volume 63 • number 1 † 2013 contents israelneaehl the new encyclopedia of archaeological...
TRANSCRIPT
VOLUME 63 • NUMBER 1 • 2013
CONTENTS
1 The Israel Exploration Society: 100 Years of Archaeological Activity
6 TALLAY ORNAN, STEVEN ORTIZ and SAMUEL WOLFF: A Newly Discovered
Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context
26 MITCHELL BORNSTEIN: The Jerusalem Ostracon õøàð÷ìà Reconsidered
39 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO and SHMUEL A¡ITUV: An Inscribed
Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem
50 IRIT YEZERSKI: Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II–III Judahite
Rock-cut Tombs
78 ZVI URI MAªOZ: A Note on Pharanx Antiochus
83 YOEL ELITZUR: The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal
Regarding Abba’s Identity
103 RENATE ROSENTHAL-HEGINBOTTOM: Reconsidering the Rock-Cut Burial
Cave at Beit Nattif: A Response to Zissu and Klein
109 NOTES AND NEWS
113 HEBREW BOOKS AND PAPERS
118 BOOKS RECEIVED — 2012
Page layout by Avraham Pladot
Typesetting by Marzel A.S. — Jerusalem
Printed by Old City Press, Jerusalem
Israel
Exploration
Journal
VOLUME 63 • NUMBER 1JERUSALEM, ISRAEL • 2013
IEJ
631
ISRAEL EXPLORATION JOURNAL
Published twice yearly by the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of
Archaeology of the Hebrew University, with the assistance of the Nathan
Davidson Publication Fund in Archaeology, Samis Foundation, Seattle WA,
and Dorot Foundation, Providence RI
Founders
A. Reifenberg, D. Amiran
Former Editors
Michael Avi-Yonah, Dan Barag, Jonas C. Greenfield, Baruch A. Levine,
Miriam Tadmor
Editorial Board
Shmuel A¢ituv and Amihai Mazar, Editors
Tsipi Kuper-Blau, Executive Editor
Joseph Aviram, President, Israel Exploration Society
Editorial Advisory Board
Gideon Avni, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Israel Ephªal, Baruch A.
Levine, Aren M. Maeir, Gloria Merker, Ronny Reich, Myriam Rosen-Ayalon,
Zeev Weiss
IEJ is now available online on JSTOR
Email: [email protected]
Books for review: Israel Exploration Journal, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070,
Israel
Guidelines: http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il
Copyright © 2013 Israel Exploration Society
ISSN 0021-2059
The Editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors
ABBREVIATIONS
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament3, ed. J.B. Pritchard,
Princeton, 1969
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BT Babylonian Talmud
CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
EI Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies
ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel
IAA Reports Israel Antiquities Authority Reports
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
KAI W. Donner and W. Röllig: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 1–3,
Wiesbaden, 1962–1964; 15, 2002
NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (English
Edition), Jerusalem, 1993
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PT Palestinian Talmud
QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale
RB Revue Biblique
RE Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
RQ Revue de Qumran
VT Vetus Testamentum
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES
2013: $60 including postage or equivalent payable to
the Israel Exploration Society, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070, Israel.
All subscribers are entitled to a 25% reduction on the publications of the Society.
Subscribers should give full name and postal address when paying their
subscription, and should send notice of change of address at least five weeks before
it is to take effect; the old as well as the new address should be given.
Single issue: $30 or equivalent.
VOLUME 63 • NUMBER 1 • 2013
CONTENTS
1 The Israel Exploration Society: 100 Years of Archaeological Activity
6 TALLAY ORNAN, STEVEN ORTIZ and SAMUEL WOLFF: A Newly Discovered
Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context
26 MITCHELL BORNSTEIN: The Jerusalem Ostracon õøàð÷ìà Reconsidered
39 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO and SHMUEL A¡ITUV: An Inscribed
Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem
50 IRIT YEZERSKI: Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II–III Judahite
Rock-cut Tombs
78 ZVI URI MAªOZ: A Note on Pharanx Antiochus
83 YOEL ELITZUR: The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal
Regarding Abba’s Identity
103 RENATE ROSENTHAL-HEGINBOTTOM: Reconsidering the Rock-Cut Burial
Cave at Beit Nattif: A Response to Zissu and Klein
109 NOTES AND NEWS
113 HEBREW BOOKS AND PAPERS
118 BOOKS RECEIVED — 2012
Page layout by Avraham Pladot
Typesetting by Marzel A.S. — Jerusalem
Printed by Old City Press, Jerusalem
Israel
Exploration
Journal
VOLUME 63 • NUMBER 1JERUSALEM, ISRAEL • 2013
IEJ
631
ISRAEL EXPLORATION JOURNAL
Published twice yearly by the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of
Archaeology of the Hebrew University, with the assistance of the Nathan
Davidson Publication Fund in Archaeology, Samis Foundation, Seattle WA,
and Dorot Foundation, Providence RI
Founders
A. Reifenberg, D. Amiran
Former Editors
Michael Avi-Yonah, Dan Barag, Jonas C. Greenfield, Baruch A. Levine,
Miriam Tadmor
Editorial Board
Shmuel A¢ituv and Amihai Mazar, Editors
Tsipi Kuper-Blau, Executive Editor
Joseph Aviram, President, Israel Exploration Society
Editorial Advisory Board
Gideon Avni, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Israel Ephªal, Baruch A.
Levine, Aren M. Maeir, Gloria Merker, Ronny Reich, Myriam Rosen-Ayalon,
Zeev Weiss
IEJ is now available online on JSTOR
Email: [email protected]
Books for review: Israel Exploration Journal, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070,
Israel
Guidelines: http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il
Copyright © 2013 Israel Exploration Society
ISSN 0021-2059
The Editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors
ABBREVIATIONS
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament3, ed. J.B. Pritchard,
Princeton, 1969
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BT Babylonian Talmud
CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
EI Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies
ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel
IAA Reports Israel Antiquities Authority Reports
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
KAI W. Donner and W. Röllig: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 1–3,
Wiesbaden, 1962–1964; 15, 2002
NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (English
Edition), Jerusalem, 1993
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PT Palestinian Talmud
QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale
RB Revue Biblique
RE Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
RQ Revue de Qumran
VT Vetus Testamentum
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES
2013: $60 including postage or equivalent payable to
the Israel Exploration Society, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070, Israel.
All subscribers are entitled to a 25% reduction on the publications of the Society.
Subscribers should give full name and postal address when paying their
subscription, and should send notice of change of address at least five weeks before
it is to take effect; the old as well as the new address should be given.
Single issue: $30 or equivalent.
An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem*
EILAT MAZAR
The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem
DAVID BEN-SHLOMO
The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem
SHMUEL A¡ITUV
Ben-Gurion University
of the Negev
ABSTRACT: During the 2012 excavations at the Ophel, a large building was
partially revealed; it is broadly dated to the early (?) Iron Age IIA (it is hoped that a
more accurate dating will be obtained after the study of its finds has been
completed). A pile of large pottery fragments (L.223C) from seven pithoi was used
as a stabiliser for the earth fill under the second floor of the building. All the pithoi
belong to the neckless, folded-out rim type that is most likely the successor of the
Collared-Rim Jar of the Iron Age I. The inscribed pithos rim was analysed by thin
section petrography. The results indicate that the vessel was made of clay sourced
to the central hills region, as were several other pithoi found with it. However, a
certain variability in the so-called Mo«a clay formation used for these vessels was
identified. Similarly-shaped pithoi from southern Israel that were analysed have
the same provenance. The inscription is incised in a Proto-Canaanite/Early
Canaanite script of the eleventh–tenth centuries BCE. It reads from left to right, but
a combination of the letters m, q, p, ¢, n, l?, n yield no meaning in west-Semitic.
The inscription remains, for now, enigmatic.
THE excavations in which this pithos rim was found1 were conducted adjacent to
the Ophel road, c. 80 m. to the south of the southern wall of the Temple Mount.
This area is situated between the City of David in the south and the Temple Mount
in the north. During the excavation, a large building (fig. 1) was partially revealed
at the north-east side of this area; the building overlooks the expanse of the Kidron
Valley, making its location of major strategic importance. The building,
constructed directly on bedrock, was dated to the early (?) Iron Age IIA. The study
IEJ 63 (2013): 39–49 39
* E. Mazar is responsible for the typological discussion of the pithoi and their dating; D.
Ben-Shlomo for the petrographic analysis; and S. A¢ituv for the epigraphic discus-
sion.
1 Between August and December 2012, the Ophel Excavations were continued on
behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem by Eilat
Mazar (Mazar 2011). The excavations took place in cooperation with the IAA, which
carried out the restoration work, and with the National Parks Authority. As in 2009,
the excavations were funded by Daniel Mintz and Meredith Berkman from New York.
Herbert W. Armstrong College made a major contribution by sending many students
to participate in the excavation. We would like to thank Amir Cohen-Klonymus,
supervisor of Area A, in which the pithoi were found; Ariel Winderboim, who assisted
in studying their typology; Noga Cohen-Alloro, who photographed the inscription;
Mika Sarig, who drew the pithoi; and Ada Yardeni, who drew the inscription.
of the finds from the building, including the pottery and the bullae, as well as 14C
tests for a cluster of raisins, have not yet been completed; it is hoped that the
results will make it possible to narrow down the date further.
A pile of large pithos fragments was found (fig. 2; L.223C), filling a shallow
natural depression in the bedrock. These turned out to be fragments of seven
pithoi (one base and six rims) that had probably been piled up in secondary use to
stabilise the earth fill under the second floor layer of the building. One of the rims
bears an inscription (fig. 3). The large size of the pithoi suggests that they stood in
this area before the construction of the floor.
Although the pithoi vary greatly in rim shape, they all belong to the same
general type — neckless with folded-out rim — and they all date from the
early (?) Iron Age IIA. They can be divided into two main sub-groups: type A
40 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV
Fig. 1. Plan of excavations
(pithoi 2 and 5; fig. 4:1–2), with thickened rim, and type B (pithoi 1, 4, 6 and 7;
fig. 4:3–4), with elongated horizontal rim.
A pithos that seems to be an early variant of type A (late Iron Age I?), with a
small groove near the rim, was found by Albright in Tell el-Fûl, Second Period
(Albright 1924: 12, pl. XXVIII:18–23; similar to pithoi found many years later at
Kh. ed-Dawwara [Finkelstein 1990: 185, fig. 16:11–12] and Lachish IV [Zimhoni
AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 41
Fig. 2. In situ sherds of pithoi (view to the north)
Fig. 3. Inscribed sherd: photograph and drawing
2004: fig. 25.54:13]). This led him to first suggest that the collared-rim jar
transitioned into a type that lost its collar sometime in the second half of the elev-
enth century BCE (Albright 1934: 12–13). Grant and Wright corroborated
Albright’s claim with finds from their excavations at Beth-Shemesh, presenting
the variants of the new form — one of which is the same as our type A — as the
type that took the place of the collared rim (Grant and Wright 1938: pl. LXV:4,9;
1939: 129, 143–144). Following his excavations in Kh. ed-Dawwara, Finkelstein
reiterated that claim: ‘This is probably a descendent and successor of the collared-
rim jar. It is popular in the central hill country … apparently in the 10th century and
maybe later’ (Finkelstein 1990: 190).
Such pithoi seem to have a tendency to last for two to three centuries, with or
without minor variants. This is the case for the collared-rim pithos, as well as for
the neckless folded-out rim pithos.
Examples of type A can be found as early as the eleventh century BCE in Tel
Masos, Stratum II (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pl. 143:9, 155:3), and the City of
David, Stratum 15 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 115, fig. 12:6), as well as in tenth-
and ninth-century BCE sites, such as Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 4 (Bernick-
Greenberg 2007: part II, 8, pl. 11.5:2), Arad, Stratum XI (Singer-Avitz 2002: 118,
fig. 4:11), Lachish, Stratum IV (Zimhoni 2004: 1757, figs. 25.39:6, 25.46:25), and
the City of David, Stratum 13 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 34;
2012b: 217, fig. 5.7:22).
Type B of the neckless, elongated folded-out rim is rarely found by itself, as
the example from Tel Mo«a, Stratum VI, dated to the ninth century BCE
(Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 73, fig. 3.7:6), and is mostly found alongside what
seems to be a later sub-group of this type of pithos. Type C is characterised by the
same elongated rim as type B, but is now notably incurved. So far, the earliest
42 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV
Fig. 4. Five (out of seven) pithoi found in L.223C: type A (1–2), with thickened rim, and
type B (3–4), with elongated horizontal rim
appearance of type C seems to be the one sherd found in the oldest phase of
Lachish, Stratum IV (Zimhoni 2004: 1727, fig. 25.23:21). However, types B and
C appear together in the late Iron Age IIA and more commonly in the early Iron
Age IIB (the ninth–eighth centuries BCE), as in Lachish, Stratum IV (Zimhoni
2004: 1740, fig. 25.30:10; 1771, fig. 25.46:24), and Kuntillet ªAjrud (Ayalon
2012: fig. 7.8; 7.9:1; 7.46, 7.48:4–6; Singer-Avitz 2009: 117), respectively. Type
C became the most popular type during the eighth–early seventh centuries BCE,
as seen in Tel ªIra, Stratum VII (Kletter 1999: 350–358).
In sum, the neckless folded-out rim pithos of the Iron Age II is most likely the
successor of the collared-rim jar of the Iron Age I. Its earliest form is the late Iron
I (?) neckless pithos with a small groove near the rim. This form developed into
the early Iron IIA form — our type A — of the thickened rim without groove near
it. It seems that type A rapidly developed into its subsequent variant: type B with
horizontal elongated rim. Both types appear together in our L.223C. Type C, with
the notably incurved elongated rim, is absent from L.223C, even though it seems
to follow immediately after type B. Even though no type B pithos has yet been
found in any other early Iron IIA context, it is plausible, on the basis of the above-
mentioned evidence, that it should be dated to a developed phase of that period.
PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Fragments of six out of the seven pithoi uncovered in the 2012 excavations,
including one pithos inscribed before firing (sample 1), were thin-sectioned and
examined through a petrographic polarising microscope by standard optical
petrography methods.
The petrographic analysis revealed certain similarities in the fabric of all six
pithoi (fig. 5). Samples 2, 4, 5 and 6, however, are more closely similar and were
possibly produced in the same workshop or indicate the same clay source. This
fabric is characterised by a dark, silty, calcareous matrix with silt-sized dolomite
and relatively small and variable quantities of sand-sized dolomite. It is tempered
with limestone and chalk fragments (sand-sized) as well, and certain amounts of
clay pellets occur in most examples. The clay was fired in a high temperature —
probably over 800°. Sample 1 (the inscribed pithos) is also quite similar to this
group, but is somewhat finer in its clay and lacks dolomite in sand size. All these
five samples may have a similar geographic provenance, related to Mo«a marl
outcrops located in the Judaean (?) central hill area of Israel. The appearance of
clay pellets and the variability of quantities of dolomite sand and quartz in these
samples may indicate a certain mixing of clays. This may be especially true in the
inscribed pithos (sample 1), as the clay pellets are composed of a different clay
type than the matrix of the sherd.
Sample 3 (of a pithos of which only the base was found) is different: it is made
of a reddish and compact fabric rich in dolomite sand. The dolomitic sand points
AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 43
to an Aminadav formation source, perhaps from the region just west and south of
Jerusalem or from the area near Shechem (see, e.g., Goren, Finkelstein and
Naºaman 2004: 263–264).
The results from the Ophel pithoi indicate at least two variations of the same
clay type, one with coarse dolomite sand temper (pithos 3 of the Aminadav forma-
tion) and the others with the finer clay without the dolomite sand (of Mo«a marl).
The latter seems less common, at least according to published pottery analyses.
Clay related to Mo«a marl without dolomite sand was used for several figurines
from the City of David, yet this clay is very rich in microfossils, probably mixed
with rendzina soil (Goren, Kletter and Kamaiski 1996). For the Mo«a clay forma-
tion usually with dolomite sand, commonly used for pottery during the Iron Age II
and other periods, see, e.g., Goren 1996: 51–52 (and discussion therein).
44 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV
Fig. 5. Thin sections of Ophel samples 1–4: A–C) sample 1 thin section (the pithos with
the inscription) in various magnifications (A under crossed polarised light; B and C under
regular polarised light); D) sample 2; E) sample 4; F) sample 3 (D–F under crossed polar-
ised light). Abbreviations: CK = chalk; CP = clay pellet; DL = dolomite; LS = limestone;
OP = opaque; QZ = quartz; SL = shell
Similarly shaped pithoi that underwent petrographic analysis include several
examples from Kuntillet ªAjrud (Goren 2012: sample 4; Gunneweg, Perlman and
Meshel 2012: 280–284) and Beer-Sheba (Singer-Avitz 1999: 18, fig. 4) and one
example from Tell e§-¥afi/Gath (Ben-Shlomo 2006: 178, 184, sample Safi 32).
These vessels were made from Mo«a marl clay tempered with dolomite sand.
INAA indicates that the pithoi from ªAjrud also form a chemical group related to
the Mo«a clay (Gunneweg, Perlman and Meshel 2012: table 8.1), yet the precise
geographic provenance of this clay is difficult to ascertain within the central hills
at this stage. In any case, it is quite interesting that this specific type was made
roughly from the same types of clay and in the same region for a long period of
time.
THE INSCRIPTION
The inscription under discussion was incised below the rim of the pithos. Seven
letters appear on the two joined pieces (see fig. 3 on p. 41); one of these letters is
partially broken and is indecipherable. It seems that the inscription is not
complete. The letters appear to belong to the eleventh–tenth centuries BCE. The
inscription was incised before firing, and the blunt side of the stylus was used to
press it into the still wet clay.
The letters are not of the Phoenician-Hebrew script, but are similar to the
Proto-Canaanite/Early-Canaanite one. The inscription is written from left to right
(as evident from the stance of the letters), like the Qubur al-Walaydah and the
ªIzbet ¥ar©a ostraca. Although a comprehensive meaning of the inscription still
eludes us, the letters (from left to right) are: m, q (less likely r), p, ¢, n, a broken
letter which might be l (or perhaps is two broken letters) and another n. The q was
retraced on its left, creating a ‘shadow’ that is sharper than the main lines of the
letter. Below the break, the end of a long vertical line appears; this might a tail of a
letter, or, more improbably, a casual incision. It is not the continuation of the left
line above it (the left side of the reconstructed l).
The letters are quite large — c. 25–30 mm. high and c. 1 mm. deep. Some of
the lines pressed into the wet clay are c.1 mm. wide and c. 5–7 mm. high, reflect-
ing the thickness and height of the tip of the stylus. The letters are proportionally
spaced, with c. 10 mm. between each pair; only between the last two letters (the
reconstructed l and the n) is the space doubled to c. 20 mm. Since in the Proto-
Canaanite and the Phoenician-Hebrew writing system there were no spaces
between words, it is possible that the inscription began at what is here described
as the last letter of the inscription, which might have run around the pithos
shoulder.
Following is a comparison of the letters to those of other early inscriptions
(table 1):
AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 45
Table 1. Comparative chart of letters*
¢ — For the ladder-like ¢ with two rungs only, compare the ¢ incised in the Tel
Batash/Timnah inscription ([ïðç ï]á) and the one written in ink on a jug from
Eshtemoaª: (ùîç), both ascribed to the tenth century BCE.
l — If the two lines, one curving to the left and the other to the right, meet at the
broken-off part of the pithos, the letter might be l, not unlike one of the ls of the
Qeiyafa ostracon. This leaves the solitary line below the break enigmatic.
m — The m resembles the ones from the Qubur al-Walaydah (c. 1200 BCE) and
ªIzbet ¥ar©a (eleventh century?) ostraca, the Kefar Veradim bowl (early tenth
century), the Gezer Calendar and the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (tenth century?).
46 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV
* Tel Batash/Timnah, see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 190; photo 110, pl. 6:3 = Renz 1995:
pls. 1; I:4. Beth Shemesh, see Bunimovitz and Lederman 1997: 48. Eshtemoaª, see Renz
1995: pls. 2; II:2. Gezer, see Renz 1995: pls. 1; I:1. ªIzbet ¥ar©a, see Kochavi 1977: 7, fig. 4.
Kefar Veradim, see Alexandre 2006: 27, fig. 10b (p. 27). Khirbet Qeiyafa, see Misgav,
Garfinkel and Ganor 2009: 250, fig. 14.4. Qubur al-Walaydah, see Cross 2003: 214, fig.
32:1. Re¢ov, see Mazar and A¢ituv 2011: 302, fig. 5. Tekke, see Cross 2003: 227, fig. 32:8.
Fekheriyeh, see Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982: table (unnumbered).
n — Compare the first n to the ns on the aforementioned inscriptions from Tel
Batash/Timna ([ïðç ï]á), Beth Shemesh (ïðç) and Tel Re¢ov (ùîðì). The second n
is of a more regular shape.
p — Compare to the ps of the Gezer Calendar.
q — The letter is very similar to the qs on the ªIzbet ¥ar©a and Khirbet Qeiyafa
ostraca.
The letters might be referring to the name of the owner of the pithos, its addressee,
or its contents, but unfortunately, they do not yield any intelligible combination.
Perhaps they represent a non-Semitic combination or combinations. One might
suggest that the writer of the inscription was a descendant of the pre-Israelite
inhabitants of Jerusalem (a ‘Jebusite’?), but this remains in the realm of conjec-
ture. In the absence of any further insight, the new inscription from the Ophel
remains, for the time being, enigmatic.
REFERENCES
Abou-Assaf, A., Bordreuil, P. and Millard, A.
1982 La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne, Paris
Albright, W.F.
1924 Excavations and Results at Tell El-Fûl (Gibeah of Saul), New Haven CT
1934 The Kyle Memorial Excavation at Bethel, BASOR 56: 2–15
Alexandre, Y.
2006 A Canaanite-Early Phoenician Inscribed Bronze Bowl in an Iron Age IIA–B Burial
Cave at Kefar Veradim, Northern Israel, Maarav 13: 7–41
Ayalon, E.
2012 The Pottery Assemblage, in Meshel 2012: 205–274
Ben-Shlomo, D.
2006 Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study, Oxford
Bernick-Greenberg, H.
2007 The Ceramic Assemblages and the Wheel-Made Pottery Typology, in Cohen, R. and
Bernick-Greenberg, H. (eds.), Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat)
1976–1982, Jerusalem: Part I, 131–185; Part II, 2–255
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z.
1997 Beth-Shemesh, Culture Conflict on Judah’s Frontier, Biblical Archeology Review
23/1: 42–49
Cross, F.M.
2003 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts, in Cross,
F.M., Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook. Collected Papers in Hebrew and West
Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy, Winona Lake IN: 213–230
AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 47
De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T.
2000 Ceramic Report, in Ariel, D.T. (ed.), City of David Excavations, Final Report V,
Jerusalem: 91–154
De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H.
2012a Stratigraphy, Area E West, in De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012c: 199–247
2012b The Pottery of Strata 15–13 (Iron Age IIA), in De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg
2012c: 11–39
2012c (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol.
VIIA, Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture, Jerusalem
Finkelstein, I.
1990 Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara: An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem, Tel
Aviv 17: 163–208
Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A.
1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der £irbet el-Mšaš (Tel Mâúoú), Wiesbaden
Goren, Y.
1996 The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective,
BASOR 303: 33–72
2012 Petrographic Analysis of Kuntillet ªAjrud Pottery, in Meshel 2012: 275–276
Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Naºaman, N.
2004 Inscribed in Clay. Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near
Eastern Texts, Tel Aviv
Goren, Y., Kletter, R. and Kamaiski, E.
1996 The Technology and Provenience of the Iron Age Figurines from the City of David:
Petrographic Analysis, in Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A. (eds.), Excavations at the
City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV, Jerusalem: 87–89
Grant, E. and Wright, E.G.
1938 Ain Shems Excavations, Part IV. Pottery, Haverford
1939 Ain Shems Excavations, Part IV. Text, Haverford
Greenhut, Z. and De Groot, A.
2009 The Pottery, in Greenhut, Z. and De Groot, A, Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza, The
Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations, Jerusalem: 61–114
Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I. and Meshel, Z.
2012 The Origin of the Pottery, in Meshel 2012: 279–287
Kletter, R.
1999 Iron Age Pithoi Bearing Potters Marks, in Beit-Arieh, I. (ed.), Tel ªIra. A Stronghold
in the Biblical Negev, Jerusalem: 350–359
Kochavi, M.
1977 An Ostracon of the Period of the Judges from ªIzbet ¥ar©a, Tel Aviv 4: 1–13
Mazar, A. and A¢ituv, S.
2011 Inscriptions from Tel Re¢ov and Their Contribution to the Study of Writing and
Literacy during the Iron Age IIA, EI 30: 300–316 (Hebrew), 154* (English
summary)
48 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV
Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N.
2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II. The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, Jerusalem
Mazar, E.
2011 Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem, Jerusalem
Meshel, Z.
2012 (ed.), Kuntillet ªAjrud. An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border,
Jerusalem
Misgav, H., Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S.
2009 The Ostracon, in Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S., Khirbet Qeiyafa 1. Excavations Report
2007–2008, Jerusalem: 243–257
Renz, J.
1995 Texte und Tafeln (vol. III in Renz, J. and Röllig, W., Handbuch der althebräischen
Epigrafik, Darmstadt)
Singer-Avitz, L.
1999 Beersheba — A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in
the Eighth Century B.C.E., Tel Aviv 26: 3–74
2002 Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages, Tel Aviv 29: 110–214
2009 The Date of Kuntillet ªAjrud : A Rejoinder, Tel Aviv 36: 110–119
Zimhoni, O.
2004 The Pottery of Levels V and IV and Its Archaeological and Chronological Implica-
tions, in Ussishkin, D. (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish
(1973–1994), IV, Tel Aviv: 1643–1788
AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 49