Uncategorized Archives - Page 359 of 556

Hieroglyphic Luwian and King Taita

Taita was the ruler of a Syrian kingdom in the Iron Age II. His name appears in Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions found at Shaizar and Muhradah, Syria (adjoining towns on the Orontes River, about 13 miles northwest of Hamah) and in a Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription from the Storm-god temple found on the citadel of Aleppo, Syria. (A pdf guidebook by Julia Gonnella entitled The Citadel of Aleppo: Description, History, Site Plan and Visitor Tour, 2nd ed. [2008] can be downloaded for free here. Pages 8-9 and 37-38 show the location of the Storm-god temple and give a brief description.)

In the inscriptions Taita is said to be the “Walastinean hero/king” or “Palastinean hero/king.” This title also appears in Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions found at Tell Tayinat, in the Amuq Plain in Turkey. It has been suggested that Tell Tayinat was the capital of Taita’s kingdom and that it extended east to Aleppo and south to Hamath. See most recently J. David Hawkins, “Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo: New Light in a Dark Age,” Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4 (2009): 164-173.

Fragment of a Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription from Tell Tayinat which mentions the “Walastinean king.” On display at the Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago.

The Luwian language is closely related to Hittite, Lycian, and other Anatolian languages. Luwian was written in both a cuneiform script and a hieroglyphic script, no relation to Egyptian hieroglyphs. Hieroglyphic Luwian was used by kings of the Hittite Empire for monumental inscriptions and seals.

After the fall of the Hittite Empire, Hieroglyphic Luwian continued to be used in the Neo-Hittite and Aramean kingdoms that emerged. In publications, the inscriptions are often named after the place they were found. For the Late Bronze Luwian inscriptions from the Hittite Empire period, see this list. For the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from the Iron Age, see the three-part volume by John David Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), aka CHLI. It is reasonably priced at Amazon, though if anyone would like to make a contribution towards my purchase of the set, I am accepting offers. Inscriptions found since the publication of CHLI are listed here. Two years ago, I made a map showing the distribution of Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions which can be viewed here. It is now outdated.

Returning to Taita, Charles Steitler recently published an article in which he proposed Taita is To‘î, a king who paid tribute to David after David defeated Hadadezer, king of Zobah (2 Sam 8:9-11; 1 Chr. 18:9-11). To‘î is a Hurrian name, and Steitler argues Taita is also a Hurrian name. There is a -ta element in Taita’s name which does not appear in the name To‘î. Steitler is not able to give a definitive explanation for the significance of this element, and thus, we cannot say why it would have dropped out. (Steitler’s article is entitled “The Biblical King Toi of Hamath and the Late Hittite State of ‘P/Walas(a)tin,’ ” Biblische Notizen 146 [2010]: 81-99. It was noted by several blogs beginning I think with Aren Maeir.) There is also the difficulty of dating Taita’s inscriptions. In CHLI, Hawkins said the dating of Taita’s inscriptions was doubtful, but suggested the period 900-700 B.C. In the 2009 article I mentioned previously above the photo, Hawkins now suggests a possible date between the 11th and 10th centuries B.C. So it is hard to know right now if Taita was King To‘î of the Bible.

Benjamin Sass has now written two pieces, one here and more recently, “Four Notes on Taita King of Palistin with an Excursus on King Solomon’s Empire,” Tel Aviv 37 (2010): 169–174. He suggests dating Taita to around 900 B.C. for the main reason that, for Sass, this paints a more satisfying historical picture.

Last month, Brian Janeway contributed a summary of these findings as well. It can be read here.

If these recent discussions are any indication, we can expect that Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions will more-and-more play a significant role in our reconstructions of the early Iron Ages. Kenneth Kitchen has already written a couple of essays in which he shows how these inscriptions are an important source of new information for understanding King David’s kingdom.

Kitchen, Kenneth A.
2002 “The Controlling Role of External Evidence in Assessing the Historical Status of the Israelite United Monarchy.” Pp. 111-130 in Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel.” Ed. V. P. Long, D. W. Baker, and G. J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

2005 “The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of the Neo-Hittite States (c. 1200-700): A Fresh Source of Background to the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 117-134 in The Old Testament in Its World: Papers Read at the Winter Meeting, January 2003 The Society for Old Testament Study and at the Joint Meeting, July 2003 The Society for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België. Ed. R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill.

2010 “External Textual Sources — Neo-Hittite States.” Pp. 365-368 in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 129. Ed. B. Halpern and A. Lemaire. Leiden: Brill.

And this is for that last reader who is not yet bored to tears. For more reading, probably the best place to start is Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4 (2009). The entire issue is dedicated to Taita, Tell Tayinat, and the Aleppo Storm-god temple. For more information on Luwians and the Luwian language, one might pursue:

Melchert, H. Craig, ed.
2003 The Luwians. Leiden: Brill.

Payne, Annick.
2010 Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts. 2nd revised ed.Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

UPDATE: I received today the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. The cover story is an article by Victor Hurowitz in which he identifies similarities between the Aleppo Storm-god temple, two temples excavated at Tell Tayinat, and Solomon’s temple. See Victor Hurowitz, “Solomon’s Temple in Context,” Biblical Archaeology Review 37/2 (2011): 46-57 and 77-78.

Tagged Syria, Turkey

Recent Journal Articles

There have been a number of articles published within the past few months, all of which are related to the content of this blog.

Galil, Gershon.
2009 “The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa/Neta’im: Script, Language, Literature and History.” Ugarit-Forschungen 41: 193-242.

I have not read this article yet, but presumably this is Galil’s formal publication of his reading of the Qeiyafa ostracon and of his identification of Kh. Qeiyafa as Netaim, both of which were mentioned previously by Todd (inscription and identification).

Beitzel, Barry J.
2010 “Was There a Joint Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by Tyrian Phoenicians and Early Israelites?” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 360: 37-66.

de Canales, F. González; L. Serrano; and J. Llompart.
2010 “Tarshish and the United Monarchy of Israel.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47: 137-164.

Both of these articles argue for the plausibility of Phoenician nautical trade on the Mediterranean Sea in the 10th century B.C. Beitzel argues that the Hebrew expression ’onî taršîš in 1 Kings 10:22 is better translated “ships of Tarshish” as in the ESV, and not “trading ships” as in the NIV. He gathers together the evidence for early Phoenician trading on the Mediterranean and suggests Tarshish was located in the western Mediterranean. De Canales et al. identify Tarshish more specifically with Huelva, Spain, and date the earliest excavated levels to 900-770 B.C., while proposing an even earlier Phoenician presence.

The latest issue of Israel Exploration Journal contains three articles which may be of interest to our readers.

Rendsburg, Gary A. and William M. Schniedewind.
2010 “The Siloam Tunnel Inscription: Historical and Linguistic Perspectives.” Israel Exploration Journal 60/2: 188-203.

Rendsburg and Schniedewind argue that three linguistic peculiarities of the Siloam inscription point to the dialect of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (referred to as Israelian Hebrew). They go on to speculate that the inscription was authored by a refugee from the northern kingdom, and that the purpose of the tunnel may have been to divert water to the refugee population on the Western Hill.

Siloam Tunnel Inscription in Istanbul, Turkey.

Two more cuneiform inscriptions from Hazor are published in this issue of IEJ as well, one a fragment of an administrative docket and the other a fragment of a clay liver model. (Neither of these are the tablet fragments found last year that Todd reported on here.)

Horowitz, Wayne and Takayoshi Oshima.
2010 “Hazor 16: Another Administrative Docket from Hazor.” Israel Exploration Journal 60/2: 129-132.

Horowitz, Wayne; Takayoshi Oshima; and Abraham Winitzer.
2010 “Hazor 17: Another Clay Liver Model.” Israel Exploration Journal 60/2: 133-145.

These two inscriptions supplement the handy volume of all cuneiform inscriptions found in Canaan (up to the date of publication), Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times, by Wayne Horowitz,; Takayoshi Oshima; and Seth Sanders (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006). We should also add to the list:

Horowitz, Wayne and Takayoshi Oshima.
2007 “Hazor 15: A Letter Fragment from Hazor.” Israel Exploration Journal 57: 34-40.

Mazar, Eilat; Wayne Horowitz; Takayoshi Oshima; and Yuval Goren.
2010 “A Cuneiform Tablet from the Ophel in Jerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal 60/1: 4-21.

Tagged Galilee, Jerusalem, Resources, Shephelah

LSJ Online Out of Commission

Two weekends ago, we reported that Thesaurus Linguae Graecae had made available an online edition of the Classical Greek lexicon Liddell-Scott-Jones, with hyperlinks to texts in the TLG database. Three days ago, TLG announced on their website that the lexicon was no longer available due to misuse.

The Online LSJ was released on February 24, 2011. Within hours of its release, our site became the target of individuals attempting to download our data. By March 1 our server was bombarded by hundreds of coordinated pirate attackers seeking to break into our server security. As a consequence, we were forced to suspend access to LSJ while we are taking steps to address the security of our servers.
We are working to reestablish access gradually and hope that LSJ will be back up within the next few days.
We regret the inconvenience this action has caused to our legitimate users.

Tagged Resources

X-ray Vision for Archaeologists: The “Multi-PAM” Tool

Being able to clearly see what lies underground would solve many headaches for archaeologists.

There is a certain level of guesswork that goes into planning a dig, and only after the available time, money, and manpower has been spent does it become clear whether or not it was worth the investment. However, a professor at Tel Aviv University has developed a new tool that potentially could offer some help in taking the guesswork out of deciding where to dig.

Reported recently in the journal Advances of Geosciences, Prof. Eppelbaum’s new tool gathers data from a number of sources — including radio transmitters used to communicate with nuclear submarines and detailed magnetic field observations — and applies an original algorithmic approach to the measurements to make sense of what lies below the earth’s surface at depths of up to several dozen yards. His tool can help people “see” meaningful objects, artefacts or civilizations — – and lay them out in a four-dimensional chart.

While methods exist for scanning sites of potential archaeological and geological importance, such tools produce significant background noise or inconclusive readings, Prof. Eppelbaum says. …

His tool can be used to evaluate the possible archaeological significance of any given area under scrutiny. Providing rapid results within days or even hours, the algorithm can “read” extensive data before any digging or exploration begins. Financially, technically and ecologically, this tool offers an optimal way to localize and classify ancient buried objects and estimate the potential of the further archaeological investigations, he says.

Prof. Eppelbaum’s solution is called the “multi-PAM,” which stands for “physical — archaeological models.” The tool first interprets what it “sees” by recognizing image targets; then the interpretation can be used to develop a four-dimensional model which can be presented to archaeologists hoping to explore a particular region.

Placed in a small unmanned airplane hovering several yards off the ground and scanning wide tracts of land along the earth’s surface, Prof. Eppelbaum says, the tool can reveal unexplored sites of historical and archaeological significance.

You can read the full post here. A shorter article can be found here.

According to one of the posts, this tool is already in use in some archaeological projects. Does anyone have any personal experience with one? Would you care to share your opinion?

Update:
The catalyst for this news event apparently was a post on the website of the American Friends of Tel Aviv University. This post looks back at the publication of a paper that Prof. Eppelbaum presented in April 2009. The paper is titled: “Archaeological geophysics in Israel: past, present and future.” This paper (along with several others on similar topics) was published in the open access journal called Advances in Geosciences (ADGEO) in 2010. The abstract of Eppelbaum’s paper and a link to download the article can be found here. A list of all the articles in that volume can be found here. For those who desire to learn more about modern techniques for non-intrusive archaeological investigation, this volume is a good place to start.

HT: Joseph I. Lauer

Tagged Excavations, Technology

Chart: The Israelite Schism – 931-841 BCE

The following chart graphically illustrates every single, solitary regnal year of the kings of Judah and Israel from the beginning of the Divided Kingdom (931 BCE) to the end of the Omride line (Israel) and the death of Ahaziah of Judah (841 BCE). Its primary purpose is to show the unwavering consistency of the authors of Kings and Chronicles in their recounting of the reigns of the southern and northern monarchs. Quite simply the accuracy is astonishing. The dates within the chart are based on a synchronized chronology that was first fleshed out by the great scholar, Edwin Thiele, in his groundbreaking work The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (the only chronology “must own” book for every OT student and teacher – recommended here by Todd Bolen).

Thiele’s conclusions are best summed up by the recently deceased scholar, Anson Rainey, who said, “Nobody can discount Thiele’s dates because quite simply his dates work and nobody else’s dates work.” That is the great chronological check – does the chronology actually work? Despite many recent alternative chronologies – Thiele’s now over fifty-year old theory still checks out.

The chart below has some value in that it can be used as a guide to Thiele’s chronology. It allows one to look at the entire landscape of 90 years of Israelite history on a single page (albeit a very large page) while providing the onlooker the ability to compare any given king with his contemporary (I loathe not being egalitarian and using “their” but Athaliah just missed the list). This chart is especially helpful in making sense of some problematic chronological passages. For instance, in the reign of Jehoshaphat (873-848 BCE), the writers of Kings used three different methods (accession year reckoning, non-accession year reckoning, and sole reign after co-reign) of synchronizing Jehoshaphat’s reign with his contemporaries and vice versa . Without an in-depth knowledge of these different ways of recounting – one can become thoroughly lost in recreating his years of reign. Hopefully, this chart can successfully bridge the gap of confusion between text and mathematics.

Click to enlarge

University of Pennsylvania Museum Exhibition

An article in Archaeology magazine highlights a new exhibition at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology entitled Archaeologists & Travelers in Ottoman Lands. The exhibition opened last September and will run through June 26, 2011. Archaeologists & Travelers in Ottoman Lands focuses on the University of Pennsylvania’s Nippur Expedition, and in particular, the lives of three men involved in the excavations of Nippur: Osman Hamdi Bey, John Henry Haynes, and Hermann Vollrath Hilprecht.

Featured are two paintings by Osman Hamdi Bey: “Excavations at Nippur,” which has never before been on public exhibition, and “At the Mosque Door,” which is shown for the first time in one hundred years. Also shown are about 50 photographs by Haynes, whose contributions as an archaeological photographer are only now being recognized, and more than 40 artifacts from the Nippur expedition (1889–1900), including a Parthian “slipper” coffin, Sasanian incantation bowls and glass, and numerous Sumerian cuneiform tablets.

The Nippur Expedition was the first American expedition to the Near East and lasted from 1889–1900. You can read background to the exhibition at the museum’s website and in the article in Archaeology. The exhibition has a companion website here.

For those interested, there is also a book by Bruce Kuklick that tells the story of the Nippur Expedition, Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life, 1880-1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). It recounts the institutionalization of ancient Near East studies in American universities, the hardships of Middle East fieldwork in the 19th century, and the intramural disputes and posturing of the Nippur Expedition’s staff and researchers. The stories of some key personalities ended tragically, with reputations ruined and careers destroyed. (Kuklick also touches on the role ancient Near East studies played in the secularization of universities, and how many scholars working in these disciplines forsook their religious convictions. “The paradox in the evolution of Near Eastern studies was the manner in which the pursuit of Bible truth might undermine the truth of the Bible.” For him, Christian scholars are a curiosity because they are “a stunning counterexample to easy generalizations about the secularization of higher education in America.”)

Additional photos from the University of Pennsylvania’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology can be seen here.

HT: Claude Mariottini

Tagged Museums