Tell Jemmeh/​Philistia (about 700 b.c.e.) containing delivery notes consisting mostly of names (HAE 2.2:149–152, 253–256). Otherwise, there are only the ars. of Arad dating to ca. 600 b.c.e., prior to the destruction by the Edomites or the first advance of the Bab. king Nebuchadnezzar 598/597 b.c.e. (cf. HAE 2.2:348), and of Lachish (589/588 b.c.e., shortly prior to the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar). At Arad, there were 19 letters on ostraca to Eliashib, the commander of the fortress of Arad, by superiors and inferiors from the surrounding cities. More letters and lists (and seals by Eliashib as well) were found in adjacent buildings (HAE 2.2:353–387; Aḥituv 2005:​82–115). Within a room under the main city → gate of Lachish there were 21 ostraca with letters to Yaʾush, the commander of Lachish, from the commanders of military outposts (HAE 2.2:405–437; Aḥituv 2005). As a consequence of the polit. catastrophes in the 6th cent., the end of Hebr. as a spoken language (4th cent. b.c.e.) began to become evident.

60

4.3.  In post-exil. times, which were dominated by the Aram. language, there are more ars. and those were larger in volume. Even the Aram. term for “archive” appears from now on: Ezra 6:1 bet siprayyaʾ, the (Pers.) state ar. (of Ecbatana). Until 500 b.c.e. people wrote in an increasingly diverging Ancient Aram. (ATTM:23–28; ATTM2:13–16). From 500 b.c.e. onwards, uniform Achaemenid Imperial Aram. (ATTM:28–32; ATTM2:16–17) became the general Aram. literary language. Even later, about 200 b.c.e. the Post-Achaemenid Imperial Aram., diverging again (ATTM:32–44; ATTM2:17–25) was used, including the Hasm. in Jerusalem and Judah, the Nab. in the adjacent Arab. Empire of Petra to the S, the Bab. Documentary Aram. from the Jews of Babylonia, and the Arsacid in the Parthian Empire. Imperial Aram. was then overcome by local dialects between the 2nd cent. b.c.e. and the 4th cent. c.e. (ATTM:45– 69; ATTM2:25–41). Within this process legal documents were generally more conservative. During the First (66–70 c.e.) and Second (132–135/136 c.e.) Jew. Revolts against the Romans the Jews also wrote documents and letters in Rabb. Hebr. due to their patriotism. There were small private ars. of moneylenders (from the 7th cent. b.c.e.): from Assur containing seven ancient Aram. unredeemed debt-notes (Hug 1993:​21–23); from Tell Halaf containing five such tablets (Hug 1993:​25–27); and from Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Jordan (Hug 1993:​14). Besides, a call for help from the king Adon of Ekron to the pharaoh was found along with Eg. and G papyri in a clay jar from Saqqara (TADAE 1:fig. A1:1; about 604 b.c.e.) and a bundle of seven private letters from Memphis (shortly prior to 500 b.c.e.), which got stuck in Hermopolis near their destination (TADAE 1:fig. A2:1–6). Additionally there are 163 almost identical short texts of the financial administration of Persepolis (Teixidor 1974; 5th cent. b.c.e.), more than 100 short ostraca containing economical texts from Arad (Arad 2) and the surrounding area (mostly concerning wheat and barley). The 1,786 inscribed ostraca from Idumea are unprovenanced (Ephʿal/​Naveh 1996; Lemaire 1996–2002; Porten/​Yardeni 2014; 2016; 2018; Yardeni 2016) and some forgeries cannot be excluded. However, this corpus is still quite significant as it is the largest one from ancient Palestine. The time-span of the ostraca is not very long, namely from the end of the Achaemenid to the Ptolemaic periods (the dated ostraca cover over 60 years, viz. 365 until sometime after 302 b.c.e.); they could have belonged to an ar. Material from the beginning of the Seleuc. period is confined to what has been excavated in Mareshah. The Idumean ostraca corpus consists of numerous admin-

Archive/s (ar./ars.) and Library/Libraries (li./lis.)

61

62

istrative records and a few letter orders (mostly damaged and lacunic) which have minimal context (Zadok 2020). In contrast, the material from Maresha comes from controlled excavations and is more diverse. The southern foothills of Maresha have yielded more than 1,200 G and Sem. – a mainly Aram.  – inscriptions dated to the Hell. period (see E. Eshel 2010). Among them, 384 Aram. ostraca are from the Subterranean Complex 169. According to a preliminary survey, most of these ostraca and inscriptions bear names or tags. However, a group of ca. 137 Aram. ostraca, paleographically dated to the 3rd or 2nd cent. b.c.e., stands out from these 384 pcs. as a different literary genre. These inscriptions share a similar textual structure, characterized by two main elements, and were interpreted as divination texts (E. Eshel/​Langlois 2019), belonging to the li. of a priest, perhaps a professional diviner. This thesis is supported by the context: In this same subterranean complex a disproportionate number of other finds were uncovered that can be considered cultic in nature. These include astragals, aniconic kernos lamps, figurines, small domestic stone altars, and models of chalk phalli (E. Eshel/​Stern 2017). The li. of the diviner was in the Subterranean Complex 169 part of its larger ar. The centers of Aram. ars. were in Egypt in the 5th cent. b.c.e. and the western shore of the Dead Sea around the time of Christ’s birth. In both of these areas the owners of the ars. were mostly Jews. Within the Jew. military settlement at Elephantine four ars. have been found: the ar. of the Pers. satrap Arsames, containing 16 administrative letters (TADAE 1:fig. A6:1–16; end of the 5th cent. b.c.e.); the Yedanyah ar. of the Jew. community, containing nine letters and a memorandum (TADAE 1:fig. A4:1–10; 419–407 b.c.e.), one of them being the bid to the Pers. governor of Judah concerning a permit to rebuilt the Jew. temple in Elephantine (which had been destroyed by the Egyptians) and the permit itself (TADAE 1:figs. A4:7–8; A4:9); the Mabtahyah family ar., containing 11 private documents from three hypo-ars. (containing 4+4+3 documents; TADAE 2:fig. B2:1–11; 471–410 b.c.e.), and the Anani(ah) family ar., containing 13 private documents of two families who were related by marriage (TADAE 2:fig. B3:1–13; 456–402 b.c.e.). Nehemiah and Judas Maccabeus supposedly founded lis. (2 Macc 2:13–14; 5th and 2nd cent. b.c.e.) and the Aram. text in Dem. script Papyrus Amherst 63 from Edfu contains a small li. of Jew. rel. texts (cf. ATTM2:17, 4th cent. b.c.e.; Steiner/​Nims 2017). 4.4.  Within the rock caves to the north and west of the Dead Sea refugees sought shelter from

the Greeks (Cross/​Gropp 2001:​ north of Jericho Samaria-Daliyeh; 4th cent. b.c.e.) and the Romans (1st to 2nd cent. c.e.). They had taken with them their legal documents as evidence of assets they left behind. But they did not survive the fierce battles and the → siege of the caves  – therefore, the documents remained in their hiding places. Apart from single documents two unquestionable private ars., still tied up, have been found in a cave of Nahal Hever, south of ʿEin Gedi: the family ar. of the Jew. woman Bab(a)ta contained 35 documents, which could be up to 66 lines long, concerning marriages, dowry, inheritance, guardianship, donations, acquisitions, leases, receipts, pleas, bail, debt, and taxes in Aram. (Nab.) and G (Lewis 1989; Yadin et al. 2002:​35–276: Papyrus Yadin 1–35). The ar. of Simon ben Kosiba (the leader of the 2nd Jew. rebellion against the Romans 132–135/136 c.e.) contained 15 letters to lower rank leaders in Aram. (Old Judean), Rabb. Hebr., and G, which were kept by them as evidence of their work (Yadin et al. 2002:​277–382: Papyrus Yadin 49–63). A third smaller ar., which already had fallen apart and contained one Aram. (Nab.) and six G documents (125–131 c.e.), belonged to Salome Komaise, a neighbor of Bab(a) ta (Cotton 1997). Near the Essene settlement of Qumran, which had developed ca. 110 b.c.e. and was destroyed by the Romans in 68 c.e., the remains of approximately 800 Hebr., Aram., and G manuscripts (3rd cent. b.c.e.–1st cent. c.e.; Dead Sea Scrolls) were found in 11 rock caves between 1947 and 1956. They contain bibl. texts as well as non-bibl. Jew. texts, some of them in numerous copies. Only a few texts had remained undamaged in their clay jars, most texts were (obviously intentionally) torn apart, before they could be hidden. These are the remains of the Qumran Essenes’ li. and probably also the out-sourced inventory from the li. of the Jerusalem Temple. Some non-bibl. texts were already known in their original version (e. g., from the Cairo Genizah) or in a translated version. The existence of some others was at least known, but the majority was unknown up to that time, esp. the Hebr. scripts of the Qumran community (DJD; García Martínez/​Tigchelaar 2000; Parry/​Tov 2004). One century earlier the discovery of the walled up genizah (a windowless store-room) in the → synagogue of Old Cairo was equally sensational. This unique genizah contained neither a sorted ar. nor a usable li. and does in fact not even belong to ancient times; but it was filled (just like the caves surrounding Qumran) with hundreds of thousands of fragments of decayed Hebr., Aram., Arab., and Syr. private documents, letters, lists, dictionaries, bibl., apocryphal, or rabb. texts, magical texts,

Archive/s (ar./ars.) and Library/Libraries (li./lis.)

63 

targums, liturgies and (among others) remains of scrolls, codices, or first prints from the 8th–16th cent. c.e. They had to be protected from profanization because they contained the name of God. But the private documents have a very old tradition (partly continuing up to present times) and the bibl. and post-bibl. fragments contained a lot of previously unknown material (texts, variations, punctuations), which (prior to Qumran) gave a first impulse to the research on Jew. tradition (Kahle 1947; Reif 2000). Even the ancient historians (since Thucdides), philosophers (since Aristotle), theologians (since Origen), and poets (since Euripides) obviously relied on state ars. and public or private lis. (if they did not just copy their predecessors like Diodorus of Sicily). Thus Eusebius of Caesarea (325 c.e.) reports that he had found the (legendary) Syr. correspondence between king Agbar (V) and Jesus in the ar. of Edessa and had copied it (hist.  eccl. 1.13.5). And he then translated it into G. G public and private lis. developed from the 6th cent. b.c.e. The three irreplaceable lis. (two in Alexandria, one in Byzantium) were destroyed in 47 b.c.e., 391 c.e., and 475 c.e., respectively. From the 3rd cent. c.e. Christ. lis. are attested, where the development from scrolls to codices can be traced from the 4th cent. c.e. on. A Coptic Christ. Gnostic papyrus li. containing 52 tractates (translated from G) from the 4th cent. c.e. was found in Nag Hammadi/​Egypt in 1945 (Robinson 1988). 7.  Aḥituv, S., 22005, Handbook of Ancient Inscriptions, The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library 21, Jerusalem ♦ Berlejung, A., 2006, Briefe aus dem Archiv von Taanach, in: TUAT NF 3:230–234 ♦ Brosius, M., 2003, Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions, Oxford  ♦ Cotton, H. M., 1997, Introduction to the Archive of Salome Komaise, DJD 27:158–165 ♦ Cross, F. M./​Gropp, D. M., 2001, The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh, DJD 28:1–116 ♦ Diakonoff, I. M./​Lifshits, V. A., 1976, Parthian Economic Documents from Nisa, Corpus inscriptionum Iranicarum 2.2, London  ♦ Ephʿal, I./​Naveh, J., 1996, Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century B. C. from Idumaea, Jersualem ♦ Eshel, E., 2010, Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician Script, Chapter II, in: A. Kloner et al. (eds.), Maresha Excavations: Final Report 3, Jerusalem:​35–88 ♦ Eshel, E./​Langlois, M., 2019, The Aramaic Divination Texts, in: I. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Maresha Subterranean Complex 169, Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 11, Jerusalem:​213–223 ♦ Eshel, E./​Stern, I., 2017, Divination Texts of Maresha –Archeology and Texts, Archaeology and Text: A Journal for the Integration of Material Culture with Written Documents in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near East 1:7–25 ♦ Eshel, H., 2000, The Papyri from Jericho, DJD 38:21–30, 53–54 ♦ Hug, V., 1993, Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v. Chr., Heidelberg ♦ García Martínez, F./​Tigchelaar, E. J. C., 22000, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study

64 Edition 1–2, Leiden ♦ Kahle, P. E., 1947, The Cairo Geniza, London ♦ Kreuzer, S. (ed.), 2006, Taanach/​Tell Taʿannek, Wiener alttestamentliche Studien 5, Bern  ♦ Lange, A., 2006, Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible, Dead Sea Discoveries 13:277–305 ♦ Lemaire, A., 1996–2002, Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée 1–2, Paris  ♦ Lewis, N., 1989, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters: Greek Papyri, JDS, Jerusalem ♦ Parry, D. W./​Tov, E., 2004, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader1–6, Leiden ♦ Pearce, L. E./​Wunsch, C., 2014, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer, CUSAS 28, Bethesda ♦ Pedersén, O., 1998, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B. C., Bethesda ♦ Porten, B./​ Yardeni, A., 2014, 2016, 2018 (with the assistance of M. Kletzing and E. Han), Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, vol. 1: Dossiers 1–10: 401 Commodity Chits ♦ vol. 2: Dossiers 11–50: 265 Commodity Chits ♦ vol. 3: Dossiers 51–300.6: 488 Commodity Chits, Winona Lake/​University Park ♦ Reif, S. C., 2000, A  Jewish Archive from Old Cairo, Culture and Civilisation in the Middle East 3, Richmond ♦ Robinson, J. M. (ed.), 31988, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, Leiden ♦ Steiner, R. C./​Nims, C. F., 2017, The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: Text, Translation, and Notes, https:// repository.yu.edu/handle/20.500.12202/51 ♦ Stolper, M. W., 1985, Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm and the Persian Rule in Babylonia, PIHANS 54, Istanbul  ♦ Teixidor, J., 1974, Persepolis, Bulletin d’épigraphie sémitique 152, Syria 51:331–332  ♦ Watson, W. G. E./​Wyatt, N. (eds.), 1999, Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbook of Oriental Studies 1.39, Leiden ♦ Wunsch, C., forthcoming, Judeans by the Waters of Babylon: New Historical Evidence in Cuneiform Sources from Rural Babylonia, Babylonische Archive 6, Dresden ♦ Yadin, Y./​Greenfield, J. C., 1989, Aramaic and Nabataean Signatures and Subscriptions, JDS 2, Jerusalem ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 2002, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, JDS 3, Jerusalem ♦ Yardeni, A., 2016, The Jeselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Jerusalem  ♦ Zadok, R., 2020, On the Documentary Framework, Terminology and Onomasticon of the Ostraca from Idumea, in: A. Berlejung et al. (eds.), New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia, Qumran, Egypt and Idumea, RIAB 2, Tübingen:​179–298. Klaus Beyer†

Asphalt (a.) 1.  A. is a natural or artificial mixture of bitumen and stones. The HB refers to it with the term ḥemar (Gen 14:10), in contrast to koper (Gen 6:14) or zepet (Ex 2:3) – “pitch.” Commonly the synonyms bitumen, tar, and pitch refer to a., although tar and pitch are not natural products, but chemical byproducts of charcoal production. The bituminous substance petroleum, Aram. napṭ, is not mentioned in the HB, but appears in the Mishnah and Talmud. 2.  Due to aerosis, a. floats up to the surface of a sea or spring. The whole of the ANE used a. Mesopotamia contained the most important ancient a.

Baking (bk.)

65

66

or bitumen natural deposits, with large amounts also collected in Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, mainly at the Dead Sea. The ancient name Lacus asphaltitis “Asphalt Lake” (Josephus; Pliny the Elder), refers to this important export material. Although the mountains surrounding the Dead Sea enclose a high percentage of rocks containing a., people rarely mined a., but rather collected lumps floating on the water of the Dead Sea. 3.  A. is a black, sticky mass composed primarily of highly condensed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 4.  A. appears as early as the 3rd mill. b.c.e. in cuneiform documents, but arch. evidence from Mesopotamia and the Zagros mountains in Iran indicates knowledge of a./bitumen as early as 7,000 b.c.e. (Connan 1999:​33). Excavations at El Kown in the Syr. Desert unearthed bitumen-covered flint implements dating back to 40,000 b.c.e. (Boëda/​Connan/​Dessort 1996). A. was used as a sealant, adhesive, and binding agent. According to the arch. findings at Jericho, Arad, and Tel Malhata (Nissenbaum/​Seban/​Amiran 1984), a. was already collected and exported during EB I/​II. At Tell Beit Mirsim, a broken pithos with a. was found in an Iron Age II level (Nissenbaum/​ Seban/​Amiran 1984:​157). During the Ptolemaic period high amounts of a. were needed in Egypt (Nissenbaum/​Seban/​Amiran 1984:​157), probably imported from Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine. Rarely used pure, various admixtures of a. with other minerals or vegetables served mainly as a sealant for shipbuilding (→ ship), as an adhesive for → tools and → weapons, and for embalming. In Mesopotamia and Syria, but verifiably not in Palestine, a. was applied as mortar (→ millstone and mortar) and sealing agent in the construction of → houses, floors, and water channels (→ construction technique; → water works). During the Rom. period, Flavius Josephus (bel.Iud. 4.481) and Scribonius Largus (Schonack 1913:​163) refer to its medical applications (→ medicine), for instance, to assuage tooth pain. Galen mentions bitumen as a miraculous agent to close open wounds (Galenus simpl. 9.2.10; Kühn 1965:​203). Excavations along the Dead Sea show the whole region involved in the export of a. during that time (Hirschfeld 2007:​276; Zangenberg 2000:​137). 6.  Gen 14:10 mentions the word ḥemar speaking about tar pits in the Valley of Siddim. Gen 11:3 describes the use of a. as a binding agent for the construction of the → tower of Babel, a typical Bab. building technique. Additionally, the OT knows two more words related to a., koper, used to describe the caulking of Noah’s Ark (Gen 6:14) and zepet “pitch” (Ex 2:3) that coated Moses’ papyrus → basket.

7.  Aharoni, Y., 1964, Tell Arad, RB 71:393–395  ♦ Boëda, E./​Connan, J./​Dessort, D., 1996, Bitumen as a Hafting Material on Middle Palaeolithic Artefacts, Nature 380:336–338 ♦ Connan, J., 1999, Use and Trade of Bitumen in Antiquity and Prehistory, Biological Sciences 354 (1379):33–50 ♦ Hammond, P. C., 1959, The Nabatean Bitumen Industry at the Dead Sea, BA 22:40– 48 ♦ Hirschfeld, Y., 2007, Qumran, Gütersloh ♦ Kühn, C. G. (ed.), 1965, Claudii Galeni opera omnia 12, Leipzig 1826 (repr. Hildesheim 1965) ♦ Moorey, P. R. S., 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Oxford ♦ Niemi, T./​Ben-Avraham, Z./​Gat, J., 1997, The Dead Sea, New York ♦ Nissenbaum, A./​Seban, A./​Amiran, R., 1984, Dead Sea Asphalt from the Excavations in Tel Arad and Small Tel Malhata, Paléorient 10:157– 161 ♦ Schonack, W., 1913, Die Rezepte des Scribonius Largus, Jena ♦ Zangenberg, J., 2000, Wildnis unter Palmen? Khirbet Qumran im regionalen Kontext des Toten Meeres, in: B. Mayer (ed.), Jericho und Qumran, ESt NF 45, Regensburg:​129–164 ♦ Zirkler, E., 2001, Asphalt – Ein Werkstoff durch Jahrtausende, Hannover. Johannes Klemm

Baking (bk.) 1.  Bk. (Hebr. ʿph) bread and cakes was one of the most important → food preparation activities undertaken in the Ancient Near Eastern household on a daily basis. Along with other foodstuffs made of ground wheat, barley, and other grains, bread was an essential source of carbohydrate in the ancient diet. In addition, baked bread loaves were used in the process of brewing → beer, which was a staple beverage in the ANE and Egypt. Sources of information on bk. technology and baked goods include arch. remains, textual references, and ethnographic evidence. Women are most closely associated with the bk. of bread for daily consumption at the household level, although public bakeries also existed. 2.  Several hundred kinds of breads and pastries have been identified in Ancient Near Eastern lit., and the HB mentions a variety of baked goods, from the most basic unleavened bread made of flour and water to cakes with added oil, honey, date syrup, herbs and spices, and other ingredients. Leavened baked goods required the addition of yeast, either intentionally introduced from grape skins or some other food source or unintentionally from airborne organisms. According to the HB, bread could be baked in an → oven (Lev 2:4), on a ceramic or iron griddle set on stones over a fire pit (Lev 2:5; 7:9; Ez 4:3), or directly on a hot stone in ashes (1 Kgs 19:6). In Egypt, bread loaves were commonly baked in conical ceramic bread molds or pots called bedja. The arch. remains of ovens and other cooking installations and the → ground stone tools used to process grains are widespread in the ANE by the Neolithic period and many of the early forms continued to be used through the Iron Age. The phys-

Baking (bk.)

67 

ical remains of baked foods, including loaves of bread, are known primarily from Egypt at such sites as Tell el-Amarna and Deir el-Medina (Sa­ muel 1996:​489). 3.  Identifying the arch. remains of bk. bread is difficult because the activities involved in transforming grains into bread are complex and involve a number of specialized tools and equipment. In Egypt, there is arch. evidence for the use of numerous tools in the bread-making process, including sieves, winnowing → baskets, trays, paddles, stone mortars, stone and wooden pestles, handstones, querns, brushes, jars, and pcs. of cloth for collecting flour from around grinding areas (Samuel 1999:​122). Due to the bias of preservation, the arch. correlates for bread production in the Levant are usually limited to ground stone tools and several types of cooking installation, although we can assume that much of the equipment made of organic material unearthed in Egypt was in use in the Levant as well. In addition to the arch. remains, there is iconogr. evidence from tombs in Egypt that informs on the various steps required in the production of bread and beer, from Old Kingdom servant statues that depict individuals (usually women) grinding grain and kneading dough (Breasted 1948) to tomb reliefs such as those in the Old Kingdom (5th Dyn.) Tomb of Ti at Saqqara that depict detailed scenes of individuals grinding grain, kneading dough, pouring the dough into molds, and stacking the molds over a fire for bk. (Épron et al. 1939). These sources are useful for reconstructing the technology and techniques of bread production in Egypt and poss. the ANE, although their inclusion in mortuary contexts may make them less reliable than arch. remains at sites like Tell el-Amarna and Deir el-Medina for reconstructing everyday bk. activities. 4.  The forms of the mortars and → millstones (usually called grinding slabs or querns and handstones or upper loaf-shaped millstones in the lit.) used to process grains did not change dramatically from the Neolithic through the Iron Age, and they are found in large numbers in Bronze and Iron Age contexts in the Levant. Dolce (1990:​ fig. 15) illustrates the storerooms in the palace at Ebla where millstones were in place on saddle querns that were lined up on benches along the walls of the room. These → tools could be made of nearly any locally-available stone, including limestone, sandstone, flint, and chalk, but basalt seems to have been the preferred material for grinding tools as its vesicles maintain a rough grinding surface and there is minimal surface attrition during grinding (resulting in less grit in the flour). After the wheat or barley spikelets that remained after threshing were moistened and then pounded in a

68

mortar with a pestle to separate the grain from the chaff, the grains were removed from the mortar and placed on a flat or saddle-shaped grinding slab to be ground. Grinding was accomplished by moving a portable handstone/millstone back and forth with one or both hands across the grains until they were reduced to flour, which was then collected in pcs. of cloth with brushes and either stored or used immediately to make bread. Although heavy, grinding slabs are portable and were probably operated either indoors or outdoors according to the season. They are thus found in various contexts in ancient Isr. households, although more of them were found in roofed areas than in open → courtyards in the MBA and LBA site of Manahath, near Jerusalem (Milevski 1998:​ 74). The task of grinding grain to make bread was difficult and time-consuming and may have occupied the women responsible for making bread for their families for several hours per day. During the Pers. period, the Olynthus mill – a more efficient grinding machine that was operated by moving an upper stone back and forth over a lower stone with the aid of an attached wooden rod  – appeared in the region. Larger hourglass-shaped Pompeian mills that could be turned by animals or people were introduced in the Rom. period. The smaller rotary handmills, which were in widespread use in Middle Eastern and Eg. homes through the 20th cent., appeared in the early Rom. period. To make a simple loaf of bread, flour was mixed with water, kneaded, and formed into the desired shape. Among the types of bread mentioned in the HB are ring-shaped bread (ḥallah, 2 Sam 6:19), heart-shaped bread (lebibah, 2 Sam 13:6), a circular, flat bread cake (ʿugah, Gen 18:6), and disk-shaped flat bread (kikkar, 1 Sam 2:36). According to Jer 44:19, women baked cakes (kawwanym) for the Queen of Heaven in her image. Preserved bread loaves from Ancient Egypt appear in a number of shapes, including conical, circular, semicircular, triangular, and human and animal figures. Although unleavened bread was quick and easy to make, adding leavening (→ raising and leavening agents) to the dough would have created a lighter, better-tasting loaf; the bibl. writers distinguished between unleavened bread (maṣṣah, Lev 2:5) and leavened bread (ḥameṣ, Ex 12:15). Before bk., any number of available oils, fruits, sweeteners, herbs, spices, and other ingredients could be added for taste. Hearth and oven forms are so variable that it is difficult to identify diachronic changes. During the Iron Age, ovens were sometimes formed from pottery sherds and packed mud (Yadin et al. 1958:​ 54; Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​fig. 104) or from the

Basket (b./bs.) and Basketry (bry.)

69

70

inverted upper part of storejars and pithoi (Daviau 2003:​figs. 6:13, 25; 7:18). Generally speaking, the arch. remains of open hearths, horseshoe-shaped clay ovens (Daviau 2003:​fig. 6:26), and dome-shaped clay ovens are found inside the houses of walled towns and in work areas (Zarzecki-Peleg 2005:​photos 1:47–49, 51), as well as in courtyards of rural family compounds. In certain cases, ovens could also be shared by several families. Wood, cakes of animal dung mixed with straw, and the leftovers from olive pressing were used as fuel. In hearths, bread was baked on a layer of stones or on a griddle set on stones; in the tannur, bread was placed directly on the hot interior walls. Several ethnographic studies have documented similar processes from Jordan in the W to Pakistan in the E (McQuitty 1984; Rye/​ Evans 1976:​pls. 47–48). 5.  Bk. bread at the household level was primarily accomplished by women. Families may have owned their own grain processing tools and cooking installations or shared them with others. Bk. technology did not change dramatically until more efficient grinding technologies were introduced into the region in the second half of the 1st mill. b.c.e. 6.  The importance of bread in the diet of ancient Israel is suggested by the meaning of the word leḥem, which literally means ‘bread’ but is also a term used for food generally. The expression “to eat bread” meant to share a meal (Gen 31:54; 37:25) probably indicating that bread comprised a large part of a typical meal. But the bibl. writers do not offer much detailed information about bread bk. and cooking in general, probably because it was so commonplace and, to a large extent, the domain of women. Nevertheless, there are many brief references to bk. bread in the HB; most concern domestic or household production, the context where most of the bk. occurred during the Iron Age (Gen 19:3; Lev 26:26; 1 Sam 8:13; 2 Sam 13:8; 1 Kgs 17:12–13; Isa 44:15; Hos 7:4). Commercial bakeries were established in larger towns like Jerusalem in the late pre-exil. period (Jer 37:21), and kings could have had their own bakers, which could either be women (1 Sam 8:13) or men (Gen 40:1). Bread was baked by priests in the Jerusalem Temple (Ez 46:20, 23– 24) and was required for sacred meals (Lev 24:5). In addition, women baked cakes for the Queen of Heaven in her image (Jer 44:19), although all members of the family participated in their preparation (Jer 7:18).

bourg/​Göttingen  ♦ Curtis, R. I., 2001, Ancient Food Technology, Leiden ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2003, Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, vol. 1: The Iron Age Town, CHANE 11.1, Leiden ♦ Dolce, R., 1990, Les magasins et les lieux de traitement des denrées alimentaires à Ebla au IIIème et au IIème millénaires, AAAS 40:122–145 ♦ Épron, L., et al., 1939, Le tombeau de Ti, MIFAO 65, Cairo ♦ King, P. J./​Stager, L. E., 2001, Life in Biblical Israel, Louisville ♦ Lamon, R. S./​Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo [I], OIP 42, Chicago ♦ McQuitty, A., 1984, An Ethnographic and Archaeological Study of Clay Ovens in Jordan, ADAJ 28:259–268 ♦ Milevski, I., 1998, The Ground Stone Tools, in: G. Edelstein/​I. Milevski/​ S. Aurant (eds.), Villages, Terraces, and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, IAA Reports 3, Jerusalem:​61–77 ♦ Rye, O. S./​Evans, C., 1976, Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 21, Washington, D. C. ♦ Samuel, D., 1996, Investigation of Ancient Egyptian Baking and Brewing Methods by Correlative Microscopy, Science 273, 5274:​488–490 ♦ 1999, Bread Making and Social Interactions at the Amarna Workmen’s Village, Egypt, World Archaeology 31.1:121–144 ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1958, Hazor I, Jerusalem ♦ Zarzecki-Peleg, A., 2005, Stratigraphy and Architecture, in: A. BenTor/​A. Zarzecki-Peleg/​Sh. Cohen-Anidjar (eds.), Yoqneʿam 2, Qedem Reports 6, Jerusalem:​5–232. Jennie R. Ebeling

7.  Bo­row­ski, O., 1987, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Boston ♦ Breasted, J. H., 1948, Egyptian Servant Statues, BollS 13, New York ♦ Briend, J./​Humbert, J.‑B. (eds.), 1980, Tell Keisan (1971–1976), OBO.SA 1, Fri-

Basket (b./bs.) and Basketry (bry.) 1.  Bry. is a product in which raw materials of limited length and plant-specific shape are incorporated (Wendrich 1991:​4). 2.  Bry. is made from a variety of materials usually widely available that can bend and be formed into various shapes. Examples include reeds, straw, grass, and leaflets. 3.  Bry. products comprise bs., bags, trays, mats, brushes, brooms, sandals, hats, and belts. 4.  Various techniques were used for bry. in the Levant such as matting, coiling, twining, plaiting, and braiding. A  frame for support of some kind might have been used. Matting denotes long rushes or bundles of grass darned across a warp of twisted cords, for instance, at MBA Jericho (Crowfoot 1960:​520). Twining denotes a b. weave manufactured by passing horizontal elements around passive vertical elements. Weft twining is explained as two or more wefts that are twined together in such a way that with every twist they fix one or more warp threads (Seiler-Baldinger 1994:​31), for instance, PPNB Nahal Hemar. Coiling denotes the bry. technique of sewing a passive horizontal element – the foundation – with active vertical elements – the stitches (Schick 1988:​33), for instance, at the Cave of the Warrior, Chalc. period (Schick 1998; Shamir 2014:​142). Braiding (e. g., twill braid plaiting) is used in particular for mats and bs. These are made of one plait which winds around from the center of the mat or the base of the b. out to the edge or rim. The wound plait

Basket (b./bs.) and Basketry (bry.)

71 

is not sewn together but rather each additional wind or round is joined to the former during the → weaving. This is done by enclosing a cord along the outer edge of the plait; the inner edge of each new round is woven around the cord of the former. In the completed mat or b. the cord is not visible (Yadin 1963:​137). 5.  Bry. is one of the most ancient crafts and it preceded weaving. The earliest bry. items in the Southern Levant were found at Nahal Hemar (PPNB period). These are, for instance, containers built of coils of cordage coated with layers of collagen on the inner and outer surfaces, predating the invention of → pottery. This unique technique not known elsewhere was used in vessel building (Shamir 2020:​30; Shamir/​Sukenik 2019:​341), and in mats made of rushes or grass (Schick 1988:​ 32–33). Impressions of mats dating to the PN are preserved on the base of ceramic vessels recovered at Megiddo (Loud 1948:​pl. 2:16, 17) and from the Neolithic settlement at Jericho (Kenyon 1957:​pls. 12, 13). Mats, trays, a sieve, and bs. were found at the Cave of the Treasure from the Chalc. One of the mats, measuring 8×120 cm, was wrapped around the treasure. The sieve was probably used to sift grain (Bar-Adon 1971:​190). Few examples of bry. are preserved from Bronze Age Palestine due to the decomposition of organic materials over the centuries. In Jordan, in the EB I  → tombs at Bab edh-Dhra the preservation is better, with several examples of bry. and matting (Yedlowski/​Adovasio 1989:​figs. 299–303). Evidence of the continued use of various types of mats and bs. consists of impressions on the base of coil-made ceramic pots, such as those from the EB levels at Arad (Amiran 1978:​fig. 110:3, 4) and Lachish (Tufnell 1958:​pl. 13:91, 92). In Egypt, where preservation of organic remains is better, excavation yielded bs., bags, mats, chair seats, and sandals from Middle and New Kingdom sites (Petrie 1889). Methods used in Egypt include various styles of weaving or plaiting (simple, twilled, and twined) as well as stitched coiling. Due to the dry climate at Jericho, MBA remains in tomb H22 included rush mats (Crowfoot 1960:​524–526). In the Iron Age, bs. were important as part of the equipment used to press olives (→ oil). Crushed olives were packed into bs., which were stacked on the oil press and compressed by weighted beams to extract the oil. This system had widespread use and was well documented during the excavations at Tel Miqne (Ekron) in the 100+ industrial buildings dating to the late Philist. period (7th cent.; Gitin 1990:​36–37; 2004:​64–65). Other examples from the Philist. plain make their appearance at Tel Batash (Kelm/​Mazar 1995:​ 150, figs. 8:12–13). Preserved examples of mats

72

are few at Iron Age sites in Jordan although a mat was recovered in one room of the chambered → gate at Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad) (Chadwick/​Daviau/​Steiner 2000:​fig. 3). Hand-made Negev pottery from ‘Edomite’ sites in Southern Israel and Jordan also retain spiral impressions of the b. on which the clay was flattened in preparation for forming the wall of the vessel (Amiran 1969:​photo 323; Pratico 1993:​91–92, pl. 12:7– 8). Many bs. found in Israel from the Rom. period were composed of palm frond plaits woven around a connecting cord made of palm fibers in twill braid plaiting technique, such as those in the Judean Desert caves (e.g the Cave of Letters, Yadin 1963) and at sites along the Spice Routes connecting Petra and Gaza (e. g., Moʾa, Shamir 2003; 2006). The Islamic period also yielded bry. items such as at Nahal Omer (Baginski/​Shamir 1995). All of the bry. techniques mentioned above are still in use today. 6.  Bs. are mentioned many times in the OT as containers used for both ordinary and cultic activities, for instance, “she got a papyrus basket for him” (Moses; Ex 2:3); and “thou shall put them [i. e., bread and cakes] into one basket,” and “present them in the basket” (Ex 29:3). 7.  Amiran, R., 1969, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem ♦ 1978, Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City, Jerusalem ♦ Baginski, A./​Shamir, O., 1995, Early Islamic Textiles, Basketry and Cordage from Nahal Omer, Israel, ʿAtiqot 26:21– 42 ♦ Bar-Adon, P., 1971, The Cave of the Treasure  – The Finds from the Caves, Jerusalem ♦ Chadwick, R./​ Daviau, P. M. M./​Steiner, M., 2000, Four Seasons of Excavations at Khirbat al-Mudayna on Wadi ath-Thamad (1996–1999), ADAJ 44:257–270  ♦ Crowfoot, E. G., 1960, Textiles, Matting and Basketry, in: K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho 1, Jerusalem:​519–526 ♦ Gitin, S., 1990, Ekron of the Philistines II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World, BAR 16:32–42, 59 ♦ 2004, The Philistines, in: D. R. Clark/​V. H. Matthews (eds.), 100 Years of American Archaeology in the Middle East, Boston:​57– 85 ♦ Kelm, G. L./​Mazar, A., 1995, A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley, Winona Lake ♦ Kenyon, K. M., 1957, Digging up Jericho, New York ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago ♦ Petrie, W. M. F., 1889, Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, London ♦ Pratico, G. D., 1993, Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh, ASOR Archaeological Reports 3, Atlanta ♦ Schick, T., 1988, Nahal Hemar Cave  – Cordage, Basketry and Fabrics, ʿAtiqot 18:31–42 ♦ 1998, The Cave of the Warrior – A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, Jerusalem  ♦ Seiler-Baldinger, A., 1994, Textiles  – A Classification of Techniques, Washington, D. C. ♦ Shamir, O., 1996, Loomweights and Whorls, in: D. T. Ariel (ed.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–85, Directed by Y. Shiloh, vol. 4, Qedem 35, Jerusalem:​135–170 ♦ 2003, Textiles, Basketry and Cordage from Nabatean Sites along the Spice Route between Petra and Gaza, in: R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom (ed.), The Nabateans in the Negev, Haifa:​35–38  ♦ 2006, Textiles, Basketry,

Bath/s (b./bs.) and Bathing (bg.)

73

74

Cordage and Whorls from Moʾa (Moje Awad), ʿAtiqot 50:99–152 ♦ 2014, Textiles, Basketry and Other Organic Artifacts of the Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant, in: M. Sebbane/​O. Misch-Brandl/​D. M. Master (eds.), Masters of Fire, New York:​139–152 ♦ 2020, Continuity and Discontinuity in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Linen Textile Production in the Southern Levant. With an Appendix by A. Rast-Eicher, in: W. Schier/​S. Pollock (eds.), The Competition of Fibres, Ancient Textiles Series 36, Oxford:​27–37  ♦ Shamir, O./​Sukenik, N., 2019, Textiles from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic until the Medieval Period around the Dead Sea, in: M. Peilstöcker/​S. Wolfram (eds.), Life at the Dead Sea, ÄAT 96, Münster:​339–358  ♦ Tufnell, O., 1958, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 4, London  ♦ Wendrich, W., 1991, Who Is Afraid of Basketry?, Leiden ♦ Yadin, Y., 1963, The Cave of Letters, Jerusalem ♦ Yedlowski, N./​Adovasio, J. M., 1989, Perishable Artifacts from Bab edhDhraʿ, in: R. T. Schaub/​W. E. Rast (eds.), Bab edhDhraʿ, Winona Lake:​521–543. Orit Shamir

2008:​58). New Kingdom (ca. 1550–1070 b.c.e.) bg. facilities are attested for Pharaoh Merenptah in Memphis and for Pharaoh Ramses III in Medinet Habu (Hölscher 1953:​35, pl. 7a). The royal bs. were apparently overseen by special officials, as evident in the title mr qbḥwy (“overseer of the [royal] bathes”). Bg. rooms dating to this period are also known from houses in Tell el-Amarna (18th Dyn.), where a typical b. consisted of a slightly sloping stone slab floor with a spout. A surrounding wall provided privacy and prevented water splashing (Ricke 1932:​34, fig. 32). For Bronze Age Mesopotamia, there are hardly any sources available regarding bg. or bs. At least in the palace of Zimri-Lim in Mari (18th cent. b.c.e.) terracotta tubs were excavated as part of the royal apartments (Gates 1984:​80). In Cyprus, limestone and terracotta tubs dating to the LBA (Late Cypriot IIC and Late Cypriot IIIA) can be found in Maa-Palaeokastro and Enkomi (Courtois 1992). Such installations were also common in Mycenaean Greece (e. g., Tiryns and Pylos; on the Bronze Age bg. facilities in the Aegean in general, cf. Aufschnaiter 2012). The Iliad (Hom. Il. 10.547– 579) and the Odyssey (e. g., Hom. Od. 10.346– 372) also tell about the practice of bg. In LBA Syria-Palestine bg. facilities have so far only been excavated in palaces. The bs. in the first (ca. 1750–1550 b.c.e.) and second (ca. 1550– 1500 b.c.e.) palace of Tell el-ʿAjjul were designed according to Eg. prototypes. The bg. room of the second palace was equipped with a sloping floor and a drainage channel, a kind of seat and a toilet. A LB IIB b. may also be found in a building at Tell Jemmeh (Van Beek 1993:​669). 4.2.  For Iron Age Mesopotamia, bg. rooms and lavatories in palaces are well attested, for example in Room 40 at Sennacherib’s residence at Nineveh (Russell 1991:​66–67). There is less evidence, however, for private dwellings. In Assur, sanitary facilities were installed in private houses of wealthy citizens (Turner 1970:​193–194, pl. 40:c– d). Lavatories and bs. equipped with brick floors lined with bitumen and powdered limestone were also found in Babylon, esp. in lavish houses from the late 7th and 6th cent. b.c.e. (on Bab. lavatories, sewers, and bs., see George 2015). That said, bs. were apparently reserved for the elite, while the poor bathed in rivers and canals or cleaned themselves with water from jugs poured over the bather. Bg. or rather swimming in rivers is depicted, for example, on a 9th cent. b.c.e. Ass. relief, which shows a man swimming in water and two people floating on inflated animal skins (Parrot 1961:​fig. 47). In the area of modern-day Turkey and Syria, Ass. influenced bs. were excavated in the Iron Age II palaces of Arslan Tash and Zinc-

Bath/s (b./bs.) and Bathing (bg.) 1.  Bathing, that is, cleaning the body with water, represented an important aspect of everyday culture in the ANE and in the Graeco-Rom. world. In Hebr., bg. is denoted by the verb rḥṣ (G: λούω, νίπτω). Bg. facilities were called βαλανεῖον or λουτρόν in G, in Lat. lavatrina, balneum, balnea, or balnae. 2.  Bg. was performed not only for personal hygiene, but also for medical treatments or ritual ceremonies. The latter category also includes foot washing in particular. In the ANE, only private bg. rooms are known for the pre-Hell. period, which consisted of tubs or bg. platforms. For the Graeco-Rom. period, private bs. can be found in residential buildings. In addition, public bs., usually of modest size, were built and enjoyed great popularity as an enrichment of social life. 3.  Evidence for bg. in antiquity are primarily arch. remains (e. g., bathrooms, tubs, pools, and miqvaʾot). In addition, iconogr. and written sources are available. 4.1.  The practice of bg. is documented continuously from the beginning of the 3rd mill. b.c.e. until the Rom.-Byz. period. In ancient Egypt, apart from bg. in the Nile, jugs were used to pour water over the body for personal hygiene. Furthermore, a kind of shower b. was known. Water was poured through a sieve, which fulfilled the function of a filter. All this can be verified already in the Early Dynastic period (ca. 3032–2707 b.c.e.) on the basis of iconogr. representations in a Theban tomb (Davies 1977:​24, pl. 20). In Eg. lit. from the Middle Kingdom onward (ca. 2137–1781 b.c.e.), bg. is often associated with erotic scenes in → gardens. For example, a section of the Papyrus Westcar (Papyrus Berlin P 3033) tells of a triple b. of the wife of Ubaoner with her lover (Lohwasser

Bath/s (b./bs.) and Bathing (bg.)

75 

irli. In the last-mentioned building, a 129 cm long bronze tub featuring handles with rosette bases was found (Wicks 2015:​30–32, figs. 25–28). Terracotta tubs (some fragmentary) have been excavated in several Iron Age contexts in Israel/​Palestine, including Tell Abu Hawam (Stratum III), Tell Qasile, Ashdod (Stratum  XII), Tel Miqne/​Ekron (Strata  VII and VIA), Ashkelon (Phase 18a), Tall Jawa (Stratum VII), and the Tel Dan sacred precinct. While some of these installations may have actually served for bg. and/or purification rituals, the majority seems to have served for scouring or fulling wool (Mazow 2006–2007). A  bg. room dating to Iron Age IIC was found in a probably Ass. public building at Ashdod ad-Halom, 200 m northwest of Tel Ashdod. Two plastered rooms were excavated at the site, which contained three bathtub-like vats. (Kogan-Zehavi 2008:​1573). However, these installations may have been used for wool processing like similar facilities in Tel Qitaf (Mazow 2014:​31–33). That bg. was nevertheless an important cultural practice in Iron Age Palestine is shown by the finds of oval foot bs. equipped with footrests and a spout at the bottom, for instance, in Tell elFarah (N), Megiddo, Samaria, and Lachish (King/​ Stager 2001:​70). Another important piece of evidence is a clay figurine of a woman bg. in an oval tub from the er-Ras cemetery at Akhziv (→ fig. Iconography of Humans #2:3, col. 470). 4.3.  Hardly any evidence for bs. or bg. can be found for the Bab.-Pers. period. In Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, however, private houses with bs. are attested. Construction and equipment of these facilities hardly differ from the (late) Iron Age bg. rooms. In Greece, simple public bs. with heating systems inside the bg. facilities were known since the 5th cent. b.c.e. (Sinn/​Leypold/​Schauer 2003:​620). 4.4.  In the Graeco-Rom. world an increasing number of private bg. rooms and public b. houses can be identified from the Hell. period onwards. Public bs. with a subterranean heating system for warming the b. water are documented in Sicily at the earliest for the 3rd cent. b.c.e. (e. g., Megara Hyblaea and Syracuse). A b. with a subterranean heated sweating-room dating to the middle of the 3rd cent. b.c.e. existed in the sanctuary of Asclepius at Gortys (Arcadia, Greece) (Sinn/​Leypold/​ Schauer 2003:​620). On the Italian peninsula, from the Middle Republican period (287/272– 133 b.c.e.) at the latest, rather simple private bs. without tubs (lavatrinae) were built (on bg. in the Rom. world, see Yegül 2010). With the increasing Hellenization of Italy, larger b. houses and public bs. were introduced. In general, Rom. public bg. facilities can be divided into two main groups:

76

thermae (larger facilities, owned by the public) and balneae (smaller facilities, privately or publicly owned). Thermae consisted of several rooms: a  changing room (apodyterium), a warm b. (caldarium), a moderately warm room (tepidarium), and a cold b. ( frigidarium). Some facilities also included a sweating-room (laconicum or sudatorium) (Vitruvius 5.10). Revolutionary was the equipment of the large Rom. bs. with an effective central heating system (hypocaustum), where heated air circulated through clay tubes embedded in the walls and floors. In the Rom. imperial period (30 b.c.e.–284 c.e.), large-scale symmetrical thermae were built and equipped with water basins (natatio), restaurants, gardens, athletic grounds, etc. Esp. in the middle and later imperial period, the emperors Trajan, Caracalla, and Diocletian stood out as the most important builders of such complexes (Weber 1996:​73–96). For the Hell. and Rom.-Byz. periods, at least 150 well-preserved private and public bs. can be identified in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine (Fournet 2012:​330; on Rom. bg. culture in Palestine in general, see Hoss 2012). While private bs. with tubs are still rather rare in Hell. Palestine (e. g., rock-cut tubs in Mareshah), bg. rooms in private houses of the elite can be found more frequently from the Herod. period onward (late 1st cent. b.c.e.–1st cent. c.e.). Public bs. were built in Rom. Syria-Palestine in Sepphoris, Beth-Shean, Caesarea Maritima, and Tiberias (Hoss 2005:​35–53). In Hammath Gader (Southern Golan) one of the largest thermae (Broise 2003) of the Rom. world was built. The water was considered to have therapeutic qualities. Rom. client rulers, such as Herod the Great in particular, had b. houses and pools erected in their residences and fortified hilltop palaces (Masada, Herodium, Jericho, and Machaerus in Transjordan; cf. Lichtenberger 1999:​21–34, 40–47, 55– 70, 99–112). These facilities also served the purpose of representation and expressed allegiance to the Rom. Empire. In Jerusalem of the 2nd cent. c.e., the Rom. Aelia Capitolina, b. houses were built according to the Rom. prototype. The discovery of a pool paved with coarse white mosaic stones (2.5×2.5 cm) in today’s Omar Street in the Jew. Quarter of the Old City provides good evidence of Emperor Hadrian’s building policy (Sion/​Rapuano 2019:​169–171). Bs. were also found in private homes, in palaces and Nab. Petra (Schmid et al. 2012). In addition to the Hell.-Rom. influenced bs., ritual bg. facilities, so-called miqvaʾot (sing. miqveh), appear in Palestine from the 2nd cent. b.c.e. onward (Hoss 2005; 2007). These cistern-like installations were cut into the natural rock or dug into the earth and lined with waterproof plaster. Access was granted by steps. The capacity for

Bath/s (b./bs.) and Bathing (bg.)

77

78

spring- or rainwater (so-called “living water”) was 750 l (40 seah). Ritual immersion of the complete body was permitted only if a person was already pure according to halakhic law (Hoss 2007:​55– 56). Miqvaʾot are known, for example, from Qumran, Masada (built by the Sicarii after 66 c.e.), and Jerusalem, esp. from B. Mazar’s excavations on the Temple Mount and N. Avigad’s excavations in the Jew. Quarter of the Old City (Reich 2013). Particularly striking but yet unexplained is the large number of miqvaʾot built in Herod. times in the houses of the elite in the upper city of Jerusalem (Geva/​Gutfeld/​Nenner-Soriano 2019:​302– 303). In arch. research, miqvaʾot were usually misinterpreted as cisterns until the 1960s and 1970s. A prime example is a double-miqveh dating to the 1st cent. b.c.e.–1st cent. c.e. located in the area of the Anglican-Prussian cemetery on the southern slope of Jerusalem’s Mount Zion. It was investigated by Henry Maudsley as early as 1874 and described as a double cistern by Claude R. Conder in 1875 (Thierry/​Vieweger 2019:​35). 5.  Material evidence for bs. and bg. in the ANE exists as early as the 3rd millennium b.c.e. In the Bronze and Iron Ages, terracotta or bronze tubs and bg. rooms with waterproof plaster are usually documented in palaces (e. g., Tell el-ʿAjjul, Zincirli, and Nineveh). Bg. facilities in private houses, however, are quite rarely attested (Assur and Babylon). Starting from Greece, the development of effective heating systems led to an increased construction of public and private bg. facilities from the Hell. period onwards. In Rom. times, large public bs. were built throughout the Rom. Empire, which were used not only for bg., but also for numerous other activities. In Palestine private bs. for personal hygiene are found primarily from the Herod. period at least in the houses of the elite. Apart from the Hell.-Rom. bg. culture, Jew. ritual purification bs., so-called miqvaʾot, developed since the late Hell. period. 6.  The practice of bg. for personal hygiene is sporadically attested in the HB. Ruth, for example, is instructed by her mother-in-law Naomi to take a b. and to perfume herself before a nightly meeting with her future husband Boaz (Ruth 3:3). According to Ez 16:4 newborns were bathed and then rubbed with salt and wrapped in strips of cloth. Soaps were made on the basis of vegetable and mineral lye (cf. Jer 2:2). Oils were used for skin care after bg. (e. g., 2 Sam 12:20 and Ez 16:9). As in Eg. lit., the HB sometimes associates bg. with eroticism and sexuality. Thus, David sees Bathsheba bg., with whom he later engages in a sexual affair (2 Sam 11:2, 4). The practice of foot washing as act of hospitality is mentioned several times already in the Pentateuch (e. g., Gen 18:4 and 19:2).

Bg. for healing purposes is reported in 2 Kgs 5:10, where the Aramean Naaman is told to bathe in the Jordan seven times. Perhaps this narrative reflects some of the regulations for dealing with leprosy that are given in Lev 14:1–32. In general, many texts that deal with ritual bg. and ablutions for ritual purposes are concentrated in the Book of Leviticus and other books of the Pentateuch. Aaron and his sons are washed with water before they are consecrated as priests (Ex 29:4; 40:12 and Lev 8:6). Extensive bg. should be performed after contact with the deceased (Num 19:11– 22, esp. v.  19) and with carrion (Lev 11:25, 28, 32, 40), as well as in cases of sexual impurity and during menstruation (Lev 15). Bg. and ablutions also play a major role in the preparation of animal offerings (e. g., Ex 29:17; Lev 1:9, 13; 8:21, etc.). A famous account of a private b. is found in the apocryphal additions to the Book of Daniel (Susanna and the Elders [LXX Dan 1:15–27]). In the NT, the practice of washing the dead is documented (Acts 9:37). We are told about a ritual ablution when Paul washes himself with water before entering the Temple (Acts 21:24–26). As in the HB, several foot washing ceremonies are attested in the NT as acts of hospitality (e. g., Lk 7:38, 44; 1 Tim 5:10). This practice is also associated with Jesus of Nazareth, who is said to have washed the feet of his disciples (John 13:1–17). A miraculous healing of a blind man in connection with a b. in the Pool of Siloam is reported in John 9:7. The Gospel of John (John 5:2–3) also reports the tradition of healing bs. in the stirred-up waters of the Pool of Bethesda.

7.  Aufschnaiter, M., 2012, Bronzezeitliche Sanitäranlagen im ägäischen Raum, in: R. Kreiner/​W. Letzner (eds.), SPA SANITAS PER AQUAM, Babesch Suppl. 21, Leuven et al.:23–35  ♦ Broise, H., 2003, À propos des thermes de Hammat Gader, Syria 80:217–235 ♦ Courtois, J.‑C., 1992, Une baignoire monolithe en calcaire du Bronze récent à Enkomi, in: G. C. Ioannides (ed.), Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, Nicosia:​151–154 ♦ Davies, N. de G., 1977 (1913), Five Theban Tombs (Being Those of Mentuherkhepeshef, User, Daga, Nehemawäy and Tati), Archaeological Survey of Egypt: Memoirs 21, London ♦ Fournet, T., 2012, The Ancient Baths of Southern Syria in their Near Eastern Context, in: R. Kreiner/​W. Letzner (eds.), SPA SANITAS PER AQUAM, Babesch Suppl. 21, Leuven et al.:327– 336 ♦ Gates, M.‑H., 1984, The Palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari, BA 47:70–87 ♦ George, A. R., 2015, On Babylonian Lavatories and Sewers, Iraq 77:75–106 ♦ Geva, H./​ Gutfeld, O./​Nenner-Soriano, R., 2019, Excavations at the Hurva and Tiferet Israel Synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, in: H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem:​289–303 ♦ Hölscher, U., 1953, Die Wiedergewinnung von Medinet Habu im westlichen Theben, Tübingen ♦ Hoss, S., 2005, Baths and Bathing, BAR IS 1346, Oxford ♦ 2007, Die Miqwen der späthellenistischen bis byzantinisch-

Beer (b.)

79 

en Zeit in Palästina, ZDPV 123:49–79 ♦ 2012, From Rejection to Incorporation, in: R. Kreiner/​W. Letzner (eds.), SPA SANITAS PER AQUAM, Babesch Suppl. 21, Leuven et al.:259–264 ♦ King, P. J./​Stager, L. E., 2001, Life in Biblical Israel, Louisville/​London ♦ Kogan-Zehavi, E., 2008, Ashdod, NEAEHL 5:1573–1575 ♦ Lichtenberger,  A., 1999, Die Baupolitik Herodes des Großen, ADPV 26, Wiesbaden ♦ Lohwasser, A., 2008, Schwimmen: Eine Kulturtechnik und ihre Darstellung im Land am Nil, Nikephoros 21:53–80 ♦ Mazow, L., 2006– 2007, The Industrious Sea Peoples, Scripta Mediterranea 27–28:291–321 ♦ 2014, The ‘Bathtub Coffin’ from Tel Qitaf, PEQ 146:31–39 ♦ Parrot, A., 1961, Assur, Paris ♦ Reich, R., 2013, Miqvaʾot (Jewish Ritual Baths) in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods, Jerusalem (Hebr.) ♦ Ricke, H., 1932, Der Grundriss des AmarnaWohnhauses, Leipzig ♦ Russell, J. M., 1991, Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh, Chicago ♦ Sinn, U./​Leypold, C./​Schauer, C., 2003, Olympia  – eine Spitzenstellung nicht nur im Sport: Eine neu entdeckte Badeanlage der hellenistischen Zeit, Antike Welt 34:617– 623 ♦ Sion, O./​Rapuano, R., 2019, A Pool from the Period of Aelia Capitolina in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in: H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem:​169–172  ♦ Schmid, S. G., et al., 2012, The Palaces of the Nabataean Kings at Petra, in: L. Nehmé/​ L. Wadeson (eds.), The Nabataeans in Focus: Current Archaeological Research at Petra, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42: Suppl., Oxford:​73–98 ♦ Thierry, E./​Vieweger, D., 2019, Die DoppelmiqwenAnlage im anglikanisch-preußischen Zionsfriedhof von Jerusalem, ZDPV 135:32–44 ♦ Turner, G., 1970, The State Apartments of Late Assyrian Palaces, Iraq 32:177– 213 ♦ Van Beek, G. W., 1993, Tell Jemmeh, NEAEHL 2:667–674 ♦ Weber, M., 1996, Antike Badekultur, Beck’s Archäo­logische Bibliothek, Munich ♦ Wicks, Y., 2015, Bronze ‘Bathtub’ Coffins, Oxford ♦ Yegül, F., 1992, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, New York ♦ 2010, Bathing in the Roman World, Cambridge, Mass. Felix Hagemeyer

Beer (b.) 1.  There are many different techniques for brewing b. None is directly attested for ancient Palestine; thus, we have to rely on the information from neighboring countries. 2.  The paucity of information on b. in ancient Palestine probably indicates that it was of marginal importance there. This can be explained by the fact that it was a wine-producing land (→ viticulture) and thus had a different basic alcoholic drink (Stager 1985). Crucial for discussions of b. in Palestine is whether the word škr can be understood specifically as “beer,” not only as intoxicating drink in general. This has been postulated by Kellermann (1977) on the basis of an etymological connection with Akkad. šikaru “beer” and was endorsed by Homan (2004). The innerHebr. documentation does not seem sufficient to establish this meaning. In post-exil. periods, the Jew. tradition certainly took it to be some kind of wine. King and Stager (2001:​101–102) pro-

80

posed that the word refers to some kind of brandy rather than to b. Philist. pottery shows examples of a jug with a strainer-spout (Amiran 1969:​266–267; Dothan 1982:​132), which has been considered by most scholars as a b. jug. This belongs to those parts of the inventory that can be traced back to Mycenaean prototypes. The special construction of the spout indicates that the liquid in those vessels contained particles that had to be kept away from the flow to be drunk. However, Stager (1995:​ 345) has noted that this jug forms part of a wine service; thus, it is not evidence for b.-brewing or drinking in Palestine. No other pottery vessel seems likely to be related to b. production. 3.1.  Ancient Egypt, in contrast to the more northern regions of Palestine, Syria, and Greece, was much more of a b.-drinking society (Helck 1971a). B. was the main source of liquidity, and in conjunction with bread, the major source of carbohydrates (Peters-Destérat 2005). Calculating the amount of bread and b. to be produced from a specified amount of grain by using different qualities was a major point in mathematical manuals (Imhausen 2003:​111–128). The main ingredient of b. was barley, but beyond that, specific analysis of the intricacies of brewing proves to be difficult. There are no indigenous Eg. texts transmitted that relate the way b. was prepared. Quite central for all discussions on Eg. brewing methods has been a recipe transmitted (at least in some of the copies) under the name of the late antique alchemist Zosimus of Panopolis. The Gemara (b. Pesaḥ. 42b) to the Mishnah treatise Pesaḥ. 3:1 also gives a short recipe (Bondi 1895:​62–64). It is methodologically not without problems to project this recipe back into pharaonic times. Besides those dubious sources, we have only depictions of the process on → tomb walls, plus actual arch. remnants of the installations and the vessels used. Modern proposals to reconstruct the process have diverged widely, esp. between scholars focusing on pictorial representations (Faltings 1991; 1998) and those working mainly from the remnants of actual production areas (Delwen 1996; 2000) or working with folkloristic methods (Ishida 2002; 2005). Most probably, a mixture of malted and unmalted grain (either barley or emmer) was used. Malting was performed with intact grain still in the husk by exposing it to moisture. Enzymes would then break down the starch into sugar. The malt was ground on a saddle quern and mixed with a batch of well-cooked grain. Both were ground, water added, and then the enzymes from the uncooked batch would convert the starch into sugar, which resulted in yeast fermentation. The mixture was rinsed with water

Beer (b.)

81

82

through a sieve. Dates could be added as an optional sweetener. This method most closely resembles modern sub-Saharan African methods. Given its status as an everyday drink, it is not surprising that there are several sources admonishing against uncontrolled drinking (Quack 1994:​159–160). B. was a major ingredient in Eg. medical recipes (→ medicine), esp. a variety called “sweet beer.” This should explain why one medical papyrus contains a specific “spell for the beer” where drinking b. is conceptualized as a means of driving away evil influences (Papyrus Hearst 14:10– 13). A specific phrase is used in a spell of drinking b. in Papyrus Leiden I 348 recto 13:3–13:5 (Borg­ houts 1971:​27). Seth is invoked, “when he sets his heart on bearing away a heart, to confuse and bear away the heart of enemies and evil spirits.” The Egyptians conceptualised b. as the general term for an alcoholic beverage and did not always differentiate various types. This can be seen in a Dem. dream-book (Papyrus Carlsberg 14:a1–15) that has the heading “the kind of beer of which a man dreams.” It starts by listing some different types of b., then b. and wine together, and, finally, different categories of wine (with more varieties of wine listed than of b.), but without giving a new lemma heading for wine (Volten 1942:​90–93). 3.2.  Babylonia was also a b.-drinking region (Röllig 1970), where daily rations were primarily served in bread and b. Some texts about the ingredients delivered for brewing give us a fairly good idea of its production. In the brewing process, the grain was moistened and allowed to sprout, either lying directly on the ground, on → roof-tops, or in special jars. Once the malt germinated, the process would be stopped, either by letting it dry naturally or by heating (in a kiln). Corn and husks were separated, and the grain was ground. The brew contained not only malt and water, but also many other ingredients. One ubiquitous item was the b.-bread produced directly from unmalted ground grain. It also contained → spices. Green malt and b.-bread were mixed in large jars. The mash was first heated and then left to cool. Gyle (fermenting wort) was added. The mass was put with water in the fermenter, a large jar with a sieve-opening at the bottom. The b. flowing through was collected in another jar and normally flowed into a purification vessel. In earlier times, it was drunk directly from the large vessel by using a straw in order to keep away any solid particles, like chaff and yeast, which were still present. The alcoholic content was probably rather low, and the end product rather viscous. A high number of specific varieties existed, from specifically good or sweet b. to a very thin b. All b. was top-fermented. B. was

consumed in large amounts, and there were also pubs where it was served. B. was also often used in medical recipes and rituals. 3.3.  Messengers from Palestine were provided with b. in Egypt according to Papyrus Petersburg 1116A verso 67–78, 183–190 (Golénischeff 1913:​pls. 6, 16), but the theory of Helck (1971a:​​ 24) that they were specifically given b. made from emmer because that was the normal grain used for b. in Palestine is hardly borne out by the evidence of the text, which seems to differentiate between b. (without grain indication) and emmer (as victual). B. coming from Kode (probably in Northern Syria) is mentioned in New Kingdom Eg. texts as an imported commodity as well as one actually brewed in Egypt (Helck 1971b:​​396). It is rarely attested; thus it seems to be a luxury commodity. The difference with Eg. b. is not known. 5.–6.  Although scholarship tends to call it “beer,” the date b. brewed in Babylonia is actually closer to cider. It is produced from fruit and water and fermented using natural yeast in the dates. Sometimes a plant called kasû  – perhaps dodder  – was added. Despite the lack of recipes written in Bab., we have a date beer recipe from antiquity, recorded by the pharmacologist and physician Pedanius Dioscorides from Anazarbus in Cilicia, Asia Minor (De materia medica, written about 64 or 77 c.e.; http://www.cancerlynx.com/ dioscorides.html). According to him, date b. was brewed using dates and water which were put into a cask and let ferment for ten days. On the eleventh day, the beverage was ready to be consumed. Four pools unearthed in Jericho and one at nearby ʿEin Feshka were probably used as vats for producing such date cider/b. (Broshi 2007). A single date palm can produce up to 400–500 l annually, and considering the fact that date palm orchards are attested in the area, it stands to reason that such cider/b. was produced in ancient Palestine at least during the Hell.-Rom. periods. However, an earlier or large-scale b. production in Palestine seems less likely. Only the neighboring b.drinking societies of Mesopotamia and Egypt used b. as a staple drink. According to a rabbinic rule (m. Pesaḥ. 3:1), Median and Eg. b. is among those things that have to be removed for Passover, because it is a fermented product. 7.  Amiran, R., 1969, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land from its Beginning in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, Jerusalem ♦ Bondi, J. H., 1895, Ägyptologisches aus der rabbinischen Literatur, ZÄS 33:62–70 ♦ Borghouts, J. F., 1971, The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348, Leiden ♦ Broshi, M., 2007, Date Beer and Date Wine in Antiquity, PEQ 139:55–59 ♦ Delwen, S., 1996, Archaeology of Ancient Egyptian Beer, JASBC 54.1:3–12 ♦ 2000, Brewing and Baking, in: P. T. Nich-

Bridge/s (br./brs.)

83 

olson/​I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge, U. K., et al.:537–576 ♦ Dothan, T., 1982, The Philistines and their Material Culture, New Haven ♦ Dubach, M., 2009, Trunkenheit im Alten Testament, BWANT 10.4, Stuttgart ♦ Faltings, D., 1991, Die Bierbrauerei im AR, ZÄS 118:104–116 ♦ 1998, Die Keramik der Lebensmittelproduktion im Alten Reich, Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 14, Heidelberg ♦ Golénischeff, W., 1913, Les papyrus hiératiques No. 1115, 1116A et 1116B de l’Ermitage Impériale à St.Péterbourg, St. Petersburg ♦ Helck, W., 1971a, Das Bier im Alten Ägypten, Berlin ♦ 1971b, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., ÄA 5, Wiesbaden ♦ Homan, M., 2004, Beer, Barley, and ‫ֵׁש ָכר‬ in the Hebrew Bible, in: R. E. Friedman/​W. H. C. Propp (eds.), Le-David Maskil (FS David N. Freedman), Winona Lake:​25–38 ♦ Imhausen, A., 2003, Ägyptische Algorithmen, ÄA 65, Wiesbaden ♦ I­shida, H., 2002, Insight into Ancient Egyptian Beer Brewing Using Current Folkloristic Methods, Master Brewers Association of the Americas Technical Quarterly 39:81–88 ♦ 2005, Two Different Brewing Processes Revealed from Two Ancient Egyptian Mural Paintings, Master Brewers Association of the Americas Technical Quarterly 42.4:273–282 ♦ Kellermann, D., 1977, Bier, 2BRL:48–49 ♦ King, P. J./​Stager, L. E., 2001, Life in Biblical Israel, Westminster ♦ PetersDestérat, M., 2005, Pain, bière et toutes bonnes choses, Paris ♦ Quack, J., 1994, Die Lehren des Ani, OBO 141, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Röllig, W., 1970, Das Bier im Alten Mesopotamien, Berlin ♦ Stager, L. E., 1985, The Firstfruits of Civilisation, in: J. Tubb (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, London:​172–188 ♦ 1995, The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 BCE), in: T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London:​332–348 ♦ Volten, A., 1942, Demotische Traumdeutung (Pap. Carlsberg XIII und XIV verso), AAeg 3, Copenhagen. Joachim Friedrich Quack

Bridge/s (br./brs.) 1.  A br. is a structure built to span a natural (valley, gorge, river, or body of water) or manmade (canal, or, in modern times, highways and railroads) obstacle for the purpose of allowing a traffic route (a street, or, in modern times, railroad tracks; → map Trade #1, col. 1045) to overcome it. Brs. that carry a waterway are called aqueducts, a word which refers to every kind of artificial channel that carries water (→ water works). There are no brs. mentioned in the HB but a long tradition of br. building is attested in the ANE, although the written sources and the arch. remains are relatively few. The Akkad. words for br. are titurru (attested from the late 3rd mill. up to the Neo-Ass. and Neo-Bab. periods) and gišru (Neo-Ass. and Neo-Bab. periods); both of them were borrowed by Late Aram. as t(y)twrʾ (Kaufman 1974:​108) and g(y)šrʾ (Kaufman 1974:​52). In Hitt. sources, brs. were called armizzi. 2.–3.  Two types of brs. are attested in the ANE: temporary and permanent brs. (Bagg 2011). Most of the brs. were temporary structures con-

84

structed during military campaigns to ferry troops across a river. The simplest forms seem to have been a platform or a raft made of logs. Tiglathpilesar I  (1114–1076 b.c.e.) cut trees to make a br. for the passage of his chariotry and troops (Grayson 1991:​21, iv, 68–71). Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 b.c.e.) crossed the Tigris by means of a br. made of rafts (raksūte), probably a structure consisting of logs tied together (Grayson 1991:​ 210, ii, 103–104). Floating brs., also called pontoon brs., represent a second type of temporary structure that floats on water. The wooden deck was supported by floating bodies made of inflated skins (Akkad. maškaru, dušû, cf. Bertman 2005:​ 253). A  pontoon br. is depicted on Shalmaneser III’s bronze bands from Balawat (858–824 b.c.e.; Hrouda 1991:​261; Yadin 1963:​397). Permanent brs. were made of ashlars or masonry and, in contrast to the temporary brs., are not only known from the written sources, but are also arch. attested (see below). 4.1.  One of the oldest brs. is the Büyükkayabridge (early 13th cent. b.c.e.) in Hattusha (Bogazköy), the capital city of the Hittites. The br. had a wooden deck supported by br.-heads made of stone blocks. These stones lay on steps cut into both steep sides of the 16 m deep gorge. The br. deck was 1.7 m wide and had a span length of 6.5 m (Naumann 1963). Anat. brs. are already mentioned in the correspondence of Ass. merchants dating from the beginning of the 2nd mill. (Kuzuoğlu 2018). 4.2.  Stone brs. are known from two Ass. cities. Sargon II (721–705 b.c.e.) built a stone br. connecting the → palace terrace with the Nabû-temple in his new capital Dur-Šarru-ken (Khorsabad). The br. was 3.7 m wide, more than 5 m high and was supported by a pointed arch (Loud/​Altman 1938:​32, pls. 11C, 12A–D). Sennacherib, who built one aqueduct in Nineveh and another in Jerwan (King 1915; Jacobsen/​Llyod 1935; Bagg 2000:​196–198, 222–223), appears also to have built a br. made of baked bricks and white limestones opposite a → gate of the citadel (Kujunjik) at Nineveh for the royal procession (Frahm 1997:​ 57, line 90). 4.3.  An inscription commemorating Nebuchadnezzar’s (604–562 b.c.e.) improvement of the Libil-hengalla-canal in Babylon mentions that he also built a br. over this canal in order that Marduk’s procession street (Ay-ibur-Šabû) could pass over it (Langdon 1912:​88, no. 8, ii, 5–12, 160, A, viii, 60–63). Herodotus (Hdt. 1.186) and Diodorus (quoting Ctesias; Diodorus 2.8) ascribe a stone br. over the Euphrates to the legendary queen Nitokris. Remains of a br. were, indeed, found in Babylon and, although there is no mention of it in the

85

86

Building Material/s (bu. ma./mas.)

some degree the complexity of an ancient society and its ability to mobilize economic and social means. 2.  The main bu. mas. were derived from stone, soil, and wood. These were usually obtained locally, however prestige buildings might require the use of imported items. Also utilized was a variety of debris, for instance, ash, broken pottery, or other organic and non-organic detritus. In addition, there was the limited and specialized use of metals such as bronze or copper (→ metal working and casting). The basic materials for building are common throughout the Levant, from Mesopotamia to Egypt and a number of in-depth studies are available for those areas that are also applicable to Palestine (Wright 1985; Moorey 1994; Kemp 2000). 3.1.  In the Levant, stone, mainly limestone, sandstone, or basalt, was quarried, gathered in the form of fieldstones or river pebbles, or removed from an earlier context and re-used (for quarrying see Shiloh/​Horowitz 1975). Limestone, a sedimentary rock that contains at least 50 % calcium carbonate (CaCO3), was the most commonly available stone suitable for building. The different varieties of limestone are usually referred to by their local Arab. names: meleki, the “kings’” stone, 7.  Bagg, A. M., 2000, Assyrische Wasserbauten, Bagh- a crystalline limestone; mizzi milu, the “sweet” dader Forschungen 24, Mainz ♦ 2011, Brücken im Alten stone, a lithographic limestone; mizzi ahmar, the Orient, in: M. Prell (ed.), Archäologie der Brücken, Re- “red” stone, a dolomitic limestone; and nari, the gensburg:​2–7 ♦ Bertman, S., 2005, Handbook to Life “firestone,” a lime crust, or calcrete, formed by rein Ancient Mesopotamia, New York/​Oxford ♦ Frahm, precipitation of the calcium carbonate. In the area E., 1997, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, Vienof Jerusalem meleki limestone was available. It is a na ♦ Grayson, A. K., 1991, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), Toronto ♦ Hrou- soft white limestone when first quarried that takes da, B., 1991, Der Alte Orient, Munich ♦ Jacobsen, T./​ on a golden hue and hardens on exposure. In the Lloyd, S., 1935, Sennacherib’s Aqueduct at Jerwan, OIP N, nari was the commonly available limestone. 24, Chicago ♦ Kaufman, S. A., 1974, The Akkadian In- It also had the advantage of being easy to quarfluences on Aramaic, AS 19, Chicago ♦ King, L. W., 1915, ry due to its formation as a surface crust. Ridges Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser King of of calcareous sandstone or kurkar run parallel to Assyria B. C. 860–825, London ♦ Koldewey, R., 1913,  ♦ Das wieder erstehende Babylon, Leipzig Kuzuoğlu, the coast and this readily available, albeit friable, R., 2018, Anatolian Bridges in Old Assyrian Texts, Archi- stone was utilized in the coastal areas (Wright vum Anatolicum 12.2:113–126 (Turkish with Engl. ab- 1985:​337–341). Basalt an extremely hard igneous stract on p. 114) ♦ Langdon, S., 1912, Die neubabylo- rock is found in former volcanic areas in the N nischen Königsinschriften, Leipzig ♦ Loud, G./​Altman, of Palestine and in Transjordan. It can be easily C. B., 1938, Khorsabad 2, OIP 60, Chicago ♦ Naumann, traced back to its source due to each basalt outR., 1963, Die hethitische Brücke über die Schlucht bei Büyükkaya, MDOG 94:24–32 ♦ Netzer, E., 2001, Das cropping’s unique structure, however no quarries Wasserversorgungssystem von Masada, in: W. Dierx/​ have been recognized. In those areas where basalt G. Garbrecht (eds.), Wasser im heiligen Land, Mainz:​ was commonly available it was used extensively, 195–204 ♦ Yadin, Y., 1963, The Art of Warfare in Bib- while elsewhere it was used more selectively, nolical Lands, New York et al. tably when its durable qualities were required. It Ariel M. Bagg was also selected for its dark, almost black color, which contrasted dramatically with pale limeBuilding Material/s (bu. ma./mas.) stone (Reich 1992:​1–2). Fieldstones, of all types, 1.  Bu. mas. can vary from simple soils and or- were used mainly in domestic architecture or as ganic materials easy to collect to materials that ‘fillers’ integrated between quarried blocks, they were difficult to obtain and demanded major in- were gathered locally, and could be from any suitvestments to process. Bu. mas., thus, reflect to ably hard stone. River pebbles were collected, and

written sources, it was most probably built by Nebuchadnezzar. Seven pillars made of baked bricks were excavated; they were 21 m long, 9 m wide, and were separated 9 m from each other. The pillars had curved sides, which converged in a point against the stream (Koldewey 1913:​193–195). The pillars probably were covered with ashlars and supported a wooden superstructure. According to Herodotus, the wooden beams (and platforms) were removed at night, preventing evildoers from crossing the br. 4.4.  Remains of a small arched br., dating from the time of Herod were found in Masada. The br., located near the first cistern of the upper cistern group, allowed the spanning of a deep gorge over 2.20 m. It was part of the pathway network leading to the cisterns and to the top of the fortress (→ fortifications; Netzer 2001:​198–199). 5.–6.  Although brs. are not mentioned in the HB, they are attested in written and arch. sources of the ANE from the end of the 3rd mill. b.c.e. onwards. Most of the evidence comes from the Ass. capitals and from Babylon in the 1st mill. Temporary brs. were used during military campaigns to cross rivers, whereas permanent stone and masonry brs. were built in the cities, mostly related to important buildings or streets.

Building Material/s (bu. ma./mas.)

1

87 

2

3

4

5

6

7 Figure Building Material #1: 1–7) Construction techniques of stone walls.

due to their natural shape were often used as cobblestones (→ fig. Building Material #1). 3.2.  Soil, due to its easy availability and plastic properties, was the most common bu. ma. throughout antiquity. Selected soils, ranging from heavy clay to light loam, were laid down in alternating layers to form a stable environment in preparation for large building projects and in particular for fortifications such as embankments (Reich 1992:​8–9). However the most common use for soil was the production of sundried mudbricks, the most widely used bu. ma. from the Neolithic period onwards. They were produced from a variety of local soils tempered with water, straw, and dung (for a scient. analysis of mudbricks see Miller Rosen 1986:​75–91). The mixture was puddled to the correct consistency and then shaped to form a brick and baked dry in the sun (Reich 1992:​5–6). It has been calculated that a skilled worker could produce ca. 1,000 mudbricks a day, and depending on the climatic conditions these could be ready for use within a week. Mud plaster, produced from the same soil as the mudbricks, was used as mortar (→ millstone) to bond the bricks together, and to give walls a protective coating and smooth finish (Wright 1985:​352–361). Tamped mud was used to create floor surfaces, and combined with twigs

88

and branches to form roofing material. A form of whitewash from powdered limestone was applied as an added protection on top of dried mud plaster (Moorey 1994:​329–332). 3.3.  Plaster, from either gypsum or calcite was produced according to the availability of the basic materials and ease of manufacture. True lime plaster or slaked lime, calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]2) was produced by burning limestone at 750–900 °C, while gypsum plaster could be formed at temperatures below 200 °C (Rehhoff et al. 1990). A common alternative was finely crushed and powdered limestone, huwwar, which when tamped with water formed a relatively hard surface, suitable for floors or → roofs (Wright 1985:​ 372, 438). 3.4.  Dendroarchaeological research has shown that suitable → timber would have been available from locally grown trees, Kermes oak (Quercus calliprinos), Palestine pistachio (Pistacia palestina), and Olive (Olea europaea) being the most readily available. (These are not the dominant trees present today as the native arboreal landscape has changed considerably; Liphshitz 2007; → forest). However, any locally grown wood was utilized. Wood was needed primarily for roofing (Wright 1985:​364). Rooms in pre-Hell. settlements are usually rather small and not wider than 4 m. This width of the room was determined by the roof beams available that were usually not longer than 4–5 m. Only cedar beams had the necessary length spanning more than 10 m. Coppicing was probably employed in order to preserve the original tree; the smaller twigs and branches used as roofing material and the more substantial as cross beams and beams integrated into ashlar masonry and mudbrick walls. Timber was also imported for prestige buildings, in particular Cedar – Cedrus libani from the mountains of Lebanon (Liphshitz/​Biger 1991). 3.5.  Copper and bronze was used sparingly, providing a decorative as well as functional role. Metals were always a prestige item, and the raw material would have initially been imported. 4.  Since the establishment of first settlements during the Neolithic, stone was used mainly on the below and above ground foundation courses. On tells, due to the unstable nature of the site, there could be two, three, or more courses below ground, sometimes exceeding those courses above ground. The above ground course, the socle, had a flat upper surface in order to receive the mudbrick or stone superstructure. Stone monoliths are an exception; they are found in domestic contexts as structural roof supports and room dividers and in cultic contexts as free-standing cult objects or maṣṣebot (→ standing stones). Stone slabs

Building Material/s (bu. ma./mas.)

89

90

and cobble stones were also used to pave areas with heavy traffic, for instance, the area of the city → gate (Wright 1985:​439). When available, basalt, rather than limestone, was preferred for heavy duty areas due to its resistance to wear and weathering. Mudbricks were made in a variety of sizes and there were a number of recipes in respect of soil types and the quantity and type of temper used (straw or dung). Bricks were made from a mix of at least three of four possible constituents, aggregate or coarse sand, fine sand, silt, and clay (Kemp 2000:​80). Each mix had particular advantages and mudbricks of differing types were often used together, apparently to provide additional strength. The mud plaster and tamped mud floors used the same mud-sources. Wood was an essential building component, to reinforce mudbrick walls, and for → doors, door frames and lintels, columns (on stone bases), and roofing material (Moorey 1994:​355 ff). Mudbrick debris and debris from ancient settlements such as tells (if available) was also used as fill material in order to elevate and level the surface in preparation for a new building. Layers of compact earth, clay, ash, and/or pottery sherds were used as floor make-up and to facilitate drainage (Wright 2000:​72). Copper and bronze was used as an overlay to protect the timbered city gates, as a casing for wooden columns, and as pivot shoes serving a decorative as well as functional role. There is no evidence that gold was used for decorative or structural use. 4.1.  The main building techniques and materials in use during the Bronze Age continued with little change throughout the Iron Age and into the Pers. period. Roughly squared, limestone blocks were used in monumental structures from the EBA onwards. Basalt was also used, but more sparingly, usually as orthostates or doorjambs. These were usually visible and so were given a more polished finish. In monumental royal architecture of the Levant during the MBA and LBA the mudbrick walls of → palaces and temples (→ sanctuary) are often furnished with orthostats. These are dressed stones, sometimes with a relief, that were set along the lower front of mudbrick walls to protect the unburned bricks from water running at floor level. The orthostats often have dowels or gudgeons where a wooden frame was attached to the stone. During the Bronze Age, esp. during the MBA and LBA, soil was also used to build embankments around cities, giving rise to the classic shape of a tell. Different soils were laid down in such a way that the angle of repose was greater than if a single type of soil had been used. The resultant steep slope was plastered, giving rise to the arch. concept of the Bronze Age glacis (Wright 2000:​71).

Wood in some form was always used, however unless carbonized it is not preserved in the arch. record. In addition, wood was precious and so it was constantly recycled (Moorey 1994:​335), leaving almost no evidence for its use and development. The use of wooden pillars is presumed due to the presence of stone pillar bases. First evidence of water-proof plaster comes from the MBA. Only such plaster provided the necessary coating in cisterns and installations for liquids to avoid seeping away in porous rocks and soils. 4.2.  It is only during the Iron Age II period that limestone ashlar masonry becomes more common (see Shiloh 1979). During the late 10th and early 9th cent. there is the advent of the classic limestone ashlar masonry associated with the royal building works of the Iron Age (→ fig. Building Material #1:4–5). The limestone was quarried near the site and shaped into rectangular ashlars. In the 8th cent., the ashlar masonry, often re-used from the preceding stratum where loadbearing strength was needed, is more standardized. For ease of alignment, a drafted margin was cut, when the stone was set in place. Often the stones are marked with signs, apparently a way to insure the correct setting of the blocks. The walls of monumental buildings would often be composed of ashlar masonry interspersed with sections built from fieldstones. Royal residencies of the 9th and 8th cent. b.c.e. are often built on podiumlike terraces filled with soil and built with an ashlar wall around the podium (e. g., Lachish). In Samaria and Jezreel the casing around the podium is constructed as a casemate wall. Such podiums and their fill can be compared with Ass. royal architecture where such constructions might be identified with the Ass. tamlû (Hebr. milloʾ?). The roofs of large rooms were supported by stone monoliths or stone pillars built from stacked stones. Mudbricks were the primary bu. mas. during all periods throughout the Levant and their employment and manufacture remained consistent (see Moorey 1994:​302–309; Kemp 2000), although this was not the case for central Transjordan during the Iron Age, when boulder- and chink stone construction was standard for both domestic, industrial, and monumental buildings (Clark 2003; Daviau 1999; Najjar 1999). The earliest mudbricks were formed by hand into loaves, however from the EBA onwards bricks were mold-made in standardized orthogonal forms. Bricks from the same building, and usually from the same site were always of a uniform size, this appears to reflect the standardization of the brick-maker’s mold and not the common unit of measurement in use at that time. However standardization of size would also facilitate their use

Building Material/s (bu. ma./mas.)

91 

as a building block. Their use transcends all time periods, and it was only in the late Hell./early Rom. period that monumental buildings in Palestine started to be built entirely from stone, although stone walls up to the second storey are found in Ammon and Moab during Iron Age II. 4.3.  While → houses were still built of mudbrick, fieldstones, and other locally available materials, the advent of stone construction technology in the 6th cent. b.c.e. caused increasing innovations esp. in monumental architecture. After ca. 480 b.c.e. G influence is visible in constructions along the Levantine coast, that is, in the appearance of stone columns. During the Pers. period the first roof tiles appear in the Levant as a G invention. Marble was also used for the first time during these periods; this type of stone does not occur naturally in Palestine and had to be imported. G and Pers. architectural elements such as Ionian column capitals or Achaemenid bull capitals as well as fluted columns and ashlar stones with dressed margins were all recorded mainly in Phoenicia in the cities of Sidon, Byblos, and Amrit. 4.4.  G influences are even more pronounced during the Hell. period continuing traditions that began during the Pers. period and introducing new techniques such as mosaic floors. Already in the Pers. period, public monumental structures were built increasingly with dressed stones. 5.  In domestic construction, bu. mas. remained unchanged during the Bronze and Iron Ages due to the fact that they were of local origin and that their use was governed by technological restrictions. Notable changes over time occurred mainly in monumental and public construction. Changes in the building of → fortifications, → palaces, and administrative structures, and temples included mainly the use and the processing of stones and plaster. More advanced techniques appeared with the Pers. period, when improvements of constructional techniques such as statics had a direct influence on the shape of walls, columns, roofs and the plan of buildings. 6.  There are numerous references to building and bu. mas. in the OT but most of them are in respect of the Temple and David’s palace in Jerusalem. However there are minor references concerning domestic buildings. The use of hewn stone, presumably ashlar masonry, for monumental buildings, for instance, the Jerusalem Temple, is referred to in 1 Kgs 6:36, but the use of hewn stones in ordinary houses is also alluded to in Am 5:11. Stone quarrying is mentioned in 2 Kgs 5:17; 6:7 and 2 Chr 2:2, 18. The stone worker appears as ḥoṣeb (1 Kgs 5:29) or ḥaraš (Ezra 3:7). The Bible mentions also the use of stone saws (1 Kgs 6:9). The fine dressed and polished stone appears as

92

gazit in Hebr. (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:9, 11). The fill in a podium typical of royal Isr. architecture might be mentioned as milloʾ in 1 Kgs 9:15, 24 (see above § 4.2). The manufacture of bricks (Hebr. lebenah) was a commonly undertaken task according to Ex 5:7, 14. The method of manufacture and the use of brick molds (Hebr. malben) are also referred to in Nah 3:14 (for ancient pictures showing brick making in Egypt, see ANEP:115). There is a reference to burnt or kilned brick in Gen 11:3. Mortar, in this case mud mortar, appears in Isa 41:25 and Jer 43:9 as Hebr. melet. The necessity of plaster walls is alluded to in Ez 13:10–12, and apparently the plaster, or even the complete building, could become unclean (Lev 14:41, 42, 45). Palace walls were also plastered in Dan 5:5. Numerous trees are mentioned in the OT (see → forest). While it is sometimes difficult to identify the bibl. Hebr. tree names today due to a lack of botanical description in the Bible, the identification of other trees is certain, for instance, cedar (Hebr. ʾerez) and juniper (Hebr. beroš) (Liphshitz 2007). Wood was specifically purchased (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 2:8–16), and cedar was imported from the area of Lebanon for building David’s palace (2 Sam 5:11 and 2 Chr 14:1), and for the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 5:6–11; 6:9, 15, 18). Bronze or copper sheaths were used to protect wooden columns (1 Kgs 7:15–16) and reinforce gates (1 Chr 22:3; Ps 107:16). However the mention of the Temple sanctuary floor being paved with gold (1 Kgs 6:30) can have no credibility. The materials required for re-building the Temple are also listed in Ezra 3:7.

7.  Clark, D. R., 2003, Bricks, Sweat and Tears: The Human Investment in Constructing a “Four-Room” House, Near Eastern Archaeology 66:34–44  ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 1999, Domestic Architecture in Iron Age Ammon: Building Materials, Construction Techniques, and Room Arrangement, in: B. MacDonald/​ R. W. Younker (eds.), Ancient Ammon, SHANE 27, Leiden:​113–136  ♦ Franklin, N., 2011, From Megiddo to Tamassos and Back: Putting the “Proto-Ionic Capital” in its Place, in: I. Finkelstein/​N. Naʾaman (eds.), The Fire Signals of Lachish (FS David Ussishkin), Winona Lake:​129–140 ♦ Kemp, B., 2000, Soil (Including Mud-brick Architecture), in: P. T. Nicholson/​I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge, U. K., et al.:78–103 ♦ Liphshitz, N., 2007, Timber in Ancient Israel, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 26, Tel Aviv ♦ Liphshitz, N./​Biger, G., 1991, Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) in Israel during Antiquity, IEJ 41:167–175 ♦ Miller Rosen, A., 1986, Cities of Clay: The Geoarchaeology of Tells, Chicago ♦ Moorey, P. R. S., 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Oxford ♦ Najjar, M., 1999, “Ammonite” Monumental Architecture, in: B. MacDonald/​R. W. Younker (eds.), Ancient Ammon, SHANE 27, Leiden:​103–112  ♦ Rehhoff, L., et al., 1990, Plasters: Gypsum or Calcite? A  Prelimina-

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.)

93

94

ry Case Study of Syrian Plasters, Paléorient 16.2:79–87 ♦ Reich, R., 1992, Building Materials and Architectural Elements in Ancient Israel, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​ 1–16 ♦ Shiloh, Y., 1979, The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry, Qedem 11, Jerusalem ♦ Shiloh, Y./​Horo­witz, A., 1975, Ashlar Quarries of the Iron Age in the Hill Country of Israel, BASOR 218:37– 48 ♦ Wright, G. R. H., 1985, Ancient Buildings in South Syria and Palestine 1, Leiden/​Cologne ♦ 2000, Ancient Building Technology 1, Leiden et al. Norma Franklin

Ass. central courtyard house (Hofhaus) with its → courtyard and side rooms appears in Palestine as well. Sometimes the court has a tiled → roof and clearstories surmounting the side rooms. If the side rooms appear on three sides of the court only, the fourth leaves space for a portal. The bit hilani commands a broad entrance hall with one, two, or even three supports (piers or pillars) on the last step of the flight of → stairs fronting the broad main hall or throne room (Frankfort 1952; Reich 1992b:​​204; → fig. Palace #2:1, col. 724). The façade and gates can be ornamented with orthostats and ceilings can be constructed as corbeled vaults or archs (Van Beek 1972) to signify amplitude and grandeur. 2.3.  Wall decorations consist primarily of → mural paintings (→ fig. Mural Painting #1:1, col. 673) and orthostats (→ fig. Palace #1:1–2 and 4, col. 724; → fig. Sanctuary #1:1–2, col. 789), as well as other types of wall-ornamentation. 2.3.1.  Mural paintings appear on mud, lime, and gypsum plastered walls (Nunn 1988). Compared with other types of building ornamentation, figural painting is cheaper and allows the most complex forms of symbolism. Therefore, in Syria differentiated ideologies of the relations between gods, kings, humans, animals, plants and the world order appear on figural mural paintings in Mari, Alalakh, Qatna, Til Barsip, and Tell Halaf (cf. Nunn 1988:​66–93, 96–97, 102–123, 134), and in Lebanon at Tell el-Burak (Kamlah/​Sader 2019), whereas such paintings are scarcely found in Palestine but do appear at Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Beck 1982:​47–68). 2.3.2.  Orthostats and → sculptures form another important ornamental element of walls. Orthostats were usually made of black basalt “which shows up well against white limestone” (Reich 1992a:​​2). The stone foundations of walls can be built to form a plinth-zone for orthostats or orthostats can revet the foundations of mudbrick walls. Carved orthostats could be either nonpictorial or ornamented with figures. The most important orthostats are from Northern Syria (Naumann 1955:​80–82). Northern Syr. temple walls could also be decorated with alternating pilasters and alcoves (Werner 1994:​157–161, figs. 10–21). Eg. influence may be seen in “the use of a thin stucco coat over the carved stonework of sculptured relief” (Woolley 1921:​153). 2.3.3.  Other types of wall ornamentation include enamelled walls, but they are unusual in Syro-Palestine. However, enamelled walls existed in the temple and palace of Carchemish (Nunn 1988:​184–185) and Tell Halaf (von Oppenheim 1950:​Appendix I, pl. 13:1). In Carchemish, the walls were blue with yellow bands and reliefs of

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.) 1.  This article describes how and why bu. ors. as carriers of meaning in architecture were used within Syro-Palest. architecture from the EBA to the Pers. period. Bu.  ors. are not superfluous aspects of building architecture without any function. On the contrary, they are carriers of symb. meaning and configure buildings to signify a coherent sense and order. This perspective tries to go beyond a simple typology of form and geography common in the current state of research (Willers 2000:​33–34). 2.  Types of bu.  ors., which will be described in the following, are basic building structures (→ sanctuaries, → palaces), walls, → doors and → gates, podiums and steps, windows, piers and pillars, and graves. Basic building structures of palaces, temples, and even → tombs not only show practical aspects of function and use but can carry a symb. meaning. 2.1.  Floor plans from temples signify a special kind of access to the presence of the god. The broad room temple plan (Breitraumtempel) provides an instantaneous view of the god on a podium or in a niche on the long side opposite the entrance. In a bent axis temple (Knickachstempel) the god is more aloof as the visitor has first to turn around to see the god on the far broadside. In the long room temple (Langraumtempel) the god seems even more aloof as the visitor has to cross the entrance hall and the main hall before entering the sanctum. The antae (Antentempel; in most cases the antae are part of the long room temple plan, sometimes of the broad room) define and structure the open access to the entrance hall, whereas the square temple (Quadrattempel) localizes the god in the center of the temple as the navel of the world’s order. Tripartite pillar temples (Pfeilertempel; → fig. Sanctuary #1:6–8, col. 789) adopt the architecture of mundane public tripartite pillared buildings (Fritz 1977; Herzog 1992:​223–228) and present a courtly, grave, and majestic atmosphere (Kamlah 2003). 2.2.  Ornamental elements of palaces signify the buildings as official and representative. The Bab.-

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.)

95 

white-yellow rosettes (Werner 1994:​164–165, fig. 30). More usual are walls with wood paneling, poss. even with → ivory paneling (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot 1938:​1–2; Markoe 2003:​150). Sometimes, walls and ceilings were ornamented with cornices (Wright 1985:​fig. 43:5; Kamlah 2009:​fig. 8, → fig. tomb #3:1, col. 995) and friezes (Werner 1994:​162–164, figs. 23–27; Landesmuseum Wür­ttemberg 2009:​30, → fig. Mural Painting #1:1, col. 673). The face of ashlar stones can be smoothed or drafted with margins for aesthetic reasons (Reich 1992a:​​5; 1992b:​​211–212). The integration of wooden beams along walls of stone and orthostat → construction technique was for static reasons in Anatolia and Northern Syria (Naumann 1955:​88–104), whereas the integration of wooden beams adopted in Isr. ashlar masonry probably had a ornamental purpose (Reich 1992b:​​213). Rusticated masonry abutting defence → towers of city walls as well as projections on the city walls symbolize the robust power of defensive → fortifications. In addition, pinnacles were not used for defensive reasons only, but on nonmilitary buildings for decorative purposes to represent the sacred mountain, a “ziggurat” or heaven-like pyramid (Garbini 1958; Stern 1992:​307 ff; cf. for pinnacles on → altars and pedestals, Woolley 1921:​figs. 56–57; von Oppenheim 1950:​fig. 36). 2.4.  The entrance and exit of Palest. → doors and → gates (→ fig. Gates #1–3, col. 326–330) are usually narrowed by two abutting pilasters forming a kind of inner room, sometimes subdivided by another pair of abutting pilasters. The walls of the gates can be decorated with orthostats carved in relief and → sculptures (see above). Mountings of metal reinforce and ornament the gates (2BRL:fig. 88), pilasters with ornamented capitals support architraves. Door frames can be arched in various sizes and archways may expose a more spatial atmosphere than architraves. Eg. influence may be traced in “false doors” at Late Hitt. → houses in Northern Syria (Woolley 1921:​ fig. 59). 2.5.  → Stairs and podiums are not only constructed for technical reasons but for aesthetic, ritual, and symb. ones as well. They can be “the result of prestige manifestation, as in the case of a raised dais for a throne” (Reich 1992a:​​14) or as the place to lay down offerings (Mazar 1980:​ figs. 9 ff). For example, the steps of the representative stairway at ʿAin Dara (→ fig. Sanctuary #1:2, col. 789) are decorated with plaited patterns (Abu-ʿAssaf 1990:​13, pls. 9a, 10b–c). Podia occur mostly in the cellae of “Antentempels,” sometimes they form part of the architecture of gates (e. g., Bernett/​Keel 1998). They too can be decorated with reliefs (Abu-ʿAssaf 1990:​17, pls. 43a–46a)

96

or friezes (von Oppenheim 1950:​Appendices II– III, fig. 36; Werner 1994:​fig. 50). 2.6.  Various window styles have been observed in ancient architecture including windows that show a typical Eg. framework (Demangel 1935). Stone arched window frames have been found in Phoenicia and Cyprus. A window in Alalakh is divided by pillars into three parts (Naumann 1955:​ 356). A  house-model made of basalt from Tell Halaf depicts windows with abacus, balustrade, and columns with leafy capitals (Naumann 1955:​ fig. 150). Decorated balustrades form ornamental window grills with a row of palmette-pillars beneath an abacus (Shiloh 1979:​pls. 11:1–14:3, 19; Stern 1992:​306 ff). A  stone window from Curium has this form together with an arched window frame (2BRL:fig. 23). An → ivory from Samaria depicts this kind of window together with the head of a well hair-dressed woman looking out (Winter 1983:​fig. 310; → fig. Hairstyle #2:4, col. 383). Such ivories were used for decorating → furniture and probably signified wealth and status. This Phoen. motif of the “woman at the window” has not only been found at Samaria, but also at Arslan Tash, Nimrud, and Khorsabad (Decamps de Mertzenfeld 1954:​pls. 76–77, 49, 100, 101), while four two-faced sculptures of female heads from Rabbah Ammon were probably fastened to a window’s lintel above with an abacus below (Zayadine 1973:​pls. 18:1; 21–24:1). 2.7.  Though used sparingly, piers and pillars with their capitals are one of the most important ornamental building elements in Syro-Palest. architecture. Their capitals are distinguished by different forms having different meanings. Terms from G and Rom. architecture of pillars are difficult to adopt. In the following, three forms will be described: the Eg. forms in Palestine, Northern Syr. forms, and Syro-Palest. forms. 2.7.1.  Eg. forms in Palestine include the cannelated column which is a fluted pillar with a facetted shaft (Wright 1985:​fig. 331) and sometimes with an octagonal shape and a square capital register (Wright 1985:​fig. 330). These forms denote order. The capital of the papyrus-column has a papyrus-like form (Rowe 1940:​pls. 26:20, 52A:4) and signifies fertility and abundance. 2.7.2.  Northern Syr. forms include piers that consist of a square brick-made shaft with a low, square stone plinth (Naumann 1955:​figs. 119– 120). The shafts themselves could be panelled with wood (Werner 1994:​166). Pillars had a wooden (sometimes stone) round, facetted shaft, occasionally bronze plated, and were cylindrical or tapered in form at the top or at the bottom. Their capitals were mostly decorated with pendant leaves (Naumann 1955:​figs. 150–155).

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.)

97

98

Stone semi-columns appear standing in alcoves or alternating with pilasters. Their shafts could be contorted/twisted or decorated with stylized palm leaves (Werner 1994:​158–159, fig. 16). Pedestals are round stone bases, sometimes with a torus or rounded moulding (Naumann 1955:​ figs. 121–127). They can be decorated with annuli of calyx-shaped leaves, combined with lily or lotus-flowers (Naumann 1955:​figs. 129–130; Shiloh 1979:​fig. 71, pl. 21:3). In other cases, drumshaped bases exist of three registers. While the middle one is constricted and sometimes decorated with an interlace of surrounding rosettes, the upper and lower ones are decorated with annuli of leaves or even volutes (Naumann 1955:​ figs. 131–134). They all signify abundant growth, even regeneration is suggested by the lotus motif. Other Northern Syr. pedestals are animal-formed bases. Typical are forms of the bull, lion, or sphinx (Naumann 1955:​figs. 136, 138 ff, 142) and they all signify protection. Some of these bases support statues of the gods which function as pillars or caryatids (Naumann 1955:​figs. 441, 443). 2.7.3.  The typical Syro-Palest. pier form, esp. from Northern Palestine, is of ashlar masonry construction with a square base and a floral capital of two rising volutes as palm fronds (proto-aeolic). As some capitals are carved on both sides, while others are not, the position in architecture is probably either that of an engaged pilaster or that of an engaged or free standing pillar (Shiloh 1976:​ 70–75, fig. 5; 1979:​21–25, figs. 12–14). If placed in wide doorways, they “enhanced the aesthetic appearance of the doorway and endowed it with symbolic and cultic significance” (Reich 1992a:​​ 10). The ornamental shape of the capital consists of a central triangle flanked by two spiralling volutes with upper and lower leaves inclosing each volute and an abacus at the top (→ fig. Building Ornaments #1, col. 99; cf. the description from Shiloh 1979:​14, fig. 8). In some cases, there are two concentric circles or three stems between abacus, triangle, and volutes, in others the triangle is replaced by the stem of the volutes and a kind of bud in between (Shiloh 1979:​14–17, fig. 11). All these types of columns and piers signify order and abundance. When the volutes are geometric and simple in form, the emphasis seems to lay on gravity and order, but the more the volutes resemble real palm fronds, the emphasis is on abundance. Shrine models depict proto-aeolic capitals on pillars or piers flanking the entrance (Weinberg 1978:​figs. 11, 14; Shiloh 1979:​figs. 37–38). 2.8.  In most cases, the architecture of Palest. graves before the Hell. period does not contain any ornamental elements, but there are exceptions. In Silwan, the elites of Jerusalem cut mag-

nificent graves into the rock. As in Egypt, their architecture resembled houses and was meant to be seen in public. Their house-style architecture can be divided into graves with a flat roof, a rounded roof, or a gabled roof (Kamlah 2009:​282– 284, figs. 8–10). Another exception consists of the graves with figural drawings from Tell ʿEtun (Ussishkin 1974:​109–114, pl. 21) and Khirbet Beit Lei (Naveh 1963). 3.  The material of building ornaments can be stone, clay, metal, wood, ivory, paint, bronze, and even silver and gold. 4.1.  In the Chalc. and EBA, the broad room temple is the dominant form, sometimes constructed with antae. In the Chalc., the entrance of the main gatehouse at the temple from ʿEin Gedi has protruding jambs, with two pilasters flanking the postern gate. The threshold and step seem to form part of a podium which supported pilasters (Ussish­kin 1980:​fig. 4). The walls were plastered and painted with wavy bands in different colors (Ussishkin 1980:​12). Scratched and incised drawings adorn the stone pavement of Megiddo XIX (Loud 1948:​pls. 271–282). From the EBA, ornamented pilasters and stone column bases hewn into rectangular blocks were found at Ai and Tell el-Hesi (Callaway 1965:​31–38, figs. 14–15, 17; Wright 1985:​fig. 329:1–2). Rosettes made of different stones decorated the walls of the temple at Tell Brak (Werner 1994:​164, figs. 28–29). Its podium was decorated with a frieze of differently colored stones, gold foil, and silver nails (Werner 1994:​176, fig. 50). Fragments of a marble frieze depict captives and overseers at Ebla (Landesmuseum Württemberg 2009:​30). 4.2.  In the MBA and LBA the broad room temple diminishes. The long room temple, sometimes constructed as an antae temple, is dominant next to the bent axis and square temple forms, whereas the central hall is the dominant plan of palaces (Weippert 1988:​226–232). In Alalakh, Qatna, Ebla, and Hazor, non-figural orthostats line the walls although an orthostat from Ebla does depict → hybrid creatures (Landesmuseum Württemberg 2009:​81). In Alalakh, sculptures of lions and fragments of lion sculptures as well as of wood paneling have also been found (Orthmann 1975:​pl. 408a; Naumann 1955:​402). A large window of Yarim-lim’s palace is divided into three parts by pillars (Naumann 1955:​356). Orthostats were found in gates at Gezer, Beth-Shemesh, and Shechem (Wright 1984:​figs. 4–9; Campbell 2002:​figs. 129–132), and others are assumed to have been present in the palace of Tel Kabri (Oren 1992:​112). Two rows of octagonal columns reconstructed at the fortress temple at Shechem divided the cella lon-

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.)

99 

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 0

20

40

60

80

100 cm

Figure Building Ornaments #1: 1–7) Iron Age IIB–C “Proto-Aeolic” capitals from Megiddo (1–3), Hazor (4), Ramat Rahel (5), Jerusalem (6), and Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ (7).

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.)

101

102

gitudinally into nave and aisles (Wright 1968:​ 20, 23–24). Another column stood in the center of the entrance porch, while later “two stone bases attached to the temple’s outer façade on either side of the entrance had grooves cut into the tops to hold stelae” (Mazar 1992:​165). The temple walls of Tell Leilan are designed with alternating pilasters and alcoves with contorted/twisted semi-columns, some of them stylized as palm trees (Werner 1994:​158–159, fig. 16). Four huge column bases have been found in the large columned hall at Qatna, another in the throne room (Landesmuseum Württemberg 2009:​158, 166), and two huge bases at Aphek (Oren 1992:​fig. 8). Bases hewn into round shapes were excavated at Megiddo XV (Loud 1948:​fig. 185) next to a papyrus-capital (Siegelmann 1976:​fig. 1:1). In Syria, the most famous mural paintings come from Mari (al-Khalesi 1978). The walls and floors of the palaces at Alalakh, Qatna, and Tel Kabri were painted in seemingly Aegean style (Woolley 1955:​pls. 36b–39; Landesmuseum Württemberg 2009:​176–181; Niemeier/​Niemeier 2002), and in Lebanon, geometric mural paintings were recovered on the walls of the palace at Tell el-Burak, south of Sidon (Kamlah 2004:​pls. 21–22). While some walls of the LBA palace at Ugarit were constructed of ashlar blocks with drafted margins and bosses, the entrance halls contained a pair of columns between piers to form an ornamental portico comparable to the monumental portico at the LBA palace of Alalakh IV (Oren 1992:​114). At the temple at ʿAin Dara, reliefs on the podium depict hybrids and mountain-gods raising their arms (Abu-ʿAssaf 1990:​28, 39, pls. 43a–46a). At the temple of Hazor Area H, some orthostats depict lions (Yadin et al. 1961:​pls. 118:3–120:2), whereas another from Beth-Shean (Orthmann 1975:​pl. 418) shows fights between lions or between a lion and dog (for this usual view, e. g., Kempinski 1992:​140). Two large Eg. papyruscapitals and Eg. cornices and lintels were found at Beth-Shean Level VI, early Iron Age, some of them probably belonging to LBA Stratum  VII (Rowe 1940:​pls. 26:19–21, 52A:4, 65A:3). The temple from Stratum  VII had a staircase of seven steps leading to an adyton like the temple from Lachish VI. These two temples are linked by their Eg. ornamental elements, because in the Lachish temple another papyrus-capital, a section of an octagonal column shaft, and stone bases hewn for octagonal columns have been found (Ussishkin 1978:​10– 25, fig. 6; Wright 1985:​figs. 43:13, 330; Mazar 1992:​173–177). These columns had no structural function but were solely ornamental (Mazar 1992:​176). In front of the entrance to the temple

at Hazor two column bases were found without having a structural function (Mazar 1992:​172). In the palaces from Megiddo VIII a column base and pilasters were excavated, with the pilasters of the outer wall having no defensive function (Kempinski 1992:​137). Painted wall fragments come from the LBA temples at Hazor and Lachish (Ussish­kin 2004:​fig. 6:40, pl. 7:1–2). 4.3.  Arch. finds from Iron Age I  are meager. Nevertheless, some bu.  ors. were found. For example, the door jambs of the entrance of the temple at ʿAin Dara were decorated with lions and sphinxes in high relief, their doorsills with oversize footprints, and its walls with reliefs of plaited patterns with bosses beneath them (Abu-ʿAssaf 1990:​14–17, 39, pls. 8–15). A  portico with two columns has been excavated at Temple 2048 from Megiddo, one of the fine basalt bases found in situ (Mazar 1992:​171). The temple from Beth-Shean VII continued to exist in Stratum VI, but was enlarged with an entrance hall with two columns in the portico having no structural purpose and two columns with cylindrical bases on the broad axis of the main hall leading to the cella (Mazar 1992:​175, fig. 26). The door frames of the socalled “house of the governor” bear hieroglyphic inscriptions. 4.4.  The bit hilani is the typical palace of Iron Age II Northern Syria. The orthostats and sculptures of the temples, palaces, and gates of ʿAin Dara, Samʾal, Carchemish, Tell Halaf, Aleppo, Damascus, and Hama depict lions, sphinxes, or other animals and hybrids (Abu-ʿAssaf 1990:​25– 26, 39 ff, figs. 16 ff, pls. 19–39; Orthmann 1975:​ pls. 340, 352, 354–359, 363, 417, 419; Wartke 2005:​figs. 2–3, 17–20, 34 ff; Woolley 1921:​ pls. B17–B32; von Oppenheim 1950:​figs. 22– 28, 31, 42–43; Ingholt 1940:​pls. 28:2; 36:3; 37; 40:2). For example, in Samʾal, three pairs of lions in the form of reliefs and detached statuary decorate the gate of the citadel, whereas the famous orthostats from Barrakib’s palace depict the king with his scribe and servants (Wartke 2005:​ figs. 68, 99). At Carchemish, the walls of the “Antentempel” were made of blue enameled bricks with yellow bands and white-yellow rosettes (Werner 1994:​164–165, fig. 30). Some parts of the walls of the Lower Palace area were constructed with colorful polychrome glazed bricks (→ glaze; Woolley 1952:​pl. 33), others were ornamented with reliefs and orthostats depicting humans and animals (Woolley 1952:​pls. 31– 32, 42, 45, B33, B35–46, B48–52, B55–61, B65– 70). Some door jambs were inscribed (Woolley 1952:​pl. 47:a), and column bases were sculpted with bulls and lions abutting on two sides (Woolley 1952:​pls. 50:a, B34, B47). The palace from

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.)

103 

Tell Halaf is painted in red and yellow and decorated on the E, W, and S with pictorial orthostats (von Oppenheim 1950:​pl. 15:2–20). On the N, pictorial orthostats and statues of gods as free standing piers form a magnificent entrance (von Oppenheim 1950:​figs. 22–31, pls. 7–11). Stone plinths of square columns and decorated round pillar bases were excavated at Samʾal (Naumann 1955:​figs. 119–120, 122–123, 125, 131–134), whereas animal- and hybrid-formed bases have been found at Samʾal, Carchemish, and Tell Halaf (Naumann 1955:​figs. 136, 138 ff, 142; Wartke 2005:​figs. 30 ff). Northern Syr. influence can even be seen in the round column bases of the temple at Tel Dan (Biran 1974:​figs. 19–20). Its podium was built in headers and stretchers together with basalt stones laid between the faces of its southern façade (Mazar 1992:​184, fig. 31). In the first Phoen. temple at Kition, four rows of seven stone bases form a large main columned hall (Karagheorghis 1976:​fig. 18). 4.5.  In Palestine during Iron Age IIB and IIC, proto-aeolic capitals at Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Samaria, Ramat Rahel, Jerusalem, and Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ in Jordan, form a common ornamental component of monumental architecture (→ fig. Building Ornaments #1, col. 99; cf. Shiloh 1979; Reich 1992b:​​212–213; Drinkard 1997; Lipschits 2011:​203–217; Franklin 2011). In the Iron Age IIB palace at Hazor (Yadin et al. 1961:​pls. 48:1; 49:1–3; 362–363) these capitals are present together with bases hewn into a round shape (Yadin et al. 1961:​pls. 102; 107:4–5; 109:1– 3; 111:1; 115–116). Columns placed in wide doorways for aesthetic appearance were also excavated at the Ass. palace at Megiddo of Iron Age IIB (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​72, fig. 89) next to large proto-aeolic capitals (Shiloh 1979:​pls. 4:1–5:1). A new fragment of a limestone proto-aeolic capital (datable to Iron Age II) was found during the Givati Parking Lot excavations in the northwestern sector of the City of David, Jerusalem. The arch. context of this capital fragment seems to provide further support for the assumption that proto-aeolic capitals are associated with entrances to ashlar-built structures (Ben Ami/​Tchekhanovets 2015). Some clay shrine models found in Israel, Jordan, and Cyprus also depict these ornate capitals (Weinberg 1978:​figs. 11, 14; Shiloh 1979:​figs. 37–38). The ivories from Samaria may not only have decorated → furniture, but poss. even walls (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot 1938:​1–2; cf. also pl. 22:1 for a proto-aeolic capital made of ivory; Reich 1992b:​​214). The mural paintings from Kuntillet ʿAjrud depict, inter alia, bands with geometrical patterns and lotus flowers, humans on a castellated wall, and a seated figure smelling

104

a lotus flower (Beck 2012:​183–194), whereas a drawing from Tell Deir ʿAlla shows a sphinx raising its wings (Hoftijzer/van der Kooij 1976:​ pl. 15). Capitals with hanging leaves are found in Iron Age IIB and IIC Northern Syria (Naumann 1955:​figs. 150–155; Wartke 2005:​fig. 81). Several proto-aeolic columns and ornamental window grills with a row of palmette-pillars beneath an abacus were found at the Iron Age IIC palace of Ramat Rahel (Shiloh 1979:​pls. 11:1–14:3; Stern 1992:​306 ff). Window grills with rosettes beneath a plaited pattern were found at Hama (Ingholt 1940:​pl. 35:2–3), and four two-faced sculptures of female heads from Rabbah Ammon (Zayadine 1973:​pls. 18, 22). In Iron Age IIC, the tripartite pillar temples of Ekron and Kition with two rows of columns within the temple (Kamlah 2003) adopt the architecture of public tripartite pillared buildings typical of Iron Age Palestine (Fritz 1977; Herzog 1992:​223–228), while others encircle the courtyard like arcades as in Khirbet Abu et-Twein (Mazar 1982). 4.6.  In the Pers. period, as well as in other periods of the Iron Age, some walls were constructed with perpendicular columns of ashlar stone piers in headers and stretchers at intervals alternating with fieldstone fills set in yellowish clay (Pritchard 1971:​fig. 1; Stern 1992:​303–304). Pritchard (1971:​19) believes that these constructions were used for aesthetic rather than structural reasons. The entrance hall of the Pers. “Residency” palace at Lachish contained column-bases with plinths and torus molding (Tufnell 1953:​131– 140, pls. 118 ff; Wright 1985:​fig. 43:12). Crenellated limestone fragments were excavated in a temple at Phoen. Tell Sukas (Riis 1979:​figs. 149– 153). A Phoen. shrine model on a limestone Hathor head capital from Cyprus depicts two columns with capitals of Hathor heads flanking the entrance (Weinberg 1978:​fig. 19). Proto-aeolic capitals were still in use in Phoenicia at the end of the Pers. and the beginning of the Hell. period (Dunand/​Duru 1962:​pl. 28:2) next to decorated balustrades and niched door and window frames (Dunand/​Duru 1962:​pls. 37:2; 63–64; Stern 1977:​fig. 16). 5.  Bu. ors. are not superfluous aspects but carriers of meaning used in considerable variety within Syro-Palest. architecture to signify coherent cultural order and meaningful cultural lifeforms. 6.  Bibl. descriptions of bu. ors. concern mainly the decoration of the Temple and Palace of Jerusalem as well as references by prophetical critics of ostentation in architecture. According to 1 Kgs 6:15–35, the paneled wooden walls and doors of the Temple of Jerusalem (Zwi­ckel 1999)

Building Ornaments (bu. ors.)

105

106

were adorned with gold and ornamented with cherubs, palmettes, and rosettes, while the inner sanctum contained the throne of cherubs and was paneled with gold. The two pillars in front of the Temple have lotus-style capitals with registers of pomegranates and networks (of leaves?) (1 Kgs 7:15–22). The Palace of Solomon is described as a kind of bit hilani (1 Kgs 7:1–12) that contained the so-called house of the forest of Lebanon. This was a wood-paneled columned hall with niched door and window frameworks used as a guard and waiting-room conjoined with the wood-paneled throne-room and the royal livingrooms. According to 1 Kgs 10:18 ff, Solomon’s throne was overlayed with ivory and gold with lion-formed bases and statues on the six steps up to the throne. So too, Ahab is said to have built a palace inlaid with ivory (1 Kgs 22:39; cf. Cant 7:5; Ez 27:6), but the prophets criticize this kind of wealthy architecture for social and rel. reasons. Amos prophesies the downfall of ivory-paneled buildings (Am 3:15; cf. 6:4), while Zephaniah prophesies the downfall of castellated city-walls (Zeph 1:16; 3:6; cf. Cant 8:9). Jeremiah criticizes Jehoiakim for building a wood-paneled palace with red paintings and windows for appearance (Jer 22:14; cf. 2 Kgs 9:30), whereas Isaiah criticizes Shebna for constructing his grave in the rock like a domicile (Isa 22:16).

Structures in the Iron Age, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​ 223–230 ♦ Hoftijzer, J./van der Kooij, G., 1976, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, Leiden ♦ Ingholt, H., 1940, Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama en Syrie (1932–1938), Archæologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser 3.1, Copenhagen:​1–154 ♦ Kamlah, J., 2003, Tempel 650 in Ekron und die Stadttempel der Eisenzeit in Palästina, in: C. G. den Hertog/​U. Hübner/​S. Münger (eds.), Saxa Loquentur (FS Volkmar Fritz), AOAT 302, Münster:​101–125  ♦ 2004, Deutschlibanesische Ausgrabungen auf Tell el-Burak, südlich von Sidon: Vorbericht nach Abschluss der dritten Kampagne 2003, ZDPV 120:123–140 ♦ 2009, Grab und Begräbnis in Israel/​Juda, in: A. Berlejung/​B. Janowski (eds.), Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt, FAT 64, Tübingen:​257–297  ♦ Kamlah, J./​ Sader, H. (eds.), 2019, Tell el-Burak, vol. 1: The Middle Bronze Age, AHDP 45.1, Tübingen ♦ Karagheorghis, V., 1976, Kition, London ♦ Kempinski, A., 1992, Middle and Late Bronze Age Fortifications, in: A. Kempinski/​ R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​127–142 ♦ al-Khalesi, Y. M., 1978, The Court of the Palms: A  Functional Interpretation of the Mari Palace, BM 8, Malibu ♦ Lamon, R. S./​Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo [I], OIP 42, Chicago ♦ Landesmuseum Württemberg (ed.), 2009, Schätze des Alten Syrien, Stuttgart ♦ Lip­schits, O., 2011, The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from the Levant, in: I. Finkelstein/​ N. Naʾaman (eds.), The Fire Signals of Lachish (FS David Ussishkin), Winona Lake:​203–225 ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago ♦ Markoe, G. E., 2003, Die Phönizier, Stuttgart ♦ Mazar, A., 1980, Excavations at Tell Qasile 1, Qedem 12, Jerusalem ♦ 1982, Iron Age Fortresses in the Judaean Hills, PEQ 114:87–109 ♦ 1992, Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​161–187 ♦ Naumann, R., 1955, Architektur Kleinasiens, Tübingen ♦ Naveh, J., 1963, Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave, IEJ 13:74–92 ♦ Niemeier, B./​Niemeier, W.‑D., 2002, The Frescoes in the Middle Bronze Age Palace, in: A. Kempinski (ed.), Tel Kabri, Tel Aviv:​254–298 ♦ Nunn, A., 1988, Die Wandmalerei und der glasierte Wandschmuck im Alten Orient, HO VII/1.2.B/6, Leiden/​Cologne ♦ Oppenheim, M. Freiherr von, 1950, Tell Halaf 2, Berlin ♦ Oren, E. D., 1992, Palaces and Patrician Houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, in: A. Kempinski/​ R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​105–120  ♦ Orthmann, W., 1975, Der Alte Orient, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14, Berlin ♦ Pritchard, J. B., 1971, The Phoenicians in their Homeland, Exped. 14:14–21 ♦ Reich, R., 1992a, Building Materials and Architectural Elements in Ancient Israel, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​1–16 ♦ 1992b, Palaces and Residences in the Iron Age, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​202–222 ♦ Riis, P. J., 1979, Sūkās 6, Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia 7, Copenhagen ♦ Rowe, A., 1940, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan 1, PPSP 2, Philadelphia ♦ Shiloh, Y., 1976, New Proto-Aeolic Capitals Found in Israel, BASOR 222:67–77  ♦ 1979, The Proto-Aeolic Capital and the Israelite Ashlar Masonry, Qedem 11, Jerusalem ♦ Siegelmann, A., 1976, A Capital in the Form of a Papyrus Flower from Megiddo, TA

7.  Abu-ʿAssaf, A., 1990, Der Tempel von ʿAin Dārā, Damaszener Forschungen 3, Mainz ♦ Beck, P., 1982, The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud), TA 9:3–68 ♦ 2012, The Drawings and Decorative Designs, in: Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman), Jerusalem:​143–203  ♦ Ben Ami, D./​Tchekhanovets, J., 2015, A New Fragment of Proto-Aeolic Capital from Jerusalem, TA 42:67–71 ♦ Bernett, M./​Keel, O., 1998, Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor, OBO 161, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ Biran, A., 1974, Tel Dan, BA 37:26–51 ♦ Callaway, J., 1965, The 1964 ʿAi (et-Tell) Excavations, BASOR 178:13–40 ♦ Campbell, E. F., 2002, Shechem III, vol. 1, ASOR Archaeological Reports 6, Boston ♦ Crowfoot, J. W./​Crowfoot, G. M., 1938, Early Ivories from Samaria, London ♦ Decamps de Mertzenfeld, C., 1954, Inventaire commenté des ivoires phéniciens et apparentés découverts dans le Proche-Orient, Paris  ♦ Demangel, R., 1935, Grilles de fenètres en Égypte et triglyphes Grecs, Syria 16:358–374 ♦ Drinkard, J. F., 1997, New Volute Capital Discovered, BA 60:249–250 ♦ Dunand, M./​Duru, R., 1962, Oumm elʿAmed: Une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr, Études et Documents d’Archéologie 4, Paris ♦ Frankfort, H., 1952, The Origin of the Bit Hilani, Iraq 14:120–131 ♦ Franklin, N., 2011, From Megiddo to Tamassos and Back: Putting the “Proto-Ionic Capital” in its Place, in: I. Finkelstein/​N. Naʾaman (eds.), The Fire Signals of Lachish (FS David Ussishkin), Winona Lake:​ 129–140 ♦ Fritz, V., 1977, Bestimmung und Herkunft des Pfeilerhauses in Israel, ZDPV 93:30–45 ♦ Garbini, G., 1958, The Stepped Pinnacle in Ancient Near East, EW (NS) 9:85–91 ♦ Herzog, Z., 1992, Administrative

Calendar/s (cal./cals.) and Calculation of Time

107 

3:141 ♦ Stern, E., 1977, The Excavations at Tel Mevorakh and the Late Phoenician Elements in the Architecture of Palestine, BASOR 225:17–27 ♦ 1992, The Phoenician Architectural Elements in Palestine during the Late Iron Age and the Persian Period, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​302–309 ♦ Tufnell, O., 1953, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, London  ♦ Ussishkin, D., 1974, Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel ʿEton, TA 1:109–127 ♦ 1978, Excavations at Tel Lachish 1973–1977, TA 5:1– 97 ♦ 1980, The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi, TA 7:1– 44 ♦ Ussishkin, D. (ed.), 2004, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), 5 vols., Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22, Tel Aviv ♦ Van Beek, G. W., 1972, Tel Gamma, IEJ 22:245–246, pl. 55B ♦ Wartke, R.‑B., 2005, Samʾal, Mainz ♦ Weinberg, S. S., 1978, A  Moabite Shrinegroup, Muse 12:30–48 ♦ Weippert, H., 1988, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien 2, Band 1, Munich ♦ Werner, P., 1994, Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordsyrien und Südostkleinasien vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jt. v. Chr., Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 15, Vienna ♦ Willers, D., 2000, Ornament, DNP 9:33–44 ♦ Winter, U., 1983, Frau und Göttin, OBO 53, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ Woolley, C. L., 1921, Carchemish 2, London ♦ 1952, Carchemish 3, London ♦ 1955, Alalakh, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18, Oxford ♦ Wright, G. R. H., 1968, Temples at Shechem, ZAW 80:1–35 ♦ 1984, The Monumental City Gate in Palestine and its Foundations, ZA 74:267–289 ♦ 1985, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine 2, Leiden/​Cologne ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1961, Hazor III–IV, Jerusalem ♦ Zayadine, F., 1973, Recent Excavations on the Citadel of Amman, ADAJ 18:17–35, 99–114 ♦ Zwickel, W., 1999, Der salomonische Tempel, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 83, Mainz. Jan Dietrich

Calendar/s (cal./cals.) and Calculation of Time 1.  A cal. is a system for arranging units of time such as days, months, and years. These units can become elements in systems for defining longer stretches of time such as eras. There is no Hebr. text that offers a full description of a cal. until the Hell. period when the Astronomical Book of Enoch (the Aram. original behind 1  En. 72–82) was written – perhaps in the 3rd cent. b.c.e. The OT furnishes only a series of hints regarding cals. and systems for reckoning longer segments of time. In a much later period, rabb. lit. supplies a range of information about the Jew. cal., including the procedures for determining when a month began and when a 13th month should be intercalated. The so-called Gezer Calendar is the earliest (10th cent. b.c.e.) text with calendaric content. The small limestone tablet, found in 1908, is written in Hebr. or a Canaan. dialect very close to Hebr. and refers to 12 months, not by their names but by their place in the agricultural cycle. It begins with two months for the autumn harvest

108

(called “months of ingathering”) and ends with a month for the ingathering of summer fruits. The pattern in the text – beginning the year in the Autumn – is also found throughout the OT when it is speaking of the harvest periods. Although the books of the OT come next in hist. sequence, it is hazardous to suggest a chronological order for them because of the uncertainty about when many of them and their component parts were written. The evidence from OT sources indicates varied ways of handling basic calendrical matters. Some texts may imply that the day begins in the morning. Ex 29:39 prescribes for the two daily offerings that one be presented in the morning, the other in the evening (also Num 28:4). Other texts entail that the day started in the evening. For example, the repeated sequence in Gen 1 is “there was evening and there was morning, the xth day” (see also Ps 91:5–6; Dan 8:14). A number of texts in priestly lit. reflect the same assumption. Ex 12:18 requires that unleavened bread be eaten from the evening of the 14th day of the first month until the evening of the 21st (see also Num 19:7, 8, 10; Neh 13:19). The instructions found in Num 19 indicate that the time when the day ended was a matter of practical importance: there the law concerning someone who became unclean through contact with a corpse mandates that s/he be considered unclean for seven days. That period came to an end in the evening, at nightfall, showing that the day for the cleansing ritual came to a conclusion at evening. The bibl. sources reveal three ways of naming the months; in each case, the first month is in the Spring: 1) Only a few Canaan. names of months are attested: Abib (identified as the first month; Ex 13:4; 23:15; it is not attested elsewhere as a Canaan. month name); Ziv (II; 1 Kgs 6:1, 37); Ethanim (VII; 1 Kgs 8:2); and Bul (VIII; 1 Kgs 6:38). The last three are documented as month names in extra-bibl. texts. Since Ethanim is the seventh month which is the time for the Festival of Tabernacles (see below), this sequence of months begins in the Spring; 2) The system of ordinals is widespread in the OT, esp. in hist. and priestly texts. A passage containing many examples is the list of festivals in Lev 23, where, for example, Passover is dated to “the first month, on the 14th day of the month” (v. 5). As Passover falls in the first month, the system assumes a vernal inception for the order of months; 3) In post-exil. lit. it becomes common to use names deriving from the Bab. language. The ones mentioned are: Nisan (identified as the first month [Ex 12:2]; Esth 3:7; Neh 2:1); Sivan (III; Esth 8:9); Elul (VI; Neh 6:15); Chislev (IX;

Calendar/s (cal./cals.) and Calculation of Time

109

110

Zech 7:1; Neh 1:1); Tebeth (X; Esth 2:16); Shevat (XI; Zech 1:7); Adar (XII; Esth 3:7, etc.). Again, the sequence clearly begins in the Spring. The fact that these names came from a Bab. source was still being acknowledged as late as the Talmudic period (see y. Roš Haš. 1:56d). Some texts reckon with a year that begins in the spring (as noted above, examples are the festival cals. in Lev 23 and Num 28–29; see also Ex 12:2), while others, with the Gezer Calendar, regard the autumn as the time when it starts. Ex 23:16 says: “You shall observe the festival of ingathering at the end [literally, the going out] of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor.” A similar verse, Ex 34:22 refers to that point as “the turning” of the year. The two passages may be suggesting an autumnal ending/ beginning of the year. Both the Sabbatical Year (by implication) and the Jubilee Year (explicitly) begin in the fall (see Lev 25:8–17). It is, of course, possible that for different purposes the year was thought to begin at different points. So, for instance, one could perhaps speak of a fall inception for the agricultural cycle and a spring beginning for the festival cal. The festival cal. receives a considerable amount of attention in the legal sections of the OT, although there are few scriptural descriptions of actual celebrations of the holidays. The most extended lists of festivals (Lev 23 and Num 28–29; Dt 16 offers a shorter enumeration) include, besides the weekly Sabbaths and the first day of each month, the following: – Passover in the first month (Abib), the 14th day (= 1/14); – Festival of Unleavened Bread, 1/15–21 (a pilgrimage festival); – The Waving of the (Barley) Omer, undated; – Festival of Weeks, undated but the 50th day after the Waving of the Omer (a pilgrimage festival); – The first of the seventh month (in rabb. times it was called Rosh Ha-Shanah or the New Year); – Day of Atonement, 7/10; – Festival of Tabernacles, 7/15–21 (22; a pilgrimage festival); The Book of Esther describes the events that gave rise to the holiday called Purim (lots) and dates it to the twelfth month (Adar), the 14th and 15th days (9:19–28). Later, 1–2 Macc explain the events that are celebrated at Hanukkah, a holiday that they date to the ninth month (Chislev), beginning on the 25th and continuing for eight days (1 Macc 4:36–59; 2 Macc 10:1–8). The OT preserves a few indications that longer spans of time were calculated: the Israelites are said to have been in Egypt for 430 years when the

Exodus occurred (MT Ex 12:40–41 [cf. Gen 15:13– 14]; 215 according to the LXX, with the other 215 years being the time when the patriarchs were in Canaan prior to the Eg. sojourn). Regarding Solomon’s Temple one learns that it began “in the 480th year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month” (1 Kgs 6:1). In 1–2 Kgs and 1–2 Chr, the numbers of years that kings ruled are enumerated and the reigns of Judean and Isr. kings are synchronized, but no longer reckonings of time such as the era of the monarchy or the like come to expression. In an apocalyptic context, the angel Gabriel informs Daniel that the 70 years of desolation for Jerusalem which Jeremiah had predicted actually refer to seventy weeks of years or 490 years (Dan 9:24–27, applying the principle of sevenfold punishment for sin in Lev 26:21, 24, 28). The angel then proceeds to subdivide the period for the seer. Information becomes somewhat more plentiful in the Pers. period (after 538 b.c.e.), and the number of sources has been augmented by modern discoveries such as the Elephantine papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The papyri from Elephantine in Upper Egypt include texts written by members of a Jew. military colony stationed there. The documents with dates use either Bab. month names only, Eg. month names only, or a combination of the two (synchronizing them). Consequently, it appears that the Jews of Elephantine had no distinctive cal. of their own. The Astronomical Book of Enoch (see 1 En. 72– 82; its Aram. original, four copies of which have been found in Qumran cave 4, may have been written in the 3rd cent. b.c.e.) presents both a solar and a lunar cal.; the angel Uriel is said to have revealed both to the antediluvian patriarch Enoch – a person whose suggestive age at his final removal (365 years) made him a magnet for calendrical associations. The solar arrangement, which takes its inception in the spring, consists of 12 months, each of 30 days. At the end of the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth months, an extra day was added so that each quarter contains 91 days and each year 364 days (see 1  En. 72)  – a total exactly divisible into 52 weeks. The writer opposes people who fail to add the four extra days and thus apparently operate with a year of 360 days (75:1–3; 82:4–8; a 360-day year is a system well known from cuneiform texts such as MUL.APIN and Enuma Anu Enlil, texts with which Enochic astronomy shares other traits). In 1  En., the lunar year has 12 months, with alternating totals of 30 and 29 days, so that it lasts 354 days (1 En. 73:1– 74:9; 78:15–17). In the Aram. form of the book-

Calendar/s (cal./cals.) and Calculation of Time

111 

let, there is an extensive synchronistic cal. that describes the amount of time the lunar surface (using sevenths and halves of sevenths) is illuminated or darkened each night of the month and attempts to synchronize it with the course of the sun; the later Ethiopic form of the book, which was translated from a G base and is the only complete text extant, presents no intercalary system for harmonizing the two cals., although it does note the annual ten-day difference (1 En. 74:10–17). In the Astronomical Book the writer pictures the northerly and southerly movement of the → sun, → moon, and → stars along the eastern and western horizons as passing through six adjacent gates, each of the same amplitude. In one year the sun passes through each gate twice. The sun remains in a gate 30 or 31 days each time it moves through it; the moon moves much more swiftly from gate to gate. The sun reaches the farthest point of the northern gate (the sixth) at the summer solstice and the farthest point of the southern gate (the first) at the winter solstice; the vernal and autumnal equinoxes are reached when it is passing from the fourth to the third gate or the third to the fourth gate. The Book of Jubilees (ca. 160–150 b.c.e.) claims that angels revealed the facts about the 364day solar cal. to Enoch (4:17, 21) but, contrary to 1  En. 72–82, its author strenuously opposes employment of a lunar cal. which he considers a misleading system used by Gentiles (6:23–38; lunar cals. were widely employed in the Hell. world and perhaps at the Temple in Jerusalem). Clearly something had happened between the time of the Astronomical Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, two works with much in common, to render the lunar cal. a negative phenomenon. The author of Jubilees, who heavily stressed the importance of the Sabbath, dates the scriptural festivals precisely in his solar cal. (something not done in 1  En. 72–82) and considers those dates the only proper ones on which to celebrate the sacred holidays. Jubilees, which always refers to months using ordinals, further defines a system for reckoning all of time: it dates events from the year of creation so that, for instance, in its system the entry into the promised land takes place in year 2,450 (see 50:1–5). Within that running era of creation, the major units are ones that the writer calls “jubilees of years” (49-year units), weeks of years (seven-year periods as in Dan 9:24–27), and years of 364 days. The entire time period depicted in the book  – from creation to the entry into Canaan  – comprises 50 jubilee units of years. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls a series of cal. texts have been identified; most are the ones designat-

112

ed by the numbers 4Q317–330. The works are of different kinds, but they include some or all of these elements: 1) A 364-day solar year as in 1 En. 72–82 and Jubilees (beginning on a Wednesday in the first month which is in spring). The number of days in the year is explicit in 11QPsa 27.2–11 and 4Q252; the latter text relates the 364-day system to the story of the flood, as does Jubilees (see 4Q252 [4QCommentary on Genesis A] 2.2–3); 2) A 354-day lunar year with alternating months of 30 and 29 days as in 1 En. 72–82 but unlike Jubilees; 3) A system of 24 watches of priests who, week after week, rotated service at the Temple (derived from 1 Chr 24:7–18, where each of these priestly groups or houses is named after its leader). Each week is called by the name of the priestly watch then on duty at the sanctuary. A 52-week year requires two full rotations of the 24 watches (2×24 = 48) plus a third rotation for four of them (48+4 = 52). Since the cycle would return to its original starting point (with group one serving at the beginning of the year) after six years, some texts outline a full six-year cycle of priestly watches; 4) The dates of festivals in the 364-day year (as in Jubilees). Both the cal. texts and the Temple Scroll attest the scriptural holidays and at least two others: a festival of new wine (on 5/3, the 50th day after the Festival of Weeks) and a festival of new oil (6/22, the 50th day after the festival of new wine). That is, there is a sequence of harvest festivals, each separated from the next one by 49 days: the Waving of the Omer (at the beginning of the barley harvest), the Festival of Weeks (the wheat harvest), the festival of new wine (the grape harvest), and the festival of new oil (the olive harvest). The dates for the festivals in the Qumran texts agree with those in the Book of Jubilees; Jubilees does not, however, designate the new wine and new oil times as holidays. It may be that the experts who employed this cal. system also used an intercalary procedure for harmonizing solar and lunar years, but the exact form it took remains unclear. Whether they were able to harmonize the two kinds of years is a factor in the debate whether the 364-day cal. was practicable over a long period of time. A minimal conclusion arising from the presence of so many cal.-related texts at Qumran is that the writers considered the correct calculating of time to be very important. It is reasonable to think that a difference regarding cals. was a factor in the separation of the Dead Sea sect and their spiritual kin from the temple community in Jerusalem where, they firmly believed, festivals were cele-

Calendar/s (cal./cals.) and Calculation of Time

113

114

brated at the wrong times – times contrary to the dictates of divine revelation. When only the first few scrolls had been published, A. Jaubert (1957) inferred from them and the 364-day cal. in the Book of Jubilees that the year began on a Wednesday – an inference later confirmed by newly available scrolls. Because the 364-day cal. is exactly divisible by seven, once the day of the week for one date is fixed, all of them are known for the entire year. She also demonstrated that for the advocates of this cal., the all-important Festival of Weeks  – the festival of the covenant  – which is undated in the OT fell on 3/15; as a result the Waving of the Omer, also undated in the Bible, occurred 50 days earlier, on 1/26 – contrary to the Pharisaic practice of observing it on 1/16. Again, her conclusions were confirmed by later textual discoveries. She also argued, not implausibly, that the 364-day cal. had been used in the Temple until it was replaced by a luni-solar arrangement in the early 2nd cent. b.c.e., not long before the community of the scrolls withdrew from use of the Jerusalem Temple. Among the artifacts uncovered in the ruins of Qumran (locus 45) was an object that has been called a sundial. It is a concave limestone disk, 14.5 cm in diameter, with a hole in the center where a stick would have been placed. Three concentric circles have radial lines drawn through them (ca. 84 lines, 72, 60, respectively), allowing for at least the measurement of seasonal hours and the determination of cardinal points. Oddly enough, there is ample documentation for the calendrical views of the one branch of Judaism represented in the scrolls (thought by many to be an Essene group) in the last centuries b.c.e. and the 1st cent. c.e., but there is virtually no surviving information regarding cal. practices at the Temple in Jerusalem. There is reason for believing that a luni-solar arrangement regulated time and festivals there (see Ps 104:19) as in many other places in the Hell.-Rom. period. It may be, as noted above, that a controversy about the correct cal. for dating festivals was a factor in the separation of the scrolls community (or communities) from the cult at the Temple. One text often cited in support of this conclusion is Pesher Habakkuk (see 11:4–8) which speaks of a time when the Wicked Priest, who was probably a high priest, attacked the Teacher of Righteousness, a leader of the scrolls community, on the latter’s Day of Atonement. A high priest could hardly be pursuing dissidents on the Day of Atonement when travel was forbidden and when he was required to lead and be involved in the most sacred duties at the Temple (for those duties see Lev 16). An im-

plication is that this high priest and the Teacher observed the Day of Atonement at different times and hence that they employed different cals. for dating festivals. The NT, like the OT, has no syst. statements about calendrical matters and mentions them only in passing. The information regarding the timing of one event  – the last supper that Jesus ate with his disciples – has sparked a long debate among scholars. The Synoptic Gospels explicitly treat the supper as a Passover meal (Mt 26:17–19; Mk 14:12–16; Lk 22:7–15), but John dates it to the day before Passover (18:28, 39; 19:14). This is apparent from his statement that the Jews who were involved in the hearings or trials after Jesus’ arrest (which was subsequent to the meal) did not want to defile themselves so that they would be in the proper state of purity to be able to eat the Passover (18:28). Jaubert (1957) suggested that use of two different cals. led to this discrepancy between the gospels regarding an event of such importance, and the likelihood that there were in fact two systems employed at the time (the solar cal. among those who agreed with the scrolls community[ies] and the luni-solar cal. of the Temple establishment) has added new plausibility to this old thesis. However, since there is no other evidence that Jesus’ followers used a cal. at odds with the Jew. nation and Temple establishment, it is more likely that other factors lie behind the difference. One suggestion is that a theol. message motivated John to date the meal to the day before Passover, namely, so that the crucifixion of Jesus, the lamb of God (John 1:29), would coincide with the time when lambs were being slaughtered for Passover. The Mishnah (compiled about 200 c.e.) contains the first clear, fuller indications about the cal. followed by most people in Israel. The lunar cal. used by Jew. communities, one with months of 29 or 30 days, depended on observation, not calculation, to determine when the new moon was first visible and thus the new month had begun. Naturally, the day when the month began determined when any festivals in it would be celebrated. The Mishnaic tractate Rosh-Hashanah, which mentions four New Year days for different purposes, describes the procedures by which the court determined the time when the crescent first appeared on the basis of the testimony of reliable witnesses and how the information was communicated to Jew. communities located some distance away. The Mishnah also refers to the practice of adding a 13th month (Adar II) at times to bring the lunar and solar years into closer coordination (e. g., m. ʿEd. 7:7). If there was a second Adar, the Scroll of Esther had to be read during it as well as

Canopy/Canopies (cn./cns.) and Curtain/s (cr./crs.) 115 

in the first (m. Meg. 1:4). It is only in the Talmudic lit. that one learns the sorts of practical considerations that dictated when an intercalary month was added: the lack of maturity in animals born around that time and the state of the crops. But the timing of the vernal equinox was also a factor (see b. Sanh. 11a, b), as Passover, a spring festival, had to follow this astronomical event.

7.  Clines, D. J. A., 1974, The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-Exilic Israel Reconsidered, JBL 93:22– 40 ♦ van Goudoever, J., 21961 (1959), Biblical Calendars, Leiden ♦ Jaubert, A., 1957, La date de la cène: Calendrier biblique et liturgie chrétienne, EtB, Paris ♦ Stern, S., 2001, Calendar and Community: A  History of the Jewish Calendar, 2nd Century BCE–Tenth Century CE, New York ♦ Talmon, S., 1951, Yom Hakkippurim in the Habakkuk Scroll, Bib 32:549–563 ♦ Talmon, S./​Ben-Dov, J./​Glessmer, U., 2001, Qumran Cave 4, vol. 16: Calendrical Texts, DJD 21, Oxford ♦ VanderKam, J., 1998, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time, London/​New York. James C. VanderKam

Canopy/​Canopies (cn./cns.) and Curtain/s (cr./crs.) 1.  Generally a cn. is a → roof made of → fabric and situated on four wooden posts. Contrary to a → tent, the sides of a cn. are open, but the difference between cn. and tent is sometimes minimal. A curtain is generally used as a divider between two rooms, spaces, or areas. 2.  Arch. sources for cns. and crs. in Ancient Palestine and in the ANE are extremely rare. Only a few iconogr. representations and comparable arch. finds are available. Since some of the temples in Palestine had no → door hinges at their entrance, perhaps already in the Bronze Age crs. were used at the entrance of temples (→ sanctuary). Door crs. at temples are known in several cases from Egypt (Goedicke 1995). However, there is no real proof for such a supposition and the requirement of safety and shelter for a temple was, in antiquity, likely lower than today. 3.  Both cns. and crs. are made of fabric, sometimes also of → leather. The fabric may be produced from sheep-, goat-, or camel-wool, as well as from flax. 4.1.  The oldest presentation of a cn. as a shelter for a king or a god may be found on the so-called White Obelisk (most likely the period of Tiglathpilesar II [968–935 b.c.e.]; cf. Börker-Klähn 1982:​fig. 132b, 3rd register), which is similar to a cn. of the Neo-Bab. king Nabu-apla-iddina (885– 852 b.c.e.; ANEP:529) and the depictions of the royal tents on Neo-Ass. reliefs. In Nimrud, a decorated dais for a royal → throne of Shalmaneser III shows the meeting of the Ass. king with the Bab. king Marduk-zakir-shumi (Mallowan 1966:​447); the hand shake took place under a cn. The con-

116

struction of such a cn. appears on a relief from the time of Tiglath-pilesar III in Nimrud (Barnett/​ Falkner 1962:​13, pl. 53). On a wooden frame with vertical posts at the corner, small animal figures were fixed. These are very difficult to identify (looking like a lion, but with a short tail); it is likely that those animals had an apotropaic function. Similar ornaments are on the cn. depicted on a relief of Ashurnasirpal in Nimrud (Meuszyński 1981:​pl. 2, B7). Here, caprids are shown on top of the posts. Arch. remains of such simple installations as cns. are rare. Nevertheless, during the excavations at the → gate complex of Tel Dan a podium made of stone was found at the left side of the inner gate dating to the 9th/8th cent. b.c.e. It was surrounded by four bases (only three of them remained) for wooden pillars (Biran 1994; for a parallel from Nineveh cf. Barnett 1976:​pl. 1:BM 91989), which supported a simple cover made of fabric. On that podium, it is unlikely that either a throne or a statue of a god was placed, but more likely a stela (perhaps the famous Tel Dan stela?), symbolizing the claim for the dominion of that town. The stela (→ standing stones) was fixed in a hole and blocked by a slab (cf. Zwickel 1990:​226). 5.  Cns. and crs. have not survived because the material is typically quite perishable. A cn. was always a symbol of power, representing the man or the installation below the cn. as mighty. Crs. are seldom presented in iconography and, therefore, we have little knowledge about them. 6.  Even though the translations are uncertain, a cn. in the OT is likely called ḥuppa (Isa 4:5; Sir 40:27; cf. Joel 2:16; Ps 19:6) or šafrir (Jer 43:10). All those texts are from the exil. or post-exil. period. Booths or huts with palm branches as the roof are called sukkah. Isa 4:5 and Sir 40:27 are directly connected with the glory of God; therefore, the cn. should be understood as a symbol of a god’s or a king’s majesty. Likely such cns. were used during marriage ceremonies (Joel 2:16; Ps 19:6). If šafrir really can be translated as cn., it means the shelter for the throne of the Bab. king. A  sukkah could be used as a simple, temporary hut for travelling individuals (Gen 33:17; Jonah 4:5) or for warriors (1 Kgs 20:12, 16), but also as a shelter against the → sun for a guard or for the workers in a vineyard (Isa 1:8; 4:6; Job 27:18). Not before the reform of Josiah in 622 b.c.e. did the Israelites live for some days in a sukkah during the agricultural feast in autumn, now called Sukkot (Lev 23:34– 43; Dt  16:13–16; 31:10; Neh 8:14–17). The ark as divine symbol (2 Sam 11:11) or as God itself (Job 36:29) could also be shown in a simple hut. All terms in the OT for cr. (masak, parokaet, qaelaʿ) are connected with the description of the

Chariot/s (ch./chs.) and Chariotry

117

118

tabernacle in the Priestly code. There was a cr. at the gate of the → courtyard, another one at the entrance of the tabernacle, and finally one dividing the Holy of Holies from the rest of the shrine. The last cr. may be connected with the cr. in the post-exil. Temple in Jerusalem, which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple (cf. 1 Macc 1:22; 4:51). A  cr. at the entrance of the Temple in Jerusalem did probably not exist prior to the Herod. Temple building (Jos. ant.Iud. 8.75, 90; Jos. bel.Iud. 5.212, 219).

3.  Insofar as chs. require large level expanses, their use in the Levant was limited. In Northern and Middle Syria (from Aleppo across Hamath to Homs as well as Shamiyah and Al-Jazira) there are tablelands where chs. achieved the strategic significance they possessed in Mesopotamia and Egypt. As for the Southern Levant, the ideal settings for ch. warfare were the coastal plains, the Sharon, Jezreel, and Huleh valleys, Lower Galilee, the Golan, and Bashan. In the core regions of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, chs. would have been utilized only to a limited extent and coveted primarily as prestige objects. Yet, as a means to expand into other regions, chs. would have represented indispensable → weapons (Niemann 2006) and, in turn, the resources of these regions would have been needed to support ch. corps. Israel fostered the influx of chs. into the Southern Levant inasmuch as they needed them to stop military aggressors at strategic locations in the N. Material evidence for chs. from the Southern Levant is limited because wood, leather, and bone used in the construction of chs. quickly deteriorated in the Levantine climate. The most important remains (for the LBA) were found in Egypt, where the conditions are much more propitious to the preservation of organic materials. Metal components are not as susceptible to corrosion in Levantine soil, yet they too have not been found in any abundance – probably because they were recycled for other uses. The dearth of material contrasts starkly with the textual and iconogr. witnesses to the large numbers of chs. in this area. As for material finds, excavations have turned up a number of small stone fittings for chs. from the LBA at Gaza, Tell Jemmeh, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gezer, Lachish, Beth-Shean, Megiddo, and Hazor; they probably functioned as yoke terminals and bosses for harness saddles. Bronze linchpins with ornamental heads, dated to the 11th cent. b.c.e., were found at Ashkelon (Stager 1998:​168, fig. 4:6; Stager 2006; James/​McGovern 1993) and Tel Miqne (Dothan 2002:​11–13, fig. 9). At Tel Haror a bronze bit dating to the 17th cent. b.c.e. was found with two circular, studded cheek-pcs. (Oren 1997:​fig. 8:17). Similar finds stem from Tell el-ʿAjjul for the 15th cent. (Petrie 1934:​pl. 35; Potratz 1966:​46b) and from Gezer for the 15th–13th cent. (Potratz 1966:​fig. 45e). Pictorial evidence for chs. is provided by engraved → ivories from Megiddo (ca. 12th cent.; Yadin 1963:​242; Loud 1939; → fig. Throne #1:1, col. 969) and various representations in Eg. art, such as from a tomb (18th Dyn.) that depicts a ch. and horses being brought as a gift from Canaan (Davies 1941:​pl. 13) and the relief from Medinet Habu (20th Dyn.) depicting Ramses III battling

7.  Barnett, R. D., 1976, Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Niniveh (668–627 B. C.), London  ♦ Barnett, R. D./​Falkner, M., 1962, The Sculptures of Aššur-nasir-apli II (883–859 B. C.), Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B. C.), Esarhaddon (681–669 B. C.) from the Central and South West Palaces at Nimrud, London ♦ Biran, A., 1994, Biblical Dan, Jerusalem ♦ Börker-Klähn, J., 1982, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs, Baghdader Forschungen 4, Mainz  ♦ Goedicke, H., 1995, Textile Elemente in ägyptischen Tempeln: Der Vorhang, in: D. Kurth (ed.), Systeme und Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration, ÄAT 33, Wiesbaden:​37–45  ♦ Hrouda, B., 1965, Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes, Bonn ♦ Mallowan, M. E. L., 1966, Nimrud and its Remains 2, London ♦ Meuszyński, J., 1981, Die Rekonstruktion der Reliefdarstellungen und ihrer Anordnung im Nordwestpalast von Kalhu (Nimrud), Baghdader Forschungen 2, Mainz  ♦ Zwickel, W., 1990, Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte, OBO 97, Fribourg/​Göttingen. Wolfgang Zwickel

Chariot/s (ch./chs.) and Chariotry 1.  Chs. in Western Asia from the mid 2nd to late 1st mill. are light, fast → vehicles with two spoked wheels, drawn by → horses, and carrying one or more standing occupants. Although they served as prestige objects and as vehicles of communication, their sphere of operation was properly the battlefield. Due to the diversity of materials as well as technologies involved in their construction, chs. represent – perhaps more than any other object of Ancient Near Eastern material culture – intersections of the widest ranging networks of → trade and expertise. 2.  For ancient West Asia and North Africa, one can distinguish chs. broadly between the lighter type of the LBA, which developed to its finest form in Egypt, and the increasingly larger and heavier type of the 1st mill. b.c.e., which emerged after the maneuverability of the earlier type had been transferred to mounted equestrian units. Both types have in common a tripartite structure: the body, the wheels, and the pole/yoke. Other points of comparison and differentiation include the harness pole, number of spokes, position of axle, control of reigns, number of passengers, and number of horses (biga, triga, quadriga).

Chariot/s (ch./chs.) and Chariotry

119 

the “Sea Peoples” (Yadin 1963:​336–338). High status vessels, such as a golden bowl from Ugarit (→ fig. Hunt #1, col. 414) and Mycenaean kraters, were decorated on the shoulder with a scene showing a ch. pulled by two horses in procession. A  number of such kraters were found in tombs in the Levant, such as Tomb 387 at Dan (Biran 1993:​332; cf. → fig. Pottery #3:9, col. 745). The 1st mill. material evidence for the Southern Levant includes a range of finds. A couple of iron-bronze jointed bits, triangular ivory frontlets, and poss. eye-blinkers that date to Iron Age II were unearthed in tombs at Tell el-Farah (S) (Petrie 1930:​pls. 38, 40, 41). Bronze objects that may be identified as eye-blinkers turned up at Beth-Shemesh II (Grant 1934:​pl. 30:4–153), Lachish III (Tufnell 1953:​pl. 41), Megiddo II (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 87:16; see also, Cantrell 2011:​16–18), and perhaps at Tel Malhata. Bronze horse bells have been reported from Tel Batash II (Mazar/​Panitz-Cohen 2001:​photo 151, pl. 39:9), Tel ʿIra (surface: Beit-Arieh 1999), Lachish Tomb 106 (Tufnell 1953:​pl. 54:19), Megiddo VB–IVA (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 77:13). At Lachish III, nine bronze tassels or poms-poms, likely non-Judean (Sass 2004), were excavated in the destruction debris of the inner gate. Among the two-wheeled vehicles in Cyprus are examples of chs. from tombs where they were preserved with the skeletons of the animals that pulled them along with the bits and harnesses which they wore. Such finds were recovered at Salamis, Tamassos, Amathus and Palaepaphos (Crouwel 1987:​101, fig. 2). The impressions of the wooden components visible in the soil make it possible to reconstruct the body and identify both one-poled and two-poled versions. These styles are also preserved in terracotta models. Compared to Levantine chs., the wheels of the Cypriot chs. had eight or ten spokes (Crouwel 1987:​102–106, figs. 1a, 1b). As for 1st mill. pictorial evidence, two 9th –8th cent. b.c.e. depictions of ch. horses were found on pithos sherds from Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Beck 1982). From the land of Israel, the only portrayal of a complete Iron Age ch. is found on a Lachish relief from Nineveh. Its artist rendered the object of booty with Ass. features (e. g., the massive eight-spoked felloed [bent-wood] wheels and the yoke) that characterized ch. construction since the time of Sargon II. For neighboring lands, we have Syro-Hitt. reliefs (Yadin 1963:​366–367), widely distributed Levantine → ivories, and metalwork (Mallowan 1966). In contrast to the abundance of horse figurines, only a few, incomplete, models of chs. have turned up in excavations (Im 2006), namely at Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928:​pl. 39:12–

120

14) and Megiddo Strata VA/​IVB (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 254:5). Single solid wheels have been found at Beth-Shemesh Stratum II (Grant/​ Wright 1938:​pl. 51:12), Hazor Stratum  IV (Yadin et al. 1960:​pl. 103:13), Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928:​pl. 39:15–18), Jericho 7th cent. (Sellin/​Watzinger 1913:​fig. 184), Lachish Stratum III (Sass 2004:​fig. 28.21:4–5), Tel Masos Phase 3 (Fritz/​Kempinski 1983:​pl. 111:7), Megiddo Strata I, III, and V (May 1935:​pls. 21:M 908, 3365, 3340, 4245, 4724, 5041), Tell en-Nasbeh 3c–3a (McCown 1947:​pl. 84:29), and Samaria (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot/​Kenyon 1957:​fig. B.7). They are made of clay and may have included other perishable materials. It is not clear whether they belonged in each case to models of chs. rather than wagons (Im 2006). Many scaraboids, → seals, and seal impressions from Iron Age I–II contain images of horses (Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tel Anafa, Tel Azor, Akko, Beth-Shemesh, Akhziv, Dan, Azekah, Jerusalem, Tell enNasbeh [Im 2006:​295–311; → iconography of animals [mammals 2.14.]], and Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad), yet only a few depict chs. An impression found in the upper gate area B at Tel Dan depicts a ch. with three occupants and wheels with eight spokes. From the late Pers. period, coins from Sidon and Samaria depict chs. (Elayi/​ Elayi 2004 and Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​53–54); technically they are not military chs. but rather royal processional vehicles. 4.  The precursors to chs. are “sledge cars” and wheeled vehicles pulled by bovids (Littauer/​ Crouwel 1979:​figs. 1–24; Yadin 1963:​128–135). The early 3rd mill. b.c.e. saw the development of a four-wheeled wagon, referred to as the “battle car” since it appears primarily in military contexts. They served most likely as mobile platforms for throwing javelins. The wheels for these vehicles are composite (tripartite) disks, probably revolving on fixed axles. Due to the inability of the front axles to articulate horizontally, maneuverability was severely limited and the wagon could have pivoted only in a wide arch. Traction was supplied by teams of four bovids (and occasionally equids), two of which are “outriggers” (not directly under the yoke). The animals are controlled by single lines attached to nose rings, a method more suited to bovine than equine conformation. An example of this early battle car drawn by four equids can be seen on the “Standard of Ur,” an artifact decorated with a war scene on one side and a banquet scene on the other side (Frankfort 1996:​ fig. 76). The early 2nd mill. witnessed the evolution of what may be properly defined as the ch. Variety in the shape of the boxes, the height of the front

Chariot/s (ch./chs.) and Chariotry

121

122

screen, the draught pole, as well as wheel construction testifies to extensive experimentation (Littauer/​Crouwel 1979:​figs. 28–37). The earliest spoked wheels, whose invention was critical to the development of chs., have mostly four spokes, but Syr. evidence also testifies to the use of six, eight, and even nine spokes. Directional and braking control is provided by a pair of reins attached to the sides of a cavesson (nose band) or perhaps already to the end of a bit. Yoke saddles may have already been in use. A wider axle track would have made possible a larger box (allowing a crew of two to stand abreast) and improved stability on fast turns. According to a long-held assumption, chs. originated among Indo-Europeans and were secondarily adopted in Western Asia. Research has however demonstrated the lack of evidence for the existence of Proto-Indo-European chs., suggesting instead their origins in the ANE – rather than north of the Caucasus  – in the early 2nd mill. b.c.e. The training of horses and drivers and the maintenance of chs. “would have been possible only with the urban cultures of the ancient NearEastern city states” (Raulwing 2000:​99). 4.1.  The imperial powers of the LBA perfected chariotry as a tactical weapon alongside infantry (Moorey 1986). The most abundant data for chs. in the LBA are provided by Egypt (Veldmeijer et al. 2018). In addition to many detailed reliefs and paintings, all or parts of eight chs. have survived, most of which were in the tomb of Tutankhamun. Most depictions of Asiat. chs. from this period match closely the various extant ones from Egypt (Littauer/​Crouwel 1979:​figs. 42–44; Yadin 1963:​186–196, 210–217). The chs. were of light construction, with D-shaped floors of interwoven thongs ca. 1.0 m wide by ca. 0.5 m deep. Their lightness was facilitated by heat-bent wood and rawhide. The draught pole (ca. 2.5 m) was connected to the frame at the front (with lashed thongs) and rear (with a mortice). Axles were situated toward the rear of the box, where it contributed to the stability of the swift vehicle. Metal, wood, or boiled → leather linchpins were inserted into vertical slots near the axle ends. The wheels, which are the most technologically complex components (Littauer/​Crouwel 1979:​figs. 46–47), did not exceed 1.0 m in diameter, with tracks from 1.5–1.8 m. The number of spokes generally increased with time. The Eg. wheels went from four to six spokes in the 15th cent., whereas Mitannian wheels were originally six-spoked and then became eight. Mycenaean wheels had often only four spokes, while those in Iran-Elam had as many as 14 spokes. The woods used in the construction of the extant Eg. exemplars include elm,

tamarisk, and birch, which would have been imported from the Northern Levant, Anatolia, and elsewhere. The chs. are usually depicted being pulled by two horses under Y-shaped yoke-saddles (Littauer/​Crouwel 1979:​figs. 42–43), which represent adaptations of the bovine yokes to equine anatomy (Littauer/​Crouwel 2002:​479–524). Control was provided by a bridle, consisting of reins, a bit, a cavesson, blinkers, and other accessories. Surviving bits are bronze, while cheek-pcs. are made of antler or bone. The bits are all variations of the snaffle principle (for the Phoen. influenced artistic motifs, see Barnett 1982). The crews normally consist of a driver and warrior, although the depictions of the Hitt. chs. and those of their allies at the battle of Kadesh show three-man complements. That the pharaoh is depicted as riding alone with the reigns around his waist (an earlier Syr. motif) must be interpreted in terms of the ideological intention to present him as a singular great military hero. Bow-cases and quivers were affixed to the box. Sometimes a thrusting spear or a pair of javelins are shown being carried in the rear. Spearmen are depicted in Hitt. chs. at the battle of Kadesh; they were most likely transported to points on the battlefield where they dismounted and fought on foot (Yadin 1963:​109, 250). Shields that served primarily as face protection were held by a third man in the Hitt. ch., while the shield was carried by the archer in the two-man Eg. ch. and then transferred to the driver once the fighting commenced. For the Aegean world, this practice corresponds to the fighting in the Geometric period (Snodgrass 1967:​33, 45). The Medinet Habu reliefs of Ramses III show the Sea Peoples in chs. with crews of three consisting of a driver and two spearmen (Yadin 1963:​335–338). In the world of LBA ch. warfare, Syria and Anatolia played major roles, and the evidence from the Hitt., Ug., Mitannian states is significant (Kammenhuber 1961; Beal 1992; Vita 1995; Daddi 2003; von Dassow 2008). Important data related to construction of chs., reflecting a well-organized division of labor, stems from Ugarit (Vita 1999:​ 488–491), Jaffa (ANET 478), Taanach (Letter 2, Albright 1944; Horowitz/​Oshima 2006:​132– 134; TUAT NF 3:230–234) and Egypt (Papyrus Anastasi, Caminos 1954:​15:4, 3–5; 105–106:1, 2–3; Yadin 1963:​202; Cantrell 2011:​70–72). For the price of ch. horses in Ugarit in comparison with other contemporary documents, see Cantrell (2011:​46–49). 4.2.  For the early 1st mill., Assyria replaces Egypt as the context for reconstructing the development of chs. One can distinguish here two peri-

Chariot/s (ch./chs.) and Chariotry

123 

ods (Littauer 1976; Yadin 1963:​382–455; Littauer/​Crouwel 1979:​figs. 53–73). The former includes the reigns of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III during which the ch. boxes have a D-shaped floor plan and a low, solid breastwork. The crews were usually limited to two men standing abreast, although a third is sometimes depicted. Axles are positioned at the rear of the vehicle, allowing for greater maneuverability. Wheels are now a bit larger and heavier than before. They have spokes, with deep felloes consisting of three to six segments of wood. Traction was provided by two horses, although often one or two were attached as outriggers. More complex draught poles now support the ch. better, and the breastwork brace is often a metal rod. Strengthening the traction system was also a bow-like element connected from the yoke to the vehicle. Yoke saddles, braces, backing, and bits from the 2nd mill. continue to be used. All this tack is often elaborately ornamented, with many of the motifs stemming originally from Eg. mythology and ritual. Reliefs from Carchemish, Tell Halaf, and Malatya (Yadin 1963:​366–367) show chs. with small six-spoked wheels, the axle positioned at the rear, an elliptical object between the yoke and vehicle, and two occupants (one driving and one shooting). At the back of the vehicle one can detect a spear (and shield). The exterior of the vehicles are either studded with what seem to be small disks or have quivers affixed diagonally (cf. Littauer/​Crouwel 1979:​fig. 58). The second period of Neo-Ass. chariotry begins with Tiglath-pilesar III and Sargon II (8th cent.). The vehicles have now increased considerably in size and often accommodate four-man crews. Their boxes have a rectangular floor plan and higher sides (occasionally armored). Large eight-spoked wheels have composite felloes constructed with two pairs of metal clips. Beginning in the 7th cent. the wheels were plated to protect against wear and tear. The draught team was often four, with all horses directly under the yoke. Bays for the horses’ necks replaced yoke-saddles. The Y-shaped draught pole was a single piece (usually shown with a metal breastwork brace). Bridle accessories include blinkers, frontlets, and poll decorations, and often also trappers, gorgets, and frontlets (serving both as decoration and protection). The cheek-pcs. of the bits no longer contain studs, which had hitherto served the needs of directional control for the earlier lighter and faster ch. The last Neo-Ass. reliefs show four occupants and fully armored horses. With the changes in the 8th and 7th cent., chariotry served less as a quick, highly maneuverable flanking and pursuing arm. This role was being

124

assumed, beginning in the 9th cent., by mounted troops (the term “cavalry” is anachronistic). The increase in armor for the horses and crews would have been necessitated by decreased maneuverability and the danger posed by enemy horsemen. Since chs. now served primarily as mobile platforms for archers, the larger wheels would have increased the elevation of the ch. – while also facilitating movement in rough terrain. As demonstrated by reliefs, these large chs. could still be carried (now by two persons) to the field of engagement (Yadin 1963:​426). To what extent similar developments took place in the states of the Southern Levant cannot be said with certainty. Reliefs from Nineveh show chs. (with a yoke for four horses) being carried off as booty that closely resembles the Ass. prototypes from the time of Ashurbanipal (Yadin 1963:​301; Ussishkin 1982:​116, Illustration 90). Rather than one exemplar of a larger arsenal, however, it may represent a single prestige object (of Ass. provenance) in the possession of the municipal ruler (cf. however Ussishkin 1990). 4.3.  Due to their many advantages, mounted troops assumed a greater role in the period of the Achaemenid Empire, and the use of chariotry diminished drastically. Nevertheless, chs. maintained their prestige value and hence are well-represented in iconography (Elayi/​Elayi 2004; Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​53–54). Those that continued to be used have rectangular boxes with reinforced sides (Littauer/​Crouwel 1979:​ figs. 80–82). Many have handgrips and seats. The axles appear in various positions, while wheels have six to twelve spokes with treads that are studded with hobnails. Harnessing is much less elaborate. Instead of serving as a mobile firing platform, these new chs. functioned as armored engines, outfitted with scythes, and used to break up enemy battle formations for charging mounted troops and infantry. The adaptations rendered chs. much less effective and marked the beginning of their demise. However, the evidence of terracotta figures and texts from Cyprus indicates that traditional four-man chs. continued in use in the W into the 6th and 5th cent. Whether the Pers. type ever made a significant appearance in the Southern Levant is doubtful. 4.4.  Scythed chs. continued to be used sporadically up to the time of Julius Caesar, yet played only a minor strategic role after Alexander the Great demonstrated at Gaugamela their ineffectiveness. The Seleucids employed scythed chs., probably due to Pers. influence (Diodorus 20.113.4; Plut. Dem. 28:3). The Battle of Magnesia (190/189 b.c.e.) sealed the fate of this weapon (Bar-Kochva 1976). Thereafter chs.

Chariot/s (ch./chs.) and Chariotry

125

126

were relegated to ceremonial processions, transportation of rulers and elites, and sport. Despite 2 Macc 13:2, they were likely not used in the wars with the Maccabees (Bar-Kochva 1976:​83–84). 5.  Rather than arriving prefabricated in Western Asia, chs. represent the gradual accumulation of many technologies (see above). As the most costly and prized weapons of the ancient world, they required an extensive exchange of material and knowledge, and in turn they had a major impact on society (e. g., through aristocratic warrior classes) and other areas of material culture (e. g., the architecture of city → gates: Cantrell 2011:​ 76–86). The history of chs. oscillates between two antipodes: speed and maneuvera­bility versus the stability required for bow warfare. The gradual increase in size contributed to their shock value and prestige. Yet despite popular comparisons, this weapon does not correspond to the modern tank, since it (with the exception of the scythed ch.) was not deployed for frontal attack or shock operations. The psychological effect of chs. – for instance, the noise and dust clouds they gen­erated – contributed to their image as formidable killing machines. Among the factors that conspired to facilitate the rise of chs. as war machines, a heavy reliance on projectile weaponry and the use of the horse as a traction animal were foremost. Projectiles included spears, javelins, and above all bows. A wider ch. box would have permitted a division of labor between charioteer and archer, while the new low front screen would have interfered less with the use of bows. Critical for ch. warfare was the development of the much smaller composite bow (Kooi/​Bergman 1997). The emergence and demise of chariotry went hand in hand with developments in horse use. Due to their capacities for greater speed, the introduction of the equid to a traditionally bovine role gradually transformed the wagon into a lighter and more maneuverable vehicle. Although units of mounted soldiers slowly begin to eclipse chariotry beginning in the 9th and esp. in the 8th cent., they remain rare and do not fully replace it until the reigns of the Achaemenids, Sassanids (perhaps due to Eastern influences), and the Seleucids (due to Macedonian influences). 6.  Israel was an esp. important player in the world of ch. warfare and their charioteers were apparently highly regarded for their skills (on the “Horse Lists,” see Dalley 1985; Fales 1991:​ 104). The notices that Solomon engaged in the trade of horses and chs. between Egypt and the N is historically problematic (Ikeda 1982; Ash 1999:​119–122) and may reflect Ass. horse trade

(Naʾaman 1976:​100–101; Heidorn 1997). Nevertheless, bibl. evidence suggests that Israel had developed contingents of chs. in its armed forces quite early in its history. For example, Elah already had a ch. corps with its own class of officers (1 Kgs 16:9). References to chs. (Hebr. merkavah, ʿgalah) abound in the accounts of Omrides and Nimshides, who established control of the Jezreel valley where chs. were useful. According to the Kurkh stela, Ahab had 2,000 chs. If correct, Israel’s chs. would have equaled those of Shalmaneser’s, and therefore many scholars claim that the number has been exaggerated (Naʾaman 1976; Niemann 2006; Lemaire 1998; but cf. Cantrell 2011:​35– 39). However, the armies of Assyria, Damascus, and Hamath were outfitted with twice as many mounted troops, which suggests that Ahab (and his vassals) had yet to begin the transition from chariotry to more advanced warfare with mounted troops. In addition, the Tel Dan stela refers to “thousands” (or “two thousand”) chs. and mounted troops, while Sargon II claims to have taken 50 (alternatively 200) chs. as booty (here charioteers, not chs., are likely meant). 1 Kgs 10:28–29 identifies Egypt as the source of chs. (and horses), which may only refer to esp. expensive exemplars. Yet other bibl. texts suggest that Egypt was a source for regular (Judean) chs. and horses in general. 1 Sam 8:11–12 describes native production (Cantrell 2011:​70–72). As for their symb. values, chs. are closely linked to monarchic power not only in iconography but also in the Bible (e. g., 1 Sam 8:11–12; 2 Sam 8:4; 15:1; 1 Kgs 1:5; 5:6; 9:19, 22; 10:26; 2 Kgs 13:7; 18:24). Envisioning a people indepen­dent of centralized statehood, many texts identify chs. as the symbol of oppressive kingship (Ex 14–15; Dt 20:1; Josh 11; 17:16–18; Judg 4–5; 1 Sam 13:5; 2 Sam 1:6; 8:4; 10:18; for “chariots of iron” in Josh 17/​Judg 1, see Drews 1989:​15–23). In keeping with such polit. reconceptualization, Dt 17:16 prohibits a native ruler from amassing horses. Prophetic texts present the military security attached to chs. as a challenge to the recognition of Israel’s God as the ultimate source of strength (e. g., Isa 31:1; Ps 20:7). Chs. exercised the imagination of bibl. authors, so that both narratives and prophecies often contain vivid details relating to ch. warfare (Cantrell 2011:​11–34). Many of these texts would have been written long after chs. had outlived their function on the battlefield (e. g., Dan 11:40).

7.  Albright, W. F., 1944, A  Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B. C., BASOR 94:12–27 ♦ Archer, R., 2010, Chariotry to Cavalry: Developments in the Early First Millennium, in: G. M. Fagan/​M. Trundle (eds.),

Chariot/s (ch./chs.) and Chariotry

127 

New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, History of Warfare 59, Leiden/​Boston:​57–79 ♦ Ash, P. S., 1999, David, Solomon and Egypt, JSOT.S 297, Sheffield ♦ Bar-Kochva, B., 1976, The Seleucid Army, Cambridge, U. K.  ♦ Barnett, R. D., 1982, Ancient Ivories in the Middle East, Qedem 14, Jerusalem  ♦ Beal, R. H., 1992, The Organization of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter 20, Heidelberg  ♦ Beck, P., 1982, The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud), TA 9:3– 68 ♦ Becking, B., 1992, The Fall of Samaria, SHANE 2, Leiden ♦ Beek, M. A., 1972, The Meaning of the Expression “the Chariots and the Horsemen of Israel” (II Kings 11:12), OS 17:1–9  ♦ Beit-Arieh, I. (ed.), 1999, Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 15, Tel Aviv ♦ Ben-Arieh, S., 1983, A Mould for a Goddess Plaque, IEJ 33:72–77 ♦ Biran, A., 1993, Dan, NEAEHL 1:323–332 ♦ Caminos, R. A., 1954, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, Brown Egyptological Studies 1, London ♦ Cantrell, D. O., 2011, The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic Israel (Ninth–Eighth Centuries B. C. E.), HACL 1, Winona Lake ♦ Crouwel, J. H., 1987, Chariots in Iron Age Cyprus, RDAC:101– 118 ♦ Crowfoot, J. W./​Crowfoot, G. M., 1938, Early Ivories from Samaria, London  ♦ Crowfoot, J. W./​ Crowfoot, G. M./​Kenyon, K. M., 1957, Samaria-Sebaste 3, London ♦ Daddi, F. P., 2003, Le carische d’oro, in: G. Beckman/​R. Beal/​B. McMahon (eds.), Hittite Studies (FS Harry A. Hoffner Jr.), Winona Lake:​ 83–92 ♦ Dalley, S., 1985, Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II, Iraq 47:31–48 ♦ Dassow, E. von, 2008, State and Society in the Late Bronze Age, Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 17, Bethesda ♦ Davies, N. de G., 1941, Syrians in the Tomb of Amum-edgeh, JEA 27:96–98  ♦ Dothan, T., 2002, Bronze and Iron Objects with Cultic Connotations from Philistine Temple Building 350 at Ekron, IEJ 52:1– 27 ♦ Drews, R., 1989, The ‘Chariots of Iron’ of Joshua and Judges, JSOT 45:15–23 ♦ Elayi J./​Elayi, A. G., 2004, Le monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque perse (Ve–IVe s. av. J.-Ch.), 2 vols., Paris ♦ Fales, F. M., 1991, West Semitic Names in the Assyrian Empire, SEL 8:99–117 ♦ Feldman, M. H./​Sauvage, C., 2010, Objects of Prestige? Chariots in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean and Near East, ÄL 20:67– 181 ♦ Frankfort, H., 51996, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, New Haven ♦ Fritz, V./​Kempinski, A., 1983, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mšaš (Tel Masos) 1972–1975, 3 vols., ADPV 6, Wiesbaden ♦ Grant, E., 1934, Rumeileh Being Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine) 3, Haverford  ♦ Grant, E./​Wright, G. E., 1938, Ain Shems Excavations 5, Haverford  ♦ Heidorn, L. A., 1997, The Horses of Kush, JNES 56:105–114 ♦ Horowitz, W./​Oshima, T., 2006, Cuneiform in Canaan, Jerusalem ♦ Ikeda, Y., 1982, Solomon’s Trade in Horses and Chariots in its International Setting, in: T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, Winona Lake:​ 215–238 ♦ Im, M., 2006, Horses and Chariotry in the Land of Israel during the Iron Age II (1000–586 BCE), Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan ♦ James, F. W./​McGovern, P. E., 1993, The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan, Philadelphia  ♦ Kammenhuber, A., 1961, Hippologia Hethitica, Wiesbaden ♦ Klingbeil, G. A., 2003, Man’s Other

128 Best Friend, UF 35:259–289  ♦ Kooi, B. W./​Bergman, C. A., 1997, An Approach to the Study of Ancient Archery Using Mathematical Modeling, Antiquity 71:124– 134 ♦ Lamon, R. S./​Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo [I], OIP 42, Chicago ♦ Lemaire, A., 1998, Chars et cavaliers dans l’ancien Israël, Transeuphratène 15:165–182 ♦ Littauer, M. A., 1976, New Light on the Assyrian Chariot, Or. NS 45:217–226  ♦ Littauer, M. A./​Crouwel, J. H., 1973, The Dating of the Chariot Ivory from Nimrud Considered Once Again, BASOR 209:27–33 ♦ 1979, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East, Leiden/​Cologne  ♦ 2002, Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness, CHANE 6, Leiden/​Boston  ♦ Loud, G., 1939, The Megiddo Ivories, OIP 52, Chicago  ♦ Mallowan, M. E. L., 1966, Nimrud and its Remains, 3 vols., London ♦ May, H. G., 1935, Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult, OIP 26, Chicago ♦ Mazar, A./​Panitz-Cohen, N., 2001, Timnah (Tel Batash) 2, Qedem 42, Jerusalem ♦ McCown, C. C., 1947, Tell en-Naṣbeh 1, Berkeley ♦ Meshorer, Y./​Qedar, S., 1999, Samarian Coinage, Numismatic Studies and Researches 9, Jerusalem ♦ Moorey, P. R. S., 1986, The Emergence of the Light, World Archaeology 18:196–215 ♦ Naʾaman, N., 1976, Two Notes on the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III from Kurkh, TA 3:89–106 ♦ Niemann, H. M., 2006, Wagen Israels und sein(e) Lenker (2 Kön 2,12), in: S. Gillmayr-Bucher/​A. Giercke/​C. Niessen (eds.), Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres (FS Georg Hentschel), EThSt 90, Würzburg:​15–35 ♦ Oren, E. D., 1997, The Kingdom of Sharuhen and the Hyksos Kingdom, in: E. D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, Philadelphia:​253–283  ♦ Petrie, W. M. F., 1928, Gerar, London  ♦ 1930, Beth-Pelet (Tell Fara) 1, London  ♦ 1934, Ancient Gaza 4, London ♦ Potratz, J. A. H., 1966, Die Pferdetrensen des alten Orient, Rome ♦ Raulwing, P., 2000, Horses, Chariots and Indo-Europeans, Budapest ♦ Sass, B., 2004, Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavation at Lachish (1973– 1994), Tel Aviv:​1450–1524  ♦ Sellin, E./​Watzinger, C., 1913, Jericho: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Leipzig ♦ Snodgrass, A. M., 1967, Arms and Armour of the Greeks, Ithaca ♦ Stager, L. E., 1998, Forging an Identity, in: M. D. Coogan (ed.), Oxford History of the Biblical World, New York:​123–175 ♦ 2006, Chariot Fittings from Philistine Ashkelon, in: S. Gitin/​J. E. Wright/​ J. P. Dessel (eds.), Confronting the Past, Winona Lake:​ 169–176 ♦ Tufnell, O., 1953, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, London ♦ Ussishkin, D., 1982, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, Tel Aviv ♦ 1990, The Assyrian Attack on Lachish, TA 17:53–86 ♦ 2004, Area Pal: The Judean Palace-Fort, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) 2, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22, Tel Aviv:​768–870  ♦ Veldmeijer, A. J., et al., 2018, Chariots in Ancient Egypt: The Tano Chariot, a Case Study, Leiden  ♦ Vita, J.‑P., 1995, El Ejército de Ugarit, Banco de Datos Filológicos Semíticos Noroccidentales Monografías 1, Madrid ♦ 1999, The Society of Ugarit, in: W. G. E. Watson/​N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, HO 39, Boston:​455– 498 ♦ Yadin, Y., 1963, The Art of Warfare in the Biblical World, London ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1960, Hazor II, Jerusalem. Jacob L. Wright

City/Cities (c./cs.)

129

130

City/​Cities (c./cs.) 1.  Bibl. Hebr. ʿir (pl. ʿarim) denotes any permanent communal settlement regardless of its size. It is usually translated as “city,” but the original meaning was apparently a fortified site surrounded with a wall (Dreyer 1971:​21). In Old S Arab. the word ʿr means “citadel” (Frick 1977:​25 ff; Niemann 2007:​198; Otto 2001:​54). The word ʿir appears often with expressions for → fortification such as ʿir umigdal “(walled) city and tower”, ʿarey harekeb (cs. that provide shelter for → chariots), or ʿir mibṣar “fortified city” as opposed to koper/ kefar perazi “unfortified → village” (Levine 1999:​ 423–426). For a parallel use of ʿir and mibṣar see Mic 5:11. An alternative word for c. can be qiryah or qeret in Hebr. In Phoen., the word ʿir rarely appears and qeret is the usual word for c. or town as in Qrt-ḥdšt (“New-City” = Carthage) (Hoftijzer/​ Jongeling 1994:​883, 1037). But as ʿir, qiryah does not conceptualize in any way our modern understanding of urbanism and this word, too, is not restricted to large settlements only (a similar lack of distinction can be observed for the Sum. notion uru and Akkad. alum; van de Mieroop 1997:​10; Otto 2001:​52). In contrast to ʿir that has an association with fortifications and citadels, qiryah appears to be more lofty with high urban structures within it (Dt 2:36; Isa 26:5; Prov 9:3) (Levine 1999:​426). 2.  There is no general universal or nomothetic definition of “city” and it is a trivial truth that every c. is a unique phenomenon in an inimitable hist. context. Definitions that are appropriate for particular societies in certain hist. situations may be inappropriate for others. However, abstracting the variables of the socio-economic development can identify regularities of ancient urbanism. Comparing ancient cs. cross culturally reveals that cs. are the tangible expression of complex social organization. Complex societies contrast with small-scale or simple ‘egalitarian’ societies organized in kinship groups, in which people have equal access to resources with a social differentiation based only on age, sex, and personal qualities. Complex societies establish a central and hierarchical authority to integrate large populations in an institutional system of polit. dominance, social hierarchies, and coordinated economic activities. Ancient cs. were the physical manifestations of this increasing polit., social, and economic complexity. Ancient complex societies were organized in states. The ancient states in which early cs. arose were typically either c.-states or territorial states (Trigger 2003:​chap. 6). In c.-states, there is usually one large urban settlement, while territorial states are organized over a larger territory in a network of ranked cs. and towns.

There is still doubt among some scholars whether cs. require “states” (Osborne 2005:​2–3; M. L. Smith 2003:​12). Kirsten (1956) has called large village communities in the non-urban society of Geometric and Archaic Greece “Dorfstaaten” (village states). Bintliff (2000:​28) developed this concept further, observing that between ca. 750–500 b.c.e. a considerable number of the smaller G villages grew past the size of largely endogamous kinship groups of around 500 citizens and claimed statehood or at least a high level of polit. autonomy from their neighbors. This concept of the formation of the early polis offers valuable comparisons for the analysis of autonomous village and kinship groups in the Isr. highlands during Iron Age I. In contrast to Greece, these villages were not integrated in a c. territory, but coexisted with neighboring urban systems. In the end, it is a question of definition for what constitutes a “state.” In ancient Palestine, it appears appropriate to distinguish two kinds of complex social organization: 1) non-urban chiefdoms with small complex village polities beyond the limits of kinship organization and 2) fully developed urbanized states with much larger population and a more complex polit. structure. Early states and ancient cs. appear to be often unstable and early complex systems often collapsed (Marcus 1998; Tainter 1988; Yoffee/​ Cowgill 1988). Similar crises were observed in the development of urbanism in Palestine during the IBA and LBA periods. These breakdowns were apparently caused by polit., economic, and social crises to which the system was unable to respond adequately. Remarkably, in the IBA and LBA, a large part of the society returned to small villages and less complex socio-economic formations based on kinship rather than urban social hierarchies with complex economies (Greenberg 2019:​125 ff). In the context outlined here, Childe’s concept of an ‘Urban Revolution’ is somewhat outdated and his isolated ten criteria for early cs. (Childe 1950) should be discussed against a coherent theory of complex social structures. Thus, based on the available arch. data in 1950, Childe’s ten criteria need to be reviewed today: 1. concentration of a relatively large number of people in a restricted area; 2. craft specialization; 3. appropriation by a central authority of an economic surplus; 4. monumental public architecture; 5. developed social stratification; 6. use of writing; 7. emergence of sciences; 8. naturalistic art; 9. foreign trade; 10. group membership based on residence rather than kinship (according to Osborne 2005). Childe himself never intended to draft a simple trait list. He understood the ten criteria

City/Cities (c./cs.)

131 

as traits operating within interrelated social, economic, polit., and cultural changes and processes that led to the earliest states and cs. (M. E. Smith 2009). To conclude, ancient cs. are linked to polit., social, and economic complexity with ranked and stratified societies. Such complex societies developed class structures beyond the limits of social organization based exclusively on kinship. Social complexity further encompasses craft specialization, hierarchical administration, and → trade as well as a central state authority that establishes ideologies legitimizing the polit. dominance. This implies a relatively large population concentrated in cs. in contrast to the c.’s less populated rural hinterland with a surrounding settlement pattern that is hierarchically dominated by the c. Other arch. correlates for early Levantine urbanism are large public architectural constructions such as temples, → palaces, fortifications, and → water works/management (→ Introduction II: Archaeology). Such structures do not appear in villages with the village → sanctuaries in most cases being smaller than urban temples. Craft specialization is a function of a state level economic system, which clearly connects to cs., but the crafts specialists themselves may be located extra-urban. Cs. on the other hand were not only characterized by the activities of crafts specialists and a large part of the urban population was still working in → agriculture and food production. Archaeologically visible are also items that reflect wealth of the elites and symbols that legitimize the power of the ruling class. Wealth and monumental structures are only possible with the extraction of taxes that the state collects from lower classes and kinship groups within the c. and the rural hinterland. 4.  Large settlements existed already in the Neolithic. Although often described as a Neolithic “city,” Jericho was not an urban settlement (Hachmann 1994). In contrast to early Jericho, late PPNB sites such as Abu Hureyra (Syria, 8th mill. b.c.e.) and PN sites like Çatal Höyük (Turkey, 7th–6th mill. b.c.e.) did have sizeable populations. In the case of Çatal Höyük there is an estimate of 5,000–6,000 inhabitants (Angel 1971:​ 83). Yet, such large settlements are not considered cs. because of their lack of socio-economic complexity and their missing hierarchical settlement pattern. The first large settlements that display such characteristics are Ubaid 3 period sites of the late 6th mill. b.c.e. in Southwestern Iran, such as Tepe Sohz (Nissen 1988:​53). Early urbanism fully developed in the S Mesop. plains during the 5th mill. b.c.e. in the Ubaid 4 period. Surface explorations at Uruk (Iraq) found

132

evidence of settlement debris over an area of 60 ha (Finkbeiner 1991). The debris at Uruk, dated to the 4th mill. b.c.e., the Uruk period, extended over an area of 200 ha. While the formation of complex socio-economic systems in Mesopotamia was closely connected with a significant population growth and urbanism, similar contemporary processes in Egypt did apparently not trigger the development of very large urban centers. During the 3rd mill. b.c.e., Mesopotamia became fully urbanized and organized in a network of c.-states. Simultaneously, urbanism began to develop in Syria and Lebanon. At the end of EB I, in the early 3rd mill. b.c.e., there were first signs of urbanism in Palestine. Large communal structures, probably of ceremonial character were recorded at Megiddo Stratum XIX, Hartuv, and Tel ʿErani. In this period there are also indications for the earliest urban fortifications in Palestine (→ map City #1). Urbanism fully developed in EB II–III at a number of sites all over Palestine (Herzog 1997:​ 42–97). These urban centers were apparently the capitals of c.-states that ruled over a territory of about 20–40 km radius (Esse 1991; Joffe 1993; Greenberg 2019:​chap. 3). 12 of the 30 recorded EBA cs. had a size of about 10 ha or more and made up 75 % of the total urban area (Broshi/​ Gophna 1984; Herzog 1997:​73). Some of these cs. are remarkably large and well-fortified, like Tel Yarmut or Khirbet ez-Zeraqon. Public architecture of the EBA included c. walls with → towers and → gates (→ fig. Gate #1:1–7, col. 326), temples and residential structures. At Beth-Yerah, an enigmatic structure was found that is commonly interpreted as a granary (Herzog 1997:​85–87; Greenberg 2019:​110–112). At sites like Tel Yarmut, much of space inside the settlement was occupied by public structures, esp. by the palace and the fortifications. These structures were ‘public’ only in the sense that they were built by the population. Massive walls around the palace restricted any public access to these impressive urban buildings. In the following period, the IBA, urbanism underwent a deep crisis and all cs. vanished. Only a few sites seem to be somewhat more developed beyond the level of villages, such as Khirbet Iskander in Jordan. While the urban sector completely collapsed, life continued on an essentially unharmed village level. A large number of small village sites are recorded in Palestine and Jordan (Palumbo 1991; Greenberg 2019:​125–128 and chap. 4). When urbanization returned to the Southern Levant in the MBA (→ map City #2, col. 135), it was substantially influenced by the societies of Syria and Lebanon (Herzog 1997). The c. plan, the for-

133

134

City map #1: Settlements of the Early Bronze Age.

City/Cities (c./cs.)

City/Cities (c./cs.)

135 

City map #2: Settlements of the Middle Bronze Age.

136

City/Cities (c./cs.)

137

138

tifications, public buildings, but also the → pottery and small finds all reflect Syr. and Lebanese proto-types. Urbanism was reintroduced in a different form, apparently from the outside and did not develop indigenously (Ilan 1995). The layout of MBA cities and their main public structures continue into the LBA – albeit on a smaller level. During the MBA, Palestine was again politically organized in a number of small c.-states (Broshi/​ Gophna 1986). Among the variables that constitute a c. are their large size and their high population density. In its immediate hinterland, the c. stands out as the largest settlement. In the regional context of c.-states, a c. ranks as a peer among other urban settlements. The MBA cs. in Palestine reflect the tendency, observed in Syria, to be rectangular or circular in shape. Such regular settlement shapes are apparently the result of c. planning. A  large c. in the Levant, however, may appear small when compared to the major urban centers of Mesopotamia. Only the largest MBA cs. in Palestine matched the extensive settlements in Syria. Hazor displays rectangular corners and was probably more than 60 ha. Kabri was circular with a size of 32 ha. One of the largest cs. was probably Gaza, a circular tell with more than 1 km diameter. The settlement pattern of a c.-state could include medium sized towns with fortification, differentiating the settlement hierarchy into at least three tiers of capital c., towns, and villages. The largest buildings within the cs. were the royal palaces, the center of the polit. and economic power of a MBA urban center and its c.-state (cf. → fig. Palace #1:1–2, col. 724). The palaces were usually much larger and more elaborated than the temples. Still, the temples had a central role also expressed in their location, which was often at the highest elevation of the c. The c.’s rulers claimed in texts and figurative representation that their polit. power was supported and legitimized by the gods. Exceptionally well-preserved fortifications and c.-gates were discovered at Ashkelon and Tel Dan (→ fig. Gate #1:8–9, col. 326). As in Syria, for instance, Ebla, the typical c. wall was constructed as earthen ramparts, bastions, and four-chamber gates. 4.1.  According to Gonen (1984), the transition from MB II–LB I  is characterized by a deep crisis in Palestine with substantial consequences for urbanization. Gonen observed that the number of settlements in her 77 site sample was sharply reduced when many MBA sites were abandoned in the LBA. The built-up area of surviving sites shrank significantly. While the total number of LBA settlements began to rise again during this

period, the total built-up area of all settlements remained only at a third of the MBA built-up area. There was, however, no increase in the number of large settlements; Gonen pointed out that large urban sites and villages were increasingly being abandoned. The number of small villages with a size of 1–5 ha remained stable, while very small settlements and isolated hamlets increased substantially. LBA cs. were smaller than MBA cs. and there were proportionally more small and very small sites (→ map City #3, col. 139). Gonen’s research is supported by Herzog’s study of the LBA (Herzog 1997; 2003). According to Herzog, there was a sharp decline of urban culture, which led to the abandonment or shrinking of cs. The urban architecture that survived was poor and scattered. A third study confirming this apparent crisis is Bunimovitz’s analysis of the settlement pattern (Bunimovitz 1989; 1995), in which he demonstrates that there were significantly fewer settlements in the LBA than in the preceding period. Bunimovitz (1995:​324) also reconstructed a polit. map of the LBA c.-states, which controlled a much diminished rural sector. Urban architecture also declined. Public architecture in cs. of the Levant were often located at specific locations. The local palaces and administrative structures were usually very close to the c. gate, the buildings are thus located at the periphery of the urban space and not in the middle of the c. The temples are as a rule located on the highest point of the tell. The temple is the house of the c. deity and the citizens believed that it was present in this building and dwelled in the midst of its c. C. deity and temple are thus symbols of the independence of the c. and the c.-state. During the LBA there are apparently no new fortifications and c. walls. The fact that c. gates were constructed in the LBA seems to imply that earlier fortifications and c. walls remained in use and were repaired. The typical MBA c. wall was an earthen rampart, but some were constructed with very large, roughly dressed boulders (e. g., Shechem, the Gihon Spring fortifications at Jerusalem, Hebron) some of which were re-used in the LBA. The four-chamber c. gates of the LBA (→ fig. Gate #1:10–11, col. 326) are a direct continuation of earlier gates. One of the largest LBA cs. in the Levant was Ugarit. With a size of about 21 ha, the population can be estimated at about 4,000–6,000 people (cf. Garr 1987). Evaluating Ug. texts, it was estimated that about 800 specialists were employed by the royal palace (Liverani 1979:​1319). With an average family size of 5.5 and a number of about 150 unmarried men employed, the majority of the c.’s population, about 3,000–4,000 people, was in

City/Cities (c./cs.)

139 

City map #3: Settlements of the Late Bronze Age.

140

City/Cities (c./cs.)

141

142

some way economically dependent on the palace economy. While the royal household (or palace economy) was the dominating polit. and economic power, there were a few more large elite households and the mass of dependent small households (Schloen 2001). The economic power of the royal household was based on land holdings, crafts production, trade, and taxation of the approximately 150 villages in the kingdom (Heltzer 1982; 1976; McGeough 2007). The system was also maintained with symb. representations that stressed the divine legitimacy of royal power and its economic control. Such ideologies aimed at diminishing social conflicts and integrating the lower ranking classes with their households under royal control. The palace economy provided few opportunities for private economic initiatives of lower ranking citizens and there is no textual or arch. evidence for markets in Ugarit (McGeough 2007:​271). 4.2.  The first phase of the following Iron Age IA is characterized by continuation as well as innovation. LB II society and culture continued in the northern coastal plains, the Jezreel and Jordan Valleys and in the Shephelah. Small, diminished cs. continued to rule over limited c.-states, while, during the 12th cent. b.c.e., the 20th Eg. Dyn. dominated most of the country. Innovations occurred in the central highlands and Upper Galilee, where very small settlements were founded in a sparsely settled area. This was the beginning of what became the Isr. settlement during Iron Age II. These new small villages were part of the general LBA trend of increasing numbers of very small settlements, first observed by Gonen. Another innovation was the settlement of Sea Peoples along the coast, the Philistines in Southwestern Palestine and the Sikils in Dor. The small local urban centers in the northern coastal plains, the Jezreel and Jordan Valleys, and in the Shephelah continued in Iron Age IA on the limited scale typical of LBA urbanism. The largest sites in the central highlands were small rural towns, among them Shechem and Jerusalem (→ map City #4, col. 143). In stark contrast to this, Philist. urbanism is characterized by large urban centers such as Ekron that became a 16 ha site in Iron Age IA. In Iron Age IB, Philist. cs. grew even larger. Gath (Tell es-Safi) became the most important c. in Southern Palestine. The mound of Gaza is of similar size, but the site is still unexplored. Other important cs. with a size of more than 10 ha were located along the coastal plain and include Dor and poss. Akko. The center of urbanism during Iron Age I  was clearly in Southern Palestine and connected with the Land of the Philistines. The Jezreel valley and the Shephelah are characterized by medium sized towns with an average

size of about 5 ha and less. Here, the local Bronze Age cultures continued and an extensively excavated site like Megiddo displays all the elements of a LBA c. with a modest palace near the c. gate and a temple on the summit of the mound. All these are indications of a continuing system of c.states in the Jezreel valley. There was no urbanism in the mountains, the central hill country of later Israel, and the Upper Galilee. The spatial organization of Philist. cs. like Ekron is different from the plan of Canaan. urban centers. At sites like Ekron, the main public architecture appears to be in the center of the c., while palaces and administrative buildings were usually near the c. gate in Bronze Age cs. Ekron was fortified, while many cs. in the Bronze Age tradition re-used and re-enforced MBA ramparts. The urban Bronze Age traditions that continued in regions such as the Jezreel valley ended with the transition from Iron Age I  to Iron Age II. Urbanism with cs. larger than 10 ha were still mainly confined to the Land of the Philistines, where cs. like Gath, Ashkelon, and apparently also Gaza thrived. Dor and poss. Akko may have been centers in the northern coastal plains. Many towns in the Jezreel and the Northern Jordan Valley, including Kinneret and Tel Hadar at the Sea of Galilee, were destroyed and lay ruined during the 10th cent. b.c.e. (early Iron Age IIA, → map City #5, col. 146). In the central hill country very small towns such as Shechem and Tirzah served as centers for tribal alliances. At Jerusalem, modest public structures, albeit the largest ones in the hill country, mark a fortified castle with a small settlement of about 4 ha. These structures were constructed at the end of Iron Age IB and included probably a small palace as well as the so-called “Stepped Structure” in Silwan (Mazar 2006). Shechem, Jerusalem, and the village of Hebron (about 3 ha in size) all reused massive MBA fortifications constructed of large boulders. In Iron Age IIA new powerful polit. centers appeared in the Northern Hill Country with the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel under the Omride Dynasty. The polit. landscape of this dynasty is marked by a new administrative center, Samaria (→ fig. Palace #3:1, col. 730). A  massive palace terrace was constructed here apparently in the time of Omri. A  similar terrace with a royal palace was later constructed under Ahab in the second capital, Jezreel. So far, there is little evidence of an urban center with extensive domestic buildings. It seems as if these fortified (palace) compounds or residences were administrative centers without a real c. built up around them (Niemann 2007).

City/Cities (c./cs.)

143 

City map #4: Settlements of the Iron Age I.

144

145

146

City map #5: Settlements of the Early Iron Age IIA.

City/Cities (c./cs.)

City/Cities (c./cs.)

147 

The rising Omride state established a number of administrative towns in the periphery of the central hill country (→ map City #6). Best studied are Megiddo and Hazor. At Megiddo (Stratum  VA/​ IVB) a small administrative center was founded. The site was modestly fortified with a belt of houses around the mound, whose outer walls formed a continuous line of defense. In contrast, large urban settlements continue to thrive in the coastal plains, esp. in the Land of the Philistines. The largest Philist. urban center, Gath, was destroyed, apparently by Hazael in the middle of the 9th cent. b.c.e. This destruction transformed the polit. and urban landscape of Southern Palestine with Ashkelon and most probably Gaza as surviving major cs. In Iron Age IIB, urbanism was still mostly located in the coastal plain, where cs. like Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa, Dor, and Akko continued to dominate (→ map City #7, col. 151). These large urban centers were more than 10  ha large with populations between 4,000–10,000. Little is known about the polit. economy of these cs. Comparable urban developments in Phoenicia suggest that during Iron Age II a new kind of economic activity appeared that was increasingly based on the initiative and activities of the c.’s citizens. The Bronze Age palace economy was replaced by what might be called “mercantile cities” with families being active in trading and craft production. Such possible new economic structures in coastal cs. of the Southern Levant are still little understood. The coastal cs. still appear to be organized as c.-states. Territorial states of Iron Age IIB Palestine were confined to inland areas of Palestine. The Kingdom of Israel continued to be the dominant state. The kingdom was marked by very limited urbanism (Niemann 1993:​132–173, maps 146, 149). While there is still no arch. evidence of a large urban settlement at Samaria, in the Samarian highlands there were only a few rural towns, among them Tirzah, Shechem, and Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah). In the Kingdom of Judah, the largest settlement was Jerusalem that began to develop into a large c. only during the 8th cent. b.c.e. (Broshi 1974; Finkelstein 2008; Naʾaman 2007). Although arch. evidence is lacking, it would be surprising, if Samaria was not growing as well under its powerful rulers during the 8th cent. In Israel and Judah, administrative settlements were founded in the periphery around the homeland of the Isr. tribes and kinship groups (Niemann 1993:​maps 146, 149). These administrative settlements were modest towns with a size of 5 ha or less. They were fortified and probably served mainly as military bases and storage for taxes. These towns are thus quite distinct from the mercantile cs. in the

148

coastal plain. Isr. administrative towns included Hazor and Megiddo; among Judean administrative towns were Beth-Shemesh, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell Sheva (Aharoni’s Beersheva excavation), and Lachish (→ fig. Palace #3:2, col. 730). Typical administrative architecture built by the state comprised a wall with a gate (→ fig. Gate #2–3, col. 327–330), storage facilities and/or stables, offices and the commander’s headquarters as well as a water installation that provides access to water from inside the town in case of → siege (→ water management; → fig. Water Management #1, col. 1103; → fig. Water Works #1, col. 1116). The fact that such administrative towns do not appear in the heartland of Israel and Judah on the highlands might be explained with the inner structure of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Niemann 1993). In both monarchies, a tribal society with powerful kinship groups probably still dominated the central hill-country. Until the 8th cent. b.c.e., these kinship groups lived in non-urban village communities, which resisted, to some extent, the attempts of the monarchy to expand its power over them. It seems as if the monarchy was stronger and more efficiently represented in the conquered peripheries than in its own tribal heartland on the highlands. Archaeologically, there is little known about the c. plan of the Isr. capitals, Samaria and Jerusalem. Texts mention as public architecture in Jerusalem the royal palace, sanctuaries, the temple, fortifications, and gates as well as water installations. Exceptional architectural elements such as balustrades and pillar capitals (proto-aeolic capitals; → building ornaments; → fig. Building Ornaments #1, col. 99) were found in the capital cs., in residences (Ramat Rahel; → fig. Palace #3:3, col. 730) and administrative towns only. The town plan in ancient Israel, seen at Tell enNasbeh, often follows the peripheral or radial plan of alleys similar to Bronze Age cs. such as Ugarit. In administrative towns, such as Megiddo, elements of a more rectangular outline of architecture and alleys appear. There is generally a lack of public open space such as market places like the agora in the G polis. The main public space of cs. in ancient Palestine was apparently the c. gate. Gates, thus, provided defense, public thoroughfare, and place for assemblies, judicial judgment, business activities, and public meeting. The gates appear to be the meeting place of the elders of the cs. and news reached the c. and its public here first. The Ass. conquest in the late 8th cent. b.c.e. with its continuous occupation in the first half of the 7th cent. b.c.e. caused destruction and reorganization of the polit. and urban landscape (→ map City #8, col. 154). Polit. centers such as Sa-

149

150

City map #6: Settlements of the Late Iron Age IIA.

City/Cities (c./cs.)

City/Cities (c./cs.)

151 

City map #7: Settlements of the Iron Age IIB.

152

153

154

City map #8: Settlements of the Iron Age IIC (Assyrian domination).

City/Cities (c./cs.)

City/Cities (c./cs.)

155 

maria were conquered and probably destroyed, but according to Ass. texts soon reoccupied and used for Ass. administrative purposes. At Samaria there is, however, no arch. evidence for the Ass. period. Megiddo Stratum III provides evidence for a complete Ass. administrative town. Ass. open → courtyard buildings, well recorded also in Iraq and Syria, were excavated at Megiddo and the town was built in a system of rectangular blocks. In contrast, street plans in the Bronze and Iron Ages (with the exception of the MBA) often followed the topography of the settled mounds. With the Ass. rectangular plan, a new era of c. planning began that was fully established during the Achaemenid period. Jerusalem under Manasseh probably retained its size acquired in the 8th cent. b.c.e. and territorial losses in the Shephelah were partly compensated for with expansion and development of peripheral areas such as the Northern Negev. Judah followed the same model of administrative town centers in the periphery which did not occur in the Judean highlands itself. To the E, Ass. influence appears at certain Ammonite sites in central Jordan (Daviau 2001). Exceptional urban expansion was noted at Ekron. Similar processes may have happened at Gaza as well, where a settlement expansion extended into the hinterland of the c. After the Ass. withdrawal in the middle of the 7th cent. b.c.e., the Eg. 26th Dyn. was influential in Palestine until 605 b.c.e. The short polit. interlude left no significant mark on urbanism in the Southern Levant (→ map City #9). During the Iron Age, most cs. in the Southern Levant were apparently ethnically still homogenous with only one or at the most a few ethnic groups living in a c. In LBA Ugarit, a major Medit. port, ancient texts report the presence of foreigners as “guests of the walls of Ugarit” (Vita 1999:​ 457 ff). Citizenship in the modern sense did not exist in the LBA and Iron Age cs. and we have only a vague idea about who had the right to live in a c. and how (ethnic) minorities were treated (cf. the concept of the ger in Isr. legal terms). After the 6th cent. b.c.e., metropolitan cs. like Babylon had a proverbial ethnic differentiation and a multitude of languages (Gen 11:7). With the Pers. period an increasing ethnic differentiation can be observed for cs. in the Southern Levant (for Phoenicians in Jerusalem see Neh 13:16), a process that continued in the Hell. period and culminated in the use of G as an urban elite language with Aram. as its rural counterpart. 4.3.  The Bab. conquest of Palestine and the less than 70 years of Bab. dominance apparently had a devastating effect on the Levant. At many sites,

156

from the Turkish Levantine coast in the N down to the Eg. border of the Sinai Peninsula in the S, and E into Transjordan, archaeologists noted destructions and abandonment of urban and non-urban settlements. Most of the sites destroyed in the 6th cent. b.c.e. were rebuilt only after the Pers. (or Achaemenid) conquest of the Levant in 538 b.c.e. There are arch. indications that this reconstitution of urbanism began only in the early 5th cent. b.c.e., decades after the Pers. conquest (Shalev 2008). Arch. surveys at several regions of Palestine indicate that the Bab. neglect of urbanism did not severely affect the rural sector with its villages. Most of the late Iron Age villages survived into the Pers. period. When cs. and towns were rebuilt, they were often constructed in new locations and the old settlement mounds (tells) were in many cases abandoned. At several sites, mounds on which towns once thrived were now the location of a single estate or fortress (Hazor, Megiddo, Lachish). The cs. of the Pers. period were again situated mostly in the coastal plain and were often larger than the cs. of the Iron Age (→ map City #10, col. 159). The new rectangular plan that first appeared with the Assyrians, was now regularly applied at most of the Pers. period urban centers. Ancient Isr. cs. and towns, like Samaria and Jerusalem, played only a marginal role in the settlement pattern of the 5th and 4th cent. b.c.e. 4.4.  In respect to the location and c. planning, Hell. cs. continue trends that began during the Pers. period. With the polit. domination of the Near East by Greeks, new forms of polit. urban organization reached the cs. of the Levant. In several cs., G veterans were settled and G administrations established. G c. law based on the concept of the polis was introduced. Autonomous cs. and c. alliances such as the Decapolis appeared. For the first time, ethnic heterogeneity characterized cs. in Palestine. In previous periods, only small numbers of strangers or foreigners lived among the otherwise largely homogenous c. population. During the Hell. period, Greeks and other populations from outside Palestine lived in the cs. of the country. The increasing internationalization of Palestine is also underlined by the fact that even rural populations such as the Jews in their land were outnumbered by Jews living in the diaspora. The urban sphere became increasingly associated with foreign influence, while the rural sector remained traditional and adhering to local traditions. G was the urban language; Aram. was spoken in the villages. Increasingly, there were indications of cultural alienation, economic tensions, and polit. conflict between the urban and rural sectors.

157

158

City map #9: Settlements of the Iron Age IIC (Egyptian domination).

City/Cities (c./cs.)

City/Cities (c./cs.)

159 

City map #10: Settlements of the Persian Period.

160

City/Cities (c./cs.)

161

162

Archaeologically Hell. and Rom. cs. were built on a regular street plan with blocks and main roads crossing each other. Increasingly sophisticated sewage systems (→ litter) appeared and well-planned fortifications defended the cs. Stone replaced mudbrick and earth floor as building material. In the Rom. period, an entire assemblage of urban buildings that comprised a tetrapylon, bathhouses (→ bath), a nymphaeum, a cardo and a decumanus, etc. gave Rom. cs. a typical appearance that was repeated by other cs. 5.  Urbanization in the ANE developed first in Mesopotamia and reached Palestine only centuries later. EBA attempts to establish a society and economy based on cs. failed and stable urbanization was only achieved in the MBA under considerable influence from Syria and Lebanon. Cs. and c.-states dominated MBA and LBA Palestine, although urbanization plunged into another crisis during the LBA. During the Iron Age, large agricultural cs. with mercantile aspects were established along the Palest. coast and in the larger inner valleys. The Isr. settlement remained mainly rural with administrative centers around the core highland area (Niemann 1993). These administrative centers were probably owned and maintained directly by the crown and were much smaller than the cs. in the coastal plain. 6.  While the bibl. notion of ʿir lacks any differentiation between large and small settlements, Hebr. did distinguish between walled and unwalled settlements (Lev 25:29–31; 1 Sam 6:18; Ez 38:11). Esp. in connection with Jerusalem, urban building activity is reported including the strengthening of defenses with the erection of thick walls and battlements (2 Chr 26:6; Zeph 1:16). High → towers are mentioned that rose partly over the gates (2 Sam 18:24; 2 Kgs 9:17) or the corners of the walls (2 Chr 14:7; 32:5). Ditches and ramparts were provided for the outside of the walls (2 Sam 20:15; Isa 26:1). High walls with strong gates fitted with bronze or iron → bars as well as watchtowers appear in the description of Iron Age cs. in Dt 3:5; 1 Kgs 4:13 and of watchtowers in 2 Sam 18:24; 2 Kgs 9:17. “Cities and their villages” are commonly mentioned in the apportionment of the land to the tribes of Israel (Josh 13:23, 28; 15:32, 36, 41, etc.). Densely built cs. are described with their narrow, crooked streets (Qoh 12:4; Cant 3:2). As a social focus of Iron Age cs., c. gates are mentioned frequently (see above), as the place where markets and courts were held (Gen 23:10; Ruth 4:1; Mt 6:5, etc.). Expressing the prominence of Jerusalem, the site is often mentioned simply as the city (2 Sam 15:25; 1 Kgs 8:44, 48; Neh 2:3; 11:9; Isa 36:15; 37:33, 35; Ez 7:23; 9:4, 9; Zeph 3:1). Tendencies such as cult cen-

tralization (1 Kgs 8:16 ff) led eventually to concepts that understood Jerusalem as a “holy city” (Isa 48:2; 52:1). The government of ancient Isr. cs. was vested in “judges and officials” (Dt 16:18). According to Judg 19:22 there was an assembly of the “men of the city” and 1 Sam 16:4 mentions the “elders of the city.” The traditional independent community institutions of government (‘judges’ and public assemblies) were recently studied by Vainstub (2006). In contrast to these forms of self-government, the administration and the police powers (1 Kgs 22:26) of capital cs. like Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:8) and Samaria (2 Kgs 10:5) were in the hands of a śar ha-ʿir, who, as a late pre-exil. seal confirms, was one of the royal officials (Otto 2001:​58). The arch. evidence described here has demonstrated the rural character of the Isr. society during the Iron Age with some anti-urban underpinnings shining through with the rough treatment of cs. such as Babylon or Sodom and Gomorrah in the HB (Frick 1977:​205 ff; Otto 2001:​63–64).

7.  Angel, J. L., 1971, Early Neolithic Skeletons from Çatal Höyük: Demography and Pathology, AnSt 21:77– 98  ♦ Bintliff, J. L., 2000, Settlement and Territory: A Socio-Ecological Approach to the Evolution of Settlement Systems, in: G. Bailey/​R. Charles/​N. Winder (eds.), Human Ecodynamics, Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 19, Oxford:​21–30 ♦ Broshi, M., 1974, The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh, IEJ 24:21–26 ♦ Broshi, M./​Gophna, R., 1984, The Settlements and Population of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age II–III, BASOR 253:41–53 ♦ 1986, Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population, BASOR 261:73– 90 ♦ Bunimovitz, S., 1989, The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University ♦ 1995, On the Edge of Empires: Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE), in: T. E. Levy (ed.), Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London:​320–331, 581–583 ♦ Childe, V. G., 1950, The Urban Revolution, Town Planning Review 21:3–17  ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2001, Assyrian Influence and Changing Technologies at Tall Jawa, Jordan, in: Dearman, J. A./​Graham, M. P., The Land that I Will Show You (FS J. Maxwell Miller), JSOT.S 343, Sheffield, 214–238 ♦ Dreyer, H. J., 1971, The Roots qr, ʿr, *ġr and *ṣ/*ṭr = ‘Stone, Wall, City’ etc., in: I. H. Eybers/​F. C. Fensham/​C. J. Labuschagne (eds.), De fructu oris sui (FS Adrianus van Selms), Pretoria Oriental Series 9, Leiden:​17–25 ♦ Esse, D. L., 1991, Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine, SAOC 50, Chicago ♦ Finkbeiner, U., 1991, Uruk, Kampagne 35–37, 1982–1984:​Die archäologische Oberflächenuntersuchung, Ausgrabungen in UrukWarka: Endberichte 4, Mainz ♦ Finkelstein, I., 2008, The Settlement History of Jerusalem in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC, RB 115.4:499–515 ♦ Frick, F. S., 1977, The City in Ancient Israel, Missoula ♦ Garr, W. R., 1987, A Population Estimate of Ancient Ugarit, BASOR 266:31–43 ♦ Gonen, R., 1984, Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period, BASOR 253:61–73  ♦ Greenberg, R.,

City/Cities (c./cs.)

163 

2019, The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant: From Urban Origin to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE, Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Hachmann, R., 1994, Die ‘Befestigungen’ des akeramischen Jericho, BaM 25:19–74 ♦ Heltzer, M., 1976, The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit, Wiesbaden ♦ 1982, The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit: Royal Service-System, Taxes, Royal Economy, Army and Administration, Wiesbaden ♦ Herzog, Z., 1997, Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications, Tel Aviv Monograph Series 13, Tel Aviv ♦ 2003, The Canaanite City between Ideology and Archaeological Reality, in: C. G. Den Hertog/​U. Hübner/​S. Münger (eds.), Saxa Loquentur (FS Volkmar Fritz). AOAT 302, Münster:​85–100 ♦ Hoftijzer, J./​Jongeling, K., 1994, Dictionary of the NorthWest Semitic Inscriptions, HO 1.21, Leiden ♦ Ilan, D., 1995, The Dawn of Internationalism: The Middle Bronze Age (2000–1550 BC), in: T. E. Levy (ed.), Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London:​297–319 ♦ Joffe, A. H., 1993, Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 4, Sheffield  ♦ Kirsten, E., 1956, Die griechische Polis als historisch-geographisches Problem des Mittelmeerraums, Colloquium Geographicum 5, Bonn ♦ Levine, B. A., 1999, The Biblical ‘Town’ as Reality and Typology: Evaluating Biblical Reference to Towns and their Functions, in: M. Hudson/​B. A. Levine (eds.), Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East, Peabody Museum Bulletin 7, Cambridge, Mass.:421–453 ♦ Liverani, M., 1979, Ras Shamra: Histoire, DBS 9:1295–1348 ♦ Marcus, J., 1998, The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model, in: G. M. Feinman/​J. Marcus (eds.), Archaic States, School of American Research: Advanced Seminar Series, Santa Fe, N.Mex.:59–94 ♦ Mazar, A., 2006, Jerusalem in the 10th Century B. C. E.: The Glass Half Full, in: Y. Amit et al. (eds.), Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context (FS Nadav Naʾaman), Winona Lake:​255–272 ♦ McGeough, K. M., 2007, Exchange Relationships at Ugarit, ANES Suppl. 26, Louvain ♦ van de Mieroop, M., 1997, The Ancient Mesopotamian City, Oxford ♦ Naʾaman, N., 2007, When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth–Seventh Centuries B. C.E, BASOR 347:21–56  ♦ Niemann, H. M., 1993, Herrschaft, Königtum und Staat: Skizzen zur soziokulturellen Entwicklung im monarchischen Israel, FAT 6, Tübingen ♦ 2007, Royal Samaria: Capital or Residence? Or: The Foundation of the City of Samaria by Sargon II, in: L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Ahab Agonistes, London:​184–207 ♦ Nissen, H. J., 1988, The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000–2000 B. C., Chicago ♦ Osborne, R., 2005, Urban Sprawl: What Is Urbanization and Why Does It Matter?, in: R. Osborne/​B. Cunliffe (eds.), Mediterranean Urbanization 800–600 BC, PBA 126, Oxford:​1–16 ♦ Otto, E., 2001, ‫ ריע‬ʿir, TDOT 11:51– 67 ♦ Palumbo, G., 1991, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant: Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a ‘Dark Age,’ Contributi e Materiali di Archaeologia Orientale 3, Rome ♦ Schloen, J. D., 2001, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East, SAHL 2, Winona Lake ♦ Shalev, Y., 2008, Tel Dor as a Test-Case for Urbanization in the Coastal Plain during the Persian Period, Unpublished M. A. thesis, Hebrew Univer-

164 sity, Jerusalem ♦ Smith, M. E., 2009, V. Gordon Childe and the Urban Revolution: A  Historical Perspective on a Revolution in Urban Studies, Town Planning Review 80.1:3–29 ♦ Smith, M. L., 2003, Introduction: The Social Construction of Ancient Cities, in: M. L. Smith (ed.), The Social Construction of Ancient Cities, Washington, D. C./​London:​1–36 ♦ Tainter, J. A., 1988, The Collapse of Complex Societies, New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Trigger, B. G., 2003, Understanding Early Civilizations: A  Comparative Study, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Vainstub, D., 2006, Governmental Institutions in Phoenician Cities from the Bronze Age through the Beginning of the Roman Period, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva ♦ Vita, J. P., 1999, The Society of Ugarit, in: W. G. E. Watson/​N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, HO 1.39, Leiden:​ 455–498 ♦ Yoffee, N./​Cowgill, G. L. (eds.), 1988, The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, Tucson. Gunnar Lehmann

Clothes (cl.)/​Clothing and Nudity 1.  Clothing fulfills the need for adornment and display, protection from weather, and poss. → magic. Appearance and material of cl. (Hebr. bægæd and G ἱμάτιον or ἱματισμός) follow climatic constraints, economic and technical possibilities (sewing, → weaving, etc.), social or fashion conventions, which may be specified by function (e. g., profession) or situation (festive cl.). Clothing increases the complexity of the visual appearance of its wearer. It visualizes and specifies his or her characteristics, hierarchical position, social, rel., polit., or ethnic affiliation, gender, and function. Clothing is considered the outward expression of the inner state of mind and is closely associated with the wearer. The latter’s power and identity can pass to the cl. (2 Kgs 2:8, 14), which (in whole or in part, e. g., the hem) fully represent him or her. Manipulations of a person’s cl. can affect him or her (1 Sam 24:5 ff; Mk 5:25 ff par.). The change of cl. was associated with role change, so that it could be used to assign and signal new functional areas and affiliations. Rites of passage, therefore, often included rites of enclothing. The exchange of worn cl. made it possible to endow the new wearer with the competencies of the previous one (1 Sam 18:4–5). Tearing (during mourning rites) or loss of the cl. (nakedness) was tantamount to loss of power competencies and identity (Am 2:16; Isa 20:4). Clothing was considered ‘normative,’ nakedness was situational, and nudity restricted to specific contexts and spheres (mythic/rel. [the naked goddess through the ages, the naked Horus-child, the naked Bes and Pataikos, the nude male hero from the late Pers. period onward as evidenced by bullae from Wadi ed-Daliyeh, and Pers. period → seals, bullae, and coins featuring Heracles and other G gods, see Pyschny 2019], cultic/ritual, war [prisoners of war],

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

165

166

lovemaking, sports [swimming], death [naked dead bodies of slain enemies]). The clothed body stood in contrast to the unclothed body in order to signify rank and status (elite versus non-elite, prestige versus humiliation), honor versus shame, binary gender differences and sexuality or age (children versus adults) (Asher-Greve/​Sweeney 2006:​125–131). Childhood nudity, nakedness during erotic encounters and sports, or the loss of cl. in captivity may reflect situations in real life. But they also express the fact that the naked bodies of children, captives, sportsmen, and lovers are also highly vulnerable and exposed to the support, goodwill, or respect of their human interaction partners. Contrary to the rich evidence in the OT of different terms for cl., the arch. evidence in humid areas of Palestine/​Israel is quite poor. On the other hand, there is good arch. evidence of textile manufacturing instruments such as spindles, spinning whorls, spinning bowls (→ spinning), weaving frames, loom-weights, sewing needles (→ tools), as well as toggle pins and → fibulas for fastening wrapped garments. The best source for garments and clothing styles are burials in arid areas and pictorial arch. remains. 2.  Fragments of two leather sandals were found in Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980:​186–187). They consisted of several cowhide soles that were not sewn together but held together by several tongues. The burial of an armed man in the socalled Warrior’s Cave in the Wadi el-Makuk also included a pair of sandals (Schick 1998). The inner sole was cut in such a way that it could form the actual shoe at the same time via plug connection and lacing: It enclosed not only the heel and toes, but also, at a low height, the inside and outside of the foot. In tomb A76 (EB I) in Bab edh-Dhra, black remains of organic material were found, which were interpreted as the remains of a pair of sandals (Schaub/​Rast 1989:​ 152–153, 156). In tomb P19 (MB II) at Jericho, remains of leather soles were found on the feet of two buried individuals (Kenyon 1965:​390, 409). Finds of fabric in Çatal Höyük (ca. 6th mill. b.c.e.; Barber 1991:​10–11; Mellaart 1967:​52) or EBA and MBA burials from Jericho prove that cl. made of fabric occurred early along with skins. The majority of Ancient Near Eastern cl. was wrapped around the body as a cloth web and knotted or fastened with a toggle pin (attested since the EBA, in Mesopotamia in the Early Dynastic III period), fibula (replacing the toggle pin during the transition of the LBA to the Iron Age), belt, or cords. Sewing needles are attested at Hazor in the MBA (Sheffer 1995). Early examples were made of fish bone or bone, later of metal, and have an eye at the end of the pin through which a thread can

be passed. They testify that cl. were sewn together from pcs., saving fabric. Cl. of men and women hardly differed. Women’s cl. were always at least calf-length, short kilts were common only for men (or smiting gods). Ceremonial dresses of kings, nobles, and gods are usually floor-length and differ from everyday dresses or cl. of the lower social strata by coloration, decoration, trimming, embroidery, or the application of fur. 3.  The raw materials most commonly used for textile production in the Southern Levant are flax/ linen, sheep’s wool, and hemp (Weippert 1987; Völling 2008). In addition, there are materials that are rarely used in clothing manufacture, for instance, mussel silk/byssos (material obtained from mussel anchor threads of the Medit. mussel Pinna nobilis L.), goat hair, and camel hair. Shoes were made of → leather or felt. Simple textiles kept the natural → colors when dyed (esp. purple), applications of fur or embroidering raised the costs and prestige of the cl. 3.1.  Flax (Lat. linum usitatissimum; Hebr. pešæt; G λίνον) was cultivated in Palestine/​Israel since the earliest periods (Shamir 2020; Shamir et al. 2014). The fibers required for the textile production are obtained from the stalk of the plant. They are then spun into linen thread. Linen made from flax is characterized by high tensile strength and creasability. Linen is comfortable to wear because the fiber cools and absorbs sweat well. White linen also had magical significance, as lengths of cloth (inscribed and folded or rolled) were used in Egypt for making amulets. Linen cords with knots also had magical significance. A unique find from Ashdod-yam attests to them (in S-spinning) as the contents of an → amulet capsule (Berlejung/​ Fantalkin 2017). 3.2.  Wool and felt. Since the domestication of the sheep and the goat around 9,000 b.c.e., the use of sheep’s wool (Hebr. ṣæmær, G πόκος) and goat hair has been common. Unlike flax, wool warms, but is just as permeable to air in moisture regulating. Wool, too, must first be processed into a thread that can be spun and woven. To make the thread tear-resistant, it is twisted, that is, two or more spun threads are twisted around each other – sometimes with the help of a spinning bowl – and twisted together. For this purpose, the thread ends are twisted together and attached to the spindle. This is set in rotation against the spinning direction. This produces a strong, durable thread that can be further processed. A distinction is made between Z-spun yarn (spun clockwise) and S-spun yarn (twisted counterclockwise). In Israel/​Palestine, twisting is already documented for the 7th mill. b.c.e. In Nahal Hemar and Netiv Hagdud, S- and Z-spun twists were found as well as in the

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

167 

caves of the Northern Judean Desert. The weaver (ʾoreg) makes the actual woolen cloth from these threads which can be processed further. Damp wool can be turned into felt by fulling. Goat hair was mostly made into felt, which could be used in different ways. Cl. made of felt are often scratchy but also strongly water-repellent, so the material is more suitable for shoes, coats, and blankets. 3.3.  Hemp (Cannabis sativa; not attested in bibl. Hebr.) and cotton. Hemp originated in the Far East and was apparently also planted in the ANE. It was also used for clothing production. From Israel/​ Palestine there is clear evidence for Z-spun hemp threads from the 9th cent. b.c.e. in Tell Deir ʿAlla. Hemp clothing is robust, weatherproof, tear-resistant, highly durable, breathable, moisture-regulating, and cooling in summer. In winter, however, hemp warms much better than cotton, which was not known until the 3rd cent. b.c.e. 4.  Cl. can be worn by gods and goddesses (→ fig. Idol #1–7, col. 493–507) as well as by human beings (→ fig. Clothes #1). A  special problem is the differentiation between royal and divine garments because very often it cannot be decided whether an anthropom. representation is a human or a deity (→ idol; → iconography of human beings). The horned crown (→ insignia), the oldest identifying sign of deities, does not appear in Mesopotamia until the Mesilim period (Early Dynastic II, ca. 2,600 b.c.e.; Braun-Holzinger 2013:​ 147). Clearly identifiable deities are only known from the Early Dynastic III period (ca. 2,500 b.c.e.) on. Although the horned crown was adopted in Syria and the Levant as well, the identification of deities is difficult pointing to the fact that the categories “divine” and “human” were not always valid. Ancestors and kings could be divinized and then be depicted in divine garb. A  few garments were exclusive for gods, but the majority could be worn by kings as well in order to enforce the visual unit between royal and divine sphere. The same is also true for Egypt. Priests could have a special outfit, however the king in the role of a priest was dressed accordingly. According to texts, divine cl. were designed with gold applications to express the divine awe-inspiring splendor (Berlejung 1998; Zawadzki 2013) and seems to have been closely related to the theol. profile of a deity (with re-dressing according to festivals or theol. developments); it was very traditional and even archaizing, less committed to any timebound vogues. In the following paragraphs the clothing of priests, kings, and the elite, “ordinary people” (including soldiers), and gods is differentiated, even if sometimes their clothing overlaps. 4.1.  Priests. Wall paintings from Çatal Höyük (ca. 6th mill.) show figures in leopard skins in a

168

cultic context. Informative are the → mural paintings of Tuleilat el-Ghassul (IPIAO 1:fig. 87; Middle Chalc., ca. 4,200 b.c.e.; Drabsch 2015). An individual carrying a large hooked implement, wearing a tall striped → mask, armbands, and a black and red robe with elaborate white tassels is leading a group of naked individuals. Another clothed individual is leading a second group of naked people with wing-like attachments. Their leader is elaborately costumed, donning a red robe with white and black trim and a basketlike mask (Drabsch/​Bourke 2014:​1092; 2019). The ornate robes worn by some of the figures and the nudity of the others would suggest a certain hierarchy, including leaders and their followers and it is likely that the scene records an important ritual event with priests. While both groups of upright standing people seem to walk barefoot, another fresco from the same place and date, the “notables frieze,” depicts the feet of enthroned persons, one pair being elaborately sandaled. In 4th mill. Mesopotamia, the priest-king of the Uruk period is highlighted by, among other things, a thick hair band and a diagonally hatched skirt, or is depicted in conventional ritual nudity. In the 3rd mill. the special clothing of the priest-king continues. In addition, depictions retain the ritual nudity (poss. with shaving of head and beard hair) for priests or show them in cl. but beardless and head-shaven. This reduced nudity (without head and beard hair, as well as barefoot) for priests remains mostly preserved in the 2nd and 1st mill. (exception: king in cult), the complete ritual nudity disappears (Collon 1999). Clear depictions of priests from the Southern Levant are rare. There are scenes of worship, however it is not clear whether the anthropom. figure is a professional priest or an exemplary worshipper; in general the humans in cultic scenes are depicted clothed in long garments from the MBA on (IPIAO 2:fig. 516, seal from Tell el-ʿAjjul, MB IIB); the famous procession of Kuntillet ʿAjrud shows people in calf-length girded tunic dresses with geometric designs (IPIAO 4:fig. 1586, drawing on pithos, Iron Age IIB), others wear floor-length tunic dresses, sometimes with, sometimes without headgear (IPIAO 4:fig. 1869, conoid from ʿEin Gedi, ca. 6th cent., fig. 1870, conoid from Amman, ca. 6th cent.; fig. 1871, silver pendant from Ekron, Iron Age IIC; fig. 1874, bead from Dor, Iron Age IIC; fig. 1875, seal from Shechem, Neo-Ass.; fig. 1899, scaraboid from Tell Jemmeh, Iron Age IIC). Also male dancers in cultic scenes at a tree on scaraboids from Judah wear calf length girded tunic dresses (IPIAO 4:figs. 1581– 1582, Iron Age IIB). Phoen. priests are beardless in the 4th cent. b.c.e. (Umm al-ʿAmed), barefoot with tunic and flat cap on short hair. In spite of

169

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

170

1

2

3

6

4

5

7

Figure Clothes #1: 1–3) Egyptian depictions of men from Syria-Palestine (LBA); 4) Bronze plaque from Hazor (MB II); 5) Neo-Assyrian ­relief with a man bringing tribute from Ataroth (Iron Age II); 6) Females on the mural painting from Beni Hasan (12th Dyn.); 7) Neo-Assyrian relief depicting women after the siege of Lachish (Iron Age II).

the poor iconogr. evidence of the Levant, priestly dresses in the ANE and Egypt (Sauneron 2000) could be very specialized according to the priestly office. They were preferably white, linen (in Egypt), wool (in Mesopotamia), and less indebted to fashions than to local-cultural traditions, which were mostly maintained. Headgear, hairdo (→ hairstyle), and paraphernalia could be reserved exclusively for a particular priesthood. Rank was expressed by preciousness, ornaments, → jewelry, and number of cl. (see the compilation of the priestly cl. by P in Ex 28–29; 39). 4.2.  Kings and elite persons. Since the MBA the clothing of pharaohs, local kings, and courtiers, and perhaps of “ordinary people” (male and female) in the Southern Levant was inspired by Eg. customs and headgear (male in the short Eg. kilt: IPIAO 2:fig. 292, ʿEin Samiye, MB IIB; fig. 350, Jericho, MB IIB; pharaoh: fig. 361, Ashkelon, MB

IIB; females in tight long robes: IPIAO 2:fig. 332, Tell el-ʿAjjul, MB IIB; fig. 418, Shechem, MB IIB). At the same time there was influence from the N: From Syria came the habit of the fringed mantle and a mantle with thickly rolled hems “Wulstsaummantel” (IPIAO 2:figs. 457, 536–537, 544). This garment could be worn by kings, dignitaries, priests, or gods. The ruler in the Wulstsaummantel can be bareheaded (mostly on seals) or wear the Syr. high oval cap (IPIAO 2:fig. 543, Tell elAsawir, MB IIB; → fig. Iconography of Humans #1:1, col. 463, bronze figurine from Hazor, MBA–LBA) or a hat with a band around it. Wrap-around robes with a broad hem belonged to the local equipment for members of the upper classes; they consisted of a cloth that could be luxuriously decorated (IPIAO 2:fig. 485, Tel Kabri, MB IIA). A bronze plaque from Hazor shows a prince in this wrapped garment, combining it with a fringed scarf and a

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

171 

skull cap (→  fig. Clothes #1:4, col. 170, MB IIB). Festive robes are difficult to identify. They could be thought of in the context of banquet scenes (IPIAO 2:fig. 499, Tell el-ʿAjjul, MB IIA). They are floor-length garments for man and woman, which have a wide decorated hemline (IPIAO 2:fig. 532, Hazor, MB IIB). The LBA → ivory from Megiddo (→ fig. Throne #1:1, col. 969) seems to depict the celebration of a victory. The enthroned ruler wears an over-the-shoulder sash over his tunic dress. Behind the → throne are two courtiers in a long tunic dress and an upper garment with a narrow neckline and wide half-length sleeves. The upper garment, short in front, falls in the back as a train to the hem of the tunic dress. Two women standing in front of the throne also wear the tunic and an upper garment. One is the partner of the enthroned ruler, the other is a musician. In both cases, the long sleeves of the tunic dress come out from under the wide, half-length sleeves of the upper garment. The upper garment has no train, but billows inward at knee height. The princess standing in front, more richly dressed, wears a shawl falling down her back and ending in fringes, and a high polos which is also otherwise attested as a woman’s costume (IPIAO 3:fig. 954, cup from Tell Abu Hawam, LBA). Long tunic dresses with upper garments also seem to characterize the clothing during a festive party on another ivory from Megiddo (IPIAO 3:fig. 956). The MBA clothing habits continued in the LBA, however the Syr. influence on Palestine was reduced and replaced by some more Eg. influence. At the end of this period the formation of some kind of kinship bound territorial states began in Jordan and Northern Palestine which is reflected in the Egyptianizing Baluʿa stela of Iron Age I (2BRL:fig. 32:5) which depicts a local ruler in a simplified version of the Eg. gala-dress with a very local feathered(?) headgear (Berlejung 2017). The statue of the Ammonite king Yarih-ezer (Berlejung 2017) depicts the ruler with a diadem around his head and a lotus flower (→ insignia) in his hand (→ fig. Iconography of Humans #1:3, col. 463). He stands barefoot and wears a long short-sleeve tunic and a decorated shawl draped over his shoulder and a long sash or belt whose two ends are visible. The tunic is pleated at the bottom. Also with a simple diadem and a lotus in his hand is the colossal statue of a king from the Amman theater (basalt, 2.1 m, ca. 9th–7th cent., non stratified). He is wearing draped cl. with fringes and tassels. Even though Burnett/​Gharib 2019 argue for his identification as a deified king, there are no clear indications (e. g., a crown) of his divine status. Inspired from Syr. costumes are beak shoes: On a chair with a high, straight back sits a person in

172

a long garment with tiers of very fine pleats (Falbelgewand). Behind the enthroned person stands a man in beak shoes and an asymmetrical robe, over which he wears an ankle-length open cloak (IPIAO 4:fig. 1671, seal from Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Iron Age IIB); according to Neo-Ass. convention this style of shoes was typical of the elite persons of the Kingdom of Israel as was a pointed cap as headgear (tribute bearers on side B of the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III [859–824 b.c.e.]; Wäfler 1975). The Black Obelisk also shows King Jehu (IPIAO 4:fig. 1698) in a short-sleeved, long tunic dress with a belt and fringes at the hem (probably ləvûš). New in the Iron Age is a sleeveless cloak worn over the tunic dress. It consists of two panels of fabric sewn together at the top and sides, leaving open a passage for the head and arms. Its edges are marked with borders (→ fig. Clothes #1:5, col. 170, relief depicting tribute bearers from the city of Ataroth). Enthroned rulers are known from a → mural painting in Kuntillet ʿAjrud (IPIAO 4:fig. 1669, Iron Age IIB) and a painted sherd from Ramat Rahel (→ fig. Iconography of Humans #1:2, col. 463, Iron Age IIC). They differ in style and clothing. While the ruler in Kuntillet ʿAjrud wears a floor-length yellow garment with red trim and a decorated neckline (jewelry or a shawl?), the ruler from Ramat Rahel is clothed in Ass. style, wearing a short-sleeved girded dress with decorated hem which reaches the knees (below not clearly visible). A shawl seems to be draped around the upper body and the arms. Quite informative about the dresses of elite persons and ‘ordinary’ people are the Neo-Ass. reliefs referring to the → siege of Lachish (Nineveh, SW Palace Room XXXVI, after 701 b.c.e.). A  selection of men, surely members of the upper classes, are depicted without headgear and barefooted. They are bowing down before King Sennacherib and wear simple calf-length tunics with half sleeves. In their humiliated status they obviously lost (in contrast to tribute bearers) any luxury upper garments and shoes. Executed rebels, surely members of the upper classes as well, who are impaled or de-skinned are exposed naked to the public view. The Judean king and a commander in his service seems to be visible on a seal impression on a bulla from Iron Age IIC (IPIAO 4:fig. 1941, non-provenanced). Both are bareheaded, bearded and wear similar calf-length girded tunic dresses without sleeves. The armed individual seems to be the king who hands a bow and arrows over to his loyal officer. Dress codes change in the Pers. period: The king as the master-of-animals is a standard motif on mass-produced seals which were distributed by the Pers. administration. They have mainly been found in Samaria, Gezer, and the Wadi ed-Dali-

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

173

174

yeh (Uehlinger 1999); they depict the heroic king in the royal Pers. long-folded robe, the longsleeved cloak kandys, sometimes with the dentate or crenellated crown (kidaris). The reliefs of Persepolis are an important source for the dresses of diplomats. The sixth delegation shows Syr. envoys in pleated tunic dresses covering the calves with half-length sleeves and a broad stole. They wear wrapped turbans which end in a blunt tip and beak shoes according to Northern Syr. fashion (Walser 1966). 4.3.  For the clothing of non-royals in the MBA the Eg. Tomb 3 of the mortuary complex in Beni Hasan, belonging to the official Khnumhotep II, dating to the early 2nd mill. is informative (→ fig. Clothes #1:6, col. 170, Lepsius 1913:​ Abtheilung  II. Blatt  33; Newberry 1893:​pl. 30). The clothing of the men and women of the caravan of 37 Asiatics consists of colorfully patterned cloths draped around the body. Usually the right shoulder is left bare, and the cloth is passed over the left shoulder onto the back. For men, this type of cl. ends at knee level; for women, it covers the calves. The women’s clothing also differs from the men’s in that they wear a headband and half-boots, while the men are bareheaded and walk in sandals with heel straps. One of the women wears the tunic dress with a round neckline and tight short boots, more frequently attested in later times. Some men and children are dressed only in a knee-length kilt. In Palestine, scarabs with pictures of persons (MB IIB) show the wrapped garment (fixed with toggle pin): one end of the fabric hung from the left shoulder in front of the body down to the calf, the back end was wrapped once or twice around the waist and finally draped as a cover over the left shoulder, so that the left arm remained hidden. For the clothing of the LBA numerous Eg. and Palest. pictures are available. Since LB I, Syr. tribute bearers or captives (on Eg. reliefs) wear narrow, ankle-length tunic dresses with long, tight armlets and round necklines. Seams and edges of these unpatterned light dresses are decorated with braids, and a slit at the neckline allowed for putting it on and off. The kilt wrapped from a narrow strip of fabric remained in use. A fashion typical of the LB II period is the apron worn over a tunic dress. In the wrap-around garment known from the MBA, the mostly patterned fabric strip now runs around the body in several overhanging spirals, forming a kind of cape over the shoulders. Independently, the shoulder cape was also popular. Also for women the cape and the wrapped robe are attested. Neo-Ass. reliefs referring to the siege of Lachish (Nineveh, after 701 b.c.e.) depict the male deportees and their children of the lower social strata in short kilts wrapped with

a long fringe end between the legs with girdles. The males wear the typical Judean turban while the females cover their head with a long cloth (śimlah) which ends at the bottom with the hem of the dress. The girls wear a simple ankle-length tunic dress with sleeves just as their adult mothers (→ fig. Clothes #1:7, col. 170). In the MBA, LBA (IPIAO 3:fig. 947, ivory from Megiddo), and Iron Ages soldiers are dressed in the short kilt complemented by aggressive and defensive → weapons; some wear a chest band for the quiver. According to Eg. pictorial convention the short kilt with tassels characterized the Sea Peoples; they wear a helmet with a high, hairlike or feathered crest, tied in front under the chin with ribbons (IPAIO 3:fig. 604; relief of Ramses III, Medinet Habu). A  plaque from Tell Zaraʿa (Iron Age  I?, surface find) depicts a soldier in his kilt with a tight fitting shirt (IPIAO 4:fig. 1341). Ass. pictorial convention shows the soldiers defending Lachish (relief from Nineveh, after 701 b.c.e.) wearing helmets and holding their weapons. An unusual seal depicts an archer in a short kilt, the dagger in his belt, the quiver on his back, and with a headband. The robe and hairstyle, as well as the posture and body representation, for instance, the emphasized calves, have their models on Ass. reliefs. The seal belonged to a Judean named Hagib, probably a military man (IPIAO 4:fig. 1940, scaraboid from Jerusalem, Iron Age IIC). A problem are the horse and rider figurines which are attested in the Iron Age (8th–7th cent.; IPIAO 4:fig. 1949, terracotta from Lachish, Iron Age IIC) becoming very numerous in the Pers. period on both sides of the Jordan (Daviau 2020). It is unclear whether the meaning and function of the Iron Age figurines and those from the 5th and 4th cent. b.c.e. differ. In discussion is their interpretation as human or divine riders. Painted examples (IPIAO 4:fig. 1951, terracotta from Meqabelein, Iron Age IIC) indicate that the rider is clothed with a breastplate, wears a helmet, and is sometimes armed. Because the riders do not hold any divine insignia but typical → tools of the cavalry like shield and whip, we favor their interpretation as human members of the earthly cavalry, not horsemen of the heavenly army nor warrior or solar gods (see the discussion in IPIAO 4:23–24, 87). 4.4.  Gods. The clothing of divine figures can – in the case of Eg. gods or Egyptianizing tendencies – follow Eg. standards, or Syro-Mesop. costumes, or combine all of them resulting in a hybrid style. In Mesopotamia, from the superimposed rows of villi of the Early Dynastic III period develops the garment known as the Falbelgewand because of the many tiers of very fine pleats. During the Early Dynastic III period, the Old Bab. period (ca. 1728–

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

175 

1530 b.c.e.), and the Kassite period (1530–1155 b.c.e.), gods, goddesses, the deified king, and priests continue to wear the now archaic Falbelgewand. These archaizing pleated tiers-robes were worn by deities until the 1st mill. For the Middleand Neo-Ass. period (ca. 1400–612 b.c.e.) the “Assyrian” shawl robe worn over a shirt is a novelty. It covers the left shoulder, while on the right shoulder the shirt is visible. The shawl robe consists of a length of cloth with fringes wrapped up to three times around the body. Divine and human robes do not differ in principle but in decoration. Also in Syria and the Levant the Mesop. pleated tiers robe together with the horned crown indicated the presence of a deity (IPIAO 2:fig. 467, goddess to the left, Tel Rehov, MBA; fig. 528, Lachish, MBA). The Syr. “Wulstsaummantel” was a possible but not an exclusive divine garment in the MBA. It continued into the LBA and could in divine iconography be combined with an Atef crown that even could be supplemented by (non-Eg.) horns (IPIAO 3:fig. 936, bronze from Ugarit, LBA). The coat or cloth which the so-called Syr. “naked goddess” of the MBA wears wide open, is made of a braided fabric (IPIAO 2:fig. 457, Megiddo, MBA; fig. 458, Hazor, MBA). Gods in Eg. style are wearing the short kilt. They are depicted on MB II and LBA scarabs, and various media during the Iron Age as well. The kilt is rendered smooth or hatched and can be decorated with tassels. Among the kilt-wearing gods, the male gods known as upright standing “smiting gods” and equated with the local Levantine gods Baal, Baal-Seth, Hadad, or Reshef predominate (IPIAO 3:fig. 728, Akko, LBA; IPIAO 3:figs. 921–922, Reshef in Memphis and Medinet Habu, LBA/​Iron Age I; IPIAO 4:fig. 1288, BaalSeth in short kilt and high crown on a seal impression from Tell el-Farah [S], Iron Age IB; cf. Cornelius 1994). On the Baluʿa stela of Iron Age I, the male god (wrapped short kilt) and the goddess (tight long robe, see also IPIAO 3:fig. 879, bronze from Kamid el-Loz, LBA) flanking the local ruler wear Eg. dresses. The goddess’s crown is an Atef crown while the male god’s crown is a hybrid form of the Eg. double crown combined with a long ribbon (Berlejung 2017). Enthroned male deities are usually dressed in a long tunic (IPIAO 3:fig. 933, bronze from Megiddo, LBA; fig. 934, bronze from Hazor, LBA) and the Syr. high conic cap without horns. Any further specifications of the god’s identity or function depend on the context, attributes, insignia, and gestures (→ idol). Another Eg. garment for gods is the aforementioned long and tight robe, worn by Eg. and Egyptianized goddesses in the LBA and the Iron Ages (IPIAO 4:fig. 1099, Sekhmet as amulet, Megid-

176

do, Iron Age IA; fig. 1755, Bastet as a bronze from Ashkelon, Iron Age IIC; fig. 1787, Isis as a bronze from Ashkelon, Iron Age IIC). On a stone relief from Beth-Shean the Eg. looking goddess with the Atef crown and the wꜢs-scepter is identified by the inscription as Anat (IPIAO 3:fig. 881, LBA). However, this is not decisive; goddesses such as Astarte, Anat, Qedeshet, Asherah, or the nameless goddess from Baluʿa can share the same outer appearance (Cornelius 2004). During the Iron Ages the clothing and outer appearance of the Eg. gods continues to be imitated and disseminated as faience amulets, metal figurines, on metal bowls, or on situlae. Short kilts and tightfitting garments of smooth or finely pleated fabric continue to be worn. Not Eg., but influenced by northern traditions is the dress of the male basalt statue from Amman, even if he wears (like others from the same area; on the sculptures from the Amman plateau see Tyson 2014:​Appendix B) the Eg. Atef crown (IPIAO 4:fig. 1971, 8th/7th cent. b.c.e.). He is bearded, barefoot, and wears a long, short-sleeved dress. His robe is tied with a belt from which two tassels hang. A shawl is wrapped around the torso and left shoulder. It is discussed whether this kind of statue from the Amman area represents a deified king or – at least those with Atef crown – signal a deity connected to the royal dynasty (Tyson 2014:​228). Also numerous local Levantine anthropom. terracotta figurines are controversial concerning their human or divine status. They do not bear clear divine insignia, no crowns and the cl. are often roughly painted and not clearly visible. This is true for figurines from Philist. cities (Ben-Shlomo 2010), or findings from Israel/​Palestine or Transjordan. Among the characteristic terracottas of the Iron Age this includes the male figurines of horse and riders (see above), and female terracottas or plaques of Judean drummers, Judean pillar figurines (8th–7th cent.; IPIAO 4:figs. 1543–1545; see the discussion in IPIAO 4:79), and the “deae gravidae” from Phoenicia (Iron Age IIC with a peak in the Pers. period; e. g., IPIAO 4:fig. 1823, Akhziv). While the Judean drummers (IPIAO 4:fig. 1187–1188, 1548–1552, Iron Age) and “deae gravidae” wear long plain robes (Nunn 2021), the question whether the Judean pillar figurines are depicted clothed or not remains controversial (Darby 2014; Deutsch 2021). Prior to Hellenization in the Achaemenid period, the gods, as found on seals or as clay figurines, initially retain their Eg. appearance with kilt and tight-fitting robe. Phoen. deities partly also wear pleated robes with wide sleeves (Nunn 2000). Shoes: Gods are not often depicted wearing shoes. During the MBA and LBA the Syr. beak

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

177

178

shoe is found only in some representations of the naked or partially uncovered goddess (IPIAO 2:fig. 513, MBA). Sandals remain comparatively rare during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Warrior deities can be equipped with sandals that reveal a closed heel and elaborate strapwork. Also seated deities may be provided with sandals (bronze from Ugarit, IPIAO 3:fig. 936; bronze from Hazor, IPIAO 3:fig. 934, both LBA): The basic form of the divine and human sandals is identical (closed heel, T-shaped binding, toe strap), only the details vary. 5.  Cl. are a local product and imports usually only include luxury goods. In general the bodies of females are fully covered (with open faces) while males can go bareheaded and can expose their knees and legs to open public. Headgear, scarfs, shawls, girdles, and shoes usually completed the outfit. Many local dresses known from the MBA and LBA continued to be used in the Iron Age: so too the shoulder cape, the kilt as a soldier’s dress, toe sandals. Only the wrapped garment of the Bronze Ages gradually disappeared and was replaced by cut and sewn tunic dresses for men as for women. The Eg. robes remained timeless for humans and gods. For several centuries there was little change in the local dresses until G garments became increasingly common from the Achaemenid period onward. Soldiers and priests have professional cl., cl. of gods, kings, and courtiers often cannot be easily distinguished. 6.  Flax is biblically attested as an upper-class clothing fabric and was also popular for priestly garments (Lev 13:47–48, 52, 59; Dt 22:11; Jer 13:1; Ez 44:17–19), sheep’s wool is perceived as predominantly white and was used for various garments (Lev 13:47–48, 52, 59; Dt 22:11; Ez 27:18; 44:17; Hos 2:7, 11). The OT testifies to a plethora of terms for garments (Kersken 2008; Staubli 2012): the sleeveless tunic dress kuttonæt or kətônæt is made of linen (perhaps called məʿîl in the post-exil. period). It is pulled over the head and tied with a belt. It is worn by men in the royal court (2 Sam 15:32) and by priests (Ex 28:4, 39–40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; Lev 10:5); śalmah is a woolen tunic dress or a kind of poncho made of two rectangles, which belongs to the clothing of every person, regardless of gender and social position. In case of need, it can serve as a sleeping pad. In case of confiscation, it must be returned to the owner before nightfall (Ex 22:25– 26; Dt 24:13). The woolen tunic dress is the traditional garment of the common people until Rom. times. Women wear it with a large cloth covering (śimlah, post-exil. miṭpaḥat) as a twinset. This scarf may not be confiscated (Ex 22:25) and is

also used for quickly wrapping various items (Judg 8:25; 1 Sam 21:10). ləvûš or ləvuš is a calfto ankle-length tunic dress decorated with fringe or tassels at the lower hem. It is made of wool or linen (Prov 27:26; 31:22, 25) and may be dyed red or blue (Gen 49:11; Jer 10:9; Esth 8:15) or infused with gold threads (Ps 45:14). This luxurious garment was worn by men (2 Kgs 10:22), women (2 Sam 1:24), and YHWH (Isa 63:1). The simple variant is the minimum garment of personae miserae (Job 24:7, 10; 31:19). The most valuable variant of the long tunic dress seems to be malbûš (Isa 63:3; Ez 16:13). It is worn by elite persons (1 Kgs 10:5; 2 Kgs 10:22) and YHWH (Isa 63:3; Job 27:16). Imported cl. are luxury ware: the makhlulîm are magnificent upper garments (only Ez 23:12; 27:24; 38:4), and gəlôm (only Ez 27:24) is a colored coat. Cl. can be combined with cloths and scarfs: kəsût (Gen 20:16; Ex 21:10; Dt 22:12; Isa 50:3) is a fringed scarf, worn in upper classes. Unlike the śimlah, it is often placed over the shoulders from which it falls, or it is draped around the upper body. It protects against the cold of the night (Job 24:7). The LXX translates kəsût “fringed cloth” (Ex 22:26; Job 24:7) and śimlah “cloth covering” (Gen 9:23) with ἱμάτιον. The rədîd (Isa 3:23) is a light shoulder shawl worn by women that is made of a thin fabric, ḥǎgôr is the belt of men, which may also be mentioned as part of the weaponry (Judg 3:16; 1 Sam 17:39; 25:13), ʾavnet is the priestly belt (Ex 29:9; Lev 8:7) that is part of the professional clothing. To keep the cl. from scratching the skin so much, those who can afford it put on underwear made of linen: maḥǎlazah (Isa 3:22; Zech 3:4) is a skirt, kilt, or undergarment of finest linen, sâdîn (Judg 14:12– 13; Isa 3:23) is a kind of undershirt. Sewn undergarments did not exist. Instead, the mikhnas is a rectangular cloth of linen wrapped around the hips and passed between the legs. It was part of the priestly garment (Ex 28:42; 39:28; Lev 16:4; Ez 44:18) and was intended to prevent the private parts from being visible (Ex 20:26). The linen ʾezôr was similarly wrapped. Last but not least, the mourning garment must be mentioned. The Hebr. term śaq denotes penitential or mourning cl. par excellence. It is worn around the hips (Gen 37:34; 1 Kgs 20:31–32; Isa 20:2) or girded (2 Sam 3:31; Isa 3:24; 15:3; 22:12), and in special cases the whole body is covered with it (1 Kgs 21:27; 2 Kgs 19:1–2; Isa 37:1–2). The material of the śaq is unknown. With regard to headgear, the OT mentions the aforementioned cloths and shawls for women. Men in Judah wear the turban (Hebr. ṣanip, miṣnepet), which consists of a long cloth scarf wrapped around the head (Isa 3:23; Zech 3:5; Job 29:24) and is to be taken off when mourning

Clothes (cl.)/Clothing and Nudity

179 

(Ez 21:31). Made of linen, it is part of the priestly garment (Ex 28:4, 37, 39; 39:28, 31). Shoes are rarely found in the OT: naʿal probably means the sandal (unclear whether toe sandal with open heel or sandal with closed heel; in Ez 16:10 made of leather), or śərôk-naʿal, the shoe-strap (Gen 13:23; Isa 5:27); səʾôn (only Isa 9:4) refers to the Ass. soldiers’ lace-up boots. On holy ground one should take off shoes (Ex 3:5) as well as in mourning (2 Sam 15:30; Mic 1:8). The removal of the shoe plays a role in Levirate law (Dt 25:9–10; Ruth 4:7– 10). Metaphorically, there is talk about the cosmically connoted light-garment of YHWH (Ps 104:2). In the NT spiritual renewal is formulated in the language of the change of cl. as ‘putting on the new man’ (Eph 4:22–24; Col 3:8 ff) or ‘putting on Christ’ (Rom 13:14).

7.  Andersson Strand, E., 2010, The Basic of Textile Tools and Textile Technology: From Fibre to Fabric, in: C. Michel/​M. L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Oakville:​10– 22 ♦ Asher-Greve, J. M./​Sweeney, D., 2006, On Nakedness, Nudity, and Gender in Egyptian and Mesopotamian Art, in: S. Schroer (ed.), Images and Gender, OBO 220, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​125–176  ♦ Bar-Adon, P., 1980, The Cave of the Treasure: The Finds from the Caves in Naḥal Mishmar, Jerusalem ♦ Barber, E. J. W., 1991, Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, Princeton ♦ Ben-Shlomo, D., 2010, Philistine Iconography, OBO 241, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Bender, C., 2008, Die Sprache des Textilen: Untersuchungen zu Kleidung und Textilien im Alten Testament, Stuttgart ♦ Berlejung, A., 1998, Die Theologie der Bilder: Das Kultbild in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Herstellung und Einweihung der Statuen, OBO 162, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2017, Dimensionen der Herrschaftslegitimität: Ikonographische Aspekte königlicher Selbstdarstellung in den Kulturen der südlichen Levante der Eisenzeit anhand der Bildwerke von Baluʿa, Yarih-ʿezer und Askalon, in: C. Levin/​ R. Müller (eds.), Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit, ORA 21, Tübingen:​ 147–188  ♦ Berlejung, A./​Fantalkin, A., 2017, Ein magischer Moment: Zu einem neuen Amulettfund aus Aschdod-yam, in: J. Kamlah/​R. Schäfer/​M. Witte (eds.), Zauber und Magie im antiken Palästina und in seiner Umwelt, ADPV 46, Wiesbaden:​285–308 ♦ BraunHolzinger, E. A., 2013, Frühe Götterdarstellungen in Mesopotamien, OBO 261, Fribourg/​Göttingen  ♦ Burnett, J. S./​Gharib, R., 2019, The Amman Theatre Statue and the Ammonite Royal Ancestor Cult, The Ancient Near East Today 7.12 ♦ Collon, D., 1999, Depictions of Priests and Priestesses in the Ancient Near East, in: K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, Heidelberg:​17–46  ♦ Cornelius, I., 1994, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Baʿal, OBO 140, Fribourg/​Göttingen  ♦ 2004 (22008), The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet and Asherah, c. 1500–1000 BCE, OBO 204, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Darby, E., 2014, Interpreting Judean Pillar Fig-

180 urines: Gender and Empire in Judean Apotropaic Ritual, FAT 2.69, Tübingen ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2020, Bulls and Horses, Gods and Goddesses: The Religious Iconography of Israel’s Neighbors, in: C. Cornell (ed.), Divine Doppelgängers, University Park:​219–237  ♦ Deutsch, R., 2021, Judahite Pillar Figurines: More Questions than Answers, in: E. Darby/​I. J. de Hulster (eds.), Iron Age Terracotta Figurines from the Southern Levant, CHANE 125, Leiden:​163–177 ♦ Drabsch, B., 2015, The Mysterious Wall Paintings of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan, Oxford ♦ Drabsch, B./​Bourke, S., 2014, Ritual, Art and Society in the Levantine Chalcolithic: The ‘Processional’ Wall Painting from Teleilat Ghassul, Antiquity 88:1081–1098  ♦ 2019, Early Visual Communication: Introducing the 6000-Year-Old Buon Frescoes from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan, Arts 8.79:1–14 (doi:​10.3390/ arts8030079)  ♦ Henschel-Simon, E., 1938, The Toggle-pins in the Palestine Archaeological Museum, QDAP 6:169–209  ♦ Kenyon, K., 1965, Excavations at Jericho 2, London ♦ Kersken, S. A., 2008, Töchter Zions, wie seid ihr gewandet?, AOAT 351, Münster ♦ Lepsius, C. R., 1913, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Leipzig ♦ Mellaart, J., 1967, Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London/​New York ♦ Newberry, P., 1893, Beni Hasan 1, Archaeological Survey of Egypt 1/​ Egypt Exploration Fund 69, London ♦ Nunn, A., 2000, Der figürliche Motivschatz Phöniziens, Syriens und Transjordaniens vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., OBO.SA 18, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2021, Anthropomorphic Figurines from Iron Age II Phoenicia, in: E. Darby/​ I. J. de Hulster (eds.), Iron Age Terracotta Figurines from the Southern Levant, CHANE 125, Leiden:​66–118 ♦ Otto, A., 2000, Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik, UAVA 8, Berlin/​New York ♦ Pyschny, K., 2019, Concepts and Contexts of Female and Male Nudity in the Iconography of the Southern Levant, in: C. Berner et al. (eds.), Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible, London et al.:127–162 ♦ Sauneron, S., 2000, The Priests of Ancient Egypt, Ithaca ♦ Schaub, R. T./​Rast, W. E., 1989, Bâb edh-Dhrâ‛: Excavations in the Cemetery, Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67), Winona Lake ♦ Schick, T., 1998, The Sandals, in: T. Schick, The Cave of the Warrior, IAA Reports 5, Jerusalem:​34–38 ♦ Shamir, O., 2020, Continuity and Discontinuity in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Linen Textile Production in the Southern Levant. With an Appendix by A. Rast-Eicher, in: W. Schier/​S. Pollock (eds.), The Competition of Fibres, Ancient Textiles Series 36, Oxford:​27–37 ♦ Shamir, O., et al., 2014. Harvesting Wild Flax in the Galilee, Israel and Extracting Fibers  – Bearing on Near Eastern Plant Domestication, Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 62:52–64 ♦ Sheffer, A., 1995, Needlework and Sewing in Israel from Prehistoric Times to the Roman Period, in: A. B. Beck et al. (eds.), Fortunate the Eyes That See (FS David N. Freedman), Grand Rapids/​Cambridge, U. K.:527–556  ♦ Staubli, T., 2012, Kleider in biblischer Zeit, Fribourg ♦ Tyson, C. W., 2014, The Ammonites: Elites, Empires, and Sociopolitical Change (1000–500 BCE), London/​New York  ♦ Uehlinger, C., 1999, “Powerful Persianisms” in Glyptic Iconography of Persian Period Palestine, in: B. Becking/​M. C. A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion, OTS 42, Leiden et al.:134–182 ♦ Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. M., 1989, chap. III.f: Textiles, in: G. van der Kooij/​M. M. Ibrahim (eds.), Picking Up the Threads …, Leiden:​57–61 ♦ Vogelzang, M. E./​Van

181 Bekkum, W. J., 1986, Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, in: H. L. J. Vanstiphout et al. (eds.), Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East (FS Johannes Hendrik Hospers), Groningen:​265–284  ♦ Völling, E., 2008, Textiltechnik im Alten Orient, Würzburg  ♦ Wäfler, M., 1975, Nicht-Assyrer neuassyrischer Darstellungen, AOAT 26, Kevelaer/​Neukirchen-Vluyn  ♦ Walser, G., 1966, Die Völkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis, Teheraner Forschungen 2, Berlin ♦ Weippert, H., 1987, Textilproduktion und Kleidung im vorhellenistischen Palästina, in: G. Völger/​K. von Welck/ K. Hackstein (eds.), Pracht und Geheimnis, Ethnologica NF 13, Cologne:​136–142 ♦ Zawadzki, S., 2013, Garments of the Gods: Texts, OBO 260, Fribourg/​Göttingen. Angelika Berlejung

182

Colors and Dyes

Red is extracted from hematite, a ferric oxide (Fe2O3), a frequent inclusion in many stones and is the most frequent red or pink pigment among minerals, as well as the most important iron ore. Hematite is grayish black; if you crush it, you obtain a red to auburn powder. Cinnabar (Cinnabarit, HgS) is used for red through brownish hues and occurs in volcanic sedimentary rock. Yellow is extracted from goethite, an iron hydroxide (α-FeO [OH]). It can appear yellow (limonite), but also brown or black in many grounds. Malachite is a coppery and carbonate-bearing mineral of green color and it is always embedded with other copper minerals like, for instance, the blue azurite. Malachite and azurite are the most frequent alterColors and Dyes ation minerals in copper deposits (→ mining; Fei1.  Light consists of electromagnetic waves nan, Wadi Abu Khusheiba, Wadi Abu Qurdiyah, which differ in their wavelength. The narrow and Timna). The extremely rare blue and green range, which the human eye can realize, lies be- pigments were probably derived more frequently tween 390 and 770 nm. The color impression oc- in the course of the extraction of copper. This is curs due to an interpretation of the wavelength why the verification of green color pigments on which hits the eye. Therefore a wavelength of 475 clay and → timber in Nahal Hemar Cave from the nm appears as ‘blue,’ whereas 680 nm causes the PPNB are remarkable. Patches of red and green sensation ‘red.’ With an interaction of all those color were conserved on the heads of clay figwaves (additive color mixture) we see white light. urines around the eyeholes. Cylindrical or barrelHowever, an object which absorbs the whole light shaped beads, 25–40 mm in length, bear traces spectrum seems black to us (DiLeo 2005:​87). The of paint, either green (malachite powder) or red subjective perception of the light implicates indi- (ochre, iron oxide). Some of the beads are paintvidual color variation. That explains the deriva- ed in one color and others in both, usually with tion of the color terms in the OT, in cuneiform, red stripes at the ends and a green body. Perforatand in G sources. In the OT, color terms are de- ed beads are always grey, other beads, which are duced from colored substances: ʿadom “red” from fixed on a stick and separated by a twisted thread red earth; laban “white” from milk (Carrete- are always painted green (Bar-Yosef 1985:​12– ro 2017); ḥum “dark-grey/black” from some- 14). This implies the intentional use of colors in thing burnt; šaḥor “black” from coal/grime; yereq PPNB in Palestine; see → mural paintings, and “green” from plants, whence the shades yəraqraq for the method and locality of wall painting in “dark-green” and śaroq, from pale grapes (Grad- the ANE, see von Rüden (2011) and Michaeli wohl 1963:​1–59). A counterpart for blue seems (2018). 3.  There is a difference between natural colto be lacking. This is similar in written cuneiform ors in animal fibers and dyes used for textiles (see below § 3) and G sources (Schultz 1972). 2.  Red ochre (ruddle) has already been used in (→ clothes; → fabric and textiles; Barber 1991:​ the Middle Paleolithic for body painting or rather 223–246; Cardon 2007). Flax and wool, as well bone painting in burial rituals (Schweppe 1993:​ as goat hair and camel hair, have a natural color18) and for the accentuation of figurines out of ing. The shades of sheep’s wool are from natural stone and clay from the Upper Paleolithic. Man- white to brownish black, multicolored, and yelganese oxide, ochre, grime, and lime rank among lowish. In cuneiform sources, these terms do not the earliest inorganic pigments. Manganese oxide indicate any difference between brown and red, pigments appear in nature in brown through yellow and green, and give no reference to the black tones. Ochre occurs as yellow ochre (goe- color blue (Landsberger 1967:​145). The only thite, α-FeO+OH), red ochre (hematite, α-FeO2), enrichment consists of the degrees of intensity or or rather red clay or ruddle – an aluminum silicate rather of chroma, above all in the red hues (cf. § 1, which is colored by hematite, and as brown ochre, above). A few pigments are also known from Eg. a weathering product of ferrous, manganiferous, sources (Germer 1992:​9–11). In the ANE at the and aluminiferous stone. Grime results from the beginning of the 2nd mill. b.c.e., sources seldom incomplete burning of vegetable and animal ma- mention transparent colored wool but do menterial (charcoal, animal charcoal) and has been tion, atu “dark wool,” h/ruššatum “red wool,” and used as a pigment throughout antiquity. daʾmatum “dark-red wool” (Aro 1970:​10). Later

Colors and Dyes

183 

in the 2nd mill. b.c.e., a change occurred with the introduction of different dark red/purple colors and blue in the color scale. Due to its chemical composition wool reacts differently to dyeing than vegetable cellulose fibers such as linen, hemp, and cotton. For cellulose fibers the connection of color with a textile resource occurs through physical contact, but in the case of wool fibers there is a chemical interaction. Linen fixes the dye on the basic pH-area, whereas the dye bath is exhausted by adding sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), which means that the absorption of the dye is boosted. The wool’s proteins are hybrid ions which are existent through the addition of acid or alkali as cations or anions. A reaction, the dye, only happens when the protein ions dissociate. Mostly the utilization of acid for ionization forms cations. At a pH-area of 4.9, the wool has its iso-electric point. Then the wool can be treated most gently because it shows the greatest inner consistency and minimal tendency for felting. This knowledge was due to the experience of the dyers, who charged the chemicals so that by brisk or slow moving of the liquid through the fiber structure, the yarn (yarn dye) or less often the drapery (piece dye) were equally imbued with color. With it they boosted the fastness to washing, light fastness, and wear resistance, and supported other features, such as a comfortable feel of the product. Thus the quality of textiles could be improved by dyeing (Völling 2008:​151–157). The mordant alum (potassic aluminum sulphate or iron- and cuprous salts) is used in the so-called blind bath as a fixative. Not until the dye fixes on bated wool does it result in brilliant and intensive tones. Vat dyes like indigo, as well as purple, first have to be made water-soluble with alkali and reduced, which means that the yarn has to be prepared in one of the two vats. Different dyes are at their optimum for dyeing at different temperatures. Cold water is only conditionally suitable for dyeing. Some colorants unfix in a cold bath, but most fix well in a warm, hot, or even brewing dye bath. The construction of a heating system under the dyeing rooms in Hell. Gezer shows that they used warm water for better colorationresults. After the dying, the yarn has to be washed several times, to remove the unsaturated (excessive) dye. Criteria for the identification of dye-factories and washing basins come from factories in the Rom. Empire such as Pompeii (Alberti 2007). 4.  Whilst indigo occurs naturally from several sources, its brominated derivatives, along with brominated indirubins, are unique to the molluscan purple dye. Tyrian or Royal Purple (Cooksey 2017) can be obtained from numerous species of mollusc throughout the world, although Murex

184

brandaris, Murex trunculus, and Thais haemastoma et al. (Plin. nat. 9.61.125–133) were the principal species exploited in antiquity in the Medit. region (Cardon 2007:​553–710). The discovery of vast deposits of shells at numerous sites on the Medit. coast clearly indicates that dyeing was carried out on a large scale. The snails were fished out with baskets and trampled down living (Plin. nat. 9.61.125–133). The hypobronchial gland of the snails contains a colorless to yellowish liquid, the precursors of the dye dibromoindigo. Big snails were preferred because each snail only gave a few drops of the essence. According to Plin. nat. 9.133–134, the mass was laid in → salt for ca. three days and then cooked in acid, for instance, uric acid, till the mass was boiled down to 1/16. Meanwhile, the organic residue was constantly skimmed off leaving the dyestuff in the pot; when water was added, the dye bath was complete. The purple dyeing factories were located outside of the city limits because of the odor that arose from cooking the shellfish; for the most part they were directly on the sea because of the need for both salt and soft water for boiling (Strabo 16.2.23 [757]). Only the banded dye-murex can produce purple dye in the absence of light, but the hue obtained may differ from that formed in (sun-) light. Large numbers of murex snails were found at Minet el-Beida dating to the 15th–14th cent., in a pit at Sarepta and at Tell Akko in the 13th, at Tell Keisan and Tell Abu Hawam in the 11th cent. b.c.e. (Cardon 2007:​564). Reese 2010 has listed all finds of murex shells from arch. sites in the Medit. and the ANE. Small sediment samples from the floor of the 14th/13th cent. b.c.e. Royal Tomb at Qatna yielded evidence of natural purple. The sample set ranged from red through purple to deep blue (James et al. 2009). The principal component of fresh dye from the majority of murex species is 6.6’-dibromoindigo, the ‘Tyrian Purple’ of antiquity. This red-purple appears in Ug. texts from Ras Shamra as ar-gama-nu from the 15th–13th cent. b.c.e. and this color was also known to the Assyrians as argamannu and as ʾargaman in the OT (Thureau-Dangin 1934:​141; Schaeffer 1951:​190; Stieglitz 1979:​ 19; Matoian/​Vita 2014:​320–324). However, only Murex trunculus is known to yield both brominated and non-brominated components. Consequently, fresh dye from Murex trunculus contains significant amounts of 6-monobromoindigo and indigo, along with lower concentrations of indirubin derivatives. Due to uncertainties surrounding the exact dyeing process used in antiquity, the production of a mixture of both brominated and non-brominated compounds by exposure of a dye bath containing solely brominated de-

Colors and Dyes

185

186

rivatives to light cannot be unequivocally excluded (James et al. 2009). Probably this species was used earliest for dyeing both in Crete and Phoenicia, giving a very dark violet-blue or blue ‘purple’ called takiltu in Akkad. and Ug., təkẹlet in the HB (Ex 36–37, 39) and described as “hyacinth purple” by classical authors (Aristot. hist.  an. 5.15.22–25; Vitruvius 7.13–14; Plin. nat. 9.133– 141; see also Schultz 1972:​47–55). The Amarna letters from the 14th cent. b.c.e. record purple textiles sent from Mitanni to Pharaoh Amenophis III (EA 22,25, Cochavi-Rainey 1999:​63, 96–97), whilst Ug. and Hitt. documents record their inherent value (Cochavi-Rainey 1999:​215). The first use of the term “Royal Purple” occurs in the 13th cent. b.c.e., recorded in Linear B clay tablets from Knossos (Stieglitz 1994:​52). The great demand for its unusual and desirable color and its exceptional color fastness established purple-dyed textiles as one of antiquity’s most valuable commodities. Its use was therefore primarily restricted to royalty and recognized and utilized as a status symbol (Ex 25–40). For this reason they tried to copy the intensive colors, and worked above all with Orseille, a lichen dye. Therefore, purple dyes have to be tested for authenticity. Vegetable and animal essences also yielded several dyes; for a detailed study of all possible dyestuffs, see Cardon (2007). 5.  Red plant pigment can be derived from safflower to produce crimson (Carthamus tincto­ rius L.) and from the root of madder (Rubia tinctoria L.). Madder could also be identified in the sediment samples from the royal tomb at Qatna by James et al. (2009). Henna (Lawsonia alba) is well known as a red dye. Animal red dye can be extracted from an insect, the coccid, which lives on the kermes oak (Coccus ilicis, insecta, Homoptera) and whose body and eggs contain a red dye which is called kermes, Hebr. tolaʾat šani (Ex 25:4). The safflower contains not only crimson but also a yellowish dye (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Yellow was also derived from saffron (Crocus sativus) and Wau/​Reseda (Reseda luteola). Indigo blue, such as the purple from the royal tomb of Qatna, and Waid (Isatis tinctoria L.) were probably the earliest blue dyes. Indigo, extracted from the indigo plant (Indigo tinctoria), has a very high concentration of dye whose use was not recognized prior to the 2nd cent. b.c.e.; it is found in the blue stripes of a fabric used to envelop some of the Qumran scrolls (Crowfoot 1955:​20; ESRF 2004; DQCAAS without year). 6.  The group of cylindrical stone vats recovered from Tell Beit Mirsim dating to Iron Age IIB, were initially identified as dyeing vats. However, subsequent excavations, esp. of the 100 olive

→ oil presses at Tel Miqne-Ekron, have shown that

the Tell Beit Mirsim stones were probably part of an oil press. Other Iron Age features, now known to have been olive pressing sumps, were initially identified as dyeing installations at such sites as Bethel, Tell en-Nasbeh, and Beth-Shemesh. However, there is evidence of dyeing in Palestine during the Iron Age. This takes the form of heaps of Murex shells at Phoen. coastal sites, such as Sarepta, as well as sherds of large ceramic vessels stained purple, such as the pot from Tel Shiqmona (9th–8th cent. b.c.e.; Karmon/​Spanier 1988:​ 185, fig. 1) and sherds from Tell Keisan (11th cent. b.c.e.), which also exhibit a ring of purple residue (Cardon 2007:​564). Tel Dor yielded evidence of early Iron Age I  purple dyeing industry making it the southernmost dyeing facility in Phoenicia. The fibers even arrived in Timna: in Timna Site 34 (“slaves hill”; 11th–10th cent.) three samples of prestigious fibers dyed with murex sea snail were identified (Sukenik et al. 2021). A vat and plastered channel (Area D) dated to the Pers. period at Tel Dor was filled with Murex shells (Stern/​ Sharon 1987:​208). In Area G, a group of jars had fallen next to a pile of Murex shells and plastered basins, probably all related to the production of purple dye (Stern 1994:​198–199). Identification of the vats in which yarn and textiles were dyed is more difficult, although certain sites do yield such evidence. In Transjordan, dozens of limestone and ceramic basins along with more than 100 pcs. of hematite, grinding stones stained red, hundreds of loomweights, and the wood of the looms in three pillared buildings at Khirbet al-Mudayna point to the use of stone and ceramic basins in textile production and dyeing (Daviau et al. 2006:​258). More likely as installations for dyeing cloth are the structures from the Hell. period at Gezer, originally identified as the Syr. bath, and at Beth-Zur, as well as at other sites around the Eastern Medit. (Stieglitz 1994:​ 51–52).

7.  Alberti, E., 2007, Washing and Dyeing Installations of the Mediterranean, in: C. Gillis/​ M.‑L. B. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles, Exeter:​59–63 ♦ Aro, J., 1970, Mittelbabylonische Kleidertexte der Hilprechtsammlung, Jena ♦ Bar-Yosef, O., 1985, A Cave in the Desert Naḥal Ḥemar, Jerusalem ♦ Barber, E. M. J., 1991, Prehistoric Textiles, Princeton ♦ Boesken Kanold, I., 2017, Dying Wool and Sea Silk with Purple Pigment from Hexaplex Trunculus, in: H. L. Enegren/​F. Meo (eds.), Treasures from the Sea, Oxford:​67–72 ♦ Cardon, D., 2007, Natural Dyes, London ♦ Carretero, C. S., 2017, A Study of Color: Uses of ‫ הלבן‬in the Hebrew Bible, Sefarad 77.1:39– 64 ♦ Cochavi-Rainey, Z., 1999, Royal Gifts in the Late Bronze Age, Fourteenth to Thirteenth Centuries B. C. E., Beer-Sheva 13, Jerusalem ♦ Cooksey, C., 2017, Recent Advances in the Understanding of the Chemistry of Tyrian Purple Production from Mediterranean Molluscs,

Construction Technique/s (c. tech./techs.)

187 

in: H. L. Enegren/​F. Meo (eds.), Treasures from the Sea, Oxford:​73–78 ♦ Crowfoot, G. M., 1955, The Linen Textiles, in: D. Barthélemy/​J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave I, DJD 1, Oxford:​18–38 ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., et al., 2006, Excavation and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna and its Surroundings: Preliminary Report of the 2001, 2004 and 2005 Seasons, ADAJ 50:249–283 ♦ DiLeo, J., 2005, Pigmentminerale aus geologischer Sicht, in: I. Hodgson/​ T. Emmerling (eds.), Kunstwerk Werkstoff, Würzburg:​ 87–91 ♦ DQCAAS, without year, Qumran Cave 1Q Textiles in the Palestine Exploration Fund – Network for the Study of Dispersed Qumran Cave Artefacts and Archival Sources (DQCAAS), www.dqcaas.com ♦ ESRF (The European Synchrotron Radiation Facility), 2004, Unravelling the Threads of History at the ESRF, www.esrf.fr ♦ Germer, R., 1992, Die Textilfärberei und die Verwendung gefärbter Textilien im alten Ägypten, ÄA 53, Wiesbaden ♦ Gradwohl, R., 1963, Die Farben im Alten Testament, BZAW 83, Gießen et al. ♦ James, M. A., et al., 2009, High Prestige Royal Purple Dyed Textiles from the Bronze Age Royal Tomb at Qatna, Syria, Antiquity 83:1109–1118 ♦ Karmon, N./​Spanier, E., 1988, Remains of a Purple Dye Industry Found at Tel Shiqmona, IEJ 38:184–186 ♦ Koren, Z. C., 2005, The First Optimal All-Murex All-Natural Purple Dying in the Eastern Mediterranean in a Millennium and a Half, Dyes in History and Archaeology 20:136–149, pls. 15.1–15.5 ♦ Landsberger, B., 1967, Über Farben im Sumerisch-Akkadischen, JCS 21:139–173 ♦ Matoian, V./​Vita, J.‑P., 2014, Wool Production and Economy at Ugarit, in: C. Breniquet/​C. Michel (eds.), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean, Ancient Textile Series 17, Oxford/​Philadelphia:​310–339 ♦ Michaeli, T., 2018, Roman and Early Byzantine Wall Paintings in Israel – A Survey, in: Y. Dubois/​U. Niffeler (eds.), Pictores per Provincias II – Status Questionis, Antiqua 55, Basel:​155– 172 ♦ Reese, D. S., 2010, Shells from Sarepta (Lebanon) and East Mediterranean Purple-Dye Production, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10.1:113–141 ♦ Rüden, C. von, 2011, Die Wandmalereien aus Tall Misrife/​Qatna im Kontext interkultureller Kommunikation, Qaṭna Studien 2, Wiesbaden ♦ Schaeffer, C., 1951, Une industrie d’Ugarit, la pourpre, AAAS 1:188–192 ♦ Schultz, W., 21972 (1904), Das Farbempfindungssystem der Hellenen, Leipzig ♦ Schweppe, H., 1993, Handbuch der Naturfarbstoffe, Hamburg ♦ Stern, E., 1994, Dor – Ruler of the Seas, Jerusalem ♦ Stern, E./​Sharon, I., 1987, Tel Dor: 1986 Preliminary Report, IEJ 37:201– 211 ♦ Stieglitz, R. R., 1979, Commodity Prices at Ugarit, JAOS 99:15–23 ♦ 1994, The Minoan Origin of Tyrian Purple, BA 57:46–54 ♦ Sukenik, N., et al., 2021, Early Evidence of Royal Purple Dyed Textile from Timna Valley (Israel), PLoSONE 16.1:e0245897 ♦ ThureauDangin, F., 1934, Un comptoir de laine pourpre à Ugarit d’après une tablette de Ras Shamra, Syria 15:137– 146 ♦ Völling, E., 2008, Textiltechnik im Alten Orient, Würzburg ♦ Ziderman, I., 1987, First Identification of Authentic Tekelet, BASOR 265:25–33 ♦ Zwi­ckel, W., 2002, Färben in der Antike, in: W. Zwickel (ed.), Edelsteine in der Bibel, Mainz:​41–44. Elisabeth Völling

Construction Technique/s (c. tech./techs.) 1.  Buildings in ancient Palestine were of mixed construction. The main materials were of local

188

origin and various c. techs. developed depending on their availability and the nature of the building project. That is, the c. techs. employed and the desired layout of the building were both equally dependent on the materials available. The earliest built structures were simple round → houses. These were superseded by apsidal and rectangular buildings that could enclose a larger floor space to accommodate larger family groups (see Wright 2000; 1985; Moorey 1994). 2.  Buildings, whether domestic or monumental, consist of four or more walls and a roofed space. The requirement of providing a roofed area necessitated a variety of vertical c. techs., for instance, columns, pillars, pilasters, arches, domes, and vaults. Two, or more, storeys could be added to a basic rectangular building with the provision of deep foundations in order to support substantial walls. Walls were built using materials that strengthened when under compression. Walls were also protected from the elements by the provision of damp proof courses, and a variety of coatings (mud or lime based plaster). Entranceways, depending on their width, would be spanned by either a trabeated beam or an arch. Floor surfaces were treated in a variety of ways depending on traffic flow and whether they were interior or exterior surfaces. None of the c. techs. employed were unique to ancient Palestine, many are known from Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. In different periods there are signs of regional variability, poss. due to fluctuations in the availability of local material, and the influence and emulation of building styles in neighboring areas. Transmission may have been facilitated by itinerant craftsmen, indentured foreign workers, or slaves. 3.  The simplest c.  tech. used puddled and rammed earth. This was a plastic mix that had to be specially prepared on site when required. Each successive layer had to be thoroughly dry before the next layer was applied and so the exclusive use of puddle or rammed mud in a cramped urban environment was not always feasible. In a built-up environment sun-dried mudbricks were preferred as they could be prepared off-site, stored until required, and used in a continuous process (Wright 2000:​40–42). A skilled brick maker could produce ca. 1,000 mudbricks a day. The bricks would be left to dry in the sun and would be ready for use after just one week. This meant that enough bricks for an average sized building could be produced within two days and be used a week later or alternatively they could be stored off-site until needed (Wright 1985:​352). Despite a number of studies on the significance of brick size, it appears that the differing sizes of mudbrick are simply due to

Construction Technique/s (c. tech./techs.)

189

190

the size and type of mold used by the master brick maker. Mudbricks are light and strong when held in compression, although their resistance to fracture decreases with the decay of the straw, their main bonding agent (Moorey 1994:​305, 389). They are simple to use, easily adaptable, and can be cut and shaped to accommodate any changes in building plan. In order to avoid mudbrick walls cracking the bricks would be laid in a number of different patterns, such as, a header and stretcher or other arrangement, and interspersed with layers of reed matting and mud-mortar. Sometimes wooden stringers were also inserted to increase the tensile strength of a wall (Kemp 2000:​88–92; Wright 1985:​364, 413). Mudbrick walls are extremely durable if protected by a layer of mudplaster or lime-based plaster. The production of mud-plaster preceded the widespread manufacture of mudbricks and mud-plaster was originally used to cover and reinforce reeds and brushwood in wattle and daub architecture (Wright 1985:​ 360). Mudbricks and mud-plaster are produced from basically the same mix, however chaff is sometimes substituted for straw in mud-plaster in order to provide a smoother finish (Wright 1985:​ 390). A  variety of different plasters were employed: mud-based, limestone-based, and gypsum-base; all were an essential element of mudbrick architecture. However little analytical work has been carried out and the various terms are often used indiscriminately (Moorey 1994:​328– 330). Stone bases strategically placed attest to the use of wooden columns in order to support a → roof, enabling buildings to be constructed on a much larger scale. Presumably some sort of wooden capital or architrave was used to secure the roof and help spread the load. In simple structures rubble filled hollows were often used in place of stone bases. Only with the advent of stone columns were stone capitals also used. Walls supporting upper floors needed to be more massively built (Wright 1985:​333), however, the resultant downward stress also provided added strength as the mudbricks were held in compression. Roofing material consisted of a mix of mud, branches, and rush matting that rested on wooden beams and was often pitched and covered with an impervious layer of clay to allow rainwater to run off (Wright 2000:​70, 77). Wood is nearly as strong in tension as it is in compression making wooden beams particularly suitable for roofing. Large areas and wide entranceways were also roofed using arches and vaults built from mudbricks held in compression. However, arches are only stable once complete necessitating the construction of a temporary wooden support for the soffit (Wright 2000:​ 43). It has been proposed that arches originated in

an area deficient in both suitable building stone and constructional → timber and the oldest known mudbrick arch is in such a location at Tell Rimah in Mesopotamia (Wright 1985:​335–336). Mudbrick walls were founded on top of low stone walls (rubble, fieldstone, or ashlar) which served as a stone socle and also functioned as a damp proof course. The transition from lower stone-wall to upper mudbrick-wall can usually be determined by the use of flat stones (some 5–10 cm above floor level) in order to receive the mudbricks (Netzer 1992:​23). In monumental structures stone orthostats were often used to protect lower mudbrick or rubble courses (Wright 2000:​ 45). In the Levant there is evidence from the middle of 2nd mill. onwards for the quarrying and dressing of stone for building (Wright 2000:​74). Stone which is particularly strong in compression and when used engendered a significant change in building technology. However, stone was not suitable as roofing material or as a lintel except in megalithic architecture, for unlike wood, stone looses 90 % of its total strength when in tension (Wright 1985:​334, 364). Pre-classical period megalithic buildings were either very small and roofed with a single large stone slab or built up using the corbelling technique. A  corbel or false arch is achieved when stone slabs are placed in successive courses with the upper slab positioned slightly forward; each slab is in effect a cantilever, causing each stone to be held in compression. The majority of buildings in ancient Palestine were built of local fieldstone (→ fig. Building Material #1:1, col. 87). However, due to their irregular shape the vertical bonds of fieldstone walls are weak and for added strength the stones were sometimes laid in a rough herringbone pattern (Wright 1985:​398). Large, roughly squared quarried stone ashlars were used in more monumental architecture (→ fig. Building Material #1:4–5, col. 87). Each ashlar was finely jointed around its exterior face, however, the interior faces were more roughly cut back with no fine jointing; this is known as bastard ashlar masonry (Wright 2000). True ashlar masonry is when rectangular, uniform, and finely dressed ashlars where used ensuring that all faces were in contact. In coursed ashlar masonry a ‘header and stretcher’ arrangement was often used in order to provide added strength to the wall. Walls with stones in maximum contact were stronger as they were in constant compression. However, the nature of the stone used could also mean that the masonry could crack due to this constant pressure and in order to obviate this timbers were often inserted between some of the stone course; the tensile strength of the wooden beams protected against

Construction Technique/s (c. tech./techs.)

191 

this. Ashlars were sometimes used only on the external faces of a wall, while the interior of the wall was rubble, known as shell ashlar masonry. This type of wall is deceptive as it is less sturdy yet has the appearance of a monumental structure. Fieldstone walls could also be strengthened by the inclusion of occasional ashlars in strategic positions. Monumental stone buildings not founded on bedrock, required deep foundations in order to diffuse the load and provide stability; sometimes referred to as ‘built-up foundations’ (Ussishkin 1980:​1–8). Below-floor sleeper walls were sometimes inserted in entranceways to provide a constant lateral pressure between unconnected major walls. Floors could be composed of many layers of different material, lenses of earth, ash, loess, pebbles, and then finally covered by plaster, cobbles, or a beaten earth surface. Interior floor surfaces were usually of beaten earth, covered by a succession of rush mats. In more prestigious buildings floor surfaces were plastered or even shell encrusted and occasionally formed from laid-down mudbrick (Wright 1985:​434–440). Areas of heavy traffic and exterior areas necessitated the provision of a pebble or cobblestone surface or a thick plaster cover. Limestone flakes, a by-product of the in situ dressing of ashlar masonry, could also form part of the below-floor material (Wright 1985:​438). → Stairs, both internal and external, were constructed from stone, mudbrick, and presumably also wooden examples including ladders. → Doors required to close an external entrance, were built from wood; prestige doors were covered with bronze sheets as a decorative and protective element. The door pivot could also be partially constructed from bronze and would turn in a stone socket; presumably covered with an oil soaked piece of leather. 4.  The earliest houses were round, many with a central upright wooden support, and built using wattle and daub or rammed earth. More frequent use of wooden columns enabled a larger floor surface to be roofed over, while the change to rectangular shaped houses necessitated a flat roof. The earliest known mudbricks were hand-made and loaf-shaped, these were superseded by the more efficiently produced, and more standardized mold-made bricks, in the EBA (Wright 1985:​ 336, 351). Monumental buildings with wide walls consisting of massive rough hewn masonry and a mudbrick superstructure allowed for more significant wall heights to be reached. For example, the great EB I  temple at Megiddo provides evidence for the shaping of stones to provide maximum points of contact and so enhance the sturdiness of the building. Strategically placed column bases attest to the use of wooden columns to support a

192

roof and enabled buildings to be constructed on a much larger scale than before. Massive stonebuilt walls also appear in the EBA, for example, Arad. These major constructional changes were enhanced in the MBA. For example, monumental buildings with occasional use of bastard ashlar masonry became more common. Splayed ashlar construction also appeared, that is, only the surrounds of the outer faces were finely jointed. There are also well preserved examples of monumental mudbrick arches from the MBA, for example, in Tel Dan, Ashkelon, and Tel Gezer. 4.1.  Fieldstone walls could be given added strength by the inclusion of occasional ashlars in strategic positions, for example, in the corners of buildings otherwise built of fieldstone. This technique was common in the Levant, the earliest known examples are from EBA Byblos and the technique carries on through to the Rom. period as opus africanus. Orthostats, sometimes plain, sometimes sculptured, had no tectonic function, rather they were employed to protect rubble and mudbrick walls. They first appear in the MBA and become more common in the LBA. Dowel and mortise joints were used, presumably with connectors of wood, that joined the upper mudbrick and → timber section of walls to orthostats and other stone architectural elements (→ building ornaments). The empty pry holes can be seen on the tops of some orthostats, for example, Hazor. The occasional early use of true ashlar masonry makes its appearance in the LBA, for example, Megiddo and Hazor. Ashlars laid as headers were occasionally used to tie in the stretcher courses for added strength and stability (Hult 1983:​65–67, 71, 79). Shell incrusted floors, serving as either simple decoration or as a form of waterproofing have been found in the LBA palace at Megiddo (Wright 1985:​441). 4.2.  Ashlar masonry, often of standardized dimensions, can be plain or provided with a marginal draught on three or four sides of its exterior face. A marginal draft was used to facilitate alignment of these, often re-used and originally plain, ashlars. A masons’ datum line, a taut cord coated with red pigment, was used to mark the face of the ashlars signifying where they should be drafted or positioned, for example at Megiddo (Stratum IV) and Samaria (Building Period II). The ashlars were drafted in situ as evidenced by deposits of limestone powder and limestone chips (Loud 1948:​47–48; Crowfoot/​Kenyon/​Sukenik 1942:​ 99; Wright 1985:​345–346; Reich 2001:​64*). Monolithic and built-up stone pillars in buildings – sometimes known as an “Israelite pillared house” or a “4-room house”  – typify domestic dwellings in the Iron Age, for example, in small

Construction Technique/s (c. tech./techs.)

193

194

villages such as ʿIzbet Sartah and in cities such as Megiddo (Stratum V). A still existent example is Building IA at Megiddo. Ashlar masonry was often used sparingly but intentionally to strengthen corners of fieldstone walls or as “strengthening ashlar piers” (the telalio technique, later known as opus africanus) at intervals along long revetment walls. This technique was specifically designed to strengthen foundation walls, enabling them to withstand the lateral pressure caused by deep fills (Van Beek 1981). In addition a master builder would confine himself to laying out the ashlar corner and piers of a building and leave the less skilled workmen to fill in the intervening walls. Exterior → courtyards were covered with a thick plaster surface made by crushed limestone marl, spread on the ground and rolled flat to form an even compact surface. The marl was then further solidified by the application of a watery layer of lime wash which was allowed to dry, for example Megiddo (Stratum IV). From the late Ass. period there is documentary evidence for a vast labor force and the production of millions of mudbricks which could be stored and distributed as required. Straw was also a requisite and it has been suggested that 100 bricks required approximately 60 kg of straw (Wright 1985:​438, 391). 4.3.  The advent of true stone architecture, which slowly replaced mudbrick and wooden construction on stone foundations, occurred in the 6th cent. b.c.e. in Achaemenid Persia and classical Greece. Fine jointing and horizontal stone surfaces ensured that the load was spread throughout the structure which caused ashlar-built monumental stone buildings to behave load-wise as a monolithic building. To minimize earthquake damage or settlement the stone elements were often fixed together by lead filled mortises or ties (Wright 2000:​96–97). Carved stone column drums and later, monolithic stone columns, appear from the Pers. period onward (Reich 1992:​12), and stone as well as wooden capitals, could now be used to crown columns. 4.4.  Stone columns and capitals, footed on a stylobate, made it possible for more substantial roof structures to develop, such as the tile covered gabled roofs common in the Rom. era. A steeply sloping roof helped disperse the (now increased) weight of the roof to the side walls and columns, and would help protect the structure by allowing rain to run off (Netzer 1992:​25). 6.  The majority of the references to the construction of buildings in the OT are in respect of the Temple and David’s Palace in Jerusalem. The quarrying of suitable stone is mentioned in 2 Kgs 5:17, 6:7, and 2 Chr 2:2, 18. The shaping or hewing of the stone for use in the construction of

monumental buildings, for example, the Jerusalem Temple, is referred to in 1 Kgs 6:36, and alluded to for domestic architecture in Am 5:11. However, the use of hammers, axes, and other iron tools were noisy and their use restricted to areas outside of the Temple precinct (1 Kgs 6–7). The manufacture of mudbricks and the use of brick moulds are referred to in Nah 3:14. The continual production of mudbricks is alluded to in Gen 11:3 and Ex 5:7, 14. The common use of mud mortar is mentioned in Isa 41:25, and the necessity of applying the correct plaster on walls to strengthen them is alluded to in Ez 13:10–12. Wood, esp. chosen and often imported, is mentioned in 2 Sam 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:6–11; 6:9, 15, 18; 2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 2:8–16. The use of wood as a decorative covering is mentioned in 1 Kgs 6:9, 15, while at other times there are allusions to wood’s constructional role when it is integrated between rows of hewn stone (1 Kgs 6:36; Ezra 5:8; 6:4). Skilled masons and carpenters are mentioned as being located in Tyros (1 Chr 14:1). Doors are of wood, they could be folded back and were sometimes made in sections (1 Kgs 6:34). Wooden columns and gates were often protected by a covering of bronze or copper (1 Kgs 7:15–16; 1 Chr 22:3; Ps 107:16). Natural interior light was provided by windows cut into the walls (1 Kgs 6:4; Jer 22:14). Interior staircases were built in a central chamber to provide access to an upper storey (1 Kgs 6:8). 7.  Crowfoot, J. W./​Kenyon, K. M./​Sukenik, E. L., 1942, The Building at Samaria, Samaria-Sebaste 1, London ♦ Hult, G., 1983, Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus, Ugarit and Neighbouring Regions, Göteborg ♦ Kemp, B., 2000, Soil (including Mud-brick Architecture), in: P. T. Nicholson/​ I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge, U. K., et al.:78–103 ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, Chicago ♦ Moorey, P. R. S., 1994, Ancient Meso­potamian Materials and Industries, Oxford ♦ Netzer, E., 1992, Building Materials and Architectural Elements in Ancient Israel, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​ 17–27 ♦ Reich, R., 1992, Building Materials and Architectural Elements in Ancient Israel, in: A. Kempinski/​ R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​1–16 ♦ 2001, Measuring Tools in the Service of Architects and Masons in Antiquity, in: Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times, Haifa:​61*–67* ♦ Ussishkin, D., 1980, Was the “Solomonic” City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon?, BASOR 239:1–18 ♦ Van Beek, G./​Van Beek, O., 1981, Canaanite-Phoenician Architecture: The Development and Distribution of Two Styles, Eretz-Israel 15 (Y. Aharoni Memorial Vol.):70*–77* ♦ Wright, G. R. H., 1985, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine 1, HO 7.1.2.3, Leiden/​Cologne ♦ 2000, Ancient Building Technology 1, Leiden et al. Norma Franklin

Cosmetic/s (c./cs.)

195 

Cosmetic/s (c./cs.) 1.  Cs. are prepared substances used to embellish the appearance or enhance the odor of the human body. In antiquity, their use and application were often intertwined with → magic, ritual, and healing (for a detailed treatment of cs. and perfumes in the ANE, see Dayagi-Mendels 1989). 2.  Cs. include face makeup, perfumes, and dyes (→ colors and dyes) used in body art, which were manufactured from minerals, plants, and → resins, usually mixed with → oils or animal fat (→ ointment). 3.  The arch. evidence from Palestine consists of toiletry containers and utensils for storing, mixing, or applying cs. and the raw materials or installations used to produce powders or perfumes (see Jacob 2011:​93–276 for a detailed discussion of the arch. evidence). The use of eye makeup, which also played a role in rel. ritual and as a protection against eye disease, was prevalent in the ANE. For example, green eye makeup was created out of ground malachite; kohl, often ground galena (lead sulphate), or a mixture of sunflower soot, charred almond → shells, and frankincense, were used for black eye paint. Textual evidence suggests the use of henna, an orange stain applied to hands, feet, nails, and hair. Occasionally, installations or workshops for the production of perfumes have been discovered (Dayagi-Mendels 1989:​35–58, 89–112). 4.  Palettes for grinding substances used in eye paint are among the most common artifacts recovered in the arch. record related to the use of cs. In Egypt, a region that provides our best evidence for the use of cs. in the ANE, c. palettes date as early as the Neolithic period, with significant numbers found in predynastic → tombs (e. g., Kroeper 1996). In Palestine, the earliest palettes have been found in EB III contexts (Jacobs 1996) and are probably locally produced. An earlier example of a decorated ceremonial c. palette out of a nonlocal siltstone has been uncovered in a secondary depositional domestic context at Beth-Yerah (Greenberg/​Wengrow/​Paz 2010). Bone tubes with incised decorations from EB II– III contexts in Palestine served as containers for cs. and testify to early connections with the Aegean (Genz 2003). 4.1.  Decorated LBA pottery juglets, pyxides, and stirrup jars, often imported from the Aegean region, served as containers for perfumes and other precious ointments. Elaborately decorated c. bowls and containers, such as an → ivory bottle in the shape of a woman from Lachish, were popular in the eastern Medit. Beautifully carved Eg.inspired ivory c. spoons in the shape of swimming girls holding small bowls are known from several

196

Canaan. sites including Megiddo, Beth-Shean, and Tell es-Saʿidiyeh (for a recent overview see Fischer 2007). Other c. spoons and containers in the shape of ducks, and kohl containers, most notably an example from Gezer with two monkeys standing on their hind legs, testify to the international character that typifies the eastern Medit. during the LBA (Dayagi-Mendels 1989:​36–58; Liebowitz 1987:​12–15; Sparks 2007). The tradition of decorated ivory c. containers continues into the Iron Age, esp. at Iron Age I  Philist. sites (BenShlomo/​Dothan 2006). 4.2.  Phoen.-inspired luxury c. objects out of ivory, stone, shell, → glass, faience, metal, and other materials flourish throughout the eastern Medit. during the final centuries of the Iron Age. A variety of palettes are among the most popular c. items in late Iron Age Palestine (for a summary, see Stern 2001:​93–96). Eighth cent. examples are often out of ivory, such as the richly carved ivory-spoon palette from Hazor decorated with a woman’s face on the obverse and a “Tree of Life” on the reverse; they typify Phoen.-inspired luxury toiletry accessories in Palestine. Later 7th cent. palettes/mortars tend to be out of limestone or alabaster, usually decorated and varying in shape from flat to round. They appear in noteworthy quantities in Palestine, Transjordan, and Phoenicia (Thompson 1971; Barag 1985; for Iron Age palettes out of glass or faience, see Barag 1982). Closely related to these palettes are decorated cups, often out of stone, and 7th–6th cent. b.c.e. engraved Tridacna shells, occasionally with remnants of pigment in the crevices of the incised decoration. These shells are commonly interpreted as palettes for mixing cs. (see, e. g., Brandl 2001; Stucky 2007; Reese 2009 and bibliography there). Other Iron Age objects that have been associated with c. use include bone spatulas that appear throughout the ANE. These are esp. popular in Iron Age II contexts in Palestine and Transjordan, including Samaria, Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Tell en-Nasbeh, ʿEin Gedi, Lachish, Gezer, Tell Jemmeh, and Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad). A  variety of functions have been suggested for these objects, including their use in the application of cs. and as an ophthalmic instrument (see Van Beek/​Van Beek 1990). At the end of the Iron Age, new types of containers for perfumes and other precious ointments appear, including alabastra, amphoriskoi, and aryballoi out of dark blue glass, decorated with white, yellow, and red wavy lines. A  special type of Eg.-style alabastra with small ledge handles continues in use into the Pers. period (Stern 2001:​97). Ancient texts, esp. Near Eastern and classical sources, describe in detail the use of perfumes and, in some cases, even

Courtyard/s (c./cs.)

197

198

recipes. Less is known regarding their production. Installations, dated to the 7th and 6th cent. b.c.e., were uncovered during excavations at Tel Goren at ʿEin Gedi’s possible perfume workshop consisted of numerous installations, vats, and pottery vessels, including some that apparently were → ovens and showed signs of industrial use. Raw materials such as lumps of henna and perforated clay balls were recovered from this area (see Mazar/​Dothan/​Dunayevsky 1966:​17–21). 4.3.  The Pers. period marks a dramatic increase in the number of c. items that appear in the arch. record. Most of these objects, including complete sets of toiletries and kohl tubes and sticks most likely imported from Egypt, were common in tombs of females. Alabastra and small bowls, often out of alabaster, were esp. prevalent (Stern 2001:​527–528). 4.4.  Based on the arch. evidence, cs. increase in popularity and are in wide use during the Hell. and later periods. 5.  The earliest evidence for the use of cs. in the ANE appears in prehistoric Egypt. Many of these early examples are most likely ceremonial or cultic in function. In Palestine, numerous elite artifacts associated with c. use and preparation date to LBA contexts, followed by a decline in number until the appearance of luxury Phoen.-style toiletry items during the 8th and 7th cent. b.c.e. C. use continues to increase during the Pers. and later periods. Both the arch. and textual evidence suggests that cs. in the bibl. world were confined mainly to royalty and the affluent, becoming common only in the Rom. period. 6.  In the HB, the use of cs. is often associated with immoral behavior, illicit sexual practices, or royalty (Quick 2019). In 2 Kgs 9:30, in anticipation of Jehu’s arrival at Jezreel, Jezebel “painted her eyes” (pūk, often translated as “black eye paint” or “kohl”), “adorned her head, and looked out of the window” (NRSV). The Book of Jeremiah depicts Jerusalem as a harlot who enlarges her eyes with paint (Jer 4:30). In another reference to Jerusalem, Oholibamah is described as a prostitute who paints her eyes (Ez 23:40). One of Job’s daughters is named Keren-Happuch (“horn of eye paint”) (Job 42:14). Scents, such as myrrh (Esth 2:12; Cant 5:5), aloes, and cinnamon (Prov 7:17), are specifically mentioned in the bibl. account (e. g., King/​Stager 2001:​280–282 for a discussion of the bibl. and arch. evidence). The “fragrant flowers of henna,” a dye used in coloring or tattooing, is referred to in Cant 1:14.

Engl. summary) ♦ Ben-Shlomo, D./​Dothan, T., 2006, Ivories from Philistia, IEJ 56:1–38 ♦ Brandl, B., 2001, Two Engraved Tridacna Shells from Tel Miqne-Ekron, BASOR 323:49–62 ♦ Dayagi-Mendels, M., 1989, Perfumes and Cosmetics in the Ancient World, Israel Museum Catalogue 305, Jerusalem  ♦ Fischer, E., 2007, Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Elfenbeine aus Megiddo und Lachisch, AOAT 47, Münster ♦ Genz, H., 2003, Ritzverzierte Knochenhülsen des dritten Jahrtausends im Ostmittelmeerraum, ADPV 31, Wiesbaden ♦ Greenberg, R./​Wengrow, D./​Paz, S., 2010, Cosmetic Connections? An Egyptian Relief Carving from Early Bronze Age Tel Bet Yerah (Israel), Antiquity 84, issue 324, www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/greenberg324/  ♦ Jacob, R., 2011, Kosmetik im antiken Palästina, AOAT 389, Münster ♦ Jacobs, P., 1996, A  Cosmetic Palette from Early Bronze III at Tell Halif, in: J. Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past, Winona Lake:​123–134 ♦ King, P. J./​Stager, L. E., 2001, Life in Biblical Israel, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville/​London  ♦ Kroeper, K., 1996, Minshat Abu Omar  – Burials with Palettes, in: J. Spencer (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt, London:​70–92  ♦ Lie­bo­ witz, H., 1987, Late Bronze II Ivory Work in Palestine, BASOR 265:3–24  ♦ Mazar, B./​Dothan, T./​Dunayevski, I., 1966, En-Gedi, ʿAtiqot (ES) 5, Jerusalem ♦ Quick, L., 2019, “She Made Herself Up Provocatively for the Charming of the Eyes of Men” (Jdt. 10.4): Cosmetics and Body Adornment in the Stories of Judith and Susanna, JSP 28:215–236 ♦ Reese, D., 2009, On Incised Scapulae and Tridacna, EI 29:188*–193*  ♦ Sparks, R. T., 2007, Stone Vessels in the Levant, PEF Annual 8, Leeds ♦ Stern, E., 2001, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 2, ABRL, New York ♦ Stucky, R.‑A., 2007, Les tridacnes à décor gravé, in: E. Fontan (ed.), La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage, Paris:​218–223 ♦ Thompson, H. O., 1971, Iron Age Cosmetic Palettes, ADAJ 16:61–70 ♦ Van Beek, G./​Van Beek, O., 1990, The Function of the Bone Spatula, BA 53:205–209. Ann E. Killebrew

7.  Barag, D., 1982, Cosmetic Glass Palettes from the Eighth–Seventh Centuries B. C., JGS 24:11–19 ♦ 1985, Phoenician Stone Vessels from the Eighth–Seventh Centuries BCE, EI 18:215–232, 72*–73* (Hebr. with

Courtyard/s (c./cs.) 1.  An “unroofed space, surrounded by buildings, walls, fences, or porticos” (Reich/​Katzenstein 1992:​314) defines a courtyard in the broadest sense. The whole spectrum of such spaces, from the enclosed encampment to the c. of a dwelling to a representative c., is covered by the Hebr. term ḥaṣer. In a narrower sense, a c. can be regarded as an unroofed space related to a building, particularly to a dwelling, → palace, fortress (→ fortifications), or cultic building. This corresponds with the fact that cs. have been an essential element of nearly every type of dwelling in Palestine throughout time. In a sense, the c. of dwellings can be regarded as prototypes of the c. of palaces, which are often referred to as “better” dwellings; but they differ, not in the layout, but in the quality of masonry, size, and location within the settlement. Sometimes the cs. of temples also resemble those of private dwellings. The crucial feature of any c. is its unroofed character. Many excavations have only exposed foundations and walls

Courtyard/s (c./cs.)

199 

that are not preserved up to the roof. Fallen parts of roofing often cannot be allocated to specific rooms. As a result, it is not possible to designate a room definitely as a c. by architectural means. Analyses of the distribution of household objects, the ratio of c. space to other rooms, or comparisons with → houses in the modern Middle East are also not able to help us identify specific rooms as c. unequivocally (Daviau 1993:​213–218). Usually a room is referred to as a c. whenever it has a fireplace or a cistern, since the smoke could not have vented in a closed space and the rain was needed to fall into the cistern. This common argument is plausible, but sometimes counter-examples are discussed. On the other hand, fireplaces and cisterns are considered the main feature of cs. The danger of circular interpretation, therefore, exists, and every single designation can be challenged. The functions of cs. vary according to layout and character of the building. One can discern private cs. in both rural and urban contexts. Moreover, cs. may have a display function: in this sense, the c. is used to demonstrate one’s status or ability as a host and is the public face of the homeowner. A c. may also have a public character in that it may be a place to interact with people not of one’s family. All cs. are an intermediate sphere between interior and exterior. They allow access of daylight and fresh air to the other rooms. Generally, cs. provide an additional living space beside the relatively small houses. In rural communities, the family gathered in the c. of their dwelling, everyday life took place here around the fireplace or oven and adjacent to silos, cisterns, and sheep or goat pens. In urban contexts, too, the c. was the focus of very similar household activities. Even a few display cs. seem to have functioned mainly as service areas for the extended household. Cs. can, therefore, be regarded as multi-purpose areas in everyday life, used for household activities, for → storage, often for keeping livestock, sometimes as a workshop, and additionally, in display or public contexts, as a place to interface with the community at large. 2.  Architecturally, cs. can be divided into three types: forecourts, with one or more rooms attached on one side; integrated cs., with rooms on two or three sides; and cs. surrounded by rooms on four sides. The forecourt is the c. most independent from the house and serves as an entrance and outdoor-living area. The integrated c. is included in the square of the building and has the same functions. Buildings that have a c. along an outer wall but are not to be entered through the c. are very rare. The c. surrounded by rooms cannot be used as an entrance to the building because of its location. This causes a primary difference in function: the outside c. corresponds with the

200

needs of people subsisting on → agriculture and/ or → animal husbandry. These cs. make it possible to bring crops and animals in easily from the outside, all of which can then be stored, processed, or sheltered within the c. or the house. Internal cs. have a more secluded character; they are confined to urban contexts or high-status buildings. Typical elements of a c. are fireplaces, hearths and → ovens, cisterns, pits and silos, sometimes benches along the walls or a platform. A c. has at least two doorways. Sometimes, particularly in the Iron Age, the c. is separated from one of the adjacent rooms only by a row of pillars. In rare cases, a c. seems to have been partly roofed, sometimes supported by pillars or columns; in the LBA in Egypt and the Hell. period in the Levant, a c. could also be constructed as a peristyle. Cs. of all types can be found in many excavated sites throughout the Southern Levant. 3.  The construction material of cs. is as varied as their enclosing buildings, architectural elements, and different installations. The floor often consists of beaten earth, seldom of bedrock; more elaborate cs. were paved with pebbles or stone slabs. 4.  Cs. have been a widespread feature of traditional houses throughout the Middle East until today (Dalman 1942:​60–61; Nippa 1991:​20–32; Krafeld-Daugherty 1994:​153–165). They are not demonstrated to exist before the Chalc. when they became common for the first time. During the EBA, the c. became smaller or disappeared. 4.1.  In the MBA and LBA, the c. is the essential element of many houses and the focal point of household tasks. This is reflected in the reference to the building type as a c.-house. The rectangular c. is sometimes enclosed by rooms on four sides and has to be entered through one of the rooms, a kind of gatehouse. This is the case in the “classical” form, which appears among others in the walled cities (e. g., Megiddo Strata  XI–IX; Loud 1948:​figs. 339–401). The c. is, however, often surrounded by rooms on three sides or two adjacent sides; even two cs. on either side of one or more rooms exist (further references: Ben-Dov 1992). The latter types appear either in walled cities or in unfortified settlements, esp. in MB IIA, but also throughout the MBA and LBA. Regarding the functions of the c., the layout of the building is less important than the character of the settlement. Remarkably, in MB city houses, no traces of animal husbandry are to be found within the c. (Daviau 1993:​217–218). Here, the c. served mainly as a living space, household work and crop processing area, as well as providing access for daylight and air. On the other hand, in unfortified settlements, the two cs. flanking a building allow the separation

Courtyard/s (c./cs.)

201

202

of the household work area from the flock or pack animals (Gophna 1979:​fig. 2). Ovens, cisterns, storage facilities, and chicken coops belong to the standard equipment of cs. In the same building tradition, one or more cs. are also a common feature of the MBA and LBA patrician houses or palaces (Oren 1992; → fig. Palace #1:3 and 5, col. 724). Their cs. are remarkably spacious  – with a ratio ranging from 1:1–1:5 compared with the roofed area – and were well constructed. They could have had different kinds of elaborate pavement, a drainage system, stone storage installations, or a table. Some of these cs. are large enough to accommodate official affairs, such as ceremonies, people waiting to be received, guards performing their duties, etc. Of course, they functioned as service and access areas for the household, as well. Column bases occur mainly, but not exclusively, in LBA residences of the Eg. building tradition. They always raise the question as to whether the c. was partly or entirely roofed. Cs. also appear as open spaces around or in front of MBA and LBA temples, but not as an integral part of the buildings (e. g., → fig. Palace #1:4, col. 724). The cs. were surrounded by service rooms, adjacent buildings, or enclosure walls, and served cultic purposes. 4.2.  Due to the character of Iron Age I as a transition period and its different parallel building traditions, some cs. in the LBA style persisted during this time. Additionally, the c. gained new significance in the → villages of the highlands and the Negev (e. g., Giloh, Khirbet Raddana, Khirbet edDawwara, et-Tell Strata  X–IX, Shiloh, Khirbet elMeshash, ʿIzbet Sartah; references: Finkelstein 1988:​34–117; Zwingenberger 2001:​206–239). These cs. are relatively small. Abutting one or two parallel rooms on one or both sides and one transverse room, they are part of the early forms of the three- or four-room houses (→ fig. House #1, col. 402). The entrance to the c. was generally located on the short side; the buildings were always entered through the c. Nearly all exposed fireplaces are within the c., as well as many pits and cisterns. Some cs. feature hewn or stone built-in benches along the walls. The floors always consist of beaten earth. Some cs. are separated from the parallel room or rooms only by a row of pillars. It is generally supposed that animals were housed in these side rooms, with their often-paved floor, although this has not been confirmed. Thus, the c. clearly served as a central area for household and storage purposes and also as a possible access area for livestock (Zwingenberger 2001:​252–255, 263–267). Additionally, Iron Age I  shows cs. as open, irregularly shaped enclosures, either surrounded by walls as in the farmstead of Giloh or encircled by the houses of the village as in Tell es-

Sebaʿ (Beer-Sheba) Stratum  VII. Probably these intentionally arranged cs. served as pens for the herds. In Iron Age II, the dwelling layout developed into the standard four-room house with an even narrower c., while the features and the purposes of the c. remained (Braemer 1982). The discussion whether the c. was actually unroofed or was, rather, a covered central room becomes a complex one regarding Iron Age II (Wright 1978:​ 151; Hopkins 1985:​145–146; Netzer 1992:​195– 199; Stager 1985; Hardin 2010:​53–55). Because many Iron Age II houses may have had a second storey, the supporters of the latter theory reconstruct a roofed central space for household activities and above it an open c. between the rooms of the second storey as a living area. If this assumption is correct, the “upper courtyard” would have had a totally different character than all other cs. discussed here because the installations for household activities would obviously be located on the lower level. Many, but not all, of the Iron Age II palaces (→ fig. Palace #2–3, col. 726) comprise rooms arranged around a spacious c. (Megiddo Stratum  VA buildings 1723 and 6000, Samaria, Ramat Rahel, Lachish Strata  IV–III, and Tell elFarah [N] Stratum VIID building 148 as earlier examples; Hazor Stratum III building 3002, Megiddo Stratum III buildings 1369 and 1052, Buseira as later examples). Building 1713 at Megiddo is itself enclosed by an additional extensive c., which was entered through a gatehouse; a wide c. is also attached to palace C at Lachish. All these cs. may have served display and public, as well as household, purposes. Compared with the cs. of MBA and LBA palaces, these cs. reached a new stage in their dimensions. Regarding the tripartite pillared buildings typical of the Iron Age, the question whether the central space was an open c. or a roofed aisle is still unresolved (Herr 1988). The Iron Age II temple of Arad includes a forecourt with an → altar. At Ekron, the c. of Temple 650 (→ fig. Sanctuary #1:8, col. 789) was one of the major elements of the cultic complex. A  further structure with a c. as an essential feature should be mentioned: the so-called Negev “fortresses,” which consist of a row of casemate rooms surrounding a central c. Generally, this space is empty; although, sometimes, it houses a smaller building, and, at others, an inner wall or a row of rooms divides it. Smaller installations are only seldom recorded. The floor always consists of bedrock and/or beaten earth, as at Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Meshel 2012). These cs. are suitable as service areas, for administrative purposes, or for herding pens. 4.3.  In the Bab. and Pers. periods, no entirely new forms or functions of cs. are to be found. Due to the reappearance of the c.-house known

Courtyard/s (c./cs.)

203 

from the MBA and LBA periods, cs. surrounded by rooms on two, three, or four sides are a common feature of the private houses, even though not all dwellings have a c. All the public buildings, residences, and/or fortresses resembling the c.-house and continuing the Iron Age IIC tradition, have a rectangular or square c. with rooms on three or four sides as their nucleus. 4.4.  The c. remains an essential feature of the dwellings of the Hell. period – either in the preHell. tradition or in Hell. style. In the latter case, some of the cs. are built as a peristyle. Occasionally, the c. is characterized by a floor covered with slabs in contrast to the floor of beaten earth within the building. All cs. functioned as service areas and included ovens and, particularly, installations providing water in the forms of cisterns or basins (→ water management). Esp. in the Hell. period, the purpose of the c. varies considerably with the character of the building or the specialization of its residents. The function of the c. ranges from serving explicitly as living and/or industrial areas, without any traces of farming or animal husbandry, to agriculturally used cs. between oil or wine presses. Cs. appear also as a central element for contemporaneous fortresses, constructed in their different building traditions. The cs. are rather small in comparison to those in previous periods and often lack installations or interior buildings, probably due to the bad state of preservation. Only large cisterns within the c. are often recorded, remarkably so. It is during the Hasm. and Herod. periods that cs. in palaces develop in a new style. They occur in every complex as an internal c. and service area or as an independent structure. Both types are generally constructed as a peristyle. The latter can include a paved esplanade, a → garden, or even a pool; occasionally, the porticoes were decorated with frescos. Obviously, these cs. were used for leisure and display rather than for household activities. 5.  Despite their dependence on the changing types of buildings, cs. are a remarkably constant element of material culture and communal living from earliest times until today. Their development reflects the standard of the society regarding its subsistence, its rural or urban character, its degree of specialization, and its → building techniques. Only the cs. of palaces and fortresses show a tendency towards larger dimensions and higher quality, while the size and character of the c. of the underprivileged population remain similar during all times. Buildings of any type without a c. – except for cultic buildings – are a minority throughout the time periods discussed above. 6.  In contrast to the arch. account, the bibl. stories picture, first of all, the display or public

204

c., particularly those of the tabernacle (Ex 27; 35–40; Lev 6; Num 3–4), the Temple in its different conceptions (1 Kgs 6–8; 1 Chr 28; 2 Chr 4; Ez 8–10, 40–46, et al.; various Pss; Rev 11), the c. of the guard in the palace of King Zedekiah in Jerusalem (Jer 32–39), different cs. in the palace of King Ahasuerus in Susa (Esth 1–6), and the c. in the palace of the High Priest in Jerusalem (Mt 26; Mk 14; Lk 22; John 18). Sometimes cs. of private dwellings are also mentioned (Ex 8:9; 2 Sam 17:18 refers to a c. with a well [beʾer]; Neh 8:16). Additionally, ḥaṣer is used in the broad sense of “encampment” or “grange.”

7.  Ben-Dov, M., 1992, Middle and Late Bronze Age Dwellings, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​99–104 ♦ Braemer, F., 1982, L’architecture domestique du Levant à l’âge du Fer, Paris ♦ Dalman, G., 1942, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina 7, SDPI 10, Gütersloh ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 1993, Houses and their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine, JSOT/​ASOR Monographs 8, Sheffield ♦ Finkelstein, I., 1988, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem ♦ Gophna, R., 1979, A Middle Bronze Age Village in the Jordan Valley, TA 6:28–33 ♦ Hardin, J. W., 2004, Understanding Domestic Space: An Example from Iron Age Tell Halif, Near Eastern Archaeology 67:71– 83  ♦ 2010, Lahav II: Households and the Use of Domestic Space at Iron II Tel Halif, Winona Lake ♦ Herr, L. G., 1988, Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Market Place in Iron Age Palestine, BASOR 272:47–67 ♦ Hopkins, D. C., 1985, The Highlands of Canaan, SWBAS 3, Sheffield ♦ Krafeld-Daugherty, M., 1994, Wohnen im Alten Orient, Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 3, Münster ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, Chicago ♦ Meshel, Z., 2012, Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman), Jerusalem ♦ Netzer, E., 1992, Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​193–201 ♦ Nippa, A., 1991, Haus und Familie in arabischen Ländern, Munich ♦ Oren, E. D., 1992, Palaces and Patrician Houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, in: A. Kempinski/​ R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​105–120 ♦ Reich, R./​Katzenstein, H., 1992, Glossary of Architectural Terms, in: A. Kempinski/​ R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​311–322 ♦ Stager, L. E., 1985, The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel, BASOR 260:1–35 ♦ Wright, G. E., 1978, A  Characteristic North Israelite House, in: R. Moorey/​P. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant, Warminster:​149–154  ♦ Zwingenberger, U., 2001, Dorfkultur der frühen Eisenzeit in Mittelpalästina, OBO 180, Fribourg/​Göttingen. Uta Zwingenberger

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.) 1.  The term cl.  eq. refers to all movable objects and furnishings used for the execution of rituals within and outside defined cultic spaces. They frequently appear in → sanctuaries, temples, → tombs, and dwellings but were also carried along during migrations, travels, processions, and campaigns.

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

205

206

Common → pottery and objects of daily use such as → weapons and → tools can be converted during ritual action into cl.  eq., or they can be esp. produced for cultic activity. Through their ritual function, scepters, ceremonial knives, or weapons, as well as other objects become symbols of rel. power and high social value (Hübner 2001:​1816; Buchholz 1999:​591–593). An exact reconstruction of the ritual event or performance on the basis of the cl. eq. is only possible in exceptional cases. Some of the most important sources consist of complex rel. scenes showing cl.  eq. in offering and libation rituals such as the Sum. Uruk-vase and relief plaques (IPIAO 1:figs. 192, 213, 219), the Ur-Nammu stela from Ur, a fragmentary stela of Gudea, the decorated mug with offerings to the god Baal from Ugarit (IPIAO 3:fig. 935), the Ahiram-sarcophagus (IPIAO 3:fig. 962), the Ass. bronze gate of Balawat, or the White Obelisk (Seidl 2003–2005). 2.–3.  Most preserved cl. eq. are ceramic objects such as offering stands, → altars, decorated basins and bowls. Cl. eq. in metal, stone, bone (→ ivory), or wood is ony rarely preserved. Altars, temple → furniture, cult stands, offering tables, offering plates, and → lamps are well documented in the arch. context of Palestine. In the following the cl. eq. is presented according to the material. 4.1.  Pottery. 4.1.1.  Pottery stands: Simple and elaborated ceramic stands are widely attested in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt from the EBA to the Iron Age. For the 2nd mill. and esp. in the LBA and early Iron Age, the largest variation in form and decoration is attested, often combined with architectural elements (→ towers, windows, roof constructions; → fig. Cultic Equipment  #1:​1–3, col.  207; → fig. Cultic Equipment #2:1, col. 210). When found in situ, they were often part of the inventories of temples, shrines, favissae (van den Brink/​Segal/​Ad 2012; Kletter/​ Ziffer/​Zwickel 2010; 2015; Strassburger 2018), or in cultic areas within houses (Albertz/​ Schmitt 2012). Integrated or separately worked ceramic vessels, bowls, and specially set up ceramic basins define their function in the temple or house cult, where they can be related to offerings (liquid, food) and the burning of incense, perfume (incense burners), grain, and other products (Buchholz 1999:​581–590; Zwickel 1990; 1994; Zevit 2001). Triangular and rectangular cut-outs in cylindrical or rectangular pedestals are frequently named windows and doors. Fenestration could have had a symb.-magical meaning (Zevit 2001:​315). Triangular openings are often explained as symbolizing a naked goddess whereas female figurines in combination with rectangular cut-outs are related to the appearance of the

“woman/goddess at the window” (GGIG:§ 123, fig. 115; Buchholz 1999:​185). Elaborate offering stands showing human, faunal, and floral incised or relief decorations are often described as cult stands. An unusual stand from the Sin temple of Khafaje (ca. 2,500 b.c.e.) with a preserved height of 15.5 cm is placed on top of a wheeled fenestrated house model with rich human and faunal decoration (Delougaz 1952:​85–86, pls. 82–83). A  heavily burnt stand (h 17 cm) with triangular fenestrations and incised decoration showing a male, a tree, and a horned animal is known from 3rd mill. Tell Brak (Oates 2001:​540, figs. 1594– 1596). From this site, a 43 cm high terracotta model of a three-storeyed tower with rectangular and triangular fenestration is known. The edges of the roof are decorated with horned animal heads and birds are applied to the roof construction (Emberling/​McDonald 2003:​49–51, fig. 52). A large fenestrated ceramic stand with a separately worked applied bowl (total h 85 cm) was discovered on top of an elite Akkad. warrior tomb at Tell Beydar (Bretschneider/​Cunningham 2007:​102, pl. 6). Its function as an offering stand should be seen in relation with death rituals. Inside the cella of the Ishtar Temple in Assur (Level G), a set of large round stands was found together with the oldest known stepped ceramic altars in the shape of a house together with other cl.  eq. The temple inventory dates to the 24th cent. (Andrae 1922:​36; IPIAO 1:185, fig. 10). Further 3rd mill. stands are known from the Diyala-region and Kish. Two EB III fenestrated stands from the “Kleiner Anten-Tempel” and north of “Steinbau I” show mythological scenes with gods, humans, and animals (Moortgat-Correns 2001:​382, fig. 21; IPIAO 1:fig. 243). An EB III fenestrated cylindrical stand (h 25 cm) topped by a bowl from Byblos shows snakes, birds, bulls, and a fish in appliqué (IPIAO 1:fig. 169). A  115 cm high stand from the LB II temple area of Tell Kazel is decorated with lions and ibexes (Badre/​Gubel 1999–2000:​145, fig. 14). A painted conical stand from Pella illustrates a sacred tree flanked by various animals and combines plastic decoration of ibex horns on the obverse (Bourke 2012:​fig. 17). The relief decoration on a LBA stand (h 75.5 cm) from the house of the ‘magician-priest’ in Ugarit was interpreted as representing Baal and his animals. Another LBA stand (h 60 cm) shows the king in his priestly function under a solar winged disk (Yon 2006:​153, figs. 40–41). Several tower-shaped offering stands with rich fenestration are known from the LBA temple areas of Basmusian and Shemshara. The 50–75 cm high

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

207 

208

2 3

0

5

10

15 cm

1

4 0

5 2

4 cm

0

10

20 cm

Figure Cultic Equipment #1: 1) Ceramic cult stand from Megiddo (Iron Age I); 2–3) Ceramic cult stand from Beth-Shean (Iron Age I); 4) Ceramic kernos from Megiddo (Iron Age I); 5) Stone object from Beth-Shean (LBA).

stands are either placed on the back of capridae or show a goat protome applied to its front (Bretschneider 1991a:​nos. 42–44; Eidem 2011). Late Ass. temple furniture in the form of several fenestrated stands and an architectural dec-

orated limestone altar (h 81 cm) belonged to the cult furnishing of an Iron Age shrine in Tell Rimah (Oates 1974). 4.1.2.  Altars and tables. Cultic equipment from domestic areas in the form of fenestrated ceram-

209

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

210

0

5 cm

1

3 0

1

2 cm

2

0

1

2 cm

Figure Cultic Equipment #2: 1) Ceramic cult stand from Taanach (Iron Age II); 2) Steatite lion-bowl from Tell Beit Mirsim (Iron Age II); 3) Cuboid incense burner from Tell es-Saʿidiyeh (late Iron Age).

ic stands, ceremonial tables, transportable ceramic altars in the shape of a house (terracotta stepped house models) or → tower (terracotta tower models), model shrines, and basins with snake and human appliqués are richly attested for

the Syr. Euphrates region in the Late Bronze levels of Tell Munbaqat, Meskene (ancient Emar), Tall Bazi, Tell Fray, and Tall Faqʿus (Bretschneider 1991a:​nos. 34–38, 47–44; Muller 2002:​figs. 45– 88; Werner 1998:​109–120).

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

211 

The main room of a standard house in Tell Munbaqat (Werner 1998:​figs. 56, 59, 63, 68) and Tall Bazi (Otto 2006:​67–71, 241–244) was equipped with a built altar in mudbrick or transportable altars and offering stands in the form of stepped houses, tables, or towers. Contemporary cuneiform texts from the region speak about “gods and ancestors” who were worshipped in the main room (van der Toorn 1996; Otto 2006:​57–58, 241; Krafeld-Daugherty 1994:​ 174–235; Pfälzner 2001:​169–171, 252–253). The house-shaped stepped altars were interpreted as a symbol of the house of the ancestors, probably in relation with the cult of the “naked goddess.” The four-horned tower models seem to have a link with the Baal cult in Syr. family religion (Bretschneider 1991b:​​20). In more recent LBA levels of Tell Munbaqat, fixed mudbrick altars in the main room of the dwelling houses were replaced by transportable cult stands in the form of towers (Werner 1998:​ 111). One of several examples from this site is a 59 cm high stand showing leopards in relief above triangular windows (Werner 1998:​110, fig. 176; Muller 2002:​fig. 118). A pipe for libations inside the stand connects the platform of the tower with its back side. The upper part can be reconstructed with a four-horned balustrade. Fenestrated stands, two-chambered basins with snakes and men holding rams as well as a 41 cm high terracotta shrine belong to the rich cl. eq. of dwellings of Tell Munbaqat (Werner 1998:​109). At Meskene/​Emar, around a dozen towers and 30 stepped altars were reconstructed (Margueron 1976). The front side of the 1.14 m high Tower A is decorated in its upper part by a window with a balustrade also known from actual buildings. Similar to the stepped altar (House V/h 44 cm), Tower O shows naked women in relief on its façades. The type of stepped house-shaped altars  – with several MBA examples from Tell Rumeilah and other Syr. locations  – can be traced back to the EBA models from the Ishtar Temple in Assur (Bretschneider 1991a:​​39–49). In LB II Tall Bazi, cl. eq. in the form of fenestrated stands, kernos ring fragments with four vases, and a ram head spout are attested (Otto 2006:​242). The cult area within the main room of ‘house 8’ provides cl.  eq. from the late 13th cent. b.c.e. Besides a libation vessel in the shape of a ram, a fragmentary group of terracotta figurines (preserved h 13.4 cm; length 12.2 cm) can be reconstructed as part of a cult stand with two goblets on top of a chariot pulled by bulls. The figurines were interpreted as representing the weather god and his female partner imitating a procession of gods (Otto 2002:​fig. 1a–d, pl. 2a–

212

c). Rituals of libation, deposition of bucrania, and meat offerings are part of a domestic cult for the family gods and the ancestors. 4.1.3.  Stands and cult vessels from Palestine: The largest group of cl. eq. is represented by cult vessels and stands in Palestine, with examples from the Chalc. period to the Iron Age. On the basis of their function, Amiran (1970:​302–306) recognized three main groups that were further subdivided: A) incense-burners/incense-stands with three main types, 1: high, mostly fenestrated cylindrical stands topped by a bowl, the two made in one piece (Beer-Sheba, Chalc.; Beth-Shean, EB II, EB III; Hazor, Iron Age I); 2: similar stands of which the bowl on top of the stand is made separately and therefore rarely found together (Lachish, LB I; Megiddo, Iron Age I; Tell es-Safi, Iron Age I); 3: house-shaped incense-burners, sometimes with anthropom. and zoomorphic decoration (Ai, EB III; Megiddo, Iron Age I; Beth-Shean, Iron Age I). The second group (B) is formed by libation vessels, most often ordinary jugs used in performing libation rites. More sophisticated libation vessels with an inner cup (Megiddo, MB IIB) and cup-and-saucer vessels (Lachish, LBII) were used for mixing liquids. Architecturally shaped or decorated cult stands with a rectangular body, door, and window openings occur widely during the 13th–9th cent. and are mostly attributed to Canaan. and Philist. cultures (Reichert 1977:​191; Bretschneider 1991a:​nos. 51–54; GGIG:§§ 96–99; de Miroschedji 2001:​53–66; Zevit 2001:​316–328; Muller 2002:​342–361, figs. 145–158; Kletter/​ Ziffer/​Zwickel 2010). In several cases, the architectural affinity of this group of cl. eq. can be related to elements of sacred architecture such as temple façades, columns or caryatid decoration, building decoration, windows, roofs, etc. as a symb. statement. The 107 cm high terracotta tower from Megiddo dates to the 13th cent. b.c.e. (Loud 1948:​25, pls. 251–252; IPIAO 3:fig. 856) and shows similarities with the tower-like cult-stands from the Syr. Euphrates region. Its upper part is decorated with cut-out windows and painted with lions, vegetable, and geometric patterns. Several fragments from smaller architectural stands with window and roof decoration from Megiddo date to the beginning of the 11th and to the 10th cent. (May 1935:​4–17, pls. 13–14). A  38 cm high rectangular cult stand from the 10th cent. (Iron Age IIA) shows sphinxes beside door openings with volute decoration in the upper corner. → Hybrid creatures in building contexts, most often set in entrances, probably served an apotropaic function. Cultic furnishing was found in the corner shrine

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

213

214

of locus 2081 (Strata V–IV, ca. 1000–800/780 b.c.e.). Beside a larger quantity of common ceramics, cl. eq. in the form of fenestrated and cylindrical stands, two four-horned altars, and incense burners were part of the inventory (Zevit 2001:​ 220–225, fig. 3:55). The two richly decorated, 54 cm and 90 cm high cult stands from Taanach dating to the late 10th cent. transitional period may have been used in a domestic cult (2BRL:191, fig. 45:3; Hestrin 1987:​ figs. 1–4; GGIG:§§ 96–98). The shallow basins on top of the stands probably served as a support for bowls into which small gifts were placed or into which libations could be poured for offerings. The better preserved smaller stand is partitioned in four registers (IPIAO 4:fig. 1197), richly decorated on three sides (cf. → fig. Cultic Equipment #2:1, col. 210). The images include a winged solar disk above a four-legged striding animal interpreted as a horse or a bull calf, attribute animals of either Anat-Astarte or, more likely, Baal. Standard-like volutes with two cult stands beneath it, frame the upper scene, which has been interpreted as the inner sanctum of the shrine. Alternating pairs of sphinxes and lions appear on all four levels. The main scene of the second upper register shows a holy tree seen as the symbol of the goddess Asherah, flanked by two caprids. The two sphinxes on the third level are flanking the central front opening of the stand, similar to the one from Megiddo. The central female figurine between the two lions of the fourth register is interpreted as the “Mistress of the Lions.” The iconogr. program of the second, less well preserved cult stand from Taanach (IPIAO 4:fig. 1198) is comparable but more simple since the scenes of the solar disk and the “Mistress of the Lions” are missing. In addition, a man fighting a snake is added on one side. Typologically close to the Taanach stands are fragments of two Iron Age I cult stands from Pella, dated to the 11th–10th cent. b.c.e. An incised decoration of stylized trees is found on the four sides of the 45 cm high better preserved stand. Fragments of the second Pella example show two mould-formed “naked goddesses” standing on lion’s heads, originally flanking a triangular window (IPIAO 4:fig. 1195). Stepped terracotta houses and tower stands from Emar illustrate that the motif of a naked woman on a building façade already occurred during LB II, a forerunner motive of the “woman at the window.” Fragments of two richly decorated fragmentary cult stands were found in the N and S temple of Beth-Shean (Rowe 1940:​22–30, 365, pl. 56A:1–3; Reichert 1977:​191, fig. 45:4; → fig. Cultic Equipment #1:3, col. 207). These have been attributed

to a Canaan. tradition and were dated between the 12th and 10th cent. b.c.e. The terracotta stepped houses with rectangular openings in the sides can be reconstructed with two stepped floors to ca. 50 cm in h (IPIAO 4:fig. 1210). The rounded top suggests a bowl for offerings or incense. The better preserved stand shows a nude human figure in a doorframe holding birds. A serpent heads towards the upper level. The scene has been interpreted as a female goddess with a dove whereas the snake would represent an underworld aspect of fertility. The second stand repeats the snake appliqué on the lower level but there are two other standing persons touching each other’s heads, standing in a doorframe with birds(?) on the second level. The head and a leg of a lion are preserved on the side. Above these groups of probable goddesses, the lower part of a naked, seated woman is visible. Another cylindrical cultic stand from Beth-Shean shows birds sitting on two hoop handles and within triangular windows while four serpents crawl upwards (→ fig. Cultic Equipment #1:2, col. 207). At et-Tell, a large round, single fenestrated stand with a decoration near its base of protuberant five-toed feet was found together with other objects in a cult room of the Iron Age I  period. The stand was originally placed on a small bench in the western part of the room surrounded by another remarkable vessel and domestic pottery. Cultic activities including libations were reconstructed (Zevit 2001:​153–156, fig. 3:16). The “dancers’ stand” from Tell Qasile is an unusual cult stand of the 11th cent. b.c.e. (Mazar 1985:​28, fig. 9; 2003:​126–132). It was found together with rich cl. eq. in temple 131, Stratum X, broken in pcs. on the plastered step leading to the raised platform. The 44 cm high stand is painted with horizontal reddish stripes and depicts four human figures facing left with hands stretched out to their sides, probably representing a line or circle of dancers. The lower part is perforated by rectangular fenestrations. A comparable 35 cm high terracotta stand on top of which a large carinated bowl was set, is known from Ashdod Stratum  X of the late 11thearly 10th cent. b.c.e. (M. Dothan 1970:​310– 311; Braun 2002:​166–175; Mazar 2003:​130; IPIAO 4:fig. 1232). Five figures of musicians stand in rectangular openings that were cut in the pedestal. They play the double pipes, lyre, cymbals, and drum. The upper part of the stand shows a procession of three crudely shaped animals, partly incised and partly worked in relief. The poorly preserved red and black paint is characteristic of Philist. ceramics. Ceremonies in combination with music and dance are well attested in Ancient Near

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

215 

Eastern iconography (IPIAO 4:figs. 1228–1235) and the HB (e. g., 1 Sam 10:5; 1 Chr 15:29). Near a mudbrick platform in Area E of Tel Rehov an Iron Age II (10th/early 9th cent.) terracotta stand was found, decorated with triangular windows and a hollow cut in its flat top (Mazar/​ Panitz-Cohen 2007). Apart from 14 terracotta stands, excavations unearthed a four-horned terracotta cult stand in building H (Stratum V, 10th cent.) showing two “naked goddesses” in relief beside two doors and an incised tree. Form and decoration resemble the Late Bronze tower stands from the Syr. Euphrates region. In Yavneh, a large hoard of cult objects was discovered in 2001 on the “Temple Hill” (Kletter/​ Ziffer/​Zwickel 2006; 2007; 2010; 2015; Zif­ fer/​Kletter 2007). Thousands of objects, including 120 cult stands (IPIAO 4:figs. 1202–1205, 1301, 1321), bowls, chalices (footed bowls), and other vessels, were found together, sealed in a repository pit or favissa. The cl. eq., probably representing the ex-votos of a still unknown Philist. temple in Yavneh, date approximately to the 9th or early 8th cent. With a height of ca. 14–22 cm, the published Yavneh stands are generally smaller than the earlier specimens from Syro-Palestine. So far, no traces of soot are visible on the surface of the stands. The incense could have been burnt in small receptacles placed on the top – thousands of them were deposited within the pit. The excavators further suggested that the roof openings could have held branches or stalks of grain. The remarkable architectural terracotta cult stands in various forms symbolize temple and shrine façades, with a central entrance and pairs of symmetrically positioned female pillar figures, similar to the early Iron Age shrine models and a 10th cent. cult stand from Megiddo. Modeled freestanding female figurines or figures applied to the corners of the stands – sometimes standing on animals (lion, bull) – are interpreted as divine statues (→ idol), similar to the Southern Levantine shrine models. Beside human figurines (caryatid figures, musicians), lions, bulls, cow-sucking calves, caprids, sphinxes, trees, rosettes, and winged disks belong to the decorative repertoire of these exceptional Yavneh stands. A  unique terracotta fourhorned altar for burning incense, with a height of 24 cm parallels several stone examples from Palestine. From the open-air Edomite sanctuary at Horvat Qitmit dating to the end of Iron Age II (600 b.c.e.), more than 85 clay objects and a large quantity of unusual cl. eq. is known (Beit-Arieh 1995; Zevit 2001:​142–148, fig. 3:10). The artifacts come from the southern enclosure of Complex A  and were found in connection with a square platform or

216

altar. About 25 cylindrical stands show human and animal features. Human-shaped cult stands from the sanctuary of ʿEin Hazeva in the Arabah (late 7th cent. b.c.e.) combine the statue of a worshipper with a cultic vessel (Cohen/​Yisrael 1995; Beck 1996:​102–114; Ben-Arieh 2011), as do ceramic statues from the shrine at WT-13 in central Jordan (Daviau 2001; 2017). 4.1.4.  Model shrines. A  larger group of cl.  eq. is presented by rectangular or rounded terracotta containers probably originally accommodating valuable metal statues of gods in anthropom. or zoomorphic form. The architectural decoration in its more elaborate design refers symbolically to sacral buildings (shrine, naos, temple). In several cases, the front opening of the container could have been closed by a door. Container-like model shrines are best known from Syro-Palestine, Cyprus, and Crete (Bretschneider 1991a; 1991b; GGIG:§ 100; de Miroschedji 2001; Muller 2002; Fassbeck/​Münger/​Röhl et al.: 2003; Maeir/​Dayagi-Mendels 2008; Kletter 2015). From the MBA (first half of 2nd mill.), a 25 cm high shrine model containing a 10.4 cm high silver-plated bronze statuette of a calf is known from Ashkelon (Stager 1991:​50–52; IPIAO 2:fig. 472). In the W Sem. pantheon, bull and calf can be attributed to the storm and weather god Baal-Hadad. An MBA terracotta model shrine or granary is known from a domestic context at Hauran/​Jordan (Eames 2003). A group of four models was unearthed near the altar in the LBA temple area of Kamid el-Loz and interpreted as an ex-voto (Miron 1982:​17–30, pls. 1–3; Metzger 1993:​ pls. 72–75). Free standing columns such as Jachin and Boaz (1 Kgs 7:15, 21, 41–42; 2 Chr 3:15– 17; 4:12–13) were reconstructed in front of the sanctuary. Similar, but empty beehive-shaped terracotta models and pottery containers from the LBA and early Iron Age are known from Hazor (14th–13th cent.), Dan (12th cent.), Kinneret (Iron Age I), Tell Deir ʿAlla (beginning of the 12th cent.), Ugarit (14th cent.), and Tell Munbaqat (13th cent.). Only the container from Hazor and the four specimens from Deir ʿAlla were unearthed in the context of sanctuaries. A  Cretan model from Archanes (12th–11th cent. b.c.e.) shows a female goddess with upraised arms inside a “sanctuary” watched by two men (Bretschneider 1991a:​ fig. 68). The rounded type of shrine models from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages is followed by more rectangular models in the Iron Age. The shrine-models from Tell el-Farah (N) and other Southern Levantine locations dating to Iron Age II (10th–9th cent.) refer in their frontal view to Canaan.-Phoen. temple façades with pilasters and

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

217

218

freestanding columns flanking the portal (IPIAO 4:figs. 1196, 1206, 1212). Within the niche of the shrine, which is understood as the inner sanctum (cubiculum), the statue of the deity can be reconstructed. Mold-made figurines of naked women on the door- or window frame probably represent the goddess Asherah (IPIAO 4:figs. 1191–1193). As a substitute for stylized palmette columns, the goddess appears in the form of a caryatid in the portico of several temple models from Yavneh and Transjordan (Kletter 2015). A simpler version of a shrine model is represented by rectangular terracotta plaques (IPIAO 4:figs. 1189–1190), such as the one from a temple at Tell Qasile (Stratum X, Iron Age IB, late 11th cent.) or the Gaza region, depicting single or twin(?) female goddesses in Eg.-naos like shrines. This type of building is known from LBA Kamid el-Loz. 4.1.5.  Kernoi: In Amiran’s (1970:​302–306) third group (C), a Late Bronze Aegean type of cult/ offering vessel in the form of a hollow ring with miniature vessels, pomegranate, animal heads, and birds perched on top are assembled (→ fig. Cultic Equipment #1:4, col. 207). Such kernos-like vessels appear in the EBA in the Eastern Medit. and surrounding regions (Buchholz 1999:​410–414; Bignasca 2000; Minunno 2016). Antecedents in the form of loop-shaped libation jugs exist already in the middle of the 4th mill. in Syria. The example from Tell Qannas with a diameter of 33 cm was excavated in the rel.-administrative center (Strommenger 1985:​112, cat. no. 33). LBA kernoi are attested in the Upper Euphrates region (Einwang/​Otto 1996:​41–43). Two kernoi with ram spouts were found near the house altar of house 5 in Tall Bazi (Otto 2006:​100, fig. 45a) and further examples are known from LBA temple contexts in Emar (Caubet 1982:​74) and Tell Biʿa. Three LBA Nuzi ware kernoi rings with animal head spouts and goblets were found in the Mitanni palace at Tell Brak (Oates/​Oates/​McDonald 1997:​218, fig. 209) and further examples are attested at Qatna, Alalakh (Levels V, VI), and Ugarit (Ugarit Recent 3). The LBA–early Iron Age kernoi of Palestine were associated with the material culture of the Sea Peoples and the Philistines (T. Dothan 1982:​222–225). Late Bronze kernoi are known from Hazor (Yadin et al. 1960:​155, pls. 146:16– 18, 193:16–18) and Beth-Shean (Rowe 1940:​ 36 ff, 56: pls. 19–20). The latter have close parallels with the Tall Bazi kernoi. The Palest. kernoi often show miniature vessels, pomegranates, ram and bull heads, and birds perched on the hollow ring (IPIAO 4:fig. 1299; → fig. Cultic Equipment #1:4, col. 207). Further Iron Age I–II examples are known from Megiddo (Reichert 1977),

Ashdod, Gezer, Tell Qasile, Tel Aphek, Tel Nami, Akko, and Tell Deir ʿAlla (Reichert 1977:​191– 192, fig. 45:5; Buchholz 1999:​412, note 1554). 4.1.6.  Zoomorphic vessels in terracotta, stone, or metal prevalent throughout the ANE and the Aegean from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, were frequently used in feasting and libation-rituals, and can be considered as cl. eq. (IPIAO 3:figs. 951, 1300, 1335; Koehl 2013; 2018). 4.2.  Metal: Bronze tripods and related stands which served to support metal bowls and plates are attested in Nimrud, Alalakh, Ugarit, Beth-Shean, and Megiddo (IPIAO 4:fig. 1234) during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages (Catling 1964; Reichert 1977:​193–194,figs. 45:9–10;Müller-Karpe1980:​ pl. 190; Matthäus 1985; Buchholz 1999:​504– 510; → fig. Cultic Equipment #3:1–2, col. 219). A similar function can be attributed to the Cypriot foursided metal stands, some of which were wheeled, which served as supports for metal vessels in cult rituals (IPIAO 4:figs. 1199, 1228, 1292, 1352). The example from Megiddo (IPIAO 4:fig. 1353) shows a worshipper before an enthroned god or king (Reichert 1977:​194, fig. 45:11; Matthäus 1985:​315, pl. 135:3; Papasavvas 2004; → fig. Cultic Equipment #3:3, col. 219). The Cypriot metal stands help with the reconstruction of the Solomonic “Wheeled Laver,” which was produced by Tyrian smiths (1 Kgs 7:23–40). Wheeled architectural braziers from the early 1st mill. b.c.e. are known from the bit hilani of Tell Halaf and at Fort Shalmaneser (Ziffer/​Kletter 2007:​16). A  rare group of cl.  eq. from Northern Syria or Southern Anatolia is represented by small cubic-shaped bronze socles, resting on four cow hoofs with sphinx- and lion-decoration on the sides. They have been attributed to Aram.–NeoHitt. art and dated to around the 8th cent. b.c.e. (Krebernik/​Seidl 1997). The 21 cm high example from Miletos represents an oriental import in the archaic Athena sanctuary and shows a figurine of a human figure representing a god with upraised arms on the pedestal (Braun-Holzinger/​ Rehm 2005:​87, pl. 18). A  very similar example in the Leiden Museum shows a pair of gods (Akkermans 1991:​56–58; no. 21), whereas others show emblems of gods (bucrania, seven pointed stars, crescent → moons, snakes, etc.). The portable character of these rare objects is suggested by the four-armed handles. Close typological links with the earlier terracotta stands of Taanach and Megiddo can be postulated, which could have had valuable parallels in metal. 4.3.  Stone: Apart from stone and mudbrick altars attested in the temple → courtyards of Shechem, Hazor (LBA), Tel Arad (10th–9th cent.), and Tell es-Sebaʿ (9th cent.), transportable small

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

219 

0

0

3

6 cm

2

220

4

8 cm

1

0 1 2 3 cm

3

Figure Cultic Equipment #3: 1) Bronze tripod from Beth-Shean (Iron Age I); 2) Bronze tripod with pomegranate pendants from Ugarit (LBA); 3) Four-sided bronze stand from Megiddo (LB II/​Iron Age I).

(lime)stone altars are known from Palestine and neighboring regions throughout the Iron Age in temple, industrial, and dwelling contexts (Zwickel 1990; 1994; Gitin 2002; Daviau 2007). The four-horned incense altars from Tel Miqne/​Ekron (→ fig. Altar #1, col. 23) and Megiddo (Iron Age II) find their ceramic parallels in Tel Rehov and Yavneh and are typologically related to the Syr. LBA tower stands (Gitin 2002:​98–99; Zwickel 2010). The painted stone altar from the Moabite sanc­ tuary at Khirbet al-Mudayna was used for libations (Daviau/​Steiner 2000:​8–14) (→ fig. Altar #2:1, col.). Small, almost square limestone containers with incised geometric or figural decorations from Palestine, Transjordan, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, and Arabia dating to the 7th–1st cent. b.c.e., were

probably used for burning valuable substances (Reichert 1977:​193, fig. 45:8) (→ fig. Cultic Equipment #2:3, col. 210). Simple or richly decorated (lions, palmette, birds) small bowls in stone, terracotta, or ivory for libation are found in Northern Syria (Tell Halaf, Zincirli, Catal-Höyük, Tell Tayinat, Amuq-region) and bordering regions (Assyria: Assur, Nimrud). For Palestine, cl.  eq. is reported for Megiddo, Hazor, Tell Beit Mirsim, Ekron, Tel Zeror, BethShemesh, ʿEin Gev, etc. (Galling, 1978; Reichert 1977:​192, fig. 45:7; Muscarella 1981:​ 289, figs. 233–235; → fig. Cultic Equipment #2:2, col. 210). The exact function of these types of cl. eq. dated to the 9th and 8th cent. b.c.e. is not clear, probably water and oil were involved. The

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

221

222

Hurr. ‘libation-arms’ of the 2nd mill. with several examples from Anatolia and Syria seem to have a different function (Kepinski 1987–1990). A golden hand from the Royal Tomb in Qatna (15th– 14th cent. b.c.e.) was interpreted as libation arm, as were similar items in stone, faience, and clay from Alalakh, Ugarit, and Bogazköy, allowing the offerings within to be presented without direct human contact (Pfälzner 2008:​224). 5.  Temple furniture from Palestine is known from favissae and temple contexts. Its function is centered around the rites of sacrifices on altars and tables, offering incense and libations. 6.  Temple furniture and cl. eq. (Zwickel 1994:​ 360–365) are mentioned in the bibl. sources (Ex 25:​ 1–40:33; 1 Kgs 7:23–26//2 Chr 4:2–5; 1 Kgs 16:​ 17–18) including the altars in the Temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:10–16; 1 Kgs 6:20–21; 7:48; 8:22).

86  ♦ Cohen, R./​Yisrael, Y., 1995, On the Road to Edom: Discoveries from ʿEn Hazeva, Jerusalem  ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2001, New Light on Iron Age Religious Iconography: The Evidence from Moab, in: SHAJ 7, Amman:​317–326 ♦ 2007, Altars Large and Small: The Iron Age Altars from Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan), in: S. Bickel et al. (eds.), Bilder als Quellen  – Images as Sources (FS Othmar Keel), OBO Special Vol., Fribourg/​ Göttingen:​125–149 ♦ 2017, A Wayside Shrine in Northern Moab, Wadi ath-Thamad Project 1, Oxford  ♦ Daviau, P. M. M./​Steiner, M., 2000, A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna, BASOR 320:1–21 ♦ Delougaz, P., 1952, Pottery from the Diyala Region, OIP 63, Chicago ♦ Dothan, M., 1970, The Musicians of Ashdod, Archaeology 23:310–311 ♦ Dothan, T., 1982, The Philistines and their Material Culture, New Haven ♦ Eames, S., 2003, A Middle Bronze Age Model Shrine or Granary from the Ḥauran: Evidence for Cult Practice in Eastern Jordan, Mediterranean Archaeology 16:57–63 ♦ Eidem, J., 2011, The Towers of Shemshara, in: G. Barjamovic et al. (eds.), Akkade Is King, PIHANS 118, Leiden:​79– 91  ♦ Einwang, B./​Otto, A., 1996, Tall Bazi  – Vorbericht über die Untersuchungen 1994 und 1995, Damaszener Mitteilungen 9:15–45  ♦ Emberling, G./​ McDonald, H., 2003, Excavations at Tell Brak 2001– 2002, Preliminary Report, Iraq 65:1–75 ♦ Fassbeck, G./​ Münger, S./​Röhl, S., 2003, Gotteshaus und Hausgott: Ausgewählte Hinweise auf möglichen Hauskult im antiken Kinneret, in: G. Fassbeck et al. (eds.), Leben am See Gennesaret, Mainz:​47–51  ♦ Gitin, S., 2002, The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective, in: B. M. Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place, Winona Lake:​95–123 ♦ Hestrin, R., 1987, The Cult Stand from Taʿanach and its Religious Background, in: E. Lipiński (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B. C., Studia Phoenicia 5, Leuven:​61–77 ♦ Hübner, U., 2001, Kultgeräte in Palästina, 4RGG 4:1816–1817 ♦ Ji, C.‑H., 2012, The Early Iron Age II Temple at Ḫirbat ʿAtarus and its Architecture and Selected Cultic Objects, in: J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult, ADPV 41, Wiesbaden:​203– 221 ♦ Jursa, M., 2007, Räucherung, Rauchopfer, RlA 11:225–228 ♦ Kepinski, C., 1987–1990, Libationsarm, RlA 7:12–14 ♦ Kletter, R., 2015, A Clay Shrine Model, in: R. Kletter/​I. Ziffer/​W. Zwickel (eds.), Yavneh 2, OBO.SA 36, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​28–84 ♦ Kletter, R./​ Ziffer, I./​Zwickel, W., 2006, Cult Stands of the Philistines: A Genizah from Yavneh, Near Eastern Archaeology 69:146–160 ♦ 2007, From the Fields of Philistia: Ritual Stands from a Cultic Repository Pit at Yavneh, Qadmoniot 134:89–95  ♦ Kletter, R./​Ziffer, I./​Zwi­ ckel, W. (eds.), 2010, Yavneh, vol. 1: The Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands, OBO.SA 30, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2015, Yavneh, vol. 2: The ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit: Fire Pans, Kernos, Naos, Painted Stands, ‘Plain’ Pottery, Cypriot Pottery, Inscribed Bowl, Dog Bones, Stone Fragments, and Other Studies, OBO.SA 36, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Koehl, R. B., 2013, Bibru and Rhyton: Zoomorphic Vessels in the Near East and Aegean, in: J. Aruz/​S. B. Graff/​Y. Racik (eds.), The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia, New York:​238–247 ♦ 2018, Chap. 1: From the Near East to the Aegean, from Neolithic Times to the End of the Bronze Age, in: S. Ebbinghaus (ed.), Animal-shaped Vessels from the Ancient World, Cambridge, Mass.:45– 84 ♦ Krafeld-Daugherty, M., 1994, Wohnen im Alten

7.  Akkermans, P., 1991, Archeologie van het Nabije Oosten: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden Leiden, Amsterdam  ♦ Albertz, R./​Schmitt, R., 2012, Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, Winona Lake ♦ Amiran, R., 1970, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem  ♦ Andrae, W., 1922, Die archaischen Ischtar-Tempel in Assur, WVDOG 39, Leipzig ♦ Badre, L./​Gubel, E., 1999–2000, Tell Kazel-Syria: Excavations of the AUB Museum 1993–1998, Third Preliminary Report, Berytus 44:123–203 ♦ Beck, P., 1996, Horvat Qitmit Revisited via ʿEn Hazeva, TA 23:102– 114 ♦ Beit-Arieh, I., 1995, Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv ♦ Ben-Arieh, S., 2011, Temple Furniture from a Favissa at ʿEn Hazeva, ʿAtiqot 68:107–175 ♦ Bignasca, A., 2000, I kernoi circolari in Oriente e in Occidente: Strumenti di culto e immagini cosmiche, OBO.SA 19, Fribourg/​Göttingen  ♦ Bourke, S., 2012, The Six Canaanite Temples of Tabaqāt Faḥl, in: J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult, ADPV 41, Wiesbaden:​159–201 ♦ Braun, J., 2002, Music in Ancient Israel/​Palestine, Grand Rapids  ♦ Braun-Holzinger, E. A./​Rehm, E., 2005, Orientalischer Import in Griechenland im frühen 1.  Jahrtausend v. Chr., AOAT 328, Münster  ♦ Bretschneider, J., 1991a, Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jahrtausend, AOAT 229, Neukirchen-Vluyn  ♦ 1991b, Götter in Schreinen: Eine Untersuchung zu den syrischen und levantinischen Tempelmodellen, ihrer Bauplastik und ihren Götterbildern, UF 23:14–32 ♦ Bretschneider, J./​Cunningham, C., 2007, An Elite Akkadian Grave on the Acropolis at Tell Beydar, in: M. Lebeau/​A. Suleiman (eds.), Tell Beydar, Subartu 15:99–158, Turnhout ♦ van den Brink, E. C. M./​Segal, O./​Ad, U., 2012, A  Late Bronze II Repository of Cultic Paraphernalia from the Environs of Tēl Qašīš in the Jezreel Valley, in: J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult, ADPV 41, Wiesbaden:​421–434 ♦ Buchholz, H.‑G., 1999, Ugarit, Zypern und die Ägäis: Kulturbeziehungen im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Chr., AOAT 261, Münster  ♦ Catling, H. W., 1964, Cypriote Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, Oxford ♦ Caubet, A., 1982, La céramique, in: D. Beyer (ed.), Meskéné-Emar: Dix ans de traveaux 1972–1982. À l’occasion d’ une exposition, Paris:​71–

Cultic Equipment (cl. eq.)

223 

Orient, AVO 3, Münster  ♦ Krebernik, M./​Seidl, U., 1997, Ein Schildbeschlag mit Bukranion und alphabetischer Inschrift, ZA 87:101–111 ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago ♦ Maeir, A. M./​Dayagi-Mendels, M., 2008, An Elaborately Decorated Clay Model Shrine from the Moussaeiff Collection, in: S. Bickel et al. (eds.), Bilder als Quellen – Images as Sources (FS Othmar Keel), OBO Special Vol., Fribourg/​Göttingen:​ 111–123 ♦ Margueron, J.‑C., 1976, “Marquettes” architecturales de Meskéné-Emar, Syria 53:193–232  ♦ Matthäus, H., 1985, Metallgefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern, Prähistorische Bronzefunde II.8, Munich ♦ May, H. G., 1935, Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult, OIP 26, Chicago ♦ Mazar, A., 1980, Excavations at Tell Qasile 1, Qedem 12, Jerusalem ♦ 1985, Pottery Plaques Depicting Goddesses Standing in Temple Facades, Michmanim 2:5–18 ♦ 2003, Ritual Dancing in the Iron Age, Near Eastern Archaeology 66:126–132 ♦ Mazar, A./​Panitz-Cohen, N., 2007, A Few Artistic and Ritual Artefacts from the Iron Age at Tel Rehov, Qadmoniot 134:96–102 ♦ Metzger, M., 1993, Kamid el-Loz 8, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 40, Bonn ♦ Minunno, G., 2016, Iron Age I  Kernoi from Tell Afis, Levant 48:52–62 ♦ Miron, R., 1982, Die Kleinfunde aus dem Bereich des spätbronzezeitlichen Heiligtums, in: R. Hachmann (ed.), Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32, Bonn:​31–36  ♦ de Miroschedji, P., 2001, Les “marquettes architecturales” palestiniennes, in: B. Muller (ed.), “Marquettes architecturales” de l’Antiquité, Paris:​ 43–85 ♦ Moortgat-Correns, U., 2001, Tell Chuera im Rückblick (1958–1985), AoF 28:353–388 ♦ Muller, B., 2002, Les marquettes architecturales du Proche-Orient Ancien: Mésopotamie, Syrie, Palestine du IIIe au milieu du Ier millénaire av. J.‑C., BAH 160, Beirut ♦ MüllerKarpe, H., 1980, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte IV.3, Munich ♦ Muscarella, O. W., 1981, Steinerne Libationsgefäße, in: Länder der Bibel: Archäologische Funde aus dem Vorderen Orient, Mainz: 287–289  ♦ Oates, J., 1974, Late Assyrian Temple Furniture from Tell Al Rimah, Iraq 36:179–184 ♦ 2001, The Third-millennium Pottery, in: D. Oates/​J. Oates/​H. McDonald (eds.), Excavations at Tell Brak 2, Cambridge, U. K.:151–194, 397–559 ♦ Oates, D./​Oates, J./​McDonald, H., 1997, Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 1: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Otto, A., 2002, Ein Wettergott auf dem Stier: Rekonstruktion eines spätbronzezeitlichen Kultgefäßes, Damaszener Mitteilungen 13:53–64 ♦ 2006, Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tall Bazi (Syrien), Subartu 19, Turnhout  ♦ Papasavvas, G., 2004, Cypriot Bronze Stands and their Mediterranean Perspective, Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 14:31–59  ♦ Pfälzner, P., 2001, Haus und Haushalt: Wohnformen des dritten Jahrtausends vor Christus in Nordmesopotamien, Damaszener Forschungen 9, Mainz ♦ 2008, Golden Hand, in: J. Aruz/​K. Benzel/​J. M. Evans (eds.), Beyond Babylon, New Haven:​223–224 ♦ Reichert, A., 1977, Kultgeräte, 2BRL:189–194 ♦ Stager, L., 1991, Un veau d’argent découvert à Ashqelon, MoBi 70:50–52 ♦ Rowe, A., 1940, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, Part 1: The Temples and Cult Objects, PPSP 2, Philadelphia ♦ Seidl, U., 2003–2005, Opfer: In der Bildkunst. Mesopotamien, RlA 10:102–106 ♦ Stager, L. E., 1991, Ashke-

224 lon Discovered: From Canaanites and Philistines to Romans and Moslems, Washington, D. C. ♦ Strassburger, N., 2018, Heilige Abfallgruben: Favissae und Kultdeposite in Israel/​Palästina von der Spätbronzezeit bis zur Perserzeit, ÄAT 92, Münster ♦ Strommenger, E., 1985, Habuba Kabira South/​Tell Qannas and Jabel Aruda, in: H. Weiss (ed.), Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria, Washington, D. C.:83–89, 105–120  ♦ van der Toorn, K., 1996, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel, SHANE 7, Leiden ♦ Werner, P., 1998, Tall Munbaqa – Bronzezeit in Syrien: Katalog zur Wanderausstellung, Neumünster ♦ Yadin, Y., et al.,1960, Hazor II, Jerusalem ♦ Yon, M., 2006, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, Singapore ♦ Zevit, Z., 2001, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches, London/​New York ♦ Ziffer, I./​Kletter, R., 2007, In the Field of the Philistines: Cult Furnishing from the Favissa of a Yavneh Temple, Tel Aviv ♦ Zimmerle, W.G., 2014, “Aromatics of All Kinds": Cuboid Incense Burners in the Ancient Middle East from the Late Third to the Late First Millennia B.C., Ph.D. Diss., University of Pennsylvania ♦ Zwickel, W., 1990, Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte, OBO 97, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 1994, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel, FAT 10, Tübingen ♦ 2010, Clay and Stone Altars and a Piece of Mortar, in: I. Ziffer/​R. Kletter/​W. Zwickel (eds.), Yavneh 1, OBO.SA 30, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​105–109. Joachim Bretschneider

Dairy Products (d. ps.) and Milk (m.) 1.  D.  ps. are foods (→ nutrition) consisting mainly of milk. They can be differentiated according to the origin of the m. (goat, sheep, cattle, donkey, or camel) as well as according to processing, be it through fermentation (souring through addition of animal or herbal rennet) and/or through extraction of several of their components by skimming, whey separation, or dehydration. Evidence of a dairying economy is preserved in the faunal remains which reveal slaughter patterns and the presence of m. producing animals (Privat et al. 2005:​60). Concretely, male animals and a few females are slaughtered young and only a few female animals, necessary for breeding and supplying m. to young animals and humans, grow old. Grigson (1995:​257) showed this was the case for small domestic animals in the Northern Negev where the primary m. suppliers were cattle, although the rarity of their bones in the arch. record makes quantitative statements impossible. Today it is chemically possible to detect dairy residue on pottery, however the analysis of solid carbon and nitrogen isotopes (e. g., δ 13C) from human remains cannot detect with certainty if the proteins come from fresh-water creatures, from m., or their derivatives (Privat et al. 2005, unlike Evershed et al. 2008). They require contextualization by traditional arch. methods, ethnoarchaeology, art history, and lit. (Stol 1993). In Egypt the production of cheese has been documented since the earliest dynasties (Zaky/​Zaky

225

1942). In Hell.-Rom. times, new types of production were added. Many of these cheese products are still made today (Abou-Donia 1999; 2008). In Medit. countries with a traditional subsistence strategy, vegetable proteins cover 80–90 % of the demand, m. and fish 5–9 %, and meat and eggs 3–5 % (→ fishing; → animal husbandry; Renner 1974:​81). In traditional Medit. societies, m. and fish proteins are more important than meat and egg proteins, because they can be generated at a lower cost (Renner 1974:​94). For climatic reasons, only part of the m. is drunk by nomadic groups, whereas a good deal of it is processed. In the form of cheese or m. curd, it is easily storable, and easier to digest. Butter and cheese belong to the particularly precious products of cattle-breeding Medit. societies. In a Bab. list (HAR-ra = ḫubullu X, 131–140, 153–162), m. and → beer were listed as the second most important beverages, after water (cf. Dalman 1939:​288). Considering the great economic importance of d. ps., they are underrepresented in literary texts (Otto 2006:​281). 2.  Although goat, sheep and cattle domestication is known to have existed since the 8th mill. b.c.e. in the Levant, it took a long time – depending on the region  – for humans to discover the benefit of m. for themselves and for their bodies to develop enzymes capable of digesting animal lactose. The first evidence of m. extraction (approximately 6,500 b.c.e.) comes from NW Anatolia and SE Europe. Various indications suggest that the evidence originates from processed m. (Evershed et. al. 2008). Textually and iconographically, the Sum. culture documents early dairy scenes and a wide range of d. ps. (Jacobsen 1983:​fig. 2). Since the so-called secondary-product revolution (Sherrat 1983) in the 4th mill. b.c.e., the primary food, meat, is no longer eaten in the Levant, but instead the secondary product, m. of sheep, goats, and cattle takes its place. However, some researchers believe that d.  ps. were already part of the diet of the complex hunter and gatherer societies of the PPNB. For them they are rather “ante mortem (life time) products” than secondary products (Vigne/​Helmer 2007). Dairy farming becomes a typical characteristic of the Southern Levant. The female figurine from the Beer-Sheba culture with the butter churn on her head (→ fig. Dairy Products #1) and the spread of the ceramic churn demonstrate this for the Chalc. (Kaplan 1954; 1963; Amiran 1969:​33–34), as does the Eg. voyager Sinuhe (around 1950 b.c.e.) for the MBA, who discovers that – apparently unlike in Egypt – there is m. in every cooked food. The bovine-shaped vessels, attested since the EBA (IPIAO 1:fig. 167; 2:fig. 473; Staubli 2009b:​​ 153) may have been used for m. offerings. In local

Dairy Products (d. ps.) and Milk (m.)

226

0

2

4

6

8

10 cm

Figure Dairy Products #1: Ceramic statuette of a seated female figure carrying a butter churn on her head, Gilat (Chalc.).

Muslim folk culture, until recently, the first spring m., mixed with groats, was deposited at a holy grave (Arab. qrenije) or was offered for free as a sweet dish at the → village square (Arab. heṭalije). Based on recent chemical analysis, it is now clear that the so-called white slipped m. bowls exported from Cyprus to the Levant (Amiran 1969:​pl. 53) were used for various foods and they were named for their → color, not their function (Beck et al. 2004). “A land flowing with milk and honey” refers to Israel in the dtr. tradition (Ex 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; 14:8; Dt 6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20; Josh 5:6; Jer 11:5;

Dairy Products (d. ps.) and Milk (m.)

227 

32:22; Ez 20:6, 15). The combination of m. and honey can also be often found in Hitt. texts (KUB 15,34iii26–27; 15,31iii43; 17,23i9,35; VBoT 24iii19; KUB 29,1iv5–6). It is much more surprising that there is no reference in the HB to m. as a sacrificial substance (unless šæmæn means “ghee” in Lev 2), while it is present as such in Mesopotamia (Stol 1993–1997 passim), among the Egyptians (Guglielmi 1982a; Cauville 2012:​52– 55), Hittites (Hoffner 1993–1997:​202), and the Greeks. (Garnsey 1999). In Num 16:13–14 some of the Levites deny the Dtr. understanding of the Promised Land, calling it a propaganda lie and associating it with Egypt instead. A  figure  like the herdsman Dumuzi, carrying the entire range of known d.  ps. (Dumuzi’s Wedding I, 27–30; Jacobsen 1987:​20–21), is still missing in Levantine mythology. 3.  One requirement for m. production is suitable grazing land for the animals. Each habitable place therefore had its pasture grounds, where it was possible for the herdsmen, who depended on the village (cf. 1 Sam 25:7), to move around with their mobile household (Akkad. nawum; Hebr. nawæh) (Staubli 1991:​205–207, 218–220). In the Near East, m. is obtained by milking (Sum. gíd, Akkad. šadadum; W Sem. ḫalapu) goats, sheep, cows, donkeys, and camels. Usually a stroking of the udder precedes the actual milking (Sum. agan, Akkad. ṣirtu). In many places the m. was then sifted through a small sieve (Arab. muṣfaje). 3.1.  Goat’s m. is considered inferior to sheep’s m. and is only taken from healthy animals. If they are milked from behind, they are tied down by their → horns. In Ur it was expected of goats that they give 1/3 l of butter and 1/2 l of cheese per season. However, in summer, a goat is preferred over a sheep, for the continuity of its m. (alHroub 2015:​101). 3.2.  Sheep’s m. is considered the best m., because it is more easily digestible than cow’s m. While milking, the herder squeezes the head against the fat tail. The head of the animal is tucked into a sling. The young animals are weaned beginning on the 40th day. Either they are tied up or the mother’s udder is covered. Depending on the rain, it is milked twice a day from December/​ January until May/​June, then once a day, after July every second and from August onward every third day. Pregnant animals will no longer be milked. The annual return is about 50–60 l (Dalman 1939:​291, 293). 3.3.  During the milking of cattle their faces are observed, and in Eg. reliefs they appear to be crying (→ fig. Dairy Products #2:2). According to the Arab saying: “Look at the cow’s face before you start milking,” in order to diminish the

228

guilt of taking m. away from the calf and to stimulate the udder, one sings in an apotropaic way: “good luck to the pale (cow), giving a quarter liter of milk! Don’t be angry, don’t be angry and the house shall be filled by you.” In Egypt as well as in Mesopotamia, the cow’s forelegs were tied together during milking and the calf was tied to the mother. The milker squats behind or next to the cow (→ fig. Dairy Products #2:1–2; cf. Keel 1980:​ fig. 6). The annual m. production of a traditional Arab cow was about 600 l. That corresponds approximately to the expectations of 5–15 l of butter and 7.5–27.0 l of cheese from a cow in Sum. and Akkad. texts (Stol 1993–1997:​194). The foremilk (colostrum; Ug. šḫp; Arab. inter alia labaʾa; Löw 1908), that is, the fatty m. of the cow in the first two postnatal days after giving birth is used as a delicacy for pastries or cheese (Dalman 1939:​ 292–293). Because of her capacity for giving m., the lactating cow became a symbol of blessing in Egypt (Guglielmi 1982b), from there it spread to the Levant. 3.4.  Donkeys give relatively little m., which was mainly used for medical and cosmetic purposes. 3.5.  In Bedouin societies the female camels are milked either after the young animal has stimulated the udder, or the udder is petted by the humming herdsman with the young animal placed next to the female camel, who gives 1–7 l of m. per day depending on the grazing land. The camel’s m. contains vitamin C and is drunk either fresh or sour. In several tribes like the Rwala, camel’s m. was the most important food (Dalman 1939:​289), since it stays fresh longer than cow’s m. Cheese and butter production takes longer than with other types of m. It is difficult to prove the milking of camels in antiquity because of the relatively scarce camel-bone finds due to low population density and high life expectancy of these animals. One would have to demonstrate the existence of herds with a predominantly female population (Horwitz/​Rosen 2005). 4.  In the lit. different terms are used for the same product. Raw m. was mostly processed, because curdled m. is easier to digest and can be preserved longer. D. ps. can be produced with little equipment. If any is used, it normally consists of perishable materials (hides, → fabric and textiles, wooden dishes). So they are rarely archaeologically detectable. A variety of m. derivatives is ethno-archaeologically demonstrated in the Levant and likely for the bibl. period (AubaileSallenave 2000; Curtis 2001; Hoffner 1993– 1997; Palmer 2002; Staubli 2009a). 4.1.  M. represents an optimal yield, sometimes in combination with wine (Cant 5:1; Isa 55:1)

229

230

Dairy Products (d. ps.) and Milk (m.)

1

2 Figure Dairy Products #2: Mesopotamian and Egyptian scenes, milking cows and making dairy products: 1) Inlay frieze with limestone figures from the Ninhursag temple at Tell el-Ubaid (Early Dynastic period); 2) Detail of a relief on the sarcophagus of Queen Kawit (11th Dyn.).

or honey (Cant 4:11), which is offered to guests (Gen 18:8). Depending on the context, the Hebr. hwr means also the white and protein-rich fat or the highest quality of anything else, for instance, wheat (Dt 32:14; cf. Gen 45:18), or can be used as in 1 Sam 23:29 for a proper name. Perhaps Abel immolated m. and not fat (Gen 4:4). M. is either drunk directly from the udder or is milked into a rock hollow (lamb’s wool is then dipped into the rock hollow from which the m. is then sucked), or it is kept in a vessel or a skin. The vessel can be a clay jug (Arab. qedaḥ, kuz, or zilfe), a wooden bowl (Arab. šakwe, šakir) or a → leather skin (Hebr. nʾod; Judg 4:19). 4.2.  Skimming jugs with an extended seam can be documented for Sumer. Extra fatty butter

and cheese can be produced from cream (Akkad. šamnum or lišdum; Hebr. lǝšad haš-šæmæn, Num 11:8). 4.3.  The natural process of curdling of raw m. can be accelerated by the addition of soured m. (Arab. rağib) from the previous day and by warming the m. in a pot or keeping it warm in a sheep skin (Arab. meġabbe). The soured m. produced in this way is dehydrated. The remaining sour m. is eaten with bread or mixed in with cereal grits or meat. The yoghurt can be stored in the skin for up to a month, because of the addition of → salt. Sweet m. (Akkad. zizibuma) is created by the addition of sweeteners. Further dehydration leads to a more solid sour m. (Arab. lebenije), and is flavored with herbs and covered with olive → oil, formed into

Dairy Products (d. ps.) and Milk (m.)

231 

dumplings (ğamid), and sun-dried, eaten fresh, covered with olive oil, or softened in water (if eaten later) (cf. 1 Sam 17:18; Prov 27:27), or the paste is mixed with bulgur (Arab. kišk; Hebr. šfot in 2 Sam 17:29). These dried dumplings can also be ground. 4.4.  Sour m. can be processed into butter by rocking it in a huge vessel or shaking it in goat’s skin, in the buttering skin (Arab. saqa, mumḫad). If the skin is small it can be held in the hand, but if it is too large it is hung up on a frame consisting of three staves (Arab. rekkabe; Dalman 1939:​ figs. 51, 54). For chemical reasons, the whole process must take place when it is cool, thus in the morning. In Sumer this work was accompanied by yodelling. The defatted buttermilk (Arab. leben mḫid) left over from butter is either drunk or used as a condiment for several dishes. Another possibility is to heat the m., remove the extra water, and form curd-dumplings from the rest. They are covered with oil for a whole year or mixed with bulgur (Arab. kišk). The dried mixture is used like a → stock cube in the kitchen. 4.5.  If the sour and rancid smelling butter is not eaten fresh, it can be processed into purified nonperishable butter, ghee (Arab. samn; cf. Akkad. šamnum and šæmæn), the most precious of all d. ps. It is done by boiling it with various regional → spices and by cleaning with crushed and ground grain. The cool butter can be further dehydrated (Akkad. maṣum, Hebr. miṣ, Arab. maḫaḍa) by pounding (Arab. qišdah). Prov 30:33 mentions this (Held 1985) and therefore the Hebr. word ḥæmʾah means this kind of butter and not sour m. or cream (cf. the translations in Gen 18:8; Dt 32:14; Judg 5:25; 2 Sam 17:29; Isa 7:15, 22; Job 20:17; 29:6; the discussion of Dalman 1939:​307–311; Caquot 1978). This product is the crème de la crème of rural society, particularly nutritional, non-perishable, refined through work, and so it can be offered to guests anytime. In Mesopotamia, cow’s ghee was 10–15 times as expensive as cow’s cheese, more precious than the best olive oil, and even sesame oil. It was willingly eaten as a delicacy mixed with honey and used during burials, for laying the foundation stone and mouth-opening rituals. Among the Hittites ghee was half the price of fine oil. 4.6.  Raw m. or sour m. can be curdled by the addition of rennet (Arab. ʿaqd; Akkad. eqidum; Hebr. qpʾ ) and sweet cheese (Hebr. gǝbinah, Job 10:10; Arab. ğibna) can be produced from abomasums of a one-day sheep or goat kid or from herbal saps (Ficus carica L. or Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav. or Cynomorium coccineum L.). Huntsmen probably discovered the characteristics of an abomasum earlyon during the disembowelling of the stomach

232

from nursing young animals. The rennet can be preserved dry and crushed by mixing it with salt. In Sumer several kinds of cheese are known, including the rock-hard cheese balls (Sum. ga.àr), which are still produced in the Arab region (Arab. aqiṭ, baql, kišk). They can be stored for years, until they are soaked in water. Cheese was flavored or mixed with grain, wine, dates, and numerous vegetables. The Hittites pressed the cheese and distinguished between young and mature cheese. Fresh cheese can be inserted in brine. 5.–6.  As in other pastoral cultures, the highprotein foods m. and meat were combined in festive meals in the cattle farming societies of the ANE. The custom has been preserved in the typical Levantine festival dish mansaf (literally “large tray”). Bibl. law forbids three times that the kid is boiled in the mother’s m. (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21) out of respect for the sanctity of the mother–child relationship (Keel 1980). In an urban context, however, Judaism deviated from this or from proto-Masor. legal traditions (4QMMT B38; 4Q270; Ex 23:19 [Samaritanus]; Dt 14:21 [LXX manuscripts]; cf. Targumim; Teeter 2009), a mixing tabu for meat and milk (Publicover 2020) with far-reaching consequences to this day (Bleich 1995; 2008). 7.  Abou-Donia, S. A., 1999, Geographical Distribution and Historical Development of Ancient Egyptian Dairy Products, Egyptian Journal of Dairy Science 27:359– 368 ♦ 2008, Origin, History and Manufacturing Process of Egyptian Dairy Products: An Overview, Alexandria Journal of Food Science and Technology 5.1:51–62  ♦ Amiran, R., 1969, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem  ♦ Aubaile-Sallenave, F., 2000, Al-Kishk: The Past and Present of a Complex Culinary Practice, in: R. Tapper/​S. Zubaida/​C. Roden (eds.), A  Taste of Thyme, London/​New York:​105–139  ♦ Beck, C. W., et al., 2004, The Uses of Cypriote White-Slip Ware Inferred from Organic Residue Analysis, Ägypten und Levante/​Egypt and the Levant 14:13–44  ♦ Bleich, J. D., 1995, Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: The Milk Contretemps, Tradition: A  Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 29.2:56–81 ♦ 2008, Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Is the Milk We Drink Kosher?, Tradition: A  Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 41.1:55–70 ♦ Caquot, A., 1978, chālābh, TDOT 4:386–391  ♦ Cauville, S., 2012, Offerings to the Gods in Egyptian Temples, B. Calcoen (Trans.), Leuven ♦ Curtis, R. I., 2001, Ancient Food Technology, Technology and Change in History 5, Leiden/​Boston ♦ Dalman, G., 1939, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina 6, Gütersloh ♦ Evershed, R. P., et al., 2008, Earliest Date for Milk Use in the Near East and Southeastern Europe Linked to Cattle Herding, Nature 455:528–531 ♦ Garnsey, P. D. A., 1999, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Grigson, C., 1995, Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the Southern Levant, in: T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London/​Washington, D. C.:245–268  ♦ Guglielmi, W., 1982a, Milch(wirtschaft), LÄ 4:125–127 ♦

Demon/s (d./ds.)

233

234

1982b, Milchopfer, LÄ 4:127–128. Held, M., 1985, Marginal Notes to the Biblical Lexicon, in: A. Kort/​S. Mor­ schauser (eds.), Biblical & Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, Winona Lake:​93–103  ♦ Hoffner, H. A., 1993–1997, Milch(produkte). B. Bei den Hethitern, RlA 8:200–205 ♦ Horwitz, L. K./​Rosen B., 2005, A Review of Camel Milking in the Southern Levant, in: J. Mulville/​A. K. Outram (eds.), The Zoo-archaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying, Oxford:​121–131 ♦ al-Hroub, I., 2015, Atlas of Palestinian Rural Heritage, Bethlehem  ♦ Jacobsen, T., 1983, Lad in the Desert, JAOS 103:193–200  ♦ 1987, The Harps That Once …: Sumerian Poetry in Translation, New York ♦ Kaplan, J., 1954, Two Chalcolithic Vessels from Palestine, PEQ 86:97–100 ♦ 1963, The Skin-Bag and its Imitations in Pottery, BIES 27:260–269 ♦ Keel, O., 1980, Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes im Lichte eines altorientalischen Bildmotivs, OBO 33, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ Löw, I., 1908, Biestmilch, ZDMG 62:120– 122 ♦ Otto, A., 2006, Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tall Bazi (Syrien), Subartu 19, Turnhout ♦ Palmer, C., 2002, Milk and Cereals: Identifying Food and Food Identity among Fallahin and Bedouin in Jordan, Levant 34:173–195  ♦ Privat, K., et al., 2005, Fermented Dairy Product Analysis and Palaeodietary Repercussions: Is Stable Isotope Analysis not Cheesy Enough?, in: J. Mulville/​A. K. Outram, The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying, Oxford:​60–66  ♦ Publicover, H., 2020, Meat, Milk and Scripture: Early Rabbinic Interpretations of the Biblical Prohibitions of a Forbidden Mixture, Berlin ♦ Renner, E., 1974, Milch und Milchprodukte in der Ernährung des Menschen, Kempten/​Hildesheim  ♦ Sherratt, A., 1983, The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World, World Archaeology 15:90–104  ♦ Staubli, T., 1991, Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn, OBO 107, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2009a, Nichtpflanzliche Nahrung, in: F. Crüsemann (ed.), Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch zur Bibel, Gütersloh:​405–410 ♦ 2009b, Räuchern, libieren, spenden: Opfer im altisraelitischen Alltag, BiKi 64:152–157 ♦ Stol, M., 1993, Milk, Butter, and Cheese, Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 7:99–113 ♦ 1993–1997, Milch(produkte) A. In Mesopotamien, RlA 8:189–200 ♦ Teeter, D. A., 2009, “You Shall Not Seethe a Kid in its Mother’s Milk”: The Text and the Law in Light of Early Witnesses, Textus 24:37–63 ♦ Vigne, J.‑D./​Helmer, D., 2007, Was Milk a “Secondary Product” in the Old World Neolithisation Process? Its Role in the Domestication of Cattle, Sheep and Goats, Anthropozoologica 42.2:9–40 ♦ Zaky, A./​Zaky, I., 1942, Ancient Egyptian Cheese, Annales du Service des Antiquités Égyptiennes 41:295– 313. Thomas Staubli

who herald dangerous counter-worlds. Fear of ds. is expressed in cases of personal or home protection, sickness, and curses (Robertson 2010:​32– 41). In terms of material culture, ds. are represented by a distinct, often hybrid (→ hybrid creatures) iconography, that clearly differentiates these beings from humans or gods. In the bibl. canon, “demons” may refer to gods rendered impotent in line with the bibl. monotheisitic polemic. 2.  One may trace three named ds. in the material culture of Ancient Palestine: the Eg. Bes and the Mesop. ds. Lamashtu and Pazuzu. 2.1.  The god Bes is ubiquitously attested in Egypt since the Old Kingdom. While complex in nature, the popularity of Bes derives mostly from his function as a protection deity, keeping women and children from harm (Altenmüller 1975; Herrmann 1994:​316–322; Bagh/​Manniche 2021). In the 1st mill. b.c.e., representations of Bes are found all over the Medit. and throughout the ANE. He is represented as a bowlegged, bearded dwarf with a human, sometimes grotesquely disfigured face, in a variety of poses. Most commonly, Bes appears in the frontal, squatting position, with his hands on his knees, manelike hair and beard, with a lion-skin as a loincloth. Other positions include Bes en face, holding one or two knives, or dancing while playing a flute or holding a tambourine. Often Bes wears a feathercrown. Sometimes he is winged or wears a kilt. 2.2.  The Bab. demoness Lamashtu is depicted on a series of 85 currently known → amulets. The wide distribution of these amulets from Iran in the E to Etruscan Italy in the W testifies to her important role in popular religion (Farber 1980– 1983; 2014; Wiggermann 2000). First attested in texts and on amulets in the early 2nd mill. b.c.e. (MBA), her representations show the development of her image, always depicted in profile. Early amulets depict her standing or striding with outstretched arms and open hands, or holding a dagger, with a variety of different heads (birdlike, canine, leonine, and snake-like). In the 1st mill. b.c.e., Lamashtu’s fully developed form is marked by a combination of human and animal parts: a lion’s head, a human body with heavy bared breasts, and the talons of a bird of prey. In her hands she holds snakes, while a piglet and a puppy suckle at her breasts. The amulets depict several objects connected to women, like a comb and a spindle, scattered around her. Many texts illustrate her role as a destructive power mainly directed against new born babies and young people, as well as against livestock. 2.3.  In the first mill b.c.e. the Mesop. d. Pazuzu enjoyed a wide popularity as an apotropaion to ward off evil (Heessel 2002; 2011; Wigger-

Demon/s (d./ds.) 1.  Use of the term d. in reference to the bibl. world entails several problems, the most important being that there is no Hebr. term equivalent to the G word δαίμων. Consequently, the term is used for a variety of phenomena in different fields. In some cases “demon” defines a being by its function as an agent of communication. In other cases “demon” may refer to those who bring disease or

Demon/s (d./ds.)

235 

mann 2004). First attested in the royal graves found at Nimrud from the late 8th cent., incantations and ritual texts portray him as a destructive, cold easterly wind, with powers over other demonic forces. This power made him an antagonist of Lamashtu and he is often depicted on Lamashtu amulets as a means to expel her. Pazuzu has the most distinct iconography of all Ancient Near Eastern ds., which is already fully developed in the earliest known images. In his rectangular head, the canine jaws with bared teeth and large round eyes set deep under thick eyebrows figure most prominently. Animal → horns and human beard and ears add to this hybrid iconography. While his head is usually shown en face on amulets, his canine body is depicted in profile with human shoulders and arms ending in the claws of a predator. Bird’s talons and two pairs of bird’s wings, a penis erectus ending in a snake’s head, and the tail of a scorpion complete Pazuzu’s hybrid iconography. Similar to Bes, with whom he shares iconogr. features (Heessel 2002:​21–22), the head of Pazuzu stands pars pro toto for this d. Pazuzu-heads are far more numerous than full-figured Pazuzu representations on amulets or as statuettes, and also appear as part of seals and fibulae. In addition to these ds. with distinct personalities, iconographies, and mythologies, the material culture of the ANE contains a variety of images of hybrid beings that may or may not be called ds. These images mostly appear in scenes of contest, representing combat with other ds., animals, or occasionally human beings. 3.  Ds. were represented on a variety of different objects. Most common are → amulets, pendants, and → seals, made from clay, bronze, stone, and faience (→ glaze). Additionally, d. depictions appear on clay pots, bronze → fibulae, → jewelry, and → ivory-inlays attached to → furniture. 4.1.  While images of → hybrid creatures on amulet pendants are attested as early as the MBA, the oldest instances of a named d. in Palestine are the Bes representations on the Megiddo ivories from the end of the LBA (Wilson 1975:​84). These ivories portray Bes in a variety of ways, either naked in frontal, squatting position, or clothed in the same position with wings, or in profile, winged, and “breathing” a snake from his mouth (Loud 1939:​pl. 8:24–26; Decamps de Mertzenfeld 1954:​pls. 27:313–315, 37:306). The most common type – Bes in frontal view, bandy-legged, with a leering mouth, a lion’s mane, and arms resting on his hips  – appears on many pendants from the LBA to the Hell. period. LB II examples of Bes pendants have been found in Beth-Shean, Tell el-Farah (S), Tell el-ʿAjjul, Lachish, and Me-

236

giddo (McGovern 1985:​16, 109, pl. 1; Herrmann 1994:​319–321). Examples from Tell elFarah (S), Deir el-Balah, Beth-Shean, and Lachish testify to their occurrence during the transitional period to Iron Age I. Images from Megiddo and Beth-Shean showing Bes in profile, dancing and holding a tambourine are restricted to LB II (Cowrie 2006; McGovern 1985:​17). Bes amulets became extremely popular throughout the ANE in Iron Age II, with many examples found in excavations all over Palestine, including Ashkelon, Beth-Shemesh, Beth-Shean, Gezer, Lachish, Megiddo, Tell el-Farah (S), and Tell Jemmeh (Herrmann 1994:​319–321). Images from this period typically show Bes with a feather crown (McGovern 1985:​16, 26, no. 22), with his face often used pars pro toto. Bes amulets are regularly found in connection with the Eg. udjat or eye of Horus (GGIG:§ 151). Nevertheless, molds for Bes images found in Palestine and Transjordan (Dornemann 1983:​fig. 88:5) indicate local production of these amulets and not necessarily their importation from Egypt (GGIG:§ 131, fig. 225e). Apart from amulet pendants, Bes depictions occur in a few cases on stamp seals or other media. A drawing of Bes and his wife Beset on a pithos at Kuntillet ʿAjrud (ca. 800 b.c.e.) has attracted much attention because the inscription refers to “YHWH and his Asherah.” This text led to the misinterpretation of the Bes drawings as representations of YHWH and Asherah (GGIG:§ 131). From Iron Age III until the Hell. period Bes amulets are typically highly stylized, with examples found in Ashkelon and Dor. In the same period, Bes is represented in relief on jugs, such as the one from Tell el-Hesi (Blakely/​Horton 1986). 4.2.  More than 170 representations of Bes were found in ancient Palestine but only four amulets depicting the Mesop. demon Pazuzu. None of these amulets presents Pazuzu full-figure. Rather, they depict only Pazuzu’s head. At Megiddo, a Pazuzu head forms part of one arm of a bronze fibula, found in a stratum  dated to the 8th/7th cent. b.c.e. (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​74, pl. 71:72; Heessel 2002:​29). A  small Pazuzu head was found in an Iron Age IIB grave at Beth-Shemesh ­(MacKenzie 1912–1913:​91, pl. 71:5; Herrmann 1994:​392; no. 469). A heavily worn bronze stamp seal in the form of a Pazuzu head with two faces was found on the surface at Horvat Qitmit (BeitArieh 1995:​270–271). An excavation in BethShean uncovered another bronze stamp seal with a Pazuzu head (Ornan 2006; IPIAO 4:fig. 1919). This latter piece was found in a fill beneath a Hell. floor. Thus, the time frame of the Pazuzu heads from Megiddo, Beth-Shemesh, and Beth-Shean corresponds to their occurrence in Mesopotamia,

Divination (div.), Media of

237

238

where Pazuzu amulets were used well into the Seleuc. era. 4.3.  LBA texts from Ugarit and an amulet from Byblos indicate the popularity of incantations against the Mesop. demoness Lamashtu in the Levant (de Moor 1981–1982:​107). However, the only representation of Lamashtu in Palestine occurs on a fragment of an inscribed Lamashtu amulet near Tel Burnat (Cogan 1995; IPIAO 4:fig. 1916). A  sphinx-like demoness on an inscribed Iron Age II amulet from Arslan Tash has been interpreted as Lamashtu or Lilith, but this image cannot be attributed to these demonesses on iconogr. grounds (de Moor 1981–1982; Berlejung 2010). 5.  Images of ds. are found regularly in the material culture of ancient Palestine and the ANE. Most common are amulet pendants of the grotesquely disfigured Eg. deity Bes, which were used from LB II until the Hell. period. The Mesop. ds. Lamashtu and Pazuzu are seldom attested and only in Iron Age II contexts. Representations of these ds. were used as personal apotropaia, either as part of jewelry, amulets, or attached to furniture. 6.  The OT does not mention ds. explicitly (Jeffers 1996; 2DDD; Vreugdenhil 2020:​73– 122). However, some texts mention supernatural agents of god (1 Sam 11:16), a demon as YHWH’s counterpart in Gen 32:23–33 (Köckert 2003), (perhaps demonic) winds (Ps 103:16; Keel 1996:​ 68–72), and sometimes texts seem to reflect a belief that ascribes responsibility for diseases to ds. (Ps 91:6, see Vreugdenhil 2020). No bibl. text names Bes, Lamashtu, or Pazuzu. 7.  Altenmüller, H., 1975, Bes, LÄ 1:720–724 ♦ Bagh,

Boston  ♦ 2011, Evil against Evil: The Demon Pazuzu, Studi materiali di storia delle religioni 77.2:357–368 ♦ Herrmann, C., 1994, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel, OBO 138, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Jeffers, A., 1996, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria, SHANE 8, Leiden et al. ♦ Keel, O., 51996 (1972), Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament, Göttingen ♦ Köckert, M., 2003, War Jakobs Gegner in Gen 32,23–33 ein Dämon?, in: A. Lange/​ H. Lichtenberger/​K. F. D. Römheld (eds.), 2003, Die Dämonen/​Demons, Tübingen:​160–181 ♦ Lamon, R. S./​ Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo [I], OIP 42, Chicago ♦ Lange, A./​Lichtenberger, H./​Römheld, K. F. D. (eds.), 2003, Die Dämonen/​Demons, Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, Tübingen ♦ Loud, G., 1939, The Megiddo Ivories, OIP 52, Chicago  ♦ MacKenzie, D., 1912–1913, Excavations at Ain Shems (Beth Shemesh), London ♦ McGovern, P. E., 1985, Late Bronze Palestinian Pendants, JSOT/​ASOR Monographs 1, Sheffield ♦ de Moor, J. C., 1981–1982, Demons in Canaan, JEOL 27:106–119 ♦ Ornan, T., 2006, An Amulet of the Demon Pazuzu, in: A. Mazar, Excavations at Tel BethShean (1989–1996) 1, Jerusalem:​517–519  ♦ Robertson, W. C., 2010, Drought, Famine, Plague, and Pestilence: Ancient Israel’s Understanding of and Responses to Natural Catastrophes, Madison ♦ Vreugdenhil, G. C., 2020, Psalm 91 and Demonic Menace, OTS 77, Boston et al. ♦ Wiggermann, F. A. M., 2000, Lamaštu, Daughter of Anu, in: M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, Cuneiform Monographs 14, Groningen:​217–252 ♦ 2004, Pazuzu, RlA 10:372–381 ♦ Wilson, V., 1975, The Iconography of Bes with Particular Reference to the Cypriot Evidence, Levant 7:77–103. Nils P. Heeßel

Divination (div.), Media of 1.  The terms div. (from Lat. divinatio) and its synonym mantic (from G μαντεία) describe ritual behaviors for the communication with the tranT./​Manniche, L. (eds.), 2021, Bes: Demon God – Pro- scendental realm to seek insight into the future tector of Egypt, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen ♦ and advice from gods, ancestors, and other suBeit-Arieh, I. (ed.), 1995, Horvat Qitmit, Tel Aviv  ♦ pernatural beings. Two basic forms of div. can be Berlejung, A., 2010, There Is Nothing Better Than discerned: first, intuitive div., which is typical of More! Texts and Images on Amulet 1 from Arslan Tash, seers and prophets, sometimes induced by special JNSL 36.1:1–42 ♦ Black, J./​Green, A., 1992, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, Austin  ♦ mental techniques or mind-expanding → drugs like Blakely, J. A./​Horton, F. L., Jr., 1986, South Palestin- alcohol or cannabis. This is also reflected by the ian Bes Vessels of the Persian Period, Levant 18:111– G term, which is derived from μαίνομαι “to be ex119 ♦ Cogan, M., 1995, A Lamashtu Plague from the Ju- cited.” Second, deductive techniques of div. utilizdean Shephelah, IEJ 45:155–161 ♦ Cowrie, P. J., 2006, ing special media. These media could be of instruBes Amulets from Areas Q and P, in: A. Mazar, Ex- mental character (liver, lots, dice, arrows, bowls), cavations at Tel Beth-Shean (1989–1996) 1, Jerusalem:​​ 514–516 ♦ Decamps de Mertzenfeld, C., 1954, Inven- or random natural phenomena (clouds, behavior taire commenté des ivoires Phéniciens et apparentés dé- of birds and other animals). In most ancient culcouverts dans le Proche-Orient, Paris  ♦ Dornemann, tures div. is the realm of specialists, but there is R. H., 1983, The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the also evidence of domestic div. Closely related to Bronze and Iron Ages, Milwaukee ♦ Farber, W., 1980– divinatory practices, but with a different “Sitz im 1983, Lamaštu, RlA 6:439–446 ♦ 2014, Lamaštu, Meso- Leben,” is the juridical ordeal, in which god’s juspotamian Civilizations 17, Winona Lake ♦ Geller, M. J., tice is searched in an ordeal. 2016, Healing Magic and Evil Demons: Canonical UdugThe basic assumptions behind div. are that a suhul Incantations, Die Babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 8, Berlin ♦ Heessel, N. P., pernatural being can be addressed in a ritual and 2002, Pazuzu, Ancient Magic and Divination 4, Leiden/​ is able to answer via a human medium or certain

Divination (div.), Media of

239 

inanimate media, or the belief that the divine will is mirrored in natural phenomena (in Mesopotamia the šiṭir šame “Heavenly writings”; see Maul 1994:​3), that could be ‘read’ either by everyone or by specialists. These beliefs should neither be interpreted with the animistic/dynamistic model of 19th cent. anthropology nor with post-modern holistic thinking, but as elements of differentiated symbol-systems of their own. Div. in Ancient Israel also should not be conceived either as a “Canaan.” survival or a late (Ass.) “contamination” of pre-exil. Yahwism, but as an integral part of religion and an important rel. practice to manage the vicissitudes of life and to deal with possible misfortune. Nevertheless, some techniques of deductive div., esp. necromancy, are ruled out in the dtn.-dtr. and in the priestly and prophetic writings, because YHWH was conceived as the only source of div. speaking directly through his legitimate prophets (cf. Dt 18:9–22). In the later prophetic lit. the polemics against certain divinatory techniques became a mere topos of non-yahwistic “abominations.” 2.  Media involved in mantic practices are known from many cultures. Esp. in Mesopotamia there is a broad range of media used for inductive mantic practices, in the first place the innards of sacrificial animals, but also arrows, lots, and cups. The bibl. texts give witness to the use of different instruments for mantic purposes like pits, lots, figurines (terapim), masks, arrows, and the enigmatic ʾepod in Ancient Israel. The correlation of the textual and the arch. evidence is, however, in most cases problematic, and the arch. material for itself is meagre. The following paragraphs offer a survey of the different types of div. 2.1.  The ʾob is mentioned in 1 Sam 28 as the medium through which the spirit (1 Sam 28:13; Isa 8:19 ʾelohim) of a dead person could be evoked from the netherworld by the baʿalat (“misstress of”) ʾob, a female ritual specialist comparable to the Hitt. ḫaššawa/​SALŠU.GI “wise/old woman.” The much discussed ʾobot are most likely pits like in the Hurr.-Hitt. ritual for the evocation of the gods of the netherworld (Otten 1961) and are also attested in Ug. lit. (Loretz 2002; for discussion Tropper 1989:​189–200). In some cases the term ʾob can also denote the spirit of the dead. The pit is conceived as an entrance to the netherworld and a threshold between the living and the dead. By opening the pit and conjuring the dead, the ghost could be evoked and questioned. Like pits for storage (→ stock) or cisterns in domestic houses the story of 1 Sam 28 imagines a location of the ʾob in the house proper. Nevertheless, there is no arch. evidence for the mantic use of domestic pits.

240

2.2.  A pair of lots for divinatory purposes, the ʾurim and tummim are mentioned frequently in the pentateuchal and hist. books (as a pair in Ex 28:30; Lev 8:8; Dt 33:8; 1 Sam 14:41 [LXX]; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65; ʾurim only in Num 27:21; 1 Sam 28:6). According to Dt 33:8, Ezra 2:63, and Neh 7:65 a priest is required to use the ʾurim and tummim. According to Ex 28:30, Lev 8:8, and Sir 45:10, 13 the ʾurim and tummim were carried by the high priest in a breastpiece. The nature of the ʾurim and tummim remains unclear from the texts, but it can be assumed that they are imagined as small objects like stones, game pcs., or dice. Casting the ʾurim and tummim lots is attested in the bibl. sources as a legitimate way of seeking YHWH’s will and is mentioned in the context of important state issues. The underlying practice seems to be a simple yes or no oracle. Archaeologically, lots can be identified with astragali (→ toy), game pcs., and dice found at many sites in the Levant. It may be assumed by the evidence of other ritual objects like stands, tripod incense cups, and figurines that astragali were used for mantic purposes. Astragali in cultic context are known from the Iron Age IIA domestic shrine Locus 2081 at Megiddo (Loud 1948:​161–162), the so-called cultic structure at Taanach (Glock 1993:​1432; most likely a workshop with ritual objects for occasional ritual activity), and several Iron Age domestic buildings, which also yielded ritual objects (Cahill/​Tarler 1993; Lachish “lower house” Locus 3569, together with a fenestrated stand, Ussishkin 2004:​ 477). At Tel Dan a blue faience dice was discovered north of the altar room in a small annex, which may has been used for mantic purposes (Biran 1994:​192–199). 2.3.  The Hebr. term terapim (sing. and plur.) is a Hebr. loanword from the Hitt./​Luw. tarpiš, meaning “demon” or “protection spirit” like the Akkad. šedu. The term itself appears 15 times in the HB (Gen 31:19; 31:34, 35: Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17, 18, 20; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13, 16; 2 Kgs 23:24; Ez 21:26; Hos 3:4; Zech 10:2). Gen 31:19, 34, 35 are speaking of terapim as small-scale cultic objects: Rachel steals and hides her father’s terapim in the saddlebag or under the saddle-cloth. In Judg 17:4–5 Micah is making two ritual objects for the newly founded → sanctuary. The first one is the ʾepod, the second the terapim. Both belong together with the pesel umassekah to the furnishings of the sanctuary. 1 Sam 15:23 is a dtr. polemic against certain forms of rel. practice and the terapim are mentioned here together with qosem “divinator.” 1 Sam 19:8–24 tells about David’s escape from the men of Saul: To help her husband escape, Michal (1 Sam 19:13, 16) puts a cloth-covered te­ rapim with a wig of goat’s hair into the bed, say-

Divination (div.), Media of

241

242

ing her husband is lying sick in bed. 2 Kgs 23:24 deals with the terapim in the context of the Josianic reform, mentioning them together with the ʾobot (here: “mediums” or “spirits of the dead”), yiddeʿonim “wise ones,” and gillulim (from gl, “excrements”) among the “abominations” abolished by Josiah. Ez 21:6 mentions the terapim among certain mantic practices, like the throwing of arrows and liver-oracles made by the king of Babylon during the → siege of Jerusalem. In Hos 3:4 terapim appears together with ʾepod, maṣṣebot, and sacrifices. Zech 10:2 is a polemic against false oracles, mentioning the terapim together with the qosemim “divinators.” The use of terapim in the OT allows an interpretation as a variety of different cult-objects: In Gen 31 the terapim, here also called in v. 30 ʾelohim, are obviously a small scale representation of a divine being, most likely the god of the → house or the family, or figurines of Laban’s ancestors. The interpretation of terapim as an ancestor-figurine is supported by the observation that the term ʾelohim (1 Sam 28:13; Isa 8:19) is to be understood as the spirit of a deceased person. As terapim is often used in contexts of necromantic practices, explicitly their interrogation (Ez 21:6) and their answering (Zech 10:2), they can also be interpreted as ritual media for div., most likely representing the ancestors. In the same way (2 Kgs 23:24; Dt 18:11), the program for the cult reform uses metim “the dead” as source for oracles instead of terapim. Less clear is the meaning of terapim in Judg 17:4–5; 18:14, 17–18, 20, as the term is clearly differentiated from the carved and casted images, but used together with ʾepod, most likely a cultic requisite made of cloth. Some scholars considered the terapim in Micah’s sanctuary and the object used by Michal as a kind of cultic mask, as the latter has to be bigger than a figurine. As most references in the OT point to a connection with the ancestor-cult, terapim is in most cases to be understood as a figurine of the ancestor used in the context of domestic and familiar religion, esp. for the interrogation of the ancestor-spirits. However, it should be taken into consideration, that terapim does not consistently denote the same object. Thus, the term terapim could have been used for different anthropom. objects. Archaeologically, the terapim are difficult to identify. Not likely is the identification with female plaques and pillar figurines (→ fig. Hairstyle #2:1–2, col. 383; → fig. Idol #8:2–3, col. 516; → map Scales #1, col. 809), because they are most likely a representation of dedicants and not of the male ancestors, which would be expected in a patriarchal society. An identification with the less frequent male figurines is therefore more convincing, but still remains tentative.

2.4.  → Masks as media of div. are well known from the anthropological record. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence from the bibl. texts that masks were used for mantic purposes, but it should not be ruled out that in some instances terapim could also denote a mask, like in 1 Sam 19:13. Archaeologically, masks are a rare feature both in LBA and Iron Age Palestine/​Israel, but they are a common feature in the Phoen. culture of the 1st mill. b.c.e. (→ fig. Mask #1, col. 600). The masks from Iron Age Palestine/​Israel came from very different sites (see Berlejung 2018). Only one mask from Hazor gives at least some evidence of ritual practices: In an Iron Age II domestic building (Area A, Stratum V, Locus 44) a decorated fenestrated stand was found together with a mask fragment, a jug, and a storejar in the back room (Yadin et al. 1958:​pls. 57:22, 6; 60:10; 56:9; 1960:​pl. 202). It may be assumed that the mask and the offering-stand could have been used in some divinatory ritual. 2.5.  In the ANE, the consultation of innards (extispicy), esp. the liver (hepatoscopy), is the most important technique of div., esp. in Mesopotamia, but also in Syria, as in Ugarit, Mari, and in Asia Minor. In Mesopotamia, hepatoscopy is attested as a developed science since the Ur III period, maybe even earlier in the Akkad period. The Mesop. haruspex or omen-priest is known as barû. The art of hepatoscopy was introduced in Western Asia from Mesopotamia. As far as the textual and other material evidence indicates, this took place during the first half of the 2nd mill., in Northern Syria maybe even earlier. Material media of hepatoscopic div. are not only the innards of the actual sacrificial animals, but also clay models. Clay model livers are both a kind of handbook for the barû, as well as protocols of actual hepatoscopies. Archaeologically, a considerable number of clay models of livers and (less frequent) of lungs are known from Western Asia. They are attested from the 19th cent. b.c.e. on in Aleppo, Mari, Ebla, Emar, Tell Biʿa, and several other places; 22 liver models were found in LBA Ugarit, as well as one lung model (Meyer 1990:​246–247). Only five of the liver models from Ugarit bear inscriptions (KTU 1.141–1.144; 1.155, plus the lung-model, KTU 1.127). From excavations in Palestine, two LBA models are known from Megiddo (Loud 1948:​1–2), and five from MB II Hazor (Yadin et al. 1961:​pl. 315; Landsberger/​Tadmor 1964), all from contexts interpreted as temples, and one specimen from Gezer (Macalister 1912b:​​432). Only the models from Hazor bear omina in cuneiform script (Horowitz et al. 2018:​Hazor 2, 3, 17). Liver models are attested not only in official structures like tem-

Divination (div.), Media of

243 

ples and palaces, but also in domestic structures, like the so-called “house of the priest” (maison du prêtre) in Ugarit, which points to domestic scholarly activities and education. There is no evidence of hepatoscopic practices from the bibl. texts or from the arch. record in Iron Age Israel and its immediate neighbors (Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom). On the one hand hepatoscopy was known as a Bab. practice in Israel according to Ez 21:26, but on the other hand there is no positive evidence of its practice neither in the official cult at the Jerusalem Temple nor in domestic contexts; even in the bibl. list of the sins of Manasseh hepatoscopy plays no role. 2.6.  A cup or bowl (Hebr. gbyʿ) as medium for div. (nḥš) used by Joseph is mentioned (Gen 44:2, 17). Most likely the text associates the cup with hydromantic practices. As hydromancy is not attested elsewhere in W Sem. sources, Joseph’s “divinatory cup” is most likely no more than a motif to underscore the value of the object and should not be taken as reference to an actual divinatory practice. However, it should be noticed that the socalled incantation bowls (see Isbell 1975) were an important and frequent requisite in late antique Jew. magical practice (Bohak 2008). 2.7.  The ʾepod is mentioned in the context of mantic practices in 1 Sam 23:9 and 30:7 but it is not clear whether it is a medium of div. or whether only its presence is of importance. ʾepod mostly denotes a part of a priestly vestment, most likely an apron, as in Ex 28:4; Lev 8:7; 2 Sam 6:14; but in other cases it seems to be a kind of object in a sanctuary (1 Sam 21:10) or something that could be erected (Judg 8:27). However, like in the case of the terapim, the term ʾepod does not necessarily always mean the same object. It can only be assumed that in the cases when the ʾepod is used in div. practices it denotes a special garment, but not the div. device itself. 2.8.  Mantic practices with arrows (ḥeṣ) are mentioned in 2 Kgs 13:14–19 and Ez 21:26. While the latter reflects a Bab. practice where arrows are utilized directly as ritual media, the shooting of arrows by the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 13) is a symb. act belonging to an execration ritual, which communicates YHWH’s ordeal. Thus, the arrow communicates victory, but is not directly the medium of the prophecy. 5.  In MB II and LBA Palestine the presence of liver-models points to a developed art of hepatoscopy, which was adopted from Mesopotamia via Syria. With the decline of the LBA culture and the changing socio-polit. structures, hepatoscopy as the science of a highly sophisticated elite connected with the city-temples disappears. For the 1st mill. b.c.e. we have to rely on the bibl. texts,

244

which are highly selective and often polemic against practices of instrumental div., and on the scarce and often ambiguous arch. evidence. Nevertheless the correlation between the divinatory practices in the Bible and the arch. record is problematic. Both the textual and material evidence points to the fact that div. and the use of mantic devices was common in pre-exil. Israel, both in the realm of official religion as well as in domestic ritual practices. 6.  Hebr. terms denoting deductive or instrumental div. are qosem qesamim (Dt 18:10; Ez 21:26) “drawing lots” (derived from qsm “to cut”), but also used generally for div. [Me]ʿonenim (Dt 18:11, 14; Lev 19:26; 2 Kgs 21:6; Isa 2:6; Mic 5:11), mostly translated “soothsayers,” is an unclear mantic term, maybe a denominative from ʿnn “cloud” (Wellhausen 1897:​204, note 1), therefore, “cloud observer.” The LXX prefers the translation ỏρνιθοσκόπος “bird observer.” The term yiddeʿonim “wise ones,” often parallel with ʾob “pit,” as in Dt 18:11; Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Sam 28:3; 2 Kgs 2:6; 23:24; Isa 8:19; 19:3, denotes the spirits of the dead consulted in necromantic practices. Also the verb nḥš (mostly “to conjure”) can be used as a mantic term as in Gen 30:27 and 1 Kgs 20:33, to be translated as “to observe omina”; accordingly, the LXX translates οἰωνιεῖσθε (οἰωνίζομαι “to observe omina”). The Mesop. custom of consulting the innards, esp. the liver of sacrificial animals is mentioned in Ez 21:26 as raʾah bak-kabed. 7.  Berlejung, A., 2018, Katalog der anthropomorphen Masken der südlichen Levante vom präkeramischen Neolithikum B bis zum Beginn der hellenistischen Zeit (9. Jt.–4. Jh. v. Chr.), in: A. Berlejung/​J. Filitz (eds.), The Physicality of the Other/​Die Leibhaftigkeit des Anderen, ORA 27, Tübingen:​397–550 ♦ Biran, A., 1994, Biblical Dan, Jerusalem  ♦ Bohak, G., 2008, Ancient Jewish Magic, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Cahill, J./​Tarler, D., 1993, Tell el-Ḥammah, NEAEHL 2:561–562 ♦ Cryer, F. H., 1991, Der Prophet und der Magier, in: R. Liwak/​ S. Wagner (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (FS Siegfried Herrmann), Stutt­ gart:​​79–88 ♦ 1994, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment, JSOT.S 142, Sheffield ♦ Dothan, M./​Ben-Shlomo, D., 2005, Ashdod 5, IAA Reports 24, Jerusalem  ♦ Glock, A. E., 1993, Taanach, NEAEHL 4:1428–1433  ♦ Horowitz, W., et al., 2018, Cuneiform in Canaan, Winona Lake  ♦ Isbell, C. D., 1975, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, SBL. DS 17, Missoula ♦ Jeffers, A., 1996, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria, SHANE 8, Leiden et al. ♦ Landsberger, B./​Tadmor, H., 1964, Fragments of Clay Liver Models at Hazor, IEJ 14:201–217 ♦ Lewis, T. J., 1982, terāpîm, ThWAT 3:765–778  ♦ 1989, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, HSM 39, Atlanta ♦ Loretz, O., 2002, Ugaritisch ảp (III) und syllabisch-keilschriftlich abi/apu als Vorläufer von hebräisch ʾab/ʾôb “(Kult/​Nekromantie-)Grube,” UF 34:481–518 ♦

Door/s (d./ds.)

245

246

Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago ♦ Mac­ alister, R. A. S., 1912b–c, The Excavation of Gezer 2–3, London  ♦ Maul, S., 1994, Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Baghdader Forschungen 18, Mainz ♦ Mazar, A., 1980, Excavations at Tell Qasile 1, Qedem 12, Jerusalem ♦ Meyer, J. W., 1990, Zur Interpretation der Leber- und Lungenmodelle aus Ugarit, in: M. Dietrich/​O. Loretz (eds.), Mantik in Ugarit, ALASP 3, Münster:​241–280 ♦ Otten, H., 1961, Eine Beschwörung der Unterirdischen aus Boğazköy, ZA 20:114–157 ♦ Reichert, A., 1977, Kultmaske, 2BRL:​195–196  ♦ Schmidt, B. B., 1994, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition, FAT 11, Tübingen ♦ Schmitt, R., 2004, Magie im Alten Testament, AOAT 313, Münster ♦ 2014, Mantik im Alten Testament, AOAT 411, Münster ♦ van der Toorn, K./​Lewis, T. J., 1999, Teraphim, 2DDD:844–850 ♦ Tropper, J., 1989, Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, AOAT 223, Neukirchen-Vluyn/​Kevelaer ♦ Ussishkin, D. (ed.), 2004, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), 5 vols., vol. 4, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22, Tel Aviv ♦ Wellhausen, J., 1897, Reste arabischen Heidentums, Berlin/​Leipzig  ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1958, Hazor I, Jerusalem ♦ Yadin, Y., et al.,1960, Hazor II, Jerusalem ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1961, Hazor III–IV, Jerusalem. Rüdiger Schmitt

mously (Damerji 1991; Galling/​Rösel 1977; Salonen 1961). Large gates had two leaves, while ordinary ds. often had just one leaf. Most doorways inside of houses show no traces of the d. itself (e. g., d. sockets or angle stones). This may indicate that they were either not closed at all or just had a curtain (→ canopy and curtain). A  horizontal check beam (Hebr. beriaḥ, Akkad. aškuttu), which ran within the frame of a staple, helped lock many ds. In more sophisticated examples like the so-called sikkatu-lock (Fuchs 1998), a moveable vertical pin (Hebr. manʿul, Akkad. sikkatu), which was moved up and down by a key (Hebr. mapteaḥ, Akkad. namzaqu), closed the lock. In simple cases, a → leather band helped to open the check beam from the outside. Although this system could not keep unauthorized visitors from opening the d., there was at least the possibility of controlling access (Zettler 1987; Ferioli/​Fiandra 1993). The outer end of the leather band was lashed on a wooden or terracotta knob, which was fixed on the wall. Then a clay cretula was laid over the band and sealed before it dried. This cretula had to be crashed while opening the d. 3.  The main materials of ds. were generally wood, textiles, or reed, used to construct the d. leaves, the doorposts, and sometimes the frames. A wooden frame, connected with mudbrick jambs, was discovered in the Middle/​Late Bronze palace of Qatna (Novák/​Pfälzner 2003:​141–142, fig. 7). Additionally, metal was often used for the shoes, finials, and bands, and stone for the threshold, angle stones, collars, and occasionally the frame and the shoe (cf. the temple at Hazor, Reich 1992:​2, fig. 1). Further materials used for d. components included leather, → ivory/bone, bitumen (→ asphalt), gypsum, and wax (→ honey; cf. in detail Salonen 1961:​96–121; Reich 1992). In exceptional cases a d. was completely made of stone (e. g., in → tombs of the Rom.-Byz. periods) or metal (lit. attested in Egypt). A vaulted header made of mudbricks may have replaced the wooden lintel. 4.  There is considerable arch. evidence of constructed ds. from the Late Chalc. until Rom. times. Sites preserve mainly components of non-organic material, such as angle stones, jambs, and the like, providing information on the → building techniques. Clay cretulae with → seal impressions date back at least to the late 4th mill. b.c.e., confirming the existence of d. → locks and restricted accesses. Monumental ds. in Palestine are known in city → gates and entrances of temples (→ sanctuary) and palaces as early as the EBA. Thresholds and angle stones were recorded in Iron Age city gates such as at Lachish and Tel Dan. From the LBA city gate of Jaffa derive fragments of a bronze

Door/s (d./ds.) 1.  A door (genuine Sem. root, bwb) is a moveable barrier used to cover and close an artificial opening in walls as well as in containers, → vehicles, and the like. Hence the doorway is the connection between two separated areas, for instance, the outside and inside of a → house or two rooms of a building. Important components of a d. include the d. leaves (Hebr. delet, cf. Akkad. daltu), usually fixed at the doorposts (Hebr. ʿayil, mǝzuzah). A  metal shoe often covered the lower end of the doorpost (Hebr. ʿamma), which could turn around much more easily within the hole of the socket stone (Hebr. ṣir). The upper end of the d. connected to the wall by means of a collar made of stone, wood, or bronze, and fixed by a metal-covered finial above the collar. The frame of the d. was defined by the lintel or header (Hebr. mašqop) above, the jambs on both sides, and the threshold (Hebr. sap) below. In respect of the height of the d. leaves it was sometimes necessary to fix the vertical slats of each leaf with the help of horizontal metal bands (Howard 2008). In more simple cases horizontal wooden slats replaced these bands. 2.  The range of the d. may be wide: from monumental → gates of temples and → palaces to major entrances of wealthy residencies to simple openings between two rooms of an ordinary house. Thus, → construction techniques varied enor-

Door/s (d./ds.)

247 

band and shoe of the doorpost (Reich 1992:​13, fig. 18). Archaeologists discovered bands at Iron Age Lachish (Reich 1992:​13), similar to those known from the Ass. gates such as Balawat (Howard 2008). The dowel holes in the orthostats at the base of the door frame of the Middle/​Late Bronze temple threshold at Hazor, Area A, suggests the position of a wooden frame (Yadin et al. 1961:​pl. 10), reminiscent of the one known at Qatna. 5.  Ds. appear as early as the first architecture in the ANE. The climate of the Levant does not usually preserve the d.’s organic material, leaving record of only the doorframes, thresholds, angle stones, and fittings. However, some pcs. of wood and the stain of two Iron Age gate ds. were recovered from the central passageway in the chambered gate at Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad) (Chadwick/​Daviau/​Steiner 2000:​262; → fig. Gate #3:5, col. 330). 6.  The HB frequently refers to ds., although with almost no real or extensive description. Ds. or their components are just mentioned occasionally as parts of the location of an explicit event. One exception involves the description of Solomon’s building activities, esp. his Temple at Jerusalem. Important ds. are said to have two leaves, made of wood (1 Kgs 6:31–35). The wood was taken from Aleppo pine (Zwickel 1999:​84) and fixed by metal bands like the ones discovered in Lachish (Ps 107:16). Reich (1992:​13) compiled several bibl. passages that mention the locking of gates and ds.: Judg 3:23–25; 1 Kgs 4:13; Isa 22:33; 45:2; Ps 107:16; Neh 3:3; 1 Chr 9:27. In Mesop. and Eg. architecture, stepped jambs indicated important entrances into temples, cellae, or palaces. Such an element, with five recesses on each side, may have been constructed at the main d. into the cella of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:31; cf. Zwickel 1999:​84), with four recesses on each side at the outer entrance (1 Kgs 6:33).

7.  Chadwick, R./​Daviau, P. M. M./​Steiner, M., 2000, Four Seasons of Excavations at Khirbat al-Mudayna on the Wadi ath-Thamad, 1996–1999, ADAJ 44:​257–270 ♦ Damerji, M. S., 1991, Die Tür nach Darstellungen in der altmesopotamischen Bildkunst von der Ubaid- bis zur Akkad-Zeit, BaM 22:231–311  ♦ Ferioli, P./​Fiandra, E., 1993, Arslantepe Locks and the Šamaš “Key,” in: M. Frangipane et al. (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains (FS Alba Palmieri), Rome:​​269–287 ♦ Fuchs, A., 1998, Das Sikkatu-Schloss, in: A. Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr., SAAS 8, Helsinki:​​97– 107  ♦ Galling, K./​Rösel, H., 1977, Tür, 2BRL:348– 349 ♦ Howard, M. M., 2008, Technical Description, in: J. Curtis/​N. Tallis (eds.), The Balawat Gates of Ashurnasirpal II, London:​24–25 ♦ Naumann, R., 1971, Architektur Kleinasiens, Tübingen  ♦ Novák, M./​Pfälzner, P., 2003, Ausgrabungen im bronzezeitlichen Palast von Tall Mišrife  – Qatna 2002, MDOG 135:131–165 ♦

248 Reich, R., 1992:​ Building Materials and Architectural Elements, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​1–16  ♦ Salonen, A., 1961, Die Türen des Alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1961, Hazor III–IV, Jerusalem ♦ Zett­ ler, R., 1987, Sealings as Artifacts of Institutional Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia, JCS 39:197–240 ♦ Zwi­ckel, W., 1999, Der salomonische Tempel, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 83, Mainz. Mirko Novák

Drugs (ds.) and Poisons (po.) 1.  From a pharmacological point of view, ds. are substances with psychotropic effect. Some have the potential of addiction; some can be used as medicine (Alberts/​Mullen 2006; Chatelain 1982; von Cranach 1982; Farber 1982; Hiller/​Melzig 2006; Köhler 2008; Rätsch 2007; Rudgley 1999; Stolerman 2010). Po. are substances, which have, depending on quantity and concentration, a harmful or deadly effect, even though small doses might have a healing effect. The distinction between ds., po., and → medicines is not always clear. Unlike in Egypt or Mesopotamia, there is no pharmacological or medical lit. known from ancient Palestine. It can be assumed, however, that ancient knowledge in this area, based on experience, was vast. Nevertheless, in our research, many facts remain uncertain. 2.1.  The most important drug in antiquity was alcohol, consumed mostly in form of wine (→ viticulture) or → beer made from grapes, dates, grain, or bread. Both wine and beer are well documented in lit. and epigraphs. The remains from grapes and grain are paleobotanically documented several times. The use of alcoholic drinks as ds. can only be proven in literary sources (e. g., Lev 10:8– 9; Isa 28:7: Mic 2:11; Heessel/​Haas 2007). 2.2.  The use of raw opium made from the sap of unripe capsules of the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) is documented at Tell el-ʿAjjul and other settlements (Courtois 1969; Germer 2008:​309– 312; Knapp 1991; Merrillees 2003; 2007). The use of opium as medicine (analgeticum) and/or drug remains uncertain (Ayalon, 2006; Behn 1986; Farber/​Bleibtreu 1997; Karageorghis 1976; Krikorian 1975; Kritikos/​Papadaki 1967; Merlin 1984; Rudgley 1999:​260– 265). As pomegranate and poppy seed capsules (as well as pine cones and lotus capsules) are very similar in iconography, interpretations of depictions remain ambiguous (Boehmer 2006; Buchholz 1999:​24, 400, 438, 554; Herrmann 2002:​ 92; 2006:​231–233; Klinger 2001). Examples are the interpretation of Late Bronze Cypriot (import) vessels, namely base ring bilbils, as copies of poppy capsules turned upside down (Merrillees 2003; 2007; Koschel 1996) or analogous bo-

Drugs (ds.) and Poisons (po.)

249

250

tanical depictions on Herod. coins from Samaria (Meshorer 1982:​20–22, 235, pl. 1:3–4; Hübner 2013). 2.3.  No cannabis seeds or pollen remains are known from arch. contexts in the ANE. How and when cannabis arrived in the Southern Levant is not known. In the ancient Levant, the cultivation of hemp (Cannabis) and its use as a fiber plant for the manufacturing of → ropes, mats, and → clothes are documented (Vogelsang-Eastwood/​Cooke 1989; Röllig 1975). Its use as a d. remains uncertain (Alberts/​Mullen 2006:​58–59; Hiller/​ Melzig 2006; Knapp 1991; Rätsch 2007; Rudgley 1999:​74–92). Recent analysis of the remains on the small incense → altar of the shrine at Arad (8th cent. b.c.e.) attested that cannabis inflorescences had been burnt for cultic purposes, perhaps less because of their odor, but because of their hallucinogenic effects. Organic residues attributed to animal dung were also found, suggesting that the cannabis had been mixed with dung to enable mild heating (Arie/​Rosen/​Namdar 2020) and to prolong inhalation. Cannabis is proven to have been used as an analogo-sedative that was inhaled in Jerusalem in the 4th cent. c.e. (Zias 1995). 2.4.  Other plant materials like nutmeg (Myristi­ ca fragrans), jasmine (Jasminum gradiflora), Artemisia, henbane (Hyoscyamus boveanus), and mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) were probably used as hallucinogenic agents during cultic burnings (Namdar/​Neumann/​Weiner 2010; Namdar/​Amrani/​Kletter 2015). 2.5.  The knowledge about po. originates in the experience with various poisonous animals (such as poisonous snakes and insects) and the varied effects of different plants (such as the castor oil plant [Ricinus communis L.] and Citrullus colocynthis L.). The effect of Lolium temulentum L. was also known, although the cause of its poisonous nature, namely, the infestation with Endoconi­dium temulentum, was unknown. Of the often highly poisonous solanums (Solanaceae), for instance, Hyoscyamus aureus/muticus L., the fruit of the mandrake (Mandragora officinarum L.), was used as a “love apple” or aphrodisiac (Gen 30:14–22; Cant 7:11–14) (Alberts/​Mullen 2006:​152–153; Kroll 1950; Rätsch 2007; Rudgley 1999:​218– 235; Schneider/​Stempflinger 1950).

Opium in a 3,500 Year Old Cypriote Base-Ring Juglet, ÄL 6:203–204 ♦ Boehmer, R. M., 2006, Das Herkunftsgebiet der goldenen Krone aus Grab III des Nordwestpalastes zu Nimrud, BaM 37:213–219 ♦ Buchholz, H.‑G., 1999, Ugarit, Zypern, Ägäis, AOAT 261, Münster  ♦ Chatelain, M., 1982, Berichte über Drogenkonsum im Alten und Neuen Testament, in: G. Völger/​K. von Welck (eds.), Rausch und Realität 2, Reinbek:​​​499–505 ♦ Courtois, J.‑C., 1969, La maison du prêtre aux modèles de poumon et de foies d’Ugarit, in: C. F. A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica 6, Mission de Ras Shamra 17, Paris:​​ 91–119  ♦ Cranach, D. von, 1982, Drogen im alten Ägypten, in: G. Völger/​K. von Welck (eds.), Rausch und Realität 2, Reinbek:​​480–487 ♦ Farber, W., 1982, Drogen im alten Mesopotamien  – Sumerer und Akkader, in: G. Völger/​K. von Welck (eds.), Rausch und Realität 2, Reinbek:​​488–498 ♦ Farber, W./​Bleibtreu, E., 1997, Mohn (Schlafmohn, Opium), RIA 8:344–348 ♦ Germer, R., 2008, Handbuch der altägyptischen Heilpflanzen, Wiesbaden ♦ Heessel, N. P./​Haas, V., 2007, Rausch, Rauschtrank, RlA 11:273–277 ♦ Herrmann, C., 2002, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel 2, OBO 184, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2006, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel 3, OBO.SA 24, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Hiller, K./​Melzig, M. F., 2006, Lexikon der Arzneipflanzen und Drogen, Heidelberg ♦ Hübner, U., 2013, Die Münzprägungen Herodes’ des Großen (40/37–4 v. Chr.): Selbstdarstellung und politische Realität, in: A. Lykke (ed.), Macht des Geldes  – Macht der Bilder, ADPV 42, Wiesbaden:​​93–122  ♦ Karageorghis, V., 1976, A  Twelfth-Century BC Opium Pipe from Kition, Antiquity 50:125–129 ♦ Klinger, S., 2001, A Terracotta Statuette of Artemis with a Deer at the Israel Museum, IEJ 51:208–224  ♦ Knapp, A. B., 1991, Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age Mediterranean Trade, in: N. N. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Jonsered:​​21–68 ♦ Köhler, T., 2008, Rauschdrogen, Munich ♦ Koschel, K., 1996, Opium Alkaloids in a Cypriote Base Ring I  Vessel (Bilbil) of the Middle Bronze Age from Egypt, ÄL 6:159–166 ♦ Krikorian, A. D., 1975, Were the Opium Poppy and Opium Known in the Ancient Near East?, Journal of the History of Biology 8:95–114 ♦ Kritikos, P. G./​Papadaki, S. N., 1967, The History of the Poppy and of Opium and their Expansion in Antiquity in the Eastern Mediterranean Area, Bulletin on Narcotics 19.3:18–40 ♦ 19.4:1– 10 ♦ Kroll, W., 1950, Aphrodisiacum, RAC 1:496–501 ♦ Leutzsch, M., 2001, Taumelloch, NBL 3:797 ♦ Merlin, M. D., 1984, On the Travel of the Ancient Opium Poppy, London/​Toronto ♦ Merrillees, R. S., 2003, On Opium, Pots, People and Places, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 167, Sävedalen:​​2–9, 10–19, 20–31, 121–126, 180–196 ♦ 2007, Not Quite “Stoned in the Stone Age”: A Unique White Slip I “Opium” Juglet from Cyprus, in: S. White Crawford et al. (eds.), “Up to the Gates of Ekron” (FS Seymour Gitin), Jerusalem:​​484–487 ♦ Meshorer, Y., 1982, Ancient Jewish Coins 2, Dix Hills ♦ Namdar, D./​Amrani, A./​Kletter, R., 2015, Cult and Trade in Yavneh through the Study of Organic Residues, in: R. Kletter/​I. Ziffer/​W. Zwickel (eds.), Yavneh 2, OBO.SA 36, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​​214– 223  ♦ Namdar, D./​Neumann, R./​Weiner, S., 2010, Residue Analysis of Chalcices from the Repository Pit, in: R. Kletter/​I. Ziffer/​W. Zwickel (eds.), Yavneh 1, OBO.SA 30, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​​167–173 ♦ Rätsch, C., 82007, Pflanzen der Liebe: Aphrodisiaka in Mythos,

7.  Alberts, A./​Mullen, P., 22006, Psychoaktive Pflanzen, Pilze und Tiere, Stuttgart  ♦ Arie, E./​Rosen, B./​ Namdar, D., 2020, Cannabis and Frankincense at the Judahite Shrine of Arad, TA 47:5–28 ♦ Ayalon, E. (ed.), 2006, Forbidden Fields: The Poppy and Opium from Ancient Time till Today, Tel Aviv ♦ Behn, C. P., 1986, The Use of Opium in the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean, Listy Filologické 109:193–197 ♦ Bisset, M. G., et al., 1996a, Was Opium Known in the 18th Dynasty Ancient Egypt?, ÄL 6:199–201 ♦ 1996b, The Presence of

Enforcement, Torture, and Execution

251 

Geschichte und Gegenwart, Aarau ♦ Röllig, W., 1975, Hanf, RlA 4:104  ♦ Rudgley, D., 21999, Lexikon der psychoaktiven Substanzen, Munich  ♦ Schneider, K./​ Stemplinger, E., 1950, Alraun, RAC 1:307–310 ♦ Stolerman, I. P. (ed.), 2010, Encyclopedia of Psychopharmacology, New York et al.  ♦ Vogelsang-Eastwood, G./​Cooke, W. D., 1989, Textiles, in: G. van der Kooij/​ M. Ibrahim (eds.), Picking Up the Threads …, Leiden:​​ 57–61 ♦ Zias, J., 1995, Cannabis Sativa (Ha­shish) as an Effective Medication in Antiquity: The Anthropological Evidence, in: S. Campbell/​A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, Oxford:​​ 232–234. Ulrich Hübner

Enforcement, Torture, and Execution 1.  According to ancient texts and iconography, three types of capital punishment were implemented in the ANE; stoning, impaling, and crucifixion. Among the typical methods of torture were flaying and maiming. Cremation was the most radical way of punishment affecting even the burnt person’s afterlife. 2.1.  Stoning was the normal practice of capital punishment in the OT. One or several persons threw stones at a guilty person until he or she died. This punishment was used in cases of cursing God (Lev 23:13–16, 23; 1 Kgs 21:10, 13), rel. offences (Ex 19:13; Lev 20:2, 27; Num 15:35–36; Dt 13:11; 17:5–7), sexual anomalies (Dt 22:20–21, 23–24), looting banned material (Josh 7:27), and rebellion against one’s parents (Dt 21:21). Stoning could also be practiced to express hate against polit. (1 Sam 30:6; 2 Chr 10:18) or rel. leaders (2 Chr 24:21). In Herod. times it was forbidden for non-Jews to enter the inner part of the Temple area. Inscriptions at the entrances  – two of which have been found (cf. Bieberstein/​Bloedhorn 1994:​372) – reminded everyone of this prohibition. Until now there are no arch. proofs for stoning in Palestine. 2.2.  The public display of enemies or criminals (Hebr. tlh, perhaps also yqʿ and tqʿ, if those verbs do not mean the breaking of bones) either on a gallows or by impalement is seldom mentioned in the OT (Dt 21:22–23; Josh 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam 4:12). Albeit already mentioned in the Codex Hammurabi (CH § 153) there are several examples esp. from Neo-Ass. texts (e. g., TUAT 1:372, line 202) and illustrations (cf. RlA 10:438). The system of impalement was used as well for presentation of already dead as well as living people, mainly as a punishment for rebels during wars. It is shown on Neo-Ass. reliefs (Barnett/​Bleibtreu/​Turner 1998:​pl. 350; Barnett/​Falkner 1962:​pls. 37–40). Impalement is also mentioned in Pers. (Behistun Inscription of Darius I, § 32; cf. Est 5:14; 6:4; 7:9–10; 8:7; 9:13– 14, 25) and Eg. texts (LÄ 6:69; cf. Gen 40:19, 22;

252

41:13). Due to their organic composition, no arch. evidence for gallows has been preserved in Palestine. 2.3.  Crucifixion is not mentioned in the HB, but was practiced according to Herodotus by the Medes and the Persians (Hdt. 1.128.2; 3.125.3; 3.132.2; 3.159.1). In Palestine this kind of punishment is perhaps mentioned for the first time in the Temple Scroll, 11Q19/20 (64, 6b–13), but perhaps the text means impalement. Crucifixion was used most often by the Romans to punish polit. rebels. Despite the fact that ancient Jew. texts and authors like Josephus refer to thousands of crucifixions by the Romans, just one arch. demonstration has been found as of today. An ossuary discovered in 1968 contained a nailed heel bone, which can be dated in the 1st cent. c.e. (Zias/​Sekeles 1985). 2.4.  Several types of torture are also known from texts and iconography, principally flaying and maiming. The flaying of the skin from a captured enemy or a rebellious king is mentioned several times in Ass. texts (Reiner 2006). Ass. reliefs also illustrate this kind of punishment (Bleibtreu 1991:​53). Maiming was practiced in ancient Israel and was part of the official legal practice (lex talionis, Ex 21:23–25) as a kind of symbol for annihilation of an enemy. The cutting off of the head (1 Sam 17:51; 29:4; 31:9; 2 Sam 4:7; 16:9; 20:22; 2 Kgs 10:6–8; Jud 13:8, 10, 18; 14:1, 11, 18; 1 Macc 7:47; 11:17; 2 Macc 15:30–35), the hands, legs (Ex 21:24; Dt 19:21; 25:12; Judg 1:6– 7; 2 Sam 4:12; 1 Macc 7:47; 2 Macc 7:4; 15:31), foreskins (1 Sam 18:25), and tongues (Bleibtreu 1991:​53) is often mentioned in the Bible as well as in the lit. of surrounding areas (e. g., TUAT 1:402 IV line 7). Some of these types of torture are also shown on reliefs (ANEP:348, 451). One of the best known scenes shows the victory banquet of Ashurbanipal and his wife celebrating the defeat of the Elamite king Teumman whose head hangs from a tree on the left side of the scene (Bleibtreu 1991:​53, 56, 57). Also the heads of divine figurines were often cut off, in order to destroy the power of the gods (Zwickel 1994). The cutting of a beard was also a symbol to dishonor a man (2 Sam 10:4). 2.5.  Cremation was a severe punishment used only in very few cases (Gen 38:24; Lev 20:14; 21:9; Josh 7:15, 25; Judg 12:1; 14:15; 15:6; 1 Kgs 13:2; 16:18; 2 Kgs 23:16, 20). In Mesopotamia this kind of punishment was used from the time of the Codex Hammurabi (CH § 25). Since, according to the Sem. understanding of the afterlife, human beings have to be buried, the burning of bodies or skeletons means a complete destruction of the person and the inability to live

Fabric (fb.) and Textiles (txs.)

253

254

in Sheol. A burial house near Amman with burnt bones and a bibl. story (1 Sam 31:12) are proofs not for this kind of torture, but for the practice of cremation introduced by foreign groups to the country at about 1200 b.c.e. (Zwickel 1993).

Evidence for txs. can also survive by means of impressions. The range of materials which will preserve cloth impressions is limited. It must be a soft substance that is capable of retaining the impression of the fibers, such as clay, soft limestone, wood, and sometimes wax (→ honey), bitumen, or lead. Impressions can also be identified on pottery, which had been placed on mats or cloth to dry before firing. Such impressions are always the negative of the original weave. In other cases, where fibers appear to be preserved, mineral replacement of textile fibers gives a positive replica of the cloth. Txs. in close contact with copper alloys such as bronze may also be preserved. Carbonization is another possible way in which txs. survive. If there is direct contact between the flames and the txs. little will survive. Wool turns to a black mass of bubbles, while vegetable fibers form a white or grey ash. It will be very difficult to recognize a textile in these traces. However, when the contact is indirect, it is possible for txs. to survive, esp. txs. made of vegetable fibers. Indirect contact with fire may occur when a burning loom falls on top of a piece of cloth. If the beams of the loom are not totally burnt or the fire is smothered, then the cloth may be preserved underneath. In some cases there will be no or little damage, while in others the textile will have been carbonized to some extent (Vogelsang-Eastwood 1989; 1993:​23; Boertien 2004; 2014:​154, fig. 12). While txs. and wooden looms are mostly absent in the arch. record, spindles, loom weights, spatulas, and needles survive and can be used to reconstruct textile production (Boertien 2004; 2008; 2012; 2014; 2015; → spinning). Texts and artistic representations can shed some light on the use of cloth. Txs. were used as clothing for men, women, and children for daily use and as ritual garments. In daily life txs. were also used for soft furnishing as bedding, → curtains, and cushions. Within the household cloth was used for towels, lamp wicks, bags, jar covers, and stoppers, and for outdoor uses such as animal trappings, awnings, and sails for → ships. The more exceptional uses of textile have to be mentioned, such as grave clothes and shrouds, covers of rel. objects, flags, and pennants. 3.  The production of txs. starts with obtaining suitable fibers. Fiber is a long and narrow hairlike component of plant or animal tissue, and by extension the smallest linear component (natural or manufactured) used to create a yarn. 3.1.  Usable textile fibers can be extracted from the stems or leaves of many plants, some wild and others domesticated. Examples of the latter include linen, which comes from the stems of the flax plant, and cotton, which is a seed hair. In

7.  Barnett, R. D./​Bleibtreu, E./​Turner, G. E., 1998, Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, London ♦ Barnett, R. D./​Falkner, M., 1962, The Sculptures of Aššurnasirpal II (883–859 B. C.), Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B. C.) and Esarhaddon (681– 669 B. C.) from the Central and Southwest Palaces at Nimrud, London  ♦ Bieberstein, K./​Bloedhorn, H., 1994, Jerusalem: Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft 3, BTAVO.B 100, Wiesbaden  ♦ Bleibtreu, E., 1991, Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death, BAR 17.1:52–61, 75 ♦ Reiner, E., 2006, The Reddling of Valerian, CQ 56:325–329 ♦ Zias, J./​Sekeles, E., 1985, The Crucified Man from Givʾat Mivtar, IEJ 35:22–27 ♦ Zwickel, W., 1993, 1 Sam 31,12 f. und der Quadratbau auf dem Flughafengelände bei Amman, ZAW 105:165– 174 ♦ 1994, Dagons abgeschlagener Kopf (1 Samuel V 3–4), VT 44:239–249. Wolfgang Zwickel

Fabric (fb.) and Textiles (txs.) 1.  The terms txs., cloth, and fb. are employed to denote a woven (interlaced) or a non-woven piece of manufactured cloth-like material for use in clothing (→ clothes), hangings, coverings, and wrappings. The textile industry is older than → pottery and perhaps even than → agriculture and stock breeding (→ animal husbandry), and it probably consumed far more hours of labor than pottery making and food production together (Barber 1991:​4). Although vegetal and animal fibers usually decay over time, under special conditions → baskets, mats, and even txs. survive. In general the survival of organic material is determined by the surrounding matrix and climate. Where organic objects of any type are preserved, the likelihood is that txs. will also be present. For the most part, txs. survive the ages in unusual conditions, such as desiccation, freezing, or anaerobic water logging. The basic conditions under which cloth survives can be divided into two main groups: in general, fibers made out of animal proteins such as hair or wool, will survive better under acidic conditions while vegetal fibers (cellulose) will tend to be preserved under alkaline conditions. 2.  In the ANE the oldest surviving txs. date from the pre-pottery Neolithic (7th mill. b.c.e.). Fragments of cloth and garments have been recorded from Nahal Hemar in the Judean Desert (6,500 b.c.e.; Schick 1988) and at Çatal Höyük in Anatolia (6,000 b.c.e.; Burnham 1965; Helbaek 1963; M. L. Ryder 1965; Vogelsang-Eastwood 1987).

Fabric (fb.) and Textiles (txs.)

255 

the Levant from early times onwards linen was produced and used, and in historic periods it was known as the most famous textile, while hemp has only recently been analyzed as a plant fiber used for textile production in the Jordan Valley during the Iron Age (Boertien 2004). Silk (Shamir/​Baginski 2017) and cotton are relative newcomers to the Levant, both arriving during the early Hell. period (Barber 1991:​30–33), however this might be disputed because the analysis of actual finds has not been very secure in the past and many are seldom redefined with modern technology. Linen was used for garments and undergarments (Ex 28:42; Judg 14:12; Ezek 44:18) and belts (Jer 13:1), turbans and headdresses (Ex 39:28), as well as for sails and awnings (Ez 27:7). Hangings are mentioned in Esth 1:6: “The courtyard was decorated with beautifully woven white and blue linen hangings, fastened by purple ribbons to silver rings embedded in marble pillars.” Eg. linen was used to make sheets, and colored sheets are mentioned in Prov 7:16. 3.2.  Animal fibers are defined as the hair of animals which can be used without harming or killing the animal. The hair of many animals, such as sheep, as well as the silk of the silkworm, can be used to make txs. The wool of sheep, goat, and camels was used to produce different types of cloth. One method to obtain wool is by extracting the wool during the molt, however, by the Iron Age wool and hair were obtained by shearing or cutting. Forbes (1956) states that plucking was a Bronze Age activity while shearing only appeared in the Iron Age about 1000 b.c.e. when suitable metal → tools could be manufactured from iron, a metal more elastic than bronze. Shears are first mentioned in a Neo-Bab. text. Shearing is mentioned in the HB (Gen 31:19; 38:12), where shearing is called gazaz, and sheepshearers gozezim. The first-fruit of wool was to be offered to the priests (Dt 18:4). Sheep are unique in the degree of woolliness attained through breeding. Sheep (Ovis) have a puzzling history because the genetic difference with wild goats (Capra) is unclear. Wild sheep such as the Ovis Orientalis, the Pers. Wild Sheep, are thought to be the chief progenitor of domestic sheep (Barber 1991:​21–24). The Moab Archaeological Resource Survey mentions the Ovis aries and the Capra hircus. The coat of the wild sheep and goat consists of fairly short, thick bristly hairs known as kemps, with shorter undercoat of fine wool fibers (Davis 2001:​156; Reed 1960:​137; Barber 1991:​22). Ryder (1969; 1983) suggests that fleece did not develop until the Bronze Age. White sheep became more common during the Iron Age, which

256

was also when the breeding of sheep with continuous wool growth may have begun (Davis 2001:​ 161–162). This change prevented the loss of wool and allowed sheep to be shorn when the fleece was required (Ryder 1969). The fleece was cut from the sheep using special shears which consisted of two blades, usually 15 cm in length, hinged together with a single spring (Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993:​33). Classical authors confirm that the invention of shears occurred in the Levant (Forbes 1956:​8–9, note 35). Wild goats (Capra) and wild sheep have similar hairy coats with woolly undercoat, the degree of woolliness depending upon species and/or subspecies and upon the season (Reed 1960:​137). Varieties of goats produce usable, even if mostly rather coarse wool or hair; cashmere goats on the contrary yield very fine fibers. In Mesopotamia goat hair was clipped and sheep wool was plucked or clipped (Barber 1991:​22, 29). The hair from the dromedary is used for making clothes, tents, carpets, robes, saddle-girths, and blankets. John the Baptist is known as the man who “was clothed with camel’s hair” (Mk 1:6). 4.1.  Examples of linen garments and clothes are illustrated in LBA Eg. → tomb paintings in scenes depicting women in long slim dresses and men and male servants in kilts (Davies 1973:​pls. 65, 66), while the clothing of foreigners, poss. of wool, is trimmed with colored bands and tassels (Davies 1973:​pl. 19). 4.2.  Iron Age clothing and horse blankets with elaborate woven designs are shown in detail on Ass. stone reliefs in the palaces at Nineveh (Barnett/​Lorenzini 1975:​pls. 76, 116, 118, 129). Images in other media, such as a faience tile from Medinet Habu, the mortuary temple of Ramses III, depicts a Levantine prisoner, poss. a Shasu, dressed in a long colorful garment (Rainey 2008:​53). At Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Northern Sinai), Iron Age textile remains have been excavated and analyzed. The collection of about a hundred textile fragments shows the use of wool and linen. Amongst these pcs. of txs. was a fb. made of a mixture of wool and linen (Sheffer/​Tidhar 1991a; Boertien 2007). In the HB the law prohibited the wearing of garments made of a mixture of different fibers, the so-called šaʿatnez as mentioned in Ex 28:4–8, Dt 22:11, and Lev 19:19. The txs. from Kuntillet ʿAjrud survived because of the dry desert conditions in the Sinai. Thus, these txs. function as a reference collection for rare Iron Age textile fragments excavated at other sites in the Levant. 6.  From the HB we may conclude that clothing consisted of some kind of undergarment with a garment worn on top “for that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin” (Ex 22:27).

Fibula/ae (fb./fbs.)

257

258

Polychrome fabrics such as Joseph’s “coat of many colors” (Gen 37:3), Aaron’s “broidered coat” (Ex 28:4), “the spoil of dyed stuff” of Sisera (Judg 5:30), and Tamar’s “garment of diverse colors” (2 Sam 13:18) were worn by wealthy people. In addition to the undergarment and the top garment (Isa 3:18–23), women wore hoods, veils, and other items which cannot be identified exactly. The HB mentions different specialists producing txs. In 2 Kgs 23:7, women produce txs. in workshops within the temple complex. A  skilled specialist is the man mentioned in 2 Chr 2:14 who knows all about → weaving and is an expert in dyeing purple, blue, and scarlet cloth (→ colors and dyes) and in working with linen. Textile storehouses (miltaḥot) existed in the royal palaces and temples both in Jerusalem (Jer 38:11) and in Samaria (2 Kgs 10:22).

28:1–26 ♦ 1991b, The Textiles from the ʿEn-Boqeq Excavation in Israel, Textile History 22:3–46 ♦ Vita, J.‑P./​ Matoian, V., 2009, Les textiles à Ougarit: Perspectives de la recherche, UF 41:469–504  ♦ Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. M., 1987, A Re-examination of the Fibres from the Çatal Hüyük Textiles, Oriental Carpet and Textiles Studies 3:15–19 ♦ 1989, Textiles, in: G. van der Kooij/​ M. Ibrahim (eds.), Picking Up the Threads …, Leiden:​​ 57–61 ♦ 1993, An Introduction to Archaeological Textiles, Textile Research Centre, Leiden. Jeannette H. Boertien

Fibula/ae (fb./fbs.) 1.  Fibulae (pl.) are pins used to attach a garment (→ clothes). The Lat. word means “clasp, brooch.” The word for fb. in bibl. Hebr. is unknown. 2.  The fb. consists of a bow, pin, and catch resembling the modern safety pin. As an arch. artifact it contributes to the dating of arch. contexts. The form and decoration of fbs. changed often in relatively short intervals and the various types 7.  Barber, E. J. W., 1991, Prehistoric Textiles: De- that developed are characteristic of particular velopment of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, arch. phases. Princeton ♦ Barnett, D. R./​Lorenzini, A., 1975, Assyr3.  Most fbs. were made of bronze. Iron fbs. were ian Sculpture in the British Museum, Toronto ♦ Boertien, J. H., 2004, Iron Age Loom Weights from Tall Dayr an exception and the use of gold and silver is rare. 4.  The oldest style of pin was needle-shaped, ʿAlla in Jordan, ADAJ 48:305–332 ♦ 2007, Asherah and Textiles, BN 134:63–77 ♦ 2008, Unravelling the Threads: usually made of bronze, and is known as a “togTextiles and Shrines in the Iron Age, in: M. L. Stein- gle pin,” which appeared in the EBA. Such pins er/​E. van der Steen (eds.), Sacred and Sweet, ANES had a pointed tip and thick top, where an eyelet Suppl. 24, Leuven et al.:135–151  ♦ 2012, Weaving at Tell Mazar: The Loomweights, in: E. van der Steen/​ was punched through the metal after the pin was K.Yassine, Tell el-Mazar 2, BAR IS 2430, Oxford:​​59– cast. With the end of the LBA and the beginning 72 ♦ 2014, Public or Domestic? Temple, Text and Textile of the Iron Age, poss. during the 10th cent. b.c.e., Production at Khirbet Al-Mudayna in Moab, in: E. van these straight pins were replaced by fbs. The deder Steen/​J. Boertien/​N. Mulder-Hymans (eds.), velopment of the fbs. in Cyprus and the ANE has Exploring the Narrative, Library of Hebrew Bible/​OTS been analyzed and summarized by Giesen (2001) 583, London/​New York:​​133–158 ♦ 2015, Textile Producand Pedde (2000; for older lit. see Birmingham tion at Tell er-Rumeith, in: T. J. Barako/​N. L. Lapp, Tell er-Rumeith, ASOR Archaeological Reports 22, Boston:​​ 1963; Blinkenberg 1926; Stronach 1959). The origins of fbs. are not entirely clear. Cer259–277 ♦ Burnham, H. B., 1965, Çatal Hüyük  – The Textiles and Twined Fabrics, AnSt 15:169–174 ♦ Davies, tainly, the fb. originated somewhere in Europe N. de Garis, 1944 (reprint 1973), Tomb of Rekh-mi-rēʿ and reached the Levant through contacts with the at Thebes, New York ♦ Davis, S. J. M., 2001, The Ar- Mycenaean culture of the Late Helladic III period. chaeology of Animals, London/​Batsford ♦ Forbes, R. J., The first fbs. came to the Eastern Medit. via Cy1956, Studies in Ancient Technology 4, Leiden ♦ Helbaek, H., 1963, Textiles from Çatal Hüyük, Archae- prus and not through Anatolia. The oldest fbs. in ology 67:39–46 ♦ Rainey, A., 2008, Shasu or Habiru: the Levant, the so-called “violin bow” fbs., were Who Were the Early Israelites?, BAR 34.6:51–55 ♦ Reed, found on Cyprus, in Cilicia and Northern Syria C. A., 1960, Review of the Archaeological Evidence on at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East, in: 12th cent. b.c.e. The bow took the form of an arm R. J. Braidswood/​B. Howe, Prehistoric Investigation with a catch in the shape of a hand to hold the in Iraqi Kurdistan, Chicago:​​119–145  ♦ Ryder, M. L., 1965, Report of Textiles from Çatal Hüyük, AnSt 15:175– pin. Since the 12th cent. b.c.e., an asymmetrical 176 ♦ 1969, Changes in the Fleece of Sheep Following bow fb. (or semicircular fb.; → fig. Fibula #1:1–2, Domestication, in: P. J. Ucko/​G. W. Dimbly (eds.), The col. 259) appeared also in Palestine, and examDomestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ples were found at Tell Abu Hawam Strata III and Chicago:​​495–521  ♦ 1983, Sheep and Man, London  ♦ IV. Bow fbs. with an arched pin were popular garSchick, T., 1988, Nahal Hemar Cave: Cordage, Basketry ment accessories throughout the 11th–4th cent. and Fabrics, ʿAtiqot 18:31–43 ♦ Shamir, O./​Baginski, b.c.e. (→ fig. Fibula #1:3–4 and 7, col. 259). At the A., 2017, Silk Textiles in the Southern Levant, Ancient end of the 8th cent. b.c.e., fbs. increasingly apNear East Today 5:7. http://asorblog.org/2017/07/25/ silk-textiles-southern-levant/ ♦ Sheffer, A./​Tidhar, A., pear in a triangular form (→ fig. Fibula #1:5–6 and 1991a, Textiles and Basketry at Kuntillat Ajrud, ʿAtiqot 8–9, col. 259).

Fibula/ae (fb./fbs.)

259 

1 2

0

1

2

3

4 cm

3 7

4 8

260

influences established during the 13th cent. b.c.e. that continued with the Sea Peoples’ migrations in the 12th cent. They became popular during the 11th and 10th cent. b.c.e. and remained a typical garment accessory until the 4th cent. b.c.e. 6.  Fbs. appear in figurative representations such as Ass. and Achaemenid reliefs, but it is difficult to identify these objects and their use in ancient texts such as the HB or Ass. inscriptions. Even bibl. texts that list garments and jewelry in detail, such as Isa 3:16–24, do not provide clear evidence of fbs. which were a popular accessory in the time of Isaiah (Platt 1979).

7.  Birmingham, J., 1963, The Development of the Fi­ bula in Cyprus and the Levant, PEQ 95:80–112 ♦ Blinkenberg, C., 1926, Fibules grecques et orientales, Det Kongelige Danske videnskabernes selskab: Historisk-­ filologiske skrifter 8.1: Lindiaka 5, Copenhagen ♦ Giesen, K., 2001, Zyprische Fibeln: Typologie und Chronologie, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature: Pocketbook 161, Jonsered ♦ Pedde, F., 2000, Vorderasiatische Fibeln: Von der Levante bis Iran, ADOG 24, Saarbrücken ♦ Platt, E. E., 1979, Jewelry of Bible Times and the Catalog of Isa 3:18–23, AUSS 17:71–81, 189– 201 ♦ Stronach, D., 1959, The Development of the Fi­ bula in the Near East, Iraq 21:180–206. Gunnar Lehmann

Finance 1.  Agriculture and livestock farming served as the economic basis of all societies in ancient 9 Palestine along with regional and international → trade. Traditional forms of economy, such as barter and money economies, as well as a coin5 based economy, which only developed in Palestine in the 2nd half of the 1st mill., did not Figure Fibula #1: develop in discrete succession, but existed simul1–9) Bronze fibulae. taneously. Transitions between each economy happened gradually, in a long process. Money Fbs. were popular throughout the Levant, Ana- and coin-based economies did not replace or end tolia, and Mesopotamia. During the 6th cent. traditional trading of natural goods or bartering, b.c.e., however, fbs. disappeared from the arch. but rather was complemented by them. A  coinrecord in Mesopotamia, while they remained pop- based economy existed next to the traditional preular in the Levant, in Syria and Palestine. Signifi- and paramonetary economic systems. 2.  The beginning of a monetary development in cantly, fbs. appear in Mesopotamia during the late 6th and the 5th cent. b.c.e. only in areas with de- Palestine, as well as in other places, came with ported populations from the Levant (Pedde 2000:​ the use of premonetary forms of exchange, such 365–366, map 62). In Egypt, they appeared in as livestock, metal bars, hacksilber, hackschmuck, contexts of military colonies, such as Elephantine, and others (Hübner 2014). Take, for instance, the silver plates of Samʾal (Zincirli), inscribed with a Jew. component of the population. With the end of the Pers. period, fbs. went out with the ruler’s name, from the 2nd half of the of use in Palestine and Syria. During the Rom. 8th cent. b.c.e. The word kikkar, well accounted period a new form of fb. appeared in the Levant for in Sem., can significantly mean both “round that was imported from the Western Medit. and bread” and “disk of lead, silver, or gold” (round originated in traditions that are not connected to bar). Herodotus described the manufacturing of metal bars for premonetary purposes in the 5th the fbs. discussed here. 5.  Fbs. were introduced to the Levant and Pal- cent. b.c.e. (Hdt. 3.96): “The king [Darius I] has estine at the end of the LBA with increasing Medit. the tribute added to his treasure in the following 6

Finance

261

262

way: the metal is melted and poured into clay vessels. When a vessel is full, the clay is removed and whenever money is needed, a piece of metal in the required size is cut from the mass” (cf. Aristot. pol. 1:9, 1257a–b). A number of hoards from the Iron Age are known, for instance, in Arad, Ashkelon, Beth-Shean, Dor, ʿEin Gedi, Ekron, Gezer, Megiddo, and Shechem, which consist mostly of hacksilber and hackschmuck, and the like (Thompson 2003). These hoards can be interpreted as collections of metal pcs., chopped and weighed and used as premonetary forms of money (Kletter 2003; 2004; Gitin/​Golani 2004; Silver 2006; → scale). The fact that these metal pcs. were normally not weighed according to a recognizable standardized measure does not necessarily mean that they must be metal supplies of a precious metal smith. A  metal smith would normally cut larger pcs. into smaller, norm-sized when reusing the metal or selling it for → jewelry making; a precious metal smith would have had to do exactly the same when reusing the metal (or when selling the jewelry). Exactly the same process was used with hacksilber and hackschmuck, which only become ‘standardized’ pcs. of metal when weighed with standardized weights. The essential aspect of the process was to make the pcs. durable and portable. Similar metal hoards exist from Pers. times. Early hoards are partly pure, partly mixed, consisting of coins, silver bars, silver pcs. and silver hackschmuck, and the like (Stucky 1983:​28–43; Gitler/​Tal 2019). The hoards changed in the late Achaemenid period. The rare hoards consist almost exclusively of coins, many of them buried between 350–322 b.c.e. Still, hardly any archaic coin hoards are known from Palestine, just single coins. Significantly more hoards, still intact, come from Hell. times, almost all of these consisting exclusively of coins. 3.  Coins are a specific form of money, namely mostly round, standardized pcs. of metal, with a particular fineness (precious metal) and weight. A  ruler, state, tribe, or → city claims these with their mark – picture or inscription (cf. Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24)  – to vouch for them, either nominally or in reality. By the 6th cent. b.c.e., G coins had spread throughout the Middle East and caused a continuation and an improvement of the existing premonetary system towards a monetarily complemented system, that is, one based on silver coins. 4.  The earliest coins found in Palestine are of G origin. They are archaic and early classical coinages from the late 6th and early 5th cent. b.c.e., esp. from Athens, Kos, Thasos, Corinth, Stagira, Aigina, Miletus, Chios, and Phocaea, but also coins of Lycian origin. The daric, a gold coin of

8.4 gr, the currency of the Achaemenid Empire, hardly circulated in Palestine; so far only a single Achaemenid coin or imitation of one is known, namely a double-daric (16 gr) from Samaria. It most likely imitates similar coins of Darius III (336–331 b.c.e.), and was struck under the Satrap Mazaios in Babylon soon after the year 331 b.c.e. (Zayadine 1967–1968:​78, pl. 51b). Achaemenid sigloi, Achaemenid silver coins, are equally rarely accounted for in Palestine. The mention of darics in Ezra 8:27 does not necessarily refer to the coin of this name, but rather to its worth or weight as a standard. The same is true for the G gold drachms, mentioned in Ezra 2:69 and Neh 7:70–72, which apparently rarely circulated in Palestine, if at all. Around the middle of the 5th cent. b.c.e., the Phoen. harbor cities began striking coins, supposedly first in Byblos, soon after in Tyros, Sidon, and Arados (Elayi/​Elayi 1993; 1996; 1999; 2004; 2009). Sidonian and, increasingly, Tyrian currency became the leading currencies in Palestine beside the G coins, with an importance far into Rom. times that can hardly be overestimated (Hanson 1980; Meshorer 1984). The so-called PhilistoArab. coins, struck between ca. 450/420 to 322 b.c.e., are the oldest silver coins in Palestine, with mints in Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod (Gitler/​ Tal 2006a; Mildenberg 1998; Gitler/​Ponting/​Tal 2008). Their silver content was about 94 %. Alexander the Great put an end to the Philisto-Arab. coinages. In the Pers. province of Shomron (Samaria) coins were struck ca. 370/360–332 b.c.e. (Meshorer 1982:​31–32, 98, 160; Meshorer/​Qedar 1999; Ronen 2007; Horowitz/​ Oshima/​Sanders 2006:​116–117; Gitler/​Tal 2006b; 2019; Wyssmann 2014; 2019). Again the campaign of Alexander the Great ended their production. These exclusively small silver Shomroncoins had a silver content of about 92 %. With the help of Aram., G, cuneiform, and paleo-Hebr. inscriptions, the coins could preserve principal place, provinces, people, and divine names. Almost all known coins come from the antiquities trade, with only a fraction from secure contexts. At the same time G imported coins could be stamped with countermarks (Š for Samaria, Sn for Sanballat). Among the Shomron-coinage a few subaerats, silver-plated coins, stick out. A  comparison of stamps shows that these coins were struck with official stamps. Beginning in the 2nd quarter to the middle of the 4th cent. b.c.e., coins were struck in the province of Judah (→ fig. Finance #1:1–3, col. 263), mostly small silver coins (Mildenberg 1998:​passim; Fontanille/​Lorber 2008). The most famous unique copy among the few drachms is the BMC Palestine S. 181, no. 29 of unknown origin (Kienle 1975), though Jeru-

Finance

263 

1

2

3 Figure Finance #1: 1–3) Yehud-coins from the province of Judah.

salem is the most likely mint (→ fig. Finance #1:1). Most Judean coins are markedly provincial, badly centered, and struck carelessly, with irregular and cracked flans. Some individual coins of the same denomination differed in weight so dramatically that traders would always need to weigh them. The silver content was about 95–96 %. Like the Shomron-coins, the Yehud-coins hardly occur outside the provincial borders and almost exclusively circulated on the domestic market. The paleoAram. and paleo-Hebr. legends mention the name of the province and name and title of the main provincial magistrate. The responsibility for coinage lay with the Judean governor and the high priest. The Yehud-coins were struck far into the reign of Ptolemy I (323–283/282 b.c.e.) and his wife Berenike I (317–279 b.c.e.). Ptolemy II (283– 246 b.c.e.) stopped this coinage and replaced

264

it, among others, with Ptolemaic bronze coins, esp. large bronzes, produced in large numbers (Lorber 2018). 4.4.  Alexander the Great (356–323 b.c.e.) created an international currency, which replaced almost completely the gold and silver currency of the Achaemenids in a short time, pushed aside Athenian and other G currencies, and circulated in almost all regions of the then known world (Price 1979; 1991; Zervos 1979; Mørkholm 1991:​41–54; Le Rider 2003; Weisser 2009). The currency was produced in large quantities – esp. in the form of staters and tetradrachmas  – and was still struck with Alexander’s name under Philipp III Arridaios (323–317 b.c.e.) and into the 3rd cent. b.c.e. From the time of the conquest of Tyros and Gaza in 332 b.c.e., in Syro-Phoenicia, the cities of Sidon (as early as 333 b.c.e.), Akko-Ptolemais, Tyros, Berytos, and esp. Damascus struck Alexander-coins made from gold, silver, and bronze. The Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt started a system of economy and administration, mostly monopolistic and fiscal, under the control of a dioiketes. The Ptolemaic silver coins and, from the 2nd half of the 3rd cent. b.c.e., bronze coins became the leading currency in Palestine without replacing foreign currencies. The Ptolemaic coins that circulated in Palestine were mostly struck in Alexandria, Akko-Ptolemais, Tyros, and Sidon, but also in Joppa-Jaffa, Gaza, and Dor (Kromann/​Mørkholm 1977; Hoover 2008; Lorber 2018). At the end of the reign of Ptolemy V (205/204–181/180 b.c.e.), Seleuc. coins gradually replaced the Ptolemaic coins. From the end of the 2nd cent. b.c.e. onward, the Seleuc. currency was most common, both within and beyond Palestine. Mints of the Seleuc. time included Antioch, Akko-Ptolemais, Ashkelon, Gaza, Damascus, Tyros, Sidon, and Berytos (Hoover 2007; Houghton 1983; Houghton/​Lorber 2002; Houghton/​Lorber/​Hoover 2008; Spaer et al. 1998). The abandonment of the Seleuc. mint in Jerusalem in 131/130 b.c.e. marks the beginning of the epoch of Hasm. coinage (Hübner 2005; Jacobson 2015; Meshorer 2001:​23–59; Ostermann 2005; Regev 2013:​ 175–223): Coins produced by the Hasmoneans themselves stem from at least the time of John Hyrcanus I  (135/134–104 b.c.e.) up to the time of Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 b.c.e.). Almost all Hasm. coins are small bronzes  – under Alexander Jannaeus (104–76 b.c.e.) lead coins were also struck – with denominations resembling the Seleuc. lepton and dilepton. As the Hasmoneans only struck coins of base metal, during this era people carried out bigger transactions with foreign silver currencies or premonetary means. The legends of the Hasm. coins contain names, titles,

Finance

265

266

and institutions of those politically responsible in two or three languages. 5.  Epigr. and literary evidence provides a number of clues to processes, which fit in with the purely numismatic evidence. For example, the tribute to the temple in Jerusalem originally could be paid in natural goods. Paying the temple tax in silver coins only became common later. The temple’s function in financial politics as a bank did not change fundamentally with the introduction of coins. The various smaller kings of Palestine paid tributes to the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Achaemenids in a number of premonetary forms, including metal bars, esp. made of gold, silver, tin, and iron, but also in → ivory, wood, → fabrics, animals, and natural goods. Ostraca from Iron Age II–III mention, beside the common goods, payments or taxes relatively rarely in ksp, š(qlym), and if they do, always with the meaning of weighed silver or as the worth of the goods, but not with coins. This form of payment appears, for instance, in the Hebr. ostraca from Arad and the Aram. ostraca from Beer-Sheba, Khirbet Gharra or Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ostracon 2069). In the numerous Idumaen ostraca of the 4th cent. b.c.e., in the Aram. language of Mareshah (and its vicinity), ksp/kspʾ and the terms šql, rbʿ and m(ʿh) rarely appear and, when they do, it is unlikely that they designate coin denominations. Contrast this phenomenon with the natural goods, wine, grain, flour, → oil, and straw, documented according to their measurements. So far no evidence exists in the Mareshah ostraca from the 4th cent. of the use of coins (cf. esp. Ephal/​Naveh 1996; Lemaire 1996; Aḥituv/​Yardeni 2004). The same is true for other documents, for instance, an Aram. papyrus from the vicinity of St.  George’s monastery west of Jericho from the 2nd half of the 4th cent. b.c.e. (H. Eshel/​Misgar 1988) or the Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri from the years 354– 335 b.c.e. (Gropp and Bernstein et al. 2001; Dušek 2007). But later epigr. evidence from Hell. times (3rd–2nd cent. b.c.e.) supports the use of denominations, which not only designate worth, but also concrete coins; see, for instance, the Aram.-G receipt from a money-lender in Khirbet el-Kom from the 3rd cent. b.c.e., the numerous G Zenon papyri, or an Aram. marriage contract from the year 176 b.c.e. from Mareshah (E. Eshel/​Kloner 1996). The monetarization of Palestine had its predecessors in the Bronze (Yalçin/​Pulak/​Slotta 2005; Katz 2008) and Iron Ages. In Palestine, monetarization began in Pers. times, first in the Phoen. N Palest. coast of the Medit., then on the S Palest. coast, finally reaching the landlocked hill country, first in Northern Palestine with Samaria, and at last in Judah.

The monetarization was thus regionally differentiated and staggered over time. Some regions in Palestine, esp. E Jordan, did not strike their own coins in either the Achaemenid or Hell. epoch, and coins circulated significantly less in E Jordan than in the rest of Palestine. The introduction of precious metal coins convinced those involved in the economy because of their usefulness in different ways. Coins proved durable, manageable, and portable. They also offered a stable value, as a unit of account, means of payment, measure of value, raw material, means of exchange, merchandise, and a means of accumulation of wealth. At the same time people still deeply mistrusted coins. This distrust was expressed in weighing coins, making test strokes on the coins, cutting coins, and the maintenance of premonetary forms of economy. Silver coins of very different provenance were in circulation, based on different mint prices. This form of monetary ‘anarchy’ – different currencies, currency systems, and economic systems existing side by side  – forced people to examine the coins’ genuineness and fineness. The large number of accounted-for test strokes, countermarks, hallmarking, and graffiti on the coins prove the general mistrust of coins (Elayi 2007; Elayi/​Lemaire 1998; Lemaire 2003–2006). People esp. feared fake coins, that is silver-plated, subaerat coins. Laws threatening a death sentence for coin forgery indicate the seriousness of this fear. Far into the time of the British mandate the weighing of precious metal coins was not uncommon. The multitude of currencies made the weighing of coins necessary. All currencies were convertible through weighing. Use of weights increased worries because of the possibility of forged weights. Significantly, the OT does not forbid forging coins, but does forbid fraud with forged weights and scales (Lev 19:35– 36; Dt 25:13–15; Hos 12:7–8; Am 8:5; Mic 6:10– 11; Ez 45:10; Job 31:6; Prov 11:1; 16:11; 20:23). Coins have been understood as a special form of silver bars for a long time, as they had no numbers. A  coin’s worth was estimated by the real worth of the metal. People not only weighed coins, but the evidence points to widespread cutting of coins, to a degree similar to cutting silver bars and jewelry in the days of strictly premonetary trade. Arch. finds and literary documents provide evidence of mixed use of metal bars and coins, even when coins dominated trade (Stucky 1983:​28–43; 3Q15 I, 5; II, 4; cf. Josh 7:21). According to Dan 5:25–26, a writing appeared on the wall in the residence in Babylon, which Daniel interprets as “counted, weighed, and cut/separated,” a phrase that assumes knowledge of the normal procedure in premonetary trade.

Finance

267 

6.  Overall, Iron Age II–III was dominated by premonetary economic systems based on the valuation of natural goods and silver. Documented denominations and weights often remain ambiguous, but in pre-Hell. times they hardly ever refer to coined money, but rather weighed silver. Things only changed gradually, even with the import of foreign coins and the striking of local coins. Premonetary forms of economy were not replaced by monetary forms. Early coinages in Palestine were imported and so only a secondary cultural phenomenon in Palestine, highly dependent on foreign influences. Introduction of coins did not fundamentally reform the existing premonetary system, but continued and improved the existing, silver-based system. Thus a new monetary system developed that was based on silver coins to a wider extent, but not exclusively. The traditional barter, that is, premonetary, system remained the main form of transaction, but price and worth of goods could be given in silver among other valuable goods. Monetarization only consolidated after the introduction of coins made of base metals, struck from bronze, copper, or lead. Although these token coins were metal-based in the beginning, their real metal value soon separated from their nominal value. The potential variance in the worth of these token coins proved disadvantageous to their use, compared to conventional silver coins as a result of their history, depending on the volume of money, basket of goods, range of goods, the worth of the raw material, and prices. Only in Hell. times did token coins appear in large quantities. Under the Hasmoneans millions of small coins of base metal were struck. Achaemenid and Hell. Palestine monetarization occurred only partially and gradually. Only from Hell. times onward did coinage became a nationwide phenomenon, inclusive of all sections of the population, though the monetary economic systems did not replace traditional economic systems. An economy based on coins can never be an exclusive economic system, but only one among others. Even in the ancient history of economy in Palestine and other regions, periods of demonetarization and the increased return to barter were well known.

7.  Aḥituv, S./​Yardeni, A., 2004, Seventy Aramaic Texts on Ostraca from Idumea, Maarav 11:7–23 ♦ Ariel, D. T., 2019, The Coins, in: I. Stern, Excavations at Maresha, Subterranean Complex 169: Final Report. Seasons 2000–2016, Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 11, Jerusalem:​326–352 ♦ Dušek, J., 2007, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.‑C., CHANE 30, Boston/​ Leiden ♦ Elayi, J., 2007, The Tyrian Monetary Inscriptions of the Persian Period, Transeuphratène 34:65– 101 ♦ Elayi, J./​Elayi, A. G., 1993, Trésors de monnaies

268 phéniciennes et circulation monétaire (Ve–IVe siècles avant J.‑C.), Paris  ♦ 1996, Nouveaux trésors de monnaies phéniciennes (CH VIII), Transeuphratène 11:95– 114  ♦ 1999, Nouveau trésor de monnaies aradiennes, athéniennes et/ou pseudo-athéniennes, Transeuphratène 18:75–85 ♦ 2004, Le monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque perse (Ve–IVe s. av. J.‑C.), 2 vols., Suppl. à Transeuphratène 11, Paris ♦ 2009, The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period, OLN 188, Leuven ♦ Elayi, J./​Lemaire, A., 1998, Graffiti et contremarques ouest-sémitiques sur les monnaies grecques et proche-orientales, Milan ♦ Ephal, I./​ Naveh, J., 1996, Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea, Jerusalem ♦ Eshel, E./​Kloner, A., 1996, An Aramaic Ostracon of an Edomite Marriage Contract from Maresha dated 176 B. C. E., IEJ 46:1– 22  ♦ Eshel, H./​Misgar, H., 1988, A  Fourth Century B. C. E. Document from Ketef Yeriho, IEJ 38:158–176 ♦ Fontanille, J.‑P./​Lorber, C., 2008, Silver Yehud Coins with Greek or Pseudo-Greek Inscriptions, Israel Numismatic Research 3:45–49 ♦ Gitin, S./​Golani, A., 2004, A Silver-Based Monetary Economy in the 7th Century BCE, Levant 36:207–210  ♦ Gitler, H./​Ponting, M./​Tal, O., 2008, Metallurgical Analysis of Southern Palestinian Coins of the Persian Period, Israel Numismatic Research 3:13–27 ♦ Gitler, H./​Tal, O., 2006a, The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: A  Study of the Earliest Coins of Palestine, Collezioni Numismatiche 6, Milan/​New York ♦ 2006b, Coins with the Aramaic Legend Šhrw and Other Unrecorded Samarian Issues, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 85:47–60 ♦ 2019, The Nablus 1968 Hoard: A Study of Monetary Circulation in the Late Fourth and Early Third Centuries BCE Southern Levant, New York ♦ Gropp, D. M., 2001, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh, and M. Bernstein et al., Qumran Cave 4  – XXVIII: Miscellanea Part 2, DJD 28, Oxford ♦ Hanson, R. S., 1980, Tyrian Influence in the Upper Galilee, Meiron Excavation Project 2, Cambridge, Mass. ♦ Hoover, O., 2007, Coins of the Seleucid Empire in the Collection of Arthur Houghton 2, New York  ♦ 2008, Ptolemaic Lead Coinage in Coele Syria (103–101 BCE), Israel Numismatic Research 3:81–85 ♦ Horo­witz, W./​ Oshima T./​Sanders S., 2006, Cuneiform in Canaan, Jerusalem ♦ Houghton, A., 1983, Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of A. Houghton, New York/​ Wetteren  ♦ Houghton, A./​Lorber, C., 2002, Seleucid Coins, vol. 1: Seleucus I through Antiochus III, New York/​London  ♦ Houghton, A./​Lorber, C./​Hoover, O., 2008, Seleucid Coins, vol. 2: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII, New York/​London ♦ Hübner, U., 2005, Tradition und Innovation, in: C. Frevel (ed.), Medien im antiken Palästina, FAT 2.10, Tübingen:​171–187  ♦ 2014, The Development of Monetary Systems in Palestine during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic Eras, in: J. von Hagen/​M. Welker (eds.), Money as God?, Cambridge, U. K.:159–183  ♦ Jacobson, D. M., 2015, Antioch and Jerusalem: The Seleucids and Maccabees in Coins, London ♦ Katz, H., 2008, The Ship of Uluburun and the Ship from Tyre, ZDPV 124:128–142 ♦ Kienle, H., 1975, Der Gott auf dem Flügelrad, GOF.H 7, Wiesbaden ♦ Kletter, R., 2003, Iron Age Hoards of Precious Metals in Palestine – an ‘Underground’ Economy?, Levant 35:139–152 ♦ 2004, Coinage before Coins?, Levant 36:207–210 ♦ Kromann, A./​Mørkholm, O., 1977, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Copenhagen ♦ Le Rider,

Fishing (f.)

269

270

G., 2003, Alexandre le Grand: Monnaie, finances et politique, Paris ♦ Lemaire, A., 1996, Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israel, Paris ♦ 2003– 2006, Graffito hébreu sur tétradrachme Pseudo-Athénien, INJ 15:24–27 ♦ Lorber, C. C., 2018, Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire, Parts 1–2: Ptolemy I  through Ptolemy IV, New York ♦ Meshorer, Y., 1982, Ancient Jewish Coinage 1, Dix Hills ♦ 1984, One Hundred Ninety Years of Tyrian Shekels, in: A. Houghton et al. (eds.), Numismatik, Kunstgeschichte, Archäologie (FS Leo Mildenberg), Wetteren:​171–179 ♦ 2001, A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba, Jerusalem/​Nyack ♦ Meshorer Y./​Qedar, S., 1999, Samarian Coinage, Numismatic Studies and Researches 9, Jerusalem ♦ Mildenberg, L., 1998, Vestigia Leonis, NTOA 36, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Mørkholm, O., 1991, Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea, New York ♦ Ostermann, S., 2005, Die Münzen der Hasmonäer, NTOA 55, Göttingen/​Fribourg ♦ Price, M. J., 1979, On Attributing Alexanders – Some Cautionary Tales, in: O. Mørkholm/​N. M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology (FS Margaret Thompson), Wetteren:​241–250  ♦ 1991, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus 1–2, Zurich/​London ♦ Regev, E., 2013, The Hasmoneans, Göttingen ♦ Ronen, Y., 2007, Twenty Unrecorded Samarian Coins, Israel Numismatic Research 2:29–33 ♦ Silver M., 2006, Coinage before Coins?, Le­ vant 38:187–189 ♦ Spaer, A., et al. (eds.), 1998, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum  – Israel, vol. 1: The A. Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins, London  ♦ Thompson, C. M., 2003, Sealed Silver in Iron Age Cisjordan and the ‘Invention’ of Coinage, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22:67–107 ♦ Stucky, R. A., 1983, Ras Shamra  – Leukos Limen, Bibliothèque Historique et Archéologique 110, Paris ♦ Weisser, B., 2009, Perser, Alexander und die Seleukiden, in: S. Hansen/​A. Wieczorek/​M. Tellenbach (eds.), Alexander der Große und die Öffnung der Welt, Publikationen der Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen 36, Mannheim et al.:111–117 ♦ Wyssmann, P., 2014, The Coinage Imagery of Samaria and Judah in the Late Persian Period, in: C. Frevel/​K. Pyschny/​I. Cornelius (eds.), A  “Religious Revolution” in Yehûd?, OBO 267, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​221–266 ♦ 2019, Das spätperserzeitliche Samaria und seine Münzbilder, OBO 288, Leuven ♦ Yalçin, Ü./​Pulak, C./​Slotta, R. (eds.), 2005, Das Schiff von Uluburun, Veröffentlichung aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 138, Bochum ♦ Zayadine, F., 1967–1968, Samaria-Sebaste, ADAJ 12–13:77–80 ♦ Zervos, O. H., 1979, Near Eastern Elements in the Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great, in: O. Mørkholm/​ N. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology (FS Margaret Thompson), Wetteren:​295–305. Ulrich Hübner

highly diverse and exists in different surroundings, ranging from rivers, lakes, lagoons, and estuaries to coastal waters and the open sea (for iconogr. representations → iconography of animals [non-mammalian animals]). F. methods adapt to these various environments and, therefore, are equally diverse. 2.  Examples of f. regions include the Medit., the Black Sea, inland rivers, such as the Euphrates, Tigris, Orontes, and Jordan, or lakes such as the Lake of Galilee. Each zone requires different methods, technologies, and expertise to exploit, making f. a correspondingly complex activity, ranging from simple gathering to intentional seafaring and breeding. F. can be done with rods or various types of nets, from land or from boats. People can temporarily or seasonally supplement an agricultural diet by occasionally adding fish from the sea or nearby rivers and lakes, or they may live permanently on fish (van Neer/​Zohar/​ Lernau 2005). Since fresh fish spoils within no more than two days and becomes inedible, methods of preservation were used from early on. They include, above all, salting and drying and in later times controlled fermentation (Rom. garum and liquamen) (Curtis 1991; Cotton/​Lernau/​Goren 1996). Furthermore, f. creates markets, since every catch creates a surplus that can be traded for other products. It also creates a number of secondary industries, such as shipbuilding (→ ship), making nets, sails, and → ropes and in manufacturing specialized → tools for production and repair of necessary implements. Often, hired labor was necessary to staff boats and help with the preserving and marketing of fish. Although a considerable degree of experience and craftsmanship was necessary for successful f., people engaged in that → trade were usually among the least respected and had an even humbler social standing than other craftsmen or farmers (Hdt. 2.164). Although it has so far been difficult to reconstruct the evolution of f., research on ichthyofauna provides an important stimulus to reflect upon innovations in technology, trade, and exchange patterns, aspects of social history, and changing environmental conditions (van Neer/​Zohar/​ Lernau 2005). Regrettably, few excavation projects place enough emphasis on the recovery (lack of sieving!), analysis, and publication of fish remains. Consequently, data is limited and unsystematic (Lev-Tov 2003). 3.  Apart from texts and works of figurative art (very few from Isr. or Judean objects), f. is attested through implements (sinkers, nets, anchors) and fish bones. Remains of shipping are not necessarily evidence of f. alone, but can, of course, also be connected to maritime trade and traffic.

Fishing (f.) 1.  F. has been part of human activity around the Medit. since time immemorial (Radcliffe 1926; Hornell 1950; von Brandt 1984; Gallant 1985; van Neer 1994; Nun 1997). Many coastal settlements subsisted at least partly on aquatic (both maritime and freshwater) fauna, above all fish, but also on consuming molluscs, shellfish, and sea mammals. Aquatic wildlife is

Fishing (f.)

271 

4.  According to van Neer/​Zohar/​Lernau 2005, the oldest traces of continental freshwater f. come from Ohalo II (Epipaleolithic, 23,000 CAL BP) on the Lake of Galilee where ca. 5,000 bones of cichlidae and cyprinidae were found (the remains from neighboring Lower Paleolothic ʿUbeidiyah and Gesher Benot Yaʾaqob might not be anthropogenic). The inhabitants of Ohalo II employed various catching techniques (weirs, → baskets, traps, and nets) mainly in the riverine and lacustrine inshore areas. The first attestation of exploiting coastal maritime fauna comes from Natufian/​PPNA el-Wad in the Levant. Imports from marine-littoral habitats on the Medit. and from Egypt (Nile perch) to inland sites in Palestine are first attested in EBA Lachish. The EBA Strata of Sidon and Besik Yassitepe produced the first remains of fish caught in the open sea. The major species exploited in Anatolia and Mesopotamia are cyprinids (e. g., carps) and silurids (e. g., catfish), in the Medit. region cyprinids, clariids, and cichlids are attested most. The oldest literary evidence of f. comes from Egypt and dates to the 3rd mill. b.c.e.: in the “Satire of the Artisans,” a scribe warns his pupil of the high dangers (crocodiles!) and low revenues (high taxes!) of f. in the Nile. 4.1.  Many implements are already known from Eg. → tombs. Numerous netting needles have also been found in Eg. tombs and at other sites along the Medit.; they measured between 10–30 cm long, were made of bone, wood, or → metal, and were used for → weaving and mending nets (Nun 1993:​35; Sahrhage 1998). Moreover, in the ancient cemetery at Gaza, for instance, Flinders Petrie found hundreds of lead sinkers in fishermen’s tombs of the 14th cent. b.c.e. 4.2.–4.3.  Since ancient Israelites and Judeans had no direct access to the sea, f. played a minor role for food supply other than for people living on the Medit. coast. Sources of fresh fish were the Lake of Galilee, the only likely place where professional fishermen existed in the Isr. Iron Age. Imports, therefore, had to supplement the menu. In the carefully excavated deposits at early Iron Age Dor, a Phoen. settlement at that time, fish had the highest species diversity despite the overall preponderance of mammals (Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008:​35–36). Fish remains represented three aquatic habitats: the Medit., local freshwater (rare), and River Nile (abundant). At Dor, most fish came from the shallow littoral zones of the Medit. and its estuaries, not from open freshwaters, and were captured by unselective methods such as traps or nets, although spears might also have been in use for species living in rocky zones. Local species (shark/stingray, meagre/drum, and

272

sea bream from Medit. littoral zone; dusky grouper and gray triggerfish from the Medit. rocky littoral zones; different subspecies of mullet from estuaries and Medit. freshwater; St. Peter’s fish and catfish from freshwater, see also Ben-Tuvia 1971) indicate the range and methods of f. activities and also attest to interregional trade (51 % of the total fish remains came from Nile perch and Nile catfish) (Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008:​12 species from ten families; on Nile perch see also Routledge 2015). Nile perch was imported whole, cut-up longitudinally but with heads, in a way still seen in traditional fishing communities that produce dried or salted fish (cut marks: Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008:​41–42). This method corresponds to illustrations in tombs at Beni Hasan in Egypt (Newberry 1893:​pls. 12, 28; Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008:​49, fig. 19; van Elsbergen 1997, in general) and in texts (report of Wen-Amun in TUAT 3:919). The lack of pelagic species, such as tunny, indicates “that the fishermen of Dor did not venture into the deep sea” (Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008:​48). Given the paucity of published fish remains, it is difficult to say how representative the evidence from Iron Age I Dor actually is (but see below on Jerusalem). A correspondence between fish remains and a large amount of Eg. jar fragments found on-site is possible. It is also likely that inland sites, such as Megiddo, were supplied through Dor (“people of Tyros” trading in fish, Neh 13:16; cf. Job 40:30). In later Strata at Dor, Nile perch apparently is much scarcer. Iron Age II Israelites and Judeans were mostly dependent upon catching fish in freshwaters, such as the Lake of Galilee, Lake Hule, the Jordan, or the Kishon, and on imported sea fish. Careful research on fish bones from the City of David excavations confirms local consumption of fish both from the Medit. coastal waters (little tunny, sea bream, meagre, gray mullet) and freshwater (Nile catfish and Nile perch probably from Egypt; tilapia from the Jordan or Yarkon rivers) in the 8th and early 6th cent. b.c.e. (Lernau/​Lernau 1989; 1992), neatly paralleling evidence from Iron Age I Dor. The Dead Sea, of course, provided no habitat for fish; the ponds and springs at the shore, however, did (prophetic reversal in Ez 47:10). Professional Isr. and Judean fishermen probably only existed on the Lake of Galilee. Since fresh fish spoils within days of being caught, many people only consumed fish dried or salted (Tob 6:7; KTU 4.427:23–19; Samʾal stela ANEP:no. 633). International trade with dried fish was well established in the Iron Age. The Eg. official Wen-Amun, for instance, exported baskets full of dried fish around 1075 b.c.e. to Phoen. Byblos (TUAT 3:919).

Fishing (f.)

273

274

Arch. remains, such as net sinkers made of stone and metal hooks, a bone netting needle from Ashkelon (King/​Stager 2001:​122), and a trident from Gezer are well attested in locations close to water. Despite explicit regulations (Lev 11:9–12; Dt 14:9–10), Nile catfish is documented in the paleozoological record, for instance, in Jerusalem’s City of David (Lernau/​Lernau 1992:​131–132). Iconographically, fish only occasionally appear on Hebr.-Judean → seals and stamp impressions. 4.4.  In Hell. and Rom. antiquity, people continued f. in the sea, as well as in rivers and lakes (Plin. nat. 32.11–13; Oppian hal. passim), using various implements depending on region and purpose, such as f. ropes with or without rod using different bait (Aelian nat. an. 15), tridents, hooks of metal, → horn, or bone, as well as nets (cast nets or large drag nets lowered from boats or from the shallow shore: Virgil georg. 1.142; Mt 13:47) or fish traps made of wicker (Plin. nat. 21.114). Different methods of catching fish are listed, for instance, in Plat. soph. 219a–221c, Oppian hal. 3.76–91. Along the coasts of Late Hell. and Rom. Spain, N Africa, Gaul, and Italy, large fish farms were set up, which specialized in large-scale breeding of fish that were to be processed into fish sauce and paste (garum, liquamen, hallex, Plin. nat. 31.94– 95). Fish sauce was traded in amphorae in huge quantities across the Rom. Empire, a shipment of which even reached the remote fortress of Herod at Masada (Cotton 1996). Fish sauce was available in various qualities and used in numerous dishes (Apicius, De re coquinaria!), but never considered a full dish on its own. In classical antiquity, fish is an essentially urban phenomenon (see, e. g., Davidson 1998:​3–20). Due to the short period fresh fish preserves, exquisite fish dishes became a symbol of elite luxury and decadence. To Greeks and Romans, quality fish was a highly desirable commodity (Purcell 1995; Wilkins 1993); rich Romans raised special breeds of fish in specialized ponds. Exquisitely prepared, such fish, served in whole or cut up, could even become the main course of a gourmet’s meal (Archestratos of Gela, Hedupatheia [“On Luxurious Life”] apud Athena. deipn. 8.16– 17; Columella, De re rustica; Plin. nat. 9.67–68; Athen. deipn. 7 [302e]; Apic. coq. 9.11–13; 10.1, 6–9 and 11–13). Artificial fish ponds (piscinae, see Higginbotham 1997) were a status-symbol for elite Romans, esp. if they were used to raise such spectacular species as moray eel or other rare fish (Varro rust. 3.17.5–10; Cic. Att. 1.19.6; Plin. nat. 9.170–172; Mart. epigr. 10.30; Tac. hist. 5.12 in Jerusalem; y. Sanh. 10:29c). Due to their value as status-symbols, representations of fish and sea-

food quickly resurfaced as decorative elements on domestic objects and architecture. Plates from late 5th or 4th cent. b.c.e. Southern Italy depicting surprisingly naturalistic fish and seafood, as well as the catching, transporting, and marketing of fish in lively scenes (Sparkes 1995); mosaics with nicely decorated maritime dishes or remains thereof are mentioned already in Plin. nat. 9.43– 104. Poor people ate dried or salted fish as a sidedish with beans, pulses, or bread (Mk 6:38, 41, 43; Athen. deipn. 7 [276e–f]). Tuna, which traverses the Medit. Sea in huge schools, was held in esp. high esteem (Plin. nat. 9.44–53; Oppian hal. 3.620–648), as well as mackerel, swordfish, and sturgeon (Strabo 1.2.16; 7.3.18). Apart from fish, fruits de mer like oysters, clams, mussels and other shellfish, snails, or squid were part of daily menus of people living close to the sea. Wherever fish was available, it was a common and well-liked type of food in ancient Judaism, although fruits de mer and some species of fish (mostly those without scales) were prohibited by rel. law (Lev 11:9–12; Dtn 14:9–10; m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:6). Most fish caught in the Medit. Sea was probably imported; Ben-Sira, a member of the Jew.based elite, knows different species of fish only from hearsay and shivers when he learns of the vast sea (Sir 43:24–25). In the Lake of Galilee region, Tiberias and Magdala served as centers of catching and processing fish. Τάριχος, the G expression for salted fish, lent Magdala its second name (“saltfish-town,” Zangenberg 2001; Bauckham 2018); the toponym of Beth-Saida (“house of fishermen”) supports this. A large artificial harbor has been excavated at Magdala (DeLuca/​Lena 2015; Lena 2018). Esp. through the NT, Josephus, and rabb. lit. we are well informed about the situation on the Lake of Galilee (Krauss 1966:​145–146; cf. Dalman 1939:​343–379). According to Josephus, the inhabitants of Magdala were able to launch more than 230 boats against the Romans during the First War, many of which could also have been used for f. (Jos. vita 12, 163). It is conceivable that almost every extended family in the numerous settlements along the shore of the lake had access to a boat to supplement daily food supply, since the coastal strip was often narrow and too swampy for doing intensive → agriculture. Members of the urban elite in Magdala and Tiberias benefited from leasing boats to families and boat-contractors and from marketing fish products, scooping off a good deal of the value generated by fishermen. Associations of fishermen are attested in G inscriptions from outside Palestine (Purcell 1995:​146–147) and in the Talmud in Palestine (Sperber 1986:​ 31–32). Finds from f. → villages, such as et-Tell

Fishing (f.)

275 

near Beth-Saida, indicate that f. families were not necessarily among the poor and destitute, but were – esp. if they owned the → ship – small-scale entrepreneurs who had (limited) access to fine wares, → glass, and other objects of modest luxury. Although f. was an important source of income for families in the villages around the Lake of Galilee and required special skills and resources (boats, nets, etc.), people supplemented  their diet from local agriculture, engaging in a kind of mixed economy. Like agriculture, the f. industry required unskilled labor, usually hired by the ship owners (Mk 1:16–20). Perhaps f. concessions had to be bought from the authorities as in Ptolemaic Egypt (Hanson 1998; Zangenberg 2001; Hakola 2017; Bauckham 2018). F. implements are particularly known from Late Hell./​Rom. sites around the Lake of Galilee (Fortner 1999, on et-Tell; Corbo 1975:​83, on Capernaum; Nun 1993:​39–62, in general), but the lack of published assemblages from other sites, esp. on the Medit. coast, should not lead one to conclude that finds from the Lake were unique. The most specific documentation in Palestine comes from the Hell./early Rom. village of et-Tell. Here, typical f. implements were found equally distributed across all three areas excavated, without any concentrations. F., among other food production activities, therefore, was daily business in lakeside f. villages, such as et-Tell. Finds ranged from “weights on throw-nets, drag nets, and hook-andline fishing implements [to] tools to repair nets; and […] anchors for boats” (Fortner 1999:​269). Technically, f. implements from et-Tell fall into “two main categories, metal (which includes lead net weights, iron hooks, and iron and bronze needles) and stone (which includes basalt weights, limestone weights, and basalt anchors)” (Fortner 1999:​269). Net weights were manufactured from small lead sheets of between 2.2–4.3 cm, folded around the string of the net, or were made as hemispherical, disk-shaped or cubic implements and tied to the seam of the net. Metal hooks, some made of intertwined wire (one even in bronze), one from hammered iron sheet, and many more from bent iron rods, were other typical home-made, waste metal products. Several bronze and iron needles were found, apparently used to repair nets and sails. Stone f. implements range from medium-sized weights made of basalt or flint pebbles with a hole drilled through the center (or using a natural hole) to oblong stones with a groove on one end used to string a rope around it to attach it to a net. Just like many metal objects, weights were easy to produce, formed from a simple lump of clay with a hole through which a string was passed. In addition to smaller net sink-

276

ers that kept the nets hanging straight down into the water, fishermen used larger net anchors of about 3 kg to keep them in place overnight. Further witness of shipping (not of f. alone) are irregularly shaped stone anchors of different size and weight that were found in considerably large numbers  around the Lake of Galilee. They often had a hole drilled through the body or another provision to connect to a rope. Metal anchors are as yet unknown in this region, but are frequent on the Medit. All these often simple implements are notoriously difficult to date when found in unstratified contexts. Apart from metal hooks and net weights which are likely to be Hell. and later, stone implements can easily date to earlier periods. Utensils retrieved from houses in et-Tell comprised imported ceramics or glass and document the modest wealth of these fishermen’s families. Remains of four boats (among them the famous “Ginnosar Boat”) provided important insights in regional shipbuilding technology and manufacturing skills (Wachsmann 1990; 2000). A well-preserved and entirely intact linen net, dating from the period around 130 c.e., was found in the “Cave of Letters” near ʿEin Gedi (Yadin 1963:​267–269), carefully folded and tied “by both the rope of the net and another, lighter one” (Yadin 1963:​267). The net is formed like a funnel; and, when opened, it measured 6×9.5/10 m, tapered down towards one end, and was opened wide at the other. Raw materials used were linen yard for the mesh, palm-fibers for the heavier rope. While Yadin rejected the idea that the net was used for f. (instead he suggested a fowling-net and even more likely a reta, a net used for gladiatorial combat), Nun refers to it as a f. implement (Nun 1989:​35). 5.  In settlements on the coast of the Medit. Sea and on the shores of the Lake of Galilee f. provided an important part of daily food. The range of f. expanded from catching of fish and collection of seafood in littoral areas to open water f. with the advancement of technology. Nets, hooks, and baskets were used as catching devices. In inland settlements, fish played a much lesser role, but was still marketed and consumed. Imported fish from the Nile is frequently attested throughout all periods. From the Hell. period onwards, fish was raised and consumed on an almost ‘industrial’ basis. Jew. purity regulations have likely restricted consumption of particular species, but arch. evidence is inconclusive on that matter. 6.  Fish only occasionally occurs in the HB; no single species is mentioned by name. HB vocabulary only knows the generic word “fish” (dag/ dagah collective singular and plural; Gen 1:26,

Fishing (f.)

277

278

28; Ez 38:20) without naming any individual species (Rundgren 1972). Fish trade is attested both textually and paleozoologically. According to Neh 13:16, Tyrian tradesmen resident in Judea sold fish on Shabbat to Jerusalemites – much to Nehemiah’s distress. One of the → gates of Jerusalem was known as “fish gate” (šaʾar hadagim, built in late pre-exil. times [Zeph 1:10] and rebuilt after the return [2 Chr 33:14; Neh 3:3; 12:39]), probably because it was located near the fish market (Lernau/​Lernau 1992:​136). Although Lev 11:9–12 and Dt 14:9–10 do not seem to be indicative of real food habits, they are nevertheless important to understand how bibl. authors generally classified fish: with and without scales and fins. Impurity was obviously defined according to how similar a certain species of fish looked to snakes, a categorization that was surprisingly widespread in the ANE (Firmage 1992:​ 1147). Apparently, only men fished; they used baskets, f. rods, harpoons, and different types of nets (Am 4:2 mentions baskets and fishermen’s pots for transportation; Isa 19:8; Ez 26:5, 14; 32:3; 47:10; Hab 1:15–17; Job 19:6; 40:25, 31; Qoh 9:12; Sir 9:3). Fish was usually cut up (Job 40:30– 31), the inedible parts (e. g., heads of Nile catfish) were removed (Lernau/​Lernau 1992:​135), and the remainder was salted or dried. The use of fish intestines for purposes of → magic and popular → medicine is also attested (Tob 6:6–7, 9–10, 20; 8:2–3; 11:4–16). For bibl. authors, the sea is a dangerous place, populated by Leviathan and other terrifying creatures. Although the function of most attestations in the HB is to demonstrate God’s unsurpassed power as creator (Pss 104:26; 148:7; Job 12:8), some of the motifs may actually go back to Near Eastern folklore (Jonah 2:1, 2, 11). Bibl. authors knew that the River Nile abounds with fish (Num 11:5, 22; cf. Ex 7:18, 21; Ps 105:29, God destroying all fish of the Nile). Fish can also be used as a metaphor, both to emphasize the helplessness of the Israelites when enemies are attacking (Am 4:2; Hab 1:14–15) and to warn Pharaoh of the coming judgment of YHWH (Ez 29:1–6a). Ben Sira’s unfamiliarity with maritime wildlife has already been mentioned, and a good 200 years later, Josephus stresses that Israelites are no seafaring people (Jos. c. Ap. 1.60). The NT, esp. the gospels, abound with stories about the life of fishermen (Mk 1:16–20 par; 4:35– 41 par; 5:2, 18; 6:42–52; 8:14; John 21:1–14). F. was hard, dangerous work. The best time of the day was early in the morning (Lk 5:5; John 21:3) or late in the evening (Mk 6:47). The unpredictable falling winds from the eastern hills around the Sea of Galilee were esp. feared, because ships

could capsize and people drown (Mk 6:48). F. was done with drag (σαγήνη, Mt 13:47) and cast nets (ἀμφίβληστρον, Mt 4:18) (Nun 1989; 1993). Some of Jesus’ first apostles were fishermen (Simon Peter, Andrew). Although the well-known metaphor in Mk 1:17 that Simon and Andrew will become “fishers of men” is not without parallel; the positive connotations and the context it has received in the NT are, nevertheless, quite unique (predominantly negative in Jer 16:16; 1QH 5:7– 8; but cf. Jos.  Asen. 21:21: Aseneth is caught by Joseph’s wisdom like a fish on a hook). The good father will not give his child a snake to eat but a fish (Mt 7:10 par.). Alongside bread, dried and salted fish are mentioned in narratives of the Feeding of the Multitude, obviously the food of the common people (Mk 6:38, 41; 8:7; John 6:9, 11; cf. Lk 24:42). The Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a drag net (σαγήνη) full of fish; only at the end, the good fish will be separated from the unusable (Mt 13:47). Just like the harvest, f. is used to underline the promises of spreading the good news (Lk 5:5–11; John 21). The Jonah tradition becomes a symbol of resurrection (Mt 12:40), and the miracle of the coin in the fish’s mouth, a symbol of God’s kindness to provide for material needs (Mt 17:27). In later periods, the fish becomes a powerful symbol in early Christianity.

7.  Bauckham, R., 2018, Magdala and the Fishing Industry, in: R. Bauckham (ed.), Magdala of Galilee, Waco:​185–267 ♦ Ben-Tuvia, A., 1971, Revised List of the Mediterranean Fishes of Israel, Israel Journal of Zoo­ logy 20:1–39 ♦ von Brandt, A., 31984, Fish Catching Methods of the World, Farnham ♦ Corbo, V. C., 1975, Cafarnao 1, Jerusalem ♦ Cotton, H., 1996, Fish Sauces from Herodian Masada, JRA 9:223–238  ♦ Cotton, H. M./​Lernau, O./​Goren, Y., 1996, Fish Sauces from Herodian Masada, JRA 9:223–239 ♦ Curtis, R. I., 1991, Garum and Salsamenta, Leiden ♦ Dalman, G., 1939, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina 6, SDPI 9, Gütersloh ♦ Davidson, J. J., 1998, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passion of Classical Athens, New York ♦ DeLuca, S./​ Lena, A., 2015, Magdala/​Taricheae, in: D. A. Fiensy/​ J. R. Strange (eds.), Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods 2, Minneapolis:​280–342  ♦ van Elsbergen, M. J., 1997, Fischerei im alten Ägypten, ADAI.Ä 14, Berlin ♦ Firmage, E., 1992, Zoology, in: ABD 6:1146–1150 ♦ Fortner, S., 1999, The Fishing Implements and Maritime Activities of Bethsaida-Julias (et-Tell), in: R. Arav/​R. A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida 2, Kirksville:​269–280 ♦ Gallant, T., 1985, A Fisherman’s Tale, Ghent ♦ Hakola, R., 2017, The Production and Trade of Fish as Source of Economic Growth in the First Century CE Galilee: Galilean Economy Reexamined, NovT 59:111–130 ♦ Hanson, K. C., 1998, The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition, BTB 27:99– 111 ♦ Higginbotham, J., 1997, Piscinae, Chapel Hill ♦ Hornell, J., 1950, Fishing in Many Waters, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ King, P. J./​Stager, L. E., 2001, Life in Biblical Israel, Louisville/​London ♦ Krauss, S., 1966 (1911), Talmudische Archäologie 2, Hildesheim ♦ Lena, A., 2018,

Food Preparation (fd. prep.), Cooking (ckg.)

279 

The Harbour, in: R. Bauckham (ed.), Magdala of Galilee, Waco:​69–88 ♦ Lernau, H./​Lernau, O., 1989, Fish Bone Remains, in: E. Mazar/​B. Mazar (eds.), Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount, Qedem 29, Jerusalem:​155–161 ♦ 1992, Fish Remains, in: A. de Groot/​ D. T. Ariel (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh 3, Qedem 33, Jerusalem:​131–148 ♦ Lev-Tov, J., 2003, “Upon What Meat Doth This Our Caesar Feed …?,” in: S. Alkier/​J. Zangenberg (eds.), Zeichen aus Text und Stein, TANZ 42, Tübingen:​420–446 ♦ van Neer, W. (ed.), 1994, Fish Exploitation in the Past, Tervuren ♦ van Neer, W./​Zohar, I./​Lernau, O., 2005, The Emergence of Fishing Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Paléorient 31:131–157 ♦ Newberry, P. E., 1893, Beni Hasan 1, Memoir: Archaeological Survey of Egypt 1, London ♦ Nun, M., 1989, The Sea of Galilee and its Fishermen in the New Testament, Kibbutz En-Gev ♦ 1993, Ancient Stone Anchors and Net Sinkers from the Sea of Galilee, Kibbutz En-Gev  ♦ 1997, Fishing, OEANE 2:315–317  ♦ Purcell, N., 1995, Eating Fish, in: J. Wilkins/​D. Harvey/​M. Dobson (eds.), Food in Antiquity, Exeter:​132– 149 ♦ Raban-Gerstel, N., et al., 2008, Early Iron Age Dor (Israel), BASOR 349:25–59 ♦ Radcliffe, W., 21926, Fishing from the Earliest Times, London ♦ Routledge, B., 2015, A  Fishy Business: The Inland Trade in Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) in the Early Iron Age Levant, in: T. P. Harrison et al. (eds.), Walls of the Prince (FS John S. Holladay Jr.), Leiden/​Boston:​212–233 ♦ Rundgren, F., 1972, Der Fisch im Semitischen, in: J. Bergman et al. (ed.), Ex orbe religionum (FS Geo Widengren), SHR 21, Leiden:​72–80 ♦ Sahrhage, D., 1998, Fischfang und Fischkult im alten Ägypten, Mainz ♦ Sparkes, B., 1995, A Pretty Kettle of Fish, in: J. Wilkins et al. (eds.), Food in Antiquity, Exeter:​150–161 ♦ Sperber, D., 1986, Nautica Talmudica, Ramat Gan/​Leiden ♦ Wachsmann, S., 1990, The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret), ʿAtiqot 19, Jerusalem ♦ 2000, The Sea of Galilee Boat, Cambridge, Mass. ♦ Wilkins, J. M., 1993, Social Status of Fish in Greece and Rome, in: G. Mars/​V. Mars (eds.), Food, Culture and History, London:​191–203 ♦ Yadin, Y., 1963, The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, Jerusalem ♦ Zangenberg, J. K., 2001, Magdala am See Genezaret, KAANT 2, Waltrop. Jürgen K. Zangenberg

Food Preparation (fd. prep.), Cooking (ckg.) 1.  The preparation of food was a time consuming and necessary daily task, mostly performed by women. Once harvested and stored, raw food stuffs had to be prepared for cooking. Processing required the use of a variety of tools to crush, grind, pound, and pulverize grains, legumes, seeds, nuts, fruits, vegetables (Bo­row­ ski 1987:​87–139), spices, and, less frequently, meats. Fd. prep. involved the use of a variety of stone → tools, → pottery vessels, and special installations, including → ovens and hearths. 2.  Stone tools, esp. ground stone tools (→ tools/ ground stone), such as → millstones (upper and lower), hand grinders in various shapes, spheroid hammer stones, mortars and pestles, anvils,

280

and lithic and metal blades make up the necessary repertoire. Typologies of ground stone tool functional categories were designed by Elliott (1991) who classified more than 200 stone artifacts from Ugarit, and Daviau (2002) who assembled nearly 1,100 tools from the Ammonite site of Tall Jawa. With the current interest in functional analysis and activity area studies there is a deepening awareness of the need to study, in context, all types of artifacts that constitute functional assemblages in discrete loci (Daviau 1993; Hardin 2010; Yasur-Landau/​Ebeling/​Mazow 2011). The study of ground stone tools and equipment has been enhanced by the results of flotation, which recovers the organic material in kitchen floors and ash layers, and by residue analysis that determines organic compounds on stone and ceramics. Sites in Jordan, including the Hesban survey (LaBianca/​Lacelle 1986:​tab. 7:1), excavations at Tell el-ʿUmeiri (Hackwell/​Haynes 1989; Clark 1997:​64) and at Tall Jawa (Daviau 2002:​307), yielded barley, wheat, millet(?), pea, broad bean, chickpea, lentil, vetch, grape, olive, almond, pistachio, fig, and herbs. Botanical samples from Tell Deir ʿAlla include several varieties of wheat and barley, some of which may have required more than one crushing to separate the grains from the husk. If this were the case, millstones and querns could be used to grind cereal grains into flour along with hand grinders, pounders, and mortars to crush smaller amounts of grain in such a way as to remove the husks and bran (Petit 1999:​161). Cuboid and rectangular shaped grinders may have been used to grind certain legumes, such as pea and chickpea, although these may have been cooked and/or dried without prior processing. Mortars and pestles could have been used for crushing dried pulses and spices. At Jericho, stone vessels, tools, and objects used to process such food stuffs are listed and briefly described. For the Neolithic period, there remains the problem of recognizing stone tools, esp. hammer stones, and distinguishing them from naturally abraded cobbles (Kenyon/​Holland 1983:​513), while for the Bronze and Iron Ages the presence of grinding stones and flint spheroids in kitchens is more easily interpreted. At Tell Deir ʿAlla, 62 % of the round pestles were of flint. Analysis of these stones revealed signs of use, including grooves and sheen that was the result of pounding and grinding (Petit 1999:​152, fig. 3:1). Many of the large grinding stones did not change radically in shape over millennia; however, there is less standardization among certain associated equipment and installations. 4.  Once foods have been processed and are ready for ckg., they were put in ckg. pots and

Food Preparation (fd. prep.), Cooking (ckg.)

281

282

heated on a hearth (a layer of coals) or in an oven. 4.1.  Ovens are well documented at Bronze Age sites, such as Ugarit (Yon/​Lombard/​Renisio 1987:​fig. 75) and Tell el-Farah (N) (Mallet 1988:​pl. 78:1). In the Iron Age a variety of oven styles make their appearance; tall bread ovens, low ovens to support ckg. pots, and open hearths protected from drafts by a large saddle quern on its long side (Daviau 2003:​265, 338). Hearths were also formed as rectilinear stone-lined features. The dominant oven form consists of a circular installation of packed clay strengthened by potsherds embedded in clay, as seen at Megiddo (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​fig. 104), Tel Hadar (Kochavi et al. 1992:​43), Horvat Rosh Zayit (Gal/​ Alexandre 2000:​fig. II:1), and Beer-Sheba (Herzog 1984:​pl. 11:1). Smaller ovens in a horseshoe shape and formed of a thick clay liner, packed on the exterior with clay and plaster, but without potsherds, were found at Tall Jawa in central Jordan (Daviau 2003:​figs. 6:26, 8:11). Large bread ovens (ca. 75 cm in diameter), such as those at Tel Masos (Gunneweg 1983) and Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad), also consist of a clay liner that was footed on small cobbles and covered on the outside with layers of plaster. These ovens may have a single or double flue just above floor level for air circulation (Mulder-Hymans 2014:​167– 168, figs. 5, 6). In these ovens, the bread can be slapped against the inner side and will cook quickly. Another style of oven, consisting of an inverted ceramic vessel, usually a storejar or pithos, is found at sites in Israel and Jordan in both small and large installations (Daviau 2003:​figs. 6:20, 6:24, 7:18, and references there). 4.2.  Ceramic vessels used in food storage and fd. prep. include storejars, jugs and juglets for liquid, bowls and kraters for mixing, and ckg. pots (→ pottery; → fig. Pottery #1–6, col. 724 ff). Most important is the shape of ckg. pots which changes radically during the course of the Iron Age, suggesting changes in diet and methods of ckg. The Late Bronze wide mouth, everted triangular rim pots, with a broad basal surface for maximum heat distribution, continues into the early Iron Age, but is soon accompanied by pots with a vertical grooved or ribbed rim. By early Iron Age II, ckg. pots have a more closed shape, with a sloping shoulder and folded or rounded rim (Herr 2014). The greatest change appears in late Iron Age II with the introduction of deep, tall neck, closed mouth vessels in Judah (Freud 1999:​fig. 6:42), both two handled ckg. pots and one handled jugs (Aharoni 1973:​pls. 61:89–98; 64;12, 13), and pots with a short narrow neck and profiled rim in Transjordan (Daviau 2003:​fig. 12.6:1).

5.–6.  Various agricultural products and the methods of their preparation in ancient Canaan have been identified from arch. contexts and from texts (Bo­row­ski 1987; Hopkins 1985). However, few recipes and even fewer details of the precise tasks involved in the fd. prep. process can be gleaned from these sources. For example, Ez 4:9– 12 suggests a recipe for a type of bread which includes several different grains and legumes; “and you, take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and emmer, and put them into a single vessel, and make bread of them.” The text does not indicate the steps used to prepare the bread or how the bread was baked; in an oven or on a → baking tray over a bed of coals. Recipes from Mesopotamia also list the ingredients with only minimal instructions for ckg. (Bottéro 1985:​41). What is not described in such texts is the equipment needed to process specific food stuffs. Such equipment is assumed on the basis of the arch. record and from ancient iconography, such as Eg. tomb paintings and Neo-Ass. reliefs. This iconogr. material illustrates a variety of fd. prep. tasks, but attempts to distinguish the range of tools employed in these tasks are frustrated by the nature of the iconography itself where the actions of the human figures were emphasized but the tools in use are less apparent. Stone platforms and oversize ckg. pots for ckg. meat are rare in the arch. record, with only one or two examples out of hundreds of cooking pot sherds at a given site, for example at Megiddo (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 40:13, 16). Nevertheless, the description of the actions of greedy priests in 1 Sam 2:14 indicates that worshippers preparing a sacrifice were accustomed to boil meat in a large pot or cauldron. This was apparently the custom during communal meals and other occasions as well, since oversize pots also occur in non-cultic contexts, such as in a LBA house in Area F at Hazor (Yadin et al. 1960:​pl. 142:1).

7.  Aharoni, Y. (ed.), 1973, Beer-Sheba 1, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 2, Tel Aviv ♦ Bo­ row­ski, O., 1987, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona Lake ♦ Bottéro, J., 1985, The Cuisine of Ancient Mesopotamia, BA 48:36–47 ♦ Clark, D. R., 1997, Field B: The Western Defensive System, in: L. G. Herr et al. (eds.), Madaba Plains Project 3, Berrien Springs:​53–98 ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 1993, Households and their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine, JSOT/​ASOR 8, Sheffield ♦ 2002, Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, vol. 2: The Iron Age Artefacts, CHANE 11.2, Leiden ♦ 2003, Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, vol. 1: The Iron Age Town, CHANE 11.1, Leiden ♦ Ebeling, J. E./​Rowan, Y. M., 2004, The Archaeology of the Daily Grind: Ground Stone Tools and Food Production in the Southern Levant, Near Eastern Archaeology 67:108–117 ♦ Elliott, C., 1991, The Ground Stone Industry, in: M. Yon (ed.), Arts et industries de la pierre, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 6, Lyons:​9–97 ♦

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry

283 

Freud, L., 1999, The Iron Age, in: I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel ʿIra, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 15, Tel Aviv:​189–289 ♦ Gal, Z./​ Alexandre, Y., 2000, Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, IAA Reports 8, Jerusalem  ♦ Gunneweg, J., 1983, The Ovens of the First Campaign, in: V. Fritz/​A. Kempinski, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Msas (Tel Masos) 1972–1975, vol. 1, ADPV 6.1, Wiesbaden:​106–112 ♦ Hackwell, Y./​ Haynes, L. A., 1989, Carbonized Seeds, in: L. T. Geraty et al. (eds.), Madaba Plains Project 1, Berrien Springs:​ 597–598 ♦ Hardin, J. W., 2010, Lahav, vol. 2: Households and the Use of Domestic Space at Iron II Tell Halif, Winona Lake ♦ Herr, L. G., 2014, The Typology of Iron Age Cooking Pots at Tall al-ʿUmayri, Jordan, in: E. van der Steen/​J. Boertien/​N. Mulder-Hymans (eds.), Exploring the Narrative, London:​108–114  ♦ Herzog, Z., 1984, Beer-Sheba, vol. 2: The Early Iron Age Settlements, Tel Aviv University Publications 7, Tel Aviv  ♦ Hopkins, D. C., 1985, The Highlands of Canaan, The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 3, Sheffield ♦ Kenyon, K. M./​Holland, T. A., 1983, Excavations at Jericho 5, London ♦ Kochavi, M., et al., 1992, Rediscovered! The Land of Geshur, BAR 18.4:30–44 ♦ LaBianca, Ø. S./​Lacelle, L., eds., 1986, Environmental Foundations: Studies of Climatical, Geological, Hydrological and Phytological Conditions in Hesban and Vicinity, Hesban 2, Berrien Springs  ♦ Lamon, R. S./​Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo [I], OIP 42, Chicago ♦ Mallet, N., 1988, Tell el-Farʿah, vol. 2.2: Le Bronze Moyen, Mémoire no. 66, Paris ♦ Mulder-Hymans, N., 2014, The Iron Age Bread Ovens in the Kitchen at Khirbet al-Mudayna in Moab, in: E. van der Steen/​J. Boertien/​N. MulderHymans (eds.), Exploring the Narrative, London:​159– 170 ♦ Petit, L., 1999, Grinding Implements and Material Found at Tall Dayr ʿAlla, Jordan: Their Place and Role in Archaeological Research, ADAJ 43:145–166 ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1960, Hazor II, Jerusalem ♦ Yasur-Landau, A./​Ebeling, J. R./​Mazow, L. B. (eds.), 2011, Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond, CHANE 50, Leiden ♦ Yon, M./​Lombard, P./​Renisio, M., 1987, L’organisation de l’habitat: Les maisons A, B et E, in: M. Yon (ed.), Ras Shamra-Ougarit 3, Mémoire no. 72, Paris:​11–128. P. M. Michèle Daviau

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry 1.  The differentiation of the natural arboreal cover of Ancient Palestine from the LBA to the Hell. period is an expression of the prevailing climatic regimes, the humidity of the Medit. region, and the aridity of the Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Arabian regions. Forestry in the modern sense of the word did not exist during these periods. Although humans intervened and exploited the frs. without applying any sustainable fr. economy (cf. Wenamun story, ANET 25–29; → fig. Forest #1), there were guards of royal frs. (1 Chr 27:28) and fruit tree → gardens. Cutting down trees during a military campaign was a Neo-Ass. practice (Wright 2012), while environmental protection is a topic in the HB (e. g., Dt 20:19; 22:6–7; 25:4; Prov 12:10; Berlejung forthcoming).

284

Figure Forest #1: Egyptian relief depicting Levantines cutting wood (Karnak, time of Seti I).

2.1.  Comprehensive arch. studies of wood usage (→ timber) during the Bronze and Iron Ages are available for Palestine but are still missing for ancient Jordan. In Palestine, the Medit. region consists of several geographical regions: the Golan Heights, the Upper and Lower Galilee, Mount Carmel, the Jezreel Valley, the coastal plain (including the Sharon and the Shephelah), Samaria, and Judea (→ map Forest #1). The climate of the Medit. region is sub-humid, characterized by a mild, rainy winter and a dry, hot summer. Climate shows much diversity due to geographical altitude, latitude, distance from the sea, and topography. Mild climate near the seashore changes to a more continental type in the inner districts. Rainfall ranges from about 1,000 mm in the northern mountains to about 400 mm in the southern transition region between the Medit. and the Irano-Turanian regions. A variety of soils (terra rosa, rendzina, basalt, alluvial, and sandy soils; Karmon 1971) characterizes the Medit. regions of the country, and diversity of prevailing edaphic conditions occur even within climatically uniform zones. The following maquis and fr. types can be distinguished in the natural Medit. vegetation of Israel today:

285

286

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry

Forest map #1: Historical forests at the end of the 2nd millenium.

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry

287 

Pine fr. (Pinion halepensis alliance), deciduous Tabor Oak (Quercion ithaburensis alliance) fr., evergreen Palestine Oak maquis and fr. (also known as Kermes Oak, Quercion calliprini alliance), as well as carob – Lentisk maquis (Ceratonieto – Pistacion alliance; Zohary 1962). These were apparently the four main components of the original Medit. fr. Humans have influenced the original landscape and vegetation at least during the last 10,000 years. The climax arboreal vegetation that existed in this region in ancient times was almost completely destroyed, and, in some areas, became extinct. The primary composition of the climax vegetation cannot, therefore, be reconstructed in a simple way from the present vegetation. 2.2.  The term ‘desert vegetation’ is applied in a wider sense to comprise the vegetation of both the Irano-Turanian and the Saharo-Arabian regions of the Negev (Zohary 1962; 1973). The eastern zone of the Negev, the Dead Sea region, is a Sudanian penetration characterized by different ecological conditions and different arboreal species. The amount of rainfall ranges from 350 mm in the Northern Negev to 25 mm in the S. Accordingly, the arboreal vegetation changes gradually from an Irano-Turanian steppe formation of shrubs and wadi trees in the N to a Saharo-Arabian desert formation of dwarf shrubs in the S. Topography, degree of salinity, soil texture and structure, temperatures, and relative humidity also contribute to the diversity of habitats and vegetation (Zohary 1962; 1973). Human impact on the vegetational cover by the hewing of wood for industry, fuel, and by the grazing of sheep and goats (→ animal husbandry) and because of human greed for profit during thousands of years has left severe signs on the vegetation, esp. in the semi-arid and arid regions (Zohary 1962). The agricultural use of land in the Northern Negev, esp. the Beer-Sheba Valley, replaced the primary biodiverse vegetation by edible crops (Zohary 1982). Three wood species are common today in this region: tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), broom (Retama raetam), and acacia (Acacia raddiana). Tamarisk thrives well on sand dunes and is indigenous to wetter wadis also in the Southern Negev. Broom has a wide distribution and is considered among the most characteristic plants of the Negev. Acacia is a common tree species of the Northern Negev plains and the Arabah Valley (Halevy 1974; Halevy/​Orshan 1972). The arboreal vegetation of the central Negev consists of steppe fr. and shrub communities. Pistachio (Pistacia atlantica), a deciduous tree of open steppe frs., occurs in the Negev mountains. The association of Anabasis articulata and broom

288

is confined to the sandy plain of Tureiba (Mishor Yamin). Bean caper (Zygophyllum dumosum) is confined to hammada hills covered with flint stones and to fissures and interspaces of a rocky substratum in which gray and less saline soils exist, typical of the eastern part of the central Negev (Danin 1977; Zohary 1962; 1982). 2.3.  The vegetation of the Arabah Valley consists of dwarf shrubs, most of them belonging to the Chaenopodiaceae family. In the oases, tropical trees and shrubs, which demand relatively high winter temperatures and groundwater bodies, appear. In the Arabah Valley, White Saxaul (Haloxylon persicum) forms a special type of fr. and is followed by broom. The most common of the tropical trees are: acacia (Acacia raddiana, A. tortilis, A. gerrardii ssp. Negevensis), gingerbread (Hyphaene thebaica), Salvadora persica, Moringa peregrina, and “Crown of Thorns” (Ziziphus spina christi). The leading tree species is Acacia raddiana, often accompanied by Acacia tortilis, or, in the southwestern part, by Acacia gerrardii ssp. negevensis. Date palms (Phoenix dactylifera) are native to the oases, both in the Eastern Sinai and in the Negev. 2.4.  In the Dead Sea region, riparian woods appear as both tamarisk (Tamarix[X], e. g., Tamarix jordanis) and Euphrates poplar (Populus euphratica). Euphrates poplar and date palms appear in many springs of brackish water in the desert (Waisel 1988; Zohary 1962; 1982). 3.  Arch. research allows comparison of modern environments with data of arboreal species and their distribution during the LBA through the Hell. period (cf. → map Forest #1, col. 286). 3.1.  The Mediterranean regions. The majority of → timber retrieved from the arch. sites in the Golan Heights and the Hermon region originated from three tree species: Kermes Oak (Quercus calliprinos), pistachio, and olives (Olea europaea). The wood assemblage of the Upper and Lower Galilee is mainly characterized by olive trees, cultivated since the EBA onwards, and, additionally, by Kermes Oak and pistachio. On Mount Carmel, no arch. remains of native arboreal species dated to the periods under discussion have been investigated to date (Liphschitz 2007:​37). Most wood remains found in the Jezreel Valley were of three tree species: Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees. Except for these species, other Medit. trees have also been identified: the Tabor Oak, Official Storax (Styrax officinalis), Syrian Maple (Acer syriacum), True Laurel (Laurus nobilis), walnut (Juglans regia), Fritillary (Fraxinus syriaca), Palestine Buckthorn (Rhamnus palaestinus), Italian Buckthorn (Rhamnus alaterna), carob tree (Ceratonia siliqua), Judas Tree (Cercis siliquastrum), elm (Ulmus campestre), almond

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry

289

290

(Amygdalus communis), and Spiny Hawthorn (Crataegus aronia). Other species included: “Crown of Thorns,” acacia (Acacia raddiana), Acacia albida, and tamarisk (Tamarix[X5]), all of which characterize drier areas. Tree species found in the coastal plain (including the Sharon and the Shephelah) comprise the Kermes Oak, Tabor Oak, pistachio, and olive. The majority of the wood found in the Samarian mountains was from olive trees but also included timbers originating from Kermes Oak, pistachio, and almonds. In Judah, the wood assemblage is characterized mainly by Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees. The highest percentages of wood remains are from olive trees by reason that the olive had already been cultivated in the EBA and olive orchards were already a very common component of the arboreal landscape. 3.2.  Among the wood remains from the arid Irano-Turanian, Saharo-Arabian, and Sudanian region of the Negev are mainly tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), acacia (Acacia raddiana), and broom (Retama raetam). Olive wood appears in the Northern Negev at sites with sufficient rainfall such as Tel Seraʿ. Arch. evidence of other species that have been additionally identified includes: the bean caper (Zygophyllum dumosum), “Crown of Thorns,” Euphrates poplar, pistachio (Pistacia atlantica), date palms, and tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla, Tamarix[X4] and Tamarix[X5], tamarisk with four or five stamens in the flower). Remnants of the Euphrates poplar, broom, pistachio (Pistacia atlantica), and White Saxaul (Haloxylon persicum) also exist. 3.3.  In the Arabah, arch. evidence exists for acacia (Acacia raddiana and Acacia tortilis), White Saxaul, Moringa peregrina, Maerua crassifolia, Hyphaene thebaica, palm trees, Euphrates poplar, Salvadora persica, Tamarix(X4), and Tamarix(X5). In spite of the fact that the number of wood remains varies in different periods, the timber analyses of the Northern Negev, along with the arch. profile, suggest that, during the periods under discussion, the native arboreal vegetation resembled very much that of the present day. 3.4.  In the Dead Sea region, arch. evidence demonstrates that the same trees and shrubs typical of the Dead Sea region today have been amply found in excavations. Most of the local assemblage originated in four tree species: tamarisk (Tamarix[X5]), including Tamarix jordanis, Euphrates poplar, palm trees, and figs (Ficus sycomorus). These species constituted 50 % of the vegetation. Humans also used other local trees and shrubs at that time, such as various Acacia species, tamarisk (Tamarix[X4]), “Crown of Thorns,”

and various Chaenopodiaceae bushes, such as seepweed (Suaeda), anabis (Anabasis), Hammada salicornica, and Jointed Anabis (Anabasis articulate). 4.  Comprehensive dendroarchaeological research carried out for the last three decades all over the country (Liphschitz 2007) enables us to reconstruct the native arboreal cover during the LBA to Hell. period. The reconstruction is based on wood remains of local native trees and shrubs that grew in ancient Palestine, whose remnants have been retrieved from arch. excavations. It is important to note that during those periods the olive (Olea europaea) was already cultivated in the EBA (Liphschitz et al. 1991) and was very common in vast areas of the Medit. region. The olive replaced the native primary arboreal climax vegetation that was dominant prior to human’s massive intervention with nature. Certain wood remains of coniferous species, that is, cedar (Cedrus libani) and Medit. Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), were imported during the LBA through the Hell. period to Palestine for special monumental construction and cult purposes (Liphschitz 2007:​ 116–131) and were not part of the original natural arboreal cover of Palestine. 4.1. In the Upper Galilee, wood remains of the LBA, primarily Kermes Oak and pistachio, were discovered only at Hazor. In the Lower Galilee, timber samples from Tel Yinʿam, were mainly of olive trees, pistachio, and Kermes Oak. Numerous wood samples were analyzed from LBA sites in the Jezreel Valley. The great majority of wood remains were of three tree species: Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees. Beyond these, other species were also identified: the Tabor Oak, Offical Storax, Syrian Maple, True Laurel, walnut (Juglans regia), Fritillary, Palestine Buckthorn, Italian Buckthorn, carob tree, Judas Tree (Cercis siliquastrum), elm (Ulmus campestre), almond (Amygdalus communis), and Spiny Hawthorn (Crataegus aronia). Other tree species that characterize drier areas include: “Crown of Thorns,” acacia (Acacia raddiana), Acacia albida, and tamarisk (Tamarix[X5]). In the coastal plain, LBA wood remains were mostly of Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees. At Aphek, Tabor Oak was also prominent. In the northern hill-country of Samaria, the majority of the wood during the LBA at sites such as Shiloh was from olive trees but included also timbers such as Kermes Oak, pistachio, and almond. In the southern hill-country of Judah, the wood assemblage of the LBA is represented mainly by Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees. The highest percentages of wood remains are of the olive tree, which had already been cultivated here in the EBA. In fact, olive orchards were already a very

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry

291 

common component of the arboreal landscape of the Bronze Age. Wood samples of LBA layers were collected at Tel Seraʿ and Tel Haror. Most of the remains were of tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) and broom. A high percentage of olive wood remnants were found originating in the LBA layer at Tel Seraʿ. It can be assumed that olive orchards existed in the environs of Tel Seraʿ because the site’s location sits on the border of the Negev and the Shephelah, where the annual amount of rainfall reaches ca. 350 mm, an amount that can support olive cultivation. The LBA wood remains that were collected at the temple in Timna encompass only local arboreal species, such as acacia, tamarisk, White Saxaul, and pistachio (Werker 1988). 4.2.  In the Galilee, wood species were found in Iron Age layers at Kabri, Rosh Zayit, Tel Dan, Hazor, and Sasa. These remains include mainly olives, as well as Kermes Oak, and pistachio. Samples from Iron Age sites in the Jezreel Valley do not differ significantly from those of the LBA and include mainly Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees, as well as other Late Bronze species mentioned already. In the Coastal plain olive trees constituted ca. 20 % of all tree species during the Iron Age, whereas oak accounts for ca. 30 %, and pistachio for 10 % of the wood sample. In the northern hill-country of Samaria, wood samples dated to the Iron Age were found at Shiloh, Qela, and Mount Ebal (Liphschitz 2007:​ 43). The majority of the wood was identified as olive trees, Kermes Oak, pistachio, and almond. In the southern hill-country of Judah, the wood species of the Iron Ages is represented mainly by Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees. The highest percentages of wood remains are from olive trees. In pre-10th cent. levels at Tell el-Ful, the main wood in use were cypress and pine, while in later levels only almond wood was found (Isserlin 1955). The Lachish reliefs of Sennacherib show orchards of figs and olives, as well as vineyards (ANEP:371–374). In the Negev, Iron Age wood samples were analyzed from Tel Seraʿ, Tel Beer-Sheba, Tel Masos, Tel ʿIra, Tel Malhata, Horvat ʿUza, Tel Arad, and Horvat Radum. 19 species of trees and shrubs were identified. Three of these species, that is, tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), acacia (Acacia raddiana), and broom (Retama raetam), constitute 70 % of the wood used by humans in this region. No doubt, these species were growing abundantly in the past in the same region in which they grow today. Six species, Zygophyllum dumosum, “Crown of Thorns,” Euphrates poplar, pistachio (Pistacia atlantica), date palm, and tamarisk (Tamarix[X5]; tamarisk with five stamens in the flower), consti-

292

tute about 5 % of the wood assemblage and grew in various regions of the Negev during the past. About 20 % of the assemblage was brought to the Northern Negev from the Medit. region of the country, most probably from the Judean mountains, where they grow today. This group includes pistachio, Palestine and Tabor Oak, Official Storax, olive trees, and spiny hawthorn. The fact that olive remnants constitute about half of the Medit. timber assemblage may also point to the existence of olive orchards in the Northern Negev in that period. Central Negev Iron Age wood samples were collected at Qseime, Kuntillet ʿAjrud, and KadeshBarnea (Liphschitz 2007:​78–80). The most frequent species were tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla, Tamarix[X5], and Tamarix[X4]) and palm trees, which also grow today in this region. Remnants of Euphrates poplar, broom, pistachio (Pistacia atlantica), and White Saxaul (Haloxylon persicum) were also identified. In the Arabah, Iron Age wood remains were found at Mezad Hazeva and Yotvata. Here, too, the most frequent species are also characteristic of this region today: acacia (Acacia raddiana and Acacia tortilis), White Saxaul, Moringa peregrina, Maerua crassifolia, Hyphaene thebaica, palm trees, Euphrates poplar, Salvadora persica, Tamarix(X4), and Tamarix(X5). 4.3.  During the Bab. and Pers. periods, no significant change occurred in the use of timber and wood. In the Medit. regions of the Galilee, olive trees, oak, and pistachio are the most frequent species. In the coastal plain, oak and olive trees constituted each ca. 25 % and pistachio ca. 10 % of the wood assemblage. In the Northern hill-country of Samaria, the majority of the wood found at arch. sites was from olive trees, but the sample also includes timbers of Kermes Oak, pistachio, and almonds. In the southern hill-country of Judah, the wood species include mainly olive trees. In the Galilee, evidence comes from the Pers. layers at Mizpe Yamim, with mostly olive trees, Kermes Oak, and pistachio represented. The use of wood and timber during the Hell. period is very similar to the one in previous periods. Evidence from Hell. sites in the coastal plain is similar to the samples from the Pers. period (see above), with mostly oak, olive trees, and pistachio in the samples. Wood samples from the hill-country contain mainly wood from olive trees. In the arid regions, the three woody species, tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), acacia (Acacia raddiana), and broom (Retama raetam), appear abundantly in most sites of the Hell. period. Wood remains that are dated to Hell. sites in the Central Negev, such as Oboda, were identified as acacia

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry

293

294

(Acacia raddiana), Bean Caper (Zygophyllum dumosum), pistachio (Pistacia atlantica), Euphrates poplar, and tamarisk (Tamarix[X5]). Only remains of Medit. species, such as olive trees and oak, were extant. More than half of the wood samples found at Moʾa belong to trees that are growing today in the vicinity of the site: Tamarix(X5), Acacia tortilis, and palm trees. Pistachio (Pistacia atlantica) grows in the central Negev; Euphrates poplar grows in Avdat and in the region of ʿEin Gedi; and Moringa peregrina appears in the Arabah Valley and in ʿEin Gedi. Similarly, in ʿEin Rachel, more than half of the wood samples belong to local trees: tamarisk (Tamarix[X5]), “Crown of Thorns,” Acacia tortilis, and palm trees. Wood samples from the Hell. layers at ʿEin Gedi and Herod. Masada show that the same trees and shrubs typical of the Dead Sea region today are amply found in the excavations (Liphschitz 2007:​83–84). Most of the local assemblage originated in four tree species: tamarisk (Tamarix[X5]) including Tamarix jordanis, Euphrates poplar, palm trees, and figs (Ficus sycomorus). These species constituted 50 % of the wood samples. Other local trees and shrubs, such as acacia species, tamarisk (Tamarix[X4]), “Crown of Thorns,” and various Chaenopodiaceae bushes like seepweed (Suaeda), anabis (Anabasis), Hammada salicornica, and Jointed Anabis (Anabasis articulate), were also used during the Hell. period. The logs used to build the Masada rampart were taken from the local tamarisk trees. 5.  As is evident from the data accumulated from the archaeobotanical analyses carried out at the Medit. regions, the dominant native climax arboreal association was of Kermes Oak and pistachio. After its cultivation by humans in the EBA, olive tree orchards became a dominant component of the landscape, as reflected in the proportions of wood remains retrieved from arch. sites. Until the end of the Iron Age, the Kermes Oak constituted between 17.5 % and 12.3 % of the sample, pistachio constituted between 11.8 % and 11.2 %, whereas the olive trees (Olea europaea) constituted during these periods between 44.16 % and 58.37 % of the wood assemblages. Thus, olive wood was the major component of the timber used during those periods. The wood remains of those three tree species, that is, Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees comprised together about 75 % of the wood remains found in the Medit. arch. sites. During the Pers.-Hell. period, the percentages of the wood remains of Kermes Oak, pistachio, and olive trees greatly decreased, and the share of the imported coniferous timber greatly increased. While Zohary (1959; 1962; 1973) claimed that

Aleppo pine was one of the dominant plant species, Liphschitz (2007:​118–120) has shown that it was very rare and was imported from abroad, together with other conifers for special construction purposes. The preponderance of Kermes Oak (Quercus calliprinos) as compared with Tabor Oak in wood remnants found in excavations cannot be explained by preference for either species for exploitation, since both are hard woods and working them is equally difficult. Instead, the differences between the two species reflect the abundance of Kermes Oak and the scarcity of Tabor Oak. Results show that the same native arboreal vegetation that characterizes the different regions of the Negev today also characterized them during bibl. times. Three native woody species that inhabit the Northern Negev today: Tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), acacia, and broom also characterized it during the Late Bronze to Hell. periods, and these three species comprised together between one third and two thirds of the wood assemblages. Olive orchards were probably part of the landscape south of Mount Hebron at that time. The finding of olive tree wood remnants in the LBA layers at Tel Seraʿ can be explained either by the importation of olive wood from the nearby Medit. region or by the presence of olive orchards in the environs of the site. Tel Seraʿ is located on a permanent water source  – on the bank of Nahal Gerar, in a region with a mean annual amount of precipitation of 350 mm. These environmental conditions would allow olive cultivation. The central Negev was characterized by three tree species mainly: the two tamarisk types (Ta­ ma­rix[X4] and [X5]), and pistachio and during the Iron Age, they comprised half of the wood remains. On the other hand, during the Hell. period, their share of the native trees greatly decreased to only one quarter of the timber. The wood assemblage found in the Dead Sea region demonstrates that the three local trees, figs, tamarisks, and date palms, that inhabit the region today, constituted ca. 50 % of the timbers used in the Hell. period. 6.  The scient. identification of trees mentioned in the bibl. text is hampered by the fact that the flora of modern Palestine is not identical with that of the Bronze and Iron Ages. In addition, trees that were not native to ancient Palestine have been identified with plants mentioned in the Bible. Tapuaḥ (Prov 25:11; Cant 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Joel 1:12), for instance, is identified with the “apple” but was most probably apricot (Prunus armeniaca) or quince (Cydonia oblanga). In most cases, the Bible does not provide sufficient information for a confident identification of plants.

Forest/s (fr./frs.) and Forestry

295 

Most wood samples found in arch. research in the humid Medit. regions of Palestine during the Iron Age were from oak, pistachio, and olives. The two species of oak, the Kermes Oak, which was abundantly in use, and the Tabor Oak, which appears only rarely in the arch. record, might be reflected by the two bibl. names ʾallon and ʾelon (ʾallon, Gen 35:8; Isa 2:13; 6:13; 44:14; Ez 27:6; Hos 4:13; Am 2:9; Zech 11:2; ʾelon, Gen 12:6; 13:18; 14:13; 18:1; Dt 11:30; Judg 4:11; 9:6, 37; 1 Sam 10:3). Pistachio was used for its fruits and its wood (ʾelah, Gen 35:4; Judg 6:11, 19; 1 Sam 17:2, 19; 21:9; 2 Sam 18:9, 10, 14; 1 Chr 10:12; Isa 1:30; 6:13; Ez 6:13; Hos 4:13; Pistacia palaestina and Pistacia atlantica). Among the most popular species used were olive trees (Hebr. zayit), which are mentioned many times in the Bible (cf. Gen 8:11; Dt 28:40; Judg 15:5; 2 Sam 15:30; Ps 128:3; Job 15:33). Among the most precious wood species the Bible mentions is cedar (Cedrus libani), Mediterranean Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), Aleppo Pine (Pinus halepensis), and Phoenician Juniper or Arar (Juniperus phoenicea). They were used mainly in the construction of royal architecture and public buildings, such as palaces and temples. The cedar (Hebr. ʾerez; Num 24:6; Judg 9:15; 2 Sam 5:11; Isa 2:13; Ez 17:3; Ps 29:5; Ezra 3:7) was not native to Palestine and had to be imported. The cedar is probably the most prominent of the precious woods that was used in the Jerusalem Temple (1 Kgs 5:6, 8, 10). There is arch. evidence of the Mediterranean Cypress and the Aleppo Pine, but it has proved to be difficult to identify these in the bibl. record. Beroš (2 Sam 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:15, 34; 9:11; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; 3:5; Ps 104:17; Isa 14:8; 37:24; 41:19; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Neh 2:3; Zech 11:2), gofer (Gen 6:14), and teʾašur (Isa 41:19; 60:13; Ug. tišr) are all possible identifications. The Phoenician Juniper or Arar is certainly the Hebr. term ʿarʿor (Jer 17:5–6). Among the trees with agricultural use were nuts, the most common of which was the almond (šaqed, Gen 43:11; Qoh 12:5; Jer 1:11; or luz, Gen 30:37; Amygdalus communis), followed by pistachio (boṭnim; Gen 43:11), and the walnut (ʾegoz; Cant 6:11; Juglans regia). Popular fruit trees were also figs (teʾenah; mentioned many times, cf. Gen 3:7; Num 13:23; Dt 8:8; Judg 9:10; 2 Kgs 18:31; Prov 27:18; Ficus carica), pomegranates (rimon, cf. Ex 28:33; 1 Sam 14:2; 2  Chron 3:16; Cant 4:3; Joel 1:12; Hag 2:19, Punica granatum), and dates (tamar, Ex 15:27; Lev 23:40; Num 33:9; Dt 34:3; Judg 1:16; 3:13; 2 Chr 28:15; Neh 8:15; Ps 92:12; Cant 7:7, 8; Joel 1:12; Phoenix dactylifera). These trees were cultivated mostly in

296

mixed groves, probably at a short distance from the house for convenience. The myrtle (Myrtus communis, Hebr. hadas; Neh 8:15; Isa 41:19; 55:13; Zech 1:8, 10, 11) grows on hillsides in Palestine and was used for the Jew. festival of Sukkoth (Neh 8:11). The sycamore tree (Ficus sycomorus, šiqmah; 1 Kgs 10:27; 1 Chr 27:28; 2 Chr 1:15; 9:27; Ps 78:47; Isa 9:10; Am 7:14) has an edible figlike fruit, but was considered inferior to the fig. 1 Chr 27:28 mentions an overseer “over the olive trees and the sycamore trees in the Shephelah,” and the prophet Amos tended sycamore trees (Am 7:14). It is well known that the wood of the sycamore was used in construction (Isa 9:9), but probably not in royal buildings (1 Kgs 5:20–26; 10:27//2 Chr 1:15; 9:27). The Egyptians used sycamore wood for making furniture and coffins. In the arid areas of Palestine, tamarisk is identified with Hebr. ʾešel (Gen 21:33; 1 Sam 22:6; 31:13), acacia with šittah (which is mentioned 25 times in Ex, but appears also in Dt 10:3 and Isa 41:19), and broom, which is most probably the Hebr. rotem (1 Kgs 19:4, 5; Job 30:3; Ps 120:4). Aloe (Hebr. ʾahal; Num 24:6; Ps 45:8; Prov 7:17; Cant 4:14; Aloe vera, succotrina) was native to Yemen and imported to Palestine. It was used in embalming in ancient Egypt and also as incense, perfume, and scented powder. Another tree that was used for tools, roofing, and timber was the poplar (Populus alba, Hebr. libneh; Gen 30:37; Hos 4:13). There is arch. evidence of the Euphrates poplar (Populus euphratica, Hebr. ʿarabah; Lev 23:40; Job 40:22; Ps 137:2; Isa 15:7; 44:4) as well. Both poplar species grow along water streams.

7.  Berlejung, A., forthcoming, The Anthropology of Iconography, in: E. Pfoh (ed.), A Companion to Anthropology and the Hebrew Bible, Oxford:§ 3.3 ♦ Danin, A., 1977, The Vegetation and Flora of Sinai, in: G. Gvirtzman/​A. Shmueli/​I. Beit-Arieh (eds.), Sinai, Tel Aviv:​ 473–494 (Hebr.)  ♦ Halevy, G., 1974, Acacia in the Negev and Sinai: A  Sudanian Element in a Desert Region, Teva Vaʿaretz 15:129–132 (Hebr.) ♦ Halevy, G./​ Orshan, G., 1972, Ecological Studies on Acacia Species in the Negev, PJB 21:197–208 ♦ Isserlin, B. S. J., 1955, Ancient Forests in Palestine: Some Archaeological Indications, PEQ 86:87–88 ♦ Karmon, Y., 1971, Israel: A Regional Geography, London/​New York ♦ Liphschitz, N., 2007, Timber in Ancient Israel: Dendroarchaeology and Dendrochronology, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 26, Tel Aviv ♦ Liphschitz, N., et al., 1991, Beginning of Olive (Olea europaea) Cultivation in the Old World: A  Reassessment, Journal of Archaeological Science 18:441–453 ♦ Neumann-Gorsolke, U./​Riede, P. (eds.), 2002, Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, Stuttgart ♦ Waisel, Y., 1988, Plants and Animals of the Land of Israel, vol. 8: Vegetation of Israel, Ramat Gan (Hebr.) ♦ Werker, E., 1988, Wood, in: B. Rothenberg

Fortifications (frtfs.)/Fortresses (frts.)

297

298

(ed.), The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna, London:​ 232–235 ♦ Wright, J., 2012, Die Zerstörung des Ökosystems als Element der Kriegsführung im Alten Israel, in: A. Berlejung (ed.), Disaster and Relief Management/​Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung, FAT 81, Tübingen:​179–203 ♦ Zohary, M., 1959, Geobotany, Merhavia (Hebr.) ♦ 1962, Plant Life of Palestine, Israel and Jordan, Chronica botanica 33, New York ♦ 1973, Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East, Geo­botanica selecta 3, Stuttgart ♦ 1982, Vegetation of Israel and Adjacent Areas, Wiesbaden. Nili Liphschitz

Gates similarly occurred in different styles. They could be a simple breach in the wall, have two, four, or six chambers (→ tab. Fortifications #2, col. 299; → gates, → fig. Gates #1–3, col. 326–330). Not all sites, however, had a proper gate. Some frts. were apparently entered via a ladder (Kadesh-Barnea III, Horvat Rosh Zayit IIa). Typically, gates had two → doors that were sealed with metal bars laid across them. Arch. attestation of gates with two doors is clear at Dan III, where the two outer gate door sockets were found in situ. In addition to walls and gates, fortification features in the Levant during the Late Bronze to Hell. periods include: glacis (Tel Malhata V, Lachish IV, Jaffa, Tall Jawa), → towers (Lachish IV, Nasbeh IIIB, Samaria), and moats (Jezreel). Square or rectangular towers that protruded from the surrounding wall were most common in the Bronze and Iron Ages, while circular towers began appearing in the Hell. period. Glacis constructed of pebbles, stones, and/or mudbricks have been discovered at Iron Age sites, while moats were rare anytime after the MBA. Iron Age frts. deserve special mention because they tended to take two distinct forms: circular (Khirbet el-Mahruq) or rectangular (Kadesh-Barnea III–II, Tell el-Kheleifeh IV–I, Mezad Hazeva V–IV, Horvat ʿUza III, Arad XI–VI). Most circular frts. were located in the Northern Kingdom of Israel while rectangular frts. were generally situated in Judah. The frts. in the S tended to be larger (ca. 60×40 m) than those in the N (average 19–20 m diameter). This is likely due to the fact that the Kingdom of Israel was more centralized and had cities located at many of its strategically sensitive locations rendering the need for large frts. largely unnecessary. Smaller forts could be built to fill in weak spots. On the other hand, Judah extended its borders to include a larger area in marginal territories such as the Arabah and Negev where conflicts with local nomadic peoples required more substantial frts. for protection and taxation of trade routes. Aside from the Judean, Isr., Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite frts. of the Iron Age, square frts. were built by Egyptians and Persians in the Southern Levant; the former in the LBA and the latter in the 5th–4th cent. b.c.e. 3.  Most frtfs. in the Southern Levant were comprised of a stone foundation with a mudbrick superstructure. This superstructure was then coated with plaster to prevent erosion. Though these features were ubiquitous throughout the region, certain frtfs. were constructed differently based either on available materials or cultural preference. For example, Eg. frts. in the LBA were constructed of mudbricks with no stone foundations. Similar methods were used for city walls in some

Fortifications (frtfs.)/​Fortresses (frts.) 1.  Frtfs. are defensive structures meant both to protect against enemy conquest of a site or region and, in some cases, to keep local inhabitants confined. Types of frtfs. differ depending on many variables, including, but not limited to: time period, geographical location, available resources, polit. organization, and level of threat. The term “fortress” (Hebr. meṣad) refers more specifically to those fortified sites whose inhabitants were largely or exclusively military personnel. Frts. could be used to defend borders or other strategic locations, serve as way or tax stations, and/or protect → trade routes. They differ from other fortified sites in that they are directly related to the needs of a central authority and had little if any civilian function. 2.  Most frtfs. are comprised of at least a wall (Hebr. ḥomah) and a → gate (šaʿar). These two key features, however, take different forms. Walls fall under two main categories of construction: casemate and solid, though there are different styles of the latter (→ tab. Fortifications #1, col. 299). Solid walls could be built in one continuous belt (Malhata V–III, Jerusalem XII) or they could be constructed in segments that were offset/inset to varying degrees (Megiddo IVA, Nasbeh IIIB, Tall Jawa  – often referred to as an “inset-offset” or “sawtooth” wall). Building a wall in segments offered a few advantages: greater stability in the face of earthquakes, and, when noticeably offset, a visual allusion of greater height. The advantages of casemate walls, however, were that they required less material to construct, could serve as storage/ living areas (→ stock), and could be filled easily, transforming them into a solid wall in times when stronger defenses were necessary. Both solid and casemate walls could be separated from the enclosed settlement by an access road (Hazor X–IX), or they could be incorporated into the settlement, serving as the exterior walls for houses (Megiddo VII, Beer-Sheba III). In the latter case, alleys were strategically located between → houses enabling access to the walls (Faust 2001).

Fortifications (frtfs.)/Fortresses (frts.) Type of Fortification

Iron I

299 

300

Iron IIA

Iron IIB

Iron IIC

 

 

Hazor X–IX ʿEin Gev V Beth-Shemesh Level 3

Khirbet al-Mudayna Tall Jawa

Kabri E2

Casemate wall incorpo-   rated into settlement

Beit Mirsim B3 Megiddo VA–IVB Gezer VIII

Beer-Sheba III

 

Filled casemate

 

Jezreel Samaria II Hazor VIII

 

 

Offset-Inset wall

 

 

Megiddo IVA Tell en-Nasbeh IIIB

Megiddo III

Massive wall with towers  

Lachish IV

Lachish III Hazor VA

 

Regular massive wall

Ashdod 10-9 Tell el-Farah (S) Beer-Sheba V Tel Malhata V Lachish V

Jerusalem XII Dan III Tel Batash III

Lachish II

Peripheral belt of buildings  

Megiddo VIA Beer-Sheba VII ʿIzbet Sartah III

Casemate wall separate from settlement

 

Kinneret V Tel Hadar Ekron VII Qasile

Fortification Table #1: Iron Age wall types. Type of Fortification

Iron I

Iron IIA

Iron IIB

Iron IIC

6-chambered gate  

 

Hazor X–IX Megiddo VA–IVB Lachish IV Gezer VIII

Tel ʿIra Lachish III Khirbet al-Mudayna

 

4-chambered gate

 

Ashdod 10 Beer-Sheba V Dan III

Beer-Sheba III Megiddo IVA Tall Jawa

 

2-chambered gate

Megiddo VIA

Beit Mirsim B3

Beit Mirsim A2

Megiddo III

Gate without chambers

 

 

 

Lachish II

No gate

 

Horvat Rosh Zayit IIA

Kadesh-Barnea III

 

Fortification Table #2: Iron Age gate types.

Philist. sites such as Ashdod (Stratum VIII) and Ekron (Stratum VIIB). Later Iron Age II Neo-Ass. frts. (Ashdod Palace VII, Tell Abu Salima G) similarly lacked stone foundations but were built upon mudbrick podiums. 4.1.  Massive frtfs. appeared already in the EBA (Tel Yarmut, Megiddo, Ai, Arad) and continued to be constructed throughout the MBA (Shechem, Jerusalem, Ashkelon, Hazor). Many of these MBA frtfs., including glacis-covered ramparts and massive walls and gates (→ fig. Gates #1:8–9, col. 326), likely continued in use into the LBA, a period when no new or distinct form(s) of equally massive frtfs. indigenous to the Levant appear to have developed.

What did appear new in the LBA were Eg.style frts. or “governor’s palaces,” and sites whose houses were constructed as a peripheral belt for protection (Megiddo Stratum VIIB). Examples of the Eg. frts., which did not usually encompass the entirety of the settlements, occur at Deir el-Balah, Tel Mor, Aphek, Beth-Shean, Kamid el-Loz, and fragmentarily at Tell el-ʿAjjul, Ashkelon, and Jaffa. 4.2.  The Egyptians withdrew from the Southern Levant in LB III/​Iron Age IA, while both the Sea Peoples and Israelites emerged. This influx of new and different people groups was likely part of the reason that frtfs. in this period took multiple forms; geopolitical considerations, however, were a better reason. Sites near to the main trade routes

Fortifications (frtfs.)/Fortresses (frts.)

301

302

were generally more strongly fortified than sites further away. In the southern coastal plain, sites such as Ashdod (Stratum XII) and Ekron (Stratum  VII) constructed casemate and solid mudbrick city walls, respectively. Similarly, in the Galilee at the site of Tel Kinneret (Stratum V) an 11 m wide city wall was erected. Frtfs. were even found in the Hill Country at this time near the N-S ridge route. Tell el-Ful had a rectangular fortress with a corner → tower, and a freestanding tower was erected at Giloh. Such massive frtfs., however, were not the norm in this period. Rather, the peripheral belt of buildings remained the dominant method of defending a settlement (Megiddo VIA, ʿIzbet Sartah III, Beer-Sheba VII, and Tel Esdar III), particularly in the Hill Country. The Iron Age IIA marked the beginning of the refortification of the landscape in the Southern Levant. This process was directly related to the formation of localized states such as Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, and Damascus. The reappearance of monumental frtfs. is variously dated to the 10th or 9th cent. Both solid walls (Lachish IV, Beer-Sheba V, Tel Malhata, Ashdod IX, Tall Jawa IX [Ammon]) and casemate walls (Megiddo VA/​IVB, Gezer VIII, Beth-Shemesh Level 3, Hazor X–IX) were constructed in Iron Age IIA. Similarly, though six-chambered gates were the most numerous in Iron Age IIA (Hazor X–IX, Megiddo VA/​IVB, Gezer VIII), there were examples of four-chambered (Ashdod X, Beer-Sheba V, poss. Tall Jawa) and two-chambered gates (Tell Beit Mirsim B3; → fig. Gate #2, col. 327). Some gates, such as Megiddo VA/​IVB, Gezer VIII, and BethSaida V were strengthened by the addition of an outer gate (→ fig. Gate #3, col. 330). This outer gate formed a bent-axis approach, exposing the nonshielded side of attacking soldiers to the onslaught of the defenders’ weapons. The so-called “Negev fortresses” in the southern part of the country at this period were not really frts. but strategically placed four-room houses. The military function of these structures is not in doubt as they overlooked trade routes through the Negev, however, they were not constructed to withstand major military actions as were the other fortified cities and frts. of Iron Age IIA. These ‘fortresses’ appear to function more as watchtowers that were inhabited by people potentially loyal to Israel/​Judah and who may or may not have been military personnel. A  structure functioning in a similar manner was found at el-Khirbe, which sat on a route leading up from the Judean Wilderness to Jerusalem. Though solid walls became more common in Iron Age IIB (Lachish III, Jerusalem XII), casemate walls were still constructed (Beer-Sheba III–II,

Tall Jawa, Khirbet al-Mudayna [Moab]). This variation continued into Iron Age IIC although in that period casemate walls were generally restricted to frts. (Arad VI, Kadesh-Barnea II, and Tel Kabri E2) while most major cities were protected by a solid wall (Lachish II, Megiddo III). Gate forms also continued to be varied. 4.3.  After the destruction of Judean and Phoen. sites by the Babylonians between 604 and 586/582 b.c.e., few sites in the Southern Levant continued to have frtfs.; Dor was the main exception. Based on textual and arch. evidence it would appear that the Babylonians did not construct new frtfs. in the Southern Levant; once sites were destroyed, they were left in ruins. A shift from fortified cities to smaller settlements is evident in the arch. record (→ city § 4.3). This absence of fortified urban centers persisted into the Pers. period. The Persians, however, did construct numerous small frts. throughout the Levant, mostly along the coastal highway and other trade routes (Tel Shiqmona, Tell Kudadi, Tell Qasile VI, Ashdod, Tel Michal, Tell Jemmeh, Tel Seraʿ III, Tel Haror G1, and others). These frts. were square and ranged between 20– 40 m on a side with external walls 1.0–1.5 m thick. They were comprised of a central → courtyard with rooms on two or more of their sides. 4.4.  The Hell. frtfs. found in the Southern Levant mark a noticeable difference in → construction technique from those defenses found in previous periods. The Phoen. methods of header-stretcher and pier and rubble construction (→ fig. Building Material #1:3, col. 87) were replaced by a new “Greek” style of fortification in which walls were made of rectangular blocks of stone laid as headers all the way to the top. Such construction was found at Samaria, Mareshah, and Dor, the latter of which has a rectangular tower with a central staircase (→ stairs). 5.  The number of sites that had newly constructed frtfs. in the LBA is uncertain. Evidence suggests that the Egyptians, who extended control over much of the Levant at this time, did not allow the refortification of the landscape –though some sites likely had MBA frtfs. still standing. Instead, multiple Eg. frts. were established to police the region and collect taxes. On the other hand, multiple New Kingdom wall reliefs depict massive frtfs. around cities in the Southern Levant. These representations, however, may be more propaganda than reality. Following the arrival of the Sea Peoples and the Eg. withdrawal from the Levant in Iron Age I some sites constructed new frtfs. Iron Age I can be characterized by the appearance of numerous autonomous people groups – the Philistines, Arameans, Israelites, and Canaanites, the latter of

Fortifications (frtfs.)/Fortresses (frts.)

303 

which were no longer under Eg. control. These groups each sought to carve out a region for themselves and establish some modicum of protection. The most massive frtfs. appeared at sites that were along the main trade routes while the sites in the hills could survive with less massive frtfs., generally just a peripheral belt of houses. As kingdoms developed and power struggles increased there was a growing need for massive frtfs. Iron Age IIA marked the appearance of extensive defenses, and over the next phases of the Iron Age more and more sites were fortified. Only with the reappearance of imperial forces in the 8th cent. in the Southern Levant was there a decrease in the number of fortified sites as many Isr./​Judean and Philist. sites were destroyed. Not only were numerous sites destroyed, but also when the imperial force sought to consolidate its control it often fortified new locations that were more pertinent to its goal(s). For example, both the Assyrians and Persians built their frts. along the coastal highway  – often in locations where no fortification had been previously – in order to keep the route to Egypt open, while the Babylonians moved the administrative capital from Jerusalem to Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh) following Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign. None of these imperial forces rebuilt frtfs. in the Hill Country of Judah. It was once thought that there was a chronological development in both gate and wall styles over the course of the Iron Age. Yadin (1963:​322–325) argued that there was a progression from a peripheral belt of houses, to casemate walls, to solid walls. He also argued for a progression of gate forms. In his opinion only six-chambered gates and casemate walls were constructed in the 10th cent., while in the 9th cent. only four-chambered gates and solid walls were constructed. His chronological-typological scheme, however, has been undermined with the more recent finds at Ekron VII, Kinneret V, and Ashdod X. These Iron Age I sites display massive solid walls in a period when most sites were protected by a peripheral belt of homes. Further, gates and walls of every style have been found contemporaneously in Iron Ages IIA, B, and C. The factors determining the form of frtfs. were therefore more likely geopolitical than they were chronological. Yet, chronological considerations cannot be ruled out entirely. Frtfs. must be viewed in light of offensive developments in warfare because the two – offense and defense – are constantly interacting with each other. The use of → siege machinery in the LBA and Iron Age I, however, seemed to be disregarded, forgotten, or unfeasible. It was not until the NeoAssyrians invaded the Levant in the 9th cent. that siege machines were reintroduced (→ fig. Siege #1–

304

2, col. 871 ff). This reintroduction of siege machines, particularly the battering ram, by the Assyrians fueled Yadin’s argument that solid walls replaced casemate walls in the 9th cent. This apparent shift in fortification styles happened ca. 840 b.c.e. and is likely related to the threat posed by Hazael. While the reintroduction of the battering ram may have contributed to the increased use of solid walls, it was not the sole reason for this apparent shift. In fact, the increased use of solid walls in late Iron Age IIA appears to predate Ass. use of the battering ram in the Levant. Rather, solid walls were constructed because there was a general advancement in military organization and increased power among the local states. Damascus and the other Arameans in the 9th cent. did not appear to have siege machinery (consider the Zakkur Inscription and siege trench at Tell es-Safi). Similarly, the wars of David recorded in the Books of Samuel mention only sappers and soldiers, but not siege machines. The use of sappers in Iron Age IIA is just as likely a reason to shift from casemate to solid walls as is the reintroduction of the battering ram. There were a few unique adaptations to frtfs. in the Southern Levant due to the use of siege machinery in the Iron Age. For instance, at Lachish the Judean inhabitants constructed a counter siege ramp in an effort to dissuade the Assyrians (Ussishkin 2004:​723–724). Another adaptation included the use of wooden platforms that could be attached to the top of city walls. These platforms, mentioned in 2 Chr 26:15 and depicted in Sennacherib’s reliefs of the battle of Lachish, extended beyond the walls and allowed the defenders to shoot arrows or cast heavy stones on the approaching Ass. soldiers and battering rams. Following their conquests of the Levant in the second half of the 8th cent., the Assyrians constructed numerous frts. along the N-S coastal highway in order to protect the trade route to Egypt. The frts. were built on platforms causing many of them to stand out in the landscape. With such prominent positions these frts. likely also served as propagandistic statements of Ass. power (Oren 1993). In a similar manner, though on a smaller scale, the Persians constructed numerous frts. along the same route. The appearance of many of these frts. in the Pers. period was perhaps the result of the Eg. revolt in the mid-5th cent. and the need to keep routes to Egypt open. However, some of the late Pers. frts., as at Tel Shiqmona, may have been constructed in light of the wars of the Diadochi in the 4th cent. (Elgavish 1993:​1376). 6.  Walls, gates, towers, and other fortification features are mentioned throughout the bibl. texts,

305

though details concerning their forms are generally lacking. One text, however, that does suggest a specific style of fortification, that is, the peripheral belt of houses, is Josh 2:15. In this verse the Isr. spies are let out of a window in Rahab’s house, which was “in the city wall.” Another verse is Dt 3:5, which refers to cities with high walls, gates, and bars. The word usually translated “gates” is delatayim and refers to the two doors of the gate. Over the course of the Iron Age and Pers. period many bibl. figures were attributed with constructing frtfs. Solomon was credited with constructing Jerusalem’s defenses (1 Kgs 3:1), the defenses at Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (1 Kgs 9:15), and additional cities built with “walls, gates, and bars” (2 Chr 8:5). Following the division of the United Kingdom Rehoboam is said to have fortified and stockpiled numerous sites throughout Judah (2 Chr 11:5–12). His grandson Asa took the stones of Ramah, which was fortified by Baasha, and fortified Geba and Mizpah (1 Kgs 15:17–25). In addition to these two sites, Asa also fortified numerous other unnamed sites by surrounding them with “walls and towers, gates and bars” (2 Chr 14:6– 7). In the Northern Kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam built Shechem and Penuel (1 Kgs 12:1), Omri fortified Samaria (1 Kgs 16:24), while Hiel of Bethel attempted to refortify Jericho (1 Kgs 16:34). Even more of the kings of Judah are attributed with constructing frtfs. and/or frts.: Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:12), Uzziah (2 Chr 26:6–14), Jotham (2 Chr 27:3–4), Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:5; Isa 22:10), and Manasseh (2 Chr 33:14). Nehemiah had the walls and gates of Jerusalem rebuilt in the Pers. period (Neh 3), while further references to walls, towers, gates, and frts. abound in the prophetic books and writings: Isa 2:15; 25:12; 26:1; 60:18; 62:6; Jer 1:15, 18; 15:20; 21:4; 39:4; 48:41; 49:27; 51:12, 58; Ez 26:4; Am 1:7, 10, 14; Pss 31:3; 71:3; 144:2; Prov 25:28; Cant 8:10. In addition, the bibl. texts also use the phrase, “from watchtower to fortified city” twice in 2 Kgs (17:9; 18:8) as a merism that includes all fortified structures in Judah.

306

Furniture (f.)

Furniture (f.) 1.  Although ancient households were significantly less equipped with furniture than today’s, a great variety of movable property can be identified in the arch., philological, and iconogr. record (Baker 1966; Richter 1966; Gubel 1987; Killen 1980; 1994; 2017; Herrmann 1996; Simpson 2010; de Schauensee 2011; E. Fischer 2016). All three aspects need to be drawn into our conclusions, because actual finds of f. are rare, with the exception of Egypt; for example, the tomb of Tutankhamun which yielded beds, chairs, and stools (Hawass/​Vannini 2008:​ 66; Eaton-Krauss 2008). Generally being made of wood, only in rare instances, such as the MBA → tombs of Jericho or the Iron Age tombs of Gordion with their dry climate and secluded space, preservation was sufficient to hand down to us examples of tables and stools. Parts of decorative fittings or inlays can be found more frequently. In particular, metal fittings or → ivory/bone inlays attest to the rich and colorful appearance of luxurious f., as was discovered in Megiddo, Tell el-Farah (S), Samaria, and Nimrud. Pcs. of f. are important indicators of status and wealth and therefore are mentioned in elite exchanges of different periods. Depictions of f. on various media give us an idea of their use and shape. This evidence, however, has to be treated with caution, because certain artistic conventions may lead to deviations and distortions from the actual object. F. models, commonly made of clay, can be fairly detailed and realistic, sometimes giving good evidence of technical details apart from the rare actual find itself. Frequent abstract or less detailed depictions, however, do not help distinguish subtypes of f. or understand their construction and use. Contemporaneous written sources (such as the Mari letters or the Amarna correspondence) give additional information in terms of a brief description of single pcs. of f., their use, and value. Furthermore, foreign types of f. present in ancient Palestine also have to be reckoned with, either as true imports or as local copies and adaptations. In general, however, all the basic types of f. can be recognized: tables (with one, three, or four legs); 7.  Elgavish, J., 1993, Shiqmona, Tel, NEAEHL 4:1373– seating f., such as stools, chairs, or thrones; and f. 1378 ♦ Faust, A., 2001, Accessibility, Defense and Town Planning in Iron Age Israel, TA 29:297–317 ♦ Oren, E., for resting, like beds. Seating and resting f. may 1993, Ethnicity and Regional Archaeology: The West- also be combined with footstools. Stands (usually ern Negev under Assyrian Rule, in: A. Biran/​J. Aviram for vessels) can be considered as part of f., too, (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Jerusalem:​ as they are most often depicted in combination 102–105 ♦ Ussishkin, D., 2004, Area R and the Assyr- with other pcs. of f. Storing f. ranges from smallian Siege, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archae- sized caskets to chests and trunks. They are atological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) 2, Monotested best in Egypt. Corresponding objects might graph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22, Tel Aviv:​695–764 ♦ Yadin, Y., 1963, The have been used in ancient Palestine, but its evidence is too scarce to be included in this entry. Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, New York. H. Keimer Large wardrobes and open shelves were com-

Furniture (f.)

307 

monly built into the wall and are not considered here, either. Few ancient Hebr. designations are known for most of these types of f.: šulḥan carries the meaning of table, the term kisseʾ refers to stool, chair, and → throne alike, which are usually distinguished by the seated figure. A throne is generally combined with a footstool, which was called hadom raglayim exclusively in metaphorical contexts, but kebeš when referred to as an actual piece of f. It is surprising to find five designations for bed, but it is not possible to differentiate their use. The rather common miškab generally refers to a place of rest, whereas miṭṭah (29 references), ʿeres (11), yaṣuah (5), and maṣṣaʿ (1) are without further identification (Mitchell 1996). 2.1.  Rectangular tables with three legs are attested in various MBA tombs at Jericho. The arrangement of two legs near one end and one leg on the opposite end allows for a firm stand on uneven floors. The legs are generally straight or slightly tapering but can also be decorated with zoomorphic feet in the shape of lion’s paws. Tabletops may show a slightly raised edge and a large depression in their upper surface. Round tripodtables with curved legs terminating in lion’s paws occur for the first time in the LBA. Horizontal stretchers generally connect the legs, and a vertical post in the center supports the table, which might have been detachable. In two-dimensional representations of the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages, only two legs can be depicted. Tables with crossed legs may point towards movable f., although it is not always clear whether the table has three or four legs due to artistic conventions. During the Hell. and Rom. periods round tables with tripod base (delphica) terminate in lion’s paws or hind legs of hoofed animals. Three depressions in the underside of the tabletop help secure the tripod. Such tables were used for banqueting, reaching approximately 50 cm in diameter on average. Tables with single posts (monopodium/cartibulum) occur during the Hell. and Rom. periods. Made of stone and built against a wall or in the corner of a room, they must be considered as permanent room-installations. The tabletop can be rectangular or square, and is frequently ornamented with geometric or floral patterns or depictions of certain objects along its edges. The table is supported by a single column or pillar, generally set on a molded base, and is 70–80 cm in height. In the Rom. period, a hybrid form of round tables with single support combines elements of delphica and monopodium. 2.2.  Simple stools without a backrest are widely distributed from the MBA to the Pers. period. Of square shape, their usually round legs can occur

308

either plain or in a molded style, which is not necessarily an indicator of woodturning. Rectangular bench-like stools with strongly stylized lion’s paws of identical shape pointing inwards can be found in the MBA and seem to imitate Eg. models (for Eg. parallels to this orientation cf. H. G. Fischer 1996:​147, pls. 33, 36). Chairs are defined by a straight backrest; they can be equipped with additional armrests (an armchair). Simple chairs are constructed of wood only. The seat can be made of a plain board or wickerwork to provide a more flexible and comfortable seat. During the MBA and LBA, Eg. influence led to the adoption of chairs with posts in the shape of lion’s legs. Two types can be recognized: a naturalistic design showing the animal’s limb with distinctive joint and toes, and one distinguishing between the animal’s front and hind legs. In a more stylized design, legs are straight and the paws are reduced to circular ends, similar to benches (“scroll legs”). Both types of legs terminate in small conical elements. The backrest normally is slightly inclined and can be supported by three vertical struts. Folding chairs of Eg. type can be recognized by their crossing of legs. Flexible materials are used as seat covers to fold the chair. The legs usually terminate in lion’s paws or in heads of water birds and are connected by crossbars. Certain types of seats are used by gods and kings, as well as by dignitaries or other men of high rank. In cases of fragmentary preservation, absent inscription, or lack of attributes, a distinction between a throne and other seats is problematic. Footstools are frequently associated with thrones in matching design, underlining the importance of the seated person by lifting him or her above ground. They may show legs capped by volutes or vertical structures along the sides. 2.3.  Ancient beds are used for sleeping and reclining and gain great importance for representative dining (banqueting). According to OT sources, beds are a marker of social status; commoners would have slept on mattresses on the floor. Beds generally consist of simple wooden frames on four posts with flexible wickerwork or stringing. Particularly prominent are beds with high, inwardcurving headboards. The Eg. type bed with rectangular footboard was varied sometimes with head- and footboard and could be decorated. 2.4.  Most vessel shapes required a separate support. Wooden and metal vessel stands of different sizes are occasionally depicted but rarely found in the arch. record of ancient Palestine. Most of the tripods resemble Cypriote shapes and can be considered as imports. Three common shapes can be distinguished: rod tripod, cast tripod, and square stand, which do not change much between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. They can be decorat-

Furniture (f.)

309

310

ed with volutes or pendants, while square stands allow for figurative scenes on the sides. Fourlegged stands resemble wooden Eg. types but differ in the arrangement of struts. 3.  The most common material for f. was and still is wood. Different local and imported woods are used, carefully selected to match the wood’s properties and object requirements. In particular, dark hard woods (such as boxwood) are valued. Decorated with colorful inlays of different materials, painting, or gilding, ancient f. is quite variable and fitted corresponding to the taste and purse of the customer. The ancient woodworker had a great variety of techniques and → tools for shaping and assembly at hand, such as cutting, sawing, or lathe-turning. Fixing and joining were usually achieved by doweling and gluing; decorative carving, inlay work, and veneering, all testify to a high standard in carpentry (Gubel 1987:​11–34; Cartwright 2005; Simpson 2010). A rather detailed account of the making of the shewbread-table for the tabernacle is given in the OT. Figurative inlays made of → ivory enhance the value of items of f. Ivory is rarely used for producing larger objects; it is mostly combined and reinforced with wooden elements. Bronze is employed mainly as a terminal fitting for stretchers, legs, and armrests. In the Hell. and Rom. periods, table legs of solid metal are cast. In that period, stone f. is also attested, which most often imitates wooden models. Flexible organic materials such as fibers, presumably palm or reed, as well as → leather are used for the seat or mattress. Cushions, sheets, and blankets add to the comfort of the pcs. of f. 4.  The earliest evidence of f. can be found in the Chalc. A terracotta figurine from Gilat is seated on a biconical “stool” similar to the pedestal bowl, a ceremonial vessel in the Chalc. pottery repertoire (Commenge et al. 2006:​742–746, figs. 15:1–2; IPIAO 1:fig. 69). A fragmentary wall painting from Tuleilat el-Ghassul shows at least two persons seated on f., now lost. Still visible are the lower legs and feet, resting on footboards of different height (Mallon et al. 1934:​129– 132, pls. 56, 66). No actual piece of f. has survived so far from the EBA. Over a dozen f. models from different sites made of clay and stone give a vivid impression of the appearance of beds or benches, however, and most likely stools (Beck 2002:​280 ff, figs. 1–2). Incised crisscross patterning on top seems to indicate knitted → fabric or woven parts, illustrating either seating or covering. A stela from Arad (IPIAO 1:fig. 208) depicts a reclining figure in a rectangular frame, which may indicate a bed or matting. A  “model of a table,” apparently illustrating a cultic scene, was found at the site of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (IPIAO 1:fig. 224).

The function of the Levantine models and their relationship to Mesop. items (Cholidis 1992) are still disputed. Most remarkable finds for the history of woodworking, due to favorable preservation in several MBA chamber tombs near Jericho, include at least 28 three-legged tables, 27 stools, and one or two beds, but no chairs (Kenyon 1960:​ 462–465, 494–495, pl. 27; 1965:​233 ff, 267–268, 292–293, 398–405; Parr 1996). The tables are long, narrow, and rather low, probably on a level with or below the level of the stools. They generally have three legs, poss. ending in animal paws. The bed, consisting of a simple frame with strings, resembles the bench-like stool, but is twice its length. Two varieties of stools were discovered, both with woven seats: a rectangular, bench-like form; and the square form with rather slender legs tapering downwards. Similar finds dating to the same period were made in Baghouz on the Euphrates (Parr 1996; Scheiblecker 2017). A basalt statue from Hazor of a seated man illustrates a square form (Metzger 1985:​no. 1110). Scarabs with noble men (“princes”), of the late Palest. group (MB IIB), display seated figures on Eg. type lion-legged chairs with high or low backrest (BenTor 2007:​182, pl. 106:14 ff, 18). Ass. wall reliefs illustrate a wide variety of Iron Age furnishings in → palace, temple (→ sanctuary), and military camp (Barnett/​Lorenzini 1975:​pls. 86, 124, 168). Late attestations occur in the Rom. period, most notably several wall paintings in the → synagogue of Dura Europos (3rd cent. c.e.) with representations of tables, chairs, thrones, footstools, and beds (Kraeling 1956:​pls. 17, 28, 30:2, 33 ff, 56, 59, 63, 65, 68, 74–75). A mosaic floor in the synagogue of Sepphoris (early 5th cent. c.e.) offers an intriguing depiction of the table of shewbread (Weiss/​Netzer 1996:​24–25). 4.1.  Certainly, among the most prominent LBA finds are the Ahiram sarcophagus from Byblos and the finds from Megiddo, providing actual and pictorial evidence of different types of f. Tables are rarely attested; however, a detailed representation can be found on an ivory panel from Megiddo (Metzger 1985:​nos. 1138–1141). Curved lion legs of nearly identical shape pointing outwards and a horizontal stretcher would indicate a tripod shape; its rather large size is unusual, however. According to MBA tradition (cf. Jericho), a rectangular table with four or three zoomorphic legs might be depicted instead. An elaborate example of an ivory-inlaid tabletop is represented among the finds from Ugarit (Gachet-Bizollon 2007:​ 147–161). On the same ivory panel from Megiddo, a number of high-ranking men, including the ruler, are seated on square stools with molded legs and horizontal stretcher (Metzger 1985:​

Furniture (f.)

311 

nos. 1138–1141). Hazor provides further evidence of f.; two basalt statues of seated men illustrate chairs with lion legs similar to MBA illustrations (Metzger 1985:​nos. 1157–1158; → fig. Idol #1, col. 493). Ivory lion legs of a miniature chair were found at Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935:​61, pl. 32:375). Folding chairs of Eg. type are also in use in the Southern Levant. An ivory carving from Tell el-Farah (S) shows an Eg. official seated on an Eg. folding chair with a very high back. The seat is covered with a spotted skin and a similarly decorated cushion. Crossed legs terminate in lion’s paws according to Eg. fashion (→ fig. Throne #2:1, col. 971; E. Fischer 2011:​159–178, figs. 19–20). Additional depictions of Eg. folding chairs (or stools) can be found on several stone lintel fragments from Beth-Shean (James 1966:​figs. 88– 89, 94–95; Sweeney 1998:​38–39, figs. 1–2). All known images represent f. made for Eg. officials in Palestine. Therefore, it is unknown whether this type of f. was adapted by the local elites. In particular, footstools accompany ornate chairs. Voluted supports from footstools were found at both Megiddo (Loud 1939:​pl. 46:213 ff) and Tell es-Safi (Bliss/​Macalister 1902:​147, pl. 77:5). Additionally, such an item is depicted on the Ahiram sarcophagus from Byblos (Metzger 1985:​ no. 1183) in combination with a sphinx throne. It is interesting to note that six chairs, six footstools, and one bed are all mentioned among the objects taken by the Eg. king after the battle of Megiddo (Redford 2003:​38). Beds are not attested in the arch. record of the Southern Levant, in contrast to Ugarit (Gachet-Bizollon 2001). However, three stone plaques from Deir el-Balah illustrate naked women lying on abbreviated versions of Eg.-type beds with footboard. It remains disputable whether these plaques represent an actual use of such beds in ancient Palestine (Dothan 2006:​150–153, figs. 5–6). During the LBA, a large number of Cypriote tripods were retrieved in the Eastern Medit. The most interesting finds in Palestine are a rod tripod from Beth-Shean (Matthäus 1985:​304, pl. 132:1; → fig. Cultic Equipment #3:1, col. 207), a cast tripod with riveted bowl from Tell esSaʿidiyeh (Matthäus 1985:​311, pl. 137:1), and a square stand from Megiddo (Matthäus 1985:​ 315–316, pl. 135:3; → fig. Cultic Equipment #3:3, col. 207). The aforementioned ivory carving from Megiddo, illustrating a banquet scene, includes a tripod for a large two-handled jar, which shows some similarity with Cypriote rod tripods. Decorative ivory elements, probably from f., such as appliqués, panels, and inlays, and knobs in the shape of a papyrus umbel from the LBA were discovered more frequently: the largest collection being

312

the finds from Megiddo (Loud 1939:​pls. 5–10, 22, 32–38, 44:190–193, 56:290–293, 62, 63; cf. → fig. Ivory #1:4, col. 547). 4.2.  In the Iron Age, the arch. record is dominated by rich finds of ivory and bone-inlays, which once decorated f. Best known is the collection of ivories from Samaria, with a good selection of Levantine style-groups (Crowfoot/​ Crowfoot 1938). No actual tables dating to the Iron Age have been discovered in ancient Palestine, but different types of tables are depicted prominently in banquet scenes from Syria (Bonatz 2000:​92–96). The use of tripod tables with zoomorphic legs must be assumed for the region of Palestine, since this very distinct type of object is attested throughout the Eastern Medit. (Gubel 1987:​251–261). In the absenc of actual finds, several representations of chairs inform us about the use of different types. Common is the chair with a high backrest and a horizontal stretcher, as can be seen on a stamp seal from Ashdod that has a seated lyre player (GGG:fig. 149a) and on an ivory statuette from Tel Rehov (Mazar 2008). Among the items carried away by Ass. soldiers during the capture of Lachish is a similar chair with armrest, which corresponds in type to Sennacherib’s throne (Barnett et al. 1998:​pls. 332– 333, 337). Pithos A  from Kuntillet ʿAjrud shows a lyre player sitting on a chair with a low backrest and paneled structure. It has slightly splayed legs terminating in spheroid elements, which may indicate lion’s paws (Beck 2002:​100, 126–127, 130–131, figs. 5, 14; → fig. Music #1:3, col. 679). Two paintings from Kuntillet ʿAjrud illustrate specimens with closed sides, either paneled or containing crossbars and struts (Beck 2002:​139– 140, 152 ff, figs. 18, 23; → fig. Mural Painting #1:2, col. 673). Small-scale illustrations attest to a wide use of chairs, such as a scarab from Beth-Shemesh (GGG:§ 145, fig. 238b). Terracotta models of stools, chairs, and beds from Beer-Sheba, Lachish, Tell en-Nasbeh, and WT-13 in central Jordan are quite detailed and give a fairly good impression of f. (Aharoni 1973:​pls. 27:3, 28:5–6; Tufnell 1953:​pl. 29:19–22; McCown 1947:​pl. 84:25–28; Daviau 2017:​fig. 5.6:1, 4). A bed-model from Lachish, for instance, combines a vertical footboard with a slightly inclined headboard terminating in lateral volutes. The painted terracotta fragment of a bed or chair from Tel Masos clearly reveals vertical panels in the board (Crüsemann 1983:​ 132, pls. 109:8, 219:13). Footstools in combination with chairs or beds remain of the same basic type with volutes curving inwards, as in the LBA, having become widespread throughout the Medit. area. A  remote example is a 6th cent. limestone model from Carthage with reduced volutes along

Furniture (f.)

313

314

its sides (Gubel 1987:​fig. 43). No actual beds dating to the Iron Age are preserved in Palestine. At Salamis, a bed with a rectangular headboard, which employs strongly Egyptianizing ivory-carvings illustrating apotropaic motifs, has been retrieved (Karageorghis 1973–1974:​89, 92–97, pls.  C–E.65–72; 141–142). The well-known bed from Arslan Tash was embellished with ivoryplaques showing the motifs of “cow and suckling calf” and four-winged genies (Thureau-Dangin et al. 1931:​89–138, pls. 18–47; Fontan/​Affanni 2018). The type of bed with curving headboard resembles a shape common throughout the ANE. It is best known by Ashurbanipal’s → garden scene, where it is decorated with Ass. style elements. However, this shape of bed was in use in various regions conquered by the Assyrians (cf. Reade 1983:​figs. 61, 102). Beds, along with chairs or thrones, are frequently mentioned among tribute and booty collected by the Assyrians. Even Hezekiah had to deliver such items that pertain to status and wealth to Sennacherib (Frahm 1997:​ 55, 59; line 56). Supports and stands for vessels continue the strong Cypriote link prevalent in the LBA. Vase stands with cross-bracing became very popular, resembling Eg. prototypes (Gubel 1987:​ 262–270). 4.3.  Evidence from the middle of the 1st mill. b.c.e. becomes sparse and is best represented in the numerous Phrygian finds from Gordion (Simpson 2010). The most important finds are a bed and matching stool from tomb 650 at Tell el-Farah (S) (Petrie 1930:​14, pls. 45–46; Iliffe 1935:​182– 183, pl. 89). A number of bronze fittings were discovered as parts of the vertical posts. These elements are decorated with rings and disks, ending in spheroid feet. Hebr. letters seem to have been used as the fitter’s marks to facilitate the assembly of the individual elements. A very sketchy image of a person lying on a bed with molded legs gives only a vague idea of reclining f. during the 5th cent. (limestone → altar from Lachish: Stern 1976:​fig. 1:4, pl. 31:2). 4.4.  Evidence of typical Palest. f. in the later periods becomes rare; G and Rom. shapes and styles prevail. Stone f. elements grant a glimpse into the now lost wooden originals. Tables with a single support (monopodium) were topped by a rectangular or square surface. Architectural stone pillars, columns, and bases were used as parts of tables, as found in Jerusalem and Mareshah (Avigad 1983:​106–107, 167 ff, 172–173, 197; Magen 2002:​101–111; Kloner 2003:​16 ff). A stone tabletop purchased in Jerusalem depicts such a serving table with small vessels and two large vessels beneath (Avigad 1983:​172–173, fig. 194). A  good example of a single support – despite being of hy-

brid form – provides a round stone tabletop from Horvat Tabaq with a central square indentation (Kloner/​Zissu 1999). Three-legged round tables with legs combining zoomorphic elements resemble very much LBA specimens, although the considerable temporal gap argues for a reinvention. Examples of these tables, called delphica, came to light in Jerusalem (round tabletops of stone: Avigad 1983:​168; Magen 2002:​96–97, fig. 3:58–59; and a bronze lion paw, probably from a wooden tripod: Avigad 1983:​170, fig. 190). Depictions of similar tables are attested in the so-called Sidonian Tomb (Tomb I) at Mareshah, 2nd cent. b.c.e. (Avigad 1983:​170, fig. 189), and on the mosaic floor in the → house of Orpheus at Sepphoris, 2nd half of the 3rd cent. c.e. (NEAEHL 5:2032, pl. 19). The f. is depicted in yellow, presumably imitating gilding; the table legs end in lion’s paws. For another type of table leg with the hind legs of a hoofed animal, cf. a Hell. bronze leg from ʿAtlit (Merhav 1996). Such examples attest to the equipment of houses with luxurious f. according to the latest fashion. Much more basic f. must have been used in common households; because they were made of more perishable materials, they leave a great lacuna in the material record. Late period attestations of Palestine f. can also be found abroad: cf. Dura Europos (above) and the depiction of the shewbread-table on the monumental Arch of Titus in Rome (Pfanner 1983:​50–51, figs. 34, 35, 53, 73, pls. 54, 59:3–4). 5.  A large variety of f. was used in ancient Palestine. Varying arch. records pose the greatest problem when trying to assess the evidence. Only a fraction of ancient f. has come down to us, mostly indirectly attested in depictions or in rather fragmentary preservation. The basic types of f. – tables, different kinds of seating f., beds, and stands – are found in almost all periods, designed according to the fashion of the time. Throughout the 2nd mill., for instance, a strong Eg. influence can be observed in the decoration of Palest. f. Similar types of f. remain in use even until the late periods. Given the scanty remains and the basic shapes of types of f., it has been and remains difficult to recognize distinct local Palest. forms and types. 6.  References to f. in the bibl. record only give general attestations to the use of certain types; rarely do we receive further information as to their technical aspects, material, or origin. Tables (šulḥan) are frequently mentioned in the OT, in particular referring to the table of shewbread. It is positioned in front of the curtain in the tabernacle (Ex 26:35) for the deposition of shewbread (Lev 24:5–6). The table itself is described as being made of gilded wood; four rings

Furniture (f.)

315 

attached to upper parts of the legs allow the insertion of two gilded poles in order to carry the table (Ex 25:23–30; 37:10–16). Tables in secular contexts of elite households indicate their use for dining (1 Kgs 13:20; Job 36:16; Prov 9:2; Isa 21:5; Ez 23:41), similar to the royal table with an assembly of the Jew. nobility and foreign guests (1 Sam 20:24–27; 1 Kgs 10:5; 2 Chr 9:4). In addition, the royal table is referred to as a metaphor for royal benevolence and favor (2 Sam 9:7, 10–11, 13; 19:29; 1 Kgs 2:7; 5:7). Chairs or stools (kisseʾ) are mentioned rather sporadically. The old priest Eli falls off his seating device upon learning of the loss of the ark, which might therefore indicate a backless seat (1 Sam 1:9; 4:13, 18). The term hadom raglayim is used metaphorically when referred to the ark of covenant (1 Chr 28:2; Ps 132:7), to Zion (Ps 99:5; Lam 2:1), or to the earth in general (Isa 66:1) as the YHWH’s footstool. Another metaphoric use refers to enemies as a footstool for the king (Ps 110:1). In Ez 43:7, YHWH refers to the temple itself as the “place of my soles” (meqom kappot raglay). These metaphors allude to the notion of footstools as an item of elite f. In the description of Solomon’s throne, however, the footstool, manufactured in gold, is designated simply as kebeš (2 Chr 9:18). Beds appear to be part of elite households (1 Sam 19:13, 16; 2 Kgs 4:10; Am 3:12; 6:4) and of the palace (2 Sam 4:7; 11:2; 13:5; 1 Kgs 21:4; 2 Kgs 11:2). References to beds are mainly restricted to the used precious materials, but do not describe their outer appearance. Amos accuses the rich people of Israel for their lavishness, employing ivorydecorated f. (Am 6:4). Beds could also be decorated with precious metals (Esth 1:6). The reference to an iron-bed used by Og in Rabbah Ammon (Dt 3:11) might be understood as decorated with costly iron elements (Millard 1988). Cushions and other textiles can generally be assumed to have been used for sleeping (e. g., linen: Prov 7:16). There are many bibl. references to beds in daily life. It was used for sleeping during night (Pss 6:7; 132:3–4; Job 33:15) and day (2 Sam 4:5 ff; 11:2; 2 Kgs 4:10–11; Prov 26:14), as a sickbed (Ex 21:18; 1 Sam 19:14–15; 2 Sam 13:5; 2 Kgs 1:4, 6, 16; 2 Chr 24:25), a deathbed (Gen 47:29– 30; 48:1–2; 49:33), and a bier (2 Kgs 4:21, 32; 2 Sam 3:31). Reclining on beds during eating and drinking is mentioned several times and resembles banqueting habits (1 Sam 28:23; Ez 23:41; Esth 1:6; 7:8; Am 6:4) attested from the early 1st mill. onwards. To commit adultery (Gen 49:4) or prostitution (Prov 7:16; Ez 23:40–41) in a bed is considered to be among the most shameful deeds. By far the most common place to sleep will have been the floor, presumably covered by mattresses;

316

occasionally, the outer garment is mentioned as being used as a blanket when nothing else was available (Ex 22:26; Dt 24:12–13).

7.  Aharoni, Y., 1973, Beer-Sheba 1, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 2, Tel Aviv ♦ Avigad, N., 1983, Discovering Jerusalem, Jerusalem ♦ Baker, H. S., 1966, Furniture in the Ancient World, London  ♦ Barnett, R. D./​Lorenzini, A., 1975, Assyrian Sculpture, Toronto ♦ Barnett, R. D., et al., 1998, Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, London ♦ Beck, P., 2002, Imagery and Representation, Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv ♦ BenTor, D., 2007, Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections, OBO.SA 27, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Bliss, F. J./​Macalister, R. A. S., 1902, Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900, London ♦ Bonatz, D., 2000, Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal, Mainz  ♦ Cartwright, C., 2005, The Bronze Age Wooden Tomb Furniture from Jericho, PEQ 137:99–138 ♦ Cholidis, N., 1992, Möbel in Ton, AVO 1, Münster ♦ Commenge, C., et al., 2006, Gilat’s Figurines, in: T. E. Levy (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult, London/​Oakville:​739–830  ♦ Crowfoot, J. W./​Crowfoot, G. M., 1938, Early Ivories from Samaria, London  ♦ Crüsemann, F., 1983, Die Kleinfunde, in: V. Fritz/​A. Kempinski, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšaš (Tel Masos) 1972– 1975, Wiesbaden:​130–133  ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2017, A Wayside Shrine in Northern Moab, Wadi ath-Thamad Project 1, Oxford ♦ Dothan, T., 2006, Female Figurines from the Deir el-Balah Settlement and Cemetery, in: A. M. Meir/​P. de Miroschedji (eds.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times” (FS Amihai Mazar) 1, Winona Lake:​149–160 ♦ Eaton-Krauss, M., 2008, The Thrones, Chairs, Stools, and Footstools from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, Oxford ♦ Fischer, E., 2011, Tell el-Farʿah (Süd), OBO 247, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2016, Möbel, WiBiLex, www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/27937/  ♦ Fischer, H. G., 1996, Varia Nova, New York ♦ Fontan, É./​Affanni, G. (eds.), 2018, Les ivoires d’Arslan Tash, Paris ♦ Frahm, E., 1997, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, AfO.B 26, Vienna  ♦ Gachet-Bizollon, J., 2001, Le panneau de lit en ivoire de la cour III du palais royal d’Ougarit, Syria 78:19–82 ♦ 2007, Les ivoires d’Ougarit, RSO 16, Paris ♦ Gubel, E., 1987, Phoenician Furniture, Studia Phoenicia 7, Leuven ♦ Hamilton, R. W., 1935, Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam, QDAP 4:1–69 ♦ Hawass, Z./​Vannini, S., 2008, Tutankhamun, Washington, D. C. ♦ Herrmann, G. (ed.), 1996, The Furniture of Western Asia, Mainz ♦ Iliffe, J. H., 1935, A Tell Fārʿa Tomb Group Reconsidered, QDAP 4:182–186 ♦ James, W. F., 1996, The Iron Age at Beth Shan, Philadelphia ♦ Karageorghis, V., 1973–1974, Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis 3, Nicosia ♦ Kenyon, K., 1960, Excavations at Jericho 1, London ♦ 1965, Excavations at Jericho 2, London ♦ Killen, G., 1980, Ancient Egyptian Furniture 1, Warminster ♦ 1994, Ancient Egyptian Furniture 2, Warminster ♦ 2017, Ancient Egyptian Furniture 3, Oxford ♦ Kloner, A., 2003, Maresha Excavations Final Report 1, Jerusalem ♦ Kloner, A./​Zissu, B., 1999, A  Round Table-Top of a Single-Pedestalled ‘Delphica’ from Ḥorvat Tabaq, IEJ 49:242–248 ♦ Kraeling, C. H., 1956, The Excavations at Dura Europos: Final Report, Report 8/1: The Synagogue, New Haven  ♦ Loud, G., 1939, The Megiddo Ivories, OIP 52, Chicago ♦ Magen, Y., 2002, The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Tem-

Garden/s (gr./grs.) and Garden Culture

317

318

ple Period, Jerusalem ♦ Mallon, A., et al., 1934, Teleilāt Ghassūl 1, Rome ♦ Matthäus, H., 1985, Metallgefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern, Prähistorische Bronzefunde II.8, Munich ♦ Mazar, A., 2008, An Ivory Statuette Depicting an Enthroned Figure from Tel Reḥov, in: S. Bickel et al. (eds.), Bilder als Quellen – Images as Sources (FS Othmar Keel), OBO Special Vol., Fribourg/​Göttingen:​101–110 ♦ McCown, C. C., 1947, Tell En-Naṣbeh 1, Berkeley/​New Haven ♦ Merhav, R., 1996, A  Bronze Leg from a Piece of Hellenistic Furniture, EI 25:427–432  ♦ Metzger, M., 1985, Königsthron und Gottesthron, AOAT 15, Kevelaer/​Neukirchen-Vluyn  ♦ Millard, A. R., 1988, King Og’s Bed and Other Ancient Ironmongery, in: L. Eslinger/​G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord (FS Peter C. Craigie), JSOT.S 67, Sheffield:​481–492 ♦ Mitchell, T. C., 1996, Furniture in the West Semitic Texts, in: G. Herrmann (ed.), The Furniture of Western Asia, Mainz:​49–60 ♦ Parr, P. J., 1996, Middle Bronze Age Furniture from Jericho and Baghouz, in: G. Herrmann (ed.), The Furniture of Western Asia, Mainz:​41–48  ♦ Petrie, W. F., 1930, Beth-Pelet (Tell Fara) 1, BSAE 48, London ♦ Pfanner, M., 1983, Der Titusbogen, Mainz ♦ Reade, J., 1983, Assyrian Sculpture, London ♦ Redford, D. B., 2003, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, CHANE 16, Leiden/​Boston ♦ Richter, G., 1966, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, London ♦ Schauensee, M. de, 2011, Furniture Remains and Furniture Ornaments from the Period IVB Buildings at Hasanlu, in: M. de Schauensee (ed.), Peoples and Crafts in Period IVB at Hasanlu, Iran, Philadelphia:​1–41 ♦ Scheiblecker, M., 2017, Die Möbel aus Tall Baghouz (Syrien) – Neubetrachtung und Rekonstruktion, MDOG 149:85–119 ♦ Simpson, E., 2010, The Gordion Wooden Objects, vol. 1: The Furniture from Tumulus MM, CHANE 32, Leiden/​Boston  ♦ Simpson, E./​Spirydowicz, K., 1999, Gordion: ahşap eserler, Wooden Furniture, Ankara ♦ Stern, E., 1976, Note on a Decorated Limestone Altar from Lachish, ʿAtiqot 11:107–109 ♦ Sweeney, D., 1998, The Man on the Folding Chair, IEJ 48:38–53 ♦ Thureau-Dangin, F., et al., 1931, Arslan-Tash, Paris ♦ Tufnell, O., 1953, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, London ♦ Weiss, Z./​Netzer, E., 1996, Promise and Redemption, Jerusalem. Erika Fischer/​Dirk Wicke

layers of meaning. In the Song of Songs, luscious gr. imagery is used to express the beauty, aroma, and intimacy of passionate love. In contrast, the erotic lovemaking of the Sum. deities in The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi is described in terms of plowing and planting the “sweet, honey-covered seed” in Inanna’s womb, emphasizing the vital role of the deities to bring life and productivity to the land. In the OT, YHWH ensures the success and prosperity of the Hebr. people by tending to them as he would a gr. (Isa 5:7; 58:11; 61:11; Jer 31:11). Because of its inherent connection with the concepts of fecundity, reproduction, and abundance, the gr. became a popular motif used to legitimize authority. The creation of a royal gr., for example, symbolized the ruler’s capacity to insure the fertility of the land and thus provide for the basic needs of the people. The inclusion of symbolically charged elements such as exotic plants and animals within the royal gr. and the use of floral motifs and images of seed-laden fruits such as grapes, dates, and pomegranates in association with representations of the king strengthened the polit. metaphor (Stronach 1990; Porter 1993; Foster 1998). In a desert environment where resources are severely limited, the conspicuous consumption of water for recreation and display, the royal pleasure gr. functions as a symbol of wealth, status, and power. 2.  The Hebr. word gan (“enclosure”) along with kirû (Akkad.) are the generic terms for “garden” in the lit. of the ANE, with no distinction made between kitchen grs., orchards, vineyards, or formal, pleasure grs. As formal grs. became a standard feature of royal complexes in Mesopotamia, new terminology was introduced: kirî ekallim “palace garden” and kirimahhu “garden connected with the palace.” The Achaemenid kings called their formal grs. and royal hunting preserves, pairadaeza, meaning “walled enclosure” (Xen. oec. 4.13– 14, 20–24; anab. 1.4.10; 2.4.14; Cic. sen. 17:59). Through his writings and emulations of the Pers. pairadaeza, Xenophon popularized the concept of formal pleasure grs. (παράδεισος > paradise), throughout the Hell. World. 3.  The flora and fauna in a gr. depend on its function as a kitchen gr., orchard, vineyard, pleasure, royal, or temple gr. 4.1.  The origin of the art of gardening can be traced to the 3rd mill. b.c.e. in Mesopotamia. The earliest literary reference to gardening practices is found in a Sum. poem that describes the horticultural technique of growing hullupu shade trees to protect plants from the wind and sun (Kramer 1988:​70–74). In the Gilgamesh Epic, the sacred cedars of Lebanon (Tablet V) are described as an

Garden/s (gr./grs.) and Garden Culture 1.  The bibl. story of the Garden of Eden (Gen 1–3) presents one of the most powerful and value-laden metaphors in Western tradition. The gr. is the home of the plants and animals upon which humans depend for sustenance, and the source of the four great rivers without which there could be no life. It symbolizes an earthly paradise, an idealized representation of nature in its purest form, before humans and their civilization imposed a permanent stain of failure and imperfection. In an environment of desert and increased deforestation, the gr. represents the remnants of nature, and the act of gardening embodies the ability to nurture and control the elements of nature. Allusions to grs. and gr. motifs in the lit. and art of Palestine/​Israel and the ANE convey multiple

Garden/s (gr./grs.) and Garden Culture

319 

enclosed landscaped park with a formal entrance and planned pathways. Sacred groves were often revered as the favorite abodes of the gods, and were therefore places of worship with altars and symbols of the deities, such as the poles erected in the Canaan. rituals to Asherah (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10; Jer 17:2). Temple grs. consist of groves of trees inside the temple → courtyard used for outdoor rituals and to please the gods (Wiseman 1983:​137–138; 1984:​41–42). The quality of a temple’s sacred grove and the quantity of its produce reflected the fertility of the land and thus the status of the resident deity as well as the community at large (Stronach 1990). Royal interest in mastering the arts of gardening and horticulture begins with Sargon I (ca. 2371– 2316 b.c.e.), who, according to the Legend of Sargon, spent his early years as a gardener at the palace at Kish before establishing himself as the King of Akkad. Gudea of Lagash (2141–2122 b.c.e.) planted vineyards and constructed fishponds (Jacobsen 1987:​435) and there were courtyard grs. in the early 2nd mill. palaces at Mari (al-Khalesi 1978) and Ugarit (Yon 1997:​259). 4.2.  The Neo-Ass. kings further developed the fashion for royal pleasure grs., filling them with exotic plants (→ iconography of plants) and animals (→ iconography of animals) to symbolize the empire’s expansion and the king’s success as the provider of fertility and fruitfulness to the land. A  stela of Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 b.c.e.) describes how he gathered botanical specimens during his travels and planted them in his “garden of delight” (GIš.KIN.GEš.TIN) at Nimrud (Calah), which was irrigated by diverting water (→ water management) from the Upper Zab River through a rock-cut channel (Postgate 1973:​no. 266). Sargon II (721–705 b.c.e.) and Sennacherib (705– 681 b.c.e.) boast of their creations of royal parks at Nineveh using the trees and plants of the Syr. mountains and Babylonia, reflecting their control over the western territories and expansion to the S with the sacking of Babylon in 689 (Luckenbill 1927:​42, 162). Bas-reliefs at Khorsabad and Nineveh depict gr. scenes with an assortment of trees, irrigation channels, an aqueduct, boating pond, porticoed pavilions (bit hilani), and crenellated altars (Botta/​Flandin 1849:​pl. 114). Other scenes depict sporting events such as lion hunts and falconry held in the royal parks. In one relief in the N Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668–627 b.c.e.) the royal couple celebrates a victorious campaign underneath a trellis surrounded by trees and shrubs (after Albenda 1977:​44–45). 4.3.  The most famous ancient royal grs. are the Hanging Gardens of Babylon which were attributed to King Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 b.c.e.).

320

The classical sources (Diodorus 2.10.1–6; Strabo 16.1.5; Jos. CAp. 1.128A; Curtius hist. Alex. 5.1.35) describe the gr. as stepped or terraced in an effort to resemble the mountainous homeland of the king’s Median wife (Jos. ant.Iud. 10.11.1). Efforts to identify the location of the Hanging Gardens have focused on an area near the Ishtar Gate and a site adjoining the palace on the banks of the Euphrates River (Wiseman 1984:​38–39). However, current scholarship suggests that the Hanging Gardens were located at Sennacherib’s Palace at Nineveh (Dalley 2015). 4.4.  The tradition of royal grs. was adopted by Achaemenid royalty. The palace of Cyrus the Great (560/559–530 b.c.e.) is composed of a series of porticoed pavilions arranged around a central gr. with stone channels (Stronach 1989; 1994). In the Book of Esther, a public feast was held in the gr. of the palace at Susa (Est 1:5; 7:7– 8). Following the Bab. exile, Jerusalem was rebuilt using timber from Artaxerxes’ royal forest (Neh 2:8–9). Ramat Rahel is a site which was a Judean fort until it was rebuilt after Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 as a gr. palace. Ritual pits with the remains of meals indicate that the gr. was the setting of ritual feasts involving the king and his notables. Above this Iron Age gr. palace a second, somewhat larger, palace with pools, canals, gutters, and grs. was identified, which can be dated to the 5th–4th cent. Remains of pollen in the plaster on the pool in the gr. proved that local plants, such as olives, grapes, myrtle, poplar, willow, fig, water lily, as well as imported plants such as Lebanon cedars, walnut, lemons, and birch grew in the gr. This botanical tour of the world centered on Persia hints to the interpretation of this “paradeisos” as a symbol of Pers. power (Lipschits et al. 2011; Langgut et al. 2013; Gross 2012). The grs. of Ramat Rahel are perhaps reflected in the HB (Weber 2014:​215–240, 252; Mitchell 2016). 4.5.  During the Hell. and Rom. periods, formal grs. and παράδεισοι based on Eastern models were prolific throughout the Medit. World, serving the social, rel., and recreational functions of elite society (Nielsen 2001). At Alexandria, the palaces and temples are described as situated in park-like settings (Athen. deipn. 5.196d–e; Strabo 17.1.10; Theocr. id. 15). The Seleuc. palaces at Daphne and Apamea in Syria are each set in a παράδεισος (Plut. Dem. 50:1–2; Strabo 16.2.4– 6). In Transjordan, Hyrcanus the Tobiad (169– 168 b.c.e.) built his pleasure palace at Tyros (ʿIraq el-Emir) as an island at the center of an artificial lake surrounded by grs. (Jos. ant.Iud. 12.4.11).

Garden/s (gr./grs.) and Garden Culture

321

322

The Hasm. kings of Judea had several porticoed gr. enclosures in their palace at Jericho, each with a central swimming pool (Netzer 2001). After Herod the Great was appointed King of Judea under Rom. authority, he built several palaces throughout the province. The Herod. palace at Jerusalem had courtyard grs. with ponds (Jos. bel. Iud. 5.4.4). Arch. excavations of Herod’s palaces at Jericho, Masada, Caesarea Maritima, Herodium, and Ramat Hanadiv have revealed both grs. and swimming pools (Hirschfield 2000; Netzer 2001; 2009), while planting pits and flower pots were uncovered in a gr. peristyle in Herod’s Third Winter Palace at Jericho (Gleason 1987– 1988). A  study of pollen preserved in planting pots and the excavated soil from the Ionic peristyle gr. revealed that it was planted with a variety of dwarfed ornamental trees and shrubs including pine, cypress/juniper, cedar, olive, myrtle, and date palms, a miniaturized replica of elite grs. known in the western Rom. Empire (Langgut/​ Gleason 2020). In Southern Jordan, the Nabataeans used their skills in hydraulic engineering to establish a formal gr. with monumental swimming pool and island pavilion, and planted with date palm trees, as part of an elite, palatial complex in their capital city, Petra (Bedal 2004; Bedal/​Schryver 2007). 6.  The OT has several references to grs. and vineyards that belong to the king and the palace. Jerusalem’s royal grs. are described as located within the walls near the southern tip of the City of David (2 Kgs 25:4; Jer 39:4; 52:7; Neh 3:15) which may be the site of King Manasseh’s burial (2 Kgs 21:18). The Book of Isaiah condemns grs. because of their association with pagan Asherah rituals (Isa 1:29; 65:2–5; 66:17) and Elijah predicts King Ahab’s doom after his Phoen. queen, Jezebel, arranged the murder of a local landowner, Naboth, in order to obtain his vineyard for a gr. within the royal estate at Samaria (1 Kgs 21:1–29). In the NT, grs. play a significant role in Jesus’ final days. It was the Garden of Gethsemane, located on the Mount of Olives above the Kidron Valley east of Jerusalem, where Jesus was betrayed and apprehended by the high priests (Mt 26:30; Mk 14:32; John 18:1). Following the crucifixion, Jesus’ body was laid to rest in a gr. tomb (John 19:41). All of the documented gardens of the Rom. Empire’s eastern provinces are included in the online openaccess corpus of Gardens of the Rom. Empire (Gardens of the Rom. Empire, accessed April 27, 2021, 〈roman-gardens.github.io/〉).

L.‑A./​Schryver, J. G., 2007, Nabataean Landscape and Power: Evidence from the Petra Garden and Pool Complex, in: T. E. Levy et al. (eds.), Crossing Jordan, London:​375–383 ♦ Botta, P.‑E./​Flandin, E., 1849, Monuments de Ninive 2, Paris  ♦ Dalley, S., 2015, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon, Oxford  ♦ Foster, K. P., 1998, Gardens of Eden: Exotic Flora and Fauna in the Ancient Near East, in: J. Albert/​ M. Bernhardsson/​R. Kenna (eds.), Transformations of Middle Eastern Natural Environments Bulletin Series Yale SFES 103:320–329 ♦ 1999, The Earliest Zoos and Gardens, SciAm 281:48–55  ♦ Gleason, K. L., 1987– 1988, Garden Excavations at the Herodian Winter Palace in Jericho 1985–87, BAIAS 7:21–39  ♦ Gross, B., 2012, Gardens in the Ancient Near East and the Garden at Ramat Rahel, Unpublished MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebr.)  ♦ Hirschfield, I., 2000, Ramat Hanadiv Excavations, Jerusalem  ♦ Jacobsen, T., 1987, The Harps that Once …: Sumerian Poetry in Translation, New Haven/​London  ♦ al-Khalesi, Y. M., 1978, The Court of the Palms: A  Functional Interpretation of the Mari Palace, Malibu  ♦ Kramer, S. N., 1988, History Begins at Sumer, Philadelphia  ♦ Langgut, D., et al., 2013, Fossil Pollen Reveals the Secrets of the Royal Persian Garden at Ramat Rahel, Jerusalem, Palynology:​1–15  ♦ Langgut, D./​Gleason, K. L., 2020, Identification of the Miniaturized Garden of King Herod the Great: The Fossil Pollen Evidence, Strata 38:71–101 ♦ Lipschits, O., et al., 2011, Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Rahel, Near Eastern Archaeology 74:2– 49 ♦ Luckenbill, D. D., 1927, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Chicago  ♦ Mitchell, C., 2016, A Paradeisos at Ramat Rahel and the Setting of Zechariah, Transeuphratène 48:77–91  ♦ Netzer, E., 2001, The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great, Jerusalem  ♦ 2009, Palaces and the Planning of Complexes in Herod’s Realm, in: D. M. Jacobson/​N. Kokkinos (eds.), Herod and Augustus, IJS Studies in Judaica 6, Leiden:​171–180 ♦ Nielson, I., 2001, The Gardens of the Hellenistic Palaces, in: I. Nielson (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC, Aarhus:​ 165–188 ♦ Oppenheim, A. L., 1965, On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia, JNES 24:328–334 ♦ Porter, B., 1993, Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpall II, JNES 52:129–139 ♦ Postgate, J. N., 1973, The Governor’s Palace Archives: Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 2, London  ♦ Stronach, D., 1989, The Royal Garden at Pasargadae: Evolution and Legacy, in: L. D. Meyer/​E. Haerinck (eds.), Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis (FS Louis Venden Berghe), Gent:​475– 502 ♦ 1990, The Garden as a Political Statement: Some Case Studies from the Near East in the First Millennium B. C., Bulletin of the Asia Institute 4:171–180 ♦ 1994, Parterres and Stone Water Courses at Pasargadae: Notes on the Achaemenid Contribution to Garden Design, JGH 14:3–12 ♦ Weber, K., 2014, In Eden und darüber hinaus, BVB 24, Münster ♦ Wiseman, D. J., 1983, Mesopotamian Gardens, AnSt 33:136–144 ♦ 1984, Palace and Temple Gardens in the Ancient Near East, in: H. I. H. Prince Mikasa (ed.), Monarchies and SocioReligious Traditions in the Ancient Near East 1, Wiesbaden:​37–43 ♦ Yon, M., 1997, Ugarit, OEANE 5:259– 262. Leigh-Ann Bedal

7.  Albenda, P., 1977, Landscape Bas-Reliefs in the BitHilani of Ashurbanipal, BASOR 225:29–48  ♦ Bedal, L.‑A., 2004, The Petra Pool Complex: A Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Captial, Piscataway ♦ Bedal,

Gate/s (g./gs.)

323 

Gate/s (g./gs.) 1.  Gates present architects and builders with a unique set of design challenges. In times of peace, gs. were designed to allow friendly people into → villages, towns, and → cities to engage in economic and social activities, while in times of war they had to change their function and keep enemy attackers out at all costs (Chadwick 2001:​125; 2009:​186; Herzog 1997:​134). Gs. do not exist alone, but are essential elements of defensive systems (→ fortifications) either inserted into solid or casemate circuit walls or earthen ramparts, often functioning in concert with → towers, moats, and bastions. In larger polities, gs. were monumental structures and their size and exterior appearance were meant to discourage enemies from attacking while serving as symbols of the power of the ruling elite (Trigger 1990:​119–132). A  number of factors determined g. locations, including their orientation in relation to routes serving important destinations (Burke 2008:​67). But, whether villages, small towns, fortresses, or great cities, before construction could begin builders had to take into account the location of the g. in relationship to the surrounding topography, the types of building materials available, and the economic and social needs of the community (Chadwick 2009:​187–195). From the beginning of the MBA, through the LBA, and into the Iron Age, urbanization went through several periods of intense city building punctuated by periods of reduced occupation or abandonment of urban areas. These changes were reflected by a number of major design changes in g. architecture and the changing role gs. played in the social and economic life of the community and the defense of its citizens. 2.  Much g. and fortification research undertaken in the last cent. interpreted g. designs as reactions to newly developed forms of → weapons technology. For example, Yadin (1955) understood MB II fortifications as a response to the newly developed → chariot and the battering ram. Other structural elements such as the mudbrick piers protruding into the central g. roadways were seen as either guard chambers (Weippert 1988:​ 222) or elements designed to restrict enemy access to the city by acting as pinchers to narrow the g. passage making it more difficult for attackers to get through the reduced g. opening (Matthiae 1981:​120). Glueck (1939:​14), and others, maintained that during Iron Age II increasing the number ground floor rooms from two to four or even six made it more difficult for invaders to fight their way into a settlement. More recently, Keeley/​Fontana/​Quick (2007) and Frese (2015) have argued that the number of g. rooms

324

had more to do with stabilizing large, multi-storied, trabeated g.-houses than with defensive considerations. In recent years, interpretations that include both the defensive and social functions of gs. and their role in the life of the community have gained favor among researchers (Herzog 1992:​272–274). 3.  Mudbrick and stone were the most common building materials available to g. builders in the Levant in the 2nd and 1st mill. b.c.e. Mudbrick construction (→ construction technique) was common during the MBA in Syria (Qatna, Mari, Ebla, and Hamath) and Palestine (Tel Dan, Aphek, Ashdod, Ashkelon). 4.1.  Following the decline of EBA urbanism a g. architecture (→ fig. Gates #1:1–7), in the 2nd mill. b.c.e. the so-called “Fort Gate” or “Three-Piered Gate” (Kempinski 1992:​134) originated in Syria and the design subsequently spread to other parts of the Levant (Herzog 1997:​120). Fortress gs. consisted of two towers, usually about 15–20 m in length, by 3–4 m wide, with a street between them. Most fortress gs. were built of mudbrick on stone foundations and were attached or inserted into earthen ramparts. Lower portions of exterior walls were reinforced against erosion and expansion by heavy stone orthostats. Most MB II fortress gs. had no ground floor spaces that functioned as interior rooms, but some ground floor rooms did function as stairwells (→  stairs) leading to rooms on the upper floor which served as barracks and storage areas (→  stock) for weapons and agricultural produce. Fortress gs. had two other important features: three pairs of short piers which extended into the central roadway, and pairs of double-fold → doors at each end of the structure. The piers projected into the central street and formed niches which were too shallow to serve as actual rooms even though they are sometimes referred to as such (Matthiae 1981:​ 120). The niches were formed by the central piers that served to foot mudbrick arches used to support the long mudbrick barrel vaults that covered the central passageways of fortress gs. (Gregori 1986:​92). The pairs of doors at each end of the g. allowed it to be closed off in times of war turning it into an independent fortified unit or “Fortress Gate.” According to Herzog (1997:​117–118), the introduction of ramparts and the supposed absence of fortification walls at MB II cities prompted the development of the fortress g.; a structure that could operate as an independent defensive unit in times of war. To explain the unique nature of fortress gs. Herzog (1997:​132–133) argued that the earthen ramparts surrounding cities in Syria-Palestine were built to delineate the limits of cities,

325

Gate/s (g./gs.)

326

1

5

2

3 6

4

7

9

8

10

0

10 m

11

Figure Gate #1: EBA gates: 1–2) Jawa; 3–4) Tell el-Farah (N); 5–6) Khirbet ez-Zeraqon; 7) Khirbet Iskander. MBA gates: 8) Ashkelon; 9) Dan. LBA gates: 10) Hazor; 11) Megiddo.

but not to defend them. This interpretation has since been challenged by a number of researchers including Fritz (1997:​22) who maintains that some ramparts did have walls on top of them, and he has been joined by Burke (2008:​13). At Mari, it seems clear that defensive walls were indeed incorporated into ramparts (Margueron 2004:​

343–349, 443–447), and excavations at Ebla have revealed that the earthen rampart surrounding MB II Ebla was punctuated by four fortress-type gs. and a number of strategically placed fortresses were built on top of the rampart (Pinnock 2001). A  nearly perfectly preserved arched, mudbrick g. with deep rooms instead of niches, was found

Gate/s (g./gs.)

327 

1

328

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

5

10

11

12 0

13

10 m

Figure Gate #2: Iron Age two-chamber gates: 1–2) Megiddo (VIA and VA); 3) Tell Beit Mirsim (B3); 4) Megiddo (III). Iron Age four-chamber gates: 5) Tell en-Nasbeh; 6) Tell es-Sebaʿ (III); 7) Megiddo (IVA); 8) Tell el-Kheleifeh; 9) Dan. Iron Age six-chamber gates: 10) Hazor; 11) Gezer; 12) Lachish; 13) Ashdod.

inside the earthen rampart at Tel Dan (Biran 1994; → fig. Gate #1:9) while the arched g. at Ashkelon had a barrel-vaulted passageway (Stager/​Schloen/​Master 2008:​231; → fig. Gate #1:8). Mudbrick gs. continued in use in Syria and Mesopotamia through the Iron Age and the best existing example of a mudbrick structure is the Ishtar Gate in Berlin reconstructed by Koldewey (Marzahn 1993).

4.2.  Representations of arched mudbrick gs. appear in Neo-Ass. reliefs (Chadwick 2009:​192) and on the 9th cent. b.c.e. bronze bands from the Balawat g., although few are sufficiently well preserved to confirm the full shape of the entrance. In some geographical regions, worked and un-worked stones were used in g. construction (Megiddo, Gezer, Hazor, Lachish). G. structures built of stone were trabeated and their interior passages and

329

Gate/s (g./gs.)

330

1

2

3

5 0

10 m

4 Figure Gate #3: Iron Age complex gates and gates with cultic installations ( ): 1) Tell es-Sebaʿ; 2) Megiddo; 3) Dan; 4) Beth-Saida; 5) Khirbet al-Mudayna Thamad.

Gate/s (g./gs.)

331 

rooms used post and lintel construction with flat, compacted mud → roofs for each story supported by horizontal beams which added extra reinforcement to the walls and internal structural elements. Following LBA g. architecture (→ fig. Gate #1:10–11, col. 326), by the beginning of Iron Age II, several major design changes had occurred which reflect new defensive technologies along with a more social function for gs. Unlike the fortress gs. of the MB II period, multi-storied Iron Age II gs. had two, four, or even six ground floor chambers (→ fig. Gates #2:1–13, col. 327) which could serve various functions and had only one set of doors facing the area outside the city walls. This ground plan made the g. more accessible to people inside the settlement. The increased community use of gs. is demonstrated by deep rooms open to the main street with some ground floor rooms or the inner passageway itself lined with benches (Gezer, Khirbet al-Mudayna Thamad). This arrangement allowed g. rooms to serve as venues for public announcements, rendering judgment, and other community activities mentioned in the OT. Excavations at Tel Dan (Biran 1994), Beth-Saida (Arav 2009), and Khirbet al-Mudayna Thamad (Chadwick 2009) have revealed open spaces or squares in close proximity to gs. where cultic activities were carried out (→ fig. Gates #3:3–5, col. 330). Influenced by the text of 2 Kgs, Yadin labeled the six-chambered gs. at Gezer, Megiddo and Hazor as “Solomonic” maintaining that these structures and others with similar six-room plans were unique to Israel (Mazar 1995:​1532). However, gs. with this plan were poss. founded earlier, at Philist. Ashdod (Dothan/​Porath 1982) or in later periods, as at Tel ʿIra (7th cent.?; Beit-Arieh 1999:​176). Notwithstanding its complex building history, the g. at Moabite Khirbet al-Mudayna Thamad, Jordan, also contains six chambers (Chadwick/​Daviau/​ Steiner 2000). Over time, gs. were built with four chambers and finally with two, although this sequence was not followed everywhere. Certain sites only had a four-chambered g., such as Beer-Sheba, Beth-Saida, Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ, and Tell el-Kheleifeh in Jordan (Chadwick 2009:​figs. 12, 14; Pratico 1993:​pl. 4). Another feature of Iron Age gs. is the bent axis plan used in association with an outer g. (→ fig. Gate #3:1–4, col. 330). These double gs. appear at Gezer, Lachish and Megiddo, all six chambered (Ussishkin 1990:​fig. 3; 2004:​ fig. 11:3); at Tel Batash (Kelm/​Mazar 1985:​ fig. 10), four chambered; and at Tel Dan (Herzog 1986:​fig. 83; 1992:​fig. 26) and Tall Jawa, both with irregular plan (Daviau 2003:​380–385; Chadwick 2009:​fig. 8). 4.3.  By the Pers. period many of the traditional fortification systems had been destroyed or went

332

out of use and were replaced by small fortresses built on high ground. There seems to be little or no new developments in g. architecture, since small forts usually did not have complex, multichambered g. houses. 5.–6.  Iron Age gs. were designed so that people could use them as centers of community activities and meeting places for important public events. The business transactions which took place at city gs. included the buying and selling of land in the presence of townspeople (Gen 23:10; Ruth 4:1–11), while prophets called for justice at the gs. (Am 5:15). City gs. were locations where the elders of the city would sit and listen to legal cases (Dt 22:15). The prophet Jeremiah is commanded by YHWH to stand in the gs. of Jerusalem and prophesy (Jer 17:19), and according to 1 Kgs 22:10 the kings of Israel and Judah met at the threshing circle of the city of Samaria, which was close to the city g., and the prophets also prophesied there. The city g. was also the place where criminals were punished and stoned to death (Dt 22:24). All of these activities took place either directly in the g. or in an area in close proximity to the city g. 2 Kgs 23:8 refers to the “bamoth of the gates,” and 2 Chr 32:6 mentions that “the square of the city gate” was used for drawing up agreements before witnesses and concluding business deals, and as a seat for the elders, judges, and prophets. 7.  Arav, R., 2009, Bethsaida 4, Kirksville ♦ Beit-Arieh, I. (ed.), 1999, Tel ʿIra, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 15, Tel Aviv ♦ Biran, A., 1994, Biblical Dan, Jerusalem ♦ Burke, A., 2008, Walled Up to Heaven, SAHL 4, Winona Lake ♦ Chadwick, R., 2001, Iron Age Gate Architecture in Jordan, BCSMS 36:3–12 ♦ 2009, Changing Forms of Gate Architecture in Bronze and Iron Age Transjordan, in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Studies on Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau, ANES Suppl. 29, Louvain:​183–214  ♦ Chadwick, R./​Daviau, P. M. M./​ Steiner, M., 2000, Four Seasons of Excavations at Khirbat al-Mudayna on the Wadi ath-Thamad (1996–1999), ADAJ 44:257–270  ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2003, Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, vol. 1: The Iron Age Town, CHANE 11.1, Leiden ♦ Dothan, M./​Porath, Y., 1982, Ashdod IV, ʿAtiqot 15, Jerusalem  ♦ Frese, D., 2015, Chambered Gatehouses in the Iron II Southern Levant: Their Architecture and Function, Levant 47:75– 92 ♦ Fritz, V., 1997, The City in Ancient Israel, BiSe 29, Sheffield ♦ Glueck, N., 1939, The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber: Elath), BASOR 75:8– 22 ♦ Gregori, B., 1986, Three-Entrance City-gates of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria and Palestine, Levant 18:83–102 ♦ Herzog, Z., 1986, Das Stadttor in Israel und in den Nachbarländern, Mainz ♦ 1992, Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​231–274  ♦ 1997, Archaeology of the City, Tel Aviv ♦ Keeley, L. H./​Fontana, M./​Quick, R.,

333 2007, Baffles and Bastions: The Universal Features of Fortifications, JAR 15:55–95 ♦ Kelm, G. L./​Mazar, A., 1985, Tel Batash (Timnah) Excavations: Second Preliminary Report (1981–1983), BASOR Suppl. 23:93–120 ♦ Kempinski, A., 1992, Middle and Late Bronze Age Fortifications, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem:​127–142 ♦ Margueron, J., 2004, Mari Métropole de l’Euphrate au Ie et IIe millénaire av. J.‑C., Paris  ♦ Marzahn, J., 1993, La Porte d’Ishtar de Babylone, Mainz ♦ Matthiae, P., 1981, Ebla, Garden City ♦ Mazar, A., 1995, The Fortification of Cities in the Ancient Near East, in: J. M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 3, New York:​1523–1537 ♦ Pinnock, F., 2001, The Landscape of Old Syrian Ebla, JCS 53:13–33 ♦ Pratico, G. D., 1993, Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh, ASOR Archaeological Reports 3, Atlanta ♦ Sta­ ger, L. E./​Schloen, J. D./​Master, D. M. (eds.), 2008, Ashkelon I, Winona Lake ♦ Trigger, B., 1990, Monumental Architecture, World Archaeology 22:119–132 ♦ Ussishkin, D., 1990, Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries B. C., BASOR 277/278:71–91 ♦ 2004, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) 2, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22, Tel Aviv ♦ Weippert, H., 1988, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien 2, Band 1, Munich  ♦ Woolley, L., 1921, Carchemish, vol. 2: The Town Defences, London ♦ Yadin, Y., 1955, Hyksos Fortification and the Battering Ram, BASOR 137:23–32 ♦ 1963a–b, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study 1–2, London. Robert Chadwick

334

Gem/s (g./gs.)

Mohs scale and is thus one of the softest stones. A  little harder are alabaster (1.5–2), amber (2– 2.5), limestone (3), serpentine (2.5–4), corals (3–4), azurite and malachite (3.5–4), obsidian (5–5.5), turquoise and lapis lazuli (5–6), burnt steatite (enstatite, → glaze) (5.5), syenite (5.5–6), opal (5.5–6.5), amazonite and hematite (6–6.5). The most precious stones used for beads belong to the hard stones: quartz, rock crystal, amethyst, rose quartz, aventurine, onyx, sardonyx, jadeit, olivine, and chrysolite have a hardness of 6.5– 7, cornelian, chalcedony, agate, jasper as well as flint and basalt of 7, garnet of 6.5–7.5, granite of 7–8, and beryl of 7.5–8. The hardest and at the same time very rare stones are corundum and porphyry, which are 9 on the Mohs scale. The following article generally accepts the material identification of the original publications even if some of them might not be correct. 2.  Palest. artisans made mainly small objects like beads, pendants, scarabs, and → seals with  g. s. They were strung to necklaces, bracelets, and anklets and worn by women and men. G.s – precious or not – were deemed precious for the bearer due to their color, their brightness, the playing of light, their degree of hardness demanding a high degree of workmanship, or their rarity. Moreover, they were an indicator of a certain social class, according to shape and color, they were also deemed to protect the wearer as well as being an economic insurance in case of Gem/s (g./gs.) harder times. But the overwhelming quantity of 1.  In common usage gss include all decorative amulets, beads, pendants, and scarabs was made stones as well as similar materials such as coral, out of cheaper material such as paste. The gemamber, pearl, and → ivory. → Shell, bone, or wood stones were shaped in lapidary workshops. Exact are not included. To a gemologist a g. is a dec- research on the production techniques has been orative stone with a hardness of 7 on the Mohs made on Mesop. cylinder seals and on beads scale and is termed as precious stone (on stones (Sax/​Meeks/​Collon 2000; Moorey 1994:​106– in Western Asia Moorey  1994:​79–103; CSAPI/​ 109). The block was shaped by chipping with a I:136–152). Stones are of different hardness and stone borer for hard stones and by abrading for therefore present more or less difficulty to be soft stones. A cylinder-shaped block was prepared carved. The Austrian mineralogist Friedrich Mohs and then cut into parts. Whatever the shape of the (1773–1839) proposed to rank the stones on a bead, the scarab, or the seal, the most difficult scale of 10, known as the “Mohs scale,” which is part was then to perforate the stone, which was still the standard in use today, despite of newer always done from both sides. Already early in the more precise methods of measurement. The basic Neolithic period, artisans invented the wooden range is that all the stones of one degree are hard stick rotated between the palms of the hands thus enough to scratch the stones of the preceding de- increasing the rotation. The drill-bit could also be gree. His degrees 1 and 2 are the softest. These of stone such as flint or quartz and of metal. Abrastones can be scratched by fingernail. It is still sives like sand and emery (Mohs 9), quartz, and easy to carve the medium hard stones of grades obsidian were used for all harder stones. At the 3 to 6 with a copper → tool. Hard stones on the end beads were polished to give them a shine. Mohs scale from 6.5 to 10 scratch glass. The harAs for other objects, it is impossible to ascerdest stone is the diamond with a hardness of 10. tain the place, where artisans worked on the g. s. It was not known before the Rom. Imperial peri- But proceeding from the fact that some scarabs od and before the Sassanids. Steatite, which was have a totally local style and because a considwidely used to produce scarabs, registers 1 on the erable number of unfinished scarabs has been

Gem/s (g./gs.)

335 

found in Palestine (Jericho, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell el-ʿAjjul), they must have been made in Palestine (Keel 1994; 1995:​102–103). One can assume that workshops existed in the wealthier cities. One of the potential places for the “Jasper-scarab-group” is Megiddo (Keel 1989:​240). Gemstones were mainly used for → jewelry and seals (including scarabs). But malachite, for instance, was also powdered into a powder used as a → cosmetic for eyelids as well as to cure eye illnesses (→ medicine). Mesop. texts clearly indicate the multiple functions of stones (SchusterBrandis 2008). They mention the use of chalcedony against muscle, eye, tooth, and foot problems, of agate against laming, shaking, and neck ache, of quartz against many illnesses and the bad effects of the spirits of the dead, of rock crystal against dizziness and divine wrath, or of hematite against evil spirits and to increase sexual potency. Cornelian brought luck and jasper was particularly protective for pregnant women. Wearing earrings could avert curses. The → colors of g.s were of great significance. The symb. most important colors were red and blue. Red is a color which is associated with blood and gives strength. Blue is the color of protection and was the most imitated color in cheap materials. Green symbolizes the vegetation in hot countries, where water and green have a profound meaning associated with life. Jasper and coral are red and pink, amethyst is wine red to violet, cornelian orange-red to brown, jasper and steatite are also brown. Rose quartz is pink. Flint, agate, chrysolite, and jasper are yellow. A  lot of g.s are blue, but the king of the blue g.s was incontestably lapis lazuli. Its colors vary from a rich deep blue to mottled blue and white. Blue azurite and chalcedony could replace lapis lazuli. Green stones offer a broad variety: jasper, malachite, and chrysolite are translucid and beryl shines greenish. Hematite is lustrous grey-black but also red. Serpentine, flint, dark limestone, basalt, and jasper can be black, chalcedony, agate, and steatite dark. Limestone, onyx, coral, and steatite can be white, rock crystal white and transparent, and jasper offers a mixture of black and white. Pure g.s are transparent, but their transparency is mostly disturbed by dying oxides or impurities. Limestone is of all colors: white, red, black, yellow, grey, brown. Some stones such as red cornelian, red jasper, blue lapis lazuli, green jasper, green malachite, or blue-green turquoise are really bright whereas – at least in our eyes – some other stones are duller. 3.  The following materials of gemstones found in Palestine are recorded: agate, amazonite, amethyst, aventurine, azurite, beryl, chalcedony,

336

chrysolite, cornelian, corundum, garnet, jasper, lapis lazuli, malachite, onyx, opal, quartz, rock crystal, rose quartz, sardonyx, and turquoise. Chalcedony, cornelian, agate, rock crystal, amethyst, jasper, opal, onyx, sardonyx, rose quartz, and aventurine consist largely of microcrystalline quartz. Malachite, turquoise, and azurite are associated with copper bearing strata. These (partially blue-green) “greenstones,” the green stones jadeite, nephrite as well as beryl, chrysolite, feldspar, and olivin are difficult to distinguish from each other. Corals and amber are organic products. Corals are composed of the skeletons of the coral polyp. Amber  – often mistaken for stone or glass  – is a fossilized pinus succinifera resin. Although they are rare, there was a small trade in them. Only flint and the group of limestones, including alabaster and marble occur throughout Palestine. Volcanic basalt was available in the Golan Heights. All other non-precious minerals used in Palestine had to be imported. These minerals include obsidian from Anatolia, diorite from the Persian Gulf, green serpentine  from the Nile region around Aswan, and steatite from Syria or the Eastern Desert in Egypt. The group of volcanic minerals including syenite, which is a variety of granite and was imported from Syene, modern Aswan, and the iron oxide hematite were, like the other minerals, mainly used for tools, stone vessels, weights, seals (group of 13th–9th cent. limestone seals, Keel 1995:​127), and cylinder seals (basalt and diorite cylinder seals, Salje 1990:​256– 257; for hematite see below). But here and there they were used like g.s to make ornaments (LBA: marble bead, Guy 1938:​pl. 135:15d; diorite bead, Macalister 1912b:​​111 and 1912c:​pl. 137:39; Hematite bead from the Philist. Tomb  5, Macalister 1912a:​​296, fig. 157:11; Iron Age: basalt beads, Macalister 1912a:​​337 and 1912c:​ pl. 91k; serpentine bead, Tufnell 1953:​pl. 66:56 and → tombs in Tell en-Nasbeh, Harrison 1947:​ 267; Achaemenid marble, alabaster, or limestone beads from Tel Michal, Kertesz 1989:​373–374). Outside of Palestine, beginning in the N, obsidian, cornelian, jasper, and beryl are known from Anatolia, corundum from the Izmir region, but also from Nubia and agate from Cyprus. Agate, chalcedony, quartz, and amethyst occur in Syria. Hematite was probably imported from Syria (Melein 2018) although there is some in the Eg. desert (CSAPI/​I:141). East of Palestine, at a middle distance, there is amethyst, cornelian, and (red?) jasper in Jordan, serpentine in Edom, malachite in the Wadi Feinan and the Wadi Arabah. Corals grew in the Red Sea. Malachite, turquoise, and azurite were mined in the Southern Negev

Gem/s (g./gs.)

337

338

(Timna) and the Sinai. All the regions of Egypt were important suppliers mainly for most of the desired stones: red jasper, green jasper, steatite, and the widely spread cornelian and agate; in the Western Desert one can find rock crystal, on the W coast of the Red Sea cornelian, agate, amazonite, and garnet, between Edfu and the Red Sea beryl and chalcedony  and in the region east of Aswan  amethyst and chrysolite. Cornelian, chalcedony, and agate were also traded from the Arabian Peninsula, particularly from Yemen. Red cornelian, amethyst, and beryl may have come from Iran. Lapis lazuli is generally assumed to come from the Badakhshan district in NE Afghanistan, as there is no evidence for a closer source. On the other cardinal point, the largest deposit of amber is on the Baltic Sea but it also occurs in the Levant. To sum up: the nearest regions, the Sinai and Transjordan, supplied Palestine with agate, serpentine, amethyst, cornelian, (red?) jasper, malachite, and turquoise. Agate and chalcedony came from Cyprus and Syria, which can be included in the middle distanced areas. Much further afield was the commerce of obsidian, jasper, agate, red jasper, beryl, chalcedony, and steatite from Turkey and Egypt. The trade between the Aswan area, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, and Afghanistan, and Palestine can be considered as long distance trade bringing chrysolite, amethyst, red cornelian, lapis lazuli, chalcedony, and green serpentine to the Levant. 4.  The following paragraphs deal with beads and pendants, inscribed scarabs and stamp seals, uninscribed scarabs and stamp seals, and cylinder seals. 4.1.  In general the basic shapes of stone beads and pendants (unlike metal jewels) did not change much over the millennia. Although cylinders, barrels, cones, bicones, disks, and spheres already exist in Neolithic times, the oldest beads are more often disks, slightly irregular barrels, and cylinders. The new more elaborated grooved, notched, and gadrooned shapes appearing in the LBA are difficult to be made in stone (Guy 1938:​ 181). Most beads with these shapes are therefore in paste or metal. Faceted beads remained rare. Most pendants have simple shapes derived from beads, but pierced transversely. They were mostly made of artificial materials. A typical type of the New Kingdom is the “lotus bud,” which is of stone. The oldest → trade of stones one can consider as precious is the trade in obsidian. Very rare finds attest that this trade already started before the Natufian period (12,000 b.c.e.). The number of finds increases afterwards (Nahal Oren, ʿAin Mallaha) and then again in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (10th–

8th mill., Jericho). Obsidian has been found in a few Chalc. sites (Gilat, Tuleilat el-Ghassul, Kabri, Sinai) (Cauvin 1991; 1996; Moorey 1994:​63– 71). Till the 6th–5th mill. the only source of obsidian found in Palestine is the region around the Göllü Dağ in Central Anatolia. 144 out of 2681 Iron Age beads from Tell en-Nasbeh are of “volcanic glass” (Harrison 1947:​267). According to K. Kenyon (1957:​58) malachite was already being regularly worked in Neolithic times. But recent analyses are more cautious. A  majority of beads, pendants, and → amulets in PPNA and PPNB Jericho are now termed as “greenstone” (Talbot 1983:​788–791). In PPNB Jericho only one amulet is certainly of malachite (Wheeler 1983:​787, Reg. 2038) and the first bead appears in the EBA Tomb K1 (Talbot 1983:​796, Reg. 19). Later on, malachite is rarely mentioned (MB II, from Cave 28 II, Macalister 1912c:​​126, pl. 31:11; LBA–Iron Age, Guy 1938:​ pl. 161:14–15; Iron Age, Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pl. 67:118). The beads found in the Chalc. and EBA settlement of Arad include cornelian, rock crystal, hematite, and red and white limestone (Amiran 1978:​pls. 68–69). Already Chalc. beads from Tuleilat el-Ghassul are in amber. The two LBA beads made of amber found in Tell ez-Zakariya and Tell el-Hesi were long thought to be of the most famous Baltic amber. It is clear now that they come from a resinous deposit near Mount Hermon (Moorey 1994:​ 80). This region is probably the unique source of amber till the LBA (resin beads in EBA–MBA Tomb J 37, Kenyon 1965:​225, 273, fig. 104:6; Iron Age, Macalister 1912a:​​337, fig. 157:13 f; 1912b:​​106; 1912c:​pl. 91l; Tufnell 1953:​pl. 66:32). Analyses have shown that one pin head, one complete bead, and two half beads found in the temple of Stratum V in Tell Abu Hawam and probably dating back to the 14th–13th cent. (Hamilton 1935:​ 61–62, pls. 24:392g, 24:394 f), are of Baltic amber (Todd 1993). The same applies to an Iron Age I  square bead from tomb 972 in Akhziv and an Iron Age II lion-shaped ca. 10 cm long pin head from a shaft grave in the eastern cemetery of the same site. A range of g.s became common in the EBA. Among these, cornelian is the most common stone for beads. Although it was already being worked from the 7th mill. (Proto-Neolithic Tomb K2, Kenyon 1965:​19–20, fig. 6; EBA Tomb A  127, Kenyon 1960:​91–92, and Tombs K 1, D 12, Talbot 1983:​792 no. 5, 793, 794–795; EB II Stratum 18, Loud 1948:​pl. 207:4), cornelian gained real importance in LB I  and remained widely used. Numerous cornelian beads have been found in the tombs of Megiddo of all periods but increasingly

Gem/s (g./gs.)

339 

in the 2nd mill. (LB I: Guy 1938:​pl. 147; LB II in Deir el-Balah, Dothan 1979:​24, 43, 77–80; LB II amulets in Dothan 1979:​83; Iron Age: Strata 5–1, Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 90. From 2681 beads in the tombs of Tell en-Nasbeh, 512 are of cornelian, Harrison 1947:​267). The number of beads coming from three tombs in Gibeon may be significant as evidence for the development of g. use: In Tomb 22 from MB I–II, out of 107 beads, 84 are of paste, 22 of cornelian, and one of glass (?). In the MB II–LBA Tomb 10B, out of 63 beads 41 are of cornelian, seven of amethyst, six of paste, five of agate(?), and four of crystal whereas in the youngest Tomb 3 of the MBA and Iron Age the percentage of cornelian beads does not change much (40 out of 89 beads), but the gemstones (two beads of crystal) are almost absent in comparison to the 31 paste beads (Pritchard 1963:​160–161, fig. 73). The number of the following gemstones is noticeable, but nonetheless, they all remain comparatively rare. Among them the least rare is chalcedony. 289 small cylindrical beads were excavated in the EBA–MBA tomb A113 (Talbot 1983:​799; one PPN bead in Talbot 1983:​791; LBA Tomb 3 and Iron Age I  Tomb 39, Guy 1938:​pls. 135:15c and 165:19l). Rock crystal beads are present in all cemeteries (EBA Tomb A 127, Kenyon 1960:​92, fig. 28:7–9; MB II Stratum 12, Loud 1948:​pls. 207– 208, et al.). The use of lapis lazuli for beads has been known since the EBA (Tomb A  127, Kenyon 1960:​91, fig. 28:1A), but remained rare in all periods (LB I  Stratum  8, Loud 1948:​pl. 213:57; Iron Age IIA Stratum  5, Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​ pl. 92:61; Achaemenid Stratum  1, Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 92:60). Amongst the newly appreciated but relatively rare gemstones are agate (MBA Tomb A  136, Kenyon 1965:​473, fig. 249:4; already one bead in PPNB, Talbot 1983:​791:27), turquoise (MBA Tomb B 48, Kenyon 1965:​225–226, fig. 104:1– 3; already one matrix in PPNB, Talbot 1983:​ 791:29), onyx (black, MB II, Yadin et al. 1960:​ pl. 126:16; LB II Tomb 216, Tufnell 1958b:​ pl. 54:9; LBA Fosse Temple, Tufnell/​Inge/​ Harding 1940:​pl. 35:59; LBA Hathor Temple in Timna, Kertesz 1988:​204–205), corals (red, MBA–LBA, Macalister 1912b:​​106), and amethyst, which was more common for scarabs (see below) (beads: MBA Stratum  13A, Loud 1948:​ pls. 207:14, 208:18; Gibeon MB II Tombs 20 and 36, Pritchard 1963:​158–159, fig. 72:3, 15; LB I  Tomb 37, Guy 1938:​pls. 136:19g and 138:15d; Tell Abu Hawam, Hamilton 1935:​61, pl. 34:386). Rose quartz occurs here and there (pendants from LBA Hathor Temple in Timna, Kertesz 1988:​ 210; 7th–6th cent. Stratum  2, Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 90:14). Quartz beads are known from

340

LBA Lachish (Tufnell 1958b:​pl. 54:9) and Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935:​61–62, pl. 24; see also small bar of LBA “quartz” with lion head at the end, Petrie 1931:​8, pl. 15:5). Green jasper seems to be used for seals (see below) and beads (MBA cave 28 II, Macalister 1912a:​​120; 1912c:​ pl. 31:10; “chert” in the Iron age tombs of Tell enNasbeh, Harrison 1947:​267). In spite of the greater wealth of shapes in the LBA, only few stones were added to the repertoire: red jasper appears in the LB II (LBA–Iron Age, Guy 1938:​pl. 161:18), opal (LB I Tomb 1145 B, Guy 1938:​pl. 152:7; 7th–6th cent. Stratum  2, Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 90:53. Cherty opal in LB II temple in Area H, Stratum 1A, Yadin et al. 1989:​pl. 283:4–6), sardonyx (LBA Fosse Temple, Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pl. 35:85; Petrie 1932:​pl. 25:104) and, garnet (Petrie 1934:​ pl. 21:208, 228; LBA Hathor Temple in Timna, Kertesz 1988:​205). Finally, the use of Corundum (8th–7th cent. Stratum 3, Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 92:65) started probably in the Iron Age. 4.2.  Generally the more frequently used stones for Levantine inscribed scarabs and stamp seals are chalcedony, cornelian, agate, and limestone. The following more particular observations are based on the connection between the language written on the seals and their stone. Approximately 850 seals of the 9th–6th cent. b.c.e. have been variously published (Hestrin/​Dayagi-Mendels 1979; Bordreuil 1986; Avigad 1997; Deutsch/​ Lemaire 2000). But the evaluation of these collections does not lead to the same result. This may be understandable by the origin of the collection (the collector was inclined to buy only certain seal types), the lack of exactitude and mistakes in the material identification, which can vary from publication to publication of the same seal. The variations in the use of stone according to the language of the seals can be explained by the geographical position, by the local occurrence or absence of geological deposits of the stone, and by the question whether there was sufficient wealth to make the import of expensive stones possible. Between a quarter and a third of seals with a Hebr. inscription are of local limestone. 29–37 % of the seals written in Aram., but only 1–35 % of the Hebr., 0–10 % of the Phoen., and 4–12 % of the Ammonite seals are of chalcedony found in Syria. Agate, which is also found in Syria, was much more frequently used for seals written in Phoen. (13–18 %), Aram. (10–25 %), Ammonite (11–25 %), and in Moabite (16–34 %) than for Hebr. written seals (0–10 %). Cornelian is rather equally distributed (Aram.: 9–22 %, Phoen.: 10–25 %, Moabite: 2–22 %, less for Hebr.

Gem/s (g./gs.)

341

342

0–14 %) and Ammonite seals (6–11 %). 8–15 % of the Phoen. and 2.5–22 % of the Moabite seals are made of jasper, which otherwise is rare. All the remaining stones occur rarely. Contrary to what one might expect lapis lazuli inscribed seals are more or less absent all over this region including Phoenicia and even Hebr. written malachite seals are extremely rare. There is none documented with Phoen., Aram., or Moabite inscriptions. The region with the highest amount of amethyst seals seems to be Phoenicia. The other stones rarely mentioned in the publications (in considering the different terminology for what is probably the same stone) are azurite and turquoise, onyx, rock crystal, amazonite, aventurine, opal, serpentine and steatite, syenite, porphyry, and granite, sometimes dolerit and basalt as well as hematite. 4.3.  Further observations on the material of uninscribed scarabs and stamp seals follow here. The most used materials for scarabs are steatite and faience (→ glaze). Now and then the owner of the scarab could afford a more expensive g. (overview in CSAPI/​I:142–146). Cornelian scarabs are known from MB II on (e. g., Jerusalem, Lachish). They became more popular in the 19th and 20th Dyn., but afterwards their no. decreased again in the Iron Age. Amethyst is relatively common. Of the 427 MBA scarabs excavated by K. Kenyon in Jericho, 94.4 % are of steatite and 3.75 % of amethyst (CSAPI/​I:142). One MB I amethyst scarab from Beth-Shean bears the name of Sesostris I, others are known from the MBA tomb T 36 of Gibeon (Pritchard 1963:​156–157, fig. 71:4, 7), from LBA Tell el-ʿAjjul (Petrie 1934:​5, from 530 scarabs, 16 are of amethyst, 16 of rock crystal, and 16 of black jasper. All are plain), LBA ʿAtlit, Megiddo, and Lachish. Lapis lazuli scarabs are even less frequent. All four date back to the Iron Age II (Brandl 2006, Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Beth-Shemesh, Tell el-ʿAjjul). Here and there scarabs were made of rock crystal (Akko, Tell Abu Hawam, Megiddo, Tell el-ʿAjjul, Tell Jemmeh, Tell el-Farah [S]). Jasper – or better greenstone, because only seven scarabs are definitively of jasper  – delimit a precise group of scarabs and cylinder seals. Scarabs of MB II–LB I “Jasper-scarab-group” were found in  Abu Sureq, Megiddo, Rehov, Shechem, Jericho, Gibeon, Gezer, Beth-Shemesh, Lachish, Tell el-ʿAjjul, and Tell Jemmeh (Keel 1989). More recent Phoen. Iron Age II green jasper scarabs, which are related to the so-called “Tharros scarabs,” have been excavated on Palest. mostly coastal sites (Akko, Tell Abu Hawam, ʿAtlit, Samaria, Ashkelon) (Boardman 2003). Agate did not become important for the production of scarabs before the 1st mill.

Stamp seals became typical from the Iron Age I–IIA. Very few are manufactured in gemstones (a jasper seal from Gezer and two quartz seals from Tell el-Farah [S] and Megiddo, Shuval 1990:​ nos. 29, 70, 72). 4.4.  All periods considered together, cylinder seals made in Palestine or imported to this region are most frequently made of an artificial paste. The single more used stones are steatite and hematite, which are typical of the MBA. Six lapis lazuli seals range in date from LB I  to Iron Age II (from Megiddo, Tell Jemmeh, and Beth-Shean, Salje 1990:​254–257; Parker 1949:​nos. 3, 7, 11, 12, 135, 166), one is of onyx (Parker 1949:​ no. 122). The MB II (18th–17th cent.) “Green Jasper Cylinder Seal Group” was produced in N Syria and exported to Palestine (Collon 1986:​no. 3 from Tell Beit Mirsim and nos. 7–8 from Tell elʿAjjul). Recently, a Neo-Ass. cylinder seal made of chalcedony was found at Gezer (Ornan/​Ortiz/​ Wolff 2013). 5.  The basic shapes of jewels made out of g.s already existed in Neolithic times and did not change much. The g.s were mainly found in graves. They probably belonged to the deceased during lifetime. The second location of finds are → sanctuaries, where g.s can be assumed to be → votives (faience beads from the temple in Area H, Yadin et al. 1989:​pls. 337–338; 92 % of ca. 10,700 beads found in Beth-Shean were excavated in the temple precinct and the “altar room,” James/​McGovern 1993:​136; beads from the LBA Fosse Temple, Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pls. 34–36; votives to Hathor, Kertesz 1988:​203). On the other hand, jewels deposited in unsheltered areas have disappeared with time. Scarabs, stamp seals, and cylinder seals were mostly used in the Iron Age. 6.  Three bibl. passages are of significance here: the idea of the celestial Jerusalem as a golden city decorated with g., the g.s-garden in Ez 28, and the breastplate of the High Priest. This last object is symb. as a dress and notable for its g. At the end of the 5th and in the 4th cent. b.c.e., the High Priest in Jerusalem wore a breastplate, which is described in detail in Ex 28:15–30 and 39:10–13 as well as in G sources (e. g., Flavius Josephus; Pliny the Elder). Therefore, we know that twelve g.s representing the twelve tribes of Israel were sewn on it. The g.s are named. Many scholars have tried to identify the g.s and to reconstruct the kind and the color of the stones. One recent proposal was the topic of an exhibition (Zwickel 2002). According to Zwickel the stones may have been in sequence: brown cornelian, light green translucid chrysolite, green malachite, a dark stone (limestone, flint, serpentine), blue lapis lazuli, green(?) jasper, a yellowish stone, yellow(?) agate, a dark

Gem/s (g./gs.)

343 

red stone (jasper or amethyst), a yellow stone, and a light green stone (such as beryl). 7.  Amiran, R., 1978, Early Arad, Jerusalem ♦ Avigad, N., 1997, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem ♦ Boardman, J., 2003, Classical Phoenician Scarabs, BAR.IS 1190, Oxford ♦ Bordreuil, P., 1986, Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte, Paris ♦ Brandl, B., 2006, A Lapis Lazuli Scarab, in: A. Mazar (ed.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, vol. 1, Jerusalem:​166–169  ♦ Cauvin, M.‑C., 1991, L’obsidienne au Levant préhistorique: Provenance et fonction, Cahiers de l’Euphrate 5–6:163–190 ♦ 1996, L’obsidienne dans le Proche-Orient préhistorique, Anatolica 22:1–31 ♦ Collon, D., 1986, The Green Jasper Cylinder Seal Workshop, in: M. KellyBuccellati (ed.), Insight through Images, BibMes 21, Malibu:​57–70 ♦ Deutsch, R./​Lemaire, A., 2000, Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection, Tel Aviv ♦ Dothan, T., 1979, Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir el-Balaḥ, Qedem 10, Jerusalem ♦ Guy, P. L. O., 1938, Megiddo Tombs, OIP 33, Chicago ♦ Hamilton, R. W., 1935, Excavations at Tell Abu Hawām, QDAP 4:1–69  ♦ Harrison, M., 1947, Toilet Articles, Jewelry, and Other Artistic Products, in: C. C. McCown (ed.), Tell en-Naṣbeh Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè 1, Berkeley:​265–272 ♦ Hestrin, R./​Dayagi-Mendels, M., 1979, Inscribed Seals, Jerusalem  ♦ James, F. W./​McGovern, P. E., 1993, The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan, Philadelphia  ♦ Keel, O., 1989, Die Jaspis-SkarabäenGruppe, in: O. Keel/​H. Keel-Leu/​S. Schroer, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/​Israel, OBO 88, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​209–242 ♦ 1994, Stempelsiegel  – Das Problem palästinischer Werkstätten, in: O. Keel (ed.), Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/​Israel 4, OBO 135, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​203–252 ♦ 1995, Stamp Seals  – Local Problem of Palestinian Workshops in the Second Millennium, in: J. Goodnick Westenholz (ed.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, Jerusalem:​93–142 ♦ Kenyon, K. M., 1957, Digging Up Jericho, London ♦ 1960, Excavations at Jericho 1, Jerusalem ♦ 1965, Excavations at Jericho 2, London ♦ Kertesz, T., 1988, Beads and Pendants, in: B. Rothenberg, The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna, London:​203–212 ♦ 1989, Beads and Pendants, in: Z. Herzog/​G. Rapp Jr./​ O. Negbi (eds.), Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, Minneapolis:​370–374 ♦ Lamon, R. S./​Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo [I], OIP 42, Chicago ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago ♦ Macalister, R. A. S., 1912a– c, The Excavation of Gezer 1–3, London  ♦ Melein, M., 2018, Iron Oxide Rock Artefacts in Mesopotamia C. 2600–1200 BC, Oxford ♦ Moorey, R. S., 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Oxford ♦ Ornan, T./​Ortiz, S./​Wolff, S., 2013, A  Newly Discovered Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context, IEJ 63.1:6–25 ♦ Parker, B., 1949, Cylinder Seals from Palestine, Iraq 11:1–43 ♦ Petrie, W. M. F., 1931, Ancient Gaza 1, London ♦ 1932, Ancient Gaza 2, London ♦ 1933, Ancient Gaza 3, London ♦ 1934, Ancient Gaza 4, London ♦ Pritchard, J., 1963, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, Philadelphia  ♦ Rowe, A., 1940, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, Philadelphia ♦ Salje, B., 1990, Der “common style” der Mitanni-Glyptik und die Glyptik der Levante und Zyperns in

344 der Späten Bronzezeit, BaF 11, Mainz ♦ Sax, M./​Meeks, N. D./​Collon, D., 2000, The Early Developments of the Lapidary Engraving Wheel in Mesopotamia, Iraq 62:157–176 ♦ Schuster-Brandis, A., 2008, Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel, AOAT 46, Münster ♦ Shuval, M., 1990, A Catalogue of Early Iron Stamp Seals from Israel, in: O. Keel/​M. Shuval/​C. Uehlinger, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/​Israel 3, OBO 100, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​67–161 ♦ Talbot, G. C., 1983, Beads and Pendants from the Tell and Tombs, in: K. M. Kenyon/​T. A. Holland (eds.), Excavations at Jericho 5, London:​788–801  ♦ Todd, J. M., 1993, The Continuity of Amber Artifacts in Ancient Palestine, in: C. W. Beck/​ J. Bouzek (eds.), Amber in Archaeology, Prague:​236– 248 ♦ Tufnell, O., 1953, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, London ♦ 1958a–b, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 4.1–2, London ♦ Tufnell, O./​Inge, C. H./​Harding, L., 1940, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 2, London ♦ Wheeler, M., 1983, Greenstone Amulets, in: K. M. Kenyon/​T. A. Holland (eds.), Excavations at Jericho 5, London:​781–787  ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1960, Hazor II, Jerusalem  ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1989, Hazor III–IV, Jerusalem ♦ Zwickel, W., 2002, Die Edelsteine im Brustschild des Hohenpriesters und beim himmlischen Jerusalem, in: W. Zwickel (ed.), Edelsteine in der Bibel, Mainz:​50–70. Astrid Nunn

Glass (gl.) 1.  Artificial glass and related materials are essentially inventions of the Levantine world. Indeed, all major technological advances in its early history down to the use of blowpipes for massproduction in the 1st cent. b.c.e. occurred within Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Syro-Palestine. Despite intensive arch. interest in understanding how gl. technology first developed, investigations remain hampered by three sets of methodological limitations. The first centers upon the definition and identification of gl. itself. 2.–3.  Glassy substances include what are now called frit, faience, gl., and → glazes/enamels. They share the same basic ingredients: mostly silica, with a small amount of soda to lower the melting temperature of the sand or quartzite and of lime to reduce solubility in water. Mineral colorants or opacifiers can also be added. If the ingredients heat and partially fuse but remain a crystalline structure with interstitial gl., then it has become what is often called “frit” by archaeologists; if the ingredients are heated further and the surface vitrifies over a crystalline core, then it is what is called “faience.” Only if the material fully vitrifies  – becomes an “unstable solid,” or “rigid liquid”  – is it technically gl. All glassy materials are highly susceptible to water and hydration can cause the surface to degrade and flake off, or the entire fabric can destabilize and disintegrate. As a result, it is not always easy to distinguish visually frit from faience if the latter’s surface has been removed or abraded, and this is part of the ongoing

Glass (gl.)

345

346

problem in unravelling the chronological and regional implications of the spectrum from frit to true faience (Peltenberg 1987:​5–29). Similarly, it is not always easy to determine if a complete artifact with well-preserved glassy surface is glazed stone, made completely from faience, or is true gl. Misattribution of hydrated material has plagued attempts to identify the earliest true gl. in Mesopotamia, whilst complete objects and vessels formerly thought to be early examples of Eg. true gl. have only recently been re-identified as glassy faience (Nicholson 2006). In addition, arch. use of the term “frit” is made difficult by the fact that it is, technically, simply a term for the first stage in making gl. But the earliest frit objects were ends unto themselves, not incomplete stages in a technology that had not yet been invented. Faience, too, is an early modern European term for a type of glazed pottery, which has been retrospectively applied by archaeologists to fritted material which has been heated further to form a vitreous surface over a crystalline core. Ancient faience, therefore, is not a glaze, even though one still finds arch. references to “faience scarabs” which are actually simply glazed steatite, not faience at all. 2.1.  What is certain is that frit and faience had developed by the 4th mill. b.c.e. in Mesopotamia and in Egypt. It has long been widely hypothesized that their technology developed closely from early copper metallurgy (→ metal working), and recent analyses confirm an enduring close link between metallurgy and gl. production techniques right into the Rom. period (Mass et al. 2002:​70). That said, the outcome of this early technology was to imitate precious stones, and Moorey (1994:​168) has summarized the close relationship between heating siliceous steatite and the earliest application of glazes. A thorough synthesis of the history of Mesop. faience may be found in Moorey (1994:​167–180), and will not be discussed here except where it impinges on the development of gl. 2.2.  Both the susceptibility of gl. to hydration and the small scale of its production render the earliest appearance of true gl. in the arch. record difficult to pinpoint. Certainly, gl. is first attested only in Mesopotamia towards the end of the 3rd mill. in the form of a surviving rod fragment from ancient Eshnunna and a raw lump of opaque blue gl. from Eridu (Barag 1985:​35). EB IV and MBA use of gl. followed that of faience and of semi-precious stones (→ gems): architectural decoration (plaques or tiles), inlay decoration on → furniture, → amulets, and beads, the latter only from the MBA onwards (Moorey 1994:​193). But the distinctive properties of gl. –

its fragility but also its viscosity, and its natural translucency  – allowed it to be both coldworked (carved like a stone) and hot-worked almost as a metal, but also reheated repeatedly, pulled, and manipulated in ways not possible with metals. This potential really only developed in the LBA. Given the spectrum of early glassy materials, it is not surprising that the earliest Mesop. texts do not provide clearly definable terms for gl. Instead, there are a number of phrases and words that describe material that looks like various stones, but were made in a kiln Oppenheim’s masterly collation and interpretation of these texts from the late 3rd–1st mill. (Oppenheim et al. 1988) has been influential, but difficulties remain (Moorey 1994:​210–212). The earliest term is the Akkad. anzahhu in a 3rd Dyn. inventory from Ur for a bowl; in the 2nd mill. it was used to describe artifacts in the Qatna treasury, and was explicitly defined as appearing like stone but melted in a kiln (Oppenheim et al. 1988:​19–20). Although Oppenheim cautiously defined this as both “primary glass” and a “glasslike substance,” it is the former translation which is most repeated, even though his subsequent modification of “primary glass” as referring to glazes as opposed to “secondary” or solid gl. simply makes no sense in glassmaking terms (Oppenheim 1973:​262). CAD s. v. anzahhu calls it “frit-like glass,” which is also not helpful. It was either frit or faience, but could not have been the fritting material used to make gl., since the Qatna text uses it to describe finished products. “Glassy substance” is probably the most precise term that can at present be reached  – that is, it could have been frit, faience, or gl. The same caveat applies to a late 3rd mill. reference to dušûstone (Moorey 1994:​174). Other terms used in Akkad. texts may apply to gl. components or the product of the stages of faience or glassmaking (Oppenheim et al. 1988:​18). Very closely related is perhaps the earliest Eg. attempt to describe gl. The early 15th cent. annals of Thutmose distinguished normal lapis lazuli from that which was identifiable by the throne name Menkheperre as an identifier. This, too, is assumed to be a kind of raw gl. (Nicholson 2006:​13). Most cited in modern discussions of early gl., however, are three terms from Akkad. texts found in LBA Mesopotamia, Syria, Hatti, and Egypt: bušlu, mekku, and ehlipakku. Certainly, all three must have been glassy substances produced in a kiln, but whether one or all were different kinds of true gl. cannot be certain. Oppenheim et al. (1988:​10–13) argued that later Neo-Ass. texts from Nineveh preserved earlier, Middle Ass. terms

Glass (gl.)

347 

for gl., including uqnu bašlu or bašalu, “molten lapis lazuli,” as opposed to “lapis lazuli from the mountain.” Similarly, the term “molten comb” gazum bušlu has been translated as “glass” in the 14th cent. Amarna text, EA 25,II,62 (CochaviRainey/​Lilyquist 1999:​118–119, 212). Other Amarna texts used ehlipakku, which may be, literally, “molten stone” but is usually translated as “raw glass” (presumably, chunks or ingots) because it is not used as an adjective for vessels (Cochavi-Rainey/​Lilyquist 1999:​212; EA 14,I,11). This might be the closest general word for “glass” that was used in Bronze Age texts, and preserves the core features of early gl. production: the idea of kilns and the imitation of stones. If it were a generic term, that might perhaps explain how it was used to gloss another, less common Bronze Age term, mekku, which in the Iron Age was discussed in a single Neo-Ass. text as an ingredient in gl. production that was heated in a kiln, ground up, and reheated (Oppenheim et al. 1988:​56–57). It would, therefore, make sense if mekku were either a term for a frit for making gl. or even simply silica rather than gl. per se; CAD, s. v. mekku, calls it “a kind of precious stone.” We may never come to a satisfactory, precise meaning of either mekku or ehlipakku, but even more perplexing in the light of current arch. evidence is that the latter was demanded by the pharaoh from the rulers of Ashkelon and Jursa in Palestine, and the former from the ruler of Tyros (Oppenheim 1973:​260). It makes little sense for Egypt to request either a fritting mixture, sand, or raw gl. from Syro-Palestine when it had an abundance of its own raw materials for gl.  – the same that were used for faience – and definitely produced its own gl. in the form of ingots at Amarna and Lisht at precisely this time. More to the point, neither contemporary Northern Canaan nor Palestine has any material evidence as yet to show that they were making either gl. ingots or vessels at this time, and in the 19th Dyn. at Qantir (Rehren 2014:​218). In summary, then, early texts do little to clarify when, or how, glassmaking developed, or to what extent it or its ingredients were exchanged between states in the Bronze Age. More recent chemical analysis has established clear differences between Mesop. and Eg. gl. in their rations of chromium to lanthanum, and zirconium versus titanium (summarized in Rehren 2014:​221, pl. 7c). 2.3.  The two-part process for making gl. was described in the Neo-Ass. gl. recipes from Nineveh which probably incorporated Bronze Age traditions (Oppenheim et al. 1988:​31–101). Ingredients were ground and mixed to form a frit and slowly heated to ca. 850º C, then re-ground and reheated in crucibles within a kiln to ca. 1,100º C

348

(Stern/​Schlick-Nolte 1994:​20). In the Bronze Age, plant-ash was the source of alkali in both Egypt and Mesopotamia, with the mineral natron only being exploited in Egypt from the Iron Age onwards (Schlick-Nolte/​Werthmann 2003). Metal oxide impurities in the silica source (sand or quartz) give natural translucent hues of light blue, blue-greenish, and greens to raw gl.; ambers can be naturally produced by reducing the kiln’s atmosphere. Opacifiers, such as tin oxide, lead oxide, or antimonate, must be intentionally added to create a thoroughly opaque color. Deeper blues, red, yellow, and white require the addition of small amounts of specific mineral compounds. Bronze Age gl. from its beginnings was predominately both opaque and colorized, imitating the popular, strongly-hued stones of the period (lapis, carnelian, turquoise). Most common were dark cobalt blue and strong turquoise blue colors. The former was made using actual cobalt alum in Egypt, but copper oxides in Mesopotamia. Deliberately decolorized gl.  – through the addition of small amounts of manganese or antimony – became a particular aim of glass-makers in the Neo-Ass. kingdom, attempting the look of rock crystal. Colored glasses were translucent in the Iron Age, with a brief swing back to strongly colored, opaque colors in the Augustan period. Once gl. was produced in a kiln from the basic ingredients, it could, hypothetically, be transported either as ingots or as chunks broken up from larger ingots. In this way, gl. could be worked into objects or vessels far away from locations with the best available silica or naturally-occurring alkalis. That said, those few sites with clear evidence of Bronze Age glassmaking, such as Amarna, Malkata, and Qantir in Egypt, all have evidence for gl. working at the same place as raw gl. manufacture. But the late 14th cent. b.c.e. shipwreck off Ulu Burun in Southern Anatolia and the slightly earlier Amarna correspondence provide strong evidence that raw gl. in the form of bun-shaped ingots travelled as part of gift-exchange, or royally-sponsored → trade. Some form of gl. was listed in EA 14,I,11 as a gift from the pharaoh to the king of Babylon and from the Mitannian king to the pharaoh in EA 25,II,62 (Cochavi-Rainey/​Lilyquist 1999:​9, 118–119). Ulu Burun contained 138 bunshaped ingots, mostly deliberately colorized deep cobalt blue, with 21 mid-blue and one translucent purple ingot. Their composition is closer to that identified at the Amarna gl. kilns than any Mesop. gl. (Nicholson et al. 1997). At some point between then and the late Hell. period  – when gl. became a common material in Levantine households  – raw gl. was habit-

Glass (gl.)

349

350

ually transported not as small ingots but as broken chunks, presumably from much larger slabs of gl. made not in small crucibles, but in large kiln chambers. By this time, it seems that raw gl. probably was not colorized during primary production, but only later, when reheated and manipulated in gl. workshops. 4.1.  If EBA and MBA gl. used kiln technology and open-moulds which developed out of metallurgy in order to imitate precious stones, it was at the very start of the LBA that new techniques produced the earliest datable surviving vessels: small perfumed oil containers, particularly piriform alabastra for ritual activities in temples and palaces. A  concentration of finds within Northern Mesopotamia suggests that this might have been a Hurr. invention  – perhaps Mitannian of the 16th cent. b.c.e., with the most precise dating coming from Atchana/​Alalakh towards the end of that century (Grose 1989:​46). These were “coreformed” – that is, a rod covered in a shaped core of perhaps clay and sand was repeatedly coated with powdered gl. and heated (Stern/​SchlickNolte 1994:​30). Hot trails of contrasting colors were then wound around the vessel and often combed into festoons or feather patterns, leaving vertical ridges on the surface; others were marvered smooth – that is, the vessel was rolled on a stone surface. When fully annealed, the core was scraped out, leaving a characteristically rough internal surface. This development just predates the earliest datable Eg. gl. vessels of the time of Thutmose III (Nicholson 2006:​13–14). Indeed, there is only slight evidence for gl. artifacts of any kind which might have been produced in Egypt before ca. 1500 b.c.e., despite a well-established faience industry there, so it is tempting to accept the long-held hypothesis that Thutmose III brought glassworkers back to Egypt from his Mitannian campaigns. A recent reinvestigation of gl. from his reign, however, indicates that this imported technology was taken up using Eg. as well as Mitannian gl. working traditions; specifically Eg. forms (chalices, kohl pots) were produced at this time, alongside juglets of “foreign” form, with some of these native forms being cold-worked  – that is, solid cast and then ground as if stone vessels – and others being core-formed (Nicholson 2006:​20– 21). New Kingdom core-formed gl. quickly developed its own forms and decorative styles, distinct from Mesop. traditions, but they shared the same basic techniques, including the use of pre-formed mosaic motifs inset into the vessel surface, particularly in the 14th cent. (Stern/​Schlick-Nolte 1994:​35). Core-formed chalices with preformed mosaic patterns reheated and fused onto their

surface also appeared in the 14th cent. in Northern Mesopotamia at Tell Rimah (Stern/​SchlickNolte 1994:​47), as well as at Marlik. However, elaborately figured beakers from 13th cent. b.c.e. Hasanlu (but found in 9th cent. destruction deposits) have been convincingly linked in style to Kassite Babylon (Marcus 1991:​547). In the 14th and 13th cent. more gl. was transported, worked in a variety of ways, and used for decoration, personal adornment, and vessel production than ever before. Nevertheless, gl. vessels remained restricted in production and use in the LBA, even in the thriving economies and along the royal exchange routes of the Levant and Egypt. It is easy to be dazzled by the plentiful finds of New Kingdom core-formed gl. vessels from the sedfestival site of Malkata near Thebes or the royal workshops at Tell el-Amarna. These, like the massive head-rest from Tutankhamun’s tomb – carved from a single large ingot of translucent cobalt blue gl. – are evidence of conspicuous royal consumption. Not all Northern Mesop. cities have yielded core-formed gl., and when they are found, they are usually in small numbers within temples, → palaces and elite → tombs. Closed vessels were probably used for expensive perfumed oil, esp. in ritual events. In the Levant, cast gl. continued in limited use for decorative plaques in LBA temples (Grose 1989:​47, figs. 18–19) and for making solid Astarte/​Ishtar figurines (→ idol), or roundels with the “Ishtar star” on them, all in dark cobalt blue (Barag 1988:​151, 189). There is as yet no evidence to suggest that the northern coast of the Levant, and cities such as Byblos or Ugarit, were major centers of either gl. production or working at this time (Barag 1988:​185–186). Small, drawn gl. beads and mold-made architectural elements, amulets, and figurines might not have been restricted to royal or priestly centers of production. Beads, like faience objects, have a wider distribution than gl. vessels across the Levant (Barag 1988:​192) at regional centers such as Beth-Shean or Pella, for example (Potts et al. 1988:​149; Nicholson/​Henderson 2000:​220). Beth-Shean has clear evidence of local production of beads and amulets in both faience and gl., in contrast to its core-formed gl. vessels whose compositional analysis suggests that they were Eg. imports (McGovern et al. 1993:​9). 4.2.  With the collapse of LBA polit. powers, however, production of core-formed gl. vessels seems to have disappeared in the Levant, and to have declined in Egypt. There are, to date, no 10th or 9th cent. b.c.e. gl. vessels outside of Egypt, although gl. beads continued to be placed

Glass (gl.)

351 

in Iron Age I tombs, such as at Megiddo (Finkel­ stein et al. 2000:​390). Gl. inlays were used on 9th to 7th cent. → ivory furniture plaques found at Arslan Tash, Nimrud, and Samaria (von Saldern 1988:​209). As in the Bronze Age, gl. re-emerged from the 9th cent. as a royal commodity, made for kings, valued as exchanged gifts or as booty. Nevertheless, recent close examinations of Iron Age gl. increasingly emphasize a discontinuity of techniques and technology from that of the Bronze Age. For example, the polychrome rosette gl. inlays found on ivories from Arslan Tash are not true mosaic cane inlays as in the LBA but were rather cold-worked, with drilled holes filled with white (Spaer 2005:​30)  – they have been associated with Phoen. workshops (Barag 1983:​165). Similarly, 10th cent. core-formed gl. from the Eg. tomb of Nesikhons reveals a change in the underlying production of gl. – this is the earliest certain use of natron rather than plant-ash as the alkali for gl. production. That this was an innovation is indicated by a drop in the level of lime, which had previously entered the batch with plant-ash, thus causing the gl. to hydrate badly. Later gl. production compensated by adding crushed shell or lime, and natron was subsequently used in the Levant as far N as the Neo-Ass. Empire, but no further E (Shortland et al. 2006:​522–523). Eg. cobalt was also now used in the Levant to color dark blue gl., as seen in the analysis of gl. from 7th cent. Nimrud (Reade et al. 2005). Although gl. insets were occasionally used on New Kingdom statues, they first appeared with certainty on Mesop. sculpture only in the Iron Age – as evident in a blue gl. mace head from 8th cent. Nineveh (Barag 1985:​55). Also new in Iron Age gl. was a fashion for translucent and often decolorized gl. open vessels: ledge-handled jars, large alabastra, hemispherical and shallow bowls. These were probably formed by heating powdered gl. in a two-part mold (contra Moorey 1994:​199), and finished by grinding, with cut, inlaid, or painted decoration. Most were either decolorized or naturally-hued, with a few in translucent cobalt or strong mid-blue or purple (the latter a result of an excess of manganese, which in smaller amounts produced the decolorized gl.). The earliest datable example is a mid- to late 8th cent. b.c.e. large and cut-decorated shallow bowl of Neo-Ass. type from Tumulus P in Gordion, Anatolia, with other fragments from the city mound (von Saldern 1988:​217). The sheer number of vessels found in the palace and storage areas of Nimrud (von Saldern 1988:​ 219) certainly suggests that they were valued commodities at the Neo-Ass. court. As with LBA vessels, they remained relatively few in number, produced for royalty and restricted to royal graves

352

and palaces, but they travelled along extended trade routes as far as Etruria (Grose 1989:​75). Rock crystal was clearly the inspiration for most of this gl., but there is also an appreciation of the peculiar translucency of colored blue gl., which is not found in natural stones. However, some have inlaid bands of colored gl., broadly in the LBA tradition of mosaic gl. beakers. When core-formed vessels reappeared ca. 700 b.c.e. (Nippur and Kish), and 7th cent. Assur (Barag 1988:​154–158) as well as Nimrud (Moorey 1994:​198), they too were made differently from LBA vessels. Still using a rod as a core, colored but now translucent gl. was reheated in a crucible until the gl. could be picked up and drawn out in long trails which were then wound and combed into festoons, zigzags, or feathered patterns. The most common base color was again cobalt blue, but now black was also used, often with just one color of marvered trails: white, yellow, or green (Barag 1988:​174). No open forms were made in the Iron Age; instead, piriform alabastra predominated in the early period. Barag has highlighted a small group found in the Medit. and Etruria with distinctively-placed white trails and a form with Bronze Age Levantine antecedents, whilst two core-formed vessels found in the Levant have unique shapes – a fragment from Akhziv and the rim of a juglet from Lachish (Barag 1988:​ 177, 196), but whether these can also be attributed to an emerging 7th cent. Levantine or Phoen. gl. industry cannot yet be established. The idea that Phoen. gl. workers produced the 9th–8th cent. b.c.e. revival of gl. adornment and vessel production, was partly based on later, Phoen. reputation as glassworkers, on the use of gl.-inlays in Phoen. style ivories (Barag 1983:​ 164–215), and a supposedly Phoen. style of painting on some gl. inlays found at Nimrud (Barag 1985:​54). However, some decolorized bowls also had inlaid bands of colored gl., including the blue and white rosettes mentioned above, and much of the technical detail as well as the type of rosettes strongly points to a Northern Syr. origin (O’Hea 2011:​167–169). This makes sense in terms as it covers an area where earlier, Mitannian glassworking know-how developed. That is not to say that other royal centers could not have taken up cast gl. vessel production, including Neo-Ass. capitals. A minority of cast gl. vessels were not Syr. or Neo-Ass. forms. The inscribed Sargon jar is an Egyptianizing shape (Barag 1985:​54), whilst a jug found in Aliseda, Spain, follows Phoen. ceramic form, has a nonsensical Eg. inscription in Phoen. fashion (Moorey 1994:​199), and almost certainly reached Spain via a Phoen. colony. Yet later, 6th– 3rd cent. Phoenicia used decolorized gl. only for

Glass (gl.)

353

354

scaraboids (O’Hea 2011:​157). Their distinctive eye-beads  – which came to influence bead production more broadly across the Medit. – and apotropaic polychrome head-beads, whose principal types have been established by Seefried (1982), were opaque and brightly coloured. Identifiably early Phoen. vessels were core-formed perfumed oil flasks, not cast drinking vessels. They and their contents were traded across the Medit., with new workshops producing similar core-formed vessels in regional centers on Rhodes, mainland Greece, Italy, and Punic N Africa. 4.3.  Only Achaemenid Pers. gl. workshops continued to produce restricted numbers of translucent, decolorized gl. in forms which had evolved from Neo-Ass. drinking vessels. They spread to elite centers throughout the Pers. world, and into Macedonian graves  – perhaps, again, as a result of diplomatic contacts rather than through openmarket trade. In this way, they came to influence in form, decolorized fabric, and cut decoration the production of late classical and early Hell. high quality drinking wares in the Macedonian kingdom (Triantafyllidis 2003:​13). From the 6th cent., core-formed perfumed oilcontainers appeared in Hellenized forms around the Eastern Medit. as well as the Levant. A shared repertoire of forms and decoration appeared and evolved in the 6th–1st cent. b.c.e.: aryballoi, alabastra, oenochoai being the most common. Towards the end of the Hell. period, lighter translucent → colors became more popular. Harden’s typology (1981) for these standardized Medit. groups remains the standard reference, with some modifications by Grose (1989:​126–129). 4.4.  Nevertheless, core-formed gl. vessels remained uncommon in domestic contexts across the Medit. and Levantine worlds, with most having been retrieved from graves or other ritual contexts (O’Hea 2008:​144, fig. 4). Only in the late Hell. Levant did gl. finally become a favored medium for vessels in everyday use. Current evidence suggests that a generation or so after the appearance in Greece of mass-produced ceramic drinking bowls which imitated metal hemispherical cups, the same forms were first mass-produced in gl. from ca. 150 b.c.e. in the Levant (Weinberg 1961:​382). This suggests that the technological change required to make these gl. drinking bowls was a deliberate strategy to supply an eager market for them. The technique was simple enough: gl. was poured or ladled onto a flat surface to form a disk, and when semi-cooled, was sagged over a conical or hemispherical ceramic or stone mold to anneal (Grose 1984:​28); alternatively, disks could have been cut from raw gl. chunks, then heated in the kiln prior to sagging (Triantafyl-

lidis 2000:​33). The technique of sagging a disk of gl. over a convex mold may have begun with mosaic cane bowls, made in Egypt and probably also in Italy from the late 3rd cent. b.c.e. Formerly believed to have been made from composite bundled canes of gl. that were cut into sections, laid side by side within a bowl-shaped mold, and then fused by heating in a kiln (Grose 1989:​256–258), experiments by gl. artists such as Gudenrath (Tait 1999) have shown that they were more likely laid over a convex mold and fused in a kiln. The plain Levantine sagged bowls were much simpler to prepare and sag, and were made in a limited but wide range of fabrics: decolorized, translucent cobalt, amber, pale bluish, bluegreenish, and lime greenish. They were always polished internally, with varying patterns of simple internal parallel grooves for decoration. Their surviving numbers on 2nd–1st cent. b.c.e. sites give some insight into the enormous increase in gl. working and production as a result of this single development: Tel Anafa in the Upper Galilee yielded many more than 500 sagged gl. bowls (Grose 1979:​54), whilst Late Hell. Jerusalem, Pella, and Jebel Khalid have all yielded minimum numbers estimated in the hundreds (O’Hea 2005:​45), as also at Samaria-Sebaste (Crowfoot 1957:​403–404). Contemporary core-formed gl. from the same sites, however, is usually less than 10 % of the total gl. vessel assemblage (O’Hea 2005:​45). This shift towards a preference for gl. drinking vessels combined the aspira­tions of the Levantine consumer to emulate both earlier Achaemenid and G elite drinking fashions. But the sagged gl. bowl industry did not first develop in Persia, the Aegean, or G mainland, nor in Ptolemaic Egypt. Nor can it be attributed as yet to one ethnic group within the mix of Sem.- or G-speaking communities, or various degrees of Hellenized Jew. populations. Rather, sagged bowls appear to have developed to cater to the widest possible market in terms of affordability – as opposed to Hell. goldglass drinking bowls, Italian decolorized cast tableware, or Ptolemaic mosaic cane bowls – and to have achieved that market. Two direct ramifications of the sagged gl. bowl industry were to have enormous impacts upon the wider Rom. world. One is an expanded number of gl. workshops into Late Hell. cities across the Levant, including Phoenicia, Judea, and towns of the increasingly fragmented Seleuc. Empire, as seen in the appearance of raw gl. chunks on sites as culturally diverse as Decapolitan Pella (O’Hea 1992:​ 255) and Tell Qiri (Barag 1987:​36) but not, apparently, Nabataea. It is only in the late Hell. period that we can be certain of a Judean gl. industry

Glass (gl.)

355 

producing, amongst other things, sagged bowls (Barag 1981:​79–81). Equally importantly, this widespread market for, and supply of, everyday glassware may have led to experiments by glassmakers in the massproduction of smaller unguentaria which, until the 1st cent. b.c.e., were mostly core-formed. How and precisely when this remarkable innovation occurred is still ambiguous, but the earliest datable evidence is debris from a gl. workshop in Jerusalem which produced sagged bowls, but also blown tubular unguentaria. It formed a fill under a pavement dated by Herod. coins, giving only an approximate terminus ante quem of the 30s or 20s b.c.e. (Barag 1981:​79–81), but an absence of any blown gl. from any historically-dated city destruction by Alexander Jannaeus must put its appearance no earlier than the second quarter of the 1st cent. b.c.e. Gl.-blowing therefore emerged as a cheap and effective form of gl. mass-production, at precisely the time of Rom. conquest in the E, providing the conduit by which this technology could spread across the entire Rom. world. The epigraphic evidence of mold-blown inscriptions on Julio-Claudian beakers and jars attests to Phoen. and Jew. gl. specialists (Barag 1996:​89–90), some of whom may have emigrated to Italy (Harden 1935:​165). Phoenicia and Egypt acquired their almost mythical status as centers of excellence in gl. production and gl. working with the Romans; Jew. and Syr. glassworkers gained their special reputation from this time. 5.–6.  Before the 5th cent. b.c.e., the G word ὕαλος could be used for both an expensive stone and its glassy imitation, esp. rock crystal (Trowbridge 1930:​252, 255–256). The same is true for the Hebr. term zkwkyt in Job 28:17, which could denote that stone, as the verse compared it to gold. Yet Engle (1973:​8) assumed that this was gl. – also valuable and rare until its mass production in the late Hell. period – and indeed the LXX translated this word in Job 28:17 as ὕαλος rather than κρύσταλλος. The Rom.-Byz. Babylonian Talmud clearly applied Hebr. zkwkyt to blown glass (b.  Šabb. 12a, 15a; b.  Sanh. 91a; b.  Šabb. 44a; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 75b; b. Ber. 57a). Only the Lat. “vitrum” was specifically used for gl., appearing from the early 1st cent. b.c.e., although the Romans, too, could occasionally use “crystallos” to refer to a clear crystal-like gl. (Trowbridge 1930:​63–64, 81–82). The apparently prosperous urban communities across the Hellenized Levant under the Seleuc., Ptolemaic, and Tobiad/​Hasm. Dyn. led to increased use of gl. as an everyday material for drinking vessels; the invention of glass-blowing in this region finally made gl. affordable. Urban sites

356

in the Levant from the 1st cent. c.e. onwards have copious amounts of gl., and its properties of fragility, its recyclability, and its ability to transmit light became metaphors in Rom. Christian discussions. Only in the Rom. period did gl. fully permeate popular cultural thought, becoming in G and Hebr., as in Lat. lit., one of many analogies drawn from popular experience. It was repeatedly used into Late Antiquity as a metaphor for transparency (e. g., Rev 21:18, 21) but also cheapness (Jerome, ep.  107: “The heathen sage is glass, the Christian virgin the pearl”). Its fragile durability was emphasized in rabb. texts as also Christian ones. As the late Rom. b.  Sanh. 91a claimed, “if glassware, which, though made by the breath of human beings, can yet be repaired when broken; then how much more so man, created by the breath of the Holy One,” so too did Clement of Alexandria (protr. 3) and Augustine, “What is more fragile than a vessel of glass? And yet it is kept, and lasts for ages. For though the chances of a fall are feared for the vessel of gl., yet there is no fear of fever or old age for it” (serm. 59:1). Its transformation in the kiln leant itself to Byz. philosophical debate on the mutability of Christ’s body (Theod. eran., dialogus 1 [PG 83.37). 7.  Barag, D., 1981, Towards a Chronology of Syro-Palestinian Glass, in: Annales du 8e congrès de l’AIHV:73–81 ♦ 1983, Glass Inlays and the Classification and Dating of Ivories from the Ninth-Eighth Centuries B. C., AnSt 33:163–167 ♦ 1985, Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the British Museum 1, London ♦ 1987, The Glass, in: A. Ben-Tor et al. (eds.), Tel Qiri, Qedem 24, Jerusalem:​ 34–36 ♦ 1988 (reprint from 1970), Mesopotamian CoreFormed Glass Vessels (1500–500 B. C.), in: A. L. Oppenheim et al. (eds.), Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia, Corning/​London:​129–199 ♦ 1996, Phoenicia and Mould Blowing in the Early Roman Period, in: Annales du 13e congrès de l’AIHV:77–92  ♦ Brill, R. H., 1968, The Scientific Investigation of Ancient Glasses, in: Eighth International Congress on Glass Abstracts, London:​47–68 ♦ Cochavi-Rainey, Z./​Lilyquist, C., 1999, Royal Gifts in the Late Bronze Age, Fourteenth to Thirteenth Centuries B. C. E., Beer-Sheva  ♦ Crowfoot, G. M., 1957, Glass, in: J. W. Crowfoot/​G. M. Crowfoot/​K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, vol. 3: The Objects from Samaria, London:​403–422 ♦ Engle, A., 1973, Readings in Glass History 1–2, Phoenix ♦ Finkelstein, I., et al., 2000, Megiddo III, Jerusalem ♦ Grose, D., 1979, The Syro-Palestinian Glass Industry in the Later Hellenistic Period, Muse 13:54–67 ♦ 1984, Glass Forming Methods in Antiquity: Some Considerations, JGS 26:25–34 ♦ 1989, Early Ancient Glass, New York ♦ Harden, D. B., 1935, Romano-Syrian Glasses with Mould-Blown Inscriptions, JRS 25:163–186 ♦ 1981, Catalogue of Greek and Roman Glass in the British Museum, London ♦ Lilyquist, C./​Brill, R. H., 1993, Studies in Early Egyptian Glass, New York ♦ Marcus, M., 1991, The Mosaic Glass Vessels from Hasanlu, Iran, Art Bulletin 73:537–560 ♦ Mass, J. L., et al., 2002, Malkata and Lisht Glassmaking Technologies, Archaeometry 44:67–82  ♦ McGov-

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

357

358

ern, P. E., et al., 1993, The Late Bronze Age Garrison at Beth Shan: Glass and Faience Production and Importation in the Late New Kingdom, BASOR 290–291:1–27 ♦ Moorey, P. R. S., 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industry, Oxford ♦ Nicholson, P. T., 1995, Glassmaking and Glassworking at Amarna, JGS 37:11– 19 ♦ 2006, Glass Vessels from the Reign of Thutmose III and a Hitherto Unknown Glass Chalice, JGS 48:11– 21 ♦ Nicholson, P. T., et al., 1997, The Ulu Burun Glass Ingots, Cylindrical Vessels and Egyptian Glass, JEA 83:143–153 ♦ 2012, “Stone … that Flows”: Faience and Glass as Man-Made Stones in Egypt, Journal of Glass Studies 54:11–23 ♦ Nicholson, P. T./​Henderson, J., 2000, Glass, in: P. T. Nicholson/​I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge, U. K., et al.:177–224 ♦ O’Hea, M., 1992, The Glass Industry of Pella and the Decapolis, ARAM 4.1–2:253–264 ♦ 2005, Late Hellenistic Glass from Some Military and Civilian Sites in the Levant: Jebel Khalid, Pella and Jerusalem, in: Annales du 16e congrès de l’AIHV:44–48 ♦ 2008, Greeks and Glass: the Role of Hellenistic Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean in Glass Production and Consumption, Mediterranean Archaeology 19/20, 2006/2007:​141–150 ♦ 2011, Another Look at the Origins of IA II Cast Glass in the Levant, Levant 43.2:153–172 ♦ Oppenheim, A. L., 1973, Towards a History of Glass in the Ancient Near East, JAOS 93:259–266 ♦ Oppenheim, A. L., et al., 1988 (reprint from 1970), Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia, Corning/​London  ♦ Peltenberg, E., 1987, Early Faience: Recent Studies, Origins and Relations with Glass, in: M. Bimson/​ I. C. Freestone (eds.), Early Vitreous Materials, British Museum Occasional Paper 56, London:​5–29 ♦ Potts, T. F., et al., 1988, Preliminary Report on the 8th and 9th Seasons of Excavation by the University of Sydney at Pella (Tabqat Fahl), 1986 and 1987, ADAJ 32:115–149 ♦ Reade, W., et al., 2005, Innova­tion or Continuity? Early First Millennium B. C. E. Glass in the Near East: The Cobalt Blue Glasses from Assyrian Nimrud, in: Annales du 16e congrès de l’AIHV:23–27 ♦ Rehren, T., 2014, Glass Production and Consumption between Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Aegean, in: P. Pfälzner et al. (eds.), Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East, Mesopotamia and the Aegean, Wiesbaden:​217–223  ♦ Saldern, A. von, 1959, Glass Finds at Gordion, JGS 1:25–49 ♦ 1988 (1970), Other Mesopotamian Glass Vessels (1500–600 B. C.), in: A. L. Oppenheim et al., Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia, Corning/​London:​203–228  ♦ Schlick-Nolte, B./​Werthmann, R., 2003, Glass Vessels from the Burial of Nesikhons, JGS 45:11–34  ♦ Schmidt, K., 2019, Glass and Glass Production in the Near East during the Iron Age, Oxford ♦ Seefried, M., 1979, Glass Core Pendants found in the Mediterranean Area, JGS 21:17–26 ♦ 1982, Les pendentifs en verre sur noyau des pays de la Méditerranée antique, Rome ♦ Shortland, A., et al., 2006, Natron as a Flux in the Early Vitreous Materials Industry: Sources, Beginnings and Reasons for Decline, Journal of Archaeological Science 33:521–530  ♦ Spaer, M., 2005, Reconsidering the Iron Age Glass Inlays Found in Association with Carved Ivories, in: Annales du 16e congrès de l’AIHV:28–31 ♦ Stern, E. M./​Schlick-Nolte, B., 1994, Early Glass of the Ancient World 1600 B. C.‑A. D. 50, Ostfildern ♦ Tait, H. (ed.), 1999, Five Thousand Years of Glass, London ♦ Tatton-Brown., V., 1981, Rod Formed Glass Pendants and Beads of the 1st Millennium B. C.,

in: D. B. Harden (ed.), Catalogue of Greek and Roman Glass in the British Museum, London:​143–155 ♦ Triantafyllidis, P., 2000, New Evidence of the Glass Manufacture in Classical and Hellenistic Rhodes, in: Annales du 14e congrès de l’AIHV:30–34  ♦ 2003, Achaemenian Glass Production, in: Annales du 15e congrès de l’AIHV:13–17  ♦ Trowbridge, M., 1930, Philological Studies in Ancient Glass, Urbana  ♦ Weinberg, G. D., 1961, Hellenistic Glass Vessels from the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 4:380–391 ♦ 1973, Notes on Glass from Upper Galilee, JGS 15:35–51 ♦ Weinberg, G. D. (ed.), 1988, Excavations at Jalame, Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, Columbia, Mo. Margaret O’Hea

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.) 1.  The terms “glaze”’ and “glazed materials” encompass many different techniques, using similar vitreous materials. The study of sintered quartz bodies in Ancient Near Eastern archaeology is still in its infancy (Moorey 1999; Busz/​Gercke 1999). Terminology differs according to native language and exact material; in fact, fc., g., frit, or → glass, all often called fc., cannot be identified without chemical analysis. Even though many museums have methodically analyzed all vitreous “pastes” in their collections in the recent past (Caubet/​ Pierrat-Bonnefois 2005), it is still difficult to get an accurate overview. Grops (forthcoming) worked out clear definitions and distinctions between the different vitreous materials. 2.  Basic types of artifacts related to g. are firstly glazed objects in general, secondly scarabs (→ seal), and thirdly → amulets. The glazed objects of Palestine are reviewed chronologically (see 4.), while the main aspects of scarabs and amulets are described in the following. 2.1.  The oldest scarabs occur in Egypt during the 1st Intermediate Period. Production increased at the end of the 12th Dyn. and scarabs found in Byblos also date from this period (= MB I–IIA). They are the oldest scarabs found outside Egypt and, according to Ben-Tor, were imported (BenTor 2004). In any case, scarabs were imitated in Palestine from the 13th Dyn. It is assumed that the Hyksos (15th Dyn.) promoted scarab production in their country of origin, Palestine. From this time on, scarabs found in Palestine are increasingly imitations and from the 1st mill. imitations and new creations are found (CSAPI/​I; CSAPI/1). Steatite was the most common material, before fc. Some glazed scarabs are of steatite, most of them, however, are of vitreous materials, such as fc., the more granular frit, and a soft blue material, which can all be glazed. G. is still rare in MB IIA–B. Exceptions are a few glazed steatite scarabs (CSAPI/1:Ajjul, no. 53, Ashdod, no. 31) and some of the fc. scarabs of the Ω-group (Tell elFarah [N], Jericho, Beth-Shemesh; Keel 1989). In

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

359 

MB IIA, 12 % are of fc., which nearly disappears in MB IIB and becomes common again with the New Kingdom in the LBA. In the 13th cent., 10 % of the Beth-Shean scarabs are of fc., 5 % of frit. A soft blue paste made out of pounded blue glass appeared in the Levant probably in the 15th cent. and became common in the 10th–6th cent. Although no workshop has been identified, there must have been some in large centers, such as Beth-Shean for fc. scarabs, or in Megiddo and Samaria for blue paste scarabs (Keel 1995:​31, 33, 37, 149–151). 2.2.  Most of the amulets were made of fc. The paste, as for scarabs, was pressed in a mould and then fired. As a second step, quartz was laid in the mould and fired with the amulet, which was as a result glazed. The more common but less refined technique was to dip the amulet in the g. and to fire it. The third technique was self-glazing by efflorescence (see below § 3). Molds were no longer used in Pers. and Hell. times, when the artisan impressed the shape on the paste with a tool. Amulets are on average 1–3 cm tall but can reach 5 cm. Nevertheless, the transition from amulet to figurine is never clearly defined. Few amulets are so large that they could be viewed as figurines or small statues (Herrmann 1994:​298, no. 289), a size which must have been around 14 cm in h, see below). The periods richest in amulets are the LB IIB with 25 % and the Iron Age II with 35 % (Herrmann 2003:​33); sites with the largest concentrations are ʿAtlit (104 items), Dor (107), Megiddo (193), Beth-Shemesh (107), and Tell elFarah (S) (298). The figures always represent Eg. deities or symbols, which makes the problem of origin even more difficult. Egypt is probably a better alternative than Phoenicia or Palestine itself, but this question is not yet resolved (Herrmann 1994:​35–37; 2003:​4–5). Generally in Palestine, it seems that MB glazed items were made in Palestine, later they were imported from Egypt during the Eg. domination during the LBA and again made in Western Asia during the Iron Age. But while the manufacturing of glazed materials is attested for Northern Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, and the Ionian world, no arch. remnants of workshops have ever been found in Palestine. 3.  The technique of glazing was invented in Egypt and in the ANE. The oldest glazed materials were pastes and stones, predominantly steatite. The core of ancient fc. objects was normally made from sand or finely powdered sandstone, rarely from quartz or flint. The grains were sintered together after adequate heating and usually became white. Small fc. objects like scarabs and amulets could be modeled by hand or pressed into an open or bivalve mold while vessels were shaped on a

360

wheel or molded by hand around a core. In the case of glass, on the other hand, various ingredients must completely fuse together by melting. “Frit” is a modern term for a granular ground glass, which can be fritted at a low temperature and glazed or not. The term “frit” can also mean a material used as glaze and not as the core. G. is a layer of glass on the surface of a vitreous paste or baked clay. The inner material cannot be recognized when the glaze is intact, but, when the glaze of a fc. object is totally worn off, it is often mistaken for frit (Moorey 1999:​167–168; Busz/​ Gercke 1999:​52–54). Glazed clay is more difficult to produce than vitreous pastes because g. does not easily fuse with the clay body. Glazing colors must be outlined on the surface to prevent them from running and mixing, a technique that was fully mastered in the 1st mill. b.c.e. There are two main processing techniques. In the first one, pre-mixed ingredients are applied to the surface by dipping or brushing to be subsequently fused by kiln firing. For this the powdered raw materials are mixed with water. When applied to the dried body, the porous body absorbs water from the g. mixture leaving a fine powdery coating which will form the g. Another method is self-glazing by efflorescence. The alkaline water-soluble salts (natron or ash based) migrate to the surface during the drying of the body. There they form a white powdery layer which is then mixed with a colorant and fired (Moorey 1999:​184). For all vitreous materials the binding agents are alkaline and the flux is soda, potash, natron, ordinary salt, or low potassium plant ashes. The average firing temperature is between 900°–1000 °C. The firing conditions are crucial to obtain the desired color. The most common element to color vitreous materials is copper. Under oxidizing conditions copper oxide colors blue to green and iron oxide pink or yellow to brown, whereas in reducing fire copper oxide gives the material a red color. Under mildly reducing conditions iron oxide produces a light blue or green color, under strongly reducing conditions gray or black g. White was produced with calcium antimonate (CaSb2O6), brown and black with manganese and yellow with iron oxide or lead antimonate (Pb2Sb2O7). The last problematic material is steatite. It is a compact form of the mineral talc, which has only 1 on the Mohs scale (→ gems). Steatite was usually heated and could be glazed. But the process of firing generates a whitish coat which must not be mistaken for a glazed coat. In some cases, the talc was first powdered to a paste, whose binding material was water. This paste was then shaped in beads or scarabs and fired. On the other hand, it seems that steatite was sometimes

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

361

362

directly fired, without having been transformed into a paste. In any case, the result is ensteatite. True polychromy appeared in Palest. and Near Eastern fc. between 1500 and 1250 b.c.e. The main colors are green, blue, blue-green, or turquoise blue, rarely white for the background and gray for the outside, as well as black, brown, gray, and rarely yellow, pink, and white for the designs. In the lit. there is recurrent confusion between Eg. Blue, blue frit, blue fc., and blue glass. But Eg. Blue is in reality CaCuSi4O10, a very rare mineral in nature and apparently not worked extensively in antiquity. Eg. Blue provides a pigment which may be powdered and mixed with a binding agent. While Eg. Blue appears in Egypt in the 4th or 5th Dyn., it was rare. In Mesopotamia it may occur in Early Dynastic III (Ur) or in the Akkad. period. Later, it was used for scarabs, seals, amulets, beads, and small Egyptanized objects during the 8th–6th cent. In Room ZT in the northwestern Palace of Nimrud one large amphora of a Palest. type, contained lumps of Eg. Blue. It may have been traded in blocks or ingots (Moorey 1999:​ 186–187; Busz/​Gercke 1999). 4.  Beads of green or greenish-blue burned steatite appear in Western Asia during the Ubaid period (5,400–4,300 b.c.e.) and in Egypt at the end of the 5th or at the beginning of the 4th mill. b.c.e. The evidence for production of burnt stone in Palestine is rare, limited mostly to steatite scarabs. The Chalc. burial cave of Peqiʾin, Northern Galilee, yielded about 190 beads made of ensteatite (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2004). They are the earliest securely documented finds, since identification of the material (“substance blanchâtre”) of the Chalc. beads from Tuleilat el-Ghassul is uncertain (Mallon/​Koeppel/​Neuville 1934). In Mesopotamia and Egypt, frit became evident in the form of beads after 4,500 b.c.e. and even more common in the 4th mill. The oldest Syr. fc. object tested so far is a bead from Tell Brak from the 4th mill. The copper percentage suggests that it was originally glazed blue or green. Significant changes took place in the middle of the 2nd mill. From then on frit and fc. beads, seals, small vessels, and figurines became very common. In Palestine very little material is antecedent to the MB. The “glazed frit” beads attributed to the aceramic Neolithic in Jericho (Kenyon/​Holland 1983:​789–791) seem likely to be a misidentification (Moorey 1999:​172). Some beads and pendants of fc. in Megiddo go back to the EBA (Loud 1948:​pls. 207:1, 5; 287:9), but they were probably imported. The EB I baboon figure from ʿEin Besor was an Eg. votive (original h 12–13 cm; Gophna 1993). Local manufacture starts in the MBA. The Palest. material in frit and fc. consists of

small objects like beads, amulets(?), scarabs, cylinder seals, vessels, figurines, which are nearly all Eg. or Egyptianized, and of local inlays, dice, and gaming pcs. They have mostly been found in rel. contexts and were votives, which were integrated in the local culture despite their appearance. But some findings of vessels in residential context point to a domestic function. The earliest evidence of glazed clay in Mesopotamia comes from Nuzi II (1400–1350 b.c.e.). Glazed vessels, figurines, knob plates, tiles, and bricks became common in Mesopotamia from the 9th cent. and remained so until Achaemenid times. In Egypt, glazed clay is rare before the Ptolemaic period (Moorey 1999:​159–162). It is more or less non-existent in Palestine and only a few vessels are found in Transjordan (Daviau/​ Klassen 2014). Fc. manufacture was introduced into Palestine from Egypt at the beginning of the 2nd mill. (MB IIA). It remained an offspring of Egypt, although the fc. work developed characteristics of its own and became an indigenous industry somewhere in Southern Palestine. This conclusion is drawn from the concentration of finds there; some 80 vessels are known. They are small (h  7–11 cm) and are → votive objects, like the Hyksos scarabs with which they were found. They can be divided into five main shapes: the flat base bottle (→ fig. Glaze #1:1–4, col. 363), the round base bottle, the pilgrim flask (→ fig. Glaze #1:7–10, col. 363), the juglet (→ fig. Glaze #1:5–6, col. 363), and the conical pot. The g. colors are turquoise blue to green and the designs of petals, drops, wavy lines, or net patterns applied in brown or black. The largest group is known from Jericho (25) followed by Tell el-ʿAjjul (10+; Petrie 1934:​pl. 36:9), Tell el-Farah (S) (8), Gezer (6), and Lachish (6). Single or few exemplars were found in Ginnosar (1), Megiddo (1), Beth-Shean (3), Tell el-Farah (N) (2), Jerusalem (5), Tel Nagila (3), and Tell Beit Mirsim (4). Some small vases and beakers come from Tell el-ʿAjjul (Sagona 1980). 4.1.  The period 1350–1150 was one in which glazed vessels became typical in the Near East. The 14th and 13th cent. are the time of maximum Eg. fc. imports into Asia, although the export of Eg. fc. vessel continues into the 12th cent. (18th to 20th Dyn.). Analyses conducted of Beth-Shean material support an Eg. origin (James/​McGovern 1993:​152–163). Nevertheless, even if the vessels seem to be all or mostly imported from Egypt, local wares such as seals and scarabs existed and may be distinguished from Eg. imports by the character of their polychromy, nuance of colors, methods of g. application and firing, as well as on stylistic grounds (Peltenburg 1974:​107).

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

363 

364

1

2

4

5

3

6

7

8 9

10

13

0 1 2 3 4 5 cm

12 Figure Glaze #1: Small MBA faience vessels: 1–4) Flat base bottles from Jericho; 5–6) Juglets from Lachish and Tell el-ʿAjjul; 7–10) Pilgrim flasks from Tell el-Farah (N) (7 and 10), Barqa (8), and Jericho (9). LBA faience vessels from Beth-Shean: 11) Goblet; 12) Bowl; 13) Narrow jar.

Glazed fc. vessels are small, their diameter or height rarely exceeded 15 cm. They have generally been found in a sacral context and were thus used as votives (Higginbotham 2000). The most attractive fc.s are the shallow decorated bowls (16 from Beth-Shean levels VII–VIII and 28 from Timna). A  large number display lotus flowers or buds, sometimes with birds (Hazor IB and XV; Yadin et al. 1961:​pls. 157:39–41; 277:14; 335:1–

4). See also, Megiddo Stratum  VII (Loud 1948:​ pl. 191:7), Beth-Shean (James/​McGovern 1993:​ fig. 71:2), Lachish, Fosse Temple III (Tufnell/​ Inge/​Harding 1940:​pl. 23:59, 64, 66–68, 71– 74), Tell el ʿAjjul (Petrie 1933:​pl. 28:6; 1934:​ pl. 36:6–8), Timna (Rothenberg 1988:​fig. 38:41– 44), Tell Abu Hawam, below the Level III pavement (Hamilton 1935:​34, pl. 39:208), Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928:​pl. 45:20). Other motifs include

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

365

366

a girl on a boat and fish (Beth-Shean: James/​ McGovern 1993:​fig. 67:10; → fig. Glaze #1:12, col. 363), a baboon (James/​McGovern 1993:​ fig. 67:11), a hind (Tell Abu Hawam: Hamilton 1935:​64, pl. 39:421), two udjat-eyes (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pls. 22:57; 23:65), geometrical patterns, which could be part of the rim decoration (Megiddo Stratum IX: Loud 1948:​ pl. 191:2); Beth-Shean (James/​McGovern 1993:​ figs. 67:12–14; 68:1–6; 71:1), and probably Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935:​64, pl. 39:420), and a bowl, chalice, or cup from Tel Miqne (Meehl/​Dothan/​Gitin 2006:​193, cat. no. 17, fig. 5.2:3). Some items have hieroglyphs (Megiddo Stratum IX: Loud 1948:​pl. 191:3), Tel Miqne Stratum VIIB (Meehl/​Dothan/​Gitin 2006:​193, cat. no. 16, fig. 5.3:1). Hieroglyphs appear also on unidentified sherds at Timna (Rothenberg 1988:​ fig. 40:1–6, 8). The fragments found at Gezer belong to the beginning of the 4th, also in the 3rd Semitic period. According to the history of Gezer, where imported Eg. fcs. of the Amarna period were found, these sherds probably belong to this group (Macalister 1912b:​​337, pl. 211:17, 18, 20–24, 27) with lotus flowers and an udjat-eye (Dever 1986b:​pls. 55:14, 58:7). A  monochrome shallow bowl with handles comes from Lachish (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pl. 23:62), the goblets with foot or lotiform chalice from Tel Shiqmona (Elgavish 1993:​1373) and from Beth-Shean (→ fig. Glaze #1:11, col. 363; cf. James/​Mcgovern 1993:​figs. 68:10, 11–12; 69:2; 71:5–7, with lotus and 69:1 with horse, 69:3), and from Timna (Rothenberg 1988:​fig. 40:7) and are certainly imports along with the goblet from grave 1074 at Tell el-ʿAjjul (Petrie 1932:​pl. 26:138) which is a probable import. Cups without a foot have been found in Timna (Rothenberg 1988:​figs. 34:4; 41:3– 4). The lotus ornamented cup from Gezer was “restored from a small fragment” (Macalister 1912b:​​337, pl. 211:25); the proposed restoration is tentative and this vessel could have been a cup or a goblet with foot. The same is true of a fragment from Megiddo Stratum VIII (Loud 1948:​pl. 191:5). Lentoid two-handled or pilgrim flasks (the handles differentiate these from the MBA flasks) are typically Eg. (Beth-Shean, James/​McGovern 1993:​ fig. 67:8–9 plain; Lachish, Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pls. 21:48 plain; 22:56; 23:69; Tel Seraʿ, Oren 1982:​165). Flasks without a pointed base, attributed to Eg. workshops by Peltenburg (1974:​111), are known from the Fosse Temple III at Lachish (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​ pl. 23:60) and from Beth-Shean VII (James/​ McGovern 1993:​fig. 68:9, pl. 31a). Jugs with wide collars are found at Beth-Shean (James/​McGovern 1993:​fig. 68:7–8), in Fosse

Temple III at Lachish (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pls. 21:55; 22:55; 23:61; Ussishkin 1993:​ 901) and Tell el ʿAjjul (Petrie 1934:​pl. 26:137), jugs with a small opening and an imitation of pendants as a collar ornament and juglets are from Timna (Rothenberg 1988:​figs. 27:8, 37:26– 31, 41:2, 44:8, 45:3). Decorated narrow jars are from Beth-Shean VIII (James/​McGovern 1993:​ fig. 71:4, pl. 31b; → fig. Glaze #1:13, col. 363), Tim­ na (Rothenberg 1988:​fig. 27:9–10), and from the fortress of Bir el-ʿAbd in Sinai (Oren 1993:​ 1389–1390, color pl. facing p. 1412). As well, more globular jars including one decorated with a stylised floral necklace were recovered at Timna (Rothenberg 1988:​figs. 37:34, 41:1), as well as at Beth-Shean VIII (James/​Mcgovern 1993:​ fig. 70:12, pl. 31e, blue-green jug/jar) along with jar stands (Rothenberg 1988:​figs. 31:4–6; 39:4, 6–7) that were certainly imported from Egypt. A small ribbed bowl with two feminine heads (Hathor?) was found in the Fosse Temple at Lachish (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pl. 22:58, diameter 16 cm). Its origin is unclear, but it is most likely Eg. Some typically Eg. glazed objects (mostly fc., some of clay) like 17 menat (counterbalancing weights for a necklace), nine sistra, five wands (magical knives), 11 cat figurines, a votive mask of Hathor were only found in the Hathor temple of Timna which existed from Sethos I to Ramses V (19th–20th Dyn.) (Rothenberg 1988:​figs. 27– 33, 38, 45). A fc. blue glazed tile and a small white plaque fragment were found on the floor of the Lachish Fosse Temple and in Beth-Shean’s temple precinct, level VII respectively (Tufnell/​Inge/​ Harding 1940:​pl. 22:54, 20.4×11.0 cm; James/​ McGovern 1993:​fig. 69:12, pl. 31j), while a tile from Aphek seems to bear the name of Ramses II (Giveon 1978:​3, 8.0×2.4 cm). As in Egypt these tiles may have been foundation deposits. Also typical for the 19th and 20th Dyn. is a rosette with eight white petals on a silver-grayish background. This piece, which has been found in Megiddo, was part of an architectural decoration (diameter 7 cm; Schumacher 1908:​82, pl. 23e; Watzinger 1929:​46, note 29; Busz/​Gercke 1999:​332, n. 136). Three goblets in the form of a woman’s head are known from Tell Abu Hawam. Yellow color has been applied to the rim of the crown, the hair rings above the ears, to a ring in the nose and to the earrings. The eyebrows and the corner of the eyes are also yellow, the face and the ears pale pinkish white (Hamilton 1935:​65, pls. 27:427, 28:425, 29:426, preserved h 12–16 cm). The last goblet has the form of a ram’s head (Hamilton 1935:​pl. 30:428, length 18 cm). The provenance of these artistic goblets is uncertain. This kind of

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

367 

material is common on the E coast Cypriot sites of Enkomi or Kition and Cypriote ceramics have been found in Tell Abu Hawam. Yet, it is becoming more and more apparent that the idea originated in MBA Northern Syria (Mazzoni 1980) and that there was a fc. workshop in LBA Ugarit, where Egyptianizing fc. objects were manufactured (Matoïan/​Bouquillon 2003:​344). This makes a N Syr. origin very likely. Cylinder seals have been excavated in every larger site. Most of the LBA seals belong to the so-called Mitannian Glyptic. One subgroup is the “common style,” where seals are either in fc. or rather frit, glazed or not. Although there is a high degree of uniformity in the style from Northern Mesopotamia to Southern Palestine, Salje could divide the seals into many regional groups. One of them is the “Syro-Palest.,” one other the “Palest.” group. The seal engraving is careless and shows rows of men and animals or two persons in combat with one animal (Salje 1990:​89–94, 254– 257). Seals from the Palest. group were made in Palest. workshops from the 14th to the 11th cent. 4.2.  Only a small amount of material can be dated to the two and a half centuries after the end of the Eg. imports of the 18th, 19th, and 20th Dyn.: seals, scarabs, amulets, pendants, and beads (Hamilton 1935:​27; nos. 138–139, 141; Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pls. 77:15, 91). Megiddo Stratum  VIIA belongs to Iron Age I. There, a small plain whitish conical vase or bucket with upright sides and brownish markings near the two small loop handles was found (Loud 1948:​ pl. 191:8, h 5.4 cm). A second mottled gray vase of this shape comes from Tomb 39, whose material dates in the MB I and the Iron Age I (Guy 1938:​fig. 185:2, pl. 168:1). Similar shapes exist in Babylonia so that the proposal of a Bab. origin is reasonable (Peltenburg 1972:​136). The rim of a blue glazed and brown decorated jar was found in Tomb 76A of Megiddo (Guy 1938:​127, pl. 173:7, Iron Age I). At the end of the 9th cent. b.c.e. the art of fc. gained renewed importance. In contrast to the LBA, there are no Eg. imports, but a strongly Egyptianizing output. Of great interest are Egyptianizing fc. statuettes, which measure from ca. 10 cm to ca. 30 cm. The few obvious contexts in which these have been found point to a rel. function as votives. The most Northern finding site dates back to the 8th–7th cent. and is the rel. area of Dan with a deity rather than a king holding a lotus stem (→ fig. Glaze #2:1, col. 368; Biran 1994:​180, fig. 142, pl. 29; h 6.5 cm, originally ca. 13 cm), the head of an Eg. king (→ fig. Glaze #2:2, col. 368; Biran 1994:​178, fig. 139, pl. 31; h 12 cm, originally ca. 35 cm), the Eg. god Thot(?) with a mon-

368

1

2 0

2

4

6 cm

Figure Glaze #2: 1–2) Faience statuettes from Dan (Iron Age II).

key (Biran 1994:​179, fig. 141, pl. 30; h 8 cm, originally ca. 24 cm), a figurine, who, if beardless, could be a woman (Hathor?) (Biran 1994:​ 212, pl. 36; h  4.8 cm, originally ca. 19 cm), the head of a Syr. or an Ass. (Biran 1980:​95–98, pl. 5ABD; h 4.7 cm, originally ca. 21 cm), and

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

369

370

the upper part of a figurine, this time from Area Y (Biran 1994:​255, 256, fig. 211; h  8 cm, originally ca. 20 cm). The head of a man found in Yoqneam XII–XIV (NEAEHL 3:807, 808, and color plate facing p. 861, 8th cent.), the man with an Eg. skirt and arms hanging alongside the body and poss. the blue and sepia human torso from Megiddo Stratum II (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 76:2; h  9 cm, and pl. 76:1; h 5 cm, for both originally ca. 15 cm) as well as the Sekhmet from the 8th cent. Ass. fortress of Tel Seraʿ, Stratum V (Oren/​ Netzer 1974:​266, pl. 57E; NEAEHL 4:1333), all belong to this group. The Tel Aviv statuette of the man, whose arms hang down beside his body is double faced. One side is represented en face, the obverse in profile (Kaplan 1973:​417, pl. 11b; h  originally probably ca. 12 cm). Although this two-faced statuette is unique, bifaced objects are not unknown in this period (ivories, goblets with feminine face). A → throne base with the feet of a sitting figure on the heads of two defeated enemies  – probably the lion-headed goddess Pachet (Herrmann 1994:​298, no. 284)  – was found in Tomb 80B of Megiddo (Guy 1938:​129, pl. 174:12) and Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928:​20, pl. 45:26; both h ca. 1.5 cm, originally ca. 15 cm). The female head of a pale green fc. from Ashdod (Dothan 1971:​130, fig. 65:5, pl. 58:6; h 5 cm, originally ca. 20 cm) and the Eg. skirt of a man from Samaria (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot/​Kenyon 1957:​ 391, pl. 26:6; h originally ca. 10 cm) may belong to this type. None of these statuettes is Eg. enough to be Eg. Some were excavated in Sidon and they are of Phoen. origin. Since more figurines come from Northern than from Southern Palestine, they must have been made in Phoenicia (Nunn 1996). One pale green plaquette of vitreous paste with a nude woman holding her breasts was excavated in Megiddo (Schumacher 1908:​63–64, fig. 79a). This type is typically Near Eastern in contrast to the above mentioned figurines (see Daviau 2015 for frit and fc. figurines in Transjordan). Among Eg. vessels only New Year bottles were imported. These lentoid-shaped flasks are typical for the 26th Dyn. and made either of blue fc. or of Eg. Blue. They bear a standardized inscription “Ra, Ptah, or Sekhmet opens a good year to it” which refers to the bottle and thus to the bottle’s owner. The spout is decorated with a lotus design and baboons often adorn the handles. Five fragments have been found in Ashdod VIII–VI, two of them with an inscription (Dothan 1971:​37, 170– 171, figs. 3:13–15, 86:6, pls. 11:7–8, 87:6), one possible find was made in Gezer (Macalister 1912b:​​337, pl. 211:14), and the neck and rim of a fc. flask was uncovered at Lehun north of Wadi Mujib/​Arnon (Homès-Frédéricq 1982). Simi-

lar in type is the flask of Megiddo, whose handles are delicately formed as ram heads (Stratum III or later, Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 76:7). New Kingdom Eg. patterned ribbed jars (Megiddo, Schumacher 1908:​90, fig. 134; Watzinger 1929:​32; no. 5, fig. 26; h 9 cm) and small bowls or chalices with lotus motifs were imitated till the 8th cent. (seven fragments in Megiddo, Schumacher 1908:​pl. 23 f; Watzinger 1929:​33–34; no. 6, figs. 27–28). Animal shaped vessels have a strong Western Asiat. tradition. Some types are mixed with Eg. characteristics like the lion holding a small vessel for perfume and unguents in his forepaws (three pale turquoise lions from Megiddo, Schumacher 1908:​88–89, figs. 128, 129–130; fig. 129 is 18.3 cm long, see also Busz/​Gercke 1999:​347– 348; no. 169; Watzinger 1929:​31–32, fig. 23). Vessels in the shape of a duck (two, Schumacher 1908:​89, fig. 131; Watzinger 1929:​31, 33, fig. 25), a dove (Schumacher 1908:​90, fig. 132), an ape (Schumacher 1908:​90, fig. 133; Watzinger 1929:​32, fig. 24, h 9 cm) and a lion’s head (Stratum  VA, Loud 1948:​pl. 246:30, 5.5 cm) are known from Megiddo. These Egyptianizing, but Levantine vessels were produced in Phoenicia or – theoretically possible – in Megiddo (Peltenburg 2002:​86, 91). A fine unguent bowl made of Eg. Blue was found in a house of Kinneret (Fritz 1990:​110–113). A  lion leans over it and embraces it with its paws. The bottom of the bowl is adorned with a relief in the shape of a hand with spread fingers. This object is Syr. and dates to the 8th cent. Small flasks of glazed clay, which may be of N Syr. origin, had a wide distribution in the Eastern Medit. White g. is filled in with green and brown g. (Peltenburg 1969). Two glazed clay bottles were recovered at Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad) along with fc. cosmetic vessels (Daviau/​Klassen 2014:​figs. 2:3, 6, 7, 8; 3:1, 2). The one found at Lachish could have been brought by the Assyrians after Sennacherib’s capture of the city (Tufnell 1953:​pl. 56:32, h 6.6 cm). Small items such as blue fc. beads or dice are scattered throughout Palestine (Dan, Biran 1994:​199, fig. 157, pl. 37). 4.3.–4.4.  Although the glazing technique has been perfectly mastered, only few objects beside amulets (Herrmann 2010) and scarabs can be dated to the Bab.-Pers. period. One of few fragments of glazed tiles found in Samaria shows a merlon pattern, which can be Achaemenid or somewhat later (Reisner/​Fischer/​Lyon 1924b:​ fig. 202:21). Its function has surely nothing in common with the LBA tiles. A small bowl with a lion-shaped spout from Tel Beer-Sheba is Ptolemaic (Aharoni 1973:​17, 55, pl. 25:5).

Glaze/s (g./gs.) and Faience/s (fc./fcs.)

371 

5.  Almost only vitreous materials and no stones were glazed. The artisans made at first beads and then later vessels such as bowls, cups, goblets with foot or lotiform chalices, pilgrim flasks, New Year bottles, animal-shaped vessels, buckets, jugs, and jars. Taller glazed items consist of statuettes and smaller of inlays, dice, and game pcs. as well as cylinder seals, scarabs, and amulets. Only some fc. beads and pendants in Megiddo are antecedent to the MBA. Local manufacture starts somewhere in Southern Palestine in the MBA as an offspring of Egypt. The LBA is the time of maximum Eg. faience imports to Asia. Afterwards, the interest in the art of glazing decreased and gained renewed importance at the end of the 9th cent. In comparison to Syria and Mesopotamia there are fewer types of glazed materials in Palestine. They have mostly been found in a rel. context and were votives, but some findings in residential context point to a domestic function. 6.  No bibl. term or reference to g. or fc. can be identified.

7.  Aharoni, Y. (ed.), 1973, Beer-Sheba 1, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 2, Tel Aviv ♦ Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., et al., 2004, Steatite Beads at Pequiʾin: Long Distance Trade and Pyro-technology during the Chalcolithic of the Levant, Journal of Archaeological Science 31:493–502 ♦ Ben-Tor, D., 2004, The Political Implications of the Early Scarab Series in Palestine, in: A. Nunn/​R. Schulz (eds.), Skarabäen außerhalb Ägyptens: Lokale Produktion oder Import?, BAR IS 1205, Oxford:​1–6 ♦ Biran, A., 1980, Two Discoveries at Tel Dan, IEJ 30:89–98 ♦ 1994, Biblical Dan, Jerusalem ♦ Busz, R./​Gercke, P., 1999, Türkis und Azur: Quarzkeramik in Orient und Okzident, Exhibition catalogue, Kassel ♦ Caubet, A./​Pierrat-Bonnefois, G. (eds.), 2005, Faïences de l’antiquité. De l’Égypte à l’Iran, Catalogue d’exposition, Paris ♦ Crowfoot, J. W./​Crowfoot, G. M./​ Kenyon, K. M., 1957, Samaria-Sebaste 3, London ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2015, In the Shadow of a Giant: Egyptian Influence in Transjordan during the Iron Age, in: T. P. Harrison et al. (eds.), Walls of the Prince (FS John S. Holladay Jr.), Leiden/​Boston:​234–273  ♦ Daviau, P. M. M./​Klassen, S., 2014, Conspicuous Consumption and Tribute: Assyrian Glazed Ceramic Bottles at Khirbat al-Mudayna on Wadi ath-Thamad, BASOR 372:115– 138 ♦ Dever, W. G., 1986a–b, The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, The “Acropolis” 1–2, Gezer 4, Jerusalem ♦ Dothan, M., 1971, Ashdod II–III, ʿAtiqot (ES) 9–10, Jerusalem  ♦ Elgavish, J., 1993, Shiqmona, NEAEHL 4:1373–1378 ♦ Fritz, V. (ed.), 1990, Kinneret: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell el-ʿOrēme am See Gennesaret 1982–1985, Wiesbaden ♦ Giveon, R., 1978, Two Unique Egyptian Inscriptions from Tel Aphek, TA 5:188–191  ♦ Gophna, R., 1993, A  Faience Statuette from ʿEn Besor, TA 20:29–32 ♦ Grops, F., forthcoming, Assyrische Quarzkeramik  – Definition, Funktion und Wert im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (working title), Mainz ♦ Guy, P. L. O., 1938, Megiddo Tombs, OIP 33, Chicago ♦ Hamilton, R. W., 1935, Excavations at Tell Abu Hawām, QDAP 4:1–69  ♦ Herrmann, C., 1994, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel, OBO 138, Fri-

372 bourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2002, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​Israel 2, OBO 184, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2003, Die ägyptischen Amulette der Sammlungen BIBEL+ORIENT der Universität Freiburg Schweiz, OBO.SA 22, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ 2006, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/​ Israel 3, OBO.SA 24, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 2010, Egyptian Faience Amulets, in: E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Jerusalem:​225–276  ♦ Higginbotham, C., 2000, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine, CHANE 2, Leiden et al.  ♦ Homès-Frédéricq, D., 1982, Un goulot de bouteille de Nouvel An trouvé à Lehun (Jordanie), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata 2:79– 90  ♦ James, F. W./​McGovern, P. E., 1993, The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII, Philadelphia ♦ Kaplan, J., 1973, Tel Aviv, RB 80:417–418 ♦ Keel, O., 1989, Die Ω-Gruppe: Ein mittelbronzezeitlicher Stempelsiegel-Typ mit erhabenem Relief aus Anatolien-Nordsyrien und Palästina, OBO 88:39–88 ♦ Kenyon, K. M./​Holland, T. A., 1983, Excavations at Jericho 5, London ♦ Lamon, R. S./​Shipton, G. M., 1939, Megiddo [I], OIP 42, Chicago ♦ Loud, G., 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago ♦ Macalister, R. A. S., 1912a–c, The Excavation of Gezer 1–3, London  ♦ Mallon, A./​Koeppel, R./​Neuville, R., 1934, Teleilāt Ghassūl 1, Rome  ♦ Matoïan, V./​Bouquillon, A., 2003, Vitrous Materials in Ugarit: New Data, in: T. Potts/​M. Roaf/​D. Stein (eds.), Culture through Objects (FS P. R. S. Moorey), Oxford:​333–346 ♦ Mazzoni, S., 1980, Essai d’interprétation de vases plastiques dans la Syrie du Bronze Moyen et Récent, AAAS 29– 30:237–252  ♦ Meehl, M. W./​Dothan, T./​Gitin, S., 2006, Tel Miqne-Ekron: Excavations 1995–1996. Field INE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), Jerusalem ♦ Moorey, R. S., 1999 (1994), Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Winona Lake  ♦ Nunn, A., 1996, Quelques statuettes égyptisantes de Sidon, in: H. Gasche/​B. Hrouda (eds.), Collectanea Orientalia (FS Agnès Spycket), Paris:​255–267  ♦ Oren, E., 1982, Ziglag: A  Biblical City on the Edge of the Negev, BA 45:155–166 ♦ 1993, Northern Sinai, NEAEHL 4:1386– 1396 ♦ Oren, E./​Netzer, E., 1974, Tel Seraʿ (Tell eshShariʿa), IEJ 24:264–266 ♦ Peltenburg, E. J., 1969, Al Mina Glazed Pottery and its Relations, Levant 1:73–96 ♦ 1972, On the Classification of Faience Vases from Late Bronze Age Cyprus, in: V. Karageorghis/​A. Christodoulou (eds.), Praktika tou protou Diethnous Kyprologikou Synedriou, Acts of the First International Congress of Cypriot Studies, Nicosia:​129–136  ♦ 1974, The Glazed Vases (Including a Polychrome Rhyton), in: V. Karageorghis, Kition 1, Nicosia:​105–143  ♦ 2002, East Mediterranean Faience, in: E.‑A. Braun-Holzin­ ger/​H. Matthäus (eds.), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Paderborn:​75–107  ♦ Petrie, W. M. F., 1928, Gerar, BSAE 43, London ♦ 1931, Ancient Gaza 1, London ♦ 1932, Ancient Gaza 2, London ♦ 1933, Ancient Gaza 3, London ♦ 1934, Ancient Gaza 4, London ♦ Petrie, W. M. F./​Mackay, E. J. H./​Murray, M. A., 1952, City of Shepherd Kings: Ancient Gaza 5, London ♦ Reisner, G. A./​Fischer, G. S./​Lyon, D. G., 1924a–b, Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass. ♦ Rothenberg, B., 1988, The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna, London ♦ Sagona, C., 1980, Middle Bronze Faience Vessels from Palestine, ZDPV 96:101–120 ♦ Salje, B., 1990, Der “common style” der Mitanni-Glyptik und die Glyptik der Levante und Zy-

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

373

374

perns in der Späten Bronzezeit, BaF 11, Mainz ♦ Schumacher, G., 1908, Tell el-Mutesellim 1, Leipzig ♦ Tufnell, O., 1953, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, London ♦ Tufnell, O./​Inge, C. H./​Harding, L., 1940, Lachish (Tell ed Duweir) 2, London ♦ Ussishkin, D., 1993, Lachish, NEAHL 3, 897–911 ♦ Watzinger, C., 1929, Tell el-Mutesellim 2, Leipzig ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1961, Hazor III–IV, Jerusalem. Astrid Nunn

or tools. Construction of → weapons, tools, adornments, or furniture used other binding agents like asphalt/bitumen, but in Palestine apparently not for the building of → houses. The ancient world also produced highly sophisticated gs. to create and preserve magnificent pcs. of art. 6.  The HB knows the verb dbk, though rarely used to mean “to adhere” (e. g., Job 38:38; 41:19; Isa 41:7). Regularly dbk functions as a relational expression among people (e. g., Gen 2:24; 34:3; Ruth 1:14). The HB often underlines the gravity of hardship or diseases by the root dbk (e. g., Pss 22:16; 119:25; Job 29:10; Dt 28:21; Gen 19:19). Esp. in dtr. literatures, dbk is used to express the close relation between YHWH and Israel (e. g., Dt 4:4; 10:20; 30:20; Josh 22:5).

Glue/s (g./gs.) 1.  G. is a non-metal adhesive substance. The term g. refers mainly to water-soluble adhesives, consisting of natural polymers (cellulose ether). G. functions as either a binding agent, for instance, in paint, or as an adhesive, though often both characteristics are necessary. G. was used throughout the entire ANE. 2.–3.  Gluten gs. are animal adhesives extracted from skins or bones (gluten g.); casein gs. derive from milk solids (→ dairy products). Natural adhesives include starch paste, dextrines, Arab. gum, collagen, natural → resin, or rubber latex. 4.  The first use of g. dates back at least 45,000 years ago, but not in the bibl. world. Neanderthals in Europe utilized birch bark as an adhesive during the Middle Paleolithic Age. Ca. 4,000 b.c.e. the adhesive function of → asphalt was used for constructional (→ construction technique) purposes in Babylonia. The Sumerians produced animal g. (Sum. še.gín, Akkad. šimtum) ca. 3,000 b.c.e. → Furniture found in the → tombs of the Vizier Rekhmire of Thebes (ca. 1475 b.c.e.) or Tutankhamun (d.  1323 b.c.e.) proves the use of g. made from skin (casein g.) in New Kingdom Egypt. Mixed with plaster, the Egyptians often used casein g. as wall plaster, for mummy → masks or coffins. Natural rubber from the Acacia Arabica tree was used with bandages in Egypt for embalming bodies (Hdt. 2.86). G authors describe the use of lime-twigs (twigs smeared with birdlime) for hunting (→ hunt) birds (e. g., Garzya 1963:​39). The oldest g. of the bibl. world, carbon dated to 8,310–8,110 CAL BP (Nissenbaum 1996), was excavated in 1983 in a cave at Nahal Hemar near the Dead Sea. Archaeologists found several objects like → rope, → baskets, containers, embroidered → fabrics (→ clothes), and human skulls covered with collagen, a fibrous protein from skin, sinews, and cartilage. This special g. provided a waterproof protective lining and made crisscross designs on human skulls. Additionally → tools and utensils were found glued together by this natural adhesive. The Neolithic craftsmen of Nahal Hemar supplemented the g. with plant-tissue additives, evidently in order to endow the g. with the appropriate texture. In later periods g. was used widely in Palestine as adhesive for furniture

7.  Böhr, E., 1992, Vogelfang mit Leim und Kauz, AA 4:573–583 ♦ Dalman, G., 1942, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina 7, SDPI 10, Gütersloh  ♦ Darrow, F. L., 1930, The Story of Ancient Art, Landsdale ♦ Garzya, A. (ed.), 1963, Dionysii Ixeuticon seu De aucupio libri tres: In epitomen metro solutam redacti, BSGRT, Leipzig  ♦ Lucas, A., 41989, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, London ♦ Moorey, P. R. S., 1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Oxford ♦ Nissenbaum, A., 1996, 8000-Year-Old Collagen from an Israeli Cave, Archaeology and Natural Science 5:5–9 ♦ Skeist, I. (ed.), 31990, Handbook of Adhesives, New York. Johannes Klemm

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.) 1.  In ancient cultures, hss., along with clothing (→ clothes), served as distinguishing markers for sexual, ethnic, or social affiliation. Although basically traditional, they were also subject to fashion or personal predilections. Men’s and women’s hss. are not clearly distinguished in every era. Thus, in the seal art of MB IIB, men and women are often shown to wear very similar shoulderlength hair. There is, to date, no research about how much hs. depictions might characterize age groups (see Sweeney/​Yasur-Landau 1999). The relationship between hs. and particular phases in life such as pregnancy, periods of vow, or periods of mourning is tangible in bibl. texts, while it is not too obvious in depictions. The rule of thumb for hs. is the same as for clothing: the longer and more artful, the more the wearer belongs to welloff social circles exempting themselves from physical labor. House- and fieldwork demanded shortcut or braided hair or the taming of hair by means of cloths, nets, or ribbons. Besides arch. finds of hairdressing items such as combs, hairpins, → mirrors, and blades or knives, which were used, among other functions, to shave beards and to cut hair, as well as rarer finds of preserved hair on skeletons (braids in a grave of MB IIB from Jericho; Kenyon 1965:​366, and from

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

375 

Rom. times, see Yadin 1966:​56, 196), there are mainly iconogr. documents from Palestine/​Israel or the surrounding cultures which reveal how not only people, but also deities wore their hair and how men wore their beards. Terracotta figurines (→ idol), → seals, drawings on ceramics, and rare → ivory or bronze → sculptures display depictions of hs. Frequently though, the depictions are very schematic or stylized so that no more than a rough classification (bald, short-haired, long-haired, braided etc.) is possible. Plastic works offering a frontal view as well as a detailed view from the rear are rather rare. Depictions of human heads in profile feature on virtually all kinds of depictions in two-dimensional art. The perspectivefree art of pre-Hell. times makes it more difficult to reconstruct the hs. on display. Some hss. are at times covered partly or completely with scarves, veils, or other means of headgear (Zwickel 2008); sometimes, hair and headgear are not easy to tell apart. Occasionally, wigs are on display (small ivory head from Megiddo, 13th/12th cent. b.c.e., with curls, Dayagi-Mendels 1989:​73; small faience head from Yoqneam, NEAEHL 3:807). Ambiguous depictions are not included in the following. 2.  Compared to the numerous, often practical and singular versions of women’s hss. which are presented in the artwork of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Phoenicia (many examples in 2BRL:129 ff), the typology for Palestine/​Israel is, on the whole, less elaborated. 2.1.  Men’s hss. and styles of beards in the Southern Levant up to the LBA can be distinguished for upper class men who often display short hair and no beard, following Eg. tradition. There is, however, a preponderance of local as well as foreign depictions of a chin beard or goatee of short to medium length, with or without a small mustache. A full beard becomes frequent only in NeoAss. times and later. The hair is of medium length more often than not, without curls, and is kept in place with a headband or scarf, while braids disappear after the MBA (Negbi 1976:​nos. 83, 88; IPIAO 2:figs. 265–266). Hss. and beards of deities depend on many types and are related to Eg. and Near Eastern influences or origins. The LBA metallic figurines (Negbi 1976) display a majority of beardless types. It is characteristic for the entire Levant that the weather god sports a long hanging braid (or band?). 2.2.  Criteria of distinction of hss. of women and goddesses are length of hair, parting, curled, or braided hair; mixed types are frequent and thus classification is frequently tricky. Long hair is present in all periods, short-hair styles are regular only from Iron Age IIB (Judean pillar figurines)

376

onwards. Pinned-up hss. appear with more frequency as late as Hell.-Rom. times. 3.  Combs, trimming knives, and other utensils were used to style hair. Combs (→ medical instruments), made of wood or bone, are in evidence since 8,000 b.c.e. (wooden comb from Wadi Murabbaat in the Judean Desert, Schick 1995), one from the PNA site WT–40 (Umm Meshrat) on Wadi ath-Thamad, Jordan (Foley/​Foley 2008:​ fig. 42), and one MB IIB comb from Jericho (Kenyon 1960:​figs. 134, 221). Most of the ivory combs of LB IIB or Iron Age I (Gachet-Bizollon 2007:​ 39–40) are toothed on both sides, with rectangular form, maximum breadth or height is approximately 8–9 cm. Nine, of which eight are double combs, are from Megiddo, one with ornamental carvings (Loud 1939:​pl. 17:110b; see also → fig. Ivory #1:5, col. 547); another from BethShean and a third from Lachish, are very similar to combs from Cyprus, Ugarit, and Minet el-Beida. A  decorated ivory comb is from a 12th–11th cent. grave (Gezer, tomb 59; Macalister 1912c:​pl. 84:24), three more and a fragment from cist grave 46 at Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, 12th cent. (Tubb 1988:​fig. 48A:5–7), and one from Timna (Rothenberg 1972:​fig. 96). Decorated specimens have been found in Ekron (Ben Shlomo/​Dothan 2006:​21, fig. 14:3 → fig. Hairstyle #3, col. 386). An ivory comb decorated with hunting scenes from Ashkelon is from the Achaemenid period (NEAEHL 1:109; in color). Wooden combs with one thick and one thin row of teeth are in evidence up to Rom. times (from the Jericho region, Dayagi-Mendels 1989:​78; ʿEin Hazeva, Cohen/​ Yisrael 1995:​32; the Dead Sea caves, Aharoni 1961:​pl. 8D; Avigad 1961:​pl. 3B:7; 1962:​ pls.19A:1–2; 26C–D). Knives with iron blades (2BRL:218–219) were used, among other things, for cutting and trimming of hair and beards (Tell Qasile, Mazar 1975:​78, pl. 7B; see the Eg. utensils in Schoske et al. 1990:​nos. 93–97, New Kingdom; others without origins and dates in Dayagi-Mendels 1989:​74–75; listings in Bloch-Smith 1992:​ 90–91). Furthermore, tools for curling may have been used (2BRL:131). A  small girl wore a hair clasp/barrette in a 13th–12th cent. grave at Tell es-Saʿidiyeh (Tubb 1988:​74; no. 27:5). Five ivory hairpins are in evidence in EBA and MBA Megiddo (Loud 1948:​pl. 201:1, 3–5), one from the same find spot from the LBA (Guy 1938:​pl. 157:18; see similar from Ugarit, Gachet-Bizollon 2007:​cat. 12–16, and from Cyprus). 4.1.  Hairstyles from an outside perspective: People living in, or originating from, Palestine/​Israel (Aamu, Shasu, Philistines) or nearby regions appear on Eg., Ass., and Pers. depictions. The depictions of Aamu nomads from Beni Hasan (Newber-

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

377

378

ry 1893:​pls. 28, 30–31; Bresciani et al. 1995:​ tab. 26–28; ANEP:3), 12th Dyn., show the men with approximately shoulder-length full head of hair as well as a short goatee. The children have short straight-cut hair in the back. The women wear their hair falling on their backs, similar to Eg. women, with only a ribbon around their heads to tame their full hair. In the entire New Kingdom, in scenes depicting the Pharaoh’s victorious war campaigns, foreigners are distinguished by their hs. and clothing (Nubians, Libyans, Asians), whereas the Canaanites, who are not clearly distinguishable from the Syrians, are marked by the ribbon holding their neck-long hair and their pointed goatee (see also Bresciani/​Donadoni 1995:​109–113 tab. 155–159 with material from the tomb of Sethos I, 19th Dyn.). There are, however, also short hss. and full beards, which may not refer to ethnic differences, but to differences in age (see examples in ANEP:43–56). Colored tiles from the LBA depict Canaan. chiefs with shoulderlength hair and headbands knotted in the back, without mustaches, with small, slightly trimmed chin beards (→ fig. Hairstyle #1:1, col. 379). The Syr. soldier on a stela in Berlin (19th Dyn., probably from el-Amarna) also wears the typical headband, but a full beard, while his wife’s clothing and hs. is entirely that of an Eg. woman (Haring 2005:​168–169, fig. 2); see also the head of a Canaan. city subjugated by Ramses II, while on the city walls, the men often appear bareheaded or with very short hair (Keel 1996:​fig. 132a; see both kinds of men’s hair also on tribute bearers in tombs from Thebes, e. g., Keel 1996:​fig. 408). Shasu nomads (Staubli 1991:​figs. 24a–48) wear a goatee and a full head of hair combed to the back which, by wearing a headscarf, almost resembles the arrangement of a turban (→ fig. Hairstyle #1:2, col. 379). The Sea Peoples on the reliefs of Ramses III in Medinet Habu are shown beardless with brush-like upright heads of hair (ANEP:57; Staubli 1991:​fig. 46b–c) while the women’s hs. might refer to their origins in Syria or the Aegean (Sweeney/​Yasur-Landau 1999). Depictions from the Late Cypriot or early Iron Age from Enkomi of Philistines, such as on a jewelry box from a tomb, show one of them bringing up the rear behind a hunting company in a carriage (→ fig. Hairstyle #1:3, col. 379; see also a seal from Enkomi, Weippert 1988:​369, fig. 4.3:3). Neo-Ass. reliefs also distinguish ethnicities, but the distinguishing marks of certain peoples seem historically unreliable (Collon 2005; see Wäfler 1975; Güngör 1979). Men from the S coast area are often depicted with curly full beards and with neck-long and equally curly heads of hair which is held only rarely by a ribbon (Wäfler 1975:​

figs. 3–13; a kneeling Judean on the Lachish reliefs sport a very short curly hs., ANEP:371). Other Judeans on the Lachish reliefs are depicted with curly full beards and a very short curly hairstyle (ANEP:371), while soldiers have heads of hair covered by artfully wrapped headscarves, the ends of which hang down scarf-like on both sides (Wäfler 1975:​figs. 14–29). The women wear long wraps under which their hair is covered (Wäfler 1975:​fig. 30). On the Black Obelisk, Jehu and some tribute bearers are depicted with Isr. hs. and clothing that are certainly not authentic (Keel/​Uehlinger 1994). Among the peoples on the Eastern side of the Apadana of Persepolis, the bearded Syr. emissaries are marked by turban-like headgear with neck-long curly hs. (Koch 1992:​tab. 13, fig. 61); precise ethnic differentiations by their hs., however, are impossible (see Walser 1966). 4.2.  Self-depictions in the pictorial art of Palestine/​Israel appear in the flat pictorial art (ivory, → pottery, glyptics) as well as in the round pictorial art (metal figurines, ivory, terracotta), where details of the hs. of locals as well as of foreigners can be detected. Gods and goddesses are sometimes marked by particular hss., esp. on stelae as pictorial media. An actual typology can only be construed for the much more numerous women’s depictions, which are mostly terracotta. 4.2.1.  In men’s hss. and styles of beard during MB IIB, esp. in Ancient Syr. glyptic, rulers are frequently depicted without beards, and almost always so in that of Palestine. The rulers wear either very short or shoulder-length hair (Schroer 1985:​figs. 32–42, 45, 48, 54–55, 63, 66). From the LBA onwards, beardlessness is a strong hint at Eg. influence, while the short or medium-length chin beard is a local custom. In the courtly Ugarit ivory art, there are men with Eg. and ANE clothing and hs. side by side (Yon 1997:​146–147; nos. 21a–b). The victory celebrations of a Canaan. city ruler on an ivory inlay (→ fig. Throne #1:1, col. 969) depicts him in his carriage and on his throne with a very short, almost cap-like hs. and a short chin beard. His servants at court have the same hs. and the same kind of beard, the soldiers and squires reveal a somewhat fuller and curlier hs., but only to shoulder-length and without ribbons. The naked prisoners, probably Shasu, are marked by chin beards and pinned-up, bound hs. The first lady wears a polos with a wrap hanging down while a court musician wears her hair openly falling onto her back. Egyptianizing ivory panels from Megiddo (Loud 1939:​pl. 32:160; GGIG:fig. 65) as well as hunting and banquet scenes from Tell el-Farah (S) (Petrie 1930:​pl. 55; GGIG:figs. 68a–b) depict beardless men with mostly shorter hs. (wavy

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

379 

380

1

2

3

4

5 Figure Hairstyle #1: 1) Egyptian faience tile (LBA); 2) Fragment of a glazed brick from Medinet Habu (LBA/Iron Age I); 3) Detail of an ivory box from Enkomi (LBA/Iron Age I); 4) Fragment of a ceramic stand from Jerusalem (Iron Age II); 5) Painted pottery fragment from Megiddo (LBA).

hair); the shoulder-length hair of an enthroned man resembles a wig. 4.2.2.  From the Iron Age onwards, ceramics are the more important pictorial medium. The war-

riors in patterned clothes and with shield and → weapons (→ fig. Hairstyle #1:5) have chin beards or full beards and their neck-long hair looks unkempt. On the other hand, the bearded musician

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

381

382

on a jug from Megiddo, 11th cent., looks bald (GGIG:fig. 149c). Two small terracotta heads from the temple of Tel Mozah depict bearded men with a flat hat or headgear from which shoulder long ringlets fall down to the back (Kisilewitz 2015:​ fig. 5). The bearded man with a pinned-up wild head of hair in → fig. Hairstyle #1:4, col. 379 is most likely a Shasu. In the sketchily drawn worship procession on Pithos B from Kuntillet ʿAjrud, genders are hard to determine, all the depicted persons are beardless. All of them wear brush-like, somewhat wild hair without bands or cover, one person has long hair in the back (Beck 2012:​figs. 6:25–26). A  small terracotta head from Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad) in 8th cent. Moab depicts a bearded man with curly shoulder-length hair which seems to be kept in place by a headband (Bossert 1951:​nos. 1092–1093). See GGIG:figs. 347 f, 348, with profile depictions of enthroned persons from Ramat Rahel and ʿEin Gedi (around 600 b.c.e.) as well as one bearded and one beardless man among the terracotta figures from ʿEin Hazeva (late 7th cent.; GGIG:figs. 405a, c). Usually, men are depicted with full beards or chin beards until Hell. times (Dayagi-Mendels 1989:​80; Stern et al. 1995:​fig. 7.9:1; Crowfoot et al. 1957:​pl. 13:1, 6; Gersht 1996:​figs. 1–5). Images on LBA or early Iron Age seals show a beardless Philist. chief with a pinned-up head of hair before the ram-headed Amun (Tell elFarah [S], 1300–1000, GGIG:fig. 129) and a bearded Shasu (Akhziv, 1200–900, Keel 1997:​ 52–53; no. 90). In Neo-Ass., Neo-Bab., and Pers. times, the glyptic reflects the cultural dominance of each epoch. Gods, kings, and admirers are mostly full-bearded and with shoulderlength hair, often styled into a lock (examples: GGIG:figs. 287, 305a–306b, 312a, 337a–b, 346, 360b, 367a–c). 4.3.1.  Divine hairstyles (male). Temple locks in rulers’ depictions are present for Jordan and Syria in stone → sculpture and relief art (ANEP:64, 281, 460), but not for Palestine/​Israel. As far as details can be made out, gods wear beards and mostly short hair. Weather gods are depicted throughout the centuries with a long braid (or band) falling down their backs. Hanging bands can also be found among depictions of the goddess Anat in the LBA (GGIG:figs. 107, 109). Under Ass. influence, in the glyptics, moon gods have curly hair and full beards, as do their worshippers (GGIG:figs. 305a, 306b, 311a–312a; GGIG:fig. 385c), as well as the blessing god on the Tridacna shells from Arad and Bethlehem (GGIG:fig. 337a–b). A full beard is typical for the presentation of G heros and gods like Heracles and Zeus in Hell. and Rom. times (Erlich/​Kloner 2008:​nos. 11–12).

4.3.2.  Divine hairstyle (female). A distinction between woman and goddess is impossible, esp. as far as the many erotic terracotta figurines are concerned (see Winter 1987). Shoulder-length or longer hair and the so-called “Hathor hairstyle” with curly side locks are in evidence from MB IIB onwards (Schroer 1987:​esp. 174–185). Ancient Syr. cylinder → seals depict the naked goddess with artful hair, together with pinned-up hairpieces and → jewelry (Winter 1987:​figs. 132– 133, 135, 269 ff, 301, 304; see also the terracotta pcs. in Keel/​Schroer 2006:​nos. 42–45). From the LBA onwards, a number of depictions of hss. with various modifications are widespread (see Cornelius 2007). As far as different media allow for comparison, women’s hss. are shorter during the Iron Age than in preceding epochs. a)  One style shows a braid down the back: on a scarab from Megiddo (18th/17th cent.), the ruler’s partner is depicted with a braid (Loud 1948:​pl. 149:52; see the metal figurines in Negbi 1976:​nos. 1550–1551, 1555–1556, and with three braids, no. 1563). The lady with polos and hanging cloth on the Megiddo ivory has her hair artfully woven into a braid (Loud 1939:​pl. 39:175). In a group of LBA female terracottas, one is presenting her breasts, and seemingly has a braid underneath her striped polos and a kind of ponytail down her back (Keel/​Schroer 2006:​no. 104, with indications for parallels; Cornelius 2007:​ pl. 25:1–2). This hs. is courtly and may have been locally fashionable. b)  Unparted long, loose (not curly) hair, combed flat, falling down the back or the front, ending in small braids or corkscrew curls, is a second recognizable style; for instance, female lyre player on Megiddo → ivory (see → fig. Throne #1:1, col. 969); flat cut ends, Megiddo ivory plate, both LBA; frontally nude woman (Eg. posture), terracotta plaque from Deir el-Balah, 13th cent. b.c.e. (GGIG:fig. 123; see Tadmor 1982:​pls. 3, 5); terracotta plaque from Tell Qarnayim, Qudshu on horseback, LBA (GGIG:fig. 72); female terracotta drummers, 7th cent., from Akhziv (Dayagi-Mendels 2002:​146, fig. 7:2) and other places (Dayagi-Mendels 2002:​146, fig. 7:1–3); there are variants with braided hairpieces, Tel Shiqmona, 9th and 8th cent. b.c.e. (Paz 2007:​444, figs. 2, 4, 5), one of the terracotta figurines from ʿEin Hazeva (GGIG:fig. 405b). A  singular terracotta figurine from Mareshah reveals loose hair in Hell. times (Bliss/​Macalister 1902:​139, pl. 70:15 = Winter 1987:​fig. 320). Phoen. terracotta figurines of pregnant women from Neo-Bab. and Pers. times, found in Akhziv and numerous other places (see lit. at Keel/​Schroer 2006:​nos. 201–203), wear a cloth scarf revealing only the hairline.

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

383 

384

2

1

3

4 Figure Hairstyle #2: 1) Judean pillar figurine from Lachish (Iron Age II; height: 15 cm); 2) Head of a Judean pillar figurine (Iron Age II; height: 7 cm); 3) Gold pendant from Tell el-ʿAjjul (MB II/LB I; height: 7.9 cm); 4) Ivory plaque from Samaria (Iron Age II; height: 3.6 cm).

c)  Shoulder-length curly hair, always parted with hair locks swinging outwards (so-called “Hathor hairstyle”), was fashionable from MB IIB onwards and esp. in the LBA, wherein the artfully curled locks can also be held in place by a ribbon or braid: metallic pendant with the goddess’ head → fig. Hairstyle #2:3 (see Keel 1986:​figs. 96 f, 97a), terracotta figurines with the goddess holding plants (Lachish, Akko: GGIG:figs. 69–70; Tell Beit Mirsim: Albright 1938:​122, pls. 26:1; 27:1 = Keel/​Schroer 2006:​no. 106) or naked and presenting her breasts (Macalister 1912b:​ fig. 500); cosmetic ivory spoon, LBA (Yadin et al.

1989:​pl. 323:1–3). Artful hss. such as those of Qudshu can be taken as a variation (gold foil from Lachish, Clamer 1980:​153, fig. 1 = GGIG:fig. 71). An example from Pers. times can be found on a drachm from Yehud from the early 4th cent. b.c.e. showing a female head in frontal view (Gitler 2011:​figs. 5–7). Another variation of the Hathor hs. is the parted, very long, combed flat hair ending in a curl on a figurine from Revadim (GGIG:fig. 82; Beck 1986:​pl. 12:1). d)  In shoulder-length hair without parting, the ears are visibly free and uncovered by hair, length varies and sometimes is only neck-long: terra-

385

cotta figurine of a female lyre player from BethShean from the LBA, from under whose polos the flatly combed hair falls (Winter 1987:​fig. 251; see also, fig. 55); somewhat more full hair on the Astarte plaques (GGIG:figs. 121a–b, 122a), a woman lying on the bed, from Deir el-Balah, Iron Age I  (Keel/​Schroer 2006:​no. 119) and female drummers from LBA onwards (Kletter 1996:​89, fig. 7) as well as naked women on temple models (see Schroer 2007:​figs. 4–5, 7–8, 10). In some cases, those parts of hair hanging down seem curled or braided: terracotta figurines from Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1938:​pl. 26:3, 5; Winter 1987:​figs. 39, 47), ʿEin Hazeva (Cohen/​Yisrael 1995:​24 left), Tel Harasim (Cornelius 2007:​ fig. 15). Generally, unparted hair of this type can also be found in the Iron Age, see the terracotta plaques from Tel Zeror (Winter 1987:​fig. 28) and from Tell Beit Mirsim, Iron Age I (Winter 1987:​ fig. 45); see also Keel/​Schroer 2006:​no. 158; from the 8th cent. b.c.e. several models from Tel Batash (Kelm/​Mazar 1995:​88, figs.  C31– 33; Mazar/​Panitz-Cohen 2001:​photos 132– 135; GGIG:figs. 217b–c) and clay stamp from Ramat Rahel, around 700 b.c.e. (Aharoni 1962:​ pl. 25:2–5 = GGIG:fig. 332); small head from Deir ʿAlla (NEAEHL 1:342). The female figurines from Horvat Qitmit wear shoulder-length, straight falling hair. Terracotta figurines from the coastal area and the Northern Levant reveal women’s heads with hair that is combed straight on the sides or hints at curls falling on their shoulders (Kletter 1996:​89, fig. 7). Various hss. (local and Eg.), both curled and straight are also represented at WT-13 in Moab (Daviau 2001; 2017). e)  The women in the window of the Phoen.Syr. → ivory plaques of the 9th–8th cent. b.c.e. wear artfully curled, wig-like shoulder-length hair, frequently with jewelry on their foreheads (Winter 1987:​figs. 307–308, 311–312). On the known specimen from Samaria, the curly head is not executed in its last detail (→ fig. Hairstyle #2:4, col. 383), see also the limestone heads from Amman, 7th cent. b.c.e. (Bretschneider 1991:​ fig. 100 = Schroer 2007:​441, fig. 22). f)  Short hair with curls (→ fig. Hairstyle #2:1–2, col. 383; → fig. Idol #8:3, col. 516) is typical of the Judean pillar figurines (Kletter 1996; cf. → map Scales #1, col. 809) of the 8th–7th cent. b.c.e., wherein the hair seems to be braided or tightly curled close to the head (Albright 1943:​pl. 31; McCown 1947:​pl. 85; Ariel/de Groot 1996:​ 113, fig. 11; Kletter 1996:​88, fig. 6; Aharoni 1973:​pl. 27:4–9; Tufnell 1953:​pl. 31). The stern rows of locks, mostly three to four on each side and three to four covering the forehead, but sometimes more (Keel/​Schroer 22006:​nos. 161–169),

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

386

1

0

2 cm

2

Figure Hairstyle #3: 1–2) Decorated ivory combs from Ekron (Iron Age II).

remind one of the “dreadlocks,” braided or curled braids woven tightly to the head, of the modern afro hs. Since elaborate hs. and wig-making from Egypt is well documented in the form of arch. remains as well as in the form of excavated mummies and depictions and also mentioned in texts (Schoske et al. 1990:​21–24; Fletcher 2000), comparable technical skills in Palestine/​Israel can generally be expected. Pearls or threads might also have been woven into the hair (see the wig rings in Schoske et al. 1990:​no. 84, New Kingdom) and hairpins, which are in evidence in Egypt as early as the 4th cent. b.c.e. up until Rom. times (Günkel 2004), may have been in use in the Levant. 4.4.  In Hell.-Rom. times, busts and terracotta figurines with the typical hs. of the G and Rom. worlds are widespread (Ben-Tor 1996:​photo 11:3, female head 3; Crowfoot et al. 1957:​ pl. 14:1; Dayagi-Mendels 1989:​81, 84–85; Erlich/​Kloner 2008:​no. 96; Gersht 1996:​figs. 14– 18; Stern et al. 1995:​fig. 7:4). The local women hardly ever wore such elaborate hair. Goddesses have typical hss. like Aphrodite Anadymene with

Hairstyle/s (hs./hss.)

387 

her loose hair (Erlich/​Kloner 2008:​no 16; Winter 21987:​fig. 320). 6.  Details about daily hair care, maintenance of hss., or the trimming of beards are hard to obtain from bibl. sources. Mentioned are particular situations such as the shearing of the heads or beards in times of mourning, the refusal of having one’s hair cut during the Nazirite vow. Full heads of hair were the pride of men as well as of women. Absalom’s beauty is founded, among other things, in his head of hair (2 Sam 14:28). Young men (Cant 5:2) wear curly hair (qewuṣṣot). The female lover’s flowing black hair in Cant 4:1; 6:5 is free, as the association with the herd of goats reveals (flowing purple locks rahaṭim in Cant 7:5; see Keel 1986:​esp. 220). Hebr. maḥlapot (Judg 16:13, 19) might refer to braids. The hapax legomenon miqešah in Isa 3:24 could refer to artfully braided hair or artificial curls. The use of (scented) oil and beeswax (→ apiculture) for hairstyling is an easy conclusion; at least the greasing of hair and beard is in evidence (see Ps 133:2). Full beard zaqan and mustache sapam are distinguished. 7.  Aharoni, Y., 1961, Expedition B, IEJ 11:11–24  ♦ 1973, Beer-Sheba 1, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 2, Tel Aviv ♦ Aharoni, Y., et al., 1962, Excavations at Ramat Raḥel: Seasons 1959 and 1960, Serie archeologica 5, Rome ♦ Albright, W. F., 1938, The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim 2, AASOR 17, New Haven ♦ 1943, The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim 3, AASOR 21/22, New Haven ♦ Ariel, D. T./de Groot, A., 1996, Various Reports, Excavations at the City of David 4, Qedem 35, Jerusalem ♦ Avigad, N., 1961, Expedition A, IEJ 11:6–10 ♦ 1962, Expedition A  – Nahal David, IEJ 12:169–183  ♦ Avigad, N./​Sass, B., 1997, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem ♦ Barnett, R. D., 1982, Ancient Ivories in the Middle East and Adjacent Countries, Qedem 14, Jerusalem  ♦ Beck, P., 1986, A New Type of Female Figurine, in: M. Kelly-Buccellati (ed.), Insight through Images (FS Edith Porada), BM 21, Malibu:​29–34 ♦ 2012, The Drawings and Decorative Designs, in: Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman), Jerusalem:​143–203  ♦ Ben-Shlomo, D./​Dothan, T., 2006, Ivories from Philistia: Filling the Iron Age Gap, IEJ 56:1–38 ♦ Ben-Tor, A., 1996, Yoqneʿam 1, Qedem Reports 3, Jerusalem ♦ Bliss, F. J./​Macalister, R. A. S., 1902, Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900, London ♦ Bloch-Smith, E., 1992, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOT.S 123, Sheffield ♦ Bossert, H. T., 1951, Altsyrien: Kunst und Handwerk in Cypern, Syrien, Palästina, Transjordanien und Arabien, Tübingen ♦ Bresciani, E., et al., 1995, Bilderwelten und Weltbilder der Pharaonen, Mainz ♦ Bret­ schnei­der, J., 1991, Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das 1.  Jahrtausend, AOAT 229, Kevelaer/​NeukirchenVluyn ♦ Clamer, C., 1980, A Gold Plaque from Tel Lachish, TA 7:152–162 ♦ Cohen, R./​Yisrael, Y., 1995, On the Road to Edom, Israel Museum’s Catalogue 370, Jerusalem ♦ Collon, D., 2005, Examples of Ethnic Diversity on Assyrian Reliefs, in: W. H. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity

388 in Ancient Mesopotamia, Leiden:​66–77 ♦ Cornelius, I., 2007, The Headgear and Hairstyles of pre-Persian Palestinian Female Plaque Figurines, in: S. Bickel et al. (eds.), Bilder als Quellen – Images as Sources (FS Othmar Keel), OBO Special Vol., Fribourg/​Göttingen:​237– 252 ♦ 22008 (2004), The Many Faces of the Goddess, OBO 204, Fribourg/​Göttingen 2004 ♦ Crowfoot, J. W./​ Crowfoot, G. M., 1938, Early Ivories from Samaria, Samaria-Sebaste 2, London  ♦ Crowfoot, J. W., et al., 1957, Samaria-Sebaste, vol. 3: The Objects from Samaria, London ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 2001, New Light on Iron Age Religious Iconography, The Evidence from Moab, in: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Jordan 7, Amman:​317–326 ♦ 2017, A  Wayside Shrine in Northern Moab, Wadi ath-Thamad Project 1, Oxford ♦ Dayagi-Mendels, M., 1989, Perfumes and Cosmetics in the Ancient World, Jerusalem ♦ 2002, The Akhziv Cemeteries, IAA Reports 15, Jerusalem ♦ Erlich, A./​Kloner, A., 2008, Maresha Excavations Final Report, Vol. 2, IAA Reports 35, Jerusalem ♦ Fletcher, J., 2000, Hair, in: P. T. Nicholson/​I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge, U. K., et al.:495– 501 ♦ Foley, C. M./​Foley, L., 2008, An Early Pottery Neolithic Site  – Excavation at Umm Meshrat, in: P. M. M. Daviau et al., Preliminary Report of Excavations and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna ath-Thamad and in its Surroundings (2004, 2006 and 2007), ADAJ 52:343–374 ♦ Gachet-Bizollon, J., 2007, Les ivoires d’Ougarit et l’art des ivoiriers du Levant au Bronze Récent, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 16, Paris ♦ Gersht, R., 1996, Three Greek and Roman Portrait Statues from Caesarea Maritima, ʿAtiqot 28:99–113  ♦ Gitler, H., 2011, The Earliest Coin from Judah, Israel Numismatic Research 6:21–33  ♦ Güngör, M., 1979, Altorientalische Haartrachten in neuassyrischer Zeit, Berlin  ♦ Günkel, U., 2004, Haarnadeln, in: H. Froschauer/​H. Harrauer (eds.), “… und will schön sein”: Schmuck und Kosmetik im spätantiken Ägypten, Nilus 9, Vienna:​19–25 ♦ Guy, P. L. O., 1938, Megiddo Tombs, OIP 33, Chicago ♦ Haring, B. J. J., 2005, Occupation: Foreigner, in: W. H. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, Leiden:​ 162–172 ♦ Keel, O., 1984, Deine Blicke sind Tauben, SBS 114/115, Stuttgart ♦ 1986, Das Hohelied, ZBK.AT 18, Zurich ♦ 51996 (1972), Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament, NeukirchenVluyn/​Zurich 1972 ♦ 1997, Corpus der StempelsiegelAmulette aus Palästina/​Israel 1, OBO.SA 13, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ Keel, O./​Schroer, S., 22006, Eva – Mutter alles Lebendigen, Fribourg ♦ Keel, O./​Uehlinger, C., 1994, Der Assyrerkönig Salmanassar III. und Jehu von Israel auf dem Schwarzen Obelisken aus Nimrud, ZKTh 116:391–420 ♦ Kelm, G. L./​Mazar, A., 1995, Timnah, Winona Lake ♦ Kenyon, K. M., 1960, Excavations at Jericho 1, Jerusalem/​London ♦ 1965, Excavations at Jericho 2, Jerusalem/​London ♦ Kisilewitz, S., 2015, The Iron IIA Judahite Temple at Tel Moza, TA 42:147–164 ♦ Kletter, R., 1996, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah, BAR IS 636, London ♦ Koch, H., 1992, Es kündet Dareios der König …, Mainz  ♦ Krause, J. H., 1858, Plotina oder die Kostüme des Haupthaares bei den Völkern der alten Welt mit Berücksichtigung einiger Kostüme neuerer Völker in kosmetischer, ästhetischer und artistischer Beziehung, Leipzig ♦ Loud, G., 1939, The Megiddo Ivories, OIP 52, Chicago ♦ 1948, Megiddo II, OIP 62, Chicago  ♦ Mac­alister, R. A. S., 1912a–c, The Excavation of Gezer 1–3, London ♦

Horse/s (h./hs.) and Horse Care

389

390

Mackay, E. J. H./​Murray, M. A., 1952, Ancient Gaza V, BSAE 64, London ♦ Mazar, A., 1975, Excavations at Tell Qasîle 1973–1974, IEJ 25:77–88 ♦ Mazar, A./​Panitz-Cohen, N., 2001, The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, Timnah/​Tel Batash Final Reports 2, Qedem 42, Jerusalem  ♦ McCown, C. C., 1947, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Vol. 1, Berkeley/​New Haven  ♦ Mötefindt, H., 1923, Zur Geschichte der Barttracht im Alten Orient, Klio 19:1–61 ♦ Negbi, O., 1976, Canaanite Gods in Metal, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 5, Tel Aviv ♦ Newberry, P. E., 1893, Beni Hasan 1, London ♦ Paz, S., 2007, Drums, Women, and Goddesses: Drumming and Gender in Iron Age II Israel, OBO 232, Fribourg/​Göttingen  ♦ Rothenberg, B., 1972, Timna, London  ♦ Schick, T., 1995, A 10,000 Year Old Comb from Wadi Murabbaʾat in the Judean Desert, ʿAtiqot 27:199–206 ♦ Petrie, W. M. F., 1930, Beth-Pelet (Tell Fara) 1, BSAE 48, London ♦ Schoske, S., et al., 1990, Schönheit – Abglanz der Göttlichkeit, Munich ♦ Schroer, S., 1985, Der ‘Fürst im Wulstsaummantel’ in der altsyrischen Glyptik, in: O. Keel/​S. Schroer, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/​Israel 1, OBO 67, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​49– 115 ♦ 1987, In Israel gab es Bilder, OBO 74, Fribourg/​ Göttingen  ♦ 2007, Frauenkörper als architektonische Elemente, in: S. Bickel et al. (eds.), Bilder als Quellen – Images as Sources (FS Othmar Keel), OBO Special Vol., Fribourg/​Göttingen:​425–450 ♦ Schumacher, G., 1908, Tell el-Mutesellim 1, Leipzig ♦ Staubli, T., 1991, Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn, OBO 107, Fribourg/​ Göttingen ♦ Stern, E., et al., 1995, Excavations at Dor – Final Report, vol. 1B, Qedem Reports 2, Jerusalem ♦ Sugimoto, D. T., 2008, Female Figurines with a Disk from the Southern Levant and the Formation of Monotheism, Tokyo  ♦ Sweeney, D./​Yasur-Landau, A., 1999, Following the Path of the Sea Persons, TA 26:116–145 ♦ Tadmor, M., 1982, Female Cult Figurines in Late Canaan and Early Israel, in: T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, Tokyo/​ Winona Lake:​139–173 ♦ Tubb, J., 1988, Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Levant 20:23–88 ♦ Tufnell, O., 1953, Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) 3, London ♦ Vandier d’Abbadie, J., 1972, Les objets de toilette égyptien au Musée du Louvre, Paris ♦ Wäfler, M., 1975, Nicht-Assyrer neuassyrischer Darstellungen, AOAT 26, Neukirchen-Vluyn ♦ Walser, G., 1966, Die Völkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis, Berlin ♦ Weippert, H., 1988, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien 2, Band 1, Munich ♦ Winter, U., 21987, Frau und Göttin, OBO 53, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Yadin, Y., 1966, Masada, London ♦ Yadin, Y., et al., 1989, Hazor III–IV, Jerusalem ♦ Yon, M., 1997, La cité d’Ougarit sur le tell de Ras Shamra, Paris ♦ Zwickel, W., 2008, Deine Augen sind Tauben hinter deinem Schleier, Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 49:74–77. Silvia Schroer/​Patrick Wyssmann

was the single most-expensive commodity in the ANE for over one thousand years, from the MBA to the end of the Iron Age (cf. the depiction of chariots and hs. on precious objects like a golden bowl from Ugarit, → fig. Hunting #1, col. 414, and an ivory panel from Megiddo, → fig. Throne #1:1, col. 969, both from the LBA). Hs. determined the wealth and power of the king or pharaoh and were the key to victory in warfare. During the Amarna period (mid-14th cent. b.c.e.), it was customary in correspondence between rulers to send salutations and good wishes to the hs. of the ruler, sometimes before similar wishes for his wives and family members. H. trainers, charioteers, and veterinarians were members of the elite during the Bronze and Iron Ages (Ez 23:5–23; 1 Kgs 9:22). Some of the earliest ancient documents dating to the 14th cent. b.c.e. include a Hitt. h. training text for chariotry (Kikkuli text) and a veterinarian text in Ug. Ramses II was esp. proud of his skill as a charioteer and portrayed his glorified image fighting chariot battles on the temple walls at Karnak, Luxor, and Abu Simbel. During the LBA and part of the Iron Age, chariot battles were a common part of conventional warfare (Drews 1993:​105– 106). The Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Philistines, Assyrians, Arameans, and Israelites fielded large chariot forces with thousands of hs. An important chariot battle, the Battle of Megiddo, occurred in 1479 b.c.e. between the Eg. and Canaan. forces near the Jezreel Valley in Israel. Pharaoh Thutmose III claimed victory and captured thousands of the enemies’ hs. A  primary goal of ancient battle was to capture the enemies’ trained chariot hs., thereby effectively dismantling the most lethal element of the opposing army and simultaneously increasing the deadly power of the victorious army. The Tel Dan victory stela, erected by the king of Aram in the late 9th cent., mentions thousands of hs. and chariots defeated in a battle against Israel and Judah (Biran/​Naveh 1993). The HB also refers to numerous chariot battles fought during the Iron Age (e. g., Judg 4:1– 16, Josh 11:1–19, 1 Kgs 22:29–37). The Hebr. word for h. is sus, and for chariot is rekeb while paraš can mean either ‘horse’ or ‘horseman’ and must be interpreted according to the context of the particular scripture. King Ahab of Israel joined with the Arameans and other coalition forces in the battle of Qarqar (N of Damascus) against Shalmaneser III of Assyria in 853 b.c.e. According to the Hebr. text, Ahab’s chariotry was the largest at 2,000 strong; no cavalry is mentioned (King/​Stager 2001:​254). During the Iron Age the convention of warfare gradually changed from chariotry to mounted combat. By the time of Alexander the Great, chariotry was almost obsolete,

Horse/s (h./hs.) and Horse Care 1.  Horses were first domesticated in the Central Asian steppe by the Botai culture (modern Kazakhstan) around 3,000 b.c.e., where they were used primarily for meat and milk (Hyland 2003:​3–5). Eventually the use of hs. expanded to transportation, farming, and warfare. A trained → chariot h.

Horse/s (h./hs.) and Horse Care

391 

having been supplanted almost entirely by cavalry (Drews 2004:​57, 123, 148). In the Battle of Gaugamela (331 b.c.e.), the G cavalry forces led by Alexander the Great defeated the Pers. forces led by King Darius, which included 200 four-h. scythed chariots (Hyland 2003:​146–154). Chariots were seldom used in battle after that. 2.  Two basic types of h. were prevalent in the ANE, those best suited for chariotry and those for riding. The chariot hs. were typically larger, approaching sixteen hands, and had a thicker build than the riding hs. Egypt was a major breeder and exporter of chariot hs., esp. during the 25th Dyn. (1 Kgs 10:28–29). The famous Kushite h. from Egypt, which came to prominence during the Iron Age as a superior chariot h., was held in highest regard by Assyria and Israel (Isa 31:1–3). Chariot hs. required a great deal of training, a part of which involved stabling for lengthy periods of time to bond with their team mate. During the late Iron Age, as mounted combat became more important and chariotry warfare diminished, the need for stables lessened because it is not critical that cavalry hs. be stabled as a part of their training regimen (Cantrell/​Finkelstein 2006:​643– 645). For mounted combat, the smaller, quicker hs., such as those bred near the Caspian Sea and in the steppes of Central Asia were more suitable (Ez 38:15; Hab 1:8; Joel 2:4–5). 4.1.  The geographical distribution of stables and h. care facilities ranges from Egypt to Assyria, with a number of h. facilities located in Israel and Judah. In the Bronze Age, Ramses II had a stable complex at Qantir in the Delta adequate for 450 hs. In the Iron Age, the Assyrians had h. depots for mustering and training at Calah (Nimrud), Nineveh, and Khorsabad that held thousands of hs. A stable discovered in Hasanlu (Iran) dating to the late 9th cent. b.c.e. was destroyed by fire, killing nine hs. (de Schauensee 1989). In Israel, there were seventeen tri-partite pillared buildings at Megiddo, which served as stables. In addition to three large → courtyards near the pillared buildings suitable for training exercises, there was a chambered → gate which may have simplified hitching, a watering system, and a granary to store fodder. The lack of h. gear in these buildings is explained by the fact that the gear would have been in use at the time of the building’s destruction (Holladay 1986:​122, 147). Tri-partite pillared buildings first appear in the 11th cent. b.c.e. at Tel Hadar on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Kochavi 1998:​471). Thirty-five tri-partite pillared buildings have been excavated at 12 different sites in Israel, dating from the 11th–the 7th cent. While these buildings are typically located on major → trade routes (Kochavi 1998:​fig. 1;

392

Holladay 1986), Herr (1988:​62) has shown that this fact can also be explained for many of these sites by central place theory suggesting their use as markets. The architectural style of pillared buildings is thus suitable for industrial, commercial, and/or stabling purposes. Their function depends on the location of the building within the walled settlement and specific features in a given building. Buildings used for stables should be built in areas with deep, well drained soil, good drainage for liquid waste and good ventilation (Holladay 1986:​133). This was not the case at Khirbet al-Mudayna (Thamad) in Jordan, where the pillared buildings were footed on bedrock (Daviau et al. 2006:​258). Herr (1988) and Kochavi (1998) review in detail the arguments concerning the function of such buildings and locate them at Tel Hadar (adjacent to a granary), Tell Abu Hawam, Tell Qasile, Tel Masos, Hazor, Kinneret, ʿEin Gev, Beth-Shemesh, Tell el-Hesi, Tel BeerSheba, Tel Malhata, and Lachish (some with adjacent gate and courtyard) (Kochavi 1998:​471), as is the case at Khirbet al-Mudayna in Moab (Daviau et al. 2006:​fig. 6). The key features of certain tripartite buildings that suggest h. usage are thick monolithic stone pillars used in construction (→ construction technique) which will bear up to hs. rubbing, chewing, and pawing while stabled; the stone, cobbled side aisles which allows good footing for the hs. and drainage for urine; the smooth center aisles appropriate for delivering food and grooming; the presence of mangers and a small easily secured entranceway ideal for keeping hs. contained (Cantrell 2006:​630–635). The use of these buildings as stables (such as, Megiddo Building 1576) does not prevent them from being used for storage (→ stock) at a later time. At certain sites in Israel, grooms may have solved the problem of how to efficiently harness several chariot hs. at once to allow them to train and travel together. They could utilize the interior stalls of chambered gates to facilitate the harnessing of two teams of chariot hs. to the small, lightweight chariots (1 m wide×0.5 m deep, 22– 34 kg) without creating congestion. Chambered Gates in various styles are found throughout Israel and Judah from Dan to Beer-Sheba and at several locations in Jordan (Cantrell 2011:​76– 86). At Khirbet al-Mudayna high thresholds (35– 42 cm high) at both ends of the central roadway may have prevented entry or exit of wheeled → vehicles unless packed with dirt (Chadwick/​Daviau/​Steiner 2000:​265), while at Beth-Saida the ground floor gate rooms also may have served as a granary and storage depot (Arav 2009:​37–39). 4.2.  Although complete chariots were found in the → tomb of Tutankhamun in the Valley of the

Horse/s (h./hs.) and Horse Care

393

394

Kings, few artifacts derived from h. rearing and from chariots are known from sites in ancient Israel. James (1978) established a typology of the LBA alabaster chariot fittings (bosses and yoke terminals) from Strata  IX–VII at Beth-Shean and itemized the few finds from other sites to show their distribution, esp. at Gezer (3+), Tell elʿAjjul (4+), Megiddo (2), Hazor (1), Lachish (1), Ashdod (1), and Tell Jemmeh (1). From excavations at Lachish are a number of bronze ornaments in the shape of flowers (Sass 2004:​2035, fig. 28:22). However, the largest assemblage of h. fittings from the Iron Age, including bits, bridles, cheekstraps, bells, breastplates, ornaments, harnesses, and head coverings, was found along with the nine h. skeletons in the Burnt Buildings on the Citadel at Hasanlu in NW Iran (de Schauensee 1989). Another discovery of Iron Age h. skeletons, their trappings, and a chariot was made in Tomb 79 at Salamis on Cyprus; the trappings included highly decorated bronze blinkers, a breastplate, a pendant, and headbands (Karageorghis 1969:​figs. 21, 22–26), comparable to the frontlet found in the Heraion on Samos that was inscribed in Aram. with the name of Hazael of Damascus (Kyrieleis/​Röllig 1988; Ephʿal/​Naveh 1989:​ pl. 24). Additional finds include the chariot poles decorated with bronze caps, the axel, and iron nails, bronze disks, linch-pins, the yoke and its terminals, and the wheels with ten spokes (Karageorghis 1969:​78–85). Tomb 1 also yielded a chariot and Tomb 3 had four hs., a chariot, and a hearse; tombs with other types of wheeled vehicles also contained hs. and → ivory h. gear (such as Tomb 47) while others had the skeletons of asses (Tomb 2; Karageorghis 1969:​53, 68–69). 5.  Hs. do not require stables to thrive and are capable of surviving in almost any climate; they need only pasture, water, ample space to run, and protection from predators. However, hs. in training learn faster and more reliably when they experience the routine of stabling, regular feeding, grooming, and consistent human contact as a part of regimented program. Hs. in training should receive grain two or three times per day. Ideally, a 453 kg h. eats 5.4–6.8 kg of grain per day and 4.5 kg of hay. The large stables and equestrian compounds, such as those at Megiddo, Qantir, and Nimrud, were primarily for military purposes and processed thousands of hs. before campaigns. The gestation period for a h. is eleven months. Ancient armies could institute a h.-breeding program and training program for chariot hs. fairly easily to expand the size of their equestrian forces as needed. As few as ten stallions and one hundred mares could yield over one thousand trained chariot hs. in less than twelve years (CANTRELL 2011:​9–10,

49–51). The average working life of a h. is from age 5 to 25. 6.  The OT attributes the development of ‘chariot cities’ to Solomon and credits him with four thousand stalls and twelve thousand hs., as well as a highly developed infrastructure to support them (1 Kgs 4:26–27; 10:26). These chariot cities were thought to be Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. Interestingly, hs. are not mentioned with the other animals in the wealth lists of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job, nor do ancient Hebr. agricultural laws mention hs. It is not until the accounts of David (2 Sam 8:4), Absalom (2 Sam 15:1), and Solomon (1 Kgs 10:26–29), and later during statehood formation, that hs. are included in the memory of Israel’s possession of wealth and power. In a late 8th cent. b.c.e. context from Isa 2:7: “the land is full of horses; there is no limit to their chariots,” suggests that hs. were numerous in Iron Age Israel and Judah (Cantrell 2011:​56–57). 7.  Arav, R., 2009, Bethsaida 4, Kirksville ♦ Biran, A./​ Naveh, J., 1993, An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan, IEJ 43:81–98 ♦ Cantrell, D., 2006, Stable Issues, in: I. Finkelstein (ed.), Megiddo IV, vol. 2, Tel Aviv:​ 630–642 ♦ 2011, The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic Israel (Ninth-Eighth Centuries B. C. E.), HACL 1, Winona Lake ♦ Cantrell, D./​Finkelstein, I., 2006, A Kingdom for a Horse, in: I. Finkelstein (ed.), Megiddo IV, vol. 2, Tel Aviv:​643–665  ♦ Chadwick, R./​Daviau, P. M. M./​Steiner, M., 2000, Four Seasons of Excavations at Khirbat al-Mudayna on Wadi ath-Thamad (1996–1999), ADAJ 44:257–270 ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., et al., 2006, Excavation and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna and its Surroundings, ADAJ 50:249–283 ♦ Drews, R., 1993, The End of the Bronze Age, Princeton ♦ 2004, Early Riders, New York ♦ Ephʿal, I./​Naveh, J., 1989, Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions, IEJ 39:192–203 ♦ Herr, L. G., 1988, Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Market Place in Iron Age Palestine, BASOR 272:47–67 ♦ Holladay, J., 1986, The Stables of Ancient Israel, in: L. T. Geraty/​L. G. Herr (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies, Berrien Springs:​103–166 ♦ Hyland, A., 2003, The Horse in the Ancient World, Westport, Conn. ♦ James, F., 1978, Chariot Fittings from Late Bronze Age Beth Shan, in: R. Moorey/​P. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant (FS Kathleen Kenyon), Warminster:​105–113  ♦ Karageorghis, V., 1969, Salamis in Cyprus, Homeric, Hellenistic and Roman, London ♦ King, P. J./​Stager, L. E., 2001, Life in Biblical Israel, LAI, Louisville/​London ♦ Kochavi, M., 1998, The Eleventh Century BCE Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel Hadar, in: S. Gitin/​A. Mazar (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem:​468–478  ♦ Kyrieleis, H./​Röllig, W., 1988, Ein altorientalischer Pferdeschmuck aus dem Heraion von Samos, MDAI.A 103:37–75 ♦ Littauer, M. A./​Crouwel J. H., 1979, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East, Leiden ♦ Loretz, O., 2011, Hippologia Ugaritica: Das Pferd in Kultur, Wirtschaft, Kriegführung und Hippiatrie Ugarits. Pferd, Esel und Kamel in biblischen Texten, mit einem Beitrag von Marten Stol über Pferde, Pferdekrankheiten und Pferdemedizin in altbabylonischer Zeit, AOAT 386,

House/s (h./hs.)

395 

Münster ♦ Sass, B., 2004, Iron Age and Post-Iron Age Artefacts, in: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) 4, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22, Tel Aviv:​1983–2057 ♦ Schauensee, M. de, 1989, Horse Gear from Hasanlu, Expedition 31.2– 3:37–52. Deborah Cantrell

396

defined, and includes many structures that differ greatly from one another. The construction of a h. with a courtyard was simply a suitable solution to the climatic and environmental conditions of the ANE; and, therefore, no necessary connection exists between the users of those hs. through time (or even through space), and one should practice caution when discussing possible continuity. House/s (h./hs.) 2.2.  The row-h. is a structure also common dur1.  Hs. are important components of culture, ing many periods, although it has received far less which embody norms and values and enable so- attention that the courtyard h. This h. has one to cial relations and interactions to take place (e. g., four rooms (usually broad rooms) arranged in a Parker Pearson/​Richards 1994; see also Hill- row. In many instances, the outer room was an ier/​Hanson 1984). Hs. structure human behav- open yard. At times, a h. could contain two sepior, while they reflect it at the very same time (cf. arate rows of such rooms (e. g., Faust 2005, and Giddens’s structuration; Giddens 1979; Bour- references). This simple form of h. had very old dieu 1977). The hs. in the land of Israel during roots, beginning perhaps in the Neolithic perithe Bronze and Iron Ages are no exception; and od and continuing, at least, to late antiquity and understanding the various h.-plans, with due at- probably later. The term row-h. (or “path house”), tention to synchronic differences between hs. and relates to a simple arrangement of rooms, and, the diachronic development of their form, can while the usage of the same type of structure teach us a great deal about cultural and social life, might sometimes indicate continuity, this is not and even about the inhabitants’ ideology and cos- necessarily the case. The row-h. existed alongside mology. the courtyard h. and appeared to have housed Interestingly, in Isr. society, like in some other poorer families (more below). societies (cf. Carsten/​Hugh-Jones 1995), the 2.3.  The structure known as the four-room h. term “house” (Hebr. bayit) came to symbolize the differs from the previous types of hs. This type kinship unit that dwelt within it (Schloen 2001:​ was more rigid in plan and also had a much more 71). The term was initially used for a dwelling restricted distribution in time (Iron Age) and structure of a family and was borrowed to denote space (cf. → fig. House #1, col. 402). The ideal type a family living together. In bibl. Hebr., therefore, of this structure is a rectangular long h. with four the word h. has two meanings. The first is the or- main spaces: three long parallel spaces with a dinary dwelling of settled folk, and the second broad room at the back. The term “four rooms” can refer to a family group or lineage. Examples is somewhat misleading, as many of the spaces are, of course, numerous, both in the Bible and were further subdivided (below), and it is therein other sources, for instance, in the famous case fore more appropriate to speak of the “longitudiof the h. of David. Hence, anyone who establish- nal four spaces house” (henceforth LFS h.). The es a family is building a “house” (see also Stag- long spaces were sometimes (though not always) separated from each other by a combination of er 1985). 2.  Hs. in the Levant varied greatly in plan, but stone pillars (monoliths) and walls. The gaps bea few main types can be identified, some of which tween the pillars were often built, creating rooms and it appears that this arrangement (when used) existed throughout the periods discussed here. 2.1.  The courtyard h. refers, in very general enabled the residents to “open” and “close” spaces terms, to a h. with a → courtyard and a number of (i. e., changing the inner planning of the h.) to coradjacent rooms. In many instances the yard is sur- respond with the changing domestic needs withrounded by rooms, but the term is often applied out endangering the structural integrity of the also to hs. in which the yard is not completely building (Sapir/​Avraham/​Faust 2018). The enencircled. Although the location of the courtyard trance was usually located in the central longituand the number of rooms vary greatly, as does the dinal space. Not all hs., however, follow precisely size of the structure and the quality of construc- this ideal plan, and some variation exists, mainly tion, the common characteristics are sufficient to in the number of long spaces. One can, therefore, include many structures under this heading. This refer to longitudinal three-, four-, and five-spaces h. type was very common in most periods and hs. (→ fig. House #1, col. 402; though all subtypes sub-regions; though, it had more restricted distri- are usually referred to by the generic name, fourbution during the Iron Age (see below). It should, room/​LFS h., and this is also the way the term therefore, be stressed that the term courtyard h., is used here). Variations also existed in the form while used in almost all periods, is very loosely of the inner division(s) of the various spaces and

397

398

House map #1: Distribution of four-room houses during the Iron Age.

House/s (h./hs.)

House/s (h./hs.)

399 

in many cases some of the spaces were further subdivided into smaller rooms. This is probably a result of the changing needs of the family during its life-cycle (below). Apart from these more minor variations, the basic plan of a long h., with a number of longitudinal spaces in the front, and a broad space in the back, is quite rigid and easy to identify (e. g., Shiloh 1970; 1973; Netzer 1992a; Holladay 1992; 1997; Bunimovitz/​ Faust 2002; 2003; Faust 2000; Faust/​Bunimovitz 2003; 2014; see also Braemer 1982). 3.  The construction of structures, esp. during the Iron Age, has received some attention over the years, in regard to → construction techniques and engineering, as well as the human resources required (Netzer 1992b; Clark 2003; Daviau 1999; Avraham 2019; Wright 1985). Hs. in the Bronze and Iron Ages were built mainly using stones or mudbricks, or by a combination of both. In the latter case, the foundations (and sometimes the lower courses) were usually built of stones and the upper structure of bricks. Sometimes, however, bricks were used in the construction of inner walls, while the outer walls were built of stone. During the Bronze and Iron Ages, the stones used in the construction of dwellings were mostly unworked or very lightly worked field stones; nicely worked masonry was rarely used for private hs., and, even when such stones were used, they were usually employed only for corners and doorways. This changed gradually, and, in later periods, it was more common to find nicely worked stones also in dwellings. The quality of the stone used in the construction of hs. was usually also an indication of wealth. The walls typically were plastered. The ceiling was built of various materials, mainly wood and → timber. The wood was usually local, and the length of the local wood limited the width of the rooms. In some cases, however, imported wood was also used, which also may serve as an indication of wealth. The → roof beams were covered with mud and plaster (for a detailed description of a h. that was excavated in its entirety, see Faust et al. 2017). 4.1.  Several types of dwellings were in use during the Bronze Age. The best known h.-form during the MBA and LBA was that of the courtyard h. (above § 2.1). This type of h. was very common and was found in various settings, urban and rural alike, for instance, in Megiddo, Beth-Shemesh, and Nahal Rephaim during the MBA, and Megiddo during the LBA (e. g., Ben Dov 1992; Daviau 1993). The row-h. was also quite widespread, and such hs. were found, for instance, at the MBA sites of Tell el-Hayyat and Kefar Ruppin. On the basis of the available evidence one can suggest that the courtyard structures, which

400

were usually much larger, were more typical of large and rich households, while the row-hs. were more typical of poorer dwellings. Differences between the courtyard hs. themselves can also be attributed to wealth, as well as to the number of inhabitants (see also Faust 2005). 4.2.  Both the courtyard-h. and the row-h. continued to exist during the Iron Age, but their popularity declined, and they are now found in more restricted areas. Their distribution, mainly in the northern valleys, seems to indicate that they probably served a Canaan.-Phoen. population (e. g., Faust 1999b; see also Gilboa/​Ilan/​Zorn 2014). The decline of the former types of hs. was accompanied with the emergence of a new type of h. – the LFS (four-room) h. – which gradually became extremely popular and dominant. Prototypes of this h. can be seen as early as the late 13th– 12th cent. b.c.e. in some → villages, mainly in the highlands (e. g., Giloh, Ai, but also Tel Masos, Tell el-ʿUmeiri in Jordan, etc.). The LSF h. crystallized during the early Iron Age IIA (10th cent.), and, from this time until the 6th cent. b.c.e., this is the most prevalent type of hs. in most Iron Age sites, esp. these associated with the Israelites (with very few exceptions). Greater variety is seen in Phoenicia (Sader 2009) and in parts of Transjordan (Routledge 2004:​figs. 5:3–5:10; Homès-Frédéricq 2000; in the latter, the situation is somewhat similar to that of the northern valleys). Many LFS hs., particularly the larger ones, probably had more than one storey. In the past, most scholars assumed that the central long space served as an open courtyard, and while recent studies seem to indicate that this room was often roofed as well, and that a second story often covered the entire structure (Netzer 1992a), there appears to be variation in this regard (Faust et al. 2017). Various studies have attempted to reconstruct the typical activities that took place in the different spaces, attributing certain rooms to storage (→ stock), others to sleeping and production, while designating some of the side-rooms as stables. Those studies also stressed the functional qualities of the LFS h. as factors leading to its dominant position (e. g., Holladay 1992; 1997). At present, however, the data does not support a uniform use of the various spaces throughout ancient Israel, and it appears that the actual usage of the rooms varied greatly (Faust/​Bunimovitz 2003; 2014). In the past there was a debate whether LFS hs. were the abode of nuclear or extended families (e. g., Stager 1985; Dar 1986; Lehmann 2004). It is more likely, however, that all types of families lived in the various sub-types of this type of structure. During Iron Age II, large LFS hs. were prevalent in the rural sector (e. g., at Khirbet Jamein,

401

House/s (h./hs.)

402

1

2

3

4

5

7

6

8

10

9

11

13

14 0

5

10

15

12

15 20 cm

Figure House #1: Iron Age houses: 1) Tell Beit Mirsim, Western Tower; 2) Tel ʿEton, Building 101; 3) Tell en-Nasbeh, Building 379; 4) Hazor, House 2a; 5) Tell el-Farah (N), Building 328; 6) Khirbet Jamein, Building 100 West; 7) Beit Arieh, Building 340; 8) Nahal Zimri, Farmhouse; 9) Hazor, House 48; 10) Tell Beit Mirsim, House 13:8, 9; 11) Tell es-Sebaʿ, Building 75; 12) Tell es-Sebaʿ, Building 673; 13) Beth-Shemesh II, 93; 14) Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Houses 7 and 9; 15) Tell en-Nasbeh, Building 612.

House/s (h./hs.)

403 

Beit Arieh, Khirbet er-Ras, and more), whereas smaller (three-spaces) hs. were more abundant in an urban setting (e. g., at Beer-Sheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Nasbeh [Mizpah], Tell el-Farah [N; Tirzah], and Hazor), where larger LFS hs. were relatively rare (e. g., some hs. at Tell el-Farah [N], h. 2a at Hazor, building 101 at Tell ʿEtun, and the western → tower at Tell Beit Mirsim). These differences were probably a result of differing family structure and wealth; most rural families were apparently extended ones, whereas the majority of the urban families were of the nuclear type. The larger urban hs. belonged to the elite, who were not only richer, but apparently also maintained the traditional extended form of the family. Interestingly, most of the rooms in the larger LFS hs. were usually further subdivided, while the rooms of the smaller three-spaces hs. were usually not. One possible explanation of this is to interpret the large LFS hs. as serving extended families and the variation in internal sub-division as reflecting the different stages in the family life-cycle (Faust 1999a; 1999b; 2012b). Some scholars view the h. as developing from a LBA proto-type of a h. with pillars that was discovered at several sites in the Shephelah (Tel Batash and Tel Harasim; Mazar 1997; Givon 1999). This suggestion is, however, problematic for several reasons. First, it is doubted whether the few known examples are sufficient to suggest continuity, esp. when taking into account the fact that the LFS h. developed in the highlands and became popular in the Shephelah only during the later phases of the Iron Age. Moreover, the LBA examples lack the broad room at the back, which is an important component of this specific plan. Finally, the similarity is based largely on the pillars, but these are not an essential part of the LFS h. definition, and the comparison is misleading. Others have suggested that the origins of the h. rest in the nomads’ → tent, but this suggestion has also been met with criticism and is not widely accepted today (e. g., Fritz 1977:​43– 44; Finkelstein 1988:​257). It appears that the roots of the LFS h. should be sought elsewhere. In the past, most scholars tended to attribute this h. to the Israelites, mainly due to its spatial and temporal distribution, which seem to correspond with the Isr. settlement (e. g., Shiloh 1973; see also G. E. Wright 1978). Though criticized (e. g., Finkelstein 1996; Ahlström 1993; note that much of the criticism was based on a misunderstanding, see Faust 2006), this opinion is still the most prevalent. This is due to the distribution of the h. (not only in space but also in time), its relatively rigid plan, and its extremely dominant position in the (Isr.) Iron Age II built landscape, all of which cannot be explained only by its function-

404

ality. It must have had some social and/or ideological meaning. This is strengthened by the fact that this unique plan, or template, influenced public construction (e. g., the fort at Hazor), and it seems as though the Judean → tombs are also a reflection of this basic plan (Mazar 1976; Barkay 1994). Moreover, this h. practically disappeared in tandem with the destruction of Judah by the Bab. army (Faust 2012a; more below). It has been suggested that an adequate explanation for the unique phenomenon of the LFS h. must relate to the ideological and cognitive realm. The h. type developed during the early stages of the Iron Age (perhaps to fill functional needs of the hill-country settlers) and became part of the Israelites’ world through internal and external negotiations. It was very suitable for their way of life and worldviews (Bunimovitz/​Faust 2002; 2003; Faust/​Bunimovitz 2003; 2014; Faust/​Katz 2017). According to this proposal, some of the structure’s architectural characteristics (few of them revealed by Access Analysis) reflect Isr. values and ethic behavior: for instance, egalitarian ethos, purity practices, privacy, and cosmology. These are reflected in the spatial syntax of the h., as well as in the bibl. texts. The h. itself was also a microcosm of the Isr. world (see Faust 2001; 2012b). Moreover, because the Israelites seem to have been preoccupied with order (Douglas 1966), once this kind of h. became typical, it eventually became the appropriate and correct form. It is, thus, the dialectic between function, process, and mind that created the LFS h. that, once crystallized, lived long for hundreds of years and disappeared only following the destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, when its creators and maintainers lost coherence and were dispersed. 4.3.  The LFS h. practically disappeared after the end of the Iron Age. It is possible that a few were still in use (or even built, though this is doubted) during the 6th cent. b.c.e., but examples are, at best, very limited (Faust 2012a). Such structures were practically non-existent during the Pers. period (with probably one exception in the Galilee and perhaps one near Jerusalem, at H. Alona). The disappearance of the previously dominant architectural type is an indication of the disastrous results of the Ass. (in the N) and Bab. (in the S) destructions, and seems to indicate that Isr./​Judean society practically collapsed. More importantly, however, the disappearance of this structure strengthens the above-claimed connection between the h. and the Isr. world. After all, if the dominant position of this type was a result of its functionality (as claimed by some scholars, above), it would have continued to dominate the built environment even in later periods.

House/s (h./hs.)

405

406

The Pers. period is a period of settlement decline when compared with the Iron Age, and the available information on dwellings is limited (see Stern 1982; 2001). It appears, however, that courtyard hs. were prevalent (e. g., at Megiddo and Tell Jemmeh) and row-hs. were also built (e. g., at Akko and Shiqmona). 4.4.  During the Hell. period, courtyard hs. (despite the great variation in their construction) were common (e. g., at Samaria, Mount Gerizim, and Mareshah) and row-hs. are also found (Tal 2006). In the Rom. period, the courtyard h. and the row-h., along with a number of other types have been identified (Baruch 2007). According to Baruch, the most common type was the courtyard h., which he calls, following the terminology prevalent in the period’s Jew. sources, “the common courtyard h.” Baruch notes that Jew. hs. usually had a miqweh, a ritual → bath, inside them, while non-Jew. hs. did not have this ritual bath. Common courtyard hs. have been found, for instance, at Gamla, Meiron, Tel Burnat, and Horvat ʿEtri. 5.  During the MBA and LBA, the common type of h. was the courtyard h., and this was accompanied by smaller row-hs. Those types of hs. continued to exist during the Iron Age, but they became less popular and tended to concentrate in the lower regions of the country and esp. the northern valleys of Cisjordan. This probably results from the fact that the hs. were used mainly by Canaanites, and the Iron Age Canaan.-Phoen. population lived mainly in these regions. In the highlands of Cisjordan and Transjordan, and later also in other regions, a new type of structure developed – the LFS h. This h. developed in tandem with the formation of Isr. identity and ethos, and was part of this process. In Iron Age II, the new structure became dominant and was relatively uniform in plan. Although debated, it seems as if this was the Isr. house, and although other people could use it, they did so only rarely, with various styles developing in Ammon and Moab (Daviau 2003; Daviau et al. 2008). The LFS h. was suitable for the Isr. world, and it practically embodied Isr. society and values. After the destruction of Israel and Judah, this h. vanished. In later periods, hs. that were of the (loosely defined) courtyard h. type were common, along with examples of the row-h. (and a few additional types). 6.  Hs. are mentioned numerous times in the bibl. text. A “house” was synonymous with household and family. One finds little emphasis in the bibl. text on technical details of hs. and there is no expression for or mention of the LFS h. Upper floors in buildings are mentioned as Hebr. ʿaliyah (Judg 3:20–25; 2 Sam 19:1; 1 Kgs 17:19;

2 Kgs 1:2; 23:12). Openings in upper floors and the space around h. roofs were equipped with a balustrade (2 Kgs 1:2), as is mandated by Dt 22:8. Roofs were flat and were used for domestic activities (cf. Josh 2:6–8; 2 Sam 11:2; Jer 19:13; 32:29). The roofs were covered with mud and chaff plaster. Eccl 10:18 attests to the regular care and resurfacing of mud plastered roofs to maintain their waterproof qualities.

7.  Ahlström, G. W., 1993, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest, JSOT.S. 146, Sheffield ♦ Avraham, A., 2019, Iron Age Building Techniques in Israel – Tel ʿEton as a CaseStudy (Ph.D. Thesis), Ramat Gan (Hebr.) ♦ Barkay, G., 1994, Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age, in: I. Singer (ed.), Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period, Jerusalem:​96–164 (Hebr.) ♦ Baruch, E., 2007, The Dwelling-House in the Land of Israel during the Roman Period: Material Culture and Social Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University ♦ Ben Dov, M., 1992, Middle and Late Bronze Age Dwellings, in: A. Kempinsky/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period, Jerusalem:​99–104 ♦ Blanton, R. E., 1994, Houses and Households, New York ♦ Bourdieu, P., 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Braemer, F., 1982, L’Architecture domestique du Levant à l’âge du fer, Paris ♦ Bunimovitz, S./​Faust, A., 2002, Ideology in Stone, Understanding the Fourroom House, BAR 28.4:32–41, 59–60 ♦ 2003, Building Identity: the Four-Room House and the Israelite Mind, in: W. G. Dever/​S. Gitin (eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past, Winona Lake:​411–423 ♦ Carsten, J./​Hugh-Jones, S., 1995, About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond, Cambridge, U. K.  ♦ Clark, D. R., 2003, Bricks, Sweat and Tears: The Human Investment in Constructing a ‘Four Room’ House, Near Eastern Archaeology 66:34–43 ♦ Dar, S., 1986, Hirbet Jemein  – a First Temple Village in Western Samaria, in: S. Dar/​Z. Safrai (eds.), Shomron Studies, Tel Aviv:​ 13–73 ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., 1993, Houses and their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine, JSOT/​ASOR Monograph Series 8, Sheffield ♦ 1999, Domestic Architecture in Iron Age Ammon: Building Materials, Construction Techniques, and Room Arrangement, in: B. MacDonald/​R. W. Younker (eds.), Ancient Ammon, SHANE 17, Leiden et al. ♦ 2003, Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, vol. 1: The Iron Age House, CHANE 11.1, Leiden/​ Boston ♦ Daviau, P. M. M., et al., 2008, Preliminary Report of Excavations and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna ath-Thamad and in its Surroundings (2004, 2006 and 2007), ADAJ 52:343–374 ♦ Douglas, M., 1966, Purity and Danger, London ♦ Faust, A., 1999a, Differences in Family Structure between Cities and Villages in Iron Age II, TA 26:233–252  ♦ 1999b, Socioeconomic Stratification in an Israelite City: Hazor VI as a Test Case, Levant 31:179–190 ♦ 2000, Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during the Iron Age II, PEQ 132:2–27 ♦ 2001, Doorway Orientation, Settlement Planning and Cosmology in Ancient Israel during Iron Age II, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20.2:129–155 ♦ 2004, Social and Cultural Changes in Judah during the 6th Century BCE and their Implications for our Understanding of the Nature of the Neo-Babylonian Period, UF 36:157–176 ♦ 2005, The Ca-

House/s (h./hs.)

407 

naanite Village: Social Structure of Middle Bronze Age Rural Communities, Levant 37:105–125 ♦ 2006 Israel’s Ethnogenesis, London ♦ 2012a, Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation, Atlanta ♦ 2012b, The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II, Winona Lake ♦ Faust, A./​Bunimovitz, S., 2003, The Four-Room House: Embodying Israelite Society, Near Eastern Archaeology 66:22–31 ♦ 2014, The House and the World: The Israelite House as a Microcosm, in: R. Albertz et al. (eds.), Family and Household Religion, Winona Lake:​143–164 ♦ Faust, A., and H. Katz, 2017, The Archaeology of Purity and Impurity: A Case-Study from Tel ʿEton, Israel, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27:1–27 ♦ Faust, A., et al., 2017, The Birth, Life and Death of an Iron Age House at Tel ʿEton, Israel, Levant 49:136–173 ♦ Finkelstein, I., 1988, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem ♦ 1996, Ethnicity and the Origin of the Iron Age I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up?, BA 59:198– 212 ♦ Fritz, V., 1977, Bestimmung und Herkunft des Pfeilerhauses in Israel, ZDPV 93:30–45 ♦ Giddens, A., 1979, Central Problems in Social Theory, Berkeley  ♦ Gilboa, A./​Ilan, S.,/​Zorn, J., 2014, An Iron Age Canaanite/​Phoenician Courtyard House at Tel Dor: A Comparative Architectural and Functional Analysis, BASOR 372:39–80 ♦ Givon, S., 1999, The Three-Roomed House from Tel Harassim, Israel, Levant 31:173–177 ♦ Hillier, B./​Hanson, J., 1984, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge, U. K. ♦ Holladay, J. S. Jr., 1992, House, Israelite, ABD 3:308–318 ♦ 1997, Four-Room House, OEANE 2:337–341 ♦ Homès-Frédéricq, D., 2000, Excavating the First Pillar House at Lehun (Jordan), in: L. E. Stager/​J. A. Greene/​M. D. Coogan (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond (FS James A. Sauer), SAHL 1, Winona Lake:​80–95 ♦ Lehmann, G., 2004, Reconstructing the Social Landscape of Early Israel: Marriage Alliances in a Rural Context, TA 31:141–193  ♦ Mazar, A., 1976, Iron Age Burial Caves North of the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, IEJ 26:1–8 ♦ 1997 Timnah (Tel Batash) 1, Qedem 37, Jerusalem ♦ Netzer, E., 1992a, Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period, Jerusalem:​193–201  ♦ 1992b, Massive Structures: Processes in Construction and Deterioration, in: A. Kempinski/​R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period, Jerusalem:​17–30 ♦ Parker Pearson, M./​Richards, C., 1994, Ordering the World: Perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time, in: M. Parker Pearson/​C. Richards (eds.), Architecture and Order, London/​New-York:​1–37 ♦ Routledge, B., 2004, Moab in the Iron Age, Philadelphia ♦ Sader, H., 2009, Beirut and Tell el-Burak. New Evidence on Phoenician Town Planning and Architecture in the Homeland, in: S. Helas/​D. Marzoli (eds.), Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen, Iberia Archaeologica 13, Mainz:​ 55–67 ♦ Sapir, Y./​Avraham, A./​Faust, A., 2018, Mudbrick Composition, Archaeological Phasing and PrePlanning in Iron Age Structures: Tel ʿEton (Israel) as a Test-Case, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10:337–350 ♦ Schloen, J. D., 2001, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol, Winona Lake ♦ Shiloh, Y., 1970, The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City, IEJ 20:180–190 ♦ 1973, The FourRoom House: The Israelite Type-House?, EI 11:277–285 (Hebr.) ♦ Stager, L. E., 1985, The Archaeology of the

408 Family in Ancient Israel, BASOR 260:1–35 ♦ Stern, E., 1982, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538–332 B. C., Warminster ♦ 2001, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732–332 B. C. E.), New York ♦ Tal, O., 2006, The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine: Between Tradition and Renewal, Jerusalem (Hebr.) ♦ Wright, G. E., 1978, A  Characteristic North Israelite House, in: R. Moorey/​P. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant (FS Kathleen Kenyon), Warminster:​ 149–154 ♦ Wright, G. R. H., 1985, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine, Leiden. Avraham Faust

Hunt/​Hunting (h./hg.) 1.  Hebr. ṣajid (= hunting: hunted game) is derived from the verb ṣud “to hunt”; the hunter is called ṣajjad (only Jer 16:16), and the bird-catcher jaqoš (Hos 9:8), jaquš (Jer 5:26; Ps 91:3; Prov 6:5), or joqeš (Ps 124:7). 2.  Before human settling, hg. was necessary for survival. Its main function was procurement of food and raw materials, and protection against wild animals (cf. Genz 2007:​51). The pelt and skin of the slain animals were used to make → leather, while the bones and horns were material to produce → tools. After the cultivating of field plants and the domestication of animals in the Mesolitihic (ca. 10,000–8,000 b.c.e.) and the Neolithic periods, the importance of hg. diminished. This loss of meaning and the resulting social marginalization of hg. were compensated by assigning it symb., ritual, cultural, or honor-preserving significance, whereas nowadays one has to use the argument of usefulness (hg. for nature conservation). Due to centuries of ruthless human hg., almost all the wild animals of Palestine/​Israel are now extinct. Hg. was an opportunity to demonstrate courage and fitness, esp. as the decimation of wild animals was said to be necessary due to their encroachment upon civilization (Cant 2:15), their destruction of seeds and their danger to people and flocks (1 Sam 17:34–36). However, the literal use of the word “hunt” is very rarely mentioned in the HB, while there are many references to hg. in metaphorical speech. From these references, it can be presupposed that hg. was known and practiced. In contrast to Israel, hg. held a more important place in Mesop. and Eg. culture. There the kings hunted wild game and birds on two-wheeled chariots, sometimes on foot in large scale, for self-glorification (for the use of falcons for bird hg., cf. Meissner 1911:​13–14; Helck 1968:​fig. 16; Reiter 1988; 1989). In their official reports and on large-scale reliefs (cf. Matthiae 1996:​76 ff, 88; 1998:​141 ff, 169 ff; Barnett/​Forman 1959:​ 60 ff) they brag about their hg. success. The chase

Hunt/Hunting (h./hg.)

409

410

after lions and wild bulls was considered a particular challenge (Wreszinski 1932; Meissner 1911). Animals hunted included gazelles, onagers (Helck 1968:​pls. 14–15) and the Syr. elephant, which was eradicated in early times (the Syr. elephant is depicted for example on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III [ANEP:351–354; Barnett/​Forman 1959:​33]). Representations of bird hg. are found on the reliefs from the palace of Sargon II in Khorsabad (cf. Salonen 1973:​42, figs. 78–79). In Assyria the kings founded special parks for such hunts and brought wild animals in wooden cages into the capital to let them free in the parks and to “hunt” them there without exposing themselves to any real danger. On the top of the cage was a compartment for the guard, who was responsible for drawing up the gate just before the start of the hunt (cf. Matthiae 1998:​141). In these parks exotic animals were also kept to display the kings’ power over the remotest regions of the world. The royal h. against the adversarial animal world, esp. the fight against the king of animals, the lion, had a ritual function (Weissert 1997). It represented the occasion to avert the chaotic forces, which were dangerous for the order of the world and which were embodied by wild animals. The h. also endowed the king with qualities which were advantageous for the conduct of war and which helped him to conquer hostile kings (cf. Maul 2000:​24). Since the fight against hostile nations in war and the hg. of wild animals had the same purpose, these themes were often juxtaposed in texts and pictures (cf. Heimpel 1976–1980:​234; Keel 1990:​29 ff). 3.  Despite the small size of the region, SyriaPalestine, there were numerous wild animals in ancient times (cf. Riede 2002) due to the overlap of different animal-geographical zones – the Eurasian, the Oriental, and the African (Keel/​Staubli 2001:​13 ff). 3.1.  Beasts of prey were the lion (ʾaryeh), which was admired as the hero of the animals (Prov 30:30), but also feared (Am 3:8). It lived in the thicket of Jordan, the steppe and forested regions (Jer 12:8; 49:19; Isa 30:6; Jer 5:6; cf. the stamp seal of Shemaʿ from Megiddo, 8th cent. b.c.e. [Keel/​Staubli 2001:​fig. 79a]). In the mountains lived also the bear (dob), which didn’t shy away from attacking humans. Its unpredictability is often emphasized (Am 5:19; 2 Sam 17:8). A  relief from the outer wall of the temple in Luxor (1250 b.c.e.) show a Syr. bear biting a Canaan. man in the foot, who fled from the Eg. king into the woods (Keel/​Küchler/​Uehlinger 1984:​fig. 74; cf. images of the Syr. bear, Keel/​Staubli 2001:​pl. 1b [tomb

of Rekhmire in Thebes-West]). The wolf, which dwelled in the steppe (Jer 5:6) endangered the flocks as did the leopard (Jer 5:6; Hos 13:7). It was easily seen due to the black spots on its back and sides, which stand out against its red-yellow fur (Jer 13:23; ANEP:52). Even today it survives as one of the few beasts of prey in the desert of Judea (for the extinct animals which lived in Syria-Palestine cf. Keel/​Staubli 2001:​17). Indications of former populations of leopards are the names of the places nimrah (Num 32:3, 36; Josh 13:27) and me nimrim (= Wadi en-Numera; cf. Isa 15:6; Jer 48:34–35) in the area of Moab (near the Jordan in the Dead Sea area). Smaller beasts of prey were the striped hyena (şabuʿ, Jer 12:9; cf. the valley of hyenas, 1 Sam 13:18), the solitary fox (šuʿal), which fed on vertebrates or fruits and destroyed the vineyards (Cant 2:15; cf. the seal-image in Keel/​Staubli 2001:​pl. 2d), and the jackals (Hebr. tan bzw. ʾi, cf. Isa 13:22; 34:13–14, etc.), which roamed in packs. The jackals were scavengers and active at night. The crocodile (behemot), which was found in the Nile, also lived in Palestine, namely in the Nahal Tanninim “crocodile-river” near Caesarea. Different classes of serpents found their home in Palestine; ṣepipon designates the horned viper (Cerastes hasselquisti), and ṣepaʿ/ṣipʿoni is probably the Vipera Xanthina, ʿepʿe the sandviper, ʿaksub the hornviper (Cerastes cornutus), peten the Eg. cobra (Naja haje, Cerastes candidus), and qippoz the arrowsnake (Coluber jugularis). Farmers were at permanent risk from snakes because of their dangerous bite and sudden attack (cf. Prov 23:32; Jer 8:17; Am 5:19; images of serpents cf. Keel 1992:​194 ff). There was hardly any antidote to serpent venom. 3.2.  Stag hg. is depicted in some iconogr. examples (cf. Keel/​Küchler/​Uehlinger 1984:​ pl. 75a; for gazelle hg. cf. the representation from the time of Ashurbanipal, Keel/​Küchler/​ Uehlinger 1984:​fig. 76). In Phoen. ivory art and on Judean seals (GGG:fig. 200b–d) one can find the motif of the thirsty doe (cf. Ps 42:2). The ibex (jaʿel; cf. a seal depiction, Keel/​Staubli 2001:​fig. 2c) lived in the inaccessible mountains (Ps 104:18), for example in the “ibex rocks” near ʿEin Gedi (1 Sam 24:2 ff), which is an indication of an early population of these animals in the region. The wild ass or onager (pereʿ; on the hg. of onagers cf. the relief from the Palace of Ashurbanipal), which was found in the steppes and semi-deserts of Syria (Job 39:6; Jer 2:24), was known because of its wildness and love of freedom (Job 11:12). The wild ox (aurochs, Hebr. reʾem) was a very imposing animal, because of its weight (a maximum of 1,000 kg) and powerful, dangerous horns, sometimes up to 80 cm long (cf. Ps 22:22). Its

Hunt/Hunting (h./hg.)

411 

untamable and unrestrained power was praised again and again (cf. Job 39:9–12; Num 23:22; Ps 92:11; for butting of the wild ox in Sum. pictograph cf. Heimpel 1968:​97 ff). The wild ox was considered a representative of the contra-human world. Further wild animals are mentioned in the OT, for example the wild pig (ḥazir, Ps 80:14), which is depicted on a vessel painting from Kuntillet ʿAjrud (cf. Hübner 1989:​227), and the rock badger (šapan), which also found its home in the rocky terrain (Ps 104:18; Prov 30:26). The SyroPalest. hare (Hebr. ʿarnebet), a bit smaller than the European hare, is mentioned in Lev 11:6 and Dt 14:7 among the unclean animals and is therefore considered inedible. It was incorrectly counted among the ruminants, because it has no split hoofs and therefore doesn’t fulfill one of the two conditions for a sacrificial and edible animal (cf. Dt 14:6). Also the deer, esp. the Mesop. fallow deer (ʾajjal, 1 Kgs 5:3), the gazelle (ṣby, Prov 6:5), which was appreciated for its delicious meat, the European bison, and the wild goat or antelope (cf. Dt 12:15; 14:5) are mentioned in the lists of clean and unclean animals as edible, but not suitable for sacrifice. 3.3.  A lot of birds, which lived in ancient SyriaPalestine, fed on carrion, and were therefore considered unclean. To this category belong the falcon (neṣ, Job 39:26) and the vulture, which was glorified because of its swiftness (speed) and its flight (nešer, Prov 23:5; 30:19; Jer 48:40), and had different species (known are, for example, the griffon vulture and the bearded vulture). The different species of raven also belong to this category (ʿoreb; cf. the seal in Keel/​Staubli 2001:​ fig. 2e). They lived in the desert and ruins and were considered fearsome (Isa 34:11). The ostrich, the largest prairie bird, also represented the contra-human world (Isa 13:21; 34:13). The stork (ḥasidah, Ps 104:17; Jer 8:7) crossed Palestine as a migratory bird in spring. Many species of birds (for example the hoopoe [on the portrayal in Beni Hasan cf. Ghaffar Shedid 1994:​65], the heron, and different types of owls) are merely mentioned in the catalogues of unclean animals, Lev 11:13–19; Dt 14:12–19, and it is often impossible to identify them more precisely. Many birds were considered clean and edible (Dt 14:11). But the clean birds are not listed by name in the catalogues of clean or unclean animals. The hg. of the rock partridge (qoreʿ), wellknown for its calls, was easy prey (1 Sam 26:20) with a stick. Other suitable birds were the wild dove (Columba livia; Hebr. yonah, cf. Hos 7:11; Jer 48:28) and the turtle dove (tor, Jer 8:7; Cant 2:12), which passed through Palestine as migratory birds in spring, the sparrow (Mt 10:29)

412

and the quail (śelaw, Ex 16:13; Num 11:31), also migratory birds, which crossed the Sinai in enormous swarms in autumn or in spring. Being exhausted from the long flight, they could be caught or killed very easily. Varieties of fish also enriched the larder (cf. Dt 14:9). Among the insects, only the locust, which appeared in Palestine in swarms, was considered clean and could be eaten (Lev 11:22). It was cooked or dried or baked in butter (for its representation on a name seal cf. Keel et al. 1984:​fig. 93; Avigad 1966:​ pl. 4). 4.  There is a great variety of hunting devices: 4.1.  The bow (Gen 27:3) or lance (Job 41:17– 20) was used for hg. (cf. Riede 2000:​339 ff), since these weapons assisted in killing wild animals from a hidden, long distance position, without their picking up the scent of the hunter. The rulers of Mesopotamia and Egypt often used two-wheeled chariots for hg. lions or wild game (cf. the golden bowl from Ugarit with a hg. scene with the depiction of hg. wild oxen and antelope → fig. Hunt #1, col. 414). Many assistants were also present, who drove the animals toward them. The simple man hunted on foot with bow and arrow. Throw sticks (moqeš, Am 3:5) were utilized for hg. birds, most of the time a straight or right-angled bent stick. It had the best effect, when it was thrown into a swarm of flushing birds. Another aid was the sling (qelaʿ). It also served as the weapon of herdsmen against beasts of prey (cf. 1 Sam 17:40). 4.2.  Different kinds of nets were also used (Isa 51:20; Ez 19:8; Sir 27:20; Hos 7:12; Prov 1:17; cf. Riede 2000:​341 ff, figs. 25–28; Berlejung 2021) to catch wild game and birds (cf. for Mesopotamia, von der Osten-Sacken 1991:​140): a)  The vertical net (Hebr. mikmar, Isa 51:20; Ps 141:10) was used to catch bigger animals, for example deer. The animals were driven into the net and got caught in the narrow mesh (cf. the depiction of a deer h. on a relief from the Palace of Ashurbanipal; von der Osten-Sacken 1991:​ 141–142). Another type of net was used for capturing quails (cf. the scene from a tomb in Thebes of the 18th Dyn.; Keel 1996:​fig. 118). b)  The tractive net (rešet; similar to a modern cannon net) made of flax was also used for hg. birds (Hos 7:12; Prov 1:17). It was placed mostly in areas of thick vegetation. When the bird was lured by the bait, which was lowered between the wings of the net, the net was pulled together with a powerful jerk. Such a net was successful in catching many birds. Rešet is the term for other kinds of nets also; on the one hand, for a net stretched just above the ground for catching smaller animals and humans (cf. Job 18:8; Ps 10:9, etc.), on the other hand, the vertical net for trapping bigger

413

414

Hunt/Hunting (h./hg.)

Figure Hunt #1: Golden bowl with hunting scene from Ugarit (LBA).

game (prey) (for example lions, Ez 19:8; 32:3). The Hebr. terms meṣudah and maṣod (Ez 12:13; 17:20; Job 19:6; Qoh 7:26) refer to nets, which were used for hg. or fishing. c)  Other devices for catching birds were the trap net (Hebr. paḥ), which was made with two bent frames, upon which a net was stretched (on the technology see Grdseloff 1938a; 1938b). The half opened trap was baited and the trapper called the birds by imitating their call. Both halves snapped closed as soon as the bird landed on the net on the ground (Prov 7:23; Hos 9:8; Am 3:5; Ps 124:7, etc.). d)  Hebr. śebakah (Job 18:8) is a lattice wattle of branches, which was used for catching birds. Ropes with a snare, which were spread on the ground, were also used for hg. since early times (cf. Keel 1996:​pl. 119a).

Throwing nets were used defensively, hindering the attacking animal, esp. for hg. lions (cf. von der Osten-Sacken 1991:​143). 4.3.  Pits were also utilized in hg. bigger animals (for example lions, Ez 19:4, 8). The pits were covered to camouflage with branches, leafs, earth, and straw, and upon treading on this light lattice, it fell into the pit and was later killed by stoning (cf. Ez 19:4, 8; Lam 3:53; Keel 1996:​fig. 337). Such pits are called in Hebr. šaḥat, šuaḥ, šuḥah, paḥat, but the majority of occurrences employ these words in a figurative connotation. Ass. pictures also illustrate that pits were used as a hiding place for the hunter (cf. Keel et al. 1984:​fig. 76). 4.4.  There is no evidence for the use of hg. dogs in bibl. texts (otherwise cf. Sinuhe 90–91, Galling 1979:​4), but their use is probably established in Ass. documents and pictures (cf. the MB

Hunt/Hunting (h./hg.)

415 

mural painting at Tell el-Burak → fig. Mural Painting #1:1, col. 673, or the ivory comb from Megiddo → fig. Ivory #1:5, col. 547). Mastiffs or a breed similar to this were probably used very successfully to hold lions and wild asses at bay and to knock them to the ground (Meissner 1911:​12–13, fig. 2; Barnett/​Forman 1959:​81, 103; Helck 1968:​23 ff). 4.5.  The hg. of crocodiles with a type of fishing pole and hook is described in Job 40:25 (cf. Hdt. 2.70). The Papyrus of Kha (from ca. 1430 b.c.e.) contains a depiction, which shows this impressive feat (cf. Keel 1981). 4.6.  From the 8th cent. b.c.e. on, hg. was accomplished in the ANE on horseback, by men who employed a lance or bow as weapons (cf. the painting from a Sidonian tomb in Marisa, Watzinger 1935; Jacobsen 2007:​pl. 11). King Herod also hunted on horseback (cf. Jos. bel.Iud. 1.429). There is no evidence of hg. as a career in ancient Israel. 5.  Wild animal bones are frequently found by archaeologists, they are then in turn analyzed by archaeozoologists (on the methods and results cf. Bökönyi 1990; Bo­row­ski 1998:​29 ff). The particularly well documented finds at Tell el-Oreme (Kinneret) serve as a good example. It is interesting that there are so few wild animal bones in the Bronze and Iron Age I  layers. It can be concluded that the significance of hg. was negligible at that time. Also documented in the Bronze Age is the hg. of wild boar. Some bear bones show signs of being knicked during skinning, which indicates that the bear hide was utilized. Also found were the striped hyena, which was probably hunted due to its proximity to settlements, the honey badger, and the sand fox, which were sought after for fur. The existence of hippopotamus bones in the ruins is intriguing, and speaks for their habitation at the Sea of Galilee. Their bones were also found in the mountains of mount Carmel and Tell Qasile, which leads to the conclusion that they once lived in the Jordan Valley and on the Medit. coast in Israel. Tools were made from their bones and teeth. According to the finds at Tell el-Oreme, the importance of hg. decreased in the Iron Age II. The number of hunted animals diminished significantly (with only the fallow deer, gazelle, and ibex being documented). The bones of waterfowl are extremely rare due to their small and fragile nature. The hg. of these animals never attained great importance. The intertwining of region, climate, and ecology can be deduced from the finds of wild animal remains at Tell el-Oreme. The area around the Sea of Galilee was certainly more marshy in antiquity, otherwise the existence of wild boars and hip-

416

popotami would hardly have been possible. The Medit. climate’s abundant vegetation provided plenty of sustenance for wild boars. The wetland and forest areas were the ideal habitat for fallow deer. The bones are therefore an important indication for the reconstruction of an ecological system with its typical wild animals in antiquity (cf. Bökönyi 1990:​126). 6.  Reports about famous hunters can be found, such as Nimrod (Gen 10:9), the prototype of all hunters, or Esau (Gen 25:27–28; 27:3 ff). The conflict between Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:27–28; 27) reflects the contrast between herdsman and hunter. Further, some individuals are ascribed the prowess of hg. success. Samson, David, and Benaiah (Judg 15:4; 1 Sam 17:34; 2 Sam 23:20) prevailed against dangerous beasts of prey, even if these acts were merely self-defence or for the defence of the flock. But such reports are the exception. No example can be found in the OT of a king priding himself on hg. success or the importance of hg. within the scope of royal ideology. In metaphorical speech there are many references to hg. Lev 17:13 also presupposes the hg. of wild animals and birds, while only the consumption of blood was forbidden. The eating of an animal that perished or was torn by other animals made the culprit unclean for one day (Lev 17:15). Venison was esteemed (Gen 25:28; 27:4) and it was said that it contributed in large quantities to the food supply of the Solomonic court (1 Kgs 5:3). 7.  Altenmüller, H., 1967, Darstellungen der Jagd im alten Ägypten, Hamburg ♦ Avigad, N., 1966, A Hebrew Seal with a Family Emblem, IEJ 16:50–53 ♦ Barnett, R. D./​Forman, W., 1959, Assyrische Palastreliefs, Prag ♦ Berlejung, A., 2021, The Metaphor of the Bird and the Discourse on Life and Death: Life and Death according to the Imaginations of the Israelites, in: A. Berlejung, Divine Secrets and Human Imaginations, ORA 42, Tübingen:​335–368 ♦ Boessneck, J., 1988, Die Tierwelt im Alten Ägypten, Munich ♦ Bökönyi, S., 1990, Kāmid elLōz, vol. 12: Tierhaltung und Jagd, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 42, Bonn  ♦ Bo­row­ski, O., 1998, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel, Walnut Creek ♦ Brewer, D., 2002, Hunting, Animal Husbandry and Diet in Ancient Egypt, in: B. J. Collins (ed.), A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, HO 1.64, Leiden:​427–456 ♦ Fauth, W., 1979, Der königliche Gärtner und Jäger im Paradeisos: Beobachtungen zur Rolle des Herrschers in der vorderasiatischen Hortikultur, Persica 8:1–53 ♦ Galling, K. (ed.), 31979, Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels, Tübingen ♦ Genz, H., 2007, Stunning Bolts: Late Bronze Age Hunting Weapons in the Ancient Near East, Levant 39:47–69 ♦ Ghaffar Shedid, A., 1994, Die Felsgräber von Beni Hassan in Mittelägypten, Mainz ♦ Grdseloff, B., 1938a, Zum Vogelfang, ZÄS 74:52–55 ♦ 1938b, Zum Vogelfang im Alten Reich: Ein Nachtrag, ZÄS 74:136–139  ♦ Heimpel, W., 1968, Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur, StP 2, Rome  ♦ 1976–1980, Jagd A. Philologisch, RlA

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.)

417

418

5:234–236 ♦ Helck, W., 1968, Jagd und Wild im alten Vorderasien, Hamburg ♦ Hübner, U., 1989, Schweine, Schweineknochen und ein Speiseverbot im alten Israel, VT 39:225–236 ♦ Jacobson, D. M., 2007, The Hellenistic Paintings of Marisa, PEF Annual VII, Maney ♦ Janowski, B./​Neumann-Gorsolke, U./​Glessmer, U., 1993, Gefährten und Feinde des Menschen, Das Tier in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn ♦ Keel, O., 1978, Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob, FRLANT 121, Göttingen ♦ 1981, Zwei kleine Beiträge zum Verständnis der Gottesreden im Buch Ijob (XXXVIII 36 f., XL 25), VT 31:220–225 ♦ 1990, Der Bogen als Herrschaftssymbol: Einige unveröffentlichte Skarabäen aus Ägypten und Israel zum Thema “Jagd und Krieg,” in: O. Keel/​M. Shuval/​C. Uehlinger (eds.), Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/​Israel 3, OBO 100, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​27–177, 263–279 ♦ 1992, Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden, OBO 122, Fribourg/​ Göttingen  ♦ 51996 (1972), Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament, Göttingen ♦ Keel, O./​Küchler, M./​Uehlinger, C., 1984, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 1, Göttingen ♦ Keel, O./​Staubli, T., 2001, “Im Schatten deiner Flügel”: Tiere in der Bibel und im Alten Orient, Fribourg ♦ Manhart, H./ von den Driesch, A., 2003, Bronze- und eisenzeitliche Tierwelt nach den Knochenfunden vom Tell el-Oreme am See Gennesaret und ihre kulturhistorische Bedeutung, in: G. Fassbeck et al. (eds.), Leben am See Gennesaret, Mainz:​25–30 ♦ Matthiae, P., 1996, Geschichte der Kunst im Alten Orient, 1000–330 v. Chr., Darmstadt ♦ 1998, Ninive, Munich ♦ Maul, S. M., 2000, Der Sieg über die Mächte des Bösen, Götterkampf, Triumphrituale und Torarchitektur in Assyrien, in: T. Hölscher (ed.), Gegenwelten zu den Kulturen Griechenlands und Roms, Leipzig:​19–46 ♦ Meissner, B., 1911, Assyrische Jagden, AO 13/2, Leipzig ♦ Opitz, D., 1932–1933, Der Bär bei den Babyloniern und bei Berossos, AfO 8:45–51 ♦ Osten-Sacken, E. von der, 1991, Hürden und Netze, MDOG 123:133–148 ♦ Potratz, H., 1954– 1956, Bär und Hase in der Bildkunst des alten Luristan, AfO 17:121–128 ♦ Reiter, K., 1988, Falknerei im Alten Orient? Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Falknerei, MDOG 120:189–206 ♦ 1989, Falknerei im Alten Orient? II. Die Quellen, MDOG 121:169–196 ♦ Riede, P., 2000, Im Netz des Jägers, WMANT 85, Neukirchen-Vluyn ♦ 2002, Im Spiegel der Tiere, OBO 187, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Salonen, A., 1973, Vögel und Vogelfang im Alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki ♦ 1976, Jagd und Jagdtiere im Alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki ♦ Schroer, S., 2010, Die Tiere in der Bibel, Freiburg et al. ♦ Strawn, B. A., 2005, What is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, OBO 212, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Watzinger, C., 1935, Denkmäler Palästinas II, Leipzig ♦ Weissert, E., 1997, Royal Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of Ashurbanipal (82–5–22,2), in: S. Parpola/​R. M. Whiting (eds.), Assyria 1995, Helsinki:​339–358 ♦ Wreszinski, W., 1932, Löwenjagd im alten Ägypten, Morgenland 23, Leipzig. Peter Riede

ent animals, for instance, the body of a lion combined with the head of a bird of prey (griffin). As such phenomena are not part of the usual, they are disconcerting. When the most important deities, as in ancient Egypt, appear anthropomorphically but with animal heads, people hesitate to speak of h.  cs. Hornung (2005:​112–128), discussing the mixed forms of Eg. deities, stresses the purely symb. character of these representations. This is certainly true for many sophisticated productions. To see the h. cs. as mere symbols, even as actually living symbols, is still not the whole truth. At the origin of h.  cs. lies most probably the experience of a close mutual relationship between humans and animals (Merz 1978). Humans could share animal capacities, and animals could have hands and voices like humans. Both could easily participate in the prerogatives of the other. The same experience of awe could overcome an ordinary human being in the presence of a lion as in that of the pharaoh. To provide the king with the body of a lion, the sphinx, was, under such circumstances, the outcome of a vital experience. The pharaoh was a lion (Hassan 1951:​41–47). Vice versa, animals could be perceived as equipped with human capacities. The falcon on the Narmer palette has a human hand (Keel 1996:​272, fig. 397). The winged serpents in Isa 6 are equipped with human voices and human hands and feet (cf. also the human hands of the cherub in Ez 10:8). Many people took these symb. creatures as real. A good example is the very common winged cobra of Egypt. The wings were first added as symbols of their protective power. Herodotus tells us, however, that “the spice-bearing trees (in Arab.) are guarded by small winged snakes of varied color” (Hdt. 3.107). He pretends even to have seen, at the eastern border of Egypt, innumerable bones of such winged serpents that were killed by ibis birds (Hdt. 2.75). The winged seraph-snake, which appears in Isa 30:6 together with lions and vipers as inhabitants of “a land of trouble and distress,” were obviously likewise taken for real, though quite disconcerting, creatures. The strict and syst. separation between the human and the animal world took place late in Greece in the 4th cent. b.c.e. (Keel/​Staub 2000:​23–29). The consequence was an increasing tendency to see h. cs. as monstrous. This process began with the four h.  cs. that are opposed to the son of man in Dan 7. A  peak was reached with the locusts in Rev 9:7–10, which look like horses equipped for battle, except that they have human faces, lion’s teeth, wings, and the tails of scorpions. This tendency to see h.  cs. as monstrous may have been one of the reasons why the G version of the OT avoids translating the wing-

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.) 1.  The term “hybrid creature” designates creatures composed of either human and animal elements, for instance, the body of a lion combined with a human head (sphinx), or elements of differ-

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.)

419 

ed seraphs of Isa 6:2 as winged cobras. The LXX did not translate seraphim. In later times the seraphim were represented as humans with wings. Likewise Josephus refuses to admit the zoomorphic elements of the cherubs and pretends, “as for the cherubim themselves, no one can say or imagine what they looked like” (Jos. ant.Iud. 8.75). He deliberately ignores the fact that the OT speaks repeatedly of the wings of the cherubim (1 Kgs 6:23; Ex 37:9) and Ez 41:18–19 suggests that they were h.  cs. Only angels in the shape of humans with wings, known in the Graeco-Rom. world since the 6th cent. b.c.e. in the form of Nike, remained an acceptable phenomenon. 2.  An enumeration and description of h. cs. in the Eg. iconography and lit. would fill many volumes and, therefore, cannot be the aim of this entry. The earliest examples date from pre-dynastic times (see “griffin” below) and become more and more numerous until Rom. times. Almost any deity and the pharaoh could be represented, besides the purely anthropom. or theriom. form, in hybrid shapes, combining all varieties of human, animal, and hieroglyphic elements (Kakosy 1982; Hornung 2000). In Mesop. culture, the high gods were usually purely anthropom.; but, at times, they were equipped with wings, as Ishtar was. The lower levels of the divine world were, however, inhabited by dozens of h. cs. Green and Wiggermann (1994) describe and illustrate approximately 30 main types of h.  cs. Goodnick Westenholz (2004) has also dealt with this rich material. In both, ancient Levantine iconography and the OT, two basic h. cs. played a major role: the cherub and winged cobra. The sphinx and the griffin are well represented only in iconography; the combination of bull- and human elements is almost exclusively found in the ḥayyot of Ez 1. One of the oldest h.  cs. is the griffin, a combination of a lion with the head of a bird of prey (in Egypt very often that of a falcon). In the Levant, it is usually also equipped with wings. In European reception history, the h. c. par excellence, though more recent in time, was the Eg. sphinx, a lion with human head (Demisch 1977; Röschvon der Heyde 1999; Regier 2004; for the etymology, see Demisch 1977:​13). In particular, the sphinx of Giza (73.5 m long) and the sphinx in the story of Oedipus have had a long-lasting impact on European art and lit. Most authors (e. g., Dessenne 1957; Teissier 1996) do not distinguish between the “sphinx,” as a lion with human head, and the “cherub,” as a lion with a human head plus wings. Kamlah (2008:​138) even claims that the equation of the “sphinx” and the bibl. “cherub” can be taken for granted. However, the former, the sphinx, is and remains typical for Eg. cul-

420

ture; the latter, the cherub, is characteristic of the Levant. The presence of the sphinx in the Levant is closely connected with the strength of Eg. influence. The same is true of the winged cobra, which is equipped with two wings in Egypt and four in the Southern Levant. The combinations of bull- and human elements, be it a bull with human face or an anthropom. figure with bulls feet, are, to the contrary, more typical in Mesopotamia. 4.  One of the oldest h. cs. in the ANE is the griffin. It is found already on a pre-dynastic Eg. palette (Petrie 1953:​pl. F). The oldest sphinxes belong to the 4th Dyn., the one of Radjedef and the other the famous sphinx of his successor Chephren (Coche-Zivie 1984:​1139). From the following 5th and 6th Dyn., monumental but fragmentary representations of the king as sphinx or griffin, trampling down his enemies, survived (Coche-Zivie 1984:​1143). Of Middle Kingdom date are the highly impressive → sculptures of royal sphinxes (Demisch 1977:​figs. 25, 31–33) and the pectorals, with the king as sphinx or griffin again trampling down enemies (Demisch 1977:​figs. 65–66). Sphinx, griffin, and (as a novelty) the cherub are common on Cappadocian and Syr. cylinder → seals of MB IIA (about 1900–1700 b.c.e.), which assimilate Eg. iconography into the Syro-Levantine repertoire. Numerous examples of such were collected by Teissier (1996:​80–90, 144–150). Sphinxes, griffins, and cherubs appear often in pairs, probably meant to flank an entrance or to protect a rel. symbol, such as the head of a goddess (poss. Hathor) (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:1–2, col. 422), the nude goddess, the sign of life, or a star (Teissier 1996:​147–148). The single sphinx or cherub is often combined with one or more snakes, which reinforce and increase its apotropaic power; or the h. cs. are shown subduing a snake as they trample down human enemies (Teissier 1996:​146–147). Cherubs and griffins may attack animals (Teissier 1996:​145, fig. 137; 148, fig. 165). In Palestine, the griffin appears first on the earliest locally produced scarabs (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:3; cf. CSAPI/1:200–201; Ben-Tor 2007:​pl. 62:24–28). The griffin is followed by crouching and walking sphinxes (CSAPI/1:§§ 544–546), sometimes also subduing a snake and the falcon-headed griffin (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:4). The cherub is, at this time, extremely rare in the Southern – in contrast to the Northern – Levant (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:5; cf. CSAPI/1:§ 548). The winged cobra (uraeus) is known since the 1st Dyn. as symbol of Wadjet, the mistress of Lower Egypt and as a protective power on the forehead of the king (Johnson 1990:​210; Cat. 6, 10). The cobra with protective wings appears first in Egypt at the beginning of the 2nd mill. on the

421

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.)

422

1

3

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure Hybrid Creatures #1: 1–2) Two sphinxes guarding and protecting the head of Hathor (detail of an Old Syrian cylinder seal; ca. 1800 b.c.e.); 3) Griffin on a scarab from Dan (MB II); 4) Scarab from Tell el-Farah (N) (MB II): Falcon-headed griffin (upper part) and crouching sphinx grasping a snake; 5) Scarab (MB II): Cherub facing an uraeus and two luck signs; 6) Scarab (Iron Age IIB): Stylized tree in the center flanked and guarded by two griffins and two cherubs; 7) Scarab from Tell el-ʿAjjul (MB II): Two winged cobras flanking and protecting a cross sign; 8) Oval plaque from Dor (Iron Age IIB): Two-winged cobra protecting the name Zekerjau, “the priest of Dor”; 9) Four-winged cobra on the seal of “Sama(k), son of Zephanjahu” (Iron Age IIB).

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.)

423 

so-called magical wands (Altenmüller 1965b:​​ 115, fig. 4a; 119, fig. 13; 120, fig. 15). No winged cobra is found on classical, old Syr. seals of the MBA (Teissier 1996:​95, 155). It occurs, however, though rarely, on MB IIB scarabs in Palestine (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:7, col. 422; e. g., Gezer; Macalister 1912c:​pl. 204b:​23). 4.1.  Winged sphinxes appear in Egypt only from the 18th Dyn. (1530–1292 b.c.e.) onwards in the form of orientalizing crouching or walking female sphinxes, the former with human hands raised in adoration (Dessenne 1957:​pls. 21–22, 272–273, 275–276, 278, 283–286; cf. also three → ivories from Megiddo: Loud 1939:​pl. 7:21– 23; cf. → fig. Ivory #1:4, col. 547). During the LBA when Egypt dominated the Levant, the sphinx and the griffin, representing the pharaoh, were widespread on seals imported from Egypt to Palestine. The sphinx was represented crouching (see, e. g., CSAPI/3:Tell el-Farʿa [S], nos. 492, 494, 571–572, 811), walking (CSAPI/3:Bet-Mirsim, nos. 67, 89; Beth-Shean, no. 182), or trampling over a fallen enemy (CSAPI/1:193, fig. 266; 271, fig. 492; CSAPI/3:Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 856; Lachish: Tufnell 1958:​pl. 33:317). The griffin is shown only in the latter two postures. The cherub is, on the other hand, almost completely absent during this period. Exceptions are locally produced rectangular plaques, as, e. g., one from Gezer (Keel 1994:​ 249, fig. 47). On the Megiddo ivories from the very end of LB II, the cherub makes its reappearance. A  pyxis is decorated with lions alternating with cherubs (Loud 1939:​pls. 1–3). In other examples, two cherubs form → throne-seats: a king occupies one (→ fig. Throne #1:1, col. 969); a deity may sit on the other; and a cherub is attacking a goat, which shows the aggressiveness of this h. c. (Loud 1939:​pls. 4:2–3; 5:4). The winged cobra becomes very common on scarabs and similar seals imported from Egypt to Palestine during the LBA, particularly in LB IIB, the Ramessid period (ca. 1300–1150 b.c.e.). It appears above the royal sphinx (CSAPI/1:393, fig. 847; 683, fig. 57; CSAPI/3:Tell el-Farʿa [S], nos. 492, 494–495, 571, 811), above the ramheaded sphinx of Amun (CSAPI/1:721, fig. 82; CSAPI/3:Beth-Shean, no. 129; Beth-Shemesh, no. 110; Tell el-Farʿa [S], nos. 471, 493, 574, 577), behind the falcon of Horus (CSAPI/3: Beth-Shean, no. 98; Beth-Shemesh, no. 102; Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 602), protecting a king’s name (CSAPI/3: Beth-Shemesh, no. 104; Lachish: Tufnell 1958:​ pl. 38:286), or simply as main motif, poss. meant to protect the owner (CSAPI/3: Beth-Shean, no. 98; Beth-Shemesh, no. 102; Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 602). In all these cases, the cobra often has a rudimentary cartouche (šenu) between its wings.

424

4.2.  During the Iron Age, a major change from LBA iconography took place. On Aram.-Luw. reliefs of the Iron Age, the human headed lion with wings, that is, the cherub, represents about 20 % of the h. cs. while the sphinx is non-existent (Winzeler 2008:​98; cf. also the → mural painting of a winged h. c. above the wall inscription of Tell Deir ʿAlla → fig. Mural Painting #1:3, col. 673). The cherub often wears a horned cap (Gonnella/​ Khayyata/​Kohlmeyer 2005:​96, fig. 133, Aleppo; Orthmann 1971:​pl. 11, Tell Halaf A3/151). Sometimes it has two heads, a human one and one of a lion (Orthmann 1971:​pl. 11, Tell Halaf A3/152, pl. 27, Carchemish E/8). Related to this N Syr. tradition are an → ivory pyxis from well AJ in Nimrud and the famous Ahiram-sarcophagus, both to be dated at the latest to the 9th or 8th cent. b.c.e. (Sass 2005:​17–22, esp. 75–82). On the W Sem. private name seals of Iron Age IIB–C and on the design seals of the Phoen. or Isr. type, respectively, the single walking cherub or two cherubs flanking a tree (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:6, col. 422) are well represented (Avigad/​Sass 1997:​nos. 37, 369, 713, 740, 839, 925 etc.; Wakefield 2006:​nos. 15, 67, 69, 71, 79, 81, 95, etc.). The same is true of the Samaria ivories (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot 1938:​pls. 5:1–3; 7:3, 5–8a). In the 10th and 9th cent. b.c.e. cherubs are depicted supporting a king’s throne or guarding a symb. tree, the tree of life (Petit 2011), as on a hammerseal of the 10th/9th cent. b.c.e. from Hazor (Keel 2012:​fig. 81a–c). Throne-seats formed by a pair of cherubs occupied by a deity start in the Phoen. world with the 7th cent. b.c.e. (Keel 2007:​299– 300; Avigad/​Sass 1997:​no. 736; Kamlah 2008; Keel 2012). The question is whether the use of the seat formed by two cherubs (→ fig. Throne #1:2, col. 969), documented since the last phase of the LBA (see the Megiddo ivories above) as a seat for deities, starts only in this period or whether the evidence of older material for this kind of use is just missing at this point. The winged griffin reappears in Iron Age IIB Palestine after its presence in MBA iconography. It even becomes the most common h. c. on W Sem. name seals (Avigad/​Sass 1997:​nos. 44, 85, 116, 135, 143, 160, etc.) and on the design seals of the Phoen. or Isr. type (Wakefield 2006:​nos. 2, 5, 11, 16, 30, 47, 48, 53, etc.). The presence of the sphinx on Iron Age IIB–C seals is negligible. On contemporary Phoen. metal bowls, it is missing entirely. This is remarkable insofar as the iconography of these bowls depends heavily on Eg. examples. The h. cs. on these bowls are mainly the cherub and the griffin. In addition to single cherubs, there are cherubs flanking the stylized tree and the cherub attacking a man (Markoe 1985:​

425

426

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.)

Figure Hybrid Creatures #3: Cylinder seal (Iron Age IIC): The sun god (standing on a horse and forming the center of the winged sun disk) and two bull-men supporting the winged sun disk. 0

1

2 cm

Figure Hybrid Creatures #2: Detail of a silver bowl from Idalion (Iron Age IIC): Hero (killing a griffin) and cherub (subduing a man).

259, 244–245; → fig. Hybrid Creatures #2). That the griffin, too, is a dangerous creature is shown by the motif of the hero killing a griffin (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #2; Markoe 1985:​256–259, 316; cf. also Avigad/​Sass 1997:​no. 198). The wingless sphinx is back on stage with the scarabs of the 26th Dyn. and the corresponding renewed Eg. presence (CSAPI/1:619, fig. 250; Macalister 1912a:​​293, fig. 154:15). Although the cobra is present on the seals of the post-Ramesside mass production of the 21st Dyn. (1070–945 b.c.e.), the winged cobra is missing. It reappears, however, on the scarabs of the 22nd Dyn. (945–713 b.c.e.) and the contemporary local Phoen. and Isr. seals. Two winged cobras are shown in an antithetic position, often flanking a third element (CSAPI/1:35, figs. 35, 47, 75; CSAPI/3:Beth-Shean, no. 37). An ivory carving and a scarab from Samaria show a single winged cobra, while cobras with two wings are found on Hebr. name seals (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:8, col. 422); typical of Hebr. name seals, particularly Judean ones, are four winged cobras (Keel 2001:​258, figs. 3, 4a; 258, fig. 5a–c; 259, fig. 6a– j; → fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:9, col. 422), which are not found in Egypt. In most cases the name is written below the four-winged cobra so as to protect the former. In the Ass. period (the late Iron Age), the winged cobra disappears almost entirely. They may have survived in isolated cases as heirlooms, as were the ones that were used to

produce the bullae published by Avigad from an → archive of the end of the 7th cent. b.c.e. (Avigad 1986:​110; nos. 200–201). The bull-man, a figure with human head and torso and bull horns, lower torso, and legs, appears in the Early Dynastic II period (ca. 2,750 b.c.e.), continuing to appear as late as the Achaemenid period. According to Green and Wiggermann (1994:​249–250), kusarikku, probably the term for an extinct bison, was used for the bull-man. Bull-men were often closely related to the sun god, as was also true in Northern Syria (Keel 2007:​302–303, figs. 188–189). The taurine horns disappeared in later times. During the last cent. of Neo-Ass. domination, the bull-man plays an important role supporting the winged sun disk (Herbordt 1992:​pl. 13:1–5, 7; → fig. Hybrid Creatures #3). The bull-man seems not to be represented on iconogr. monuments found in Palestine, but not all bibl. books were composed in Palestine. 4.3.  The following periods, particularly the Pers. period, know all kinds of h.  cs. (cf. Meshorer/​ Qedar 1999:​passim). The classical sphinx, cherub, and griffin are, however, altogether absent or play negligible roles. The bull-man supporting the winged sun disk is still found in the Achaemenid period, sometimes equipped with four wings (Keel 1977:​214, fig. 166; 234, fig. 182). 5.  The most important described parts of h. cs. are the parts of dangerous animals, such as the lion, the cobra, the bull, and birds of prey. Lions, sphinxes/cherubs, and occasionally griffins are attested as guardians and protectors of the edges of the cosmos, the entrances to palaces and temples, and finally they also carried and guarded the furniture standing in palaces and temples, esp. the most symb. furniture of power: the royal or divine throne (Weippert 2017:​222 ff). Lions were

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.)

427 

much-feared animals even without hybrid elements (Strawn 2005). Monumental sculptures of a lion and a lioness stood at the entrance of the bit hilani at Tell Halaf (10th–9th cent. b.c.e.). To stress the danger they represent, the lion is shown above its prey, a stag, and the lioness is suckling young (Moortgat 1955:​pls. 120–122, 127– 129). Lions are never more dangerous than under these circumstances. Two lions flanking the royal throne are at the origins of the throne formed by two cherubs (Keel 1977:​31, figs. 13–14). When Layard discovered the first monumental sculptures of cherubim in February 1846, he commented: “what more sublime images could have been borrowed from nature … to embody their conception of the wisdom, power, and ubiquity of a Supreme Being? They could find no better type of intellect and knowledge than the head of the man; of strength, than the body of the lion; of rapidity of motion, than the wings of the bird” (Layard 1849:​70). This interpretation prevailed for a long time, though OT scholars should have known that wisdom in bibl. times resided in the heart not in the head. It was the Eg. king as lion, who was at the origin of the sphinx. It was the fear he spread that took form in the sphinx. Cherubs and griffins are disconcerting, dangerous winged creatures, as many pictures that represent them attacking men and animals show (see → fig. Hybrid Creatures #2, col. 425; Keel 2007:​298–299, figs. 181–183). The cobra without wings appears on the forehead of deities and of the pharaoh to signal that their presence means “danger,” that they have to be approached with extreme caution, and that they protect whatever is behind them. They symbolize the belief that persons and places where they appear are “holy,” as the seraphim proclaim in the trishagion. The transformation of the cherubs and seraphs into anthropom. angels means a substantial loss of the majesty that was connected with these h. cs. at their origin. 6.1.  Most prominent h.  cs. of the OT are the cherubs (kerubim) mentioned more than 90 times, mainly as works of art (for the following see Keel 2007:​294–305, 311–316, 325–328, 896–897, 918–924). The authors of these texts were obviously well acquainted with sculptured, carved, and woven artifacts showing cherubs in different positions and accompanied by different symbols. In the inner sanctuary (debir) of the temple of Jerusalem stood a pair of cherub-sculptures one beside the other (1 Kgs 6:23–28; 8:6–7). A  hymnic epithet of YHWH celebrates him as the one, “who is enthroned on the cherubs” (yošeb hakkerubim; cf. Pss 80:2; 99:1; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15 = Isa 37:16). The epithet refers most probably to the throne formed by two cherubs

428

in the debir. They remind one, of course, of the cherub-thrones known from iconography. Neither wingless sphinxes nor griffins are ever shown serving as the seat of an anthropom. figure. When Ez 10 alludes to the vision of Ez 1 with its ḥayyot and YHWH enthroned high above them (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #3, col. 426), he identifies these ḥayyot as kerubim (Ez 10:15, 20). This identification is not justified. The identification serves the ideology of unity of YHWH and its cult. Neither the name nor the traditional shape of the kerubim is found in Ez 1. The identification shows that the cherubs are the creatures particularly close to YHWH. According to P, the mercy seat was in the Tabernacle, in the holy of holies above the ark, and on it exist two cherubs, one confronting the other (Ex 25:19–22; cf. 37:7–9). Their position is quite different from the one in the First Temple where they are said to stand side by side. The two creatures correspond most probably to upright standing winged humans (see the discussion in Eichler 2015; 2016) known from Phoen. ivories and similar objects. The history of these h.  cs. demonstrates that they were more acceptable to a world in which the combination of animal and human features became not just disconcerting but also monstrous (Keel 2007:​918–924, figs. 562–569). The traditional designation kerubim serves again as a means to underline the continuity and unity of the cult. The inner side of the temple walls and the doorposts were covered with reliefs of cherubs and palm trees (1 Kgs 6:29, 32, 35). On the ten stands of bronze, images of lions, bulls, and again cherubs and palm trees could be seen (1 Kgs 6:29, 36). The temple project of Ez 40–44 plans to cover the inner walls of the temple with a pattern consisting of “cherubs and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Each cherub had two faces: a human face turned towards a palm tree on one side, and a face of a young lion turned towards the palm tree on the other side” (Ez 41:17– 19, 25–26). Ez 41, thus, mentions not just cherubs and palm trees, as do the older sources, but says that the cherubs are flanking and, thus, guarding the palm trees. They remind one, obviously, of the iconography of kerubim flanking a tree (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:6, col. 422). The carved reliefs of the temple and the temple project in Ez 40–48 are, in the Tabernacle, replaced by decorated woven textiles, made of twisted linen, and blue, purple, and crimson yarns. “You shall make them with cherubs skilfully worked into them” (Ex 26:1; cf. 26:31; 36:8, 35). The composition remained most probably the same, two cherubs flanking and guarding the sacred tree. Single cherubs as guardians and protectors of the → garden of Eden or the

Hybrid Creature/s (h. c./cs.)

429

430

mountain of god are mentioned in Gen 3:24 and Ez 28:14, 16. The only iconogr. figure that fulfills the two functions typical of the bibl. cherubs, carrying YHWH and guarding the tree of life, are the winged sphinxes. A few passages represent YHWH as standing on a single kerub and riding on it (Ez 9:3; 10:4; Ps 18:11 = 2 Sam 22:11). These passages allude to the common N Syr., Anat., and Mesop. scheme of a deity standing on an animal (→ idol), as, for instance, Baal on a bull or Ishtar on a lion (Keel 1977:​152–158). The cherub appears in this context as YHWH’s particular animal. 6.2.  Seraphim are mentioned in Dt 8:15 and Num 21:6 as snakes typical of the desert and highly dangerous. The aetiological legend in Num 21:4–9 explains how the cult of the bronze seraph, venerated in the temple of Jerusalem, came into being. 2 Kgs 18:4 tells the story of its destruction; King Hezekiah “broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it: it was called Nehushtan.” The real reason may have been that it was an Eg. symbol. Subjugated by the Ass. king, Sennacherib, and disappointed by the failing Eg. help, King Hezekiah had it removed (cf. Keel 2007:​422–429). The Deuteronomist made of it the nucleus of a comprehensive reform. Still more dangerous than the ordinary seraphs were the winged seraphs (Isa 14:29; 30:6). Four winged seraphs were a widely used motif on Judean seals of the second half of the 8th cent. b.c.e. (see → fig. Hybrid Creatures #1:9, col. 422), the time of Isaiah. In Isa 6, the prophet describes how not just four- but six-winged seraphs hover over YHWH. Instead of protecting the “Holy,” whose holiness they proclaim, they protect themselves. 6.3.  In the center of the highly complex vision of Ez 1 “was something like four living creatures (ḥayyot) […] they were of human form. Each had four faces, and each had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of a young bull’s (ʿegel) foot” (vv. 5–7). The description corresponds to some degree to a depiction of bull-men (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #3, col. 426). Moreover, the function appears to be the same: they are supporting the dome (raqiaʿ; see v. 26) of heaven. Just the wings and the four different faces are missing in the image but are found in similar h. c. supporting the sky (Keel 1977:​ 235–243). The four ḥayyot represent most likely the four winds carrying the sky (cf. 1  En. 18:2): the vulture represents the east wind, the bull that of the N, the lion that of the S, and the human face that of the W. The four ḥayyot reappear in Rev 4:6– 7. Already in the second half of the 2nd cent. c.e., the four ḥayyot were related to the four evangelists by Irenaeus and later by Hippolytus.

7.  Altenmüller, H., 1965a–b, Die Apotropaia und die Götter Mittelägyptens 1–2, Munich  ♦ Avigad, N., 1986, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah, Jerusalem ♦ Avigad, N./​Sass, B., 1997, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem  ♦ Ben-Tor, D., 2007, Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections, OBO.SA 27, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Coche-Zivie, C. M., 1984, Sphinx, LÄ 5:1139–1147 ♦ Crowfoot, J. W./​Crowfoot, G. M., 1938, Early Ivories from Samaria, London ♦ Demisch, H., 1977, Die Sphinx, Stuttgart ♦ Dessenne, A., 1957, Le sphinx, Paris ♦ Eichler, R., 2015, Cherub: A History of Interpretation, Bib 96.1:26–38 ♦ 2016, The Ark and the Cherubim, Ph.D. Diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem ♦ Gonella, J./​Khayyata, W./​Kohlmeyer, K., 2005, Die Zitadelle von Aleppo und der Tempel des Wettergottes, Münster ♦ Goodnick Westenholz, J. (ed.), 2004, Dragons, Monsters and Fabulous Beasts, Jerusalem  ♦ Görg, M., 1995, Kerub, in: M. Görg/​B. Lang (eds.), Neues Bibel-Lexikon 2, Zurich/​Düsseldorf:​467– 468 ♦ Green, A./​Wiggermann, F. A. M., 1994, Mischwesen, RlA 8:222–264 ♦ Hassan, S., 1951, Le sphinx à la lumière des fouilles récentes, Le Caire ♦ Herbordt, S., 1992, Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8.–7. Jh. v. Chr., Helsinki ♦ Hornung, E., 2000, Komposite Gottheiten in der ägyptischen Ikonographie, in: C. Uehlinger (ed.), Images as Media, OBO 175, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​1–20 ♦ 62005, Der Eine und die Vielen, Wiesbaden ♦ Johnson, S. B., 1990, The Cobra Goddess of Ancient Egypt, London ♦ Kakosy, L., 1982, Mischgestalt, LÄ 4:145–148 ♦ Kamlah, J., 2008, Die Bedeutung der phönizischen Tempel von Umm el-Amed für die Religionsgeschichte der Levante in vorhellenistischer Zeit, in: M. Witte/​ J. F. Diehl (eds.), Israeliten und Phönizier. Ihre Beziehungen im Spiegel der Archäologie und der Literatur des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt, OBO 235, Fribourg/​Göttingen:​125–164 ♦ Keel, O., 1977, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, SBB 84/85, Stuttgart  ♦ 1994, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/​Israel IV, OBO 135, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ 51996 (1972), Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament, Göttingen ♦ 2001, Das Land der Kanaanäer mit der Seele suchend, TZ 57:245–261 ♦ 2007, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel IV.1, Göttingen ♦ 2012, Paraphernalia of Jerusalem Sanctuaries and their Relation to Deities Worshiped Therein during the Iron Age IIA–C, in: J. Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult, ADPV 41, Wiesbaden:​317–342  ♦ Keel, O./​Staub, U., 2000, Hellenismus und Judentum, OBO 178, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Layard, A. H., 1849, Nineveh and its Remains, London ♦ Loud, G., 1939, The Megiddo Ivories, OIP 52, Chicago ♦ Macalister, R. A. S., 1912a–c, The Excavation of Gezer 1–3, London ♦ Markoe, G., 1985, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean, Berkeley ♦ Merz, R., 1978, Die numinose Mischgestalt, RVV 36, Berlin ♦ Meshorer, Y./​Qedar, S., 1999, Samarian Coinage, Jerusalem ♦ Moortgat, A., 1955, Tell Halaf 3, Berlin ♦ Orthmann, W., 1971, Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 8, Bonn ♦ Petit, T., 2011, Oedipe et le Chérubin: Les sphinx levantins, cypriotes et grecs comme gardiens d’immortalité, OBO 248, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Petrie, F., 1953, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, BSEA 66A, London ♦ Regier, W. G., 2004, Book of the Sphinx, Lincoln ♦ Rösch-von der Weyde, W., 1999, Das Sphinx-Bild im

Iconography of Animals (Mammals)

431 

Wandel der Zeiten, Rahden ♦ Sass, B., 2005, The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium, Tel Aviv ♦ Strawn, B. A., 2005, What is Stronger than a Lion?, OBO 212, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Teissier, B., 1996, Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age, OBO.SA 11, Fribourg/​Göttingen ♦ Tufnell, O., 1958, Lachish 4, London ♦ Wakefield, M., 2006, Überlegungen zu den phönizischen Stempelsiegeln des 9. und 8. Jh.s, Unpublished Master Thesis, Fribourg ♦ Weippert, H., 2017, Die von Löwen und anderen Wesen getragene und beschützte Welt: Ein Erbe der bronzezeitlichen Stadtkultur Palastinas an ihre eisenzeitliche Nachfolgerin. Mit einem Exkurs von Henrike Michelau, in: J. Kamlah et al. (eds.), Zauber und Magie im antiken Palastina und in seiner Umwelt, ADPV 46, Wiesbaden:​199–251 ♦ Winzeler, K., 2008, Mischwesen auf aramäisch-luwischen Flach- und Rundbildern, Unpublished Master Thesis, Bern ♦ Wood, A., 2008, Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim, BZAW 385, Berlin. Othmar Keel

432

Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 314) or Seth-Baal on a lion in the scene (Cornelius 1994:​pl. 49:BM59). Indistinct is a figure on a gazelle with a raised arm (Petrie 1937:​pl. 6:62). 2.1.2.  Oryx. There are few oryxes depicted on their own (Petrie 1928:​pls. 19:21; 40:5, 8). Two ory­xes appear with a gathering of animals, dominated by fertility-related elements such as a serpent, fish, scorpion, tree, and → moon (Macalister 1912b:​fig. 466). The “Orpheus jug” poss. shows a scimitar-horned oryx (Loud 1948:​ pl. 76:1). The oryx appears once next to a cartouche with the → throne name of Thutmose III (Petrie 1928:​pl. 19:21). 2.1.3.  An Addax antelope most likely appears on an incense burner (Petrie 1928:​pl. 40:6). 2.2.  Bear (4): At least four terracotta figurines of bears are documented (Holland 1975:​251, G. I.a; Gilbert-Peretz 1996:​fig. 14:11). Iconography of Animals (Mammals) 2.3.  Bovine (> 350; excluding numerous un1.  This article, together with the article on the identifiable terracotta fragments): Apart from → iconography of non-mammalian animals, sketch about 150 terracotta figurines (Petrie 1928:​ a detailed overview of the iconography of animals pl. 37:22; Beck 1995:​fig. 3:82), bovines are in Palestine/​Israel and Jordan from MB IIB to the known in bronze (Stager 1991:​29; A. Mazar Pers. period, based on a comprehensive invento- 1982:​fig. 2; → fig. Idol #9:1, col. 522) and → ivory ry of ca. 6,500 visual sources. The total count of (Barnett 1975:​pl. 20e; McCown 1947:​pl. 55:82; animal representations from the Neolithic to the Crowfoot/​Crowfoot 1938:​pl. 8:5). Bovines Pers. period is roughly 12,000. Only media from occur as spouted (Dothan 1971:​fig. 68:6; Da2002:​figs. 2.39:1–4; 2020:​fig. 13.3c–d) controlled legal excavations are considered; ex- viau ceptions are name → seals and coins with indi- and shaped vessels (Brandl 1993:​233), as atcated minting authorities (→ finance). → Hybrid tachments on vessels (B. Mazar et al. 1964:​ creatures are not covered. Emphasis is laid on a fig. 11:9), and vessel paintings (Heurtley 1938:​ descriptive approach, beginning with the animal pl. 12d–e; Beck 1982:​fig. 6R). → Amulets are few alone, and continuing with multiple occurences, and mainly those of the Apis bull (Herrmann with other animals and with human figures. 1994:​no. 749). Bukephalia are known in differThe numbers in brackets indicate the specimens ent media: clay bracket (Loud 1948:​pl. 249:3), amulet (Herrmann 1994:​no. 751), bronze (Van found. 2.1.  Antilopidae (20): 2.1.1. Most antilopidae are Beek 1993:​670), ivory (Loud 1939:​no. 197), and gazelles; the others are oryxes and one addax an- on seals (Avigad/​Sass 1997:​no. 133) and coins telope. The identification of antilopidae is only (Gitler/​Tal 2006:​fig. 1.3:4). A  few seals depossible by relevant antilopine features, namely pict a bovine in splendid isolation (CSAPI/1:61, long → horns, either the straight horns of the Arab. fig. 113). Singular bulls appear on coins in varOryx or the s-shaped horns of the gazelle. A dis- ious postures (Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​nos. 104, tinction between the long, bent horns of the Scim- 136; Gitler/​Tal 2006:​pl. 6:II6Db) or are repreitar-horned Oryx and those of caprids (Keel 1990:​ sented by its forepart (Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​ 265, figs. 38–40) is not possible in most cases. (I) no. 159). A few times the cow of Hathor is depictGazelle. A herd of running gazelles appears in the ed (CSAPI/1:619, fig. 251), and an incense burner → hunting scene of the → mural painting at Tell el- shows a Zebu (Petrie 1928:​pl. 40:2). Burak (→ fig. Mural Painting #1:1, col. 673). A  runWith animals: Lactating bovines occur on seals ning gazelle is depicted alone on a sherd (Sellin (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 373; cf. → fig. Dairy 1904:​fig. 79). The gazelle among other animals is Products #2, col. 230), coins (Mildenberg 2000:​ part of a scene with erotic connotations (Watz- no. 19), and as terracotta figurine (Homès-Frédinger 1929:​fig. 12:4), but also is attacked by a éricq 1987:​fig. 6) with the scorpion, which is ferlion (Aharoni 1964:​pl. 40:7). The pedestal ani- tility related (CSAPI/1:577, fig. 131). A few times mal of Reshef is the gazelle (CSAPI/1:561, fig. 84; a bovine is depicted with caprids (CSAPI/1:693, simplified: CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 358). fig. 12) or ram’s head (Mildenberg 2000:​no. 20). A  variant shows two additional lions (CSAPI/3: The combination of a bull and scarab alluding to

Iconography of Animals (Mammals)

433

434

the epithet “strong bull” is singular (CSAPI/1:565, fig. 94). Griffins and bovines may appear in animal procession (Parker 1949:​no. 151), but also in a violent encounter (Loud 1948:​pl. 204:3). Birds can populate scenes of bovines lactating (GGIG:fig. 165b) or appear with bukephalia (Yadin et al. 1960:​pl. 162:2; CSAJ:179, fig. 4). A  vulture (Kelm/​Mazar 1982:​fig. 15), eagle (Parker 1949:​no. 154), or indistinct bird (CSAJ:​313, fig. 3) may be depicted above a bovine. Coins show an owl concealed in the body of a bovine (Gitler/​Tal 2006:​pl. 5:II.5Db). Poss. a goose is standing on the back of a bovine (CSAJ:​ 231, fig. 68). Bukephalia are also associated with a monkey (Stein 2003:​fig. 1), canide (Elgavish 1994:​41, fig. 16), an omnium gatherum of animals (CSAJ:75, fig. 27), and lactating scenes (GGIG:​ fig. 165c). Most likely grazing bovines are depicted together with fish (Parker 1949:​no. 97). In one case, a bovine is combined with a lizard (Pritchard 1963:​fig. 70:1). For associations with the lion and crocodile see § 2.16. With figures: Anthropom. figures  can appear in front of (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 69:12; CSAJ:239, fig. 85), inclined above the animal’s back (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 172), or horizontally above it. The latter type may show an archer above a suckling cow (CSAPI/3: Tell elFarʿa [S], no. 373; see Aufrecht/​Shury 1997:​ 62 no. 30; GGIG:126; for an archer aiming at bovine see Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 72:15); a human holding a stick-like object (CSAPI/1:575, fig. 124); or a figure in a position similar to that of a bull-leaper (Schumacher 1908:​pl. 23b, drawing incorrect; Zazoff 1983:​pl. 14:7). The positional relationship of two humans to a vertically turned bovine is unclear on Parker 1949:​ no. 139. Bulls appear in tree adoration scenes (Parker 1949:​no. 61) and with an enthroned figure  (Macalister 1912c:​pl. 214:26), and can decorate a clay plaque engraved with a name (CSAJ:257, fig. 1). A  crouching bovine is depicted on a janiform head on coins (Gitler/​Tal 2006:​pl. 5:II5Da). Bovines are part of a fowling scene (Barnett 1975:​fig. 10b–c) or can carry a rider with a spear (Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​ no. 41). The pharaoh represented as a bull is depicted as striding over a human (CSAPI/1:179, fig. 222), and the royal Pers. hero struggles with a bull (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 19). Bovines can also function as a secondary motif in scenes of encounter between a goddess and a ruler (Parker 1949:​no. 10) or the storm god (Yadin 1961:​pl. 319:1). The latter may stand on (Yadin et al. 1961:​pls. 324, 325; cf. → fig. Idol #2, col. 494) or behind (Loud 1948:​pl. 161:21) a bovine or come to its rescue (Rowe 1940:​pl. 38:14).

At least once the head of Bes appears together with two bovine foreparts (Mildenberg 2000:​ no. 45). For a master-of-bulls representation, see CSAJ:191, fig. 2. Bovines are particularly associated with twigs (CSAPI/1:197, fig. 279), trees (Loud 1939:​no. 225), or flowers (Stern 1994:​ fig. 52) and shown with the ankh (Rowe 1940:​ pl. 39:5) or the nfr sign (CSAPI/1:185, fig. 242). As celestial bodies the star (Parker 1949:​no. 37) and moon crescent are documented (CSAJ:303, fig. 18). 2.4.  Camel (20): As a terracotta figurine, the camel is attested approximately 16 times (Stern 1995:​fig. 7.3:18). Several incense burners show a camel (Petrie 1928:​pl. 40:3), of which one associates it with a lion (Aharoni 1973:​pl. 29:1). Two times the camel appears as a riding animal (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 67:25), of those, once in a lion hunt (Petrie 1928:​pl. 17:12). Once the camel is surrounded by hieroglyphs (Loud 1948:​ pl. 150:61). 2.5.  Canoidae (60): 2.5.1. Jackal. The animal rarely appears alone (CSAPI/1:381, fig. 815). At least once a jackal poss. represents Anubis (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 121). In hunting scenes, a bowman aims most likely at a jackal (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 67:3). A possible jackal attacks a caprid from behind (de Vaux 1955:​ fig. 18:F.2904). For a jackal on a standard as part of a procession, see Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​ pl. 66:3. From Tell Deir ʿAlla, a jackal bowl is reported (ʿAmr 1980:​263). 2.5.2.  Canidae. Terracotta dog figurines are attested about 30 times (Holland 1975:​252–253); lead and bronze figurines are few (James 1966:​ fig. 108:1, 3). The dog appears alone on a Hitt. seal (Loud 1948:​pl. 162:7). A dog’s head amulet is attested on one examplar (Herrmann 1994:​ no. 816). Dogs are associated with horses pulling → chariots (CSAPI/1:737, fig. 4; → fig. Hunt #1, col. 414) and in animal procession scenes (Loud 1948:​pl. 76:1). Combinations with bovines comprise a reclining dog above a suckling cow (Megiddo: unpublished conoid, Palestine Archaeological Museum I. 3558) and a fertility-related scene (CSAPI/1:577, fig. 128), as well as a bucephalion (Elgavish 1994:​41, fig. 16). A  canide may attack a caprid (Loud 1939:​no. 107, → fig. Ivory #1:5, col. 547; cf. the hunting scene at Tell el-Burak → fig. Mural Painting #1:1, col. 673). For lions attacking a dog, see Parker 1949:​no. 143. Three times Gula (CSAJ:13, fig. 5) and twice Heracles are depicted with a dog (CSAPI/1:759, fig. 4). The leg of a dog is visible on a fragmentary Lamashtu amulet (Cogan 1995:​fig. 2). On an incense burner, a dog appears behind a worshipper facing an enthroned figure (Petrie 1928:​pl. 41:10).

Iconography of Animals (Mammals)

435 

2.6.  Caprid (600): The caprid alone mainly appears on stamp (CSAPI/1:581 fig. 140) and cylinder (CSAJ:415, fig. 43) seals, sometimes as multiple depictions, but the caprid can also decorate coins (Gitler/​Tal 2006:​15, ʿAtlit, Tomb L 12) or incense burners (Tufnell 1953:​ pl. 68:2). Several caprid-shaped jug spouts are reported (Brandl 1993:​223–224). Vessel paintings (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pl. 47:239) and appliqués (Finkelstein 1988:​fig. 99) of caprids occur as well. In → ivory carving, the animal is shown (Loud 1939:​no. 39) or just its head (Barnett 1975:​pl. 20c, g). Terracotta figurines are few (Holland 1975:​254). The caprid is mainly depicted as a suckling, sometimes with a scorpion (McCown 1947:​pl. 55:67) or vulture (GGIG:fig. 318a) in the scene. Less numerous are combinations with the uraeus (Kirkbride 1965:​ fig. 288:14). Birds and caprids appear in pottery painting (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​ pl. 48:251; Amiran 1969:​152, no. 137), among them are ibises and poss. swans (Loud 1948:​ pls. 69:13; 72:3). Seals depict the animal with the ostrich (Loud 1948:​pl. 153:238) or poss. an eagle (Macalister 1912c:​pl. 137:48). Associations with the sphinx (CSAPI/1:415, fig. 913; Yadin et al. 1961:​pl. 321:2) or fish (Yadin et al. 1961:​pl. 321:4) occur on seals. Violent depictions involve mainly the lion (Yadin et al. 1960:​ pl. 187:17), but also the griffin (Giveon 1988:​ no. 76), dog (Loud 1939:​no. 107), and lion dragon (CSAJ:245, fig. 94). For a depiction with a bovine, see CSAPI/1:693, fig. 12. Human figures appear in front of caprids (Stern 1978:​pl. 31:11), behind them (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​pl. 69:70), horizontally above them (Lamon/​Shipton 1939:​ pl. 69:29), or on them (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot/​ Kenyon 1957:​pl. 15:23). A  few are representations with female figures  (CSAPI/3:Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 256; Beck 1986:​pl. 12:3). Often caprids are part of tree adoration, cult, banquet, and procession scenes (Parker 1949:​nos. 41, 14, 167, 103). Caprids function as oblation (Torrey 1923:​ no. 6) or accompany a worshipper (CSAPI/1:537, fig. 19). Sometimes human heads and trees occur with caprids (Parker 1949:​no. 126). Caprids also decorate name seals (Avigad/​Sass 1997:​no. 78). Hybrid figs. depicted with the caprid are a winged figure with two bird-like heads (Parker 1949:​ no. 191) and a bull-man (CSAJ:343, fig. 55). The caprid is dominated by: the master-of-caprids (CSAJ:303, fig. 15; Crowfoot/​Crowfoot/​Kenyon 1957:​fig. 92:80; Parker 1949:​no. 122; Mildenberg 2000:​pl. 55:24); a bowman (Loud 1948:​ pl. 152:154; Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 65, with arrow in shoulder); and a hero fighting it with a weapon (CSAPI/1:677, fig. 42) or by hand (Loud

436

1948:​pl. 153:226). For caprids in hunting scenes, see CSAPI/1:561, fig. 87. On seals caprids are associated with plant elements close to 100 times (CSAPI/1:87, fig. 22). Caprids may flank a tree (striding, Starkey/​Harding 1932:​pl. 73:38, raised: Bronze statuette Hazor → fig. Idol #6:2, col. 502; CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 396 on a seal; Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 85, coin; Lapp 1969, cult stand; Beck 1986:​pl. 12:1, terracotta figurine; Loud 1948:​pl. 56:8, vessel decoration), a lotus flower (Tufnell 1953:​pl. 50:1), or the pubic triangle(?) (Tufnell/​Inge/​Harding 1940:​pl. 59:2). 2.7.  Cat (50): The seated animal is known as an amulet (Herrmann 1994:​no. 762) (→ fig. Amulet #1:2, col. 31) and in ivory (Barnett 1975:​ pl. 20h). Terracottas comprise a mold-made cat (Liebowitz/​Dehnisch 1998), a double molded figurine (Holland 1975:​317), and probably the head of a cat (James/​McGovern 1993:​fig. 90:3). A cat is poss. depicted on an incense burner (Petrie 1928:​pl. 41:10). On seals, the cat occurs with the cryptographically written name of Amun (CSAPI/1:37, fig. 47). Some representations associate the animal with the head of Hathor (Tufnell 1958b:​pl. 38:307). 2.8.  Deer (60): Deer are mainly attested on Mitannian seals (Parker 1949:​no. 40). In a grazing/drinking posture, they appear on name seals (Avigad/​Sass 1997:​no. 204), but also on ivories (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot 1938:​pl. 10:8) and terracotta appliqués (C.‑M. Bennett 1975:​fig. 8:9– 10). For deer painted on vessels, see Amiran 1969:​ pl. 41:5. Late representations of deer are found on coins (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 6). A  few terracotta figures  poss. depict deer (Gilbert-Peretz 1996:​fig. 14:8; van der Kooij/​Ibrahim 1989:​no. 130): Deer are represented as suckling their young with a scorpion in the field (Lamon/​ Shipton 1939:​pl. 69:22), and in the sphere of the nude goddess together with a bull, lion, and caprid (Parker 1949:​no. 128). Cylinder seals also associate deer with the sphinx (Parker 1949:​ no. 75), vulture (CSAJ:411, fig. 36), and lion dragons (CSAJ:245, fig. 94). On a cult stand (Finkelstein et al. 1993:​fig. 6.54:1) and a cylinder seal (CSAJ:417, fig. 47), a predator/lion attacks a stag. Deer are indirectly associated with boars (Dornemann 1995:​figs. 13–14). Mitannian seals depict a worshipper in the presence of deer (Parker 1949:​ no. 36), sometimes also in tree worship scenes (Parker 1949:​no. 38). Deities associated with deer are: the nude goddess (see above), Athena on coins (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 6), and Bes (Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​no. 61). For deer and ithyphallic men, see Dornemann 1995:​figs. 13– 14.

Iconography of Animals (Mammals)

437

438

2.9.  Donkey (4): Although well attested in the EBA (Staubli 2001:​102, no. 28), thereafter clearly identifiable representations of donkeys are rare (Kenyon/​Holland 1982:​fig. 225:7) or disputable (Holland 1975:​263, G.Va 1–2, 4–5; Tufnell 1953:​pl. 30:23, 29–30; Ben-Arieh 2004:​ fig. 2:56; CSAPI/1:197, fig. 279). A donkey probably appears on incense burners, in one case attacked by a lion (Macalister 1912b:​figs. 525, 526:1a). The animal is documented once on a coin (Gitler/​Tal 2006:​pl. 32:VI.17Oa). 2.10.  Elephant (2): At least two terracotta legs have been thought to represent an elephant (Holland 1975:​253–254; G. I.d), and poss. also a head (Gilbert-Peretz 1996:​fig. 14:10). 2.11.  Giraffe (1). On a seal impression, a giraffe appears together with the → throne name of Thutmose III and a Maat feather (CSAPI/1:211, fig. 319). 2.12.  Hare (17): The forelegs of hares are depicted straight in front of the body and not folded under the body as typical of horned animals (Keel 1990:​280 ff). On its own, the hare is documented as an amulet (Herrmann 1994:​no. 810). The hare is associated with the vulture (McCown 1947:​pl. 54:56). As a secondary motif, it occurs with various birds (Collon 1986:​no. 8), bovines (Parker 1949:​no. 10), and once as part of the main scene with a monkey and a falcon (Collon 1986:​no. 7). It is part of a gathering of animals (CSAJ:75, fig. 27) and occurs together with a monkey, a gazelle, and herons, evoking erotic connotations (Watzinger 1929:​fig. 12:4). Hares appear in the worship of a goddess (Parker 1949:​ no. 10) or a tree (Collon 1986:​no. 9); with worshippers paying tribute to a ruler (Otto 2000:​ pl. 21:272); or the meeting of representatives of power (Brandl 1996:​fig. 3). Together with the nfr hieroglyph, it is probably to be read as Onnophris, “the (eternally) good being,” an epithet of Osiris (CSAJ:301, fig. 12). 2.13.  Hippopotamus (10): On its own, it is represented on a seal (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​ pl. 50:39) and as an amulet (McGovern 1985:​ fig. 30). Two terracotta figurines have been identified as hippopotami (Gilbert-Peretz 1996:​ figs. 14:14–15). The hippopotamus occurs with a caprid (CSAPI/1:83, fig. 15); in combination with a falcon, crocodile, and lizard (Petrie 1928:​pl. 19:43); or lion and horse (CSAPI/1:665, fig. 9). A  lion attacking a human is sitting on a hippopotamus in one exemplar (Loud 1948:​ pl. 152:161). 2.14.  Horse (1460): Ninety percent of horse representations are terracotta figurines (Holland 1975:​321; Gilbert-Peretz 1996:​29). The horse, on its own, is mainly represented as a fig-

urine, in small numbers  on coins (Meshorer/​ Qedar 1999:​no. 24), and rarely on seals (Avigad 1983:​fig. 26; CSAPI/1:737, fig. 4), incense burners (Pritchard 1985:​fig. 174:4), pottery paintings (Beck 1982:​fig. 4A), and as an ivory inlay (Barnett 1975:​pl. 15a). The animal’s forepart is repeatedly depicted on coins (Gitler/​ Tal 2006:​pl. 15:III.16Da). The horse is associated with the scorpion (Keel 1980:​pl. 89:14), a foal (CSAPI/1:767, fig. 24), and a bird (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 282). The combination with a lion and hippopotamus is unique (CSAPI/1:665, fig. 9). On the “Orpheus jug,” horses are part of an animal procession (Loud 1948:​pl. 76:1). Seventy-five percent of horse depictions are horseand-rider figurines (for an alternative view see Daviau/​Zeran 2021). A  rel. connotation is disputed (Gilbert-Peretz 1996:​38; GGIG:344). The horse may pull a chariot (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​pl. 55:293A; → fig. Hunt #1, col. 414; → fig. Throne #1:1, col. 969). Repeatedly a human is standing in front of the horse (Tufnell 1953:​ pl. 44:79). Deities associated with the horse are Bes (Gitler/​Tal 2006:​pl. 4:II.3Db), Qudshu (Cornelius 2004:​no. 5:13), Astarte (Daviau/​Zeran 2021), Seth-Baal (CSAPI/1:573, fig. 119), and the sun god (→ fig. Hybrid Creatures #3, col. 426). The lyre player on the “Orpheus jug” and a human stabbing a horse are both unique (Meshorer/​ Qedar 1999:​no. 129). 2.15.  Hyena (1): Only one terracotta figurine has been identified as a hyena (Gilbert-Peretz 1996:​fig. 14:9). 2.16.  Lion (590): On seals, lions appear on their own close to 60 times (Rowe 1936:​no. 893), sometimes with multiple depictions. The upright stance is typical for the Pers. period (Stern 1982:​fig. 349:1–2). Lion amulets were fairly popular (Herrmann 1994:​no. 791). In architecture, guardian lions in Palestine are few (temple: Yadin 1961:​pl. 120:2; tomb: Ussishkin 1974:​fig. 4). Ivory lions functioned as → furniture decoration (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot 1938:​pl. 9:1), but are also known as heads in the round (Barnett 1975:​ pl. 15). The lion also poss. occurs as a bronze figurine (James/​McGovern 1993:​fig. 90:1). To the cultic realm belong lion rhytons (A. Mazar 1980:​ fig. 35; Loud 1939:​no. 2) and vessels with lion appliqués (→ fig. Cultic Equipment #2:2, col. 210; Amiran 1975:​fig. 8; Chambon 1984:​pl. 64:5; ʿAmr 1980:​nos. 199, 200), cult stands (→ fig. Cultic Equipment #2:1, col. 210; Rowe 1940:​pl. 56A:3), and terracotta shrines with attached lions (Dabrowski 2000:​figs. 9.12–13), and poss. incense burners (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​pl. 88:14). On coins, lions appear in various postures (Gitler/​ Tal 2006:​figs. 1, 3, 5; Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​

Iconography of Animals (Mammals)

439 

no. 69; Meshorer 1972:​77–78) or by its forepart (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 13). A lion appears on a Samarian coin (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 62) in a domesticated form like a “pet dog.” Lions (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 43) and lion heads (Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​nos. 161– 172) may be depicted in frontal view. Terracotta lions are few (ʿAmr 1980:​nos. 185–188; Stern 1995:​fig. 7.3:14). For a lion’s head mold, see Dabrowski 1997:​fig. 18:21–22. In attacks, the lion most frequently leaps on a caprid (Yadin 1960:​ pl. 187:17). Domination is intended when the lion is striding above the caprid’s back (Rowe 1936:​ no. 889). A lion rarely attacks a gazelle (Aharoni 1964:​pl. 40:7). Coins show a lion attack of a ram and stag (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​nos. 18, 20; for a head-on attack of a stag, see Finkelstein et al. 1993:​fig. 6.54:1). On Pithos A  from Kuntillet ʿAjrud, the lion attacks a boar (Beck 1982:​fig. 4B–C). Several times the crocodile is depicted as being dominated by a lion walking on its back (Macalister 1912c:​pl. 202a:​9), rarely crouching on it (Keel 1994:​pl. 11:30) or next to it (Rowe 1936:​no. 71). Two lions appear several times behind a fleeing ostrich (Vittro 2001:​ fig. 3; debased: Rowe 1936:​no. 851). Several times the predator attacks bovines (CSAPI/1:13, fig. 19). A  Samaria ivory fragment suggests the overcoming of a griffin by a lion (Crowfoot/​ Crowfoot 1938:​pl. 8:1). Lions may also attack a dog (Parker 1949:​no. 143). Incense burners depict the lion attack of a possible donkey (Macalister 1912b:​fig. 525) and camel (Aharoni 1973:​pl. 29:1). A bull in rare cases attacks a lion (Keel 1980:​pl. 88:9). The depiction of a lion eating an animal’s quarter is unusual (Meshorer/​ Qedar 1991:​no. 83). Nonviolent representations with the lion are manifold. It is often associated with serpents (→ fig. Idol #8:1, col. 516; CSAPI/1:243, fig. 413; Rowe 1940:​pl. 17:2). Four times the crocodile appears above or behind the lion (Petrie 1928:​pl. 19:3), once back-to-back (CSAPI/1:327, fig. 656). The lions of the horizons (Weinstein 1993:​fig. 167:7; Keel/​Schroer 1998:​16, 20) appear as sitting on a crocodile and flanking a bucephalion. A  few times a vulture is perching on the lion’s back (Giveon 1985:​118– 119, no. 24), indicating war and terror (Schroer 1995:​63, 67). The lion and other birds are documented on sherds (Yadin 1960:​pl. 76:19), name seals (Avigad/​Sass 1997:​no. 88), and coins (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 44; Gitler/​Tal 2006:​ pl. 15:III.18Da). A  number of times a scorpion (Grant 1932:​pl. 48:1108) or caprid (Lamon/​ Shipton 1939:​pl. 69:37) is depicted with the lion in a nonviolent manner. On Pithos A  from Kuntillet ʿAjrud, a lion is placed below two caprids

440

eating from a tree (Beck 1982:​fig. 4E–H). Twice a hippopotamus and a horse appear with a lion (CSAPI/1:665, fig. 9). Bulls and lions may flank a tree (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 309) or face each other (Pritchard 1960:​no. 2, next to p. 8). A vessel depicts a bull’s head as spout and a lion’s head on its base (Rowe 1940:​pls. 20:10; 22:1; 60A:4). On both an ivory box (Loud 1939:​ no. 1) and a cult stand (→ fig. Cultic Equipment #2:1, col. 210; Beck 1990:​fig. 1), the lion is associated with the sphinx. Hunting scenes show the royal archer with the lion (one lion: Ussishkin 1978:​ pl. 16:2; two lions: Petrie 1937:​pl. 6:77) and caprid (CSAPI/1:561, fig. 87). The hunt of a lion by spear is undertaken on horse (Galling 1941:​ pl. 12:145) or camel (Petrie 1928:​pl. 17:12). The scene of a lion attacking a chariot from behind is unique (CSAPI/1:737, fig. 4). Other violent representations involve the master-of-lions (Bes: CSAPI/1:767, fig. 22; Pers. hero: Meshorer/​ Qedar 1991:​no. 59; Heracles: Leith 1997:​ pl. 12:WD47); a figure touching the ears of flanking lions (Lapp 1969); a hero fighting a rampant lion with a weapon (Ass. king: Reisner/​Fisher/​Lyon 1924:​pl. 56a; storm god: CSAPI/1:575, fig. 122; Bes: Gitler/​Tal 2006:​fig. 3:21; Pers. hero: CSAPI/1:713, fig. 59); a smiting god (Beck 1977:​pl. 21:3; Seth: Giveon 1978:​fig. 49; Reshef: Cornelius 1994:​pl. 28:RM4; Heracles: CSAPI/1:759, fig. 4); Heracles wrestling with a lion (Leith 1997:​pl. 6:WD42; for Heracles wearing a lion skin as headdress, see Tufnell 1953:​ pl. 31:19); and a hero stepping on a lion (Beck 1977:​pl. 21:1). The lion representing the king may stride over humans (Giveon 1984:​pl. 15:3) or attack them from behind (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​ pl. 52:112). Non-violent representations with the lion involve rulers and officials (Davies 1986:​ fig. 19a; Gitler/​Tal 2006:​pl. 17:IV.1Da); an enthroned figure (CSAJ:435, fig. 3); and the lion as a subject of adoration (Rowe 1936:​no. 317). Deities associated with the lion are Reshef (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 314), Seth-Baal (Cornelius 1994:​ pl. 49:BM48), Qudshu (Cornelius 2004:​no. 5:24), the nude goddess (→ fig. Idol #8:1, col. 516; Potts et al. 1985:​pl. 42), Ishtar (Uehlinger 1994:​ fig. 6), and Shadrapha (→ fig. Idol #3, col. 495). The lion is frequently employed in Amun cryptography (Hornung/​Staehelin 1976:​173–180; CSAPI/1:177–180). On a Mitannian seal (Guy 1938:​pl. 176:3), a lion and bull flank a goddess, and poss. a female deity is kneeling on a striding lion (CSAPI/1:259, fig. 457). Lions appear in tree worship (Parker 1949:​no. 68) and other adoration scenes (Loud 1948:​pl. 161:10). The representation of a lion and human torso engraved on top of each other on an incense burner

Iconography of Animals (Mammals)

441

442

is unique (Stern 1976:​fig. 1:3). For an association with ithyphallic man, see Dornemann 1995:​ figs. 13–14. About 30 times the lion is associated on seals with a plant element, predominantly a twig (CSAPI/1:323, fig. 646). Two lions flanking a palm tree occur on a cult stand (Loud 1948:​ pl. 251). The reed sign or similar looking linear objects (Loud 1948:​pl. 152:197) are most likely to be understood in the context of Amun cryptography. In the Pers. period, a disk is placed above the lion’s head (Aharoni 1962:​fig. 9:11). 2.17.  Monkey (110): Alone: Only once is a baboon on its own depicted on seals (Tufnell 1953:​ pl. 43:56). Several baboon-shaped seals are known (James 1966:​fig. 101:7), but the long-tailed monkey and baboon (Herrmann 1994:​nos. 820, 844) amulets have been discovered more frequently. A few terracotta (Hamoto 1995:​no. 195; attached to vessel: Negbi 1976:​pl. 64B) and bronze (Lapp 1967:​fig. 24) figurines can be noted. An ivory fragment of a baboon is documented (Crowfoot/​Crowfoot 1938:​pl. 13:12). With animals: The long-tailed monkey is depicted in veneration of a falcon (Loud 1948:​ pl. 153:235); together with a griffin, both flanked by uraei and placed above a crocodile (CSAJ:71, fig. 21); as space filler with fish (Beck 1993:​ pl. 125); together with falcons and hares (Collon 1986:​no. 3); and with the sphinx (Avigad/​Sass 1997:​no. 982). The baboon occurs together with a scarab and a falcon once (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​pl. 53:212). With figures: The baboon representing Thoth is depicted together with Maat (CSAPI/1:747 fig. 30), Amun (Karon 1985:​no. 18), and Re(Harakhte) (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​pl. 57:392). A baboon scaraboid shows Thoth as an ibis-headed figure  on its base (Rowe 1936:​no. S 43). The erotic connotation of the nude goddess is emphasized by a long-tailed monkey (Tufnell 1953:​ pl. 44:124). The baboon is depicted in veneration of the figurative king (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 297) or his name (Tel Aviv University, Archaeological Institute, former Dayan collection no. 298). However, the king may also adore the baboon (Yeivin 1947:​figs. 1–2). On Syr. cylinder seals, the long-tailed monkey is part of scenes with high officials (Collon 1986:​no. 3). Associations with non-royals are few (CSAPI/1:719, fig. 77). Other: Baboons are often depicted with the emblem of the god Thoth, the crescent moon (Herrmann 1994:​no. 838). A long-tailed monkey can hold a plant (CSAPI/1:715, fig. 66) or twig (CSAPI/1:773, fig. 37) and sit next to a palm tree, the latter should be read as a New Year’s wish (CSAPI/1:603, figs. 202–204). When holding a nfr sign, the monkey is part of the reading “every-

thing nice/beautiful.” A monkey joined to a kohl tube is unique (Seger/​Lance 1988:​pl. 88). 2.18.  Rhinoceros (2): The rhinoceros appears twice, once as part of a hunting scene (Giveon 1978:​fig. 39), once as striding above winged SethBaal (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​pl. 55:299). 2.19.  Ram (60): About 10 ram amulets are documented, depicting either the entire animal or its head (Herrmann 1994:​nos. 752, 755). On seals, the ram’s head is either depicted in side view, representing Amun (Starkey/​Harding 1932:​ pl. 55:278), or in frontal view (CSAJ:329, fig. 31). Few terracotta heads represent rams (W. J. Bennett/​Blakely 1989:​fig. 208:5). Zoomorphic vessels can be ram-shaped (Chambon 1984:​pl. 64:4; Zevulun 1987:​pl. 6B), or have ram appliqués (Finkelstein et al. 1993:​fig. 6.54:6). A large uraeus may appear before the ram’s head (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 165); a jackal, representing Anubis, is depicted on the reverse of one seal depicting a ram’s head (CSAPI/3: Tell el-Farʿa [S], no. 121). The ram’s head in frontal view occurs mainly together with birds (CSAJ:423, fig. 4). On coins, the ram is depicted as being attacked by a lion (Meshorer/​Qedar 1991:​no. 20) or by its head together with a bovine (Mildenberg 2000:​ no. 20). Several coins show a ram’s head below a lion (Meshorer/​Qedar 1999:​no. 65), and the heads of a ram and lion may be combined with an owl (Gitler/​Tal 2006:​pl. 16:III.21Oa). Rams’ heads occur on name seals (CSAJ:401, fig. 18). 2.20.  Sheep (