Body: | Pots and Polities:
Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah
in Relation to its Political Borders
Raz Kletter
Land of Israel Studies Department
University of Haifa
Mt. Carmel, Haifa, Israel
Website note: Raz Kletter is a modernist, Bible trashing archeologist who
makes these statements in this document:
"Border trespassing against God's will is considered a sin both at
the national level (Deut 2:19; Amos 1:13; Hosh 5:10) and in the private
domain ("thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark"; Deut 19:14;
27:17). Of course, these are ideological conceptions and should not be
taken to be historically accurate."
"The story about the conquest of southern Samaria by Abiyah in 2
Chronicles 13 is historically doubtful (Klein 1983; cf. Jones 1994). We
should not rely on this story to restore the borders of Judah."
We feel it is important for the reader to know the anti-biblical bias of
Raz Kletter as he reads his work.
(Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to its Political Borders, Raz
Kletter, 1999 AD)
"The note seemed to fix the boundaries of Uqbar, but its nebulous reference
points were rivers and craters and mountain ranges of that same
region"Borges 1970: 29.
Archaeological studies during the last three decades have tended to draw a
sharp separation between "pots" and "people." The latter are understood as
ethnic units, but ethnicity is problematic to define and use in
archaeology. On the other hand, politi-cal units or polities can be studied
more easily, at least for historical periods. There are rich historical
sources about political borders in the ancient Near East and Judah. During
the later part of the Iron Age II (eighth-seventh centuries B.C.), Judah
existed as a state, or "polity," with clear political borders. Despite many
difficulties, it is pos-sible to define Judaean material culture and to
consider its relation to the borders of Judah. This article calls for a
more balanced attitude toward the question of material remains and
political entities.
A direct connection between material remains and political or ethnic
entities was a com-mon underlying assumption in archaeologi-cal studies in
the past. Archaeologists identified pots with people, often in very
simplistic ways. Pottery was labeled with ethnic definitions and artifacts
were connected with immigration and settlement waves. Simplistic equations
of this kind have been strongly criticized and their limitations made clear
over the last 30 years in the so-called new archaeology. For example,
Renfrew (1984: 25) wrote, "The basic misconceptions were to confuse
questions of social organization with those about ethnicity (for Childe and
his contemporaries interpreted the term 'cul-ture' in an ethnic sense), and
to assume that arbi-trarily defined taxonomic units (i.e., 'cultures') had
clear ethnic correlations. Both of these are errors of method." Other
scholars express similar views. Mostof the new archaeologists adhere to the
opposite point of view, distinguishing completely between pots and peoples.
Renfrew (1984: 35-36) suggests that, "the only solution is the total
abandonment of the notion of culture. Of course we are at liberty to
classify the material remains of the past in any way we choose, but the
inference should be avoided that such arbi-trary categories mean anything
in terms of 'people' or `societies'."1
During the last decade, the new archaeology has been criticized by
"post-processual archaeology" ("PPA," e.g., Hodder 1982; 1985; 1986; 1989;
Kohl 1985). PPA is by no means a homogenous move-ment, but generally, it
"sees archaeology as an his-torical discipline" (Hodder 1982: 13) and calls
for a contextual archaeology, stressing symbolic aspects of artifacts and
explanations of their meanings within particular historical settings
(Hodder 1982; 1985;
1986; 1987a; 1987b; Hodder et al. 1995: 3-29; cf. Kohl 1985; 1993). PPA
recognizes pottery style as a possible indicator of human groups. For
example, different styles can be related to a "national taste" in one case
(e.g., Sinclair 1987: 44), and to group bound-aries in another (Franklin
1989: 278-90). However, in regard to political borders, PPA studies usually
continue the views expressed by former "new" ar-chaeologists. For example,
Hodder (1987a: 4) gives the very cautious view that "Anyone who has tried
to define a culture or type as a clear-cut entity, will know that different
entities can be produced by con-sidering different traits." He continues,
explaining that "the boundary of the context of a 'typical' artifact will
rarely be the boundary of the culture (or tempo-ral phase) of which it is
typical" (Hodder 1987a: 5). I will review a few fields of theoretical study
relevant to the present paper.
Theoretical studies of core versus periphery or frontier are widespread,
and relate to grasping mate-rial culture as systems (for systems theory in
ar-chaeology see Clarke 1968; Renfrew 1984: 258-82, 331-56).2 One could
have anticipated that frontiers would be connected with borders or
boundaries, as stated in a study by Green and Perlman (1985: 4): "As the
'front,' the frontier defines a cultural bound-ary." However, Green and
Perlman do not discuss borders, but a theoretical model of cultural change,
stating that "frontier and boundary studies can help us to develop more
open models of society and build more realistic theories of cultural
change" (Green and Perlman 1985: 4).3 Indeed, most studies about core and
periphery, or interaction between polities, do not discuss borders at all
(Rowlands, Larsen, and Kristiansen 1987; Schortman and Urban 1992; Hall and
Chase-Dunn 1993).
While Israelis tend to think of borders in terms of linear lines, the
history of America involves the concept of a shifting frontier, defined as
an area (and "front" in English is used in military contexts). Lerner
(1984: 67) define frontier as "an undevel-oped or unoccupied area that
undergoes coloniza-tion by a population from an adjacent or distant
territory." In this context, frontiers have a dynamic quality that goes
beyond simply demarcating the limits of a culture (De Atley and Findlow
1984: 2). If a frontier is seen as an area where cultures mix, cultural
assemblages "provide no means for recog-nizing the culturally meaningful
boundaries of the groups in question, since the distinguishing traits
usually are found to merge into one another at themargins of the social
units" (De Atley and Findlow 1984: 1). Human groups do not have "margins"
like organisms do, warn De Atley and Findlow, who point out (1984: 1-2)
that "most populations merge or overlap and therefore are not discrete."
A few core and periphery studies express other views. Trinkaus (1984) is
exceptional, even if only because he studies a historical casethe
Sassanian empire. Trinkaus is aware that certain artifacts may be more
helpful to studies of boundaries, especially "official" or "political
iconography," although his conclusion is rather skeptical (Trinkaus 1984:
36-38). He also notes that "a complex of artifacts and features is more
convincing than a single one to estab-lish official presence and state
activity" (1984: 38). Ericson and Meighan (1984: 145) write that
"dis-continuity in the material culture might be useful in identifying the
location of the border." They also quote studies that indicate that some
artifacts may be extremely sensitive as indicators of "group-specific
identity," so that "stylistic analyses of designated items will be a viable
new [sic!] approach to identifying ethnic group boundaries in the future"
(Ericson and Meighan 1984: 146).
One study, of obsidian tools in prehistoric California, is enlightening
(Hughes and Bettinger 1984). Hughes and Bettinger have shown that the
failure to relate obsidian tools to social organization was due to mistaken
preconceptions rather than to lack of such relationships. Scholars applied
economic evaluation, but neglected the socioceremonial uses of some
obsidian tools. Each area and period should be studied on its own merits;
Hughes and Bettinger (1984: 165) assert that there are cases in which "the
manufacture of tools occurs in distributions that conform to the location
of land holding socio-political groups." These groups are defined with the
help of ethnographic records, and Hughes and Bet-tinger caution us not to
ignore the exceptional quality of ethnographic information available in
such in-stances (1984: 158). This last conclusion is very interesting for
Iron Age Judah, as one only has to replace "ethnographic" with
"historical."4
Many scholars see cultures as territorially (and temporally) related. For
example, Jarman studies "site-territory," where the borders of the site are
de-termined by factors such as physical distance, commercial potential of
land, and its accessibility. Such factors determine the extent of land
surrounding a given site that would merit exploitation (Jarman 1972:
705-12). One can draw "time-contour" lines around a site, and define the
limit of a system by incorporating factors such as the nature of the
economy of that system (Jarman 1972: 712-16). This method, however, is
applicable to only a few sites and is basically socioeconomic in nature. It
does not anticipate political factors, such as power relations between
states, which may affect political borders.
An important contribution to spatial studies was made by Johnson, who
formulated the "rank-size" rule. By this rule, if all the sites of a
certain sys-tem are listed according to size, a site number N in the list
will have 1/N population of the largest (first) site (Johnson 1981: 144,
fig. 1).5 If we draw site lists on logarithmic graphs, systems obeying the
rank-size rule appear as straight lines. "Deviations" can be seen and
connected to differences in the social order. Sys-tems with one large
center and many much smaller sites will appear as convex lines (Johnson
1981: 148, fig. 2). These are termed "primate" or "dendrite" systems,
probably having a strong central organiza-tion. Systems that have no clear
"capital" but a few large sites, similar to one another, appear as con-cave
lines and might reflect weak intersite relations. Sometimes, a system might
have a "primate" core with a "concave" periphery (Johnson 1981: 174-75,
fig. 13). To make the rank-size rule valid, a clear-cut definition of the
borders of any system is a pre-condition. Otherwise, a mingling of
settlements from different systems, or a partial presentation of one
sys-tem, will distort the results (Johnson himself clearly observed this
phenomenon [1981: 167-71]).
Renfrew (1975: 94-97) also sees civilizations as land- and time-related.
His "early state module" (ESM) defines civilization as composed of
organiza-tional units, and is used mainly to define the early phases of the
creation of civilization in Mesopota-mia and Mesoamerica. Most ESMs have
small territories (ca. 1500 km2, with 40 km between system centers; cf.
Hodder and Orton 1976). The so-called "tent" formula helps to fix the
presumed border between ESMs, by marking a "minimal relation-ship line"
between systems (cf. Bunimovitch 1988). Again, this formula does not take
into consideration political factors (for distribution of single artifact
types, cf. also Hodder and Orton 1976; 98-100). In the last decade,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been used for visualizing spatial
analyses (Lock and Harris 1992; Allen, Green, and Zubrow 1990). Although
GIS may prove to be a powerful tool, we will still always have to define
what we are looking for.
Renfrew and other scholars define polity as a socioeconomic autonomous
entity, politically inde-pendent, which lies beside similar entities.
Civili-zation (or "culture" in archaeology) is seen as a cluster of
polities with similar traits, e.g., a common system of measures (Renfrew
and Cherry 1986: 1-2; cf. Renfrew 1984: 30-53). There is a diversity of
possible interpolity relations. Renfrew and Cherry admit that "There must
indeed be relationships be-tween the extent of ethnic units and of style
zones, as they can be determined by careful examination of the variation
and distribution of artefactual forms, decorative forms and by other
aspects of material culture" (Renfrew and Cherry 1986: 157); but they do
not discuss "simple trait distributions" or borders, noting only that the
last are hard to define (Renfrew and Cherry 1986: 152-53; cf. Snodgrass
1986: 47, who uses historical cases to verify models of inter-actions
between polities).
Ethnoarchaeology deals with relationships be-tween ethnic groups and
material culture (Schiffer 1978: 229-47; Kramer 1979). Many papers discuss
pottery in relation to ethnicity, and the emerging picture is varied.
Sometimes there is no correlation between pottery distribution and
conquests or immi-grations (e.g., the immigration of the Tew people in 18th
century Africa, or the Spanish conquest of Peru and Mexico, which left very
few artifacts from its first years). Different social groups are known to
have lived together and to use the same pottery, though their script and
language remained separate (Stanis-lawski 1978). On the other hand, there
are also cases of direct connection between ethnicity and artifacts
(Sterner 1989; Morgan and Whitelaw 1991: 79-108; Underhill 1991: 12-27).
Thus, in a study about the Vandals, Martens (1989: 64) writes that "we must
thus accept the existence of different tribes that mark their ethnicity,
their alliances, enmities, etc., in a way which can be materially detected"
(cf. Veit 1989; for PPA works in this field see Yoffee and Sherratt 1993:
60-78, 93-104; Shennan 1989: 1-30).
Criticism and Summary
In an effort to make archaeology an exact science, the new archaeology
tried to find general, "covering laws." Such laws were hard to find, or are
defined in such broad terms that they become meaningless. The heavy use of
jargon was disturbing. Models often became an end rather than the tool for
creating a more meaningful analysis. The new archaeology
Fig. 2. The Judaean pillar figurines. Drawings are not to scale. 1. Beth
Shemesh (Mackenzie 1912: 76, pl. 42); 2. Gezer (Macalister 1912: fig. 502);
3. Jerusalem (Holland 1975: fig. 3:2); 4. Tell en-Nasbeh (after the
figu-rine in the Rockefeller Museum); 5. Jerusalem (Holland 1975: fig.
9:4); 6. Tel Beer Sheba (unpublished, courtesy of I. Beit Arieh and Z.
Herzog).
focused primarily on prehistoric phases and on cul-tural changes, and
neglects historical cases. At least in its more dogmatic forms, it failed
to discuss polit-ical borders in a satisfactory way, since it created a
sharp dichotomy between pots and peopleas if pots were independent
beings. It is worth quoting the words of Hughes and Bettinger (1984: 169):
"It is human behavior, not obsidian behavior, which is of interest."
Post-processual archaeology has brought about an increased awareness of
these problems and has pro-vided important contributions, but political
borders are still neglected. Indeed, the terms polity, border, and
boundaries are not even found in a recent im-portant glossary (Hodder et
al. 1995: 232-48). One exception is a discussion by Rowlett (1989) of the
prehistoric Marnian culture in the area of modern France. Rowlett found a
direct correlation between distance of graves from the margins of their
ar-chaeological culture and the rate of grave looting. He suggests that
neighboring groups were responsi-ble for the looting, and that "the limits
of the cul-tural group was also approximately the same as the limits of the
political group." The last conclusions are deduced with the help of later,
historical records (Rowlett 1989: 229).
The stress on ethnicity is another problem. Eth-nicity has many
connotations in our modern world, and is hard to define in the context of
ancient soci-eties. What happens if, instead of ethnic groups, we pose the
question in terms of polities or states, with well-defined political
borders? This would enable us to use the rich body of evidence provided by
ancient Near Eastern documents and the OT.
THE NECESSITY OF POLITICAL BORDERS
Political Borders in the Ancient Near East
Many sources indicate the existence of clear political borders in the
ancient Near East. For example, Cooper (1983: 22, 49, text 6: i) writes:
"Enlil, king of all gods . . . demarcated the border between Nin-girsu and
Shara. Mesalim, king of Kish . . . measured it off and erected a monument
there." This quotation relates to the border disputes between the
Mesopotamian cities of Umma and Lagash in the third millennium B.C. (best
remembered by the famous "Vulture Stele," for which see Winter 1985).
The disputed area, the GU.edena, changed hands several times; it was a
fertile zone beside a canal (Cooper 1983: 28-29). Although the story is
told specifically from the point of view of Lagash, the conception of
borders is general: The gods fixed the border, and their act served Lagash
as justification for its claims of ownership. The border was not a
theoretical conception, but a clearly defined object. The kings of Lagash
marked their border with border stones, which Umma destroyed whenever
possible. These stones, especially if early in date, are mentioned as
another justification of ownership. During a certain period, there existed
a sort of no-man's land between the cities. At one time Umma conquered part
of the area under dispute. To mark his control over this area, the king of
Umma changed the names of the local settlements there (Cooper 1983: 23-24).
Border monuments are mentioned in Egyptian sources, and Akhenaten marked
the borders of El-Amarna with monuments (Murnane and Van Siclen 1993;
Ahituv 1996). Royal Assyrian stelae inform us about border disputes in
vassal kingdoms in Ana-tolia, where Assyrian kings set borders and marked
them with border stones. The Assyrian stelae included not only descriptions
of the borders, but also curses against attempts to remove or damage the
stones (Donbaz 1990). The borders are defined in these stelae by lists of
towns and villages. Usually, the political affiliation of each town was
recorded. In unpopulated areas, and sometimes for the sake of
clarification, geographical features were given, e.g., mountains or rivers.
Another source, the "Synchro-nistic History," relates border disputes
between As-syria and Babylon in the first millennium B.C., with similar
conceptions. It presents the border line as mutually accepted by both
sides, but actually it marked forced annexations (Liverani 1990: 80-81).
Hittite documents present especially detailed information on political
borders in second millen-nium B.C. Anatolia. Borders were defined by lists
of settlements and other specific points, such as fields, salt marshes,
etc. (Goetze 1940: 48, 63). The bronze tablet of the treaty between
Tudhaliya IV and Kurunta, king of Tarhuntasha, is a good example of a
border definition (Otten 1988). None of the above-mentioned cases are later
than Iron Age Judah (there are, of course, many later examples, including
bor-ders defined structurally by defenses, e.g., Hadrian's wall in Britain
or the Great Wall in China; for a Sassanian border wall see Trinkaus 1984:
43).
Liverani has provided a thorough discussion of political borders, mainly
pertaining to the Levant in the second millennium B.C. He distinguishes
(with a strong Marxist taste) two kinds of ideologies influ-encing border
concepts: "centralized" versus "plural-istic" (Liverani 1990: 33-78). Both
ideologies aimed at achieving prestige and economic gains, but
"cen-tralized" called for continuous expenditure and rec-ognized only
cosmic or natural borders. On the other hand, the pluralistic concept
recognized the existence of neighboring political entities, which had
rights; and this recognition resulted in a state of equilib-rium expressed
by accepted borders. Both ideologies can be found together, e.g., a king
addressing an enemy king claimed that he had taken nothing of his enemy's
land; but when addressing his own subjects, he boasted of conquests and
deportations (Liverani 1990: 92-93; for ideology in regard to the
definition of Sinai as a border zone between Canaan and Egypt see Na'aman
1986b: 237-52).
The "pluralistic" ideology demanded clear defi-nition of borders, since
these are not cosmic or nat-ural: a border may pass anywhere, and there was
the danger that it would not be distinguished. There was a general ambition
to fix borders by treaties and boundary stones (Liverani 1990: 82). This is
the very opposite of the centralized ideology, in which kings erected
cosmic stelae and claimed to have reached "the ends of the world" (Liverani
1990: 87-94). Pluralistic borders were necessary for purposes of taxation
and economic control, as well as for le-gal purposes (return of refugees
and captives, use of force, etc.). Seaports and nomads constituted a sort
of "in between," or partial extraterritorial, case (Liv-erani 1990: 100).
Border trespassing is presented in the sources as "disorder," "injustice,"
or "oppres-sion," and forms a legitimate cause for declaring war. Often it
is stated that borders have been estab-lished "since olden times," or
"since time immemo-rial" (Liverani 1990: 83). Change in border lines was
justified by claims such as that the new border was really the ancient and
true one, or that the inhabit-ants of the land moved to the other side of
their own free will (as if only they moved, while the border remained
stable; cf. Goetze 1940: 37). In other cases, the change was explained as a
punishment for the alleged crimes of the defeated side.
Borders were not theoretical lines. Especially in densely populated areas,
they had to be carefully established. In legal documents borders are
expressedby lists of settlements, since the affiliation of settle-ments to
each side counted much more than the mere geographical definition of the
border (Liverani 1990: 89-90). Liverani also warned against an uncritical
attitude toward the ancient sources: Not even the inner population of the
time, the original addressee of the royal propaganda, was probably as
candid as an uncritical reading of the royal manuscripts leads some modern
scholars to be" (Liverani 1990: 58).
Border Ideology in the OT
A clear grasp of political borders appears in the OT, and the conceptions
are similar to those of the ancient Near East as a whole. In Iron Age II
Judah, the "pluralistic" ideology surely prevailed as "real politics,"
while the "centralized" ideology can be traced in historiography. The
system of tribal boundaries in the Book of Joshua defines borders by lists
of settlements (for some basic studies see Alt 1966; Na'aman 1986b: 33, 79;
Kallai 1986: 279). Sometimes, geographical definitions are added to the
settlements' names (e.g., Josh 18:12, 14; cf. Aharoni 1958: 30).
Topographic terms may serve as back-ground or may give realistic touches to
OT stories (Amit 1987, but this is not so when dealing with border
descriptions, where their purpose is quite different). Theologically, God
gave the land to the peoples (Deut 2:5, 9; 19:14; Josh 1:13; 18:3) and set
the borders (Josh 22:25; cf. Ps 104:9). God is also the cause for both loss
of land (for the sins of its inhabitants) and new conquests (e.g., Exod
34:24; cf. Deut 19:8; 12:20-21). Border trespassing against God's will is
considered a sin both at the national level (Deut 2:19; Amos 1:13; Hosh
5:10) and in the private domain ("thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's
landmark"; Deut 19:14; 27:17). Of course, these are ideological conceptions
and should not be taken to be historically accurate.6
Clear and well-defined borders were thus a necessity for maintaining normal
relationships between neighboring entitiesbe they cities, kingdoms, or
empires. Judah and its neighbors in the Iron Age II were states or polities
with well-defined borders and border concepts (geographical as well as
ideological). Recent archaeological theories have largely ignored the
historical sources that indicate the importance of political borders. But
by emphasizing states or polities, one is obliged to recognize the
necessity of political borders. Thus, exploring the relationship between
political borders and material culture is not a theoretical exercise, but a
requirement for under-standing the reality of the period and place
discussed.
BORDERS OF JUDAH DURING THE LATE IRON AGE II
Prior to Sennacherib's Campaign
Judah's borders were stable from the reign of Asa until 705 B.C. (1 Kgs
15:16-20; Na'aman 1989a: 19, 54-55; Kletter 1996: 43-44 presents a more
de-tailed treatment). Judah's northern border followed a line between
Jericho and Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh); Jericho belonged to Israel (Weippert
and Weippert 1976). The story about the conquest of southern Samaria by
Abiyah in 2 Chronicles 13 is historically doubtful (Klein 1983; cf. Jones
1994). We should not rely on this story to restore the borders of Judah.
Judah's eastern border, the Dead Sea, and its south-ern border, the Arad
and Beer Sheba valleys, were natural borders.
The western border was the most unstable of Judah's borders. It passed
through the Shephelah, encompassing Azekah, Lachish, and Beth Shemesh
(Na'aman 1974; 1994; cf. Galil 1992: 117; Ussish-kin 1978; 1983; for Timnah
see Kelm and Mazar 1995; Cahill 1995: 247, n. 18). Gezer belonged to Israel
and later to the Assyrian province of Samaria (Na'aman 1988: 74). The
identification of sites in the southern Shephelah is a well-known problem,
but geographic features and settlement patterns present some clues (Gophna
1970; Dagan 1992). Ekron and Gat (Tell es-Safi) were Philistine cities
(Dothan and Gitin 1994; Gitin 1989; 1995).
During the Revolt of Hezekiah (705-701 B.c.)
Hezekiah achieved control over areas west of Judah's border in the
Shephelah, although the exact extent of these areas is not certain.
Certainly, Ekron was under his sphere of influence, since he captured Padi,
king of Ekron. According to Mittmann (1990), Hezekiah annexed Ekron and a
large part of Ashdod (based on Micah 1, which is a very obscure source;
Vargon 1994: 47-54; Schmitt 1990). Ashkelon and its Jaffa-Azor extension
probably also became part of the anti-Assyrian alliance. Hezekiah may have
hadcontrol over Gat as well (Na'aman 1979: 67; 1974: 27); but against this,
see Mittmann (1990: 98-99),7 which is convincing; hence, there is no clear
evi-dence about Gat.
Campaign of Sennacherib (701 B.c.) and Its Aftermath
Sennacherib seized areas from Judah and deliv-ered them to the rule of
Ashdod, Gaza, and Ekron. Scholars at one time thought that most of Judah
was affected, except for a small enclave around Jerusa-lem (Alt 1953:
242-43; Noth 1960: 268-69); but current research indicates that only parts
of the Shephelah were torn from Judah (Na'aman 1986a: 17; Galil 1988: 11,
n. 35). The change in occu-pation is reflected in a sharp drop in
settlement density in the eastern Shephelah during this period (Dagan 1992:
260-62). The centralization of the oil industry at seventh century B.C.
Ekron may also reflect the loss of oil-producing areas in the Judaean
Shephelah (Eitam 1990). Gezer returned to direct Assyrian rule (Reich and
Brandl 1985; Becking 1992: 114-18).
During the Pax Assyriaca Period (ca. 700-630/620 B.C.)
Although historical sources on Judah's borders during this period are
lacking, archaeologists have attempted to distinguish two or even four
subphases within the seventh century B.C. (Yadin and Geva 1983; Eshel 1986;
Oren et al. 1991: 13-15; Oren 1993). Unfortunately, such efforts cannot yet
be ac-cepted (Kletter 1996: 8-9). Many scholars, for ex-ample, believe that
Manasseh reclaimed the areas lost in 701 B.C. (Ginsberg 1950: 349-51;
Bulbach 1981; Tatum 1991; Rainey 1993: 160-62; Finkelstein 1993: 64), but
this reconstruction is based, to a large extent, on accepting the
Chronicler's story about the repen-tance of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:10-17).
However, the historical accuracy of this story is doubtful (North 1974:
336-38; Williamson 1982a: 388-93), and it hardly mentions any border
changes. It is possible that the return to the traditional western border
was achieved later, by Josiah (Na'aman 1989: 85). In any case, it is
unlikely that Judah expanded outside its traditional borders in the
prevailing political circum-stances of the Pax Assyriaca.
During the Reign of Josiah (639-609 B.c.)
A very common view claims that Josiah con-quered vast areas (for the latest
adherents, see Wein-feld 1992: 146; Stern 1994; Suzuki 1992: 32-37; Laato
1992: 76), acting as an independent king for most of his reign. This theory
is based on an early date for the Assyrian withdrawal from the west,
largely following the early date and wide geographic extension of Josiah's
reform, mentioned in 2 Chron-icles 34. However, it seems that the version
of 2 Kings is more reliable (Spieckermann 1982: 30-41; Na'aman 1989: 50, n.
118); thus a later date for the reform accords well with a later date for
the Assyr-ian withdrawal from the west. Furthermore, 2 Kgs 23:15 limits
Josiah's reforms to Judah and the Bethel region (for "the cities of
Samaria" in 2 Kgs 23:19 see Na'aman 1989: 55, n. 138). The death of Jo-siah
at Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:29) remains enigmatic (Spieckermann 1982: 138-53;
Williamson 1982a: 408; 1982b; 1987). It is likely that Josiah came to
submit to Egypt and not to fight her; the story of his death does not imply
that he ruled over northern Is-rael (Na'aman 1989: 63-68). An important
source for Judah's borders is the town list of Joshua 15 (Alt 1925). The
geographical scope of that list fits the small kingdom of Josiah, and the
dating of the list to his reign is based on the inclusion of Bethel, Ophra,
and Jericho. Judah controlled those cities only during Josiah's reign
(Galil 1987; Na'aman 1989; contra Garfinkel 1987; Galil 1991-1992; Ahituv
1994).
Archaeological remains have been seen as a proof of an "empire" of Josiah,
especially since the ex-cavation of Mesad Hashavyahu near Ashdod. This site
is explained as a Judaean fort of Josiah (Naveh 1962; Reich 1989), leading
to the conclusion that Josiah controlled access to the sea (cf. Na'aman
1989: 56-57, nn. 147-48). A few Judaean inscribed stone weights, found in
Philistia, were taken as evi-dence for Josiah's control (Yadin 1964; Stern
1973; Yadin and Geva 1983), but this cannot be accepted (Kletter 1991;
1998). Wenning offers a lower date for Mesad Hashavyahu, around 600 B.C.
(Wenning 1989: 183-89; cf. Dion 1992: 86-88, n. 103; Wald-baum 1994: 59).
Wenning (1989: 189-90) suggests that king Jehoiakim was the ruler of this
fort, but he was a weak king, subservient to Egypt and Babylon (2 Kgs
24:1). The question of Mesad Hashavyahu will be discussed more fully below.
From the Death of Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem (609-568 B.c.)
Different reconstructions of changes in Judah's borders can be made for the
period 609-568 B.C. Perhaps the area of Benjamin was lost to Babylon and
the Negev to Edom, but there is no clear his-torical evidence. It seems
that until the last days, the borders remained more or less the same: the
Shephelah, Lachish, and Azekah remained in Judah (Jeremiah 34:7, and the
Lachish Letters [Torczyner 1938]), as did En Gedi in the east and Arad in
the south (the Arad ostraca [Aharoni 1981]). Perhaps some sites were ruined
a little prior to 586 B.C., whether by Edomites (Arad ostraca; Aharoni
1981, nos. 24:20, 40:15; for the sites of Qitmit and En Hazeva, see
Beit-Arieh 1995; Cohen and Yisrael 1995), Babylonians, or other enemies;
but this theory cannot be confirmed.
The Danger of Circular Arguments
In many instances, the historical evidence re-garding the borders of Judah
during the late Iron Age is partial or obscure. One must therefore use
archaeological information to help fill the lacunae even though combining
the two disciplines carries the danger of tautological, or circular,
arguments. The arguments are: 1) If a certain type of artifact is found in
Judah, 2) then it is a Judaean artifact, 3) and since it is Judaean, 4) its
distribution relates to Judah's borders. The problem concerns the
definition of Judah in the first and second clauses: How are the borders of
Judah defined thereare they the same borders that we try to relate with
the material finds in the fourth clause? On the one hand, the
interpre-tation of the historical evidence is disputed; on the other hand,
it is impossible to rely solely on ar-chaeological evidence without the
help of histori-cal sources. Even the dating of the "archaeological" strata
is dependent upon historical evidence (e.g., the dating of the destruction
of Lachish Levels III and II to 701 and 586 B.C., respectively, is based on
histor-ical interpretation).
As a working solution, I will use the concept of a "heartland" or
"traditional" Judah.8 The heartland of Judah is the area that was always
under Judaean control, i.e., a minimal definition. Inside this area,
Judaeans surely comprised the overwhelming per-centage of the total
population, and it was they who wielded political control. The heartland of
Judah included the Judaean mountains, Benjamin, the Ju-daean desert, and
the biblical Negev. Clearly, transjordan, northern Israel, Phoenicia, and
Philistia had never been a true part of Judah. The Shephelah presents a
problem due to the unstable border in this area between Judah and Philistia
(above). One can separate the eastern Shephelah (Beth Shemesh, Azekah, and
Lachish, which form part of the heart-land of Judah) from the western
Shephelah (Gat, Ekron, etc., which were part of Philistia). A mar-ginal
zone remains, where the affiliation of sites such as Tel Erani or Tel
Burnah is open to discussion (cf. fig. 1).
The concept of the heartland of Judah is far from perfect. It is based on
historical sources and used only as a working tool, because it might help
in the definition of Judaean artifacts. Even if Judah ex-panded outside
this heartland area, that fact would only strengthen the definition of
artifacts as Judaean; and it seems that Judah did not shrink much from
these borders, except perhaps during its final days. We turn now to a
discussion of various artifacts in relation to the borders of Judah as
defined here.
ARTIFACTS IN RELATION TO THE BORDERS OF JUDAH
The artifacts chosen for discussion here present various facets of ancient
life such as trade and econ-omy (the inscribed weights), possibly religious
be-liefs (the "pillar figurines"), and production and use of pottery and
perhaps the royal administration (the rosette seal impressions). Some of
these artifacts were defined as Judaean long ago, but they were not studied
thoroughly in connection with the borders of Judah. Such research faces
many problems and difficulties. A significant number of each type of
ar-tifact is needed, otherwise the distribution patterns are not
statistically reliable. There are many lacunae and obscure sections in our
knowledge, e.g., finds not recorded properly, biases resulting from
different methods of excavation and differences in wealth between sites and
excavated areas within sites. Even the context and date of many artifacts
are often vague, as are their symbolism and functions. Fur-thermore, I
cannot discuss in detail here every as-pect of the examined artifacts, such
as symbolism or breakage patterns, although such issues might have effects
on the Judaean definition and on the relationwith Judah's borders. Rather,
I will concentrate pri-marily on typology and distribution patterns.
"Pillar Figurines"
The "pillar figurines" (figs. 2-4) have been dis-cussed often over the past
century (e.g., Pilz 1924; Pritchard 1943; Reed 1949; Holland 1975; Engle
1979; Hubner 1989; Winter 1983: 108; Keel and Uehlinger 1992: 369-90;
Franken 1995). I have defined 854 "pillar figurines" as Judaean (JPF),
ex-cluding at least 100 other JPF of unknown origin (Kletter 1996).
There are marked differences between the JPF and other pillar figurines
from neighboring areas. The JPF have solid, handmade bodies, without
separation of legs (fig. 2: 1-2). The base of the body is widened and
usually concave. There are two main types of heads. The first is a simple,
solid, handmade head. It is pinched to form crude eye depressions and
pro-truding nose. There are no incisions and no indica-tion of pupils, but
often there are applied hats or sidelocks (fig. 2: 3-4). The second type
has a molded face, with ridges above the forehead, usually curled (fig. 2:
5-6). It has prominent but short sidelocks, reaching no further than the
chin. The ears are never indicated. The head was covered by calcite
white-wash, often with red, yellow, or brown paint to enhance facial
details. This type of head always ends in a peg, which is inserted into a
cavity in the hand-made body (fig. 2: 2). The body is always a stereotype,
featuring a standing woman with hands supporting the breasts (or placed a
little beneath them). Breasts and hands are applied to the body. There is
no indication of fingers, but often bracelets or necklaces appear painted
in red or yellow.
The JPF clearly define the dominant type of hu-man figurine in Iron Age
Judah. Variant female pillar forms do exist in Judah, e.g., female pillar
figurines holding drums (e.g., Pritchard 1961: 16, fig. 41: 557; RR 1: pl.
5; Holland 1975: A.I.G.1); or having a hollow, wheel-made base (Lachish
III: pl. 28, 10); "lamp" figurines (Isserlin 1976; cf. Gubel 1982: 134;
Beck 1991: 91, nn. 24-26), and even one woman with a child (TBM 3: pls. 32:
1, 54b: 4; = Holland 1975: A.I.H.2), but such examples are very rare. There
are other Judaean types, such as a few male figurines; birds with pillar
bases; horses and riders; and of course animals, which are always more
abun-dant than the anthropomorphic figurines. The identi-fication of a JPF
is often possible, even if only a
small fragment has survived (contrary to Engle [1979], who threw all the
body fragments and even the handmade heads out of his discussion,
neglect-ing a major part of the JPF corpus). True, identifica-tion is not
always easy, e.g., the separation of JPF handmade heads from the similar
heads of horse-and-rider figurines. In any case, the JPF characteris-tics
are typical of Judaean coroplastic art in general, therefore a mistake in
the exact classification of a few fragments would not cause havoc in regard
to the definition of Judaean artifacts and borders.
I have mapped the other Iron Age anthropomor-phic figurines of Israel and
Transjordan, altogether some 900 artifacts (Kletter 1996). It is
nevertheless evident that, though female pillar figurines are wide-spread,
the JPF are different from neighboring types of pillar figurines. It is
possible to define coastal (fig. 3: 1-5), Phoenician (fig. 3: 6), and
Transjordanian types (fig. 3: 7; I use the neutral term "coastal," but this
area fits, more or less, historical Philistia). These figurines are usually
more realistic in design and richer in decoration than the JPF. Many
coastal figu-rines have moldmade heads with exaggerated ears, applied
necklaces (often with rosette pendants), arid long locks (fig. 3: 1-2).
Coastal handmade heads are also common, but with applied disk eyes and
incised details (fig. 3: 4-5). Coastal figurines are often hol-low and
wheel-made (fig. 3: 3). In Transjordan, the use of black paint is common
(fig. 3: 7; cf. CAmr 1980; Dornemann 1983: 129-37; Gubel 1982: 137; for
Edom see Beck 1995: 180-82, 185-87; for Phoenicia, Culican 1969; 1975-1976;
Gubel 1982; Meyers 1991). Of course, the JPF are very different from the
preceding plaque figurines (fig. 3: 8).
Most of the JPF belong to the eighth-seventh centuries B.C. A few
exceptions are dated a bit earlier or later, but most of those datings are
doubtful or re-fer to fragments whose identification as JPF is not clear.
The JPF are found in all contexts, from tombs to domestic loci and public
places. The overwhelm-ing majority were found broken, in secondary
loca-tions. About 30 pieces are whole, or nearly whole, and most of those
were discovered in graves. The JPF seem not to have been broken
deliberately, either in a religious reform or in a magical rite. Despite
many earlier claims, there is very little evidence re-lating JPF with cult
(whether official cult, "house cult," or "magic"). With great caution, the
JPF may be identified with the OT Asherah. This has been claimed by many
scholars (Patai 1967: 35, 43, 60; Engle 1979: 1, 27; Dever 1982: 37; 1990;
1995; Ahl-strom 1984: 136; Holladay 1987: 278; Wenning 1991: 90) and based
on the OT sources (for which see Reed 1949; followed by a huge number of
studies, recently Dietrich and Loretz 1992; Dietrich and Klopfen-stein
1994; Keel and Uehlinger 1992; Schroer 1987: 21-45). It is important to
understand that direct proof for this identification is lacking (Kletter
1996: 80-81). Moreover, the OT Asherah is not equal to the JPF, which are
small, simple cheap clay figu-rines, not necessarily sacred. To infer back
from the JPF to the OT Asherah, without due caution, would involve circular
arguments.
The definition of JPF as Judaean relies mainly on their distribution
pattern (figs. 4-5a). Of the 854 JPF, 819 (ca. 96 percent) were found in
the heartland (above). Of these 819 JPF, 76 percent (620 figurines) were
found in the northern Judaean mountains and Benjamin, 13.4 percent (110) in
the Shephelah, and ca. 11 percent (89) in the Negev. Only 35 JPF (4
percent) were found outside the heartland, but many of those are badly
fragmented, and their definition as JPF is not clear. Four of these 35
figurines are from the coastal plain and 7 from northern Israel, and these
are so few that they de-mand no special explanation. Moreover, they are
found as isolated objects among rich local assem-blages (e.g., at Samaria,
Megiddo, or Ashdod). In Ashdod, for example, there is one JPF fragment
among some 60 anthropomorphic figurine fragments. Four JPF are known from
Jericho, and the same num-ber from Bethel (fig. 4). The case of Ekron,
Gezer, and Tel Erani, in the western Shephelah, is some-what different.
Small groups (7-8 items) of JPF were found in Gezer and in Tel Erani (the
Ekron finds are not yet fully published). Tel Erani may have belonged to
Judah (by the nature of its finds as a wholesuch a conclusion cannot be
based on a few JPF). The appearance of the JPF at Gezer and Ekron may be
related to the pre-701 B.C. situation (direct or indirect control of Judah
over this area during Hezekiah's revolt). Trade contact is a possible
explanation for the distribution pattern, but that is unlikely in view of
the religious nature of the JPF and their crude manufacture. If such
figurines were traded, one would have expected an import of figurines into
Judah, since coastal figurines are finer both in man-ufacture and finish
than the Judaean ones.9 On the whole, the number of JPF in Ekron and Gezer
is not great, and does not in itself prove Judaean polit-ical or military
control. The distribution pattern (figs. 4-5a) indicates the validity of
defining the JPF as
Fig. 3. Other figurines. Drawings not to scale. 1. Khirbet Hoga (Holland
1975: B. VI.6a); 2. Tel Serac (EAEHL 4: 1069, bottom left); 3. Tell Jemmeh
(Petrie 1928: pl. 36:14); 4-5. (Ashdod I: figs. 26:3); 6. Achziv (EAEHL
1:29, lower right); 7. Khirbet el-Medeineh (Glueck 1934: fig. 7); 8.
Tacanakh (Sellin 1904: fig. 47).
Fig. 5. Distribution of artifacts (main sites). Percentages are rounded.
Judaean, as well as their close relation to Judah's political borders.
Inscribed Scale Weights
The first Judaean inscribed weights (JIW) were discovered in Jerusalem by
Guthe (1882) and havebeen discussed by many distinguished scholars since
(e.g., Pilcher 1912; Macalister 1912: 280; Barrois 1932; Diringer 1942;
Lachish 348-56; Scott 1959; 1964; 1965; 1970; 1985; Stern 1963; Lemaire
1976; 1980; 1982; Lemaire and Vernus 1983; Barkay 1978; 1981. A summary on
362 JIW was published in 1991, and by now about 450 are known
1999 POTS AND POLITIES 33
Fig. 6. The Judaean inscribed weight-system. Drawings not to scale. After
Kletter 1991: fig. 1.
(Kletter 1998).10 Almost all these weights (fig. 6) are made of limestone
and are dome-shaped with flattened base (except a few made of bronze; a few
are cubical or trapezoid). Of the 419 JIW, 195 can be dated by
archaeological context, but of these 106 can only be dated generally to the
Iron Age II. Very few JIW have been ascribed to periods later than the Iron
Age (from Ramat Rahel Level IV, Aharoni 1956: 138-39, pl. 12: 9; from
Gezer, Macalister 1904a: 209; 1904b: 358; 1912: 280). It seems that
these weights came from disturbed loci, or were wrongly dated. Eighty-two
JIW are well dated to the seventh century B.C., i.e., Lachish Level II and
its comparable levels at other Judaean sites, and it is clear that this is
the main period of use of the JIW. However, a few JIW undoubtedly belong to
the eighth century B.C.: one 8 gerah weight from Lach-ish Level III
(Diringer 1942: 96; Lachish III: 349); two weights from Beer Sheba Level II
(BS I, Loci 282, 808) and perhaps also one weight from Arad
Level VIII and one from Tell el-Farah (N) Level VII (Kletter 1991: 124-26).
It follows that the JIW appeared from the end of the eighth century B.C. at
the latest, and were definitely not an invention, or "reform," of king
Josiah, as often claimed in earlier literature (e.g., Yadin 1964; Scott
1965: 133; 1970).
The metrology of the JIW, their relations to the OT and the Hebrew ostraca,
and the hieratic numer-als found on them are beyond the scope of this
article (but see Kletter 1991: 124, 131-39; 1998). However, the new JIW
only strengthen the conclu-sions reached in previous publications. The JIW
apparently are not royal weights but regular, "com-mon" weights for daily
use. This conclusion stems from their archaeological contexts, which are
mostly domestic loci. Moreover, many JIW come from small sites, not
situated on any international trade route. There were probably also royal
Judaean weights, in view of the major role of the royal house in the
economic life of Judah. I believe that these were perhaps different in
shape or material, but not in standard, following the evidence of the
inscribed "II lmlk" weight from Gezer (Macalister 1912: 285, fig. 433;
Barrois 1932: 65; Scott 1959: 32; Yadin 1964: 326; cf. a similar weight,
but of unknown origin: Deutsch and Heltzer 1994: 66-67, fig. 32).11
The geographical origin of 199 of the 419 JIW is known (figs. 5b, 7): 172
(87 percent of the 199) were found in the Judaean mountains, Benjamin, the
Judaean desert, the Negev, and the Shephelah; 16 were found in the southern
coastal plain (ca. 8 per-cent); only 7 (3.5 percent) were found in northern
Israel and 3 (1.5 percent) in Transjordan, most prob-ably brought there
through trade or other sporadic contact. Sites at which the JIW were found
include Jerusalem (56 weights, 28.1 percent of the 199 weights with known
origin), Lachish (25 weights, 12.6 percent), Arad (15 weights, 7.5
percent), and Gezer (11 weights, 5.5 percent). A total of 148 JIW have been
found in the area termed the heartland of Judah (ca. 75 percent). Outside
this area consid-erable concentrations of JIW appear only in the western
Shephelah (24 JIW, 12 percent) and in the Coastal Plain (16 JIW, 8
percent). These numbers make it clear that the JIW are indeed Judaean
weights, forming the weight system of the kingdom of Judah. The limestone
from which they are made is typical to Judah, and the Hebrew script also
strengthens the Judaean identification (with caution, since the definition
of a Philistine script in this period is still not very clear; Naveh 1985;
Kempin-ski 1987; Na'aman and Zadok 1988). The metrol-ogy of the JIW is also
distinctive, being different from other weight systems such as the Egyptian
(Petrie 1926; Cour-Marty 1990), Mesopotamian (Powell 1979; 1992), and
Phoenician (Kletter 1994). Regrettably, our knowledge of the weight
system(s) of Philistia, Transjordan, and northern Israel is meager.
Since the weights are not necessarily royal (above), they may represent
private trade relations rather than public administration. One must bear in
mind that weights served in series, involving the use of differ-ent weight
units together (Kletter 1991: 128). Thus, five or even ten different JIW at
a certain site may imply only one series, used by one (local or foreign)
merchant. Weights from a foreign system can also be used, theoretically,
within another, local, system, regardless of their origin; but this
possibility should not be accepted without corroborating evidence. It is
suggested that the JIW outside the heartland of Judah reflect trade
relations, as indeed would be ex-pected of weights that had been
deliberately adjusted to the Egyptian weight system for the benefit of
in-ternational trade (Scott 1965: 135; Kletter 1991: 138).
Rosette Stamps
The rosette jar-handle impressions (fig. 8) were recognized as Judaean long
ago (Mendelsohn 1940: 21, with n. 51 by Albright; Lachish III: 346;
Aha-roni 1956: 144, 147-48; Yadin 1961: 12; RR 1: 21, 35, 48; RR 2: 22, 35,
60, 63; Welten 1969: 32-33, 191). Recently, the corpus of stamps has been
en-larged (Barkay 1985: 406-7, 417; Nadelman 1989: 132). Zimhoni dealt with
the rosette jars (1990; cf. Mommsen, Perlman, and Yellin 1984: 106-7),
while Na'aman (1989: 42-44) studied the distribution and the relation to
Judah. Detailed studies of the stamps were made by Ofer (1993) and Cahill
(1995).
The rosette stamps were impressed on Lachish type 483 jars, dated to the
seventh century B.C. (Zim-honi 1990: 9, 32; one stamp from Tell en-Nasbeh
is exceptional: Zorn 1993: 81-82). A few stamps are dated to the Persian
period, mainly from Ramat Ra-hel IV. Many scholars have tried to pinpoint
the date more accurately to the reign of Josiah (e.g., Yadin 1961: 12;
Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayevsky 1963: 48; Keel and Uehlinger 1992: 404-5).
Other scholars, however, prefer a date later than Josiah's reign (e.g.,
Cross 1969: 22; Barkay 1985: 406, 417; Eshel 1986: 345-46); while Ofer
(1993: 99-100) and Cahill
Fig. 7. The Judaean inscribed weights, distribution map. - - - - Judah's
border, following Nacaman 1989. Num-bers indicate the quantity of weights
found at each site (omitted when only one weight was found). Not shown are
seven weights from northern sites (Accho, Dor, Samaria, Shechem, Tell
el-Farah North, and Tell Keisan) and three weights from Transjordanian
sites (Buseirah, Khirbet El-Biara, and Tell Deir `Alla).
Fig. 8. The rosette seal impressions. Source: RR 1: pl. 15:9.
(1995: 244-48) specify king Jehoiakim. I can find no basis for such a
narrow dating. Even if Cahill is right in dating stamps to the end of the
Iron Age, it is only a terminus ante quem. It does not necessarily limit
the stamps to a few years, and they could have appeared 20 or 30 years
earlier. Historically, there is no reason to relate all the rosette stamps
to one Judaean king. I suspect that this narrow dating stems, to a large
extent, from the notion that the rosette seals are royal seals, similar to
the lmlk seals and to royal Hittite and Assyrian seals, which often show a
rosette motif. This idea is taken for granted, except by Mendelsohn (1940)
and Welten (1969), who favor an explanation of a guild of private potters.
The rosette motif is widely represented in the an-cient Near East, both
temporally and spatially, and in a wide variety of artifacts (Imai 1977;
Goode-nough 1956-1958: 182; Markoe 1985). This poses a serious problem in
identifying the origin or sym-bolism of the Judaean stampsindeed, we do
not have to assume outside influence (cf. Welten 1969: 33). It is certainly
true that rosettes appear in rela-tion to kings, e.g., on royal Hittite
seals or on clothes of Assyrian kings (e.g., Beran 1967: pl. 14: 184, fig.
5: 145; Boehmer and Giiterbock 1987: pl. 32: 252; Amiet 1980: figs. 119,
121-22, 126, 129; Meyer 1970: figs. 109, 118, 167; Frankfort 1970: no.
176). In Egypt, rosettes decorate tomb ceilings and jewelry of kings
(Goodenough 1958: 180-82; Goff 1979: figs. 46, 118; Baker 1966: figs. 67,
112-13). Since ancient art was often related to royalty, it naturally
depicted mainly royal subjects (Goodenough 1958:189). However, there are
clear examples of nonroyal functions for the rosette motif.
In the Hittite empire, rosettes appear on simple artifacts found in the
lower city of Bogazkoy (Boeh-mer 1979: pls. 12: 2767b-2768a; 13: 2934; 29:
3658b; 43: 3828). They appear on early Hittite seals, which probably have
no relation to royalty (Beran 1967: pl. 2:12-18; 67 n. 14; Boehmer and
Giiterbock 1987: pls. 1:12-14, 2:16-18, 14:143). The rosette is actu-ally
scarce on Hittite royal seals, and another symbol is usually identified as
the royal Hittite motif (Beran 1967: 49; Boehmer and Guterbock 1987: 20).
In Assyrian art, rosettes are commonly connected with gods (Amiet 1980: no.
99; Frankfort 1970: 37, 40, 61, no. 188). They may have symbolized the
goddess Ishtar as a star (Van Buren 1939; Oppenheim 1949; Black and Green
1992: 156-57; Moortgat-Correns 1994). Rosettes also appear in relation to
demonic creatures (e.g., Amiet 1980: figs. 604-5; Frankfort 1970: fig. 180;
Meyer 1970: figs. 66, 112, 118; Imai 1977: 138-k1, 139-k5). A rosette is
found on a har-ness of a horse brought by the Medians to the Assyrian king
(Amiet 1980: fig. 118). Most important, rosettes appear on Assyrian seal
impressions of the seventh century B.C., which definitely belonged to
private in-dividuals (a merchant and an owner of a plow: Her-bordt 1992:
104-5, pl. 11:3-4). In Israel the rosette appears in a variety of
representations during the Iron Age: on a lyre in the seal of a king's
daughter (Avigad 1978) and on simple faience, bone, and other arti-facts
(e.g., Gezer IV: pl. 60: 4; Lachish III: pl. 66: 60; TBM 3: pl. 55). A
rosette is inscribed on the base of
an inscribed Beqa` weight (Barkay 1978: 213, fig. 1: 3, pl. 33e-g); others
appear on pottery vessels (Prit-chard 1961: pl. 46:258; Shiloh 1984: 14,
18).
It thus seems that scholars who ascribe royal sta-tus to the Judaean
rosette stamps rely only on anal-ogies that fit their viewpoint, while in
Assyria, the Hittite empire, and elsewhere rosettes are related to gods as
well as to individual persons. Though the discussion so far only shows that
not every rosette necessarily relates to royalty, it seems to me that there
are doubts in regard to the royal status of the Judaean rosette stamps, and
hence to their relation with any specific royal administration. One
argument is the scarcity of this motif in Hebrew seals, which date to the
sample period of time as the rosette im-pressions, and only one Hebrew seal
is known with a rosette, (Uehlinger 1993: 272; Sass 1993: 209, 214-17, no.
39). If the rosette had been a royal symbol, one would surely have expected
it to appear on Judaean seals (cf. the appearance of the scarab motif on
seals, Sass 1993: no. 85). Second, the seventh century B.C. was the most
literate period of the Iron Age, so why would a royal symbol be purely
icono-graphicas opposed to the lmlk stamps? Third, the assumed large
number of rosette seals (a few dozen, according to Cahill 1995) is
surprising, and may signify a varied and perhaps not so much centrally
oriented phenomenon (vs. an estimation of 25 lmlk seals, used for the many
more lmlk stamps [Lemaire 1981]). In this regard, the lmlk (Lachish type
484) jar is the dominant Judaean jar of the eighth cen-tury B.C., while the
rosette (Lachish type 483) jar is only one among a varied assemblage of
Judaean seventh century B.C. jars (Zimhoni 1990). Having said that, I admit
that other explanations for the ro-sette stamps, i.e., signs of pottery
guilds or potter's marks, are not very satisfactory. Perhaps more neu-tron
activation analyses and studies of whole jars would help to define the
meaning of these stamps.
The distribution of the rosette stamps (Cahill 1995: 245) leaves no doubt
about their Judaean definition, as noted by earlier scholars. Since Cahill
(1995) does not give a detailed list, I have retained the previous number
of 178 stamps.12 More than 60 percent were found in Jerusalem and Ramat
Rahel, and ca. 66 percent in the northern Judaean moun-tains in general
(fig. 6c). Only 42 stamps (ca. 24 per-cent) were found in the Shephelah,
about half of those at Lachish. The central Judaean mountains and the Negev
(12 stamps) are almost negligible. The scarcity of these stamps at Tell
en-Nasbeh isinteresting, since the site seems to have prospered in the
seventh and early sixth centuries B.C. (Zorn 1993). True, understanding the
distribution pattern depends, to a certain extent, on understanding the
function and the symbolism, in sort of a vicious cir-cle: Are these royal
stamps, indicating royal Judaean activity? Was such royal activity perhaps
concen-trated only on certain frontiers? Or are these "pri-vate" stamps,
signifying local economic activities?
In any case, the Judaean character of the stamps is clear. The relatively
limited number of stamps in the Shephelah and Negev makes it hard to use
them to define political borders there. The distribution in the Shephelah
is more restricted than that of the Judaean weights or figurines (above),
but this can reflect the deterioration in the settlement of this area
following Sennacherib's campaign. The few stamps outside Judah might
reflect economic relations and do not substantiate claims of a Judaean
political takeover.
Comparison Between the Rosette and the Lmlk Seal Impressions
A comparison of the rosette and lmlk seal impres-sions is required, since
many aspects are common to both kinds of stamps. Both were Judaean stamps,
impressed on specific types of jars (on a rather small percentage of these
jars). Often, more than one han-dle of the same jar was impressed. The
seals them-selves have not been found, presumably because they were made of
wood. The notable differences are the date (seventh versus eighth century
B.C.), the quan-tity (1200 versus 178, numbers found up to 1990) and the
clearly royal status of the lmlk stamps (shown in their inscriptions). The
comparison leads to the following remarks (fig. 5c-d):13
1) The lmlk stamps are more or less equally dis-tributed between the
Judaean northern mountains (49 percent) and the Shephelah (47.5 percent).
In the mountains, the stamps are divided among a few central sites
(Jerusalem, 21 percent; Ramat Rahel, 13 percent; Tell en-Nasbeh and Gibeon,
7 percent each). In the Shephelah, Lachish is the only promi-nent site (33
percent). The distribution of the rosette stamps represents a rather
different picture: a con-centration in Jerusalem and its vicinity (66
per-cent), versus smaller numbers in the Shephelah (24 percent), reflecting
well the rise in the status of Jerusalem as a capital and the deterioration
of the Shephelah following Sennacherib's campaign.
2) If we disregard single stamps and define the borders of Judah by the
main concentration, then the picture is similar for both types of stamp
(with differences of quantity rather than of quality): only in the northern
Shephelah do the lmlk stamps ap-pear a little more westward (significant
numbers at Gezer and Tel Batash). That may imply direct rule by Hezekiah
there, or at least close relationships. The royal status of the lmlk stamps
negates an expla-nation of simple trade relations, but the stamps can-not
indicate an exact border line, nor short time fluctuations.
3) I have not dealt with the so-called "private" stamps (Garfinkel 1984;
1985), since these form an inseparable part of the phenomenon of the lmlk
stamps and should therefore be studied with them (Na'aman 1988). Garfinkel
(1984: 40) unified Ra-mat Rahel and Jerusalem as if it were one site, but
this obscures the general picture. He also ignored the fact that all the
lmlk jars were probably made in one center, so the stamps cannot reflect
different geographic status of the officials named in them (cf. Na'aman
1988: 76).
Horse and Rider Figurines
Horse and rider figurines (HRF, fig. 9) from Judah have been known since
the beginning of the 20th century (Mackenzie 1912-1913: 88), and often
in-terpreted as toys (e.g., TBM 3: 142). Almost all the scholars who dealt
with them were interested mainly in finding meanings for them, and in
recent decades HRF were regarded as cultic or religious objects. They were
usually interpreted as symbols of the lo-cal sun cult and sun god,
especially in relation with 2 Kgs 23:11 (May 1935: 28; MacKay 1973; Dever
1990: 156-57; Taylor 1993: 24-37; 1994: 55-59; for standing riders, Wenning
1991), or even Yahweh himself (Ahlstrom 1982: 82-83; 1984: 22-23). Some
scholars saw these figurines as representations of a sky god or its agents,
and there are various other suggestions (Keel and Uehlinger 1992: 390-98;
Worschech 1992: 387-88; E. Mazar 1979: 151-52). For Spieckerman, they
indicate Assyrian influence (1982: 254, but cf. MacKay 1973; Holloway 1992:
501-9). The meaning of the HRF is beyond the scope of this article, but
some much-neglected as-pects that concern their relationship to political
bor-ders will be discussed.
Ciasca (1964) showed that it is often possible to define fragments of HRF,
according to color changes of parts that were not exposed to oxygen
duringfiring. For example, a rounded black area on a horse's back can
indicate the existence of a rider, even if nothing actually remains of it.
Holland (1975: type D, 331-36) made the most thorough survey of HRF,
collecting 130 examples from 19 sites (Holland 1975: 38, chart 2, fig. 4,
but sometimes a figurine appears twice, once as a rider and once as a
horse, e.g., Holland 1975: D.VI.a.11 = D.XV.a.1; D.XIII.c.4 = D.X.b.1).
Holland noticed the existence of regional variations, but did not connect
them with political entities.
Currently 284 examples of HRF from 36 sites have been identified (detailed
catalogs exist so far only in Hebrew; Kletter 1995, appendixes 6-7). The
figurines are sorted according to the heads, which are the most detailed
parts, into the following main types (fig. 9):
Type 1 consists of solid, simple figurines (fig. 9: 1). The rider has a
simple, handmade head, and stands on the back of the horse with hands glued
to its head or neck. The horse has a simple muzzle, often painted with red
or yellow, above whitewash, but without applied parts. Some of the riders
have pillar bodies; others have narrow bodies, sometimes end-ing in little
"stump"-like legs. The horse may have a curl or a disk on the head, but
rarely (less than ten examples); as noted earlier, such disks appear
else-where, e.g., on animal representations of the goddess Hathor in Egypt
(Holloway 1992: 505). Even more rare are riders that carry a shield, made
of an applied piece of clay. Type 2 is very similar to type 1, except that
the eyes are applied disks (fig. 9: 2). Type 3 (fig. 9: 3) is solid and
handmade, but the rider's face is molded and he has a pointed helmet or
hat. The rider is glued along the neck of the horse and holds the horse's
head. A pointed helmet or hat appears on the head of the horse as well,
beneath which protrude the ears. Details such as mouth and nostrils are
in-cised, and the eyes of the horse are applied. The horse has applied
trappings. Often, the tail of the horse is curved upwards and glued to the
back (for examples, E. Mazar 1990; Paraire 1980: 377-46). Type 4 (fig. 9:
4) is similar to type 3 in that the riders have molded faces and pointed
"hats," but the riders have long legs and hold a whip in one hand, which
extends along the horse's body to its front. The horses have rounded legs
and full bodies. The figurines are painted in black and white on red
surface, or black on white (Dornemann 1983: 137-40, 181; CAmr 1980: 170,
189). A few miscellaneous fragments could not be identified and are grouped
under type 5 (7 frag-ments altogether).
Fig. 9. Horse and rider figurines, typology. 1. Beth Shemesh (Mackenzie
1912: pl. 54:3, 55); 2. Lachish III: pl. 29:17); 3. Achzib (after Mazar
1990: 107-8); 4. Meqabelin (after `Amr 1980: no. 116, pl. 28:2).
While it is easy to sort whole HRF (15), many fragments (120) cannot be
ascribed with certainty to any type. With varying degrees of certainty, 116
HRF can be assigned to type 1, 10 to type 2, 15 to type 3, and 16 to type
4. About 119 HRF can be dated, mostly to the eighth century B.C., but some
tothe seventh century B.C. as well. Data about later or earlier HRF are not
available. The fact that many HRF appear in Judah already in the eighth
century B.C. calls for explanation, since Dailey (1985) as-sumed that
Israel had no significant cavalry forces in that period. This question
should be addressed in
more detail elsewhere (for history of horse riding, see especially Littauer
and Crouwel 1979; on the prob-lem of the biblical term V1D, see Ap-Thomas
1983).
The HRF database is limited; their distribution is given in table 1; Fifty
belong without question to type 1; all were found in Judah, except one from
Qadesh Barnea. An additional 66 HRF are probably of type 1; all of these
are also from Judah, except one from Tell Jemmeh and one from Megiddo.
Thus, type 1 is clearly a Judaean type. Type 2 is rare, and appears in
Judah (6 examples), Philistia (2 exam-ples), and elsewhere. Types 3 and 4
are foreign to Judah and appear in Phoenicia and Transjordan, respectively.
Unfortunately, the number of published HRF from those regions is small.
Among the 212 from Judah, 101 were found in Jerusalem (48 per-cent), 31 at
Tell en-Nasbeh, 27 at Tel Beer Sheba (most not yet published), and 16 at
Ramat Rahel. HRF are not common in the Shephelah or in Ash-dod. A partial
explanation is the difference between old excavations (e.g., Beth Shemesh),
where only the few whole or beautiful HRF were published, and new
excavations, where many fragments were kept and identified (e.g., Tel Beer
Sheba).
Whatever the meaning of these figurines, it is clear that there is a
Judaean type, easily distinguish-able from other types from neighboring
areas. Like the JPF, the difference lies more in details than in the motif
as a whole. HRF appear, more or less at the same period, throughout the
Levant. For example, they are abundant in Cyprus (Tatton-Brown and Crouwel
1992; Crouwel and Tatton-Brown 1988). The distribution of the Judaean HRF
(type 1) fit the heartland of Judah, with perhaps as much as 98 percent of
this type found inside Judah. This picture is very similar to that of the
JPF, and strengthens the conclusions about that form.
CONCLUSIONS Definition of Artifacts as Judaean
Many difficulties face the study of relations be-tween artifacts and
political borders in Iron Age II Judah. Despite the difficulties, the
present study leads toward a clear positive answer about the defini-tion of
artifacts as Judaean. This definition is based primarily on the
distribution pattern, but also on the character of the artifacts discussed
above. The over-whelming majority of these artifacts have been found in
areas that were always part of Judah (defined asthe heartland of Judah).
Ninety-six percent of the JPF, 98 percent of the Judaean HRF, 96 percent of
the rosette impressions, and 75 percent of the in-scribed weights
originated in this area. This fact does not imply that every one of these
artifacts was manufactured, used, and owned solely by Judaeans, although
most of them probably were.
A tiny minority of these artifacts was found out-side the heartland of
Judah (except ca. 25 percent of the inscribed weights). Various
explanations are possible for the appearance of Judaean finds outside
Judah. At most sites, they appear as isolated objects, one or two among
local assemblages (different from the Judaean assemblages). Such isolated
finds do not imply a conquest by Judah or even close political or economic
relations with Judah. At the most, they can indicate trade relations, or
small-scale immigra-tion by individuals or families. Trade would nicely
explain the larger quantity of inscribed weights out-side Judah, since
these weights were intended for use in trade. The western Shephelah is the
only area outside Judah that shows a meaningful concentra-tion of Judaean
artifacts (below).
The definition of material remains as Judaean is not only possible, but is
demanded by the facts. Dur-ing the Iron Age II Judah had clear political
borders and developed its own unique material culture. To claim that there
was no connection between "pots and polity" would be only to demonstrate
ignorance of the historical and archaeological sources.
Isolated Sites: Qadesh Barnea and Mesad Hashavyahu
Qadesh Bamea and Mesad Hashavyahu pose a challenge in regard to the
definition of Judah's borders. Final reports are not yet published (for
prelim-inary reports see Cohen 1983; Naveh 1962; Reich 1989). Judaean
artifacts found at both sites include, for example, inscribed weights,
pottery vessels, and Hebrew ostraca. It must be accepted, therefore, that
these sites had relations with Judah; but were they governed by Judah as
part of its sovereign territory? Mesad Hashavyahu is especially important
in this regard, for political control over it would mean access to sea
trade routes as well as control over the vital way from Egypt to Phoenicia
and Syria along the coastal plain. The material culture of both sites is
not purely Judaean, but mixed: Aegean artifacts appear at Mesad Hashavyahu
(East Greek pottery) and possibly also coastal artifacts (Reich 1989);
"Negbite" wares are known from Qadesh Barnea
(regrettably, the percentage of each component is not clear. For Qadesh
Barnea see Ussishkin 1995: 126-27, with references). There are marked
differ-ences between these two sites: Mesad Hashavyahu is a single-period,
short-lived site, while Qadesh Barnea existed throughout the eighth and
seventh centuries B.C. Archaeologically, both sites can be defined as
fortresses related to public administra-tion; but Qadesh Barnea is similar
to other Judaean fortresses, while the plan of Mesad Hashavyahu is unique
and no similar fortresses are known from nearby kingdoms.
Qadesh Barnea and Mesad Hashavyahu (near Ashdod) cannot help in determining
the borders of Judah at present because they are both isolated sites,
detached from any other Judaean settlement. A border is defined by a
succession or sequence, of the kind found, for example, in the Judaean
Shephelah. Qadesh Barnea and Mesad Hashavyahu are situated well outside any
sequence of Judaean settlements, like parts of a puzzle that do not combine
with other parts. Because they were isolated, it is extremely difficult to
assess their political status. Even if we define their material culture as
Judaean, this does not necessarily imply Judaean rule over them or over the
surrounding area. To clarify this point, let us compare the mate-rial
culture of ancient commercial colonies. It can be mixed or even
predominantly foreign, although such a colony may depend upon the
cooperation and good will of a sovereign, local authority (e.g., the Old
Assyrian colonies in Anatolia).
For our purposes, the important question is not the identity of the
artifacts from Qadesh Barnea and Mesad Hashavyahu or the ethnic definition
of their inhabitants, but the political affiliation: who ruled these sites
and what did this rule imply? This question is debated, and has to be
judged mainly by historical means (cf. Na'aman 1989). From the historical
perspective, Judaean control of the coastal way is even less likely if one
accepts the lowering of the date of Mesad Hashavyahu to ca. 600 B.C.
(Wen-ning 1989: 183-85; Dion 1992: 86-88; Waldbaum 1994: 60-61). The
suggestion that the Judaean presence there is related to vassal service
(Na'aman 1989) seems more plausible than the assumption of independent
Judaean control.
TABLE 1. Horse and Rider Figurines: Distribution Table
Area and Sites
Type 1
Type 1?
Type 2
Type 4
Type 6
Type 7
Unclear
Total
Judah
Arad
1
1
Bad Faluh
1
1
Beth Shemesh
3
2
5
Gibeon
2
3
5
Jerusalem
22
49
3
1
26
101
Lachish
3
1
2
1
7
Moza
4
4
Ramat Rahel
6
2
1?*
7
11
Ramot
1
2
3
Tel Beer Sheba
5
3
2
17
27
Tell Beit Mirsim
1
2
3
Tell en-Nasbeh
5
1
1
24
31
Tell el-Ful
1
1
Tel Ira
1
1
2
Tel Halif
1
1
Tel Masos
1
1
Coastal Plain
Gezer
4
4
Tell el-Farah (S)
1(+1?)
1
3
Tell Jemneh
1
1
1
13
16
Phoenicia / North
Achzib
4
4
Dor
1?
1
Hazor
1
1
Megiddo
1
1
4
6
Samaria
1
1
Shechem
1
1
Tell el-Farah (N)
2
2
Tell el-cOreimeh
1
1
Tell Keisan
5(+5?)
10
Tell Zeror
1
1
Transjordan
Khirbet el-Balu'
2?
2
4
Khirbet el-Medeiyneh
3?
3
Megabelin
3
3
Rabat Ammon
5
1
6
Tell Deir Alla
1?
1
2
Tell el-Mazar
2
2
Other Sites
Kadesh Barnea
1
1
2
TOTAL
50
66
9(+1?)
9(+6?)
10(+6?)
6(+1?)
120
284
* Question marks indicate that the typology of the concerned figurines is
in doubt.
Judaean Artifacts and the Borders of Judah
Archaeology is able to deal with political borders and to show
relationships between artifacts and political borders, at least in
historical periods, when the existence of polities is known. It cannot
pin-point accurate border lines, nor establish easily the political
affiliation of single sites. Also, archaeolog-ical evidence can be used in
relation to archaeologi-cal periods, while short-term fluctuations in
border lines might not be discerned at all. Archaeologi-cal finds defined
as Judaean fit, more or less, with the heartland of Judah, and do not
indicate any large-scale expansions. This fits the historical
recon-struction of Josiah's borders as made by Na'aman (1989). Archaeology
currently cannot proveor refutethe possibility that Josiah or other
Judaeankings lost or gained small areas for short duration. The paucity of
Judaean finds outside the heartland of Judah does carry some weight against
the as-sumption of a Judaean "mini-empire" under Josiah, even though it is
basically negative evidence. The few Judaean finds outside Judah are best
explained by trade and exchange, or by physical crossing of the borders by
a few individuals or families (defini-tely not significant large-scale
immigrations).
The area bounded, roughly, by Ekron-Gezer-Tel Batash deserves a closer
look. The three sites have been extensively excavated. Despite some
difficul-ties (the problematic nature of the old excavations at Gezer, lack
of final reports of the new excava-tions), they clearly exhibit a mixture
of culture: on the one hand, Judaean finds in significant quantities (JPS,
weights, rosette impressions, other pottery types, etc.); on the other
hand, coastal components (such as coastal types of figurines and pottery
forms). A sim-ilar mixture, on a much smaller scale, appears also in
Judaean frontier sites in the Shephelah, e.g., a few coastal figurines at
Lachish (Lachish III: pl. 31: 16) or MArisha (Kloner 1991: 72, upper
photo). Per-haps a similar phenomenon emerges in the Negev, where a mixture
of Edomite and Judaean elements appears, especially at Malhata (Beit-Arieh
1995: 315). The area of Gezer-Ekron-Tel Batash may have held a mixed
population, and some of the finds may indicate trade relations. Another
very possible explanation is Judaean domination, or at least polit-ical
intervention, during Hezekiah's revolt.
Artifacts are varied, and so is their value for the definition of political
borders (cf. Ericson and Meighan 1984: 146). Weights are normally related
to trade, including international trade, and thus are expected to appear in
some quantities outside their homeland area. The Judaean inscribed weights
have been adjusted to the Egyptian weight system, and could have functioned
also in trade with other local kingdoms. The JPF are probably related to
religious beliefs (Kletter 1996: 80-81), perhaps the HRF as well. This may
explain why they seem to fit Judah's political borders so well: probably,
religious expres-sion took different, unique forms within each politi-cal
entity. The general themes may be widespread, and there may have been a
common origin for a religious phenomenon; but once it was adopted by a
certain people, it developed specific traits and details and should not be
taken as a form of some "universal religion" (this view is contrary to that
of many scholars, who identify many goddesses as one basic "mother
goddess"). Royal artifacts are very
1999 POTS AND POLITIES 43
TABLE 2: Lachish and Ekron
important, since they may represent political au-thority (e.g, the lmlk
impressions). Unfortunately, the royal status of the rosette impressions is
not clear, and they are not necessarily indicative of the centralized
Judaean administration. Many types of artifacts may be common to more than
one political entity (e.g., "Solomonic" city gates, "Samarian" pot-tery,
and four-room houses). A diversity of Judaean artifact types at a site is
more important to the defini-tion of Judaean political affiliation than the
appear-ance of one type only: the assemblage as a whole is more important
than the study of one or a few com-ponents, a fact well recognized in
pottery studies (Zimhoni 1990) and theoretical studies (Clarke 1968;
Trinkaus 1984: 38; DeCorse 1989: 138).
Political borders might form considerable barriers for material culture,
blocking the spread of artifacts. For example, compare Lachish and Ekron
during the Iron Age (table 2). The cities are in close geographic proximity
to each other and enjoy similar environ-mental conditions (notwithstanding
the somewhat more hilly region of Lachish). The fate of each city
alternated: Ekron prospered during the Iron Age I, while Lachish was barely
inhabited. Starting with the tenth century B.C., or perhaps a little later,
Lach-ish began to grow and reached its zenith at Level III of the eighth
century B.C. During the same period, Ekron declined, and its archaeological
remains are modest. Then the situation changed, as a result of
Sennacherib's campaign. Lachish was ruined and never regained its former
position, while Ekron sud-denly became a very large and prosperous city,
and a major industrial centerno doubt at the expense of the Judaean
Shephelah. The political border thatseparated Ekron and Lachish determined
their fate, both historically and archaeologically.
The present study may be enhanced by other Judaean types of artifacts, not
discussed here. A promising field is the study of Judaean burial forms,
since these have distinctive typological traits (Bar-kay 1994). Yet, one
must also consider the fact that different types of soils force the use of
different burial types. Inscriptions can also make a contribution, since
script is often a good indication of political entities, if the Judaean
script can be separated clearly from that of Israel and Philistia (Naveh
1985; Kempinski 1987; Na'aman and Zadok 1988: 36-42; Na'aman 1993: 108-9).
The study of pottery is developing con-siderably, and differences between
Judaean and other assemblages are becoming more and more evident (Zimhoni
1990). Borders may also be defined from the outside, by "negative molds,"
formed by artifacts of neighboring entities. For example, Assyrian
court-houses (Amiran and Dunayevsky 1958; Fritz 1979; Bloom 1988: 83-84)
are not known in Judah, and appear mainly in southern Philistia and
northern Israel. Most of these houses relate to Assyrian prov-inces or to
Assyrian military activity (although a few might reflect cultural imitation
by locals).
Can we relate polities and ethnic groups? Ren-frew (1984: 37) wrote that,
"What is a people if it is not a political unit?" and practically all the
mod-ern cultures that we know are national ones. Eth-nicity is, however, a
topic well beyond the scope of the present work. It merely calls for a more
balanced position in regard to relations between "pots and polities" than
that held at present by many archaeologists.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Nadav Na'aman and the late Pirhiya Beck, both of Tel Aviv
University, for their encouragement and criticism. Thanks also to the
British Council for a Post-doctoral Scholarship at Oxford University.
England, where the first version of this paper was written. I am much
indebted to P. R. S. Moorey, Ashmolean Museum, and H. G. M.
Williamson, Oxford University, for reading and comment-ing on the
manuscript. Warm thanks are due to the Faculty of Humanities, University of
Haifa, for its aid; to Y. Ben Artzi, University of Haifa, and to my
colleagues and friends there and in the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Finally, I thank D. Porotsky for the illustrations that appear in this
article.
NOTES
1I use the term political borders merely for conve-nience; the written
sources refer also to borders between cities, tribal groups, etc., and not
only between polities.
2For discussions of material culture in the "new archae-ology" see Dymond
1974: 39-42; Binford and Sabloff 1983: 397-403, table 1.27; Renfrew 1984:
31.
3Justeson and Hampson for example, (1985: 17), say that "in open models,
the definition and location of the boundaries are inherently relative,
problem related con-structs, and are therefore of central importance in
setting on a productive modeling strategy." They say nothing helpful about
borders or boundaries.
4I will not discuss studies of trade (e.g., Renfrew 1969: 51-169; Kohl
1975; Curtin 1984), since they usually deal with relations across borders,
rather than with the defini-tion of borders.
5For example, if the largest site has 15,000 inhabitants, the second one
will have 7500 (1/2) and the third 5000 (1/2). 6For biblical borders, see
also Hess 1994.
7Gitin noted Judaean ceramic forms at Ekron at the end of the eighth
century B.C. (1993: 249 n. 1; Dothan and Gitin 1994: 21). The appearance of
horned stone altars at Ekron was attributed by the excavators to Israelite
immi-gration (Dothan and Gitin 1994: 21), I hope that this will be
clarified in the final publication.
8This is not a new term; it has been used, for example, by Alt (1966: 159;
1953: 222).
9That the JPF were not traded does not mean that other figurines were not;
for example, there was international trade of figurines from later periods
(Linder 1986).
10The present study uses a database of 419 weights, and the last additions
(in Kletter 1998) could not be treated here.
11Another fact is the lack of direct correlation between the JIW and the
Assyrian weight system, as opposed to the clear correlation with the
Egyptian weight system. This is surprising, since Assyria ruled over the
Levant during most of the seventh century B.C. It may relate to the lack of
written sources about the international trade system in the Neo-Assyrian
Empire (Elat 1990, with references; Kletter 1998).
12 Ofer (1993) mentions about 240 impressions, but his number does not
change the picture presented here, in re-gard either to the Judaean
definition of the stamps or their relation with the borders of Judah.
13The lack of seals must be noted (cf. the case of the lmlk stamps, Lemaire
1981: 57*). One lead seal from En Gedi is said to be connected with the
rosette stamps, but no photograph was published (Mazar, Dothan, and
Dun-ayevsky 1963; Welten 1969: 191; Barkay 1985: 417; Keel and Uehlinger
1992: 404-5). There is no evidence that this seal was used on Lachish type
483 jars, and it is not rele-vant to the distribution of rosette stamps (En
Gedi is cer-tainly not a manufacturing center for these jars).
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y.
1956 Excavations at Ramath Rahel, 1954: Prelimi-nary Report. Israel
Exploration Journal 6: 137-57.
1958 The Northern Boundary of Judah. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 90:
27-31.
1981 Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-tion Society.
Ahituv, S.
1994 The Missing District: A Study in the List of the Cities and Districts
of Judah in Joshua 15: 21-62. Eretz-Israel 24 (Avraham Mal-amat volume):
7-11 (Hebrew), 231* (English summary).
1996 Sources for the Study of the Egyptian-Canaan-ite Border
Administration. Israel Exploration Journal 46: 219-24.
Ahlstrom, G. W.
1982 Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine.
Leiden: Brill.
1984 An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Reli-gions in Ancient Palestine.
Studia Orientalia 55: 117-45.
Allen, K. M. S.; Green, S. W.; and Zubrow, E. B. W., eds. 1990 Interpreting
Space: GIS and Archaeology. London: Taylor and Francis.
Alt, A.
1925 Juda Gaue unter Josia. Paliistina Jahrbuch 21: 100-117.
1953 Die Territorialgeschichte Bedeutung von San-heribs Eingriff in
Paldstina. Pp. 242-49 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
Vol. 2., by A. Alt. Munich: Beck.
1966 The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Pales-tine. Pp. 135-69 in
Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, by A. Alt. Trans. R. A.
Wilson, from German. Oxford: JSOT.
Amiet, P.
1980 Art of the Ancient Near East. Trans. J. Shepley and C. Choquet, from
French. New York: Abrams.
Amiran, R., and Dunayevsky, I.
1958 The Assyrian Open-Court Building and its Palestinian Derivatives.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 149: 25-32.
Amit, Y.
1987 The Function of Topographical Indications in the Biblical Story.
Shnaton 9: 15-30 (Hebrew). `Amr, A. J.
1980 A Study of Clay Figurines and Zoomorphic Vessels of Transjordan during
the Iron Age, with Special Reference to their Symbolism and Function. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of London.
Ap-Thomas, D. R.
1983 All the King's Horses? A Study of the Term tiD (1 Kings 5.6 [EVV.,
4.26], etc.). Pp. 135-51 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testa-ment
Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, eds. J. I. Duham and J. R.
Porter. Mer-cer, GA: Mercer University.
Ashdod I
1967 Ashdod, Vol. 1: The First Season of Excava-tions 1962, by M. Dothan
and D. N. Freedman. `Atiqot 7. Jerusalem: Department of Antiqui-ties and
Museums.
Avigad, N.
1978 The King's Daughter and the Lyre. Israel Ex-ploration Journal 28:
146-51.
Baker, H. S.
1966 Furniture in the Ancient World: Origins and Evolution, 3100-475 B.C.
New York: Macmillan. Barkay, G.
1978 A Group of Iron Age Scale Weights. Israel Exploration Journal 28:
209-17.
1981 Iron Age Gerah Weights. Eretz-Israel 15 (Y. Aharoni volume): 288-96
(Hebrew), 85* (English summary).
1985 Northern and Western Jerusalem in the End of the Iron Age. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Tel Aviv Uni-versity (Hebrew).
1994 Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age. Pp. 96-164
in Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Pe-riod, ed. I.
Singer. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi (Hebrew).
Barrois, A.
1932 La marologie dans la Bible. Revue Biblique 41: 50-76.
Beck, P.
1991 A Figurine from Tel 'Ira. Eretz-Israel 21 (Ruth Amiran volume): 87-93
(Hebrew), 104* (En-glish summary).
1995 Catalogue of Cult Objects and Study of the Ico-nography. Pp. 27-189 in
Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, by I. Beit-Arieh.
Monograph Series of the Institute of Ar-chaeology, Tel Aviv University 11.
Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Becking, B.
1992 The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Ar-chaeological Study. Studies
in the History and
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 2. Leiden: Brill.
Beit-Arieh, I.
1995 Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 11. Tel Aviv:
Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Beran, T.
1967 Die hethitische Glyptik von Bogazkoy, Teil 1: Die Siegel und
Siegelabdrucke der Vor- und althethitischen Perioden und die Siegel der
hethitischen Grosskonig. Bogazkoy-llattuk 5 (= Wissenschaftliche
Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 76). Berlin: Mann.
Binford, L. R., and Sabloff, J. A.
1983 Paradigms, Systematics and Archaeology. Pp. 395-410 in Working at
Archaeology, ed. L. R. Binford. New York: Academic.
Black, J. A., and Green, A.
1992 Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Meso-potamia: An Illustrated
Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas.
Bloom, B.
1988 Material Remains of the Neo Assyrian Pres-ence in Palestine. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Bryn Mawr College.
Boehmer, R. M.
1979 Die Kleinfunde aus dem Unterstadt von Bogaz-koy. Grabungskampagnen
1970-1978. Bogaz-kiiy-Hattuga 10. Berlin: Mann.
Boehmer, R. M., and Guterbock, H. G.
1987 Die Glyptik von Bogazkoy. Bogazkoy-Llattuga 14. Berlin: Mann.
Borges, J. L.
1970 TlOn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. Pp. 27-43 in Labyrinths: Selected Stories
and Other Writ-ings, eds. A. Yates and J. E. Irby. Bungay, Suffolk:
Penguin.
Briend, J., and Humbert, J.-P., eds.
1976 Tell Keisan (1971-1976). Un cite Phenicienne en Galilee. Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis, Serie Archaeologica 1. Fribourg, Switzerland:
Edi-tions Universitaires.
BS I
1973 Beer Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971, ed. Y.
Aharoni. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 2. Tel Aviv:
Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Bulbach, S. W.
1981 Judah in the Reign of Manasseh. Ph.D. Disser-tation, New York
University.
Bunimovits (Bunimovitz), S.
1988 Reconstructions of Political Systems by Spatial Analysis. Pp. 39-56 in
Settlement, Population and Economy in Eretz Israel in Antiquity,
eds. S. Bunimovits, M. Kochavi, and A. Kasher. Tel Aviv: Institute of
Archaeology, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Cahill, J. M.
1995 Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions from An-cient Judah. Israel Exploration
Journal 45: 230-52.
Ciasca, A.
1964 Some Particular Aspects of the Israelite Miniature Statuary at Ramat
Rahel. Pp. 95-100 in Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1961 and 1962, ed.
Y. Aharoni. Centro di Studi Semitiic; Serie Archeologica 6. Rome: Centro di
Studi Semitici, University degli studi.
Clarke, D. L.
1968 Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Cohen, R.
1983 Excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, 1976-1982. Qadmoniot 61: 2-14 (Hebrew).
Cohen, R., and Yisrael, Y.
1995 On the Road to Edom: Discoveries from 'En Hazeva, Jerusalem. Israel
Museum Catalog 370. Jerusalem: Israel Museum (Hebrew and English).
Cooper, J. S.
1983 Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscrip-tions: the Lagash-Umma
Border Conflict. Sources and Monographs, Sources from the Ancient Near East
2, fasc. 1. Malibu: Undena.
Cour-Marty, M.
1990 Les poids tgyptiens, de precieux jalons arch& ologiques. Cahiers de
recherches de l'Institut de papyrologie et d'Egyptologie de Lille 12:
17-55.
Cross, E M.
1969 Judean Stamps. Eretz-Israel 9 (W. E Albright volume): 20*-27*.
Crouwel, J. H., and Tatton-Brown, V.
1988 Ridden Horses in Iron Age Cyprus. Report of the Department of
Antiquities of Cyprus, 1988, Part 2: 77-87.
Culican, W.
1969 Dea Tyria Gravida. Annual of the Japanese
Biblical Association 1, no. 2: 35-50.
1975- Some Phoenician Masks and other Terra-1976 cottas. Berytus 24: 47-84.
Curtin, P.
1984 Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cam-bridge: Cambridge
University.
Dagan, Y.
1992 The Shefelah during the Period of the Monar-chy in Light of
Archaeological Excavations and Survey. M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University
(Hebrew).
Dalley, S.
1985 Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser III and
Sargon II. Iraq 47: 31-48.
De Atley, S. P., and Findlow, E J., eds.
1984 Exploring the Limits: Frontier and Boundaries in Prehistory. BAR
International Series 223. Oxford: B. A. R.
DeCorse, C. R.
1989 Material Aspects of Limba, Yalunka, and Koranko Ethnicity:
Archaeological Research in Northeastern Sierra Leone. Pp. 125-40 in
Ar-chaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. S. J. Shenan. One
World Archaeology 10. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M.
1994 Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv: Archaeological
Center.
Dever, W. G.
1982 Recent Archaeological Confirmation of the Cult of Asherah in Ancient
Israel. Hebrew Studies 23: 37-43.
1990 Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Seattle:
University of Washington.
1995 "Will The Real Israel Please Stand Up?" Part 2: Archaeology and the
Religions of Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Ori-ental
Research 298: 37-58.
Dietrich, M., and Klopfenstein, M. A., eds.
1994 Ein Gott allein? JHWE-Verehrung und bibli-scher Monotheismus im
Kontext der israel-itischen und altorientalischen Religionsge-schichte.
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 139. Frei-burg, Switzerland: Universitat.
Dietrich, M., and Loretz, 0.
1992 "Jahweh und seine Aschera": Anthropomor-phes Kultbild in Mesopotamien,
Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bildverbot. Ugaritische biblische
Literatur 9. Munster: Ugarit.
Dion, P. E.
1992 Les KTYM de Tel Arad: Grecs ou Pheniciens? Revue Biblique 99: 70-97.
Diringer, D.
1942 The Early Hebrew Weights Found at Lachish. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 74: 82-103. Donbaz, V.
1990 Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae in the Antakya and Kharamanmara§ Museums.
Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 8: 5-24.
Dornemann, R. H.
1983 The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages.
Milwaukee Public Mu-seum Publications in Archaeology and History 4.
Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum.
Dothan, T, and Gitin, S.
1994 Tel Miqne/EkronThe Rise and Fall of a Philistine City. Qadmoniot 27
(105-6): 2-28 (Hebrew).
Dymond, D. P.
1974 Archaeology and History: A Plea for Reconcil-
iation. London: Thames and Hudson.
EAEHL 1975-1978
Elat, M.
1990 International Commerce in Palestine under As-syrian Rule. Pp. 67-88 in
Commerce in Pales-tine Throughout the Ages: Studies, eds. B. Z. Kedar, T.
Dothan, and S. Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi (Hebrew).
Engle, J. R.
1979 Pillar Figurines of Iron Age Israel and Ash-erah, Asherim. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Ericson, J. E., and Meighan, C. W.
1984 Boundaries, Alliance and Exchange in Califor-nia. Pp. 143-51 in
Exploring the Limits: Fron-tiers and Boundaries in Prehistory, eds. S. P.
De Atley and J. Findlow. BAR International Series 223. Oxford: B.A.R.
Frankfort, H.
1970 The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 4th rev. impression.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. Franklin, N. R.
1989 Reseach with Style: A Case Study from Aus-tralian Rock Art. Pp. 278-90
in Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. S. J. Shenan. One
World Archaeology 10. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
1979 Die Palaste wahrend der assyrischen, bab-ylonischen and persischen
Vorherrschaft in Palastina. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
zu Berlin 111: 63-74.
1987 The Administrative Division of the Kingdom of Judah in the Light of
the Epigraphical Data. Zion 52: 495-509 (Hebrew), xvii-xviii (En-glish
summary).
1988 Sennacherib versus Hezekiah: A New Look at the Assyrian Campaign to
the West in 701 B.C.E. Zion 53: 1-12 (Hebrew), i (English summary).
1991- Gebac-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary
1992 of Judah in the Days of Josiah. Tarbiz 61: 1-
14 (Hebrew), i (English summary).
1992 Judah and Assyria in the Sargonic Period. Zion 57: 111-13 (Hebrew), i
(English summary). Garfinkel, Y.
1984 The Distribution of Identical Seal Impressions and the Settlement
Pattern in Judea before Sennacherib's Campaign. Cathedra 32: 35-52
(Hebrew).
1985 A Hierarchic Pattern of the Private Seal-Impressions on the "LMLK"
Jar-handles. Eretz-Israel 18 (Nahman Avigad volume): 108-15 (Hebrew).
1987 The City-List. Epigraphic Evidence and the Administrative Division in
the Kingdom of Judah. Zion 52: 489-94 (Hebrew), XVII (En-glish summary).
Gezer IV = Dever, W. G., ed.
1986 Gezer IV. The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the "Acropolis." Jerusalem:
Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.
Ginsberg, H. L.
1950 Judah and the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 B.C.E. Pp. 347-68 in
A. Marx Jubilee Volume. New York: Jewish Theological Semi-nary of America.
1989 Tel Micine-Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron
Age II Period. Pp. 23-58 in Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron
Age Archaeology, eds. S. Gitin and W. G.
Dever. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 49. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
1993 Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron. Pp. 248-58 in
Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, eds. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.
1995 Tel Migne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic
Innovation and For-eign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal
City-State. Pp. 61-79 in Recent Ex-cavations in Israel: A View to the West,
ed. S. Gitin. Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference
Papers 1. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Glueck, N.
1934 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I. Pp. 1-114 in Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 14. Philadelphia: American Schools of
Oriental Research.
Goetze, A.
1940 Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geog-raphy. Yale Oriental
Series, Researches 22. New Haven: Yale University.
Goff, B. L.
1979 Symbols of Ancient Egypt in the Late Period: The Twenty-First Dynasty.
Religion and Soci-ety 13. New York: Mouton.
Goodenough, E. R.
1956- Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 1958 Bollingen series 37.
New York: Pantheon. Gophna, R.
1970 Some Iron Age II Sites in Southern Philistia. `Atiqot 6 (Hebrew
Series): 25-30 (Hebrew), 3* (English summary).
Green, S. W., and Perlman, S. M., eds.
1985 The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. New York: Academic.
Gubel, E.
1982 Notes sur un fragment de statuette phónicienne de la region d'Amurru.
Pp. 225-31 in Archeol-ogie au Levant: Recueil a la memoire de Roger Saidah.
Collection de la Maison de l'Orient mediterraneen, Serie archeologique 9.
Lyon: Maison de l'Orient.
Guthe, H.
1882 Ausgrabungen bei Jerusalem. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palastina-Vereins 5: 7-204, 271-378.
Hall, T. D., and Chase-Dunn, C.
1993 The World-Systems Perspective and Archaeol-ogy: Forward into the Past.
Journal of Archae-ological Research 1: 121-37.
Herbordt, S.
1992 Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8-7. Jh. v. Chr. State Archives of Assyria
Studies 1. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Hess, R. S.
1994 Late Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary De-scriptions of the West
Semitic World. Pp. 123-38 in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September
1992, eds. G. T. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. Healy. Mu-nich: Ugarit.
Hodder, I.
1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. Advances in Ar-chaeological Method and
Tradition 8: 1-26.
1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Inter-pretation in
Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California.
1987a The Contextual Analysis of Symbolic Mean-ings. Pp. 1-10 in The
Archaeology of Contex-tual Meanings, ed. I. Hodder. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
1987b The Historical Approach in Archaeology: The Contribution of the Long
Term. Pp. 1-8 in Archaeology as Long-Term History, ed. I. Hod-der.
Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Hodder, I., ed.
1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University.
1989 The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. One
World Archaeology 6. London: Unwin Hyman.
Hodder, I., and Orton, C.
1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University.
Hodder, I.; Shanks, M.; Alexandri, A.; Buchli, V; Car-
man, J.; Last, J.; and Lucas, G., eds.
1995 Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. New York:
Routledge.
Holladay, J. S.
1987 Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monar-chy: An Explicitly
Archaeological Approach. Pp. 249-99 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Es-says
in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, eds. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D.
McBride. Phil-adelphia: Fortress.
Holland, T. A.
1975 A Typological and Archaeological Study of Human and Animal
Representations in the Plastic Art of Palestine. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Ox-ford University.
Holloway, S. W.
1992 The Case for Assyrian Religious Influence in Israel and Judah:
Inference and Evidence. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.
Hubner, U.
1989 Das Fragment einer Tonfigurine von Tell el-
Milh: zur Funktion der sog. Pfeiler-figurinen in den israelitischen
Volks-religion. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paleistina-Vereins 105: 47-55.
Hughes, R. E., and Bettinger, R. L.
1984 Obsidian and Prehistoric Sociocultural Sys-tems in California. Pp.
153-72 in Exploring the Limits: Frontiers and Boundaries in Prehis-tory,
eds. S. P. De Atley and E J. Findlow. BAR International Series 223. Oxford:
B. A. R.
Imai, A.
1977 Some Aspects of "Phoenician Bowls" with Special Reference to the
Proto-Cypriote and the Cypro-Phoenician Class. 3 vols. Ph.D. Dis-sertation,
Columbia University.
Isserlin, B. S. J.
1976 On Some Figurines of "Lamp Goddesses" from Transjordan. Revista de la
Universidad Com-plutense 25: 139-42.
Jarman, M. R.
1972 A Territorial Model for Archaeology: A Behavioural and Geographical
Approach. Pp. 705-33 in Models in Archaeology, ed. D. L. Clarke. London:
Meuthen.
Johnson, G. A.
1981 Monitoring Complex Systems Integration and Boundary Phenomena with
Settlement Size Data. Pp. 144-88 in Archaeological Approaches to the Study
of Complexity, ed. S. E. van der Leeuw. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Jones, G. H.
1994 From Abijam to Abijah. Zeitschrift fiir die Alt-testamentliche
Wissenschaft 106: 420-34. Justeson, J., and Hampson, S.
1985 Closed Models of Open Systems: Boundary Considerations. Pp. 15-30 in
The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, eds. S. W. Green and S. M.
Perlman. New York: Academic.
Kallai, Z.
1986 Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel.
Leiden: Brill.
Keel, 0., and Uehlinger, C.
1992 GOttinnen, Gotter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkentnisse zur Religions
geschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener
ikonographischer Quellen. Quaestionnes dis-putatae 134. Freiburg: Herder.
Kelm, G. L., and Mazar, A.
1995 Timnah: A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Kempinski, A.
1987 Some Philistine Names from the Kingdom of Gaza. Israel Exploration
Journal 37: 20-24. Klein, R. W.
1983 Abijah's Campaign Against the North (2 Chr 13)What were the
Chronicler's Sources? Zeitschrift far die Alttestamentliche Wissen-schaft
95: 210-17.
Kletter, R.
1991 The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah. Tel Aviv 18: 121-63.
1994 Phoenician (?) Weights from Horvat Rosh Zayit. `Atiqot 25: 33-43.
1995 Selected Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to its
Political Borders. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeol-ogy of Asherah. BAR
International Series 636. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm.
1998 Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Kloner, A.
1991 MArisha. Qadmoniot 24 (95-96): 70-85 (Hebrew).
Kohl, P. L.
1975 The Archeology of Trade. Dialectical Anthro-pology 1: 43-50.
1985 Symbolic Cognitive Archaeology: A New Loss of Innocence. Dialectical
Anthropology 9: 105-17.
1993 Limits to a Post-Processual Archaeology (or, The Dangers of a New
Scholasticism). Pp. 13-19 in Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?,
eds. N. Yoffe and A. Sherratt. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University.
Kramer, C., ed.
1979 Ethnoarchaeology: Implication of Ethnogra-phy for Archaeology. New
York: Columbia University.
Laato, A.
1992 Josiah and David Redivivus. Coniectanea bib-lica. Old Testament Series
33. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.
Lachish III = Tufnell, 0.
1957 Lachish III: The Iron Age. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University.
Lemaire, A.
1976 Poids inscrits inedits de Palestine. Semitica 26: 33-44.
1980 Notes d'epigraphie nord-ouest semitique. Semit-ica 30: 17-32.
1981 Classification des estampilles royales Jude-ennes. Eretz-Israel 15 (Y.
Aharoni volume): 54*-60*.
1982 Nouveau poids PYM en bronze. Semitica 32: 19-20.
Lemaire, A., and Vernus, P.
1983 L'Ostracon paleo-hebreu no. 6 de Tell Qudeirat (Qadesh Barnea). Pp.
302-26 in Fontes Atque Pontes: Eine Festgabe fur Hellmut Brunner, ed. M.
Gorg. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lerner, S.
1984 Defining Prehistoric Frontiers: A Methodolog-ical Approach. Pp. 67-80
in Exploring the Limits: Frontiers and Boundaries in Prehis-tory. eds. S.
P. De Atley and E J. Findlow. BAR International series 223. Oxford: B.A.R.
Linder, E.
1986 The Figurines from Shavey ZionA Reexam-ination. Pp. 409-15 in The
Western Galilee Antiquities, ed. M. Yedacya: Haifa: Ministry of Defence
(Hebrew).
Littauer, M. A., and Crouwel, J. H.
1979 Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Handbuch
der Orientalistik, Abteilung 7, Kunst und Archaologie 1. Leiden: Brill.
Liverani, M.
1990 Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca.
1600-1100 B.C. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 1. Padua: Sargon
SRL.
Lock, G., and Harris, T
1992 Visualizing Spacial Data: The Importance of Geographic Information
Systems. Pp. 81-96 in Archaeology and the Information Age: A Glo-bal
Perspective, eds. P. Reilly and S. Rahtz. One World Archaeology 21. London:
Routledge.
Macalister, R. A. S.
1904a Eighth Quarterly Report on the Excavation of Gezer. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly: 194-228.
1904b Ninth Quarterly Report on the Excavation of Gezer. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly: 320-57.
1912 The Excavation of Gezer, 1902-1905 and 1907-1909, Vol. 2. London:
Murray. MacKay, J.
1973 Further Light on the Horses and Chariot of the Sun in the Jerusalem
Temple (2 Kings 23:11). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105: 167-69.
Mackenzie, D.
1912- Excavations at Ain Shems (Beth Shemesh). An-1913 nual of the
Palestine Exploration Fund 2: 1-100. Markoe, G.
1985 Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean.
University of California Publications, Classical Studies 26. University of
California.
Martens, J.
1989 The Vandals: Myths and Facts about a Ger-manic Tribe of the First Half
of the 1st Mil-lennium A.D. Pp. 57-65 in Archaeological Approaches to
Cultural Identity, ed. S. J. Shen-nan. One World Archaeology 10. London:
Unwin Hyman.
May, H. G.
1935 Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. Orien-tal Institute Publications
26. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago.
Mazar, B.; Dothan, T; and Dunayevsky, I.
1963 'En Gedi: Archaeological Excavations 1961-1962. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society (Hebrew).
Mazar, E.
1979 Archaeological Evidence for the "Cows of Bashan Who Are in the
Mountains of Samaria." Pp. 151-57 in: Festschrift Reuben R. Hecht.
Jerusalem: Koren (Hebrew).
1990 A Horseman's Tomb at Akhziv. Qadmoniot 23 (91-92): 104-9 (Hebrew).
Mendelsohn, I.
1940 Guilds in Ancient Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 80: 17-21.
Meyer, G. R.
1970 Altorientalische Denktneiler im Vorderasia-tisches Museum zu Berlin.
2nd ed. Leipzig: Seemann.
Meyers, C.
1991 Of Drums and Damsels: Women's Performance in Ancient Israel. Biblical
Archaeologist 54: 16-27.
Mittmann, S.
1990 Hiskia und die Philister. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16:
91-106.
Mommsen, H.; Perlman, I.; and Yellin, J.
1984 The Provenience of the Lmlk Jars. Israel Explo-ration Journal 34:
89-113. Moortgat-Correns, U.
1994 Die Rosetteein Schriftzeichen? Altoriental-ische Forschungen 21:
359-71.
Morgan, C., and Whitelaw, T
1991 Pots and Politics: Ceramic Evidence for the Rise of the Argive State.
American Journal of Archaeology 95: 79-108.
Murnane, W. J., and Van Siclen, C. C. III.
1993 The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. New York: Kegan Paul International.
Na'aman, N.
1974 Sennacherib's "Letter to God" on his Cam-paign to Judah. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 214: 25-39.
1979 Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah and the Date of the Lmlk Stamps. Vetus
Testamentum 29: 61-86.
1986a Hezekiah's Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 261: 5-21.
1986b Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiogra-phy. Seven Studies in
Biblical Geographical Lists. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4. Jerusalem:
Simor.
1988 The Date of 2 Chronicles 11:5-10A Reply to Y. Garfinkel. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 271: 74-77.
1989 Town-Lists of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah in the Days
of Josiah. Zion 54: 17-71 (Hebrew), I-II (English sum-mary) (published in
English in Tel Aviv 18 [1991]: 3-71).
1992 Nebuchadrezzar's Campaign in Year 603 B.C.E. Biblische Notizen 62:
41-44.
1993 Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations. Tel
Aviv 20: 104-24.
1994 Ahaz's and Hezekiah's Policy toward Assyria in the Days of Sargon II
and Sennacherib's Early Years. Zion 59: 5-27 (Hebrew), v (En-glish
summary).
Na'aman, N., and Zadok, R.
1988 Sargon II's Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-708 B.C.).
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40: 36-46.
Nadelman, Y.
1989 Iron Age II Clay Figurine Fragments from the Excavations. Pp. 123-27
in Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Bib-lical
Jerusalem, eds. E. Mazar and B. Mazar. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Institute of
Archaeol-ogy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Naveh, J.
1962 More Hebrew Inscriptions from Mesad Hashavyahu. Israel Exploration
Journal 12: 27-32.
1985 Writing and Scripts in Seventh-Century B.C.E. Philistia: The New
Evidence from Tell Jem-meh. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 11-15.
North, R.
1974 Does Archaeology Prove Chronicles Sources? Pp. 375-401 in A Light Unto
My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, eds. H. N.
Bream, R. D. Heim, and C. A. Moore. Gettysburg Theological Studies 4.
Phil-adelphia: Temple University.
Noth, M.
1960 The History of Israel. Trans. revised by P. Ack-royd. 2nd ed. London:
Black.
Ofer, A.
1993 The Highland of Judah during the Biblical Period. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Oppenheim, A. L.
1949 The Golden Garments of the Gods. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8:
172-93.
Oren, E. D.
1993 Ethnicity and Regional Archaeology: The Western Negev Under Assyrian
Rule. Pp. 102-5 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, eds. A. Biran and J.
Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Oren, E.; Yekutieli, Y.; Nahshoni, P.; and Feinstein, R. 1991 Tell
HarorAfter Six Seasons. Qadmoniot 24 (93-94): 2-19 (Hebrew).
Otten, H.
1988 Die Bronzetafel aus BogazkOy: Ein Sta-atsvertag Tutbalijas IV. Studien
zu den Bogazkoy-Texten, Beiheft 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Paraire, D.
1980 Figurines. Pp. 331-52 in Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une cite phenicienne
en Galilee, eds. J. Briend and J.-P. Humbert. Freiburg, Swit-zerland:
Editions universitaires.
Patai, R.
1967 The Hebrew Goddess. New York: Ktay. Petrie, W. M. F.
1926 Ancient Weights and Measures. Publications of the Egyptian Research
Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 39. London: Quaritch.
1928 Gerar. Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British
School of Archaeology in Egypt 43. London: Quaritch.
Pilcher, E. J.
1912 Weights of Ancient Palestine. Palestine Explo-ration Quarterly 44:
136-44,178-95. Pilz, E.
1924 Die weiblichen Gottheiten Kanaans. Zeit-schrift des Deutschen
Paliistina-Vereins 47: 129-68.
Powell, M. A.
1979 Ancient Mesopotamian Weight Metrology: Methods, Problems and
Prospects. Pp. 71-109 in Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones, eds. M. A.
Powell, Jr. and R. H. Sack. Alter Orient and Altes Testament 203. Kevelaer:
Butzon and Bercker.
1992 Weights and Measures. Pp. 897-908 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.
6, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Pritchard, J. B.
1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known through
Literature. Ameri-can Oriental Series 24. New Haven: American Oriental
Society.
1961 The Water System of Gibeon. Philadelphia: Uni-versity Museum,
University of Pennsylvania. Rainey, A. F
1993 Manasseh, King of Judah, in the Whirlpool of the Seventh Century
B.C.E. Pp. 147-64 in Kinattiitu sa diiregi. Raphael Kutscher Memo-rial
Volume, ed. A. F. Rainey. Occasional Pub-lications 1. Tel Aviv: Institute
of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Reed, W. L.
1949 The Asherah in the Old Testament. Fort Worth, TX: Texan Christian
University.
Reich, R.
1989 A Third Season of Excavations at Mesad Hashavyahu. Eretz-Israel 20
(Yigael Yadin volume): 228-32 (Hebrew), 203* (English summary).
Reich, R., and Brandl, B.
1985 Gezer Under Assyrian Rule. Palestine Explo-ration Quarterly 117:
41-54.
Renfrew, C.
1969 Trade and Culture Process in European Prehis-
tory. Current Anthropology 10: 151-69.
1975 Trade as Action at a Distance. Pp. 3-59 in An-cient Civilization and
Trade, eds. J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. Albuquerque, NM:
University of New Mexico.
1984 Approaches to Social Archaeology. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University.
Renfrew, C., and Cherry, J. F., eds.
1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Rowlands, M.; Larsen, M.; and
Kristiansen, K.
1987 Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World.
New York: Cambridge University.
Rowlett, R. M.
1989 Detecting Political Units in ArchaeologyAn Iron Age Example. Pp.
219-30 in Archaeolog-ical Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. S. J.
Shenan. One World Archaeology 10. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
RR 1
1962 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1959 and 1960, ed. Y. Aharoni.
Centro di Studi Semitici, Serie archaeologica 2. Rome: Centro di Studi
Semitici, Universita di Roma.
RR 2
1964 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1961 and 1962, ed. Y. Aharoni.
Centro di Studi Semitici, Serie archaeologica 6. Rome: Centro di Studi
Semitici, Universita di Roma.
Sass, B.
1993 The Pre-Exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism. Pp. 194-256 in
Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, eds. B.
Sass and C. Uehlinger. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125. Freiburg,
Switzer-land: Universitat.
Schiffer, M. B.
1978 Methodological Issues in Ethnoarchaeology. Pp. 229-47 in Explorations
in Ethnoarchaeol-ogy, ed. R. A. Gould. Albuquerque, NM: Uni-versity of New
Mexico.
Schmitt, G.
1990 Moreschet Gat und Libna: Mit einem Anhang: zu Micha 1:10-16. Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages 16: 153-72.
Schortman, E. M., and Urban, P. A., eds.
1992 Resources, Power, and International Interac-tion. New York: Plenum.
Schroer, S.
1987 In Israel gab es Bilder Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alte
Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 74. Freiburg, Switzer-land:
Universitat.
Scott, R. B. Y.
1959 The Shekel Sign on Stone Weights. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 153: 32-35.
1964 Shekel-Fraction Markings on Hebrew Weights. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 173: 53-64.
1965 The Scale-Weights from Ophel, 1963-64. Pal-estine Exploration
Quarterly 97: 128-39.
1970 The N-S-P Weights from Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 200: 62-66.
1985 Weights from Jerusalem. Pp. 197-212 in Exca-vations in Jerusalem
1961-7, Vol. 1, ed. A. D. Tushingham. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Sellin, E.
1904 Tell Tacannek. Vienna: Gerold's Sohn. Shennan, S. J., ed.
1989 Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Iden-tity. One World Archaeology
10. Boston: Un-win Hyman.
Shiloh, Y.
1984 Excavations at the City of David, Vol. 1: 1978-1982. Interim Report of
the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19 (Hebrew and English). Jerusalem: Institute
of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Sinclair, T.
1987 "All Styles are Good, Save the Tiresome Kind." An Examination of the
Pattern of Stylistic Changes Occurring among Silver Candle-sticks of the
Eighteenth Century (1680-1780). Pp. 39-54 in The Archaeology of Contextual
Meaning, ed. I. Hodding. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University.
Snodgrass, A.
1986 Interaction by Design: The Greek City State. Pp. 47-58 in Peer Polity
Interaction and Socio-Political Change, eds. C. Renfrew and J. E Cherry.
Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Spieckermann, H.
1982 Juda unter /taw- in den Sargonidenzeit. For-schungen zur Religion und
Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 129. Gottingen: Van-denhoeck and
Ruprecht.
Stanislawski, M. B.
1978 If Pots were Mortal. Pp. 201-27 in Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology,
ed. R. A. Gould. Albu-querque, NM: University of New Mexico.
Stern, E.
1962 Weights and Measures. Pp. 861-76 in Encyclo-pedia Miqracit, Vol. 4.
Jerusalem: Bialik Insti-tute (Hebrew).
1973 Eretz-Israel at the End of the Period of the Monarchy. Qadmoniot 6
(21): 2-17 (Hebrew).
1994 The Jericho Region and the Eastern Border of the Judean Kingdom in its
Last Days. Eretz-Israel 24 (Avraham Malamat volume): 192-97 (Hebrew), 238*
(English summary).
Sterner, J.
1989 Who is Signalling Whom? Ceramic Style, Ethnicity and Taphonomy among
the Sirak Bulahay. Antiquity 63: 451-59.
Suzuki, Y.
1992 A New Aspect on Occupation Policy by King Joshiah: Assimilation and
Codification in View of Yahweh. Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute
18: 31-61.
Tatton-Brown, V., and Crouwel, J.
1992 A Terracotta Horse and Rider in Brussels. Pp. 291-96 in Studies in
Honour of Vassos Kara-georghis, ed. G. C. Ioannides. Nicosia: Society of
Cypriote Studies.
Tatum, L.
1991 King Mannasseh and the Royal Fortress at Horvat `Uza. Biblical
Archaeologist 54: 136-45.
Taylor, J. G.
1993 Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeolog-ical Evidence for Sun
Worship in Ancient Is-rael. JSOT Supplement Series 111. Sheffield: JSOT.
1994 Was Yahweh Worshipped as the Sun? Biblical Archaeology Review 20, no.
3: 53-61,90-91. TBM 3 = Albright, W. E
1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. 3: The Iron Age. Annual of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 21-22. New Haven: Ameri-can
Schools of Oriental Research.
TN I = McCown, C. C.
1947 Tell en-Nasbeh I: Archaeological and Histori-cal Results. New Haven:
American Schools of Oriental Research.
Torczyner, H.
1938 Lachish I: The Lachish Letters. London: Ox-ford University.
Trinkaus, K. M.
1984 Boundary Maintenance Strategies and Ar-chaeological Indicators. Pp.
35-49 in Explor-ing the Limits: Frontiers and Boundaries in Prehistory,
eds. S. P. De Atley and E J. Find-low. BAR International Series 223.
Oxford: B.A.R.
Uehlinger, C.
1993 Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconogra-phy and Syro-Palestinian
Religions of Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclu-sions. Pp. 257-88
in Studies in the Iconogra-phy of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, eds.
B. Sass, and C. Uehlinger. Orbis Bibli-
cus et Orientalis 715. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitdt.
Underhill, A. P.
1991 Pottery Production in Chiefdoms: the Long-shan Period in Northern
China. World Archae-ology 23: 12-27.
Ussishkin, D.
1978 Excavations at Tel Lachish-1973-1977. Pre-liminary Report. Tel Aviv 5:
1-97.
1983 Excavations at Tel Lachish-1978-1983. Sec-ond Preliminary Report. Tel
Aviv 10: 97-168.
1995 The Rectangular Fortress at Kadesh Barnea.
Israel Exploration Journal 45: 118-27.
Van Buren, E. D.
1939 The Rosette in Mesopotamian Art. Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 11:
99-107.
Vargon, S.
1994 The Book of Micha. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Uni-versity (Hebrew).
Veit, U.
1989 Ethnic Concepts in German Prehistory: A Case Study on the Relationship
Between Cultural Identity and Archaeological Objectivity. Pp. 35-56 in
Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. S. J. Shennan. One
World Archae-ology 10. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Waldbaum, J. C.
1994 Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Le-vant, ca. 1000-600 B.C.: The
Eastern Per-spective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
293: 53-66.
Weinfeld, M.
1992 From Joshua to Josiah: Turning Points in the History of Israel from
the Conquest of the Land Until the Fall of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Magnes
(Hebrew).
Weippert, H., and Weippert, M.
1976 Jericho in den Eizenzeit. Zeitschrift des Deut-
schen Paliistina-Vereins 92: 105-48.
Welten, P.
1969 Die Konigs-Stempel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wenning, R.
1989 Mesad HaSavy5hri: Ein Stiitzpunkt des Joja-kim? Pp. 169-96 in Vom
Sinai zum Horeb, ed. E.-L. Hossfeld. Wiirzburg: Echter.
1991 Wer war der Peredros der Aschera? Notizen zu Terrakottastatuetten in
eisenzeitlischen Gra-beni. Biblische Notizen 59: 89-97.
Williamson, H. G. M.
1982a 1 and 2 Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1982b The Death of Josiah
and the Continuing De-
velopment of the Deuteronimic History. Vetus
Testamentum 32: 242-48.
1987 Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C. T.
Begg. Vetus Testamentum 37: 9-15.
Winter, I.
1985 After the Battle is Over: the Stele of the Vul-tures and the Beginning
of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East. Pp. 11-32 in
Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Mid-dle Ages, eds. H. L. Kessler
and M. S. Simpson. Studies in the History of Art 16. Washington: National
Gallery of Art.
Winter, U.
1983 Frau und Gottin: Exegetische und ikonogra-phische Studien zum
weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Unwelt. Orbis Bib-licus
et Orientalis 53. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitat.
Worschech, U.
1992 Pferd, Gitlin und Stier. Funde zur moabiti-schen Religion aus el-B5M`
(Jordanien). Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 383-91.
Yadin, Y.
1961 The Fourfold Division of Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 163: 6-12.
1964 Ancient Judean Weights and the Date of the Samaria Ostraca. Pp. 322-34
in Oz le-David: Studies in the Bible presented to D. Ben-Gurion, ed. Y.
Kaufman et al. Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Yadin, Y., and Geva, S.
1983 The Cities of the Negev during the Days of Joshia. Pp. 247-55 in
Encyclopaedia of the World of the Bible: Jeremiah, ed. Y. Hoffman.
Jerusalem: Revivim (Hebrew).
Yoffe, N., and Sherratt, A., eds.
1993 Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?
Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Zimhoni, 0.
1990 Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish Lev-els III and II. Tel Aviv 17:
3-52.
Zorn, J. R.
1993 Tell en-Nasbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Archi-tecture and Stratigraphy
of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. 4 vols. in 3. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|