Logos Library System Page 1
MOAB (PLACE) [Heb mo Heb Hebrew; Epistle to the Hebrews Heb Hebrew; Epistle to the Hebrews col. column e.g. exempli gratia (for example) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 2 nomadic people who inhabited parts of Palestine, so “Upper Shûtu” may have included the region of ancient Moab. Note also in this regard that Num 24:17–18 identifies the Moabites as “the sons of Sheth.” Except for the initial šîn, on the other hand, the consononts of Shemu- B.The Land The settled population of ancient Moab was concentrated on the narrow strip of cultivable land sandwiched between the ragged and steep Dead Sea escarpment and the Arabian desert (approximately 90 km/60 miles N–S by 25 kms/15 miles E–W). For the most part this is rolling plateau about 1,000 m (3,000 feet) in elevation or 1,300 m (4,300 feet) above the Dead Sea. It is bisected by the steep WaµdéÆ el-Muµjib river canyon (the River Arnon of biblical times), and is bounded on the S by another major canyon, WaµdéÆ el-H\esaµ (the River Zered of biblical times). Both the Muµjib and the H\esaµ emerge from the desert side of the Moabite plateau and drain W to the Dead Sea. Less prominent wadis along the entire length of the Dead Sea escarpment create the ragged effect mentioned above. The soils of the Moabite plateau tend to be thin; there are relatively few springs; and the waters of the Muµjib and the H\esaµ are virtually inaccessible due to their steep canyon walls. The plateau is, however, well watered by winter rains, and the soil is porous enough to hold this moisture for cereal crops and pasturage for sheep and goats. Places where the soil is deeper and springs are available (especially along the wadis which cut into the plateau from the Dead Sea escarpment) support fruit trees and vineyards. Thus, despite its deficiencies, Moab is reasonably good agricultural land and accordingly is strewn with ruins of settlements from ancient times. Moab’s favorable agricultural situation is presupposed by the biblical story of Ruth, which has as its setting a time of famine of Judah. According to the story, Naomi and her family emigrated temporarily to Moab where food was still available (Ruth 1:1, 6). It is useful to distinguish between the main Moabite plateau (the region between the Muµjib and the H\esaµ) and N Moab (the region N of the Muµjib). The main plateau is somewhat isolated by the geographical barriers mentioned above—WaµdéÆ el-Muµjib on the N, WaµdéÆ el-H\esaµ on the S, the Dead Sea escarpment on the W, and the Arabian desert on the E. Northern Moab is more open to the outside world, on the other hand, and was much better known to the biblical writers. It corresponds roughly to km kilometer(s) N north(ern) S south(ern) km kilometer(s) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source W west(ern) m meter(s) m meter(s) S south(ern) W west(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) S south(ern) W west(ern) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 3 what they called the “tableland” (Heb mêšor), or the “tableland of Medeba” after the chief city in N Moab (Deut 3:10; 4:43; Josh 13:9, 16–17, 21; 20:8). Among other towns in N Moab were Heshbon, Elealeh, and those mentioned in Jer 48:21–24. The openness of N Moab made it more vulnerable to encroachment also, especially by the Israelites and the Ammonites. It often changed hands, and the local population very likely had mixed loyalties. This situation is well illustrated by an inscription from the reign of King Mesha who ruled Moab in the 9th century B.C. (see below). While the inscription assumes that the region N of the Muµjib belonged historically to Moab and credits Mesha with recovering it from Israelite control, it also mentions Israelite elements in the local population, elements which had been there as long as anyone could remember: “And the men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth always and the king of Israel built Ataroth for them, . . .” (lines 10–11). Several biblical passages seek to establish an Israelite claim to this valuable tableland (Num 21:21–31; 32; Deut 2:26–37; Judg 11:12–28). It is maintained in these passages that the Arnon/Muµjib was the true N boundary of Moab, that Moses conquered all of the region N of the Arnon from an Amorite king named Sihon, and that Moses then assigned all of the conquered tableland to the tribes of Gad and Reuben. These passages contrast with others, however, and with the general terminology of the Hebrew Bible, which assume that Moab extended as far N as Heshbon and Elealeh (see Num 21:20, for example, and the oracles concerning Moab in Isaiah 15–16 and Jeremiah 48). In fact, even part of the Jordan Valley—the area immediately NE of the Dead Sea, between the Jordan River and the W slopes of the “tableland”—is occasionally referred to in the Bible as the “Plains (Heb >arboÆt) of Moab” (Num 22:1). C.Archaeological Explorations in Moab 1. Nineteenth-Century Explorers. During the 19th century, local Bedouin tribes dominated the area between the Muµjib and the H\esaµ, and outsiders who entered this region did so essentially at their own risk. Among the few daring travellers who traversed the whole Moabite plateau prior to 1870 and whose published observations deserve special mention were Ulrich Seetzen, who passed through the Moabite region in 1806, Ludwig Burckhardt in 1812, Charles Irby and James Mangles in 1818, and F. de Saulcy in 1851. Typically the travellers of this period commented on the numerous ruins from ancient times scattered throughout the Moabite plateau, but the circumstances rarely allowed them to investigate. De Saulcy’s 1851 discovery of the so-called Shé÷h\aµn Stele at Rujm el->Abd was an exception. Rujm el->Abd, a stone heap long since dismantled, was located at the site of the village school of present-day Faquµ>. The stele is a basalt stone (1.03 × .58 m) which presents in bas-relief a male figure in helmet and short skirt holding a spear. At his left is an animal, possibly a lion. Comparative study indicates close Heb Hebrew; Epistle to the Hebrews N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) B.C. before Christ N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) NE northeast(ern) W west(ern) Heb Hebrew; Epistle to the Hebrews m meter(s) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 4 parallels with the monumental art of the “neo-Hittite” cities of N Syria and suggests an Iron Age date (Warmabol 1983). Whether the figure represents a warrior or a god (perhaps Chemosh) cannot be determined. An even more important development was the discovery of the famous MESHA STELE (sometimes called the “Moabite Stone”). Discovered by F. A. Klein among the ruins of ancient Dibon (present-day Dhé÷baµn) in 1868, the Mesha Stele is a basalt slab, approximately one meter high and engraved with a legible text of more than 34 lines in the ancient Canaanite language and script. One learns from the inscription that it was commissioned by king Mesha of Moab in connection with the building of a sanctuary dedicated to Chemosh. The inscription itself reports the major accomplishments of Mesha’s reign and thus provides a brief glimpse of Moabite affairs during the mid-9th century (see below). In 1870 the American Palestine Exploration Society was founded and undertook to map E Palestine. Two expeditions were sent, the first led by J. A. Paine and Lieut. E. Z. Steever in 1872, the second by Selah Merrill in 1875–77. Both expeditions involved explorations in N Moab, but the results were not very satisfactory in either case. Thus C. R. Conder undertook in 1881 to map the Transjordan and began in N Moab where the Americans had left off. Unfortunately, Conder had to withdraw from the project after only ten weeks in the field because of the limitations of his permit. During that time, however, he surveyed approximately 500 square miles. Specifically, he covered from WaµdéÆ Zarqaµ Ma>é÷n (which reaches the Dead Sea SW of Maµdabaµ) northward to WaµdéÆ Nimré÷n/Shu>eib (which reaches the Jordan opposite Jericho) and northeastward from the upper branches of these two wadis to Amman (Conder 1889a; 1889b). In 1894 the Ottoman government reasserted its authority between the Muµjib and the H\esaµ, and for approximately a decade thereafter the region was reasonably well policed. Several scholars seized the opportunity. F. J. Bliss, for example, in an 1895 excursion, cleared up the confusion evident in earlier maps regarding the relative positions of the upper branches of the Muµjib. R. Brünnow, assisted by A. von Domaszewski, made three excursions (1895, 1897, 1898) in connection with his monumental study of the Roman road system and fortifications in the Transjordan. Alois Musil, primarily a geographer, explored extensively in S Transjordan and NW Arabia between 1896 and 1902; he devoted the first volume of his Arabia Petraea to the region E of the Dead Sea and prepared a 1:300,000-scale map which indicates the approximate locations of numerous ruins in that region. 2. Developments in the 1930s. Political circumstances (the Kerak rebellion in 1910 followed by World War I) prevented significant developments relative to the archaeology of Moab for the next twenty-five years (from 1905 to 1930). The discovery of a third monumental stele in 1930 initiated another flurry of archaeological exploration in the area of ancient Moab. This was the so-called Baµluµ> Stele, discovered by R. Head among the extensive ruins at Baµluµ>. A conical-shaped basalt stone (1.70 m high × .70 m wide at the base) it bears both an inscription and a raised relief. Unfortunately the inscription is so poorly preserved that even the language cannot be identified. The relief is quite clear, N north(ern) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source N north(ern) N north(ern) SW southwest(ern) S south(ern) NW northwest(ern) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source m meter(s) m meter(s) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 5 however, and consists of three figures, probably a king (center) flanked by a god (left) and a goddess (right). The composition of the relief as well as its details are derived almost entirely from Egyptian prototypes. Clearly the sculptor was acquainted with Egyptian art, although certain details suggest that the artist was a non-Egyptian who adapted the Egyptian style to some purpose as yet unclear (Ward and Martin 1964: 68). The headdresses of the three figures are particularly interesting. The god wears the double crown of upper and lower Egypt. The goddess wears a crown similar to that of Osiris. The king’s headdress is similar to that worn by the “Shâsu” in Egyptian reliefs from Dynasties 19 and 20 (see below). Thus it seems reasonable to date the Baµluµ> stele to approximately the end of the LB Age and to see it as evidence (along with references in Egyptian texts to be discussed below) that Egyptian influence extended to the S Transjordan at that time. Beginning in the spring of 1933, Nelson Glueck conducted surveys in the Transjordan. Not surprisingly, in view of the Baµluµ> discovery three years earlier, he concentrated that first season on the Moabite plateau. He spent about three weeks in the area E of the Dead Sea and visited more than a hundred sites. In 1936 he returned to the Moabite region and examined more sites in N Moab and in the southern half of the S plateau—i.e., S of the Kerak-Qat\raµna road. The importance of Glueck’s work in Moab had less to do with the discovery of new sites or with the thoroughness of coverage (since most of the ruins which Glueck visited had been reported already by Musil), than with the fact that he was the first to examine the surface pottery of a large sampling of sites throughout the Transjordan. Glueck’s reports published in the AASOR became the standard authority on the S Transjordan in general and the Moabite region in particular until the late 1970s. Three of Glueck’s observations were very influential on subsequent treatments of Moabite history. (1) He concluded that there was a virtual gap in the sedentary occupation of S Transjordan between the end of the EB Age and the end of the LB Age—i.e., from approximately 1900 to the 13th century B.C. This was followed, he contended, by a surge of village settlements during the 13th century. These new villages represented new settlers, he believed, namely the Moabites and Edomites. (2) He reported that the borders of the Iron Age kingdoms in the Transjordan, including Moab, were protected by a system of strategically located forts. (3) He reported a concentration of Iron Age sites along the traditional N–S route through the lands of ancient Moab and Edom, the route of the old Roman road and essentially that of the modern paved road, and argued that this would have been the “Kings Highway” mentioned in Num 20:17 and 21:22. In November of 1933, W. F. Albright and J. W. Crowfoot made soundings at Adir and Baµluµ> respectively. Albright’s probe at Adir produced remains primarily from EB through what he called MB I LB Late Bronze (Age) S south(ern) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source N north(ern) S south(ern) S south(ern) AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research S south(ern) S south(ern) EB Early Bronze (Age); or Echter Bibel LB Late Bronze (Age) B.C. before Christ N north(ern) S south(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 6 and dated 2000–1800 B.C., although at one spot he also uncovered some Iron II sherds. Crowfoot found Iron Age remains at Baµluµ>, including a small section of casemate wall which he dated to Iron I. However, neither Albright nor Crowfoot uncovered materials from the time of the supposed occupational gap, which seemed to confirm Glueck’s position. 3. Archaeological Investigations Since the 1930s. Archaeologists have given only sporadic attention to the Moabite plateau since Glueck’s survey and, until 1976, have confined their efforts almost entirely to N Moab. Excavations at six sites have produced remains relevant to this discussion of the ancient Moabites: Dhé÷ baµn (excavated 1950–56 and 1965), Khirbet el->A÷l (1962), >Araµ>ir (1964), Tell H\esbaµn (1968–76), Khirbet Medeinet el-Mu>arradieh (1976, 1982) and Khirbet Baµluµ> (1986). Dhé÷baµn produced remains from primarily Iron II and later periods. The small amount of Iron I material apparently was not located stratigraphically. The excavators of el->A÷l reported EB, MB, Iron I, and Iron II pottery, but again none of it in clear stratigraphical context. >Araµ>ir proved to be a prominent Iron Age fortress on the ruins of earlier buildings. The pottery is mainly from the 11th through the 9th centuries B.C. At Tell H\esbaµn, the only one of these sites which has been both excavated and published with reasonable thoroughness, the evidence indicates an Iron Age I–II settlement with nothing earlier than the 12th century. Khirbet Medeinet el-Mu>arradieh and Khirbet Baµluµ> are the only sites in this group located S of the Muµjib. The former turned out to be another Iron Age fort. Constructed near the end of the 13th century at the earliest, the fort was destroyed at the end of the 12th or early 11th century. Excavations at Khirbet Baµluµ> (the same site probed by Crowfoot in 1933) are still underway and are producing primarily Iron II remains. Three archaeological surveys conducted recently add to the information derived from these excavated sites. The team that excavated Tell H\esbaµn conducted a survey of other archaeological features in the immediate vicinity (approximately a ten-mile radius) and reported sites from all phases of the Bronze and Iron Ages. A survey team directed by the author during 1978–82 and concentrating on the S plateau between the Muµjib and the H\esaµ registered over 400 sites, again representing all phases of the Bronze and Iron Ages. The third survey, conducted in 1983–86 by Udo Worschech and called the “Northwest Ar el-Kerak Survey,” concentrated on the NW quadrant of the southern plateau and WaµdéÆ Ibn Hammaµd. Mention should be made finally of two tombs cleared at Maµdabaµ which produced artifacts dating from the end of the LB Age and the beginning of Iron I, and of occasional excursions into Moab by members of the Deutsches Evangelisches Institut für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes during 1956–64 and 1984–85. Primarily interested in historical geography, the participants in the Evangelisches Institut excursions have sherded a number of sites and made useful observations regarding Moabite toponymy (see especially Kuschke 1962; Donner 1964; Schottroff 1966). 4. Some Implications of the Archaeological Evidence. Although the above is not a EB Early Bronze (Age); or Echter Bibel MB Middle Bronze (Age) B.C. before Christ N north(ern) EB Early Bronze (Age); or Echter Bibel MB Middle Bronze (Age) B.C. before Christ S south(ern) S south(ern) Ar Arabic NW northwest(ern) LB Late Bronze (Age) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 7 comprehensive overview of all archaeological activities on the Moabite plateau, it does cover the items which have relevance for reconstructing the history and material culture of the Moabites. Obviously, the land of ancient Moab still is not very well known archaeologically. Only one Iron Age site, Tell H\esbaµn, has been excavated with any degree of thoroughness, and most of the excavated sites are located N of the Muµjib. Yet the following observations are in order. By 1970, when Glueck published a revised edition of his The Other Side of the Jordan, evidence had begun to emerge which indicated that there was not a total gap during the MB and LB Ages. Recognizing this, he softened his position considerably. The trend has continued, and the recent evidence suggests that the hypothesis probably should be dropped altogether. Obviously the MB and LB Ages were not a high point of urban life in Moab; but people were living on the plateau at that time, and living at some of the same city/village sites which have been occupied off and on throughout the ages. Moreover, while the number of settlements (as represented by surface pottery) increased dramatically during the Iron Age, the artifactual evidence recovered thus far is insufficient to determine whether there was a sudden increase in the number of villages at the beginning of Iron I. In short, rather than an occupational gap during the MB and LB Ages concluded by a sudden surge of Iron I settlements, it may be more accurate to project a gradual increase in the number of settlements from a low point in the MB Age to a high point in Iron II. The question of border forts surrounding ancient Moab requires further investigation. Clearly there were some Iron I border forts, such as Khirbet Medeinet el-Mu>arradieh excavated by Olávarri. Yet several of the ruins which Glueck proposed as Moabite border forts show predominantly Nabatean and Roman pottery. Without excavating, therefore, it is difficult to know whether these sites were actually fortified during the Iron Age. Glueck’s claim that a pattern of Iron Age settlements marked the route of the “Kings Highway” mentioned in Num 20:17 and 21:22 must be qualified as well. It is not at all clear that derek haµmmelek should be read as a proper name or that the road(s) to which the Num 20:17 and 21:22 refer passed through the Transjordan. While there are Iron Age sites situated along the route of the later Via Nova, the most recent archaeological evidence does not indicate a particular concentration of Iron Age sites along this route. There is some conflict between the archaeological findings at Dhé÷baµn and Tell H\esbaµn (the sites of ancient Dibon and Heshbon respectively) and evidence pertaining to these two cities supplied by the ancient written records. If Tipun in the so-called “Palestinian List” from the reign of Tuthmosis III and Tbniw in the inscription from the reign of Ramesses II are to be identified with Dibon (see below), then one would expect Dhé÷baµn to show archaeological evidence of occupation during the LB Age. Yet excavators reported nothing from either the MB or LB Ages at Dhé÷baµn and only a small amount of Iron I material. Late Bronze remains were to be expected at Tell H\esbaµn also, since the Israelites are reported to have defeated King Sihon of Heshbon at the time of their Exodus from Egypt (Num 21:21–35; Deut N north(ern) MB Middle Bronze (Age) LB Late Bronze (Age) MB Middle Bronze (Age) LB Late Bronze (Age) MB Middle Bronze (Age) LB Late Bronze (Age) MB Middle Bronze (Age) LB Late Bronze (Age) MB Middle Bronze (Age) LB Late Bronze (Age) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 8 2:30–37; Judg 11:19–22), and the Exodus is usually dated during the LB Age. Yet the earliest significant remains uncovered at Tell H\esbaµn date from the 12th century B.C., well after the close of the LB Age. Moreover, even the 12th century remains at Tell H\esbaµn are meager. Finally, while certain features of the material culture of the Moabites suggest influence from the direction of Egypt (Baµluµ> Stele relief) and N Syria (Shé÷h\aµn Stele), there is even more abundant evidence of close continuity between the material culture of the Moabites and that of their immediate neighbors, including Israel (pottery styles including the collared rim jars and a “pillared building” at Khirbet Medeinet el-Mu>arradieh, language and script of the Mesha Inscription, etc.). This duality of cultural connections is illustrated by a proto-aeolic capital first reported by Glueck at Med\iebi>, an Iron Age ruin situated on the desert frontier of the S plateau. Although the nearest parallels are from W Palestine (Megiddo, Samaria, Ramat Rah\el), the motif is best known from the coast of Asia Minor. D.Moab and Moabites in Ancient Texts Ancient Egyptian, Moabite, and Assyrian inscriptions provide occasional bits of information about ancient Moab and the Moabites. Also Moab figures prominently in the Hebrew Bible. 1. Moab in Egyptian Sources. The so-called Execration Texts from the 19th or 18th centuries B.C. (MB Age) contain possible references to places in Moab. Also these texts mention “rulers of the Shûtu” among Egypt’s Asiatic enemies. We have already referred to one of these Shûtu rulers, Shemu<-abu(m), and suggested the possibility that “Shûtu” is the Egyptian equivalent of “Sheth” which in turn is paralleled with Moab in Num 24:17–18. It does not follow, of course, that the Shûtu of the MB Age were specifically Moabites, but only that the biblical poet, composing at a much later time, regarded the Moabites as belonging to Shûtu stock. Egypt maintained a strong presence in Syria-Palestine during the LB Age, beginning especially with the reign of Thutmosis III (ca. 1482–1450 B.C.). The texts indicate contact primarily with the towns and villages along the main roads, but the Egyptians also encountered non-sedentary folk throughout Syria-Palestine whom they referred to generally as “Shâsu.” None of the Shâsu references in the Egyptian texts point specifically to the region E of the Dead Sea. Yet the Egyptians no doubt would have considered this region, at least its desert frontier, as Shâsu territory. It has been observed, moreover, that the central figure depicted on the Baµluµ> Stele wears a headdress of exactly the sort worn by Shâsu in Egyptian reliefs from Dynasties 19 and 20. It is tempting to conclude, therefore, that Baµluµ> figure was a Shâsu king. This may, however, be a hasty conclusion. While Shâsu clearly are depicted with this sort of headdress in the Egyptian reliefs, it is less clear that all of those so depicted were Shâsu. LB Late Bronze (Age) B.C. before Christ LB Late Bronze (Age) N north(ern) etc. et cetera (and so forth) S south(ern) W west(ern) B.C. before Christ MB Middle Bronze (Age) MB Middle Bronze (Age) LB Late Bronze (Age) ca. circa (about, approximately) B.C. before Christ E east(ern); or “Elohist” source PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 9 One of the topographical lists from the reign of Thutmosis III, the so-called “Palestinian List” (also called the “Megiddo List”), may indicate that he passed through the Moabite plateau on one of his Asiatic campaigns. This depends, however, on a somewhat tenuous identification of the places mentioned in the list with places in Moab. Two other inscriptions suggest that Ramesses II (ca. 1304–1237) may have campaigned in the region two centuries later. The first of these, a brief topographical list inscribed on a statue of Ramesses II, includes what appears to be the name “Moab.” Unfortunately, the list is brief and largely destroyed. The second is actually a grouping of three texts, two of them original lines of palimpsests, from the inscriptions on the outer face of the E wall of the Court of Ramesses II of the Luxor temple. K. A. Kitchen reconstructed the three texts and identified one of the places mentioned, tbniw, as Dibon. As indicated above, however, this identification encounters some archaeological difficulties and has been challenged on other grounds as well. The conclusion that the region E of the Dead Sea was well within the range of Egyptian influence during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages seems certain, even when allowance is made for the various uncertainties mentioned above. Moreover, this conclusion is confirmed by the Baµluµ> Stele which, as indicated above, probably dates near the end of the LB Age. 2. The Mesha Inscription and Other Moabite Fragments. The Mesha Inscription appears on a memorial stele erected by King Mesha who ruled Moab during the 9th century B.C. Mesha seems to have taken the throne roughly midway through the reign of Ahab of Israel (ca. 873–851 B.C.) and lived to see the collapse of the Omride dynasty which occurred soon before 841 B.C. As was typical of royal memorial inscriptions of the day, the Mesha Inscription begins by introducing Mesha and then proceeds to describe the major achievements of his reign. Two items stand out, both mentioned in the opening lines: the recovery of the land of Medeba from Israelite control, and the building at Qarh\oh of a sanctuary dedicated to the Moabite god Kemosh (Chemosh). Apparently, the stele was established on the occasion of the completion of the sanctuary. (See the English translation in ANET, pp. 320–21.) After a lengthy prologue, the text recounts Mesha’s actions in connection with the recovery of the land of Medeba and what apparently was a fairly extensive building program at Qarh\oh. Recovery of the land of Medeba involved the taking of at least three Israelite cities: Ataroth, Nebo, and Jahaz. Against Ataroth and Nebo, Mesha launched campaigns that concluded with massacres of their respective populations. Less clear are the circumstances of the taking of Jahaz, which had been fortified by the Israelites and possibly served as an administrative center while N Moab was under Israelite control. The Israelites may have abandoned Jahaz without a fight since Mesha claims to have taken it without any mention of military action or massacre. Moabite loyalists resettled Ataroth, Jahaz, and probably Nebo (although this is not stated specifically). The sanctuary was only part of a much more extensive building program at Qarh\oh, which in turn ca. circa (about, approximately) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source E east(ern); or “Elohist” source LB Late Bronze (Age) B.C. before Christ ca. circa (about, approximately) B.C. before Christ B.C. before Christ ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 pp. pages; past N north(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 10 probably was the royal (acropolis) district of Dibon, Mesha’s capital city. Mesha’s building activities elsewhere in the land included work at Baal-meon (a reservoir), Qaryaten, Aroer, and Bezer. He also built several Moabite sanctuaries (Beth-bamoth, Beth-diblathain, Beth-baal-meon) and improved the road crossing the Arnon. As the inscription draws to a close, Mesha claims that “all Dibon” was loyal to him and that he ruled over a hundred towns which he had brought under Dibonite control. The last lines, which are badly damaged, report a campaign against Hauronen. The name of Mesha’s father may be provided by a small inscription fragment discovered at Kerak in 1958 (or soon before). This basalt fragment, only 14 × 12.5 cm, seems to have a close parallel in a funerary stele discovered near Aleppo in 1891. If so, then the inscription was written in horizontal lines across the garment of a standing figure. Parts of only four lines survive and have been reconstructed by W. L. Reed and F. V. Winnett to read as follows: . . . K]mšyt, king of Moab, the ...... of Kemosh (to serve) as an altar (?) because he ...... his . . . And behold I made . . . The script resembles that of the Mesha Inscription. Moreover, the first part of the king’s name is missing in the Kerak fragment, while the last part of the name of Mesha’s father is missing in the Mesha Inscription (Kmš[. .]). The translation proposed above reconstructs them as the same name, Kemoshyatti. Two more fragments with bits of Canaanite (Moabite) script have been discovered, one at Dhé÷baµn and one at Khirbet Baµluµ>. In neither case can a full word be reconstructed with some degree of certainty. Also an ostracon with a possible mem and waw has been discovered at Khirbet Baµluµ>. 3. Moab in the Assyrian Texts. The 734–732 B.C. campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III brought all of Syria-Palestine, including the Moabite region, under Assyrian domination. Thus the royal Assyrian documents provide occasional glimpses of Moabite affairs. The first such glimpse is provided by a fragment of a clay tablet discovered at Nimrud. This fragment provides a long list of kings who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser shortly after 734 B.C. Among the kings listed is one Salamanu of Moab (ANET, 282). Another text, a prism fragment dating from the reign of Sargon II (721–705 B.C.), mentions Moab among certain Palestinian kingdoms implicated in an anti-Assyrian revolt led by Ashdod in 713 (ANET, 287). The revolt, signalled by Ashdod’s refusal to pay the required annual tribute to Assyria, was quickly crushed. Presumably Moab paid off Sargon and escaped punishment. Two letters, which cannot be dated specifically but belong approximately to the period of Tiglath-pileser and Sargon, also mention Moab. One records the delivery of horses, presumably as tribute, to Calah by officials from Egypt, Judah, Moab, and Ammon. The other, from an Assyrian official and delivered to Nineveh by a messenger named Ezazu, reports a raid on Moabite territory by men of Gidir-land (Saggs 1955). A certain Kammusunadbi from Moab is mentioned among the local Palestinian kings who rushed with presents to assure Sennacherib of their loyalty when he marched against Philistia and Judah in 701 B.C. ( cm centimeter(s) B.C. before Christ B.C. before Christ ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 B.C. before Christ ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 11 ANET, 287). A much shorter text from the reign of either Sennacherib or his successor Esarhaddon reports further tribute from the Ammonites, Moabites, Judeans, and possibly Edomites (ANET, 301). A King Musuri of Moab is listed among others (including Manasseh of Judah and Qaushgabri of Edom) who transported building materials to Nineveh during the reign of Esarhaddon (ANET, 291). Musuri, Manasseh, and Qaushgabri are listed again among local Palestinian rulers who delivered presents to Ashurbanipal and provided military service for the latter’s wars against Egypt (ANET, 294). Finally, two texts from the reign of Ashurbanipal are instructive in that (a) they presume that the kingdoms of the Transjordan are loyal Assyrian vassals and thus due Assyrian protection, and (b) they witness to the fact that protection was needed from the direction of Arabia. The threat seems to have been primarily from the Qedarites, a largely nomadic people who roamed the desert region E and SE of Damascus. One of these texts reports a campaign conducted by Ashurbanipal against Uate<, identified in the text as king of Arabia but elsewhere as son of Haza B.C. before Christ ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 E east(ern); or “Elohist” source SE southeast(ern) ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969 PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 12 portion of the Genesis–Joshua narrative, therefore, from Numbers 21 through Joshua 3. The events reported in these chapters may be summarized as follows. The Israelites reached N Moab and defeated Sihon, an Amorite king who had taken this region from the Moabites and ruled it from Heshbon. They also defeated Og, another Amorite king who ruled still further N, and thus gained possession of virtually all the Transjordan (Num 21:10–35). Balak, a Moabite king, called on the prophet Balaam to curse the Israelites who now were encamped in the plains of Moab. Balaam, insisting that he could speak only what God gave him to speak, blessed Israel instead of cursing them (Numbers 22–24). Some of the Israelites began to worship Baal of Peor, and one even cohabited with a Midianite woman. Phinehas, son of Eleazer the priest, killed the couple. God commanded Moses and Eleazer to harass and smite the Midianites (Numbers 25). Moses and Eleazer conducted a census of the congregation, after which Yahweh provided further legal and cultic instructions (Numbers 26–30). Israel avenged the Midianites; the Reubenites and Gadites were assigned territory in N Moab; Manassehite clans received territory still further N, and Yahweh provided further instructions (Numbers 31–36). Moses reviewed key events which had occurred while the Israelites wandered in the wilderness and camped in the plains of Moab, reviewed the law which God had handed down to him, viewed the promised land from Pisgah, and died (Deuteronomy 1–34). Leadership was transferred to Joshua at that point, who began preparations for the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 1–3). Events of the “Plains of Moab” stage in the Israelite journey from Egypt also are mentioned from time to time later on in the biblical narrative as it continues through 2 Kings (see, for example, the summary of conquests in Joshua 12–13 and the exchange of messages between Jephthah and the Ammonite king in Judg 11:12–28). One must take into account that Genesis–2 Kings is a composite narrative composed long after the described circumstances and events would have occurred. Its composite character becomes especially obvious when one examines the “plains of Moab” segment summarized above. In addition to abrupt shifts in vocabulary and literary style which sometimes are noticeable even in translation, there is corresponding disunity in the content of the story. For example, the Israelite defeat of Sihon and seizure of his kingdom is reported in Num 21:21–30 as if there were no Moabite king with conflicting territorial claims. Then the Balak/Balaam episode which follows (and which has Balak much concerned about Israelite presence in the plains of Moab) is narrated without any apparent awareness of Sihon’s role in political affairs or that the Israelites had already taken from Sihon all of the territory N of the Arnon. Traditio-historical considerations also caution against an uncritical acceptance of the testimony of the narrative. The story about Lot and his daughters has all the appearances of a folk story, for example. And the claim that Sihon took from Moab the region N of the Arnon and then lost it to the Israelites has obvious propagandistic overtones; it seeks to legitimize Israelite possession of territory which even other parts of the Hebrew Bible recognize as belonging historically to Moab. Moreover, as indicated above, the Sihon tradition is contradicted by archaeological evidence. Heshbon, identified as the capital of Sihon’s Amorite kingdom, apparently was not even occupied at the time when these events supposedly occurred. Nevertheless, even if the Genesis–Joshua account cannot be taken at face value for purposes of historical reconstruction, matters of historical interest pertaining to Moab can be gleaned from the N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 13 traditions embedded in it. The story of Lot’s daughters, for example, in spite of its folkloristic character and derogatory slant, shows that the Israelites regarded the Moabites and Ammonites as relatives. The common heritage of these peoples is suggested also, as we have seen, by their shared material culture. Other passages in the Hebrew Bible indicate that there was constant interchange between the Israelites and Moabites including intermarriage. The genealogical record at the end of the book of Ruth is especially noteworthy in this regard. It claims, namely, that King David himself was descended from the Moabitess Ruth. Among the numerous obscure notations in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–8, on the other hand, is mention of a Moabite ruler of Judaean descent (1 Chr 4:22). 1 Chr 8:8–10 speaks of one Shaharaim (presumably a descendant of Benjamin, although the context is unclear) who “. . . had sons in the country of Moab after he had sent away Hushim and Baara his wives. He had sons by Hodesh his wife: Jobab, Zibia, Mesha, Malcam, Jeuz, Sachia, and Mirmah. There were his sons, heads of fathers’ houses.” The Sihon passages bear witness to the political conflicts between the Israelites, Moabites, and Ammonites during biblical times, indicate that competition for control of N Moab was a central issue in much of this conflict, and remind us that international disputes always involve some degree of propaganda warfare. No doubt the Moabites and Ammonites also had their own versions of earlier history which supported their respective claims to N Moab. Similarly, the traditions that report religious apostasy and violence at Beth-peor, although projected back to the Mosaic era when all Israel supposedly was camped in the Plains of Moab, probably had more to do with the on-going experiences of Israelite clans who lived permanently among the Moabites (and Midianites!) in the disputed region. While many will have married non-Israelite wives and worshiped local gods at Moabite shrines, there will have been counter efforts to maintain ethnic and religious distinctiveness; and this distinctiveness will have added a local dynamic to the violence which inevitably occurred each time the disputed territory changed hands (e.g., David’s selective massacre of Moabites; Mesha’s massacre of Gadites). The cultic center at Beth-peor on the NW edge of the Moabite plateau apparently played a central role in much of this struggle, and the conflicting attitudes which Israelites would have held concerning this shrine are reflected in the conflicting biblical traditions regarding Baalam. Numbers 22–24 reflects an essentially positive attitude toward Beth-peor and Baalam. It was from Beth-peor, we are told, that Balaam uttered his third oracle of blessing upon the Israelites. Numbers 25 and 32 depict Beth-peor as an evil place, on the other hand, symbolic of the evils of religious apostasy. Balaam, correspondingly, is an evil prophet who encouraged Moabite and Midianite women to draw Israelite men into their foreign cult (see also Deut 23:4; Josh 22:17; Neh 13:2; 2 Pet 2:15). The ambivalent cultic situation in which the Israelites who settled E of the Jordan found themselves is reflected further in Joshua 22. The Genesis–Joshua narrative continues in the books of Judges–2 Kings (excluding Ruth). The next reported event in Israelite-Moabite relations is an episode associated with the time of the Israelite judges when “Eglon the king of Moab” allied himself with the Ammonites and Amalekites, defeated Israel, and took possession of “the city of Palms.” Thus the people of Israel served Eglon for eighteen years, according to the story, until Yahweh raised up a deliverer. This deliverer was Ehud, a Benjaminite, who assassinated Eglon, mustered an army, and seized the fords of the Jordan so that about 10,000 Moabites N north(ern) N north(ern) e.g. exempli gratia (for example) NW northwest(ern) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 14 were killed (Judg 3:12–30). After the Eglon/Ehud episode, the Judges–2 Kings corpus contains only brief references and one extended narrative (2 Kgs 3:4–27) pertaining to Israelite-Moabite relations. Saul is reported to have “fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, against the Ammonites, against Edom, against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; wherever he turned he put them to the worse” (1 Sam 14:47). David, while a fugitive from Saul, left his parents with the king of Moab (1 Sam 22:3–4). Yet we read later in the account of his reign that David “. . . defeated Moab, and measured them with a line, making them lie down on the ground; two lines he measured to be put to death, and one full line to be spared. And the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute” (2 Sam 8:2). Unfortunately the text of 2 Sam 24:5–7, which reports a census undertaken by David, is difficult to follow. It seems clear, however, that the census officials began at Aroer on the N bank of the Arnon and worked northward from there. Thus David apparently exercised direct control only over N Moab. Solomon is reported to have indulged the worship of foreign gods in Jerusalem, and Josiah to have reversed this policy two centuries later. In both instances Chemosh, the Moabite god, is mentioned (1 Kgs 11:7, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13). 2 Kings 1:1 and 3:4–5 report that king Mesha of Moab, who had been required to deliver annual tribute to Ahab, rebelled against Israel following Ahab’s death. 2 Kgs 3:6–27 recounts then Jehoram’s unsuccessful attempt to restore Israelite authority over Moab. After the Omride-Mesha conflict, the Moabites are mentioned only twice more in the Judges–2 Kings narrative. Both instances have to do with Moabite raids W of the Jordan (2 Kgs 13:20–21; 24:2). Apparently, the latter half of the 9th century was a bleak time for the peoples of Palestine, as illustrated by the Elisha stories. None dared challenge the Syrians who exploited the land without providing security. 2 Kgs 13:20–21, intended to illustrate the power of Elisha even after his death, mentions Moabite raids which presumably occurred under the shadow of Syrian oppression. Moabite raids would continue to be a problem in still later years. 2 Kgs 24:2 reports that, when Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, Yahweh “sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites.” References to Moab and Moabites in the prose sections of the Hebrew Bible appear outside the Genesis–2 Kings corpus also. The book of Ruth has been mentioned already. Regardless of the historicity of the story, one must consider the underlying assumption of the storyteller that Moab would have been a reasonable place to go in search of grain when famine struck Judah. The Chronicler provides a not entirely convincing story of how Yahweh saved Jerusalem during Jehoshaphat’s reign from a combined attack by Moabites, Ammonites, and Meunites (2 Chr 20:1–30). The city was saved, according to the story, without its defenders so much as raising a spear. Mention should be made also of two Moab references in the prose sections of Jeremiah. Near the beginning of Zedekiah’s reign, when Jeremiah warned the king against challenging the Babylonian hold on Judah, he apparently attempted to send the same message to neighboring kings by way of their envoys who had come to Jerusalem to confer with Zedekiah. The kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon are mentioned in particular ( Jeremiah 27, see esp. v.3). Jeremiah 40:11–12, on the other hand, describes circumstances after the Babylonians had captured Jerusalem for a second time and placed the government in the hands of Gedaliah. At that time Jews who had fled to the Transjordan began to return to their homes, and Moab, Ammon, and Edom are specified as the lands to which they had fled. In the poetical sections of the Hebrew Bible, references to Moab and the Moabites are usually in very N north(ern) N north(ern) W west(ern) esp. especially PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 15 generalized contexts which treat Moab as an enemy along with other neighboring nations. Thus in Exodus 15, the so-called “Song of the Sea,” the Moabites figure among those terrified by Yahweh’s mighty deeds in Israel’s behalf (Exod 15:14–15). Moab appears also in Psalm 60 and 108, which partially duplicate each other. These communal laments appear to Yahweh to show his strength and express confidence that he will do so. The salvation oracle is given as divine proclamation: “Moab is my washbasin; upon Edom I cast my shoe; over Philistia I shout in triumph” (Ps 60:8; 108:9). Similarly, Psalm 83, which probably dates from the waning years of the Judean monarchy before the collapse of the Assyrian empire, calls upon God to take vengeance on various enemies including Moab. The books of Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah include collections of oracles directed against individual foreign nations (Amos 1–2; Isaiah 13–23; Jeremiah 46–51). The oracles in Amos introduce the book, and all of them follow a similar format. They address in turn Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, the Ammonites, and Moab (2:1–3). The collection of Moab oracles in Isaiah 15–16 and Jeremiah 48 partially duplicate each other. Jeremiah additionally includes a variant version of the Num 21:27–30 oracle pertaining to Sihon and Heshbon. Very little specific information about Moabite history can be derived from any of these prophetical texts. The one cited above from Amos leaves us completely in the dark, for example, as to the identity of the Moabite king who burned the bones of the Edomite king or the circumstances of his deed. The oracles do, however, have some implications for the historical geography of Moab, even if the evidence they provide is difficult to interpret. In addition to these oracles which focus specifically on Moab, several other poetical texts mention Moab in anticipation of a restoration of Israel and downfall of her neighbors (Isa 11:12–16; 25:10–12; Jer 9:25–26; 25:15–29; Ezek 25:8–11; Zeph 2:8–11; see also Balaam’s oracle in Num 24:15–24, esp. v 17). Finally, some mention should be made of the occasional references to Moab in postexilic biblical texts, most of which also mention the Moabites along with Judah’s other neighbors in derogatory fashion (Ezra 9:1; Dan 11:41; Jdt 1:12; 5:2; 5:22; 7:8). Neh 13:1 notes that the books of Moses denied Moabites and Ammonites admission to the assembly of God because of their behavior toward Israel at the time of the exodus. The Hebrew text of Sir 36:10, reminiscent of Num 24:17 and Jer 48:45, specifies “Moabite” princes as the object of divine wrath. E.Moabite History Moab was one of several relatively small kingdoms that emerged in the Levant during the early centuries of the Iron Age, existed for a time alongside each other, and then fell under the domination of the Assyrians. Those kingdoms which survived the Assyrians with their national identity intact would not survive the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, who dominated the Levant each in turn after the Assyrians. Among these Iron Age kingdoms was Moab. Unfortunately very little is known about the origin of the Moabites or the details of their history. 1. Moabite Origins. According to the Genesis-Joshua narrative reviewed above, the Moabites descended from an ancestor named Moab, Lot’s son/grandson (Gen 19:37), and their land was inhabited in earliest times by a race of giants known as the Emim (Deut 2:10). One would suppose also, from an uncritical reading of the narrative, that the Moabites already were organized into a monarchy when the Israelites passed through the Transjordan on their exodus from Egypt (Num 21:10–20; Deut 2:9–19); that the Moabite king on the throne at the time was named Balak (Num 22–24); that a large section of Moabite territory (N Moab) had been lost to an Amorite king named Sihon soon before the Israelites arrived on the scene (Num 21:26–30), and that the Israelites took this Moabite territory from Sihon ( Num 21:21–25). As observed above, however, the Genesis-Joshua narrative is not a reliable source of esp. especially N north(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 16 information regarding Moabite origins. For one thing, it was compiled several centuries after Balak and Sihon supposedly lived. We know now that, contrary to Glueck’s findings, the Moabite plateau was occupied to some degree throughout the Bronze Age. Neither does the archaeological evidence suggest a major cultural break in the S Transjordan between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. There is no reason to suppose, accordingly, that the Moabite kingdom emerged from newcomers to the region. In other words, the Moabites of biblical times may have been, for the most part, descendants of the general population which had inhabited the region E of the Dead Sea from earliest times. 2. Early Moabite Monarchy? All of our information about the Moabite kingdom(s) prior to King Mesha also comes from the Hebrew Bible, beginning with the references indicated above to an early Moabite king named Balak. Judg 3:12–30 mentions another Moabite king named Eglon who ruled “the city of palms” (probably Jericho) during the time of the Judges. The biblical narratives pertaining to Balak and Eglon have very obvious legendary overtones. But even if they are to be taken as historically trustworthy, one cannot assume that Balak and Eglon ruled over a united Moabite state which included all of the region E of the Dead Sea. More likely, the political situation in S Transjordan during the opening centuries of the Iron Age will have been characterized by political disunity and diversity. There will have been a few modest cities, each with its king who also controlled some of the surrounding countryside. However tribal elders also will have played a role in the political structure, especially among the villages scattered throughout the land. Also from time to time there will have arisen local chieftains who carved out local kingdoms. Eglon may have been a king of this sort. Even Mesha’s realm, as we shall see below, may not have encompassed all of Moab. By the same measure, the biblical claim that David defeated Moab (2 Sam 8:2) does not necessarily mean, as often presupposed by Bible atlases, that he conquered and annexed to Israel all the land of Moab from the Dead Sea to the desert and from Heshbon to the River Zered. More likely, he subjugated only the region N of the Arnon. 3. Mesha’s Kingdom. The only Moabite king that we know much about and, correspondingly, the only period of Moabite history for which we have any substantial details, is king Mesha who ruled from Dibon during the mid-9th century B.C. He was a contemporary of the strong Omride dynasty of Israel (Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram) and is reported in the Hebrew Bible to have rebelled against Israelite domination after Ahab’s death (2 Kgs 1:1; 3:4–27). The main reason that Mesha and his period is so well known, however, is that he left his own record of his major deeds—the Mesha Inscription. Unfortunately the information provided by the Mesha Inscription does not correlate easily with the related materials in the Hebrew Bible (esp. 2 Kgs 1:1 and 3:4–27). Thus the following proposed reconstruction of events is somewhat hypothetical. Mesha followed his father to the throne in Dibon roughly midway during Ahab’s reign. Most of N Moab was under Israelite domination at the time and Mesha, as his father before him, had to pay annual tribute to the Omrides. The political situation in Israel took a turn for the worse after Ahab died, and Mesha seized the opportunity to rebell. At first the “rebellion” would have consisted of Mesha’s refusal S south(ern) E east(ern); or “Elohist” source E east(ern); or “Elohist” source S south(ern) N north(ern) B.C. before Christ esp. especially N north(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 17 to pay the annual tribute, along with preparations for defense in case Israel took military action. When it was apparent that Ahaziah, who followed Ahab to the throne, could not take action because of a personal accident and other difficulties in Samaria (2 Kings 1), Mesha proceeded with military moves of his own intended to restore Moabite control over N Moab. Probably it was necessary only to settle affairs with a few pro-Israelite cities, perhaps only Ataroth and Nebo, since most of the population of the disputed region was Moabite and would have welcomed the change. When Ahaziah died, Jehoram ascended the throne in Samaria and organized a military campaign against Mesha. The account of the campaign in 2 Kgs 3:4–27 is beset with literary problems and its details should not be pressed too far (Miller 1967; Bartlett 1983). The essence of the account is that the attacking army approached Moab from around the S end of the Dead Sea, devastated fields and cisterns throughout the land, laid siege to Kir-hareseth where Mesha had retreated, but then withdrew from the city when Mesha sacrificed his oldest son on the city wall. Mesha seems to have had a long reign and claims in his inscription to have been an active builder. Near the end of the inscription, where it is badly damaged and concluding lines are broken off entirely, Mesha claims to have undertaken a victorious military campaign against Horonaim. It is noteworthy that, with the possible exception of the Horonaim campaign, all of Mesha’s activities reported in the inscription were confined to N Moab, the region N of the Arnon. Whether the Horonaim campaign would have taken him into the main Moabite plateau depends on the location of Horonaim (see below). Even allowing for the possibility that Horonaim was located S of the Arnon, however, the pattern of his recorded deeds strongly suggests that Mesha’s effective rule was confined to N Moab. 4. Moab under the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. The Assyrian texts imply that Moab fell under Assyrian domination during the 8th century B.C. as did the remainder of the Levant. Also the Assyrian texts provide the names of four additional Moabite kings: Salamanu, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser; Kammusunadbi, who pledged loyalty to Sennacherib; Musuri, a contemporary of Manasseh of Judah, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal; and Kamashaltu, who defeated the Qedarites later on in Ashurbanipal’s reign. Precise dates are unavailable for any of these four kings. According to Josephus, the Ammonites and Moabites were brought under Babylonian subjection five years after the destruction of Jerusalem (Ant 10.9.7). Presumably the peoples of the Transjordan, including the Moabite, submitted to Persian occupation as well, although there is no specific evidence available in this regard. 5. Moab during Hellenistic-Roman Times. We are dependent almost entirely on Josephus for information about circumstances in the Transjordan during Hellenistic and Roman times. That the whole Transjordan was regarded as part of Arabia (i.e., Nabatean realm) by the beginning of the 1st century B.C. is presupposed by Josephus’ account of the warfare between Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B.C.) and the latter’s Nabatean contemporary, Obodas I. Josephus reports, namely, that Alexander overcame “the N north(ern) S south(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) S south(ern) N north(ern) B.C. before Christ Ant Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (= Antiquitates Judaicae) 1st first B.C. before Christ B.C. before Christ PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 18 Arabians, such as the Moabites and Gileadites, and made them bring tribute” (Ant 13.13.5 §374). Later on, according to Josephus, Alexander “was forced to deliver back to the king of Arabia the land of Moab and Gilead, which he had subdued, and places that were in them” (Ant 13.14.2 §382). This leaves the reader somewhat unprepared for Josephus’ account of the negotiations between Hyrcanus II and Aretas III after Alexander’s death, at which time Hyrcanus supposedly offered to return the Moabite cities if Aretas would support his bid for the Judean throne (Ant 14.1.4§18). Pompey’s eastern campaign in 64–63 B.C. brought all of Syria-Palestine under the shadow of Rome. Nabatea, including the Moabite region, became a client kingdom. No doubt the bulk of the population consisted of descendants of the ancient Moabites, and the name would survive for a long time—e.g., in that of the two chief cities, Rabbath Moab and Karak Moab. For all practical purposes, however, the history of ancient Moab had come to an end. F.Moabite Place Names Since most of the written information about ancient Moab must be gleaned from non-Moabite sources, it is not surprising that the towns and villages of the more accessible region N of the Arnon/Muµjib are much better documented than those of the S plateau. Most of the Moabite towns and villages mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, for example, and virtually all of those which can be located today with any degree of confidence, were situated in N Moab. Noteworthy also is the fact that Mesha’s capital city, Dibon, and all of the other places mentioned in his inscription with the possible exception of Hauronen, were located N of the Arnon/Muµjib. 1. Northern Moab. As indicated above, the following site identifications have been proposed for places mentioned in Egyptian sources: tipun/tbniw (equated with Moabite Dibon which is identical in turn with present-day Dhé÷baµn; M.R. 224101); kurmin (present-day Ant Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (= Antiquitates Judaicae) Ant Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (= Antiquitates Judaicae) Ant Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (= Antiquitates Judaicae) B.C. before Christ N north(ern) S south(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) NW northwest(ern) W west(ern) N north(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 19 prominent archaeological sites. Thus Bezer, which is listed in Josh 20:8; 21:36 and 1 Chr 6:63 as a Refuge/Levitical city and described in Deut 4:43 as “Bezer in the wilderness on the tableland” often is associated with Umm el->Amad (M.R. 235132) on the desert side of N Moab. Jahaz, mentioned as the scene of Israel’s defeat of King Sihon of Heshbon (Num 21:23; Deut 2:32; Judg 11:20) and depicted as a place of some military importance near Dibon in the Mesha Inscription, possibly is to be associated with present-day Libb (M.R. 222112). Some scholars, however, contending that the Israelites would have approached Sihon’s realm from the desert side, search for Jahaz nearer to the desert frontier (e.g., Khirbet el-Medeineh [M.R. 236110] on Waµdé÷ el-Themed). 2. Plains of Moab. Situated in the Plains of Moab were Nimrah, Beth-Jeshimoth and Abel-shittim. Nimrah probably is to be associated with present-day Tell Nimré÷n. Eusebius and Jerome identify Beth-Jeshimoth with a place called Ismuth (Onomast. 266.27; 233.81; 103.9), the ancient name of which probably is preserved in that of present-day Khirbet es-Suweimeh (M.R. 206131). However, contemporary scholars usually accept Glueck’s view that Tell >Az\eimeh (M.R. 208132) nearby is the actual site of Beth-Jeshimoth. Earlier scholars generally identified Shittim with Tell Kefrein; but the more recent tendency, again following Glueck, has been to associate it with Tell el-H\ammaµm (M.R. 214138). 3. The Southern Plateau. Although the name Rabbath-Moab does not appear in any extant pre-Roman sources, it is by etymology an early Moabite name and is to be equated with present-day er-Rabbah (M.R. 220075). Rabbath Moab/er-Rabbah, which came to be called Areopolis during Late Roman and Byzantime times, has also been equated with Ar Moab. However there is very little to recommend this Rabbath Moab/Ar equation. A more likely site for Ar is probably Khirbet Baµluµ>. Ar seems to have been a city of some importance (the name “Ar” is derived from the word for “city”) closely associated with Arnon. The ancient city represented by Khirbet Baµluµ> would have been the gateway to the S plateau from N Moab, on the other hand, since the ancient N–S route through the Transjordan will have descended into the Arnon/Muµjib canyon at Aroer, followed the canyon bed into the Waµdé÷ el-Baµluµ> tributary, and then ascended the plateau of the S plateau at Khirbet Baµluµ>. Kir-hereseth (Kir-heres, Kir-hares) usually is equated with present-day Kerak (M.R. 217066) on the basis of the Targumic rendering of “Kir” as kerak (Isa 15:1; 16:7, 11) and the geographical implications of the narrative of 2 Kgs 3:4–27. But neither of these lines of evidence can be regarded as very secure. “Kir” is a common element in Moabite place names, and the Targum rendering may be a simple translation meaning “fortified city” rather than the proper name of a city. Literary critics have raised serious questions about the unity and historicity of 2 Kings 3, and even if taken at face value this narrative does not necessarily support the Kir-hereseth/Kerak identification. The “ascent of Luhith” mentioned in Isa 15:5b–6 generally is associated with an ancient roadway which ascended the Moabite plateau along the N slopes of Waµdé÷ en-Numera. Thus Luhith and Horonaim, which are mentioned together in the Isaiah passage, would have been located along this roadway (but see Worschech and Knauf 1986). Present-day Kathrabbaµ seems the best candidate for the Luhith. N north(ern) e.g. exempli gratia (for example) Onomast. Eusebius, Onomasticon S south(ern) N north(ern) N north(ern) S south(ern) S south(ern) N north(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 20 G.Moabite Religion The Moabites of the Iron Age will have inherited religious concepts and practices from their Bronze Age predecessors, whose religious practices will have been similar in turn to those of their Canaanite neighbors W of the Jordan (see Mattingly, EncRel 10:1–3). Place names such as Beth-baal-peor, Beth-baal-meon, and Bemoth-baal indicate the existance of local Baal shrines, for example. The Baµluµ> Stele indicates strong Egyptian influence near the end of the LB Age, which no doubt will have extended to religion. As indicated above, the god and goddess depicted on opposite sides of the central figure may be Egyptian deities. The place name Horonaim is also suggestive in this regard. A deity named Horôn apparently was worshipped in both Egypt and Canaan (e.g., at Beth-horon). The place name Nebo may pertain in some way to the god Nabû worshipped in Babylon (Isa 46:1–2). Chemosh emerged as the national god of the Moabites, however, and was understood to have the same special relationship with them that Yahweh had with the Israelites. Jeremiah refers to the Moabites as “the people of Chemosh” (48:46; see also Num 21:29). Chemosh appears as an element in royal names ( Kammusunadbi, Kamashaltu); and the flowering of the Moabite kingdom under Mesha prompted the building of a royal compound in the capital city which featured a Chemosh sanctuary. The Moabites believed that their military successes and failures depended upon Chemosh’s favor or disfavor, so that the Mesha Inscription reads very much like some parts of the Hebrew Bible. Moab had fallen into difficult times because Chemosh was angry with his land, according to the inscription. But then it was Chemosh who enabled Mesha to recover the lost territories, commanded him to attack Hauronen, and presumably gave him victory there as well. Thus, Mesha dedicated the sanctuary to Chemosh “because he saved me from all the kings and caused me to triumph over all my adversaries” and the conquered territories were incorporated into Chemosh’s domain. As Joshua is said to have devoted the city of Jericho with all its spoils and inhabitants to Yahweh for destruction (Josh 6:17–21), so also Mesha consecrated the people of Ataroth and Nebo to destruction (h\eµrem) in gratitude to Chemosh. The narrative in 2 Kings 3 has Mesha resorting to child sacrifice, which also was not unknown in Israel (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 16:3). Jer 48:7 refers to the priests of Chemosh, and the terminology of the Mesha Inscription suggests some system of divination—“Chemosh said to me, ‘Go down, fight against Hauronen.” Several animal and human figurines have been found on Moabite sites, some of which may have had religious significance. Chemosh apparently was not just a local Moabite deity. A god named Kamish may appear in lists of deities from the EB archives at Ebla. Gods with similar names appear in a Babylonian list dating from the MB Age and in a LB Age tablet from Ugarit. Possibly Kemosh was the chief deity of the famous city of Carchemish in N Syria. Providing further evidence of the international scope of Chemosh worship (or evidence of the presence of Moabites in Egypt) are theophoric personal names based on Kemosh ( Kemoshyhi, Kemoshzdk, Kemoshplt) known from ostraca, graffiti, and papyrus fragments discovered at Sakkar. W west(ern) EncRel Encyclopedia of Religion, 16 vols., ed. M. Eliade. New York, 1987 LB Late Bronze (Age) e.g. exempli gratia (for example) e.g. exempli gratia (for example) EB Early Bronze (Age); or Echter Bibel MB Middle Bronze (Age) LB Late Bronze (Age) N north(ern) PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 21 The reference to ‘štr-kmš in line 17 of the Mesha Inscription has been interpreted two different ways. Possibly it has to do with Chemosh’s consort, a female deity presumably associated in some way with the goddess Ishtar or Astarte. Alternatively, it may be a compound name for Chemosh himself—i.e., he would be associated in some way with >Ashtar, a male Canaanite deity, firstborn of the supreme god El, known from the Ugaritic texts. John Gray, a proponent of this latter view, has collected data which suggests that this Canaanite >Ashtar (>Attr) was identical with a S Arabian god >Attar who was associated in turn with the morning and evening star (1949b). According to Gray, Chemosh, Milcom (the god of the Ammonites), and Šlm (apparently worshipped in Jerusalem as indicated by the names Jerusalem Solom on, and Absalom) were all epithets or hypostases of this same astral deity. Thus the royal Moabite name Shalamanu (no less so than Kammusunadbi and Kamashaltu) would be theophoric names pertaining to >Ashtar=Chemosh=Milcom=Sðlm. Likewise, Judg 11:24 would not be mistaken when it identifies Chemosh as the god of the Ammonites, since Chemosh and Milcom would have been alternate designations for the same god. Bibliography Albright, W. F. 1924. The Archaeological Results of an Expedition to Moab and the Dead Sea. BASOR 14: 1–12. ———. 1934. Soundings at Ader, A Bronze Age City in Moab. BASOR 53: 13–18. ———. 1936. The Canaanite God H\auroÆn (H\oÆroÆn). AJSL 53: 1–12. Bartlett, J. R. 1965. The Edomite King-List of Genesis xxxvi.31–39 and II Chron.i.43–50. JTS 10: 301–14 ———. 1973. The Moabites and Edomites. Pp. 229–58 in POTT. ———. 1983. The “United” Campaign against Moab in 2 Kings 3:4–27. Pp. 135–46 in Midian, Moab and Edom, ed. J.F.A. Sawyer and D.J.A. Clines. JSOTSup 24. Sheffield. Boraas, R. S., and Geraty, L. T. 1976. Heshbon 1974: The Fourth Campaign at Tell Heshbân. Berrien Springs, MI. ———. 1978. Heshbon 1976: The Fifth Campaign at Tell Heshbân. Berrien Springs, MI. Boraas, R. S., and Horn, S. H. 1975. Heshbon 1973: The Third Campaign at Tell Heshbân. Berrien Springs, MI. Brünnow, R. E., and Domaszewski, A. von. 1904–9. Die Provincia Arabia. 3 vols. Strassburg. Conder, C. R. 1889a. Heth and Moab. London. ———. 1889b. The Survey of Eastern Palestine. London. Crowfoot, J. W. 1934. An Expedition to BaµluÆ>ah. PEFQS, 76–84. Donner, H. 1957. Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Staates Moab in der zweiten Hälfte des 8. Jahrh. v. Chr. MIO 5: 155–84. ———. 1964. Remarks and Observations on the Historical Topography of Jordan. ADAJ 8–9: 88–92. Glueck, N. 1934. Explorations in Eastern Palestine I. Pp. 1–113 in AASOR 14. New Haven. ———. 1939. Explorations in Eastern Palestine III. AASOR 18–19: 60–138. S south(ern) BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures JTS Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford Pp. pages; past POTT Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman. Oxford, 1973 Pp. pages; past ed. editor(s); edition; edited by JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series vols. volumes PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Berlin ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Pp. pages; past AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 22 ———. 1940. The Other Side of the Jordan. New Haven. ———. 1943. Some Ancient Towns in the Plains of Moab. BASOR 91: 7–26. Gray, J. 1949a. The Canaanite God Horon. JNES 8: 27–34. ———. 1949b. The Desert God >At_tr in the Literature and Religion of Canaan. JNES 8: 72–73. Grohman, E. D. 1958. A History of Moab. Diss. Johns Hopkins. Hadidi, A. ed. 1982. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. London and Amman. Horsfield, G., and Vincent, L. H. 1932. Chronique und Stèle Égypto-Moabite au Balou>a. RB 41: 417–44. Ibach, R. D. 1987. Archaeological Survey of the Hesban Region. Hesban 5. Berrien Springs, MI. Kautz, J. 1981. Tracking the Ancient Moabites. BA 44: 27–35. Kitchen, K. 1964. Some New Light on the Asaitic Wars of Ramesses II. JEA 50: 47–70. Kuschke, A. 1962. New Contributions to the Historical Topography of Jordan. ADAJ 6–7: 90–95. ———. 1967. Horonaim and Qiryathaim. Remarks on a Recent Contribution to the Topography of Moab. PEQ 99: 104–5. Menéndez, M. 1983. The Iron I Structures in the Area Surrounding Medeineh Al Ma>arradjeh (Smakieh). ADAJ 27: 179–84. Miller, J. M. 1967. The Fall of the House of Ahab. VT 17: 307–24. ———. 1974. The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stele. PEQ 106: 9–18. ———. 1979a. Archaeological Survey of Central Moab:1978. BASOR 234: 43–52. ———. 1979b. Archaeological Survey South of Wadi Muµjib: Glueck’s Sites Revisited. ADAJ 23: 79–92. ———. 1982. Recent Archaeological Developments Relevant to Ancient Moab. Pp. 169–73 in Hadidi 1982. Mittmann, S. 1973. Das südliche Ostjordanland im Lichte eines neuassyrischen Keilschriftbriefes aus Nimruµd. ZDPV 93: 15–25. ———. 1982. The Ascent of Luhith. Pp. 175–80 in Hadadi 1982. Murphy, R. E. 1952. A Fragment of an Early Moabite Inscription from Dibon. BASOR 125: 20–23. Musil, A. 1907–8. Arabia Petraea. 2 vols. Vienna. Olávarri, E. 1965. Sondages a >AroÆ>er sur l’Arnon. RB 72: 77–94. ———. 1969. Fouilles a >AroÆ>er sur l’Arnon. RB 76: 230–59. ———. 1977–8. Sondeo Arquelogico en Khirbet Medeineh junto a Smakieh (Jordania). ADAJ 22: 136–49. ———. 1983. La Campagne de fouilles 1982 à Khirbet Medeinet al-Mu>arradjeh Prés de Smakieh (Kerak). ADAJ 27: 165–78. AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago Diss. dissertation RB Revue biblique, Paris BA Biblical Archaeologist JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan VT Vetus Testamentum, Leiden PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Pp. pages; past ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Pp. pages; past BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research vols. volumes RB Revue biblique, Paris RB Revue biblique, Paris ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Logos Library System Page 23 Piccirillo, M. 1975. Una tomba del Ferro I a Madeba. Liber Annuus 25: 199–224. Redford, D. B. 1982. Contacts Between Egypt and Jordan in the New Kingdom: Some Comments on Sources. Pp. 115–20 in Hadadi 1982. Reed, W. L. 1972. The Archaeological History of Elealeh in Moab. Pp. 18–28 in Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World, ed. J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford. Toronto. Saggs, W. F. 1955. The Nimrud Letters—II Relations with the West. Iraq 17: 126–60. Saller, S. J., and Bagatti, B. 1949. The Town of Nebo (Khirbet el-Mekhayyat). Jerusalem. Schottroff, W. 1966. Horonaim, Nimrim, Luhlith und der Westrand des Landes Ataroth. ZDPV 82: 163–208. Smith, G. A. 1904–5. The Roman Road between Kerak and Madeba. PEFQS 1904: 367–77; 1905: 39–48. ———. 1914. Moab. Col. 3166–3179 in EncBib. Tristram, H. B. 1873. The Land of Moab. New York. Tushingham, A. D. 1972. The Excavations at Dibon (Dhé÷baµn) in Moab: The Third Campaign 1952–53. AASOR 40. Cambridge, MA. Van Seters, J. 1972. The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom. A Literary Examination. JBL 91: 182–97. Vollers, K. 1908. Der Name Moab. ZA 21: 237–40. Ward, W. A., and Martin, M. F. 1964. The Baµluµ>a Stele: A New Transcription with Palaeographical and Historical Notes. ADAJ 8–9: 5–35. Warmanbol, E. 1983. La stèle de Rugðm el->Abd (Louvre AO 5055). Levant 15: 63–75. Winnett, F. V., and Reed, W. L. 1964. The Excavations at Dibon (Dhé÷baµn) in Moab. AASOR 36–37. New Haven. Worschech, U. F. 1985a. Northwest Ard el-Kerak 1983 and 1984: A Preliminary Report. Munich. ———. 1985b. Preliminary Report on the Third Survey Season in the Northwest Ard\ el-Kerak, 1985. ADAJ 29: 161–73. Worschech, U. F. and Knauf, E. A. 1986. Diamon und Horonaim. BN 31: 70–94. Worschech, U. F., Rosenthal, U., and Zayadine, F. 1986. The Fourth Survey Season in the North-west Ard\ el-Kerak, and Soundings at Balu> 1986. ADAJ 30: 285–309. J. MAXWELL MILLER Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992. Pp. pages; past Pp. pages; past ed. editor(s); edition; edited by Iraq Iraq ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Col. column EncBib Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. T. K. Cheyne. London, 1800–1903. 2d ed. 1958 AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research JBL Journal of Biblical Literature ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan AO Der Alte Orient Levant Levant, London AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan BN Biblische Notizen, Bamberg ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan J. MAXWELL MILLER Professor of OT Studies, Emory University, Atlanta, GA PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com