THE ANNUAL _ AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH (Continuing the Annuat of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem) Vou. IV FOR 1922-1923 EXCAVATIONS AND RESULTS AT TELL EL-FUL (GIBEAH OF SAUL) BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL IN JERUSALEM W. F, ALBRIGHT EDITED FOR THE MANAGING COMMITTEE BY BENJAMIN W. BACON nf PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH NEW HAVEN : YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS 1924 ~~ LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON. N. J. PRESENTED BY Reef dah DDavis Division....Lué. m2 lO; co Bae hers ~/ yrs Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from — Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/excavationsresul0Oalbr * eras 4 bea Ha ge repre B ihie wetted Ne ph es cite tl ean Fr ed a! ANNUAL OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH PRINTED FOR THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH IN JERUSALEM AND BAGDAD AND UNDER ITS DIRECTION BY THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE & TAYLOR COMPANY NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT THE ANNUAL Cr Ei AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH (Continuing the ANNUAL of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem) VObe LV FOR 1922-1923 EXCAVATIONS AND RESULTS AT TELL EL-FUL.(GIBEAH OF SAUL) BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL IN JERUSALEM W. F.YALBRIGHT EDITED FOR THE MANAGING COMMITTEE BY . BENJAMIN W. BACON PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH NEW HAVEN : YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS 1924 AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Founded 1900, incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, 1920 TRUSTEES (For 1923) Cyrus Apter, President of the Dropsie College Bensgamin W. Bacon, Professor, Yale University Grorce A. Barton, Professor, University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Divinity School Romain Burttn, Professor, Catholic University of America MircHeLtt Carrow, Professor, George Washington University, Editor of Art and Archaeology ALBERT T. Cuay, Professor, Yale University R. V. D. Magorrin, President of the Archaeological Institute of America, and Professor, New York University JULIAN MORGENSTERN, President of the Hebrew Union College JAMES A. Montaomery, Professor, University of Pennsylvania and Phila- delphia Divinity School Warren J. Mounton, President of the Bangor Theological Seminary Dana C. Munro, Professor, Princeton University Epwarp T. News n, President of the American Numismatic Society JAMES H. Ropers, Professor, Harvard University Witrrep H. Scuorr, Secretary of the Commercial Museum Cuarues C. Torrey, Professor, Yale University OFFICERS JAMES A. Montaomery, President, 6806 Greene Street, Germantown, Phila- delphia CHARLES C. Torrey, Ist Vice-President A. V. WiuuiAMs Jackson, 2d Vice-President Grorce A. Barton, Secretary and Treasurer, 3725 Chestnut Street, Phila- delphia Witrrep H. Scuorr, Associate Secretary, Commercial Museum, Phila- delphia THe Provipent Trust COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA, Assistant Treasurer Messrs. Henry, PEPPER, BoDINE AND StToKEs, Philadelphia, Counsel. . vi AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH CORPORATION MEMBERS INSTITUTIONS AMHERST COLLEGE, President George Oldman AUBURN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Wm. J. Hinke Bancor THEOLOGICAL Seminary, President Warren J. Moulton Brown University, Prof. Henry T. Fowler Bryn Mawr Couusce, Prof. John A. Maynard CatHouic University, Prof: R. Butin CotuMBIA University, Prof. R. J. H. Gottheil ComMeErRcIAL Museum (Philadelphia), Wilfred H. Schoff, M.A. CoRNELL University, Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt Crozer THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, President Milton G. Evans DropsiE Conuncr, President Cyrus Adler Emory University, Prof. W. A. Shelton EpiscopaL THEOLOGICAL ScHOooL (Cambridge), Prof. Max. L. Kellner GARRETT BisuicaL INstituTE, Prof. Carl Hiselen GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. L. W. Batten GoucHER COLLEGE, President Wm. W. Guth Hartrorp THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Lewis B. Paton Harvarp University, Prof. D. G. Lyon Haverrorp CouuEGcE, Prof. Elihu Grant Hesrew Unton Couuece, President Julian Morgenstern JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Dr. Cyrus Adler JoHNns Hopkins University, Prof. Paul Haupt LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Herbert C. Alleman | McCormick THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Geo. . Robinson MEADVILLE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Francis A. Christie Mount Honyvoxke CouuEce, President Mary E. Woolley Newton THEOLOGICAL INstTITUTION, Prof. Winfred N. Donovan OBERLIN GRADUATE ScHoou oF THEOLOGY, Prof. Kemper Fullerton PHILADELPHIA Divinity ScHoon, Prof. R. K. Yerkes PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. John D. Davis PRINCETON University, Prof. Frank F. Abbott REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (Lancaster), Prof. I. H. DeLong ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, President Clarence A. Barbour San Francisco THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. EH. A. Wicher SmirH CouuEcE, Prof. Irving F. Wood Syracuse University, Prof. Ismar Peritz Trinity CoLLecE, Prof. F. C. Babbitt Union THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. C. P. Fagnani AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH vil UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Prof. Wm. Popper University or Curcaao, Prof. J. H. Breasted Universiry oF MicHican, Prof. Leroy Waterman UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Prof. James A. Montgomery UNIVERSITY OF THE SouTH, oe University oF Toronto, President Robert A. Falconer VASSAR CoLLEGE, Prof. Wm. Bancroft Hill WELLESLEY CoLuecE, Prof. Eliza H. Kendrick WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (Pittsburgh), President Jas. A. Kelso XENIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. M. G. Kyle YauLe University, Prof. Chas. C. Torrey The President of the Archaeological Institute, ex officio Pror. WARREN J. MouuTon, representing Society of Biblical Literature Mr. Witrrep H. ScHorr, representing American Oriental Society HONORARY MEMBER Mrs. Morris Jastrow, Philadelphia LIFE MEMBERS Miss Juurana Woop, Rev. Pror. Herman HK. Heuser, Philadelphia ae Overbrook Seminary PATRONS Pror. JAMES R. JEWETT, Mr. Louis MAarsHALi, Harvard University New York Mr. Jacos Lit, Mrs. CAROLINE WALTER, Philadelphia San Francisco Mrs. JOHN MARKOB, Mr. J. V. DirTeMmore, Philadelphia Boston Mr. Loomis BuRRELL, Mr. AuLEN A. BEAUCHAMP, Tattle Falls, N. Y. Boston ; Mr. Junius RosENWALD, Mr. CHarLes W. McALPIN, Chicago, fll. New York Mrs. Mary BrecHer LONGYEAR, Dr. THomas G. ASHTON, Brookline, Mass. Philadelphia vill AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH STAFF OF THE SCHOOL IN JERUSALEM 1922-23 W. F. ALBRIGHT, Ph.D., Director W. 4H. P. Harton, Ph.D., D.D., Annual Professor J. A. Bewrer, Ph.D., Th.D., Lecturer James A. Kengo, Ph.D., D.D., Lecturer Dana C. Munro, Ph.D., Lecturer Epwin E. Vorer, M.A. (Yale University), Thayer Fellow STAFF OF THE SCHOOL IN BAGDAD 1922-23 GrorcE A. Barton, Ph.D., LL.D., Director FIELD SECRETARY Pror. Mary I. Hussey, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Se eTeRe ee). a ING oile and Its) PMVITONS. 1.6. oem sds soe ane che wees 1 A eer CAmauone ate ibe Sites ans she) PEA ab acs Pac oes 3 Pie mesosuits or the Hxeavatious 2.64 veew sek». os of es é 1.—The First Period (Thirteenth and Twelfth Cen- PAE he gM Su AER. (goers sO ig ans Fo ee as eel 2.—The Second Period (Eleventh Century B. C.)..... 8 3.—The Third Period (Ninth to Seventh Centuries ee ere Ome Chae Sir ere ee EL ae a aes 17 ee OSE OUTLeriOG..., s iss seco cumin cee es: ate tas a eee 25 IV. Identification of the Site with Gibeah................ 28 Neem CliscOry ot Gived 1rOM All MOUTCES. 2c. 2 we. cc ee ee 44 APPENDIX eee ICT CHI SCOT OU MME oh. os rales le vontrsee’s < oe eV Ss eas 90 iter ASL ONTO tae, oie sayin © eae ecole aaa tka y « 112 Pe DUP OR AI oP PAU hector Oey close o te odie a. Winn whe 124 TV.—The Assyrian March on Jerusalem, Isa. X, 28-32.... 134 VEST nit Beth-nven Suen 1 eee nick Tres 141 VI.—tThe Northern Boundary of Benjamin...... ae 150 etree LETRO LITT) INAV OL. Weare Shee ses werden Soon ik aoa S 156 Sriii a aetnany inthe: Old: Testametites g..4 aioe is wx nee ol 158 aA i F 7 mas LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Beth-shemesh = MAcKeEnzin, Excavations at Ain Shems (Palestine Explora- tion Fund Annual, Vol. IT), 1913. Bulletin BCA = Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Canaan = VincENT, Canaan d’apres l’exploration récente, Paris, 1907. Excavations = Buiss-Macauister, Excavations in Palestine, London, 1902. G = Greek text of LXX. GB = GrsEnrus-BuHL, Worterbuch der hebriiischen Sprache. Gezer = Macauister, The Excavation of Gezer, London, 1912. JBL = Journal of Biblical Interature. JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Jericho = SELLIN and Watzincsr, Jericho, Leipzig, 1913. JPOS = Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. JSOR = Journal of the Society of Oriental Research. _M = Masoretic text of the Old Testament. Megiddo = ScHumacnueER, Tell el-Mutesellim, Leipzig, 1908. MNDPV = Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palistina Vereins. PEF QS = Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statements. PJB = Palastinajahrbuch. RB = Revue Biblique. SG = Sven Lrnper, Sauls Gibea, Uppsala, 1922. Taanach = Seuuin, Tell Ta’annek, Vienna, 1904. ZATW = Zettschrift fiir Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina Vereins. TABLE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS EMPLOYED Bronze Age (Canaanite). Iron Age (Palestinian). Early Bronze, to 2000 B. C. First Phase, 1200-900 B. C. Middle Bronze, 2000-1600 B. C. Second Phase, 900-600 B. C. Late Bronze, 1600-1200 B. C. Third Phase, 600-300 B. C. Hellenistic, 300-100 B. C. Hell.—Roman, B. C. 100-100 A. D. tS Eye win tes: a i ; cae hig ee a ae |e with PREFATORY STATEMENT This study is divided into two parts, the first archaeological and the second topographical. For convenience of reference I have grouped the topographical discussions in appendices, which have, however, grown to such dimensions that the term is not altogether happy. The loss of balance which has resulted does not affect the clarity of treatment, so that it is not wholly a disadvantage. In the archaeological section I have taken great pains to give an exhaus- tive treatment of the ceramic material from the first three periods of the history of the site. The drawings make up in accuracy, I trust, what they may lack in elegance. The importance of our study largely lies in the fact that it is here possible to date Israelite and Jewish ceramic types definitely, thus eliminating much of the indefiniteness which has hitherto prevented the archaeologist from evaluating his finds from a historical point of view. The sharp distinction between the pottery of the period 1200 to 900 B.C. (or-a little earlier) and the following period from before 900 to after ‘700 B. C. will make possible a much sharper cleavage in the mass of material hitherto vaguely assigned to the whole period, or ascribed, sometimes to ‘*Pre-Israelite’’ and ‘‘Jewish,’’ sometimes roughly to ‘‘Third Semitic’’ - (1400-1000 B. C.) and ‘‘ Fourth Semitic’’ (1000-550 B. C.). The full topographical discussions will, I hope, bring new methods and new material to bear on many knotty problems, and will play their réle in establishing -the tepography of Central Palestine on a scientific basis. Among the new identifications proposed are Beeroth = Tell en-Nasbeh, Jeshanah = Burj el-Isaneh, Ephraim = Samieh, and Ananiah = Bethany. Before proceeding I wish to express my profound indebtedness to two men, the foremost exponents of Palestinian science. Professor DALMAN - suggested the importance of excavations at Tell el-FGl to me in the first place; I also owe to his lengthy discussions in the Paldstinajahrbuch a knowledge of the topographic method developed by the German school. Pére VINCENT, the first living authority on Palestinian archaeology, has placed me under a debt of gratitude which I cannot easily repay. Twice he visited our work, and on numerous other occasions he has given infor- mation and advice of the greatest value. It is a great pleasure to thank him once again for his unfailing kindness. ' ie oe * : it De the maior ai Wie " | site vw) ti lhe rt wt . eas aes. I, THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONS Tell el-FGl is a hill standing five kilometers (about three miles) north of the Damascus Gate at Jerusalem, immediately overlooking the Nablus road. As will be seen from fig. 1, with which the cover illustration of Bulletin No. 6 and SG, figs. 15 ff. may be compared, it is a rather isolated hill, rising in terraces. The name tell, i. e., ‘“mound,’’ was probably given it from the mound-like appearance of the topmost terrace, though there are no traces of fortification around its edges. Tell el-F'tl means ‘‘Mound of Beans,’’ or rather “‘Mound of Horse-beans’’ (ful; fileh is nomen unitatis), a name given the hill because its marly soil was supposed to be specially suited for the cultivation of this coarse variety of bean. Many mounds and ruins are similarly called after plants or vegetables which flourished on them ; ef. Hirbet el-‘ Adaseh, ‘‘Lentile-ruin’’ just northeast of Tell el-Fil. The name Tuleil el-Ful, ‘‘Little Mound of Beans,’’ is erroneous, and seems to have been coined by peasants in order to give Europeans a name for the tumulus (rujm) in the middle of the upper terrace. At all events, I never heard it spontaneously used, though it was always recognized as a possible alterna- tive for Tell el-Ful. A recent variant, heard from one of my men, is Tell Lut, the spelling of which is rendered certain by the man’s comparing the name with Bahr Lit (the Dead Sea). This name is naturally apocryphal, and obviously originated in a misunderstanding of some learned traveler’s statement that Talat (Saul) dwelt here; Talut happens to be a biblical worthy quite unknown among the local peasantry. This is a characteristic example of the modern topographical legend, which has proved a constant source of error to western scholars from CLERMONT-GANNEAU down. The top.of Tell el-FUl is formed of a thick stratum of calcareous marl, ealled hiwar, i.e., hawar = hwérah in northern Palestine and Syria (from hwr, ‘‘be white’’), representing the latest period of limestone deposit in Palestine. The huwar is not suitable for grain, as shown by the wretched crops of barley or wheat grown on the hill every other year, nor is it good for deciduous trees, to Judge from experiments on similar soil elsewhere, but conifers seem to grow well on it; the huwar of Ras Abi: Halawi (the next hill northeast of Scopus) produces an excellent crop of conifers, and conif- erous trees were used for the woodwork of the first fortress of Gibeah (see below). Tell el-Ffil attains the respectable elevation of 2,754 feet, according to the results of the Survey of Western Palestine, and possesses a remarkably fine view in all directions, though on the north it is limited by the still higher ridge of Ramallah, westward, and Tell ‘Astir, eastward. Owing to 2 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOUL) its height, the temperature on it is seldom oppressively warm, though it can be bitterly cold in winter. , a village five miles east of Bethel (Jerome, vicus Ephraim) identified with Ophrah of Benjamin (Onom. ed. KuostTEr- MANN, p. 28, 4-5). The editors supply Ardp following Jerome. 2. Edpov, kopn peyliarn, twenty miles north of Jerusalem, identified erroneously with the Ephron of Jos. 15, (Onom. p. 86, 1-2). The same town is identified with the Ephraim of John 11,, in another place (Onom. p. 90, 18f.), where it appears as Ephraim (Ed¢paim). Jerome offers Efraea instead of Ephraim in the first passage, and since the Mosaie of Madeba also has E¢dpaa as the equivalent of Ephron (évOev nAGev 6 Kvpios) We may consider it also as the correct reading in the original text of Eusebius. Sinee Aephra, identified with the biblical Aphra (Ophrah) is placed five Roman miles east of Bethel, it must be either Rammiun, three and a half English miles due east, or et-Taiyibeh, four and a half miles northeast, measuring in a straight line. Rammiuin, however, is preoccupied by the Peuyov of Eusebius and Madeba, so et-Taiyibeh is the only alternative, which has therefore been adopted by all scholars. Most scholars go on to combine the second place mentioned in the Onomasticon with Aephra = et-Taiyibeh. Against this is not only the whole tenor of the references in the Onomasticon, where the second and third are connected by a cross-reference, while the first is kept strictly to itself, but also the distance given. Ephraea is placed twenty miles north of Jerusalem. Now Bethel is placed correctly twelve (Roman) miles north, and Remmon is fixed at fifteen, a very liberal figure, to be explained either by the greater difficulty of the eastern road, or by 130 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) the addition of the distance from Bethel to Remmon to the figure given - for the distance from Jerusalem to Bethel. Since et-Taiyibeh is only a mile and a half in a straight line north of Rammitn, it is obviously impossible to identify it with Ephraea. From Rammitn to Kefr Malik is three and a half English miles, and four and a half to ‘Ain Samieh, so it is hard to avoid the conviction that Ephraea was located in this fertile valley, where antiquities of all ages abound. Now GutHe (MNDPYV 1911, 49-56) has argued at great length for the identification of the second Ephraim of Eusebius with the Aphaerema of Josephus—GUuTHE is cautious about biblical identifications here—and its location at Hirbet Ghurabeh, a mile and a half northwest of Sinjil. _ So far as distances go this is possible. The Onomasticon places Gophna fifteen miles from Jerusalem, and Hirbet Ghurabeh is just six Roman miles farther in a straight line. It is difficult to see why GuTHE picked out Hirbet Ghurabeh, since there are equally promising ruins a little farther south at exactly the distance given by Eusebius, and there is not a scrap of evidence, biblical or otherwise, for this site. Furthermore, we are able to identify Hirbet Ghurabeh with the J30Y of the Pesiqta, as pointed out against: GuTHE by Kurtin (MNDPV 1912, 19-20); GurTHn’s reply to KLEIN (MNDPYV 1912, 86-8) is unfortunate and unconvincing. As GUTHE remarks (p. 54), THOMSEN’s identification of Ephraim with Khan Abt’l-Hajj Faris is quite impossible, since Faris is a common Arabic personal name, and the ruins are insignificant and Arabic. Let us now turn to consider the sites with which we have identified Ophrah and Ephraim. Et-Taiyibeh is now one of the largest Christian villages in Palestine; just before the war it had become wealthy, but. it suffered a great deal during this period, losing virtually all the flocks which constituted its chief resource. Its antiquity is vouched for by the numerous rock-hewn tombs of Jewish and Byzantine date in the neighborhood. A ruined Byzan- tine church calls attention to the fact that et-Taiyibeh enjoyed a special sanctity during that age. In all probability et-Taivibeh claimed and secured during the late Byzantine period and the following Middle Ages the honor of being considered the veritable site of Ephraim, where Christ stayed. The name et-Taiyibeh is modern; R. HartMANn has proved (ZDMG LXV, 536-8) that it is an abbreviation of Taiyibat el-Ism, a desig- nation corresponding to eorvuyos, ‘Shaving a name of good omen.’’ The name, as in other similar cases, has been substituted for a name of bad import. HARTMANN calls attention to the fact that in 1885 Lyp1a Ernsuer was told by people of et-Taiyibeh that the place was formerly called ‘Afra (ZDPV XVII, 65). Since she was also told that the home of Gideon was here (really Ophrah in Manasseh, Tell el-Far‘ah), we may suspect that the ancient name had been recently reintroduced by mission teachers. On the APPENDIX III].—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM sD Reo | other hand, the form ‘Afra looks genuine, and the existence of a fortress of this name near Jerusalem is documented by Yaqtt, who mentions ‘ Afra, ‘‘a fortress of Palestine near Jerusalem’’ (III, 688, proses craad = uploads Jlyst SL: ree )- Moreover, the name ef-Taiyibeh has else- where supplanted a similar name. HouscHEer, ZDPV XXIX, 142, has shown that et-Taiyibeh of the ‘Ajlan, which was formerly, according to its sheikh, called ‘Efreh, is the Ephron of I Mace. 5,,. Ht-Taiyibeh in these cases is a euphemistic substitute for the old name, which in Arabic is associated too closely with the ideas of ‘‘demon,’’ and ‘‘calamity, wicked- ness,’’ ete. ( eagpas, Rpas ).2 In short, the identification of Ophrah- Ephron with et-Taiyibeh may be regarded as certain. While the foregoing combination is accepted by all, the identification of Ephraim with Samieh is an innovation, which demands a full treatment. The ruins and ancient remains at Samieh are unique in being wholly with- out an identification at present, despite their importance. It is true that GumRIN, Samarie, I, 211-3, tried to identify the ruins of Samieh with Neara- Noaran, but the statements of the Onomasticon and Josephus cannot be harmonized with this view, as shown by Gurur, ZDPV XXXVIII, 47. GusérRIN completely failed to take the Talmudic material into consideration ; according to the Talmud Noaran and Jericho were practically twin cities, one Jewish and the other Christian. Since VINCENT’s discovery of Neara at ‘Ain Dfiq, the theory of Guférrm has no more claim for consideration, - and Samieh is wholly unpreoccupied. Since the archaeological remains of Samieh will receive a special treat- ment later, it is not necessary to go mto great detail here. Strange to say, secant attention has been paid to these important remains, largely because of their inaccessibility. Even DauMAN does not appear to have visited the place; when he tried he was met by armed peasants, who turned him back (PJB IX, 129). The Survey of Western Palestine does not mention the names of the ruins in the valley of Samieh at all. The site first came into archaeological prominence with the excavations of the fellahin here in 1907, described by Lyon, then Director of the American School. Unfortunately, the paper has not been published in full; we are dependent upon an abstract which appeared in the Am. Jour. of Afch., XII (1908), 66-7. Remains of houses and other buildings from the Byzantine and Arabic periods are >The name Ophrah, for *‘Ufrat, is perhaps identical originally with Arab. ‘ufrah, ‘‘erest’’?; the antiquity of the stem is established by Assyr. epéru, ‘‘to cover the head.’’ Such a name would be most suitable for a site like et-Taiyibeh, and a town built on so prominent a position would deserve the name ‘‘crest.’? My friend ‘OMAR EFENDI EL- BarGHOTHI informs me that according to Arab tradition the name of the town was changed from ‘ Afrah to et-Taiyibeh by Salah ed-Din. 132 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) abundant. Lyon examined the tombs with great care; they are now filled © up, so it is to be hoped that he will publish his results. Three kinds of tombs were found: Canaanite well-tombs (over a hundred of which were counted) ; shaft-tombs; and kékim tombs. The remains of burial offerings, found in great quantities, were dispersed in all directions; Harvard has a large quantity, and the collections of the American School and Mr. Hrersert CLARK have several hundred pieces. The pottery dates from all periods— Canaanite, Israelite, Jewish, Roman and Byzantine. Many Canaanite bronze weapons were found. The Byzantine period is represented by quantities of vases, especially glass vessels. A Greek inscription from A. D. 557 (reign of Justinian) was also discovered (see RB 1907, 275 f.). The principal ancient ruins are located at Hirbet el-Marjameh (ruin of the stone heap), just above ‘Ain Samieh, to the north, covered with pre- Israelite remains; Hirbet el-Byadir (ruin of the threshing-floors), which represents the site of a later village, occupied down into Arabic times; and Hirbet el-Marzban (ruin of the Persian governor). Together with the tombs, they show that the valley (one of the best watered and most fertile spots in Palestine, famous far and near for its onions) was, as we should expect, occupied from the pre-Israelite period down into Arabic times. The literary evidence for Ephraim points to the same conclusion. Ephraim reached its most flourishing state in pre-Israelite days (see below), and continued to be occupied down through the Israelite, Jewish, and Byzantine times. Ephraim was, as the name shows, a very fertile spot, near Baal- hazor, now Tell ‘Astar; it lay about five miles north of Remmon (Rammin). Furthermore, it lay in a valley. Kurtn, MNDPV 1912, 20, has shown that the Ephraim (O"5Y; the P is due to the fact that the Palestinian Aramaeans, at least in the towns, were careless of their laryngeals, and also perhaps to a confusion between Ephraim and Ephron, such as is indi- eated by the geré to II Chr. 13,,) of the Misnah, which lay near Michmas, and was situated in a valley (AYP), is the same place as the biblical Ephraim. His further conclusion that et-Taiyibeh is referred to, because it les ‘‘in der Nahe der Jordanniederung,’’ is rather absurd, because et-Taiyibeh is one of the highest points in all Mount Ephraim. The passage is rather a proof of our localization. It may be added that the valley i8 now controlled by Kefr Mahk, though much of it belongs, of course, to absentee landlords, who are here, as else- where, the curse of Palestine. As the name shows, Kefr Malik is an Aramaean settlement; it is mentioned in the time of the Crusades as Caphar Melich (Cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre; contrast CLERMONT-GANNEAU, PEF 1874, 162). There are no ancient remains at Kefr Malik, so we may rest assured that the ancient town was always in the valley below, down to mediaeval times. APPENDIX III.—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM tos Is there any explanation for the remarkable pre-Israelite necropolis at ‘Ain Samieh? There are still remains of an ancient megalithic high-place on the hill just above the spring, which show that the site was sacred from the earliest times. The pot-sherds strewn around are late pre-Israelite, as already observed. While they have the typically Canaanite ‘‘porridge’’ texture, they are wheel-made. Now, in Appendix V it will be shown that Mount Ephraim was occupied by the Hebrews at the close of the Middle Canaanite or early in the Late Canaanite period, that is, not far from 1600 B. C. About this time Bethel and Ai fell into the hands of the Hebrews. Shechem probably became partially Hebraized at an even earlier date. Mount Ephraim was the focus of the most important group of the Bené Ya‘qob, the tribe which called itself the Beth Yéséf and was later called Ephraim, after the name of the district. There can be no doubt that the district received its name from the town of Ephraim, which was there- fore one of the most important Hebrew centers in the late pre-Israelite period. The Late Canaanite potsherds and tombs are, accordingly, of Hebrew origin, and the necropolis is also Hebrew. The fact that there was a Hebrew shrine and necropolis at the town of Ephraim enables us to consider the problem of Rachel’s tomb, discussed tentatively in Appendix II. Ephrath, where Rachel’s sepulchre was, cannot be separated from Ephraim, especially since the gentilic formed from the latter, Ephrathi, shows that Ephrath was an archaic variant of Ephraim. We are not concerned here with later localizations of the tomb, which have already been discussed in connection with Ramah of Samuel. No spot could be more fitting for the tomb of Rachel than the old Hebrew town after which the name of her grandson and heir was called. Originally the tomb was a sanctuary—the sacred temenos of the ewe-goddess, mother of Joseph, the eponymous ancestor of Ephraim—, but like many other old sanctuaries, it was early transformed into a tomb. Near the sanctuary was the necropolis, to which bodies may have been brought from a distance, that the shades might enjoy the favor of their deified ancestress. - Thanks to the mutual assistance rendered by archaeology and the Bible, we are able to pierce the gloom enshrouding the cradle of the Hebrew people, gaining a glimpse here and there of its childhood. It was a childhood which already gave promise of a vigorous youth, a promise abundantly fulfilled in the days of Samuel and Saul, to whose. memories we dedicate the excavations at Gibeah. APPENDIX IV—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM, ISA. X, 28-32. One of the most vivid descriptions of the advance of a hostile army ever given we owe to the prophet Isaiah. Terse and succinct to a degree, the little poem would be bald if it were not for the masterly skill with which it has been handled. Even to the modern reader, ignorant of the location of the towns and villages named, there is a thrill of sympathetic apprehen- sion, as he realizes that the irresistible Assyrian host is about to pounce like a vulture on the devoted city. There is an alternation between sonorous names and snatches of picturesque description which reproduces the rhythmic tread of a mighty army, shaking the road as it marches on, confi- dent of its power to crush. What must have been the sensations of Isaiah’s audience, already filled with rumors of an impending Assyrian invasion, when they heard his solemn voice chanting their approaching doom! Every name was familiar to them; they could almost see the Assyrians crossing the pass of Michmas, and camping for the night at Geba. With a shudder they heard in mind the piercing shriek of the maiden of Gallim, who had lingered too long to feed a tame gazelle, and had fallen into the hands of a brutal soldiery. And finally they saw the sun flashing on serried battalions, as early the next afternoon the van of the foreign host halted on Scopus, greeting the first glimpse of Jerusalem with a menacing gesture. Commentators and topographers have long tried to identify all the places mentioned, but the task has not been easy. Between Anathoth and Nob is but a step, yet two villages are mentioned, besides those in the immediate vicinity of Anathoth. Migron, which according to I Sam. 14, lay by Geba, is here placed between Aiath and Michmash. Clearly there are signs that the passage is not in its original order. ; Since our passage is obviously extracted from a poem, we must endeavor, first of all, to reconstruct its original metrical form, after which we can study the topographical bearings of our result. After the amount of work which has been expended in the last two decades on the study of Hebrew meters, only an extreme sceptic can doubt that Hebrew poetry was cast in regular metrical form. One of the greatest errors has been that students have tried to force their material into a veritable bed of Procrustes, assum- ing that a given poem is either 2+ 2, 3+2, or 3+ 3, not allowing for the possibility of more complicated metrical schemes, or alternation of measures. In a paper recently published in the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, Vol. II, pp. 69-86, the writer has pointed out, employing APPENDIX IV.—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM 135 inductive methods, that there are a number of early Hebrew poems, espe- cially the Song of Deborah and the Lament of David over Jonathan, in which an alternation of lines 3+ 3 and 2 + 2, according to a regular scheme, is found. Moreover, this form of verse is found to be characteristic of some of the finest ancient Oriental poems which have come down to us. In study- ing the poem under discussion at present, it became immediately clear that there was a regular alternation of phrases, following the scheme 2 +2 + 3, for two verses, changing in the second half of the poem to 3-++2+2. The few changes which were necessary to eliminate all inconsistencies proved to remove the topographic difficulties as well. Where does the poem begin? DuxH™ suggested, and Gray adopted his view that the last three words of v. 27 do not belong with the preceding, but with the following, thus giving us the beginning of our little poem, which is almost certainly a mere fragment. DuHm would change & to %, reading 7()197 93519 ()5} instead of fw 9351 SY, which is, of course perfect nonsense; the A. V. renders 27b, And the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing. At first sight, the suggestion of DuHM seems very happy; there is indeed a Rimmon (Rammitn) northeast of Ai. But, as DAaLMAN has very justly observed (PJB 1909, 13; 1916, 44), the road from Rammitn south is very bad; it is, in fact, unthinkable that the Assyrian army, with its heavy baggage, should have taken the difficult and useless route east of Tell ‘Astir, when there was a much better one on the western side. Since the inclusion of the words in our poem plays havoe with the meter, I would omit them, and connect them with the preceding fragment, vss. 24-27, in accordance with the exegetic tradition. Such a reading as *N9w 93 OOPS Sam), And he shall be destroyed forever in my wrath, fits in perfectly with the preceding (cf. 25), and requires only the most insignificant alterations. There is not a rarer corruption in the whole gamut of possibilities than that of res to Sin. Turning now to the poem, let us first consider the necessary transposi- tions, if any. We are guided by three factors: (1) the external evidence for the location of places; (2) the logical association of ideas; (3) the requirements of meter and assonance, a very important consideration in this poem. The other changes are all very insignificant, and will be explained in the foot-notes. The first transposition that presents itself to our attention is that of 28b and 29a—how could the Assyrians deposit their baggage before they had reached their encampment? The idea expressed by the commentators, that the baggage was placed on deposit on the other side of the pass, because of its difficulty, is absurd; the Assyrian army had crossed worse passes on its southward march, and it would have been sheer folly to have abandoned the baggage just when it became of most importance. Nor should we forget that Isaiah is describing a future 136 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) advance, which he paints in the most alarming way possible. To have suggested that the Assyrians would be daunted by the arduous pass of Michmas would have been an anti-climax, seriously detracting from the effect of the recital. We must, therefore, place this passage after 29a. But a serious difficulty is left in 28a, while a similar one appears now in 28b: Migron, which according to I Sam. 14,, in a perfectly clear passage, lay south of the pass, near Geba, here is placed north of the pass; on the other hand, Michmas is placed south of Geba by our alteration of the order. The obvious solution of the double difficulty is simply to transpose Migron. and Michmas, whereupon everything falls into logical and natural order. The next difficulty is in 31, where we have two hemistichs, one of two beats and the other of three, which simply cannot belong together, and hence are out of place. Moreover, it is impossible to find room for two towns or villages between Anathoth and Nob, a distance of only a little over a mile, especially since the only conceivable site, el-‘Isawiyeh, is preoccupied by Laishah. Now, 3la, M397 ATIN, shows by its assonance that it belongs with 29b, where the d-ending appears three times, and since it fits in as perfectly before 29b on metrical grounds as in assonance, we need not hesi- tate to insert it here. This leaves 31b, for which the meter has a niche ready, after 28a, into which it fits admirably. As a result of the foregoing considerations, in every case objective, I have no hesitation in presenting the following reconstruction and translation, as well as in deducing further topographical data from the revised material. Transpositions of the type illustrated are nearly always found in fragments of this sort, where a com- plicated succession of phrases containing many proper names has been subjected to the caprice of oral transmission for decades or even generations before being included in the literary corpus. WDIDe Hels: IVY-IN ND 28a I WPA oI ow 3rb NI-NN7D YI TMmaAYo Sy F294 I] v9D WH W793 28b *M has my he the first yp may have arisen by dittography. "M has yy. *For the transposition of 493 and yerysys see the discussion above. The transposition took place after the two words were collocated. Note that 3) is not regularly construed with 5, while TST is; conversely hay is construed with = while p57 is not. Perhaps we may read WAS ‘Y for yrrys ry, which would explain the origin of the Sy before ny in M more easily. *M offers 5 1919; the } is evidently dittography, since the original text, without matres lectionis, naturally read oe 35). Gray’s suggestion, 130) 579, may be correct. APPENDIX IV.—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM Var MIW TTI (296) Rasen else 3la III MDI TINY YI _ 29b DIN PAP 7 30a IV may Wy Te (WT = —-30b epi a haf ey ean 32a vy (eres a yw 653? 32b The foregoing poem may be translated into English as follows: I He has come to Ai, has passed to Michmas, The dwellers of Gebim have sought refuge. Il He has crossed the pass, made Geba his camp, In Migron has placed his baggage. j III Madmenah has fled, Ramah trembles, Gibeah of Saul is driven out. IV Raise high thy voice, maid of Gallim! Listen, Laishah, answer her, Anathoth! V Yet today he will stand at Nob, Shaking his hand (in threat) against maid Zion’s hill. The town of Ai mentioned here is indeed the heir of the old Canaanite Ai, but is not identical with it, as I have shown in Appendix V, ‘‘ Ai and Beth-aven.’’ It is almost certainly to be found in Hirbet Haiyan (ibid.), a few minutes south of Deir Diwan, and two miles north-northwest of Michmas in a straight line. The Assyrians came from Bethel over Deir Diwan, then represented by Ai, toward the pass below Michmas. Michmas (Mikmas or better MikmaSs) is admitted by all to be the modern Muhmas. The identification of Gebim® is very doubtful. Since Burqah is Beth-aven (see App. V) and Kefr Nata, besides being too far north, seems to have an ancient name, though post-exilic (Aramaean), I would suggest as a mere — -* Read, following the Syriac, mip for M, sT)p. °So probably for M, Wy, though the latter may be a syntactical idiom of a little -known type. *So with geré for ketiv, P3. *The meter proves that the addition pow nysis is simply an explanatory gloss to TY 3 7M ® DALMAN, PJB 1916, 54, proposes the identification of Gebim with Sa‘fat. Assuming that the order of the Hebrew text is right, this would be theoretically possible. Practi- cally, however, the objections are very serious. Sa‘fdt is almost certainly a corruption of the Hebrew (not Aramaic) name Safdt, whose bearer may have had property there. Pre-Byzantine remains are not found here, and the cisterns to which DALMAN ascribes its name all belong to Gibeah, which rises just above it. 138 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) possibility Hirbet ed-Duweir (little monastery), a rather extensive ruin. more than a mile southeast of Muhmas. The next couplet brings us over the Wadi es-Sweinit to Geba, identified by all with Jeba*. While the Assyrian host slept in the village, the baggage train was left outside, at a place called Migron, no longer to be identified. It is mentioned (cf. above) in I Sam. 14,, where we should naturally read 93 TWN POI NAN (M AYIA) YIIAYP3 3Awy Nw And Saul was dwelling at the edge of Geba, under the pomegranate of Migron.?” The reading of M is due to dittography, assisted by the confusion between Gibeah and Geba which is noticeable all through these chapters of Samuel. It should be observed that the identification of Migron with a ‘‘ Hirbet Magqrtin’’ had better be forgotten by commentators; Dauman, PJB VII, 13; XII, 47, has punctured the fable of Hirbet Maqrtn, which like some other modern names never existed save in the untrained ear of some traveler. We now pass on to Madmenah, a town with the unsavory name of *‘dung- heap,’’ like Ar. mezbeleh. There was another town of the same name, pointed Madmannah, in southwestern Judah (Jos. 15,,). An identification is a risky matter, one may suggest as possibilities Hirbet Erha, a Graeco- Roman ruin on a flat stone hill-top, or better Hirbet Deir Sellam, to the southeast.1+ About a mile northwest is er-Ram, which all unite in com- bining with Ramah. As maintained by the great majority, and established anew in our discussion above, Tell el-Ffil is Gibeah of Saul. The fourth couplet introduces us to three villages which were evidently near neighbors, to judge from the description, which presupposes that the voice of a crier can be heard in the adjacent villages, or at least on heights above them. Anathoth is unquestionably ‘Anata, and the consensus of opinion places Laishah at el-‘Isawiyeh, now altered in name very slightly by a popular etymology associating the name with T sd, the Muslim name of Jesus.1* For the ending we may compare the Arabic name of Bethany, el-‘ Azariyeh, from El‘azar (Lazarus). Gallim must lie either west or north of ‘Anata. Hizmeh is too far north, and is, besides, preoccupied by Azmaveth (see Appendix VII). Hirbet ‘Almit is Alemeth. It therefore seems that the only possible identification is with Hirbet Ka‘kal (named after a kind of soft white limestone which is found there), about half a mile due west of ‘Anata, where there are ancient ruins of sufficient extent * It is true that the name Migrén is connected with géren, ‘‘threshing-floor,’’ but it is clearly a proper name in the passages where it occurs, so the rendering as a common noun becomes very awkward and difficult. DAtMAN, PJB 1916, 48, suggests that Migron may be Kefr Nata, but ef. above. “ DALMAN, PJB 1916, 54, suggests Hirbet es-Sdma‘ as the site of Madmenah, but there are no remains there indicating the existence of a village in Israelite times. “ Cf. DaLMan, PJB 1916, 53 f. APPENDIX IV.—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM 139 to show that a respectable village was once situated here. Many remains of old walls and rock-cuttings are still visible, and potsherds are strewn thickly about. The pottery is nearly all Israelite (Early Iron) and Early Arab, Hellenistic (Seleucido-Roman) not being represented. Since there was thus a village of Israelite times situated here, the identification is archaeologically tenable. If we compare the other indications in the Bible for the site of Gallim, we find full accord, a fact which convinced DaLMAN of the correctness of the identification with Hirbet Ka‘kal (PJB 1916, 52 f.). I Sam. 25,, informs us that Saul gave Michal, David’s wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, a notable of Gallim. Gallim was thus evidently near Gibeah ; Hirbet Ka‘kdl is only a mile and a half southeast of Tell el-Fal. The other - passage is II Sam. 3,, which shows that the most direct road available from Gallim to Hebron passed over Bahurim. Fortunately there can be no longer any doubt that Bahurim lay just east of Jerusalem, on the hill of Ras et-Tmim, easily visible from the top of the Mount of Olives (II Sam. 17, But ef. as a very close parallel Avvad and Avavod, names applied to the same man, whose Hebrew name was Handn, by the New Testament and Josephus, respectively. * Where the second element is a proper name, either human or divine, the original name of the town must have contained Beth. I believe that all of the Beth-names of pre-Israelite date contained a divine name, while all Jewish place names of this type naturally are formed with a personal name. °To this list might be added many gentilies: ef. Beth-hdroén and Héréni; modern Beit-‘ar and ‘Ort, Beit-dejaén and Dejdni. In ancient Israelite times the gentilic from a place name in Beth was formed with Ben, Bené: e. g., Beth-‘ Anath, Ben-‘ Anath; Beth-rehob, Ben-rehob. DATE DUE FR LTTE TS GAYLORD PRINTEDINU.S.A. al We Pa 4 F eye F A Pe epee ae) ae. — 7 ¥ ; ~ - SS ose Fe - a i- : eae aoe | | —Speer Librar 60 7335 at Tell el-Fyy y MT) 1 10 wn iil 1 I 1.A45¥.4 Excavations and results DS10