Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University campaign, Kingdom of Judah of Kingdom campaign, piae Jdht sap impressions. stamp Judahite ‘private’ Judah’s preparations against the impending Assyrian campaign. Assyrian impending the against preparations Judah’s of part as BCE) 704–701 (from time short a only for manufactured were and Judah), of Shephelah in the to limited (primarily distribution were in restricted impressions and number stamp private so-called the with jars the that suggests further paper The impressions. stamp of types new with jars new reusing old jars from sites not destroyed in the onslaught and also producing 1 the chronologyofdestructionLevelsIIIandII site. layer of Lachish III, the date of these impressions has been at the core of the debate over Ever since the largest corpus of the of dating Conventional keywords lmlk the for chronology new a proposes paper The Tel AvivUniversity Koch Ido and Sergi Omer Lipschits, Oded the of Chronology the Reconsidering Handles: Jar Judahite Royal Aviv Tel © Friends of the of Friends © interpreted in light of the new economic and administrative policies that that policies the administrative that maintains paper The period. and this during Judah in operativebecame economic be new should the it of that light and in kingdom, interpreted vassal Assyrian an became Judah when BCE century 8th the of quarter final the in introduced was system impression
half ofthe7thcentury, thuslimitingittothereignofKingJosiah. second the to it dated impressions, stamp the of use the of duration the reduced even 21–22) (ibid.: Cross view. this accepted (1969) Cross and (1960) Lapp (1940), Albright Josiah. and his opinion, they were in use throughout the 7th century, during the reigns of Kings Manasseh III to 597 BCE, dated the royal stamp impressions to the end of the 8th and the 7th centuries. Lachish In of destruction the of dating the with agreed who 85–86), 1949: 106; (1941: Diringer campaign, campaign, BCE 701 Sennacherib’s after developed and persisted system
lmlk ol. 37, 2010 37, Vol. nstitute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2010 University Aviv Tel of Archaeology of Institute lmlk Stamp Impressions Stamp Jdht sap ade, syin mie Sennacherib's empire, Assyrian handles, stamp Judahite , 3–32 lmlk stamp impressions was discovered in the destruction lmlk lmlk stamp impressions stamp sget ta the that suggests It
lmlk and the the so-called so-called the the and 10.1179/033443510x12632070179306 DOI 1 lmlk
stamp stamp
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 3 2 Odedlipschit,omererganddko 4 the datingofthisstampimpressionsystemtoJosiah’s reign. ascribed to Josiah’s religious and cultic reform. This transition was even used to reinforce was disc’impressions ‘two-winged the scarab’‘four-wingedto the from transition The ‘four-winged scarab’ antedated the ‘two-winged disc’(called ‘flying scroll’) impressions. interpreting the interpreting suggested therefore He 141–152). (ibid.: army Assyrian the by attacked eventually not had been discovered, as well as the existence of these stamp impressions at fortified sites the lack of fortifications at the various sites where Sennacherib’s campaign had begun and before Hezekiah’s anointment. He also pointed to for preparations before long BCE, century 8th the of beginning the or 9th the of end the (704–701 BCE). this as a reflection of Hezekiah’s preparations for the anticipated Assyrian assaultexpectedSennacherib theonslaught.oninterpretedNa’aman targets ofJudahmain the beenhave the Shephelah of Judah and northern hill country of Judah—areas, he observed, that might economic system. Na’aman (1986: 16) noted that the majority ofadministrativeJudahite stampsand the found in cameuse from their of timeprecise establishingthe on focus to 1979: 73–74). both types had been discovered together in Level III (Ussishkin 1977: 50–54, 56; Na’aman since abandoned, was impressions stamp two-winged four-and the differences between reign of Hezekiah. The archaeological and stratigraphic basis for fixing the chronological with a late 8th century dating of the of Level III to Sennacherib’s campaign in Judah (701 BCE), most scholars came to agree but rather as part of a general reorganization of the administration and economy of the of economy and administration the of reorganization general a of part as rather but
The commonly accepted assumption among scholars until the 1970s was that the that was 1970s the until scholars among assumption accepted commonly The type had already appeared at appeared already had type lmlk the of jars that argued 136–152) Vaughn(1999: the of date the over debate 1980s, late the in Starting Following Ussishkin’s excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), which dated the destruction kingdom. was the reason for its continued use during the 7th century, after the destruction of the northern of Judah. The two-winged emblem was, according to Tushingham, a Judahite symbol, and that Kingdom the of those with Israel of Kingdom the of inhabitants the unite to order in emblem previous suggestion, and argued that it was Hezekiah and not Josiah who used the four-winged direction see, e.g., Lance 1971: 324. Tushingham (1992), however, same still the attempted to only.In defend grounds his paleographical on four- impressions stamp the two-winged the between and winged separation his based and chronologically”, the impressions separating of for types evidence statigraphic various no is “there that noticed 18) (1960: Lapp Already political aspirations. the KingdomofJudah(two-wingedsundisc)inorderto‘unify’ thetwonations,aspartofhis of symbols the with side by side scarab) (four-winged Israel using of Kingdom the was of symbols the Josiah that suggested 1971) (1970, Tushingham ones. two-winged the preceded impressions stamp four-winged the standpoint paleographical the from that assumption supported the even 20–22) (1969: Cross and 21) (1960: Lapp 85–86), (ibid.: Diringer reforms. Josiah’s of part was it that argued 75–76) (1949: Diringer gods. foreign of representation or symbols cultic foreign of it divest to order law’in the of scroll ‘winged the by replaced was it origin, in pagan therefore and Egyptian was scarab the since that assumed scholars Many 3 stamp impressions on jar handles not as preparation for onslaught for preparation as not handles jar on impressions stamp lmlk lmlk stamp impressions and associated them with the lmlk stamp impressions on jar handles stamp impressionsstampbegan lmlk 2 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 5 4 the of impressions system (Ussishkin 2004c: the 2143). to linked later was and jars, storage Judahite royal the of part research as the of outset the from defined impressionstampwas of typelatter This the connection between these stamp impressions and the so-called private stamp impressions. late 8thtotheearly7thcenturyBCE( the from Hezekiah’sreign, during time, of period extended an over Judah of Kingdom 216–235; BlakelyandHardin2002:11–13; Kletter2002). with this dating of the private as well as of the lmlk stamp impressions (see, e.g., Fox 2000: the to apply also would 7th, the in use conclusive dating of the private stamp impressions to the latethat since 8ththe century, without significant determine the time span for the use of the during Hezekiah’s rule before and after 701 BCE. Vaughn also employed thisthat conclusionstamp impressions to found on jar handles from the end of the 8th century were all in use after the destruction of Lachish Level III. He therefore argued that possibleit future isuseofthose seals maybelimitedreasonable tonomore than approximately to 20years assume III. Vaughn(ibid.:95–96) further assumed that, since official seals belonged to adults, the this particular name would have been stamped at a time contemporary with Lachish Level and patronymic was stamped by a specific individual, all other stamp impressions that bear view,assumingeveryLachishprivatethatIIIstampimpression person’s bearinga name been dated to the end of the 8th century (Vaughn 1999: 97–98, and see below). archaeologicalIn Vaughn’s context that is dated later than the horizon of Level III at Lachish, so they have on the archaeological context of the private stamp impressions and omitted important omitted and impressions stamp private the of context archaeological the on excavations the date to archaeological order in Second, in surveys). and found were which of (187 impressions stamp private 260 to opposed as surveys), and excavations archaeological in discovered were 1500 2000 than more view: of point
To determine the chronological boundaries for the use of the There are two problems with Vaughn’s dating methodology. First, from the quantitative usually representalloccupation levels atasite. which finds, surface and stratigraphy between link no methodology,is there that emphasizing 701 BCE (ibid.: 24). Finkelstein and Na’aman (2004: 61–69, and see esp. p. 64) criticized this produced atthesamelocationasthosestampedwith Perlman and Yellin (1984) have already demonstrated that jars stamped with private seals were view,Mommsen, of point petrographic the From 6–12). 1976: (idem impressions stamp lmlk 1976: 5; 2004c: 2143), while other private stamp impressions were found in the same loci with on the surface in Tel below). discussion further Furthermore, they see suggested and continuous chronological conclusions 1996, based represent on Ilan and impressions Amit (Mazar, stamp century 7th the the of during use some though even century, 8th late the to exclusively impressions stamp lmlk the dated they because wrong was methodology their But Negev.northern the and Shephelah the in sites various of levels destruction the date to order the use to tried (2002) Hardin and Blakely found with were jars storage royal Lachish, At 2). 6: Pl. 2, 14: Fig. 16, 1962: (Aharoni Raḥel Ramat at A royal storage jar handle bearing a lmlk and the private stamp impressions were part of the same phenomenon, the lmlk and private stamp impressions on different handles of the same jar (Ussishkin reconsidering thechrologyf îalif, arguing that it represents “reuse” after Sennacherib’s destruction of stamp impressions are known (approximately (approximately known are impressions stamp lmlk lmlk, as well as a private stamp impression, was discovered 4 Private stamp impressions have not been found in an lmlk stamp impressions. Most scholars have agreed ibid.: 136–140). lmlk stamp impressions (ibid.: 99–110). He argued stamp impression as a chronological tool, in tool, chronological a as impression stamp lmlk stamp impressions, Vaughn relied only Vaughnimpressions, relied stamp lmlk lmlkseals. 5
lk m l lmlk jars, Vaughn pointed to lmlk stamp impressions found
stamp impressions stamp lmlk 5 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 7 6 years. three mere a in scale massive a such on out variety of agricultural estates and finally storage at royal hubs was developed and carried that so complex a system of jar manufacture at a imagine single centre, distribution for to filling at a hard also is It campaign. Assyrian the and Hezekiah of revolt the between years four or three the in develop could system elaborate an such that implausible is It place. in was system administrative sophisticated a that indicate types) diverse many the by (illustrated use in were that seals numerous the and handles stamped of quantity (704–701 BCE) is a historical hypothesis that leaves several unresolved issues. The large lmlk stamp impressions reflects the short period of the preparations before the campaign lmlk impressions preceded the Sennacherib campaign. The suggestion that the system of said, there is no accurate archaeological answer to the question of the extent to which the already been founded in the first half of the 8th century BCE (Ussishkin 2004b: 82). That had and life long a had level this but III, Lachish of layer destruction the in discovered was impressions stamp of corpus largest the mentioned, already As 2006). Gitin 2003; appeared by the late 9th/early 8th century BCE (Vaughn 1999: 138–140; Shai and Maeir already had 2006) Gitin by suggested typology the to (Typesaccording SJO4 and SJO3 of jars at sites not destroyed, it was at this point in time that the system fell into disuse. terminus ad quem for the Most scholars now concur that Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah in the 701of Commencement BCE provides a clear 2007: 139–141), 1996: 208; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 196–197; Na’aman 2001: 270–271, 273; Stern Ilan Mazar,and e.g., Amit (see, contexts archaeological BCE century 7th dated clearly in unearthed were They phenomenon. wider much a of part are impressions stamp lmlk the whereas century 8th the of end the to dated well very are impressions stamp private archaeological data concerning the Odedlipschit,omererganddko 6
Regarding commencement of the of commencement Regarding some oftheproductwasusedfor individualtradeinlocalmarkets. that possible even is It sites). rural small and dwellings private in found also were jars (hence hands private as well as fortresses, and centres administrative cities, in stored kingdom, the where they were filled with produce (wine or oil). These products were then distributed across the Shephelah. From this place they were sent to the royal estates (s(w)kh, zyp, úbrn origin, their rather but probably royal vineyards or royal estates. jars, The jars were made and stamped at a royal centre in royal the of destination the indicate not did impressions stamp on names place the 680), 1975b: Lemaire 95–97; 1971: Mettinger 21; 1969: Cross 173–174; 133–142, 1969: Welten57; 1982: 41; 1967: Rainey 22; 1960: Lapp 80]; 1949: Diringer [in Tufnell 1943; Sellin 339; 1937: Galling e.g., following, 226–235; (2000: Fox to According (ibid: 109). case this from deduced be can conclusion general no that and exceptional is discovered, were residual. He further argued that the case of lmlk which in cases all in that argued He BCE. century 7th the of half first the during impressions Vaughn (1999: 95–109) did not accept these finds as proof of the continued use of these stamp stamp impressions were discovered in 7th century strata, they should be interpreted as interpreted be should they strata, century 7th in discovered were impressions stamp 6 andevencontinued tobeproduced duringthisperiod. lmlk stamp impressions, and that except for the very limited reuse lmlk lmlk stamp impressions. As will be shown below, the stamp impression system impression stamp system, it should be noted that noted be should it system, lmlk îorvat Shilúah, where no private stamp impressions 7 The sizeable number of number sizeable The storage lmlk and jars jars lmlk mmÁt), Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University the final years of King Ahaz’ rule or the early days of King Hezekiah’sKing days early of the reign. or rule Ahaz’ King of years final the in either kingdom, a vassal became Judah when period the century, 8th of the quarter (Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel, Mizpah and Gibeon) not destroyed during Sennacherib’s Sennacherib’s during destroyed not Gibeon) and Mizpah Raḥel, Ramat Judah of (Jerusalem, sites country hill in discovered were handles stamped lmlk the half least At the of Termination produce until the end of the Persian period, supports this assumption. Accordingly, Accordingly, assumption. this we may tentatively of date the beginning the supports period, Persian agricultural the of end collecting the for until centre produce administrative an as serve to continued that site a its local The large garrisons. ofquantity and administration and of as one of for supply revenues, sources the Assyrian the main It vassal kingdom. by in was rule order encouraged the the to imperial empire’sincrease an Assyrian it when in became Judah established system and economic administrative authority. of acentral under guidance the transportation its and production agricultural improved which economy, royal those previously used (Zimhoni 2004: 1706). All the above changes point than to larger a were that centralized jars 2008: of storage 145–147; 1998: Katz production the and literature), (Kletter 77–79, further with century 8th the of end the at Judah in appeared that weights marked of system new the included 1705–1707; also 171–172; change 2004: 52–53). 1997:2008: This Katz Zimhoni 509; 1990: (Mazar network distribution broad a and of shapes variety limited a with industry mass-production to workshops standardized a local in production small-scale non-standardized, from evolved which 2008: Katz 2005; Weiss and (Faust 55–59).time Moreover,this at a at this in juncture changesignificant alsopottery, Judahite occurred Judah in occurred that installations production agricultural the in changes technological the explain also can It products. agricultural further additional for 171–178, with demand the 2008: from resulting (Katz as BCE explained be can literature), century 8th late the by Jerusalem around installations agricultural and villages small of farms, number the in increase dramatic the with together 2009), De-Groot and (De-Groot Moza Greenhut 2006; around Greenhut 2002; area Greenhut and the in also probably and 2008), Gadot and (Lipschits Valley Rephaim in the estates of rise The agricultural forces. of imperial guidance and supervision the under centre administrative Judahite a as founded initially was Raḥel Ramat that 2009) argued and Oeming Arubas Gadot, Lipschits, 2009; (2008; Lipschits in Gadot taxes and and Lipschits Na’aman(2001: and 270–274) grain). and tribute oil pay wine, to (mainly kind had it when kingdom, vassal Assyrian an became Judah century. 8th late the during Judah of administration and economy the in changes the of context the lengthoftimethissystemmusthavebeenoperative. jars found compared, for example, to the number of rosette stamped jars, also testifies to It is our opinion that the the that opinion our It is after occurred changes the of many that assumption the is departure of point Our the of use initial the date to attempt Any reconsidering thechrologyf lmlk lmlk stamp impression system impression stamp stamp impressions represent another feature of the the of feature another represent impressions stamp lmlk stamp impressions found at Raḥel, Ramat impressions stamp lmlk system should consider it in the the in it consider should system lmlk stamp impression system to the last last the to system impression stamp lk m l
stamp impressions 7 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University contexts as residual or secondary use of royal jars from sites in the Judahite highlands highlands Judahite the in sites from jars royal of use secondary or residual as contexts archaeological century 7th clear in found handles stamped the explained impressions the second half of the 7th century.7th the of half second the to dated 140), (2007: Stern as well as 209), (1996: Mazar,Ilan which and 2), Amit Fig. additional stamp impression was An below). found (see at century Khirbet mid-7th es-Samrahthe to (Cross dated andare they Milik incised; 1956: were 9–11,circles concentric En-Gedi (Mazar,Shilḥah from handle Ḥorvat jar the On 208–209). 1996: Ilan and Amit settled for sites the first time intwo the mid-7th centuryfrom BCE: En-Gedi (Stern 2007:come 139–141) and seal same the by stamped handles Two contexts. archaeological and evenatLachish. 11 10 9 8 from 8thor7thcenturyBCEcontexts. 25). Archaeologically, it is impossible to determine whether these stamped 2007: handles came 270–274; 2001: (Na’aman BCE century 7th the during inhabited and campaign Odedlipschit,omererganddko 8 impressions were also uncovered in a 7th century archaeological context in Jerusalem, in context archaeological century 7th a in uncovered also were impressions that possible is It 16). 59: Pl. 123, Photo 194, (ibid.: century 8th late the to dated was which context, II and III Levels mixed a in uncovered was impression stamp third a 13); 61: Pl. 124, Photo 195, 12; 51: Pl. 122, Photo 194–195, 2001: Panitz-Cohen and (Mazar century 7th the of at half Telsecond the to dated (Timnah),is Batash which
Scholars who insisted on the traditional late 8th century dating of the of dating century 8th late traditional the on insisted who Scholars Nevertheless, some Nevertheless, 2137), whichaccordingtoitstypology shouldbedatedtothe7thcentury(seebelow). (ibid.: 68 number is impression stamp second 69). The No. 2137, 2004c: (Ussishkin III Level to assigned was type this of impression stamp identical An 620). 2004a: (Ussishkin II Level (Type SIIa, Ussishkin 2004c: 2137, No. 71, Pl. 29.15: 7), was found on a floor clearly dated to two-winged a excluded: be should impressions stamp Two context. Impressions Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 33, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54, 68, 71), most of them not in a clear 14 Lachish, at II Level In data (Vaughn 1999:108). available the of basis the on excluded be cannot es-Samrah Khirbet at activity century Eighth (and cf.Na’aman2007:25–26). resettled then and destroyed sites at and 701 in destroyed not sites at century,both 7th the of half first the in also use in be century continuedto 8th the of the end at characteristic Judah of identical to the pottery discovered at Lachish Level III. This thereinforces the idea that as the pottery well as pottery, the that afterwards, and shortly resettled were campaign, Sennacherib Shephelah, the southern during the destroyed in were which sites few a that demonstrated (2004) Na’aman and Finkelstein excavations ( Kenyon’sin discovered impressions stamp the of publication partial a only Yet,type. is here see and two, (excluding David of City Kenyon’sthe in at found excavations impressions century). stamp 6th the of All (beginning 9 dated to the 8th century), one in Level was 6 (which (end 3 of 8th–beginning Level of in 7th one century) found: and were two more in impressions four Level pavement, stamp street the 61 above directly the found to addition In 129). (ibid.: mud of layer the covered that sand of were found directly on the pavement, 11 in the layer of mud that covered it and eight in a layer impressions stamp the of Forty-two BCE. 700 to it adjoins that pavement the and wall the of dated to Iron Age II (Franken and Steiner 1990: 56). Franken and Steiner dated the construction The stamp impressions were found sealed in a fill above a street pavement, outside the city wall 61 Jerusalem, In ibid.), anditisdifficulttodrawaconclusionabouttheirexacttypology jar handles were found in the extramural quarter of the City of David. of City the of quarter extramural the in found were handles jar lmlk 11
stamp impressions were found in clear 7th century century 7th clear in found were impressions stamp lmlk stamp impressions were found (Ussishkin 2004c: 2135–2138, 2004c: (Ussishkin found were impressions stamp lmlk 9 Two tm ipesos icvrd t hs sts were sites, these at discovered impressions stamp lmlk 8 .; Steiner 2001: 127–130) are of the two-winged the of are 127–130) 2001: Steiner ibid.; stamp impressions were found in Level II Level in found were impressions stamp lmlk stamp impression stamp śwkh stamp stamp lmlk stamp lmlk . 10
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University within the borders of Judah. royal jarsthroughoutthe7thcentury(Gitin2006),mightsupportthisoption. of handles stamped of use continued the and Shephelah, the in centre production same of the of type same jar,of production to continuity at Judah. the The assumed campaign impressions. The purpose of the concentric circles is not clear, not is circles concentric the of purpose The impressions. lmlk were incised after the jars had been fired, indicating that they postdate the stamping of the the lmlk stamp impression system, probably in the mid-7th century. storage jars. The incised circle system cancelled, adapted or replaced its predecessor, the concentric circles were developed as an independent system of marking the same type of without circles concentric bearing handles of 14 13 12 consider the possibility that some also should we option, reasonable a is 208–209; this While 197). 2001: 1996: Panitz-Cohen and Mazar Ilan and Amit (Mazar, Sennacharib by destruction escaped had that circles and the rosette stamp impressions are dated to the middle and late 7th century 7th late and middle the to dated are impressions stamp rosette the and circles concentric incised (Vanderhooftthe BCE Since century 2006). 2nd Lipschits the and of with the marked were jars when periods, Hellenistic early and Persian the throughout persisted destruction of Judah at the beginning of the 6th century BCE. The same system probably the until century 8th late the from place in remained jars storage these with associated circles and rosette stamp impressions), indicates that the administrative-economic system of the use of royal emblems on their handles (lmlk stamp impressions, incised concentric symbol, namelytherosettestampimpression(Koch2008). new a with marked were jars century,when 7th the in later persisted have must system the in centre and Perlman Yellin(Mommsen, Judah of Shephelah 1984; production Yellin2004). The Cahill and same the at jars of manufacture continued the suggests also
lmlk stamp impressions (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch forthcoming). The concentric circles To date, 274 jar handles incised with concentric circles have been found at various sites The evidence for both the continuation of the manufacturing of royal storage jars and impressions (see below). below). (see impressions to similar is late the is distribution its that system fact the the late on circle this of Webase BCE. century concentric mid-7th stage the the around final Barkay that the and than posit Avigad later we or 408); with 145–147), (1985: contemporaneous (2007: Barkay Stern 12); and 247); (1961: Yadin(2000: of assumption the Contra age, orasignofthereusejar. its jars, the in wine the of quality the of indication an were they interpretations—that possible theory that the had been checked, or a receipt indicating that the jar had reached its destination. Following the are cancellation of the circles concentric a represented they incised that suggested and the symbols, decorative or that marks potter’s marks, possibilities owner’s the out ruled 20–23) (1959: Pritchard and Pl.59:15). 125 Photo 195, 2001: Panitz-Cohen and (Mazar TelBatash at one and 343) 1953: (Diringer Lachish at two 11–12) 6: Pl. 1899: (Bliss at Azekah two one 1), 6: Shephelah: Pl. 1900: the (Bliss TelGoded at in found handles incised six only with comparison by this Raḥel—and Of handles bearing concentric circles, 128 were found in Jerusalem, 41 at Gibeon, 35 at Ramat yhwd stamp impression, and disappeared with the Hasmoneans in the second half stamp impression distribution and unlike the distribution of the rosette stamp stamp rosette the of distribution the unlike and distribution impression stamp lmlk lmlk stamp impressions indicated royal estates, Lapp (1960: 22) suggested other reconsidering thechrologyf lmlk stamp impression, a mark indicating that the contents of the storage jar 12 Of these, 132 were incised on the same handle and next to lmlk jars were produced and stamped stamp impressions indicates that the that indicates impressions stamp lmlk lk m l
stamp impressions 14 stamp impressions, impressions, stamp lmlk The change of symbol 13 after Sennacherib’s but the existence the but 9 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Vaughn2004). and Barkay 1985; Barkay 1986; 1979, Na’aman (e.g., name place or emblem either to the of distribution The of distribution The the early7thcentury? in campaign the Assyrian after continue jars of stamping and manufacturing the did or century,8th late the in stamped and manufactured jars pre-existing of use secondary the asked now is: Was the continued use of the jars bearing be to needs that question The BCE. 701 of the campaign during Assyrian destroyed not late 8th century remained in use in the early 7th century BCE, and were preserved at sites the during use in been had that jars the of Some on. lived system administrative the that central same the workshop,at manufactured and be stamped to by thecontinued same jars method storage of royal marking that the fact handles, the leads But to the conclusion (Finkelstein 1994; Finkelstein andsystem Na’amaneconomic 2004;Assyrian the Fantalkin into 2004; integration KnaufJudah’s 2005:and 168–171).reign Manasseh’s King of resumed onlyafterahiatus. system the that and century), 7th the of half first the (in campaign Sennacherib’s after handles their on impressions royal of stamping the and jars storage of manufacture the in gap a was there that assumption the to leads BCE century 8th late the to impressions of use the of time-frame the limit to attempt an 45–47), 2008: (Koch BCE Odedlipschit,omererganddko 10 type andthreeforthetwo-winged type(seeFigs.1and2): four-winged the for impressions—two of types main five defined Lemaire impressions. carried oninthe7thcentury. then the logical conclusion would be that stamping of new types of BCE, century 7th the to dated clearly be could that sites at only appeared types these assume that this type was produced after the 701 campaign. If we could demonstrate that could we level, destruction BCE 701 clear a in found was type given a of exemplar one even not if that Wehypothesized BCE. 701 in destroyed not sites hill-country in only according to detailed typology. Our research isolated stamp impression types that appear Barkay and Vaughn 2004:2168). therefore concluded, were geographical rather than chronological (Na’aman 1986: 11–16; four-winged impressions were sent to the Shephelah. The typological differences, it was with two-winged impressions were sent mainly to hill country sites and jars stamped with have maintained that all jars were produced in one central location, and that jars stamped this fact, and since both types were found in the destruction layer of Lachish III, scholars four-wingedGiven the type. of are Shephelah the in found most while type two-winged Such a hiatus is difficult to explain, especially when seen against the background the against seen when especially explain, to difficult is hiatus a Such To organize our data, we used Lemaire’s (1981) typology for classifying Lemaire’sTofor used typology we (1981) data, organizeour impressions stamp the of distribution the of examination no been has there Todate
Most of the of Most stamp impressions has thus far been examined according examined been far thus has impressions stamp lmlk lmlk stamp impressions found in the hill country are of the of are country hill the in found impressions stamp lmlk jar handles by impression type impression by handles jar lmlk stamp impressions limited to lmlk jar handles was stamp lmlk stamp lmlk Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University century, itisreasonabletoassumethattheywerestampedonlyafter701BCE. 7th the through exist to continued that sites hill-country at numbers large in appearance their and II), Telfrom Batash (aside Judah of Shephelah the in absence their BCE, 701 impressions on handles from destruction levels associated with the Assyrian campaign of with Level II, which was dated to the 7th century. 15 divided register, bottom in name place icon; Raḥel, Jerusalem, Jericho and Tel Batash. Two-winged 25 Aof total IIb: Type Four-winged I: 16 the 701BCEdestruction. with associated sites other in or III Lachish of level destruction the in discovered them of none Sennacherib’scampaign, of BCE course 701 the in destroyed not sites at found Lemaire classifiedoneadditionaltype,withnoplacename,whichhedesignated M–for mmšt(=?) Z–for zyp(=Ziph) S–for śwkh(=Socoh) H–for ḥbrn(=Hebron) of eachplacenamethatappearsonthem: letter first the to according types, main five the of each in variants four defined Lemaire IIc–icons withplacenameinupperregister, withoutlmlk IIb–icons withlmlkinupperregisterandplacenamebottomregister, divided IIa–icons withlmlkinupperregisterandplacenamebottom Two-winged II: register inscriptions, lapidary with Ib–icons register inscriptions, cursory with Ia–icons
The following examination of the of examination following The 1913: 158,Pl.42:h). Watzingerand (Sellin Jericho in found was type this of impression stamp additional an that seems It (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_jerusalem.htm). Garena by collected was data in one and excavations Kenyon’sOphel excavations at the City of David. The the last three have not yet been published, but the in two 23), No. 252, 2000: Barkay and (Avigad Quarter 39: 4–5; Sergi forthcoming a, forthcoming b). Four were found in Jerusalem: one in the Jewish Pl. 34, 1964: 8; 15: Fig. 19, 1962: (Aharoni Raḥel Ramat at found were Five type. SIIb the of three only for account can we but 161), 1947: (McCown Mizpah in found were these of Four 532, 541), but it 485, seems 454, that Impression 417, 216 415, should also 409, be 293, recognized as 146, belonging to (Nos. this them type. of nine only recognized Pritchard 485). 409, 146, 9: Fig. 454, 8a: TenFig. 24–25, 1959: (Pritchard Gibeon at found were impressions SIIb this isaZIIbtype(seebelow). that likely more is It read. be cannot and blurred is it but 12), 51: Pl. 122, 11,Photo No. 194, 16, 61: 13. It is possible that an additional impression of this type was found in Level II (ibid.: 59: Pls. 123–124, Photos 194–195, 2001: Panitz-Cohen and Mazar in 13 and 12 Impressions type (SIIb) stamp impressions was found at Gibeon, Mizpah, Ramat Mizpah, Gibeon, at found was impressions stamp (SIIb) type śwkh lmlk lmlk reconsidering thechrologyf types types in upper register and place name in lower lower in name place and register upper in lmlk in upper register and place name in lower lower in name place and register upper in lmlk stamp impression types is limited to those to limited is types impression stamp lmlk 15 The two found at Tel Batash were associated 16 In view of the total lack of such stamp lk m l
stamp impressions XII. 11 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University winged IIa (bottom). Drawings by Ido Koch. Ido by Drawings (bottom). IIa winged Odedlipschit,omererganddko 12 Figure 1 Schematic drawings of 8th century 8th of drawings Schematic 1 Figure HIa ZIa HIIa MIIa HIb ZIb lmlk types: four-winged Ia and Ib (top) and two- and (top) Ib and Ia four-winged types: MIa ŚIIa ZIIa ŚIb MIb Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University IIc (centre) and two-winged XII (bottom) . Drawings by Ido Koch. Ido by Drawings . (bottom) XII two-winged and (centre) IIc
Figure 2 Schematic drawings of 7th century 7th of drawings Schematic 2 reconsidering thechrologyf ZIIb MIIb ZIIc HIIc XII lmlk types: two-winged IIb (top), two-winged (top), IIb two-winged types: HIIb ŚIIb MIIc lk m l
stamp impressions 13 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Raḥel, Jerusalem, Tell el-Fûl, Beth-Zur and Hebron. TellJerusalem, and Raḥel, Beth-Zur el-Fûl, Jerusalem. Beth-Zur,and Raḥel, Samwil Nebi out of context (Barkay and Vaughn 2004: 2152, No. 44). Photo 140, 4.7.1.1). Only 2007: one stamp (Stern impression of this En-Gedi type was at identified atone Lachish, on theand surface, 208–209), 1996: Ilan and Amit (Mazar, should be dated to the second half of the 7th century—one discovered at Ḥorvat Shilḥah 19 18 17 Odedlipschit,omererganddko 14 foundat Khirbet es-Samrah, which was dated to the 7th century (Cross and Milik 1956: 8, before 701BCE. produced not was too, type, this that seems it century), 7th the in settled been just had 74 stamp impressions were uncovered at sites that existed throughout the 7th century (or Lachish and its total absence from the destruction of Lachish Level III, plus the fact that
A78 of total A total of 74 lmlk.com/research/lmlk_ zur.htm). (http://www.Garena by only mentioned is Hebron from impression stamp The site. this from and (Sellers found were type this of impressions another added Garena and 8), 1931: Albright this type was found at Tell el-Fûl (Lapp 1981: 111, Pl. 28: 4, Fig. 29: 2). At Beth-Zur two stamp published (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_ jerusalem.htm). A single stamp impression of additional three of this type were excavated by Kenyon in the City of David, but they were not three more were discovered in Duncan’s excavation in the Ophel (1931: 139). It seems that an and 148), 139: 41, 17, Nos. 134, 1989: (Nadelman excavations Ophel the in found were more 30–31). Nos. Two262, 19–22; Nos. 261, 18; No. 260, 30–31; 18–22, Nos. 252, 2000: Barkay (Avigadand Quarter Jewish the in found were Seven 29–30). 2: Pl. 29–30, Nos. (ibid.: type this of be also may David of City the from more two and 8–14), 1: Pl. (Shoham 8–15, Nos. David 76, 2000: of City the at excavations Shiloh’s in discovered were Eight Jerusalem. in found Twenty-five were b). forthcoming a, forthcoming Sergi 9; 7– 38: Pl. 63, 62– 1964: 5; 7: Pl. 6, 15: Fig. 47, 1962: (Aharoni Raḥel Ramat at found were Eighteen lmlk_nasbeh.htm). (http://www.lmlk.com/research/ more one identified Garena and Mizpah, at five counted 161) that he did not identify (ibid.: 25– 26, Nos. 118, 253, 318, 337, 411, 459, 488). McCown (1947: 24, Nos. 123, 356, 397, 416, 456, 457, 498, 555, 563, Fig. 8: 456), but there may be seven more Sixteen HIIb stamp impressions were found at Gibeon. Pritchard identified nine of them (1959: on thesurface. 2151–2159, Nos. 3, 102, 274), but their exact type was not identified, and they were discovered two-winged Three Samwil stampimpressions,seethephotoinMagen2008:41. were found in Kenyon’s excavations at the City of David but were not published. On the Nebi impressions additional five (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_jerusalem.htm) Garena by Jewish Quarter (Avigad and Barkay 2000: 252, Nos. 9–12), and according to the data collected the in found were Four 23). 22, 20, 19, 17, 79: Pl. 17–24, Nos. 76, 2000: (Shoham more two 157). Six were identifiedPhoto in Shiloh’s126, excavation atNo. the City of(ibid.: David, but itNadelman is possible thereby are unrecognized went but excavations Ophel the at found com/research/lmlk_ jerusalem.htm). We assume that an additional impression of this type was http://www.lmlk.See same. the and one fact in are 151–155; 24 and 22 Photos Impressions that 20–24, states Garena Nos. 134, 1989: Jerusalem: (Nadelman in excavations Ophel found the were in more five 20 or four about and 8), 1931: Albright and (Sellers Beth-Zur at 5; 15: Fig. 47, 1964: 34, 62–63, 19–20, Pls. 38: 10–12, 1962: 39: 1–2; Sergi (Aharoni forthcoming a, forthcoming b). discovered One was found were 35 Raḥel Ramat At 2). 56: Pl. 161, 1947: (McCown found were four least at Mizpah In 514). 355, 268, Nos. 25–26, (ibid.: more three are there possible is it and 540), 531, 507, 500, 490, 489, 480, 367, (Nos. them of eight Eleven ZIIb impressions were found at Gibeon. Pritchard (1959: 25, Fig. 9: 480, 490) identified ḥbrn type (HIIb) stamp impressions was found at Gibeon, Mizpah, Ramat zyp type (ZIIb) stamp impressions was found at Gibeon, Mizpah, Ramat lmlk impressions were found at Lachish (Barkay and Vaughn 2004: Vaughnand (Barkay Lachish at found were impressions zyp 17 Twotype this of impressions additional 19 Astamp impression of this type was 18 Given the rarity of this type at Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2004: 2158, No. 315), but in an unclear archaeological context. in a locus that contained mixed material from both Levels III and II, and III Levels both from material mixed contained that locus a in 2004c: 2137, No. 68, Photo 15.29: 7; Barkay and Vaughn 2004: 2152, No. 41), stratigraphicalone of them context (Singer-Avitz 2002: 144). Two were Threeuncovered stamped jar handlesat wereLachish found at (UssishkinArad (Aharoni 1981: 126: 1–3), but not in a clear them locatedoutsidetheboundariesofKingdomJudah. Tel of the 7th century distribution system. Stamp impressions of this type were also found at in large numbers at sites not destroyed in 701 BCE, we conclude that it functioned as part 22 21 20 without type havebeenfound;noimpressionsofthe register, the Shephelah of upper Judah. Only in word name place winged impression that has the place name in the upper register and does not contain the with of type icons Another IIc: Type Photo 2). 24 23 Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel and Beth-Zur. conclude thatthistype,too,waspartofthe7thcenturysystem. may weBCE, destroyed701notsiteslarge numbersappears in atin itcontext, that and surface. Given that this type is very rare at Lachish, and was not found in a clear stratigraphical
A total of 47 of total A type wasfoundatKhirbetes-Samrah (CrossandMilik1956:8,PhotoNo.2). 8–11; Sergi forthcoming a, forthcoming b). It is possible that one more stamp impression of this Raḥel 20 stamp impressions of this type were retrieved (Aharoni 1962: 47; 1964: 62–63, Pl. 39: http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_jerusalem.htm).see Jerusalem,and in type this Ramat At Ophelthe(accordingat datathecollectedto Garena, bycounted who stamp 14impressions of found in Kenyon’s excavations at the City of David and in Duncan and Macalister’s excavations JewishQuarter(Avigad Barkayand2000:252,Nos.13–16),seems thatfourmorewereit and the excavationsat the inunearthed were four25–27), 2: Pl. 25–28, Nos. 76, 2000:(Shoham David of City the atShiloh’sexcavations in found were fourJerusalem: in discoveredbeen at Garena by collected data the http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_nasbeh.htm). cf. (and type have MIIbtype this theimpressionsTwelveof stamp of are three only that seems it 161), name the bearing impressions stamp ten classified McCown though stamp One 105). No. 25, (ibid.: impressionmore thisoftype was found atone Tell el-Fûlis (Lapp 1981: there 111, that Pl.28:1–2, Fig. 29: 1).Even possible is it and 522), 520, 499, 487, 486, 106, Nos. 24,(1959: type thisimpressions ofstamp Pritchardrecognized sixGibeon At was disturbedbyafoundationtrenchthatbelongedtoLevelII(Ussishkin2004a:620). The stamp impression was found in Locus 4343, which contained material from Level III, and other possibilityisthatitoftheMIIbtype. the and identify, to hard is es-Samrah Khirbet from impression stamp the of type exact The literature. (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_m2d.htm),Garena by gathered data the See further with At Lachish, two two-winged 2004: 2156–2157,Nos.231,273). Bothwerediscoveredonthesurface. and (Barkay type MIIb the of Vaughn are they not or whether clear not is it so and identified, >Erani (on the surface), Tel Jezreel and Khirbet Sharta (Qiryat Ata / Kefar Ata), all of lmlk. Sixteen stamp impressions of this type have been discovered, none at sites in 20 A few stamp impressions of this type come from sites destroyed by Sennacherib. stamp impression that probably post-dates 701 BCE is the two- the is BCE 701 post-dates probably that impression stamp lmlk type (MIIb) stamp impressions was found at Gibeon, Mizpah, Gibeon, at found was impressions stamp (MIIb) type mmšt reconsidering thechrologyf lmlk ḥbrn (HIIc), mmšt stamp impressions were found that cannot be positively 22 One was found at Lachish (Barkay and Vaughn mmšt (MIIc) and śwkh typehavebeendiscovered. lk m l zyp (ZIIc) impressions of this 24
23 stamp impressions Since this type appears from Mizpahfrom(1947: mmšt 21 and the other on the lmlk 15 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University at sitesdestroyedinthecourseofSennacherib’s campaign. No stamp impressions of this type have been found at sites in the Shephelah of Judah, or 29 28 27 26 25 name Tellat one and el-Fûl. Gibeon at six Jerusalem, in seven or six Mizpah, at nine Raḥel, Ramat place at 20 discovered: were type this of impressions stamp 41 or Forty XII). (Typewithout icon the bears Judah of country hill the in sites at only found impression stamp of Two-winged type additional An XII: Type Odedlipschit,omererganddko 16 30 each atMizpah,JerusalemandGezer. one eachat Tell el-Fûl,theJewishQuarterofJerusalem,RamatRaḥelandGezer. each atGibeon,Mizpah,NebiSamwilandHebron. may concludethatitfunctionedaspartofthe7thcenturysystem. Judah, but in very small numbers. It seems possible that the 280 clearly assigned to 7th century levels. Most of these types also appear in the Shephelah of was found at sites destroyed in the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE, impressions stamp and these of someNone XII. and of TypesIIc categories: differentIIb, three them into were distribution systemduringtheearly7thcentury. the retained and BCE 701 after stamped all were here presented
Of the Of the Of the To sum up, our analysis encompassed about 280 about encompassed analysis Toour up, sum Since no stamp impressions of this type were found at sites destroyed in 701 BCE, we there byKenyon(http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_ jerusalem.htm). certain),fromDuncanoneMacalister’sand excavations Ophel,themoreexcavatedoneandin stampimpressions thistypefromGibeon,JewishoffromtheoneQuarter (although not thisis by Garena at http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_ nasbeh.htm. Garena also identified two more 29–30, Pl. 2: 29–30. On the nine stamp impressions discovered at Mizpah, see the data collected 1960: 32, Pl. 166: 3; Avigad and Barkay 2000: Nos.Sinclair 24–26453; 414,pp. 412, 252, 75, Nos.261; 25,ShohamPritchard 1959:forthcoming b;forthcoming2000: Sergi a, See 76, Nos. www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_nasbeh.htm; http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_hebron.htm. Pritchard (1959: 24, No. 145, Fig. 9: 145); Magen 2008: 41. See data collected by Garena at http:// this typewillneedtoberemoved fromthe7th-centurygroup. century,7th the to us by dated type a of impression stamp single a even yield sites Shephelah say,to unclear Needless at contexts archaeological BCE century 8th late clear of excavations future if an from came and Judah of Kingdom stratigraphy, itisnotrelevanttothecurrentdiscussion. the of boundaries the outside found was since but it 83), 1971: (Dothan Ashdod at discovered was type this of impression stamp One http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_gezer.htm. at Garena by collected data the Gezer,see at found impressions stamp the For 156. Photo 26, No. 134, 131, 1989: Nadelman 161; 1947: McCown 501; 481, 79, Nos. 75, 1959: Pritchard 39: 11; Lapp1981:111, Pl.28:8–9; Avigad andBarkay 2000:No.17onpp.252,260. stamp impressions of this type, see Macalister 1912: 14, Fig. 361: 1; Aharoni 1964: 62–63, Pl. another specimen of this type (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_nasbeh.htm). For the other identified Garena 161. 1947: McCown see: Mizpah, at discovered impressions stamp the For inscription above the emblem, whereas the lower register remained blank remainedregister lower the whereas emblem, the above inscription lmlk mmšt type (MIIc), six stamp impressions have been found—two at Mizpah, and ḥbrn type (HIIc), only four stamp impressions have thus far been found—one zyp type (ZIIc), three stamp impressions were found at Gibeon, and one more 27 30 25 stamp impressions, which fell which impressions, stamp lmlk 29 lmlk administrative/ lmlk stamp impressions 26 28
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University two-winged types. two-winged IIa the than period longer a for use in were and earlier are they century,that suggest we 33 32 31 period. same the to dated are and surveys) as compared to the four-winged stamp impressions (approximately 507) that two-winged Type IIa impressions (approximately 158 items were discoveredfour-winged stamp impressions. in This ratio also excavationsappears to apply to the overall number of types: only 30 two-winged Type IIa handles were discovered at Lachish fewer Typeas IIa two-winged stamp impressions than there are of the various four-winged compared to 348 These types should therefore be dated to the late 8th century BCE. However, there are far the variants of the IIa two-winged types, were found in the Lachish III destruction level. us to further define their typological development. All the four-winged types, as well as all The observation that some types of the of development Typological campaign, andwerereplacedafter701BCEbytheIIbtwo-wingedtypes. Total Other sites Other Mizpah Gibeon Ramat Ra Ramat Site Jerusalem
n ua bfr te ria o teAsras Ke ad elne 19: 7; ra 2005: Ornan 276; 1998: Uehlinger and 231–234). (Keel Assyrians the of arrival the before Judah in dominant moreprobably was culturewhose Egypt, withassociated is four-wingedscarabthe finds, compared with the low distribution of the winged sun disc (Sass 1993: 214). Furthermore, the two-winged in Judah. This is due to the wide distribution of the scarab symbol in the glyptic overthe two-winged types, wemay also assume that the four-winged emblem was earlier than of types four-winged the of seniority the for evidence the archaeological Besides 2). Note above, described (as 1992 Tushingham of assumption the already See 1440 ofwhichhavebeenfoundindocumentedexcavations. Garena by updated recently (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_corp.htm) were numbers These excavations. documented in found were 1716 of total a listed 185–197) 166, Vaughn(1999: 248–249, No.54). 2000: (AvigadBarkay type and four-winged a to next Jerusalem Westernthe in at Hill found was impression stamp private one Nevertheless, 2142–2143). 2004c: (also Mirsim Beit Tell found were impressions stamp with together private where cases in that noted has 12) (1976: Ussishkin Summary of 7th Century 7th of Summary el 74 5 4 11 Z 34 20 stamp impressions, they were of the IIa types: two at Lachish and two at two and Lachish at two types: IIa the of were they impressions, stamp lmlk 32 reconsidering thechrologyf These were possibly in use for a short while before Sennacharib’sbefore while short a for use in possibly were These 78 10 5 16 22 H 25 IIb 47 6 3 7 19 M 12 31 Since the four-winged types do not persist into the 7th the into persist not do types four-winged the Since 25 3 3 10 5 4 S lmlk stamp impressions are later than 701 BCE enables lmlk Stamp Impressions by Type and Site and Type by Impressions Stamp 224 24 15 44 80 61 Total Table lmlk wo itd 2158 listed who , 1 stamp impressions stamp 6 1 1 3 0 Z 1 stamp impressions, 1361 of which of 1361 impressions, stamp lmlk 4 2 1 0 1 0 H IIc lk m l 6 2 1 1 1 1 M
stamp impressions 0 0 0 0 0 0 S tm impressions, stamp lmlk stamp impressionsstamp lmlk 16 5 3 4 2 2 Total 33 40 2 9 4 18 7 XII 280 31 27 52 100 70 total Grand 17
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University or rosettes. circles concentric either only: emblems of consisted system impression stamp royal the time which by onward, and BCE century 7th the of middle the into continued tendency appear at all. In the 40 Type XII stamp impressions the legend consisted of remained unchanged while the place name appeared in the upper register and by this time had lost its significance. In 16 of the Type IIc stamp impressions the emblem us to conclude, although we do not have unequivocal archaeological proof, that the legend place name in the lower register. This tri-partite pattern changed in the later the types, and leading centre the in emblem disc sun two-winged register,the upper the in inscription lmlk the included which types, century 8th various the of pattern basic the maintained 34 the 7th. but only 100 of them can be safely identified and dated—30 to the 8th century and 70 to 285 than more tell, can we as far Jerusalem; many are not yet published, or are published without the necessary details. As Barkay and Vaughn 2004:2152,2158,Nos.41,44,315). 68; No. 2137, 2004c: (Ussishkin century 7th the to dated safely be may Lachish from impressions stamp lmlk four Only 2151–2159). Vaughnand 2004: Barkay 2135–2138; century stamp impressions 8th of is number actually the unclassified, 99% are of Lachish thefrom impressions total stamp recognizable31 since findsbut site, (Ussishkin 2004c: 413 of number total the of 92% almost is This two-winged the Typeof 30 four-wingedand the types of are (348 Lachish at found IIa). dating systemsuggestedabove. of types the from deduced be of The administrative importance of the main Judahite sites that yielded the largest number to according sites Judahite main of importance Administrative Odedlipschit,omererganddko 18 35 types found types and about180datedtothe7thcentury. that Jerusalem yielded approximately 90
lmlk stamp impressions (Lachish, Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel, Gibeon and Mizpah) may Unfortunately, we do not have a complete data set of the were BCE century 8th the to dated impressions stamp seventy-eight hundred Three The most common 7th century 7th common most The system to a new system. On the date of the rosette-stamped handles, see Ussishkin 2004b; Ussishkin see Koch 2008. handles, rosette-stamped the of date the On system. new a to system handles (some of them with them of jar (some on handles circles concentric of incision the that seems it case any in and circles, concentric the use in was handles and disc sun jar two-winged the between link Judahite a indicate may This 38–42). royal 18, 9, 1993: (Parayre on incision concentric the when century, 7th the of middle the during and before appeared impressions two-winged beside circles concentric The the two-wingedsundisctypes. 254 of 235 424), 406, (1985: Barkay to available was that data the 29–30. to 17–26, According 12–15, 8–10, Nos. 76, 2000: Shoham 252; p. 30–32, 9–24, Nos. 2000: Barkay Avigadand also see and above, discussion the See 35 Assuming that this ratio is also valid for the remainder of the finds, we conclude 34 The legendshaddisappearedentirely. stamp impressions discovered there, according to the to according there, discovered impressions stamp lmlk stamp impressions) was part of the adaptation of the of adaptation the of part was impressions) stamp lmlk stamp impressions have been found in Jerusalem, in found been have impressions stamp lmlk types (228 stamped handles of the IIb types) IIb the of handles stamped (228 types lmlk stamp impressions from Jerusalem (92%) are of are (92%) Jerusalem from impressions stamp lmlk lmlk stamp impressions dated to the 8th century stamp impressions discovered at the at discovered impressions stamp lmlk lmlk stamp impressions from lmlk only. This lmlk did not lmlk lmlk
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University (58% ofthetotalrecognizablefinds),while25canbedated tothe8thcentury(42%). them cannot be determined. Thirty-four stamp impressions can be dated to the 7th century to the8thcentury(22%,andseePritchard1959:23–26). century (78% of the total recognizable finds), while only 17 stamp impressions are dated Fifty-nine determined. be cannot them found. Figure 36 was the main centre of the century (72%)(Sergi forthcominga,b). 7th the to dated 102 against as finds) recognizable total the of (28% century 8th the to dated are impressions stamp 40 Only classified. be cannot them of 42 but Raḥel, Ramat centres inJudah,togetherwith GibeonandMizpah. sites in the Shephelah. Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel became the main administrative BCE Lachish was no longer a part of the kingdom’s administrative system, nor were century 7th otherthe In prominent. more the all seems date this to prior Lachish of status the Sennacherib onslaught, and as the the stamped in jars could destroyed have been not in continuous were use long Raḥel after 701 Ramat BCE, and Jerusalem Since Lachish. at none of these sites yielded more than 20% of the number of stamped handles discovered lagging far behind Lachish, were Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel and Beth-Shemesh. However,
In Mizpah, 88 Mizpah, In The conclusions from the above data are that during the late 8th century BCE, Lachish 92 Gibeon, In eighty-four hundred One con 97 11 Se aa olce b Grn (http://www.lmlk.com/research/lmlk_ Garena by collected nasbeh.htm). data See 161. 1947: McCown 3 The five main Judahite sites where 8thcentury where sites Judahite main five The 3 stamp impressions were discovered, but the exact type of 16 of 16 of type exact the but discovered, were impressions stamp lmlk stamp impressions were uncovered, but the exact type of 29 of 29 of type exact the but uncovered, were impressions stamp lmlk reconsidering thechrologyf lmlk stamp impressions have been discovered thus far at far thus discovered been have impressions stamp lmlk administration. Other important sites during this period, but stamp impressions can be dated to the 7th the to dated be can impressions stamp lmlk BCE lk m l lmlk
stamp impressions tm ipesos were impressions stamp lmlk 36 19 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University is more common than common more is Odedlipschit,omererganddko 20 37 are of Type XII,whichbearsnoplacename. impressions). Forty stamp impressions (14% of the late group of of group late the of 9% about altogether Typeof IIc, one even not and SIIb is common least name the and group), late the of place name is of group late the of 28% about ZIIc, Type HIIc, totalling some 29% of this late group) or impressions from the 7th century bear the place name the in names place the in change striking the for reason to the7thcenturyBCE. the of number total the in attested also are decline, demographic sharp the as well as Shephelah, the in territories from theShephelahofJudahtoJerusalemanditsenvirons. indicates that the collection, storage and distribution centre of the Judahite jars had shifted as well. The concentration of 7th century BCE centres important became Mizpah, and Gibeon primarily Jerusalem, around sites other Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel replaced Lachish as the main of 7th century BCE The distribution of the late and was no longer the economic, demographic and administrative force it had once been. century BCE, the once densely populated area had become sparsely settled (Dagan 2004) 7th the of beginning the By 2008). Faust cf. and 2004, Na’aman and Finkelstein 2002; Hardin and (Blakely Shephelah the in mainly decline, demographic dramatic a to led century. 8th late the in administration and economy Judahite the in Shephelah the of importance the highlights literature), further with 171–178 2008: (Katz flourished it surrounding 2007; Finkelstein 2008; Geva 2008: 55–56 with further literature), and when the territory capital was at its demographic peak and was the largest and richest city in Judah (Na’amanearly the of number small relatively century.The 8th the of half second the in area this of strength administrative Shephelah (about 80%, mainly at Lachish), at mainly 80%, (about Shephelah
These numbers differ from the 8th century the also probably was Shephelah the of status the in change the by inflicted jolt The large of loss the by caused damage economic the and destruction Assyrian The Sennacherib’s campaign inflicted a severe military and economic blow on Judah and The majority of the 8th century 8th the of majority The for conductingthiscomparison. outside the sites Shephelah and their total absence at from clear post-701 strata is handles sufficient indication jar stamped century 8th these of numbers low the However, years. the over dispersed and/or disappeared that Raḥel Ramat and Jerusalem in jars stamped BCE century 8th more many been have could there Theoretically, BCE. century 7th the into undisturbed under sealed finds on based exist to continued that sites from finds and Lachish) at III Level (especially layers is destruction it since problematic, methodologically is comparison This mmšt (47 stamp impressions of Type MIIb and six of Type MIIc, about 19% lmlk stamp impressions was found at sites located in the hill country. and zyp stamp impressions. Only 19% of the corpus can be dated be can corpus the of 19% Only impressions. stamp lmlk types in and around Jerusalem, even at a time when the when time a at even Jerusalem, around and in types lmlk lmlk types reflects this situation. The overwhelming majority , and as Na’aman noted long ago (1986: 14), 75% 14), (1986: ago long noted Na’aman as and mmšt, stamp impressions). The third most common most third The impressions). stamp lmlk lmlk stamp impressions were discovered in the the in discovered were impressions stamp 37 reflecting the demographic, economic and economic demographic, the reflecting lmlk stamp impressions around Jerusalem lmlk types, in which the place name (25 stamp impressions of Typeof impressions stamp (25 śwkh zyp (74 of Type ZIIb and six of Type ḥbrn (78 of Type HIIb and four of corpus. Most of the stamp the of Most corpus. lmlk lmlk administrative centres, and lmlk stamp impressions) stamp lmlk śwkh Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University found. found. 39 38 Kletter 2002:138–141). cf. and 16, 1986: (Na’aman the campaign in Assyrian Valleydestroyed area an Elah, of Khirbet at site the locating of suggestion accepted the supports Socoh of the of Figure such astheRephaim Valley. area new,unsettled a formerly in 227–235) 2000: (Fox city known any from away well administration, local the for produce agricultural growing estate royal a rather but 43), 2006: Barkay e.g., see, scholars; many of assumption basic the (contra village ordinary an not was it that indicate may list 15 Joshua the from absence its century), 8th the with the 7th century group of in represented well is site this that fact the of view However,in BCE. 701 of campaign century,7th late the to dated 15, Joshua in cities the in destruction its to attests Assyrian
As for As aaa 18: 5. iseg 14: 02) rpsd ht t s n brvain of abbreviation an is it that proposed 20–21) (1948: Ginsberg 15). 1986: Na’aman 1975a; Lemaire 147–156; (Weltenof 1969: name its because bearing handles mainly jar Jerusalem, the of of distribution the north place this locate to trying been have of scholars Most arguments the already (See Judah. of Na’aman 1986:12.) country hill southern with the Socoh in identifying of Shuweikeh 59) Khirbet (1982: suggestion Rainey’s weakens further data new This mmšt withRamatRaḥel. took this idea a step further and suggested, without any linguistic or other support, identifying 43) (2006: Barkay and Jerusalem, for designation administrative an is which (“government”), stamp impressions were discovered in the Shephelah. The changed status changed The Shephelah. the in discovered were impressions stamp śwkh 4 The five main Judahite sites where 7thcentury where sites Judahite main five The 4 , Na’aman (1991: 26–27) estimated that its absence from the list of of list the from absence its that estimated 26–27) (1991: Na’aman mmšt, reconsidering thechrologyf lmlk stamp impressions (its distribution even grew in comparison 38 39 BCE lk m l lmlk
stamp impressions tm ipesos were impressions stamp Abbâd in the in >Abbâd ממשלת 21
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University ● ● ● divided intothreegeographicalgroups: be may They names. personal the of variants different the to according classified were at Judahitesitesandcomparethistothegenerallmlkdistribution. distribution in their examine span must we time use, in the were impressions determine stamp private to the which order In standpoints. typological the and both from obvious archaeological is two the of the overlapping of chronological part the essential and an system, is lmlk impressions stamp private of system the above, stated As the to connection their and impressions stamp private the of date The Odedlipschit,omererganddko 22 40 III aswell,andshouldbedatedtothelate8thcentury. Level from came two types we these that can assume anywhere, context archaeological century 7th clear a to or site, this at II Level to assigned be can that impression stamp at were dated Lachish to clearly Level III, and since there is not even one type of private discovered 8th impressions century. stamp all of However, since the types other private BCE have been and found, in this case it is not clear if these two types date from the late 701 to dated levels destruction no where Gibeon, and David of City the at only known are impressions stamp identical but at Lachish, on surface the hṣlyhw) discovered were Goded, where Telthere at are no findsdiscovered from also the 7thwas century.impression stamp Two of others (mšlm/< type same the but Lachish, at impressions surface (the surface the on also but lnḥm/> layer, destruction III Level the in mostly
1 3 2 The 43 types of private stamp impressions known thus far from excavations and surveys Twenty-two of the 43 types of private stamp impressions were discovered at Lachish, s hy r ipesd n h sm jr Vuh (99 9, . 6 cniee ti stamp this considered 56) n. 97, (1999: Vaughn jar, impression andthepreviousone (No.1inthetable)asbelongingtosameperson. same the on impressed are they As century, mainly in the hill country of Judah, especially Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel. Ramat and Jerusalem especially Judah, of country hill the in mainly century, Sennacherib’s during destroyed destroyed Judah notsitesduringFromSennacherib’s 7th theintocampaigncarried thaton of Shephelah the BCE). (701 campaign in sites other From Lachish. at III Level From lmlk Type hw bdy, zyh/w.tn /tn / stamp impressions stamp pn m and ltnḥm/mgn 40 'Private’ Stamp Impressions from Impressions Stamp 'Private’ m 1 1 4 Impressions Stamp No. lšlm/< – Type Found Type OtherSites Where Goded Ra Ramat Mizpah; Shemesh; Beth- Gezer; Khirbet Gezer; Abbâd; Tel Abbâd; ḥ el < m ) was found on the the on found was (lsmk.b/n.ṣpnyhw) type One ). ble 2 Table Ussishkin 2004c: 2138 No. 91. No. 2138 2004c: Ussishkin and Pl. 57: 10; 57: Pl. and 162 1947: McCown 20–21; Figs. and 17 No. 1; 29.16: Fig. and 78 No. 2137, 2004c: Ussishkin References 2160. 23; No.200, 1999: 47 Pl. and 341Tufnell1953: 360;Fig. and Macalister 21130;1912: 20, B liss and Macalister 1902: 119–122 and Pl. 56: Pl.Macalister119–122 andand1902:liss evel III at III Level B arkay and Vaughn 1996: 44–46, 44–46, 1996: Vaughn and arkay ipschits 2008. Lipschits B arkay and Vaughn 2004:Vaughnand arkay Lachish B : 3; Vaughn3; : lntn and lnḥm/ Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
41
4 6 5 17 8 11 9 7 18 16 15 13 19 14 12 10 the 6th. We acceptneitherthesimilaritynordate. the stamp impression from Jerusalem to the second half of the 7th century or the beginning of Nadelman (1989: 131), on the basis of its similarity to a bulla published by Shiloh (1986), dated krmy/ypyhw ywbnh Type l ln yhw ln lmn yhw lm lnr m l l l lsmk.b/n. bnyh/ pn. pnyhw bd/y wk/y. bn/ pn/ lm/ m/ m/h / lm/ /zryhw m/ yl/ bn l/ . zr bdy lntn zryh lyhw bn/ mlk r r r 'Private’ Stamp Impressions from Impressions Stamp 'Private’ 2 3 Impressions Stamp No. 1 1 13 4 1 1 1 1 12 2 3 1 5 3 reconsidering thechrologyf Ra Ramat Gibeon; Jerusalem Khirbet Adullam; Type Found Type OtherSites Where Ramat Ra Ramat Jerusalem; Gibeon; – Ramat Ra Ramat Tel Goded Tel Gibeon Jerusalem Beth-Shemesh; – – Ra Ramat Mizpah; – – – Jerusalem Goded; Tel Na Goded; Tel el; el al ble 2 (cont·) 2 Table
Arugot Abbâd el el
62. Vaughn 1999:7–9; 204, No. 60and No.Nos. Pl.6:4; and 14.3 Fig. 17–18, Aharoni 1962: 7; 11: Pl. and 7 10: Fig. 28, 1959: 47 Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 55. No. 203, 1999: 47 Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 29.14: 4. 29.14: Fig. and 80 No. 2137, 2004c: Ussishkin References Ussishkin 2004c: 2137, No. 79. No. 2; 2137, 2004c: 27: Ussishkin Pl. 2, 31: Fig. and 44 1962: Aharoni 341; 1953: Tufnell 120; 1902: Macalister and Bliss and Pl. 11: 5, 6. 5, 11: 6 Pl. 5, and 10: Fig. 28, 1959: Pritchard 2162; 2004: 341; 1953: Tufnell No. 84 Fig. 29.16: 2. 29.16: Fig. 84 No. 2138 2004c: Ussishkin 51; No. 247–248, 2000: and Avigad 130; no. 208 1999: Vaughn Nadelman 131; 1989: 2; 11: Pl. and 2 10: Fig. 27, 1959: 47 Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 2162–2163. 2004: Vaughn and Barkay 2; 29.14: Fig. and 81 No. 2137 2004c: Ussishkin 4; 47A: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell : 2. 47B: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 2164. 2004: Vaughn 60; 1964: Aharoni 160–162; 1947: McCown 1; 47B : Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 85 and Fig. 29.16: 3. 29.16: Fig. and 85 2004c: Ussishkin 17; Fig. and 14 No. 44, 110; 1953: Tufnell 8. 47A: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell Vaughn 2004: 2164. 2004: Vaughn 2; 1, 47A: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 140. No. 209, 1999: Vaughn 9; 8, 47B: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 25; 6: Pl. and 120 1902: Macalister and Bliss and Vaughn 2004: 2163. 2004: Vaughn and 1983; Hadas 11; 10, 47A: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 120; 1902: Macalister and Bliss arkay and Vaughn 2004: 2161. 2004: Vaughn and Barkay evel III at III Level B arkay and Vaughn 1996: 36–38, 36–38, 1996: Vaughn and arkay 41 Aharoni 1964: 61. 1964: Aharoni lk m l
arkay and Vaughn 1996: Vaughn and Barkay stamp impressions B Lachish arkay and Vaughn Vaughn and arkay
B B B : 6; Pritchard Pritchard 6; : Vaughn 7; : : 3; Pritchard Pritchard 3; : arkay and Barkay arkay and Barkay Barkay Barkay
23 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Odedlipschit,omererganddko 24 26 23 25 21 27 20 28 24 22 ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Shephelah of Judah Sites Destroyed Destroyed Sites Judah of Shephelah from Impressions Stamp ‘Private’ Type l ltn l lm/ lm/ lksl l lbky/ bn mn Type lyqm.n sd m/mgn y/yhwkl /zk m/wyhbnh /yrmyh m lm /r.ykn ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Impressions Stamp ‘Private’ 1 Impressions Stamp No. 7 4 No. Stamp No. 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Impressions Concurrently with Concurrently Ramat Ra Ramat Gibeon; Goded Type Found Type OtherSites Where Tel Ra Ramat Rabud; Kh. Jerusalem; Shemesh; Arad; Kh. Qila Kh. el; Tel el; rani; Tekoa Erani; Beth-Shemesh Beth-Shemesh Beth-Shemesh Beth-Shemesh Tell Beth-Shemesh Judah of Shephelah in Destruction Tell e Tell Maresha Beth- ble 2 (cont·) 2 Table
ble 3 Table eit Mirsim Beit el; -
afi
Lachish Levels 29.16: 4. 29.16: Fig. and 87 86, Nos. 2138 2004c: Ussishkin 217; No. 215 1999: Vaughn 95; 1993: Ofer 32; 1964: Aharoni 8; 11: Pl. and 8 10: Fig. 28, 1959: Pritchard 7; 47A: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell 201, 214; Ussishkin 2004c: 2138 no. 90. no. 2138 2004c: Ussishkin 214; 201, 197, 196, 195, Nos. 214, 1999: Vaughn 3–4; 4: Pl. 18, 1974: Kochavi 66–67; 1948: Ben-Dor References Vaughn 1996: 38–41 No. 10 Figs. 11, 13. 11, Figs. 10 No. 38–41 1996: Vaughn 188; Fig. 170 1991: Shabbtai and Hizmi 2; 47B: Pl. and 341 1953: Tufnell evel III at III Level – – Ramat Ra Ramat Ramat Ra Ramat Found Type Where Sites Other – orvat evel III Level ovav el el Lachish and Figs. 3–4. Figs. and 4–5 Nos. 33–34 1996: Vaughn and 84; 1939: Wright and Grant and Pl. 20: 1. 20: Pl. and 82 1969: Rahmani 200; 1999: Vaughn 82; 1939: Wright and Grant 1999: 201. 1999: Vaughn 80; 1939: Wright and Grant Aharoni 1956: 145. 1956: Aharoni 81–82; 1939: Wright and Grant Pl. 40: 4. 40: Pl. and 6 37: Fig. 33, 1964: Aharoni 860; 623, Nos. 1932: Albright 199; 1999: Vaughn 80; 1939: Wright and Grant References 121 and Pl. 56: 27. 56: Pl. and 121 1902: Macalister and Bliss arkay and Barkay Barkay
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University
from LachishLevelIII,veryprobablypre-datingtheSennacherib campaign. eight contain names (both personal and patronymic) that also appear on stamp impressions remaining eight were The BCE. discoveredcentury 8th late only the atto probability siteshigh with locatedknown) 43 inof (out the impressions hill country. However, five of the the single stamp impression of each type to have merely survived longer. In any case, any In longer. survived merely have to type each of BCE, impression century stamp 8th single the late the to date also to assumed be may they types, 43 of out three Being site. Judah of Shephelah another or Lachish at parallel any without Raḥel Ramat 30 33 31 29 34 32 35 ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Shephelah of Judah Sites Destroyed Destroyed Sites Judah of Shephelah from Impressions Stamp ‘Private’ Three names, Three stamp private of types 35 date can we above, presented typology the to According l l l ltn mn Type zryhw bnyhw/ pn/ zr/ pn. dq/smk /m.ngb m/ybnh gy zr /bm and hwš>m/ḥgy,ḥšy/
– – Jerusalem Gezer Ramat Ra Ramat Jerusalem; Gibeon; – Jerusalem Found Type Where Sites Other evel III Level lk m l
el stamp impressions 1939: 83. 1939: Wright and Grant 120. 1902: Macalister and Bliss 249. and Avigad 160; 158, Nos. 211 1999: Vaughn 10; No. 194, 2001: Mazar and Kelm 121; 1902: Macalister and Bliss 211. 1912: Macalister 121; 1902: Macalister and Bliss and Pl. 27: 3. 27: Pl. and 1 31: Fig. 44, 1964: Aharoni 234; No. 216, 1999: Vaughn 3; 11: Pl. and 3 10: Fig. 28, 1959: Pritchard 19; Fig. and 24 No. 46–48, 1996: Vaughn and 83; 1939: Wright and Grant 1939: 80–81 1939: Wright and Grant 249–250. 2000: Barkay and Avigad 120; 1902: Macalister and Bliss References arkay 2000: Barkay Barkay 25 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University known origin (about 70%). (about origin known of the private stamp impressions is in the Shephelah of Judah: 132 out of 187 that have a and in the northern hill country of Judah and the Benjamin region, the main concentration was discoveredinaclear7thcenturyBCEarchaeologicalcontext. as partofthepreparationsfor Assyrian onslaught. by the administrative and economic system of the to the hypothesis that the private stamp impression system was adopted for a short period of Judah and their relative scarcity (1:7 in proportion to the limited duration before Sennacherib’s campaign, their distribution mainly in the Shephelah unique nature of private stamp impressions on the royal Judahite jars combined with their the necessarychangescausedbymassive Assyrian destruction. stamp impression system disappeared, while the private the campaign, Assyrian the Following vassal. Assyrian an became Judah after administration and economy local the in changes the of part as BCE post-720 evolved the replaced system impression stamp private the while short a For purpose. this fits system impression stamp private the only place and time of terms in that suggest we campaign, Assyrian the for preparations Judah’s to system 454 443 432 we Odedlipschit,omererganddko 26 421 is reasonable to assume that the private system was in use for a much shorter time. stamp private it impressions, stamp lmlk since of corpus entire the of 15% about only represent impressions Furthermore, 214). 1999: (Vaughn Arad at found was one Only
1 In contrast to Na’aman (1986: 16–17), who ascribed the entire Unlike the (Aharoni 1956:154;1962:18–19, 44;1964:32–33,61;Lipschits2008). Raḥel Ramat in 217; 18 1999: and 82–83) Avigad2000: Shoham 247–250; 2000: Barkay and Vaughn131; 1989: Nadelman Jerusalem 13; in 69: Pl. found 1985: Tushingham were 412–413; 1985: 19 (Barkay Jerusalem, itself around from impressions stamp private 51 the Of stamp impression,makeitexceptional. fact that it was the only stamp impression stamped on the same handle with a late type of HIIb the and stamp the of uniqueness the Nevertheless, handle. same an the on impression stamp lmlk to next stamped was it since impressions, stamp private the of date the concerning The late privatestampimpressiontogetherwithamajormotiffromthe royalseals. of the winged disc motif (Parayre 1993: 37–38), and one can see it as a unique combination of a 8th century. The En-Gedi exemplar is very similar to other late 7th–earlymotifof this stamp impression6th centuryand the ‘classic’ appearancestwo-winged stamp impressions dated to the late morphologicalmanydifferences areliterature),furtherthere thebetweenwithTable and in 2, this identify to reason no isthere case,impressions).privatestampotherpatronymicany the (unlikewithoutIn alla name private a only of consists it but 162), 2007:(Stern century 7th late be handlestamped this ofprivatedateconsiderimpression. stampexemplarshouldthenotthisonlya Notdo we Vaughnand209), (1999:45) (1995: Barkay literature)attention. toContraryspecialdeserves A stamp impression bearing the legend 208) and15atBeth-Shemesh(Grant Wright 1939:80–84;Barkayand Vaughn 2004:2167). at TelGoded (Bliss and Macalister 1902: 119–120; Ben-Dor Seventy-three1948: 66–67; Gibson private1994: stamp203–204, impressions were found at Lachish (Barkay and Vaughn 2004: 2171), 16 can conclude that, unlike the unlike that, conclude can tm ipeso fo Rmt ae ses o eev frhr discussion further deserve to seems Raḥel Ramat from impression stamp lnr
Only 51 were discovered in Jerusalem and its environs. its and Jerusalem in discovered were 51 Only stamp impressions, no private stamp impression stamp private no impressions, stamp lmlk nr< , discovered at En-Gedi (Stern 2007: 161, with further lmlk system continued to develop, with lmlk stamp impressions, and was used system, the latter having latter the system, lmlk nr< lmlk stamp impressions), lead (son of) (son lmlk stamp impression 42 Á bn<
(cf. above, no. 12 45 4
The lmlk 44 3
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University at the beginning of the 7th century, though on a smaller scale than previously. This proposal in theyears704–701BCE. campaign Sennacherib the for preparation in used were that they was it that assumption the with associated be to appear impressions stamp of lmlk stamp impressions) and their limited duration, together with the fact that the private Shephelah of Judah), their small number (approximately one-seventh of the entire corpus the in located sites at (mainly impressions stamp private the of distribution limited The were in use, which did not exceed the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign, becomes significant. between 704and701BCEaspartofthepreparationsfor looming Assyrian assault. stampedhandles thandoes the common assumption about itsrole during theshort period the changes that took place in Judah during this period. It accordstechnological betterand administrative, economicwithother thewith consistent complexity archaeologically,is of it Assyrian vassal kingdom. Although our historicallinking itreconstruction to other changes in the economycannot and administration as of Judah,yet when it bebecame an underpinned the of use initial the for dating earlier impending Assyriancampaign. Wepropose abroader chronological scope and suggest an periodbetween704–701 interpretsandBCEJudah’s partof themas preparations thefor dates that convention traditional the challenges paper This Conclusions ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Sites Not Destroyed during Sennacherib’s during Destroyed Not Sites from Impressions Stamp ‘Private’ 42 41 40 38 37 39 43 36 lmlk system, the many seals used during its early phase, and the distribution of the many The impressions stamp private the which during span time limited Withthe mind, in this Campaign (Impressions Not parallelled in the Shephelah of Judah) of Shephelah the in parallelled Not (Impressions Campaign l l lnr lyhw l lnry.b/n. hw Type bnyhw lmlk stamp impression system continued to exist after the Sennacherib campaign, m pn/ y/ y/ / / m/ l bn l zryhw yl/ l m m m gy r reconsidering thechrologyf Impressions Stamp No. 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Site Where Discovered Where Site Ramat Ra Ramat Ramat Ra Ramat Gibeon Jerusalem Ra Ramat Jerusalem Ra Ramat Jerusalem Ramat Ra Ramat Jerusalem lmlk stamp impressions—some time after 732 BCE, ble 4 Table
el el el el el stamp impressions, support the support impressions, stamp lmlk ipschits forthcoming. Lipschits 11: 4; Aharoni 1962: 44. 1962: Aharoni 4; 11: Pl. and 4 10: Fig. 28, 1959: Pritchard No. 54. No. and Avigad 1. 40: Pl. and 1 37: Fig. 32–33, 1964: 2; 27: Pl. 2, 31: Fig. 44, 1962: Aharoni 13; 69: Pl. 1985: Tushingham 1. 6: Pl. and 4 14: Fig. 18–19, 1962: Aharoni Nadelman 1989: 88. 1989: Nadelman References 6: 2. 6: Pl. and 2 14: Fig. 16, 1962: Aharoni Shoham 2000: 82, No. P2. No. 82, 2000: Shoham lk m l stampimpressionslmlk theto
stamp impressions arkay 2000: 248–249, 2000: Barkay 27 Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University were anindependentsystem,interimbetweenthelate century BCE. The incised concentric circles (132 items, alongside 6th early and 7th late the of impressions stamp rosette the with ended and impressions link’ in the series of stamped handles that began with the early (late 8th century) Barkay,1985. G. The 2000. Barkay,G. and Avigad,N. Albright, W.F.Albright, 1940. ed. Y.,Aharoni, In: Seals. Royal and Weights Inscribed 1981. M. Aharoni, Rome. 1961–1962. Seasons Raḥel, Ramat at Excavations Y.Aharoni, 1964. Y.Aharoni, 1962. Report. 1954—Preliminary Raḥel, Ramat at Excavations Y.Aharoni, 1956. References administrative centresofthe7thcenturyBCEtypes,followed byMizpahandGibeon. main theJerusalemdistributed.were andwereRaḥel Ramatjars royal where area only) In any case, throughout the 7th centuryearly BCE thethe hill countryof becamenumber the mainthe (almostof the 20% than greater never is impressions of amount century types of stamped handles—the later the Shephelah region probably affected the total number of stamped jars. In each of the 7th sites in the Shephelah of Judah. The jolt sustained by this very importantin the late types, and there is a agriculturalsharp decline in the number of area of centre. Socoh, the most popular place name in the early in the distribution of the stamp impressions. Lachish lost its placeof as the the diremain effectadministrative of the Sennacherib campaign on Judah, theand Shephelah,some were stampeda withdistinct a royal changeemblem. However,can be after seen701 BCE, and because and later on, during the second half of that century, with the non-epigraphic rosette thatsystem. continued towards the middle of the 7th century BCE, withwith no theplace incisedname). In concentricboth cases circlesthe legend seems to have lost its significance,develop with the aIIc tendencytypes (place name in register above emblem, no and the various IIb types added post-701 BCE. It cantypes beare assumedthe earliest,that thewith systemthe IIa continuedtwo-winged to types appearing before the 701 BCE campaign Lachish LevelIIIoritsequivalentstrataatotherShephelahsites. during the Assyrian campaign, or built during the 7th century; they had no counterpart in impression types were discovered mainly in the hill country, and only at sites not Assyrian destroyedcampaign that remained in use, especially at sites not destroyed, new is well founded archaeologically. Aside from the many jars stamped prior to Odedlipschit,omererganddko the 701 BCE 28 Throughout this period, royal jars continued to be manufactured in the Shephelahofmanufactured the bein continued tojarsThroughoutperiod, royal this late The According to the typology suggested in this paper,this differentfour-wingedin many suggested the typology the to According Tel Aviv University). TelTel(Hebrew). AvivUniversity). Aviv 243–266. 1969– Avigad, 1982, Nahman by Conducted Jerusalem of City Old the in Excavations Quarter Haven. New Jerusalem: 126–127. Jerusalem: types, dated to the beginning of the 7th century BCE, are the ‘missing the are BCE, century 7th the of beginning the to dated types, lmlk . Jerusalem:Report. Final X–2, and W AreaA, Vol.Stratigraphy: Architectureand 1: Northern and Western Jerusalem at the End of the Irondissertation, the Western(Ph.D. of and Age End Northern the at Jerusalem . Rome. 1959–1960. Seasons Raḥel, Ramat at Excavations The Excavation of TellMirsim, of Beit Excavation The and Related Seal Impressions. In: Geva, H., ed. H., Geva, In: Impressions. Seal Related and lmlk lmlk, concentric circles and rosette types—the (AASOR 21–22). (AASOR Vol.IronAge The 3 : lmlk types, became the least popular lmlk andtherosettetypes. lmlk stamp impressions from lmlk), and Type XII (lmlk lmlk stamp impressions) IEJ rd Inscriptions. Arad 6: 137–157. 6: types. lmlk lmlk stamp lmlk stamp Jewish lmlk
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Galling, K. 1937. Krugstempel. In: idem. In: Krugstempel. 1937. K. Galling, Geva, H. 2008. Estimating Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View.Minimalist AAntiquity: in Population Jerusalem’s Estimating 2008. H. Geva, 1961–1967, Jerusalem in Excavation 1990. Steiner,M.L. and H.J. Franken, iklti, . n N’mn N 20. h Jdht Sehlh n h Lt 8h n Ery 7th Fox, N.S. 2000. Early and 8th Late the in Shephelah Judahite The 2004. N. Na’aman, and I. Finkelstein, Century Seventh and Eighth the in Jerusalem of History Settlement The 2008. I. Finkelstein, J.C. Exum, M.D., Coogan, In: Manasseh. of Days the of Archaeology The 1994. I. Finkelstein, and the World:Reconstructing Mediterranean Extent the and Philistia, Judah, the 2005. Weiss,E. and Faust, A. and Judah Century Seventh in Demography and Settlement 2008. A. Faust, ohn M 1971. M. Dothan, 331–359. 1953: Tufnell In: Inscriptions. Hebrew Early 1953. D. Diringer, Judah. Ancient of Handles Jar Royal The 1949. D. Diringer, Fantalkin, the 2004. and A. Shemesh Beth of Destruction Final The 1931. J.G. Duncan, Diringer, D. 1941. On Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions from Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish—I, II). (Lachish—I, ed-Duweir Tellfrom Inscriptions Hebrew Ancient On 1941. D. Diringer, Jerusalem. near Center Administrative Judahite Moza—A 2002. Z. Greenhut, and A. Groot, De Dagan,Y.Ussishkin,Survey:LachishSettlements Region.In:thethe Patterns Results of2004. in Buqê>ah<. Judean the in Explorations 1956. J.T. Milik, and F.M. Cross, Stamps. Judean 1969. F.M. Cross, uioiz S ad eemn Z 20. h Fnl etuto o Bt-hms ad the and Beth-Shemesh of Destruction Final The 2003. Z. Lederman, and S. Bunimovitz, 1902. R.A.S. Macalister, and F.J. Bliss, ej-Judeideh. Tellat Excavations the on Report First 1900. F.J. Bliss, Tell-Zakarîya.at Excavations the on BCE. Report Second Century 1899. F.J. Bliss, Eighth Late the in Judah Southwestern 2002. J.W. Hardin, and J.A. Blakely, Ben-Dor, I. 1948. Two Hebrew Seals. Hebrew Two 1948. I. Ben-Dor, In: Lachish. from Impressions Seal Official and Royal The 2004. Vaughn,and A.G. G. Barkay, Barkay,and Vaughn,G. Impression. Seal Official Hezekian of Readings New 1996. A.G. Rahel. Ramat of Possibilities Tantalizing The Portrait? Royal Palace, Royal 2006. G. Barkay, 65 (Hebrew). 65 York.New Hill. East South the on Quarter Extramural of the Hebrew Union College 23). Cincinnati. 23). College Union Hebrew the of Centuries BCE. Centuries BCE. King. J. Philip of Honor in and Stager,L.E., eds. BCE. Century Seventh the of System Economic Campaign. Sennacherib’s of Intensity View.Alternative An Shephelah: Soundings in 1967 ( in Soundings 89–108. 38–56, 73: . London. Narrative. TestamentHistorical Old the on Bearing eis f h Isiue f rhelg o Tl vv nvriy 2. e Aviv: Tel 22). (Hebrew). University eds. A., Faust, Avivand E. Baruch, In: Tel of Archaeology of Institute 2672–2690. the of Series D. Assyriaca London. 11–64. 323: BASOR 64–68. 13: 2148–2173. TelTel22). Aviv:of Aviv University Archaeology of Institute the of Series (Monograph D. Ussishkin, 29–54. 304: Biblical Archaeology Review Archaeology Biblical , Vol. 5 (MonographVol.(1973–1994),5 Lachish at Excavation Archaeological Renewed The 115: 499–515. 115: RB In the Service of the King—Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah (Monographs in the Judean Shephelah. Judean the in sdd III Te eod n Tid esn o Ecvtos 16, 1965, 1963, Excavations, of Seasons Third and Second The II–III: Ashdod reconsidering thechrologyf ign U Bbia HsoyRcn Acaooy n aetn ad Its and Palestine in Archaeology History—Recent Biblical Up Digging The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Lachish at Excavations Archaeological Renewed The 31: 60–79. Tel31: Aviv Atiqot 9–10). Jerusalem. 9–10). >Atiqot ScriptureOther and on theBibleand Artifacts: Essays Archaeology EI Louisville: 169–187. Louisville: 32/5: 34–44. 32/5: 9: 20–27. 9: Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine in Antiquities of Department the of Quarterly Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. Years the during Palestine in Excavations 31: 245–261. Tel31: Aviv Biblisches Reallexikon Biblisches , Vol. 8. Ramat Gan: 7–14 Gan: Ramat Vol.8. Jerusalem, on Studies New TelAviv 140: 171–197. 140: PEQ 30: 1–26. 30: 338: 71–92. 338: BASOR 12: 70–87. 12: BA lk m l . Tübingen: 337–340. Tübingen: Pax Judahite the in Assyriaca
stamp impressions 32: 87–101. 32: PEQSt 31: 89–111. 31: PEQSt 142: 5–17. 142: BASOR Vol.IronAge The 2: 28: 50– 28: EI BASOR Vol.4 PEQ Pax 29
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Lipschits, O. 2009. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon. Moab Volute-CapitalsJudah, the from of Origin and TimeThe 2009. O. Lipschits, and R., Schmitt, Kottsieper,I., In: Raḥel. Ramat aus Privatsiegelabdruck Ein 2008. O. Lipschits, judéennes. royales estampilles des Classification 1981. A. Lemaire, VT ‘lmlk’. estampilles des datation la sur Remarques 1975b. A. Lemaire, hébraïque. l’épigraphie de énigme d’une solution la vers Amwas, = Mmšt 1975a. A. Lemaire, Judah. from Seals Royal P.W.The Lapp, 1960. Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2009. Ramat Raḥel and Its Secrets—Five Its and Raḥel Ramat 2009. M. Oeming, and B. Y.,Gadot, Arubas, O., Lipschits, and Sites—Links Rephaim Emeq the and Raḥel Ramat 2008. Y. Gadot, and O. Lipschits, In: 12). 6: (Zechariah Ṣemaḥ” Is Name Whose Man a Is “Here Forthcoming. O. Lipschits, 1981. N. Lapp, Lance, H.D. 1971. The Royal Stamps and the Kingdom of Josiah. of Kingdom the and Stamps Royal The 1971. H.D. Lance, Debir. = Rabud Khirbet 1974. M. Kochavi, Koch, I. 2008. I. Koch, ed. L.L., Grabbe, In: Manasseh. of Days Glorious The 2005. E.A. Knauf, Jerusalem, Identify: to Temptation2002. R. Kletter, 1998. R. Kletter, 1995. Mazar,A. and G.L. Kelm, el O ad elne, h. 1998. Chr. Uehlinger, and O. Keel, Economy Honey”—The and Oil Olive of Land AWine… and Grain of Land “A 2008. H. Katz, Hizmi, H. and Shabbtai, Z. 1991. Khirbet Qeila, Seal Impression. Seal Qeila, Khirbet 1991. Z. Shabbtai, and H. Hizmi, Naḥal 1983. G. Hadas, reht Z ad e ro,A 2009. A. Groot, De and Z. Greenhut, Greenhut, Z. 2006. Z. Greenhut, rn, . n Wih, .. 1939. G.E. Wright, and E. Grant, on Based Re-appraisal A Excavations: Goded) (Tel ej-Judeideh Tell The 1994. S. Gibson, Odedlipschit,omererganddko 30 Gitin, S. 2006. The 2006. S. Gitin, MêH. and MMŠT 1948. H.L. Ginsberg, Cathedra 491–498. Münster: (AOATGeburtstag 65. seinem Rainer zu für Albertz Festschrift Umwelt. seiner und 350). eds. J., Wörle, 15–23. 82: RB MA. Cambridge, Excavation Seasons at Ramat Raḥel (2005–2009). Raḥel Ramat at Seasons Excavation (Hebrew). 88–96 Jerusalem: Vol.2. Papers , Region—Collected Its and Jerusalem eds. G.D., Stiebel, and D. Amit, In: Interpretations. Grabbe. L. Lester eds. D., Edelman, and P. Davies, 315–332. 64: Tel(Hebrew). Aviv . London: 164–188. London: Kings. 136–149. Sheffield. 276). Minneapolis. . Jerusalem (Hebrew). Jerusalem Judah. of Kingdom the of 170. 19: Israel Occupation Later and Settlements Age Tel Aviv University). TelTel(Hebrew). AvivUniversity). Aviv Linkage to the Socio-Economic Organization of the Settlement in Israel (Ph.D. dissertation, and Kindred Studies 7). Haverford, CT. Haverford, 7). Studies Kindred and of His Sixtieth Birthday Sixtieth His of Time—ArchaeologicalOccasion the on of Mazar Honor Amihai in Studies Historical and eds. de., P., Miroschedji, and A.M. Maeir, In: Jar. TelAvivFund. Exploration Palestine the in Records Archival Rosette Stamp ImpressionsStamp Rosette from thesis, (M.A. TelJudah Ancient AvivUniversity). ASR 45). (AASOR 1964 of Excavation The el-Fûl: Tell at Campaign Third The 131: 1–19 (Hebrew). 1–19 131: (JSOT.S Judah of Kingdom the of System Weight The Keystones: Economic Production, Storage and Distribution of Grain during the Iron Age and Their Ironand the Age during Grain of Distribution and Production,Storage Jar-Form Redefined: A New Class of Iron Age II Oval Shaped Storage Shaped Oval II Age Iron of Class New Redefined: A Jar-Form lmlk eürnsuke Suin u Sza- n Rlgosecihe Israels Religionsgeschichte und Sozial- zur Studien Berührungspunkte. Arugot, Seal Impression. Seal >Arugot, . Winona Lake: 505–524. Lake: Winona . Timnah: A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley.SorekLake. Winonathe in City Biblical ATimnah: i Ses xaain (Palestine), Excavations Shems Ain os Gdess n Iae o Gd n nin Israel. Ancient in God of Images and Goddesses Gods, avg Ecvtos t e Mz: h Boz ad Iron and Bronze The Moza: Tel at Excavations Salvage 109: 20–22. 109: BASOR h Hsoin n te il: sas n oor of Honour in Essays Bible: the and Historian The 1: 2–33. Tel1: Aviv (IAA Reports 39). Jerusalem. 39). Reports (IAA BASOR 2: 77. 2: Israel in Surveys and Excavations Jar Stamps. Jar lmlk the and mmšt, 158: 11–22. 158: 138: 58–77 (Hebrew). 58–77 138: Qadmoniot I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient of Riddles the Speak Will I New Studies in the Archaeology of Archaeology the in Studies New Harvard Theological Review Theological Harvard Excavations and Surveys in Surveys and Excavations EI 21: 194–234. 21: Pottery 4: Vol. 15: 54–60. 15: 25: 678–682. 25: Good Kings and Bad and Kings Good ZDPV 118ZDPV: (Biblical
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Sergi, O. Forthcoming b. Forthcoming O. Sergi, Sergi, O. Forthcoming a. Forthcoming O. Sergi, 1913. Watzinger,C. and E. Sellin, Königsstempeln. den mit Krughenkel palästinischen Die 1943. E. Sellin, Sellers, O.R. and Albright, W.F. 1931. The First Campaign of Excavation at Beth-Zur. at Excavation of Campaign First The W.F.1931. Albright, and O.R. Sellers, Uehlinger,and B. Sass, In: vs. Aniconism. Iconism Seals: Hebrew Pre-Exilic The 1993. B. Sass, Vineyards. Royal the from WineRainey, 1982. A.F. In: II. Age Iron the of Markings and Impressions Seal Inscriptions, Y.Hebrew Nadelman, 1989. Jerusalem of Rise The City? Great a Become Jerusalem Did How and When 2007. N. Na’aman, Raḥel? Ramat at Residence Assyrian An 2001. N. Na’aman, Josiah. under Judah of Kingdom The 1991. N. Na’aman, the and Cities Fortified Hezekiah’s 1986. N. Na’aman, Rainey, A.F. 1967. The Samaria Ostraca in the Light of Fresh Evidence. Fresh of Light the in Ostraca Samaria The Rainey,1967. A.F. Acquisitions. Some on Notes 1969. L.I. Rahmani, 1959. J.B. Pritchard, dans l’iconographie de rôle le ouest-sémitiques: sceaux des propos À 1993. D. Parayre, in Disc Winged the of Case The Symbols: Religious of System Complex A 2005. T. Ornan, 1993. A. Ofer, the of the Date the and Judah to Sennacherib’sCampaign 1979. N. Na’aman, of Provenience The 1984. J. Yellin, and I. Perlman, H., Mommsen, T.N.D.1971. Mettinger, Mazar, A., Amit, D. and Ilan, Z. 1996. Ḥurvat Shilḥa: An Iron Age Site in the Judean Desert. Judean the in Site Age Iron An Shilḥa: Ḥurvat 1996. Z. Ilan, and D. Amit, A., Mazar, 1990. Mazar,A. King. First Israel’s Crowned Samuel Where 2008. I. Magen, McCown, C.C. 1947. C.C. McCown, Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. 1912. R.A.S. Macalister, Forthcoming. I. Koch, and O. Sergi, O., Lipschits, . TelAviv.Seasons. Excavation 2005–2009 The IV: Raḥel Ramat Excavations O. Lipschits, In: 1960–1962). (1954, 43: 2–13. 43: et Orientalis 125). Fribourg and Göttingen: 194–256. Göttingen: and Fribourg 125). Orientalis et Chr., eds. Jerusalem Biblical of eds. Mazar,B., and Mazar, E. 21–56. 347: BASOR BCE. Centuries Eighth–Seventh the in City Premier Judah’s as 53–86. Badè, et Orientalis 125). Fribourg and Göttingen: 27–51. Göttingen: and Fribourg 125). Orientalis et Uehlinger, and B. Sass, Chr., In: eds. atelier. un à et culturelle aire une à sceau d’un l’attribution 207–241. Göttingen: and Fribourg 210). Orientalis et Millennium Biblicus First (Orbis the BCE. of Art Mediterranean Eastern on Studies Contact: in Images and eds. Ch., Uehlinger, and C.E. Suter, In: Imagery. Eastern Near First-Millennium Tel(Hebrew). AvivUniversity). 89–113. Monarchy Israelite the BCE—Text W.VanBeek Gus of Honor in Methodology ed., J.D., Seger, In: 36–54. London. Archaeological and Historical Implications. Historical and Archaeological . Berkeley and New Haven. New and Berkeley Results. Historical and ArchaeologicalVol. 1: (Ph.D. dissertation, TelAviv dissertation, (Ph.D. Period Biblical the during Judah of Highland The . New York.New B.C.E. 10,000–586 Bible the of Land the of Archaeology Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (Orbis Biblicus Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (Orbis Biblicus (Qedem 42). Jerusalem. 42). (Qedem . TelAviv.. reconsidering thechrologyf . Philadelphia. Gibeon. from Stamps and Inscriptions Hebrew TellWilliamDirectionLate the the under of Excavated Fredericen-Naṣbeh Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of Officials Government Civil the of Study A Officials: State Solomonic Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. and Gadot. Y.Gadot. and M. Oeming, O., Lipschits, In: Impressions. Stamp Lmlk Stamp Impressions from Aharoni’s Excavations at Ramat Raḥel Ramat at Excavations Aharoni’sfrom Impressions Stamp Lmlk h Ecvto o Gzr 10–95 n 1907–1909, and 1902–1905 Gezer, of Excavation The (Qedem 29). Jerusalem: 128–141. Jerusalem: 29). (Qedem ereig h Ps—sas n rhelgcl eerh and Research Archaeological on Past—Essays the Retrieving (Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 5). Lund. 5). Series TestamentOld Biblica, (Coniectanea . Leipzig. Ausgrabungen. der Ergebnisse Die Jericho. Excavations in the South of the Templethe Ophel of Mount—The South the in Excavations Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millenium aa Rḥl I: ia Pbiain f Aharoni’s of Publication Final III: Raḥel Ramat >Atiqot . Winona Lake: 193–211. Lake: Winona . 245: 57–62. 245: BASOR h Ryl uaie a Hnls Pr II: Part Handles, Jar Judahite Royal The Stamps. LMLK 5: 81–83 (Hebrew). 81–83 5: 3–71. Tel18: Aviv Biblical Archaeology Review Archaeology Biblical TelAviv lk m l
stamp impressions 28: 260–280. 28: 261: 5–21. 261: BASOR Stamps. LMLK PEQ 66: 216–232. 66: ZDPV Jars. lmlk 99: 32–41. 99: IEJ BASOR o. 2. Vol. 29: VT Crafts 34/3: 34: 31
Published by Maney Publishing (c) Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University ihn, . 04 h Ptey f eesV n I ad t rhelgcl n Chronological and Archaeological Its and IV and V Levels of Pottery The 2004. O. Zimhoni, Zimhoni, O. 1997. O. Zimhoni, Activation Neutron Instrumental Handles: Rosette-Stamped 2004. J.M. Cahill, and J. Yellin, Judah. of Division Fourfold Yadin,The Y. 1961. Welten,P. 1969. Vaughn, 1999. A.G. Impressions. YehudStamp the of TypologyNew A2006. O. Lipschits, and Vanderhooft,D. Renewed the from Impressions Seal and Jars Storage Judean Royal The 2004c. D. Ussishkin, In: Issues. Historical and Chronological Stratigraphical, the of Synopsis A2004b. D. Ussishkin, sihi, . 04. h Otr iy ae I: sihi, D. Ussishkin, In: Gate. City Outer The 2004a. D. Ussishkin, Royal the of Dating the and Sennacherib by Lachish of Destruction The 1977. D. Ussishkin, sihi, . 96 Ryl uen trg Jr ad rvt Sa Impressions. Seal Private and Jars Storage Judean Royal 1976. D. Ussishkin, Two-Wingedthe on Bearing Tushingham,Evidence New 1992. A.D. 1985. A.D. Tushingham, Two).(Part Stamps Handle Jar Royal the and Seal(?) Israelite Royal A1971. Tushingham, A.D. One). (Part Stamps Handle Jar Royal the and Seal(?) Israelite Royal A1970. Tushingham, A.D. Synthesis. ALachish: and Samaria Hazor, 1959. O. Tufnell, 1953. O. Tufnell, Stern, E. 2007. Impressions of the Kingdom of Judah. In: Stern, E., ed. E., Stern, In: Judah. of Kingdom the of Impressions 2007. E. Stern, . Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Jerusalem in Kenyon M. Kathleen by Excavations 2001. M.L. Steiner, Assemblages. Pottery Age Iron The Arad: 2002. Singer-Avitz,L. icar LA 1960. L.A. Sinclair, Shoham, Y.Shoham, 2000. David. of City the from Bullae Hebrew of Group Y.AShiloh, 1986. Jars. Storage IIA Age Iron of Class New AJars: Pre-LMLK 2003. Maeir,A.M. and M. Shai, Odedlipschit,omererganddko 32 University 22). Tel1643–1710. Aviv:22). University Lachish at Excavations Archaeological (1973–1994), Renewed The D. Ussishkin, In: Implications. Occasional University Aviv Tel of TelAviv.2). Publications Archaeology of (Institute Aspects Chronological Analysis. Wiesbaden. 1). Palästinavereins Deutschen des (Abhandlungen Atlanta. Aviv Tel2133–2147. Aviv:22). University Lachish at Excavations Archaeological Renewed (1973–1994), The D. Ussishkin, In: Excavations. 50–119. TelTel22). Aviv:of Aviv University Archaeology of Institute the of Series (Monograph (1973–1994), Lachish at Excavations Archaeological Renewed The D. Ussishkin, Tel535–623. Aviv:22). Tel University Avivof Archaeology (1973–1994), Lachish at Excavations Armenian Garden on the WesternHill the on Garden Armenian Judean Storage Jars. Storage Judean 1–13. 61–65. 23–35. 201: BASOR 71–78. 200: BASOR Jerusalem: (1961–1965). Report Final Dunayevsky, I. and 139–142. Mazar B. by Conducted . New York.New Ages. Iron and Bronze the in Settlement Haven. (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 75–80. Jerusalem: 41). (Qedem Inscriptions A., eds. A., Aviv 34: 12–37. 34: 30: 108–123. 30: Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Yigal by Directed 1978–1985 David of City the at Excavations Die Königs-Stempel. Ein Beitrag zur Militärpolitik Judas unter Hiskia and Josia and Hiskia unter Judas Militärpolitik zur Beitrag Ein Königs-Stempel. Die 54: 191–213. 54: IEJ . London and New York.New and London Age. Iron The (TellEd-Duweir), III Lachish LMLK Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological, and Archaeological,Typological, Israel: of Pottery Age Iron the in Studies Theology,and ArchaeologyChronicler’sHistory the in Hezekiah. of Account n rhelgcl td o Gba (el el-Fûl) (Tell Gibeah of Study Archaeological An o. (oorp Sre o te nttt o Acaooy f e Aviv Tel of Archaeology of Institute the of Series (Monograph 4 Vol. o. (oorp Sre o te nttt o Acaooy f e Aviv Tel of Archaeology of Institute the of Series (Monograph 4 Vol. Seal Impressions and Concentric Circles. In: Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, De D.T.In: and Ariel, Circles. Concentric and Impressions Seal xaain i Jrslm 1961–1967, Jerusalem in Excavations 4: 28–60. Tel4: Aviv . Toronto.. o. (oorp Sre o te nttt of Institute the of Series (Monograph 2 Vol. 163: 6–11. 163: BASOR PEQ 29: 110–215. Tel29: Aviv h Rnwd Archaeological Renewed The 91: 90–105. 91: xaain i the in Excavations 1: Vol. 287: BASOR Stamp. LMLK 36: 196–209. 36: IEJ ASR 43) New 34–35). (AASOR En-Gedi Excavations I, Excavations En-Gedi 223: BASOR The Vol.3: Vol.4: Vol.1 Tel Tel