Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • (Magazine) The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 44. No 2

    Uploaded by

    Angela Natel
    35 views67 pages
    [Magazine] The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 44. No 2

    Original Title

    [Magazine] The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 44. No 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    [Magazine] The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 44. No 2

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    35 views67 pages

    (Magazine) The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 44. No 2

    Uploaded by

    Angela Natel
    [Magazine] The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 44. No 2

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 67
    IS OTN BC ARCHEOLOGIST ‘TWELVE FILMSTRIPS in rich color on biblical geography and archeology. including documentaries onthe Shroudol Turin. — — Sie > NEW! ‘THE EBLA TABLETS: Their Relevance to the B This exiremely voluabe flmsrip is divided into 1wo parts: the facts of Ebla that no one can deny: and the presentation of the arpiment Jor the influence of Eblaite in understanding ideas of the Hebrew (Old) and. Greek (New) Testament. Photography: Aldo Dura:zi. Narration: Francis L. Fils, S.J. Consultant: Mitchell Dahood, S., Professor of Eblate and Uraritic, Ponafical Biblia! Insitute, Rome. 100 Frames. 30 Minure ‘eassettedescrprion.Automarte/manual signal for flmsirip. Musical interludes. Printed Key 535.00 ION — ; Informational Packet: ” “THE DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN FROM COINS OF PONTIUS PILATE’ Otters watien and photographic dats to substantiate imprints from Mate con on iit ee. 7000-word Monograph by Francs Lr Flas, S. 4) Profesor of Theology at Lovola University of Chicago. Answers to 16 queries. Numi mati etches, 2 coded lids oface ups.) 2 coor print and 2 sides ofenlarged Plate coin and ight eye area (ups) $650 8850 | #163. THE SHROUD OF TURIN: IS THIS THE PHOTOGRAPH OF JESUS CHRIST? ‘34 frames, S8-minule casette explanation inthis updated 1978 edition of the bua cloth In Tun, Tal, tra: tionally held to be that of Jesus Christ, with photographically neative stains of erucfied man. Summarizes evidence {rom photography. physiology, pathology, art, story, textile science, blood chemistry, with electronic image analyzer experiments aswell as pollen analysis proving 3-D human body trom Palestine, 25.00 #173. THE 1978 EXPOSITION OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN: A DOCUMENTARY 118 frames, 30-minute cassette explanation. Includes priceless historical scenes of Shroud in natural faint shades; pollen off Shroud: list of scientific experiments: computer reconstruction, Some photos already collectors items ‘Adds new data to =163, ‘$28.00 #160. JERUSALEM, 66 A.D. 105 frames, 42-minute cassette explanation, of Holyland Hotel Model in Jerusalem on scale of 1/50 of life size reconstruction of ancient Jerusalem in 66 A.D. 322.00 #164, THE DESERTS OF BIBLICAL ISRAEL TODAY 135 frames, 31-minute cassette explanation, of Sinai, Negev, and Judean deserts, including Qumran, Jericho, Murabtat, Masada, Herodion. $22.00 #165. BIBLICAL LOCATIONS IN JERUSALEM TODAY 133 ames, SBminute caste explanation, 24 orientation maps and floor plans atleast 40 locations as seen from walk on Jerusalem walls, nearby Bethlehem, and westbound through Jerusalem from Mount Olvet, $22.00 2167, BIBLICAL LOCATIONS IN GALILEE TODAY 153 frames, Si-minute casette explanation, of Hazor, Megiddo, Nazareth, Caperaum, Tabor, Nalm, sources of Jordan River, and around Lake of Galle $22.00 #169. THE SEACOAST OF THE BIBLE TODAY 4135 frames, 30-minute caxette explanation of Yafo (biblical Joppa), Askelon, Gaza, Casarex.on-these Carmel Caves, Mount Carmel Range, Haifa Bay, Acre, Achzv. $22.00 #170. LITERARY. FORMS: A KEY TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE 82 frames, 20-minute cassette explanation, using 25 sprightly cartoons, 42 biblical locales. Distnguishes what the bibtical passage meansrather than what its words Iiterally say. Contemporary examples and selected passages. $22.00 #172. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS 116 frames, 25-minute case explanation, as an audio-visual “recap” ofthe New Testament Resurrection narratives, With thelr loge and thelr modern milieu: Jerusalem, Emmaus, Lake of Gaile, Mt Olivet Unteservedly presents the Resurrection asthe central fat of Christian faith #174, WHERE JESUS LIVED — AS IT LOOKS TODAY {Children's tmsteip (Sth rade & under). 70 frames, 18-minute cassette explanation; Bethlehem, G in'a patter following if of Cis. #175, PLACES PAUL VISITED AS THEY LOOK TODAY Petonlly follows life of Paul from Tarsus to Rome, in modern seting Striking aval and ground photog Raymond V. Schod Professor of Classical Literature and Archeology at Loyola University of Chicago. 2T-minute cassette explanation. 106 $28.00 Signals 19 advance stip. Pai phy by Francs L. Fila, SJ DISTRIBUTED BY: Cogan Productions, A Divsion of ACTA Foundalion, Suite C, 11134 Youngtown Avenue, Youngtown, Arizona, 85363. If ordering for iaitution, please give name of person ordering. If individual, please aie credit reference. (No delivery charges if payment with order U.S.A. ONLY) Exbtng discoveries at two important biblical cities are reported on by Israeli archeologists. Avraham Biran, whose lexcavations at Tel Dan began in 1966 [describes the recent uncovering of a monumental mud-brick gate, with its recessed, arched entrance and flanking twin towers completely preserved. This gateway probably constituted part of the defensive system of the Canaanite city of Laish almost four millennia ago In addition, Yigal Shitoh, director of the City of David Archaeoiogical Project, provides a graphic account of the sensational finds of the past season along the eastern slopes of the old city Jot Jerusalem. Of special interest is his [investigation ofthe subterranean waterworks connected to the pool at [Siloam. NTH BIBLICAL®: ARCHEOLOGIST Editor David Noel Freedman Assistant Editor David F. Graf Editorial Committee Frank M. Cross, Jr Tikva Frymer-Kensky Sharon Herbert Charles R. Krahmalkov John A. Miles, Jr. Walter E. Rast Production Manager Bruce E, Willoughby Chief Editorial Assistant Linda E. Fyfe Editorial Assistants David M. Howard, Jr. Terrence M. Kerestes Graphic Designer Cheryl S. Klopshinske Business Manager Tracy B. Shealy ‘Composition Louise W. Palazzola Distribution Manager R. Guy Gattis, Graphic Designer for Books Suellen Feinberg Journal Exchange Len Niehoff ‘Subscription Services Belinda Khalayly, Manager John C. Hardie ‘Andrew E. Hill Hamid Merati Promotions Deborah LeKashman 6. BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1981 (rot no arabe) —, a Moshe Kochavi is Associate Professor in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University and has served as the chairman of its Institute of Archaeology since 1976. Willem C. van Hattem, professor of religion and minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil, is an ardent desk-archeologist. As a graduate of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, he has particularly been interested in Old Testament history. Rudolph Cohen is the archeologist for the southern district at the Department of Antiquities and Museums in Israel. In the past decade, he has excavated at 12 different Iron Age fortresses in the Central Negev. Asher F. Kaufman received his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh and is currently a faculty member of the Racah Institute of Physics at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Since 1974 he has been engaged in research on the First and Second Temples of Jerusalem Marvin H. Pope, Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures at Yale University, is interested in the Ugaritic Mythological Poems and the Old Testament. He is author of the Anchor Bible commentaries on Job and the Song of Songs. Biblical Archeologist is published with the financial assistance of Zion Research Foundation, a non- sectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church. Nas sted Cover: Ostracon with hieratic numerals and weight symbols found at Tell el-Qudeirat. BIBLICAL @ ARCHEOLOGIST Spring 1981 Volume 44 Number 2 Moshe Kochavi_ The History and Archeology of Aphek-Antipatris: A. 75 Biblical City in the Sharon Plain. From discoveries in the recent archeological excava- tions, the history of this city can now be traced from the Early Bronze Age until Roman times. Willem C. van Hattem Once Again: Sodom and Gomorrah 87 ‘A new look at the famed “Cities of the Plain,” with new evidence adduced from Transjordan and northern Syria. Rudolph Cohen The Excavations at Kadesh-barnea (1976-78) 93 A review of archeological activities and latest findings, with a discussion of some archeological and historical problems of this biblical site Asher S. Kaufman The Eastern Wall of the Second Temple at 108 Jerusalem Revealed New information is presented relevant to the plan of the Second Temple which confirms the author's earlier projections. Marvin H. Pope Millar Burrows, 1889-1980, in Memoriam 116 Tribute is paid to a distinguished professor of biblical theology, internationally renowned for his work with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Di At SSN 5 pid gm ‘Scena Rete ha ppc rnc gnrr ‘wid aecomte shri ete andes acount ‘elt ‘Unotesce mse aye wcxons bot mena be Letter to the Readers, 68 Polemics and Irenies o SCC ‘Kie ti see ormpesoee eNotes and News 14 ‘tftp ar 0 Farce ern 5100 Ameren crn) Core sage mt 308 (ee Huon See, han er a BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST) SPRING 1981 67 Letter to, the David Noel Freedman Readers Ever since Professor Pet- tinato announced publicly on 29 October 1976 the presence of the names of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Ebla tablets, interest in the Cities" of the Plain—their history and fate, their connections with the patriarchs on the one hand, and with Ebla on the other—has increased and been main- tained at a high level. In the welter of retractions and reassertions made since, confidence in the correlation between the biblical cities and those listed in the Ebla tablets, ifthey occur atall, has ‘wavered, and it may be some time before the situation is fully clarified. Sight is often lost of the fact that there is substantial independent archeological evidence—that is, quite apart from what may, or may not, be present in the Ebla tablets—which bears on the question, and may point toward the solution of one longstanding problem in biblical history and chronology, while accentuating still other questions of great interest. As Dr. van Hatem informs us in this issue, there are at least some sites in the immediate vicinity of the Dead Sea which may plausibly bbe identified with the Cities of the Plain and which curiously enough belong to the period of the heyday of Ebla. He offers @ possible, if colorful, synthesis of available data, subject to confirmation, clarification, modification, and even rejection in the light of future evidence. Israeli archeologists Moshe Kochavi and Rudolph ‘Cohen report on their excavations at the important sites ‘of Aphek-Antipatris and Kadesh-barnea, respectively. Both places were the scenes of important biblical events and both have yielded important and valuable informa- tion for students of biblical history and religion. The work at Aphek-Antipatris is part of a long-term, ‘multifaceted project, and the report will be supplemented. by others in the future. The current operations at Kadesh- barnea are continuing, along with the debate about this central and controversial site. Other items include an imaginative study of the Eastern Wall of Jerusalem by Asher Kaufman, and a special memorial piece on Millar Burrows by Marvin Pope of Yale. Burrows was an ASOR giant who served in many capacities both at headquarters (then in New Haven) and overseas (at the Jerusalem School). He was President of ASOR for 15 years(1934-48) duringa period 68 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1981 of change and turmoil in the Holy Land, and one of challenge and response at home. The usual front and back features also are present, and we urge you to read your fill Last Nel Frade) Polemics& Jrenics A Response to Williams I would like to point out some of the errors in Bruce Williams’ “review" of the special issue of the Sociery for Imerdisciplinary Studies Review, which assessed Immanuel Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos (BA 43.2 [Spring 1980}: 119-20). Williams makes the insinuation through ut that the contributors are “Velikovskyans,"as distinct from “main-line scholars,” and states his belief that “a gulf between scholarship and the public is widened by such material.” Ironically, the intention of the issue was to provide detailed analyses and models for Ages in Chaos by informed. writers, analyses that specialists could evaluate, Williams avoided the task and glossed over the contributors who were well qualified in the fields they discussed. Dr. John Bimson (who contributed two papers ‘on the Conquest) received his doctorate from Sheffield University for his work on the date of the Exodus and Conquest. Dr. Eva Danelius (who wrote on the ‘geography of Thutmose III’s Palestinian campaign) isan Israeli scholar who has contributed papers on Egyptian and Hebrew historical geography to the JES, JEA, and Beth Mikra Williams accuses the contributors of deciding “that certain positions were correct before they began to work,” but if he were conversant with “Velikovskyan” literature, including the issue under review, as he pretends, he should know that the same writers are highly critical of major areas of Velikovsky’s “revised chronol- ogy.” Williams himself takes the a priori decision that Velikovsky’s work must be without value, and instead of assessing the material under review, he chose to deliver an error-flled diatribe against what he imagines the authors discuss. For example, the two works he cited when he accused Dr. Bimson of “ignorance"are quite irrelevant to the subject covered, and itis clear that Williams, merely glancing at the title and bibliography, has not even understood what the piece is about. Williams’ blatant refusal to assess the evidence is admitted when he states that he has “come to the end of a long review without reviewing the individual articles.” ‘The qualified scholars who contributed to the issue need no sarcastic reminder from Williams that the Cambridge Ancient History takes a different view of ancient Near Eastern chronology. His claim that there are “breathtaking omissions such as the loss of officials, priests, and families” is quite irrelevant, Such material is only of real chronological value when dealing with the Third Intermediate Period, which was not the aim of the If Williams takes a closer look at the material “reviewed” he will find no reference to “cosmic forces and vents.” No such appeal to this figment of hisimagination is needed to throw into question the theory of Sothic dating. Velikovsky published in an appendix to Peoples of the Sea (1977) a damning critique of Sothic dating— described by Johns Hopkins Egyptologist Dr. David Lorton as “an excellent attack on the foundations of absolute chronology in Egyptology"—without reference to his theory about the instability of the solar system: “purposely I undertook to probe the validity of the Sothic period chronology without recourse to my other books” (p. 243). In “main-line™ literature Williams will find an effective critique of the literary evidence for the Sothic theory by Ronald Long (Orientalia 43 [1974] 261-74). And at a conference on Ages in Chaos held at Glasgow University in 1978, Professor A. Roy, Head of the Astronomy Department, stated that the theory was “on very weak ground” from an astronomer's point of Williams devotes much space to knocking down another straw man of his own creation—the idea that “Velikoyskyans” have to overlap the New Kingdom with the Third Intermediate Period, On the contrary, students of a revised chronology argue for a telescoping of the T.LP. in a way that would accommodate lowering of New Kingdom dates, and several approaches to this are bbeing investigated. (Velikovsky’s own handling of this period is not accepted by the contributors to the special issue on Ages in Chaos.) Williams is happy to overlook the shortcomings of T.LP. chronology and accept it as gospel because Dr. Kenneth Kitchen has “woven a rich genealogical and historical tapestry” for it. But the extremely complex T.LP. evidence is open to different interpretations— Klaus Baer, working with the same material, produced some strikingly different results than Kitchen on a number of crucial issues (JES 32 [1973] 4-25). But Williams does not seem to know Kitchen's work very well. He states with great confidence that “we know that the dynasties were successive,” whereas it is generally accepted (Kitchen included) that there were substantial overlaps between the 22nd and 23rd, and the 23rd, 24th, and 25th Dynasties Williams is also wrong in his belief that the length of the T.LP. is fixed by astronomical evidence. As Kitchen stresses, “Neither the 20th nor the 2st Dynasties can so far offer us any information from which one may calculate their absolute dates 0,c.," and itis well known that the dates for the 2Ist and 22nd Dynasties rely on the much-vaunted identification of the Libyan Shoshenk I with the Pharaoh Shishak who conquered Judah in Rehoboam’s reign. In truth, Shoshenk resembles BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST SPRING 1981 69 Shishak in name only. Dr. Danelius’ detailed comparison of Thutmose’s major Palestinian campaign, showing striking resemblances to the geography of 10th-century Judah, was ignored by Williams. We should not forget that Kitchen’s work was tailored to a basic chronological framework that was accepted without question. Kitchen and his colleague Bierbrier have done painstaking and monumental work, but their effort to stretch the T.ILP. back to the IIth century by reconstructing genealogies and internal synchronisms is hardly above criticism. Assumptions, tenuous identifications, and pure guesswork all play their part. For example, Kitchen's kings “Osochor” (2ist), “Takeloth I" (22nd), and “luput II” (23rd) are all hypothetical in that they are probably reduplications of other kings of the period; there are no monuments attributable to any of them. After the key synchronism of Shoshenk I with Shishak, Kitchen’s next terminal, the “fixed date” of 712 8.c. for the Nubian invasion under Shabako, is now known to be based on mistranslation of an Assyrian text (see A. Spalinger, JA RCE 10 1973} 97,0. 17). Williams also assures the reader that Egyptian chronology can be checked by the independent yardstick ‘of Mesopotamian history, claiming that there are “a number of Kassite kings of Babylon” mentioned in the el- ‘Amarna letters “whose chronological positions are well established” in “Assyrian and Babylonian king and eponym lists.” This is untrue. Referring to the Kassite kings of the el-Amarna period, J. A. Brinkman states clearly that “this section of the dynasty is not preserved in any of the known kinglists” (Materials and Studies for Kassite History 1 [1976]: 14). The actual order of these Kassite kings, and possibly their very placement in the 4th century 3.., relies on the el-Amarna letters rather than native documentation. And far from being “syner- gistic” as Williams thinks, the two chronologies are frequently antagonistic, asin the conflicting evidence of Egyptian finds and Assyrian pottery formsin the Arabah that embroiled Nelson Glueck in a controversy with Aharoni and Rothenberg in his last years (J. Bimson, “Solomon's Copper Mines? A Reassessment of the Finds from the Arabah,” Tyndale Biblical Archaeology Lec- ture, Cambridge, July 11th, 1980), ‘In a field such as biblical archeology, the kind of closed-minded attitude exhibited by Williams is lamen- table. The core of many of the most heated controversies in the field has always been chronological uncertainty: with regard to such problems as the date of the Sojourn and the Exodus, the archeological placement of the Conquest, the habiru problem, Solomon's use of the copper workings in the Arabah, and the sacking of Lachish III by Sennacherib or Nebuchadrezzar. It is disconcerting that Velikovsky’s basic idea of a “revised chronology,” which can provide solutions to such crucial problems, is dismissed by Williams in such an off-hand way that he can refer to the problems highlighted by “Velikovskyans” as “disagreements among scholars on (comparatively) minor points.” If we refuse to consider alternatives because of a complacent faith in accepted 70 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1981 chronology, itis difficult to see how any progress in a field beset by chronological uncertainties can ever be made Peter J. James History Editor, 5.1.5. Review sn-minded Intelligence? Bruce Williams has written a strangely careless com- mentary on the S./.S. Review (BA, Spring 1980: 119-20), He complains that Velikovsky identifies “Rib-Addi of Byblos” with Ahab of Israel, but does not mention the reference by Peter James to Velikovsky’s belief that Gubla must have been Jezreel, not Byblos, being heir of Sumur. Williams could have followed up the topic in ‘Ages in Chaos, particularly pages 231-33, ‘Also in that issue ofthe magazine under review was good critical discussion of the notion that Abdi-Hepat right be Jehoshaphat. It was argued that a better identi- fication would be the idolator Jehoram of Judah, although Velikovsky’s reasoning (including a different translation from “Abdi-Hepat”) was mentioned. Neither of these points is noticed by Williams, nor is credit given the magazine for being a sincere and well-informed attempt to update Velikovsky’s studies. Rather, your reviewer prefers to intimate that a dogma is being perpetrated and perpetuated. He wants to pass off any heresy as “fantasy.” Pethaps instead of more scholarship what arche- ology needs is open-minded intelligence. Does not Williams know that, unfortunately, a great deal of history as we know it is quite probably fantasy? Harry E. Mongold Manhattan, IL 60442 ‘A Response The comparisons and identifications mentioned in the review of S.1S. Review were not intended to be more than examples of the arbitrary and thoroughly inap- propriate identifications made by Velikovskyans. No room could possibly be spared in an entire issue, much less a review, for a complete list of such misidentifica- tions. Byblos = Jezreel certainly would belong in such a list and the various identifications of Rib-Addi were men- tioned. The fact that there was some discussion does not improve the quality of the identification. The main point of the review is that historical Velikovskyism exists only by ignoring vast amounts of actual evidence. Speculation is open-minded thought in the absence of pertinent evidence; scholarship is open- ‘minded thought that takes into account all of the available evidence; fantasy simply ignores evidence, ‘Much history as we believe we know it may be incorrect, but it astempts 10 control all ofthe evidence. Historical Velikovskyism simply ignores large amounts of easily A British Forum for the Velikovsky Debate Recent year have seen 2 ceva! ofineret in the theo of De Badia: VELKOVSK His proposals are now being Taken Serously by an increasing number of scholars, whove tupport ‘in be ae to the earler vourabie comments on Ris tories ‘work by sich suthories as GARSTANG (oxavator of Fico), ROWERT HL Prufren (Chon, Dep. of Sense Language, Hare ib ind rent ure Beer Dep ot anges, ‘Veltowskys Sst Mstoneal wok, “Ages in Chas” (1952), focused on the iumense dificult in ning links between the ‘tory of nel so recorded inthe Bible andthe scepted version of Fgyplln Nstory based on "Sotle dating" Apart Rom the propced ent of Pharaoh Shushak (Chron 12) sein Shthonk I of the XAind Dynan. the feat é Tor the Hebrew and Egyptien pat appear ene elt Sr ne privesons: Bole thd neo Ababa (cary 2nd milenniam 8c] tothe reign of Hezeiah (e700 80), the major events of Ite's story = such as the Exodus and Congest, apd the period of prospeaty and international re- ‘tye under Solomon — are apparently inadequately represented ‘oth imma Egyplian doiment nd nthe archeologi sro Egypuun sd bepsning wits tengo te cae {ote endo the Middle Kingdon lth Dynasty to the Bb ‘dating ofthe Exodus (e180 80), lacing the Hykoos prod ‘intempeary ith the me of the Judges. and the XVII Dynasty cost withthe United and eniy Divded Monarchs flac 10820 8). Velkovaky supported these propose ‘witha rematlable sere of new spchroisms, such at con” dient Ge atsbepeavyae fhe ano Pa fwenel" appa inthe Bie asthe vist of the “Queen of Sheba fo Econ of King Scomon. ‘Such 3 revision of Eaypton istry, VelRovky claims, would solve ata svake a vast range af chvonclogcal digeles from the apparent eck characters found onthe tes of Raresses. (eureny dated tothe 2th century 8c) to the problematical ‘Dark Ages” that were inverted Ivo Greek and: Anson i tories ater thir chronologies were linked to that of Eaype In “The Society for Inerdscptinary Stales was inaugurated 19h snd strange ner specail felis quarterly Jornal examines in ‘depth all atpects of Vebhavekys work ‘The Editors wecome ‘mnscripte lang postion force agaat Vtkovaky+ “evsed ‘onelogy” and casmalogcl thease: publshed ares tear ‘The folowing papers wil be of pric intel made of {8s journal: Dk Jon BOSON (Tyndaie House, Cambridge) The Conquest of Canaan and the Revised Chronology (SIS8 13) ~The ath etary (LBA) placement af the Conquest is unsatificonyt1 ‘eter Fees in the destracion ofthe MBA ces of Palestine, ‘hich should be ssid to the Hebrews inthe Ith century 8 ‘otto the Egyplans i the eth centay. yaa MACCO8Y, M.A, (Lao Back Coleg) “Worlds in Col- Usion” and the Binh of Monathelam (ISK It) ~The unsgoe Clrcumatances of the Exodus mis the natural catastrophes post “ted by Vethovety may have ad considerate impicasons for the devdlopment of new view of man and the universe, ead Ing to Tacte monothelm PROF. LEWIS M. GREENBERG (Moore College of At, Pia) “Peoples of the ‘Sea An Art Historia! (SISK) Vetkovaky's chronological revision fr the ame of Ramesses 1 salves numerous arthstorcal problems, rather than cresting tem Dk EVA DANELILS (Nol Yam, lal! Did Thutmose HI Despell the Temple in Jerasalem? (ISR 3) — A new inerpre tation ofthe Anwals supports Velovsky’s claim that Thutmose, ena Sein ete Sespoler fSlr’s Tempe DRG. V. ROBINS (Ealing Technical College) soto ‘Anomalies in Cheonometic Sener (SISK 1) — An totic {meager than redaactve deny the Calforuan Brstcone Pine reslbraon of Carbon’ dates, hitherto apie to Neat Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Palestine the Irate Conquest of Canaan would be reflected in the destruction of ts Middle Bronze Age es, Wie the wealth td sophsteaton of Solomon's righ would be aeribed, ot to the tron Age bat tothe prosperous Late Bronze Age cision ft Pairing, to which the records ofthe XViith Dynasty ear ‘Vetkovsky's proposals starting as they may appear, canoer an inprenhe toed of oppo ton icy eee se a vendo ~ such as is cat Out the Linear 8 srpt would be {ound to be Greek (vered by Vents! decpherment that the “Admonitons of Ipuwer" — papyrus thought by Vellovsky to te an Egyptian reword of the doasters surounding the vols ™ may date othe end ofthe Xlth Dynany(uggeted Inter by J. VaN Sees, JEA 5, 19, pp. 132, and supported by W.F. ALBRIGHT, BASOR 17, 1968 pp. 59-42); and thatthe ‘Sroomical tans of conventional Egyptian ehtonaogy ie eo Pic alacows (re BBY LONG! °R Re-xaminaon of Te eee Chama of Hor ONIENTALIA 1976p. 28 27a), More conSations fs wel analyse of sora at ‘eat on te tot acct vessch to be found in te STIS REVIEW (ee tes below). “Ages in Chaos?” Conference, April 1978 ‘The Weekend Conference held in Seatnd last Sping under the auspces of the Ext Mural Dept ot Glagow Univer was ‘ended by part pants from 2 far S84 North Aeris Sd Israel. The PROCEEDINGS are bing prepared by the Sosy on the Univer behal and wil ince digs of pints raced Indscuion a well ar the papers given Sncuding, DRL Vest ovsky. “Some” Additonal Events forthe Petod foo the ‘Exodus to the End ofthe XVIth Dynasty" other stoma pap fs by ©. | Gasbwon" Dh) BON (Cam) on Fae fe oh Fits an SJ Oran ase, gow) on Egypt: and papers on Caton Da ing by DR EW. Mackie (Ask Kerpet iuneran Moeu) ton astonomy by Prot A. E Roy (ead of Dept of ‘Xeronomy, Claggow) nd DR RW. BASS gham Young U ‘ote pubahed this autumn and eceived ee bysnembers enc ted for 8081 a8 ania OF SIS Review Price 1 non-members fs haly tote about $7.0. Easter samples, not universal appleble ‘Dr JOHN BOSON: The Arival of the Phin (ISR 2) — ‘An eater dating than the usual one ofc 1210 8 removes 8 {al Beal anachronism, blters the revised placement of the {Conquest and provides posible archcologsal evidence ofthe Plagues Dk Huco MeyveLt (Depts. of Pilosophy and Theology, U of Leeds A Philoophy for Interdncplinry Studies ISR i) "Ansty Vethovany'. propos in ahaent Retry and pray ad ers oct era crate he sppcch PETER JANES (.A., Bemungham): A Cig of “Ramses 1 and his Time” (ISR 12) This part of Velikovskys recon ‘tracton is found incomptie wi the aehaclogal and i tera evidence’ other methe of completing the revit tac ‘anf begun in "Agen Chaoe” need tobe cought REPORTS by the Editors on the meeting “Vebovaky and His tory" held atthe Univer of Leeds, Match 1977, adarensed by Dr'Meynall, Dr Bimson and ethers (ISR £3) and on the ‘Weekend Conference at Glasgow (S15 I) OTHER HISTORICAL PAPERS: In Defence of the Revised ‘Chronology « The Walls of Jericho « The Hyksos and the ‘Archaeology of Palestine » The Two Jeharams » The Date of the ErAmam Leters » The Sulman Temple in Jeruaiem + Radiocarbon Daten for the XViIth Dynasty sn Eignt ‘Centry Date for Merenpak « A Chronology forthe MKC and Inne Egyptian Bondage “Mentership of the Society forthe year fo March 198 Gc tecept of Volume V of SER and asus of our Neweleter cost ‘32130 (E1000 within the United Kingdom ~ ama $5.0 eta) oot tack ten of SI ae valet copies aye ‘bained for 5250 (2.00 he UX) Aemtances a eng ‘Should be addeed to os BT Prescot, 12 Dorset Road Merton Pak ‘non. V9 (england) BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST SPRING 1981 n available evidence: as such. it is fantasy—sincere, per- hhaps, but not well informed. Bruce Williams University of Chicago, Oriental Institute A Topsy-Turvy World Few readers of Biblical Archeologist have had an ‘opportunity to view Mount Gerizim and the surrounding territory from an airplane, but readers who have visited the area at ground level may have been at least ‘momentarily puzzled by the aerial photograph used asan illustration in Robert T. Anderson's article, “Mount Gerizim: Navel of the World” (Fall 1980, p. 217) ‘A “flopping” of the aerial recording of the scene at some point between the initial exposure and the printed reproduction reversed east and west. The photograph should show the tree-clad peak, topped by Teller- Ras, in the upper right; the roadway ascending Mount Gerizim from Nablus should wind across the left-hand (westward) side of the scene. “That's the way it is” in our topsy-turvy world. Lee C. Ellenberger Chief Photographer The Joint Expedition to Shechem The Persepolis Ritual ‘The BA states that “Its purpose is to provide the general reader with an accurate, scholarly, yet easily understand- able account of archeological discoveries. ..."Inthe past, the high standards implied by this quote have been adhered to, and the prestige of the journal has attracted many leaders in the field to contribute to its pages. It was with these expectations and considerations in mind that we began to read “The Persepolis Ritual” by James M Fennelly (BA Summer 1980: 135-62). To say that we were sorely disappointed would be kind. ‘One hardly knows where to begin criticism of this long, fanciful, and totally inaccurate piece. Virtually every page is filled with error, misuse of data, and unsubstantiated suppositions and statements. The list is far too long to document each and every case, but a few specific examples will amply demonstrate what we mean. 1. On p. 136 the “palace of Xerxes (formerly identified as a harem . ..)" is given as one of the “six structures which form the essential Persepolis...” Later ‘on the same page we are told that the “Harem” is one ofa ‘number of buildings which “are simply later elaborations ‘on a central theme.” How does one building serve both functions? 2. On the same page we read that the “palaces of Xerxes... and of Artaxerxes I face the rachara.” The latter is also identified as one of the “essential” structures. But the palace of Xerxes does not face the rachara; the “palace” that does face it on the east was built by Darius, and the one that faces it on the south was built by Artaxerxes III. One might also wonder howa building of Artaxerxes III (or of Artaxerxes I, for that matter) can be 72 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1981 called “essential,” while the Hall of the Hundred Columns, built by Xerxes himself, is among later elaborations. 3. Onpp. 142-43, we are given the evidence that “the rulers of Persia were ritually influenced by the Baby- lonians.” (Later on we see that “ritually influenced” ‘meant the slavish copying of the Babylonian New Year's ritual.) But when we look closely at the evidence adduced, wwe see that itis totaly irrelevant. The motif of the winged sun disk is borrowed from Assyria (as are other motifs), but then Solomon adopts numerous Phoenician symbols yet is never accused of importing the Phoenician cult. A irilingual inscription shows that “the Babylonian lan- ‘guage shared status with the ancestral Persian tongues,” but so do Aramaic, Egyptian (the Darius statue from Susa), and presumably other languages in the empire What’ does this have to do with being “ritually fluenced”? Cylinder seals are said to depict “the King, as Bel-Marduk, fighting the demon Tiamat,” but the identification of the creature with whom the king fights as Tiamat has never been demonstrated, nor is there any reason to equate the king with Bel-Marduk. The fact that the Cyrus inscription states that he was chosen by Marduk is beside the point. This text, written in Baby- lonian for Babylonians, also identifies Cyrus as king of Babylon, Sumer, and Akkad, never as king of Parsa, and the phrase is equivalent to his being called “the anointed of YHWH" by Second Isaiah (Isa 45:1). Finally, the fact that a tablet of Enuma Elish, which was copied during the reign of Darius, is used as a piece of evidence for Babylonian influence on Iranian religion is beneath contempt. In sum, thelist used to demonstrate the “ritual influence” is a broken reed. 4. Further, on p. 143 the presence of artisans such as vintners, gold workers, wood carvers, and shepherds at Persepolis is adduced as circumstantial proof of the presence of all who “would be necessary for the complex production of a New Year’s Festival.” And, in the meantime, Persepolis was being built by elves. 5. One of the more amusing errors comes in the “reconstruction” of the Persepolis ritual. On p. 154 we have the king lighting a huge bonfire in the “Exalted Courtyard,” this serving as some sort of signal to the people massed below the terrace. Unfortunately, on p. 146 the courtyard is identified as the twelve-columned hall in the center of the tachara, and, as almost all who bother to consider would guess, the columns are there to support a roof. Thus, we have unwittingly freed Alexander the Great of blame for the burning of Persepolis. If we are to believe Professor Fennelly, the burning of the city must have been an annual event, 6. Minor errors abound. Two examples will suffice. On p. 137 and elsewhere we read of the masmasu priest. While one can avoid long marks over the vowels, the carrot on thesis integral. The masmasu never existed: the ‘masmasu (mashmashu) did. On p. 160 the photograph is identified as “The Remains of Persepolis.” The photo, however, is of Palace S at Pasargadae. It would be possible to go on at great length with such detailed criticism, but to little purpose. Of much greater concern is that our audience of general readers will think that the methods used here are generally accepted in the field of ancient Near Eastern research, There is a van Diinikenesque quality about much of the argument. In one paragraph, the author asks if the tachara is not possibly a temple. Later, after a description fof the building, but with no convincing evidence, its identification as a temple is taken for granted, ‘Sometimes, the question is not even asked. There is, an underlying assumption in the second half ofthe article that a thoroughgoing Babylonian/Persian syncretism pervaded Persepolis, and this assumption is elevated to fact, without any supporting evidence. There is the supposition that there existed a thing called the “general Mesopotamian myth” (p. 146), which is then used to ‘cover the lack of evidence. There is the supposition that somehow participation of the king in a Babylonian-style New Year's Festival would be seen as a cosmopolitan and acceptable expression on the part of all of Persia’ subjects, endearing him to priest and populace alike. ‘Again, using a biblical analogy, the argument would run that Ahab, having proved himself a religious man by his devotion to the Baal, would thus be acceptable to Elijah ‘And, finally, there is the assumption that one may take a text from one part of the ancient Near East and apply it without any critical judgment to any other part of the Near East. It is indeed sad and unfortunate that BA has accepted this article as a proper channel for communi- cating with the interested layman. If we were to be looking for a discussion of the ancient Achaemenids, ‘would it not have been better toturn toa David Stronach (Pasargadae); or to get Carl Nylander to expand the piece he contributed to the volume Power and Propaganda, a piece that is startling in the insights it provides us to the ‘Achaemenid world; or to ask the Tilias or Michael Roaf to summarize their recent work, work based on careful consideration of the data and long and thoughtful consideration of what it means? These are the ones who are dispelling the “mystery” hidden by the “carved figures” of this great site, without at the same time distorting the realities in superficial and unwarranted speculation that does none of us any good. Louis D. Levine E. J. Keall T. Cuyler Young, Jr. John S. Holladay, Jr. Royal Ontario Museum Toronto, Ontario ‘A Response The letter from the scholars at Royal Ontario Museum demonstrates how the pendulum has dramatically shifted away from Hersfeld’s original nowruz enthronement festival. New research is bringing fresh insight 10 ‘Achaemenid origins. The ceramic tradition of Persepolis hhas been traced back 10 the Iranian invasions of Iron I. Emphasis is being placed on the Medes as laying the groundwork for the empire of Cyrus and his successors, without losing sight of the Assyrian influences in this development. Krefier, Hartner, Pope, and Lentz have been set aside as excessive. This corrective has laid greater stress on the reliability of Herodotus, Athenaios, and Plutarch concerning the nature of Persian religion. It is pointed out that the royal hero was too facilely identified with Marduk. In Tehran in 1969, James George questioned the use of Persepolis at the spring equinox and suggested rather the Greek new year of the summer solstice. One assumes that David Stronach has also stepped aside from his Zoroastrian interpretation (INES 1967: 287). influenced by Zahner and Duchesne- Guillemin. The new concerns are well summarized by P. Calmeyer (Iran 18 (1980): 50-63). But, the case for an enthronement ritual may not be totally disregarded. There is considerable new evidence which illuminates certain solid observations from the ast, which justifies such an interpretation. 1. Tilia identified the spear points from the parapet directly with Marduk (June 1968: 124, 38.) 2. Boardman saw the Achaemenid court style Pyramidal stamp seals as demonstrating virtually no ‘change from Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian pat- terns... Iisa Mesopotamian monster which has most to do with renderings of Achaemenid art” (Boardman, Iran 8 [1970} 32) 3. Schmidt found a large collection of Assyrian and 'Neo-Babylonian votive objects from Mesopotamian temples at Persepolis which he had Koldewey identify There were numerous Marduk seals from Esagila in Babylon (Schmidt 1957: 56). 4. Langdon demonstrated that the Achaemenid calendar was based upon Babylonian computations up until the time of Xerxes (Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga. London, 1928: 98). A calendar is a ritual-administrative chart which transmits a basic cosmology, which in this instance is the Mesopotamian mythology. Poebel demonstrated this same fact when he connected the Old Persian, the Elamite, and the Babylonian months (AISL 55 [1938] 130-41). ‘The months represent patterns of organization and administration. 5. Cameron noted that Darius accepted the Baby- Ionian coin use reform (1948: 2). The economic pattern was in harmony with the cosmology which supported the political organization and administration. 6. Nylander, for all his superb work on the Greek influence in Achaemenid art, states that the essential content is Mesopotamian (1966: 145). 7. Olmstead fet that the Assyrian roots of Persepolis were without doubt (Oriental Studies in Honour of C. E. Pavry. London, 1933: 366). His student, R. Frve,saw the kingship ritual as part of a continuum: Assyrian, Neo- Babylonian, Achaemenid, and Sassanian (The Heritage of Persia, New York, 1963: 121). 8. Both Frye (1963: 118) and Nylander (“Achae- ‘menid Imperial Art.” Power and Propaganda: A ‘Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, ‘Mesopotamia 7. Uppsala, 1980: 345-59) suggest that Persepolis was built for propaganda purposes. Religion was @ political weapon. BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 198173 9. Dutz presents a valid concept in his analysis of Persepolis art when he argues that it is a form of a Ziggurat after the pattern of Choga Zambil “Symbolism in the Details of the Reliefs,” A Survey of Persian Art, London, 1976: 3466). 10, Perrot connected the Assyro-Babylonian style 10 the Palace at Susa (Iran 10 [1972} 183). Ghirshmann has ‘always championed the nowruz celebration at Persepolis (Artibus Asiae 20 /1957} 265). He spoke favorably to me about the “Persepolis Ritual” theory after hearing a preliminary report at the IAHR in Lancaster in 1975. In Chicago, the year before atthe AIA. A. B. Tilia was quite encouraging when we talked about this same subject. There are, though, several particulars which require a specific answer. 4. The buildings which face the tachara of Darius are Buildings F (Xerxes) and C (identified by Schmidt, ‘although without foundation tablets, as built by Xerxes, ‘but more probably to be associated with Artaxerxes 1) . The roof on the courtyard of Building I, Darius’s tachara, is not certain nor very important. The strong Greek influence at Pasargadae, precursor of Persepolis, ‘might allow for a few more open courtyards such as are assumed in Building B (Schmidt's Treasury). c. The suggested “slavish copying” was an obvious necessity 10 test the premise that the Babylonian ritual ‘might be performed on the Persepolis platform. Had the Titual been tailored too much, the two-model test would have been compromised. 74. BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1981 4. The report by Herodotus about Persian religion was accepted. The Pasargadae- Persepolis dichotomy was preserved through the separation of Pasargadae for ‘national ritual and Persepolis as a genuine syncretism of ‘many styles . The colophon from the enuma eli8, during the reign of Darius, obviously was not meant to prove the enthronement ritual at Persepolis but rather to show that that ancient document was contemporary and not just a ‘museum piece. ff Xerxes’ Hall of 100 Columns was considered an elaboration of the essential ritual, in the same way as the Gate of All Peoples was a later construction. The buildings of Xerxes must show a knowledge of the ritual of Darius while making an harmonious modification of. the Founder's pattern. Its well known that Artaxerxes ‘alters both the ritual and the site (Tilia 1972: 314). &. I apologize for the inadvertent dropping of the diaeritical marks over masmaSu (which, ironically, were ‘omitted from your letter) and accept the suggestion of mashmashu as a better transliteration. Theerror over the Pasargadae photo was infuriating. It was the work of a subeditor and was beyond my control. James M. Fennelly ‘Adelphi University Garden City, Long Island Archaeology & Science Delve 4,000 Years Into ‘The Past To Document THE BIBLE AS HISTORY Werner Keller Second Revised Edition Lively blend of drama and reporting that reads 'a detective story grafted ona history book’ Hailed for two decades as a milestone in biblical investigation—ranslated into twenty-four lan: ‘guages: over 10 million copies sold—THE BIBLE AS HISTORY has been thoroughly revised and updated with new historical, archaeological. and ‘Scientific information. New illustrations, captions ‘and maps, and a chapter on the Shroud of Turin have been added “The canvas covered inthis book..s simply monu- mental’ —The New York Times Book Review Readable, intelligent. tively and informative overall” Kirkus Reviews es of black-and-white photos. Index William Morrow gy vos Madaon Avene. New York, wv 1006 ML Aphek-Antipatris Biblical City in the Sharon Plain Moshe Kochavi The site of Aphek-Antipatris has a long history, begin- ning with the earliest remains, dated to the start of urbanization in Israel (ca 3000 B.C.E.). In this article, the author touches upon Amorite, Canaanite, Philis- tine, Israelite, Hellenistic, Herodian, and later settle- ments in his discussion of the history and archeology of this important city. ‘Above: The Acropolis of Aphek- ‘Antipatris from the west. Area A in foreground left, Area X within the courtyard of the Ottoman fort. Area C among trees in foreground right. Expedition’s camp and Aphek Park in the background, Below: The Yarkon River Basin in antiquity. Drawn by Judith Dekel Tell Aphek (Tell Rosh ha-“Ain or Ras al“Ain) is situated at the sources of the Yarkon River, ca. 3 km cast of the town of Petah Tikva. The tel, with an area of 30 acres, was the site of large cities which guarded the nar- row “Aphek Pass” between the Yarkon in the west and the mountains of Samaria in the east. Here stood the city of Aphek, which is known to us from the Bible and is mentioned already in Egyptian inscriptions of the 2nd millennium 8.c.e.; in the Hellenistic period the city was known as Pegae ("Springs"), and under Herod the Great, when it was enlarged and completely rebuilt, it ‘was called Antipatrs after his father, Antipater. Since the Arab period, no town of any substance has existed here: only highway fortresses were constructed, the last of which, built in the Ottoman period, stil crowns the mound's crest. (For the history of the site in light of the historical documents, see Kochavi 1975 [reprinted in Kochavi and Beck 1976}. AA detailed study with English translation ofall documents per- taining to Aphek can be found in Kochavi and Beck forthcoming.) LICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SPRING 1981 75 Excavations Archeological exploration at Tell Aphek began in 1934-35 with the salvage excavations of J. Ory, followed by another salvage excava- tion under A. Eitan in 1961. These excavations were necessitated by construction works undertaken in connection with the Yarkon springs development projects. (For the excavation reports, see Ory 1936: 1I1- 12; 1938: 99-120; Iliffe 1936: 113-26; Eitan 1967: 114-18; 1969: 49-68.) In 1972, when the municipality of Petah Tikva broke ground for a national park encompassing the tell, and the National Parks Authority began working on the restoration of the Ottoman fort, the Tel Aviv 76 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST, SPRING 1981 University Institute of Archacology initiated the first systematic excava~ tions of the mound To date the following areas of the tell have been excavated: Area A ‘on the northwestern slope, Area Bon the northern slope, Area C south of the Ottoman fort, Area D near the southern perimeter of the tell, Area E (A. Eitan’s excavations) at the southeastern perimeter, Area F in the park north of the tell, Area G at the southwestern perimeter, and Area O U. Ory’s excavations) in the northeastern comer of the tell. In recent seasons, digging has been concentrated in Area X, containing the acropolis of Canaanite Aphek lying immediately under the courtyard Left: Areas of Excavations at Aphek- Antipatris. Below: EB II private building of the "Broad-house™ type. Floor made of river pebbles. Area A. of the Ottoman fort and in Area C, which encompasses the main street and Forum of Antipatrs. ‘The First City The earliest remains discovered at Aphek date from the beginning of urbanization in Eretz Israel, in the final phase of EB I (ca. 3000 8...) Finds from this period came from the trench cut through the steep northern slope, Area B, where a mudbrick wall fon stone foundations was found at the foot of the mound. This wall, which is 2.9 m wide, was exposed to a Tength of 12.0 m and found to be paralleled by a narrow lane beyond which stood private buildings of the same period. Private buildings of another type, the so-called broad-room houses which are characteristic of EB II, were uncoverd in Area A. Many potsherds, including imported Egyp- tian ware, were found on the floors of these houses, which stood on both sides of intersecting streets, indicating that urban planning was not unknown at this time. Remains from the Early Bronze Age were found in every area at the periphery of the mound, testifying to EB city wall (near standing figure) and MB Ila city wall (in foreground). Arca B. the large size of the settlement during this period. Asat Tell el-Far‘ah (N), “Ai, and Tell “Erani, here at Tell Aphek a large fortified city was established already at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age and existed

    You might also like