The Archaeology of Palestine and

the Bible
 Gorgias Classic Archaeological Reprints

Gorgias Classic Archaeological Reprints is a series dedicated to

making historic contributions to the field of archaeology,
particularly in Ancient Western Asia, available to scholars. The
tides in this series are generally selected from the early days of
excavation in the Levant and Mesopotamia, although significant
contributions of a more recent vintage may also be included.

The Archaeology of Palestine and

the Bible
William Foxwell Albright

aortas press
2009
Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA
www.gorgiaspress.com
Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright

Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the
prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.
2009

ISBN 978-1-59333-665-3
ISSN 1935-4401

Printed in the United States of America

BASALT SLAB FROM BETH-SHAN, FIFTEENTH
CENTURY, B,C.
(By Permission of the University Museum)
 PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

T HE following pages are an expansion of the

Richards Lectures, delivered at the University of
Virginia, in February, 1931. The text and notes
were completed in April, 1931, and appear now without
alteration, except in two cases, duly recorded in the
supplementary notes. Thanks to the courtesy of the
publishers, it has been possible to add the latter, which
bring the reader abreast of the writer’s information in
May, 1933.
Owing to the limitations of space, this book does not
attempt to treat any phase of its subject exhaustively. In
the first chapter we have tried to analyze the development
of archaeological research in Palestine so as to make it
intelligible to the layman; we have, therefore, laid stress
on methods rather than on results. The second chapter is
devoted to an account of the first three campaigns of
excavation at Tell Beit Mirsim, sketching our methods
and our results, as an illustration of the principles
formulated in the first chapter. This ancient town of Judah
has yielded a remarkably precise record of the evolution
of culture in Palestine, from before the Age of the
Patriarchs down to the Babylonian Captivity. The work of
the fourth campaign, last summer, is briefly described in
the supplementary notes.
With the third chapter we enter a bitterly disputed field
—the bearing of archaeological discovery and research
upon the Bible. Since it is obviously impossible

7
8 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION for us
to discuss this great question in full, we have
selected certain aspects of it, either because
they are particularly illuminated by Palestinian
archaeology, or because they are in imperative
need of a new treatment. The reader will
recognize at once that the topics chosen for
consideration are precisely those around which
the war of scholars has raged most furiously.
Since the writer’s own position is intermediate —
involving full acceptance of the methods of
modem historical and literary criticism, with
relatively conservative deductions from the
archaeological and documentary material—it is
not surprising that the tone of reviewers ranges
over the whole gamut of possibilities, from
pained protest at our conservatism to sorrowful
condemnation of our liberalism.
On the 25th of May, during the preparation of this
edition, Dr. Melvin Grove Kyle passed away, leaving an
imperishable memory of a pure character and an unselfish
devotion to noble ideals. During five campaigns of
exploration and excavation, over a period of ten years, we
were friends and collaborators, our association remaining
undimmed by the slightest friction, in spite of
fundamental divergences of opinion between us with
regard to Biblical problems. Dr. Kyle was one of the few
men who have attained the difficult goal of tolerance
without ignorance or indifference. Ave, anima Candida!

W. F. A.
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
AJSL: American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures.
ANNUAL: Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research.
AOTB : Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten
Testament, second edition by Gressmann, Ranke,
and Ebeling, 2 vols., Berlin, 1926-7.
BULLETIN : Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research.
D: Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomic Code.
E: The Elohistic or Ephraimite Code.
EB : Early Bronze.
EI: Early Iron.
j: The Yahwistic or Judsean Code.
jAOS : Journal of the American Oriental Society.
JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature.
JE: The compilation of J and E.
JPOS : Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. JSOR:
Journal of the Society of Oriental Research. LB : Late
Bronze.
MB : Middle Bronze.
p: The Priestly Code.
QS: The Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration
Fund.
RB: Revue Biblique.
ZAW : Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
ZDPV: Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins.

9
TABLE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS
Early Bronze I .............. cir. 3000-
<c 2600
2600-
Early Bronze II Cl
2300
2300-
Early Bronze III
Middle Bronze I
Cl
2000
2000-
Middle Bronze II
ll
1800
1800-
Late Bronze I
ll
1600
1600-
cc 1400
1400-
Late Bronze II ic
1200
1200-
Early Iron I (C
9OO
Early Iron II CC
900- 600
Early Iron III 6OO- 300

1
0
 CONTENTS
I. THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE . -13
Recent Progress in Palestinian Archaeology—The First Phase of
Scientific Exploration: Robinson and his Successors—The
Second Phase of Scientific Exploration: Pre- War Excavations
(1890-1914)—Excavations since the War—The Excavation of
Beth-shan—Megiddo—Minor American Excavations—British
Archaeological Undertakings—German and Danish Excavations
—The Synagogues of Galilee—Prehistoric Archaeology in
Palestine.
II. UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY .... 63
The Initiation and Organization of the Work at Tell Beit Mirsim
—Dealing with the Arabs: the Natives of the District—
Historical Sketch of the Excavation—The Identification of the
Ancient City—The Cultural History of the Earliest Strata (J—F)
—The Strata of the Hyksos Age (E—D)—The Late Bronze Age
(C)—The Early Israelite Occupation (B)—The Period of the
Jewish Monarchy (A).
III. THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY . 127
The Bearing of Archaeology on Biblical Problems—The Age of the
Patriarchs in the Light of Archaeology—The Law of Moses—The Age
tion.
APPENDIX: NOTES...........................................................................178
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES..............................................................224

INDEX..................................................................................................240
of the Exile and the Restora

II
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE

1. RECENT PROGRESS IN PALESTINIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

I N the years since the close of the World War, there

has been a striking revival of interest in
archaeological research. It is not our purpose to
investigate the ultimate causes of this movement, in
which America shares with the European nations. In part
it may be parallel to the triumphant emergence of
romanticism in art and literature, after a long eclipse.
Wearied of an intellectual life which culminated in the
mechanistic philosophy of war years, people of culture
have altered their point of view so as to admit humanistic
factors. The study of man, his past and his present, has
gained a new importance, which is now expressing itself
in the steady increase of endowments and foundations
devoted primarily to it. Compared to these obscure, but
irresistible tendencies of the day, other factors in the
increase of interest in archaeology are of minor
importance. It is fortunate for archaeology that American
men of wealth have devoted themselves so widely to the
collection of archaeological objects; it is a happy
coincidence that popular interest in the field was
stimulated at so critical a period by the discovery of the
tomb of Tut-ankh-aman. Yet events and tendencies like
these are symptoms rather than causes.

1
3
 14 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
Be that as it may, Biblical archaeology has not been by
any means the last to profit by the tendency of the times.
In fact, it may be said to have profited by an
exceptionally favourable combination of circumstances:
the establishment of the British mandatory, with a well-
organized Department of Antiquities and a liberal
Antiquities Ordinance; the active interest taken by Mr.
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., which has led to the excavation
of Megiddo and the foundation of a magnificent Palestine
Museum; the inauguration of a broad policy of
cooperation on the part of the American School of
Oriental Research in Jerusalem, which has greatly
stimulated the launching of minor enterprises. The fact
that Palestine is now governed as a British colony means
that public security is generally better than in Ottoman
times, and that the need of bribery in dealing with
officials is very greatly reduced. Even more important to
the archaeologist is the presence of a certain number of
men of high education and lofty ideals, which leavens the
bureaucratic mass. The Department of Antiquities,
supported by the international Archaeological Advisory
Board, controls the scientific responsibility of the
scholars and institutions which conduct the work of
excavation, and prevents native exploitation of ancient
remains as far as possible. The first Director of
Antiquities, Professor John Garstang of the University of
Liverpool, himself an archaeologist, directed several
small excavations in person during his tenure of office.
Since leaving the post, his interest in Palestine excavation
has not flagged, but has shown itself in most fruitful
researches and excavations, notably at Jericho. As a
practical excavator, Garstang was able to understand the
problems of the archaeologist and to sympathize with his
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 15
difficulties. His assistance to excavators greatly eased
their task, and is gratefully remembered by all who dug
in Palestine between the years 1920 and 1926. In 1927 he
was followed by E. T. Richmond, Esq., who had won his
spurs in administration rather than in archaeology,
though his work in the field of historical architecture and
of Islamic art is of value. Shortly after Mr. Richmond’s
installation came the munificent Rockefeller gift of
$2,000,000 for the establishment of a Palestine Museum
of Archaeology in Jerusalem. The construction and
organization of this museum could not have fallen into
better hands than those of Mr. Richmond. The
administrative skill of the latter is also responsible for the
solid organization of the Department of Antiquities along
the lines marked out by Professor Garstang.
The second of the three circumstances which, as we
observed, have combined to advance the cause of Bib-
lical archaeology in Palestine, is the attraction of Mr.
Rockefeller’s interest to archaeology by Professor J. H.
Breasted. Starting as an Egyptologist, the latter achieved
an eminence in his chosen field which has brought him
more international recognition than has ever before been
accorded an American Orientalist. It was not until then
that he founded the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, for which he received, in 1919, an annual
subvention from Mr. Rockefeller. Thanks to Breasted’s
remarkable capacity for organization, as well as to his
equally unusual ability to interest laymen in archaeology,
the Oriental Institute has continued to develop, with the
aid of princely gifts from the Chicago Maecenas, until it
is now the most elaborate organization of its kind in the
world, without even a remote competitor. Biblical
archseology has benefited directly so far by the or-
 16 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
ganization of the Megiddo excavation in 1925, followed
in 1927 by the announcement of the gift for the Palestine
Museum. This gift is divided into two parts: a million
dollars for building, library, and equipment; a second
million for endowment, since Palestine is much too poor
to carry the operating expenses of so elaborate an
institution without outside aid. It is expected that other
enterprises will be launched by the Oriental Institute in
Palestine and Syria during the coming years.1
Third in importance comes, we venture to maintain,
the work of the American School in Jerusalem, which has
directly stimulated the launching of a number of most
productive minor undertakings, such as the excavations
at Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Nasbeh, Beth- shemesh, and
Gerasa, to mention only a few. In 1929 this institution,
together with its sister school in Baghdad, received the
promise of half a million dollars from the Rockefeller
Foundation. Half of this sum is to be paid to the Schools,
to enable them to carry on their work on a much more
solid basis during the years 1930-36, and the other half
will be given to them as an endowment, at the expiration
of this period, provided that an equal sum is contributed
from outside for this purpose. Practically all American
Oriental archaeologists of standing, aside from the
Egyptologists, are now directly or indirectly affiliated
with the American Schools of Oriental Research. There
can be no doubt that the further development of the
Schools will greatly assist in the maintenance of high
standards of archaeological research.2 It will also help
materially to prevent the formation of a most undesirable
cleavage between field archaeologists and Ori-
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 17 ental
philologists, whose constant cooperation is essential to
the progress of our research.
From this encouraging survey of the recent expansion
and the future promise of the field of Palestinian
archaeology, let us turn to consider its intrinsic pos-
sibilities. First we must sketch its history, for without
historical perspective, or as the natural scientists are
coming to say, without a four-dimensional treatment, it is
impossible to comprehend the evolution and the present
tendencies of any science. Our title for this lecture, “ The
Discovery of Ancient Palestine,” is not thoughtlessly
purloined from the domain of physical geography. On the
contrary, we describe the real discovery of the unknown
past of the Holy Land. Like all lands of the Near East, its
present is so very different from the historical past, that it
is quite impossible to obtain a correct idea of any phase
of the latter from the unaided study of the former. Except
for the work of the last century, and especially of the last
generation, it would be impossible to reconstruct the
ancient social, political, or religious history, material
civilization, arts and crafts, etc., since our chief docu-
mentary source, the Bible, invariably requires archaeo-
logical elucidation before it becomes completely intel-
ligible from any of these points of view.
The discovery of ancient Palestine is a two-fold task,
which involves both surface exploration and excavation.
The technique and methods employed by both types of
archaeological work have improved immeasurably since
the beginning of scientific exploration in 1838, and of
excavation in 1851. This first phase came to a close with
the beginning of scientific excavation in 1890. The
second phase, which lasted until the outbreak of the War
in 1914, was, as we
 18 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
shall see, a period of collection and publication of
material, which was not dated or classified with sufficient
accuracy to make it of much value to the historian.
During the third phase, since the close of the War,
scientific method in the archaeology of Palestine has
improved so remarkably, and the amount of work
accomplished has so increased that archaeological data
which were quite meaningless now yield important
historical information. The progress of the linguistic
study of ancient scripts and languages, not one of which
could be read a century ago, has made it possible for the
trained scholar to decipher all inscriptions found in
Palestine, though written in many different scripts and an
even greater number of tongues.

2. THE FIRST PHASE OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION: ROBINSON

AND HIS SUCCESSORS

We have said that the first phase began in 1838. It was

in that year that Edward Robinson, a fellow American,
undertook the first of his epoch-making journeys in
Palestine, for the sake of studying its geography,
topography, and archaeological remains.3 Robinson was
just forty-four years of age when he began his fruitful
travels in Palestine, but he had been admirably prepared
for just such an enterprise. Raised on a New England
farm, the son of a country minister, he had a background
of physical strength, of culture, and of common sense and
adaptability. He received his scholarly training in
Germany, under some of the greatest scholars of the
nineteenth century, the philologists Gesenius and
Rodiger, the geographer Ritter, and the theologians
Neander and Tholuck. To round out his German training
he married a German wife, the daughter of a professor,
 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 19
herself a woman of distinguished intellect. Robinson was
not only the founder of the scientific topography of
Palestine; he was also generally recognized as the
foremost American Biblical scholar of his day in the
fields of Hebrew and Greek linguistics and of Biblical
interpretation. In only seven months of indefatigable
travel on horseback, accompanied by his pupil and
friend, Eli Smith, who had spent years in Syria as a
missionary, he visited, described, and mapped many
hundreds of modern villages and ancient sites, criticizing
tradition with surgical ruthlessness, and proposing new
identifications. Nearly all of his identifications of
Biblical sites and most of his topographical observations
have stood the test of time. Most important, however,
was the combination of exhaustive study of all
documents then available, and of critical examination of
the tradition, with detailed and accurate personal
observation and measurement. He was also the first
Biblical topographer to record the exact form of modern
Arabic place-names, a method which is now recognized
as absolutely indispensable. No previous student had
even combined two of these methods, to say nothing of
uniting them all into a powerful scientific instrument for
topographical research.4
We have dwelt at some length on the work of
Robinson, not only because of its epochal importance,
but because it illustrates so well the critical type of
approach which is necessary if we are really to advance
historical and archaeological knowledge. It is not enough
to know the land and the people, nor even to travel
extensively and carry on excavation; one must also be
trained to apply the most severely critical methods of
historical, philological, linguistic, and comparative
archaeological analysis. It is not accidental that it was the
 20 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
great critical Semitist, Robertson Smith, who solved the
main problems of the topography of Jerusalem long
before the correct solutions became the common property
of scholars, while all the leading authorities of the time,
men intimately acquainted with Jerusalem and its
antiquities, such as Wilson and Conder, held fast to now
hopelessly antiquated conceptions.5 The “ authorities ”
scoffed at the supposed bookworm, but Robertson
Smith’s incisive analysis was right, whereas they were all
wrong. Nor is it an accident that the best treatment of the
historical and Biblical bearing of the archseo- logical
material discovered before the War in Palestine came
from the pen of S. R. Driver, the greatest English Biblical
scholar of modern times, who was much more of a
bookworm than Robertson Smith.6 We may also, in this
connection, observe that the greatest ancient historian of
modern times, Eduard Meyer, did not visit Crete, Egypt,
Palestine, Syria, or Asia Minor until he was seventy-one
years of age, and had never even visited an excavation
until then. Yet his critical treatment of archaeological
discoveries was of the highest importance.
It would hardly seem necessary to point out the other
side of the picture, since the value of a first-hand
knowledge of the lands of the Bible and their archaeol-
ogy ought to be sufficiently obvious without a com-
mentary. But it is generally second-rate scholars, not
first-rate ones, who show the lack of such knowledge
most painfully, since the latter are careful to verify their
statements, familiarize themselves with the relevant
literature, and apply to a reliable source for direct
information when necessary.
In considering the surface exploration accomplished
during the half century following Robinson’s first visit to
Palestine, one is struck by the lack of men of equal
 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 21
calibre, a lack which explains why, with all the activity in
this field, there was hardly any progress—rather a
recession—until after the lapse of a generation. 7 Again it
was a single scholar of exceptional ability who turned the
tide. This was Charles Clermont- Ganneau, who made his
debut as a young Orientalist of twenty-four, attached to
the French Consulate in Jerusalem, by rescuing the
Mesha Stone, menaced with destruction by the Arabs
(1870). Before he was thirty Clermont-Ganneau had
gained an international reputation for his brilliant
archaeological discoveries, showing a penetration and a
sureness of method which far surpass the best that the
archaeology and topography of Palestine could exhibit
before him. Among his more striking achievements were
the solution of many difficult problems in epigraphy, the
identification of the site of Gezer, as well as of a number
of other ancient sites, and the demonstration that the
notorious “ Moabite antiquities ” were barefaced
forgeries, in which he was bitterly opposed by the
leading German scholars of the day. It was somewhat
later that he performed the still more sensational feat of
proving the forgery of the Shapira manuscript of Deuter-
onomy, which purported to have been written by Moses
himself, and was offered to Great Britain for the modest
price of one million pounds sterling, which would now
be equivalent in purchasing value to nearly fifteen
million dollars.8
In 1865 the Palestine Exploration Fund was founded,
and as soon as possible proceeded to organize the Survey
of Western Palestine, under the direction of competent
army officers, including especially Kitchener 9 and
Conder (1872-8).10 In the maps and volumes of
description which were duly published we have the basis
for all subsequent archaeological and topographic
 22 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
research.11 This great work has not rendered further
surface exploration superfluous; on the contrary, it has
had the effect of stimulating it. There are many
omissions, certain districts were not carefully studied,
while the archaeological importance of the telul (plural of
tell, “mound”) was only imperfectly understood at first,
and many were omitted from the map; there are also
many errors of orthography, which are generally the fault
of the native scribe who was employed to write the name
in Arabic. Moreover, no idea of the date of the ruins
described could then be given, since the surveyors were
army men, whose knowledge of archaeology was very
limited. Nor can they be blamed for their ignorance, since
the most important criteria, especially the use of
potsherds for dating, were not yet discovered.
During the first phase there were a number of
excavations, but none were conducted according to
scientific methods, as we now understand them. When de
Saulcy cleared the so-called Tomb of the Kings, in 1851,
his methods were precisely those of the treasurehunter,
and the critical archaeological standards of the time may
be gauged from the fact that he, one of the leading
authorities of France, saw no difficulty in assigning the
mausoleum in question to the time of the kings of Judah,
nearly a thousand years too early. He considered the
inscriptions on the sarcophagus of Queen Helena of
Adiabene, a Parthian convert to
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 23
Judaism in the first century A. D., as referring to the
consort of Zedekiah, more than six hundred years before
—so little was then known of Hebrew and Aramaic
epigraphy.12
Somewhat improved methods of digging, but yet
prescientific in character, were introduced by Warren,
who worked at Jerusalem for the recently established
Palestine Exploration Fund from 1867 to 1870. 13 Neither
he nor anyone else had any idea of the date of most of the
masonry and small objects found in the vicinity of the
Temple Area. Arabic geometric pottery was regarded as
very ancient; the draughted stone blocks of the Herodian
retaining wall, actually dating from the last decade before
the birth of Christ, were considered to be Solomonic, i.
e., a thousand years older. When Warren attacked sites
outside of Jerusalem, like Gibeah (Tell el-Ful) and
Jericho (Tell es-Sultan), he was perfectly helpless: the
former he considered to be of Crusading date and of no
interest, while the tell of the latter he supposed to
represent a natural formation.14
The last excavation of any importance, disregarding
the entirely unscientific operations carried out by various
monastic orders in the hope of finding sacred objects and
buildings, undertaken during this first phase, was the
German work on the hill of Ophel, south of the Temple
Area, under the direction of Guthe, later famous as an
authority on the history and topography of Palestine.
However, though measurements and elevations were
more detailed and more careful than in any previous
excavations in Palestine, no new methods were
introduced, and Guthe had no idea of the date of most of
the artifacts which he exhumed.15
24 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE

3. THE SECOND PHASE OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION : PRE-

WAR EXCAVATIONS (1890-1914)

The year 1890 is a fateful date in the history of our

subject, for it was then that W. M. Flinders Petrie
undertook a six weeks’ sounding in the mound of Tell el-
Hesi, in southwestern Judah. During a number of years of
productive excavation in Egypt, Petrie had begun to lay
stress on the chronological value of pottery, hitherto
neglected by archaeologists, except in the case of painted
Greek vases. Petrie was led to take an interest in
Egyptian pottery through working with classical
archaeologists at the Graeco-Egyptian site of Naucratis.
After discovering that Egyptian pottery varied greatly in
form and decoration during the centuries, he applied his
new principles to work at Tell el-Hesi, where he dug
scarp sections on the edge of the mound, and carefully
noted the level at which every object was found. On
comparing his results, he saw that the pottery of Palestine
also varied greatly in character at different levels, and
was thus able to set up a chronological scheme of pottery
types, according to the level at which they were found. 16
The terminology proposed for the successive types of
pottery was not at all bad; in fact it was in certain
respects better than the nomenclature which was later
introduced by Macalister. The ware belonging to what
we now call Early and Middle Bronze (first phase) he
termed “ Amorite,” while that of the Late Bronze was
called “ Phoenician.” Macalister’s names “ Pre-Semitic,
First Semitic,” etc., were very misleading, and have now
been entirely abandoned.
The next year (1891) an American scholar, Frederick
Jones Bliss, the son of the distinguished president
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 25 of
the Syrian Protestant College, was appointed director of
the excavations of the Palestine Exploration Fund at Tell
el-Hesi, where he continued to dig for three campaigns
(1891-3).17 Clearing one-third of the deep, but small
mound to bed-rock, Bliss distinguished eleven
successive phases of occupation, which he assigned to
eight separate strata of occupation, or “ cities.”
Following Petrie, he distributed them over a period of
about thirteen centuries, from about 1700 to about 400 B.
C. The dates given to the strata by Bliss are substantially
correct back to the end of the third city, thanks to
numerous scarabs and a number of other inscriptions,
cuneiform and Hebrew, found in them. The date of the
first occupation must, however, be pushed back, with our
present knowledge, to before 2300 B. C. Unfortunately,
Bliss’s publication of his results was inadequate, partly
because of a mistaken policy of economy on the part of
the Fund, so it was difficult for other scholars to obtain a
clear idea of the ceramic classification and chronology. It
is not surprising, therefore, that Conder, long head of the
Survev of Western Palestine, scoffed at the idea of using
common pottery for chronological purposes, nor that
equal skepticism was expressed by Nowack, then the
leading German authority on Biblical archaeology.19
After an interlude at Jerusalem, where Bliss carried on
excavations of considerable importance for our
knowledge of the later topography of the city, he
returned to the excavation of early mounds in 1898. For
two years Bliss, assisted by a brilliant young English
archaeologist, R. A. S. Macalister, dug in four separate
tells of the Shephelah, or low hill-country of Judah. 19
Though the work here was not of great
 26 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
significance, many small objects of interest were found,
and the classification of pottery was materially improved,
while the chronology offered in their publication (1902)
was not superseded for some twenty years. In fact, owing
to the circumstances attending later preWar excavations,
nearly all chronological systems proposed during this
period represent a distinct regression.20
Bliss now resigned, to the lasting misfortune of
Palestinian archaeology, and was replaced by his asso-
ciate, Macalister, who conducted five campaigns at the
mound of Gezer (1902-09), a large tell in the low hill-
country between Jerusalem and Jaffa. 21 Macalis- ter’s
excavation was conducted very economically, and with
extraordinary industry. In fact, despite his working
single-handed, aside from the material help given him by
the loyal and intelligent foreman, Yusif Kan'an, he was
able to do all the surveying, planning, drawing and
recording himself—a feat which no other excavator has
equalled. To be sure, he only accomplished his work by
devoting himself to the recording at the expense of
adequate control. Moreover, economy dictated the use of
the trench system. Long trenches, forty feet (twelve
metres) wide, running north and south, were cleared to
bed-rock, one after another, until eventually a
considerable area had been excavated. Without adequate
control of the work, it proved impossible either to
distinguish with sufficient care between successive strata,
or to produce continuous plans of any one stratum. It is
vastly preferable to excavate areas instead of trenches,
and to control the work by direct supervision, since even
the best native foremen lack a real comprehension of
what they are doing, and, therefore, employ a purely
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 27
mechanical technique. Being alone, moreover, with no
opportunity for comparing notes with associates, and
lacking time to follow the work of other excavators,
Macalister showed a very natural tendency toward
shifting his chronology. In this case, as it happened, he
shifted his chronology downward, so that “ Persian ”
became “ Hellenistic,” while “ pre- exilic ” became
“post-exilic” (Persian).
In spite of these handicaps, the results of the ex-
cavation of Gezer were of very great importance, and the
publication of them in three large volumes was a
monumental achievement for which Palestinian
archaeology must remain forever Macalister’s debtor.
Only to mention a few of the outstanding discoveries, we
may refer to the troglodyte remains, which are still
unique, the system of fortification employed at different
periods, the great rock-hewn tunnel from the Middle
Bronze, which provided the inhabitants of the city with
direct access to a subterranean water- supply in time of
siege. The high-place, or sanctuary of Gezer, with its
masseboth and other cult-objects, still remains unique,
since nearly all the other supposed high-places which
have been excavated have been proved conclusively to
have been purely profane installations, either stables, or
private houses, in which the pillars served the purpose of
supporting the floor of the second story, as well as of
providing solid supports for tying up horses or for
attaching looms, etc. The paucity of important public
buildings, of sculptured objects, and especially of
inscriptions in Macalister’s excavation is due solely to
the fact that he was unable to dig in the acropolis, on
which stand a zvell (saint’s tomb) and cemetery. Below
the acropolis he found an exceedingly rich group of
 28 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
sepulchral caverns, forming a royal necropolis of the
Middle Bronze Age (cir. 1900-1700 B. C.).22 If the
acropolis of Gezer is ever excavated, there can be no
question of the great wealth of material of direct his-
torical value which will be discovered. However, even
without touching the district of the city in which were the
palaces and public buildings, Macalister was so fortunate
as to find a number of valuable inscriptions in Hebrew
and cuneiform, especially the calendar tablet, which, as
we now know, dates from before 900 B. c., and is thus
considerably older than the Mesha Stone.23
About the same time that Macalister began digging at
Gezer, a German Biblical scholar, Ernst Sellin,
commenced excavations in northern Palestine, which had
not yet been touched by the Palestine Exploration Fund.
Under Austrian auspices he dug at Tell Ta'annek, the site
of ancient Taanach, in 1901 and 1903.24 The mound is
rich in antiquities, and his discoveries were of
exceptional importance, though the archaeological
methods were primitive when compared to those which
are now employed. The most remarkable find was in the
palace of ‘Ashtar-yashur,25 where, among other objects,
no fewer than a dozen cuneiform tablets, probably from
the sixteenth century B. c., at least a century before the
date of the Amama Tablets,26 came to light. Most of these
tablets were actually recovered in 1903, in sifting the
debris removed in 1901 from the ruins of the palace. In
the hands of linguists and philologists, these tablets have
yielded very important information with regard to the
condition of Canaan at that time, politically, ethnically,
and culturally.27 A cuneiform cylinder seal, with mixed
Mesopotamian and Egyptian
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 29
decoration, belonging to a certain Atanakhill, son of
Khabsum, who lived before 1800 B. C., shows at how
early a date this script was used in Palestine. The
historical results obtained from the unwritten material
examined in the course of the excavation were very
disappointing, because of the lack of satisfactory ceramic
chronology. Because of what appeared to be adequate
evidence, the dates of strata were reduced in each case by
from one to three centuries. It must be said, however, that
Sellin himself was very cautious in drawing conclusions.
German interest in Palestinian archaeology, thus
successfully aroused, was whetted by the inauguration of
work at Tell el-Mutesellim, the site of ancient Megiddo,
perhaps better known as Armageddon, under the auspices
of the Deutscher Palastina-Verein, and the direction of G.
Schumacher (1903-05).28 Schumacher, who was a civil
engineer by profession, and who had surveyed most of
Eastern Palestine for the Palestine Exploration Fund and
the Palastina- Verein, had not had much experience in
excavating, and knew practically nothing about pottery.
Moreover, he was forced to work with practically no
assistance, because of the desire for economy. It is,
therefore, not surprising that stratigraphy was neglected,
and that the treatment of the pottery was entirely
inadequate. The old trench system was followed
throughout, though perhaps this method of excavation
was hardly avoidable at a time when sensational
discoveries appeared to be the only means of keeping the
interest of the public awake, and of securing funds for
further work. As a matter of fact, however, the trenching
method actually had precisely the opposite effect, since
an unkind Fate pre- 30 THE DISCOVERY OF
ANCIENT PALESTINE vented Schumacher from
making any discovery of major importance, though
several have already been made by the Americans who
have followed in his wake since the War. The most
remarkable single discovery made by him was at the very
outset, when a beautiful jasper seal, bearing the
representation of a lion rampant, with the name of its
owner, “ Shema‘, officer of Jeroboam,” came to light.
This seal belongs to the time of Jeroboam II, who reigned
over the Northern Kingdom in the first half of the eighth
century B. c. It was valued at $10,000, and deposited for
safety in the royal treasury of the Sultan of Turkey.29
In 1907 Sellin began a new excavation, with Austrian
support, at Tell es-Sultan, the site of ancient Jericho, and
for two well organized campaigns (1908-09), the
undertaking was carried on under the auspices of the
Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft.30 Sellin and a classical
archseologist, C. Watzinger, directed the excavation, with
the assistance of trained architects. Since Harvard began
work at Samaria in 1908, we may consider that year as a
turning point in the history of Palestinian archaeology. It
was thenceforth considered as necessary to staff the
expeditions at work in the field sufficiently so that the
recording of results would not be neglected. How
important this is will be evident as soon as we recall that
the excavator must destroy ancient remains in order to
reach the remains below; it is then forever too late to con-
trol his description of the material which has been
destroyed.
In spite of the greatly improved technique, and the care
devoted to recording, the trench system was employed,
and the stratification was, accordingly, not THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 31
definitively established. Moreover, Sellin’s initial error in
chronology, at Taanach, was now magnified into a
mistake of some six or eight hundred years, which led to
the paradoxical attribution of the latest Middle Bronze
stratum, dating a century or two before the end of the
Canaanite occupation, to the age of the Israelite
reoccupation of Jericho, under Hiel the Bethelite, in the
reign of Ahab (cir. 860 B. C.).” But, despite this
confusion in chronology, the German excavators
surpassed all their predecessors in the precision and
completeness of their engineering treatment, and the
published account of the successive fortifications of the
town is a model of scientific method, which forms the
basis to-day for all study of the Canaanite art of building
city walls. The excellence of this phase of their work was
to be shown by the results of the excavations carried on
in 1929 by Garstang, of which more anon.
America, which had furnished Robinson, and which
had sent Bliss to continue Petrie’s work, now took the
field on her own account, with an elaborately organized
and very successful expedition from Harvard University,
for the purpose of digging the site of Samaria (1908-10).”
Thanks to the liberality of the late Jacob Schiff, who gave
the then magnificent sum of $60,000 for the excavation
of Samaria, the enterprise was well supported.” Thanks to
the fact that it was directed for most of the time by
George A. Reisner, who was later to be recognized as the
best field archaeologist working in Egypt and Western
Asia, the excellence of the methods employed was
assured. The architect of the expedition was C. S. Fisher,
who was also to become one of the foremost field
archaeologists of our time. This important 32 THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE undertaking
is now being resumed (spring of 1931) by Harvard, and
brilliant discoveries may confidently be awaited. The
outstanding find of the pre-War excavation was a
complex of ruins containing the remains of successive
palace constructions of Omri, Ahab, and a third monarch
whose identity remains doubtful.34 In the ruins of the age
of Ahab was discovered a collection of several hundred
inscribed potsherds, which, after being fitted together so
far as possible, proved to belong to some seventy separate
ostraca. These ostraca are written in ink, in old Hebrew
characters, and contain various data with regard to the
nature and provenience of shipments of wine and oil to
Samaria. In other words, they are dockets belonging to
payments of taxes in kind by districts and towns in the
province of Manasseh. On superficial perusal, nothing
would seem any less interesting or instructive, but a
systematic study, by several scholars, has shown that they
are documents of very great value. 35 They throw light, for
example, on the language and religion of the Northern
Kingdom, on its topography, and especially on its provin-
cial and its fiscal organization, of which very little was
previously known. We now know, for instance, that the
official language of Samaria in the time of Elijah and
Elisha was different from Biblical Hebrew, which from
other inscriptions we know to have been the language of
Jerusalem. The ostraca also set the tribal and clan
organization of Israel in an entirely new light, which
enables us to understand the political evolution of Israel
better. Most important of all is the new material for the
fiscal administration of Israel, but consideration of it is
not in place here.
No royal inscriptions on stone were found in the
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 33 pre-
War excavations at Samaria, but we may confidently
expect them to be discovered by the new expedition. That
the kings of Israel were accustomed to erect stelae with
inscriptions recounting their deeds may be taken for
granted, since it was the ordinary practise of the day. The
very first such stela found in Syria, the famous Moabite
Stone, belonged to Mesha king of Moab, who rebelled
successfully against Israel after Ahab’s death. Since
Moab had been tributary to Israel for about a century and
a half, we may be sure that the Moabites employed
Israelite customs as well as the Israelite language. 36
Further excavations in Samaria will also throw much
light on the problem of the fortifications of the Israelite
city, which was not solved by Reisner and Fisher before
the War. They will also yield important material from the
so-called Babylonian period of Samaria’s history, which
followed the capture of the city by the Assyrians in 721. 37
It will be recalled that Samaria then became the capital of
an Assyrian province, and remained a district capital until
the Greek period. In the Persian age it was the capital of
the Sanballat family, which professed a paganizing type
of Judaism, and opposed the reforms of Nehemiah and
Ezra.38 Herod the Great completely rebuilt Samaria,
calling it Sebaste in honour of the Emperor Augustus.
The history of Roman Samaria extends from just before
the birth of Christ to the Byzantine age. Very interesting
finds have already been made in the ruins of this period,
and many more may be expected.38
After a long interval of neglect excavation was re-
sumed at Jerusalem in 1909. Unfortunately, it was not a
serious enterprise, but a frank search for treasure 34 THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE which was
now undertaken by an English syndicate, under the
direction of Captain Parker. A permit was secured with
ease from the Ottoman Porte, money was spent right and
left, and excavations were begun on the hill of Ophel, the
site of Canaanite Jerusalem, just south of the Temple
Area. An erratic Finnish savant, one Juvelius, claimed to
have found in the book of Ezekiel a cipher which gave
the true location of the Temple treasure, concealed at the
Babylonian Exile. A Danish adventurer, a clairvoyant,
joined the expedition, and directed its operations by
crystal- gazing. After two years spent in aimless probing,
with no discovery of treasure, Parker turned to the
Temple Area itself, bribed the Turkish governor of
Jerusalem, the head sheikh of the Dome of the Rock (the
notorious Khalil ed-Danaf), and other officials, and
conducted secret excavations during the night. Such
proceedings could not long be concealed; a disgruntled
workman divulged the secret, and the excitement among
the Moslems of Jerusalem and the surrounding area was
so intense that a general massacre of the Christians
seemed imminent. Parker fled in haste, reaching his yacht
at Jaffa just in time to escape arrest. The Constantinople
authorities promptly deposed and imprisoned the officials
whom Parker had bribed. Unfortunate as was the
impression created everywhere by this scandalous
episode, scholars were not entirely ungrateful. Parker
cleared out many rock-cut tunnels and caves, in which he
made interesting discoveries of very early Canaanite
pottery. Happily for science, Pere Vincent, already
known to specialists as the foremost authority on the
archaeology and topography of Jerusalem, was able to
secure from Parker, who was a gentleman, whatever his
defects as THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT
PALESTINE 35 a scholar, permission to follow the work
of the expedition and to record its results. Needless to
say, he availed himself fully of this permission, and
subsequently published full accounts of the results. 40 The
tunnels and water-shafts discovered by Parker provided
Vincent with material for a complete reconstruction of
the complicated history of the engineering enterprises by
which the ancient inhabitants of the city assured
themselves of a water-supply from the Fountain of the
Virgin, even in the time of siege. The exterior opening of
the spring was covered and concealed, while the water
was diverted into subterranean tunnels, communicating
with the city by oblique or vertical shafts. Parker’s work
proved to the satisfaction of all scholars of standing that
the oldest Canaanite and Israelite Jerusalem really stood
on the southeastern, not on the western hill; it also proved
that Jerusalem was founded many centuries before the
time of Abraham.41
Passing over the few remaining excavations in
Palestine before the fateful year 1914,42 since none of
them were of outstanding significance, we come to the
War years, when no field work could be carried on, but
when scholars and historians had at last a breathing
space, in which they could attempt to correlate and
synthetize the data collected since 1890. In 1916
Handcock published a book entitled Archeology of the
Holy Land, in which he tried to present a systematic,
chronologically arranged outline of Palestinian
archaeology. The confusion in it is indescribable. The
dates given by Sellin and Watzinger for Jericho, those
given by Bliss and Macalister for the mounds of the
Shephelah, by Macalister for Gezer, and by Mackenzie
for Beth-shemesh do not agree at 36 THE DISCOVERY
OF ANCIENT PALESTINE all, and the attempt to base a
synthesis on their chronology resulted, of course, in
chaos. Moreover, most of the excavators failed to define
the stratigraphy of their site, and thus left its
archaeological history hazy and indefinite, with a
chronology which was usually nebulous where correct,
and often clear-cut where it has since been proved wrong.
Small wonder that historians and Biblical scholars turned
away from this chaos of conflicting views in despair,
convinced that the main purpose of archaeology was to
unearth inscriptions, and occasionally to elucidate the arts
and crafts of the ancient inhabitants.
4. EXCAVATIONS SINCE THE WAR
In 1917 General Allenby entered Jerusalem and freed
the Holy City from the domination of Islam. The
following year came his brilliant encircling movement,
by which he drove the Turks from Samaria, and shortly
afterwards swept them from Galilee as well. In 1920 the
British established civil government in Palestine, and the
first High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, at once
created a Department of Antiquities, under the direction
of John Garstang, well and favourably known for his
excavations in Egypt, Ethiopia, and Syria. Garstang lost
no time in beginning excavations himself, on behalf of
the Palestine Exploration Fund, which was thus the first
organization to reenter the field which it had first
cultivated. The third phase of the history of Palestinian
archaeology now commences. Under the new conditions,
which we have described briefly above, archaeological
work has been encouraged by the government, instead of
being discouraged by oppressive laws and a venal
bureaucracy. The new Antiquities THE DISCOVERY
OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 37 Ordinance, which
assures the excavator a fair proportion, generally about
half, of the objects which he unearths, has attracted
museums into the field. The comparative ease with which
responsible scholars or institutions can now obtain
permits to excavate has led to a great increase in small
undertakings. However, most important of all has been
the change in the spirit of the times, to which we alluded
at the beginning of this lecture, a spirit favourable to the
expansion of archaeological activity.
The number of new enterprises, most of which are not
finished, and few of which are yet definitively published,
is so great that an attempt to describe them all would be
very confusing. We shall, accordingly, limit ourselves to
a sketch of the most important undertakings, and lay
stress on the development of method rather than on
isolated discoveries. Slow at first, the progress of
cooperation and synthesis has been increasingly rapid,
especially since about 1925, so that we may now speak of
a definite consensus of scholarly opinion, the conclusions
of which are being subjected to new tests every year. It is
hardly necessary to say that, being based on a long
process of induction, these results are seldom modified
by comparison with new inductions. It is, on the other
hand, true that the success already attained in interpreting
the material unearthed by excavators constitutes a danger
for future scholars, who may try to apply similar methods
without adequate methodological preparation. The same
thing happened after the brilliant achievements of the
linguists and philologists of the past century, in
comparing known languages and deciphering new ones.
Some scholars of proved ability and many more dilettanti
rushed into the newly 38 THE DISCOVERY OF
ANCIENT PALESTINE opened territory with immature
theories and wild hypotheses, whose publication, often
accompanied by popularization, has given “ philology ” a
bad name in many quarters, undeserved though this
reputation is.
The human factor cannot be neglected in studying the
history of any science. In Palestinian archaeology it plays
its usual role. Without the close relations now existing
between archaeologists and other scholars in Palestine,
and without the continuity of method and of knowledge
which is ensured by the presence of such men as Pere
Vincent and C. S. Fisher, our science could not possibly
make the rapid strides which we observe. The French
Ecole Biblique de St. Etienne, recognized by the French
Government after the War as one of its official schools of
archaeology, with a galaxy of distinguished scholars,
Fathers Lagrange, Vincent, Abel, Jaussen, Savignac,
Dhorme, to mention only a few of the best known among
its faculty, has served as a notable archaeological focus. 43
We may also claim that the American School of Oriental
Research, with its constant stress on cooperation between
different institutions, as well as between religious and
national groups, which has found concrete expression in
the Palestine Oriental Society,44 has exerted a useful
influence in the direction of collaboration and continuity
of scholarly effort. The Hebrew University 45; the German
Evangelical School, under the successive direction of
Dalman and Alt46; the British School, long submerged in
the Department of Antiquities, but now independent 47; the
Pontifical Biblical School,48 and other less important
institutions are all cooperating in the friendliest fashion.
All these institutions represent foci of continuous interest.
Another, in some respects even more important factor in
producing THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT
PALESTINE 39 continuity of research is the elaborate
and solidly organized work of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago at Megiddo, and of the University
of Pennsylvania Museum at Beth-shan. Even when
directors are changed, the plant and the organization
remain, while the accumulating records form a steadily
increasing mass of accurate information. It is precisely in
such elaborate organizations, however, that the human
factor suffers most, and the disadvantages of the machine
method become most evident. In an elaborate
undertaking, the director is often so submerged under a
mass of routine duty, most of which has only an indirect
relation to the actual excavation and interpretation, that
he has scant time and energy left for his scholarly work.
Under such conditions the excavation itself may fall
almost entirely into the hands of native foremen, who are
trained to follow certain arbitrary methods, but naturally
have no comprehension of the meaning and purpose of
what they are doing. Bruno Meissner has wisely said that
no amount of technical organization can replace an
intelligent mind.49 This principle is the great justification
of small and simply organized archaeological
undertakings, which should naturally restrict themselves
to small sites, and not attempt large mounds like Megiddo
and Beth-shan.
5. THE EXCAVATION OF BETH-SHAN
There is no object in following a strictly chronological
order in dealing with the excavations of postWar years. It
is much simpler to describe the results of the most
important undertakings, roughly following the order of
their significance. Let us, therefore, begin with the work
of the University of Pennsylvania 40 THE DISCOVERY
OF ANCIENT PALESTINE Museum at Beth-shan,
under the successive direction of C. S. Fisher (1921-3),
Alan Rowe (1925-8), and G. M. FitzGerald (1930—). 50
We need not dwell on the relatively unimportant
discoveries made in the upper strata, extending in time
from the Ptolemaic period to the age of Saladin, about
fifteen hundred years. Below the Hellenistic level the
excavators at once found themselves in remains dating
back to before 1000 B. c., when David destroyed the city,
never occupied again until some seven centuries later.
The real interest of Beth-shan to the archseologist begins
when he has penetrated down into the strata which
antedate the end of the second millennium B. C. NO fewer
than five separate strata from the second millennium B. c.
have so far been examined over a respectable area, the
five levels extending from the fifteenth century down to
about 1000 B. C. It is impossible to offer more than a
guess as to the number of strata still untouched, or as to
the age when the town was founded. Since its situation is
extraordinarily advantageous from the point of view of
the first builders of towns in this region, offering as it
does an unlimited water supply for irrigation, as well as
beautiful plains to irrigate, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that it was founded before the end of the
chalcolithic, that is, before 3000 B. C.
The lowest stratum so far studied at Beth-shan may be
dated accurately to the reign of Pharaoh Tuthmosis III
(cir. 1501-1447 B. C.), thanks to many scarabs bearing his
name, as well as to other adequate indications. In this
level Rowe made a number of very remarkable
discoveries in the campaigns of 1927 and 1928. A great
temple-complex containing two sanctuaries was almost
completely uncovered; both were
 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 41
built of adobe brick, but the ground-plan of the walls
could be traced throughout. A broken limestone stela
found in the southern sanctuary proved that it belonged
to the god Makal, called “ god of Beth-shan ” on
inscriptions. The name Makal is practically synonymous
with the better known Rashap (Resheph), the name of the
Canaanite god of the underworld, who was both god of
fertility and god of pestilence and destruction, these two
opposing aspects being characteristic of ancient chthonic
divinities.51 Curiously enough, we do not find the name
of Makal mentioned again in our fragmentary
inscriptional sources until the fourth century B. C., when
it appears in the compound name Rashap-Makal,
identified by the Cypriotes with their own Apollo. The
northern temple was evidently sacred to the goddess
consort of Makal, probably the ‘Anat who was
worshipped with Rashap in the two temples of Beth-shan
excavated by Rowe in the Ramesside stratum. In the
temple-complex were found a great many articles, both
votive offerings and cult objects, illustrative of the
religion and culture of the Canaanites. From the
standpoint of Biblical history, the fifteenth century falls
between the Patriarchal Age in the narrow sense and the
Age of Moses, and accordingly illustrates both. The most
interesting single find was a large basalt slab with the
representation of a combat between a lion and a mastiff,
in low relief.52 In the upper register the two animals stand
on their hind legs, facing one another; in the lower one
the lion is shown standing, with his mouth open in the act
of roaring, while the mastiff attacks his hind quarters.
Though this slab evidently served as an orthostat, that is,
as a casing for the lower part of a brick wall or pier, no
other similar slab was discovered, so it may have been
imported from the north. It is, at all events, by far the
 42 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
most artistic object yet found in any Canaanite level in
Palestine, aside, of course, from the many articles of
Egyptian manufacture. If we could be sure of its
Canaanite provenience, our respect for Canaanite art
would immediately rise, but there is reason, as just
observed, to suspect a northern origin, in Syria or
northern Mesopotamia. The closest parallels so far
discovered are the still unpublished slabs and sculptures
excavated by Baron von Oppenheim at Tell Halaf,
Biblical Gozan, in northern Mesopotamia. While the date
of his extraordinary finds is still doubtful, they appear to
be rather older than the Beth-shan slab. At all events, the
material from Tell Halaf proves conclusively that those
authorities who would depress the date of our slab by
several centuries are wrong. That they are wrong can be
stated apodictically by those who are conversant with the
stratification of the mound at the point where the slab
was found.
Just to the south of the inner shrine of the Makal
sanctuary, Rowe found a room containing an altar of
sacrifice.53 On the top of the altar is an L-shaped channel,
eight inches wide and deep, by which the blood of the
sacrificial animal was carried away from the altar. In the
channel on the altar is a hole for the wooden peg to
which the animal was tethered before it was slaughtered.
Against the south side of the altar were found lying the
two horns of a bull which had been sacrificed on the
altar. In the courtyard, just to the west of the altar steps,
was found the collar bone of a bull, presumably of the
same animal, which was about three years of age,
together with a dagger of bronze, presumably employed
in the
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 43
sacrifice.54 We have here a vivid picture of the last
sacrifice offered in the temple of Makal before the citadel
of Beth-shan was destroyed—by whom we do not know.
Other similar discoveries made in the temple-complex of
the Tuthmosis III stratum enable us to visualize many
other details and aspects of Canaanite religion, about
which virtually nothing was known prior to these
excavations. At the same time we are able to gain a much
better idea both of the similarities and of the much
greater differences between Canaanite and Israelite
religion.
The four subsequent strata could all be dated by
scarabs, inscriptions on stone, and other objects, with a
precision never equalled in the previous history of
Palestinian excavations. For this reason, the excavations
at Beth-shan are of the very greatest value to the
archaeologist, since they enable him to date pottery and
other artifacts of the same period when found in other
sites without dated inscriptions to fix their exact place in
time. After the level of the time of Tuthmosis III comes
one from the second half of the fifteenth century,
followed by a level belonging to the reign of Amenophis
III (1411-1375 B. C.). Then comes a stratum from the
time of Sethos I of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty,
itself divided into two building levels, one above the
other. Then, lastly, we reach a very thick level, which
extends from the reign of Ramesses the Great (1292-
1225 B. c.) to the destruction of Beth-shan by the
Israelites. From the Bible, which states that Beth-shan
was still standing, in Philistine hands, at the death of
Saul, and from the total absence of any remains on the
mound which can be dated between the tenth and the
fourth centuries B. c., it becomes practically certain that
it was cap- 44 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT
PALESTINE tured and destroyed by David, shortly after
1000 B. c.55
In the Ramesside stratum were found two very
interesting basalt stelae, one belonging to the first year of
Sethos I (cir. 1315 B. C.), the second to the ninth year of
Ramesses II (cir. 1284 B. C.). The monument of Sethos
contains a very important account of a military campaign
in which the Pharaoh suppressed an incipient revolt in
the Beth-shan area; the town is mentioned twice in the
text, which incidentally settles a number of difficult
questions of topography. The great monument of
Ramesses II, nine feet high, contains a long inscription
replete with boasts and empty phrases. Interesting to the
Bible student is a reference to the town of Ramesses,
Biblical Raamses, which the Israelites were said to have
built during their Egyptian bondage.56 In his first
campaign Dr. Fisher found another inscription of Sethos
I in the Byzantine level, where it had been reused as a
door lintel. This inscription is unhappily preserved only
in part, so the historical data to which it alludes remain
tantalizingly obscure. Most unfortunate is the vagueness
of the reference to the ‘Apiru people, evidently the
Khabiru of the Amarna Tablets, and generally believed to
represent the Biblical Hebrews.57
In the same stratum was found a basalt statue of
Ramesses III, the last Pharaoh of the New Empire to
maintain any hold over the Asiatic dependencies of
Egypt. The statue is very poorly executed, a fact which
illustrates the decline of Egyptian prestige. It was in this
reign that the Philistines invaded Palestine and settled in
the Coastal Plain, regardless of Egyptian opposition (cir.
1170 B. c.).58
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 45

6. MEGIDDO
The second most important archaeological enterprise
launched in Palestine since the War is beyond dispute the
excavation of Megiddo by the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, organized by J. H. Breasted. This
expedition began work in 1925, under the direction of C.
S. Fisher, followed in 1927 by P. L. O. Guy, and now
represents the high-water mark of comprehensive and
efficient organization in a Palestinian excavation.59 The
entire site of Tell el- Mutesellim has been acquired by
purchase, and the mound is being removed
systematically, stratum by stratum, level by level. This
method has been the ideal of most American excavators,
but it has only been applied without modification at
Megiddo. Against it may be said, to be sure, that
complete removal of a mound prevents future
archaeologists, with improved methods, from
supplementing and correcting the results of previous
excavators. When, on the other hand, it is properly
carried out, under careful supervision by a competent
man, this method assures us of complete and coherent
plans, and exhaustive records, which possess a
cumulative power of demonstration. Fortunately, both
methods of excavation, complete and partial clearance,
have their advocates, and both will continue to be
followed. The only method which is justly falling into
disrepute is that of trenching, for which there is little to
be said except on the ground of practical necessity.
A great undertaking like that at Megiddo is slow in
getting under way, so comparatively few remarkable
discoveries may as yet be chronicled. Four strata have so
far been examined, extending backward from the fourth
century B. C. to the tenth. The upper two, dating from the
 40 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
Babylonian and Persian periods, belonged to unimportant
villages, in whose ruins practically nothing of interest
was found. The third stratum, of the seventh century B.
C., yielded more interesting remains, especially in the
ruins of a small temple or sanctuary of Astarte, Biblical
Ashtaroth. Here were found altars of incense, Astarte
figurines, and proto-Ionic capitals, all showing the
extremely intimate relation between Phoenicia and Israel
at that time. It was reserved for Mr. Guy to make one of
the most remarkable finds ever made in Palestine, which
has illuminated a period regarding which archaeology has
had very little to say, the age of Solomon. In the absence
of archaeological illustration it was easy to speak
contemptuously about this age, and to suggest that
Solomon was really a very insignificant ruler, even
judged by the standards of that day. In the fourth stratum,
belonging to the early monarchy of Israel, Guy found in
1928—9 well-built stone stables for some three hundred
horses, together with space for chariots and grooms. The
stables were constructed of hewn stones, with the long,
rectangular shape which we have learned to associate
with the tenth and ninth centuries B. C. in Israel. This
type of masonry was undoubtedly introduced into
Palestine from outside, probably from Phoenicia, in the
reign of Solomon, whose relations with Hiram of Tyre
were so intimate.60 Running lengthwise of the stables
were two rows of massive pillars of stone, serving both
as supports for the roof and as tie-posts. Between the
pillars were stone feed-troughs, and the floor of the
stables, especially between the two rows of pillars, was
paved with hydraulic lime plaster as hard as ce-
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 47
ment. The alleys and courts between the stables were
also covered with the same hard plaster. According to I
Kings 10:26 ff. (cf. 9:15-19) Solomon built chariot cities
in which to keep his twelve thousand chariot horses,
since cavalry horses were not used in those days 61;
Megiddo is one of the places mentioned in this
connection. The splendour of the great king’s reign, and
the care with which he provided for the horses which he
imported into Israel for the first time are both vividly
illustrated by the discoveries at Megiddo.
7. MINOR AMERICAN EXCAVATIONS
American enterprise is also responsible, aside from the
two major undertakings which we have just described,
for a number of successful minor excavations initiated by
the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem.
The first excavation was undertaken in 1922-3 by the
School itself, under the writer’s direction, on the mound
of Tell el-Ful, the site of Gibeah of Benjamin, the home
and residence of Saul, first king of Israel. 62 A very
ancient fortress (migdal, rendered “ tower ” in the
English Bible) was examined, and proved to contain four
different strata, and seven different phases of building,
commencing at the very outset of Israelite history, about
1200 B. c., and closing in the early Roman period, about
the first century A. D. The first stratum, from the time of
the Judges, had been burned, as described in the Bible
(Jud. 20: 40). This confirmation of the Biblical narrative
is particularly interesting, since the historicity of the
story in question has often been doubted. The second
fortress belonged to the time of Saul himself (end of
eleventh century B. C.), and exhibited very
 48 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
solid masonry and a considerable amount of rustic
wealth. We must, of course, remember that Saul
remained essentially a wealthy peasant, even after his
coronation, and that his power was extremely limited.
In 1924 the American School began a series of joint
expeditions, which were directed by the writer, in close
cooperation with Dr. M. G. Kyle, then president of Xenia
Theological Seminary. The first of these cooperative
expeditions carried us down to the southern end of the
Dead Sea, and the adjacent land of Moab. 63 Our most
important find, in this campaign of exploration, was a
very large camping ground and fortress from the latter
part of the Early Bronze, at Bab ed-Dra‘. 64 While we
have not yet been able to excavate it, our surface
discoveries provided all that was necessary to give us a
clear idea of the age and the purpose of this installation.
Taken in conjunction with our archieological survey of
the southern Dead Sea valley, the Bab ed-Dra‘ fortress
and camp provide us for the first time with a
chronological basis for fixing the date of the destruction
of the Early Bronze culture of Sodom and Gomorrah, so
vividly recounted in Genesis 19. 65 The results of this and
numerous other expeditions made by the writer into the
Jordan Valley have definitively established the
correctness of the very early Biblical tradition that the
valley was very prosperous and densely peopled when
Abraham came into the country 66 The population of the
Jordan Valley decreased steadily thereafter, partly
because of the catastrophe described in Genesis, and
reached the lowest point in its history in the Israelite
period, about 900 B. c.67
In 1926 we began the joint excavation of Tell Beit
Mirsim, probably Biblical Debir, or Kiriath-sepher.
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 49 So
far we have devoted three campaigns (1926, 28, 30) to
this task; Dr. Kyle and the writer hope to undertake the
fourth campaign in 1932. Since the second chapter will
be concerned with this excavation, we need not dwell on
it here.
In the same year Dr. W. F. Bade, of the Pacific School
of Religion, began excavation at Tell en- Nasbeh, seven
miles north of Jerusalem, and regarded by many scholars
as the site of Biblical Mizpah. 68 This expedition was
organized with the help of Fisher, who has been
associated with the School as professor of archaeology
since 1925, and whose influence on the scientific
character of American excavations in Palestine has been
very beneficial indeed. Bade has so far conducted three
campaigns at Tell en-Nasbeh (1926, 27 and 29), and has
succeeded in examining practically the entire surface of
the mound, a feat possible only because of the
shallowness of the debris of occupation.69 The most
remarkable discovery at this site has been, without doubt,
the extraordinarily massive city wall, which averages
some seventeen feet (five metres) in thickness, and in one
place reaches the width of twenty-six feet. At more or
less regular intervals the wall was strengthened by
towers, the base of which was protected by sloping stone
revetments. This wall belongs to the Middle Bronze Age,
and was repaired during the Iron Age by the Israelites,
perhaps to serve as an outpost of the Northern Kingdom
against Judah.70
In 1928 Elihu Grant of Haverford College began
excavations at Tell er-Rumeileh, or ‘Ain Shems, the site
of the Biblical Beth-shemesh.71 Work had been begun
here before the War by the Palestine Exploration Fund,
under whose auspices Duncan Mackenzie 50 THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE dug for three
short campaigns (1911-12), which were mostly devoted
to a Byzantine monastery and to the clearance of Israelite
tombs.72 The Fund generously ceded its rights of priority
to Grant, who began work with Fisher’s help, and has
continued to work every year since (third campaign
1930). The town was founded, it would appear, in the
seventeenth century B. c., during the Hyksos Age, and
was occupied continuously down to the Babylonian
Captivity, some eleven centuries. 73 Four strata have been
distinguished, all of which overlap archaeological
periods, a fact which increases the difficulty of the work
at the same time that it enhances its interest. Grant has
been remarkably fortunate in comparison with
Mackenzie; at the outset of his work his pickmen broke
into two large sepulchral caverns which proved to be
literally full of fine pottery, weapons, jewelry, scarabs,
etc., from the Late Canaanite and Early Israelite periods.
At the end of his third campaign he found a sherd
inscribed in ink (ostracon), in Old Hebrew characters, and
dating from not later than the fourteenth century B. c.
Showing the great antiquity of writing in Palestine, and
carrying back the use of the Hebrew script to a period
antedating Moses, this discovery has naturally made a
sensation.74
8. BRITISH ARCHEOLOGICAL UNDERTAKINGS
The Palestine Exploration Fund was actually, as we
have said, the first organization to reenter the field of
Palestinian archeology after the War. With few
intermissions, the Fund has been represented every year
since 1920, generally in the closest collaboration with its
daughter institution, the British School of Archaeology in
Jerusalem, whose successive directors, THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 51 John
Garstang and J. W. Crowfoot, have also headed most of
its expeditions. The first undertaking was the excavation
of Ashkelon (Ascalon) in 1920-1.75 Garstang and
Phythian-Adams made some important discoveries
bearing on the time of the Philistine occupation and the
building activity of Herod the Great at Ascalon, but the
site proved so difficult from the archaeological point of
view, that they were finally forced to give it up, for
practical reasons. One difficulty with this site is that the
Philistine stratum, in which scholars are naturally most
interested, is covered with at least twenty-six feet (eight
metres) of Hellenistic, Roman, and later remains.
Passing over some of the minor undertakings of the
Fund and of the British School of Archaeology, working
independently,76 we come to the resumption of its earlier
work at Jerusalem. Warren and Bliss were now followed
by Macalister, who returned to Palestine in 1923, after
fourteen years’ absence. With the help of a former
assistant of Petrie, J. Garrow Duncan, Macalister began
to excavate on the Ophel hill, just south of the Temple
Area. In 1924, Duncan took sole charge of the work,
which continued until 1925. Then, in 1927 and 1928, the
excavation was continued under the direction of
Crowfoot.77 Jerusalem is a discouraging site in which to
dig, because of the extraordinary vicissitudes which the
city has undergone, vicissitudes which have either buried
ancient remains under a mountain of debris, or have led
to the complete removal of the debris of occupation, so
that nothing is left the unfortunate archaeologist when he
digs down to what should be the proper level for
important discoveries. As a matter of fact, Ophel was
partly razed by Simon Maccabaeus about 140 B. C., SO 52
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE the
excavator may expect to find little except in undisturbed
caverns and pockets in the rock. When Weill dug before
and after the War at the southern end of “ Ophel,” he
found in situ only rock-cuttings, which, however,
tantalizingly included the lower parts of several very
ancient tombs of the so-called Phoenician type, which
may very well have belonged to the series of royal tombs
of the kings of Judah.78 Macalister, Duncan, and Crowfoot
had the same disappointing experience until they reached
the edge of the hill on the eastern and western sides,
where they found extensive remains of the ancient city
walls of the Canaanite and Israelite periods. The wall of
the Israelite period (David and his successors) was found
to be eight metres (twenty-seven feet) wide on both sides
of the hill, a fact calculated to make us understand better
how Jerusalem could offer such a long and vigorous
resistance to the Chaldsean arms in 588-7 B. c. The
sloping revetment of the Israelite period on the eastern
slope of the hill is the most impressive monument of
Israelite fortification which we possess. 79 The existence of
so strong a wall on the western side, east of the
Tyropceon Valley, is an almost conclusive proof of the
correctness of the view originally proposed by Robertson
Smith, and adopted independently by Pere Germer-
Durand, that Pre-Maccabsean Jerusalem was restricted to
the eastern hill, including “ Ophel ” and the Temple
Mount.80 While this view is not accepted by all scholars,
the British excavations have demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the last “ die- hards ” that the J ebusite and
Davidic Zion, the oldest Jerusalem, is “ Ophel.”
After the discovery of the Tomb of Tut-ankh-aman
had led to the adoption by the Egyptians of a very THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 53 narrow
policy with regard to the share of antiquities which the
excavator was given, the British School of Archaeology
in Egypt, founded and directed by Sir Flinders Petrie,
decided to transfer most of its work to Palestine,
especially the extreme south, where the closest contact
with Egypt might, a priori, be expected. In 1927 Petrie
began work at Tell Djemmeh, the site of ancient Biblical
Gerar, which plays so important a role in the Patriarchal
narratives of Genesis.81 At Gerar he found work seriously
impeded by the presence of many huge grain pits, or
silos, built by the Persians in order to supply their army
with grain, probably during an invasion of Egypt. After
one campaign, in which he failed to get down beyond the
Iron Age, except in a deep pit, he moved to Tell el-
Far‘ah, where he has conducted three campaigns (1928-
30).82 Tell el-Far‘ah is situated southeast of Gaza, at the
extreme southwest corner of the Israelite settlement. The
identification of the site is uncertain, and Petrie’s idea
that it represents Beth-pelet of the Bible is quite without
basis.83 The most probable suggestion so far made is that
Tell el-Far‘ah is ancient Sharuhen, a point of strategic
importance, mentioned a number of times in the Bible
and the Egyptian inscriptions.84
The excavations around the base of the mound have
yielded a very large number of tombs, belonging to the
Middle and Late Bronze Ages, as well as to the various
phases of the Iron Age. In the tombs, which thus cover
nearly a millennium and a half, has been found an
extraordinarily large quantity of pottery, of bronzes,
scarabs, and jewelry. Historically, the most interesting
objects are probably the scarabs, which have furnished
Petrie with material to rearrange the 54 THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE relative
chronology of Egyptian scarabs of the obscure period
which intervened between the Twelfth and the Eighteenth
Dynasties (about 1780-1570 B. C.), generally called the
Hyksos Age. Petrie has found abundant evidence that
Tell el-Far‘ah was an important Hyksos stronghold. A
very remarkable system of fortification, consisting
mainly of a very wide and deep moat, and showing clear
affinities with the Hyksos fortification as we know it
from Egypt and Syria,85 was found to belong to the
Hyksos Age. The latest discoveries on the mound have
been of very great value for the reconstruction of life in
Palestine in the Ramesside period, that is, about the time
of the Conquest, or a little before. The Egyptian palace of
this age, found a year ago, proved to be quite luxurious,
containing such features as a bedroom with a raised
recess for the bed, a bathroom connecting with it, and a
wine storeroom.
This winter (1930-1) Petrie has begun excavations at
the mound of Tell el-‘Addjul, on the coast south of Gaza.
The site is very large, covering several hundred acres,
and seems to have been abandoned several hundred years
before the Israelite occupation of the country. When so
old a site is discovered, the excavator is able to penetrate
at once into very early levels, and to elucidate little
known periods of history, without having to spend
months or years in digging laboriously and
conscientiously through comparatively uninteresting
post-Biblical levels, where it is seldom indeed that any
really fresh material, of historical importance, comes to
light. We may well look forward with interest to the
continuation of excavations at Tell el- ‘Addjul, which is
certain to yield much valuable information with regard to
the relations between Egypt THE DISCOVERY OF
ANCIENT PALESTINE 55 and Palestine in the third
millennium, as well as in the following age of the
Patriarchs.
In 1929 Garstang resumed work at Tell es-Sultan
(Jericho), which the Germans had begun to excavate
before the War (see above). Since he has just begun the
second campaign (January, 1931), we must await its
results before describing the work of the first campaign.86
Suffice it to say that he has already obtained convincing
proof that the German chronology of the fortifications
was wrong, thanks to a very careful use of the pottery, in
which he enjoys the help of such specialists as Vincent
and Fisher. The most important problem which remains
to be solved at Jericho is the exact date of the capture and
destruction of the last Canaanite town on the site by the
Israelites under Joshua. On the basis of the material
published in the German account of the excavations
before the War, different scholars have differed by two
centuries or more in their date for this event. Only
systematic excavation can solve this question, which is
obviously of the greatest importance for Biblical
chronology and history.
9. GERMAN AND DANISH EXCAVATIONS
Just before the War (1913-4) Sellin directed two very
short campaigns at Tell Balatah, just outside modern
Nablus, in central Palestine. He correctly identified the
site with the famous Biblical town of Shechem. As soon
as possible, after the War, in 1926, he resumed
excavation here, directing five campaigns, after which
Dr. Welter-Mauve followed him with a sixth campaign
(1928), making eight in all, short and long. 87
Unfortunately, owing to the employment by both Sellin
and Welter of the trench system, it is not 56 THE
DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE yet possible
to form a clear idea of the stratification, or of the relation
between the strata inside the walls and the city walls
themselves. It is, however, clear that the Middle Bronze
town (no trace has yet been found of a settlement before
2000 B. C.) was much smaller than the Late Bronze one,
which was very extensive and important. A typical
Hyksos fortress has been found under the remains of the
later Canaanite and Israelite citadel, the Biblical Millo.
Shortly afterwards, perhaps about 1600 B. C., though the
date remains uncertain, for the reasons given above, the
city was surrounded with a massive cyclopeean wall, the
finest example of Canaanite masonry which we have in
Palestine. The great size of the stones and the solidity of
the masonry were required in order to ensure the safety of
the city, located on a low eminence in the valley between
Ebal and Gerizim. The two city-gates so far excavated,
on the northwest and east, respectively, are also the most
imposing gateways of the early period which have yet
been found.
The most interesting discovery inside the city was a
temple of the Late Canaanite period, in the Millo, and
believed with reason to represent the temple of Baal-
berith mentioned in the story of Abimelech, Jud. 8—9.
This temple was found to have a rather complex history,
covering most of the Late Bronze Age, and descending
into the Early Iron. It would seem to have been destroyed
by Abimelech, son of Gideon, about 1100 B. c. Very few
tombs were discovered, since the excavation was
restricted mainly to the interior of the town. Among small
objects, the most important were some Israelite altars of
incense and two Canaanite cuneiform tablets, both purely
private documents, one a business contract, the other a
letter.88 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
57 To what extent cuneiform must have been used by
even ordinary Canaanites, especially in large towns, in
the affairs of daily life is becoming increasingly evident.
Such discoveries give us reason to hope that many more
written documents from the age of the Patriarchs and the
Conquest will yet be discovered in Palestine.
In 1926 and 1929 H. Kjaer and Aage Schmidt
undertook the excavation of Seilun, Biblical Shiloh, on
behalf of a Danish committee.89 The work here has been
carried on slowly, with the most painstaking method
which has yet been employed in Palestinian excavation.
Since Shiloh was occupied down into the thirteenth
century A. D., or even a little later, much time and
patience are necessary before such conscientious
excavators as the Danes can get down into Biblical levels.
However, once such levels are reached, we may be sure
that no scrap of evidence will be neglected, and that
every possible care in recording will be taken. It is
already certain that the settlement of the early Israelite
age, when the Tabernacle stood at Shiloh, and
pilgrimages were made to it by pious Israelites, was
larger than at any subsequent period. The early Israelite
occupation lasted apparently from the thirteenth to the
eleventh centuries B. C., to judge from the pottery found.
Most interesting is the fact that no remains have been
discovered belonging to the period between the tenth and
the sixth centuries, when, according to Biblical
statements, Shiloh lay in ruins. We have, accordingly,
archaeological evidence, favouring the general view that
Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines after the battle of
Ebenezer and the capture of the Ark (about 1050 B. C.).
We may hope for the discovery of the site of the
Tabernacle some day, since 58 THE DISCOVERY OF
ANCIENT PALESTINE there is reason to believe that
the tent of meeting was replaced by a stone building
before the fall of Shiloh.80
10. THE SYNAGOGUES OF GALILEE
While we are obliged to restrict ourselves in this
lecture to the discoveries bearing more directly upon the
Biblical period, we cannot entirely pass over the epoch-
making researches which have been carried on since the
War in two fields, one earlier and one later than Bible
times. Both have no little indirect interest and value for
students of the Bible. We refer primarily to the
excavations of Jewish synagogues belonging to the
Roman and Byzantine periods, and to the prehistoric
researches which have been prosecuted with increasing
energy since 1925.
The Jewish synagogues of Galilee have long attracted
attention, and two German archeologists, H. Koh! and C.
Watzinger, made a thorough examination of their surface
remains, so far as they were known, with occasional
soundings, some years before the War. 01 The Franciscans,
who had acquired the site of Capernaum, continued
excavating the ruins of its synagogue until the latter was
completely cleared and partly restored by Pore Orfali,
after the War.®1 The synagogue at Capernaum is by far
the finest edifice of the kind which has yet been
discovered in Palestine. However, contrary to the opinion
of the Franciscan fathers who own the site, it is agreed by
all competent scholars, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish
alike (since archaeological and historical discussions are
never affected seriously by confessional lines), that it was
built between 150 and 250 A. D.89 Curiously enough, not a
single surviving synagogue belongs to the New
Testament period. The reason for this THE DISCOVERY
OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 59 apparent anomaly is
naturally that most synagogues of Palestine were
destroyed either in the first or the second Jewish revolt,
that is, between 66 and 135 A. D. There is, however,
reason to believe that the plan and disposition of the
earlier synagogues was not very different from that of the
synagogues of the Roman period, though the architecture
and sculpture must have been of quite another type.
The two most important synagogues excavated since
the War are, beyond doubt, those of Noaran (‘Ain Duq)
near Jericho, cleared by Vincent in 1921,84 and of Beth
Alpha, near Beth-shan, excavated by Sukenik in 1929.85
Both synagogues possessed elaborate mosaic floors, with
inscriptions and pictorial representations. The structure at
Noaran cannot be dated exactly, but belongs to the fourth
or fifth centuries, while the other, dated in the reign of
Emperor Justin, belongs to the early sixth century A. D. In
1929 a similar, though inferior synagogue, also from the
fourth or fifth century, was discovered by Crowfoot at
Gerasa (Djerash) in Transjordan.86 At Noaran and at Beth
Alpha elaborate representations of the twelve signs of the
zodiac were found; at Noaran the figures had been
destroyed by Jewish iconoclasts, who were opposed to
pictorial imagery, but at Beth Alpha they were com-
pletely preserved. At the latter place there was even a
representation of the sun, in human form, driving a four-
horse chariot. Even more surprising is the fact that
Biblical scenes were also represented on these synagogue
mosaics. At Noaran there was a scene showing Daniel in
the lions’ den, at Beth Alpha the sacrifice of Isaac was
depicted, while at Gerasa there was a mosaic representing
Noah’s ark and the animals. Dr. E. L. Sukenik, who is the
foremost authority on
 6o THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
the Jewish synagogues of Palestine, has been able to
show that iconic decoration, far from being exceptional,
was characteristic of the Roman and Byzantine periods,
which correspond to the age of the Talmud. It was not
until later that an intense iconoclastic reaction set in,
especially in the west. From Sukenik’s comparative
studies we may safely expect important light on the
evolution of the synagogue, as well as upon its origin in
the Maccabaean age and its development in the last
century of the Second Temple, which is also the time of
Christ and the Apostles.87
11. PREHISTORIC ARCHEOLOGY IN PALESTINE
Prehistoric research began in Palestine soon after the
time of Robinson,98 but until after the War it was limited
to surface exploration and the collection of flint artifacts
found above ground. A very little excavation had been
undertaken by the Jesuit fathers, Pere Zumoffen and
others, in Phoenicia.68 The results of this long continued,
but mostly unsystematic surface study were gathered and
published by Karge during the War.106 While the types of
flints were in the main correlated accurately with
corresponding types found in Western Europe, there was
no stratigraphical evidence to confirm the correlation,
and no human skeletal remains had been discovered, so
that nothing was known about the men who had lived
then in the Holy Land. In 1925 a young English proto-
archaeologist, Turville-Petre, excavated two prehistoric
caves in Galilee, between Magdala and Capernaum, just
above the Sea of Galilee. 101 In one of them, Mugharet ez-
Zuttiyeh, he found a very clear stratification, with
Mousterian (Middle Palaeolithic) below and Aurignacian
(Upper Palaeolithic) above. Most important, however,
 THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 61
was a human skull and other skeletal remains of an
absolutely clear Neanderthal type, found in the
Mousterian level. Since many specimens of Neanderthal
man have been found in Europe, and always, where there
is stratigraphical evidence, in Mousterian levels, this
discovery has definitively established the correlation
between the Mousterian of Western Asia and that of
Europe. Turville-Petre’s brilliant discoveries have
naturally spurred other prehistorians to participation in
this work. In several campaigns Miss Dorothy Garrod, an
eminent English proto-archaeologist, has studied the
prehistoric deposits in Palestinian caverns, especially at
Shuqbah in southwestern Samaria and at Wadi el-
Mugharah south of Carmel.102 In these caves she has
made extremely important stratigraphical discoveries,
showing a very complicated prehistory. Her most
remarkable contribution has been the discovery and study
of a new culture, belonging to the late Mesolithic, with
African affinities, a culture which she has termed “
Natufian.” The people to whom this culture belonged
were a Mediterranean race, of small stature and delicate
form, and with a highly developed artistic sense. A figure
of a young bull, carved from bone, is superior to any
prehistoric art object yet found in Asia. The date of this
culture is still, of course, doubtful, but cannot be later
than the sixth millennium B. C. Pere Mallon and M. Rene
Neuville, chancellor of the French Consulate in
Jerusalem, have also made some very important
excavations in prehistoric sites. Under Neuville’s
direction, a cave in the Wadi Khreitun (the traditional site
of Adullam, southeast of Bethlehem) has been excavated,
and has proved to contain remains at least as old as the
oldest found in French caves, that is, from the transition
 6o THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
between Early and Middle Palaeolithic. 103 Mallon and
Neuville have more recently (1930) collaborated in the
excavation of a neolithic (properly chalcolithic) village
site just across the Jordan from Jericho, now called
Tuleilat el-Ghassul.104 While the pottery and other
remains are very primitive, they open up to the
archaeologist a whole new period of history, of which
nothing was previously known. Since this is the period
when grain was first cultivated, animals were first
domesticated, and pottery was first made, it possesses an
unusual interest for the student of the past. It is also very
instructive to know that towns were already in existence
in the Jordan Valley before 3000 B. c.105
In this lecture we have sketched the development of
archaeological research in Palestine, and have shown its
gradual expansion, the increasing exactness of its
methods. We have also shown how this improvement of
technique leads to more and more important historical
discoveries. Step by step, sometimes rapidly, sometimes
slowly and cautiously, we advance the frontiers of our
knowledge, filling up blank spaces on our chart, and
enlarging our information concerning better known
periods. Every detail will eventually find its place, and
enable us better to reconstruct the historical background
of the Bible. Because of its central position, discoveries
in Palestine also possess very great value for the student
of comparative civilization and world history. While we
watch the progress of archaeological discovery in
Palestine we are also spectators at the unfolding of the
greatest drama of history, the origin and early
development of our own civilization and our own
religion.106
II
THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE 63
UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY

1. THE INITIATION AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK

AT TELL BEIT MIRSIM

I N April, 1924, the writer rode through the southern

Shephelah of Judah with a small party of students of
the American School of Oriental Research in
Jerusalem. Among the mounds which we examined on
that occasion was Tell Beit Mirsim. Approaching it as we
did from the north, it impressed us greatly, both with its
size and with its splendid situation. After we had ridden
up to its southern side, from which the climb to the top is
easy, we found that the revetment of the ancient walls
was still exposed in part, and that the outlines of the piers
of the main gateway, opening slightly south of east, were
still visible. The surface of the mound was covered with
Iron Age pottery, including numerous ring- burnished
sherds of Early Iron II, but nothing of a later date. Bronze
Age sherds also appeared on the slopes of the hill. The
possibility that this was the site of the long-lost Debir, or
Kiriath-sepher of the Bible immediately struck me, and
after an examination of the other mounds of this region
had yielded no serious competitor, the suggestion was
published in the preliminary report of our trip.1 On
reading this report, Dr. M. G. Kyle, then president of
Xenia 63

Theological Seminary in St. Louis, became interested in

the mound as a prospective site for excavation. His offer
to undertake a joint excavation here, under his patronage
and my direction, was accepted by the Schools of
Oriental Research, and the first campaign was launched
 6o THE DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE
in the spring of 1926.
So far three joint campaigns, under the same auspices,2
have been conducted at Tell Beit Mirsim, the first from
March to June, 1926,3 the second from April to June,
1928,4 and the third from June to August, 1930.5 We
hope to undertake a fourth campaign in the summer of
1932, Deo volente. While the summer is somewhat
warm, the site is so high (about 1600 feet above sea-
level) that the weather is seldom unpleasantly hot. In
fact, during the third campaign we slept under blankets
nearly the whole time. Even at noon, under canvas, it was
rarely unbearably hot. The southern Shephelah is so dry
that malaria is little known, so far as we could find. A
great advantage of summer campaigns is that the harvest
is over before we begin digging, so there is no
competition and labour is cheap. Another advantage is
that there are either no crops at all, or simply such
relatively worthless summer crops as dhurah. It is,
furthermore, quite possible for scholars to come from
America during their summer vacations, a fact which
makes the creation of an adequate staff much simpler.
The first campaign was organized on a very simple
basis. There were only five Americans on the regular
staff, not counting guests, who remained for a shorter or
a longer time.6 The labourers, who averaged about fifty
in number, were divided into three small gangs, each
under the supervision of a member of the staff, while a
native foreman took charge of the lists of
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 65
workmen, and supervised the work during our absence.
Some of my time was at first devoted to teaching the
elements of Arabic to the members of the staff, who soon
became so proficient that they could direct fluently, but
became helpless as soon as the natives began replying. 7
On our second campaign, we added an Egyptian
surveyor, trained by Dr. C. S. Fisher, together with two
Egyptian foremen, both obtained through Fisher. 8 This
greatly eased my work, since I had to do most of the
surveying and planning during the first campaign.
Besides Kyle and myself, there were three other foreign
members of the staff.9 We averaged sixty to seventy
labourers. The third campaign was organized on a much
better basis, thanks to a considerable increase in the
money available. There were seven foreign members of
the staff, several of whom had previous experience, and
all of whom worked with a whole-souled interest and
loyalty which I have never seen surpassed. 10 We had
three surveyors, all trained by Fisher,11 and four native
foremen, two of whom were Fisher’s men. Four gangs,
with an average total of about a hundred labourers, were
employed. Another Egyptian devoted all his time to the
mending of pottery, an art in which he had attained a
very high degree of skill under Fisher’s training. It is my
conviction that we attempted to do more than was
altogether prudent in our third campaign. When the
director of an expedition can only spend three or four
months in the country, more than half of which is spent
in actual excavation, it is unwise, from the standpoint of
scientific results, to employ more than an average of
seventy men. It is much better to be content with few
great discoveries and an adequate treatment of
 66 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
the material recovered than to make more discoveries at
the expense of proper recording and study of what is
found.
Our methods followed the principles worked out by
Fisher, who, both as the first director of the major
undertakings at Beth-shan and Megiddo, and as professor
of archaeology in the American Schools of Oriental
Research (since 1925), has, as we emphasized in our first
lecture, exercised a very great influence on the
development of American archaeological work in
Palestine. Naturally, different sites and varying
circumstances require varying application of his
principles; he himself has been the first to change his
methods in order to adapt them to conditions. The main
points are: systematic and careful planning, surveying,
and levelling; excavation of areas rather than trenches;
full and exact drawing of pottery forms on millimetre-
ruled paper; systematic recording and cardindexing, with
the use of a large record-book for the detailed entry of all
objects discovered. The main danger, in employing
trained Egyptian or Palestinian foremen, is that the
control exercised over them by the archaeological staff
may be inadequate. No matter how well trained these
foremen may be, they can never attain more than a
craftsman’s technique; the purpose of the work eludes
them, and they are nearly always helpless before new and
complicated problems. Constant watchfulness is,
accordingly, indispensable, and the director and his
foreign assistants must always be ready to go to work
with their own hands, or to spend entire days at a single
point of interest. As soon as the organization becomes so
elaborate that the director is no longer able to spend
much of his time in the chantier of excavation, a small
expedition
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 67 ceases
to have a scientific reason for existence, and should be
replaced by one provided with a full-time organization, a
permanent expedition house, and a professional staff.
American organization tends to neglect direct control of
the excavation itself; English and German organization
shows a tendency to slight the recording in order to
devote as much attention as possible to the chantier. To
combine both methods is entirely possible for a small
excavation with an adequate staff.
2. DEALING WITH THE ARABS: THE NATIVES OF THE
DISTRICT
After this methodological excursus, let us return to the
excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim! We have described the
selection of the site and the organization of the
expedition. The permit to excavate was granted each year
anew by the Department of Antiquities, acting on the
advice of the Archaeological Advisory Board. It was then
the duty of the director to negotiate with the native
owners for lease of the site. Direct purchase of all or part
of the site would naturally be more advantageous, and far
less troublesome than lease, where the same wearying
and sometimes intricate negotiations must be renewed
before every campaign. Unfortunately, however, the
mound of Tell Beit Mirsim is, like so much property in
Palestine, mesha‘ land, that is, it is owned in common by
a large number of different families and persons, most of
whom belong to a single clan, the ‘Araqbiyeh, 12 which
resides during most of the year in neighbouring ruins, or
khlrab. There were two groups of members of this clan
which had to be considered, with three representatives.
The minor members seldom offered
 68 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
much opposition to an agreement which their headmen,
acting as agents, had concluded, though they were much
given to intriguing before the agents had acted. “ Double-
crossing ” is familiar in virtually all Arab business
transactions; honesty, as we understand it, is all but non-
existent. However, I have seldom known an Arab to
break his word after it is once given, and oral
transactions or agreements are still much more common
than written ones. An added complication—or
simplification, as the case may be— in dealing with the
people of this district is that their main ancestral stock is
only ten generations from the desert, and they are,
consequently, very much under the influence of the chief
sheikhs of the community. Before explaining this
situation, a word with regard to the latter is necessary.
Tell Beit Mirsim lies opposite Khirbet Beit Mirsim, a
Byzantine ruin which is now, like most other ruins in this
region, occupied during most of the year by peasants,
who live in caves, tents, or booths among the ruins. The
capital of the community is the town of Dura, ancient
Adora, Biblical Adoraim, which lies up in the hills
southwest of Hebron.13 The people of Dura number
officially over six thousand, but claim a population of ten
thousand; their mode of life makes an accurate census
quite impossible. During practically the entire year they
live in their “ ninety-nine khirab (ruins),” though the
government reduces this round number to the more
modest one of fifty-odd. They are divided into four
groups of clans, each one under a chief, or mukhtar.
Yusif ‘Abd el-Hamid, mukhtar of the area in which Tell
Beit Mirsim lies, is the grandson of the redoubtable ‘Abd
er-Rahman, chief of Dura, and overlord of all the Hebron
and Beer-
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 69 sheba
region, as far as the Egyptian frontier, a century ago. 14
‘Abd er-Rahman was deposed by the Turks, when they
regained their power in Palestine, about 1839, and later
exiled to Cyprus, where he died. Most of our dealings
have been, perforce, with Yusif, who is both an Arab
gentleman and a clever man, as we have had ample
occasion both to applaud and to regret.
One of the most interesting recreations of my first
campaign at Tell Beit Mirsim was to collect the historical
traditions of Dura from intelligent natives, so far as
possible of different families. Ten generations ago, that
is, about the middle of the seventeenth century, when the
power of the Turkish Government was weak, and the
Syrian province was being devastated by the conflicts
between the parties of Qeis and Yemen, 15 Dura was
inhabited by peasants of older vintage, whose ancestors
had probably come in from the desert two or three
centuries earlier, though the modern occupants naturally
know nothing about the history of their predecessors. To
the neighbourhood of Dura came an Arab clan from the
region of Tafileh in what was once the land of Edom.
This clan, the Abu Darahimeh,16 was an offshoot of the
great Hedjaz tribe of the Beni Rabi‘, 17 which had
migrated northw'ard from the region of the Holy Cities of
Islam some generations previously. The Abu Darahimeh
soon entered into marriage relations with a clan
(hamuleh) of Dura, whose clients they became. Not long
afterwards, a girl from the Arab camp entered the town in
order to grind some meal, but was seized and
deflow’ered by a youth of the town. Being too weak to
demand satisfaction, the Abu Darahimeh bided their
time, and plotted with the friendly clan of Dura to wreak
revenge on the rest of the townsmen.
 70 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
Some time later the chance presented itself; the Arabs
offered a feast to the notables of the town, who came
unarmed, while all the Arabs and their allies concealed
daggers under their robes. At a prearranged signal, the
hosts leaped to their feet and massacred the guests —a
breach of the laws of Arab hospitality which could only
be excused by the exigencies of the case. Meanwhile,
other Arabs had concealed themselves, heavily armed, in
a thicket near the threshing-floors where many of the
men of Dura were at the time engaged in peaceful labour.
An old man was sent down the road which ran by the
threshing-floors toward the ambush; he drove an ass
laden with faqus (a kind of melon). When he approached
the ambush he spilled the melons, and at this signal, also
prearranged, several Arabs leaped out on him, while he
cried for help. The threshers rushed to his assistance, and
were promptly set upon and massacred by the concealed
Arabs. We have no space to describe subsequent hap-
penings, nor to recount the wars which Dura fought
during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century,
extraordinarily interesting though the narrative is,
compounded equally of history and folklore. The striking
resemblance of the story which we have told with certain
narratives of the Bible is evident 18; as given me by the
natives, the similarity is even greater, since the account is
interlarded with aetiological observations, connecting the
names of places around Dura with events in its history—
sometimes, no doubt, correctly, but often quite
fancifully.19
3. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE EXCAVATION
In our first campaign we began by clearing the East
Gate, removing the debris without disturbing any of the
masonry, which still stands. While this method made it
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 7i
difficult to give plans of the lower constructions, below
the top level, we felt that the gateway was too interesting
to be destroyed. As the Arabs have damaged it seriously
since it was first cleared, we expect to excavate it
completely in a later campaign. We then turned our
attention to the West Gate, which was also cleared in the
same way, and still stands, uninjured. In the Iron Age,
these two gates were the only modes of ingress into the
city. The East Gate, which opens out into a pre-exilic
road running southeast into the hill-country, and still in
part preserved, is wide enough for chariots, while the
West Gate, which led to a very ancient road running
north and south along the Wad el-Bayyarah, is narrow,
only admitting pedestrians and laden asses. Both gates
are solidly built, and exhibit the same indirect method of
entrance which is found to-day in Eastern city gates, as in
the Damascus Gate at Jerusalem. Together they form the
best examples of Early Iron gateways which have yet
been discovered in Palestine.
We further cleared nearly the entire line of the city
wall of the Iron Age, leaving only a short sector in the
northwest, which is almost entirely destroyed, and very
deeply buried. Inside the town we limited ourselves to
work in the top stratum. Just north of the West Gate we
cleared a large tower, of extremely good Iron Age
construction. The tower consisted of a fairly large open
court in the center, with rooms opening from it in three
directions, and abutting directly on the gateway and the
city wall. That this tower building was employed for
public affairs is indicated by a number of standard
weights which we found there; the best is a perfect eight
mina weight of polished limestone.20 It goes without
saying that one of the principal duties of the magistrates
 72 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
was to adjudicate cases of disputed weights and
measures. In order to settle some difficult questions
regarding the age of the substructure of the West Gate,
we dug down to bed-rock just to the north of it, inside
one of the tower rooms. We soon found that we were in a
narrow rock-cut tunnel, leading down and into the city,
filled with debris containing exclusively Middle Bronze
pottery. Judge our disappointment when, instead of
emerging into an untouched necropolis of the time of the
Patriarchs, we broke into a great empty cistern, or rather
group of cisterns, belonging to the Iron Age! The
Israelites, in digging a cistern, had broken into the
Canaanite sepulchral caverns, which they had cleared,
plastered, and used as a cistern— another illustration of
the facts underlying the double use of the word bor in
Hebrew, in the sense of “ cistern ” and of “ Sheol.”
North of the East Gate we cleared an area just inside
the city wall, with houses of the top stratum. Curiously
enough, the exigencies of space forced the Israelites to
tear out the inside of the city wall here, in order to make
room for their own dwellings, so that the wall was
nothing but a shell at this point. While engaged in
clearing the outside of the wall, down to bed-rock, in this
sector, we met with a second disappointment. A cleft in
the rock was found by the labourers, who were ordered to
widen it with their picks, since there seemed to be a cave
behind it. When the entrance hole was large enough, we
entered, together with a number of greatly excited Arabs.
As we crawled on and on, through apparently
labyrinthine passages, dimly lighted by tallow candles,
the Arabs became more and more intoxicated with the
hope of finding buried treasure. Finally, one of them
began, in his madness, to tell the others, in our hearing,
what they must do when they had discovered the gold—
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 7i
cut the throats of the khawadjat, and escape with the
treasure. I was not at all disturbed by this sanguinary
threat, which my companions failed to understand, since
it had already become evident that the place had been
used for nothing more romantic than storage bins for
grain and straw, oil, etc. The Arabs were bitterly
disappointed, and slunk out muttering, mesakin, bdqit
fellahin zeiyna, “ Poor people, they were peasants like
us.” The noisiest of the party disappeared for several
weeks, apprehending ill-will on our part. As a matter of
fact, he has never been allowed to forget that episode,
which he recalls silently, with a sheepish grin.
When we cleared this group of caverns later, we
obtained conclusive evidence that they had originally
served as sepulchral chambers, which were entered
through a doorway of typical Bronze Age megalithic
construction, from the interior of the town. In the cave
we discovered some interesting potsherds and other
objects, all of which had fallen through clefts in the rock
from above. This second disappointment has effectually
discouraged our search for tombs. That the tombs of the
ancient inhabitants were under the town rather than in the
surrounding hills is evident both from these experiences
of ours, and from the fact that the natives are entirely
ignorant of the existence of any tombs in the hills. Since
a successful search for tombs at the base of the hill on
which our mound rises would infallibly lead to wholesale
despoliation by the Arabs after our departure, as has
happened, e. g., at Gezer, we are slow about attempting
it.
In the northwest quadrant of the mound we had
noticed in 1924 that a group of large, and apparently
rounded stone pillars projected from the surface of the
ground. This group of pillars we not unnaturally took to
 74 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
be a “ high-place.” On excavating it, in our first
campaign, it proved to be purely profane, and to consist
of several groups of four stone pillars each of which
served to support the ceiling of ancient Israelite houses.
In extending our excavation here, we found the first of
our dye-plants, which we also first regarded as a cult
installation, though its true purpose rapidly dawned on
us. We shall discuss these installations below.
Just inside the East Gate we correctly assumed that
there would be an open space, unoccupied by houses, so
we sank two shafts to bed-rock, which we reached in a
little more than four metres. The first shaft, which served
as a guide, was only two metres square, and we cleared it
in half-metre stages, so as to secure a pottery index to the
stratification. Just beside it, we then dug a second shaft,
four metres square, which we dug according to the
stratigraphic indications of the first pit, thus paralleling
the arbitrary division of sherds by another division which
followed the burned levels, so far as possible. In digging
at the two gateways, we had already discovered the
layers of ashes that form so characteristic a feature of our
excavation. Since we had found four superimposed
periods of construction at the East Gate with another
older layer of debris, we tentatively inferred the existence
of four strata, which corresponded, respectively, to our
present G—F, E—C (with two phases), B, and A. Our
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 75 rough
chronology for these four periods was based on the
pottery, and was quite correct.
It was disappointing not to find any inscriptions or
even stamped jar handles. But, all in all, we were
satisfied with the results of the first campaign, and
planned a second campaign two years later, in order to
begin the stratigraphical study of the interior of the town.
In this season we devoted our principal attention to an
extensive area just to the south of the East Gate, along
the inside of the city wall. After clearing the top stratum
over this area, and discovering three more dye-plants,
precisely like the one unearthed in the first campaign, we
marked off a somewhat smaller area, and excavated three
additional strata, B, C, and D, extending from the
seventeenth to the tenth century B. C. Our most
remarkable find was made at the very end of the
campaign, when we began to clear a large and well-built
house of the D stratum, and discovered a broken and
partly calcined stela representing the serpent-goddess in
relief. We also extended the excavation of the A level in
the northwest quadrant to the south, but without making
any remarkable discoveries. In the second campaign,
besides gathering a mass of material bearing on the
history and life of the town in different periods of its
existence, we were successful in finding a few small
inscriptions, both stamped jar handles and characters
incised on vases before they were broken. Most
interesting was the seal of Eliakim, servant of Joiachin,
which will be discussed below.
The third campaign, in the summer of 1930, was, as
we have already stated, the most elaborately organized of
all, and more debris was, consequently, moved than in
either of the previous campaigns. Our
 76 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
first task was to continue excavating the area southwest
of the East Gate, which we had cleared as far down as
stratum D in the second campaign. We had then inferred
the existence of two additional levels, which we called
provisionally “ E ” and “ F,” making six in all. However,
as we dug down, level by level, in this area, new layers
of ashes, covering new foundations of walls, followed
one another, until we had found five new strata, E—I, all
belonging to the Middle Bronze, after which we reached
the Early Bronze level, which we termed J. Our work in
this area thus established the existence on the site of no
fewer than ten quite distinct strata. At the same time that
this work was going on, we began excavating a still
larger area, of about 2000 square metres, immediately to
the southwest, along the inside of the city wall. Here we
cleared the upper three strata, A—C, and began the
excavation of D in the “ palace ” area, where the stela of
the serpent-goddess had been found. This large house
was entirely cleared, and a unique set of playing pieces,
with a teetotum, was found; we shall describe it below.
Our most remarkable finds were made in stratum C, near
the end of the campaign. We were able to show, while
clearing C, that there had been a more or less continuous
destruction and conflagration in the middle of the period,
so that we must distinguish two periods, designated as Ci
and C2. There are in all, therefore, no less than eleven
layers of debris on our site, all separated from the
adjacent ones by burned levels. If J proves to be
composite, as it very likely will, we may have even
more. It was in C2 that we found the Canaanite table of
offerings, with three lions in relief around the rim, and on
the very last day of excavation a unique stone lion.
In the third campaign we greatly extended our
knowledge regarding the detailed chronology of the site,
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 77
both in confirmation and in further development of the
results secured in our second campaign. Thus, for
instance, we established the chronology of the Late
Canaanite period, stratum C. We also confirmed the
division of stratum B, the first Israelite occupation level,
into three phases, pre-Philistine, Philistine, and post-
Philistine, the value of which for Biblical history is
evident. Further confirmation was secured for our
previous ascription of the destruction of B to Shishak.
Finally, we succeeded in differentiating more exactly
between the successive phases of A, and especially in
proving conclusively that the latest Jewish town on the
site was destroyed by the Chaldseans at the time of the
last invasion of Judah, in 588-7 B. C. All these points will
be discussed below.
4. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ANCIENT CITY
After this sketch of the history of our excavation, let
us turn to the history of the ancient town and its culture
in successive ages, as revealed by the pick and hoe, and
interpreted by comparative archaeological methods. At
the beginning of this lecture it was stated that we had
provisionally identified the site with Biblical Debir or
Kiriath-sepher. This identification is not certain, since no
inscriptions bearing the name were found in the first
three campaigns. We regard it ourselves as practically
certain, though we do not care to stress this personal
conviction because of the inability of other scholars to
control some of our arguments. Our first argument is
based on the familiar topographical method of
elimination, which has been decisive in the case of
innumerable other ancient
78 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY places. Kiriath-
sepher was the most important of a group of eleven
towns which are listed in Joshua 15 as being in the sixth
district of Judah.21 So far as the other ancient names have
been preserved in modern times, these towns are all,
aside from a misplaced group of three towns at the end of
the list, situated in the extreme southwestern part of the
hillcountry, where the mountains (Jia-Har), the low hill-
country (Jiash-Shefclah), and the dry plains to the south
(han-Negeb) meet.22 Judging from the collocation of
names, it has long been the fashion for Biblical
topographers, who have only been influenced by
archaeological evidence in the most recent years, to
identify Debir with modern ez-Zaheriyeh, pronounced
ed-Daheriyeh by the city Arabs. 23 Since this name has a
perfectly good Arab etymology, and, moreover, has only
one letter in common with Hebrew Debir, the
identification is ludicrous from the linguistic point of
view. The site shows no remains older than the Roman
period, and lacks the ground-water which was essential
to the life of a Canaanite city. The combination is,
therefore, exceedingly bad. Now let us consider other
possibilities. First of all, we must search for a mound,
since Kiriath-sepher was a Canaanite royal city, after
which it was the residence of Othniel, first judge of
Israel, continuing to be inhabited down into a
comparatively late pre-exilic period, as we know from
the fact that it figures in the lists of Jewush towns of the
monarchy (Jos. 15). Having been a walled town at
several different periods, the chances that it is not
represented by a large mound are extremely slender. The
only mounds in the district where Kiriath-sepher was
located, and which have not otherwise been identified are
Tell
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 79
Beit Mirsim, Tell el-Khuweilifeh, and Tell ‘Aitun, the
latter two being south and north of the former, re-
spectively. The mound of Tell el-Khuweilifeh 24 exhibits,
to judge from surface indications, a history very much
like that of Tell Beit Mirsim, but it is considerably
smaller. However, its location throws it definitively into
the Negeb of Simeon, and consequently quite outside of
the sixth district of Judah. There can be little doubt that
Khirbet Umm er- Ramamin, just to the south of it, in the
same physical environment, represents the Rimmon of
Simeon.25 Tell ‘Aitun does not exhibit any traces of
Bronze Age occupation at all, and, therefore, drops out of
consideration for our purpose.25 It may be added that Jos.
10: 38, which says that Joshua went up directly from
Eglon to Hebron, from which he returned to Debir, also
proves a location of the latter south of the direct line of
march from Tell el-Hesi27 to Hebron —south since all the
definitely located towns of the sixth district of Judah,
where Debir lay, are much to the south of this line.
Furthermore, Jos. 11:21 suggests a location between
Hebron and Anab, in remarkable agreement with the
actual situation of our site. The modern name, Tell Beit
Mirsim, is derived, as is very often the case in Palestine,
from the adjacent Byzantine ruin of Khirbet Beit Mirsim.
As might be expected, the latter bears an Aramaic name,
probably standing for Bcth-barsama or Beth-barsima28;
mursim (whence mirsim) is an Arabic popular
etymology, meaning “ a man who makes a camel walk
fast.”
The most decisive argument for the identification is
now derived from the archaeological history of our
mound, which shows a most perfect parallelism with the
documentary history of Kiriath-sepher. The name, which
meant originally “ scribe-town,” not “ booktown,” is
8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
characteristic of the Bronze Age, though the town is not,
apparently, mentioned in cuneiform or Egyptian
sources.29 The absence of such mention does not prove
anything, since few of the towns of southern Palestine
are mentioned in our external sources, owing to the fact
that this part of the country seldom joined in the revolts
against Egyptian suzerainty. Hebrew tradition, correct in
other similar cases, makes it one of the Canaanite “ royal
cities,” that is, residences of feudal barons of that age.
Our excavations have shown that the town was most
important in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and was
undoubtedly the residence of a baron (awn/w).30 It was
destroyed most completely, the fortifications being
completely demolished, and the town burned, in a
conflagration so intense that in some places there is a
layer of ashes three feet thick. Immediately after this
destruction a new town was built, so shortly afterwards
that the foundation stones of the city wall and of the
houses were in part laid in the ashes of the preceding
destruction. Yet there was a very complete
transformation in the character of the culture, so
complete that we can only explain it by the settlement of
a different people. It is obvious that this situation well
illustrates the story of the capture of the town by Othniel
(“Joshua”),31 who burned it, and later made it his
residence, from which he exercised the vague influence
of a shophet (“judge”). Our site continued to be occupied
down to the Babylonian exile, sharing a destruction at the
hands of the barbarian mercenaries of Shishak with many
other towns of Judah. After its destruction by the
Chaldseans in 588-7 B. C., it was never occupied again,
and even the name was forgotten and replaced by a new
Aramaic one in the Roman period. The same is true of
Debir, which is never mentioned in post-exilic or later
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 81
32
sources. Our identification, while not, accordingly,
quite certain, is of the same order of probability as that of
Gerar with Tell Djemmeh.33 It cannct be compared with
such certain identifications as that of Tell el-Mutesellim
with Megiddo or of Tell el-Ful with Gibeah of Saul, but
it is very much better than that of Tell el-Hesi with
Lachish,34 of Tell es-Safi with Gath,35 or of Tell el-Far‘ah
with Beth-pelet.33 The case of Tell en- Nasbeh, which is
either Mizpah or Ataroth, is different, and can hardly be
compared with any other topographical problem, because
of the division of authorities.37
5. THE CULTURAL HISTORY OF THE EARLIEST
STRATA (j----------------------------------F)
If we transport ourselves back to about 2200 B. C., we
find ourselves in a very different country from the
southern Shephelah of our own day. Archaeological
excavations have proved conclusively that the hills of the
western slope of Judah were then rather heavily wooded,
though the timber was mostly of the type known as “
scrub.” 38 But the hand of man was already at work
levelling the forests, and the hill on which the new town
was first built by the Amorites 39 had already been cleared
of its trees and washed bare by the winter rains before the
town was standing long enough to accumulate debris of
its own. We accordingly find the debris of occupation
lying directly on bed-rock; it is only in pockets in the
rock that the original red soil remains under the black
soil containing human artifacts. Our town belonged to a
number founded in the same general period in the hill-
country; the coastal plains and the Jordan Valley had
long since been dotted with towns, some of which were
founded far back in the Chalcolithic, perhaps more than a
thousand years before the first continuous occupation of
8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
Tell Beit Mirsim.40 Between the sparsely scattered towns
there wandered semi-nomadic tribes, just as did the
Hebrews in the Patriarchal Age. We have as yet
recovered nothing but broken pottery from this level; the
sherds belong to the latter part of the Early Bronze, being
later, on the whole, than the bulk of the pottery from such
typical Early Bronze settlements as Bab ed-Dra‘ in the
Dead Sea valley,41 and Tell el-Hesi I, down on the edge
of the Philistine plain.42 Our estimate for the duration of
this first period of the life of our town, which, in-
cidentally, may itself include more than one destruction
and reoccupation, is purely arbitrary; we have no means
of knowing whether it lasted a century, or two centuries,
or even longer.
We have already stated that periods I—D, six strata,
are all from the Middle Bronze, extending back from the
first half of the sixteenth century, when D was destroyed,
to about 2000 B. C. This date is also somewhat arbitrary,
but cannot be moved more than a century in either
direction. Our first two levels, I and H, are very similar
to one another, and represent the transition from Early to
Middle Bronze. Egyptian Middle Empire types of pottery
begin to appear, interspersed with survivals from the
Early Bronze of Canaan. Incised decoration, with straight
lines, wavy lines, and notches, 43 becomes very common;
black, pattern punctured, pear-shaped (piriform) juglets,44
with double handle and button base,
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 83 make
their debut. A characteristic type of vessel, which first
comes in at this time, and lasts for several centuries, is a
somewhat squat, cylindrical cooking pot, with flat
bottom, made of very coarse ware; below its rim runs a
raised band with thumb imprints, above which are a
series of holes punctured through the vessel, originally
intended, it would appear, to let out the steam while food
was cooking in the pot. I—H may be dated somewhere in
the twentieth and nineteenth centuries B. c. The
fortifications of this age have not yet been discovered,
and very little except pottery has been found to illustrate
the life of the people.
With G we come to a better preserved stratum, and
begin to get a clearer picture of the culture of the period.
The city wall of G has been excavated for a considerable
distance, and seems to extend most of the way around the
hill, though in places it has been completely destroyed.
At the points where it has appeared, its width is 3.25
metres, or eleven feet, but it is built of comparatively
small stones, and no trace of a revetment has yet been
found. It bears no resemblance either to the massive
revetment walls of the Hyksos age, or to the still more
massive cycloprean walls of such Middle Bronze sites as
Qurun Hattin (Madon), Tell Djabiyeh, Irbid, or Tell esh-
Shihab, the first being in Galilee, the others in Eastern
Palestine.45 In G we excavated the entire enclosed
courtyard of a large house, the rest of which remains to
be examined in another campaign. This is the first
appearance of a house plan which seems to survive in the
“ palace ” of the E—D period (for which see below).
Both are characterized by having a large rectangular
walled court, three sides of which are exterior, while the
 8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
fourth (opposite the entrance from the street) gives
access, through two doors, to the ground floor of the
house proper. The outside entrance of the G house was
well preserved, and, to judge from the large stone door
socket, was furnished with a solid wooden door. After the
Middle Bronze Age this type of house disappears
completely; nothing could be less characteristic of the
houses of the Israelite period. In B—A for instance, the
court, with its outside door, is either entirely absent, or is
very differently planned; the houses themselves do not
have the remotest similarity. In the court of this G house
we were able to prove that there had been two successive
phases of construction, in the second of which the level
of the floor was actually lowered some 25 cm. One door
was then closed, and three round constructions of stone
and mortar, apparently for the purpose of holding store-
jars, were built lengthwise of the court. This court was
obviously not intended for horses, as seems to have been
the case with the Hyksos house, with which we have
found such striking similarities of plan. As a matter of
fact, we know from other sources that horses and horse-
drawn chariots had not yet been introduced into Palestine
and Egypt.
The pottery of our G level was both abundant and
diversified. A comparison of it with the pottery found by
Macalister in his tomb 28 II of Gezer, belonging to the
royal necropolis,46 showed such striking points of
resemblance that I at once assigned it to about the same
period, that is, to the early eighteenth century, with ample
margin on either side (i. e., 1850-1750). The Gezer tomb
can be dated to the Thirteenth Dynasty in Egypt by its
scarabs. I then asked the two most eminent authorities on
the pottery
UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 85 of
Palestine, Pere Vincent and Dr. C. S. Fisher, to give
absolutely independent judgments of the date of the
pottery, which they courteously consented to do, though
without our advantage of employing the stratification of
the tell as a guide and check. Vincent assigned it, after
careful examination, to about the nineteenth century B. c.,
while Fisher thought that it was older than about 1800 B.
C.F but not very much earlier. And yet there are scholars
who fancy that the chronology of Palestinian pottery is
still as obscure as it was before the War! Few small
objects, aside from pottery, have yet been found in level
G. The most interesting object was a broken limestone
mould for casting bronze axe-heads and lance-heads.
The F level shows a continuation of the G culture, with
the use of the same fortifications, though the preceding
city had been destroyed by fire, and the houses of the
new settlement were built on entirely new foundations.
We must evidently date F somewhere in the eighteenth
century B. C.
6. THE STRATA OF THE HYKSOS AGE (E--------------D)
With the E stratum there is an abrupt change in the
history of the town. The E level itself is rather thin, and
the next occupation, of the D period, shows restoration
on the same foundations, together with the addition of
many poorer houses, built in space which had been left
open in E. For practical purposes, therefore, we may
consider the E—D levels as representing a single
historical period. From numerous scarabs, nearly all of
which were discovered in houses of D, we know that E—
D belong to the Hyksos period in the narrow sense, i. e.,
to the age of the great barbarian irruption and of the
feudal empire which was erected by the barbarians, with
a focus in the Egyptian Delta. The fortification which
was erected by the E people, and which continued in use,
with various changes and restorations, down to the end of
 8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
the Canaanite occupation (C2), was essentially the same
as that of the so-called red city of Jericho, and dates from
the same time, about 1700 B. c. The city wall was of
stone below and adobe brick above, while the stone
substructure generally sloped outward, forming a
revetment as well as a substructure for the brick wall. In
some places there was also a retaining wall, but it would
appear that the retaining wall represents a secondary
feature of Late Bronze Age, in most cases, at least. This
question can only be settled after more extensive excava-
tions of the Bronze Age wall remains.
In the southeast quadrant, inside the city wall, we
found that the D stratum is remarkably well preserved.
Here, in square SE 22, we cleared a large, well-built
house, which we dignified by the term “ palace.” As
stated above, the house is built on E foundations.
Entrance to the house from the front was through a large
court, containing a round, plastered trough, evidently
used for feeding animals. The gate was wide enough, it
would seem, to admit a chariot, so we seem to be
justified in supposing that the court and the rooms on the
ground floor were used in part to furnish quarters for a
chariot and horses. There were five rooms on the ground
floor, together with a small back court, with a rear egress.
The walls were about four feet thick, of adobe on stone
foundations; they were well plastered with white lime
plaster. The members of the household lived in the upper
two stories; that there were two upper
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 87 stories
may be inferred both from house models found at Beth-
shan and elsewhere, and from the abnormal thickness of
the walls of the first story. Two of the five rooms in the
first floor served as storerooms, and were full of more or
less broken store-jars when found—between twenty and
thirty, which originally contained wine and oil. One
room was entered by a flight of two steps rising to a
somewhat higher elevation, with a narrow bench on one
side of the room; it may have served as an anteroom,
since the staircase leading to the upper story apparently
started at one end of it, though no trace of it was left. The
other two rooms, connected by a wide arch, opened
separately on the front court, and in view of their
disposition and the total absence of any indication that
they had been used either for stores or for living quarters,
may safely be supposed to have been employed as stables
for horses.
Inside this house were discovered a number of unique
objects, which had fallen into the rooms of the first floor
at the time of the destruction of the city by fire, either
from the second or the third story. Nearly a metre above
the floor of the first room excavated, a magazine for wine
or oil, we found a calcined stela, with the upper part
missing, and the original surface reduced to lime-dust by
the violence of the conflagration. The stela was originally
about a foot wide by two feet high f now 30 by 42 cm.),
and was clearly inserted into a niche in the wall, since the
front, bearing a representation of the serpent-goddess in
relief, is flat, while the back is rounded cylindrically, and
the flat base still has cement plaster adhering to it. We
may safely suppose, since the house was unquestionably
a private residence, that one of the up-
8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY

stairs rooms was fitted up as a kind of oratory. This is the

first representation of the serpent-goddess to be found in
Palestine, and is also unique as an illustration of the
appearance of Canaanite idols.47 Since its discovery two
other representations of the Canaanite serpent-goddess
have been found, one by Grant at Beth-shemesh; the
other by Miss Garrod in a cave near ‘Athlit. 48 The
divinity of Tell Beit Mirsim appears as a draped figure,
wearing a long robe, reaching to the ankles. The waist
and one elbow are also preserved, but the entire upper
part of the figure is lost, so that we are left in entire
ignorance of her head-dress, one of the most
characteristic features of an ancient Oriental deity.
Fortunately, the serpent is completely preserved; it is a
large snake, probably a python, which comes out of the
earth between her ankles, coils around her legs, while its
head is seen between her thighs. In Grant’s Astarte
plaque we have a typical Qadesh (see below), with both
arms upraised, holding long-stemmed flowers, while a
serpent crawls down over her naked body from her left
shoulder, its head reaching her left hip.49 Miss Garrod
discovered a (still unpublished) clay statuette of the
Hellenistic period, considerably larger than the figurines
of the early period. The goddess is shown naked, with a
serpent crawling up her right thigh. It will be noticed that
in all these cases the serpent’s head is directed toward the
vulva of the goddess,60 a fact which proves conclusively
that the serpent represents primarily the fecundizing vis
natures, while the fertilized goddess brings forth
vegetation, symbolized by the flowers which she holds.
In certain cases the figure of Qadesh is shown holding
one or two serpents aloft, a curious conflation of two
originally distinct
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 89
motives.51 Serpent-goddesses were common in the
ancient Orient; in Egypt we have, inter alias, the harvest
goddess Renen-wetet, while in Babylonia various
serpent-goddesses were worshipped from the earliest
times.52 The same is also true of Asia Minor and the
zEgean.53
At the opposite end of the house was found a unique
set of playing pieces, including five little blue faience
cones, five little blue faience three-cornered pyramids,
and an ivory teetotum.54 The cones are one of the
commonest types of Egyptian playing pieces, but the
pyramids are unique. We had previously found an exactly
identical pyramid in another house of stratum D. Enquiry
among the leading European Egyptologists failed to
throw light on the subject, until the late Dr. Hall of the
British Museum was consulted. He knew of two or three
similar objects in the British Museum, but had always
considered them as amulets of some sort. The specimens
in the British Museum are all of the Saite period, a
thousand years or more after the date of the Tell Beit
Mirsim pyramids. The ivory teetotum appears to be
unknown to Egyptian archaeologists, though the
truncated pyramid was one of the most familiar
geometric forms in ancient Egypt. The next oldest
specimen is apparently Greek, after which the teetotum
was revived in modern times. It is very curious to find
that such important light on early Egyptian games should
come from Palestine. On each of the four sides of the
teetotum are round holes, from one to four in number.
The object was twirled in the hand, and thrown like a die,
the moves of the game being dependent upon the number
of holes on the side which fell uppermost. There is very
good reason to believe that the game was played on
8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY

a board of twenty squares, specimens of which have been

found in Egypt (Middle and Late Empire) and Assyria
(late period).55
In the large house, as well as in the poorer houses
between it and the city wall, which were apparently the
homes of humbler folk, were found a number of steatite
and paste scarabs, all of characteristically Hyksos type.
The pottery was throughout of the type to be expected in
the transition from Middle to Late Bronze. For example,
the pear-shaped perfume juglets known as Tell el-
Yahudlyeh vases, generally black, with simple geometric
patterns in punctured, white-filled ornament, with a
pointed button base and a double handle, common
through the strata H—E, now become scarce, though
they still occur. Since they are common in all settlements
of the Hyksos period, their nearly complete absence in D
shows that we have reached the very end of the Middle
Bronze. The thin, hard-baked pottery of Cypro-
Phcenician type, generally known as base-ring ware,
begins to appear in D, but the wishbone-handled bowl
with gray or cream slip and “ ladder ” patterns is entirely
absent. Both types are ubiquitous in C, as well as in all
other Palestinian sites of the Late Bronze Age. In
general, all the ordinary types of the Middle Bronze still
occur in our D stratum, but have all disappeared before
the level of Tuthmosis III (first half of fifteenth century
B. c.) at Beth-shan. The pottery from this period at Beth-
shan, my knowledge of which I owe to the generosity of
Mr. Rowe, is absolutely identical with our Ci ware. It is,
therefore, quite certain that our D level represents a
culture which ceased to exist before the fifteenth century.
Since we have been able to establish the fact that there
was a period after the
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 91 fall of
D in which the site was not occupied, it follows that we
are justified in connecting the destruction of D with the
events which accompanied the Egyptian conquest of
southern Palestine, after the expulsion of the Hyksos.
The Hyksos were driven out of Egypt during the reign of
Amosis I (cir, 1580-55 B. C.), and the invasion of
Palestine took place very soon afterwards, in the same
reign. We may provisionally date the fall of Tel! Beit
Mirsim about 1560-1550 B. C., but this date must not be
regarded as definitive; a date in the sixteenth century is,
however, certain. The destruction of the D city was
exceedingly complete, and was accompanied by a terrific
conflagration. No clear trace of looting was found, the
contents of the houses perishing with the inhabitants in
the same destruction. Numerous remains of inlaid
furniture and boxes, especially in the palace, bore mute
witness to the suddenness of the catastrophe. Traces of a
bitter struggle could be followed in skeletons and
weapons. The remains of skeletons found—all in an
extremely friable condition—represented elderly persons
and children, as well as apparently bodies of men of
fighting age, lying prone on the ground where they had
been killed/0 Among the weapons were bronze lance-
heads and daggers, a stone and a bronze mace-head, etc.
7. THE LATE BRONZE AGE IC >
Some years—possibly decades—after the fall of D.
the site was reoccupied by new inhabitants, who founded
a new town, after they had levelled the ruins of the
preceding city. The same line of revetment was
employed, but the new settlers were not satisfied with the
strength of the old method of construction,
8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
in which the wall was built on the revetment. They
accordingly built a new wall rising just behind the
revetment, and serving as a retaining wall for the upper
part of it. Where this wall has been certainly identified, in
two places, it is two and a half metres (over eight feet)
thick. The C town was poorer than D; the individual
houses so far excavated in C were, however, better built
than the lower class houses of D. Grain-pits were
interspersed among the houses, though not to the same
extent as in the following period (B).
In the second campaign we noted that there were two
successive phases of construction in the excavated
portion of C; in the third campaign, in which we
excavated a much larger area, we were able to follow
these two phases over nearly the whole area, and to
distinguish a new burned level which separated them in
many places. While this burned layer is not so continuous
as in other levels, there can be no doubt that Ci was
destroyed more or less completely in the fifteenth century
B. C., a century or more after the destruction of D. This
former destruction we were able to date roughly because
of the following considerations. Just under the thick
burned layer of C2 (the second phase of C) we discovered
a steatite scarab of Amenophis III (cir. 1411-1375 B. C.),
with the inscription “ Nib-mu‘a-Re‘, good god, lord of
the two lands, who rises in every foreign land.” 57 This
scarab had belonged to a royal official of this king, and
part of the copper ring on which it was set still adhered to
it when found. This object proves conclusively, of
course, that the layer of ashes over C 2 is later than about
1400 B. c.; it indicates that C2 was occupied before 1375
B. C., and would prove it absolutely if we were certain
that it had not been reused. Since it was found on its ring,
and it bears an official legend, the chances that it was
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 93
reused are very small; we merely mention the case to
show what care must be employed by the archaeologist
in the interpretation of his material. Fortunately,
however, all the potsherds found in C belong without
question to the Late Bronze Age, and correspond exactly
to the pottery discovered in the Tuthmosis III-Ramesses
II strata at Beth-shan. Moreover, the sherds found in C x,
so far as they are different from those in C 2, belong in the
earliest part of the Late Bronze Age, as is clear from a
comparison of the Beth-shan material, as well as from a
study of other sites in Palestine. In C 2 appears the first
Mycenaean pottery, imported into Egypt and Palestine
from the second half of the fifteenth century to the latter
part of the thirteenth. We are, accordingly, justified in
placing the fall of Cx before 1400, but just when we
cannot yet say. A scarab of undoubted Ramesside date/ 8
found in the debris of C, helps us to date the close of this
period after cir. 1250, while the complete absence of all
characteristic Cypro-Phoenician and Mycenaean ware in
the B stratum, which followed immediately upon the C
level, warns us that we must go down as far as possible
toward 1200 in fixing this date.
Our most remarkable discoveries in city C were made
just before the end of the third campaign: a stone lion and
a stone table of offerings, with three lions in relief around
the rim.59 The lion is of mizzi limestone, and is nearly
sixty centimetres long; it is represented couchant, with
the two front paws parallel, while the tail is curved
gracefully over its back. It is particularly interesting,
despite the crudeness of its execution, because of being
the first stone lion of monumental size to be found in any
early ruins of Palestine proper, the nearest one being the
larger (and later?) lion of Karnaim (Sheikh Sa‘d) in
8o UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
Basham60 The table or bowl of offerings is of a softer
limestone, and is a little less than thirty centimetres (one
foot) in diameter. From the front of the rim there projects
a very conventional lion’s head, while the two front legs
extend in both directions along the rim. The other two
smaller lions are extended along the rim at the back of
the bowl, so that both hind and front legs are stretched
out at full length. In both cases the artistic execution is
exceedingly crude, but entirely local; nothing resembling
their execution has so far been found in any country of
the Near East. Like the terra cotta altar-stands of Beth-
shan, they belong to a local Canaanite art of a very
provincial type. Ultimately, both the lion and the table of
offerings undoubtedly descend from Egyptian prototypes,
a relationship which is quite effectually concealed by the
complete failure to observe Egyptian artistic conventions.
Both of them were found standing on end in a vacant
area, full of debris of the C period, and without any
remains of foundation walls. It is obvious that they must
have been thrown out from a temple, or building of a
sacral nature, when C2 was destroyed. The lion had been
partly broken before it was thrown out. Thanks to their
position with respect to the burned levels, and to the
debris in which they were found, there can be no doubt
whatever with regard to their date in C2. Within the limits
of the occupation of this city no clue to their exact age
has been discovered, so we must be content with a date
between 1500 and 1250 B. C.
While we have not yet discovered the Canaanite
temple of this period, it lay presumably just outside of
the area so far excavated, and may perhaps be found in
our fourth campaign. The lion is obviously too small to
have formed one of a pair of apotropseic guardians of the
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 95
temple portal, so we may suppose that it was one of a
pair which originally stood in some relation to the image
of the deity worshipped in the temple. The lions may
have flanked the pedestal or throne, or they may have
stood in front of it; there are numerous analogies for both
positions.61 In iconography the Syrian lion-god or lion-
goddess generally stands on a lion, or sits on a throne
supported by two lions, but the lions may also
accompany the deity.62 One may speculate with regard to
the nature of the divinity worshipped in the C city, and
suggest that it was a lion-deity like Atargatis, or like the
gods Makal and Ginai, revered at Beth-shan and at
Heliopolis in Syria. ‘Anat, consort of Makal at Beth-
shan, was a serpent-goddess,63 like the divinity of Tell
Beit Mirsim in the D period, a fact which also points to a
connection. Both Makal and Ginai were forms of Rashap
(Resheph),64 lord of the underworld, and ‘Anat was
primarily also a chthonic deity.65 Beyond a suggestion
one cannot, however, go at present.
In the C stratum we have so far discovered several
different types of Astarte figurines, each illustrated by
good examples, and some of unique iconographic value.
We have so far found at least six Astarte plaques
representing the naked Syrian goddess {dea genetrix)
with spiral locks, without a head-dress, and holding a
long stemmed lotus flower in each of her upraised hands.
This type is found frequently in Astarte figurines from
different parts of Palestine and
96 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY from the Late
Bronze Age.66 Our observations at Tell Beit Mirsim warn
us against dating it in the Iron Age. The Canaanite
appellation of this type of goddess we know from a
number of Egyptian monuments of the New Empire, all
from between 1400 and 1200,67 representing her as
standing on a lion, and naming her Qadesh, that is,
“courtesan” (Hebrew qedeshah) ,68 Qadesh was naturally
the personification of the vis genetrix natures, the native
fertility of the earth, which yields itself to every
fecundizing agency, as a woman with many husbands,
yet perpetually virgin.69 We have above described the
relief of the serpent-goddess from stratum D, and pointed
out a number of very interesting parallels, which
establish the nature of the goddess and her symbolism
beyond all cavil.
Even more important from the comparative archaeo-
logical point of view is the second type, which is closely
related to the first. This category is essentially the same
as the preceding, but substitutes a lofty feather-crown for
the uncovered head of Qadesh. That it is of somewhat
more recent origin is perhaps indicated by the fact that
the spiral locks have become straight locks, ending at the
breasts instead of curling around them. Like the
preceding type it is evidently modelled after some
popular idol, presumably belonging to an important
shrine. It has elsewhere been suggested that the first type
may reflect the “Lady of Byblos” (Ba'alat Gubal of the
Canaanites)70; the second one eludes us, though she may
have been at home in Syria. The fact that the feathers are
perfectly distinct and cannot possibly be misinterpreted
enables us to explain other head-dresses of Astarte
figurines from Palestine and Mesopotamia,
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 97
which have hitherto been regarded erroneously as some
sort of mural crown or calathus, as feathercrowns.11 The
writer has studied all the relevant material from
Mesopotamia and the lands of the eastern Mediterranean
basin, without reaching a definitive conclusion
concerning the original home of this feather-crown. The
latter makes its first appearance in Mesopotamia, north
and south, as a symbol of deity shortly before the middle
of the second millennium B. c., and enjoys a very
extensive diffusion among the Babylonians (Cossaeans),
Assyrians, and Mitannians (Tell Halaf, Biblican
Gozan).’2 Ishtar is often represented with the feather-
crown; sometimes also she wears the spiral ringlets. So
far as we know, the feather head-dress had not been
employed in Mesopotamia for any purposes since early
Sumerian times.1’ On the other hand we find the feather-
crown widely diffused in Asia Minor and Crete in a
somewhat later period (Late Bronze and Early Iron).
Certain of these types from Cyprus and Crete point to an
eastern origin, while the Early Iron figurines of Artemis
from Sparta are unquestionably derived from Cyprus and
Phoenicia.14 However, the feather-crowms of the
Philistines and their congeners suggest an early profane
use in JEgean and Anatolian lands,14 and make it not
unlikely that our feather-crown is of Anatolian origin.
From Asia Minor it may have spread to Syria, from
which it was diffused to the south and east in the first
half of the second millennium, possibly during the
Hyksos period.1®
The remaining types of the C period are represented
by one or two examples each, only one of which is
complete enough to warrant elaborate comparisons. This
one represents the dea nuda with her arms hang-
98 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY ing by her sides.
Her hair is gathered into two heavy masses which hang
down on the shoulders. Around the navel is a circle of
about ten round marks, which may portray tattoo marks
in imitation of an actual custom among women. A very
similar figurine, found in a late Middle Bronze context in
Egypt, but of Asiatic origin, exhibits precisely the same
circle of dots around the navel.77
It must be emphasized that these figurines are all of
religious or magical character, and are none of them toys.
Toys did not come into general use until the Iron Age,
the period of Israelite occupation. In Mesopotamia toys
are also unknown until a comparatively late date.78 Even
in Egypt a large proportion of the objects which are
commonly considered to be playthings for children are
really amulets. It should also be stressed that the Astarte
figurines of the Bronze Age, though used as amulets to
protect women in child-birth and to give fecundity to
sterile wives, etc., were actually representations of
known images of the Syrian goddess. In some cases it is,
of course, quite possible that the prototype was unknown
to the people who employed their icons as amulets. It is
not until the early Israelite period that we find figurines
which cannot well be regarded as representations of
specific idol types, but which seem to be abstract per-
sonifications or impersonal symbols. These cases we
shall describe below.
To what stock the inhabitants of Tell Beit Mirsim in
the Late Bronze Age belonged eludes our knowledge.
That they were a typically “ Canaanite ” group seems to
be clear, since they did not differ in any tangible respect
from the contemporaneous occupants of other towns in
Palestine. For the near-by towns of
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 99
Keilah, Lachish, and Tell el-Hesi, we have documentary
material in the Amarna Tablets and a locally found
cuneiform letter.79 According to these sources, the
population of the Shephelah was just as mixed as that of
other parts of the country: Amorite names are found with
Indo-Iranian, Hurrian with Canaanite.80 The language of
the people was Canaanite (Hebrew). The Egyptian and
cuneiform evidence is so definite, and the results of
archaeological explanation so thoroughly in accord with
it, that we cannot possibly regard stratum C as dating
from after the conquest of the Shephelah described in
Joshua—unless we reject the early historical traditions of
Israel almost completely.81
Less, however, can be said about the social organ-
ization of the period. So far no houses of nobles have
been found in level C; on the other hand, the houses of
the lower class are much better than in stratum D, which
represents the feudal age par excellence. It is evident, to
judge from the discoveries made in different parts of
Palestine,82 that there was a gradual decline of the
nobility, accompanied by a rise of certain elements of the
lower class, during the Late Bronze Age. This change
may be referred with entire confidence to the Egyptian
rule in Palestine, which bore with increasing weight on
the nobility, especially after the fifteenth century. Taxes,
often ruinous, were borne by the nobles—since there was
no other class of importance. The nobility had to pay the
royal taxes, plus the bribes required to satisfy a
chronically rapacious hierarchy of Egyptian officials,83
and in addition to the heavy burden of the mercenary
garrisons and their commanders.84 Furthermore, they
were constantly subject to the duties of
 ioo UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
furnishing supplies to the royal armies marching into
Asia along the edge of the Shephelah85 and of providing
serfs for the corvee.86 At the same time that the noble
class declined, the strength of the craftsmen grew,
relatively speaking, because of the increasing
development of commerce. Commercial relations be-
tween Egypt and Asia grew steadily, and at the same
time we find a marked tendency to industrial speciali-
zation in certain Canaanite towns,87 a tendency which
brought increase in trade with it. It is, however, quite
impossible, with our present knowledge, to determine
what the status of craftsmen was, whether they were
liberated slaves or semi-free serfs. It is possible that they
even achieved a certain degree of absolute freedom, in so
far as this would be compatible with life in a town under
a feudal constitution. Public security was, however, less
than in D, doubtless because of the decreased prestige of
the local princes, together with the indifference of the
Egyptian authorities. The increasing strength of the semi-
nomadic Khabiru, who occupied most of the hill-country,
undoubtedly contributed largely to the lack of security,
so vividly illustrated by the Amarna letters from
Palestine.88
As already shown, the fall of the C town must be dated
in the second half of the thirteenth century— exactly
when we cannot as yet say. It may eventually be possible
to fix its date more precisely, when we can date the
conquest of the Shephelah by Israel. At present our only
absolute datum is still the reference to the defeat of the
people of Israel by Menephthes (before his fifth year,
which fell somewhere between 1230 and 1220 B. C.). In
spite of all that has lately been written in favour of a
higher date for the principal phase of the Conquest, it is
very difficult to reconcile the traditions of Israel with a
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY IOI
date before the latter part of the reign of Ramesses the
Great, i. e., before 1250 B. C. at the earliest. Whether the
Canaanite town of Tell Beit Mirsim was destroyed before
or after the “ defeat ” of Israel by the Egyptians is
naturally impossible to determine with our present
knowledge. Archa-ologically, however, it is certain that a
major break in the continuity of culture lies between C
and B. This break is not due to an interruption in the
occupation of the place; on the contrary, the new city
walls and the house foundations were laid in the ashes of
the preceding conflagration, a fact confirmed again and
again as our excavation of the site progresses. No
appreciable interval can thus have intervened between
destruction and reoccupation, quite the opposite of what
we find between D and C.
8. THE EARLY ISRAELITE OCCUPATION (B)
The most remarkable change in the character of B
when compared to C is the complete alteration in the
construction of the city wall. Instead of the relatively
massive Bronze Age walls, which vary at our site from
eight to fifteen feet in thickness (2.5 to 4.5 m.), we find
that the main city wall of the Iron Age is only five feet
thick. Since this width was evidently too little for safety,
a system of casemates was introduced, consisting of an
uninterrupted line of closed or open chambers between
the outer wall and a thin inner wall, no more than feet
thick (like an ordinary house wall). Thin transverse walls
separated the casemate rooms from one another. Some of
them were closed, and nothing but earth and stones was
found in them, while most had been employed as
magazines belonging to the adjacent houses, the
upper part of which may have overlooked the city wall.
The sloping external revetment of the city wall was
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY IOI
repaired with much smaller stones than had been used in
the Canaanite age. This wall was undoubtedly built
immediately after the destruction of C, since its
foundations were laid in the ashes of the conflagration
which destroyed the former, as we have already
observed. The foundations and substructure continued in
use until the final destruction of the city by the
Chaldceans, more than six centuries later. It is very
interesting to note that the width of five feet (sometimes
six to seven feet) is absolutely characteristic of Israelite
city walls, the exceptions being due either to the
importance of the place fortified, as at Jerusalem, or to
the continued use of Bronze Age fortifications, as at Tell
en-Nasbeh (southern side). This change in the strength of
walls is not due to any parallel development in
surrounding lands, nor to the increase of public security
(in the time of the Judges!), but evidently to a complete
alteration in social organization. Under the loose
patriarchal form of Israelite society there was no
systematic coercion of the individual; “ every man did
what was right in his own eyes.” The corvee was
unknown.89 It was, therefore, as a rule manifestly
impossible to induce the inhabitants of an early Israelite
town to submit to the prolonged and difficult labour of
constructing a massive city wall. The Israelite wall of
Jerusalem was not built until the tenth century, when
captives were available for the corvee. Solomon
introduced the corvee into Israel, but even he was
apparently very circumspect in his use of free-born
Israelites for forced labour.99
Our most remarkable discovery in stratum B was a
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 103 very
large number of grain-pits or silos (in the original sense
of the term), which we struck wherever our excavations
reached the B level. The largest found were about ten
feet (three metres) in diameter on the inside. Their
construction was simple: pits were dug, lined with a
circular stone wall, like a wellshaft, and generally floored
with stones, while the interior surface was entirely coated
with hawarah,91 the same material as that used for the
outside of roofs down to the present day. Each twenty-
metre square of our excavation generally contained
several of these grain-pits. At first they distressed us
greatly, in view of the damage to the lower strata which
they cause. Happily, however, the bottom of the pit was
often found to be above stratum D, our most important
level, a fact which has cheered us greatly. Moreover, our
silos have proved to yield invaluable evidence for the
demarcation of distinct phases within period B. They
were constructed at different times, some intersecting
older silos from the same period, and were abandoned at
different times, especially when the wall collapsed, as
frequently happened. The debris with which the
unbroken part of the silo was filled, within a very short
time after its abandonment, contains broken pottery
belonging almost exclusively to the B period, and
naturally older than the time of abandonment. From a
careful comparative study of different silos—numbering
several score—we have been able to distinguish clearly
between three phases of B. The results of our second
campaign have been in this respect fully confirmed by
the material discovered in our third. Besides, we have
now been able to parallel the evidence from grain-pits by
evidence from houses and from successive phases of
construction.
 104 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
There were three clear phases in B, respectively pre-
Philistine (Bx), Philistine (B2), and post-Philistine (B3).
The first is characterized by the complete absence of
Philistine pottery and of vases influenced by it. 92 We
have no tilted horizontal loop handles, no Philistine
decoration. The Philistine beer jugs with swan friezes
and wine craters with friezes of checkers, Maltese
crosses, and spirals are both entirely missing. On the
other hand this phase is equally devoid of Mycensean
sherds, of base-ring biscuit ware, of wishbone-handled
bowls with seam patterns, etc., which are ubiquitous in
C. It is true that we have a few late local imitations,
which hardly resemble the originals at all. The ware of
phase Ba is almost exclusively composed of transitional
local forms, still distinctly Late Bronze, but indicating a
complete loss of the artistic tradition in decoration, such
as it was, and an absolute cessation of imports of pottery
from the coast. It is true that the Bronze Age types just
referred to did not continue long in Canaanite
(Phoenician) districts, but soon gave way (in the twelfth
century) to Iron Age types, running parallel with
Philistine ceramics, but there was apparently no such
intervening phase as that to which we have just called
attention. A similar interruption of imported pottery was
observed at Beth-shemesh by Mackenzie. On the coast,
at Ashkelon and Gerar, Phythian-Adams and Petrie have
observed an abrupt shift, but no trace (hitherto) of our
intervening phase; Cypro-Phcenician ware is replaced
suddenly by Philistine, with no indication of a period in
which the former gradually yielded to the latter. 93 We are
consequently forced to conclude that B x represents the
first period of the Israelite occupation, before the broken
lines of com-
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 105
munication had been reestablished, and before new
commercial relations had been formed. The duration of
the period is uncertain; the lowest reasonable estimate is
a generation, the highest two or three generations, if we
judge by such ambiguous indications as the relative
amount of pottery from this phase which we have found.
As has already been shown, the period probably began
before 1200; its end must fall soon after the Philistine
occupation of the coastal plain, an event which took
place between 1190 and 1160.94 If we date the extension
of Philistine power into the Shephelah about 1150 B. C.,
we cannot be more than a decade or two from the truth.
The second phase (B2) is characterized by an
abundance of imported Philistine pottery and of local
wares influenced by it or by new types of Iron Age
pottery from the north. The pottery becomes unmis-
takably Iron Age in its general appearance; pebble-
burnishing, which had almost died out during the Late
Bronze Age, comes back into vogue, but is done by hand,
without the use of the potter’s wheel. This phase clearly
represents the period of Philistine domination, during
most of which the Shephelah was subject to the tyranny
of the 2Egean pentapolis. It is followed, after a period of
considerable length, judging from such general
considerations as those which we employed in order to
get an idea of the duration of B1; by the third phase of B,
in which Philistine pottery in the narrow sense vanishes,
and we reach the transition from Early Iron I to Early
Iron II. B3 belongs in the tenth century; historically we
can fix the end of Philistine influence during the reign of
Saul (cir. 1020-1000) and David (cir. 1000- 960 B. c.), so
we may date the transition from B2 to
 io106 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
B3 roughly about 1000 B. C. During B3 pebbleburnishing
improves greatly in technique, and the wheel is employed
for the burnishing operation as well as for the moulding
of the vessel itself. By holding the burnishing tool firmly,
and moving it slowly down the inside of a bowl, the
potter produced a continuous spiral, which gives the
superficial effect of concentric rings, whence the term “
ring-burnishing.” Ringburnishing began in the tenth
century, and replaced hand burnishing of bowls almost
entirely in the ninth century.85 There is a coarseness
about the lines of this early ring-burnishing, when
compared to later work (from about 800 on), which
furnishes a very convenient point d’appui. The
comparison of the latest pottery of B 3 with the earliest of
the A period, which followed it without an appreciable
lacuna in the occupation, shows clearly that we cannot
place the destruction of B before the latter part of the
tenth century, nor after the beginning of the ninth. Since
there is only one historical invasion with which to reckon
between the middle of David’s reign (cir. 980) and the
invasion of Sennacherib, namely the conquest of Judah
by Shishak, in the fifth year of Rehoboam (cir. 920 B.
c.),96 we are on safe ground in combining the two events.
Shishak captured the fortified towns of Judah, including
Jerusalem, as we are assured both by the Bible and by his
own inscriptions, to which we must add one found by
Fisher at Megiddo.97 Since his army was composed of
barbarian mercenaries, and Tell Beit Mirsim was situated
in the part of Judah which was exposed to the first fury
of the onslaught, the completeness of the destruction
becomes readily intelligible. Some details will be given
below.
An interesting illustration of our chronology is fur-
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 107 nished
by a broken bit of pottery which originally contained a
name, perhaps of its original owner, incised neatly on it.
Two characters are left, one entirely preserved; it is a
beautiful archaic kaf, the first one found on Palestinian
soil, though several inscriptions containing it have been
discovered since the War in Phoenicia. This particular
form of kaf never appears in inscriptions from the ninth
century or later, and disappeared in southern Palestine
even before the time of the Gezer Calendar, which itself
antedates the ninth century, as we know from the archaic
mem which it contains.98 Unfortunately, we cannot be
sure, owing to the circumstances of discovery, just where
in the history of B our sherd belongs—probably to B3, i.
e., to the tenth century B. C. While this sherd does not
enable us to date with greater accuracy than would be
possible on the basis of the pottery alone, it offers the
historian who is not an archaeologist a welcome
confirmation of our ceramic chronology.
The grain-pits to which we have referred seem to be
found almost exclusively in C and B; none have been
found so far in D or earlier periods. After the earliest
phase of A they again vanish; even in the beginning of A
the few which we have found are much smaller than in B,
and were obviously not intended as regular granaries. In
B we have at least twice as many grain-pits as in C, and,
as already shown, they belong to all its phases. There can
be no doubt that the abundance of grain-pits, as well as
their size, illustrates the insecurity of property in Israel in
the time of the Judges. With no organized system of
defense, the people of a border town like our site were
exposed to constant raids, both by nomadic Midianites or
Amalekites and by Philis-
 io108 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
tines," so it was necessary to protect the grain by con-
cealing it in safe places within the walls of the town.
Some very interesting and important discoveries
bearing on the religious life of Israel during this period
have been made. A small limestone altar of incense, of
which only the top (measuring 7 by 9 cm. in horizontal
section) is preserved, has four projections, called “ horns
” by the Hebrews, at its four corners. Examples of
similar, but larger and more elaborate limestone altars of
incense have been found elsewhere in Palestine in recent
years, especially at Shechem and Megiddo.100 Since our
specimen cannot be later than the tenth century, these
others, belonging to the seventh century for the most
part, are at least 250 years younger.101 Lohr, Wiener, and
others have maintained that these discoveries prove that
the Wellhausen position with regard to the use of incense
in the official ritual of Israel is entirely wrong. 102
According to Wellhausen, incense was not employed in
the Mosaic ritual until the Babylonian Exile, when it
appears in the Priest-code.103 Unfortunately for this
otherwise rather impressive argument against
Wellhausen, Ingholt recently discovered an altar of
incense in Palmyra, bearing an inscription which proves
that the name of this object was hamman.10* Now the
same word occurs frequently in the Bible as the name of
an objectionable pagan cult-object, against the use of
which Isaiah and later writers inveighed. Hitherto the
word hamman has been rendered most enigmatically “
sun-pillar ”—a translation which was quite meaningless
to the archaeologist. We therefore note that the altars of
incense found in Palestine, so far from disproving
Wellhausen’s view on this particular point, help
materially to prove its correctness.
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 109 On the
other hand, they explain why incense was not used in the
ritual employed by the official Mosaic religion of Israel;
it was too closely bound up with objectionable pagan
practices. At the same time, accordingly, this group of
archaeological discoveries supports the results of the
documentary hypothesis and eliminates one of the
principal arguments against the originality and
uniqueness of Mosaism!105
A respectable number of Astarte figurines was dis-
covered in B, but not so many as in either C or A. Aside
from a few nondescript figurines of the dea nuda, not
always of certain provenance, though quite distinct from
the types of the Canaanite age, the most important were a
group of five figurines, all made in different moulds, and
all representing a naked woman in the process of
accouchement. One was complete, one other was nearly
so, while the remaining three were only torsos or
fragments. This type has apparently never been found
before; at least no examples have been published, and no
archjeologist who has seen them was acquainted with
parallels. Examination by gynaecologists has yielded a
number of varying explanations in matters of detail. The
figure has a distended abdomen, but small breasts. Her
hands are clasped firmly, almost convulsively, below her
abdomen. The navel projects abnormally for a primipara,
and suggests that the figure may represent a woman who
has borne children. There is an exaggerated protrusion of
the vulvar region, which cannot denote a pathological
condition, but must be an attempt to suggest the descent
of the child’s head and the imminence of delivery. The
smallness of the breasts is evidently intended to
accentuate the distention of the womb. It is most unlikely
that our figure represents the dea
 no UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
Syria in any of her aspects, since there is an entire
absence of any cult symbolism. It rather portrays a
normal woman, with braided locks hanging down on the
shoulders and three bracelets on each wrist. It
accordingly seems most likely that these figures were
merely intended to hasten parturition by sympathetic
magic, and that their generic resemblance to Canaanite
Astarte figurines is due to the fact that they were used for
a similar purpose. It is reasonable to suppose that they
also served as charms to bring fruitfulness to barren
women.
In a silo of the Philistine period, and consequently
belonging probably to the eleventh century B. C,, we
found the torso of a hollow figurine, representing a nude
female with prominent breasts, pressing a dove with
outstretched wings to her bosom. This figure obviously
formed part of a small vase, like later Greek figurines
representing Aphrodite, clad in archaic costume and
holding a dove in one arm, which were used as perfume
containers.106 They are found in Cyprus, Rhodes, and
other Greek lands, and are dated between the seventh and
the fifth centuries B. c. 107 Our example illustrates an early
form of the same type of perfume vase, some three
centuries before its appearance in Greek lands under
Cypro-Phcenician influence. Bronze Age figurines of the
dea nuda which have been found in Cyprus, and which
portray a goddess with enormous ear-flaps and earrings,
sometimes show her pressing a dove with outstretched
wings to her bosom, between her breasts, in exactly the
same way.108 Other figurines of this latter type, but
without the dove, have been found in Palestine, showing
that, like most characteristic objects of Cypro-
Phoenician origin, they were diffused over the entire
region occupied or directly influenced by Canaanite
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY in
109
culture. That none of these figurines discovered in
Palestine so far exhibit the dove can only be regarded as
a coincidence. As is well known, the dove was sacred to
Astarte in Syria and Palestine as well as in Cyprus, where
the cult of Paphian Aphrodite, the goddess of the dove,
was exceedingly popular in the Iron Age. 110 In our
figurines the function of the dove is evidently similar to
that of the serpent in Bronze Age idols, as already
described above.111 While it is very possible that the cult
of the dove-goddess entered Israel under Philistine
influence,112 and the local origin of the figurine is
suggested by its clay, it is also quite possible that our
object was imported from outside as a vessel of perfume.
At all events, it is not only archieologically important,
but is also significant as illustrating the forms of religious
and iconographical influence then exercised by the Ca-
naanites and Philistines on the Israelites.
Not much of exceptional interest to the student of the
Bible was discovered in our B stratum outside of the
objects which we have already discussed. The first iron
tools and weapons appeared in this level. Iron sickles and
ploughshares, or rather plough-tips, illustrate the
commencement of the Iron Age.113 The relatively high
cost of iron is perhaps shown by the small size of these
instruments, when compared to similar ones of the A
level; it is, however, possible that the small size is simply
due to imitation of bronze or copper models. As is well
known, the Philistines maintained a monopoly of the
importation and forging of iron, and their “ corner ” was
not broken until the reign of Saul (cir. 1020 B. C.).114 We
cannot tell whether our iron from Tell Beit Mirsim
antedates the
time of Saul or not; probably it comes from the tenth
century, when Israelites enjoyed the free use of this
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY in
important metal.115
Some curious illustrations of the “ art ” of the period
were found in tenth century context. One was the painted
outline of a dragon, on a large potsherd; it was
unfortunately not complete, the hind-quarters and tail
being broken off. The dragon has an elongated body, the
legs and feet of a fowl, and a bird’s head. The head is
turned so that the animal looks back over its shoulder,
two plumes falling over its bill, while a peculiar crest in
the shape of a duck-bill protrudes from the back of the
head (facing forward). It has analogies both with the
Babylonian mushkhusshu, a crested serpent with four
legs (the front legs being leonine and the hind legs
aquiline),116 and with the Egyptian sefer, a quadruped
with a bird’s head, two wings, and a long tail.117 The crest
suggests the former; the bird’s head resembles the latter.
It has been suggested that the Babylonian mushkhusshu
may be the prototype of the Israelite symbolical seraph,
but the latter had wings.118 Another illustration of
Israelite or Canaanite art of this age is a seal-stone of
scaraboid shape in red marble, showing a man between
two ostriches, which he grasps by the neck. This motive
became popular in Assyrian cylinders some centuries
later, where a winged god is shown in the same way. 119
We have here the oldest datable example of this type,
which evidently has some mythical background, as yet
not recovered.
The destruction of the B city by the barbarian mer-
cenaries of Shishak was accompanied by a more or less
thorough demolition of the fortifications, which we can
see vividly at the two gates. The West Gate
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 113 was
almost completely razed, and it is even uncertain whether
the A builders followed the same plan of construction or
not. At the East Gate the superstructure was destroyed,
and the new builders employed a new plan in part. Where
the old house foundations were still preserved, they were
reused, but in most cases entirely new foundations had to
be laid. After the third campaign it has become certain
that the site was not abandoned, but that the old settlers
returned to their homes soon after the withdrawal of the
Egyptians. The new foundations were often laid in the
ashes of the conflagration, just as in the case of city B.
The fact that no bodies were found in the ruins of B may
indicate that the inhabitants of the city fled into the
almost impenetrable mountain gorges to the northwest of
the city, and that the invaders found it empty. However
this may be, there cannot be the slightest doubt about the
completeness of the destruction or about the short
duration of the abandonment, as shown above.
9. THE PERIOD OF THE JEWISH MONARCHY
The long history of city A, which lasted for more than
three centuries (maximum duration about 330 years)
warns us against trying to generalize. Since its growth
and final decline are part of that history, most of our
description must be taken as applying to the town of the
late eighth and the early seventh century, before the final
decline set in. Happily for the accuracy of our
description, we find so many objects of the same kind,
and so few corresponding objects of a different type, that
there can be no doubt with regard to the chief material
elements of culture during the age of maximum
prosperity.
 114 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
During so long a period of uninterrupted occupation
we must expect much rebuilding and restoration. In some
places we find that there are three phases of construction,
each characterized by different plans, or making
important alterations in the old plans. In some cases we
find that buildings were entirely abandoned, and not
replaced at all. More frequently we find that inferior
structures have been replaced by better ones, or that
partly empty or entirely vacant spaces have been
occupied by houses. At the very end of the history of the
town we find increasing carelessness in building;
wretched walls are raised, and once we have a somewhat
massive, but very poor building replacing well-built
houses. A curious fact is that the inside floors of houses
did not rise appreciably in level, for the most part, during
the long history of the town, while the street level outside
nearly always shows a considerable rise in level, often
reaching three feet or more (a metre). The street level did
not rise gradually because of lack of cleaning; it rose in
irregular phases, evidently after the collapse of houses,
either because of earthquake or of poor construction. In
general, any house construction might be expected to
result in the rise of the street level, because of the
inevitable accumulation of material and debris in the
adjacent street.
The most interesting innovation of the latest city was
an entirely new type of house construction, also found in
other sites of southern Palestine, but not hitherto
recognized.120 This new type can hardly be derived
directly from either the “ hearth-house ” (megaron) of the
north or from the “court-house” of the south. 121 The
former is illustrated by excellent examples from Beth-
shemesh and Ataroth (Tell
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 115 en-
Nasbeh) ; our house-plans from level B are too defective
to yield much information. The latter is well illustrated
by the houses from G and D which we have described
above. The new type of A is characterized by the
presence of a large room, seldom smaller than 30 square
metres (330 square feet), at the sides of which are from
two to four small rooms, serving evidently as storage
chambers. Along the long axis of the room are set three
or four—usually four—stone pillars for the support of
the ceiling. These pillars were generally hewn in a
roughly rectangular, sometimes oval section, and varied
from 1.50 to 1.80 metres in height (i. e., five to six feet).
Since the height of the room was about two metres or a
little more (six and a half to seven feet), the pillar stones
were often set on an equally rude stylobate. Occasionally
we find a more elegant execution, resembling that of the
pillars in the stables of Solomon at Megiddo, which are
at present the oldest, as well as the best examples of this
type of construction.122 In view of its introduction at the
time of Solomon, we may perhaps ascribe it to the
Phoenicians, to whom so many innovations of the Iron
Age in Palestine were due.123 So far we have cleared
scores of these pillar alignments; practically every house
possessed one, though some exhibit large stones piled on
one another like pillar drums instead of monoliths. It
gives one a new respect for the native energy and
industry of these Judeean peasants when one considers
that each house, as a rule, had four such monoliths,
weighing from 800 to 1400 kilos (from 1800 to 3100
pounds) each. Each stone had to be hewn at the quarry,
dragged to the foot of the hill and up the hill into the
town, and set up in place. And yet the
 n116 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
inhabitants were simple peasants! It is quite impossible
to imagine the modern Arab peasantry of Palestine as
willing to undertake such an arduous method of
construction in their own houses.
The inmates of the house lived in the second story, to
which access was generally obtained by a well-built
outside stone staircase. In some cases we are entirely
justified in assuming that there was a third story (perhaps
only a half-story), since the solidity of the pillars in the
ground floor would otherwise remain an enigma. The
walls of the upper part of the house were built of adobe
brick or of wood, instead of stone, which was used in the
lower part of the walls. Occasionally we find partition
walls of adobe even in the first floor. The ceilings and
roof were all of wood; the vaulting of the modern Near
East was wholly unknown. The intensity of the
conflagration which destroyed the A level is easily
explained when we realize how much wood was
employed in construction. Modern Arab houses cannot
be damaged by fire; Palestinian Arab boys find the
greatest difficulty in understanding how ancient cities
were destroyed by conflagration. The walls were
plastered with lime, and the floor was often paved with
small stones, though the inmates lived and slept upstairs,
so paving was unnecessary.
The houses were closely crowded together, with only
the smallest courts—if we can give this name to narrow
passages and tiny open areas at the entrancegate from the
street. Streets were mostly narrow— seldom more than
seven feet wide—and were only occasionally paved with
small stones. We may estimate the entire population of
the town at between 2500 and 5000, by allowing ten
persons—four adults
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 117 and
six children—to each large house, occupying about 150
square metres (including the adjacent street areas), while
smaller houses would naturally have a correspondingly
smaller number of occupants. The area of the town
within the walls was not quite 3.5 hectares (about eight
acres), which contained between 250 and 350 houses.
How7ever, as at Tell en-Nasbeh, the population
overflowed the walled area, and we find house remains
on the threshing-floors to the south, and elsewhere in the
vicinity of the city. While, as we shall see presently,
sanitary conditions must have been good, when
compared to those in a modern Arab village, disease
would have become rife unless the inhabitants of the
ancient town resembled the present Ruba'iyeh. The latter,
as we have seen above, nearly all own houses in Dura,
but during almost the entire year they live in caves, tents,
and booths (Hebrew sukkotli) near their land, returning in
midsummer to Dura, and leaving again after the winter
rains set in. While the territory of the ancient town was
much smaller, it must have extended for five miles from
north to south, and for eight to ten miles from east to
west. It is, therefore, entirely safe to suppose, both from
Biblical parallels, from the exigencies of the case, and
from modern conditions in the same district, that most of
the inhabitants spent part, if not most of the year outside
their city.
We have spoken of the sanitary conditions in
antiquity. It is true that there was, of course, no modern
system of sewage. Otherwise matters were much better
than they would be to-day. No cattle were kept in the
city; sheep, goats, and large cattle remained outside of
the walls in their folds and enclosures. Nowhere have we
found the remains of
 n118 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
sheepfolds or ancient manure heaps in the area of A.
There were many cisterns inside the walls, in order to
supplement the water supply of the wells outside the city.
These cisterns were, however, nearly always provided
with cement settling basins, and a number of well-
constructed water channels were traced. The cistern
water appears to have come from the house-roofs, though
we cannot say positively that this was its only source. A
great many stone roofrollers have been found in our
excavation; they are characteristically more massive than
those employed by the Arabs to-day. While the streets
were not regularly drained, we have found a drainage
channel running from the interior of the town through the
East Gate to the outside of the city.124
The city was entered by two gates, one in the east, the
other opposite it, in the western side. The East Gate,
which stood on the site of the old Bronze Age gateway,
exhibits the same indirect ingress which we find in
Islamic city gates; it makes two bends at right angles, in
order to avert the possibility that a direct arrow fire from
outside might command the main gate. The width of the
gateway is only two metres (less than seven feet) at its
narrowest point, so that it would barely admit a chariot
drawn by two horses. The West Gate is even narrower,
being only a metre wide, so that only pedestrians and
laden asses might enter by it. Yet the West Gate was
apparently the meeting place of the local magistrates,
who transacted business in a commodious and well-built
tower just north of the gate. The tower measures slightly
over 13 x 12 metres (43 by 40 feet) on the inside. It was
entered by a broad doorway from the interior of the town,
which led into a court, around which were
six rooms. In the tower we found several standard
weights, particularly a beautiful eight mina weight of
polished limestone, perfectly preserved, and hence of
metrological value.125 It is clear that standard weights
were among the most necessary articles in a hall of
justice.
Like other towns of Judah in the late pre-exilic period,
ours was devoted to a special industry, in addition to its
ordinary peasant occupations. In this case it was the
woollen textile industry—the spinning, weaving, and
dyeing of woollen stuffs. In part it was doubtless the
proximity to the Negeb, the dry land of the south, over
which pastured great herds of sheep, that led to the
choice of this particular industry. It must not be supposed
that the people of the town were divided into two classes,
farmers and craftsmen; on the contrary, everything points
to a double occupation, farming and the manufacture of
woollen goods. Vast quantities of clay loom-weights
have been dug up in our three campaigns, showing that
there must have been a loom in nearly every house. We
have so far discovered six dye-plants, four of which
follow a definite plan of construction and arrangement,
which may, therefore, be considered as standard. These
dye-plants are the first to have been found in Palestine;
the native labourers recognized them before we did, and
gave them the correct name masbaghah. In rectangular
rooms, all of which, wherever located, have
approximately the same dimensions, three metres by six
(ten by twenty feet), one end is occupied by two massive
dye-vats, with shallow basins of cement adjoining them.
In the two corners nearest the vats we invariably found
hole-mouth jars containing lime. The dye-vats are made
of single stones about three feet high (80 cm. to a metre)
and the same in diameter, hewn round, but with flat tops
and bottoms. The interior is hollowed out to form a
roughly spherical basin, about a foot and a half (40-50
 n120 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
cm.) across, with a narrow mouth, seldom over six inches
across (20-25 cm.). Around the rim there runs a deep
circular channel with a hole in its bottom communicating
with the interior of the vat; we generally found a stone
fitted into the hole. The purpose of the channel was
naturally to catch the precious dye when it was spilled on
the rim, and to return it to the vat. Near the vats, in the
part of the room otherwise unoccupied by the
installation, we generally found a number of large stones,
about fifteen or sixteen inches across, all pierced with a
hole through the center.
A careful study of the dye-plants of Hebron has led to
some interesting results. To-day much is naturally
different. The introduction of indigo from the East has
greatly reduced the cost of dye, and has practically driven
out the use of other dyes for woollen garments. The
simplest mode of dyeing still requires the use of two vats,
just as in antiquity, but there are a number of more
prolonged manipulations which require several additional
vats, employed when better— and more costly—products
are demanded. But the modern vat is a flimsy structure,
formed by a large earthenware pot set in a bench of brick,
stone, and plaster. It is interesting to note that our very
first dye-plant found at Tell Beit Mirsim was made in the
same way. The standard vat was hewn to last for ever—
another striking illustration of the great energy displayed
by the pre-exilic Judaeans when compared with the
modern inhabitants of southern Palestine. Lime is still
employed for the purpose of fixing the dye, just as in
antiquity. We have so far been unable to find any
satisfactory explanation of the perforated stones, which
have no modern analogy. Since they invariably lie in a
single line, we first supposed that they formed an
aqueduct for water used in treating the cloth. No such
aqueduct has been found, however, and the sides of the
stones do not fit together, nor has any lime plaster been
found on them, so it would appear that they were
employed as pressure weights, perhaps to press the dye
out of the cloth, in order to conserve it.126
Turning from the industry of the town to other features
of the life of its people, we shall describe the Astarte
figurines of the A period. More than a score have so far
been found in stratum A, all of the same type, which held
exclusive sway. This type is often called the pillar
goddess, and represents a woman’s head, bust, and arms,
the lower part of the figurine being a simple column,
spreading at the base, so that it might stand erect. The
breasts are always very large and prominent, and the
woman places her hands under them, as if presenting
them to a nursing infant. This type of Astarte figurine
unquestionably does portray a goddess, Ashtaroth as the
dea mttrix, the protector of nursing mothers. Similar
figurines are common in Phoenicia and Cyprus after the
tenth century; from the north they spread southward into
Palestine, evidently in the ninth century, after the
Division of the Monarchy.127 It is probable, however, that
they were not regarded by the Israelites as icons of the
Syrian goddess, but merely as potent amulets, like the
figures of the B period which represent a woman in
labour. They are interesting because of the remarkably
fine execution of one or two specimens from our site,
which are fully equal artistically to the best archaic
Greek work.128 Incidentally, it may be added that the
coiffure is not a conventional imitation of older work, but
clearly portrays the style of the day. We can thus see that
the Israelite women of the day plaited and curled their
locks most elaborately, allowing the braided mass to
hang down around the head below the ears. There is not
 n122 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY
the slightest basis for the statement sometimes made that
these figurines have bobbed hair.
We have so far found about a dozen cosmetic palettes,
all in stratum A. These palettes are circular, with a small
flat base, a rounded cavity in the middle of the top,
surrounded by a broad flat rim.129 The rim is generally
decorated with an intricate geometric design in incised
work (originally coloured dark blue, at least in some
cases), or is inlaid with little disks of dark blue gum. The
effect of the blue decoration against the polished white
limestone surface must have been quite striking. One
palette was not decorated at all, but exhibited twelve
rounded holes (with a hemispherical cross section) on the
rim, in two of which there was still some powdered
copper ore (malachite). These palettes were
unquestionably employed in order to prepare the mineral
substances contained in face-paints by powdering them
with a bone, metal, or haematite spatula (we discovered
one of the last named type in an earlier level) ; they are
found in other Iron Age sites in Palestine, but never in
such abundance as at our site. From Egyptian and other
sources we can give details with regard to the use of
different mineral substances on the face. Powdered kuhl
(kohl)130 was used in order to paint the eye-
 UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 123 brows
and eyelashes black; it was then made of manganese or
antimony, whereas it is now mostly soot. 131 The use of
kuhl undoubtedly had a certain prophylactic value in
keeping infections out of the eye. Powdered malachite or
turquoise was employed to paint the lower eyelids
green.132 Finally, we may safely suppose that powdered
haematite clay (red ochre) was used, as in Egypt, to
enhance the natural colour of the lips.133 Truly Isaiah was
not without justification when he denounced the frivolity
of the daughters of Zion (Isa, 3: 18-23). It offers at least
some satisfaction to know that the ladies of to-day
content themselves generally with comparatively harm-
less paints and powders of organic origin!
Few inscriptions have been found in stratum A,
because all writing was ordinarily restricted to papyrus
and leather (parchment), substances which were naturally
oxidized thousands of years ago in this damp soil. So far,
despite the most assiduous search, we have not
discovered any true ostraca, i. e., potsherds inscribed in
ink, or scratched with a sharp pointed instrument. We
have, however, thanks to this careful search,134 found five
fragments of vases which had been inscribed with a short
inscription, incised in the wall of the vessel before it was
broken. Not one of the inscriptions was complete, though
in two cases prolonged search brought to light three
sherds belonging to each of two inscriptions. All of them
but one are names of persons, evidently of the owner of
the vessel: Uzziah, Hezekiah, Nahum (or Menahem),
Gera (probably), all good Biblical names employed in the
period of the Divided Monarchy.135 The fifth inscription
from A contains the Hebrew word bath, an eight gallon
liquid measure; presumably the entire 124
UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY inscription read “ a
bath of wine,” or the like. All are written in the now
familiar script of the Siloam inscription, and belong to
the eighth or seventh century B. c. It is extremely
interesting to learn that writing was used so commonly,
even in every day life, by the Judaeans of the late pre-
exilic age.
Interesting light on the fiscal and administrative
system of Judah in the same period is shed by the handles
of large amphoras, stamped with an official seal, bearing
the inscription “ Belonging to the king— Hebron,” four
of which we discovered here. So far nearly two hundred
stamped jar-handles of this type have been found in
Judah, w’ith four different place- names: Hebron, Socoh,
Ziph, and Mamshath (a place in the Negeb, not
mentioned in the Bible).136 These four places were the
administrative centers of four fiscal districts, probably
established by Hezekiah.137 The wine and oil delivered in
payment of taxes (“tithes”) were put into standard jars,
probably holding a bath, and these standard jars, all
stamped with the official seal, were then circulated as
measures of value. Since nothing of the kind has been
found outside the narrow limits of Judah, it appears that
the idea was original there—another illustration of the
originality of that little country in the days of the great
prophets. We find two different types, one with a four-
winged scarabaeus, the other with a flying roll between
the lines of the inscription, as in Zech. 5: l. 133 The former
is clearly the older of the two, both because of the more
archaic appearance of the pottery and because of its
greater rarity in sites which were occupied down to the
time of the Exile. These stamped jar-handles are of great
chronological value, since they help to establish the fact
that most of the
UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY 125
fortified towns of Judah were destroyed by the Chal-
dseans at the time of the Captivity, and not by
Sennacherib, or even by a later invader, as has frequently
been supposed in the past.
Of even greater chronological value are two stamped
jar-handles found respectively in the second and third
campaigns. Both bear the same seal impression, which
reads “ Belonging to Eliakim steward of Yokin.” 139 An
identical inscribed handle was found by Grant at Beth-
shemesh in 1930, so that we now have three examples,
all impressed by the very same seal, as shown by a
minute comparison. Yokln is a shortened form of the
name of Joiachin, as was first seen by Pere Vincent, who
examined the first handle on the day of its discovery.
Eliakim must have been charged with the administration
of the personal property of Joiachin during the reign of
Zedekiah (597-87).140 As will be recalled, Joiakim
revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, but died just before the
Chaldaean invasion, or shortly afterwards. His son and
successor, Joiachin, a lad of eighteen, occupied the
throne only three months (597), after which he
surrendered to the enemy, and was taken as a prisoner to
Babylon.141 The people were anxious for his return, since
they considered him as the rightful king, and his uncle
Zedekiah as regent for him. 142 Under such conditions, the
latter could not have seized his property with impunity,
especially since David had set a precedent three centuries
before by leaving the estate of Saul in the hands of
Meribaal, for whom Saul’s own steward, Ziba,
administered it.
The value of this seal impression is heightened by the
circumstances under which it was found. As we have
said, there were in some areas of A no fewer 126
UNEARTHING A BIBLICAL CITY than three
superimposed phases of construction. The stamped
handle in question was found in such an area, in the
uppermost of the three phases of building. Moreover it
here represents a very local phase of construction, under
which continues the phase which all around this area
comes to the top of the excavation. In other words, what
was, in general, the latest phase of building is interrupted
at this point by a reconstruction, which must, therefore,
belong to the last years of the history of the town. The
masonry of this reconstruction is very inferior, a fact
which is all the more striking because of the uniformity
of the masonry of late A as a whole. In other places in the
A stratum we may also note that there was at the very last
a period of decreased prosperity, when very poor repairs
were made. Such a decline in prosperity began after the
death of Josiah, when the land was swept by repeated
invasions, followed by the imposition of heavy taxes. At
the same time the stability of the state and the
competence of its rulers declined, so that the country
must have been rapidly impoverished. In these last years,
to which we must date our seal impression, both for
historical and for archaeological reasons, the doom of
Tell Beit Mirsim was sealed. Its fall probably occurred in
588, the year in which the last siege of Jerusalem began.
How terrific the conflagration by which it was destroyed
may have been can be gauged by the fact that limestone
was calcined and slivered, while adobe was burned red;
the ruins were saturated with free lime, which the
seepage of water caused to adhere to pottery and other
objects until they became coated with a tenacious crust of
lime.
 Ill

THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF

ARCHAEOLOGY

1. THE BEARING OF ARCHAEOLOGY ON BIBLICAL

PROBLEMS

I RCHAEOLOGICAL research in Palestine and

neighbouring lands during the past century
the historical and literary background of the Bible. It no
longer appears as an absolutely isolated monument of the
past, as a phenomenon without relation to its
environment. It now takes its place in a context which is
becoming better known every year. Seen against the
background of the ancient Near East, innumerable
has completely transformed our knowledge of
obscurities become clear, and we begin to comprehend
the organic development of Hebrew society and culture.
However, the uniqueness of the Bible, both as a
masterpiece of literature and as a religious document, has
not been lessened, and nothing tending to disturb the
religious faith of Jew or Christian has been discovered.
As will be shown in the following pages, there has
been a distinct gain to theology from this research. On
the one hand, the excessive skepticism shown toward the
Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still
appear periodically, has been progres-

127
128 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
sively discredited. Discovery after discovery
has established the accuracy of innumerable
details, and has brought increased recognition
of the value of the Bible as a source of history.
On the other hand, the theory of verbal
inspiration—sometimes miscalled a doctrine —
has been proved to be erroneous. The
discovery that conceptions and practises evolve
through many stages has led the leading
Catholic and Protestant theologians to adopt a
revised interpretation of the doctrine of
progressive revelation, a line of defense behind
which theology is secure from further en-
croachments on the part of the archaeologist
and the historian.
The most practical way in which to illustrate the
importance of archaeology for the better comprehension
of the Bible is to select several outstanding problems of
Hebrew history, and to discuss them in chronological
order, in order to make their relation clearer. We shall,
accordingly, choose the following topics for our
discussion: the Age of the Patriarchs as described in
Genesis; the Mosaic Law; the period of the Exile and the
Restoration. It would hardly be advantageous, with the
limited time at our disposal, to describe the innumerable
archaeological confirmations of the historical record of
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. A very interesting
and important theme is that which deals with the new
light on the social and economic background of the
prophetic movement of the eighth and seventh centuries,
but since we must select, let us choose the topics listed
above. As will be seen, they are all storm-centers in the
long struggle between Biblical critics, and there is no
general agreement among scholars as to the interpretation
of our data. However, recent archseo-
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY 129 logical
discoveries in Palestine and neighbouring lands speak
with no uncertain voice, so that it is high time for the
scholar who is in touch with them to express his views,
even if they may sometimes appear rash.
2. THE AGE OF THE PATRIARCHS IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHAEOLOGY
The orthodox critical attitude toward the traditions of
the Patriarchs was summed up by the gifted founder of
this school, Julius Wellhausen, in the following words: “
From the patriarchal narratives it is impossible to obtain
any historical information with regard to the Patriarchs;
we can only learn something about the time in which the
stories about them were first told by the Israelite people.
This later period, with all its essential and superficial
characteristics, was unintentionally projected back into
hoary antiquity, and is reflected there like a transfigured
mirage.” 1 In other words, the account given in Genesis of
the life of the Patriarchs is a faithful picture of the life of
Israelites at the time when this account was composed, i.
e., according to the view of the dominant critical school,
in the ninth and the eighth centuries B. c. The nomadic
touches were derived, it is supposed, from the life of the
Arab nomads of the day —or perhaps from the life of the
Judaean nomadic tribes of the Negeb. Practically all of
the Old Testament scholars of standing in Europe and
America held these or similar views until very recently.
Now, however, the situation is changing with the greatest
rapidity, since the theory of Wellhausen will not bear the
test of archaeological examination.2 The opposition to
this theory began in the camp of Assyriology, where the
gauntlet was thrown by Sayce, Hommel, and 130 BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY Winckler,3 but the
methods employed by these scholars were so fanciful,
and the knowledge of ancient Palestine (apart from the
Bible) which then existed was so slight, that they were
not taken seriously by their antagonists.
As an illustration of the changing attitude, let me call
attention to the recent brochure by Professor Bohl of
Leyden, Das Zeitalter Abrahams (Leipzig, 1930).4 In this
little book, Bohl, a successor of Kuenen, Wellhausen’s
lieutenant, maintains the essential historicity of the
Patriarchs, and closes with the words: “Just as the
Homeric Age stands at the beginning of Greek history, so
does the Age of the Patriarchs in Israelite. Through the
mist of ages we greet the figure of Abraham, whom
Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans reverence as a '
friend of God ’ and as the ‘ father of all who believe. ’ ”
Another illustration is the monograph by Professor Alt of
Leipzig on Der Gott der Vater (Stuttgart, 1929), in which
the brilliant author shows that the patriarchal religion, as
described in Genesis, is not an artificial construction of
priestly historians of a later day, but actually reflects pre-
Mosaic conditions: “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remain
on the other side of Moses; but the lines which lead from
their gods to the God of Israel have become distinct.” 5
Shades of Wellhausen and Kuenen!
In Genesis the Patriarchs are portrayed as semi-
nomadic, i. e., as devoting themselves partly to sheep-
raising and cattle-breeding, and partly to agriculture.
They are, moreover, represented as wandering slowly
about the country, but as having definite bases, to which
they invariably return. They always wander about the
hill-country or the extreme north of the Negeb, never on
the coastal plains or in the desert.
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 131

Were this description of their life a late invention, we

should have the greatest difficulty in finding an adequate
explanation of its origin, since it does not agree at all with
conditions in any part of Palestine in the Iron Age, to say
nothing of Early Iron II. Wellhausen and his followers
did not even recognize the difficulty, because of their
ignorance of modern Palestine and adjoining lands. The
Arabs of to-day distinguish sharply between Fellahin, “
peasants,” ‘Arab, “ semi-nomadic Arabs,” and Bedu, “
nomads.” All the Arabs who are entirely sedentary are
called fellahm, even if they only remain in their village
during two or three months of the year, as at Dura and
Beit Feddjar.6 If, however, they live entirely, or almost
entirely in tents, and yet do not move outside of their own
restricted district, which they till regularly, they are
‘Arab, like the ‘Azazmeh around Beersheba, or the
Ta‘amreh about Tekoa. True nomads, who despise
agriculture, and preserve the noble traditions—and
poverty—of the desert, like the ‘Anezeh and the Ruwala,
are called Bedu, i. e., Bedouins. It is clear that the
Patriarchs come under the category of ‘Arab. Yet they do
not correspond exactly to the ‘Arab. Their scope of
wandering, which extends from Mesopotamia through
Syria into central and southern Palestine, is much greater,
and they wander between fortified towns and districts
occupied by a purely sedentary population, engaging in
trade relations with the latter. In the Early Iron Age there
was no true analogy, since the Kenites were a very highly
specialized group.7
Here archaeology provides the necessary explanation.
In the Middle and Late Bronze Ages the hillcountry was
still but sparsely peopled, and almost the 132 BIBLE IN
THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY entire sedentary
population occupied the coastal plains, Esdraelon, and the
Jordan Valley. The plains and broad valleys were dotted
with towns, as shown by the innumerable mounds which
remain to mark them. Occupation in these regions was
considerably denser than it was in the Iron Age, or than it
is to-day. A century ago the plains and the Jordan Valley
were largely occupied by ‘Arab, while the sedentary
population (outside of Gaza, Jaffa, Acre, etc.) was almost
entirely in the hill-country—a curious reversal of con-
ditions in the Bronze Age. The mountains of Palestine
were then heavily forested on the watershed ridge and the
western slopes, so that little space was left for agriculture.
Moreover, cisterns had not then come into general use, so
there were no settlements except where good springs
were located just under a low hill, suitable for defense,
with meadows or broader valleys near by, to ensure a
supply of food. Between these fortified towns, most of
which were situated on the watershed ridge or near it,
there was ample room for semi-nomadic tribes, which
have left abundant traces of their existence in cemeteries
containing Middle and Late Bronze pottery, but too far
from towns to have been employed by the sedentary
population. In Genesis also we are told that the Patriarchs
buried their dead in the Cave of Machpelah, following the
customs of the settled inhabitants of the land. The
Amarna Tablets call these semi-nomadic people the
Khabiru, a name which is probably to be identified with
Biblical “ Hebrew.” 8 The Khabiru correspond closely, at
all events, to the Hebrews of the patriarchal period in
many important respects: in their independence of towns,
in their geographical localization in Palestine, in their
warlike spirit. At least once we BIBLE IN THE LIGHT
OF ARCHEOLOGY 133 learn, of a Canaanite coalition
to resist their encroachments.
According to the Wellhausen school, the association of
certain towns with the history of the Patriarchs is due
simply to the fact that cult-legends relating to them were
attached to these places in much later times. If we
consider the situation in the light of the topographical and
archaeological researches of the past few years, we will
discover the interesting fact that practically every town
mentioned in the narratives of the Patriarchs was in
existence in the Middle Bronze Age. Examples are
Shechem,9 Bethel,10 Ai,11 Jerusalem (Salem),12 Gerar,13
Dothan,14 Beersheba.15 Aside from the case of the Cities
of the Plain, which we shall take up presently, there is
only Hebron whose existence at that time cannot be
established archseolog- ically.16 From its situation in an
extremely fruitful and well-watered valley, there can be
no reasonable doubt that Hebron was occupied at a very
early date, especially since neighbouring cemeteries,
plundered by the Arabs, have yielded a great many
Middle Bronze remains.17 If the patriarchal stories were
first told as we have them in the Iron Age, we should
expect to find references to Israelite settlements like
Mizpah and Gibeah, etc., etc.
The story of the Cities of the Plain is still obscure in
many respects. However, the tradition that the Plain of
the Jordan, where these towns were located, was
exceedingly fruitful and well peopled at the time of the
first entrance of the Hebrews into the country, but that it
was shortly afterwards abandoned, is absolutely in accord
with the archaeological facts. As recently as 1928 the
famous ancient historian, Eduard Meyer, knowing
nothing of the researches of the
134 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY

American School in the Jordan Valley, was able to say of

this region in the fifteenth century B. C. : “ Absolutely
barren lay also the Jordan Valley south of Beth-shan and
Pella, burning hot between the mountain walls on both
sides, through which it cut its broad and deep way. . .
. Here the attempt
was never made to utilize the soil and to make it
productive by systematic irrigation, as was done in the
Nile Valley under essentially the same conditions (!).” 18
From about 1922 on, the writer has carried on
explorations in the Jordan Valley, culminating in an
expedition undertaken with the cooperation of Dr. M. G.
Kyle in 1924, for the purpose of studying the
archaeological remains of the southern Ghor (Jordan
Valley).19 These researches and those of Pere Mallon and
other scholars20 have proved that the most prosperous
period of the history of this valley was in the Early
Bronze Age, and that the density of its occupation
gradually declined until it reached its lowest point in the
Early Iron II, after the tenth century B. c. Except in the
Turkish period (before the Jewish colonization began
toward the end of the nineteenth century A. D.) this was
the age of least occupation in the valley’s history. Yet we
are asked by some to believe that the traditions of its
pristine fertility arose in the Iron Age!
In 1924 we obtained an entirely satisfactory solution of
the problem of the situation of the five Cities of the Plain,
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar. It is true
that an attempt has recently been made to establish
another solution, but the archaeological basis of this
effort is as fragile as its documentary support. 21 At the
southeastern end of the Dead Sea there are several fine
streams of BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHAEOLOGY 135 fresh water, which form fruitful
oases, the only ones on the shores of the Dead Sea, aside
from Engedi, on the west side, with an absolutely certain
identification. A search through these oases and the
environs failed to yield any remains antedating the
Roman period, except at Bab ed-Dra‘, of which more
presently. However, the shallow southern basin of the
Dead Sea has been encroaching on its shores steadily for
the past century, during which its area has increased fully
one-third, according to the best calculation.22 The
encroachment of the deadly salt water has forced the
irrigated oases upstream toward the foot of the wall of
mountains on the east. One oasis, which was occupied in
Byzantine times, has been almost completely swallowed
up, since there is no room left for irrigation at this point.
In Roman, Byzantine, and Arabic times there was a little
city, which still bore the ancient name Zoar, near the Seil
el-Qurahi, at the southern end of the sea; its site, which
we examined and sounded, exhibits no traces of a pre-
Christian occupation. It follows, of course, since the
situation of Zoar in the extreme south is testified by
several Biblical passages, that the later site, at the foot of
the hills, lies upstream from the Biblical site, and that the
latter, like the former oasis of the Seil en-Numeirah, has
been buried by the advancing waters of the Dead Sea.
These oases which we have mentioned must have been
occupied by a sedentary population in the Bronze Age,
since every similar oasis, where irrigation is possible, in
the Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea, has its tell to
mark the site of a Bronze Age town. More than one town
in the same stream-basin was impossible, since the con-
flict over water-rights would effectually eliminate any
136 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
attempt at competition in a very short time. Even if the
curious coincidence of the five Cities of the Plain with
five modern oases in this region should be accidental, we
are, therefore, quite justified in placing them here, and in
supposing that their sites have long since been covered by
the Dead Sea, though they may have been exposed to
view until post-Biblical times.
The archaeological proof of the existence of a
sedentary population in this district was obtained by the
discovery of Bab ed-Dra‘, a great fortified enclosure,
partly surrounded by a settlement of booths (marked by
enclosures and hearths) and cemeteries, with a prostrate
alignment of stone pillars (masse- both'), evidently
representing a high-place. Vast quantities of potsherds,
flint artifacts, and other remains fixed the date between
the middle of the third millennium (Early Bronze II), at
the earliest, and the nineteenth century B. C., at the latest.
Some of the pieces belong unmistakably to the transition
from Early to Middle Bronze, which we cannot, however,
date with precision as yet. The character of the fortified
enclosure, the remains of houses found in it, and the
remains of booths (not tents) found outside of it prove
that the installation belonged to a sedentary population. It
is most emphatically not a city, but rather a temporary
encampment, like Gilgal, or perhaps rather like the
somewhat shadowy Baal-peor of Moab. Since the plain of
Bab ed-Dra‘ is not suitable for cultivation, and is high
above the gorge of the Seil ed-Dra‘, it would in any case
be a very unsatisfactory place for a town. As a festival
site for the inhabitants of the oases below it is admirable,
since it is situated on the first convenient rise of terrain
above BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
137 the central oasis of el-Mezra‘ah, some five hundred
feet above the level of the Dead Sea.
The fact that occupation ended here abruptly at the
beginning of the second millennium, not later than 1800
B. c. at the outside,23 is unquestionably a strong argument
for the historicity of the tradition that the towns of this
district were destroyed in a natural cataclysm about this
time. It would also set an upper limit for the date of
Abraham, or at least of his general age. It might, of
course, permit a lower date, since we have no proof that
Bab ed-Dra‘ was abandoned because of the cataclysm
described in Genesis; it may have been deserted
previously, for some reason which escapes our control.
However, it does suggest very strongly that the date of
Abraham cannot be placed earlier than the nineteenth
century B. C.
In the patriarchal stories as they are handed down to us
we have several very enigmatic episodes and references,
which were probably just as obscure to the Israelite of the
period of the Divided Monarchy to which these narratives
belong, in their present form, as they are to most Biblical
scholars of to-day. For their interpretation we must turn
to recent archaeological discoveries in Mesopotamia. In
1925 E. Chiera, then field director of the American
School of Oriental Research in Baghdad, began
excavations at Yorghan Tepe near Kirkuk in southeastern
Assyria, excavations which have been continued with
little interruption until the present year (1931), in
collaboration with Harvard University.24 Among other
important discoveries were several thousand cuneiform
tablets from the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B. C.
The city bore the name Nuzi, and was occupied by a Hur-
rian population, belonging to the same ethnic group, 138
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY as shown
by the evidence of proper names, etc., as that which then
prevailed in all northern Mesopotamia, as well as in
eastern Syria. A. large proportion of the documents found
bore the heading " tablet of adoption (to sonship, Assyr.
marulti)" There was an old principle of civil law among
the Hurrians which forbade the alienation of inherited
land—an illustration of the powerful operation of family
solidarity. In practise, however, a way was found by
which this prohibition could be nullified. Wealthy
creditors had themselves legally adopted by the debtor,
and acquired immediate possession of his land by this
simple expedient. The debtor “ foster-parents ” received a
small compensation, and became tenants of their creditors
—t. e., virtually serfs. At an earlier period, however, the
principle of adoption worked differently, and was then
naturally connected with religious ideas with regard to
the importance of having the family estate (and the care
of the ancestor’s funerary rites) kept in the hands of a
legal heir. This practise, which fell into disuse long
before the Iron Age, is evidently the reason for the
hitherto obscure adoption of Eliezer by Abraham, before
the birth of Isaac.21
A much more striking, though not so fundamental
parallel has been pointed out by Sidney Smith and C. J.
Gadd, in the latter's edition of a group of Kirkuk texts.”
In a tablet of adoption a certain Nashwa declares that he
has adopted Wullu, son of Pukhishenni (the head of a
wealthy family of Nuzi). Wullu (the creditor) states that
he will provide Nashwa with food and clothing, and will
see that he is properly buried. Then we read: "If Nashwa
has a son, he shall divide (the property) equally with
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 139
Wullu, and the son of Nashwa shall take Nashwa’s gods;
but if Nashwa has no son, Wullu shall take Nashwa’s
gods.” In other words: the legitimate heir has a prior right
to possession of the household gods, and the adoptive
heir cannot take them unless there is no legitimate heir.
Possession of the gods was naturally believed to include
divine protection of the land of the family to whom the
gods in question were attached. The purpose of the
document, to legalize an act of oppression, does not affect
its legal form, which goes back to an earlier day, when
adoption had another basis (see above). This tablet
enables us to understand the meaning of the puzzling
episode in Genesis (31:19—35), which describes Jacob’s
flight from Laban and Rachel’s successful theft of the
household gods (teraphim). As will be recalled, Laban
was more exercised by the loss of the gods than by the
flight of his daughters and their husband, with all the
accumulated wealth of cattle. The primary motivation of
this story was evidently that Rachel stole the gods in
order to assure the inheritance to her husband.
Among modern Biblical scholars there has been hardly
one to accept the traditional Hebrew account of
Abraham’s Mesopotamian origin, from Ur 27 and Harran.
And yet there is very strong evidence in support of the
tradition. In the first place, it cannot be accidental that the
names of the clan-ancestors who figure in the genealogy
of Abraham 28 occur in Assyrian times as place-names (t.
<?., old names of clans) in the region of Harran: e. g.,
Terah, Nahor, Serug.29 The name Arphaxad is also
probably Mesopotamian.39 Nor can we overlook the
increasing probability that some of the cosmogonic
stories of Genesis came from
140 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Northern Mesopotamia. The view that these stories were

borrowed from Mesopotamia at a late date has now been
given up by all competent scholars. They may, of course,
have been adopted by the Hebrews from a secondary
Palestinian source, as is probably held now by most
scholars. Against it is, however, the fact which we have
already stressed, that the preIsraelite religion of Canaan
was very different in many respects from the paganism of
Israel after the Conquest, which contained elements
borrowed at a later date from purely Iron Age cultures. It
is most unlikely that the Hebrews would have borrowed
such stories as that of the Flood from their neighbours
after their settlement in Palestine. The divergence of the J
and E recensions is alone sufficient to establish the
antiquity of the common original, which was already
distinctly Israelite. A Hurrian source for the name Noah
has recently been suggested.31 However this may be, the
fact that the ark grounded in the Armenian mountains
(Ararat—Urartu) indicates a North Mesopotamian
source, since the Babylonians sought their mountain of
the ark in the Zagros, which lay north of Babylonia. 32
Elsewhere, also, sacred mountains are generally in the
north.33 If the Canaanites possessed a Flood-story, we
may safely suppose that Lebanon or Hermon played the
corresponding role. The story of Paradise, which locates
the Garden of Bliss at the source of the Euphrates and
Tigris, and employs a northwestern Mesopotamian place-
name to describe it, is clearly derived from the same
region.34
We have left the discussion of Genesis XIV to the last,
since it does not belong to the documents J and E, and its
relation to P is extremely obscure. It is in any case a prose
abstract of a poetic narrative, as is BIBLE IN THE
LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 141 proved by numerous
snatches of verse, which have not been eliminated from
the prose version as carefully as was usually the case (see
below).35 However, the very obviousness of its poetic
origin gives us a guarantee of the age and the essential
accuracy of the names, which are always better
transmitted in poetic saga than in prose narrative. The
subject has been elaborately discussed by the writer and
by F. M. Th. Bohl, to whose treatments we may refer. 30
Suffice it to say here that our main contentions hold just
as firmly as ever. The events of this chapter have nothing
to do with Hammurabi of Babylon, but must be dated
considerably later; Shinar (originally pronounced
Shanghai) is a country in central Mesopotamia, and is not
Babylonia. Whether the writer’s view that the invasion of
Chedorlaomer took place in the eighteenth century is
correct or not, the episode must be dated in the unsettled
age between the fall of the First Dynasty of Babylon (cir.
1806 B. C.)37 and the Egyptian conquest of Palestine and
Syria in the sixteenth century. There are two very
remarkable facts about this chapter. First is its use of
archaic words and place-names, occurring nowhere else
in the Bible. Since this has been discussed by other
scholars, I shall limit myself to two illustrations, both
new. The retainers of Abraham are called by the name
hanlkim (Gen. 14: 14). In a cuneiform letter found by
Sellin at Taanach in Palestine, and dating from the
fifteenth century or earlier,38 the same word appears in the
form hanaku, pointing to a correct vocalization hanakvm
in Genesis. But the word is Egyptian, and is used in
Egyptian texts dating from about 2000 B. c. for the
retainers of Palestinian chieftains.39 In later times the
word became disused. The second 142 BIBLE IN THE
LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY illustration is the place-
name Ham, mentioned 14: 5. Several years ago the writer
and Professor Steuer- nagel of Breslau independently saw
that this Ham might be identical with a modern place of
the same name in eastern Gilead. 40 In 1929 Professor
Jirku of Breslau and the writer undertook to investigate
the antiquities of Ham, and immediately discovered the
presence there of a small, but very ancient, mound going
back to the Bronze Age.41 The name also occurs in the list
of towns conquered by Pharaoh Tuthmosis III in
Palestine, about 1480 B. C.
It is, of course, improbable that a poetic saga of such
great age can be taken as literal history throughout; there
are sufficient indications in the chapter of its popular
origin. However, the underlying account of the campaign
waged by the Eastern kings appears to be historical. This
account represents the invading host as marching down
from Hauran through eastern Gilead and Moab to the
southeastern part of Palestine. Formerly the writer
considered this extraordinary line of march as being the
best proof of the essentially legendary character of the
narrative. In 1929, however, he discovered a line of Early
and Middle Bronze Age mounds, some of great size,
running down along the eastern edge of Gilead, between
the desert and the forests of Gilead. 42 Moreover, the cities
of Hauran (Bashan) with which the account of the
campaign opens, Ashtaroth and Karnaim, were both
occupied in this period, as shown by archaeological
examination of their sites. The same is true of eastern
Moab, where the writer discovered an Early-Middle
Bronze city at Ader in 1924. 43 This route, called “ The
Way of the King ” in later Israelite tradition, does not
appear to have ever been employed by invading armies
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY 143 in the
Iron Age. Some inkling of the reason which led the
Eastern army down into the region of Seir, far south of
the Dead Sea, may perhaps be obtained from the fact that
there were extensive and important deposits of copper,
manganese (used for kuhl—see above), and other
minerals in Seir and Midian. 44 From the still only partially
deciphered inscriptions of Sinai we know how actively
the natives of this region engaged in mining during this
very age (about the eighteenth century B. C.).
The story of Joseph falls into a somewhat different
category. Since the story was so popular, and dealt with
Egypt, the temptation for Israelite scribes who were
acquainted with Egyptian and with life in Egypt to revise
the names and details was irresistible. It has long since
been pointed out by Egyptologists that the Egyptian
names in the story are late, and cannot be dated before the
tenth century, at the earliest.45 To conclude that the story
of Joseph is therefore legendary, or even a romantic
invention of later times, is, however, just as unreasonable
as it would be to deduce from the still later Egyptianizing
of names in the Septuagintal version that the Joseph story
was compiled by the Alexandrian scribes.46 There can be
no doubt whatever that the Hebrews played an important
role in Egypt during the Hyksos period, as is shown by
the names of Ya‘qob-har, belonging to a dynast,47 and
Hur, name of the chancellor of one of the Hyksos
monarchs.48 As is well known, the close connection
between the Hyksos and the Age of the Patriarchs is
reflected by an antiquarian gloss in Numbers, stating that
Hebron was built seven years before Tanis in Egypt. 48
The Era of Tanis represents the Hyksos restoration of the
city, soon after their invasion, as 144 BIBLE IN THE
LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY has recently been shown
anew by Sethe.50 The writer has long believed that the
number 430 in Ex. 12: 40-1 follows the Era of Tanis,
since it does not seem to be a round number; should this
prove correct, we should have a definite date for the
Exodus, early in the thirteenth century, with the Conquest
a generation later.
The extraordinary accuracy of the narratives of the
Patriarchs, when tested by our rapidly accumulating
material, is no longer surprising if we consider two
parallels. The first is that of the Homeric Epics,
particularly the Iliad.51 For the century preceding the
discovery of the Mycenaean Age of Greece, most serious
scholars had considered it as either mythical or as
reflecting conditions in the early part of the first mil-
lennium. With the rapid increase of archaeological data it
has become quite impossible to maintain this view any
longer. The Iliad proves to reflect most faithfully, as a
rule, conditions at the end of the Late Bronze Age, that is,
of the period which it purports to describe. There are, of
course, anachronisms: iron is mentioned a little too
frequently, and the dead are cremated instead of buried;
but, in general, these exceptions to the prevailing
historical accuracy of cultural detail are so few as to bring
out the latter with all the more force. The Iliad describes
events which transpired in the thirteenth and twelfth
centuries; it was compiled from older epic lays about the
tenth or the ninth century, and was put into written form
in the sixth century, more than six hundred years after the
fall of Troy. Another parallel is furnished by the Rig
Veda, whose history is much more obscure, but in some
ways even more striking. There is now general agreement
that the Rig Veda came into exist- BIBLE IN THE
LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 145 ence between 1800
and 1200 B. C., that is, after the Aryan invasion of India,
but in the Bronze Age.52 When its hymns were collected
and the canon was fixed is a more elusive question. It
cannot, in any event, have been reduced to writing until
the Greek period, i. e., after the third century B. C. In its
case we must allow at least a millennium between the
original composition of the hymns and their earliest writ-
ten form.
In view of these parallels it is difficult to see anything
very remarkable in the conclusion which has been forced
upon us by recent archaeological discoveries, that the
saga of the Patriarchs is essentially historical. However, it
follows that this saga was transmitted in poetic form,
since prose narratives are never handed down very long
by oral instrumentality. We have seen that Genesis XIV
requires a poetic prototype. Such poetic prototypes of
prose narratives are preserved in a number of cases; the
best known is the Song of Deborah.53 Careful perusal of
the prose narratives of the Hexateuch shows numerous
indications of their original poetic basis, which appears
again and again in poetic quotations, in verses placed in
the mouths of characters, in highly poetic similes, and in
archaic expressions which betray their origin by their
rhythmic swing.54 The Song of Miriam (Exodus XV) and
the poems of Balaam probably are examples of
compositions in verse which preceded the prose
compilations which we possess, though it is true that they
were considerably expanded in later times. No one can
without obvious prejudice maintain that the superb
couplet:
Sing to the Lord, For greatly exalted is He,
Horse and chariot55 He hath cast into the sea
146 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY

is long posterior to the Exodus. Nor can one suppose

without severe mental strain that the passage in the story
of Balaam, Num. 24: 24, describing the coming of
invaders from the direction of the AEgean and their
subjugation of the Hebrews, dates from long after the
period of the Philistine invasion.56
As now recognized by the overwhelming majority of
scholars, both those who belong to the Wellhausen
school and those who are not members of this group, the
narratives of the Hexateuch must be assigned, in general,
to two different documents, called J and E (i. e., the “
Jahwistic ” or Yahwistic, otherwise called the Judasan,
and the Elohistic, otherwise the Ephra- imite). P does not
play any great role in the narratives, so we may disregard
it here. The written composition of these documents is
generally dated between the ninth century (J) and the
eighth (E), though Sellin, for instance, prefers to date J in
the tenth and E at the end of the eighth. Kittel and others
have stressed the extraordinary parallelism between the
narratives of J and E, which agree altogether too closely
for two entirely independent bodies of late tradition.57 We
must suppose that they both go back to a common
source, or a common group of sources, which in any case
antedate the time of David. Now Bohl has recently
emphasized the fact that the patriarchal stories of Genesis
belong to a greater literary whole. 58 The inner unity is, he
observes, unmistakable, despite the presence of various
documents and sources. The fundamental conception is
developed in the story of the Patriarchs with a logical
coherence which is rarely found in other ancient
literature. Moreover, the unity of artistic conception and
execution is equally clear. Even without the aid of de-
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 147
lineations of character the figures of Abraham, of Isaac,
and of Jacob appear before us in all their humanity, yet
with a clearness of outline that not even the composite
structure of our text can materially affect. Such unity and
harmony remain inexplicable unless we assume that they
are due to a great poetic genius, who cast the poetic sagas
of the Patriarchs into a single saga. Similarly, there must
have been an early saga of the Exodus and a saga—or
sagas— of the Conquest of Canaan. This group of sagas
became standard throughout Israel, and was perhaps
officially sanctioned by the priesthood of Shiloh. After
the Division of the Kingdom—perhaps after the fall of
Shiloh, some century and a quarter before—the sagas
became differentiated into a northern and a southern
group, which continued to be transmitted orally. In the
course of time variations were introduced, part of which
came probably from local sources, as is certainly true of
the traditions with regard to places and details of the
Israelite Conquest. Finally, after this double period of oral
transmission, these two groups of sagas were reduced to
writing in the late eighth century (J) and early seventh
(E).59
Kittel and others have stressed the significance of this
double transmission for our reconstruction of the
underlying history. Events which are attested by J and E
alike belong certainly to the great saga cycle of the time
of the Judges. But since, in compiling JE in the seventh
century, the scribes were careful not to repeat stories and
details which did not differ appreciably in the two
accounts, we have no right to suspect the originality of
singular elements of J and E. Knowing the extraordinary
care with which ancient scribes avoided the introduction
of unwarranted in-
148 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY
novations into their compilations, we must always assume
that such a singular element came either from one of the
documents (having been accidentally lost in the other), or
from an outside (but perhaps equally old) source.
The original sagas of the Patriarchs naturally went
back into the post-patriarchal age, just as the sagas from
which the Iliad was compiled belong to the two centuries
after the Fall of Troy. An equally good parallel may be
drawn from the study of the sources of the
Nibelungenlied.80 That they were partly, perhaps mainly
handed down in Palestine, rather than in Egypt, 61 may be
regarded as practically certain, since it is now quite
certain that a large part, perhaps more than half of the
Hebrew people remained in Palestine, and did not enter
Egypt at all.62 Their extreme antiquity explains why they
contain so many elements derived from the common
stock of ancient Oriental folklore. To have shown this is
the merit of the late Hugo Winckler, who unfortunately
spoiled his work by introducing the wildest astral
speculations into it. The fact that there are so many
elements of folklore, especially in the stories of Jacob and
of Joseph, does not injure the historical and pedagogical
value of Genesis. Quite the contrary—it enhances its
value in both respects. We must remember that the
transmission of oral and written documents or narratives
is conditioned by a different set of laws in each case. The
laws governing the transmission of written documents are
well known; every student knows something about them.
Written documents are compiled by the dovetailing
together of different sources, as in the work of the
Chronicler, or in the writings of ancient and mediaeval
chronographers. They are ed- BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHEOLOGY 149 ited or redacted, as in the case of
the documents from the Northern Kingdom, which were
put into Biblical Hebrew (the language of Jerusalem), or
the work of the Masoretes in establishing a uniform
Hebrew text and pointing it according to their
interpretation of it. They are copied over a long period of
time, during which all sorts of errors (belonging to a
number of well-understood types) creep into the text.
They are translated, in which case new errors creep in, as
every tyro knows from experience.
In the same way, the transmission of oral tradition is
bound by its form. If the latter is poetic, the tradition
persists with sometimes most incredible tenacity. If the
tradition is prose, it seldom lasts more than three or four
generations, even among the Semites (<?. g., modern
Arabs). Moreover, nearly all tradition has a short period
of prose transmission before it is put into verse. During
this period it is adjusted to the requirements of the popu-
lar mind by being classified into various standard
categories, which necessarily have a folkloristic back-
ground. Since there was no clear demarcation in antiquity
between what we now call myth and folklore, we must
not be surprised to find mythical elements in the stories of
the Patriarchs—or perhaps we should say, elements of a
mythical—i. e., folkloristic—origin. The nature of the
framework which was chosen depended upon the
suggestive power of the historical events which underlie
each saga. For example, the Joseph story has been very
strongly influenced by the cycle of folklore which
revolved around the figures of certain popular gods of
fertility, such as Bitis, Osiris, and Adonis. 63 Yet it does
not follow that Joseph is a myth, or that the events
narrated of him are fic- 150 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHAEOLOGY titious. On the contrary, it is precisely
because the traditional history of Joseph bore such a
striking similarity to the mythical careers of popular gods
of fertility, which became heroes of folklore at a very
early date, that the fusion of history with folklore was
produced. Oral tradition inevitably implies the accretion
of elements from folklore, as illustrated by the earliest
historical memories of every ancient people, as well as by
the myths and legends which have gathered around the
name of every notable monarch or sage, from Sargon of
Accad and Imuthes to Akhiqar and Alexander. 64 A
historical person may thus be surrounded in time with the
borrowed aureole of a god, as in the case of Semiramis,
whose later story became almost entirely mythical,
though she was once queen-regent of Assyria (in the
ninth century B. C.).65 We are learning that oral history
and folklore are naturally complementary, and that
historical saga is invariably composed of nuclei of fact
clad in garments of folklore. As a matter of fact, most
actual occurrences of sufficiently remarkable nature to
form soil for the growth of saga are characterized from
the beginning by extraordinary coincidences and curious
plots which inevitably attract wandering folklore motives.
A moment’s consideration should convince anyone
that we are very fortunate indeed in the oral transmission
of the earliest history of the Hebrews. Were it possible for
us to have a written record of the external events of that
period—since an account of the internal development of
character by an eyewitness is inconceivable in such a
remote age—we should have a very dull and
pedagogically useless record of clan and tribal history.
Instead we have an BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHAEOLOGY 151 ample historical basis, on which
is constructed a stately edifice of saga. Psychologically
this saga, which has enshrined for us the accumulated
wisdom and experience of the ancient Orient, collected
and sifted during many thousands of years, and has
eliminated all barbarous and obviously pagan elements, is
truer history than the record of clan movements and wars
would be. The one enables us to enter into the life and
innermost heart of Israel; the other would be useful to a
political historian, and all but useless to the teacher. It is
the pedagogical value of sagas that determines their
success, in the last analysis. Happily we have both
political history and psychological history ; we are able to
see our own trials and aspirations portrayed on heroic
canvas at the same time that w Te can follow the religious
and political evolution of the Chosen People.
3. THE LAW OF MOSES
The second great question which we have set ourselves
to elucidate, so far as possible, from the data of
archzeology is the Mosaic Law. We cannot do more than
to touch so vast and complicated a subject as the age and
the nature of the Torah in a few brief pages. The
Wellhausen school maintains that the civil and religious
legislation of the Pentateuch belongs to three different
strata, published in the following order: J, E, and the
Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20:22-23:33), before the
seventh century; Deuteronomy (D), B. c. 621; the Priestly
Code (P, which includes part of Exodus, all of Leviticus,
and part of Numbers), which dates from the time of Ezra
(B. C. 450), though composed during and after the Baby-
lonian Exile. Wellhausen himself and some of his 152
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY followers
recognized the antiquity of some of this legislation, part
of which Wellhausen thought to be of pre-Mosaic origin,
though he did not attempt to specify instances.06 Most of
the members of this great school have, however, rather
carelessly assumed that the laws and regulations belong
as a whole to the period when the codes were published,
though they may admit the greater antiquity of certain
prescriptions.
A change began to be felt among scholars after the
publication of the famous Code of Hammurabi in 1902. 67
It became gradually understood that certain Hebrew laws
stood in closer relation to the Code of Hammurabi than
they did to the legal practice of Assyria and Babylonia in
the first millennium B. C., as it is known from cuneiform
business documents. Yet the Code of Hammurabi dates
from the twentieth century B. C., and incorporates much
older Sumerian material, as is now known, thanks to the
discovery and publication of numerous extracts from
Sumerian collections of laws, belonging to the third
millennium. The publication in 1920 of the Assyrian
code,68 from about the twelfth century B. C. (the date is
uncertain), followed in 1921 by that of a Hittite code 69
from the thirteenth century, but also incorporating much
older material, has greatly extended our scope of
comparison. A galaxy of brilliant European jurists is now
engaged in comparative study of this rich material, which
is enormously extended by the steady stream of contract
tablets from all parts of Western Asia which are being
discovered every year. It is sufficient to mention the
names of Cuq, Kohler, Kos- chaker, Eisser, San Nicolo to
illustrate the vast new field which is being opened up to
students of social BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHAEOLOGY 153 and economic history, as well as
to Biblical scholars. Our knowledge of ancient Oriental
religious legislation is also being extended vastly by new
discoveries and publications of Babylonian, Assyrian,
Hittite, and South Arabian documents, quite aside from
the cuneiform, South Arabian, Phoenician and Egyptian
inscriptions already known before the War. Virtually
none of this material was accessible when Wellhausen
wrote his epoch-making works, so it is not surprising that
the latter now prove to be antiquated.
In 1921 Dussaud showed which way the wind blew by
publishing a book in which he undertook to demonstrate
the Canaanite origin of Israelite sacrificial ritual. 70 Jirku
has followed with several less ambitious attempts to
establish the relative chronology of certain types of
Pentateuchal laws, in imitation of the methods being
employed by Assyriologists and students of comparative
law in their study of the cuneiform laws.71 Others are
following their example, so we may expect to see a great
display of activity in this important field during the next
decade. We shall not attempt to treat our subject from this
angle, but rather from the standpoint of the Palestinian
archaeologist. A few observations may be permitted us
before we pass on to the latter mode of approach.
Dussaud’s attempt to prove the dependence of Israelite
sacrificial ritual upon Canaanite is undoubtedly correct to
a certain extent. Israelites and Canaanites, both speaking
Hebrew, and sharing a common external civilization,
must be expected to use somewhat the same technical
expressions, and to employ similar modes of slaughter,
etc. However, it does not follow that the Israelites were
necessarily heirs of the sacrificial practice of the
Canaanites whom they displaced. We have 154 BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY seen in chapter II
that the religious customs of the Israelite period (B and
A) were different from those of the preceding Canaanite
age, and that new pagan influences came from outside
and were not (as a rule) inherited from the older
Canaanite inhabitants of the district. We must, therefore,
reckon partly with a common stock of beliefs and usages
which were inherited by Hebrews and Canaanites from a
common source, and partly with later borrowing from the
Canaanites (Phoenicians) of the Iron Age, such as all
admit to have taken place in the construction and fur-
nishing of the Temple in the tenth century B. C.72
The publication of Deuteronomy in 621 B. C. is a fixed
date in the uncertain field of Torah chronology; nearly all
scholars adopt it, with more or less reservation with
regard to the bearing of this fact upon the age of different
parts of the book. However, a careful perusal of it in the
light of chapter II will certainly convince most students
that Deuteronomy sounds curiously archaic to have been
written as a whole in the late seventh century B. C. On the
other hand, it represents quite another period from that
reflected by JE, since there is no trace (except in the
historical introduction and in other similar reminiscences
scattered through the book) of the nomadic or semi-
nomadic period of Hebrew life. The civil code
presupposed by Deuteronomy belongs to a stage before
the development of the royal power, before the great
commercial expansion of the eighth and seventh
centuries, and consequently before the collapse of the
ancient tribal and clan organization, which was gradually
replaced during the royal period by a system of
administrative districts and trade-guilds. Officials are still
chosen locally, instead of being royal appointees BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY 155 (cf. 16:18,
17:9; 25:1-3 is ambiguous). On the other hand, as already
observed, Deuteronomy is clearly younger than the period
of the Judges. Quite aside from the passage referring to
the monarchy (17: 14-17), which belongs to about the
ninth century,73 and from the Blessing of Moses,
belonging to about the same time,74 there are clear
archaeological indications of a later date. Iron is
mentioned a number of times (the best cases are 8:9, 27:5,
33:25). In 8:9, moreover, there is evidently a reference to
the iron mines of Lebanon, just as the allusion to copper
implies knowledge of the copper mines of Edom. 75 These
iron mines cannot have been worked before the tenth
century, at the earliest, since the Philistines could not
have maintained their monopoly down to the time of Saul
if iron had been conveniently accessible in a region
outside of their control. The frequent references to
writing in Deuteronomy point in the same direction;
writing was certainly not employed in such cases as
divorce contracts (24: l-^l) before the monarchy. It is not
our purpose to enter into the vexed problem of the unity
or composite origin of the book; in our judgment it was
written down, substantially as a unit, in the ninth century
B. c., and was edited in the reign of Josiah or later. The
North-Israelite origin of Deuteronomy, defended by
Welch, Gressmann, and others 76 seems clear; the
language does not help us, since it has in any case been
put into the dialect of Jerusalem (classical Hebrew), so
that northern peculiarities have been effaced. The most
natural explanation is that Deuteronomy represents a
selection from the religious and family legislation of the
region of Shechem, in so far as it was believed in the
ninth century B. C. to go 156 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHAEOLOGY back to Moses. It is probable that
Shechem followed Shiloh as the cult-center of the Joseph
tribes, and that the famous passage concerning the
unification of cult in one place (12:8 ff., compared with
11:30) was originally intended to uphold the position of
Shechem (following Shiloh).7’ The passage is certainly
too vague to represent an original composition of the time
of Josiah, for the purpose of ensuring Jerusalem a unique
position as a cult-center.
Morgenstern has lately maintained the same general
date for the nucleus of the Book of the Covenant, the
publication of which he connects with the reformation
which began in Judah under Asa, and reached a culmi-
nation in Israel under Jehu, about 842 ( 841) B. C.’8 His
study of the development of this document is extremely
interesting, and represents a most logical attempt to
establish a systematic theory of the evolution of Hebrew
legal ideas. The methods of Jirku, and especially of Alt
bid fair, however, to open up an entirely new approach to
this important problem.
 The writer believes that there is a general similarity
between the origin and transmission of the Torah in Israel
and of the Hadith in Islam. The latter is an expression
meaning primarily “ communication,” and is applied by
Moslems to a traditional saying or act of the Prophet, as
well as to the entire corpus of such traditional records.
These traditions are supposed to have been preserved in
the memories of the companions of the Prophet, and to
have been transmitted orally through the instrumentality
of a chain of transmitters. The validity of each tradition
depends in theory upon the reliability of the weakest link
of the chain. In fact, the principal difference between the
mode of transmission of the Hadith and that of the
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 157
Torah, if our view is correct, is precisely the absence of
the isnad (chain of tradition) in the latter case. In the third
century of the Hegira, written collections of the Hadith
began to be made, but by this time most of the accepted
traditions were quite certainly apocryphal. The invention
of new traditions was often due to the emergence of new
conditions and problems, for which neither the Quran nor
the older traditions offered any solutions. In many cases,
as Lammens has shown, new hadiths were circulated for
the purpose of bolstering political pretensions. In many
cases, again, traditions arose through misunderstanding,
and sayings or acts were attributed to Mohammed which
really belonged to someone else. It must be emphasized,
however, that the accepted Hadith was always believed to
represent the very words and deeds of the Prophet, and
that the collectors and editors of the corpus acted in
perfect good faith.
Similarly, we may safely suppose that the collection of
the sayings and deeds of Moses began in the second and
third centuries after his death, and passed through
somewhat the same vicissitudes as the collection of early
Hebrew sagas, described above. JE (including such
documents as the Book of the Covenant) represents the
main stream of this tradition, while D may form a branch
of the stream which separated from it at an early date, and
had a complex history of its own thereafter. P, we
believe, consists of the official tradition current in priestly
circles of Jerusalem at the beginning of the Exile. Though
the latest in date, it consciously and successfully
endeavours to supplement the publication of JED by
adding numerous details about the cult of the Mosaic
period, and 158 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHEOLOGY by bringing the description of Mosaic
legislation up to date. We are not directly interested here
in its contributions to the knowledge of early Hebrew his-
tory. The compilers of the P material possessed old oral
and written sources which give it a very great value. It is
quite true that some of this material was misunderstood,
and does not belong in its present context. A case in point
is the two census lists of Israel given by P in Num. 1 and
26, the first of which purports to be the enumeration
made by Moses directly after the Exodus, while the latter
is given as the result of an enumeration made after the
forty years in the wilderness. The writer has pointed out
elsewhere that a few simple transpositions and alterations
of digits produce an identity between nearly all the census
numbers of the respective tribes in the two
enumerations.79 This result proves that the two lists of
tribal population are variants of one and the same original
census list, which is probably that of the Davidic census,
since no other enumeration of the entire population is
recorded during the period of the United Monarchy, the
only time when it could possibly have been made. It was
shown that the numbers are precisely what we should
expect in the time of David, if the totals are taken to refer
to the whole population, and not to the men of military
age alone. Presumably the compilers of P found the two
divergent lists, which had been corrupted by three
centuries or more of copying, and believed them to go
back to the time of Moses. The divergence in the numbers
was then easily explained by supposing one list to
represent an earlier census than the other.
On the other hand, recent archaeological discoveries
have warned us against undue skepticism with regard
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 159 to the
age of the material preserved by P. It has quite generally
been assumed, for example, that the Priestly Source gives
a fanciful account of the Tabernacle, its installation and
cult, which at best only reflects priestly ideals of the
Exilic Age. Against this attitude the writer wishes to
protest most vigorously. A priori, it is quite as
unjustifiable as it would be to insist that the description of
the Temple of Herod given in the Mishnaic tractate
Middoth (compiled two centuries after the destruction of
the Temple) is a product of the imagination of Tannaitic
rabbis. In the latter case we can prove from Josephus that
such skepticism is unwarranted. It is true that the interval
of more than four centuries between the destruction of the
Tabernacle and the Exile suggests that we must be
prepared for erroneous reconstruction in detail, but this is
a very different thing from wholesale invention, as
demanded by orthodox supporters of the school of
Wellhausen. Wellhausen himself admitted freely that
there was certainly a temple at Shiloh in the time of Eli,
and that the original sanctuary of the Ark was probably a
tent,80 but he denied the authenticity of the description of
the Tabernacle in Exodus. That this description is highly
idealized we may well admit, but that it is deliberately
invented in order to carry the priestly conception of
Mosaic cult back to his time we deny. Many indications
point to a desert background of the Tent of Meeting (ohel
md‘ed, the term used by P most frequently). Whereas
cedar and olive-wood were employed in building the
Temple of Solomon, acacia alone is mentioned in the
account of the construction of the Tabernacle. The
predominant use of goats’ hair tent-cloth and of ram-skins
and lamb-skins
i6o BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY
{‘orot 'elm, ‘drot tehashm, Ex. 25:5, etc.) surely rests on
authentic tradition. Quite aside from all other
considerations, the wholesale deviation from the plans of
the Temple of Solomon and of the ideal Temple of
Ezekiel remains inexplicable if we must suppose that the
Tabernacle is a fanciful construction of Exilic priests.
Nor can we explain the admittedly composite structure of
the description unless we suppose that it had some
tangible background in tradition.
As a result of the tendency to exaggerate the unilateral
course of evolution toward cult centralization in Israel,
members of the Wellhausen school have consistently
tried to reduce the importance of the role played by
Shiloh and its sanctuary, or even to eliminate it almost
entirely. In 1926 and 1928, as mentioned in chapter I, a
Danish expedition worked at Shiloh, under the direction
of H. Kjaer, with the assistance of Aage Schmidt. The
writer stood in particularly close relation to this
undertaking from its very beginning, and examined most
of the pottery which was unearthed. The results are clear:
there was a Middle Bronze occupation, the duration and
character of which are uncertain; this was followed,
probably after an interval when the site was abandoned,
by a very extensive and important occupation in the Early
Iron, which lasted from the thirteenth century (possibly
from the early twelfth) to the eleventh. On the summit
and around the edges of the site no sherds which could
certainly be assigned to Early Iron II or to the transition
from Early Iron I (tenth-ninth centuries) were discovered
during these two campaigns. It would, therefore, seem to
be certain that Shiloh was actually destroyed by the
Philistines after the battle of Ebenezer and the cap-
ture of the Ark (cir. 1050 B. C.), as is usually supposed by
historians (including Wellhausen).81 Jeremiah’s allusions
 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 161

to the long previous destruction of Shiloh also receive

their explanation. The extent of the occupation during the
El I was much greater than at any subsequent age,
including the Byzantine. That writing was known is
attested by an inscribed weight, which has not yet been
explained, though the archaic characters are clear
enough. Future campaigns on the site, carried out with
true Danish care, are certain to yield much additional
material regarding the culture of the period of the Judges,
and may eventually discover the site of the temple, which
presumably replaced the original ohel moed, if our
contentions are correct.
While we cannot go into detail, for lack of space, with
regard to the apparatus of the Mosaic cult, as described
by P, we may refer again to the discussion of the altar of
incense in chapter II, in connection with our discovery of
the top of such an altar in the level of the tenth or
eleventh centuries B. C. at Tell Beit Mirsim. The
description of the altar of incense used in the Tabernacle
(Ex. 30: 1-3) agrees with that of the hammanim
discovered here and in other sites, though it was
considerably larger. Now, the Priestly Code would never
have introduced such a hamman into its Tabernacle
unless there had been a warrant for it in old tradition.
During the Prophetic Age the use of hammanim had been
denounced and incense eliminated from official Mosaic
ritual. It is a common view among Biblical scholars to-
day that the seven-branched candlestick of the
Tabernacle (Ex. 25: 31 ff., 37: 17 ff.) reflects the
Babylonian or even the Persian period. Unhappily for this
a priori con-
162 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ception, however, it is precisely in the Early Iron I—
never afterwards—that we find pottery lamps with seven
places for wicks, the rim of the lamp being pinched
together seven times. Such lamps are found in Tell Beit
Mirsim B, as well as in contemporary deposits elsewhere
in Palestine.82
Before leaving the subject of the Tabernacle, we
would like to point out with emphasis that the Well-
hausen theory of cult evolution, in its rigid form, is now
being abandoned by the younger generation of German
scholars. Alt and Noth, in brilliant recent studies, have
established the principle of the amphic- tyonic origin of
the twelve tribes of Israel, that is, they arose as a league
of clans, tribes, or towns around one (sometimes two)
central sanctuaries.83 Whether the cult center in earliest
Israel was at Shechem, as maintained by Noth, or at
Shiloh (followed by Shechem and Nob-Gibeon), as we
maintain, is not vitally important.84 Nor need we enter on
a discussion of the theory of Noth, that the amphictyony
of twelve tribes was preceded (before the Song of
Deborah) by one of six, or the theory of Haupt and others
(admitted as possible by Alt) that it was preceded by a
Sinaitic amphictyony (the writer’s view). 85 If we admit
the necessity of some central shrine at the beginning of
Israelite history, we have already torn the foundation
from under the Wellhausen theory. There is then no
further difficulty in the way of our ninth century date for
the bulk of Deuteronomy (see above), including the
nucleus, at least, of chapter XII. Since, however, the idea
of a central sanctuary faded rapidly with the development
of local particularism, and again after the disruption of
the monarchy, we may still adhere to Wellhausen’s
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 163
contention, that the movement for a single center of cult
became acute in the late seventh century, and that its
success is presupposed by the Priestly Code in the sixth.
The entire school of Wellhausen has agreed on a
refusal to admit Mosaic monotheism, and a conviction
that Israelite monotheism was the result of a gradual
process, which did not culminate until the eighth century
B. C. It is true that Palestinian archaeology cannot
contribute directly to the solution of this problem. We
should like, however, to call renewed attention to some
facts which strongly favour the early appearance of
monotheism in Israel. A priori, we should expect that
Israelite monotheism would come into existence in an
age when monotheistic tendencies were evident in other
parts of the ancient world, and not at a time when no such
movements can be traced. Now, it is precisely between
1500 and 1200 B. c., i. e., in the Mosaic age, that we find
the closest approach to monotheism in the ancient
Gentile world before the Persian period.
In Egypt we have the Aton movement, which, as is
well known, consisted in the adoration of the solar disk
as the visible manifestation of a single deity, whose cult
permitted no rivals. In its purest form the Aton heresy
represents the culmination of a very ancient
development, traceable before the First Dynasty, as Sethe
has recently showed.86 In its ordinary artistic and literary
expression it is generally a kind of heliolatry with evident
Asiatic elements. Since the parallels between the Aton
faith and the Bible have frequently been stressed, we
need not enter into a detailed discussion. The differences
are fully as great as the resemblances, yet
164 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY

nothing can alter the fact that we have here a close

approach to monotheism, a syncretistic religion, which
must have appealed to Asiatics living in Egypt, and a
system which grew out of the theology of Heliopolis, i.
e., of the town which is connected so closely with the
traditions of Israel in Egypt. Since the Aton heresy
flourished between 1375 and 1350, i. e., about a century
before Moses, according to our view of the chronology,
the possibility of a connection remains. The writer has
stressed the fact that the full name of YHIVH, *Yahweh-
asher-yihweh,s'! which means literally, “ He (who) causes
to exist what comes into existence,” i. e., the Creator of
everything that exists, is an exact translation of a rather
common Egyptian liturgical formula, applied to the chief
god, who is also the creator of the world, according to
Egyptian theology.88 Since the formula in question does
not occur elsewhere in the ancient Orient, a certain
dependence is unmistakable. Taken in connection with
the numerous Egyptian names among the Aaronid
priesthood, both at Shiloh and in Jerusalem, some
Egyptian influence on Israelite monotheism must be
assumed. It may also be observed that none of the
formerly accepted occurrences of the name Yahweh in
theophorous compounds of the Bronze Age are now
admitted by competent scholars. The verbal form which
lies at the base of the name occurs in the Amorite name
Yahm-ilu, dating from about 2000 B. C.,89 and probably
meaning “ It is god who brings into existence.” The
meaning is identical with that of such Babylonian names
as Mushabshi- Marduk (Marduk causes to be) and
Mushabsht-ilu (a god causes to be),90 as well as with that
of Egyptian names formed with the element s-kh-p-r,
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY 165 “ to
cause to be, bring into existence.” The supposed
meanings “ the one who blows,” or “ the one who fells,”
which have been assigned to the Hebrew divine name by
some scholars, are quite without a parallel in the whole
domain of ancient nomenclature.
If we turn from Egypt to consider the appearance of
monotheistic tendencies in Asia we also find the period
between 1500 and 1200 indicated. The famous
Babylonian text which identifies all important Baby-
lonian deities with some aspect of Marduk—e. g.,
Zababa is Marduk of battle, Sin is Marduk as illuminer of
night, Adad is Marduk of rain—includes two eastern
deities, Tishpak and Shuqamuna, a fact which fixes the
date of the original in the Cos- saean period, i. e., within
the time limits just set.91 Moreover, in the Late Bronze
Age, as we know from the tablets of Amarna and
Boghaz-koi, as well as from other sources, there was an
extraordinarily favourable soil elsewhere in Western Asia
for the formation of monotheistic conceptions. Owing to
the great mixture of cultures, combined with intimate
international relations, syncretism in religion was
widespread, and gods with similar functions became
identified. Further, certain names were applied to gods
worshipped in a great many different places, all of whom
were considered by the more sophisticated as variant
forms of one and the same great deity. In the treaties
between Khatte (land of the Hittites) and Mitanni, from
the fourteenth century B. C., we have, for instance,
among the gods of the Hittites who are mentioned as
witnesses to the oaths of the contracting parties: Teshup
of Nirik, Teshup of Khalab (Aleppo), Teshup of
Shamukha, etc., etc.; Khepit of Khalpa, Khepit of Uda,
Khepit of Kiz-
166 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY

zuwadna, etc. Among the deities of Mitanni the same

treaties mention: Teshup of ICakhat, Teshup of Was-
shukanni, Teshup of Irrite.92 Since each Teshup pos-
sessed individual characteristics, the generalized con-
ception of Teshup could hardly restrict itself to the
primary function of the god, who brought fertility
through the storm which he controlled, but was likely to
include so many diverse aspects that Teshup finally
became the sole great god—the totality of the mani-
festations of the separate forms of Teshup. In Syria, for
example, the various forms of the stormgod Hadad
(equivalent to Teshup) became so generalized that the
Syrian storm-god included, as a rule, the attributes of
storm-god and sun-god, and received the more inclusive
designation “ Lord of Heaven,” later Ba'al-shamem
(Canaanite) or Ba'al-shamen (Aramaic).93
In Canaanite usage this principle received its widest
extension. The totality of gods was called elohvm or
elomm, terms which meant both “ gods ” and “ totality of
manifestations of god.” The Pharaoh is addressed by his
Canaanite vassals in the Amarna letters as “ my gods, my
sun-god ” ; “ gods ” is naturally an inexact translation of
the same word which was used by the purely
monotheistic Hebrews in the sense of “ God.” Be'alim
was used similarly of the totality of forms of Ba‘al, in
contrast to the God of Israel. The plural was used in
precisely the same way with names of goddesses;
‘Ashtaroth means “the totality of manifestations of
Astarte,” and early became as common as the singular,
while the plural of Anath (a sister form of Astarte),
Anathoth, was borrowed by the Egyptians in the
Eighteenth Dynasty (if not earlier) as the name of that
goddess.94 This tendency
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 167 was,
therefore, active in the Bronze Age, but rapidly stagnated
in the Iron Age, in which it remained alive only in
stereotyped words and expressions, such as the place-
names ‘Ashtaroth and ‘Anathoth, Hebrew ‘ashterdth
(has-)son, meaning literally “ the Astartes of the flock,”
but really “ sheep-breeding,” and, of course, Hebrew
elohvm, “ God.” With the renewed emergence of
particularism, with concomitant heno- theism, in the
Early Iron Age, the development of monotheism from
polytheism was faced by insuperable obstacles, which
were not removed until the Aramaean syncretism of the
Persian period. We regard ourselves, therefore, as
entirely justified in combining the emergence of
monotheism with the Mosaic movement of the thirteenth
century B. C., and not with the prophetic movement of the
eighth.95
In connection with the question of the date of the
ethical and social prescriptions of Mosaism, we find a
very similar situation. The famous negative confession of
the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead, which
duplicates several of the Ten Commandments (aside
from being couched in the first person instead of the
second person) dates from the New Empire; the oldest
manuscripts date from about the fifteenth century B. C.
Turning to Mesopotamia we find, again, the same
situation. The second tablet of the magical series Shurpu
contains a long list of sins and violations of divine tabus
which entail subjection to the power of demons. Here
again we have some very close parallels to the ethical
prescriptions of Mosaism, including several of the Ten
Commandments. A. Schott of Bonn has recently pointed
out, after a very thorough study of Assyro-Babylonian
style, that Shurpu dates from the Cossaean period, i. e.,
between
168 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY

1500 and 1200 (1100 at the latest, including the period

following the end of the Cosssean Dynasty). 66 While we
do not wish to enter into the vexed subject of the origin
and date of the Ten Commandments, it may be observed
that the very fact that there are several different forms of
them which are preserved in the Torah points to a
considerable age for their prototype, whatever it may
have been.
Our discussion of the present extra-Biblical material
bearing on the antiquity of the Mosaic Law at least
shows that the tables are now turned. In future,
supporters of now antiquated critical views must take the
results of ancient Oriental and archaeological research
into serious consideration, and must yield many of the
positions which they have regarded as inexpugnable. The
real importance of Wellhausen’s work remains;
competent scholars can never again defend the priority of
the redaction of P, which continues to be the latest
Pentateuchal document instead of the earliest. But all of
the documents contain much very ancient matter, and the
picture of the evolution of Israelite religion drawn by
Wellhausen is probably quite as far from the historic
truth as that drawn nearly twenty-five hundred years
before by the editor of P. We speak of Zoroastrianism
and Buddhism, though the amount of dogma and teach-
ing which can certainly be traced back to the founders is
very small indeed; we may continue, a fortiori, to speak
of Mosaism. The parallels which we have adduced do not
in any way diminish the importance of the work of
Moses; despite the opportunities provided by the
situation which existed in the Late Bronze Age, no other
religion even remotely com-
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 169
parable to it appeared, and Mosaism remained absolutely
unique.
4. THE AGE OF THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION
The third of the topics which we have selected for
elucidation from archaeology is the period of the Exile
and the Restoration. Though the latest period of Old
Testament history, it is in some respects almost as
obscure as the Age of the Patriarchs. This curious fact is
due mainly to the confusion which reigns in the work of
the Chronicler, our principal source for its history.
Several eminent authorities deny that there was a true
Exile at all, and are consequently compelled to deny that
there was a true Restoration.97 Other scholars maintain
that Ezra followed Nehemiah, instead of preceding him,
as assumed by the present recension of the Chronicler’s
work.98 The dates of Ezra and Nehemiah, again, vary
greatly in the reconstructions proposed by different
scholars.99 It is evident that the historical development of
Judaism in this most critical age cannot be properly
understood until we can solve the major problems which
are involved. Since every possible solution seems to have
its protagonists, and since none of them have obtained
general recognition in the last thirty years, we must look
outside of the Bible, to the results of archaeological
discovery, for the solution of these enigmas.
The first contribution of importance made by
archaeology to our knowledge of the post-exilic age came
in 1907, with the publication of the most important of the
Elephantine papyri, documents written by Egyptian Jews
in Aramaic and dated in the fifth century B. C.1" The
complete publication in 1911 101 170 BIBLE IN THE
LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY made it clear that there was
a much more active and heterogeneous Diaspora
(Dispersion) in the fifth century than had ever before
been supposed.102 The references to Sanballat, governor
of Samaria, and his two sons, as well as to Johanan, high-
priest of the Jews in Jerusalem, proved that Nehemiah
must be dated in the reign of Artaxerxes I, and not in the
reigns of Artaxerxes II or III. 103 They also proved that
Sanballat was a Jew by religion, and that he was actually
the governor of Samaria, and not some local magnate, as
had often been supposed. The famous Passover letter
proved that normative Judaism was imposed upon the
colonies of the Diaspora by the aid of the Persian
Government, in corroboration of the statements in
Ezra.104 The tax-lists of the temple treasury showed that
the Judaism of the colony of Elephantine, founded before
the close of the Exile, was a very syncretistic religion,
with a background which still remains enigmatic. 105 The
language of the Elephantine letters shows that the
Aramaic of Ezra may easily date back to the fourth
century, if not to the end of the fifth, when we bear in
mind that all Biblical documents have been repeatedly
subjected to modernization and orthographic revision. 106
The language alone undoubtedly forms a powerful argu-
ment in favour of the essential authenticity of the
Aramaic letters in Ezra, which has been denied by most
modern scholars, with the brilliant exception of Eduard
Meyer.107
The next archaeological light on the post-exilic age
came partly from Egypt and partly from Transjordan. In
1919 Edgar began to publish the papyri of the Zeno
archives, which had been discovered by natives at Gerza
in the Faiyum.108 These papyri not BIBLE IN THE
LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 171 only throw light on
all phases of the situation in Palestine during the middle
of the third century B. C. ; they also enable us to
reconstruct in broad outlines the history of the Tobiad
dynasty of Ammon.109 Sprung from a Jewish ancestor,
whose home was probably at ‘Araq el-Emir in southern
Gilead, this family furnished a line of governors of
Ammon, to which Tobiah the foe of Nehemiah and ally
of San- ballat belonged.110 The tombs of the Tobiad
family at ‘Araq el-Emir have preserved the name of
Tobiah, deeply cut into their external wall, and written in
an archaic Aramaic script.111
After the War, the writer began to study the
archaeological materials bearing on the age in question,
with some clear-cut results, and others which are not
clear enough for presentation here. In studying the
surface remains of Judaean mounds, he has been more
and more impressed by the fact that a large proportion of
them exhibit no remains later than El II, that is, than the
Babylonian Exile. There is fortunately a marked
difference between the pottery of the pre-exilic and of the
post-exilic periods, so that confusion is impossible. 112
Practically all the ancient Judaean sites of the southern
Shephelah and the adjacent Negeb, and many in the
southern hill-country to the east show no occupation after
the Exile (unless in the Roman or Byzantine periods).
Illustrations are: Tell el-Khuweilifeh and Tell ‘Aitun, as
well as Tell Beit Mirsim itself; Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish),
Tell ed-Djudeideh, Tell Zakariya (Azekah), Khirbet
‘Abbad (Socoh), Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madhkur (Adul-
lam) ; Beth-shemesh (in the northern Shephelah); Tell en-
Nedjileh, Tell el-Muleihah (southwest of Tell Beit
Mirsim); Tell ‘Arad (Arad), Tell Zif (Ziph), 172 BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHEOLOGY etc., in the
southern hill-country to the east. This list does not
include numerous smaller sites, nor does it include all the
cases where the site was reoccupied after a destruction in
the Exilic period, such as Tell es-Safi, Tell en-Nasbeh
(Ataroth), Tell el-Ful (Gibeah).113 In the light of this clear
situation, it can no longer be maintained that there was no
complete devastation of Judah by the Chaldaeans, and no
true Exile. If there was an Exile, there must naturally
have been a Restoration.
When did the Restoration take place? The Hebrew
Ezra (i. e., the standard Hebrew recension of the
Chronicler’s work) places it under Cyrus, while the
Greek recension (Esdras) places it more correctly under
Darius I.114 Archaeology has nothing directly to say about
the matter, but it has much to say indirectly. By
elucidation of the topography and the nomenclature of
the list of returned Jews in Ezra 2 and Neh. 7, it proves
that Kittel is wrong in considering it as referring to the
returned immigrants at the beginning of the reign of
Cyrus.115 Nor can we, as Eduard Meyer and Kittel have
proved, explain the list as a much later census of the
population of Judaea.116 The list includes both the
returned families (called bene-N, or “children of N”) and
the inhabitants of the villages around Jerusalem who had
remained in the land (called anshe-N, or “men of N”).
These villages are all in the extreme north, and do not
include any in the districts which were so thoroughly
devastated by the Chaldaeans and their allies. There was
a later expansion of Jewish territory toward the south, as
far as Beth-zur, which thereafter remained the southern
boundary of Judaea. This is not the place to discuss the
tentative reestab-
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 173
lishment of a Jewish community at the beginning of
Cyrus’ reign, under Sinabusur (“ Sheshbazzar ”),
Zerubbabel’s uncle.117
The commonly accepted view that Zerubbabel was
removed from his post by the Persians during the
construction of the Temple has recently been developed
most brilliantly by Kittel, who fixes the date of his
deposition in 518 B. C.118 The circumstances surrounding
the intended rebellion (there is no evidence of open
revolt) of Zerubbabel have now been somewhat clarified
by F. W. Konig’s recent discovery that Syria was actually
among the Persian provinces which rebelled at the outset
of the reign of Darius, and was therefore subdued
between 520 (the date of the conquest of Babylonia) and
517 (the date of the subjection of Egypt).119 Zerubbabel
was the last governor of Judaea who belonged to the old
royal house; thenceforth the Jewish community became a
semi-theocratic state, under Persian political rule, but
otherwise under the domination of the high-priest and his
advisory council. We have extremely interesting
archaeological illustrations of this transformation in
Jewish polity, as we shall presently see.
In 1926 the writer published a paper 120 in which he
discussed three groups of seal-impressions on jarhandles
belonging to Early Iron III, found at Jerusalem, Jericho,
Gezer, and Tell en-Nasbeh (Ataroth). It will be noted that
all of them come from the direct sphere of the post-exilic
Jewish commonwealth, just as all the jar-handles bearing
the royal stamp have been found within the bounds of the
pre-exilic Judaean state. The three groups may be
arranged chronologically by apparently concurrent
epigraphical and ceramic indications. First comes a seal-
impression 174 BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF
ARCHAEOLOGY bearing four letters variously
distributed on the seal, but always the same. At first this
seal was read Adaiah Adayah),121 but the consideration of
Punic monograms has since imposed the reading Jedaiah
(Yeda‘yah,122 the full form of the better known name
Yaddu‘). Jedaiah is the name of the most important
priestly family of the post-exilic period, the family to
which the high-priests belonged.123 The administration of
the temple treasury and the collection of the tithe from all
registered Jews then lay in the hands of the high-priestly
family during the period following the downfall of
Zerubbabel about 518 B. C. The next oldest group of seal
impressions on jar-handles bears a pentagram, between
whose apices are five letters, forming the name
Shelemyau, i. e., Shelemiah. The meaning of this stamp
becomes clear from Neh. 13: 10 ff., where Nehemiah
describes his reform of the corrupt administration of the
temple treasury, which he placed under the
superintendence of the priest Shelemiah.124 About 432 B.
C. the latter superseded the house of Jedaiah, which had
controlled the temple income for nearly ninety years, if
we are correct. No fewer than twenty-one of these stamps
were found on the Ophel hill of Jerusalem by Duncan.
The third and latest of the seals of the temple fiscus is
represented by the stamped jar-handles bearing the words
Yah or Yahu, which have been found in great numbers at
Jerusalem, Jericho, and Tell en-Nasbeh.125 These stamps
are all inscribed in Aramaic instead of Hebrew
characters, and must cover a long period, to judge from
the variation in the forms of the letters. We may date
them provisionally between 400 and 300 B. c., and
suppose that they extend down to the beginning of the
Ptolemaic period.
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 175
While it would be hazardous to draw far-reaching
historical conclusions from the sequence of these three
groups of stamped jar-handles, a few deductions are in
order. In the first place, it is interesting to note that the
two Hebrew groups present transitional forms of the
characters, reminding us of seventh and sixth century
script on the one hand and of somewhat later Aramaic
forms on the other. Hebrew gives way to Aramaic about
400 B. C., just when one would expect, since Nehemiah
and Malachi are the last books of the Bible to be written
in good classical Hebrew, and both date from the second
half of the fifth century. The work of the Chronicler
already shows a strong Aramaic influence; the use of
Hebrew for literary purposes was being abandoned in his
time. Later Hebrew books, where not merely editions of
older works, show an increasingly artificial style, with
more and more Aramaic elements. Another interesting
fact is that about 400 B. C. we find the use of family and
personal names given up, and replaced by the name of
God in the abbreviated forms Yahu and Yah. This can
hardly be separated from the increasingly theocratic
character of the Jewish community in Judaea. Nehemiah
was the last layman to interfere effectively with the
priestly constitution, by virtue of the powers invested in
him by the Persian crown. Then came the work of the
priest Ezra, also with royal authorization, in organizing
the theocracy, with the high-priest at the head, in the
form which it maintained until the time of the Seleucids.
In concluding our brief sketch of the light shed by
archaeology on certain Biblical problems, we wish to
emphasize again that it does not support either the
extreme radical school of Biblical scholars or the 176
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY ultra-
conservative wing. On the whole, the work of moderate
critics, such as S. R. Driver, one of the few great Biblical
scholars of modern times, is not so greatly affected by it.
Driver, with his clear insight into the nature of
philological and historical method, seldom expressed
himself positively except where the evidence justified it.
His views with regard to the date of books and
documents seem rarely to be proved absolutely wrong.
Even he, however, came, for lack of evidence, to natural,
but wholly false results concerning the nature of the
patriarchal stories of Genesis. Together with all the other
members and friends of the Wellhausen school, he also
adopted false premises for his analysis of the historical
evolution of Mosaic religion, and arrived very logically at
erroneous results. It was, accordingly, the acceptance of
untrue philosophical and historical premises that misled
Biblical scholars, since no amount of logical reasoning
and sound method can compensate for the lack of a solid
foundation. Conservative scholars are, we believe,
entirely justified in their vigorous denunciation of all
efforts to prove the existence of fraudulent invention and
deliberate forgery in the Bible. They are equally within
their rights in objecting most emphatically to the
introduction of a spurious mythology and a thinly veiled
paganism into the Bible. We must remember that myths
and folklore were early made vehicles of instruction by
the use of the allegorical method, both in Egypt and in
Mesopotamia, and that we have ample reason to interpret
such stories as the Fall allegorically; we must consider
the nature of poetic imagery and the transmission of oral
history, as described above, and must bear in mind that
these are all
BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY i77
processes characteristic of the human mind. Many
ancient ideas regarding the Bible, and many more modern
views concerning it must be abandoned, but the progress
of archaeological investigation will make the Bible stand
out more and more brightly against the background of the
ancient Orient.
 APPENDIX

NOTES ON CHAPTER I

1
For the launching of the Oriental Institute and its original
programme see Breasted, Oriental Institute Communications
No. I (=AJSL 38, 233-328) ; for its subsequent development see
especially the General Circulars. The most important
publications for our purpose appear in two series: Oriental
Institute Communications, a series of preliminary reports, in
popular form; Oriental Institute Publications, which include
definitive publications. There is now a steady stream of publica-
tions, all characterized by the highest standards of method and
precision.
2
For the work of the Schools see the Bulletin, a quarterly
describing in concise and popular fashion what the Schools are
doing in the archaeological field; it is edited by the writer. More
elaborate preliminary reports, as well as some definitive
publications, appear in the Annual (Vol. I, 1920). Other series of
publications have been launched, but do not, so far, touch our field
so closely. For information one should write to Professor J. A.
Montgomery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (president
of the Schools), or to Professor Mary I. Hussey, Mount Holyoke
College, South Hadley, Mass. (A dollar sent to Miss Hussey will
secure a year’s subscription to the Bulletin.) The present director
of the School in Jerusalem is Professor Millar Burrows.
3
See Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount
Sinai and Arabia Petrcea, 3 vols., London, 1841, with the
supplementary volume embodying his later explorations and
researches, Later Biblical Researches in
U8

Palestine and the Adjacent Regions, London, 1856. For an

account of his life see Life, Writings, and Character of
Edward Robinson, New York, 1863.
4
It is quite true that great progress has been made since
Robinson’s day in the study of topography. A still more critical
study of tradition (recognizing its inherent importance), a great
advance in the field of comparative linguistics (with a vastly better
comprehension of the limits, as well as of the possibilities, of the
comparison of ancient and modern place-names), and above all the
unprecedented development of our knowledge of archaeology
(especially the use of pottery in order to date ancient sites) have led
to very much more precise results. The principal work in this field
since the War has been done by Professor Albrecht Alt of the
University of Leipzig and by the writer. Our pupils are now carrying
this work on with very good results; one may single out for special
notice in this connection the admirable work of a young Finnish
scholar, Dr. Aapeli Saarisalo.
5
For Robertson Smith’s views see the ninth edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, s. v. Jerusalem, while the views of
Conder are expressed in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, the
Encyclopaedia Biblica, etc., and Wilson’s may be found
conveniently in the second edition of Smith’s Dictionary of the
Bible.
6
Driver, Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible,
London, 1909. This book may still be read with great profit. Driver’s
topographical articles are mostly better than those of Wilson and
Conder.
7
The only archaeological explorer of this generation who merits
special attention is Guerin, whose travels and publications were
both more extensive and more elaborate than those of Robinson,
but whose critical method was incomparably inferior, and who,
consequently, made very few identifications which have stood the
test of time; see his Description de la Palestine in eight
volumes, Paris, 1868-1889.
8
For a full and delightfully written account of his detection and
exposure of the Shapira forgeries, including both the Moabite
antiquities and the archetype of Deuteronomy, see Clermont-
Ganneau, Les fraudes archeologiques en Palestine, Paris,
1885. The standpoint of the Shapira family has been vividly
described by the daughter of the forger, Mme. Harry, in her
charming autobiographical romance,La petite fille de
Jerusalem, translated into English as The Little Daughter of
Jerusalem. Clermont-Ganneau appears here as Merle-Vanneau.
9
Later Lord Kitchener of Khartum, commander-in- chief of the
British army in the World War.
10
For the organization and history of the Palestine Exploration
Fund see especially the Quarterly Statement of the Fund, which
has appeared continuously since the year 1869. In recent years the
quarterly has been supplemented by a somewhat irregularly
appearing Annual. The numerous other publications of the Fund
are listed in every Quarterly Statement.
11
See The Survey of Western Palestine, three vols.,
London, 1881-3 (with a number of supplementary volumes of
name-lists, geology, etc.) ; Jerusalem, 1884; Surveyof Eastern
Palestine, 1889 (only one volume appeared, since the work of the
survey was broken off before completion). The map of Western
Palestine appeared in twenty-six sheets, on the scale of an inch to
the mile.
12
For full bibliography of the literature on this subject see
Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeital- ter
Schiirer,
Jesu Christi, Vol. Ill, 4th ed., (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 170-72.
13
Cf. Wilson and Warren, The Recovery of Jerusalem,
London, 1871.
14
Some of the most important tells of Palestine were omitted
from the maps of the Survey for the same reason.
16
See ZDPV 4-5 (1881-2).
16
Tell el Hesy, London, 1891, as well as the
See Petrie,
reports in the QuarterlyStatement for 1890 and 1891.
17
See Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, London, 1894.
18
Conder, QS 1891, 69 and elsewhere; Nowack, Lehr- buch
der hebrdischen Archdologie, Vol. I, p. 265 (1894).
19
Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine during
1898-1900, London, 1902.
20
Cf. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, Vol. 69, p. 442 f.
21
See Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer, 3 vols.,
London, 1912.
22
Cf. Vincent, RB 1923, 552 ff.; 1924, 161 ff.
23
The mem in this tablet is archaic, while the kaf is already
formed like the classical Hebrew type. A date in the second half of
the tenth century is probable.
24
Sellin, Tell Ta'annek, Vienna, 1904 (Denkschriften d.
Kais. Akad. d. IKiss., Phil.-hist. Klasse, Vol. 50, part 4) ;
Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Ta'annek, Vienna, 1906
{Denkschriften, Vol. 52, part 3).
25
For this reading of the name see JPOS 4, 140, n. 3, and
Gustavs, ZDPV 1928, 196 f. (=Die Personennamen in den
Tontafeln von Tell Ta'annek, p. 45 f.).
26
JPOS 2, 132, on which see Gustavs, op. cit., p. 57 f. The
reason for my failure to publish my promised article on these
tablets is that when I was in Constantinople for the purpose of
collating them, there happened to be no responsible museum
official there to give me the requisite permission.
27
See especially Gustavs, op.
cit.
28
Schumacher and Steuernagel, Tell el-Mutesellim, Vol. I,
Leipzig, 1908; Watzinger, Vol. II, 1929.
29
See Kautzsch, Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des
Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, 1904, p. 2.
30
Sellin and Watzinger, Jericho, Leipzig, 1913.
31
On the chronology of Jericho see Vincent, RB 1930,
403 ff., with full reference to the discussions by Albright and
Watzinger. The writer proposes to discuss the subject elsewhere,
after the publication of Garstang’s results. The first campaign of the
latter, in 1930, produced further confirmation of the high
chronology, against the low, which is maintained by Vincent. Gar-
stang himself believes that Jericho fell about 1400 B. C. —a date
which appears rather too low to the writer.
 Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon, The Harvard Excavations at
32

Samaria, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1924.

33
It is the merit of Professor D. G. Lyon to have projected the
excavation and to have interested Mr. Schiff in it.
34
Usually identified with Jeroboam II. An identification with
another monarch of the house of Jehu is also possible.
See Albright, JPOS 5, 28-31, 38-43; Dussaud, Samarie au
35

temps d’Achab ( =Syria, Vols. 6-7, especially 7, p. 9 ff.) ; Noth,

ZDPV 50, 219-40.
36
The dialect of the Mesha stone used to be considered as a sort
of border speech, showing a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Arabic elements. The discovery of the ostraca of Samaria, as well as
of the Amarna tablets and of the archaic Phoenician inscriptions of
Byblos have showed that it is a purely Canaanite (Hebrew) dialect,
and that it is virtually identical (so far as our material permits us to
say) with the language of the Northern Kingdom and of Phoenicia.
The only certain divergence is in the plural ending, which was nun
instead of mem in Moabite, just as in Amorite, whereas in the other
Canaanite dialects we find mem.
37
This date (formerly given as 722) is now estab
lished by Begrich. However, it remains, of course, in the Assyrian
calendar year so the modification is
very slight indeed.
38
See below, p. 170.
39
Work was recommenced at Samaria in the spring of 1931,
under the joint auspices of Harvard University, the Palestine
Exploration Fund, and the Hebrew University, and under the
direction of Mr. J. W. Crowfoot.
40
See Vincent, Jerusalem sous terre, London, 1911.
41
But not so far back as is often assumed; see Jewish
Quarterly Review, 1930, p. 165 f., and Gjerstad, Studies on
Prehistoric Cyprus, p. 302 f.
42
The excavations carried on at Beth-shemesh by Mackenzie
and at Shechem by Sellin will be described below; for the work
accomplished by Weill at the southern end of the Davidic Jerusalem
(Ophel) see his book La cite de David, Paris, 1920.
 43
For the work of the Ecole Biblique see the principal
publication, Revue Biblique, now in its fortieth year. This journal
contains more important archaeological information than any other
periodical dealing with the Bible or with Palestine.
44
The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, which
has appeared continuously since 1921, is a strictly international
publication, with articles in various languages. It is edited by Canon
H. Danby, D.D., St. George’s Close, Jerusalem, to whom
subscriptions may be sent ($5.00 a year).
45
The publications of the Hebrew University in the field of
Palestine archaeology are becoming more and more important,
owing to the activity of E. L. Sukenik, Field Archaeologist of the
University.
46
See the Paldstinajahrbuch, which gives annual accounts
of the valuable work carried on before the War by Dalman, and
since by Alt.
47
The British School is now combined with the Palestine
Exploration Fund in a joint organization. Its director, Mr. J. W.
Crowfoot, is now in charge of the work of the Fund in Palestine, and
the news of the School appears in the Quarterly Statement
instead of in a separate organ, the Bulletin of the British
School of Archeology, as was the case under Garstang’s
direction, for the first years after the War. Close relations have
always subsisted between the British and the American Schools in
Jerusalem; the former housed our library for a number of years,
and our institution now houses the library of the British School.
48
For the work of this school, under the direction of Pere A.
Mallon, see Biblica, the organ of the Pontifical Biblical Institute at
Rome.
49
Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1926, col. 1913 f.
50
See Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth-
shan, Philadelphia, 1930; Fitzgerald, The Pottery, 1930;
numerous articles by Fisher and Rowe in the Museum Journal
since 1922.
51
For the god Makal see Vincent, RB 1928, 512 ff.; Rowe,
Beth-shan, p. 14 f. On the closely related god Resheph see
Albright, Haupt Anniversary Volume, p. 143 ff. The writer has
a paper on these deities in preparation.
62
See Rowe, Beth-shan, p. 15 f. and frontispiece.
63
See Rowe, Beth-shan, p. 11 f., with references to his more
extended descriptions elsewhere.
54
Cf. I Sam. 1:24-5, referred to by Rowe.
55
Rowe, Beth-shan, p. 41 f., and Fitzgerald, Pottery, p. 17,
are mistaken in supposing that the acropolis was occupied during
the period from 1000 B. C. to the Greek period. Whereas quantities
of pottery belonging to Early Iron I have been found (only a
selection of the pottery of this period found in two campaigns is
given by Fitzgerald), nothing from Early Iron II and III (tenth to
fourth centuries) has so far been discovered. The vases mentioned
by Fitzgerald are quite certainly from Early Iron I.
56
Rowe, Beth-shan, p. 33 ff.
57
Rowe, Beth-shan, p. 29; see below, p. 206, n. 8.
58
Cf. ZAW 1929, 9, n. 3.
89
See the preliminary reports by Fisher, Or. Inst. Comm., No.
4, 1929, and by Guy, No. 9, 1931.
 APPENDIX I85
60
The contrast between the masonry of Solomon’s time found
at Megiddo and Gezer, and that of Saul’s time, found by the writer
at Tell el-Ful (see below), is very great, and illustrates the
corresponding transformation of Israelite culture very well indeed.
61
See Archiv fur Orientforschung, Vol. 6, p. 219 f.
62
See the writer’s Excavations at Gibeah of Benjamin,
1924 {Annual, Vol. 4).
63
See Bulletin, No. 14, p. 2 ff.; Annual, Vol. 6, p. 56 ff.;
Mallon, Biblica, Vol. 5, p. 413 ff.; Kyle, Explorations in
Sodom, New York, 1928. The complete account of the results of
our expedition has not yet been published.
64
The writer hopes to publish an account of this important site,
with plans and photographs, in the near future.
65
Power’s attempt to locate Sodom and Gomorrah at the
northern end of the Dead Sea is quite unconvincing; see Abel, RB
1931, pp. 380-400.
66
See below, p. 134.
67
See below, loc. cit.
68
On this question see Hertzberg, ZAW 1929, 161 ff. Hertzberg
and I have since reached the definite conclusion that Tell en-
Nasbeh represents Ataroth Archi (cf. Bulletin, No. 35, 4). The
question will be discussed fully in another place.
68
See Bade, Excavations at Tell en-Nasbeh 1926 and 1927,
Berkeley, 1928; QS 1930, p. 8 ff.
70
Cf. Annual, Vol. 4, p. 92.
71
See Grant, Beth Shemesh, Haverford, 1929; Annual, Vol.
9, p. 1 ff.
72
See Annuals I and II of the Palestine Exploration Fund
(1911-13).
73
Some earlier pottery has been found, carrying us back to the
transition from Early to Middle Bronze (not before about 2000 B.
C.), but the oldest stratified remains so far found do not antedate
the latter part of the Middle Bronze. Mackenzie supposed that the
town was destroyed by Sennacherib, but since then a number of
stamped jar-handles of the latest pre-exilic type (seventh century B.
C.) have been found, both by Grant and by members of the
American School in walking over the mound, so that we must date
its destruction at the time of the last Chaldaean invasion.
74
See RB 1930, 401 f. The writer is absolutely convinced of the
early date (not later than the fourteenth century B. C.), because of
the circumstances of discovery alone. Dussaud and others are
mistaken in lowering its date by several centuries. The archaic
mem (which is absolutely certain) alone forces us to go back before
900 B. c., while the prostrate het forms a connecting link with the
Sinai alphabet. The form of the aleph here found is in reality older
than that of the Akhiram inscription, while there are a number of
curious letters, which cannot yet be identified.
75
See the excavators’ reports in QS 1921-2.
70
Among them we may mention soundings at Harbadj, Tell ‘Amr
and Tell el-Qassis in Galilee, all under Gar- stang’s direction,
soundings in Gaza, and excavations by Garstang at Dor (Tanturah).
On the results see especially Bulletin of the British School of
Archeology, Nos. 2 and 4.
77
See Annual IV and V of the Palestine Exploration Fund, by
Macalister, Duncan, Crowfoot, and Fitzgerald (cf. the writer’s
review, Jewish Quarterly Review, 1930, pp. 163-8).
78
For Weill’s work before the War see La cite de David,
Paris, 1920; his work since the War, which led to singularly few
interesting discoveries, has not yet been published.
79
Against the view that this revetment is “ Jebusite ” see
Jewish Quarterly Review, 1930, p. 167 f.
80
See now Alt, Das Taltor von Jerusalem (Paldstina-
i186 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 187

jahrbuch, 1928, p. 74 ff.), and the writer’s observation, loc. cit.

81
See Flinders Petrie, Gerar, London, 1928. The chronology of
this publication is not reliable, since the distinguished author
follows the practice of working out his chronology without
reference to the results of any other scholar; cf. ZAW 1929, 9, n. 2,
and Galling, ZAW 1929, 242-50.
82
Beth-Pelet I, London, 1930, and preliminary
See Petrie,
reports in Ancient Egypt since 1928. The chronology of this site is
relatively satisfactory back to the end of the Middle Bronze. The
valuable correlation between Egyptian and Palestinian scarab
chronology which he establishes leads to the most fanciful results in
absolute dating, since Petrie still adheres to his theory of an
abnormally high duration of the Hyksos sway in Egypt—a
conception which flagrantly contradicts the evidence from other
sites of Palestine.
83
The only consonants of the two names which correspond are
the first; Hebrew p becomes / in Arabic. The others are entirely
distinct, and the vocalization of the two names is absolutely
different. Vowels are just as important as consonants, though
subject, of course, to other laws.
84
The identification often suggested of Sharuhen with Tell esh-
Sheri‘ah northeast of Tell el-Far‘ah is quite impossible. In favour of
our identification is the fact that Sharuhen was an important
Hyksos center, and was occupied in the time of Shishak, facts which
are both equally true of Tell el-Far‘ah.
85
See JSOR 10, 245-54; Petrie, Ancient Egypt, 1929, p. 1 ff.;
Albright, Archiv fur Orientforschung, Vol. 6, p. 219, n. 8.
86
See the account of the first campaign in OS 1930, 123 ff’
87
See Sellin’s preliminary reports in the Anzeiger of the
Vienna Academy of Sciences, 1914, and in ZDPV
 De geschiedenis der stad Sichem en
1926-8; see also Bohl,
de opgravingen aldaar, Amsterdam, 1926 (Mededeel- ingen
d. Kon. Ak. w. Wet., afd. Let., 62B, No. 1).
88
See Bohl, ZDPV 49 (1926), 321 ff.
89
See especially H. Kjaer, The Excavation of Shiloh,
Jerusalem, 1930 (=JPOS 1930, 87-174).
90
Cf. below, p. 159 f.
91
See Kohl and Watzinger, Antike Synagogen in Galilee
a, Leipzig, 1916.
92
See Orfali, Capharnaum et ses mines, Paris, 1922. Pere
Orfali was killed in an automobile accident, April, 1926, while
returning from his beloved Capernaum to attend the opening
session of the international congress of archaeologists. He was the
first Oriental to distinguish himself as a Palestinian archseologist.
93
This view is shared by the three leading authorities,
Watzinger, Vincent, and Sukenik. The latter is preparing an
elaborate work on the synagogues, which will greatly advance our
knowledge of them.
84
RB 1921, 442 ff., 579 ff. The definitive publication has not yet
appeared, though ready for press.
95
Sukenik’s publication of the Beth Alpha synagogue is in press.
Cf. provisionally the account by McCown in the Bulletin, No. 37, p.
16 f. (cuts on pp. 13-19).
96
Cf. McCown, Bulletin, No. 37, p. 15 f.
97
Sukenik has also made some very important discoveries of
inscribed ossuaries. (bone-boxes) from the last century of the
Second Temple (cir. 30 B. c-70 A. D.) in the vicinity of Jerusalem;
a monograph on the ossuaries is in preparation. In collaboration
with L. A. Mayer he has also traced the line of the third wall of
Jerusalem, begun by Herod Agrippa and completed by the Jewish
rebels between 66 and 70 A. D. ; see their book, The Third Wall
of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 1930.
98
The expedition of the Due de Luynes in 1864 was the first to
call attention to the existence of flint artifacts in Syria and
Palestine, and the Abbe Moretain then
 188 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 189
began his collection of
artifacts from the environs of Bethlehem. See the historical sketch
given by Karge, Rephaim, Paderborn, 1917, p. 10 ff.
99
See Zumoffen, La Phenicie avant les Pheniciens,
Beyrouth, 1900.
100
Karge, op. cit.
101
See Turville-Petre, Researches in Prehistoric Galilee,
London, 1927.
102
See her preliminary reports in QS since 1928.
103
Neuville has also made important discoveries in other fields
of prehistory; cf. JPOS 10, 64 ff., 193 ff.
104
See Biblica, 1930, p. 3 ff.
105
Cf. already Annual, Vol. 6, p. 66 ff.
106
For accurate and comprehensive surveys of the field of
Palestinian archaeology, nothing in any language can rival the work
of P. Thomsen; see especially his two compact handbooks,
Kompendium der paldstinischen Altertumskunde
(Tubingen, 1913), and his Palastina und seine Kultur (Leipzig,
1931). In his Pal'dstina- Literatur (4 vols., Leipzig, 1911-1927),
the student will find an exhaustive bibliography of recent literature.
 NOTES ON CHAPTER II

'‘■Bulletin, No. 15, p. 4 f.

2
The first two campaigns were conducted as joint expeditions
of Xenia Theological Seminary and the American School in
Jerusalem, while the third campaign, following the union of Xenia
with the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary of the United
Presbyterian Church, was a joint excavation of the Pittsburgh-
Xenia Theological Seminary and the American School. Dr. Kyle
acted throughout as president of the staff of the expedition, while
the writer directed the work.
3
For the results of the first campaign see provisionally
Bulletin, No. 23, pp. 2-14; Kyle, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1926, pp.
378-402; and Kyle’s letters to the Sunday School Times during'
the summer of 1926.
4
See Bulletin, No. 31, pp. 1-11; T^WN 1929, pp. 1-17; Kyle,
Bibliotheca Sacra, 1928, pp. 381-408; Kyle’s letters to the
Sunday School Tinies during the summer of 1928.
5
See Bulletin, No. 39, pp. 1-10; a paper in JPOS, 1931; Kyle,
Bibliotheca Sacra, 1930, pp. 382-404; letters to the Sunday
School Times, as before.
6
Besides the two heads of the expedition, there were Professor
J. L. Kelso of Xenia and two students of the same institution, the
Revs. Lee and Webster.
7
The practicality and manual skill of young Americans is of the
greatest utility in an excavation. In the long run, however, interest
tends to flag unless supported by a sound training, either in
architecture and museum craft, or in philological and historical
science. This is one reason why so few Americans continue in
archaeological work.
8
The surveyor, William Gad, and the foremen, men with years
of excavating experience, were of great as-
 190 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 191
sistance to us, especially since the writer’s health was rather poor.
9
The foreign members of the staff, besides the heads, were Dr.
Aage Schmidt, Professor Robert Montgomery of Pittsburgh (now
president of Tarkio College, Mo.), and Dr. Paul Culley, a graduate of
Johns Hopkins Medical School. Dr. Schmidt’s devoted assistance
was of the greatest value, and some of our best results are due to
him. Dr. Culley ran an informal clinic for the Arabs of the
neighbourhood, and helped to create a friendly atmosphere—
besides, of course, assisting with the archaeological work.
10
Besides the heads there were Professor O. R. Sellers of the
Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Chicago, Professor J. L. Kelso
of the Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Dr. Aage Schmidt, Dr. Nelson
Glueck of Hebrew Union College, and Dr. A. Saarisalo of the
University of Helsinki. All seven foreign members of the staff paid
their own travelling expenses from their respective homes to
Palestine and back—a record which it would be hard to beat, since
all of them are men of extremely modest means.
11
Labib Sorial, William Gad, and Bulos el-A‘radj, the first two
of whom are Egyptians, and the third a Palestinian. Labib took
charge of the contour work and William of the detail planning.
12
The family name is Abu ‘Arqub, a kunyah derived from a
word meaning “ tendon of Achilles,” but is itself of obscure origin.
The collective is ‘Ardqbeh, and the current form is a double
collective.
13
The Gerza papyri have thrown new light on the history and
name of Adora; see Abel, RB 1924, 566.
14
Cf. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. HI,
p. 3 f-
15
See Haddad, JPOS I, 209 ff.
16
This name is not a collective, but is the kunyah of the
founder of the clan, literally “ Father of Drachmas.”
 APPENDIX 191

The same kunyah was common in the Middle Ages, and was borne
by several eminent Arab scholars.
17
There is some doubt about the tribal affiliation, and I have
heard other views expressed.
18
Cf. Gen. 34; 12 ff.; the narratives of the Conquest in Joshua
and Judges.
19
The writer plans to publish this material elsewhere.
20
The weight is 4.565 kilograms.
21
Cf. ZAW 1929, 2 and note 2.
22
For the exact definition and delimitation of these terms see
G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land.
23
The name is probably derived from the name of the Mamluk
sultan al-Malik az-Zahir Baibars (1260-77 A. D.) or al-Malik az-
Zahir Barquq (1382-98), the first of whom made a profound
impression on Palestine by his activity in building and
administration, as illustrated by numerous places called ez-
Zaheriyeh.
24
The name is purely Arabic and throws no light on the
identification.
25
The Arabic name means “ Mother of Pomegranates ”
(Rumman =Heb. rimmon).
26
The name ‘Aitun is unquestionably of Hebrew origin, and
may represent an Etam, despite the different ending. However, the
identification sometimes given with the Etam of Simeon is
topographically impossible.
27
Cf. ZAW 1929, 3.
28
Barsama and Barsimid are both common Aramaic names;
for the change of b to m by dissimilation cf. Ma'albekk for
Ba'albekk (Baalbek) and Khirbet Mekika for Khirbet Beit
Kika, (a ruin northwest of Jerusalem), the latter parallel being
particularly close (Beit *Birsim > Beit Mirsim).
29
For the name, its original form (Kiriath-sopher), and
parallels from the Bronze Age see ZAW I929> 2> note 3.
30
Cf. Proceedings of the American Philosophical So-
ciety, Vol. 69 (1930), p. 448 f.
31
See Jos. 10:38 f.; 15 : 13 ff.; Jud. 1:10 ff.; 3:9 ff. The ascription
of this achievement to Joshua in one passage illustrates the general
tendency to simplify the complicated story of the Conquest, and to
 192 APPENDIX
connect all its phases with the great Israelite hero Joshua.
32
Klein has supposed that the statement of the seventh century
(A. D.) liturgical poet Kalir that his home was in Kiriath-sepher is
to be taken literally, but other Jewish scholars consider it as
metaphorical, referring to the “ Book-city,” i. e., probably Tiberias.
33
The identification of Gerar with Tell Djemmeh is almost
entirely based on similar topographical and archaeological
evidence; the onomastic argument from the name of the
neighbouring Byzantine village ruin now called Khirbet Umm ed-
Djerar, i. e., “ Mother of Jars,” is not convincing. I have no doubt
whatever that the identification is correct.
34
Against this combination see, e. g., ZAW 1929, 3, note 2.
35
Against this identification see Annual, Vols. II/III, pp. 1-17.
36
See above, p. 187, note 83. It should be added that the Arabic
name is not only wholly different from the Hebrew, but has a
perfectly good Arabic meaning, “ Mound of the Eminence (Ridge).”
37
See above, p. 185, note 68.
38
Even to-day the timber returns if it is given half a chance. The
conifers have, however, been almost extirpated, and require some
cultivation to give them a renewed start. After a grove of conifers
has once been started, there is no further difficulty; it grows and ex -
tends without human aid.
39
For the time and nature of the Amorite occupation see JPOS
8, 250 ff.
40
See above, p. 48, and below, p. 134.
41
See below, p. 136.
42
See Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, pp. 18-43. For the
same period elsewhere in Palestine cf. the full discussion of EB
pottery by Karge, Rephaim, pp. 223-293. Most previous accounts
confuse EB pottery with MB, and often fail to distinguish Neolithic
from MB.
43
For this type of pottery see Sellin and Watzinger, Jericho, p.
108 ff. Essentially the same kind of incised decoration appears
contemporaneously in Egypt; e. g., Brunton, Qau and Badari
III (1930), plates XII-XVIII.
44
See for the fullest account of this pottery Junker, Der
nubische Ur sprung der sogenannten Tell el- Jahudiye-
 APPENDIX 193

Vasen (Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, Phil.-hist. KI., Sitzb., 198,

3, 1921). Junker’s thesis is, however, quite certainly wrong; the
Syrian origin of this pottery is established (cf. Bonnet, Zeitschrift
fur AJgyptische Sprache, Vol. 59, p. 119 ff.).
45
Cf. Bulletin, No. 29, p. 4 ff.; No. 35, pp. 3, 10; Karge,
Rephaim, pp. 352-79. Karge had a tendency to antedate these
remains, which probably are not older than the end of the third
millennium, and may in part descend to the middle of the second.
46
Gezer, Vol. I, pp. 111-141; III, plates xxxii-xlii; for an
elaborate archseological discussion see Vincent, RB 1924, 161-185.
The latter gave the limits 1800-1600 for these tombs, and the
predominance of elaborate curvilinear design on the scarabs,
together with the diversity of graceful shapes in pottery, seems to
point clearly to the Thirteenth Dynasty, i. e., the eighteenth century
B. C. Our G pottery naturally contains a very high proportion of
crude pottery, since it comes from a house, not from a tomb.
47
See the description, with photograph, Bulletin, No. 31, pp. 3,
6.
48
See below, p. 95 f.
48
Grant, Annual, Vol. 9, p. 2; Beth Shemesh, p. 35.
50
The Mexican earth-goddess is represented with a serpent
crawling into her vulva; for similar representations in India see
Penzer, The Ocean of Story, Vol. II, p. 307, n. 2; cf. also AJSL
36, 272, above.
51
See the illustrations AOTB II, Nos. 271, 276.
52
See the discussion of serpent-goddesses AJ SL 36, 271 fl.
53
See Evans, Palace of Minos, passim.
54
SeeBulletin, No. 39, pp. 6, 9 (illustration). The set will be
discussed fully by the writer in the first volume of Mizraim.
55
The game is almost certainly of Egyptian origin, and did not
come from the east, as supposed by Ranke, JEgypten und
cegyptisches Leben im Altertum, 2nd ed., p. 291.
56
The skeletal material was carefully examined and identified
by Dr. Paul Culley, who was a member of our staff during the
second campaign.
57
Two exactly similar scarabs, with the same inscription, are
 194 APPENDIX
published by Hall, Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Nos. 1811-
2 (p. 181).
58
For similar scarabs see Hall, op. cit., Nos. 2214-5, 2217 (pp.
221-2), which not only agree in showing the king smiting an Asiatic
prisoner with the Egyptian khepesh sword, but also in placing the
uueser sign behind the Pharaoh; cf. also Petrie, Scarabs and
Cylinders, plate XL, Nos. 24-5.
58
See Bulletin, No. 39, pp. 5, 7 (with illustrations).
60
See AOTB II, No. 399.
61
For the position flanking the pedestal or throne cf. the throne
of Solomon, the representation of Atargatis on a pedestal flanked by
two lions (AOTB II, No. 277), etc., etc.
62
Illustrations of the lion-deity standing on a lion or seated on a
throne supported by two lions are extremely numerous; one may
refer to various representations of Atargatis, to Qadesh on the lion,
to Hadad of Sham’al standing on a pedestal supported by two lions,
to the unidentified Syrian god (Ba'al-hamman ?) shown standing on
a lion in a stele from the Persian period found in Egypt (AOTB II,
No. 354), to the god of Marathus (AOTB II, No. 307), etc., etc.
63
See Vincent, RB 1928, 540 ff.
6
Haupt Anniversary Volume, p. 143 ff.,
*For Resheph see
and Cook, The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of
Archccology, London, 1930, p. 112 ff. The writer hopes to discuss
the gods Rashap (Resheph), Makal, and Ginai elsewhere in the near
future.
The view that she was primarily a chthonic deity is quite
compatible with the undoubted fact that she was identified at a very
early date with Astarte, the Queen of Heaven. The writer expects to
resume his study of 'Anat elsewhere.
88
See, e. g., AOTB II, Nos. 287, 291.
87
AOTB II, Nos. 270, 272; Cook, Religion of Ancient
Palestine, plate XXIV, Nos. 2-3.
88
The masculine form Qadesh, “ sacred,” shows perhaps that
the name is to be treated as a noun (cf. the equally masculine form
‘Ashlar, Ishtar) rather than as an adjective. In Biblical Hebrew
the masculine form means " gallus," while the feminine qedeshah
 APPENDIX 195

(Assyr. qadishtu) means “ female courtesan.” It is also possible

that the masculine was used for both male and female prostitutes in
other Canaanite dialects.
88
Cf. AJSL 41, 83: the Syrian goddesses ‘Anat and ‘Ashtart are
called tn an Egyptian text, “ the great goddesses who conceive but
do not bear.”
70
See ZAW 1929, 8.
71
The writer expects to discuss this subject fully elsewhere.
72
Cf., e. g., Sidney Smith, Early History of Assyria,
London, 1928, p. 233; Weissbach, Babylonische Miscel- len,
Leipzig, 1903, frontispiece and pp. 16-7; King, Babylonian
Boundary Stones, plates 21, 54,82, etc., Bachmann, Felsreliefs
in Assyrien, Leipzig, 1927, passim (Bachmann
 196 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 197
oddly enough regards
the feather crown as a calyx). For Mitanni see the forthcoming
publication of Baron von Oppenheim.
73
Banks, Bismya, p. 268.
74
Cf. Holland, American Journal of Archeology, 1929, p.
173 fl.; Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, plates 30 and 31, etc.
78
Cf. Bossert in Altorientalische Studien Bruno Meissner
gewidmet, Vol. II, p. 281.
76
In illustration of this movement, we may call attention to the
fact that such completely Anatolian divinities as Kubaba and
Kumarbis were worshipped in Mesopotamia in the early part of the
first millennium. The writer expects to discuss this question
elsewhere.
77
See Peet, Cemeteries of Abydos II, plate 14. One figurine
has the circle of dots around the navel, together with the same
bushy locks found in our figurine, and consequently is of the same
type; another has the dots, but may not have the bushy locks.
78
See Mrs. Van Buren, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and
Assyria, New Haven, 1930, p. xlii ff.
78
For translations see Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna- Tafeln,
Leipzig, 1915, Nos. 279-290, 328-335, with Weber’s commentary.
80
Among the names of chieftains of these towns are good
Canaanite (or Amorite) names like Zimrida (my protection is
Adda), Yabni-ilu, Shipti-ba'al, Hurrian like Pabu ( ?), Indo-
Iranian like Shuivardata.
81
There is now a strong tendency to date the Conquest about
1400 a. c. The writer's view is that the Conquest began in the time of
the Patriarchs, as described in Genesis 34, 48: 22, etc., and
continued intermittently during the subsequent period, with one
phase in the late sixteenth or early fifteenth century (Jericho and
Ai), and a culminating triumph after the establishment of the
Israelite confederation by Moses, in the second half of the
thirteenth century; cf. Bulletin, No. 35, p. 3 ff., and ZAW 1929, 11
ff.
82
The best illustration of this is that the finest palaces and the
richest tombs of the Bronze Age are unquestionably those of the
Middle Bronze, contemporary with the Hyksos period and the
preceding Thirteenth Dynasty (cir. 1800-1600 B. c.).
83
Bribery was generally rampant among Egyptian officials, as is
illustrated by the long series of court documents relative to the
tomb robberies of the Twentieth Dynasty. How bad conditions were
in the Amarna age is shown by the drastic legislation enacted by
Haremhab immediately after this period, in order to curb dishonest
tax-collectors, inspectors, and judges, and to prevent depredations
by royal officials and soldiers; see the translation by Breasted,
Ancient Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 22-33.
84
The local governors, belonging to the native nobility, were
under the supervision of Egyptian inspectors or commissioners
(rabisuti), who had mercenary garrisons, consisting of Nubians,
Arabs, and men of various Mediterranean lands. Both the officials
and the mercenaries plundered the natives, though it must be
confessed that they were frequently deprived of their due income
because of corruption elsewhere in the Egyptian organization; cf.
Knudtzon, Nos. 122-3, 287, etc.
85
Cf. Knudtzon, No. 324 (Widia of Ashkelon furnishes supplies
for the troops) ; Thureau-Dangin, Revue d’ Assyriologie, Vol.
19, p. 100 f. (a letter from the king to Indaruda of Achshaph,
ordering supplies for the troops).
88
Cf. Thureau-Dangin, ibid., p. 97 f., and Alt, Pal'as-
tinajahrbuch, Vol. 20, p. 34 ff.
8T
Pella and Rehob near Beth-shan were noted for the
manufacture of chariots {Pap. Anastasi 4, 16, 11 and 17, 3; cf.
Max Muller, Asien und Europa, p. 153).
88
See especially the letters from the prince of Jerusalem and
from Shuwardata published by Knudtzon and
 198 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 199
Thureau-Dangin. On the Khabiru see below, p. 206, note 8.
89
Except, of course, in Issachar and other Israelite districts
under foreign domination; see Alt, loc. cit.
90
Contrast I Kings 5:13 ff. and 11:28 with 9:20 ff.
91
On this material see Annual, Vol. 4, p. 1.
92
It is true that there is still a lack of agreement among scholars
about the designation of this pottery as “ Philistine,” but in the
writer’s opinion there can no longer be any doubt that it is correct.
It is found only in the Philistine plain and the Shephelah of Judah
(very rarely in Egypt and in more remote sites in southern and
central Palestine); it does not appear before the twelfth century,
when it comes in abruptly. Finally, its closest analogies elsewhere
are not in Palestine, but in Greece.
93
Petrie’s chronology is relatively excellent, but absolutely in
need of a drastic revision downward; see above, p. 187, note 81.
94
Cf. ZAW 1929, 9 f.
95
See Annual, Vol. 4, pp. 11 f., 21 f.
96
The earliest date for this occurrence is now 924 B. C. (cf.
JPOS 5, 37, n. 40, where my acceptance of Schnabel’s view was
premature), while the latest is 917 (ZAW 1929, 9, note 3). According
to the most recent and most detailed study, that of Begrich, we
should fix this date at 922 B. C.
(Die Chronologie der Konige
von Israel und Juda, 1929, p. 155).
97
The Excavation of Armageddon, p. 12 ff.
98
For the best treatment of this Gezer inscription prior to the
discovery of the Byblos inscriptions see Lidzbarski, Ephemeris,
Vol. II, p. 36 ff. For the latest comparative table of alphabets see
Dunand, RB 39, 328.
99
Cf., e. g., Jud. 6: 2-5; I Sam. 30:1 ff.
109
See Sellin, ZDPV 49, 232 f.; Fisher, The Excavation of
Armageddon, p. 68.
101
On the subject of these altars of incense, including one from
Nineveh, see JPOS 9, 52 f.
102
See Wiener, The Altars of the Old Testament, Leipzig,
1927; Lohr, Das Rducheropfer im Alten Testament, eine
archdologische Untersuchung, Halle, 1927. Cf. the review
JPOS 9, 50-54.
103
Prolegomena, 3rd ed., p. 66 ff.; see below, p. 161.
104
See JPOS 9, 53.
105
It may be observed that most archaeological discoveries will
have a similar two-edged effect on current critical discussion.
Archaeology is no respecter of persons.
106
The combination of the two elements, the dove and the
function of the object, are quite sufficient to prove a relation,
despite the divergence of the types otherwise.
107
See Roscher, Lexicon der griechischen und romis-
chen Mythologie, Vol. I, p. 409.
108
Specimens of this type are found in the Cyprian collections
in the British Museum, in the Metropolitan Museum, in Berlin, etc.
All are of the Late Bronze Age.
109
For a recent discussion of this type, with references to the
literature, see Valentin Muller, Fruhe Plastik in Griechenland
und Porderasien, Augsburg, 1929, p. 146 f.
110
On the association of the dove with various goddesses see
especially Gressmann, Archiv fur Religions- wissenschaft,
Vol. 20, pp. 332-59.
111
For the nature of this symbolism see the observation in
Archiv filr Orientforschung, Vol. 5, p. 119 b.
112
The center of the cult of the dove-goddess was precisely at
Ashkelon, less than two days’ journey from Tell Beit Mirsim; see
especially Gressmann, loc. cit.
113
As has been observed above, Petrie, Gerar, passim, has
placed the introduction of iron into everyday use more than a
century too early. Iron did not come into general use in Egypt until
the Bubastite period, some two centuries later than in Palestine.
 APPENDIX 200
114
Cf. Annual, Vol. 4, p. 17.
115
The exploitation of the iron mines of Lebanon by the
Philistines probably began about this time; by the sixth century it
was in full activity.
116
On the mushkhusshu (formerly read sirrusshu') see
AOTB, II, Nos. 370-1, and Gressmann’s commentary.
117
AOTB, II, No. 392.
118
AOTB, II, p. 107.
118
Cf. the parallels given by Ward and Weber, in their
publications of seal cylinders. The best illustration is the famous
seal of Urzana king of Muzazir, cir. 720 B. c.; for the clearest
photograph and the best treatment of the seal see Thureau-Dangin,
Huitieme campagne de Sargon, Paris, 1910, p. xii.
120
See, for example, the house from Tell es-Safi, believed by
Bliss and Macalister to represent a high-place (Excavations in
Palestine, London, 1902, p. 31 ff. and fig. 9, which gives an
isometric view of the house). In 1924, as well as at the beginning of
our 1926 campaign, we thought the same of our first house of this
type at Tell Beit Mirsim.
121
For the fundamental distinction between the Herd- haus
and the Hitrdenhaus or Hofhaus see Andrae, Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung, 1927, col. 1033 ff. and his book Das
Gotteshaus und die Urformen des Bauens im Alten
Orient, Berlin, 1930. In this brilliant work Andrae has laid the
foundations of a new science of the historical architecture of the
ancient Orient; no archaeologist can afford to remain ignorant of
his methods and his results.
122
See Guy, New Light from Armageddon, Chicago, I931-
123
It may be observed in this connection that, after a certain
eclipse, the fundamental importance of the cultural role played by
the Phoenicians is being increasingly recognized. While they were
not originators, they were most skilful adapters, and the artistic
blend from many sources, which they developed to a remarkable
degree of technical perfection, was diffused by their traders through
the entire basin of the Mediterranean, in many parts of which it
became the source of new national arts. The best treatment of the
subject is still that of Poulsen, Der Orient und die
friihgriechische Kunst, Leipzig, 1912.
124
Contrast the excessively low opinion of living and sanitary
conditions expressed by Macalister, Gezer, Vol. I, pp. 65-6. Nor
should we forget that the ancient Hebrews possessed many hygienic
regulations or sanitary taboos which have been given up by the
Christians and Moslems of the modern Near East.
125
The weight is 4.565 kilograms, which would yield one-four-
hundredth as much, or 11.4 grams, for one shekel. This is virtually
identical with the results of Viedebantt (ZDPV 45, 1 ff.), which yield
an average of 11.44 for a shekel, while Macalister, Gezer, Vol. II, p.
278 ff. obtains 11 grams (owing to having too many light weights
reckoned in). Cf. also the discussion by Benzinger, Archdologie,
3rd ed., p. 196 f.
126
This suggestion was made to me by Dr. C. S. Fisher.
127
See Valentin Muller, Friihe Plastik in Griechen- land
und Vorderasien, Augsburg, 1929, pp. 149 ff., 162 ff. He dates its
appearance in Cyprus from not later than the end of the eleventh
century B. C. down to the seventh century. The similar Rhodian
form is derived from the Cyprian, and begins later (p. 65 f.). For
illustrations see AOTB II, No. 290 (from Beth-shemesh) and Cook,
Religion, plate XXVI (from Gezer).
128
It must be remembered that down to the early fifth century
there were only local differences between “ Phoenician ” and Greek
art; it was not until then that the technical execution of the latter
forged ahead.
129
The diameter averages about nine centimeters (four inches).
For examples from other sites see, e. g., Gezer, Vol. II, p. 272;
Petrie, Gerar, plate xlii, 10 and p. 19b.
 202 APPENDIX
APPENDIX 203
Since they are apparently not found at all in Egypt it would seem
that they must come from Phoenicia originally.
130
The Hebrew name for this substance is puk (used, e. g., by
Jezebel, II Kings 9:30), but it was also called kuhl, written gukhlu
in cuneiform (Haupt, Orientalis- tische Literatur2eitung,
1913, col. 492 f.) ; Hezekiah included it in his tribute to Sennacherib
(B. C. 701).
131
For the identification of stibium, Egyptian mes- demet, see
Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials, London, 1926, p. 146 f.
Sulphide of lead was also used in Egypt. Extensive deposits of
manganese occur in Midian and Edom; it was presumably from
there that Hezekiah secured his oxide of manganese (if this
identification is correct in this case).
132
Cf. Erman-Ranke, YEgypten, p. 257.
133
Ibid., p. 258.
134
Our hearty thanks are due to Dean J. A. Huffman of Marion,
Indiana, who was particularly successful in rescuing inscribed
potsherds.
135
These inscriptions read: [T’Jpin?, NUM,
on[£].
233
See JPOS 5, 45
137
JPOS 5, 52; Alt, Palastinajahrbuch, Vol. 25, p. 86 f.
138
JPOS 5, 53. It is true, of course, that the flying roll of
Zechariah was apparently spread open, not rolled up, but this is no
serious objection to the explanation. The object on the seals is
cylindrical, with both ends bulging, like a roll.
139
p? i- e., le-Elyaqim na'ar Yaukin (as
the name Yokin was then pronounced). For a philological
discussion see provisionally ZAW 1929, 16, and my forthcoming
article in JBL.
140
For details see the forthcoming paper in JBL, already
referred to. It may be said here that the use of the terms ‘ebed, “
servant,” and na'ar, “ steward,” on important seals is restricted to
royal officials; see for ‘ebed the full discussions by Clermont-
Ganneau, Recueil d’archeologie orientale, Vol. I, p. 33 ff.;
Kautzsch, Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen
Palastina- Vereins, 1904, p. 1 ff.; Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, Vol.
II, p. 142 ff.; Torrey, Annual, Vol. II/III, p. 104 f. All these eminent
scholars agree absolutely in this view of the use of ‘ebed on seals
from Palestine. The word na‘ar is employed primarily of any
youth, then of a personal attendant, and finally of a steward who is
placed over someone’s property or estate; cf. II Kings 4: 12, 5:20,
Ruth 2:15, etc. The clearest case is that of Ziba (II Sam. 9:9, 16:1, 19:
18), who is called the “ steward (nd ar) of Saul ” and the “ steward
of the house of Saul.” Even after Saul’s death Ziba appears in this
capacity, and after Meribaal (Mephibosheth) receives the
usufruct of the estate, it continues to be administered by Ziba. The
importance of the latter is illustrated by the statement that he had
fifteen sons and twenty slaves. It may be supposed that Eliakim was
the intendant in charge of the personal (crown) property of
Joiachin, and that he remained in this capacity after the exile of the
latter. Our seals can hardly date from the three months of Joiachin’s
actual reign, during the siege of Jerusalem.
141
II Kings 24:8 ff., Jer. 13: 18 f., etc.
142
Joiachin’s return was confidently expected by the people: Jer.
28: 1-4; cf. Jer. 24. The exiles in Babylonia continued to date by his
regnal years: Ezek. 1:2, II Kings 25:27, etc. The dynasty was
continued in his line, though none of his descendants ever occupied
a position of importance in Judah except Sheshbazzar (Sanabassar)
and Zerubbabel.
NOTES ON CHAPTER III
1
See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 3rd ed., p. 331.
2
The change is particularly noticeable in Germany, where the
growing opposition to Wellhausenism, though generally with full
recognition of the importance of Wellhausen’s own contribution,
centers around the extremely influential school of Kittel. The latter
gave expression to his point of view regarding Wellhausenism in the
following pungent words, spoken in his address at the first German
Alttestamentlertag which was held at Leipzig in 1921 (ZAW 1921,
86): “ Es fehlte dem Gebaude das Fundament, und es fehlten den
 204 APPENDIX
Baumeis- tern die Massstabe,” i. e., The structure (of the Well-
hausen school) lacked a foundation, and the builders were without
measuring rods.
3
Sayce and Hommel are neither strictly conservative, as is
sometimes supposed; their views depart far enough at times from
traditional lines. Both are characterized by an originality which
generally overshoots the mark, so that very few of their
innumerable observations have stood the test of time. Winckler
represents an entirely different point of view. He was the real
founder of the astral-mythological or pan-Babylonian school, once
very influential, but now almost extinct; Alfred Jeremias is the only
active living exponent of it. Winckler, however, possessed marked
philosophical ability, and he was the first to understand the nature
of the oral transmission of history, and to recognize that it is quite
possible for a given element to be history and folklore at the same
time.
4
This brochure is the expanded form of his article in the new
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. I, P- 59 f-
5
Op. cit., p. 73.
6
Beit Feddjar is the village nearest the site of Tekoa, the
home of Amos. It is interesting to note that a similar environment
forced Amos to spend part of the year abroad as a hired labourer.
7
There is no reason to doubt the common view that the Kenites
(Qenim from qain, qen, “smith”) were travelling coppersmiths,
especially since their original home was in Sinai and Midian, where
copper mines had been worked from the earliest times. While in
some respects analogous to the modern gypsies (Nawar or Zutt) of
Palestine, as well as to the Sleib in Arabia (see especially Werner
Pieper, Le Monde Orientale, Vol. 17 [1923], pp. 1-75), the social
position of the Kenites was undoubtedly much superior. The smith
enjoyed a much greater prestige then than now.
8
The Khabiru problem grows more complicated all the time.
The material has been discussed recently by Jirku, Die
Wanderungen der Hebrder, Leipzig, 1924, and by Landsberger,
Kleinasiatische Forschungen, Vol. 1, pp. 321-34 (1929), among
others. The writer’s views are developed JBL 43, 389-92, and JAOS
48, 183-5 > he agrees, quite independently, with Landsberger’s view
that the term Khabiru means “ condottiere, condottieri.” It is now
probable that the word is an appellative, like its synonym
khabbatu, “ raider, bandit,” as maintained by Landsberger. The
way in which the Khabiru are described in the Amarna letters
makes it probable that the same people are referred to in the broken
Sethos stele of Beth-shan, line 10, where the name is spelled
‘Apiru, written with determinatives meaning “ foreign warriors.”
Since the cuneiform orthography Kha-BI-ru may just as well be
read Khapiru and Canaanite ‘ain is regularly transcribed kh in
the Amarna tablets, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the
true form of the name is ‘Apiru. Hebrew ‘Eber, for ‘Ibr, ‘Ipr
(which is derived from ‘Apir in the same way that late Canaanite
milk, “king,” is derived from older malik, “prince”) is then
presumably a specifically Hebrew form with partial assimilation, as
in the word hopshi, “ peasant freeholder,” for Canaanite (awiZ)
khubshi, “ peasant (bound to the soil),” etc. The relation between
the collective ‘Ibr and the gentilic ‘Ibri is exactly that between
khubshu and hopshi. The sense “ condottiere ” was early lost, and
has left no trace in the classical Hebrew use of the name. Khabiru
names mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions belong to several
languages, and there is no reason to believe that the designation
was then peculiar to a single ethnic group. The form ‘Apiru, if
correct, suggests a Canaanite or Amorite origin, and the name may
have belonged originally (i. e., in very early times) to some nomadic
group like the Midianite tribe of the same name (Gen. 25:4). The
writer expects to discuss this complicated subject elsewhere at
length.
8
While the German excavations have not yet disclosed the
building level of MB I, sherds from this period have been found in
abundance in the lowest stratum. Shechem is mentioned in an
Egyptian inscription of the nineteenth century B. C. (JPOS 8, 226
f.; 233).
10
See Bulletin, No. 29, p. 10.
11
The pottery of et-Tell (Ai) covers the latter part of EB, all MB
(apparently), and the beginning of LB; cf. ZAW 1929, 12.
 206 APPENDIX
12
Cf. Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 21 (1930), 165 f.
13
See Petrie, Gerar, London, 1928, and Hempel, ZAW 1929,
63 f. Isolated Middle Bronze sherds were found in the excavation.
14
Middle Bronze sherds occur on the slopes of the mound.
15
Beersheba is not certain; the writer has not actually found
any pottery antedating the Early Iron on Tell el-Imshash. Yet the
mound is fairly high, and many of the mounds in the Negeb go back
to the Middle Bronze or earlier, so an MB date for Beersheba must
be considered probable.
16
On the hill er-Rumeideh, just above the town, are the
cyclopsean walls of an ancient town, which apparently was never
occupied, to judge from the absence of early pottery. The Bronze
Age mound lies presumably under the modern town in the valley.
17
In the story of Judah (Gen. 38), the town of Adul- lam is
mentioned. While this story may not belong to the primary
patriarchal cycle, it is curious to find that Adullam was also
occupied during the Age of the Patriarchs. On a visit to its site,
modern Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madhkur, with Garstang, in 1928, we
picked up several characteristic sherds from the Middle Bronze,
both MB I and MB II, at the foot of the mound.
18
See Geschichte des Altertums, Vol. II, 1, 2nd ed., p. 96.
19
See Bulletin, No. 14; Annual, Vol. VI, pp. 56 ff.; Mallon in
Biblica, Vol. 5, pp. 413-55. A very interesting popular account is
given by Kyle in his book Explorations at Sodom, New York,
1928. The full report of our expedition is in course of preparation.
20
See especially Biblica, 1929, p. 95 ff., 214 ff.; 1930, p. 3 ff.
21
For the latter see Father Power in Biblica, 1930, pp. 23-62.
The pottery from Tuleilat el-Ghassul is characteristically
chalcolithic; see above, p. 62. The site was abandoned at least a
thousand years before the time of Abraham.
22
See Annual, Vol. VI, p. 54, with the references there given to
the work of Schwobel and Schroetter.
23
This date is fixed absolutely by the pottery from the site, great
quantities of which have been examined by the writer on different
visits. The description of the pottery has been awaiting publication
for some time. It may be observed that the latest pottery from Bab
ed-Dra.‘ is older than the G period at Tell Beit Mirsim; the
settlement was abandoned early in our I—H period.
24
See the regular reports which have appeared in the
Bulletin, Nos. 18-42, and Annual, Vol. VI, pp. 75-92 (Chiera and
Speiser), Vol. X, 1-73 (Speiser); Kos- chaker, Neue
keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der el-Amarna-Zeit,
Leipzig, 1928. Three volumes of tablets from this site have been
published already by Chiera (besides two respectable collections
published by Con- tenau and by Gadd).
25
Gen. 15:2. It is generally recognized that the derivation of
Eliezer from Damascus is very doubtful, being probably an ancient
gloss explaining the obscure work mesheq.
26
See Revue d’ Assyriologie, Vol. 23 (1928), pp. 126-7, and
Speiser, Mesopotamian Origins, Philadelphia, 1930, p. 162.
27
It must be said that the antiquity of the tradition deriving
Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees is very doubtful, since there were
no Chaldaeans in Babylonia before the end of the second
millennium, while the LXX renders simply “ in the land of the
Chaldeans,” thus presupposing a slightly different consonantal text
in 11:28, 31. The absence of the name from the Greek translation of
the third century B. C. is in any case very remarkable. It has
sometimes been suggested that both the Hebrew and the Greek
texts reflect a different original, which may have referred to
Arphaxad (Gen. 11: 10 ff.), since the Hebrew consonants are nearly
the same.
28
The original form of the name is probably not Abiram (my
father is exalted), as maintained, e. g., by Gunkel in his
commentary, but Abamram (exalted with respect to father—see
JBL 37, 133, n. 21), a West- Semitic personal name found in a
cuneiform tablet of the nineteenth century B. C. from Babylonia
(Ungnad, Beitrdge zwr Assyriologie, Vol. 6, part 5, p. 60). The
old explanation of the name as simply Ab-ram, “ Exalted Father ”
(taken by Eduard Meyer to be a divine appellation) is certainly
wrong.
29
For these names see especially the discussion JBL 43, 385 ff.
Explanations were here offered for Peleg andReu as well as for
these three certain cases. The explanation offered for Reu is very
 208 APPENDIX
doubtful, but the identification of the name Peleg with the name of
the town of Phaliga on the Euphrates, just above the mouth of the
Khabur, is quite certain. The town in question is mentioned in a
parchment recently dug up at Dura- Europus, as Paliga (Baur and
Rostovtzeff, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, New Haven,
1931, pp. 206-7). The spelling Phalga occurs elsewhere. Identity of
name does not, in this case, prove that the patriarch Peleg is to be
connected directly with the town.
30
For Arphaxad cf. JBL 37, 134-6; 43, 388 f. While the
problem is in a way no less obscure than it was before, the
explanation of the shad ending as being the Accadian (Assyrian)
word for “ mountains, east ” is undoubtedly made easier by the
parallel Tirqan-shadi, “eastern Tirqan ” (JAOS 45, 222 f.),
especially since the latter place was in the vicinity of the probable
location of the former (supposed to be Arrapkha, modern Kirkuk
and its environs).
31
See Burrows, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
1925, p. 281 ff.
32
For the exact location of Mount Nizir (Nisir) see now Speiser,
Annual, Vol. VIII, p. 18 f. The identification of Nizir with the
impressive peak of Pir Omar Gudrun appears to be certain.
33
This is so well known that no discussion is needed; cf.
Olympus, Hara Berezaiti of the Iranians, Meru of the Indians, the
har mo‘ed of Ezekiel, etc. For the role played by Khashur-
Kashiari, the Masius mons of the Romans, cf. AJSL 35, 179 ff.
34
See AJSL 36, 280 ff.; 39, 15 ff. The place-name in question is
the well-known Beth-eden (Bit-adini) of the Upper Euphrates
valley. The difference in vocalization is, in any case, due to a later
differentiation.
35
See JSOR 1926, 263, endorsed by Gressmann, ZK\N 1926,
290.
36
Albright, JSOR 1926, 231-69; Bohl, Das Zeitalter
Abrahams (see above).
37
For this date see Thureau-Dangin, Revue d’Assyri-
ologie, Vol. 24, pp. 181-98 (1927). Weidner’s date, 1758 B. c., is
increasingly accepted by historians, and may well be correct. The
writer long opposed the low chronology of the First Dynasty of
Babylon, but now accepts it, though at the same time he lowers the
date for the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Babylon by a century
or more. He accepts to write again on this subject soon.
38
Die Personennamen in den Tontafeln
See Gustavs,
von Tell Ta'annek, Leipzig, 1928, pp. 57 f., 26 f. The writer’s
defense of the earlier date, awaited by Gustavs, has not appeared
because of his inability to collate the originals owing to the absence
of the responsible museum officials during a visit to Constantinople
for the purpose.
39
See Archiv
fur Orientf orschung, Vol. 6, p. 221 (1931) on
Yahuda, Die Sprache des Pentateuchs, p. 282, who first
suggested the combination.
40
Bulletin, No. 35, p. 10. For the original identification cf.
JSOR 10, 260, and Steuernagel, Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Paldstina-Vereins, 1925, p. 79.
41
Cf. also Jirku, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Pal'dstina-
Vereins, 1930, p. 151 f.
42
Bulletin, No. 35, p. 10 ff.
43
Bulletin, No. 14, 10; the writer hopes to publish a report on
the early temple discovered at Ader in the near future.
44
The importance of the copper deposits in Seir (Edom) was
discovered by Musil, and the ancient mines have been studied
recently by Blake and others, on behalf of the Transjordan
government. The copper and gold of Midian, and especially the
copper of Sinai (for which see Petrie, Researches in Sinai,
London, 1906) have long been known. Manganese occurs in large
quantities southeast of Edom. An engineer who was engaged in
studying the deposits of manganese in this region showed me a fine
scarab of the Saite period which he had picked up there (1930).
That the Egyptians were interested in finding sources of manganese
(mesdemef) is well known, but it was not suspected that they
secured it from this region. It was evidently from this region that
the Jewish king Hezekiah secured the manganese (kuhl) which he
gave as tribute to Sennacherib (see above, p. 203, n. 13°)-
45
Cf. Gunkel, Genesis, 4th ed., p. 438 f., with the references
 210 APPENDIX
there given to Spiegelberg’s discussions of the names.
46
The writer hopes to discuss this question in full elsewhere.
47
Ya‘qob-har see already
For the explanation of the name
har, “ mountain,” must be
JBL 37 (1918), p. 137, n. 24; the element
taken as a divine name like Sur, “ mountain,” and Shaddai, and
the name rendered “ Har protects.” The divine name in question
will be discussed elsewhere in the light of some very early West-
Semitic occurrences. As is well known, the name Jacob stands for
Ya‘qob-el, “ God protects.” The parallel Hyksos name ‘Anati-
har is like Biblical Hebrew "Antoti-yah, which means
approximately “ Yahweh is my providence.”
48
Scarabs and
For scarabs of Hiir, with his title, see Petrie,
Cylinders, plate xvii, BT-CE; the spelling Ha-al is naturally
wrong.
49
See especially Eduard Meyer, Geschichte, Vol. I, 3rd ed., p.
318 ff;
See Zeitschrift fur JEgyptische Sprache, Vol. 65 (1930),
50

pp. 85-9.
51
See, e. g., Bury in the Cambridge Ancient History, Vol.
II, p. 510 ff., and Eduard Meyer, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, 2nd ed., p.
288 ff.
52
See especially Wiist, Wiener Zeitschrift filr die Kunde
des Morgenlandes, Vol. 34 (1927), pp. 164-215.
53
See especially Burney, The Book of Judges; Haupt,
Studien zur semitischen Philologie (Wellhausen Fest-
schrift'), Giessen, 1914, p. 191 ff.; Albright. JPOS 2, 69 ff.;
Morgenstern, Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 9 (1918-9), P- 359
ff-
54
Sievers has gone even farther, attempting to scan entire prose
narratives as verse. However far-fetched his attempt may seem,
there can be no doubt that the discoverer of Schallanalyse possesses
a marvelous feeling for rhythm, which enables him to detect it even
when disguised.
55
Lohr has shown (Orientalistische Literaturzeitung,
1928, col. 923 ff.) that “rider” is entirely wrong; see also Albright,
Archiv filr Orientforschung, Vol. 6, p. 220.
 56
A satisfactory treatment of the Song of Balaam remains to be
given, though perhaps at present quite impossible. Mowinckel’s
effort (ZAW 1930, 233 ff.) cannot be considered successful, though
very much better than von Gall’s (Zusammensetzung der
Bileamperi- kope, Giessen, 1900). The latter, followed by others,
dates the end of the Balaam prophecies in the Greek period.
57
See Kittel, Geschichte, Vol. I (5-6th ed.), pp. 260, 34°-
58
Das Zeitalter Abrahams, Leipzig, 1930, pp. 1 ff., 31 ff.
59
The writer has long been convinced that the dates given by
the Wellhausen school (and a fortiori the dates of Sellin and Ed.
Konig) for the redaction in writing of J and E are too high—
considerably too high in the former case. A careful study of Genesis
X and other passages in the light of our present knowledge is
decisive in this respect. It was precisely the fall of Samaria that
aroused a greater interest in the past history of Israel among the
literary circles of Judah. J and E must follow the height of the
prophetic movement, not precede it.
60
Cf. Meyer, Geschichte, Vol. II, i, 2nd ed., p. 288 ff.
61
Yahuda’s attempt to prove a profound Egyptian influence on
(Die Sprache des Pentateuchs in ihren
the Pentateuch
Beziehungen zum ZBgyptischen, Berlin, 1929) is a complete
failure, despite some few correct and stimulating observations; see
the reviews by Spiegelberg and Bergstrasser, Zeitschrift fur
Semitistik, Vol. 7, 113-23; 8, 1-40, as well as by the writer in
Kirjath Sepher, Vol. 6 (1929), pp. 195-6 (Hebrew). A fanciful
attempt to establish the existence of an Egyptian stream of Hebrew
tradition has been made by Luria (ZAW, 1926, 94 ff.).
62
This view is now accepted by practically all Biblical
historians, both liberal and conservative. For the writer’s view cf.
provisionally ZAW 1929, 11 ff.; Bulletin, No. 35, 3 ff.
63
Cf. JBL 37, HI ff.; May, AJSL 47, 83 ff.
64
Cf. JPOS 1, 51 ff.
65
For the combination of historical and mythical elements in
Klio, Vol.
the story of Semiramis see especially Lehmann- Haupt,
15, p. 243 ff.; Die historische Semiramis und ihre Zeit,
Tubingen, 1910. Semiramis became more and more fused with
 212 APPENDIX
Ishtar, until all historical basis of the popular account of her life
vanished. Queen Stratonice, consort of Antiochus Soter, had nearly
the same posthumous experience more than five centuries later (cf.
JBL 37, 126 ff. and Archiv fur Orientforschung, 5, 230 f.).
66
See Wellhausen, Geschichte, 7th ed., p. 15 ff.
67
The best edition of the laws of Hammurabi is Kohler and
Ungnad, Hammurabi’s Gesetz, Leipzig, 1909 ff. The most recent
independent translation is given by Ebeling in AOTB I, 380-410.
For the latest and best comparative treatment of the Babylonian
laws, as well as of the Assyrian and Hittite legislation, see Edouard
Cuq, Etudes sur le droit babylonien, les lois assyriennes et
les lois hittites, Paris, 1929.
68
The latest and best detailed treatment is given by Ehelolf and
Koschaker, Ein altassyrisches Rechtsbuch, Berlin, 1922. The
most recent independent translation is that of Ebeling, AOTB I,
412-22.
69
See Zimmern and Friedrich, Hethitische Gesetze, Leipzig,
1922; Hrozny, Code hittite provenant de I’Asie Mineure,
Paris, 1922; Ebeling, AOTB I, 423-31.
70
Les origines cananeennes du sacrifice Israelite,
Paris, 1921. Cf. Lods, Elementsanciens et elements modernes
dans le rituel du sacrifice Israelite, in Revue d’Histoire et
de Philosophic Religieuses, Vol. 8 (1928), pp. 399 ff.
71
Cf. especially his book Das weltliche Recht im Alten
Testament, Gutersloh, 1927, and his paper Das israeli- tische
Jobeljahr in Reinhold Seeberg-Festschrift, Vol. II, p. 169 ff.
72
Despite the cumulative evidence, we still lack the material
from Phoenician sources to explain the Temple of Solomon in
detail. For some northern influences on the cult furnishings of the
Temple see JBL 39, p. 137 ff.
73
The reference to the bringing in of horses and chariots
becomes much more vivid in the light of recent discoveries at
Megiddo, described in chapter I. Chariots and horses were evidently
still looked upon with suspicion when the nucleus of Deuteronomy
was composed.
74
See Driver, Introduction, 6th ed., p. 97 f.
 75
The iron mines of Lebanon were operated in the time of
Nabonidus in the sixth century B. C., as we know from a tablet
published by Dougherty, Records from Erech, Time of
Nabonidus, New Haven, 1920, No. 168. That iron had been
previously exploited by the Phoenicians to whom Mount Lebanon
belonged may be considered as certain.
76
See especially Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy, 1924.
The question of Deuteronomy has recently been discussed in a
symposium by Bewer, Paton and Dahl, JBL 1928, 305-79.
77
Sellin and Noth (see his book Das System der zwolf
Stdmme Israels, 1930) maintain that Shechem possessed this
significance for Israel at an even earlier date. In view of the semi-
Canaanite character of Shechem until about 1100 (time of
Abimelech) this seems improbable.
78
The Book of the Covenant, Cincinnati,
See Morgenstern,
1928 (also in Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. V.).
79
JPOS 5, 20 ff.
80
Prolegomena, 3rd ed., pp. 40, 43; Geschichte, 7th ed., p.
50.
81
Geschichte, 7th ed., p. 50.
82
Cf. Benzinger, Archdologie,
3rd ed., p. 107, and Grant’s
forthcoming Beth-shemesh volume. The horizontal position of the
lights was retained.
83
Das System der zwolf Stdmme Israels,
See Noth,
Stuttgart, 1930,passim, and Alt, Die Staatenbildung der
Israeliten in Palastina, Leipzig, 1930, p. 10 ff.
84
In this connection attention should be called to the
instructive discussion of the tent-shrine in Israel, with particular
reference to Mizpah and Gibeon, by Hertz- berg, ZAW 1929,
especially pp. 166-77.
Cf. Haupt, Midian und Sinai, Zeitschrift der
85

Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 63 (1909),

p. 506 ff., especially p. 514.
86
See his exhaustive treatment of the theological sources of the
Aton conception in his Beitrdge zur Geschichte Amenophis’
IV (Nachrichten v. d. Kon. Ges. d. Wiss. z. Gottingen,
 214 APPENDIX
Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1921, 2), and his brilliant study of the origin
and development of the Heliopolitan theological system in his
Urgeschichte und diteste Religion der TF.gypter, Leipzig,
1930.
87
See JBL 43, 370 ff., where the writer failed to grasp the rather
obvious fact that this formula is actually the
 APPENDIX 217
full form of the divine
name, and that Yahweh is an abbreviation. Abbreviated divine
names were very common in the ancient Orient, especially among
the Sumerians, where we have, e. g., Damn for Du(a)mu-zid-
abzi<, Shagan for Ama-shagan-gub, etc. In Egypt personal
names were very greatly abbreviated in every-day use, and the same
is probably true of divine names. In Israel we also have
illustrations; the most striking are the names of the two “ pillars ”
before the Temple of Solomon, Jachin and Boaz, whose names the
writer has long considered abbreviations of some such formulae as “
He who creates what exists ” and “ In Him alone is strength (or
help).” It may be added that the numerous recent attempts to
explain Yah and Ydhu as older than Yahweh, and to cast doubt
on the latter pronunciation are absolutely without etymological or
historical parallel, whereas there are perfectly satisfactory
explanations of all the reduced forms. Besides the paper in JBL 43,
370 ff. see JBL 44, 158 ff., and especially JBL 46, 175 ff. In support
Yahweh see further Noth, Die
of the originality of the form
israelitischen Personennamen, Stuttgart, 1928, p. 101 ff.
88
See JBL 43, 378.
89
See Theo. Bauer, Die Ostkanaanaer, Leipzig, 1926,
especially p. 74 a, where he derives the element variously written
Yakhwi and Yawi correctly from Yahwi.
90
There is some doubt with regard to the latter name, for which
see Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names, ad voc.
91
For a translation of this text see Ebeling, AOTB 329-
92
For these gods see especially the oath formula of the treaty
between Suppiluliuma of Khatte and Mat- tiwaza of Mitanni.
93
This designation of the principal deity first appears in the
treaty between Suppiluliuma and Mattiwaza, in Accadian (Assyrian)
dress, as Bel shame.
216 APPENDIX
94
See AJSL 41, 84, 88, 90. On the principle of the use of a
plural of names of divinities in a collective sense see further Kittel,
Geschichte, Vol. I (5th and 6th ed.), P- 173-
95
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the prophetic
movement was a religious and social reformation, and not a creative
movement in the primary sense. It should rather be compared to
the Protestant reformation of the sixteenth century and the
corresponding Wahhabi movement in Islam. Like these movements
it eschewed elaboration of ritual; there was also a strongly marked
tendency to return to the simple life of the forefathers; cf. Flight’s
paper “The Nomadic Idea and Ideal in the Old Testament,” JBL 42,
158-226.
96
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen
See
Gesellschaft, 1927, p. xlvii.
97
So Torrey in his brilliant books Ezra Studies (Chicago,
1910) and The Second Isaiah (New York, 1928). Somewhat
similar views are held by Stanley Cook and Holscher. The writer
believes that Torrey’s reasoning is entirely sound, but that his
premises are wrong. He has shown that the Ezra memoirs are writ-
ten by the hand of the Chronicler; the writer maintains that Ezra
was the Chronicler (JBL 40, 104 ff.). He has proved convincingly
that Deutero-Isaiah and Trito- Isaiah are one, a conclusion which
leads him to date this work in the latter part of the fifth century,
and to excise references to Cyrus as glosses; the writer, with a dif-
ferent reconstruction of the history of the Restoration, would date
the work 540-522 B. C. (in round numbers).
98
This view has been ably defended by the Flemish scholar of
Louvain, A. Van Hoonacker, in numerous books and articles (the
latest, a reply to Kugler’s criticisms, is found in Revue Biblique,
1923, 481 ff.; 1924, 33 ff.), and is accepted by the Ecole Biblique in
Ezra and
Jerusalem. Other weighty protagonists are Batten,
Nehemiah {International Critical Commentary}, New York,
1913, and Bertholet, Die Bucher Esra und Nehemia, Tubingen,
1902, who follows Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels,
 APPENDIX 217
Heidelberg, 1895, p. 63 ff. The writer defended Van Hoonacker’s
view JBL 40, 104 ff., but now favours the date of Bertholet and
Kosters (cir. 430 B. C., about the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes
I). The chronological details in Ezra and Nehemiah are corrupt, and
Josephus’ data may be more correct—the latter’s statement of the
duration of the building of the wall of Jerusalem is certainly
preferable to that of our present Biblical text. It may be observed
that Rothstein and Hanel, in their new commentary in two volumes
on the First Book of Chronicles, date the first compilation of the
Chronicler’s work in the late fifth century, a date which seems to the
writer quite correct, though nearly half a century earlier than he
would have dared to place it before. This whole subject will be
discussed in detail elsewhere, in the light of new material.
99
See the historical sketch given JBL 40, 104 ff.
100
Sachau, Drei aramdische Papyrusurkunden aus
Elephantine, Berlin, 1907 (Abh. d. Kon. Preuss. Akad. d.
Wiss., Phil.-hist. Klasse).
101
Sachau, Aramdische Papyrus und Ostraka, Leipzig,
1911. The latest complete translation and commentary on the papyri
is given by Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.
C., Oxford, 1923.
102
See Causse, Les disperses d’Israel, Paris, 1929.
103
See Eduard Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine,
Leipzig, 1912, p. 70 ff.; Holscher, in Kautzsch, Heilige Schrift
des Alten Testaments, 4th ed., p. 525; Albright, loc. cit.
Torrey’s opposition to this view of the chronology (JBL 47, 380 ff.)
is due to the fact that he refuses to admit the authenticity of the
references to the high-priest Eliashib, Neh. 3:1; 13:28, and else-
where, which alone prove that Nehemiah was the contemporary of
the grandfather of Johanan, who was high-priest in the years 411
and 408. The Sanballat of Nehemiah must then be Sanballat I and
not Sanballat II, the contemporary of Alexander the Great. I was, of
course, quite wrong in trying to identify the father of Nicaso and
father-in-law of Manasseh with the father of Delaiah and Shelemiah
(JBL 40, 124), since Nicaso is, after all, a good Greek name, and the
circumstantial narrative of Josephus with regard to the relations
between her father and Alexander should not be treated so lightly.
104
This was stated emphatically by Eduard Meyer,
 218 APPENDIX

Entstehung des Judentums, pp. 70-1, and triumphantly

confirmed by him, Papyrusfund, pp. 96-7. Few scholars have
been so fortunate in having their brilliant historical deductions
confirmed by further archaeological discoveries as Eduard Meyer
was.
105
On this subject cf. AJSL 41, 92 ff.; 41, 283 ff.; 43, 233 ff. The
previous literature is referred to in these discussions; for a recent
independent study see Noth, Die israelitischen
Personennamen, p. 122 ff. The writer now has much additional
material in support of his thesis that the triad of divinities
worshipped by the Jews of Elephantine are properly abstract
hypostases of ultimately pagan origin.
106
So maintained by the writer, JBL 40, 113 ff. There are three
excellent recent studies of the language of the Aramaic of Ezra:
Baumgartner, 7.PDN 1927, 81 ff. (see especially p. 120 ff.); Rowley,
The Aramaic of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1929; Charles,
Daniel, Oxford, 1929. The best is still that of Baumgartner, in the
writer’s opinion. It may be observed that no certain conclusion can
be reached from the orthography of the consonants, and that
Rowley’s humorous remarks anent Daniel as a spelling reformer are
out of place. To the student of the ancient Orient it is a
commonplace that texts were being revised grammatically as well as
orthographically at all periods. That this process was carried on in
the Old Testament is absolutely certain, especially since we now
know that the language of the Northern Kingdom (i. e., of E and of
all portions of the Bible which originated there) was quite different
from Biblical Hebrew, and that the vowel-letters were all introduced
into the text after the Exile. It is quite certain that the Aramaic of
Ezra is rather later than that of the Elephantine papyri, and that the
Aramaic of Daniel is perceptibly later than the language of Ezra. But
the lingua franca of the Persian Empire most certainly did not
change materially between the end of the sixth century and the
early third century B. C. That the Aramaic of Daniel is later than
the middle of the third century is most improbable, and the
Aramaic of Ezra may perfectly well go back to the end of the fifth
 APPENDIX 219
century or the beginning of the fourth.
107
Entstehung des Judentums, p. 8 fl. The latest attempt to
prove the existence of a Greek word in Ezra is by Cowley, Journal
of Theological Studies, Vol. 30 (1929), p. 54 ft’., where Ar.
pithgama is very cleverly combined with Greek epitagma, “
order, command.” In a number of passages this meaning will not fit
at all. Cowley accuses all scholars of following blindly after
Gildemeister, who proposed a Persian etymology for this word in
1842, but he has surely overlooked the fact that Andreas (whose
judgment was certainly independent!) endorsed and restated this
Kurzgefasste Grammatik der
etymology in his note in Marti,
biblisch-armaischen Sprache, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1911, p. 87*b.
108
For a complete account of this discovery, with full literature,
and an elaborate discussion, see the remarkable article by Vincent,
Revue Biblique, 1920, pp. 161- 202.
109
Cf. Vincent, op. cit., and Gressmann, Die am-
monitischen Tobiaden, Berlin, 1921 (Sitz. Berl. Akad. I-
Tiss.).
110
That the Tobiad family became Persianized at an early
date is certain from the family name Hyrcanus (Persian
Vurkdniya, Vurkdn), borne by the last of the line, who died
about 175 B. C. For the Persian noble family of the Hyrcanians
(Vurkdniyan) see F. W. Konig in the Wiener Zeitschrift fur
die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 33, pp. 23-56. In a similar
way it may be proved that the house of Sanballat ascended into the
Assyrian period, the seventh century B. C. ; see JBL 40, in, n. 17.
111
For an exhaustive palaeographic study of the inscription see
Vincent, JPOS 3, 55 ff. Vincent dates it in the third century,
assigning it to Tobiah II. A date about 400 B. c., and an
identification with Tobiah I is perhaps equally possible, since the
Aramaic script changed but little during the Persian period.
112
Such confusion as exists is only in the minds of scholars who
have not followed the post-War development of Palestinian
ceramics, on which see chapter I.
 220 APPENDIX
113
We hope to secure additional evidence in the excavation of
the site of Beth-zur, which was occupied certainly both before and
after the Exile.
114
1 Esdras 5 : 2, 6. For the critical problems involved in this
passage see Bewer, AJSL 36, 18 ff., and Torrey, AJSL 37, 81 ff.
115
Geschichte, Vol. 3, 2, p. 319 ff.
116
Entstehung des Judentums, p. 94 ff.; Geschichte, Vol.
3, 2, p. 330 ff.
117
For Sheshbazzar-Sanabassar-Sinabusur and his identity with
Shenazzar see JBL 40, 108 ff. To be exact one should write
Shinabusur.
118
Op. cit., p. 468.
119
Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-cegyptischen Ge-
sellschaft, Vol. 35, 1, pp. 1, 5.
120
JPOS 6, 93 ff.
121
Hebrew my.
122
Hebrew rpyiF reading the yod twice.
123
Ezra 2:26 = Neh. 7:39. In the list of the priestly
 APPENDIX 223
orders given in I Chron. 24:7 ff. Jedaiah is second, the primacy
falling to Joiarib, the order of the Hasmonasan house, but the
change is due to a later scribe.
124
The spelling is strictly on a par with the
archaizing of the script. Irregularities in the appearance of the
characters in different impressions show that the archaism was
sometimes attempted without success, just as in the case of later
Jewish coins.
125
For the Yah and Yahu stamps see also Vincent, JPOS 3, 64.
It may be added that the writer has seen stamps with this
inscription which have been picked up at Jericho, so that the
number recorded by Sellin and Watzinger must be increased.
Additional stamps have been found by Garstang during his
excavations on the site.
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

CHAPTER I.
a. P. 16, n. 2 (p, 178). The jubilee number of the Bulletin
appeared in April, 1933, and the thirteenth volume of the Annual
(edited by Professors E, A. Speiser and Millar Burrows) is in press.
The executive secretary of the Schools is Mr. Lewis C. Moon, Box 25,
Bennett Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
President Julian Morgenstern of the Hebrew Union College in
Cincinnati is chairman of the committee on the School in
Jerusalem, while the writer is now director of the School again,
having resumed this post, which he had occupied for nine years,
after an intermission of four years, during which Dean C. C.
McCown, Prof. Millar Burrows, and Prof. Nelson Glueck have served
most successfully. It is a great pity that none of them has found it
possible to continue more than a year or two as director, since
continuity of tenure is essential to the full development of the
School.
b. P. 31, n. 31 (p. 181 f.). On the recent work at Jeri cho see
below, n. k.
c. P. 32, 1. 1 f. The first campaign was continued through the
spring and early summer, and was resumed for two months in the
fall of 1931. A second campaign was undertaken in the spring of
1932, and a third is being carried on this spring. The preliminary
reports of the director, Mr. J. W. Crowfoot, appear regularly in QS
(note especially 1931, 139-42; 1932, 63-70, 132-7; 1933, 7-26). The
expedition is organized as a joint undertaking of Harvard
(represented by Professors K. Lake and R. P. Blake), the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem (represented by Dr. E. L. Sukenik), the
British School of Archaeology, and the Palestine Exploration

222
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 223

Fund. While most of the excavation has been necessarily devoted to

the strata of the Roman, Byzantine, and mediaeval ages, most
important discoveries of the Israelite period have been made. Of
particular interest has been the unearthing of a large number of
pieces of exquisitely carved and inlaid ivory panels, used as inlay in
furniture. The ivories are dated both by their pottery context and by
their own execution to the ninth and eighth centuries B. C., i. e., to
the period of the Northern Kingdom. Many of them probably belong
to the first half of the ninth century, when Ahab beautified the city
with ivory palaces (cf. I Kings 22:39 and Amos 6:4). Their
Egyptianizing style is distinctly earlier than that of the ivories from
the second half of the ninth century which were discovered by
Thureau-Dangin, Barrois, Dunand, and Dossin at Arslan Tash in the
Euphrates Valley four years previously, and which are dated by an
inscription mentioning the Biblical Hazael, king of Syria (II Kings
8:7-15, etc.). A hieroglyphic inscription on one of them seems to
represent the Hebrew personal name Elyashub, which may
indicate that the panels were, at least in part, made by Israelite
artists—a revolutionary conclusion if correct. Another interesting
discovery has been a well-preserved line of Israelite acropolis wall,
built of large, beautifully cut stones, far superior to anything
hitherto found in Palestine from the time of the Monarchy. On
several stones found near the wall are carved proto-ionic capitals
like some already known from ninth-eighth century levels in
Megiddo and Shechem. Several ostraca, written in flowing Hebrew
chirography, have also been found.
d. P. 40 ff. Mr. FitzGerald has conducted two campaigns at
Beth-shan, one in the autumn and early winter of 1930-1, a second
in the autumn of 1931 (see QS, 1931, 59-70; 1932, 138-148). No very
sensational discoveries were made during these two campaigns,
which have been, however, very valuable in checking up previous
results and improving our knowledge of the chronology of the strata
already examined. The oldest strata so far reached, X B and A,
belong to the Middle Bronze, and perhaps carry us back into the
third millennium. Below them are probably many other levels,
which presumably go back into the Chalcolithic of the fourth
millennium. The level in which the thirteenth century stelse of
 224 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Sethos I and Ramesses II were found, called stratum V, proves to
date from the following century, since more objects bearing the
name of Ramesses III have been found in it, and the pottery is
prevailingly Early Iron I. At the northwest of the summit of the
mound FitzGerald discovered the remains of a gatetower and other
buildings of the Early Iron, constructed of limestone. Since all the
other buildings of stratum V hitherto discovered are of adobe brick,
and this stratum was destroyed by a great fire, it may well be that
these buildings belong to a partial rebuilding of the city by Solomon
(cf. I Kings 4: 12). With this would agree the fact that the masonry is
laid in a style closely resembling that of the so-called Solomonic
work at Megiddo.
e. P. 45 ff. The excavations at Megiddo have been continued
each year since 1931, on the same large scale and with the same
finished method which we have learned to associate with Guy’s
work. By far the most important discovery so far made is the great
watershaft of the Bronze Age, consisting of a large vertical shaft 120
feet deep, giving access at the bottom to a horizontal tunnel 165 feet
long, at the end of which is a cave and spring. This remark-able
engineering work of the Canaanites has been lined with concrete
and provided with electric lights, so that it may be visited with ease.
A great many less important discoveries have also been made,
including house-levels belonging to the first phase of Early Bronze,
in the first half of the third millennium. See provisionally the
reports in the American Journal of Archeology, especially Vol.
XXXVII (1933), p. 168 f.
f. P. 49, after 1. 5. The third excavation of the School in
Jerusalem was undertaken at Beth-zur (modern Khir- bet et-
Tubeiqah) in 1931, in collaboration with the Presbyterian
Theological Seminary of Chicago (formerly McCormick Theological
Seminary). Prof. O. R. Sellers of that institution acted as director,
while the writer served as archaeological adviser. The first campaign
was extremely successful. Strata belonging to the Middle Bronze, the
Early Iron I (period of the Judges), Early Iron II (period of the
Monarchy), and to the Persian-Hellenistic ages were examined over
a considerable area of the small site. Most remarkable were the
remains of the Maccabsean age, including a great fortress which had
been built and destroyed three times during the time of Judas,
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 225
Jonathan, and Simon. No fewer than 126 coins of Antiochus
Epiphanes, the redoubtable opponent of Judas, were recovered. Six
coins of the Persian period help to prove that the Jews actually used
the Attic drachma standard during the period of Nehe- miah and
Ezra, just as stated by the Chronicler, though this has often been
doubted in the past. Stamped jarhandles, inscribed weights, and
many other remains of the earlier periods of the history of the town
Bulletin, No. 43, pp. 2-13,
were discovered in the earlier levels. See
and Seller’s preliminary report, The Citadel of Beth-zur,
Philadelphia, 1933.
g. P. 49. In the spring and summer of 1932 Prof. Bade
conducted a fourth campaign, both longer and more successful than
his previous ones at this site. A remarkably well-built city-gate
belonging to the period of the Monarchy of Israel was unearthed.
Nothing from this period approaching it in beauty of construction
has yet been found, except at Samaria. The location of the gate, on
the northeast, points to a closer connection with the Northern
Kingdom than with the Southern. It is believed by Bade and Vincent
to have been destroyed in the eighth century, either by Sennacherib,
as Bade suggests, or possibly by Shalmaneser, as the writer would
very hesitantly conjecture. Among the objects found was an
exquisitely carved agate seal, bearing the inscription “ Belonging to
Jaazaniah, servant of the king ” (see Jer. 42: 1). Whether the site
represents Mizpah, with Bade, or Ataroth, with the writer, remains
uncertain. See the report in the American Journal of
Archeology, 1933, p. 166.
h. P. 49, below. Prof. Grant has conducted two additional
campaigns at Beth-shemesh, a fourth one in the spring of 1931 (cf.
QS 1931, 167 ff.) and a fifth, with the assistance of Alan Rowe, in the
spring of 1933. Nothing very remarkable was found in the fourth
campaign, but the fifth is proving very successful. He has begun the
definitive publication of the results of the first four campaigns; see
his Ain Sheins Excavations, Vols. I—II, Haverford, 1931-2.
i. P. 53, and n. 82 (p. 187). See now the valuable publication of
the more recent results by Starkey, Macdonald, and Harding, Beth-
pelet II, London, 1932. Cf. below, notes q and aa.
 226 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
j. P. 54 f. Petrie has now completed three campaigns at this
important early site (the name of which should be spelled Tell
el-'Adjfil [‘Ajul]). The results of the first two are described in his
books Gaza I and Gaza II (London, 1931-2), as well as in several
articles in Ancient Egypt. The writer discusses the chronology of
this site in his new study, The Bronze Age Pottery of the
Fourth Campaign at Tell Beit Mirsim (Annual, Vol. XIII,
1933), from which we may draw some of our conclusions, referring
the reader to it for details and for proof of our statements. The
earliest settlement yet found by Petrie at Tell el-‘Adjul belongs to the
transition from Early to Middle Bronze, about 2000 B. C., but this
period is so far represented almost exclusively by graves. A re-
markable sequence of five palace levels was discovered, the lowest
belonging to about 1800 B. c., the end of Dyn.
XII in Egypt, the next three, from between 1700 and 1500,
representing the Hyksos age, while the badly denuded remains of
the fifth date from the fifteenth century B, c. The city attained its
greatest importance during the Hyksos period, to which nearly
everything found on the site so far must be attributed. House walls
were found standing to the height of eight feet in some places. A
very interesting illustration of the important role then played by the
horse, which was introduced by the Hyksos into Egypt at that time,
is the fact that horses were sacrificed to the shades of their dead
masters and were buried in the tombs of the latter. According to
Petrie a remarkable tunnel, five hundred feet long, which belonged
to the system of fortifications, must be dated to pre-Hyksos times,
but this remains to be proved.
k. P. 55, above. Garstang has now completed his fourth
campaign at Jericho (Jan.-April, 1933), after two very successful
campaigns in 1931 and 1932, the results of which he has described
partially in his reports in QS, 1931, 186 ff., etc., and more fully in
Annals of Archeology and Anthropology (Liverpool), Vol.
XIX (1932), pp. 3 ff., 35 ff. During these four campaigns he has
divided his time between the town and the necropolis to the west,
which has yielded most extraordinary results. Several tombs have
been found, each containing several hundred vases, besides many
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 227
other objects. Scores of scarabs help to date the burials of the
Middle and Late Bronze Ages, contemporary with the Age of the
Patriarchs and the age immediately preceding the Israelite invasion.
The burials apparently come to an abrupt stop in the fifteenth
century B. C., in strict agreement, according to Garstang’s latest
reports, with the stratigraphical results of his excavations in the
town. The most flourishing period of the town’s history was during
the seventeenth and early sixteenth centuries, when the great stone
revetment was built. After this came a short and much less im-
portant occupation at the beginning of the Late Bronze, which was
closed by a destruction, accompanied by a great conflagration, about
1400 B. c. The town then lay deserted for centuries, until the Early
Iron Age. The demonstration that Jericho was destroyed by the
Israelites about 1400 B. c. is of very great value to the Biblical
historian, since it fixes the approximate date of the first period of
the Conquest proper; see n. z.
l. P. 55 f. The present views of the excavators may be found in a
paper by Sellin, ZAW, 1932, and a report by Welter,
Archaologischer Anzeiger, 1932, cols. 289- 316. Owing to
various circumstances, into which we need not enter, no excavations
have been undertaken since 1928 in the important site of Biblical
Shechem. We can only hope, in view of the discoveries which surely
await the excavator here, that work will be resumed soon under
competent guidance.
m. P. 57 f. In August, 1932, a third campaign was undertaken at
Shiloh, under the same auspices and direction as before. Unhappily,
Mr. H. Kjaer, director of the expedition, died a month later of illness
brought on by overwork, and the work has had to be postponed.
Prof. Nelson Glueck, then director of the American School, acted as
adviser to the Danish expedition, and identified the pottery found.
The most important single result of this brief campaign was to show
that Shiloh was occupied in the Late Bronze Age, i. e., during the
period of the Israelite Conquest, which was not previously known.
n. P. 59 and n. 95 (p. 188). Sukenik has now published his
The
report on the excavation of Beth Alpha, under the title,
Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha, Jerusalem, 1932. This book
contains not only a full and accurate account of this undertaking
 228 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
and its results, but also a valuable comparative study.
o. P. 60. Miss Garrod has continued her work near ‘Athlit, with
the assistance of Mr. T. D. McCown, who directed the work during
her absence in the spring of 1932. He was then so fortunate as to
discover a group of nine prehistoric human skeletons, all solidly
imbedded in limestone breccia. The skeletons, which belong to the
Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian), represent a variety of the
Neanderthal man which has been called Pafeean- thropus Palestinus
by Sir Arthur Keith. Miss Garrod and Mr. McCown have also made
very remarkable discoveries in the Natufian stratum. The small-
boned, longheaded Mediterranean race (physically akin to the
Semites) which then lived on the coast of Palestine, had reached the
stage of agriculture, but had not learned how to make pottery. In
1931 Mr. Turville-Petre excavated a cave near Mugharet el-Wad, and
found a new Mesolithic culture, with Capsian affinities, antedating
the Natufian.
p. P. 61 f. M. Neuville has continued his excavations in
prehistoric caves with increasing success. His most remarkable
discovery was made in 1932, when he found a series of animal
representations, probably from the Upper Palaeolithic, on the walls
of the cave of Umm Qatafa, southeast of Bethlehem. The pictures
were produced by carving, embossing, and even by the use of black
paint; they represent elephants, a hippopotamus, a rhinoceros, and
other animals, all of which then flourished in the Jordan Valley!
q. P. 62 and n. 104 (where the statement enclosed in brackets in
the first edition, describing the carved pebbles and incised
characters, has been omitted, since most of these objects have since
been shown to be native forgeries). The excavations at Tuleilat el-
Gbassul have been continued since 1930 by Mallon, first with the
collaboration of Neuville, and more recently with that of Pater
Koeppel. Preliminary reports have appeared regularly in Biblica;
cf. also Mallon’s article in Syria, 1932, 334-44. In support of a
higher chronology see the writer, Bulletin, Nos. 42, p. 14 and 48,
pp. 10-13, Annual, Vols. XII, § 5, and XIII, § 1 and n. 3. The most
remarkable discovery made by Mallon has been that of a series of
frescoes, representing a procession (?) and a bird, the latter being a
masterpiece of primitive naturalism. Four strata have so far been
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 229
distinguished, all belonging to the same age of culture, that of the
late Chalcolithic of the second half of the fourth millennium. The
same early culture has been discovered by Petrie and Macdonald in
the Wadi Ghazzeh (see Beth-pelct II, pp. 1-21, and Bulletin, No.
48, p. 11 f.), by Neuville in the cave of Umm Qatafa, as well as by
Miss Garrod, Turville-Petre, and others in caves in different parts of
Palestine.
r. P. 62, below, and n. 106 (p. 189). The student will now find a
comprehensive account of the results of archaeological work in
Palestine and Syria, properly related to the history of these lands, in
Olmstead’s splendid History of Palestine and Syria, New York,
1931. The superb illustrations will help the reader to visualize the
discoveries which Olmstead recounts. It goes without saying that
our knowledge has increased greatly since 1930, when the text of
Olmstead’s book was completed.

CHAPTER II.
s. P. 64, n. 3-5. For the results of the third campaign see also the
writer’s paper JPOS, 1931, 105-29. The first volume of the Tell Beit
Mirsim publication has now been published as Vol. XII of the
Annual (New Haven, 1932), under the title, The Pottery of the
First Three Campaigns. The second and third volumes will be
devoted to the Bronze and the Iron Ages, respectively. A
posthumous book by Dr. Kyle on Kiriath-sepher is in press; here
the reader will find a vivid popular account of our excavation and its
results.
t. P. 64, 11. 11-2. In June-August, 1932, we undertook our fourth
campaign at Tell Beit Mirsim, which is described briefly in the
writer’s preliminary report, Bulletin, No. 47, pp. 3-17, as well as by
Dr. Kyle in letters to the Sunday School Times. The
Tell
chronological results are described in the writer’s monograph,
Beit Mirsim I A: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth
Campaign, in Annual, Vol. XIII, 1933. Some of the more
important new discoveries will be mentioned in the following notes,
dealing with the successive strata.
 230 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
u. P. 78, middle. In our fourth campaign we devoted several
days to making numerous soundings in different parts of the village
of Zaheriyeh. We found conclusive evidence that no fortified town
existed here in antiquity, least of all in the Middle and Late Bronze
Ages (see Bulletin, No. 47, pp. 16-7).
v. P. 81, n. 34 (p. 193). The writer’s identification of Lachish
with the great mound of Tell ed-Duweir has been adopted by
Garstang, Joshua Judges, p. 173 f., and by Starkey, who began
excavation here in the winter of I932-3, in collaboration with Colt.
w. P. 84, n. 46 (p. 194). But see now Annual XII, 26, where it is
shown that Cave 28 II of Gezer is later in date than G. The
chronology of the G stratum has now been settled by comparison
with Byblos, Tell el- ‘Ajul, and other sites. The dates given in the text
are proved to be approximately correct. Since these dates depend on
Egyptian chronology, it may be said in this connection that the “ low
chronology,” proposed originally by Borchardt, on the basis of
calendaric and astronomical considerations, adopted later by Meyer
and Breasted, and accepted by practically every competent student,
has been established now beyond cavil, thanks to the recent
discovery by Borchardt of a stele giving the genealogy of a Memphite
priestly family through sixty generations, with references to the
contemporary Pharaoh in twenty-six cases. Eleven generations are
given between the death of Sesostris II (cir. 1845 B. C.) and the
accession of Amosis I (cir. 1575 B. c.); see provisionally Borchardt,
Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1932, pp. 618-22.
x. P. 85, middle. In our fourth campaign we found that the F
people had rebuilt the G wall along a protracted line, widening it
from 3.25 to 3.50 metres. The method of construction remained the
same.
y. P. 85, below. In the fourth campaign we were so fortunate as
to find very well preserved areas of stratum E, which is now much
better represented than D, aside from the palace of the latter. For a
full discussion of the most important new discoveries in this level
see Bulletin, No. 47, pp. 8-11, Annual, XIII, §§ 26-38. Stratum E
proves to have lasted longer than D, after all; two phases were
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 231
distinguished, and at least three floor-levels were found in one
place. E-, may be assigned to the period between cir. 1750 and
somewhere in the first half of the seventeenth century, while E 2 falls
in the middle of the century. D must then be dated between the
latter part of the seventeenth century and the middle of the
following one. In E, a rampart of terre pisee, like contemporary
Hyksos work elsewhere, though on a much smaller scale, was
constructed. Among the most interesting smaller finds may be
mentioned an exquisitely carved seal-cylinder, covered with mixed
Egyptian and Asiatic representations and with cuneiform and hiero-
glyphic characters—all unfortunately meaningless.
z. P. 99, n. 81 (p. 197 f.). Garstang’s latest discoveries at Jericho
(see above, n. k) have apparently established the fact that Jericho
fell into the hands of the Hebrews about 1400 B. C. The writer’s
most recent stratigraphical and typological studies of the pottery of
Ai (et-Tell) point to the same general period for its abandonment
(see now Annual, Vol. XIII, § 42). For a discussion of the historical
conclusions which might be derived from this date see Olmstead,
History of Palestine and Syria, and Garstang, Joshua
Judges. The writer’s view remains unchanged, except that the first
phase of the Conquest must be brought down more than a half-
century.
aa. P. 103, n. 92. For the evidence in favour of the Philistine
attribution of this pottery, and the chronological questions involved,
see now Annual, Vol. XII, §§ 72-5, 98, Vol. XIII, § 63, and
Bulletin, No. 48, p. 17. Starkey’s work at Tell el-Far‘ah has now
established the fact that Philistine influence did not begin to affect
the pottery of the hinterland until after about 1150 B. c. (the writer’s
chronology). The close of the Philistine period of influence is dated
too high by Petrie, who places it about 1050; the writer’s date of
about 1000 is now confirmed (cf. the references just cited).
bb. P. 105 f. For the evidence supporting our chronology see n.
aa, above.
cc. P. 106 and n. 96 (p. 199). For the chronology of Israel and
Judah in the tenth century see Annual, Vol. XII, § 74 (p. 57),
 232 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
including the reference to the latest monograph, by Mowinckel.
dd. P. 112. A photograph of the dragon sherd is now published in
Annual, Vol. XII, pl. 40: 1.
ee. P. 118, below. In our fourth campaign we examined the
substructure and foundations of the West Tower, and secured a
clear sequence of phases. No less than four phases, numbered alpha
to delta, with traces of a fifth, were discovered. The third tower,
gamma, belongs to the late eighth century, and was probably de-
stroyed by Sennacherib, who captured the fortified towns of Judah,
but did not destroy the houses of the inhabitants, and permitted
them to remain in their homes as Assyrian subjects (see Bulletin,
No. 47, pp. 12-5).
ff. P. 121, above. Our latest work, in the fourth campaign, has
proved conclusively that Fisher is right in considering the perforated
stones as pressure weights.
gg. P. 123 and n. 135 (p. 203). Facsimiles of these inscriptions are
now published in Annual, Vol. XII, p. 77, fig. 12.
hh. P. 125. A full discussion of the seal of Eliakim and its
historical corollaries will be found in the writer’s paper, “ The Seal of
Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah, with some
Observations on Ezekiel,” JBL LI, 77-106.

CHAPTER III.
ii. P. 132 and n. 8 (pp. 206-7). The problem of the Khabiru has
now entered a new stage, thanks to the admirable paper of Chiera
on the Khabiru in the Horite tablets of Nuzi (AJSL XLIX, 115-24).
Since the writer disagrees with his interpretation of the tablet
discussed on p. 122, and since a new study of the Amarna Letters,
including especially all letters in which the Khabiru are mentioned,
is in an advanced state of preparation, we may refer to a
forthcoming study of the question.
jj. P. 134, n. 21 (p. 208). The writer expects to discuss this
question elsewhere in detail. For the chronology cf. the remarks
above, n. q, and for the Biblical and topographical evidence see
Lagrange, RB 1932, 489- 514 and Abel, RB, 1931, 388-400.
Koeppel’s attempt to prove by geological and physiographical
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 233
considerations that the Pentapolis must have been situated at the
northern end (Biblica, 1932, 6-27) is quite unsuccessful. All that
he has proved is that present indications favour a rise of the water-
level some eight metres since the optimum climate of the post-
glacial period (which is to be dated between 6000 and 2000 B. C.).
This allows us ample room for the five oases of the south to have
moved upstream since cir. B. C. 2000, leaving the town-sites quite
thoroughly submerged.
kk. P. 137 and n. 23 (p. 208). See now the more precise
Annual, Vol. XIII, §§ 1-9, passim. The
chronological indications,
end of Bab ed-Dra‘ must probably be placed about 2000 B. C., i. e.,
early in period I-H.
11. P. 138, below. Speiser informs me that he has found a number
of other striking parallels between the Horite laws and customs on
the one hand, and those of early Hebrew tradition on the other. The
study of Horite jurisprudence is developing rapidly, owing to the
masterly work of Koschaker, Speiser, and their pupils. The latest
discoveries at Ugarit (cf. Bulletin, No. 50, p. 19) have added
materially to our knowledge of this great people, which served as the
bearers of civilization in Asia during the second and third quarters
of the second millennium B. C.
mm. P. 140, middle. To this group of Hebrew cosmogonic stories
which must have come originally from Northern Mesopotamia add
the story of the Tower of Babel, which probably arose in this region
during the first half of the second millennium, as will be shown else-
where.
nn. P. 141 and n. 36 (p. 211). An effort to establish the older view,
that Amraphel is Hammurabi, has been made by Dhorme; see his
article RB, 1931, 506 ff. Against Dhorme’s view see the writer’s
observations in the first edition of the present book, p. 225 f. Since
this was written additional evidence against it has been discovered,
as will be pointed out elsewhere.
00. P. 142 f. Much new material confirming and extending these
discoveries is now available, thanks to the researches of Horsfield,
supplemented by further exploration by the writer and now also by
Glueck; see Horsfield and Vincent, RB, 1932, 417-444, and the
 234 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

writer, Bulletin, No. 43, p. 21 f., No. 49, pp. 28-9. Glueck has just
discovered a great many new sites of the Middle Bronze Age in
eastern Moab. His work promises to revolutionize our knowledge of
the history of Moab.
pp. P. 143 and n. 47 (p. 212). We now know that Ya‘qob-har
flourished early in the Hyksos period, probably in the second half of
the eighteenth century, as will be shown in a forthcoming paper by
the writer.
rr. P. 145. Our understanding of the background and the
development of early Hebrew literature bids fair to be
revolutionized by the extraordinary discoveries of North-Canaanite
literary texts, including mythological epics, at Ugarit (Ras esh-
Shamrah) on the coast of Syria, north of Phoenicia. These
documents seem to go back in part to the eighteenth-sixteenth
centuries; see the writer’s observations, Bulletin, No. 50, p. 19. For
these texts, only discovered since 1930 and deciphered since 1931,
see the editio prince ps by Virolleaud, Syria, Vol. XII, pp. 193-
224, XIII, pp. 113-63, and the literature cited by the writer in his
articles, Bulletin, No. 46, pp. 15-20, No. 50, pp. 13-20, JPOS XII,
185-208.
qq. P. 147 and n. 59 (p. 213). Cf. the observations of Stanley Cook,
JBL LI, 1932, 274 f.
ss. P. 153 ff. The comparative study of pentateuchal legislation,
combined with a renewed investigation of the documents, their
nature, date, and relation, is now very active. Morgenstern has
continued the publication of his great work on the Book of the
Covenant; Parts II and III appeared in 1930-32 (paragraph 2, p.
156, has been rewritten in this edition). On the other side of the field
lies the method introduced by Jirku (cf. the study of his pupil,
Schmokel, Das angewandte Recht im Alten Testa- ment,
Leipzig, 1930), which has been taken up and carried on far more
methodically by Alt, whose programme has now been published in
Forschungen und Fort- schritte, 1933, 2i7a-2i8b. Alt
distinguishes between the Canaanite mishpatim on the one hand
and the Israelite debarim and other legal formulations on the
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 235
other. The writer has been pursuing this study for several years in
his seminar on the Old Testament in the Johns Hopkins University;
the next seminar will be devoted to the early materials in the
Priestly Code.
tt. P. 159 f. For the desert background of the Tabernacle and the
ZADN
Ark cf. the discussion of Arabic parallels by R. Hartmann,
yp, 219 ff.; Lammens, De culte des betyles; Morgenstern, The
Book of the Covenant, I, p. 81 ff.
uu. P. 169 and n. 97 (p. 218). See now the writer’s observations,
JBL LI, 103 ff., 381 f.
vv. P. 170 and n. 107 (p. 221). See the valuable defense of the
authenticity of the Aramaic letters by Schaeder, Esra der
Schreiber, Tubingen, 1930, and Iranische Beitrdge I, 1931.
ww. P. 173-4. See now the abstract of the writer’s paper on this
Actes du XVIIIe
subject at the Leyden Congress of Orientalists,
Congres International des Orientalistes, Leiden, 1932, pp.
202-4, where important new chronological evidence is offered.
 INDEX
(The references are selected, and material from the notes is only included
when it cannot be found by reference to the corresponding page in the body of
the book.)
Aaronid priesthood, 164 'Abd er- Atanakhili, 29
Rahman, 68 f. Abel, Fere,' 38, 185, Atargatis, 94
191, 236 Abimelech, 56 Abraham, 48, Aton (Aten), 163 f. Aurignacian, 60 f.
130 ff. Abu Darahimeh, 69 f.
Adad, 165 Adaiah, 174 Adonis, 149 Baal, 166
Adoraim, 68 Adullam, 208 Ahab, 31 Baal-berith, 56
f., 225 Ai, 133, 197, 234 'Ain Duq, 59 Ba'al-shamem(n), 166
'Ain Shems, 49 f. Bab ed-Dra', 48, 82, 135 ff., 236
Akhiqar, 150 Alexander, 150 Babylon, 141
Allenby, General, 36 Alt. A., 38, 130, Babylonia (see also Mesopotamia),
156, 162, 179,
186 f., 198 f., 203, 238 Altar of 152
incense, 108 Amarna Tablets, 28, 99, Bachmann, W., 196 f.
132, Bade, W. F., 49, 227
165 Amenophis III, 43, 92 Balaam, 145
American Schools of Oriental Barrois, A., 225
Research, 14, 16, 38, 47 ff., 63 ff., Bashan, 142
137, 224
Batten, L. W., 218
Ammon, 171 Amorites, 99 Amos,
206 Amosis, 91, 233 Amulets, 98, Bauer, Th., 217
121 'Anab, 79 'Anat (Anath), 41, 95, Baumgartner, W., 220
166 Anathoth, 166 f. Beersheba, 131, 133
Andrae, W., 201 Andreas, F. K., 221 Begrich, J., 182, 199
Aphrodite, 110 f.
'Apiru, 44 Arabs, 67 ff., 131 f.
Aramaic, 169 ff-, 220 f.
'Araq el-Emir, 171
Ararat, 140
Ark, 57, 238
Armageddon, 29 ff., 45 ff.
Arphaxad, 139, 209
Arslan Tash, 225
Artaxerxes, 170
Artemis, 97
Asa, 156
Ascalon (Ashkelon), 51, 104 'Ashtar-
yashur, 28
Ashtaroth—see Astarte
Ashtaroth (town), 142 Asia Minor, 97
Assyria, 150, 152
Astarte, 46, 88 f., 95 ff., 109 f.,
121 f., 166 f.
236
 INDEX 237
Benzinger, I., 202, 216 Cuq, E., 152, 215
Bergstrasser, G., 214 Cyprus, 97, 110 f,, 121
Bertholet, A., 219 Cyrus, 173
Beth-alpha, 59 f-> 230
Beth-cden, 210 D document, 151 ff., 154 ff., 162
Bethel, 133 Dahl, G„ 215
Beth-pclet, 53, 81, 228 Dal man, G., 38
Beth-shan, 39 ff., 90, 94 f., 198, 206, Danby, H., 183
225 f. Daniel, 220 f.
Beth-shcmesh, 49 f.> 88, 104, 112, Darius I, 172 f.
125, 171, 228 David, 40, 52, 105 f., 125, 158
Beth-zur, 172, 227 Dead Sea, 48, 134 f., 236
Bower, J., 216, 222 Debir, 63, 77
Bitis, 149 Department of Antiquities (Palestine),
Blake, R, P., 224 14, 33, 67
Bliss, F. J., 24 ff. Deutero-Isaiah, 218
Bohl, F, M. Th., 130, 141, 146, 188 Deuteronomy, 151 ff., 154 ff-, 162
Book of the Covenant, 151, 156 Deutsche Orient-Gesellscbaft, 30 f.
Deutscher Palastina-Verein, 29 ff-
Bock of the Dead, 167 Dhorme, P£re, 38, 237
Borchardt, L., 233 Djerash, 59
Bossert, H., 197 Dothan, 133
Breasted, J. H., 15, 178, 198 Dougherty, R. P., 215
British School of Archeology in Dove, 110 f.
Egypt, 53 ff. Dragon, 112
British School of Archaeology in Driver, S. R., 20, 176
Jerusalem, 33, 50 ff. Dunand, M., 199
Buddhism, 168 Duncan, J. G., 51 f., 174
Burney, C. F., 213 Dura, 68 ff., 117
Burrows, E., 210 Dussaud, R., 153, 182, 186 Dye-plant,
Burrows, M., 178, 224 119 f.
Byblos, 96
Canaanites, 98 f., 153 f. E document, 146 ff., 151 ff.
Capernaum, 58 Ebeling, E., 214 f., 217
Causse, A., 219 Ecole Biblique (Jerusalem), 38
Chaldatans, 125 f. Edgar, C., 170 f.
Charles, R. H., 220 Edom, 155 (see also Seir)
Chedorlaomer, 141 Eglon, 79
Chicra, E-, 137, 236 Egypt, 89, 143 f., 148 f., 163 f., 167,
Chronicler, 169 ff- Clermont- 169, 176
Gantreau, Ch., 21, ?o4 Code of Egyptian(s), 82, 141, 143 f., 153, 164,
Hammurabi, 152 166
Conder, C. R., 22, 25 Ehelolf, H., 215
Contenau, G., 209 Eisser, G., 152
Cook, S. A., 196, 202, 218, 238 Elephantine papyri, 169 ff. Eliakim,
Copper, 206 125, 235
Cosmetic palette, 122 f. F.liezer, 138
Cowley, A., 219, 221 Elohim, 166 f.
Crete, 97 Exile, 169 ff.
Crowfoot, J. W„ 51 ff., 183, 224
Culley, P., 195
 238 INDEX
Exodus, 144, 147 Handcock, P., 35 hanikim, 141
Ezra, 169 ff. Harbadj, 186 Harran, 139 Hartmann,
R., 238 Harvard University, 31, 137
Feather-crown, 96 f. Haupt, P., 162, 203, 213, 216 Hauran,
Feudal system, 99 f. 142 Hazael, 225
Fisher, C. S„ 31 ff., 38, 40 ff., 45 f., 49 Hebrew: language, 32, 99, 155, 182;
f., 55, 65 f., 85, 106, 202, 235 people, 44, 148; script, 32, 50, 107,
FitzGerald, G. M., 40, 225 f. 123 ff., 174 f.
Flight, J. W„ 218 Hebrew University, 38, 175
Flood-story, 140 Hebron, 79, 120, 124, 133, 143 Helena
Folklore, 148 ff. of Adiabene, 22 f.
Friedrich, J., 215 Heliopolis (Egypt), 164
Heliopolis (Syria), 95
Gadd, C. J., 138 Hempel, J., 207
Galling, K., 187 Herod the Great, 33, 51
Hertzberg, H. W., 185, 216 Hezekiah,
Garrod, D., 61, 88, 230 ff. 124, 203 Hiel the Bethelite, 31 Hiram
Garstang, J., 14 f., 31, 36 f., 51, 55, of Tyre, 46 Hittite laws, 152 Hittites,
208, 223, 229, 233 f. 165
Gath, 81 Holland, L. B., 197
Gaza, 228 Holscher, G., 218 f.
Genesis XIV, 140 ff. Hommel, F., 129 f.
Gerar, 53, 81, 104, 130 Horites, 236 f.-—see Hurri
Gerasa (Djerash), 59 Horsfield, G., 237
German Evangelical School in Hrozny, F. (B.), 215
Jerusalem, 38 Huffman, J. A., 203
Germer-Durand, Pere, 52 Hur, 143
Gerza papyri, 170 Hurri (Horites), 99, 137 f.
Hussey, M. I., 178
Gezer, 21, 26 ff., 84 f., 107, 173 Hyksos, 50, 53 f., 56, 83, 85 ff-,
Gibeah of Benjamin, 47 f., 81 Gibeon, 143 f., 187, 198, 229, 234, 237
216 Hyrcanus, 222
Gilead, 142
Gildemeister, J., 221 Iliad, 144, 148
Gilgal, 136 Imuthes (Imhotep), 150 Indo-Iranians,
Ginai, 95 99
Gjerstad, E., 183 Ingholt, H., 108
Glueck, N., 224, 230, 237 Iron, 111 f., 155
Grant, E., 49, 88, 125, 216, 228 Isaiah, 123
Gressman, H., 155, 200 f., 211, 221 Ishtar, 97
Guerin, V., 179
J document, 146 ff., 151 ff.
Gunkel, H„ 209, 212 Jacob, 139, 148
Gustavs, A., 181 Jedaiah, 174
Guthe, H., 23 Jehu, 156
Guy, P. L. O., 45 ff., 226 Jeremiah, 161
Jeremias, A., 205
Hadad, 166 Jericho, 30 f., 55, 86, 173 f., 197, 229
Hadith, 156 f.
f., 234
Hall, H. R., 89, 195 Jeroboam II, 30, 182
Ham, 142 Jerusalem, 14 S-, 22 f., 33 fr., 51 f.,
hamman, 108, 161
Hammurabi, 141, 152, 237 126, 133, 155, 164, 173 f., 198 f.
 INDEX 239
Jezebel, 203 Lods, A., 215
Jirku, A., 142, 153, 156, 206, 211, 238 Lohr, M., 108, 213
Joiachin, 125 „ Lucas, A., 203
Jordan Valley, 48, 62, 82, 132 ff. Luria, S., 214
Joseph, 143, 148 ff. Luynes, Due de, 188
Josephus, 218 f. Lyon, D. G., 182
Joshua, 79
Josiah, 126, 155 Macalister, R. A. S., 24 ff., 51 f., 84,
Junker, H., 194 201 f.
Juvelius, W„ 34 Maccabtean age, 227
Karge, P., 60, 194 Machpelah, 132
Mackenzie, D., 49 f., 104
Karnaim, 94, 142 Makal (Mekal), 41 ff., 95
Kautzsch, E., 204 Malachi, 175
Keilah, 99 Mallon, A., 61 f., 134, 184 f.,
Keith, Sir A., 231 208, 231
Kenites, 131 Manganese, 212
Khabiru, 44, 100, 132 f., 236
Marduk, 164 f. masseboth, 27, 115,
Khepit (Khepa), 165 f.
136
Khirbet 'Abbad, 171
Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madhkur, 171 May, H. G., 214
King, L. W., 196 Mayer, L. A., 188
Kiriath-sepher, 63, 77 ff. McCown, C. C., 188, 224
Kirkuk, 137 f. McCown, T. D., 230 f.
Kitchener, H. H., 22 Megiddo (Armageddon), 29 ff-, 39, 45
Kittel, R., 146 f., 172 f„ 205, 218 ff., 81, 106, 108, 115, 226
Kjaer, H., 57 f., 160, 230 Meissner, B., 39
Klein, S., 193 Menephthes (Meneptah), 100 Mesha
Knudtzon, J. A., 197 ff. Stone, 21, 28, 33 Mesopotamia, 97,
Koeppel, Pater, 231, 236 137 ff., 167 f-, 237
Kohl, H., 58 Meyer, E., 20, 133 f., 170 ff-,
Kohler, J., 152 209, 212
Konig, F. W., 173, 222 Middle Bronze pottery, 82 ff.
Koschaker, P., 152, 215, 237 Midian, 143, 207
Kosters, W. H., 219 Mitanni, 165 f.
Kubaba, 197 Mizpah, 49, 81, 216, 228
Kuenen, A., 130 Moab, 33, 48, 136, 142, 237
Kumarbis, 197 Moabite Antiquities, 21
Kyle, M. G., 8, 48 f., 63 ff-, 134 ff., Mohammed, 157
232 Monotheism, 163 ff.
Montgomery, J. A., 178 Moretain,
Laban, 139 Abbe, 188 f.
Lachish, 81, 99, 233
Morgenstern, J., 156, 213, 224,
Lagrange, Pere, 236 238
Lake, K., 224 Moses, 151 ff-, 163 ff., 197
Lammens, H., 157, 224, 238 Mousterian, 61 f.
Landsberger, B., 206 Mowinckel, S., 213, 235
Lebanon, 155 Mugharet ez-Zuttiyeh, 60 f.
Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., 214 Muller, Max, 198
Lidzbarski, M., 199, 204
Muller, V., 200, 202
Lion, 93 f-
Musil, A., 211
 240 INDEX
Mycenaean pottery, 93 Power, E., 185, 208
Prehistoric archteology, 60 ff. Priestly
Nahor, 139 Code, 146 ff., 151 ff.
Nashwa, 138 f.
Natufian, 61, 231 Qadesh, 88 f., 95 ff.
Neanderthal man, 61, 231 Quran (Koran), 157
Negeb, 79, 120, 171 f„ 207 Rachel, 139
Nehemiah, 169 ff-, 227 Ramesses (Ramses) II, 43 f.
Neuville, R., 61 f., 231 f. Ramesses III, 44
Nibelungenlied, 148 Ras esh-Shamrah—see Ugarit
Nizir, 210 Rashap (Resheph), 41, 95
Noah, 140 Rehob, 198
Noaran, 59 Reisner, G. A., 31 ff.
Noth, M., 162, 182, 216 f., 220 Resheph—see Rashap
Nuzi, 137 ff., 235 f. Restoration, 169 ff.
Rhodes, 110
Olmstead, A. T., 232, 234 Richmond, E. T., 15
Omri, 32 Rig Veda, 144 f.
Ophel, 23, 34 f„ 51 f. Robinson, E., 18 ff.
Oppenheim, Baron von, 42, 197 Rockefeller, J. D., Jr., 14 ff. Rothstein,
Orfali, Pere, 58 G., 219
Oriental Institute, 15 f., 39, 45 Rowe, A., 40 ff., 90, 228 Rowley, H.
Osiris, 149 H., 220
Ossuaries, 188
Ostrich, 112 Saarisalo, A., 179
Othniel, 80 Sachau, E., 219
Samaria, 30 ff.
P document, 146 ff., 151 ff- Samuel, Sir Herbert, 36 Sanballat, 33,
Palestine Exploration Fund, 21 ff., 29, 170, 219 f., 222 San Nicolo, M., 152
36 f., 50 ff. Sargon of Accad, 150
Palestine Museum, 14 ff. Saul, 43, 47 f., 105, 111 f., 125, 155
Saulcy, F. de, 22 f.
Paradise, 140
Sayce, A. H., 129 f.
Paton, L. B., 216 Schaeder, H. H., 239
Patriarchs, 129 ff., 146 ff-, 197 Schiff, Jacob, 31
Parker, Captain, 34 f. Schott, A., 167 f.
Peet, T. E., 197 Schmidt, A., 57 f., 160, 191
Pella, 198 Schmokel, H., 238
Petrie, Sir W. M. Flinders, 24 f„ 53 ff., Schumacher, G., 29 f.
104, 195, 200, 202, 212, 228 f., 235 Sebaste (Samaria), 33
Philistines, 44, 57, 97, 104 ff., Seilun (Shiloh), 57 f.
110 f., 155, 160 f., 235

Phoenicia (ns), 46, 60, 115, 121, 154,

182, 238
Phythian-Adams, W. J., 51, 104
Pieper, W., 206
Playing pieces, 89 f.
Pontifical Biblical School in
Jerusalem, 38
Poulsen, F., 202
 INDEX 241
Seir, 143 Smith, R., 20, 52
Sellers, O. R., 227 Smith, S., 138, 196
Sellin, E., 28 S., 55 ff., 141, 146, Sodom and Gomorrah, 48, 133 ff.
Solomon, 46 f., 102, 115, 160, 226
216, 230
Semiramis, 150 Sennacherib, 106, Taanach, 28 f., 141
125, 227, 235 Tabernacle, 57 f., 159 f.
Tallqvist, K., 217
Tanis, 143 f.
Teetotum, 89
Seraph, 112 Tekoa, 131
Serpent-goddess, 87 ff. Tell el-'Addjul (’Ajul), 54 f.,
Serug, 139 228
Sethe, K., 163 Tell 'Aitun, 79, 171
Sethos I, 43 f. Tell 'Amr, 186
Sharuhen, 53 Tell 'Arad, 171
Shechem (Balatah), 55 ff-, 108, 133, Tell Balatah, 55 f.
155 f., 162, 230 Tell Beit Mirsim, 48 f., 63 ff.,
Sheikh Sa'd, 94 161 f., 171, 232 ff.
Shelemiah, 174 Tell Djemmeh, 53
Shephelah, 25 f., 63 ff-, 78, 81 f., 99 f., Tell ed-Djudeideh, 171
171 f. Tell ed-Duweir, 171, 233
Sheshbazzar, 173 Tell el-Far'ah, 53 f., 235
Shiloh, 57 f., 147, 156, 159 ff-, 164, Tell el-Ful, 23, 47 f., 172
230 Tell Halaf, 42, 97
Shinar, 141 Tell el-Hesi, 24 f., 81 f., 99
Shishak, 80, 106, 112 f. Tell el-Khuweilifeh, 79, 171
Shuqamuna, 165 Tell el-Muleihah, 171
Shuqbah, 61 Tell el-Mutesellim, 29 ff-, 45 ff-
Shurpu, 167 f. Tell en-Nasbeh, 49, 81, 102,
Sievers, E., 213 112 f., 117, 172 ff.
Simeon, 79 Tell en-Nedjileh, 171
Sin (god), 165 Tell el-Qassls, 186
Sinai, 143, 162, 186, 206 Tell er-Rumeileh, 49
Smith, E., 19 Tell es-Safi, 172, 201
Smith, G. A., 192 Tell esh-Sheri'ah, 187
Song of Deborah, 145, 162 Tell es-Sultan, 23, 30 f., 55
Song of Miriam, 145 f. Tell Ta'annek, 28 f.
Speiser, E., 209 f., 224, 236 f. Tell Zakarlya, 171
Spiegelberg, W., 212, 214 Tell Zlf, 171
Stamped jar-handles, 124 f., Temple, 23, 34, 159 f., 217
173 f. Terah, 139
Starkey, J. L., 228, 233, 235 Teshup (Teshub), 165 f.
Steuernagel, C., 142 Third Wall of Jerusalem, 188
Stratonice, 214 Thomsen, P., 189
Sukenik, E. L., 59 f., 183, 188, 224, Thureau-Dangin, F., 198, 201, 225
230 Tirqan, 210
Sumerian laws, 152 Tishpak, 165
Suppiluliuma, 217 Tobiah, 171
Survey of Western Palestine, 22 Torah, 151 ff.
Synagogues of Galilee, 58 ff.
 242 INDEX
Torrey, C. C., 204, 218, 222 Zechariah, 203
Toys, 98 Zedekiah, 125
Tuleilat, el-Ghassul, 62, 231 Zeno, 170 f.
Turville-Petre, F., 60 f., 231 Zerubbabe), 173 f.
Tuthmosis III, 40 ff., 142 Ziba, 125
Tyropmon Valley, 52 Zimmern, H., 215
Ugarit (Kas esh-Shamrah), 237 f. Zoar, 185
Umm Qarata, 231 f. Zoroastrianism, 168
Ungnad, A., 209 Zumofien, Pire, 60
University of Pennsylvania Museum,
39 ff.
Ur, 139

Van Buren, Mrs., 197

Van Hoonacker, A,, 218 f.
Viedebantt, O., 202
Vincent, P6re, 34 f,, 38, 55, 59, 85,
125, 181 f„ 184, 188, 194, 196, 221
f., 223, 227, 237
Virol leaud, Ch., 238

Wadi Ghazzeh, 232

Wadi Khreitun, 61 f.
Wadi el-Mugharah, 61
Warren, Sir Ch., 23
Watzinger, C., 30, 58, 188 Weidner, E.
F., 211
Weights, 119
Weill, R„ 52
Weissbach, F. H., 196 Welch, A., 155
Weilhausen, J., 108 f., 129 ff., 146 ff..
151 ff.
Weiter-Mauve, G., 55 f., 230

Wiener. H„ 108
Winckler, H., 130, 148
Wiist, W„ 213

Xenia Theological Seminary (now

Pittsburgh-Xenia), 48, 63 ff-

Yabu, 174
Yahuda, A. S-, 211, 214
Yahweh, 164 f.
Ya'qob-har, 143, 237
Yorghan Tepe, 137 f.
Yusif 'Abd el-Hamid, 68 f.

Zababa, 165
Zagros, 140
Zahertyeh (Daheriyeh), 78, 233
INDEX 243