Write ThatTher_Mar Read

Studies in Literacy and Textualization in

the Andent Near East and in
the Hebrew Scriptures

Essays in Honour of
Professor Alan R. Millard

EDITED BY

Daniel I. Block (EmToR)

David C. Deuel (Assoc1ATE F.mToR)

C. John Collins (Ass1s·rANT no1Toa)

Paul J. N. Lawrence (Ass1sTANT rn1ToR)

Publicati<>ns• Eugene, Oregon

l'l:'-PICKWICK
WRITE THAT 'i'H£Y MAY READ The essays in this volume are dedicated to our beloved
Studies in Literacy an<lTcxtualization in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Scriptures mentor, colleague, and friend,
Copyright© 20:20 Wipf an<lStock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in
critical publications or reviews, no part of this hook may he reproduced in any manner without Alan R. Millard
prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W.
IUh Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR.97401.
Rankin Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages, and
Pickwick Publications
Honorary Senior Fellow (Ancient Near East), at the School of Archaeology,
An lrnprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3 Classics and Egyptology in the University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfan<lstock.com

l'hPP.RBACK !SIIN; 978-1-7252-52.10-3

HARDCOVJ!-R
lSllN': 978-1-7252-5208-0
litWOK ISBN: 978-1-7252-52.09-7

Cataloguing-in-Publicationdat_a_: __
Names: :Block, Daniel lsaac, 1943-, editor. I Deuel, David C., editor I Collins, C. John, editor I
Lawrence, Paul (Paul John Nicholas), editor
Title: Write that they may read : studies in literacy and textual.ization in the ancient Near East
an<l in the Hebrew Scriptures/ chief editor Daniel I. Block; associate editor David C. Deuel ; as-
sistant editor C. John Collins; assistant editor P·,mlJ. N. Lawrence
Description: Eugene, OR: Pidcwick Publications. 2020 I Includes bibliographical references an<l
iudex.
l<lenlifiers: 1s11N978-1-7252-5210-3 (paperback) I 1sBN 978-1-7252-5208-o (hardcover) I •SflN
978-J-7252-520~>-7 (ebook)
Suhjects: LCSH: Middle East-History-To 622 I Mi<l<lleEast-Civili1.ation-To 622 I Writing-
History I Excavations (Archaeology)-Mid(Ue East

Classification:
- - -- DS62.2 056 2020 (print)
---
I os62.2( _e_b_o_o-'k)______
. _

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 05/28/20

Alan and MargaretMillard

"1be scribal art is the mother of orators and the father of scholars:·
Contents
-Sumerian Proverb

List of Figures I xii

ListofTables I xiv
Editors'Prefaceand Acknowledgments I >.-v
I.isl of Contributors I xviii
1.islof Abbreviations I xx
Introduction by Daniel I. Block xxix

Section l: Artifacts and Minimalist Literacy

1 "See 'Ihat You May Understand": Artifact Literacy and the Twin-Cup Libation
Vessels from Khirbet Qeiyafa I3
-GERALD KUNGBEIL AND MAlff[N KLINGBEIL

2 Ketiv-Qere: The Writing and Reading of EA 256 and Its Place in Reflecting
the Realia of Power and Polity in the LBA-IA Golan and Peripheries I 27
- TIMOTHY M. CROW

3 t Another Inscribed Arrowhead in the British Museum I 44

-TERENCF, C. MITCHELL

4 Earliest Literary Allusions to Homer and the Pentateuch

from Jschia in Italy and Jerusalem I .53
-PAUL J.N. LAWRENCE
5 The .Etymology of Hebrew log and the Identity ofShavsha the Scribe I 5.9
-YosH1Yux1 Muctt1KI

ix
 CONTENTS
CONTENTS

Section 2: Artifacts and Official Literacy 16 "Read this Torah" (Deuteronomy 31:11): The Importance and Function of
Israel's Primary Scripture in Early Spiritual Growth I 294
6 The Wr.iting/Rea<ling/Hearing of the Hehrew Stone Tablet Covenant in the
-DAvm C. DEUEL
Light of the Writing/Reading/Hearing of the Silver Tahlet Treaty I 71
-GORDON JOHNSTON 17 What Is a 'Messianic Text'? lhe Uruk Prophecy and the Old Testament I 311
-ERNEST C. LUCAS
7 For Whose Eyes? 'The Divine Origin an<l Function of the Two Tablets
of the Israelite Covenant I 100 18 Joshua 24 and Psalm 81 as Intertexts I 330
-DANIEL I. BJ,OCK -CHERYL EATON

8 Write That They May Judge? Applying Written Law in Biblical Israel I 127

-JONATHAN BURNSrDE Section 4: Metaphorical Literacy

19 Belonging to YHWH: Real and Imagined Inscribed Seals
9 Samuel as Scribal Prophet in 1 Samuel 10:25 and 1 Samuel 1-1 .5 j 148
in Biblical Tradition I 349
- WOLFGANG ERTL
-CARMEN Joy IM.ES
10 Running and Reading: A Reexamination of Habakkuk 2:2c I 181
-DAVID TOSHIO TSUMURA
20 Reading the Eye: Optic Metaphorical Agency in Deuteronomic Law
-A. RAHEL WELLS
-I 366

Section 3: The Rise of literary literacy

Section 5: Epilogue
11 The History and Pre-History of the Hebrew Language in the West
Semitic Literary Tradition I 191
21 Literacy and Postmodern fallacies I 384
-RICHARD E. AvnRBI.CK
-RJCHARD s.HESS
22 In Praise of a Venerable Scribe: A Bibliographic Tribute
12 Divine Action in the Hebrew Bible: "Borrowing" from Ancient Near Eastern
Cultures and "Inspiration" I 221
to Alan R. Millard I 392
-EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI
-C. }OHN COLLINS

13 Encoding an<l Decoding Culture I 240

Bibliography I 417
-Jf:NS BRUUN KoFor.n
Index of Modem Authors 461
14 No Books, No Authors: Literary Production in Index of SelectedSubjects 469
a Hearing-Dominant Culture I 263 Index of BiblicalReferences I 481
-JOHN H. WALTON Index of Ancient ExtracanonicalLiterature I 499
Index of SelectedForeignWordsand Phrases I 503
15 The Discovery of the Book of the Law in 2 Kings 22:8-10 in the Light
of the Literary Renaissance of the Eighth to Seventh Centuries in the
Ancient Near East I 278
-JAMES K. HOPl'MEIER

x.i
X
 1

('See That You May Understand,,

Artifact Literacy and the Twin-Cup Libat.ion
Vesselsfrom Khirbet Qeivafa1
'

(iERALD A. KLINGBEIL AND

MARTING. KuNGBF.rL

'
Abstract

EVERY TJMR WF. r.oox at an ancient artifact, especially one associated with the cult or
cultic practices,we instinctivelyembark on the mental path from the object to texts
(biblical and extra-biblical) and images (textual and iconographic), searching for as-
sociations that are evoked by the artifact. In this study, we will take the discovery of
two rare twin-cup libation vessels at Khirbet Qeiyafa in 2009 and 2011 as our point
of departure as we test artifact literacy. How does an artifact inform our knowledge of
specific cult practices? How can the interpreter move from seeing to understanding?
In this case, the artifact guides the way via texts and images to meaning.

Introduction: Excavating Meaning

The moment an object comes to light in any archaeological excavation, several cog-
nitive processes-beyond the general excitement of volunteers and staff-begin in
the excavator's mind. This is especially the case when the site and/or object arc in

1. We arc delighted to contribute this chapter on artifact literacy in a volume honoring Alan Mil·
lard, a man whose scholarship we have both highly appreciated and admired. While we never had the
privik.-geof sitting in a class taught by Professor Millard, his scholarship and serious rnmmitment to
Scripture havedeeply impacted us. His focuson writingand Israel'sliterary heritage uses a similar broad
methodology !hat linlcsdata points from the material culture, andenl lex.ts,as well as ancient images.

3
 SECTION I: ARTIFACTS AND MINIMALIST Ll't'ERACY
some way relatable to the biblical text2 anJ the excavator has an interest in such con -
nections. 3 Of course, there is an immediate need to identify and process the object
in terms of its find category (e.g., pottery, metal/stone object, inscription, artwork,
bone, etc.), its digital recording (creating Gl.S-driven datasets and images), 1 and inter-
disciplinary treatment (anthropology, architecture, geology, paleobotany, metallurgy,
computer science, statistics, etc.).5
However, beyond that taxonomic and descriptive process, which is informed
by current archaeological methodologies, the question of meaning arises almost
instantaneously when we begin to "read" the object thus requiring what could be
termed artifact literacy. In this case artifact literacy refers to the ability to interpret
the artifact beyond the archaeological interpretation on the basis of texts (biblical
and extra-biblical) and images (literary and iconographic). The reading of an artifact
is thus subject to hermeneutic principles as much as is the decoding of the meaning
of a biblical text or an image, which will concern us in more detail below.6 It is an
interactive process that uses the artifact as the point of departure while meaning is
"excavated" through comparative material with the objective to move from seeing to
understanding-not just the object, but also its usage at the site, its integration into
the wider material culture of ancient Israel, and the underlying worl<lviewof the so-
ciety that produced the artifact. This in turn may provide additional clues concerning
the ethnicity of the inhabitants of the site under question and a further understand-
ing of Israel in biblical times.
2. 'Jhc dchatc on Biblical Archaeology has occupied academia for many years. William Dever
spearheaded processnal (and indirectly post-processnal) archaeology with his call for moving away
from .Biblical to Syro-Palestinian Archaeology (c-.tsilydemonstrated in the process resulting in the
renaming of BiblicalArchaeologistto Near EasternArchaeologyin 1998-against the majority vote
of ASOR members), which had succeeded by the I.ate 1980s. However, a short lime later he decried
the decline of the discipline and the disappearance of academic programs in Bihlical Archaeology
throughnut the United States. Recently, togelhcr with a number of other archaeologists, Dever called
for a new Biblical Archaeology, not as a (hihlical) text-driven enterprise but as a dialogue between
Syro-Palcstiuian Archaeology (or politically more correct: Archaeology of the Southern Levant) and
Biblical Studies. See.Devc1·,"Docs 'Biblical Archaeology' Have a l 1ulurc?» 349-60; Dever, Beyond the
Texts, 19-24.
3. While post-proccssual archaeology tries to establish the relationship between artifact and the
worldvicw of the culture that produced it, the world-view of the excavator has been scrutinized
more recently as large-scale archaeological excavation projects iu Israel and Jordan arc successfully
maintained by relatively small faith-hascd academic institutions whose worldview includes a respect
for the biblical record. See Younker, "Integrating Faith, the Bible, and Archaeology,' 43-52. Overall,
the volwnc, which has hccu co-edited by the honoraud of the present Jlestschrifl,provides a more
positive perspective on the rclatiouship be1wccu bihlical text aud archaeology. Sec also Bcujamin.
Stones and Stories.
4. Sec Levy, "'the New Pragmatism, 3-42.
5. See Amihai Ma7.ar,Archaeologyof the Land of the BibleBCE, 26-27.
6. It suffices to say that for now in his magnum opus, Dever laments the neglect and stresses the
importance of archaeological hermeneutics. See Dever, 8eyond the 'lexts, 2/1-32.
4 5
KLINGBEIL & KLINGBElL-"SEE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND"
While much has been written about ethnoarchaeology within the context of
processual archaeology, from the perspective of bibJical studies, the archaeological
endeavor still needs to be concerned with the question of Israel and/or versus the
nations, even if this notion appears overly simplistic and parochial. 7 'lhis is par-
ticularly true for the realm of cultic activity that implicitly creates a group identity,
a notion of insiders and outsiders, those who participate in a ritual and those who \
do not or who are barred from doing so. Hopefully, the times when archaeologists
identified an artifact as cultic for lack of any other identification are in the past,8
and archaeologists have established criteria for the recognition of cultic contexts
and objects. 9 Nevertheless, cult or the archaeology of religion still remains at the
top of the interest list for archaeologists, as it reaches to the deepest levels of ancient
worldviews, and, incidentally, also creates a link to biblical studies. The artifacts or
cultic paraphernalia thus point to the associated ritual and the underlying religious
system and worldview, which in terms of biblical studies, can open a wide window
into the world of the Hebrew Bibl.e.rn
Moving from Generalities to Specifics
During the 2009 anJ 2011 seasons at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a site overlooking the Elah
Valley in the Shephelah, which has provided substantial material evidence for the
chronology of the tenth century BCE and the expansion of the Judean kingdom
under a central administration, 11 excavators found the fragmented remains of two
7. See the sociological challenge lo traditional notions of cth.nicily in archaeology and bihlical
studies by Nestor in which he provides a cognitive rational for I.heconcept of"groupncss.» <:r.Nestor,
CognitivePerspectivr~~on .lsraeliteIdentity, 237-4<). With regard to the aversion to (hiblical) te11.1s
from
the proponents of processual or New Archaeology, he concludes;" ... a retreat into quantitative melh·
o<lologies and the rhetoric of logical empiricism as espoused by advocates of the New Ard1acology
succeeds only in prodncing a mechanistic, subject-less conception of causality resting upon a theory
of individuals caught in a play of structural determinants beyond their contn.>i»(p. 238). Ct: also
Benjamin, Stonesand Stories,208-13.
8. La.ueri comments on the reflex-like cul.liecategorization of arLifacls: mlhus, wheucvcr archae-
ologists are confronted with archaeological records (i.e., artefacts, features, architccLure) that cannot
be dearly assigned to a specific domain or 'have no functional value: they usually claim that they were
part of an ine.xplicable religious or ritual domain." See Laneri, Definingthe Sacred,3.
9. Dever offers five broad criteria for def ming cull archaeologically: ( 1) cultic sites arc consecrated"
by being marked otf or isolated; (2) cultic sites arc often elevated bama); (3) cultic installations have
unusual architectural features (e.g., m~"$eba, basins, altars, etc.); (4) artifacts are "exotic" (e.g., chal·
ices, incense stands, figuriucs. clc.); and (5) there is material evidence for sacrifices (e.g.• hones; liba-
tion vessels). Sec Dever, The Livesuf Ordinary Peoplein Ancient lsrael. 251. Compare aL~oearlier the
helpful comments in Gilmour, "The Archaeology of Cult in the Ancient Near East:· 283-92, and the
discussion of cult archaeology in LBA Syria-Palestine i.nG. A. Klingbeil, '"Between North and South;»
111-50.esp. 134-41.
1 o. See, for example, the infercucc from cultic artifacts to worshipped deities in Jerusalem hy Keel,
"Paraphernalia of}erusalem Sanctuariei;," 317-42.
11. Within the constraints of this chapter, itis impossible to summarize the significant contributions
 SECTION 1: ARTIFACTS AND M[NJMALJST LlTt:RACY KLlNGBIHL & XUNGBEIL-"SEE THAT YOU MAY UND.liRSTAND"

similarly shaped libation vessels. Both were found in cuJtic contexts (Figs. 1.1 and
1.2}. 12 The first libation vessel was found during the 2009 excavation season in Area /
/
N
Cina private cultic room (Room Gin Building C3), and the second in 2011 in Area
SlaMing
Din a public cultic area (Room A of Building D100). 13 The cultic context of the arti- Standing ~ Stone
Suma '-... C6235A
C52358 ..,.
facts was dearly discernible with a number of cultic installations and paraphernalia
near the objects. 'The fragmented Jibation vessel from Area C was found close to a " ' Offering
Room C , ·aeoe11 Table
limestone basin (upside down and broken). Furthermore, there was a north-facing . C6·17,:, <..8446

hench, two standing stones (nil¥,;)), a sink-hole connecting to a drainage system, Room G
an offering table, a rectangular and rounded installation, and a basalt altar (also
broken). 14 Further finds in this room included a Judean conoid seal with a lion at-
tacking an animal, 15 as well as a scarab depicting Amun with two falcon-headed
deities. 16 'the libation vessel from Area D was unearthed in a similar context as part
of a public cultic area described as the gate-piazza sanctuary by the excavators, hased
on its proximity to the western gate of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Fig. 1.3). Cultic parapher-
17
nalia included a bench, a standing stone (;,;11~,;>), and a deposit of three iron hlades.
which were interpreted by the excavators as weapons, possibly the earliest attesta-
tions of a Judahite curved sword. 1x Weapons in cultic context can also be found in
the narratives of the Hebrew Bible (cf. 1 Sam 21:8-9).

2m
=- -

Figure 1.1: Drawing of Room G, Building C3, Area C, with cultic installation~
(G.idinkcl, Ganor, and Hascl (2018), Hg. 14.4}.

---····-····-
':,1_,._.,
____ --·-······: ..

B • D<>gger
.s A
\
·•,\ • Libat~onVess•?'
of Khirbct Qeiyafa lo the understanding of the history, chronology, state formation, administration,
literacy, ceramic typology. cull, and more during the tenth century BCE in judah. Besides more than
eighty scholarly articles and several popular boo.ks, the main excavation reports of the site puhlishecl
so far are: Garfmkel and Ganor, Khfrbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007-2008; Garfinkel,
Ganor, and Hascl, KhirbetQeiyafa Vol.2. The2009-2013 ExcavationSeasons;Garfinkel, Ganor, and
Hasel, KhirbetQeiyafa Vol. 4. ExcavationReport 2007-2013; Farhi, KhirbetQeiyafa Vol. 5. Excavatio"
Report 2o<J7-2013; Kang and Garfinkel, KhirbetQeiyafa Vol.6. ExcavationReport 2007-2013. J
12. The images from KhirbetQeiyafa Vol.4 are used wiih the permission of Yosef Garfinkel, prin-
cipal director of the Khirbct Qeiyafa.
13. For the architectural contL'Xl sec Garfinkel and Hase!, "'!he Twin-Cup Libation Vessels:·
211-17.
14. Garfinkel and Hascl, «lhe Sanctuary Duildings;· 17-24.
15. Schroer,"Three Local hoo Age Seals;· 263-65.
16. M. G. Klinghcil, "'lhe EgyptianSeals;' 247-49.
, 7. Possibly two, one in Room l of Building 1)100, the other in Room J of the same building.
Figure 1.:2:Drawing of Room A, Building lHOO, Area D with cultic installations
18. Garfinkel and Hasel, "The Sanctuary Buildings," 35-46; Hase!, "Weapons from a Cultic Con- and objects (Garfinkel, Ganor:, and Hase! [2018], Fig. 14.10).
text; 165-78.

6 7
 SECTION 1: ARTIFACTS ANU MINJMALJST LITERACY KLlNGBIHL & KLINGBEJL-"SE.E THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND"

_ 1__ 33_ ___.J _....... 32 ___J __ 31 __.1...__3_Q__ ___1 . . 2.9 .... L._,

~ i.....
I !

io
~
I
+ ,- figure 1.4: Close-up of the libation
vessel as found in Room G, Building
i
--
- .. - .._,
I
IR
:
C3, Area C (Garfinkel, Ganor, and
Hasd [2018), Fig. 14.6).
!
....: ...,
. ''
.
', r
1fJJ/- ~
js

--i-- + ''
'_.

·..'' ,----
. , +
'
' '
'' ''

\
M
'I ''
+ -t-'\:
.. ' +
.. '
'
''
', ~
~ ~ t
' '

-~:
...\.----~-
r+ 8

•:;.+
-
' ,,
,,
' ~
'
~
,,
+: ', t(
. + ~
.
.....
-+',
l ~ •

' .
'• '.. .-
• .-,.
:1 !X Figure 1.5: Close-up of the libation
vessel as found in Room A, Building
+~ lhoo, Area D (Garfinkel, Ganor,
....... '
•H A
and Hascl (2018), Fig. 14.11 ) .

Hgure 1.3: Plan of Areal) with the pia.,,za and Building 1>1oo
(Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel [20181, Fig. 2.37).

8 9
 SJ::CTION 1: ARTIFACTS AND MINIMAUST l.l'fERACY KLINGBEIL & KLINGBF.JL- "SEE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND"

Both twin-cup libation vessels were broken in pieces (Figs. 1.4 and 1.5) .simi-

-.-,=,
larly to various other cultic paraphernalia in their vicinity, which suggests that they
were deliberately smashed when the site was destroyed. The vessel from Area C was .......
,l
restorable (Fig. 1.6) except for the necks and rims of the two cups, but their hasic ·'
functional design was identical: two ronnded cups that joined with each other and set ...,.

on a high base with each one having an opening at the top and an internal connection
between the two cups (Fig. 1.7). The vessel was associated with liquids· (water, milk,
wine, oil, or blood) and the internal connection would have allowed for a mixing of
the liquid(s). 19 It soon became apparent that the two twin-cup libation vessels from
Khirbet Qeiyafa were part of a very small group of comparable objects, all stemming
from cuJtic contexts dated to the Iron Age (Fig. 1.8), namely from Tel Qiri in the Jez-
(i;>:
\ . .
..,,._,_.;..J Figure 1.7: a. Libation vessel from
reel Valley (sanctuary of Stratum VIII; eleventh century BCE), Khirbat al-Mudayna Area C, BaiskelC8!h6; b. Libation
vessel from Area D, Uasket ll4239
in the Jordanian hill country (sanctuary near the city gate; eighth century BCE), and ~--
/· ........
·,,
Tell Deir <AJlain the Jordan Valley (culticcontext; eighth century BCE). The restricted /• ). , I \
(Garfinkel,Ganor,and Hase! (201~),
Ii ; l l'ig. 15.1).
geographic inland distribution of the objects disassociates these vessels from Canaan- \ /.:...... /
ite and Philistine material culture. 20
'"'-:-~~/ :::

F\)-. .

Figure 1.6: The libation vessel of Room G, Building <=3,Area C, aflcr restoration
(Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel [10181, Fig. 14.7).
1 a b C

19. ·the dimensions of tl1etwo twin-cnp libation vesselsarc almost identical, with a shorter base
for the vessel from Arca D (sec Fig. 7). The Area C vesselhas a tall base, 7 cm in height, and its lower ---...............
C
,
10cm.
part ends with a flared widening edge and measnres 7.5 cm in diameter. This base supports two cnps,
the one on the left with 10 cm in diameter and the one on tbe right with 9.5 cm in diameter. In com- Hgure 1.8: a. Iron Age libation vessel from Tel Qiri; b. lron Age libation vessel from
parison, the flared base of the vesselfrom Area D measures 7 cm in diameter and 4 cm in height.1hc Khirha.tal-MuJayna in Jordan; c. Iron Agelibation vesselfrom Tell neir'Alla
cup on the left is 9.5 cm in iliameter,while the cup on the right cannot be measured becauseofits poor
(Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel [1018), fig. 15.7).
preservation. C( Garfinkeland Hasel,"The Twin-Cup Libation Vessels;·213-14.
20. Garfinkel and Hase), "'lhe Twin-Cup J.ibation Vessels,212-14.

10 11
 SECTION 1: ARTIFACTS AND MINIMALIST LITERACY
The excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa yielded three sanctuaries with a large amount
of cultic paraphernalia dated to the Iron Age IIA. Two gate plar.a sanctuaries, i.e.,
cultic rooms adjacent to the open spaces close to the western and southern gates,
and a cultic room in Area C in a house (Building C3) that was abutting the casemate
wall. The combined accumnJation of architectural features and installations (benches,
platforms, offering tables, standing stones, sink-holes, basins, etc.), as well as the large
amount of cultic paraphernalia (basalt altar, limestone basin, a gigantic cup-and-
saucer type vessel, the two twin-cup vessels, chalices, a large pilgrim flask, portable
shrines, etc.), dearly marked the rooms as cuJtic spaces, comparable with sanctuaries
at other sites such as Tel Qiri, Megiddo, and Lachish. 21
Furthermore, some of the cultic objects from Khirbet Qeiyafa have reshaped our
understanding of cuJtic architecture in ancient Israel. The three shrine models, and
among them especially the limestone portable shrine moJel with its recessed door-
frames anJ triglyphs, have clarified details in the construction of the Solomonic temple
as described in the Hebrew Bible.22 The state of preservation for the cultic paraphernalia
at Khirbet Qeiyafa points to deliberate destruction when the Iron Age HA phase came
to an end, since a number of objects were broken, turned over, and their fragments
scattered across the floors. 23 Other remarkable characteristics of the three sanctuaries
at Khirbet Qciyafa include (1) a certain hierarchy oflocations with Building C10, the
cultic room adjacent to the southern gate piazza, exhibiting a higher concentration
of cultic installations and paraphernalia; (2) an absence of cult images, which, in line
with other Israelite/Judean sites (e.g., Tel Qiri, Megiddo, and Lachish), and in contrast
with Canaanite, Philistine, Moabite, and Edomite sites, could cautiously be connected
to a practice of an early aniconic cult during the early Iron Age;24 and (3) a preference
for libation rituals, which is attested by the presence of hasins and drainage systems in
l:\v'oof the three cultic rooms (Buildings C3 and C10), and a number of cuJtic vessels,
of which the two twin-cup libation vessels discussed here, provide ample evidence,25
creating a link to contemporary cult practices mentioned in the Hebrew Bible that
include C':::lOl,
. ,: i.e., libation rituals (1 Sam 7:6).
After having introduced the specific reference point of this article (i.e., the
two twin libation vessels from Khirbet Qeiyafa), we return to the question of the
21. Garfinkel and Hase), "TI1eSanctuary Buildings;· 46-48.
22. Zilbcrg, ~A Simple Clay Portable Shrine:· 73-81; Garfinkel and Mumcuoglu, "An Elat>orate
Clay Portable Shrine;' 83-100; Garfinkel an<l Mumcuogln, "A Limestone Portable Shrine;' Hn-26;
Garfinkel and Mumcuoglu, Solomons Temple and Palace;Mumcuogln an<l C,arfinkcl, Crossing the
Threshold.
23. Garfinkel and Hase!, "The Sanctuary Ruildings;' 4/l,
24. Garfinkel and Hasel, ''The Sanctuary Buildings, 50-1; cl. also the discussion of a fignrine head
that could point lo competing iconic cultic practices, Garfinkel, "The hon Af,e Clay Figurine Head;'
143-63.
25. It is interesting to note that of the five attested occurrences of similar libation vessels men-
tioned above, two originate at Khirbet Qeiyafa. An emphasis on libation rituals at the site seems to be
apparent. Garfinkd, Ganor, and Hascl, "lntro<lnction," in Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol.4, 9.
12
KLINGBEIL & KLINGBEIL- "SEE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND"
hermeneutics of archaeology. While the architectural and artifact remains described
above certainly meet the archaeological criteria for cultic activity outlined above, and
have been interpreted by the excavators as such, not just on a functional hut also
world view level, the question arises, what kind of history-of the site an<l of the cul-
ture that produced it-can be ·written on the basis of what has been found? Dever has
made a call for a historiography based primarily on archaeological data, claiming the
superiority of the archaeological data over the textual data of the Hebrew Bible.26 At
the same time, he suggests that artifacts need to be read like a text, following a similar
set of hermeneutic tools, but not with a text and especially not with the Hebrew Bible,
which he regards as "historicizcd fiction:' 27 Intriguingly, Dever eventually returns in
his argumentation to the biblical text by inviting a new dialogue with it, which, from
Dever's perspective and also the perspective of the present authors, implies a return
of biblical studies to the questions of history and historicity. These have often been
neglected (or at least sidelined) in the fiel<l.2 K
It appears that recent archaeological finds, like the ones from Khirbet Qeiyafa dis-
cussed here, facilitated by the exponential growth of archaeological methodologies and
optimization of data collection in the field, have created substantial bridges between
the text of the Hebrew Bible and the archaeological record so that a strong case can be
made for reading artifacts with the help of the Hebrew Bible (and other ANE texts or
images), provided we follow sound henneneutical principles in each discipline. 29
Reading the Artifact
Beyond the hermeneutics of archaeology, ritual studies and ANE iconography con-
tribute significantly to our understanding of the function of the twin-cup libation
vessels. The reading of the two libation vessels from Khirbet Qciyafa, including the
26. 1his is very similar to attempts to write a religious history of lsr.i.cland Palestine basc<lsolely
on images, as done in the !PIAO series, of which the most recent one has been the most anticipated
volume becau~e it covers the lron Age and Achaemenid Empire, the time period during which the
Hchrew Rible was written. The author recognizes the special importance of the volume with regard to
biblical studies and the complementary dialogue that nee<lsto t'xi~1 between iconographic an<l hibli-
cal te).1ual data: "i\rchaologisdte Befunde, sowohl epigraphische als auch ikonographische, tragen
erheblich dun bei, der biblischen Sichtweise-die selber durch viele Risse hindurch den Blick auf die
komplcxe Wirklichkeit durchans enniSglichE-eine religi.onsgeschichtliche entgegenzusetzen:" Thus
Schroer, Die lkonographiePalastinas/Israelsund der Alte Orient, 20.
27. Dever, Beyond the Texts, 5-19. Dever builds much of what he writes abont the question of
arch.aL·ologicalhermeneutics on the methodological considerations of Schloen, Houseof the Father,
7-48.
28. Dever suggests that cnrrent biblical scholars in North America arc "preoccupied with literary
critical theory, the new historicism, reader-response criticism, liberation theology, po~1-modernism,
feminist critiques, reception criticism, and anything except[his italics] history:' Cf. Dever, Reyond the
Texts, 641.
29. Dever snggests several henneneutical principles that should govern the new dialogue between
and biblical studies. Dever, Beyond the Texts,641-42.
ardta<:.'(>logy
13
 SECTrON 1: ARTIFACTS AND MINIMALIST LITERACY
appropriate Jiscussion of their specific archaeological contexts, their cultic function
and meaning within the context of the religious practices of the site, and, by extension,
of the community that produced and used the cultic artifacts are significant elements
°
of artifact literacy. 3 Consequently, texts (biblical and extra-biblical) and images con-
stitute the main sources for the purpose of this chapter that inform our reading of the
artifact. Although rituals are either prescrihed/descrihed (text) or depicted (image)
in ancient sources, both text and images only provide a static snapshot of a dynamic
reality that is also represented in an even more condensed form by the archaeological
artifact, in this case the two twill-cup libation vessels from Khirbet Qeiyafa. 'Jhus, the
artifact is positioned at a crossroad between text and image, being referred to ill both
and needing to be read through the lenses of both. The inherent and complex relation-
ships of text and image and their importance for the understanding of (cuJtic) artifacts
has been highlighted by a numher of articles from a recent RencontreAssyriologique
31
Internationalehonoring Pierre Auffret. These essays suggested a fresh and indepen-
dent reading of both image and text, without presupposing an a priori dependence of
the image on the text, that would open the door to a new conversation between the
32
two media types. Bonka Nedeltscheva has highlighted the importance of consider-
ing the archaeological object in light of text and image in a study of Mesopotamian
clay envelopes from the third millennium BCE. 'Jhese envelopes bring together the
object (the cuneiform tablet inside), text (written on the envelope, often with a copy
of the text inside), and image (the seal impression on the envelope, which sometimes
includes.a further inscription). She correctly observes:
When dealing with texts and images, the question always arises: what came
first? The image, the text, or the object? When going back to the early begin-
nin.gs of Mesopotamian art and writing systems, the interrelations between
text, image, and object seem significant for a better understanding and read-
ing of the message.33
As already mentioned above, the ritnal associated with the two archaeologi-
cal artifacts is a dynamic construct. While not necessarily the ritual per se, action
lies at the heart of ritual. Ritual action is a puhlicly or (to a lesser degree) privately
4
enacted symboP and relates consistently with other important elements of ritual,
such as objects, participants, space, and time. In the context of this stndy we take the
30. The interfacebetweenritual studiesand ANEiconographyfrom a methodologicalperspective
has been discussed in Klingbeiland Klingbeil,'"Mirrors of the Dancet 1-22. Wewill u.~eand apply
some of the basic conceptsof this article llere.
31. See for example, Bonneterre,"La cuisse de Baal,"93-101; Corfu and Ocl~ner,"Bcschrulclc
Hundestatuetten;' 131-38; Michel, "Construire !'image,dire les rites,»271-79; Nedcltscheva,"The
Movementof'lcxt and Image;'293-300.
32. ArianeThomas,«Hommagea Pierre Amiet;'9.
33. Nedeltscheva,"The MovementofTe>..1 and Image;'293.
34. G. A. Klingbeil,Bridgingthe Gap, 181.
14
KLINGBEIL & KLINGBEIL-"SEE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND"
object as the point of departure, from which the other elements of ritual need to be
reconstructed. The levels of internction depenJ on the particular ritual as weH as the
larger cultural and historicc1l context. Ritual action requires time, ritual time, to pass.
Minutes., hours, days, or weeks need to pass for the ritual to develop an<.!become "ef-
fective:' Ritual action needs to develop in space and illvolves movement. A ritual can
transform common space into sacred space. 'lhis ritual (or sacred) space can affect
architecture; 3~ but can also he mohiJe and relative 36 or may exist only conceptually
(i.e., in the minds of the ritual participants). Participants of a ritual can be either
static or Jynamic in their interaction; they can move around, stand still, drop out
of sight, take a dominant position, and are generally affected by the outcome of the
ritual (e.g., a priest during the ordination ritual, or a leper following the prescribed
purification ritual., etc.). All the above observations pertaining to ritual per se and
biblical ritual specifically are primarily based on texts, which are generally a snapshot
of action, written either in a prescriptive or descriptive mode.
Likewise., pictorial depictions of ancient reality are also only a snapshot or, per-
haps using an even more appropriate metaphor, represent a carefully arranged still life
that requires the "reader" to decipher and interact with a reality far removed from our
twenty-first century, often western, worldview, and reality. However, in terms of quan-
tities, ANF images by far exceed ANE textual sources so that iconographic depictions
of ritual activity contribute significantly to our understanding of ritual, also taking
into consideration the important visual aspect of a performeJ ritual. 37 There is a con-
tinuous interplay between image and ritual, and frequently the image serves as a pars
pro toto, re-enacting the full ritual in a condense<.! and often reduced form through
iconographic elements. These forms then activate their performative power in the
38
mind of the ohserver. It is important to recognize that ANE images do not primarily
35. Wightman,SacredSpaces;(iittlen, ed., SacredIttne, SacredSpace.It is interestingto note that
adjacent to each of the gates at Khirbet Qciyafa, I.herewas a gate-piazzathat bordered on one of the
sanctnary rooms. Garfinkeland Hase)comment on the citltic function of Lhegate piazza of Arca C
close to the southern gate:'"l he gate piazzawas presumablythe locationof gatheringsof the popula-
tion for holillilysand festivals.It was h<.'rcLhatvarious activitiessuch as animal sacrifices,feasting,
and dancing would have taken place.near the cult room with the two portableshrines:' Garfinkeland
Hascl, "TheSanctuary Buildings:'35. Seealso our discussionabovt:.
36. Consider, for example. Lhemobile nature of the tabernacle as described in the Penta.tench.
Cf. G. A. Klingbeil,Bridgingthe Gap, 161. Seealso the discussionof the shrine models from Khirbet
Qeiyafaahove.
37. Several puhlications have touched methodologicallyon the relationship between ritnal and
iconography.1:orexample, Berlcjnngdefines rituals as ''begangene Bilder"and underlines the per-
formativecharacter of hoth image and.ritnal. Berlejung,Die 111eologie der Bilder, 179, Janowskiand
Zenger recognizethe impo.rtanceof the uBildwcltcn''(image-worlds)that uuclerlieritual action. C[
Janowskiand Zenger,"Jenseitsdes Alltags;'82.-89. Kcd points lo the reciprocalrelationshipand Cll·
change between iconographic images and ritual texts. See Keel, Die GeschichteJerusalems und die
Entsteh1mgdes Mmwtheism11s,1:559. for a more comprehensivediscussionof these contrihutions,see
Klinghcilaml Klingbeil."'Mirrorsof the Dance-t'3-6.
38. The highly rcdnccd and often schematic depiction of horned altar!\fonnd on cylinder- and
stamp-seals from Palestine/lsrad, dating to Iron Age II, demonstrates the narrative power of the
15
 ..
SECTION 1: ARTfl'ACTS AND MINIMALIST LITIJRACY
illustrate the historical reality, or in this case, ritual activity, but rather condense the
dynamic character of the ritual to a static snapshot. Despite the snapshot (or still life)
quality of iconographic depiction, it refers to the dynamic to and thus becomes active
and effective in the image.39 A careful "reading" of the two twin-cup libation vessels
from Khirbet Qeiyafa must consider these complex relationships between the static
and dynamic in ritual texts and iconographic images.
Readingthe Twin-Cup Libation Vessels through Texts
Libation rituals represent an important element of the ritual repertoire of ANE cul-
tures and religions. The twin-cup libation vessels from Khirhet Qeiyafa force the in-
terpreter to consider libation rituals carefully, since they involved the use of different
types of liquids. 40 The use of liquids in ritual per se is manifold and multi-faceted.
Herc arc some possible uses: liquids are used to wash, bathe, purify, rinse, dean, swab,
dip, soak, scrub, scour, anoint, smear, ruh or daub ritual participants, objects or lo-
cations-typically in public settings. These tluids can include water, milk, oil-based
liquids, blood, alcoholic beverages, herbal infusions, perfumes or mixtures thereof.
Anointing rites are a specialized form of libation. These rites seem to mark key par-
ticipants in the ritual who are about to experience a change in status or arc singled out
for a specific purpose. 11 Purification rituals represent another class of rituals involv-
ing fluids. People, animals, places, and objects can he deansed in order to enter (for
the first time) or re-enter the limits marking the boundaries of a group or society.
Huids and libations are also included in offerings to the deity. Calendar-based rituals
can prescribe certain purification or cleansing rites involving liquids for a particular
group or subgroup of society. Baptismal practices-another ritual involving liquids-
have been closely linked to rites-of-passage, highlighting the change of status of the
participants. 12 Like all other religious ritual manifestations, libation rituals require a
context, and anybody see.king to appropriately interpret these rituals communicated
through texts and images will nee.d.to pay dose attention to the context. In texts this
context includes specific narratives, occasions that require a specific ritual response,
calendar-based religious events, and a knowledge (or at least an inkling) of the origi-
nal audience of the text. InterpreUng iconographic images and archaeological artifacts
similarly requires careful attention to surrounding context.
iconographic marker: "Der Altar steht gt>wisserrna~en pars pro toto fur den gesamten Kult und ist
somit ein Marker, dcr mcltrer zahlt, als ervor<lergrGndig zdgt.» Thus Zwickcl, "Der H<Srncraltar auf
Sicgcln aus Palii.stina/lsrael;' 289.
39. Klingbeil and Klingbeil, "'Mirrors of the Dance;" 7-9.
40. Many of the ideas in. the section are hased on G. A. Klingbeil, "Lihation Rituals in the Ancient
Near East;' 219-39.
41. See, for example, the important anointing riles during the priestly ordination rituals. Cf. G. A.
Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual <?f
Ordination, 229-44.
42. See also G. A. Klingbeil, Bridgingthe Gap, 143-44, and additional references provided there.
16
KLINGBEIL & KLlNGBlHL-"SBE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND"
Another important consideration regarding libation rituals specifically and
rituals in general involves the question whether a particular ritual belongs to the
realm of public (or official) religious eJ<pressionsor is an expression of personal piety
or family religion. 4:i Considering the archaeological find context of the twin Libation
cups from Khirbet Qciyafa, we should assume its use in public (or official) ritual,
even though the small size of the site would suggest a clan or local context within the
confines of the town.
A full discussion of the 19J, "libation offering; in the Hebrew Dible is beyond the
scope of this study. Intriguingly-and surprisingly-there arc fewspecialized studies. 11
The verbal root 7(Q~is used in most Semiti.c languages to connote "bringing, pouring,
throwing;' and, by extension, at times serves as a technical term for "offering:' Pouring
drink offerings or libations on a pillar was a well-known practice in the patriarchal
period (Gen 35:14 uses the root 7IQJ, while Gen 28:18 uses the verbal form of P~-:-a
good reminder of the fact that the semantic domain of libations and drink offerings
uses a wide spectrum of terminology). These libations on spontaneously erected stone
pillars underline the mobile nature of patriarchal worship and reflect their nomadic
(or sojourner) status. 45 In both instances Gen 28:18 and 35:14 commemorate a recent
or past encounter "'ri.ththe deity.
We find many references to the 1Q1-pouring action in prescriptive texts detail-
ing offering lists and procedures for Israel's festival calendar. 16 In most instances the
libations were ancillary offerings linked to other major offering types.47The remain-
ing references outside the Pentateuch include the description of the cult reform of
King Ahaz following his visit to Damascus and the encounter with Tiglath-pileser
III (2 Kgs 16). It seems that libations represented an important part of the new cult
practices installed in Jerusalem's temple, in line with common cult practices in Meso-
potamia. Observing Mesopotamian cultic practice in Damascus, King Ahaz parsed
this intuitively and decided to copy the conqueror's practice.
The biblical data on libation offerings suggests a continuum with two extremes.
While some references describe the practice uncritically (e.g., its use in the Jacob narra-
tives) or include it as part of the prescribed cult practices associated with the Pentateuch,
later prophetic references (including prophetic texts such as Jer 7=18;19:13; 32:29; Ezek
43. Herc we should highlight the seminal work of Albcrtz, PersonlicheFrommigkeitul'!doffizielle
Religion.Several studies have <levcloped the distinction between public and personal (or familial) con-
text furtltcr: Negbi, "Israelite Cult Elements in Secular C:outcxls of the 10th Century BCE;' 221-30;
van <ler Toorn, FamilyReligion;Daviau, "Family Religion, 199-229; Cohen, "Public Religious Senti-
ment and Personal Piety;' 329-40; Schmill, "Kultinventare aus Wolmhauserut 441-77; and Yasur·
Landau, Ebeling, and Maww, eds., HouseholdArchaeology.
44. An exception is Carstens, "Why Does the God llave a Cup in His Hand?'' 214-32.
45. Cf. the discussion of abbreviation in the context of the Genesis altar construction lcxL~iu <i. A.
Klingbeil, ''.Altars, Ritual and Theology;' 495-515.
46. E.g., Exod 29:40; 30:9; I.ev 23:13, 18, 37; Num 4:7; 6:15, 17; 15:5, 7, 10, 2.4; 28:7, 8, 9, to, 14, 1s,
24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39; and 1 Chr 29:21, 35.
47. Dohmen, «1Q~,
nasak,~458.
17
 SECTION 1: AR'flfAC'fS AND MJNlMALIST LJTF.RACY
20:28; etc.) link the practice to idolatrous cultic activities. 1he key factor differentiating
these two opposing e:xtremes is location: libation offerings associated with the sanctu-
ary (in the tabernacle and, later, the temple) arc generally sanctioned, while libations
disconnected from the sanctuary often represent an idolatrous act.
The use of libations in household contexts has been amply documented in the
archaeological record. A Hebrew inscription on a pottery wine decanter of unknown
provenance that is a typological match for three vessels from Khirbet el-Qom, Arad,
and the Ophel in Jerusalem (dated to the eighth/seventh centuries BCE) reads
nv:1,10.l r' m,mo',,"belonging to Mattanyahu, wine of libation, a quarter:' 18 It repre-
sents an intriguing example linking cohesively the literary data with material culture
data-and it helps us practice ritual literacy, connecting A (the biblical texts) to B (an
e.xtrabiblical text using the same terminology) and C (the archaeological record that
suggests the presence of cult practices involving libations). 49
'rhe act of pouring fluids often occurs in quasi-cultic contexts-even outside
regular 19~ offerings. When David desired a drink from the well in Bethlehem and
three of his warriors risked lives and limbs to break through the enemy's lines to give
David the desire of his heart, the king suddenly recognized his foolishness and instead
of drinking the precious water, he poured it out "before YHWH" (2 Sam 23:15-17).
The preposition le marks the divine recipient of the poured liquid and echoes sacrifi-
cial language (cf. Lev 1:2, 9, 13, 14; etc.).
We find another intriguing reference to pouring water before YHWH in 1 Sam
7:6. Prior to military engagement with the Philistines, Samuel had assembled the Isra-
elite tribes at Mizpah. He then moved to pour out water "before'' (this time expressed
by the preposition 'J~?) YHWH. The pouring rite is linked to fasting and confession
and clearly carries religious connotations. We get the probable rationale for this: prior
to this decisive battle Israel needed to commit themselves completely to God. Pouring
out water, fasting, and confessing were public ways to express this personal and col-
lective commitment. 50
Summarizing the biblical data involving libations and pouring action, there
is little detailed prescription. Often the accounts associate libation offering with
another primary offering or sacrifice, thus functioning as an "envelope" or introduc-
tion/conclusion. Furthermore, beyond the limited information regarding the 10.3we
48. Sec for the original pnblicalion DcnL~chand Helt:t.cr, Forty New Semitic lnscriptions,23-26;
and Zcvit, Religionsof Ancient Israel,298, for possible archaeological context.
49. However, we should keep in mind that familycnlt practices were e>ctremelyvaried. Schmitt ob-
serves ("Kullinventarc aus Wohnhiiusern als matcrielle Elemcnte familiarer Religion i.m Alten Israel,~
455), "Es giht kein typisches Mnstcr hauslicher Kultaustibnng im Sinne eincr in j(,-.JcmHaus :t.u fin-
<lcn<lenKultnische oder 'Heiligen Ecke' miteinem fesLgclegtenInvcntar von Objekten nn<l Keramik."
Similarly, libation rituals appear in a wide variety of contexts and with often changing evaluations in
the HB.
50. For discussion of more biblical data regarding the pouring of fini<ls, including alsn the pro-
phetic texts,see G. A. Klingbeil,"LibationRitualsin LhcAnciemNear East;' 2.2.5-:26.
18
KLINGBEIL & KLlNGBEJL-"slln THAT YOU MAY UNDRRSTANO"
can note a wide semantic domain of terms that indicate pouring action. These pour-
ing rites appear repeatedly in narrative texts where they arc not always associated
with the centralized sanctuary (be it tabernacle or the later temple), even though
texts describing the pre-monarchic or early monarchic periods contain more refer-
ences to libations not associated with the sanctuary. On the significance of these
libations, the texts do not always offer explicit rationales. They seem to suggest
remembrance, commitment, offering a restricted or valuable gift, or providing the
appropriate context for a larger gift/offering/sacrifice. 'lhe surprising application of
libation terminology to solids (such as scraped-off plaster or ashes in Lev 14:41 and
1 Kgs 13:3-5), as well as the metaphorical use of the vocabulary, may suggest that
libation activity sometimes metamorphosed into crystalli;,,ed metaphors, i.e., it was
not the fluids that made the libation but the activity associated with the pouring
activity (even if only done symbolically).
Reading the Twin-Cup Libation Vessels through ANE Images
As reflected in archaeological research or iconographic depictions, the material cul-
ture of the ANE associated many different object types with libations. Archaeologists
identify these objects as libations utensils because of find context, form or (though
rarely) the remains of liquids, In the following we will introduce comparative material
that offers tangible context for interpreting the two twin-cup libation vessels from
Khirbet Qeiyafa.
During the 1933 excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim by W F. Albright, excavators
found a flat libation tray with a primary and secondary lion's head on it, which later
researchers dated to early IA II due to the particular artistic elements (Fig. 1.9):; 1
More recently, Jonathan Greer has suggested that a bowl discovered at Tel Dan
in .1986should be considered an example of a biblical pitr.l vessel ("sprinkling bowl"
[NIV], "fircpan" [NKJVJ or "ceremonial crater" {HAI,On; sec Exod 27:3; 38:3; Num
4:14; 7:13-85; etc.) used to present drink offerings (Fig, 1.10):;2 While the Tel Dan
bowl is significantly different in .shape from the Khirbet Qeiyafa libation vessels, its
association with liquids and a shared cultic context makes this an important com-
parative vessel.
51. Ami ran, "The Lion Statue an<l thc Libalion Tray from Tell BeitMirsim:' 36-39. Unfortnnatdy,
Ami ran does not include a discussion of the possible nsagc of the tray.
52. Greer, "An [sraditc Miuaq at Tel Dan?" 27-45, Greer interprets lhc inner decoration of lhc
bowl as a ring of stylized pomegranates, which would be in line with other Israelite artistic cultic
motifs(p. 34).
19
 J

SECTION 1: ARTIFACTS AND MINIMALIST LITERACY KLINGBEIL & KLINGBElt.-"SEE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND"

~~---- Libation stands are a staple of the material culture of the ANE. Martin Metzger

§y~"
I .
~ --~
has discussed a significant quantity of these stands from 'fell Kami<lel-I.oz, Lebanon,
found in a Middle Bronze Age (MBA) context (Fig. 1.u). 53 'lhese stands ranged in
height from 11 to 18 cm (some of them were partially broken), which is rather low
when compared to other cultic artifacts associated with libations. The ANE pictorial
evidence often emphasizes the deity (sitting or standing) as s/he receives libation
J from an offerer or priest who pours the liquid into the stand. In some instances, the
priest or priestess is accompanied by a servant carrying a bucket that was probably
used to refill the libation vessel.
Two unique libation bowls, each containing seven tumblers that were part of the
ceramic bowl, were discovered in Rronzc Age contexts in Megiddo and at a ;i,;,;,. (or
54
high place) outside a rectangular temple in the coastal cityofNahariya (Fig. 1.12). The
two libation vessels from Khirbet Qciyafa do not include seven attached tumblers but

Figure 1.9: Top view of Late Bronze Age
or early Iron Age II libation tray from
'foll Beit Mirsim (Garfinkel, Ganor, and
Hasel 12018), Fig.15.3).
\:-[7
\'- ..~---- .
l1igure 1.10: Iron Age IIB bowl for liquid
offerings found at Tel Dan, possibly to be
associated with the biblical ;,,n-,described
in ExoJ 27:3 and elsewhere (Garfinkel,
Ganor, and Hascl (2018), Fig. 15.4).
their two interconnected rounded cups on a high base may suggest communal ritual
activity involving two (or more) parties. Smee similar twin-cup libation vessels dated to
the Iron Age have been found at Tel Qiri in northern Israel and at Khirbat al-Mudayna
and Tell Deir i\lla m Jordan (sec Hg. 1.8 above), it is reasonable to suggest a particular
artifact typology that was used during the IA (and perhaps also during the LBA in Syria-
Palestine). A three-cup votive vessel from Tel Burna that was recently found in a LBA
cultic context (Fig. 1.13) may be an early example of this artifact type, even though the
Khirbet Qeiyafa twin-cup libation vessels were distinct since they had holes mtercon-
nectmg the cups while the Tel Burna vessel cups were n()t interconnected. ss

\
~
qM
A B C

· ···
·- ·

Figure 1 .11.: Exanlplcs of Middle Hronze Age
cult siands from Tell Kamid el-Loz, Lebanon
(Garfinkel, Ganor, and Hasel [20181, Fig. 15.5).
Figure 1.u: a. Bronze Age libation
bowl containing seven tumble.rs from
Megiddo; b. Bronze Age libation howl
containing.seven tumblers from the
coastal town of Nahariya (Garfinkel,
Ganor, aud Hasd [2018), Vig. 15.6).
53. Metzger,"Realfunde aus Kamidcl-Loz:'23-27, for the description of the archaeological <lata,
and pp. 38-45 for a discussion of the iconography of cult stands.
54. Yeivin, "Canaanite Ritual Vessels in Egyptian Cultic Practices," 1H>-14.
55. Shai, McKinny,and Uziel,«l,atc Bronze Age Cultic Activity in Ancient Cana.an,~11 5-33, esp.
122, fig. 11.

2.0 21
 SECTION 1: AR'l'IFACTS AND MINIMALIST UTERACY
Figure 1.13: lalc Bronze Age three-cup Figure 1.14: Iconographic depictions of
votive vessel from Tel Bnrna (Garfinkel, communal consumption of beer by lwo people
Ganor, and Hascl [2018), Fig. 15.8). drinking from lhe same jar through metal straws
(Garlinkd, Ganor, and Hasel f1018], Fig. 15.9).
The communal aspect of ritual libations and shared consumption of alcoholic
beverages "before the deity" are also well documented in Mesopotamian sources.
Bieniada's study of Habur ware, dated to the second millennium BCE, includes a
helpful discussion of the iconography of communal consumption of beer through
metal straws by two people drinking from the same jar (Fig. 1.14). 56 Based on the
iconographic data from this period and region, we may postulate a fourfold typology
oflibations: ( 1) a libation is poured from a spouted jug or juglet into a goblet held by
the god; (2.)a libation is poured from a spouted jar into a goblet that is not held by the
deity; (3) a libation is poured as above, but additionally a large jar resting on a floor
or on a pot-stand with a straw (or straws) protruding from it can be seen; and (4)
a seated god holds a straw protruding from a jar and receives a libation in this way.
Alcoholic beverages were the libations of choice, most often wine, rather than more
mundane beer, because it was costlier and thus more appropriate as an offering for
the gods which required the best. It is possible that the twin-cup libation vessels at
Khirbet Qeiyafa were used similarly, as two parties shared the same beverage ()ffered
to the deity. It may even have involved some type of covenant ritual, similar to that
of Jacob and Laban described in Gen 31:43-55, even though the admittedly brief
biblical text does not explicitly mention libations. Shared elements of eating together
56. 8icnia<la, "Habur Ware,» 160-21 1, esp. J.84-85. Cf. also for similar practices in Mellink, «Ana-
tolian Libation Pourers and the Minoan Genius;' 65-72.
22
K1.1NG8Ell . & Kl,JNGBEIL-"SEE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND ''
from an offering or sacrifice were often part and parcel of covenant rituals and may
have also included shared libations. 57
Oaviau has highlighted the close link between libations and communal meals in
her discussion of the LBAOrthostat Temple from Hazor. Daviau's work also offers a
helpful methodological advance. Instead of moving straight from the description of
the finds to their significance, she argues for an intermediary step, i.e., a statistical
analysis of the possible functions (e.g., utensils used for food preparation, consump-
tion, libation, lighting, storage, votive gifts, etc.), which should then lead to practices
and, possibly, undergirding beliefs.511
Another potential class of comparative vessels that may help us attain "literacy"
regarding the function of the twin-cup libation vessels from Khirbet Qeiyafa are
ring-kernoi. These horizontally oriented hollow rings with miniature vessels at-
tached to their top came originally from the Aegean and may illustrate an aspect of
Mycenaean ritual practice. Ring-kernoi could (but did not have to) include a spout
and tluid in the miniature cups could flow freely through holes in their base on the
hollow ring. The example illustrated here comes from tomb 23 at Maroni, Cyprus
(Fig. 1.15). 59 Since ring-kernoi are often found in funerary contexts scholars have
hypothesi'.led that they were probably used in funerary rituals. Ring-kernoi hc1ve
been found in Syria- Palestine as well, often in Philistine settlements, underlining the
potential Aegean origin of the vessels.60
Figure 1.15: Ring-kcrnos from Tomb 23 at Maroni, Cyprus
(Garliukcl, Ganor, and llasel [2m 8], Hg. 15.11).
Other known Philistine libations vessels use zoomorphic styles, particularly hull
or bovine shapes (Fig. 1.16). These vessel types have been discovered at TeU Batash,
Beersheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, Beth Shemesh, Lachish, and Gezer.61 The link between
the hollow libation vessel in the shape of an animal and the ritual activities associated
with these vessels is, unfortunately, not entirely dear.
57. Note the discussion in G. A. Klingbeil,« Momentaufnahmenoflsraelitc Religion,~ 22-45.
58. Sec Daviau, "Traces of Cultic Behaviour in the 8rnnr.c Age Orthostat Temple at fla7.0r;' 71-92.
59. Symeonoglou. "Bulls, Birds, and Snakes;' 139-50. The illustration is taken from p. 139.
60. See Dol.han,11tePhilistinesand their MaterialCulture,esp. 132, 222-24.
61. 8en-Shlomo, PhilistineIconography,105- J 4.
2.3
 r
SECTION 1: ARTIFACTS A.ND MINIMALIST LITERACY
A
B libations in Israel.'s religious system. While the exact meaning of each individual act
Figure 1.16: Examples of zoomorphic Philistine libation vessels
(Garfinkel,Ganor,and Hasel 12018], Hg. 15.12).
This brief review of comparative material involving libation vessels from the cul-
tures surrounding ancient Israel has made it very dear that libations were a significant
part of ancient ritual, both in established cultic space (such as temples or sanctuaries}
as well as in the home or private cultk ~pace. Libati.on trays and vessels, together with
cult stands, kernoi, kraters, jugs, juglets, and bowls, appear repeatedly in cultic contexts
and speak to the importance of libations. The multiplicity of utensils and vessel-types
suggests deep familiarity of people (both religious specialists as well as the general pop-
ulace) with libations. Familiarity is the, mother of literacy. What we know we usually
can also descrihe and understand-even if only intuitively, While some libations may
have been associated with washings or purification, others clearly point to offerings
and appear together with additional offering types such as sacrifices or incense offer-
ings. We have focused more on specific comparative data from the material culture
of the ANE and paid less attention to the vast body of iconographic data depicting
libations and the manipulation of liquids in ritual contexts.
24
KLINGBEIL & KLINGBElL-"SEE THAT YOU MAY UNDEltSTAND"
However, the key question is what do all these data points mean for understand-
ing bihlical libations? How do they help us develop artifact literacy, considering the
power of ritual to preserve traditions and powerfully communicate key concepts and
ideas about the deity (or theology), while at the same time also being a formidable
agent of innovation ?62 We offer some suggestions in the final section of this study.
Towards Artifact Literacy: A Proposal
Social studies research often uBesa mixture of quantitative and qualitative research. Our
quest to map out the parameters of artifact literacy will also need to use hoth data sets,
Quantitatively, the varied nature oflibation vessels and their ubiquity in the archaeology
of the cult speak to the importance of l.ibations in the ancient world, Quantity does say
something about importance-though it is by no means the only measure.
"lhe repeated use of fluids in ritual texts of the Hebrew Bible (including li.ba-
tions, anointing rites, purification rites using liquids, etc.} points to the ubiquity of
is not al ways explained, the general concept of giving (to the deity) and sharing(with
the community) offers a helpful point of departure as we engage artifacts from the
material culture. Giving and sharing are also clearly recognizable activities visible in
the many "snapshots" (or still-lifes) contained in the iconographic record.
'lhe archaeological contexts (Iron Age IIA) of the twin-cup lihation vessels found
at Khirbet Qeiyafa arc significant and may help us understand their unique shape and
their usage as well. The biblical texts describe the transitional pre-monarchic period
as a time when "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judg 17:6; 21:25}, a
phenomenon that did not abruptly end with the arrival of the monarchy. 1here seem
to have been local sanctuaries with local cult personnel {Judg 8:27; 17-18), where re-
ligious convocations were celebrated Locally(1 Sam 16:1-13), and household or town
shrines and altars {Judg 6:25-32; 8:22-27; 9:27; 17; etc.).
This multiplicity of cult places can also be seen in the archaeological record, As
noted by Zevit, this suggests that "religion was practiced differently in home, village,
sanctuary, urban temple, and extra-urban sanctuary:'n:i Politically. significant changes
marked the transitional period of Iron Age I-IL Although Egypt was powerful and
present in Palestine during the Late Bronze Age, it was dearly pulling back and other
regional powers were less interested in the region. As Jan Platvoet has noted, times
of political and cultural changes often result in ritual innovation.M Since the two
62,, Concerning the innovative power of ritual sec G, A. Klinghcil, "When Action Colli<les with
Meaning,» 423-39, The study makes a strong case for taking texts Jescribing ritual practices and hii~t-
ing at the underlying concepts and presuppositions as seriously as one takes the nontertual remains
nnearthed during an excavation (p, 428), Innovation can be subtle or dramatic, but it always seems to
use existing ritual hnil<ling blocks already familiar to the participant or observer,
63, Zcvit, Religionsof Ancient l.srael,265,
64, Platvoet, "Ritual in Plural and Pluralist Societies," 29.
 r
SECTION 1: ARTIFACTS ANO MINIMALIST LITERACY

connected cups sitting on a shared high base were found in two different locations
associated with cultic activity at Khirbet Qeiyafa, these unique vessels may represent
a particular local rite or ritual activity that emphasi7,ed covenant and kinship rela-
tions. It seems that two individuals shared fluids or poured fluids into the vessel
that was mixed together and then poured over the standing stone or the rounded
2
installation on the floor as part of an offering. Shared ritual activities create stronger
communities with clearer identities.
Libations provided a short form pointing to a larger offering, a type of abbre-
Ketiv-Qere
viation that triggered more complex rituals and often involved sacrifices and blood
The Writing and Reading of EA 256 and Its Place
manipulation rites. Some have suggested that one element of a ritual (for example,
the construction of an altar and calling on the name of YHWH) may represent a in Reflecting the Realia of Power and Polity
much more complex ritual construct that is not always described completely. 65 The in the LBA-TA Golan and Peripheries
unique shape of the Khirbet Qeiyafa libation vessels, together with the other simi-
larly shaped libation vessels from Tel Qiri, Khirbat al-Mudayna, and Tel1Deir <Alla,
as well as the earlier Late Bronze Age votive vessel from Tel Burna, may suggest that TIMOTHY M. CROW
the "envelope" function of a Jibation was not only oriented vertically, i.e., toward the
deity, but may have also emphasized the horizontal function of ritual and religion.
In a world where community, kinship, bloodlines, and clan coherence represented
key values, religion was not the private experience of an individual, but involved and
affected a larger community.
Artifact literacy is a call to multi-disciplinary research because it requires the
Abstract
ability to look over the proverbial fence and learn from other disciplines. Multi-dis- RECENT TRENDS JN THE western tradition and the study of the ancient Near East are.
ciplinary (or cross-disciplinary} research is in vogue today, but this line is not a fash- beginning to value the reading of an archaeological site that moves beyond a cache
ion statement. Rather, it recognizes that data, all availabledata, are required to make of written texts to the material context. This study will explore EA 256 and its literary
valid and reasonable statements about a past whose artifacts tell us stories through environment to ask, "why write a text?" if it was not meant to he read. If it was meant
the texts (biblical and extra-biblical) and images (textual and iconographic} we use to be read, and respected, then did it reflect some type of reality? Th.isstudy will seek
to read them. This requires attention to detail, the ability to listen (or look carefully), to differentiate a literary and textual perspe.ctive from one that engages "realia:· Thus,
and the capacity to integrate different data sets-without a bias-based exclusion of I will explore the possible reality of the literary content and context of EA 256 in the
any particular data set-hopefully resulting in decipherment and understanding of an realia of the archaeological material culture of the Golan and peripheries during the
object that is able to anchor the present in the past. I.BA, and how this may point to the place of power and preservation in state forma-
tion, with a view to Iron Age remembrances in the Levant.

Introduction

65. G. A. Klingbeil., ''Altars, Ritual and "lhcology;' 495-51
Historians in the western tradition wait in anticipation to see what archaeologists wilJ
excavate in scientific excavations. In the past, privilege was given to inscribed material
culture, i.e., what is written. Historically; the archaeologist and hi6torian sought the
cache of texts that might illuminate ancient culture and people. More recently, the
currents in western tradition have started to value the reading of an archaeological
site that moves beyond a cache of texts to the material context. Whether a scholar of
s.
27