Shephelah Archives - Page 48 of 67

Cave Discovered in Gezer Water System

This week a team excavating the ancient water system at Gezer discovered a natural cavern that measures 26 by 30 feet with a height of up to 7 feet. The date of the system is still under discussion, but it may belong to the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1500 BC). From Baptist Press:

The team, under the direction of the NOBTS Center for Archaeological Research, located a large open section in the cave at the eastern end of the ancient water system at Tel Gezer in Israel…. The team still plans to locate the water source for the system and explore the entire cave, seeking a possible rear exit and pottery evidence to help date its construction in future digs. […] "We’re able to see a part of the cave that Macalister never saw," Parker said. "This leaves the possibility that there is another entrance [to the cave] from another location off the tel…." "We did some sound tests to see if we could hear inside the cavern from outside on the tel," Parker said. "The sound was very clear, which leads us to believe that it leads to some sort of opening or fissure in the rock that in ancient days the water may have traveled outside the tel." At the start of this dig season the team intended to open the entire mouth of the cave. However, the left side of the mouth was blocked with boulders and the rest of the cave was filled with silt and dirt. So the team continued a probe along the southern wall that they began in 2011. About 26 feet into the probe, Warner and Parker made a crucial decision. With time running out on this year’s dig, Warner and Parker wanted to expose more of the interior of the cave.

The full story is here. The team has posted a five-minute video with the archaeologists chatting in the cave. Gezer breakthrough from Baptist Press on Vimeo. HT: Joseph Lauer

Tagged Discoveries, Excavations, Shephelah

The Recovered Gezer Boundary Inscription

Eric Mitchell and Jason Zan have written an article for the Baptist Press about their success this season in discovering a new Gezer boundary inscription and recovering one lost for more than 100 years. The article includes a photo of the recovered inscription (#4), and promises a full report in a journal in due course.

This lost boundary inscription was discovered in 1881 by Charles Clermont-Ganneau and his description of the episode helps to explain why scholars failed to locate it in the last century. From Archaeological Researches in Palestine 2:232:

In 1881, seven years after this incident, I had occasion to return to Palestine, and resumed, on my own account, the exploration of the neighbourhood of Gezer, which had been so unduly broken off. I had been persuaded all along that some more inscriptions must be in existence, similar to those I had discovered, marking out the boundary of the town towards the north-west. I started searching in this quarter, with the help of the fellahin, as on the previous occasion; it was not long before my labours were crowned with success, for about two or three hundred yards to the northwest of the first inscription I discovered some large characters, absolutely similar to the former, and cut into the face of a rounded rocky platform with almost perpendicular sides.
I have no record of these characters, but a rough sketch hurriedly made in my note book. I meant to go back and take a squeeze of them, fix the exact position of the inscription, and pursue my investigations on the spot; but, unfortunately, I was suddenly recalled to France, and was unable to carry out this intention. I regret this, for I am convinced that there still remains quite a series of these texts to be collected round about Gezer, I am certain that a search of this kind would not be unfruitful, and recommend it to future Palestine explorers.

As of this month, 13 boundary inscriptions have been found near Gezer, but I have to ask, did no other cities have similar markers?

Clermont-Ganneau’s sketch of “Inscription D”

Tagged Discoveries, Shephelah

New Gezer Boundary Inscription

A thirteenth boundary inscription near Tell Gezer was discovered last week in an archaeological survey led by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. They also re-discovered inscription #4, one initially located by Charles Clermont-Ganneau but not seen since. Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister doesn’t come out looking very good in this story either. From SWBTS:

The new boundary stone inscription located by the Gezer survey team this season is the first to be found in over a decade, increasing the total number of known Gezer boundary inscriptions to 13. The new inscription is very weathered and is a bilingual inscription like many of the others, with some minor differences. It is a three line inscription, rather than the typical two, with the Greek name Alkiou on the first line (literally “belonging to Alkios”), remnants of the Hebrew word for “region of” on the second line and small remnants of the letters spelling “Gezer” on the third line. The Greek letters are larger than in other inscriptions and both the Greek and Hebrew lines are oriented in the same perspective. The survey directors will seek to publish the inscription as soon as possible in an academic publication.
The second inscription discovered this season has not been seen by scholars in over 100 years. Originally discovered by a 19th century French explorer, a later excavator RAS Macalister admitted to having spent considerable time during his 1902 through 1909 expeditions searching for this particular boundary stone. Unable to find the inscription, he concluded that it must have been defaced to unintelligibility in the years subsequent to its discovery. Based on a published field sketch of the stone, this boundary inscription and the 19th century discovery are one and the same.

The full story is here. Sam Wolff, who mentioned this report on the ANE-2 list, writes that the two inscriptions are 50 meters apart. When Ronny Reich discovered inscription #12 about a decade ago, he and Zvi Greenhut published a survey of all the inscriptions, with GPS coordinates, in Israel Exploration Journal 52/1 (2002): 58-63. The SWBTS article states that survey directors Eric Mitchell and Jason Zan have written an article on the first five survey seasons to be published soon by Hadashot Arkheologiyot.

See this month’s issue of the BiblePlaces Newsletter for a photo of inscription #8.

Gezer boundary inscription #12 (source). Bottom line reads “of Alkios” (in Greek); top line reads (from the other side, in Aramaic) “the boundary of Gezer” (taham gezer).

Tagged Discoveries, Shephelah

Qeiyafa Shrines: Garfinkel Responds

Yosef Garfinkel, excavator of Khirbet Qeiyafa, has written responses to some of the recent questions about the cultic material uncovered at the site.

To Aren Maeir he addressed questions concerning calling the shrines “arks.” He argues that a more appropriate term than shrine or building model is the biblical term “ark.”

I proposed that the technical term of such items, in their own time, was “Aron Elohim” (box for keeping god symbols). Each religion kept different gods or goddesses in such boxes. In Middle Bronze Ashkelon such example was found with a small calf figurine inside it. The bible described a portable shrine (“Aron”) in various traditions and it was translated into English as: “The Ark of the Covenant”, “The Ark of the Lord”, and other names. I am not talking about this ark, or any other specific ark mentioned in the biblical tradition, but that the term “Aron Elohim” was used to describe this category of objects.

Maeir responds at length, rejecting the proposal. He writes, in part:

There is simply no supporting archaeological, biblical and ANE textual sources that imply this directly (and as far as I know, even indirectly). To this one can add that if “Ark/Aron” was the term used for these and various other types of objects, I think one should expect some extra-biblical mention of this term. Even if these small models were called “arks” – it is clear that the “Aron Elohim” referred to in the biblical text was envisaged as something quite different – see the Aron Brit Adonai that the Philistines capture in the battle of Eben Ezer and moves around Philistia – would it be moved around in a wagon drawn by oxen if so small?

In a comment on that post, Victor Hurowitz rejects the use of the term ark, insisting that these are actually temple models.

The temple models from Yossi’s dig should be compared with well known parallels from Yavneh and elsewhere. In my opinion they resemble the miniature shrines you can find in private houses and on street corners in the far east.. No Temple was found at Keiyafah, and these two models probably came from private homes and represent a family parallel to the official cult.

Garfinkel addressed several other issues on the blog of Luke Chandler, including concerns raised about his claims of aniconism.

Indeed one of them has two guardian lions and birds on the roof, but these are clearly different from similar items in Canaanites, Philistines, Edomite and even sites of the Kingdom of Israel, where naked goddesses were found attached to the models. We never talk about monotheistic cult here, but instead draw attention to the absence of iconic representations. I think that aniconic cult evolved over a large period of time, with deep struggles between those who accepted it and those who still believed in graven images. In Khirbet Qeiyafa we see a strong attitude toword aniconic cult. This needs to be addressed and discussed.

Yesterday I was interviewed about the Qeiyafa discoveries on the Science News Flash produced by Reasons to Believe. A link on that page will take you to a previous post on “Avoiding Crackpot Archaeology.” Krista Bontrager offers some good advice on how to evaluate the latest sensational claim.

Tagged 10th Century, Analysis, Shephelah

More on the Qeiyafa Shrines

A lot has been written about the recent announcement of two portable shrines discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa. I might draw your attention to a small portion of what has been written in the last two days.

To get a better sense of just what is depicted on the shrines, start with the captions on Luke Chandler’s post.

Luke also addresses the question of whether the shrines are “aniconic,” though as discussion in the comments there indicate it seems best to recognize that while the shrines have depictions of animals, this does not necessarily violate the biblical command against worshipping images.

John Hobbins says that the new discoveries are “boring” because “they are compatible with biblical traditions about the time period in question.”

When you see similar shrines such as those posted by Tom Verenna and Owen Chesnut, the uniqueness of these discoveries is certainly diminished.

Leen Ritmeyer rejects any connection between these shrines and the temple, declaring that “their
origin is patently Pagan and not Biblical.”

Nadav Na’aman believes that the shrines were Canaanite and “had no connection to Jerusalem.”

Aren Maeir makes some brief observations and asks, “Why does this prove ANYTHING about the
accuracy of the bible, the existence of the United Monarchy, etc.?”

James McGrath provides a lengthy list of links.

Finally, it may be worth observing that much of the present discussion concerns the sensational interpretation of the objects and that if the excavators did not promote theories without sufficient evidence these discoveries would be like all the others—described in excavation reports and unknown to most. The question, then, is whether increased publicity is worth inflated or inaccurate claims.

Tagged 10th Century, Analysis, Discoveries, Shephelah

Cultic Objects Discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa

Recent discoveries of a cultic significance were announced today in a press conference at Hebrew University. Archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor believe that they have found religious objects from the time of King David at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah of Judah.

The three shrines are part of larger building complexes. In this respect they are different from Canaanite or Philistine cults, which were practiced in temples – separate buildings dedicated only to rituals. The biblical tradition described this phenomenon in the time of King David: “He brought the ark of God from a private house in Kyriat Yearim and put it in Jerusalem in a private house” (2 Samuel 6).
The cult objects include five standing stones (Massebot), two basalt altars, two pottery libation vessels and two portable shrines. No human or animal figurines were found, suggesting the people of Khirbet Qeiyafa observed the biblical ban on graven images.

The two portable shrines are of great interest and may help us to understand some difficult terms in the Hebrew Bible.

Two portable shrines (or “shrine models”) were found, one made of pottery (ca. 20 cm high) and the other of stone (35 cm high). These are boxes in the shape of temples, and could be closed by doors.
The clay shrine is decorated with an elaborate façade, including two guardian lions, two pillars, a main door, beams of the roof, folded textile and three birds standing on the roof. Two of these elements are described in Solomon’s Temple: the two pillars (Yachin and Boaz) and the textile (Parochet).

Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery altar (Photo: Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

The stone shrine is made of soft limestone and painted red. Its façade is decorated by two elements. The first are seven groups of roof-beams, three planks in each. This architectural element, the “triglyph,” is known in Greek classical temples, like the Parthenon in Athens. Its appearance at Khirbet Qeiyafa is the earliest known example carved in stone, a landmark in world architecture.
The second decorative element is the recessed door. This type of doors or windows is known in the architecture of temples, palaces and royal graves in the ancient Near East. This was a typical symbol of divinity and royalty at the time.

Khirbet Qeiyafa stone ark (Photo: Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

The press release has more details. The archaeologists believe that the site is Israelite because of the absence of pig bones and graven images.

Do these discoveries undermine the biblical narrative of Israelite monotheism? Such is the insinuation of the archaeologists.

The biblical tradition presents the people of Israel as conducting a cult different from all other nations of the ancient Near East by being monotheistic and an-iconic (banning human or animal figures). However, it is not clear when these practices were formulated, if indeed during the time of the monarchy (10-6th centuries BC), or only later, in the Persian or Hellenistic eras.

In other words, the presence of cultic material outside of Jerusalem challenges the biblical claim that Israelites worshipped only one God in one place. But there is no such biblical claim. Scripture is very clear that though the Lord commanded the Israelites to worship only at the central altar (Deut 12), the Israelites perennially failed to keep this command. The Bible is very open about this failure, recording stories such as Gideon’s idolatry (Judg 8:27); Micah’s shrine (Judg 17-18), and Saul’s pursuit of witchcraft (1 Sam 28). David was very mindful of the temptations:

Psalm 16:4 (NIV) — The sorrows of those will increase who run after other gods. I will not pour out their libations of blood or take up their names on my lips.

What discoveries like these from Qeiyafa show is not that monotheism evolved only late in Israel’s history but that God’s covenant people failed to worship in the prescribed way, just as the Bible records.

Tagged 10th Century, Discoveries, Shephelah