The Biblical Archaeologist - Vol.26, N.1

36 Pages·1963·4.05 MB·English

by  American Schools of Oriental Research

The
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
Publishedb y
THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH
(Jerusalem and Bagdad)
Drawer 93-A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn.
VOL. XXVI February,1 963 No. 1
Fig. 1. The fine Assyrian adorant seal found in the ruins of stratum VII at Shechem Cfrom
about 724 B.C.). Note the hole in the margin of the seal; it was strung and hung
around its owner's neck. All the photographsf rom Shechem are by Lee C. Ellenberger.
Contents
The Excavationo f Shechema nd the BiblicalT radition
by EdwardF . CampbellJ, r. and JamesF . Ross. ........................................2
ArchaeologicaNl ews and Views ............................. .............27
RecentB ooksR eceived. ...........................................34
GeorgeE rnestW right and the BiblicalA rchaeologist
..........................................36
2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVI,
The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December)
by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable,
non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the
Bible.
Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament
matters. Editorial correspendence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chica-
go 14, Illinois.
Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard
University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University.
Subscriptions: $2.00 per year, payable to Stechert-IHafner Service Agency, 31 East 10th
Street, New York 3, New York. Associate members of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search receive the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and
billed to the same address, $1.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In
England: fifteen shillings per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford.
Back Numbers: Available at 600 each, or $2.25 per volume, from the Stechert-Hafner
Service Agency.
The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end
of every fifth volume of the journal itself.
Second-class postage PAID at Peterborough, New Hampshire.
Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1963.
PRINTED IN THEJU NITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY
PETERBOROUGHN,. H.
The ExcavationO f Shechem
And The Biblical Tradition
by
EDWAFR.D C AMPBEJLRL.,
McCormickT heologicalS eminary
and
F. Ross
JAMES
Drew University
The role of Biblical archaeology in the reconstruction of Israel's history
has become a topic of heated debate in recent years. Several contributions to
the BA have dealt with this subject,' and similar discussions are to be found
in a wide variety of journals and books.2 None of the scholars cited in these
notes would subscribe to the view that archaeology "proves the Bible true."
But there is a certain amount of disagreement as to the relevance of arch-
aeological data in the attempt to write the history of Israel. The reader can
easily grasp the nature of the debate by comparing the two most recent
histories of Israel, those of Noth, mentioned above, and Bright.3 In the
former archaeological data, both architectural and epigraphic, is cited only
in passing, and primary emphasis is placed on the history of the Biblical
traditions. In Bright's work, however, a much greater significance is ascribed
to the contribution of archaeology; excavation reports, editions of ancient
I. See especially G. E. Wright's appreciation of Nelson Glueck's work in Vol. XXII.4 (Dec.
1959), pp. 98-108, and "Ancient Biblical Traditions and Modem Archaeological Discoveries," by
J. A. Soggin, Vol. XXIII.3 (Sept. 1960), pp. 95-100.
2. John Bright, Early Israel in Rec-nt History Writing (Studies in Biblical Theology No. 19;
Chicago, 1956), pp. 25, 29, 87 if., and 125, criticizing, among others, Martin Noth, The History
of Israel (English translation, New York, 1958). See also Chapter I of Wright's Biblical Archae-
ology (Philadelphia, 1957) and his "Archaeology and Old Testament Studies," Journal of Biblical
Literature, LXXVII (1958), pp. 39-51.
3. John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia, 1959).
1963, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 3
Near Eastern texts, and topographical surveys are used as primary sources
along with literary evidence from the Old Testament itself.
In this brief article it is not our intention to settle this vexed question.
However, it may be of some help if, at this juncture in the debate, evidence
from the excavation of one particular site is placed in conjunction with the
Biblical tradition. And that site, Biblical Shechem,4 is well suited as a "test
case." Its geographic location at the "center of the land" (Judges 9:37 RSV)
between the two great mountains Ebal and Gerizim (cf. Deut. 11:26-30;
27:11-26; Josh. 8:30-35) enabled its inhabitants to control both the east-
west and north-south trade routes. Consequently Shechem was occupied by
either Canaanites or Israelites, or both together, throughout the Biblical
period. Furthermore many of Israel's sacral-politicalt raditions are associated
with this ancient city. On the basis of information in Joshua 24 it has been
widely assumed that Shechem was the first center of the twelve-tribe Is-
raelite league or amphictyony, and that there Israel took upon herself obedi-
ence to the "statutes and ordinances" (verse 25) of ancient Near Eastern
common law. And it was natural that Rehoboam, Solomon's son, go to
Shechem for his coronation, although he encountered the opposition of the
northern Israelites who chose Jeroboam.T he latter in turn "built Shechem"
as his first capital (I Kings 12:1-25). Thus Shechem, "the uncrowned queen
of Palestine," deserves our closest attention.
Shechem in Patriarchal Traditions
Shechem appears as the site of more distinct patriarchal narratives
than any other Palestinian city.5 The Yahwist has Abra(ha)m visit the
sacred place, with its "oak of Moreh,"' as his first stop in the land of Canaan.
But it is Jacob and his sons who seem to be at home in or near Shechem.7
After his encounter with Esau, Jacob "came safely to the city of Shechem"
and "camped before the city"; he bought a piece of land from the sons of
Hamor, Shechem's father, and erected an altar (possibly a pillar), calling it
"God, the God of Israel" (Gen. 33:18-20). Furthermore,h e led his clan in
a purification rite whereby the foreign gods (amulets?) and earrings were
buried under "the oak which was near Shechem" (Gen. 35:2-4). Inserted
between these two Jacob traditions is the originally independent account
of the "rape of Dinah" (Gen. 34) on which see further below. Joseph,
moreover, was buried in the land which his father had purchased.
4. See the preliminary reports in BA, XX.1 (Feb. 1957), XX.4 (Dec. 1957), and XXIII.4 (Dec.
1960); also BASOR 144 (Dec. 1956), 148 (Dec. 1957), and 161 (Feb. 1961). The preliminary
report of the 1962 season will appear in a forthcoming issue of BASOR.
5. For an excellent review of the Biblical traditions see Bernhard W. Anderson, "The Place of
Shechem in the Bible," BA, XX.1 (Feb. 1957), pp. 10-19.
6. "Moreh" means "teacher" or "instructor, oracle giver." The name also appears in Deut. 11:30.
7. According to Walter J. Harrelson, "Shechem in Extra-Biblical References," BA, XX.1 (Feb.
1957), p. 4, the place names Jacob-el and Joseph-el in Egyptian conquest lists are "in the general
region of Shechem."
4 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVI,
Shechem is thus associated with all of the patriarchs except Isaac, al-
though the tradition connected with Abraham is probably secondary. Yet
the picture of Shechem in the patriarchal age is not homogeneous. The
most notable difference is between those passages in which the Hebrews
enjoy peaceful trade relations with Shechem (Gen. 33:18-20; 37:12-14;
Josh. 24:32) and those in which there is reference to armed conflict (Gen.
34; cf. 49:5-7)." Furthermorei t is strange that Simeon and Levi, whom the
Old Testament elsewhere localizes in the south, are found marauding in the
north. We shall return to these questions after a review of the archaeological
and epigraphical evidence.
Fig. 2. The impression on a jar handle of a cylinder seal probably from the Twelfth Dynasty
of Egypt, coming from the earliest MB phase at Shechem.
Data from the excavation of Tell Balatah and extra-Biblical texts are
in close agreement as to the founding of Shechem as a city. Although there
is scattered evidence of encampments from the early Chalcolithic period
(ca. 4000 B.C.), the first real building activity so far found at Shechem is
to be dated in Middle Bronze IIA (around 1800 B.C.). The 1962 Drew-
McCormick expedition discovered a large earthen platform retained by a
battered wall approximately parallel to the later (MB IIB) wall enclosing
the inner city. This platform, the purpose of which cannot yet be ascer-
tained, is associated with a stone-lined pit under the lowest MB IIB street9
and also with several fragmentary walls further to the west; possibly the
earliest defense wall encircling the city on the north comes from the same
period. Finally, a well-preserved cylinder-seal impression (see fig. 2), prob-
8. See also Gen. 48:22, where the text can be read "I (Jacob) have given to you (Ephraim)
rather than to your brothers one Shechem which I took from the hand of the Amorites with my
sword and my bow."
9. BASOR 161 (Feb. 1961), fig. 4, level 22.
1963, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 5
ably to be attributed to the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty (1991-1786), was
discovered in the make-up for the first MB IIB building ("939 phase").
The first extra-Biblical references to Shechem1o are from the same
general period as this earliest level. One is in an "execration text" written
on a clay figurine, and the other is a battle report by an officer of Sesostris
III (1878-1843 B.C.); both suggest that Shechem, even at this early date,
was a center of opposition to Egypt, anticipating the Late Bronze kingdom
of the rebel Lab'ayu (see below).
The Shechem of Middle Bronze IIA--Twelfth Dynasty was, however,
merely a faint anticipation of its successor, the city of the Hyksos (MB
IIB-C, ca. 1750-1550 B.C.). The Hyksos, who are responsible for the Sec-
ond Intermediate Period in Egypt (ca. 1720-1550 B.C.), passed through
Palestine from their original home in the north and built or fortified several
cities, of which Jericho, Hazor, and Shechem are best known archaeological-
ly." Shechem of the early Hyksos period (MB IIB, ca. 1750-1650 B.C.)
had a double defense wall running under the level of the later temple. Paral-
lel to this was another large wall (usually called the "temenos wall," wall
900 of BASOR 161, figs. 3, 7, and 8) separating the acropolis from the low-
er city. In the area thus enclosed the Drew-McCormick expedition dis-
covered four building phases.
The earliest of these ("939 phase") was uncovered only in a few ex-
ploratory trenches, and no consistent structural pattern was ascertained.
But the next two ("902 phase" and "901 phase") were laid bare in most
of their extent in 1960 and 1962.12 Of most significance is a large building,
measuring, in the 902 phase, about 50 by 100 feet. It had a large courtyard
with a row of small rectangular rooms along its east and perhaps along its
south side. In the northwest corner of the courtyard was a rectangular
chamber which lay directly beneath the area occupied by the standing stone
and altar of the Late Bronze temple. This plan bears a strong resemblance
to a "courtyardt emple" found at Hittite Boghazk6y. This kind of sacred
building is not well-attested in Palestine; one in level IX of Beth-shan is the
only comparable example so far. But the possibility must be considered that
Shechem's sacred precinct, represented by the large fortress-temple to be
described below, stands on ground already considered holy.
At the northeast corner of this structure was a paved entrance hall into
which the streets opened. Of special interest here is a well-preserved store-
jar burial.13 The 902 people dug a trench through the accumulated debris
10. Harrelson, op. cit., pp. 1-4.
11. It is interesting that Shechem and Hazor are mentioned side by side in a "satirical letter" of
the late Nineteenth Dynasty (end of the thirteenth century B.C.); see J. A. Wilson in ANET
(second edition, Princeton, 1955), p. 477.
12. See BASOR 161, figs. 7 and 8, and the forthcoming preliminary report of the 1962 season.
13. For the burials found in 1960, see BA, XXIII.4 (Dec. 1960), fig. 4.
6 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVI,
down to the flagstone paving of the 939 phase and then inserted a large
store-jarc ontaining the skeleton of a four to six year old child. A string of
paste beads with a central scaraboid was found around the child's neck.
The trench was finally filled in and the flagstone paving of the 902 entrance
hall laid over the top.
:41b
-RIO
Fig. 3. A general view of the 901 structure, with 902 mud-brick walls visible in several places.
In the 901 phase, the courtyarda nd rectangular rooms were abandoned
(at a date somewhere around 1710 B.C., when the Hyksos were now in
control of Egypt and new groups, such as the Hurrians, may have pushed
into Palestine behind them). The center of the structure now became a
large chamber with a row of pillars along the north end. A lone column
base, suggesting a free-standing pillar, sat south of this row. The whole
room lay a little north and a little east of the large court of 902, but still pre-
sent in this phase was the rectangularc hamber beneath the altar of the later
temple, and in it was another base which may conceivably have held a free-
standing pillar. While the layout was different, then, the 901 and 902
buildings did have features in common. In addition to the rectangular
chamber, both had the cobblestone street along the east and several walls of
902 were reused by 901 builders.
The final MB IIB phase (909-910) is less well known because much of
the evidence had been removed by previous excavations, both ancient and
modern. However, we again find reused walls which in some cases were
1963, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 7
built up to a higher level; this would seem to indicate that there was no
sharp break in architecturalt radition.
When we turn to a consideration of the later Hyksos period (MB IIC,
ca. 1650-1550 B.C.) we do find such a break. Now the remains of the above-
mentioned buildings are covered by an artificial mound of fill, and the city
defenses are moved further north. In the new city wall a gate (the North-
west Gate, excavated by the German expeditions) was built; it had three
entryways made of pairs of parallel limestone blocks. The city wall was con-
tinued around to the east and very probably inscribed a complete circle or
ellipse around the tell.
It is during this period that the great temple of Shechem was first con-
structed."4C overing an area approximately6 9 by 85 feet, it had walls about
17 feet thick. The worshippers approached its entrance, which was in the
narrow end to the southeast, along a sloping ramp beginning at wall 900,
still standing after nearly 250 years of use. Somewhat later, but still in the
Hyksos age, an earthen altar was constructed in the area once occupied by
the ramp, and the doorway of the temple was narrowed. The approach was
then made from one of the sides, turning a right angle into the entrance,
now flanked by a pair of massebot (pillars) in stone sockets.
Still another Hyksos construction of the later MB IIC period is the
East Gate. It was built along with a new defense wall approximately 33
feet inside the earlier wall mentioned above. Like the Northwest Gate,
this gate also had entryways made of pairs of limestone blocks, but here
there were only two of these, enclosing guard rooms on either side. In its
brief existence of merely fifty years the East Gate was destroyed no less
than three times, eloquent evidence of the end of Hyksos and Middle Bronze
Shechem.
How can the Biblical traditions and the archaeological evidence be
brought into fruitful relationship with each other? We may begin by noting
that there is some evidence of Amorite settlement at Shechem, corresponding
to Jacob's boast in Gen. 48:22 ("one Shechem which I took from the hand
of the Amorites"). The earliest consistent archaeological level (the above-
mentioned earthen platform) is from the end of the period generally assign-
ed to the great Amorite migrations. Of even more importance, however, is
the name "Hamor"i n Genesis 34. This is a common Semitic word for "ass."
And in the letters written by the Amorite inhabitants of Mari toward the
end of the eighteenth century B.C.,15 we frequently find references to
14. See Robert J. Bull, "A Re-Examination of the Shechem Temple," BA, XXIII.4 (Dec. 1960),
pp. 110-119.
15. See G. E. Mendenhall, "Mari," BA, XI.I (Feb. 1948), pp. 1-19, and more recently J. C. L.
Gibson, "Light from Mari on the Patriarchs," Journal of Semitic Studies VII (1962), pp. 44-62.
8 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVI,
"killing an ass" as the ritual of making a treaty or covenant of peace.'6 To
be sure, the Amorite word is ha(y)arum (equivalent to Hebrew 'ayir),
but the difference is probably not significant. We may conclude that "sons
of Hamor" really means "sons of the Ass-Covenant."I t is no coincidence that
the Sheehemite sanctuary of Abimelech's time was called the "House of El
(or Baal) of the Covenant" (Judges 9:4, 46). Amorite traditions were ap-
parently preservedf or centuries at the site.
Of greater significance, however, are the relationships between the
patriarchs and the Hyksos. Modern scholars usually date the "sojourn in
Egypt" to the Hyksos period. Indeed, the name Ya'qub (Jacob)-Har appears
as that of a Semitic leader of the early Hyksos. Nevertheless, it is apparent
that many ethnic groups which later became Israelite tribes remained in
Palestine. Perhaps among these were the ancestors of the Simeonites and
the Levites.17 The narrative of Gen. 34 will then reflect a period in which
the Hyksos were defending their bastion in central Palestine against semi-
nomads who were anxious to obtain a firm foothold in the Fertile Crescent.'s
In support of this thesis it may be noted that in Gen. 34:2 Hamor is called
"the Hivite." Ho"wever,t he Septuagint reads here (and in Josh. 9:7) "the
Horite." The Horites are now known to be the Hurrians, a people whose
original home was in Armenia, but who spread throughout the upper part
of the Fertile Crescent in the second millennium B.C. It is quite probable
that the Hurrians were connected with the Hyksos movement, either as a
constituent part thereof or as a power which forced the Hyksos to move
south.'9 Thus we should not be surprised to find Hurrian-Hyksos groups at
Shechem. And as late as 1400 B.C. we have, from Tell Balatah itself, a
cuneiform letter addressed to a certain Birashshena, whose name is most
probably Hurrian.20 However, this may be, the Hurrians are likely to have
been the ruling aristocracy in Hyksos Shechem. This may be reflected in
the tradition that a particularH urrian family was able to persuade the whole
population to submit to circumcision so that a young man might have the
wife he desired!
Of course it would be going far beyond our evidence to conclude that
any one of the building phases at Shechem is to be associated with any
16. Bright, A History of Israel, p. 73, n. 26, and works cited there; Albright in ANET, p. 482,
and From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed., p. 279.
17. Before the latter became a priestly tribe. Of course some of the Levites must have been in
Egypt, since Moses and Aaron are associated with this group. The history of the Levites is full of
confusions and contradictions. Note the diffesence between Gen. 49:5-7 and Deut. 33:8-11.
18. For an alternate view, that Gen. 34 may reflect the disruptions of the Amarna period, see
Bright, A History of Israel, pp. 122-24.
19. For Hyksos leaders with Hurrian names and a discussion of the general problem, see W. F.
Albright, "The Horites in Palestine," From the Pyramids to Paul, ed. by L. G. Leary (New York,
1935), pp. 9-26.
20. W. F. Albright, "A Teacher to a Man of Shechem about 1400 B.C.," BASOR 86 (April,
1942), pp. 28-31. For a general discussion of Hurrian names in Palestine see H. L. Ginsberg and
B. Maisler, "Semitised Hurrians in Syria and Palestine," Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society,
XIV (1934), pp. 243-67.
1963, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 9
particulare vent recordedi n the patriarchatl raditions.I ndeed these tradi-
tions give the generali mpressiono f a peacefuls ymbiosisb etween the Jacob-
ites and the Shechemites,n ot the destructiona nd rebuildingo f cities. But
this tranquils cene is occasionallyb rokenb y warlikei ncursionss uch as those
reportedi n Gen. 34 (cf. 49:5-7) and 48:22. Perhapst he tremendousd e-
fense walls and the temple-fortresosf the MB IIC city reflect such events.
We have no "footprinot f Jacob"a t Shechem,b ut we do have evidenceo f
the confusingt imesi n which he and his sonsl ived.
Fig. 4. The great fortress-temple at Shechem at the conclusion of the 1962 campaign. The earlier
structures below the fore-court have been largely filled in and a retaining wall erected
to hold the platform in place. Note the standing stone before the temple and the various
columns and pillars at its entrance.
Shechem and the Israelite Conquest
After the Egyptians of the Eighteenth Dynasty took Shechem in their
re-conquest of Palestine, the city entered a period of decline. The Late
Bronze inhabitants of the site were content merely to re-use and rebuild the
structures of their predecessors. At the East Gate, for example, the inner-
most wall of the Hyksos complex was used as the foundation for a much
weaker defense perimeter, and in the process a new pair of guard rooms
was created. Similarly a new temple was built on the walls of the older
sanctuary. But the new building had much slighter walls and was laid out
on a different angle; it is possible that this re-orientationw as due to customs
connected with solar worship. The most significant new feature was the
erection of a huge massebah in a stone socket directly in front of the en-
10 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVI,
trancet o the temple;i t will be rememberedth at the last Hyksost emplew as
providedw ith a pair of (smaller) masseboto n eithers ide of the door.A long
with this new pillar an altar of stone was erected,r esting on the earthen
altaro f the precedingp eriod.
The most extensive informationa bout Late Bronze Shechem comes,
however,n ot from these fragmentaryst ones, but from the famousT ell el-
Amarnal etters.21H ere we find Shechema s the capitalo f an extensivek ing-
dom in the hill countryo f centralP alestine.T his territoryw as ruled by a
certainL ab'ayuw ho, accordingt o the complainto f Abdi-Hebao f Jerusalem,
rebelleda gainstt he Pharaoht o the point of giving Shechemt o the 'Apiru.22
Lab'ayu'so wn lettersp rotesth is innocence,b ut his tone is rathert ruculent
and he obviouslyf elt securei n his centrals tronghold.
When we turn to the Biblicale videncef or this periodw e find a signi-
ficant gap. Shechema ppearsn either in the lists of cities destroyedb y the
invadingI sraelitesn or among those too strongf or them to conquer.N ever-
thelessw e may assumef romJ oshua2 4 that, by the end of the periodo f the
Conquest,S hechemw as consideredt o be Israelitet erritoryJ. oshua2 4 tells
of the great assemblya t Shechem.H ere Joshuar emindedt he Israeliteso f
Yahweh'sm ighty deeds, and challengedt hem to worshipY ahweh and to
"puta wayt he gods which your fatherss erved."'2A fter the Israelitesa ffirmed
their faith, Joshuam ade a covenantw ith them, "andh e took a great stone,
and set it up thereu ndert he oak in the sanctuaryo f Yahweh."
The questionr emains,h ow did Shechemb ecomea n Israelitec ity? We
can only assumet hat the peacefuls ymbiosisr eflectedi n the Jacobn arratives
eventuallyl ed to an Israelitei nfiltrationo f the city in the Late Bronzea ge,
and that the "conquest"o f Shechem was achievedw ithout resortt o force
of arms. Shechem may very well have been the first real Israelitec ity.
The archaeologicaelv idencef rom Tell Balatahi s parallelt o the situa-
tion reflectedi n the Biblicaln arrativesT. he Late Bronzec ity once ruled by
Lab'ayua nd his sons never suffereda destructiona s did Lachish,B ethel,
and Hazor.R athert herei s a smootha nd apparentlyp eacefult ransitionf rom
the Late Bronzea ge to the pre-PhilistineI ron age (Iron IA). This is es-
peciallya pparenti n one of the guardr oomso f the Late BronzeE ast Gate.
Here were found five levels of Late Bronzef loors supersededw, ithout an
interveningd estructionla yer,b y no less than fourteens uperimposedIr on I
21. See Edward F. Campbell, Jr., "The Amarna Letters and The Amarna Period," BA, XXIII.1
(Feb. 1960), pp. 2-22, and Harrelson, op. cit., pp. 6-9. These letters were written to Pharaohs
Amenophis III and IV (Akhenaten) by their Palestinian vassals, and are tc be dated approximately
in the second quarter of the fourteenth century B.C.
22. For an interpretation of this charge see Campbell, op. cit., p. 19.
23. Note the same motif in Gen. 35:2-4. On the basis of these references Albrecht Alt has con-
cluded that during the period of the divided monarchy the Israelites carried out a purification rite
at Shechem before the great annual festival at Bethel. See Alt, "Die Wallfahrt von Sichem nach
Bethel," Kleine Schriften, I (Munich, 1953), pp. 79-88.