Maresha Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons 9789654062350, 9789654065832, 9654062356

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 45

Maresha Excavations Final Report III Epigraphic Finds from the

1989–2000 Seasons

Amos Kloner, Esther Eshel, Hava B. Korzakova and Gerald Finkielsztejn

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2010

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Judith Ben-Michael Series Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Volume Editor: Shoshana Israeli Front Cover: Aramaic ostracon No. 63 (photographer: C. Amit) Back Cover: Subterranean Complex 61, oil press and columbarium (photographer: S. Mendrea); weight Nos. 4 and 17 (photographer: C. Amit); Aramaic marriage contract (ostracon No. 66; photographer: Ts. Sagiv) Cover Design and Production: Ann Abuhav Typesetting and Layout: Ann Abuhav and Ira Perova Illustrations: Natalia Zak Printing: Art Plus Ltd., Jerusalem Copyright © 2010, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-235-0 eISBN 9789654065832 www.antiquities.org.il

Contents

Abbreviations

iv

Preface

vi

Chapter 1: The site and the Epigraphic finds

Amos Kloner

1

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in hebrew, aramaic and phoenician script

Esther Eshel

35

Chapter 3: Greek ostraca and graffiti

Hava B. Korzakova

89

Chapter 4: inscribed altars

Hava B. Korzakova

147

Chapter 5: lead sling bullets

Hava B. Korzakova

151

Chapter 6: astragali

Hava B. Korzakova

155

Chapter 7: lead weights

Hava B. Korzakova

159

Chapter 8: the Maresha Scale weights: Metrology, administration and History

Gerald Finkielsztejn

175

Chapter 9: The sekoma: a volume standarD for liquids

Gerald Finkielsztejn

193

Chapter 10: maresha: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

Amos Kloner

205

INDICES OF SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS

Esther Eshel

227

indices of greek inscriptions

Hava B. Korzakova

237

iv

Abbreviations

AASOR ABSA ADAJ AJA ‘Atiqot (ES) ‘Atiqot (HS) BA BAIAS BAR BAR. Int. S. BASOR BCH BMB ESI HA HA–ESI HdO HUCA IAA Reports IEJ INJ INR JAOS JBL JDAI JIPS JJS JNES JQR JRA JSOT JSS LA

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the British School at Athens Journal of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan American Journal of Archaeology English Series Hebrew Series Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Biblical Archaeological Review British Archaeological Reports International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin de correspondence hellénique Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth Excavations and Surveys in Israel Hadashot Arkheologiyot (Hebrew) Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excavations and Surveys in Israel Handbuch der Orientalistik Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Israel Numismatic Research Journal of the American oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society (Mitekufat Haeven) Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal for the Study of Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Liber Annuus

v Maresha I Maresha II MGWJ NEA NEAEHL NEAEHL 5 PEFQSt PEQ PJ PPM I QDAP RB RSN ZDMG ZDPV ZPE

A. Kloner. Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70 (IAA Reports 17). Jerusalem 2003 A. Ehrlich and A. Kloner. Maresha Excavations Final Report II: Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989–1996 Seasons (IAA Reports 35). Jerusalem 2008 Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Near Eastern Archaeology E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem 1993 E. Stern ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5: Supplementary Volume. Jerusalem 2008 Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Palästina Jahrbuch G.P. Carratelli and I. Baldassarre eds. Pompei, Pitture e Mosaici I: Regio I. Rome 1990 Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Biblique Revue Suisse de Numismatique Zeitschrift des Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

vi

Preface

This volume, devoted to the epigraphic material found at Maresha, is the third in the series of final reports on the extensive excavations of the Lower City, held during the years 1989–2000 under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority (formerly the Israel Department of Antiquities). Large-scale excavations of the surface areas and some of the subterranean complexes were conducted from 1989 to 1996, while the excavations in the years 1997–2000 concentrated mainly on some of the subterranean complexes (see Tables 1, 2). Most of the epigraphic material came from the Lower City; very little epigraphic material, comprising several Aramaic ostraca, was found in the limited excavations of the Upper City, in the northwestern tower of Area 100 (see Chapter 2). Other material published in this volume includes small finds from the Lower City and its subterranean complexes. Three types of written material found at Maresha are not included in this volume. The most important of these are several dozen tomb inscriptions dated to the third–second centuries BCE from three cemeteries that encircle Maresha (Maresha I:21–30). These will be published in a forthcoming volume dealing with the city’s necropolis. The second group, Rhodian amphorae

and handles, will be presented in a separate publication by Gerald Finkielsztejn. The third group, consisting of several miscellaneous inscriptions not found in burial caves, will be published elsewhere. The present volume contains brief reports on the excavations of the surface areas and subterranean complexes in which epigraphic material was found (Chapter 1), in order to provide the reader with information on the pertinent archaeological contexts. Chapter 2, written by Esther Eshel, who joined the excavation team in 1993 and has been intensively involved since, presents the Semitic ostraca, of which three have been preliminarily published. Chapters 3–7 were prepared by Hava B. Korzakova, who joined the team as our Greek epigraphist in 1996. Chapter 3 is a report on ostraca and vessel graffiti. It includes 261 objects found during the years 1989– 1996. Sixty additional short ostraca from the 1997– 2000 seasons are not significant enough to be included in this volume, but will be published separately, with other ostraca uncovered in the subterranean complexes during the years 2001–2010. Graffiti Nos. 244–261 are for the most part illegible and some may not even

Table 1. Surface Areas by Year of Excavation/Survey and License Number Year

Lic. No.

1989

G-70/89

1990

G-50/90

Surface Area 30

53

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

 

 

600

 

 

 

 

 

1991

G-46/91

 

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

1992

G-60/92

 

61

 

 

800

 

 

 

 

1993

G-09/93

 

61

100

 

 

900

920

 

 

1994

G-16/94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

930

940

1995

G-35/95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1996

G-17/96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

G-05/97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998

G-09/98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1999

G-08/99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

G-03/00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vii be in Greek, but have been included in this report to facilitate their future study. Chapter 4 presents four inscribed altars bearing Greek inscriptions. It is noteworthy that these Hellenistic altars, one of which was dedicated to the goddess Demeter and another to Isis, were found in domestic contexts. More than sixty non-inscribed altars, mainly from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, were also discovered. These altars are presently being studied and analyzed by Rinat Peshin and will be published in a forthcoming volume. Chapter 5 is a report on the lead sling bullets. Most of them were not inscribed, but are included in order to present the entire assemblage from various excavated areas and subterranean complexes. Chapter 6 reports on the inscribed astragali. Chapter 7, prepared in consultation with Alla Kushnir-Stein, reports on the lead weights from the site. In Chapter 8, Gerald Finkielsztejn presents the results of his study of the technical and historical aspects of the production of lead weights, their standards and some historical implications. In Chapter 9, he analyzes the measuring table found in Area 100. Chapter 10 explores the Hellenistic city plan and the processes of urbanization and land exploitation, and draws conclusions concerning economy, sociology and town planning based on the epigraphic finds. These show that the development of industrial and production activities in the city was based entirely on the household unit, rather than concentrated in separate industrial zones, as was hitherto assumed for Hellenistic cities in the Land of Israel. The finds also demonstrate that

Maresha’s residents made their living from agriculture and agriculture-based industries, the source of the prosperity of the city as a whole during the third and second centuries BCE. Finally, it is possible that the same or similar sources of income existed during earlier periods in the history of the site, but clear evidence of this is either lacking or yet to be found. Conclusions concerning the ethnic, cultural and historical implications of the excavations and finds, based on the epigraphic material, are presented at the end of the chapter. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the information concerning the areas and subterranean complexes surveyed and excavated at Maresha from 1989 to 2000, according to year and license. The inventory numbers appearing throughout the Maresha volumes are composed of the Area or Subterranean Complex number—Locus number— Basket number—Special Find type.

Acknowledgments We would like to take the opportunity to thank all the participants in the Maresha excavations project. 1985–1988 Archaeologists, Area Supervisors and Assistant Area Supervisors: Bernie Alpert (1985, 1987), Dan Gaspar (1985), the late Dan Keren (1986–1987), Nahum Sagiv (1986), Eli Shenhav (1986–1988), Harley Stark (1985) and Yair Zoran (1985–1988). Surveyors: Dan Behar and David Huli.

Table 2. Subterranean Complexes by Year of Excavation/Survey and License Number Year

Lic. No.

1989

G-70/89

Subterranean Complex 30

44

 

 

75

 

500

1990

G-50/90

 

29

30

44

 

53

 

58

 

 

75

84

 

 

 

 

 

1991

G-46/91

 

 

 

 

51

53

 

58

 

 

75

84

90

 

 

 

 

   

1992

G-60/92

 

29

30

44

 

 

 

58

61

 

75

84

 

 

 

 

 

1993

G-09/93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

61

 

75

84

 

 

 

 

 

1994

G-16/94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

 

 

75

84

 

 

 

128

147

510 520 557 560

1995

G-35/95

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

 

 

75

84

 

 

 

128

147

 

1996

G-17/96

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

 

 

 

84

 

 

 

128

147

 

1997

G-05/97

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

 

 

 

128

147

 

1998

G-09/98

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

 

128

147

 

1999

G-08/99

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

 

128

147

 

2000

G-03/00

1

 

 

 

 

 

57

 

 

74

 

 

 

97

99

128

147

 

viii 1989–2000 Archaeologists, Area Supervisors and Assistant Area Supervisors: Bernie Alpert (1989–2000), Yoav Arbel (1990–1993), Efrat Assaf (1991–1992), Ofra Bargil (1989–1990), Angela Davidson (1992), Adi Erlich (1993–1994), Michael Erlich (1990), Jill Ervais (1990), Gerald Finkielsztejn (1991, 1993), Alain Hubsch (1992), Shlomo Pifano (1989), Ori Re‘i (1989), Dalit Regev (1989–1990), Oded Ron (1989– 1993), Nahum Sagiv (1989), Diza Shmuel (1993), Fanny Vitto (1993), Sherry Whetstone (1993–1994), Karni Wolovelski (1992) and Asaf Yas‘ur (1989). Yair Zoran (1989–1995) deserves special appreciation for his involvement in the excavations and specially in the survey of the subterranean complexes. Surveyors: Benny Arubas (1989), Debra Gamil (1991–1993), Pavel Gertopsky (1990–1992), Avraham Hajian (1990, 1999–2000), Alexander Pechuro (1994), Viatcheslav Pirski (1991–1993), Felix Portanov (1993–1994), Valentine Shorr (1992) and Israel Vatkin (1990–1992). Metal Detectors (Survey): Rami Chen (1993–1994) and Yehoshua Dray (1992). Pottery Restoration: Yosef Bukengolts (1992–1996), Tikva Levine (1989–1991) and Ludmila Margolis (1994–1995). Pottery Analysis: Tikva Levine (1992–1995) and Dalit Regev (1989–1991). Pottery Drawing: Tali Krinkin-Fabian, Alina Pikovski and Josephin Yeroshevitz. Finds Registration: Tikva Levine (1991–1993), Sonia Shaharit (1994–2000) and Ludmila Yavorski (1996– 2000). Area Photography: Ronni Ben-Haim (1994), Ronni David (1989), Leonid Hrumchenko (1989) and Sandu Mendrea (1990–1994). Finds Photography: Clara Amit and Tsila Sagiv.

Radio Carbon: Israel Carmi and Dror Segal. Metal Laboratory: Ella Altmark. Semitic Epigraphy: Esther Eshel. Greek Epigraphy in the Burial Chambers: Uriel Rappaport (1989–1990). Greek Epigraphy: Hava B. Korzakova (1996–2000). Numismatist: Rachel Barkay. Figurine Specialist: Adi Erlich. Stamped Amphora and Handle Analyst: Gerald Finkielsztejn. Administrator: The late Moshe Kedem. Surveys were conducted during the 1980s and the beginning of the 1900s by the Maresha expedition and the Cave Research Center of Israel. Volunteers from Israel and abroad, including high-school students from the surrounding moshavim, joined us in the summer vacation during the 1989–1990 season. From 1991 onward, we employed workers supplied by the Ministry of Labor. The majority were recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. The excavation seasons were held on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, with the participation of the Jewish National Fund and the National Parks Authority. The Israel Tourism Corporation provided the majority of the funding, through the auspices of the Ministry of Tourism. These bodies also participated in the development of the National Park at Bet Guvrin– Maresha, which is now open to the public. Sherry Whetstone assisted in the preparation of this manuscript. I also wish to thank the members of the Publications Department of the IAA and especially the volume editor, Shoshana Israeli; the series editor, Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz; and the former and present editorsin-chief, Zvi Gal and Judith Ben-Michael, respectively. Amos Kloner Jerusalem, 2010

Chapter 1

The Site and the Epigraphic Finds Amos K loner

Introduction The Upper City In the summer of 1900, F.J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister conducted the first archaeological excavations at the ancient site of Maresha (Marisa in Greek; Tell Sandahanna in Arabic), which comprises an area of 24 dunams (c. 6 acres). These excavations revealed the layers of a mound dating to Iron Age II and presumably the Persian period, beneath two Hellenistic phases (Ptolemaic and Seleucid). Their report (Bliss and Macalister 1902) describes the remains of a Hellenistic city laid out in accordance with the orthogonal, Hippodamic plan. The main east–west street, which varied in width (2–6 m), divided the city into southern and northern sectors. North–south and east–west streets formed twelve insulae or parts thereof. This secondcentury BCE city, built on the mound, is referred to in this volume as the Upper City (Maresha I:9–18). Two fortification walls, which encompassed the Upper City, were uncovered in the 1900 excavations. The earlier and lower of these walls dates, at least in part, to Iron II, and served as an outer rampart during the Hellenistic period. The upper and innermost wall, with towers at its corners, was built at the beginning of the third century BCE, apparently prior to most of the surface area construction activities in both the Upper and Lower Cities and the hewing of many of the subterranean cave complexes of the Lower City. This wall continued in use for some 200 years, with considerable parts of it rebuilt or repaired in the course of this period. The fortification walls of the Upper City remained in place until the Hasmonean conquest in 111 BCE. Bliss and Macalister suggested that the rectangular room located within the eastern wall was a gateway, but it seems more likely that this was a tower, as it abuts the exterior of the wall. Bliss and Macalister’s report does not mention caves or quarries in the Upper City. Their excavations

revealed at least one Iron Age layer, 3–6 m below the floor level of the Seleucid city; above it there may have been Persian- and early Hellenisticperiod layers. Extensive Iron Age remains were subsequently found above the bedrock in later excavations. As bedrock was reached in only a very limited area of the 1900 excavations, the conclusion that there are no caves in the Upper City remains debatable. While there is insufficient data to determine its actual function, the fortified Upper City appears to have served as an acropolis. Bliss and Macalister (1902:52–61) and Thiersch (1908:394–401), as well as Avi-Yonah (1993), who summarized the work of his predecessors, were aware of the existence of only the Upper City at Maresha and interpreted the finds accordingly, as if it were an independent site. According to these scholars, the Upper City was a self-contained urban unit. Consequently, both Thiersch and Avi-Yonah have suggested that the large open plaza to the south of the main street, A, was the city’s agora. The square building to the south of the agora was interpreted as a hostelry, and the massive courtyard on the eastern side of the city, as barracks or an administrative complex. The three naoi in the center of this structure were regarded as the remains of a small sanctuary. All these assumptions need to be reexamined in light of the recent excavations, which have yielded new evidence concerning the layout of the city as a whole. We believe that the upper stratum found by Bliss and Macalister is dated only to the second century BCE and there is no architectural or find evidence that it was renewed and changed in the first century BCE. During the excavations of Bliss and Macalister, a number of coins were retrieved, of which only sixty-one could be identified: twentyfive of John Hyrcanus, nineteen assigned to Seleucid kings and thirteen to Ptolemaic kings (Bliss and Macalister 1902:68). The coins of John Hyrcanus may

2

Amos Kloner

The Lower City

indicate that a small unit of mercenaries was stationed at the site for a few years after 111 BCE. Bliss and Macalister also found epigraphic material in the Upper City, including Greek inscriptions engraved on limestone blocks (Bliss and Macalister 1902:68–70). Other inscriptions from the Upper City were studied by R. Wünsch. Thirty-seven of these were incised on limestone blocks, in Greek; four were recognized as Hebrew script, from which only a few words were read (Bliss and Macalister 1902:158–180).

Recent excavations clarified that the site of Maresha includes a vast lower city, located on the slopes surrounding the Upper City (Plan 1.1; Kloner 1991a, 1991b, 1996b, 2008, Maresha I, II). The inscribed artifacts and epigraphic material discovered during these excavations are the subject of this volume.

Northern Suburb

30

29

Eastern Necropolis

100

18

97

Upper City

19

75

147

1 86 53 44

600

Lower City

51

70

73

99 72

800 71

61 57 84 58

Eastern Suburb

169

930-940

128

Southwestern Necropolis

920 90

Lower City

Wall Surface Excavated Areas Lower City Wall

Siege Wall 900

Plan 1.1. General plan of the surface areas and subterranean complexes at Maresha.

0

100 m

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

Excavations of the Maresha Expedition The most extensive excavations were conducted in the following surface areas of the site: Areas 30, 53, 61, 100, 600, 800, 930, 940, 900 and 920. Subterranean complexes, discovered below the surface areas, were surveyed and excavated. The numbering system for the subterranean complexes is explained below (p. 14). Only the surface areas and subterranean complexes which contained epigraphic material are briefly described here.1

3

The Surface Areas Area 53 (Fig. 1.1; Plan 1.2; Table 1.1) Area 53, located to the south of the Upper City, was excavated in 1989 and 1990 (Kloner 1991a:79–85). It consists of three houses, of which a small part of the northern and western houses were uncovered, while the ground floor of the southern house (Plan 1.2) was fully exposed. It comprises a central courtyard surrounded by a large hall, a smaller room, stairwells

Fig. 1.1. Area 53, looking north.

4

Amos Kloner

and storerooms. A spiral staircase led to an upper floor (Fig. 1.2), which did not survive (Kloner 1991a:80–81; 1996a). Three phases were distinguished: the earliest dated to the early third century BCE; the second, from the end of the third to the begining of the second centuries BCE; and the latest, from the middle to the end of the second century BCE. The pottery from this area dates mainly to the third and second centuries BCE, especially in the storerooms. Some sherds from the fourth century BCE were also found. Of particular interest are imported amphorae from south Italy and second-century BCE Rhodian storage jars with stamped handles (Finkielsztejn, in preparation). A juglet containing a hoard of silver coins, the latest dating to 113/112 BCE, was hidden in the floor of one of the southern rooms (Barkay 1992– 1993). Nine Greek ostraca were exposed in the latest occupation phase of the building, dated to the end of the second century BCE. To date, no Aramaic ostraca have been found in this area. Seven terracotta figurines were discovered in this area, mostly from Subterranean Complex 53 located below the residential complex (Maresha II:90). A lead weight was recovered from Room 205C in that complex

Fig. 1.2. A spiral staircase in Area 53, looking north.

Plan 1.2. Reconstruction of the southern Hellenistic house in Area 53, looking north.

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

(Table 1.1; see Chapter 7; for plan of Subterranean Complex 53, see Kloner 1991a). Table 1.1. Area 53 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 12

53-108-408

19

53-233-1054

68

53-103-75

122

53-108-108

125

53-144-449

184

53-102-63

185

53-115-2-4

186

53-162-63

240

53-107-2

Lead Weight (see Chapter 7) 11

53-205C-758-M1

Area 61 (Fig. 1.3; Plan 1.3; Tables 1.2–1.5) Area 61, excavated in 1992 and 1993, is a Hellenistic insula, located southeast of the Upper City (Kloner et al. 1998:163–165, Fig.12). It was divided from north to south into three houses and part of a fourth, bordered

5

on the south and west by two streets (each c. 5 m wide), paved with crushed limestone mixed with sherds. The insula was built in accordance with an orthogonal plan, similar to that of the Upper City, although the buildings are not symmetrically arranged and the streets do not meet at right angles. The houses consist of rooms grouped around a central courtyard, with a subterranean complex hewn below them and staircases leading to the upper floors or rooftops. The rich finds include complete or intact pottery, lamps, thirteen terracottas (see Maresha II:90–91), coins, loom weights and grinding installations, all of which dated the abandonment of the site to the late second century BCE. A total of twenty-four Greek ostraca, two lead sling bullets and sixteen lead weights were exposed in Houses A, B and D; an additional lead weight was recovered from Subterranean Complex 61 beneath the insula. These weights are crucial evidence attesting to the commercial activities conducted in the ground-floor rooms of houses at Maresha. In the northern house, A, the beaten-earth floor of the central courtyard sealed the entrance to the subterranean complex. Amphorae imported from Rhodes, Kos, Knidos, Brindisi and North Africa (Finkielsztejn, in preparation), as well as locally made storage jars,

Fig. 1.3. Area 61, looking east.

6

House A

House B

House C

Western Street

House D

Southern Street 0

Plan 1.3. Area 61.

10 m

7

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

were stored in the western rooms of the house. In these storerooms, staircases led to an upper story. An installation consisting of four small plastered pools connected by pipes and channels was excavated to the south of the storerooms. Tabuns and basalt mortars on tripods were uncovered in the eastern rooms. Extensive weaving activity is evidenced by concentrations of unbaked clay loom weights. Three terracottas were uncovered in House A (Maresha II:90–91), as well as eight Greek ostraca and eight lead weights (Table 1.2). Table 1.2. Area 61, House A Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 143

61-701-1041-S

144

61-701-1050-Sp2

145

61-709-1098-Sp4

197

61-705-1020-Sp1

198

61-706-1038-Sp1

199

61-710-1075-S1

222

61-709-1101-S2

231

61-710-1058-S1

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7) 4

61-723-1157-M1

12

61-701-1043-M1

13

61-701-1129-M1

21

61-710-1068-M1

24

61-706-1045-M1

25

61-713-1064-M1

26

61-721-M1

30

61-701-1036-M1

Table 1.3. Area 61, House B Cat. No. 123

61-121-350-S1

187

61-165-583-Sp1

188

61-173-457-Sp4

229

61-121-350-S1

237

61-709-1098-Sp7

Lead Sling Bullet (see Chapter 5) 1

61-190-605-M1

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7) 1

61-157-413-M1

2

61-197-517-M1

17

61-195-537-M2

20

61-195-537-M1

22

61-150-581-M1

on the western side of the house were used as shops or workshops and opened onto the street, with a passage linking them to the residential section. The eastern part of the house had five construction phases, evidenced by raised floor levels and the addition of wings. An oil press (A14) below House D was accessed directly from the southern street. Three terracottas were recovered from the streets bordering on House D (Maresha II:90–91). Eight Greek ostraca, a lead sling bullet and three lead weights were found in the house (Table 1.4). Three additional Greek ostraca exposed during the Table 1.4. Area 61, House D Cat. No.

The central house, B, consists of eighteen rooms surrounding a courtyard, which had five subphases and evidence of repairs. A vault led to the subterranean complex. A row of rooms faced the street on the western side of the house; three staircases led to the roof or to a second story. Eight terracottas were collected (Maresha II:90–91). Five Greek ostraca, a lead sling bullet and five lead weights were also found in this house (Table 1.3). The remains of House C, partially excavated, lay between Houses B and D. The rooms of House D were built on several levels, connected by staircases, some of which were hewn in the bedrock. A staircase leading to a second story was built around a pillar in the southwestern corner of the courtyard. Another staircase, in the northeastern corner of the courtyard, led to the cisterns of the subterranean complex. The rooms

Inv. No.

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3)

Inv. No.

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 64

61-385-279-S2

69

61-345-170-S3

124

61-368-249-S3

127

61-385-273-S3

128

61-385-279-S2

189

61-365-208-Sp3

190

61-385-275-S1

221

61-353-206-S1

Lead Sling Bullet (see Chapter 5) 2

61-300-1-M1

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7) 5

61-366-211-M1

18

61-338-117-M1

23

61-308-21-M1

8

Amos Kloner

1992 season (Kloner and Asaf 1995) were recorded as surface finds (Table 1.5).

Table 1.5. Area 61, Surface Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 2) 95

61-18-29-S2

108

61-26-106

129

61-555-755-S10

Area 100 (Fig. 1.4; Plan 1.4; Table 1.6) Area 100, excavated in 1989, 1991 and 1993, included the fortification system in the northwestern corner of the Upper City and part of an insula in the Lower City to its north. The fortification system comprises a tower, a sloping accumulation of earth, and a lower, outer wall (for a description of this area, see Kloner 1991c; 2003:12–15, Plan 2.2; Kloner, Finkielsztejn and Arbel 1998).

Two phases, both Hellenistic, were identified. The tower of the first phase, roughly trapezoidal in plan, was built in the early third century BCE of local chalk (soft limestone), quarried in brick-shaped blocks from the caves of the Lower City and laid mainly as headers; local nari stones were also incorporated into some of the courses. At the end of the third century BCE or in the first half of the second century BCE, the second phase, consisting of two rooms, was constructed; the entrance was not found in the excavation. Stamped handles of Rhodian amphorae from the second quarter of the second century BCE and coins from that period, testifying to the continuous use of the tower, were recovered. The tower was probably abandoned in the late second century BCE. The foundation trenches for both Hellenistic phases were cut into earlier accumulations of earth and debris: a stratum of ash and charcoal-laden debris at a 40° incline, dating to the Persian period (end of the fifth century BCE); beneath it was a hard-packed crushed limestone layer. Sherds from below this layer down to bedrock were dated to the late Iron Age.

Upper City

Lower City

Fig. 1.4. Aerial view of the northwestern tower with shops and workshops A–E, looking south.

9

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

11

339.01

E

339.05

10 9 338.86

D 7

5

8

338.88 C 337.15

6 13b

A

338.84

341.32

13a

4

1

0

W3

344.70

17

342.47

W29

B

339.52

2

3 345.04 343.01

346.81

W101 05

W2

W31

W85

349.44

W70

351.31

W14

347.85

347.44

343.91

W28

345.44

W90

L113

W211

W23

346.41

W21

348.05

352.87

352.08

L96

W86

W88

350.40

351.52 349.21

0

5

351.99

m

Plan 1.4. Area 100. The northwestern tower and the shops and workshops (A–E) to its northwest (from Finkielsztejn 1999: Plan 1).

10

Amos Kloner

Table 1.6. Area 100 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Comments

Aramaic Ostraca (see Chapter 2) 4

100-294-1186-S2

Lower City

5

100-91-789

Lower City

9

100-97-742

Lower City

14

100-121-799/2

Lower City

15

100-91-751-S1

Lower City

17

100-510-3126-S1

Tower/West Room

19

100-76-718/4

Lower City

21

100-115-784/2

Lower City

23

100-252-1076-S1

Lower City

29

100-26-165

Tower

30

100-262-1133-S6

Lower City

31

100-500-3108-S1

Tower/East Room

33

100-91-751-S2

Lower City

49

100-119-785

Lower City

55

100-294-1186-S1

Lower City

57

100-500

Tower/East Room

58

100-433-3210-S3

Upper City

61

100-120-794/2

Lower City

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 63

100-415-3045-S1

Upper City

75

100-410-3040-S1

Upper City

151

100-2

 

152

100-98-746

Lower City

153

100-143-846

 

154

100-440-3231-S3

Upper City

155

100-405-3022-S3

Upper City

174

100-128-826

 

211

100-276-1160-S3

 

233

100-135-845

 

234

100-268-1110-S2

 

258

100-140-848-S1

 

Area 600 (Table 1.7)

Lead Sling Bullet (see Chapter 5) 5

100-414-3221-M1

50.09 g

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7) 14

100-263-1104-M1

27

100-235-1032-M1

stones and continued in use in the Hellenistic period as a retaining wall at the foot of the tower. An insula, consisting of five structures (A–E) running from west to east, was partly excavated to the north of the tower. Subterranean Complexes 155 and 156 were found below this insula. The square and rectangular structures of this insula were made of one or two rooms each and were probably shops or workshops. They were built of dressed limestone blocks, facing north onto a street. Based on the rich finds found in the fills, the insula was constructed in the second quarter of the second century BCE; its last occupation phase was dated to c. 150–111 BCE. Structure B was associated with Cistern 155; in Room 4, steps were built into an Iron Age wall. Structure C probably served as a merchant’s shop under inspection by the agoranomoi, recorded on a limestone measuring table, inscribed with the names of two magistrates and a date in the Seleucid calendar corresponding to 143/2 BCE (see Chapter 9). A stepped wall, which probably sealed the foundations of the Iron Age wall, was found beneath the floor of Room 6 in Structure C. An installation for the distribution of liquids was found in Structure D; two well-preserved staircases abutting the Iron Age wall led to an upper story. A spacious courtyard in Structure E contained steps leading to an underground cistern (156), which apparently was abandoned shortly after its construction. Eleven terracotta figurines were uncovered (Maresha II:96–97). Eighteen Aramaic ostraca, twelve Greek ostraca, a lead sling bullet and two lead weights were also found (Table 1.6). The Aramaic ostraca seem to be earlier then the Greek ostraca, although there might be a time in which both appeared.

An Iron Age wall (W30) built of nari stones laid as headers was found near the northwestern corner of the tower. This wall, partially constructed on a fill of large stones sealed by a stepped wall, became part of the topographically lower outer city wall, which functioned as an outer defensive line for the Upper City (Plan 1.4). The wall was repaired with small chalk

Area 600, excavated in 1990, is a modern semicircular channel, dug both manually and mechanically (Kloner 1993b:88). It was excavated in preparation for laying underground pipes to supply electricity to the national park (see Plan 1.1). Before the channel was dug, a strip (2 m wide) was excavated along its line. In certain places the strip was widened according to the exposed architecture. Three terracottas (Maresha II:97) and nine Greek ostraca were found in the trench south of Area 53 toward Subterranean Complex 44 (Table 1.7). It should be noted that remains of the Byzantine period were found to the southeast of Subterranean Complex 29.

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

in the Hellenistic period of the third–second centuries BCE. Most of the structures were finely built houses made of local chalk stone laid on nari foundations. Industrial installations were also found. As the buildings were oriented north–south and east–west, it is likely that this area of the Lower City was also built in accordance with the orthogonal plan.

Table 1.7. Area 600 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 85

600-646-706-S1

86

600-646-706-S2

87

600-646-706-S3

88

600-646-706-S5

89

600-646-706-S4

90

600-646-706-S6

91

600-646-706-S7

218

600-626-620

219

600-645-704

11

Area 930 (Fig. 1.5; Plan 1.5; Table 1.8) During the 1994 season, Area 930 was simultaneously excavated with adjoining Area 940, southeast of the Upper City. Surface buildings with their related streets were identified. Two insulae, comprised of houses and a possible fortress, were exposed, as well as two streets bordering the insulae (Kloner, Erlich and Whetstone 2000). The buildings in Area 930 were constructed in the first half of the second century BCE. In some of them, changes and additions occurred during that century and some of the subterranean complexes went out of use. This part of the Lower City was finally abandoned in the late second century BCE. No traces of fire or

The settlement of this period extended over c. 15 dunams, and in 1985 and 1987, a church was excavated in its southern part (Kloner 1993a). The site was reoccupied in the fifth century CE and the settlement continued until the beginning of the seventh century CE. It is possible that this area was also in use for a short time in the Early Islamic period, although evidence for this is very limited. The results of the soundings carried out along this trench testify that the Lower City was densely built-up

K O

L

Fig. 1.5. Area 930, looking southwest.

12

Amos Kloner

B

Area 930 A

Street E

J F

C

I Street D

G H

K L

M P N O

R

S

T 0

Plan 1.5. Areas 930 and 940.

5

m

Area 940

13

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

Table 1.8. Area 930 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Greek Ostracon (see Chapter 3) 94

930-87-252-S1

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7) 8

930-70-242-M2

31

930-50-154-M1

violent destruction were found, only ruins that yielded abundant finds. The buildings were made of nari stone and soft limestone; the overall layout was orthogonal on a north–south and an east–west axis. As the buildings were constructed on a slope, some were cut into bedrock, while others were built on fills; Street D is made of steps leading down the slope. One insula contained three houses (A–C), bordered on the west by Street E. The paving of the street was not preserved, but two coins of Antiochus III (223–187 BCE) were recovered from its fill. House A is the only one completely excavated. The entrance was not found, but it may have been located off Street E, as this area was built on a slope. Two staircases were exposed, one leading to an underground cistern and the other to a subterranean complex. The eastern part of the house had eroded and no floors were preserved. However, the floors in the western part of the house were either plastered or made of beaten earth and crushed chalk or simply of bedrock. The rich finds included pottery, lamps, glass vessels, coins and stone installations. Four of the coins were recovered on two of the upper floors: one of Ptolemy III (246–221 BCE); two of Antiochus IV Epiphanies (175–164 BCE); and one of Alexander Ballas (150–145 BCE). Two rooms of House B were excavated north of House A; an opening in one of the rooms led to a cistern in Subterranean Complex 165. Two rooms of House C were also excavated south of House A; these rooms were built atop Subterranean Complex 145. One of the rooms contained a rich assemblage of intact or restorable vessels, including a stamped Rhodian amphora dated to 126 BCE. Other finds included a horse-shaped rhyton (Maresha II:75–76, Cat. No. 232; Erlich and Kloner 2008), coins, weights and grinding installations. A rock-cut installation was found under the room’s floor. The second insula, located west of Street E, contained Building F. A coin of Alexander Ballas was found in the fill under the floor of one of the

rooms. Street D, a short street branching off Street E, includes six large stone steps leading down the slope to Buildings G and H, which were severely eroded; most of the floors and upper parts of their walls were not preserved. These two buildings had a large stonebuilt staircase and pilaster, doubled compartments and doubled walls. They might also have had a hall and rooms. Their construction differed from that of the residential buildings excavated at Maresha and they should probably be considered as public buildings with a defensive function. Such buildings may have served as a substitute for the eastern city wall of the Lower City, which to date has not been identified. Building I, severely eroded and poorly preserved, was partially excavated, including two rectangular rooms. Building J is an open area. The fill in this area contained pottery, four terracottas (see Maresha II:91–92) and coins, all dating to the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. A Greek ostracon and two lead weights were also exposed (Table 1.8). Area 940 (Plan 1.5; Table 1.9) In 1994, Area 940 was simultaneously excavated with adjoining Area 930, and nine structures (K–P, R–T) were identified. Seven cave entrances were revealed, leading to Subterranean Complexes 161 and 162. No city wall was found in this area, and unlike in Area 930, no clear plan of insulae was discerned. The very rich ceramic corpus consisted mainly of Persian and early Hellenistic pottery, with a significant amount of earlier Persian and Iron Age material. Twenty-five stamped amphora handles, one hundred thirty-two lamps, six terracottas (see Maresha II:92– 93), a loom weight and twenty-one coins were found. Two Greek ostraca were discovered (Table 1.9). Structure K consists of large public areas; seven cist graves were found hewn into the chalky bedrock below the fills of two of its courtyards. Subterranean Complex 162, located below Area 940, is a cave system containing eighteen halls, the arched entrance to which is bisected by a Structure K wall. The system includes an oil press, cisterns, a bathhouse, stables and Table 1.9. Area 940 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Unit

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 142

940-205-664-S2

N

168

940-224-711-S1

L

14

Amos Kloner

storage areas. Human figures were carved on pillars in two of the halls. A frieze, a carved inscription and graffiti were found on the walls of the bathhouse and two of the halls. Structure L consists of two large public areas. Structure M is a domestic area; a staircase may have led to an upper floor. A spiral staircase descends to Subterranean Complex 161, consisting of seven halls with two cisterns, a bathhouse, storage areas and an especially well-preserved oil press, including a finely carved cult niche. Structure N consists of two long trapezoidal rooms that may have served as storerooms. Structure O is a large courtyard with a possible staircase leading to underground installations. Structure P is a corridor dividing two other areas; a square shaft entrance to an underground chamber is an integral part of a wall in this structure. Structure R consists of domestic rooms. Structure S is an extra-domestic area used as a ceramic dump. The dump contained sherds of 1200 small plain bowls, a similar number of small slipped bowls, more than 1300 examples of other types of bowls and plates, over 125 amphorae, 500 jars, 750 jugs and bottles, and over 400 cooking vessels. All finds are dated to the third century BCE. Structure T is a domestic area with one staircase ascending to an upper floor and another staircase descending to underground installations and a cistern.

510–549 for the tombs of the northern necropolis, and 550–599 for the tombs of the eastern necropolis). Surface areas were numbered according to the numbers of the subterranean complexes discovered below them; e.g., the excavation over the es-Sūk cave of Subterranean Complex 30 was designated Area 30. From 1993 on, the subterranean complexes and their associated surface areas were assigned different numbers (for example, Areas 100, 930 and 940; see Plan 1.1), as we realized that several subterranean complexes could be related to the same surface unit. Subterranean Complex 1 (Plan 1.6; Table 1.10) Subterranean Complex 1 was first surveyed in 1900 (Bliss and Macalister 1902:239–240). A room-byRoom 16

L112 L114

Room 18 Room 19

Room 20 Room 21

The Subterranean Complexes As part of their work, Bliss and Macalister numbered their subterranean complexes from 1 to 63 and published a map of their locations (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 15). new subterranean complexes were found during the current excavations. To differentiate between those surveyed and mapped by Bliss and Macalister and the current surveys and excavations, the numbers 64–69 were left unused. The subterranean complexes revealed during the current surveys and excavations were hence numbered 70–170. The complex east of the tell, discovered and studied in 1980, was designated No. 70 (Maresha I:31–39). The 400 numbers were allocated to subterranean complexes east of the modern road running from north to south along the eastern slope of the Lower City. Tombs were numbered from 500 to 599 (500–509 for the tombs of the southwestern necropolis,

Room 22

Room 23

0

4

m

Plan 1.6. Subterranean Complex 1.

15

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

room survey was conducted in 1980 and 1985 by the Maresha Expedition and the Cave Research Center of Israel. The Maresha Expedition partially excavated the complex from 1995 to 2000. This large underground complex of seventy rooms, built on different levels, contains interconnected large halls, square and oval rooms, filtering chambers, columbaria, cisterns, stables and an oil press. Room 19 is a large space that shares an entrance with Rooms 16 and 18 (Plan 1.6). Two breaches in the southern wall connect it with Room 20. Traces of worn columbarium niches are visible on the walls. Room 20 is a large room; an opening descending to a bottle-shaped cistern is located in the northwestern corner. A breach in the wall of the cistern allowed passage to the lower level of this room. The upper level of Room 20 had entrances in the northern wall, in the northeastern corner connecting it with Room 19, and in the eastern wall connecting it with Room 21. A trough was carved in the upper level of the southern wall and industrial installations are located in the southeastern corner. A window in the southwestern corner of the southeastern extension of the room led to three water cisterns and two baths. This area contains feeding troughs and animal hitching posts; a tabun was built on the bedrock floor. An opening within the tabun led to a large storage area. Room 21 is a large columbarium with square niches; broken niches remained in the walls of the southern part of the room. A large niche was cut in the northeastern corner. A small opening in the southwestern corner led into Room 23. A relief on soft limestone depicting a man at an altar and a miniature carved soft limestone altar were found in the fill. The northeastern part of Room 21 connects with Room 22. One passage descends to a large water cistern and another, in the upper part of the wall, connects it via a small, broken bottle-shaped cistern to a room filled with dirt; an additional breach nearby led to another space filled with dirt. This unusually large water cistern had a supporting pillar, as indicated by marks on the ceiling. The staircase and railing had collapsed to half their height. Breaches leading to adjoining spaces had been sealed. Twelve terracottas were retrieved from Rooms 19–23 (Maresha II:95). One Aramaic ostracon, an ostracon written in Jewish script, eleven Greek ostraca, four astragali and two lead weights were also found in Rooms 19–22 (Table 1.10).

Table 1.10. Subterranean Complex 1 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Aramaic Ostracon (see Chapter 2) 19

1-1077-116-S3

19

Jewish Script Ostracon (see Chapter 2) 72

1-1190-327-S3

21

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 5

1-1190-361-S1

21

131

1-1283-147-S6

21

175

1-1077-117-S1

19

176

1-1077-121-S1

19

177

1-1178-108-S1

20

178

1-1078-255-S3

20

179

1-1078-273-S1

20

180

1-1189-397-S4

20

181

1-1190-443-S2

21

182

1-1283-141-S1

21

226

1-9076-100-S1

19

Astragali (see Chapter 6) 1

1-1094-523-S1

21

5

1-100-733-S6

20–22

8

1-1096-613-S2

21

9

1-1097-608-S7

20–22

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7) 9

1-1283-221-M1

21

10

1-1283-222-M1

21

Subterranean Complex 29 (Plan 1.7; Table 1.11) Subterranean Complex 29 is a large cave complex first surveyed in 1900 (Bliss and Macalister 1902:242) and again in 1985 (Miron 1985; designated No. 15). Excavations carried out in 1990 and 1992 revealed a stepped pillared entrance to the system and several adjacent rooms. A Greek ostracon was found in Room 9, in the dirt that had accumulated there (Table 1.11). It has now become clear that this system and Subterranean Complexes 31 and 32 jointly constitute one of the largest subterranean complexes at Maresha. For the purpose of this report, only the western part of Subterranean Complex 29 is included here. Table 1.11. Subterranean Complex 29 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Greek Ostracon (see Chapter 3) 114

29-171-158

16

Amos Kloner

Subterranean Complex 44 (Plan 1.8; Table 1.12) Subterranean Complex 44, first excavated in 1989, and again in 1990 and 1992, is an oil press (Maresha I:53– 72). The press consists of a staircase entrance, three pressing installations in the central hall, a crushing installation, collection vats, service cells, a storage room, a water cistern and a bathtub. A cult niche was cut into the wall between two of the pressing installations. Three Greek ostraca were found in the press: two in the central hall between the two pressing installations (L1), the third in the left weight trench (L12; Table 1.12; Maresha I:54).

1 2

3 4

5 6 9

11

10

7

12

8

Table 1.12. Subterranean Complex 44

14

49

Cat. No.

13

Inv. No.

Room

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 45 48

46

47

0

170

44-12-56-S1

Left weight trench

220

44-1-14-1

Central hall

227

44-1-24-17

Central hall

10 m

Plan 1.7. Subterranean Complex 29.

1

L6

N

G A

F

X

L11

C

L2

L10

L1

1

H

E B

L5

M L12

D

S

L9 L7 J

L4 L14 V

L13

T

Q

Q1

L15

L3

Y L8 W

T1

0

3

Plan 1.8. Subterranean Complex 44 (Maresha I: Plan 5.2).

I

m

Y L8 W

T1

0

3

17

m Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

I

1-1

Plan 1.8 (cont.). North–south section of Subterranean Complex 44 (Maresha I: Plan 5.2).

Subterranean Complex 51 (Fig. 1.6; Plan 1.9; Table 1.13) Subterranean Complex 51, partially excavated in 1991, is one of the large underground complexes, containing thirty-three units within nineteen systems. System 1. A round cistern (1). System 2. A dromos; entrance hall opening into three rooms, one of which has a staircase without a railing (2–4).

System 3. A round space (5) in which a staircase was originally hewn. Table 1.13. Subterranean Complex 51 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Comments

Aramaic Ostracon 56

51-8C-003-S2

8

Cult room

Greek Ostraca 126

51-18C-100-15

18

Hall

183

51-18C-100-S1

18

Hall

228

51-15-2-S5

15

Passage

Fig. 1.6. Subterranean Complex 51, a schematic relief carved on a wall of Room 8, looking north.

18

Amos Kloner

31 32

33

30 26 29

27

28

25 24 23 20

22 21 1

18

2 3 4

5

14 13

6

16

7 12

10 m

17 11

8 0

19

15

9

10

Plan 1.9. Subterranean Complex 51.

System 4. A dromos; entrance-hall opening into three units: a round room, a room with a railed staircase, and a plastered cistern (6, 7, 13). System 5. A dromos; entrance-hall (10) opening into two rooms (8 and 9) and two cisterns (11, 12). Room 8 has a supporting wall; arches and tying holes were observed in the other walls. A socket was hewn in the northern wall. A large schematic cruciform relief was carved on the northern wall (see Fig. 1.6). Eyes and a neck are depicted at the top of the figure, which is possibly a representation of the god Kos with his arms outstretched to the sides (Erlich 2009:14–22; Kloner,

in press:570–571). Three small depressions, functioning as receptacles, were hewn at different levels in the room, with channels for liquids between them. All the finds from Room 8 were dated to the Hellenistic period; a lamp with seven spouts may indicate cultic use. System 6. A round space (14) with a staircase without a railing. System 7. An entrance leading to Rooms 15 and 16, and a stepped cistern (17). Rooms 15 and 16 contain filtering installations. They were used as burial chambers during the first century CE, as testified by decorated fragments of ossuaries. System 8. A dromos; entrance hall opening onto two rooms (18, 19). Stable 18 had sockets used as troughs, and hitching posts hewn in its walls and central support pillar. A small cult niche was cut into one of the walls. System 9. One of the largest quarries found at Maresha (Rooms 20, 21, 24). System 10. A stepped room with a well-hewn filtering installation (22, 23). System 11. A long rectangular space (25), its ceiling supported by three pillars. System 12. A round, cracked, plastered cistern (26). Systems 13–16. Dirt-filled rooms (27–30). Systems 17–19. Rooms that were exposed by a rockfall (31–33), almost filled. Three figurines were collected (Maresha II:90). An Aramaic ostracon was discovered in Room 8, and three Greek ostraca were found in Room 15 and Stable 18 (Table 1.13). Subterranean Complexes 58 and 84 (Plan 1.10; Table 1.14) Subterranean Complexes 58 and 84, excavated jointly from 1990 to 1996, were defined as a large double complex of eleven systems, containing over forty rooms. Subterranean Complex 58 consists of four systems. System 1. Seven rooms (1–6, 12) including an oil press, a service hallway, a room for liquid storage, and other plastered rooms. Unit 2 is a square space, possibly used as a filtering installation, adjacent to the oil press. Room 12 is a hallway leading into the northern wing of a cross-shaped columbarium. System 2. Three rooms (7–9), one of which is a filtering installation. System 3. A round stepped space (10) entered by means of a descending staircase.

19

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

System 4. Two rooms (11, 13): a cruciform-shaped columbarium and a long narrow space in whose walls are cells with small bottle-shaped cisterns.

System 6. A relatively small square room and a long corridor (17, 18). System 7. A rectangular space (19, the sole remaining wing of a cruciform columbarium) with columbarium niches hewn in the walls.

Subterranean Complex 84 is divided into ten systems: System 5. Three rooms (14–16): a round stepped space with a staircase descending into it, a plastered columbarium with a well-constructed gabled entrance, and a round space connected to the columbarium.

9 8

10 2

7

5 1

3

6

4

11

12

23 13 21

22

14

20 17

18

19

15 24

16

40 43

32

36 34 41

25

33

35

37

31

39

27

38

26

28

42

29 30 0

10 m

Plan 1.10. Subterranean Complexes 58 and 84.

20

Table 1.14. Subterranean Complexes 58 and 84 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Aramaic Ostraca (see Chapter 2)

Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3)

28

84-21-770-S1

41b

57

84-3-314-S2

41

37

84-21-720-S3

41b

58

84-27-965-S1

2

43

84-30-846-S1

12

59

84-30-868-S3

12

47

84-15-487-S1

20

60

84-39-972-S2

12

51

84-30-902-S4

12

61

84-39-982-S1

12

52

84-23-963-S1

41b

74

84-21-657-S5

41b

63

84-20

2

79

84-21-718-S1

41b

66

84-30-845-S2

12

80

84-21-776-S2

41b

81

84-3-9

41

82

84-15-357-S3

20

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 7

84-20-512-S3

2

18

84-31-1018-S1

41

92

84-1-367-S2

43a

20

84-15-41-S1

20

110

84-5-362

41b

22

84C-3-1

41

111

84-27-963-S2

2

23

84C-3-6

41

112

84-39-983-S6

12

24

84C-3-10

41

113

84-5-335-S1

41b

25

84-3-340-S1

41

121

84-27-714-S1

2

26

84-5-133-S1

41b

137

84-37-969-S1

12

27

84-5-330-S1

41b

138

84-12-396-S1

38

28

84-5-342-S1

41b

140

84-14-565-S2

36

29

84C-3-3

41

141

84-30-761-S2

12

30

84-3-207

41

147

84-3-127-S1

41

31

84-3/5-240-S1

41/41b

148

84-15-486-S3

20

32

84-3/5-240-S2

41/41b

149

84-30-866-S1

12

33

84-3/5-240-S3

41/41b

150

84-30-866-S2

12

34

84-5-133-S2

41b

173

84-13-420-S1

39

35

84-5-133-S4

41b

205

84-3-126

41

36

84-5-133-S5

41b

206

84-8

39

37

84C-3-2

41

207

84C-10

35

38

84C-3-4

41

208

84C-10-234

35

39

84-3/5-240-S6

41/41b

209

84-13-258-S5

35

40

84-8-324-S1

39

210

84-30-881-S4

39

41

84-15-41-S2

20

224

84-20-662-S1

12

42

84-21-507-S4

41b

247

84-9-489-S1

2

43

84-21-720-S2

41b

248

84-9-500-S3

38

44

84C-3

41

249

84-9-513-S1

38

45

84-3-366-S1

41

250

84-9-513-S2

38

46

84-3/5-240-S4

41/41b

251

84-9-513-S3

38

47

84-3/5-240-S5

41/41b

252

84-9-513-S4

38

48

84-5-133-S3

41b

253

84-9-556-S2

38

49

84-5-352-S1

41b

254

84-9-557-S1

38

50

84C-3-5

41

255

84-14-434-S1

36

51

84C-3-8

41

256

84-14-442-S1

36

52

84C-3-11

41

257

84-15-357-S2

20

53

84-5-9

41b

Lead Sling Bullet (see Chapter 5)

54

84-17-376-S2

41b

55

84-20-539-S1

2

56

84-23-963-S1

41b

4

84-30-937-M1

12

Lead Weight (see Chapter 7) 32

84-27-777-M1

2

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

System 8. The sole surviving room (20) of an oil press; the pressing wing contains two installations with a service passage between them. System 9. A round stepped space, a square room with supporting columns and well-hewn cells, and a third room (21–23). System 10. A single room (24), apparently used as a quarry. System 11. Nine rooms (25–29, 31–34) and a long winding corridor with hewn spaces at its ends and sides. System 12. A single large room (30), filled with debris. System 13. Five rooms (35–39), with a common stepped entrance. A water channel leads to a round, stepped water cistern (35). Room 36 is a round chamber. It adjoins Room 38, used as a columbarium. Room 39 is a square chamber with various niches and kokhim. A hewn and constructed water channel descends from this room; a hewn pillar supports the ceiling. System 14. Two rooms (40, 43). Room 43 consists of a number of small, well-hewn and built square chambers. A well-hewn staircase serves both this room and the adjacent stepped cistern. System 15. Two rooms (41, 42). Room 41 is a stepped chamber divided by a wall into two parts, 41a and 41b. Fifty-six terracottas were collected from the fills or collapses, particularly from Rooms 12, 38 and 41 (Maresha II:86–88). Eight Aramaic ostraca, eighty-one Greek ostraca, a lead sling bullet and a lead weight were found in Rooms 2 and 12 of Subterranean Complex 58 and Rooms 20, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 41b, and 43a of Subterranean Complex 84 (see Table 1.14). A glass pendant was uncovered in the latter complex (Kloner and Jackson 2000). Subterranean Complex 61 (Plan 1.11; Table 1.15) Subterranean Complex 61, excavated in 1992 and 1993, consists of the underground installations beneath Area 61. The complex is divided into fourteen systems (13–26; Kloner and Arbel 1998), including columbaria, an olive press, bathtubs, filter chambers, rooms and cisterns. System 13. A cruciform columbarium (A14), whose original entrance was in the ceiling above the juncture of the arms of the cross. Only a few niches were found in the hall. Openings were later pierced in the walls of the hall, linking it to a cistern on the west and a network

21

of cisterns and rooms belonging to Systems 15 and 16 on the north. Another opening led into the eastern part of the hall. In its last phase, before it was sealed, the hall was used as a quarry. The fill, which almost reached the ceiling, contained a rich assemblage of pottery dated to the third–second centuries BCE. System 14. A two-roomed olive press originally accessed by a staircase with a rectangular gate. When the southern room was converted into a quarry, the press continued to function in the northern room. A crushing installation was installed in the center of the room; the presses and their counterweights were completely preserved. A deep cistern had originally been hewn between the counterweight basins; it contained a late fill that served to level the floor. System 15. A network of two rooms and two cisterns accessed via a stepped, roofed corridor. Traces of Greek letters were discernible on the doorposts of one of the gabled cisterns, which originally may have had some other function. System 16. A rectangular room entered through a square shaft cut in the ceiling. The shaft had been sealed and a wall built above it. The room itself was found intentionally filled with earth and stones almost to the ceiling. Openings leading to a room on the south and a cistern on the west were cut in the walls. The room was probably originally a quarry; its later uses are unclear. The finds include complete Hellenistic lamps. System 17. A network of cisterns and rooms accessed through a stepped passage. At a later stage, a square shaft was hewn in the ceiling of one pit. Staircases and later openings link the cisterns and rooms to each other, to a room belonging to System 19 to the west and to a columbarium belonging to System 18 to the north. Many whole pottery vessels dated to the Hellenistic period, including a Rhodian amphora and lamps, were found in one of the cisterns. System 18. The original entrance to this cruciform columbarium was from the ceiling above the juncture of the arms of the cross. Later openings pierced the walls, leading to other rooms and cisterns, including a cistern belonging to System 20. Parts of the hall were later used as a quarry. The earth fill contained Hellenistic pottery, including many lamps, a figurine of a horse and rider, an ostracon and fragments of a colored fresco. Its upper layer, in the southwestern arm, included scattered remains of human bones, indicating that the hall was used for burial toward the end of the Hellenistic period or in the Early Roman period. The

22

Amos Kloner

24 A53

A31

25

A27 A29

A52

23

A28

22 A26

A30

21

A54

A24

20

A25

A23

19 A22

18

A19 A58

A21

A55

17

A20

A51

A37

A49

A50

16 A18

15 A17

A40

26

A44

A48

A16

A41 A14

14

A45 A38

13 A39

A43 A57 A34

A42 0 A46

Plan 1.11. Subterranean Complex 61.

5 m

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

Table 1.15. Subterranean Complex 61 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Aramaic Ostraca (see Chapter 2) 16

61-620-1100-S6

17

39

61-623-1105-S1

15

Phoenician Ostraca (see Chapter 2) 67

61-623-1105-S2

68

61-614-1069-S3

15

Idumean Ostracon (see Chapter 2) 27

61-590-985-S4 61-590-1500-S5

35

Jewish Script Ostraca (see Chapter 2) 70

61-599-1534-S1

71

61-571-867-S5

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 1

61-552-688-S4

11

61-575-864-S6

13

61-623-1105-S11

96

61-567-842-S1

99

61-585-980-S1

101

61-576-876-S1

102

61-580-906-S1

103

61-590-1507

104

35

61-581-947-S1 61-547-753

105

61-620-1100-S1

107

61-564-770-S1

109

61-555-736-S2

115

61-567-785-S6

116

61-585-950-S1

117

61-574-837-S2

118

61-590-1505-S4

119

61-593-1509

130

61-593-1509-S1

132

61-565-796-S1

133

61-615-1088-S1

146

61-614-1075-S2

169

61-593-1513-S5

191

61-539-619-S1

192

61-551-904-S2

193

61-574-854-S1

194

61-593-790

195

61-593-1513-S4

196

61-614-1077-S2

230

61-611-1043

239

61-593-1522-S6

Lead Weight (see Chapter 7) 19

15

61-A24-0

17

35

23

rich assemblage of pottery beneath the fill includes intact lamps and Hellenistic vessels. One layer of ash contained an unusually large quantity of burnt olive pits. System 19. Two subsystems, each consisting of a room and two cisterns. Each subsystem was accessed via a staircase with a completely preserved railing. The plan of the northern subsystem was altered by later quarrying and building activities; a square shaft was cut to allow access to one cistern. Intact Hellenistic lamps and jar sherds were found on the floor of one of the cisterns and whole lamps and sherds lay on the floor of the room of the southern subsystem. As in System 18, scattered human bones were recovered. System 20. Two unexcavated cisterns. System 21. A square columbarium, originally accessed by a staircase, which was blocked when the columbarium went out of use, perhaps as early as the Hellenistic period. Later openings connected it with a room and two cisterns belonging to System 22. Several phases were discerned: the hall was originally hewn as a quarry and reused as a columbarium. It was subsequently filled with an intentional deposit over which a square cell was built; the cell was later buried under another fill. Finally, the hall was extended by cutting through its southern side and abandoned thereafter. System 22. Cisterns and rooms accessed by steps descending from one of the surface buildings. A small altar was cut in the stair rail. The northern cistern was later converted into a quarry. The southern cistern was accessed by a flight of steps from the northern cistern. Breaches in the walls of both cisterns connected them to one of the rooms. Two additional rooms were found; one apparently was used as a bath. System 23. Carefully hewn rooms, probably dating to the third century BCE. A staircase originally led to a small room, and on into a rectangular room with a bath at one end; a stepped channel provided bath water. A bench with legs carved in the shape of animal legs was hewn to the east of the bath. An opening led to a room belonging to System 25; a vaulted stepped passage led to a small room that was deepened in a later phase. System 24. An unexcavated columbarium. System 25. A room; its original entrance was not identified. Later openings linked this room to System 23. The finds, dated to the Hellenistic period, include small earthenware bottles, whole lamps and pieces of plaster.

24

Amos Kloner

System 26. An unexcavated cistern. Twenty-five terracottas were collected (Maresha II:91–92). Two Aramaic ostraca, two Phoenician ostraca, one Idumean ostracon, two ostraca written in Jewish script, thirty Greek ostraca and a lead weight were found in the complex. Subterranean Complex 75 (Plan 1.12; Table 1.16) Subterranean Complex 75 was surveyed in 1985 and 1988 (Kloner 1991b; 1991c:40), and excavated from 1989 to 1995 and in 1997. Excavations in the central hall (2), a circular chamber with a domed ceiling and rock-cut steps, identified four strata, two preceding its existence and two relating to its use as a subterranean complex: (1) four Iron Age phases (eighth–sixth centuries BCE), in which four lmlk stamped jar handles were found; (2) two fragmentary Persian-period levels; (3) four floor levels of the early Hellenistic period, mainly third century BCE, when the cave seems to have had an industrial function; (4) a late Hellenistic-period stratum, dated mainly to the second century BCE, on the basis of hundreds of complete and broken pottery vessels, and a bronze Harpocrates figurine.

Twenty-seven terracotta figurines were discovered in the main room and Columbaria 4 and 5 (Maresha II:95–96). They include a Persian-period horseand-rider, mold-made figurines of a woman nursing an infant, a standing woman, and the lower part of a standing male figure from the Iron Age (Kloner 1991a:72). Excavations yielded seven Aramaic ostraca, an Idumean ostracon, sixteen Greek ostraca and a lead sling bullet in Rooms 2, 4, 5, and 6 (Table 1.16). Two glass pendants were also found (Kloner and Jackson 2000). Table 1.16. Subterranean Complex 75 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Aramaic Ostraca (see Chapter 2) 2

75-4067-920-S1

4

3

75-4067-919

4

8

75-6069-1073-S1

6

13

1-1025-921-S1

2

22

75-6069-1127-S2

6

59

75-6069-1112-S1

6

41

1-1025-921-S2

2

Idumean Ostracon (see Chapter 2) 69

1386-XV-818

2

5

4

6

3

2 1 0

Plan 1.12. Plan of Subterranean Complex 75.

5

m

25

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

Table 1.16 (cont.) Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 14

75-1

2

15

75-5056-938-S1

5

21

75-5056-956-S1

5

100

75-5073-1146-S1

5

120

75-5056-922-S1

5

172

75-4-208

4

200

75-17

2

201

75-209-4

2

202

75-555

2

203

75-5056-933-S1

5

204

75-5073-1191-S1

5

223

75-5056-1050-S1

5

232

75-5073-1191-S2

5

244

75-718

4

245

75-870

4

246

75-6069-1139-S1

6

opening in the southern wall of Room 6 leads to Room 14, which may have been the original entrance to the oil press. An opening in the same wall leads to an oval space (10). An opening in the northwestern corner of Room 6 leads to Room 8. A Greek ostracon was found in Room 9, a small passage off Room 8. A terracotta

2

3

8

1

9

5

Lead Sling Bullet (see Chapter 5) 3

75-101-20-M1

4

2

6

Subterranean Complex 90 (Plan 1.13; Table 1.17) Subterranean Complex 90, identified and surveyed in 1991, consists of eighteen rooms, including a large, beautifully hewn and possibly unfinished and abandoned oil press, and three cisterns. The complex was found by opening a vertical shaft in the ceiling of a cistern. Room 1 is a large oval cistern whose stepped staircase also descends to a second cistern (2) and a filtering installation (3). These two rooms contained the largest repertoire of pottery, found as it was left at the end of the second century BCE. A shelf at the bottom of the cistern conceals a secret entrance to Room 5, a square room whose original entrance was a large square shaft. A large entranceway in the wall of Room 5 opens into the beautifully carved oil press (Rooms 6, 7). A cult niche was carved between the two pressing installations in Room 7. A bronze statue of Heracles was found here (Erlich 2009:33–36). A passage (11) in the southern wall of Room 7 led to a series of rooms (12–13, 15–18), including a large square cistern. One

10

7

14

11

16

13 12

15 17

Table 1.17. Subterranean Complex 90 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Greek Ostracon (see Chapter 3) 134

90-9

9

0

4

m

18

Plan 1.13. Subterranean Complex 90.

26

Amos Kloner

figurine depicting the Dioscuri was unearthed in the cistern near the entrance to the complex (Maresha II:90). Pottery and a water spout made of hard marblelike limestone, carved in the shape of a lion’s head (Erlich 2009:20–21), were found in the fills of this complex and are evidence of the ornamented nature of the unexcavated buildings on the surface at the present entrance to the subterranean complex.

8

7

Subterranean Complex 97 (Plan 1.14; Table 1.18) Subterranean Complex 97 was first surveyed in 1991 and 1992 and partially excavated from 1998 to 2000. It consists of five systems comprising eight large rooms, including an oil press and a cruciform columbarium. An Aramaic ostracon and a lead weight were excavated in Room 3 and in the courtyard to its east (Table 1.18).

6

5 Table 1.18. Subterranean Complex 97 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Aramaic Ostracon (see Chapter 2)

4

62

97-1-129-S1

Lead Weight (see Chapter 7) 3

97-1-101-M1

Subterranean Complex 99 (Plan 1.15; Table 1.19)

2

1

Subterranean Complex 99, surveyed in 1992 and partially excavated in 2000, consists of seventeen rooms, including an oil press and a series of bathtubs and cisterns on both sides of the press. An astragalus was found in the fill of Rooms 12 and 13.

Table 19. Subterranean Complex 99 0

4 m

Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Astragalus (see Chapter 6)

3

7

Tomb 559 Plan 1.14. Subterranean Complex 97.

99-1-004-S3

27

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

17 15

14

16

13 12

11

1

2 4 3 5 8 7 6

9

10 0

5

m

Plan 1.15. Subterranean Complex 99.

Subterranean Complex 128 (Plan 1.16; Table 1.20) Subterranean Complex 128, surveyed in 1992 and excavated from 1994 to 2000, is located at the southern end of the Lower City. The complex consists of eleven systems containing thirty rooms, including an oil press, filtering installations, water cisterns, quarries and columbaria. System 1. A round space (1) with passages to four other rooms.

System 2. A columbarium (2). System 3. A beautifully hewn vestibule with troughs for liquids, two filtering installations, a small square room with a cult niche, a room with an unknown function, and a round stepped space (3–8). System 4. A central hall (10) that functioned as a columbarium, its extension (9), two rounded rooms (11, 18) and a very small square room with a blocked staircase (12).

28

Amos Kloner

28 27

26

29

30

25 21

22

21

23 2

23 24

20

1

19 5

18 3

8 9

6

12 11

4

10

7

13 14 16 15

17

0

10 m

Plan 1.16. Subterranean Complex 128.

System 5. An oil press with rooms on either side of it. Room 13 is square with two passages, one leading to the back of the press near the press beam sockets (15), and the other opening into the central hall of the press. Room 14 contains two intact pressing installations, with no service passage between them. System 6. Two rooms: one (16), a round space with a possible cult niche in the eastern wall and the other (17), blocked with collapse.

System 7. A round space (19). System 8. A large space (20) hewn in stages, with a large supporting pillar that has a cell carved into it. System 9. Four rooms (21–24). A vestibule with an arched cell next to the entrance opening onto three rooms: a round stepped plastered cistern, a beautifully hewn square room with a finely carved entrance and a trough that originally may have been a filtering installation, and a beautifully designed additional entrance.

29

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

Table 1.20. Subterranean Complex 128 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Room

Aramaic Ostraca (see Chapter 2) 6

128-33-877-S1

18

11

128-35-895-S1

25

10

128-17-653-S2

20

24

128-3-165-S2

13

25

128-21-833-S1

18

34

128-17-653-S1

20

35

128-7-494-S1

19, 20

36

128-7-329-S3

19

40

128-35-883-S1

25

44

128-5-499-S1

14

45

128-21-826-S2

18

System 10. A blocked entrance hallway (25) combining quarrying and construction, with a few columbarium niches, led to two square spaces (29, 30). System 11. Three rooms (26–28), one containing columbarium niches opening onto the remaining two rooms—a round stepped cistern and a filtering installation. Forty terracottas were collected from seven units, mostly from fills and collapses in Rooms 13, 18 and 20 (Maresha II:88–90). Fifteen Aramaic ostraca, twenty-two Greek ostraca, an altar, a lead sling bullet and three astragali were found in Rooms 13, 14, 16, 18–20, 25 and 30. A glass pendant was uncovered in the complex (Kloner and Jackson 2000).

53

128-16-655-S1

19

54

128-38-873-S5

30

Subterranean Complex 147 (Plan 1.17; Table 1.21)

60

128-9-344-S3

18

65

128-40-1019-S1

18

Subterranean Complex 147 was excavated between 1994 and 2000, and consists mainly of a large rectangular columbarium and two rectangular spaces projecting off its southern side (Kloner 1999).2 Access to the installation was through an opening via a stairway (E4). Three square piers in the middle of the columbarium hall buttress the roof. The small niches are arranged in rows along the walls. Three phases were discerned: (1) the construction phase of the southern part of the hall (A), the staircase, the round roof aperture and the two southern rooms, dated to the first half of the third century BCE; (2) slightly later, a renovation, in which the northeastern

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 6

128-2-348-S1

16

8

128-3-158-S3

13

10

128-3-190-S1

13

62

128-2-237-S1

16

65

128-2-347-S4

16

66

128-7-361-S1

19, 20

67

128-7-514-S1

19, 20

70

128-7-294-S1

19, 20

71

128-7-422-S2

19, 20

72

128-18-425-S2

18

73

128-33-882-S5

18

78

128-9-314-S3

19, 20

83

128-18-650-S4

18

84

128-33-870-S1

18

98

128-3-170-S1

13

156

128-3-153-Sp1

13

157

128-18-593-S1

18

212

128-7-478-S3

19, 20

214

128-3-195-S1

13

225

128-2-183-S3

16

242

128-25-698-S1

25

259

128-7-426-S3

19, 20

C

B

E1 D

Altar (see Chapter 4) 1

128-20-705-S1

20

Lead Sling Bullet (see Chapter 5) 6

128-9-254-M1

A

E4

18

Astragali (see Chapter 6) 2

128-40-1051-S3

18

10

128-45-1132-S1

19

11

128-21-724-S2

18

0

Plan 1.17. Subterranean Complex 147.

4

m

30

Amos Kloner

part of the hall (B) and the square niches were added; (3) the final mid-third century BCE phase, which included the northwestern part of the hall (C), triangular niches and other architectural details that were added or modified. An irregularly shaped room (D), which may have served as a water reservoir, was hewn east of the columbarium, probably in the third century BCE. Access to this room was through a staircase from the surface (E1). The intentional fills contained finds mainly dated to the second century BCE, as well as Persian and Iron Age sherds, including an ostracon in Hebrew script dated to the seventh century BCE (Kloner and

Eshel 1999). The Hellenistic-period pottery included hundreds of intact and complete vessels and sixty-six terracotta figurines, among them Heracles, Isis, nursing women and of the horse-and-rider type, as well as rhyton fragments (Maresha II:92–95). A Hebrew ostracon, ten Aramaic ostraca, thirty-six Greek ostraca, two altars, three astragali, and three lead weights were found in the complex (Table 1.21). Miscellaneous (Table 1.22) Two objects have no provenance, and two others are from Subterranean Complex 169.

Table 1.21. Subterranean Complex 147 Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Hebrew Ostracon (see Chapter 2) 1

147-7-702-S1

Aramaic Ostraca (see Chapter 2)

Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 160

147-7-865-S1

161

147-7-1000-S4

7

147-7-785-S1

162

147-7-1077-S5

18

147-7-812-S2

163

147-7-1080-S1

26

147-7-861-S2

164

147-7-1116-S1

34

147-9-2156-S1

165

147-7-1160-S1

38

147-10-2621-S4

166

147-7-1201-S1

40

147-8-1864-S2

171

147-2-178-S1

55

147-5--560-S1

213

147-2-712-S2

57

147-10-2670-S2

215

147-7-812-S1

58

147-2-631-S1

216

147-7-828-S1

62

147-2-553-S1

217

147-8-1511-S1

235

147-7-901-S1

Greek Ostraca (see Chapter 3) 2

147-7-716-S1

236

147-7-1059-S2

3

147-7-823-S1

238

147-07-1101-S1

4

147-8-1429-S3

241

147-2-401-S1

9

147-8-1763-S2

243

147-10-2365

16

147-2-553-S2

260

147-7-702-S1

17

147-2-337-S2

261

147-7-785-S1

31

147-10-2389-S6

Altars (see Chapter 4)

76

147-7-1079-S4

77

147-7-1163-S1

93

147-2-152

97

147-7-1082-S2

3

147-09-1768-S3

106

147-2-150-S1

4

147-5-295-S1

135

147-7-1137-S1

6

147-08-1367-S1

136

147-10-2336-S1

139

147-10-2365-S5

15

147-2-529-M1

158

147-7-748-S4

28

147-07-931-M1

159

147-7-820-S6

29

147-07-900-M1

2

147-07-1180-S2

4

147-07-1050-S5

Astragali (see Chapter 6)

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7)

31

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

The Filling Process of the Subterranean Complexes

Table 1.22. Miscellaneous Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Comments

Altar (see Chapter 4) 3

46/91

From SC 53, SC 75 or Area 100

Lead Weights (see Chapter 7) 6

169-02-16-M2

7

169-02-16-M1

16

70/89-1-M1

Table 1.23 summarizes the epigraphic material included in this volume. The entries are arranged by provenance—area or subterranean complex.

Caves were hewn at Maresha beginning in the eighth century BCE, in the area surrounding the Upper City that would later become the Lower City. Soft limestone blocks were quarried from these caves for use in the construction of houses and fortifications in the Upper City during the Iron Age and Persian period. Subterranean complexes were hewn in the Hellenistic period, sometimes expanding the earlier caves. Fills—both intentional and unintentional—were discerned in the subterranean complexes. Intentional fills are defined here as a result of renovation within the subterranean complexes or the deliberate use of the caves as dumps for surface activities. The first type of intentional fill usually occurred in cisterns that were later used for other purposes and in rooms that were

Table 1.23. Summary of Epigraphic Material Found at Maresha Provenance

Ostraca Hebrew

Aramaic

Phoenician

Idumean*

Jewish

Greek

Altars

Lead Sling Bullets

Astragali

Lead Weights

Area 53



9

1

Area 61A



8

8

Area 61B



5

1

5

Area 61D



8

1

3



3 1

2

Area 61 Surface Area 100

18

12

Area 600



9

Area 930



1

Area 940



2

1

SC 1

1

11

SC 29



1

SC 44



3



3

SC 51

1

SC 61

2

SC 75

7

SC 84

8

2

1

2

1

SC 90

4

30 1

81

1

1

1

1

1

SC 99

1

SC 128

1

14

22

1

SC 147

1

10

35

2

1

3 3

SC 169

3 2

Miscellaneous Total

2

1

16

SC 97

2

1 2

63

1 2

2

3

260

4

* ‘Idumean’ in Chapters 1 and 10 encompasses the terms ‘Edomite’ and ‘Idumea’ used in Chapter 2

1 6

11

32

32

Amos Kloner

used for passages. These passageways were mainly the result of later quarrying into the original cave, and were used to block access to unused areas of the cave. The second type of intentional fill resulted from the disposal of debris associated with the ongoing, normal renovation of surface constructions, necessitated by the friable nature of the soft limestone used for the construction of both the city walls and walls of the buildings, as well as building contents. These renovations include wall plastering or wall-block replacement. Given their nature, the intentional fills include material from the latest occupation phase of the site, mainly from the Hellenistic period, although there are some finds from the Persian period. Iron Age finds are relatively rare. One example is a Hebrew inscription from the seventh century BCE, uncovered in the intentional fill from the central hall of Subterranean Complex 147 (see Chapter 2: No. 1; Kloner and Eshel 1999). The fills were made up mostly of dirt, stone, whole clay vessels and large amounts of broken pottery, statuettes and even broken frescos in some places, as in Subterranean Complex 84. Some of the most important epigraphic finds, such as the Idumean marriage document (see Chapter 2: No. 66), were also found in this fill. It is possible that some of these fills were due to military and political events connected with the conflict between the Idumeans and the Hasmoneans.

Many caves contain fills dating to the second half of the second century BCE, and more particularly, to shortly before and immediately after the conquest and abandonment of Maresha that occurred at the end of the second century BCE. It is possible that some of the debris was a result of the destruction caused by wars or sporadic violence, such as attacks by the Hasmonean army, during the seventh–fifth decades of the second century BCE. These events caused a decline in the economical activities at Maresha, which flourished again during the mid-second century BCE. Only a few of the subterranean complexes went out of use during this time span and started to be filled in the second quarter of the second century BCE. The unintentional fills are cone-shaped, resulting from debris falling into the cave from surface activities, after the cave had gone out of use. It is assumed that the caves were left open and the fills accumulated over the subsequent centuries after the abandonment of the site. These fills mainly contain Hellenistic finds, although in a few cases later periods are also represented, providing evidence of the episodic use of the site. Earlier Persianperiod finds are occasionally found in the upper levels of fill, for example in Subterranean Complex 75. A few Mamluk, Byzantine and Roman sherds came from the upper part of the fill in Subterranean Complex 147; the lower horizontal layers of the fill contained mostly Hellenistic finds and Persian and Iron Ages sherds (Kloner 1999:78*).

Notes Three other items—an Aramaic ostracon, an altar and a lead weight—were also found at Maresha, in undetermined locations. Finally, two lead weights (Chapter 7: Nos. 6 and 7) found in Subterranean Complex 169 in the 2001 season headed by Bernie Alpert and Ian Stern, License No. G-52/01, were added to this volume in order to present a more complete collection of these items. 1

The plan published in Kloner 1999: Fig. 138 was prepared during the excavations. The plan given here was drawn by Silvie Yogev-Neuman after the completion of the excavations. I wish to thank my colleagues of the Maresha Expedition and Professor Israel Shatzman for his helpful discussions. 2

Chapter 1: The Site and the Epigraphic Finds

33

R eferences Avi-Yonah M. 1993. Mareshah (Marisa). NEAEHL 3. Pp. 948–951. Barkay R. 1992–1993. The Marisa Hoard of Seleucid Tetradrachms Minted in Ascalon. INJ 12:21–26. Bliss F.J. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the years 1898–1900. London. Erlich A. 2009. The Art of Hellenistic Palestine (BAR Int. S. 2010). Oxford. Erlich A. and Kloner A. 2008. Plastic Vessels and Rhyta from Maresha. Qadmoniot 40:103–109 (Hebrew). Finkielsztejn G. 1999. A Standard of Volumes for Liquids from Hellenistic Marisa. ‘Atiqot 38:51–63. Finkielsztejn G. In Preparation. Maresha Excavations Final Report: Amphorae and Amphora Stamps from the 1989– 2000 Seasons (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Kloner A. 1991a. Maresha. Qadmoniot 95–96:70–85 (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1991b. Maresha, Complex 75. ESI 9:163–164. Kloner A. 1991c. Maresha—1989. ESI 10:38–40. Kloner A. 1993a. A Byzantine Church at Maresha (Beit Govrin). In Y. Tsafrir ed. Ancient Churches Revealed. Jerusalem. Pp. 260–264. Kloner A. 1993b. Maresha—1990. ESI 12:88–89. Kloner A. 1996a. Central-Pillar Spiral Staircases in the Hellenistic Period. Eretz Israel 25:484–489 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 107). Kloner A. 1996b. Maresha—An Archaeological Guide. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1999. Maresha. Subterranean Complex 147. HA– ESI 110:77*–78*.

Kloner A. 2003. Survey of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Sector, Introduction and Indices (Archaeological Survey of Israel). Jerusalem. Kloner A. 2008. Mareshah (Marisa). NEAEHL 5. Pp. 1918– 1925. Kloner A. In press. The Identity of the Idumeans Based on the Archaeological Evidence from Maresha. In O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers and M. Oeming eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Ages: Negotiating Identity in the International Context. Winona Lake. Pp. 563–573. Kloner A. and Arbel Y. 1998. Maresha—Area 61 (Subterranean Complex). ESI 17:157–162. Kloner A. and Asaf E. 1995. Maresha—1992. ESI 14:119– 120. Kloner A. and Eshel E. 1999. A Seventh Century BCE List of Names from Maresha. Eretz Israel 26:147–150 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 233–234). Kloner A. and Jackson R.E. 2000. Maresha, Head-Shaped Glass Pendants. ESI 20:135*. Kloner A., Erlich A. and Whetstone S. 2000. Maresha. ESI 20:118*–119*. Kloner A., Erlich A., Vitto F. and Shmuel D. 1998. Maresha— Area 61. ESI 17:163–165. Kloner A., Finkielsztejn G. and Arbel Y. 1998. Maresha— Area 100. ESI 17:154–157. Miron Y. 1985. Maresha—Cave System No. 15. Niqrot Zurim 11–12:108–112 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 132). Thiersch H. 1908. Die neueren Ausgraben in Palästina Tell Sandahannah. JDAI:392–413.

Chapter 2

I nscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician Script Esther Eshel

Introduction In 1989 and 1999, seventy-two sherds with Semitic inscriptions were found. Some are inscriptions written when the vessel was still intact, designating the contents of the vessel or its owners, while others are ostraca written after the vessel was broken. The assemblage includes a Hebrew ostracon dated to the seventh century BCE (No. 1); sixty-five Persian and Hellenistic inscriptions written in the Aramaic language, paleographically dated to the fifth–second centuries BCE (Nos. 2–66); two fragments of Persian inscriptions written in Phoenician script (Nos. 67, 68); one Edomite inscription written in Aramaic script (No. 69), dated to the Persian and Hellenistic periods; and three inscriptions in Jewish script dated to the first or second century CE (Nos. 70–72).1 Important additions to this assemblage are fragments of four bowls bearing scribal exercises, some of which are inscribed on both recto and verso. One bowl has no less than four different inscriptions on one side. There are a total of sixteen inscriptions of which seven, written on two bowls, were published (Eshel, Puech and Kloner 2007). These and other inscriptions found at Maresha will be published in the future in a separate monograph.

A Brief Survey of Aramaic, Persianand Hellenistic-Period Ostraca Persian and Hellenistic Aramaic ostraca and inscriptions have been found at various sites throughout Israel, some from licensed excavations and others from illegal digs, which nevertheless have ended up in museums and collections. An assemblage, most closely resembling ours, comes from Be’er Sheva‘, with sixty-seven ostraca dated to the fourth century BCE. These ostraca, found in a storehouse, seem to represent dockets attached to sacks of grain, which constituted tax payments. It implies

that in the Persian period Be’er Sheva‘ served as an administrative center (Naveh 1979:194). An additional assemblage dated to the Persian period was found at Tel ‘Arad, including approximately one hundred ostraca. These appear to document instructions for the providing of grain, mainly barley for horsemen, horses and donkeys (Naveh 1981:153), indicating that the settlement served as a way station. Thus, the Be’er Sheva‘ ostraca attest to grain collection by the Persian administration, while the ‘Arad ostraca indicate the purpose for which the grain was collected—as provisions for the horsemen and ass-drivers, which probably served the Persian administration. Of the seven ostraca found at Tell Jemmeh, two are similar in nature to the ‘Arad ostraca, while another two are wine tags (Naveh 1992). Two Aramaic ostraca from the Persian period were recovered: one, from Tell el-Far‘ah (south), seems to be a note concerning two quantities of barley for sowing two different fields (Naveh 1971b:184–186); the second, from Ashdod, mentions half a jar of wine from a vineyard (Naveh 1971b:186–189). At Khirbet el-Kôm, eight Aramaic ostraca (third century BCE) were discovered together with a bilingual Greek and Aramaic ostracon (Geraty 1972; 1975). During the 1980s, hundreds of Aramaic ostraca dated to the fourth century BCE appeared on the antiquities market and were purchased by museums and collectors in Israel and elsewhere. More than seven hundred of these ostraca have been published: (a) one hundred ninety-nine ostraca and inscriptions acquired by the Israel Museum (Lemaire 1996); (b) two hundred one Aramaic ostraca of unknown provenance (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996); (c) three hundred eighty-four ostraca and inscriptions from Kh. el-Kôm, found in various private collections (Lemaire 2002). Most ostraca served as dockets attached to sacks or vessels, indicating taxes paid to the Persian and Macedonian authorities at the end of the fourth century BCE. Generally, taxes were paid in the form

36

Esther Eshel

of wheat and barley at harvest time, during the months of Sivan, Tammuz and Ab (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:18; Lemaire 1996:143). The same months can also be found in the ostraca published here—No. 2 is dated to Tammuz, No. 3 to Ab, and No. 8 to Sivan. Exceptionally, No. 6, which also records taxes paid in wheat, is dated to Shebat. Taxes paid in wheat and dated to Shebat also appear in several Idumean ostraca (e.g., Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 15; ISAP: Nos. 11, 77). Other potsherds bear an owner’s name, as well as short notes and writing exercises. Nine of these, published in the Moussaieff collection, probably originated in the same area (Lozachmeur and Lemaire 1996). A few hundred ostraca of the same type are held in private collections. All the above-mentioned inscriptions, which include a total of about fifteen hundred dated to the Persian and Hellenistic periods, will be published by Porten and Yardeni (forthcoming). The place named Maqqedah (‫ מקדה‬or ‫(מנקדה‬ appears on many ostraca and inscriptions, and supports the theory that most of these originated at Khirbet elKôm,2 which is identified as Maqqedah (Dorsey 1980). The Phoenician inscriptions from Maresha, as well as other Phoenician inscriptions from Idumea (Lemaire 1996: No. 203; 2002: Nos. 393, 394), are a welcome addition to the previously known corpus. The multi-cultural population of Maresha may be compared to that of Ashqelon, destroyed in 604 BCE by the Assyrians, but recovered, under Persian rule, in the fifth century BCE. In the second half of the fourth century BCE, Pseudo-Skylax mentioned Ashqelon as a city of the Tyrians (Müller 1882:79). A fourth-century Phoenician scarab attests to Phoenician influence at Ashqelon (Rahmani 1976). A stele from Athens, probably dating to the fourth century BCE, was erected by a Sidonian in memory of an Ashqelonian (KAI I:13, No. 54, II:70–71). The inscription on the stele can be compared with the Greek inscription of a Sidonian family found in Tomb I of the Maresha necropolis. The late inscription mentions Apollophanes, who was “thirty-three years chief of the Sidonians at Marisê” (Peters and Thiersch 1905:38). Among the Persian-period remains from Ashqelon were found a considerable number of ostraca inscribed in Phoenician, and somewhat fewer, in Aramaic script (Cross 1996). The Phoenician inscriptions include ostraca bearing

Phoenician personal names, dated from the end of the sixth to the fourth centuries BCE, and an inscription with the word ‘cakes’ written in Phoenician script on an Early Archaic Greek bowl (Stager 1993:108). Thus, Ashqelon represents a site populated in the Persian period by Phoenicians and highly influenced by their cult, while Maresha represents a city populated mainly by Edomites and Arabs, but also by other minorities, among them Phoenicians. It is worth noting that both Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions of the fifth century BCE were also found at Eliachin in the central Sharon plain (Deutsch and Heltzer 1994:69–89).

Catalog Hebrew Inscription from the Seventh Century BCE (No. 1) 1. Inv. No. 147-7-702-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.4 × 5.5 cm.

Cat. No. 1.

This ostracon contains six short lines (for a preliminary publication, see Kloner and Eshel 1999), comprised of a list of names followed by numbers. The margins on all four sides of the ostracon are still visible. The Hebrew script, which resembles the script on the Yavne-Yam and Lachish ostraca, is dated to the seventh century BCE (Cross 1962).

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

ֹ

37

֯‫ י‬. ֯‫ ֯בן‬. ]‫ גריה֯ [ו‬. ֯‫ ֯בן‬.1 | | | ]٥[ . ‫ איר‬.2 ٥ | | | . ‫ אריהו‬.3 | | ٥ ‫ צר‬. ֯‫ ֯בן‬.4 | | ٥ ‫ י֯ ֯דו֯ ֯ע‬.5 | | ٥ ֯‫ ע֯ ב֯ד֯ י֯ה֯ ו‬.6

on a seal dating to the sixth century BCE (WSS: No. 824). The element ‫ גר‬is included in several Phoenician names, such as ‫גרמלך‬, dated to the seventh century BCE, and ‫גרעשתרת‬, dated to the sixth–fifth centuries BCE (WSS: Nos. 734, 735).

The Names Two names, ‫ אריהו‬and ‫עבדיהו‬, end with the suffix ‫יהו‬-, which probably appeared also in the third name, ]‫גריה[ו‬. Two persons designated by ‘the son of X’ names are included: ‫( בן גריה[ו] בן יאיר‬Lines 1–2) and ‫( בן צר‬Line 4). References to men as ‘the son of X’ are common in the ‘Arad ostraca, as for example in the Hebrew names ‫( בן חמדא‬Aharoni 1981: No. 55) and ‫( בן נתניהו‬Aharoni 1981: No. 56). A Hebrew inscription written on a bowl from ‘Arad and dating to the seventh century BCE bears a list of family names, such as ‫בני קרח‬, as well as individual names and numbers (Aharoni 1981: No. 49). Two of these names, ‫ בן גלגל‬and ‫[ב]ן צמח‬, appear in the form of ‘the son of X’ (for parallels see Naveh 1990). In early Hebrew seals dated to the eighth–seventh centuries BCE, one can find names containing the word ‫‘( בן‬son of’), followed by a theophoric element, for example, ‫( בנענת‬WSS: No. 346; see discussion on p. 488).

‫אריהו‬, Uriyahu. The name occurs in an inscription from Khirbet el-Kôm, dated to the mid-eighth century BCE (Dever 1969–1970:158–168), and on three Hebrew seals (WSS: Nos. 91–93; No. 91 is dated to the seventh century BCE). The name ‫ [ל]אריהו‬appears in an inscription from Lachish, written on a storage jar and dated to the same period (Ussishkin 1978: No. 26, Pl. 28). A small seal, dated to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth century BCE, with the inscription ‫לאריהו עזריהו‬, was found at Tel Goren (Biblical ‘En-Gedi; Mazar, Dothan and Dunayevsky 1966:37–38).

1. Son of GRYH[W], son of Y2. ’YR, 30 he et (or 3¼) 3. ’RYHW 3 he et (or 3¼) 4. Son of SR 20 he et (or 2¼) 5. YDW‘ 20 he et (or 2¼) 6. ‘BDYHW 20 he et (or 2¼)

]‫גריה[ו‬, Geriyahu. The name ‫ גריהו‬appears in a Hebrew seal ‫ גריהו בן בצם‬dated to the seventh or sixth century BCE (WSS: Nos. 117, 118). The name ‫גרי‬, written on ‘Arad ostracon No. 64 and dated to the end of the eighth century BCE (Aharoni 1981), should probably be reconstructed ]‫( גרי[הו] אליש[ב‬Renz 1995:64). The element GR means ‘client’ (DNSWI:232). The addition of the suffix –’ produces GR’, which is the name of several members of the tribe of Benjamin, including the father of the judge Ehud (Gen 46:21; Judg 3:15; 2 Sam 16:5). It also appears on Samaria ostracon No. 30, dated to the second half of the eighth century BCE (Ahituv 2008:289); see the name ‫ גרה‬written

‫יאיר‬. This name is mentioned several times in the Old Testament, for example, the son of Menasseh and the grandson of Joseph (Num 32:41; Deut 3:14), a judge of Gileadite origin (Judg 10:3) and the father of Mordechai (Esth 2:5). The spelling ‫ יאר‬occurs on a pym weight (Kletter 1998: No. 44; Fig. 35.9), as well as on an ostracon from Lachish (Ussishkin 1983:158).

‫צר‬, Sur. This seems to be a defective spelling of the name ‫צור‬, mentioned in the Old Testament (Num 25:15; 1 Chr 8:30). Ref. ‫ צורי‬WSS: No. 840. ‫ידוע‬, Jaddu‘a. A Levite name (Neh 10:22; 12:11) and the name of the person who probably served as the local commander or the manager of the storehouse at ‘Arad. Ref. Naveh 1981:175; Renz 1995:70. ‫עבדיהו‬, Obadiahu. ‫ עבדיה‬is a Biblical name (Obad 1; Ezra 8:9 etc.), common in Hebrew seals. Ref. WSS: Nos. 290–292. The Numbers Vertical and slanting lines which appear at the end of Lines 2–6 can be interpreted as unit signs, three in Lines 2–3 and two in Lines 4–6. At the end of the fourth line, the second digit is indicated by means of two vertical lines that curve toward the bottom.

38

Esther Eshel

٥. The value of this sign, which resembles an ‘ayin,

could be identified as one-quarter in the hieratic numbering system (Möller 1965:709), which appears on an ostracon from ‘Arad (Aharoni 1981: No. 60). It can also be explained as a he et, the standard Egyptian grain measure. When a numeral is written after the he et, it denotes tens in hieratic script (Aharoni 1981:50). Thus, Line 2 refers to 30 he et, while Lines 4–6 refer to 20 he et. Line 3 either denotes only 3 he et or, as mentioned above, the sign might also be read as a quarter. The importance of this seventh-century BCE inscription lies in its contribution to the understanding of the site’s history, as it shows that the city had recovered after Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 BCE (Kloner and Eshel 1999).

Aramaic Inscriptions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods (Nos. 2–66) Dated Dockets (Nos. 2–14) The following thirteen ostraca bear dates, personal names, produce type and its quantity. These ostraca can clearly be identified as dockets, which were placed in sacks to record the dates on which various amounts of wheat or barley were paid in taxes. The transactions seem to relate to taxes paid by individuals who grew produce in fields around Maresha. Ostraca of a similar nature were found in Be’er Sheva‘ (Naveh 1973; 1979), Khirbet el-Kôm (Geraty 1975), Tell Jemmeh (Naveh 1992) and in various collections (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996; Lemaire 1996, 2002), some of which may have originated in Maqqedah (see above). The Maresha ostraca under discussion have been dated paleographically to the Persian and the beginning of the Hellenistic periods. In some cases the date can be derived from the document itself. For example, a tentative reading of ostracon No. 7 might allow a determination of the precise year in which it was written: ‘in (the year) 41’. The only possible candidate for such a long reign is Artaxerxes II (404– 359/8 BCE). Therefore, the ostracon would refer to the year 363 BCE. The exact dates of the other ostraca cannot be determined for the following reasons: (1) a year is specified, but it is not possible to know to

whose reign it refers (see ostraca No. 3: ‘year 2’; No. 4: ‘year 3’; No. 5: ‘year 7’; No. 6: ‘year 10’); (2) the year did not survive, or only the formula ‘b+number’ is preserved, with no indication whether it was the day of a month or the year (see ostraca Nos. 9–12); (3) the short date formula does not include the year (see No. 8). A short date formula was also found in two Greek inscriptions from Tomb E of the Maresha necropolis, probably dated to Ptolemy V Epiphanes. Inscription No. 7 is therefore dated to ‘year one’ (203/2 BCE); while No. 16, to ‘year two’ (200/199 BCE; Oren and Rappaport 1984:143–153). Seven ostraca (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8–11) bear dates, the name of the person (or persons) and the amount of merchandise. Four ostraca (Nos. 4, 5, 12, and probably 14) are in reverse order, with the date at the end. In addition, some broken ostraca may actually belong to this group (see below, Nos. 13, 15–38). In Be’er Sheva‘, many ostraca begin with the date (Naveh 1979:193), as does the bilingual ostracon from Khirbet el-Kôm (Geraty 1975; see also Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 1–17; Lemaire 1996: Nos. 3–6, 9–12, 14–18, 2002: Nos. 1, 2, 8–16). These present the same date formula: ‘on X (the day) of Y (the month) in Z (the year)’, with all numbers designated by vertical bars, and the final bar slanted from left to right. The ostraca from Be’er Sheva‘ are attributed to the fourth century BCE, and their dates apparently refer to the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359/8 BCE) or Artaxerxes III (359/8–338/7 BCE). Of the fifteen ostraca that bear the date first, on ten the date is followed by a name (Nos. 1–4, 7, 8, 27–30; with an additional name in No. 3; Naveh 1973, 1979). The amount of merchandise is generally written in abbreviated form: ‫חנטן = ח‬ (wheat) or ‫( שערן = ש‬barley), indicated by ‫[ כר = כ‬kor], ‫[ סאה = ס‬seah], ‫[ קב = ק‬qab], ‫[ פלג = פ‬plag = half]. These formulae have some exceptions: in one ostracon the date is followed by the words ‫‘ אסיקו מן עבור‬they brought (up) from the corn’ (Naveh 1973: No. 5). Three other ostraca have the name, the amount of wheat or barley paid, the date, followed by the expression ‫על‬ ‫‘( יד‬by’; Naveh 1973: Nos. 3, 4) and an additional name, ‫( עדראל‬Naveh 1979: No. 28). An ostracon from Jutta (Yatta) has the common formula of the date: the name of the person and his father, the amount of barley followed by the word ‘by’, and two additional names, ‫ יתירו‬and ‫( צביחו‬Naveh 1985:117–118).

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

2. inv. No. 75-4067-920-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.0 × 6.0 cm.

39

crescent-shaped left leg (Yardeni 2000:168–169, Type 5). A similar letter occurs in the Jericho papList of Loans (Jer 1), dated to the end of the fourth century BCE (Eshel and Misgav 2000: Fig 17).3 Ref. ISAP: Nos. 1626, 2416, 2535. ‫עגלן‬, ‘Eglon. This seems to be a defective orthography of the name ‫עגלון‬, probably the father of ‫אסי‬. ‘Eglon is mentioned as the Biblical king of Moab (Judg 3:14). The name is composed of the element ‫ עגל‬with the suffix ‫ –ון‬. 3. Inv. No. 75-4067-919; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.2 × 5.3 cm.

Cat. No. 2.

‫ ב‬.1 [ ‫ לתמוז‬2 ‫ מנכי לאסי עגלן‬.2 6 ‫ ק‬2= ‫ ס‬.3

ֹֹ ֹ

1. On the eighth of Tammuz […] 2. MNKY, to ’SY (son of) ‘GLN 3. 3 seah, 5 qab Line 1 ‫ לתמוז‬8-‫ב‬, on the eighth of Tammuz. Presumably this indicates the date of tax collection. The left side of the line is missing. Based on the following ostracon (No. 3), which contains the same names of the giver (‫ )מנכי‬and the receiver (‫)אסי עגלן‬, we assume that the year was indicated on the missing part. It is possible that both transactions were made in subsequent months (Tammuz and Ab) of the same year. Thus, we might also reconstruct at the first line ‘year 2’, the date of the following ostracon. Line 2 ‫מנכי‬, Mannuki. A Babylonian name, common in the Aramaic documents from Elephantine. Lozachmeur and Lemaire (1996: No. 5) read ‫מנכו‬, but the last letter is not clear and might also be read as yod; another ostracon reads ]...[‫למנכ‬, which might be reconstructed ]‫( למנכ[י‬Lemaire 2002: No. 341). Ref. Cowley 1923: No. 14:13; Maraqten 1988:179. ‫אסי‬. The name ‫ אסי‬appears in other Idumean inscriptions, and can be found among Arabian names (Harding 1971:47). The ’aleph is written with a

Cat. No. 3.

‫ מנכי‬3 ‫ לאב שנת‬6 5 ‫ ב‬.1 ‫ עליא לאסי עגלן‬.2 3 ‫ ק‬3 55 0 ‫ ש ס‬.3 1. On the sixth of Ab, year 2, MNKY 2. ‘ly’ to ’SY (son of) ‘GLN 3. barley: 18 seah, 2 qab Line 1 2 ‫ לאב שנת‬6-‫ב‬, on the sixth of Ab, year 2. The year presumably refers to ‘year two’ of the king’s reign. Line 2 ‫עליא‬. This word can be interpreted in three ways: 1. An Epithet. Following the date on both ostraca (Nos. 2 and 3), the formula includes the name of the giver ‫ מנכי‬and the name of the receiver ‫’ אסי עגלן‬SY (son of) ‘Eglon’. However, the giver’s name on ostracon No. 3 is followed by the word ‫עליא‬, which may have been an epithet or a title, to be compared with ‫כרם‬ ‫( קוסריע עליא‬ISAP: No. 1624). This can be compared with a number of cases in which names are followed

40

Esther Eshel

by epithets, for example a fourth-century BCE Jericho papList of Loans (Jer 1; Eshel and Misgav 2000:25, 29), which mentions ‫( שלמיה נגרא‬Recto, Line 8) and ‫( תחנה חטלא‬Verso, Column II, Line 3).

Line 3 ‫ס‬, seah. In the previous ostracon (No. 2) the number of seah appear, while in this one the letter sin, representing ‫‘( שעורים‬barley’), is also included.

2. A Topographical or Directional Indication. The words ‫ עליה‬and ‫ תחתיה‬are used for upper and lower, as well as for south and north (Talshir 2003). Each occurrence should be interpreted on the basis of the pertinent topography. In the Elephantine documents, the pair ‫ עליה‬and ‫ תחתיה‬is used respectively for the upper and lower parts of Egypt (since southern Egypt is topographically higher than the north), ‫בעליתא ותחתיתא‬, ‘in Upper and Lower (Egypt)’ (Driver 1954:17–19, No. 5; TAD I:110; cf ISAP: No. 3). This pair is also used to designate south and north, in which ‫ עליה‬refers to the south (Cowley 1923: No. 8, Lines 4–7). In the Sefîre inscription, ‫ עלי‬occurs, in the construct from, ‫עלי ארם‬ (I,A:6; Fitzmyer 1995:42–43), referring to Upper Aram, which is located in the south. It is therefore possible that ‫ עליא‬indicates the person’s provenance, although one would expect it to be preceeded by -‫מ‬, or ‫מן‬, ‘from’. In this document, it may refer to an inhabitant of the upper city of Maresha or the upper Shephelah. This epithet might have been used for an identification of ‫מנכי‬, to be distinguished from another person by the same name.

4. Inv. No. 100-294-1186-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 4.5 cm.

3. A Product of Good or Superior Quality. The word ‫ עליא‬appears also in Cowley No. 8 at the end of Column 7, Line 88, following a reference to an amount of ardab. The context is unclear and I believe that the word meant ‘exalted’ or ‘superior’, that is, ardab, ‘of superior quality’ (TAD III:260). This meaning is documented in the form ‫ מעליא‬mainly in Babylonian Aramaic, meaning ‘of good quality’, for example ‫חמרא‬ ‫מעליא‬, ‘good quality wine’ (i.e., not sour; DJBA:695). It might be compared with ‫מעלי‬, its later occurrence meaning ‘outbid’, mentioned in Genesis Rabbah 91:8 (MS Vatican Ebraica 60; DJPA:408). However, this interpretation is problematic, as we would have expected it to follow the product, which was presumably defined as ‘good’ or ‘of superior quality’, whereas here it follows a proper name. Nevertheless, ‫ עליא‬might refer to the barley mentioned in the next line. As the last two interpretations present difficulties, the first one, an epithet, is preferable as the most plausible explanation.

Cat. No. 4.

ֹ

‫נא‬°°°°°° ] .1 ‫ חלפן חני וגרבי‬.2 ] ‫ ש֯ כ֯ ר֯ ב֯ס֯ י֯[ם‬.3 6 ‫ שנת‬.4 1. […]n’ 2. HLPN (son of) HNY; and jars of 3. swee[t] Shekhar [...] 4. year 3 Line 2 ‫חלפן‬, Halfan. This is an Arabian name (Harding 1971:227), frequently found in other Idumean ostraca. Ref. Cowley 1923: No. 83:4; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 97, 105, 123, 155; Lemaire 1996: No. 140, 2002: Nos. 1, 25, 56, 150, 213, 231, 253, 281; ISAP: Nos. 64, 755, 818, 943. ‫חני‬. A defective spelling of ‫( חוני‬Honi). The name is known from other Idumean ostraca (ISAP: Nos. 212, 468), as well as from a deed of gift written in a firstcentury CE ostracon from Qumran (KhQ Ostracon 1). Ref. Cross and Eshel 2000:499; ISAP: Nos. 212, 1855 (= Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 56). ‫גרבי‬. It could be a personal name compared with ‫גרבא‬ (GRB’), which appeared in an inscription from Hatra. However, it more probably derives from ‫גרב‬, ‘a type of vessel or jar used mainly for storing liquid’ (DJPA:135),

41

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

and is thus a construct form ‫גרבי שכר‬, to be compared with the jar inscription ‫בעל גרבא זנה‬, ‘the owner of this jar’ (ISAP: No. 138+139+140; see Lemaire 2002: No. 299). Ref. Abbadi 1983:13. Line 3 ‫שכר‬. The study of ‫ שׁכר‬in the Old Testament together with linguistic and archaeological sources shows that the biblical ‫ שׁכר‬is to be identified mainly with beer, brewed primarily from barley (Homan 2004). Nevertheless, it is followed here by the adjective ]‫בסי[ם‬, interpreted as ‘sweet’. Therefore, it probably refers to an alcoholic beverage made of fruit (but not grapes) or honey (DNSWI:135–136; see also Lev 10: 9; Num 6:3; Judg 13:4). The Babylonian Talmud mentions ‫אחד שכר‬ ‫תמרים ואחד שכר שעורים‬, ‘both Shekhar of dates and Shekhar of barley’ (b. Šabb. 139b; DNSWI:1135–1136). The word ‫ שכר‬is mentioned in a late seventh-century BCE ostracon from Ashqelon (Stager 1996:66; Walsh 2000:200–202). Dozens of storage jars were found at Masada, inscribed with ‫‘( דבלה‬fig’, Yadin and Naveh 1989: Nos. 519, 521–536); one inscription reads ‫דבלה‬ ‫כתושה יפה‬, ‘a well-pressed dried fig-cake’ (No. 516). Two jars bear the inscription ‫גרגר דבלה‬, ‘dried fig(s)’ (Nos. 537, 540), ‫כרשנין‬, ‘a kind of vetch’ (No. 543) and other products. Specification of liquid contents was recorded on two jars discovered in the Tetradrachm Cave in Nahal Hever: ]‫פרוט[י‬, ‘first-class (wine)’ on one, and ‫—צפחת‬a mixture of oil, semolina, and honey— on the other (Eshel 1998:205–206). Epigraphically, this inscription dates to the beginning of the third century BCE. [‫בסי‬. A possible reconstruction is ‫בסי[ם‬, meaning either ‘sweet, agreeable’ or ‘vinegar’ (see No. 34 below). 5. Inv. No. 100-91-789; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 3.2 cm. ‫ נצב עני‬.1

Cat. No. 5.

ֹ

]‫ אחרן ֯זי֯תי[א‬.2 4 5 ‫ בשנת‬.3 1. The orchard of ‘NY. 2. Another one: olive[s (?)] 3. In year 7 Line 1 ‫נצב‬, orchard. This meaning appears on an ostracon containing a list of fields and orchards (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 189). The authors note that “this translation seems etymologically probable”, yet the meaning is uncertain. It also appeared in Tg. Isa. 5:7: ‫ ;נצבא דחדותיה‬Peshitta ‫נצבתא חדתא‬, translating ‫נטע‬ ‫שעשועיו‬, ‘the seedlings he lovingly tended’. Ref. Sokoloff 1997:285. ‫עני‬. The name is ‘Ani, see No. 40 below. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 160; Lemaire 2002: Nos. 112a, b, 204. Line 2 ‫אחרן‬, another. This term, frequently used in the firstcentury CE ostraca, designates the beginning of a new subject and may be translated ‘another matter’. Here, as in other Idumean dockets, it marks the delivery of products or the parcel of land, e.g., ‫חלק אחרן כפת‬ ]‫חזהא[ל‬, ‘a share (or: land) -parcel, another one: the garden of ḤZH’[L] (ISAP: No. 2537). Ref. Yardeni 1990:133–134. ]‫זיתי[א‬, olive, olive grove. Compare with ‫זיתי סמוך‬, ‘the olives of Samuk’ (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 186). Ref. ISAP: Nos. 55, 122, 219. Line 3 7 ‫בשנת‬, in the year 7. The seventh year of a king’s reign.

42

Esther Eshel

6. Inv. No. 128-33-877-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.5 × 7.0 cm.

The reading of the bet is uncertain. Three signs are preceded by a bet. The first two seem to indicate the number ‘20’ each, and the third is the number ‘1’, which might have been followed by other units. If this is the first line of the ostracon, it might be part of the date formula, sometimes found in the first line of the inscription (see Nos. 2–6, above). If so, the only possible candidate for this regnal year would be Artaxerxes II, who reigned from 404 to 359/8 BCE, and hence it would refer to 363 BCE. It is also possible that more units followed the number 41, in which case more years should be added to the regnal year. Another probable explanation is that the bet indicates something else, such as goods or products. In ostracon No. 107, published by Eph‘al and Naveh, the following reading occurs: 20 ‫ ב‬4 ‫ ק‬5 ‫ח ס‬, ‘wheat: 5 seah, 4 qab, 20 b’, and according to their explanation, “‫ב‬, does not seem to stand for a measure-unit” (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:58).

Cat. No. 6.

0 ‫ לשבט שנת‬3 8 ‫ ב‬.1 ‫ עוידו ח ס ק פ‬.2 3‫ק‬ 5 ‫ ס‬7 ‫ כ‬.3

ֹ ֹ

ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ

8. Inv. No. 75-6069-1073-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 8.8 × 11.2 cm.

1. On the 22nd of Shebat, year 10, 2. ‘WYDW, wheat: 2 seah, 1½ qab, 3. 1 kor, 7 seah, 2 qab Line 2 ‫עוידו‬, ‘Uwaydu. This is a Nabatean name. Ref. Negev 1991: No. 854; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 147 and 184.

ֹ

‫ק פ‬, 1½ qab. The ‫ פ‬is a short form of ‫פלג‬, which usually appears at the end of the sum. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 37, 55. Cat. No. 8.

7. Inv. No. 147-07-785-S1; Jar sherd Dimensions: 3.0 × 3.9 cm.

֯‫ לס֯ ֯יו֯ן‬3 ‫ ב‬.1 [‫ פציאל שמשמן‬.2

ֹ

1. On the second of Sivan, 2. PSY’L, sesame […] Line 1 The reading of this line is uncertain.

Cat. No. 7.

ֹ

[788 ‫ב‬ In (the year) 41 [+… or: b 41 +...]

Line 2 ‫פציאל‬, PSY’L. A Hebrew theophoric name. Its orthography shows that its root is ‫י‬²‫( פצ‬and not ‫א‬²‫ פצ‬as suggested), meaning ‘to open’ or ‘to deliver, save’. The name ‫ פצאל‬occurs in the Nabatean royal family, and the

43

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

root is also found in the Arabian names FS’L and FSY (Harding 1971:468). The name FS’L is also known at Palmyra (Stark 1971:47, 109). Among the Jews it is only recorded in Greek Φασάηλος (Phasael), the most famous being Herod’s brother. It is also written on an ossuary discovered at Mt. Scopus (Rahmani 1994: No. 490A). Ref. Negev 1991: Nos. 970–971; Ilan 2002:440–441.

‫בין‬. A common Arabian name. Ref. Harding 1971:126. 10. Inv. No. 128-17-653-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.6 × 6.8 cm.

‫שמשמן‬, sesame. This word is mentioned in the Saqqara inscriptions both in the singular and in the plural ‫שמשמן‬, as well as in an Aramaic ideogram from the collection of documents found at Nisa. It is also known in later Jewish literary texts. Ref. Segal 1983: Nos. 42b; 43b; DNSWI:1169. 9. Inv. No. 100-97-742; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.0 × 7.0 cm.

Cat. No. 10.

8 ‫ ב‬.1 [ ֯‫ פ‬3 5 ‫ ק‬.2 1. On the 22nd (of month X) [or: In (the year) 22] 2. 5½ (?) qab [...] The left and right sides of the second line are broken. Thus the ostracon seems to include only the parts of the first two lines of the inscription that indicate the date and the amount of qabs of unknown products. However, if no text is missing, this might be a short form of a docket. Cat. No. 9.

[ 8 ‫ ב‬.1 ‫ שמר[ו‬.2 [֯‫ ֯ב ֯ין‬.3

11. Inv. No. 128-35-895-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.1 × 7.3 cm.

1. On the 20th [of month X; or: In (the year) 20 …] 2. ŠMR[W ?… ] 3. BYN[?…] According to the formula ‘on X of the month of Y’, the missing part of the first line presumably continued the date. It may also present a short date formula without the specific year. ‫שמר[ו‬. This name is known from other Idumean inscriptions (ISPA: Nos. 876, 1271 [= Lemaire 2002: No. 186]).

Cat. No. 11.

44

Esther Eshel

[ 2 ‫ בני זידא‬0 ‫ ב‬.1 [ 0 0 8 ‫ כנבון‬.2 [5 ‫ קסיה‬7 ‫ין‬°°‫ ק‬.3 2 6 5 ‫פין‬°°° .4 777 5 5 ‫בין‬°° .5 3 ‫ אגנין‬.6

ֹ

ֹֹֹ

ֹ

1. On the tenth (of month X), [or: In (year) 10], the sons of ZYD’, 2[…] 2. KNBWN, 40[+...] 3. q°°yn 1 , wood (?) 3[+…] 4. °°°pyn 8 5. °°byn 9 6. amphorae, 2 The left side of the first three lines is missing. The text apparently opens with an abbreviated date, ‘on the tenth’, which might designate either the day of month X, or the year 10. It is then followed by a list of names and products, followed by numbers. Line 1 0. This could be identified as a sign, referring to the numbers 10 (or 20), probably a short date formula. Another possible reading is the letter kaph, followed by a peh. Ref. Lemaire 1977:281; Naveh 1981: No. 33. ‫זידא‬, Zayda. A Nabatean name. One might read a resh instead of the dalet. Ref. Negev 1991: No. 381. Line 2 ‫כנבון‬. This name is found at Masada (Yadin and Naveh 1989: No. 430). According to Naveh, this epithet derives from the Syriac ‫כבונא‬, ‘a round cake’, or ‘round loaf’ (Sokoloff 2009:595), thus ‫“ כנבון‬was presumably the appellation of a fat person” (Naveh 1990:122). Moreover, the name ‫( כנבו‬Kinabu) is known from an Aramaic seal (WSS: No. 803). Ilan suggests that it is “probably associated with the Babylonian god ‫”נבו‬ (Ilan 2002:387). Line 3 ‫ין‬°°‫ק‬. The second letter might be waw. A possible reading is ‫קדרין‬. ‫ קדר‬is mentioned as a profession, ‫יהונתן קדרה‬, ‘Jehonathan the potter’, on an ossuary found at Giv‘at Ha-Mivtar, or as a nickname, ‘Jehonathan

(the) pot’ (Naveh 1970: No. 15). Thus, ‫ קדרין‬may be interpreted ‘the potters’ (with the Aramic plural suffix). Another possible interpretation is Qedarites. The earliest reference to the Qedarites occurs on an eighthcentury BCE stele of Tiglath-Pileser III from Iran, on which leaders from the western part of Mesopotamia are listed (Rost 1893; Tadmor 1994). During the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, their territory stretched eastward from the western border of Babylon. In the seventh century BCE, they invaded Transjordan and southern Syria, and were among the nomadic groups that put pressure on the settled area from the Jebel Bishri region to the outskirts of Damascus (Eph‘al 1984:223–227, see references therein). A fifth-century BCE Aramaic inscription written on a silver vessel from Tell el-Maskhuteh (Lower Egypt) mentions the name Qedar ‫זי קינו בר גשם מלך קדר קרב להנאלת‬, ‘that which Qainū son of Gešem king of Qēdār, brought-inoffering to Han-’Ilat’ (Rabinowitz 1956: Inscription C, Pl. VII A and B). Herodotus reports that they dwelt in northern Sinai near the eastern border of Egypt, and were “perhaps engaged in keeping that border secure for the Achaemenid authorities. Such breadth of Qedarite distribution suggests a federation of tribes with various sub-divisions” (Eph‘al 1984:226). ‫קסיה‬. This word is hitherto unknown. It can either be interpreted as a name, or as a metathesis of ‫קיסה‬, meaning ‘pole, wood’ (DJPA:491). Line 4 ‫פין‬°°°. The pe might also be read as a bet. Another possible reading is ‫בר צפון‬, meaning ‘inhabitant of the north’ or ‘son of SPWN’ (Gen 46:16, where MT reads ‫צפיון‬, ִ the SP and LXX read ‫ צפון‬as in Num 26:15). If we read ‘inhabitant of the north’ (‫ ִצפּון‬in Aramaic), it can be compared with Hananiah’s epithet ‫( נותוס‬from the Greek νόθος), written in a text from Qumran (Eshel 1994). It is also similar to ‘Shimeon son of Notos’ from Masada (Yadin and Naveh 1989: No. 462), where Notos means ‘inhabitant of the north’. It can also be compared with the epithet ‫בר דרומא‬, ‘inhabitant of the south’ in b. Git. 57a, (see No. 31 below). Line 5 ‫בין‬°°. One tentative reading is ‫ערבין‬, Arabs (see Jer 25:24), sometimes mentioned with Qedar ‫ערב וכל נשיאי‬ ‫קדר‬, ‘Arabia and all Qedar’s chiefs’ (Ezek 27:21).

45

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

When the Kingdom of Judah was destroyed and the Edomite kingdom that ruled southern Transjordan and the eastern Negev collapsed in the first third of the sixth century BCE, the Arabs were among the nomads that penetrated the territory of Palestine, and continued to do so throughout the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. In Nehemiah, the Arabs are listed among the enemies of Judah (Neh 4:1), and Geshem, their leader, was one of Nehemiah’s adversaries (Neh 2:19; 6:1). Classical writers, such as Herodotus, Diodoros and Polybius, use the term ‘Arabs’ for nomads in Palestine and Transjordan, between Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. It also applies to tribes and tribal federations. According to these sources, during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, the Arabs lived in the Negev, and Gaza, their capital, was ruled by Geshem. Ref. Avi-Yonah 1977:25–26; Alt 1978:294, 343–345; Eph‘al 1984. Line 6 ‫אגנין‬, amphorae. The same plural form is mentioned in Tg. Isa. 65:11: ‫ואתם עזבי יהוה השכחים את הר קדשי הערכים לגד שלחן‬ ‫והממלאים ַל ְמנִ י ִמ ְמ ָסך—ואתון בית ישראל שבקתון פלחנא‬ ‫דיוי אתנשיתון ית פלחן טורא דקדשי דמסדרין לטעון פתורין‬ ‫וממזגן לדחלתהון אגנין‬, “But you, house of Israel, have forsaken the service of the Lord, you have forgotten the service of my holy mountain, who set table for idols and mix bowls for their gods” (Chilton 1987:124).4 The usual suggested interpretation for the Hebrew noun ‫אגן‬, found in the Bible (Exod 24:6: Isa 22:24; Song 7:3), as well as in other Semitic parallels, is ‘bowl’ or ‘basin’ (HALOT:11). In Syriac, ‫ אנגא‬means ‘basin, pitcher’ (Sokoloff 2009:7). However, based on an amphora fragment inscribed ‫ אגן‬from Kition and a jar handle with an alphabetic cuneiform inscription reading ’agn from Sarepta, Ahituv has suggested that ‫ אגן‬should be translated as ‘amphora’ in ‘Arad ostracon No. 1: ‫מיין האגנת תתן‬, ‘From the wine of the amphorae you shall give’. I tend to accept Ahituv’s interpretation. The new inscription from Maresha is a welcome addition to this discussion. Ref. Ahituv 2008:93, 95–96.

12. Inv. No. 147-09-2156-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.3 × 5.6 cm.

Cat. No. 12.

ֹ

ֹ

‫ ראש גמרת עליאל‬.1 3 5 ‫ יבנאל קוסיד כל‬.2 ‫ דכרי ינקתא‬.3 7 ‫ ח א‬7 ‫ לגבר‬.4 6 5 ‫ יזדו ב‬.5 .6

ֹ

ֹֹֹֹ ֹֹ

1. Barley groats: GMRT, ‘LY’L, 2. YBN’L, QWSYD; all 5. 3. Rams, young camels. 4. To the man: 1; wheat: 1 ephah 5. YZDW, on the sixth (of month X) [or: In (the year) 6] This ostracon relates to other Idumean ostraca studied by Porten and Yardeni (2009). In their study of commodity and personal dossiers, they identified six compact groups of agricultural products and the links between them. They also suggest isolating “six scribes who have been most prolific” (Porten and Yardeni 2009:147, 152). Resembling the ostracon published here, one of their groups includes the following elements: barley groats, the name ‫ יזדו‬as a signatory, a sealing sign - and the date at the end. Porten and Yardeni also identified the scribe of this group as Scribe A, who was active during the years 43–46 (between 361 BCE and 359 BCE), in which he wrote a total of twenty-nine chits (Porten and Yardeni 2009:147, Table 7, Nos. 1–17, 19). The ostracon from Maresha lacks the exact date. It ends ‘on the 6th’, which

46

Esther Eshel

probably refers to the day of the month. Hence it was probably written by Scribe A in the same range of years (361–359 BCE). Line 1 ‫ראש‬, barley groats (see Porten and Yardeni 2009:146– 147). Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:11, Nos. 1, 41, 42, 49, 50, 117; Lemaire 2002: Nos. 4, 6, 108, 133, 145, 213; ISAP: Nos. 1652, 1752. ‫גמרת‬. An Arabian name. The head of the resh seems to be broken. It might also be a zayin, and thus should be read ‫גמזת‬, hitherto an unknown name. Ref. Harding 1971:167. ‫עליאל‬, ‘Aliel. A Nabatean name. Ref. Negev 1991: No. 890; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 69; Lemaire 2002: No. 110; ISAP: Nos. 37, 86, 881, 1181 (= Lemaire 1996: No. 181), 1230, 1655. Line 2 ‫יבנאל‬, Jbne’el. It is known in the Bible as a name of two places. The first is a town along the northern border of the tribe of Judah (Josh 15:11), and the second is a town along the southern border of the tribe of Naphtali (19:33; Liebowitz 1992). In Ugarit, it is mentioned as a proper name, ybnil (= Yabni-ilu; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003:951), compared with the Biblical proper name ‫( יבניה‬1 Chr 9:8). The name ‫ יבנאל‬appears in other Idumean ostraca. In general, ‫ יבנאל‬might be a toponym or a personal name. In this ostracon, it is clearly a personal name. Ref. ISAP: Nos. 1480 (= Lemaire 2002:313), 1625, 2450. ‫קוסיד‬. An Edomite name found also in Nos. 27, 56 and 66. Ref. Noth 1928:149; Lemaire 2002: No. 211; ISAP: Nos. 74, 875, 1138 (= Lemaire 1996: No. 138), 1661, 2626, 2629. 5 ‫כל‬, all 5. Probably summarizing the amount of barley groats given to the persons, see Jer 1, Recto, line 13

(Eshel and Misgav 2000:21–22), mentioned in Lines 2–3. Line 3 ‫דכרי‬, Rams. Although ‫ דכרי‬is used as a proper name (ISAP: Nos. 425, 2415), as it is followed by ‫ינקתא‬, ‘young camels’, it can rather be interpreted as the plural of ‫דכר‬, meaning ‘ram’ (DJPA: 2410). ‫ינקתא‬. Two Idumean ostraca read: ‫ינקתא זי במנקדה‬ (ISAP: Nos. 1802, 1853). Both texts record a delivery of animal food, located in Maqqedah. ‫ ינקתא‬was interpreted ‘the young camels (?)’, based on the text in Jer. 2:23 ‫בכרה קלה‬, which is translated in the Tg. Jer. ‫ינקא קלילא‬, ‘a swift young camel’. For another list of delivery of domestic animals, see: 2 ‫ אמרן‬1 ‫ דכר‬4 ‫חיון‬ 1 ‫רחל‬, ‘4 animals: 1 ram, 2 lambs, 1 ewe’ (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 46). Ref. ISAP: Nos. 425, 429, 2415. Line 4 1 ‫לגבר‬, to the man: 1. This is probably a short form of ‘(Give) to the man: 1’ followed by ephah of wheat. Such short forms can be found in other Idumean ostraca, e.g., ‫יא‬/‫לא הקבלת לגבר‬, ‘… you did not pay the man’s/ collector’s respect’ (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 199). 1 ‫ח א‬, 1 ephah of wheat. The het (‫ )חנטן‬stands for wheat, and the ’aleph might stand for ephah, the Biblical measure of solids (Deut 25:14–15; Prov 20:10). An abbreviated form ‫ א‬for ]‫ א[יפה‬was written in an eighthcentury BCE inscription found at Shechem (Yeivin 1967:247–249). Aharoni (1981:58) assumed that the sign written in Lines 2 and 10 in ‘Arad ostracon No. 31 represents ephah. Line 5 ‫יזדו‬, Yazidu. A Nabatean name. Line 6 -. This is a sealing sign, resembling the archaic form of the Aramaic ’aleph, found in other Idumean ostraca. Ref. Naveh 1981:175; Negev 1991: No. 368.

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

13. Inv. No. 1-1025-921-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.0 × 10.0 cm.

47

Dockets without Dates (Nos. 15–44) On the following ostraca (several are incomplete), the names of individuals are followed by product designation, sometimes with the quantity. As the inscriptions are fragmentary, it is difficult to ascertain their function. However, it is reasonable to assume that this group represents dockets, which originally included a complete formula, or were written in an abbreviated form, without a date. 15. Inv. No. 100-91-751-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 9.0 × 5.0 cm.

Cat. No. 13.

[° ‫זבדא שנת‬ ZBD’, year [...] ‫זבדא‬, Zabda. A Nabatean name. The element ‫זבד‬, meaning ‘the gift’ is found in other names, e.g., ‫זבדאל‬ and ‫( זבדאדה‬see No. 63 below). Ref. Negev 1991: No. 367; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:157; ISAP: No. 1471 (= Lemaire 2002: No. 156). ‫שנת‬, year. Probably this is the beginning of a date formula. 14. Inv. No. 100-121-799/2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 3.5 cm.

Cat. No. 15.

4 ] .1 [‫א עבדערש‬°] .2 1. […] 4 2. […]°’ ‘BD‘RŠ[…]

Cat. No. 14.

ֹ

[°‫ כרם טב‬.1 [ ° ‫ ב‬.2

ֹ

1. The vineyard of TB°[…] 2. On the tenth [of month X, or: in (the year) 10 ...] Line 1 [°‫כרם טב‬. The construct form ‘vineyard (of) PN’ appears on some ostraca, for example ‫כרם חורי‬. Thus, […]°‫ טב‬might be a part of a personal name, such as ‫טביו‬, see No. 24 below. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 188, 189, 192.

The ostracon is incomplete. The number that appears in the first line might refer either to the day or to the year. Yet, one may not rule out the possibility that it might refer to the amount of goods delivered. We assume it served as a taxation docket. Line 1 Only the left end of this line is intact. It consists of four vertical bars that should be read as digits. Line 2 ‫עבדערש‬. The element ‫‘( עבד‬BD) occurs in the Israelite and Phoenician names ‫עבדמלך‬, ‫( עבדנבו‬Lemaire 1996:

48

Esther Eshel

Nos. 28, 86), ‫ עבדקוס‬and ‫( עבדשמש‬Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 84, 91). The form ‫ ערש‬is a common element in the following Phoenician names: ]‫( ערש[ם‬CIS I/3: No. 4237, Lines 5–6); ‫( ערשת‬CIS I/3: No. 3603); and ‫( ערשבעל‬CIS I/1: No. 414, Line 3). Ref. ‫ערש‬/‫ ארש‬Harris 1936:81–82; Benz 1972:276. 16. Inv. No. 61-620-1100-S6; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.8 × 6.8 cm.

No. 64 below. The element ‫נור‬, paralleling ‫נהר‬, is attested in the name ‫( נור‬Lemaire 1996: No. 131). It also occurs in numerous Palmyrene names, such as ‫נורי‬ (Naveh 1979: No. 40). ‫עזיזו‬, ‘Azizu. A Nabatean name (Negev 1991: No. 869). Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 46; Lemaire 1996: No. 25; ISAP: Nos. 229, 713, 1724, 2412, 2478, 2514, 2531, 2535, 2546. Line 2 ‫כנתן‬, emmer (the plural of ‫(כנתא‬. In Biblical and rabbinic literature it is called ‫( כסמת‬in Hebrew) or ‫( כנתן‬in Aramaic), mainly referring to emmer, a type of hulled wheat (Kislev 1973). Emmer is mentioned in the Old Testament along with other cereals (Exod 9:32, Isa 28:25, Ezek 4:9) or given as a loan (Kraeling 1953: No. 11:4; TAD II:98). In the Elephantine documents, we find ‫שערן כנתן‬, ‘barley emmer’ (Cowley 1923: No. 10:10; TAD II:54). ‫כרן‬, the plural form of ‘kor’. The letter kaph generally appears as an abbreviation for kor, although the full form occasionally occurs as in ‫( שערן כרן‬Delaporte 1912: No. 47). Emmer is measured here in kor, but sometimes the standard is the ardab, usually denoted by the letter ’aleph.

Cat. No. 16.

‫ נהרי בר עזיזו‬.1 5 ‫ ס‬2 ‫ כנתן כרן‬.2

ֹ

1. NHRY son of ‘ZYZW 2. emmer: 2 kor, 3 seah The personal name ‫ נהרי‬is mentioned on this sherd with the quantity of emmer. It is possible that the date appeared on an upper line that was not preserved. Line 1 ‫נהרי‬, Nahri. The name originates from the Aramaic root ‫ר‬²‫נה‬, meaning ‘light’. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 108 and 175; Lemaire 2002: Nos. 131, 155, 322; ISAP: Nos. 870, 1388. The name ‫ נהרה‬is mentioned in ostraca from Be’er Sheva‘ (Naveh 1979: Nos. 27 and 41). At Palmyra the name is spelled with the ’aleph ending ‫( נהרא‬Stark 1971:99), which is an abbreviated form of a theophoric name, ‫נהראל‬. It is similar to ‫קוסנהר‬, mentioned in

‫ס‬, seah, might also be read ‫ק‬, qab. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 33–35. 17. Inv. No. 100-510-3126-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.9 × 5.7 cm.

Cat. No. 17.

‫ לנחום קמח ס‬.1 ֯‫ ש֯ ס֯ ק‬.2 1. To NHWM, flour: 1 seah, 2. barley: 1 seah, 2 qab

49

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

Line 1 ‫נחום‬, Nahum. A Biblical name, also mentioned in an Aramaic ostracon from ‘Arad (Naveh 1981: No. 22). Ref. Kraeling 1953: Nos. 10:19, 12:34; TAD II:90, 94; Lemaire 1996: No. 88, 2002: No. 211; ISAP: Nos. 263, 824, 947, 1703.

19. Inv. No. 100-76-718/4; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 6.3 cm.

‫קמח‬, flour. Flour is usually mentioned with the number of seah or qab, here 1 seah. Ref. Driver 1954: No. 6:3–5 (TAD I:114); Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 30, 44; ISAP: Nos. 1758, 1770, 1826 (= Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 26), 1873 (= Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 79). Cat. No. 19.

Line 2 The reading of this line is uncertain.

[° 7 ‫ ח ס‬.1 [ 5 ‫ ר‬7 ‫ ס‬.2

18. Inv. No. 147-07-812-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.2 × 5.2 cm.

1. wheat: 1 seah […] 2. 1¾ seah [ of X ?] The docket is lacking a text before the preserved part. Thus, some details as to whom the wheat was delivered are missing. 20. Inv. No. 1-1077-116-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.0 × 4.0 cm.

Cat. No. 18.

°°

5

0 ֯‫ ס‬.1 .2 °° °°° .3

1. 13 seah […] 2. 3 3. […] 10 This incomplete inscription probably included the product designation, now lost. The beginning of line 3 might have designated the amount of products or the date.

Cat. No. 20.

ֹ

[‫ ]י ב‬.1 [ 9 1 ] .2 [°° ‫ ]ואל‬.3 1. […]y b[…] 2. […] one hundred [...] 3. […]W’L °°[…] Line 2 [ 9 1 ], One hundred. The sign 9, preceeded by the number 1, designates one hundred. As it is found in a

50

Esther Eshel

broken context, there is no way of knowing what are the goods numbered.

23. Inv. No. 100-252-1076-S1; Krater Rim Sherd Dimensions: 2.7 × 5.8 cm.

Line 3 ‫]ואל‬...[. Assuming it is a proper name, it might be reconstructed as: ‫שמ]ואל‬, ‫אשמ]ואל‬, ‫סכר]ואל‬, etc. 21. Inv. No. 100-115-784/2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.3 cm. Cat. No. 23.

ֹ

7 8 ‫ מרמאת ש ֯ס‬.1 [ 3 2= ‫ ע֯ל יתוע ש ס‬.2 1. MRM’T (?), barley: 21 seah, 2. owed by YTW‘, barley: 5 seah [...]

Cat. No. 21.

[ ‫ס‬ 20 seah […] A short formula or a broken context missing details of names or products. 22. Inv. No. 75-6069-1127-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.7 × 7.7 cm.

Line 1 ‫מרמאת‬. The second letter might also be read as waw. It seems from the context to be a name, hitherto unknown. It might tentatively be connected with the Arabian name MRMT (Harding 1971:541) or with the Biblical name ‫מרמות‬, Meremoth (see shearer 1992), also found in ‘Arad (Aharoni 1981: No. 50). ‫ש ס‬. The reading of the samekh is uncertain. Line 2 ‫יתוע‬. This can be compared with the name ‫( קוסיתע‬see No. 58 below) and various Arabian names based on the root YT‘ (Harding 1971:658). The name ‫ יתעו‬is known from an Aramaic ostracon found in the Yatta region (Naveh 1985:117). The root ‫ע‬²‫ית‬, paralleling the Hebrew root ‫ע‬²‫יש‬, means ‘to save, rescue’. The component ‫ע‬²‫ ית‬is found in ancient Arabian names (Harding 1971:658), generally with -u ending, and in Nabatean names (Negev 1991: No. 547). Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 96; Lemaire 2002: No. 216. 24. Inv. No. 128-3-165-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.5 × 2.9 cm.

Cat. No. 22.

Traces of three lines are preserved, very much worn, of which one is decipherable: 0 ]...[ ° °[…] 10

Cat. No. 24.

51

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

[ ‫ קוסרם‬.1 [ ‫ טביו‬.2 1. QWSRM [...] 2. TBYW [...]

small fractions, see Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 11, 17. 26. Inv. No. 147-07-861-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.0 × 6.1 cm.

Line 1 ‫קוסרם‬. A known Edomite name which appears in Nos. 60 and 66, meaning ‘QWS is exalted’. The Greek form Kósramoς is attested in an inscription from Assuan (Lidzbarsky 1908 II:339). The use of the root ‫מ‬²‫רו‬ appears, among others, in the Hebrew names ‫אברם‬ and ‫( אבירם‬Abram and Abiram), and in the theophoric names ‫יהורם‬/‫( יורם‬Yehoram/Yoram). Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 72, 85, 120, 133, 186, 194; Lemaire 1996: Nos. 58, 123, 2002: 44, 238, 310; ISAP: Nos. 207, 441, 1539 (= Lemaire 2002:93), 2496. Line 2 ‫טביו‬. A Jewish name with the theophric ‫יו‬- ending (for this ending, see discussion of No. 51). This name is written in the Bible in full orthography ‫טוביהו‬, while in the Lachish Letters (Nos. 3 and 5), it is spelled ‫טביהו‬. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 174, 183, 201; Lemaire 2002: No. 138; ISAP: Nos. 8, 731, 912, 1379 (= Lemaire 2002: No. 304), 2453, 2653. 25. Inv. No. 128-21-833-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.2 × 9.0 cm.

Cat. No. 26.

ֹ

4 °] [‫ ל‬1 7 5 8 ֯‫ א‬2 ֯‫ ס‬°°°° 2 1. to [….]°: 4 2. °°°° 2 seah, ’ (?) 44 Line 1 Following the lamed there probably was a proper name, now lost. Line 2 The samekh might also be read as gimel or heh. 27. Inv. No. 61-590-985-S4; Fish Plate Dimensions: 5.0 × 7.0, 10.4 × 4.3 cm.

ֹ

ֹ

[‫]קוסיד לת‬...[°] .1 [ ‫נ]ס֯ ך‬... [‫ ע]שרין מרשה‬.2

ֹ

1. […]°[..] KWSYD to T[…] 2. […t]wenty, Maresha[... l]ibation […]

Cat. No. 25.

7 ‫ ת‬4 ֯‫מש]ח‬ [… oi]l: 4⅛ the inscription was incised before firing. ‫ ת‬4 ‫מש]ח‬...[. There are small remains of the right leg of the het. The taw is an abbreviation of )‫ת(ומנה‬, ‘an eighth’. For other texts where oil was measured by

The inscription, written in ink on a typical Hellenistic fish plate, dates to the third–second centuries BCE. Two fragments were found, and although they cannot be connected, they are clearly of the same vessel and the gap between them can be reconstructed. Part of the inscription is covered with a dark red color. Line 1 ‫קוסיד‬. An Edomite name. The reading ‫ קוסיד‬is certain. The qoph is entirely preserved, followed by a waw with a rounded head. The rounded shape of a samekh is still visible, as is the outline of a dalet. In between

52

Esther Eshel

Cat. No. 27 (drawn by Emile Puech).

there are remains of a yod with an inverted V shape. For the name QWSYD, see Nos. 12, 56 and 66. Line 3 ‫ע]שרין מרשה‬, […t]wenty, Maresha. In Aramaic, the number 20 is usually written ‫( עשרן‬e.g., Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 150). ‫מרשה‬, Maresha. This place name appears in No. 30 below. Ref. Lemaire 1996: No. 111.

After the break of the sherd, a samek is almost completely preserved, followed by a long stroke with a large head, most probably a final pe. If so, these are the last two letters of the radical ‫נסך‬. ‫ נסך‬is used in Hebrew and Aramaic parallels, either as a verb meaning ‘to libate’ or as a noun ‘libation’ (DJPA:354); see the two ostraca found at Masada, reading ‫[נ]סך קדוש‬, and ‫( [נ]סך‬Yadin and Naveh 1989: Nos. 672–673). Ref. Yadin and Naveh 1989:67; DNSWI:735.

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

28. Inv. No. 84-21-770-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.7 × 8.0 cm.

‫]כ]רם‬, [vi]neyard. This word occurs on a fifth-century BCE ostracon from Ashdod and on a fourth-century BCE ostracon from Tell Jemmeh, as well as in various inscriptions from Khirbet el-Kôm. Ref. Naveh 1971a:201, 1992:50; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 188, 189, 192; Lemaire 2002: Nos. 258, 261, 267, 268, 272, 273. ‫בגו‬, within. Uncertain reading, compare with XHev/Se 8a:5: ‫ורשה לא איתי לך עמי בגו דרתה דך‬, ‘And you have no right with me within that courtyard’ (Yardeni 1997:36; DJA:38). The gimel might also be read as samekh, and the waw might be read as resh or dalet.

Cat. No. 28.

ֹֹ

‫]בב שרי‬ […] (new) entry: beam (or: ŠRY). ‫בב‬, (new) entry. What at first appears to be a long, continuous, horizontal stroke, on closer examination can be seen as the combination of the bases of two letters, probably bets. If this is fully preserved, it has parallels in many Idumean ostraca, indicating a repetition of a certain name or act, or a delivery which was mentioned earlier in the text. ‫שרי‬, beam. This word is found in other Idumean ostraca. Another interpretation might be the proper name Sharai, mentioned in Ezra 10:40. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 67, 86; ISAP: Nos. 778, 1477 (= Lemaire 2002:163), 1732, 1957.

‫תליתי‬, third. The yods are written in a lapidary style that slightly resembles another ostracon (Lemaire 1996: No. 177; Pl. XLIII). It is also similar to a thirdcentury BCE inscription from Tell Khazneh (Failakah: Naveh 1995a; Puech 1998:31–35, Fig. 1a), and to second-century BCE inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim (Naveh and Magen 1997: Nos. 3, 4). The number ‫תליתי‬, ‘third’ in masculine singular refers to an unpreserved subject, probably designating the place of the vineyard. In later Aramaic, the form ‫ תליתיי‬appears following a noun, for example ‫דר‬ ‫תליתיי‬, ‘third generation’ (Tg. Neof. to Exod 34:7). Therefore, if we accept the reading ]...[ ‫בגו תליתי‬, this might designate the location of the vineyard. 30. Inv. No. 100-262-1133-S6; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.9 × 6.6 cm.

29. Inv. No. 100-26-165; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.4 × 5.4 cm.

Cat. No. 29.

ֹֹ ֹ ֹ

[ ‫כ]רם בגו תליתי‬ […vi]neyard within(?) the third […]

53

Cat. No. 30.

54

Esther Eshel

‫ כרם שלחא ב֯מ֯ ר֯ש֯ [ה‬.1 [ ֯‫ חלקי ז֯ב֯ד֯ א‬.2 1. The vineyard of ŠLH’ (= the stripper) at Mares[ha …] 2. the portions belonging to ZBD’[…] Line 1 ‫שלחא‬. This word is found in y. Šabb. 4:2 (7a): ‫אבא שלחא‬ ‫ =( הוה‬b. Šabb. 49b), where ‫ שלחא‬means ‘stripper or dealer in hides’ (DJPA:551). Thus, ‫ שלחא‬might specify the man’s profession. ]‫במרש[ה‬, at Mares[ha]. The reading is uncertain. This place name is also inscribed on a fish plate (No. 27) and on Idumean ostraca. Ref. Lemaire 1996: No. 111; 2002: No. 122. Line 2 ‫חלקי זבדא‬, the portions belonging to Zabda, cf. ‫חלקי‬ ‫( קוסליתע‬Lemaire 2002: No. 261). The name ‫ זבדא‬is a Nabatean name, see No. 13. Ref. Negev 1991: No. 367. 31. Inv. No. 100-500-3108-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.5 × 4.7 cm.

(DJPA:274), making a possible translation ‘to the south’. Therefore, ‫ כרם לדרום‬means ‘vineyard (facing) the south’. Another meaning of the preposition l- is a possessive form ‘belonging to’, which frequently appears in Hebrew seals and Aramaic inscriptions, see No. 32 below, ‫כרם לקוסבנה‬. The interpretation of ‫ דרום‬as a proper name can be compared with the epithet ‫בר דרומא‬, ‘inhabitant of the south’, mentioned in b. Git. 57a. Nevertheless, if it was a proper name we would expect something like ‫בר דרומא‬, or ‫ ;דרומי‬therefore, this interpretation is less probable. Line 2 ‫שלמי‬, Shalmai. This name is known from the Bible (Ezra 2:46, qrei), and from a Hebrew soapstone seal dated to the Persian period. Ref. Cross 1969a:26–27. ‫יעולון‬. An unknown name. It might relate to the Biblical name ‫יעיאל‬/‫יעואל‬, which derives from the Arabic root w‘w or y‘w, meaning ‘to gather, collect’ (Zadok 1988:30). Another possible interpetation from the Aramaic root ‫ל‬²‫ על‬is ‘to enter, to bring in’ (DJPA:408– 409). 32. Inv. No. 147-10-2389-S6; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.5 × 6.8 cm.

Cat. No. 31.

ֹֹֹ

‫ כרם לדרום‬.1 ‫ שלמי ויעולון‬.2

ֹ

1. Vineyard belonging to DRWM (or: vineyard [facing] the south) 2. ŠLMY and Y‘WLWN This ostracon is complete with two lines of writing, making the best possible use of the available space.

Cat. No. 32.

Line 1 ‫כרם‬. See No. 14. ‫לדרום‬. The dalet can also be read as kaph or resh, the resh as dalet or yod and the waw as yod. One meaning of the preposition l- in Aramaic is ‘toward’

֯‫ כ֯ ר֯ם֯ לקוס ֯בנ֯ה‬.1 ‫נ֯י‬° .2 1. Vineyard belonging to QWSBNH 2. °NY

55

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

Line 1 ‫כרם‬, vineyard. the reading is uncertain. Line 2 ‫קוסבנה‬. An Edomite name. The preposition l-, here as in No. 31 above, is a possessive meaning ‘belonging to’. ‫ני‬°. The nun can also be read as waw or zayin. 33. Inv. No. 100-91-751-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 5.0 cm.

The script is quite similar to that of Aramaic ostracon No. 2069 from Tell el-Kheleifeh (Glueck 1971:232– 233), in which the word ‫ חמר‬also appears. Ref. Lemaire 1996: No. 99. [‫חמר בסם‬. ‫ בסם‬also mean ‘sweet’; see No. 4 above. The phrase ‫ חמר בסם‬can be compared with the Biblical text ‫חֹמץ יין‬, ‘vinegar of wine’ (Num 6:3; see Paul 1975), as well as ‫חמריה דההוא גברא מיפוק בסים‬, ‘that man’s wine will go to vinegar’ (y. Ma‘aś. Š. 4:12 [55c]). Ref. DJPA:106. ‫קצב‬. The noun ‫קצב‬, ‘butcher’ does not fit the context. Therefore, the word might derive from the verb ‫קצב‬, ‘to determine, limit’, which could be connected to the following word, possibly reconstructed ‫ מ[יא‬or ‫מי[ן‬, ‘water’. Thus, it probably refers to the amount of water for irrigation. 35. Inv. No. 128-07-494-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 19.5 × 9.3 cm.

Cat. No. 33.

‫כר[ם‬ Vineyar[d…] ‫כר[ם‬. If the reading is correct, it was probably followed by the type of the vineyard or the name of its owner (see Nos. 29–32 above). 34. Inv. No. 128-17-653-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.3 × 6.7 cm.

Cat. No. 35.

Cat. No. 34.

ֹ

[‫ חמר בסם‬.1 [‫ ]קצב מ‬.2 1. Vinegar of wine […] 2. […]qsb m[…]

ֹֹ

‫ג שיזף‬°° .1 °° .2 1. °°g Jujube (Ziziphus jujube) 2. °°

56

Esther Eshel

‫שיזף‬. The yod can be read as a gimel, and the zayin can be read as a waw.

[ ֯‫ ֯יו֯א‬.1 [‫ קוס‬.2

‫שיזף‬. The Mishnah mentions its plural form ‫( שזיפים‬m. Kil 1:4; MS Kaufmann; other manuscripts read ‫שיזפין‬ or ‫)שזפין‬, which was identified by scholars as Ziziphus jujube. This Mishnah states ‫השזיפים והרימים אף על פי‬ ‫דומין זה לזה כלאים זה בזה‬, ‘…Ziziphus jujube and the Zizyphus spina-christi (‫ רימין‬or ‫ )רימים‬are like to each other, they are accounted Diverse Kinds’. Ref. Feliks 1967:104–106; DJPA:546; Oelbaum 2007: 149–150, 156–158.

1. YW’[…] 2. QWS[…]

36. Inv. No. 128-07-329-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.7 × 5.0 cm.

38. Inv. No. 147-2-631-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.4 × 3.0 cm.

[‫יוא‬. It could be reconstructed ‫ יוא[ש‬or ‫יוא[ב‬, including the Jewish theophoric element -‫יו‬. See the discussion on ‫עבדיו‬, in No. 51 below. [‫קוס‬. An Edomite name of which only the theophoric element QWS is preserved.

Cat. No. 38.

[ °°°] .1 ‫ א]לחני מ֯ תק נעמ֯ [אל‬.2 ‫ן עלם‬°°°] .3 [°‫ח‬°‫ל ל‬°°] .4 [°‫ב‬°°°°‫ ]ק‬.5

ֹֹ

Cat. No. 36.

[ ‫ ענני‬.1 [° .2 1. ‘NNY […] 2. °[…] Line 1 ‫ענני‬, ‘Anani. A man of the House of David bore this name (1 Chr 3:24), which is common in the Elephantine papyri, and is also found at ‘Arad. Ref. Naveh 1981: No. 38; ISAP: No. 10. 37. Inv. No. 84-21-720-S3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.4 × 3.4 cm.

Cat. No. 37.

ֹ ֹ ֹֹ

1. […]°°°[…] 2. [… ’]LHNY MTQ N‛M[’L…] 3. […]°°°N ‛LM 4. […]°°l l°h°[…] 5. […]q°°°b°[…] Line 1 Remains of three worn letters. Line 2 ‫]לחני‬. The word is reconstructed as the proper name ‫[א]לחני‬, meaning ‘El is my favor’, compared with the Biblical name ‫( חניאל‬Num 34:23; 1 Chr 7:39). ‫מתק‬. The reading of the mem is uncertain. If we accept this reading, it could be a proper name, hitherto attested. It might also be a nickname, based on the Hebrew noun ‫מֹתק‬, meaning ‘sweetness’.

57

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

‫נעמ[אל‬. This name is found on another Idumean ostracon (ISAP: No. 451), as well as on a Hebrew seal (WSS: No. 267). Another possible reconstruction is the Biblical name ]‫( נעמ[ן‬e.g., Gen 46:21; Num 26:40; 1 Chr 8:4). Line 3 ‫עלם‬. An Arabian name. Ref. Harding 1971:432. 39. Inv. No. 61-623-1105-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.4 × 2.0 cm.

Cat. No. 39.

ֹ ֹֹֹֹ ֹ

[‫נבו חורן וע‬°] […]°NBW, HWRN and ‛[...] ‫נבו‬°[. The element ‘Nabu’ is a Babylonian deity also worshiped by the Arameans, included in various names, such as ‫( נבורעי‬No. 64 below).

Line 1 ‫בעל‬°°°. A name with the theophoric Phoenician element ‫בעל‬. ‫עני‬, ‘Ani. See No. 5 above. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 160; Lemaire 2002: Nos. 112a, b, 204. Line 2 ‫חור‬. An Egyptian name (Exod 17:10; 31:2) and the name of one of the Midianite kings (Num 31:8). It might be related to the name ‫ חורי‬found on some Idumean ostraca (Lemaire 1996: No. 148; 2002: No. 70). It is also mentioned in a land-lease document from Elephantine dated to 515 BCE (TAD II:12, Line 16), in Kraeling No. 6, ‘the house of HWR’ (TAD II:74, Line 8), and in one of the Khirbet el-Kôm inscriptions (Lemaire 2002: No. 245). Line 2 ‫קוסיתע‬. See No. 58 below. 41. Inv. No. 1-1025-921-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 8.3 × 5.5 cm.

‫חורן‬. Arabian Name. Ref. Harding 1971:208; ISAP: Nos. 58, 1053 (= Lemaire 1996: No. 53). [‫וע‬. Probably to be reconstructed as another proper name. 40. Inv. No. 128-35-883-S1; Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 5.1 × 3.4 cm.

Cat. No. 41. Cat. No. 40.

ֹ

ֹ

[‫נהרי ל‬

‫בעל בר עני‬°°° .1 ‫ חור בר קוסיתע‬.2 1. °°°B‘L son of ‘NY 2. HWR son of QWSYT‘

ֹ

NHRY to […] ‫נהרי‬. For discussion of this name, see No. 16 above.

58

Esther Eshel

42. Inv. No. 147-2-553-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 4.0 cm.

43. Inv. No. 84-30-846-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 5.0 cm.

Cat. No. 42.

[°°] [°‫] ֯ב עינו ותריפו‬ [‫]ת בסימיא י‬ [ ‫ במותא‬°°°°]

ֹ ֹֹ ֹֹֹֹֹ ֹ ֹֹ

. 1 .2 .3 .4

1. […]°°[…] 2. [... ]b ‘YNW and TRYPW°[…] 3. [...]t in symy’ (?) y[…] 4. ...] °°°° in mwt’ […] This is an Aramaic inscription, of which only a fragment of the left margin is preserved. The letters are of elongated shape and a typical ductus, especially in the case of the ’alef and yod. It resembles Nabatean script. Based on the paleographical study of the letters (e.g., the shape of the letters bet and taw), this inscription should be dated to the end of the fourth century BCE or the beginning of the third century BCE. The meaning of the text is not clear. The second line seems to include personal names, and the two words in lines 3 and 4 starting with a bet might be names of places, not identified. Line 2 ‫עינו‬. Arabian name (Harding 1971:451), found in other Idumean ostraca. Ref. ISAP: No. 1958 (= Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 178).

Cat. No. 43.

ֹ

ֹ

ֹ

[ ‫]מ לבית עזרא עמבעל‬ […]m of the house of ‘ZR’ (son of) ‘MB‘L […] ‫]מ‬. The mem might also be read as samekh. In both cases, it is probably the end of a proper name. ‫עזרא‬. A Biblical name. ‫]מ לבית עזרא‬. In other Idumean ostraca, we find the formula ‘PN of the house of PN’, e.g.: ‫ידוע לבית עלבעל‬, ‘Yaddua‘ of the house of ‘Alba‘al’ (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 76). Hence, in this case, we might reconstruct a proper name, ending with a mem. ‫עמבעל‬. A Phoenician name. Ref. Lemaire 2002: No. 167. 44. Inv. No. 128-05-499-S1 Dimensions: 5.4 × 3.2 cm.

]°‫ותריפו‬. The letter waw might also be read as yod, and the taw might also be read as sadi. The meaning is unclear. It might be a proper name, related to the Arabian names TRFT, TRFM, and especially TRYFM. Ref. Harding 1971:132. Line 3 ‫בסימיא‬. The reading and its meaning are unclear. The samekh might also be read as mem, the yod as zayin, the mem as pe or bet, and the yod as resh.

Cat. No. 44.

[‫ד֯ש‬°] Line 4 ‫במותא‬. The meaning is unclear.

[..]ºDŠ[…]

59

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

Three letters appear on the surface of the sherd, incised before firing. Only the left edge of the first letter survived, following which the letter dalet (or maybe resh or a kaph) can be read. Traces of the right side of the last letter are visible, which seems to be a shin. The remains are part of a word, most probably a personal name.

46. Inv. No. 147-5-560-S1; Jar/Krater Sherd Dimensions: 6.0 × 7.5 cm.

Inscriptions with a Personal Name (Nos. 45–62) Included in this group are personal names inscribed on sherds of storage jars. The names are of various origins, such as Edomite, Arabian (sometimes Nabatean), Jewish and Aramaic. As no product is cited next to the names, it is likely that they signify ownership of the jars. Inscriptions that were not preserved in their entirety might have contained a date and the quantity of an agricultural product. In this case, they should be included in the previous group of dockets. 45. Inv. No. 128-21-826-S2; Krater Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 6.8 cm.

Cat. No. 46.

ֹ

‫דיגרם‬ DYGRM This Aramaic inscription is punctate before firing, 1.0–1.5 cm below a decorative band of dots, also impressed before firing. ‫דיגרם‬. This word is unknown. It could be a proper name, including the element ‫גרם‬, found in Nabatean names such as ‫ גרמא‬,‫ גרמו‬and ‫( גרמאלה‬Negev 1991: Nos. 19, 20). It could also be compared with ‫קעילה הגרמי‬, ‘Keilah the Garmite’ (1 Chron 4:19). ‫די‬, followed by a proper name, sometimes indicates the possessive relationship (DJPA:144; cf. ‫זי‬, DNWSI:312). Notice that the resh might also be read as nun. 47. Inv. No. 84-15-487-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.3 × 2.8 cm.

Cat. No. 45.

‫בעלנתן‬ Cat. No. 47.

B‛LNTN ‫בעלנתן‬, Ba‛alnatan. This name is found on eighthcentury BCE seals of West Semitic origin: Moabite, Aramaic, Ammonite, or of unidefined origin. Ref. WSS: Nos. 1020, 1107, 1132, 1133.

‫דנאיל‬ DN’YL The letters lamed and ’aleph are similar to those written in Vienna Papyrus 4, dated to the third or second

60

Esther Eshel

century BCE (Degen 1978). The lamed is written with two strokes. The vertical stroke is long, descending from the right end of a long bow-shaped horizontal bar, and connected to the small preceding yod. ‫דנאיל‬. This might be a metathesis of ‫דניאל‬, mentioned in the Bible, or else a transliteration of the Ugaritic name Dana’ilu, known as a king from Ugarit, later referred to as one of the ancient sages (Ezek 28:3–5). The name ‫ דניאל‬also appears on an ossuary found at Mt. Scopus, dated to the firsth century CE (Kloner and Stark 1992:10–13). DN’L and DN’LH are Arabian names (Harding 1971:244). Ref. Ilan 2002:87. 48. Inv. No. 147-10-2621-S4; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.4 × 8.2 cm.

49. Inv. No. 100-119-785; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.8 × 2.4 cm.

Cat. No. 49.

ֹֹֹ

‫יאוש‬ Y’WŠ ‫יאוש‬. The name, which is probably a short form of ‫יאשיהו‬, is found on three of the Lachish ostraca (Torczyner 1938: Nos. 2, 3 and 6) and in the Elephantine document: ‫( יחמול ברת פלטי בר יאוש‬Cowley 1923: No. 22; TAD III:232:92). The name ‫ יאש‬appears on two Hebrew bullae (WSS: Nos. 512, 513) and on Aramaic stamp seals (WSS: No. 799). Nöldeke (1886:740) and Noth (1928:213) compared ‫ יאוש‬with South-Arabian names such as ‫יאוסאל‬. Based on Ugaritic and Arabic, it should be interpreted from ‫או"ש‬, meaning ‘to give a present’ (Israel 1992:191, and references therein; WSS: Nos. 512–513; see Tur-Sinai 1987:26–28). The reading ‫ יאושיהו‬is attested in Jer 27:1. Paleographically, it seems that this ostracon dates to the fourth century BCE. 50. Inv. No. 147-08-1864-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.8 × 4.0 cm.

Cat. No. 48.

‫חגי‬ HGY This inscription should be dated to the end of the fifth century BCE, based on the shape of the wide gimel. ‫חגי‬, Hagai. A Biblical name which appears on five Hebrew seals (WSS: Nos. 147–151). It should also be read on Judean Hebrew seal No. 72 from the Moussaieff Collection (Deutsch and Lemaire 2001:78, as noted by Puech 2002:427) and on a bulla (WSS: No. 492). Ref. Nimrud—Aufrecht 1989: No. 47; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 96, 137 and 196.

Cat. No. 50.

ֹ

[‫]יפעת‬ […]YP‘T[…]

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

61

[‫[יפעת‬. If the word is fully preserved, it may be the Arabian name YF‘T (Harding 1971:679), which can be compared with the Biblical name ‫( יפיע‬Japhia; Josh 10:3; 2 Sam 5:15). If the name is not fully preserved, we might reconstruct the place name ‫מיפעת‬, Mepha‘at, a Moabite city given to the tribe of Reuben but taken back by the Moabites. It is spelled ‫( ֵמפעת‬Josh 13:18), ‫( מיפעת‬1 Chr 6:64) or ‫( מופעת‬ketib, with ‫ מיפעת‬as qeri in Jer 48:21). Mepha‘at was identified with Khirbet Umm er-Rasas, c. 13 km east of Dibon (Piccirillo and Attiyat 1986; Elizur 1989; Kallai 1993). The proper name ‫מיפעה‬, found in a seal dated to the seventh century BCE (WSS: No. 1147), was interpreted by Avigad as a case of the use of a toponym as a personal name (Avigad 1990), see discussion of ‫( יבנאל‬No. 12 above). Another possible reading is a resh instead of the yod: ‫רפעת‬.

The inscription, written below the handle of a jar, designates in all likelihood the owner. The first letter can be read as‘ayin, resh or bet, the second as bet or resh, the third as waw or yod, and the fourth and last letter as dalet, resh or yod.

51. Inv. No. 84-30-902-S4; Jar Sherd with a handle Dimensions: 4.9 × 8.7 cm.

52. Inv. No. 84-23-963-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.6 × 7.9 cm.

‫עבדיו‬. A Jewish name. The right end of the base of the yod, of lapidary type, ends under the head of a dalet. The ‫יו‬- element is usually found in names originating in the Kingdom of Israel, as documented on the Samaria ostraca and in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions, as well as on stamp seals. ‫ עבדיו‬appears in Samaria and on a stone vessel from ‘Ajrud, while ‫ עבדיהו‬is found in Judah; the short form ‫ עבדי‬appears on Idumean ostraca (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 37; Lemaire 1996: No. 136, 2002: No. 353; ISAP: No. 35). Ref. Ahituv 2008:302, 314.

Cat. No. 52.

‫עבדקוס‬ ‘BDQWS The sherd, probably the base of a jar, seems to be an ostracon. The letters are quite large and the ink is slightly worn away.

Cat. No. 51.

֯‫֯עב֯ד֯ ֯יו‬ ‘BDYW

‫עבדקוס‬, ‘Abdqaus. An Edomite name. See No. 53 below. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 84; ISAP: No. 2423.

62

Esther Eshel

53. Inv. No. 128-16-655-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 8.8 × 12.5 cm.

(Gen 36:1, 8), the main ethnic group at Maresha. If the name is incomplete it might be reconstructed ]‫עשו[ת‬, mentioned in 1 Chr 7:33. Another possible reading is a resh instead of the waw: [‫עשר‬, ‘ten’, or ]‫עשר[ין‬, ‘twen[ty]’. 55. Inv. No. 100-294-1186-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.7 × 2.6 cm.

Cat. No. 53.

Cat. No. 55.

‫ע]ב֯ דקוס‬

ֹֹֹ

‘]BDQWS

‫קוסחנן‬

‫[ע]בדקוס‬. The letters, incised before the vessel was fired, are quite large. The samekh, beginning with an upstroke on the left and running into a looped head, can be dated to the third–second centuries BCE. Ref. Levi Della Vida Papyrus—TAD III:268. 54. Inv. No. 128-38-873-S5; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 9.0 × 4.0 cm.

QWSHNN ‫קוסחנן‬. An Edomite name, which consists of the theophoric element QWS in conjunction with the root ‫נ‬²‫חנ‬. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 52, 153, 173, 178; Lemaire 2002: Nos. 4, 88, 127, 198, 264, 365; ISAP: Nos. 2, 113, 432, 948, 1304, 1419, 2417, 2454, 2463, 2589. 56. Inv. No. 51-8c-003-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 12.4 × 11.5 cm.

Cat. No. 54.

[֯‫עשו‬ Cat. No. 56.

‘SW[…]

[ ‫קוסיד‬ ‫עשו‬, Esau. The name ‫ עשו‬was identified in the Bible with Edom ‫עשו הוא אדום‬, ‘Esau, that is, Edom’

QWSYD […]

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

The qoph resembles one that appears in Wadi Daliyeh 2 (Yardeni 2000:204–205, Type 3); the samekh is of the cursive type, while the yod, written like a triangle, is characteristic of the fourth century BCE.

63

58. Inv. No. 100-433-3210-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 19.8 × 15.0 cm.

‫קוסיד‬. An Edomite name that occurs in Nos. 12, 27 and 66. 57. Inv. No. 100–500;5 Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 2.9 cm.

Cat. No. 58. Cat. No. 57.

‫קוסיתע‬

QWSYT‘ ‫קוסינקם‬ QWSYNQM ‫קוסינקם‬. An Edomite name which appears on ostraca from ‘Arad (Naveh 1981: No. 20) and Be’er Sheva‘ (Naveh 1979: No. 33; Lemaire 2002: Nos. 95, 136, 160). The verb element ‫( ינקם‬from ‫מ‬²‫ )נק‬is a defective spelling of the imperative ‫ינקום‬. This root occurs in the names of several Ugaritic kings called NQMD (del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003:640–641). The name ]‫ נקמא[ל‬appears on a handle found at Tell enNasbeh (McCown 1947:168, Pl. 57:21, as read by Prignaud 1970:56), and can be compared with ‫נקמיה‬ (ISAP: No. 1752); the name ‫ נקם‬is preserved on a jar inscription dated to the eighth century BCE, found at the Jerusalem Ophel (Prignaud 1970: Pl. 1a; cf. ‫נקמו‬, ISAP: No. 1228). Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 175, 183.

‫קוסיתע‬. An Edomite name. The fragment on which this name appears is large. A similar name occurs on No. 40 above, to be compared with the Nabatean name ‫( יתוע‬No. 23, see discussion above). see also ]‫ אבית[ע‬in No. 63 below. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 29, 174, 191; Lemaire 1996: No. 81. 59. Inv. No. 75-6069-1112-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.9 × 6.0 cm.

Cat. No. 59.

‫קוסעיר‬ QWS‛YR

64

Esther Eshel

‫קוסעיר‬. An Edomite name. The root ‫ר‬²‫ עי‬is probably used in the meaning of ‘watch over’, as in Job 8:6 (Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni 1992:208). It is also found in the name ‫( בעלעיר‬Lemaire 1996: No. 13). Ref. ISAP: Nos. 40, 708, 944, 947. 60. Inv. No. 128-09-344-S3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.3 × 2.0 cm. Cat. No. 60.

[֯‫ק֯ ו֯ס֯ ר֯ם֯ ע֯ ֯בד‬

[ ‫שמי בר‬. The name ‫( שמי‬Shammai) was borne by three men from the tribe of Judah (1 Chr. 2:28). It is also attested as an element in a number of Semitic names, such as ‫ אדשמי‬or ‫( אבשמי‬Maraqten 1988:117). It occurs in a second-century BCE inscription from Mt. Gerizim (Naveh and Magen 1997: Nos. 8, 15); compare it with the name ‫( שמו‬Lemaire 2002: No. 224). Another possible reading after the bet is the sign 0 which designates the number 10, translated as follows: ‘ŠMY, in (the year) 10’, or ‘ŠMY, on the tenth [of month X]’. 62. Inv. No. 97-01-129-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.0 × 4.0 cm.

QWSRM ‛BD[…] Remains of writing appear on at least one line. On the bottom part, the reading qoph is possible, next to which is the more or less vertical stroke of a waw, and thereafter the faint remains of two letters and an elongated mem. The reading of ‫ קוסרם‬seems very probable. The faint letters following this anthroponym seem to be best read as an ‘ayin, a bet with a small head and base, and the remains of a vertical stroke. Thus, [‫ עבד‬appears to be plausible. ‫קוסרם‬. A common Edomite name, found also in Nos. 24 (see discussion) and 66. [‫עבד‬. For a possible reconstruction, see ‫( עבדיו‬No. 51), ‫( עבדקוס‬Nos. 52, 53), or ‫( עבדערש‬No. 15). 61. Inv. No. 100-120-794/2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 8.0 cm.

Cat. No. 62.

[ ‫ת֯ נ֯ח֯ ו֯[ם ] ֯ב ֯ר‬ TNHW[M ] son of [PN] The name was written before the vessel was fired, and only the lower parts of the letters have survived. We tentatively suggest reading the first four letters as taw, nun, het and waw, reconstructing the name ]‫תנחו[ם‬, although nothing remains of the bottom of the mem. ]‫תנחו[ם‬, Tanhum. A Jewish name written on a seventhcentury BCE ostracon from ‘Arad and appearing on jar-handle impressions. Ref. ‘Arad—Aharoni 1981: No. 39 and see references therein; WSS: Nos. 707, 708.

Cat. No. 61.

ŠMY son of [PN]

[ ‫שמי ב ֯ר‬

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

Inscriptions with Lists of Names (Nos. 63, 64) The following ostraca feature lists of names, in which the first (No. 63) includes eleven different names of various ethnic groups and the second has sixteen. These lists could have served various purposes (see discussion below). 63. Inv. No. 84-20; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 12.0 × 10.0 cm.

ֹ

֯‫ מטה דאי֯ן‬.1 ‫ עדרתו חד מן‬.2 ‫ אבאושו עבדה‬.3 ]‫ זבדאדה אבית[ע‬.4 ֯‫ זבדי קוסנתן שמרא֯ ל‬.5

ֹ

ֹֹ



ֹֹֹֹ ֹ

ֹֹ

‫ מתן פציא שמרריה‬.6 ֯‫ זבדאדה זבדי עדרתו שמע‬.7 ] [ [°] .8

ֹ

65

1. The clan of D’YN (?): 2. ‛DRTW one of 3. ’B’WŠW, a slave, 4. ZBD’DH, ’BYT[‘], 5. ZBDY, QWSNTN, ŠMR’L,



6. MTN (?), PSY’, ŠMRRYH (?), 7. ZBD’DH, ZBDY, ‘DRTW, ŠM‛(?) [ ] 8. […]° The sherd is almost completely intact. The margins left by the scribe can be distinguished; thus, the ostracon clearly comprised at least eight written lines. The list begins with the words ‫מטה דאין‬, which I suggest interpreting as ‘The clan of D’YN’. It is then followed by a list of names, some of which occur twice. Each line includes two or three names, one after the other, without following conjunctions, signs or numbers. A horizontal bar was drawn beneath Lines 5 and 7 and three names occur twice, once above the

Cat. No. 63.

66

Esther Eshel

horizontal bar and once beneath it: ‫( עדרתו‬Lines 2 and 7), ‫( זבדאדה‬Lines 4 and 7) and ‫( זבדי‬Lines 5 and 7). The horizontal bars may serve as dividers between separate lists of names. Several names are known, some common (‫ )זבדי‬and others rare (‫)אביתע‬. A number of names are unattested elsewhere (‫ פציא‬and ‫)שמראל‬. Lists of personal names or personal and family names written on sherds are known since the Iron Age. The first were found at ‘Arad (Aharoni 1981: No. 49) and Lachish (Torczyner 1938: No. 1) and other lists, dated to the end of the Iron Age, were discovered at the Ophel (Cook 1924) and Horbat ‘Uza (Beit-Arieh 1993). Lists of names dated to the Persian and Hellenistic periods were found at Be’er Sheva‘; one ostracon contains a list of five individuals, whereas the other bears two columns of names (Naveh 1979: Nos. 33, 34). Ref. Yadin and Naveh 1989:24–31; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 175; Lemaire 1996: No. 72; Lozachmeur and Lemaire 1996: No. 8. Line 1 ‫מטה‬. Apparently signifying ‘clan’, this word occurs in a broken context on an Idumean ostracon (ISAP: No. 402), as well as in the Balaam inscription from Deir’Alla (Hoftijzer 1976). In Line 9 of that inscription (according to the first reconstruction, and Line 11 according to the second), the words ‫ מטה‬and ‫חטר‬ appear in parallel. Hoftijzer initially proposed that ‫מטה‬ means rod or staff, in the sense of punishment, since the context concerns a list of punishments (Hoftijzer 1976:205). Later (Hoftijzer 1991:138), he accepted the proposal of Caquot and Lemaire (1977:199) that the meaning is a shepherd’s staff, as in Biblical Hebrew (Exod 4:2). Two inscriptions appear on opposite sides of a storage jar found at Horbat ‘Uza (Beit-Arieh 1993). The text consists of two lists of names, arranged in identical numerical order from the first to the fourth. The name of the man who was apparently the leader of the group appears at the head of the list. Another person is referred to as ‫קצין למטה גדלי‬, ‘officer of the Gadli clan’. Beit-Arieh suggested it was a military or civil administrative title. However, Milgrom (1978:77) insisted that the term ‫ מטה‬was in use only until the end of the United Monarchy and following its split, the term was replaced by the parallel, ‫שבט‬.

According to his interpretation, such terms went out of use in Biblical literature after the destruction of the First Temple, and ‫ מטה‬appears only as an archaism, for example in passages citing sources predating the destruction. The jar from Horbat ‘Uza, dated to the seventh century BCE, sheds new light on this issue, suggesting that the word ‫ מטה‬denoted a military unit. Alternatively, it could be understood “in the framework of small-scale, sub-tribal social organization, for example, a family or a clan” (Beit-Arieh 1993:39). It appears that in the Maresha ostracon the word ‫ מטה‬means a defined group of persons deriving genealogically from a paternal ancestor. In this case, it seems, from a clan by the name of ‫( דאין‬see below). Another possibility is that the word denotes a name similar to ‫( מטא‬MT’) attested in Phoenician inscriptions (CIS I/2: Nos. 1396, 2084; I/3: No. 3963), on another Idumean ostracon (ISAP: No. 1189), and in two inscriptions from South Arabia (CIS IV/2: No. 575, Lines 6–7). ‫דאין‬. The reading is uncertain. The dalet might also be read as resh or bet, and the ’alph might be read as he or gimel. very little from the next two letters has survived. If we accept the reading ‫דאין‬, Da’ayan is known as a Southern Semitic proper name (Ryckmans 1934:64, 290). Lines 2 and 7 ‫עדרתו‬. The element ‫ עדר‬occurs in Biblical names such as ‫( עדר‬1 Chr 23:23) and ‫( עדריאל‬1 Sam 18:19), ‫עדראל‬ (Naveh 1979: No. 28; Lemaire 1996: Nos. 74A, 79; ISAP: No. 402), ‫( קוסעדר‬Naveh 1979: No. 34:6) and ‫( עדרו‬Lemaire 1996: No. 72). It is also known as a South-Arabian name (Ryckmans 1934:98–99, 158). The Arabian name ‫ עדרת‬is found in four Safaitic inscriptions (Harding 1971:412). The name ‫עדרי‬ occurs in a papyrus of the Memphis shipyard journal from Egypt (Aimé-Giron 1931:13, Column IIIA:8; TAD III:197; ISAP: No. 949); compare ‫( עדרבעל‬Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 47; ISAP: No. 884) and ‫קוסעדר‬ (ISAP: No. 1222). The meaning of the taw waw ending is not clear; it can be compared with ‫ חבותו‬or ‫( שרתו‬Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 63, 70, 141, 182). It is possible that

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

67

it constitutes the nominative ending in Nabatean, and is therefore a Nabatean name, comparable to ‫ עותו‬from Be’er Sheva‘ (Naveh 1979: No. 42).

Ref. Naveh 1979: No. 34; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23; Lemaire 1996: Nos. 56, 128, 148; ISAP: No. 1061 (= Lemaire 1996: No. 61).

Lines 2 and 3 ‫עדרתו חד מן אבאושו עבדה‬, ‛DRTW one of ’B’WŠW a slave. The syntax here is not as expected, that is ‘X, one of the slaves of Y’, but rather ‘X, one of Y, a slave’. Thus, it should be interpreted: ‛DRTW is one of the slaves of ’B’WŠW. ‫עבדה‬, ‘a slave’ describes ‛DRTW, but might as well be a short form of ‫עבדוהי‬, ‘his slaves’, used as a reflexive pronoun.

Line 5 ‫קוסנתן‬. An Edomite name. This name appears on other ostraca (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 176, 177) and in a Greek inscription from Maresha: Kοσνάτανος (Peters and Thiersch 1905:44–45, Nos. 9–11; 54, No. 28). Ref. ISAP: No. 1336 (= Lemaire 2002: No. 69), 1607 (= Lemaire 2002: No. 97).

Line 3 ‫אבאושו‬. A Nabatean name ‫אושו‬-‫אב‬. The combination of the element ‫אב‬, ‘father’, with the element ‫או"ש‬, see discussion on the name ‫יאוש‬, No. 49. Ref. Negev 1991: No. 4. Lines 4 and 7 ‫זבדאדה‬. This name is found on other ostraca (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 87, 97). ‫ אדה‬is a theophoric element included in the name ‫( עבדאדה‬Zadok 1988:814; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 46, 184). The name ‫ אדה‬appears in a later inscription from Hammat Gader ‫אדה בר תנחום‬ (Naveh 1978: No. 35). Ref. ISAP: Nos. 709, 1306 (= Lemaire 2002: No. 205), 1044 (= Lemaire 1996: No. 44), 1658, 1705, 1074 (= Lemaire 1996: No. 74), 2450, 2542. Line 4 [‫אבית[ע‬, Abiyeta‘. This name appears in the collection published by Eph‘al and Naveh (1996: No. 34); for the discussion of the root ‫ע‬²‫ית‬, see No. 23 above. The name ‫ קוסיתע‬is mentioned in Nos. 40 and 58. Another possible reconstruction could be ]‫אבית[י‬, mentioned, inter alia, several times in Cowley No. 81, an Aramaic papyrus from Egypt. Ref. Cowley 1923: No. 81, Lines 29–30, 53, 116; TAD III:258–267; ISAP: Nos. 10, 223, 874, 1748. Lines 5 and 7 ‫זבדי‬. A common name also known as a Nabatean name (Negev 1991: No. 369).

‫שמראל‬. Unknown name to be compared with the Jewish name ‫שמריו‬. Line 6 The reading of all three names is uncertain, and the names are unknown. ‫מתן‬. The final nun might also be read as pe, but the reading ‫ מתף‬does not make sense. ‫ מתן‬is a common name, mentioned, inter alia, in a withdrawal document from Elephantine. Ref. TAD II:120. ‫פציא‬. The pe might also be read as mem or yod. If we read ‫פציא‬, the name might be connected to ‫פציאל‬, mentioned in No. 8 above. Thus, it can be interpreted as a Hebrew theophoric name with the root ‫י‬²‫ פצ‬meaning ‘to open’ or ‘to deliver, save’; see the Arabian name FSY (Harding 1971:468). ‫שמרריה‬. The first resh might also be read as waw, ‫( שמוריה‬see discussion on ‫נתון‬, in No. 64). If the correct reading is ‫שמרריה‬, it is probably due to dittography of the letter resh. The Jewish name ‫שמריה‬, including the short theophoric ‫יה‬- ending, is known as the name of King Solomon’s grandson (2 Chr 11:19) and in the Book of Ezra as the name of two people (Ezra 10:32, 41). Line 7 ‫שמע‬. The name of four Biblical figures (1 Chr 2:43, 5:8, 8:13; Neh 8:4). It is found also on an Idumean ostracon. Ref. Lemaire 2002: No. 164.

68

Esther Eshel

64. Inv. No. 147-10-2670-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.7 × 7.7 cm.

This ostracon is written in two columns of six names each, with three additional lines, the first at the bottom and two vertical lines going upward at the left margin. The middle of the first line was partly worn, and most of the second line is missing due to a break at the edge of the left margin. The vertical lines seem to be a continuation of the bottom line. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that they were an addition to the two-column list of names. Such lists of names appear on an ostracon from Be’er Sheva‘ (Naveh 1979:186, No. 34), as well as on Idumean ostraca (Lemaire 1996: No. 136; see discussion in No. 63 above).

Cat. No. 64.

Col. B ‫ נתון‬.7 ‫ קוסנהר‬.8 ‫ קוסדכר‬.9 ‫ יחלעלו‬.10 ‫ חגגו‬.11 ‫ עבדו‬.12



Col. A ‫ עבד י‬.1 ‫ והבי‬.2 ֯‫ ֯ע ֯וי֯ד֯ ו‬.3 ‫ נבורעי‬.4 ‫ זב֯דא‬.5 ֯‫ פ֯ח֯ ֯רי‬.6

ֹֹֹ

ֹֹֹ

Bottom line

ֹ ֹ

‫ ביד בני רם וקוסדכר‬.13 Left margin Line

ֹ ֹ

‫ בעלדכר [ו]זבדי בר‬.14 ‫]בעלי‬ [ .15 Col. A 1. ‘BDY, 2. WHBY, 3. ‘WYDW (?), 4. NBWR‘Y, 5. ZBD’, 6. PHRY (?),

Col. B 7. NTWN, 8. QWSNHR, 9. KWSDKR, 10. YHL‘LW, 11. HGGW, 12. ‘BDW,

Bottom Line 13. at the hands of the sons of RM, and QWSDKR, Left Margin Line 14. B‘LDKR [and] ZBDY, (the) son of 15. [PN…]B‘LY

Column A Line 1 ‫עבדי‬. A common Semitic name known in Hebrew (Ezra 10:26; 1 Chr 6:29), Nabatean (Negev 1991: No. 804) and other West-Semitic languages. Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 37; Lemaire 1996: 136; ISAP: Nos. 35, 1638, 2636. Line 2 ‫והבי‬. The names ‫ והב‬and ‫ והבו‬are known Nabatean names (Negev 1991: Nos. 335, 343), found on other Idumean ostraca. The name ‫ והב‬appears on an Aramaic bronze plate from Malaya (located in the United Arab Emirates; Puech 1998:48), and in inscriptions found at khirbet el-Kôm (Lemaire 2002: Nos. 336, 337). Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 56, 181; Lemaire 1996: No. 72; ISAP: Nos. 710, 1929 (= Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 138+180). Line 3 ‫עוידו‬, ‘Uwaydu. This is a Nabatean name, see No. 6 above. Ref. Negev 1991: No. 854; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 147, 184. Line 4 ‫נבורעי‬. ‫ נבו‬is a Babylonian deity worshiped also by the Arameans. Therefore, it is known as a proper name (Lemaire 1996: Nos. 75, 96), included as a theophoric element in Aramaic names such as ‫( נבואלה‬Naveh 1973: No. 7). It also appears in the Nabatean names ‫ נבומא‬and ‫( עבדנבו‬Negev 1991: Nos. 714, 813; Lemaire 1996: No. 86). The element ‫ רעי‬appears in the names ‫( קוסרעי‬ISAP: Nos. 2603, 2609) and ‫( בעלרעי‬ISAP: No. 1626).

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

Line 5 ‫זבדא‬, Zabda. This name is mentioned above in Nos. 13 and 30; see discussion in No. 13. Line 6 ‫פחרי‬. This reading is uncertain. The name is probably Arabian, related to the Arabian name FHR. Ref. Harding 1971:462. Column B Line 7 ‫נתון‬, Nattun. This name is possibly built on the pattern of the names like Gaddul, Dalluy and Zakkur, with the gemination of the second consonant followed by a waw. This name, based on the root ‫ן‬²‫נת‬, ‘to give’, appears in Be’er Sheva‘ and on Idumean ostraca, as well as in the Elephantine documents. Ref. Cowley 1923: Nos. 12, 22, 33; Naveh 1979: No. 34; Lemaire 2002: No. 165; ISAP: Nos. 451, 2487. Line 8 ‫קוסנהר‬. An Edomite name, found on other Idumean ostraca, as well as on ostracon No. 28 from Be’er Sheva‘ (Naveh 1979) and from Wadi ed-Daliyeh 2 (Dušek 2007:132). Ref. ISAP: Nos. 839, 863, 1653+1623. Lines 9, 13 ‫קוסדכר‬. An Edomite name. The element ‫דכר‬, ‘to remember’ is included in the name ‫ בעלדכר‬mentioned below (left margin) and in the Nabatean names ‫דכרו‬ and ‫ ;דכרת‬compare it with the Biblical name ‫זכריה‬. Ref. Negev 1991: Nos. 275, 276; Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 125; Lemaire 1996: No. 145, 2002: No. 233; ISAP: Nos. 805, 822, 854, 1373 (= Lemaire 2002: No. 258), 1625, 1755, 2503. Line 10 ‫יחלעלו‬. The element ‫יחל‬, which is an imperative of ‫ל‬²‫יח‬, ‘wait for’, can also be found in the Hebrew name ‫יחלאל‬, meaning ‘Wait for God’ (Gen 46:14; Num 26:26), as well as in the Phoenician name ‫יחלבעל‬ (HALOT:407). ‘LW is an Arabian and Nabatean name, while ‘LY is a popular Nabatean name (Negev 1991: No. 888). The combination of these elements is hitherto unknown, as one would expect a theophoric element to be combined with the imperative ‫יחל‬. Ref. Harding 1971:433; Negev 1991: No. 889.

69

Line 11 ‫חגגו‬, Hagigu. This name appears on some Idumean ostraca, as well as on an ostracon from ‘Arad (No. 58). On some Idumean ostraca it appears in the short form ‫( חגו‬Lemaire 2002: No. 57), which is a Nabatean name (Negev 1991: No. 414). These names might be related to the Arabian names HJ and HJJ (Harding 1971:177). Another possible reading is ‫( חגי‬see No. 48 above). Ref. Lemaire 2002: Nos. 50, 87, 199, 203; ISAP: Nos. 103, 110, 730, 1541 (= Lemaire 2002: No. 113), 2540, 2582. Line 12 ‫עבדו‬. A Nabatean name. Ref. Negev 1991: No. 798. Bottom Line Line 13 ‫ביד‬, ‘through, by means of, with the help of’ (DJPA:92). Here, as on other Idumean ostraca, it is used in the meaning of ‘in the hand of’ + PN. It can be compared with 5 ‫ ליספה ביד זבוד בני חורי גברן‬,‘To YSPH, in the Hands of ZBWD: the Sons of HWRI: 5 men’ (Lemaire 2002: No. 285). ‫בני רם‬, the sons of Ram. ‫ רם‬is a Biblical name (Job 32:2; Ruth 4:19), and is also known as an Arabian name (Harding 1971:286). Left Margin Line 14 ‫בעלדכר‬. A Phoenician theophoric name; see ‫ קוסדכר‬in Col. B, Lines 9, 13. Lines 14–15 ‫]בעלי‬...[ ‫[ו]זבדי בר‬. As mentioned above, the middle of the first line was partly worn, and most of the second line is missing due to a break at the edge of the left margin. There are remains of letters at the beginning of line 15, and the sherd is broken after about 1 cm. The name ‫ בעלי‬is written below the words ‫זבדי בר‬. Thus, there is no indication whether ‫ בעלי‬is the continuation of line 14, being the father of ‫זבדי‬, or perhaps another name or two are lost in between. ‫בעלי‬, Ba‘ali. This is probably a Phoenician name, including the theophoric element ‫בעל‬. The name is known from other Idumean ostraca, sometimes with

70

Esther Eshel

other elements, such as ‫( זבדבעלי‬Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 68) or ‫( עבדבעלי‬Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 162). Ref. Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 190. An Aramaic Letter(?) (No. 65) 65. Inv. No. 128-40-1019-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 4.8 cm.

what remains we might tentatively suggest that it was a letter or a note. It begins with the verb ‘said’ (‫)אמר‬, and one would expect a person’s name before or after it. Lines 2–3 move to the writer who, in first person, expresses a wish or request (‫)ובעה אנה‬, referring to his action concerning the idol (‫)צלמא‬. The next line (Line 4) mentions a third individual named ‫מנכי‬, with a request in the third person plural )‫)מה בעו‬. The end of this line seems to include a known formula, which might be reconstructed ‫הן על [מראי טב‬, ‘Thus, if [my lord pleases(?) ...]’. Line 5 mentions provisions, which include some vessels. Unfortunately, most of this interesting letter is lost, leaving us with only small parts of the puzzle. Line 1 Remains of a long horizontal line of a bet, in the final position of a word, can be seen at the beginning of the line. Another bet, followed by nun, comes after the word ‫אמר‬. Line 2 [‫ובעה אנה‬, ‘and I request/wish’, see line 4. Another possible reading is ‘ayin instead of bet and waw instead of ‘ayin, ‫ ועוה‬and pe instead of he, which might be reconstructed ‫אנפ[והי‬. Thus, ‫ ועוה אנפ[והי‬means ‘he turned his face’.

Cat. No. 65.

[֯‫ ] ֯ב אמר בנ‬.1 [‫ ]יא ובעה אנה‬.2 [‫ ]נא ואנה צלמא‬.3 ‫ ]מנכי מה בעו הן על [מראי טב‬.4 [‫ ]הן בלט מנאי וש‬.5 [°°° °‫ ]ל‬.6

Line 3 ‫ואנה צלמא‬. Probably the remains of the first person pronoun and the accusative, followed by a verb means ‘and I [+VERB] the idol’. The word ‫ צלמא‬is the emphatic form of ‫צלם‬, meaning the image of a god or a man, or a statue.

1. [...]b said bn[...] 2. [...]y’ and I request/wish [...] 3. [...]n’, and I [...] the idol [...] 4. [...]MNKY, what do they request/wish. Thus, if [my lord pleases (?) ...] 5. [...]hn provisions: vessels, and š[...] 6. [...]l° °°°[...]

Line 4 ‫מנכי‬, Mannuki. A Babylonian name (see discussion in No. 2 above).

ֹ

ֹ

ֹֹֹ

ֹֹ

ֹ

This fragmentary text is missing its beginning and end, as well as its left and right margins, but from

[ ‫הן על‬. It should probably be reconstructed ‫הן על‬ ‫[מראי טב‬, or the like. This relies on the reading of another Idumean letter, which was reconstructed by Ada Yardeni, by collating three ostraca from the collection published by Eph‘al and Naveh (1996: Nos. 196+197+198; Yardeni, pers. comm.; Porten

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

and Yardeni, forthcoming). Both letters share some phrases, such as starting with ‫ אמר‬X, ‘PN said’ and ‫הן‬ ‫על מראי טב‬, ‘Thus, if my lord pleases’. Line 5 ‫]הן‬. It might either be a suffix or conjunction ‘if...’. ‫בלט‬. This word is unknown. A possible interpretation might be based on the Akkadian word balātu. One of its meanings is ‘provisions’ (CAD, B:52). ‫מנאי‬, utensils. The word ‫ מנאי‬appears in No. 66, where it was suggested as being a scribal error of the word ‫מאני‬, ‘utensils’. [‫וש‬. The waw might also be read as nun. [‫בלט מנאי וש‬, ‘provisions: utensils and š[...]’. The combination of the general title ‘provisions’, followed by its components, also appears in No. 66, where ‫ זוד‬means ‘provisions’, followed by ]...[‫לבוש ומנאי‬, ‘clothing and utensils […]. Discussion Ostracon No. 65 in our collection is the only letter found at Maresha, and is one of very few of that period hitherto known. Two ostraca published by Eph‘al and Naveh are of great importance to the discussion of this ostracon, as they originate in the same area, Idumea, and are dated around the same period, that is the late fourth century BCE (Lindenberger 2003: No. 71). The first ostracon (No. 199) is a letter mentioning a note concerning a debt. This document is written on both surfaces of a sherd, and includes neither an address nor a greeting formula. The authors concluded that “it is difficult to decide whether the text is a draft or an informal letter” (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:90). The second ostracon (No. 196) comprises a short note concerning the release of a woman, saying ‘If my lord

71

pleases, let them free the daughter of Haggai’ (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:88–89). In addition, two partly preserved letters, written by the scribe of ostracon No. 196, are addressed to Qausmalak (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 197, 198); ostracon No. 198 mentions ‘a servant in your hand’ (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:88–89). As mentioned above, A. Yardeni collated these three ostraca (Nos. 196+197+198) into one letter of thirteen lines (Porten and Yardeni, forthcoming). Her reading is an important addition to the corpus of letters. Another group of four ostraca, also found in Idumea and dated to the same period, was called by Lemaire (1996:77) fragments de message. These very fragmentary ostraca include the following words: ‘[...] did not come’ (No. 96), ‘to me’ (No. 97); ‘now’ (No. 97), ‘and you’ (No. 98), ‘and they spoke in his name(?)’ (No. 99), indicating their use as notes or parts of letters. Seventy-nine Hebrew and Aramaic letters were published by Lindenberger (2003). The letters originated in Syria-Palestine before and during the Babylonian invasions and prior to the fall of Judah and Philistia half a century later, and in Egypt in the earlier part of the Persian period c. 500–400 BCE (Lindenberger 2003:3). This corpus includes a report of an Assyrian officer from Ashur, dated c. 650 BCE, as well as two letters found in southern Palestine, dated to the end of the Persian period. The letters are concerned with various issues, among them diplomatic–military correspondence, business and family affairs, petitions and royal orders. The majority of these letters are written on papyrus, a dozen on leather and only eight on sherds. They comprised between four and a dozen or more short lines of writing. Sometimes only one surface is inscribed, while in other cases the letter is written on both sides. In the known corpus of Hebrew and Aramic letters, ostracon No. 65 from Maresha is important because of its contents, as well as the fact that it was found in archaeological context.

72

Esther Eshel

A Marriage Contract Dated 176 BCE (No. 66) 66. Inv. No. 84-30-845-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 11.0 × 14.0 cm. A marriage contract, written in Aramaic, was copied on the inner surface of a jug. It bears a date indicating that it was written in 176 BCE, and paleographically, the script falls in the range of the end of the third or the first half of the second century BCE. The text has been fully published (Eshel and Kloner 1996). Here is included the reading and translation of the marriage contract (with some minor changes) and some additional notes, as well as a summary of the significance of this text. It reads as follow:

Cat. No. 66.

] ‫ סי֯ ֯לב֯[קוס מלכא‬5 5  ‫בירח סיון שנת‬ ]‫ ואמר‬... [ ‫קוסרם בר קוסיד הו בחדות לבבה‬ ] ‫לקוסיד בר קוסיהב איתי ארסנה[ שמה‬ ]‫תהוא‬ ‫ זי‬...‫בתולתא כען בעה אנה מנך זי א֯ [נת‬ ] [‫מראת בי תנתן לי כנומוס בנת‬ ] [‫בנין דכרין זי יהוון לי מנה‬ ‫ומראי ביתי וירתי מן ר֯[עותי‬ ‫קוסיד שמע לקבל זי ק[וסרם בעה ויהב לה אר]סנה‬ ‫ יה]ב֯ קוס[י]ד לארסנה‬...[ ֯‫ברתה אנתה כזי יהב לה‬ 300 ‫ברתה {זון} זוד לבוש ומנאי [ ] ש֯ וין כסף זוזין‬ ‫נשאת ועלת לבית קוס֯ ר֯ם זנה בעלה קבל‬ ‫חתם‬

ֹ

ֹֹ

ֹ

ֹ

ֹ

. 1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

1. In the month of Sivan of the year 136 (of) Seleu[cus, the king ...], 2. QWSRM, son of QWSYD, of his own free will [... and declared] 3. to QWSYD, son of QWSYHB: There is (a woman), Arsinoe [her name ..], 4. a previously unmarried woman. Now then: I am asking of you that y[ou ... that she may be] 5. the mistress of the house. You will give (her) to me, according to the custom of the daughters of [Edom (?) ...]. 6. Male children whom I will have from her [shall inherit (?)...] 7. and the masters of my house and my heirs, of [my free wi]ll [...] 8. QWSYD acceded with respect to what QWSRM [had asked, and gave him Ar]sinoe, 9. his daughter, (as) wife. When he gave him (or: her) [...], QWS[Y] D [ga]ve to Arsinoe 10. his daughter, provisions: clothing, and utensils [of... that are] worth 300 silver zūzīn 11. She bore (the provisions) and entered the domicile of the same QWSRM, her husband, in the presence of [ ]. 12. Signature The document is divided into the following sections: 1. Date (Line 1); 2. The marriage proposal (Lines 2–5); 3. Provisions for the rights of the sons (Lines 6–7); 4. The father’s acceptance (Lines 8–9); 5. The dowry (Lines 9–10); 6. The bride’s entry, with her dowry, into the groom’s house (Line 11). 7. The place for signatures (Line 12). Comments Line 5 ‫כנומוס‬. The Greek word νόμος meaning ‘law’ (Modrzejewski 1966; Sperber 1984:113–117; DJPA:349) is attested in an Aramaic endorsement of a Greek deposit, 5/6 Hev 17 (= P. Yadin 17): ‫מן תעכב‬ ‫כול מנדעם כנמוש פקדנה‬, ‘with nothing withheld(?) according to the law of deposit’ (Yadin and Greenfield 1989:141), and in a Hebrew lease, 5/6 Hev 46 (= P. Yadin 46) Lines 5–8: ‫ואגזז‬/‫שאזרע תעפר הלבן ואגה‬... ‫תדקלים כנומוס ואכנוס לנפשי כל המה פירות והבאה שיהיה‬ ‫במקום הלז עד זמן שישלם זמן הפירות של עין גדי של הירק‬ ‘I (undertake) to sow the ,‫ושל האילן היך נומוס לעומת ככה‬

73

cropland, and I will pick (or: prune) the date-palms as is customary. And I shall gather in for my use all of those fruits and the crop that will come into existence in that site, until such time as the fruit season of ‘Ein Gedi will reach its end, both vegetables and trees, as it is customary’ (Yadin et al. 2002:65–70). The word is also used in a Hebrew letter of BarKokhba 5/6 Hev 56 (= P. Yadin 56) Line 9 ‫ותדברו‬ ‫בפרדיה כל [ נו]מוסה‬, ‘ ... and transport (this) by mules according to the [custo]mary practice’ (Yadin et al. 2002:317–321). Line 9 ‫כזי יהב לה‬, when he gave ‘him’ or ‘her’ (i.e., Arsinoe). After the lamed are the remains of a vertical line that can be reconstructed as he, to form the word ‫לה‬, ‘to him/her’ The rest of the line is missing, and it is possible that the subject was changed and the payment of the dowry by the groom was mentioned. In this case, a possible reconstruction would be ]‫כזי יהב לה[ מהרה‬, ‘when he gave him [her dowry]’. Line 10 ] [‫זוד לבוש ומנאי‬. When Arsinoe was taken to the house of QWSRM, her father gave her as dowry property, including clothing and utensils (household utensils or linen). The components of his gift are not listed, but they are generally valued at 300 zūzīn. ‫ זוד‬. Under the word, a horizontal line is still visible, which, together with the lower part of the final nun that it cuts, is somewhat faded. We might suggest that the word ‫ זון‬was written in the original inscription, but was later erased and corrected to ‫זוד‬. As we shall see, both ‫ זוד‬and ‫ זון‬can fit the context of the marriage document. If we read ‫זון‬, it appears in a Nabatean inscription found in the Atargatis/Al-‘Uzza Temple at Petra, which reads: ‫מה די יאתא לה מן כסף ודהב וקרבון‬ ‫וזון כלה ומן כספא ונח[שא‬, ‘Whatever comes to him of silver, or gold, or offerings, or provisions, altogether [all of it], or of silver (coinage) or bronze (coinage)’ (Hammond, Johnson and Jones 1986:78). This word is also attested in Aramaic: ‫שערן כנתן וכול זון די תשכח לי‬, ‘barley, emmer, or any food which you will find (belonging) to me’ (Cowley 1923: No. 10, Line 10), and subsequently: ‫כל זון וערבן‬, ‘any food or security’ (Line 17). Based on this correct translation of ‫ זון‬as ‘food’, equated with the word ‫( מזון‬Cowley 1923:29– 32; TAD II:54), Jones later corrected the translation

74

Esther Eshel

of the word ‫ זון‬in the Nabatean inscription to ‘food’ (Jones 1989:44). Indeed, in both cases ‫ זון‬appears with other food products—‘barley, emmer’ in Cowley No. 10 and ‘offerings’ in the Nabatean inscription. The word ‫זוד‬, ‘provisions’ can be compared with the verb ‫ זבד‬and the noun ‫זבדין‬, of the same meaning (DJPA:171), which is a cognate of the Hebrew ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫( ֵצ‬see Eshel and Kloner 1996:15). In this marriage contract, ‫ זוד‬describes the dowry, which is subsequently specified as ] [‫לבוש ומנאי‬. Thus, the preferable reading here is ‫( זוד‬see the term ‫ בלט‬in No. 65 above). ‫מנאי‬, utensils. There seems to be a scribal error in this word, which should be ‫מאני‬, that is, ‘utensils’. The same word is found in No. 65 above. Utensils are mentioned as part of the dowry in a marriage contract from Elephantine, for example, ‫‘ מאני נחש‬copper utensils’ (Kraeling 1953:204–205, No. 7, Line 13), or ‫מאני דלבושי‬, ‘clothes’ (Gulak 1926:31, No. 6). Another possible reconstruction is ‫‘ מאני בי‬house utensils,’ mentioned in a deed of gift, 5/6 Hev 7 (= P. Yadin 7) Line 4 (Yadin et al. 2002:80–81). Discussion The Maresha marriage contract is the first Aramaic document in which a Seleucid dating is used. Dates of this type are mentioned in 1 Maccabees and in the two letters quoted at the beginning of 2 Maccabees (Goldstein 1976:540–543). We suggest that the remnants of the letters following the samekh in Line 1 should be reconstructed ]‫סילב[קוס‬, ‘Sele[ucus]’, to be identified with Seleucus IV, who ruled from 187 to 175 BCE. Although the Maresha document does not indicate that year 136 of the Seleucid era is the twelfth year of the reign of Seleucus IV, it was customary to name the king in the date. It is likely that the place where the contract was drawn up is mentioned at the end of Line 1, in which case the line would read: ‘In the month of Sivan, in the year 136 (in the days of) Seleucus the king, in Maresha’. Regarding the language of this document, it should be noted that short phrases are used in some instances, e.g., ‫איתי ארסנה‬, ‘there is Arsinoe’; ‫איתי (אנתה) ארסנה‬ ]‫[שמה‬, ‘there is (a woman) Arsinoe [her name]’, or ‫ ברתה אנתה‬as an abbreviated form of ‫ברתה לאנתה‬ ‘his daughter (as) wife’. An unusual use of the status absolutus in construct without a definite article in the words ‫ מראת בי‬also appears, as well as a metathesis

of the word ‫ מאני‬to ‫מנאי‬. The vocabulary includes an important use of a Greek word, ‫נומוס‬, in a Greek form, rather than its Aramaic parallel, ‫נמסא‬, found in a marrige contract, Mur. 21, Line 11. The possibility that the ostracon from Maresha is an original marriage contract must be considered. Alternatively, it may be a draft of the agreement made between the bride’s father and the groom. A third possibility is that it represents a copy given to one of the parties. It should be noted that this is the first marriage contract written on pottery found in Palestine. An ostracon written on both sides presenting a marriage contract in Demotic was discovered in Egypt in 1845 (Ostrakon Strassburg D; Edgerton 1931:8–10; see also Ostracon Louvre 8112, Edgerton 1931:19–20). The Tosefta states: .‫ (ו)קונה את עצמה בשתי דרכים‬,‫האשה נקנית בשלשה דרכים‬ ‫ בשטר צריך שיאמר בשטר‬.]...[ ‫ בשטר ובביאה‬,‫נקנית בכסף‬ ‫ והלא היא מתקדשת בכל דבר‬,]‫שיש בו שוה פרוטה [מקודשת‬ ‫ על‬,‫ אלא אפילו כתב על החרס ונתן לה‬,‫שיש בו שוה פרוטה‬ ‫ הרי זו מקודשת‬,‫שטר פסול ונתן לה‬, ‘A woman is acquired in three ways and the marriage is dissolved in two ways. She is acquired with money, a document, and intercourse […]; with a document—it need be said: she is considered married by a document worth a peruta?! Surely she can be considered married with anything worth a peruta, but even if it was written on pottery and given to her, or on a worthless document and given to her, she is considered married’ (T. Qidd. 1:1–2). In light of the discovery of the ostracon from Maresha, we assume that it was viable to write marriage contracts on pottery in Palestine. However, the dowry itemized in Line 10 indicates that Arsinoe received property worth 300 zūzīn, which is a fairly large sum. It seems, therefore, that the families of Arsinoe and QWSRM were wealthy and certainly could have afforded to purchase a parchment or papyrus for writing the marriage contract. Therefore it seems likely that the ostracon was a copy or a draft. This hypothesis finds corroboration in the single word ‫ חתם‬in Line 12. Although it was written with a different ductus and apparently by another person, it cannot be presumed to be a solitary signature. Documents, in general, and marriage contracts in particular, were signed by several witnesses, for example six witnesses (Kraeling 1953: No. 7; TAD II:82), or eight (Cowley 1923: No. 46; TAD II:138). In most cases, the names of the witness and his father appear, or at least ‘son of X’. It is therefore likely that

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

this word should be read ‫חתם‬, ‘sign’ or ‘signature’ (or [PN...] ‘had sign’), apparently designating the place where the witnesses signed or should sign. The Maresha ostracon thus appears to be a copy or a draft, created to stipulate the marriage terms. The marriage contract from Maresha, made between the groom and the bride’s father, follows a legal form used in Akkadian contracts of the Seleucid period, classified as subjective dialogue documents (San Nicolò 1931:152–160). In these documents, the proposal of Side A is formulated in the first person; it is then stated that Side B accepted the proposal (using the verb šemû, lit. ‘listened to him’); and the legal implications of the transaction are noted at the end of the contract. In the fifth century BCE, the formula inā xūd libbišu ‘of his own free will,’ in the first person, was also introduced into contracts, preceding the groom’s request and at times even in the declaration of acquiescence by the father of the bride. Following is a schematic formula of this type of contract. A spoke of his own free will to B saying: please give to me X your daughter, the unmarried, in marriage. Give her to be a wife (my wife). B agreed of his own free will, and gave X his daughter, the unmarried, to him for marriage. X is A’s wife. In the marriage contract from Maresha, the request of the groom is composed in the first person, ‫בעה אנה‬ ‫מנך‬, ‘I am asking of you’, with the incorporation of the formula to indicate free will, ‫בחדות לבבה‬, ‘of his free will’, the exact Aramaic parallel of the Akkadian inā xūd libbišu (Muffs 2003:128–135). The agreement of the bride’s father is presented in the third person. Lines 6–7 (unfortunately not preserved in their entirety) stipulate the undertaking of the groom to bequeath to his male children by Arsinoe the house in his possession, as well as his undertaking to make them the heirs of his property. This is the first known case in Aramaic marriage contracts in which the rights of inheritance are given to the male children and in which the classification of ‘male children whom I will have with her’ resembles the terminology used in the Mishnah: ‫לא כתב לה בנין דכרין די יהוי ליך מיניי דיירתון ית כסף‬ ‫כתובתיך יותר על חולקהון די עים אחיהון חייב שהוא תניי בית‬ ‫דין‬, ‘If he had not written to her, male children which you shall have by me shall inherit the ketubah beside the portion which they receive with their brethren, he is still liable thereto since this is a condition enjoined by the court’ (Ketub. 4:10, MS Kaufmann).

75

The Maresha document and the marriage contract from Egypt deal with the inheritance rights of the sons to the property of the groom’s family, while Jewish custom centered on the money of the ketubah. It is generally accepted that the stipulation in the Jewish ketubah was meant to encourage the bride’s father to give money to the young couple; therefore the promise that only the children of his daughter would inherit the property. It is significant that the transfer of the father’s property to the male children to be born of his wife is mentioned, while it does not state that the dowry brought by the bride would be passed on to her children. This was apparently because the dowry was given to the bride outright, in contrast to the custom attested in the Elephantine documents, which note that the dowry was given to the groom, e.g., in Cowley No. 15, Line 6, the groom states: ]‫הנעלת לי [ברתך] מפטחיה בידה כס[ף‬ ‫תכונה‬, ‘[your daughter] Miftahia, brought me in her hand ready cash’ (TAD II:30–33; Yaron 1961:41–43). It seems, therefore, that QWSYD, Arsinoe’s father, managed to secure his daughter’s status by receiving a guarantee that the property originating in the groom’s family would be passed on to her sons, while the clothes and utensils constituting her dowry would be given to Arsinoe and not to QWSRM. The similarity between the marriage contracts found in Israel (the Maresha document and the Jewish ketubot from the Judean Desert) and the Demotic marriage contracts found in Egypt indicates that the different ethnic groups that inhabited Palestine and Egypt were influenced by Aramaic common law. This evidence does not support the suggestion that the Jews were influenced directly by Egyptian culture (contra Geller 1978); it is more likely that the tendency to secure women’s rights developed in Aramaic common law during the Hellenistic period. The use of the term nomos in the Maresha marriage contract is similar to its use in Jewish marriage contracts of the second century CE (as in Mur. 21 and 5/6 Hev 10 [= P. Yadin 10], and similar to the fifth-century CE ketubah from Antinopolis). In these other documents, however, the term serves to regulate relations between the couple by stating that these will be determined by Jewish custom (or law), while the Maresha document stipulates that the bride will be given to the groom according to the nomos, that is, according to the custom prevailing among the Edomites of Maresha. Nonetheless, the use of this term (like that of the term ™λληνικû νόμù in 5/6 Hev 18 (= P. Yadin 18),

76

Esther Eshel

as well as the obligation to cede the property to the male children, indicates that the Jewish ketubah also preserves phrases found in documents associated with non-Jewish society in Hellenistic Palestine. Phoenician Inscriptions from the Persian Period (Nos. 67, 68) Two Phoenician inscriptions dated to the fifth– fourth centuries BCE were found. Other Phoenician inscriptions of the same date come from Sidon and Tyre, as well as from Phoenician cities in Palestine: Gaza (Naveh 1987:27–30; see also Avi-Yonah 1977:28– 31); Ashqelon (Rahmani 1976; Cross 1996:64–65); Khirbet el-Kôm (Lemaire 2002: Nos. 393, 394); Bat Yam (Peckham 1966); Jaffa (Avner and Eshel 1996); Eliachim on the central Sharon plain (Deutsch and Helzer 1994:69–73); Tel Dor (Naveh 1995b); Shiqmona (Cross 1968; Israel Museum 1973:13: No. 11); and ‘Akko (Dothan 1985). To these should be added the inscription from Mizpe Yamim, engraved on a situla6 (Frankel and Ventura 1998:46–49), and the bullae from Kedesh (Ariel and Naveh 2003), both sites in the Upper Galilee. 67. Inv. No. 61-623-1105-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.5 × 4.7 cm.

Cat. No. 67.

[ ‫ בל רם ועכברם‬.1 9 ‫ שמן‬.2

ֹֹ

1. BL RM and ‘KBRM […] 2. 100 oil Line 1 The script is cursive Phoenician of the Persian period. The bet at the beginning of Line 1 can be compared

with those written on ostraca from Elephantine, as well as the ‘ayin in the word ‘KBR. Ref. Lidzbarsky 1912: No. 15; Peckham 1968: Pl. 11. ‫בל רם‬. The word ‫ בל‬has three meanings in Phoenician: (1) ‫בול = בל‬, the eighth month. As it usually occurs in the combination ‘the month of BWL’, this reading seems unlikely; (2) a negative particle (Friedrich and Rölling 1999:225–226; Krahmalkov 2000:102); (3) an abbreviated form of the name ‫בעל‬, as in ‫בעל חמן = בל‬ ‫( חמן‬CIS I/2:2024). This meaning seems preferable, and therefore, ‫ בל רם‬could be ‫בעל רם‬, which is a Phoenician name. The element ‫ רם‬is found in the Phoenician names ‫ רמכעת‬and ‫רמבעל‬. A graphic separation between ‫בל‬ (= ‫ )בעל‬and the second component of the name is found in the names ]‫ בעלחמן = בל חמ[ן‬and ‫בעל עמן‬. Ref. Benz 1972:408–409; CIS I/1:99, 378; Krahmalkov 2000:119. ‫עכברם‬. A personal name, mentioned in inscription No. 1 from Carthage, which does not postdate the third century BCE, and in No. 50: ‫קבר עכברם נסך הברזל‬, ‘the grave of ‘KBRM, the iron caster’. Ref. Benz 1972:171; CIS I/3:3914, line 9; RES: No. 6; Krahmalkov 2000:367. Line 2 The nun is followed by a vertical stroke with its head on the left side, which should be read as one hundred. Another possible reading is the letters bet or kaph, although the letters would then be of unusual shape. In this context, it would be understood as an abbreviation of bath (see Ezek 45:14) or kaph, maybe a short form of ‫ כד‬meaning in Phoenician ‘jar’ or ‘measure of capacity of liquid’ (del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003:429–430). 100 ‫שמן‬, oil 100. The word ‫ שמן‬appears in a Punic inscription, written on a stone stele found near the harbor of Marseilles (KAI I: No. 69), reading: ‘For a bird… or a sacrifice of oil (‫’)זבח שמן‬. An Aramaic document containing a list of the recipients of oil is found in the Levi Della Vida Papyrus. Ref. CIS I/1:167, Line 9; TAD III:268.

77

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

68. Inv. No. 61-614-1069-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.5 × 6.0 cm.

69. Inv. No. 1386-XV-818; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 9.8 × 10.2 cm.

Cat. No. 68.

Cat. No. 69.

ֹ

]...[ ‫השבר‬

‫]ב֯תמטרם‬ […]BTMTRM

The chief administrator (of agriculture) […]

Only the bottom of the letter bet is discernible. The taw is cursive, resembling that on the Mit-Rahineh ostracon dated to the end of the fifth century BCE (Cross 1968:229; Peckham 1968:112–113, Pl. 11:3). The mem is similar to those on Phoenician ostraca from Eilat (Naveh 1966) and Shiqmona (Cross 1968), both dated between 400 and 350 BCE (Cross 1968:229, Fig. 3). Hence, this inscription should also be dated to beginning of the fourth century BCE.

‫השבר‬. The resh can also be read as waw. The Hebrew noun ‫ שבר‬occurs nine times in the Bible, seven of them in Genesis, in the story of Joseph, where it parallels ‫ בר‬and ‫ׂכל‬ ‫א‬. Thus it was interpreted ‘grain, including its function as an item of trade’ (HALOT:1406; see also: ‫ ונפתחה בר‬... ‫ונשבירה שבר‬, ‘... so that we could sell grain... so that we could offer wheat for sale’ Amos 8:5). The plural form of ‫שבר‬ is found on a Hebrew ostracon dated to the eighth century BCE, 4 ‫שברם‬, ‘4 (jars) of grain’ (Ahituv 2008:36). Furthermore, based on a parallel word in Old Babylonian, Klein suggested interpreting the Biblical phrase ‫ שבר רעבון‬as ‘grain (ration) for ones hunger’ (Klein 1977). I would like to suggest connecting the term ‫ השבר‬with the Akkadian term šabrû, found from Old Akkadian to New Babylonian documents, meaning, ‘chief administrator’ (mostly of palace property; CAD, Ŝ/I:11–14). One of this official’s functions, which might be relevant to the inscription discussed here, is agricultural management in general, and particularly receipt of payment in barley or fields (CAD, Ŝ/I:13). If this interpretation is accepted, the title ‫ השבר‬may refer to such an agricultural administrator in Maresha (to be compared with Joseph’s title ‫ ;המשביר‬Gen 42:6).

‫בתמטרם‬. ‫ מטרם‬is a Punic name. The element ‫ מטר‬can be a name in itself or included in a name as in ‫;מטרשבדע‬ matar is a theophoric element in names from Mari. The meaning of the name is ‘a daughter of a noble family’. The element ‫ בת‬appears in Phoenician names such as: ‫בתשלם‬, ‫בתנעם‬, ‫ בתבעל‬and ‫בתנעמת‬. Ref. Benz 1972:146, 293, 357–358. Edomite Inscription in Aramaic Script from the Hellenistic Period (No. 69) This ostracon, written in Aramaic script in the Edomite language, dates to the third–second centuries BCE on the basis of its paleographic study.

78

Esther Eshel

It appears that the he preceding the word ‫ שבר‬is the definite article. In Aramaic, a final ’aleph signifies the article, while in Edomite and in Hebrew, an introductory he performs this function. The he as a definite article occurs on two Edomite seals: on the first, found in Edom and dated to the second half of the eighth century BCE, it appears in the epithet ‫עבד המלך‬, ‘the servant of the king’ (Glueck 1939:7; Puech 1977:12–13); and on the second seal, found at Tell el-Kheleifeh and dated to the first half of the sixth century BCE (Glueck 1941). A sixth-century BCE Edomite ostracon from Horbat ‘Uza (Line 3) states: ‫האכל‬.‫את‬.‫תנ‬.‫ועת‬, ‘and now give the food (grain)’ (Cross 1969b:22–23; Beit-Arieh and Cresson 1985). As the majority of the Maresha population was Edomite, and there is only little evidence for Jewish presence in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, it appears that No. 69 was written in Aramaic script in the Edomite language. The rest of this line is now lost; therefore, additional details concerning this proposed Edomite title are missing. Inscriptions Written in Jewish Script from the Early Roman Period (Nos. 70–72) Maresha was conquered and destroyed by John Hyrcanus I in 111 BCE (Kloner 1991:83), or in 108 BCE (Finkielsztejn 1998). Hyrcanus I left a garrison at the site for a few years. Josephus writes that Gabinius rebuilt the town (Ant. 14:88) and the Parthians destroyed it in 40 BCE (Ant. 14:364). Excavations have shown that a small settlement occupied the western part of the Lower City at the end of the Second Temple period, and probably until the Bar Kokhba Revolt. One medium-sized and four small hiding complexes, probably dating to the Bar Kokhba period, were surveyed at Maresha. In Subterranean Complex 51 (Hellenistic in date; see Chapter 1), a small room (No. 16) was transformed into a burial chamber at the end of the Second Temple period or during the Bar Kokhba period (Kloner 1999:187–178). An important find of this period is a decorated stone table, similar to those found in Second Temple period Jerusalem (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 18:9). The following three inscriptions are a welcome addition to the finds from these periods.

Cat. No. 71. ►

70. Inv. No. 61-599-1534-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 15.0 × 12.0 cm, max. letter height 2.5 cm.

Cat. No. 70.

‫יהוחנן‬ YHWHNN ‫יהוחנן‬. The name was written before the vessel was fired. The shapes of the letters yod and waw in this inscription are unattested elsewhere, and probably result from an unskilled scribe. An additional horizontal line can be seen under the letter het. The other letters are characteristic of the first century CE (for the epigraphy of the yod and waw, see Puech 1983:514). ‫ יהוחנן‬was a popular name in this period. The Biblical name ‫יהוחנן‬, found in post-exilic compositions, is popular in epigraphical and papyrological sources (Ilan 2002:134–143). 71. Inv. No. 61-571-867-S5; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 15.5 × 14.5 cm, max. letter height 3.6 cm.

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

ֹ

‫חניה‬ HNYH The inscription, on a fragment of a four-handled storage jar, was written in charcoal rather than ink. ‫חניה‬. The writing of the het is similar to that attested on an ossuary of the first century CE: ‫חניה בר אלכשה‬, ‘Onias, son of Alexa’ (Sukenik 1937). The name ‫חניה‬ is one of the variants of the name ‫( חוני‬Ilan 2002: 377–379) and is documented in Elephantine (TAD III:199). It is also attested as the name of one of the priests of the Hezir family, whose tomb dates to the first half of the first century BCE (Avigad 1954:59–66; Barag 2002) or to the second half of the first century BCE (Kloner and Zissu 2007:243–245). 72. Inv. No. 1-1190-327-S3; Cooking pot Dimensions: Rim diameter 11.5 cm, preserved height 7.0 cm, max. letter height 2.0 cm.

79

by the name of the clan, now lost. It might also be the end of a name; in this case, a possible reconstruction is the woman’s name ‫ד(ו)]מטה‬. A woman by the name ‫דמטייה‬, which is a Semitic form of the Latin name Domitia, is mentioned in m. ‘Arak 5:1 (MS Kaufmann), whose mother vowed to give her weight in gold to the Temple (Ilan 2002:343).7

Conclusions The Maresha collection includes seventy-two Semitic ostraca and inscriptions, which, based on their dating and character, were divided into five groups: (1) a Hebrew inscription from the seventh century BCE; (2) Aramaic inscriptions from the Persian and Hellenistic periods; (3) Phoenician inscriptions from the Persian period; (4) an Edomite inscription written in Aramaic script from the Hellenistic period; and (5) inscriptions written in Jewish script from the Early Roman period. The significance of these ostraca is summarized below, focusing primarily on their importance for the study of the names and agricultural products mentioned in them.

Personal Names

Cat. No. 72.

ֹ

[ ‫]מטה‬ ]MTH [ The incisions were made prior to firing the vessel, near the handle. The tet, in cursive style, is similar to the Bar Kokhba period script. ‫[מטה‬. A possible interpretation is ‘clan’ (see discussion in No. 63 above), which in this case would be followed

Three out of the five groups of inscriptions are homogenous in nature. A Hebrew inscription from the seventh century BCE (No. 1) contains only Hebrew names, some of which include the theophoric element YHW (‫עבדיהו‬, ‫ אריהו‬and [‫)גריה[ו‬, while others are non-theophoric names (‫ידוע‬, ‫ צר‬and ‫(יאיר‬. The same is true for the group of Hebrew inscriptions written in Jewish script from the Early Roman period (Nos. 70– 72), which includes the Jewish names ‫ חניה‬and ‫יהוחנן‬. Finally, two Phoenician inscriptions from the Persian period (Nos. 67, 68) include only the Phoenician names ‫בל רם‬, ‫ עכברם‬and ‫בתמטרם‬. sixty-eight of the inscribed sherds and ostraca written in Semitic script found at Maresha can be dated to the Persian and Hellenistic periods, from the fifth– second centuries BCE. Sixty-five of these are written in Aramaic script and language, one in Aramaic script in the Edomite language, and two in Phoenician. The following topics concerning the Maresha onomasticon are examined below: type of names, ethnic origins and name changes over time. The discussion will also touch upon the significance of the onomasticon in

80

Esther Eshel

understanding the history of Maresha and its population during the Persian and Hellenistic periods. The Maresha collection includes ninety complete and fifteen incomplete names. Only three female names are documented: the bride ‫ ארסנה‬in the Aramaic marriage contract dated to 176 BCE (No. 66), a woman named ‫ בתמטרם‬in the Phoenician inscription (No. 68), and a possible reconstruction of the woman’s name ‫ ד(ו)]מטה‬in one of the Early Roman inscriptions, written in Jewish script (No. 72). Regarding the theophoric names, the Maresha onomasticon includes various elements, among them, ‫שמראל) אל‬, ‫פציאל‬, ‫יבנאל‬, ‫ )]א]לחני‬and ‫בעלי) בעל‬, ‫בעלרם‬, ‫בעלנתן‬, ‫עמבעל‬, ‫בעל בעלדכר‬, ‫)בעלרם = בלרם‬. The Maresha collection includes twelve names with the theophoric element ‫קוס‬, e.g., ‫קוסיד‬, ‫ קוסנתן‬and ‫—עבדקוס‬some of which occur more than once; for example, ‫ קוסרם‬appears in three different inscriptions. To these, should be added the name ‫עשו‬, who was probably an Edomite, ‫עשו הוא‬ ‫אדום‬, ‘Esau being Edom’ (Gen 36:1). Finally, we have some Jewish names—‫טביו‬, ‫עבדיו‬, ]‫) יוא[ב‬or: ]‫(יוא[ש‬ and ‫שמר(ר)יה‬. A large number of non-theophoric names of West Semitic origin, such as ‫מתן‬, ‫ חלפן‬and ‫מתק‬, are included in the Maresha onomasticon. Two additional groups of names documented in the Maresha onomasticon are Nabatean and Arabian names. During the fifth and the fourth centuries BCE, the Arabs lived in the Negev and Idumea, ruled by Geshem (Avi-Yonah 1977:25–26; Alt 1978:294, 343– 345). Arabian names are ‫יפעת‬, ‫חלפן‬, ‫חורן‬, ‫גמרת‬, ‫בין‬, ‫אסי‬, ‫ עינו‬and ‫עלם‬, as well as a number of hitherto unknown Arabian names, such as ‫פחרי‬, ‫ יתוע‬and perhaps ‫תריפו‬. Diodoros, who lived in the first century BCE, brings the first reference to the Nabateans, describing events that occurred in 312 BCE (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 19:94–100; for discussion of the suggested identifications, see Eph‘al 1984:222–223). The Nabatean names (which are related to the Arabian names), are, for example, ‫עזיזו‬, ‫עוידו‬, ‫זבדי‬, ‫אושו‬-‫אב‬, ‫עליאל‬, some of which have the typical –u or –i ending. Other ethnic names are documented in the Maresha ostraca in smaller numbers. ‫ חור‬is considered to be an Egyptian name; ‫מנכי‬, Mannuki, a Babylonian name. The name ‫ נבורעי‬contains the element ‘Nabu’, a Babylonian deity together with the West-Semitic verbal element ‫רעי‬, found in Edomite names such as ‫קוסרעי‬, and the Phoenician name ‫בעלרעי‬. Therefore, ‫ נבורעי‬should be considered a West-Semitic name with

Babylonian influence. There is a large group of West Semitic names, some of which are known from the Bible, such as ‫רם‬, ‫עני‬, ‫עזרא‬, ‫נחום‬, ‫חגי‬. Moreover, based on tentative readings suggested above, we might find two ethnic groups mentioned, the ‫קדרין‬, Qedarites and ‫ערבין‬, Arabs (see discussion in No. 11). In all, most of the names in the Maresha onomasticon are known from parallel corpora of the Persian and Hellenistic periods, mainly from ‘Arad and Be’er Sheva‘, as well as from Khirbet el-Kôm. Some names, such as ‫ מתק‬and ‫שמראל‬, are hitherto unknown. The study of the Maresha onomasticon reflects the variety of the city’s inhabitants during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, when the city flourished and was populated by numerous ethnic groups, primarily Edomites and Arabs. The names appearing in these sixty-five Aramaic inscriptions should be added to the two hundred fifty names found on ostraca from all over Palestine dated to the same periods and discussed by Zadok (1988), as well as the names that will be published by Porten and Yardeni (forthcoming). If we look at the broader picture of Idumea during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, we find that the Be’er Sheva‘ ostraca include more than thirty names, divided by Naveh into three groups: a third are compounded with the Edomite theophoric element QWS; another third are clearly Arabian names; and most of the remaining names are common Semitic. There is only one Iranian name, ‫( בגן‬Naveh 1979:194). A different picture of the composition of the population emerges from the ‘Arad ostraca. The majority of the names are Jewish names with the -YH theophoric element (e.g., ‫עקביה‬, ‫ ;)מתניה‬at ‘Arad, most of the soldiers were Jews. Only ‫עבדענני‬, after whom a military unit was named, was defined as Babylonian (or Aramean). There are also Arabian names (e.g., ‫עידו‬, ‫)מלכו‬, Edomite names (e.g., ‫)קוסינקם‬, and general Semitic names of Hebrew, Ammonite or Edomite (Naveh 1981:176). Some ostraca, which were presumably found at Khirbet el-Kôm, are included in the Israel Museum Collection published by Eph‘al and Naveh (1996) and Lemaire (1996). The Israel Museum Collection published by Lemaire contains over two hundred Semitic names. Lemaire divides them into three main groups—North-Arabians, Edomites and Arameans— and two minor groups—Hebrew and Phoenician– Philistine. The only two non-Semitic names are the

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

king ‫אלכסנדר‬, recorded in a date formula and the Egyptian name ‫פמת‬. Three Aramaic names appear with the element NBW; the most popular theophoric names include QWS (twenty-five occurrences); the element B‘L, which is of Phoenician–Philistine origin (eight occurrences) and, finally, the Jewish element YHW/ YW found in four names. The collection published by Eph‘al and Naveh includes one hundred fifty personal names, all of WestSemitic derivation (Eph‘al and Naveh 1996:15). Of the sixty-one names with theophoric elements, twenty include ‫קוס‬, eighteen ‫בעל‬, and three ‫יהו‬. Some have Babylonian or Mesopotamian elements (‫שמשדן‬, ‫נתנסין‬, ‫)עבדשמש‬, and some Egyptian elements (‫עבדאוסירי‬, ‫)עבדיסי‬. In addition, twenty-four non-theophoric names have a waw ending, which is typical in Arabian and Nabatean names, and twelve others have Arabian elements. The disjointed nature of inscriptions in the Maresha collection—most of which are dockets that present lists of names or separate names—does not allow for establishment of a chronology. All we can say is that on some ostraca, various names exist side by side. For example, in the eight lines in the list of names entitled ‫‘( מטה דאין‬the Da’yan clan’; No. 63), WestSemitic names appear, as well as Arabian, Nabatean and Egyptian names. Another line of inquiry in the study of such a diverse population is to examine generational divergence, i.e., whether people changed their children’s names. The marriage contract (No. 66), for example, shows a change in the name-giving practice at Maresha. While the groom’s name is ‫קוסרם בר קוסיד‬, QWSRM, son of QWSYD, with both father and son clearly having Edomite names, and the same applies to the bride’s father ‫קוסיד בר קוסיהב‬, QWSYD son of QWSYHB, the bride’s name is ‫ארסנה‬, Arsinoe, a typical Greek name. It is the only Greek name in the Semitic corpus of the Persian and Hellenistic period, a significant phenomenon. Only rarely do we find such a change in the name of a son, for example, ‫נהרי בר עזיזו‬, in which ‫ נהרי‬is a West-Semitic name, while ‫ עזיזו‬is Nabatean. In the name ‫חור בר קוסיתע‬, ‫ חור‬is an Egyptian name, while ‫ קוסיתע‬is Idumean. In comparison, we may examine the names of the people buried in the necropolis of Maresha, especially in the tombs published by Peters and Thiersch (1905). In their corpus, it is easier to trace

81

the changes that occurred within a single family. The Sidonian community is mentioned in the epitaph of Apollophanes, the son of Sesmaios, who was ‘thirtythree years chief of the Sidonians at Marisê’ (Peters and Thiersch 1905:38, No. 1). Another Sidonian is mentioned in an inscription reading ‘the Sidonian woman Philotion’ (Peters and Thiersch 1905:66, No. 42). These tombs “were constructed and used for primary burials during the latter part of the third and second centuries BCE, with a possible extension into the first century BCE” (196–119 BCE; Oren and Rappaport 1984:149). Of the fourty-nine names of those interred in these tombs, eight are Phoenician. In Tomb I, four of the thirty names are Phoenician, including Sesmaios, the father of Apollophanes (Peters and Thiersch 1905: 38–39, No. 1); Meerbal, which was connected with the Phoenician and Punic names MHRB‘L (Peters and Thiersch 1905:41–42, No. 4; cf. the Phoenician divine hero MHR B‘L; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003:536) and Straton, which appears twice with the Greek formative ending, connected with the deity Astarte (Peters and Thiersch 1905:52–53: Nos. 25, 26). In Tomb II, two of the eleven names are Phoenician: Badon, connected with the Phoenician name ‫( בדא‬or ‫ ;בדע‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:65, No. 39), which might also be related to the Phoenician name BDDN (del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003:216– 217); and Balsalo, related to the Phoenician name ‫( בעלצלח‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:66, No. 43). Another possible interpretation is B‘L+SLY, where SLY means ‘to implore’ (del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003:784). Four names appear in Tomb IV, one of which is possibly Phoenician: Patrobala, a combination of the Greek πατήρ, ‘father’; and the Phoenician element ‫( בעל‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:71, No. 57), which is equivalent to ‫אביבעל‬. Three Edomite names appear in these tombs: Qosnatanos, ‫( קוסנתן‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:44–45; Nos. 9–11; 54, No. 28), Kosbanos, ‫( קוסבנה‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:46, No. 12) and Kosados, ‫( קוסיד‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:46, No. 13), as well as two of Aramaic origin—Babos, ‫ בבא‬and Babatos ‫( בבתא‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:45, Nos. 10, 11)—and two Egyptian names—Ammonios (Peters and Thiersch 1905:55, No. 30) and Pobeus (Peters and Thiersch 1905:71, No. 55). Finally, the name Sariah was interpreted as the Jewish name ‫( סריה‬Peters and Thiersch 1905:69, No. 50), compared with the biblical name ‫שׂריה‬. The Maresha Hebrew inscription dated to the seventh century BCE includes two examples of names

82

Esther Eshel

in the ‘son of X’ formula: ‫ בן גריהו‬and ‫( בן צר‬No. 1). References to men as ‘the son of X’ are common in all periods, e.g., ‫( בן חמדא‬son of HMD’), on ‘Arad ostracon No. 55 or ‫( בן נתניהו‬son of NTNYHW) on ‘Arad ostracon No. 56 (Aharoni 1981). Inscription No. 49 from ‘Arad, written on a bowl dated to the seventh century BCE, lists family names, e.g., ‫בני קרח‬, ‘sons of Korah,’ as well as individual names followed by numbers. Two of the names are in the ‘son of X’ formula: ‫( בן גלגל‬son of GLGL), and ‫( [ב]ן צמח‬son of SMH). In some cases, people are named by their epithet, for example, ‫ כנבון‬meaning ‘a round cake’, probably related to a fat person, and ‫שלחא‬, meaning ‘a dealer of hides’, and ‫השבר‬, the chief administrator (of agriculture, No. 69), probably based on the man’s profession. Referring to people by their nicknames, as suggested by Naveh, is “characteristic of people who lived together in a familiar environment” (Naveh 1990:122). These nicknames could designate the person’s origin, e.g., ‫( בר צפון‬a tentative reading of No. 11 above), occupation (e.g., ‫שלחא‬, ‫)השבר‬, characteristics, nature, or even physical attribute (e.g., ‫בר‬ ‫)כנבון‬. It can be compared with a seventh-century BCE inscription from ‘Arad, which includes a list of family names such as ‫‘ בני קרח‬sons of Korah’, and individual names alongside numbers (Aharoni 1981: No. 49). A list of names with sums of money in abbreviated form was found in the Jericho papList of Loans (Jer 1; Eshel and Misgav 2000), dated to the Persian period. Two other lists of names and numbers dated to the first century CE are known. The first, written on an ossuary lid from Bethphage (Milik 1971), probably refers to workers in the ossuary workshop. The sum of money presumably given for their daily wage appears after each name. The second, from Masada (Yadin and Naveh 1989), presents the same formula. In summary, regarding the name types and ethnicity, we have seen that some people bore general WestSemitic names with non-theophoric elements, while others included theophoric elements of Edomite, Phoenician–Philistine, Babylonian and Egyptian deities. The majority are Edomite, as the area was under Edomite rule. These combinations show the validity of Zadok’s conclusion that “Edomite presumably had a special relationship to Nabatean” (Zadok 1988:821). As for the chronological continuity of the names, the Maresha onomasticon supports Zadok’s conclusion that “there is a certain onomastic continuity between the Edomite, that is, pre-Achemenid and early Idumean and later names” (Zadok 1988:821).

There is evidence in our collection for name changes over time, such as the Edomite father giving his daughter a Greek name, although it should be noted that this is an exception. No other Greek names were preserved. This raises a broader question of the interrelationships among the various ethnic groups at Maresha, which cannot be answered on the basis of the Semitic ostraca alone, but requires a separate study.

Place Names The Maresha ostraca include a few place names. Maresha itself is mentioned in two inscriptions: in No. 27, an inscription written on a bowl—‫ע]שרין מרשה‬ ‘… t]wenty, Maresha’, and in No. 30—‫כרם שלחא‬ ]‫במרש[ה‬, ‘the vineyard of ŠLH’ at Mares[ha]’. The name Maresha is also found on ostracon No. 111 in the Israel Museum collection published by Lemaire (1996). Two other possible place names are ‫ גרם‬and ‫מיפעת‬. ‫ גרם‬is included in the names ‫( דיגרם‬No. 46), probably associated with the place of origin in the name ‘Keilah the Germite’ (1 Chr 4:19). Ostracon No. 50 includes a possible reconstruction of ‫[מ]יפעת‬, [M]efa‘at in Moab (Jos 13:18; Jer 48:21; 1 Chr 6:64). Mefa‘at was identified with Khirbet Umm er-Rasas, c. 13 km east of Dibon (Piccirillo and Attiyat 1986; see also Elizur 1989 and Kallai 1993).

The Agriculture of Maresha The various agricultural products available in the city during the Persian and Hellenistic periods can be deduced from the Maresha collection of inscriptions. It can be assumed that some of these products were grown locally, while others were imported. In thirty-four dated and undated dockets, the following products are mentioned: wheat (Nos. 6, 12, 19); barley (Nos. 3, 17, 23), possibly of ‘superior’ (‫ )עליא‬quality (No. 3), barley groats (No. 12), flour (No. 17), emmer (No. 16) and sesame (No. 8). In some cases, only the amount of the dry product is mentioned, e.g., ‘3 seah, 5 qab’ (No. 2; see also No. 10). Vineyards are mentioned on six fragmentary ostraca (Nos. 14, 29–33). The product of the vineyard— vinegar of wine (‫—)חמר בסם‬is also mentioned (No. 34). An orchard is recorded on one ostracon (No. 5) and jujube (Ziziphus jujube) on another (No. 35). Additional beverages mentioned are shekhar, probably

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

made of barley, and sweet shekhar ‫( שכר בס(י)ם‬No. 4), made of fruits, such as dates, or honey. Another ostracon mentions olives (No. 5), and oil is cited in the Phoenician inscription (No. 67), and possibly on an Aramaic ostracon (No. 25). During an intensive survey of olive presses conducted at Maresha in 1986, sixteen oil presses and installations were found, and eleven more have been identified. During the Hellenistic period, olive-oil production took place in man-made subterranean complexes (Sagiv and Kloner 1996). The surveyors conclude that “In its prime, Maresha boasted thirty oil plants and 180 hectares of olive groves. Maresha produced oil far in excess of its own needs. Thus it is clear that the city exported oil to neighboring Egypt, which—having little or none of its own—had to import this product from the Land of Israel” (Sagiv and Kloner 1996:288). From the domestic animals, rams and young camels are mentioned (No. 12). On a whole, the Maresha ostraca resemble those found at Be’er Sheva‘ and Khirbet el-Kôm. In all three cases, the majority of the ostraca are dockets, which mention agricultural products (mainly wheat or barley, flour and fine flour, barley groats, olives, straw, and bundles of wood). Fields and orchards are also mentioned. In general, our knowledge of agriculture in the Persian period is limited, and is based mainly on the Biblical text, and inscriptions found on ostraca and stamp-seals. In excavations conducted throughout Palestine, Persianperiod silos were found with the remains of crops, which also shed light on this issue. The significance of the Maresha ostraca is their contents, as well as the fact that they were found in archaeological context. They enable us to glimpse the city’s colorful population in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, including some of the city‘s ethnic groups. The dockets also specify the agricultural products, mostly paid as taxes by the city‘s inhabitants. Among these ostraca, the marriage contract (No. 66) and the letter (No. 65) are of special significance. The Edomite marriage contract is the first Aramaic document in which a Seleucid dating is used. It shows similarities with the marriage contracts found in Israel (the Maresha document and the Jewish ketubot from the Judean Desert) and the Demotic marriage contracts found in Egypt, which indicates that the different ethnic groups that inhabited Palestine and Egypt were influenced by Aramaic common law. This evidence indicates that the tendency to secure women’s rights developed in Aramaic common law during the Hellenistic period.

83

As for the letter (No. 65), although it is very fragmentary, its importance lies in its having been found in archaeological context, and in its rarity, as it is one of very few letters of that period hitherto known. it thus adds some information on the formulae used in such letters. Of historical significance are the two Hebrew inscriptions dated to the seventh century BCE, which indicate that the city recovered after Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE. The ostraca of the Early Roman period, which were found in Subterranean Complexes 1 and 61 of the Lower city (Kloner 2008:1922–1923), contribute to our knowledge of the site during that period. They are an addition to the archaeological evidence of a small settlement in that part of the city during the end of the Second Temple period and probably until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Maresha I:6). We hope that future finds from Maresha, together with the publication of other ostraca from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, will enrich our knowledge of the history of Palestine.

Diacritical Marks and Sigla

ֹ

‫ ד‬ ‫ ֯ד‬ [‫ ]דניאל‬ ]‫ דני [אל‬ ‫ דניאל‬ to (his) throne [ ] or […] ]°°°[ {‫ }ד‬ < ‫ > ד‬

A dot over a letter signifies a partly preserved letter whose reconstruction is certain. A circle over a letter signifies a reconstructed letter not incompatible with the surviving fragmentary sign(s). Author’s reconstruction of a missing word. The bracketed part of the word has been restored by the author. A supralinear letter was inserted by the copyist or another scribe. The parenthetical word has been added to improve the English translation. There is a space between fragments or the surface of the sherd is missing. Letters (in this case three) with ink traces remaining, which cannot be identified. Letters or words that were erased in antiquity. Author’s correction.

84

Esther Eshel

Notes 1 I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Haggai Misgav, Professor Emile Puech, Professor Michael Sokoloff and Dr. Ada Yardeni for their helpful remarks on this study. Special thanks are due to Dr. Yardeni, who generously shared her knowledge and finds with me. 2 Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: Nos. 2, 9, 15, 34, 38, 49, 54, 81, 108, 124, 131, 150 and 151; Lemaire 1996: No. 5, 2002: Nos. 6, 14, 28, 35, 36, 85, 127, 213, 225, 289, 290, 360; Lozachmeur and Lemaire 1996: No. 4; ISAP: Nos. 17, 53, 227, 240, 248, 445, 458, 542, 1017 (= Lemaire 1996: No. 17), 1826 (= Eph‘al and Naveh 1996: No. 26), 2445, 2509.

3 For a discussion of various possible interpretations of the name ‫ אסא‬and ‫אסי‬, originating from the Akkadian ­asû, see Zadok 1988:136. 4 The innovative wording of the Targum is presented in bold. 5 This ostracon was found on the surface during the 1989 season, in the topsoil removed during the excavation on the eastern side of the northwestern tower. 6 A situla is a bronze vessel with a separate, curved handle. It was used in funerary or temple rituals, mainly in Egypt. 7 Thanks are due to Professor Tal Ilan for suggesting this reconstruction.

R eferences Abbadi S. 1983. Die Personennamen der Inscriften aus Hatra (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 1). Hildesheim. Aharoni Y. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem. Ahituv S. 2008. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period. Jerusalem. Aimé-Giron N. 1931. Textes araméens d’Égypte. Cairo. Alt A. 1978. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II (4th revised edition). Munich. ANET: J.B. Pritchard ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Relating to the Old Testament (3rd edition). Princeton– New Jersey 1969. Ariel D.T. and Naveh J. 2003. Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the Upper Galilee. BASOR 329:61–80. Aufrecht W.A. 1989. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Lewiston, N.Y.–Queenston, Ont.–Lampeter, Wales. Avigad N. 1954. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avigad N. 1990. The Seal of Mefa‘ah. IEJ 40:42–43. Avi-Yonah M. 1977. The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640), a Historical Geography (Revised edition). Grand Rapids. Avner R. and Eshel E. 1996. A Juglet with a Phoenician Inscription from a Recent Excavation in Jaffa, Israel. Transeuphratène 12:59–63. Barag D. 2002. New Developments in the Research of the Tombs of the Sons of Hezir and Zecharias. Qadmoniot 123:38–47 (Hebrew). Beit-Arieh I. 1993. The Inscribed Jar from Horvat ‘Uza. Eretz Israel 24:34–40 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 232–233). Beit-Arieh I. and Cresson B. 1985. An Edomite Ostracon from Horvat ‘Uza. Tel Aviv 12:96–101. Benz F.L. 1972. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome. Bliss F.J. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London. CAD: The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, Ill.– Glückstadt 1968–.

Caquot A. and Lemaire A. 1977. Les texts araméens de Deir ‘Alla. Syria 54:189–208. Chilton B.D. 1987. The Isaiah Targum (The Aramic Bible 11). Edinburgh. CIS: Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. I/1–3: Inscriptiones Phoenicias. Paris 1883–1962. IV/2: Inscriptiones Himyariticas et Sabaeas. Paris 1911– 1920. Cook S.A. 1924. Inscribed Hebrew Objects from Ophel. PEFQSt 56:180–186. Paris. Cowley A. 1923. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford. Cross F.M. 1962. Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth–Sixth Centuries BC: The Murabba‘ât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-yam. BASOR 165:34–46. Cross F.M. 1968. Jar Inscriptions from Shiqmona. IEJ 18:226–233. Cross F.M. 1969a. Judean Stamps. Eretz Israel 9:20–27. Cross F.M. 1969b. Two Notes on Palestinian Inscriptions of the Persian Age. BASOR 193:19–24. Cross F.M. 1996. A Philistine Ostracon from Ashkelon. BAR 22:64–65. Cross F.M. and Eshel E. 2000. 1. Khirbet Qumran Ostracon. In P. Alexander et al. eds. Qumran Cave 4 XXVI: Miscellanea Part I (DJD 36). Oxford. Pp. 497–507. Degen R. 1978. Die aramäischen Ostraka in der Papyrus Sammlung des österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik 3:33–66. Delaporte L. 1912. Épigraphes araméens. Paris. del Olmo Lete G. and Sanmartín J. 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (HdO 67). Leiden. Deutsch R. and Heltzer M. 1994. Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv–Jaffa. Deutsch R. and Lemaire A. 2001. Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv. Dever W.G. 1969–1970. Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet El-Kôm. HUCA 40–41:139–204.

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca Historica (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Taubneriana). Leipzig 1888–1906. DJA: M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Ramat Gan 2003. DJBA: M. Sokoloff. Dictionary of the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat Gan 2002. DJD: Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. DJPA: M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (2nd edition). Ramat Gan 2002. DNSWI: J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions I–II. Leiden–New York– Cologne 1995. Dorsey D.A. 1980. The Location of Biblical Makkedah. Tel Aviv 7:185–193. Dothan M. 1985. A Phoenician Inscription from Akko. Eretz Israel 18:116–123 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 69). Driver G.R. 1954. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford. Dušek J. 2007. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.-C. Leiden. Edgerton W.F. 1931. Notes on Egyptian Marriage: Chiefly in the Ptolemaic Period. Chicago. Elizur Y. 1989. The Identification of Mefa‘at in View of the Discoveries from Kh. Umm er-Rasās. IEJ 39:267–277. Eph‘al I. 1984. The Ancient Arab: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem. Eph‘al I. and Naveh J. 1996. Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea. Jerusalem. Eshel E. 1994. 4Q477: The Rebukes by the Overseer. JJS 45:111–122. Eshel E. 1998. Inscriptions on Storage-Jars from the Tetradrachm Cave. In E. Eshel and D. Amit eds. Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Tel Aviv. Pp. 205–209 (Hebrew). Eshel E. and Kloner A. 1996. An Aramaic Ostracon of an Edomite Marriage Contract from Maresha, Dated 176 B.C.E. IEJ 46:1–22. Eshel H. and Misgav H. 2000. 1. Jericho papList of Loans ar. In J. Charlesworth, N. Cohen, H. Cotton, E. Eshel, H. Eshel, P. Flint, H. Misgav, M. Morgenstern, K. Murphy, M. Segal, A. Yardeni and B. Zissu. Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert (DJD 38). Oxford. Pp. 21–30. Eshel E., Eshel H. and Yardeni A. 1992. A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his Kingdom. IEJ 42:199–229. Eshel E., Puech E. and Kloner A. 2007. Aramaic Scribal Exercises of the Hellenistic Period from Maresha: Bowls A and B. BASOR 345:39–62. Feliks Y. 1967. Mixed Sowing, Breeding and Grafting: Kil’ayim I–II. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Finkielsztejn G. 1998. More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps. BAIAS 16:33–63.

85

Fitzmyer J.A. 1995. The Aramic Inscriptions of Sefire (Revised edition). Rome. Frankel R. and Ventura R. 1998. The Mispe Yamim Bronzes. BASOR 311:39–55. Friedrich J. and Rölling W. 1999. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik (Analecta Orientalia 55). Rome. Geller M.J. 1978. New Sources for the Origins of the Rabbinic Ketubah. HUCA 49:227–245. Geraty L.T. 1972. Third-Century B.C. Ostraca from Khirbet el-Kôm. Ph.D. diss. Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. Geraty L.T. 1975. The Khirbet el-Kôm Bilingual Ostracon. BASOR 220:55–61. Glueck N. 1939. Explorations in Eastern Palestine III (AASOR 18–19). New Haven. Glueck N. 1941. Ostraca from Elath. BASOR 82:3–11. Glueck N. 1971. Tell el-Kheleifeh Inscriptions. In H. Goedicke ed. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Baltimore–London. Pp. 225–242. Goldstein J.A. 1976. I Maccabees (Anchor Bible). New York. Gulak A. 1926. Otzar Hashtarot. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). HALOT: L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden 1995. Hammond P.S., Johnson D.J. and Jones R.N. 1986. A ReligioLegal Nabataean Inscription from the Atargatis/Al ‘Uzza Temple at Petra. BASOR 263:77–80. Harding G.L. 1971. An Index and Concordance of PreIslamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions. Toronto. Harris Z.S. 1936. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (American Oriental Society Series 8). New Haven. Hoftijzer J. 1976. Interpretation and Grammar. In J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij eds. Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla. Leiden. Pp. 173–321. Hoftijzer J. 1991. What Did the Gods Say? Remarks on the First Combination of the Deir ‘Alla-Plaster text. In J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij eds. The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-Evaluated. Leiden. Pp. 121–142. Homan M.H. 2004. Beer, Barley, and ‫ ֵש ָכר‬in the Hebrew Bible. In R.E. Friedman and W.H.C. Propp eds. Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman. Winona Lake. Pp. 25–38. Ilan T. 2002. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity I: Palestine 330 BCE– 200 CE (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 91). Tübingen. ISAP: Institute for Aramaic papyri. Israel F. 1992. Review of N. Avigad: Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. ZDPV 108:189–193. Israel Museum. 1973. Inscriptions Reveal: Documents from the time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud (Israel Museum Catalogue 100). Jerusalem. Jones R.N. 1989. A New Reading of the Petra Temple Inscription. BASOR 275:41–46. Josephus Ant.: Josephus. Jewish Antiquities L. Feldman transl. (Loeb Classical Library). London–New york– Cambridge, Mass. 1965. KAI I: H. Donner and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften I. Weisbaden 2002. KAI II: H. Donner and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften II. Weisbaden 1964.

86

Esther Eshel

Kallai Z. 1993. A Note on ‘Is Mefa‘at to be Found at Tell Jawa (South)?’ by R.W. Younker and P.M. Daviau. IEJ 43:249–251. KB: L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament I–IV. Leiden– New York–Cologne 1994–1995. KB V: L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament V: Aramaic. Supplementary Bibliography. Leiden–Boston–Cologne 2000. Kislev M.E. 1973. Hitta and Kussemet, Notes on Their Interpretations. Leshonenu 37:83–95 (Hebrew). Klein J. 1977. ‫( שׁבר רעבון‬Gen 22:19) in the Light of an Old Babylonian Parallel. In Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 1. Jerusalem. Pp. 237–244. Kletter R. 1998. Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah (JSOT Supplement 276). Sheffield. Kloner A. 1991. Maresha. Qadmoniot 95–96:70–85 (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1999. Maresha: The Hellenistic City. In Proceedings of the International Congress: Alexander the Great: From Macedonia to the Oikoumene, Veria 1998. Veria. Pp.185–199. Kloner A. 2008. Mareshah (Marisa). NEAEHL 5. Pp. 1918– 1925. Kloner A. and Eshel E. 1999. A Seventh-Century BCE List of Names from Maresha. Eretz Israel 26:147–150 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 233–234). Kloner A. and Stark H. 1992. A Burial Cave on Mount Scopus, Jerusalem. BAIAS 11:7–17. Kloner A. and Zissu B. 2007. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Leuven–Dudley. Kraeling E.G. 1953. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony of Elephantine. New Haven. Krahmalkov C.R. 2000. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 90). Leuven. Lemaire A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques I: les ostraca. Paris. Lemaire A. 1996. Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israël (Transeuphratène Supplément 3). Paris. Lemaire A. 2002. Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée II (Transeuphratène Supplément 9). Paris. Lidzbarsky M. 1908. Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik II–III. Giessen. Lidzbarsky M. 1912. Phönizishe und Aramäische Krugauschriften aus Elephantine. Berlin. Liebowitz H.A. 1992. Jabneel. Anchor Bible Dictionary III. New York. P. 596. Lindenberger J.M. 2003. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters (2nd edition). Leiden–Boston. Lozachmeur H. and Lemaire A. 1996. Nouveaux ostraca araméens d’Idumée (Collection Sh. Moussaïeff). Semitica:123–131. Maraqten M. 1988. Die Semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 5). Hildesheim– Zurich–New York.

Mazar B., Dothan T. and Dunayevsky I. 1966. The Excavations at Tel Goren (Tell el-Jurn) in 1961–1962. ‘Atiqot (ES) 5:13–50. McCown C.C. 1947. Tell en-Nasbeh. Berkeley–New Haven. Milgrom J. 1978. Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of the Pre-Monarchic Israel. JQR 69: 65–81. Milik J.T. 1971. Le couvercle de Bethphagé. In A. Caquot and M. Philonenko eds. Hommages à André DupontSommer. Paris. Pp. 75–94. Modrzejewski J. 1966. La règle de droit dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque. In A.E. Samuel ed. Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles (American Studies in Papyrology 1). New Haven. Pp. 125–173. Möller G. 1965. Hieratische Paläographie I–III (2nd edition). Osnabrück. MS: Genizah Manuscript. MS Kaufmann: G. Beer ed. Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A50. Haag 1929. MT: The Masoretic Text. Muffs Y. 2003. Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (HdO 66). Leiden. Müller C. 1882. Geographi Graeci Minores I. Paris. Naveh J. 1966. The Scripts of Two Ostraca from Elath. BASOR 183:27–30. Naveh J. 1970. The Ossuary Inscriptions from Giv‘at HaMivtar. IEJ 20:33–37. Naveh J. 1971a. An Aramaic Ostracon from Ashdod. In M. Dothan. Ashdod I–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965; Soundings in 1967 (‘Atiqot [ES] 9–10). Jerusalem. Pp. 200–201. Naveh J. 1971b. Two Aramaic Ostraca of the Persian Period. In B. Uffenheimer ed. Bible and Jewish History, Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver. Tel Aviv. Pp. 184–189 (Hebrew). Naveh J. 1973. The Aramaic Ostraca. In Y. Aharoni ed. Beer-Sheba I: excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969–1971 Seasons. Givatayim–Ramat Gan. Pp. 79–82. Naveh J. 1978. On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Naveh J. 1979. The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Beer-Sheba (Seasons 1971–1976). Tel Aviv 6:182–198. Naveh J. 1981. The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Arad. In M. Aharoni. Arad Inscriptions (Judaean Desert Studies). Jerusalem. Pp. 153–176. Naveh J. 1985. Published and Unpublished Aramaic Ostraca. ‘Atiqot (ES) 17:114–121. Naveh J. 1987. Unpublished Phoenician Inscriptions from Palestine. IEJ 37:25–30. Naveh J. 1990. Nameless People. IEJ 40:108–123. Naveh J. 1992. Aramaic Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions from Tell Jemmeh. ‘Atiqot 21:49–53. Naveh J. 1995a. The Inscriptions from Failaka and the Lapidary Aramaic Script. BASOR 297:1–4. Naveh J. 1995b. Phoenician Ostraca from Tel Dor. In Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff eds. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Winona Lake. Pp. 459–464.

Chapter 2: Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician script

Naveh J. and Magen Y. 1997. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions of the Second Century BCE at Mount Gerizim. ‘Atiqot 32:9*–17*. Negev A. 1991. Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm (Qedem 32). Jerusalem. Nöldeke Th. 1886. Review of F. Delitzsch, Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament. Leipzig 1886. ZDMG 40:718–743. Noth M. 1928. Die Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namesgebung. Stuttgart. Oelbaum C.Z. 2007. The Identification Tradition of Plants Mentioned in Tractate Kilaim of the Mishna. M.A. thesis. Bar Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Oren E.D. and Rappaport U. 1984. The Necropolis of Maresha–Beth Govrin. IEJ 34:114–153. Paul S.M. 1975. Classifications of Wine in Mesopotamian and Rabbinic Sources. IEJ 25:42–44. Payne Smith J. 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith). Oxford. Peckham J.B. 1966. An Inscribed Jar from Bat-Yam. IEJ 16:11–17. Peckham J.B. 1968. The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts. Cambridge, Mass. Peters J.P. and Thiersch H. 1905. Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Marêshah). London. Piccirillo M. and Attiyat T. 1986. The Complex of Saint Stephen at Umm er-Rasas– Kastron Meffa. First Campaign, August 1986. ADAJ 30:341–351. Porten B and Yardeni A. 2009. Dating by Grouping in the Idumean Ostraca: Six Commodity Dossiers Dating to the Transition Years from Artaxerxes II to Artaxerxes III. Eretz Israel 29:144–183. Porten B. and Yardeni A. Forthcoming. The Corpus of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea. Jerusalem. Prignaud J. 1970. Notes d’épigraphie hebraïque. RB 77: 50–67. Puech E. 1977. Documents epigraphiques de Buseirah. Levant 9:11–20. Puech E. 1983. Inscriptions funéraires palestinienne— tombeau de Jason et ossuaires. RB 90:481–533. Puech E. 1998. Inscriptions araméennes du Golfe: Failaka, Qala‘at al Bahreïn et Mulayha (EAU). Transeuphratène 16:31–55. Puech E. 2002. Review of R. Deutch and A. Lemaire, Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Jaffa. 2000. RB 109:426–428. Rabinowitz I. 1956. Aramaic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B.C.E. from a North-Arab Shrine in Egypt. JNES 15:1–9. Rahmani L.Y. 1976. A Phoenician Scarab from Ashkelon. ‘Atiqot (ES) 11:110–111. Rahmani L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem. Renz J. 1995. Die Althebräischen Inschriften II,1. Darmstadt. RES: Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique. Paris 1918. Rost P. 1893. Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III. Leipzig.

87

Ryckmans G. 1934. Les noms propres sud-sémitiques I: répertoire analytique. Louvain. Sagiv N. and Kloner A. 1996. Maresha: Underground Olive Oil Production in the Hellenistic Period. In D. Eitam and M. Heltzer eds. Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighbouring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period. Padova. Pp. 255–292. San Nicolò M. 1931. Beiträge zur rechtsgeschichte im Bereiche der keilschriftlichen Rechtsquellen. Oslo. Segal J.B. 1983. Aramaic Texts from North Saqqâra. London. Shearer R.H. 1992. Meremoth. Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York. Pp. 699–700. Sokoloff M. 1997. Review of I. Eph‘al and J. Naveh. Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century B.C. from Idumaea. Jerusalem, 1996. IEJ 47:283–286. Sokoloff M. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake– Piscataway, N.J. SP: The Samaritan Pentateuch. Sperber D. 1984. A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature. Ramat Gan. Stager L.E. 1993. Ashkelon. NEAEHL 1. Pp. 103–112. Stager L.E. 1996. The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction. BAR 22:56–69, 76–77. Stark J.K. 1971. Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions. Oxford. Sukenik E.L. 1937. A Jewish Tomb in the Kidron Valley. PEQ 69:126–130. TAD I: B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt I: Letters. Jerusalem 1986. TAD II: B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt II: Contracts. Jerusalem 1989. TAD III: B. Porten and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt III: Literature, Accounts, Lists. Jerusalem 1993. Tadmor H. 1994. Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria, d. 727 B.C. Jerusalem. Talshir D. 2003. The Relativity of Geographic Terms: A ReInvestigation of the Problem of Upper and Lower Aram. JSS 48:259–285. Torczyner H. 1938. Lachish I: The Lachish Letters. London. Tur-Sinai (Torczyner) N.H. 1987. The Lachish Ostraca: Letters of the Time of Jeremiah (A New Enlarged Impression Introduced and Annotated by S. Ahituv). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ussishkin D. 1978. Excavations at Tel Lachish—1973–1977: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 5:1–97. Ussishkin D. 1983. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978–1983: Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10:97–175. Walsh C.E. 2000. The Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel (Harvard Semitic Monographs 60). Winona Lake. WSS: N. Avigad and B. Sass. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem 1997. Yadin Y. and Greenfield J.C. 1989. Aramaic and Nabatean Subscriptions. In N. Lewis ed. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri. Jerusalem. Pp. 135–149.

88

Esther Eshel

Yadin Y. and Naveh J. 1989. The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions. In Y. Yadin, J. Naveh and Y. Meshorer. Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963– 1965, Final Reports I. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–68. Yadin Y., Greenfield J.C., Yardeni A. and Levine B.A. 2002. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri. Jerusalem. Yardeni A. 1990. New Jewish Aramaic Ostraca. IEJ 40: 130–152. Yardeni A. 1997. Aramaic and Hebrew Documentary Texts. In H.M. Cotton and A. Yardeni. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites (DJD 27). Oxford. Pp. 9–129.

Yardeni A. 2000. Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabatean Documentary Texts from the Judean Desert and Related Material B: Translation, Paleography, Concordance. Jerusalem. Yaron R. 1961. Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri. Oxford. Yeivin S. 1967. Weights and Measurments of Various Standards in the Biblical Period. Leshonenu 31:243–250 (Hebrew). Zadok R. 1988. The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28). Leuven.

Chapter 3

Greek Ostraca and Graffiti Hava B. Korzakova

Introduction This chapter explores primarily the Greek epigraphic material appearing on pottery. It is divided into two categories: inscriptions on potsherds (i.e., ostraca) and on whole vessels (i.e., graffiti). About three hundred Greek ostraca and graffiti were found at Maresha. Of these, two hundred sixty-one are published in this volume; the remainder will appear in a separate publication. Nearly all the ostraca and graffiti utilized Hellenistic pottery. In a few instances, sherds from pre-Hellenistic periods were reused. These are noted in the text. Three Latin potter’s stamps on Terra Sigillata bowls are also included in this chapter (Nos. 172–174). Two ostraca contain relatively long texts (Nos. 1, 2), and two are abecedaries (Nos. 3, 4; apparently school exercises). The other sherds consist of single words, letters, ligatures and their traces (Nos. 5–92). Among them are various dedications (Nos. 8–10), sometimes with part of a date (No. 10), and dockets (Nos. 17–51).

Numbers 93–261 present graffiti. They include a letter (No. 93), dedications to various gods (Nos. 95– 100), names (Nos. 101–106), dedications (No. 107), merchandise (Nos. 109–111), measure and quantity (No. 112) and potters’ names (Nos. 170, 171). A large group of Fine Ware, mostly Terra Sigillata, is inscribed with names or, apparently, the initial letters of names (Nos. 175–219). These may have served to designate the vessels’ owners, possibly soldiers, who would have had to identify their property in the camp’s kitchen. One inscription (No. 169) is a Christophoric monogram on a Byzantine bowl.

Ostraca

Catalog

Long Texts (Nos. 1, 2) 1. Inv. No. 61-552-688-S4; Magic Ostracon(?); Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.4 × 6.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 1.

90

Hava B. Korzakova

This inscription was discovered in Subterranean Complex 61 during the 1992 season. More than half the text, on the right side of the ostracon, has been rubbed out, and the remaining text is sketchy with some doubtful words. The ostracon may have been written by a non-Greek speaking person. Transcription: 1. mneian/p/w/ [ 2. katw/\dai/mwn//n/ [6–7 letters]³ a³ 3. ]wnkaiswm/ato³s 4. kaibo/at/azw/ 5. ukm/h/e/n/te/l[.]u/ 6. k/ai 7. ink traces Reconstruction: 1. mneivan/ p/w[/ 2. kavtw/ \daiv³mwn// n³ [6–7 letters] a³ 3. ]wn kai; swvm/ato/" 4. kai; bov/a t/a; zw/[a 5. o]ujk m/h³; ej/n/te/l/[e]u/[ntw'ntai 6. k³/ai; 7. ink traces

is strange, as the word is obviously important. It is possible that the writer copied a formula from a written example or from his memory. In that case the writer may have skipped the word, and later noticed his error and inserted it between the lines. Line 4 The form bova, ‘herd’ is noted in Liddel and Scott (1968) as poetic. The expression bova ta; zwv³a is not known, and therefore, seems to be a popular saying, perhaps a local one. Line 5 The letters uk are clear and it is possible to identify mh following them. Therefore, it appears to be a distortion of ouj{k} mh;, which is used to emphasize the following verb in the subjunctive. Hence, the suggested reading seems probable. Three styles of a appear in Lines 1, 2 and 4, all written by the same hand. 2. Inv. No. 147-07-716-S1; Document; Jar sherd Dimensions: 7.5 × 8.0 cm. Black ink.

Translation: The memory... the lower demon... and of the body... and the living herd(?)… Let them not pass away... and... This appears to be a magic formula, although it is now very fragmentary. However, it is possible to identify certain elements: a request to an underground demon; the person making the request (who may have either written or ordered the ostracon); and his herd. Family members were probably included, but there is no indication of this on the preserved portion of the text. They may have been mentioned in the wish that they ‘not pass away.’ The memory of the person invoked in the first line might be identified with the ‘lower demon’ of the next line. In this case, the demon may perhaps represent the soul of the deceased. Lines 1–2 The word daiv³mwn is written between the first and second lines in small letters, apparently by the same hand. This

Cat. No. 2 (exterior).

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

91

7. e[tou~ .gk\a// a h 8. .......q ...c/r/i/s/ 9. Trace of one letter 10. h/ Translation: Justice-loving Epiphanes(?) who... the year... Line 1 di]kaiofivl(ou) is the genetive of dikaiovfilo~, ‘justice-loving’. ÆEpifavno/u/[~] is the genetive of ÆEpifavnh", ‘apparent (god)’, which is probably a reference to, or the common epithet of, Antiochos Epiphanes IV (175–164 BCE). Lines 6–7 The words epi... in Line 6 and e[tou~ in Line 7 are surrounded by a rounded line. Cat. No. 2 (interior).

The inscription is written on both sides of the sherd. The text is barely readable, but seems to be an official document or a letter, because it probably had a date (e[tou", ‘year’ in genetive, Line 7 on the exterior) and an invocation (kuvrioi, ‘Sirs’, Line 1 on the interior). It could also be two separate documents written on each side of the sherd. Exterior: Transcription: 1. ..kaiofil(ou)epifano/u/. o 2. ]d/oiepi dw t e k 3. .................... z³ a. 4. neqg 5. .fh/ i/ 6. ep/i/.w 7. etou .gk\a// a h 8. .......q ...c/r/i/s/ 9. Trace of one letter 10. h/ Reconstruction: 1. di]kaiofivl(ou) ÆEpifavno/u/[~] o 2. ]d/oi ejpi; dw t e k 3. .................... z³ a. 4. neqg 5. .fh/ i/ 6. ep/i/.w

Interior (perhaps second hand): Transcription: 1. kurrÆ 2. .ap/t/i/³o/u() (p|d)(?) k 3. ortwi vacat qotucou 4. dikaiofilou.q/w/q 5. ortwiproto/u/ ( ) (odo) idw/n 6. kai ... 7. vacat oi... 8. ......i/q/ [ink traces] Reconstruction: 1. kuvr(ioi) 2. .ap/t/i/³o/u() (p|d)(?) k 3. ortwi vacat qotucou 4. dikaiofivlou .q/w/q 5. ortwiproto/u/ ( ) (odo) idw/n kai; ... 6. 7. vacat oi... 8. ......i/q/ [ink traces] Translation: Sirs... of justice-loving... the first... and... Line 1 kurrÆ is an abbreviation of kuvr(ioi), Sirs. Line 4 Dikaiofivlou seems to refer to Epiphanes, as in Line 1 on the exterior.

92

Hava B. Korzakova

Line 5 (odo) is written as a ligature. Lines 6–7 The words in these lines are written in cursive. Abecedaries (Nos. 3, 4)

Lines 4–5 ÒArcio". Archios is probably the name of the pupil who wrote the exercise. 4. Inv. No. 147-08-1429-S3; Hellenistic Jug Sherd Dimensions: 5.5 × 6.2 cm. Black ink.

Ostraca Nos. 3 and 4 are abecedaries. They appear to be school exercises, especially No. 4, because of the black lines inked between the text. For other types of alphabetic inscriptions, see Dornseiff 1922. Four letters of abecedary appear on graffiti No. 242. 3. Inv. No. 147-07-823-S1; Local Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.5 × 5.5 cm. black ink.

Cat. No. 4.

An abecedary, consisting of three lines; black inked lines were drawn above the second line, as well as above and below the third line, as in a child’s exercise notebook. Cat. No. 3.

An abecedary, written on the interior. Transcription: 1. abgde³ 2. iklmn 3. rstufc³ 4. arcios 5. arcio³s³ 6. .a Reconstruction: 1. abgde³[zhq 2. iklmn[xop 3. rstufc¡[yw 4. ÒArcio" 5. ÒArcio" 6. .a Translation: ABGDE...IKLMN...RSTYPhCh... Archios... Archios... a

Transcription: 1. e³hqiklmn 2. l³m³nx³oprs 3. b³g³dehqi³k³ Translation: BGDEHThIK...

EHThIKLMN...

LMNXOPRS...

Short text, Letters and Ligatures (Nos. 5–92) 5. Inv. No. 1-1190-361-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.6 × 2.4 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 5.

93

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

This fine-ware bowl, probably with an omphalos base, has a hole which was pierced in order to repair it while in use. After the bowl was broken, the sherd (with the hole) was used as an ostracon. The inscription was etched into the surface.

Transcription: 1. b³i³oshmos 2. ore³i³ Reconstruction: 1. b³i³vo" hjmo;" 2. o[re³i³ Translation: My life (is coming) to an end(?)

Transcription: k/u/ Reconstruction: kuv(rio") Translation: lord or owner.

6. Inv. No. 128-02-348-S1; Local Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 2.0 cm. Black ink.

8. Inv. No. 128-3-158-S3; Local Jug or Jar Sherd Dimensions: 7.2 × 7.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 6.

Transcription: 1. kurr j 2. a³nakazoma³i³ Reconstruction: 1. kuvr(ioi) 2. a³jna(g)kavzoma³i³ Translation: Sirs, I have to... For kurr, used as an abbreviation of kuvrioi, see No. 2 above. 7. Inv. No. 84-20-512-S3; Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 3.5 cm. Etched.

Cat. No. 7.

Cat. No. 8.

Carelessly written without lines, possibly a scribble. Transcription/ Reconstruction: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... 4. ..ois qeÒ" 5. ... 6. tou ... q[eÒu' 7. . do" 8. ... Translation: ...the god... of the god...

94

Hava B. Korzakova

9. Inv. No. 147-08-1763-S2; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.7 × 2.5 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: wnkaimalafo Reconstruction: ]wn kai; mavla fo[ Translation: ... and much... 12. Inv. No. 53-108-408; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 4.5 × 6.5 cm. Incised.

Transcription: 1. agap³h 2. lu³ vacat

Cat. No. 9.

Transcription: 1. i³ (or f³) 2. c 13. Inv. No. 61-623-1105-S11; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 11.5 × 9.6 cm. Black ink.

Reconstruction: 1. ajgap³h; 2. Lu³ (kivw/-?) vacat Translation: Love to Ly(kios ?)... 10. Inv. No. 128-03-190-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 13. Cat. No. 10.

Transcription: meg\L/ g Reconstruction: ... meg(avlou) (e[]tou") gV Translation: The third year of the great...

Transcription: 1. a/na/ 2. a/

11. Inv. No. 61-575-864-S6; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.8 × 5.4 cm. Black ink.

14. Inv. No. 75-1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.2 × 2.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 14.

Cat. No. 11.

Transcription: 1. g³u³raV 2. vc/...

95

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

Reconstruction: gurav... Translation: Round… (?) 15. Inv. No. 75-5056-938-S1; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 10.3 × 3.7 cm. Black ink.

17. Inv. No. 147-2-337-S2; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.3 × 2.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 17.

Cat. No. 15.

Transcription: e/r³ Reconstruction: probably, ejr(evbinqo") Translation: pea. 18. Inv. No. 84-31-1018-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.4 × 3.4 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: 1. ink traces 2. k/a/m/ Line 2 Only the upper part of the letters remained. 16. Inv. No. 147-2-553-S2; Local Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.6 × 4.8 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 18.

Transcription: er 19. Inv. No. 53-233-1054; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 9.5 × 5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 16.

Carelessly written, almost illegible. Transcription: 1. ]s/e/tou 2. do" 3. ... 4. ...

Cat. No. 19.

Transcription: b d|k Reconstruction: b k(avboi) d [ ]. Translation: Two qab of ... (?)

96

Hava B. Korzakova

20. Inv. No. 84-15-41-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.9 × 4.1 cm. Black ink.

22. Inv. No. 84C-3-1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.5 × 4.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 20.

Transcription: (pu) e ka|(pu) Reconstruction: pu(rov~) e kav(boi)|pu(rou') Translation: 5 qab of wheat Ostracon Nos. 21–52 These ostraca create one homogeneous group (about 3 × 3 cm in size), inscribed with black ink in the same or similar writing. It is hard to reconstruct the meanings of all the terms with certainty, but they possibly reflect economic documentation. We suggest the following interpretations:

Cat. No. 22.

Transcription: se 23. Inv. No. 84C-3-6; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.6 × 4.9 cm. Black ink.

b — b(avto~), bat bb — b b(avtoi), 2 bat se — sev(a), seah bse — b sevai, 2 seah z — (dracmhv), drachma za — (dracmhv) a, one drachma Probably also: f — f(ovro~), tax ne — nevo", new (crops?) 21. Inv. No. 75-5056-956-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.4 × 3.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 23.

Transcription: se 24. Inv. No. 84C-3-10; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 2.3 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 21.

Transcription: bb

Cat. No. 24.

Transcription: se

97

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

25. Inv. No. 84-3-340-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.1 × 2.9 cm. Black ink.

28. Inv. No. 84-5-342-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 3.2 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 25.

Cat. No. 28.

Transcription: se

Transcription: se

26. Inv. No. 84-5-133-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.2 × 2.8 cm. Black ink.

29. Inv. No. 84C-3-3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.8 × 3.7 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 29.

Cat. No. 26.

Transcription: se

Transcription: bse

27. Inv. No. 84-5-330-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 2.8 cm. Black ink.

30. Inv. No. 84-3-207; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.2 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 30. Cat. No. 27.

Transcription: se

Transcription: b/se

98

Hava B. Korzakova

31. Inv. No. 84-3/5-240-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.1 × 3.1 cm. Black ink.

34. Inv. No. 84-5-133-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.0 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 31.

Cat. No. 34.

Transcription: bse

Transcription: bse

32. Inv. No. 84-3/5-240-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.2 × 2.8 cm. Black ink.

35. Inv. No. 84-5-133-S4; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.2 × 2.8 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 32.

Cat. No. 35.

Transcription: bse

Transcription: bse

33. Inv. No. 84-3/5-240-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

36. Inv. No. 84-5-133-S5; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.8 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 33.

Transcription: bse

Cat. No. 36.

Transcription: bse

99

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

37. Inv. No. 84C-3-2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 3.6 cm. Black ink.

40. Inv. No. 84-8-324-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.3 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 40. Cat. No. 37.

Transcription: z or n (depending on how the sherd is held) 38. Inv. No. 84C-3-4; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.1 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: z or n (depending on how the sherd is held) 41. Inv. No. 84-15-41-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 4.6 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 41. Cat. No. 38.

Transcription: z or n (depending on how the sherd is held) 39. Inv. No. 84-3/5-240-S6; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.4 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: z or n (depending on how the sherd is held) 42. Inv. No. 84-21-507-S4; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.8 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 39.

Cat. No. 42.

Transcription: z or n (depending on how the sherd is held)

Transcription: z or n (depending on how the sherd is held)

100

Hava B. Korzakova

43. Inv. No. 84-21-720-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.2 × 4.5 cm. Black ink.

46. Inv. No. 84-3/5-240-S4; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.8 × 4.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 43.

Cat. No. 46.

Transcription: za

Transcription: f

44. Inv. No. 84C-3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.3 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

47. Inv. No. 84-3/5-240-S5; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.4 × 3.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 44.

Cat. No. 47.

Transcription: f

Transcription: f

45. Inv. No. 84-3-366-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.2 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

48. Inv. No. 84-5-133-S3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 3.8 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 45.

Transcription: f

Cat. No. 48.

Transcription: f

101

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

49. Inv. No. 84-5-352-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.9 × 4.2 cm. Black ink.

53. Inv. No. 84-5-9; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.4 × 3.6 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: q Cat. No. 49.

Transcription: f

Cat. No. 53.

54. Inv. No. 84-17-376-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 3.1 cm. Black ink.

50. Inv. No. 84C-3-5; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.0 × 2.2 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 54.

Cat. No. 50.

Transcription: (ne)—ligature 51. Inv. No. 84C-3-8; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 2.3 cm. Black ink.

The letters are almost illegible. It is possible to read them as f/ (or r/) s/a/k/ (or i/s/). 55. Inv. No. 84-20-539-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 5.9 × 3.5 cm. black ink.

Cat. No. 51. Cat. No. 55.

Transcription: (ne)—ligature 52. Inv. No. 84C-3-11; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.0 × 3.0 cm. Black ink. Transcription: qe/ (or f)

Two lines, almost illegible, on the interior. Transcription: 1. f/ (or r³) o/ 2. d/i/....

102

Hava B. Korzakova

56. Inv No. 84-23-963-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 5.5 × 6.0 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: ]firw/

The meaning of the inscription is unclear and the remaining letters are probably abbreviations. 59. Inv. No. 84-30-868-S3; Jug or Jar Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 8.7 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 56.

57. Inv. No. 84-3-314-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.6 × 3.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 59.

Transcription: beba/ 60. Inv. No. 84-39-972-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 5.8 × 4.6 cm. Black ink. Cat. No. 57.

Transcription: dio/ [(?) or part of a ligature with ink blots. 58. Inv No. 84-27-965-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 8.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 60.

Transcription: ]eywm[ Translation: ywv/zw, to feed The past form of the verb ywv/zw, meaning ‘to feed’, appears with the related noun ojywvnion, probably indicating a soldier’s salary in money or goods. Ref. P. Zen. 59002. Cat. No. 58.

Transcription: ba³f³ a³r³ic am

103

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

61. Inv. No. 84-39-982-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.2 × 6.4 cm. Black ink.

63. Inv. No. 100-415-3045-S1; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 4.5 × 6.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 61.

Cat. No. 63.

Transcription: (le)(ab)—two ligatures

Transcription: ]on

62. Inv. No. 128-02-237-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 2.8 cm. Black ink.

64. Inv. No. 61-385-279-S2; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 11 × 10 cm. Thick ink(?).

Cat. No. 62.

Transcription: alwn/ Reconstruction: a{lwn Translation: a threshing floor Cat. No. 64.

Transcription: ion³

104

Hava B. Korzakova

65. Inv. No. 128-02-347-S4; Imported Bowl Dimensions: 3.5 × 2.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 65.

inscription on the exterior. Transcription: h/f³a/

68. Inv. No. 53-103-75 Dimensions: 7.3 × 8.0 cm. Incised. Transcription: ] ik³(?) 69. Inv. No. 61-345-170-S3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 8.4 × 7.6 cm. Black ink. Transcription: usi³ 70. Inv. No. 128-07-294-S1; Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 2.9 × 1.9 cm. Black ink.

66. Inv. No. 128-07-361-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.5 × 4.5 cm. Black ink. Cat. No. 70.

Transcription: ka 71. Inv. No. 128-07-422-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.8 × 3.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 66.

Transcription: .r³sto/ The letters are written in the same style as No. 71. 67. Inv. No. 128-07-514-S1; Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 2.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 71.

Cat. No. 67.

Transcription: ae/

Transcription: id

105

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

72. Inv. No. 128-18-425-S2; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.2 × 2.5 cm. Black ink.

75. Inv. No. 100-410-3040-S1; Slipped Bowl Dimensions: 5.2 × 4.4 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 72.

Transcription: id

Cat. No. 75.

73. Inv. No. 128-33-882-S5; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.3 × 3.8 cm. Black ink.

Illegible; possibly not Greek. Transcription: e/w/d/ 76. Inv. No. 147-07-1079-S4; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.2 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 73.

Transcription: id

Cat. No. 76.

74. Inv. No. 84-21-657-S5; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.6 × 3.3 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 74.

Traces of one letter. Transcription: d/

Transcription: aaa 77. Inv. No. 147-07-1163-S1; Jug or Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.6 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 77.

Transcription: (Ink blot) aaa

106

Hava B. Korzakova

78. Inv. No. 128-09-314-S3; Local Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.2 × 2.0 cm. Traces of black ink.

82. Inv. No. 84-15-357-S3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 ×1.6 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 78.

79. Inv. No. 84-21-718-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.3 × 2.2 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 79.

Cat. No. 82.

Traces of two letters. Transcription: ]s/i/[ 83. Inv. No. 128-18-650-S4; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 1.8 × 2.5 cm. Black ink. Transcription: p/ 84. Inv. No. 128-33-870-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 7.7 × 3.2 cm. black ink.

Transcription: l hÚp 80. Inv. No. 84-21-776-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 2.5 × 2.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 84. Cat. No. 80.

Transcription: (ap)—ligature 81. Inv. No. 84-3-9; Glazed Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 4.8 × 3.0 cm. Black ink blot on exterior.

Cat. No. 81.

Part of an inscription with dots drawn above the letters. Transcription: dn/r/e|g/ Ostracon Nos. 85–91 These ostraca come from a single basket in Area 600. They present a certain enigma. All are incised on jar or jug sherds of approximately the same size (4 × 4 cm). The fragments of letters or symbols resemble the letter U or a part of it. We suggest the ostraca were used as tokens, for counting or perhaps for voting.

107

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

85. Inv. No. 600-646-706-S1; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.5 × 3.5 cm. Incised.

89. Inv. No. 600-646-706-S4; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.5 × 3.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 89. Cat. No. 85.

Traces of letter or symbol. 86. Inv. No. 600-646-706-S2; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 4.0 cm. Incised.

Transcription: u/(or i/) 90. Inv. No. 600-646-706-S6; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.3 × 2.6 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 86.

Cat. No. 90.

Traces of letter or ligature.

Transcription: l/

87. Inv. No. 600-646-706-S3; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 4.5 cm. Incised.

91. Inv. No. 600-646-706-S7; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 5.6 × 3.5 cm. Incised.

88. Inv. No. 600-646-706-S5; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.8 × 4.3 cm. Incised symbol(?).

Cat. No. 91.

Cat. No. 88.

Traces of letter(?). Transcription: c/ or i/

108

Hava B. Korzakova

92. Inv. No. 84-1-367-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.7 × 3.0 cm. Black ink.

Reconstruction: 1. t[ 2. kai; dw;" Qeof³[ivlw/ 3. tou' pivlou 4. kaiv tou' su\\ 5. movtou Translation: And then give to Theoph … (Theophanes or Theophilos)… [amount] of felt and shredded linen which is included in the agreement(?)

Cat. No. 92.

ligature or demotic(?) letter.

Graffiti (Nos. 93–261) Inscribed or Incised (Nos. 93–169) 93. Inv. No. 147-2-152; Two Jar Sherds Dimensions: 16.0 × 14.0 cm. Incised.

The preserved portion seems to be a part of a letter. As it was written on a whole vessel, T. Levine (pers. comm.) suggests that the vessel and its contents were bartered for the felt and linen mentioned in the text. Line 2 dw;~ instead of do;" Line 4 Two short diagonal lines were incised above the break following the letter u. They may be either a fragment of a carelessly written letter or an abbreviation sign. As very few words begin with suc in Greek (except for sucnÒ~, meaning ‘frequent’), this appears to be an abbreviation of su(gegrammevnou), meaning ‘which is also included in the agreement’ (or something similar). 94. Inv. No. 930-87-252-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 17.0 × 15.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 93.

Five-line inscription. Transcription: 1. t[ 2. kaidwsqeof³[ 3. toup³ilou 4. kaitousu\\ 5. motou

Cat. No. 94.

109

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

97. Inv. No. 147-07-1082-S2; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 14.5 × 10.0 cm. Red ink.

Transcription: 1. e³por³[ 2. h³cetu³[ Reconstruction: 1. e[³por³[en 2. h³cetu³[ Translation: He brought Line 1 Possibly e[por[e(n), meaning ‘he brought’. 95. Inv. No. 61-18-29-S2; Local Fish Plate Dimensions: 9.6 × 9.0 cm. Incised inscription on the base (diameter 7.5 cm). Transcription: lato Reconstruction: Lavto Translation: Lato 96. Inv. No. 61-567-842-S1; Lagynos Sherd Dimensions: 10 × 13 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 97.

Transcription: pan Reconstruction: Pavn(?) Translation: Pan(?)

98. Inv. No. 128-3-170-S1; Local Plate Dimensions: Base diameter 6.7 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 96.

Transcription: Kos Reconstruction: Kov~ Translation: Qos For a discussion on the cult of this Idumean god, see Vriezen (1965).

Cat. No. 98.

Transcription: apollw Reconstruction: ’Apovllw Translation: Apollo

110

Hava B. Korzakova

99. Inv. No. 61-585-980-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 13.0 × 16.0 cm. Black ink.

Probably a dedication to Apollo-Lykos. Large (3 × 4 cm), deeply incised letters. The ware, which is not common in Hellenistic Maresha, is possibly from an earlier period. Graffiti Nos. 101, 102 and 103 are possibly incised with the same two names. The first is z[2–3 lett.].lio", whose only possible reconstruction is Zhkihvlio", i.e., Zekilios, similar to the Hebrew name Ezekiel. The second is Luvko". These items were uncovered in Area 61, in neighboring loci, and may possibly have been made by the same potter. Graffiti No. 102 also includes the word Liqariwvno" from the word litavrion, ‘stone’, which may have been a nickname. 101. Inv. No. 61-576-876-S1; Local Jar Dimensions: Rim diameter 24.5 cm, height of ζ 1.0 cm. Incised on both sides of the vessel.

Cat. No. 99.

Transcription: apol[ Translation: Apoll... (Apollo, or Apollonios?) The name of the god Apollo, or a personal name. The inscription probably presents the dedication of the vessel.

Cat. No. 101 (first inscription).

100. Inv. No. 75-5073-1146-S1 Dimensions: 13.3 × 12.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 101 (second inscription).

Two inscriptions.

Cat. No. 100.

Transcription: lu[ Reconstruction: Luv[ko"] Translation: Lykos or Lykios

Transcription of the first inscription: 1. l³ukos 2. z[...] i³l³ios Translation: Lykos... Zekilios(?) Transcription of the second inscription: l³i³q³ariwnos Translation: Litarionos

111

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

102. Inv. No. 61-580-906-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: rim diameter 26.5 cm, max. height of u 2.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 102.

104. Inv. No. 61-581-947-S1; Lagynos Sherd Dimensions: 4.9 × 5.2 cm. Deeply incised.

Cat. No. 104.

Transcription: 1. ]n³n[.]iou 2. ]kos

Transcription: ]filin[ May be part of the proper name Fivlinno~. Perhaps a dedication of the vessel.

103. Inv. No. 61-590-1507; Jar Sherd Dimensions: rim diameter 27.5 cm, height of λ 0.8 cm. Incised.

105. Inv. No. 61-620-1100-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 18.0 ×13.0 cm. Black ink. Transcription: (dtr)—ligature Reconstruction: D(hmhv)tr(io")

Cat. No. 103.

Transcription: 1. ]i³nlio" 2. ]. s

Cat. No. 105.

Transcription: (dtr)—ligature Reconstruction: D(hmhv)tr(io~) Translation: Demetrios Probably the ligature of the owner of the vessel.

112

Hava B. Korzakova

106. Inv. No. 147-2-150-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 5.0 cm. Incised.

108. Inv. No. 61-26-106; ETS Plate Sherd Dimensions: 11.8 × 4.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 108.

Transcription: formis Reconstruction: formivs[ko"] Translation: Small basket Cat. No. 106.

Transcription: ]ntioc Reconstruction: ÆA]ntivoc[o" or ou] Translation: (of?) Antiochus

109. Inv. No. 61-555-736-S2; Local Jug Sherd Dimensions: 12.0 × 7.6 cm. Black ink.

107. Inv. No. 61-564-770-S1; Lagynos Dimensions: width 14.0 cm, base diameter 8.3 cm, height of k 1.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 109.

Transcription: sitoskaboiduo Reconstruction: sivto" kavboi duvo Translation: Two qab of wheat 110. Inv. No. 84-5-362; Jug(?) Sherd Dimensions: 12.4 × 7.0 cm. Black ink. Cat. No. 107.

Transcription: mneiai[[i]]sikleous Reconstruction: mneiva ’jj/I[[i]]siklevou" Translation: To Isikles’ memory Ref. For the uncommon name ÆIsiklh'", see Dornseiff and Hansen 1978, s.v. Cook (1972:260) notes that some vessels (hydriai) “from the early Hellenistic cemeteries of Alexandria” were found with inked or incised inscriptions bearing the personal name of the deceased and the date of his death or burial.

Cat. No. 110.

113

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

Transcription: sinapi³ Reconstruction: sivnapi³ Translation: Mustard Apparently the vessel’s contents.

113. Inv. No. 84-5-335-S1; Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 12.0 × 8.5 cm. Red ink.

111. Inv. No. 84-27-963-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.5 × 7.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 113. Cat. No. 111.

Transcription: stafidos Reconstruction: stafivdo" Translation: …of raisins Apparently the vessel’s contents. The first letter is much larger than the others. 112. Inv. No. 84-39-983-S6; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 9.5 × 6.0 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: i|z—ligature Reconstruction: iÆ (dracmaiv). Translation: 10 drachma 114. Inv. No. 29-171-158; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 19.5 × 6.3 cm. Red ink.

Cat. No. 114.

Cat. No. 112.

Transcription: k\b/k\g/oi\b/ Translation: (...) 22 qab... The ligature probably refers to the quantity of the vessel’s contents, written in abbreviated form, i.e., kbÆ kavboi.

Transcription: Bcr

114

Hava B. Korzakova

115. Inv. No. 61-567-785-S6; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 32.0 × 50.0 cm, height of β 1.2 cm. Incised.

Transcription: kÆuÆ Reconstruction: kuv(rio"). Translation: The Master 117. Inv. No. 61-574-837-S2; Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 19.6 × 14.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 117. Cat. No. 115.

Transcription: b ed³ | ka Below the first letter b appears the following sign ‘L’, denoting ‘year’. Hence it could be interpreted as ‘the second year…’ 116. Inv. No. 61-585-950-S1; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.9 × 5.9 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: 1. vacat a 2. vacat fil³ vacat 118. Inv. No. 61-590-1505-S4; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 10.8 × 10.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 118.

Cat. No. 116.

Transcription: 1. d³h³s³ 2. mamo³

115

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

Nos. 119, 120 and 121 are sherds of large, wellmade vessels, which bear similar inscriptions whose interpretation is unclear.

Transcription: 1. pam³ 2. papi³

119. Inv. No. 61-593-1509; Jar Shoulder Dimensions: 4.7 × 8.9 cm. Black ink.

121. Inv. No. 84-27-714-S1; Local Jar Sherd Dimensions: 9.7 × 5.8 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 121. Cat. No. 119.

Transcription: 1. puq³ 2. p (or h)

Transcription: 1. pa³p[ 2. Ink blot

120. Inv. No. 75-5056-922-S1; Knidian Amphora(?) Sherd Dimensions: 13.6 × 7.6 cm. Black ink.

122. Inv. No. 53-108-108; Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 6.8 × 4.5 cm. Deeply incised inscription. Transcription: i³ (or f³) 123. Inv. No. 61-121-350-S1; Krater or Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.6 × 8.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 123.

Cat. No. 120.

Transcription: a

116

Hava B. Korzakova

124. Inv. No. 61-368-249-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 12.5 × 12.5 cm. Black ink.

126. Inv. No. 51-18C-100-15; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 11.3 × 10.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 124.

Transcription: 1. D 2. dw Large and well-formed letters, perhaps a dedication. 125. Inv. No. 53-144-449; Complete Local Amphora Dimensions: Height of z 1.5–2.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 126.

Transcription: s³i³b 127. Inv. No. 61-385-273-S3; Local Jar Sherd Dimensions: 7.3 × 9.5 cm. black ink.

Cat. No. 125.

Transcription: ziru³o Cat. No. 127.

Transcription: ts³h³

117

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

128. Inv. No. 61-385-279-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 11.0 × 10.0 cm. Inscribed ligature(?). Transcription: po

131. Inv. No. 1-1283-147-S6; Attic Angular Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 6.6 × 6.2 cm. Incised.

129. Inv. No. 61-555-755-S10; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 5.7 × 6.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 131.

Transcription: a Cat. No. 129.

Two possible readings: nos³[ or ]w³on. 130. Inv. No. 61-593-1509-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.5 × 8.2 cm. Black ink.

132. Inv. No. 61-565-796-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 13.0 × 17.8 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 130.

Almost illegible. Transcription: f³i³s³

Cat. No. 132.

Transcription: a

118

Hava B. Korzakova

133. Inv. No. 61-615-1088-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 11.5 × 12.5 cm. Incised.

135. Inv. No. 147-07-1137-S1; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 19.0 × 11.3 cm. incised.

Cat. No. 135. Cat. No. 133.

Transcription: a .[ Only a fragment of the second letter remained, which can be either g, i, n, p or t. We suggest it may be a dedication to Apollo, as mentioned in many other inscriptions found at Maresha.

Transcription: a 136. Inv. No. 147-10-2336-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 2.3 × 2.0 cm. Incised.

134. Inv. No. 90-9; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 7.5 × 5.2 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 136.

Transcription: a³ 137. Inv. No. 84-37-969-S1; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 12.5 × 16.0 cm. Red ink with a letter incised above it.

Cat. No. 134.

Transcription: a³

Cat. No. 137.

Transcription: k vacat dh (or k) h³

119

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

138. Inv. No. 84-12-396-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 9.0 × 11.5 cm. Black ink.

140. Inv. No. 84-14-565-S2; Lagynos Sherd Dimensions: 5.6 × 5.6 cm. Red ink.

Cat. No. 140.

Transcription: d

Cat. No. 138.

141. Inv. No. 84-30-761-S2 Dimensions: 3.5 × 3.0 cm. Incised.

Transcription: a vacat ba 139. Inv. No. 147-10-2365-S5; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.0 × 10.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 141.

Transcription: d

Cat. No. 139.

142. Inv. No. 940-205-664-S2; Local Jug Sherd Dimensions: 11.5 × 3.6 cm. Incised.

letters in two places. Transcription: 1. pt³ 2. c Cat. No. 142.

Transcription: d\\

120

Hava B. Korzakova

143. Inv. No. 61-701-1041-S; Local Fish Plate Dimensions: 17.0 × 5.0 cm. incised.

146. Inv. No. 61-614-1075-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 12.5 × 14.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 143.

Letter on the exterior. Transcription: e 144. Inv. No. 61-701-1050-Sp2; Local Fish Plate Dimensions: Diameter 24 cm, base diameter 7.5 cm. Incised. Cat. No. 146.

possibly not Greek. Transcription: s³o³ (ink traces)³

Cat. No. 144.

147. Inv. No. 84-3-127-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 6.5 × 8.8 cm. Black ink.

letters on the exterior. Transcription: eu The accurately made letters are unusual for an owner’s mark. 145. Inv. No. 61-709-1098-Sp4; Amphora Neck Dimensions: Letter height 4.0–5.3 cm. Black ink. Cat. No. 147.

Transcription: ne³i³

Cat. No. 145.

Transcription: la

121

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

148. Inv. No. 84-15-486-S3; Lagynos Sherd Dimensions: 5.1 × 5.6 cm. Red ink.

150. Inv. No. 84-30-866-S2; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 10.2 × 7.1 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 148.

Transcription: ] in or ni[ The transcription depends on how the sherd is held. 149. Inv. No. 84-30-866-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 11.4 × 9.0 cm. black ink.

Cat. No. 150.

Transcription: ]s³ai(?) 151. Inv. No. 100-2; Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 14.0 × 10.6 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 149.

Transcription: r³

Cat. No. 151.

Transcription: y³h³

122

Hava B. Korzakova

152. Inv. No. 100-98-746; Local Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.2 × 5.2 cm. Incised.

154. Inv. No. 100-440-3231-S3; Punic Amphora or Amphoriskos Sherd Dimensions: 6.5 × 8.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 152.

Cat. No. 154.

Transcription: m

Transcription: k

153. Inv. No. 100-143-846; Amphora Dimensions: diameter 11.0 cm, height 15.0 cm. Black ink.

155. Inv. No. 100-405-3022-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 13.0 × 12.0 cm. incised.

Cat. No. 155.

Cat. No. 153.

Transcription: m

Three or four cursive letters. Transcription: (.)a(.)n(?)

123

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

156. Inv. No. 128-18-593-S1; Jar Base Dimensions: 8.2 × 5.5 cm. Incised letter. Transcription: c

160. Inv. No. 147-07-865-S1; Lagynos Sherd Dimensions: 7.3 × 3.2 cm. Incised.

157. Inv. No. 147-07-748-S4; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 12.0 × 6.0 cm. Incised letters with punctate decoration. Transcription: ka[ 158. Inv. No. 128-3-153-Sp1; Local Bowl Sherd Dimensions: Rim diameter 11.6 cm, base diameter 4.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 160.

letters or decoration. Transcription: ..i³l³w³ (?) 161. Inv. No. 147-07-1000-S4; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 15.5 × 7.5 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 158.

Transcription: ka 159. Inv. No. 147-07-820-S6; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 10.0 × 8.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 161.

Transcription: fo³ (or e³) 162. Inv. No. 147-07-1077-S5; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 14.0 × 11.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 159.

Transcription: l(?) probably a potter’s mark. Cat. No. 162.

Transcription: tl³w³ The second letter may be a³ or n³.

124

Hava B. Korzakova

163. Inv. No. 147-07-1080-S1; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 10.3 × 6.0 cm. Incised.

165. Inv. No. 147-07-1160-S1; Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 15.3 × 8.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 165.

Cat. No. 163.

Transcription: c 164. Inv. No. 147-07-1116-S1; Rhodian Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 12.5 × 6.6 cm. Incised.

Transcription: h³ 166. Inv. No. 147-07-1201-S1; Rhodian amphora Sherd Dimensions: 8.0 × 9.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 164.

Transcription: ap or pa—ligature

Cat. No. 166.

Transcription: k 167. Inv. No. 930/603; Amphora Black ink. Transcription: 1. kl³a³w³ vacat ka³ 2. t³o³cw³ Recovered from Subterranean Complex 21 (for details, see Maresha I:41–49).

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

168. Inv. No. 940-224-711-S1; ETS Plate Dimensions: 5.0 × 5.0 cm. Incised.

Potters’ Names (Nos. 170, 171) 170. Inv. No. 44-12-56-S1; Bowl Dimensions: 10.4 × 11.9 cm, base diameter 8.8 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 168. Cat. No. 170.

Transcription: ]r³as 169. Inv. No. 61-593-1513-S5; Byzantine Bowl Dimensions: Rim diameter 11.5 cm, base diameter 5.6 cm. incised.

Cat. No. 169.

Transcription: (crtf)—Christian ligature. Reconstruction: cristovfilo~ Translation: Loving Christ

125

Transcription: Gorgios Reconstruction: Govrgio" Translation: Gorgios 171. Inv. No. 147-2-178-S1; Local Jar Sherd Dimensions: 8.5 × 12.6 cm. Punctates.

Cat. No. 171.

Transcription: 1. ]ogenhs 2. p³oesas Reconstruction: 1. Di]ogevnh" 2. p³oevsa" Translation: Diogenes made

126

Hava B. Korzakova

Latin Potters’ Stamps (Nos. 172–174) Three Terra Sigillata bowls imported from Campania were found at Maresha. A Latin potter’s stamp appears on their bases: SEXT(US). The S is written backward.

174. Inv. No. 100-128-826; Black-Glazed Bowl Dimensions: 1.8 × 11.3 cm, base diameter 7.2 cm. Latin potter’s stamp on the interior.

172. Inv. No. 75-4-208; Black-Glazed Bowl Dimensions: Base diameter 8.4 cm. Latin potter’s stamp on the base.

Cat. No. 174 (interior).

Cat. No. 172.

Transcription: SEXT Reconstruction: Sext(us) 173. Inv. No. 84-13-420-S1; Black-Glazed Bowl Dimensions: Base diameter 9.4 cm. Latin potter’s stamp on the base. Cat. No. 174 (exterior).

Transcription: SEXT Reconstruction: Sext(us) The letter d, incised on the exterior of the bowl, was probably the owner’s initial.

Cat. No. 173.

Transcription: SEXT Reconstruction: Sext(us)

127

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

Vessel Owners (Nos. 175–219) Letters were incised on a number of bases of Fine Ware bowls (Nos. 175–219). Most of them are imported black-glazed Terra Sigillata, the majority being ESA, a few of them of the Western type (T. Levine, pers. comm.). These letters were usually identified as merchants’ marks (Klein 1887). Cook (1972:259–260) defines these various inscriptions, made after firing, as dedications, owners’ names and merchants’ marks. This explanation is, however, problematic. Why would a merchant, who purchased these vessels in bulk for resale, disfigure them with unaesthetic markings? If further identification were needed, surely he would mark their wrappings, not the objects themselves. Therefore, we suggest these letters are owners’ marks. Many such incised vessels have been published (see Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:240–250). It is not entirely clear why owners would mark their vessels. We propose that these owners were not private persons, who would have no need to mark their own property within their own homes; rather, they would have been military personnel, either soldiers or officers. As such, they led a communal life, but owned private property, which they would need to identify. In some cases, two letters or more were incised in different styles. These seem to signify a change in ownership. Another explanation for the appearance of two monograms on the same vessel was given by Herbert (1972:13): “It is possible that the first signifies the merchant from Greece and the second the dealer to whom the pot was consigned.”

Transcription: h Reconstruction: E... 176. Inv. No. 1-1077-121-S1; ETS Hemispherical Bowl Dimensions: 5.6 × 6.3 cm, base diameter 7.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 176.

Transcription: 1. m 2. a Reconstruction: Ma... 177. Inv. No. 1-1178-108-S1; ETS Fish Plate Dimensions: 15.5 × 8.0 cm. Incised.

175. Inv. No. 1-1077-117-S1; ETS Hemispherical Bowl Dimensions: 8.5 × 8.5 cm, base diameter 8.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 177.

Cat. No. 175.

Transcription: ai Reconstruction: Ai...

128

Hava B. Korzakova

178. Inv. No. 1-1078-255-S3; Local Bowl Dimensions: 8.2 × 7.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 178.

Transcription: [[o]] h Reconstruction: O... (crossed out), E... 179. Inv. No. 1-1078-273-S1; Glazed Bowl Dimensions: 6.1 × 3.4 cm. Incised.

180. Inv. No. 1-1189-397-S4; ETS Bowl Dimensions: Base diameter 8.2 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 180.

Transcription: ec[[.]] Reconstruction: Ech... 181. Inv. No. 1-1190-443-S2; Slipped Plate Dimensions: 9.3 × 4.5 cm. Incised letters near the base. Transcription: di³ Reconstruction: Di... 182. Inv. No. 1-1283-141-S1; ETS Bowl Dimensions: Base diameter 7.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 179.

marks on the exterior. The first symbol is an arrow, probably followed by a ligature (l and i), which signifies a personal symbol. Cat. No. 182.

A five-pointed star with an arrow above it, probably a ligature or personal symbol.

129

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

183. Inv. No. 51-18C-100-S1; TS Fish Plate Dimensions: Height 6.3 cm, rim diameter 28.2– 30.2 cm, base diameter 11.7 cm. Incised.

185. Inv. No. 53-115-2-4; ETS Plate Dimensions: Base diameter 9.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 185.

Cat. No. 183.

Transcription: bakci Reconstruction: Bakchi... 184. Inv. No. 53-102-63; ETS Plate Dimensions: Height 5.5 cm, rim diameter 33.7 cm, base diameter 9.2 cm. Incised.

Transcription: k Reconstruction: K... 186. Inv. No. 53-162-63; ETS Plate Dimensions: Height 5.0 cm, rim diameter 25.5 cm, base diameter 8.6 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 186.

Cat. No. 184.

Transcription: apo(...)—ligature Reconstruction: Apo...

Transcription: d Reconstruction: D...

130

Hava B. Korzakova

187. Inv. No. 61-165-583-Sp1; ESA bowl Dimensions: Height 4.6 cm, rim diameter 29.0 cm, base diameter 9.3 cm. Incised.

189. Inv. No. 61-365-208-Sp3; ETS Plate Dimensions: Rim diameter 25.0 cm, base diameter 8.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 189.

On the base: [[...]]

Cat. No. 187.

Transcription: Lusimacw Reconstruction: Lusimavcw// Translation: To Lysimachos 188. Inv. No. 61-173-457-Sp4; ETS Plate Dimensions: Rim diameter 27.5 cm, base diameter 8.5 cm. Incised.

On the exterior, 3 cm from each other: Transcription: 1. d|c 2. foc 190. Inv. No. 61-385-275-S1; Fish Plate Dimensions: 20.0 × 11.5 cm, rim diameter 20.0 cm, base diameter 6.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 190. Cat. No. 188.

Incisions on base, partly reconstructed: Transcription: e Reconstruction: E...

Transcription: ci³ or N

131

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

191. Inv. No. 61-539-619-S1; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 9.0 × 4.5 cm. Incised.

193. Inv. No. 61-574-854-S1; Imported Skythos Dimensions: 10.0 × 5.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 193.

Cat. No. 191.

Transcription: a³ or part of a ligature. 192. Inv. No. 61-551-904-S2; ETS Bowl Dimensions: Base diameter 8.0 cm. Incised.

Transcription: a Reconstruction: A... 194. Inv. No. 61-593-790; ESA Hemispherical Bowl Dimensions: Rim diameter 14.7 cm, base diameter 7.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 194.

Transcription: m Reconstruction: M...

Cat. No. 192.

Transcription: fi Reconstruction: Phi...

132

Hava B. Korzakova

195. Inv. No. 61-593-1513-S4; ESA Hemispherical Bowl Dimensions: Base diameter 5.8 cm. incised.

197. Inv. No. 61-705-1020-Sp1; Fish Plate Dimensions: Height 8.0 cm, rim diameter 44 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 195.

Three letters, of which two are crossed out.

Cat. No. 197.

Transcription: [[d]] [[q]] c It seems the bowl changed owners twice. The letter D... was crossed out, Th... was also crossed out and Ch was incised.

Transcription of the base: c a or h³

196. Inv. No. 61-614-1077-S2; ETS Bowl Dimensions: Base diameter 6.8 cm. Incised.

198. Inv. No. 61-706-1038-Sp1; Black Fish Plate Dimensions: Rim diameter 44.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 196.

Transcription: ti Reconstruction: Ti...

Transcription of the exterior: d Reconstruction of the exterior: D...

Cat. No. 198.

Transcription: cl³ or N

133

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

199. Inv. No. 61-710-1075-S1; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 18.0 × 13.0 cm, base diameter 9.0 cm. Incised.

200. Inv. No. 75-17; black-glazed Bowl Dimensions: 17.0 × 13.0 m, base diameter 8.3 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 200. Cat. No. 199.

Three letters/inscriptions were incised on the exterior. Transcription: 1. p, a large letter incised in the middle of the base. 2. a³ (or d), incised on the side of the bowl. 3. Smaller letters incised on the side: ermiou

Transcription: me Reconstruction: Me... 201. Inv. No. 75-209-4; ETS Bowl Incised.

Reconstruction: 1. P... 2. A... (or D...) 3. ïErmivou Translation of No. 3: of Hermios A letter and figure were incised on the interior: Transcription: h Reconstruction: E... The bowl changed owners a number of times, from ‘P’ to ‘A’ (or ‘D’) to ‘Hermios’ to ‘E.’ As owners’ initials are generally found on the exterior of bowls, it is likely that ‘E’ was the final owner, and therefore, he incised his initial on the interior.

Cat. No. 201.

Transcription: dr—ligature Reconstruction: Dr... (?)

134

Hava B. Korzakova

202. Inv. No. 75-555; ETS Bowl Incised.

204. Inv. No. 75-5073-1191-S1; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 11.5 × 8.6 cm, base diameter about 10 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 204.

Transcription: a³(po)—ligature Reconstruction: Apo... A small o appears inside a large p. Cat. No. 202.

Transcription: dio—ligature Reconstruction: Dio...

205. Inv. No. 84-3-126; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 19.0 × 13.0 cm. incised.

Transcription of a thinly incised letter: b Reconstruction: B... Ligature(?) or it is possible the bowl’s ownership changed. 203. Inv. No. 75-5056-933-S1; TS Bowl Dimensions: 6.0 × 4.5 cm, base diameter 4.8 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 205.

Letters and ligature.

Cat. No. 203.

Transcription: dh Reconstruction: De...

Transcription: On the base: d [[a]]fi On the exterior of the bowl: al³ The letter d was incised in the center of the base; the letters fi are smaller.

135

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

206. Inv. No. 84-8; Fish Plate Dimensions: 13.8 × 10.7 cm, base diameter 8.2 cm. Incised.

208. Inv. No. 84C-10-234; (Campanian?) Bowl Dimensions: 18.3 × 13.9 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 208. Cat. No. 206.

Two inscriptions: (1) deeply incised; (2) thinly incised. Transcription: 1. ap. The upper part of a ligature, probably: ÆApollwvnio" 2. b Translation (of the ligature on No. 1): Apollonios(?) Reconstruction (of No. 2): B... 207. Inv. No. 84C-10; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 18.8 × 18.0 cm. Incised.

Transcription: Mele Reconstruction: Mele[tivou or Melev[tio" Translation: Of(?) Meletios The vertical line of the e is extended downward, as in No. 207. Two letters were incised on the side of the bowl. Transcription: li Reconstruction: Li... It appears that the owners of the bowl changed. 209. Inv. No. 84-13-258-S5; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 207.

Transcription: Mele Reconstruction: Mele[tivou or Melev[tio" Translation: of(?) Meletios The vertical line of the e is extended downward, as in No. 208.

Cat. No. 209.

Transcription of the large letter: d Reconstruction: D... Transcription of the small letter: o Reconstruction: O...

136

Hava B. Korzakova

210. Inv. No. 84-30-881-S4; Glazed Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 3.4 × 3.0 cm. Deeply incised.

Transcription: zh[[is]] Reconstruction: Is... (crossed out) Ze... zh is added above is. 213. Inv. No. 147-02-712-S2; Black-Glazed Bowl Dimensions: 11.0 × 9.0 cm, base diameter 7.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 210.

Transcription: ]le³[ 211. Inv. No. 100-276-1160-S3; Bowl Dimensions: 8.0 × 5.0 cm, base diameter 5.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 213.

Transcription: c Reconstruction: Ch... 214. Inv. No. 128-3-195-S1; Black-Red skythos Dimensions: 3.0 × 2.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 211.

Transcription: h³

Cat. No. 214.

212. Inv. No. 128-07-478-S3; Fish Plate Dimensions: 7.5 × 6.0 cm, base diameter 5.3 cm. Incised.

Transcription: cl Reconstruction: Chl... 215. Inv. No. 147-07-812-S1; Fish Plate Base Dimensions: 6.0 × 7.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 215. Cat. No. 212.

Transcription: k Reconstruction: K...

137

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

216. Inv. No. 147-07-828-S1; Fish Plate Dimensions: 9.3 × 7.0 cm, base diameter 5.7 cm. Incised.

218. Inv. No. 600-626-620; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 11.0 × 7.5 cm, base diameter 9.5 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 218. Cat. No. 216.

Transcription: l³ or d³ or c³ 217. Inv. No. 147-08-1511-S1; Amphoriskos Dimensions: 14.2 × 5.0 cm. incised.

Three-line inscription. Transcription: 1. so 2. sipa 3. trou Reconstruction: 1. So2. sipav3. trou Translation: Of Sosipatros 219. Inv. No. 600-645-704; ETS Bowl Dimensions: 6.0 × 6.0 cm, base diameter 3.3 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 217.

Transcription: r (or rq, q inside the r) Reconstruction: R... (or R...Th...)

Cat. No. 219.

Transcription: c Reconstruction: Ch...

138

Hava B. Korzakova

Owners of Vessels or Goods (Nos. 220–225) 220. Inv. No. 44-1-14-1; Amphora Neck Sherd Dimensions: Max. letter height 0.7–0.8 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: fili(pp)ou Reconstruction: Filiv(pp)ou Translation: Of Philippos The letters pp are written as a ligature: III. 223. Inv. No. 75-5056-1050-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.2 × 2.7 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 223. Cat. No. 220.

Transcription: i³r³m³i³oi³u³ Reconstruction: ’Іρμίου Translation: Of Irmios(?) 221. Inv. No. 61-353-206-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.2 × 3.3 cm. Black ink.

Transcription: 1. daratw 2. d (art)—ligature Reconstruction: 1. d(w'ron) ÆAravtw/ 2. d(w'ron) (ÆAravtw/) Translation: Present(?) to Aratos Line 2 art is written as a ligature.

Cat. No. 221.

Transcription: ]lkhsiou[ Reconstruction: ÆA]lkhsivou Translation: Of Alkesios 222. Inv. No. 61-709-1101-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 12.0 × 10.5 cm, height of f 2.6 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 222.

The inscription is written twice. The first line is written in full, while the second line appears as a ligature. The letter d, at the beginning of both lines, has been interpreted as the first letter of the root ‘to give’, i.e., ‘gift’ (dw`ron), ‘I give’ (divdwmi). As it was more common to write inscriptions on items in the name of the item itself, it is likely that the intention was ‘I am the gift to Aratos’ and not ‘I give to Aratos’. The name ÒArato" is well documented. 224. Inv. No. 84-20-662-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 15.0 × 8.0 cm, height of λ 0.6 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 224.

139

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

Transcription: a³po³llofanou Reconstruction: ÆA³pollo³favnou Translation: Of Apollophanes

227. Inv. No. 44-1-24-17; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 8.5 × 7.5 cm, height of letter c. 4.5 cm. Incised.

225. Inv. No. 128-02-183-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 4.5 × 3.8 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 225.

Transcription: glhl³i³ou³ Reconstruction: gÆ Lhl³iv³ou³ Transcription: Three [...] of Lelios(?) Traces of Letters and Ligatures (Nos. 226–243)

Cat. No. 227.

Transcription: Part of d or a 228. Inv. No. 51-15-2-S5; ETS Plate Dimensions: 3.0 × 2.2 cm. Incised.

226. Inv. No. 1-9076-100-S1 Dimensions: 9.0 × 4.5 cm, height 2.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 228.

Transcription: a or h³ Possibly the first letter of the owner’s name. 229. Inv. No. 61-121-350-S2; Krater or Jar Sherd Dimensions: 9.0 × 7.3 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 229.

Cat. No. 226.

Transcription: (a, d or k)—ligature

Transcription: d

140

Hava B. Korzakova

230. Inv. No. 61-611-1043; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.9 × 7.6 cm. incised.

233. Inv. No. 100-135-845; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 8.0 × 4.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 233.

Large letter, ligature or decoration. Transcription: a³ Cat. No. 230.

Possibly a decoration, not letters. Transcription: i³f.

234. Inv. No. 100-268-1110-S2 Dimensions: 7.5 × 4.0 cm. incised.

231. Inv. No. 61-710-1058-S1; Imported Plate Dimensions: 3.3 × 3.0 cm. Part of an incised ligature or decoration. 232. Inv. No. 75-5073-1191-S2; Imported Glazed bowl Sherd Dimensions: 2.8 × 2.0 cm. Incised. Cat. No. 234.

Transcription: l³(.)k³(.)—ligature

Cat. No. 232.

235. Inv. No. 147-07-901-S1; Bowl Sherd Dimensions: 5.6 × 3.5 cm. incised.

Traces of a letter, ligature or decoration incised on the interior.

Cat. No. 235.

Part of a ligature.

141

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

236. Inv. No. 147-07-1059-S2; Pithos or Jar Sherd Dimensions: 9.5 × 7.0 cm. Incised.

239. Inv. No. 61-593-1522-S6; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 17.0 × 17.0 cm, height of incision 2.4 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 239. Cat. No. 236.

Fragment of a letter or, most probably, a decoration.

ligature (or the letter b).

237. Inv. No. 61-709-1098-Sp7; Amphora Black ink. Transcription: (se)

240. Inv. No. 53-107-2; Restored Amphora Red ink. large letter and ink blots. Transcription: k

238. Inv. No. 147-07-1101-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 4.5 cm. Incised.

241. Inv. No. 147-2-401-S1; Amphora Sherd Dimensions: 25.5 ×16.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 238.

Fragments of letters or a decoration.

Cat. No. 241.

Transcription: (dt)—ligature

142

Hava B. Korzakova

242. Inv. No. 128-25-698-S Dimensions: 10.5 × 7.5 cm. Incised.

Miscellaneous (Nos. 244–261) This category includes illegible inscriptions, ink traces, magic signs and decorations. 244. Inv. No. 75-718; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.0 × 7.3 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 242.

Transcription: abgd 243. Inv. No. 147-10-2365; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 8.5 × 11.0 cm. Incised.

Cat. No. 244.

Four–five lines, illegible. One line is written with large letters (2.3 cm in width). Possibly a decoration. 245. Inv. No. 75-870; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 5.4 cm. Red ink decoration. 246. Inv. No. 75-6069-1139-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 8.0 × 6.0 cm. Black ink traces.

Cat. No. 243.

Transcription: pt³ Cat. No. 246.

Three–four lines, illegible.

143

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

The next five inscriptions (Nos. 247–251) from Subterranean Complex 84 bear a strong resemblance to each other. Their meanings are unclear, and it is possible they are simply decorations.

249. Inv. No. 84-9-513-S1; Jug or Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.0 × 9.2 cm. Black ink.

247. Inv. No. 84-9-489-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 6.0 cm. black ink.

Cat. No. 249.

Cat. No. 247.

Three-line inscription; Arabic. 248. Inv. No. 84-9-500-S3; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 5.0 cm. black ink.

Five- to six-line inscription on both sides; possibly Demotic. 250. Inv. No. 84-9-513-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 6.7 × 5.5 cm. black ink.

Cat. No. 248.

Cat. No. 250.

Illegible inscription of about three lines; probably not Greek.

Three- to four-line inscription on the exterior; probably not Greek. Ink blots on the interior.

144

Hava B. Korzakova

251. Inv. No. 84-9-513-S3; Jar or Jug Sherd Dimensions: 10.0 × 7.2 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 251.

Four- to five-line inscription, possibly Demotic, on the exterior. The writing on this ostracon seems to resemble that on Nos. 250 and 252. 252. Inv. No. 84-9-513-S4; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 3.5 cm. black ink.

Cat. No. 252.

Five-line inscription; not Greek.

253. Inv. No. 84-9-556-S2; Pre-Hellenistic Jar Sherd Dimensions: 10.0 × 9.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 253.

inscription on both surfaces; not Greek. 254. Inv. No. 84-9-557-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 8.5 × 8.0 cm. Black ink.

Cat. No. 254.

Possibly a decoration on the interior.

145

Chapter 3: Greek Ostraca and Graffiti

255. Inv. No. 84-14-434-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 4.0 × 3.5 cm. black ink.

258. Inv. No. 100-140-848-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 7.0 × 4.6 cm. incised.

Cat. No. 255.

Illegible inscription; probably Arabic. 256. Inv. No. 84-14-442-S1; Pre-Hellenistic Jar Sherd Dimensions: 11.5 × 6.5 cm. Black ink. Cat. No. 258.

Ladder-shaped decoration. 259. Inv. No. 128-07-426-S3; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 3.6 × 2.0 cm. charcoal. Cat. No. 256.

decoration composed of the letters e and h. 257. Inv. No. 84-15-357-S2; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.2 × 4.7 cm. black ink traces.

Cat. No. 259.

Two-line inscription.

Cat. No. 257.

260. Inv. No. 147-7-702-S1; Jar Sherd Dimensions: 5.8 × 6.0 cm. Black ink. Seven-line inscription; illegible.

146

Hava B. Korzakova

261. Inv. No. 147-7-785-S1; Jug Sherd Dimensions: 3.7 × 3.0 cm. Black ink. Traces of inscription; not Greek.

Cat. No. 261.

References Cook R.M. 1972. Greek Painted Pottery. London. Dornseiff F. 1922. Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magic. Berlin. Dornseiff F. and Hansen B. 1978. Reverse lexicon of Greek Proper Names. Chicago. Herbert K. 1972. Greek and Latin inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn. Klein W. 1887. Die griechischen Vasen. vienna. Levine T. 1999. Pottery Assemblages of the Third and Second Centuries BCE from Upper Area 61 at Maresha. M.A. thesis. Bar Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew).

Liddel H.G. and Scott R. 1968. A Greek English Lexicon. Oxford. P. Zen.: C.C. Edgar. Zenon Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection. Ann Arbor 1931. Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria. Cambridge. Vriezen Th.C. 1965. The Edomite Deity Qaus. In P.A.H. de Boer ed. Oudtestamentische Studiën XIV. Leiden. Pp. 331–353.

Chapter 4

I nscribed Altars Hava B. Korzakova

Introduction This chapter deals with four inscribed altars that were recovered from domestic contexts (see Chapter 10). One altar carries a dedication to the goddess Demeter, and one, to Isis. The inscriptions on the other two are nearly illegible.

Catalog 1. Inv. No. 128-20-705-S1 Dimensions: Height 17.0 cm, width 10.0 cm, depth 10.0 cm.

Transcription: 1. DHMHTHR 2. MEGALH 3. I³. 4. K³A³T³A³G³H³N³ 5. N³. 6. I³A³N³N³I Reconstruction: 1. Dhmhvthr 2. megavlh 3. i³. 4. k³a³t³a³; g³h³;n³ 5. n³. 6. i³a³n³n³i Translation: To Demeter the Great, ...under the earth... The first two lines are carefully written but not deeply incised. The remaining four lines, carelessly written, are also not deeply incised, and their reading is uncertain. 2. Inv. No. 147-07-1180-S2 Dimensions: Height 15.5 cm, base 12.5 × 13.0 cm, top 9.0 × 10.0 cm.

Cat. No. 1.

A square, pillar-shaped altar, made of soft limestone, with an incised inscription. There is a carved recess (6.5 cm wide, 7.5 cm high and 4.5 cm deep) at the front of the altar, probably for the insertion of a goddess figurine. A six-line inscription was incised on one side, and traces of a network pattern are visible on the other. The back side of the altar is partly destroyed. Traces of carbon appear on top.

Cat. No. 2.

148

Hava B. Korzakova

A square, soft limestone altar with an inscription broken on top. One side bears an incised representation of a gate; another, a five-line inscription. There is no space between the first two lines. Transcription: 1. DHMHS³ 2. DAM.K.S³ 3. T.UIOS 4. PARATH 5. ISIDI...

Translation: Hegesandros, Xenarchis and the children to Sarapis (and) Isis. 3. Inv. No. 46/91 Dimensions: Height 24.0 cm, base diameter 9.6 cm, top diameter 10.0 cm.

Reconstruction: 1. Dhmh'V³ 2. Dam³(o)k[leä] V 3. t j uiJo;V 4. para; ­­­­tÁ­­ 5. jIsivdi... Translation: ...and Demas, the son of Damokles, for Isis... Line 1 A personal name, either the local form DhmÁj, or Dhm©j Ref. Preisigke 1922. Line 3 tÆ instead of qÆ. The usual formula is ‘X qÆ uiJo;j Y’, i.e., ‘and X, the son of Y’. Line 5 This line is deeply incised, probably with symbols carved after the last word. The following inscription, discovered on a stone slab from Samaria (Lake 1957:37, No. 13, Pl. V.1), also mentions the Egyptian goddess Isis together with Serapis. These two objects resemble each other. The inscription from Samaria reads: HGHSANDROS XENARCIS KAITAPAIDIA SARAPIISI

Cat. No. 3.

A round, soft limestone altar with an inscription incised side-ways. The depression on top is 5 cm deep. There are traces of carbon on the sides, but none on top. The inscription is almost totally destroyed. Transcription 1. ] . ATR³I³G³I³[ 2. ]Q The first letter A is written half the usual size.

149

Chapter 4: Inscribed Altars

4. Inv. No. 147-07-1050-S50 Dimensions: Height 5.0 cm, width 10.0 cm, depth 8.0 cm.

Summary These altars are evidence that cult worship took place in domestic contexts, rather than in temples or sacred places. A similar phenomenon in evidenced by the Hellenistic terra cotta figurines, also found in domestic contexts (see Chapter 10; Maresha II).

Cat. No. 4.

Transcription: AA

A

R eferences Lake S. 1957. Greco-Roman Inscriptions. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon 1957. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects. London.

Preisigke F. 1922. Namenbuch: enthaltend alle griechischen, lateinischen, aegyptischen, hebraeischen, arabischen und sonstigen semitischen und nichtsemitischen Menschennamen. Heidelburg.

Chapter 5

Lead Sling Bullets Hava B. Korzakova

Introduction

Catalog

Six lead sling bullets, all of the peach-kernel form, were found at Maresha. Four types were distinguished: flattened; rounded (Empereur 1980: Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 14, 17, 18); oblong with pointed ends and rounded sides (Empereur 1980: Nos. 9, 15); and oblong with a rounded side, a grooved side and pointed ends. The last type, most probably locally made, is possibly an imitation of the third type. Only one bullet bears a Greek inscription. The remaining five may once have been inscribed with letters or decorated with figures, but they have not survived. Lead sling bullets were mold made (Robinson 1941:420; Bruneau 1968:651; Empereur 1980:555), the manner of which can be discerned from their defects. Chalk grains embedded in the body of Bullet No. 5 indicate that the its mold was carved from the local chalk. Two bullets have a groove on one side, apparently to facilitate their removal from the mold. The upper half of Bullet No. 4 is not aligned with the bottom half, evidence that the connection between the two halves of the mold had weakened and shifted. A small projection on the middle of the inner side of one of its halves marks the remains of the connection between the hollows of the mold (Empereur 1980:555, Fig. 29). For a comparison with the manner in which coins were minted, see Kloner 1976:113, Pl. 32. These lead bullets have been interpreted variously as a weapon (see Korfman 1973:37; Schlesinger 1987–1989; for some brief historical observations, see Foss 1974–1975) and as a weight with pointed ends (Jewett, Lyon and Moore 1924:27). In his report on the excavations at Gezer, Macalister (1904:223) describes “a small pellet” with “an anchor stamped on one side and a snake on the other” and compares it to some unstamped examples from Tell Sandahannah.

1. Inv. No. 61-190-605-M1 Dimensions: Weight 39.93 g, length 3.1 cm, width 1.9 cm, thickness 1.1 cm.

Cat. No. 1.

Flattened peach-kernel form, with traces of a figure(?), unclear in the present stage of preservation. Figures that are normally depicted on such items are a thunderbolt with wings, the symbol of Zeus (Schlesinger 1983:116, 1984:66–67, 1987–1989:47–50; Sivan and Solar 1984), a scorpion (Dothan 1976; Schlesinger 1987–1989) and a trident (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924; this piece has a thunder-bolt on the other side). The bullet is of good quality, possibly imported. 2. Inv. No. 61-300-1-M1 Dimensions: Weight 40.97 g, length 3.4 cm, width 1.6 cm, thickness 1.5 cm.

Cat. No. 2.

Rounded peach-kernel form, with traces of a figure(?) (cf. No. 1). The bullet is of good quality, possibly imported.

152

Hava B. Korzakova

3. Inv. No. 84-30-937-M1 Dimensions: Weight 50.89 g, length 3.7 cm, width 1.9 cm, thickness 1.3 cm.

on one side to facilitate removal of the bullet from the mold. This example belongs to the same form as No. 4 above. 6. Inv. No. 128-09-254-M1 Dimensions: Weight 47.16 g, length 4.5 cm, width 1.8 cm, thickness 1.3 cm.

Cat. No. 3.

Oblong peach-kernel form. 4. Inv. No. 75-101-20-M1 Dimensions: Weight 38.49 g, length 4.1 cm, width 1.7 cm, thickness 1.3 cm.

Cat. No. 6.

Oblong peach-kernel form, with pointed, rounded ends. Obverse: Transcription: H³R³AKLEOS³ Interpretation: ïH³r³aklevo~³³

Cat. No. 4.

Oblong peach-kernel form, with pointed ends, one side rounded. The example belongs to the same form as No. 5 below. There is a groove on one side to facilitate the removal of the bullet from the mold. The photograph was taken before cleaning. 5. Inv. No. 100-414-3221-M1 Dimensions: Weight 50.09 g, length 4.5 cm, width 1.6 cm, thickness 1.5 cm.

Cat. No. 5.

Oblong peach-kernel form, with pointed end, one side rounded. The bullet is of poor quality, with local chalk grains in the body of the bullet. There is a groove

Reverse: Transcription: NIK Interpretation: nivk[h] Translation: Heracles’ victory The same inscription, ïHraklevo~ nivkh, is found on a sling bullet from Sicily (IG XVI, 2407). The name ‘Heracles’ in genitive (if the reading is correct) would imply some form of possession of the sling bullet by the hero/god, which would ensure its successful use. It should be noted that Heracles, according to Greek mythology, did not use a sling in his battles. Therefore, this inscription may possibly point to some sort of cross-cultural connection between the figure of Heracles and King David. Another possibility is discussed by Gera (1995:491, 495, comm. 13), where the inscription would function as a battle cry, such as Nivkh Divo~, or Qeou' nivkh, meaning ‘God’s victory’.

Chapter 5: Lead Sling Bullets

153

R eferences Bruneau Ph. 1968. Contribution à l’histoire urbaine de Délos à l’époque Hellénistique et à l’époque impériale. BCH 92:633–709. Dothan M. 1976. The Fortifications of Ptolemais. Qadmoniot 34–35:71–74 (Hebrew). Empereur J.Y. 1980. Collection Paul Canellopulos (XVII). Petits objects inscrits. BCH 105:555–561. Foss C. 1974–1975. Greek Sling Bullets in Oxford. Archaeological Reports 21:40–44. Gera D. 1995. Tryphon’s Bullet from Dor. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report II B (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 491–496. IG: Inscriptions Graecae. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores I–III (2nd edition). Berlin. 1913–1940. Jewett J.R., Lyon D.G., and Moore G.F. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria. Cambridge, Mass. Kloner A. 1976. Flan Mould from Kh. Rafi. ‘Atiqot (ES) 11:112–113.

Korfman M. 1973. The Sling as a Weapon. Scientific American 229:34–42. Macalister R.A.S. 1904. Eighth Quarterly Report on the Excavation of Gezer. PEFQSt:194–228. Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria. Cambridge, Mass. Robinson D.M. 1941. Excavation at Olynthos 10. Oxford. Pp. 418–443. Schlesinger D. 1983. A lead Slingshot from Dor. Qadmoniot 60:116 (Hebrew). Schlesinger D. 1984. More on Slingstones. Qadmoniot 66– 67:89 (Hebrew). Schlesinger D. 1987–1989. Lead Sling Bullets from the Collection of the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv. Israel— People and Land 5–6 (23–24):47–50. Sivan R. and Solar G. 1984. Discoveries in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980–1984. Qadmoniot 68:111–117 (Hebrew).

Chapter 6

Astragali Hava B. Korzakova

Introduction The astragalus, or talus, is a small bone from the lower hindlimb of four-legged animals. Most of the astragali recovered in the Near East come from domestic sheep or goats (Dandoy 1996:51). The hexagonal shape of this bone made it suitable for use in numerous games known from early periods of human history (Brewster 1960; Baran 1974; Watson 1979; de Vries 1980; Lewis 1988). Sometimes, astragali were filled with lead (Brewster 1960). Eleven bone astragali found at Maresha are included in this report. Ten are inscribed and one (No. 6) is incised with a symbol or another decoration. These astragali were probably used as game-pieces. Players threw the astragali, which were inscribed on one of their sides. The side of consequence was that which appeared on top. Therefore, the names inscribed had significance for the game (see Chapter 10). A few astragalus-like glass items found at Maresha were recently published (Spaer 2001:232). Ruth JacksonTal is presently studying the glass objects from Maresha, including additional astragalus-like glass items.

2. Inv. No. 128-40-1051-S3 Dimensions: 3.0 × 1.5 × 1.8 cm.

Cat. No. 2.

Transcription: NIKH Reconstruction: nivkh Translation: Victory, or Nike. See No. 1. 3. Inv. No. 147-09-1768-S3 Dimensions: 3.0 × 2.0 × 1.5 cm. Transcription: NIKH Reconstruction: Nivkh Translation: Victory or Nike. See No. 1. 4. Inv. No. 147-5-295-S1 Dimensions: 3.2 × 1.8 × 1.5 cm.

Catalog 1. Inv. No. 1-1094-523-S1 Dimensions: 3.2 × 2.0 × 2.0 cm.

Cat. No. 1.

Cat. No. 4.

Transcription: NIKH Reconstruction: Nivkh Translation: Victory or Nike Ref. Dandoy 1996:54, Fig. 6 (from Roller 1987, non vidi).

Transcription: NIK Interpretation/Translation: some form of nivkh, Victory or nikw`, to defeat; probably the name of Nike, the goddess of victory. See No. 1.

156

HAVA B. KORZAKOVA

5. Inv. No. 1-100-733-S6 Dimensions: 3.2 × 1.5 × 2.0 cm.

Cat. No. 5.

8. Inv. No. 1-1096-613-S2 Dimensions: 2.8 × 2.0 × 1.9 cm.

Cat. No. 8.

Transcription: AFRODIT Reconstruction: ÆAfrodivt(h) Translation: Aphrodite

Transcription: ARPA[ Reconstruction: ajrpav[xa] Translation: I’ve got (?)

6. Inv. No. 147-08-1367-S1 Dimensions: 3.0 × 2.0 × 1.5 cm.

9. Inv. No. 1-1097-608-S7 Dimensions: 3.5 × 1.7 × 1.8 cm.

Cat. No. 9.

Cat. No. 6.

Transcription: HRA Reconstruction: ÓHra Translation: Hera The name of the main goddess in the Greek pantheon. Ref. Dandoy 1996:55, Fig. 8b. 7. Inv. No. 99-01-004-S3 Dimensions: 3.0 × 1.5 × 1.5 cm.

Transcription: PUGãN Reconstruction: pugwvn Translation: Foot 10. Inv. No. 128-45-1132-S1 Dimensions: 2.3 × 1.4 × 1.3 cm. Partly destroyed. Transcription: ME 11. Inv. No. 128-21-724-S2 Dimensions: 3.3 × 1.8 × 1.8 cm. Decoration or a symbol.

Summary

Cat. No. 7.

Transcription: ERãS Reconstruction: ÒErw~ Translation: Eros (the name of the god of love), or just ‘the Love’

Four of the eleven astragali from Maresha are inscribed with the word nike, referring to the name of the goddess of victory, Nike (Nos. 1–4), or just a noun ‘victory’, which certainly indicates the winning side of the gamepiece. Another two bear nouns, probably connected with some obscure game rules (No. 8, something like ‘I’ve got’, and No. 9, ‘foot’, probably a step in some game). Two others, with the names Aphrodite (No. 5)

CHAPTER 6: ASTRAGALI

and Eros (No. 7), are perhaps related to some type of erotic game. Another goddess mentioned is Hera (No. 6), the spouse of Zeus, the highest deity in Greek mythology, perhaps a symbol of power and superiority. The reading of the incisions on another two pieces is uncertain.

157

These astragali are evidence of the common Hellenistic culture present at Maresha (see Chapter 10), but may also reflect the cults of the mentioned gods (see the same conclusion in Gilmor 1997).

R eferences Baran M. 1974. Children’s Games. Expedition 17:21–23. Brewster P.G. 1960. A Sampling of Games from Turkey. East and West 2:15–20. Dandoy J. 1996. Astragali, the Ubiquitous Gaming Pieces. Expedition 38:51–58. De Vries K. 1980. Greeks and Phrygians in the Early Iron Age. In K. De Vries ed. From Athens to Gordion (University Museum Papers I, University of Pennsylvania). Philadelphia. Pp. 33–49. Gilmor G.H. 1997. The Nature and Function of Astragalus Bones from Archaeological Contexts in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16:167–175.

Lewis R.B. 1988. Old World Dice in the Protohistoric Southern United States. Current Anthropology 29: 759–758. Roller L. 1987. Hellenistic Epigraphic Texts from Gordion. Anatolian Studies 37:103–133. Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum, Beads and Other Small Objects (Israel Museum Catalogue 232). Jerusalem. Watson P.J. 1979. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. Tuscon.

Chapter 7

Lead Weights Hava B. Korzakova

Introduction Thirty-two lead weights, eight of which were inscribed, were found at Maresha.1 The use of lead weights seems to have been a common practice in this region during the Hellenistic and Roman periods (see Macalister 1904:209–211, 357; Sayce 1904; Seyrig 1946–1948; Lifshitz 1976; Mann 1984). Half the weights were found in Area 61, in various rooms and shops in the ground floors of Houses A, B and D (see Plans 1.1, 1.3). This volume is concerned mainly with the epigraphic material, but for the sake of completeness, all the lead weights found at Maresha are included in this chapter. Emphasis, however, will be placed on the inscribed objects. Included are lead weight Nos. 6 and 7, which were found during the 2001 season in Subterranean Complex 169, which is not detailed in the discussion of the subterranean complexes (however, see Table 1.23). Kaplan suggested that lead weights were molded using the lost wax technique, as evidenced on a large fragment of a mold from Jaffa, made of a local chalkstone (Kaplan 1981:412–414). Three hollows are carved, each bearing the same inscription:2 “In the ninth year of the Emperor Caesar Nerva Traianus, when Jouda, son of Tozomenos, is the agoranomos.” According to Kaplan, the hollows were for the first positive matrices of wax, and the final matrix was made using these wax forms. He did not feel that the local chalk-stone molds could maintain the integrity of small inscriptions such as these, if they were used for a direct pouring of the lead. However, a recent experiment conducted by Yehoshua Dray has shown that it is possible that lead weights were indeed cast directly from molds, and that such molds are capable of maintaining the clarity of the inscription. Lead-weight molds may have been made from clay or sand as well. A recently discovered chalk-stone coin-mold that contained melted bronze is evidence that bronze coin-blanks (flans) were also

produced directly, without recourse to the lost wax method (see Kloner 1976:113, Pl. 32). Similarly, lead sling bullets were made directly from a doubled mold (see Robinson 1941:420; Bruneau 1968:651; Empereur 1980:555). The word ajgoranomou'nto~(ajgoranomouvntwn), in the genetivus absolutus form, ‘X (and Y) being agoranomos/agoronomoi’, is inscribed on several weights (Nos. 1–4, 6, 7, 9–11). The Greek word ajgoranovmo~ is equivalent to the Latin term edilis or edilicius (see Mason 1974:19) and refers to an official who supervises the market. The duty of the agoranomoi in Ptolemaic Egypt was to register private deals (for more information, see Jones 1940:188, 215–217, 230, 240, 255). Some weights bear the names of one or, more commonly, two agoranomoi (Nos. 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 11). For an example of one agoranomos in the Roman city of Tiberias, just after it was established, see Qedar 1986–1987:29–30, No. 1. For weights with the title agoronomoi in Seleucid Babylon, see Rostovtzeff 1941:451–453. A number of weights have a decoration in the center (the Macedonian shield, rosette, etc.), which seems to be common at Maresha. A diagonal network pattern—a common decoration during the second and first centuries BCE—was hatched on the reverse of some weights (Nos. 1–4, 6, 7, 11). Numismatic evidence uncovered in the same loci helps refine the dating of the weights.3 Three weights (Nos. 1–3) bear the same date: ‘Year 205(?)4 [of the Seleucid era]’, i.e., 108/107 BCE. Similar weights were previously published by Oren (1965:222, photograph only) and Bliss and Macalister (1902:61, Fig. 28). These weights may be evidence of a slightly later date than 111 BCE for the final abandonment of the city of Maresha (see Chapter 8; Finkielsztejn 1998). In the middle of the obverse side of these weights appears a round decoration in the form of a Macedonian shield (see Chapter 8).

160

Hava B. Korzakova

Catalog 1. Inv. No. 61-157-413-M1; Square Weight with Lug Dimensions: Weight 74.97 g, length 5.0 cm, width 5.0 cm, thickness 0.3–0.5 cm.

2. Inv. No. 61-197-517-M1; Square Weight with Lug Dimensions: Weight 138.3 g, length 6.5 cm, width 6.5 cm, thickness 0.2–0.4 cm.

Cat. No. 1.

Obverse: Raised border with a Macedonian shield in the center, surrounded by an inscription. Transcription: ñS³ E ³ A GORA|NOMOUN|TOSAGA| QOKLE(... Reconstruction: ñ se¾ aj g ora/ | nomou' n ³ | to~ ÆAga³ | qokl(evou~) Translation: Year 205(?), Agathokles being agoronomos Reverse: Diagonal network pattern.

Cat. No. 2.

Obverse: Raised border with a Macedonian shield in the center. The shield, in bas relief, is decorated with circles and semicircles, surrounded by an inscription. Transcription: LSEAGORA³|NOMOUN|TOSAGA³ | QOKLEOU³(S) Reconstruction: ñ se¾ aj g ora³ | nomou' n |to~ ÆAga|qoklevou³~ Translation: Year 205, Agathokles being agoronomos (cf. No. 1 above)

161

Chapter 7: Lead Weights

L s³e¾ ajgoranomou’nto~ ÆAgaqoklevou~, was read by G. Finkielsztejn, as in Nos. 1 and 3 (Finkielsztejn 1998:34–35). e in cursive form; a rare round s. Reverse: Diagonal network pattern.

Translation: agoronomos

Year

205(?),

Agathokles(?)

being

Reverse: Diagonal network pattern. 4. Inv. No. 61-723-1157-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 70.83 g, length 4.7 cm, width 4.7 cm, thickness 0.3–0.5 cm.

Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus III (222–187 BCE) and Alexander II Zebines (128–123 BCE). 3. Inv. No. 97-01-101-M1; Square Weight with Lug Dimensions: Weight 83.7 g, length 5.1 cm, width 5.3 cm, thickness 0.5 cm.

Cat. No. 4.

Cat. No. 3.

Partially preserved. Obverse: Raised border with a Macedonian shield in the center and traces of an inscription on one side. Transcription: LS³E³AGORA³|NOMOU³ Reconstruction: L se³¾ aj g ora³ | nomou³ ` [ nto~ ÆAgaqoklevou(~)] (?)5

Obverse: Raised outer border with two inner borders and a circular, flat decoration in the center and an inscription around the sides. The inscription is written on the inner sloping side of all four sides of the border, read from the outside. Transcription: AG .. AN | HRAKL[E]ID | APOLLWNI . | L ü³M³P, (probably L G³M³R³) Reconstruction: ajg[or]an(omou'nto~(?)| ‘Hrakleivd(ou)| ’Apolloniv[ou] | L ü³M³R (or G³MR³) Translation: Heraklides son of Apollonios being agoronomos, 143rd (or 146th ?) year... Reverse: Diagonal network pattern.

162

Hava B. Korzakova

5. Inv. No. 61-366-211-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 65.85 g, length 4.7 cm, width 4.7 cm, thickness 0.2–0.4 cm.

6. Inv. No. 169-02-16-M2; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 69.0 g, length 5.4 cm, width 5.3 cm, thickness 0.25 cm.

Cat. No. 5.

Obverse: Raised border with a circular, flat device (a Macedonian shield[?]) in the center. There is room for an inscription on the perimeter, of which some letters remain: Transcription: .E³OUS³ Reverse: Traces of a diagonal network pattern.

Cat. No. 6.

Obverse: Border, caduceus surrounded by an inscription. Transcription: A³GA ³ Q ³ O³KLEOU³ | ... | AG³ORANO³M | ... Reconstruction: jA³g³a³qo³klevou³(~)|...| ¢g³orano³m(ou'nto~)| ... Translation: When Agathokleos [and...?] was (or were ?) agoranomos (agoranomoi?) Reverse: Traces of border, a diagonal network pattern.

163

Chapter 7: Lead Weights

7. Inv. No. 169-02-16-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 136.7 g, length 5.0 cm, width 5.0 cm, thickness 0.65 cm.

8. Inv. No. 930-70-242-M2; Rectangular Weight Dimensions: Weight 142.05 g, length 4.9 cm, width 5.6 cm, thickness 0.8 cm.

Cat. No. 7. Cat. No. 8.

Obverse: Double cornucopia surrounded by an inscription. Transcription: LASAGOR|ANOM|ONTOS|SWSIB³.O³U Reconstruction: L as¾ ajgor|anom|o(u')nto~ | Sw³sib³[iv]o³u Translation: Year 201, Sosibios being agoranomos Sw³sib³[iv]o³u. A lunate sigma (while in the date the sigma is angular); retrograde N. Reverse: Diagonal network pattern.

Obverse: Rounded corners, a double border and the helmets of Dioskouroi (Dioscuri; cf. Declodt 1914) in the center.

164

Hava B. Korzakova

9. Inv. No. 1-1283-221-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 69 g, length 4.8 cm, width 5.2 cm, thickness 0.4 cm.

Translation: Year 150 (or 140). Apollonios son of Diodoros being agoranomos, 8 (or 1/8 or 1/2) Line 1 Also possibly LMR Lines 2 and 4 Reversed w Line 5 H is probably some sort of weight mark, most probably meaning ‘1/8’, or the short form of ¯mi-, meaning ‘half’. Reverse: Traces of a diagonal network pattern. 10. Inv. No. 1-1283-222-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 62.58 g, length 5.0 cm, width 5.0 cm, thickness 0.4 cm.

Cat. No. 9.

Obverse: Raised double border with a cornucopia(?) in the center and a five-line inscription. Transcription: 1. LN³R³ AGO 2. APOLLW³ 3. NIO³U³ T³OU 4. DIODWRO 5. H Interpretation: 1. (e[tou~) n³r³ (or m³r³) ajgo(ranomou'nto~) 2. ÆApollw3. nivou tou' 4. Diodwvro(u) 5. H

Cat. No. 10.

Chapter 7: Lead Weights

Obverse: Raised double border with a double cornucopia in the center and a three-line inscription. Transcription: 1. AGORANOMOU 2. L ~ (cornucopia) 3. ]I³PTR[ Reconstruction: 1. ajgoranovmou 2. L ~³³[ ].. (cornucopia) 3. [...]iptr³[

165

third and the fourth lines, the dividing line forms a loop in the center. Transcription: 1. AGORANO 2. MOUNTWN 3. TOQXR³L³H³ 4. MEN³E³KRATOU 5. AQHNODWROU

Translation: ... being agoronomos... year 6

Reconstruction: 1. ajgorano2. mouvntwn 3. TOQ XR³ L h³ 4. Menekravtou 5. jAqhnodwvrou

Line 2 ~ is almost illegible

Translation: (?) the eighth year, Menekratos and Athenodoros being agoronomoi

Line 3 ÆAnt]iv³p(a)tr³[ou(?)

Line 2 The letters wn are small, written at the top of the line.

Reverse: Diagonal network pattern.

Line 3 The five first letters are unclear. The following two letters L³H³ are almost illegible, but read ‘year 8’.

11. Inv. No. 53-205C-758-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 64.8 g, length 5.0 cm, width 4.8 cm, thickness 0.3–0.5 cm. Obverse: Raised border with a zigzag decoration and a five-line inscription. Dividing lines separate each line of text (except between Lines 1 and 2). Between the

Line 4 The letters tou are small, written at the top of the line. Reverse: Diagonal network pattern.

Cat. No. 11.

166

Hava B. Korzakova

12. Inv. No. 61-701-1043-M1; Round Weight Dimensions: Weight 62.85 g, diameter 4.5 cm, thickness 0.3–0.5 cm.

13. Inv. No. 61-701-1129-M1; Round Weight Dimensions: Weight 69 g, diameter 4.1 cm, thickness 0.5–0.6 cm.

Cat. No. 13. Cat. No. 12.

Obverse: Cornucopia on a raised field. Reverse: raised central knob, with seven branches emanating from it; it may be interpreted as a rosette or a star. Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), Antiochus III (222– 187 BCE), Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), Alexander I Balas (152–144 BCE), Demetrius II (130– 125 BCE) and Alexander II Zebines (128–123 BCE).

Obverse: Macedonian shield with a flattened thickened edge. Reverse: Occasional discontinued incised line on the right side with a thickened edge. Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), Antiochus III (222– 187 BCE), Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), Alexander I Balas (152–144 BCE), Demetrius II (130– 125 BCE) and Alexander II Zebines (128–123 BCE).

167

Chapter 7: Lead Weights

14. Inv. No. 100-263-1104-M1; Round Weight Dimensions: Weight 576.73 g, diameter 9.0 cm, thickness 0.7 cm.

Obverse: Elaborate Macedonian shield, folded edge. Reverse: Molded monogram (APO) and network pattern made of thin incised lines. Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), Antiochus VII Sidetes (138–129 BCE) and Alexander II Zebines (128–123 BCE). 15. Inv. No. 147-2-592-M1; Domed Weight Dimensions (before cleaning): Weight 107.5 g, length 3.6 cm, width 3.5 cm, thickness 1.3 cm.

Cat. No. 15.

Traces of a Macedonian shield on one side(?). No other decoration has survived.

Cat. No. 14.

168

Hava B. Korzakova

16. Inv. No. 70/89-1-M1; Circular Weight Dimensions: Weight 511.8 g, diameter 7.5 cm, thickness 1.1 cm.

Large, with a raised border, a square protrusion from the main body and a worn-out figure or object. 17. Inv. No. 61-195-537-M2; Round Weight Dimensions: Weight 34.66 g, diameter 4.0 cm, thickness 0.2 cm.

Cat. No. 17.

Obverse: A nine-petaled rosette on a raised field in the center, surrounded by an inscription and a raised edge. Transcription: HMIOGDO³O³N³ Reconstruction: hJmiovgdo³o³n³ Translation: 1/16 (of the local standard; read by G. Finkielsztejn, see Chapter 8) The letters are inscribed toward the center of the weight. Reverse: Four superimposed lozenges in the form of an eight-pointed star.

Cat. No. 16.

Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE).

169

Chapter 7: Lead Weights

18. Inv. No. 61-338-117-M1; Round Flat Weight Dimensions: Weight 41 g, diameter 3.4 cm, thickness 0.6 cm.

20. Inv. No. 61-195-537-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 343.68 g, length 7.5 cm, width 6.5 cm, thickness 0.7 cm.

Cat. No. 18.

Raised borders; no decoration has survived. 19. Inv. No. 61-A24-0; Round Weight Dimensions: Weight 44.29 g, diameter 4.0 cm, thickness 0.5 cm.

Cat. No. 20.

Large and rounded square weight, unevenly broken. Obverse: There appears to have been some sort of a decoration. Reverse: Raised border and a very protruding cross. Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE). 21. Inv. No. 61-710-1068-M1; Oval Weight Dimensions: Weight 76.13 g, length 5.0 cm, width 4.0 cm, thickness 0.4 cm.

Cat. No. 19.

A device was carved on the obverse, the reverse is undecorated. Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) and Alexander I Balas (152–144 BCE).

Cat. No. 21.

170

Hava B. Korzakova

Presently, the weight is smooth on both sides, but there may have been an inscription.

Small, with raised border. No figure or inscription was visible.

Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE).

Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Seleucus IV (187–175 BCE).

22. Inv. No. 61-150-581-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 6.06 g, length 1.5 cm, width 1.5 cm, thickness 0.3 cm.

25. Inv. No. 61-713-1064-M1; Rectangular Weight Dimensions: Weight 5.06 g, length 1.8 cm, width 2.0 cm, thickness 0.15 cm.

Cat. No. 22.

Small and undecorated. Cat. No. 25.

Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), Hyrcanus I (135–104 BCE) and a coin of Ascalon (135–104 BCE?).

Small, with rounded corners, smooth on both sides.

23. Inv. No. 61-308-21-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 12.71 g, length 2.0 cm, width 2.0 cm, thickness 0.25 cm.

26. Inv. No. 61-721-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 17.24 g, length 2.0 cm, width 2.3 cm, thickness 0.3–0.4 cm.

Cat. No. 23.

Small; smooth on both sides.

Cat. No. 26.

Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138–129 BCE).

Small, with traces of a thickened flame and a possible figure or device on both sides.

24. Inv. No. 61-706-1045-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 38.43 g, length 2.8 cm, width 2.8 cm, thickness 0.5 cm.

27. Inv. No. 100-235-1032-M1; Weight(?) or Die(?) Dimensions: Weight 10.62 g, length 1.3 cm, width 1.1 cm, thickness 0.9 cm.

Cat. No. 27.

Cat. No. 24.

171

Chapter 7: Lead Weights

28. Inv. No. 147-07-931-M1; Square Flat Weight Dimensions (before cleaning): Weight 67.79 g, length 3.0 cm, width 3.0 cm, thickness 0.9 cm.

30. Inv. No. 61-701-1036-M1; Rectangular Weight Dimensions: Weight 67.1 g, length 4.7 cm, width 3.7 cm, thickness 0.4 cm.

Cat. No. 28.

Undecorated.

Cat. No. 30

29. Inv. No. 147-07-900-M1; Square Weight Dimensions: Weight 123.45 g, length 5.3 cm, width 5.3 cm, thickness 0.5 cm.

Raised borders. The inscription has not survived. Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), Antiochus III (222– 187 BCE), Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), Alexander I Balas (152–144 BCE), Demetrius II (130–125 BCE) and Alexander II Zebines (128–123 BCE). 31. Inv. No. 930-50-154-M1; Piece of Lead Dimensions (before cleaning): Weight 53.3 g, length 4.0 cm, width 2.0 cm, thickness 1.0 cm.

Cat. No. 31.

A rectangular piece of lead with one curved corner; it seems to be a weight. Cat. No. 29.

Incised lines on both sides; no other decoration has survived.

172

Hava B. Korzakova

32. Inv. No. 84-27-777-M1; Rectangular Weight Dimensions: Weight 112.6 g, length 8.0 cm, width 3.5 cm, thickness 0.3–0.4 cm. Large, with a hole for handling, and remains of raised borders; no figure or inscription preserved. Related Numismatic Finds: Coins of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), as well as some Seleucid coins.

Cat. No. 32.

Notes 1 We would like to thank Alla Kushnir-Stein of Tel Aviv University for her kind help in this research (see KushnirStein 1997, 1999, 2002; Kloner, Kushnir-Stein and Korzakova 2008). 2 For a correction of Kaplan’s reading, see Di Segni 1997:464–465.

3 The numismatic report will be published separately by Rachel Barkay. 4 See Kushnir-Stein 2010: commentary on Weights A7–A9. 5 The year is the same as on the previous weights, the name of the agoranomos is also apparently the same.

R eferences Bliss F.J. and Macalister R.A.S 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London. Bruneau Ph. 1968. Contribution à l’histoire urbaine de Délos a l’époque Hellénistique et à l’époque impériale. BCH 92:633–709. Declodt A. 1914. Note sur des poids grecs et byzantins du Musée biblique de Sainte-Anne. RB 1914:549–555. Di Segni L. 1997. Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Empereur J.-Y. 1980. Collection Paul Canellopoulos (XVII). Petits objects inscrits. BCH 105:555–561. Finkielsztejn G. 1998. More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps. BAIAS 16:33–63. Jones A.H.M. 1940. The Greek City. Oxford.

Kaplan J. 1981. Evidence of the Trajanic Period at Jaffa. Eretz Israel 15:412–416 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 416). Kloner A. 1976. Flan Mold from Khirbet Rafi. ‘Atiqot (ES) 11:112–113. Kloner A., Kushnir-Stein A. and Korzakova H. 2008. An Inscribed Palestinian Weight Mentioning the Emperor Claudius. IEJ 58:195–197. Kushnir-Stein A. 1997. On the Chronology of Some Inscribed Lead Weights from Palestine. ZDPV 113:88–91. Kushnir-Stein A. 1999. On Some Inscribed Lead Weights from Palestine. Rivista Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica e antichità classiche 28:221–234. Kushnir-Stein A. 2002. New Hellenistic Lead Weights from Palestine and Phoenicia. IEJ 52:225–230. Kushnir-Stein A. Forthcoming. Inscribed Hellenistic Weights of Palestine. INR 6.

Chapter 7: Lead Weights

Lifshitz B. 1976. Bleigewichte aus Palästina und Syrien. ZDPV 92:168–187. Macalister R.A.S. 1904. Excavation of Gezer; Supplementary Notes to the Eighth Report. PEFQSt:194–228; 357– 360. Mann F. 1984. Some Weights of the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Museum 7). Jerusalem. Mason H.J. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (American Studies in Papyrology 13). Toronto. Oren E.D. 1965. The Caves of the Palestinian Shefela. Archaeology 18:218–244.

173

Qedar S. 1986–1987. Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the Early History of Tiberias. INJ 9:29–35. Robinson D.M. 1941. Excavation at Olynthos 10. Oxford. Pp. 418–443. Rostovtzeff M. 1941. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford. Sayce A.H. 1904. Inscribed Weights. In R.A.S. Macalister. Supplementary Notes on the Eighth Report. PEFQst: 357–358. Seyrig H. 1946–1948. Poids antiques de la Syrie et de la Phénicie sous la domination greque et romaine. BMB 8:37–77.

Chapter 8

The Maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History Gerald Finkielsztejn

Introduction Thirty-seven, probably thirty-eight, weights were found at, or may be attributed to, Maresha (Hellenistic Marisa).1 Thirty-two of the weights were discovered in Kloner’s excavations (see Chapter 7: Nos. 1–32), and, of the other five (see below, Nos. 33–37), two were recovered from F.J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister’s excavations (Nos. 33, 35; Bliss and Macalister 1902:61, Figs. 27, 28; Macalister 1903:303), one from E. Oren’s survey (No. 34; Oren 1965:222, photograph; Finkielsztejn 1998a:33–35), and three are in private collections. Of the last three, one (No. 36), formerly in the Spaer collection, seems to originate from Maresha on the basis of the inscription it bears, which is identical to that of the sekoma (measuring table for liquids) found in situ in Area 100 (see Chapter 9; Finkielsztejn 1999; Kushnir-Stein 2002:226; Spaer Auction 2007:6, 8, No. 386); the second (No. 37), from the Hendin collection (Hendin 2007:199, No. 293), was cast in the same mold as No. 1; and finally, the third, formerly in the Spaer collection, was made in the same mold as No. 12. These last two examples may have been made elsewhere and perhaps one, No. 37, was brought to Maresha (Spaer Auction 2007:18, No. 418). The last example is not included in the objects studied here (see below). The objects referred to in this chapter are presented in Table 8.1 according to weight type, and not according to the catalog order in Chapter 7. The numbers in the first column are Korzakova’s catalog numbers (Chapter 7: Nos. 1–32), plus five weights (Nos. 33– 37) from the previous excavations and the private collections described above. All objects were made of lead, except for No. 35, which is made of bronze. They could all be examined, except for No. 34, which is known only through the files of the IAA archives.2 Such a large collection of weights, found in archaeological context at one site, is a rare occurrence, and it may help provide a better understanding of

the metrology of the Southern Levant3 during the Hellenistic period (for two other sites that provided several weights, see Dar and Nagar-Hillman 2009). For example, six of the weights bearing the ‘Macedonian shield’ as a device belong to the same series. Unfortunately, the chemical reactions of the lead, resulting from centuries of exposure to various types of earth, make it difficult to ascertain the exact value of the standards used (Seyrig 1946–1948:73, 76). The study of the finds from Maresha presented below follows a progression from obvious data to doubtful. Comparisons are made with similar weights found in the Southern Levant and in the neighboring regions, in an attempt to identify connections between these weights and various weighing systems used in the area during the Hellenistic period. As some of the weights are dated, it is interesting to examine them from a chronological perspective, especially those found in situ in rooms of the Lower City. The ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series also bears historical meaning, which was previously addressed (Finkielsztejn 1998a:33–38, 48, 58).

The Weights Types The Agathokles/Macedonian Shield Series of Year 205 of the Seleucid Era (108/7 BCE) Six lead weights (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 33, 34 and 37) belong to this series. The same hand engraved all their molds. These weights bear the same inscription: ñ seV ajgoranomou`nto~ ÆAgaqoklevou~.4 The inscription always starts with the date, running clockwise along the framed sides, around the central device, and the lug is always located on the second side. They display a Macedonian shield as a device with the name and function of the agoranomos Agathokles. The date ‘Year 205’, which is at the beginning of the inscription, is indicated on all the denominations. On the smaller

176

Gerald Finkielsztejn

ones (Nos. 1 and 37), the name of the agoranomos is abbreviated to ÆAgaqoklev(ou~), as there is not enough room. On the larger denomination (No. 34), there is a vacat after the name (see below). Longer words (name or function) may (very rarely) appear in abbreviated form, as is the case on Nos. 4, 9 and 36. The name and office of the agoranomos may be entirely missing, or sometimes may be represented solely by a device. Generally, the date appears to be more important information than the name of the magistrate, as it is more commonly mentioned on weights of the Southern Levant. The only possible era for the large span of years dating our weights is the Seleucid, commencing in October 312 BCE. For the present series, 205 Seleucid Era (SE) is equivalent to 108/7 BCE. The following examples represent three different denominations. Two groups of these weights were made in the same pair of molds for the obverse and reverse (Nos. 2, 3 and 33 on the one hand, and Nos. 1 and 37 on the other). This promising series of weights suffers from not having been equally researched. It appears, however, that each denomination is roughly double the weight of the preceding one, although their present weights are not as exact: 68.8 g (No. 37), 74.97 g (No. 1, certainly an overestimated weighing error; this assumption is confirmed by the comparison with No. 37 and the calculation based on the other weights), 122 g (present weight) or 145 g (published weight; No. 33, but rather c. 134/138 g when compared with Nos. 3 and 2), 134.13 g (No. 3, restored from a fragment), 138.30 g (No. 2), 210 g (No. 34, certainly underestimated, based on the unpublished draft, kept in the IAA archives). The restored weights of Nos. 3 and 2 seem to confirm one of the theories previously developed (Finkielsztejn 1998a:37–38), suggesting that the weight of 145 g for No. 33, as originally published, could have been that at the moment of its discovery (although overestimated), and that its weights in 1921 (124 g) and at present (122.1 g) are the result of a break, corrosion by exposure to modern air, and also of two cleanings in laboratories. Weight No. 1 is overestimated due to preservation and also weighing conditions during an early stage of the study (and was not available for reweighing). The weight of No. 3 is roughly restored by calculation on the basis of the remaining fragment, the surface of which was calculated as being about 62.4% of the total. Weight No. 34 could not be re-examined, and therefore, its weight could not be checked. On

the basis of the analysis of the collection of similar examples from Maresha, the theoretical weights of the various denominations of the Agathokles/Macedonian shield series may be estimated at roughly 69 g (Nos. 1 and 37), 138 g (Nos. 2, 3 and possibly 33) and 276 g (No. 34). The difference between the published and theoretical weights of No. 34 (c. 66 g) is certainly problematic. Although its recorded weight is roughly three times that of No. 37, and as the latter is certainly one-eighth of the standard, an intentional fraction of 3/8 for No. 34 does not seem likely, due to lack of parallels among contemporary weights. However, the very rough comparison with the values of Nos. 37 (oneeighth) and 2 (one-fourth) ascertains that the weight of No. 34 (which does not appear very eroded, either in the picture or in the drawing of the profile) was indeed close to 276 g (one-half) and not as recorded in the archives of Oren’s excavations.5 Weights with Macedonian (or other) Shields Four other weights from Maresha (Nos. 4[?], 5, 13, 14) bear the Macedonian shield as a device. The two circular examples (Nos. 13, 14) clearly display all the features of the device. Weight No. 5 is similar to Nos. 13 and 14, but is different in style. Its badly preserved inscription seems to have the ending ¼evou~, as in the previous series. It was definitely engraved by a different artist. No other interpretation can be offered for the round domed device with some eroded rounded protrusions that appears on No. 4, which seems to bear the date of 143 SE (170/169 BCE), sixty-two years earlier than the ‘Agathokles/ Macedonian shield’ series. A similar round device, which appears on No. 36, depicts most likely a shield (but not a Macedonian one) dated to 170 SE (143/2 BCE), thirtythree years earlier than the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series (Kushnir-Stein 2002:226, Fig. 2). Weight No. 14, the largest of the four, is adorned with a Macedonian shield very similar to that of the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series. However, there is a monogram on the reverse that cannot be restored as ÆAgaqoklh`~/evou~. The minimum development of the monogram is APO. This may be the beginning of the name of another agoranomos, who was in charge during an earlier or (probably less likely?) later (following?) year, e.g., the beginning of 107 BCE. Weight Nos. 5, 13 and 14 do not seem to belong to the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series (although the latter two may, on the basis

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

of their style). Perhaps they were produced in the same year, or possibly in the two preceding ones, according to historical considerations (see Finkielsztejn 1998a: 47–51). Weight No. 36 allows the restoration of the patronymic of one of the two agoranomoi of 170 SE (143/2 BCE), ïHliovdwro~, mentioned on the sekoma (measuring table) found at Maresha (see Chapter 9; Finkielsztejn 1999:59; Kushnir-Stein 2002:226). The sekoma was certainly made in Maresha, as it remained in situ when the owner of the house fled (after sealing the outer door of the house). It could not be transported, contrary to weights, which are easily carried. Therefore, we also attribute No. 36 to Maresha, because it bears the same names and date as the sekoma. On the onomastics of that weight, see below. Inscribed Weights, with or without Devices Six other weights are inscribed, with (Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 17) or without (No. 11) devices.6 Weight No. 17 is the only example in the collection whose weight unit is fully spelled out: hJmiovgdoon, ‘half of an eighth’, i.e., ‘a sixteenth’. The unit is also provided on No. 9, and probably on No. 11, in an abbreviated manner: the letter ‘H’—at the end of the inscription on the former, and maybe in the middle of the inscription on the latter— stands for the number ‘8’, according to the Greek alphabetical numbering system, where each letter has a numerical value.7 Indeed, in comparison with No. 17, the weight of Nos. 9 and 11 can only be ‘one-eighth’ of the standard (o[gdoon), as they are about twice the weight of No. 17 (No. 9 = 69 g, No. 11 = 64.8 g and No. 17 = 34.66 g). For the metrological study, see below. The reading of No. 9 was possible only after cleaning. It bears the office of agoranomos in the abbreviated form ajgo( , as on some Tyrian weights (Babelon 1898:464–465, No. 7465; Bordreuil and Gubel 1990:508–509, Fig. 27; Wolff and Finkielsztejn 2009).8 The verbal form ajgo(ranomou`nto~), rather than the noun in genitive ajgo(ranovmou), seems to be the intended restoration of the word, as the former is by far the most common expression used on weights of the Southern Levant. The patronymic of the agoranomos is not fully ascertained. Korzakova reads the name Diovdwro~ (see Chapter 7: No. 9), while the author sees only a ‘triangular’ letter for the initial A, D or L and the ending ¼rou. On the other hand, we do agree on the reading of ‘Year 140’ SE (173/2 BCE).

177

Weight No. 10 bears an unclear date in the Seleucid era. It may be a lunate sigma, L s¾, meaning ‘Year 200’ (113/2 BCE). Another possibility is a partly readable date, with a stigma (~¾), i.e., ‘6’. It is unlikely that ‘Year 6’ refers to the Seleucid Era (307/6 BCE), for stylistic, archaeological and historical reasons. Hence, it can either be L »r¼~¾, i.e., ‘Year 106’ (207/6 BCE), which seems still quite early for historical reasons, or »r.¼~¾. In the latter case, it most likely refers to a year in the second half of the second century BCE, i.e., after the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV in 175 BCE (see Finkielsztejn 2007).9 However, it is not certain that the letters/figures descend from left to right. The reading L s~¾, i.e., ‘Year 206’ (107/6 BCE) seems unlikely as well, as the weight is less well preserved than those of the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series dated a year earlier. The author tends to favor the first reading: L s¾. Only the end of the name of the agoranomos in charge seems barely legible: ¼avtou or ¼avtrou, in genitive. The other faintly preserved letters (possibly with a sigma as the initial) may suggest a name such as Swvstrato~, Swvpatro~ or Swsivpatro~. ÆAntivpatro~, suggested by Korzakova, cannot be ruled out. Two parallel cornucopiae, and possibly an additional eroded device to their left, decorated the obverse of No. 10, as well as No. 7 (for a single cornucopia, see Chapter 7: No. 12). Weight No. 11 mentions the office in the verbal form ajgoranomouvntwn and the names of two agoranomoi, Menekravth~ (kai;) ÆAqhnovdwro~. Room was not provided for the mention of the conjunction kai; (or was it considered unnecessary?), as is the case in No. 36 (with shield). As shown by studies of many examples of weights, in the Hellenistic Levant, the office was held by only one agoranomos per year, although there are exceptional pairs (Finkielsztejn 2003, 2007, forthcoming b). It is only in the Roman period that more than one magistrate might have been in office, often for only six months. The date, which most probably appeared in the third line, is unfortunately not fully legible. It could be an addition to the mold, i.e., a re-engraving. The letters that seem to be legible are toe¾ (375) or toq¾ (379). If these dates are according to the Seleucid Era, they would be in the first century CE (63 or 67 CE). Such a late dating is very unlikely, given the style of the weight, which is definitely Hellenistic, as evidenced by the network pattern on the reverse. Moreover, there is no archaeological evidence of a dense enough occupation on the site in that period, notwithstanding the fact that

178

Gerald Finkielsztejn

literary sources indicate that Maresha was destroyed by the Parthians in 40 BCE. The word e[tou~, i.e., ‘year’, is not normally found on weights of the Hellenistic period in the Southern Levant (but only in Syria and Northern Phoenicia), and it is, thus, not likely to have appeared here, followed by the (now) illegible figures of the year. In any event, there is no room for the symbol ‘L’, which is normally used to introduce the year in the Southern Levant, as on the other dated weights from Maresha (Finkielsztejn 1998b:98–99, with references therein, especially to Seyrig 1950:31–35). If the letter that looks like a tau is actually a badly engraved (or preserved) rho, the year may be read as roq¾, i.e., 179 SE (134/3 BCE). This reading, however, is far from secure, be it only because, as noted above, the order ‘hundreds–tens–units’ is unusual. Some unclear signs follow the suggested date. Another solution could be correcting the end of the word from plural to singular, without erasing the previous inscription, followed by an unclear date and the value of the weight— AGORANOƒMOUNTWNƒTOS »...¼ H. However, this seems an overly complicated restoration. Considering the internal homogeneity of the group—a succession of ‘units–tens–hundreds’ for the dates—one may suggest the reading gor¾ as the best possibility. If the symbol ‘L’ is actually missing, it could mean that the weight originated in Syria, and the date would thus be 173 SE (140/139 BCE). In my opinion, the matter of the date of this weight remains unsolved. The letter h seems to occur at the very end of this line, as suggested by Korzakova. Here, one would expect it to represent the value of the weight (one-eighth of a mina), which, indeed, fits its weight of 64.8 g. A similar inscription appears on No. 4, where neither the article tou` (between the name and the patronymic) nor the conjunction kaiv (associating two agoranomoi) appears between the two names, ïHrakleivdh~ and ÆApollwvnio~. As the mention of the office is abbreviated ajgoran( , it is impossible to know whether one or two person(s) held the office of agoranomos that year. In any event, it is unlikely that the date comprised a digamma for the units, as suggested by Korzakova. Therefore the date is 143 SE, i.e., 170 BCE. Weight No. 6 was manufactured under the authority of (at least) one agoranomos, who used the caduceus as a device and whose name is the same as that on the weights of the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series. As the date did not survive, it is not possible to even surmise whether he could be the same person who may

have held the office in two different years. The device on weights of the Southern Levant seems to be related to the agoranomos—in most cases if not all of them, as this author would surmise it does—and not to the city. Therefore, two homonyms could be named in Maresha, each one with his personal device. The author knows of only two instances when two different agoranomoi were in office the same year, and, therefore, most probably in two different cities: (a) in 122/1 BCE, agoranomos Nikandros (Decloedt 1914:552–553, No. 4, found in Ascalon) and agoranomos Apollonios (Lifshitz 1976:173–174, No. 11, from a private collection;10 (b) in 108/7 BCE, agoranomos Agathokles from Maresha and agoranomos Ptolemy son of Ptolemy (Decloedt 1914:549–551, No. 1).11 Weights with Devices Only Seven weights seem to bear only a device (Nos. 8, 12, 19, 20, 26, 29, 35). Remains of an unidentified device are visible on Nos. 19 and 26 (see below). A single cornucopia appears on No. 12. A better preserved example of the same molds as No. 12, known from a private collection (Spaer Auction 2007:18, No. 418), seems to bear traces of letters on the frame, as can be judged from the photograph in the catalog. However, this was not confirmed by Kushnir-Stein (pers. comm.), who examined the object. The weight from the collection may have originated from Maresha (as is certainly the case for No. 36, also belonging to the same collection). The device on No. 8 consists of the two caps of the Dioscuri (piloi) and the weight may have been inscribed, but its present state of preservation does not allow any reading. This device is connected to the city of Tripoli, but it cannot be ascertained that No. 8 originated there. Weight No. 35 displays concentric lines, a pattern similar to the reverse of some other weights (e.g., Gatier 1991:436, Fig. 1). Weight No. 29 bears only incisions. On the obverse (within a thick frame) is a badly incised ‘Union Jack’ or ‘Basque flag’ pattern, of which some lines are out of place or missing. The reverse has an unclear design (a standing man?). Incisions are known on weights from Ashdod, for example, one of them displaying a neatly incised ‘Basque flag’ pattern (Dothan and Freedman 1967:26, Fig. 9: 6; Dothan 1971:67–68, Fig. 30:8). Weight No. 20 does not have a device, but the protruding cross may either have had some symbolic meaning or may simply have facilitated the handling

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

of the weight. It looks quite different from the other ‘sophisticated’ weights, and it may be of a completely different manufacture and date, as may be evidenced by its weight (see below). Plain Weights The remaining weights are plain (Nos. 15, 16, 18, 21–25, 27, 28, 30, 31[?], 32), i.e., devoid of devices or inscriptions. Some bear a raised frame (Nos. 18, 22, 25, 32), as most of the above examples of larger weights. Weight No. 22 has, in addition, a thickened ‘bar’ in its field. Weight No. 30 may have been inscribed, but its present state of preservation does not allow any certainty. Weight No. 26 seems to preserve traces of a device. Weight No. 28 has a square base and a domed profile. Weight No. 15 has a domed profile, but is so crudely made that it is even questionable whether it is actually a weight, as well as No. 21. Some examples (Nos. 23, 24, 27) display a purely geometrical form. Plain objects may be small lead ingots, used, for example, for the mending of pottery (I owe this suggestion to O. Heymann, who will publish the weights from Dor; for a workshop of lead processing, see Monteix 2005).

Onomastics Weight No. 7 seems to imply that in 201 SE (112/1 BCE), the administration at Maresha was most probably under Greco-Macedonian influence, as its design does not differ from that on weights attributed to the Southern Levant (Kushnir-Stein, forthcoming; although a double cornucopia was used by the Hasmonean dynasty on coins, but with a different design). This would support the suggestion that the first conquest of Maresha by John Hyrcanus I did not occur before 111 BCE (see conclusions below).12 The name of the agoranomos Swsivbio~ is clearly Greek. In the Hellenistic period, however, a purely Greek name may not indicate the ethnic origin of his bearer, who could actually be a ‘Semite’ in Maresha (Idumean or Phoenician). The names of the first agoranomos mentioned on weight No. 36 and his father are both Greek names, known from the onomastics of the necropolis of Maresha. These names were adopted by the local population. For example, the name ‘Antipatros’ was very common among the Idumeans, and the Idumean name ‘Qosnatan’ would

179

probably be translated ‘Apollodoros’, since Apollo was the interpretatio greca of the Idumean god Qos; ‘Heliodoros’ is probably a translation of a Phoenician theophoric name (see Finkielsztejn 2005). The presence of Phoenicians in Maresha is at least supported by the occurrence of the goddess Astarte, who could be no other than Astarte Palestine–Aphrodite Ourania of Ascalon (Finkielsztejn 1992). As we do not have civic inscriptions, the question whether every agoranomos named on weights of the Southern Levant originated from a particular city modeled on the Greek polis, or whether he was in some cases a magistrate representing the central power of the Seleucids in a wider area, remains unsolved. However, some evidence seems to point to the former possibility (contrary to the undeveloped statement in Finkielsztejn 2003:472): no Greek standards were used in the Levant during the Seleucid period, but only local ones, traditionally used since the Bronze Age. Therefore, it is most likely that magistrates from the local populations would be in a better position to handle the measures used in their own city and region, as well as those of the neighboring ones (Finkielsztejn, forthcoming b). The names of the agoranomoi from Maresha are purely Greek, i.e., they do not seem to be translations of ‘local’ names, but rather names adopted by ‘Levantine natives’. Two exceptions seem to be: (1) Antipatros son of Heliodoros, who is associated with a colleague bearing a Greek name, Aristodamos son of Ariston( , rarely encountered in the Southern Levant, or elsewhere at Maresha (on No. 36 and on the sekoma; see Chapter 9); and (2) probably Herakleides son of (or associated with) Apollonios (on No. 4), his name being possibly a Tyrian theophoric name based on Melkart, and his father’s, based on Qos/Apollo.

Devices It does not seem likely in the Southern Levant that the devices on weights were symbols of the cities where they were manufactured, contrary to the weights from cities of Central and Northern Phoenicia (today Lebanon). The only possible case may be in Scythopolis-Bet She’an (Kushnir-Stein 2002:225– 226), an actual Greek city, founded by the Ptolemies (probably for a Scythian garrison rather than veterans) and refounded by Antiochus IV under the name of his daughter, Nysa. This assumption, however, is based only on the similarity of the relatively rare device of

180

Gerald Finkielsztejn

an ear of wheat appearing on two weights, one of them discovered at Bet She’an (see, however, Finkielsztejn 2003:473, n. 31, and 2007:39, with references to previous discussions, to which add Stieglitz 1999). The situation is different in Phoenicia, where weights from Tyre, Byblos, Arados and Marathos (and probably Beirut) bear various civic devices (see Finkielsztejn 2007). Additional data concerning Greek and Latin inscriptions on weights from Judea-Palestina will probably clarify these issues (see below ‘Conclusions’, Finkielsztejn 2007; Kushnir-Stein 2010).

Making and Using Lead Weights Most of the inscribed lead weights found at Maresha have a molded network pattern of crossed lines on the reverse. On No. 17, the lines are arranged in a star pattern. On No. 14, the network was incised instead of molded, and is situated mainly in the center of the object, creating a rectangle composed of three vertical long lines and six horizontal short ones. In addition, crossed diagonal lines were also incised (four and three in each direction). Weight No. 29 most probably also bore incised lines. These lines, molded or incised, were intended to prevent the falsification of the weight by smoothly scraping the whole surface of its back side in order to remove some of the lead, thus reducing its weight. The pattern may have been incised instead of molded to save time and cost, as a second, engraved mold would be required (see Elayi and Elayi 1997:237–264). The engravers of the molds for fancier weights were probably professional artists who would have been paid for their work. Copies of these official weights were permitted, under the auspices of the agoranomos. This may be inferred by an Athenian law of the late second century BCE (see Chapter 9; IG II2, 1013, cited in Finkielsztejn 1999:59). Similar weights are also known from Ashdod (Dothan 1971:68, Pl. 25:1, 4). The accuracy of the weight was of paramount importance. In that respect, the lug— generally understood as a handle—may have been molded with the rest of the object but, most probably, either fully made or modified by adding some lead, in order to adjust the weight to conform to the standard. The customer of ancient times could recognize a weight by its size or its general aspect (the value of the weight was generally not inscribed). The name of the agoranomos and the date appear on weights of the Southern Levant far more frequently than the

weight value. For this reason, the weight recorded on No. 34 does not seem likely (210 g, i.e., 3/8 of the standard, instead of c. 276 g, i.e., 1/2 of the standard). The absence of the value on the weight strengthens the suggestion that weights were primarily used in the area of the city where they were made. It appears that traders could carry their own weights to compare them with the local ones. Southern Levantine weights were retrieved from the sea, off ‘Atlit. The discovery of Tyrian weights in the Southern Levant (Finkielsztejn 2003:478–484; 2007, in preparation a; Wolff and Finkielsztejn 2009) implies that weights did ‘travel’ to neighbouring regions and were not used only in their city of production.

M etrology: F ractions and Standards at M aresha In order to illustrate the limitations of an attempt to restore the system(s) of weights used at Maresha on the basis of this assemblage, the following example should be borne in mind. Several examples (in bronze and lead) are known of a weight appearing to have been made from the same mold, which has been attributed by Pierre-Louis Gatier (1991) to the city of Seleucia in Pieria (Syria) and dated in 106/5 BCE. The weights recorded for the various copies are given as 790 g, 760 g (very well preserved), 752 g (incomplete example), 695.6 g and 615 g (very well preserved). Additionally, old publications that seem now impossible to check, recorded for these weights 925 g, 840 g and even “about 500 g” (Gatier 1991:434– 440; Finkielsztejn 1998a:38, 55, n. 3). Five of these weights could be checked. The average weight for these objects is 722.5 g and 768.2 g, for all but the last one. The difference between the actual weights and the average, for these checked weights, is: +67.5 (9.34%), +37.5 (5.19%), +29.5 (4.08%), –26.9 (3.72%) and –107.5 (14.88%). That some of the weights may be modern copies cannot be ruled out. The latter possibility cannot be the case for the present catalog, of course, as all the examples from Maresha were retrieved during excavations. There is no doubt that Nos. 36 and 37, from private collections, are genuine. The study of weights from the Southern Levant shows that they were based on a mina/mna divided in given numbers of sheqels of various weights (Finkielsztejn 2003:474; 2007:38–42, forthcoming b). The fractions of the mina inscribed on the weights

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

followed a binary progression: 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 (as on Nos. 9 and 11), 1/16 and so on (as on No. 17). This was also the case for contemporary weights from Seleucid Syria (Seyrig 1946–1948:74–75, Tables I and II). A 1/3 fraction of the mina is very seldom found (e.g., Spaer 2000:20–21). The number of sheqels for a mina varied, as shown by some inscriptions. In the Hellenistic period, there could be 40, 50, 60, 72, 88 or 100 sheqels for a mina, for which there are some clear references in the Hellenistic period, i.e., inscriptions on the objects themselves (except for 40 and 60). There existed a correlation between the minas based on different sheqels (see below; details in Finkielsztejn 2007 and forthcoming b). It is clear that for the plain weights, and especially the smallest denominations (if they are actually weights), it is impossible to conclude what fraction of what standard they represent. Table 8.1 displays the suggested standards of the mina attributed to each of the weights from Maresha. The ‘Local Mina’ of Maresha (‘Syrian-Southern Levantine Mina’) It appears that almost all the weights from Maresha were based on the ‘local’ mina (mna`, mna) standard of c. 560 g, deriving from one of the traditional Middle

Weights and Suggested Standards (g)

650

Eastern standards. A standard of c. 504 g is also known, but very seldom occurs in the Hellenistic world (Finkielsztejn, forthcoming b). By applying a binary progression to No. 9 (1/8 of a standard) and No. 17 (1/16 of a standard), it appears that at least twenty-two weights found in Maresha (out of thirty-two probable examples)—Nos. 1–7, 9–14, 16, 17, 19, 30, 33–37—and perhaps another three—Nos. 26, 28, 29 (i.e., twenty-five weights)—fit a system based on a standard situated between 500 and 599 g (Fig. 8.1). The span of 100 g between the two extremes may indicate that both standards might have been used. At least six of these weights are situated close to 552 g and it is difficult to decide where to put the limit between the two possibly used standards. The more so, as the weights of the better preserved examples of the ‘Macedonian Shield’ series are spread between 536.62 and 580 g (No. 1 being certainly overestimated). Therefore, all the weights with inscriptions or devices appear to belong to the main system used in the Southern Levant, based on a mina, at least from the second third of the second century BCE on (Finkielsztejn 2003; 2004; 2007; forthcoming b). Weight No. 21, although certainly overweighed, is too plain to determine whether it belongs to this series or rather to a ‘heavy mina’ standard (see below).

Standard of Mina

600

Weight

550

Standard of Litra

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

181

20 32 29 10 12 25 16 11 5 19 3 30 34 28 7 37 26 9 13 6

2 17 4

8 14 33 36 1 22 21 18 35

Catalog Number of the Weight (by Ascending Suggested Standards)

Fig. 8.1. Maresha weights and their suggested standards.

182

Gerald Finkielsztejn

The weight of No. 17, 34.66 g, is 1/16 of a standard (554.56 g); the weight of No. 11, 64.8 g, is 1/8 of a standard (518.4 g); and the weight of No. 9, 69 g, is 1/8 of a standard (552 g). This implies that two of the largest weights of this assemblage, Nos. 14 and 16, appear to be basic units for one (or maybe two) standard(s), each weighing more than 500 g (511.8 and 576.73 g respectively). Fortunately, No. 14 is part of the series displaying the Macedonian shield as a device. Therefore, one can deduce that all the other examples in the Macedonian shield series are fractions of that standard. Weight Nos. 1, 4, 5, 13 and 37 represent 1/8 of the standard, Nos. 2, 3 and 33 represent 1/4 of the standard, and No. 34 represents (theoretically) 1/2 of the standard, although it is underweight, perhaps as a consequence of its present state of preservation or (rather?) a mistake in the recording of its weight. Weight No. 29, with the ‘Union Jack’, also seems to be part of the series, representing 1/4 of the standard. Weight No. 26, with a thickened frame and maybe a device, probably also belongs to this standard, but its low denomination (1/32 of a standard of 551.68 g) raises some caution, as is the case for the smaller weights examined below. Weight No. 28 may also be included because of its weight, although its shape does not conform to the other weights in this series. Only twenty examples with both requirements of weight and an inscription/device, plus No. 16, were taken into consideration for the evaluation of the weight-standard that follows. The average weight for the standard of the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series (excluding No. 1, but including Nos. 3, 14 and the estimated corrected weight of No. 34) is 556.16 g, with maximum discrepancies of –19.54 (3.51%) and +23.84 (4.29%). The average weight for the standard of all the examples with a shield is 557.6 g, with maximum discrepancies of –30.8 (5.52%) and +36.0 (6.46%). The average weight of all the examples with an inscription or a device is 545.47 g, with maximum discrepancies of –44.83 (8.22%) and +48.13 (8.82%). The weights of the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series were most probably handled for a significantly shorter time than the other weights (see Finkielsztejn 1998a:49–50); therefore, they may be less worn and closer to the actual standard.13 Noteworthy are Nos. 2, 7, 9, 13, 17, 26 and 37 (more than a quarter of the total), which provide a standard of 550.4 to 554.56 g (average 552.26 g), the closest value to the ‘local mina’.

The ‘Heavy Mina’ The only bronze weight (No. 35) seems to be of a Hellenistic standard (669.445 g, published weight not checked). At some places and times in the Hellenistic period, a ‘heavy mina’ was used in Northern Phoenicia and Syria (see Seyrig 1946–1948:75, Laodicea), not very well defined metrologically: probably c. 645 g for the area of Byblos at least, but also 700–800 g (Hultsch 1882:643, with references therein; Finkielsztejn 2007:47–51, 57, Fig. 5; see Gatier 1991). Weight No. 21 is too plain to determine whether it belongs to this series, although it would be slightly underweight (see also below, ‘The Smaller Plain Weights’). The ‘Mina/Litra’ of the Early Roman Period About 10% of weight No. 20 seems to be missing and a restored weight of roughly 378 g can be suggested. It is physically quite different from the other weights and the protrusion in the form of a cross could be understood as a holding device, instead of the usual lug set on one side of the weight, which would support the identification of this item as a weight. A mina/litra of 370 ± 25 g seems to have been in use in the Herodian/ Early Roman period (Finkielsztejn, in preparation b). Maresha was most likely (although probably sparsely) occupied until 40 BCE, and this weight may have been used during the first half of the first century BCE or slightly later. However, this sole evidence—not even inscribed—for the use of the litra at Maresha is of course, inconclusive. This was not the Roman libra of about 326 g that was later introduced also in the Southern Levant (see Reich 2006). The Smaller Plain Weights Among the plain weights, the six relatively small ones (Nos. 22, 23, 25–27, 31) and the larger ones (Nos. 8, 15, 18, 24, 32) cannot be securely integrated into any of the systems described above. Four of them bear a raised frame found on most actual weights (Nos. 18, 22, 25 and 32). Weight Nos. 18 and 24 could fit into the ‘heavy mina’ system of Northern Phoenicia (1/16, i.e., 614.88 and 656 g respectively). The problem is even more difficult for the six very light plain weights. Even if they did travel with their owners (as suggested above), weights are primarily intended for local use, and the more so for very small denominations.

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

It has been suggested that No. 26 could have been a small denomination (1/32) of the ‘Syrian-Southern Levantine’ system, on the basis of its weight and its appearance. These small weights may be ‘Levantine’ sheqels, the weight of which could have been altered by preservation conditions. However, these values have all been deduced from large weights bearing a written value. Most small ‘ingots’ from Maresha could fit into any of the Northern Levant systems, which, anyway, do not seem to have been used at Maresha, despite No. 21 and especially No. 35. Besides the fact that they simply may not be weights, it is demonstrated that the multiplication of the value of weights of very small denominations to calculate their standards enhances the discrepancy with the actual theoretical weight of that standard (usually resulting in overestimations). This seems a consequence of both the probably lesser accuracy in their making and their state of preservation. Standards in Maresha and in the Hellenistic Southern Levant A standard is the main value on which a measure is based. The study of standards is based on both literary evidence, e.g., ancient ‘treaties’ on weights and measures (see Hultsch 1864), and an examination of the actual weights found in excavations (or, too often, in antiquities shops and private or museum collections, originating from illegal excavations). The latter type of analysis has been presented above. We will now briefly compare this assemblage with what is known about the various weight standards of the Hellenistic Eastern Mediterranean. The mina was the name given to the weight standard. In the third century BCE, the mina seems to have been less than 500 g (Finkielsztejn 1998a:38, based on Seyrig 1946–1948: especially 74–75, Tables I and II; Gatier 1986:377–378). The standards of secondcentury BCE Syria were over 500 g. In Antioch, they were up to 510 g; in Seleucia Pieria, up to 528 or 571.5 g; and less regularly, in Laodicea, up to 558 g. Otherwise, in the latter city, where evidence from the second and first centuries BCE is relatively scanty, the weight was higher, over 600, 700 or even 800 g. As already stated, in Hellenistic Syria the standard was the mina (mna`), functioning like other Greek weighing systems. It remained in use for some time in the Roman period and was also called litra (livtra), due to Early

183

Roman influence. This is evidenced by the standard which was over 500 g, far more than the Roman libra (which was c. 326 ± 1.5 g; see, for example, Hultsch 1864:228, l. 25; 190, s.v. livtra, 3.a, with references therein, 1882:706, Table 8, A, 715, Table 22; Seyrig 1946–1948:74, Table 1, Seleucia, Nos. 15 and 16; Rahmani 1980:106; Qedar 1986–1987:33; KushnirStein 1995:48–50; Kushnir-Stein and Gitler 1999:224– 225). In Syria, the progression was according to a binary system (1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8...) and the fractions are indicated generally in full, the minimum value known being 1/32 (see Table 8.1). Although the mina equaled 100 drachms, as in the Greek systems, there is not a single reference to the drachm on weights from Syria and the Levant. The mina was also used in Ptolemaic Egypt. Ancient sources make a distinction between the ‘Egyptian mina’, the ‘Ptolemaic mina’ and the ‘Alexandrine mina’. Hultsch has deduced that these weighed 437, 491.2 and 546 g respectively (Hultsch 1864:196, index with references therein; 1882:643, 645, with references therein). He arrived at these results through comparison with the Latin ounce (uncia; ou[nkia) and the Phoenician mina. As we have seen, in the Southern Levant, the main weight standard was also over 500 g. Therefore, it is also a mina close to that of Syria, the ruling power, and which provided the standard used during all of the Hellenistic period in that region. The word normally does not appear on weights of the area, except on one weight wrongly attributed to Dor (Stern 1994:311–312, Fig. 217; see Kushnir-Stein 1997:90, who is obviously correct in assigning this weight to the year 151/0 BCE; Spaer 2000), and possibly on one weight from Gezer (Macalister 1908–1909:281–282, 1912: 286–287; Vincent 1909:111; weighing 319 g, perhaps half a ‘heavy mina’ rather than a litra or a Roman libra, if it is indeed of the Hellenistic period, which seems likely according to its aspect). The reading on the former weight may be either »m¼na` or ‘m(na`) a’, that is ‘one mina’, weighing 512.5 g. Although the letter alpha may appear alone to indicate the value of one mina, the second reading has no parallel, and none of the two seem to have been read by Spaer (2000:20). The inscribed weights and those with a device from Maresha are evidence that a mina weighing between c. 545 and 558 g, close to 556 g, was used in the Southern Levant, as was the case in Syria in the contemporary period

184

Gerald Finkielsztejn

of the second century BCE. Considering that the mina equaled 50 sheqels, that of Maresha and of the Southern Levant was based on a sheqel of c. 556:50 = 11.12 g. This is very close to the sheqel of c. 11.33 g used in the Kingdom of Judah in the Iron Age, and known since the Bronze Age (references in Finkielsztejn, forthcoming b). Actually, one can assume that the sheqel of the Hellenistic Levant is identical to that of the Iron Age, taking into account the state of preservation of the lead versus that of the stone, from which the earlier weights were made (Kletter 1998:80, Fig. 12).

Conclusion: Metrology and History The mina is the standard that should be identified for most (probably all but No. 20) of the securely identified weights of Maresha, which I suggest calling the mina of the Southern Levant or the ‘local mina’ for Maresha. The difference in weight between the three heaviest examples (Nos. 14, 16, 35) may indicate that more than one standard was used or accepted in Maresha. However, the two former weights belong most probably to the same system, and No. 35 is the only ascertained representative of a ‘heavy mina’, together with the possible plain weight, No. 21. Some nuances may have distinguished the standards of different areas or cities in the region. This appears to have been the case in Syria: e.g., between Antioch, Seleucia Pieria and Laodicea (Seyrig 1946–1948). This may explain the values of the ‘local mina’ in Maresha, spread between 500 and 599 g, which could be divided into a ‘lighter local mina’ and a ‘heavier local mina’. However, the weights seem to reflect a different state of preservation rather than the use of two standards. But more examples of the possible ‘lighter local mina’ (which is evidenced in the Bronze Age, weighing c. 504 g) are needed to conclude that different standards existed in the Hellenistic Southern Levant. In any event, it is quite comforting to note that the values of the main standards securely identified do not overlap (Finkielsztejn 2003:475–476, n. 35; 2007). Was the most common standard influenced by either the Egyptian or the Syrian standards described above? While this is difficult to determine, the model cannot be any of the known Phoenician standards (Tyrian or North Phoenician), as they are either too light or much too heavy. The average weight of the Maresha examples may roughly fit into the ‘Alexandrine’ model. However, in the second–beginning of the first centuries

BCE, the weight of the ‘light mina’ of the main cities of Syria was set between 500 and 600 g, exactly as in the Southern Levant (Gatier 1986:378). Previously, I had suggested that the standard for the volumes of liquids identified in the sekoma (measuring table) found at Maresha could have been that used in Alexandria, although this conclusion should be considered tentative (see Chapter 9; Finkielsztejn 1999:58). If it could be demonstrated that the standards of Ptolemaic Egypt inspired those used in the Southern Levant, this would be another indication that the influence of the latter in the region persisted even after the Seleucid conquest. This has already been demonstrated for the Seleucid coinage in the region (Le Rider 1995). In the case of Maresha and the Idumeans, the political link with Egypt is also evidenced by the emigration of part of the population to Memphis at the time of the struggle between the two Seleucid brothers, Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX (Finkielsztejn 1998a:42–43, 47, with references therein). However, the oldest lead weights in the series of the mina of the Southern Levant known before the excavations at Maresha (to my knowledge) were an example found at Dor, dated 155 SE (158/7 BCE; Stern 1994:255, Fig. 176, left) and one from the Spaer collection, dated 148 SE (165/4 BCE; Kushnir-Stein 2002:229). Maresha now provides us with the oldest known dated weights of the Southern Levant: No. 9 (173/2 BCE) and No. 4 (170/169 BCE), the dates of which are reasonably secure. These data seem to point rather to a Syrian origin for the adoption of the standard used in the Southern Levant. It is somewhat strange that no earlier dated Hellenistic weights have been ever found. The periodical recycling of the lead weights by smelting and re-molding cannot explain this fact, as weights of several different later dates in the second and first centuries BCE were discovered. Although it is not yet possible to fully understand the mechanism, it seems that this phenomenon was related to the relative autonomy that Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) granted the various cities of the Southern Levant (see Finkielsztejn 2004:255–258; 2007:40–42). This is evidenced by the beginning of the minting of ‘semi-autonomous’ coins, made (only) of bronze—bearing the portrait of the king on the obverse and local ‘nationalistic’ devices on the reverse. The king seems to have been compelled to do so in order to get the cooperation of the Phoenician cities for trade in the area (and the accompanying taxes), as well as

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

the preparation of his campaigns against Egypt. In this respect, it is interesting to note that what seems to be the oldest Tyrian weight known so far—bearing a club of Herakles-Melkart—is double dated to 144 SE and 107 of the era of the ‘People of Tyre’, i.e., 169/8 BCE (Finkielsztejn 2003:478–480). The latter year witnessed both the outburst of the Maccabean revolt and the beginning of the …monnayage municipal en Syrie (see the demonstration in Schwartz 1982, citing Bikerman, p. 246; Morkholm 1965; Sartre 2001:177– 178, 344–352). It appears from the analysis of the objects that the weight systems in use under the Greco-Macedonian powers in Syria and the East were traditional ones, based on various sheqels. In addition, the use of local systems was retained in Phoenician cities and the surrounding lands. This was not a problem, as in the Aegean itself several standards were used (Attic, Chian, Rhodian). Further research has confirmed this hypothesis (Finkielsztejn, forthcoming b). In the Hellenistic Southern Levantine and Tyrian systems, based on binary divisions, there is no reference to the sheqel, the value of which was equivalent to a didrachm. Therefore, a mina was worth 50 sheqels, as mentioned clearly on Northern Phoenician weights (Arados and Marathos). We have seen that the average of the Syrian–Southern Levantine mina of c. 550 to 560 g is theoretically worth 50 Judean sheqels of the First Temple period, weighing c. 11.33 g. It also appears that Antiochus IV may have decided to adopt this standard for the Southern Levant. This theory may eventually be corrected if earlier evidence for continuity in the use of that standard in all of the Southern Levant will be found! It would seem far-fetched to suggest that the king, who showed great interest in Judea—although not exclusively, as we have just seen—may have decided to adopt the traditional, well-developed and probably still-in-use, weight system of that province for the whole region of the Southern Levant (including Idumea). It appears, indeed, that the king planned (and partly enforced) an administrative reorganization of the region (Finkielsztejn 2004:255–258). However, it is possible that a similarity between the ‘Judean’ sheqel and weighing systems in Mesopotamia—which also belonged to the Seleucid Empire—facilitated the choice of the sheqel adopted for the mina of the Southern Levant. Considering the value of the mina used in Syria itself in the time of Antiochus IV, it seems quite likely that the king enforced the use of the

185

‘Syrian’ standard on a region too diverse in ethnicities to choose one or the other of their standards (if they were indeed different). We have noted also that weights were primarily made for the use of a given city and its territory. If we did find ‘foreign’ weights in some sites of modern-day Israel, mostly originating from Tyre, and Southern Levantine weights sunk with a boat, it was actually not absolutely necessary for a merchant to bring his (rather heavy) weights with him when traveling for business. It has been determined that the various minas of the Bronze and Iron Ages, based on various sheqels, were related to each other by different calculation factors. That appears to have been the case also in the Hellenistic period. The historical importance of the date of the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series—205 SE, i.e., 108/7 BCE—was addressed elsewhere (Finkielsztejn 1998a:33–38, 48–49). It was concluded, on the basis of Nos. 33 and 34, and a new understanding of the narrative of Josephus Flavius, that Maresha was conquered the first time in early 110 BCE, then reoccupied by the Macedonians and re-conquered by John Hyrcanus I in 108/7 BCE (Finkielsztejn 1998a:48, 50–51, 57). The former date would seem to be confirmed (although indirectly) by No. 7 (dated 112/1 BCE; see above). That 108/7 BCE was the end date of the pagan occupation seems, now, strengthened by the unusual number of examples of the ‘Agathokles/ Macedonian shield’ series (six and associated No. 14), some of which were certainly (No. 14) or probably (Nos. 1, 2 and 33) found in situ in buildings. Weight No. 14 was actually discovered on the floor of Room 4 of the same insula as the sekoma (see Plan 1.4 and Chapter 9). However, on the basis of exactly the same device on the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series and the monogram APO( , No. 14 may either have been produced the same year or one year earlier or (less likely) later. The context of the find of No. 14 strengthens its link with the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series, despite the monogram. Weight No. 33 was found in the upper city, i.e., on the acropolis, and was most probably abandoned there, in a room of one of the buildings, information unfortunately not precisely recorded by the excavators (Macalister 1903:303). It is at least evidence for some commercial activity on the acropolis that late in the history of Hellenistic Maresha. It is noticeable, but not fully understandable, that on the ‘Agathokles/Macedonian shield’ series the order

186

Gerald Finkielsztejn

of the letters/figures of the date starts with ‘hundreds’ (L se¾, Year 205, 108/7 BCE) and not ‘units’, contrary to the traditional system starting with the units, which was still used in 112/1 BCE (L as¾, Year 201). The order ‘units–tens–hundreds’, following the mention of ‘year’, was actually traditional in the Levant and in Syria in the Hellenistic period.

The breaking and thorough shearing of weight No. 3, rather than being a mere cutting for recycling the lead, may be evidence of the will to erase the symbol and the memory of the last representative of the Macedonian enemy, recently expelled from Scythopolis, Samaria and finally Maresha (Finkielsztejn 1998a; 2004:257, for the relative importance of Samaria and Scythopolis).14

Notes 1 I wish to thank Professor Amos Kloner for allowing me to publish the present analysis of the material from the Maresha–Bet Guvrin Project. I owe special thanks to the editor, Shoshana Israeli, for her meticulous reading, and most of all, for her patience during our editing sessions which simplified and made more accessible the complex world of metrology. Some preliminary observations on lead weights from the Southern Levant were presented in Finkielsztejn 2003:472–474, 478–484. For more comprehensive analyses of the weights from the Hellenistic Levant, addressing different aspects of the data, see Finkielsztejn 2007; forthcoming a, b. 2 This chapter is part of a wider study undertaken by the author to try to understand some aspects of the administration of the Levant under Greco-Macedonian rule (see Finkielsztejn 2007, forthcoming b; Wolff and Finkielsztejn 2009). Data on metrology, chronology and onomastics—all of which are found on scale weights—are thus of prime interest, together with the study of amphora stamps, bullae and coins (see Finkielsztejn 2004). 3 The expression ‘Southern Levant’ today covers modern Israel and Jordan. A convenient expression, it is purely geographical in nature and can be applied to all historical and archaeological periods. In the Hellenistic period, the area was quite ethnically heterogeneous, as it comprised, from south to north, Western Nabatea, Idumea, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Iturea and the Phoenician coast. A reference to ‘Palestina’ appears twice on inscriptions at Delos dedicated to the goddess of Ascalon and dated to the second century BCE (see Finkielsztejn 1992:51, with n. 4). The designation of the region may have been chosen in order to be understandable in the Greco-Italian milieu of the island, but may not necessarily reflect the name used by the natives of this Phoenician city themselves. 4 The reading of the date, L~S (206) instead of L‚e (205), suggested by Kushnir-Stein (forthcoming: commentary on

A7 and A8) is definitely unlikely, as the lunate sigma and epsilon do appear in the following part of the inscription. 5 Perhaps the ‘7’ was miswritten and appeared as a ‘1’ and therefore, ‘270’ was meant instead of ‘210’. 6 Weight No. 30 may also have been inscribed, as well as Nos. 6 and 12, which bear a device. 7 The acronymic system represents numbers by the initial letter of their name. In that system, never used on weights of the Southern Levant, H stands for e{katon, ‘100’ (for this system used on amphora stamps, see Garlan 2006). 8 I had originally read this part as ejpi;, an unlikely possibility as this expression is never found before the word agoranomos on weights of this class. 9 The possible years are: 146, 156, 166, 176, 186 or 196 SE, i.e., 167/6, 157/6, 147/6, 137/6, 127/6 or 117/6 BCE. 10 Note that No. 10 in the same article bears the same number of years. It is certainly dated to the Roman period and therefore not in the Seleucid era. 11 This weight, bought in Jerusalem, was attributed to Tripoli in Phoenicia, on the basis of the device representing the piloi of the dioscuri, which is also the device of weight No. 8 at Maresha. 12 It should be noted that no lead scale weight that could definitely be attributed to the Hasmonean dynasty was identified (at least to this writer’s knowledge). 13 This assumption should be considered with some care, as not all weights were preserved on the site in the same earth matrix. 14 Note that in Finkielsztejn 1998a:44, end of Line 16, one should read “…the pretext for the attack: Maresha;” and not as printed, which alters drastically the meaning of the sentence (see also p. 48). See the recent re-assessment of part of the story of the conquest of Samaria in Bar-Kochba 2002, where that author suggests amending the name of Maresha in that part of the text of Josephus Flavius. I consider such an alteration unjustified on the basis of the archaeological finds.

D (cm)

4.7

8.1

6.4

5.3 (6.4 theoretical)

6.5

5.0

6.0

L (cm)

4.7

7.4

6.2

5.1 (6.2 theoretical)

6.5

5.0

5.1

W (cm)

0.3–0.5

1.3

0.55

0.56

0.2–0.4

0.3–0.5

0.46

T (cm)

70.83

210.0 (too light) or 270.0 (?)

145.0 (published weight) 124.0 [weight in 1921]

134.13 (= 83.7: 0.624)

138.3

74.97 (certainly overestimation)

68.8

Weight (g)

1/8

1/2

1/4

1/4

1/4

1/8

1/8

Suggested fraction

566.64

420.0 (too light) or 540.0 (?)

[496.0]

580.0

536.62

553.2

599.76

550.4

Weight of the standard

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

Suggested standard

*All items are made of lead, except No. 35, which is made of bronze. D = diameter, L = length, W = width, Th = thickness

61-723-1157-M1

4

97-01-101-M1

3

Oren 1965:222, uncaptioned picture

61-197-517-M1

2

34

61.157.413.M1 (same mold as No. 37)

1

Bliss and Macalister 1902:61, Fig. 28; Macalister 1903:303; Finkielsztejn 1998b:34, Fig. 1

Hendin 2007:199, No. 293 (same mold as No. 1)

37

33

Inv. No. or References

Cat. No.

Table 8.1. weights from Marisa*

170/169

108/7

108/7

108/7

108/7

108/7

108/7

Date (BCE)

Obv.: outer frame inscribed ÆAgorano( ƒ ïHrakl»e¼ivd(ou) ƒ ÆApollwniv(ou) ƒ ñ gmr¾ inner double frame, Macedonian(?) shield Rev.: network of crossed lines

Obv.: raised frame, Macedonian shield (six bows), ñ se¾ ajgoranomou`nto~ ÆAgaqoklevou~ Rev.: network of crossed lines A lug (small lump of lead)

Obv.: raised frame, Macedonian shield (five bows), ñ se¾ ajgoranomou`nto~ ÆAgaqoklevou~ Rev.: network of crossed lines A lug (small lump of lead)

Obv.: raised frame, Macedonian shield (six bows), ñ se¾ ajgoranomou`»nto~ ÆAgaqoklevou~¼ Rev.: network of crossed lines A complete lug (small lump of lead); fragment of about 62.4% of the lead, thoroughly sheared; all measurements restored

Obv.: raised frame, Macedonian shield (six bows), ñ se¾ ajgoranomou`nto~ ÆAgaqoklevou~ Rev.: network of crossed lines A lug (small lump of lead)

Obv.: raised frame, Macedonian shield (five bows), ñ se¾ ajgoranomou`nto~ ÆAgaqoklev(ou~) Rev.: network of crossed lines A lug (lump of lead)

Obv.: raised frame, Macedonian shield (five bows), ñ se¾ ¼ajgoranomou`nto~ ÆAgaq»oklev(ou~) Rev.: network of crossed lines A lug (lump of lead)

Description

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

187

1-1283-221-M1

1-1283-222-M1

53-205C-758-M1

9

10

11

Kushnir-Stein 2002:226; Spaer Auction 2007:6, 8, No. 286

36

169-02-16-M1

100-263-1104-M1

14

7

61-701-1129-M1

13

169-02-16-M1

61-366-211-M1

5

6

Inv. No. or References

Cat. No.

9.0

4.1

D (cm)

5.0

5.0

5.2

5.0

5.4

8.0

4.7

L (cm)

4.8

5.0

4.8

5.0

5.3

7.4

4.7

W (cm)

0.3–0.5

0.4

0.4

0.65

0.25

0.6

0.7

0.5–0.6

0.5–0.4

T (cm)

64.8

62.58

69.0

136.7

69.0

296.8

576.73 (581.1 before cleaning)

69.0

65.85 (66.25 before cleaning)

Weight (g)

h = o[gdoon

1/8

1/8

hV = o[gdoon

1/8

1/4

1/8

1/2

1/1

1/8

1/8

Suggested fraction

518.4

500.64

552.0

546.8

552.0

593.6

576.73 (581.1)

552.0

526.8

Weight of the standard

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

Suggested standard

Table 8.1 (cont.). weights from marisa

140/139?

113/2?

173/2

112/1

143/2

108/7 or 109/8 or 107/6?

Date (BCE)

Obv.: raised frame, dividing lines ÆAgoranoƒ mou`ntwn ƒ gor¾ rather than roq¾ »...¼ h¾ ƒ Menekravtou ƒ ’Aqhnodwvrou Rev.: network of crossed lines

Obv.: raised frame, double cornucopia + another unclear device(?), ÆAgoranovmou ƒ ñs¾ rather(?) than ñ.~¾ ƒ S»...¼avtouƒavtrou, doubtful letters along right side Rev.: network of crossed lines Slightly corroded

Obv.: double raised frame, maybe a device in the center, ñ mr¾ ajgo(ranomou`nto~) ÆApollwnivou tou` »...¼rou h¾ Rev.: network of crossed lines; corroded

Obv.: double cornucopia, ñ as¾ ajgoranomo(u`)nto~ Swsib»iv¼ou Rev.: network of crossed lines

Obv.: caduceus, ÆAgaqoklevou»~¼ ƒ ajgoranom»ou`nto~ Rev.: network of crossed lines

Obv.: raised frame, shield with rosette of eight bulging petals around a central knob in a circular frame, surrounding inscription, ñ or¾ ajgor(anomou`ntwn) ÆAntipavtrou tou` ïHliodwvrou kai; ÆAristodavmou tou` ÆAriston( Rev.: network of crossed lines

Obv.: raised frame with relatively elaborate Macedonian shield (eight bows) Rev.: molded monogram APO( (?) and network of thin incised crossed lines

Obv.: Macedonian shield (six bows) with raised frame; the edge has been folded inward Rev.: plain

Obv.: Macedonian shield, inscription all around ¼evou~ Rev.: network of crossed lines Badly preserved; slightly corroded

Description

188 Gerald Finkielsztejn

Inv. No. or References

61-195-537-M1

930-70-242-M1

61-701-1043-M1 (see Spaer Auction 2007:18, No. 418)

61.A24.0

61-195-537-M1

147-07-900.-M1

Bliss and Macalister 1902:61, Fig. 27

147-2-592-M1

1-M1

61-338-117-M1

Cat. No.

17

8

12

19

20

29

35

15

16

18 3.4

7.5

3.6

4.0

4.5

4.0

D (cm)

5.3

7.5

5.6

L (cm)

5.3

6.5

4.9

W (cm)

0.6

1.1

1.3

0.5

0.7

0.5

0.3–0.5

0.8

0.2

T (cm)

41.0

511.8

107.75

669.445

123.45 (126.6 before cleaning)

343.68 (c. 90% of the weight)

66.44 (= 44.29 × 3/2)

62.85

142.05

34.66

Weight (g)

[1/16]

1/1

1/1

1/4

1/1 (?)

1/8

1/8

1/4

hJmiovgdoon

1/16

Suggested fraction

[656.0]

511.8

669.445

493.8 (505.60)

378.04

531.5

502.8

568.2

554.56

Weight of the standard

‘Local’ mina

‘Heavy’ mina

‘Local’ mina (too light)

Litra?

‘Local’ mina (too light)

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

Suggested standard

Table 8.1 (cont.). weights from marisa Date (BCE)

Obv.: plain; domed with raised frame Rev.: plain Dirty

Obv.: raised frame, plain Rev.: plain Lug (2.5 × 1.5 cm) prolonging the main body

Obv.: plain Rev.: plain Very crude; corroded

Obv.: protruding circle surrounded by three concentric raised frames, the outer one higher than the others Rev.: plain? Bronze

Obv.: plain; raised frame; thin ‘Union Jack’ engraved Rev.: plain; unclear thin engraving

Obv.: raised frame and two crossing lines in the middle Rev.: plain Crude; corroded

Obv.: most probably a device Rev.: plain Broken, c. two-thirds of a circle

Obv.: a cornucopia on a raised field; there may have been an inscription on the lowered frame (now illegible) Rev.: seven-pointed star on seven pointed petal rosette

Obv.: raised frame, pair of piloi(?), no inscription visible Rev.: plain

Obv.: nine-petaled rosette on a raised field with dot, raised frame, hJmiovgdoon Rev.: four superimposed lozenges creating an eight-pointed star Slightly corroded

Description

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

189

Inv. No. or References

61-710-1068-M1

61-150.581-M1

61-308.21-M1

61-706.-1045-M1

61-713-1064-M1

61-Surface721-M1

100-235-1032-M1

147-07-931-M1

61-701-1036-M1

930-50-154-M1

84-27-777-M1

Cat. No.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

31

32

D (cm)

8.0

4.0

4.7

3.0

1.3

2.3

2.0

2.8

2.0

1.5

5.0

L (cm)

3.5

(2)

3.7

3.0

1.1

2.0

1.8

2.8

2.0

1.5

4.0

W (cm)

0.3–0.4

1.0

0.4

0.9

0.9

0.3–0.4

0.15

0.5

0.25

0.3

0.4

T (cm)

112.6

106.6 (= 53.3 × 2)

67.1 (68.3 before cleaning)

67.79

10.62

17.24

5.06

38.43

12.71

6.06

76.13

[1/4]

1/8

1/8

1/32 (?)

[1/100]

[1/100]

1/8

Suggested fraction

[450.4]

536.8 (546.4)

542.32

551.68

[506.0]

[606.0]

609.04

Weight of the standard

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Local’ mina

‘Heavy’ mina

Suggested standard

Table 8.1 (cont.). weights from marisa Weight (g)

Date (BCE)

Obv.: plain with raised frame Rev.: plain with raised frame A hole for hanging; later cut on one long side with a knife; corroded

Obv.: plain Rev.: plain Broken or cut (c. half); very corroded

Obv.: Raised frame; inscription(?) Rev.: plain Partly folded; corroded

Obv.: plain, domed Rev.: plain, flat Corroded

Obv.: plain Rev.: plain

Obv.: raised frame; device(?) Rev.: raised frame Very corroded

Obv.: plain with a raised frame Rev.: plain

Obv.: plain Rev.: plain Slightly dirty

Obv.: plain Rev.: plain

Obv.: raised frame and a ‘bar’ along the width Rev.: plain with a raised frame

Obv.: plain Rev.: plain Oval in shape; slightly corroded

Description

190 Gerald Finkielsztejn

Chapter 8: the maresha Scale Weights: Metrology, Administration and History

191

R eferences Babelon E. 1898. Collection Waddington. Paris. Bar-Kochba B. 2002. The Conquest of Samaria by John Hyrcanus: The Pretext for the Siege, Jewish Settlement in the ‘Akraba District, and the Destruction of the City of Samaria. Cathedra 106:7–34 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 204–205). Bliss F.J. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London. Bordreuil P. 1992. Métrologie. In Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique. Paris. Pp. 291–292. Bordreuil P. and Gubel E. 1990. Bulletin d’antiquités archéologiques du Levant inédits ou méconnus (BAALIM VI). Syria 67:483–520. Dar S. and Nagar-Hillman O. 2009. Weights from Tel Dor and Horvat Shallale on the Carmel. Eretz Israel 29:118– 124 (Hebrew, English summary, p. 286*). Decloedt A. 1914. Notes sur des poids grecs et byzantins du Musée Biblique de Sainte Anne. RB:549–555. Di Segni L. 1990. Weighing Practices in the Land of Israel. In B.Z. Kedar, T. Dothan and S. Safrai eds. Commerce in Palestine throughout the Ages. Jerusalem. Pp. 202–220 (Hebrew). Dothan M. 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965; soundings in 1967 (‘Atiqot [ES] 9–10). Jerusalem. Dothan M. and Freedman D.N. 1967. Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations 1962 (‘Atiqot [ES] 7). Jerusalem. Elayi J. and Elayi A.G. 1997. Recherches sur les poids phéniciens (Transeuphratène Supplement 5). Paris. Finkielsztejn G. 1992. Phanébal, déesse d’Ascalon. In T. Hackens and G. Moucharte eds. Numismatique et histoire économique phéniciennes et puniques. Studia Phoenicia 9:51–58. Finkielsztejn G. 1998a. More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps. BAIAS 16:33–63. Finkielsztejn G. 1998b. Timbres amphoriques du Levant d’époque hellénistique. In Mélanges Jacques Briend II Transeuphratène 15:83–121. Finkielsztejn G. 1999. A Standard of Volumes for Liquids from Hellenistic Maresha. ‘Atiqot 38:51–64. Finkielsztejn G. 2003. Administration du Levant sud sous les Séleucides. Remarques préliminaires. In M. Sartre ed. La Syrie Hellénistique (Topoi Supplement 4). Lyons. Pp. 465–484. Finkielsztejn G. 2004. L’économie et le roi au Levant sud d’après les sources archéologiques et textuelles. In V. Chankowski and F. Duyrat eds. Le roi et l’économie: autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide (Lille, 23 juin 2003; Orléans, 29–30 janvier 2004) (Topoi Supplement 6). Lyons. Pp. 241–265. Finkielsztejn G. 2005. Quelques cultes ayant traversé l’époque perse (Anat-Io, Qos-Ap[p]ol(l)on, Phanébal, Asklepios leontouchos…): ancienneté des cultes du Levant et interpretatio graeca. Transeuphratène 30:187.

Finkielsztejn G. 2007. Poids inscrits du Levant: une réforme d’Antiochos IV? In M. Sartre ed. Production et échanges en Syrie hellénistique et romaine (Tours, 12–13 juin 2003) (Topoi Supplement 8). Lyons. Pp. 35–60. Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming a. L’agoranome au Levant hellénistique d’après les instruments de mesure et les textes. In R. Descat ed. Agoranomes et édiles I. Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming b. Weight Standards of the Hellenistic Levant. INR. Finkielsztejn G. In Preparation a. The Square Balance Lead Weights. In E. Galili. Late Ptolemaic Bronze Coins, Weights and Bronze Artifacts from a Wreck off ‘Atlit, Israel. ‘Atiqot. Finkielsztejn G. In Preparation b. Two Stone Weights from Mazor. ‘Atiqot. Garlan Y. 2006. L’interprétation des timbres amphoriques “à la roue” d’Akanthos. BCH 130:263–291. Gatier P.L. 1986. Deux poids syriens de la Fondation Piéridès. Syria 63:375–378. Gatier P.L. 1991. Poids inscrits de la Syrie hellénistique et romaine (I). Syria 68:433–444. Hendin D. 2007. Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-Coinage Currency of the Near East. New York. Hultsch F. 1864. Metrologicum Scriptorum Reliquiae I. Stuttgart. Hultsch F. 1882. Griechische und Römische Metrologie. Berlin. IG II2. J. Kirchner ed. Inscriptiones Graecae: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores I–III (2nd edition). Berlin 1913–1940. Kletter R. 1998. Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah. Sheffield. Kushnir-Stein A. 1995. Two inscribed Weights from Banias. IEJ 45:48–51. Kushnir-Stein A. 1997. On the Chronology of Some Inscribed Lead Weights from Palestine. ZDPV 113:88–91. Kushnir-Stein A. 2002. New Hellenistic Lead Weights from Palestine and Phoenicia. IEJ 52:225–230. Kushnir-Stein A. Forthcoming. Inscribed Hellenistic Weights of Palestine. INR 6. Kushnir-Stein A. and Gitler H. 1999. On Some Inscribed Lead Weights from Palestine. Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica è antichità classiche 28:221–234. Le Rider G. 1995. La politique monétaire des Séleucides en Coelé Syrie et en Phénicie après 200. BCH 119:391–404. Lifshitz B. 1976. Bleigewichte aus Palästina und Syrien. ZDPV 92:168–187. Macalister R.A.S. 1903. Fifth Quarterly Report on the Excavations of Gezer. PEFQSt 36:299–322. Macalister R.A.S. 1908–1909. Report on the Excavation of Gezer. PEFQSt 41:272–290. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909 II. London. Monteix N. 2005. Fouilles de l’atelier de métallurgie du plomb (VI, 12) et de la boutique VI,15 en façade de la Casa

192

Gerald Finkielsztejn

del Salone Nero à Herculanum. Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 16:262–269. Morkholm O. 1965. The Municipal Coinage with Portrait of Antiochus IV of Syria. In Atti del congresso internazionale di numismatica (Roma, September 11–16 1961) I. Rome. Pp. 63–67. Oren E. 1965. The Caves of the Palestinian Shephela. Archaeology 18:218–224. Qedar S. 1981. Münz Zentrum Auktion XLV. Gewichte aus drei Jahrtausendenl III. Cologne. Qedar S. 1986–1987. Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the Early History of Tiberias. INJ 9:29–35. Rahmani L.Y. 1980. Miscellanea—Roman to Medieval. ‘Atiqot (ES) 14:103–113. Reich R. 2006. Stone Scale Weights of the Late Second Temple Period from the Jewish Quarter. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem III: Area E and Other Studies. Jerusalem. Pp. 329–388. Sartre M. 2001. D’Alexandre à Zénobie. Paris. Schwartz J. 1982. Numismatique et renouveaux nationalistes dans l’empire séleucide au IIe s. a.C. Actes du 9ème

Congrès International de Numismatique (Berne, septembre 1979). Louvain-la-Neuve. Pp. 243–249. Seyrig H. 1946–1948. Poids antiques de la Syrie et de la Phénicie sous domination grecque et romaine. BMB 8:37– 77. Seyrig H. 1950. Notes on Syrian Coins (Numismatic Notes and Monographs 119). New York. Spaer A. 2000. Dor—Ruler of the Seas and a Lead Weight Attributed to It. The Celator 14:17–21. Spaer Auction 2007. The Arnold Spaer Collection of Hellenistic and Roman Lead Weights and Byzantine and Crusader Lead Bullae. Auction No. 40, Part 2 (4th of April 2007). Tel Aviv 2007. Stern E. 1994. Dor—Ruler of the Seas. Jerusalem. Stieglitz R.R. 1999. Straton’s Tower and Demetrias Again: One Town or Two? In K.G. Holum, A. Raban and J. Patrich eds. Caesarea Papers 2. Portsmouth. Pp. 359–360. Vincent H. 1909. Chronique: Gezer. RB:107–127. Wolff R.S. and Finkielsztejn G. 2009. Two Hellenistic Tyrian Lead Weights of the Tanit Series. In J.D. Schloen ed. Exploring the Longue Durée. Essays in Honor of Larry Stager. Winona Lake. Pp. 497–506.

Chapter 9

The Sekoma: A Volume Standard for Liquids Gerald Finkielsztejn

Introduction A sekoma, an instrument for measuring standard volumes of liquids, was found broken into two large pieces on the floor of the main room of the central building of the insula in Area 100 (see Plan 1.4: Structure C, Room 5; Kloner, Finkielsztejn and Arbel 1998:156, Fig. 4).1 The item is unique, being thus far the only known complete one of its kind discovered in the Levant; damaged examples were uncovered in the excavations at the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem (Avigad 1983:134–135, Fig 137, center top, with three funnels; Reich 2003:283, Fig. 10). Many parallels are known from the Greek world, especially in the Aegean and Asia Minor (Michon 1911). Excavations on the island of Delos produced numerous examples, one of which provided the technical Greek name for such a standard: shvkwma (sekoma; Deonna 1938:168, 175, No. 5).

The Sekoma Description The sekoma from Maresha (Marisa; Reg. Nos. 9/93.100. 214. 978 and 9/93.100. 214.996; Figs. 9.1, 9.2)2 was carved from a block of good quality local limestone (qirton) to form a rectangle 70.8 cm long, 21.9 cm wide and 13.5 cm high (excluding the elements protruding beyond the lower surface; Figs. 9.1d, 9.2c, d; see below). A raised frame (c. 4.5 cm wide), composed of a torus with two molded filets, borders the upper surface. The surface has a patina, light reddish-yellow in color and shiny in places, especially on the sculpted elements. Four funnel-shaped cavities (Nos. I–IV; hereafter ‘funnels’) were carved in the block. Each funnel comprises an upper cone and a lower narrow cylinder. Their size increases from left to right and the cones are not hewn uniformly: those of Funnels II and IV are slightly rounded at the bottom, and the transition from

cone to cylinder in Funnels I and III is uneven. The upper edge of each funnel is framed with a rounded raised rim, bearing an inscription giving the volume of each funnel (see below). The tip of each lower cylinder protrudes beyond the lower face of the block (Figs. 9.1d, 9.2c, d). It was previously suggested that a cap, perhaps of wood or metal, would have been inserted around each tip during the filling of the funnels and then removed, to let the liquid run into a vessel that would have been placed beneath the funnel (Finkielsztejn 1999:51). If this were the case, the volume of the cylinder would have been included in that of the standard.3 However, no such metal cap was found during the excavations (a wooden one would not be preserved in any case), and the outlet could have been closed off relatively easily with a finger, thanks to the protruding tip. Yehoshua Dray (pers. comm.) suggested that a rod, probably of wood, would have been inserted from the top of the funnel into the lower, narrow cylinder. After filling, the rod would have been extracted to allow the liquid to run freely. Contrary to the use of a cap or a finger, the rod would have prevented dripping down the sides and the concomitant loss of liquid. The protruding tips of the cylinders would have also been necessary to avoid the spreading of the liquid flow through the lower surface of the block, by capillary action. The volume of the upper part of the rod, standing in the middle of the cone, would have had to be taken into account in establishing the capacity of each funnel (see Finkielsztejn 1999:51, 54). Therefore, the rods would have been inserted into the cylinders during the final stage of carving of the cones, in order to establish their final volume, which was empirically established (see ‘Measurements’ below). The dimensions of the funnels are summarized in Table 9.1. A single tool must have been used to drill the cylinders, which all had the same diameter.4 The wooden rods used as stoppers were probably also standard in size and therefore interchangeable. No metal or stone base was

194

Gerald Finkielsztejn

a

b

c

d Fig. 9.1. The sekoma from Marisa: (a) top; (b) axonometric view; (c) front; (d) bottom. Scale: 1:5.

195

Chapter 9: The Sekoma: A Volume Standard for Liquids

A A

a

b

I

II

III

IV

c

d Fig. 9.2. The sekoma from Marisa: (a) top, with restoration of the inscriptions; (b) front, with restoration of the inscriptions; (c) Section A-A; (d) bottom. Scale: 1:5.

196

Gerald Finkielsztejn

Table 9.1 Measurements of the Funnels (cm) Funnel

Cone Outer Upper Diameter

Inner Upper Diameter

Cylinder Height

Inner Lower Diameter

Diameter

Height

Protruding End Height

I

6.0

5.0*

6.7*

1.1

0.8

7.7*

1.5

II

8.0

6.5*

7.2*

1.3

0.8

7.6*

1.9

III

10.0

IV

12.0

8.5* 10.2

9.7* 11.1

1.0

0.8

5.2*

1.2

1.1

0.8

4.6

1.9

* Average dimensions

found in the room where the standard was discovered; it probably stood on wooden legs. A shallow, overflow channel was carved into the upper part of the block and led to a drilled cylinder, which served as an outlet (Fig. 9.2c). The provision of the channel indicates that liquids and not dry materials were measured in the funnels.

ñ³ orÆ ajgoranomouvntwn ÆAntipa³v»trou tou` ïHlio¼d³wvrou kai; ÆAristodavmou tou` ÆAriston» 

of the stone, failed to retrieve the fragments bearing the missing letters of two of the names. Fortunately, a lead weight from the Arnold Spaer collection (Chapter 8: No. 36), manufactured in the same year and under the responsibility of the same two agoranomoi, confirms the name of the first agoranomos and enables the restoration of the name of his father (Kushnir-Stein 2002:226). However, the end of the last name was not better preserved on the weight. The engraved letters are regular in shape, but irregular in size. An incised line above the inscription served as a guide for the engraver, and the letters seem to be suspended from it. The inscription is written with alphas bearing a broken bar and block omegas. The height of the letters ranges between 0.7 cm (small omicrons) and 1.3 cm (rhos). The width varies according to the letter; even widths of individual letters are not uniform, with a minimum of 0.6 cm (small omicrons and rhos), and a maximum of 1.7 cm (large mu). These variations must be taken into account when attempting to restore the remaining incomplete last name of the inscription, that of the father of the second agoranomos (see below). The date of the inscription (‘Year’ 170), which must have been that of the production of the standard, is most probably according to the Seleucid era, that is 143/2 BCE. The date is introduced by the (partly restored) symbol L, meaning ‘year’ (Seyrig 1950:33–34). The value of the volume was incised on the raised rim of each funnel (Figs. 9.1a, 9.2a, 9.3, 9.4). Some letters still bear the red pigment that was inserted into

‘Year’ 170, the agoranomoi being Antipatros, son of Heliodoros, and Aristodamos, son of Ariston[.

Table 9.2. Inscribed Volumes of the Funnels (See Fig. 9.2a)

Decoration Four stylized lion protomes were sculpted on the front side, each one positioned approximately in front of a funnel (Figs. 9.1b, c, 9.2b). An inscription in Greek runs along this side, above the lions’ heads (see below). A fifth lion’s head was sculpted on the left-hand side in front of the channel outlet. When flowing, the liquid would give the impression that it was gushing out of the lions’ mouth. Sekomata are rarely decorated. An example from Delos has dolphins instead of the lions’ heads here (seen by the author during a visit to the island).

Inscriptions The major inscription (Figs. 9.1c, 9.2b), unfortunately slightly broken in the middle, runs in a line across the front of the stone above the lion protomes:

The agoranomos, the magistrate responsible for regulating the activities in the agora, served particularly as overseer of the market. Agoranomoi acted alone or in pairs (see below). The systematic sifting of the fill, undertaken only after the discovery of the main parts

Funnel

Inscription

Translation

I

e³Jk³ka³id»evk¼aton

One sixteenth

II

o[»g¼doo³n

One eighth

III (Fig. 9.3)

tev»t¼a³»rto¼n

One quarter

IV (Fig. 9.4)

d³iko³t³»uvl¼i³on

One double kotyle

197

Chapter 9: The Sekoma: A Volume Standard for Liquids

the thin grooves in order to facilitate the reading (see Table 9.2). Most of the letters are badly preserved as a result of the weathering of the rims. In the literature, only the term dikovtulon is known for the equivalent of the last measure. However, as hJmikotuvlion is also known (see references for values below), the spelling -lion restored here seems feasible. Between the nu and the delta of the same value are two lines of another engraved ‘triangular’ letter (delta, lambda or alpha); the possible repetition of the initial delta, following some change of mind for the placing of the inscription, may be suggested. This possibility is supported by the fact that the initial letter of each of the other values, quite securely restored, is set close to the front edge, with the word running counter-clockwise. Fig. 9.3. Inscription on Funnel III. Scale 1:2.

Volumes Measurements In an effort to determine the standard volumes, each funnel was filled with water (for details, see Finkielsztejn 1999:56–57). The best results of each series of several attempts are given in Table 9.3.5 Notwithstanding the discrepancies between the measurements, it appears that the system used for this sekoma is based on a progression of 1, 2, 4 and 8 unit(s). As the sekoma is on display in the Israel Museum (Israel Museum 1997:25), it was not possible to perform additional experiments to determine the adjustment to the volume necessitated by the posited insertion of the wooden rods into the cylinders. The values after taking the volume of the cone, reduced by the calculated volume of the rod (0.0072–0.0078 liter), and reducing the volume of the cylinder (which was filled by the rod) for each funnel, appear in the last column of Table 9.3. The average value of the smaller unit in Funnel I (the ‘sixteenth’) appears to be close to 0.058 liter, and that of the kotyle (the standard) in Funnel III, close to 0.233 liter.

Fig. 9.4. Inscription on Funnel IV. Scale 1:2.

Table 9.3. Measured Volumes of the Funnels (liters) Funnel

Measurements in present state of preservation without the rods

Measurements after restoration of the rim without the rods

Measurements with the rods (estimated)

I

0.060

0.058

0.064

0.064

0.057

II

0.122

0.122

0.120

0.130

0.118

III

0.200

0.230

0.235

0.235

0.228

IV

0.435

0.450

0.480

0.480

0.472

198

Gerald Finkielsztejn

Values The values inscribed on the funnel rims refer to two units: the kotyle (kotuvlh), of which Funnel IV is clearly defined as being the double; and another, of which Funnels I, II and III represent 1/16, 1/8 and 1/4 respectively. According to the measurements, Funnel IV has double the volume of Funnel III; therefore, the latter has the volume of one kotyle. We can deduce that the unit of reference for Funnels I to III equals four kotyles, that is a choinix (coi`nix; Hultsch 1882:106). The kotyle is a standard employed for both liquids and dry materials. However, the choinix is normally related to dry materials. Again, the utilization of an overflow channel indicates that the sekoma was aimed at measuring liquids. It thus seems surprising to find the choinix (or, more precisely, its value in kotyles) used as a reference for liquids on the Maresha sekoma (for a similar case from Athens, see Finkielsztejn 1999:57). Sekomata used for measuring small or very small capacities are already known, but they may have been aimed at private (kitchen) use rather than for trade (Dumont 1892:121; Bérard 1893:5–6; Deonna 1938:171–172). It is noticeable that, for such small capacities, a reference to fractions of the kotyle would have been suitable. Mentions of such fractions are known both from the literature and other sekomata: (1) hJmikotuvlh or hJmikotuvlion, for half a kotyle, as in Funnel II (Hultsch 1864:75, No. 3; 77, No. 9; 82–83, No. 3; 1882:102, with No. 4; Dumont 1892:125, with references; Walters 1905:135); (2) tetarthmovrion kotuvlh, for a quarter of a kotyle as in Funnel I (Hultsch 1864:75, No. 3); (3) tevtarton alone, used as a unit, which in one case equals half a kotyle, and is, therefore, based in that case on a standard equaling two kotyles (Hultsch 1864:240, Nos. 14, 15). There is only one instance of the mention of a dikovtulon on a sekoma, from Ushak, in Phrygia (Dumont 1892:124– 125). Hence, the reason for adopting such a system of reference on our sekoma should be different than the mere description of divisions of one unit. It may have been, perhaps, in relation to the nature of the products measured, although, to my knowledge, such a clear instance is not paralleled elsewhere. It could refer to different serving customs. A rough modern example may be the serving of beer in France’s cafés, where one orders un demi, ‘a half’, which equals 0.250 liter and not half a liter, although the standard for volume of liquids in France is the liter. However, the

expression une pinte de bière did exist in France, and the demi may rather refer to une demi-pinte (feminine), shortened over time to un demi (masculine; maybe for un demi verre de bière?). Moreover, as we shall see below, the use of two different standards appears the most likely explanation, and the reason seems rather some ‘harmonization’ between two different standards used in the ancient Levant. The Volume Standard for Liquids at Maresha Dumont described a sekoma from Naxos based on a kotyle of 0.240 liter; he considered it to be the Attic standard (Dumont 1892:121–122). For Forrest, that same standard was supposedly that of Alexandria, on the basis of the Tabula de mensuris ac ponderibus vetustissima, dated to the first century BCE (Forrest 1956:64, with n. 4, where he refers to Hultsch 1864:208, Lines 16–17). The same author suggested that this may also be the standard of Chios, on the basis of the volumes of the sekoma from that island which he published and dated tentatively to the third– second centuries BCE. This appears to be confirmed by another sekoma found in Dreros, Crete, which seems to be adapted to both the Chian and the Solonian (Attic) standards (van Effenterre 1960:237–238, who follows Forrest for the kotyle alexandrin of 0.240 liter; there may be other explanations for the abbreviated inscriptions on the sekoma from Dreros: Finkielsztejn 2006:20, Pl. 1). It should be noted, however, that Hultsch (1882:634–635) came to the conclusion that the value of the Alexandrine kotyle should have been 0.253 liter. In any case, the Maresha sekoma presents clear, direct evidence for the use of a kotyle of close to 0.240 liter (rather close to 0.233 liter, when the funnels are obstructed with rods) in mid-second-century BCE Idumea. Whether it is based on the Alexandrine standard is open to discussion. At the time the sekoma was produced, the area was under Seleucid control, but there is evidence for the preservation of some trade traditions from the time of the Ptolemaic domination of the Southern Levant (see, for the currency, Le Rider 1995). However, no dated lead weights found in the Southern Levant antedate the reign of Antiochus IV, who may have imposed either the Antiochean weight standard or a Levantine one on the area (see Chapter 8; Finkielsztejn 2007, forthcoming). This rule may well have been the case for all measures, including those for volumes.

Chapter 9: The Sekoma: A Volume Standard for Liquids

The reference to two different standards on the sekoma from Maresha may reflect the need to relate to two different standards of volumes, e.g., the Seleucid one and a ‘local’ one. The reference to two different standards is evidenced on some Hellenistic weights. A relation of 4:1 also seems evidenced between two weight standards on a series of weights from Byblos and perhaps also from Northern Phoenicia—c. 14 g (a ‘heavy’ or ‘double’ sheqel) and 3.5 g (a drachm) respectively. The weights from Byblos bear inscribed references to two weight standards: ΙΑ (‘11’) with tevtarton (‘a quarter’ [of a mina]) and ΚΒ (‘22’) with hJmimnavion (‘half a mina’). In that same series, o[g doon (‘one eighth’[of a mina]) is mentioned without the equivalent in numbers (theoretically, ‘5.5’). This is evidence for the use of a mina worth 44 sheqels of about 14 g. The other series comprises five denominations bearing the numbers IA (‘11’), KB (‘22’), MD (‘44’), IH (‘18’)’ and Lõ (‘36’); it can be deduced that the first three refer to a mina of about 505 g worth 144 drachms of c. 3.5 g (equivalent to 72 sheqels of c. 7 g), and the latter two refer to a mina of about 615 g worth 176 drachms of 3.5 g (equivalent to 88 sheqels of c. 7 g; Kushnir-Stein 2002:228, with references therein; the identification of, and references to, two weight standards is suggested in Finkielsztejn 2006:20–21 and 2007:45–48; the probable significance of these ‘unusual’ values will be published in Finkielsztejn, forthcoming).

The Date and Onomastics As mentioned above, the date of the inscription (‘Year’ 170) is most probably according to the Seleucid era, i.e., 143/2 BCE. Thus, the sekoma would have stood in the building until the conquest of the city by the Hasmoneans in (or soon after) 112/1 BCE (Kloner 1994:271), or rather in 108/7 BCE (Finkielsztejn 1998: passim; on p. 44, verse 275 should be corrected from: “…the pretext for the attack on Marisa” to: “…the pretext for the attack: Marisa”). As a consequence, most of the city was abandoned. An almost complete Rhodian amphora, missing one handle and endorsed by the fabricant Bavkcioõ, who was active at least in the twenties of the second century BCE, was found in the back room of the building from which the sekoma was recovered (see Plan 1.4: Structure C, Room 6; Kloner, Finkielsztejn and Arbel 1998:156, Fig. 4). Three other amphorae were found there as well: a complete

199

Pamphylian, a complete North Peloponnesian and an almost complete Punic, most probably all dating to the last quarter of the same century. This seems to indicate that the last uninterrupted phase of occupation at Maresha covered at least the thirty-five years between 143/2 and 108/7 BCE. The names of the agoranomoi of the sekoma may be compared with those appearing on the funerary inscriptions of the necropoli of Maresha. No combination of father–son names fits that of the first of our magistrates. None of the names of the second appear in any of the tombs. Several funerary inscriptions display dates, most probably according to either the Seleucid or a regnal Ptolemaic year. An ÆAntivpatroõ was buried in Tomb 500. He died in the first year of a Ptolemy (Regev 1994:58–60; according to U. Rappaport, in Oren and Rappaport 1984:148– 149, the views of whom are accepted by the present writer, perhaps Ptolemy V, that is 204/3 BCE; in any case, in the third century BCE, too early to be the same person). A ïHliovdwroõ died also in the first year of, probably, Ptolemy V, as the ÆAntivpatroõ above (Peters and Thiersch 1905: 53, Tomb I, No. 27); another was the father of a Cleopatra who died in 143/2, the year of the making of the sekoma (Peters and Thiersch 1905: 64, Tomb II, No. 1). Chronologically, the latter ïHliovdwroõ may well be the one named on the sekoma and, therefore, our agoranomos ÆAntivpatroõ could be the brother of Cleopatra. The name of the father of our second agoranomos may be restored in too many ways, but the name seems to have been short. The onomastics of Maresha are not of any help here. The names of both our agoranomoi are purely Greek but, as is often the case at Maresha and in the Hellenized Orient in general, they may be either translations or adaptations of oriental (Semitic) names, or simply a choice of the natives. ÆAntivpatroõ is a well-known name in the Idumean milieu, for example in King Herod’s family (his father and one of his sons; see also Chapters 7 and 8: weight No. 10, where the restoration of this name is suggested). Maresha’s agoranomos of this name may well have been Idumean and the name of his father is most probably of that same ethnic group. This cannot be said of his colleague, as neither his, nor his father’s name appears in Idumean (or even Phoenician or Egyptian) onomastics in Maresha. As noted above, agoranomoi are known to have worked individually or in pairs, as is the case here. If we indeed have here a local (Idumean) official working

200

Gerald Finkielsztejn

together with a ‘Greek’ (or Greco-Macedonian) one, it may be suggested, though cautiously, that this bears some political significance. This could be either at the level of Maresha itself—representatives of two of the ethnic groups of the city acting as officials—or at a higher level—a representative of the central (Seleucid) power being involved in the (higher) administration of the city. In view of the metrological reform, probably imposed on the region about thirty years earlier by Antiochus IV, such a possibility cannot be ruled out, although this cannot be ascertained. However, a family of ‘natives’ may well have employed purely Greek names for its members. That hypothesis is indirectly strengthened by the fact that all the weight standards used in the Hellenistic Levant are traditional ones, which can be traced up to the Bronze Age (Finkielsztejn, forthcoming). Besides being evidence for the granting of autonomy in that ‘technical’ field of the administration of weights and measures (i.e., trade and, therefore, taxes) by the Greco-Macedonian rulers, it seems logical that natives would be in the best position to control these standards at home, and to understand the neighbors’ standards, sometimes to indicate the relation between two different standards.

Function of the Standard The sekoma from Maresha was made under the authority of the two agoranomoi in office during 143/2. A late second-century BCE inscription from the Athenian Agora details the duties of the agoranomos concerning measures and weights: The magistrates whose legal responsibility it is, shall make standard measures corresponding to the copies that have been made, for liquid measures, dry measures and weights, and shall [compel those who] sell goods in the agora or the workshops or the retail shops or the [wineshops]/to use these measures and weights, measuring all liquid produce with the same [measure], and henceforward it shall not be allowed for any magistrate to make measures or weights [larger] or smaller than these; if any magistrate does this or fails to compel [the sellers] to sell with [these] he shall be fined ... [similarly/they must make] equal and inspect the measures and weights in future and the Council ... shall take care that no seller or buyer uses a measure [or] weight that is not true to standard, but only the correct ones. (Abstracts of IG II2. 1013, I; translation, Austin 1994:191, No. 111).

The fortunate evidence of both the lead weight (see Chapter 8: weight No. 36) and the sekoma confirms the function of the agoranomoi in the Southern Levant as supervisors of the making of all kinds of measures, weights and volumes alike. Their names often appear on the weights of the region, and they were probably responsible for making the mold and adjusting the weight, but they did not keep the latter exclusively in their office (the ajgoranovmion; such office is known elsewhere: in Samos, Girard 1881:478–480; in Tegea, Bérard 1893:4–6). A merchant could purchase a set of weights and carry it along with him to check the weight of the goods he would buy. Unpublished weights of the Southern Levant, found off-shore at ‘Atlit, as well as the discovery of weights from Tyre in the region of Bet She’an, and at Gezer and Ashdod-Yam, are proof that weights did travel and that their utilization was not confined to the city that produced them and its vicinity (Finkielsztejn 2003:478–484; 2007:43; in preparation a; Wolff and Finkielsztejn 2009). A shopkeeper would also have a set of weights in his shop. See, for example, the complete set of standards of volume and weights, with the addition of an abacus, all on one sekoma from Naxos (Dumont 1892; Deonna 1938:168, n. 14 does not accept the location for weights on that sekoma). In Maresha, we do not seem to be dealing with one of the official ‘copies’ (the actual reference standards) referred to in the Athenian Agora inscription, but rather with the measure actually used by the shopkeeper. It is most probable (but still to be demonstrated) that the official weights were made of bronze. It is not clear whether the official standard of volumes was made of a specific material, such as marble, pottery or bronze. We had previously considered it unlikely that the sekoma was used to serve the products themselves, considering the risk of absorption (however slight) or even of loss during the process of removing the liquid from the funnels. As described above, our method of measuring the volume of the funnels actually turned out to be not fully accurate in most cases—some liquid would drip the moment the finger closing the tip was removed. However, this was problematic mostly in the case of the damaged tips (Funnels I, II and III). This risk of liquid loss appears to be resolvable by the insertion of rods into the funnels, as suggested above. In any event, the sekoma could also have been aimed at calibrating vessels. These vessels could then be used to measure the quantity of product poured into the container holding it for transport and storage.

Chapter 9: The Sekoma: A Volume Standard for Liquids

The latter container itself could also be calibrated to correspond to a designated capacity. The fact that some sekomata bear inscriptions referring to wine or oil does not mean that these products were actually directly measured in them, but that different standards were used for each type of product (see references below and in the index of Hultsch 1864, especially the table, p. 247, No. 3; see Michon 1911:1178, left column).6 On the other hand, the fact that the overflow was carefully gathered and directed toward an outlet with a decorated lion head on the side may be evidence for the intention not to waste a ‘precious’ liquid, rather than simply avoid spilling water all over. It was also previously thought (Finkielsztejn 1999:62) that it was doubtful that our sekoma was used to measure wine or oil for consumption, as the volumes involved appear too small. The funnels of other sekomata clearly related to wine or oil held respectively: (1) a kotyle of unknown capacity (Ushak, oil: the smallest unit on the sekoma; Deonna 1938:170); (2) 1.05 liters (Kossovo, wine; Deonna 1938:170); (3) 7.68 liters and 15.36 liters (Thasos, wine: oijnhrav; Pouilloux 1955); and (4) 4.80 liters and 14.30 liters (Chios, wine: oijnhrav; Forrest 1956). Our sekoma displays comparatively small volumes, although not the smallest ones. However, texts are known that do refer to customers buying wine in small quantities.7 In a law from Thasos, dated to the end of the fifth century BCE, it is forbidden for wholesalers to sell wine ‘by the kotyle’ (Salviat 1986:148, Text I, Line 13, 186). The sale of small quantities may, however, have been practiced in taverns. It was noted above that four amphorae, each of a different origin, were found in Room 6. They may also have held three different products—wine from Rhodes, oil from North Peloponnese, probably oil from Pamphylia, and probably garum (fish-sauce) or salted fish from North Africa (Botte 2009:115, with n. 57). These products may be interpreted as either intended for the owner of the house’s private consumption, or (less likely) for their sale in small quantities for everyday consumption. In any event, the sekoma could not have served for the direct measuring of both wine and oil, and of course not for viscous fish-sauce. The architectural connection with an installation for handling small quantities of liquids (described in Finkielsztejn 1999:60, 62) suggests that associated Structures C and D were probably a shop for the processing of liquids (in Room 13b) and the trading thereof in small quantities, such as perfumes or medicines, or their raw material. The

201

large oven (tabun) found in the southwestern corner of Courtyard 9 (Plan 1.4:9) could be for craft activities rather than for domestic ones. That courtyard was not fully excavated to the east, and the discovery of the press-bed of an oil press for perfumes of the type found in several sites in the Hellenistic Mediterranean and Black Sea, but mainly in Delos (Brun 1999), may provide a definite answer to that question (see Finkielsztejn, in preparation b). That, of course, would have some bearing on the understanding of the sekoma.

Measures and Polis Although no clear source points to Maresha as being a polis, the association of such a specialized find as the sekoma with a commercial quarter of the Lower City planned according to the Hippodamean grid adapted to the topography, is evidence of the careful organization of quite a busy Hellenistic town in the Levant. Such administration, inspired by the Greek mode, is supported by the evidence of a lead weight, dated to the same year of the sekoma, as well as several other similar objects found in archaeological contexts at Maresha (see Chapters 7 and 8: especially weight No. 14, found in the same insula). The use of the word agoranomos in the region does not seem to be merely the adoption of a Greek term applied to a traditional local office, of which we know nothing, although the Bible warns against making and using false weights and measures. Such an assumption is supported by the appearance of the word agoranomos (more or less distorted) in later Rabbinical literature. Indeed, it appears that no local (Hebrew or Aramaic) term is known for the specific office held by the agoranomos before the Hellenistic period, although some magistrate had to be responsible for the control of weights and measures (Sperber 1977:228, 231, n. 17). In the Iron Age Kingdom of Judah, the persons named on so-called ‘private’ seals on lmlk jars may have been involved in a control of the standards, but no such names appear on the contemporary stone weights, actually too small to hold that information. For Phoenicia, that responsibility may have been one of those held by the suffete (i.e., ‘judges’, but also ‘magistrate’ [?]; Finkielsztejn 2004:254, with n. 29). Without further elaboration, it appears that the Iron Age tradition of relating all matters of administration to the king (Judean lmlk storage-jar stamps or bat lmlk inscriptions), probably inherited from the city-state

202

Gerald Finkielsztejn

of the Bronze Age, continued in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, and time has obliterated the information about the actual practice of control of the weights and measures (see Chapter 8; for the Hellenistic period, see Finkielsztejn 2003, 2004, 2007).

Maresha provides us with invaluable material that can contribute to the knowledge of the administration of cities in the Hellenistic Southern Levant.

Notes I wish to thank Professor Amos Kloner for allowing me to study and publish such an unusual find as the sekoma from Maresha. This work complements my personal research on Hellenistic amphorae and their capacities, as well as on weights and measures and the administration of the cities in the Hellenistic Levant. This chapter is an abridged and revised version of Finkielsztejn 1999, with emphasis here on the inscriptions, as well as additional information in regard to understanding the function and the metrology of this unique find. 2 The sekoma was restored in the laboratories of the Israel Museum by Adaya Meshorer. Photographs were taken by Clara Amit of the IAA; drawings are by Pnina Adar; they are published courtesy of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. I am deeply thankful to them all. 3 For the process of making the table, see Finkielsztejn 1999:53–54. 1

The drilling tool may have resembled the one in Dar 1993: Pl. 10, Fig. 1, supposedly found in a Hellenistic context. 5 Both series of measurements were conducted on two different occasions, two and a half years apart, in the Israel Museum restoration laboratories, with the help of the museum staff, whom I warmly thank. 6 In the instance of the marble sekoma of Naxos (Dumont 1892), it is possible that the smaller units (from 0.240 to 0.040 liter) served to measure and sell the actual product. There, the overflow would have been gathered in a shallow depression in order to be retrieved in a manner similar to that of an installation set in a small room of Structure D (Room 13b, described in Finkielsztejn 1999:60, 62). 7 My thanks to Jean-Pierre Brun who drew my attention to this practice, and who, together with André Tchernia, provided me with the relevant references. 4

R eferences Austin M.M. 1994. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. Cambridge. Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Barkay R. 1994. The Marisa Hoard of Seleucid Tetradrachms Minted in Ascalon. INJ 12 (1992–1993):21–26. Bérard V. 1893. Tégée et la Tégéatide. BCH 17:1–24. Botte E. 2009. Salaisons et sauces de poissons en Italie du sud et en Sicile durant l’Antiquité (Collection de Centre Jean Bérard 31). Naples. Brun J.-P. Laudatissimum fuit antiquitus in Delo insula: la maison IB du quartier du stade et la production des parfums à Delos. BCH 123:87–155. Dar S. 1993. Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (BAR Int. S. 589). Oxford. Deonna W. 1938. Le mobilier délien (Exploration Archéologique de Délos 18). Paris. Dumont A. 1892. Monument métrologique découvert à Naxos. In A. Dumont. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’épigraphie. Paris. Pp. 120–125 (= Revue Archéologique 26, 1873:43–47).

Finkielsztejn G. 1998. More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Amphora Stamps. BAIAS 16:3–63. Finkielsztejn G. 1999. A Standard of Volumes for Liquids from Hellenistic Marisa. ‘Atiqot 38:51–64. Finkielsztejn G. 2003. Administration du Levant sud sous les Séleucides. Remarques préliminaires. In M. Sartre ed. Syrie hellénistique (Topoi Supplement 4). Lyons. Pp. 465–484. Finkielsztejn G. 2004. L’économie et le roi au Levant sud d’après les sources archéologiques et textuelles. In V. Chankowski and F. Duyrat eds. Le roi et l’économie: autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide (Lille, 23 juin 2003, Orléans, 29–30 janvier 2004) (Topoi Supplement 6). Lyons. Pp. 241–265. Finkielsztejn G. 2006. Production et commerce des amphores à l’époque hellénistique: récipients, timbrage et métrologie. In R. Descat ed. Approches de l’économie hellénistique. Entretiens d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 7:17–34.

Chapter 9: The Sekoma: A Volume Standard for Liquids

Finkielsztejn G. 2007. Poids de plomb inscrits du Levant: une réforme d’Antiochos IV ? In M. Sartre ed. Productions et échanges dans la Syrie hellénistique et romaine (Tours, 12–13 juin 2003) (Topoi Supplement 8). Lyons. Pp. 35–60. Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming. The Weight Standards of the Hellenistic Levant. INR. Finkielsztejn G. In Preparation a. The Square Balance Lead Weights. In E. Galili. Late Ptolemaic Bronze Coins, Weights and Bronze Artifacts from a Wreck off ‘Atlit, Israel. ‘Atiqot. Jerusalem. Finkielsztejn G. In Preparation b. A Wedge Oil-Press Bed for the Production of Perfume from Second Temple Jerusalem. In R. Reich and E. Shukrun. Final Report of the Givati Excavations (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Forrest W.G. 1956. A Chian Wine-Measure. ABSA 51:63–67. Girard P. 1881. Inscriptions de Samos. BCH 5:477–491. Hultsch F. 1864. Metrologicorum Scriptorum Reliquiae I. Stuttgart. Hultsch F. 1882. Griechische und Römische Metrologie. Berlin. IG II2. J. Kirchner ed. Inscriptiones Graecae: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores I–III (2nd edition). Berlin 1913–1940. Israel Museum. 1997. New Antiquities: Recent Discoveries from Archaeological Excavations in Israel (Exhibition Catalogue). Jerusalem. Kloner A. 1994. A Unique Hellenistic Juglet from Maresha (Marisa/Tell Sandahannah). In Acts of the Third Scientific Conference on Hellenistic Pottery (Thessaloniki, September 4–27, 1991). Salonika. Pp. 269–271. Kloner A., Finkielsztejn G. and Arbel Y. 1998. Maresha— Area 100. ESI 17:154–157. Kushnir-Stein A. 2002. New Hellenistic Lead Weights from Palestine and Phoenicia. IEJ 52:225–230.

203

Le Rider G. 1995. La politique monétaire des Séleucides en Coelé Syrie et en Phénicie après 200. BCH 119:31–404. Michon E. 1911. Sékoma (Shvkwma). In C. Daremberg and E. Saglio eds. Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines 8. Paris. Pp. 1176–1179. Oren E. and Rappaport U. 1984. The Necropolis of Maresha– Beth Govrin. IEJ 34:114–153. Peters J.P. and Thiersch H. 1905. Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Marêshah). London. Pouilloux J. 1955. Thasos: chronique des fouilles en 1954 III: épigraphie. BCH 79:364–366. Regev D. 1994. The Greek Onomastics of Marisa in the Hellenistic Period. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Reich R. 2003. Stone Vessels and Architectural Fragments. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 263–291. Salviat F. 1986. Le vin de Thasos. Amphores, vin et sources écrites. In J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan eds. Recherches sur les amphores grecques (BCH Supplement 13). Athens. Pp. 145–195. Seyrig H. 1950. Notes on Syrian Coins (Numismatics Notes and Monographs 119). New York. Sperber D. 1977. On the Office of the Agoranomos in Roman Palestine. ZDMG 127:227–243. van Effenterre H. 1960. Un sékoma crétois. BCH 84:233– 241. Walters H.B. 1905. History of Ancient Pottery. London. Wolff R.S. and Finkielsztejn G. 2009. Two Hellenistic Tyrian Lead Weights of the Tanit Series. In J.D. Schloen ed. Exploring the Longue Durée. Essays in Honor of Larry Stager. Winona Lake. Pp. 497–506.

Chapter 10

Maresha: Archaeological and Epigraphic Overviews Amos K loner

Archaeological Overview This overview of the archaeological data of the Lower City surveys the floor plan of public and residential buildings, as well as the subterranean complexes cut in the bedrock. The manufacturing and production facilities are detailed, as is the contribution of the epigraphic material published in this volume to the study of the economy and cultural life at Maresha.1 While no data are available that could provide an exact dating of the initial construction of the Lower City, it may reasonably be assumed that it had been established by 300–280 BCE, postdating the construction of the Upper City by several decades. Until the Lower City began to develop—most probably following the first quarter of the third century BCE—the Upper City clearly functioned as a self-contained urban unit, albeit small in size and with a limited population. As the Lower City developed, the subterranean complexes began to be used for productive activities: the keeping of livestock, especially pigeon-raising, the processing of agricultural crops, and the storing of water; the quarrying of some of the complexes had began in the Iron Age and Persian period (e.g., Subterranean Complexes 75, 128 and 147). These quarries may have been related to surface constructions, although it cannot be proved, as the development of third-century BCE Maresha completely removed all evidence of any earlier buildings. The Lower City—at least in terms of its general layout—was almost certainly planned in advance. The street grid and adjacent buildings were obviously preplanned, with provisions made for public buildings. The town planners took into account the various limitations of the area, including previous construction and rock-hewn caves from the Iron Age and Persian period, as well as the topography of the site. A system of drainage channels, exposed in Area 61 in the Lower City during the 1992 excavation season (see Chapter 1; Kloner and Asaf 1995), serves as a reliable indication

of well-organized city planning. One of these—a large, well-built, covered channel belonging to a very sophisticated drainage and sewage system— predated the construction of the insula in Area 61. Advance planning is also clear from the orientation of the channels running parallel to the city streets and buildings. Roughly rectangular blocks of local chalk limestone were used for most of the construction work at Maresha. Some of this building material was quarried in the subterranean spaces that were subsequently adapted for use as workshops, columbaria, olive-oil presses, water cisterns and so on. Other sources of stone were the quarries in the artificial caves that were left unused after the stone-extraction process.

The Lower City and Its Suburbs The Lower City of Maresha was surrounded by a fortification wall (see Fig. 1.1), built to protect the inhabitants of Maresha and to provide them with a sense of personal security. Presumably, the need to fortify the city reflected specific political and military events that affected the region, growing in intensity mainly from the last quarter of the third century BCE onward. The defensive wall around the Lower City was constructed at the end of the third or at the beginning of the second century BCE. It served the inhabitants for 70–100 years, until it was razed when John (Yehohanan) Hyrcanus I caused the abandonment of the city in 111 (or 108) BCE (Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1993:953; Maresha I:5–6). The suggested course of this wall is based on the assumption that the subterranean complexes, representing the Lower City, were included within the walled area, and the burial caves were located outside the walled area. The Lower City developed and was modified mainly during the second half of the third century BCE. Construction and quarrying activities in the Lower City spread from the acropolis (i.e., the Upper City) toward the outer perimeter of the site.

206

Amos Kloner

In the excavations conducted during the 1990s, rock-hewn subterranean complexes were found on the eastern slope of the valley opposite the Lower City. These complexes are most probably evidence of a suburb added to Maresha in the course of the third and early second centuries BCE. Caves were hewn into the rock beneath the buildings of this suburb, adjacent to and east of the crowded area of the eastern Lower City, which was encompassed by the city wall. These complexes joined up with Subterranean Complexes 71–73 beneath the valley bed. The eastern suburb area included at least eight caves, forming large and small subterranean complexes outside the city wall. They contained installations similar to those of the Lower City, notably olive-oil presses, wells, water cisterns, storerooms and stone quarries. On the basis of the size of the rectangular built-up area, 100 m from east to west, and c. 300 m from north to south, the eastern suburb measured 25–30 dunams (6.0–7.5 acres). The area of another suburb, located outside the northern wall of the Lower City, is estimated to have been about the same size as the eastern suburb. Although the installations and quarrying activities evident in both the eastern and northern suburbs greatly resemble those of the Lower City, the suburbs are not included in this discussion as they were not located within the walled Lower City of Maresha. The Idumean and Sidonian inhabitants of Maresha usually interred their dead in burial caves outside their living quarters (about Idumeans at Maresha, see Chapter 2, Eshel and Kloner 1996; about Sidonians at the site, see Peters and Thiersch 1905:36–40). Hence, there is no evidence of burials within the Lower City. In the Hellenistic (Kurtz and Boardman 1971) and Roman (Toynbee 1971) periods, a clear separation of burial areas from living quarters was characteristic of all cultures throughout the Mediterranean basin, and particularly in its eastern littoral. The burial caves were hewn outside the wall of the Lower City during the Hellenistic period, and continued to serve this purpose throughout the third and second centuries BCE. These large family kokh (loculus) tombs contained several dozen, and sometimes even hundreds, of burials over several generations. In some caves there appears to have been a continuity of interment spanning six or seven generations. These family tombs were long-term burial properties (Peters and Thiersch 1905; Oren and Rappaport 1984; Kloner 1996b:32–41; Maresha I:21–30). Prior to the

construction of the defensive wall, access to the burial caves was by way of adjacent streets and alleys. After the wall was built, it became necessary to use gates and perhaps other passageways, such as posterns. Public Buildings (Fig. 10.1) Area 800, one of the surface areas of the Lower City, southeast of the acropolis and between it and Subterranean Complexes 57 and 86, was well suited for the construction of public buildings. Excavation there revealed a rectangular building made of large nari limestone blocks. The building consisted of two parallel halls (naoi), apparently belonging to a temple. The deep foundations laid on bedrock and the single course of building stones that was preserved above the surface attest to the monumental character of this structure. Remains of additional monumental structures to the north of the temple were discovered in 1990. The level topography, the relatively low density of caves in the area and the remains of large buildings, all support the suggestion that this area served as the ‘center’ of the Lower City. No evidence of a separate industrial quarter or sector was found. As most of the production activities at Maresha were situated underground, beneath the residential houses, we posit that the means of production were owned entirely by the householders, that is, the extended families that occupied the living quarters. Residential and Commercial Buildings The entire Lower City appears to have been a single built-up area dating to the Hellenistic period (only fragmentary remains may be attributed to the late Persian period). The excavations did not expose empty spaces or open areas devoid of construction. The buildings uncovered in the Lower City appear to have served as residences, shops and workshops. The residential dwellings, mostly two stories high, occupied the entire area of the Lower City, with a density of construction similar to that in the Upper City. Large dwellings, ranging in size from 150 to 400 sq m, were exposed in Areas 53, 61 and 930. The houses were constructed with a central pillar, square in section, which supported a winding staircase, prima facie evidence of the existence of an upper story (Kloner 1996a). It would appear that these second

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

207

Fig. 10.1. Aerial photograph of Area 800, looking south.

stories were reserved for the family’s living quarters, with bedrooms for the nuclear and extended family members. Guestrooms for relatives and other visitors were probably also located on the upper stories.2 In Area 100, five shops opened onto an east–west street, with staircases leading to an upper story (see Plan 1.4). Parts of buildings—but not complete residential dwellings—were exposed in a number of other areas. These include those found in Area 30 above Subterranean Complex 30, known as the es-Sūk Cave, in Area 940 and in Area 600. Walls made of small, soft limestone blocks were also found when the modern road was deepened near Subterranean Complexes 71–73 (excavated as Areas 1386vi and 1386vii, but not detailed in the present volume as they did not contain epigraphic material). These buildings seem to belong to the eastern suburb. In the past decade, additional structures have been discovered in all the main excavated areas in the Lower City. Probes conducted in the proximity of openings and passageways leading to rock-cut caves revealed walls constructed mainly of chalky limestone. Walls built of hard nari, mainly foundation courses, were less common and their distribution more limited. The ground floors of the houses were used for daily activities. The floor plan usually consisted of a corridorlike entrance hall, or dromos, and a central courtyard

from which the subterranean complex and surrounding rooms were accessed. The rooms surrounding the central courtyard included a large reception hall that was also used for dining purposes, and at least one stairwell leading to an upper story (there may have been up to four stairwells, depending upon the size of the house). Subsidiary rooms included one or two kitchens or cooking areas (Fig. 10.2), storage rooms of various kinds for liquid and dry food and other products, servant and slave quarters, and sometimes areas for domestic animals and fowl. Some of the houses had shops and workshops with large openings or wide doors leading onto the street,

Fig. 10.2. Tabun in Area 61, House A, looking south.

208

Amos Kloner

some of which appear to have had a commercial function. This assumption is based mainly on the character of the finds from these rooms—storage vessels, including locally made jars (Fig. 10.3), imported amphorae (Fig. 10.4) and concentrations of bowls. Shops were found in Area 100, their wide openings facing the street. The lead weights recovered from these rooms are additional evidence that they served commercial purposes (see below). The variety of finds and the continuous architectural modifications of the ground-floor levels of the houses at Maresha indicate that the function of the rooms frequently changed. The ownership of a room or rooms on the ground floor could have been transferred either by sale or lease. This transference of rights entailed separating the room or rooms from the rest of the house by closing openings and altering or moving entrances. Returning ownership of the room to its former owner required closing off the new exit and opening the partitions that had separated the room from the remainder of the house.

Conceivably, certain rooms on the ground floor could also have served as inexpensive housing for single individuals or for low-income families. Such rooms could have been connected to the house itself by direct passageways or, alternatively, by indirect means of access. A city, in which such intense commercial activity was conducted, also required temporary accommodations for merchants, emissaries, officials, wagon drivers, caravan personnel, soldiers and other transients who came to Maresha for business purposes. Therefore, there must also have been hostelries in the city, or homeowners may have rented out accommodations. The sizes of the residential buildings in the Lower City vary, ranging from 150 to 200 sq m in Area 53, up to 400 sq m in Area 61 (Fig. 10.5). Three large dwelling units of similar size were excavated in the insula of Area 61 and House A in Area 930, suggesting that large buildings occupied much of the Lower City. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume homogeneity of style in all the houses, although certain quarters or blocks may have been architecturally alike. Smaller houses probably also existed in the Lower City, as well as some dwellings that did not conform to the usual plan. As seen above, in many of the areas, houses were found that could not be completely excavated, and their overall plans could not be established. It is quite possible, therefore, that some houses had smaller floor areas than the above-mentioned dwelling units.

Fig. 10.3. Storage jars in Area 61, House D.

Fig. 10.4. Imported amphorae from Area 61, House A.

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

209

Fig. 10.5. Area 61, House B, looking east.

Subterranean Complexes The subterranean city of Maresha is unique in terms of overall size and number of spaces compared to all other known underground complexes in other regions and from other periods. Man-made caves were found beneath all the residential buildings and in all the excavated areas. The number of subterranean rooms and spaces accessed through a single opening from the surface ranged from one to four. These subterranean spaces were accessed from the courtyards and interiors of the houses above, from rooms and corridors to baths, from passages between houses, and in some cases, from passages to the street adjacent to the house via separate entrances (see Chapter 1; Kloner and Arbel 1998:157–159; Kloner et al. 1998:163). The most common layout consisted of a descent via a dromos-like staircase that provided access to spaces on the right and left, and to a third space opposite the lower end of the dromos. See, for example, Subterranean Complex 61, System 15 (see Plan 1.11: Nos. A17, A18, A48) and System 14 (Nos. A57, A38, A41). In a few cases, more than four subterranean spaces— sometimes as many as ten or eleven—served a single

house, but this was rare. In these cases, the extra spaces apparently had specialized functions. The caves were sometimes combined at a later time by cutting openings through contiguous walls or their complete removal. New spaces were also hewn and added to the cave complex. Such modifications occurred mainly in the second half of the second century BCE, although in some areas there is evidence of this work from the beginning of the second century BCE. Combining caves became common at the time of the Hasmonean conquest at the end of the second century BCE, and continued apace in the following centuries, when the caves no longer fulfilled their original functions and became clogged with eroded soil and stones. In a few cases, subterranean spaces were intentionally filled or blocked. Many of the caves at Maresha were hewn in order to fulfill production needs, which were conducted underground out of engineering and cost considerations due to the durability of the rock walls and ceilings. Quarrying the caves began as early as the Iron Age, as in Subterranean Complex 75. The cost of quarrying and creating suitable spaces for workshops and installations in the soft limestone was far cheaper and

210

Amos Kloner

Fig. 10.6. Stables in Subterranean Complex 19.

more convenient than building aboveground, where the expense was tenfold and the cost of maintenance high. The subterranean complexes at Maresha include 27 oil presses, 85 columbaria for pigeon-raising, 6 stables (Fig. 10.6), some 310 water cisterns and bellshaped cisterns, and 110 other spaces mainly used as quarries. There are also numerous passageways and entrance halls, and hundreds of other spaces whose original purposes could not be established. Sixty-one small and medium-sized spaces were used as bathtubs for ritual purification purposes, including the “filter chambers” mentioned by Macalister (Bliss and Macalister 1902:209; Maresha I:15–16). In addition, some caves had cult functions. There is no evidence that any of the caves were used for residential purposes, but, as attested by one inscription found in 1900 (Bliss and Macalister 1902:176–177), a few caves might have been used as prisons. Production and Commercial Facilities Production and commercial installations were found in caves throughout the Lower City. Columbaria and olive-oil presses were everywhere, albeit in smaller concentrations in the northern sector compared with most of the other areas of the city. As indicated above, these installations were usually connected to

large residential units. Even when the openings to the installations were not located within the house itself, the caves extended directly beneath its rooms. Thus, pigeons flew in and out of the subterranean columbaria through vertical openings in the cave ceiling into the courtyards of the houses above, which must have created a great deal of noise and inconvenience for the inhabitants. Olives for crushing in the pressing installations were brought down and the residues and extracts carried up by way of the staircases. Water for use in the home or for sale was drawn up from the cisterns with clay pots from special emplacements on the staircases. We found no evidence of contiguous installations used jointly by neighboring households. Thus, two such adjoining installations—even if they had been hewn in the rock simultaneously—would each have had its own entrance and would have functioned independently. As mentioned above, 27 olive presses in various states of preservation have thus far been identified in the Lower City, all underground (Kloner 2009). The surveys in 1986 and 1987 recorded 16 such installations (estimated to represent about half the olive presses from the Hellenistic period [Kloner and Sagiv 1989:18–20, 53; Sagiv and Kloner 1996]), one of which is located in the eastern suburb. Another 6 were

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

211

Fig. 10.7. Oil press (A38) in Subterranean Complex 61, looking west.

discovered between 1989 and 1996, while an additional oil press, bringing the total to 28, was found in 1998 c. 500 m from the southeastern corner of the Lower City, but outside the city limits, in a more remote suburb or village. It is possible the original number of olive presses at Maresha was 30 or more. The ratio of 30 presses to 900 residential buildings—1:30—implies that 3% of the households at Maresha possessed olive presses in their cave complexes. If the number of households is estimated at 600, then the ratio would be 1:20 (see below). The phenomenon of operational presses located within houses and distributed in residential areas has been found in Classical Greece (Foxhall 1993:183–192). An oil installation originally described by Bliss and Macalister (1902:251, Pl. 92) was excavated in Subterranean Complex 61 (Fig. 10.7). For a detailed description of the process of olive-oil extraction, see Maresha I:41–72. To produce the oil, the olives were first crushed in a stone basin, 1.5–2.0 m in diameter (Fig. 10.8). This basin is called a mortarium in Latin and a rehayim tahtona in Mishnaic Hebrew (Fig. 10.9).

In modern Hebrew, it is an agan risuq (literally, a ‘crushing basin’) or more commonly and mistakenly, a yam. A lens-shaped crushing stone, attached to a short wooden beam that was rotated either by a person or a donkey, pulverized the olives. The crushed olives were placed in wicker baskets and stacked beneath a press. A beam with three stone weights, each weighing 400 kg, squeezed the water and oil out of the crushed olives. The liquids were collected in vats or basins hewn into the rock beneath the piers of the press (Kloner and Sagiv 1993:121–133). A special type of juglet, found in large numbers in many of the excavation areas, was apparently used to skim the oil floating on the surface of the water (Kloner 1994:270–271). Maresha represents the largest, most significant assemblage of this type of press, which is commonly found throughout the Judean Shephelah. No complete oil press dating to the Persian period has been found at the site. The anchoring, the pressing points and the point of applied force discovered in the Hellenistic presses at Maresha (Frankel 1999:76) represent new, more sophisticated and advanced techniques for

212

Amos Kloner

a

b

Fig. 10.8. (a) Reconstruction of the oil press (A38) in Subterranean Complex 61; (b) reconstruction of crushing (left) and pressing (right) activities (drawn by ‘Anna Iamim).

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

Fig. 10.9. Crushing stone (rehayim tahtona).

solving all three functional problems of the older Iron Age presses, such as those found at Tel Miqne, Batash, and other sites in the Shephelah (Eitam 1993a; 1993b; Maresha I:53–72). The survey of the caves and the excavations at Maresha revealed 85 columbarium installations (Fig. 10.10). It is surmised that some 100 installations originally existed at the site, perhaps even as many as 120. Therefore, if 900 residential units are postulated, every ninth house (11%) had a pigeon-raising installation beneath it. Alternatively, on the basis of 600 houses, there was a columbarium below every sixth dwelling (16–17%). Archaeological evidence clearly indicates that almost all the columbaria at Maresha were hewn in the third century BCE and, in a few cases, even in the fourth century BCE. The columbaria ceased functioning as pigeon-raising facilities at the very end of the third century and the first third of the second century BCE. During the second century BCE, some rooms and halls of the columbaria continued in use for other purposes. The decline in pigeon-raising at the site intensified after the Hasmonean revolt in 165 BCE, coinciding with the rise in hostilities between the Jews living around Jerusalem and the Idumean and Sidonian residents of Maresha. However, most of the columbaria ceased production at the very end of the third century and the first third of the second century BCE, when some were filled with debris, while others were quarried or prepared for other uses.

213

Hundreds of columbaria cut into the walls of caves have also been found throughout Judea. These occur at dozens of sites in the Judean Shephelah, ranging in number from a single installation to ten or more per site. Maresha has the largest number of pigeon-raising columbaria known in the Levant, totaling about 50,000 niches. The annual yield of young pigeons could have been three or four times this number. It is clear from the above data that Maresha supplied the needs of consumers from a wide area in the southern part of the country, including the Temple in Jerusalem, during the third century and the beginning of the second century BCE. Unlike at Maresha, pigeons were still being raised in columbaria in the Shephelah in the first century BCE– first century CE, and constructed columbaria dating to this period have been found at sites throughout the country. Three installations dated to the Herodian period are known at Masada (Netzer 1991:431–432, 637–638; Foerster 1995:219–223). In the fortress of Kypros and at Jericho, circular structures with columbarium niches dated to the late Hellenistic period were found (Netzer 1991:637; Zissu 1995:344). Similar circular buildings from the Early Roman period have also been discovered at Khirbet Abu Hof in the southern Shephelah and at Horbat ‘Aleq in the southern Carmel, both dating to the first century CE (Zissu 1995:56–64). At least 44 installations have been identified in the Jerusalem area, four of which were within surface structures and the remainder in artificial caves; 35 of them were reported in Kloner 2000:61–66; 2003:37*–38*. Almost all these installations may be dated to the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. Our assumption is that they were most probably hewn and developed because of the needs of the local population of Jerusalem, after the cessation of trade with the Maresha columbaria (Kloner and Hess 1985:122–124; Maresha I:42–45). Not all the columbaria ceased production at the same time, and it is possible that some continued to supply pigeons to Ashqelon and other pagan markets in the second century BCE. Other homeowners whose income was connected with the caves beneath their houses were water merchants. Their cisterns could have held 300–400 cu m, and were usually cut in the rock in pairs or in groups of three. Water was collected in cisterns by the diversion

214

Amos Kloner

a

b Fig. 10.10. (a) Cross-shaped columbarium in Subterranean Complex 61, System 18, Room A19 (see Plan 1.11); (b) reconstruction of the columbarium in Subterranean Complex 30 (es-Sūk; drawn by ‘Anna Iamim).

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

of rainwater runoff and the subsequent channeling of the overflow from the first cistern (Fig. 10.11). Three large interconnected cisterns of this type were found beneath the house in Area 53 (Kloner 1985; 1991:79– 85). In some cases, the cisterns were filled separately from various gutters running from the roofs or from other channels. In years of average rainfall, these cisterns would have held more water than was required by the 15 or more persons living in the house, and the considerable surplus could be sold. Large double and triple interconnected cisterns are common in the subterranean complexes at Maresha, for example in Subterranean Complex 18 (Bliss and Macalister 1902:101), Subterranean Complex 29 (Miron 1985), Subterranean Complex 61 (Kloner and Arbel 1998), Subterranean Complex 70 (Maresha I:31–39) and Subterranean Complex 74 (Ben-Haim and Kloner 1989). For a comprehensive study of the Hellenistic cisterns of Maresha, which are unique in their shape and construction, see Kloner 2001–2002:461–469; 2005. The sale of water was apparently a known source of income in the Hellenistic period. Water was commonly sold, for example, in Alexandria, as indicated by the statuettes of young, curly-headed black African water carriers—apparently slaves on errands for their masters—bearing full water skins, as can be seen in the Hellenistic sculptures in the GrecoRoman Archaeological Museum in Alexandria, Egypt.

215

It would appear that pigeon-raising activities and olive processing were conducted separately. Usually there was one subterranean installation per residential unit. Some homeowners may have had more than one installation, but in light of the distribution of these installations throughout the city, these instances would have been rare. Moreover, all the installations did not function concurrently, nor were they all cut into the rock at the same time. However, it would appear that the existing subterranean installations, which reflect the two main production branches at the site (columbaria for raising pigeons and presses for producing olive oil), served as the primary economic basis for 14 to 20% of the city’s households. This indicates that between onesixth and one-fifth of all the Maresha households were engaged in these occupations. Even taking into consideration only these two economic branches, our study provides information on the local economy in the Hellenistic period that is unparalleled anywhere else in the country. The wealth of data derived from Hellenistic Maresha is unique even in comparison with other archaeological periods, except for a few isolated cases of self-sufficient economic societies. While there may have been small communities engaged in specialized economic activities, none were relatively large urban units such as those found at Maresha. The question is not how many individuals earned their livelihood from each

Fig. 10.11. Water cistern (A20) in Subterranean Complex 61 (see Plan 1.11).

216

Amos Kloner

installation, but rather the number of households, as the number of families deriving their living from these installations was two or three times the number of homeowners. Some lived within the houses themselves, while others lived in separate dwellings. Some of the installations may have been rented out, or operated as partnerships. These conjectures, however, cannot be substantiated at this point.

Population Estimate As indicated above, the area of the walled Lower City is estimated at 320 dunams (c. 80 acres). Together with the two suburbs located outside the city wall (each c. 30 dunams), the built-up area probably reached 400 dunams (c. 100 acres). The following calculation is based on the minimal estimate of the Lower City’s walled area only. Deducting a quarter of the area for public purposes—the agora, temples, recreational buildings, streets, plazas, fortifications, etc.—leaves approximately 240 dunams (c. 60 acres). This area could have contained 600 residential buildings of 400 sq m each. Given the evidence in Areas 53 and 61 indicating the existence of houses of varying dimensions, our estimate is based on 300 houses of 400 sq m and 600 houses of 200 sq m each, yielding a total of 900 houses in the Lower City. If more areas existed that were not as built-up, then this number would have to be offset by smaller houses, of between 100 and 150 sq m. It should be noted that these dimensions relate only to the ground-floor levels; we have not included the upper story or the subterranean level present in most of the houses. Thus, the capacity of the houses was significantly greater than what the ground-floor plans alone might suggest. Taking into consideration a population density ratio of 50 persons per dunam (Broshi 1979:1), between 10,000 and 12,000 individuals would have inhabited an area of 240 dunams. Our earlier estimate of 5000 and 7000 inhabitants was based on the supposed “low density of construction in the Lower City of Maresha” (Kloner and Sagiv 1989:53; Sagiv and Kloner 1996:276). Recent excavations, however, have shown that the Lower City

was densely built-up with large houses. This architectural reassessment, and the re-evaluation of the capacity of these dwellings, have allowed for the revision to the higher figure of 10,000 inhabitants. There is an acknowledged difficulty in proving occupation density in antiquity. The discussions and various suggestions relate mainly to periods that have been previously studied, that is, to various excavated sites where data on town planning can be inferred from typical house architecture, layout, density and organization. In these respects, Iron Age II has provided the most data in the archaeology of Palestine, and inferences from these studies are the basis for population estimates for the whole of the Levant. The estimated number of inhabitants in the typical Iron II Israelite four-roomed house is from 5 to 8 individuals. The usual floor area of such a house, however, was about one-fifth of the area of the ground-floor level of a large residential house at Maresha. The basic assumption underlying the present survey is that the residential houses at Maresha, even the largest ones, served families over several generations and that their associated production facilities belonged to these families, or at least to their relatives. It is likely that slaves, who constituted an important productive social element, and their families lived under the same roof as the householders. Presumably, the slaves occupied inferior, more crowded quarters in the same building with more persons per room. Thus the estimated figure of 15 to 30 individuals per household does not appear to be overly high. The calculations based on 900 residential houses multiplied by an average of 15 inhabitants per house yield a total population of 13,500. Even though this is about 30% more than the 10,000 inhabitants calculated for the inhabited area based on population density per dunam, it presents the reader a general understanding of the density of population in the city. It may be, for example, that each household contained 12 persons instead of 15, yielding a population total of 10,800 for the city. In any case, whatever the exact number of inhabitants, it is clear that Maresha was a densely populated city during the Hellenistic period.

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

Epigraphic Overview The Contribution of the Epigraphic Finds to the Study of M aresha Ostraca The Maresha corpus of Semitic ostraca, included in this volume, consists of 72 ostraca divided into five groups: a Hebrew inscription from the seventh century BCE (Chapter 2: No. 1); 65 Aramaic inscriptions from the Persian and Hellenistic periods (Chapter 2: Nos. 2–66); 2 Phoenician inscriptions from the Persian period (Chapter 2: Nos. 67, 68); an Edomite inscription written in Aramaic script from the Hellenistic period (Chapter 2: No. 69); and 3 inscriptions written in Jewish script from the Early Roman period (Chapter 2: Nos. 70–72). To all these, two bowls with Aramaic script should be added; they present inscriptions of Idumean wisdom literature (Eshel, Puech and Kloner 2007). In addition, more then 200 Idumean Aramaic inscriptions, uncovered in the last years of excavations (2001 and later), are still to be studied. Almost all the Aramaic, Phoenician and Edomite ostraca were found in the subterranean complexes. The only exceptions are the 18 Aramaic ostraca recovered from Area 100 (see Chapter 2). Some of these came from the tower and its close vicinity, which is not part of the Lower City, and the remainder, mainly from Persian-period levels outside the city wall of the Upper City. To date, 320 Greek ostraca have been discovered at Maresha. Of these, 260 ostraca recovered before 1997 are included in this volume. With only a few exceptions, all the Greek ostraca are dated to the Hellenistic period, and were found throughout the Lower City of Maresha. The ostraca, both Semitic and Greek, document many agricultural products, both locally produced and imported. These products, most probably paid as taxes, include wheat (Chapter 2: Nos. 6, 12, 19; Chapter 3: Nos. 20, 109), emmer (Chapter 2: No. 16), barley (Chapter 2: Nos. 3, 17, 23 and barley groats in No. 12), flour (Chapter 2: No. 17), olives (Chapter 2: No. 5), peas (Chapter 3: No. 17), sesame (Chapter 2: No. 8) and mustard (Chapter 3: No. 110). Felt and shredded linen (Chapter 3: No. 93), oil (Chapter 2: Nos. 25, 67), and possibly water (Chapter 2: No. 34) are listed. Sweet wine (shekhar), an intoxicating drink made from fermented grain, fruit or honey, is also recorded (Chapter 2: No. 4).

217

Areas of agricultural activity, such as an orchard (Chapter 2: No. 5), a garden (Chapter 2: No. 23) and the ‘fields of Maresha’ (Chapter 2: No. 69) are also mentioned. The word kerem appears in six ostraca (Chapter 2: Nos. 14, 29–33), and is usually translated as ‘vineyard’. In ancient Semitic languages, however, this word is also used for ‘olive groves’, and therefore we cannot say for certain whether these references are to grape vineyards or olive groves. The kerem mentioned in Chapter 2: No. 30 is noted as being located at Maresha; the kerem in Chapter 2: No. 14 is referred to as ‘good’ and that in Chapter 2: No. 31, as facing south. It is noteworthy that five of these ostraca were found in Area 100, to the north of the main tower, where shops and some light manufacturing areas were excavated. The sixth ostracon was discovered in Subterranean Complex 147 (Chapter 2: No. 32). Lead weights (see Chapters 7 and 8) and a measuring table mentioning two agoranomoi, dated to 143/142 BCE (see Chapter 9, and also Finkielsztejn 1999), were also discovered in this area. No winepresses were found within the walls of the city of Maresha, but as these were normally located extramurally, this is not surprising. It is not impossible that there were winepresses in the vicinity of Maresha, but none have been discovered to date, except for a small winepress uncovered on the surface in the western part of Maresha. Its dating is unclear, however, and it might have belonged to the small settlement of the Roman and Byzantine periods. The olive-oil industry was conducted within the city walls of Hellenistic Maresha because of the high value of the product and its importance to the city’s economy. The product hemar, translated as ‘wine’ and mentioned in Chapter 2: No. 34, clearly refers to the product of a grape vineyard. This ostracon probably refers to taxation and quantities, however, and not to an agricultural activity. Finally, Greek ostracon No. 111 (see Chapter 3), which mentions raisins, also does not constitute evidence for local grape vineyards, as this and the ostraca mentioning hemar may easily refer to imported goods. While we cannot exclude the possibility that there were vineyards on terraces outside the city, these ostraca do not constitute proof of this activity, but rather are evidence of the intensive trading activity that contributed to the high standard of living enjoyed by at least part of the population of Hellenistic Maresha. In contrast, both the archaeological and epigraphic evidence point to the fact that the olive-oil

218

Amos Kloner

industry was the most important source of income at Hellenistic Maresha. Based on ostraca (the vast majority from ‘unknown provenances’, most probably, Khirbet el-Kôm, identified with Maqqeda), it is quite clear that during the fourth century BCE, Aramaic was the lingua franca and language of daily life in Idumea. During the past two decades, over 1600 Aramaic ostraca identified as having a provenance somewhere in Idumea have appeared on the antiquities market (Porten and Yardeni 2004:161). Recent estimates raise the possibility that more than 2000 ostraca exist in private and public collections. Of these, 1380 are considered legible; approximately 800 of them have been published in the last decade. The vast majority of these ostraca can be dated to the fourth century BCE. Eph’al and Naveh (1996) date their material in a range from 10 Sivan in Artaxerxes II’s 42nd year (June 14, 363 BCE) to 20 Shevat of Alexander IV’s fifth year (February 22, 311 BCE). Lemaire’s materials (Lemaire 1996, 2002, 2006, 2007; Lemaire and Lozachmeur 1996) are within the same chronological range, even though he does not accept some readings and dating. Recently, some ostraca later then the year 311 BCE have been mentioned. To this corpus must be added ostraca from Maresha: two fifth-century BCE ostraca, as well as approximately 50 ostraca, mainly from the fourth century BCE, and some from the third and even the beginning of the second centuries BCE, included in this volume. The importance of ostraca from a known provenance, albeit a small percentage of the total number, cannot be overstated. As Porten and Yardeni correctly point out (2004:168; 2006), the formats of these ostraca are varied, presenting quite a few patterns. They generally include a regnal date, the name of the individual(s) paying, the person(s) receiving the payment, and the amount of payment in goods. Occasionally a toponym is included, as well as patronyms or familial/clan/ tribal associations. The 1300 names represented in the Idumean onomasticon based on these ostraca are more than a representative sample of the onomasticon of late Persian-period Idumea. The name ‘Maresha’ appears four times on the ostraca from the unknown provenance site (see Chapter 2: Nos. 27, 30; Lemaire 1996:84–85, ostracon No. 111). The ethnic breakdown reflected by the ostraca reveals a mixed population within Late Persian-period Idumea. A statistical analysis of the published names

mentioned above (Kloner and Stern 2007:141–143) yielded the following percentages: approximately 32% Arab names; 28%, Idumean; 28%, Western Semitic; 11%, Judahite and Phoenician; and the remaining 1%, unidentified and smaller ethnicities. The ethnic breakdown of the names from the ostraca found at Maresha is similar to the above general breakdown, although the Idumean formed the largest ethnic group at Maresha, probably because at least some Idumeans also used Arabic and Western Semitic names (for the findings at Maresha, see Chapter 2 and also Eshel 2007:145–156). In addition to the evidence that Idumeans clearly used Aramaic as the language of daily life in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, we can now demonstrate the continuing use of Aramaic among the Idumeans residing at Maresha in the third and second centuries BCE as well (Eshel and Kloner 1996; Eshel, Puech and Kloner 2007; Kloner, in press a:563–565). At the very start of the third century BCE, possibly even the end of the fourth century BCE, we see evidence for the use of the Greek language (alongside Aramaic) and Greek art (as well as local Idumean art) by the local population of Idumea. The burial caves of Hellenistic Maresha form a ring around and outside the limits of the Lower City (Maresha I:21–30 and extensive references therein). The tombs (especially Painted Tomb I [T551]) contain two types of inscriptions: the first are single words identifying painted animals and other objects, a typical Hellenistic practice; and the second are longer inscriptions referring to the deceased in the tomb. All the inscriptions in the burial chambers were written in Greek, none in Aramaic. This leads to a question worthy of exploration: why did the local population (including Idumeans) choose to use Greek rather than Aramaic for their burial inscriptions? The general assumption until now has been that the population of Maresha included Phoenicians, and for this reason Greek was used, but this does not answer the question of why no Aramaic inscription has yet been found in the burial tombs. We find evidence of a completely Hellenized population, although from a village or a farmhouse and not a major economic center, in a burial tomb at Khirbet Za‘aquqa, about 6 km east of Maresha (Kloner, Regev and Rappaport 1992). Approximately 20 separate graffiti were found on the walls in this large kokh (loculus) cave, of which 16 were read and published. These contained 33 personal Greek names and indications of kinship, as well as one date

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

(the twelfth regnal year of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, corresponding to 272/1 BCE), all of them written in Greek (Kloner 2008b; in press b). The onomasticon of Khirbet Za‘aquqa is purely Greek with no identifiable regional characteristics, such as Idumean, Arab or Judahite names, and may be ascribed to Greek settlers who arrived in the early Hellenistic period—a date supported by the material culture remains found in the tomb. During the three or four generations the tomb was in use, there is no sign of intermingling with local Idumeans or other Semitic groups. The names inscribed in the tombs of Maresha and Khirbet Za‘aquqa testify that at the beginning of the third century BCE, the Greek language had become widely used among the local populations of Idumea. Greek presumably reached Maresha directly from Alexandria. It is amazing how quickly Greek became used in the daily life of Idumea (Kloner 2008a). The 260 Greek ostraca from Maresha presented in this volume date to the third–second centuries BCE, as do several dozen Greek inscriptions found in the three cemeteries around Maresha (see Plan 1.1; Maresha I: Chapter 2). Although Greek was the lingua franca of third- and second-century BCE Maresha, used in daily life and for commercial transactions and trade, personal documents such as the Idumean marriage contract (Chapter 2: No. 66) are evidence that the local Idumean population used Aramaic for documents related to family issues, status and cult. Thus, ostracon No. 66 is important also from this point of view. Fifty-seven Greek ostraca were found in the aboveground residences, shops, streets and other parts of the Lower City (see Chapter 1). They reflect a city whose inhabitants used Greek, the language of trade, cult and culture in the Hellenistic period. The surface constructions, in which they were found, continued in use until the Hasmonean conquest of the city by John (Yehohanan) Hyrcanus I in 111 (or 108) BCE. The buildings and ostraca were dated independently, and the dating of each, as well as the stratigraphy, supports the other. The majority of the Greek ostraca, like the Semitic ostraca, came from the subterranean complexes (see Table 1.23). The ostraca, originally used by the inhabitants of the surface buildings, were found in the subterranean complexes as a result of the intentional filling of these systems, mainly the columbaria, with

219

the remains of earlier buildings and their contents, mostly from the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (see Chapter 1). The preponderance of Greek ostraca (260), as well as other items in Greek, compared to the number of Aramic ostraca (65) requires a reassessment of the process whereby Greek replaced Aramaic during this period. The ratio of almost 4:1 provides an indication of the intensity of hellenization that occurred at Maresha, especially in the mid-third–second centuries BCE. Another indication for the process of hellenization is testified by three parts of the Heliodoros stele recovered from Subterranean Complex 57 (Gera 2009), which connect with the stele of Seleukos IV, previously discovered in illicit excavations at the site (Cotton and Wörrle 2007). At least one incised inscription (Chapter 3: No. 169) is a Byzantine Christophoric ligature. This should not be surprising, as a Byzantine presence at Maresha is well documented (see, e.g., Maresha I). The remains of a fifth–seventh-century CE Byzantine settlement on the western side of the Lower City of Maresha yielded a rich collection of pottery. Christian graffiti was carved into the staircase of Subterranean Complex 30. It is not impossible that these people made use of the area above Subterranean Complex 61 and perhaps the subterranean rooms as well. It is worth noting that less than a dozen Byzantine sherds were recovered from the upper fills of Subterranean Complex 147, whereas many tens of thousands of Hellenistic sherds were found. A few Byzantine sherds were also collected in Subterranean Complex 61. Altars Four altars bearing Greek inscriptions were found: one in Subterranean Complex 128, two in Subterranean Complex 147 and the fourth in either Subterranean Complex 53, Subterranean Complex 75 or Area 100 (see Chapter 4). One was dedicated to the goddess Demeter and another, to Isis. All altars were discoverd in domestic contexts, as they belonged to the dwelling houses found above these subterranean complexes. They clearly testify to the process of hellenization of the local population that occurred in the third– second centuries BCE in Idumea (Maresha II: 126–130).

220

Amos Kloner

Sling Bullets Six lead sling bullets were recovered from Maresha: two from the ground floors of Buildings B and D in Area 61; one from the northwestern tower in Area 100; and three from Subterranean Complexes 75, 84 and 128 (see Chapter 5). They were found 40–100 m from the city wall, possibly having fired into the city. For other sites which yielded bullets, see chapter 5. Astragali Rectangular in shape, astragali have been recovered in archaeological excavations throughout the Mediterranean, and are assumed to have been used as a gaming piece and as a cult object. Although commonly found in excavations here and abroad, until recently inscribed astragali had been discovered only in Anatolia and the Aegean world. For example, the name Nike was inscribed on an astragalus from Gordion (Young 1962:154). Astragali inscribed with the names Heracles, Thetis, Ajax and Nike appeared in the Korykeion Cave near Delphi (Amandry 1984). While astragali are commonly uncovered in ancient burials, only a single astragalus, inscribed with the name Hermes, and another four, uninscribed, all found in an underground water cistern dated to the Hellenistic period at Sha‘ar Ha-‘amaqim, had so far been published from an Israeli site (Bar-‘Oz 2001; 2009). By contrast, eleven inscribed astragali have now been uncovered at Maresha; seven of them are inscribed with the names of deities, three have other inscriptions and one is incised with a symbol. Four of these were found in Subterranean Complex 1; one in Subterranean Complex 99; three in Subterranean Complex 128; and another three in Subterranean Complex 147 (see Chapter 6). Several glass objects in the shape of astragali were collected at Maresha (Spaer 2001:232). In addition, about 200 uninscribed astragali have been found at Maresha (not included in this volume), as well as c. 200 other bones that may have been used as gaming pieces, which are presently under study. The use of the Greek language inscribed on these astragali also indicates the degree of Hellenic influence on the daily life and customs of the residents of Hellenistic period Maresha. Thus, the astragali are yet another example of the uniqueness of the finds from Maresha, which

revolutionizes our knowledge of astragali from excavations in Israel. Weights Thirty-two weights were found in the shops in Areas 53, 61, 100 and 930, as well as in Subterranean Complexes 1, 61, 58/84, 97 and 147 beneath surfacelevel rooms (see Chapters 7, 8). As far as we know, similar numbers of lead weights from the Hellenistic and Roman periods have not been found in excavations in the Levant. The importance of the discovery of these lead weights in the three houses of Area 61 cannot be overstated, as most published lead weights are from unknown provenance. Further, they are clear evidence that trade and commercial activities took place in the ground floors of the houses in Lower Maresha. The sekoma, a stone measuring table found in Area 100 (see Chapter 9), which names the agoranomoi, is additional evidence for these activities having been conducted in the houses of Maresha, and not in a separate commercial area. Moreover, the type of the sekoma inscription and its style indicate that lead weights were manufactured at Maresha (see chapter 8). The remaining eleven lead weights were collected in the subterranean complexes of Maresha: two in Subterranean Complex 1; one in Subterranean Complex 61; one in Subterranean Complexes 58 and 84; one in Subterranean Complex 97; three in Subterranean Complex 147, two in Subterranean Complex 169, and one not in situ. The weights were either used in these subterranean rooms when the containers were being filled, or fell in when the structures above them were destroyed or collapsed. The intensive trade conducted in these structures is clearly attested by the presence of these lead weights (see Chapters 7 and 8).

Chronology The dating of the conquest and later abandonment of Maresha, wrought by John (Yehohanan) Hyrcanus I, was given as 112/111 BCE (Maresha I:5–6). This had originally been ascribed to 113/112 BCE, on the basis of a hoard of 25 coins hidden in a ceramic juglet (for the type of juglet, see Kloner 1994) below the floor of a room in Area 53. The hoard contained a coin of Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII Grypus, 23 coins of Antiochus VIII Grypus and a coin of Antiochus IX

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

Cyzicenus, ranging from Year 191 to 200 of the Seleucid era, equivalent to 122/1–113/2 BCE (Barkay 1992–1993). The latest coin in the hoard antedates by one year an inscription found in a burial tomb at Maresha (Moulton 1915). This inscription, epitaph No. 9, included ‘Year 201’ of the Seleucid era, or 112/111 BCE, and we published this as the date for the final abandonment of the site in Maresha I and elsewhere. Equally significant is the fact that no Rhodian handles dated later than 112/111 BCE were found, and all the coins were dated earlier. Barag concluded from previous publications and preliminary reports that this date was well supported by all the information available from other archaeological sites affected by the political and military expansion of the Hasmoneans during this period (Barag 1992–1993). Finkielsztejn (see Chapter 8; 1998:33–38, 48–49), however, suggests a slightly later date for the Hasmonean occupation, based on three lead weights (Nos. 1–3; see Chapter 7) and two additional weights of the same type (Nos. 33, 34) published previously by Bliss and Macalister (1902:61) and by Oren (1965:222), respectively. The weights were all engraved by the same hand, and display a Macedonian shield device and the name and function of the agoranomos Agathokles. The date ‘Year 205’ appears on four of the five weights. According to Finkielsztejn, only the Seleucid era, beginning in October 312 BCE, could have included a ‘Year 205’, which would be equivalent to 108/7 BCE. This reading is not beyond doubt. Some difficulties were raised by the late Dan Barag and A. Kushnir-Stein (pers. comm.). In any event, it is now clear that the Hasmonean political and military conquest of Maresha did not occur at the beginning of the reign of John (Yehohanan) Hyrcanus I, but near the end of his rule. It is also noteworthy that Qedar has identified a new type of bronze coin, bearing the inscriptions ‘of the people of Marisa’ and ‘of the Gabinians of Marisa’. Almost all these coins are located in collections of unclear provenance, but one was found at Bet Guvrin and another was recorded as a surface find from Maresha (Qedar 1992–1993:31–33). He suggests that these coins were minted by the local population during the time of Gabinius, in the year 57 BCE, while the era of Maresha began in 60/59 BCE. We have suggested in previous publications, and Qedar concurs, that Gabinius rebuilt Maresha at a nearby, as yet unidentified site, perhaps in the area later occupied by Bet Guvrin. Shimon Gibson

221

shares the idea that Bet Guvrin was the location of the first-century settlement instead of Maresha itself (Gibson and Jacobson 1994). Until now, about forty coins of this mint have been published (Gitler and Stein 2004). Of equal significance is the fact that only a very few first-century BCE coins were found during our excavations, and their stratigraphic context is unclear. Three Jewish inscriptions from the Early Roman period were discovered in burrows associated with hiding complexes (see Chapter 2: Nos. 70–72). These complexes were dated according to the finds to the Ben Kosba (Bar Kokhba) Revolt, in the fourth decade of the second century CE. According to the information derived from the finds in these hiding complexes, they were always located below villages and within settled, and not uninhabited, areas. The Jews used these underground systems as a life-saving means of rescue during these dangerous times. The remains of a small settlement, also dated to the fourth decade of the second century CE, were discovered in Area 30 and above Subterranean Complex 30 and Subterranean Complex 29. It is not impossible that this small settlement was a suburb of the nearby city of Bet Guvrin.

The Economy of Maresha during the Hellenistic Period Maresha rapidly became an important economic center of local and international manufacturing and commercial activities. The city’s economic status is attested by the imported wares found in the excavations, by its administrative and commercial connections with Egypt, by the presence of luxury goods, and by the evidence of advanced technologies and production techniques. The archaeological finds in the Lower City indicate that the inhabitants enjoyed a very high standard of living, similar to that of the residents of the Upper City. It can be assumed that most of the economic activities at Maresha, including trade in products and other merchandise, were conducted within the residential buildings (Kloner 2001). Market goods and products were stored in rooms and storerooms in the houses, as attested by the finds from the various excavation areas, for example, twenty-five amphorae and storage jars found in two of the rectangular rooms of House A in Area 61. Similar storage vessels were discovered in other rooms of the same building, as well as in additional buildings in the same

222

Amos Kloner

insula, although in smaller quantities (Kloner et al. 1998:164–165). The seven amphorae and jars from a small room near the main hall of a residential house in Area 53 (Kloner 1991:80–81) must indicate that this room served as a household storage facility, rather than for commercial purposes. Most of the storage space for commercial goods at Maresha was located in the subterranean complexes, where there were hundreds of small spaces and a few dozen larger spaces covering several hundred square meters. In the large storage spaces, pillars created when the space was originally hewn out of the bedrock often supported the ceilings, for example in Subterranean Complex 53 (Kloner 1991:84, on the right of the drawing), Subterranean Complex 51, Subterranean Complex 75, and others. Subterranean Complex 70, on the other hand, had a vast, vaulted hall with no supporting pillars. By the end of the third century and the beginning of the second century BCE, the majority of columbaria were no longer being used for pigeon-raising, but instead served as storage areas and also for other purposes. The secondary use of a columbarium can be seen in Subterranean Complex 21 (Kloner and Hess 1985:122–124; Maresha I:41–45) and Subterranean Complex 30—the es-Sūk complex—where nesting niches in the walls were smoothed over and the lower parts of the corridors widened (Bliss and Macalister 1902:242–245). This is also apparent in Columbarium A19, System 18, in Subterranean Complex 61 (Kloner and Arbel 1998:161) and in Subterranean Complex 147 (Kloner 1999). The secondary functions of these installations could not always be determined. No data are available to enable us to define certain buildings as having been inhabited or used by the merchants or other individuals engaged in trade with other commercial centers on the coastal plain or with other countries. Such commercial intercourse, however, must have been an integral part of the source of the city’s livelihood during the Hellenistic period. Conceivably, the manufacturers themselves may have conducted this trade, but this is in opposition to the specialization of activities that we suggest prevailed at the site in this period. There is reason to believe that the commercial activities mentioned in the Zenon papyri were conducted by veteran Idumean families at Maresha, or other ethnic groups such as Sidonians (Kloner 2001:117–130; Maresha I:154). Presumably, the large subterranean halls were used to store goods

destined for markets and export. As indicated above, there is no evidence of a specific, separate storage area in the city, or of appreciable concentrations of subterranean storage facilities. At present, it seems that the houses of the merchants and their storerooms were spread across the entire city. While we can only speculate as to the numbers, we believe a few dozen household units, equivalent to the number of olivepress owners (although they need not have been the same households), derived their main source of income from large-scale commerce. Undoubtedly, shops and small retail establishments were more numerous, and many more—probably several hundred—inhabitants of Maresha earned their living from local trade. As the individuals engaged in this trade may well have belonged to larger family units, and would not necessarily have needed separate residences, they cannot be considered as the owners of the larger houses. They probably lived in smaller homes or in parts of the larger houses. Similar conclusions may be drawn regarding other merchants and craftspeople at Hellenistic Maresha. Finally, functionaries’ families and local government officials occupied certain houses in the city. The names of three agoranomoi responsible for supervising commercial activities, as well as weights and measures, were found at Maresha (see Chapters 8, 9; Bliss and Macalister 1902:61; Finkielsztejn 1999:55–56). The agoranomoi may possibly have served in this capacity part-time—in addition to deriving income from their olive presses, columbaria, trade, etc. There is no evidence to suggest that they represent a group of homeowners separate from the other categories discussed above. It is possible that a number of wealthier families, whose source of income was external to the city and therefore cannot be determined, also lived in Maresha. It would appear that the residential houses of Maresha were owned by extended families that both lived in them and used them for production activities. On the assumption that thirty olive presses were operating in Hellenistic Maresha (Kloner and Sagiv 1989:53), we estimate that c. 1800 dunams (approximately 450 acres) of olive groves existed in the peripheral lands associated with the city. Olives were undoubtedly one of the more important sources of income in the city. Presumably, at least part—if not all— of the olive presses were owned by the owners of the groves, who processed the crop and produced the olive

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

oil. Whether this assumption is correct or not, it is certain that the majority of the olives grown in the surrounding groves must have been processed in the city itself. The olive-crushing process produces a byproduct of wastewater that has no use and which would have had to be discarded outside the installation. In local villages to this day, the wastewater is poured into runnels in the nearby countryside during the olive harvest and crushing season, and its pungent stench pervades the air. Although we do not know whether the inhabitants of Maresha considered it a nuisance, it is unlikely that this wastewater was simply dumped in the city streets, the thoroughfares for people and pack animals. Rather, the system of underground drainage and sewage channels, such as those in Area 61 (see above), would have been used to carry off the effluents of the olive-oil industry along with other liquid waste. We believe that the inhabitants of Maresha preferred to process the olive harvest next to their homes, thus assuring maximum control over the work and enabling them to protect and store their valuable products. The finds attesting to production and storage within the residential houses of the city itself, and not in a distinct separate industrial zone, indicate the rational behind the distribution and location of these installations: the citizens of Maresha, whether they produced olive oil or raised pigeons, appear to have felt secure only when the source of their livelihood was close at hand.

Summary The early ostraca show that the city recovered after Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE. No other ostraca were found from the sixth century BCE, after the Judean monarchy fell to the Babylonians, i.e., from the second quarter of the sixth century BCE until the beginning of the fifth century BCE. At present, this gap in the epigraphic material is also clearly reflected in the almost complete lack of any pottery, figurines or other archaeological evidence from this period in the excavations at Maresha. Two Phoenician ostraca (Chapter 2: Nos. 66, 67) from the Persian period of the fourth century BCE include only Phoenician names. These constitute evidence, in my opinion, that the Sidonian community at Maresha had already settled there in the Persian period. Sixty-three Aramaic ostraca (Chapter 2: Nos. 3–65) are dated to the end of the fifth–second centuries BCE. There is no evidence of Greek settlement or settlers

223

in the fourth century BCE, before the Macedonian conquest of the east. The names recorded in these ostraca include various theophoric elements, such as ‫ אל‬and QWS. Non-theophoric Edomite names are also represented, as well as Nabatean, Arabic, Hebrew, Egyptian and Babylonian names. Ethnic groups, including the Qedarites, the ‘children of Zarda’ and the ‘clan of D’YN’ are also mentioned. Although the majority of the names are Edomite or Nabataean in origin, this onomasticon reflects the variety of ethnic groups inhabiting Maresha during the later part of the Persian and Hellenistic periods. In some cases, it is possible to trace generational namechanges, although the question of the interrelationships among the various ethnic groups at Maresha during this period cannot be answered solely on the basis of the assemblage. Names are sometimes listed as ‘the son/s of X’. Nicknames derived from occupations, origins or physical characteristics are also used. Several place names are mentioned: Maresha twice (see Chapter 2: Nos. 24 and 68), as well as Petra, el-Mote and others. Given the many Edomite names mentioned in the ostraca, it is clear that the Idumean part of the population was very significant at Maresha, and probably in all Idumea, during the fifth–second centuries BCE. Another interpretation of the term ‘Idumean’ is that it is simply geographical and relates to the population of southern Judea, who are not necessarily all ethnically Idumean, from the coastal plain to the Dead Sea (Kokkinos 1998:72–79). The Idumean and Arab population penetrated this part of the country in the Persian period, mainly from the sixth century BCE on, as indicated by the Aramaic ostraca. The population of Maresha was mixed during the later Persian and Hellenistic periods, consisting mostly of Idumeans, with smaller communities of Arabs or people of Arab descent, Sidonians, Egyptians and people from Philistia. It is not impossible that Jews resided at Maresha as well. It is obvious, however, that Maresha, like other Idumean cities and villages, was mainly Idumean in character and the other ethnic groups were small minorities. In addition, three ostraca found at Maresha (Chapter 2: Nos. 70–72) contribute to our knowledge of the end of the Second Temple period, during which a small settlement existed at Maresha, probably until the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The latest inscription (Chapter 3: No. 169) testifies to the well-documented Byzantine presence at Maresha.

224

Amos Kloner

Notes 1 As the main purpose of this volume is publishing the inscriptions, no detailed information is given concerning the exact location and the content of each particular locus. 2 Stairwells were not found in the buildings of the Upper City. It is possible there were two-storied buildings in the Upper City, although no clear evidence for this has been

found. Only the ground-floor plans of houses were uncovered in the 1900 excavations (Bliss and Macalister 1902); the report also does not mention caves beneath the buildings. It is possible that an accumulation of remains from earlier periods, several meters in depth, did not allow for the hewing of caves in the Upper City.

R eferences Amandry P. 1984. Os et coquilles. L’antre Coricien II (BCH Supplement 9). Athens. Pp. 347–380. Avi-Yonah M. and Kloner A. 1993. Maresha (Marisa). NEAEHL 3. Pp. 948–957. Barag D. 1992–1993. New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I. INJ 12:1–12. Barkay R. 1992–1993. The Marisa Hoard of Seleucid Tetradrachms Minted in Ascalon. INJ 12:21–26. Bar-‘Oz G. 2001. An Inscribed Astragalus with a Dedication to Hermes. NEA 64:211–213. Bar-‘Oz G. 2009. Inscribed Astragalus from Sha‘ar Ha‘amakim. In A. Segal, J. Mlynarczyk and M. Burdajewicz eds. Excavations of the Hellenistic Site in Kibbutz Sha‘ar Ha‘Amakim (Gaba) 1984–1998. Haifa. Pp. 56–62. Ben-Haim D. and Kloner A. 1989. Maresha—Subterranean System No. 74. Niqrot Zurim 15:11–16 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 195). Bliss F.J. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the years 1898–1900. London. Broshi M. 1979. The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman–Byzantine Period. BASOR 236:1–10. Cotton H.M. and Wörrle M. 2007. Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier or Royal Correspondence from Israel. ZPE 159:191–205. Eitam D. 1993a. “Between the [olive] rows, oil will be produced, presses will be trod …” (Job 24,11). In M.C. Amouretti and J.P. Brun eds. Oil and Wine Production in the Mediterranean Area (BCH Supplement 26). Athens– Paris. Pp. 65–90. Eitam D. 1993b. Selected Oil and Wine Installations in Ancient Israel. In M.C. Amouretti and J.P. Brun eds. Oil and Wine Production in the Mediterranean Area (BCH Supplement 26). Athens–Paris. Pp. 91–106. Eph’al I. and Naveh J. 1996. Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea. Jerusalem. Eshel E. 2007. The Onomasticon of Mareshah in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. In O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers and R. Albertz eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake. Pp. 145–156. Eshel E. and Kloner A. 1996. An Aramaic Ostracon of an Edomite Marriage Contract from Maresha, Dated 176 B.C.E. IEJ 46:1–22.

Eshel E., Puech E. and Kloner A. 2007. Aramaic Scribal Exercises of the Hellenistic Period from Maresha: Bowls A and B. BASOR 345:39–62. Finkielsztejn G. 1998. More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps. BAIAS 16:33–63. Finkielsztejn G. 1999. A Standard of Volume for Liquids from Hellenistic Marisa. ‘Atiqot 38:51–64. Foerster G. 1995. Masada V: Art and Architecture. Jerusalem. Foxhall L. 1993. Oil Extraction and Processing Equipment in Classical Greece. In M.C. Amouretti and J.P. Brun eds. Oil and Wine Production in the Mediterranean Area (BCH Supplement 26). Athens–Paris. Pp. 183–200. Frankel R. 1999. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries. Sheffield. Gera D. 2009. Olympiodoros, Heliodoros and the Temples of Koile Syria and Phoinike. ZPE 169:125–155. Gibson S. and Jacobson D.M. 1996. The Oldest Datable Chambers on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. BA 57:150– 160. Gitler H. and Stein A. 2004. A New Date on Coins of Marisa in Idumea and Its Historical Implications. RSN 83:87–93. Kloner A. 1985. Maresha: The Water Cisterns Cave. Niqrot Zurim 11–12:102–107 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 132). Kloner A. 1991. Maresha. Qadmoniot 95–96:70–85 (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1994. A Unique Hellenistic Juglet from Maresha (Marissa/Tell Sandahannah). In S. Drougou ed. The Third Conference of Hellenistic Pottery. Athens. Pp. 218, 269– 271. Kloner A. 1996a. Central-Pillar Spiral Staircases in the Hellenistic Period. Eretz Israel 25:484–489 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 107). Kloner A. 1996b. Maresha—An Archaeological Guide. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1999. Maresha. Subterranean Complex 147. HA– ESI 110:77*–78*. Kloner A. 2000. Columbaria in Jerusalem. In J. Schwartz, Z. Amar and I. Ziffer eds. Jerusalem and Eretz Israel. Tel Aviv. Pp. 61–66. Kloner A. 2001. The Economy of Hellenistic Maresha. In Z.H. Archibald, J. Davies, V. Gabrielsen and G.J. Oliver eds. Hellenistic Economies. London–New York. Pp. 103–131.

Chapter 10: Archaeological and epigraphic overviews

Kloner A. 2001–2002. Water Cisterns in Idumea, Judaea and Nabatea in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. ARAM 13–14:461–485. Kloner A. 2003. Survey of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Sector, Introduction and Indices (Archaeological Survey of Israel). Jerusalem. Kloner A. 2005. Water Cisterns in Idumaea, Judaea and Nabatea in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In I. Riera ed. Binos Actus Lumina. Sarzana (La Spezia). Pp. 129–148. Kloner A. 2008a. Maresha in the Reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. In P. McKechnie and P. Guillaume eds. Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World. Leiden. Pp. 171– 182. Kloner A. 2008b. Maresha (Marisa). NEAEHL 5. Pp. 1918– 1925. Kloner A. 2009. The Oil Presses at Maresha. In E. Ayalon, R. Frankel and A. Kloner eds. Oil and Wine Presses in Israel from the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Oxford. Pp. 373–382. Kloner A. In Press a. The Identity of the Idumaens Based on the Archaeological Evidence from Maresha. In O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers and H. Oeming eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Ages: Negotiating Identity in the International Context. Winona Lake. Pp. 563–573. Kloner A. In Press b. The Introduction of the Greek Language and Culture in the Third Century BCE according to the Archaeological Evidence in Idumaea. In L.L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits eds. Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE). Kloner A. and Arbel Y. 1998. Maresha—Area 61 (Subterranean Complex). ESI 17:157–162. Kloner A. and Asaf E. 1995. Maresha—1992. ESI 14:119– 120. Kloner A. and Hess O. 1985. A Columbarium in Complex 21 at Maresha. ‘Atiqot (ES) 17:122–133. Kloner A. and Sagiv N. 1989. Maresha: Olive Oil Production in the Hellenistic Period. Niqrot Zurim 15:17–65 (Hebrew). Kloner A. and Sagiv N. 1993. The Olive Presses of Hellenistic Maresha, Israel. In M.C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun eds. Oil and Wine Production in the Mediterranean Area (BCH Supplement 26). Athens–Paris. Pp. 119–136. Kloner A. and Stern I. 2007. Idumea in the Late Persian Period (Fourth Century B.C.E.) In O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers and R. Albertz eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake. Pp. 139–144. Kloner A., Erlich A., Vitto F. and Shmuel D. 1998. Maresha— Area 61. ESI 17:163–165. Kloner A., Regev D. and Rappaport U. 1992. A Hellenistic Burial Cave in the Judean Shephelah. ‘Atiqot 21:26*–50* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 175–176). Kokkinos N. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty. Sheffield. Kurtz D.C. and Boardman J. 1971. Greek Burial Customs. New York.

225

Lemaire A. 1996. Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israël (Transeuphraténe Supplement 3). Paris. Lemaire A. 2002. Nouvelles inscriptions araméenes d’Idumée II (Transeuphraténe Supplement 9a). Paris. Lemaire A. 2006. New Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea and Their Historical Interpretation. In O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 413–456. Lemaire A. 2007. Administration in Fourth Century B.C.E. Judah in Light of Epigraphy and Numismatics. In O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers and R. Albertz eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake. Pp. 53–74. Lemaire A. and Lozachmeur H. 1996. Deux inscriptions araméennes du Ve siècle avant J.-C. Semitica 27:99–104. Miron Y. 1985. Maresha—Cave System No. 15. Niqrot Zurim 11–12:108–112 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 132). Moulton W.J. 1915. An Inscribed Tomb at Beit Jibrin. AJA 19:63–70. Netzer E. 1991. Masada III: Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Oren E.D. 1965. The Caves of the Palestinian Shephelah. Archaeology 17:218–224. Oren E.D. and Rappaport, U. 1984. The Necropolis of Maresha-Bet Guvrin. IEJ 34:114–153. Peters J.P. and Thiersch H. 1905. Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Marêshah). London. Porten B. and Yardeni A. 2004. Problems of Identity and Chronology in the Idumean Ostraca. In M. Heltzer and M. Malul eds. Teshurot La-Avishur: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Tel Aviv. Pp.161*–183*. Porten B. and Yardeni A. 2006. Social, Economic, and Onomastic Issues in the Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century B.C.E. In O. Lipschits and M. Oeming eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 457–488. Qedar S. 1992–1993. The Coins of Marisa: A New Mint. INJ 12:27–33. Sagiv N. and Kloner A. 1996. Maresha: Underground Olive Oil Production in the Hellenistic Period. In D. Eitam and M. Heltzer eds. Olive Oil in Antiquity. Israel and Neighboring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period. Padova. Pp. 255–292. Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 155–162. Thiersch H. 1908. Die neueren Ausgraben in Palëstina Tell Sandahannah. JDAI:392–413. Toynbee J.M.C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London. Young R.S. 1962. The 1961 Campaign at Gordion. AJA 66:153–168. Zissu B. 1995. Two Herodian Dovecotes: Horvat Abu Hof and Horvat Aleq. The Roman and Byzantine Near East (JRA Supplementary Series 14). Ann Arbor. Pp. 56–69.

I ndices of Semitic I nscriptions Esther Eshel

Word ‫בן‬

Index of words Hebrew—Seventh Century BCE Translation Ostracon:Line son (of) 1:1 (×2), 4

Name ]‫גריה[ו‬ ‫יאיר‬ ‫ידוע‬ ‫עבדיהו‬ ‫צר‬ ‫אריהו‬

Personal Names Transcription GRYH[W] Y’YR YDW‘ ‘BDYHW SR ’RYHW

Ostracon:Line 1:1 1:1–2 1:5 1:6 1:4 1:3

Word ‫ו‬ ‫שמן‬

Phoenician Translation and oil

Ostracon:Line 67:1 67:2

Word ‫ה‬ ‫שבר‬

Word )‫א(יפה‬ ‫אב‬ ‫אגן‬ ‫אחרן‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫אנה‬ ‫אנתה‬

Edomite Translation definite article chief administrator (of agriculture) Aramaic Translation ephah month Ab amphora another one to say I wife/woman

Ostracon:Line 69 69

Ostracon:Line 12:4 3:1 11:6 5:2 65:1 65:2, 3; 66:4 66:9

228

Esther Eshel

Word ‫ב‬

‫ב‬ ‫בב‬ ‫בגו‬ ‫בחדות לבבה‬ ‫ביד‬ ‫ בי‬,‫בית‬ ‫בלט‬ ‫בסים‬ ‫בעי‬ ‫בעל‬ ‫בר‬ ‫ברה‬ ‫בתולה‬

Aramaic (cont.) Translation on (in date formula)

in, at [local] (new) entry within of his own free will (lit. the joy of his heart) at the hand house provisions sweet to request/wish husband son

‫ו‬

daughter previously unmarried woman (lit. virgin) man jar ram male south he to be Thus, if [my lord pleases(?)] and

‫זוד‬ ‫זוז‬ ‫זי‬ ‫זית‬ ‫זנה‬ )‫ח(נטן‬ ‫חד‬ ‫חלק‬ ‫חמר בסם‬ ‫חתם‬

provisions zūz that olive, olive grove this wheat one portion vinegar of wine signature/to sign

‫גבר‬ ‫גרב‬ ‫דכר‬ ‫דכר‬ ‫ דרום‬see: PN ‫הו‬ ‫הוי‬ ])?( ‫הן על [ מראי טב‬

Ostracon:Line 2:1; 3:1; 5:3; 6:1; 7; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1; 11:1; 12:5; 14:2; 66:1 30:1; 42:3, 4 28 29 66:2 64:13 43; 66:11 65:5 4:3 65:2; 66:4 66:11 11:1; 16:1; 40:1, 2; 61; 62; 64:13, 14; 66:2, 3, 6 66:5, 9, 10 66:4 12:4 4:2 12:3 66:5 31:1 66:2 66:6 65:4 4:2; 31:2; 39, 42:2; 64:13; 65:2, 3, 5; 66:7 (×2), 10, 11 66:10 66:10 66:4, 6, 8 5:2 66:11 6:2; 12:4; 19:1 63:2 30:2 34:1 66:12

Indices of semitic inscriptions

Word ‫יהב‬ ‫ינקא‬ ‫ירח‬ ‫ירת‬ ‫כ‬ )‫כ(ר‬ ‫כזי‬ ‫כל‬ ‫כנתן‬ ‫כסף‬ ‫כען‬ ‫כרם‬

Aramaic (cont.) Translation to give young camel month heir according to kor when all emmer silver now vineyard

-‫ל‬ -‫ל‬

of (in date formula) to

-‫ל‬ -‫ל‬ ‫לבוש‬ ‫לקבל זי‬ ‫מה‬ ‫מותא‬ ‫מטה‬ ‫מן‬ ‫(מאן =) מנא‬ ‫מרא בי‬ ‫מראת בי‬ (?)‫משח‬ ‫נומוס‬ ‫נסך‬ ‫נצב‬ ‫נשא‬ ‫נתן‬ )‫ס(אה‬

belonging to of (the house of) clothing that which what ? clan from utensil master of the house mistress of the house oil law, custom libation orchard to bear to give seah

‫סיון‬ ‫סימיא‬ ‫עבד‬ ‫על‬

month Sivan ? slave PN owes

Ostracon:Line 66:9 12:3 66:1 66:7 66:5 6:3; 16:2 66:9 12:2 16:2 66:10 66:4 14:1; 29; 30:1; 31:1; 32:1; 33 2:1; 3:1; 6:1 2:2; 3:2; 12:4; 17:1; 26:1; 27:1; 41; 66:3, 5, 6, 8, 9 (×2), 11 31:1; 32:1 43 66:10 66:8 65:4 42:4 63:1 63:2; 66:4, 6 65:5; 66:10 66:7 66:5 25 66:5 27:2 5:1 66:11 66:5 2:3; 6:2, 3; 13:3; 16:2; 17:1, 2; 18:1; 19:1, 2; 21; 23:1, 2; 26:2 8:1; 66:1 42:3 63:3 23:2

229

230

Esther Eshel

Word ‫עלי‬ ‫עלל‬ ‫עשרין‬ )‫פ(לג‬ ‫צלם‬ )‫ק(ב‬ ‫קבל‬ ‫קמח‬ )‫קסיה (= קסיה‬ ‫קצב‬ )‫ר(בע‬ ‫ראש‬ )‫ש(ערן‬ ‫שבט‬ ‫שווי‬ ‫שיזף‬

Aramaic (cont.) Translation ? to enter, bring in to twenty half idol qab

‫שכר‬ ‫שמע‬ ‫שמשם‬ ‫שנה‬

in the presence of flour woods, pole to determine, limit (?) a quarter barely groats barley month Shebat to be worth Jujube (Ziziphus vulgaris) Shekhar to hear sesame year

‫( שרי‬see PN) )‫ת(ומנה‬ ‫תליתי‬ ‫תמוז‬

beam an eighth third month Tammuz

Sign 7

Ostracon:Line 3:2 66:11 27:2 6:2; 10:2 65:3 2:3; 3:3; 6:2, 3; 10:2; 17:2 66:11 17:1 11:3 34 19:2 12:1 3:3; 17:2; 23:1, 2 6:1 66:10 35:1 4:3 66:8 8:2 3:1; 4:4; 5:3; 6:1; 13; 66:1 28 25 29 2:1

Index of Signs and Numbers Translation Ostracon:Line 1 passim

0

10



20

9

100

3:3; 11:1, 2; 14:2; 18:1, 3; 22; 66:1 6:1, 7; 11:2; 10; 21; 23:1; 26:2; 66:1 20:2; 66:10; 67:2

٥

Heket/ one-quarter

1:2–6



Sealing sign

12:6

Indices of semitic inscriptions

Index of Persian and Hellenistic Personal Names Name Transcription Ostracon:Line ‫אבאושו‬ ’B’WŠW 63:3 ‫אסי‬ ’SY 2:2; 3:2 ‫ארסנה‬ Arsinoe (fem.) 66:3, 8 ‫בין‬ BYN 9:3 ‫)בעל רם =( בל רם‬ BL RM (= B‘L RM) 67 ‫בעלדכר‬ B‘LDKR 64:14 ‫בעלנתן‬ B‛LNTN 45 ‫בתמטרם‬ BTMTRM (fem.) 68 ‫גמרת‬ GMRT 12:1 ‫דאין‬ D’YN 63:1 46 ‫דיגרם‬ DYGRM ‫דנאיל‬ DN’YL 47 31:1 ‫דרום‬ DRWM (see: south) ‫והבי‬ WHBY 64:2 ‫זבדא‬ ZBD’ 13:1; 30:2; 64:5 ‫זבדאדה‬ ZBD’DH 63:4, 7 ‫זבדי‬ ZBDY 63:5, 7; 64:14 ‫זידא‬ ZYD’ 11:1 ‫חגגו‬ HGGW 64:11 ‫חגי‬ HGY 48 ‫חור‬ HWR 40:2 ‫חורן‬ HWRN 39 ‫חלפן‬ HLPN 4:2 ‫חני‬ HNY 4:2 ‫טביו‬ TBYW 24:2 ‫יאוש‬ Y’WŠ 49 12:2 ‫יבנאל‬ YBN’L ‫יזדו‬ YZDW 12:5 ‫יחלעלו‬ YHL‘LW 64:10 ‫יעולון‬ Y‘WLWN 31:2 ‫יפעת‬ YP‘T 50 ‫יתוע‬ YTW‘ 23:2 ‫כנבון‬ KNBWN 11:2 MNKY 2:2; 3:1; 65:4 ‫מנכי‬ ‫מרמאת‬ MRM’T 23:1 ‫מתן‬ MTN 63:6 ‫מתק‬ MTQ 38:2 ‫נבורעי‬ NBWR‘Y 64:4 ‫נהרי‬ NHRY 16:1; 41

231

232

Esther Eshel

Index of Persian and Hellenistic Personal Names (cont.) Name Transcription Ostracon:Line 17:1 ‫נחום‬ NHWM ‫נתון‬ NTWN 64:7 ‫עבדו‬ ‘BDW 64:12 ‫עבדי‬ ‘BDY 64:1 ‫עבדיו‬ ‘BDYW 51 ‫עבדערש‬ ‘BD‘RŠ 15:2 52, 53 ‫עבדקוס‬ ‘BDQWS ‫עגלן‬ ‘GLN 2:2; 3:2 ‫עדרתו‬ ‛DRTW 63:2, 7 ‫עוידו‬ ‘WYDW 6:2; 64:3 ‫עזיזו‬ ‘ZYZW 16:1 ‫עזרא‬ ‘ZR’ 43 ‫עינו‬ ‘YNW 42:2 67 ‫עכברם‬ ‘KBRM ‫עליאל‬ ‘LY’L 12:1 ‫עלם‬ ‛LM 38:3 ‫עמבעל‬ ‘MB‘L 43 ‫עני‬ ‘NY 5:1; 40:1 ‫ענני‬ ‘NNY 36:1 54 ‫עשו‬ ‘SW ‫פחרי‬ PHRY 64:6 ‫פציא‬ PSY’ 63:6 8:2 ‫פציאל‬ PSY’L ‫קוסבנה‬ QWSBNH 32:1 ‫קוסדכר‬ QWSDKR 64:9,13 ‫קוסחנן‬ QWSHNN 55 12:2; 27:1; 56; 66:2, ‫קוסיד‬ QWSYD 3, 8, 9 ‫קוסיהב‬ QWSYHB 66:3 ‫קוסינקם‬ QWSYNQM 57 ‫קוסיתע‬ QWSYT‘ 40:2, 58 ‫קוסנהר‬ QWSNHR 64:8 ‫קוסנתן‬ QWSNTN 63:5 ‫קוסעיר‬ QWS‛YR 59 ‫קוסרם‬ QWSRM 24:1; 60; 66:2 ‫רם‬ RM 64:13 ‫שלחא‬ ŠLH’ 30:1 31:2 ‫שלמי‬ ŠLMY 61 ‫שמי‬ ŠMY ‫שמע‬ ŠM‛ 63:7

233

Indices of semitic inscriptions

Index of Persian and Hellenistic Personal Names (cont.) Name Transcription Ostracon:Line 63:5 ‫שמראל‬ ŠMR’L ‫שמרריה‬ ŠMRRYH 63:6 ‫שרי‬ ŠRY (see: beam) 28

Name ]‫אבית[ע‬ ‫[א]לחני‬ ‫]…]בעלי‬ ‫]…[בעל‬ […]‫יוא‬ […]‫טב‬ ‫]…[נבו‬ ]‫נעמ[אל‬ ]‫סילב[קוס‬ […]‫עבד‬ […]‫קוס‬ ]‫שמר[ו‬ ]‫תנחו[ם‬ ]...[‫תריפו‬ ‫]…[ואל‬

Partly Preserved Names Transcription ’BYT[‛] [’]LHNY […]B‘LY […]B‘L YW’[…] TB[…] […]NBW N‛M[’L] Seleu[cus] ‛BD[…] QWS[…] ŠMR[W] TNHW[M] TRYPW[…] […]W’L

Ostracon:Line 63:4 38:2 64:15 40:1 37:1 14:1 39 38:2 66:1 60 37:2 9:2 62 42:2 20:3

Place ‫מרשה‬

Index of Persian and Hellenistic Place Names Translation Ostracon:Line Maresha 27:2; 30:1

Name ‫חניה‬ ‫יהוחנן‬

Index of Early Roman Personal Names Transcription Ostracon:Line HNYH 71, Hebrew YHWHNN 70, Hebrew

Name ‫ד(ו)]מטה‬

Partly Preserved Names Transcription D(W)]MTH

Ostracon:Line 72, Hebrew

234

Esther Eshel

Index of Hebrew Bible Citations Book

Ostracon

Book

Ostracon

Gen 36:1 Gen 36:8 Gen 42:6 Gen 46:14 Gen 46:16 Gen 46:21 Exod 4:2 Exod 9:32 Exod 17:10 Exod 24:6 Exod 31:2 Exod 34:7 Lev 10:9 Num 6:3 Num 25:15 Num 26:15 Num 26:26 Num 26:40 Num 31:8 Num 32:41 Num 34:23 Deut 3:14 Deut 25:14-15 Josh 10:3 Josh 13:18 Josh 15:11 Judg 3:14 Judg 3:15 Judg 10:3 Judg 13:4 1 Sam 18:19 2 Sam 5:15 2 Sam 16:5 Isa 22:24 Isa 28:25 Isa 65:11 Jer 2:23 Jer 25:24 Jer 27:1

54 54 69 64 11 1, 38 63 16 40 11 40 29 4 4, 34 1 11 64 38 40 1 38 1 12 50 50, Conclusions 12 2 1 1 4 63 50 1 11 16 11 12 11 49

Jer 48:21 Ezek 4:9 Ezek 27:21 Ezek 28:3-5 Ezek 45:14 Amos 8:5 Obad 1 Prov 20:10 Job 8:6 Job 32:2 Song 7:3 Ruth 4:19 Esth 2:5 Ezra 2:46 Ezra 8:9 Ezra 10:26 Ezra 10:32 Ezra 10:40 Ezra 10:41 Neh 2:19 Neh 4:1 Neh 6:1 Neh 8:4 Neh 10:22 Neh 12:11 1 Chr 2:28 1 Chr 2:43 1 Chr 3:24 1 Chr 4:19 1 Chr 5:8 1 Chr 6:29 1 Chr 6:64 1 Chr 7:33 1 Chr 7:39 1 Chr 8:4 1 Chr 8:13 1 Chr 9:8 1 Chr 23:23 2 Chr 11:19

50, Conclusions 16 11 47 67 69 1 12 59 64 11 64 1 31 1 64 63 28 63 11 11 11 63 1 1 61 63 36 46, Conclusions 63 64 50, Conclusions 54 38 38 63 12 63 63

235

Indices of semitic inscriptions

Index of Judean Desert Document Citations Qumran Abbreviation KhQ, Ostracon 1

Ostracon 1 Ketef Jericho

Abbreviation Jer 1 Jer 1 Jer 1 Jer 1

Text papList of Loans ar,          Recto, Line 8          Recto, Line 13          Verso, Column II, Line 3

Ostracon 2 3 12 3

Wadi Murabba‘at Abbreviation Mur 21

Text papMarriage Contract ar, Line 11

Ostracon 66

Abbreviation 5/6Hev 7 (= P. Yadin 7) XHev/Se 8a 5/6Hev 10 (= P. Yadin 10) 5/6Hev 17 (= P. Yadin 17 5/6Hev 18 (= P. Yadin 18) 5/6Hev 46 (= P. Yadin 46) 5/6Hev 56 (= P. Yadin 56)

Nahal Hever Document papDeed of Gift ar, Line 4 papDeed of Sale C ar, Line 5 papBabatha’s Ketubba ar papDeposit gr and ar papMarriage Contract gr and ar papHebrew Legal Papyrus, Lines 5–8 papLetter ar, Line 9

Ostracon 66 29 66 66 66 66 66

Abbreviation m. ‘Arak m. Ketub.

Index of R abbinic Sources Mishnah Tractate ‘Arakin, 5:1 Ketubbot, 4:10

Ostracon 72 66

Abbreviation T. Qidd.

Tosefta Tractate Qiddušin 1:1, 2

Ostracon 66

Midrash Midrash Genesis Rabbah 91:8

Ostracon 3

236

Esther Eshel

Abbreviation y. Ma‘aś. Š. y. Šabb

Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:12 (55c) Šabbat 4:2 (7a)

Ostracon 34 30

Abbreviation b. Šabb. b. Šabb. b. Git.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Šabbat 49b Šabbat 139b Gittin 57a

Ostracon 30 4 11, 31

Abbreviation Tg. Neof. Tg. Jer. Tg. Isa.

Targumic Texts Targum Targum Neofiti, Exod 34:7 Targum Jeremiah, Jer 2:23 Targum Isaiah, Isa 5:7, 65:11

Ostracon 29 12 5, 11

I ndices of Greek I nscriptions Hava B. Korzakova

A—Astragali Alt—Altars B—Sling Lead Bullets

O—Ostraca and Graffiti on Vessels W—Lead Weights Names of Gods

Name

Object No.

Name

Object No.

jApovllw

O98

[Isi~

Alt2

jAfrodivt(h)

A5

Kov~

O96

Dhmhvthr

Alt1

Lavto

O95

[Erw~

A7

Nivkh

{Hra

A6

JHraklevo~ (gen. of JHraklh`~)

B6

A1, A2, A3, A4, B6 O97

Pavn

Names or Parts of Names Name

Object No.

Name

Object No.

jAgaqoklevou~ (gen. of jAgaqoklh`~)

Di]ovgenh~

O171

Diodwvro(u) (gen. of Diovdwro~)

W9

jAqhnodwvro~

W1, W2, W3, W6 W11

jAlkhsivou (gen. of jAlkhvsio~)

O221

jEpifavnou (gen. of jEpifavnh~)

O2

JErmivou (gen. of {Ermio~)

O199

JHrakleivdou (gen. of JHrakeivdh~) Qeof³[ivlw// (dat. of Qeovfilo~ or   Qeofavnh~/) Zh...

W4

Zhkihvlio~

O101(?)

ÆA]ntivoc[o~

O106

jAntipavtrou (gen. of jAntivpatro~)

W10

jApo[

O184, O204

jApol[

O99

jApollwnivou (gen. of jApollovnio~)

W4, W9

jApollofavnou (gen. of jApollofavnh~) O224 O223 jAravtw/ (dat. of [Arato~) [Arcio~

O3

Bakci[

O183

Govrgio~

O170

Dhmh`~

Alt2

Dam(o)klevw~ (gen. of Damokleuv~)

Alt2

Dio[

O202

O93 O212

Zh`no[ jIrmivou (gen. of [Irmio~)

O220

jI/[[i]]siklevou~ (gen. of jIsiklh`~)

O107

Lhlivou (gen. of Lhvlio~)

O225

Lu(kivw/ – ?)

O9

Luvko~

O101

Lusimavcw/ (dat. of Lusivmaco~)

O187

Mele[tivou or Melev[tio~

O207, O208

238

Hava B. Korzakova

Names or Parts of Names (cont.) Name

Object No.

Name

Object No.

Menekravtou (gen. of Menevkrato~)

W11

Fi...

O192

Sosipavtrou (gen. of Sosivpatro~)

O218

Fivlinno~.

O104 (?)

Sw³sib³[iv]o³u (gen. of Sw³sivbio~)

W7

Filiv(pp)ou (gen. of Fivlippo~)

O222

Ti...

O196

Cl...

O214

Words Word

Word

Object No.

Object No.

ajgavp³h

O9

qeov~, qeou`

O8

ajgoranomounto~,   ajgoranomouvntwn

zw`/[a

O1

kavboi

O20, O109

a{lwn

W1, W2, W3, W4, W6, W7, W9, W10, W11 O62

kavtw/

O1

a³jna(g)kavzoma³i³

O6

kuv(rio~), kuvr(ioi)

O2, O6, O7, O116

aJrpav[xa]

A3

l³i³q³ariw`no~

O101

b³iv³o~

O5

mavla

O11

bov/a

O1

meg(avlou), megavlh

O10, Alt1

k³a³t³a³; g³h³;n³

Alt1

mneiva, mneivan/

O1, O107

gurav

O14

o[re³i³

O5

daiv³mwn

O1

pivlou

O93

di]kaiofivl(ou)

O2

p³oevsa~

O171

duvo

O109

pugwvn

A9

dwv~

O93

pu(rov~)

O20

ej/n/te/l/[e]u/[ntw'ntai

O1

sivnapi³

O110

e[por[e(n).

O94

sivto~

O109

e[tou~

O2

stafivdo~

O111

]eywm[

O60

swvm/ato~

O1

hJmiovgdo³o³n³

W17

uiJov~

Alt2

hjmÕ~

O5

formivs[ko~]

O108

239

Indices of Greek Inscriptions

Ligatures Ligature

Object No.

Ligature

Object No.

ap

O80

dr

201

ap or pa

O164

i|z—for iÆ (dracmaiv).

O113

apo

O184, O204, O206

k\b/k\g/oi\b/

O112

art—for [Arato~

O223

le, ab

O61

dio

O202

crtf—for cristovfilo~

O169

Date

Object No.

Date

Object No.

Year 6 The eighth year 143rd (or 146th?) year

W10 W11 W4

Year 205 [SE] Year 201 [SE] Year 150 (or 140) [SE]

W1, W2, W3 W7 W9

Dates

IAA R eports

No. 1 G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, 1996, 129 pp.

No. 16 Y. Goren and P. Fabian, Kissufim Road: A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site, 2002, 97 pp.

No. 2 E. Braun, Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel, 1997, 249 pp.

No. 17 A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, 2003, 183 pp.

No. 3 G. Edelstein, I. Milevski and S. Aurant, Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, 1998, 149 pp. No. 4 C. Epstein, The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan, 1998, 352 pp. + plans. hardcover. No. 5 T. Schick, The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, 1998, 137 pp. No. 6 R. Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev I: The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I (Hebrew, English Summary), 1999, 396 pp. No. 7 R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew, Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period, 1999, 202 pp. No. 8 Z. Gal and Y. Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, 2000, 247 pp. No. 9 U. Dahari, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period: The Archaeological Remains, 2000, 250 pp. + map. No. 10 Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim: The 1962–1964, 1980– 1987 Excavations (Hebrew, English Summary), 2000, 216 pp. No. 11 M. Hartal, The al-Subayba (Nimrod) Fortress: Towers 11 and 9, 2001, 129 pp. No. 12 R. Gonen, Excavations at Efrata: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, 2001, 153 pp. No. 13 E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg, Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, 2001, 227 pp. No. 14 R. Frankel, N. Getzov, M. Aviam and A. Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, 2001, 175 pp. + color distribution maps and foldout map. No. 15 M. Dayagi-Mendels, The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-dor Excavations, 1941–1944, 2002, 176 pp.

No. 18 A. Golani, Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat ‘Ata, 2003, 261 pp. No. 19 H. Khalaily and O. Marder, The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh: The 1995 Excavations, 2003, 146 pp. No. 20 R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin, Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands II: The Iron Age and Persian Period (Hebrew, English Summary), 2004, 258 pp. No. 21 D. Stacey, Exavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods, 2004, 259 pp. No. 22 Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, 2004, 234 pp. No. 23 S. Ben-Arieh, Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim, 2004, 212 pp. No. 24 M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo, Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969), 2005, 320 pp. No. 25 M. Avissar, Tel Yoqne‘am: Excavations on the Acropolis, 2005, 142 pp. No. 26 M. Avissar and E.J. Stern, Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel, 2005, 187 pp., 53 figs., 34 color plates. No. 27 E.C.M. van den Brink and Ram Gophna, Shoham (North), Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel, 2005, 214 pp. No. 28 N. Getzov, The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995, 2006, 204 pp. No. 29 A.M. Berlin, Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period, the Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, 2006, 181 pp. No. 30 R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz and Y. Paz, Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports, 1933–1986, 2006, 500 pp. No. 31 E. Yannai, ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel, 2006, 308 pp.

No. 32 T.J. Barako, Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960, 2007, 276 pp.

No. 40 M. Hartal, Paneas IV: The Aqueduct and the Northern Suburbs, 2009, 212 pp.

No. 33 g. mazor and a. najjar, Bet She’an I: nysa-scythopolis: the caesareum and the odeum, 2007, 316 pp.

No. 41 N. Getzov, R. Lieberman-Wander, H. Smithline, and D. Syon, Horbat ‘Uza, the 1991 Excavations I: The Early Periods, 2009, 168 pp.

No. 34 R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, Kadesh Barnea (Tell elQudeirat) 1976–1982, 2007. In 2 parts. Part 1: Text, 410 pp.; Part 2: Plates, Plans and Sections, 332 pp. No. 35 A. Erlich and A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report II: Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989–1996 Seasons, 2008, 208 pp. and 1 color plate. No. 36 G. Avni, U. Dahari and A. Kloner, The Necropolis of Bet Guvrin—Eleutheropolis, 2008, 238 pp. and 2 color plates. No. 37 V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli, Paneas I: The Roman to Early Islamic Periods: Excavations in Areas A, B, E, F, G and H, 2008, 196 pp. and 1 color plate. No. 38 V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli, Paneas II: Small Finds and Other Studies, 2008, 256 pp. and 1 color plate. No. 39 Z. Greenhut and A. De Groot, Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza : The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations, 2009, 363 pp.

No. 42 N. Getzov, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y. Gorin-Rosen, E.J. Stern, D. Syon, and A. Tatcher, Horbat ‘Uza, the 1991 Excavations II: The Late Periods, 2009, 232 pp. and 2 color plates. No. 43 J. Seligman, Nahal Haggit: A Roman and Mamluk Farmstead in the Southern Carmel, 2010, 277 pp. No. 44 D. Syon and Z. Yavor, Gamla II: The Architecture, the Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, 2010, 216 pp. and 1 color plate. No. 45 A. Kloner, E. Eshel, H.B. Korzakova and G. Finkielsztejn, Maresha Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons, 2010, 247 pp. No. 46 Y. Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer, 2010, 360 pp. and map (color).