MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARTS
Department of Archaeology and Museology Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East
Bachelor’s diploma thesis
2016 Ján Marko
Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of Archaeology and Museology Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East
Ján Marko
Siege of Lachish
Bachelor’s diploma thesis
Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc
Brno 2016
DECLARATION
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. I agree with storing this work in the library of the Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East at the Masaryk University in Brno and making it accessible for study purposes.
Brno 30th of November 2016 ...... Signature ABSTRACT
Title: Siege of Lachish
Author: Ján Marko
Department/Institute: Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology and Museology, Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East
Supervisor of the Bachelor thesis: doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc
Abstract: The study investigates the Assyrian onslaught on the Judean city of Lachish, in 701 B.C. The thesis puts emphasis on the question of Sennacherib’s second military campaign against the West, as suggested by primary historical and archaeological sources. The comparison of the Bible, Assyrian annals, Lachish reliefs, archaeological excavations and the stelae from Kawa sheds light on the recent research. However, the discrepancies between these sources are a matter of debate within the scholar circles. The present work offers a view on the given issue, compiling and confronting various scholarly opinions.
Keywords: Assyrian Empire, Sennacherib, military campaign against Syro-Palestine, siege, comparison between historical and archaeological sources
ANOTACE
Název práce: Obléhání Lakíše
Autor: Ján Marko
Katedra/Ústav: Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Ustav archeologie a muzeologie, Odděleni pravěké archeologie Předního východu
Vedoucí bakalářské práce: doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc
Abstrakt: Předložená práce se zabývá asyrským útokem na judské město Lakíš v roce 701 před Kristem. Hlavním cílem bylo porovnat mnoho parametrů, na základě kterých by bylo možné blíže určit, zda asyrský král Sancheríb podnikl jednu, nebo dvě výpravy do oblasti Syro-Palestiny. Primárními zdroji zde jsou historické prameny, za které považujeme Bibli a Sancheríbovy anály. K objasnění problematiky přispěl archeologický výzkum lokality obléhaného města, nalezené reliéfy ze starověkého Ninive zobrazující zmiňované obléhání a Taharqova stéla z Kawi objevená v dnešním Sudánu. Kompilace jednotlivých vědeckých názorů v diskuzi měla za cíl poskytnout náhled do problematiky a konfrontovat rozdíly mezi jednotlivými prameny.
Klíčová slova: Asyrská říše, Sancheríb, vojenské tažení proti Syro-Palestině, obléhaní, Chizkijáš, porovnání historických a archeologických pramenů ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my profound gratitude to my supervisor doc. PhDr. Jarmila Bednaříková, CSc, who helped me and guided me during a very long time and I am particularly thankful for her patience and for her inspiring suggestions. My appreciation further belongs to people working in the department of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East for useful information, namely Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D., Mgr. Lucia Miškolciová and others.
Grateful thanks also go to my family and friends. And notably, I would like express my acknowledgment of appreciation for language corrections to my friend Michal Fľak.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 8 1. SENNACHERIB’S LIFE ...... 10 1.1 Sennacherib and the campaign against the West ...... 14 2. Description of the onslaught ...... 18 2.1 Assyrian camp ...... 18 2.2 Preparations for the onslaught ...... 19 2.3 Simulation of the Attack ...... 20 3. THE EXCAVATION OF STRATUM LEVEL IV-III ...... 22 3.1 Fortifications ...... 22 3.2 The siege ramp ...... 23 3.3 The counter-ramp ...... 24 3.4 Archaeological remains from the attack ...... 25 4. THE SIEGE OF LACHISH THROUGH THE ASSYRIAN RELIEF ...... 27 5. REMAINS OF THE OTHER SIEGE RAMPS ...... 32 6. DISCUSSION ...... 33 CONCLUSION ...... 38 FIGURES ...... 39 REFERENCES ...... 45 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 50
INTRODUCTION
The mound of the ancient city of Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir in Arabic) is located 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem and to the west of the Judaean Hills. The area of the site is approximately 7 hectares (18 acres) and it is spread over a relatively high hillock, which rises over 265m above the sea level (Ussishkin, 1990:53). On its north side, the elevation of 42m above the valley provided a natural defense mechanism to the city. The siege of Lachish and the assault was lead from southwest due to a mild elevation of only 23m high from the foot of the surrounding valley (Fig.1).
Tel Lachish was first identified as Lachish by Albright (1929:3). The very first excavation was realized by a British archaeological team headed by James L. Starkey between 1932 and 19361. The excavation was carried out with a particular attention to architectural units where Starkey was able to recognize more than seven occupation levels; however, only brief preliminary reports were produced (Ussishkin, 2004). After the Second World War, in 1966 and 1968, Yohanan Aharoni conducted limited research that was focused on the area of the “Solar Shrine”, located in the eastern part of the city (Aharoni, 1968). Later, between 1973 and 1994, successful methodical archaeological excavations were performed by Prof. David Ussishkin2. The excavators concentrated especially on sections uncovered during Starkey’s research. Thus, the research of Lachish was divided into different areas; for clarity, these areas are designated by letters, e.g. Area GW (the outer-city gate) or Area R (Fig.2), which is located at the site of the Assyrian attack at southwest corner of the mound.
The hillock was settled from the Chalcolithic period set in 4th millennium B.C. until the Post-exilic period (Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic), ca. 1st century B.C – 6th century B.C. (Fig.3). Through this colonization of the mound that lasted approximately four thousand years, in archaeological terms the site was divided into eight strata3. From Level VIII (which accrues to Middle Bronze Age III) to Level I. Important historical milestones were captured during the settlement on the mound of Lachish. Between Level VI and Level V, there is a gap
1 In 1936 the research was abandoned due to a sudden death of Starkey. On his return from the site to Jerusalem, he was assassinated by Arab bandits. The effort was later resumed and finished by his assistant Olga Tufnell in 1958 (Tufnell, 1958). 2 With an assistance of Dr. Gaby Barkay, Dr. Christa Clamer, Dr. Yehuda Dagan, Mr. John Woodhead and Ms. Orna Zimhoni. 3 The latest two levels (Lvl.VII, Lvl.VIII) were recognized by the excavation of Ussishkin and the Starke’s allocation of six (Lvl.I- Lvl.VI) levels from Late Bronze Age to the Persian-Hellenistic period was confirmed.
8 in occupation lasting two centuries, suggesting a connection to the conquest of Canaan, as documented by the Bible (Joshua, 10)1. The following stratum Level IV and III is related to the conquest of Lachish in 701 B.C. which will be elaborated on here. The abandonment of the site followed after the Babylonian conquest during the 6th century B.C and it was linked to Jewish deportation.
During archaeological research, it is necessary to take into account, besides the requisite material remains, the less direct evidence, such as written sources and artistic depictions. Perhaps our perception Lachish would be drastically different from what it is nowadays if the Lachish reliefs had not been discovered by Austen Henry Layard during his excavations at Tell Mosul in 1845-47 (Barnett, Bleibtreu and Turner, 1998). This piece of Assyrian sculptural art was erected at a hall leading to the throne room of Sennacherib’s royal palace after the military campaign against Judah (Ussishkin, 1980). Searching for coherent information and relationship between artistic depictions and archaeological remains is not always simple. The reliefs of the ancient city of Lachish did not describe Tel Lachish directly due to a significant damage on the inscription. However nowadays, there is almost no doubt about the identity2.
1 Scholars suggest that the gap in occupation stratum is caused by movement of tribes. They settled the valleys of rivers and according to archaeological excavations; houses were built directly at the foot of bedrock. the massive deforestation is bound with the movement of tribes, which led to the erosion of the soil and to damage of occupation layers (Ofer, 2001). 2 For the different theory which does not confirm the studied place Tell ed-Duweir as the ancient Lachish, see Ahlström, G. W. “Is Tell Ed-Duweir Ancient Lachish?” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112 (1980): 7-9.
9
1. SENNACHERIB’S LIFE
One factor which influenced the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire was the political and organizational insufficiency and ineptitude of rival states in its surroundings. The transition between Kassite and Chaldaean hegemony on the Babylonian throne greatly affected Babylonian state lying to the south of Assyria. It is considered as a period of weakness. However, the Babylonians disturbed the Assyrian political monopoly after the Babylonian transition period settled down (Brinkman, 2008). North-west borders of Assyrian Empire were occupied by Syro-Hittite states, which formed after the fall of the Hittite Empire. The transformation of Anatolian region was influenced by the arrival of Arameans; those, however, did not represent threat to the growing Assyrian power (Hawkins, 2008). A greater menace arose in the north of the Assyrian region. The heart of the kingdom of Urartu was between the lakes Van, Urmia, Sevan, and Çıldır and the natural southern border with Assyria was formed by the mountain ranges Tur Abdin, Hakkari, Haçreş and Karaoğlan. The natural character of a landscape provided to the kingdom with sufficient protection. The military power of Urartu increased to a dimension in which they were able to face the Assyrian Empire until Sargon II sat on the Assyrian throne (Barnett, 2008)1. Events ensuing upon of the arrival of the Sea People in the Late Bronze Age and the death of the last ruler from Ramses dynasty- Ramesses XI left Egypt divided into small kingdoms. This disunity during the Third Intermediate Period (1069–653 BC) influenced with its weakness the happenings in the Near East (Edwards, 2008). Egyptian armies attempted to support the Judean claim over the Syro-Palestine region during the Assyrian invasions but it was unsuccessful.2 And even during the reign of Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib, Egypt was penetrated by Assyrian forces in 671 B.C. (Grayson, 2008).
Sennacherib’s achievements during his reign between 704 B.C. and 681 B.C., such as successful military campaigns are mentioned in his annals, in the biblical sources, and some of his deeds are even depicted on reliefs. He achieved more battle victories than losses, where by the size of the Assyrian army played a significant role, but strategic and tactical thinking were of utmost importance. Sennacherib’s strong suit was in excessive architectural construction. Immediately- after Sargon’s death, he began with an impressive transformation
1 See the reference for further reading and struggle for supremacy (pp. 314-375). 2 The ongoing discussion can be found below when Hezekiah relied on the Egyptian support.
10 of Nineveh (Thompson and Hutchinson, 1929) and transformed the new capital of Assyria into a metropolis.
“The emperors of the late Neo-Assyrian period were the most powerful men of their time…there is every reason to be interested in what kind of man Sennacherib was and which personal experiences shaped his political agenda” (Frahm1, 2014: 164). Sennacherib came from the royal family and there is no doubt he was the son of Sargon II. Some of the tablets point to Sennacherib’s royal family roots such as colophon of an astrological tablet where Sennacherib is dubbed as mār šarri rabû which means “eldest royal son” of Sargon. In regard of the name meaning Sîn-ahhe-erība – Sîn (the Assyrian god of the moon) has replaced brothers which could be suggested that he had two or more elder brothers (Frahm, 2014: 175) who apparently did not survive at least the nomination of Sennacherib as a crown prince. The nature of the relationship between the future king and his brothers is unknown but connection among the father and the son was noticed and recorded on a number of clay tablets during the Sargon’s reign.
Sennacherib’s duties comprised primarily the administration of the state, for instance a confrontation with floods in Assyrian heartland or provisions for the army (Parpola, 1987: Vol.1: 36-37). He was also involved inmanaging construction works, especially at the site of Sargon’s new capital city Dur-Sharrukin ('Fort Sargon' nowadays known as Khorsabad)2. According to Eckhart Frahm, in spite of the frequent absence of Sargon II due to his military policy3, the rapport between the father and the son appears to have been on good terms. The bond must have played a significant role during the Sennacherib’s psychological development (Frahm, 2014: 221). At the age of 65, Sargon personally took part in his last campaign against the king of Kulummu, Gurdî. During the night assault on the Assyrian camp, soldiers were ambushed and subsequently the Sargon II slain (Frahm, 1997). The situation for the Assyrian state was even worse when Sargon’s body could not be found and there was no possibility to bring the remains of the king back. Thus Sargon could not receive a proper burial, which, according to Neo-Assyrian traditions, played an important role. The Assyrian nation took this
1 Frahm deals with the personal life of Sennacherib, not only from the archaeological point of view but from the psychological aspect which offers an added layer of complexity of considering a historical persona as a personality, or at least provides a new perspective for future research. 2 On Sargon’s command in 717 B.C. new capital of the Assyrian Empire had started to be built ca. 15km from Tell Mosul. The entire work was finished in 706 B.C. but Sargon fell to a sudden death during the battle in 705 B.C. and the court was relocated to Nineveh by his son Sennacherib. 3 Sargon II participated in at least ten military campaigns and probably spent most time with his children, and especially Sennacherib during three years between 713-710 B.C., when he supervised the building of Dur- Sharrukin.
11 sign as a punishment of gods upon the king of Assyria for his wrongdoing during his reign (Tadmor, 1989). This event of Sargon’s death and its circumstances were later depicted as the “Sin of Sargon” by his own son (Livingstone, 1989:Vol.3). There is no doubt that in the loss of the king and father, Sennacherib had to face very traumatic event in his life. He immediately abandoned the royal palaces of Khorsabad and moved his own residence, as well as the entire Assyrian court to Nineveh. Subsequently, before other building modifications, he had rebuilt the temple of the god Nergal, a deity tightly connected with death, war and disaster to expiate Sargon’s wrongdoing (Frahm, 2003).
After those events, it is natural to assume that Sennacherib started to emulate his father in various spheres of public life such as participating on military campaigns. During Sargon’s lifetime, Sennacherib had taken care of administration and inner policy but he had not been present at any campaign during that time. Consequences of Sargon’s violent death did not result in merely his son’s traumatic experience, mentioned by Frahm, but the weakness of an intermittent political instability triggered the endeavor of subdued states to detach from the Neo-Assyrian Empire and led to insurgences. Without any military experience, Sennacherib was faced with a difficult task. The first official campaign was against the Merodach-baladan, who had created a pact with Chaldeans, Aramaeans and Elamites to support his own claim on the Babylonian throne. Sennacherib stood up against the king Merodach-baladan and secured a temporary victory1.
Afterwards, at the end of the ‘Babylonian question’ in 689 B.C. he made a decision to destroy Babylon. Sennacherib flattened the mound upon which Babylon stood by diverting water from the canals, but the destruction was not probably as fatal as it is described in the Assyrian annals (Grayson, 2008). Sennacherib’s reports on this event2 is the following inscription:
The city and (its) houses, foundation and walls (lit. from its foundation to its walls), I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and outer wall, temples and gods, temple- tower or brick and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into the Arahtu- canal. I dug canals, I flooded its site (lit. ground) with water, and the very foundations thereof (lit.) the structure of its foundation I destroyed. I made its destruction more complete than that
1 Sennacherib suppressed rebellions in the Babylonian region and installed the puppet king Bel-ibni (a king of Babylonian origin who was raised at the Assyrian court) but Merodach-baladan fled and returned two years later. In 700 B.C. Sennacherib led his fourth campaign against the same king, this time with a favorable ending. For more information on the ‘Babylonian question’ see The CAH (Vol. 03, Part 02:105-109). 2 There is also a biblical reference to this event made by prophet Jeremiah in two chapters (Jer, 50, 51) which describes Babylonian punishment for the savage treatment of Israel.
12
by flood. That in days to come, the site of that city, and (its)temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods) of water and made it like a meadow. (Luckenbill, 1924:17)
After the destruction of Babylon, Sennacherib implemented some fundamental changes during his reign. He imposed a religious reform that had rendered the Assyrian cult paradoxically more Babylonian and redesigned the city of Aššur as to resemble the destroyed Babylon (Frahm, 1999; Chamaza, 2002). The next, and apparently the last, change was done in 683 B.C. when the king decided to substitute the crown prince. Urda-Mullissu had been raised as a dauphin for several years but Sennacherib made a younger son, Esarhaddon the new crown prince (Frahm, 2014). The violent death of Sennacherib in 681 B.C. was presumably evoked by these amendments. He was murdered under uncertain conditions but there are some sources that document his death. The reference in the Bible relates that he was stabbed with swords by his two sons during worshipping in the house of the god Nisroch1. The assassins ran away and Esarhaddon was crowned the successive king (2 Ki, 19:37). The Berosos Chronicle mentions that he was killed by his son in a rebellion (Grayson, 2008).
1 The name of the god Nisroch is not mentioned in Mesopotamian pantheon and it could be tightly connected to the god Nusku (Prince, 1904).
13
1.1 Sennacherib and the campaign against the West
The western region of the Assyrian empire left to Sennacherib by Sargon II spread from the western bank of the river Tigris to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea reaching the Kingdom of Judah as the south-western geographical point1. After Sargon’s death the latter territory earned Sennacherib’s attention by its rebellious activities and the violation of an allegiance to the Assyrian state. Once he was done with the temporary solution of the aforementioned ‘Babylonian question’- in 701 B.C., Sennacherib launched a military campaign towards the Levant. According to Fales, this region was divided onto three political sections depending on the attitude of Levantine kings to Assyrian Empire (Fales, 2014:237- 239).
To the first section belonged the “kings of Amuru” from Sidon, Arvad, Byblos, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab and Edom (Luckenbill, 1924:30, col.50-57). These kings did not offer any resistance and paid tributes to the Assyrian king with the exception of the king Tuba ͨ lu of Sidon (Luckenbill, 1924:30), where the tribute had to be imposed. The king of Ashkelon (the Philistine coastal city) assumed the different approach:
The king of Ashkelon, who had not submitted to my yoke,-the gods of his father-house, himself, his wife, his sons, his daughters, his brothers, the seed of his father-house, I tore away and brought to Assyria (Luckenbill, 1924:30).
According to the Sennacherib’s text, it seems that Ashkelon and entire his family were deported to the hearth of the Assyrian state.
The next section includes Padî of Ekron who was devoted to the Assyrian king even during the Sargon’s reign. However, the citizens from the city decided to extradite him to Hezekiah, the king of Judah, who kept him as a prisoner. In the Annals of Sennacherib are mentioned the officials, nobles and people of Ekron who became anxious and called for an aid to the Egyptian kings and the king of Ethiopia.2
The last section belongs to Hezekiah who tried to resist and he did not submit to the yoke of Sennacherib. There is no doubt that status of Hezekiah rose to perilous for the empire by his acting against Assyria. Hezekiah supported the anti-Assyrian revolt by holding Padî as
1 See the map of the Assyrian Empire under the king Sargon II in the list of figures down below. 2 These allied forces met the Assyrian troops at Eltekeh where Sennacherib claimed victory, plundered the city and consequently suppressed the uprising, having Padî released to rule Ekron again (Grayson, 2008).
14 a prisoner, he was responsible for more than inciting a regional riot, and he presumably implicated Egypt in the battle against Assyria (Fales, 2014:241).
With Sennacherib’s campaign to the Levant and subsequently against Judah come underlying questions: When exactly did this event happen and were there two military campaigns against this region or just one? The written sources are limited with regard to the chronology and there is a lack of specific information but this question is still analyzed by archaeologists.
In the Assyrian annals the invasion is described as the third campaign of Sennacherib, where Hezekiah refused his yoke so the Assyrian king. Sennacherib started besieging the strong cities, walled forts, and conquered them by earth-ramps and battering-rams. He drove out booty including people and animals. He documented his treatment of Hezekiah as follows:
…by leveling with battering-rams and by bringing up siege-engines, by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels and breaches, I besieged and took (those cities). 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil (Luckenbill, 1924:33).
Judah was thus reduced and Sennacherib levied a tribute upon the king. Hezekiah sent him 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, as well as other valuable objects and even his own daughters and concubines.
A slightly different account of this event can be found in the Bible records in two almost identical passages -- Isaiah 36:1-37:37, and 2 Kings 18:13-19, whereby 2 Kings includes additional information1 in comparison with the former. Additionally, 2 Chronicles 32:1-21 describe the story as a summary with particular emphasis on the preparations for the forthcoming Assyrian attack (Horn, 1966). These historical sources are still analyzed and discussed to in detail by many scholars2. Hence, we are able to extract several tentative facts from a conjunct comparison between the Assyrian and Biblical records.
Sennacherib’s invasion of the Levant has a stable position among the historical events of the period and the credibility of its taking place is beyond question. It is still uncertain
1 Hezekiah sent a message (from Jerusalem) to the king of Assyria at Lachish asking him to leave Lachish under the condition of a payment of 30 talents of gold and 300 talents of silver.
2 For more literature see references in CAH, III part 2, p. 765-767 (A302, A254, A 240, A 249, A 245, A 299, A 276).
15 whether there was one, two, or even more campaigns and the truth remains to be ascertained by further discoveries. Another factual account concerns Sennacherib’s success and the large amount of tribute to be paid by the king of Judah. As it is recorded on both, defeated and victorious, sides, Sennacherib took 30 talents of gold and between 300 and 800 talents of silver from Hezekiah (see the reference above). Even if Sennacherib plundered the country during the siege of Lachish and Jerusalem, and there is no valid reason why he should not have, the price of the booty from the third campaign would be raised. And according to Grayson, he presumably won the battle against the Egyptian army at Eltekeh and it’s unlikely that he was defeated during this campaign, given Sennacherib’s major onslaught on Babylonia within the following year.
The second fact to note is the siege of Lachish by the Assyrian forces. The archeological remains from the mound of Tel Lachish and the stone reliefs from Sennacherib’s palace located at Tell Mosul (ancient Nineveh) both suggest this event1. In Mario Fales’ paper (2014: 243-247), where he briefly investigated Fuchs and Eph’al notions, deals with the siege of Jerusalem. Initially, from the viewpoint of recent Assyriological studies, there are many doubts that there was anything like the siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Sennacherib (Mayer, 2003; Knauf, 1991). Fuchs noted that the Assyrian siege- technique was overestimated, especially when it comes to its treatment of the major fortifications of Levantine cities (Fuchs, 2008). Besieged Jerusalem was mentioned in Annals of Sennacherib (Luckenbill, 1924:33), as cited in the text above. A different ‘bird in a cage’ situation refers to Rezin, the king of Aram, when he was surrounded inside Damascus by Tiglat-pileser’s forces (Tadmor, Yamada 2011). It seems that Assyrians would set up a blockade rather than leading a direct attack on the city under a siege. The purpose was to prevent enemies get inside and outside the city, to cut them from any water, food, and military sources (Eph’al, 2009). On the other hand, we have depictions on reliefs from the Assyrian period where it came to direct attack on the city and a ‘proper siege’ by siege machines was executed2. The question is whether, the siege with an escorted direct attack on the city was considered as a major triumph of any ruler and thus always depicted on reliefs.
1 Again, the topic is unsettled in its chronology and there is actually an ongoing discussion about the possibility that Sargon II besieged the city of Lachish, which fits perfectly with the 14 year of Hezekiah on the Judean throne (Ki, 18:13) dating to 712 B.C. This is a hypothesis suggested by Jeremy Goldberg (1999). Nevertheless, in my thesis, I will consider Sennacherib as a conqueror of Lachish. 2 For more Assyrian siege depictions see Jacoby, 1991; pp. 128-129.
16
This conclusion invites us to obtain a different perspective in the ‘siege’ terminology, which can be applied in Sennacherib’s third campaign in 701 B.C. From this perspective, the question- why Sennacherib never conquered Jerusalem could be answered. During the siege or blockade of Jerusalem, a part of the Assyrian army might have gone plundering the surrounding country, whilst the capital of Judah was cut off of sources and Hezekiah was entrapped inside the city like the literary ‘bird in a cage’.
After the successful campaign, the Assyrian army abandoned the country and left Hezekiah’s kingdom in desolate conditions1 but the city of Jerusalem was not conquered. Maybe the siege was not the primary intention of Sennacherib in the first place: instead, he profitably re-established the political order, took tribute and renewed Judah’s allegiance to the Assyrian state (Fales, 2014).
1 In this situation the Bible serves a reference from the point of view of the defeated side of the military conflict between Assyria and Judah, providing an account of why the Assyrian army left the siege of Jerusalem (2 Chr, 32:21).
17
2. Description of the onslaught
Sennacherib’s third campaign led to Phoenicia at first. The region under the control of Luli, the King of Sidon, had fallen to the hands of Assyria. Subsequently a new puppet king was installed over Sidon and Tyre. Rulers of Ammon, Ammuru, Arvad, Ashdod, Byblos and Moab submitted to the yoke of the Assyrian king. On his path to southern parts of the region Sennacherib encountered small resistance from the king of Ashkelon named Sidqia who was sent to exile. Nevertheless it was not the last opposition during his campaign. Egyptian and Nubian1 armies supported the anti-Assyrian revolt and faced Sennacherib’s troops at Eltekeh. After he claimed victory over the Egyptian alliance and secured the coastal regions of Palestine, Sennacherib focused on Hezekiah, the king of Judah, who seems to be a leader of a western anti-Assyrian coalition (Horn, 1966).
Hezekiah’s rejection of submission to Sennacherib had far-reaching consequences at least to the economy of the Judean kingdom and its next development when the king was forced to pay significant amount of silver and gold (2 Kings 18:14, Luckenbill, 1924:31). As it is written in the Annals of Sennacherib, during his third campaign against Judea, he besieged 46 of fortified (walled) cities and plundered them (Luckenbill, 1924:28). Everything valuable including citizens and livestock was taken as booty to the heart of Assyrian empire.
2.1 Assyrian camp
When2 the Assyrian army pulled in at the place of ancient Lachish they had to find a strategic solution for an optimal military camp. The topography of the hill (Fig.1) located to the southwest from the city of Lachish provided the advantage for Sennacherib during the siege. The area surrounding the hill was relatively flat and supplied the Assyrian army with an enough space. The place of the Assyrian camp has approximately the same altitude as the hillock occupied by Lachish and is far enough from the city wall to be beyond the firing range. The main reason for setting the Assyrian camp here was probably related to the point of the Assyrian attack which was led to the southwest corner of the city due to its 23m
1 The one purpose of aid of Egyptian army in the anti-Assyrian revolt was to prevent an expansion of the Neo-Assyrian Empire further to border regions of Egypt. 2 We can only assume when exactly this onslaught happened. The scientific circles raised two major questions if there were two Sennacherib’s campaigns or he yoked whole Palestinian region included Judea in one drive in 701 B.C. These questions are discussed in following paper in discussion.
18 elevation. From this spot, the onslaught was easily controlled and observed by Sennacherib and portrayed on the relief by an unknown artist.
Assyrian camps were usually elliptical or round shaped, as is visible on Assyrian reliefs. They were frequently protected by defensive walls with towers along the side to secure the encampment against possible surprise attacks and to avoid mass casualties1. The campsite displayed on the Sennacherib siege relief (situated in the end of the panel, behind the throne) is divided by a horizontal line, however we observe both vertical and horizontal portrayals of roads on Assyrian depictions. Each part of this camp are depict tents with men except for the upper left corner where two priests with hats are standing in front of a sacred chariot and executing a rite (Larsen, 1994). Unfortunately, there is no material evidence preserved from the mentioned Assyrian camp. The evidence from aerial photography- taken in the 1950’s, suggests that the hillock was regularly ploughed and the current location is even inhabited as a modern village Moshav Lachish (Ussishkin, 2004:697).
2.2 Preparations for the onslaught
After an establishment of the Assyrian camp near by Tel Lachish and preparations for launching an onslaught at the weakest point of the city, Sennacherib had to consider the exact possibilities of the siege process at the Judean fortifications. As we know from the Assyrian reliefs portraying with conquest, there were five basic options how to reach the city: climbing over the wall (with the support of ladders), breaching the wall, undermining the wall, the long term option – starvation by siege and using of stratagem (Eph’al, 1984). Sennacherib’s tactical onslaught comprised breaching of the wall. We can only assume if it was caused by a hastiness evoked from an unknown matter in the Assyrian military field, a tactical draw equal to a stratagem demonstrated in Shea’s (1988) article, or both of them.
Two clay fragments of tablets presented by Nadav Na'aman describe Sennacherib’s thoughts apparently from his conquering of Lachish (Na'aman, 1974)2. In line 18 is very insistent on the Lachish siege ramp, which is only known from Neo-Assyrian period in Israel. “I caused the warriors of Amurru, all of them, to carry the earth...” This part helps scholars to clarify questions by whom was the siege ramp constructed.
1 For strategic functions of Sennacherib’s camps see the paper written by Micale and Nadali (2004). 2 The form and stylistic of inscriptions remind us Sennacherib’s talk to his god. It was also presented by scholars as “Letters of God”. The tablets are unfortunately quite damaged but exact translations and further discussions are possibly found in Na’aman’s paper (see references).
19
The Akkadian term Amurru was used in a broad geographical sense to mean “the West, the Western Land”; it also referred to a small coastal kingdom in the Lebanon (Stieglitz, 1991:45)
The following (19) damaged line tells us: “…against them. In the seventh time his [..…] the great like a pot [of clay? I smashed? …“ According to Shea, this “his seventh time” belongs to a third person who is Hezekiah in the text, not Sennacherib. It is also unlikely that the author of the inscription suggested the seventh year of reign for Sennacherib or Hezekiah during the campaign against the West. So the seventh time could be connected with the Judah tradition of celebration the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week when Sennacherib used his stratagem to reach the victory upon the city (Shea, 1988).
2.3 Simulation of the Attack
The reign of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 B.C.) is linked to the beginning of the final era of Neo-Assyrian Empire. His achievements rested mainly in combat triumphs in the surrounding regions starting with Urartu, southern Syria and Palestine, right to the border of Egypt and Babylonia (Grayson, 2008:71-85). During his rule an army passed through certain changes which secured victories on a battlefield to him and his successors. A part of the Assyrian army comprised peasants and due to their agricultural work (the economy of the empire was based on agriculture) campaigns had to be launched during non-harvesting time. The frequency of military charges suffered from this limitation. The principal recruitment of troops was more often seasonal until Tiglat-pileser’s army reformation. He brought up a new model of standing army called ‘kisir sharruti’ instead of a seasonal one, serving in the cavalry and as charioteers (Healy, 1991).
He would have seen, in the centre of the formation, the main body of infantry, compact phalanxes of spearmen, their weapon points glittering in the sun, each arranged in ten files of twenty ranks. He would have marveled – and perhaps trembled – at the discipline and precision of their maneuvering, a contrast to the relatively freewheeling manner of previous armies, for the reforms had introduced a highly developed and effective command structure. Infantrymen fought in squads of ten, each headed by an NCO, and grouped into companies of five to twenty squads under the command of a Captain. They were well protected and even better equipped, for Assyria was fielding the very first iron armies: iron swords, iron spear blades, iron helmets and even iron scales sewn as armor on to their tunics. Bronze weaponry offered no real contest: this new material, which was cheaper, harder, less brittle, could be ground sharper and kept a keener edge for far longer. Iron ore is not found in the north
20
Mesopotamian heartland, so every effort had been made to put all nearby sources of the metal under Assyrian control. Assyrian spearmen were more mobile than their predecessors too. Rather than sandals, they now wore the Assyrian military invention that was arguably one of the most influential and long-lasting of all: the army boot. In this case the boots were knee- high leather footwear, thick-soled, hobnailed and with iron plates inserted to protect the shins, which made it possible for the first time to fight on any terrain however rough or wet, mountain or marsh, and in any season, winter or summer. This was the first all-weather, all- year army. (Kriwaczek, 2010:236)
In the 8th century B.C. major centres and the most important cities not only in Judea (2 Chronicles 32:5) but all over Mesopotamia were fortified. The significant part of Neo- Assyrian military tactics rested in laying of siege ramp during the campaigns against strong fortified cities, as testified the attack on Damascus by Tiglath-pileser III in 734 B.C., which took approximately two years.1 During decades of military experience Assyrians had acquired and mastered the siege technique with accurate strategy and used troops for offensive purposes at a specific time of a siege. Two siege tactics were used by Assyrian soldiers; breach the walls and take control over the city (an expensive option with regards to time and casualties on the side of attacker especially when a siege ramp is needed) or seal the city, starve citizens, cause diseases and limit the access to trade, food, and sources into the city for a prolonged period of time. In the former approach (the case of Lachish), Annals of Sennacherib do not provide specific information about the approach of Assyrian army but Healy (1991) closed up a description of the possible siege continuity.
The main infantry consisted of archers, slingers and lancers. The units composed of archers and shield bearers were especially efficient during a siege where an archer was well protected and able to rapid fire against defenders on walls. Slingers and archers secured an easier approach for siege engines and also ladders to get closer to fortification. Each siege engine depicted on Assyrian reliefs is equipped with a long spear. These ramming rods were used for an efficient destruction of mud brick and stone walls, and contrast sharply with the wide blades used for the same purpose during the Ashurnasirpal II reign (883-859 B.C.). During besieging, an enemy’s chance to survive was setting fire the wooden siege engines. To prevent any significant damage by fire, the Assyrians covered their siege engines by animal hides and had soldiers douse flames by large ladles filled with water (Fig.7). Once the walls of the foes were breached, lancers took control over the attack (Healy, 1991).
1 For further reading see Dubovský (2006: 153-170).
21
3. THE EXCAVATION OF STRATUM LEVEL IV-III
As was introduced at the very beginning of the present thesis, the archaeological work began in 1932 provided by James Lesley Starkey and The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East, where, during his excavation, the entire outer revetment wall around Tell ed-Duweir was revealed. At the southwestern corner he removed the mass of stones in an assumption it comes from collapsed upper fortification line of the attack (Starkey, 1936). Burnt debris from this area and all over the mound was accompanied by numerous arrowheads and slingshots, which serves as evidence of the assault (Tufnell, 1953). The most significant archaeological excavations at the site of Tell ed-Duweir, which has been provided by the Israel Exploration Society and Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology and led by David Ussishkin over the range of three decades, shed the most light on the matter.
3.1 Fortifications
Through stratum Level IV the fortification at the southwest corner of the site was specially enhanced due to possible attacks. The elevation at this point is only 23m high, in comparison with the 39m at the northeast corner, 42m, at the northwest corner at 40m at the southeast corner (Tufnell, 1953). The fortification consists of the main city wall, the outer revetment wall and a massive buttress (Fig.4). The tower or buttress is a sharp projection at the outer revetment wall where the fortification turns to an acute angle (Fig.1). The tower, 7,5m wide and 6m tall, had probably been slightly taller before damage caused by Assyrian siege machines. Nevertheless, it was preserved with the rest of the main city wall and the outer revetment wall to its almost entire height owing to the raised siege ramp (Ussishkin, 1990:78). The massive buttress stands 1,5m out of the wall line. The surface was covered by mud bricks and this pavement continues circa 30m to the outer revetment wall. According to Ussishkin the outer revetment wall did not provide a section for standing soldiers during the assault in contrast of the tower build upon it. The front area of this pavement is 1m higher
22 than the rear part and it is 1,5m wide which probably served for defenders to acquire a better mobility.
The main city wall rose to 4,6m height and it was made from mud-bricks set on stone foundations. At the point of the attack the outer revetment wall is structurally linked to the main city wall and forms a massive 15m thick structure difficult to destroy even for siege machines. The main city wall is above the top of the buttress approximately 3,5m high (see Ussishkin above).
3.2 The siege ramp
The lower layer beneath the siege ramp is composed from ash and charred olive and terebinth wood. Before the builders set the siege ramp they ignited the surroundings of the southwest corner. The Ussishkin archaeological excavation did not confirm any traces of wood inside the ramp (1990:64). Some relatively small boulders were used for the basis of the construction. These were probably found probably in the neighboring area of the mound, which allowed for a comparably facile transportation, given their size.
The lower part of the ramp is missing and two reconstructions of the possible axis are shown in longitudinal sections (Fig. 4). The ramp has a fan shape; its width at the bottom would be between 50-75m, at the top ca. 25m and the length up to the outer revetment wall was 50-60m according to the possible reconstruction. The weight is estimated to 13 000 - 19 000 tons of used material. The upper layer of the ramp was strengthened by mortar that gave the ramp compact shape for moving siege engines and enabled stability for the Assyrian soldiers. The overlay is about 1m thick and can still be visible especially at the left side of the ramp (Ussishkin, 2004:717). Starkey considered this layer as a secondary result of lime (fallen masonry from the walls) in combination with the intensity of conflagration (Starkey 1933, Lachish III). The mortar is composed from calcium carbonate and silica prepared by besiegers in proper kilns. The remains of the lime plaster were included in a large amount in the second stage of the siege ramp (Ussishkin, 1978). The very upper edge of the siege ramp, only few meters from the outer revetment wall, was covered by a layer of terra rosa1 formed to a compact platform which contained Level III sherds (Ussishkin, 1990:67).
The second stage of the siege ramp was built after the Assyrian army reached the outer revetment wall and crossed defensive lines of the Judean army. The ramp was ca. 20m wide
1 The thickness of the layer was ca. 1m and the material was brought from the surrounding valleys.
23 in its lower part while at its top, close to facade of the main city wall it was just a few meters across. The composition of material used by builders here is similar to the first stage except for mortar mantle covering the upper surface. Boulders used for the main construction of the second staged ramp show traces of burning and impact of liquids from above. It might be the evidence of battle or that they were brought from the spot where conflagration had occurred. Unfortunately there are no exact remains of the battle and thus the archaeological interpretation is mostly based on an assumption (Ussishkin, 2004: 723).
3.3 The counter-ramp
The first description of the counter-ramp was offered by Tufnell (Lachish III: 90) when she suggested that underlying strata at that point of the southwestern corner were obtained by dumped soil. The counter ramp was laid against the siege ramp where the central axis is connected to the axis of the siege ramp (Fig. 2) in order to raise a new defensive line what gave the Judean soldiers a possibility to resist. It had the shape of a funnel and from the north (reaching the city gate) to the south is stretched over 120m and the distance along its axis is ca. 35-40m long. The construction material of the counter-ramp consists mostly from the debris and pottery sherds. At its highest point, observed in the square J/6 (Fig. 5), it reaches ca. 6m. The point is apparently close to the main city wall and the last stadium of the siege ramp. The layer is filled with Bronze Age pottery from Level V and Level IV. It is still not clear from which part of the mound that debris was taken. A large visible absence on the surface is at the north-eastern corner of the Tell; alternatively, there is a possibility that it was taken from the Great Shaft (Tufnell, 1953: 160, Fig. 15) but that seems more unlikely (Ussishkin, 1990).
An additional platform was discovered in the square H/6 (Fig.2) extending from the main city gate to the central part of Area R. This construction, hastily built, consisted from limestone chips and there is no pottery within. It was laid to support the standing defensive lines of Judean army on the top of the counter ramp. In later period this platform became the basement for the Level II city wall, which was definitively dismantled for the purpose of lime a quarry (Ussishkin, 2004:728).
The handle of lmlk storage jars (Zimhoni, 1990) found in the Level III house under the counter ramp and an iron arrowhead found in the debris of the counter-ramp at the square J/6
24 indicates that the ramp was built during the siege and onslaught on Lachish at 701 B.C (Ussishkin, 2004).
3.4 Archaeological remains from the attack
At the foot of the outer revetment wall, in the burnt brick debris collapsed from the wall, a fragment of a 37 cm iron chain was discovered (Ussishkin, 1983). The piece of chain consisted of 10cm links and at the end a shorter oblong 4cm link was adjoined. Unfortunately the excavators only can assume if it is a part of a long link or it had a different shape before it became badly corroded. The place where the chain was found is definitely a site of military actions. This purpose in all probability was revealed by Yigael Yadin.
The chain was part of a defensive device to counter the most horrifying weapon known in ancient siege warfare—the battering ram. The body of the battering ram was made of prefabricated wood and leather segments transported from Assyria and then assembled at Lachish. The formidable siege machine was rolled up a ramp into place close to a vulnerable spot in the city wall. Within the ram, a heavy shaft was suspended on ropes from the ceiling of the turret. Two soldiers pushed the shaft backward and forward like a pendulum, each swing thrusting the shaft against the city wall until it broke through. As the shaft of the battering ram swung close to a wall, the defenders would lower a long chain outside the wall. The ends of the chain would be held by defending soldiers, each standing at some distance from the other on the wall. The middle of the chain would be lowered below the point of the thrust of the shaft. When the ram reached the wall, despite defensive efforts to prevent this, the desperate defenders on the wall would lift the chain, catching the shaft and raising it, thereby deflecting its direct attack on the wall (Yadin, 1984).
The parallel with chain can be also found on the alabaster relief from the reign of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.) where the siege engine is brought to the city wall by Assyrians under the protection of hurling arrows provided by archers. Meanwhile the siege engine is under the attack. The enemy hooked a battering lever on a chain and two Assyrian soldiers are trying to hold it in the place and remove the hooks (Fig. 6).
An interesting foundation discovered by Ussishkin excavation from the point of the attack concerns twelve perforated stones (2004:734-736) in front of the city walls. The weight each stone is 100-200 kg. All of them are similar in their round shape with the perforation
25 through the flat side to the irregular bottom.1 Seven of practically the same stones were found at the top of the outer revetment wall at the balcony. Four of them, possibly placed on each other, were uncovered on the floor and one of them in the brick debris where it might have collapsed from the top of the main city wall. The remaining five stones were discovered inside the fallen brick debris in front of the outer revetment wall. Inside the perforation of two of these stones remained burnt ropes of 6mm in diameter.
The perforated stones were found in areas of the mound where the king Sennacherib launched his onslaught against ancient Lachish. The final defensive purpose of these stones remains a matter of guesswork. However, as it is indicated by David Ussishkin, they were tied together with ropes and hung from the walls to discard siege machines. They were probably dropped and moved from the side to side like a pendulum or wrecking ball when the battering ram approached the walls (1990:74). What brought an attention to archaeological circles was a discovery of another perforated stone among arrowheads, Level III pottery, burnt brick debris and collapsed stones from the wall at the floor of the city gate. At the foot of the gate were found in total three stones of the same kind (Ussishkin, 2004: 575), fittings with the Assyrian relief from Nineveh and one of the attack waves that went against the city gate.
Onslaught was mostly supported by archers rather than slingers. In Area R, the archaeological excavation headed by Ussishkin revealed 676 arrowheads between the defensive tower adjoined to the outer revetment wall and the main city wall. Further 176 arrowheads were buried in the brick debris in front of the outer revetment wall and only six were found inside the Tel behind the wall (Ussishkin, 2004: 736). The considerable amount of arrowheads from Starkey’s excavation, along with 15 slingstones (Lachish III, 1933) must also be taken into account. Only two more slingstones were discovered in Area R, which verifies the dominance of the archers during the siege2. According to Eph’al, the support of archers lasted only throughout the stage of building the ramp (1984:62). Many arrowheads were bent, one of them was even stuck in a brick, which indicates the power of the Assyrian bow3. Almost all of them were made from iron their disparate shape. Only three arrowheads discovered by Starkey (Lachish III: 119) were carved from bone.
1 For exact shape and measurements see Ussishkin final report from the Area R (2004). 2 Slingstones are made from flint, their weight is 250gr. and they have 6cm. in diameter each (Ussishkin, 2004:75) 3 For more information about the warfare and (not only) Assyrian weapons see Yadin, 1963.
26
At Tell ed-Duweir 43 pieces of armor were found but only two of them at the south- western corner in front of the outer revetment wall (Ussishkin, 2004:738). One of them is interpreted by Starkey as the bronze crest of a helmet worn by Assyrian spearmen depicted on the siege relief (Lachish III, 98,387).
In account of victims of the siege, 1500 mass buried soldiers were found at the foot of the mound in Tombs 107-108,116 and 120 by Starkey (Lachish III: 188,190,193-194). There is, however, no evidence of human remains significant for the onslaught except for small human skull fragments (Ussishkin, 2004), which indicates that- on both the Judean and the Assyrian side, soldiers systematically buried their fellows. The dating of the mass grave is disputed by Eph’al (1996:37-39).
4. THE SIEGE OF LACHISH THROUGH THE ASSYRIAN RELIEF
As mentioned in the introduction (see references above), the relief was found by Layard at the South-West Palace (Fig.7) also called ‘Palace without a Rival’ (Luckenbill, 1927). It was built by Sennacherib and situated at his capital Nineveh1. It is composed of twelve slabs arranged in a chronological sequence beginning from the left to the right side. Briefly described from the left: a) soldiers approaching and attacking the city b) raging battle with the city under siege2 c) usurping the booty d) marching with the loot and taking captives into exile e) Sennacherib sitting on his throne f) the round-shaped military Assyrian camp Nowadays the Lachish Reliefs are placed in British Museum (Room 10b).
Barnett’s discourse elaborated on the reliefs as an event with factual features based on archaeological data from the Starkey excavation and Tufnell publications (1958). This attitude was acclaimed and developed by Ussishkin according to more recent excavated resources in order to endeavor the reconstruction of the siege.
Unfortunately Slabs II, III and IV (Fig.7) connected to besieging the city are broken in upper parts and III and IV in their respective lower part making interpretations substantially
1 The Sennacherib’s relief was erected in the Room XXXVI which was probably entirely covered with reliefs. For measurements of the Room and the relief see Ussishkin (1980:176-177, Fig. 2.). 2 This depicted part of the Siege relief is the subject of my interest and it is discussed below. It is composed from three slabs (II, III, IV) and the original place at South-West Palace was exactly to opposite of the entrance in a centre of the room XXXVI (Ussishkin, 1980).
27 more difficult. Six human heads and perhaps one arm can be recognized in the lower part of Slab III and three other heads are apparent in the same line on Slab IV. The line of people, being deported, proceeds towards the right up to king Sennacherib sitting on his throne and a potential queue coming out from the city gate in the centre of Slab III. The deportees form a putative border between the siege time and events happening after the conquest of the city of Lachish. Ussishkin also assumed that two Assyrian spearmen impaling three Judeans belong to the same parallel, giving a sense continuity to reliefs essentially portraying two separate scenes (Ussishkin, 1980).
If we take into an account, that the depiction of the Lachish reliefs reflects the artist’s viewpoint is taken as a photograph according to Ussishkin, then the place of the three impaled captives below the siege ramp can be reconstructed (2003:212; Fig.4). If this is so, the chosen place for the execution bore a special meaning. Two Lachish inhabitants are flayed alive and one is stabbed by an Assyrian soldier in the adjacent slabs of the relief proximal to the Assyrian king. However, the impalement of three captives is more accentuated. The impaled prisoners were probably exposed so that all deportees passing along were witnesses of the retribution for the abominable act of resistance to the Assyrian Empire. Barnett assumes that these Hezekiah’s men influenced the city to resist and that is why they should be differentiated from the rest of inhabitants (1958:163). The victims on stakes are exposed in a conventional Assyrian representation style1. They are naked, their heads have the same direction like other captives (dead or alive), to the king on the throne but among these similarities there are a few difference pointed out by Ussishkin (2004:213). There is a significant presence of Assyrian soldiers impaling the right-hand captive among the two others. Also the peculiar object on the same staked soldier is observable. According to Ussishkin, it is treated as the plume of a helmet however the rest of helmet which should partly cover the face of the staked victim is not visible.
It is reasonable to suggest that the right-hand prisoner was the military governor/commander of Lachish, who was impaled while wearing his official helmet. The fact that he was (1) impaled, (2) naked, but (3) wearing his official helmet, signifies not only the severe punishment and humiliation that was inflicted on the conquered but also the end to the
1 There is more evidence of impaling prisoners in Neo-Assyrian reliefs. Six impaled prisoners can be found in a relief of Tiglath-pileser III during the assault on a city (Barnett, Falkner, 1962:14-15); furthermore six impaled men are portrayed on the Shalmaneser III bronze doors from Tell Balawat during the onslaught on the city of Dabigu in north Syria (Barnett, 1959:159); three captives were put on stakes above the walls of conquered Urartean city (Barnett, 1959:167).
28
independence of the rebellious Judean government. The military governor/commander and his deputies were impaled opposite the city gate—a symbol of independence and strength in the ancient fortified cities—near the path along which all captives and deportees were led (Ussishkin, 2004).
On the other hand, this interpretation is contracted and criticized by Uehlinger:
I tend to consider the scene as a kind of double-duty element, which belongs to both phases of the event. As a demonstrative operation conspicuously placed in the central axis of the city (which is itself the central element of the reliefs that ties together attack and submission), it is meant to mark the point where resistance is about to be definitely broken. Moreover, it stresses the contrast of destinies met by those who oppose the Assyrian power and those who acknowledge the bliss of submission to the Assyrian king (Uehlinger, 2003:254).
Identification of the right-hand impaled prisoner as a commander or governor supports the Ussishkin’s idea that the objects (Slab V and VI) carried by Assyrian soldiers as booty are from the palace-fort (Fig.8). The first soldier holds a scepter or a mace; the following two soldiers bear large ceremonial chalices or incense burners (Aharoni, 1975:2) (Na’aman, 1999:404-405)1, which might serve in the palace; the forth soldier carries a chair, possibly the governor’s throne. Those following soldiers pull his chariot. The soldiers, close to the chariot hold spears, shields and swords which may represent weapons from the garrison or ceremonial weapons (Ussishkin, 2004:215).
As has been related in the account of the excavation above, burnt debris was found in the whole area of the south-western corner. Specifically the hardened and reddened brick debris collapsed from the walls indicates the fire in this area during the siege (Ussishkin, 1990). In this case archaeological remains confirm exactly this situation within Lachish reliefs (Slabs III and IV) where torches are thrown by Judean soldiers in an attempt to set fire to the incoming siege engines (Fig.7), while Assyrians are trying to avoid damage caused by flames and pouring water on the engines alight. In the upper position of the relief, on the right side of the battle, three burning carts which may be also chariots (Ussishkin, 1990:74) are ignited and thrown down from the city wall. Ussishkin suggests that these are standard war chariots, represented on the depicted scene by one wheel, six spokes and one yoke. If it so, the Judean
1 These interpretations do not fit exactly with the cultic symbols due to the absence of the shrine associated to Level III at Tel Lachish.
29 defenders must have made a desperate attempt to scatter the siegers, using all ways and means at hand.
The Lachish reliefs portray balconies, balustrades, and similar structures on top of towers with defensive purposes. These balustrades are perhaps made of wood and they are enhanced with round shields. The depiction of the shields implies that it was a western city, much in the same manner as portrayals of wavy lines, symbolizing the hills and vines and fig trees. These distinctive vegetative details were native to the Lachish area. The presence of these structures is definitely a conventional depiction and the artist did not intend to use it among the walls or gates as a hint to identification of the city (Jacoby, 1991).1
The gatehouse depicted in the centre of Slab III is free standing and isolated from the rest of the defensive structures. It was described by Starkey as postern gate (Tufnell, 1953:161). According to Ussishkin, “the gatehouse prominently depicted in the centre of the siege scene clearly must be identified with the gate complex” (1980:187). In the excavation, the gate was found to be built-in the main city wall composed of inner and outer gate (1978:55-67). Ussishkin’s beliefs are that the artist of the relief captured precisely all static objects from his viewpoint and only one gate could be seen from that place. Nevertheless, in confrontation of this allegation, two gates are observable in a different relief from Sennacherib’s palace (Jacoby, 1991:126). It could be argued that one gate was probably sufficient to capture the scene of the siege of Lachish and take the deportees into Assyrian captivity.
Two siege machines are depicted on the left side of the central relief on the same horizontal line and they appear to be attacking the ‘free standing tower’. According the previous excavator statement they took a besieging part against the outer city gate.2 Jacoby noted that the author of the reliefs did not want to achieve technical accuracy but he tried to depict important features of the Assyrian success. Possibly it is general siege scene with one general ramp and (Fig. 7) the siege ramp is fan-shaped, the two siege machines actually aiming to the same top of the ramp like the rest of them (Jacoby, 1991). Unfortunately this place on the relief is not preserved. The top of the siege ramp of 25m wide provided enough
1 These representations are followed by Jacoby and generally did not offer enough adequate information for further study. As he noted in his paper (1991), this investigation is based on his observation of 108 cities from all the Assyrian palace and temple reliefs. 2 This claim is also supported by the findings of perforated stones near by the city gate complex noted in this paper above. For the possible reconstructions of the siege see Grange (Ussishkin, 1980:pp.183, 186; Fig.5 and 7) drawings.
30 space for the five (even seven) siege engines. Each siege machine was probably wide between 2.0 - 2.5m (Ussishkin, 1990:72).
A good deal of critical thinking is necessary: one must be prudent when comparing archaeological remains to art depictions and vice versa. As we can see, the representation of Neo-Assyrian reliefs is strongly bound to art conventions of the era and a wide range of knowledge is required to provide accurate interpretations and prevent misunderstanding. The relief portraying the Siege of Lachish is rather about the artist’s meticulously detailed reproduction of siege maneuvers than a precise snapshot of reality. The relief does not adhere to the limitation of a present moment but simultaneously passes through single events i.e. vanquishing the city in assistance of siege machines, captives leaving the conquered city and impaling opponents on stakes. Each of these moments was important to the artist and for the glory of the Assyrian empire (Jacoby, 1991).
It appears that one should not expect the details of the fortification depicted on the relief to correspond to the results of the archaeological excavation, since details were of secondary importance to the artist. The city, its walls, towers and gate, are examples of such unimportant details: they functioned as the background against which the artist displayed the might of the armed forces (1991:130). Another critique of Ussishkin’s theories about the understanding of separate depictions on reliefs is offered by Uehlinger:
While the Assyrian artists probably had some knowledge or information concerning the topography and architecture of 701 B.C. Lachish, they did not aim at a quasi-photographic portrayal of the city. Their particular rendering of 'Lachish' on the reliefs is apparently determined by standard pictorial conventions and constraints of compositional balance and does not support Ussishkin’s theory of a quasi-perspectivic portrayal from one particular viewpoint (Uehlinger, 2003:262).
31
5. REMAINS OF THE OTHER SIEGE RAMPS
A very brief characteristic of different remains from besieging of various towns will be added here, with an emphasis on the phenomenon of laying siege ramps. The first references to sieges date to third millennium B.C. and it seems to have been common practice to lay earthen ramps against a city as a natural response to fortified cities, wide spread through Near-East regions (Melville, 2008:146). Well described evidence of siege warfare comes from Old Babylonian period where Išme-Dagan besieged the city of Nilimar and reached the city by an earthen ramp (ARM 1:4-5).
The geographically closest remains of a siege to Lachish are located at the city of Masada. The siege was laid by Romans in 73-74 C.E. and the built ramp covered by timber beams is still visible today (Meyer, 2012). Similarities to the siege of Lachish are following: the Roman camp was placed opposite the topographical saddle; the siege ramp was laid in this area (Yadin, 1966); defenders constructed additional support consisting of wooden beams and soil in the opposite side of the siege ramp uncovered by archaeologist (Netzer, 1989). The contrasting novelty during the Roman siege of Masada1 was a building of siege wall surrounding the hillock and the city, to prevent the inhabitants from the escape which was not found at Lachish: however, such a contraption was probably used during the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib.
Himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem his royal city. Earthworks I threw up against him, - the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery (Luckenbill, 1924:33).
From the Roman period, remains of the siege ramps are also visible at Betar besieged in 135 C.E (Schulten, 1933; Reifenberg, 1950) and in Dura-Europos in modern Syria, the Roman city besieged by Sassanids around the year 256 C.E. (Kraeling, 1956). From the older era, ca. 600 B.C., archaeologists discovered remains from Bayaraklı (Nichols, 1958), where Lydians led by Alyattes attacked the Ionian city. In 498 B.C. the Persian army built a ramp against the walls of Palaepaphos in Cyprus (Maier, 1973).
1 For more history about the Siege of Masada see Yadin (1966).
32
6. DISCUSSION
During the last century excavations at Tel Lachish much has been clarified, and many questions answered. Nonetheless, some of them still persist and archaeologists can only assume which answers would click correctly into the cogwheel of time. There are historical aspects that are yet to be linked to archaeological. Despite the long time spent by archaeologists researching- mound of ancient city of Lachish, some important questions are insufficiently supported by palpable proofs to be answered. Three of them were outlined by David Ussishkin in his paper (1990).
What was the size of the city’s population at the time of the siege?
Broshi and Finkelstein (1992) dealt with the method for determination of the population number of an ancient city or a particular region. He set the coefficient during the Iron Age of ca. 100 persons per acre (circa 4 dunam s). The city of Lachish during Level VI- III occupation period had ca. 72 dunams1 (Ussishkin, 1990:80), which accounts for approximately 1800 people2. But the interpretation is very rough, given the character of the fortified city. It is known that Lachish was a military center, therefore certainly not regularly settled. Perhaps the population also changed shortly before the siege by the means of deployment of the Judean army or refugees from surrounding areas fleeting from the power of Assyrian army. Paradoxically, no ordinary residential houses of common people have been uncovered during excavation to date (Shea, 1988).
What was the size of the Assyrian army?
To this question are no historical indications. The only available documented number is from the burial of 1500 soldiers under the mound of Tel mentioned above. There exists a biblical reference to the size of Assyrian army in 2 Kings 18:17:
Then the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh from Lachish, with a great army against Jerusalem, to King Hezekiah. And they went up and came to Jerusalem…
1 The size of Lachish in comparison with other cities is following (in 701 B.C.): Jerusalem as the largest city in Judah had 600 dunams, Ashdod-350 dunams, Ashkelon-66dunams in contrast to the area of Dur- Sharukin-2,935 dunams. Such low population density definitely reduced the chance to resist to Neo-Assyrian Empire (Gallagher, 1999). 2 The population of Judaea in the eight century B.C. is estimated at 110,000 people (Broshi, Finkelstein, 1992).
33
What can be assumed is that the Assyrian army was divided during the siege of Lachish. The great army had to escort king’s officers in case of a potential attempted attack by the Judean or even Egyptian army. The army of Sennacherib would be split after the conquest of the city of Lachish because when Rabshakeh1 was returning from diplomatic expedition in Jerusalem, he found his king fighting against king of Ethiopia (2 Kings 19:8-9), where it was necessary to have a significant part of the Assyrian army present for obtaining a victory (Luckenbill, 1924:31-32; Col. II 76-83, Col. III 1-4). However, as will be indicated in the discussion below, the Bible sources need to be read carefully, as they might sometimes be unreliable.
The next reference must be interpreted correctly in the light of the unlikely credibility of information contained in bible. The information about the Assyrian army in 2 Kings 19:35 says that 185, 000 Assyrian soldiers died (during the one night). This number has been interpreted according to the LXX tradition. The smaller number precedes the larger one so the example is 100 and 80 and 5000 (Horn, 1966:27). This number seems more realistic and Assyrian army could be composed of more than 5180 soldiers.
How long did the siege last?
According to Eph’al calculations, laying of the siege ramp took 23 days (1984:63-64). But all the basic data are relative such as the quantity of stones, the distance from which they were taken, the number of labs used for building the ramp and difficulties connected with the defending army. The whole campaign apparently lasted for several months and during this time they established an order within the western part of their territory (Ussishkin, 2014:84).
The excavation shed some light on two major questions pointed out by William Shea in his paper (1988:173-175).
How did Lachish come to be a possession of the Philistines?
The author’s question is based on the assumption of the second western event. After the successful Assyrian campaign in 701 B.C., Hezekiah was forced to pay heavy tribute and his territory was vastly reduced and it was given to the Philistines on the western border of Judah including ancient Lachish. As a part of Hezekiah’s capitulation Lachish fell probably
1 The return of the one officer among the two others could be executed by staying the ‘great‘-Assyrian army still at the military camp near Jerusalem. After the victory of Sennacherib’s army against the Ethiopian king he could possibly have rejoined and start the siege of Jerusalem, but everything is based only on assumptions.
34 into Padi’s hands, known as an Assyrian puppet king (Luckenbill, 1924:33). Lachish was apparently the second important city in Judea after Jerusalem and it would lie in Hezekiah’s interests to take it back during the uprising between two Sennacherib’s military campaigns to the west. Thus it could explain how Lachish was taken by Hezekiah “over a royal city of the Philistines and fortifying it for himself” (ANET, 287).
Why would it be identified as a royal city?
According to excavation s which revealed the governor palace, the gate complex and store house or even stables (Ussishkin, 2004) Lachish was no ordinary residential city but rather a royal city similar to Megido or Samaria.
The events of 701 explain how Lachish could have fallen into Philistine hands, the interval between Sennacherib's two western campaigns explains how Hezekiah could have taken it over again and fortified it for himself, and the archaeology of the site explains how it could have been referred to as a "royal" city (Shea, 1988).
Shea’s reflections proposed here led this paper to the most obscure question, which remains unclear: How many times did Sennacherib invade Palestine, once or twice? Scholars have been dealing with this question since the 19th century. The historical sources used for study of this matter are sequentially referred to above. Among the Sennacherib’s annals, the Bible, and the Lachish reliefs there is an unnoticed one- the Kawa (ancient Gematen) stelae discovered in the 1930’s under the direction of Griffith and later Kirwan. Basically, the inscriptions mention the reign of Ethiopian king Tirhakah who fought against Sennacherib in the battle of Eltekeh in his campaign in 701 B.C. (2 Kings 19:9; Is 37:9). But Tirhakah could not have come to Palestine earlier than 690/89 B.C., thus strongly supporting the second Sennacherib’s campaign between this year and the year of Hezekiah’s death in 687/86 B.C. (Horn, 1966).
Among the first who suggests this possibility of the Sennacherib’s second campaign to the west was Rawlinson (1864:430-446). With the same statement of the theory came Hugo Winckler (1889:31-35), Alfred Jeremias (1930:588-596), William Albright (1934) and far numerous other scholars, especially since the Kawa inscriptions was discovered.
This question was analyzed to the intimate detail during the decades. The aforementioned archaeologist William Shea belongs among the more recent supporters of the second campaign against the west theory. In his paper (1997:181-187) he leaned to the new
35 text of Tirhakah discovered at Karnak in 1990. Unfortunately the name of an invaded country was not preserved on the inscription: still, it referred to a campaign dated to 685 B.C. The only other known text bound to Tirhakah can be found in the Bible. Although Senancherib’s annals mention king of Ethiopia, the event is dated to the 701 B.C. as there are no Assyrian narratives or annals preserved between 688-681 B.C.(CAH, 2008:111; Vol.3, Part 2). But if the second Assyrian campaign finished untimely (2 Kings 19:35-36), it is reasonable to assume that glorifying records would not be produced. Grayson has assumed (2008:111) notes that-”it is extremely unlikely that he suffered any severe defeat or slaughter on this campaign, since he was able to carry out a major attack on Babylonia the following year.” After the solving of the Babylonian question (689 B.C.) Sennacherib could concentrate himself on the second campaign against the west where his troops met a catastrophe when ‘an angel put them to death’ or a disastrous outbreak of bubonic plague referred by Herodotus (Horn, 1966:25) afflicted the army.
Horn points attention to scholars who support the view of only one Sennacherib’s campaign against the West. According to him, their proclamation is based mainly on the first part of 2 Kings 18:13-16 where data from whole event of the campaign are included and the part 2 Kings 18:17-19:36 is mostly considered as additional data. These should be treated as two parallel accounts. In Yoo-Ki Kim’s article (2008: 477-489) the biblical narrative passage 2 Kings 18:13-16 is discussed, which can be evaluated as a self-contained unit distinct from other material in this context.
Linguistically and stylistically, it shows typical Hebrew narrative features. Even if the passage had come from an annalistic source, the "copyist" was not faithful to the original source but allowed his or her own agenda to influence the wording of this short narrative….This analysis has shown that the passage without much literary artistry nevertheless betrays certain intentions of its author (Kim,2008:489).
Olmstead (1931:297-309) claimed his support of the view of one Sennacherib’s western campaign. After conquering Ammonites among the several other nations, the king of Assyria met king of Ethiopia at Eltekeh. After the victory, Rabshakeh was sent to Jerusalem to negotiate and Hezekiah paid a tribute; in the meantime, the Lachish was defeated and the army moved to Libnah where the diplomat prepared to fight the incoming Egyptian army. This plan was spoilt when his camp was affected by plague and he was forced to negotiate with Shabaka.
36
Kittel (1923:430-439) assumed that in case Assyrians had not succeeded against Egyptians at Eltekeh, Hezekiah would have resisted further. When Sennacherib besieged Judean cities, Hezekiah submitted and sent a tribute to Lachish. But Sennacherib demanded an unconditional capitulation and sent Rabshakeh to Jerusalem with a significant army, even while he was besieging the city of Lachish. After obtaining victory over the city he turned to Libnah to meet Tirhakah but the disaster had plundered his army and he had to hastily return.
One of the recent scholars who put emphasis on one Sennacherib’s campaign is Mordechai Cogan (2014:74). He pointed out that Esharhaddon, son of Sennacherib and the next king of Assyria did not confront any of his western vassals during his march to Egypt in 679/678 B.C. nor did confront tribute list from his reign include all vassals mentioned by Sennacherib. This could point toward singular, particularly successful campaign against the West led by Sennacherib.
The object of the number of Sennacherib’s campaigns against the West warrants further investigation. I believe that, further archaeological findings, along with advanced historical research, will contribute towards the eventual unity of scholars’ opinions. As I pointed out, the ongoing discussion lasts for decades and divided archaeological circles in to two reverse camps.
In this thesis were used many gathered opinions from archaeologists and historians. Even thought the singularity of these convictions cannot be made here. Assyrian sources serve quantity of facts but especially when glorify of the ruler is captured; we have to take these information carefully. During the last decades the archaeology confirmed many biblical sources as true but among the numerous references in the Bible, only a few of them are reliable and as it was mentioned before, it had to be read with an understanding and knowledge of historical background. Only with cooperation and taking into the account all of material or historical sources, scholars can shed the proper light on the historical events.
37
CONCLUSION
In this thesis, multiple opinions of specialists in the fields of archaeology and history were collected and presented. Given the disparity of the opinions, no singular conclusion could be made with a sufficient unbiased evidence. Assyrian sources provide a considerable quantity of facts; however, this source is, naturally, particularly skewed towards an unobjective glorification of the ruler. All the assumptions derived from Assyrian sources need, therefore, to be treated conscientiously. During the last decades, archaeological findings have confirmed many biblical sources as true but among the numerous references in the Bible, only a few are veridical and reliable. For this reason, these references need to be approached with an equal amount of caution, and with a careful understanding and knowledge of the historical background. It will only be with advancing archaeological and historical research that combines the numerous available sources that scholars will be able to shed light onto the true events that took place during the siege of Lachish, it precedent factors, and exact future outcomes.
The object of the number of Sennacherib’s campaigns against the West warrants further investigation. I believe that, further archaeological findings, along with advanced historical research, will contribute towards the eventual unity of scholars’ opinions. As I pointed out, the ongoing discussion lasts for decades and divided archaeological circles in to two reverse camps.
38
FIGURES
Fig.1: Surrounding of the Tel Lachish, its contour lines and the high above the sea level. The marked star could be the place where the Assyrian artist observed the siege.
39
Fig.2: The Lachish area was divided into areas which are closer described in the Ussishkin final report (see references above). The point of the attack rose at excavated Area R.
40
Medieval graves; remains of Israel’s 1948 War of Present to 1000 A.D. Independence Post-exilic period Level I: fortified city in main phase; city wall and gate; (Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic) Residency; Solar Shrine; houses and pits 1st century B.C.–6th century B.C. Destruction: Babylonian conquest
Level II: sparsely populated Judean city; city wall and gate; 588/6 B.C. the Lachish letters
Intermediate stage in deserted gate area Destruction: Assyrian conquest
Level III: densely populated city; same fortifications and 701 B.C. rebuilt palace-fort (Palace C)
Level IV: royal Judean fortified city; two city walls and gate; palace-fort (Palace B) Late 10th century B.C. Level V, Late Phase: Palace A—Rehoboam’s fort (?) Destruction: Shishak’s campaign (?) c. 925 B.C. (?) Level V, Earlier Phase: unfortified (?) settlement; cultroom; houses gap in habitation—site deserted
Destruction: Israelite conquest (?) 12th century B.C. Late Bronze Age III Level VI: prosperous, densely populated and unfortified Canaanite city under Egyptian control; Fosse Temple III Destruction 14th century B.C.
Late Bronze Age II Level VII: city of el-Amarna period; Fosse Temple II Late Bronze Age I mound sparsely populated; Fosse Temple I Destruction 16th century B.C.
Middle Bronze Age III Level VIII: fortified city, glacis and fosse; palace Middle Bronze Age I–II Mound levels not excavated Intermediate EB–MB Period Cemetery 2000; settlement outside mound Early Bronze Age Mound levels not excavated; tombs; caverns; Khirbet Kerak 3rd millennium B.C. ware Chalcolithic Period (Ghassulian) First settlement on mound 4th millennium B.C. Prehistoric periods Remains in general area of Lachish
Fig.3: The stratigraphy of Tell ed-Duweir. The Assyrian attack in 701 BC is observed at stratum Level IV and Level III.
41
Fig.4: Longitudinal sections through the south-western corner of the mound, extending along the sides of Squares A-Z/6 in Area R: (1) the siege ramp with two alternative reconstructions; (2) the tower-buttress in the Outer Revetment Wall; (3) the siege ramp, second stage; (4) the Main City Wall; (5) the counter-ramp; (6) the additional rampart and the Level II city wall (Ussishkin, 2004).
Fig.5: The highest point of the counter-ramp is visible here in the square J/6.
42
Fig.6: Using of chain-mechanism by defenders to deflect the power of Assyrian siege-engine (©Trustees of the British Museum).
43
Fig.7: The Lachish Reliefs drawn by Judith Deckel found at the South-West Palace.
Fig. 8: Soldiers carrying booty from the city of Lachish, drawn by Judith Deckel.
44
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. (1968) Trial Excavation in the 'Solar Shrine' at Lachish: Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 157-169
Aharoni, Y. (1975) Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, No. 4, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Ahlström, G. W. (1980) Is Tell Ed-Duweir Ancient Lachish? Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Vol.112, pp. 7-9
Albright, W. F. (1934) JQR, XXIV. BASOR, pp. 8-9
Albright, W.F. (1929) The American Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsirn. ZAW N.F.
Barnett, R. D. (1958) The Siege of Lachish. Israel Exploration Journal 8, pp. 161-164
Barnett, R. D. (1959) Les Reliefs des Palais Assyriens. Edité par Artia, Prague
Barnett, R. D.; Bleibtreu, E. (1998) Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, London, BMP
Barnett, R. D. (2008) Urartu. CAH, Vol.3, Part 1, pp. 314-371, ISBN 0-521-22496-9
Brinkman, J. A. (2008) Babylonia c. 1000-748 B.C. CAH, Vol.3, Part 1, pp. 282-313, ISBN 0-521-22496-9
Broshi, M., Finkelstein, I. (1992) The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 287, pp. 47-60
Chamaza, V. (2002) Die Omnipotenz Aššur: Entwicklungen in der Aššur-Theologie unter den Sargoniden Sargon II.,Sanherib und Asharhaddon. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 295, Münster, pp. 71-167
Cogan, M. (2014) Cross-examining the Assyrian Witnesses to Sennacherib’s Third Campaign: Assessing the Limits of Historical Rexonstruction. Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography, Brill, Leiden; Boston, pp. 51-74
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp. 186-198
Dossin, Georges (1950) Correspondance de Samsi-Addu et de ses fils Archives Royales de Mari. No. 1 Paris Imprimerie Nationale –ARM
Dubovský, P. (2006) Tiglath-Pileser III’s Campaigns in 734-732 B.C.: Historical Background of Isa 7; 2 Kgs 15-16 and 2 Chr 27-28. Biblica, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, Vol.87, Fasc. 2 pp. 153-170
45
Edwards, E. S. (2008) Egypt: From the Twenty-second to the Twenty-fourth Dynasty. CAH, Vol.3, Part 1, pp. 534-581, ISBN 0-521-22496-9
Eph‘al, I. (1996) Siege and its Ancient Near Eastern Manifestations. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, ISBN: 965-223-774-4
Eph’al, I. (1984) The Assyrian Siege Ramp at Lachish: Military and Lexical Aspects. Tel Aviv, pp. 60-70
Eph’al, I. (2009) The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East. Leiden, ISBN: 9789047427568
Fales, F. M. (2014) The Road to Judah: 701 B.C.E. in the Context of Sennacherib’s Political- Military Strategy. Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem, Koninklijke Brill NV, pp. 223-248, ISBN 978-90-04-26561-5
Frahm, E. (1997) Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Institut für Orientalistik der Universität, Vienna, ISSN 1015-3403
Frahm, E. (2003) New Sources for Sennacherib's "First campaign". Isimu 6, pp. 129-164
Frahm, E. (2014) Family Matters: Psychohistorical Reflections on Sennacherib and His Times. Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem, Koninklijke Brill NV, pp. 163-222, ISBN 978- 90-04-26561-5
Fuchs, A. (2008) Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie. Vol.98, pp. 45-99, ISSN 0084-5299
Gallagher, W. R. (1999) Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah; New Studies. Brill, Leiden; Boston; Koln
Goldberg, J. (1999) Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eight Century Biblical Chronology. Vol.80, pp. 360-390
Grayson, A. K. (2008) Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. Cambridge University Press, CAH, Vol.3, Part 2, pp. 103-141, ISBN 0-521-22717-8
Hawkins, J. D. (2008) The Neo-Hitite states in Syria and Anatolia. CAH, Vol.3, Part 1, pp. 372-441, ISBN 0-521-22496-9
Healy, M. (1991) The Ancient Assyrians. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, ISBN 1-85532-163-7
Horn, S. H. (1966) Did Sennacherib Campaign Once or Twice Against Hezekiah? Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 4.1 pp. 1-28.
Jacoby, R. (1991) The Representation and Identification of Cities on Assyrian Reliefs. Israel Exploration Journal, Vol.41, pp. 112-131
Jeremias, A. (1930) Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients. Leipzig, pp. 588-596
46
Kim, Y.-K. (2008) In Search of the Narrator's Voice: A Discourse Analysis of 2 Kings 18: 13- 16. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 127, No. 3, pp. 477-489
Kittel, R. (1923) Geschichle des Volkes Israel. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp. 430-439
Knauf, E. A. (1991) From History to Interpretation. The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past, Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 26-64, ISBN 1-85075-324-5
Kraeling, C.H. (1956) The Synagogue (The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report VIlL Part I). New Haven
Kriwaczek, P, Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization. Atlantic Books, 2010, ISBN 1848871562
Larsen, M. T. (1994) The Conquest of Assyria. Gyldendalske Boghandel, Copenhagen, ISBN 0-415-14356-X
Livingstone, A. (1989) Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. Helsinki, SAA, Vol.3 ISBN 951-570-043-4
Luckenbill, D. D. (1924) The Annals of Sennacherib. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois
Maier, F.G. (1973) Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos). Report of the
Mayer, W. (2003) Sennacherib’s Campaign of 701 BCE: The Assyrian View. Like a Bird in a Cage: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, Sheffield Academic Press, London, pp. 168- 200, ISBN 0-8264-6215-4
Melville, S., Melville, D. (2008) From the Banks of the Euphrates. pp. 146, ISBN 1-57506- 144-9
Meyer, J. (2012) Roman Siege Machinery and the Siege of Masada. AHS Capstone Projects. Paper 14
Micale, M.G., Nadali, D. (2004) The Shape of Sennacherib’s Camps: Strategic Functions and Ideological Space. pp. 163-174
Na'aman, N. (1974) Sennacherib's "Letter to God" on His Campaign to Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 214, pp. 25-39.
Na'aman, N. (1999) No Anthropomorphic Graven Image. Ugarit-Forschungen 31, pp. 319- 415
Netzer, E. (1989) The Process of Masada’s Destruction. EI 20, pp. 311-320
Nicholls, R.Y. (1958-1959) Old Smyrna: The Iron Age Fortifications and Associated Remains on the City Perimeter. The Annual of the British School at Athens 53-54, pp. 35-137
Olmstead, A. T. (1931) History of Palestine and Syria. New York, pp. 471-481
47
Ofer, A. (2001) The Monarchic Period in the Judean Highland: A Spatial Overview. Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, pp. 14-37
Parpola, S. (1987) The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West. Helsinki, SAA, Vol.1, ISBN 951-570-004-3
Prince, J. (1904). Nisroch and Nusku. Journal of Biblical Literature, 23(1), 68-75. doi:10.2307/3268956
Pritchard, J. B. (1969) ANET-- Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton University Press, New Jersey
Reifenberg, A. (1950) Archaeological Discoveries by Air photography in Israel. Archaeology 3, pp. 40-46
Schulten, A. (1933) Masada, die Burg des Herodes und die romischen Lager. Anhang: Beth- Ter. ZDPV 56, pp. 180-184
Shea, W. H. (1988) Sennacherib’s Description of Lachish and of Its Conquest. Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol.26, No.2, pp. 171-180
Starkey, J. L. (1936) Excavations at Tell el Duweir. Palestine Exploration Quarterly pp. 178- 189
Stieglitz, R. R. (1991) The City of Amurru. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol.50, pp. 45-46
Tadmor, H. (1989) The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s Last Will. SAAB 3, Helsiniky, pp. 3- 51
Tadmor, H., Yamada, S. (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. ISBN 1-57506-220-8
Thompson, R. C. (1929) A century of exploration at Nineveh. Luzac & Co, London
Tufnell, O. (1958) Lachish (Tell el Duweir) IV: The Bronze Age. Published for the Trustees of the late Sir Henry Wellcome by the Oxford University Press
Tufnell, O. (1958) Lachish IV (Tell Ed-Duweir), The Bronze Age. Oxford University Press, London, England
Uehlinger, C. (2003) Clio in a World of Pictures-Another Look at the Lachish Reliefs from Sennacherib’s Southwest Palace at Nineveh. Like a Bird in a Cage, pp. 221-305
Ussishkin, D. (1978) Excavation at Tel Lachish—1973-1977, Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 5, pp. 1-97
Ussishkin, D. (1979) Answers at Lachish. Biblical Archaeological Review 5:06, Nov/Dec 1979
48
Ussishkin, D. (1980) The ‘Lachish Reliefs’ and the City of Lachish. Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3-4, pp. 174-197
Ussishkin, D. (1983) Excavation at Tel Lachish 1978-1983: Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10, pp. 97-175
Ussishkin, D. (1990) The Assyrian Attack on Lachish: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwest Corner of the Site. Tel Aviv 17, pp. 53-86
Ussishkin, D. (2003) Symbols of conquest in Sennacherib’s reliefs of Lachish: impaled prisoners and booty. T.F. Potts et al. (eds.), Culture Through Objects; Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey, Oxford, pp. 207-217
Ussishkin, D. (2004) The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973- 1994). Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology
Winckler, H. (1889) Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte. Leipzig, pp. 31-35
Yadin, Y. (1963) The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery. McGraw-Hill
Yadin, Y. (1966) Masada—Herod’s Fortress and Zealots’ Last Stand. London
Yadin, Y. (1984) The Mystery of the Unexplained Chain. Biblical Archaeology Review 10, No. 4, pp. 65-67
Zimhoni, O. (1990) Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish Levels III and II. Tel Aviv 17: 3–52
49
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.1 Surrounding of Tel Lachish by Ussishkin (1990:54;Fig.1)
Fig.2 The southwest corner and Area R (Ussishkin, 1990:58;Fig.3)
Fig.3 The stratigraphy of Tel Lachish (Ussishkin, 1979)
Fig.4 Sections through the south-western corner (Ussishkin, 2004:703; Fig. 13.7)
Fig.5 Sections through the counter-ramp (Ussishkin, 2004:729; Fig. 13.37)
Fig.6 Chain-siege, British museum (No. 124554) ©Trustees of the British Museum
Fig.7 The Lachish Reliefs drawn by Judith Deckel (Jacoby, 1991:123; Fig.10)
Fig.8 The Lachish reliefs displaying soldiers carrying booty, drawn by Judith Deckel (Ussishkin, 2003:215; Fig.6)
The Assyrian Empire under the king Sargon II: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/ancientmap4.jpg
50