An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem

VOLUME 63 • NUMBER 1 • 2013

CONTENTS

1 The Israel Exploration Society: 100 Years of Archaeological Activity I 6TALLAY ORNAN, STEVEN ORTIZ and SAMUEL WOLFF: A Newly Discovered Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context E Israel 26 MITCHELL BORNSTEIN: The Jerusalem Ostracon õøàð÷ìà Reconsidered J

39 EILAT MAZAR,DAVID BEN-SHLOMO and SHMUEL A¡ITUV: An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem

50 IRIT YEZERSKI: Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II–III Judahite Rock-cut Tombs Exploration 78 ZVI URI MAªOZ: A Note on Pharanx Antiochus

83 YOEL ELITZUR: The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal Regarding Abba’s Identity

103 RENATE ROSENTHAL-HEGINBOTTOM: Reconsidering the Rock-Cut Burial Cave at Beit Nattif: A Response to Zissu and Klein Journal 109 NOTES AND NEWS

113 HEBREW BOOKS AND PAPERS

118 BOOKS RECEIVED — 2012

Page layout by Avraham Pladot Typesetting by Marzel A.S. — Jerusalem 63 VOLUME 63 • NUMBER 1 Printed by Old City Press, Jerusalem 1 JERUSALEM, ISRAEL • 2013 ISRAEL EXPLORATION JOURNAL ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Published twice yearly by the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of AJA American Journal of Archaeology Archaeology of the Hebrew University, with the assistance of the Nathan AfO Archiv für Orientforschung Davidson Publication Fund in Archaeology, Samis Foundation, Seattle WA, ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament3, ed. J.B. Pritchard, and Dorot Foundation, Providence RI Princeton, 1969 BA The Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Founders BT Babylonian Talmud A. Reifenberg, D. Amiran CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Former Editors DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EI Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies Michael Avi-Yonah, Dan Barag, Jonas C. Greenfield, Baruch A. Levine, ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel Miriam Tadmor IAA Reports Israel Antiquities Authority Reports IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society Editorial Board JBL Journal of Biblical Literature Shmuel A¢ituv and Amihai Mazar, Editors JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies Tsipi Kuper-Blau, Executive Editor JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Joseph Aviram, President, Israel Exploration Society JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies KAI W. Donner and W. Röllig: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 1–3, Wiesbaden, 1962–1964; 15, 2002 Editorial Advisory Board NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (English Edition), Jerusalem, 1993 Gideon Avni, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Israel Ephªal, Baruch A. PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly Levine, Aren M. Maeir, Gloria Merker, Ronny Reich, Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, PT Palestinian Talmud Zeev Weiss QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine RA Revue d’Assyriologieet d’ArchéologieOrientale RB Revue Biblique IEJ is now available online on JSTOR RE Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft RQ Revue de Qumran VT Vetus Testamentum Email: [email protected] ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Books for review: Israel Exploration Journal, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070, ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Israel Guidelines: http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES 2013: $60 including postage or equivalent payable to Copyright © 2013 Israel Exploration Society the Israel Exploration Society, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070, Israel. ISSN 0021-2059 All subscribers are entitled to a 25% reduction on the publications of the Society. Subscribers should give full name and postal address when paying their subscription, and should send notice of change of address at least five weeks before it is to take effect; the old as well as the new address should be given. The Editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors Single issue: $30 or equivalent. VOLUME 63 • NUMBER 1 • 2013

CONTENTS

39 EILAT MAZAR,DAVID BEN-SHLOMO and SHMUEL A¡ITUV: An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem

50 IRIT YEZERSKI: Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II–III Judahite Rock-cut Tombs Exploration 78 ZVI URI MAªOZ: A Note on Pharanx Antiochus

83 YOEL ELITZUR: The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal Regarding Abba’s Identity

103 RENATE ROSENTHAL-HEGINBOTTOM: Reconsidering the Rock-Cut Burial Cave at Beit Nattif: A Response to Zissu and Klein Journal 109 NOTES AND NEWS

113 HEBREW BOOKS AND PAPERS

118 BOOKS RECEIVED — 2012

EILAT MAZAR DAVID BEN-SHLOMO SHMUEL A¡ITUV The Hebrew University The Hebrew University Ben-Gurion University of Jerusalem of Jerusalem of the Negev

ABSTRACT: During the 2012 excavations at the Ophel, a large building was partially revealed; it is broadly dated to the early (?) Iron Age IIA (it is hoped that a more accurate dating will be obtained after the study of its finds has been completed). A pile of large pottery fragments (L.223C) from seven pithoi was used as a stabiliser for the earth fill under the second floor of the building. All the pithoi belong to the neckless, folded-out rim type that is most likely the successor of the Collared-Rim Jar of the Iron Age I. The inscribed pithos rim was analysed by thin section petrography. The results indicate that the vessel was made of clay sourced to the central hills region, as were several other pithoi found with it. However, a certain variability in the so-called Mo«a clay formation used for these vessels was identified. Similarly-shaped pithoi from southern Israel that were analysed have the same provenance. The inscription is incised in a Proto-Canaanite/Early Canaanite script of the eleventh–tenth centuries BCE. It reads from left to right, but a combination of the letters m, q, p, ¢, n, l?, n yield no meaning in west-Semitic. The inscription remains, for now, enigmatic.

THE excavations in which this pithos rim was found1 were conducted adjacent to the Ophel road, c. 80 m. to the south of the southern wall of the Temple Mount. This area is situated between the City of David in the south and the Temple Mount in the north. During the excavation, a large building (fig. 1) was partially revealed at the north-east side of this area; the building overlooks the expanse of the Kidron Valley, making its location of major strategic importance. The building, constructed directly on bedrock, was dated to the early (?) Iron Age IIA. The study

* E. Mazar is responsible for the typological discussion of the pithoi and their dating; D. Ben-Shlomo for the petrographic analysis; and S. A¢ituv for the epigraphic discussion. 1 Between August and December 2012, the Ophel Excavations were continued on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem by Eilat Mazar (Mazar 2011). The excavations took place in cooperation with the IAA, which carried out the restoration work, and with the National Parks Authority. As in 2009, the excavations were funded by Daniel Mintz and Meredith Berkman from New York. Herbert W. Armstrong College made a major contribution by sending many students to participate in the excavation. We would like to thank Amir Cohen-Klonymus, supervisor of Area A, in which the pithoi were found; Ariel Winderboim, who assisted in studying their typology; Noga Cohen-Alloro, who photographed the inscription; Mika Sarig, who drew the pithoi; and Ada Yardeni, who drew the inscription.

IEJ 63 (2013): 39–49 39 40 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV

Fig. 1. Plan of excavations of the finds from the building, including the pottery and the bullae, as well as 14C tests for a cluster of raisins, have not yet been completed; it is hoped that the results will make it possible to narrow down the date further. A pile of large pithos fragments was found (fig. 2; L.223C), filling a shallow natural depression in the bedrock. These turned out to be fragments of seven pithoi (one base and six rims) that had probably been piled up in secondary use to stabilise the earth fill under the second floor layer of the building. One of the rims bears an inscription (fig. 3). The large size of the pithoi suggests that they stood in this area before the construction of the floor. Although the pithoi vary greatly in rim shape, they all belong to the same general type — neckless with folded-out rim — and they all date from the early (?) Iron Age IIA. They can be divided into two main sub-groups: type A AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 41

Fig. 2. In situ sherds of pithoi (view to the north)

Fig. 3. Inscribed sherd: photograph and drawing

(pithoi 2 and 5; fig. 4:1–2), with thickened rim, and type B (pithoi 1, 4, 6 and 7; fig. 4:3–4), with elongated horizontal rim. A pithos that seems to be an early variant of type A (late Iron Age I?), with a small groove near the rim, was found by Albright in Tell el-Fûl, Second Period (Albright 1924: 12, pl. XXVIII:18–23; similar to pithoi found many years later at Kh. ed-Dawwara [Finkelstein 1990: 185, fig. 16:11–12] and Lachish IV [Zimhoni 42 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV

Fig. 4. Five (out of seven) pithoi found in L.223C: type A (1–2), with thickened rim, and type B (3–4), with elongated horizontal rim

2004: fig. 25.54:13]). This led him to first suggest that the collared-rim jar transitioned into a type that lost its collar sometime in the second half of the eleventh century BCE (Albright 1934: 12–13). Grant and Wright corroborated Albright’s claim with finds from their excavations at Beth-Shemesh, presenting the variants of the new form — one of which is the same as our type A — as the type that took the place of the collared rim (Grant and Wright 1938: pl. LXV:4,9; 1939: 129, 143–144). Following his excavations in Kh. ed-Dawwara, Finkelstein reiterated that claim: ‘This is probably a descendent and successor of the collared- rim jar. It is popular in the central hill country … apparently in the 10th century and maybe later’ (Finkelstein 1990: 190). Such pithoi seem to have a tendency to last for two to three centuries, with or without minor variants. This is the case for the collared-rim pithos, as well as for the neckless folded-out rim pithos. Examples of type A can be found as early as the eleventh century BCE in Tel Masos, Stratum II (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pl. 143:9, 155:3), and the City of David, Stratum 15 (De Groot and Ariel 2000: 115, fig. 12:6), as well as in tenth- and ninth-century BCE sites, such as Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 4 (Bernick- Greenberg 2007: part II, 8, pl. 11.5:2), Arad, Stratum XI (Singer-Avitz 2002: 118, fig. 4:11), Lachish, Stratum IV (Zimhoni 2004: 1757, figs. 25.39:6, 25.46:25), and the City of David, Stratum 13 (De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012a: 34; 2012b: 217, fig. 5.7:22). Type B of the neckless, elongated folded-out rim is rarely found by itself, as the example from Tel Mo«a, Stratum VI, dated to the ninth century BCE (Greenhut and De Groot 2009: 73, fig. 3.7:6), and is mostly found alongside what seems to be a later sub-group of this type of pithos. Type C is characterised by the same elongated rim as type B, but is now notably incurved. So far, the earliest AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 43 appearance of type C seems to be the one sherd found in the oldest phase of Lachish, Stratum IV (Zimhoni 2004: 1727, fig. 25.23:21). However, types B and C appear together in the late Iron Age IIA and more commonly in the early Iron Age IIB (the ninth–eighth centuries BCE), as in Lachish, Stratum IV (Zimhoni 2004: 1740, fig. 25.30:10; 1771, fig. 25.46:24), and Kuntillet ªAjrud (Ayalon 2012: fig. 7.8; 7.9:1; 7.46, 7.48:4–6; Singer-Avitz 2009: 117), respectively. Type C became the most popular type during the eighth–early seventh centuries BCE, as seen in Tel ªIra, Stratum VII (Kletter 1999: 350–358). In sum, the neckless folded-out rim pithos of the Iron Age II is most likely the successor of the collared-rim jar of the Iron Age I. Its earliest form is the late Iron I (?) neckless pithos with a small groove near the rim. This form developed into the early Iron IIA form — our type A — of the thickened rim without groove near it. It seems that type A rapidly developed into its subsequent variant: type B with horizontal elongated rim. Both types appear together in our L.223C. Type C, with the notably incurved elongated rim, is absent from L.223C, even though it seems to follow immediately after type B. Even though no type B pithos has yet been found in any other early Iron IIA context, it is plausible, on the basis of the above- mentioned evidence, that it should be dated to a developed phase of that period.

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS Fragments of six out of the seven pithoi uncovered in the 2012 excavations, including one pithos inscribed before firing (sample 1), were thin-sectioned and examined through a petrographic polarising microscope by standard optical petrography methods. The petrographic analysis revealed certain similarities in the fabric of all six pithoi (fig. 5). Samples 2, 4, 5 and 6, however, are more closely similar and were possibly produced in the same workshop or indicate the same clay source. This fabric is characterised by a dark, silty, calcareous matrix with silt-sized dolomite and relatively small and variable quantities of sand-sized dolomite. It is tempered with limestone and chalk fragments (sand-sized) as well, and certain amounts of clay pellets occur in most examples. The clay was fired in a high temperature — probably over 800°. Sample 1 (the inscribed pithos) is also quite similar to this group, but is somewhat finer in its clay and lacks dolomite in sand size. All these five samples may have a similar geographic provenance, related to Mo«a marl outcrops located in the Judaean (?) central hill area of Israel. The appearance of clay pellets and the variability of quantities of dolomite sand and quartz in these samples may indicate a certain mixing of clays. This may be especially true in the inscribed pithos (sample 1), as the clay pellets are composed of a different clay type than the matrix of the sherd. Sample 3 (of a pithos of which only the base was found) is different: it is made of a reddish and compact fabric rich in dolomite sand. The dolomitic sand points 44 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV

Fig. 5. Thin sections of Ophel samples 1–4: A–C) sample 1 thin section (the pithos with the inscription) in various magnifications (A under crossed polarised light; B and C under regular polarised light); D) sample 2; E) sample 4; F) sample 3 (D–F under crossed polarised light). Abbreviations: CK = chalk; CP = clay pellet; DL = dolomite; LS = limestone; OP = opaque; QZ = quartz; SL = shell to an Aminadav formation source, perhaps from the region just west and south of Jerusalem or from the area near Shechem (see, e.g., Goren, Finkelstein and Naºaman 2004: 263–264). The results from the Ophel pithoi indicate at least two variations of the same clay type, one with coarse dolomite sand temper (pithos 3 of the Aminadav formation) and the others with the finer clay without the dolomite sand (of Mo«a marl). The latter seems less common, at least according to published pottery analyses. Clay related to Mo«a marl without dolomite sand was used for several figurines from the City of David, yet this clay is very rich in microfossils, probably mixed with rendzina soil (Goren, Kletter and Kamaiski 1996). For the Mo«a clay formation usually with dolomite sand, commonly used for pottery during the Iron Age II and other periods, see, e.g., Goren 1996: 51–52 (and discussion therein). AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 45

Similarly shaped pithoi that underwent petrographic analysis include several examples from Kuntillet ªAjrud (Goren 2012: sample 4; Gunneweg, Perlman and Meshel 2012: 280–284) and Beer-Sheba (Singer-Avitz 1999: 18, fig. 4) and one example from Tell e§-¥afi/Gath (Ben-Shlomo 2006: 178, 184, sample Safi 32). These vessels were made from Mo«a marl clay tempered with dolomite sand. INAA indicates that the pithoi from ªAjrud also form a chemical group related to the Mo«a clay (Gunneweg, Perlman and Meshel 2012: table 8.1), yet the precise geographic provenance of this clay is difficult to ascertain within the central hills at this stage. In any case, it is quite interesting that this specific type was made roughly from the same types of clay and in the same region for a long period of time.

THE INSCRIPTION The inscription under discussion was incised below the rim of the pithos. Seven letters appear on the two joined pieces (see fig. 3 on p. 41); one of these letters is partially broken and is indecipherable. It seems that the inscription is not complete. The letters appear to belong to the eleventh–tenth centuries BCE. The inscription was incised before firing, and the blunt side of the stylus was used to press it into the still wet clay. The letters are not of the Phoenician-Hebrew script, but are similar to the Proto-Canaanite/Early-Canaanite one. The inscription is written from left to right (as evident from the stance of the letters), like the Qubur al-Walaydah and the ªIzbet ¥ar©a ostraca. Although a comprehensive meaning of the inscription still eludes us, the letters (from left to right) are: m, q (less likely r), p, ¢, n, a broken letter which might be l (or perhaps is two broken letters) and another n. The q was retraced on its left, creating a ‘shadow’ that is sharper than the main lines of the letter. Below the break, the end of a long vertical line appears; this might a tail of a letter, or, more improbably, a casual incision. It is not the continuation of the left line above it (the left side of the reconstructed l). The letters are quite large — c. 25–30 mm. high and c. 1 mm. deep. Some of the lines pressed into the wet clay are c.1 mm. wide and c. 5–7 mm. high, reflect- ing the thickness and height of the tip of the stylus. The letters are proportionally spaced, with c. 10 mm. between each pair; only between the last two letters (the reconstructed l and the n) is the space doubled to c. 20 mm. Since in the Proto- Canaanite and the Phoenician-Hebrew writing system there were no spaces between words, it is possible that the inscription began at what is here described as the last letter of the inscription, which might have run around the pithos shoulder. Following is a comparison of the letters to those of other early inscriptions (table 1): 46 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV

Table 1. Comparative chart of letters*

* Tel Batash/Timnah, see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 190; photo 110, pl. 6:3 = Renz 1995: pls. 1; I:4. Beth Shemesh, see Bunimovitz and Lederman 1997: 48. Eshtemoaª, see Renz 1995: pls. 2; II:2. Gezer, see Renz 1995: pls. 1; I:1. ªIzbet ¥ar©a, see Kochavi 1977: 7, fig. 4. Kefar Veradim, see Alexandre 2006: 27, fig. 10b (p. 27). Khirbet Qeiyafa, see Misgav, Garfinkel and Ganor 2009: 250, fig. 14.4. Qubur al-Walaydah, see Cross 2003: 214, fig. 32:1. Re¢ov, see Mazar and A¢ituv 2011: 302, fig. 5. Tekke, see Cross 2003: 227, fig. 32:8. Fekheriyeh, see Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982: table (unnumbered).

¢ — For the ladder-like ¢ with two rungs only, compare the ¢ incised in the Tel Batash/Timnah inscription ([ïðç ï]á) and the one written in ink on a jug from Eshtemoaª: (ùîç), both ascribed to the tenth century BCE. l — If the two lines, one curving to the left and the other to the right, meet at the broken-off part of the pithos, the letter might be l, not unlike one of the lsofthe Qeiyafa ostracon. This leaves the solitary line below the break enigmatic. m — The m resembles the ones from the Qubur al-Walaydah (c. 1200 BCE) and ªIzbet ¥ar©a (eleventh century?) ostraca, the Kefar Veradim bowl (early tenth century), the Gezer Calendar and the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon (tenth century?). AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 47 n — Compare the first n to the ns on the aforementioned inscriptions from Tel Batash/Timna ([ïðç ï]á), Beth Shemesh (ïðç)andTelRe¢ov (ùîðì). The second n is of a more regular shape. p — Compare to the ps of the Gezer Calendar. q — The letter is very similar to the qs on the ªIzbet ¥ar©a and Khirbet Qeiyafa ostraca. The letters might be referring to the name of the owner of the pithos, its addressee, or its contents, but unfortunately, they do not yield any intelligible combination. Perhaps they represent a non-Semitic combination or combinations. One might suggest that the writer of the inscription was a descendant of the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem (a ‘Jebusite’?), but this remains in the realm of conjec- ture. In the absence of any further insight, the new inscription from the Ophel remains, for the time being, enigmatic.

REFERENCES Abou-Assaf, A., Bordreuil, P. and Millard, A. 1982 La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne, Paris Albright, W.F. 1924 Excavations and Results at Tell El-Fûl (Gibeah of Saul), New Haven CT 1934 The Kyle Memorial Excavation at Bethel, BASOR 56: 2–15 Alexandre, Y. 2006 A Canaanite-Early Phoenician Inscribed Bronze Bowl in an Iron Age IIA–B Burial Cave at Kefar Veradim, Northern Israel, Maarav 13: 7–41 Ayalon, E. 2012 The Pottery Assemblage, in Meshel 2012: 205–274 Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006 Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study, Oxford Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007 The Ceramic Assemblages and the Wheel-Made Pottery Typology, in Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. (eds.), Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982, Jerusalem: Part I, 131–185; Part II, 2–255 Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1997 Beth-Shemesh, Culture Conflict on Judah’s Frontier, Biblical Archeology Review 23/1: 42–49 Cross, F.M. 2003 Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts, in Cross, F.M., Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook. Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy, Winona Lake IN: 213–230 48 EILAT MAZAR, DAVID BEN-SHLOMO AND SHMUEL A¡ITUV

De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. 2000 Ceramic Report, in Ariel, D.T. (ed.), City of David Excavations, Final Report V, Jerusalem: 91–154 De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012a Stratigraphy, Area E West, in De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012c: 199–247 2012b The Pottery of Strata 15–13 (Iron Age IIA), in De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012c: 11–39 2012c (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VIIA, Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture, Jerusalem Finkelstein, I. 1990 Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara: An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv 17: 163–208 Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. 1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der £irbet el-Mšaš (Tel Mâúoú), Wiesbaden Goren, Y. 1996 The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective, BASOR 303: 33–72 2012 Petrographic Analysis of Kuntillet ªAjrud Pottery, in Meshel 2012: 275–276 Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Naºaman, N. 2004 Inscribed in Clay. Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Tel Aviv Goren, Y., Kletter, R. and Kamaiski, E. 1996 The Technology and Provenience of the Iron Age Figurines from the City of David: Petrographic Analysis, in Ariel, D.T. and De Groot, A. (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV, Jerusalem: 87–89 Grant, E. and Wright, E.G. 1938 Ain Shems Excavations, Part IV. Pottery, Haverford 1939 Ain Shems Excavations, Part IV. Text, Haverford Greenhut, Z. and De Groot, A. 2009 The Pottery, in Greenhut, Z. and De Groot, A, Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza, The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations, Jerusalem: 61–114 Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I. and Meshel, Z. 2012 The Origin of the Pottery, in Meshel 2012: 279–287 Kletter, R. 1999 Iron Age Pithoi Bearing Potters Marks, in Beit-Arieh, I. (ed.), Tel ªIra. A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Jerusalem: 350–359 Kochavi, M. 1977 An Ostracon of the Period of the Judges from ªIzbet ¥ar©a, Tel Aviv 4: 1–13 Mazar, A. and A¢ituv, S. 2011 Inscriptions from Tel Re¢ov and Their Contribution to the Study of Writing and Literacy during the Iron Age IIA, EI 30: 300–316 (Hebrew), 154* (English summary) AN INSCRIBED PITHOS FROM THE OPHEL 49

Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II. The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, Jerusalem Mazar, E. 2011 Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem, Jerusalem Meshel, Z. 2012 (ed.), Kuntillet ªAjrud. An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, Jerusalem Misgav, H., Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2009 The Ostracon, in Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S., Khirbet Qeiyafa 1. Excavations Report 2007–2008, Jerusalem: 243–257 Renz, J. 1995 Texte und Tafeln (vol. III in Renz, J. and Röllig, W., Handbuch der althebräischen Epigrafik, Darmstadt) Singer-Avitz, L. 1999 Beersheba — A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E., Tel Aviv 26: 3–74 2002 Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages, Tel Aviv 29: 110–214 2009 The Date of Kuntillet ªAjrud : A Rejoinder, Tel Aviv 36: 110–119 Zimhoni, O. 2004 The Pottery of Levels V and IV and Its Archaeological and Chronological Implica- tions, in Ussishkin, D. (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), IV, Tel Aviv: 1643–1788