Jemdet Nasr: The Site and the Period

Author(s): Roger J. Matthews

Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 196-203
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210314
Accessed: 16/11/2009 11:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

Map of central-south Mesopotamia, showing
location of sites mentioned in the text and
cities listed in the "cityseal
from lemdet Nasr. impressions"Matt
196 Biblical Archaeologist, December 1992
T he site of JemdetNasr,
situated 100 kilometers
south of Baghdad,first
came to archaeological
notice in the spring of 1925 when a
Jemdet joint team from OxfordUniversity
and the Field Museum, Chicago, was
carryingout excavations at the im-
portant Sumerian city of Kish, near
Babylon.That March,a groupof
locals visited the base camp, bring-
ing artifacts that they claimed to
have found at a series of mounds
known as JemdetNasr, some 26 kilo-
the Site meters northeast of Kish. These arti-
facts comprised distinctive painted
pots and some inscribed tablets.
The expedition director,Profes-
and the sor Stephen Langdon,an epigraphist
by training, immediately recognized
their significance. Following a pre-
liminary visit to the site, he con-
ducted a first season of excavations
I ei i at JemdetNasr at the end of the Kish
season, in early 1926. A second brief
season was conducted by Louis Wate-
by . Matthews
ews
lin two years later, in the spring of
1928.The results of these excavations
were significant and distinctive
/ enough to define a new period in the
cultural development of Mesopo-
tamia, "JemdetNasr,"which fell be-
tween the Late Uruk and the Early
Dynastic periods and lasted from
roughly 3200 to 3000 B.C.E.
In the decades following those
first investigations, however,excava-
tions and surveys in and around
Mesopotamia frequently failed to
identify material remains that could
be assigned to JemdetNasr. As a re-
sult, many scholars began doubting
the validity of this chronological
phase. In 1983, a conference was
called in orderspecifically to address
Ur *
this issue (Finkbeinerand Rollig
1986),and it became increasingly
clear that new researchat and con-
cerning the site of JemdetNasr was
called for.
It was with this backgroundthat
the British Archaeological Expedi-
tion to Iraqbegan a new programof
researchinto JemdetNasr in 1988.
The programhad two primarythrusts:
new excavations, which were held to
uncover additional evidence, and a
reexamination of the artifacts un-
coveredin the original excavations.
Because of the lamentable state
of the recordingof material found in
the seasons held during the 1920s,
the new excavations were required
to locate architecture first excavated
in 1926-28, as well as to explore pre-
viously unexcavatedareas.One im-
portant factor in encouragingnew
excavation at the site was the small
size of the two mounds-Mound A
only covered 1.5 hectares and Mound
B 7.5 hectares. Given limited modern
funding for excavation work com-
bined with the restricted areal scope
of scientific excavation techniques,
it appearedthat JemdetNasr was the Surfaceof the Northeast Area, Mound B, showing exposed walls after surface clearance. The
ideal candidate for new work. Also, walls show up as dark lines against the silty fill that has accumulated in the trenchesmade
during the original excavations in the 1920s.
preliminary visits revealeda signifi-
cant surface pottery distribution
spanning Late Uruk through Early
Dynastic I, strongly indicating the
likelihood of a complete proto-historic
sequence of occupation at the site.
Accordingly,two seasons of excava-
tions have been carriedout to date
(Matthews 1989; 1990).
A full programof studying the
inadequatelypublished materialfrom
the original excavations (Mackay
1931)is well underwayand will re-
sult in a reporton all categories of
artifacts from the 1926-28 seasons
(Matthewsforthcoming).This second
aim happily coincided with ongoing
researchin Berlinby scholarsworking
N
on the inscribed JemdetNasr tablets,
now in course of full publication
(Englundand Gregoire 1991;Mat-
thews 1992).The following encom- 0 50Nasr

passes results from both the early

seasons and the more recent work. Mound A Mound B Jemdet Nasr

Discoveries at JemdetNasr
Architecture.By far the most impor-
tant architecturalfeature found at
JemdetNasr is a largebuilding locat-
ed on Mound B, the largerof the two
mounds. Almost all of the work of
Langdonand Watelin was concen-
trated on exploring this building and
recoveringartifacts therefrom. Their
Contourplan of JemdetNasr. The two mounds are surroundedby a modern fence. On the
summit of MoundA is a baked brick building of Neo-Babylonian,or later, date. On Mound B
the contours reveala deep cut into the southern edge of the mound, where an unsuccessful
attempt was made in 1957 to dig a drainagecanal right throughthe mound. The complex of
rooms on the northeasternside of Mound B is believed to be the large building excavated by
Langdonin 1926.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 1992 197

 Plan of Langdon'slarge building, excavated
in 1926, showing find-spotsof certain cate-
gories of artifacts.

on-site recordingwas so unsatisfac-

tory,however,that even the location
of the building on the mound had
subsequently become obscure. Lang-
don published a plan, but with a mis-
leading scale and the north arrow
pointing the wrong way (Langdon
1927:figure 12).He also noted on
the plan the location of severaltypes
of artifacts-tablets, painted pots
and cylinder seals-but with no de-
tails of precisely which objects were
found where. It was clearly impor- mound was large enough to accom- It soon became apparentthat
tant that this impressive building, modate the 4,500 squaremeters oc- substantial portions of this building
measuring 92-by-48-meters,be re- cupied by the building. Third, the had escaped the ravagesof the early
located as a starting point for new assemblage of artifacts recovered excavators,and a start has been made
excavations. from this area matched very well in investigating these remains, al-
In 1988, examination of the sur- with Langdon'sartifacts,with only though there is much still to be done.
face of the mound, particularlythe the unbaked clay tablets missing, In particular,an area of large ovens,
distribution of 60-year-oldspoil not a surprisingabsence given the probablybelonging to the building's
heaps, suggested that the building proximity to the surface of much of kitchens, has been excavated,and in-
was likely to lie in the northeastern our work. Fourth,we had to take into tact burnt room deposits have been
corner of Mound B, which is where account the 1928 work of Watelin, sampled. The discovery of extensive
our exploration commenced. The who excavatedwith 120 workmen in burnt roofing material and floors
technique employed in the search this areaand made no plans at all of confirms Langdon'sopinion that the
for Langdon'slargebuilding was that his trenches, therebyno doubt seri- building had been destroyedby fire,
of surface scraping-extensively em- ously affecting the condition of the thus baking and preservingthe clay
ployed at the Sumerian city of Abu building exposed by Langdontwo tablets therein.
Salabikh (Matthewsand Postgate years previously. Severalstudies have discussed
1987) -whereby, after collection of
surface sherds, the top crust of the Teammembers PetrCharvotand Al Luptoncarryout excavation of a series of large ovens,
mound is removedby shovels and thought to representthe kitchen area of the large building in the Northeast Area of Mound B.
the resulting surface cleaned with
wide-bladedhoes. This technique
enables extensive areasto be revealed
and mappedwith a minimum ex-
penditure of time and effort. A con-
siderableexpanse of walls and rooms
has so farbeen mapped.
Although it is difficult to match
them up exactly with the walls and
rooms on Langdon'splan, we do be-
lieve, for a number of reasons, that
we have uncoveredLangdon'sbuild-
ing. First, this area of the mound had
clearly been excavatedat some time
in the past, as windblown silts had
accumulated in old trenches and the
walls planned in 1988-89 stood out
against these modern clean silts.
Second, no other silted area of the

198 Biblical Archaeologist, December 1992

the possible function of this unique stand for the ancient name of Jemdet Urum. These and other cities are
building, which is architecturally Nasr itself. also listed, following the same
difficult to comprehend (Margueron Of particularinterest is a group sequence, in contemporarytablets
1982;Moorey 1976).The best clues of 13 tablets that bear impressions from Uruk (Matthews 1992).The
to its function, however,are the arti- made by the same cylinder seal. The appearanceof these early city lists
facts recoveredfrom its rooms-clay scene of the seal consists of proto- may well indicate the participation
tablets, cylinder seals and pottery. cuneiformsymbols known fromother of groups of Mesopotamian cities in
Tablets.At least 215 clay tab- evidence to signify the names of sev- cooperative activities of a now ob-
lets were excavatedat JemdetNasr eral early Mesopotamian cities. The scure nature. The 13 JemdetNasr
in 1926-28. An additional 30 are cities mentioned include Ur, Larsa, tablets bearingthe city seal impres-
thought to have come from the site Nippur, Uruk, Kish, Zabala and sion all deal with small quantities of
through illicit excavations. Rather goods, principally dried fruits and
hastily published by Langdon(1928), textiles, so that by themselves they
these important documents have are unlikely to reflect majorintercity
more recently received a fuller and economic transactions, but rathera
more sympathetic treatment (En- form of interaction that may have
glund and Gregoire1991).The Jemdet become largely symbolic.
Nasr tablets are written in a proto- Cylinder Seals. A distinctive
cuneiform script that can be paleo- collection of stone cylinder seals has
graphically comparedto tablets from so farbeen recoveredfrom the site.
EannaArchaic IIIlevels at the site of These seals bear designs made by
Uruk, thus immediately post-dating simple use of the drill and cutting
the EannaArchaic IV tablets, which
form the earliest true written docu-
ments in Mesopotamia.The language
of the JemdetNasr tablets has not
been certainly identified, due to the
lack of grammatical elements in the
script, but is likely to be related to 000oo 7???
4o, ooo
oooo00 o0-oooo I
the Sumerian languagewell known
on later tablets from Ur and other a@ ^^ A?
southern Mesopotamian sites. Many
of the individual signs on the Jemdet Baked clay spindle whorl with incised five-
pointed star, or UB sign, perhapsthe ancient
Nasr tablets are frequently encoun- name of JemdetNasr.
tered as Sumerian words or word
elements.
It is clear, however,that the tab-
lets from JemdetNasr deal almost
exclusively with administrative
matters. Majortopics include the
distribution of plots of land to indi-
viduals, the processing of cereals,
the distribution of a variety of food-
stuffs, the administration of animals
and the management of human labor
forces. All of these operations appear Inscribedproto-cuneiformtablet fromJemdet
to take place under the supervision Nasr (afterEnglundand Gregoire1991:num-
of at least one central institution, ber 2). This tablet concerns the surface mea-
surement of various allotments of land made
which is likely to be representedar- Inscribedproto-cuneiformtablet from lemdet to officials working within the JemdetNasr
chitecturally by the largebuilding Nasr (afterEnglundand Gregoire1991:num- administration. The circles and semicircles
from where the tablets were recov- ber 220). This tablet concerns the administra- all representnumerical signs denoting areal
tion of a labor force. In the lower left box can measurements. On the upperright of the
ered. Two frequent sign groupings be seen the two signs UB, the five-pointedstar, righthandview can again be seen the sign AB,
comprise AB UB and AB NI+ RU, and AB, the raised platform, which together this time with the two signs NI+RU below.
where AB probablysignifies "institu- may very tentatively be read as "thelargein- This sign combination is another candidate
tion,"and either UB or NI + RU may stitution (temple or palace?)of lemdet Nasr." for the ancient name of JemdetNasr.

Biblical Archaeologist, December 19999199

 Ur Larsa Nippur
E
U rX
fasa NpuU
-^ \ / \~~~~~~~~1-dl -
n
0
R ~7
The city seal impression, made by a large
cylinder seal on the surface of 13 proto-
cuneiform clay tablets at Jemdet Nasr. The
scene is in two registers, only the upper of
which is at all intelligible. Names of ancient
Mesopotamian cities are represented by groups
of symbols.
wheel to engravecircles and lines
onto the surface of the cylinders.
The designs include stylized scenes
of squatting figures, animals and
basic geometric compositions.
When these cylinder seals were
first discoveredat JemdetNasr in
the 1920s, it was believed that they
typified the glyptic of the Jemdet
Nasr period. Their subsequent dis-
covery across a wide rangeof the
ancient Near East was interpretedas
evidence of a widespreadexpansion
of JemdetNasr material culture. Sub-
sequently, however,these so-called
JemdetNasr seals were found at sites
that from other evidence, principally
pottery,were securely dated to the
precedingLate Uruk period. These
sites include HabubaKabirain Syria
(Strommenger1980),Godin Tepein
Iran (Young1986)and Nippur in
southern Mesopotamia (Wilson
1986).It is clear, therefore,that the
stylized drilled seals belong primari-
ly, if not exclusively, to the Late
Uruk period.
One puzzling attribute is that,
throughout Mesopotamia, there are
almost no extant impressions made
by the stylized drilled seals on clay
objects. It may be that they were
never intended to function as seals
in the way we otherwise know them
to operate,but instead functioned as
amulets or badgesof office in them-
200 Biblical Archaeologist, December 1992
Uruk Kesh Zabala
rk KsZ abl
^ /
selves. This role is in sharp contrast
to that attested for the seals whose
impressions adornmany of the Jem-
det Nasr inscribed tablets, since in
their case we have many seal impres-
sions but no actual cylinder seals
to match the impressions. The seal
impressions on the tablets portray
scenes entirely differentfrom the
stylized drilled seals, with an empha-
sis on naturalistic representationsof
humans, animals, trees and objects.
The lack of actual seals to match
these impressions suggests that the
original seals may have been made of
wood, now perished. In any case, it is
possible to correlate certain of the
seal impressions with specific types
of administrative activity attested
in the tablets, thus demonstrating
that certain officials, as represented
by their seals, were responsible for
specific administrative duties (Mat-
thews 1992).
Finally, during recent excava- mentof c,aptives, processions of cattle, and
tions of a largedump of heavily burnt mythicalwn at lower right.
material in an areaclose to Langdon's
building, a collection of some 200
clay sealings with seal impressions
-'V
rn6!SA
Urum
V I
U
r
3
\ L.
<-
-
was retrieved. Again, these impres-
sions arne of the naturalistic style,
but seve;ralnew motifs occur, such
as the sccorpion.Associated pottery
dates th ese sealings to very early in
the Early Dynastic I period, thus
immedi ately post-datingthe seal im-
pressioris on the JemdetNasr tablets.
Potitery.The pottery assemblage
recovere,dat JemdetNasr in the 1920s
was imnnediately recognized as being
distinct:ive enough to signify a new
period iin the cultural development
of Mesopotamia. Of particularinter-
est was tthe polychrome painted pot-
tery,wh ich employedluscious shades
of plum red and darkpurple/blackto
portraygeometric designs with a
smatter.ing of representationalele-
Examplesof seal impressions made by cylinder
nany of the proto-cuneiform clay
tabletsnThese seals portray naturalistic scenes
of humans and animals, including the treat-
creatures such as the hybrid lion-
o 5
cm
^^
Ar
<'\

0~- \-
$vzic
(I
0 5
Seal impressions on pieces of clay originally used to secure door-locksand portable containers,
such as pots. Associated pottery dates these scenes to very early in the EarlyDynastic I period,
probably before2900 B.C.E.
ments. Substantial numbers of the
polychrome painted vessels were
found at JemdetNasr and subse-
quently have been encountered at
several Mesopotamian sites, includ-
ing Tell Uqair (Lloydand Safar1943),
Nippur (Hansen 1965;Wilson 1986),
Fara(Martin1988),Ur (Woolley1955)
and Uruk (von Haller 1932; Suirenha-
gen 1987). Similar vessels have been
found at sites to the northeast, in the
Diyala valley at Khafajah(Delougaz
1952)and in the Hamrin Mountains
at Tell Gubba (Fujii 1981).The more
common undecoratedtypes also oc-
cur at a similar rangeof Mesopota-
mian sites.
Detailed study of the Jemdet
Nasr pottery corpus (Matthewsforth-
coming) shows that the JemdetNasr
period, as representedby pottery
types, has a valid meaning only
within fairly limited geographical
boundaries,encompassing southern
and central Mesopotamia with some
influence to the northeast. Pottery
conventionally designated as "Jemdet
Nasr"from northern Mesopotamia or
fromwesternIrandoes not in fact bear
close comparison to southern Meso-
potamian JemdetNasr types, and will
thereforehave to be judgedwithin
some other, non-Mesopotamian,
context.
o _c
cm
a
I
cm
The JemdetNasr period:Summary
The aforementioned evidence shows
that there are certain items of mate-
rial culture-inscribed tablets, pot-
tery forms-that can confidently be
assigned to a period called Jemdet
Nasr, andthat this perioddesignation
can only be applied to southern and
central Mesopotamia. Once outside
this region, differingmaterial culture
trajectoriesreflect, in a complex and
little understoodmanner,local varia-
tions in socio-cultural developments
that are likely to have influenced
many aspects of material culture.
Thus, in southwestern Iran,the cul-
tural unity with southern Mesopota-
mia so vividly attested by pottery,
seal impressions and numerical tab-
lets in the Late Uruk period has, by
the succeeding period, evaporated,
yielding to a wide cultural divergence
representedin Mesopotamia by the
JemdetNasr period and in southwest-
ern Iran,and beyond, by the develop-
ment of proto-Elamitecivilization.
Echoes of the LateUruk contact lin-
geron, however,in the appearanceof a
proto-Elamitescript on clay tablets,
which clearly bears some relation, Examplesof undecoratedpots from lemdet
at least functionally, to the proto- Nasr. Study of comparativematerial from
other Mesopotamiansites has enabled the
cuneiform script of southern Meso- identification of these forms, and others,
potamia. Similarly, Late Uruk cul- as belonging exclusively to the lemdet Nasr
tural convergencebetween southern period.
Biblical Archaeologist, December 1992 201

Deposit of goblets of EarlyDynastic I date in
the cornerof a room on Mound B.
View of the baked brick building on the summit of MoundA. This building survives only at
foundation level, and the bricksizes, 31-by-31-by- -8-centimeters,indicate a Neo-Babyloniandate
for its construction.A wall of identical bricks surrroundsMoundA. Given the width of the
foundations, it is likely that this structureoriginally stood to some height, perhapsfunctioning
as a police control post for this area of northernIBabyloniain the first millennium B.C.E.
202 Biblical Archaeologist, December 1992
Mesopotamriaand the upper reaches
of the Euphratesin Syriaduring the
Late Uruk period dissipates at about
the same time.
The JemdetNasr period, then,
covers a time span, probablybrief,
that immediately follows a collapse
of widespreadLateUruk influence.
It is perhapswithin this context of
collapse and the onset of very real
threats to the cultural integrity of
the southern Mesopotamian urban
heartland that we can best under-
stand the appearance,during the
JemdetNasr period, of evidence for
extensive intercity cooperation. It
may be that such cooperationwas
the only means, politically and mili-
tarily,by which the cities of the
Mesopotamian plain were able not
only to survive but also to pass on
their cultural legacy,epitomized by
the written word, to the great cities
that were to develop in the subse-
quent centuries of the EarlyDynas-
tic period,
A-rareburial of the Urukperiod, found on
the southwestern edge of Mound B.
panying the body was a groupof small Accom-
pots,
some filled with bivalve shells, which had
been placed in a sack that, in turn, had been
lain in a large stone bowl.
Bibliography
Delougaz, P.
1952 Potteryfrom the Diyala Region.
Series:Universityof Chicago,Oriental
Institute Publications,volume 63.
Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Englund,R. K., and Gregoire,J.P.
1991 The Proto-cuneiformtexts from Jem-
det Nasr. 1:copies, transliterations
and glossary.Series:Materialienzu
den fruihenSchriftzeugnissendes
VorderenOrients, volume 1. Berlin:
Mann
Finkbeiner,U., and R6ollig,W, editors
1986 JamdatNasr:periodorregionalstyle?
Series:Beihefte zum TuibingerAtlas
des VorderenOrients, Reihe B 62.
Wiesbaden:Reichert.
Fujii,H., editor
1981 Preliminaryreporton the excava-
tions at GubbaandSongar.al Rafidan
2: 1-242.
von Haller,A.
1932 Die Keramikder archaischenSchich-
ten von Uruk. Pp 31-47 in Vierter
vorldufigerBericht uber die von der
Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen
Wissenschaftin Uruk unteomme
Wssenschaft n un ternomme-
Uruk
nen Ausgrabungen, edited by A. Nol-
deke, E. Heinrich, H. Lenzenand
A. v. Haller.Series:Abhandlungen
der Preussischen Akademie der
WissenschaftenJahrung1932,
 volume 6. Berlin:Akademie der Margueron, J. Strommenger,E.
Wissenschaften. 1982 Recherches sur les palais mesopo- 1980 Habuba Kabira eine Stadt vor 5000
Hansen, D. P. tamiens de t'dgedu bronze. Paris: fahren.Mainzam Rhein:von Zabem.
1965 The relative chronologyof Geuthner. Sarenhagen,D.
Mesopota- Martin,H. P. 1987 ArchaischeKeramikaus Uruk-Warka.
mia, part II. The pottery sequence at 1988 Fara: A reconstruction of the ancient Zweiter Teil. Baghdader Mitteilungen
Nippur from the Middle Uruk to the Mesopotamian city of Shuruppak. 18: 1-92.
end of the Old Babylonianperiod Birmingham:Martinand Associates. Wilson, K. L.
(3400-1600 B.C.).Pp.201-13 in Chro- Matthews,R. J. 1986 Nippur:the definition of a Mesopo-
nologies in Old WorldArchaeology, 1989 Excavationsat JemdetNasr, 1988. tamian JamdatNasr assemblage.Pp.
edited by R. W.Ehrich.Chicago: Iraq 51: 225-48. 57-89 in Jamdat Nasr: period or
University of Chicago Press. 1990 Excavationsat JemdetNasr, 1989. regionalstyle?, edited by U. Fink-
Langdon,S. Iraq 52: 25-39. beiner and W Rollig.Wiesbaden:
1927 Ausgrabungenin Babylonienseit 1992 Cities, seals and writing: archaic Reichert.
1918. DerAlte Orient 26: 3-75. seal impressions from lemdet Nasr Woolley,C. L.
1928 The Herbert Weld collection in the and Ur. Series:Materialienzu den 1955 The early periods. Series:Ur Exca-
Ashmolean Museum. Pictographic frihen Schriftzeugnissendes Vorder- vations, volume 4. London:British
inscriptions from lemdet Nasr. Series: en Orients, volume 2. Berlin:Mann. Museum.
OxfordEditionsof Cuneiform lexts, forth- Defining the style of the period: Young, T. C.
volume 7. Oxford:University Press. coming JemdetNasr 1926-28. To appearin 1986 Godin Tpe periodVI/Vand central
Lloyd,S., and Safar,E Iraq 54. western Iraqat the end of the fourth
1943 Tell Uqair:Excavationsby the Iraq Matthews, R. J.,and Postgate,J.N. millennium. Pp.212-28 in Jamdat
GovernmentDirectorateof Antiqui- 1987 Excavationsat Abu Salabikh, Nasr: period or regional style?, edited
ties in 1940and 1941.lournal of 1985-86. Iraq49: 91-119. by U. Finkbeinerand W.Rbllig.Weis-
Near EasternStudies 2: 131-58. Moorey,P.R. S. baden:Reichert.
Mackay, E. 1976 The late prehistoricadministrative
1931 Report on excavations at lemdet Nasr, building at JamdatNasr. Iraq38:
Iraq.Series:Field Museum of Natu- 95-106.
ral History,AnthropologyMemoirs
I, volume 3. Chicago:Field Museum.

Newly revised edition, available in paperback

, ,, ,-
* '-
^,. .- _-e. _ 0-
_
The Archeology of
_.

_
-_-"

.d~1
.
wk

_.
.. the New Testament
i The Lifeof Jesus andthe Beginningof the EarlyChurch
'-
Jack Finegan
TheArcheologyof the New Testamentis the authoritative
illustratedaccountof
what Is presently known about the chief sites and monuments connected with the life
of Jesus and the history of the early Christian church. To follow the order of the New
^-W"
- - J $-^P Testament,itfirstinvestigatessites connectedwithJohnthe Baptistand then
_.
-
-.* ^-^^^^.U^-^ proceedsto Bethlehemand Nazareth,Samariaand Galilee,Jerash, Caesarea,
t, ': 44 ? UW!L ". Jericho,the Mountof Olives,Jerusalem,and Emmaus.Each site is illustrated,and
~__~m W 3the . accompanyingtextis numberedto facilitateeasy reference.
* Thiseditionhas been completelyrevisedto reflectthe most recentscholarship
- i %6^
. A, _ . =
^.
_s e"
and excavations,and Itcontainsmanynew entries.Anyoneconcernedwiththe
rf *;, ^ *f "-. historical, geographical, and cultural background of the New Testament must consult
I 1. -I
~ -- this classic work.
' _|'-'^^_ .-.~"~
?* '~Thedefinitive handbook. Finegan's comprehensive treatment of almost
every problem in the field of New Testament archeology as well as his
4^^^-^^^S3B HB Judicious evaluation of the evidence makes this book Indispensable to every
J*^- FJ F ^ 8serious student of the Bible."-The New YorkTimesBookReview
_ 4, and maps.
photographs,illustrations,
Paper$29.95ISBN0-691-00220-7.
Cloth:$75.00 ISBN0-691-03608-X

Princeton University Press

41 WILLIAM 800-777-4726 ORFROMYOURLOCALBOOKSTORE
NJ 08540 ORDERS:
ST., PRINCETON,

Biblical Archaeologist December 1992 203