|
< Back to the Current Issue of BAR  Talkback Add Your Comment
Tracking Down Shebnayahu, Servant of the King
How an antiquities market find solved a 42-year-old excavation puzzle
 In Isaiah 22 the prophet rails in God’s name against the excesses of the officials in King Hezekiah’s palace. Among those he singles out is Shebna, the steward who is “in charge of the house [palace]” (Isaiah 22:15):
What have you here and whom have you here,
That you have hewn out a tomb for yourself here?—
O you who have hewn your tomb on high;
O you who have hollowed out for yourself an abode on the cliff.
The Lord is about to shake you, fellow.
Michael Welch Jerusalem Stratum 12Dear Michael, All I can say about Stratum 12 at Jerusalem is that it was not destroyed by Sennacherib and as I said can be dated by means of epigraphic finds from Str. 11 which points the way toward the time of Josia. It is the epigraphic evidence rather than dogma that should guide us. Stay stunned! Best wishes Peter van der Veen • • • • • • • Stratum 12Dear Dr. van der Veen, Hi!!! I enjoyed reading your comments. I have read your comments about my "circular reasoning" in two different posts now. I do have to say that it is only circular reasoning if you are correct about the Siloam Tunnel Inscription or the LMLK Seals and Royal Officials' Seals of King Hezekiah's men being dated later by fifty years or so(say ca. 650 B.C. instead of 701 B.C.). If the consensus scholarship of 701 B.C. is correct(I am very confident that it is), and they all belong to ca. 701 B.C., then all I am doing is a comparision. Concerning Stratum 12 of Professor Shiloh's City of David dig, I was going by Dr. Jane M. Cahill's dating of Stratum 12 to the 8th Century B.C.E. In her footnote 60 on page 28 of Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence, she says: "...where fill Locus 377 is described as having contained ceramic material ranging in date from Stratum 16 of the Late Bronze Age to Stratum 12 of the eighth century B.C.E." On page 99 of his Theology, History, and Archaeology... book, Dr. Vaughn says: "Shiloh summarizes his finds as follows: 'In the City of David about fifty Lamelek handles have been found, only some of them in situ, in Stratum 12' (the stratum dating from the reign of Hezekiah). He continues, 'The infrequent appearance of this type of jar, or of isolated stamped handles in later strata...does not in our opinion provide evidence of the continued official use of these jars.'" And that was Professor Shiloh talking, not Dr. Vaughn. Out of Stratum 12, like I have stated before, Mr. George Grena has dated a G2T type LMLK seal with Concentric Circles and a M2D type to the late Eighth Century B.C. This is on his LMLK Stratigraphy page. Out of the 21 LMLK Seals, Mr. Grena lists 13 that come from late Eighth Century B.C. strata. The M4C (a four-winged scarab type) is missing, but there are only three known examples. The remaining seven LMLK seals come from Mr. Grena's last two LMLK Seals' Sets--the 2D and the 2T two-winged sun disc types. Out of the 2D types we have the H2D, Z2D, and S2DR, found in the deepest depths(9 to 13.5 meters) in the rock cut Gibeon pool. The H2D is actually found deeper than the four winged scarab handles that were found. Out of the 2T types we are missing, M2T, Z2T, and H2T, but there are only about six to eight known examples of each seal. So if only two or three jars were stamped by these seals, and these two-winged seals were concentrated in Jerusalem and its surroundings, and these sites were never conquered by Sennacherib, I, like I have said before, think that it is wonderful that we have at least one example from the last two LMLK Seals' Sets types, a G2T with Concentric Circles and a M2D. It is also wonderful that the G2T has Concentric Circles because we now know that Concentric Circles are a late Eighth Century B.C. mark and not a Seventh Century B.C. mark. I wish you and your family the very best of everything. With Much Gratitude, Sincerely Yours, Michael Welch, Deltona, Florida • • • • • • • 701: Divided We StandJust a quick clarification for the record, when Peter van der Veen said I do "not date all the lmlk seals to before 701 BC (personal communication)", I've said this not only in personal comm. with numerous scholars & archeologists, but in several places in my 2004 book (e.g., p. 10: "evidence indicates about half of the designs were made before Sennacherib's invasion & the other half shortly thereafter", & p. 346: "about half the LMLK artifacts were produced [before Sennacherib's campaign] & the other half [after his campaign]."). 701 is the date used by the majority of scholars to indicate when Sennacherib attacked Judah, though in the 5 years since publishing my first volume, I've been inclined to distance myself from it because I learned that it's founded on too many assumptions for my confidence-comfort level. For the purposes of discussion, however, such as this dating of the Shebna bulla to one century or another in the context of the Judean monarchy, it serves the purpose. I also want to thank Peter & Michael publicly for exchanging their ideas on this subject, & hope that Robert Deutsch will give his own rebuttal at some point, or at least reaffirm his own position after having considered Peter's arguments. • • • • • • • Michael Welch againHi Michael, Ok we are back to the same arguments again. Let's watch out for circular reasong here. We are back to the Siloam inscription. That most scholars believe that it dates to the reign of Hezekiah is not proof that it does. That is an important issue to heed. If we always choose the side of the majority view, critical scholarship will never have the chance to succeed in a world of academics. New ideas and subsequently break-throughs were usually made by scholars who did not listen to the majority view as they believed in their work and ideas. Sometimes their ideas became the majority view only after they had died. Naturally the majority view can be the correct one also. But it is through careful testing these views that have become "dogma" that openminded scholarship can be enriched and old views (if correct) can become stronger yet, simply because hitherto unnoticed problems may be solved. As far as the Siloam Tunnel inscription is concerned, we have discussed at length that even Andrew Vaughn agreed that palaeographically the Siloam Inscription pointed to the end of the 7th century BC. It was his choice to still date it to the reign of Hezekiah and state that the Inscription could not be used for palaeographic purposes. His palaeographic study, however, was well founded on stratified material, which led him to distinguish between "late 8th cent." and "late 7th cent. BC." forms with intermediate forms in between. That is methodologically correct and laudable. To deviate from that methodology on the basis of sheer assumption in terms of the Siloam Tunnel Inscription is not appreciable, but must still be respected. I have argued that it still may be from the last years of Hezekiah's reign (especially applicable if Thiele's chronology turns out to be more solid than Galil's (I am not sure of that however), i.e. Hezekiah reigned until 686 BC). I also added that the inscription may date to the reign of his son and successor Manasseh who may have had it carved in honor of his father's work (possibly anywhere between 686-642 BC). It is even possible that it was carved as late as 648-642 BC, as this was the time when Manasseh built extensively in Jerusalem according to the Chronicler, including building works near the Gihon spring. This view is not better than the traditional one, but as the inscription does not actually say that it was cut by Hezekiah's stone cutters, it cannot be ruled out. It would, however, explain the palaeography which resembles the later traits, but may also well be something rather in between. As we do not actually have a date for the Siloam Inscription we cannot use it as a palaeographic anchor (and Andrew Vaughn was right not to use it as he wanted to keep for Hezekiah). Now you compare lmlk jar handle impressions and official seal impressions on Tufnell's Type 484 jars as well and say well they are like the script of the Siloam Tunnel inscription. That surely is circular reasoning. I have said, several of these (especially the S2DW type, none of which come from Lachish III!) may well be post 701 BC, even up till the later reign of Manasseh as I would suggest. Again the very fact that Vaughn, Barkay, Ussishkin and Mazar have dated all of the stamps to ca. 701 BC is not by itself proof that they all belong there. Naturally one must take that seriously and if one questions the date, one needs to come up with good evidence. I believe that such evidence exists. I have mentioned several lines of argument that will be discussed in depth in my postdoctoral dissertation: the Assyrian palace and household wares (so far these are all imitations of the original Assyrian material, hence LATER copies if you like), as well as Edomite pottery which is clearly dated in its homeland on the basis of seal evidence (including the Qausgaber bulla from Umm el-Biyara and the Neo-Babylonian seal impression of the same site which I have discussed in my PhD thesis and in a chapter on the seal material to be published shortly in the final report of C. M. Bennett's excavations at Umm el-Biyara, this is due to appear shortly through Oxford University Press). Dating the so called Assyrian and Edomite Wares to the 8th century in Judah, creates an unnecessary anachronisms. There are several more arguments for my lower dates, which I cannot all discuss here. What do you mean by: "Mr. George M. Grena has found at least one LMLK 2D seal, an M2D in Stratum 12 of Professor Yigal Shiloh's City Of David dig. This along with a G2T with Concentric Circles are pretty representative of the last two LMLK Seals' Sets types prior to 701 B.C."? Why is this indicative of a date prior to 701 BC? Str. 12 at Jerusalem continues well into the 7th century BC. There is good evidence from Kathleen Kenyon's cave 1-2 nearer the Kidron valley that the pottery contemporary with Str. 11 is some 50 years later than previously thought. As I will discuss in an article soon to be published in a book by M. Lubetski on material from the S. Moussaieff Collection (to be published through SBL), personal name evidence points to the reign of king Josiah for this material. Hence a lower date for the preceding Str. 12 material would also be in order. Also George Grena does not date all the lmlk seals to before 701 BC (personal communication) even if he believes that they all belong to Hezekiah's reign. The pre-701 BC date is NOT set in stone. It may be ones' preferance to date things like that, but it is not proven. Returning to the Shebanyahu bulla, the palaeography is late (the Siloam Tunnel Inscription can be used here for comparison if indeed it is also late(r) as had been suggested above). It was found in a juglet which is late (I checked these things again and there are also more recent studies that support this date, notably also the excellent pottery study by the late Orna Zimhoni, whose work was republished in Ussishkin's Lachish Volumes). The juglet was found in a late stratum ending in 588/7 BC. The evidence therefore shows us the way. We cannot compare it to all lmlk jar handles, some of which undoubtedly belong to the late 8th and/or early 7th century BC. Some letter types on lmlk jar handles may come close, but this may have something to do with the fact that they are not ALL pre-701 BC, but rather post-701 BC, possibly as late as 650 BC! It is important to not only read what I say here, but also think about it and ponder about it! Enough for today :-) Best wishes Peter • • • • • • • LMLK SealDear Dr. van der Veen, Hi!!! I appreciate your comments. The he and waw on the S2DW LMLK Seal are identical to the Siloam Tunnel Inscription's he and waw. Dr. Andrew Vaughn dated the Siloam Tunnel Inscription to the reign of King Hezekiah (ca. 701 B.C.). Dr. Vaughn, Dr. Barkay, Professor Ussishkin, and Dr. Amihai Mazar have dated all 21 of the LMLK Seals and all of the 50 to 60 Royal Officials' Seals of King Hezekiah's men to ca. 701 B.C. Mr. George M. Grena has found at least one LMLK 2D seal, an M2D in Stratum 12 of Professor Yigal Shiloh's City Of David dig. This along with a G2T with Concentric Circles are pretty representative of the last two LMLK Seals' Sets types prior to 701 B.C. And, like you have just said Jerusalem and these northern(majority two-winged LMLK Seals) sites around Jerusalem were not destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 B.C., so it is wonderful to have at least one example from the late Eighth Century B.C. from these last two seal sets, out of the five LMLK Seals' Sets. I wish you and your family the very best of everything, and I look forward to your responses. With Much Gratitude, Sincerely Yours, Michael Welch, Deltona, Florida • • • • • • • LMLK S2DW Question for M. WelchDear Michael, Only now I really had the chance to check the issue with the "he" in line 2 of the unprovenanced Shebnayahu bulla (which isn't clear and must be checked under a microscope!) and compared it with George Grena's lmlk type S2DW. Although there is some resemblance with Andrew Vaughn's late "he", it does not have the developed traits. It seems to be something intermediate. Whatever the case: none of the attested S2DWs on George Grena's site are from Lachish III! They all come from Gibeon, Jerusalem, Ramat Rachel, Tell en-Nasbeh, all which were NOT destroyed in 701 BC. So please explain why these prove that this palaeographic trait was already in use in Judah prior to 701 BC? Dear wishes Peter • • • • • • • Bulla Model & New Drawing NeededOK! Thank you to Peter & Lawrence for clarifying their position on the possibility that this bulla might be fraudulent, but that they don't believe Robert to be the culprit. I personally don't believe Robert Deutsch would go out on a limb & risk publishing a bulla that has the appearance of being fake, especially not nowadays after having been indicted for conspiring to forge ancient material. It's one thing to publish a large volume of bullae (as Robert has done several times) where one might not get such scrutiny, but he (& the publisher) certainly knew that this one would get much attention. Furthermore, he was recently vindicated on one unprovenanced seal impression he published over a decade ago, another specimen of which was excavated this year from a controlled site (Umm Tuba). I should also qualify my statement that the 4 mistakes in the drawing were "huge". They were indeed extremely minor in physical size, & I myself did not notice them at first glance when I read this article, but they're definitely there, & if they can lead one scholar to dispute the dating of another scholar, which would then adversely affect the conclusion of this article (e.g., that the person named on the bulla lived in one century & was named in the Bible instead of another century of no fame), then they are indeed "huge" (i.e., significant), & I would like to encourage BAR to publish a corrected version either here online (as they did when Eilat Mazar mistakenly read the Shelomit seal in reverse), or in an upcoming issue of their print edition. I think it would be appropriate to give the author an opportunity to either stand by this drawing that essentially bears his name (though there is no credit attached to it in the print edition, & when I click on it on this web page it says, "You've managed to get to an image that doesn't exist."), or allow him to submit a revision, & either defend his position, or retract his theory. "The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him."--Proverbs 18:17 • • • • • • • Lachish II at 650 BC correctionDear Michael. I forgot one thing. My date for Lachish II at 650 BC was a very round figure. Naturally you are right that if Lachish III came down to 650 BC (I just mentioned that as a possibility, it probably was destroyed in 701 BC while other sites followed later during the 7th century), there would be no time for abandonment. If Lachish III only fell in 650 BC, naturally II would need to start later, perhaps as late as 610 BC. This is all speculation and needs to be developed. The abandonment period does not need to be 50 years either (full stop) it may have been only 30 years long, maybe only 25, who can tell. That we have marked pottery differences does however suggest that the gap was not very short! Best wishes Peter • • • • • • • Michael Welch Lachish II at 701 BCDear Michael, I really appeciate your interesting discussions on the subject and some very thought provoking ideas. But I am still not convinced by what you are saying. First of all, let's start with Lachish II. It is amazing to see that all of a sudden several scholars no longer believe in the "gap" between the end of Lachish III and the beginning of II. That is pretty weird though. At the time when Ussishkin was still excavating at Lachish some contenders of the "continuation" theory (literally placing an early phase of L. II soon after 701 BC) were chastened for thinking that way (especially so I. Eshel who after his work on his PhD left the field altogether and for good!). It was taboo to talk about these things back in those days. And in a sense I understand why. The pottery differences between the two strata are markedly different!!! Look at the cylindrical juglet. The L. III ones are more globular, rustic, while the L. II ones are finely carinated with a narrow neck. Well you name it. The cooking pots also changed from the straight rim (from the three grooves at the rim to the one bolstered protruding carination at the rim in L. II). The closed ones become more globular too. We find high footed oil lamps which we don't have in L. III. I discuss many pottery changes in my PhD. As I stated before, at other sites where there was no destruction but continuation, we do find intermediatery types that fit the period ob abandonement at Lachish. Yohanan and Mirjam Aharoni pointed out so many nice difference, which I just find very conclusive. More importantly still, as I also said, at other sites and within the Lachish III horizon (but not necessarily at Lachish!) we find Assyrian and Edomite types that are not found in their homeland early enough to be present at sites prior to 701 BC. We really have a problem here. With other words, the Lachish horizon continued into the 7th century and with it the lmlk jar handles. If the owner of the seals were not carried off in exile in 701 BC (if that is the date of Lachish III!) and if the production centre of the lmlk jar handles continued to produce (why shouldn't they as the royalty was not carried away and stayed in Jerusalem, while their potters surely continued to produce the same pottery also after 701 BC), we will naturally have new productions in the 7th century BC. Hence it does not surprise to find them at one period sites late during the 7th century at Silha, es-Samra etc. George Grena told me that he fully agreed with me here. Did he change his mind on this? I admit that you were right on Ami Mazar's view. Indeed he does not say in his Timnah book that new lmlks were produced after 701 BC. That was my mistake. I thought he had said that. Sorry for this. I do however think that Vaughn and Barkay (and I know Gabi very well personally! Actually he set in one of my lectures when I dealt with this issue at length) have become less dogmatic on a sole production before 701 BC, especially Gabi has. Also my Professor in Mainz (with whom I do my postdoc), Prof. Wolfgang Zwickel, does not believe that all these pots were produced in the short period before 701 BC. In another lecture Dr. Norma Franlin set in and I dealt with this material again. Again she felt this is not as impossible as was previously thought it would be. So really very much depending on the date of the archaeological horizon, it will be necessary to rethink the time span of use and production and if the horizon continued after 701 BC (which it did at several sites, esp. at Jerusalem, Tel Halif, Arad) there were new productions with old stamps and new productions with new stamps. There were re-used pots and new pots, to be replaced at the end of the century by the rosette jars, which weren't all that different after all! To cut things short: I do not believe that Lachish II started before 650 BC and possibly as late as 630-635 BC and along with it a whole Iron Age IIC horizon (Arad VII-VI etc.). It is the bulk of evidence that makes me believe this. And as I said, the juglet in which the provenanced Lachish bulla was found is a late type and the destruction layer in which it was found belongs to the year 588/7 BC, i.e. over one century after the Sennacherib disaster. It is this evidence that I am prepared to take at face value! Best wishes Peter • • • • • • • Response to G. M. Grena's post of 5/7/2009 1:17:01 AMThank you, G.M., for your thoughtful response to my post. In no way do I intend to accuse Robert Deutsch of forging anything or of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Please, G.M., do not read that into my comment. I think Robert Deutsch has endured enough accusations to last a lifetime. I was simply taking a good warning written by Peter van der Veen in 2005 and applying it to the bulla under discussion. Its origin is totally unknown, and I have no intention of making groundless accusations against particular individuals. Thank you again for noticing my post and responding to it in detail. ---Lawrence Mykytiuk • • • • • • • George Grena -Forgery questionHi George, I just want to put one thing straight. I am pretty certain that Larry (Mykytiuk) did not want to imply that Robert Deutsch himself had faked the bulla (if it is a fake at all). I really don't think so that he wanted to say this. I for myself am pretty certain that Robert did not fake it and I am quite certain that he himself has ever faked any bullae. Also I believe that there are much less faked bullae in the world than has been suggested by some scholars a few years ago. It really is very difficult to imagine how to do such faking. Even it one is able to make a mold of an existing provenanced specimen, it is still very hard to create the small channels with the patina which are there which were (supposed to be) created by the strings of the papyrus to which it was attached. Often they can't be seen with by the naked eye. I have looked at numerous unprovanced bullae (e.g. from the S. Moussiaff collection) under strong microscopes and I for my bit I do not believe that I have seen fakes amongst them. But that does not mean that they do not exist. They do. There are some which were published some years ago by Professor Dan Barag which can still be seen on the Z. Radovan photography website (e.g. the bulla of Yaazanyahu cbd hmlk), which definitely are fakes! There is not a shred of a doubt. The one mentioned was based on two seals, i.e. the unprovenanced Yehoahaz bn hmlk seal and the provenanced Yaazanyahu cbd hmlk seal from Tell en-Nasbeh. Already in the first line the faker changed his mind and changed to the Yaazanyahu seal for his model. This would make a good article. But there are so many more important things to do than deal with these issues. Best wishes Peter • • • • • • • StatisticsDear Dr. van der Veen, Hi!!! It is a pleasure to read all of your comments. I hope to purchase an autographed copy of each of your upcoming books, whenever they are published. Just like Dr. Eilat Mazar dates the Babylonian stratum of her current Jerusalem dig to 586 to 538 B.C.E., on page 32 of Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, March/April, 2009, I would have to say that Lachish Stratum II begins at 701 B.C. and ends at 586 B.C. On May 8, 2009, Dr. Robert Deutsch e-mailed me this: "All the speculations about a gap of 50 years is only that: a speculation. As you know, the Assyrians did not capture Jerusalem and returned to Assyria. I see no reason at all for any gap, not even a year." On May 9th, 2009, Mr. George M. Grena e-mailed me this: "That statement about 'abandoned' is pure speculation. All we know from a destruction layer is that it was destroyed. It's impossible to know how many people were living there or for how many years/decades." Also, if your theory that Lachish Stratum III could have been destroyed "during the later reign of Manasseh - C. 650BC" was correct, there would be no gap in time between Stratum III and Stratum II, since you said that Lachish Stratum II must begin in 650 B.C. I do have to say that you have been reading Drs. Barkay, Vaughn, and Amihai Mazar incorrectly when you say that they are for "continued production of LMLK jars in the 7th Century B.C." I can say with certainty that they all state that all of the LMLK jars Seals and Royal Officials' Seals of King Hezekiah's men are dated to the late Eighth Century B.C. (ca. 701 B.C.). It is not even clear that Dr. Barkay and Dr. Vaughn are for the continued reuse of LMLK jars(which would contain the Royal Officials' Seals), but it is clear that Dr. Amihai Mazar is. On page 458 of Archaeology Of The Land Of The Bible Dr. Amihai Mazar states: "Since Jerusalem was not captured by Sennacherib, we may surmise that many jars of this kind, stored in the royal store buildings of the capital, were available during the following seventh century B.C.E. Such jars can stand in storage for decades, and they may have been employed for a long time after their production. This would explain the fact that stamped Lamelech jars are found occasionally in late seventh century B.C.E. contexts." I have always agreed with Dr. Mazar. Thanks again to Mr. George M. Grena's very hard work, we now have the statistics to back this theory up even further. It has been noticed by various LMLK scholars that there is a concentration of two-winged sun disc LMLK Seals around the Jerusalem area. It averages right around 85 percent two-winged sun disc types and 15 percent four-winged scarab types. The numbers are reversed in the Shephelah site of Lachish with around 85 percent four-winged scarab types and 15 percent two-winged sun disc types. Dr. Grena lists two two-winged LMLK Seals, a G2T with concentric circles and a M2D, from Professor Yigal Shiloh's City Of David Excavations Stratum 12 in Jerusalem. Stratum 12 is the late Eighth Century B.C. Stratum. Building on Dr. Amihai Mazar's ideas that there were many late Eighth Century B.C. LMLK jars kept in storage in Jerusalem during the 7th Century B.C., we now know that there is almost a nine in ten chance of the jar having a two-winged sun disc LMLK seal. From Mr. Grena's statistics Hebron comes out to be three or four times more abundant than Socoh, Ziph, or Mamshit. The H2D type is extremely abundant. Also, since most all of the concentric circles are found in Jerusalem and its environs, and we have at least one late Eighth Century B.C. example from Jerusalem, one from Beth Shemesh, and I think three late Eighth Century B. C. concentric circles examples from Lachish, we should not be surprised to find two-winged sun disc LMLK Seals(usually the H2D type) with or without concentric circles at various sites throughout the 7th Century B.C. until the jars were broken or forgotten. I wish you and your family the very best of everything, and I look forward to your responses. With Much Gratitude, Sincerely Yours, Michael Welch, Deltona, Florida • • • • • • • Michael Welch responseDear Michael, I really appreciate your excitement for all of this. We are entering a very complicated area here, which of course is not the place to discuss it in much more detail, simply due to limit of space. It would be the topic for a much needed and wanted colloquium spanning several days (or better weeks). There is a lot of circular reasoning here and much to consider. First of all, I am not convinced that all the lmlk jar handles belong to the period prior to 701 BC. It is especially striking that the so-called 2 winged sun-disk type is much more widely represented at 7th century sites (e.g. T. Batash Str. II, but also in Jerusalem on the Western Hill Str. 9/8). On this also see Barkay and Vaughn's chapter in Ussishkin, Lachish Vol IV, on pp. 2170-71. Although I currently think that the destruction date of Lachish Stratum III belongs to 701 BC, we must be fair, we do not have 100% proof that it was the city destroyed by Sennacherib. It could possibly also have been Str. IV. Even though I still believe it was III (I said "believe"), there are scholars who have continued to doubt it till today. Even if they are a small minority today (that was completely different in the days of W. F. Abright), there are supporters, e.g. Jack Holladay, Peter James etc. Now I do not agree that Stratum III can be down dated to 587 BC in line with the old Albright theory and the autors of Centuries of Darkness, 1991), but I do believe that there are other possible contenders, such as an invasion reported in the book of II Chronicles during the later reign of Manasseh - c. 650 BC. Even if Lachish III itself was destroyed in 701 BC (but this is not proven!), there are other sites belonging to the Lachish III horizon which can be dated later. Especially sites in the Arad-Beersheba-Valley (Tel Arad Str. VIII, Beersheba Str. II, Tel Ira VII, etc.) probably were destroyed after 701 BC (possibly as late as 650 BC, and not necessarily by the Assyrians! - Arabic mauraders seem to make good candidates at this time; note als that Sennacherib never claims to have gone south that far and that these sites are nowhere mentioned in his annals! Also why would the Assyrians have wished to destroy the infrastructure of these important trading sites?). Also note that at Jerusalem itself (e.g. at the City of David Str. 12) there was no break as the city was not destroyed in 701 BC, hence the same pottery styles continued to be used and manufactured (!) there for some indefenite time. 701 BC is not a clear break for the entire archaeological horizon elsewhere. Even if Andy Vaughn makes us believe this in his PhD thesis and later in his book (Andy also sent me his PhD thesis back in 1999!), there are major problems with that theory and I have noted this already in some detail in my PhD thesis, especially in terms of Beth Zur Str. III, Tel Goren Str. V. Taking the pottery and small finds repertories of these sites at face value, we cannot but say that they post-date 701 BC, and yet they still contain lmlk material. Note for instance that Tel Goren was not inhabited before Str. V! This will be discussed in far more detail in my postdoctoral dissertation (Habilitation). Back to the Arad-Beersheba sites, there is Edomite (Busayra) ware as well as Assyrian imitated material (so-called Assyrian Palace Ware and house hold types) that do not occur in their original homeland much before 700 BC and predominantly so in the 7th century BC! With other words, this Edomite and Assyrian pottery appears in Judah before it is made in their own homelands. That is very difficult to accept. For the same reason Ron Tappy has lowered the dates at Samaria in his second Volume on that site, while I. Finkelstein and D. Ussishkin have also downdated Megiddo Str. IVA to the 8th cent. BC (ending in 733 or 722 BC) for the same reason. Simply there is too much tension on the stratigraphy that has hitherto not been appropriately appreciated. My colleague Peter James has done much important work on this recently which has been published in renowned journals (see his latest work on Hazor V in Antigue Oriente). Back to the lmlk jar handles (if we want to used them as a basis for palaeographic dating of the Lachish III horizon contrary to the Lachish II horizon, which indeed must be later as it contains a different pottery assemblage as Mirjam and Yohanan Aharoni already showed in detail back in their BASOR article in 1978!), George Grena clearly showed also in his first Volume that 2-winged stamps occur at one period sites in the mid to late 7th century BC e.g. at Khirbet es Samra, H. Shilha, Qumran etc., see pp. 333ff. and pers. communication). It would be hard to comprehend why the Judeans would have ceased producing lmlk jars at those sites which were not destroyed during the 701 BC catastrophy and were in ruins for some time after the event such as is the case at Lachish itself (e.g. the capital Jerusalem (a real back drop for refugees), Tel Halif, Beth Shemesh, Tell Batash, you name them). Barkay and Vaughn have become much more reluctant on this issue when they state: "The royal storage jars seem to have gone out of use at least by the second half of the seventh century when the city (Lachish) of Level II is in use." (in Ussishkin, IV, p. 2169). Even if they mention in footnote 16 that they have some reservation about dating them much later than 701 BC, they seem to confront the issue with more flexibility than they did before (on this note e.g. Mazar + Kelso on this in their book on Timnah, Eisenbrauns, on pp. 164-169 who favour continued production). Whether or not we can use the Siloam Tunnel inscription for palaeographic dating, and even if Andy Vaughn still dates it to the reign of Hezekiah - indeed he does - but for reasons which are hard to comprehend, the evidence points to a later date! - an issue also taken up by Axel Knauf in a later article, who suggests dating the inscription to the time of Manasseh or even Amon), comparing its script with the lmlk jar handle impression is circular reasoning. One can always start from his conclusions, but that is not the right and most objective methodology. Now this is all very interesting but should not be side tracked from the real issue raised by me before, an issue which Michael Welch can only erase by suggesting to raise the foundation of Str. II at Lachish to earlier in the 7th century BC, so as to bring the stratified Shebnayahu bulla closer to Shebna, Hezekiah's minister. As the excavators of Lachish have repeatedly shown, Lachish was in ruins for ca. 50 years after 701 BC and the pottery assemblage of Str. II shows marked differences. Other sites which were not destroyed have yielded pottery styles that bridge the gap between both. So Lachish III and II where not close to each other! The bulla was in Str. II not III! That is the fact I want to emphasize. My friend Larry Mykytiuk is also completely right, that we must be careful not to place too much weight on the new bulla as it may still be a fake, based on the original one discovered at Lachish. Even though I do not think so, I can only deal with this issue when I have studied the bulla in August myself. So much for now Best wishes Peter • • • • • • • Bulla Model?Just a quick response to the tantalizing suggestion by Lawrence Mykytiuk, that Deutsch (or anyone else) might have used the Lachish bulla as a model. 1) It's doubtful that whoever is holding the Lachish bulla in storage would allow it to be molded due to its delicate nature, which is what a forger would need in order to reproduce it so accurately. 2) It's extremely unlikely that Deutsch would forge a better specimen, & risk being "caught" if a more complete specimen were to be excavated some day. 3) The minute discrepancies observed by Peter van der Veen prove that the person who made the drawing was not aware of the importance of them; & unless I'm completely mistaken, the same person who wrote the article, took the photo, & drew the drawing. 4) I don't believe a forger could be so careful with such a tiny piece of clay (smaller than a typical fingernail, with letters smaller than an ant), then make 4 huge mistakes on its drawing. It's far more likely that a forger would make a fake in worse condition than the original ... the complete opposite of what we have here. Whether it dates to Hezekiah or Zedekiah, this unprovenanced specimen has historical value because it clarifies the role of the person named, & that's the main contribution from this excellent/intriguing article by Robert Deutsch. • • • • • • • Question about methodology of Rebert DeutschHow does Mr. Deutsch know that the authentic bulla was not used as a model to produce a forgery which was later sold on the antiquities market? Peter van der Veen pointed out this possibility in his doctoral dissertation (Univ. of Bristol, 2005), pp. 74-75, note 354. It is entirely possible that the bulla on which Mr. Deutsch has written is a forgery. How, then, can it be credited as necessarily having _any_ historical value? I have too much respect for the discipline of history to accept his conclusions. • • • • • • • Dating Seals and BullaeDear Dr. van der Veen, Hi!!! I appreciate your comments. I have had the privilege of knowing both you and Dr. Vaughn for many years. Dr. Vaughn sent me his Doctoral Dissertation in early 1997. It became the book Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah in 1999. Dr. Vaughn also sent me a copy of his Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals... paper that you and I have referred to often. Back in July of 2005, you sent me a copy of your Doctoral Dissertation, which you have mentioned several times will be the upcoming book due to be published shortly in the AOAT series of Ugarit Verlag. I do have to ask you why do you think that Dr. Vaughn was surprised that the Siloam Inscription contained these ca. 600 B.C. or late Seventh Century B.C. cursive letter traits? If the palaeography or epigraphy of the Siloam Tunnel Inscription was supposed to be from around the end of the Seventh Century B.C., Dr. Vaughn would not have been surprised. He was surprised, and he talked to Dr. Frank Moore Cross about it, because he had an inscription from the late Eighth Century B.C. (ca. 700 B.C.) "that should have been" from the late Seventh Century B.C. (ca. 600 B.C.). Dr. Vaughn does state that he dates the Siloam Tunnel Inscription to the reign of King Hezekiah. On page 59 of "Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals..." he says: "Based on my argument for dating the Siloam Tunnel and its inscription itself to the time of Hezekiah (Vaughn 1996: 224-225)." Here he is referring to his Doctoral Dissertation. So Dr. Vaughn's point is that late Seventh Century B.C. letter traits are exhibited in a late Eighth Century B.C. inscription. It is precisely for this reason that Dr. Vaughn does not use the Siloam Tunnel Inscription to date seals. However, according to Dr. Vaughn on page 58 of his Palaeographic... paper, the Siloam Tunnel Inscription has been used by world class epigraphers often, as one of the main means of comparison for the dating of Hebrew seals. Dr. Vaughn lists Drs. Lance, Lapp, Cross and Herr. The main point, which you mention as well, that Dr. Vaughn is trying to get across is that the closest you can get to dating a seal by palaeography or epigraphy is around a hundred years. Can you please give me a specific quote by Dr. Barkay and Dr. Vaughn where they both say that King Hezekiah "originated" LMLK jars during the Seventh Century B.C.? Dr. Vaughn has always stated before in his Theology, History... book, that unless there are restorable jars and not just handles, that there was not even continued re-use of LMLK jars in the Seventh Century B.C. On page 101 of Dr. Vaughn's Theology, History, and Archaeology..., he states: "However, they were not part of a restorable jar and thus seems to be isolated finds. Once again, little evidence is found for the extensive use of the LMLK jars past the reign of Hezekiah, and the evidence from an identical official seal impression from Lachish suggests dating all of the LMLK and official seal impressions to the late 8th century." So I find this new information very interesting. Also, Mr. George Grena has shown that at least one seal from each of the five seal sets has been found in a clear late 8th Century B.C. destruction level. Even one concentric circles jar handle was found at Beth Shemesh(an Eighth Century B.C. only site) in 1933. Also, did you know that the seal of Ya'azanyahu servant of the King, which you mentioned earlier, was dated by Drs. Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels to the Late Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E. I know from reading your work that you like to date the "angular" lameds on this seal to the late Seventh Century B.C., based on the City of David Bullae, but there are numerous late Eighth Century examples on the 21 LMLK seals of King Hezekiah. Every letter on the seal of Ya'azanyahu can be dated to the late Eighth Century by the LMLK Seals, Royal Officials' Seals, and the Siloam Tunnel Inscription. I have to agree with you that stratigraphy has to override palaeography or epigraphy. Also, can you please explain to me how you know that Lachish Stratum II can only begin around 650 B.C. I wish you and your family the very best of everything, and I look forward to your responses. With Much Gratitude, Sincerely Yours, Michael Welch, Deltona, Florida • • • • • • • Michael Welch' IntepretationI do not agree much with waht Mr Welch has written. First of all, it is simply untrue (as Andy Vaughn clearly states on pp. 58ff. of his excellent article in BASOR) that the palaeographic style of the Siloam Tunnel Inscription is compatible with a 700 BC date: "It is somewhat suprising that these semiformal, cursive forms ... are more comparable to cursive traits in seals from the late seventh century than to seals from the late eighth century (the time of Hezekiah)." That does however not mean that the Siloam Tunnel inscription must be much later than Hezekiah. It even could have been from late in his reign or could possibly have been completed during the reign of his son and successor. Secondly, it is far from clear that all the lmlk jar handles are ended in 701 BC as also George Grena has rightly shown in his first volume on the subject. Scholars like Amihai Mazar (e.g. at Tell Batash Str. II), and more recently also Gabi Barkay and Andy Vaughn himself (in Ussishkin, Lachish, Vol IV) have come round to the idea that some originated during the 7th century BC (Not simple re-use!). This is especially apparent from the occurance at one period Iron Age sites during the late 7th century BC such as at Tell Goren Str. V etc. So we should be careful not to become to "Hezekian" on dating these finds. Why should Manasseh be left out of the picture, who reigned for 54 years and who worshiped the sun at the Temple of YHWH in Jerusalem? Also the writing of "nun" and "he" on the bulla are of the late types in Vaughn's article. Especially the "he" with extended vertical shaft intersecting the upper horizontal line (which itself continues to the right of the vertical shaft!) belongs undoubtedly to Vaughn's "developed, distinctive" late 7th century BC type (see p. 52, Table 5 bottom left). It is hard to understand it differently. The Shebnayahu bulla therefore must be AFTER Hezekiah's reign. But to base our complete reasoning on the palaeography only is wrong, as I already argued before. As Andy Vaughn himself (in line with the view of the late pottery specialist Orna Zimhona) says on p. 61 in his acknowledgements to the article: "...this study shows what Orna always believed to be true - the palaeographic dating must depend on stratigraphy and not the other way around." I completely agree (even though I disagree on some of the dates Andy Vaughn has suggested for some of the Lachish III horizon sites arguing that all of them ended in 701 BC, which I believe they didn't - but that is a topic dealt with in my postdoctoral research at Mainz University). Hence it is the date of the cylindrical juglet in which the Lachish bulla specimen was found + the Stratum in which it was found - i.e. Lachish Str. II - which point us the way to the true date of the bulla. This Stratum can be no earlier than 650 BC and its artefacts found in its destruction layers belong primarily to the far end of the period (i.e. c. 587 BC) when the adminstrative work at the site ended! So much can be said. Best wishes Peter van der Veen • • • • • • • Siloam Tunnel InscriptionAs mentioned in Dr. Deutsch's very fine article, Dr. Nahman Avigad did date the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, along with Shebna's Tomb of the Royal Steward's Inscription to the reign of King Hezekiah. Following in the footsteps of Dr. Avigad, Dr. Andrew G. Vaughn also dated the Siloam Inscription to the reign of King Hezekiah. Dr. Vaughn is quoted by Dr. van der Veen in Dr. van der Veen's attempt to date the bulla of Shebnayahu more to ca. 600 B.C., instead of King Hezekiah's time at ca. 700 B.C. Dr. Vaughn states on page 58 of his Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals and Its Significance for Biblical Research: "Examination of the Siloam Tunnel Inscription shows that there are several distinctive forms with cursive or semicursive traits. The he, waw, and nun all exhibit the narrow distinctive traits outlined above." Dr. Vaughn draws out the he, the waw, and the nun. The nun is virtually the same as the nun in the Shebnayahu bulla, which according to Dr. van der Veen is a ca. 600 B.C. nun and not a ca. 700 B.C. nun. The he, which Dr. Vaughn draws out is pretty much identical to the second he on the Shebnayahu bulla. So we have a ca. 700 B.C. example. Also, thanks to Mr. George M. Grena's very hard work on LMLK.com, we have both line drawings and many hundreds of photographs of the 21 LMLK seals of King Hezekiah. These have been firmly dated by Professor David Ussishkin to ca. 701 B.C. Ironically, Dr. Vaughn, who is an expert on LMLK Seals and the Royal Officials' Seals of King Hezekiah's men, which are also found on LMLK jars, did not notice the he and waw on the Socoh two winged sun disc stamp that are identical to the Siloam Tunnel Inscription letters. It is the S2DW stamp, according to the Mr. George M. Grena classification system of LMLK Seals. So we have this ca. 701 B.C. example as well. With Much Gratitude, Sincerely Yours, Michael Welch, Deltona, Florida • • • • • • • Shebnayahu bullaIndeed George Grena is right that the drawing is not very accurate and hence can lead to serious misunderstanding of the palaeographic traits. I hope to study the bulla in question in August so as to be able to establish a clearer view of the writing fo "he" (indeed the issue is not as evident for the one in the second line, but the one in line 1 is very clear and points to a late date). The very pronounds upper extention of "dalet" (though attested on some lmlks but more rarely so) is widely represented on seals and bullae from the 7th-6th cent. BC. Thanks for looking at the bulla. Best wishes Peter • • • • • • • Drawing vs. PhotoI, too, study Paleo-Hebrew paleography, & concur with Dr. van der Veen's analysis of the letters in the drawing. Not only are the Nun & 1st Hey drawn wrong, but also the Bet (its upper horizontal bar is not sloped in the photo). The 2nd Hey seems to be accurate, but its vertical bar does appeart to be extending above its upper horizontal, which can't be determined conclusively due to the lighting in this single image. I look forward to hearing from Dr. van der Veen after he's had an opportunity to examine the artifact in person. • • • • • • • New bullaI wish to add two more remarks. Robert Deutsch notes in a footnote that the bulla of Yirmiyahu found together with the Shebanyahu bulla in the juglet at Lachish Str. II lacks any field dividers and that this is typical for the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah. This is true but it also is the case with some bullae from the end of the Monarchy period, e.g. the bulla found recently by Eilat Mazar referring to Jehukal, the son of Shelemyahu, who can be identified with a likenamed minister of king Zedekiah at the very end of the Judahite monarchy. Also I completely disagree that the cylindrical juglet with flaring body which contained the Lachish bullae, belongs to the Lachish III archaeological horizon. The juglet did have a "stockier" precursor during the Lachish III period but the Lachish II specimen has a nice little carination at the shoulder and a narrower/finer neck with fine lip instead, which is truely typical of the late monarchic period. There are very good stratified examples of this type e.g. at the contemporary late 7th - early 6th c. BC sites of the City of David (Str. 10), Tel Arad (VII-VII), Tel Ira, Tell Batash, etc. I have discussed this issue at length with pottery specialist Liora Freud and have discussed this also in depth in my PhD thesis. So all this details - when looked at closely - disagree with Robert's date and support a late monarchic date as set out in my own work on the late Judahite official bullae (soon to be published at Ugarit Verlag). Best wishes Peter van der Veen • • • • • • • Shebna bullaRobert Deutsch is to be warmly congratulated for bringing to our attention the new Shebanyahu bulla which (if genuine, but I shall have the opportunity to study the bulla myself in due time) surely appears to be impressed by the same seal as the Lachish specimen discovered by Y. Aharoni in the late Judahite Stratum II at Lachish. My own initial reading (reconstruction) of the fragmentary Lachish specimen in my PhD thesis/2005 (due to be published shortly in the AOAT series of Ugarit Verlag) had "ben" (son) in the second line based on a detailed comparison with numerous similar seals and bullae. This now occurs to be errant on the basis of the new bulla. So far so good. I, however, do not agree with Robert's dating of the bulla to the reign of Hezekiah. The palaeography (note that the letters in the line drawing deviate strongly from the original letters on the bullae) does seem to fit a date close to the end of the monarchy period - c. 600 BC - much better, and would truely be compatible with the archaeological evidence at Lachish Str. II. As I have shown in my PhD thesis (similarly also Andrew Vaughn had noted this in his 1999 BASOR article), e.g. the "he" in line 2 (with its vertical shaft intersecting the upper horizontal bar in a pronounced way), really finds good parallels on seals and bullae from the final phase of the Judahite monarchy period. For instance the same is true on the Azaryahu bn Hilqiyahu bulla from the City of David (found by Y. Shiloh in 1982) which is not only clearly dated stratigraphically to c. 600 BC but also its owner may well be one and the same as the attested high priest of Jerusalem who held office at exactly that time (also see L. Mykytiuk's book on this issue)! Also note the head of "nun" on the bulla whose horizontal bar ends up well above the lower end of the lower vertical line. This too is well attested on "late" monarchic seals and bullae (e.g. the Yaazanyahu cbd hmlk seal from Tell en-Nasbeh, the Gemaryahu bn Shaphan! bulla from the City of David; both individuals may possibly be identified with Gedalyahu's official and Jeremiah's friend and minister of Jehoiakim as I have discussed in great detail in my PhD thesis). More importantly, the archaeological evidence of Lachish and if you wish at the City of David, should by all means be given priority over the unfortunate flexibility of stylistic details which much depended on the scribe's own preferances. The new bulla does not have an archaeological context. Its counterpart does have one which is very clear and must be followed! The Shebanyahu mentioned here therefore must have been a royal official of one of the last rulers of Jerusalem before 586 BC. I also remain unconvinced that the person referred to in the Silwan inscription is Hezekiah's minister Shebna. The new bulla does not prove this identification as its palaeographic date is far from evident and may well (as I have noted) point to a slightly later date. Shalom Peter van der Veen • • • • • • • Unbelief over factsAs Dinesh D'Souza argues in his latest book, it's usually the overriding preference for atheism that distorts the way facts are evaluated. Thus Dawkins writes books that other atheists (e.g. Ruse) lament as an embarrassment as regards his ignorance of history and philosophy. Thankfully, there are minds that are open enough to be changed by facts. Witness Flew's "There Is a God." • • • • • • • Continuous proofsWith yet another find agreeing with the Bible, one wonders why so many believe the Bible is just made up. All the little minor details uncovered over the last years would seem to point to the truth of the Bible in its major assertions as well. Why would these minor details be correct and the major details incorrect? • • • • • • • Terrific Article!!! Where Is It Now???Thanks for this terrific article! Just out of curiosity, where is this important bulla currently located? Is it in a private collection, or has the IAA taken possession of it for the state of Israel? • • • • • • • |
 BAR VoicesDorothy D. ResigLetter from the BAR Managing Editor Hershel ShanksTemple Mount Repairs Leave Eyesores Julia M. O’BrienThe Economics of Family: Changing Biblical Norms Elizabeth Shanks AlexanderThe Mystery Remains: Who Leaked the Scroll Pictures to BAS? Leonard J. GreenspoonThe Bible in the News: Turn, Turn, Turn FREE Downloadable E-BooksThe Holy Bible: A Buyer’s Guide
Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus
I Volunteered for This?! Life on an Archaeological Dig
The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Legend
Israel: An Archaeological Journey
From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West
Exploring Jordan: The Other Biblical Land
Island Jewels: Understanding Ancient Cyprus and Crete
The Olympic Games: How They All Began
The Dead Sea Scrolls—What They Really Say
Real or Fake? Forgery Conference Report |
||||||||||
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
