CHAPTER TWO

The

The focus of this chapter is the archaeological data relating to ’s capital city of Jerusalem and the breadth of his empire. It is only within the last generation that the debate over the size and extent of Jerusalem during the period of the monarchy has settled, prior to which the mini- malist and maximalist interpretations of the archaeological record have held sway. The initial matter for investigation will be Judah’s status in relation to , an important aspect of his rule to be treated in isola- tion before concentrating on the Judean kingdom itself. The Siloam Tunnel is another controversial piece of evidence, tradi- tionally admitted to be of Hezekian origin based on the brief references found in 2 Kgs 20:20 and 2 Chr 32:30. Yet recently even the paleography of its accompanying inscription has been questioned. The hundreds of examples of large storage containers, named lmlk jars according to the Hebrew word ubiquitiously appearing in their accompanying seal impres- sions, must similarly be given consideration. Two key questions appertain to the lmlk jars: how reliably may they be said to have been initiated by Hezekiah himself, and what would have been their intended function?

2.1. Assyrian Relations

The relationship between Judah and Assyria during the reign of Hezekiah has been a matter of some debate. The southern Levantine state was of interest to the empire despite its tiny size, situated as it was along the important trade routes between Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Assyrian- izing influence within the seal of a Hebrew servant attests to Judean rec- ognition of Assyrian authority as early as the reign of Azariah/Uzziah, ca. 785–733.1 The eighth century marks the first time that Judah is mentioned

1 The seal of Shebanyau is catalogued in Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences & Humanities, 1997) no. 3. Azariah has been equated with Azriyau (Assyrian mAz-ri-a-⌜ú⌝, mAz-ri-ia-a-ú) as recorded in royal inscription Ann. 19*:1–12, but this association is debated. For the text and the various proposals see Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King 36 chapter two in Assyrian royal inscriptions, a testament to the successful expansion of the empire throughout this period.2 During the imperial campaign through -Palestine in 734–733 B.C.E., Hezekiah’s father voluntarily sub- mitted to Tiglath-pileser III rather than join the anti-Assyrian coalition spearheaded by of Samaria and Rezin of .3 In response, Damascus became a directly governed provincial center and Samaria was made an Assyrian province, but Judah retained its semi-independent vas- sal status.4 Following the brief reign of Shalmaneser V, his successor Sargon II (721–705 B.C.E.) was beset with difficulties securing his throne both at

of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994) 58–63, 273–76; COS 2.285; PNAE 1/I, 240. Regardless of the precise identification of Azriyau, it is sufficient to note that the Assyrian style of the official seal of Shebanyau connotes ties with the Assyrian court during the reign of Uzziah. 2 Hayim Tadmor, “World Dominion: The Expanding Horizon of the Assyrian Empire,” in L. Milano et al. (eds.), Landscapes: Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East: Papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Venezia, 7–11 July 1997. Part 1: Invited Lectures (HANEM 3/1; Padova: Sargon, 1999) 55–62. 3 Ahaz is referenced by his full name Jehoahaz (mIa-ú-ḫa-zi kurIa-ú-da-a+a, “Iauḫazi of Judah”) in Summary Inscription 7:r.11’ of Tiglath-pileser III among a list of various Syro- Palestinian kings bearing tribute, cf. ARAB 1.801; ANET 282; COS 2.289. For the text, see the edition of Tadmor, Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, 170–71. The dates for this action have ranged from 735–33 B.C.E., reference his discussion on p. 277. The tribute is often equated .attributed to Ahaz by the Deuteronomist in 2 Kgs 16:7–8 ( ׁשֹ חַ ד) ”with the “bribe 4 For the biblical and Assyrian sources relating to this rebellion, known as the Syro- Ephraimitic War, see Stuart A. Irvine, , Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBLDS 123; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). The typical model used to describe political relation- ships within the Assyrian empire has been popularized in such works as Herbert Donner, Israel unter den Völkern (VTSup 11; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964) 1–3, with a three-tiered structure in decreasing order of independence for the conquered territory: (1) a vassal relationship marked by the payment of tribute and support for the Assyrian military machine; (2) a vassal state marked by the installing of a ruler sympathetic to Assyrian interests, with increased burden of support for the empire and often reduced territory; (3) a province marked by the incorporation of the kingdom directly into the empire with no autonomy. Assyrian administration of these acquired regions is briefly surveyed in A. Kirk Grayson, “Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territory in Ancient Western Asia,” CANE 2.959–68. The common two-tiered system of vassal and province is discussed in Jana Pečírková, “The Administrative Methods of Assyrian Imperialism,” ArOr 55 (1987) 162–75; Peter Machinist, “Palestine, Administration of (Assyrian and Babylonian Administration),” AYBD 5.69–81. It has been brought to light, however, by Mordechai Cogan, “Judah under Assyrian Hege- mony: A Reexamination of Imperialism and Religion,” JBL 112/3 (1993) 406–410, that these clean categorizations are an over-simplification which “do not do justice to the wide spec- trum of arrangements that developed between the conqueror and the conquered, espe- cially in border and peripheral areas, particularly in the west” (p. 407).